Skip to main content

Full text of "An Historical account of the controversies that have been in the church, concerning the doctrine of the holy and everblessed Trinity: in eight sermons preached at the Cathedral-Church of St. Paul, London, in the years 1723, and 1724 ..."

See other formats 


iSSS 


id 


%i 


><$  -?. 


o       i 


1 1 


s 


/Uu  I 


h  u 


> 


(r-5"0'' 


A   N 

Hiftorical  Account 

O  F    T  H  E 

CONTROVERSIES 

That  have  been  in  the 

CHURCH, 

Concerning  the  Doctrine  of  the 

Holy  and  Everbleffed  Trinity: 

Eight  SERMONS, 

Preached  at  the 

Cathedral-Church  of  St.  Paul,  London^ 

In  the  Years  1723,  and  1724. 

At  the  LECTURE    founded   by   the 
Worthy  Lady  MOTER,  deceafed. 


By  William    Berriman,    D.  D. 
Re&or  of  St.  Andrew's  Under jhaft. 

'O    Kllpi®*    XTUCi   iJiJlc^ZV,     CCsTVfoXal    SX,vqv£olV,    7TClTigi<;   hiTVi[W&Vt  {A1M.0- 

rvpt$   tvi^auaornv    «:px.jcS'ijr<  Asy«»   a)$    ioioccfeQr.',,    r-oii    jtAsg    ySbi  ret 
<rt>q>u,  raZTctm    ,  ■  ■        .  Bafil.  Horn.  27. 


LONDON: 

Printed  for  T.Ward  in  Middle-Temple  Lane,  and 

C.Rivington  at  xheBible  and  Crown  in  St.  Paul's 

Church-Yard.      M.  DCC.  XXV. 


..**. 


T  H  B%^Spsvd^ 

PREFAC 

FTE  R  the  learned  and  ufe- 
ful  labours  of  thofe  who  have 
gone  before  me,  in  ajferting 
the  Chriflian  cDot~frine  of  the 
Holy  and  Everbleflcd  Trinity  5 
there  feemd  to  be  no  part  of  the  Contro- 
verfy  left  behind,  in  which  I  might  more 
feafonably  be  employ' d,  than  the  placing  it 
in  that  light  which  may  be  thrown  upon 
it  by  an  hiftorical  relation  of  the  feveral 
turns  which  it  has  taken  through  the  ages 
that  are  paft.  By  this  means  the  (late  of 
the  cafe  will  be  more  clearly  undcrflood, 
fome  of  the  objections  of  the  adverfe  party 
more  eafily  removed,  and  the  Chriftian 
cDoEirine,  in  its  original  purity,  fnore  ad- 
vantage oil  fly  fupported  and  ma'i7itaind  a- 
gainfi  them. 

As  all  men  are  defirous  to  be  thought  in 
the  right,  it  has  been  earnefily  contended 
by  thofe  of  Arian  fentiments,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  in  the  beginning  was 
?n  their  fide,  but  receivd  a  mighty  alte- 
xatioft  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  when  a 
qpiy.  fcheme  wgs  eftabliflSd  in  oppofition  to 
A  z  their $2 


The   Preface. 

their 's,  and  the  partifans  of  Arius  decried 
as  hereticks.  They  have  been  learnedly 
confuted  over  and  over  by  much  abler 
hands,  and  the  Fathers  who  lived  before 
the  Council  have  been  floewn  to  have  em- 
braced one  faith  with  thofe  who  followed 
it.  But  their  vindication  may  appear  to 
more  advantage?  when  put  in  a  hiftorical 
view,  which  will  difplay  the  particular 
ends  or  defigns  they  had  in  their  refpec- 
tive  writings,  and  fuggefi  the  reafon  of 
their  ufing  fuch  expreffions,  in  order  to 
guard  againfl  the  herefies  of  their  times, 
as  may  pojfihly  appear  fomewhat  harfh  and 
dangerous,  when  the  fpirit  of  error  has  ta- 
ken a  different  turn,  and  led  men  to  the 
oppojite  extreme. 

It  is  again  frequently  objected  by  our 
adver furies,  that  this  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity is  clogd  and  encumber  d  with  variety 
of  terms  not  found  in  Scripture,  which  at 
heft  are  doubtful  in  their  fenfe,  and  very 
improperly  obtruded  in  matters  of  faith, 
which  ought  to  be  regulated  by  the  ftand- 
ard  of  revelation.  But  by  this  hiflory  of 
the  Controverfy,  it  appears  that  thofe  terms 
were  very  early  introduced,  not  firft  in- 
vented by  the  Council  of  Nice,  but  found- 
ed upon  ancient  precedent ;  fo  that  he  who 
would  accufe  the  Church  of  ufurping  a 
tyrannical  dominion  in  this  method  of 
explaining  her  dottrines,  muft  accufe  it  in 

the 


The    Preface. 

the  firft  and  fur  eft  ages  of  Chrifttanity, 
when  the  fame  terms  were  made  ufe  of 
to  explain  this  myfteryy  which  are  ft  ill 
continued  and  retained  by  us.  It  will 
likewife  appear  upon  what  occafion  fuch 
terms  were  originally  introduced :  not  to 
alter  the  dotirine  of  the  Go/pel,  hut  to  pre- 
ferve  it  in  its  purity  ;  not  for  the  fake  of 
novelty  and  fubtle  difquifiiion,  but  indeed 
for  a  furer  fence  againft  novelty,  and  to 
expofe  the  perverfe  interpretations  of  he- 
reticksy  who  had  urged  the  phrafe,  with- 
out the  meaning,  of  Scripture,  and  knew 
how  to  conceal  the  moft  pernicious  tenets 
under  the  cloak  and  garb  of  fcriptural  ex- 
prejjton. 

There  is  likewife  this  advantage  to  be 
drawn  from  an  hiftorical  ftating  of  the 
Controverfy :  that  the  conduct  of  the  dif- 
ferent parties  may  be  weigh' d  and  obferv  d\ 
from  whence  fome  judgment  may  be  made 
of  the  merits  of  the  caufe?    when  it  ap- 
pears who  acted  moft  like  perfons  of  up- 
right and  unbiafsd  intentions ',   who  were 
not  afraid  of  coming  to  the  light,  but  ex- 
pected an  advantage  from  the  brightnefs 
of  their  evideyice  >  and  who  rather  fought 
their  refuge  in  obfeurity,   by  fuch  infincere 
Shufflings  and  prevarications ',  fuch  mani- 
fold artifice  and  fubterfuge,  fuch  irrefolute 
changing  of  their  forms  and  endlefs  un- 
certainty ,    as    is   no  unreafonable  preju- 

A  3  dice 


The   Preface. 

dice  againfl  the  juftice  of  their  fcheme, 
which  was  rather  ruined  than  defended  by 
fuch  mean  and  difreputable  arts.  So  that 
forne  have  thought,  there  hardly  needs  any 
other  confutation  of  the  Arians,  but  to  fet 
them  forth  in  their  proper  colours,  andfhew 
how  different  a  figure  from  the  Orthodox 
they  have  made  in  all  their  controverfies. 

It  will  be  faid  perhaps,    that  the  ac- 
counts of  Maimbourg  and  Tillemont  are 
fufficient  to   this  purpofe ,    and   that   it 
feems  a  ufelefs    labour  to  undertake  the 
Hiftory  of  Arianifm  after  them.     But  this 
objection  will  appear  moft  confiderable  to 
then?  who  are  leaft  converfant  in  fuch  en- 
quiries.    Their  accounts  are  both  written 
in  another  language,   which    makes  them 
ufelefs  to  an  Englifh  reader  $    and  though 
that  defeEt  is  in  fbme  meafure  fupplied  by 
the  tranflation  of  a  part  of  Tillemont  by 
Mr.  Deacon,  under  the  title  of  The  Hiftory 
of  the  Arians,  yet  that  reaches  but  about  the 
compafs  of  fixty  years,  and  is  Jo  far  from 
being  an  entire  Hi/lory  of  that  time,  that  he 
is  forced  to  make  frequent  references  to  what 
he  has  elfewhere  faid,  under  the  different 
titles  of  Alexander,    Eufebius,   Marcellus, 
Athanafius,  Euftathius,  Meletius,  &c. 

But  befides  the  language,  there  are  other 
confiderations  which  convince  us,  that  a 
defign  of  this  kind  can  be  no  way  unfea- 

fonable 


The   Preface. 

finable  or  fuperfluous.      Tillemont  is  an 
Author,   whofe  judgment,  fidelity  and  di- 
ligence   deferve    our    commendation  $    but 
then  his  defign  was  large  and  extenfive, 
not  confined  to  the  (ingle  point  ofi  Arian- 
ifm  or  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  but  in- . 
tended  to  take  in  the  whole  compafs  of 
Ecclefiaftical  Hiflory  for  fix  centuries.    So 
that  what  coyicerns   the  fubjeUt  we  have 
now  before  us-,  is  fcatterd  throughout  dif- 
ferent parts  of  a  voluminous  work,  which 
comes  but  into  few  hands?    and  is  not 
without  pains  and  much  confumption  of 
time,  to  be  laid  together  and  connected  in  a 
proper  order.     Befides  which  it  is  obferva- 
ble,  that  however  exact  as  to  the  tranfac- 
tions  of  thofe  times,  yet  he  is  lefs  particu- 
lar than  might  be  wifljed,  as  to  the  merits 
of  the  caufe  j  fo  that  it  is  not  every  reader 
that  would  be  able  to  pick  out  a  juft  ft  ate 
of  the  Contr  overfly  from,  his  relation. 

This  obfervatwn  is  like  wife  applicable  to 
the  Hiflory  of  Maimbourg,  {which  is 
fbortly  promifed  to  the  publick  in  Mr.  Her- 
bert^ tran/Iation)  who  in  attending  to  the 
moft  remarkable  events  and  occurrences,  is 
many  times  defective  as  to  the  manage- 
ment of  the  difpute,  the  true  hinge  on 
which  it  ufually  turned.  Withal  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  however  he  may  have  digefled 
his  materials  into  a  more  uniform  Hiflory, 
and  collected  what  relates  particularly  to 

A  4  the 


The    P  R  E  F  A  C  E. 

the  cafe  of  Arianifm,  yet  he  is  an  Author 
in  whom  we  want  the  exaftnefs  and  the 
diligence  of  Tillemont,  and  who  therefore 
ought  not  to  be  read   without  fome  cau- 
tion? to  correct  his  errors?  and  fupply  his 
defeffs,  which  we  hope  to  fee  in  fome  mea- 
fure  remedied  by  the  notes  of  his  Trans- 
lator.     His  Hiflory,    beginning  but  from 
the  rife  of  Arius,  is  pretty  much  confined 
to  the  proceedings  of  his  followers :  whilft 
the  fentiments   of   the  Apollinarian,    the 
Ncftorian  and  Eutychian  herefies  are  over- 
look d  and  neglected  j   as  well  as  the  dif- 
ference   between  the  Greeks   and   Latins, 
concerning    the   proceflion    of   the   Holy 
Ghoft,    and  fome  other  matters  of  import- 
ance in  the  middle  centuries.     But  it  was 
thought  material,  that  whatever  Contro- 
versies had  been  moved,   which  did  any 
way  ajfeEi  the  Doclrine  of  the  Trinity,  as 
well  before  the  time  of  Arius,   as  after- 
wards ,   fhould  be  put  together  in  a  fhort 
and  eafy  view?  and  ftated  for  the  benefit  of 
thofe  who  have  not  leifure  or  capacity  for 
fo  exaEl  a  fearch  into  the  ancient  monu- 
ments.    Laftly?    his  account  of  Socinian- 
ifm  is  manifeftly  very  lame  and  imperfe6l ; 
nor  do  I  know  of  any  one  that  had  under- 
taken that  part  with  any  juji  exatlnefs, 
till  lajl  year   there  came   out   a  Hiftory 
of  Socinianifm,   in  French,  from  whence 
my  eighth  Sermon,  {which  was  drawn  up 

before 


The   Preface. 

before  I  faw  it)  has  receiv'd  many  addi- 
tional improvements. 

For  my  own  party  I  have  endeavour' d  to 
enlarge  moft  upon  the  different  opinions  of 
the  hereticksy  and  the  declarations  of  the 
Church  againft  them  {which  are  the  main 
hinges  whereupon  the  Controverfy  always 
turnd)  and  to  contract  my  felf  where  the 
ftate  of  the  Controverfy  has  received  no  al- 
teration y  fo  that  a  long  recital  of  facts 
would  but  have  dwindled  into  civil  Hijlory. 
If  I  have  any  where  been  foorter  than  was 
requijite  to  the  clearing  of  the  caufe,  the 
confinement  I  was  in  before  a  publick  au- 
dience may  be  fome  fort  of  apology.  And 
yet  if  after  all  I  have  fewer  defects  than 
might  well  have  been  expected  from  a  per- 
fon  fo  unequal  to  the  undertaking  5  next  to 
the  divine  affi fiance y  which  oftentimes  en- 
ables the  weak  things  of  this  world  to  con- 
found the  wife  and  the  mighty ',  the  reader 
mujl  eft e em  it  to  be  in  great  meafure  owing 
to  the  advice  and  ajfiftance  of  two  of  my 
worthy  predecejfors  in  this  Lecturey  2>r. 
Waterland  and  'Dr.  Knisht. 

There  is  one  particular  in  the  conduct  of 
St.  Bafil,  which  may  be  thought  to  deferve 
a  little  farther  clearing  in  this  place.  It 
is  mention  d  in  the  fifth  Sermon  (pag.  248, 
249.)  how  upon  the  great  growth  of  he- 
refy  under  the  Emperor  Valens,  when  the 

Orthodox 


The   Preface.' 

Orthodox  Bifiops  were  almoft  every  whefe 
deprived,   and  St.  Bafil  in  a  manner  flood 
Jingle  to  uphold  the  Catholick  Caufe,  yet 
even  he  did  fo  far  yield  to  the  iniquity  of 
the  times ',  as  to  forbear  the  fpeaking  out  in 
exprefs  words,  that  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  God. 
This  was  objeBed  to  him,  by  fome  of  the 
more  zealous  Catholicks,    as  an  argument 
of  meannefs  of  fpirit.     His  principles  were 
well  known,  not  only  by  many  Catholicks, 
to  whom  he  opend  himfe If  freely,  both  in 
his  private  conferences,  and  occasional  wri- 
tings ;    but  even  by  his  adverfaries  them- 
felves,    who  for  that   reafon  perpetually 
watch' d  their  opportunity,   to  catch  fome 
dire 61  confejfwn  of  it  out  of  his  own  mouth. 
This  induced  him  to  forbear  it  in  his  po- 
pular difcourfes,  not  from  the  fear  of  any 
fujferings  to  which  he  might  expofe  him- 
felf,    but  from  a  juft  apprehenfion  of  the 
great  damage  which  might  accrue  to  the 
Church,  by  having  his  See  vacated  in  that 
time  of  general  calamity.     At  the  fame 
time  he  was  far  from  making  any  criminal 
compliances  -,    he  advanced  nothing  incon- 
fiflent  with  the  Catholick  Faith ;   nay,  he 
was  careful  in  thofe  very  difcourfes  to  af 
fert  the  fame  doctrine  in  terms  equivalent, 
tho>  he  forbore  the  open  ufe  of  that  expref- 
fwn,   which  might  have  given  them  the 
readieft  handle  to  proceed  againft  hifn.    For 
an  inftance  of  this,  I  would  here  fet  down 
3  apart 


The  Preface. 

a  part  of  one  of  his  Homilies  upon  this 
fubje09  as  the  moft  fubft ant ial  apology  that 
can  be  made  for  him.  It  is  in  his  twenty 
feventh  Homily,  entitled.  Contra  Sabelli- 
anos,  &  Arium  &  Anomaeos :  where  after 
having  afferted  the  perfonality  of  the  Son 
againfi  the  Sabellians,  and  his  Divinity  a- 
gainft  the  Anom&ans,  he  thus  proceeds: 
•«— - — —  "  But  again,  I  perceive  you  to 
"  be  offended  at  the  fubjett  of  my  dift 
"  courfe,  and  feem  to  my  felf  to  hear  you 
"  {as  it  were)  complaining,  that  whilft  I 
"  fpend  the  time  in  treating  of  uncontro- 
"  verted  points,  I  forbear  to  touch  upon 
<c  thofe  which  are  the  ufual  matter  ofdifi 
<c  ptite.  For  now  every  ones  ears  are  at- 
"  tentive  to  hear  fomething  difcourfed  of 
"  the  doElrine  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  This  I 
"  fhould  dejire  above  all  things  to  deliver 
"  to  my  hearers  in  the  fame  naked  Jimpli- 
"  city  in  which  I  have  receivd  it  my  felf 
<c  with  the  fame  freedom  from  curiofity  in- 
"  which  I  have  embraced  it ;  that  I  might 
u  not  be  perpetually  anfwering  the  fame 
<c  queftions,  but  might  give  fatisf action  to 
<c  thafe  who  learn  of  me  by  one  open  decla- 
!*  ration.  But  fine  e  you  ft  and  about  us  as 
"  judges  rather  than  difciples,  defirous  to 
"  make  trial  of  us,  a?tdnotfeeking  to  learn 
'"  your  felves,  it  will  be  necejfary  for  us  as 
"  in  a  court  of  judicature,  *  to  prolong  the 
"  difpute,   always  to  be  thus  interrogated, 

"  and 


The  Preface. 

u  and  always  anfwering  what  we  have  re- 
"  ceivd.  But  you  we  exhort,  that  you 
<c  would  by  no  means  expect  to  hear  from 
<c  us  what  may  be  agreeable  to  your  felves, 
cc  but  rather  what  is  p  leafing  to  God,  and 
"  confonant  to  Scripture,  and  not  repugnant 
"  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  What 
"  therefore  has  been  faid  of  the  Son,  that 
<c  we  ought  to  acknowledge  his  proper  per- 
<c  fonality,  the  fame  we  are  to  fay  likewife 
"  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  For  the  Spirit  is  not 
"  to  be  fuppofed  the  fame  with  the  Father, 
<f  from  its  being  faid  that  God  is  a  Spirit. 
"  Nor  yet  may  the  perfon  of  the  Son  and 
"  Spirit  be  imagined  one  and  the  fame, 
«  from  its  being  faid  again,  if  any  one 
"  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Chrift,  he  is  none 
"  of  his:  but  Chrift  is  in  you.  From 
"  hence  indeed  fome  have  been  led  to  mif- 
"  take,  as  if  the  Spirit  and  Chrift  were  the 
"  fame.  But  what  fay  we  ?  namely,  that 
"  the  property  of  nature  is  hereby  demon- 
"  ftrated,  but  not  any  confufion  of  the  pen- 
"  fons.  The  Father  is  he  who  hath  a  per- 
"  feet  ejfence,  andftands  in  need  of  nothing, 
"  the  root  and  fountain  of  the  Son  and 
"  Holy  Ghoft.  The  Son  alfo  is  the  living 
"  Word  in  the  fulnefs  of  the  Godhead, 
"  and  the  offspring  of  the  Father  with- 
"  out  any  defect;.  In  like  manner  the  Spi- 
<c  rit  is  full,  not  part  of  another,  but  con- 
"  fidefd  as  perfect  and  entire  in  himfelf 

"  Thus 


The   Preface, 

u  Thus  the  Son  is  infeparably  united  with 
<c  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  is  infeparably 
<c  united  with  the  Son,  there  being  nothing 
<c  to  divide,  nothing  which  might  cut  off 
Cc  this  eternal  conjunction.  There  has  no 
c<  age  or  difiance  of  time  faffed  between 
u  them,  nor  can  our  mind  conceive  any  fe- 
cc  paration,  by  which  the  Son  fhou/d  not  al- 
u  ways  co'exijl  with  the  Father,  or  the  Holy 
cc  Ghoft  with  the  Son.  When  therefore  we 
l<  conjoin  the  Holy  Trinity,  think  not  of  it 
u  as  three  parts  of  fome thing  which  only  is 
u  not  in  fact  divided  {for  this  were  an  im- 
"  pious  imagination)  but  underftand  the  in- 
u  fep  arable  co'exiftence  of  three  who  are  per- 
"  fe^t  and  incorporeal.  For  where  there  is 
u  the  pre  fence  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  there  alfo 
u  is  the  pre  fence  of  Chrift,  and  where  Chriji 
ec  is,  there  the  Father  is  evidently  alfo. 
<c  Know  ye  not,  that  your  bodies  are  the 
"  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  and  if  any  one 
"  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  mall  God 
"  deftroy.  Being  fanElified  therefore  by  the 
"  Holy  Ghoft,  we  receive  Chrift  dwelling  in 
u  us  in  the  inner  man,  and  with  him  the 
"  Father,  making  a  common  abode  with 
"  thofe  who  are  worthy.  The  fame  con- 
"  junction  likewife  is  denoted  by  the  tradi- 
"  tion  of  baptifm,  and  the  confeffion  of 
u  faith.  For  if  the  Spirit  be  different  in 
u  nature,  how  came  he  to  be  number  d  toge- 
*  ther  with  them?  And  if  in  a  courfe  of 

"  time 


The  Preface. 

«  time  he  was  only  produced  into  being,  and 
<c  added  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  how 
cc  came  he  to  be  rankd  with  the  eternal  na- 
cc  ture  ?  So  that  they  who  divide  the  Sprit 
"  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  number 
"  him  among  the  creatures,  muft  at  once 
tc  imply  the  form  of  baptifm  to  be  infgnifi- 
cc  cant,  and  the  confejfwn  of  faith  defective. 
"  For  the  Trinity  will  be  no  more  a  Trinity, 
"  if  the  Spirit  be  taken  from  it :  And  yet  if 
u  any  part  of  the  creation  be  taken  in,  the 
cc  whole  creation  may  come  in  {by  the  fame 
"  reafon]  and  be  number  d  with  the  Father 
<c  and  the  Son.  For  what  {in  this  cafe] 
cc  fhould  hinder  us  from  faying,  I  believe  in 
u  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  in  the  whole 
<c  creation  {or  in  every  creature  ?3  Since  if 
u  it  be  pious  to  believe  in  apart  of  the  ere- 
"  ation,  much  more  will  it  become  us  to  take 
"  in  the  whole  creation  into  our  confejfion. 
<c  But  if  you  believe  in  the  whole  creation, 
cc  you  then  believe  not  only  in  angels  and 
u  miniftring  fpirits,  but  in  whatever  ad- 
c  c  verfe  powers  there  may  be,  feeing  they 
IC  alfo  are  a  part  of  the  creation,  and  you 
cc  are  joind  to  thefe  in  the  confejfwn  of 
"  faith.  Thus  does  the  blafphemy  againjl 
<c  the  Holy  Ghoft  lead  into  wicked  and  un- 
cc  law  fid  ajfertions:  And  as  foon  as  you 
"  have  fpoke  what  you  ought  not  concerning 
the  Spirit,  the  dereliction  of  the  Spirit  is 
manifejl  from  thence.     For  #s  he  that 

V  fhuts 


cc 


The   Preface. 

u  fhuts  his  eyes  carries  darknefs  with  him- 
"  fttf*  f°  ^e  w^°  departs  from  the  Spirit , 
"  being  deftitute  of  him  that  fhould  enligh- 
ic  ten  him,  is  overwhelmed  with  fpiritual 
u  blindnefs.     ^Moreover,  let  tradition  have 
fi  its  weight  to  deter  thee  from  feparating 
u  the  Holy  Ghojl  from  the  Father  and  the 
"  Son.    This  is  the  doEirine  which  the  Lord 
u  hath  taught,  and  the  Apoftles  preached , 
u  which  the  Fathers  have  prefervd,  and 
u  the  Martyrs  have  confirm  d:  Let  it  fnfi 
u  fice  to  fpeak  as  thou  haft  learnt,  and  let 
cc  me  hear  no  more  fitch  ibphifms  as  the  fey 
ic  Either  he  is  unbegotten,  or  begotten :  if 
"  unbegotten  he  is  a  father,  if  begotten  he 
a  is  a  fon :  but  if  neither  of  theie,  he  is  a 
■"  creature.     For  my  own  part,  I  acknow- 
u  ledge  the  Spirit  indeed  with  the  Father ', 
ic  but  not  to  be  the  Father:  and  I  have  re- 
u  ceivd  him  in  conjunction  with  the  Son, 
cc  yet  not  under  the  character  or  name  of  the 
cc  Son.     But  I  under  ft  and  his  relation  to 
"  the  Father,  becaufe  he  proceedcth  from 
"  the  Father  -,  and  that  to  the  Son,  becaufe 
"  /  hear,   if  any  one  have  not  the  Spirit 
"  of  Chrift,  he  is  none  of  his.     Now  if  he 
<c  were  not  the  proper  Spirit  of  Chrift,  how 
"  fhould  he  appropriate  us  to  him  ?  I  hear 
"  him  alfo  termd  the  Spirit  of  truth  >  and 
iC  the  Lord  is  the  truth.     But  when  I  hear 
iC  him  called  the  Spirit  of  adoption,    this 
*c  calls  to  mind  that  unity  he  has  by  na- 

"  turc 


-  The   Preface. 

u  ture  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  For 
"  how  fhould  that  which  is  alien,  adopt  > 
€C  How  fhould  that  appropriate  which  itfelf 
"  is  different  in  kind?  Thus  therefore  am  I 
"  cautious  neither  to  coin  n?w  words,  nor 
"  diminifh  the  majefty  of  the  Spirit.  But  as 
"  for  thofe  who  dare  to  call  him  a  creature,  / 
"  bewail  and  lament  them,  that  by  flight 
"  fophifms  andfpecious  fallacies,  they  throw 
"  themj elves  headlong  into  hell.  For  be- 
"  caufe  our  mind  {fay  they)  takes  in  thefe 
"  three  things,  and  there  is  nothing  in  na- 
"  ture  which  falls  not  within  this  divifion, 
€C  that  it  is  either  unbegotten,  begotten,  or 
<c  created ;  fince  the  Spirit  is  neither  the  firftr, 
"  nor  fecond  of  them,  to  rglrov  aga,  it  muft 
"  be  the  third.  This  <z*a  (or  inference)  of 
"  yours,  will  render  you  obnoxious  to  an  e- 
"  ternal  dc£  [or  curfe.)  Haft  thou  fear ch'd 
u  out  all  things  ?  Haft  thou  a  compafs  of 
"  thought  to  bring  every  thing  tinder  this 
"  divifion  ?  Haft  thou  left  nothing  unexa- 
"  mined?  Haft  thou  conceived and Jhut  up 
"  all  things  in  thy  underftanding  ?  cDoft 
«  thou  know  what  is  under  the  earth,  or  in 

«  the  deep? 

From  all  this  it  is  evident ;  that  St.  Baftl 
was  not  only  entirely  catholick  in  his  own 
fentiments,  but  was  likewife  careful  to  cul- 
tivate and  improve  them  in  his  people. 

z» 

S  E  R- 


'  MaS^**' 


SERMON  I. 

Preach'd  Novemb.  7, 17*3. 


Deut.  XXXIL  7. 

Remember  the  days  of  old,  confider 
the  years  of  many  generations  : 
AJk  thy  father \  and  he  will  Jhew 
thee ;  thy  elders,  and  they  will  tell 
thee. 


N  order  to  difcern  or  eftablifh  serm, 
the  truth  of  any  of  thofedoc-  ^^^ 
trines  of  religion,  which  are 
not  difcoverable  by  the  light 
of  nature  or  principles  of  hu- 
man reafon,  there  is  no  doubt  we  muft 
appeal  to  the  divine  revelation  as  our 
guide,  that  that  may  be  the  only  ftandard 
of  our  faith  which  God  has  been  pleafed 

B  to 


Z  An  Hifiortcal  Accounts/ 

Serm.  i.  to  impart  to  us.  But  if  it  be  difputed 
W^  where  fuch  revelation  may  be  found,  or 
by  what  rule  it  ought  to  be  interpreted  5 
fome  other  help  muft  be  called  in  for  the 
refolution  of  this  queftion,  that  the  books 
of  Scripture  may  be  certainly  known,  and 
their  meaning  rightly  underftood. 

Where  fuch  help  may  be  found,  is  a 
matter  which  deferves  our  enquiry.  Shall 
we  call  them  to  the  bar  of  our  own  pri- 
vate reafon  and  judgment,  efteeming  that 
to  be  true  which  fuits  beft  with  our  thoughts 
and  conceptions,  and  reje&ing  that  as  falfe 
which  to  our  apprehenfion  may  appear  ab- 
furd  or  incredible?  That  would  but  be 
forming  a  religion  to  ourfelves,  whilft  thofe 
books  fhould  be  genuine  which  were  moft 
pleafing  to  us,  or  their  meaning  fhould  be 
fuch  as  might  be  moft  conformable  to  our 
prejudices.  Shall  we  fay  the  Scriptures  are 
fo  clear  as  to  want  neither  proof  nor  ex- 
planation >  This  is  but  begging  the  quefti- 
on inftead  of  anfwering  it ;  and  I  dare  ven- 
ture to  appeal  to  them  who  are  moft  con- 
verfant  in  the  ftudy  of  thofe  holy  Oracles, 
for  proof  of  this  afiertion,  that  there  are 
many  paffages  even  of  the  greateft  moment 
which  want  to  be  explain'd,  and  cannot  be 
rightly  underftood,  by  a  bare  reading  or 
perufal  of  them.  Shall  we  then  exped 
the  favour  of  immediate  infpiration,  to 
lead  us  into  all  truth,  without  the  additi- 
on 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3 

on  of  other  outward  and  convenient  af-  serm.  i; 
fiftances  >  That  might  do  the  builnefs  in-  V*^VSrf 
deed  :  but  I  know  of  no  promife  to  warrant 
us  in  fuch  prefumption  ;  we  may  as  well 
hope  to  be  inftrufted  without  reading  the 
Scriptures  at  all,  as  exped  the  divine  illu- 
mination to  follow  upon  the  bare  reading, 
whilft  we  negled  thofe  neceffary  means  of 
underftanding  them,  which  the  divine  Pro- 
vidence has  laid  before  us.  Laftly,  mail 
we  enquire  liow  the  Church  in  former 
ages  underftood  and  explain  d  them,  what 
proportions  were  anciently  collected  from 
them  as  the  genuine  doctrine  of  Chrift,  and 
his  Apoftles,  what  herefies  arofe  in  oppofi- 
tion  to  fuch  dodrine,  and  by  what  argu- 
ments the  champions  for  the  truth  did 
baffle  and  defeat  them  ?  This  feems  to  be 
the  cleareft,  or  indeed  the  only  way,  to 
put  an  end  to  controveriies  of  this  kind, 
and  eftabhfh  our  faith  on  an  immoveable 
foundation,  fince  this  catholick  tradition 
depends  not  upon  mere  oral  conveyance, 
which  might  be  liable  to  great  alterations 
and  corruptions,  nor  upon  the  modern  te- 
ftimony  of  any  particular  Church,  much 
lefs  upon  the  pretended  infallibility  of  any 
fingle  perfon,  but  fetches  its  fupport  from 
the  writings  of  the  moft  primitive  profef- 
fors  of  Chriftianity,  from  the  confent  of 
all  the  Churches  which  were  planted  in 
their  times,  and  from  the  conftant  fucceffi- 

B  z  on 


4  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  I.  on  or  continuance  of  fuch  tradition  thro* 

V^VV  all  as;cs  of  the  Church3. 

This  has  always  been  found  a  more  cer- 
tain method  for  difcovering  the  truth,  than 
for  men  to  reaibn  entirely  out  of  their 
own  heads,  and  hope  to  find  out  fuch  doc- 
trines as  were  hidden  from  the  ages  that 
are  paft.  It  was  fo  judg  d  as  long  firxce  as 
the  days  of  Job,  when  Bildad  made  this 
appeal  to  the  experience  and  teftimony  of 
antient  times :  Enquire,  I  pray  thee,  of  the 
former  age,  and  prepare  thy  felf  to  the 
fearch  of  their  fathers  s  for  we  are  but  of 
yefterday,  and  know  nothing^.  So  Mofes, 
in  the  text,  advifed  the  Ifraelites,  as  a  re- 
medy againft  their  future  infidelity,  that 
they  would  look  back,  thro'  antient  hiftory 
or  tradition,  to  the  wonderful  things  which 
God  had  done  for  them,  and  his  covenant 
founded  thereupon.  *Do  ye  thus  requite 
the  Lord,  O  foo/zfb  people  and  unwife  ?  Is 
not  he  thy  father  that  hath  bought  thee? 
hath  he  not  made  thee,  and  eftablijhed 
thee  ?  Remember  the  days  of  old>  confider 


a  Id  verfus  quod  prius,  id  prius  quod  &  ab  initio.  Tertuh 
contra  Marcionem,  lib.  4.  cap.  /.  Id  efle  vcrum  quodcunque 
primum,  id  efle  adulterum  quodcunque  pofterius.  Tertul. 
adv.  Praxeara,  cap.  2.  Quod  univerfa  tenet  eccleiia,  neccon- 
ciliis  inftitutum,  fed  femper  retentum  eft,  non  nifiapofto- 
lica  au&oritate  traditum  rectiffime  creditur.  D.  Auguft.  do 
Baptifm.  contra  Donatift.  iib.  4.  cap.  24.       ?  Job  viii.8,  9. 

L  the 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  5 

the  years  of  many  generations  :  Ask  thy  serm.  I. 
father,  and  he  will  fbew  thee  j  thy  Elders,  ^OT^ 
and  they  will  tell  theec.  And  in  like 
manner  the  Prophet  Jeremy  d ;  Thus  faith 
the  Lord,  ft  and  ye  in  the  ways  and  fee, 
and  ash  for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the 
good  way,  and  walk  therein,  and  ye  fhall 
find  reft  for  your  fouls. 

And  will  not  the  fame  method  of  en- 
quiry become  us  now  under  the  new  tefta- 
ment,  which  was  thus  recommended  and 
prefcribed  under  the  old  \  The  Apoftles 
undoubtedly  have  left  us  their  directions  to 
the  fame  purpofe.  From  hence  St.  *Paul 
not  only  fpeaks  of  certain  ordinances  and 
traditions,  with  regard  to  matters  of  prac- 
tice and  outward  difciplinee,  but  likewife 
of  fpme  others  of  a  doctrinal  kindf,  of  a 
certain  form  of  found  words  s  to  be  retain'd 
or  holden  faft-,  which  muft  mean  fomc 
fummary  or  fyftem  of  belief,  conformable 
indeed  to  Scripture,  but  diftind  from  it. 

Our  bleifed  Lord,  'tis  true,  upbraids  the 
Tharifees  with  utterly  evacuating  the  word 
of  God  by  their  numerous  traditions11.  And 
it  cannot  be  denied,  but  there  has  been  too 
much  reafon  to  complain,  likewife  in  the 
chriftian  Church,  of  the  manifold  abufes 


e  Deut.  xxxii.  6,  7.            d  Jer.  vi.  16.  *  1  Cor.  xi.  2. 

2.  Thef.  ii.  iy.                '2  Thef.  Hi. 6.  ?  2  Tim.  i.  13. 
J  Mat.  xv.  o.  Mark  vii.  7,  o. 

B  s  done 


6  An  Hifiorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.  I.  done  under  colour  of  this  kind  of  evidence, 
W^  to  the  weakning  at  leaft,  or  rather  to  the 
entire  defeating  and  fetting  afide  of  many 
of  the  genuine  and  moft  important  doc- 
trines of  the  Gofpel.  But  in  both  cafes  it 
ought  to  be  obferv'd,  they  are  but  pretend- 
ed traditions  of  a  modern  date,  not  only 
fallible  but  falfe,  and  fo  far  from  giving 
light  to  Scripture,  that  they  contradid  it. 
And  what  has  this  to  do  with  thofe  tradi- 
tions which  are  eafy  to  be  traced  up  to  the 
eariieft  ages,  fo  that  they  have  the  jufteft 
claim  to  antiquity ;  thro' the  feveral  Churches 
where  the  Gofpel  has  been  planted,  fo  that 
they  are  truly  univerfal ;  and  this  not  on- 
ly as  the  opinion  of  a  few  private  perfons, 
but  as  the  fenfe  or  dodrine  of  thofe  Churches, 
fo  that  they  have  the  fulleft  and  moft  am- 
ple confent *  >  Such  traditions  as  thefe, 
will  not  obfcure  or  pervert,  but  clear  the 
fenfe  of  Scripture,  and  whilft  they  lend  a 
luftre  to  the  facred  writings,  will  receive 
from  them  in  return  a  confirmation  of  their 
own  authority. 

This  therefore  is  the  method  by  which 
the  catholick  dodrine  has  always  been  de- 
fended againft  the  innovations  and  corrup- 


5  In  ipsa  item  ecclefia  catholica  magnopere  curandum  eft, 
ut  id  teneamus  quod  ubique,  quod  Temper,  quod  ab  omnibus 
creditum  eft.  Hoc  eft  etenim  vere  proprieque  catholicum, 
Vincent.  Lirin.  Commonit,  cap.  3, 

tions 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  ? 

tions  of  Hereticks.  The  fathers  of  the  Serm,  h 
Church  have  conftantly  appealed  to  ca-  ^OTM 
tholick  tradition k :  to  that  do&rine  which 
was  at  firft  derived  from  the  Apoftles,  and 
from  them  continued  in  all  Churches  for 
the  firft  three  centuries  at  leaft  :  after 
which,  tho'  it  met  with  interruption  in 
fome  places,  yet  not  in  all,  never  entirely 
fupprefs'd,  but  finding  fome  to  affert  it  un- 
der all  extremities,  and  thro'  a  conftant 
fucceffion,  capable  of  being  traced  back- 
ward to  the  earlieft  ages. 

Surely  nothing  can  be  more  reafonablc 
than  this  method  of  proceeding.  For  as  it 
cannot  be  difputed  but  the  Apoftles  ex- 
plaind  themfelves  more  fully  and  at  large 
in  their  preaching  and  occafional  difcourfes, 
but  efpecially  in  the  inftrudions  which  they 
gave  to  thole  whom  they  appointed  to  go- 
vern and  infped  the  Church :  So  if  their 
meaning  were  in  any  thing  obfcure,  there 
is  no  doubt   but  their  difciples  would  be 


*  Traditionem  itaque  Apoftolorum  in  toto  mundo  mani- 
feftatam,  in  omni  ecclefia  adeft  refpicere  omnibus  qui  vera 
velint  videre;  8c  habemus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab  Apoftolis 
inftituti  funt  epifcopi  in  ecclefiis,  &  fucceflbres  corum  ufquc 
ad  nos,  qui  nihil  tale  docuerunt,  neque  cognoverunt  quale  ab 
his  deliratur.    Iren.  adv.  haer.  lib.  3.  cap.  3. 

Edant  ergo  origines  ecclefiarum  fuarum,  evolvant  ordinem 
epifcoporum  fuorum,  ita  per  fuccefliones  ab  initio  decurren- 
tem,  ut  primus  ille  epifcopus  aliquem  ex  Apoftolis  vel  apo- 
ftolicis  viris,  qui  tamen  cum  Apoftolis  perfeveraverit,  habue* 
rit  au&orem  &  anteceflbrem.    Tertul.  de  Prsefcr.  c.  32.. 

B  4  careful 


8  An  Hifiorical  Account^/ 

careful  to  make  fuch  enquiries  as  might 
give  them  occafion  to  remove  that  obfcu- 
fity,  and  draw  them  into  farther  explica- 
tions. After  this,  however  it  might  be  pre- 
fumed  that  the  Apoftles  would  make  choice 
of  none,  but  perfons  of  the  greateft  inte- 
grity and  beft  abilities  to  fucceed  them  in 
the  care  of  the  Church,  yet  we  need  ask 
no  more  of  our  adverfaries  than  to  grant 
that  they  chofe  men  of  common  fenfe  and 
common  honefty.  The  firft  will  free  the 
perfons  chofen  from  any  fufpicion  of  be- 
ing miftaken  themfelves  in  points  of  great 
importance  5  the  other  will  defend  them 
againft  any  charge  of  intending  to  deceive 
their  followers.  The  fame  is  to  be  faid  of 
thofe  who  came  in  the  next  fucceffion  af- 
ter them l :  nor  ought  we  to  forget  that  the 
charifmatay  or  extraordinary  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  which  were  continued  in  their 
days,  and  for  a  confiderable  time  after- 
wards, muft  needs  add  great  weight  and 
confirmation  to  the  teftimony  of  thofe  ho- 
ly perfons.  But  above  all,  when  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  feveral  Churches  are  com- 


1  Conftat  proinde  omnern  doctrinam  quae  cum  illis  eccle- 
fiis  apoftolicis  matricibus  8c  originalibus  fidei  confpiret,  veri- 
tati  deputandam,  fine  dubio  tenentem  quod  ecclefix  ab  Apo- 
flolis,  Apoftoli  a  Chriflo,  Chriftus  a  Deo  accepit:  omnem  vero 
doclrinam  de  mendacio  prejudicandam,  quaefapiat  contra  vc- 
ritatem  Eccldiarum,  &  Apoftolorum,  £c  Chrifti,  &Dei.  Tertul. 
ds  Prarfcript.  cap.  1  r. 

pared 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  9 

pared  together,  and  all  are  found  to  agree  serm.i. 
in  one  uniform,  harmonious  and  catho-  v^V^ 
lick  confeflion,  this  is  the  ftrongeft  evi- 
dence that  can  be  asked  of  their  being 
genuine  and  authentick,  and  derived,  as  is 
alledg'd,  from  the  authority  of  the  Apoftles. 
So  that  when  all  is  done,  the  fathers  of 
the  Church  are  appealed  to  in  this  cafe  no 
otherwife  than  as  witneifes  of  fadt,  not  as 
the  firft  preachers  or  founders  of  any  doc- 
trine to  be  built  upon  their  own  authori- 
ty, but  as  attefting  it  to  have  been  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  in  their  times,  received 
from  their  fathers  as  the  catholick  doftrine, 
and  fo  from  the  Apoftles  themfelves. 

Suppofe  we  were  enquiring  after  the  ge- 
nuine fentiments  of  any  philofopher  :  Next 
to  the  confulting  of  his  own  writings,  which 
are  ftill  extant,  mould  we  not  imagine  it 
concern  d  us  to  examine  how  his  dodtrine 
was  explain  d  and  underftood  by  the  mod 
eminent  of  his  followers,  who  lived  in  or 
neareft  to  his  own  times?  Or  fuppofe  wc 
were  for  fettling  the  purport  and  defign  of 
any  antient  ftatute  law :  Would  it  not  be 
thought  reafonable,  befides  weighing  the 
force  and  propriety  of  the  expreilions,  in 
which  modern  readers  might  be  apt  to 
miftake,  to  add  the  circumftances  of  the 
times  when  that  law  was  enadted,  the  prac- 
tice that  immediately  followed  thereupon, 
and  the  determinations  of  thofe  judges  who 

remem- 


io  An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Serm.  i.  rememberd  the  occafion  of  ena&ing  it  * 
^•^y^  And  yet  in  neither  of  thefe  cafes  would 
there  be  half  the  certainty  which  there  is 
in  appealing  to  antient  and  catholick  tra- 
dition for  the  genuine  doctrines  of  the 
Chriftian  Church. 

True,  it  may  be  you  will  fay,  in  mat- 
ters of  human  learning,  or  of  human  po- 
licy, we  may  content  our  felves  to  reft  up- 
on human  evidence :  But  the  foundation 
of  our  faith  muft  be  divine,  and  the  au- 
thority of  men,  tho'  the  moft  holy  and  ju- 
dicious, is  too  weak  a  ground  to  build  up- 
on fecurely,  unlefs  we  be  able  to  make  out 
their  claim  to  infpiration.  No  queftion 
but  this  principle  is  right ;  and  if  any  man 
whatever,  nay,  if  an  Angel  from  heaveny 
Ihould  prefume  to  teach  us  any  other  gof 
pel,  than  that  which  the  infpired  writers 
have  already  taught  us  in  the  books  of 
Scripture,  let  him  be  anathemam.  But 
can  this  make  it  impoffible  for  their  books 
to  receive  light  and  illuftration  from  hu- 
man evidence  ?  If  fo,  there  ihould  no  one 
be  qualify 'd  to  expound  them,  but  he  who 
is  himfelf  infpired.  And  yet,  if  human 
evidence  be  taken  in;  then  whether  is  it 
better  to  receive  the  teftimony  of  the  pri- 
mitive fathers,  men  who  had  the  greateft 


Z  Gal.  i.  8,  9. 

pppor- 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i 1 

opportunity  to  know,  the  leaft  appearance  Serm.  I. 
of  worldly  intereft  to  ferve,  and  the  high-  ^V 
eft  proofs  of  integrity  5  or  truft  to  the  mo- 
dern inventions  of  affuming  criticks,  who 
would  pretend  to  explain  what  they  never 
underftood,  and  pais  their  judgment  on 
the  primitive  writings,  without  knowing 
the  lenfe  or  tradition  of  the  primitive 
Church  ?  This  laft  may  be  the  way  to  a- 
mufe  and  perplex,  but  the  other  to  inform 
and  edify ! 

Well  5  but  this,  it  may  be  pleaded,  is 
it  felf  a  matter  of  critical  enquiry :  and 
fhall  no  one  be  fuppofed  to  know  the 
grounds  of  his  faith,  but  he  who  has  lei- 
fure  and  capacity  to  read  the  fathers  in  their 
own  languages,  to  diftinguif h  their  genuine 
writings  from  what  is  fpurious,  and  by  mm- 
niing  up  the  whole  evidence  together  to 
colled  what  has  been  the  do&rine  of  the 
Church  throughout  every  age  of  Chrifti- 
anity  >  Why  yes  5  every  man  muft  judge 
for  himfelf  in  proportion  to  thofe  abilities 
which  God  has  given  him.  If  he  have  op- 
portunity and  learning  for  that  purpofe,  he 
will  do  well  to  fearch  into  the  records  of 
antiquity  :  But  otherwife  he  muft  content 
himfelf  with  the  reports  of  learned  men, 
of  thofe  efpecially  to  whofe  charge  he  is 
committed,  and  of  whofe  integrity  he  can 
have  no  reafonable  doubt.  I  know  no 
other  way  by  which  he  may  be  able  to 
*  prove 


xz  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  i.  prove  that  the  newTeftament  it  felf,  upon 
WV^  which  he  founds  his  belief,  is  really  the 
word  of  God.  He  muft  truft  to  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church,  and  particularly  to  the 
fidelity  of  the  firft  fuccefibrs  of  the  Apoftles, 
that  fuch  books  were  really  written  by  thofe 
holy  perfons,  under  whole  names  they  are 
tranfmitted  to  us.  And  fince  there  were 
many  other  hiftories  (as  St.  Luke*  bears 
witnefs)  of  our  Saviour's  life  and  aftions, 
he  muft  truft  them  again  in  diftinguifhing 
between  'em,  and  judging  which  were  writ- 
ten by  infpiration  of  God,  and  which  were 
merely  human  compofitions.  After  this 
he  muft  truft  'em  with  the  fafe  cuftody  of 
thefe  books,  and  taking  care  that  copies 
might  be  faithfully  tranfcribed  from  them. 
Then  he  muft  truft  the  copyifts  of  fucceeding 
ages  with  tranfcribing  from  fuch  as  were 
before  'em :  and  when  the  art  of  printing 
was  found  out,  he  muft  truft  the  feveral 
editors  with  collating  the  copies  which  oc- 
cur d  to  them,  and  noting  their  refpe&ive 
variations.  So  far  the  learned  and  unlearn- 
ed muft  truft  to  them  alike :  but  the  latter 
befides  all  this  muft  rely  upon  the  credit 
of  tranflators,  for  faithfully  conveying  to 
them  the  fenfe  of  the  original.  So  that 
to  fhut  out  human  evidence  from  the  proofs 


"  Luke  i.  i. 

of 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  1 3 

of  our  faith,  fo  far  as  'tis  capable  of  being  serm.  fc 
proved  by  fads,  is  really  to  fap  the  foun-  v^oP^ 
dation  upon  which  it  ftands,  and  fet  men 
loofe  to  eternal  fcepticifm  and  uncertain- 
ty. It  is  in  effeft  to  fay,  we  fhould  be- 
lieve no  farther  than  our  fenfes  reach  5  and 
then  there  is  an  end  of  all  the  credibility 
of  hiftory  for  the  ages  that  are  paft,  or  even 
for  the  prefent,  excepting  in  thofe  few  oc- 
currences of  which  we  may  happen  to  be 
witneffes  ourfelves. 

But  what,  it  may  be  farther  argued,  if 
the  fathers  fhould  be  found  to  lay  down 
various  and  inconfiftent  rules  of  faith,  if 
the  fame  writer  fhould  happen  to  differ 
from  himfelf,  or  feveral  to  contradict  each 
other?  Are  we  bound  to  receive  both, 
however  oppofite  in  principle  \  or  ought 
we  not  rather  to  lay  both  afide,  and  be- 
take us  to  fome  other  method  for  difco- 
vering  the  truth  >  This,  I  may  venture  to 
fay,  will  hardly  be  the  cafe  among  the 
primitive  writers  in  matters  of  great  weight 
and  importance.  But  if  at  any  time  it 
fhould  appear  to  be  fo,  the  men  of  learn- 
ing and  candour  will  know  how  to  weigh 
their  authority  in  fuch  manner,  as  not  to 
prejudice  the  caufe  of  pure  Chriftianity. 
They  will  remember  that  the  fathers,  how- 
ever zealous  or  good,  are  yet  never  ap- 
peal'd  to  as  infallible  dire&ors,  but  only 
as  reafonable   guides.     From  hence  they 

will 


14  An  H'tflorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  i.  will  be  taught  to  diftinguifh  when  thofe 
^SY^  venerable  writers  do  but  indulge  their  fan- 
cy in  explaining  fome  private  opinion  of 
their  own,  and  when  they  difcharge  their 
undeniable  duty  in  delivering  the  publick 
and  avow'd  fenfe  of  the  Church.  In  the 
former  cafe  we  may  allow  them  to  ufe 
greater  latitude,  but  in  the  other  they  muft 
ftri&ly  be  regarded  as  witneffes  of  fad. 
Again,  it  ought  to  be  confider'd  what  par- 
ticular point  they  had  in  view  in  their  rc- 
ipe&ive  writings,  whether  they  might  not 
in  guarding  againft  one  herefy,  become 
lefs  cautious  and  obfervant  of  another,  and 
fo  give  men  an  unwary  handle  to  charge 
them  with  opinions  which  they  never 
thought  of.  Befides  which,  the  whole  of 
their  writings  ought  to  be  compared  toge- 
ther, that  what  is  harm  or  obfeure  in  one 
place  may  be  clear'd  by  another ;  and  the 
opinion  of  the  antients  concerning  them, 
mould  be  taken  into  the  account,  in  or- 
der to  difcern  what  is  genuine  in  their 
works,  from  that  which  is  fpurious  or 
foifted  in  by  hereticks.  Laftly,  we  ought 
not  to  reft  upon  the  judgment  of  any  firi- 
gle  writer,  but  to  take  in  the  concurrent 
fufFrage  of  antiquity :  and  by  a  diligent 
obfervance  of  all  thefe  directions,  it  will 
not  be  difficult  to  trace  the  catholick 
do&rine  throughout  every  age  in  matters 
of  the  chief  moment  and  importance. 

But 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i  y 

But  is  it  after  all  fo  fure  a  thing,  that  Serm.  i. 
fucceffion  and  tradition  may  be  fairly  plead-  ^OP^ 
ed  in  behalf  of  the  chriftian  do&rine  ?  May 
it  not  be  urged  againft  us,  that  Chriftianity 
has  had  its  turns  and  alterations  as  well  as 
other  feds  of  religion  >  Is  there  not  a  wide 
difparity  obfervable  between  the  writings 
of  the  earlieft  and  the  later  fathers  ?  Have 
not  the  former  delivered  the  prime  articles 
of  faith  in  fuch  manner  as  they  who  are 
now  called  hereticks  would  not  fcruple  to 
confefs,  whilft  the  other  have  introduced 
fuch  a  multitude  of  new  phrafes  as  may 
create  a  fufpicion  of  fome  new  do&rine, 
not  gather'd  from  the  books  of  holy  Scrip- 
ture, but  learnt  from  the  decrees  of  Coun- 
cils, i.  e.  from  human  decifions  ?  Accord- 
ingly, is  it  not  certain  that  both  antient 
and  modern  hereticks  have  laid  claim  to 
antiquity  as  well  as  the  orthodox ;  and  how- 
ever they  might  not  think  fit  to  lay  too 
much  ftrefs  on  the  authority  of  fathers,  yet 
they  have  thought  they  had  fufficient 
grounds  to  reckon  them  on  their  fide  > 
Nay,  have  not  fome  of  the  modern  afler- 
tors  of  orthodoxy  given  up  the  caufe,  and 
granted  to  the  heterodox  fide  fome  of  the 
greateft  names  in  antiquity  i 

In  anfwer  to  ail  this,  I  may  venture  to 
affert,   becaufe  it  is  no  more  than  much 
abler  hands  have  already  made  good,  that 
the  faith  of  the  catholick  Church  has  al- 
ways 


16  An  Hiftorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.  i.  ways  been  the  fame  as  to  the  main  heads 
^^Y^  and  fubftance  of  its  do&rine  5  and  what- 
ever appeals  the  hereticks  may  have  made 
to  antiquity,  they  have  always  been  defeat- 
ed upon  that  head,  whilft  the  catholick 
tradition  has  been  eafily  defended  and  main- 
tained againfl:  them.  If  after  this  there 
fhould  appear  to  be  fome  little  variety  in 
the  manner  of  expreffing  it,  that  is  no  more 
than  what  ufually  falls  out  in  etfery  other 
diicipline  and  fcience,  the  true  force  and 
import  of  words  being  liable  to  vary,  in. 
proportion  to  the  different  ufages  of  per- 
ions  and  places,  and  the  circumftances  of 
the  times.  So  long  as  the  multitude  of  be- 
lievers were  of  one  heart  and  of  one  foul, 
there  was  the  lefs  need  of  caution  in  their 
manner  of  exprellion,  becaufe  they  knew 
their  meaning  to  be  fully  underftood  ;  and 
were  under  no  apprehenfion  that  their  words 
might  be  perverted  to  a  contrary  fignifica- 
tion.  But  when  the  fubtilty  of  hereticks 
took  advantage  of  this  primitive  fimplicity 
of  expreffion,  and  explain  d  the  catholick 
words  to  an  heretical  fenfe,  it  became  ne- 
ceffary  to  ufe  fuch  terms  as  might  guard 
againft  their  wicked  artifices,  and  leave  them 
as  little  fubterfuge  as  words  could  do.  It 
is  the  fenfe  of  the  article,  and  not  the  words, 
which  is  the  objeft  of  our  faith :  and  there- 
fore it  can  avail  our  hereticks  but  little,  to 
plead  that  they  will  ftand  to  the  primitive 

expre£ 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  17 

expreffions,  fo  long  as  it  is  clearly  demon-  Serm.  i: 
Arable  that  they  have  departed  from  the  pri-  ^^V^^ 
mitive  ienfe°,  and  denied  that  faith  which 
was  once  deliver  d  unto  the  faints?. 

Here  indeed  the  corrupters  of  the  anti- 
ent  do&rine  take  plealurc  to  difplay  their 
rhetorick  5  they  declaim  loudly  and  long 
of  the  unreafonablencfs  of  forming  articles 
in  other  words  than  thofe  in  which  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoft  has  thought  fit  to  lay  them  down 
in  Scripture  5  they  think  this  is  to  aim  at 
being  wife  above  the  Holy  Ghoft,  who  beft 
knew  in  what  terms  to  propofe  the  doc- 
trines of  our  holy  religion,  and  could  more 
eafdy  provide  againft  the  fubtiltics  of  any 
future  herefy,  than  the  moft  exquifite  art  or 
fagacity  of  man  can  do  againft  the  prefent. 

Far,  far  be  it  from  us  to  difpute  cither 
the  wildom  or  the  power  of  our  God,  his 
prefciencc  to  forcfee,  or  to  have  condemned 
in  moft  exprefs  terms  all  the  various  herefies 
of  future  times.  But  where  is  the  force  or 
conclufion  of  this  argument,  that  he  muft 
certainly  have  done  thus,  becaufe  it  was 
not  impoffible  for  him  to  have  done  it  J 
It  is  furely  fufficient  that  he  has  made  a  re- 
velation of  himfelf  fo  clear  and  pcrfeft, 
that  men  of  modeft  and  humble  difpofi- 
tions,  who  ufe  all  thole  helps  which  his 
Providence  allows  them  for  underftandine 

0  Tantum  veritati  obftrepit  adulter  fenfus,  quantum  &  cor- 
rupter ftilus.     Tertul.  de  Prjefcript.  cap.  17.     ?  Jude,  ver.  3. 

C  X"  it, 


1 8  An  Hiftorical  Account^/ 

Ser.m.  i.  it,  may  be  able  to  difcern  the  nature  of 
VY"^  thofe  truths  which  they  ought  to  believe, 
as  well  as  of  thofe  duties  which  they  are 
bound  to  obferve.  And  can  this  be 
recko/i'd  to  exclude  or  reftrain  the  paftors 
of  the  Church  from  guarding  thofe  truths, 
as  new  occafions  offer,  againft  thofe  falla- 
cious and  evafive  conftru&ions,  whereby 
fome  would  wreft  the  very  phrafes  of  the 
Gofpel,  to  evacuate  its  principal  defign  > 
imitating  herein  the  father  of  all  lies  and 
herefy,  who  ufed  the  fame  flratagems  of 
fcripture-phrafe  to  feduce,  had  that  been 
poflible,  the  Lord  of  Glory  3.  We  own 
the  Scriptures  to  be  fo  far  clear  as  that 
they  may  be  underftood,  yet  not  fo  as  that 
they  cannot  be  miftaken  :  God  having  thus 
iccn  fit,  as  well  to  try  our  humility,  and 
to  exercife  our  faith,  as  to  require  our  di- 
ligence in  ftudying  the  facred  Oracles,  and 
ufing  all  the  proper  methods  in  our  power 
for  fixing  their  true  fenfe  and  defign.  The 
ufe  therefore  of  fuch  phrafes  as  may  moft 
effectually  conduce  to  that  end,  is  not  de- 
parting from  the  Scripture,  but  adhering 
to  it ;    and  let  men  exclaim  as  they  pleafe 

**  Kocv  y>  roi$  ^78  rm  yfotfpZv  Asgws  y^QooG-t,  fM  &vi%t(rQs  rat 
yeatyovlav'  Kccv  rcc  py^arot.  tyis  ogQoootfac,  <pfay[a>i\cii,  [Ayes  xrat;  refe 
XotXyri  7TQ6cri%il£.  k  y*  offi  olxvoict  Xc&XSaru,  ctXX*  as  tvavfAtoc  jrpo- 
Qoim  OKf/jiiid  7ripifi<x,hXoyjsvoi,  \voofov  rc&  tS  'Apf«  fyovxiriv,  a$  o 
zrm  d^inuv  xxQqysyjCtiY  c*iod,3cA(^,  j^  if>  kolk£',\(&'  iXaXe*  yjiv  roc 
sk  rm  yqutpaovy  t<pi(jijo)h  &  3>*W  f£  raises.  Athanaf.  Epift. 
Encyd  ad  Epifc.  Mg.  &Lyb.§8.Tom,  i.p.  278.  Edit.  Bened. 

i,  againft 


the  Trinitarian  Cdntroverfy.  19 

againft  human  creeds  and  impofitions,  there  Serm.  im 
will  be  always  ground  to  fufped,  that  it  is  v^oT^ 
not  fo  much  the  form  of  words,  as  the 
dodrine  contained  in  'cm,  which  gives 
them  fuch  diftafte,  fmce  he  wTho  is  latis- 
fied  about  the  fenfe,  can  have  little  reafon 
to  quarrel  with  the  phrafc. 

Well  5  but  thefe  terms,  it  is  alledg  d,  have 
drawn  men  off  from  the  Simplicity  of  the 
chriftian  dodrine,  into  fruitiefs  and  unedi- 
fying  fpeculations  5  they  have  fubftitutcd 
metaphyjical  fubtilties  in  the  room  of  ar- 
ticles of  faith,  and  obtruded  for  catholick 
dodrines  the  decifions  of  men.  As  if  the 
blame  of  fubtilty  and  vain  fpeculation  were 
chargeable  only  on  the  orthodox  fide,  and 
were  not  rather  due  to  the  innovations  of 
hereticks,  who  not  content  with  that  fim- 
plicity in  which  the  chriftian  dodrine  was 
originally  propofed,  were  for  inventing 
fuch  new  and  evafive  expositions,  as  re- 
tain'd  the  words,  without  the  meaning,  of 
Chriftianity.  When  they  began  to  philo- 
fophize  upon  the  great  myfteries  of  our  re- 
ligion, and  to  infift  that  they  miift  cither 
be  explaind  in  their  way,  or  expofed  as  full 
of  abfurdity  and  contradidion  \  it  was  then 
neccfTary  for  the  catholick  Chriftians  to  ex- 
plain themfelves,  and  ihew  how  their  te- 
nets were  defeniible  againft  thofe  Subtle 
reafoners.  When  thefe  points  came  after- 
wards to  be  difcuiVd  in  the  fchools,  'tis 
C  2  pollible 


20  An  Hifiorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.  i.  poflible  they  might"  be  fpun  into  fome  nice- 
V^W  ties,  too  fine  for  common  underftan dings, 
and  too  far  remote  from  the  fubftance  of  re- 
ligion to  be  neceflary  for  them.  But  this  was 
not  the  condition  of  the  Church  in  the  earli- 
eft  ages  of  the  Gofpcl  5  they  had  then  neither 
leifurc  nor  luxury  enough  to  indulge  them- 
felves  in  wanton  curiofities  5  and  if  any 
thing  of  this  kind  mould  appear  in  the  works 
of  fome  particular  Author,  it  will  be  eafy 
to  feparate  it  from  the  known  and  al- 
lowed do&rine  of  the  Church.  So  that  of 
thefe  we  may  be  fafely  ignorant,  without 
giving  up  thole  fignificant  explanations  by 
which  the  primitive  Church  found  it  ne- 
ceffary  to  guard  againft  the  innovation  and 
calumny  of  all  gainfayers.  Tis  for  that  very 
reafon  that  the  enemies  of  truth  have  all 
along  complain'd  with  fo  much  warmth 
and  vehemence  againft  thefe  explanations. 
But  let  the  blame  be  laid  where  it  really  is 
due,  and  let  them  be  anf  werable  for  the  in- 
trodu&ion  of  other  terms,  who  had  firft  in- 
vented to  themfclves  another  fenfe,  and 
taught  how  to  difguife  the  groiTeft  Pagan- 
ifm  under  the  veil  of  Chriftianity. 

As  well  the  occafion  of  my  {landing  here 
at  prefent,  as  the  plain  tendency  of  this 
difcourfe  it  felf,  may  fuggeft  it  to  be  cal- 
culated for  the  defence  of  the  orthodox 
dottrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  againft 
the  clamorous   objections  of  Arians  and 

*  other 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 1 

other  hereticks,  by  an  hiftorical  dedudion  Serm.  I. 
of  this  controverfy  from  the  Gofpel-times, 
to  fliew  the  conftant  affertion  of  that  doc-„ 
trine  in  the  Church,  the  opposition  which 
was  made  to  it  from  time  to  time  by  in- 
fidels and  hereticks,  the  different  lights  in 
which  that  may  have  placed  the  contro- 
verfy, and  the  manner  whereby  the  fathers 
of  the  Church  have  found  it  proper  to 
guard  againft  fuch  opposition. 

Thofe  without  all  doubt  were  judg'd  the 
moft  important  dodrines  of  the  Gofpel,  in 
which  the  Catechumens  were  required  to 
be  inftruded,  before  they  were  rcceiv'd  in- 
to the  Church  by  baptifm :  fince  that  con- 
feffion  could  not  but  be  efteem'd  effential 
to  Chriftianity,  without  which  no  one  was 
permitted  to  be  made  a  Chriftian.  It  has 
been  conjedured  by  fome  learned  menr, 
that  the  original  creed  propofed  to  Cate- 
chumens, was  no  other  than  this  fhort  con- 
feffion  taken  from  the  form  of  baptifm, 
I  believe  in  the  Father,  or  in  God,  the  Fa- 
ther, the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghofl ;  which 
in  the  fecond  century  came  to  be  enlarged 
in  oppofition  to  the  various  feds  and 
branches  of  the  Gnofiick  herefy,  which 
had  either    difownd    or  perverted    every 


'  Vid.  Epifcop.  Inft.  Theol.  1.  4.  §  2.  c.  24.  D.  Bull.  Jud' 
Eccl.  Cath.  c.  4.  §  3.  D.  Wall.Hift.  of  Infant  Bapt.  part  2. 
ch.  p.  §  10. 

C  i  dodrine 


1 4.  An  Hifiorkal  Account^/ 

Serm.  i.  doCtrine  of  Chriftianity.  But  as  this  muft 
^-^V^  be  acknowledged  to  be  nothing  more  than 
matter  of  conjecture,  fo  perhaps  it  may  ap- 
pear to  have  lels  foundation  f  than  has  been 
commonly  imagined,  when  we  have  made 
a  little  reflection  upon  the  ftate  of  the 
Church  at  the  beginning  of  Chriftianity. 

It  is  certain,  that  the  firft  converts  were 
made  either  from  Judaifm  or  Taganifm  ; 
among  the  latter  ,of  whom  there  were  ma- 
ny who  had  believ'd  the  eternity  of  the 
world,  and  to  both  the  do&rinc  of  a  cru- 
cified Saviour  had  been  matter  of  offence  *. 
And  therefore  it  cannot  but  be  thought 
exceeding  rational  and  pertinent,  that  be- 
ing thus  reclaimed  from  the  foremention  d 
infidelity,  they  mould  make  a  more  expli- 
cite  profeffion  of  their  belief  in  God  as 
the  Creator,  and  in  Chrift  as  humbling 
himfelf  to  take  our  nature  upon  him,  and 
redeem  us  by  his  death  and  paffion,  in  or- 
der to  give  the  fuller  proof  of  the  reality 
of  their  conversion.  Accordingly  it  is  ob- 
fervable,  that  the  Apoftles  enlarged  much 
upon  thefe  articles11  in  the  difcourfes  made 
by  'em  to  their  converts  before  baptifm  5  as 


f  Vid.  Crabii  Annot.  ad  Bull.  Jud.  Ecc].  Cath.  cap.  6.  and 
Mr.  Reeve's  Notes  upon  Juftin  Martyr's  Apology,  pag.  108, 
109.  See  alfo  the  critical  Hiftory  of  the  Apoftles  Creed, 
ch.  1.  p.  31,0:0 

c  1  Cor.  j.  23.  u  A&s  ii.  14,  6cc.  ch.  vi.ii.  35.   ch.  x. 

36,  &c.  ch.  xiii.  26.  ch.  xvii.  23. 

upon 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  23 

upon  points  in  which  it  was  moft  necefia-  Serm.  i. 
ry  to  have  them  fully  inftru&ed  $  and  of  v-OT^ 
which  by  confequence  they  Ihould  be  ex- 
pected to  make  a  more  diftind  and  parti- 
cular confeflion.  To  this  purpofe  they 
feem  very  early  to  have  been  digefted  into 
the  form  of  a  creed ;  from  whence  we  find 
mention  made  in  Scripture  of  a  form  of 
doEtrine  deliver  d  w,  and  a  form  of  found 
words x  i  nay,  we  have  the  heads  of  divers 
articles  recited  in  the  epiftle  to  the  He- 
brews ?>  under  the  title  of the  foundation  for- 
merly laid,  and  the  principles  of  the  doctrine 
of  Chrifi  -,  which  will  moll  reafonably  be 
underftood  to  refer  to  fome  confeffion  of 
faith,  confining  of  feveral  particulars,  and  re- 
cited at  the  time  of  baptifm,  when  men  were 
firft  incorporated  into  the  chriftian  Church. 

It  is  certain  again,  from  the  WTitings  of 
thofe  who  lived  near  the  age  of  the 
Apoftles,  as  Irenteus z,  Tertullian a,  and 
Origen  \  that  there  was  fome  publick  form 
of  confeffion,  or  rule  of  faith,  not  always 
exprefs'd  in  the  very  fame  phrafe,  but  ftill 
the  fame  in  fubftance  (excepting  one  or 
two  particulars)  with  that  creed  which  we 
now  call  the  Apoftles.     And  it  ought  to 


•  Rom.  vi.  17.  *2Tim.i.  13.  7  Heb.vi.  1,  2, 

%  Iren.  adv.  haer.  1.  1.  c.  2.  1.  3.  c.  5,4.  Ed-  Feuard. 
"Tertul.  de  vetand.  Virgin,  ci.de  Prxfcript.  c.  13.  adverf. 
Praxeam.  c  2,  j  Origen,  <sfe*  ctfcw  in  proem. 

C  4  be 


2  4  &*  Hifiortcal  Account  of 

Serm.  I.  be  obfcrved,  that  this  rule  of  faith  is  al- 
V/Y"^  lcdged  by  them  in  confutation  of  the  he- 
reticks  of  their  times,  under  the  chara&er 
of  that  tradition  which  the  Apoftles  had  de- 
liver^  to  their  fucceffors c ;  and  therefore 
can  fcarce  be  fuppofed  to  have  been  then 
newly  drawn  up  in  oppofition  to  thofe  ve- 
ry hereticks,  who  could  hardly  be  expect- 
ed to  have  much  regard  to  the  novelty  of 
fuch  compofure.     And  laftly,  in  confirma- 
tion of  all,  it  may   be  fit  to  refled  upon 
the    great    uniformity  of    antient    creeds, 
which  is  no  inconfiderable  proof  that  they 
had  been  taught  from  the  beginning.   From 
whence  we  find,  that  the  weftern  or  Ro- 
man creed  (which  we  now  call  the  Apof- 
tles) was  in  fubftance  the  fame  that  was 
receiv  d  throughout  all  parts  of  the  Church, 
tho'  a  little  more  exprefs  in  the  Eaft  about 
the  article   of  the  Son  s  Divinity,  becaufe 
that  part  of  the  Church  being  more   in- 
ferred with  herefies   in  that  refpeft,  it  be- 
came in  procefs  of  time  more  neceffary  to 
guard  their  Catechumens  againft  thofe  cor- 
ruptions. 

But  tho'  for  thefe  rcafons  it  may  feem 
probable  that  the  original  creed  for  Cate- 
chumens was  not  fo  very  fhort  and  con- 
cife  as  is  alledg'd,  but  contain'd  more  arti- 


kcVid.  Authores  proxime  laudar.   '■ 

cles, 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  2  f 

cks,  for  fubftance  the  fame  in  all  Churches,  Serm.  V 
though  not  entirely  in  the  fame  order  or  ^^^ 
phrafe,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
profeflion  of  faith  in  the  three  Divine  Per- 
sons was   contained   in   it,   fuch  a  diftind 
profeflion  of  believing  in  them  all,  with- 
out any  intimation  of  difference  or  inequa- 
lity, as  was  underftood  by  the  antients  to 
imply  an  equal  acknowledgment  of  their  Di- 
vinity.    Nay,  and  as  the  other  articles  were 
but   declaratory  of  what  the   Church  be- 
lieves concerning  each  Perfon,  the  creati- 
on of  all  things  by  the  Father,  the  redem- 
ftion  of  mankind  by  the  Son,  and  the  be- 
nefits which  we  receive  by  xhtfanttijicati- 
on  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  :    lor  this  reafon  the 
whole  creed  is  fometimes  reckoned  to  be 
fum'd  up  in  this  acknowledgment  of  three 
Divine  Perfons,   even  when  there  can  be 
no  doubt  but  longer  forms  were  in  ufcd. 

