DEFENSIO FIDEI NIC JENA

DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED,

OUT OF
THE EXTANT WRITINGS

OF THE

CATHOLICK DOCTORS,

WHO FLOURISHED DURING THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES
OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ;

IN WHICH ALSO
IS INCIDENTALLY VINDICATED

THE CREED OF CONSTANTINOPLE;

CONCERNING THE HOLY GHOST.

BY

GEORGE BULL, [D.D.,]

A PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,
[AFTERWARDS LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID S.]

A NEW TRANSLATION.

VOL. I.

OXFORD :
JOHN HENRY PARKER.

MDCCCLI.

OXFORD :
PKINTKD BY I. SHRIMPTON.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE circumstances which led to the composition of this
Work, and the history of its completion and publication, are
fully narrated by Bp. Bull in the Preface to the Reader, pp.
i. &c., and by Nelson in his life of Bp. Bull, pp. 239, &c.,
in which there is also a valuable review of the state of the
controversy at that time. An account of the successive edi
tions will be found in Dr. Burton s Preface to the 8vo. edition
of the Works, first published in Oxford in 1827. The text of
that edition has been followed in the present Translation, and
the additional notes which it contains have also been trans
lated ; those of Dr. Burton being distinguished by the letter
B. His notes, and the references added by him, as well as
the few additional references and observations which are
introduced in the notes to this Translation, are included in
brackets. Grabe s longer Annotations are removed from the
places which they occupy in the Oxford edition, at the ends
of the several chapters, to an Appendix at the end of the
Work, in order not to interrupt the continuity of the original
Treatise. The paging of the folio edition of Grabe, and of
the 8vo. of 1827, are retained in the margin, the latter
being included in brackets.

The passages quoted from the fathers are preserved in

iy ADVEUTISEMENT.

the original language as notes, and in a few places the con
text has been added.

There was a translation of this and of Bp. Bull s other
Works on the Trinity by Dr. F. Holland, in two volumes
8vo. A.D. 1725. This has been consulted by the trans
lator, but so little use has been m ade of it, that the present
must be considered as an independent version.

The Indices and List of Authors for this and the other
Works on the Holy Trinity, will be placed at the end of the
volumes, as in Dr. Burton s 8vo. edition of the originals.

TO THE MOST LEARNED AND HOLY

PRELATE,

THE CHOICEST ORNAMENT OS OUR CHURCH, UNIVERSITY, AND AGE,
THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER AND LORD IN CHRIST,

JOHN,

LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,

AND

DEAN OF THE

MOST NOBLE COLLEGE AND CATHEDRAL CHURCH
OF CHRIST CHURCH IN OXFORD ;

THIS

VINDICATION OF THE NICENE FAITH

IS DEDICATED AND CONSECRATED,
AS A PLEDGE AND MEMORIAL SUCH AS IT IS

OF GRATITUDE AND OF THE UTMOST RESPECT,
BY THE MOST DEVOTED ADMIRER OF HIS VIRTUES,

GEOIIGE BULL

BULL.

TO THE READER.

IN the Apology % which I sent out in defence of a work
entitled the Harmonia Apostolica, the first-fruits of my theo
logical studies, I said b , being forced to do so by a very grave
and unjust calumny of my opponents, "that I had drawn
out certain historico-ecclesiastical propositions concerning the
divinity of the Son, in which, as I trusted, I had clearly shewn 6
the agreement of the ancient doctors, who preceded the Nicene
council, with the Nicene fathers, as well concerning the con-
substantiality of the Son of God as His co-eternity, the tra
dition having been derived from the very time of the Apostles;
but that, owing to ill health, and other cares and business
of sundry kinds, it had not yet been in my power to put
together my scattered sheets, and bring to a completion my
imperfect work." Upon this I was assailed on all sides
with entreaties from learned friends, that I would apply both
mind and hand, to finish, as speedily as possible, a work
which was absolutely needed. For they gave me to under
stand that the writings of Christopher Ch. Sandius d were

a [Apologia pro Harmonia, &c.
Lond. 1676.]

b i. 8. [p. 3 17. See Bp. Bull on Jus
tification, Pt. ii. and iii. : Anglo- Cath.
Library, p. 238.]

[Bp. Bull here omits the words
"against Petavius and others" which
occur in the Apologia. The calumny
to which he refers was a charge of So-
cinianizing on the doctrine of justifi
cation.]

d Of the treatise of Christopher
Christopher Sandius : the first edition
had been sent out A.D. 1668, the se
cond so much enlarged and corrected
as, except from its retaining the origi
nal title, to be a new work, (ibid.,)
was published A.D. 1676, with the fol
lowing title, Christoph. Christophori
Sandii Nucleus Historiae Ecclesias-

ticae, exhibitus in Historia Arianorum,
tribus libris comprehensa : Quibus prae -
tina est Tractatus de Veteribus Scrip-
toribus Ecclesiasticis,secunda editio ab
Authore locupletata et emendata. Co-
loniae apud Joannem Nicolai, 1676.
Prefixed is a Prasfatio ad Lectores,
by Christophorus Philippi Sandius the
father of the writer. The volume con
tains 432 pages (besides Addenda and
Index) ; of these 49 pages are occupied
by the tract de Scriptoribus Eccleslasti^
cis: the heading of the pages of the rest
is Enucleatfe Histor ue Ecclesiastics, lib.
i., &c., though the title-page, as has
been said, bears the name Nucleus
H. E. exMbitus, &c. Bp. Bull through
out refers to both these tracts, and to
the Nucleus under both titles.]

b 2

Vlll TO THE READER.

every where in the hands of jmr students of theology and
others, a writer who opeHTv and unblushingly maintains the
blasphemy of Arius as the truly catholic_doctrine, and as
supported by thp. x^mpp^^vFall the ancients who pTelfecled the
council of Nine. Overcome^at last bytheir reiterated re
quests, (although I had not even then sufficient leisure, nor
was my health strong enough for so arduous a task,) I again
read over the works of the primitive fathers ; the testimonies
out of them, bearing on my subject, which I had collected
into my note-books, I again submitted one by one to a fresh
and most searching examination ; I added several others to
them; the passages alleged by Sandius and others in sup
port of the opposite side I weighed with increased care ;
and lastly, I put in order the whole of this, as it were, rude
and confused mass of my observations, disposing and arrang
ing them in the easiest and clearest method that I could;
and it is now more than five years since I finished the work,
in the state in which it now comes out.

If you ask, why then has the publication been so long
delayed ? I will tell you plainly. As soon as I had put the
finishing hand to my MS., I immediately offered it to three
booksellers in succession, for publication, on the fairest
terms : they all, however, on different grounds, declined to
undertake the care and expense of printing the work ;
apprehensive, I suppose, that few would be found to buy a
book, of which the author was little known, and the subject
difficult, and which very few indeed would care to bestow
pains in examining. Nor was I myself, a person of narrow
income and with a large family, able to bear the expense
of the press.

In consequence, I brought home again my neglected work,
to be laid up on the shelves of my bookcase ; content to have
had the will at least to do something for the defence of divine
truth, and to have complied, so far as lay in my power, with
the wishes of my friends.

After I had for some time consoled myself with these re
flections, at length, at the suggestion of a friend, I sub
mitted my papers, raised as it were from the grave, to the
judgment of a most distinguished man and consummate
theologian, Dr. William Jane, the very worthy Regius Pro-

TO THE READER. IX

fessor of Divinity in Oxford, who, with his usual kindness,
did not decline the trouble of reading them through, and
when he had read them through, and honoured them with
his approval, he further recommended them to the favour and
patronage of the great bishop of Oxford 6 , and easily obtained
from his singular kindness and zeal for catholic truth, that
this Defence of the Nicene Creed should at last come out
from the press at the Sheldonian Theatre, which the bishop
had fitted up at his own expense. But as that press was
occupied with different works of other writers, there was for
a considerable time no opportunity whatever, and afterwards
only occasionally, for mine ; and hence delay has arisen in
bringing this treatise through the press.

If I could have foreseen that it would have been so long
before this treatise of mine was published, you should have
certainly had it much more carefully finished, more polished,
and more rich in matter. But, as I have already said, I
completed this work at the request of friends, who were
keenly pressing and unceasingly spurring me on, to revise
and enlarge the collections which I had by me in defence
of the catholic faith, made from the reading of ancient
authors, and, having enlarged them, to publish them as
speedily as possible, as an immediate antidote to the poison
ous writings of Sandius. When, however, I had lost all
hope of publishing it through the booksellers, what object
was there for further enlarging and improving a work, which
was now condemned to the moths and worms? And at last,
when an unexpected opportunity was afforded for my papers
being printed, and I had placed them in the printer s hands,
they were no longer under my controul.

It were, indeed, to be wished, that this most important
subject had been treated by some one very much more
learned than myself, on whom the providence of God had
withal bestowed more uninterrupted leisure, a better fur
nished library, and all requisites in more abundant measure.
Very many such persons our English Church has, and such
I pray Almighty God that she may ever continue to have.
But no one hitherto, so far as I know, has undertaken to
work out this subject with the care it deserves. Do not,

e [Bp. Fell, to whom the work is dedicated.]

TO THE READER.

therefore, disdain to use and profit by what I have done,
till such time as one appears, who shall have brought out
from a more ample store a better and more complete work.
You have here all that it was in my power to do, a man of
moderate abilities and learning, the possessor of a limited
store of books, in poor health, hindered by domestic cares,
and, whilst writing this work, tied to the cure of souls in a
country parish, and lastly, living far from the society of
learned men, an exile, as it were, from the literary world.
This one thing, however, I may venture to assure you of,
and most solemnly to declare, that in the whole course of
this work I have observed the utmost good faith. Not a pas
sage have I adduced from primitive antiquity in support of
the decisions of the council of Nice, which, after a careful
examination both of the passage itself and its context, I did
not seriously think really made for the cause which we are
maintaining; not a passage have I garbled, but have put be
fore you all entire. The opinions of the Greek fathers I have
cited not only in Latin, but in the Greek also, in order that
those who know Greek may be able themselves to form a
surer judgment of their genuine meaning. Of those passages
which the modern defenders of Arianism have adduced from
the ancient doctors in support of it, I have not knowingly
and designedly kept back any; nor have I ever attempted
any how to salve over the harder sayings of the ancients by
cunning artifices ; but have endeavoured, by observing the
drift and purpose of each author, and by adducing other
clearer statements from their several writings, to establish on
solid grounds that they not only admit, but actually require,
to be understood in a catholic sense. To end the matter in
one word, while I willingly confess that it is indeed possible
that I may be mistaken, I resolutely deny that I have wished
to deceive any one.

As regards the chief point, of which I wish to persuade
others, I myself am quite convinced, and that on no hasty
view, that, What the Nicene fathers laid down concerning
the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius and other
heretics, the same in effect (although sometimes, it may be,
in other words, and in another mode of expression) was
taught, without any single exception, by all the fathers

TO THE READER. XI

and approved doctors of the Church, who flourished be
fore the council of Nice, even from the very times of the
Apostles.

I pray you kindly to excuse the mistakes "of the printer,
and the occasional slips of a careless corrector of the press.
It has been my misfortune, that I have had the opportunity
of examining and correcting, in person, one sheet only, and
that the last, of this work, as it passed through the press.
As the only thing I can do, you will find that all the errors
of the press that are of any moment, are carefully brought
together and set down in a table prefixed to the work f .

And now, reader, whose object is truth and piety, if these
labours of mine are of any service towards confirming your
faith on the primary article of the Christian religion, there
will be good cause both for you and myself to give thanks
to Almighty God. This only do I ask of you as a recom
pense for my labours, (and this I earnestly request,) that in
your prayers you would sometimes remember me, a sinner,
and mine.

Farewell in Christ our Saviour, our Lord and our God.

f [There was a table of errata prefixed to the first edition of the original work.]

AN INDEX

OP THE

PROPOSITIONS DEMONSTRATED IN THIS WORK.
BOOK I.

ON THE FEE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OP GOD.

THE PROPOSITION.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS OP THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES ALL WITH ONE
ACCORD TAUGHT THAT JESUS CHRIST, THAT IS, HE WHO WAS AFTER
WARDS CALLED JESUS CHRIST, (BEFORE HE WAS MADE MAN, THAT IS,
BEFORE HIS BIRTH, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF THE MOST BLESSED
VIRGIN,) EXISTED IN ANOTHER NATURE FAR SURPASSING THE HUMAN ;
THAT HE APPEARED TO HOLY MEN, AS A PRELUDE TO HIS INCARNA
TION ; THAT HE ALWAYS PRESIDED OVER AND PROVIDED FOR THAT
CHURCH, WHICH HE WAS AFTERWARDS TO REDEEM WITH HIS OWN
BLOOD ; AND THAT THUS FROM THE BEGINNING THE " WHOLE ORDER
OF THE DIVINE ADMINISTRATION" (AS TERTULLIAN EXPRESSES IT)
" HAD ITS COURSE THROUGH HIM ;" AND THAT, MOREOVER, BEFORE
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAID HE WAS PRESENT WITH
GOD HIS FATHER, AND THAT THROUGH HIM THIS UNIVERSE WAS
CREATED.

BOOK II.

ON THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OP THE SON.

THE PROPOSITION.

IT WAS THE SETTLED AND UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS,
WHO FLOURISHED IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, THAT THE SON OF
GOD WAS OF ONE SUBSTANCE, OR CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH GOD THE
FATHER : THAT IS, THAT HE WAS NOT OF ANY CREATED OR MUTABLE
ESSENCE, BUT OP ALTOGETHER THE SAME DIVINE AND UNCHANGEABLE
NATURE WITH HIS FATHER, AND, THEREFORE, VERY GOD OF VERY
GOD.

XIV AN INDEX

BOOK III.

ON THE CO-ETERNITY OP THE SON.

THE FIRST PROPOSITION.

THE MORE AUTHORITATIVE AND LARGER PART OF THE DOCTORS, WHO
LIVED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICE, UNAMBIGUOUSLY, OPENLY,
CLEARLY, AND PERSPICUOUSLY TAUGHT AND PROFESSED THE CO-
ETERNITY OF THE SON, THAT IS, HIS CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE WITH GOD
THE FATHER.

THE SECOND PROPOSITION.

THERE ARE SOME CATHOLIC WRITERS MORE ANCIENT THAN THE COUNCIL
OF NICE, WHO SEEM TO HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO THE SON OF GOD, EVEN
IN THAT HE IS GOD, A CERTAIN NATIVITY, WHICH BEGAN AT A CERTAIN

TIME, AND IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
AND YET THEY WERE VERY FAR REMOVED FROM THE OPINION OF
ARIUS. FOR, IF THEIR EXPRESSIONS BE MORE ACCURATELY WEIGHED,
IT WILL APPEAR THAT THEY SPOKE NOT OF A TRUE AND PROPERLY SO
CALLED NATIVITY, IN WHICH, THAT IS, THE SON RECEIVED THE BE
GINNING OF HIS HYPOSTASIS AND SUBSISTENCE, BUT OF A FIGURATIVE
AND METAPHORICAL ONE; THAT IS, THEY MERELY INTENDED THIS,
THAT THE WORD, WHO BEFORE ALL AGES, (WHEN NOTHING EXISTED
BESIDES GOD) DID EXIST IN AND WITH GOD THE FATHER, AS THE CO-
ETERNAL OFFSPRING OF THE ETERNAL MIND ITSELF, WENT FORTH IN
OPERATION FROM GOD THE FATHER HIMSELF, AT THE TIME WHEN HE
WAS ABOUT TO FORM THE WORLD, AND PROCEEDED TO CREATE THE
UNIVERSE, AND TO MANIFEST BOTH HIMSELF AND HIS FATHER TO THE
CREATURES ; AND THAT, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS GOING FORTH AND
MANIFESTATION, HE IS CALLED IN THE SCRIPTURES THE SON OF GOD,
AND THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN.

THE THIRD PROPOSITION.

