informs the reader, he was prevailed upon to fill up the outline which he had drawn, so as to produce what appeared to him a clear refutation of the opinion of Episcopius, from the testimonies of the primitive fathers, and from ecclesiastical history.

66

But in publishing this work, he professes to have had a particular view to the numerous writings which had been put forth by the Unitarians of those times, whom he describes as nefarious men, who have endeavoured with all their might to destroy and overturn the principal doctrine of our faith, on which Christianity hinges, some of them impudently defending the Arian, and others the Samosatenian blasphemy." He comforts himself, however, with the reflection, that these writings have been answered by some of his pious and learned countrymen; but laments that a class of men have sprung up, in the mean time, who, in the capacity of mediators, have attempted to reconcile and unite the Catholic Church with heretics, parties which, as he says, are as widely separated from each other as God and Belial. ‡

From the above choice expressions, one is almost tempted to think that Dr. Bull wrote in Latin, because he could indulge the more easily in the language of vituperation, and employ epithets which would scarcely have been tolerated in his mother-tongue. We cannot wonder, therefore, that the author of The Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, which was written principally in opposition to his first and largest work on the Nicene Faith, should treat him with less ceremony and less respect, than his position and eminent attainments might otherwise have demanded.

"It remains only," says the writer alluded to, in the conclusion of a reply extending over 78 quarto pages, "that I inform the reader, who hath not seen Dr. Bull's books, why I have answer'd so indifferently, and without any particular deference to the merit of his learning and abilities for it cannot be denied, that this gentleman is a dextrous sophister; or that he has read the principal Fathers with a more than ordinary application, diligence and observation. Dr. Bull has written two books, his Defence of the Nicene Faith, and Judgment of the Catho lick Church, designedly and directly against the Unitarians, whether they be Arians or Socinians. In the first of these he attacks more particularly Chr. Sandius, a very learned Arian; and the author of Irenicum Irenicorum, who was D. Zwicker, M. D., a Socinian. Dr. Zwicker is complimented by Dr. Bull with such flowers as these; Bipedum ineptissimus, the greatest fop in nature: Omnium odio, qui veritatem et candorem amant, dignus; deserving of the hatred of all lovers of truth and sincerity. Of Sandius he saith, He hath ship

* Prodiere in Anglia nostra, intra paucos abhinc annos, Scripta non pauca hominum nefariorum, qui dogma fidei nostræ Kupiтatov, in quo certè Christianismi cardo vertitur, - labefactare atque evertere omni ope adnisi sunt; eorum aliis Arianam, aliis verò Samosatenianam blasphemiam impudenter propugnantibus.-Præmonitio ad Lectorem.

+ His tamen-editis ex adverso Scriptis, occurrerunt Viri quidam è Nostratibus pii atque eruditi, qui eo certè nomine à bonis omnibus gratiam ac laudem meruerunt.-Ibid.

Inter hæc verò emersere nonnulli, qui se Mediatores scilicet, pacisque sequestros in hac controversia interponere, partesque inter se longè disjunctissimas, maximèque diversas, Ecclesiam nempe Catholicam atque Hæreticos, hoc est Christum et Belial, conciliare et conjungere aggressi sunt.-Ibid.

wreck'd his conscience, as well as his faith; a trifler, a mere (empty) pretender: he adds at p. 331, He hath only transcribed the author of Iren. Irenicorum;' and in one place, he prays for Sandius as one that is mad. This, and such as this, is Dr. Bull's constant language concerning these two very learned men: nor doth he ever reply to them without pretending an absolute and incontestable victory, and casting some most unworthy scorn or other upon them by occasion of his supposed advantage. He never calls the Arians by any other name than Ariomanit, the mad Arians; and Socinianism is always with him the Atheistical heresy; I do not remember that he ever calls our doctrine by a better name. In short, he hath expressed such a malevolence, and hath so notoriously and infamously broken the cartel of honour and civility that was thought to be agreed and establish'd between persons of excellent learning or great abilities, when they happen to be ingaged in contrary sides, that no respect or tenderness can be shown to him by any Unitarian. His barbarities and immanities towards a person so little deserving such usage, and so much above Mr. Bull in all regards, as Sandius was; and his arrogance towards, and (hare-brain'd) contempt of all Unitarians, whether antient or modern: I say, his temerity and extravagance in this kind, is so excessive, or rather is so outrageous, that he hath left to himself no manner of right or claim to the very least degree of humanity or good manners towards him."

The author of The Judgment of the Fathers, in noticing the design with which Dr. Bull wrote his Defensio Fidei Nicana, exposes a very common fallacy, which runs through it, and vitiates all its reasonings. The Doctor professes to shew, "that the approved Fathers and Teachers of the Church, who flourished before the Council of Nice, from the very age of the apostles, unanimously taught the self-same thing, (although perhaps sometimes in other words, and with a different phraseology,) as the Nicene Fathers have determined, concerning the divinity of the Son, against Arius and other heretics."* From these few words the reader may see, at once, what he has to expect from Dr. Bull. "The approved Fathers and Teachers of the Church" being, in Dr. Bull's estimation, those, and those only, who favour the doctrine embodied in the Nicene Creed, none but such as are agreeable to this doctrine are allowed to be "approved Fathers and Teachers ;" and among these, Dr. Bull boasts that the most perfect unanimity prevails! But let us hear what the author of The Judgment of the Fathers has to say of this boasted unanimity of Dr. Bull's "Patres ac Doctores Ecclesiæ probati.”