Indeed,  in  which  ever  form  we  fuppofe 
the  baptifmal  creed  to  be  exprefted,  it  can- 
not be.  imagined  that  this  mould  be  taken 
for  a  full  and  compleat  declaration  of  faith, 
but  only  for  a  fhort  memorial,  whereby 
thofe  who  were  about  to  be  receiv'd  into 
the  Church  by  baptifm,  were  firft  required 
to  make  profeflion  of  their  concurrence 

d  Ilifivu  h$  rev  TS-ccltfUy  10,  u$  tc¥  vtlvt  KO.I  uq  to  uyioy  -zmZfAcC) 

poet  h<>  «y  04flV/*«  ptl*vo!us.    Cyril.  Hicrof.  Myft.  i.  §  6. 

with 


1 6  An  Hiflorical  Account.^ 

Serm.  I.  with  the  Church,  in  acknowledging  thofe 
^^T^  three  Perfons  for  the  one  object  of  their 
faith  and  worfhip ;  being  before  inftru&ed 
by  their  refpe&ive  Catechifts,  what  was  the 
avow'd  meaning  and  defign  of  that  pro- 
feffion,  and  what  they  were  underftood  to 
believe  concerning  each  Perfon,  when  they 
thus  openly  declared  that  they  believed  in 
themc.  This  is  the  more  confirmed,  be- 
caufe  the  confeffion  of  faith  was  ufed  by 
way  of  anfwer  to  one  of  the  interrogato- 
ries at  baptifm,  and  as  the  natural  confe- 
quences  of  that  renunciation  of  the  devil, 
which  went  immediately  before  it f  5  fo  that 
from  renouncing  the  devil,  they  proceed- 
ed to  profefs  their  faith  in  God :  And  who 
is  that  God,  but  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghoft  >  to  each  of  whom  they  did  then 
dedicate  themfeives  by  fubmitting  to  be  in- 
corporated in  their  name.  There  can  be 
no  difpute  of  the  ufe  of  fuch  interrogato- 
ries in  the  age  after  the  Apoftles  5  and  as 
that  is  a  good  argument  of  its  being  de- 
rived from  them,  fo  it  feems  to  be  not 
obfcurdy  alluded  to  by  St.  Teter  himfelf, 
when  in  treating  of  baptifm?  he  makes 
mention  of  the  anfwer  of  a  good  confcience 
towards  God  s. 


e  D.  Bull,  ut  fupr.  D.  Waterland,  Serm.  8. 
r  Vid.  Conft.Apoft.  I.7.  c.  41.  Cyprian.  Epift.  70.  Cyril, 
Hierof,  Myft.  1.  §  6.  *  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

Before 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  ry 

Before  the  rife  of  herefy,  fuch  general  Ser.m.  i. 
anfwers  might  fuffice;  and  they  who  had  ^orV 
no  miftruft  that  their  words  fhould  be 
perverted  by  any  heretical  pravity,  might 
content  themfelves  with  thefe  fhort  hints 
in  the  confeiiion  it  felf,  fo  long  as  the 
meaning  of  them  was  well  known  and 
avow'd,  and  more  at  large  explain  d  in 
catechetical  difcourfes.  But  it  was  not 
long  that  the  Church  of  Chrift  could  en- 
joy the  benefit  of  fuch  fimplicity.  The 
myftery  of  iniquity  began  to  work  betimes, 
and  fuch  herefics  arofc,  as  quickly  gave  too 
juft  occafion  for  enlargement.  Yet  fuch, 
withal  we  may  obferve,  was  the  condition 
of  many  of  thefe  herefies,  and  fuch  the 
method  in  which  the  catholicks  oppofed 
them,  that  the  knowledge  of  this  matter 
cannot  but  refled  a  luftre,  and  add  a  mighty 
confirmation  to  the  orthodox  belief  in  this 
doftrine  of  the  cvcr-blcffed  Trinity. 

In  the  very  days  of  the  Apoftles,  began 
Simon  Magus  to  broach  his  herefy  5  and 
he  who,  before  he  made  profeffion  of 
Chriftianity,  had  fo  deluded  the  people  of 
Samaria  with  his  for  eerie  sy  that  he  pafs'd 
among  them  for  the  great  power  of  Godh,  a.  a  34* 
was  too  fond  of  their  efteem  to  drop  his 
pretentions  afterwards  5  and  therefore  when 
he  found  himfelf  not  likely  to  fucceed  Ion- 


A&s  viii.  p,  10. 


°"er 


1%  An  Hiflortcal  Account  of 

Sirm.  I.  gcr  in  Taleftine,   as  being  neither  able  to 
^T^  equal  the  Apofties,   nor  to  bribe  them  to 
his  intereft,  he  took  his  journey  to  Rome, 
that  he  might  fpread  the  poifon  of  his  hc- 
refy  in  the  weftern  world s ;  where  though 
St.  Veter's  arrival  efFe&ually  expofed  the 
A.D.  64.  falfhood  and  vanity  of  the  impoftor,    yet 
fo  many  and  fo  monftrous  were  the  delu- 
fions  advanced  by  him  and  his  immediate 
followers,  that  he  is  from  hence  efteern  d 
to  be  the  head  en  founder  of  every  herejyk> 
not  only  as  being  firft  in  order  of  time, 
but  as  having  fcrtvn  the  feeds  or  principles 
of  all  the  reft.      He  ftill  gave  out  him- 
felf  for  the  fupream  God,    who   had   ap- 
pealed in  Samaria  as  the  Father,  in  Judea 
as  the  Son,    and  in  other   nations  as  the 
Holy  Ghoft l.     The  firft  production  of  his 
mind,   he  pretended  to  be  a  female  fpirit 
called  Enncea,  who  having,  as  the  mother 


"'  Eufeb.  Hift.  Eccl.  lib.  i.e.  14.  k  Simon  autem  Sa- 

maritanus,  ex  quo  univerfa:  harrefes  fubftiterunt  Tren. 

].  1.  c.  :o.  al.  23.  vid.  &c.  30.  alias  28.  c.  33.  al.  29.  ztcctk 
f/jiv  av  ap%,r,yov  ctystrias  TTfiarep  yivt&ut  rov  ^focovx  nxgH^Qxttv. 
Eufeb,  H.  E.I.  2.  c.  13.  'Iren.  1.  i.e.  20.  alias  23. 

Epiphanius  (Ha»r.  21.)  makes  him  to  have  given  out  himfelf  for 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  Helena  for  the  Holy  Ghoft.  But  I 
hove  chofen  to  follow  Irenseus,  who  -was  mt  only  a  -writer  of  much 
greater  accuracy,  but  lived  much  nearer  to  the  time  of  that  im- 
foftor.  And  his  tejlimony  is  confirm' d  by  Simon'*  ercon  "words  at 
quoted  by  St.  Jerom  (in  comment,  ad  Mat.  xxiv.  'Ed.  Ben. 
torn.  4.  p.  1 14.)  Ego  fum  Sermo  Dei  Ego  Paracletus, 

ego  Omnipotens.  Vid.  Grabe  Spicileg.  Secul.  i..p.  307. 


Sf 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  29 

of  all  things,  produced  thofe  angels  and  Serm.  r; 
inferior  powers,  whom  he  pretended  to  be  ^Y"^ 
the  creators  and  governors  of  this  lower 
world,  did  at  that  time  a&uate  or  dwell 
in  the  body  of  that  Helena  whom  he  en- 
tertain'd  as  his  infeparable  companion111. 
After  which  he,  or  certainly  his  earlicft 
difciples,  framed  moil  extravagant  conceits 
of n  their  ^/Eons  or  genealogies  of  Gods, 
which  were  afterwards  more  fubtilly  pro- 
pofed  and  methodized  by  thofe  who  fuc- 
ceeded  in  the  fecond  century.  In  this  they 
prided  themfelves  for  their  fuperior  know- 
ledge, affuming  the  vain-glorious  title  of 
the  Gnofiicksy  or  knowers;  which  though 
Eufebius0  and  Epiphanius*  do  fomctimes 
feem  almoft  to  appropriate  to  the  difciples 
of  Carpocrates,  does  yet  appear  from  Ire- 
nms  9  to  have  belong  d  in  common  to  the 
followers  of  Simon-,  from  a  collection  of 
whofe  abfurdities  the  Carpocratian  herefy 
it  felf  was  framed,  and  was  therefore  per- 
haps more  eminently  ftiled  the  Gnoftick1. 
Which  character,  as  we  learn  from  Ire- 
ngus,  extended  alfo  to  the  Nicolaitans, 
a  fed  expreflly  condemnd    in    Scripture,  A.D.  87. 


m  Iren.  I.  i.  c.  20.  alias  23.  n  Iren.l.  1    c.  2 3,  34. 

Greg.  Naz.  orat.  44.  p.  705-.  •  Eufeb.  H.  E.  1.  4.  c.  7. 

p  Epiph.  Hser.  27.  §  1.  q  Iren.l.  1.  c.  32.  vid.&Tillcm. 

Memoirs  pour  fervir  a  l'hiftoire  Ecclefiaftique,  tom.  2.  (bus 
titre  Lit  Gnojliquet.  ■  Vid.  D.  Cave  Hift.  Lit.  ad  An.  12©. 


(Rev, 


30  An  Hifiorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  i.  {Rev.  ii.  <5,  10. )  and  which  took  their 
VOT^  name,  though  perhaps  not  their  prindU 
pies,  from  one  of  the  feven  deacons  in 
the  A£is  (vi.  5.)  Befides  feveral  abomina*- 
ble  tenets  with  relation  to  practice,  they 
had  much  the  fame  conceits  of  the  fupe- 
rior  powers  or  <^/Eons,  and  blafphemed 
the  Creator  of  the  world  as  an  inferior 
being  f. 

From  hence  now  we  may  reafonably  ar- 
gue for  the  equal  Divinity  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghoft,  as  the  known  and  avow'd 
doftrine  of  the  Church  5  ftnee  otherwife 
this  impoftor  had  but  expofed  and  ruined 
his  own  caufe  in  affuming  to  himfelf  the 
characters  of  all  the  three.  Mean  while 
it  is  worth  our  obfervation  that  here  feem 
to  have  been  laid  the  feeds  both  of  the 
Sabellian  and  the  Arian  herefy.  For  as  in 
arrogating  to  himfelf  that  threefold  cha- 
rafter  he  may  feem  to  intimate,  that  he 
meant  them  for  three  names  of  one  and 
the  fame  Divine  perfon,  which  is  pure  and 
undoubted  Sabellianifm :  So  by  teaching  that 
Helena  or  Ennoea,  who  plainly  fubfifted  fe- 
parately  from  himfelf,  was  yet  the  flrft  pro- 
duction of  his  mind,  he  did  at  the  fame 
time  fuppofe,  that  all  productions  of  the 


r  See  Till.  torn.  2.  Les  Nfcolaftes.  Iren.  1.  3.  c.  11.    Epi- 
phan.  11.  ay.  3.  Philaflr.  c.  3 3.  Aug.  c.^. 


Deity; 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3 1 

Deity  muft  be  dated  from  fome  beginning,  Serm.  ft 
and  have  a  divided  or  feparate  exiflence  5  v*"OTV 
which  is  the  very  fum  and   fubftancc  of 
thcArian  fyftem;^ 

We  learn  from,  Juftin  Martyr  %  who  was 
hirnfelf  a  native  of  the  Province  of  Samaria, 
that  moft  of  the  people  of  that  city  conti- 
nued under  the  power  of  his  delufions  5  and 
(o  it  fhould  feem  did  fome  at  Rome  it  felf, 
where  (we  are  told)  there  was  a  ftatucu 
erected  to  his  honour,  tho'  this  muft  be 
underftood  of  the  heathen  inhabitants,  and 
particularly  of  the  Emperor  Claudius^  who 
had  the  power  of  ere&ing  flames,  and  not 
of  the  Chriftians  of  Rome,  whom  St.  Ig- 
natius fome  time  after  commends  w  for 
the  purity  of  their  faith.  Within  the  Church 
indeed,  his  hcrefy  cannot  be  imagined  to 
have  made  any  confiderable  Progrefs  whilft 
the  Apoftles  lived.  But  when  they  were  all 
dead,  except  St.  John,  it  began  to  fhcw 
its  head  with  greater  boldnefs ;  and  being 
differently  model'd  according   to   the  dif- 


1  Juft.  Mart,  in  Apolog.  p.  6"o.  inter  opera.  u  This  is 

fijferted  by  Juftin,  Irenaeus,  and  Eufebius,  in  the  places  already 
cited.  Yet  fome  modern  criticks  have  judg'd  it  a  mijlake,  becaufe 
there  teas  another  jlatue  dug  up  in  the  lafl  century ',  with  an  in- 
fcription fomething  like  it:  Which  however  concludes  nothing,  unlefs 
tt  be  fuppofed  impojfible  for  two  fuch  flat  ties  to  have  been  at  Rome. 
Vid.  Tillemont.  Memoirs,  torn.  2.  not.  1.  fur  Simon  le  Ma- 
gicien,  See  alfo  Mr.  Reeve'*  Notes  upon  Juftin's  Apology,  p.  5-4, 
ff,  f6.  and  Mr.  Thirlby,  Annot.  in  loc.  p.  39. 

•  Ignat. Epift. ad  Rom.  in  Grab.  Spicil.  Se'cul.  z.  p.  li- 
ferent 


3 2  An  Hifiorical Account^/ 

Serm.  i.  fcrcnt  humour  of  his  followers,  it  was 
^^T^  branched  out  into  various  feds,  which  be- 
ing none  of  them  able  to  digeft  the  doc- 
trine of  God  incarnate,  chofe  either  to  di- 
vide the  Divine  nature  from  the  human  in 
our  bleiTcd  Saviour,  or  elfe  to  fuppofe  his 
affumption  of  the  human  to  be  nothing 
more  than  phantafm  and  outward  mew. 

The  latter  was  the  herefy  of  Simon  him- 
felf x,  and  after  him  propagated  in  the  fchool 
of  Menanderhis  immediate  fucccflbry,  and 
of  others  who  were  afterwards  called  Ao- 
wflcU  or  QcLvlaaiizoih  from  this  very  notion 
of  Chrift's  taking  only  the  appearance  of  a 
man,  confeffing  clearly  the  proofs  of  his 
Divinity,  when  for  that  reafon  they  de- 
nied him  to  be  cloath'd  with  the  fubftance 
of  our  flefh z.  But  the  other  was  the  blaf- 
phemy  of  Cerinthus,  who  allowing  that 
Jefus  was  really  a  man,  and  fufFer'd  in  fuch 
manner  as  the  Gofpel  relates,  believ'd  ne- 
verthelefs  (and  in  that  Irenaus*  joins  him 


x  Ux6t?iOC  ^  (**  7f£7rev6ivocit  etxtiei&xfant  povov.  Epiphan.  Ha?r. 
21.  §.i.     Ira  8c  Iren.  adv.  HaerJ.  i.  c. 20.  alias  23. 

y  "O^oioc  Si  ra  iuv]S  ckhiVKoLXt*  roc  ttccvIu,  frvwQcbfffWy ' £ttv  J$ 

&factr\t  rjj  MurpthU*  Epiph.  H&r.  22.  §  1.  Vid.  j8c  Iren. 
1.  1.  c.  21.  alias  23. 

B  Alii  quoque  Hseretici  ufque  adeo  Chrifti  manifeftam  com- 
plexi  funt  Divinitatem,  ut  dixerint  ilium  fuiffe  fine  carne,  8c 
totum  illi  fufceptum  detraxerint  hominem,  ne  decoguerent  in 
illo  Divini  nominis  potefratem,  fi  humanam  illi  fociafTent,  ut 
arbitrabantur,  nativitatem.  Novat.  de  Trin.  c.  18. 

*  Iren.  1.  3.  c.  xi. 

with 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  3  3 

with  the  Nicdaitans)  that  Chrift  was  a  di-  serm.  r: 
Hind:  being,  a  Divine  power,  or  one  of  his  V-^^N* 
invisible  <C/£ons,  who  defcending  upon  Je- 
fus  at  the  time  of  his  baptifm,  reveal'd  to 
him  the  unknown  Father  5  and  after  he 
had  enabled  him  to  work  miracles,  for- 
fook  him  again  before  his  crucifixion b. 
Here  feems  to  be  fomething  like  that  he- 
refy  which  was  afterwards  charged  upon 
Neftorius,  which  divided  the  natures  into 
two  perfons  5  or  elfe  like  that  of  Theodo- 
tuSy  Artemoriy  ^Paul  of  Samofata,  Thoti- 
nus  and  Socinus-,  who  all  fuppoied  him  to 
be  merely  man,  altho'  in  a  moft  eminent 
manner  gifted  and  infpircd  from  above. 
To  this  he  added  the  obfervation  of  the 
law  of  Mofesy  tho'  that  one  would  fuppofe 
muft  be  merely  hypocritical0,  to  avoid  the 
perfecution  and  envy  of  the  Jews,  fince  it 
is  evident  he  agreed  with  all  the  other  fol- 
lowers of  Simon,  in  fuppofing  this  world 
to  be  created  not  by  the  iivpreamGod,  but 
by  fome  inferior,  nay  evil  powTers  5  of  whom 
one  was  afterwards  the  lawgiver  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  infpirer  of  the  antient  pro- 
phets d,  though  not  it  feems  without  fome 
exception ;  for  they  diftinguiflYd  (we  are 
told)  between  the  antient  prophecies  as  pro- 


b  Iren.  1.  i.  c.  tie.  Epipbar.  Hxr.  28.  §  t. 

c  Vid.D.  BulLDef.  fid.  Nicfeft.  3.  cap.  1.  §7." 

J  Epiph.  H*r.  28.  §  1,  2. 

D  ceeding 


34  An  Hiflorzcal  Account  of 

Serm.  I.  cccding  from  two  different  principles6 ;  and 
'tt'y^J  where-ever  they  could  wreft  any  thing  to 
look  favourably  to  their  fentiments,  they 
were  willing  to  afcribe  it  to  the  fpirit  of 
truth.  Here  again  was  the  fountain  and 
foundation  of  the  Manichtean  hercfy,  which 
could  not  otherwife  account  for  the  ori- 
gin of  evil,  but  by  afferting  a  diftind  prin- 
ciple of  darknefs,  befides  the  author  and 
fountain  of  all  light  and  goodnefs. 

To  thefe  we  may  add  the  Ebionites,  ano- 
ther fort  of  hereticks  arifing  in  the  firft 
century,  fo  named  from  Ebion,  the  difciple 
of  Cerinthus^  who  obferv'd  the  Jewijhr 
law  out  of  principle,  as  his  matter  had  done 
out  of  hypocrify,  and  agreed  with  him  in 
acknowledging  Jefus  to  be  merely  man, 
tho'  without  that  fidion  of  Chriji,  as  ano- 
ther perfon  descending  on  him  at  his  bap- 
tifnij  without  concurring  likewife  in  his 
notion  of  the  <^/Eons,  or  afcribing  the 
creation  of  the  world  to  an  inferior  being. 
It  has  been  earneftly  contended,  by  fome 
of  our  modern  hereticks  s,  that  this  fed  of 
the  Ebionites  were  no  other  than  the  pure 
and  orthodox  Chriftians  from  among  the 


*  Iren.  1.  2.  c.66.  alias  35*.  Epiph.  Hxr.  26.  6. 

*  Philaftr.  cap,  37. 

8  Zuicker  Irenicum  Irenicor.  cited  by  Bp  Bull  in  his  priml 
&  apoft.  trad.  Hiftory  of  the  Unitarians  Let.  1.  p.  26.  To- 
land's  Nazarenus,  ch.  o.  p.  25-. 


Jews 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  y 

Jews,  who  were  otherwife  known  by  the  serm.  I. 
name  of  the  Nazarens,  and  retained  the  ^^T^s 
obfervation  of  the  Jewish  law,  together 
with  their  faith  in  Chrift  as  the  Mejjiah* 
And  as  it  cannot  be  denied  but.  the  Naz,a- 
rens  and  Ebionites  agreed  in  their  opinion 
of  the  law  of  Mofes,  and  were  for  that 
reafon  both  of  'em  pretty  much  neglected 
by  the  catholick  Chriftians,  from  the  time 
at  lead  of  the  deftruttion  of  Jerufalem ; 
lb  'tis  not  unlikely  that  this  fimilitude  of 
circumftances  might  occafion  them  to  cul- 
tivate fuch  correfpondence  with  each  other, 
as  might  in  procefs  of  time  produce  a  far- 
ther agreement  in  their  notions  of  our 
Lordh:  At  leaft  it  might  give  a  handle  to 
the  catholicks,  who  were  but  little  ac- 
quainted with  them,  to  treat  them  as  per- 
fons  of  the  fame  fentiments  K  From  hence 
all  the  judaizing  Chriftians  are  tcrm'd  E- 
bionites  by  Qrigen^h  and  however  Epi- 
fkanius1  himfelf  pretends  not  to  any  cer- 
tainty that  the  Nazarens  deny'd  the  Divi- 
nity of  our  bleffed  Saviour,  but  indeed  ex- 
preflly  allows m  that  there  was  feme  difFe- 


h  Vid.  Epiph.  Haer.  30.  §2. 

1  Vid.  Bull.  Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  cap.  2.  §  16. 

k  Orig.  contra  Celf.  1.  2.  juxta  init. 

1  FWpt  £f>i5-S  2i  &k  ci&x,  UTTiTvy   u  koci  uvjo:,.m  ,  in  ■i,i>,ov  ouifyaxof 
fcyAfyvtt.  Epiph,  Haer.  29.  §  7. 

™  Aut$ifov}xi  p,\y  pTtfQ?  Wfpi  rev  sffpoy  voZloc  T*.    Hccr.  30.  §  2. 

D  2  rence 


3  6  An  Hifiorical  Account^ 

Serm.  I.  rence  between  them  and  the  Ebionites: 
W^  Yet  having  raftily  cenfured  them,  upon  ac- 
count of  their  adherence  to  the  law,  as 
perfons  of  like  fentiments  with  the  Cerin- 
thiansny  this  probably  gave  the  handle  to 
Theodoret  °  for  representing  them  as  Jews, 
who  hbnout'fl  Chrift  only  as  a  righteous 
perfon.  In  which  point  notwithftanding, 
we  have  the  exprefs  tcftimony  of  St.  Ait- 
guftin?  and  St.  Jerome  for  their  ortho- 
doxy ;  befides  fome  pretty  clear  intimati- 
ons in  Juftin  Martyr  r,  and  the  apoftolical 
conftitutions f,  that  there  were  certain  ju- 
daizing  Chriftians  who  acknowledged  the 
Divinity  of  Chrift,  as  well  as  others  that 
deny'd  it ;  and  all  this  confirmed  by  the 
concurrent  accounts  of  ecclefiaftical  hifto- 
ry,  which  makes  honourable  mention  of 
the  flrft  Chriftians  at  Jerufaletn,  as  perfons 
of  an  orthodox  faith1,  but  fpeaks  of  the 
Ebionites  with  the  utmoft  abhorrence,  as 
of  themoft  abandond  hereticksu. 


n  N«5»p*wt  i  trvy%pw  ycrctv  uxxiiXcu;  [de  Cerinthianis 

ante  dixerat]  km  cyjeue  Ksxrl&lut  vet  $gm(A*8**  Haen  2,p.§  i« 
°  Theodoret.  Hser.  fab.  1.  2.  c.2. 
p  D.  Auguft.de  Hazr.  cap.  9,  io. 
q  D.  Hieron.  ad  Auguft.  Epift.  89.  alias  74. 

*  Juft.  Mart,  in  dialog,  cum  Tryph.  p.  z6f. 

f  Conftit.  Apoft.  I.6.C.  10,  12.  See  thefe  teftimonies  farther 
txpkin'd  and  vindicated  by  Bijhop  Bull,  Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  cap,  2. 
§  13, 14, 1/.  8c  in  Prim.  8c  Apoft.  tradit.  cap.  1.  §7,8,9,  10. 

*  Eufeb.  H.  E.  1.  4.  c. ?.  8c  Sulp.  Sev.  facr.  hift.  1.  2.  C.4J. 
■  Eufeb.  E.H.I.  3.  c.27. 

Upon 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  ? 

Upon  the  whole  however,  thus  much  is  Serm.  I. 
evident,  that  there  were  two  oppofite  he-  VY^J 
refies  fprung  up,    before  the  death  of  St. 
John,  concerning  the  perfon  of  our  blcf- 
ied  Lord :  one,  which  denied  the  reality  of 
his  incarnation  and   furferings,   and  rcpre- 
fcntcd  the  whole  hiftory   of  his   life   and 
death  as  matter   only   of  appearance   and 
outward  Ihew  :    the  other,  which  confefs'd 
him  to  be  truly  partaker  of  the  human  na- 
ture,  but  denied  its  perfonal  union   with 
the  divine.  Accordingly  it  is  obvious  to  take 
notice,   how  St.  John  in   his  epiftlcs   and 
his  gofpel  (which  laft  was  written  as  a  fup- 
plement  to  the  other   evangelifts,    and  as 
St.  Jerotn™   adds,   at   the  inftance  of  the  a. d.  yj\ 
Afiatick  Bifhops,    for  a  remedy  againft  the 
growing  herefies)  has  manifeftly   ftruck  at 
boththefe  mifchievous  opinions x. 

Againft  the  former  he  maintains  that  the 
Word  was  really  incarnate^  and  pitched  his 
tabernacle  among  men,  fo  that  they  beheld 
his  glory  y  -,  their  fenfes  were  the  undoubted 
witneffes  of  this  great  doctrine,  they  heardy 
they  f aw,,  they  handled  himz,  infomuch, 
that  what  fpirit  foever  fhould  not  confefs 
his  coming  in  the  flefh,    could  not  be  of 


.  w  Catal.  fcript.  Ecclef.  in  Johcmm,  cap.  9.    Vid.  6c  Iren. 
$dv.  haer.  1.  3.  c.  u. 
.    *  Iren.  ibid.  I  Joh.  i.  14.  I  1  Joh.  i.  1. 


D  3  God> 


3 8  An  Hijtorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.  i.  God,   but  was   the  fpirit  of  Antichrift*. 

^•s~f\J  Againft  the  other  in  like  manner  he 
maintains,  that  this  fame  Word  which  in 
time  became  incarnate,  did  neverthelcfs  exift 
in  the  beginning,  that  he  was  the  Word  of 
life  eternal,  that  he  was  with  God  the  Fa- 
ther, that  he  was  God  himfelf b  :  fo  that 
whofoever  fhould  deny  Jefus  to  be  Chrift, 
(as  the  Cerinthians,  who  made  Chr if  to 
be  a  perfon  diflind  from  Jefus)  or  deny'd 
him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  (as  both  they 
and  the  Ebionites)  was  likewife  to  be 
efteem'd  Antichrift  denying  both  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  and  having  no  true  com- 
munion with  either0.  And  this  is  the 
more  considerable,  becaufe  it  is  acknow- 
ledged by  Julian  the  Apoftate,  who  de- 
nied it  of  the  other  Apoftles,  that  St.  John 
at  leaft  affcrted  his  Divinity,  which  he  a- 
fcribes  to  the  growth  of  this  opinion  a- 
mong  the  Chriftians  difperfed  thro'  many 
of  the  cities  of  Greece  and  Italy,  by  the 
time  of  publifhing  his  Gofpeld.  An  im- 
portant confeffion,  from  an  adverfary,  of 
the  great  antiquity  of  this  dodrine ! 


a  1  Joh.  iv.  2,  3.  bJoh.i.  1,1,  ijoh.  i.  i,  2. 

d  Toy  yittw  'lycrSv  xts  HuuX^  troXfju^crtv  tixtXv  Oiov,  cvs  Mctr- 
Qcii(&',  tin  Annas,  in  Molok<&-'  ccXX*  o  Xgvs-oq  I&)etvvK>cci<&oyj£. 
V&*  *o\  noXu  nXy^®"  istXaKo^  h  noXXotZs  rm  sXXyvl&m  kcci  \tkXiw- 
tmm  XoXitup  utto    tuvjk   ?m   vog-g..,   m.srpalr©^  hoXfjuixr&v    \vx%w% 

Julian,  apud  Cyril.  1. 10.  contra  Julian,  in  torn.  6.  p  327. 

Laftljr, 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  *$cp 

Laftly ,  in  oppofition  to  the  common  opini-  s  E  R  m.  fc 
on  of  all  the  followers  of  Simon,  concerning  ^OTs^ 
the  creation  of  the  world  by  an  inferior  be- 
ing, and  not  by  the  fupream  God,  the  fame 
Apoftle  afterts  that  by  this  Word  were  all 
things  made,  and  without  him  -was  not 
any  thing  made  that  was  made  e,  more 
particularly  that  the  world  was  made  by 
him*,  and  therefore  when  he  came  into 
the  world,  he  came  but  to  his  owns.  Not 
to  inftfl:  now  upon  his  hinting  at  the  abro- 
gation of  Mofaick  rites,  when  he  fays  that 
the  law  was  given  by  Mofcs,  but  grace 
and  truth  came  by  Jefus  Chrifth.  Such 
light  does  the  Gofpel  it  felf  receive  from 
hiftory  and  ecclefiaftical  tradition ! 

Upon  this  oppofition  which  St.  John 
made  to  the  earliefl:  herefies,  I  would  dc- 
fire  to  make  the  following  remarks ;  name- 
ly, (i.)  that  tho'  the  catholick  doctrine  was 
before  this  well  known  and  underftood.in 
the  Church  (for  other  wife  the^^mBilliops 
had  not  been  fo  much  offended  at  the 
growth  of  herefy)  yet  the  rife  of  thefe  de- 
ceivers made  it  neceffary  to  have  it  pro- 
pofed  after  another  method,  and  in  terms 
more  diredly  leveled  againft  their  delufions. 
And  was  not  this  example  a  full  warrant 


*  Joh.i.  3;  f  ver.  10.         %  ver.  ii;        J  yer.  if* 

D  4  for 


'40  An  Hifiorkal  A  c  c  o  u  n  t  0/ 

Serm.  I.  for  the  Church's  practice  afterwards,  to  ex- 
WY"^  prefs  her  felf  in  fuch  terms  as  might  moft 
effectually  guard  the  antient  rule  of  faith 
againft  the  innovations  of  any  other  here- 
fy?  (2.)  That  this  however  made  no  al- 
teration or  addition  to  the  faith  5  the  AJian 
Biihops  detefted  thofe  very  herefies  before 
the  writing  of  St.  John,  and  defired  him 
to  write  on  purpofe  to  confute  them. 
(3.)  That  when  the  antient  defenders  of 
our  faith  afcribe  the  work  of  creation  to 
the  Son  of  God,  they  do  herein  prefup- 
pofe  his  true  and  proper  Divinity^  as  urging 
it  in  oppofition  to  the  Gnofiick  hereticks, 
who  afferted  that  to  be  the  work  of  an 
inferior  being. 

The  other  writers  about  the  time  of 
St.  John,  were  St.  Barnabas,  St.  Hermas, 
and  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  who  tho'  not 
writing  profeffedly  againft  the  hereticks  (as 
St.  John  appears  to  have  done)  becaufe  as 
they  wrote  fomewhat  earlier,  fo  probably 
the  places  where  they  lived  were  lefs  in- 
fefted  with  them,  have  yet  exprefs'd  their 
fenfe  in  fuch  a  manner  as  fhews  their  faith 
to  have  been  perfecf  ly  confiftent  and  con- 
formable to  his  3  not  without  glancing  now 
and  then  at  thofe  herefies  which  were  juft 
fpringing  up.  By  the  two  former,  the  Son 
is  not  only  faid  *  to  have  been  begotten  be- 

1  S.  Barnab.  epift.x.  ?.  Filius  Dei  omni  creatura  antiquior. 
Herm.  Pallor,  ].  3.  fim.  p.  §  12. 

fore 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  41 

fore  the  world,  but  likewife  to  be  its  Ma-  s  E  r  m.  l 
ker  and  Lordly  and  its  immenfe  prefer ver1,  ^W 
to  dwell  in  the  hearts  of  the  jaithful  as 
in  Temples  confecrated  to  him m  5  not  to 
be  himfelf  in  the  condition  of  a  creature 
or  a  fervant n,  yet  to  have  taken  upon  him 
human  flefh,  fo  as  to  be  obvious  to  the 
fight  of  men0,  and  his  body  to  have  been 
fanffiified  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  preparato- 
ry to  its  being  dwelt  in  by  the  'Deity  °°. 

St.  Clement  wrote  his  firft  epiftle  before 
thofc  herefies  were  grown  fo  confiderable,  A.  D.  ffjjl 
and  while  the  temple  of  Jerufalem  was  yet 
{landing  pp  :  So  that  Photius  had  little  rea- 
fon  to  find  fault  p,  if  he  was  not  fo  foli- 
citous  to  eftablilh  a  doctrine  which  wa$ 
hardly  brought  into  difpute.  Yet  even 
there,  by  making  mention  of  the  Offer- 
ings of  God%  as  well  as  by  dire&ing  his 
doxologies  to   Chrift,  in  the  fame  ample 


k  S.  Barnab.  Epift.  c.  f»  &  Herm.ut  fupr. 

1  Nomen  Filii  Dei  magnum  8c  immenfum  eft,  8c  totus  ab 
eo  fuftentatur  orbis.  Herm.  Paft.  1.  3.  fim.  9.  §  14. 

m  S.  Barnab.  Epift.  cap.  6. 

n  In  fervili  conditione  films  Dei  non  ponitur,  fed  in  mag- 
na poteftate  8c  imperio.  Herm.  1.  3.  fim.  5*.  §  6. 

0  'Et  yctf  [A>n  y\8iv  h  <rotpx.l,  %a$  lev  sa-aQwruv  uvfyco7roi  01  /3As- 
srevlss  kvriy.  Barnab.  Epift.  c.  f.  °°  Herm.  I.  3.  fim.  5*.  §  6. 

pp  Vid.  Clement.  Epift.  ad  Corinth,  cap.  40,  41.  item 
Wottqn.  fr&fat.  pag.  zof. 

p  Photii  Biblioth.  cod.  126'. 

S  Qem, Epift.  1.  ad  Corinth,  cap.  2.  where  that  it  (liouU  & 
read  sra&j/^esV,  and  not  ^olQ^ocix,  read  Br.  GrabeV  Annotations 
upon  Bijhop  Bull,  p.  60.  and  Mr.  Wotton'i  Note  upon  the  place. 

terms 


4^  An  Hiflorkal  Account  of 

Sum.  I.  terms  as  to  the  Father  himfelf1,  he  hastef- 
v*/"^v-'  tified  his  belief  of  our  Saviour  s  Divinity ; 
and  in  his  fecond  epiftle,  he  cautions  the 
Corinthians  againft  thinking  meanly  of  our 
falvation,  (with  an  eye  'tis  probable r  to 
the  herefies  which  were  then  coming  in 
vogue)  and  advifed  'em  to  think  of  J  ejus 
Chrift  in  like  manner  as  of  God*,  that  he 
had  a  fpiritual  or  Divine  Being,  before  that 
he  affumed  the  lubftance  of  our  flefh*. 
But  the  moll  remarkable  paffage  is  that 
preferv'd  by  St.  Bafil™ :  God  livethy  and 
the  Lord  Jefiis  Chrift,  and  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit,  where  the  principle  of  life  is  equally 
attributed  to  all  the  three,  in  the  form  of 
an  oath  (as  it  fhould  feem)  taken  from  the 
Jewifh  form  of  fwearing,  the  Lord  li- 
*veth*y  and  agreeable  to  that  military  oath 
which  was  certainly  ufed  by  the  Chriftians 
of  the  fourth  century  ?,  and  was  probably 

derived 


'  rSl  [fflts-o)  ]  it  ^c\a,  KUt  if  ihiyctXca-vm  lie,  rut  auuvcts  rav 
utwvuv.  'Af&w.  Clem.  Epift.  i.  cap.  ao.  &  s°*  $ee  Afr.  Wotton'j 
Notes.  Confer.  8c  S.  Barnab.  Epift.  cap.  17. 

1  Vid.  Bull.def.  fid.  Nic.  feci.  2.  cap.  3.  §;-. 

'Clement.  Epift.  2.  ad  Corinth.  C3p.  1.  "  Cap.  9. 

w  Zj}  0  ©£05,  xki  0  Kofi®*  Iwxs  X&f&t  *#'  to  uytor  Ttnufistil 
Clem.  Rom.  apud  D.  Bafil.  de  Spir.  ianclo,  cap.  29. 

*  Jer.  iv.  2 .  and  elfewhere  frequently.  See  the  fecond  Review 
of  Mr.WbiJlon's  account  of  Doxologies,  p.  41,  42. 

y  Flavius  Vegetius  Renatus  [an  Heathen  Author")  in  his  hook 
de  re  militari,  1. 2.  c.  f .  which  was  written  under  Valentinian 
the  2d,  (vid.  Godefchalc.  Steweck.  in  comment,  ad  Veget.  p.  2. 

Edit. 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  43 

derived  to  them  from  former  times,  fmce  serm.  i; 
it  agrees   fo  well  with  that  which  is  ex-  ^YV 
pofed    and    ridiculed   in   the    cPhiloj)atris 
alcribed  to  Lucian7-. 

And  if  any  one  mould   doubt  of  the 
genuinenefs  of  this  paflage,  becaufe  St.  Ba- 


Edit.  vefal.  1670.)  gives  this  account  of  the  military  oath  of  the 
Chrijlians:  Jurant  autem  per  Deum,  2c  per  Chriftum,  8c  per 
Spirftum  fanclum,  8c  per  majeftatem  Imperatoris  qua:  fecun- 
dum  Deum  generi  humano  diligenda  eft  8c  colenda.  An  oath 
is  certainly  an  aft  of  religious  worjhip.  But  then,  how  came  they 
to  fwear  by  the  majefly  of  the  Emperor?  Tertullian  {in  whofe 
time  likewife  this  practice  prevailed)  makes  a  dtftinclion  between 
this  kind  of  oath,  and  (wearing  by  the  Emperor's  genius.  The 
latter  he  condemns  as  doing  honour  to  devils :  But  the  other  he 
comtnends  as  reverencing  the  Providence  of  God  in  the  per  [on  of 
the  Emperor.  Tertul.  Apol.  cap.  32.  See  Mr.  Reeve's  Notes  on 
the  Apologies,  Vol.  1.  p.  42,  310.  So  that  two  things  are  im- 
plied in  this  way  of  expreffion :  ( 1 .)  that  God  is  refer' d  to  as  the 
Author  of  the  Emperor's  fafety  (qui  Deo  regnat  Auctore.  Veget. 
ubi  fupra)  and  fo  may  be  metonymically  underjlood  under  the  name 
of  his  fafety  or  defence,  (vid.  Spanhem.  dub.  Evang.  par.  3  dub. 
124.  p.  646,)  agreeably  to  the  dottrme  of  the  Canonifts:  Scien- 
dum eft  quod  fancli  non  tarn  per  creaturas  quam  per  Au&o- 
rem  creaturarum  jurabant  :  nee  in  cseaturis  aliud  quam  Crea- 
torem  ipfarum  venerabantur :  ficut  Jofeph,  qui  per  Pharaonem 
jurando,  hoc  in  eo  veneratus  eft,  quod  Dei  judicio  pofitus 
erat  in  infimis.  Gratian.  deer.  par.  2.  cauf.  22.  q.  r.c.  16. 
And,  (2.)  that  the  Emperor's  fafety  was  hereby  underjlood  to  be 
devoted  to  God,  in  this  fen fe  :  So  may  the  Emperor  be  fafe  as 
I,  &c>  ,,  'vid.  Spanhem.  ut  fupr.)  in  like  manner  as  at  other 
times  when  the  f wearer  mentions  his  own  fafety,  or  any  thing  that 
is  dear  to  him.  As,[a)&t6v  <pUto»  to»  tfjucvn  wai  <roy.  Synef.  Epift. 
49,  10?.  o  x.xtc&  t?5  iecvrQ  carr^iius  i[&W5  obx-st  fjuiv  o'fAvuvoit 
xeoTcc  tS  ©sar.  Bafilic.  Eclog.  1.  22.  tit.  y.  c.  20.  quoted  by 
Mr.  Selden.  Jj)uem  etiam  vid.  in  not.  ad  Smyrn.  deer,  inter 
Marmora  Arund.  p.  147,  8cc.  vid.  8c  Lydius  de  Juramento, 
£ap.  3.  §15-. 
■  See  more  of  this  in  the  next  Sermon, 


fil 


44  dn  Hijlorical  Account  of 

Serm.  \.fil  has  not  faid  from  whence  he  quotes  it, 
V^YN^  it  may  be  worth  considering,  that  in  the 
undoubted  epiftle  of  St.  Clement,  the  three 
perfons  are  joind  together  in  a  manner 
not  very  different :  Have  we  not  (fays  he) 
one  God,  and  one  Chrifl,  and  one  Spirit  of 
grace a. 

To  thefe  apoftolical  fathers,  I  fhould  add 
St.  Ignatius,  the  difciple  of  St.  John,  who 
is  more  full  and  exprefs  upon  this  article. 
But  with  him  I  purpofe  to  begin  the  fe- 
cond  century,  when  God  fhall  grant  us 
another  opportunity.  To  whom,  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  Trinity  in  Unity  y 
and  Unity  in  Trinity,  be  all  Honour,  &c. 


%&fl®-  to  skxvGo)  *<p'  Hjw/Ssi  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  i.  ad  Corinth, 
cap.  46. 


ser; 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy, 


4* 


SERMONIL 

Preach'd  Decemb.  y,  ^7^1* 


$$•$$$  4?4?4,4f4"4,4?4?4v^4?##4j<t?,l?4j4?<$?4?'t?^^!<t?4?  ^^^ 


HAVING  at  large  afferted  in  a  Serm.it. 
former  diicourfc  the  ufe  of  ca-  Wf^t 
tholick  tradition,  for  afcer- 
taining  the  genuine  faith  and 
do&rine  of  the  Gofpel  5  and 
fhewn  how  the  firft  herefies  that  arofe,  at- 
tacking either  the  Divinity  or  incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God,  were  for  that  reafon 
reje&ed  by  the  faithful  Chriftians  with  the 
utmoft  abhorrence,  and  plainly  (truck  at 
by  St.  John-,  both  in  his  Gofpel  and  Epiftles ; 
(not  to  mention  fome  paflages  of  like  kind 
in  his  Apocalypfe)  I  went  on  to  take  no- 
tice of  the  concurrent  teftimony  of  other 
ecclefiaftical  writers  in  the  fame  century. 

Of 


4<S  An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.ii.  Of  thefe  I  mentioned  St.  Barnabas ',  Her- 

'^sy^J  mas  anc[  st#  Clement  of  Rome,  who  tho' 
they  do  not  feem  to  have  level'd  their  dif- 
courfes  dire&ly  againft  thefe  herefies,  as 
writing  probably  before  they  were  grown 
very  considerable,  or  for  the  ufe  of  fuch 
pcribns  as  were  lefs  infefted  with  them, 
have  yet  exprefs'd  themfclves  in  fuch  a 
manner,  as  teftifies  their  perfed  agreement 
with  the  catholick  faith. 

The  next  to  be  confider'd  is  St.  Ignatius, 
the  difciple  of  St.  John,  and  by  him  con- 
ftituted  Biftiop  of  Antioch?  before  the  de- 
ftru&ion  otjerufalern,  in  the  reign  oiVef 
fafian:  who  might  therefore  be  reckoned 
among  the  fathers  of  the  firft  century,  al- 
tho'  his  epiftles,  which  are  (till  extant,  were 
written  but  juft  before  his  martyrdom,  in 

'A.D.  107.  the  reign  of  Trajan,  about  the  year  107, 
or  fome  years  afterward ;  for  in  that  chro- 
noiogers  are  divided a.  It  was  towards  the 
beginning  of  his  reign,  and  about  the  year 

A.D.  100.  of  Chriftioo,  that  Cornelius  Tacitus -wrote 
his  Annals b ;  in  which  he  charged  the 
Chriftians  as  being  guilty  of  mofl  pernici- 
ous fuperftition,  and  odious  for  their  wick- 


"  Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  in  Ignat.  Pearfbn.  diflert.  de  anno 
Martyr.  Ignat.  Edit.  Smith,  p.  j-3.  Pagi  critic,  in  Baron, 
torn.  1.  ad.  an.  107. 

t  Cave's Hift.  lit.  vol.  i.p.  61. 


ednefs 


'  the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  47 

ednefs  to  all  mankind0;  which  might  be  Serm.ii: 
probably  occafion  d  by  the  abominable  im-  v~OTV 
purities  of  the  Gnofiicks  at  that  time,  who 
eafily  pafs'd  among  the  heathens  under  the 
common  veil  of  Chriftianity.  This  pro- 
bably might  give  occafion  to  the  third  per- 
fecution  under  Trajan,  which  feems  not 
to  have  been  fet  on  foot  by  any  new  law, 
but  rather  by  enforcing  the  old,  under  co- 
lour that  the  aflemblies  of  the  Chriftians, 
were  fuch  dabs  or  focieties  as  were  for- 
bidden by  the  Roman  laws  d.  Trajan,  not- 
withftanding  this,  being  informed  by  the 
junior  TlinyS  that  however  fuperftitious, 
yet  their  manners  were  unblameable,  and 
the  main  of  their  crime  confided  in  their 
finging  hymns  to  Chrift,  as  God,  (a  clear 
proof  that  the  worfhip  of  the  Son  of  God 
was  ufed  in  the  Church  from  the  begin- 
ning  ! )  gave  orders  to  his  'Proconful  for  re- 
laxing the  perfecution,  neither  fearching  out 
any  that  were  guilty  of  this  crime,  nor  re- 
futing to  punifh  fuch  as  fhould  be  brought 
before  himf.  In  this  circumftance  of  the 
Church,  the  good  Bifhop  oi  Antioch  could 


c  Tacit.  Annal.  1.  if,  c.  44. 

d  Cave  p.  if.  vid.  5c  Lex  Gab'mia  in  Kcnnct's  Rom.  Antiq. 
par.  ij.  3.  c.  24. 

e  Plin.  J.  10.  Epift.  97.  vid.  &  Tertul.  Apol.  c.  2.  Eufeb. 
H .E.l.3.  c.  33. 

I  Tertul.  &  Eufeb.  ibid. 

not 


4 8  An  Hiftorical Account^/ 

Serm.ii.  not  efcape,  but  was  fent  to  Rome  for  pu- 
VOfN^  nifhment,  by  order  of  the  Emperor  him- 

felfs. 

By  that  time  the  aforefaid  herefies  were 
mightily  encreafed,  by  Cerinthus  in  Afia  h, 
by  Menander  in  Samaria  and  Antioch l,  by 
Carpocrates  in  Egypt  k>  and  by  Ebion 
(moft  probably)  in  Judea  K  No  wonder, 
therefore,  if  the  Bifhop  of  Antioch,  in  his 
epiftles  at  this  time  written  to  the  Churches 
of  Afia>  as  well  as  Rome,  fhould  be  very 
"earneft  to  caution  them  againft  fuch  impi- 
ous and  blafphemous  opinions,  if  he  fhould 
mention  thofe  deceivers  with  abhorrence"1, 


«  Eufeb.  1.  3.  c  36*.  h  Epiphan.  Hser.  28.  §  1. 

!  Eufeb.H.  E.  I.3.C.  36. 

*  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1.  3.  juxta  init.  p.  428.  Ed.  Paris.  Yet 
the  exacl  age  of  Carpocrates  is  more  doubtful  than  the  reft.  See 
Tillemont's  Memoirs,  torn.  2.  Les  Carpocratiens . 

1  The  name  of  Ebionites  is  by  Eufebius  (H.  E.  1.  3.  c.  27.) 
and  others  of  the  antients  explained  to  fignify  poor  or  mean  per- 
fons,  and  is  applied  to  their  abject  notions  of  the  perfon  of  Chrift. 
For  which  reafon  feme  have  thought  that  they  had  not  their  name 
from  any  Herefiarch  called  Ebion.  Yet  Tertullian  (de  Prsefcript. 
c.  48.)  Epiphanius  (Hser.  30.)  and  others  of  the  antients  /peak 
cf  Ebion  as  founder  of  that  feci.  And  they  who  would  infer 
the  contrary  from  that  mention  which  is  made  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Word,  might  as  well  argue  that  there  was  no  fuch  man  as  Nabal, 
Manes,  or  Arius,  as  Bifljop  Bull  has  jujlly  obferved,  fince  the  like, 
allufions  have  been  made  to  the  meaning  of  thofe  words,  vid.  Bull. 
Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  c.  2.  §  17.  However,  from  that  allufion  to  its 
Hebrew  fignification,  one  would  be  apt  to  imagine,  that  that  feet 
muft  have  fpread  chiefly  in  Judea. 

m  Qypoc.  ,xtfnq  *var<rav}t<;,  Xufyo$%$ott,  Ignat.  ad  Ephef.  §  7. 
ftKT5T£p  Sccvourtfjijov  <pup(juuKov  $l$ov\t<;  fjuijee  ciVOfAiXil©-,  Ad  Trail. 
§  6.  ^o(pv^cc<rarM  0)  bpocs  &KQ  wv  frvgw  rm  (LyGyanopcfflw.  Ad 
Smyrn.  §  4, 

as 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  49 

as  Atheifls  and  Infidels y  as  ravenous  dogs,  serm.h.: 
as  wild  beafls  in  human  fbape,  as  mixing  ^^T^* 
deadly  poifon  with  the  fweet  wine  of  the? 
Gofpelh  if  befides  inveighing  againft  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  Mofaic  rites  n,  he  fliould 
affert  Chrift  to  be  God  with  the  article0, 
and  afcribe  to  him  that  omnilcience  p  which 
the  Gnofticks  denied  their  Aoy(§k,  and  the 
Ebionites  could  never  acknowledge  in  a 
mere  man  5  if  he  mould  maintain  his  dwell- 
ing in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful,  as  in  tem- 
ples confecrated  to  him  %  which  is  the  pro- 
perty of  none  but  the  fupream  God,  io 
that  Chriftians  might  from  thence  be  term'd 
Ssopo&i  and  vaopoeji,  bearers  of  God,  and 
bearers  of  his  Temple r  5  if  in  one  word  he 
mould  affert  him  to  be  without  beginning 
of  time  f,  the  eternal  Aiy(&>  not  proceeding 
out  of  filence*.  By  which  laft  phrafe,  whe- 
ther he  ftruck  at  the  Sige  of  the  Gnofticks  u, 

whom 


0  Ad  Magnef.  §8,9,  10.  AdJPhiladdph.  §.  6*. 

°  Xp<$-»  rS  B-iS  ijfAavt  .  ■  1  0  «£>  S-£o<;  v.pw  'lwS$  i  X?1?6*'  Ad 
Ephef.  in  faint at.  &§.  18.  swrffyefl*  poi  ptifui&p  etvtu  rg  zfccBts<i 
r*  3-tS  (jt>S,  ad  Rom.  §.  6. 

P  'Ovdtv  AnySum  rov  xupiov,  ctXXoc  >£  rot  k^thu  vtpjav  \yyX% 
atv\Si  !«•».  Ad  Ephef.  §  15*. 

*3  'Au/ou  h  iifAioy  [leg.    HfMv]   xMloix.ouvr(&'t    l*ot  ayjtv  uuroZ  vaht 

Kj    OCVT0<,    'a   iV    itfMV  Bsoq    VlfSjCOV.     ibid. 

r  Ad  Ephef.  §.  9.  &  in  front e  omnium  epiftolamm. 

f  Tov  iTTi^KX^cf  Tryoa-doKcc,  rov  cefflovov,  rov  otcourov  rov  JV  jUftSg 
cparov.  Ad  Polycarp.  §.  3. 

f  Aoy©-  *••&&>,  ovx.  W  riym  rtfiOfXPcov.  Ad  Magnef  §  8. 

u  That  the  Gnofticks  had  their   JEons  before  Vslenrinus,  is 

certain.     [See  Vofiius'j  Notes  upon  the  place  &  Pearfon.  vindic, 

E  Ignas* 


j  o  An  Hiftorical  Accounts/ 

Serm.ii.  whom  they  fuppofed  to  have  been  coupled 
***OT^  with  Bythus,  and  from  both  to  have  pro- 
ceeded the  whole  race  of  <^/Eons ;  or  elfe 
meant  that  this  Word  had  always  a  fub- 
ftantial  exiftence,  and  was  not  as  a  mere 
voice  or  found  which  follows  after  Jilence  w  5 
either  way  the  argument  is  clear  for  his 
eflential  and  eternal  Divinity.  No  wonder 
again,  if  the  fame  holy  writer  infilled  much 
upon  the  certainty  of  his  incarnation  and 
death,  that  he  was  conceiv'd  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin  Mary x,  that  he  was  of  the 
feed  and  family  of  cDavidv,  that  he  was 
truly  born,  eat  and  drank  z,  and  was  bap- 
tized a  5  that  he  was  truly  perfecuted  under 
'Pontius  Tilate,  was  truly  crucified,  and 
died,  and  arofe  truly  from  the  dead b,  that 


Ignat.  par.  2.  c.  3.  7.]    That  they,  and  particularly  the 

Cerinthians,  bad  the  name  of  Sige,  as  coupled  with  By  thus 3  from 
whom  was  produced  Monogenes,  and  from  him  Aoy<&,  is  evi- 
dent from  Irenaeus,  1.  3.  c.  11.  compared  with  Greg.  Naz.  orat. 
23.  p.  414.  Winch  was  afterwards ,  with  fuch  improvements, 
as  they  faw  fit,  tranferibed  by  all  the  feels  of  the  Gnofticks.  Vid. 
Iren.'l.  2.  c.  48.  alias  28.  &  Bull.  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fe&.  j.  c.  1. 
§  8.  14.  So  that  there  can  be  no  argument  from  hence  againfi 
the  genuinemfs  of  thefe  Epijlles. 

w  Vid.  Coteler.  in  loc.  Pearfon.  Vind.  Ignat.  par.  2.  cap. 
3,  4.  Du  Pin's  Hift.  of  Ecclef.  Writers,  Vol.  1.  p.  41. 

x  X^os  swoQo^Dti  -iW  Meeelof;.  Ignat.  ad  Ephef.  §  i8« 

y  'Ex  (TTs^atT©-  pj\v  AaGth  ibid.  t«5  Kotrk  cecfKa  i*  ytvov$ 
&«£&.  §  20.  Conf.  ad  Smyrn.  §  1. 

■  *Os  ocXY^ac,  lymlfiq*  ityxyip  n  koci  iffw.  Ad  Trail.  §  9. 

a  K*i  ebce^r/t&jj.  Ad  Ephef.  §  18.  Conf.  ad  Smyrn.  §  1. 

b  *AAjj^6»5  i&a%dn  in)  zrevrtov  -srihccrov,  khrftac,  zfbivyafa  x.oU 
Ixtfam  m  ciMQcbi  nyltfn  tin  wqm.  Ad  Trail.  §  o.  Conf.  ad 
Smyrn.  §  1, 1, 3. 

we 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  j  I 

we  fhould  labour  to  confirm  ourfcivcs  in  Serm.ii: 
this  belief,  as  of  true  and  real  facts,   forti-  v-*OTV 
fying  ourfelves  againft  the  iiifinuation  of 
thofe  vain  deceivers0,    who    would    deny 
their  reality d,  and  affert  him  to  have  fuf- 
fer'd  only  in  appearance e,  which  this  zea- 
lous father  look'd  upon  as  horrid  blaipe- 
myf. 

Thus  was  the  bleffed  Martyr  (like  the 
Apoftle  St.  John)  at  once  careful  to  affert  s 
the  Divine  and  human  nature  of  Chrift, 
that  he  was  both  the  Son  of  Mary  and  of 
God,  as  well  partaker  of  the  fubftance  of 
our  fleih,  as  fpiritually  united  with  the  Fa- 
ther, in  one  refpecl  a  creature,  but  un- 
created11 in  the  other,  God  really  incarnate, 


•  OiXv  zrgo$>v\oc<r<r£i&cu   ifjuccq    y^  if/jKirHv  &$  rot,  myxtffet  tk<; 

tvJ  o&vcc?ai<re<—-m *mTgx%6svTec  kXrjQcoq  koh  fi&xias  "ten  'Iyi&cZ  ££irey 
Tvic,  i\T$&'  ijfAavy  hs  sxrpaTrW*  fjunchvt  ly^av  ytvono.  Ad  Mag* 
nef.  §11.  Conf.  ad  Philadelph.  §.  8. 

d  Tow  S-civccTov  ecvroZf  ov  rmc,  upvovvrat.   Ad  Maglicf.  §.  O. 

e  Asyova-iv  to  dbxtii  tttmvOsvott  uvrov.  Ad  Trail.  §.  io.  Ad 
Smyrn.  §  2. 

'  .Toy  3  xvgiey  pov  pXottrQyyjii,    pvi  iyjeXoyav  uvrov  c-ctgxo- 

ipoQov>  a  ^  TouTo  (An  Xtym^  nXi(u%  uvrov  unrfwrui.     Ad  Smyrn, 

8  D.  Pearfon.  Vind.  Ignat.  par.  2.c.  1. 

b  Ay«W@-  and  AycW@"  were  ufed  indifferently  by  the 
moft  primitive  writers  to  fignify  uncreated;  and  they  feem 
to  have  had  no  fuch  term  as  unbegotten.  See  Dr.  Waterlavd's 
ia  Det.  p.  25-6,  &c.  But  in  procefs  of  time,  they  came  to 
make  a  diftin&ion,  underftanding  the  former  to  have  the  fame 
fenfe  with  «»T«f!^,  and  the  latter  with  frit  ywrfth,  which 
character  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Son.  Vid.  Coteler.  Not.  in 
Ignat.  ad  Ephef.  §.  7 . 

E  2  vifible 


$1  An  Hiftorical  Accounts/ 

Serm.ii.  wfible  and  tnvifible^  paffible  and  irnpaffi- 
V"YV  ^  i.  Only  it  is  obfervable,  that  St.  John 
refiding  in  Afia,  where  Cerinthus  had  chief- 
ly broach'd  his  blafphemous  opinions,  en- 
larges moft  upon  the  proof  of  the  Divini- 
ty $  whereas  Ignatius  being  Bilhop  of  An- 
tiochy  where  Menander  had  fpread  the  poi- 
fon  of  his  herefy,  is  moft  full  and  exprefs 
in  his  affertions  of  the  incarnation.  How- 
ever, as  it  was  natural  for  thefe  hereticks, 
by  infifting  upon  what  was  faid  of  Chrift 
in  one  refped,  to  draw  off  their  followers 
from  crediting  the  other  5  this  made  it  ne- 
ceffary  for  the  fathers  of  the  Church  to 
diftinguifh  carefully  between  thefe  two  cha- 
ra&ers,  and  teach  their  people  to  obferve 
how  fome  things  were  lpoke  of  him  as 
man,  which  could  not  be  applied  to  him 
as  God,  and  fo  wee  verfd.  The  former 
were  faid  to  be  fpoken  kclT  liwo/uLiav,  with 
regard  to  the  ceconomyy  or  that  myfterious 
difpe?ifation  of  Divine  love,  whereby  the 
Son  of  God  condefcended  to  affume  our 
nature,  and  undertake  the  work  of  our  re- 
demption.    This  term  we  find  firft  of  all 


■  ■  Ets  »Wpes  lew  trct^MKoq  T8  xtti  xvsv[ActTiKo$f  yimroq  xkt  ecylv- 
vqresy  h  trctfKi  yivofAsv®*  Qgo$,n  ■  i  xon  ik  (Jjcigicts  x>M  ix.  $-ttfi)f 
xpvrof  xxfatTiK,  kou  tots  UTrxOfc,  Ad  Eph.  §  7.1  u<j  crcepKtxos, 
xumq  irytv[ActTix2<i  h»ttfitn$  rS  tftcrpl.  Ad  Smyrn.  §  J  —  -  ~'r 
atofXTov  <JV  i[*ci$  cfcerir,  to*  «,t«#?,  rot  ^'  ij/**$  '  7r»6nriv. 

Ad  Poly  carp.  §  3. 


£  ufed 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  -         53 

ufedby  St.  Ignatius  k,  after  him  by  Jufiin  Serm.ii. 
Martyr  \  and  Irenaus  m,  and  by  the  latter  v^Y^ 
fathers  frequently".  It  is  fometimes  ex- 
plained to  mean  the  incarnation  of  Chrift  ° ; 
but  this  ought  not  to  be  reftrain'd  merely 
to  his  affumption  of  the  human  nature, 
but  underftood  to  include  all  he  did  and 
fuffer'd  in  this  ftate  of  humiliation,  for  the 
procuring  of  our  pardon  and  reconciling 
us  to  GodP  5  nay,  all  that  he  did  in  various 
appearances,  under  the  old  Teftament,  with 
a  view  to  the  fame  great  work  of  our  fal- 
vation  q  :  from  whence  we  find  that  word 
ufed  by  Irenaus r  in  the  plural,  as  tho'  there 

were 


fc    XfiS"05     SKV6<P0PV)8l)    U7T0    MctgiCtS    KCCT     CtXCVOf/jtXV     GiOU     -*-iVCC     TOt 

Trufot,  k.t.X.     Ignat.  ad  Ephef.  §.  18. 

1  Ilplv  rov  X£l?oV  **4  T^"  otKevof/fixv,  ry,v  xurcc  to  fiouXi)(X/oc  rev 
xxrfix;  ytyivii/Aivw  V7V    cevrou  ixl  ra>  ?6&vgcj6yivoct  i\Quv.  Juft.  Mart. 

Dial,    cum  Tryph.  p.  331.     T*j    T<&  nufe$    kvrov    oIkovo^j.oc. 

p.  247.  v  , 

m  Kurtz  TW  oiKovof&luv—-  rev  t%xrev  eetSfWFm  u$  ccvotywWM  tou 
irywra  cLvOgaxtt  7n^vtvxi,  Iren.  1.  1.  c.  10. 

n  Theodoret.  Dial.  2.  torn.  4.  p.  62.  5c  ad  c.  4.  Ep.  ad 
Hebr.  torn.  3.  p.  414.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  38.  p.  616.  Joh. 
Damafc.  I.  3.  orthod.  fid.  c.  if.  p.  221.  vid.  Eufeb.  E.  H. 
1.  1.  ex.  Ephrsem.  Antiochen.  apud  Phot.  cod.  228. 

0  Tw  ZvctvQpco7Ty)a-i»  rou  QioZ  A»yts  y.xXcvyjiv  ctx,o\of*iuv.      TheO- 

doret,  Dial.  2.  ut  fupra.     See  Bifhop  of  London's  Letter  de- 
fended, p.  7,  8.     Suicer.  in  voce  oucevopU. 

p  Vide  Ignat.  Juftin.  Iren.  ut  fupra.  item  Valefii  Annot.  in 
Eufeb.  p.  4. 

1  A  primordio  omnem  ordinem  Divinae  difpofitionis  per 
filium  decucurrifTe.  Tertiil.  contra  Praxeam.  cap.  16.  Vid.  8c 
D.Bull.  def.  fid.  Nic.  fed. 4.  cap.  3.  §.4.8,9. 

r  — Tots  ovcovofAiccs,  xu\ rocs  iXiuruc, —  Iren,  1. 1,  c.  2.  There 
w  yet  another  fenfe  of  the  word  oMotftik,  as  it  denotes  the  myfte- 

E  3  rbti! 


54  <An  Hifiorical  Account^/ 

Serm.ii.  were  feveral  (Economies  or  difpenfations  of 
V^V^  Chrift.  The  oppofite  term  to  this  was 
SioAoy'a,,  the  Theology  f,  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  which  muft  carry  our  thoughts  to 
his  Divine  nature  5  and  tho*  we  have  not 
fuch  early  examples  of  the  ufe  of  this  term 
as  of  the  other,  yet  the  fenfe  of  it  is  fuffi- 
ciently  evident,  as  from  other  arguments, 
lb  from  the  very  application  of  the  oppo- 
fite term  Utm/LtJk,  which  had  been  ufelefs, 
if  there  were  not  a  fuperior  nature,  from 
which  the  human  was  diftinguinYd.  Nay, 
and  the  very  word  SsoAoyo*  is  mention  d 
without  any  ftri&ure  by  Eufebius*,  as  a 
word  both  well  known  and  approved  of 
by  himfelf;  and  therefore  (we  may  rea- 
fonably  prefume)  in  familiar  ufe  before 
the  Council  of  Nice.  And  indeed,  about 
the  conclufion  of  the  fecond  century,  we 
find  an  anonymous  writer  in  Eufebms* 
confuting  Artemon  from  thofe  hymns  which 


rious  fubordination  of  the  persons,  or  their  internal  relation  to  each 
other i  the  dtfpojition  of  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  into  a  trinity 
of  pcrfons.  Oeconomiae  facramentum  quae  Unitatem  in  Tri- 
nitatem  difponit.  Tertul.  contra  Praxeam  c.  2.  Monarchiam 
fonare  ftudent  Latini ;  oeconomiam  intelligere  nolunt  etiara 
Graxi,  cap.  3. 

Theodoret  ad  cap.  4.  Epifl.  ad  Hebr.  torn.  3.  p.  414.  Vide 
Suicer.  in  voce  B-sokoyt*. 

1  Eufeb.  E.  H.  1.  1.  c.  1.  vid.  &  Valefii  Annotat.    . 

n  •yruXfmi  $t  kccI  cociotl  k^i^cpav  tcxugziis  uno  ntfZv  ypu<pa<ret.ii 
rov  Xoyov  rou  StcZ  rev  #«<$-«  vptvovo-i  SitMywris*  Eufeb.  E.  H. 
I  J.  C.28. 

were 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  yy 

were  anciently  fung  in  honour  of  Chrift,  Serm.ii. 
whereby  the  Church  did  (as  he  fpeaks)  ^OT^> 
3ioMy£v,  or  acknowledge  his  Divine  na- 
ture. By  remembring  this  diftin&ion  it 
will  be  eafy  to  account  for  feveral  expref- 
fions  in  the  antient  writers,  which  might 
otherwife  look  harih  and  inconfiftent  with 
the  ufual  tenor  of  their  doctrine. 

It  does  not  yet  appear  that  thefe  firft 
hereticks  had  utter'd  any  blafphemous  opi- 
nions concerning  the  perfon  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  except  it  were  indiredly  and  ob- 
liquely, by  afcribing  the  infpiration  of  the 
ancient  prophets,  not  to  the  divine,  but 
to  an  inferior,  and  indeed  an  evil  Being. 
It  is  not  therefore  to  be  wonder'd,  if  the 
firft  fathers  of  the  Church  fhould  be  lefs 
full  and  explicit  upon  this  head,  and  not 
dired  their  writings  againft  fuch  herefies  as 
were  not  yet  rifen.  Yet  as  occafion  of- 
fered, they  have  made  fuch  mention  of  that 
ever-blefled  Spirit,  as  very  amply  teftifies 
their  fenfe  and  acknowledgment  of  his 
Divinity.  We  faw  in  the  laft  difcourfe 
how  St.  Clement  of  Rome  join'd  him  with 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  equal  in  his  na- 
ture and  attributes,  the  principle  of  life, 
the  fearcher  of  hearts,  and  the  revenger 
of  violated  oaths.  And  what  lefs  could 
be  intended  by  Ignatius ',  when  he  advis'd 
his  Magnefians  to  be  fubjeEi  to  the  Bifhop 
and  to  one  another,  as  Chrift  according  to 
E  4  the 


<;6  An  Htfiorical Ac  count  of 

Serm.ii.  the  flefh  (or  in  his  human  nature)  was  to 
^^^^  the  Father ;  and  as  the  Apoftles  (who  had 
no  other  but  the  human  nature)  were  to 
Chri/l,  and  to  the  Father  and  the  Spirit™? 
Or  by  thofe  his  companions,  whofe  narra- 
tive of  his  martyrdom  concludes  with  this 
doxology,  directed  jointly  to  all  three  -by 
whom,  and  with  whom,  {viz.  the  Son,) 
glory  and  dominion  be  to  the  Father,  with 
the  holy  Spirit y  for  ever.     Amen*. 

After  Trajan's  death  the  perlecution  of 
the  Church  continued  in  the  reign  of  A- 
drian,  when  Quadratus  and  Ariftides,  two 
Athenian,  but  Chriftian  Philofophers,  pre- 
126.  fented  the  Emperor  with  their  apologies 
for  Chriftianityy;  which  met  with  fuch  fuc- 
cefs,  that  they  obtained  an  edid  that  no 
Chriftian  mould  be  punilh'd  meerly  upon 
popular  clamours,  but  only  fuch  as  were 
legally  convided  of  ading  againft  the  lawsz. 
Thefe  books  being  loft,  we  cannot  cer- 
tainly pronounce  of  the  dodrine  contain  d 


w  'YnoTuytTt    ra>  ixurxcxm   tucl  aAA(jAs<?,    toe,  'lya-cvc,  %pi<?o$   rco 

irvzufjuotTi.  Ignat.  ad  Magnef.  §.15. 

x   —  At'  &  xcti  fjbtO'  if   t£>  Tstrpj  jj    dtZpt  xu)  to  jcparos,    cm  t5 

uytm  7M'Ji*»7i  «s  uiZvuc,.  Apw.  Martyr.  Ignat.  apud  Grabe 
jpicileg.  fecul.  2.  p.  22.  Ruinart.  A£h  Martyrum,  p.  708. 
Edit.  4to.  and  Smith  Ignat.  p.  52.  The  genuinenefs  of  this 
piece  is  difputed  by  Mr.  Whijlon:  but  fee  what  is  faid  againft 
him,  in  the  Additions  to  the  feafomble Review  of  his 'accQunt 
of  Doxologies,  p.  3,  4,  f.  and  in  the  feeond  Review,  p. 
f*.  ft- 

I  Eufeb.  E.  H.  I.  4.  c.  3.  »  Cap.  p. 

in 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  yy 

in  them,  only  that  Eufebius  fpeaks  of  the  Serm.ii. 
authors  as  faithful  men,  and  their  do&rine  ^W 
truly  apoftolical*. 

Mean  while  both  the  branches  of  the 
Gnoftick  herefy  were  exceedingly  encrea- 
fed,  the  Aoxn1ai7  or  Simonian  Gnofticks, 
having  for  their  teachers  two  of  the  difci- 
ples  of  Menander,  namely,  Saturninus  at 
Antioch,  and  Bajilides  in  Egypt b,  both 
agreeing  in  their  grand  principle  of  deny- 
ing the  incarnation,  though  with  fome 
difference  in  other  refpe&s,  as  particularly 
in  the  genealogy  of  the  <^yEons,  which 
Bajilides  had  improved  with  greater  fub- 
tilty c :  though  both  he  and  his  fon  Ifido- 
rus  were  elegantly  confuted  by  Agrippa 
Caftor,  a  writer  of  their  own  age,  whofe 
book,  now  loft  thro'  the  injuries  of  time, 
is  fo  highly  commended,  not  only  by  Eu- 
febius*, but  by  St.  Jerome,  zndTheodoret£y 
that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  agree- 
ment with  that  which  is  ftill  acknow- 
ledged for  the  catholick  faith. 