CERTAIN CATHOLIC DOCTORS, WHO LIVED AFTER THE RISE OP THE ARIAN
CONTROVERSY, AND RESOLUTELY OPPOSED THEMSELVES TO THE HERESY
OF THE ARIOMANITES, DID NOT SHRINK FROM THE VIEW OF THE PRI
MITIVE FATHERS, WHOM WE LAST MENTIONED, OR RATHER THE MODE
IN WHICH THEY EXPLAINED THEIR VIEW. FOR THEY THEMSELVES
ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT GOING FORTH OF THE WORD, WHO EXISTED
ALWAYS WITH GOD THE FATHER, FROM THE FATHER, (WHICH SOME OP
THEM ALSO CALLED HIS CONDESCENSION), IN ORDER TO CREATE THIS
UNIVERSE ; AND CONFESSED THAT, WITH RESPECT OF THAT GOING
FORTH ALSO THE WORD HIMSELF WAS, AS IT WERE, BORN OF GOD THE
FATHER, AND IS IN THE SCRIPTURES, CALLED THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN OJP
EVERY CREATURE.

OF THE PROPOSITIONS. XV

THE FOURTH PROPOSITION.

TERTULLIAN, INDEED, HAS IN ONE PASSAGE VENTURED TO WRITE EX
PRESSLY THAT THERE WAS A TIME, WHEN THE SON OP GOD WAS NOT.
BUT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS CERTAIN, THAT THAT WRITER, THOUGH
IN OTHER RESPECTS A MAN OF GREAT ABILITY AND EQUAL LEARNING,
FELL OFF FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO HERESY : AND IT IS VERY
UNCERTAIN, WHICH BOOKS HE WROTE WHEN A CATHOLIC, WHICH WHEN
INCLINING TO HERESY, AND WHICH, LASTLY, WHEN A DECIDED HERE
TIC. SECONDLY, TERTULLIAN APPEARS TO HAVE USED THAT EXPRES
SION IN A CONTROVERSIAL WAY, AND IN DISPUTATION WITH HIS AD
VERSARY, PLAYING ON THE WORD SON ; SO THAT, ALTHOUGH HE SEEMS
TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY DENIED THE ETERNITY OF THE SON, STILL HE
REALLY MEANT NO MORE THAN WHAT THOSE FATHERS MEANT, WHOM
WE HAVE CITED IN CHAP. 5 8 OF THIS BOOK : NAMELY, THAT THE
DIVINE PERSON, WHO IS CALLED THE SON OF GOD, ALTHOUGH HE
ALWAYS EXISTED WITH THE FATHER, WAS THEN FIRST DECLARED TO
BE THE SON, WHEN HE WENT FORTH FROM THE FATHER TO MAKE THE
UNIVERSE. CERTAINLY THE SAME TERTULLIAN HAS IN MANY OTHER
PASSAGES TREATED OF THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON IN A CLEARLY
CATHOLIC SENSE, IF WE REGARD THE MAIN DRIFT OF HIS DOCTRINE.
AS FOR LACTANTIUS, WHO ALSO IN ONE PASSAGE ATTRIBUTES, NOT OB
SCURELY, A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE TO THE SON OF GOD, HIS ESTI
MATION AND AUTHORITY IS BUT OF LITTLE WEIGHT IN THE CHURCH OF
GOD, INASMUCH AS HE WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY UNINSTRUCTED IN HOLY
SCRIPTURE AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. AND SECONDLY, IT MUST NE
CESSARILY BE HELD, EITHER THAT THOSE PASSAGES IN THE WRITINGS
OF LACTANTIUS, WHICH SEEM TO MAKE AGAINST THE ETERNITY OF THE
SON, HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED BY SOME MANICH^EAN HERETIC ; OR AT
ANY RATE THAT LACTANTIUS HIMSELF WAS INFECTED WITH THE
HERESY OF MANES. LASTLY, HE HAS HIMSELF IN OTHER PASSAGES
EXPRESSED A MORE SOUND OPINION CONCERNING THE ETERNITY OF
THE WORD.

BOOK IV.

ON THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER.

THE FIRST PROPOSITION.
THAT DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF NICE, IN WHICH IT is LAID DOWN, THAT

THE SON OF GOD IS GOD OF GOD, IS CONFIRMED BY THE VOICE OF THE
CATHOLIC DOCTORS, BOTH THOSE WHO WROTE BEFORE, AND THOSE
WHO WROTE AFTER, THAT COUNCIL. FOR THEY ALL WITH ONE AC-

XVI AN INDEX OF THE PROPOSITIONS.

COED TAUGHT THAT THE DIVINE NATURE AND PERFECTIONS BELONG TO
THE FATHER AND THE SON, NOT COLLATERALLY OR CO-ORDINATELY,
BUT SUBORDINATELY ; THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THE SON HAS INDEED
THE SAME DIVINE NATURE IN COMMON WITH THE FATHER, BUT COM
MUNICATED BY THE FATHER ; IN SUCH SENSE, THAT IS, THAT THE
FATHER ALONE HATH THE DIVINE NATURE FROM HIMSELF, IN OTHER
WORDS, FROM NO OTHER, BUT THE SON FROM THE FATHER ; CONSE
QUENTLY THAT THE FATHER IS THE FOUNTAIN, ORIGIN, AND PRIN
CIPLE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH IS IN THE SON.

THE SECOND PROPOSITION.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS, BOTH THOSE WHO PRECEDED, AND THOSE WHO
LIVED AFTER, THE COUNCIL OF NICE, WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT DE
TERMINED THAT GOD THE FATHER, EVEN IN RESPECT OF HIS DIVINITY,
IS GREATER THAN THE SON ; THAT IS TO SAY, NOT IN NATURE INDEED,
OR IN ANY ESSENTIAL PERFECTION, SO THAT IT SHOULD BE IN THE
FATHER, AND NOT IN THE SON ; BUT IN AUTHORSHIP ALONE, THAT IS
TO SAY, IN ORIGIN ; FORASMUCH AS THE SON IS FROM THE FATHER,
NOT THE FATHER FROM THE SON.

THE THIRD PROPOSITION.

THIS DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE
FATHER AS TO HIS ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE, WAS REGARDED BY THE
ANCIENT DOCTORS AS VERY USEFUL AND ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO BE
KNOWN AND BELIEVED, FOR THIS REASON, THAT BY MEANS OF IT ESPE
CIALLY THE DIVINITY OF THE SON IS SO ASSERTED, AS THAT THE UNITY
OF GOD AND THE DIVINE MONARCHY, IS NEVERTHELESS PRESERVED UN
IMPAIRED. FOR ALTHOUGH THE NAME AND THE NATURE BE COMMON
TO THE TWO, NAMELY THE FATHER AND THE SON OF GOD, STILL, INAS
MUCH AS THE ONE IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE OTHER, FROM WHICH HE
IS PROPAGATED, AND THAT BY AN INTERNAL, NOT AN EXTERNAL, PRO
DUCTION, IT FOLLOWS THAT GOD IS RIGHTLY SAID TO BE ONLY ONE.
THIS REASON THOSE ANCIENTS BELIEVED TO BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE
TO THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

CONTENTS

or THE

CHAPTERS OP EACH BOOK.

INTRODUCTION.

Page

In which the occasion, design, and division of the entire
work are set forth i

BOOK I.

ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON BEFORE [HIS INCARNATION OF]
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, NAY RATHER BEFORE THE FOUNDATION
OF THE WORLD, AND ON THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE THROUGH
HIM.

CHAPTER I.

The Proposition stated : and the former part of it, viz. the pre-existence of
the Son before [His incarnation] of the blessed Virgin Mary, demon
strated ......... 15

CHAPTER II.

The second part of the proposition is established, respecting the pre-existence
of the Son before the foundation of the world, and the creation of all
things through Him . . . . . . .36

EOOK II.

ON THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON.

CHAPTER I.

The subject proposed. The word bp.oov<nos, "of one substance," explained
at length. The Nicene fathers cleared from the suspicion of em
ploying new and strange language, in using this word to express the
true Godhead of the Son. The opposition between the council of
Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and the council of Nice against
Arius, reconciled. Proof that the term 6/j.oovfftos, was not derived
from heretics. A brief review of the heads of the arguments, by which
the Antenicene doctors confirmed the consubstantiality . . 55

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II.

Page

The doctrine of the author of the epistle ascrihed to Barnabas, of Hernias,
or the Shepherd, and of the martyr Ignatius, concerning the true
Divinity of the Son, set forth 86

CHAPTER III.

Clement of Rome and Polycarp incidentally vindicated from the aspersions
of the author of the Irenicum, and of Sandius .

CHAPTER IV.

Containing an exposition of the views of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras,
Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch ; with an incidental declaration of
the faith of Christians respecting the Holy Trinity, in the age of
Lucian, out of Lucian himself .

CHAPTER V.

Setting forth the doctrine of Irenreus, concerning the Son of God, most

plainly confirmatory of the Nicene Creed . . .160

CHAPTER VI.

Containing exceedingly clear testimonies out of S. Clement of Alexandria,
concerning the true and supreme Divinity of the Son, and, further,
concerning the consubstantiality of the whole most Holy Trinity .181

CHAPTER VII.

Wherein the doctrine of Tertullian, concerning the consubstantiality of the

Son, is shewn to coincide altogether with the Nicene Creed . . 193

CHAPTER VIII.

The Nicene Creed, on the article of the consubstantiality of the Son, is con
firmed by the testimonies of the presbyter Caius, and of the celebrated
bishop and martyr S. Hippolytus . 206

CHAPTER IX.

Wherein it is shewn fully and clearly that the doctrine of Origen concerning
the true Divinity of the Son of God was altogether catholic, and per
fectly consonant with the Nicene Creed, especially from his work
against Celsus, which is undoubtedly genuine, and most free from cor
ruption, and which was composed by him when in advanced age, and
with most exact care and attention . . . .217

CONTENTS. XIX

CHAPTER X.

Page

Concerning the faith and views of the martyr Cyprian, of Novatian, or the
author of a treatise on the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, and
of Theognostus . . . . . . . .285

CHAPTER XI.

In which is set forth the consent of the Dionysii of Rome and of Alex
andria with the Nicene fathers . . 302

CHAPTER XII.

On the opinion and faith of the very celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus,

hishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus ..... 322

CHAPTER XIII.

Wherein the opinion, touching the consubstantiality of the Son, of the six
bishops of the council of Antioch, who wrote an epistle to Paul of
Samosata, as well as of Pierius, Pamphilus, Lucian, Methodius, mar
tyrs, is shewn to be catholic, and plainly consonant to the Nicene
Creed . . 336

CHAPTER XIV.

The opinion and faith of Arnobius Afer and Lactantius, touching the true
divinity of the Son is declared. The second book on the consubstantiality
is wound up with a brief conclusion . . . 358

DEFENCE

OF THE

N I C E N E CREED, &c.

INTRODUCTION.

[l]

IN WHICH THE OCCASION, DESIGN, AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE
ENTIRE WORK ARE SET FORTH.

1. THE first (Ecumenical Council, which was held at Nice 8 , INTROD

has ever been regarded by all Catholics as of the highest

authority and esteem, and indeed deservedly so. For never,
since the death of the Apostles, has the Christian world be
held a synod with higher claims to be considered universal
and free, or an assembly of bishops and prelates more august
and holy. "For at that council," as Eusebius says b , "there
were assembled out of all the Churches, which had filled the
whole of Europe, Asia, and Africa, the very choicest 1 from ra
amongst the ministers of God : and one sacred building, 6lvla
expanded as it were by the divine command, embraced at
once within its compass both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoe
nicians and Arabians, and Christians of Palestine; Egyp
tians too, Thebans and Libyans, and some who came out
of Mesopotamia. A bishop also from Persia was present
at the council, and even Scythia was not wanting to that
company. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cap-

a A.D. 325. Cave, Hist. Lit. Sec. re O!KOS fvKT-fjptos, &(nrep e/c euv ir\a-

Arian. BOWYER. Tvv6/j.vos %v$ov exdpei Kara rb avrb

b [Bp. Bull only gave the Latin of 2,vpovs a/j.a Kal KtAt/cas, QoiviKas re Kal

this extract; and the translation has Apaftiovs Kal TlaXaiffnvovs Kal eirl rov-

been made according to that Latin; -rots Alywrriovs, yfiaiovs, Ai/3vas, rovs

but it is thought best to add the Greek r c/c /j.(rrjs ru>v irorafj.S>v opfj.w/j.ei ovs

original. TU>V yovv ^KK\t](TiS)v airaau/v, ijtir) Se Kal Tlfpffrjs eiriV/coTros rfj crvv6q>

at TT\V EvputTryv arrao av, Aifivrjv re Kal Trapr/i* ovSe ^,Ki>6rjs aTreXi/j.irdi fro ri\s

r^v Affiav firKripovv, &IJLOV ffvvr\Kro ruv xopeias Tl6vros re Kal TaXaria Kal

rov 0eou Xfiroupjwv ra aKpodivia efs I\af.i. pvX(a > KairiraSoKia re Kal Affia Kal
BULL.

2 Number and character of the Nicene Council.

INTROD. padocia, with Asia and Phrygia, contributed the choicest
of their prelates. Moreover Thracians, Macedonians, Achai-
ans and Epirotes, and inhabitants of still more remote dis
tricts, were, notwithstanding their distance, present. Even
from Spain itself, that most celebrated man, [Hosius,]
took his seat along with the rest. The prelate of the im
perial city c " (of Rome, that is,) "was indeed absent on
account of his advanced age, but presbyters of his were
present to supply his place. Constantine is the only emperor
from the beginning of the world, who, by convening this vast
assembly, an image, as it were, of the company of the Apo
stles, presented to Christ his Saviour a garland such as this,
twined and knit together by the bond of peace, as a sacred
memorial of his gratitude for the victories which he had
gained over his foreign and domestic enemies. ... In this com
pany more than two hundred and fifty bishops were present d ,"
(Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Rufinus, Socrates, and many
others, assert that three hundred and eighteen bishops sat in
this council,) "whilst the number of the presbyters who
accompanied them, with the deacons, acolytes, and crowds of
others, can scarcely be computed. Moreover of these mi
nisters of God some were eminent for their wisdom and
eloquence, others for their gravity of life and patient en
durance of hardships, whilst others again were adorned with
modesty and gentleness of demeanour. Some also among
them were held in the highest honour from their ad
vanced age; others were young and vigorous in body and
mind," &c.

2. The subject treated of in this council concerned the

&pvyia TOVS irap avrais trape tx 01 * K ~ XP f Las >

Kpirovs. aAAa Kal QpaKts Kal Mae- T-f]KOvra Kal diaKOffioov apiB/u.bi virep-

Soves Axaioi re Kal HTreipwrcu TOUTWI/ aKovri^ovcra eTro^ueVcoj/ Se TOVTOLS irpeo--

ot eTt TroppcoTaTCo otKot/i/Tes a.irt}VTtov. fivrtpcw Kal SiaKQVwv a.KO\ovQ<av re TrAei -

avrwis re ^Trdvuv 6 iravv ftocafAevos els CTTCOJ/ dacav erepo)!/, ouS -f]V aptQ/uios els

iiv IOLS 7roAAo?y a/j.a avvt &psvtov TTJS 8e Kard\~r]^/iv. TUV 5e TOV Qeov AtiTovpy&v

ye fiacri\vov(rr)STr6\us, 6 /j.ev TrpoeffTws ol /J.ev SieTrpeirov <Tcnpias \6ycp ol Se

v<TTpei Sia yrjpas TrpeafivTtpoi Se av- fiiov (rTpp6Tif]ri Kal KapTtpias viro/j.oi fj

TOV TrapcWes TTJV avrov rdiv eTrA.Tjpovv. ol Se rif peac? rpoircf

Toiovrov fj.6vos e| alwvos efs ^atnAeus ^rav Se TOVTOOV ol (JL\V

Xpicrrcf ffrsfyavov 8e(T/J.cp TJ/iTjyUeVof ot Se veoTTjrt Kal i//ux??s c*- K / J - fj

, iii. 7 9.

rip avrov ScoT^pi TTJS 8ia\du.irot Ts. Vit. Const

/car e xflpw 17 Kc " iro\ff*.i(av v iKT)S 0607rpe- [pp. 579 581.]
Tres avfriOei -xapiffTripiov etK^a xopetas c See Valesius s notes on the pas

a7rO(TToAtK7JS TO.VT^V KO0 ^UCtS ffVCTT^- SRge.

rl Se TTJS ira/Jou(T7js d Ibid.