"Taking care, as he does, to limit himself to the approved Doctors and Fathers; who is so dull (does Mr. Bull think?) as not to understand, that no Father or Doctor shall be allowed this (new and rare) title of Doctor probatus, approved Doctor, if Mr. Bull and he cannot accord about the Nicene faith? What if an Arian or Socinian should

Scilicet hic operis, et incæpti nostri scopus, hoc institutum est, ut clarè ostendamus, quod de Filii Divinitate contra Arium aliosque hæreticos statuerunt Patres Nicæni, idem reipsa (quanquam aliis fortasse nonnumquam verbis, aliôque loquendi modô), docuisse Patres ac Doctores Ecclesiæ probatos ad unum omnes, qui ante tempora Synodi Nicænæ, ab ipsa usque Apostolorum ætate floruerunt.-Def. Fid. Nic. Proœm. p. 5, § 9.

make the like (impertinent) proposal, even to show that all the approved Doctors and Fathers before the Nicene Council did agree with Arius or Socinus; would it not be laugh'd at? For would not the reader reply immediately, that this (insidious) word approved makes his attempt to be of no use at all; because he will be sure not to approve any Doctor or Father who is not of the party of Socinus or Arius. Therefore, if Dr. Bull would have spoke to the purpose, he should have said simply, that all the Ante-nicene Fathers or Doctors were of the same mind with the Doctors and Fathers in the Nicene Council, in the question of our Saviour's divinity: this had come up to the famous pipio, or rule of orthodoxy and truth, suggested first by Vincentius, and approved by all parties,-quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, id demum Catholicum est; i. e. that which all the antient Doctors have taught, and in all places, is Catholic and fundamental. But Mr. Bull durst not pretend to all the Doctors and Fathers before the Nicene Council; but only to certain approved Fathers and Writers among them, about 20 among upwards of 200. The reason is evident; he foresaw, that we should presently mind him of Theodotion, Symmachus, Paulus, Patriarch of Antioch, Theodotus of Byzantium, Apollonides, Hermophilus, Lucianus; the authors of the Apostolical Constitutions and of the Recognitions; of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who published a book with this title, περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ, οι the Creation and Birth of Christ: not to mention here the Nazarens and Ebionites, who inhabited Judea, Galilee, Moab, the most part of Syria, and a great part of Arabia; or the Mineans, who had their synagogues or churches (says St. Jerom, Epist. ad August.) over all Asia; or the 15 first bishops of Jerusalem. ***Of the whole Unitarian party in general, it is noted in Eusebius, that they were learned in Logick, Natural Philosophy, Geometry, Physick, and the other liberal sciences; and 'tis there (ridiculously) imputed to them as a fault, that they excelled in secular learning; and (much more ridiculously) that they were great criticks, and extremely curious in procuring correct copies of the Bible. Euseb. 1. 5, c. 28. *** Furthermore, Dr. Bull appeals here to the approved Doctors and Fathers: but it appears that he would have it thought, that besides the 20 Fathers (or thereabouts) whom he has cited, those Fathers also whose works are (so unhappily) lost, were no less orthodox (as 'tis called) in this question about our Saviour's divinity. But the criticks who have written sincerely and impartially about the Fathers, are of opinion, that whereas there are now lost about 200, for (some) 20 Ante-nicene Writers and Fathers who have been preserved, we are to impute this loss to the errors contained in their books; more plainly, to their too manifest agreement with the Arian and Minean (now called the Socinian) heresies."

About the same time with The Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, appeared three treatises in Latin, bearing the following titles. (1.) Ante-Nicenismus, sive Testimonia Patrum, qui scripserunt ante Concilium Nicenum, unde colligi potest Sensus Ecclesia Catholicæ, quoad Articulum de Trinitate. (2.) Brevis Responsio ad Domini D. Georgii Bulli Defensionem Synodi Nicene, in qua præcipua Capita Defensionis refutantur. (3.) Vera et Antiqua Fides de Divinitate Christi asserta, contra D. D. G. Bulli Judicium Ecclesiæ, &c.,