The  other  branch  of  that  herefy  was, 
though  not  without  fome  alterations 
and  additions,  continued  likewife  in  E- 
gypt,     by  Carpocrates  and  his  celebrated 

a  Eufeb.  E.  H.  I.  4.  c.3. 

6  Cap.  7.   item  Epiph.  haer.  22.  §.  i,  &  haer.  24.  §.  1. 

c.  Vide  Epiphan.  haer.  24.  §.  1. 

A  Eufeb.  E.  H.  ].4.  c.y. 

'  Heron,  de  fcriptor.  c.  21. 

I  Theodoret.  de  haer.  fal,  I.  i.e.  4. 

fon 


58  An  H'tfiorkal Accounts/ 

Serm.ii.  fon  EpiphaneSy    who,     though    not    fur- 
v^Y^-*  viving  the  age  of  feventeen  years,  was  yet 
120.    fo  ftrenuous  an  affertor  of  his  father's  he- 
refy,  that  whilft  living  he  became  the  dar- 
ling of  the  party,    and  when   dead   was 
honour'd  as  a  gods. 

But  the  perfection  of  Gnoftick  herefy 
was  that  of  Valentinus,  who  form' d  to 
himfelf  a  fyftem  out  of  all  the  reft,  more 
artificial  in  its  contrivance,  and  more  uni- 
form in  itfelf,  tho'  full  of  grofs  abfurdi- 
ties,  if  called  to  the  bar  of  reafon  or  au- 
thority. The  z^/Eons  of  the  former  Gno- 
Jlicks  he  advanced  to  the  number  of  thir- 
ty, and  from  the  fall  of  one  of  thofe  (tho* 
afterwards  recover'd)  he  accounted  for  the 
origin  of  evil,  and  the  production  of  this 
animal  material  world.  It  is  befides  my 
purpofe  to  lay  open  all  his  wild  and  ex- 
travagant opinions,  which  are  at  large  ex- 
plained by  Iren£us*,  Tertullianh7  Epipha- 
nius'cy  and  Theadoret*.  And  though  thefe 
Valentinians  were  fubdivided  into  diffe- 


s  Clem. 4.  lex.  Strom.  1.  3.  p.  42S.  Edit.  Tar.  Epiphanius 
(hdr.  32.  §.  3,  4.)  reckons  him  among  the  Secundians,  a 
branch  of  the  Vaknt'mim  herefy:  but  his  early  death  will 
hardly  allow  it,  for  both  he  and  Valentinus  are  referr'd  to  the 
year  120.     See  Cave  Hift.  Lit.  fecul.  2. 

•  Iren.  1.  1.  c.  1.   &  alibi. 

fc  Tertul.  adv.  Valentin. 

c  Epiphan.  haer.  31,  &c. 

t  Theod.  de  haeret.  fab.  lib.  1.  cap.  7? 

rent 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  yp 

rent  feds c,  zsthzSecundians,  Ttolornseans,  Serm.it. 
and  others,  yet  they  were  reckon  d  to  a-  ^W 
gree  in  the  main  points  of  their  herefy, 
and  were  confuted  in  a  manner  by  the 
fame  arguments.  The  chief  of  their  po- 
fitions  which  affected  the  do&rine  we  are 
now  conftdering,  were  thefe  that  follow : 
(i.)  That  T)emiurgus7  or  the  Creator  of 
this  world,  is  not  the  fupream  God,  nor 
indeed  of  a  fpiritual  but  animal  nature, 
inferior  to  that  Tleroma  or  plenitude  of 
the  Deity,  in  which  the  whole  race  of 
C_y£ons  is  contain  d,  and  into  which  the 
fpiritual  part  of  mankind  (as  to  be  fure 
they  efteeni  d  themfelves)  mail  hereafter  be 
received f.  (2.)  ThatAfygl,  or  the  Word, 
is  not  the  immediate  fon  of  By  thus,  or  the 
Father,  but  of  Nusy  or  Monogenes,  the  only 
begotten,  fo  that  they  are  reckon  d  as  two 
diftind  <^y£ons.  Thefe  two  were  the  current 
opinions  of  all  the  Gnofticks.  (3.)  That 
there  is  a  fuperior  or  heavenly  Chrifi,  di- 
ftind  from  the  Afygl,  and  that  he  and 
the  Holy  Ghoft  were  pofterior  to  the  thirty 


xXnypiwv.     Epiphan.  hser.  31.  §.  1. 

f  Saturninus  firft  taught  the  diftin&ion  of  mankind  as  na- 
turally good  or  evil.  (Iren.  1. 1.  c.  22.  al.  24.)  The  other  he- 
reticks  took  it,  but  Valentinus  improved  it,  by  placing  be- 
tween the  material  and  fpiritual  man  (the  one  of  which 
could  not  perifh,  nor  the  other  be  faved)  the  animal,  who 
was  capable  ot  inclining  either  way.    Iren,  1.  1 .  c.  1 .  al.  f,  6\ 


oy£ons, 


6 o  An  Hijlorkal  Account  0/ 

serm.it.  zyEons,   and  producd  by  Monogenes>  for 
V^V1^  the  confirmation  and  eftablifhment  of  the 
'Plerbrna.     This  feems  to  have  been  partly 
taken  from  Cerinthus,  but  augmented  and 
improved  by  Valentine.     (4.)  That  Jefus, 
or  the  Saviour,   was  diftind  from  Chrift, 
and  the  produd  of  all  the  <^Eons  jointly, 
who,  with  the  angels  to  attend  him,  con- 
cluded all  the  produ&ions  within  the  cPle- 
roma.     This  feems  to  have  been  the  pe- 
culiarity of  Valentine  alone.      (5.)    That 
Chrifiy  who  appeared  here  upon  earth,  was  the 
Son  of  T>emiurgusy  or  the  Creator ;  and  had 
a  body  of  a  more  fubtle  and  artificial  kind 
of  matter  than  ours,  or  rather  truly  divine  s, 
fo  that  he  could  not  be  efteemed  to  receive 
the  fubftance  of  his  flefh  from  the  bleffed  Vir- 
gin.  Which  looks  fomething  like  the  herefy 
©f. the  \Doceta  5  or  rather,  perhaps,  like  the 
Apollinarians,  or  Eutychians h,  whom  we 
fhall  hereafter  obferve  to  have  introduced 
the  like  abfurdities  as  to  the  body  of  Chrift. 
(6.)   That  after  the  baptifm  of  this  Chrift, 
Jefus  defcended  upon  him  from  the  Tlero- 
ma,  and  left  him  again  before  his  paffion : 
which  is  a  plain  imitation  of  the  do&rine 
of  Cerinthus  y  only  giving  him  the  name  of 

£  Ovc&tevritoc,    3    TruXui,    xoivov    tJjs   Tficcdbq   to    Ttedoc,  Xiytt,    Tvfi 

©£otjjto?  [*ipoi  rvfl  reef**  QccvTuty fjusvo^ .   Athanaf.  contra  Apol* 
jinar.  lib.  2.  §.  3.  p.  942.  , 

'OvuXsvtwos  yup  xxrk  \i\vi  hru  Xtytf  rav  yctXt^otiav  in\ 
Xfirii  cue  q>u<ruc,  teymTw>  7:>.<nm  xciTU^sefjutv  ytXura.'  $[&£?<;  y<x$ 
too  optfTcy  kcci  ocooecra  f*lw  &veti  rjjy  tyutm  ^tA^iv,  E'ulog.  Alex, 
apud  Phot,  cod.  230.  _.    .- 

Chnft 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  61 

Chrift  who  appear'd  on  earth,  whereas  Ce-  Serm.il 
rinthus  gave  it  to  him  who  defcended  ^^Y^^ 
from  above. 

Thefe,  and  others  of  the  like  abfurdity, 
were  the  do&rines  which  Valentine  firft  120. 
broach'd  in  Egypt ",  and  afterwards  at  Rome > 
from  whence  they  were  propagated  by  his 
followers  thro'  many  provinces,  till  his  he- 
refy  became  the  moft  prevailing  and  consi- 
derable of  the  fecond  Century.  His  fi&ion 
of  the  zyEons  feems  to  have  been  entirely 
embraced  by  Cer don,  and  his  difciple  Mar-  140. 
aonh:  but  they  differ'd  from  him  in  fome 
meafure,  as  to  the  body  of  Chrift ;  which 
thefe  exprefly  afferted  to  be  merely  fan- 
taftick  and  imaginary1 ;  and  did  more  open- 
ly blafpheme  the  Creator  of  the  world  as 
the  author  and  origin  of  evilk.  The  re- 
membrance of  thefe  heretical  tenets  may 
be  a  ufeful  key  to  explain  feveral  paflages 
in  the  writers  of  thofe  times,  not  only  in 
fuch  books  as  were  written  purpofely  a- 
gainft  thofe  hereticks,  as  the  books  of  Ire- 
nauSy  and  fome  parts  of  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  and  Tertullianh  but  even  in  their 
occafional  writings,   whether  againft  Jews 


h  Vid.  Iren.  1.  2.  c.  1,  3,  48.  Greg.  Naz.  in  orat.  44. 
p.  705-,  706.  ac  annotat.  Elise  cretenf.  in  orat.  23  p.819.  ve- 
lim  autem  conferas  D.  Bull.def.  fid.  Nic.  fe&.  3.  cap.  1.  §.  1  r; 
12, 13. 

1  Vid.  Epiphan.  hser.  42.   Tertul.  de  prsefcript.  cap.  5-1. 

k  Iren.  1.  1.  c.  28,  29.  Tertul.  ut  fupra  Epiphan,  haer* 
41,  42. 

or 


6i  An  Hifiorkal  Account*?/ 

Serm.ii.  or  Heathens,   or  for  the  ufe  and  improve- 
^^T^J  ment  of  their  fellow  Chriftians. 

Againft  the  Jews  we  have  flill  extant  a 
celebrated  piece  of  Juftin  Martyr 's,  name- 
ly, his  dialogue  with  Trypho  5  and  another 
of  Tertullian,  not  written  till  after  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century.  Againft  the 
heathens  we  have  not  only  thofe  folemn 
apologies,  which  were  prefented  to  the 
heathen  Emperors,  for  allaying  the  heat  of 
perfecution;  to  Antoninus  "Pius  by  Juftin  % 
to  Marcus  Antoninus  by  the  fame  Juftin 
again,  and  Athenagoras  j  and  by  Tertullian  l, 
either  to  the  Roman  fenate,  or  to  the  ma- 
giftrates  of  Carthage™,  under  the  Emperor 
Severus,  befides  another  afterwards  diftin&ly 
addrefs'd  to  Scapula  the  governor  of  Africa : 
but  we  have  likewife  thofe  other  treatifes 
which  were  written  upon  more  private 
occafions,  fuch  as  the  books  of  Theophilus 
Eifhop  of  Antioch,  to  Autolycus,  the  trea- 
tife  of  Tatian  againft  the  Gentiles,  and 
fome  parts  of  Clemens  the  presbyter  and 
catechift  of  Alexandria,  befides  two  books 
of  the  nations  written  by  Tertullian,  and 
his  teftimony  of  the  fouL  Thefe  had, 
queftionlefs,  their  ufe  among  private  Chrif- 
tians;  but  there  were  others  more  parti- 


'Tillem.  not.  9.  fur  Tert.  torn.  3. 

™  See  Mr.  Reeve's  Notes  on  his  Tranflation  of  TertuWan's 
Apol.  p.if3>  1^4. 

+  colarly 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  6$ 

cularly  calculated  for  that  purpofe,  as  the  Serm.it. 
ads  or  martyrdom  of  St.  cPvlycarpy  the  ^OTs^ 
Tadagogue  of  Clemens,  and  feveral  trea- 
tifes  of  Tertullian,  as  well  before  as  after 
he  became  a  Montanift,  which  however 
are  of  equal  authority  in  the  prefent  con- 
troverfy, becaufe  he  declares  that  his  doc- 
trine had  always  been  the  fame  in  that 
particular".  In  thefe  kind  of  writings  it 
is  reafonable  to  exped  that  men  of  gravity 
and  candour  would  not  indulge  any  flights 
of  their  own  fancy,  fo  far  as  to  alter  any 
of  the  great  articles  of  chriftian  belief,  but 
would  faithfully  deliver  the  dodrines  of 
the  Gofpel,  as  they  receivd  'em  from  the 
former  age,  and  profefs'd  'em  in  their  own. 
But  efpeciaily  when  they  affert  it  as  plain 
matter  of  fad,  that  fuch  was  the  avow'd 
dodrine,  and  fuch  the  worfliip  of  the 
Church,  conformable  to  the  known  rule 
of  faith  and  apoftolical  tradition  5  we  can- 
not fufped  them  to  have  falfified  in  thefe 
particulars,  without  calling  their  fenfe  as 
well  as  honefty  in  queftion ;  nay,  and  the 
fenfe  of  all  mankind  befides,  who  cou  d 
not  confute  fo  obvious  a  falfity. 

Let  it  then  be  our   enquiry  what  ac- 
count may  be  colleded  of  the  dodrine  be 
fore  us,  from  thofe  ancient  expofitions  and 


Tertul.  admf,  Praxeam.  cap.  z. 

de- 


6\  An  Hifiorical Account^/ 

Serm. ii.  defences  of  our  holy  religion,  illuftrated 
v*x^>w'  thus  by  looking  back  to  the  time  and  occa- 
fton  upon  which  they  were  written.  The 
edid  of  Adrian  already  mention  d,  did  not 
fo  entirely  Hop  the  rage  of  perfecution, 
but  that  it  continued  to  be  carried  on  in 
fome  places,  under  the  reign  of  his  fuccef- 
for  Antoninus  Tins,  altho'  not  of  himfelf 
difpofed  to  fuch  feverities;  which  feems 
to  have  been  owing  to  that  ancient  decree 
mention  d  by  Tertullian,  whereby  the  Em- 
peror himfelf  was  difabled  from  confe- 
crating  or  appointing  the  worfhip  of  any 
new  god,  without  the  approbation  of  the 
fenate;  which  was  fuch  an  authority  as 
Tiberius  himfelf  had  not  been  able  to  pro- 
cure for  the  chriftian  worfhip0.  Befides 
which,  the  Chrijiians  were  in  general  ca- 
lumniated by  the  heathens,  as  atheifts  in 
principle,  and  debauchees  in  pradice:  fo 
that  when  they  were  accufed  of  being 
Chrijiians  (a  charge  which  they  were  not 
backward  to  acknowledge)  that  name  was 
fuppofed  to  include  every  crime,  and  with- 
out farther  examination  into  particular 
fads,  they  were  immediately  condemn  d  to 
capital  punifhment  as  the  grofleft  offen- 
ders.    This,  Jujlin*,  in  his  firft  apology 


°  Tertul.  Apol.  cap.  f.  fee  Mr.  Reeves's  Notes. 
p  In  oper.  Juft.  Mart.  p.  5-4,  ff.  fo  alfo  in  his  other  Apo- 
l°gy>  P*  4*»  43»  confer.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1. 7.  p.  701. 

prefcmed 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy,  6$ 

prefented  to  that  Emperor,    complains  ofsERM.n: 
as  a  very  grievous  hardfhip  :   and  the  fame  ^vV 
complaint  was  made  afterwards  by  Melito 
Bifhop  of  Sardis*,    by  Athenagoras   the     *6l°Jel 
Athenian*,  and  by  Tertullian  the  presby-      I77. 
ter  of  Carthage*,    in  their  refpediye  apo-     202J 
logics.     But  as  to  the  calumnies  thcmfelves, 
they  defied  their  enemies  to   make  proof 
of  fuch  abominations  as  were  pretended, 
upon  the  catholick  Chriftians,  whofe  pre- 
cepts of  morality  were  utterly  iriconfiftent 
with  them  *  5  and  if  they  found  any  guilty  (as 
among  the  Gnofiicks,  who  falfly  called  them- 
felves  Chriftians,  it  was  too  probable v  they 
might)  they  defired  not  to  skreen  them  from 
the  puniihment  <jhie  to  their  iniquity. 

To  the  charge  of  atheifa,  the  fame 
Juftin  has  replied,  by  mewing  both  thp 
objed  and  the  method  of  their  worlhip, 
and  concluding  it  moft  unreafonable  to 
repute  them  atheifts,  by  whom  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  and  the  prophetick  Spi- 
rit,   were  worfhip'd,    ado  fa  and  honour' d, 


q  Apolog.  Melitotiis  cujus  fragm.  apud  Euieb.  E.  H.l.4.  c.16. 

r  Athenag.  legat.  pro  chriftianis,  §.  i.p.  7,  &c.'Edir.  Oxon. 
Chronologers  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  date  of  this  Apology  of ''Athe- 
nagoras. It  was  certainly  -written  in  the  reign  cf  Marcus  Anto- 
ninus.    Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  ad  an.  177. 

f  Tertul.  Apol.  c.  2,  2. 

*  Juftin,  p.  61,  &c.  Athenag.  §.  2.  p.  10,  &c.  §.  27. 
p.  122,  &c.  Terrul.  ubi  fupra. 

v  Kortholtus  (de  moribus  chriftian.  affiftis  cap.  9.)  endea- 
vours to  vindicate  the  Gnofticks  againfi  this  charge.  But  fee 
Mr.  Reeves's  Notes  upon  Jnjlin,  p.$7>f8. 

E  in 


66  An  Hifiorical  Account^ 

Serm.ii.  in  fpirit  and  in  truth™.  Which  is  fc- 
v*oT^  condcd  by  another  paffage  in  the  fame 
apology,  where  he  not  only  mentions  the 
Father  for  the  objeft  of  worfhip,  but  like- 
wife  the  Son  in  the  fecond  place  >  and  the 
prophetick  Spirit  in  the  third*. 

1  would  juft  obferve  by  the  way,  that  the 
chara&er  of  the  prophetick  Spirit  feems  to 
be  dire&ed  againft  that  part  of  the  Gnofiick 
herefy,  which  aiferted  the  lawgiver  of  the 
Jews,  by  whom  the  prophets  of  the  old 
Tcftamcnt  were  infpired,  to  have  been  a 
being  of  inferior  nature  and  capacity.  To 
which  likewife  it  was  owing,  that  in  the 
ancient  Eafiern  creeds  (as  may  appear  from 
that  which  was  explain  d  in  the  cateche- 
tical le&ures  of  St.  Cyril  of  JerufaletnY, 
as  well  as  other  defcriptions  of  the  Holy 
Ghoftz,  long  before  the  council  of  Con- 
flantinople)  he  is  term'd  the  Taraclete 
who  /pake  by  the  prophets.  Whereby  a- 
gain  another  error  of  the  Valentinians 
was   manifeftly   ftruck  at,    who   fuppofed 


w  *A>iA'   skuvov  t\  [mctTipx]   £,  rov  xetf    Uiatsevm  ixQovreCu  • 
.irnvyjix.  Tt  to  Kpo<pv)TiKov    crifio'fji/zQtc  t§  Tryoo-KvvxfAtv,    Acy»  x}  rtAy- 
Atiot.  Ti^avri^.    Juftin,  p.  y6. 

x  Tov  ^j//j:*py«i'  <rt£o[Aivou    ii  ■  ■  rov  hfrutntuXov  rs—  iww  ffit- 
fW—  vihv  avrou  rou  cvruc,  B-ioZ  fbciQovTic,  (£  h  divriyu.  %Ct>yoti  s%cv- 

T£$,    XVlZyjU,  Ti   XyotpnTlKOV   SV   T^TtJ   Tfif|f<,   OTl   f/jlTCi  Xeyx    TI[aZ[X/SY, 

tfzs-c&iifyyjiv.   Idem,  p.  60.  • 

>'  Cyril.  Hierof.  catech.4.  §.12. 

z  Iren.  1. 1 .  c.  2.  1. 4.  c.  6z.  aliiq;  a  D.  Bull  citati  in  Jud. 
Eccl.  Cath.  c.  6.  §.  11,  12. 

i  the 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  67 

the  Paraclete  and  Holy  Ghoft  to  be  diftind  Serm.it: 
from  one  another a.  \s*f\J. 

But  to  return  to  Juftiris  argument :  If  the 
Scriptures  and  the  reafon  of  the  thing,  as 
well  as  the  dofrrine  of  Jnftin  in  other  places, 
did  not  clearly  inftruft  us  that  God  Only,  in 
the  proper  fenfe,  can  be  the  objeft  of  reli- 
gious worfhip;  and  if  it  were  not  confe- 
quently  evident  from  hence,  that  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  muft  here  be  fuppoied 
to  be  God  in  the  proper  Senfe,  becaufe  the 
objeft  of  worfhip;  yet  the  occafion  upon 
which  this  argument  is  here  producd  wou'd 
fufficiently  evince  it.  They  are  mention 'd, 
we  fee,  in  anfwer  to  the  charge  of  atheifm : 
We  are  not  atheifts,  hysjiiftin;  and  how 
does  he  prove  that  ?  becaufe  we  worfirip  God; 
and  how  does  that  appear?  namely,  by  our 
worshiping  Father,  Son,   and  Holy  Ghoft. 

The  like  way  of  arguing  was  ufed  to  the  168,  ati«i 
next  Emperor,  by  Athenagoras,  who  men-  x77* 
tions  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  the  objed  of  their  faith 
and  worihipb.  Where,  tho'  he  has  not 
repeated  the  word  God  three  times  over, 
yet  the  nature  of  his  argument,  as  urged 
in  oppofition  to  the  charge  of  atheifm, 
does  fufficiently  imply  the  third  Perfon  to 
be  God  as  well  as  the  two  former.     Be- 


a  Vid.D.  Bull.  §.  11. 

b   Tt5  ciiv  %k  ccv  uttc^o-xi  Xiycvrotc,  3-scp  XoiTi^oi,   xetl  viov  §to»t   y.ui 
wnv^tx,  kyiov—  <*Wcr*$  ccGixs  y.atefAtvxs.   Ath,  leg.  §.  to.  p.  40. 


68  An  tiifiorical  Account^ 

Serm.ii.  fides  which,  his  other  explications  of  the 
^V^  nature  of  their  union  do  very  clearly  con- 
firm it;  namely,  by  fpeaking  of  the  Father 
as  the  fountain  of  the  Deity,  whofe  divine 
nature  is  communicated  to  the  other  two 
peribns  ;  infomuch  that  as  the  Son  is  not  like 
.  the  fabulous  productions  of  the  heathen  dei- 
ties, but  the  Mind,  the  Word,  the  Wifdom  of 
the  Father,  and  one  with  him,  the  Son  be- 
ing in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  the 
Spiv  fo  this  is  farther  explained  by  the 
unity  and  power  of  the  Spirit c,  who  is 
himfelf  as  a  ftream  or  emanation  from  the 
fame  fountain  of  light d  :  which  manifeftly 
points  out  to  us,  that  w&td&gWlS  oi  k(Pm 
r7iu^e>  that  indwelling  or  pervajion^ 
whereby  thefe  divine  peribns  do  mutually 
comprehend,  and  (if  I  may  fo  fpeak)  mea- 
fure  out  each  other's  immenfity,  being 
thus,  according  to  the  fame  AthenagorasiJ 


c  eEvoq  cvroc,  roZ  vrxrpos  kxi  roZ  vitZ'  ovro$  j  rov  inoZ  h  Turpi  ^ 
v,Xi  Ttxrooq  h  vico,  svortyri  kxi  ovvo&fAii  Kvivp/ccros,  voZ$  kxi  foyce, 
■roZ  Trarpcq,  0  vies  rov  &zoZ.  §.  9.  p.  58. 

d  ■  Ayiov  xyiZfAX  kxcppoixv  iivxi  (fix/jut*  roZ  Osou,  uzeppsov  itctt 
izeivxtptpcfAivov.    ooc,  ccktTvx  iiXia.  §.  10,  p.  40.  News,  Aeyos,  <rc$icc 

VlO$  ToZ  TTXTfCS*  KXI  XTToppotX,  OH,  ($0)$  &7T0  7rvg0$,  TO  7TnZf/jU,  §.  2  2# 
p.    C,6. 

e  Vid.  D.  Bull.  def.  fid.  Nic.  fe&.  4.  c.  4.  §.  10,  Sec. 

f  —  hlK'JWTCiC,    U.VTUV    KCcl    r\v    h    TVj    fV&HTSl   JWXfX/lV,     KXI    TV\V   iV   Ttf 

rxhi  OtXifs<rtv.  §.  10.  p.  40.  tU  *i  roZ  i>iZ  xpo<;  rev  zxricx  ivc- 
t^,    r<?    vj  rou  TTctTpos  zrpos  rov    viev    xotvuricc,    rt  to  7TvivpjXt   ti$  h 

T60V     TOTCllTW     iVOJVlC,     KXi     $1X10  JGT<5,       IVVfA/iVUV     TcZ     TtVlZ^XTO^      TOU 

Ttziacty  rev  7TXTpe<;.  §.  i  I.  p.  46.  ®iov  Qxfjbiv,  kxI  Ciov  rov  XeyoM 
•ovtoZ,  x.va  nnZitjX  uyiov$  ivoofX/ivx  [tip  kxtU,  ^vyxtbiv-  rov  7rxrt(X) 
Tp  Vioi/%    to  TrnZfiitt.  §.2  2.   P.  $6, 

dijlinti 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  69 

diftirtSfbutyzt  united,  and  that  not  meerly  serm.i1 
by  equality  of  nature,    but   by  the  clofeft  v^oTV' 
communion  of  ftibftance ;   whilft  the  Father 
alone  being  'A^ode^C,    or  God  of  himfelf 
does  yet  communicate  his  Godhead  to  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghoft. 

It  was  this  \Vay  that  the  ancient  fathers 
fuppofed  their  faith  to  be  fecured  in  the 
monarchy  (as  they  often  i  term' d  it)  or  uni- 
ty of  the  divine  tjfence,  notwithftanding 
their  admiflion  of  three  really  and  diftin&ly 
fubftfting  in  it  5  fo  really  and  diftin&ly, 
that  they  might  be  juftly  numbered  as  one, 
and  another,  and  a  third.  And  from 
hence  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  the  character 
of  TroceJ/tonh,  and  the  very  name  of  Holy 
Spirit'1,  is  fomctimes  given  to  the  Son,  be- 
caufe  he,  as  well  as  the  Holy  Ghoft,  has 
his  eifence  by  communication,    and  is  not 


s  Eufebiks,  E.  H.  1.  4.  fays  that  Juftin  Martyr  wrote  a 
Treatife,  li«pl  0to«  ^ap^'a?,  a  Fragment  of  which  we  have 
in  Jufi'tris  Works,  under  that  Title.  We  have  the  fame  ufe 
of  the  Word  in"  TeriullUn  againft  Vraxeas,  and  elfewhere  fre- 
quently. 

h  'A<p'  ivy  nttlw  3"p«A03vV.  Ignat.  ad  Magnef.  §.  7.  Ser- 
mo  ipfius  qui  ex  ipfo  proceflerit.  Tertul.  adv.  Praxeam.  c.  2. 
Ita  &  Novatian.  de  Trin.  c  31.  vid.  Sc  Grot,  annotat.  ad 
Marc  2.  8. 

1  Filius  autem Spiritus  fanclus  e/r.  Herm.Paftor.  1.  j,  fim.f. 
§.  5".  He  is  alfo  cdUd,  irnZfjux,,  by  Barnabat,  Epift.  c.  7 .  Ignat. 
ad  Smym.  in  infeript.  Theoph.  ad  Autolyc.  1.  2.  p.  81.  Edit. 
Oxon.  Iren.  adv.  Hacr.  J.  p  c.  1.  Hippolyt.  contra  Noe't. 
c.  16".  vid.  Bull,  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fed.  1.  c.  2.  §.  f>  6.  &  Grot, 
ut  fupra. 


F  3  properly 


7?  An  Hiftorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.ii.  properly  9Au1'A(&,,  or  God  of  himfelf, 
VV^  which  is  the  peculiar  chara&er  of  the  la- 
ther only.  And  if  the  Holy  Ghofi  be  not 
on  the  other  hand  caird  the  Son  of  Gody 
nor  faid  to  be  begotten*,  yet  is  he  fome- 
times  defcribed  among  the  ancients  under 
the  name  of  IVifdom^,  as  being  the  giver 
or  difpenfer  of  true  heavenly  wifdom1; 
though  that  be  otherwife  the  ufual  appel- 
lation of  the  fecond  Perfon. 

I  pafs  by   many    other   paflages   which 

might  be  produced  in  confirmation  of  this 

catholick  doctrine,    from  Juftin,    Tatiany 

and  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  as  well  as  the 

doxology  of  St.  Tolycarpy   juft  before  his 

martyrdom,  who  (tho*  properly  a  father  of 

94.     the  firft  century,  and  placed  at  Smyrna  by 

s6     at    St.  John,  yet)  fuffer'd  not  till  the  reign  of, 

juxta  a-  Marcus  Antoninus :  I  pafs  by  thefe,  I  fay,, 

hos>  147.   not  oniy   for   brevity,    and    becaufe  they 

have  been  often  urged  by  abler  hands,  but 

likewife  becaufe  it  is  not  fo  much  my  de- 

fign  at  prefent  to    defend  the  truth  from 

the  number  of  authorities,    as  to  connect: 

the  doctrine  with  the  hiftory  of  the  Church, 

that  one  may  add  a  light  and  luftre  to  the 

other.     Yet  two  things  mould  be  remem- 


u  Thcoph.  ad  Autolyc.  I.  2.  p.  8t,  106.  Iren.  1.  2.<c.  ^$\ 
\.  4.  c.  17,  57.  H'ppolyt.  contra  Noet.  c.  10.  Origen.  contra 
Celfum,  1.6.  p.  325. 

!  Vide  Petav.  dc  Trin.  I.  7.  012.  §.  16. 

ber'd 


■  the  Trinitarian  Controversy .  71 

ber'd  with  relation  to  the  fathersofthisSEUM.il. 
age,  without  which  they  may  be  eafily  mif-  ^OP^ 
underflood  by  an  uncautious  reader :  name- 
ly, (1.)  That  thofe  among  them  who  fpeak 
of  the  nrz${\iv<n<;  of  the  Word,  or  his  com- 
ing  out  of  the  Father  juft  before  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  and  call  that  his  gene- 
ration-, do  not  thereby  mean  to  intimate 
either  that  that  was  his  beginning  of  exif- 
tence  (for  they  fpeak  of  him  before  that, 
as  always  fubfifting  in  and  with  the  Father) 
nor  yet  that  it  was  any  a&ual  reparation  of 
him  from  the  Father,  with  whom  he  mull 
be  one  eternally,  but  only  that  it  was  the 
firft  manifeftation  or  oftenfion  of  him  in 
that  ftupendous  operation"1.  And,  (2.)  That 
thofe  paffages  which  diftinguilh  the  Son 
from  the  Father  as  being  vijible,  and  com- 
prehended by  place,  were  plainly  not  dc- 
ftgn'd  to  exclude  that  immenftty  of  the  di- 
vine nature  in  the  Son,  which  the  fame 
writers  have  otherwife  moil  clearly  aflerted, 
but  only  to  refer  to  that  oeconomy,  where- 
by the  Son,  and  not  the  Father,  conde- 
fcending  to  affume  our  nature,  and  previ- 
oufly  to  that,  to  appear  to  the  prophets  and 
patriarchs  of  old,  was  in  that  refpeel:  only 
circumfcribed  by  place,  and  orTer'd  to  the 


m  See  this  largely  explain* d   By  JBifiop  Bull,    Def.  fid.  Nict 
feft.  3.  cap.j-,$;7,8,p. 


F  4  figbt 


7i  An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

serm.ii.  fight  of  men n  5    no  more  indeed  confinM 


K^r^j 


to  earth,  in  his  divine  nature,  whilft  he 
dwelt  upon  it,  than  the  Father  himfclf  is 
to  heaven,  where  he  keeps  his  refidence0. 
This  laft  obfervation  is  the  more  confi- 
derable,  becaufe  thofe  expreffions  fecm  to 
be  leveird  againft  certain  hereticks,  who 
appear,  from  fome  parTages  of  Juftin  Mar* 
tyr?,  and  Tat  i  am,  to  have  been  in  thofe 
times  5  and  had  been,  probably,  from  the 
time  of  Simon  Magus,  efpoufing  the  fame 
notion  which  was  afterwards  more  ftreriu- 
oiifly  propagated  by  ^Praxeas,  No'etus,  and 
Sabellius;  namely,  that  the  Godhead  is  hi 
all  refpe&s  but  one,  not  only  without  any 
divifion  of  fubftance,  but  likewife  without 
all  diflin&ion  of  fubfiftence.  And  perhaps 
this  might  be  the  ground  of  Juftin's  mak- 
ing ufe  of  that  ftrong  expreffion;  when 
fpeaking  of  the  Son,  he  fays,  there  is' 
EVe^s,  another,  befides  the  Maker  of  all 
things,  who  is,  and  is  term'd,  God  and 
Lord1 5  by  which,  that  he  could  not  mean 
another,  or  a  feparate  God,  but  only  a 
diftindt  ferfon   from  the  Father,    who   is 


■  Vide  Bull.  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fe&  4.  cap.  3. 

0  Vide  D.  Grabe  annot.  in  Bull.  p.  279. 

p  Juft.  Marr.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  25-8.  Paris. 

'  Tatian  Orat.  contra  Gne.  p.  i±f:  alias  21.  §.8. 

r    Oil  s^i  kch  XzytTui  ©jc$  xci}  y,upioc  Irt^oq  'v,t)q    Toy  xciYiTM  r2v 

l!kw.  Juft.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  zjf.  vid.  &  p.  28  J. 


truly 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  73 

truly  Gody  as  well  as  he,  might  be  unde-  Serm.it. 
niably  demonftrated  from  the  fcope  and  ^^T^J 
tenor  of  that  martyrs  writings f. 

It  might  probably  be  in  oppofition  to 
the  fame  herefy,  that  Theophilus  the  Bi- 
fhop  of  Antioch,  in  treating  of  this  myf- 
tery,  made  the  firft  ufc  or  application  of 
the  word  Trinity*?  to  denote  the  real  di- 
ftinftion  of  Pather,  Son,  and  holy  Ghoft, 
who  are  as  truly  three  in  one  refpeA^  as 
they  are  one  in  another :  unlefs  we  fliould 
choofe  to  explain  him  in  this  place,  as 
ftriking  at  the  Valentinians,  who  by  their 
various  combinations  of  the  <^/Eons,  did 
not  only  diftribute  them  into  fo  many 
'Dyads,  i.  e.  pairs  or  couples,  but  likewifc 
into  ah  Ogdoad,  confifting  of  the  four  firft 
couple ;  a  Decad,  confifting  of  five  pair 
produced  from  the  third  couple  of  the  Og- 
doad\  and  laftly,  a  Ttodecad,  confifting  of 
fix  pair  produced  from  the  laft  couple  of 
tlifc  Ogdoad*.  In  oppofition  to  thefe  ex^ 
travagances,  the  Biftiop  of  Antioch  might 
mean  it>  that  there  is  in  the  Deity  neither 
Ogdoady  'Dec ad  nor  'Dodecad,  but  a  Triad 


r  See  Dr.  Grate's  Notes  on  Bifhop  Bull,  p.  jf,  j6. 

'  'Q,a-uvT6x;  y.xi  ect  TfiTs  -jfjukpui,  rusret  u'trt  t%$  rpiocebq,    row 

©fey,    veil  rou  Aoyx    ccurov,    xal  t>j$  co<pU<i  ecurov,    Theoph.  ad 

Autolyc.  1.  z.  p.  106.   Ed.  Otfon. 

j&ufa.  Iren.  1. 1.  c.  i,   vid.  &;  Epiphan.  Hxr.  p. 

i  or 


74  ^n  H'tftorical Account^ 

serm.ii-  or  Trinity  only  >    which  word,   as  the  So-- 

KSY^  bellian  hercfy  grew  on  and  encreafed,  was 

very   properly    retain  d   by  the   Catholick 

writers,  to  denote  a  pcrfonal  diftin&ion  of 

the  facred  Three. 

Contemporary  with  Theophilus  was  Ire~ 
nans,  who  being  (as  it  leems)  by  birth 
an  Ajiatick,  and  an  hearer  of  St.  Tolycarp, 
1 67.  but  afterwards  promoted  to  the  bifhoprick 
of  Lyons  in  France,  and  withal  a  perfon 
of  great  integrity  and  accuracy  of  judg- 
ment, miift  needs  be  a  very  fit  and  unex- 
ceptionable witnefs  of  the  doftrine  that  was 
received  both  in  the  Eaftern  and  the  Weftem 
176.  Church.  His  writings  are  oppofed  to  the 
various  feds  of  the  Gnofticks,  which  pre- 
vailed much  in  his  time  i  but  particularly 
the  Valentinians,  who,  befides  their  other 
corruptions,  had  err  d  very  grievoufly  with 
relation  to  the  Word  and  Wifdom  of  God, 
which  they  held  to  be  not  only  diftinft  in 
perfon  from  By  thus,  (who  \yas  father  of 
the  c_y£onsy)  but  even  feparate  in  fubftance, 
pofterior  to  him  in  the  order  of  exiftence, 
inferior  in  point  of  immenfity,  ignorant 
of  his  infinite  perfections,  and  wholly  un- 
concern d  (as  well  as  Bythus  himfclf)  in 
the  creation  of  the  world. 

Againft  thefe  monftrous  abfurdities,  the 
holy  Biftiop  has  dcclar'd  himfelf  in  very 
ftrong  and  iignificant  exprcfllons,  not  only 
that  the  Word  did  always  exift>  did  always 

coexift 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  y^ 

co'exift.with  the  Father*^  equal  to. him  in  Serm.il 
immehfity,  and  as  it  were  meafuring  out  him  ^V^ 
who  is  unmeafurable  y,  that  he  is  therefore 
truly  and  properly  God,  as  well  as  truly 
man,  God  of  the  living,  and  God  overall2; 
but  he  likewife  includes  the  Holy  Ghoji 
in  the  participation  of  the  fame  Divinity  % 
when  he  aflerts  that  the  Father  has  always 
with  him  the  Word  and  Wifdom,  the  Son 
and  Spirith,  who  therefore  concurred  with 
him  in  the  act  of  creation,  when  the  Fa- 
ther is  faid  to  have  made  all  things  by  htm- 
felfy  that  is,  by  his  Word  and  Wifdomcy 
by  whom  likewife  he  ftill  preferves  and 
governs  themd,  and  beftows  on  men  the 
bjeffings  of    eternal    life   and    falvationv 


*  Non  enim  infectus  es,  O  homo,  neque  Temper  coexifte-^ 
basDeo,  ficut  proprium  ejus  verbum.  Iren.  1.  z.  c.  43.  Sem- 
per autem  coexiftens  filius  Patri.  1.  2.  c.  j-$\  Filius  Dei  ex- 
iftens  Temper  apud  Patrem.  1.  3.  c.  20. 

y  —  Ipfum  immenfum  Patrem  in  Filio  menfuratum.  Men*, 
fura  enim  Patris  Filius,  quoniam  8ccapit  eum.  L4.  c.  8. 

z  Ipfe  proprie  Deus.  1.  3.  c.  21.  vere  homo  8c  vere  Deus. 
I.4.  c.  14.  Ipfe  igitur  Chriftus  cum  Patre  vivorum  eft:  Deus, 
J. 4.  c.  1 1.     Deus  fuper  omnes.  J.  3.  c.  18. 

a  Spiritum  quidem  proprie  in  Deo  deputant.  I.  f.  c.  12. 

b  Adeft  enim  ei  Temper  Verbum  &  Sapieritia,  Filius  8cSpi- 
ritus,  per  quos  6c  in  quibus  omnia  libere  8c  fponte  fecit,  ad 
quos  8c  loquitur  dicens,  fac'utmus  bominem,  &c.  1. 4.  c.  37. 

c  — Qui  fecit  ea  per  femetipfum,  hoc  eft:  per  Verbum  8c 
Sapientiam  fuam.   1.  2,  c.  ff9 

d  — Per  Verbum  8c  Spiritum  fuum  omnia  faciens,  difpo- 
nens  8c  gubernans  8c  omnibus  effe  praeftans.  1. 1.  c.  19. 

c  Ea  autem  quae  falvant  ait  efTe  nomen  Domini  noftri  Jefu 
Chrifti,  8c  Spiritum  Dei  noftri.  \.j.  c.  m,  vid.  8c  cap.  13. 


Son, 


j  6  An  Hiflortcal  Accounts/ 

serm.ii.  So  that  there  is  one  God  the  Father,  one 

v^/"^w>  Son j  and  one  divine  Spirit f,    properly  di- 

ftiriguilh'd  from  each  other,    altho'  infepa- 

rably  united  in  that  Divinity  which  is  but 

ones. 

What  dtfcriptions  could  be  thought  of 
ftronger,  or  more  emphatical;  which  tho' 
dire&ly  levdl'd  at  fuch  herefies  as  are  now 
utterly  dxtind,  are  yet  abundantly  fuffici- 
ent  to  convince  us  of  the  falfhood  of  fuch 
as  were  then  hardly  rifen?  What  then  tho* 
the  tVord  and  Spirit  be  fometimes  men- 
tioned by  the  fame  author h  as  niifiiftring 
to  the  Father?  This  is  not  in  the  quality  of 
agents  inferior  in  their  nature,  but  con- 
natural with  himfelf1,  infomuch  that  we 
have  feen  they  are  faid  to  be  himfelf;  and. 
what  he  does  by  them,  he  is  faid  to  do 
by  his  own  hands  5  that  is,  by  his  Word 
and  Spirit*.     Prom  whence  it  may  be  once 


f  In  omnibus  8c  per  omnia  unus  Deus  Pater,  &  unum  Ver- 
bum &  unus  Filius  8c  uhus  Spirittfs.  J.  4.  c.  14. 

8  Unus  Deus  omnipotent—  per  Verbum  &  Spiritum  ftum 
omnia  faciens.  1.  1.  c.  ip.  fie  unus  Deus  Pater  oftenditur 
qui  eft  fuper  om'riia,  &  per  omnia,  8c  in  omnibus:  fuper  om- 
nia quidem  Pater--- per  omnia  aute'm  Verbum— in  om'hitus 
adferh  nobis  Spifitiis.  l.j*;  c.  18.  The  three  charaHers  are  firfi 
attributed  to  the  one  God,  [Confer,  cap.  17.  in  fine]  and  then 
dijlributcd  difiinBly  to  the  three  Perfons. 

h  Miniftrat  enim  ei  ad  omnia  fua  progenies  8c  figuratio 
fua,  [leg.  ejus]  id  eft  Filius  8c  Spiritus  fanttus,  Verbum  &  Sa- 
pientia.  1.  4.  c.  17. 

'•  Vide  D.  Bull.  Def.  fid.  Nic.  feft.  1.  c.  5-.  §,  6?7. 

k  Per  manus  cnirh  Parris,id  eft  per  Filium  Sc  Spiritum1  fit 
homo  fecundum  iimilitudinem  Dti,  Iren.  1.  f.  c.  6. 

for 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy,  77 

for  -all  obferv'd,  that  the  prepofition  $$&  Serm.il 
cannot  be  fairly  urged  to  infer  a  diyerfity  ^OTs^ 
of  nature  between  the  Father  and  the  q- 
ther  two  Perfons,  jfinqe  they  ad  but  as  his 
hands,  nay,  ashinifelf,  and  therefore, clearly 
confubftantial.  And  this  teftimony  gfjffi* 
n^us  is  the  niqre  confider^bic,  becaufe  l\c 
Jays  it  down  as  the  catholick  doclrine  qf 
the  Church,  throughout  all  parts  of  the 
world,  and  derived  by  a  conftant  and  un- 
interrupted tradition  from  the  days  of  the 
Apoftles k  :  in  which  he  could  not  well  be 
miftaken,  having  been  himfelf  the  hearer 
of  St.  'Polycarpy  as  he  was  of  St.  John. 

Before  die  death  of  Irenaus,  according 
to  lbme,  or  certainly  foon  afterwards1, 
Clemens  was  the  celebrated  Schoolmafter  i92« 
and  Catechifl:  of  Alexandria,  whole  works 
are  ftored  with  great  variety  of  learning, 
digefted  with  exa&nefs  of  judgment  5  where- 
in he  not  only  expofes  the  absurdities  of 
*Pagan  fuperftition,  and  heretical  perverf- 
neis,    but  lays  down  excellent  precepts  for 


*  Iren.  L.  i.  c.  2,  3.  1.  2.  c.  9. 1.  3.  c.  2,  3,  4.  &  in  prsefar* 
1  Some  iuppofe  Iren&us  to  have  been  born  not  long  before 
the  year  140,  and  to  have  fuffer'd  martyrdom  under  Severus, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Others  fuppofe  him 
to  have  been  born  in  the  year  97,  and  to  have  died  in  the 
year  189,  or  foon  after.  This,  however,  is  certain,  that  he 
was  Biihpp  of  Lyons  next  after  Pothinus,  about  the  year  167. 
Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit,  eo  anao,  Clemens  began  to  flourifh  about 
the  year  19*. 

the 


78  An  Hijlorical  Account^/ 

Serm.ii.  the  conduct  of  a  chriftian  life,  and  labours 
K^T^  to  preferve  the  apofiolical  tradition  in  its 
genuine  purity1".  To  that  purpofe  he  is 
full  of  very  high  and  lofty  defcriptions  of 
the  Son  of  God,  terming  him  God  with 
the  article  n  as  well  as  without  it,  Almigh- 
ty0, one  with  the  Father  p,  and  to  whom 
belongs  the  infpedion  of  our  hearts  s,  and 
of  all  things  in  the  univerfe r ;  the  ever- 
lafting  Wordy  the  infinite  Age  or  <^/Eon, 
(in  oppofition  to  the  Valentinians>  who 
dreamt  of  the  Aoy@»  as  a  finite  <^/Eon :) 
He  terms  him,  moreover,  the  eternal  Light f, 
infomuch  that  however  it  be  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  Father  to  be  ava^ocy  as 
that  word  is  underftood  to  denote  him  un- 


m  C/H^j  ^  vi  yp#<£>»  — ««<^yAov  ciTt%vco$  >£  tnuayyxtyix  rm  ivxy- 
yav  xx\  ipj-^vxav  ixsivav,  ui  xx%^ahv  ixxxSo-xi  Xoym  rt  xxl 
civd^m  [//puccccluv  xxl  rat  evJ*  ctfyoXoyuv,  .  ■  ccXX  01  (up  tw  a.Xv$vi 
tv$  fjbXKctpias  traZpvliq  ^o\.<rxxX(x<;  7Txfcc£c<riv  lv$b$  ctnc—,  rm  xy(- 

ft>V    CS.7TO<3  0hw,    77M$  KUJgSt   TtXT^  ixhftOfJItiV&^m   VIXOV   &\  <TUV   Si?   xxl 

a\   Vfjuocs  rx  7rpoyoviKU   txiivx   xxi   uffofoXixx   xxrx6i}<rof//Svot  ewtp~ 
f*x\cc.    Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1.  p-274,  275*.  alias  322,  323. 
n  Tov  B-iov  Toy  Xoyov.  Paedag.  1.  1.  c.  f.  prope  fin.  sr©-  lf» 

o  S"£o5  0  A6y(§K    C.  6.  p.  I  10. 

0  T5  xavTcxiccjcfiKa)   $iX'4f//uli   l,^.  p.  5*17. 

P    Ev  y>  a[jtj<pcj,   6  3W$.    Pedag.  1.  1.    c.  8.  p.  113.    In  xxl 

TTUTYig,     h    C,fXj<Pb),    XVfH,     1.3.C.I2.    p.  266. 

**  'Ovott  XiXYi&iv  uvrbv  rav  twoiZv  xxi  tZv  oixXoyicrfAiav  av  7ta%- 
y,i6x.  rev  xoeiov  iqa-iiv  Xtya,  t\v  t£  ttxvtok^xIo^kS)  Sihyipecu  ht[- 
vkoxov  7?5  Kafiixc,  yyjZv.  Strom.  I.4..  p.  5*17. 

'  'O  uiot;  rcu  3-£ot/,   is   f&tpiEofOfiflShi  xk  oc.7roli[/,vofOf)(&',    £  /t//e]«- 

GcliVUV    IX   TtXX   UC,    ToTToV,    XXv\v)    '"j    M    KXVTOTt ,    Xx\    fJCft}OXf/jyi    7TSCH- 

X< ftyJ&'>    oA(^-   vy$,    o'A©-  <Pu$   7Txt£g>m,    cAC^-  o<p8xXpo$  7ruvrx 
cfrcHv,  ttxvtx  xy.y&v,  s$co-;  7TXvrx,     1.  7.    p.  702. 

f  Ae'y©-  u'fvx<&}  etiuy  uxXit<&-,  <pZ",  k'lhov,  Hymnus  ad 
calicm  Pcd.igog. 

origi- 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  79 

originate ,c,  or  God  of  himfelf,  yet  the  Son  Serm.il 
likewife  is  ava^os,  without  beginning u,  '^Y^ 
as  the  fame  word  is  underftood  to  have 
reference  to  time,  or  a  beginning  of  exif- 
tence.  So  again  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  clearly- 
included  in  his  notion  of  the  Trinity  ^y  as 
every  where  prefent  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son*,  and  therefore  joind  with  em  in 
his  remarkable  Doxology  f,  as  entirely  one 
with  them,  the  upholder  of  eternity,  and 
author  of  all  good. 

After  all  this,  it  is  wonderful  that  any 
one  mould  charge  this  Alexandrian  Prel- 
byter  with  fentiments  different  from  thofe 
that  were  eftablifh'd  at  the  council  of 
Nice,  upon  account  only  of  one  or  two 
expreffions,  which,  tho'  not  perfectly  agree- 
able to  modern  ftyle,  are  yet  eafily  recon- 
cilable with  the  catholick  faith,  upon  a 
view  of  the  ancient  ftate  and  circumftances 


'  Vide  D.  Bull.  Def.  fid.  Nic.  feft.A.  c.t.  §.  i. 

lev  ukoovov  xxi    uvoiQ%ovm-*   rev   vuv,    Strom.    1.  7.    p.  700. 

<mm,T*  KVCHt  U.7TU.&isC)  XvUPYUC,  yiVOtoiVZ.     X>,  lOZ. 

Uvk  UAAoic,  zyayz  t^xy-go),  n  rw  xytxv  rpiccdx  [Awu£a%'  ipirot 
ftp  »yb  tivoct  to  uyto)  TtnZfJttot.'  row  vtbv   j)  JWrspev.    \,  f.   p.  co8 

fiXi    6    rut   oXav  \cyoc;    kcu  to  xviZf/jie.  to  uyiov  h    xxl  to   xvto 
**vTu%pu.  Pedag.  1.  r.  c  6\  p.  102. 

y  — 'Ey£#pifa!/ros$  etiviiy,    ciivovvroci;    sv%api?i7v,    rv  [acvm  ttxt^I 

Y.OU     W»,^  Vi'M     XXi     TTXTfi   —<TUV     XXi     ?M    CCyuf)    XetOlX/CCTt'     7TM.VTX    TM 
in'     £*    a   T0&   7TXVTX'    Ol'  OV    TeC    fTctVTU    tV'     CH    OV   TO    itSi'     %    UiiXrj   ffUV- 

Tic,'   g  dctfX.  ctiavic;   Trxvrx    Ta  ciyxda,    7?civTX  tco  ku,?.?,  :-:uvtu  Tat 
<ro<pa>'    tu  chkouo)  rx  %ci»tx'   a  jj  K\x  *<*<  vbv  kxi  sj's  tz;  ouwxc,' 

"JAW.     1.   3,    C.  12.    p.  266. 

of 


80  An  Hifiorkql Account^/ 

Se.km.ii.  of  the  Church.  WhilA  the  controversy 
v^OP^  with  hereticks  was  not  ftri&ly  trinitarian, 
or  concerning  the  fubfiftence  of  three  in  one, 
as  that  with  the  Gnofticks  moft  certainly  was 
not,  nor  that  other  with  thofe  who  held 
Chrift  to  be  a  mere  man,  without  deter* 
mining  any  thing  about  the  nature  of  God; 
it  is  no  wonder  if  the  terms  nature  and 
ferfon  lhould  not  be  fo  accurately  and  con- 
stantly diftinguilh'd,  but  that  Clemens  might 
make  mention  of  the  nature  of  the  Son  % 
where  the  writers  of  following  ages  would 
have  chofe  to  fay  his  perfon,  although  his 
meaning  be  perfectly  the  fame  with  theirs, 
as  mull  appear  to  ^.ny  one  who  would 
take  an  impartial  view  of  his  whole  doc- 
trine fum'd  up  together. 

Indeed  that  appears  to  have  been  the 
x  76.  known  and  avow'd  dodrine  of  the  Church 
before  his  time,  and  as  fuch  was  prophane- 
ly  ridiculed  by  Lucia?iy  or  whoever  elfe 
was  author  of  that  Dialogue  entitled  Thi- 
lofiatriSy  (certainly  a  one  of  equal,  if  not 
greater  antiquity,)  where  the  Chriftian  pro- 
pofes  to  the  Heathen,  that  inftead  of  (wear- 


*  — 'H  vioZ  tyva-ie,,  if  tm  (Jt,cva>  ffetvTOKQUTGft  7?go(r£X£<7ceTq.   Strom. 

1.  7.  p.  702.  For  a  fuller  fatisfaCtjon  as  to  this  and  other 
cxprdfions  of  this  father,  particularly  thofe  cited  by  rbotius, 
from  his  book  called  Hypotypofcs,  which  is  now  loft,  fee  Bull 
Def.  fid.  Nic.  fe3. 1.  c.  6.  §. 6,  7,  8,  9.  and  ficond  Review  of 
Whifton'j  Doxologiesy  ft./Qi  6°>  61. 

\  Vid.  Fabric.  Biblioth,  Gneca  1,  4.  c,  \6< 

ing 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy,  %  i 

iilg  by  his  Jupiter,  he  fhould  rather  ap^SERM.lL 
peal  to  the  Moft  High  God,  to  the  Son  v^YV^ 
of  the  Father y  and  the  Spirit  proceeding 
from  the  Father,  One  of  Three \  and  Three 
of  One,  efteeming  this  to  be  God  or  Ju- 
piterb.  To  which  the  Heathen  replied* 
that  this  was  a  thing  he  could  no  way  un-* 
derftand,  how  One  fhou'd  be  Three,  and 
Three  Onec.  So  openly  was  this  dodrine 
then  profefs'd  in  the  Church,  that  the 
heathens  themfelves  were  not  flrangers  to 
it !  Which  was  a  consideration  long  ago  of 
fuch  weight  with  Socinus  d,  that  fuppofing 
this  paflage  were  genuine  (againft  which  he 
offers  nothing  but  the  bare  conjecture  of 
fome  perfons  whom  he  ha$  not  named) 
he  could  not  but  eftcem  it  as  the  moft 
confiderable  proof   of  the  Trinity  in  all 


"I-yif/jtdbvTct  Stov,    jt*cy&r,   ufAfyoToy,    fyxn'vyx,     bio*   •xxr^o^ 

miZf//X     fK    TTtCTfoq      iKTTOQlVOffyiOV,     if    %K     TflWr,      xu\     l|    fTffi     Tp/#, 

tuutk  riptigt  Zwx,  tIi  £'  ityoZ  B-tcy.    Lucian.  Philop. 

•  'Ovx.  oi&t  *£>  r\  *tyti$,  tv  r^U,  rfU  t>.  Concerning  this 
Dialogue  afcribed  to  Lucumt  I  would  obferve,  (i*)  That  it  was 
certainly  written  by  fome  heathen,  fince  no  Chriftian  can  be 
fufpetted  to  have  forged  fuch  a  burlefque  upon  our  holy  re* 
ligion.  Confequently,  (2.)  That  it  was  not  written  to  fup- 
port  the  do&rine  of  the  Trinity,  but  to  expofe  it.  (3.)  That 
it  was  written  before  the  words  fubftance  or  hypftafa  Were 
commonly  ufed  in  the  explication  of  this  myftery  t  other- 
wife  the  fcoffer  would  certainly  have  mention'd  them.  And 
4.  That  the  ftile,  and  other  internal  characters,  do  argue  its 
antiquity,  as  is  obferv'd  by  the  Editors  of  Lucian. 

d  Socin.   in  Defend   Animadv.  adverf.    Gabriel.  Eutrop.1 

Q  antiquity. 


8  2.  An  Hijiorkal  Account^/ 

sekm.IL  antiquity,  and  fuch  as  might  conclude  it 
*~OT^>  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  fome  Chrifti- 
ans  in  that  age.  But  for  his  own  part,  he 
profeffes  without  referve,  that  tho'  it  fhould 
be  proved,  that  this  do&rine  was  miver- 
fally  recciv'd  by  all  Chriftians  from  the 
very  days  of  the  Afoftles,  yet  he  fhould 
not  be  induced  to  admit  it  as  true  chriftian 
doctrine :  which  is  fuch  a  barefaced  af- 
front to  all  antiquity  and  catholick  tradi- 
tion, as  deferves  no  other  anfwer  but  the 
utmoft  contempt. 
280.  About  this  time  we  are  to  place  a  fort 
of  hereticks  mentiond  by  Epiphaniusc, 
under  the  name  of  Alogiy  fo  called  for 
their  denying  the  perfonal  fubfiftence  of 
the  Wordy  or  its  union  with  the  human 
nature  of  Chrift,  and  reje&ing,  for  that 
reafon,  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John,  which  fo 
clearly  aflerts  both.  I  fhould  imagine  they 
were  no  other  but  a  branch  of  the  Ebio- 
niteSy  made  known  under  another  name ; 
fince  Theodotus,  who  is  faid  to  have  taken 
thefe  very  principles  from  themf,  is  not- 
withftanding  defcribed  as  the  father  or  head 
of  this  apoftacy  s,  which  muft  at  leaft  imply 
him  to  be  the  firft  who  left  the  catholick 
do&rine  for  fuch  impiety,  whilft  the  Ebio* 


•  Epiph.  H.  ft .  Aug.  H.  30.  f  Epiph.  h«r.  <^.  §.  1. 

«    Ellf.i.j\    C.    l8r 


4.  nites 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  8  3 

nites.  were  not  reckon Vl  to  have  apoftatiz-  Serm.it; 
ed  from  the  Church,  but  rather  to  be  meer  *<^f\s 
j^ews,  and  fo  never  received  into  its.  Or 
perhaps  it  may  be  faid  that  Epiphanius. 
was  miftaken  in  fuppofing  Theodotus  to 
transcribe  after  the  Alogi,  when  they  were 
rather  followers  of  him. 

He  was  a  currier  by  trade,  and  a  citizen 
of  Byzantium,  called  afterwards  Conjranti- 
nopleh,   who  having   denied  Chrift   in  the 
time  of  perfecution,    and  being  afterwards 
afhamed  of  his  offence,  endeavour 'd  to  ex- 
tenuate by  increaiing  it,  and  difown'd  our     193. 
Saviour's  Divinity  for  the  fake  of  this  wretch- 
ed pretence,   that  he  had  not  denied  God 
but  man1.     Which  probably  gave  occafion. 
to  the  Church  to  fix  upon  his  hcrefy  the  cha- 
racter of  agWl'fli©*  c&7rcgx(7iak7  to  lhcw  he 
was   fo  far  from  proving  that  he  had  not 
denied  God   in  the   time   of  perfecution, 
that  the  opinion  which  he  now  avow'd  was 
it  felf  a   continued  denial  of  God,    and 
enough    to    make    good    the     accufation 
brought  as;ainft  him.     But  fo  ofFenfive  was 
his  do&rine  to  the  Church  at  that   time, 


*  Bull.  Jud.  Ec.  Cath.  c.  3.  §.1,2. 

h  Tert.  de  pra'fer.  c.  5-3.  Eufeb.  H.  E.  l.£.  c.  28..  Epipb. 
hxr.  5-4.  Philaftr.  de  harref.  c.  50.  D.  Aug.  de  hxr.  c.  33. 
Theodor.  hxr.  fab.  1.  2.  c.  f. 

1  ---©gov  lyoi  «»  ^■mru.^jlMu.x^A  <&vfyu7rov  v^w^w.  Theod. 
3pud  Epiphan.  Jiaer.  5-4,  §.  1. 

k  Eufeb.  ut  fupra. 

G  %  that 


84  An  Hiflorkal  Account  of 

Serm.ii.  that  he  was  immediately  excommunicated 
^^"^  by  Pope  VtBor  5    and  when  Natalis,  one 
I94'     of  his  followers,    was  reclaimed  from  his 
201.    errors  under  the  next  Pope  Zephyriny   he 
was,    not  without   difficulty,    reftored   to 
the  communion  of  the  Church1.     So  that 
it  was   an  inftance  of  the  moft  fhamelefs 
impudence  in  Artemon,    who  propagated 
drca  20;.  the  fame  herefy  very  near  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  to  pretend  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Sons  Divinity  had  not  been 
preach'd   before  the  time  of  Vifior,    but 
only  from  the  time  of  the  pontificate  of 
Zephyr  in.     He  was  confuted,  ns'Photius™ 
bears  witnefs,  by  Caitis  a  Roman  Presbyter 
of  that  time,    a  fragment  of  whofe  book 
is  probably   preferv'd  by  Eufebius*,    who 
produces  an  anonymous  author   difputing 
againft  Artemon,   not  only    from    many 
great  authorities  before  Viffor,   but  like- 
wife   from   the  books  of  Scripture,    and 
thofe  publick  hymns  in  honour  of  Chrift, 
which  had  been  ufed  from  the  beginning. 

So  far  we  have  fcen  the  do&rinc 
of  the  Church  during  the  fecond  century. 
But  here  it  will  concern  me,  by  a  fhort  di- 
grcllion,  to  vindicate  this  doftrine  of  the 
Church,    againft  the  calumny  invented  by 

1  Eufeb.  ut  fupra.  m  Phot.  God.  48. 

•  Eufeb.  ut  fupr.  vid.  Pearfon.  op.  pofthum.  p.  147,  &c. 
Cave  hift.  1ft.  an.  no. 

x  fomc 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  8  j 

fome  modern   criticks,   who  charge   even  Serm.ii. 
the  fathers  of  the  fecond  century  as  retain-  ^OT^ 
ing   fome  tin&ure  of  the  ancient  fuperfti- 
tion,    and    adulterating  the  truth   of  the 
Gofpel  with  the  errors  of  philofophy0.     To 
this  purpofe   they  fugged  that  the  notion 
of  three  principles   was  firft  advanced  by 
'P/ato,  which  he  term'd  Goodnefs,   or  the 
good  Being,   his  Afy§L,    Word  or  Reafony 
and   the  Anima  mundi,    or  Spirit  which 
a&uates  and  influences  the  whole  fyflem 
of  beings  in  the  univerfeP.     They  tell  us 
that  this  Aoy@^  was  confider'd  by  the  Tla- 
toniftsy    either  as  it  was  originally  in  God, 
containing  the  pattern  or  archetype  of  all 
things  to  be  made,    or  elfe   as  in  time  it 
proceeded  or   came  forth  out  of  him  in 
the  actual  production  or   creation  of  the 
univerfeP.     Some  of  them  have  imagined 
that  Tlato  meant   nothing  by  all  this  but 
to  defcribe  the  three  properties   or  attri- 
butes of  the  one  God  difplay'd  in  the  cre- 
ation,  namely,    his  goodnefs,  wifdom  and 
power r,   which  is  called  the  more  refined 
or  fabtlc'P /at  onifm,  being  thus,  thro'  fear  of 
the  averfion  of  the  populace  to  any  acknow- 
ledgments of  the  divine  Unity,   wrapt  up 


•  Vid.  Cleric,  ars  critica.  vol.  i.  p.  f$6. 

*  Platonifme  de voile  par.  i.  c.  j\ 
'  Ibid.  cap.  9. 

J  Ibid.  cap.  f,  7, 

G  3  and 


8  6  An  Hifiorkal  Account^/ 

Serm.it.  and  cbvcr'd  in  fiich  allegorical  defcnptions, 
^V^-*  as  were  commonly  taken  in  the  groffer 
ienfe  to  denote  fo  many  diftincl:  divine 
Subftancesf.  From  hence  it  is  insinuated 
that  Juflin  Martyr,  who  had  been  edu- 
cated in  the  fchool  of  Tlato,  and  the  fa- 
t  thers  that  followed  him,  whether  converts 

from  idolatry,  or  iriftru&ed  by  fueh  as 
were,  mix'd  up  with  Chriftianity  the  prin- 
ciples that  were  imbibed  in  paganifm  ;  and 
if  any  of  them  underftood  the  more  re- 
fined and  allegorical  fenfe,  yet  to  vulgar 
apprehenfions  at  leaft  they  introduced  a 
tritheijiick  worfhip  S  which  came  at  length 
'to  be  eftabliih'd  by  the  council  of  Nice  u, 
and  continued  in  fucceeding  ages.  So  that 
the  dodfine  of  the  Church  Catholick,  e- 
ven  in  thofe  early  ages,  was  nothing  elfe, 
in  the  judgment  of  thefe  wonderful  dis- 
coverers, but  the  corruption  of  philofbphy, 
and  the  fathers  of  the  Church  were  even 
worfe  inftructors  than  Tlato  or  *Pfafinus! 
Nay,  fome  have  gone  yet  farther,  and  in- 
cluded the  Apoftle  St.  John    in  the  fame 


1  Ibid.  cap.  I2j  18. 

■  Ibid.  C3p.  1.  Vide  Le  Clerc  Biblioth.  choifie  torn,  f, 
p,  86,  &c.  The  like  attempt  is  made,  tho"  with  another  view, 
by  Cudworth,  Intellect.  S'yftcrh.  c.4.  '§.  36. 

u  Vid.  Curccllae.  Inft.  rel.  Chnft.  1.  2.  c.  20,  22.  item  Qua- 
tern.  Difiertar.  di/T.  1.  §.72,  &c. 

charge 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  %y 

charge  of  Tlatonifm™,   as   borrowing   his  Serm.ii 


notions  of  the  divine  Aoy@^y  if  not  imme- 
diately from  Tlato  himfelf,  yet  at  lead 
from  Thilo  the  Jew  of  Alexandria,  who 
feems  to  have  been  much  addi&ed  to  Tla- 
tonick  fpcculations  x.  No  wonder  if  the 
fucceffors  of  the  Apoftles  be  accufed  of 
fuch  apoftacy,  when  the  infpiration  of  the 
Apoftles  themfelves  has  not  fecured  them 
all  from  the  fame  accufation ;  tho*  fome 
have  try'd  to  foften  it  by  fuggefting  that 
St.  John  tifcd  the  flyle  of  the  philofopher, 
but  with  a  better  meaning,  only  to  ihcw 
how  far  the  language  of  the  Tlatonifts 
might  be  accommodated  to  a  chriftian 
fenfc*. 

But  let  us  enquire  a  little,  whether  there 
be  at  laft  any  real  ground  or  foundation 
for  all  this  cry  of  Tlatonifm.  The  firft 
fchools  Of  the  Chriftians,  as  appears  by 
that  famous  one  at  Alexandria2-,  which  if 

not 


*  See  "the  hiftorical  vindication  of  the  naked  Gofpel,  quoted 
by  Bifhop  Bull,  in  his  Prim.  8c  Apoft.  trad.  c.  f.  §.  7.  and  by 
Mr.  Reeves,  in  his  preliminary  Difcourfe  to  Jujlin  Martyr's 
Apology,  p.  4. 

*  Cleric,  ars  Critica,  vol.  3.  ep.  7, 8.  Biblioth.  Univ.  torn.  1  o. 
p.  460,  &c.   as  cited  by  Baltus. 

y  Vid.  ejufdem  Epift.  de  Hammondo  £c  critica,  p.  3^. 

'*  Alexandria ubi  a  Marco  Evangelifta  femper  ecclefi- 

aftici  fuere  doftores.  D.  Hieron.  de  fcriptor.  Ecclef.  in  Pan- 
toeno.  cap.  36.  Philippus  Sidetes  makes  Athenagoras  to  have 
been  the  firft  majler  of  this  fchool  in  the  reigns  of  Adrian  and 
Antoninus  j  emd  to  have  been  fucceeded  in  that  office  by  Clemens, 
G  4  Pantcenuss 


v^Yv 


88  An  Hiflvrical Account  of 

Si rm.ii.  not  firft  of  all  ereded  whilft  St.  Mark  was 
VOfv^  their  Bifhop,  was  at  leaft  continued  in  the 
time  of  his  fucceffors,  under  the  direction 
of  thofe  celebrated  matters,  'Pantoenus, 
Clemens,  Origen  and  Heracles  5  were  ma- 
nifeftly  defign'd  for  training  up  the  chrif- 
tian  youth  in  the  dodrines  of  our  holy 
Religion,  as  laid  down  in  Scripture a,  and 
not  in  the  peculiar  principles  or  tenets  of 
any  fed  of  philofophers.  And  though  the 
oppofition  which  they  met  with  from  the 
heathen  writers,  made  it  neceffary  in  time 
to  have  fome  fchools  erected  for  the  ftudy 
of  philofophy,  as  thofe  of  Ammonius^y 
Anatolins c,  and  others  5  or  at  leaft  to  fq- 
led  fome  of  their  difciples  for  that  fort  of 
education,  as  Eufebius  relates  of  Origen  d> 


Pantcenus,  Origen,  Heracles,  Dionyfius,  Pierius^  Theognoflus, 
Serapion,  Peter,  Macarius,  Didymus  and  Rhodon,  who  re- 
moved the  fchool  from  Alexandria  to  Side,  in  the  reign  of  the  Se- 
nior Theodofius.  See  DodwellV  Appendix  to  his  Differ  tat'tons 
upon  Irenacus,  p.  48S,  &c      Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  vol.  2.  p.fi. 

a  -~-'E|  aCQ%euov  i6ov$  aiouo'KecXuov  ray  lipm  Xoyuv  nag   ttgrjfik 

triwi^aroc,  ■ Tluvreiivoq  ■„  ■  ,      Zfur^  <Pwvy    <£   %l&   irvyyfcifjc- 

ftctrw  rew«  ray  Bziuy  $iyy,urav  &icrccvfov<;  vxopvvyttccTity (OjJ<&. 
Eufeb.  E.  H.  I,  y,  c.  1  o.  See  more  fully  upon  this  point  Father 
Balms'*  Defenfe  des  SS.  Peres  accufez  de  Platonifme  livr.  1. 
ch.  r. 

b  Porphyr.  in  Eufeb.  1.  6.  c,  19.  vid.  &  Hierocl.  apud 
Phot.  cod.  214.  who  fpeaks  of  Ammonius  as  having  read  phi- 
lofophy to  Origen, 

e  Anatolius,  afterwards  Bifiop  of  Laodicea.  Vid.  Eufeb.  H.E. 
I.7.  c  32.  But  Dr.  Cave  fuppofes  the  Schoolmafter  and  'Bifhop  \o 
have  been  different  perfons.  Hift.  Lit.  vol.  2.  ad  an.  270. 

d  Eufeb.  J.  6.  c.  id. 


yet 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  89 

yet  they  were  not  addided  to  any  diftind  Serm.u. 
fed,  but  rather  fet  themfelvcs  to  expofe  ^VV 
what  was  abfurd  in  all  the  different  feds, 
and  to  colled  that  which  was  right*  5  that 
fo  they  might  difpute  with  thefe  philofo- 
phers  upon  their  own  principles,  and  make 
their  philofophy  as  much  fubfervient  to 
the  caufe  of  Chriftianity,  as  the  various 
arts  and  fciences  of  human  learning  are  to 
philofophy  itfclf f.  Even  Origen  himfelf, 
who  feems  to  have  indulged  a  philofophick 
genius  farther  than  the  reft,  yet  caution  d  s 
his  pupil  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  to  keep  it 
within  thefe  reftridions  5  and  declar'd,  for 
his  own  part h,  that  he  had  confin'd  him- 
felf wholly  to  the  word  of  God,  till  the 
confluence  of  philofophcrs,  as  well  as  he- 
reticks  reforting  to  his  ledurcs,  made  it 
necefiary,  in  order  to  adapt  his  arguments 


e  Q>iXocro<pioC9  3,  &  "Ztuikw  Xiyw,  io\  rvy  UXxTmixviv,  v  Tvp 
*JL7riKtsgttGV  n  (c1  ApifortXtxw,  ccXX'  ocrx  il^rxt  z>x£  ixx?vi  rm 
xiptortwv  txtuv  xxXaq,    o\xxioo-tjv!/M    fJUtra    lutrtZi^   foifiplK   iteJl- 

dxVKOVTX,       TXTO    <TU[Ai7TXV   TO    ly.XiXTlXOVy    <PlXoToQiXV    (fauH*      0<TX   j 

faifufeiwv  MyitrfAav  ^roTtf/f^ofB^oi  Trxpt^upx^xvj  txZtx  xx  e&y  next 
§iix  u7roifju'  uv.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1.  I.  p.  288. 

f  'AAA'  a$  rx  iyxvxXix  fjjx6^XTX  crvfjtjQxXXtTXt  xoic,  $1X00-0- 
<pfxv  rw  ot<r7rcuxt  xvrZv,  'area  v  <PiXo<ro$ix  xvr*  sr*»s  xrotyix$ 
xtig-iv  ruvif/tT.    Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1.  1.  p.  284.  It.™ 

(piXoro<pix$  xvtkj  m  ccvsTriQyXiVToy  <pvXxo-o-n*  tkv  Tn^tv.  p.  29  I. 