Early opponents ; answered by Socrates. 3

chief doctrine 1 of the Christian religion,, namely, the dignity 13.
of the Person of Jesus Christ our Saviour; whether He is to i capite.
be worshipped as true God, or to be reduced to the rank and
condition of creatures and of things subject to the true God. [3]
If we imagine that in this question of the very utmost
moment the whole of the rulers of the Church altogether
erred, and persuaded the Christian people to embrace their
error, how will the promise of Christ our Lord hold good, 2
who engaged to be present, even to the end of the world,
with the Apostles, and consequently with their successors ?
For, since the promise extends to the end of the world 6 , and
yet the Apostles were not to continue alive so long, Christ
must most certainly be regarded as addressing, in the per
sons of the Apostles, their successors also in that office.

3. I cannot but feel indignation, nay even a degree of
horror, so often as I reflect on these things, and consider
the amazing ignorance, or rather the impious madness of
those writers who have not shrunk from openly raving
against the venerable fathers, as if they had, with settled
evil purpose 2 , or, at all events, through ignorance and rash- 8 ma ]j t j a
ness, corrupted the catholic doctrine respecting the Per
son of Jesus Christ, which had been taught by the Apo
stles and preserved in the Church during the first three
centuries, and had obtruded a new faith on the Christian
world. Not to mention the early Arians, the most notorious
enemies and calumniators of the Nicene Creed, it was on this
account that Sabinus was infamous in former times, a fol
lower of the faction of Macedonius, whose rash and shameless
judgment concerning the Nicene council is mentioned and
refuted by Socrates f . That excellent Church historian, after
saying that he had related the history of the Nicene council,
in order that, if any persons should be disposed to condemn
that council as having fallen into error in a matter of the
faith, we should give them no heed at all, subjoins these
words?; "Let us not believe Sabinus, the follower of
Macedonius, who calls those who assembled in that council
unlearned and simple men. For this Sabinus, bishop of the (-4-1

e Matt, xxviii. 20. BOWYER. Bull : the Greek is ; ^r?5e 7n<rTeiW J uej

f Eccl. Hist., i. 8. 2a.pivcp T> MaKfSoviatxp iSuaras avrovs

8 [The translation is based on the KOI d^eAeTs Ka\ovvri TOVS e/celb-e aw~

Latin, which alone was given by Bp. A0<Wccs. 2o/3iVos yap 6 rwv eV Hpa-

B 2

INTROD.

1 synodo-

riun acta.

4 Securities that the Council did not err.

Macedonians at Heraclea, a city of Thrace, who collected into
one work the acts of different synods 1 , treated with derision
the prelates of the council of Nice as unlearned and simple
men, and perceives not that he is herein charging as unlearned 2
even Eusebius himself, who after a long and searching enquiry
embraced that Creed. There are some things which he has
purposely passed over, and others which he has perverted and
altered, but still he has drawn all to his own purpose and views:
and yet he praises Eusebius Pamphili h as a most trust-worthy
witness, and also bestows encomiums on the emperor himself,
as one who was exceedingly well acquainted with the doctrines
of the Christian faith; at the same time he finds fault with
the Creed, which was set forth at Nice, as if it were compiled
by ignorant and unlearned men ; and thus does he knowingly
despise and neglect the express declaration of an author
whom he acknowledges to be a wise man and a truthful wit
ness ; for Eusebius declares, that of the ministers of God who
were present at the Nicene synod, some were eminent for
their eloquence and wisdom, others for the firmness and for
titude of their life; and that the emperor himself, who was pre
sent, by leading all to concord, made them to be of one mind
and of one consent/ At the same time, however, Socrates 1 ,
in the ninth chapter of the same book, censures Sabinus, be
cause he did not also reflect, " that, even if the members of
that council were unlearned men, and yet were illuminated
by God and by the grace of the Holy Ghost, they could by
no means have erred from the truth." For Socrates seems
to have thought that the illuminating grace of the Holy
Ghost is always present with a council of bishops truly uni-

ia TTJS &paKT]s MaK&oviavuiv eTrt

TTOS

TOVS jj.lv eV Ni/ccu a ots a^eAeTs Kal 25ta>-
TO.S diftfvpe, ^ alffQav6/j.fvos, or\ Kal
avriv Evo-ffiiov, rbv /xera iroXA^s SO/J.L-
/macrias rljv niff-riv o^oXoy^ffavra us I8i<a-
Tf\v SiafidXAci. Kal Tiva. p.lv eKwi/ irape-
AiTre// riva Se TrapeVpeiJ/e. Trai/ra Se
irpbs rbv oiKeiuv (TKOTTOV /j.a\\ov eeiA?7-
(j)fu. KO.I eVcuve? fj.tv rbv Ua,u.(f)i\ou Ev-^
atfiiov us a^iriffTOV fj-dprvpa" eTratve?
5s Kal rbv fiaffiXea ws TO. XpHrriavtov
r ^fiv $vva.u.evoV /j.e/J.(l)raL 5e rrj
ifrr) ev Ni/cafa Tri-rrei cts virb i Stw-
Kal ovSef e TrtcrTO/xeVcoJ e/

Kal bi> us ffytfbv Kal
rvpa, TOVTOV ras (pwas eKoucrioas v
opa (^fjffl yap 6 E&crejStos, tin rcav irap-
6i>T(av evrrj Nt/caia rov &eov X^irovpycav
ol /J.GV, SieTrpeTTOv aofyias \6yip ol Se
reppoTrjTf Kal 6n o fia(Tt\VS
irdvras els o^voiav aycav, 6/J.o-
KarecrT-rjcrev. p.
21.]

h [The friend of Pamphilus.]
1 cas el Kal iSiwrai -fjaav ol TTJS <rvv6-
5ov, KareAd/LurovTO Se virb rov Qeov Kal

s, ov~

TO. Ibid., p. 31.

Socinus statements on the faith of the early Church. 5

versal, to keep them free from error, at least in the necessary 3, 4.
articles of the faith. And if any one is unwilling to admit [5]
this supposition, the argument of Socrates may still be stated
and presented to him thus ; suppose the Nicene fathers to
have been unlearned and unlettered men, still they cer
tainly were for the most part men of piety; and it is in
credible that so many holy and approved men, meeting
together out of all parts of the Christian world, could pos
sibly have dishonestly conspired for the purpose of making
an innovation on the received faith of the Church, respect
ing the primary article of Christianity ; especially as, what
ever may have been their lack of learning in other respects,
they could not have been ignorant of the elementary doc
trine of the most holy Trinity, which was wont to be taught
even to catechumens, nor of what they themselves had re
ceived from their fathers concerning that subject.

4. But to come to more modern writers; within the memory
of our fathers, Faustus Socinus of Siena, in his second letter
to Radecius k , asserts, that the knowledge of the true doctrine
concerning God, namely, that the Father alone is very God,
continued down to the time of the council of Nice. " This
knowledge l ," he says, "without any controversy ceased not
to exist even until the period of the council of Nice, and for
some time afterwards, among those who professed the name
of Christ. For throughout the whole of that period, as is clear
from the writings of all who then lived, the Father of Jesus
Christ alone was believed to be that one true God, of whom
the Holy Scriptures every where make mention." In this pas
sage, when he says, that this was the belief of all the ancients
down to the council of Nice, " that the Father of Jesus Christ
alone is the one true God," if it be understood of that special
prerogative of the Father, by which He alone is of Himself 1 * ip^ e so
very God, then we acknowledge it to be most true. But this a
does not make any thing in favour of Socinus ; and it is certain [6]
that the knowledge of this doctrine not only " continued
until the time of the council of Nice, or some time after," but
has ever continued in the Church of Christ. But if, on the

k [Opera, ed. 1656. vol. i. p. 375.] whom He had sent," S. John xvii. 3,
1 [The knowledge of the Father, as according to the Socinian interpreta-
" the only true God, and Jesus Christ lion.]

6 Ejriscopius calumnies against the Council;

INTROP. other hand,, this proposition, The Father of Jesus Christ
alone is the one true God," be taken altogether exclusively,
so as to take away from Christ His true divinity, and to
deny what was defined by the Nicene council, namely, that
the Son is very God of very God, (and it is but too evident
3 that this was what Socinus meant,) then we contend that
it is manifestly false, that "all the ancients, down to the
council of Nice, did so believe;" nay, we shall shew that
they all taught that the Son is of the same nature with the
Father, and therefore is very God, equally with the Father.
Accordingly even Socinus himself in another place, i.e. in his
third letter to this same Matthew Radecius, (contradicting
himself, as he is apt to do,) confesses, " that almost from the
very earliest period of the existence of the Church 1 , even to
our own times, so many men most distinguished for piety
no less than for learning, so many most holy martyrs of
Christ, as to be past numbering, have followed that error,
in other respects most serious, that Christ is the one true
j God, who created all things, or, at least, was begotten of
His proper substance." But surely, that the Son of God
was begotten of the proper substance of God, and is, there
fore, very God of very God, is the sum and substance of the
doctrine, which the Nicene fathers asserted against Arius.
5. M. Simon Episcopius, a most learned theologian in all

1 other respects, but an utter stranger to ecclesiastical anti
quity, although he held different views from those of Socinus,
and even publicly maintained, in opposition to him, the pre-
existence of the Son, not only before [His birth of] the blessed
^ Virgin, but also before the creation of the world, still has
1 spoken in his works in a way altogether shameful and in-
I tolerable concerning the Creed authoritatively put forth by
1 the Nicene fathers. For he inveighs (whether with greater
want of learning or of modesty is not easy to say) against
[7] the Nicene Creed, and those, framed and composed after
the third century, which agreed with it ; " As regards the
other Creeds" (he says n ) " which followed after, which were
framed at so-called general councils, as they are of more re
cent date, they are not worthy to be compared with these "-

111 Ibid., p. 391. " Institutiones Theologicae, iv. 34. [sect. 2-]

answered by statements of Constantine and Eusebius. 7

that is, with the creeds and confessions of faith, by which, as 4, 5.
by marks and watch-words, Christians and Catholics, during
the first three centuries, used to be distinguished from un
believers and heretics "And if the truth must be spoken,
they ought to be regarded as precipitately framed from ex
citement, if not fury, and a maddened and unblessed 1 party nnalefe-
spirit, on the part of bishops who were wrangling and con- rlalo>
tending with one another with excessive rivalry, rather than
as what issued from composed minds." And that you may
understand that the Nicene Creed, especially, is glanced at
by him in this passage, he presently adds, " Who does not
know, what keen contests, and obstinate bickerings, were
raised amongst the bishops at the Nicene council ?" Nay,
rather I would say, who is there that does not perceive that
all this issues from a mind far from sound or composed?
Was it so clearly the part of a sober and moderate man, to
tear and rend with revilings the venerable prelates of that
most august council ? But to proceed to the matter itself.
He is not ashamed to say that the Nicene Creed was "pre
cipitately framed by the bishops out of fury and maddened
and unblest party spirit." Yet Constantine the emperor,
who himself presided as moderator in the Nicene council,
expressly testifies of it, in his Epistle to the Churches, that
in his presence "every point had there received due exami
nation." Again, in the letter which he specially addressed [8]
to the Church of Alexandria, he says, that being present
amongst the bishops assembled at Nice, as though he were
one of their number, and their fellow-servant, he had under
taken the investigation of the truth, in such a way, as that p
" all points, which appeared to raise a plea either of ambi
guity 2 ," (for it is clear that this is the true reading from the
same clause being soon after repeated by Socrates,) " or
difference of opinion, were tested and accurately examined."
On this letter of Constantine, Socrates makes these observa-
tionsQ; "This account the emperor wrote to the people of

aTravTctT !jsirpo<Tir]Kov(rr]STTvx nKei meriting on the letter, p. 31,] ^ 5ix-

eera<rea>y. Euseb. de Vita Constant. voias irpofyaffiv 8oKi ysvvav. Socrat.

iii. 17. Eccl. Hist. i. 9. p. 30. ed. Vales.^

7X0T7 a-rravra, KCU aKpiftus erj- 1 6 fjC-v 877 fiarriXcvs roiavra <lypa<p

oaa $ a^(pi^oXiav, [Bull read Tip AAear5peW ST^UW, p-nvvtov frn o\>x

ias, as Socrates has it in com- OTTAWS, owSe ws trvx* ysyovtv o opos rrjs

8 Statements of Zuicker and Sandius,

INTROD. Alexandria, to inform them that the definition of the faith

1 oTrAwy. had not been made lightly 1 or carelessly, but that they had

put it forth after much discussion and strict testing; and

it was not the case that some points had been mentioned at

the council, whilst others had been passed over in silence,

but that all things, which were meet to be alleged for esta-

8 irpbs aba- blishment of the doctrine 2 , had been mooted, and that the

My^aTos. ma tter had not been hastily 3 defined, but had been first dis-

3 OTTAWA cussed with exact accuracy/ Nay, Eusebius himself, an

author of the utmost integrity, and of temperate disposition,
and not unfair towards the Arian party, and who seems to
have had the chief place next to the emperor in the Nicene
council 1 ", expressly states, that all the bishops subscribed with
unanimous agreement to the creed drawn up in that council,
OVK av^erao-TO)Sj " not without examination," not hastily and
inconsiderately, but after an exact, deliberate, and careful in-
[9] vestigation, in presence of the emperor, of each separate pro
position, (and, as he specifies by name, of the clause relating
to the homoousion, " of one substance.") See Eusebius letter
to his own diocese, in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 8. [pp. 22, 23.]
At the opening of the council, indeed, there were considerable
disputes among some of the bishops, but, as Eusebius also in
forms us, they were soon and easily settled and lulled by the
pious and mild address of the emperor.

6. The anonymous author 8 of a book published some time
I ago under the title of Irenicum Irenicorum/ &c v boldly pro-
I claims, that the Nicene fathers " were the framers of a new
| faith ;" and this he labours to prove, throughout his work,
4 ) by heaping together such testimonies, out of the remains of
the ante-Nicene fathers, as have the appearance of being
inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. This book is said by
Stephen Curcellseus * to contain " irrefragable testimonies
and arguments." rhe 1 like web has been woven over again,
very lately, by Christopher Sandius, in what he calls his

4 Nucleus Kernel 4 of Ecclesiastical History/ now in the second edi-

Eccl. Hist.

trio-Teas aAA STI juera TroAATjs ffvfrr-fi- r Vid. not. Vales, ad Euseb. iii. de

s KCU 8oKL/j.a(ria.s avrbv inri]y6pv<rav Vita Const., c. 1 1.

otx OTL nva. ,uej/ e Ae x^, nva 8e s Page 8i. [Daniel Zuicker. See

air(Tiyf)Qri, aAA 6ri 6ffa irpbs crvtrraffiv the Introduction to the Primitive and

ToO S6y/j.aros Ae%0^i/at Tj^uo^e, -ndvra. Apostolical Tradition, 2. B.]
^Ktvf)9r] KOL ori oix OTrAcDs wpiaOr), aAA l Quat. Dissert. Theol. Dissert, i.

trportpov. Ib., p. 31. ] 18. in fine.

and of Petavius, on the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 9

tion, and enriched by a very copious addition of fables and 5 7.
contradictions. In this book, the shameless author is en
tirely bent upon persuading such readers as are unlearned,
and have very little acquaintance with the writings of the
ancients, that the ante-Nicene fathers, without exception,
simply held the same doctrine as Arius.