per Anonymum. These were printed together, so as to form a small volume of 184 pages, under the general title, Tractatus Tres, &c. In the first of them, as the title imports, we are presented with a list of testimonies from the Fathers who wrote before the Nicene Council; and the author undertakes to collect from these testimonies the sense of the Catholic Church respecting the Trinity during the first three centuries. It bears the imprint, Cosmopoli, Anno 1694." The second contains a short answer to Dr. Bull's Defensio Synodi Nicænæ, and a refutation of the principal heads of that work. It was printed in 1695; but the title-page does not state by whom, or where. Both these profess to have been the productions of Gilbert Clerke, being announced as such in the general title-page. The former, entitled Ante-Nicenismus, contains internal evidence of having been composed without any particular reference to either of Dr. Bull's works. It seems rather to have been the result of an independent perusal of the early Christian writers, with a view to satisfy the author's own mind as to the nature of the testimony which they give on the great controverted questions of those times, irrespective either of Dr. Bull on the one hand, or of Zwicker and Sandius on the other. When it was written, the author had no copy of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus at hand; and what he says respecting the testimony of that Father is said from memory, and contained within the short compass of ten lines (p. 16). But at the beginning of the Brevis Responsio, he gives the substance of Clement's testimony at considerable length, by way of supplement to the AnteNicenismus; and then informs his readers, that when he had made this addition to his former treatise, he procured a copy of Dr. Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, and read it carefully through. It appears that he had been called to account, by a friend, for writing on the subject of the Ante-Nicene faith, and taking no notice of what that confessedly great man had before written on the same subject. The reason which he assigns for this apparent neglect is, that Dr. Bull, in the 4th Section of his Defensio Fidei Nicana, which treats of the subordination of the Son to the Father, had conceded the main point in dispute. He says, however, that on receiving the above admonition from his friend, he read over that author attentively, and saw no reason to expunge a single line of the Ante-Nicenismus, although he acknowledges that Dr. Bull's acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers is greatly superior to his own, and that he has perused them with attention and discrimination. "I say nothing," he observes, " of his intercourse with learned men, and of his access to an infinite store of books, since he lives, as I hear, not far from Oxford. But, however, as regards the principal Fathers, whose testimonies I have cited, I have no doubt but I am able to defend what I have written; for the power of truth is very great. With regard to the suspected Fathers, and those petty writers whose testimonies are derived from the works of later authors, I should not consider it worth my while to examine them, even if I were surrounded with books: but if any one else chooses to do so, I have no objection."* He then proceeds with his answer to Dr. Bull, into the par

* Prætereo doctorum virorum sodalitium, et infinitorum Librorum cornucopiam, siquidem vivit (ut audio) propè Oxonium. Verum enimverò quod ad præcipuos Patres attinet, quorum Testimonia ego citavi, nullus dubito quin ego

ticulars of which our limits will not permit us to enter. It may be mentioned, however, that, after Bishop Bull's death, there was found among his Lordship's papers a discourse, containing some animadversions on a treatise of Mr. Gilbert Clerke, entituled Ante-Nicenismus, so far as the said author pretends to answer Dr. George Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith ;" and that this is the 4th Discourse accompanying the Bishop's Posthumous Sermons.

Mr. Gilbert Clerke either did not live to see, or did not long survive, the publication of his two treatises; for the author of a Unitarian tract, published in 1698 (4to), and entitled, The Grounds and Occasions of the Controversy concerning the Unity of God, mentions his name, in conjunction with several others, who had defended the Unitarian cause in England, and says, "he was author of two of those Tracts call'd Tractatus Tres."*

The third treatise in the volume professes to contain an assertion of the true and ancient faith concerning the Divinity of Christ, in opposition to Dr. Bull's Judicium Ecclesia Catholicæ. It is short, but ably written; and the author's name is unknown. The editor, who took great pains to learn by whom it was composed, declares that his efforts to ascertain this point proved unsuccessful;† but that its author was no ordinary proficient in Ecclesiastical literature, the treatise itself sufficiently testifies. Some have regarded it as the production of the learned and accomplished Samuel Crellius, of whose pen it is not unworthy; and others have attributed not only this, but the other two treatises to him. The latter was the opinion of Bock, who says, "the diversity of style affords ground for suspecting, that the authors of these three treatises were different persons, yet one and the same Samuel Crellius is the writer of them ;" and he adds, "the editor, who prefixed the first general title, was mistaken in thinking that Clerke was the author'§ Walchius observes, that "the second of these treatises is attributed in the title to Gilbert Clerke, whom some think also to have been the author of the first; but others persuade themselves that Samuel Crellius wrote all three." Vogt, on the other hand, seems to think, that Gilbert Clerke was the author of all three treatises. He gives only the title of the first, but mentions the number of pages in the whole volume, and says "this very scarce

defendere valeam, quod scripsi, est enim veritatis vis maxima. Quod ad suspectos Patres attinet et minutulos illos, quorum Testimonia ex posteriorum scriptorum Libris desumpta sunt, non operæ pretium ducerem, eos examinare vel in maximâ librorum copiâ; si quis autem alius velit, per me licet.-Brevis Responsio, p. 78.

* "Mr. Gilbert Clerk was Fellow of Sidney College in Cambridge, which place he was oblig'd to leave for conscience sake: after that, he liv'd long at Stamford, well known and esteem'd by Dr. Cumberland, the Reverend Bishop of Peterborough, who us'd to speak of him by the name of Honest Gilbert."—The Grounds and Occasions, &c., p. 17.

† Editor ad Lectorem, p. 140.

Frid. Sam. Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum, Tom. I. P. i. p. 173.

§ Ibid.

|| Io. Georgii Walchii, Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta, Litterariis Adnotationibus instructa, Tom. I. pp. 970, 971.