■  <V  ctsiq  <px<rl  <piXoa-o<pZv  7rx?M<;  7?iQ/i  ytvfJ!jiTg/,x$y  <&  fjuovori- 
x?S,  ygXf/jfAXTixvii  rt  <£"  ptiTopiKKt  (c1  'AfMopueeff  coq  vivjiefotof 
yiXoa-otyiXy   ryO'  *i{Jt>t~<;  tt&wftyj  >£  7Tt&}  ocvtk  tylXovotylxs  %^  #p<« 

fixvio-f/jov.  Origen  in  Philocal.  cap.  13. 
£  Philocal.  cap.  12. 
J  Eufeb.  H,  E.  lib.  d.  c.  io, 

the 


<?o  An  Hiftorkal  Account  0/ 

Seum.ii-  the  better  to  their  prejudices,  that  he  mould 
v^Y^-*  be  firft  acquainted  with  their  books  and 
fentiments.  So  that  the  dodrines  of  the 
Gofpel  were  not  meanly  fubmitted  to  the 
corredion  of  their  fyftems,  but  they  were 
rather  correded  and  reformed  by  the  ftan- 
dard  of  the  Gofpel.  The  chriftian  apolo- 
gifts  were  fo  far  from  yielding  to  them 
in  matters  of  faith,  that  they  exposed  their 
errbrs  and  inconfiftent  perplexities,  even 
in  the  theories  of  nature,  and  queftions  of 
morality  \ 

But  if  it  could  be  fuppos'd  that  they  who 
had  been  firft  educated  to  the  ftudy  of 
philofophy,  retain  d  fome  tindure  of  their 
former  notions,  even  after  their  conver- 
fibn  to  the  faith  of  Chrift,  yet  why  muft 
Platonifm  be  fuppofed  to  have  had  greater 
influence  than  all  the  other  heathenifh  fyf- 
tems put  together?  It  is  certain  that  the 
Peripatettcks,  the  Epicureans,  and  above 
all  the  Stoicks,  were  the  rhoft  prevalent 
and  flourifhing  feds  in  the  firft  ages  of  the 
Gofpel k,  whilft  the  Platonick  fyftem,  which 
had  been  corrupted  foon  after  the  death  of 


1  Vid.  Hermiae  Philofophor.  Gentil.  irrifio  ad  calc.  Juft. 
Mart.  La£hnt.  Divin.  Inftit.  1.  3.  c.  2—7.  Eufeb.  praepar. 
Evang.  1.  if,  c.  1,  2*,  61.  Theodor.  Serm.4.  de  materia  & 
mundoy  inter  opera  torn.  4.  p.  5-17,  &c. 

*  Vid.  Baltus  Defenfe  des  SS.  Peres  accufez.  de  Platonifme. 
I-  1.  c.  1 1,  12.  and  Judgment  of  the  Jewifli  Church  againfi  the 
Unitarians,  c.  25. 

"Plato, 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  <p  i 

Plato,  by  Speujippus  and  Xenocrates  his  serm.it. 
immediate  followers1,  and  after  that  fell  ^^V^> 
into  general  difrepute  by  the  various  dif- 
ienfions  of  the  Acadernicks™,  was  almoft 
utterly  extinct,  till  in  the  third  century  it 
was  revived  by  cPlotinusn>  who  open'd  a 
fchool  for  that  purpofe  at  Rome,  and  was 
fucceedcd  in  the  profellion  of  that  feci,  by 
'Porphyry,  lamblichas,  and  others,  down 
to  Proclus  in  the  fixth  century0,  fo  that 
before  this  the  generality  of  converts  might 
be  fuppofed  to  have  come  from  any  other 
fect  rather  than  Platomfm  5  and  I  know 
not  of  ahy  one  among  the  Fathers,  bcfid'es 
Jujlin  Martyr,  who  had  actually  made 
profellion  of  that  Feet.  And  can  it  then 
"be  imagiried  that  Chriftianity  fliouFd  be 
formed  upon  the  foot  of  the  Tlatonick 
fyftem  ?  efpecially  when  it  is  added,  that 
after  the  revival  of  P  latonifm,  the  profef- 
ibrs  of  that  feet  were  the  moft   virulent 


1  Numenius  apud  Eufeb.  prarp.  Evang.  1.  1 4.  c.  f. 

m  Numenius  ibid.  c.  6,  7,  8,  9.  Itaque  tot  familise  Philo- 
Tophorum  line  fucceflbre  deficiunt.  Acadcmici  &  vcteres  & 
minores  nullum  antiftitem  reliquerunt.  Senec.  nat.  Quajft. 
I.7.  c.  32. 

a  n  Plotinus  was  the  fellow  pupil  of  Origcn,  under  Ammonius, 
\vid.  Hierocl.  ctpud  Phot.  Cod.  2  14.]  and  flour ifhed  in  the  reign 
of  Galienus  [yid.  Porphyr.  in  vita  Plotini.]  Tunc  Plotini 
Schbla  Romae  floruit.  D.  Auguft.  Epift.  n$.  alias  $6.  ad  Dt- 
of  cor  urn  r  §.33. 

0  Vid.  D.  Auguft.  dc  Civit.  Dei,  I.  8.  c.  12.  &  Suid.  in 
ybce  nAwTJyo.;.  See  alfo  the  lives  of  feveral  of  them  by  Euna- 
pius,  an  heathen  -writer  of  the  fourth  century. 

oppofers 


yz  An  Hiftorical  Account  0/ 

seiim.ii.  oppofers  of    Chriftianity p,     and  therefore 
v-^'V^-'  might  naturally  be  expe&ed  rather  to  create 
an  averfion,  than  incline  to  any  imitation 
of  them. 

The  truth  is,  as  the  Philofophers  were 
the  chief  fupporters  of  Taganifniy  the  la- 
thers of  the  Church  were  fo  far  from  be- 
ing attached  to  any  of  them,  that  they 
have  exprefly  declared  againft  them  all,  and 
confider'd  'em  as  their  avow'd  adverfaries, 
infomuch  that  even  Juftin  himfelf  %  who 
ftands  firft  in  this  charge  of  introducing  a 
'Platonick  theology,  has  freely  expos'd  the 
fyftems  both  of  Tlato  and  of  Ariftotley  as 
abfurd  and  inconfiftent,  whether  confider  d 
in  themfcives,  or  compared  with  one  ano- 
ther; as  built,  at  beft,  upon  conje&ure  and 
uncertain  reafonings,  unable  to  defend 
them  againft  the  oppofite  hypothefis  of  any 
other  philofopher,  or  to  create  that  firm 
and  unfhaken  affent  of  mind  which  is  due 
only  to  the  oracles  of  God,  and  the  infal- 


p  Vid.  Porphyr.  in  vita  Plotini.  Eunap.  in  vita  Mdcfy, 
p.  64,  6j\  Edit:  16 16.    Suid.  in  voce  IJpSxAos. 

41  'Ouru  [vp  av  Tig}  Tav  fo  igavoUc,  n^  <*AAtjAy$  olx<pigovrxt 
KfxyyjccTav  [nAotrauv  jc,  'Apifvrfans]'  0$  r\  ii^tvxt  7rpo<rnx.tit  crt  01 
l*j?M  ret  nxf  \\m    ivrxuSx  ymvxt  fiwn6iv\s$t    tfAAoi  <£  ntgA  tbtwji 

*oT$  Jltr/vfojoi.  Juft  n.  Martyr,  cohort,  ad  Grsec.  p.  7.  And  in 
his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  (p.  ifz.  Edit.  Thirlby,  alia^s  225-.) 
fpcaking  of  the  Scriptures,  he  fays,  txutLo  fAovlw  sufuncov  <f>iXo<ro- 
$xv  k<r!pxA*  t*  '*}  ruptpo^or  Irm  ^  *5  -^  tkvtx  piAeVo^©0 
»yu. 


lifale 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  p  3 

liblc  aflurance  of  divine  teftimony.  They  Serm.ii. 
who,  notwithftanding  this,  can  charge  v^oT^* 
Juftin  with  TUtonifm-,  after  his  conver- 
sion, becaufe  he  was  before  it  an  admirer 
of  Tlato,  may  e'en  as  well  fuppofe  him 
to  have  been  a  Tagan  ftill,  with  equal 
truth,  and  juftice  to  the  Martyr's  me- 
moryr. 

Nay,  to  do  'em  right,  it  muft  be  far- 
ther added,  that  the  Catholicks  did  all  a- 
long  exprefs  the  greater!:  jealoufy  of  thofe 
whom  they  perceiv'd  to  incline  to  phi- 
lofophick  notions1*,  and  made  it  one 
great  branch  of  their  accufations  againft 
the  antient  hereticks*,    as  firft  againft  the 

Valen- 


*  Vid.  Baltus  Defenfe  des  SS.  pcres  accufez  de  Platonifme. 

1.   2.   C.4. 

r  This  is  particularly  obfervable  in  the  cafe  of  Origen,  -echo', 
notwithftanding  his  great  piety,  and  the  danger  he  feems  to  have 
fometimes  apprehended  from  mixing  Divinity  with  philofophick 
notions,  was  yet  fo  much  addicted  to  fpeculation  and  metaphys- 
eal enquiries,  that  he  became  very  much  fufpecied  in  this  particular, 
and  was  by  many  of  the  ancients  feverely  cenfured  upon  that  ac- 
count. AijAey  <$¥  i<ri  >f>  rat  t2  U^ccrM®*  (Ai[*wffyj(&J  lege  \tji~ 
yji>t(0p(&'  [£2pty«)js]  jbyfAurcov,  <£  tJjs  rm  «-y%m  nccf  uvtm  &cc~ 
q>*fa,  zrq\  tfggm  yiyfettps  fi&blov.  x.  r.  A.  Marcel.  Ancyran. 
*pud  Eufeb.  contra  Marcel.  1. 1.  c.  4.  p.  zj. 

1  Ipfse  denique  hasrefes   a  philofophia  fubornantur.     Inde 
Aones  &  formae  nefcio  quae  Hinc  illae  fibulae  8c  ge- 

nealogist interminabiles,  &  quasftiones  infruduofae,  &  fer- 
mones  ferpentes  velut  cancer  a  quibus  nos  apoftolus  refrae- 
nans,  nominatim  philofophiam  teftatur  caveri  oportere 
Fuerat  Athenis,  8c  iftam  fapientiam  humanam,  afFectatricern 
&  interpolatricem  veritatis,  de  congrefiibus  noverat,  ipfam 
quoque  in  fuas  haerefes  multipartitam  varietate  fe&arum  in- 

vicem 


94  dn  Hifiorical  Account  of 

SiKM.w.Valentinians*  and  other  Gnofticks™,   and 
^OT^->  afterwards  againft  the  Avians  \    that  they 
had  trail fcribed  after  'Plato  and  his  follow- 
ers,   and   corrupted  the  fimplicity  of  the 
Chriftian  faith  with  rnixtures  of  philofofihp 


vicem  rcpugnantium.  Quid  ergo  Athenis  5c  Hierofolymis? 
Quid  Academic  8c  Ecc'elice?  Quid  Harreticis  8c  Chriftianis  ? 
Noftra  inftitutio  de  porticu  Saiomonis  eft,  qui  8c  ipfe  tradi- 
derat  Dominum  in  fimplicitate  cordis  elfe  quserendum.  Vi- 
derint  qui  Stoicum,  8c  Platonicum,  8c  Dialeclicum  Chriftia- 
niilimum   protulerunr  Tertul.   de  prAfcript.  cap.  7 .    Doieo 

bona  fide  PJatonem  omnium  Hsereticorum  condimentarium 
factum.  Idem,  de  Anima  cap.  23.  Hasreticorum  patriarchs 
philofophi.  Idem  adverf.  Hcrtfiog.  cap.  8.  De  Platonjs  philo- 
ibphia  major  &  antiquior  eft  expoftulatio  chriftianorum  pa- 
trumi  Et  verd  res  per  fe  Joquitur,  ac  prifcarum  omni- 

um harrefum,  quas  primis  tribus  fasculis  exortse  funt,  hifto- 
ria  ipfa  teftatur,  Simonianos,  Valentinianos,  Marcionitas, 
JVlanichaeos  ac  cazteros  non  aliunde  quam  ex  cornmentis  Pla- 
tonis  fubornatos  efTe,  8cc.  Tetav.  Dogm.  Theolog.  in  Vrelegom* 
c.  3.  §.2.  vid.  &  eund.  de  Tr'm.  l.i.c.l, 

1  Quod  autem  dicunt  imagines  efTe  bxc  eorum  quae  funt, 
&  rursus  manifeftifiime  Democriti  8c  Platonis  fententiam 
ediflerunt.  Iren.  adv.  h&r.  1. 2.  c.  19.  alias  14.  Ipfa?  denique 
hcerefes  a  Philofophia  fubornantur.  Inde  Clones  8c  formas 
nefcio  qax,  8c  Trinitas  hominis  apud  Valentinum :  Platoni- 
cus  fuerat.  Tertul.  de  prefer,  c.  7.  Hoc  fecit  infelix  Valenti- 
nus  &  Bafilides,  hoc  fecit  8c  Marcion  hseretiqi,  furati  funt 
ifti  linguas  aureas  de  Hiericho,  8c  Philofophorum  nobis  non 
reclas  in  Ecclefias  introducere  conati  funt  feclas  8c  polluerc 
omnem  ecclefiam  Domini.    Origen  hpm  7.  injofuen. 

w  'HKoXitQixrt  3  \sTot  xa>s  *e)  6  UXurav  rah  ra»  puGcr  svrsu&sp, 
i  M«»>J5,  y^  Kfyyz  Turn  0  tm  y.ciXovfBfuv  Tvu?ikuv  0v<r<rt£nq  c'p- 
fjt,ct8oq  T&C,  uQopfjuxq  uXr,<port$i  ,  .  6t  j  Trotf/jffyiotfoi  Kup7rox.go&Tt)r„ 
t£  E«"i^a>«5,  ttj  UgyJlxoi;,  t£  0*  Kailutoi  rev  <rva$n  fiiov^  vofAoforisv- 
rii  Theodorit.  Hser.  fab.  1.  p  c.  20.  p.  297. 

x  Ariana  hxrefis  magis  cum  fapientia  feculi  facit,  8c  argu- 
mentationum  rivos  de  Ariftotelis  fontibus  mutuatur.  D.  Hier. 
in  dialog,  adverf.  Luciferianos,  inter  opera  torn.  4.  par.  2. 
col.  296.  Ed.  Ben. 

and 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  p y 

and  vain  deceit.  The  heathens  were  few-  Serm.  u. 
fible  of  this  averfion  in  the  Catholicks  to  VVV 
their  philofqphy :  nor  were  they  wanting, 
for  that  reafon,  to  upbraid  them  as  for- 
faking  the  eloquence  and  wifdom  of  the 
Greeks,  to  embrace  the  dq&rine  of  Bar- 
barians?. The  Catholicks  v/ere  (o  far 
from  diflembling  this  charge,  that  they 
readily  acknowledged  it  %  and  juftified 
thcmfelves,  by  obferving  what  abfurdities 
and  contradictions,  what  doubt  and  incon- 
fiftency,  what  ufelefs  fpeculations,  at  the 
beft,  were  found  in  the  greateft  philofophers, 
whilft  whatever  was  ufeful  or  valuable  in 
their  writings,  was  entirely  borrowed 
from  the  facred  oracles  5  a.     They  reje&ed 


y  Txrixto$  v7tiy  Tjs5  fAA>j^g,  iirsp  to  cmtyov  ruv  (PlXoitgQwtuv 
TrXnO®*  xouwfjuu  rx  (Zxyflxouv  e&yyiiXTX.  Ita  Etbnici  apud 
Tatian;  in  orat.  contra  Grseo  §.5-7.  p.  124.  alias  170.  Eufe- 
bius  takes  notice  of  the  like  objection,  <tI  Jjj  xpx  kxXov  >j  a-t^- 

nv  wovrts  w  roi$  fixfoxqav  ygXf/j/Axa-i,  7-?$  kxtquxs  t^  svyty^ 
<ptXctro<Piust  t«5  sAAjjvwv  Asy«,  xpoKpivuv  uvrx  ^ixyiyotjfj,i8x.  Praep. 
Evang.  1.  14.  in  proem.  ■  .  . ■  tui  kxtxXittovtm  rx  <r(piri^x% 
xxt  tx  l«o$x(w  xforroicviAfwy.  Ccifus  apud  Origen.  1.  f .  p.  3  f  9. 
In  like  manner  [peaks  Porphyry  of  Origen,  in  Eufeb.  H.  E.  Ljf, 
c.  19.  and  Julian,  apud  Cyril.  Alex,  contra  Julian,  1.2.  p.  43. 
Paris,  1638. 

*  Vid.  Tatian.  ut  fupr.  §.  j6.  Orig.  ibid.  Cyril.  Alex.  ibid. 
8c  I.7.  p.  230,  221. 

*  AvTiKtt  rut  wn\**uw  (M  pU9  *iriTv%ee$  MXtKrxk  r&  upfyl 
ctatTPivoi  xv  roT<;  Mutru  fofby i*tvot$  €><rx  S  Ujy\  u-Cia-Kotra  Mec<r£ 
xxi  to»5  a"p6^(jT«<5  vTiAetbsr,  ax.  ut  t%oi  ctwtfMTX  rov  Aoyot.    fcu- 

fcb.  praep.  Evang.  1.  it.  c.28,  vid.  &  Aug.  de  civ.  Dei.  1.  8. 
c.  11. 

all 


9<S  An  Hijlorkal Account^/ 

Serm.ii.  all  the  parts  of  philofophy  with  fuch  difdahi 
t-OO^  and  contempt,  that  the  modems  who  think 
fit  to  make  ufe  of  it  in  their  fearches  after 
truth,  have  found  it  neceffary  to  take  fome 
pains,  in  order  to  reconcile  their  pra&ice 
with  this  judgment  of  the  ancients b. 

And  no  wonder,  whilft  the  whole  ftudy 
of  philofophy  was  employ'd  to  beat  down 
Chriflianity,  if  the  ehriftian  writers  Ihould 
think  of  it  with  different  fentiments  from 
thofe  which  have  been  entertain'd  fmce  the 
ceafingof  fuch  danger,  and  profefs'd  opposi- 
tion c.  As  the  cPlatonick  fy ftem  was  the  mod 
fpecious  and  plaufible,  fo  there  was  the 
greateft  danger  apprehended  from  it  5  and 
for  that  reafon  the  ancient  writers  of  our 
religion  have  exprefs'd  themfelves  with 
greater  zeal  and  vehemence  againft  Tlato, 
than  they  have  againft  Zeno,  Ariftotle,  or 
Epicurus  -,  they  have  laboured  to  expofe 
his  abfurdities  as  well  in  moral  as  hi  na- 
tural philofophy  5  and  in  fhort,  they  feem 
not  more  averfe  to  any  thing,  than  to  con- 
fefs  the  credit  or  authority  of  this  philofo- 
pherd.     So  that  if   we  were  refolv'd  to 


b  Vide  Petav.  Dogro.  Theolog.  in  Prolegom.  cap.  4. 
§.  12 17. 

c  Vide  Baltus  defenfe  des  SS.  Peres  accufea  dc  Platonifme* 
1.  2.    c.  18. 

d  Vide  ejufd.  I.  3.  per  totum* 


fuppofc 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  97 

fuppofe  them  imitators  of  the  heathens,  serm.it: 
we  .might  feem  to  offer  lefs  violence  to  ^^V 
their  writings,  by  afcribing  them  to  any  o^ 
ther  feci  than  to  the  Tlatonifts,  fmce  there 
is  no  other  of  which  they  have  to  amply 
exprefled  their  deteftation  and  abhorrence. 
Not  that  they  had  jreally  a  woric  o- 
pinion  of  cPlato,  than  they  had  of  any 
other  philofopher !  but  only  as  they  ap* 
prehended  more  danger  from  him,  there 
was  the  greater  neceffity  of  being  fuller 
and  more  explicit  in  their  declarations  a^ 
gainft  him,  Otherwifc  it  muft  be  owned 
that  fome  of  them,  when  they  have  taken 
the  philofophers  in  a  comparative  view, 
have  fpoke  of  Tlato  in  terms  of  lefs  dif- 
like  than  the  refte,  as  approaching  nearer 
in  his  notions  to  the  truth  of  things,  and 
lefs  oppofed  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Gofpcl. 
But  it  ought  no  more  to  be  concluded 
from  hence  that  they  were  followers  of 
*Plato,  than  from  our  faying  of  the  here- 
ticks  and  infidels  of  thefe  days,  that  fome 
are  lefs  hurtful  than  others,  and  nearer  to 
the  catholick  faith,  it  might  be  argued, 
that  we  did  really  approve  of  any  of  'em, 
and  concurred  in  the  fame  fentiments  with 


Eufeb.  Pracp.  Evang.  1.  n.  in  prqeml    vid.  &  D.  AugU^.,de 
Civ.  Dei.  1.  8.  c. $■,  £cc.  !.  io.  c.  i. 


H  them. 


9  8  An  Hiflorkal  Account^/ 

Sehm.ii.  themf.  The  glimmerings  of  truth  which 
^-sy^J  appear'd  in  Tythagoras,  or  *Plato,  they  a- 
fcribed  to  the  remains  of  Hebrew  learning 
picked  up  by  them  in  Egypt %  which  they 
had  greatly  corrupted  and  adulterated  by 
their  own  vain  and  contradictory  opinions. 
And  it  is  worth  our  obferving,  that  the 
learned  Dr.  Cudworth>  amidft  all  his  en- 
deavours to  fhew  the  agreement  between 
the  Tlatonifts  and  the  ancient  Fathers, 
iuppofes  Tlato  himfelf  to  have  derived  his 
notions  from  a  Divine  or  Mofaick  Cab- 
bala, tho'  by  many  of  his  followers  de- 
praved and  mifunderftood  h. 

From  hence  therefore,  when  the  Fathers 
were  endeavouring  to  convince  the  hea- 
thens of  the  truth  of  Chriftianity,  they 
very  reafonably  judg'd  it  might  be  ufeful 


f  Ifti  philofophos  ceteros  nobflitate  atque  au&oritate  vice- 
runt,  non  ob  aliud,  nifi  quia  longo  quidem  intervallo,  verun- 
tamen  reliquis  propinquiores  funt  veritati.  D.  Aug.  de  Civ. 
Dei.  1.  ii.  c.  5*.  Ideo  iftos  philofophos  dixi  aliis  fuifTe  meli- 
ores,  in  comparatione  pejorum——  8c  in  quo  illi  meliores 
erant,  quamvis  in  multis  a  veritate  deviantes,  tamen  in  quo 
erant  iftis  fuperiores,  veritati  fuerant  propinquantes.  D.  Aug. 
Serm.  de  temp.  139  alias  240. 

8  li^ocrm  &7;oh.y>i.ity}<&*  ^k,  a?  toix.ivy  rtjv  5Tff<  zyo$  t§  p/ivx 
&s»,    Maa-iofq  <£  Tov  otXXuv  tt^htZi  didburKaAw,-    w   iv  Aiyu7rjm 

Vevo^©-  iyvu.  x.  r.  A.  Juft.  Mart.  Cohort,  ad  Graec.  UXurat 
*rt  ^  IIv8xyof><xt  fr&cpifyvi  $u  xuq  ixi&KtriQov  ne^t  rz  6z%  j£  xoir- 
fbif  o-M>u?io%cc<ri  ij  tkv  «s  tSto  xeci%v<rtv,  frrxv  iz^i^ihluu  Atyv7r- 
Tietq  i[/j%ik>X7)x.cTS<;y  nu.f>  o\.c,  ^jj  xo>)jt;  o  TTiA  tS  -zrav(rc$%  M&xrsuq 
Aoy(^-  ur,  xcc\  rat  rug  uv'Z  hyptzTw  to  6xv[*,a,  ini-nib^o.  Cyr. 
Alex,  adverf.  Julian.  1.  2.  p.  47.  Paris,  1638. 
"Cudworth.  Intellect.  Svftem.  p.  ^7. 

to 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  pp 

to  this  purpofe,   to  colled  out  of  the  wrv  Serm.it. 
tings  of  their  own  philofophers,    fuch  paf-  *~OTN/ 
fages   as  contain  d  any  of  theie  glimmer- 
ings of  truth,  that  from  thence  they  might 
argue  for  the  greater  certainty  of  that  reli- 
gion,   by  which   thofc   matters  were  pro- 
jpofed  with  greater  evidence  and  pcripicui- 
ty.     Among  the  reft,  as  Tlato  had  treated 
of  many  points  unknown  to  other  philofo- 
fihers,  and  had  fometimes  exprefs'd  himfelf 
almoft  in  the  very  words  of  Scripture1,  in- 
fomuch  that  fome  of  his  own  followers k 
look'd  upon  him  to  be  but  as  another  Mo- 
fes  /peaking  Greek,    it  muft   be  reafonable 
to  conclude,    with  the  concurrence  of  all 
antiquity,     that   he    had    cither    fcen    the 
Jewifh   books   in  his   travels,    or   at  leatt 
had  pick'd  up   fome  notices  of  their  reli- 
gion by   converfing  with  them  that   had1. 


1  Tvic,  i^uiav  yfx<P~ii  tip'  Ixk^u  e))fjuiovfyij(/jtCTav  B<7i<psvv%cnK'  xect 
frdiv  6  S-il$  ort  K?,Xlv  xcu  Im  xv)  Xvcvroit  trvyKifaXuta/irst  Quirxx- 
<n)%  Y.a.1  i\$&  o  S-ib$  rot  ttuvtu,  xect  idts  xccXsi  Aiotv.  '  Axovz  r£ 
T\X&Tuvf&'  XtyovT@~y  ufup  o\  xxAo?  i<riv  oh  6  xccryj<&J,  'on  A/;- 
fjjiov^/oc,  uyctQoc,  $%Mv  ac,  TTgcs  to  uislov  t<oXt7ii.  xssi  ttocXiv'  6  p>lt 
*p  kuX\'.5&j  rcov  ysyovoTav,  o  <r  uoi$(&>  tZv  o\ir(o)v.  Euicb. 
Pnep.  Evang.  1.  i  r.  c.  5  i.  Hac  &  alia  vid.  apttd  Bale.  Derenfe 
des  SS.  Peres  1.  4.  c.  24. 

k  Novfjjviv^  ^)  0  Tlv8uyo/>ii(&'  <piXoarc<p(&'  ccvrix^v,  yeafiti,  7) 
yu?  ifi  U/mtojv,  J)  Mwir?5  ccriiKi^m .  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1.  1, 
p.  554.2.  vid.  &  Eufeb.  Prsep.  Evang.  1.  9.  c.  6.  Theodorit. 
Serm.  2.  p.j-o^.   Suid.  in  voce  Ncy^vi®-. 

1  See  this  proved- by  Father  Baitus,  in  his  Defenfe  des  SS.  Peres 
],4.  c.  22,  23.  See  Bifhop  Bull,  Def.  fid.  Nic.  feci:.  1.  cap.  1. 
§.  ?8,  19.  &  Prim.  &  Apoft.  trad.  cap.  f.  §.5-.  and  Dr.  Ailix 
Judgment  of  the  Jewifh  Church,  chap.  23. 

H  2  So 


ioo  An  Hiflorical  Account^/ 

Serm.ii.  So  that  as  the  ancient  defenders  of  our 
^^sys^  faith  haci  obferved  in  his  and  other  pagan 
writings,  fome  obfcure  footfteps  of  the 
Mofaick  hiftory  of  the  creation  and  the 
deluge,  and  of  the  doctrines  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  foul,  and  the  refurretiion 
of  the  deadm,  it  is  no  wonder  if  among 
the  reft,  they  fhould  not  fail  to  urge  what 
he  has  faid  of  the  divine  Word,  and  ap- 
ply it  to  difpofe  thofe  heathens  with  whom 
they  difputed  to  a  readier  reception  of  the 
chriftian  myfteries.  But  can  it  be  con- 
cluded from  all  this,  that  they  took  theit 
notions  from  ^Plato,  or  approved  of  all 
the  fupcrftitious  mixtures  with  which  he 
had  blended  and  corrupted  what  was  true? 
No ;  we  might  argue  with  as  much  reafon, 
that  their  notions  of  the  foul's  immortality 
and  the  refurreiiion  of  the  body  were  ta- 
ken from  Tlato  too !  Let  us  but  obfervc 
with  what  feverity  many  of  the  ancients 
treat  the  works  of  Origen,  upon  fufpicion 
of  his  indulging  too  much  to  philofophick 
reafonings,  and  accufe  the  hereticks  in  ge- 
neral of  corrupting  the  fimplicity  of  the 
chriftian  do&rine  by  fuch  kind  of  fpecula- 
tions  >    nay,   how  Origen  himfelf  was  not 


■  Tho*  the  Platonifts  difowi'd  and  ridiculed  the  chriflian  notion 
of  the  refurredtion ;  yet  there  feem  to  be  fome  footjlep  of  it  in 
their  doclrine  of  incorruptible  bodies,  and  of  the  transmigra- 
tion of  fouls. 


infen- 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  101 

infenftble  that  his  philofophick  ftudies  were  Serm.ii. 
a  matter  which  needed  fome  apology n  j  v^v^ 
and  it  can  never  be  imagined  that  the 
common  doftrine  of  the  Church,  in  mat- 
ters of  fuch  vaft  moment,  ftiould  be  form- 
ed upon  the  maxims  of  philofophy,  but 
only  that  thofe  maxims  might  be  urged  up- 
on occafion,  to  convince  the  heathens  a- 
mong  whom  they  were  receiv'd. 

And  yet  where,  after  all,  is  this  prodi- 
gious conformity  between  the  principles  of 
^Platoy  and  the  chriftian  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ?  Does  there  any  thing  appear  like 
it  in  the  writings  of  Tlato  himfelf,  or  of 
thofe  who  have  given  any  account  of  his 
notions,  before  the  conclufion  of  the  fe- 
cond  century  ?  What  is  there  in  Tulfy,  or 
in  Tlutarchy  in  Aptleius,  or  Ttiogenes 
LaertktSy  which  might  countenance  this 
infinuation?  There  might  be  fomething 
for  the  Chriftians  to  lay  hold  of  in  their 
arguments  about  the  Trinity;  fomething 
Tlato  had  faid  of  the  cDivine  Word  or 
Wifdoniy  which  might  help  to  take  off  that 
averfion  the  heathens  had  ufually  exprefs'd 
againft  this  myftery  :  but  the  doctrine  it 
felf,  as  ftated  by  the  Fathers,  was  not  pro- 
pofed  among  them,  nor  any  thing  that 
look'd  like  it,    till  the  revival  of  Tlaio- 

Tj  i    ii  -  '     ii    . 

I  Eufeb.  H.  E.  1.6.  c.i p. 

H  3  nifm 


i  o  i  An  Hiflorical  Accounts/ 

serm.ii.  niftn  in  the  third  century,  when  it  was 
v^Y"^  new  drciVd  up  and  paraphrafed  upon  by 
Tlotinus  and  his  followers,  and  the  very 
terms  of  the  Church  were  introduced  in- 
to the  fchoois  of  the  philofophers  °.  As 
Tlato  had  profited  by  the  Jewifh  writings, 
fo  did  ^Plotinus  by  the  Chnftian  ;  but  like 
his  matter  too,  he  corrupted  the  do&rine 
by  transcribing  it,  and  aflerted  the  divinity 
of  three  Hypoftafes  fubfifting  Separately 
from  each  other.  This  differed  little  from 
the  Arian  fyftem  p,  but  was  never  admit- 
ted by  the  Catholicks. 

Having  thus  far  remov'd  the  charge  of 
cPlatonifm  from  the  Church,  I  mould  next 
go  on  with  Terttilliariy  Hippolytus  and 
Origeriy  and  the  Fathers  that  followed  in 
the  third  century.  But  with  them  I  pur- 
pofc  to  proceed  (God  willing)  at  fome  o- 
ther  opportunity. 

Now  to  God  the  Father •,   God  the  Son, 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghoft,   &c. 


0  Ui-c^tcjv  t^oov  u$%t%£!v  Ixosuinvv.    Plotin.  Ennead.  j\  ].  i. 

^iccvo^fjutvev.-  Ibid.  cap. 7' 

p  Vid.  Perav.  de  Trio.  I.  I.  c.  8.  §.  2.  yet  Dr.  Cudworth 
(?'T7f-  °f  his  Intellectual  Syftcm)  obferves  this  difference,  that 
the  PJato mds  fuppofed  their  three  principles  eternal.  Sec  Socrat. 
H.  E.  J.  7.  c.  6.  However,  their  admitting  a  divifwn  both  of 
exijience  and  powert  was  clearly  coincident  with  the  Arian  Syjlem. 

s  E  Pv- 


the  Trinitarian  Controver/y, 


103 


SERMON  III 

Preach'd  Jan.  2,  1723-4. 


a****:^******************;^*^ 

HE  doftrinc  of  the  fccond  serm.  lit 
century,  in  relation  to  the  e-  ^OT0' 
verbleffed  Trinity ■,  was  fo  far 
clear'd  up  and  explain  d,  when 
I  was  laft  in  this  place,  as  can 
leave  us  in  no  reafonable  doubt  of  its  hav- 
ing been,  as  to  the  main  and  fubftance  of 
it,  the  fame  with  that  which  is  ftill  acknow- 
ledged for  the  catholick  faith;  however 
fome  new  terms  may  have  been  introduced, 
as  others  may  have  grown  obfolete,  in 
proportion  to  the  different  circumftances 
of  the  Church,  and  the  oppofition  it  re- 
ceived from  hereticks.  The  charge  which 
fome  novelifts  have  brought  againft  it,  as 
tho'  'twere  borrowed  from  the  fchool  of 
Tlato,  and  were  nothing  elfe  but  pagan 
H  4  "  phih> 


104  An  Hifiorical Ac  count  of 

Serm.  in.  philofophy  drefs'd  up  under  a  chriftian 
*sy~^  garb,  was  flicwn  at  the  fame  time  to  be 
altogether  groundlefs,  and  without  any 
fupport.  So  that  being  thus  far  clear  in 
our  original,  we  may  have  leave  now  to 
come  lower  down,  and  obferve  what  turns 
this  controverfy  took,  as  new  herefies  a- 
rofc,  which  required  a  new  kind  of  op- 
pofition. 

It  was  near  thirty  years  before  the  con- 
clufion  of  the  fecond  century a,  that  the 
enthufiaftick  fpirit  of  Montanus  had  made 
172.  its  claim  to  a  divine  authority,  and  by  the 
moft  fpecious  appearances  of  piety  and 
great  aufterity,  had  gain'd  over  many  pro- 
felytes,  and  was  grown  into  a  good  de- 
gree of  reputation b.  It  is  not  to  be  dif- 
puted  but  this  enthufiaft  acknowledged 
the  one  Godhead  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghoflc.  And  indeed  our  adverfaries  are 
fo  far  from  difputing  it,  that  fome  of  them 
would  fuggeft,  the  doclrine  was  derived 
from  him,  and  cannot  be  traced  to  any 
better  original d.     But  the  falfhood  of  that 


a  Vid.  Cave,  Hift.  Lit.  ad  an.  172. 

h  See  the  Hiftory  of  Montanifm.  Art.  1,  2. 

1  Hid.  of  Mont.  Art.  2.  §.  12.  theodorit.  H*r.  fab.  1.  3. 
c.  1.    Philaftr.  de  Haer.  c.  49.  Epiphan.  Haer.48.  §.  1. 

. d  Schlichting.  prxfat.  ad  Ecclcf.  Evang.  paftores,  p.  17,  &c. 
Sandfiis  in  Nucl.  Hifl.  Eccl.  1.  1.  p.  ?;6.  Edit.  1669.  Whif- 
ton's  true  or'tgmt  of  the  Sahellian  and  Athanaiian  dotlrines, 
p.  64,  Sec. 

fuggeftion 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  i  o  y 

fuggeftion  will  eafily  appear,  when  'tis  con-  Serm.  HI. 
fider  d  that  Mont  anus  and  his  followers  ^--OT^ 
were  for  a  good  while  fuffer'd  to  remain 
in  the  communion  of  the  Church,  which 
could  never  have  been  allowed,  if  their 
doftrinc  in  this  important  article  had  been 
new  and  inconfiftent  with  the  catholick 
faith.  And  when  at  laft  they  were  a&ually 
excluded,  this  made  no  part  of  the  charge 
againft  them,  which  was  founded  on  their 
breach  of  order  and  unity,  and  arrogant  a- 
fcribing  their  pretended  revelations  to  the 
impulfe  of  thfc  Holy  Ghoft e.  After  this,  they  c;rca  I9g. 
are  faid  to  have  taken  occafion,  from  the 
controverfy  about  E  after,  to  court  the  favour 
of  Pope  ViEior,  and  did  fo  far  infmuate 
themfelvcs  into  his  efteem,  as  to  obtain 
letters  of  communion  from  himf$  til! 
Traxeas,  coming  from  Afia  to  Rome,  gav£ 
him  a  different  notion  of  the  men,  arici. 
prevailed  with  him  to  revoke  and  cancel 
the  countenance  which  he  had  fhewn 
'cm».     cPraxeas>   however,   was  not  him- 


c  Vid.  Eufeb.  H.  E.  If.  c.  14. 16. 

f  The  Fop's  name,  who  granted  thefe  letters,  is  not  in  Te'r- 
tullian.  Mr.  Dodwel,  in  DiiTert.  de  Rom.  Pontiff,  c.  if. 
§.9,  &c.  contends  that  Praxeas  came  to  Rome  in  the  time  of 
Tope  Zephyrin,  ioho  fucceeded  Vi&or :  but  his  argument  proves 
only  that  he  broactid  his  herefy  under  him,  not  that  he  came  tb 
Rome  no  fooner.  Bi/hop  Pearfbn  (DifE  2.  c.  9.)  has  more  to 
fay  for  referring  it  to  the  time  of  Eleutherus,  who  vets  before 
Vi&or.     But  the  more  general  opinion  lies  betmen  them. 

*  Tertul.  adv.  Praxeam.  cap.  1. 

fetf 


io6  An  Hifiorkal  Account*?/ 

Sehm.  hi.  felf  clear  from  the  charge  of  herefy,  whilft 
**s~>T^>  for  fear  of  deftroying  the  Unity  of  the 
divine  Nature,  he  acknowledg'd  no  other 
than  a  nominal  diftin&ion,  and  believ'd 
the  Father  Almighty  to  be  in  all  points 
the  fame  who  was  born  and  fuffer'd  in 
Judeay  and  to  differ  no  otherwife  than  as 
he  was  confider  d  under  different  views, 
and  fo  terrnd  the  Father  in  one  refped, 
the  Son  in  another,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft 
in  a  third  h. 

It  has  been  formerly  obferv'd1,  thatfome 
fuch  fort  of  principle  feems  to  have  been 
advanced  by  Simon  Magus,  and  was  cer- 
tainly efpoufed  in  the  time  of  Jujlin  and 
Tatiariy  by  fome  obfeure  perfons  of  no 
name  in  hiftory.  But  now,  by  the  acti- 
vity and  diligence  of  VraxeaSy  it  fpread 
with  greater  fuccefs,  being  propagated  by 
him  firft  at  Romey  and  afterwards  in  A- 
frick k :  where  tho'  he  was  once  brought 
to  a  retra&ation,  yet  he  foon  refumed  the 
exploded  herefy,  and  afferted  it  with  greater 
vigour ;  infomuch  that  notwithftanding 
the  oppofition  he  had  made  to  the  enthu- 


*  Itaque  poft  tempus  Pater  natus,  8c  Pater  paflus,  ipfe 
Deus,  Dominus  omnipotens,  Jefus  Chriftus  predicatun  ,  i  ■■ 
dum  unicum  Deum  non  alias  putat  credendum,  quam  fi  ipfum 
eundemque  8c  Patrem,  8c  Filium,  8c  Spiritum  fanclum  dicat. 
|bid.  c.  2. 

1  See  the  foregoing  Sermons,  p.  28,  30,  72, 

J  Hift.  of  Mont.  art. 8.  §.4. 

fiafm 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy \  107 

fiafm  of  Mont  anus  ^  yet  there  was  a  fed  Serm.  hi; 
of  the  Montanifis  themfelves  imbibed  his  <s~T^J 
herefy1,  who  were  ternid  the  followers  of 
^/Efchines ,  in  contradiftinction  to  an- 
other feci:  of  thofe  enthufiafts,  who  were 
the  followers  of  Troclas.  So  that  St.  Je- 
rom  muft  be  underftood  with  fome  caution, 
when  he  makes  mention  of  the  Montaniftsy 
without  any  diftinction,  without  any  di- 
ftindtion,  as  embracing  the  do&rine  of  Sa- 
tellite m.  And  from  hence  we  may  ac- 
count for  the  mention  which  *Paciann 
has  made  of  Traxeas  himfelf  as  a  teacher 
of  the  Montanifis. 

From  the  nature  of  this  Traxean  herefy, 
it  may  juftly  be  obferved,  how  clearly  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  had  declared  for 
the  proper  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghoft,  inibmuch  as  to  give  a  handle  for 
confounding  them  with  each  other,  and 
reprefenting  them  as  nothing  elfe  but  o- 
ther  names  for  the  Father  himfelf0.     The 

Unity 


1  Sunt  enim  qui  Kata  Proclum  dicuntur,  funt  qui  fecun- 
dum  iEichinem  pronunciantur.  Privatam  autem  blaf- 

phemiam  illi  qui  funt  Kata  iEfchinem,  banc  habent  qua  od- 
jiciunt  ctiam  hoc,  ut  dicant  Chriftum  ipfum  eife  Filium  8c 
Patrem.  Tertul.  de  Prxfcript.  cap.  jz.  vid.  &  Theodor.  Haer. 
fab.  l.j.  c.  2. 

m  Hieron.  Ep.  5*4.  alias  27. 

n  Pacian.  Ep.  1.  contra  Novatianos  in  torn.  4.  mag.  Bi- 
bliotb.  Patr.  col.  -Agrip.  16 18.  p.  23/. 

0  iEfliment  ergo  an  hie  fit  Deus,  cujus  au&oritas  tantum 
fnovit  quofdam,   ut  putarent,    ilium  jam  ipfum  Patrem  Dc- 

uraj 


i o8  An  Hiftorical  Accounts/ 

Serm.  hi.  Unity  of  the  divine  Nature  was  confefs'd 
WOP^  on  both  fides :    but  the  difficulty  was  how 
to  include  the  Three  in  this  divine  Unity. 
The  hereticks  took  away  all  real  diftinftion, 
left  they  fhould  divide  the  fubftance :  And 
had  the  Cathoiicks   conceived  of  them  as 
the  Arians  did   afterwards,   that  they  are 
Beings   truly  feparate,    they  would   have 
found  no  difficulty  in  maintaining  the  rea- 
lity of  their  diftinftion,  and  the  poflibility 
of  one  afTuming  human  nature  without  the 
other.     But   the  truth   is,    they  were  for 
freferving  both,    and  therefore  fometimes 
were  at  a  lofs  for  proper  words  to  exprefs 
themfelves  in  fuch  manner  as  to  avoid  the 
falling  into    either    extream.      They    had 
fometimes  fpoke  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghoft,    as  one  and  the  fame 5   and  when 
fome  pcrfons,   without  regarding  thofe  o- 
ther  paffages  which  implied  a  real  diftinc- 
tion,  had  from  hence  taken  occafion  to  re- 
prefent  it  as  tho'  'twere  only  nominaly  this 
made  it  neceffary  for  them  to  introduce  new 
terms  in  the  explication  of  this  myftery,  in  or- 
der to  guard  their  fenfe  againft  any  miftake, 
that  they  might  neither  give  the  hereticks 
any  handle  to    fupport  their  own  herefy, 


urn;  effrenatius  8c  effufius  in  Chrifto  Dignitatem,  confiterf, 
ad  hoc  illos  manifefta  Chrifti  Divinitate  cogente,  ut  quern  Fi- 
]ium  legerent,  quia  Deum  animadverterent,  Patrem  putarent. 
Novat.  de  Trin.  c.  18. 

nor 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  109 

nor  incur  the   blame  of  fetting  up  ano-  Um.  lit 
therP.  ^^ 

Tertullian  was  the  firft  who  wrote  pro-  209* 
fefTedly  againft  this  dangerous  opinion  :  and 
tho'  he  was  by  that  time  fallen  into  Mon- 
tanifm,  yet  it  is  remarkable  that  he  does 
not  afcribe  his  information  in  this  matter 
to  Mont  anus  y  but  only  his  farther  affurance 
and  confirmation  in  it ;  he  mentions  it  as 
the  dottrine  he  had  always  believed,  and 
appeals  for  it  to  that  rule  of  faith  which 
had  been  handed  down  from  the  days  of 
the  Apoftles^.  The  great  fcope  of  his 
book  againft  Traxeas,  is  to  prove  a  real 
diftin&ion  of  the  facred  Three,  which  he 
expreffes  in  fuch  high  terms  as  to  call  the 
Son  another  from  the  Father,  and  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoft  another  from  both1.  Yet  this  way 
of  expreffion,  he  knew,  would  need  fome 
apology  i  and  therefore  he  adds,  that  he 
meant  not  hereby  to  intimate  any  fepara- 


p  Sec  Dr.  Wall's  Hiftory  of  Infant  Baptifm,  par.  %.  ch.  fl 
§.  12. 

'  Nos  vero  8c  femper  8c  nunc  magis  ut  inftrucliores  per 
Paracletum— —  unicum  quidem  Deum  credimus,  fub 
hac  tamen  difpenfatione  quam  ceconomiam  dicimus,  ut  unici 

Dei  fit  8c  Filius  fermo  ipfius,  qui  ex  ipfo  proceflerit- -— 

qui  exinde  miferit,  fecundum  promiuionem  fuam,  a  Parre 
Spiritum  San&um  Paracletum,  fanctificatorem  fidei  eorum  qui 
credunt  in  Patrem,  8c  Filium,  oc  Spiritum  Sanclum.  Hanc 
regulam  ab  initio  evangelii  decucurriflfe,  8cc.  Tertul.  adverf. 
Praxeam.  c  i. 

r  Ecce  enim  dico  alium  efle  Patrem,  &.alium  Filium,  & 
sh'um  Spiritum;  cap.  o. 

1  tion 


no         An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  tion  of  them  from  each  other,  but  fpake 
V-"'V\>  thus  merely  of  neceflity,  to  guard  againft 
the  captious  difpofition  of  his  adverfaries; 
who,  attending  to  the  Monarchy  or  Unity, 
in  prejudice  of  this  facred  O economy,  con- 
tended, that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft 
were  the  fame{. 

Thus  was  he  all  along  careful  to  ob- 
viate the  capital  obje&ion  of  the  hereticks 
which  was  taken  from  the  Unity  of  the 
divine  Nature,  which  this  Father  thought 
to  be  abundantly  fecured  by  the  catholick 
do&rine,  whilft  the  Unity  deriving  the 
Trinity  out  of  itfelf  was  not  (as  he  lpcaks) 
deftroyd  but  adminiflefd 5  fo  that  the  Fa- 
ther only  was  fountain  of  the  Deity,  and 
the  fame  fubftancc  was  acknowledged  un- 
originatcly  in  the  Father,  but  derivatively 
in  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft1.     Thus  they 

were 


f  Male  accipit  idiotes  quifque  aut  perverfus  hoc  diclum, 
quafi  diveriitatem  fonet,  2c  ex  diverfitate  feparationem  pro- 
tendat,  Patris  6c  Filii  6c  Spiritus.  NeceiTitate  autem  hoc  di- 
co,  cum  eundem  Patrem  6c  Filium  6c  Spiritum  contendunt, 
adverfus  ceconomiam  monarchies  adulantes,  non  tamen  diver- 
iitate alium  Flium  a  Patre,  led  diftributione;  nee  divifione 
alium,  fed  dillinclionc.    Tertul.  adverf.  Praxeam.  c.  9. 

r  Perverfitas—  qux  unicum  Deum  non  alias'  putat  cre- 
dendum  quam  fi  ipfum  eundemque  6c  Patrem  6c  Filium  6c 
Spiritum  Sanctum  dicat:  quali  non  fie  quoque  unus  fit  om- 
nia, dum  ex  uno  omnia,  per  fubflantiae  fcilicet  unitatqm  -,  6c 
nihilominus  cuitodiatur  ceconomia:  facramentum,  quae  Uni- 
tatem  in  Trinitatem  difponit,  tres  dirigens,  Patrem  6c  Filium 
8c  Spiritum  Sanc*rum.    cap.  2.  Unicum  quidem,  fed 

cum  fua  ceconomia  efTe  credendum— —  quando  unitas  ex 

femetipsa 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 1 1 

were  three,  not  in  dignity,  but  order-,  not  Serm.  lit 
in  fubftance,  but  form-,  not  in  power,  but  ^^T^ 
manifeftation u.  The/  really  diftinguifh'd, 
they  were  at  the  fame  time  infeparably 
coherent:  though  fubftantially  united,  yet 
they  were  diftinctly  enumerated™,  their 
numbers  being  no  lefs  certain  than  their 
infepar ability*.  From  hence  he  made  no 
fcruple  of  attributing  the  title  of  God  to 
every  one  of  the  Three ;  though  ftill  he 
was  determined  to  acknowledge  no  more 
Gods  or  Lords  than  OneY.     Nay,  and  for 

the 


femetipsa  derivans  Trinitatem,  non  deftruatur  ab  ilia  fed  ad- 
miniftretur.  cap.  3.  Caeterum  qui  Flium  non  aliunde  de- 
duco,  fed  de  fubftantid  Patrh—  quomodo  pofllim  de  fide  de- 
frruere  monarchiam,  quana  a  Patre  Filio  tradirum  in  Filio 
fervo?  Hoc  mihi  8c  in  tertium  gradum  didum  fit,  quia  Spi- 
ritum  non  aliunde  puto,  quam  a  Patre  per  Filium.  Vide 
ergo  ne  tu  potius  monarchiam  deftruas,  qui  difpofitioncm  2c 
difpenfationem  ejus  evertis,  &c.  cap.  4. 

u  Tres  autem  non  ftatu,  fed  gradu;  nee  fubftantia,  fed 
forma  y  nee  poteftate,  fed  fpecie;  unius  autem  fubftantise,  8c, 
unius  ftatus,  8c  unius  potcftatisj  quia  unus  eft  Deus;  ex  quo 
8c  gradus  itti  8c  formae  8c  fpecies  in  nomine  Patris  8c  Filii  8c 
Spiritus  Sancti  deputantur.  cap.  2. 

w  Ubique,  teneo  unam  fubftantiam  in  tribus  cohserentibus  ta- 
men  alium  dicam  oportet  ex  neceflitate  fenfus  eum  qui  jubet, 
8c  eum  qui  facit.  cap.  12.  Ita  connexus  Patris  in  Filio,  8c 
Filii  in  Paracleto,  tres  efficit  cohserentes,  alterum  ex  alrero, 
qui  tres  unum  funt,  non  unus,  quomodo  dictum  eft  ego  8c 
Pater  unum  fumus,  ad  fubftantiae  unitatem,  non  ad  numeri 
fingularitatem.  cap.  if. 

*  Quomodo  autem  numerum  fine  divifione  patiuntur  pro- 
cedentes  retrac"tatus  demonftrabunt.  cap.  x. 

7  Duos  tamen  Deos  8c  duos  Dominos  nunquam  ex  ore 
noftro  proferimus,  non  quafi  non  8c  Pater  Deus,  8c  Filius 
Dftis,  8c  Spiritus  Deus,  8c  Deus  uniufquifque.  cap.  13.  — Ne 

in 


in         An  Hifiorkal Account  0/ 

s£rm.  hi.  the  clearer  di.fpatch  of  this  controvcrfy^ 
V"VV  he  feems  to  have  been  the  firft  that  intro- 
duced the  term  Terfon,  in  contradiftin&ion 
to  Subftance*,  and  from  hence  he  freely 
fpeaks  of  pcrfonal  characters  appropriate  to 
each  of  the  Three.  And  therefore  when 
an'  ancient  author b  fays,  that  that  term 
was  never  ufed  in  the  Church  till  Sabeliius 
made  it  neceflary,  he  muft  be  understood 
of  fuch  perfons  as  advanced  the  Sabellian 
tenets,  tho'  long  before  the  rife  of  Sabel- 
iius himfelf. 

But  however  the  confubftantiality  of  the 
perfens  be  thus  clearly  afferted,  it  muft  be 
owned  there   is   a  pailage  in   Tertulliaris 


in  ifto  fcandalizentur  rationem  reddidimus,  qua  Dei  non  di- 
cantur,  nee  Domini,  fed  qua  Pater  8c  Filius  duo*  &  hoc  non 
ex  feparatione  fubftantia:,  fed  ex  difpoiitione,  quum  indivi- 
duum  Sc  infeparatum  Filium  a  Patre  pronunciamus }  nee  ftatu 
fed  gradu  alium  j  qui  etfi  Deus  dicatur,  quando  nominatur, 
fingularis  non  ideo  duos  Deos  faciat,  fed  unum,  hoc  ipfo 
quod  8c  Deus  ex  unitate  Patris  vocari  habeat.  cap.  10. 

a  Sic  8c  csetera  qua:  nunc  ad  Patrem  de  Filio,  nunc  ad  Fi- 
lium de  Patre,  vel  ad  Patrem,  nunc  ad  Spiritum  pronuncian- 
tur,  unamquamque  perfonam  in  fua  proprietate  conftituunt. 
cap.  ii.     — .Scriptura  diftinguit  inter  perfonas  Alium 

autcm  quomodo  accipere  debeas  jam  profefius  fum ;  perfonse 
non  fubftantise  nomine  >  ad  diftin&ionem,  non  ad  divifionem. 
cap.  ii. 

•  Perfonarum  autcm  nomen,  non  nifi  cum  Sabeliius  im- 
pugnarct  ecclcfiam,  neceffario  in  ufum  prsedicationis  afTump- 
tum  cfti  ut  qui  femper  tres  crediti  fuht  8c  vocati,  Pater  8c 
Filius  8c  Spiritus  Sanclus,  uno  quoque  fimul  8c  ,communi 
perfonarum  nomine  vocarentur.  Facund.  Detenf.  trium  capit. 
1.  i.  c.3.  p.  ip. 


book 


the  Trinitarian  Controvert .  113 

book  againft  Hermogenes c,  that  feems  at  firft  serm.  hi; 
light  to  bear  hard  againft  the  Son's  eterni-  v.xYv*' 
ty.  Which  yet,  upon  a  ftri&er  examinati- 
on, and  comparing  it  with  his  book  againft 
<Praxeasd,  may  appear  to  be  only  a  nicer^ 
fpeculation  of  that  Father,  who  had  per- 
haps too  fubtilly  improved  upon  the  di- 
ftin&ion  of  the  ancients  between  the  inter* 
nal  Reafon  always  coexifting  with  the  Fa- 
ther, and  the  fame  Reafon  brought  forth 
to  an  external  Word,  and  fo  in  time  ob- 
taining the  character  and  name  of  &Sonc. 
But  whatever  be  determined  of  Tertul- 
Hans  notion  of  the  nature  of  the  Son,  yet 
with  refped  to  the  Holy  Ghojl  at  leaft,  it 
is  pretended  by  fome  of  our  anti-trinita- 
rian  writers f,  that  the  notion  of  his  Di- 
vinity was  entirely  new,  and  derived  from 


r  Non  tamen  ideo  Pater  &  Judex  femper,  quia  Deus  Tem- 
per: nam  nee  Pater  potuit  efle  ante  Filium,  nee  Judex  ante 
delictum.  Fuit  autem  tempus  cum  &:  delictum  &  Filius  noa 
fuit.   Tertul.  adv.  Hermog.  cap.  5. 

*  Ante  omnia  enim  Deus  erat  folus—  quia  nihil  aliud  ex- 
trinfecus  praeter  ilium.  Caeterum  ne  tunc  quidem  folusj 
habebat  enim  fecura  quam  habebat  in  femetipfb;  rationem 
fuam  fcilicer.  1  Nam  etfi  Deus  nondum  fermonem  fuuna 
miferat,  proinde  eum  cum  ipsa  &  in  ipsa  ratione  intra  femet- 
ipfum  habebat,  tacite  cogitando  &  difponendo  fecum,  quae 
per  fermonem  mox  erat  di&urus;  Tertul.  ad\r.  Prax.  c.  f . 

e  Vid.  de  hac  re  fufius  D.  Bull.  De£.  fid.  Nic.  fed.  *, 
cap*  10. 

f  Vid.  Schlichting.  in  praefat.  ad  Ecclefiar.  Evangelicar. 
Paftores,  difputationi  de  SS.Trinit.  praefixa.  p.  21,  Whifton'i 
•r'tgin  of  the  Sabellian  and  Athanaf  dofhine,  p.  64,  &c. 


I  the 


ii4  dn  Hifiorical Account  of 

serm.  hi.  the  Spirit  of  Montanus,  and  that  TertuU 
^^T^  lian  s  intimates  as  much  himfelf,  when  he 
profefTes  to  believe  the  Godhead  as  con- 
fiding of  two,  the  Father  and  Son,  and 
now  three  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  From 
that  word  now,  they  would  infer  that 
his  acknowledgment  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
was  matter  of  new  light  received  lince  he 
became  %  Montanift.  But  when  it  is  re- 
membred  that  he  mentions  all  as  matter 
of  catholick  tradition,  contained  in  the 
rule  of  faith,  and  founded  on  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  old  and  new  teftament,  it 
muft  be  moft  unreaibnable  to  fuppofe  all 
this  overthrown  by  an  ambiguous  word, 
in  a  writer  of  fo  many  peculiarities  in 
ftyle  as  Tertullian,  when  that  very  word3 
if  it  be  not  (as  fome  have  thought)  an  er- 
ror of  tranfcribersh,  may  however  be 
much  better  explain  d  to  refer  to  the  ful- 
ler confirmation  of  "an  old  do&rine,  by  his 
pretended  prophet,  than  to  the  firft  reve- 
lation of  a  new  one*. 


8  Duos  quidem  definimus,  Patrem  &  Filium,  &  jam  tre*. 
cum  Spiritii  San&o.  Tertul.  adv.  Prax.  cap.  i$.  ltaquc  duos 
8c  tres  jam  ja&itant  a  nobis  praedicari.    cap. 5. 

h  Et  jam,  //  the  -words  be  joirfd,  will  be  etiam.  Vid.  Calov. 
Script.  Antifocin.  vol.2,  p.  fo$. 

1  Thus  Tertullian  himfelf  a  little  lower,  ubi  venit  Chriftui 
fa&us  fecundus  a  Patre,  &  cum  Spiritu  tertius  it  jam 
Parer  per  ipfum  plcnius  manifefhtus,  &c.  Tertul.  adv.  Prax, 
cap.  13. 


Such 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  1 1  j 

Such  was  the  ftate  of  the  Trinitarian  con-  serm.  uf; 
troverfy  in  the  time  of  Tertullian,  who  lived  V^VV^. 
at  the  clofe  of  the  fecond,    and  beginning 
of  the  third  century.     But  all  the  oppofition 
which  he  made  to  the  herefy  of  Traxeas 
in  Africa,  could  not  hinder  it  from  fpread- 
ing  afterwards  k  into  Afia,   by  the  induftry 
and  cunning  of  Noetus,   an  inhabitant  of 
Smyrna1.     And  therefore  as  the  perfons  of    238.' 
this  principle,    who   from    the  nature  of 
their  herefy  were  called  at  firft  Monarchi- 
es by  Tertullian m,  and  afterwards  Tatri- 
pajf/ians11  by  the  Latin  Church,   had  like* 


fc  Epiphanius  (hser.  57.  §.  1.) /peaking  of  the  age  of  Noetus, 
fays  be  fpread  bis  herefy  about  an  hundred  and  thirty  years  ago, 
mare  or  tefs :  the  way  of  fpeaking  JJjews  he  did  not  intend  an  exacl 
calculation,  but  fometh'mg  near  it.  Now  Epiphanius  began  to 
write  his  books  againfl  herefies  in  the  year  374;  (fee  Cave  hid. 
lit-  an.  368.)  from  whence  that  account  would  bring  us  to  the 
year  244.  On  the  other  band,  Hippolytus,  who  wrote  againfi 
Noetus,  and  therefore  mufi  have  writ  after  him,  tho*  not  long, 
(s  jrgp  toM»;  x&x  ytv'ojo^.  Hippol.  contra  Noet.  §.  1.)  is 
[aid  by  fome  to  have  died  in  the  year  2 30.  (vid.  Tillem.  torn. 4. 
in  Les  Sabelliens)  by  others  in  the  year  23  f,  but  both  upon  un- 
certain grounds,  (vid.  D.  Cave,  hift.  lit.  ad  an.  110.  inutroque 
volum.)  The  truth  may  be,  probably,  between  both.  So  that 
Noetus  might  appear  about  the  year  238,  and  Hippolytus'*  an- 
fwer  might  be  written  about  the  year 240,  //  MaximinV  perfec- 
tion held  fo  long,  otherwife  his  martyrdom  mufi  be  brought  dotvm 
to  Decius.     See  Till.  torn.  3.  S.  Hippolyte. 

1  Notjr*  i&xDnTeti,  05  to  f$pytv<&'  w  Epv^att^.  Hippol.  contr. 
Noetum  §.  1.  vid.  Fabric,  annot.  item  Theodor.  bser.  fab. 
I.  3.  c.  3.  Epiphanius  (haer.  57.  §.  1.)  [peaks  of  him  as  being  of 
Ephefus. 

m  Quod  vaniflimi  ifti  Monarchiani  volunt.  Tertul.  adv. 
Prax.  cap.  1  o. 

n  Vid.  Philaftr.  de  haeref.  cap.  J4.  8c  D.  Auguft.  de  hzref. 
cap.  41, 

1  z  wife 


n6  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm. in.  wife  the  name  of  'Praxeans*,   from  their 
^-^V^  chief  leader  in  Africk,  fo  now  they  begaa 
to  be  made  known  in  the  Eajl  under  the 
name  of  Noetians?. 

Againft  this  herefy  of  No'etusy  there 
foon  appeared  a  feafonable  antidote,  writ- 
240.  ten  by  Hippolytas  the  Bifhop  of  *Porto  in 
Arabia  %  which  is  ftill  extant,  tho'  denied 
by  our  modern  Arians  to  be  genuine,  and 
called  with  confidence  enough,  the  inter- 
polated HifpolytusK  But  this,  for  no  bet- 
ter reafon  that  I  know  of,  than  becaufe  at 
the  fame  time  that  he  confutes  the  Nae- 
tiansy  he  carefully  guards  againft  the  other 
extreme,    which  was  afterwards  taken   by 


•  I  idem  ibidem. 

p  Philaftr.  cap;c}.  D.  Aug;  cap.  3 6. 

*  St.  Jerom  (de  Script.  Ecclef.  cap.  61.)  knew  not  of  what 
place  be  roas  Bifhop:  Eufebius  doesy  not  obfcurely,  intimate  it  t& 
have  been  fonnwhere  in  Arabia  (E.  H.  1.  6.  c.  20.)  Gelafius 
(de  duob.  natur.  apud  Le  Moyne  in  Proieg.)  makes  him  Bifiwp 
of  the  metropolis  of  Arabia.  We  have  not  yet  the  name  of  the 
city  i  but  fometimes  toe  find  him  called  Bifhop  of  Rome,  and 
fometimes  of  Porto  of  Rome,  (vid.  Fabric,  in  prefat.  ad  Hip- 
po!.) which  has  inclined  fome  to  think  him  Btfiop  of  Portus  Ro- 
man us  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tibur,  which  was  thought  to  be  not 
a  little  confirmed  by  a  monument  of  him  dug  up  at  Rome  about 
tm  hundred  and  feventy  years  ago.  But  how  does  this  agree  with 
his  being  Bifiop  of  Arabia?  A  learned  Author  [Le  Moyne  proleg. 
ad  varia  ftcra  fo!.  *  29.  2. J  has  happily  removed  the  dif- 
ficulty,  by  fuppofing  him  to  have  been  Bijhcp  of  Aden  in  ArabV 

Faelix,  called  by  Greek  writers,  ^wscikov  iyj7rcrnev,  which  gave. 
ground  to  the  mtfiake.  Vid.  &  D.  Cave  hid.  lit.  ad  an,.  220.  in 
utroque  voJ. 

'  See  Reply  to  Dr.  Watcrland,  Pi  ij,  and  elfe  where. 

the 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  117 

the  Arians,  and  to  which  the  Traxean  or  Serm.  hi. 
Noetian  hereticks  did  conftantly  endeavour  ^OT^ 
to  reduce  the  orthodox.  That  he  wrote  a 
book  againft  thirty  two  herefies,  conclud- 
ing with  that  of  the  Noetians,  is  attefted 
by  Thotius*.  That  this  piece  which  now 
remains  is  a  fragment  of  that  larger  work, 
may  be  fairly  argued  from  the  firft  words 
of  it*,  which  plainly  refer  to  fomething 
that  had  gone  before  upon  the  fubjeft  of 
other  herefies.  And  that  it  is  the  con- 
cluding part,  may  be  farther  argued  from 
the  folemn  doxology*  with  which  it  ends. 
That  author's  way  of  thinking,  and  of  ex- 
plaining this  myftery,  is  fo  much  the  fame 
with  Tertulliaris,  that  whilft  it  {hews  the 
perfed  harmony  between  the  Greeks  and 
Latins,  it  muft  likewife  argue  it  the  ge- 
nuine produd  of  that  age,  and  therefore 
of  Hifpplytus. 

It  appears  from  this  writer,  as  well  as 
from  Tertulliatij  that  the  grand  argument 
of  the  Monarchian  or  Unitarian  hereticks 
was  taken  from  the  Unity  of  the  divine 
nature,  by  which  they  hoped  to  reduce  the 


f  Phot.  Bjblioth.  cod.  iif. 

*  £rap«t  rats  rngosp  h&tvKxhlzi  xxeiiiruyiicriv,  x.  r.  X,  Hipp^I. 
contra  Noet.  §.  i. 

?  'Avra  v  eifyb  £  to  xfeer^  dfjbet  ttxtq^  <£  *y?  ir*fvf*xrtf 
C-V  rvj  dyict  fxgXTioiec  £  fit  <£  #«  f£  hi  T*i  &iw&i  7®>  o^&w', 
*pW'  §.  18.  in  fine. 


I  3  Catholicks 


1 1 8  An  Hijlorkal  Account  0/ 

Serm.iii.  Catholicks  to  the  unhappy  dilemma  of 
V^OfV  cither  accepting  of  their  fcheme,  or  de- 
claring for  open  Tritheifm.  Hippolytus 
replies  in  the  fame  way  with  Tertulliany 
that  they  afferted  the  Unity  of  nature  and 
power  as  much  as  any  of  them  all,  but 
that  this  deftroy'd  not  that  myfterious  Oeco- 
nomy,  whereby  a  plurality  of  Persons 
fubfifted  in  a  proper  order,  the  Father  hav- 
ing always  his  Word  and  Wifdom  in  him- 
felf,  which  were  manifefted  in  due  time  to 
perform  his  wondrous  operations w.  AH 
which  agrees  well  with  Hippolytus's  doc- 
trine upon  other  occafions;  as  when  dis- 
puting with  the  Jews  he   reprefents  the 


w  T<$  «£>  ovk  igzX  ivx  Stov  ujui  j    aXA'  y  tjjv  oikovo^Up  civca^cru. 
Hippo),  contra  Noet.  §.  3.    —-[/uvrfyw  outovofAtccs  — 6  wry  *v 

sToiS.  — 71$  &  »v  «.v  jfy«y»  ccXX'  0  Acy®*  ctvoc^K^  j  —  -Aoy®-  <r«j)| 
«y,  TFtiuf/jot  *tvt  ourctf/jiq  vfl.  §»4«  0  m  tm  zrctvreov  &eo$  ivAoyq\o$ 
ysyivtjTctt,  t£  C6v8g6>7r&>  yivbufytgh  Site,  l<?u  uq  t»s  cuavccq.  §.  6\ 
&k  unv  on  iya  <£  0  ttcct^  tv  iipi,  ciXXx  «  i<rf*iv  ro  yctp  irjjt/tv 
jjx  i<p'  svfl?  hiyiTotty  unit  im  ^vo  %^u7i«.  thifyv,  ^Jvcc^v  3  fjulxv, 

§.  7.      ■         u^  T«T»5   S.VflM    8T&»5    Tg^'fit.        'Et    3'     fi&AiTCCl    [ACtSiTy    7*£$ 

$*$  •S'jo?  <i^o(?iix»yrfit<,  yiv&xrKiTw  on  fbiM  oviot,^^  t&tx,  Xj  ec-ov  ^wy) 

x.«rk  t«»  MvUfAiv  ii$  sV<  S^s,  oVev  S  XfcT#  T»j)M»>CeKJ|K/JtfV,  T£<£>j$ 
Vf  bmhifjq,  §.  8.  ©JS5  lbcv<&>  bxuyxav,  <£  fjuti^iv  t%av  sxvrai  <rvy- 
fflovovmm  .  .  *Wc$  j  f*6i>o$  m  7>o?w<i  w'  xft  >f>  ctAoy<&>i  'are  cere-, 
<p(&y  xts  kmfaer&*9  'an  uQ^AivT®"  h»  ■  *rov  3  ytvoy,iwv  cca~ 
yflyet  x}  (Tu^JoaXov  Xj  lpyajT>j?  iysnet  Xeyovy  %v  Xoyw  t-x,uv  cv  iuu~ 
9-a—    ofXTOv   7toitXy    TTpoTipew    <pur/iv    <p6tyyc[B/j(&'mw,>  —  ■    ekf-raJ  jW/os/a) 

srpcTfpov  opctTo'y  uTczs%evTcc .  oia.  Aoyx  <&  ffotyictSm  ,  —  Ac'V,-i>  ^cyi 

HTityv,  (roQiot.  ~)  KopfAUVmi  §•  I  O.  ^Eripo)>  j  \iywvt  %  eMo  S-jjr^ 
^£Va>,  <*AA*  »?  ^(S^  ex.  (puToi.  §.  1 1.  Auo  tap  zsx.  ipa)  $■«»$,  uXX" 
h  £k«,  xpo<ru7ru  j  a\jol  qikovc^ccv  -j  rpir^us,  ^J'"  t»  #34#  mmtftatt 
***   §.14. 