7. There is, however, one great man fully furnished with
learning of every kind, "uionysius Petavius. at whom T rtan-
not sufficiently wonder; for, whilst he professes the utmost
reverence tor the JNicene council, and on all occasions de
clares that he receives the faith therein affirmed against the
Arians, as truly catholic and apostolic, still he freely gives up

tothe Arians. that which (if true) would very greatly tend to

[10]

confirm their heresy, and to disparage, nay, rather, utterly
to overthrow, the credit and authority of the council of
Nice; I mean, that almost all the bishops and fathers before
the council of Nice held precisely the same opinions as Arius.
For thus he writes, (Of the Trinity, i. 5. 7.) " Accordingly
there was this settled opinion in the minds of some of the
ancients, touching the Godhead and the diversity of Persons
in It, viz., that there is One supreme, unbegotten, and in
visible God, who put forth, without, from Himself, as vocal
and sounding, that Logos u , that is, that Word, which He
had laid up within (evbidOerov), yet not, like a voice or
sound, passing away and capable of being dissipated, but
of such sort, as that, as though embodied and subsist
ing, It might in turn afterwards create all other things.
Moreover, they said, that the Word was put forth by the
Supreme God and Father at the time when He determined
on creating this universe, in order that He might use Him
as His assisting Minister. This opinion some intimate more
clearly, others more obscurely. But these may be specially
mentioned l ; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus,Tertullian, and l sed 1st!
Lactantius. Both these authors, however, and the rest x , whom fere

" [Qui \6yov, iciest, ^erbum, vel Ser- Origenes, "some others, as Origen."

monem, quern eV8tcieTOz/, intus inclusum And the passage thus amended is cited

tenebat, ex sese foras produxerit, voca- by Bp. Bull, iii. 4. 10. B. It is so

lem et sonantem. Petav. de Trin. i. amended in the later editions of Peta-

5. 7.] vius. Bp. Bull, however, in the pas-

x [Instead of the words, reliqui, quos sage referred to, cites only part of Pe-

commemoravi, "the rest, whom I have tavius correction. See iii. 4. 10. and

mentioned," Petavius, at the end of Dr. Burton s note on it]
the volume, substituted aliqui alii, ut

10 Petavius statements tend to encourage Arianism;

1 conditio-

2 hyposta-.

sine inter-

5 architec-
mTtis g ~

6 const! tu
turn et pa
tefactum.

I have mentioned," (and which of the primitive fathers had he
not before mentioned?) "thought that the Father was superior
to the Word, in age, dignity, and power ; and, although they
asserted, that the Son was of the substance or nature of the
Father, (in which point alone they made His mode of exist-
ence ! to differ from that of all other beings, which are properly
called creatures ;) still they conceived that He had a begin
ning no less than the creatures ; in other words, that He had
by no means been a distinct Person 2 from eternity." But in
the second section of the eighth chapter of the same book he
speaks still more plainly. "It is most clear," he says, "that
Arius was a genuine Platonist, and that he followed the
opinions of those ancient writers, who, while as yet the
point had not been developed and settled 3 , had fallen into

tne same error - For the y also tau g nt that the Word was
produced by God the Father, yet not from eternity, but be
fore He formed the world, in order that He might use Him
as His assisting Minister for the accomplishment of that
work. For they conceived that He had not created all
things by Himself, and without the intervention of any
one 4 ; a doctrine which Philo also followed in his book on
the Crea tor of the World. And therefore I take it to have
been in a rhetorical and exaggerated way of expression, that
Alexander, in his epistle, and others of the fathers, who wrote
against this heresy, complained that Arius had been the
author of that opinion 5 , the like to which had been unheard
f oe f re his time ; inasmuch as we have brought forward a
great number of early writers who previously taught the
same doctrine as Arius."

8. If, therefore, reliance is to be placed on Petavius, we shall
have^to lav down, first, that the heresy of Arius, ^yhich was
condemned by the Nicene fathers, agreed, in the most im
portant point, with the f^mTnnnlv^rpnmvprl y^^f ftf thp

ancient (Jathpjic docters,~who preceded him ; secondly, that
e doctrine concerning the true divinity of the_Son_wasjiQt

settle^ and.developed 6 before the council of Nice | thirdly.
uhat Alexander, and the other Catholics^ who accused Arius,
as the author of a doctrine which was new and unheard of
previously in the Catholic Church, said this in a rhetorical
and an exaggerated way ; that is to say, (if the thing is to be

from a wish to establish the authority of the later Church. 11

more plainly stated,) that they uttered a notable falsehood, 7, 8.
I suppose in the Jesuit fashion, to subserve the Catholic
cause. Unlucky Arius ! that Petavius was not yet born,
to becomejjie patron and advocate of his_anse m th~e .
conflictjit ^Nicaea! 1^ is not, however, easy to say, what
Petavius had in view when he wrote thus. Some suspect ^[12]
that in his heart he cherished the Arranheresy himself, and
wished craftily to pass on the cup to others. This was the
opinion of Sandius?, whom I have just before mentioned,
who thus remarks of Petavius ; " But when I recollect that j
Petavius asserts, that the ante-Nicene fathers taught the
same doctrines as Arius, and, also, that the articles of the
faith are to be proved by traditions, I think it impossible
but that Petavius must have been persuaded of the truth of
the conclusion, which infallibly follows from these premises,
namely, that the Trinity which the Arians hold, and not the
consubstantial Trinity 1 , is an article of the faith. And as to Trinita-
his wresting the argument to a contrary conclusionT^nrre- ^ 5/uoou
sume he did this with a twofold viewj^l. To escape the in- j
conveniences 2 which commonly fall on those who secede from 2 adversa.
the Roman Catholic to the Arian party ; 2. That the Arians
might be able to derive a stronger proof of their doctrine
from a father of the Society of Jesus, as from an adversary ;
especially since it is sufficient to prove premises, from which
any person of sound mind can draw such a conclusion, as
will make it plain what his opinion is about the Trinity."
These are the words of Sandius ; in my opinion, however, it
igjrm^ pi par from_ the writings of Petavms~himselt. that the
conjecture of this most vain writer is entirely false. If indeed
it must be said that Petavius wrote thus with any sinister
purpose, and not merely from that bold and reckless temper

which is his wont in criticising and commenting on the holy
fathers, I should say that, being a Jesuit, he wished to pro-
moTeTthe papal, rather than the Arian, interest. For, from
the fact (for which Petavius contends) that almost all the
Catholic doctors of the first three centuries fell into the self
same error which the Nicene council afterwards condemned
as heresy in the case of Arius, these two things will easily
follow; 1. That little authority is to be assigned to the

T Sandius Nucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 156. last edition [1676.]

specta et
patefacta
2 condend

12 Petavius discredits the authority of the Primitive Fathers.

INTRODJ fathers of the first three centuries, to whom Reformed
[13] Catholics are wont to make their chief appeal, as being
persons to whom the principal articles of the Christian faith
1 satis pe: - were not as yet sufficiently understood and developed ! ;
2. That oecumenical councils have the power of framing 2 , or,

as Petavius says, of settling and developing 3 new articles

3 constitu4 O f f a jth ; by which principle it may seem that sufficient pro-
tefaciendi. 1 vision is made for those additions, which the fathers of Trent
patched on to the rule of faith, and thrust upon the Christian
world; though not even in this way will the Roman faith
stand good ; since the assembly at Trent is to be called any
thing rather than a general council.

But so it is : the masters of that school have no scruples in
building their pseudo-catholic faith on the ruins of the faith
which is truly catholic. The divine oracles themselves, must,
forsooth, be found guilty of too great obscurity, and the most
holy doctors, bishops, and martyrs of the primitive Church be
accused of heresy, in order that, by whatever means, the faith
and authority of the degenerate Roman Church may be kept
safe and sound. And yet these sophists (of all things) exe
crate us as if we were so many accursed Hams, and deriders
and despisers of the venerable fathers of the Church; wliilstthey
continually boast that they themselves religiously follow the
faith of the ancient doctors, and reverence their writings to the
\ utmost. That Petavius, however, wrote those passages with
this wicked design, I would not venture to affirm for certain,
leaving it to the judgment of that God who knoweth the hearts.
At the same time, what the Jesuit has written, as it is most
pleasing to modern Arians, (who on this account with one con
sent look up to and salute him as their patron,) so we confi
dently pronounce it to be manifestly repugnant to the truth,
v and most unjust and insulting to the holy fathers, whether
those of the council of Nice, or those who preceded it.

9. For this is the plan of the work which I have undertaken,
to shew clearly that what the Nicene fathers laid down
[14] concerning the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius
and other heretics, was in substance (although sometimes
perhaps in other words and in a different mode of expres
sion) taught by all the approved fathers and doctors of the
Church, without a single exception, who flourished before the

The Nicene Creed. 13

period of the council of Nice down from the very age of 810.
the Apostles.

And, O most holy Jesus, the co-eternal Word of the eternal
Father, I, the chief of sinners, and the least of Thy servants,
do humbly beseech Thee that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to
bless this labour of mine, undertaken (as Thou, O searcher
of hearts, dost know) for Thine honour and the good of Thy
holy Church ; and to succour and help mine infirmity in this
most weighty work, for Thine infinite mercy and most ready
favour towards them that love Thee. Amen !

10. The Nicene Creed, as it is quoted by Eusebius 2 in his
epistle to his own diocese of Cassarea, by Athanasius in his
letter to Jovian a De Fide, and by other writers, is as follows :

IIi(7Tvo^v els eva Seov TIaTepa, TravTO/cpaTopa, TrdvTcov
opaTwv re teal aopdrcov TroiijTrjV KOI els TOV eva Kvptov
Irjaovv XpiaTov, TOV vlov TOV Seov, yevvrjdevTa e/c TOV Ha-
Tpos /aovoyevrj, TOVTeaTiv etc TTJS ova-las TOV Harpos* Seov IK
0eoO, <pcos e/c cfrcoTos, Seov d\,r)0ivov e/c Seov d\rj0Lvov, yevvrj-
OevTa ov TroirjOevra, ofjuoovaLov TU> Ilarpl, Si ov rd irdvra
eylvero, rd re ev Tft> ovpav<p, /cal rd eVt r^s 1 7^* TOV 81 r^as
TOVS dvOpcoTrous K.a\ Sid TTjv fjfJieTepav acoT^jplav KaTe\9ovTa,
/cal aapicwOevTa, evavOpwTn^davTa, rraOovTa, /cal dvaaTavTa
Ty TpiTy rjfjiepq, /cal dve\06vTa els TOVS ovpavovs, ep^bfjuevov
/cplvai ^wvTas /cal veKpovs /cal els TO Hvevp,a TO" A^iov. Tovs
Be \eyovTas, *Hv Trore, ore OVK r]V, /cal Trplv yevvrjO fjvaiy ovtc
rjv, /cal OTL e ovtc OVTWV eyeveTO, r) e erepas vTroo-Taaecos rj
ova tas (frda/covTas elvai, r) KTIO-TOV, rj TpeTTTOv, rj d\\ot,a>Tov [15]
TOV vlov TOV Seov, TOVTOVS dvaOefJLaTi^ei, rj Ka6o\iKrj /cal CLTCO-
CTTO\IKTI eK/c^Tjaia i.e., "We believe in one God the Father,
Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the
Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Fa
ther; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and
which are on earth ; who, for us men and for our salvation,
came down, and was incarnate, and was made Man, and
suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into

z Socrates Eccles. Hist. i. 8. pp. [21, 22.]

a [ 3. vol. i. p. 781. Bp. Bull follows Athanasius. B.]

14 Bp. Bull s Propositions.

INTROD. the heavens, who cometh to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost. But as for those who say, There
6 was a time when He was not ; and, Before He was begotten
He was not, and, He was made out of what existed not;
or who assert that the Son of God is of another hypostasis
or essence, or that He was created, or is capable of change
or alteration, them the Catholic and Apostolic Church doth
anathematize."

11. The doctrine respecting the Son of God, contained in
this Creed, so far as it concerns our present design, may be
reduced to these heads.

THE FIRST ; concerning the TrpovTrapgis, or Pre-existence,
of the Son of God, before [His Incarnation of] the blessed
Virgin Mary, nay, rather, before the foundation of the
world ; and concerning the creation of the universe through
the Son.

THE SECOND ; concerning the o^oovaiov (" of one sub
stance") or Consubstantiality, of the Son ; that He is not
of any such essence as is created or subject to change ;
but of a nature altogether the same with His Father, that
is, that He is very God.

THE THIRD ; concerning the awatSiov, the Co-eternity of
the Son ; that is, His existence co-eternal with His Father.

THE FOURTH ; concerning the subordination of the Son to

i suiaucto . the Father, as to Him who is His author and principle 1 , which

rem ac j s expressed by the Nicene fathers in two ways, in that, first,

pium!" they call the Father " One God ;" and then, in that they say

[16] that the Son is " God of God, Light of Light," &c.

On all these points we shall make it manifest, that the
faith of the ante-Nicene fathers is quite in harmony with the
Nicene Creed ; going through each particular in the order in
which we have just proposed them.

BOOK I. 7

[17]

ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD; BEFORE [HIS INCARNA
TION OF] THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, NAY RATHER, BEFORE THE
FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD; AND ON THE CREATION OF THE UNI
VERSE THROUGH HIM.

CHAPTER I.

THE PROPOSITION STATED ; AND THE FORMER PART OP IT, NAMELY, THE PRE-
EXISTENCE OF THE SON BEFORE [HIS INCARNATION] OF THE BLESSED
VIRGIN MARY, DEMONSTRATED.

1. WHAT the opinion of the Catholic fathers, who preceded BOOK i
the council of Nice, was concerning the Pre- existence of the CH A j ]
Sou of God, we will unfold in the following

PROPOSITION.

The Catholic Doctors of the first three centuries all with
one accord taught that Jesus Christ, that is, He who was
afterwards called Jesus Christ, (before He was made man,
that is, before His birth, according to the flesh, of the most
blessed Virgin,) existed in another nature far surpassing
the human; that He appeared to holy men, as a prelude
to His Incarnation ; that He always presided over and pro
vided for that Church, which He was afterwards to redeem
with His own blood; and that thus from the beginning
the "whole order of the divine administration 1 " (as Tertullian l disposi-
expresses it a ) " had its course through Him ;" and that more- tl(
over, before the foundations of the world were laid He was
present with God His Father, and that through Him this
universe was created.

a [A primordio omnem ordinem divinse dispositionis per ipsum decucurrissc.
Adv. Prax., c. 16. p. 510.]

16 Appearances of the Son under the Old Testament.

ON THE Though this was never denied by the Arians, it may still
perhaps be worth while to demonstrate it briefly against other
opposers of the catholic doctrine concerning our Saviour.
In this proposition we assert two things (in a kind of cli
max 1 ) concerning the primitive fathers, namely, that they be
lieved and taught, I. That Jesus Christ, before He became
man, existed, appeared to holy men, &c. : II. That He was
present with God the Father before the foundations of the
world were laid, and that through Him this universe was
created.

2. As to the former part of the proposition, the fathers of
the first centuries agree in teaching, that the Son of God
frequently appeared to holy men under the Old Testament ;
and further they expound of the same Son of God Himself all
those appearances, in which the name of Jehovah and divine
honours are attributed to Him who appears, although at other
times perhaps He is called an angel. One who is ignorant
of this, is a stranger to the writings of the fathers. For the
sake, however, of students in divinity, who perhaps have not
yet advanced to the reading of the fathers, (with which certainly,
next after the holy Scriptures, they ought to have commenced
their theological studies,) I wish to produce here some testi
monies out of the writings of those ancient authors.

3. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, shews at
length that it was Christ who appeared to Abraham at the
oak in Mamre b ; that He was that Lord, who received from
the Lord in Heaven, e/c JJarpos rwv o\u>v, that is, from the
Father of all, to send down upon Sodom a shower of fire and
brimstone ; who appeared in dreams to Jacob, wrestled with
him in the form of a man, comforted him in his exile ; who,
lastly, appeared to Moses in the burning bush d .