Son 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  119 

Son  as  coeternal  with  the  Father x,  and  in  Serm-  *?• 
oppofition  to  certain  hereticks  advancing  v-x^r>^/ 
the  fame  doctrine  which  was  afterwards 
efpoufed  by  Eutyches,  he  afferts  him  to  be 
at  the  fame  time  the  infinite  God  and  a 
finite  man,  perfectly  poffefs'd  of  the  per- 
fect fubftance  of  both/. 

Contemporary  with  Hippolytus  was  Ori- 
gen,  whofe  great  averfion  to  the  Noetian 
herefy  occafion  d  him  to  exprefs  the  di- 
ftinction  of  the  three  divine  Perfons  in 
terms  ftill  ftronger  and  more  fignificant. 
It  feems  as  if  the  hereticks  had  by  this 
time  taken  advantage  (in  like  manner  as 
Sabelliusz  certainly  did  afterwards)  of  the 
ambiguity  of  the  word  a  ^^Jauircv,  which 
fometimes  fignifying  no  more  than  an  ap- 
pearance, manifeftation,  or  theatrical  cha- 
ra&er,  they  were  content  to  admit,  that 
in  this  fenfe  there  were  three  Ttpjm7nt  in 
the  Godhead,  leaving  out  that  other  fenfe 
in  which  the  Catholicks  plainly  meant  it, 
that  they  were  three  perfons  really  ful> 
fifting.  It  was  therefore  neccflary  to  ufe 
ibme  other  term  which  might  guard  againft 


Hippol.  contra  Judseos  §.  7.   'Atm$  yog  \$vt  6  *»  xutgl  vv~ 

naiay  ixxrifcu  TiXuac,  tiXiUv  cWr<e.    Hippol*  contra  Beron.  6c 
Hclic.  §.,. 

1  Bafil  Ep,  64.  391.  p.  102. 

J  See  Dr.mterlwd'sfecond-  Defertfe,  p.  212,  21^ 


I  4  their 


i xo  An Hiflorkalk ccount  of 

Skrm.  hi.  their  fubtle  evafions.  Accordingly  Origen, 
*^OT^  as  it  is  well  known,  applied  the  word  cf«o- 
gx,cri$h,  which  befides  a  bare  appearance  or 
manifeftation,  muft  needs  convey  fome  no- 
tion of  fubftaace  under  it,  and  that  with  fuch 
an  appropriate  chara&er  as  may  diftinguilh 
it  from  other  hypoftafes  fubftfting  in  the 
fame  ellencec.  I  do  not  fay  he  was  the 
firft  that  ever  ufed  that  word  with  relation 
to  the  Deity,  and  much  lefs  that  he  bor- 
rowed it  from  the  Tlatonick  philofophy, 
zsGrotius  has  hardily  aflertecUs  whereas  it 
might  with  better  reafon  be  prefumed  that 
the  modern  Tlatonifts  took  it  from  the 
Chriftians e.  When  Tertullian,  who  loved 
to  imitate  the  Greek  phrafes,  fpeaks  pf  the 
Son  as  being  f  res  fubftantiva,  and  held  it 
abfurd  to  imagine  he  fhould  want  fub- 
ftance  who  proceeded  from  fo  great  a  fub- 
ftance  s,  he  feems  plainly  to  allude  to  the 
phrafe  now  in  view,  and  reprefents  the 
Son  as  a  diftind  virogstcr^.  Yet  neither  can 
I  fay  that  that  word  is  fo  applied  by  any 


^  Thus  1.8.  contra  Celfum  p.  386.  he  blames  the  hereticks 
voho  denied  Mo  mtu  vzosolq-ik,  vuvq*  ig  biov,  and  afterwards  con- 
cludes, $-gwx.iuc,f8/}  it  Toy  vol-Adcx,  tm  ci^Oiiotf,   G  rev  i/ibt  Tijr  *Ajj- 

0HX9  CVTX   000    T*[    V7F&fUVH    XfiU,yfh'J.TCl, 

c  Vid.  Suicer.  in  voce  i^s-eec-*?. 

4  Gror.  Annot.  ad  Joh.  i.  2.  &  Heb.  i.  5. 

*  See  the  foregoing  fermon,  p.  102.  • 

f  DeusDei  tanquam  iubftantiva  res.  Tert.  adv.Prax.cap.26*. 

*  —Nee  carere  fubilantia  quod  de  tanta  fubftantiaproceflit. 
Tertul.  adv.  Prax,  c,  7.  vid.  8c  cap.  26. 

Greek 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy,  m 

Greek  writer  that  is  now  extant,  before  serm.  nr. 
the  time  of  Origen :  who,  from  the  fpread-  ^°TS^ 
ing  of  the  Noetian  herefy,  found  it  necef- 
fary  to  be  as  exprefs  as  poflible,  in  affert- 
ing  the  real  and  perfonal  diftin&ion  of 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  and  the  mu- 
tual relations  they  bear  to  one  another, 
which  argue  them  to  fubfift  in  a  regular 
fubordination,  and  by  confequence  to  be 
diftind. 

All  this  has  been  urged  againft  him  by 
fome  writers  of  fuccecding  ages,  as  a  proof 
of  his  inclining  to  the  oppofite  extreme, 
and  being  tainted  with  that  herefy,  which 
in  the  next  century  was  called  Avian:  and 
the  Arians  accordingly  have  ufually  appeal- 
ed to  him  as  a  great  patron  and  defender  of 
their  caufe.  But  it  ought  to  be  obferved, 
that  amidft  all  the  ftorms  which  were  railed 
againft  him  whilft  he  lived,  there  was  never 
any  fufpicion  of  this  kind  fixed  upon  him, 
as  there  plainly  was  upon  'Diowjius  of  A- 
lexandria  in  the  like  cafe ;  nor  for  a  good 
while  after,  till  about  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  when  many  of  his  books, 
writ  only  for  private  ufe h,  with  lefs  care 
and  accuracy,  and  many  times  in  a  pro- 
blematical way1,  came  to  be  difperfed  in- 


*  D.  Hieron.  Epift.  41.  alias  65-.  ad  Pammach.  &  Ocean. 

*  Vid.  Athanaf.  dc  deer,  fyn.  Nic.   §.  27.  torn.  1.  p.  232, 
3  Ed.  Par.  1698. 

to 


1 1 1  An  Hifiorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.  hi.  to  many  hands,  and  appealed  to  as  the 
^W  ftandard  of  his  real  fentiments :  when  ma- 
ny fpurious  writings  were  probably  ob- 
truded on  the  world  under  the  fhelter  of 
his  venerable  name,  and  thofe  which  were 
really  of  his  compofure,  had  been  greatly 
corrupted  and  interpolated  by  hereticksk, 
who  (as  he  complains  l  himfelf)  had  be- 
gun to  ufe  that  freedom  with  him  in  his 
own  time,  and  would  not,  probably,  be 
lefs  audacious  after  he  was  dead.  Yet  not- 
withftanding  this,  he  wanted  not  many  men 
of  name  and  character  to  plead  his  caufe,  and 
vindicate  him  from  the  charge  of  herefy. 
Befides  Tamphilus  and  Eufebius,  whofe 
apology  we  have  in  the  tranflation  of 
RuffinttSj  there  were  many  others  of  d-i- 
ftinguifh'd  zeal  for  orthodoxy  (and  among 
them  the  great  Athanafitts m  himfelf)  who 
were  not  afhamed  to  profefs  their  efteem 
for  Origen,  and  appeal  to  him  as  a  patron 
of  the  catholick  caufe.  Nor  do  I  find 
that  many  Catholicks  of  figure  Judged  o- 
thcrwife  of  him,  till  towards  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  when  the  Eufta* 
thian  party  had  run  high,  and  almoft  en- 
dangered a  rclapfe  into  Sabellianiftn. 


k  Ruffin.  de  adulterat  libror.  Origen.  in  torn,  f, '  pperum 
D.  Hieron.  p.  249,  &c.  Ed.  Ben. 
1  In  epiftola  eidem  apologise  annexa. 
"  Athanaf.  ubi  fupra. 

In 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  123 

In  his  writings  that  remain,  and  partial-  Serm.  iit. 
larly  in  his  books  againft  Celfus,  (which  v~OT^-> 
were  written  with  more  care  and  exa&nefs, 
when  his  judgment  was  grown  to  greater 
ripenefs  and  perfe&ion,  and  in  which  there 
is  leaft  room  to  fufpeft  any  corruption) 
there  are  many  paffages  which  are  wholly 
inconfiftent  with  the  Arian  fcheme,  and 
could  proceed  from  none  but  who  be- 
lieved that  faith  which  the  council  of  Nice 
did  afterwards  declare.  The  few  paffages 
which  have  been  urged  to  the  con- 
trary, from  his  books  againft  Celfusy  have 
been  fhewn  by  learned  men  to  admit  of 
an  eafy  reconciliation  5  and  all  that  is  al- 
ledg'd  againft  us  from  his  other  writings, 
may  be  well  afcribed  to  that  corruption, 
which  his  works  have  unqueftionably  un- 
dergone11. 

It  was  in  his  time  that  Beryllus  Biftiop 
of  Boftra  in  Arabiay  after  he  had  for  fome 
time  governed  his  Church  with  reputation0, 
advanced  at  length  fome  heretical  tenets 
concerning  the  perfon  of  our  blcffed  Sa- 
viour p,  that  he  did  not  fubfift  by  a  diftincl 


■  Vid.  D.  Bull.  Def.  Nic.  §.2.  cap.  9.  and  Dr.  Waterland 
in  his  firfc  and  fecond  Defenfe,  frequently ;  particularly  fecond 
Defenfe,  p.  347,  &c. 

0  D.  Hieron.  de  fcript.  Eccl.  cap.  71. 

p  Eufeb.  E,  H.  1.6.  c.  3 3.  Cave  ad  an  230.  But.  J.  E.C. 
cap.  3.  §.4. 


perfona- 


1 14         An  Hifiorical  Account^/ 

smu.m.  perfonality%   before  his  incarnation,    nor 
W^>  had  any  Divinity  of  his  own,   but  that  of 
circ*  242.  the  Father  only  <w.     His  herefy  feems  to  have 
been  mixed  up  of  thofe  of  Artemon  and 
NoetuSy    but  was  fo  doubtfully  exprefs'd, 
that  when  a  fynod  was  convened  to  confi- 
der  it,    Origen,    to  whom  the  chief  ma- 
243.    nagement  of  that  affair  was   committed, 
was  forced  to  ufe  fome  art  to  difcover  the 
true  meaning  of   his  propofitions  5    after 
which  he  eafily  convinced  him  of  his  er- 
ror, and  brought  him  back  to  the  confef- 
fion  of  the  catholick  faith1. 
A  few  years  after  the  death  of  Origeny 
258.    arofe  Sabellius,  in  Africa,  the  difciple  (as 
fome f  have  reported)  of  No'dtus,    but  to 
be  fure  a  ftrenuous  alienor  and  propagator 
of  his  herefy >    which  from  him  has  ever 
fmce    been    denominated    the    Sabellian. 
The  nature  of  the  argument  alledg'd    by 
him  and   his  partifans,    plainly  fliews  that 
the  Church  at  that  time  believed  a  com 


1  K«rf  iVi'mr  imett  wtqiyfxqjw,  the  literal  translation  is  by  a 
proper  difference  of  fubftance:  but  this,  as  the  word  is  now 
ufed,  had  been  no  herefy.  Therefore  Beryllus  muft  have  ufed 
the  word  im*  to  mean  the  fame  with  hirvzcun^-  as  was  done 
by  fome  others  of  that  age.  Vid.  Valef.  ad  loc.  p.  1 28. 

qq  That  the  Godhead  of  the  father  and  the  Son  is  onet   is  ca- 
tholick doctrine.     But  Beryllus  muft  have  meant  that  our  Sa- 
viour is  not  himfelf  properly  and  effentially  God,   but  only  by  par- 
ticipation.   Vid.  Valefii  annot.  ubi  fupja. 
,    '  Eufeb.  ut  fupra.  Cave  ut  fup.  &  vol.  2.  p.  60. 

[  Philaflr.  de  harrcf.  cap.  5-4,  D.  ^ug.  de  hser.  cap.  41. 

3  ftantial 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i  1  y 

Jlantial  Trinity,  or  that  each  of  the  three  serm.  nt 
perfons  is  truly  God :  Whieh  they  pre-  V-'OT^ 
tended  not  to  oppofe  by  difowning  their 
Divinity,  but  only  by  afferting  them  to  be 
nothing  elfe  but  three  names  of  one  and 
the  fame  hypoftajis.  For  thus  they  ftate  the 
qucftion  :  Ivcl  Srhv  tyo/uw  tl  r^&t;  &&»;  5  Are 
we  to  have  one  God  (fay  they)  or  three 
Gods1  ?  A  queftion,  which  had  been  plain- 
ly impertinent  in  them,  if  each  of  the  three 
perfons  were  not  confeffedly  divine ! 

They  were  quickly  oppofed  by  that  book 
of  Novatian,  which  is  (till  extant,  upon 
the  fubjeft  of  the  Trinity:  wherein  the 
author  has  demonftrated,  with  great  ftrength 
of  argument  and  fcripture  evidence,  the 
real  diftin&ion  of  the  three  perfons.  This, 
with  refpeft  to  the  Holy  Ghoft,  was  abun- 
dantly fufficient,  without  entring  into  the 
particular  proofs  of  his  divine  power  and 
excellency  5  there  being  no  hereticks  in 
thofe  days  who  acknowledged  his  Perfona- 
lity,  and  yet  difputed  his  Divinity.  And 
as  far  as  Nov  at  i  an' s  controverfy  lay  with 
the  SabellianSy  the  fame  had  been  fuffici- 
ent likewife  with  refped  to  the  Son;  iince 
thofe  hereticks  acknowledged  a  divine  na- 
ture in  Chrift,  and  only  denied  his  perfo- 
nal  diftin&ion  from  the  Father.     But  for- 


:  Epiphan.  hxr,  61.  §.  z.  p.f  14. 

-   afmuch 


n6         An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  afmuch  as  there  were  other  herefies  relating 
V^^VJ  to  the  perfon  of  Chrift,  fome  which  de- 
nied the  reality  of  his  incarnation,  as  the 
Simonians  and  Marcionitesi  and  others, 
which  affirm'd  him  to  be  man  only,  with- 
out any  perfonal  union  of  the  Divinity, 
as  the  followers  of  Ebion  and  Artemon, 
he  thought  it  for  his  purpofe  to  infert  a 
feafonable  antidote  againft  them  both. 
The  firfl:  he  overthrows  in  few  words u, 
as  being  both  lefs  plaufible,  and  by  this 
time,  without  queftion,  lefs  in  vogue.  But 
the  other  he  confutes  by  a  large  indu&ion 
of  teftimonies  from  the  facred  oracles w, 
attefting  Chrift  to  be  properly  and  truly 
God,  fubfifting  from  all  eternity.  Now 
this  point  being  as  much  denied  by  the 
Avians,  as  it  was  by  thofe  more  ancient 
hereticks,  it  follows  that  the  Arians  would 
have  been  equally  detefted  by  the  ancient 
Church,  and  confuted  in  a  manner  by  the 
fame  arguments  x.  As  to  the  unity  of  the 
divine  nature,  which  was  the  capital  ob- 
jection of  the  early  hereticks?,  Novatians 
fenfe  feems  in  the  main  to  be  the  fame2 
with  that  of  the  catholick  writers  of  thofe 
times,   tho'  his  expreffion  is  perhaps  more 


u  Cap.  10.  w  Cap.  ii,  &c. 

*  Bui.  J.  E.  C.  c.  i.  §.9.  y  Novat.  Cap.  30,  &c. 

;  Vid.  Bui.  Dcf.  fid.'  Nie.  fed.  4.  c.  4.  §.4. 

3  confufed 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  127 

confufed  and  inaccurate  %   whilft  he  attri-  Serm.  in: 
butes  the  title  of  one  God  to  the  Father,  as  v-/^rV 
unoriginate,  yet  mil  confider'd  as  fountain 
of  the  Deity,    communicating  the  divine 
fubftance  to  the  Son,  and  therefore  plainly 
confubftantial. 

The  poifon  however  of  Sabellianifm, 
being  firft  broached  at  'Ptolemais,  a  city  of 
Tentapolis  in  Jlfricab>  was  greedily  im- 
bibed, not  only  by  the  people,  but  fome 
bifhops  of  that  country,  infomuch  that  the 
Father  was  declared  to  have  taken  on  him 
human  flefh,  and  there  were  hardly  any  in 
thofe  parts  had  the  honefty  or  courage  to 
make  mention  in  their  Churches  of  the 
Son  of  God c.  fDiony/ius,  who  had  former- 
ly been  Origens  pupil,  was  at  that  time 
Patriarch  (1  beg  leave  to  ufe  a  term  which 
did  not  obtain  its  peculiar  acceptation  till 
a  good  while  afterwards)  <DionyJiusJ  I  fay, 
was  at  that  time  Patriarch  of  Alexandria : 
and  he  inherited  fo  much  of  the  zeal  and 
fpirit  of  his  mafter,  that  he  could  not  fee 
fuch  corruption  of  the  chriftian  doclrine 
prevailing  within  his  jurifdiftion,  without 
contributing  his  utmoft  efforts  to  difcou- 
rage  and  reftrain  it.     To  this  end  he  wrote 


■  See  D.  Water],  fecond  Def.  p.  124,  12/,  147. 
fc  Eufeb.  E.  H.   1.  7.   c.6. 

*  Vid.  Athanaf,  de  fent.  Dionyf.  §.  f,   p.  246,  247.    Ed, 
Bened. 

them 


128         An  Hiflorical Account  df 

Serm.  hi.  them  feveral  epiftles d,  affertiftg  the  real 
<sV^  and  necefiary  diftin&ion  between  Father 
259.  and  Son,  of  which  he  gave  fome  account 
in  another  letter  to  Sixtus  or  Xyjtus  at 
that  time  Biftiop  of  Rome*.  But,  as  it 
often  happens  in  the  heat  of  controverfy, 
he  let  drop  fome  expreffions  not  fufficient- 
ly  guarded  againft  the  other  extreme f. 
This  quickly  expofed  him  to  the  jealoufys 
of  the  Orthodox  as  well  as  the  Sabelliansy 
and  drew  on  their  complaints  againft  him 

262.  to  his  name  fake  cDionyfius>  the  fucceffor  of 
Xyftus  in  the  Roman  See.     The  Patriarch 

263.  of  Alexandria  defended  himfelf  at  large  a* 
gainft  their  accufations,  to  the  entire  fatisfac- 
tion  of  his  namefake,  and  the  fynod  affem- 
bled  under  him,  on  this  occafion.  He  urged 
that  his  accufers  had  not  quoted  his  words 
entirely,  nor  in  the  fenfe  wherein  he  meant 
themh,  as  was  plain  from  the  manyexprefs 
confeffions  he  had  interfperfed  of  the  ca- 
tholick  faith1 5  that  whilft  he  confiderd 
the  Son  as  cloath'd  with  human  flefh,  it 
was  under   that  view  that   he   mention  d 


a  Eufeb.  6c  Athanaf.  ut  fupra. 

•  Eufeb.  ibid. 

f  Iloir.poc  id  ywrbv  utett    rcr  wtcr  tS    $&£,    fi>^rs  p  <P^H    l$i6Vt 
kXhcc  Itioy    kccI'  noieu  ocvrlv    thou    rS    5r<*Tpe$,      Athanaf   §.  4, 

«  Athanaf.  de  fent.  Dionyf.  §.13, 

*  §-*4   P.  2J3- 

§.  1  j,  16.  p.ijs,  2^4. 

thofe 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 29 

thofe  alluftons  which  intimated  a  fubftan-  serm.  iii: 
tial  difference  between  him  and  his  Fa-  ^OT^ 
ther>  in  order  to  induce  the  Sabellians  to 
a  readier  acknowledgment  of  their  perfor 
nal  diftindion  5  but  that  he  had  likewife 
enlarged  more  fully  upon  others,  having 
exprefs'd  their  confubflantiality  under  the 
alluftons  of  a  man  and  his  fon,  the  plant 
and  the  feed,  the  fountain  and  the  rivulet  > 
their  coeternityy  by  terming  the  Son  a  ray 
of  the  Eternal  Light,  coeval  with  the  Fa- 
ther,  as  light  is  with  the  fun ;  their  infe- 
f  arable  conjunction-,  their  indivifible  unity 
of  fubftance,  by  moft  exprefly  aflerting  it 
of  all  the  three  divine  perfons,  fo  extend- 
ing  (as  it  were)  the  Unity  without  divijion 
to  a  Trinity ',  and  collecting  again  or  ga- 
thering up  that  Trinity  without  diminution 
into  Unity k:  that,  finally,  tho'  he  had  no 
where  ufed  the  word  o/uoxei©^  as  not  read- 
ing it  in  Scripture,  yet  he  had  laid  down 
the  full  fenfe  and  import  01  it  in  thefe 
ftrong  kind  of  expreffions,   which  his  ad- 


k  fA7rxuyxirfAX  j  ov  (pajroc,  oc,'$ovt  ncivTai;  xxl  xvn<;  &$io$  iru* 

6VT(&>    rfi    CCH      TOU     <p6JTZ>q%       OViXoV      €0$     £?IV    CCil    7B    U.7TXUyX(rfAX>mmmmm^ 

u  \<fiv  JjAtC^,     trip  kvyy, ireo  [Aiv  vpiiq  in;  ts  t«v  rptu^bt 

7/iv  [aovxcx  TiXxruvof/jiv  uatcct'o&Tov,    xXi    TV  v   TQiXobc  Kc&Xiv  u/ahutov 
ii$    rvv  f/joyc&oa   <rvyxi<pxX.xiiif/ti6x  „  -■  xxl  y>  oc.9&£ujtuxv  yov\i 

TrxpiQtflW,    dYiXov   ac,   %crxv  hpjtyirA  ,  ■  xxl  y>  xxl   tyvrot  uncy 

ano  cr~ zf polos,    li  oi<xv  ptOK  uvthdiov,    srtfov   ilvxti.      ii      xxl   7CCCVTUS 

cpopvUy  xxl  TTBTXfAov  x-Tirt  ntiyns  (wtk,    Athanaf.  de  fcnt.  Dio- 
nyf.  §.  ij     ■  -i.      18. 


K  verfaries 


130  An  Hijlorkal  Account^/ 

Serm.  in.  verfaries  had  not  been  fo  fair  as  to  reprc- 

^y^J  fent1. 

From  this  charge  which  was  brought  a- 
gainfl:  fo  great  a  Patriarch,  and  the  recep- 
tion which  it  found  at  Rome,  fo  far  as  to 
be  examined  by  a  publick  fynodm^  from 
hence,  as  well  as  from  the  earneft  apology 
he  made  for  himfelf,  we  may  have  leave  to 
colled  thefe  two  things;  namely,  (1.)  that 
the  do&rine  of  the  Church  was  at  that 
time  manifeftly  oppofite  to  the  fcheme 
which  was  afterwards  efpoufed  by  Arius : 
fince  otherwife  the  Patriarch's  unguarded 
expreffions  could  not  have  given  fuch  mat- 
ter of  fcandal  and  offence,  nor  have  oc- 
caflon'd  his  brother  Bilhops  to  have  cal- 
led upon  him  for  fo  large  a  vindication. 
(2.)  That  the  word  o/moiai©^  was  at  that 
time  ufed  by  the  Catholicks  in  this  con- 
troverfy,  and  they  who  reje&ed  it  were 
thought  blameable  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Church :  for  it  made  part  of  the  charge  a- 
gainft  him,  that  he  denied  the  confubftan- 


1  Et'«yi  x«»  to  ovcf/jd  txto  ofAioaciov  <Pv[X/i  f/Jti  iv^Kivca,  fiiw  uviy* 
WKivctt  -grov  rat  clyiuv  ygcttym,  kXKa.  ys  rot,  tTrt^ti^fAetrei  fjuov  rot, 
*|?S,  «s  *rt(ru*)7rYiKU<rt  rv,<;  ehv,va(a.%  return   »x  u?rct^i,     Athanaf.  de 

fent.  Diony.  §.  18.  p.  2^5*.  —-  'E«  xscl  p*  r^>  xlfyv  raZrm  ff- 
fov  cv  rcuc,  ypct&xis,  «AA*  «'|  avruv  ruv  yoxQ&iv  tov  vouv  crvvctyctyw. 
*yvw  on  vik  an  koh  Xcyoc,  a  gtvoq  uv  ay)  rm  x&ictq  rev  %<x.tpcc« 
§.20.  p.  257,  vid.  8c  Athanaf.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic.  §.25-.  p.  251. 
&  de  fynod.  Arim.  8c  Selcuc.  §.44.  torn.  1.  par.  2.  p.  75-8. 

*  Vid.  Labbe  8v  Coflart*  concil.  ad  an.  263.  8c  Cave  htft. 
it.  vol.  2.  p.  61, 


the  Trinitarian  Controberfy.  in 

tinlity n  s   and   it  was  in   anfwer    to  this  Serm.  hi; 
charge,   that  the  Patriarch  thought  himfelf  V*ofV 
concerned  to  ihew,  that  he  had  taught  the 
fame  doftrine   which  was  meant  by  that 
word,   tho'  he  had  hitherto  declined  the 
exprefs  ufe  of  the  word  itfelf. 

Indeed  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  word 
had  been  fo  ufed  and  applied  long  before 
the  time  of  Dionyjitis.  We  find  it  in  the 
book0  which  is,  falfly  indeed,  afcribed  to 
Mercurius  Trifmegiftus,  but  was  certainly- 
written  not  long  after  the  age  of  the  A- 
poftles  p.  Tertullians  Unkis  Subftanti<e 
feems  to  be  nothing  elfe  but  a  translation 
of  ix.%  And  the  ancient  apologifts  for  O- 
rigen,  as  well  before  the  council  of  Nice*, 
as  after  itf,  do  exprefly  affert  it  to  have 
been  found  in  his  works.  Nay,  and  En* 
febius  himfelf1,   who  had  much  better  op- 

°    'K7rtV0Yldv\  00$    7T0iYl[AiCl    KCii   yiVr.TW  foyuv    7tf  lily   (At)   GfAiOV<TlOV   T» 

trurei,  Athanaf.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic.  §.  zf. 

•  'O  toZ  3-sow  Xoyoc,*  iiva£ry  rw  fofjbiovqyZ  v2,  of*o&<rto$  *p 
*n    Mercur.  Trifmegift.  in  Pimandr.  cap.  i. 

P  Vid.  Petav.  dogm.  Theol.  de  Trin.  J.  i.  c.  2.  §.  3,4. 
«  Tertul.  ad.  Prax.  cap.  ?.. 

*  Quae  utrseque  fimilitudines  manifefle  oftendunt  commu* 
nionem  fubftantiae  efTe  Filio  cum  Patre:  aporrhaea  enim  op>- 
v<rio$  videtur,  &c.  Origen  apud  Pamphilum  in  apologia 
torn.  f.  Ed.  Ben.  p.  236.  inter  opera  Hieron. 

f  Patrem  &  Filium  unius  fubftantiaj,  quod  Grace  Spota-ia? 
dicitur,  defignavit.  Ruifin.  de  adulterat.  libr.  Origen.  ibidem 
pag.  aj-o. 

1'1Lru  Koti  ruv  irx^cCMv  rtyceq  Myiovi  kch  ImQemlfc  sirurxvffevz 
xeel  G-vyyfotQietf  tyva>[ji,(vt    istl   7775  row  Xoirgyq   xxl   hiow  BsoAoytetf, 

9-S  rcZ  ofAoxiriov  <rvyxQwxf*ivovt  oveftxlu    Eufebii  epiftola  apud 
Socratem.  E.  H.  1, 1.  c.  8.  versus  finem, 

K  a  portunity 


i 3 1  An  Hijlorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.  hi.  portunity  than  we  of  looking  into  ancient 
V~''VN>  books,  allures  us  he  had  feen  this  word 
ufed  by  fome  learned  and  eminent  bifliops 
and  writers  among  the  ancients,  to  exprefs 
the  one  Divinity  of  Father  and  Son.  A 
word  it  was  admirably  fitted  to  guard  a- 
gainft  the  herefies  in  both  extremes :  for  as 
it  manifeftly  overthrows  the  Avian  caufe, 
by  afferting  an  equality  of  nature  5  fo  if 
rightly  underftood,  it  clearly  deftroys  the 
Sabellian,  fince  none  but  perfons  really 
diftinguifh'd  can  be  properly  efteemed  con- 
fubjiantial  to  each  other". 

It  fhould  likewife  be  obferv'd,  that  in 
oppofition  to  this  herefy  there  was  a  claufe 
infertcd  in  the  creed  of  Aquileia™y  and 
pofTibly  in  fome  others x,  to  confefs  the 
Father's  being  invifible  and  irnpajjible,  and 
confequently  not  that  very  perfon,  who 
being  cloath'd  with  human  fleih  made  his 
appearance  in  Judea,  and  fufFer'd  for  the 
fins  of  men. 

It  is  not  to  be  admir/d  if  in  the  warmth 
of  this  difpute,  and  before  the  ufe  of  terms 
came  to  be  accurately  fixed  and    fettled, 


^c<ra7T&!v  ry;v  tvvotxv'    «  ft  ecvro  ri  ifU)  iuvtu    cfAioxcnor,  «AA*  *Ti- 
fev  k4gm.   D.  Bafil.  Epift.  300.  , 

w  Vid.  Ruflin.  in  Symb.  ad  calc.  Cyprian.  8c  Suicer.  in 

VOCe  trvfjtj€oXov . 

*  Erafm.  in  refp.  ad  cenfur.  Theol.  Paris. 

the 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  135 

the  moft  catholick  writers  mould  fome-  serm.  hi, 
times  exprefs  themfelves  in  fuch  manner  ^Tv 
as  may  feem  to  ftrain  the  point  too  much 
the  other  way,  efpecially  if  judged  of  by 
the  ftandard  of  modern  lift  and  accepta- 
tion. This  was  obfervable  a  little  after- 
wards in  the  writings  of  that  fecond  Ori-  265. 
gen,  Tierius  the  Presbyter  and  Catechift 
of  Alexandria,  who  afferted  the  Father  and 
Son  to  be  two  fubjlances  and  two  natures  y, 
as  well  as  yet  later  in  Methodius  the  Biihop  290, 
of  Tyre,  and  no  friend  to  Origen,  who 
affirrnd  them  to  be  two  powers7-.  And 
yet  as  Vhotius,  who  was  never  guilty  of 
too  much  tendernefs  in  cenluring  the  an- 
cients, has  found  no  fault  with  that  cx- 
preffion  of  Methodius,  but  rather  intimates 
his  orthodoxy  from  fomc  other  paflagcs3, 
fo  he  exprefly  declares,  in  the  behalf  of 
cPieriusy  that  the  whole  fcope  of  the  con- 
text fhew'd  his  faith  in  this  matter  to  be 
pious  and  catholick,  whilft  he  meant  no 
more  by  the  words  nature  and  fubftance, 


y  Apud  Phot.  cod.  119.  Pierius  is  fometimes  referred  to  the 
year  283.  (vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  ad  eum  annum.)  But  his  fuc- 
ceedmg  Dionyfius  in  the  government  of  the  fchool  at  Alexandria, 
makes  it  more  rea finable  to  place  him  in  i6f.  See  Mr.  Dod- 
vteYs  Appendix  to  his  DtJ[ertations  upon  Irenseus.  p.  488,  j-o8,  Sec. 
item  Cave  Hift.  lit.  vol.  2.  p.  5-8,  5-9. 

x  Method,  apud  Phot.  Cod.  235*. 

a  Ibid.  &Cod.  237.  vid.  Bull.  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fed*.  2.  c.  13. 
§,9, 10.  and  fe&.  3.  c.  4.  §.  7. 


K  3  than 


134  dn  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  than  others  did  by  Hypojiajis  b.  So  little 
^^T^  reafon  have  our  modern  Arians  to  boaft 
of  thefe  writers  as  patrons  of  their  herefyc! 
It  is  added  indeed  by  Thotius,  that 
with  refpeft  to  the  Holy  Ghoft  the  opinion 
of  T^ierius  was  more  dangerous,  in  that 
he  made  him  to  be  inferior  in  glory  to 
the  Pather  and  the  Sond.  Had  we  but 
^Pierius's  doftrine  in  his  own  words,  I 
make  little  doubt  it  might  be  eafy  to  de- 
fend him  againft  the  charge  of  herefy :  for 
as  we  are  well  acquainted  with  the  feve- 
rity  of  that  critick  in  cenfuring  the  anci- 
ents, fo  there  feems  little  ground  to  ima- 
gine that  he  whofe  do&rine  was  catholick 
in  refpeel:  of  the  Son,  fhould  in  thofe  days 
labour  under  any  grievous  error  relating 
to  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  and  the  inferiority  he 
fpeaks  of  was  probably  no  other  than  that 
(economical  fubordination,  which  the  anci- 
ents have  conftantly  fuppofed  in  the  Tri^ 
nity,  and  which  implies  not  any  inferio- 
rity of  nature,  but  of  order  only  c. 


%cti  Qucrue,  ova  Myu'  ra>  t«$  ovcr.xs  koci  <pu<riac,  o'jof/jccli,  a>$  J^Aov  c/K 
jt  lav  tTTofAtyw  xxt  7ryoYiyovf/itvav  rou  /C^fiov,  cevn  r%  bxo<?oi<rscL%f 
nut  «yv'  1)$' Apia  7r gvo-ccv >euai pivot  y^a^hiv^.    Photius  ibid. 

c  Vid.  Sandi'i.  Nucl.  Hift.  Eccl.  1.  i.   p.  201.    Ed,  1669. 

d  Tlifi]  titvt    rot    toZ    %nvu*ciTcc,   ixi<rd)ccX&<;    Xiuv   xstl     JWtrjloaic 

<px<ncu  Hln.    Photius  ubi  fupra. 

•  Vid.D.  Bull.  Def.  fid.  Nic.  kQt.     cap,  13,  §.2. 


The 


the  Trinitarian  Contvoverfy.  1 3  y 

The  cafe  of  Theognoftus7  another  Alex-  Serm.  hi. 
andrian  writer  of  thofe  times,  and  Tieri-  Vop^J 
uss  fucceflbr  in  the  government  of  that  * 

fchoolf,  is  fomewhat  different.  He  is 
produced  by  Athanaftus%7  as  an  iliuftrious 
witnefs  to  the  catholick  doctrine.  And  it 
is  confefled  by  cPhotmsh7  that  in  fome  part 
of  his  work  he  has  treated  orthodoxly  of 
the  nature  of  the  Son.  Tis  true,  he 
charges  him  with  grievous  errors  in  other 
parts,  and  fuch  as  were  afterwards  the  di- 
ftinguiJhing  do&rines  of  the  Artan  herefy. 
But  unlefs  we  would  fuppofe  fo  great  an 
author,  in  one  and  the  lame  work,  to  be 
guilty  of  the  groiTcft  contradi&ions,  we 
muft  admit  of  the  folution  which  Atha- 
nafius  i  has  given,  and  which  Thotius k 
himfelf  could  not  entirely  difown,  that 
thofe  heretical  doftrines  were  only  pro- 
pofed  in  the  way  of  deputation,  but  that 
Theognoftus's  own  opinion  was  that  which 


f  Vid.  Dodwel  Append,  ad  Diflert.  in  Iren.  p.488,  &/n. 
Cave  Hift.  lit.  vol.2.  An.  282. 

g  D.  Athanaf.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic.  §  25*.  p.  230. 

h   'Ev  -)Tot  i-^'r'-y  iv<n£is-iQcv  zraq  mSA  Tt  tm  uXXav  hec~ 

^xyjcoivu,  xcu  [ActXifcc  x^i  ra>  ntei  tow  hoyov,  xifi  tou  uiou. 
Phot.  Biblioth.  cod.  106. 

1  O  [Aj\v  cvv  Sscyva<?o(,  tu.  moTlfX  coq  h  yvfAvcccnot  ihru<ra<;t 
vrioov  T7}t  iccvTou  h%xv  r^£i5.  cvt&c,  'newt*.    AthanaH  ubi  fupra. 

k  -— '  Ein  h^o'.uc,  itaffm  o\><r<ri£uc<>  laXaKag.,  sen  (ax;  uv  tic,  s«r©«) 
ix.ciX(rU[Ju$voc,  r»j)»  uTTtp  oevrou  &7roXoyic<vs    ov  "/vectorises  hiyc*  x.oil  on 

&%%  tciutx  TFfcTiQiic..  Phot,  lit  fupra. 


K  4-  fol« 


136  An  Hifiorkal  Ac  count  of 

Serm.  hi.  followed,  entirely  agreeable  to  the  catho- 

V^VN^  ikk  faith1. 

But  however  thefe  writers  be  capable  of 
juft  defenfe,  yet  it  muft  be  owned,  that 
the  great  zeal  which  was  ihewn  in  that 
age  againft  the  Noetian  and  Sabellian  he- 
refies,  did  actually  give  rife  to  two  diffe- 
rent errors,  into  which  the  men  of  lefs 
caution  and  difcernment  were  very  apt  to 
decline.  They  are  both  exprefly  pointed 
£63.  out  by  ^Diony/tus  of  Rome,  in  a  letter 
written,  moft  probably,  m  at  that  time 
when  the  affair  of  his  namefake  at  Alex- 
andria lay  before  the  fynod ;  a  noble  frag- 
ment whereof  is  prefer  v'd  among  the 
works  of  Athanafius.  He  takes  notice 
there  were  fome  who  overthrew  the  do- 
ctrine of  the  Church,  by  cutting  and  di- 
viding the  Monarchy  or  divine  Unity  into 
three  powers,  three  feparate  hypoftafes, 
foreign  to  each  other,  which  was  the  fame 
thing,  in  his  account,  as  faying  three 
Gods  n :  Whereas  the  Trinity  is  (as  it  were) 


1  See  Bp.  Bull,  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fe&.  2.  cap.  10.  §.7,  8. 
m  Athanaf.  de  fenc.  Dion.   §.  13.  p.  25-2.    See  Dup'm's  HiT- 
tory  of  Ecclefiaftical  Writers,  vol.  1.  p.  174.. 

*  — AiUifovvicte,    xal  ■/.xrxn^jv'jv]uc)>  kpa    eivxt^vvra,^    to   <rifA>vc- 
tcitov    Ktfvyujct,  r«5   SKxXtiOiaK   70V  Ssnu,    tv,v  [Aovccpxixv  li$   Tfiic,  Jy- 
tccf/jsi<;  nyac,  %a\  {Atyjzaicrf/jSYcte,  v?70T&<rsis,   xai  &tfn%lc£$  "[V'.., 
ii   'j  r^uc,    &zo'j(;    Tfictrcv    Tiva  m,Qvt}ov(T ~tv ,     «§   TQ$7$   U7T0COC(THC    £ivetq, 

Dionyf  Rom.  apuci  Athanaf.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic.  §.26.  p.  231. 


gather  d 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  137 

gather  d  up  into  one  'Divinity,  by  refer-  serm.  hi. 
ring  the  fecond  and  third  peribns  to  the  \^Y^* 
firft  as  their  head  and  origine,  with  whom 
they  are  effentially  united  °.  He  takes  no- 
tice there  were  others,  (and  he  blames  it 
as  a  grievous  blafphemy, )  who  thought 
them  to  be  not  only  feparate  in  fubftance, 
but  even  inferior  in  nature,  efteeming  the 
Son,  and  by  confequence  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
to  be  no  other  than  created  Beings  p  : 
which  was  afterwards  the  very  fcheme 
efpoufed  by  Arius  and  his  followers.  Thefe 
dangerous  extremes  made  it  neceflary  for 
him  and  other  Fathers  of  the  Church  to 
ufe  the  greater  caution  in  their  manner  of 
expreffion,  that  they  might  not  by  drawing 
back  from  one  herefy,  give  advantage  to 
another  equally  pernicious.  The  method 
therefore  which  he  took  was  not  to  de- 
ny that  there  are  three  hypoftafes,  but  to 
maintain  that  they  are  not  %ivat,  that  they 
arc  not  xi^o^cr /utivai,  by  no  means  fepara- 
te don  divided  from  each  other,  but  perfe&ly 


0  'Hwo%  y>  civuyKT)  ru  &t5   vwv  oXm  rov  Suov  Xoyov'   tpCpiXo- 
vwpsfv  S  rat  $■£&  KXi   ivolu.i.TaioR   oi?  to  Uyiov   •xvvjujX'  jjJjj    -\    xm\ 

\       ft/  '      /  J\  '    >         */  «'  »  ±  >  V       ft  V  »      */- 

Ttjf  irfesv  roiotax  tie,  tvoc,    coTirtg  tic,  tcopvCpw  rivci,   rov  Sitov  ruv  oXuiv 

TOM    TTXyTOXQC&rCQX    X(yut       myKityxXXiOVO^     Ti     KXl    <TVVUyiO%     XoLTtA 

uvuyy.  Ibid. 

P  'Ov    fJUilOV    £'    CCV    Tie,    ItXTCtfJjtfAtPolT*   MM  TSf?     KotyfJUX  rov   hiof 

tivxi  ob%ot£evTX$t    xxl   ytyovsvxi  rov  Kvptov,   uvitt^  tv  rt  ovluc,  ysvo- 
fAsvav,    vofju.'^ovTece  ■  (3Acc<r<pt)f*ov   %v  ov    <n   tv%cv,    [Atyifof 

ptv  w,    xuoonotyTtv  TfcTrof  nvx  Xiyuv  rov  Kvpov.    Idem.  ibid.  & 
p.  232. 

joind 


138  An  Htjlorkal Account?/' 

Serm. hi.  join'd  together  by  unity  of  efience.  This 
v/V^  is  evident  from  that  epiftle  of  Pope  eDio- 
nyfius  already  mention  d,  which  may  well 
be  underftood  to  exprefs  the  fentiments  of 
the  whole  Roman  fynod,  that  this  way 
the  divine  Trinity,  and  the  holy  do&rine 
of  the  Unity  might  be  jointly  preferv'dP. 
254.  The  like  caution  is  obfervable  in  the 
creed  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  Bifhop  of 
Neocafarea  in  Tontus,  which  declares  the 
Trinity  to  be  perfect,  (and  therefore  really 
diftind,)  but  yet  not  divided  in  glory,  eter- 
nity or  power  5  to  have  nothing  in  it  that 
is  fervile  or  created,  nothing  fuperinduced 
or  adventitious,  nothing  which  formerly 
did  not  exifl  and  was  brought  into  it  af- 
terwards: forafmuch  as  the  Son  was  ne* 
ver  wanting  to  the  Father,  nor  the  Spirit 
to  the  Son,  but  the  Trinity  is  always  un- 
alterably and  invariably  the  fame  ^. 

There  are  many  arguments  to  convince 
us  of  the  genuineneis  and  authority  of 
this  creed  of  St.  Gregory:  I  don  t  mean  4s 


•&>  yi%  Uv  xcci   >i  S-uu  rcietc,   Kdt    ro  etyiov  K^vyfjucc  rtjc, 
jjjovu^xi;  d'uzraEptTo.     Idem.  ibid.   p.  252. 

1  Tp»o£$  Ti^UUf  defy  xect  eC'iJlorqTl  kocI  ficcnXitol,  fjt/vi  fJU$fitc/jC/tviit 
fjjr,ai  cLnuy^oTyioviAiiw,  '%Tt  xv  x.ri?cv  rt  v\  dbuhov  h  rv\  rgtuh,  xri 
ixuircCKTcy,   a>s  TrpoTi^ov  yjiv  ev%  b7Tu,p%ovt    u^i^ov   |j  i7rtunX6ov'    &rs 

XV    iVtXlTti    7T01t     VlCf   5TefcT£j,    tVTS   VM   TO    TTnU^Uy    OiXX'    flSTpS5r]o$    KSil 

iivu.'XXfiiUTbt,  y  ecvTVi  rp<#$  otti.  Opera  Greg.  Thaumat.  p.  r. 
Edit.  Par.  1622.  fumpt.  e  vita  Greg.  Thaumat.  per  Greg. 
Nyfl*.  in  opcr.  torn.  3.  P./46,  J47.  Edit.  Par.  1638. 

tQ 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 3  9 

to  the  method  of  its  being  taught  him  by  Serm.  ill. 
revelation,  <tho'  that  may  be  well  attefted  ^W 
toor,  and  will  not  feem  incredible  to  thofe 
who  fhall  confider  how  highly  this  great 
perfon  was  diftinguifh'd  by  the  Charifma- 
ta^  or  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,)  but  I  mean  as  to  the  certainty  of 
its  having  been  taught  by  St.  Gregory  to 
his  Church  of  Neocdfarea,  and  continued 
from  his  time  till  towards  the  concluiion 
of  the  fourth  century.  St.  Bajil  was  a 
native  of  that  city ;  and  he  fpeaks  with 
great  aflurance,  that  the  faith  which  he 
profeiVd,  which  is  well  known  to  be  no 
way  different  from  Athanafiussy  was  the 
fame  he  had  been  taught  in  his  infancy, 
in  the  very  words  of  that  moft  holy  Gre- 
gory * :  whole  memory  was  fo  exceeding 
precious  among  the  people  of  that  place, 
that  no  length  of  time  could  wear  it  out, 
or  prevail  for  the  admiflion  of  any  form 
or  ufage  different  from  his  prefcriptions". 
From  hence  it  follows,    that  the  creed  as 


'  Greg.  NyiTen  ut  fupra.     See  alfo  Czvt's  Life  of  htm. 
f  Vid.  prater  alios  Baiii.  de  Spir.  Sancl.  cap.  29. 


-  n*V*#{  oi  rye,  HfJUiT^ecq  71$  otv  ytvotro  svxpyaripx  xtco^u^,  Jj 
e  ti  TyotipivTiq  ijp,tic,  i^&jgftyfttr  ru  tou  pXKctPioruTov  r^yoptov 

JHfjuttlit,.   Bafil.  Epift.  7^. 

u  Tovtcv  (Aiyct  %Tk  Kot)  vZv  to%  ly%ayloi$  it  Sxvyjx,  xxt  vtetfet 
xx\  Xu  KQorQxlcc,  if  fjuviifjuvi  touc,  iKKXyirixu;  mfyvrxi,  ov&vi  XV°VC? 
cCf/jXvgQf/jtvy'  ovKovv  cv  jrp«|«v  tivx,  iv  Xoyovt  ov  tuttcv  TIVX  fJUVft- 
kov,  vxf  ov  Unvote  KXTifaxt,  tyi  tKxfytfX  7>Qcri6i)xxv.  Bafil.  dc 
Spir.  San&o,  cap.  29, 

3  well 


x  4°  dft  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  in.  well  as  the  doxology,  which  was  ufed  in 
v^^Vx-;  the  Church  of  Neoctefarea,  in  the  time  of 
St.  Bafily  muft  have  been  the  fame  that 
they  had  received  from  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,  and  agreeable  to  the  Nicene  faith. 
And  Gregory  NyJJen,  the  brother  of  St.  Ba- 
Jil,  is  exprefs,  that  this  was  the  very  creed 
by  which  that  people  had  been  inftrufted 
to  that  very  time,  and  preferv'd  from  all 
heretical  pravity,  appealing  for  the  truth 
of  it  to  a  copy  which  was  carefully  pre- 
ferv'd of  Thaumaturguss  own  hand  wri- 
tingw.  To  all  which  it  may  be  added, 
that  fome  part  of  it  is  quoted  by  St.  Gre- 
gory Nazianzen*,  as  taken  from  a  wife 
man  in  the  former  age,  and  therefore  of 
good  authority,  and  the  whole  is  acknow- 
ledged by  Ruffinus  y  for  the  genuine  creed 
of  Thaumaturgus. 

It  has   indeed   been   obje&ed   of   late z, 
that  if  this  were  really  his  creed,   it  feems 


w  ---At'  V15  ybwrccyayziTXi    p££p*    too  vuv  6  ixswor,    Xotog,     7TUV/K 

ttiyiTlMft    KUKiUC,    OlClf/jSLVC&C    kztiQCi.TCC^..  TTdtf    0J$   cCVTcC    ?&   %,0." 

^tcyf/jccru.    Tvi$    [AKKccpioa;    ixsivw   £?<pcs    st$   in  Kctl  vuv  olxvco^tl  ut . 

Greg.  NyfFen.  in  vita  Greg.  Thaumat.  inter  opera  torn,  j, 
p.  5-46,  5-47.  .    -— - 

*  Greg.  Naz,  Orat.  40.  p.  668.  torn.  1.  and  in  another  place, 
Orat.  37.  p.  609.  Elias  Cretenfis  (vol.  2.  p. 978.)  fuppofes  him 
to  mean  Thau  mature  us,  under  the  character  of  r*s  t&>v  ptxgca 
TrgocSsv  S-ioQc'gM.  The  pajfage  there  quoted  runs  much  in  the  ftyle 
of  his  Creed,  but  is  /aid  by  Elias  to  be  taken  from  a  book  called  his 
Apocalypfe :  and  it  is  no  wonder  he  (Imdd  keep  the  fame  (lyle  in 
other  writings, 

y  Ruffin.  tranilat.  Eufeb.  H.  E.  1.  7.  c.  2 j-. 

■  Whitby  Difquif.  modeftce  in  prefat.  p.  18,  &c. 

wonderful 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  141 

wonderful  St.  Bajil  fhould  not  have  made  Serm.  iil 
fome  more  exprefs  mention  of  it,  in  that  ^OT^ 
epiftle  particularly,  which  was  written  with 
defign  to  vindicate  his  memory  againft  the 
charge  of  herefy.  But  when  it  is  confi- 
der'd  that  St.  Bafil  wrote  that  epiftle  to 
the  Church  of  Neocafarea,  where  the  mat- 
ter was  well  known  and  underftood,  a 
fhort  hint  of  it  may  be  judg'd  fufficient 
to  his  purpofe,  under  the  title  of  the 
words  of  Gregory,  or  the  tradition  of  Gre- 
goryr,  without  any  more  exprefs  citation 
produced  in  forma.  At  leaft,  it  muft  be 
molt  unreafonable,  from  this  negative  ar- 
gument, to  re j eft  Gregory NyJ] ens  account 
as  fpurious  or  interpolated,  and  that  fo 
early  as  to  be  received  for  genuine  by  Rufi 
finush,  and  inferted  in  his  hiftory  without 
any  hefitation. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this  great  man's 
caution  in  fleering  between  both  extremes, 
he  had  the  misfortune,  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, to  be  appcal'd  to  as  the  patron  of 
them  both,  and  alledg'd  by  different  per- 
fons  in  defence  of  the  oppofite  tenets  of 
Sabellius  and  Arias.  But  St.  Bafil,  than 
whom  no  man  was  better  acquainted  with 
his  character  and  writings,    has  reicued  his 

a  — Tvj  TCUQotMtrit  tu  [juiycite  y^ye^ta.  Balil.  Epift.  64.  —Toe 
t5  [/jctx.oipioTMT}t  ypjjyog/tg  ^{juccrcc.   Epift.  75-. 

b  Ruffinus  indeed  makes  no  mention  of  its  being  tang  ht  by  re~ 
relation  j  but  feems  rather  to  have  underftood  it  as  Gregory 's 
compofare. 

1  memory 


142  An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  memory  from  their  abufive  reprefentations, 
V*Of^  and  ihewn  all  their  pretences  to  be  found- 
ed either  in  corrupt  copies  of  his  works, 
or  a  grofs  miftake  of  his  defignb.  So  lit- 
tle reafon  had  any  of  our  modern  writers0, 
to  appeal  to  St.  Bafil  as  a  witnefs  of  his 
heterodoxy ! 

Such  was  the  ftate  of  the  Trinitarian 
controverfy  after  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  But  foon  after  Sabellius-,  it  ought 
z6$>  to  be  remembred,  there  arofe  ^Paulus  Sa- 
mofatentiSy  the  Bifhop  of  Antioch?  and  the 
firft  Bifhop  of  the  Chriftian  Church  who 
ftands  charged  as  an  Herefiarch,  except  Bery /- 
lus  of  Boftrad,  who  was  quickly  reclaimed 
from  his  errors  by  Origen,  and  had  no  ec- 
clefiaftical  cenfures  actually  denounced  a- 
gainft  him. 

It  is  not  eafy,  at  this  diftance  of  time, 
to  give  a  perfed  account  of  the  whole 
fcheme  of  this  Tatd  of  Samofata.  The 
fynodical  epiftle  of  the  council  of  An- 
tioch^  of  which  we  have  an  extract  in  Eu~ 
febiusc,  charges  him  with  denying  his  God 

and 


b  BafiJ.  Epifl.64.  See  alfe  BifapBull  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fed.  2. 
cap.  12.  §.6. 

c  Petav.  Dogra.  Theol.  de  Trin.  1.  1.  cap.  4.  §.  11.  Whif- 
ton's  Prim.  Chrift.  vol.4.  Append,  p.  44. 

d  Vid.  Eufeb.  E.  H.  1.6.  c  32.    See  before,  p.  123,  124. 

C  -~TcV    ttSOV      TOV    lUVTCV    KOCl     MBfMI   OCStCVl/jiVOVmm ocpv^TiB-iou 

ocvToZ  ymyJm'»  -J/stXf/jovs  2)  Tct"S    P>iv  he,  rvv  xuoiov    v,fjuee¥    warcvt 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  143 

and  his  Lord,  terms  his  herefy,  afwrcr/fe®,  Serm.  iir. 
xclkIcl,  and  afligns  this  as  the  proof,  that  v^OP^ 
he  deny'd  Chrift  to  have  come  down  from 
heaven,  and  afierted  him  to  have  fprung 
from  beneath  j  prohibiting  therefore  any 
hymns  to  be  fung  to  his  honour  in  the 
Church  of  Antiochy  whilft  at  the  fame 
time  he  impioufly  fubftituted  others  to  ce- 
lebrate himfelf.  From  hence  they  conclude 
him  fit  to  be  ranked  among  the  followers 
of  Artemoriy  who  foon  after  the  beginning 
of  this  century  had  aiferted  Chrift  to  be  a 
mere  manf.  And  from  hence,  as  well 
Eufebius  s,  who  lived  but  little  after  him, 
as  St.  Augiiftine^,  who  was  later  by  a  cen- 
tury, have  made  no  fcruple  to  rcprcfent 
him  as  the  reviver  of  the  herefy  of  Ar- 
temon,  and  teaching  to  think  meanly  of 
Chrift  as  of  a  common  man.  But  yet 
there  may  be  fome  doubt  whether  he  ac- 
tually denied  the  divine  nature  in  Chrift, 


in;  iccvrovm  ■  ■  .  y/xkpwSiTv  yir/ourcuc  7ruyot<rxivu£a\m ,  ,  ■ .  tvv  fjutv 
yctf  btov  rou  B-iou  ov  (louMrcti  <rvyofjt/oXoyi7v  i\  oi/petviv  xetrtXiiXvGiveiimmm 

faysi   h<rouv   Xgt<»ov   xccreoSsv t&   '"j  'AfTSfji/M,  ovto$  iTTisi^Xiru, 

xstl  oi  rot,  'AfTtfjuci.  tyovowrte,  toCtu  xottmuTCtxrecv.  Eufeb.  H.  E. 
L7.cC.30. 

'    'Af>Ti{/j WtCt,  1 .   1  ■■    cCi^KTiV    y<AoV    UlfyuXM   */mc2£   Tit   (TUTKfet    $u- 

c-xovcxv.  Eufeb.  H.  E.  ].f.  c.  28. 

:Ksyurcn.  Eufeb.  ibid.  Tetz uyat  xx]  xuyjai^-T*i  ?$  Tc^  /$'$"»*» 
^•povijovejrT^,  toe,  KoivoZ  t>}V  ty-jcw  ottSgo/TTov  yitoyAvov*  lib.  7 , 
©ap.  27. 

h  Ifta  hasrefis  aliquando  cujufdaqi  Artemonis  fuir,  fed  qutim 
defecifler,  inftaurata  eft  a  Paulo.  D.  Augufl  de  hxref  cap.  44. 

or 


144         ^n  Hifiorical Account/?/ 

Serm.  hi.  or  only  fo  far  feparated  it  from  the  hu= 
v^^v^  man,  as  to  deftroy  the  unity  of  perfon. 
If  the  extant  epiftle  of  cDionyfius  of  Alex- 
andria, in  anfwer  to  the  queftions  of  this 
heretick  be  genuine1,  he  there  feems  to 
acknowledge  the  divinity  and  eternity  of 
the  Aoy@^y  or  Word  of  God k,  which  (as 
Epiphanius1  ftates  his  opinion)  came  and 
dwelt  in  Jefusy  being  man.  So  that  we 
may  the  lefs  wonder  at  Thotius's  being  fo 
exprefsm,  that  Neftorius>  who  afterwards 
divided  the  two  natures  into  two  perfons, 
derived  his  herefy  from  Taulus  Samofa- 
tenus. 

But  to  fay  the  truth,  by  comparing  all 
accounts  together11,  I  Ihould  rather  ima- 
gine he  agreed  fo  far  with  Sabellius  as  to 
confefs  no  more  than  one  perfon  in  th,e 
Godhead,  notwithstanding  the  pains  a 
learned  man  has  taken  to  fhew  fome  diffe- 
rence between  them  °,  and  that  the  Aly@» 


1  Learned  men  are  much  divided  in  their  opinions  about  this 
epijile.  But  fee  what  is  /aid  for  it  by  Mr.  Thirlby,  in  his  De- 
fence of  the  Anfwer  to  Mr.  Whifton,  p.  48,  Sec. 

k  '  Ovti  yoip  6  Aoya?  Xustcci  v7To  i%$muv,  (/jvi  ysvoiro  oc>X  -o  vot,n$ 
rcZ  Xcyx,  Quell.  3.  Pauli  Samofatenfis  in  epiftola  Dionyfii  A- 
lexand.  apud  Labbe  8c  CoiTart.  Concil.  torn.  1.  col.  860. 

1  'EAflevret  j  tdv  Xoyov  kxi  ivoiKi;<rctvT<x,  It  wrou  &v6ya7ra  Ivti. 
Epiphan.  hser.  6$\  §.  1. 

m  Ns^cpto?  tSv  S-oXtpav  voyjccrm  irzu<retq  rou  Hcc[Xjo<rxTi6>s  Tlcw- 
kov.   k.t.X.  Phot.  Epifl:.  35*.  , 

n  Vid.  Tiliem.  torn. 4.  in  Paul.  deSamofates,  §.2. 

n  Vid.  Garner.  DilTert.  1.  de  haereli  &  libris  Neftorii  c.  4. 
§.3.  ad  calc.  oper.  Marii.  Mercat.  p.  307. 

he 


the  Trinitarian  CoMroverfy.  14^ 

he  fpake  of  was  either  Afygo  <&zj$cp/kq<;  Serm.  hi: 
(as  the  Greeks  exprefs  it)  and  not  aW^/i$  5  ^"Y"^ 
not  a  divine  perfon  fubftantially  exifting, 
but  only  a  divine  influence,  fmce  Epipha- 
riius*  is  exprefs  that  he  denied  him  to  be 
the  perfonal  or  fubftantial  Son  of  God, 
and  believed  him  to  be  no  otherwife  in 
God,  than  as  a  thought  is  in  the  heart  of 
man  5  or  elfe  {as  Atbanajius*  fates  it)  that 
his  perfonal  exiftence  began  at  Nazareth, 
and  was  feparate  from  God,  being  no  o- 
therwife  before  all  ages  than  according  to 
divine  predeftination,  or  fore- appointment 
of  his  future  being.  This  made  a  mate- 
rial difference  between  him  and  Neftorms*, 
but  it  juftly  rank'd  him  with  Artemony 
and  afterwards  (as  Thilaftrius*  and  St.  A11- 
gujline1  obfervc)  it  was  copied  by 'Thotznus. 


P  *Ev  9-s5  •}  oat   evrec  tov  xvtS  Xoyev,    <£  to  ffviupx  uvrS,    &<; 

%i£     OU   #vfy#5T»    KX^lX    0   ti^i®-    A07®-,    (M    i»VCCi    'j    TOV    ICoV    T*   S"«5 

iw7rvrccTov,  oc^xhc  ov  kvru  t%  $■$£>,   Epiphan.  ut  fupr. 

1  T\eui>.<&>  6  XxfAoa-ctTiue,  Siov  cie  r«?  Trx^tm  cfkoXoyiT,  B-iot  c* 
yxZ<x.$iT  o<pSsvrxt  *£  IvTiZhv  r>is  vxuofeas  tw  a^v  ij/woTX,  »£ 
icey/y  fixrth&ets  ZetfuXyQoTocr  Xoyov  3  Iviyyov  t%  Xfxvh  <£  c-etyix* 
ci  cevrf  opoXcyii'  rca  (dp  7reno^TfJij<f  7T(y  cutuvm  itTU,  ry  'j  U7ru$%e4 
cot  vx^ccgiT  xvxhtyjiinx'  Ivx  sis  sly,  <pn<rlv,  0  sVj  xxvrx  3-se$  0 
frstrfy.    Athanaf.  contr.  Apollinar.  1.2.  §  3.  p.  941. 

x  Neftorlus  circa  verbum  Dei,  non  quidem  ur  Paulus  fentit, 
qui  non  fubftantivum  fed  prolatitium  potential  Dei  efficax 
verbum  effe  definit.  Marius  Mercator  in  epift.  de  difcrim. 
Pauli  &  Neftorii  in  inir.  vid.  &  eund.  de  duodec.  anathemat. 
Neftorii.  n.  19.  item  Fabricii  annotat.  in  Philaftr.  de  haere£ 
c.  64. 

f  Philaftr.  cap.  6$\ 

?  D.  Aug.  de  haeref.  cap.  44, 45-. 

L  Saint 


146         An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm. hi.  Saint  Hilary"  intimates,  that  he  re- 
y^>T^  ceiv'd  the  word  5/*o^w@0,  but  in  an  ill 
fenfe,  meaning  to  reprefent  the  Father  and 
Son  as  one  and  the  fame  perfonw.  But 
this  has  been  ufually  reckon'd  a  miftake 
of  Hilary,  fince  Athanajius*  and  Bafih* 
who  feem  to  be  more  competent  witnef- 
fes  of  this  matter,  have  affured  us,  not 
that  he  allow'd  the  word  o/zobc^,  but 
that  he  difputed  againft  Chrift's  divinity 
from  the  impoffibility  of  his  being  con- 
fubftantiali  having  firft  explained  that  word 


*  Male  homooufion  Samofatenus  confeflus  eft :  fed  nun- 
quid  melius  Ariani  negaverunt?  Hilar,  de  fynod.  adv.  Arian. 
cap,  8o\ 

*  And  fo Sandius,  Nucl.  Hift.  Eccl.  I.  1.  p.  182,  &c.  Con- 
stant. Itkemfe  follows  Hilary V  account,  Vind.  vet.  cod.  confirm. 
par.4.  c.4.p.  343 -,  ,  ,  ,     x  ,    ,  . 

*  T5  %owXh  orotyiQefy  rs  S-fAoi/r©°,  xj  XiyonGh',  it  f/^  s|  ccy* 
teaituy  yiyoviy  0  #p*S"o$  «^S»  oCk  %v  6f//0iscri©^  l?t  t»  sresrpj,  j£ 
*cvx.yK>)  rptl$  %<na$  ihcitt  f/jiecv  fd/j  TryoYiyxpyilw,  ru.$  'j  euo  s| 
txf*W.  Athanaf.  de  fynod.  Arim.  &  Seleuc.  §.  45*.  torn.  1 . 
mr.  2.  p.  7j"9»  Ed.  Ben.  0  Xtyav  Gfjcovriov  r&ix  Xiyut  inetv 
two.  Tff^ov^ox.iifJUw>nVy  j£  Ttfs  Ik  rcwrm  ymaffyxs  ofhoacn^ 
i7y-"  ic&v  tsv  0  0*05  ofjuoxart®"  y  T<a  ffcer?),  ctvo&yKT)  upo'iino- 
XiioR  c&vtm  ir.ocj  j|  «§  <£  iymii&wciV)  <£  /w»»  tivxt  Toy  ffyu  %XTitas 
Tcv  -j  viov,    e&XX'  ct(//<Po7i$iS<;  a$iX<Pis$.   §«5"r«   p.  7^4« 

y  ''EQxirxy  ȣ>  ixuvot  t*)v  ofjuoyeiis  <t>ww  ts-x^xv  moiety  &tnx$  rl 
Kj  rav  Utt'  uvtk$>    a>5  ti  x,XTXfJut%i£}u<ray    Tyy   $eut»  rtxyixuv  r^9 

ifJUOVcrix  &QO(TVyo&Ciy    T0<5    lie,    X  Jlypidt).       TSt6  ^   %xXxou    ffyj    >£ 

•my  xtf'  eevrou  vopia-fjuxTav  \x,u  tivx  Xoyov  n>  chxvcwfjbx,   inl  Bset* 

3   5T«CTpfl$,   £   $10U  VLOU,    HX.  &<TIX  XQluGvTiyUy    %&'  UXt^KtlfJjivy)   a\ [&$)»?$ 

S-mgiirui.  .  n  T»  y>  xv  yivoiro  too  xyiyy^ra  nfitrSoTtgoi  j  kyxi-< 
fUTXt  3  Ik  rr.c,  0A*ff$tyb&(  Taurus  £  *  lie,  Toy  XXTigx  j£  btoy 
yn<?t<;  xchx<px  »^J  uXMiM;$  T«t  l\  %y\%  iiQiswtott  D.  Baiil. 
KpiH.  300.  ' 

la 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  x^f 

in  a  wicked  and  abfurd  fenfe :  He  took  it  Serm.  lit} 
grofly  and  corporeally,  juft  as  thofe  things  V**8^ 
are  reckond  confubftantial ,  which  are 
made  out  of  the  fame  common  pre-exift- 
ing  fubftance,  as  different  pieces  of  money 
made  of  the  fame  mafs  of  metal  5  fo  that 
here  are  three  different  things  fuppofed  in 
this  notion  of  confubftantiality  j  viz.  a 
pre-exifting  fubftance,  and  two  diftinft  be- 
ings produced  out  of  it.  Which  notion^ 
if  applied  to  the  Godhead,  would  not  on- 
ly take  away  the  mutual  relation  of  Fathef 
and  Son,  but  effectually  dcftroy  the  eter- 
nity of  both.  And  this  feems  to  be  the 
true  reafon  why  the  council  of  Antioch 
difufed  the  word,  not  becaufe  it  taught  ail 
equality  of  nature,  but  becaufe  it  had  been 
mifapplied  to  infer  a  divifion  of  fubftance^ 
and  beginning  of  exiftence3. 

There  were  indeed  two b  councils  hoi-" 
den  at  Antioch  upon  this  oecafion,  at  the 
firft  of  which  Firmilian  of  C&farea  prefided  5  2  6  5, 
and  cDionyJius  of  Alexandria,  though  hin- 
dered from  being  prefent  by  his  age  and 
infirmities,  (which  carried  him  off  during 
the  feltion  of  that  council,)   yet  he  fup- 


•  See  this  farther  fiated  by  Bijhop  Bull,  Def.  fid.  Nic.fe&.  il 
cap.  1.  §.  9, 10, 1  i,  12.  Thirlby'*  Anfaer  to  Whifton*/  Sufti- 
lions,  p.  104,  &c.  Second  'Review  of  WhiftonV  Boxologiea 
jr.  24,  &c. 

h  Tillcmont  (torn.  4.  in  2mI  4e  Smofates  §.  4.)  fappofes 


L  z  plied 


148  An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  plied  his  abfence  by  his  letters,  bearing 
t^V^  teftimony  to  the  truth  which  Taul  had 
difobey'd.  The  heretick,  however,  beha- 
ved himfelf  with  ib  much  cunning  and 
fophiftry,  and  diffembled  fuch  an  inclina- 
tion to  the  catholick  fide,  that  tho'  his  er- 
rors were  condemn  d,  yet  there  was  no 
fentence  pafs'd  upon  himfelf,  in  hopes  he 
might  be  reduced  to  better  fentimentsc. 
270.  Before  the  next  council  (which  fate  five 
years  afterwards)  Firmilian  was  dead.  But 
Malchion  the  Presbyter  of  Antioch  attacked 
the  heretick  with  fo  much  learning  and 
dexterity,  that^he  ftript  him  of  every  dif- 
guife,  and  expofed  him  to  the  council 
with  all  the  filth  and  deformity  of  his  o- 
pinions  5  which  was  prefently  followed  by 
his  depofition  from  the  See  of  Antioch, 
and  the  nomination  of  'Domntts  to  fuc- 
ceed  himd,  the  council  having  firft  declared 
their  catholick  fentiments,  in  an  epiftle 
figned  by  fix  of  the  principal  Bifhops  then 
aflembled,  concerning  ChrhTs  being  God 
in  fubftance  and  hypoftafis e.  Where  thofe 
words  feem  to  be  ufed  as  equivalents,  how- 
ever fometimes  diftinguifh'd  by  the  writers 
of  this  century. 


e  See  Eufeb.  H.  E.  I.7.  c.  28,  20.  juxta  init. 

d  Eufeb.  H.  E.  1.7.  c.  29,  30.  .:'  '  .. 

'  ~SiO<p!uv  y^  Xoycv  x^  fjvccyjiv  B-eou   7rso  uiawv    lvrety    jj  -zz-yoyva- 

vu,    otxx'  isar.u.  £  lzro?ourti    Sicv.     Epift.  Hymemei,  8cc.    in 
Concil.  Labbc  &  CofTart.  ad  an.  266.  torn.  1.  coi.  84^. 

The 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  14^ 

The  crafty  advantage  which  that  here-  Serm.  in. 
tick  made  of  the  word  6/Wcn(gi,  gave  oc-  WY%-> 
cafion  to  its  being  dropt  by  that  council, 
and  for  that  reafon,  probably,  by  other 
cathoiick  writers,  in  thofe  parts  efpecially 
where  this  crafty  abufe  of  it  was  known 
and  underftood.  And  this  might  be  a 
good  reafon,  if  there  were  no  other,  why 
in  the  creed  of  Luciany  the  Presbyter  of 
Antioch,  (if  it  be  truly  his,  which  is 
doubted  by  Sozomen,)  we  find  no  mention 
of  the  word  Qjuoticn(&y  which  made  the 
Avians  in  the  next  century  boaft  of  himf 
as  a  patron  of  their  caufe,  altho'  the  pro- 
per divinity  of  the  Son  of  God  be  other- 
wife  fufficiently  exprefs'ds,  and  nothing 
that  may  fairly  rank  him  among  the  pa- 
trons of  the  Arian  herefy. 

There  is  indeed  fome  ground  to  fu- 
fped,  that  this  Lucian  did  at  firft  fide 
with  his  heretical  Biihop  and  country- 
man Taul  of  Samofatahy  deceiv'd  (it 
is  probable)  by  his  fophiflical  pretences, 
and  imagining  his  meaning  at  bottom  to 
be  orthodox.     For  which  reafon  he  is  faid 


f  Sozomen.  H.  E.  1.  j.  c.  r. 

B  —  k,tc,  tvoc  xuyiov  mrouv  £j»<r<jv,  rev  vtov  uvtou  tov  fjuovoytv*),  i?iov9 

Ci  »    TO,  7TUVTX    iytVSTO'    TOV    yiVV^iVTCC    7TpO   7TCCVTWV  TUV  UtCOWV  tK    TOV 

Wr%ot>->  B-fhv  Ik  B-zcu,  o>,ov  l\  oXx,  (JUovov  Ik  [Aovu,  TiXuov  Ik  rt- 
A^y^  ■■,  uTf&fln  tb  <£  civaMoi&Tov,  tv  v  tvs  $ioTt)T<&;  x'trias  r* 
*j  dbvupsMc,   <£    /3»A?5,     '£>  Hfyc,    78    TTxrfos    Uxc^uXXocktov  tiKCVCt. 

Luciani  Symbolum  apud  Socrat.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c.  io. 

t  Vid.  Tillemont.  t.  f.  in  S.  Lucien  d'  Antiocbe.  &  in  not.  T. 


L  3  tQ 


t  jo  An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  to  have  been  feparated  from  the  commu* 
fe'YV  nion  of  the  Church,  under  the  three  fuc- 
cecding  Bifhops  of  Antioch.  And  if  it 
were  during  that  time  that  Anus  and  his 
affociates  were  bred  up  under  him,  they 
had  but  little  reafon  to  boaft  of  their  Tu- 
tor as  they  did,  or  glory  in  the  title  of 
Colhicianifts.  If  he  were  really  in  the 
fame  fentiments  with  Taul,  the  creed 
which  was  produced  under  his  name  in 
the  fourth  century,  could  not  have  been 
drawn  up  by  him  at  that  time,  but  rather 
after  his  reftoration  to  the  communion  of 
the  Church,  in  which  he  had  the  honour 
3x2.    to  fuffer  as  a  martyr  under  Maximine. 

His  creed,  it  was  acknowledg  d,  as  well  as 
fome  other  writings  of  that  time,  made  no 
mention  of  the  word  ofjioim^  i  yet  was 
not  that  word  entirely  laid  afide  in  all 
places.  For  Tamphilus,  who  lived  no  far- 
ther off  than  Cafarea  in  Taleftine,  and 
nog.  was  affifted  in  his  apology  by  Eufebius,  has 
fhewn  his  own  orthodoxy  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fourth  century,  by  afferting 
that  of  Ovigen  from  this  argument,  that 
he  taught  that  the  Son  is  &juloh<ti@u?  or  of 
me  fubftance  with  the  Father1. 

It  was  not  long  after  the  depofition  of 
Taul  of  Samofata,    that  the  Manichean 

*  Pamphili  apolog.  pro  Orig,  inter  opera  D.  Hieron.  torn,  f, 
pd.  Ben.  p  *3<i 

3 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  i  y  i 

herefy  began  to  grow  considerable,  which  Serm.  in. 
befides  denying  the  reality  of  Chrift's  bo-  V*of^-> 
dy  \  feems  to  have  efpoufed  the  Sabellian 
principle,  by  reprefenting  Father,  Son  and 
HolyGhoft  as  one  God,  under  three  namesk, 
abiding  to  that  purpofe,  it  is  probable,  the 
term  of  confubftantialityx>  tho'  ftill  they  ve- 
ry inconfiftently  feparated  the  divine  perfons 
in  a  manner  more  agreeable  to  the  Avian 
fyftemm.  But  as  their  fcheme  contained 
likewife  a  colle&ion  of  the  moft  deteftable 
abominations  of  the  heathens  and  the  worft 
of  hereticks,  they  will  deferve  to  be  con- 
fider'd  rather  as  a  fed  of  Pagans  than  of 
Chriftians,  and  need  not  detain  us  in  any 
longer  fearchcs  or  enquiry  after  them. 
The  like  may  be  faid  of  the  Trifcillianifts> 
when  rightly  underftood,  a  fort  of  here- 
ticks that  arofe  towards  the  conclufion  of 
the  next  century,  and  whom  (as  nearly  rc- 


1  D.  Aug.  Serm.  no\  torn.  j*.  col.  5*78.  Ed.  Ben. 

k  Igitur  nos  Patris  quidem  Dei  omnipotentis,  &  Chrifti 
Filii  ejus,  &  Spiritus  Sancti,  unum  idemque  fub  triplici  ap- 
pellation colimus  numen.  Fauftus  Mcmkhws  apud  Auguft. 
contra  Fauft.  1.  20.  c.  2. 

1  Nunquam  dicere  aufi  funt  Patrem  8c  Filium  nifi  unius 
«fTe  fubftantise.  D.  Aug.  Serm.  11.  Ed.  Ben.  alias  dediverfis  io\ 
yid.  &  Phot.  Cod.  179. 

m  Thus  Fauftus  (apud  Aug.  1.  20.  c.  2.)  ajjtgns  them  different 
pUces  and  operations:  from  whence  St.  Auguftine  (cap.  12.)  thus 
expoflulates  with  him:  Cur  enim  fub  triplici,  ac  non  potius 
&b  multiplier  non  appellatione  tantum,  fed  re,  fi  quot  no- 
mina,  tot  perfonse  funt?  ---Aut  quomodo  unum  numen,  11 
divcrfa  oDcra.  \ 

I  4.  femblin§ 


x j 1  An  H'ifiorical he  count  of 

Skrm.  tti.  fembling  the  Manicheansn  in  their  princi- 
V^W  pies)  I  choofe  juft  to  mention  in  this  place, 
that  I  may  be  excufed  the  taking  any  di- 
ftinft  notice  of  them  afterwards. 

Thus  far  we  have  feen  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  with  relation  to  the  ever-blef- 
fed  Trinity  >  and  the  feveral  herefies  by 
which  it  was  attacked  before  the  rife  of 
Arius.  And  had  the  ancient  liturgies  been 
tranfmitted  down  entire,  it  might  here 
have  been  an  ufeful  labour  to  have  made 
fuch  obfervations  upon  them,  that  the 
worfhip  of  the  Church  might  come  in  to 
the  better  illuftration  of  her  do&rine,  and 
the  language  of  diftind:  Churches  might 
appear  conilftent  and  harmonious.  But  in 
the  lamentable  fhipwrack  and  lofs  of  an- 
cient writings,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
xnoft  of  the  publick  forms  of  worfhip  have 
been  utterly  deftroyed  °,  and  the  reft  fo 
miferably  injured  by  the  corruptions  and 
interpolations  of  later  times,  that  it  may 
oftentimes  be  difficult  to  diftinguifh  what 
is  genuine  and  original,  from  that  which 
is  thruft  in  and  of  a  later  date. 


n  Auguft.  de  hseref.  cap.  70.  Tillem.  torn.  8.  Les  Prifcil- 
lianiftes,  §.  1.  , 

0  Renaudotias (in  colled,  liturg.  orient,  torn,  i.p.o.  difiert. 
de  liturg.  orient,  origin,  cap.  2.)  //  of  opinion,  that  the  Eaftern 
Churches  had  not  their  liturgies  committed  t»  writing,  before 
the  time  of  St.  Bafil  m  the  fourth  century. 

In 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i  j  3 

In  this  cafe  therefore,  the  beft  evidence  serm.  m. 
that  can  be  brought,  is  from  the  fcatter'd  v^OTN-> 
accounts  which  the  writers  of  thofe  times 
have  left,  who  are  the  fitteft  witrieffes  of 
the  worfhip,  as  well  as  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church.  As  the  Father  was  conftant- 
ly  acknowledged  for  the  fountain  of  the 
Deity,  and  never  reprefented  as  a&ing  in 
fubordination  to  the  other  perfons  5  who, 
on  the  contrary,  were  always  confider'd 
as  fubordinate  to  him,  and  fuftaining  their 
refpe&ive  offices  in  the  work  of  our  re- 
demption. Prom  hence  it  is  no  wonder 
if  the  prayers  of  the  Church  fhould  gene- 
rally be  addrefs'd  to  the  perfon  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  make  fuit  for  the  graces  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft  to  be  given  thro'  the  merits  of 
Chrift  ;  no  wonder  if  its  praifes  fhould  be 
likewife  offered  up  through  the  prevailing 
name  and  merits  of  the  fame  Redeemer, 
and  in  virtue  of  the  fanctiflcation  of  that 
bleffed  Spirit  plentifully  poured  out.  We 
acknowledge  the  plain  footfteps  of  this 
worfhip  to  appear  thro'  all  antiquity  ;  and 
the  Church  has  defervedly  continued  it  to 
this  day.  Let  our  adverfaries  make  the 
moft  of  this  conceflion.  A  real  diflincti- 
011,  and  certain  fubordination  of  the  per- 
fons may  juftly  be  concluded  from  it,  but 
nothing  againft  the  infeparable  Union,  and 
proper  Divinity  of  all  the  three.  Nay, 
rather  fuch  are  the  perfe&ions  implied  in 
3  thofe 


1 54  ^n  Hiftorical Account^/ 

Serm.  hi-  thofe  tranfcendent  operations  which  arc 
^tsy^t  here  afcribed  to  them,  as  cannot,  in  the 
eye  of  candid  readers,  but  conclude  for  their 
Divinity  p.  And  indeed  this  point  fecms 
capable  of  being  carried  higher  ftilij  and 
thofe  phrafes  do  fometimes  require  to  be 
fo  explaind  as  to  imply  their  unity  of 
nature,  no  lefs  than  the  diftin&ion  of  their 
perfons ;  that  as  the  Son  derives  his  efTence 
from  the  Father,  fo  the  worfhip  which  is 
paid  the. Father,  can  be  offer'd  only  thro' 
the  Son  ;  /.  e.  fo  as  to  take  the  Son  in  its 
way  to  him,  and  confequently  honour 
both  in  the  fame  ad  of  worfhip  q.  All 
which  may  likewife  be  faid  to  be  done  in 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  whilft  he  is  confider'd  as 
the  band  of  unity,  and  honourd  as  a  per^ 
fon  fubftantially  united  with  the  other 
two r. 

Yet 


p  Vid.  Bafil.  de  Spir.  Sandr.  cap.  8.   «V«  *,  ft  »,  Q°w>  t\L0- 

rtji  f&tyiwt;  fotpXsyixs  sVj  srA^«ff$.   cap.  2?. 

1  -PerSpiritumquidem  [ad]  Filium,peFFiliumautem  afcen- 
deread  Patrcm.  Iren.  I.f.c.  36.  p.  227.  Ed. Ben.  M«t«  ^U>  «  Tt~ 
fjjotv  to v  XctTtqoc  vejjciQiVj  tv  ti  ray  Stiu/&fiyi)[/jccTei)y  to-v  vtev  v7ro7rrtv(T6>- 
fopy  ctXX  i<5  7rs>iTKp  w  svos  biov  7Tfo<rxvysi<&ct>,  tu  flt\  (juioitt&a  1}  5rpeor- 

xma-is.  Cyril.  Catech.  11.  p  143.  Oxon.  §.  6.  Mice  yap  £><» 
k  S-sctvs,  $  2tjg.  tSto  yjicc  rjjtej),  xeci  [Aicc  i^i  Trpee-Kuvwui,  Y  ca 
via  tctu  JY  uvtcv  ywftipn  rio  vares.  Athanaf.  Orat.  $.  p.  fff . 
§.  6.  See  alfo  Dr.  WaterUnd's  Defenfc  of  Queries,  p.  ado, 
261.  and  Second  Dcfenfe,  p.  398. 

*  '^V*  Ot  *}*'  uv  **""««  Qsulw  urif/jtrtoxq  uvea  hcuoiccs  ntcexfa- 

WW 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  i  j  y 

Yet  neither  are  we  without  witnefs  that  Serm.  nr; 
fome  parts  of  the  worfhip  of  the  Church  V^OP^ 
were  immediately  directed  to  each  perfon, 
and  in  terms  the  mod  exprefs  and  parti- 
cular. Of  the  Son  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion 5  this  being  plainly  the  purport  of 
thofe  hymns  which  were  mentiond  by 
*Pliny-,  in  the  time  of  Trajan*,  alledg'd 
by  Cuius  the  Roman  Presbyter,  (or  who- 
ever elfe  was  that  anonymous  writer  in 
Eufebius*,  that  confuted  Artemon,)  and 
prohibited  laflly  in  the  Church  of  Antioch 
by  Taul  of  Samofatan>  as  inconfiftcnt 
with  his  heretical  opinions.  Not  to  men- 
tion now  the  many  examples  of  fuch 
worfhip  to  be  found  among  the  ancient 
writers,  and  their  exprefs  teftimonies  as  to 
the  pra&ice  of  the  Church  in  this  parti- 
cular! There  is  only  one  paflage  in  a 
piece  afcribed  to  Origen™  y  which  exprefly 
difclaims  the  invocation  of  the  Son  :  but 
it  is  fo  contrary  to  Origen  himfelf  in  other 


yi?cv  lyes  oivc&yuv  tu$  oluvot'us,  oTtzyi  xcii,  ctvri  rviq  trip,  proAA«^» 
Kiifijivba,  kwTYtf  rtT^iAUfap.  Bafil  de  Spir.  San£t.  c.  25*.  '  Ovto^  p 

Toy  iiou  ci  ffcCTfl  xetl  TTarqos  ov  vMy  ivorriTt  kx)  oi/vufjjn  ^lu^uics. 

Athcnag.  legat.  §.9.  p.  38.  Oxon.  Bull  fett.  a.  c.  3.  §.13. 
Petav.  I.7.  c.  12.  §.8.^— , 

f  Plin.  lib.  10.  epift.  97.  Vid.  8c  Tcrtul,  Apol.  c.  2.  and 
Eufeb.  H.  E.  I.3.  c.33. 

■  Eufeb.  H.E.  Vj   c.28. 

u  Idem.  I.7.  c.  30. 

*  Origen.  srsp*  w%k9  csp.  5-0.  p.  48.  Edit.  Oxon.  vJW  tm 

r&'j  cM>»  fiKi  netTft,  »,  r,  A» 

places, 


i $6         An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  in.  places x,  and  to  his  own  teftimony  in  that 
^^N^  very  .book  concerning  the  pra&ice  of  the 
Churchy  as  well  as  to  the  whole  ftream 
of  antiquity  befides,  that  it  muft  be  con- 
cluded, either  that  book  is  none  of  Ori- 
gens,  or  at  leaft  it  is  one  of  thofe  which 
have  fuffer'd  corruption.  The  Arians 
themfelves  are  content  to  admit  the  invo- 
cation of  the  Son :  only  they  attempt  to 
diftinguifh  it  from  that  of  the  Father,  as 
an  inferior  kind  of  worfhip  due  to  him  as 
Mediator;  and  this  they  take  to  be  meant 
by  catachrejlical  worfhip,  in  a  certain  paf- 
fage  of  Origen z,  which  has  been  explain  d 
to  fo  much  better  purpofe  by  fome  learned 
mena,  that  it  muft  be  moft  unreafonable 
to  lay  ftrefs  upon  a  Angle  (and  at  leaft 
doubtful)  paffage,  in  oppofition  to  many 
others  that  are  clear  on  the  contrary. 

And  as  the  Son,  fo  likewife  the  Holy 
Ghoft  was  acknowledged  by  the  primitive 
Church,    for   the  proper  and  undoubted 


*  Vid.  Annotat.  ad  he.  in  Edit.  Oxon,  p.  $6.  item.' 
D.  WaterUnd  ubi  fupra. 

rwvftowiASH/.   Orig.  *$}  «%%.   p.  145*,  alias  134". 

z  Awttfjt/iQct    j   x.ca   avTcu   rou   Xoyov,   kxi   itr^o^da  oevroo, 

t>js  7r^i  7T(ocr<&%K  x*p**Aj|/c65  **i  Kcc.Tot%pq<rius.    Orig.  contra 
Celfum  lib. f.  p.  233. 

■  Bp.  Bull,  Def.  fid.  Nic.  feci:.  1.  cap.  9.  §.  15-.  Dr.  Water- 
land's  Defenfe  of  Queries,  p.  2<So,  z6i.  and  Second  Defenfe, 
p.  398,  &c.   See  alfo  p.  371,  Sec. 


obje£fc 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  157 

object  of  divine  worfhip.  It  was  the  ne-  Serm.  nr: 
ceffary  refult  and  confequence  of  the  pri-  ^OTV 
mitive  doctrine,  concerning  his  infeparable 
union  and  coequality  in  nature  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  It  muft  be  owned 
indeed,  that  as  the  graces  wrought  in  us 
by  that  bleffed  Spirit,  who  is  reprefented 
in  Scripture  to  be  fent  or  given  by  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  were  the  chief  mat- 
ters of  petition  offer'd  up  by  the  Church  5 
fo  'tis  natural  to  imagine  their  prayers  for 
fuch  graces  mould  be  perfonally  directed 
to  the  giver,  rather  than  to  him  who  is 
the  gift.  This  looks  more  expreffive  of 
that  myfterious  (economy ',  under  which  the 
method  of  our  redemption  is  defcribed  to 
us.  But  yet  as  they  were  not  bound  in  e- 
very  expreffion  to  refer  to  that  ceconomy, 
fo  they  did  not  fail  in  fome  part  of  the 
publick  offices,  to  pay  their  devotions  di- 
rectly and  perfonally  to  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as 
at  other  times  they  eafily  underftood  him 
to  be  included  in  the  one  God :  infomuch 
that  Juftin  Martyr  and  Athenagoras  af- 
fcrt  it  as  the  practice  of  the  Church  in 
their  time,  to  worfhip  and  adore  not  only 
-  the  Father  and  Son,  but  the  Trophetick 
Spirit b.  They  exprefs'd  this  more  parti- 
cularly in  their  hymns  and  doxologies,  and 

*  See  the  pajfages  in  the  foregoing  Sermon,  p.  65,66,67. 

other 


i  j 8  An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  hi.  other  a&s  of  praife,  that  (o  being  baptifed 
VT^  according  to  the  form  they  had  receiv'd 
(wherein  the  three  perfons  are  named  in 
the  fame  manner,  without  any  difference 
or  inequality)  they  might  continue  to  be* 
lieve  as  they  had  been  baptifed,  and  to 
glorify  as  they  believ'd,  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  GhoJlc.  St.  Ba/il, 
in  the  fourth  century,  wrote  a  trcatife  on 
purpofe  to  prove  the  ancient  ufe  of  that 
doxology,  which  exprefly  afcribes  equal 
glory  to  the  three  perfons.  And  he  fhews 
it  not  only  from  the  ufe  and  approbation 
of  private  and  particular  authors,  but  like- 
wife  from  the  publick  ufages  and  practice 
of  the  Church,  as  the  nde  or  canon  ob- 
ferved  at  Alexandria*,  which  the  Patriarch 
*Dionyfius  had  received  from  the  'Presbyters 
that  were  before  him;  the  known  and  a- 
vow'd  pra&ice  at  Neocgfarea  in  Tontus, 
which  had  continued  without  any  altera- 
tion, at  leaft  from  the  time  of  Gregory 
ThaumaturgusG:  and  in  fhort,  the  gene- 
ral ufage  as  well  of  the  Weftern  as  the 
Eafiern  Churches,  derived  to  'em  by  anci- 
ent  and  apoftolical  tradition,  confirmed  by 
immemorial    and  uninterrupted  practice, 

(ZetTTi^pfbsQef  h\u^m    j  ac,  xvxisivytMfafi'  zxri^  xetl   viev>    kccI 
liyicv  TMvfAO,.    D.  Bafil.  Epift.  78. 

d   Il«f Ct   TO))!  5T£d   IffA&Jv   TTgWoVTiOWV   TU7T0V    X.CU   KOtVOVCt  TTetgilXtiQeTtS- 

x.  r.  ;\.  Dionyf.  Alexandr.  apud  Bafil.  de  Spir.  Safl£fc.  cap.  2.9. 
•  See  above,  p.  14&, 

from 


the  Trinitarian  Cofttroverjy.  i  j(? 

from  the  time  that  the  Go/pel  was  firfi  Serm.  iif. 
preached  among  them*.  And  however  the  V^V^>^ 
liturgies  they  ufed  be  now  either  loft  or 
much  corrupted,  yet  it  may  be  fome  fatif- 
faftion  to  obferve,  that  in  all  the  remains 
we  have  of  them,  whether  tranfmitted  to 
us  by  Catholicks  or  Hereticks,  as  that  in 
the  Confiitutions ,  which  was  probably 
made  ufe  of  by  the  Church  of  Antiochs, 
and  has  been  tranfmitted  to  us  through 
the  hands  of  Arians^  that  which  bears 
the  name  of  Saint  James,  and  was  u- 
fed  by  the  Church  of  Jerufalem h  ;  that 
which  bears  the  name  of  St.  Mark,  made 
ufe  of  by  the  Church  of  Alexandria'^!, 
thofe  which  were  compiled  by  St.  Bafil, 
St.  Chryfoftom,  and  others ;  the  various  li- 
turgies in  ufe  among  thofe  who  favour  d 
the  Neflorian  or  Eutychian  herefies k,  and 
who  therefore  cannot  well  be  fufpe&ed  of 
partiality  towards  any  known  innovations 
of  the  Catholicks:    I  fay  it  may  be  fome 


tuv  iKKbiyn&i*  ivc67?o{A$ivu(rxv  w^ofi/i*    D.  BafiJ.  de  Spir.  San&„ 
C.  27.   — 'i6(^  Trua-yji    [Ajvvi[JW}<;  uvSpuTnv^q   TtgiarQuTtpov,  u(f>' 

i  xctTyyytXy  tp  tuctyyzXw  jt**£p<  tow  vvi.    c.  29. 

*  See  Dr.  Comber  of  liturgies,  p.  1  ro,  1 1 1. 

*  Vid.  Comber,  p.  96.  vid.  Eufeb.  Renaudot.  DifTert.  de 
Orig.  liturg.  orient,  p.  if. 

1  Ibid.  p.  26. 

k  Confult  Renaudotius'j  Colleftion  of  Liturgies.  It  may  bt 
tdded*  that  the  fame  Doxologies  appear  in  the  jEthiopick  Z<#- 
t'ton  of  Apoftolical  Conftitutions,  as  publifh'd  by  Ludoifus,  in 
hit  Comment,  ad  hift.  ^thiopic.  p.  324. 

fatif- 


ksy^u 


i 60         An  Hifiorical Account^/ 

serm.  hi.  fatisfa&ion  to  obferve,  that  in  all  thefe  re- 
mains and  imitations  of  ancient  liturgies, 
we  have  the  cleareft  examples  of  that  form 
of  doxology,  which  afcribes  equal  glory- 
to  the  Holy  Ghoft,  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  And  indeed,  the  very  name  of 
Holy  Ghoft  was  by  the  ancients1  under- 
ftood  to  imply  fuch  a  natural  and  effential 
holinefs,  as  cannot  comport  with  the  pre- 
carious condition  of  a  creature,  and  is 
therefore  itfelf  an  implicit  or  virtual  doxo- 
logy.  But  as  this  queftion  has  been  upon 
another  occafionm  explained  and  ftated 
more  at  large,  and  I  may  perhaps  be  ob- 
liged to  take  farther  notice  of  it  hereaf- 
ter, I  fhall  difmifs  it  for  the  prefent,  and 
conclude  with  that  form  of  praife  which  I 
take  to  be  fo  juftly  defenfiblc. 

Now  to  God  the  Father,  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  three  perfons  in  the 
Unity  of  the  fame  eternal  Godhead, 
be  all  honour  and  glory,  world  with- 
out end.     Amen. 


1  Natura  Spiritus  San&i,  qux  fanfta  eft,  non  recipit  pol- 
lutionem.  Naturaiiter  enim  vel  fubftantialiter  fan&a  eft.  Si 
qua  aurcm  alia  natura  fan£la  eft,  ex  aflumprione  hac  vel  in- 
fpiratione  Spiritus  Sanfti  habet  ut  fanctificetur:  non  ex  fua 
natura  hoc  poffidens  fed  accidens ;  propter  quod  8c  decidere 
poteft  quod  accidie  Origen.  apud  Pamphil.  in  Applog.  inter 
opera  D.  Hieron.  torn.  5-.  Ed.  Ben.  col.  231. 

m  In  the  Seafonable  Review  of  Mr.  Whiftorfs  Account  of 
Primitive  Doxologies,  and  the  Second  Review  j  Both  printed 
in  the  year  17  19. 

SER- 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  161 


SERMON  IV. 

Preach'd  Feb.  6y  1723-4. 


#♦♦♦♦  4?^4?4?^4?^4,4,^4?^4;4^4,^rl?^4?4',i',4?^4?  ^^^Hp 


E  were  got  down  as  low  as  Serm.  IV. 
the  beginning  of    the  fourth  t-OfV^ 
century,  in  our  enquiries  after 
the  fenfe  and  tradition  of  the 
Church,    with  relation  to  the 
dottrine  of  the  Trinity.       From   thence- 
forth the  outward  ftate  of  the  Church  ap- 
peared  with  a  quite   different  face.     The 
bloody  perfecution  which  was  begun   by 
T)ioclefian  and  Maxiinian,  had  continued 
for  fome  time  under  Maxentius  and  Max-     a  I  J* 
imm>  till  they  were  both  fubdued  by  Con- 
Jtantine  the  Great,   and  both  parts  of  the 

M  empire 


%6%         An  Hiflorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  empire  became  fubjeft  to  one  who  was 
^^T^  himfelf  a  profeffor  of  the  chriftian  faith. 
The  Chriftians,  after  that,  had  Churches 
not  only  built  and  beautified4  by  publick 
authority,  and  at  the  publick  expence,  but 
enriched  and  adorned  with  many  coftly 
gifts ;  and  the  Bifhops,  however  mean  in 
their  appearance,  were  treated  with  much 
honour  and  refped,  and  thought  fit  to  be 
confulted  by  the  Emperor  himfelfb.  And 
tho'  LiciniuSy  who  was  brother-in-law  to 
Conftantine,  and  his  collegue  in  the  em- 
pire, very  foon  laying  afide  that  regard  he 
either  really  bore  or  had  pretended  to  the 

320.  caufe  of  ChriflianityS  did  at  firft  more  co- 

321.  vertly,  for  fear  of  Conftantine,  and  after- 
wards more  openly,  abufe  his  power d  to 
diftrefs  the  Eafiern  Churches,  infomuch 
that  as  far  as  Egypt  and  Libya  they  were 
forced  to  hold  their  affemblies  with  fe- 
crecy  and  caution c:  yet  the  vi&ory  which 
Confiantine  obtained   over  him  did  foon 

323»  put  an  end  to  his  perfecution,  and  reftored 
the  Church  to  a  flourifhing  condition  thro' 
the  whole  empire. 


■  Eufeb.  H.  E.  1.  10.  c.  2.  &  de  vita  Conftant.  1.1.  0.42. 
Socrat.  H.  E.  1,  i.e.  3.  Thcodorit.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c.2. 

b  Vid.  Eufeb.  ut  fupra. 

*  Eufeb.  H.  E.  l.io.  c.  8.   Sozom.  1.  i.e.  2,7. 
d  Vid.  Till.  torn.  $\    in  La  perfec.  de  1'  Eglife  d*  Orient. 
Sous  1'  Emper.  Licinius. 

e  Socrat.  ut  fupr.  Sozom.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.  z . 

But 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  163 

But  ah  the  mifchief  which  came  in  and  Sbrm.  iv4 
encreafed  as  faft  as  eafe  and  profperity !  y^//^Ts^ 
The  Devil,  who  faw  his  idol  temples  in 
moft  places  fhut  up,  his  images  demoliuYdj 
his  facrifices  prohibited,  and  his  votaries 
apace  embracing  Chriftianity,  began  now 
to  contrive  how  he  might  uphold  his  king- 
dom by  another  method,  and  bring  that 
very  evil  into  the  Church,  which  he  could 
no  longer  maintain  out  of  it  5  that  fince  he 
could  not  now  perfuade  men  to  worfhip 
creatures  under  the  notion  of  gods,  he 
might  however  prevail  with  them  to  con- 
sider and  to  worfhip  the  Creator  himfelf 
under  the  notion  of  a  creature f.  And, 
which  made  the  cafe  yet  more  deplorable, 
the  Biihops  of  the  Church  themfelves  were 
not  unanimous,  as  formerly,  in  declaring 
their  deteftation  of  fuch  great  impiety  ;  but 
fome,  even  of  them,  were  found  to  patro- 
nize the  hereticks  the  reft  had  cenfured, 
and  fometimes  they  had  intereft  enough  to 
draw  in  the  civil  powers  to  take  their  part 
againft  the  Catholicks. 

The  See  of  Alexandria  being  made  vacant 
by  the  martyrdom  of  Veter  in  the  time  of     3 li- 
the tenth  perfecution  s,  his  immediate  fuc- 


IToAAg$  !*s  -ryji  7r^0T£fixv  i/TdVYiyctys  ?rXuvua,  tt  iy\v  xri<rn>  nuXii 
it^CKvmo^  7rxgx<rKivcc<rcc5,  uXXa  rev  ttohjthv  y-#>i  a^i^yov  trvyTct* 
%8wm  r$J  Kiicrti   KctreCTKivcea-etr,.    Theodor.   H.  E.  1.1,   C.  i« 

*  Vid.  Eufeb.  H.E.  1.8.  c.  12. 


M  z  ceffot 


164  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  ceftbr  Achillas  did  not  long  furvive  him : 
^-^Y^J  after  whom  Alexander,  who  had  been  di- 
312.  ftinguinYd  by  his  zeal  for  Chriftianity, 
was  worthily  advanced  to  the  Patriarchal 
Dignity  h.  Arius  at  that  time  was  one  of 
the  Presbyters  of  Alexandria,  and  fo  pufPd 
up  with  an  opinion  of  his  own  merit, 
that  he  thought  himfelf  flighted  in  having 
a  brother  fet  over  his  head,  and  difdain  d 
to  fee  the  higheft  flation  in  that  Church 
fupplied  by  any  other  than  himfelf.  This 
envy  and  ambition  brought  on  a  fatal  re- 
folution  to  oppofe  his  Bifhop :  and  becaufe 
he  could  find  nothing  exceptionable  in  A- 
lexanders  life  and  condud,  he  had  no 
handle  left  but  to  quarrel  with  his  do&rine*. 
And  this  he  did  in  a  moft  weighty  and 
important  article.  For  whilft  Alexander 
ftedfaftly  adhered  to  the  catholick  do&rine, 
that  the  Son  is  of  one  fubftance  with  the 
Father  k>  and  the  objed  of  the  fame  wor- 
fhip1 :  Arius,  on  the  contrary,  was  bold 
and  daring  in  his  biafphemies,  that  there 
was  a  time  when  the  Son  was  not,  that 
he  was  a  creature,  and  made  out  of  no- 
thing™  \   that  he  is  mutable  in  his  nature, 


J  Theodorct.  lit  fupra.  \  Ibid. 

— T&w  -zrccrpoi;  tov  biov  effiozcriov  Xiyon©".    Theod.  hasr.  fab. 
I. 4.  C  I . 

OyjortfJijov  tXtys  rav  TS-otr^q  tovviov,    xca   rrtv  kut>}9  ovmcct  i%tif 
rS  ytymiiKort  3-j».    Theod   H.  E.  1.  1.  c.  1. 

7F0i>}[Ai0l   7tfOViiyc^iVif%    KOit    TO   >1V    7T0Ti    OTi   CcJx   J)>    Zro'etTiTlCvt     Ibid. 

and 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  \6$ 

and  (like  the  created  angels)  might  have  serm.  iv. 
fallen  intoJinn:    that  being  united  to  the  ^^V^ 
human  flefh,   he  fupplied  the  place  of  the 
human  foul,     and   confequently    muft    be 
liable  to  fufferings  and  pain°,  thoJ  confi- 
der  d  as  the  Aoy@^  or  Word  of  God. 

Thefe  two  laft  articles  feem  to  go  a  ftep 
farther  than  ever  any  heretick  had  gone 
before  :  and  in  refped  of  them  Sozomens 
remark  may  be  trueP,  that  no  one  before 
him  had  ever  dared  to  advance  fuch  por- 
tions in  the  Church.  But  for  the  main 
of  his  herefy,  that  the  Son  was  created  in 
timey  and  out  of  nothings  and  not  from  all 
eternity  begotten-,  or  fubjifiing  of  the  fub- 
ftance  of  the  Father,  we  have  feen  <i  he 
had  fome  forerunners  in  the  third  century, 
who  are  plainly  ftruck  at  in  that  fragment 
of  Pope  cDionyfius,  which  is  preferv'd  a- 
mong  the  works  of  Athanafius.  Nay,  con- 
fidering  that  the  natural  tendency  of  all 
his  affertions,  was  to  deftroy  the  Son's 
proper  and  effential  Divinity,  it  was  not 
without  reafon  that  his  Bifhop  cenfured 
him  as  a  reviver  of  the  hereftes  of  Ebion, 


n  Ksej  uvTi^a-ioryirt  xeoticcq  xect  otptTK  &ktikqv  l7Tecf%Ur.    SOZ. 

1. 1.  c.  15-.  Socrat.  1.  t.  c.  9.  vid.  &  c.  6". 

0  Athaoaf.  adverf.  ApolJinar.  1.2.  torn.  1.  par.  2.  pag.94^ 
Ed.  Ben. 

p  Sozom.  ut  fupra. 

*  Sec  the  foregoing  fermon,  p.  136, 137; 


M  3  and 


1 66  An  Hiftorkal  Account^/ 

Som.iv.  and  Artemon,    and  Tatd  of  Samofata1  $ 
L^-Y^  it  being  all  one  in  the  account  of  the  an- 
cient Church,    what  other  nature  they  a- 
fcribed  to  him,   fo  long  as  they  refufed  to 
acknowledge  his  divine. 

Tis    likely  he   might  vent  his  blafphe- 
mies  at  firft  in   private,    and  wait  till   he 
had  gain'd  a  competent  number  of  difciples 
to  efpoufe  them f,   or  at  leaft  might  difpofe 
them  by  degrees,  till  he  mould  find  a  pro- 
per occafton  to  declare  his  principles.    And 
at  length  a  publick  conference  of  Alexan- 
317*    der  with  his  Clergy  gave  him  the  defired 
opportunity  of  publishing  his  herefy.     The 
Biihop  had  been  fomewhat  curioufly  treat- 
ing of  the  do&rine  of  the  Trinity:    and 
in  his  catholick  method   of  explaining  it 
had  afferted   the  infeparable  unity  of  fub- 
flame l :    condescending,   however,    (as  the 
matter  at  leaft  was  afterwards  reprefented11 
to  Confiantine)  to  ask  the  opinion  of  his 
Presbyters  then  prefent,  upon  the  fenfe  of 
every   text  he  had  produced.      This  gave 
Arms  the  handle  to  charge  him  with  Sa- 
bdtimifm,   and  to  fet  up  himfelf  as  a  pa- 
tron of  the  oppofite  extreme,    by  avow- 


*  Vid.  Alexandra  epift.  apud  Theodorit.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.4. 
f  See  Fleury,  1. 10.  p.  79.  as  cited  by  Tillemont,  'Memoires, 
torn.  6.  Les  Ariens,  fe&.  3. 
~\  Socrat.  H.E.  1.  1.  c.6. 


H 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  1 67 

ing   thofe    blafphemous  pofitions    already  Serm.  iv. 
mentioned.      The  Patriarch  had  fo  much  ^V^ 
efteem  for   the  parts   and  abilities  of  his 
Presbyter,    that  he  incurr  d  the  difpleafure 
of  fome  zealous  Catholicks,    by  allowing 
him  the  liberty  of  difputation w  5    he  en- 
deavour'd  for  fome  time  to  reclaim  him  by 
milder    admonitions x,     writing    monitory     318. 
letters  for  that  purpofe,    with  the  confent 
and  approbation  of  the  Alexandrian  Cler- 
gy >    but  when  he  appear'd  incorrigible,   it 
was  neceffary  to  proceed  to  greater  feve- 
rity,    and  therefore  he  and  his  adherents 
were  by  a  council  of  an  hundred  Bifhops     319. 
of  Egypt  and   Libya,   not  only  degraded 
from  their  orders  in  the  Church,  but  like- 
wife  anathematifed  and  caft  entirely  out  of 
\V. 

Arius,  after  this,  thought  it  his  intereft 
to  apply  to  other  Bifhops,  and,  under  the 
fpecious  pretence  of  defiring  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  Alexander,    he  laboured  with  his 


w  Sozom.  1.  1.  c.  i^.  x  Theod.  H.E.  J.  x.  c.  2. 

1  Socrat.  ].  i.e.  6.  The  firfl:  rife  of  Aricmifm  is  pretty  ob- 
fcure.  Montfaucon  {in  vita  Athanafii.  vid.  &  ejufd.  animadv,  j, 
in  vit.  Athanaf.  in  colled,  nov.  Patr.  Grxcor.  torn.  2.)  faces 
the  beginning  of  Arms' s  herefy  in  the  year  319,  and  fuppofes  that 
the  year  following  Alexander  wrote  monitory  letters  to  reclaim  him, 
and  convened  a  fynod  of  Alexandrian  and  Mareotic  Presbyters  and 
Deacons  to  concur  in  thofe  letters:  proceeding  to  excommunication 
with  his  council  of  BiJJjops,  Ann.  3  2 1 .  But  this  feems  not  to  leavt 
room  for  the  letters  that  followed  to  the  beginning  of  Licinius'jr 
perfecution.  And  therefore  it  feems  better  to  place  the  beginning  of 
Arianifm  with  Petavius  in  3 1 7.  Dogm.  Theol.  de  Trin.  1. 1 .  c.  7, 

M  4  utmoft 


i68  An  Hifiorical Ac co unt  of 

Serm.  IV.  utmoft  diligence  to  ftrengthcn  his  intcreft 
\s^r*J  againft  him a.  His  endeavours  wanted  not 
a  good  degree  of  fuccefs ;  and  among  the 
chief  of  his  patrons  was  Eufebius  Bifhop  of 
Nicomedia,  who  not  only  received  him  to 
communion,  but  ufed  his  intereft  with  o- 
ther  Biihops  to  the  fame  purpofeb. 

Mean  while  neither  was  Alexander  negli- 
gent, on  the  other  hand,  to  juftify  his  con- 
dud  to  other  Churches.  He  wrote  to  his 
brother  Bifhops,  to  reprefent  the  obftinate 
impiety  of  this  heretick,  and  complain  of 
the  encouragement  he  found  from  fome 
Bifhops,  and  particularly  from  Eufebius  of 
Nicomediac.  This,  however  it  might  lay 
reftraint  upon  fomed,  yet  did  not  hinder 
others  from  being  aftive  in  his  intereft  5  a 
council  being  then  convened  under  Eufe- 
bius in  Bithynia,  to  declare  for  the  fenti- 
ments  of  Arius,  and  write  to  other  abfent 
Biihops  for  their  concurrence,  and  for  ad- 
ding their  endeavours  with  Alexander  to 
reftore  himc;  and  another  foon  afterwards 
in  'Palejline,  where  the  affeffors  granted 
leave  to  him  and  his  adherents,  to  gather 
congregations  in  their  refpe&ive  diocefes3 


a  Vid.  Alexandr.  epift.  in  Theodor.  H.  E.  ].  1.  0,4. 

*  Cap.  6. 

•  Socrat.  J.  1.  c.  6.  Theod.  1.  i.  c.  4. 

*  Epiphan.  hxr.  69.  §.4. 

•  Sozom.  H»  E.  1.  i.  c.  if. 


advifing 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 69 

advifing  them  however  to  fubmit  to  Alex-  serm.  iv. 
ander,  and  ufe  their  utmoft  endeavours  to  ^^T^^ 
maintain  peace  and  communion  with  himf. 
And  to  this  time  we  may  refer  that  attempt 
of  Arius,  which  is  mention  d  by  Theodorzts, 
to  change  the  cDoxology  from  giving  glory 
to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  together, 
into  that  other  form,  which  did  not  fo  di- 
redly  overthrow  his  herefy,  Glory  be  to 
the  Father,  through  the  Son,  in  the  Holy 
Ghoft.  Not  that  this  latter  form  had  never 
been  made  ufe  of  by  perfons  of  the  moft 
orthodox  principles !  There  is  no  doubt  it 
had,  and  in  a  fenfe  perfe&ly  agreeable  with 
the  catholick  faith h.  But  then  the  other 
form  had  been  ufed  too,  and  it  was  Arius  s 
meaning  to  leave  it  out  entirely,  and  ufe 
none  but  that  which  appeared  lefs  oppofite 
to  his  principles. 

Thus  far  we  may  fuppofe  matters  to  have 
rifen,  during  the  time  that  Licinius  either 
had  or  diffembled  a  regard  to  Chriftianity : 
who  keeping  his  court  at  Nicomedia,  gave 
the  greater  opportunity  to  Eufebius,  the 
Bifhop  of  that  place,  to  promote  the  caufc 
of  Arianifm,  and  particularly  (as  it  feems) 


fSozDm.  H.  E.I1.&  if.'"'* 

cv  tw  ccyici)  7tvtv[A,ct,Tt.    Theod.  hser.  fab.  1.  4.  c.  1 . 

h   See  the  foregoing  fermon,   p.  15-3.   as  alfo  the  feafonable 
Reyiew,  and  fecond  Review  of  Whiflm\  Doxologies. 

3  to 


1 70  An  Hiflorkal  Account*?/ 

Serm.  iv.  to  prepofiefs  the  Emprefs  Conftantia  in  fa- 
<y>T^J  your    of    it  K       But    when  Licinius    had 
320.    tjlrown  0ff  his  difguife,  and  periecuted  o- 
penly  the  chriftian  name,    exprefly  forbid- 
ding any  councils  to  affemble,    there  was 
probably  but  little  progrefs  made  on  either 

323.  fide,  till  his  defeat  by  Conjlantine  reftored 
the  Churches  of  the  Eafi  to  peace  and 
profpcrityk. 

Conjlantine  being  then  at  Nicotnedia, 
was  much  concernd  at  the  account  of 
thefe  unhappy  differences,  and  writing  both 
to  Alexander  and  Arius  upon  the  fubje&, 

324.  he  fent  Hofius  the  celebrated  Bifhop  of 
Corduba  in  Spain,  to  make  a  more  exact 
enquiry  into  the  merits  of  the  caufe  K  The 
remit  whereof  feemsm  to  have  been  (tho* 
we  have  not  any  clear  account  of  the  mat- 
ter) that  Hofius  in  council  approved  the 
conduct  of  the  Patriarch,  and  ratified  the 
fentence  he  had  denounced  againft  the  he- 


1  Conftantia  the  wife  of  Licinius,  and  flfter  of  Conftantine, 
was,  according  to  St.  Jerom,  perverted  by  Arius,  but  probably 
not  -without  the  help  of  his  friend  and  patron  Eufebius,  in.  whofe 
city  fie  reflded,  and  who  is  faid  to  have  entertained  Arius  at  his 
houfe.  Arius,  ut  orbem  deciperet,  fororem  principis  ante  de- 
cepit.  D.  Hieron.  adverf.  Pelagian,  epift.  43.'  ad  Ctefiphon, 
col.  477. 

k  Eufeb.  de  vita  Conftant.  1.2.  c.  19,  &c.  Socrat.  H.  E. 
J.  t.  c.  4. 

1  Eufeb.  de  vit.  Conftant.  1.  2.  c.62,  &c.  Socrat.  I.  1.  c.7. 
Sozom.  1. 1.  c.  16. 

m  Philoftorg.  1.  1.  c.7.  Confer.  Tillemont.  torn.  6.  in  S.  A- 
Icxandre  D' Alexandria  §,  io. 

vetick3 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  171 

retick,  at  leaft  tha£  at  his  return  he  fatisfied  Serm.  iv. 
the  Emperor  of  the  reafonablenefs  of  it.  ^^W^ 
Arius  had  great  indignation  at  this  treat- 
ment 5  yet  neither  by  letters  nor  by  con- 
ference, neither  by  gilding  his  herefy  nor 
by  difowning  it,  could  he  prevail  with 
Conftantine  to  fhew  him  any  countenance : 
who  both  perceiving  the  craft,  and  con- 
futing the  notions  of  this  peftilent  de- 
ceiver11, thought  it  time  to  call  a  general 
council  °  for  fecuring  the  peace  of  the 
Church  againft  the  endeavours  of  that  reft- 
lefs  incendiary,  who  was  not  to  be  other- 
wife  reclaimed.  The  city  of  Nice  in  Bi- 
thynia  was  pitch'd  upon  by  the  Emperor, 
as  the  moft  proper  place  for  the  meeting 
of  this  council  3  and  that  the  Bilhops 
might  be  enabled  to  repair  to  it  from  all 
parts  with  more  convenience,  Conftantine 
himfelf  was  pleafed  to  furnifh  them  with 
all  fit  accomodations  for  the  journey  p. 

When  the  Council  was  affembled,  which 
confided  of  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
Bilhops  %   colleded  from  all  parts  of  the 

n  See  ConftantineV  letter  to  Anus,  in  Gelafius  Cyzicen.  A&. 
Condi.  Nic.  1.  3.  the  genuinenefs  whereof  is  defended  by  Tille- 
mont,  in  the  fifth  note  upon  his  hijiory  of  the  Arians,  p.  ^02. 
of  Mr.  DeaconV  tranflatton. 

0  Eufeb.  vita  Conft.  1.  3.  c.  $-,  6. 

*  Eufeb.  ibid.  Theodorit.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c.  7. 

q  The  number  of  the  Bifhops  is  related  roith  fome  variety ',  but 
moft  authors  agree  in  this  number,  or  thereabouts.  See  Tillemont^ 
fecond  note  upon  the  Council  of  Nice,  p.  66 j.  of  Mr.  DeaconV 
franflation. 

I  chriftian 


xyz         An  Hifiorical  Account  af 

Serm.  iv.  chriftian  world,  befides  Priefts  and  Dea- 
W^  cons  without  number1 5  the  firft  bufinefs 
was  to  deliberate  about  the  particulars  of 
that  faith  which  was  delivered  to  the 
Church  f,  and  then  conferring  with  Arius 
himfelf,  to  require  at  his  own  mouth  an 
open  declaration  of  his  real  fentiments*. 
The  heretick  ftood  to  his  affertions  with 
fuch  boldnefs  and  obftinacy,  as  fill'd  the 
venerable  Prelates  with  horror  and  afto- 
nifhmcnt,  and  at  once  convinced  them  of 
the  neceffity  there  was  to  anathematize 
fuch  impious  blafphemies u.  Yet  there 
wanted  not  fome  to  patronize  him  w,  who 
tho'  they  chofe  to  abftain  from  the  broad- 
eft  and  moft  offensive  of  his  expreflions, 
and  could  fpeak  pretty  much  in  the  fame 
phrafe  that  had  been  ufed  among  the  Ca- 
tholicks,  yet  they  fufficiently  difcover'd 
their  meaning  to  agree  with  his,  and  that 
they  only  perverted  the  catholick  language 
to  fpeak  the  fenfe  of  herefy.  St.  Athana- 
jilts,  though  at  that  time  no  more  than  a 
Deacon  of  Alexandria,    yet  for  the  rcpu- 


l*  Eufeb.  de  vit.  Conftant.  I.  5.  c.  S. 

f  Ruffin.  H.  E.  1.  1.  alias  10.  c.  2,  gf  Sozom.  H.E.  J.  i, 
c.  17,  19. 

r  Ruffin.  I.  10.  c.f.  confer  Sozorn.  ut  fupra. 

u  Vid.  Athanaf.  epift.  encyd.  ad  epifc.  iEgypt.'  5c  Lyb. 
p.  283.  Edit.  Ben.  torn.  1.  Socrat.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.  9.  Theod. 
H.E.  I.  1.  c9. 

r  Socrat.  1.  &  c.  8.  Thcod.  L  1,  c.  7. 

cation 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy,  ly  3 

tation  of  his  parts  and  skill  in  this  con-  Serm.  iv; 
troverfy,  had  an  honourable  place  afligned  ^V^ 
him  in  the  council*,    and  with  great  dex- 
terity expofed  the  fophiftry  of  thofe  who 
pleaded  on  the  fide  of  Arms?. 

At  this  time  we  find  that  Eufebius  Bi- 
ihop  of  Cafarea  in  Taleftine  presented  the 
council  with  a  form  of  a  creed,  which 
he  fays  was  the  fame  he  had  profefs'd  at 
his  baptifm,  had  received  from  the  Biihops 
that  were  before  him,  and  had  both  be- 
lieved and  taught  thro'  the  feveral  ftations 
he  had  filled  in  the  Church2.  This  creed 
agrees  pretty  much  with  that  which  was 
made  ufe  of  in  the  Church  of  Jerufa- 
lern*,  and  explain  d  in  the  catechetical  lec- 
tures of  St.  Cyrilb.  It  profeffes  a  belief 
in  the  Son,  as  being  God  of  God,  and  be- 
gotten of  the  Father  before  all  worlds0. 
And  therefore  it  is  no  wonder,  if  (as  Eu- 
febius d  affirms)  the  council  had  nothing  to 
objed  to  it.  And  yet  if  this  were  the 
fame  creed c  which  Theodorit  obferves  to 
have  been  propofed  by  Eufebius  of  Nico- 


x  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  21.  p.  381. 

y  Ruffin.  1. 10.  c.  14.  Socrat.  1.  1.  c.S,  Theod.  1. 1.  c.  16. 

%  Theod.  l.i.  c.  12. 

»  Vid.  D.  Bull.  Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  cap.  6.  §.$-. 

b  Cyril.  Hierof.   Catech.  4,  &c. . 

-/iyiwYiyjivov.  Eufeb.  Epift.  apud  Theodorit.  H.  E.  I.  1.  c  12. 
d  Ibid. 
J  Vid.  Montfauc.  ia  vit.  Athaaaf.  p.  9. 

mediay 


174         ^n  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  mediay  and  the  other  favourers  of  Arius^ 
V-OP^  we  are  told  the  council  tore  it  in  pieces 
as  foon  as  it  was  read,  and  judged  it  to  be 
a  fpurious  and  corrupt  confeffionf.  But 
perhaps  both  accounts  may  be  confiftent 
enough $  when  it  was  firft  offered  by  Eu- 
febius  of  Ctefareay  the  craft  and  fophiftry 
of  the  Arians  might  not  be  well  under- 
ftood,  and  therefore  the  other  Bifnops 
might  approve  of  the  creed,  as  taking  its 
phrafes  in  their  ancient  fimplicity.  But 
when  in  the  procefs  of  their  debates  it 
appeared  that  the  favourers  of  Arius  had 
given  a  new  meaning  to  the  ancient  ex- 
preffions,  the  council  might  well  refufe  to 
accept  this  form  at  their  hands,  and  reject 
it  with  the  utmoft  indignation. 

It  was  at  firft  the  intention  of  the  coun- 
cil to  declare  the  catholick  faith  in  the 
words  of  Scripture,  and  in  the  moft  plain 
and  iimple  manner  of  exprefiions.  But 
the  malignity  of  Arianifm  was  not  to  be 
fo  reftrain  d.  Its  patrons  could  apply  the 
phrafe,  to  overturn  the  fenfe  of  Scripture* 
and  knew  how  to  reconcile  the  moft  ap- 
proved expreffions  with  the  moft  execrable 
blafphemies.     They  knew  how  to  acknow- 


iyofAua-ctvTii;.   Theodor.  H.  E.  1.  I .  c.  8. 

6  Athanaf.  de  deer.  Syn.  Nic.  §.19.   8c  ad  African.   §.  f* 
item  Theod.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c  8. 

ledge 


the  Trinitarian  Contr o verfy.  175- 

ledge  that  the  Son  was  God,  and  yet  un-  Serm.  iv. 
derftood  not  that  term  to  imply  the  fame  V-X^N/ 
nature  with  the  Father,  but  only  to  be  a 
title  of  honour  conferred  on  himh  at  the 
free  pleafure  and  appointment  of  the  Fa- 
ther, tho'  in  a  more  excellent  and  peculiar 
fenfe  than  any  other  enjoy'd  it.  They 
could  fay  that  he  was  true  or  very  God, 
and  yet  mean  by  it  no  more  than  this, 
that  he  was  truly  dignified  in  fuch  manner 
by  the  Father1.  They  could  go  on,  that 
he  is  God  of  God,  without  attributing  to 
him  any  higher  privilege  than  the  Scrip- 
ture has  attributed  to  the  whole  creation, 
when  it  fays  that  all  things  are  of  Godk. 
They  could  fay  moreover,  that  he  is 
begotten  of  God,    and  yet  not  fuppofe  any 


h  Tribuunt  Chrifto  Dei  nomen,  quia  hoc  Sc  hominibus  fit 
tributum.  Hilar,  contra  Auxenc.  col.  1166.   Ed.  Bened. 

Deinde  dicis  interdum  Deum  Chrifium:  fed  ita  die  Deum 
▼erum,  ut  plenitudinem  ei  paternas  Divinitatis  afiignes;  funt 
enim  qui  dicuntur  Dii,  five  in  ccelo,  five  in  terra.  Non 
ergo  perfun&orie  nuncupandus  Deus,  fed  ita  ut  eandem  di- 
vinitatem  prsedices  in  Fiiio,  quam  Pater  habet.  Ambrof.  de 
fide  1.  5.  c.  16.  alias  7.  vid.  ck  Eufeb.  contra  Marcel,  de  Ec- 
clefiaft.  Theologia.  1. 1.  c.  10. 

1  'E<  3  KOii  Bsov  ecXydivav  X&yxct  rev  iicv,  ou  tofti?"  iyivo[/jlv&' 
$  ocXvjQivh^  ccXqQtvos  hiv.  Apud  Athanaf.  ad  Afr.  §.  f,  & 
Theod.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c.  8.  Fatentur  vere  Dei  Filium,  quia  fa- 
cramento  baptifmi,  vere  Dei  Filius  unufquifque  perficitur, 
Hilar,  contra  Auxent.  col.  1166. 

Ot  7Tffi  zvo-ivtov  oltXuXw  oiXXqAoiq  (rwQa)f/ji$ci,'  y.ut  yc.^  ttfAUi 
sx.  too  S-ioZ  iu-fMv.  ru.  3  Tjavres  as  tou  B-ieu,  Athanaf.  8c 
Theod.  ibid,  vmrra,  s  Ik  §sw.  Eufeb.  Nicomed.  apud  Theod. 
H.E.  Li.  c.<J. 

commu- 


\y6        An  Hiftorical Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  communication  of  the  divine  fubftance, 
^^^^  becaufe  the  term  generation  is  fometimes 
put  figuratively,  and  applied  not  only  to 
men,  but  even  to  inanimate  creatures,  as 
when  God  is  faid  to  have  begotten  the 
drops  of  dew1.  Nay,  they  could  fay  he 
was  begotten  before  all  worlds,  without 
underftanding  either  his  eternal  generati- 
on or  exiftence,  fo  long  as  they  fuppofed 
him  to  be  produced  into  being  before 
the  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
and  in  order  to  create  them m.  They 
could  confefs  him  to  be  the  brightnefs  of 
his  Father  s  glory,  and  the  exprefs  image 
of  his  perfon^  they  could  term  him  the 
Word,  the  Tower  and  Wifdom  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  yet  underftand  all  this  in  fo  low 
a  fenfe  as  might  be  applicable  to  crea- 
tures11, and  no  real  argument  of  a  natural 
equality.  The  grand  point  plainly  was 
this,  to  bring  them  to  a  confeffion  of  the 


*'Ei  3  ro  ywtjroy  tivnv  AsygflS^  iTrvQottr.p  rivee  ffoc^xi,    ac,    Uv 

%K   TiJS    OVCICIS    t£<;   TTCtTpiKK    tC'JTOV   "/tyevOTSi,      XSit     £%UV     I*     TUTU    T>)9 

iuvtottitu  rlis  Qvviaq,  ywu<rx.ofyj  as  ov  srspt  cCvtou  fjuwa  to  ytvvn- 
tov  i'vxt  <p^siv  i}  ygct@ti,    ec^Xd.   xotl  lx\   rat  cttopoiav  ecvrfi   Kxrhe, 

TaLvTU  Ty    <Po<ri'     X.0U    p.«p    tyj  S7T    UvfyuTTW  $*)&*   Vl\£q  £ymt)<7Zim     ■■■ 

>&l  iv  sTLfoiq  (pn<rl,  77.;  a  rtrsxtti  fiuXxe,  <^oV*.  Eufeb.  Nicom. 
ut  fupra. 

m  Ante  tempora  8c  faecula  confitentur,  quod  de  Angelis  at- 
quediabolo  eft  nonnegandum.  Hilar,  contra  Auxent.  col.  126 1. 
Ed.  Ben. 

n  Vid.  Athan.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic.  ad  Afric.  8cTheod.  H.E. 

J.  r.  c.  a. 


$on's 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  xjf 

Son's  having  the  fame  nature  and  fub-  Serm.  IV: 
ftance,  the  fame  infinite  powers  and  per-  ^V\* 
fe&ions  with  the  Father.  None  of  the 
terms  hitherto  mentiond  were  fufficient 
for  that  purpofe,  for  tho'  they  fairly  car- 
ried that  meaning  in  their  juft  and  obvious 
import,  yet  the  Arians  and  their  favourers 
had  fophiftry  enough  to  elude  them,  by 
their  evafive  explications.  The  council 
therefore  thought  fit  to  explain  his  genera- 
tion to  be  of  the  fub  fiance  of  the  Father 9 
which  Eufebius  of  Nicomedia  had  exprefly 
denied  before  the  affembiing  of  the  coun- 
cil0. But  alas!  the  fubtle  hereticks  do 
fome  of  them  feem  to  have  learnt  after- 
wards, to  undcrftand  no  more  by  this,  than 
they  had  done  by  his  being  begotten  of  the 
Father  5  not  that  the  divine  fubftance  was 
really  communicated,  but  only  that  the 
Father  himfelf  was  the  author  of  his  beiii2;P. 
The  council  proceeded  to  diftinguifh  be- 
tween generation  and  creation,  and  afferted 

0  — 'Ovh.   SK   t?s   xaict*    ecurS  ysyevo$,    xxdoXx    t??  (putnaq    r%$ 
kyivviim  i^a   [AiTZfcov,  h  'ov  ix  tyJ$  xmco;  ccJrSy  ccX^x  ytyowq  0&0%£-> 

foe,    iTtgOV    TVj    (pCtri     ^    TV{    OVVUfJlj{t      7T00^     TlX&XV     A.t.ntJ.-rvpr*  _, 

Tx  7T£vouikct(&>  y&ofifiw.   Eufeb.  Nicom.  ut  fupra. 

p  Eufebius   of  Carfarea  (apud  Theodor.  H.  E.  1.  i.  c.  12.) 

gives  this   as  the  expojition  of  the  council,   To  Ik  t?s  j^-rr-        1 

O>^Xu~iK09  119X1    TV    £K    f/j'/iil    T%    7?XTgO$    iltXiy     g    (AW   lie,    [Alp®-    U7TCC0- 

yjv)  rS  nciTfos.  And  no  doubt  that  expojition  is  capable  of  a  very 
found  fenfey  it  being  certain  that  the  fubftance  of  the  Godhead  is 
not' divided.  But  if  we  compare  it  with  what  Eufebius  of  Ni- 
comedia had  ajferted  in  the  lafi  citation^  there  will  be  reafon  to 
believe  that  the  Arians  took  a  handle  from  it  to  explain  away  the 
meaning  of  the  article, 

K  the 


178  An  Hijior teal  Ace ou nt  of 


Serm.  iv.  the  Son  to  be  begotten  but  not 
^OT^  and  the  Avians  were  ready  at  diftinguifh- 
ing  too,  and  thought  the  Son  was  faid  to 
be  begotten,  becaufe  he  was  produced  by 
the  Father  himfelf,  immediately  in  an  ex- 
traordinary manner  5  whereas  all  other 
things  are  faid  rather  to  be  made  or  created, 
becaufe  they  were  produced  by  the  Son  as 
the  minifter  or  inftrument  of  the  Father, 
and  all  after  one  uniform  manners  By 
this  means  indeed  the  common  people  were 
preferv'd  orthodox,  whilft  they  took  thefe 
phrafes,  quite  down  to  St.  Hilary 's  timer, 
In  their  old  catholick  meaning,  and  not 
in  that  fraudulent  acceptation  which  fome 
of  their  paftors  had  devifed,  to  conceal 
their  herefy  under  the  veil  of  catholick 
cxpreffions. 

And  what  then  was  to  be  done  with 
fuch  fallacious  and  fophiftical  antagonifts? 
The  meaning  of  the  council  in  thofe  ex- 

*    Kflt7K    TOCUTCC,    ^     f^  TO,     ytVVtjQiVTX    *   XOty&iVTet,  K0tTX^CC[Ai6xt 

ixuwi  to  notydsyrtt,  xotvov  Xtyoivxoy    tlveii  rav  Aoiwaiv  KTKr^ocrm  2$e/l 

reZ  i>iou  yao[fy>av>  w  &$&■»  ofjuotcv  t%uv  iiv  btov.   Eufeb.  CaefarienC 
apud  Theodorit.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.  12. 

1  Et  hujus  quidem  ufque  adhuc  impietatis  fraude  perficitur, 
ut  jam  fub  Antichrifti  facerdotibus  Chrifti  populus  non  occi- 
dat,  dum  hoc  putant  illi  fidei  efle  quod  vocis  eft.  Audiunt  De- 
um  Chriftum  ;  putant  efle  quod  dicitur.  Audiunt  Filium  Dei ; 
putant  in  Dei  nativitate  inefTe  Dei  veritatem.  Audiunt  ante 
tempora  ;  putant  id  ipfum  ante  tempora  efle,  quod  temper  eft. 
San&iores  aures  plebis,  quam  corda  funt  facerdbtum.  Si  De- 
um  verum  Ariani  predicant  Chriftum,  Deum  fine  fraude  con- 
f'efli  funt:  Quod  ft  Deum  dicunt,  6c  negant  verum  j  tribuunt 
nomen  &  adimunt  veritatem.  Hilar,  contra  Auxent.  col.  1261. 

prcfllons 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy*  1?$ 

preffions  was  well  known  and  underftdod :  SerM.  iv; 
but  that  laid  no  reftraint  on  thefe  evafive  v**^VrV 
difputants,  who  feem  to  have  a&ed  upon 
that  principle,  which  has  been  openly  a- 
vow'd  by  their  fucceffors  in  our  days,  that 
they  were  at  liberty  to  fubfcribe  any  arti- 
cle of  religion,  in  that  fenfe  wherein  they 
thought  it  reconcileable  to  Scripture,  how- 
ever different  from  the  known  and  avow'd 
fenfe  of  the  compilers.  A  maxim  of  the 
moft  pernicious  confequence,  as  being  real- 
ly deftructive  of  all  truth  and  common 
honeftyf !  Yet  there  was  one  word,  which 
might  plead  the  authority  of  ancient  ufe, 
that  feenV  d  hardly  capable  of  being  per- 
verted to  any  fenfe  confiftent  with  the  A- 
rian  hypothefis.  This  therefore  the  Nicene 
Fathers  thought  proper  to  infert  in  their 
explication  of  the  catholick  faith,  and  ac- 
cordingly declared  the  Son  to  be  ojuotlcrM 
r£  T&angX)  confubjlantial  with  the  Father*. 
And  there  was  the  greater  reafon  to  hope 
for  fuccefs  from  this  explication,  becaufe 
it  appeared  from  a  letter  of  Eufebius  of 
Nicomediay  produced  in  council,  that  he 
was  moft:  averfe  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  that  charafter,  as  no  way  reconcileable 
4:o  his  fchemeu. 


f  See  Dr.  Waterland'j  two  Treatifes  of  the  Cafe  of  Arian  Sub- 
scription. 

1  See  the  Nicene  Creed  in  the  Councils,  H'tftorimsy  8cc. 

;  Vid  Ambr.  de  fid.  I.  3.  c.  if.  (alias  7.)  col.  ?  18.  Ed.  Ben. 

N  z  The 


180         An  Htfiorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  The  meaning  of  that  word  has  been 
t-sy^  Co  clearly  proved w,  to  denote  the  Son's 
having  as  much  the  fame  nature  with 
the  Father  in  refpeft  of  his  Godhead, 
as  he  had  the  fame  nature  with  us  in  re- 
fpeft of  his  humanity,  that  I  need  not 
take  pains  to  prove  it  in  this  place. 
Not  that  they  meant  hereby  to  infinuate 
(as  fome  modern  writers'*  have  unfairly 
concluded)  that  thefe  two  Perfons  and  the 
Holy  Ghoft  are  no  otherwife  united  than 
as  three  men  are  in  the  fame  fpecies,  or 
three  friends  in  good willy  (which  had  been 
downright  Tritheifm ;)  but  that  they  had 
certainly  the  fame  nature  and  effential  at- 
tributes ;  which  was  the  grand  point  that 
the  Arians  denied,  and  the  Catholicks 
thought  themfelves  concernd  to  affert  a- 
gainft  them  by  the  term  Qjuonai^  And 
then  for  their  infeparable  unity  and  com- 
munion of  fubftancey  tho*  that  be  catholick 
do&rine  too,  and  an  eafy  confequence  of 
the  other,  when  it  is  firft  underftood  that 
there  is  but  one  God  $  yet  this  not  being 
the  point  that  was  formally  debated  in  the 
council,  where  both  fides  were  agreed  that 
the  fupreme  Godhead  is  but  one,    I  take 

w  See  Bp.  Bull  Def.  fid.  Nic.  fe£h  2.  cap.i. 
*  Curcelke.  Inftit.  relig.  Chrifh  1.  2.  c.  22.  §.  9.  &  in  Qua- 
tern.  difTertat.  diflf.  1.  §.70,  &c.    CudworthV  Intelle&ual  Syf- 
,  tern,  p.  60 ?,  &c.  Le  ClercV  Additions  to  Dr.  Hammond  tn  the 

Englilh  Tmnjlatbn,  p.  622.  ad  1  J  oh,  v.6\ 

that 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  \%i 

that  to  be  the  reafon  why  we  have  no  di-  serm.  iv. 
red  determination  upon  this  head.  \^c*j 

Of  ail  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
Bifhops  that  were  prefent,  there  were  but 
feventeen  who  did  not  readily  fubfcribe  to 
this  char  after  of  the  Son  of  Gody.  And 
even  among  them  the  greateft  part  were 
quickly  fatisfled2 :  in  which  number  we  may 
fuppofe  Eufebius  of  Cafarea  to  have  been 
one,  who  declared  himfelf  to  acquiefce  in 
the  explication  of  the  council,  and  wrote 
a  letter  to  his  diocefe  on  purpofe  to  ex- 
plain the  ground  of  his  proceedings,  where* 
in  he  acknowledges  that  word  to  be  fup- 
ported  by  the  authority  of  fome  eminent 
Bifhops,  and  other  writers  of  former  times  % 
But  ftill  Eufebms  of  Nicotnedia,  and  four- 
more  with  him,  flood  out  with  greater  ob- 
ftinacyb.  The  argument  upon  which  they 
feem  to  have  laid  greateft  ftrcfs,  was 
much  like  the  old  fallacy  of  Taul  of  Sa~ 
mofata c  ;  namely,  the  abfurdity  of  fuppo- 
fing  God  the  Father  and  the  Son,  to  ftand 
related  either  as  parents  and  their  children, 
or  as  the  root  and  its  branches,  or  as  two 
yefifels   made  of  the   fame  mafs  of  gold; 

1  •  * 

»  Ruffin.  H.  E.  I.  1.  alias  10.  c.j.  Sozom.  1. 1.  c.20. 

B  Ruffin.  &  Sozom.  ut  fupra. 

*  Theodor.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.  11.  Socrat.  1. 1.  c  8.  p.  z6» 

h  Socrat-  ut  fupra.  p.  23. 

I  See  the  foregoing  Sermon,  p.  146,  147? 

N  3  one 


1 8 1  An  Hiftorical  AccouNtof 

Serm.  iv.  one  of  which  they  thought  miift  needs  be 
WW  implied  in  the  notion  of  confubftantiality** 
But  this  capital  objection  the  council  re- 
moved, (as  we  learn  from  the  letter  of 
Ettfebius  abovementioned, )  by  declaring 
that  they  meant  not  by  this  to  fuggeft  any 
divijion  or  alteration  of  the  divine  ejjencey 
which  is  utterly  incapable  of  it,  but  only 
to  exempt  the  Son  from  being  like  the 
creatures  in  any  refpeft,  altogether  re- 
fembling,  as  to  his  nature  or  fubftance, 
the  Father  who  begat  him. 

Another  objection  urged  after  the  coun- 
cil, and  perhaps  in  it,  was,  that  this  word 
is  unfcripturaly  and  that  it  is  unreafonable 
ro  bind  men  to  fuch  forms  of  confeffion, 
as  are  exprefs'd  in  any  other  but  the  words 
of  Scripture e.  But  of  all  men  in  the 
world,  there  were  none  could  manage  this 
objection  with  a  worfc  grace  than  the  A- 
riansy  who  had  not  only  vifibly  eluded 
the  fenfe  of  Scripture,  by  perverting  its 
words  to  a  different  fignification,  but  had 
themfclves  introduced  a  multitude  of  terms 
not  ufed   ia  Scripture,  as  particularly  that 

'Exu   $  i^uTccv  ofAoycrtov   thai,    o  tx  rno$  'Z&v3  h  xcerk  y^t* 
pVfA^Vy    v  x.a,rx  piZtrw,    v>   xurcc   ff(>oQo\w'    xccrac  TT^oQo^v,  '  u$  £& 

fiTflgv  5,  coe,  fiute  yjvenhs  £uo  vi  rp«s'  xcer  &Mi>  ^  jiirav  i?iv  6 
bU?  &fy  tcvt?  »  <rvyx$Toc-ri6tG%  ry  ms{  tteyov.  Socrat.  H.  E. 
1.  i.  c.  8.  p.  23. 