4. Irengeus held the same opinion as Justin concerning
Him who appeared to Moses and Abraham: for he thus
writes 6 ; " He, therefore, who was worshipped by the prophets
as the living God, is the God of the living, and His Word 2 ,

b Page 275. [56. p. 150.] Verbum (A<fyos) ejus, qui et locutus

c Page 277. [p. 152.] est Moysi, qui et Sadducseos redarguit,

d p aee 280 282 [58. 59. pp. 155, qui et resurrectionem donavit. Adv.

] 56 .] Hseres. iv. 11. ed, Paris. 1639. [c. 5.

e Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur p. 232.]

Deus vivus, hie est vivorum Deus, et

According to Justin, Irencem, Theophilus, Clem. Alex. 1 7

who also spake unto Moses, and confuted the Sadducees,
and also bestowed [the gift of] resurrection." And in the
twelfth chapter of the same book, he says of Abraham ; " In
Abraham man had before learnt and had been accustomed
to follow the Word of God. For Abraham according to his
faith, following the command of the Word of God, with a
ready mind yielded up his only-begotten and beloved son as
a sacrifice to God e ." And a little farther on he writes, " The
Lord therefore, whose day he desired to see, was not unknown
to Abraham ; nor again was the Father of the Lord [unknown
to him], for he had learned from the Word of the Lord and
believed in Him," &c. &c.

5, Theophilus of Antioch (writing to Autolycus, book ii. f )
asserts, that it was the Son of God who appeared to Adam
shortly after the fall, and that " assuming the person of the
Father and Lord of all, He came into paradise in the person
of God and conversed with Adam." I confess that in this
passage Theophilus seems to speak less honourably than he
ought of the Son of God ; but this I shall notice elsewhere g .

6. Clement of Alexandria teaches almost the same as Justin,
(Pcedag. i. c. 7) h ; where he asserts, that the Instructor 1 (by paedago-
whom he every where means Christ) appeared to Abraham, gun
was seen by Jacob, with whom also He wrestled, and lastly
shewed Himself to Moses. He also in another place teaches, [20]
that Christ gave to the world the written law of Moses as

well as the law of nature, (Strom, vii.) 1 ; "Wherefore the
Lord" (here also he means Christ, as is evident from what
goes before) "gave His precepts, both the former and the
latter, drawing them from one fountain, neither through neg-

e In Abrahamo praedidicerat et as- yivero els rbv irapdo ei(rov eV ^poo-dairy

suetus fuerat homo sequi Verbum Dei. rov &eov, Kal w/x^Aet rf ASc^t. Ad

Etenim Abraham secundum fidem calc. Justin. Martyr., ed. Paris. 1C15.

suam secutus prsecoptum Verbi Dei p. 100.

prono animo unigcnitum et dilectum B [Book iii. ch. 7. sect. 1 sqq.]

filium suum concessit sacrificium Deo. h Edit. Paris. 1641. p 110.

. . . Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus j Sib Kal ras eVroAas as eSwicev, rds

Abrahse,cujus diem concupivit videre : re irporepas rds re Sevrepas e/c /j.ias

sed neque Pater Domini : didicerat apvrro/nei os ^77777$ 6 Kvpios, ovre rovs

eirim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei, irpb v6/j.ov av6/j.ovs elvai inrepiShv, otfr

& c - IWd. [A few of these words are avrovs [av rovs Sylburg.] ^ eVa toi/ras

extant in the Greek, TrpaQv^s rbv tdiov ra fiapfidpov fyiXovotyias a^vidffai ffvy-

fAovoyevri Kal ayaTTTjrbv Trapa^wpT^cras Qv~ vcopT^cras. ro7s fj.fv yap evroXas, ro^s Se

f a.va\a[j.$dvui> rb Trpda-otTrois rov ITa- airurriav els r^v irapovaiav K. r. A.
rpbs Kal Kvpiov r>v o\<av [ovros] irape- [cap. ii. p. 834.]
BULL. c

1 ordinem
suum prse
struens.

[21]

2 or " prac
tising."

3 fidem
sterneret.

18 Tertullian and the rest on the Appearances of the Word ;

ligence allowing those who lived before the law to be without
law, nor yet permitting those who heard not the teaching of
barbarian philosophy to be without restraint, for having given
precepts to the one, philosophy to the other, He shut up their
unbelief unto His coming."

7. In like manner Tertullian writes, (Against the Jews^,
chap. 9;) " He who used to speak to Moses, was the Son of
God Himself, and it was He that at all times appeared V
But he speaks most openly and fully on this point in his
treatise against Praxeas, chap. 16 1 ; "It is," he says, "the
Son who hath executed judgment from the beginning, throw
ing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punish
ing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon
Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, the Lord from
the Lord/ For He Himself it was, who also at all times
came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to
the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in
mirror, in dark saying ; ever from the beginning laying the
foundation of the course [of His dispensations 1 ], which He
" meant to follow out unto the end. Thus was He ever learn
ing 2 , and the God who conversed with men upon earth
" could be no other than the Word, which was to be made
flesh. But He was learning, in order to level for us
the way of faith 3 , that we might the more readily believe
that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we
knew that in times past also something similar had been
done/

8. Let it suffice, as I am anxious to be brief, simply to refer
to the remaining testimonies. See Origen against Celsus, iii. m

J Qui ad Mosen loquebatur, ipse erat
Dei Filius, qui et semper videbatur.
Cont. Jud., p. 194.

k See also his book de Game Christi,
c. 6. [p. 311 ;] and his Treatise against
Marcion. ii. 27. [p. 395;] and iii. 6. [p.
400 ;] and his Treatise against Prax. c.
14. [p. 507.]

1 Films est qui ab initio judicavit,
turrim superbissimam elidens, linguas-
que dispeitiens, orbem totum aquarum
violentia puniens, pluens super Sodo-
mam et Gomorram ignem et sulphu-
rem, Dominus a Domino. Ipse enim
et ad humana semper colloquia descen-

dit, ab Adam usque ad patriarchas et
prophetas in visione, in somnio,in spe-
culo, in aenigmate, ordinem suum prae-
struens ab initio semper, quern erat
persecuturus in finem. Ita semper
ediscebat, et Deus in terris cum homi-
nibus conversari non alius potuit, quam
Sermo, qui caro erat futurus. Edisce
bat autem, ut nobis fidem sterneret, ut
facilius crederemus Filium Dei de-
scendisse in seculum, si et retro tale
quid gestum cognosceremus. Adv.
Prax., p. 509.

m Ed. Cant. 1658. [ 1*. P- 456.]

belief in His Pre -existence implied in this view. 19

p. 119, and vi. p. 329 n ; Novatian on the Trinity, cc. 25 BOOK i.
27; Cyprian, Tract 3. De Simplicitate Prcelatorumv. The ^Jjg 1
Catholic Doctors of the Church after the council of Nice agree ~~
on this point with the ante-Nicene Fathers. See Athanasius,
(Orat. iv. against the Arians;) Hilary, (books iv. and xii. on
the Trinity ;) Philastrius, (Heresy 84 ;) Chrysostom, (Homily
to the people of Antioch, chap. 8, and on the seventh chapter of
the Epistle to the Hebrews ;) Ambrose, (book i. On those who
are Initiated, chap. 3 ;) Augustine, (Epistles 99, 11 1,1 12;) Leo,
(Epistle 17;) Theodoret, (Question 68. on Genesis, &c.)

9. I am aware that there are some who ridicule these
views, as the mere dreams and dotings of the good fathers,
and who are too self-satisfied, laying it down as certain,
that the Angel who appeared of old to the patriarchs and
holy men and was worshipped by them, was only a created
angel, fulfilling the office of an ambassador in behalf of 11 pro.
the most high God, and bearing His name and character 2 , 2 person am
To such I answer; 1. Supposing that the fathers were l^ nm
in error on that point, still this remains fixed and certain,
that they themselves believed that our Saviour Jesus really 9
existed before His birth, according to the flesh, of the
most blessed Virgin; which is enough for our purpose.
But it will be said, it is very likely that they, who erred in i~221
their premises, were also deceived in their conclusion. I grant
itj if they had built their conclusion only upon these pre
mises, which are supposed to be false. But in this in
stance the case is quite different. For the fathers, although
they sometimes establish the pre-existence of the Son of God
by this argument, do yet throughout their writings 3 intimate 3 pas sim.
that they were led to this view from other very plain testi
monies of Scripture, as well as from the tradition of the Apo
stles ; this we shall hereafter shew clearly in its own time and
place. But, 2ndly, I have, and always shall have, a religious
scruple in interpreting the Holy Scriptures against the stream
of all the fathers and ancient doctors, except when the most
evident proofs compel me to do so ; this, however, I do not
believe will ever happen. For certainly the consentient judg
ment of antiquity, especially of primitive antiquity, ought

11 [ 78. p. 691.] P [This treatise is not believed to be

[Page 723, &c.] Cyprian s. B.]

c 2

20 The statement that an Angel appeared consistent

ON THE to outweigh the force of many probabilities and reasonings
PRE-EX- f rom ijfceiihoocL But it will be said, there are in this instance

ISTLNCE

OF THE the most evident reasons for thinking otherwise. Well then,

SON. -

let us see.

10. The first objection they urge is, that in Exodus iii. 4
we read, that God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush ;
and, in Exod. xix. 20, and xx. 1, that God gave him the
law ; whilst yet it is clear from other passages of Scripture,
that it was a created angel, who in each case appeared and
spoke to Moses. For by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, ii. 2, the law is called " the word spoken by an
gels," with which compare Gal. iii. 19. Stephen also, Acts
vii., clearly says that an angel appeared to Moses in the
bush, ver. 30, and that the law was ministered by the dispen
sation of angels, ver. 53. They add, that in that well-known
appearance to Abraham in Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, 2, although
one of the three is distinguished by the name of Jehovah, yet
it is certain that all the three were angels ; since the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly says/ that they were
angels whom Abraham and Lot hospitably entertained, xiii. 2.

11. My answer is; when the fathers agree in asserting,
[23] that the angel who appeared to Abraham and Moses, and to

whom the name of Jehovah and divine honours are attributed,
was the Son of God, their statement admits of two senses ;
namely, either that it was God, (that is, the Son of God,) de
signated by the name of an angel, inasmuch as He assumed

speciem. a body or visible appearance such as angels are accustomed
to use ; or that the Son of God was in the angel ; that is, that
it was an angel who assumed the bodily shape, and that the
Son of God was in the angel ; I mean, by a special mode of ac-

per assis- companiment 2 and presence. On the former hypothesis, the
objection alleged is met by saying that the Son of God is called
an angel also, that is to say, " the Angel of the covenant / and
that in these appearances He is called an angel, because He
imitated the manner and way in which angels used to appear
to men ; moreover, that it is not true that it was a created
angel who spoke to Moses in the bush and on mount Sinai ;
nor is this proved from its being said both by Stephen and
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the law of
Moses was " given by angels/ in the plural number ; because

with the appearance of the Word, in two ways. 21

nothing hinders but that God might have been Himself BOOK i.
present on Sinai, although, to set forth His majesty, He * g^J"
was attended by a multitude of angels : nay, from Deut.
xxxiii. 2, and Ps. Ixviii. 17, it most certainly appears that
God Himself was present by a special presence on mount
Sinai amongst those myriads of angels. And in the case
of the appearance of the three, who turned aside to [visit]
Abraham, [we should say] that two of them indeed were
created angels, and that this is quite enough to preserve
the truth of the Apostle s words in Heb. xiii. 2 ; but that
the third was the Son of God, since even Abraham recog
nised in Him the marks of the Divine Majesty, and therefore
interceded with Him as with the supreme Judge, that, if it
were possible, He might delay the destruction of the five
cities [of the plain]. And very much in this way does
the celebrated Andrew Rivet (among others) answer the ob- [24]
jection in his Commentary on Hosea xii. 4 6. The second
hypothesis, however, is adopted by many ancient writers,
both Jewish and Christian. Trypho the Jew, in Justin q ,
contends, that in the appearance to Moses in the burning
bush, two were present together, God and an angel ; that it
was the angel which appeared in the flame of fire, whilst it
was God, (that is to say, in the angel,) who spoke with
Moses. Justin answers him, that this may be allowed with
out affecting the truth of his hypothesis that it was the
Son of God, I mean, who spoke to Moses ; although he
afterwards tries to shew that the Son of God alone appeared
to Moses. And indeed the view of Trypho seems to have
been received and approved amongst the more ancient Jews.
For even Stephen himself clearly teaches that it was an angel
which appeared to Moses in the bush, Acts vii. 30, but that
it was God Himself who spoke these words to Moses, " I am
the God of thy fathers," &c., Acts vii. 31, 32. Compare
Exod. iii. 2, with verses 4 6. Clement of Alexandria, the
same who affirms that He who was over the children of
Israel in the wilderness, was the Instructor *, that is, the Son i Paedago-
of God, expressly teaches, and that in the very same passage 1 ", gum -

Dialog, cum Tryphon., pp. 282, 283. cr-Hjo-as rov \6yov 8iWju/, . . . -rb
[c. 60. p. 156, &c.] a/a>,ua rb KvpiaKbv fyvXar-rcav. Pseda-

r rr)v tvayye \iois nal r^ffj^viov firi- gog. i. 7. pp. 110, 111, [p. 133.]

)N -

22 The joint Presence of the Word and of the Angel.

that He who conducted Moses was an angel, " setting over
him the evangelizing 1 and guiding power of the Word," and
OF THE reserving the dignity of the Lord." And a little after-
wards h e adds, that, under the Old Testament, " the Word
was an angel 8 ," that is, appeared to men by means of
angels. In which sense also he, by and by, calls the Son
10 " the mystic Angel*," as concealing, as it were, at that period,
His divine majesty under the guise of an angel. The same
view was entertained by many of the fathers who wrote
[25] after the council of Nice. Thus Athanasius (Orat. iv. against
the Arians u ), speaking concerning the angel which appeared
to Moses in the bush, says, " He who appeared was an angel,
but it was God who spoke in him." Jerome (on chap. iii.
of the Epistle to the Galatians) says x , " But in that he asserts
that the law was ordained by angels, this is what he would
have understood, that, whenever throughout the Old Testa
ment an angel is first said to appear, and afterwards God, as
it were, is introduced speaking, it is really an angel, one of
many ministering spirits, whoever he is, who appears, but it
is the Mediator who speaks in him, who says, I am the God
of Abraham/ " &c. Augustine (against Maximinus, book iii.
near the end?) says, " Who was it, I ask, that appeared to
Moses in the flame, when the bush is burning, but was not
consumed? Although Holy Scripture itself declares, that
in this case also it was an angel which appeared, in the
words, But there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord
in a flame of fire out of the bush/ yet who doubts that
God was in the angel?" Gregory (Preface to Job, ii. z ) says,

8 \6yos &-yjf\os fy. [Id. ihid : ] batur et non urebatur ? quanquam et

t uvvriKbs &yye\os. [Id. ibid.] illic angelum apparuisse Scriptura ip-

u 6 iixv Qairifievos i\v &yyc\os t> 5e sa declarat, dicens, Apparuit autem illi

ebs eV avT$ e AaAei. Tom. i. p. 467. angelus Domini in flamma ignis de rubo ;

[Orat. iii. 14. p. 563.] in angelo autem Deum fuisse quis du-

* Q U od autem ait, lex ordinata per bitat? [Lib. ii. 11. vol. vm. p. 742.]
an*elos, hoc vult intelligi, quod in om- z Angelus, qui Mosi apparuisse de-

ni Veteri Testamento, ubi angelus pri- scribitur, modo angelus, modo Do-

mum visus refertur, et postea quasi minus memoratur; angelus videlicet

Deus loquens inducitur, angelus qui- propter hoc, quod exterius loquendo

dem vere ex ministris pluribus, quicun- serviebat ; Dominus autem dicitur, quia

que sit, visus ; sed in illo Mediator lo- interius prsesidens loquendi efficaciam

quatur qui dicat, Ego sum Deus Abra- ministrabat. Cum ergo loquens ab in

to, &c. Ed. Par. 1627. [torn. vii. p. teriori regitur, et per obsequium an-

4,41 1 gelus, et per inspirationem Dominus

r Qusero, inquit, quis apparuerit nominatur. [Grjg. M. vol. i. p. 8.]
Mosi in igne, quando rubus inflamma-

A mere angel would not receive Divine Honour. 23

" The angel which is described as appearing to Moses, is
sometimes mentioned as an angel, at other times as the Lord ;
as an angel, that is, as it seems, by reason of his doing service
by outward speech ; but yet he is called the Lord, because it
was He who, presiding within, supplied the power * of speech ; efficacia.
as then he who speaks is guided by Him who is within, he hath
both the name angel by reason of his service, and the name
Lord by reason of His inspiration." With these agree Ful-
gentius (against Maximus) and other writers ; and this opinion
of the ancients seems to me to receive complete confirmation
from that passage in Exodus xxiii. 20, where God, that is, the
Son of God, according to the opinion of all primitive anti
quity, speaking to Moses, promises that He will send His [26]
angel before His people, through the wilderness, and that " His
Name shall be 11TO, in the midst of him V It was, there- 2 m medio
fore, in very truth an angel who went before the people of ejus
Israel to the promised land ; but yet an angel in whom the
Son of God placed His name, that is, His own divine virtue
and power; in whom, that is to say, He was Himself pre
sent in some peculiar manner. However, from the words of
Trypho in Justin, which we have just now quoted, it is clear
that that notion never entered into the minds of the
ancient Jews, which in our age has been entertained by
certain learned men among Christians ; namely, that He
who appeared and spoke to Moses in the bush and on
mount Sinai was a mere angel, who called himself the God
of Abraham, and willingly permitted divine worship to be
paid to him under the name of God. Surely such an opinion
is too absurd, and is simply horrible. For it is impious to
suppose that angels ever practised the art of actors, and
that God ever communicated to them His incommunicable
Name, or such a representation as that by it a creature
should take to himself 3 all that belongs to God. Rightly 3 sibi at-
also does the learned Cameron remark a ; "It is true advo- tr
cates do often personate their clients ; but it has never been
even heard of that any ambassador, in setting forth the
mandates of his prince, spoke in any other than the third
person, My sovereign says this/ Of which usage we have
a remarkable testimony in the prophets, with whom, as it is

a In Annot. ad Heb. ii. 2.