'  Vid.  Athan^f  ad  African.  §.  6.  torn,  i,  par.  %.  pag.  8p5, 
Edit.  Ben, 

favourite 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 8  ? 

favourite  word  dyivyir(&,  unmade  or  unbe-  Serm.  iv. 
gotten* >  not  to  mention  others  which  V-/VV 
were  contrary  to  Scripture,  as  well  in  the 
fenfe  as  in  the  phrafes.  It  was  this  fort 
of  condud  that  forced  the  Catholicks  to 
the  ufe  of  fuch  terms  as  might  fecure  the 
fenfe  of  Scripture,  and  preferve  the  doc- 
trines of  our  holy  religion  in  their  genuine 
purity  h. 

Laftly,  it  was  likewife  obje&ed  by  the 
'Arians,  and  the  plea  at  firft  looks  plaufi- 
ble,  that  this  very  term  ojmoiai(^  had  been 
reje&ed  by  the  council  of  Antioch,  in  the 
foregoing  century  K  But  the  replies  to  this 
were  various :  In  the  firft  place,  it  is  cer- 
tain the  word  had  been  in  ufe  before  the 


f  Kctl  cujTo]  ^,  U7rip  uycc  ch'vccvreci,  eCTTOKpivs&aa-ccv  7nZ><;  tvoov  tJv 
uyouQov  tccJtIw  htfyv,  *  7roice.  fixvoioe.  rov  &s)>v  ocytvyrov  Xiyatrt. 
Ath.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic.  §.  28.  p.  234.  It  was  obferv'd  before 
(fee  p.  f  1 .)  that  the  words  cc'/mr©*  and  oiytmT<&j,  were  at  firft 
tifed  indifferently ,  to  fignify  uncreated  j  and  the  Ancients  had  no 
word  that  anfwer'd  to  the  fenfe  of  unbegotten.  But  at  length, 
in  oppofition  to  the  Sabellians,  who  afferted  genitum  ex  virgine 
Patrem,  the  Father  was  declared  to  be  ingenitus.  Vid.  Vigil. 
Tapfenf.  Dialog,  publifh'd  under  the  name  of  Vigil.  Trident. 
inter  opera  Caflandri.  p.  474.  Neither  of  the  terms  are  in  Scrip- 
ture, but  the  Arians  were  fond  of  both. 

8  Keel  6  yoyyvrfAoc,  uvmv  on  xypxtyoi  ii<rtt  tit  Ai|s<s,  i?ny%e- 
rut  xot.g  kvmv  ^ctrxi^t  «|  tLyye&Quv  icTi'vltrMTit,'  uypxtyx  ^ 
to,  *'|  &x  ovravj  j$  to,  w  7tvts  on  *k  w.  Athan.  ad  Afric.  ut 
fupra. 

*  See  the  firft  Sermon,  p.  16*— —10. 

1  'O*  TOV  SXfAiOQTXTSX    KUTXKeJ.VXtli^  tTnTKOTFOly   ygCC@0VT$$  ligV]KeCO~t 

fjb*  wcti  o[Aoov<rtov  rov  biov  t5  xcct&i.    Atban.  de  iyn,  Arim.  §t 
geleuc.  §.4/.  torn.  1.  par.  2.  p.  7/7. 


N  4  council 


x84         rAn  Hiflorkal Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  council  of  Antioch,  and  therefore  it  could 
i/VV  be  no  more  blameable  in  the  Nicene  Fa- 
thers to  admit  a  word  which  the  Antiochian 
Fathers  fet  afide,  than  it  was  in  thofe  An- 
tiochians  thcmfelves  to  difufe  a  word  which 
the  Fathers  before  them  had  allowed  k.  In 
the  next  place,  the  occafions  were  mani- 
feftly  different.  The  council  of  Antioch 
was  affembled  againft  Taul  of  Samofata, 
who  utterly  denying  any  nature  in  Chrift, 
wherein  he  perfonally  fubfifted  before  his 
conception  according  to  the  flefh,  it  was 
eafy  to  cenfure  and  guard  againft  his  he- 
refy,  without  ufing  a  word  which  he  was 
known  to  interpret  in  a  wicked  and  ab- 
furd  fenfe  :  whereas  the  council  of  Nice 
was  affembled  againft  Ariusy  who  tho'  he 
brought  down  the  Son  to  the  condition  of 
a  creature,  inferior,  for  that  reafon,  in  na- 
ture to  the  Father  $  yet  he  acknowledged 
his  perfonal  fubfiftence  before  the  world, 
and  his  fuperiority  in  nature  to  all  the 
things  that  were  created  by  him.  So  that 
there  was  need  of  fome  higher  expreffion 
in  this  cafe  than  the  other,  to  import  his 
equal  dignity  of  nature  with  the  Father 
and  Creator  of  all :  and  nothing  was  found 


To<$  o,  on  fjuti  7K  7&v  7rgo  kvrm  tyuhotfyiy ,    Ibid.  §,  4/.  p.  7_f  8. 


to 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  1 8  y 

to  anfwer  this  purpofe  fo  effectually  as  the  sErm.  iv; 
term  ijubotiff^1.  In  the  laft  place  'tis  ob-  v^or^ 
jFcrvablc,  that  though  fomc  of  the  favour- 
ers of  Arms  in  the  council,  would  have 
put  the  fame  abfurd  conftruction  upon  the 
wordm,  which  Tatifas  Samofatenus  had 
done  formerly,  yet  the  generality  of  them 
gave  it  up,  when  the  council  had  exprefly 
declared  againft  any  fuch  abfurd  and  im- 
pious defign  in  itn. 

Upon  the  whole  matter,  this  word  was 
inferted  in  the  creed  drawn  up  by  Hq/ius  °, 
as  the  fecureft  fence  againft  the  Art  an  pre- 
varications :    and  the   article  of  the  Son's 


1  'Et  Uf/tQoTepav  rm   truuo&uv  ot  7TUTipt$  Sia.ty'oyue,  ifjcvtif/tovsvireiv 

iijv  aioivotoiv  uvrm  spzvvav,    y^  ?rtt.)iTO)$  ivfyjcrcfyj  ccibtyoTiom  rav  crv- 
todhv  ttjv  6[//cvoixv,  'E*il*H  «£>  6  2,xyjs<rciTiv$  ityovi,  16*  %~vcct 

9rpo  ibccgjlu;  tvv  htov,    tutu   fisxst  ot   tots  trvjuOd'ovrn;  xctQiiXov  fSp 

f&VTVV,    J^   CtlOiTlKOV    ClX ityw SCV ,      7F£Dt    j   7JJ$    VlS    ,9"£(}T}JT©-    CC7:X^S^0V 
y*CC<P0V7£$t      £     KCLTiVLVCVTO 


tztihi  -j  (2  ot  mpl  ivo~t£tov  ^  '  Ap«oy,    Trgb  x^vav  [Sp  ihcit  rov  itov 

t\sy0V«m       iiw    ^    C*   3-£a     ■  ■   OSAA'    UC,    TU    X.TJ<rf/jXTO(mmmmm    T&TH     %C&- 

ftv  ot  ov  vtKcuct  arvu)i\QovTt$t  S-iagtia-tivTss  77]  v  Trctvxypiav  tuv  xtcj 
fyovxvruv,  f£  cwjccyxyovTSt;  clx  tuv  yyuQav  7*jv  otuvotocv,  Xivy^rt^ov 
ypc&Qcvrss  h^KCHTt  tt>  oytioxo-iov'  'tvtx,  >£  7v  yvviartov  kXvftac,  vx.  Tism 
yv&c&y  tS  vt£,  <c  fAtioiv  xoivo*  tjcyfrgos  t&tov  tu  yzvvmil.  y  y>  7^5 
Pit^iuq  rcwT'/)<;  os.Kg/.Qttct,  tt}V  ts  utfok^ktiv  cujtcjv,  ztzv  XiyaiTt  tv  cie 
ix  Six  piTvv,  oiihiy%ut  <£  7r?x<rct$  owtZv  7K5  TTtGuvoryTcit,  ov  m$ 
vtpufTTziQso-t  t»5  ctKi^cdx^  IxQciXXi"  7mvTX  yxv  o\>v  &[/%><&>  G"c<piQo% 
(c1  jt//sros;Fe<£v,  a-,  SiXwu-t,  rewriio  /jJvIm  t>)v  Xi%tv,  coc,  o'uXiy^ao'oiv 
ewTM  77iv  eufio-iv,  oioHcto-iv'  m  ot  7rccTtfS$,  vaxny  £7riTei%i(rfA/ci  astro, 
■■TntTTV,  ocvdooZs  ixtmus  ccurav  'lyfeetyotv.   Ath,  fyn.  §.  4j*.  p-75"p>7^Q« 

m  See  above,  p.  181,  182. 

n  Vid.  Socrat.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.8.  Theodorit.  1. 1.  c.  12. 

"2  Athanaf.  Hid,  Arianor.  ad  Mon.  §.4.2.  p.  369. 

t  Divinity 


i S 6  An  Hifiorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.  iv.  Divinity  being  thus  far  explain  d,  the 
WVV  council  thought  it  not  neceflary  to  enlarge 
much  upon  other  matters ;  but  tho*  they 
did  in  general  confefs  their  belief  in  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  being  num- 
bered together  in  the  fame  Divinity  p,  yet 
that  feems  rather  to  have  been  becaufe 
their  belief  in  the  Son  was  not  compleat 
without  \t%  than  for  the  fake  of  ftating 
fuch  particular  dodrines  as  were  not  then 
the  fubjeft  of  the  debates  before  themr. 
After  all,  they  concluded  with  a  particu- 
lar cenfure  of  the  moft  offenfive  blafphe- 
mies  of  Ariusi\  and  it  is  obfervable  that 
of  the  five  Bifhops  who  had  hitherto  coun- 
tenanced his  caufe,  there  were  only  two 
that  durft  (land  out  againft  fo  great  a  ma- 
jority, the  reft  fubfcribing  at  once  to  the 


p  To  j  nt<?iM[vp>  ovy,  cixXac,  u^rxi,  ecXXx  j)  m$u>  «S  fcv  BseVy 

<£*    £<5    ZVX   y.(JfilC]f   iWOVV    %pifGYuw  mm  ■    K,   ilC,     TO     'w/lOV   TTViVf/jUtwn      i       «£ 

fMcto  dbfyXoyixv,  x)  J*$  fAtixv  ivacriv  §zotyjt(&',  £  fjuixv  6[Aox(rioT7i- 
tx,  lie,  rp/sfi  tiXux,  fjuMv  3  S-£6Tt}Tct,  y,i'ccv  ouoixvy  fjutxv  abZoXoytxv , 
f/Astv  xvyiGT'tTct,  anv  rov  Kisivofjty  ?£  7ri?iuo{d/i  xxt  zrtf&uopy),  Epi- 
phan.  faer,  74.  §.  14.  prope  fin. 

*  See  Bp.  Bull  Jud.  EccJ.  Cath.  cap.  6.  §.  3. 

r  'O  i)  Xifl  TOV  7TySU[JtjCt,T(&>  Aoy©-  cv  7rxpxtyo[ji,y  xetrxt,  cva'i- 
fisie&q  ifypyunxs  xfywfalc,,  S^g.  to  ^r^iTtu  ToTt  tovto  xixmo%  to 
C^rrtf/jX,  Baf.  Epift.  78.  'Ov  yiyovz  ^  r°7i  ^sgi  reu  Trvtuf/jXT®" 
y  £f)T"/}ri<;,  >no\c,  y>  to  bxoTnTrlov  ov  xxiga  t£  xxigZ  x\  <ruvoo\i  t*>v 
xo-<pu/\tixv  ttoimvtxi.  Epiph.  hxT.  7 4.  p.  904.  De  Ario  tunc, 
non  de  Origene  queftio  fuit :  de  Fiiio,  non  de  Spiritu  SancTro. 
Confefli  flint  quod  negabatur  ?  tacuerunt  de  quo  nefno  quse- 
rebat.    D.  Hieron.  ad  Pammach.  8c  Ocean.  Epift.  41.  alias  6f. 

1  See  the  cwclftfim  of  the  Nicene  Creed  in  the  Councils  and 
li'ijlorians. 

confeflioq 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  187 

confeffion  of  faith,  and  the  anathema's  sErm.  iv. 
annexed  to  it*.  Indeed  their  condud  af-  v^or^-* 
terwardsv  gives  too  much  reafon  to  think 
they  did  not  fubferibe  upon  convi&ion,  or 
with  a  true  chriftian  fimplicity  of  heart, 
becaufe  they  continued,  fometimes  more 
openly,  and  at  other  times  in  fecret,  to 
promote  the  very  docirines  they  condemn- 
ed w,  infomuch  that  Thtlojl  or  gilts  himfelf 
has  chargd  them  with  fubferibing  fraudu- 
lentlyr,  and  for  fear  of  banifhment,  intend- 
ing no  more  than  a  like  fubftancc,  whilft 
they  fubferibed  to  the  fame  fubftancc x. 

The  remit  of  all  was  this,  that  the  ana- 
thema which  Alexander  had  denouncd 
upon  Arms  and  his  aflbciates,  was  con- 
firmed by  the  fentence  of  the  council,  and 
thofe  two  Bilhops  who  flood  by  him  to 
the  laft  were  concluded  in  the  fame  ccn- 
furey.  The  confeffion  which  had  now 
been  drawn  up,  was  every  where  received 
as  an  authentick  expofition  of  the  catho- 
lick  faith,  tho'  it  docs  not  appear  to  have 


*  Theodorit.  1.  i.  c.  7.    vid.  8c  Athanaf.  de  deer.  fyn.  Nic 
p.  210.  §.3. 
v  Ath.  de  deer.  iyn.  Nic.  §.  4.  p.  2 1 1. 
w  ---'xWaws  (c1  ovk  iiM^ivco^.  Theodor.  ibid.     tItz  fdp  Xz?.r,- 

ftath.  Antiochen.  apud  Theodorit.  1. 1.  c.  8. 

UgO$    TV\V    (TSJVO^CV    (/jlTZTCl£cCTO>     foXcp   fJt/^Vm        n  .    Xj     TO     CfjOOOOClOV 

cm  rvj  rov  ofitousavi  (pavy  v7rox.\z-\/civ7t<i,m        ■    'Evtrteity   uTtzycc/s^xq, 

tm  /Mi  t'iopH&YiS.    Philoftorg.  Epitom.  1.  1.  c.  9,  10. 
I  Socrat,  H.  E.  I.  1.  c.  8.  Tteod.  1,  j.  c.  8, 

been 


i8S         An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  been  either  defign'd  by  the  council,  of  any 
^sy*^  where  ftri&ly  ufed  as  the  baptifmal  creed. 
The  anathematifms  added  in  the  conclu- 
fion  of  it,  and  the  omiffion  of  thofe  arti- 
cles which  in  other  creeds  ufe  to  follow 
the  confeilion  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  are  a 
fufficient  proof  that  it  could  not  be  de- 
figned  for  the  recital  of  catechumens  at 
their  baptifm  z.  And  accordingly  it  is  fuf- 
ficiently  evident,  that  the  Weftem  creeds 
(as  thofe  of  Rome  and  Aquileia,  mention  d 
by  Ruffinus a,  and  the  Jerufalem  creed  ex- 
plained by  St.  Cyril"0  to  his  catechumens) 
were  continued  in  the  adniiniftration  of 
that  facrament.  But  yet  we  are  not  with- 
out reafon  to  believe,  that  as  Arianifm 
prevail'd  moil  in  the  Eaft,  fo  thofe  Eaftern 
Churches  which  remain  d  uncorrupt,  did 
by  degrees  infert  the  Nicene  explications, 
and  particularly  the  term  &fltti&rtov7  into 
their  creeds  refpe&ively  5  from  whence  (as 
I  may  have  farther  occafion  to  take  notice 
hereafter)  the  Nicene  creed  is  referr'd  by 
the  Conflantinopolitan  Fathers,  and  by  o- 
thers  after  them,  as  accommodated  to  the 
ufe  of  baptifm. 

As   new  herefies  broke  out,   there  was 
the    like    neeeifity    of     guarding    againft 


T  Vid.  Bull.  Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  cap.  6.  §.  2,  3. 
a  Ruffin.  in  praefat.  ad  expof.  Symb.  inter  opera  D.  Cy- 
prian. Oxon. 

b  Vid.  Cyril.  Hierof.  Catech.  6,  &c. 

them  5 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  189 

them  5    and  therefore  it  is  obfervable,  that  Serm.  iv. 
in    the  form    produced    by  Epiphaniusc,  ^^^V 
near  fifty  years  after  the  council  of  Nice,     373* 
it  was  not  only  added  to  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  Son  s  incarnation,  that  he  was 
incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghoft  of  the  Virgin   • 
Mary,    in  oppofition  to  the  Apollinarian 
herefy,    which  denied  Chrift's  flefh  to   be 
confubftantial  with  ours,    or   taken  from 
the  fubftance  of  the  bleffed  Virgin  :    but 
likewife  the  article  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  (in 
oppofition  to  the  Tneumatomachi)  was  far- 
ther explained  by  declaring  him  to  be  the 
Lord  and  giver  of  life,    who  proceedeth 
from  the  Father,    and  who  with  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  together  is  worshiped  and 
glorified.     Which  were  fuch  material   ex- 
plications,  that  the  council  of  Conftanti- 
nople  thought  fit  to  retain  'em   in  their     381." 
creed,  which  is  in  a  manner  the  fame  with 
this  of  Epiphanius. 

But  to  return  to  Nice,  the  fentence  of 
the  council  pronounc  d  againft  Arius  and 
his  afibciates,  was  followed  by  another  of 
the  Emperor,  whereby  the  excommunicate 
perfons  were  condemned  to  banifhmentd, 
that  they  might  be  debarred  the  fociety  of 
their  countrymen,   whom  the  Church  had 


c  Epiphan.  in  Ancorat.  §.  120. 

t  Socrat.  H.  E.  1. 1*  c.  8.  p.  23.  Ruffin,  L  10.  c./. 


judg'd 


i  po  An  Hiftorical  Account^/ 

Serm.  iv.  judg'd  unworthy  to  remain  in  her  com- 
v^V\>  niunion.  Soon  after  which,  Eufebius  of 
Nicomedia,  and  Theognis  of  Nice,  being 
found  to  continue  their  countenance  and 
protection  to  the  Arian  caufe,  to  commu- 
nicate with  thofe  whom  they  had  anathe- 
matized, and  concur  in  thofe  wicked  fen- 
time  nts  which  they  had  condemn  d  by  their 
fubfcriptions  5  they  were  both  fubje&ed  to 
the  fame  penalty  of  exile  by  the  Emperor c, 
they  were  actually  depofed  (as  we  learn 
from  Athanafitis£)  and  had  fucceifors  or- 
dain d  to  their  Sees  5  tho'  hiftory  is  filent 
as  to  the  council  by  which  this  was  done. 

But  fuch  was  the  good  nature  and  cre- 
dulity of  Conftantine,  that  thefe  men  by 
their  ufual  artifices,  eafily  impofed  upon 
him,  and  brought  him  to  fuch  a  full  per- 
fuafion  of  their  agreement  with  the  Ni- 
328.  cene  faith,  that  in  about  three  years  times 
they  were  not  only  recall'd  from  banifh- 
ment,  but  reftored  to  their  Sees,  which 
had  been  fill'd  with  other  Bifhops  in  their 
abfence,  and  to  a  confiderable  degree  of 
intereft  at  court h.  Their  thorough  attach- 
ment to  the  caufe  of  Arms,  and  their  ha- 


e  Theodorit.  H-  E.  1.  i.  c.  19,  20.   Philoftorg.   Epit.  1.  1, 

CIO. 

f  Ath.  Apol.  contra  Arian.  §.7.  p.  129. 

g  Phiioftorg.  1.  2.  c.7. 

J  Socrat.  1. 1.  c.  14,  23.   Theod.  1.  1.  c.  20.  in  finel 

i  tredt 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  i  p  i 

tred  of  Athanajius  y  who  had  fo  vigoroufly  sErm.  iv: 
withftood  them  in  the  council,    and  was  ^V 
now  advanced  to  the  See  of  Alexandria £, 
made  them  watchful  of  every  opportunity 
to   carry  on  their  old  defigns,   and  defeat 
the  decifions  of  the  council k. 

In  the  mean  time  one  who  wifh'd  well 
to  their  defigns,  and  whom  Conftantia  had 
upon  her  death- bed  recommended  to  the 
Emperor  \  did  fo  far  prevail  upon  the  eafy 
credulity  of  ConJiantiney  by  complaining 
that  Arius  had  been  mifreprefented,  and 
differed  nothing  in  his  fentiments  from  the 
Nicene  Fathers111,  that  the  indulgent  Em- 
peror recalled  him  from  his  banifhment,  liol 
and  required  him  to  exhibit  in  writing  a 
confeffion  of  his  faith  n.  He  did  it  in  fuch 
terms,  as  tho'  they  admitted  of  a  latent 
refervation,  yet  bore  the  appearance  of  be- 
ing entirely  catholick0,  and  therefore  not 
only  gave  fatisfa&ion  to  the  Emperor,  but 
even  offended  fome  of  his  own  followers, 
who  from  that  time  forth  feparated  from 
him  p.     The  difcerning  Athanajius  was  not 


1  Socrat.  1.  i.  c.  iy.  Theod.  I.  i.  c.  20. 

k  Socrat.  1.  1.  c.  23. 

1  Ruffin.  H.  E.  1. 10.  c.  xx.  Socrat.  I.  1.  c.  2y.  Sozom." 
I.  2.  c.  27. 

m  Ibid. 

n  Socrat.  8c  Sozom.  ibid. 

0  We  have  the  form  both  in  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  as  above 
cited. 

*  Ruffin.  H.  E.  1.  10.  c.  2j% 

fo 


m        An  Hifiorkal Account^/ 

serm.  iv.  fo  eafdy  inipofed  upon  as  Conftantine,  but 
^^T^  being  well  affined  of  the  heretick's  preva- 
rication, was  refolute  in  refilling  to  admit 
him  to  communion,    whom    the  Nicene 
330.    council  had  £0  openly  condemned  % 

This  therefore  was  the  time  for  the  fa- 
vourers of  Arms  to  ufe  their  intereft  at 
court,  and  their  fophiftry  in  councils,  to 
rcprefent  the  moft  zealous  of  the  Catho- 
licks  as  downright  Sabellians,  and  relapi- 
ing  into  that  herefy  of  which  their  fore- 
fathers had  exprefs'd  the  utmoft  abhor- 
rence1. And  unfortunately  it  happen  d, 
that  the  manner  in  which  fome  Catholicks 
oppofed  the  prefent  herefy,  gave  but  too 
plaufible  a  handle  for  fuch  calumnies.  It 
is  obfcrvable  that  the  council  of  Nice  had 
made  no  exprefs  determination  concerning 
the  word  Ciro^&aigy  whether  in  the  Godhead 
there  be  one  only,  or  elfe  three  hypoftafes. 
And  as  that  word  is  differently  under- 
fiood,  either  in  the  abftracl  to  denote  the 
divine  fubftance  it  felf,  or  in  the  concrete 
to  denote  Jubftance  with  its  propriety,  or 
as  it  is  per  finalized?  both  affertions  may 
be  true.  In  the  latter  fenfe  it  had  been 
taken  by  fome  Fathers  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, who  aflcrted  three  hypoftafes  in. op- 
position to  Noetus  and  Sabellius  f ;   and  fo 

1  Socrat.   H.  E.  I.  i.    c  27.  r  C.  25. 

f  See  the  foregoing  Sermon,  p.  120,  137. 

it 


the  Trinitarian  Coniroverjy*  i jpj 

it  continued  to  be  taken  in  the  fourth  Serm.  Hk 
century,  by  many a  who  were  far  enough  ^VN£ 
from  admitting  either  the  Tritheijlick  no- 
tion of  three  co-ordinate  principles,  or  the 
Arian  device  of  three  hypoftafesy  not  on- 
ly divided  from  each  other,  but  different 
in  kind.  Yet  fince  it  had  in  this  man- 
ner  been  abufed,  to  make  them  entirely 
diflind  and  feparate  beings,  there  were 
fome  Catholicks  thought  better  to  take  it 
in  the  other  acceptation,  and  affert,  that 
in  the  Godhead  there  is  but  oYizhypoftdJish, 
And  to  carry  the  matter  againft  Arianifm 
as  high  as  poilible,  they  interpreted  the 
word  5/u,oiai@» c  in  fuch  a  fenfe  as  feemed 
fo  ftrip  it  of  all  guard  againft  Sabellianifm^ 
whereas  that  word  was  plainly  levelled  a- 


•  Vid.  Athanaf.  ad  Antiochen.  §.  fi.  p.  775.  item  Eafil 
Epift.  391.  p.  1 171. 

k  ' Yttotccitiv  fSjj  xiyofipy  YLyov(u/m  txvtov  thai,  linti*  vTmsxa'ty 
Xj  iveixv  tyg.  tv  ix.  tvis  ovtrixq  too  xxTgos  sTvxt  tov  bicv,^G  ,2^jp. 
thv  rxvrornrx  rv$  Qutrw?  plxv  $  3Wtjj7#,  x}  (Aixv  tWxi.  rvp 
rewrvic,  cpvo-iv  7rirtuo[jijiv.  Orthodoxi  quidatn  apud  Athanaf.  Epift, 
fynod.  ad  Antiochen.  §.  6. 

c  'Tis  certain  the  Arians  who  had  formerly  objeBed  againft  the 
word  cfjuov<rt<&'  as  dividing  the  Godhead,  came  at  length  t»  objeffl 
ftgainft  it  on  the  other  hand,  as  destroying  the  perfonality.  Fruftra 
dutem  verbum  iftud  propter  Sabellianos  declinare  fi  dicunt, 
Xml>rof.  de  fide  1. 3. c.  15*.  (alias  7.)  col. ^19.  torn. 2.  Ed.B&v 
This  -was  probably  owing  to  fome  Catholicks  (training  it  beyond  or  bi~ 
fides  its  original  defign.  With  which  St.  Bafil  charges  Marcellus9 
(Epift.  78.)  "Okx  ys  kxi  M#p*jAA©-  grcA^im  kr£Xii  £;$  rip 
b'zrvs'xcriy  tov  xu^lx  ypuv  iWou  Zfirw,  *#*  i^Acv  ewrct  Ityr/ovpi*®* 

Xoyav,    Uiihv   [nempe  ex  fymbolo  Nicasno]  vfo(pxcri<rxa%  ras 
&i%*'*  SiMfiv'xi'  tov  ofJcoa^a  r»v  hxvoixv  kxkZ$  ifyry9tjp2!i&'a 

O  gainft 


Ip4         &1  Hiflorical  Account^/ 

Serm.  iv.  gainft  both  extremes d.  This  gave  the  fub- 
V^iOw>  tie  adverfaries  of  the  truth  the  handle  for 
that  charge  of  Sabellianifm :  and  I  make 
no  queftion  it  prevailed  with  fome  of  or- 
thodox principles  to  join  with  them,  for 
fear  of  fallirig  into  the  oppofite  impiety. 
And  thus,  it  feems,  that  many  who  agreed 
in  their  fentiments  of  things,  came  to  dif- 
pute  about  words;  which  the  hiftoriane 
aptly  compares  to  mens  fighting  in  the 
darky  uncertain  where  their  blows  will 
light,  whether  upon  friends  or  enemies. 
The  Latins,  who  had  no  other  way  of 
rendring  the  word  viroguai^  but  as  they 
did  the  word  &m,  namely,  by  the  word 
fubftantia*,  thought  it  neceffary  to  join 
with  thofe  who  allowed  but  one  hypoftafis, 
left  they  Ihould  feem  to  admit  of  three 
fubjiances,  contrary  to  the  (landing  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.  But  when  At h ana- 
Jms,  by  his  travels  into  the  Wefty  as  well 
as  by  his  conversation  with  the  Catholicks 
of  both  fides  in  the  Eaft,  was  fully  fatif- 
fied  that  this  was  merely  a  difpute  about 
words,  and  that  both  fides  did  really  ac- 
knowledge the  fame  diftin&ion  in  the  God-, 

d  Re&e  ergo  o^icm  Patri  Filium  dicimus,  quia  verbo  eo 
&  perfonarum  diftin£io  &  nature  unitas  fignificatur.  D.  Am- 
brof.  ut  fupra.     See  alfo  above,  p.  132. 

•  Socrat.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c.2j. 

fGreg.  Naz.Orat.  21.  p.  30/.  vid.  &  Suiccr.  in  vocibus 

head, 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i  p  y 

head,  he  fo  fuccefsfully  explain'd  the  mat-  Serm.  iv; 
ter  in  a  council  held  at  Alexandria  s,  that  V~^*V 
from  henceforward  the  Churches  of  the     3<52# 
£afih  and  the   Weft'\    in  their  fy nodical 
epiftles    to   each  other,    condefcended  to 
make  ufe of  either  ftile,  and  explaind  three 
perfons  by  three  hypoftafes,   as  terms  fyno- 
nymous.     Yet  after  all  the  Latins  adhered 
to  the  word   perfon    among   themfelves, 
and  tho'  moft  of  them k  allowed  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greeks  to  be  orthodox,   yet  St. 
Jerom,    a  good   while   afterward,    {peaks 
not  without   fome  warmth  to   Pope  ©#- 
mafus  of  this  application  of  the  word  hy- 
pofiajis1:    having  taken   his  notions  (as  it 
feems)  from  Antiochy  where  he  heard  and 
was  ordain  d    by  cPaulinusm,    and  where 
there   fubfifted    a  party   for    a  long  time 
which  could  not  perfectly  reconcile  them- 
felves  to  that  way  of  expreflion,  tho'  they 
did  at  firft  fubmit  to  the  explication  of 


f  Athanaf.  ut  fupr.  §.  j-,  6.  h  Theod.  I.  4.  c.  8. 

*  Lib.  f.  cap.  9. 

k  Vid.  Hilar,  de  fynod.  col.  11 70,  1172.  Edit.  Bened.  item 
D.  Auguft.  de  Trin.  1. 7.  c.  4.  §.  7, 8. 

1  Tota  faecularium  literarum  fchoia  nihil  aliud  hypofrafin, 
nifi  ufiam  norit.  Et  quifquam,  rogo,  ore  facrilego  tres  fub- 
Jftantias  praedicabit?  Hieron.  Epift.  14.  ad  Dam.  Ed.  Bened. 
torn.  4.  par.  2.  col.  20.  alias  Epift.  pj.  Ita  &  Fauftinus  in 
fide  Imperatori  Theodofio  mijfd  A.  D.  384.  Miramur  autem 
catholicos  illos  probari  poffe,  qui  Patris  &  Filii  &  Spiritus 
Sancli  tres  fubftantias  confitentur. 

-  Vid.  D.  Cave  Hid.  lit.  ad  an.  578, 

O  2  the 


196  An  Hijlorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.  iv.  the  Alexandrian  council  held  by  Athana- 

The  ArianSy  as  was  faid,  and  the  Eufe- 
biansy  could  not  fail  to  make  their  ad- 
vantage of  fuch  divifions :  and  the  firft 
who  felt  their  rage  was  the  great  Eufta- 
thius  of  Antioch.  He  lay  under  the  im- 
putation, which  we  have  mention  d,  of  Sa- 
bellianifm0 .  But  the  Arians  not  being  yet 
willing  to  try  their  ftrength  upon  this  caufe, 
loaded  him  with  other  crimes  of  an  immo- 
ral nature,  which  tho'  not  made  out  by  any 
competent  proof,  and  after  all  notorioufly 
confuted,  yet  anfwer'd  the  end  which  they 
propos'd,  and  ferv'd  for  a  pretence  to  de- 
330,  prive  him  of  his  biftioprick,  by  a  council 
which  was  called  at  Anttoch  p.  There  was 
a  quick  fucceffion  of  feven  Avian  Bifhops 
in  that  Church  <i:  and  tho'  a  party  of  the 
Catholicks  adhered  to  their  true  Bifhop  Eu- 
jiathiusy  who  continued  (as  far  as  he  had 
opportunity)  to  exercife  his  office  with  zeal 
and  refolution,  even  when  driven  into  ba- 


■  Athanaf.  ut  fupr.  p.  777.  Epiphan.  fcer.  77.  %.  21. 

•  Socrat.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c.  23,  24. 

f  Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  19.    Theod.  I.  1.  c.  21. 

q  Firji  Paulinus  of  Tyre,  and  then  Eulalius.  Philoftorg.  I.  $. 
c.  15-.  after  him  Euphronius,  and  next  Placentius  or  Flaccillas, 
Theod.  I.  1.  c.  22.  Then  Stephen  whom  the  Arians  Jepofed  for 
his  enormities,  and  then  Leontius.  Athanaf.  Hiftor.  Arfanor. 
ad  Monachos  §.  4.  p.  347.  Theod.  1.  2.  c,  p,  10.  And  UJlly, 
Kudoxius,  Soerat.  1. 2.  c.27. 

nilhment : 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  ip/ 

nifhment r :  yet  the  greater  part  of  them  serm.  iv. 
were  mixed  by  the  Ariansy  influenced,  v^>Ts^ 
it  is  probable,  with  the  fpecious  cry  of  Sa- 
belltanifmy  with  which  it  was  ufual  at  that 
time  to  blacken  the  Euftathian  party,  up- 
on account  of  their  afferting  one  hypoftafisy 
whilft  they,  in  return,  were  not  wanting 
to  accufe  thofe  who  fpake  of  three  hypo- 
ftafes  as  declining  into  Arianifm^y  for 
which  they  feem'd  to  have  the  fairejr  han- 
dle, when  they  faw  them  joining  their  de- 
votions with  profefs'd  Arians1.  For  in  the 
time  of  LeontiiiSy  which  was  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  altho'  the 
Clergy  of  Antioch  were  very  much  cor- 
rupted by  the  influence  of  Avian  Bifhops, 
yet  the  majority  of  the  people  ftill  conti- 
nued orthodox11:  and  however  the  difpute  348. 
about  "Doxologies  w,  and  the  ordination  of 

AetiuSy 


*  Vid.  Chryfoft.  torn.  i.  orat. «i.  in  Euftath.  Antiochen. 

xct.  Afsic&vicrfjyq  Tcti$  rgir.v  ozorctana-i  roc,  ty&  y>iAovnKHt$  meutXcur*. 
peel*.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  21.  p.  296. 

c  Theod.  1.  2.  c.  31.  Philoftorgius  reprefents  them  as  com- 
municating with  the  Arians  in  prayers,  hymns  and  confutations, 
and  almofi  every  thing  but  the  Eucharift.  Philofi.  I,  3.  C.  14. 

u  Theodor.  La.  c.  24. 

w  Philoftorgius  (l.j.  c.  13.)  pretends  that  Flavianus  did  now 
firft  introduce  that  form  of  Doxology,  which  afcribes  equal  glory 
directly  to  the  three  perfons.  But  the  truth  is,  both  forms  had  an- 
tiquity  to  plead.  The  Arians  liked  one  befl,  and  the  Orthodox 
the  other,  and  ufed  them  accordingly  in  publick.  Soz.  1.  3.  C.  20. 
Leontius  was  too  timorous  to  decide  the  matter,  and  therefor* 
mumbling  over  the  Doxology  to  himfdf  pronounced  only  (he  lafl 

O  3  words 


198  An  Hiflorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.  iv.  Aetius,  had  like  to  have  provoked  Flavian 
V-OO^  and  cDiodorus  to  leave  Leontius's  commu- 
nion, yet  it  feems  they  did  not  a&ually 
feparate,  but  continued  in  fubjedion  to 
the  Arian  Bifhopx.  Thus  was  there  a 
grievous  fchifm  between  the  Euftathians 
and  the  other  Catholicks:  and  tho'  after 
the  death  of  Euftathius,  and  tranflation  of 
Eudoxius  to  Conjiantinopky  Meletius  a 
360.  cathoiick  Bifhop  was  appointed  to  fucceed 
at  Antioch,  by  a  council  holden  in  that 
city,  which  confifted  chiefly  of  Arians,  yet 
he,  after  a  month's  continuance,  was  fo 
little  acceptable  to  thofe  who  had  pro- 
moted him,  that  they  got  him  banifh'd  by 
ConJlantiuSy  and  the  Arian  Euzoius  was 
thruft  into  his  roomy. 

From  this  time  therefore  the  Antiochians 
were  fplit  into  three  feparate  communions. 
Thofe  Catholicks  who  before  had  fubmitted 
to  the  Avians ,  did  now  refufe  to  join  them, 
and  adhered  to  Meletius7-.  And  yet  fuch 
was  the  jealoufy  between  them  and  the  Eu- 
ftathians, that  one  fide  afperfing  the  other 
as  SabellianSy   and  they  in  return  looking 


words  [for  ever  and  ever]  in  the  hearing  of  the  people.  See 
Theodorit  as  above,  and  the  Second  Review  of  Mr.  Wh'tfon's 
Account  of  Doxojogies,   p.  8y,  fire. 

x  Vid.  Theodor.  I.  2.  c.  24,  31. 

y  Philoftorg.  If.  c.f.  Theod.  J.  2.  c.  31. 

*  Theodor.  ibid. 


g  upon 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy,  ip^ 

upon  them  as  favourers  of  Arianifm  a,  (not  Serm.  iv. 
merely  for  their  do&rine  of  three  hypo-  VxY\4 
Jlafes,    but  becaufe  Meletius  himfelf  had 
been  ordain  d,    and  the  generality  of  his 
adherents  baptifed  by  Arians  b)  there  could 
be  no  effectual  method  of  accommodation 
found  between  them,    neither  during  the 
three  banifhments,  nor  at  the  different  re- 
florations  of  Meletius,   nor  indeed  of  a 
good  while  after  his  death:    but  the  Eu- 
JtathianSy   who  had  procured  the  ordina- 
tion of  Taulinus  by  Lucifer  of  Cagliari,     l6z\ 
continued  to  have  a  Bilhop  of  their  own, 
and  a  diftind  communion,   till  the  fuccef- 
fion  of  Alexander  to  the  See  of  Antiochy 
after  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century0.     417; 
Not  to  mention  now  that  the  Apollina- 
rians  likewife  had  for  fome  time  a  Bifhop 
in  this  city,   and  a  different  communion 
from  all. 

I  was  willing  to  ftate  this  affair  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch  all  at  once,  that  it 
might  give  no  interruption  in  the  fequel 


a  Vid.  Theod.  ibid.  5c  l.j.  c.f.  &  If.  c.  3,  24.  Yet  the 

Arians  themfelves  charged  Meletius  with  being  a  Sabellian. 
Theod.  ].  z.  c.  3  1.  As  Paulinus  was  now  ordain'd  Bifhop  of  the 
Euftathians  in  oppofition  to  Meletius,  fo  was  Evagrius  afterwards 
in  oppofition  to  Flavian.  And  this  occajion'd  for  feme  time  an  un- 
happy mifunderjlanding  between  the  Eaftern  and  the  Weftera 
Churches.  Theod.  \.j.  c.  2  3 . 

b  Socr.  1.2.  c.44.  If.  c.y.   Soz. 1.7.  c.  3. 

I  Theodor.  1.  3.  c.  j.   1.  /.  c.  35*.  \ 


O  4  of 


20®  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Ssrm.  iv.  of  this  difcourfe.     But  to  return  to  Ariust 
tyf&si  he  being  reje&ed,  as  was  faid,  by  Athana- 
*j3#  jiuSy   began  to  jraife  difturbances  at  Alex- 
andria \   the  blame  of  which  was  eafily 
thrown  upon  the  Patriarch  by  Eufebius  of 
Nicomedia  and  his  partifans,   whofe  inte- 
reft  at  court  was  very  confiderable.     Many 
calumnies  were  raifed  to  blacken  the  Pa- 
triarch's  reputation,    which    however  ab- 
furdly  l^id,  or  ill  fupported,    had  fuch  ef- 
fect with  the  credulous  (though  catholick) 
Emperor,    that    after    a  council   meeting 
without  efFed  at  Cafarea  of  Talejline*, 
he  appointed  the  council,   which  was  cal- 
led for  the  dedication  of  the  Church  of 
JemfaleWy  to  meet  firft  at  Tyre,  md  con- 
sider the  caufe  of  Athanafius f.     Where, 
although  the  Patriarch  did  fufficiently  con- 
front their  evidence,  and  difprove  their  al- 
legations,  yet  the  favourers  of  Arms  had 
intereft  enough  to  procure  his  deprivation 
at  that  times,  and  foon  afterwards  his  ba- 
niihmenth,  by  pretending  to  the  Emperor 
a  new  crime  of  hindring  the  exportation 
pf  corn  from  Alexandria*. 


*  Socrat.  H.  E.  I.  i;  c.  27.  c  Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  %f, 

f  Socrat,  1.  1.  c.  28.  Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  2/.   Theodor,  1.  1, 

c.  30.        '  :  ,  ■ 

*  Vid.  Theod.  ibid.  Socrat  I.  x.  c.  32. 

*  Theod.   J.  1,  c.  51. 

J  Socr.  1. 1.  c„  if.  Theod.  1. 1,  c.  3  i„ 


I?f 


When 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  201 

When  the  firft  of  thefe  points  was  sErm.  iv. 
gained,  there  could  be  no  great  difficulty  V-^v^N^ 
in  reftoring  Arius  to  communipn.  But 
being  now  obliged  to  adjourn  to  Jerufa- 
lemy  for  the  dedication  of  the  Church 
which  Conftantine  had  built k,  the  bufinefs 
of  Arius  was  referved  till  then,  and  car- 
ried ( as  it  feems )  without  much  oppofi- 
tion1.  The  Catholicks  who  were  prefent, 
might  be  probably  intimidated  by  the  cre- 
dit which  the  friends  of  Arius  had  gained 
with  the  Emperor  by  their  grofs  equivoca- 
tions. Or  fome  of  them,  perhaps,  might 
be  impofed  upon  in  the  fame  manner  as 
the  Emp.eror  himfelf.  Yet  fome,  we  are 
informed,  withdrew™  from  their  afiembiy, 
and  Afarcel/us  in  particular,  the  Bilhop  of 
Ancyra,  was  fo  offended  with  their  proceed- 
ings both  at  Tyre  and  Jerufalemy  that  he 
refufed  to  communicate  any  longer  with 
the  abettors  of  fuch  wickednefs,  or  even 
to  join  with  'em  in  their  prefent  dedica- 
tion". This  could  not  fail  provoking 
them  to  work  his  downfal :  they  represent- 
ed it  as  a  contempt  of  the  Emperor's  au- 
thority 5  and  remenibring  that  he  had  lately 


k  Socrat,  ].  1.  c.  33.    Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  26.   Theod.  1.  r, 
c  .31. 

Socrat.  ibid.  Sozom.  1.  2,  c.  27. 

^  m  As  Paphumius  Btflmp  in  Thebais,  and  Maxiraus  of  jeru- 
falem.   Sozom.  hz.  ctf. 

"  &?>  3  3- 

written, 


202  An  Hijlorkal Account*?/ 

Serm.  iv.  written  a  piece  againft  the  Arians,  in 
tw"W  which  he  made  ufe  of  fome  expreffions 
perhaps  not  duly  guarded  againft  other  he- 
refies,  they  made  this  the  foundation  of  a 
charge  againft  him,  as  a  reviver  of  the 
'Paulian  or  Samofatenian  herefy0.  This 
wras  thought  ground  enough  to  get  him 
depofed  and  excommunicated  by  the  next 
council  at  ConJiantinopley  where  Bajil  of 
Ancyra  was  appointed  to  fucceed  himP$ 
and  tho'  after  the  death  of  Confiantine  he 
returned  to  his  See,  yet  the  favourers  of 
Arianifm  quickly  expeird  him  again,  and 
forced  him  to  fly  for  refuge  to  the  Wejiern 
Churches. 

Eufebius  of  Cafarea,  in  his  books  writ- 
ten profeffedly  againft  him,  treats  him  as 
a  Sabellianx  And  he  had  the  misfortune 
to  be  fo  efteem'd  by  many  of  the  moft 
orthodox  among  the  Greek  Fathers,  and 
fome  among  the  Latins,  as  well  as  by 
the  generality  of  the  learned  in  thefe  latter 
agesr.  But  I  have  often  wonder'd,  they 
fhould  fo  eafily  give  credit  to  this  accu- 


•  Sozom.  ibid.  Socrat.  1. 1.  c.  ?6*. 

p  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  42.  Sozom.  ut  lupr.' 

1  Eufebii  contra  Marcellum  libri  duo;  fpeciatim  lib.  zl 
cap.  2.  item  de  Ecclefiaftica  Theologia  contra  eundqm  libri 
tres,  fpeciatim  lib.  1.  cap.  1,  f,  14,  1^,  16,  17.  lib.  2. 
cap.  i,  4,  f,  11,  ij-,  24.    &  lib.  3.  cap.  4. 

'  See  the  fentiments  of  all  ftated  by  Tillemont,  torn.  7.  in 
Marcel  d1  Ancyre, 

fation 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  203 

fation  of  the  Arian  fa&ion,  with  whom  Serm.  iv; 
nothing  could  be  more  familiar  than  to  ^W 
faften  this  flander  on  the  Catholicks.  Tis 
certain  his  cafe  was  more  favourably  judged 
of  at  that  time,  as  well  by  fome  in  the 
Eaft f,  as  generally  in  the  Weft,  where  af- 
ter a  diftind  examination  of  the  pafiages 
excepted  againft  in  his  book  againft  the 
Arian  Afterius,  and  a  view  of  that  con- 
feilion  of  faith  he  had  prefented  to  Pope 
J  alius \  he  was  honourably  acquitted  by 
the  councils  of  Rome v  and  Sardica w,  and 
was  thereupon  reftored  to  the  poffeflion 
of  his  Biihoprickx.  Even  Hilary  himfelf, 
tho'  he  charges  him  with  herefy,  yet  he 
thinks  that  charge  could  never  be  main- 
tain d  from  any  thing  which  he  has  faid  in 
his  book  againft  Afterius,  but  from  fome- 
thing  elfe  which  had  pafs'd  in  his  difcour- 
fes  after  the  time  of  his  acquittal  by  thole 
councils  y.     It  muft  be  own'd,  that  as  Mar- 


jCj  a;;  cofjijoMyyfjijivcc  2^g£i*}tyo%  kxI  ocvtu  too  fixtrite?  zrecpix,  t£v 
ctfjucpl  tov  ivctZiov.  Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  33. 

1  Vid.  Epiphan.  haer.  72.  §.  1,  2. 

u  Vid.  Julii  epift.  fynod.  apud  Athanaf.  in  Apolog.  contra 
Arianos  §.  32.  p.  15-0.  Ed.  Ben.  item  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Mo- 
nach,  §.  6.  Hilar,  frag.  2.  §.6. 

w  Vid.  Epift.  Synod.  Concil.  Sardic.  apud  Athan.  in  Apol. 
contra  Arianos  §.47.  p.  i6j\ 

x  Sozom.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c.  32.  vid.  &  Athanaf.  6c  Hilar,  ut 
fupra. 

y  Hilar,  frag.  2.  §.21,  col.  1209.  Ed.  Ben. 


cellus 


204         An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

sirm.  iv.  cellus  had  join'd  with  that  party  of  Ca- 
^OT^  tholicks  which  admitted  but  one  hypo- 
Jlafisz,  and  had  perhaps  been  too  loofe 
and  unguarded  in  his  expreflions  upon  that 
fubje&,  this  naturally  raifed  the  jealoufy  of 
the  other  party,  which  was  improved  to 
fuch  heights  by  St.  Baftlzy  and  other  great 
men  of  that  time,  that  even  Athanafius 
himfelf,  who  had  maintained  a  long  and 
intimate  friendfhip  with  him,  was  drawn 
into  fome  doubt  of  his  orthodoxy b,  and 
almoft  perfuaded  to  renounce  his  commu- 
nion0, when  Mar  cellus  y  not  long  before 
his  death,  averted  the  ftorm,  by  fending 
him  a  clear  confcffion  of  his  faith,  entire- 
ly agreeable  to  the  fentiments  of  the  Eu- 
ftathian  Catholicksd. 

But  to  return  to  the  hiftory  of  Arms : 
whilft  his  oppofers  were  thus  run  down, 
as  has  been  faid,  his  ends  were  yet  far 
from  being  fatisfied.     After  the  decifion  of 


*  Vid.  Montfauc.  in  diflert.  de  Marcello  praefixa  tomo  fe^ 
cundo  novae  collect.  Patrum  Gra?corum.  Item  Montacutii 
annot.  in  Eufeb.  adverf.  Marcel,  p.  6",  7.  Ed  it7  Paris  1628. 

a  Vid.  Bafil.  Epift.  yi,  74,  8c  203. 

b  Epiphan.  hxv.  72.  §.  4. 

c  Hilary  (frag.  2.  ut  fupra.)  will  have  it  that  Athanafius  did 
actually  refufe  MarcellusV  communion,  before  the  rife  of  Pho- 
tinus:  And  Tillemont  (in  not.  ad  Marcel,  torn.  7.)  agrees  that 
he  did  fo  before  his  death.  But  for  the  contrary,  fee  Montfau- 
con5*  Differ  tat  ion  above  cited. 

d  Vid.  Legat,  Marcel,  ad  Athanaf.  in  Montfauc.  Nova 
collec.  torn. 2. 

that 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy,  20  j 

that  Eufebian  council  in  his  favour,  and  sErm.  iv. 
the  banifhment  of  Athanajius,  he  made  no  VYV 
doubt  of  being  acknowledged  and  received 
by  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  But  in 
that  he  found  himfelf  difappointed.  The 
people  of  that  Church  were  too  fenfible 
of  the  lofs  of  their  good  Patriarch,  and 
the  difturbance  which  had  already  rifen 
from  this  incendiary,  to  admit  him  into 
their  communion c.  The  Emperor,  upon 
this,  fummond  him  to  Conftantinople, 
where,  upon  his  delivering  in  a  confeflion 
of  faith,  in  terms  lefs  offenfive  than  his 
firfl:  propofitions,  but  flill  in  an  evafive  and 
Uncatholick  fenfe,  and  appealing  withal  to 
the  fearcher  of  hearts  as  the  witnefs  of  his 
integrity,  or  the  avenger  of  his  falfhood, 
the  indulgent  Emperor  was  fo  far  impofed 
upon  by  his  prevarication,  that  he  either 
himfelf  enjoin'd,  or  at  lcaft  the  Eufebians 
depending  on  his  favour,  had  threatned  A- 
lexander  the  Bifhop  of  that  Church  with 
force  and  violence,  in  order  to  get  Arms 
admitted  the  next  day  to  his  communion f: 
The  good  Patriarch  was  refolute  againft 
compliance  *    and  that  very  evening  the 


e  Socrat.  I.  r.  c.  37.  Sozom.  \.  2.  c.  29. 

f  Socrat.  1.  1.  c.  38.  Soxom.  I.  2.  c.  19,  30.  Theodorit, 
hxt.  fab.  1.  4.  c.  1.  Athanaf.  ad  Serap.  de  morte  Arii  §.  2. 
p.  341.  item.  Epift.  Encycl.  ad  Epifc.  JEgypx.  &  Lyb.  §.  19. 
p.  289. 

hand 


206         An Hiftorkal Account  of 

Serm.  iv.  hand  of  Providence  did  vifibly  interpofe 
^^Q^  to  put  an  end  to  the  contention,  and  took 
35  '  away  the  perfidious  heretick  who  had  be- 
tray'd  the  do&rine  of  Chrift,  by  a  death 
anfwerable  to  his  who  formerly  betray'd 
his  perfon,  in  that  he  burft  afunder  in  the 
midfly  and  his  bowels  gufhed  out  s. 

The  Arian  fa&ion  however  continued 
to  prevail  much  at  Conftantinopk  -,  and 
tho*  upon  the  death  of  Alexander -,  the  Ca- 
tholicks  had  ftrength  enough  to  eleft  Tauly 
an  orthodox  Bifhop,  to  fucceed  him,  yet  his 
banifliment  was  quickly  procured;  howe- 
ver it  came  to  pafs  that  Eufebius  of  Nico- 
media,  who  greatly  defircd  to  be  fubftituted 
in  his  roomh,  could  not  get  it  effe&ed  at 
that  time  K  The  death  of  Conftantine  in  the 
mean  time  occafion'd  fuch  a  divifion  of 
the  empire  between  his  fonsk,  that  whilft 
the  Weft  em  Churches  under  Conftans  and 
the  younger  Conftantine,  enjoy'd  a  perfect 
peace  and  tranquility1,  the  Eaftern  were 
337*  grievoufly  affli&cd  by  Conftantiusy  who 
being  thoroughly  impofed  upon  by  Arian 
ftratagems,  did  openly  oppofe  the  Nicene 
faith,    and  proved  a  moft  furious  perfe- 


*  Vid.  Authores  fupra  iaudat. 

h  Athanaf.  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Monachos.  §.7.  p.  548. 
1  Vid.  Tillem.  torn.  7.  in  S.  Paul  de  Confhntinople. 

*  Vid.  Socrat.  1. 1.  c.  38. 
J  Socrat.  1.  2.   c.  2. 


cutor 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  207 

cutor  of  the  Church  of  Chrift m.  It  is  Serm.  iv: 
doubted  indeed  by  fome  whether  he  meant  v-OTv/ 
the  fame  thing  with  Eufefcus  and  the  reft  "5 
but  it  is  certain  his  a&ions  tended  wholly 
to  their  intereft,  and  to  abolifh  and  extir- 
pate Orthodoxy  wherever  his  authority 
could  reach. 

It  would  be  tedious  to  explain  the  ma- 
nifold divifions,  which  after  this  arofe  a- 
mong  the  Avians  themfelves,  the  various 
councils  which  were  hold  en  by  them,  the 
different  forms  of  confeflion  which  were 
drawn  up,  fome  more  openly  afferting  the 
blafphemies  of  Arius>  others  by  no  means 
difclaiming  them,  and  none  of  'cm  pro- 
fefling  the  whole  faith  of  the  Church,  but 
leaving  fome  referve  or  fubterfuge  for 
their  impiety. 


•fades  non  omnibus  una 


Nee  diver  fa  tamen,   quaJem  decet  effe  for  or  urn  °. 

The    beginning   of    Conftantiuss    reign 
was  too  much  involved  with  other  diffi- 


m  Vid.  omnes  iftius  sevi  fcriptores. 

n  Gregory  Nazianzen  (Orat.  3.  contra  Julian,  p.  63,  8cc.) 
exprejfes  a  great  opinion  of  ConftantiusV  integrity  and  good  mean- 
ing. And  more  plainly  [peaking  of  his  favour  to  George  of  A- 
lexandria,  he  has  thefe  words,  'Omi&txi  3  tjj*  /3os<nAs«s  «VAa- 
Tjjres*  4?T©  y>  iyu  xxau  rrrjv  KiiQoTiiToC)  wdisfo/j&'  tjjv  IvXot^ncoi' 
kxI  y>  h  h  2)u  tuM6zs  hxtTv,  j^tey  fd/j  *x,a)vt  rtM'  *  kxt  S7nyva- 
triv.  Orat.  11.  in  laud.  Athanaf  p.  38/. 

•  Ovid  Metaph.  1.  2. 

culties, 


2o 8         An  tiiftorkal  A  c  c  o u n  f  of 

Serm.  iv.  culties  to  hinder  his  concurrence  with  his 
^^^^  brethren  in  recalling  Athanafius  and  the 
338#    other  Bifhiops  from  their  banifhmentP.    But 
the  Eufebians  (who  appear d   more    and 
more  favourable  to  the  Arian  principles) 
had  too  much  power  in  the  Eaft  to  per- 
mit them  to  be  long  in  quiet.     The  Bi- 
4j9.    fhop  of  Conftantinople  was  again  removed 
by  the  decree  of  a  fynod,    and  Eufebius 
of  Nicomedia  was  a&ually  inftall'd  his  fuc- 
ceffor^.     They  not  only  revived  the  old 
calumnies  againft  Athanafius,    but  added 
new  ones  to  them,  and  having  by  the  au- 
thority of  a  fynod  at  Antioch  placed  an- 
other in  the  See  of  Alexandria,    in  op- 
pofition  to  Athanafius,   they  ventured  to 
lpread  their  calumnies  in  the  Weft  by  fend-' 
ing  accufations,  againft  him  and  the  other 
340.    deprived  Bifhops,    to  Pope  Julius  \    who 
in   full   council f  acquitted  them  from  all 
342.    their  calumnies,    and  treated   them  as  in- 
nocent perfons^   after  a  juft  examination 
into  their  accounts  of  themfelves,  as  well 


r  Athanaf.  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Monach.  §.8.  p.  549. 

4  Socrac.  La.  c.  7.  Soz.  I  3.  c.  4.  Tillem.  tonr.  7.  iii 
S.  Paul  de  Conflantinop. 

1  Athanaf.  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Monach.  §.  9. 

r  Athanafius  went  to  Rome  in  359,  according  to  TillemontV 
(torn.  8'.  S.  Athanafe  §.  34.)  but  in  the  year  of  Gregdry^  *»- 
trufion,   341,  according  to  Montfaucori,  in  tit.  Ath.  p.  39. 

t  Vid.  Julii  Epift.  fynod.  apud  Athanaf.  Apol.  contra  Ariaa. 
$.  32.  p.  ij-o.- 

is- 


340* 


3+t 


the  Trinitarian  Controtyerfy.  iop 

<as  the  teftimony  of  the  Alexandrian  fynod  serm.  itf; 
with  refpeft  to  Athanaftus. 

Mean  while  Eufebius  and  his  partifans* 
inftead  of  attending  at  this  Roman  council 
which  thernfelvcs  had  defired,  refolved  to 
adhere  to  that  which  they  had  lately  held 
at  Antiovh^y  where  laying  afide  Tiftus, 
who  was  the  Anti-bifhop  beforcmentioned, 
they  appointed  Gregory  to  take  the  bifhop- 
rick  of  Alexandria™.  This  was  quickly 
followed  by  the  death  of  Eufebius  of  Ni- 
tomedia,  who  was  now  in  polTcffion  of  the 
Sec  of  Conftantinople*.  Upon  his  death; 
the  ArianSj  who  had  placed  him  there  a- 
bout  three  years  before,  in  opposition  to 
Taul  the  lawful  Bifliop,  took  care  to  fup- 
ply  his  place  with  another  of  the  fame 
lentiments,  and  proceeded  to  ordain  Ma- 
cedonius  as  his  fucceffory.  This  created 
much  diforder  and  confufion  in  the  city, 
between  the  oppoftte  followers  of  Paul 
and  Macedonius  y  till  at  laft  the  fecular 
power  interpofed,  and  carried  it  with  vio- 
lence in  favour  of  the  latter z.  About  the 
fame  time  deputies  were  fent  to  Conftans 
the  Wejlern  Emperor,    to  lay  before  him 


i+i* 


Jj^ 


v  Socrat.  1.  t.  c;  8. 

w  Socrat.  1.  i.  c.  id.  Sozom.  I.  3.  c.  fi  6. 

*  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  12. 
y  Ibid. 

*  Socrat;  h  2,  c.  13,  io\   Sozom.  1.  3.  c.  ji  yl 

p 


•toe 


1 1 6  Art  Hiflorical  Account^/ 

Serm.  iv.  the  confeffion  of  faith,  which  was  agreed 

^-Of^  on  by  thefe  Eaftem  heretieksa.     But  Con- 

Jlans  was  the  more  confirmed  in  the  ill  o- 

pinion  he  had  conceived  of  them,  and  per- 

ceiv'd  their  profecutions  of  the  catholick 

Bifhops  to  be  perfe&ly  malicious  b. 

Such  was  the  ftate  of  the  Church,  with 
relation  to  this  controverfy,  towards  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  when  the 
rife  of  Thotims  firft,  and  then  Macedo- 
niuSy  gave  it  a  different  turn,  of  which  I 
purpofe  to  lay  a  fuller  account  before  you, 
when  God  fhall  grant  us  another  opportu- 
nity together. 

To  whom.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft, 
be  all  honour  and  glory,  now  and 
henceforth  for  evermore.    Amen. 


a  Athanaf.  de   fynod.    Ariffl.  &  Scleuc.   §.   2jr.    p.  737. 
Socrat.  J.  2.  c.  18.    Sozom.  1.  3.  c.  10. 
t  Sozom.  ibid. 


SER. 


the  Trinitarian  Conirdverfy. 


til 


SERMON  V". 


Preach'd  March  fa   17*3-4. 


&*********  s**^ 


E  have  feen  the  beginning  and  szrm.  vj 
incrcafe  of  Arianifm  in  the  ^-OTM 
fourth  century,  tho  fomewhat 
difguifed  and  palliated  by  En- 
febius  of  Nicomedid,  and  his 
•partifans;  we  have  feed  what  encourage- 
ment they  found  from  the  Eafiern  Empe- 
ror Conftantius  s  whilft  the  Churches  of 
the  Weft>  under  his  brother  Conftans,  did 
peaceably  and  uniformly  retain  the  ancient 
profeffion  of  the  catholick  faith. 

Before  the  middle  of  this  fourth  centu- 
ry, there  was  fome  difturbance  in  the 
Eafiern  parts  of  Europe,    occafiond    by 

P  z  Thotinus 


Ill 


An  Hifiorical  Account^/ 

Serm.  v.  tphotinus  the  Bifhop  of  Sirmium  in  IltyZ 
s*sYs*>  ricum.  He  had  been  brought  up  under 
Marcellus  of  Ancyra a,  and  had  lb  efta- 
blifh'd  his  reputation  as  an  orthodox  Di- 
vine, that  his  promotion  to  this  bifhop- 
rick  gave  an  univerfal  fatisfa&ion  b.  The 
herefy,  which  he  advanced  after  this,  is  not 
conftantly  reprefented  by  the  ancients  in 
one  and  the  fame  manner,  he  being  fomc- 
times  faid  to  have  revived  the  herefy  of 
Sabellius0,  at  other  times  that  of  Ebion^, 
or  Taul  of  Samofata e,  and  at  other  times, 
laftly,  to  have  advanced  the  fame  herefy 
which  was  afterwards  efpoufed  by  Neftori- 
tisf.  And  no  doubt  there  was  fomething 
in  his  fcheme  which  concurred  with  every 
one  of  thefe  herefies.  He  deny'd  any  real 
diftin&ion  of  perfons  in  the  Godhead  s$ 
and  fo  far  he  agreed  with  Sabellius.  But 
he  deny'd  withal  the  pcrfonal  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  nature  h,   and  fo  he  dif- 


"  Hilar,  fragm.  2.  §.  19.  col.  129^.    Ed.  Bencd.   Socrat* 
H.  E.  i.  2.  c.  18.  SuJp.  Sev.  1.  2.  c.  5-2. 
•    b  Vincent.  Lirinenf.  commonit.  cap,  16". 

'  Hil.  frag.  12.  Theod.  haer.  fab    1.  2.  c.  11. 

d  Hil.  de  Trin.  1.  7.  §.  3.  col.  916.  D.  Hieron.  de  fcript> 
Ecclef.  c.  107. 

c  Vid.  Epiph.  ha:r.  71.  §.  1,  2. 

^ f  Vid.  Mar.  Mercat.   torn.  2.  p.  128,  312,  313.  Garner, 
diflert.  de  Neflorio.   Tillemont.    Les  Ar'tens  §.  37 '. 

e  Vincent.  Lirin.  cap.  17. 

h  Photinus—  a  Sabellio  quidem  in  unione  diffcntiens, 
Sulp.  Sev.  facr.  Hift.  1.  z.  c.  ^3. 


fer'd 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  213 

fer'd  from  the  Sabellians,  (who  carried  Serm.v. 
this  union  fo  high  that  they  were  tcrm'd  ^^T^ 
<P atrip affians,)  and  agreed  rather  with  Nef- 
torins.  Yet  in  this  he  differed  likewife 
from  Neftoriusy  that  he  did  not  acknow- 
ledge the  eternal  Word,  to  be  a  pcrfon 
diftin&ly  fubfiiting  from  the  Father',  but 
only  the  divine  virtue  or  power  of  the  Fa- 
ther himfclf,  infpiring  or  acting  upon  Jefus7 
which  feems  rather  to  fall  in  with  the  he- 
refy  of  *Paulus  Samofatenusk,  and  differs 
not  much  from  thofe  of  Ebion  and  Arte- 
mon,  who  confidcr'd  Jefus  as  no  other  in 
nature  than  a  mere  man. 

Altho'  his  doftrinc  was  immediately  re- 
cciv'd  with  dctcftation  and  horror  by  men 
of  learning  and  penetration,  yet  fuch  was 
the  popularity  he  had  acquired  by  his  ready 
parts  and  dexterity,  that  the  cenfures  paf-  347. 
fed  upon  him  by  the  catholick  Biihops1  349, 
had  fo  little  outward  effeci,  that  he  con- 
tinued in  pofleflion  of  his  bifhoprickm,  till 


1  Epiphan.  hser.  71.  §.  4.  Sozom.  I.  4.  c.  6\  Socrat.  1.  2. 
c.  19. 

k  See  Serra.  III.    p.   145*. 

1  Either  in  the  council  of  Sixties,  A.D.  347.  Epiph.  hser.71. 
§.  1.  or  rather  in  another  held  the  fame  year  at  Milan.  Hilar, 
frag.  2.  col.  1296  Ed.  Ben.  (fee  Tillemont';  Hiftory  of  the 
Arians,  note  39,  40.)  but  certainly  in  mother  council  held  either 
at  Sirmium,  or  at  Milan,  A.  D.  349.  Hilar,  ut  fupr.  vid.  & 
annotat.  ibid. 

*  Hilar,  frag.  2.  §.  21.  col.  1299. 

P  3  fomc 


i,i 4  An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  v,  fome  years  afterwards  the  favourers  of  A-. 

V'VV  rianifm  themfelves  were  fo  offended  at  the 
grorfhefs  of  his  portions,  that  they  depofed 
I5i.  him  in  a  council  held  in  his  own  city  of 
Sirmium*,  and  confuted  him  in  a  folema 
difputation0,  He  feems  not  to  have  had 
many  followers  in  the  Eaft,  where  by  the 
time  of  Theodorit  his  nerefy  was  perfe&ly 
extinguifiYdP.  But  in  the  Weft  they  were 
r3?8.  excepted,  by  Gratian  the  Emperor,  from 
that  indulgence  or  toleration,,  which  was,  at 
his  entrance  upon  the  empire  of  the  Eaft, 
allowed  to  molt  other  feds  that  called  them- 
felves Chriflians  9.  And  this  might  give 
ground  for  the  council  of  Aquileia  to  com- 
plain of  the  affemblies  which  they  held  m 
1 8 1 .  Sirmium,  contrary  to  law x.  And  we  find 
fome  little  mention  of  them  afterwards f, 
unlefs  it  fliouid  be  faid  that  the  Avians 
are  fomctimes*  defign'd  under  the  name  of 
'ThotinianSy  becauie  the  Catholicks  made 
little  difference  between  thofe  herefies 
which  debafed  the  Son  of  God  to  the  con- 
dition of  a  creature,  whatever  fort  of  crea- 
ture they  might  make  of  him. 


n  Socrat:.  I.  2.   c.  29.  °  Cap.  30.  versus  finem. 

p  Theodor.  hacr.  fab.  1.2.  c.  1 1. 

*  Socrat.  H.  E.  I.  5*.  c.  2.  Sozom.  1.  7.  c.  1. 

r  See  Tillemont'j  Hiftory  of  the  Arians.   §.  47. 

(  Sidonius  Apollinar.  J.  6.  Epift.  12.  Concil.  Labbe  torn.  2! 


p.  1270,  1 27 1.  tom.  4.  p.  1012. 
I  Tiliemont.  Hift.  of  the  Arians, 


§•  47. 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  1 1  f 

In  the  mean  time,  whilft  the  affair  of  Serm.  v.  ! 
Thotimts  was  depending,  we  learn  that  V,/YN^ 
Conftans,  the  orthodox  Emperor  of  the 
Weft>  ufed  the  intereft  he  had  with  his 
brother  Conftantius S  for  the  calling  of  a 
general  council  :  which  met  accordingly  347^ 
at  Sardica  w.  The  great  appearance  of  the 
Weflern  Bifhops,  together  with  Athanafius 
and  the  reft  who  were  excluded  from  the 
Eaft,  foon  convinced  the  Arianizers  that 
they  could  not  here  infult  as  they  had 
done  in  Afia,  and  therefore  they  withdrew 
by  night  to  Thilippopolis,  under  the  Juris- 
diction of  Conftantius,  and  there  held  a 
feparate  aflcmbly  of  their  own  *,  in  which 
they  fallacioufly  afllimcd  to  themfelvcs  the 
ftile  and  title  of  the  council  of  Sardica  y. 
The  confcqucnce  was  this,  that  the  two 
councils  aded  in  dired  oppofition  to  each 
other.  The  depofition  of  Athanafius  and 
the  reft  was  reverfed  at  Sardica,  and  anew 
confirmed  at  Thilippopolis7-.  The  chiefs 
of  each  council  were  anathematized  by  the 
others  and  the  ftate  of  the  Church  ap- 
pear'd  then  in   the  utmoft  diforder. 


v  Athan.  Apol.  ad  Imperat.  Conft.  §.  4.  p.  297.  Ed.  Bened. 

""  Athanaf.  Apolog.  contra  Arianos.  §.  36.  p.  1/4.. 

x  Hilar,  frag.  2.  §.7.  col.  iz88»  Socrat.  1.2.  c.  20.  Soz, 
1.  %.  c  11. 

y  Hil.  frag.  3. 

1  Hilar.  Socrat.  &  Sozom.  ut  fupra. 

8  Ibid.  vid.  &  de  Concil.  Sardic.  Athanaf.  in  Apologia 
contra  Arianos. 

P  4  Qonftam 


i 1 6  An  Hiflovkal Ac  count  of 

Serm.  v.       Conftans  the  Weftern  Emperor,  who  had 

WfYV  occafion  d  the  calling  of  this  council,  was 

not  to  be  thus  eluded,  but  fent  exprefly  to 

his  brother  Conftantius,  to  demand  the  re- 

348.    ftorationof  thofe  deprived  Bifhops  whom  the 

council  had  acquitted ;  with  which  demand 

the  Eaftern  Emperor  was  not  in  a  condition 

to  refufe  compliance  b  5  or  perhaps  he  might 

relent  a  little  upon  account  of  that  Avian 

treachery,  which  had  lately  been  detected 

at  Antioch.     Certain  it  is,  he  ufed  repeat - 

rl49.    ed  inftances  with  Athanafius  to  haften  his 

return  to  his  bifhoprick,    which  was  now 

facilitated  by  the  death  of  the  intruder0. 