Principle on which this interpretation is based.

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE

OF THE

SON.

.[27]

singula-

ingessit

[al. "ful-

[28]

well known, the customary formula of expression is, Thus
saith the Lord/ Nay, even in visions angels acknowledge
that they are sent V Hence Grotius himself allows in one
place , that he, who promulgated the ancient law on Sinai,
was indeed a special 1 angel, accompanied by a retinue of
others ; not however a mere angel, but one with whom the
Word was present.

12. Let it be granted then, you will say, that it was God
who by an angel, or under the figure of an angel, appeared
and spake to holy men in the Old Testament ; yet by what
reasoning, we ask, were the (ancient) doctors led to believe
that this was the Son of God? I answer, by the best of
reasoning, if I am not mistaken, which they had learnt from
apostolical tradition. I mean this ; God the Father, as He
at first framed and created the world through His Son, so
through the same Son did He afterwards manifest Himself to
the world. Therefore the Son of God, although in the last
times, through the dispensation of His incarnation, He has
at length held familiar intercourse with mankind, still al
ways, even from the very earliest period of its existence, pre
sided over the Church ; and even under the Old Testament,
though by a hidden and secret dispensation, shewed Himself 2
to holy men. Clement of Alexandria (Padagog. i. ll d ) says;
"Of old time, then, the Word performed the office of instructor 3
through Moses, and afterwards also through the prophets."
Origen (against Celsus, lib. vi. e ) writes thus ; "It was not as if
God had awaked out of a long sleep, and sent Jesus to the
human race; for although He (for good reasons) assigned unto 4
this time the dispensation of the Incarnation, yet had He
always been a benefactor to mankind ; for nothing of what is
good among men was ever done, except by the Word of God
visiting the souls of those who, even for a little while, were
capable of receiving such influences of the Divine Word."

b Vide Athanas. Orat. iv. cent. Ari-
an., p. 466. [Orat. iii. 12. vol. i. p. 561.]
c Ad Gal. iii. 19.

ovv 8ia Mwtfecos 6 \6yos

Pag. 132. [p. 155.]

e oix ^o" 71 " 6 ? air b /J-aKpov virvov Sia-
vacrTas 6 ebs eire^e rbv lyvovv T$
7/ei T&V avdpwTrwi , TTJU /j.ev Kara rfyv
vojj.iav vvv Si fv\6yovs

alrias

ed. Ben.], del Se rb yzvos TWV avdpw-
TTCOJ/ evepyeTya ai Ta ovSev yap TGOV kv
avdpcoTTois Ka\&v yeyevriTai, fj.^) TOV
Oeiov \6yov eVtSTj/^a cwTOS TCUS if/u-
X a ^ s T&V Kav b\(yov Kaipbv SeSi/j/T/^ie-
vuv 5ea(r0cu ras TotcxtrSe TOV Oeiov \6-
yov eVe^eias. Pag. 329. [ 78. p. 691. ]
Vide et lib. iii. p. fl9. [ 14. p. 456.] et
lib. iv. p. 165. [ 6. p. 506.]

Apparent opposition to Heb. i. 2 explained. 25

Tertullian, however, expresses himself most plainly and fully BOOK i.
(against Praxeas, c. 15. [p. 509 f ]); "It was the Son who was ^YZ.Vi.
always seen, and the Son who has always worked by the rr~
authority and will of the Father, for l the Son can do nothing

of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do/ &c Thus, all

things were made by the Son, and without Him was not any
thing made/ And think not that only the works which per
tain to the [creation of the] world were made through the
Son, but also whatever since that time has been done by
God/ Afterwards, c. 16 g , follow the words which we have
quoted above; "The God, who conversed with men upon
earth, could have been no other than the Word, which was
to be made flesh."

13. There remains a second objection, which is held up by
certain very learned men as unanswerable 1 , and it shall beMnvictam.
discussed by me in but few words. They urge then, that this
opinion of the fathers is diametrically opposed to most ex
press words of Holy Scripture. For, say they, the inspired
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 1, 2, plainly says that

" God, who in divers manners spake in times past unto the
fathers and prophets, hath at length in the last days spoken
[unto men] through His Son :" but it is evident that by the
last days is meant the age of the Gospel ; therefore before
that time the Son of God had never spoken, or God through
His Son ; otherwise, the author would not have been correct
in opposing the last days of the Gospel to the early period
of the ancient law, if the Son of God, or God through the
Son, has appeared and spoken in both.

14. Ludovicus de Tena proposes this objection, and an
swers it in words to the following effect 11 ; "Paul only [29]
makes a difference between this last appearance of the

f Filius visus est semper, [Filius qui caro erat futurus. [Ibid. c. 16.]
conversatus est semper] et Filius ope- h Respondeo Paulum solum ponere

ratus est semper, ex auctoritate Patris discrimen inter hanc ultimam appari-

et voluntate, quia Filius nihil a semet- tionem Filii Dei, et priores V. T. quia

ipsp potest facere, nisi viderit Patrem istse fiebant in creatura corporali, non

facientem, &c. ... Sic omnia per Fili- hypostatice unita Filio Dei ; etitame-

um facta sunt, et sine illo factum est dio supposito create corporeo, imo et

nihil. Nee putes sola opera mundi per angelico, loquebatur Filius Dei. At

Filium facta, sed et quoe a Deo exinde vero in ilia apparitione Verbi incarnati,

gesta sunt. Tert. adv. Pi axeam, c. 15. de qua asserit, novissime locutus est no-

P- 509. Us in Filio, non mediat aliquod suppo-

s Deus in terris cumhominibus con- situm creatum, neque corporeum, ne-

versari non alias potuit, quatn Sermo, que angcliciun ; sed Verbum divinum

26 The Word Incarnate spoke without any intervening Person.

ON THE Son of God, and the earlier ones of the Old Testament,
PRE-EX- ^ n j/kat tn 0se were made in a created body, not united
OF THE hypostatically to the Son of God ; and so the Son of God
- S poke through the medium of a subject l , created, corpo-
1 supposito. real ^ nay ratner angelic. But in that appearance of the
incarnate Word, of which he asserts, < He hath in these
last days spoken unto us by His Son/ no created subject
intervenes, either corporeal or angelic, but the Divine Word
immediately, without the intervention of any subject, spoke
unto men. Nor is it any difficulty that this had been done
through the medium of His human nature, because that na
ture was without any subject of its own, and was immediately
united to the Word as its subject. Now this is the legitimate
sense of the words, and thus the contrast spoken of, when
rightly explained, holds good, and the superiority of the gos
pel over the ancient law." This answer of the very learned
writer, though barbarous so far as the expressions are con
cerned, (after the fashion of the schools,) is nevertheless
sound and solid in sense, and, as is evident from the testi
monies adduced a little above, in agreement with the mind
of the ancient fathers. To this may be added the following :
Justin Martyr in the Apology for the Christians, which in
the common editions is called the first, though in reality it
is the second, speaks thus of the Word or Son of God 1 ;
" For He was and is the Word, who is in every thing ; who
foretold what should come to pass, both through the pro
phets, and through Himself, when He had become of like
passions with us, and had taught us these things." In this
passage Justin teaches, that the Word or Son of God under
the Old Testament manifested Himself to the prophets in a
certain manner, and through them to others; but that in
the last days, having taken our nature unto Himself, He
2 P erseip- by Himself 2 delivered unto us His heavenly doctrine; and
sum> that herein especially consists the excellence of the gospel
over the old law. To this agrees Clement of Alexandria,

immediate immediatione suppositi lo- gelii supra legem veterem. In cap. i_.

quebatur hominibus. Neque obstat, Epist. ad Heb. difficult. 2. 2. [p. 32. J

quod hoc fuerat media humana natura, * \6yos yap i\v KO.L e(TTiv 6 eV Travrl

quia bsec caruit proprio supposito, et &v, Kal Sia TWV TrpotyyTcoi TrpoeiTrais ra

immediate fuit unita supposito Verbi. /xeAAoi/ra yiv^Qai, KOI St^ iavrov 6fj.mo-

Et bic est legitimus sensus homm ver- iraOovs yevo/j.evov Kal 8iSaai/TOS TCWI

borum, et sic manet recte explicata Pag. 48, 49. [Apol. ii. 10. p. 95.]
dicta contrapositio, et excellentia evan-

Scripture evidence for the truth of this view. 27

(Paedag. i. 7 k ;) "For the Lord was, indeed, the Instructor 1 BOOK
of His ancient people by means of Moses, but by Himself
is He the guide of His new people, face to face." And a
little after ; " Previously indeed for the elder people there
was an elder covenant, and the law schooled the people with
fear, and the Word was an angel ; but now unto His new
arid younger people a new and younger covenant has been
given, and the Word has come to be [unto us], and fear
has been turned into love, and that mystic Angel is born,
even Jesus/ And no other was the meaning of Tertullian,
when, in the passage which we have quoted a little above 1 ,
he teaches, " That the Son of God came down to converse
with men, from Adam to the patriarchs, in vision, in dream,
in mirror, in dark saying," &c.

15. Thus no solid objection can be brought out of Holy Scrip
ture against this opinion of the ancient fathers. Let us now
enquire, whether the Holy Scriptures do not plainly enough
favour this view. Concerning the angel who led the people of
Israel in the wilderness, (of whom it is written, " Beware of Exod.
His face, and obey His voice, provoke Him not, for He will & x c * m 2
not spare thee, nor pardon thy transgressions ; for My name
is in Him,") St. Paul expressly teaches, that He was the Son
of God, who afterwards was called Christ. " Neither let us 1 Cor. x. 9.
tempt Christ," he says, "as some of them also tempted, and [31]
were destroyed of the serpents m ." At least these words shew
that Christ was present with the children of Israel in the
wilderness, and was tempted by them. The heretic Socinus,
indeed, here objects, that it is written by St. Paul, " Let us
not tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted," but that it 1 2
is not written, "as some of them tempted Christ;" and
therefore that the sentence may be very suitably filled up with
another word, for instance " God ;" but this is clearly futile.
For very many instances of this elliptical mode of expression are
to be found in the Scriptures; thus St. John viii. 56, " Abra-

Kal yap -ffv us a\r)d>s Sift /J.GV M&>- \6yos yeyevrjTai, Kal 6 <p60os els ayd-

TraiSayaybs o Kvpios rov Aaov rov irt]v /jLtrartrpairrat, Kal 6 /j.vcrriKbs e/ce?-

iraAaiou" Si avrov Se, rov veov KadTjyz- vos ayy*\os Ir/croCs riKrerai. ?<*&

ILUV AaoG, trp6(rcaTrov -npbs Trp6a<atrov. 110, 111. [p. 132.]
. . . rb lUey ovv Tryx^re/joz/ rcS irpeafivTepCf) l [ 7.]

Aa< 7rp(j/3uTepa 5ia6-nKrj -ffv, Kal VO/AOS m /xrjSe eKireipafafjizv rbv Xpurrbv,

firaiSayuyei rltv \abv /uera (p6f3ov, Kal Kadws Kai rives avTwv *irtipa<rav, Kal virb

\6yos ayyeAos i\v Kaivcp Se Kal vecp \ay rwv ofyewv uTr&Xovro. 1 Cor. x. 9.
Kaivri Kal vta 5ia07}/c7/ SeSftyrjrai, Kal 6

28 It was Christ whom the Israelites tempted.

THE ham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw ;" there is norepetU
tion of "and he saw My day," but that is understood. But
OF THE we have a most apposite instance of this kind of expression
in Deut. vi. 16 ; " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,

ON

PRE-EX-
ISTENCE

[Massah.] as thou temptedst in the place of temptation;" where it is
obvious that the latter clause refers to Him, whose name
was just before mentioned, " the Lord thy God," without
any repetition of it. Besides, we might ask the heretic in turn,
why it was not added, " as some of them tempted God n ?"
Surely, if that be the sense of this verse, which the heretic
fixes on it, no reason can be given for the ellipsis ; but, if
the meaning of the passage be that which we give it, as it
certainly is, the reason for the ellipsis may most easily be
given. For it would have been a much more unusual form
of expression if the name of Christ had been repeated.
Lastly, the particle KOI, " also," in this place is of great force ;
as shewing that the words of the Apostle must necessarily
be so taken, as if he meant, " that Christ was tempted
in the wilderness by the Israelites." For to what purpose
would it have been for him to have said, " as also," when in
the former clause there was no mention made of God, but
[32] only of Christ? Accordingly Grotius , perceiving with his
usual acuteness that this quibble of the Socinians is clearly
absurd, himself cast about for some other way of escaping
[the force of the words.] " The clause," he says, " must ne-

1 omnino. cessarily 1 be read yLt^Se K7rei,paa)fjLv rbv Qeov, neither let

us tempt God/" Is it really so ? must it be so read " neces
sarily?" Let us have a reason. "Because," he says, "that
most ancient MS." (the Alexandrine p ) "so reads the pas
sage." But surely those most ancient MSS., which were

2 vetus La- use d by the Syriac, Arabic, and the old Latin 2 translators,

and by Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, all have
Xpio-rbv, (Christ,) not @ebv, (God :) and this reading too

n Vide Cameron in loco. Codex Germanensis, both Greek-Latin

In loco. MSS., and that Vulgate which seems

P And the Ethiopia version of the to have been earlier than the time of

New Test. (Mill in loco.) Certainly as Marcion ; I am quite of opinion that

there agree with the printed text, not the Apostle himself wrote Xpurrbv,

only Irenseus, Theodotus in CTTITO- which was altered into ebv by some

fiats, and very many Greek and Latin daring critic, who could not see the

writers, but also all the manuscript truth of the common reading, that the

copies without exception, and particu- Israelites tempted Christ in the wil-

larly the Codex Claromontanus and the derness. Id. ib. BOWYKK.

Critical objections answered. 29

is followed by all those other copies which are presented
to us in the Polyglott Bibles, except that the Lincoln has
Kvpiov, which also is in the New Testament a name of ~
Christ q . And the Codex Alexandrinus is not of so great au
thority as that it should be set against so general an agree
ment. This very distinguished man, however, adduces an
other reason; "Christ/ he says, "is the name of a man,
who, it is certain, did not exist at that time." The answer
is most easy. Christ is here put for the Son of God, who
afterwards in the fulness of time, when He had taken unto
Him human nature, was called Christ ; so that there is here
a synecdoche, as it were, of the whole, as in other passages of
Scripture r . By the same sophism, Grotius also eludes the [33]
force of a most express testimony to the divinity of the Son
of God, that in Col. i. 16. [" By Him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him."]
"It is certain," he says, "that all things were created by the
Word ; but the preceding context shews that the Apostle is
speaking of Christ, which is the name of a man. So that it
would be more correct to render the word d/cTio-Orj, ordinata
sunt were placed in a new condition." But if these words
of the Apostle do not speak of a creation, properly so called,
I should believe that Holy Scripture laboured under inex
plicable difficulty, and that no certain conclusion could be
deduced from its words, however express they might seem
to be.

16. From these things, however, it is clear, that, what the
primitive fathers taught concerning the appearances of the
Word, or Son of God, to the patriarchs and saints under the
Old Testament, were no vain imaginations of their own, but
derived from the very teaching of the Apostles. There is this
further (which I put before the reader as especially useful for
him to observe) that neither were the Apostles of Christ the
first to teach these truths, but that they derived them from the
ancient cabala or tradition of the Jews ; or, at least, that those

<i MS. in the possession of Dr. J. Co- shews that Kvpiov is found in several

vel ; Theodoret and Epiphanius have MSS. B.]

Kvptov. BOWYER. [The Slavonic ver- r See Vossii Instit. Orat. iv. 7,
sion confirms ebf ; and Griesbach

30 View of the Jews, that it was the Word who visited

ON THE things which the Apostles were taught on this subject, by the
PRE-EX- ri ns pi ra tion ofl the Holy Ghost, agrees well with that tradi-

ISTENCE *~ * ~*

OF THE tion. Thus Philo the Jew, just like St. Paul, explains the angel,

who led the children of Israel in the wilderness, of the Word
and first-begotten Son of God, through whom God directs
and governs the universe. In his book Of Agriculture 8 there
is a most express passage ; " For God as a shepherd and king

1 MKW- guides by a certain order and law, as if they were a flock,
earth and water, air and fire, and again whatsoever they con
tain, plants and living beings, whether mortal or divine ; the
nature of the heavens too, and the circuits of the sun and
moon, as well as the turnings and harmonious movements of
[34] the other stars; having set over them His true Word 2 , even His

*8p6ov \6- fi rs t-begotten Son, to undertake the care of this sacred flock,
as some vicegerent of a powerful king; for in a certain place

Ex. xxiii. it is said, Behold I am, and I will send My angel before thy
face to keep thee in the way/ " Philo also understands, as
the ancient Christians did, that God, who appeared to Adam
in paradise after his fall, to Moses in the bush, and also to
Abraham, was the Word. For thus he writes in his work
13 Of Dreams 1 ; "The sacred Word to some enjoins as a king
with authoritative command what they ought to do; whilst
others He instructs in what will profit them, as a teacher his
intimate disciples; to others as a counsellor suggesting the
best advice, He greatly aids such as of themselves know
not what will be for their good ; again, to others as a friend,

s Ku.Qa.irep yap nva irol^vriv, yyv, Kal apiaras. rovs TO ffvfiupepov e eavruv

vScap, Kal aepa, Kal irvp, Kal o<ra eV rov- OVK eiSoVas /J.eya </>eAe? TO?S Se us

rots <f)vrd re av Kal "wa, rd ptv Qv^rd, fy(\os eirieiKws Kal perd ireiOovs TroAAa

TO. 8e 0e?a, eVt Se ovpavov (piiaw, Kal Kal rSiv dpp^rcaf dvatyepei, &v ovdev av-

y\iov Kal ae\T}VT]S irpi6dovs, Kal TU>V rwv o.riXfff rov tiraKOvffai delis e<rTi 8^

a\Aow affTfpuv r ponds TC af> Kal xoptias 6re Kal Trvi^ddverai nvwv, faffirep^ rov

evappoviovs, cos iroi^v Kal fiaffiAevs 6 ASa^t TO, irow e?; . . . eVeiSav pfo rot

0eos ay ft Kara SiKTjj/ Kal v6(j.ov, irpoarf]- irpbs rb riav <pi\<av eA0?7 ffw&piov, ov

aajjitvos rbv bpQbv avrov \6yov Trpwr6- Trporepcis &pxfrai \4yeiv, $) l/caorof av-

yovov vibv, tts r^v eTTi/xeAetat 1 rys lepas ru>v oj/aKaAeVat Kal oi>ofj.a<rrl Trpoarei-

ravrys aye\ris, old ris fj.eyd\ov jSatrt- irt iv, iva ra &ra aQpoicravres, [avopQid-

\ewsv7rapxos SiaSeferat. Kal yap efpj- (ravres MSS. et Potter,] jfffvxtif ltd

rai iroV I5ov eyca ei/jLi,aTro(rre\wayy- Trpoaoxy XP^/" ei/0 > T ^ v 6fff/j.wSov^.evuv

\6v IJLOV els Trp6ff(air6v ffov rov (pv\d^ai els a\f)crrov \kvr\u,t\v aKovuffiv eirel Kal

<re eV rfj o5^. De Agric., p. 195. edit. trepwQi. \eyerai, cncoTra Kal &Kove row-

Par. 1640. [vol. i. p. 308.] rov rbv rp6irov eirl rys jSarou MCOO-TJS

1 6 iepbs \6yos rots /J.eu a>s jSaatAeus avaKaXelrai. ws yap eT5e, <pri<T\v, on

a XP^I icp&rreiv e | eTrirdyfJiaros irapay- irpoadyei i Se?j/, eKaXeo ev avrbv 6 Qebs

7eAAef TO?S 8e us yvupi/j-ois Si5cto-/caAos eK rfjs Qdrov, \eywv Mcavafi, Mcoi)cr^ 6

rd Trpbs &(pe\iai vcpyye tTai rots Se us Se etTre ri eo~riv; Afipadp Se, /c.r.A.

yvu^as ela-nyov^evos rds De Somn., pp. 593, 594. [vol. i. p. 649.]

the world under the Old Testament; from Philo. 31

with gentleness and persuasion, He communicates many BOOK i.

even of His secrets, none of which is it lawful for the un- c jg p j

initiated to hear; at times also He enquires of some, as He ~

did of Adam, saying, Where art thou ? . . . But when the Word

has come into the assembly of His friends, He does not begin

to speak, until He has called each of them, and addressed him

by name, that with ears intent and with quietness and atten

tion they may lay up His oracles in never-failing memory ;

as in another place also it is written, < Be still, and listen. In

this way Moses is called at the bush, For when the Lord/

he says, saw that he drew near to see, God called him out [35]

of the bush, and said. Moses, Moses ; and he answered, What

is it ? &c. So also Abraham/ &c.

In the same book u also he was of opinion 1 , with the holy isensit.
fathers of the Church, that the Lord who rained brimstone
and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah was the Word ; for after
quoting those words out of Genesis, " The sun was risen upon
the earth when Lot entered into Zoar 2 , and the Lord rained 2 Segor.
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone arid fire/ he
immediately adds, "For when the Word of God visits our
terrestrial system, He gives help and succour to such as are
akin to virtue and incline to it, so as to afford to them a [35]
refuge and complete security ; whilst upon His enemies He
sends irremediable destruction and ruin."

17. This testimony is not weakened by the observation,
which Grotius has made, that the created angels themselves
are called by Philo throughout, the Words, rovs \6yovs;
doubtless because they also are, according to their measure,
the messengers and interpreters of God s will to men. For
although this is most true, still it is evident that Philo,
in the passages quoted, (to which it would be easy to add
many others,) designates as the Word, one certain individual
being 3 , so called by way of pre-eminence, who is the first-be- 3 singula-
gotten Son of God, superior to all the angels, and even to quen ~
the whole universe. And if this same Philo has, in some
instances, used expressions concerning the Word and first-
begotten Son of God, which are not worthy of His majesty,

^ 6 yap TOV eou \6yos, 6ra.v eVl rd rafyvyfy Kal awTf\p(o.v avroTs

7e<8es ripwv avar^^a. d^i/cTjTCU, TO?S Traj/reATj rots 8e avrnraXois oXtQpo

avyyevea-i Kal -rrpbs dpery/i/ tyBopav a.via.rov 4iwrt}j.irfi. Pag. 578.

ft /ecu /Jorjflei, us a- [p. 633.]

32 Philo s statements confirmed by the Book of Wisdom.

1

TO V.

[37]

ON THE this is easily to be excused in an age in which the mystery
fsT B E~NCB of the most Hol y Trinity had not, as yet, been fully revealed
OF THE t the Jews. Nay, it is rather to be wondered at that a man

- should have seen so clearly in so great a darkness. For in
Book ii. Of the Allegories of the Law x , he says, that this Word
of God is " above the whole world, the oldest and most uni-

- versal l of all things which have been made." And in his work
Of the Creation of the World*, he calls the same being "the
Word of God that created the world." And, afterwards 2 , he
speaks of " the divine Word, and the Word of God, invisible
and perceived by the mind, a supercelestial star, the fountain
of the stars which are perceived by sense." Also in his book
On the Confusion of Tongues a , he calls Him not only "the
most ancient and the most sacred Word of God," but like
wise " His eternal image."

18. Lest, however, any one should suspect that Philo

- Platonizes 2 in these expressions, (an opinion which many have
entertained who are not acquainted with Jewish literature,
whereas it should rather be thought that Plato Philonizes 3 ,
that is, that he derived his notions concerning the Logos
from the doctrines of the Jews, which were, I may say, the
mother tongue of Philo,) the Jewish author of the book in-
titled " the Wisdom of Solomon," (who it is certain from
most evident proofs, was much more ancient than Philo, and
not, as some have imagined, Philo himself,) propounds the
same doctrines concerning the Word. For in xviii. 15, speak
ing of the Angel who smote the first-born of the Egyptians,
he says, " Thine almighty Word leaped down out of heaven
from off Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the

feii/.

fcti/.

* uTrepdVco iravrls rov K6ff/j.ov, Kal
irptafrvrarov /cat yeviKcbrarov ru>v oVa
76701/6. Leg. Allegor. p. 93. [lib. iii.
vol. i. p. 121.]

y QeoD \6yov KofffioTroiovvra. De
Opif. Mundi, p. 5. [vol. i. p. 5. So
quoted by Bp. Bull ; Dr. Burton says ;
lf In citing these words this great man
has made a slight mistake. Philo s
words are: ei Se TIS e 0eA7j<reie yvpvo-
repots -xp-fio-aa-Qai rots bv6f*.affiv, ouSei/
Uv erepov eliroi rbv voyrbv eli/at K6tT/j.ov
3) eoi; \6yov ^8yj KO(r/j.oTroiovvTOS."~]

* rov a.6parov Kal vot]rbv 6e?ov \6yov,
Kal &eov Xoyov, vtrepovpavioi aarripa,
mrjyrjv ru>v aiffQifr&v affTeptav, Ibid., p.

6. [So quoted by Bp. Bull ; Dr. Burton
says; " He here also cites Philo s words
inaccurately: rbv Se a6parov Kal vorirov
6e?ov \6yov Kal eou \6yov ti^ra \4yci
eou, Kal ravr^s etfcoVa TO vof]rov (pus
e/ce7Vo, 6 Bclov \6yov yeyovev eiic&v rov
ifpp.-r}vtvffavros T^V ycvefftv avrov" Kal
%<mv virepovpdvios affr^p, irt]y^ TWV
al(r6rjTu>v a<rre pa>i/."]

a [The whole passage is, Kal yap et
fj^irw Ittavol 6fov -TratSes voplCfffOtu ye-
y6va(j.V, a\\d TOI TOV di Stou fiKOVOS av-
rov, \6yov rov lepurdroV 0eo9 7ap et-
K&V, \6yos 6 Trpeafivraros. ] De Conf.
Ling., p. 341. [vol. i. p. 427. J

And by the use of" The Word" in the Jewish Paraphrases. 33

midst of a land of destruction ;" where it is clear that the BOOK i.
author is speaking of a personally-subsisting Word 1 . And it 17*19]

is no less evident that it is not some ministering angel, as l
Grotius would have it, but a Divine Person, that is designated
in this place; for the author calls this Word 2 "Almighty," 2 Sermo _
and also assigns to Him " a royal throne in heaven." We nem -
may further add what he afterwards says of the same Being
in the 16th verse ; " And standing up, He filled all things with 14
death ; and He touched the heaven, but He walked upon [38]
the earth;" in these words are signified the greatness and
power of Him who filleth all things, and displays His power
in heaven and on earth. The author possibly erred in this
point, (I say, possibly, for I will not venture to assert cer
tainly that he has erred,) in expounding the destroying angel
of the Word, inasmuch as learned commentators in general
have thought that he was a mere angel. However, it is
clear from this passage that this ancient and venerable
writer believed that the Word Himself, being sent by God
the Father, sometimes came down from His royal throne in
heaven unto men in the form of an angel, and that on this
account He is in Scripture called by the name of an Angel.
For the same view Masius quotes, out of the Jewish Rabbis,
the very ancient book Tanchumah, and the Rabbi Gerun-
densis; whose words he cites at some length in his com
mentary on Joshua v. 13, 14.

19. It is, however, to be especially observed here, (as has
been long ago remarked by learned men,) that almost always
in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, when God is men
tioned as speaking to us, assisting us, or in short holding any
sort of intercourse with us, the Chaldee Paraphrases render
the name of God by joiD B or "i^, Verbum, the Word ; no
doubt signifying hereby, that in such passages it is the Son
of God who is spoken of, who is called the Word, and whose
peculiar office it is to hold converse with us. Thus in
Gen. iii. 8, instead of " They heard the voice of the Lord
God," the Targum of Onkelos, and the Targum ascribed to
Jonathan, have, " They heard the voice of the Word of the
Lord God." In the same chapter, verse 9, instead of, " And
God called unto Adam," the Jerusalem Targum has, " And
the Word of the Lord called unto Adam ;" just as we have

34 Attempt to explain this usage otherwise ; fruitless.

before seen that Philo understood the passage. In Gen.
xxi. 20, instead of, " And God was with him," Onkelos has,
THK SON - And the Word of the Lord was with him, to help him ;"
[39] and in the 22nd verse, instead of " God is with thee," Onkelos
has, " The Word of the Lord is with thee for a help." So in
Hosea i. 7, instead of, " And I will save them by Jehovah
their God," the Targum of Jonathan has, " I will save them
Dei Do- by the Word of the Lord their God 1 ." This passage the ancient
ini sui. Christian writers also agreed in explaining of the salvation of
God s people to be obtained through Christ. To elude the
force of these places, (similar ones to which are contained in
the Targums throughout 1 ^) some writers remark, that &nVD
or t^D is occasionally used for auro?, "himself ." But this
is to no purpose, for though we should allow the fact, we yet
on good grounds deny that that mode of expression applies
to the passages before us. For, besides that it is plain from
the evidence alleged above out of Philo and the book of Wis
dom, that the ancient Hebrews recognised a certain Word of
God the Father, [as] a Person really distinct from God the
Father Himself, who used to come down [from heaven] to
loqui. men and converse 2 with them ; there are also in the Chaldee
Paraphrases some passages which altogether refuse to admit
the interpretation in question. In Gen. xx. 3, where the
Hebrew text has, " And God came to Abimelech," the Tar-
gum of Onkelos (with which the Targum of Jonathan agrees)
translates it, " And DIP p "1D"D the Word from the face of
God came to Abimelech ;" which cannot, certainly, be under
stood to mean, "And God Himself came from the face of
God/ &c. So, according to the testimony of Petrus Gala-
tinus, iii. 28, and that writer of very great learning and inte
grity, Paulus Fagius, on Deut. v., the Targum of Jonathan,
on Ps. ex. 1, (for the part of that Targum which is on the
Psalms has now either altogether perished, or at all events is
[40] not extant in print,) paraphrases the words thus, " The Lord
said mo bS unto His Word, Sit Thou on My right hand ;"
which cannot possibly be understood to mean, the Lord
said unto Himself, &c. But enough on this point.

b On this see more in Poole s Synop- see Jacob. Capellus in his Annotations
sis on Job. i. 1. BOWYER. on John i. 1.

e For the reason of this expression

These considerations also establish His Consubstantiality. 35

20. From all that has been said, it is now manifest on BOOKI.
how great authority the ancient doctors of the Church l^f^o.
affirmed that it was the Son of God who in former times,
under the Old Testament, appeared to holy men, distin
guished by the Name of Jehovah, and honoured by them
with divine worship. But the attentive reader will observe,
that here, whilst I have aimed at proving by the testimo
nies adduced the pre-existence of the Son before [His birth
of] the Virgin Mary, I have at the same time furnished no
inconsiderable confirmation, also, of His Consubstantiality.
Inasmuch as from what we have thus far said, it is most
evident, that the ante-Nicene fathers, with one consent,
taught, (in accordance with the Holy Scripture of the
Old Testament, and the teachers of the ancient Jews,) that
He who appeared and spoke to Moses, in the burning bush
and on Mount Sinai, who manifested Himself to Abraham,
&c., was the Word, or Son, of God. It is, however, certain,
that He who appeared is called Jehovah, I am l , the God of 1 Eum qui
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, &c., titles which clearly est
are not applicable to any created being, but are peculiar to
the true God. And this is the very reasoning which the fathers
all employ to prove, that in such manifestations it was not
a mere created angel, but the Son of God, who was present ;
that the Name of Jehovah, namely, and divine worship are
given to Him who appeared; but that these are not com
municable to any creature, and belong to the true God
alone; whence it follows that they all believed that the Son
was very God. This, however, I must simply pass over, until
I come to the proof of the second proposition. Meanwhile
let us proceed to what remains bearing on the division
already before us.

ON THE

15 CHAPTEE II.

[41]

THE SECOND PART OF THE PROPOSITION IS ESTABLISHED, RESPECTING THE
PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, AND
THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS THROUGH HIM.

1. I PASS to the second portion of our Proposition, that

E is > to shew that the Doctors of tne first a S es of the Churcl1

THE SON, believed that the Son was begotten of God the Father be
fore the foundations of the world were laid, and that this
universe was created through Him. It will not be neces
sary to spend much time on this ; since in the following
books we shall adduce many passages out of these writers,
which declare far more excellent things of the Son of God.
At present, therefore, I shall be content with a few testi
monies from such writers as nourished either in the very age
in prima o f the Apostles, or in that of their first successors 1 ; during
nSo- which times especially, our modern Photinians impudently
- aver, that their tenets obtained in the Church of Christ.

2 d . An Epistle is extant, which was printed 6 for the first

time in our own days, bearing the name of St. Barnabas.

That the Apostle Barnabas was the author of it, was the

opinion of our own very learned Hammond, the illustrious

Isaac Vossius, and others f ; and chiefly on the ground that

Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other ancient writers,

frequently quote it under his name. Nor have the patrons of

the opposite opinion^ any thing else to advance against them,

except that the author of the Epistle appears to have inter

preted some passages of the Old Testament too mystically.

A probable reason for this, however, is given by Hammond

in his first Dissertation against Blondel h ; where, after having,

in the preceding chapters, drawn the character of the Gnos-

[42] tics, he says, "The Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas, which was

published not long ago, will admit of easy explanation from

d [Grate s annotations on this sec- f [Pearson, Cave, Du Pin, Wake.

tion will be found in an Appendix at B.]

the end of the work.] g [Basnage, Jones (on the Canon ot

o [Paris. 1645, cum notis Menardi the N. T. q. v.) B.]

et Dacherii.-B.] h Chap. 7. 4, 5, pp. 22, 23.

The Epistle of St. Barnabas ; testimonies from it. 37

this one characteristic of the Gnostics : whereas otherwise (as a BOOK i.
complicated and lengthy riddle) it will most certainly create 1,2.

a difficulty to its readers. Those disciples of Simon (Magus) BARNABAS.
arrogating to themselves knowledge (<yv&cru>), that is, the
power of interpreting Holy Scripture mystically, were in the
habit of accommodating many mysteries of the Old Testa
ment to their own impure uses. Hence Barnabas, almost
throughout the whole of this Epistle of his, opposes to the
doctrines of the Gnostics very many passages, also mystically
and cabalistically interpreted." And in the following chap
ters he shews how well the whole Epistle serves to refute the
wild notions 1 of the Gnostics. Be that however as it may, i deliriis.
at any rate he is proved to have been an author of the very
earliest antiquity, by the testimonies of the ancients cited
above, by his use of expressions which are peculiar to the apo
stolic age, by the simplicity of his style, and lastly, by the
heresies which he opposes, and which are such only as sprung
up 2 in the time of the Apostles themselves. Now this author, 2 pullula-
not far from the beginning of the Epistle, according to the runtt
old Latin translation, (for the Greek original in that part is
lost,) thus speaks of our Saviour, chap. 5 1 ; "And for this
end the Lord endured 3 to suffer for the salvation of our souls, 3 sustinuit.
though He is the Lord of all the earth, to whom He said on
the day" (perhaps we should read "to whom God said")
[Deus for die] " before the creation of the world, Let us
make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. "
And a little afterwards he calls the sun the handy-work* of 4 opus
the Son of God. It is a remarkable passage in the same
chapter, which runs thus k ; " He at that time manifested
Himself to be the Son of God ; for if He had not come in
the flesh, how could men have been saved by looking on
Him ? For in looking on the sun, which will one day cease
to be, and which is His handy-work, they cannot endure to
fix their eyes full upon its rays." Lastly, in chap. 12 he [43]

i Et ad hoc Dominus sustinuit pati k T^TC e0az/epco<rej/ eavrbv vibv eov

pro anima nostra, cum sit orbis terra- flvac el yap /mrj 1i\Qev ev aapKl, TTUS b.v

rum Dominus, cui dixit die (forte le- eVwfluuei/ foBptairoi jSAeWres avr6v ;

gendum, Deus) ante constitutionem 6n rov /ueAAoi/ra ^ flvai ri\iov, cpyov

sseculi, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem xeipajj/ avrov virdpxoi Ta, fiXeirovrss OVK

et similitudinem nostrum. Pag. 217, Ivxvovffiv els a.Kr iva^ avrov avr

218. ed. Voss. ad calcem Ignat. Lond. u.ri(rai. Pag. 218, 219. fp. 16.1
1680. [p. 60.]

ma-

nuum.

38 The Shepherd of Hermas ; its antiquity and authority ;

ON THE speaks thus of our Saviour 1 ; " Herein also you have the
"CE X OF T " glory of Jesus, because by Him and for Him are all things."
THE SOK - 3. Hermas, or the author of the book entitled the Shep
herd, most expressly delivers the same doctrine concerning
our Lord. If you enquire about the antiquity of this au
thor, hear the opinion of Grotius m ; "Hermas," he says,
" whatever his authority may be, is certainly of the highest
antiquity, as is evident from Irenseus and Clement, who
quote his words." Indeed it is clear that this author was
contemporary with Clement of Rome n ; for in his second
Vision , towards the end, the old woman thus addresses him ;
"You shall then write two books, and send one to Clement,
and the other to Grapta ; and Clement will send it to the
foreign cities, for it is permitted him," &c. But as to
the credit and authority which are due to this author,
BlondelP, indeed, as if stung with madness, raves against
16 him and his writings in a strange way, calling them "the
dreams of an insane prophet," and the author himself " an
impure dogmatist, the fountain-head of the Novatians and of
the Pelagians, and the sink of Montanist superstitions." If
you ask what made him so angry, I imagine that it will
be found that the man was vexed, (though he avow it
[44] not,) because in more than one place the Shepherd q has ex
pressly acknowledged that the order of bishops is above [that
of] presbyters, contrary to what Blondel wished. The primi
tive Church, however, thought very differently of both, and
in comparison of her judgment, we justly consider the criti
cism of Blondel, notwithstanding his very great learning, as
of little weight, or rather of none. By Irenseus r the tract
called the Shepherd, is quoted as Scripture; "Well, then," he

1 evets al eV TOUT$> r-f)v oav TOV Apol., pp. 16, 17.

1770-00, Sri lv avr<S vdvra xai ew abrdv. 1 See Hermas, Vis. iii. et Simil. ix.

P. 238. [p. 40.] [i- e - lib - i- Vis - "* 5 - P- 80 - et llbl m -

m Ann ot. ad Marc. ii. 8. Sim. ix. 15. p. 119.]

n Dodwell conceives that Clement r Bene ergo, inquit, pronuntiavit
occupied the see of Rome from the Scriptura: Primo omnium crede, quo-
year 64, or 65, to the year 81. The niam unus est Deus, qui omnia con-
bishop of Chester [Pearson] from the stituit et consummavit, et fecit ex eo
year 69 to 82. Cave, Hist. Lit. in quod non erat; &c. [c. 20. p. 253.
Herm. BOWYER. The Greek is given by Eusebius, v. 8,

Scribes ergo duos libellos ; et mit- and others : KaAws ovv tltrev ij ypaQlt

tes unum dementi, et unum Graptre. f) Xeyovtra, irpurov -navruv *i(TTev(rov,

Mittet autem Clemens in exteras civi- 6rl els forlv 6 ebs, 6 ra -rrdvTa KTiaas

tates ; illi enim permissum est, 8iC. ral /coraprio-as, /cot irotTja-as e /c rov /X,T>

[Lib. i. p. 78.] ovros ets rb eZj/ai TO. iravTa. B.]

referred to by Irenaus, Clement. Alex., and Tertullian. 39

says, "has the Scripture spoken, which says, Before all BOOKI.
things believe that God is one, who created and perfected all 2, 3. *
things, and made them out of that which did not exist/" &c. HERMAS-
Where by Scripture Eusebius (E. H. v. 8) observes, that
the treatise called the Shepherd is meant : and the pas
sage quoted by Irenseus is" found, word for word, in the
writings of Hermas, which are now extant, (Book ii. Mand. 1 ;)
and on this Bellarmine appositely remarks, that " Irenseus
would not have given the title of Scripture simply 1 to the ! absolute,
book of an author of his own age, who had neither been an
Apostle, nor a hearer of the Apostles 8 ." Hermas is also
quoted frequently by Clement of Alexandria, who also in
express terms acknowledged "the power, which spoke by
revelation to Hermas, as speaking divinely." (Strom, i. near
the end 1 .) Tertullian, whilst yet a Catholic, in the twelfth
chapter of his treatise On Prayer, [p. 134,] replies to certain
men who alleged the writings of Hermas in favour of a cus
tom of which he himself disapproved, in such a way as by no
means to reject the authority of the writing 2 , but to endeavour 2 scripturae.
to evade the force of his words by a suitable explanation of
them, as is usually done in weighing the sense of other Holy
Scriptures. Nay more, in his treatise On Chastity, c. 20,
[p. 572,] after he had fallen into the heresy of Montanus,
although he is somewhat bitter against the Shepherd, and,
therefore, with want of modesty enough calls him " an
apocryphal shepherd of adulterers," (because in accordance
with the whole of Scripture he allowed a second repentance
to the adulterer and fornicator,) and consequently denies his
canonical authority, he yet does it in such a way that all per
sons of sound judgment must think that he bestows on it no
despicable character. He says u ; " The Epistle of Barnabas"
(meaning the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he attributed
to Barnabas) " is a more received book in the Churches
than that apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers." Well, indeed,
will it be for the Shepherd, if the second place after the

s Bellarm. de Script. Eccles., con- K.T.A. [P. 426.]

cerning the author of the book called u [Et utique receptior apud Ecclesias

the Shepherd, [vol. vii. p. 25. Op., ed. Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pas-

1601 1617.] tore moechorum. Tert. de Pudicitia,

t deicas TO LVVV f) vva/j.is ^ T<p Ep/uiS, c. 10. p. 572.]
/car aTTO/caAt il/ti AaAoDcra . .

40 Origen, Athanasius, Ruffinus and Jerome, on Hermas.

^dulteram.

2 instru-
inento.

ON THE Epistle to the Hebrews be given it ! When, therefore, Ter-
KNofoF 1 " tullian (in the tenth chapter of the same book x ) calls the writ-
SON. i n g of the Shepherd "false and spurious 1 ," he must certainly
be so understood as to be thought only to deny that that
treatise " was worthy to be inserted in the divine Canon 2 ;" as
indeed he explains himself in so many words in that very
passage. The Shepherd is also very frequently quoted by
Origen, who (on Rom. xvi. y ) even pronounced it to be not
3 scriptu- only a "very useful writing 3 ," but also "divinely inspired." It
is also quoted by Eusebius, out of Irenaeus, Eccl. Hist. v. 8 Z ;
also by Athanasius a , On the Incarnation of the Word, who
likewise calls it a " most useful" treatise; and this judgment
of the great doctor will be readily assented to by any one who
peruses the work attentively and without prejudice. Rufinus
(On the Creed, c. 38 b ) allows to the Shepherd the same place
in the New Testament which the books of Tobit, Judith, and
the Maccabees, had in the Old. Lastly, Jerome in his Pro-
logus Galeatus [to the book of Kings ] reckons the treatise,
called the Shepherd, among the ecclesiastical books, with the
book of Judith and Tobit: and in his treatise On the Ecclesias
tical Writers d , he says, " The Shepherd is at this time publicly
read in some of the churches of Greece ; it is a really profitable
book ; and many of the ancient writers have employed testi
monies out of it." Whoever would know more concerning
the antiquity and authority of this book, may consult the
Vindication of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, by the very learned
J. Pearson, the present most worthy bishop of Chester 6 .

4. As however I think it of no small moment, that the
authority and estimation with which this apostolic writer
was regarded in the ancient Church should be maintained,
I have deemed it fit, in passing, briefly to weigh the princi-

[46]

* [Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura
Pastoris, . . . divino instruments me-
ruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio
Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter
apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, adul-
tera et ipsa, &c. c. 10. p. 563.]

y [Puto tamen quod Hermas iste sit
scriptor libelli illius qui Pastor appel-
latur, quse Scriptura valde mihi utilis
videtur, et ut puto divinitus inspirata.
Vol. iv. p. 683.]

z [See p. 38. note r.]

[^ 8e svQtos 8(5acrKaAta, xal f) ^uera

XpHTrbv iricms . . . <p-r}(rl Sta Mwcrecos. . .
Sta 8e TTJS w<eA.^uu>TaT7js /8i/3Aou TOU

TTOJjUU/OS TTp&TOV TTlVreUtTOI/, /C.T.A. De

Incarnatione Verbi, 3. vol. i. p. 49.]

" [Opusc., p. 189.]

c [Vol. ix. p. 454.]

d Pastor, inquit, apud quasdam Grse-
ciae ecclesias jam publice legitur: re-
vera utilis liber, multique de eo scrip-
torum veterum usurpavere testimonia.
[c. 10. vol. ii. p. 833.]

e Pearson, Vindic., part i. [c. 4.]
p. 39, &c.

Objections against Hermas ; 1. as teaching Purgatory. 41

BOOK I.
CHAP. II.

_

HEKMAS.

pal reasons which have influenced certain modern theolo
gians, especially amongst the reformed, to cast him out en
tirely from the catalogue of approved doctors of the Church,
and to drive far off from the fold of the Church that very excel
lent Shepherd, as if he were a wolf and an enemy to the flock
of Christ. They allege as objections against him sundry
doctrines, little befitting one who was a disciple of the Apo
stles. What then are these doctrines ? First, says Scultetus,
who is followed by Rivetus, " Purgatory is brought forward
by a c