But  it  was   not   long  that  the   Church 
was  permitted  to  enjoy  fuch  full  profpc- 
350.    rity.     The  death  of  the  Emperor  Conftans  y 
and  the  defeat  of  Magnentius  afterwards, 
352.    put  Conftantius  in  pofleffion  of  the  whole 
empire,    and  fo  left  him  at  liberty  to  ob- 
lige the  ArianSy  and  to  opprefs  the  Catho- 
licks,  not  only  in  the  Eaft  (as  he  had  hi* 
therto  done)  but  likewife  in  the  Weft  em 
parts  of  the  world.     A  council  was  quick- 
's 5  3  •    ty  convened  at  Aries,    where  the  affeflbrs, 
by  manifold  injuries    and   open   violence, 


6  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  22,  23.  Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  20.  vid.  &  Til- 
km.   Memoires  torn.  8.  .9.  Athanctfe  §.J4- 

c  Montf.  vit.  Athanaf.  p.  44.  &  Athanaf.  Apol.  contr. 
Ariau.  p.  170,  Sec.  Tillem.  S.  Athanaf.  §./6. 

I  were 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  217 

were  forced  to  condemn  St.  Athanajius,  serm.  v: 
and  renounce  his  communion d  5  andP/w/-  v^Y^ 
lirins  Bifhop  of  Treves,  for  daring  to  op- 
pofe  it,  incurr'd  both  dcpofttion  and  ba- 
nifhmente.  The  council  of  Milan  fol- 
lowed within  two  years  afterwards,  where  Z5S- 
when  the  Avians  infilled  upon  a  confirma- 
tion of  the  fame  fcntence  a^ainft  Athana- 
Jitis,  (which  was  now  the  Handing  teft  of 
their  party)  the  Catholicks  pleaded  the  nc- 
eeffity  of  fubferibing  firft  and  fettling  the 
confefllon.  of  faith,  before  they  proceeded 
to  the  cenfurc  of  particular  pcrlbns.  The 
Avians ,  who  knew  that  would  too  cafily 
cxpofc  their  defigns,  found  means  to  ad- 
journ the  council  to  the  Emperor's  palace  f$ 
and  then  partly  by  impofing  on  the  other 
Bifhops  with  falfe  pretences  &,  and  partly 
intimidating  them  with  the  Emperor's  au- 
thority h,  they  not  only  procured  a  con- 
firmation of  the  fame  fcntence  S  but  like- 
wife  a  formal  declaration  of  the  Arian 
principles,  which  they  publiih'd  in  the  form 


d  Athanaf.  Apol.  ad  Impcrat.  Conftant.  §.  27.  p.  312.  8c 
Hil.  ad  Conft.  1.  1.  §.8. 

e  Hilar,  frag.  1.  §.  6.  col.  1282.  Athanaf.  Apol.  de  fuga 
§.  4.  p.  322.  £c  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Monachos.  §•  33-  p«  3^>3* 

f  Hilar,  ad  Conft.  1.  1.  §.8.  col.  1222.  Sulp.  Sev.  1.  2.  c.  5-7. 

«  Ruffin.  H.  E.  1.  10.  c.  20. 

h  Athanaf.  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Monach.  §.32.  p.  363. 

1  Vid.  pmer  fupra  diet.  Hilar,  ad  Conftant.  1.  1.  col, 
422f 


Of 


2 1 8  An  Hifiorkal Account^/ 

;Serm.  v.  of  a  letter  under  the  name  of  Conftantius, 
*~*y^J  that  if  it  met  with  approbation  they  might 
own  it  themfelves,  or  otherwiie  might 
throw  the  odium  on  the  Emperor k.  Af- 
ter which  thofe  of  the  Biihops  and  inferior 
Clergy  who  had  kept  out  of  the  palace, 
and  refufed  to  join  in  their  meafures,  as 
Eufebius  of  Vercelles,  Lucifer  of  Cagliari, 
and  fome  others,  were  fentenced  into  ba- 
nifhment,  which  lafted  thro*  the  reign  of 
Conftantius1. 

So  that  now  came  on  the  time  for  the 
Avians  to  propofc  their  herefy  without 
difguifc  or  artiiice m.  They  had  hitherto 
equivocated  in  the  various  forms  of  con- 
feffion,  which  were  drawn  up  by  them, 
and  tho'  they  had  perfecuted  the  zealous 
profeffors  of  the  Nicene  faith,  yet  they  did 
it  under  pretence  of  fi&itious  crimes  of 
quite  another  nature,  and  excepting  Mar- 
cellusj  chofe  rather  to  accufe  them  of  im- 
morality than  herefy.  But  now  the  mask 
was  taken  off,  Conftantius,  by  their  inftir 
gation,  appear'd  openly  in  the  intereft  of 
Arianifmny  and  exerted  his  imperial  au- 
thority to  eftablim  and  confirm  it°.     The 


fc  Sulp.  Sev.  1.  2.  c.  f  f.  J  Athanaf.  in  locis  fupra  citat. 

111  Tillcm.  Hift.  of  Arians,  §.5-1. 

n  Vid.  Lucifer,  ad  Conftant.  pro  Athanaf.  1.  2.  in  magna 
Biblioth.  Patr.  Edit.  Col.  Agrip.  16 18,  tcm.4.  p.  142. 

0  Lucifer  de  non  conven.  cum  H^ref.  p.  ijq.  Be  mori- 
endum  pro  Filio  Dei.  p.  iyc,}  &c. 

confc- 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  219 

confequence  of  which  was  a  moft  grievous  Serm.  v. 
perfecution,  dcfcribcd  at  large  by  the  wri-  V^W. 
ters  ofthofe  times  P,  in  the  courfe  of  which 
the  zealous  Catholicks  labour'd  under  hea- 
vy oppreffions;    fuch  as  were  wavering  or 
weak  in  the  faith,    were  drawn  into  apof- 
tacy;    and  even  fome  who  had  flood  the 
fliock  of  diverfe  fevere  trials,    yet  yielded 
after  all  to  the  violence  of  the  temptation, 
as  the  famous  Hofius  of  Corditba  in  Spain,     3S7* 
unwilling  to  endure  the  fatigues  of  baniih- 
ment  in  the  extremity  of  old  agc^,    and 
Pope  Liberius  himfclf,  too  eagerly  defirous 
of  being  reflorcd  to  his  Pontificate1. 

In  the  mean  time  it  ought  to  be  remem- 
ber'd,  that  St.  Hilary  Biihop  of  Toifiiers, 
and  fcveral  other  Bifhops  of  the  Weft,  par- 
ticularly in  Britain  and  Gaul,  had  diitin- 
guiih'd  thcmfelvcs  with  an  uncommon 
zealf,  and  tho'  fome  of  them,  e'er  this, 
were  driven  into  banifhment,  (as  St.  Hi- 
lary in  particular,  who  by  his  rcfidcncc  in 
the  Eaft  acquired  fuch  a  perfed  infight  in- 


p  Vid.  prceter  alios  Athanaf.  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Monacb. 
§.31,  &c.   &  Lucifer,  ut  fupra. 

a  Some  have,  doubted  of  the  truth  of  this  fact.  But  they  feetn 
to  aff  mofi  reafonably,  tvho  only  excufe  it  as  the  effecJ  of  dotage. 
i  nimium  feculi  fui  amantem.  Hilar,  de  fynod.  §-87. 
col,  izoi.  .  l  .nifi  fatifcente  xvo  (etenim  centenario  major 
fuir,  ut  S.  Hilarius  in  epiftolis  refert)  deliraverit.  Sulp.  Sev. 
La.  c.f4. 

*  Hilar,  frag.  <$.  §.  4,  5%  6, 
1  Hilar,  de  fynod.  §.  2,  5, 


w 


no         An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  v.  to  the  ftate  of  this  controverfy,  as  gave 
^^^T^  the  greater  value  to  his  writings  upon  that 
fubject)  yet  their  Churches  fecm  generally 
to  have  retained  the  ancient  faith,  and  re- 
je&ed  the  Avian  communion.  All  parts 
indeed  of  the  Eajl  as  well  as  IVeft>  fur- 
niihed  fome  eminent  examples t  of  fuch  as 
openly  profeffed  the  truth,  or  at  leaf*  chofc 
rather  to  fpend  their  lives  in  folitude  than 
be  tempted  to  renounce  itu.  In  Egypt  it 
kept  better  footings  than  in  moft  other 
parts  of  the  Eajl,  till  forcing  Atfranajius 
356.  again  to  fly  for  flicker  to  the  deferts*,  the 
Arians  thruft  George  of  Cappadocia  into 
the  See  of  Alexandria? 7  who  carried  Ari- 
anifm  fo  high,  as  even  to  infift  upon  the 
rc-ordination  of  all  thofe  Bilhops  in  his 
Province,  who  had  been  formerly  ordain'd 
by  Cathoiicks z,  and  bring  thofe,  who  had 
the  courage  to  be  orthodox,  under  the 
greateft  oppreffions*.  So  that  whilft  mat- 
ters were  managed  in  this  manner,  there 
was  good  ground  for  Epiphanius's  fufpi- 
cion,  that  the  generality  of  thofe  who  com- 


1  Vid.  Athanaf.  Apolog.  ad  Conftan.  §.  32.    p.  316. 
u  Athan.  Hift.  Arianor.  ad  Mon.  §.  20.   p.  iff. 
w  Ibid.  §.  78.   p.  391. 

*  Athan.   Apol/ad  Conrtan.   §.  32.  p.  316.     See  alfo,  Br, 
Cavc'j  Life  of  Athanafius.   fed".  10. 

y  Sozom.   J.  3.   c.  7.  &  I.4.  c.  10. 

*  Athanaf.  Apol.  ad  Conflan.  §  31.  p.  3 1^*. 
-  See  CaveV  Life  of  Athanaiius,  ic£t.  xo. 


plied 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  in 

plied  with  the  iniquity  of  the  times,  did  serm.  v. 
it  rather  upon  fecular  motives  than  any  l^V 
real  conviction b. 

The  ftate  of  the  Church  was  no  better 
at  Confiantinople  and  the  country  adjoin- 
ing, where  Macedonius  having  ufurp'd  the 
See  (after  the  depofition  of  the  catholick 
Patriarch,  who  quickly  died  in  baniih- 
nient,)  and  being  withal  fupported  by  the 
Emperor's  authority,  carried  on  the  perie- 
cution  with  the  utmoft  rage  and  violence, 
dilguis'd  under  the  fpecious  colour  and  ap- 
pearance of  law,  not  only  dcmolifhing 
the  Churches  of  the  Catholicks,  and  driv- 
ing them  out  of  the  very  towns,  but  even 
adding  the  farther  penalties  of  tortures, 
conrifcation  and  banifhment,  and  fome- 
times  even  dragging  them  by  force  to  his 
ailemblies c. 

The  hcreticks,  who  were  thus  far  agreed  in 
oppreffingand  pulling  down  the  Church,  af* 
ter  that  bufinefs  was  done,  and  Arianifm  eve- 
ry where  triumphed  over  Orthodoxy,  began 
now  to  fubdivide  among  themfelvcs,  and 
ipend  their  fury  upon  one  another.  There 
were  fome  of  thofe  who  difliked  the  term  o^c- 
vcn&y  that  yet  were  willing  to  come  as  near 
it  in  found  as  pofllble,  and  therefore  afferted 


b  Epiphan.  hair.  69.  §.  12.  p.  736. 

-  Socrat.  H.  E.  1.  a.  c.  27,  38.   Sozom.  I.  4.  c.  1,  20, 


the 


222  An  Hifiortcal  Account  of 

Serm.  v.  the  Son  to  be  qjuloih?i(&,,  or  of  like  fiibft ante 
^^T^  with  the  Father d.  This  term  is  laid  to 
have  been  firft  ufed  by  Macedonitts e,  but 
was  quickly  embraced  by  many  others  of 
that  party f  5  and  indeed  the  fame  thing  in. 
effect  had  been  long  ago  advanced  by  Eti- 
febius  of  Nicomedia,  at  the  firft  rife  of 
Arms:  from  whofe  manner  of  expreffions 
we  may  judge  what  fort  of  fimilitude  it 
was  that  they  intended;  namely,  fuch  on- 
ly wherein  it  is  poffible  for  the  higheft 
and  moft  excellent  creature  to  refemblc  his 
Creator  h. 

Yet  even  this  expreffion  approach'd  too 
near  the  Catholicks  for  fome  of  the  more 
rigid  Avians  to  digeft  it.  A  likenefs  in 
Jiibftance,  or  (as  it  was  fometimes1  ex- 
prefs'd)  a  likenefs,  zxtz,  7mvra,  in  all  things 
they  thought  to  be,  as  it  really  is,  too 
high  a  character  for  any  creature.  A'etius> 
who  had  firft  been  a  Deacon  in  the  Church 


4  Sozona.  1;  j.  c.  18.  vid.  6c  Suicer.  Thef.  Ecclef.  in  voce 

e  'O/jjciwtfioy  oiyrl   rev    ctAivztr.X   TzrwcsKzv'wa'S.    Thcodor.    hXT, 

fab.  I.4.  c.f. 

f  Vid.  Epiphan.  hasr.  73.  §.  1.  p.  845*. 

8  ,'Ovk  Ik  7v,<i  H<r.a4   ewroZ  ....    .— atAAa   *.»— i«;r£Sgy  rv\   <p6± 

CSt    X.OU    T~<\    GV'JUJ/tHy     XpC$    7sX&UV   Cf/jClGTV)TCl   2J(f<Q£G~l&<;    T£     KCil    OVVO.+ 

^/s&'5  tow  z-tx-oui-KoT©"  ywefjczvov.  Eufrb.  Nicomed.  in  Epiflola 
ad  Panlinum  Tyri  apud  Theodorit.  H.  E.  1.  1.  c.  6*. 

h  Vid.  Ruffin.  H.  E.  ].  10.  c.  2c. 

1  Thcodor.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c.  6.  &  ha:r.  fab.  1.  4.  t*f,  Philoftorg. 
I.4.  c.  8.  vid.  &  Suicer.  in  voce  <7/Wc-*©-. 


of 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  zi\ 

of  Antioch  k?   was  now  the   favourite  of  sErm.  v. 
George  of  Alexandria,   and  openly  dcclar-  v/v^ 
ed l  for  that  doctrine  which  had  been  taught 
by  Arms  and  his  partifans  at  the  beginning;, 
not  merely  that  the  Son  is  ira^'cr^ m  of 
another  fubftance,  but  that  he  is  lg  &  qvt&v 
made  out  of  nothing,    and    as  their  mock 
council  at  Thilippopolis  had   already"  de* 
clared,    ivo/moi^,  t&  Grctrg/,   unlike  to  the 
Father:  which  tho'  it  were  fometimes  un- 
derftood    of    an  unlikenefs   in   fubftancey 
without  denying  a  refemblance   of   attri* 
butes,    yet  it  feems  at  firfl  to  have  been 
propofed   by  him,    and  it  was  afterwards 
explaiiVd  by  his  followers  P,  when  they  had 
gain'd  the  afcendant,  as  intending  an  entire 
diffimilitude  in  all  refpeftsi,  unlike  in  will 
and  attributes,    as  well  as  efTence  or  fub* 
fiance. 


*  Socrat.  1.2.  c  35-. 

1  Ibid,  item  Sozom.  1.  4.  c.  12.  vid.  &  Epiphan.  han-.  76. 

§•■*•-: 

m  Vid.  Suicer.  in  voc.  <?/W«©°  8c  ipAiH<rd&'. 
n  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  20. 

°    'AvofAiOtOV    TOV     JliOV  KXi     OV    TOLVTOV    UVOil    TV\  &irtTV}Tt   -zs-poq 

rc¥  nccTipK.  Epiph.  haer.  76.  §.2.  p.  914.  [MtyhfAutr  t%tu  opoi- 
cthtx  Tear  ovaixv.  Harmenop.  de  fedlisfedt.  12.  citante Suicero 
ubi  fupra. 

p  'Ovxzri  i7?ixg'j7TTovT£<;t  ccXXx  &yx<pxv$)v  Xtyovrsq,  on  xcctcc. 
yrnvrec  cztcyjoi(&j  0  vi®^  rS  zrxrpi,  ov  fj^vov  tccctoc  tv,v  ovaiccv,  ccX- 
Xx  a%  *x\  kxtx  tj}»  fio6M<riv.    Socr.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c.  4c. 

1   TlxvTiXasc,  uvoyJci(3h'^mT6p  zrctrpl,  kx\  kut*  o'v&'vu  Tfo7Tov  oUsoi(&'. 

Athanaf.  de  fynod.  Arim.  Sc  Seleuc.  §.  31.  p.  748.  — — diffi- 
milera  per  omnia  Patri.  Auguft.  de  Haeref.  cap.  ^4. 

I  This 


1 24         An  Hifioricat Account^/ 

Serm.  v.  This  was  Arianifm  in  perfection  $  and 
VY^  tho*  the  principle  was,  ddubtleis,  enter- 
tain d  by  many  others  before  Aetius,  yet 
being  now  more  openly  avow'd,  its  vota- 
ries were  formed  into  a  diftind  feet,  from 
their  chief  leader  called  Aetians,  and  from 
the  nature  of  their  doctrine  Exucontians  t 
and  Anomaans^  till  afterwards,  when  En- 
nomius  grew  more  confiderable,  by  being 
advanced  to  the  cpifcopal  dignity,  and  in- 
duftrioufly  propagating  this  pernicious  he- 
rely,  they  were  from  him  more  gene- 
rally term'd  Ennomians  s  tho'  fomctimes 
from  their  fubdiviftons  into  different  par- 
ties, and  other  fpecial  circumftances,  they 
had  yet  more  discriminating  appellations c. 
The  grand  argument  of  Aetius  (who,  for 
his  bold  difputingsv  about  facred  myftcries, 
was  firnamed  the  Atheifi )  was  the  fame 
which  has  ever  been  the  capital  topick  of 
z\l  Avians  $  namely,  the  Father's  being  felf- 
exiftenty  or  unoriginate  w ;  which  was  urged 
to  deftroy  all  fimilitude  of  fubftance  be- 


r  Becaufe  they  fuid  the  Son  was  Z%  ovx  {Wwr.      Prater  Au- 
thores  fupra  laudctt.  Vid.  Suicer.  Thefaur.  Ecclef,  in  voce  i\x~ 

1  Suicer  in  voce  ccvopot®*. 

1  In  voce  ivVcfAi®*. 

v  Vid.  Socrat.  8c  Sozom.  tibi  fupra(. 

w   QcccKti  ^a  ■  ■     ,   'on   cv   c^yyarcci   to    oLywnTev.    ojit/Oioy   %lix,l    ?Z 

yirWfr*.   Epiph.   hazr.  76.  §.  6\p.oi8.    Ita  &  Eunom.  apuci 
D.  Bafil.  contra  Eunom.  1. 1.  p.  io,  20,  26.  Ed.  Parif.  i6iS„ 

twecn 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  225 

tween  him  and  the  Son,    who  was  begot-  serm.  v. 
ten  and  derived  from  him,  ^W 

This  reafoning,   however  conclufive  up- 
on Arian  principles,  was  neverthelefs  eafi- 
ly  anfwer'd  by  the  Catholicks3,    who  ob- 
ferv  d,   that  the  characters  of  begotten  and 
unbegotten,  felf-exiftent  and  derived,   do 
not  neceffarily   imply  any  diverfity  of  ef- 
fence,  but  rather  an  equality  of  nature,  in 
which  they  are  diftinguinYd   by  this  diffe- 
rent mode  of  their  exifience,    thefe  being 
the  characters  of  perfonality,    and  not  of 
fubftance.     But  yet  the  fallacy  was  fo  fuc- 
ccfsfully  urged  by  A'etius  at  that  time,  and 
it   had  indeed   fo   much   force,    wherever 
the  main  grounds  of  Arianifm  were  ad- 
mitted,   that  he  got  his  doctrine  not  only      357, 
ratified  at  Sirmiumb,   in  that  impious  con- 
feiTion   which   is  recited   by  Athanafiuscy 
and  Hilary^,    but  farther  confirm'd  ibme- 
time  afterwards  by  a  fynod  held  at  Anti- 
och,   where  being  more  particularly    fup- 
ported  by  Eudoxius,    who   had  now  got     358, 
poffeffion  of  that  See,  and  Acacius  of  Ta- 
leftine  in  Cafarea,   he  had  the  fatisfattion 
of  feeing  the  terms  ojuozcn&  and  Ijumia^ 


a  Bafi!.  ibid.  p.  19.  Auguft.  de  Trin.  ).  f.  c.  3,6*.  Damafcen. 
de  fid.  orthod.  1.  1.  c.  9.  6c  I.  4.  0  7.  vid.  8c  comment,  ibid, 
b  Socrat.  l.i.  c.  30. 
c  Athan.  de  fynod.   p.  744. 
*  Hilar,  de  fynod.  §,  1 1.  col,  1 15-6,  8cc. 


equally 

y 


n6  An  Hifiorkal  Account  of 

Se*m.  v.  equally  condemn'de.  They  argued  after- 
^"Y^  wards  againft  both  from  the  fame  reafon 
which  the  other  Arians  had  urged  againft 
one  j  namely,  that  they  are  not  to  be 
found  in  Scripture  U  and  were  for  drop- 
ping the  word  fitbftance  altogether,  tho* 
they  confented  to  acknowledge  the  Son 
like  the  Father  according  to  the  Scripture  s%. 
By  which  they  meant  no  more  than  our 
prefent  Arians  do  by  fubferibing  to  arti- 
cles in  fuch  a  fenfe  as  is  agreeable  to  Scrip- 
ture 5  which  was  bringing  the  point  down 
to  their  own  notions  and  interpretations 
of  Scripture,  and  fo  made  their  doclrine 
(as  Nazianzen^  complains)  variable  with 
every  wind,  capable  of  fitting  the  groffeft 
contradictions,  and  refembling  a  pidure, 
which  is  made  to  look  towards  every  fpec- 
tator. 

From  henceforth  we  are  to  look  upon 
Bafil  of  Ancyra  and  his  affociates,  who 
aflerted  the  ouoixmov,  to  be  no  other  than 
femi  (or  half)  Arians ',  as  Epiphanius'1  ex- 
prcily  calls  them,  becaufe  they  did  not 
run  into  the  broader  blafphemies  of  Arms: 


0  Sozoro.  H.  E.  1.  4.  c.  12. 

f  Athan.  de  fynod.  §.  36,  37.  p.  75*1,  7^2. 
*  Athan.  ut  fupra.  ' 

h  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  21.  p.  386.    vid.  &  an  not.   Eh'as  Cre- 
fenf  p.  789. 

1  Epiph.  hxr.  7;.  p.  844,847*. 


tho" 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  xty. 

tho'  to  fpeak  ftriftly  that  name  fecms  to  serm.  v. 
be  more  properly  reftrain  d  to  a  diftind  ^~T^ 
branch  of  their  fed  which  fprung  from 
them  afterwards k.  Thefe  Semi-arians  were 
adive  enough  in  their  endeavours  to  fup- 
prefs  this  growing  boldnefs  of  the  Anoma- 
(ins.  They  immediately  condemn  d  theni 
in  a  fynod  at  Ancyra{>  and  drawing  up  a 
declaration  of  anathemas  againfl:  them, 
they  fent  a  deputation  from  their  own  body 
%o  Conftantius,  then  at  Sirmmmm,  where 
they  obtain  d  to  have  their  confeflion  fign  d 
by  fuch  Bifhops  as  were  about  the  courts 
among  whom  were  fome  who  had  before 
this  declared  themfelves  for  the  oppoilte 
party",  and  foon  afterwards  drew  up  an-  3  59» 
other  confeffion  which  plainly  favoured  it, 
with  the  addition  only  of  one  foftning 
claufe,  that  the  Son  was  like  the  Father 
in  all  things  according  to  the  Scriptures0  y 
where  tho'  this  phrafe  [in  all  things^  was 
(in  their  fenfe  of  it)  explain  d  away  by  the 
other,    yet  they  inferred  it  purely  to  ob~ 


k  Vid.  Suicer.  in  voce  'Ato^o^, 

'Epiph.  h^r.  73.  §,  10.  p.  8/6.  Hilar,  de  fynod.  §.  \i% 
col.  1?  5-8. 

m  Vid.  prseter  fupra  laudat.  Sozom.  1. 4.  c.  13. 

"Hilar,  de  fynod.  §.27.  col.  1167.  Sozom.  I.4.  c.  if. 

•  OfXtotov  ra>  ymycruvTi  clvtqd  zrurgi  xutx  7K$  yrrt<l>\'_,m,  . -■n 
epoiov  3  Xtyof/jiy  rov  vioy  t£>  zrccryi  koltca  'ttwitu.  cot;  ^  cti  uytu. 
fyxf'iu  ^hisu-i  ts  x*i  ^o-'khcti.   Ath.  de  fyn.  §.  8.  p.  72  1,  722. 


<^  i  lige 


n8  An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  v.  lige  the  Emperor  p,  who  fo  far  favour'd 
<~OT^  the  Semi-arians  at  this  time,  as  to  write  to 
Antioch  for  the  depofition  of  Eudoxius  % 
and  confent  to  the  banifhment  of  Aetius, 
Eunomius,  and  other  heads  of  the  Ano- 
m£an  fadionr. 
359.  After  this  it  was  agreed  to  have  two 
councils  called,  one  at  Rimini  in  Italy  for 
the  Weftern  Bifhops;  the  other  for  the 
E  aft  ems  at  Seleucia  in  Coele-Syria.  The 
council  of  Rimini  confifted  of  more  than 
four  hundred  Biihops  of  the  Weft,  who 
notwithftanding  the  endeavours  which  had 
been  hitherto  ufed  to  draw  or  drive  them 
into  Arianifm,  did  yet  generally  agree  to 
condemn  the  Arian  herefy,  depofing  them 
that  patronized  it,  and  ratifying  the  con- 
feilion  which  had  been  formerly  drawn 
up  at  Nice{.  The  Arians  however  had 
propofed  a  different  confeflion  :  and  both 
fides  fent  their  deputies  to  notify  the  mat- 
ter to  the  Emperor.  The  catholick  depu- 
ties being  young  and  unexperienced  per- 
sons,   did  not  conform  themfelves  to  the 


p  Athanaf.  de  fynod.  Arim.  &  Selene.  §.  8.  p.  722.  Epi- 
phanius  likewife  intimates  their  infmcerity.  Rxr.  73.  §.  if. 
p.  862. 

q  Sozom.  i.  4.  c.  14. 

r   Phiioftorg.  lib.  4.   cap.  8. 

f  Athan.  de  fynod  Arim.  &  Seleuc.  §.  9.  p.  722.  8c  ad 
African.  §.3.  p.  893.  Hilar,  frag.  7.  col.  1341.  Socrat.  1.  2. 
c.  37.  Sozom.  I.4.  c.  j 7. 

difcrect 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  119 

difcreet  dire&ions  which  the  council  gave  Serm.  v. 
them1,  but  partly  by  the  ill  ufage  they  re-  ^^T^ 
ceived,  and  partly  by  the  falfe  pretences 
of  the  Avians,  they  were  fcduced  to  re- 
voke all  that  had  been  done  at  Rimini, 
to  communicate  with  thofc  whom  the 
council  had  condemn'd,  and  to  furn  a  new 
confeffion,  in  which  the  word  fnbftance 
was  entirely  omitted v,  and  the  Son  only 
declared  (agreeably  to  the  fallacy  already 
mentiond)  to  be  like  the  Father  according 
to  the  Scriptures. 

This  conqucft  being  made  over  the  de- 
puties,   Conftantius  quickly  fent  his  orders 
for  the  other  Bifhops   of  the  council    to 
concur  with  them w  ;    who  having  at  fifft 
withftood   the   propofal,     did    yet  yield  at     * 
laft,    partly  thro'  fear  of  banifhment,    and 
other  opprefllons,    and  partly  for  want  of 
underfbndins;  cither  the  terms  or  the  tranf 
actions  of  the  EaftK,  (which  were  artfully 
mifreprefented  to  'cm,    as  if  barely  drop- 
ping the  word  fnbftance  would  have  \c- 
ftorcd  the  peace  of  the  Church,)  but  cipe- 
cially  in  confideratio.n  of  the  offer  which 


1  See  their  directions,  apud  Athanaf.  c\e  fynod.  An'm.  &Se!eur. 
§,  10.  p.  724.  &  §  j-j-.  p.  768.  Confer.  Sulpic.  Sever.  Hifr. 
Sacr.  lib.  2.  c.  5-7. 

u  Athanaf.  ad  African.  §.  3.  p  893.  Hilar,  frag.  8,  9.  col. 
1346,  &c.  Sulpic.  Sever.  Hift.  facr.  1.  2.  c/p. 

w  Ath.  de  tfti.  §.  30.  p.  747. 

*  Ruffin,  J.  10,  aluzs  1.  c.  21. 

C^3  was 


230  An  H'tjhrkalhc count  tf 

Serm.  v.  was  made  them  by  the  oppofite  party,  to 
l^V^  join  with  their  anathemas  againft  the  prin- 
cipal blafphemies  of  Arias,  and  to  reject  the 
word  dvQjuoi@^>  as  well  as  ofjibi&i'^o.  I  fay> 
influenced  by  thefe  motives,  many  of  the 
mod  diftinguinYd  Catholicks  were  drawn 
into  a  compliance,  and  both  fides  irhagin  d 
the  decifions  of  the  council  to  have  fa- 
voured them*.  Yet  after  this  fuch  depu- 
ties were  difpatch'd  to  the  Emperor  td 
give  account  of  their  proceedings,  as  made 
no  fcruple  of  communicating  with  the 
Anomaans a,  who  made  fuch  advantage  by 
this  concurrence,  that  they  even  forced 
the  Semi-aria?isy  however  zealous  for  a 
likenefs  of  fuhfiance,  to  fubferibe  the  con- 
feiTion  of  Ariminum,  and  fo,  in  effecl:,  to 
give  up  the  do&rine  for  which  they  moft 
contended  b. 

Such  was  the  unhappy  refult  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Arimmum.  But  they  who  had  been 
thus  over-rcacli  d  ;  in  the  council,  could 
not  long  afterwards  continue  under  the 
miftake.     The  Avians  quickly  boafted c  of 


■  D.  Ambrof.  de  fid.  1.  2.  c.  16.  aliss  7.  col-.  15-19.  Edir. 
Bened.  D.  Auguft.  in  opere  imperfeilo  contra  Julianum.  -].  1. 
c.  7f,  76.  torn.  10.  col.  919,  Ed.  Bencd.  D.  Hicron.  in  Lu- 
ciferian.  torn.  4.  par.  2.  col.  300.  Ed.  Bened.  Sozom.  1.  4. 
c.  19.  Sulpic.  Scv.  ut  fupra. 

a  Hilar,  frag.  10.  §.  2.  col.  i3fo.  confer,  annotat.  ibid. 

b  Hilar,  contra  Coniran.  §.  if,  26.  col.  12/0,  \2f6.  Soz,* 
H.  E.  I.4.  c.  27. 

*  Hieron.  in  Liiciferian.  torn.  4.  par.  i\  col,  200. 

their 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  231 

their  treacherous  conqueft  :  and  the  whole  Serm.  v. 
world  (as  St.  Jerom  d  fpeaks)  both  grieved  *~^C^J 
and  was  furprized  to  find  itfelf  become 
Arian  unawares.  The  catholick  Bifhops, 
who  were  abfent  or  not  confenting,  ex- 
prefly  declared  themfelves  againft  this  cri- 
minal compliances  and  difownd  the  com- 
munion of  the  compilers.  And  the  great- 
eft  part  of  them  that  had  concurr'd,  did 
afterwards  become  fenfible  of  their  weak- 
nefs  and  indifcretion,  either  actually  fhun- 
ning,  or  at  leaft  bewailing  their  misfor- 
tune to  be  thus  entangled  in,  the  Arian 
communion f. 

Whilft  thefe  matters  were  agitated  in 
the  We  ft  y  it  ought  to  be  remembred  that 
the  Eaftern  Bifhops  were  fitting  at  Seleucia, 
Among  them  indeed  the  majority  were 
Seminarians,  and  from  the  averiion  they 
had  conceived  againft  the  Anomseans,  fcem 
almoft  to  have  become  Catholicks,  ap- 
proving of  the  council  of  Nice  In  every 
thing  but  the  word  oju~Jo-i(5k>$>  and  (if 
Theodorit  be  right)  defending  even  that, 
afterwards,    before  the  Emperor h. 


d  Ingemuit  totus  orbis,  8c  Arianum  (e  efTe  miratus  eft. 
Hieron.  in  Lucif.  ut  fupra. 

*  Vid.  Hilar,  frag,  n.  col.  135*3,   8cc. 

f  Hieron    in  Luciferian.  vid.  &  Hilar,  frag.  12,  it\ 

6  Athanaf.  de  fynod.  Arfm.  &  Seleuc.  §.  12.  p.  726.  Hilar, 
contra  Conftan.  §.  12.  col.  1-148.  Socrat.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c.  30. 

h  Theodor.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c.27. 


(^4  Yet 


2 3 1  An  Historical  Account^/ 

Serm.  v.       Yet  certain  it  is,  the  Anomteans,  tho'  de- 
^W->  pofed i  by  the  council,  did  lb  cunningly  play 
their  part  both  at  Selencia  and  Conftantino~ 
fie,  (deferring  Aefius  their  leader,  and  dif- 
fembling  their  real  fentimcnts,  reje&ing  the 
term  dvojuoi^  as  well   as  bfxoiim@^ k,    and 
acknowledging  a  likenefs,  tho'  pot  of  Juki 
fiance 3    fo   cunningly   (I  fay )   they  play'd 
their  part,)    that  they  turn'd  the  edge  of 
the  Emperor  againft  the  Seminarian  fac- 
tion1, and  meeting  with  the  firft  deputies 
of  the  council  of  Rimini,  drew  them  into 
that  compliance  which  was  mention  d  be- 
fore,   and  which  was  quickly  followed  by 
the  general  concurrence,   firft  of  the  Wef- 
tern,  and  after  of  the  Eaftern  Bifhops. 

Whilft  things  ran  thus  fmoothly  on  the 
fide  of  the  groffer  Avians,  among  whom 
Acachts  of  Ctefarea  appeared  now  to  be 
chief,  we  are  not  to  wonder,  if  they  held 
360.  another  council  at  Conftantinoj>km,  where 
giving  up  A'etius  to  banifhment  and  the 
Emperor's  difpleafuren,  they  managed  other 


'  Athan,  ubi  fupra  Socrat.  1.2.  c.  40. 

k  Athanaf  ic  Synod.  Arim.  &  Seleuc.  §.29.  p.  746*.  When 
Hilary  charged  them  with  tnconfifiency  for  rejecting  bath  tkefe  terms , 
they  replied  that  ht  was  like  the  Father,  but  not  like  God  : 
•which  anfrver  encreafng  his  furprize,  they  went  en,  that  he  was 
begotten  by  his  will,  but  not  of  his  fubftance.  Hilar,  contra 
Conftan.  §.  14.  col.  1249,  1270. 

'  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  41.  Theod.  1.  2.  c.  27. 

m  Socrat.  ibid.  Sozom,  1.  4.  c.  24. 

J  Sozotn.  ibid, 

matters 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  233 

matters  as  they  pleafed  themfelves,  depo-  Serm.  v. 
fing  the  chiefs  of  the  oppofite  party  °,  not  ^OT^ 
under  pretence  of  herefy,  but  crimes  of 
another  kind,  filling  up  their  Sees  with 
fiich  men  as  they  approved  p,  and  rigoroufly 
exa&ing  fubfcriptions  to  the  creed  of  Ri- 
mini^'-i  but  with  this  addition  exprefled, 
that  no  mention  mould  be  made  either  of 
fubfiance  or  hypoftafis1.  But  whether  it 
were  that  they  miftook  their  men,  or  that 
Acacius  proved  falfe  to  the  caufe  which 
he  appeared  to  efpoufe,  the  effect  ought  to 
be  afcribed  to  the  good  Providence  of  God, 
who  for  preserving  his  truth  in  this  time 
of  general  apoftacy,  provided  that  among 
the  new-promoted  Biihops  there  might  be 
fome  who  proved  zealous  aflcrtors  of  the 
catholick  caufe f:  tho'  there  were  others 
who  were  no  lefs  plainly  Anom^ans,  as 
Eudoxius  who  was  tranflated  to  Conftanti- 
nople  in  the  room  of  Macedonias\  and 
Eunomius  promoted  to  the  See  of  Cy- 
z,icusn,  who  afterted  the  Anomaan  doc- 
trine with  fuch  freedom  and  boldnefs  that 


0  Sozom.  ibid.  Socrat.  1.2.  c.42.  Philoftorg.  !.<•.  c.  i. 
p  Ibid. 

*  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  21.  p.  387.  Sozom.  1.4.  c.  26. 
"  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  41. 

r  Vid.  Philoflorg.   If.  c.  1.  &  de  Acacio,   vid.  Epiplian.' 
hser.  73.  §.  28.  p.  876. 

«  Socrat.  1.  a.  c.  43.  Sozom.  1.  4.  c.z6\ 
Jj  Theodor.  1. 2,  c.  27. 

he 


234         ^n  Hifiorical  Account  of 

serm.  v.  he  incurr'd  the  difpleafure  of  the  Empe- 
*-<OT^  ror  w,  and  being  depofed  by  a  fynod  from 
his  Bifhoprick  x,  was  afterwards  condemn  d 
to  various  banifhments.  y,  and  deferving  from 
henceforth  to  be  conftder'd  as  the  head  of  a 
diftind  herefy,  he  grew  fo  audacious  in  pro- 
pagating his  impieties,  as  not  only  to  re- 
baptize  both  Catholicks  and  Semi-arians2, 
but  even  to  alter  the  form  of  baptifni 
which  Chrift  has  inftituted,  and  prefcribe 
it  to  be  adminifter'd  among  his  followers 
In  the  name  of  the  uncreated  Father ',  and 
of  the  created  Son,  and  of  the  fanElifying 
Spirit,  created  by  that  created  Son*.  So 
inconfiftent  did  he  think  the  ancient  Porm 
of  baptifm,  with  his  own  novel  and  moft 
execrable  blafphcmies ! 

There  is  no  doubt  but  both  the  forts  of 
Arians,  all  this  while,  were  heretical  in  the 
article  of  the  Holy  Ghofl,  as  well  as  of  the 
Son,  it  being  hard  to  imagine  that  they 
who  dcny'd  the  proper  Divinity  of  the  fe- 
cond  Perfon,  fliould  acknowledge  that  of 
the  third  b.  But  yet  it  is  obfervable,  that 
hitherto  there  had  been  little  or  no  men- 


»  Cap.  29.  *  Ibid. 

y  See  Tillemont'*  Hiftory  of  the  Arians,  §.  99. 

■  Philoftorg.  lib.  10.  cap.  4.  < 

3  — — .'A»«*ee5T77^s<  i)  cvjtxs  he,  hvof^x  S-tw  etK-nsx,   f£  he,  ovofjtt* 

KiKTurfi/w  liw  KTi&'zvT<&>.    Epiphan.  hasr.  76.  §.  6.  p.  992. 
J  Vid.  Athanaf.  Epift.  1.  ad  Scrap.  §.2.  p.  649. 

tion 


the  Tf initarian  Controversy.  2  3  y 

tion  made  of  that  matter,  in  their  publick  serm.  v. 
difputes,  rieithet  the  hcreticks  feeiiiing  to  v^oT^ 
bppbfe,  nor  the  Catholicks  to  defend  it, 
infbiiitich  that  the  cbuhcil  of  Nice  it  felf 
was  content  in  general  terms  to  profefs  a 
belief  i§  the  Holy  Ghojl,  without  proceed- 
ing to  any  more  diftind  explication  of  that 
articled  Biit  in  the  time  of  Athanajius's  358. 
folitude,  there  were  fome  who  pretended 
to  detefl  the  Avian  herefy  in  refped  of  the 
Son,  but  ventured  even  to  exceed  it  in  re- 
fped  of  the  Holy  Ghojl,  afferting  him  to 
be  not  only  a  Creature,  but  one  of  the  mi~ 
nijlring  Spirits,  that  differ'd  from  the  holy 
Angels  only  in  degree d.  This  gave  the 
ground  for  Athanafius's  cpiftles  to  Serapion, 
upon  that  fubjed,  in  which  he  ranks  thefe 
hereticks  with  the  Arians  themfelves,  and 
reckons  their  blafphemy  againft  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  to  be  an  implicit  denial  of  the  Sons 
Divinity.  And  now  that  Macedonius  and 
his  Semi-arian  brethren,  were  deprived  of  3  do. 
their  Churches,  and  for  afferting  the  like- 
ntfs  of  Subflance  between  Father  and  Son, 


c   Vid.  Epiph.  hxr.  74.  fub  fin,  Bafil.  Epift.  78.  5c  Hieron. 
Epift.  4.T.  alias  63. 

d  — —  hnffvmn  cvjto  (Jtjyi  Uiyvur  xTivyjct,  ccXXot  kxi  tm  Xttrevy- 

uyyixm.  Athanaf.  ad  Serap.  Epift.  1.  §.  1.  p.  648.  Couftanf. 
fuppofes  that  "Ep'tftle  to  have  been  -written  in  360,  or  361.  Viudic. 
vet.  cod.  confirmat.  par.  2.  c.  4.  p.  77.    and  that  the  'hereticks 

there  meant  mere  no  other  than  the  Macedonians. 

I  -  -     -         -   : 

were 


156  An  Hiftorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.  v.  were  looked  upon  as  little  different  from 
^^Y^J  the  Homoufians  y  they  quickly  fhew'd  a 
wide  difparity  between  them,  by  adopting 
the  notion  of  thefe  pretended  Catholicks, 
and  whatever  likenefs  they  might  affert  of 
the  fecond  Perfon  to  the  firft,  (in  which 
point  they  pretended  to  fplit  the  diffe- 
rences and  keep  a  jufl:  medium  between 
the  Catholicks  and  Arians,)  yet  they  whol- 
ly difclairn  d  it  in  the  third,  efteeming  him 
to  be  a  created  and  miniftring  Spirit,  en- 
titled to  thofe  characters  which  the  Scrip- 
ture gives  to  Angels,  but  not  to  any 
which  might  argue  his  Divinity5. 

This  Se&,  who  from  the  doctrine  they 
efpoufed  were  called  cPneumatomachi>  or 
fighters  with  the  Spirit,  and  from  their 
chief  leader,  Macedonians,  had  foon  after 
an  opportunity  of  encreafing  their  num- 
bers, when  upon  the  death  of  Conftantius 
361.  he  was  fucceeded  in  the  empire  by  Julian 
the  apoftate,  who  thinking  at  once  to  in- 
gratiate himfelf  by  an  aft  of  popularity  s> 
(which  at  the  fame  time  reflected  upon 
the  memory  of  his  predeceffor, )  and  to 
deftroy  the  chriftian  faith  by  encouraging 
the   fchifms    and    difputes    of    its   profef- 


e  Vid.  Sczom.  1.  $■.  c.  14. 

f  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  45-.   Sozom.  I.  4.  c.  2.7,  vid.  &  D.  BafiJ. 
Epift.  78.  So,  1 41.  aliofque  paflim. 
*  Socrat.  J.  3.  c.  1.  Theod.  1.  3.  c.  4. 

fors> 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  237 

forsh,  began  his  reign  with  recalling  them  Serm.  v. 
who  had  been  fent  into  banifliment,  and  ^^^ 
admitting  all,  whether  Catholicks,  Semi- 
ariansy  Eunomians  or  Thotinians,  to  the 
enjoyment  of  equal  liberty  or  licenfe1.  And 
though  his  policy  fucceeded  but  too  well 
with  fuch  perfons  as  were  weak  in  the 
faith,  and  more  inclined  to  follow  fecular 
motives  than  thofe  of  truth  and  piety k, 
yet  the  event  did  not  entirely  come  up  to 
his  expectations.  For  when  the  reftraints 
of  fecular  force  were  taken  off,  and  nei- 
ther party  of  hereticks  had  any  advantage 
above  the  Catholicks,  the  latter  clearly  re- 
covered ground,  the  belief  of  a  confubftan- 
tial  Trinity  was  openly  profefs'd  in  a  coun-  362. 
cil  held  by  the  great  Athanafius  at  Alex- 
andriaxy  the  human  foul  of  Chrift  was  af- 
ferted,  in  opposition  to  the  Apollinarian 
do&rine  which  was  lately  flatted,  and  the 
meaning  of  thofe  who  maintain  d  either 
one  or  three  hypoftafes,  was  candidly  ex- 
plain'd,  and  (hewn  to  be  confident.  Then 
many  who  had  fallen,  thro'  weaknefs  or 
inadvertency,  were  ready  to  tetrad  their 
error,   and  fubfcribe  to  the  Nicene  confef- 


h  Sozom.  l.j".  c.  f.  Ammian.  Marcellin.  I.  22.  c.  j.  p.  301. 
pdit.  Valef. 

1  Vid.  Authores  fupra  citat. 

k  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  3.   p.  7f. 

1  Socrat.  1.  3.  c.  7.  Athanaf.  Epift.  ad  Antiocnen.  torn.  1. 
P'773-  §'f>6>7-  Cone.  torn. 2.  p. 6"oq;  &c.  Labbe. 

3  fion  > 


238         An  Hifiofkal Account  of 

Serm.  v.  fion  5  as  we  may  re^fonably  colled  from 
V^nT^  the  general  concurrence  of  all  Churches"1. 
And  thofe  herpick  confeffors,  who  had 
weather'd  out  the  hardfhips  of  the  Arim 
perfecution,  thought  it  but  necefTary,  after 
Co  general  a  confufion,  to  receive  them  as 
brethren,  upon  thefe  conditions,  ^nd  re- 
llore  thern  not  only  to  catholick  commu- 
nion, but  likcwife  to  their  refpe&ive  fta- 
tions  in  the  Church.  Upon  which  ac- 
count St.  Athanajius,  in  the  name  of  his 
council,  wrote  that  celebrated  letter  to  the 
Church  of  Antioch  n,  which  met  with  op- 
pofition  from  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  and  his 
partifans,  who  were  fo  over- rigorous  in 
refufing  to  admit  the  Bifhops  of  this  cha- 
racter, that  when  they  found  themfelves 
over- ruled,  they  even  forfook  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Church,  and  fornVd  that  fchifm 
which  bore  the  name  of  Luciferian  °. 

Yet  in  the  Eafl,  it  muft  be  own  d,  and 
particularly  in  Hellefpont  and  leffer  Afiay 
the  Macedonians  likewife  gaind  ground p, 
by  the  return  of  their  Bilhops,  and  the  Eu- 
nomian  herefy  (which  had  now  fpoke  too 


"*  Vid.  Athanaf.  ad  African.  §.  1.  p.  891.  &  ad  Jovian. 
§.  2.  p.7Si. 

■  Athanaf.  torn,  ad  Antiochen.  torn.  1.  par.  2.  p.  770,  &c. 

0  Vid.  Hieron.  adverf.  Luciferian.  torn.  4.  par.  2.  col.  302, 
Ed.  Ren. 

p  Vid.  Sozom.  I.4.  e.  27.  &  X',f<  c.  14. 


broadly 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  1 3  9 

broadly  to  be  mifunderftood)   loft  credit  sErm.  v. 
in  proportion  a&ithe  other  advanced.  v^yv 

But  the  gentlenefs  of  Julian  being  only 
difguife,  it  quickly  gave  way  to  a  feverer 
perfecution.  His  natural  temper  was  fierce 
and  cruel,  and  his  artificial  lenity  might 
furnifh  out  a  plaufible  pretence  for  treating 
them  with  greater  violence,  with  whom 
the  gentler  methods  of  perfuafion  had  been 
found  ineffe&ual  %  He  began  the  perfe- 
cution in  his  own  court,  and  purfued  it 
in  his  army r,  and  then  carried  it  on  againft 
the  Bifliops  and  other  Ecclefiafticksf,  that 
they  being  not  only  ftript  of  their  privi- 
leges, but  in  many  places  driven  from 
their  churches,  the  people  might  have  none 
to  exercifc  religious  offices1,  and  fo  the 
very  knowledge  of  Chriftianity  might  by 
degrees  be  loft  among  them.  Nor  did  the 
people  themfelves  entirely  efcape  his  vio- 
lence. Tortures  and  exile,  imprifonment 
and  death  in  various  fhapes,  were  the  lot 
of  many  perfons  of  different  condition; 
and  tho'  he  always  ufed  fome  other  pre- 
tence in  excufe  of  his  feverities,  that  he 
might  at  once  avoid  the  odious  name  of 
a  perfecutor,  and  take  from  them  the  ho- 
nourable   titles   of    Confejfors    and    Mar- 


*  Greg.  Naz.  Qrat.  3.  p.  74.  r  Ibid    p.  75. 

f  So?.om.  ].  f,  c.  I  jr. 

<■  Of  this  pcrfecHtioTiy  fee  Tillemont,  torn.  7. 

3  tyrs, 


240  An  Hifiorkal  Account  0/ 

Serm.v.  tyrsny  yet  it  was  clear  enough  that  Reli* 
V*Of>*>  gion  was  the  real  ground  of  thefe  pro- 
ceedings, and  that  his  main  defign  was  to 
extirpate  Chriftianity \  The  magiftrates 
who  a&ed  under  him  he  countenanced  in 
an  abufe  of  power  to  this  purpofe,  and 
the  populace  themfelves  in  publick  tumults 
and  difordersw.  And  had  he  fucceeded 
in  his  Terjian  war,  he  vow'd  an  utter  de- 
ftruttion  of  the  chriftian  name*,  which 
hitherto  he  had  not  ownd  to  be  the  ground 
of  his  feverity.  Now  in  all  this,  as  well 
as  in  his  interdift  of  the  Chrijlians  from 
any  ufe  of  human  literature  y,  all  fefts  and 
parties  being  equally  aggrieved,  this  cannot 
but  be  fuppofed  to  have  corre&ed  the  heat 
of  their  controversies  for  the  prefent,  when 
both  parties  made  it  matter  of  their  prayer 
to  God  to  be  freed  from  his  oppreilions2. 
363.  His  reign  was  but  fhort,  and  that  of  Jo- 
<via?t  his  iiicceffor  was  ft  ill  fliorter.  So  that 
as  the  firft  could  do  but  little  injury  to  the 
catholick  cauie,  the  latter  could  do  it  lit- 
tle fervice.  Yet  as  he  plainly  counte- 
nanced thofe  who  efpoufed  the  council  of 
Nice,  (tho*  with  fuch  temper  and  mildnefs 
as   had   not   been  ufed   by  the  Avians  to- 


Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  3.  p.  72.  w  Ibid.  p.  87,  8cc. 

Orat.  4.  p.  114.  y  Theod.  H.E.I.  3.  c.8. 

Sozom.  J.  6.  c.  4. 

wards 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  241 

wards  the  Catholicks)  fo  there  were  two  Serm.  v; 
councils  held,  the  one  by  At hanajius  at  A-  ^f^t 
lexandria*,  the  other  by  Meletius  at  Ant 7- 
ochh,  which  openly  confciVd  the  confub- 
Jlantialityy  and  admitted  the  Nicene  creed. 
Only  it  is  obfervable,  that  in  this  laft  (in 
which  Acacius  himielf,  and  fomc  others 
of  his  party  were  confenting)  the  manner 
of  expreilion  fecms  chiefly  to  be  lcvell'd 
againft  the  Anom<eans>  and  there  is  no  ex- 
prefs  mention  made  of  the  Holy  Ghoft's 
Divinity ;  whereas  the  other  plainly  ftrikes 
at  all  the  branches  of  Arianifm,  and  ex- 
plains the  Nicene  creed  as  joining  the  Holy 
Ghoft  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  ac- 
knowledging but  one  Godhead  of  the  holy 
Trinity. 

Jovian  was  immediately  fuccecdcd  by  364. 
Valentinian,  who  contenting  himielf  with 
the  Weftern  empire,  committed  to  his  bro- 
ther Valens  the  government  of  the  Eajl c. 
This  made  a  wide  difference  between  the 
ftate  of  thofe  two  parts  of  the  empire,  in 
refped  of  religion :  for  the  two  brethren, 
however  joind  in  intereft,  and  ConfefTors 
alike  in  the  reign  of  Julian,  were  yet  op- 
pofite  in  principle,  the  latter  being,  foon 
after  his  advancement  to  the  empire,  fe- 


a  Theodor.  H.  E.  lib.  4.  cap.  2,  3. 
k  Socrat.  1.  3.  c.aj\  Sozom.  1.6.  c  4. 
I  Socrat.  I.4.  c.  2,  4.   Sozom.  1.  6.  c.  7* 


R  duced 


i^z  An  Hiftorical  Account*?/ 

Serm.  v.  duced  to  the  profeffion  of  herefy,  by  the 
v*/v%^  pcrfuafion  of  his  Emprefs,  and  the  artifices 
of  Eudoxiush\  to  that  Orthodoxy  flourifh'd 
in  the  Weft,  under  the  countenance  of 
Valentintan,  and  Arianifm,  except  in  very 
few  places,  (as  particularly  zx  Milan,  where 
Auxentius,  by  his  grofs  prevarications,  had 
but  too  much  impofed  upon  the  Emperor's 
credulity0,)  feem'd  to  be  utterly  extirpated: 
whilft  in  the  Eaft  the  cafe  was  much  o- 
therwifc,  where  hcrefy  gain'd  ground,  be- 
ing fupported  by  Valens ;  and  the  Catho- 
licks  were,  on  the  other  hand,  expofed  to 
grievous  outrages  and  perfecutions.  For 
fuch,  we  may  obferve,  was  the  true  diffe- 
rence between  them,  that  Orthodoxy  could 
fubfift  by  its  own  light  and  evidence;  and 
as  it  was  not  to  be  utterly  conquer'd  by 
oppreflion ,  fo  it  always  prevaiPd  when 
outward  force  was  fet  aftde :  whereas  A- 
rianifm,  on  the  other  hand,  could  be  no 
otherwife  fupported  but  by  force  and  ma- 
nifeft  oppreflion. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Valens, 


b  Theodor.  1.  4.  c.  11. 

c  Vid.  Maimbourg.  Hiftoire  de  1'Arianifme  1.  f.  p.  5-5-,  &c 
If -may.  however,  be  ohferv'd,  that  Auxentius  was  cenfured  by  4 
council  at  Rome,  in  the  year  370;  and  the  damage  he  had 
done  was  in  fome  meafure  repaired,  by  the  fuccejfion  of  St.  Am- 
brofe  to  the  See  of  Milan,  in  the  year  374,  Vid.  Cave  Hift.lit. 
in  utroque  vol. 

*  the 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  24  3 

the  Macedonians,  and  the  grofler  Arians\  Serm-  v- 
had  each  of  'em  their  refpe&ive  fynods,  V-^^N^ 
in  which  the  firft  adhered  to  the  confcflion 
of  Selencia,  and  the  other  to  that  of  Ri- 
mini. But  the  Emperor  being  prepoficflcd 
in  favour  of  the  Arians,  proceeded  to  per- 
fecutc  the  Macedonians,  in  common  with 
the  Catholicks  5  which  refemblance  of  cir- 
cumftances  made  the  former  think  of 
ftrengthning  their  intcreff,  by  joining  with 
them  in  communion.  To  this  end  they 
fent  deputies  to  the  Weftern  Bifhops,  to  166. 
teftify  their  readinefs  to  receive  the  word 
Qjuboicn@^,  and  fubferibe  to  the  Nicene  con- 
feflione.  There  fcems  fome  rcafon  to  fu- 
fped  that  they  did  not  ( at  leaft  not  all  of 
them)  confent  to  this  in  a  fenfc  entirely 
catholick,  ftnee  not  only  Euftathius  of 
Sebaftia  (who  was  one  of  thefc  deputies) 
did  afterwards  reject  the  Sjuozcngky  and  af- 
fert  only  a  likenefs  of  fubftanccf?  (which 
appear'd  likewife  to  be  the  general  fenfc 
of  the  Macedonian  party  in  the  council  of 
Conftantinople  s,)  but  they  did  in  this  very 
embaffy  explain  the  one  phrafe  by  the  other, 
and  affert  them  to  be  terms  of  equal  im- 


d  Socrat.  lib.  4.  cap.  6. 

e  Socrat.  1.  4.  c.  12.  Sozom.  1.6.  c.  io,  11. 

f  Ks«?  ivrixv  cfAotoy.  D.  Bafil.  Epift.  82.  p.  013,914, 

6  Socrat.  1.  f.  c.8.  Sozom.  1.  7.  c.  7. 

R  z  portance, 


244         ^n  Hifiorkal  Account  0/ 

Serm.  v.  portanceh.  Which  is  the  fame  explication 
^^T^  wherein  Acacius  himfclf  had  not  long  be- 
fore fubferibed  it  in  the  council  of  Anti- 
och\  and  which  the  council  of  Ilfyricumk 
did  fome  few  Years  afterwards  exprefly 
condemn,  as  infincere  and  evafive.  But  at 
this  time,  it  is  probable,  the  Weftern  Bif  hops 
being  not  well  skiird  in  the  proprieties  of 
the  Greek  language,  nor  in  all  the  niceties 
of  the  Eaftern  difputes,  might  not  perceive 
the  latent  artifice,  nor  fufpeft  them  of  e- 
quivocating,  when  they  offer'd  their  fub- 
fcription. 

It  was  obferv'd  before1,  that  the  Nicene 
confeflion  was  lefs  explicit  upon  the  article 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  a  point  which  had 
not  been  openly  debated  at  the  time  when 
that  creed  was  compiled.  So  that  the  Ma- 
cedonians did  with  lefs  difficulty  retain 
their  herefy  in  refped  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
at  the  fame  time  that  they  fubferibed  to 
the  confubftantiality  of  the  Son ;  and  whe- 
ther it  were  that  this  improvement  of  their 
herefy  was  not  yet  underftood  in  the  Weftm, 
or  whether  it  was  not  thought  proper,  in 
that  time  of  confufion,  to  rejeft  any  who 


h  MnHt  n  flct<psfut  tov  ofjtiovaiv  79  tfMiw.    Socrat.  1.  4.  c.  11. 
1  Socrat.  I.5.  c.  2  jr. 
k  Theodor.  1.  4.  c.  8. 
1  See  above,  p.  186. 

m  See  Tillemont.  Memoires  Ecclefiaftiquej  torn.  6.  en  Les 
Ariens.  §.  109. 

would 


'< 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  245 

would  acquiefcc  in  the  general  expreffions  Sehm.  v, 
of  the  creed  upon  that  article  ;   yet  fo  it  ^-^V^ 
was,  that  the  fubfcription  of  thefe  deputies 
was  accepted,  and  themfelves  admitted  to 
communion. 

At  their  return  into  the  Eaft,  this  news  3  67, 
was  joyfully  receiv'd  by  the  catholick 
Bifhops,  who  were  then  fitting  at  Tyana 
in  Cappadocia™-?  and  perhaps  the  union 
had  been  compleated,  if,  whilft  the  A- 
rians  prevented  the  defignd  council  at 
Tarfus,  the  Macedonians  themfelves  had 
not  (many  of  'em)  diflented  from  the  pro- 
pofed  accommodation,  and  judg'd  it  ne- 
cefTary  to  make  exprefs  profcflion  of  no- 
thing farther  than  a  likenefs  of  fubftance0. 
So  that  from  henceforth  the  Macedonians 
appear  to  be  fplit  into  two  different  par- 
ties ;  the  one  which  owned  not  any  pro- 
per Divinity  either  of  the  Son  or  Holy 
Ghoft ;  and  the  other,  which  embraced  the 
confeffion  of  the  council  of  Nice,  but  yet 
differed  from  the  Catholicks,  (like  thofe 
namelefs  hereticks  in  Athanafius  a  few 
years  higher)  in  their  explication  of  that 
article  which  related  to  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
either  plainly  aliening  him  to  be  a  meer 
creature,  or  at  leaft  refufing  to  acknow- 
ledge his  Divinity  p. 


n  Sozom.  1.  6.  c.  12.  •  Ibid, 

*  Vir.  Greg.  Nax.  p.  17. 

R  3  Thefe 


2  4<$  -An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Serm.  v.       Thcfc  laft  were  moft  properly  the  *$Vi»/- 
^^T^  avians^  ;    agreeing  with  the  Catholicks  in 
rcfpecl  of  the  fecond  perfon,  and  with  the 
Avians  in  refped  of  the  third r.     And  the 
council  of  Nice,   having  nothing  exprefly 
levcli'd  againft  their  tenets,   gave  them  an 
advantage  above  the  other  hereticks,  info- 
much  that  they  impofed  upon  feveral  well- 
meaning  people,  and  drew  fome  into  their 
fe&   whom   Nazianzen  comiilends,    not 
only  as  being  orthodox  in  refpect  of  the 
Son,    but  likewife  blamelefs  ill  their  lives 
and   converfations f.      But    the  Catholicks 
foon  found  it  neceffary   to   guard   againft 
the  poifon  of  their  herefy.    St.  Athanafiusy 
in  both  his  fynodical  epiftles  already  men- 
tioned, is  very  full  and  exprefs  in  aflerting 
the  Divinity    of  the   Holy  GhofR     And 
from  the  writings  of  St.  Bajil  and  Gregory 
Nazianzen,   we  fee  what  care  was  taken 
370.    afterwards  to  preferve  the  people  from  this 
dangerous  contagion. 

And  now,  above  all  times,  the  queftion 
of  doxologies  feems  to  have  been  agitated 
with  moft  warmth  and  vehemence.  For 
as  Avians  and  Macedonians  were  all  agreed 
in  denying  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 


?  Jbid. 

1  Vid.  Suicer.  Tfcefaur.  Ecclef.  in  voce  itpixgHw, 

f  Greg.  Naz..  orat.  44.  p.  7  1  o,  7  1 1 . 

?  Aihsnaf  Epifl.  ad  Antiochen*  Qc  ad  Jovian,  ut  iupra. 


rhey 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  247 

they  could  not  fail  to  objcd  againft  that  serm.  v. 
form  of  doxology,  which  afcribes  glory  to  ^s~>T>»J 
him  in  conjunction  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  The  clamours  which  they  raifed 
on  that  account  in  Cappadocia,  gave  occa- 
fion  to  that  excellent  treatife  of  St.  Bajil 
upon  thisfubje&u,  wherein  he  has  defend- 
ed his  condud,  as  well  by  plain  authorities 
of  Scripture,  as  by  the  ancient  ufages  and 
pra&ice  of  the  Church. 

Amidft  all  this  corruption  of  the  Eafl> 
there  was  a  remnant  efcaped.  The  people 
in  fubjection  to  the  See  of  Alexandria, 
fecm  generally  to  have  adhered  to  the  doc- 
trine of  their  great  Athanafius,  who  being 
now  in  the  decline  of  life,  had  been  ob-  367. 
liged  only  to  a  fhort  retirement,  and  after 
that  was  permitted,  whilft  he  lived,  to  fit 
down  in  quiet w,  and  govern  his  affectio- 
nate Church  of  Alexandria.  Mean  while 
St.  Bafil's  endeavours,  were  not  without  ef- 
fect in  Cappadocia.  And  in  the  Church 
of  Neocafarea  in  *Pontus x,  the  true  faith 
was  preferv'd,  by  their  ftrict  adherence  to 
thofe  forms  and  ufages  which  had  been 
long  before  prefcribed  by  Gregory  Thau- 
maturgus.     There  was  moreover  ibme  renv 


"  D.  Bafil.  de  Spiritu  Sanfto  ad  Amphilochium. 
w  Vid.  Montfauc.  in  vit.  Arhanaf.  p.  84,  8^. 
*  Greg.  NyfT.  in  vit.  Thaumat   t.  3.  p.  5-46,  ^47.   Bafi]  de 
Spir.  Sandt  cap.  24. 


R  4  nant 


248  An  Hiftorical  Account^/ 

Serm.  v.  nant  of  the  Catholicks  in  the  other  provin- 
^"''VV  ces,  notwithftanding  the  rage  and  barbarity 
of  Valens,  whofe  cruelties  reached  not  only 
to  banifhment,  but  death,  and  feem'd  even 
to  vie  with  the  outrages  of  heathen  perfe- 
cutors. 
370.  The  great  St.  Bajih  promotion,  in  this 
time  of  violence,  to  the  metropolitical 
See  of  Cafarea  in  Cappadocia>  was  provi- 
dentially defign'd  for  the  confirmation  of 
thofe  who  adhered  to  the  Nicene  faith: 
which  he  ftudioufly  endeavoured,  not  only 
by  his  carneft  exhortations  to  thofe  under 
his  own  jurifdi&ion,  but  likewife  by  his 
feafonable  letters  of  advice  to  other 
Churches,  in  which  the  rage  of  perfec- 
tion had  been  more  violent,  and  deprived 
them  of  their  proper  Paftors.  Yet  this 
muft  be  obicrved,  that  he  was  fo  far 
forced,  in  his  popular  difcourfes x,  to  yield 
to  the  iniquity  of  the  times,  as  to  forbear 
fpeaking  out  in  fo  many  words  that  the 


7  have  defignedly  [aid  [in  his  popular  difcourfes:].^ 
we  have  undoubted  inftances  of  his  calling  the  Holy  Ghoft  God  in 
the  ntoft  exprefs  terms  upon  other  occafions.  Thus,  1.  j*.  contra 
Eunom.  p.  1 1  3.  Oto$  '<%$&  to  Trvivyjct  to  uyw,  tCj  t>Js  ttvr^c,  h»c- 
ynccc,  tu  ttcctp]  y^  rZ  l£).  And  fo  again,  in  his  1 4 1 ff  Epiflle, 
■which  teas  written  by  way  of  Apology  to  his  own  Church  of  Cse- 
farea,  he  has  thefe  words,  p.  oif.  Asov  ofAoXofttv  rot  yrurtfu,  B-t«v 
rov  biov,  B-iov  to  7Tviufj(jX  to  w/ier.      Again,   p.  953.   To  KvtvUM 

■  i.i  ifA/otvrtov  tu>  TrccTei  xtil  liZ>.  And  after  many  infiances  of 
their  being  join'd  together,  he  infers,  p.  034.  ©105  w  re  nvtvpa 
10  Uytcv. 

Holy 


the  Trinitarian  Coniroverfy.  249 

Holy  Ghoft  is  God,  at  which  the  hereticks  Serm.  v. 
about  him  were  molt  apt  to  take  excep-  ^V^ 
tion :  but  he  forbore  it,  not  for  fear  of 
fufFering  in  the  caufe  of  truth,  being  ready 
(as  his  whole  conduft  fhew'd)  to  quit,  not 
only  his  bilhoprick  on  that  account,  but 
even  life  it  felf  thro'  various  tortures,  but 
meerly  to  prevent  their  taking  that  handle 
to  thruft  another  into  his  See  who  might 
promote  the  caufe  of  herefy.  In  the  mean 
time  he  was  careful  to  afifert  the  very  fame 
do&rine  in  terms  equivalent  y,  to  back  it 
with  the  cleared  arguments  of  Scripture, 
and  even  to  enforce  it  from  the  conceffi- 
ons  of  his  very  adverfaries,  as  reckoning 
our  falvation  to  depend,  not  on  the  ufe 
of  the  word,  but  the  belief  of  the  thing; 
upon  which  he  was  ready  to  explain 
himfelf  more  fully  to  as  many  as  con- 
futed him  5  though  even  thus  he  did  not 
efcape  the  cenfure  of  fomc  feverer  Catho- 
licks  z. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  Eafiern 
Church,  whilft  the  Churches  of  the  Weft 
profeis'd  the  catholick  doctrine  with  the 
greateft  peace  and  fecurity :    and  it  feems 


y  Greg.   Naz.  Orat.   20.    funebr.  in  Ban},   p.  364,   36/. 
See  more  of  this  matter  in  the  Preface. 

J  Greg.  Naz.  Epift.  16.  &  D.  Bafil.  Epift.  73, 


to 


2 jo  An  H'tfiorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  v.  to  have  been  during  this  ftate  of  things  S 
v/v*v^  that  the  Bifhops  of  Illyrictm,  fupported  by 
375#    Valentinians  authority,    and  concern d  at 
the  reports  they  heard  of  the  Macedonian 
herefy,    aflerted  in  council  the  confubftan- 
tiality  of  the  whole  Trinity r,    reje&ed  that 
explication   which  abufed  the  word  ojuloh- 
c\@^  it  felf,   as  implying  no  more  than  a 
likenefs  of  fubftance>   depofed  fuch  among 
themfelves  as  were  heretical,   in  refped  ei- 
ther of  the  Son  or  Holy  Ghoft,  and  wrote 
to  the  Churches  of  the  Eaft>  to  encourage 
their  return  to,  or  perfeverance  in  the  true 
faith  b.     Which  was  feconded  by  a  letter  of 
the  Emperor  Valentinian  to  the  fame  pur- 
pofe,    and  his  exprefs  prohibition  of  any 
farther    perfecution    of    the    Orthodox c. 
Wherewith  'tis  probable  his  brother  Va- 
knSy  whofe  name  is  joind  in  that  letter, 
muft   neceffarily   have    complied,     if  the 
375,    death  of  Valentinian*  had  not  foon  left 
him  at  liberty  to  continue  his  barbarities, 
till  the  Gothick  war,  a  few  years  afterwards, 
obliged  him  to  forbear,  and  put  an  end  to 
378.    his  perfecution  firft,   and  foon  after  to  his 
lifee. 


•  See  Tillemont,  Note  86.  fur  lesAriens. 
,*  Theodor.  I.4.  c.  7,  2,  9. 

c  Cap.  8. 

d  Socrat.  1.  4.  c.  31.  See  Tillemont.  lesAriens.  §.  11S. 

•  Socrat.  1.  4.  c.  $f,  38.  Sozorru  1. 6.  c.  39,  40.  TheooV 
I.*  C  $6. 

By 


the  Trinitarian  Contr overfly.  t  j  i 

By  this  time  we  may  obferve  the  Apolli-  Serm.  v. 
narian  herefy  was  grown  confiderable,  fo  ^^^ 
called  from  the  junior  Apollinarisy  Bifhop 
of  Laodicea,  who  was  a  perfon  of  great 
parts  and  learning,  and  had  been  highly 
efteem'd  among  the  Catholicksf  as  a  fuf- 
ferer  for  the  truth,  and  a  ftrenuous  aflertef 
of  a  confubftantial  Trinity :  thoJ  as  he  de- 
lighted to  fhew  his  parts  rather  by  arguing 
from  human  reafon,  and  pretended  demon- 
ftrations,  than  from  the  authority  of  holy 
Writs,  he  is  charged  with  declining  fome- 
times  towards  Arianifm h,  by  afferting  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  dignity  between  the 
three  perfons  5  and  at  other  times  towards 
Sabellianiflm1,  by  confounding  their  per- 
fonal  proprieties  with  dne  another.  But 
the  point  in  which  he  moil  unhappily  in- 
novated, was  the  myfterious  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation.  He  was  apprehenfive  that  the 
Catholicks,  by  teaching  that  the  entire  man- 
hood was  united  with  the  Deity,  did  really 
divide  Chrift  into  two,  and  by  that  means 
introduce  a  creature- worfhip,   or  the  \vor- 


f  Epiph.  H.  77.  §.  24.   Bafil  Ep.  29?.  p.  10 18. 
*  Bafil  Ep.  74. 

h  Theod.  H.E.  If.  c.  3.  &  de  to.  I.  4.  c.8, 
5  Bafil  Ep.  f$.  6c  ipj.  Sc  Theod.  de  Ji£r.  tit  fup. 

{hip 


2j  1  An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

serm.  v.  fliip  of  a  man  who  carried  God  within 
t-OfV/  him k.  For  this  rcafon,  rather  than  give 
way  to  this  imaginary  danger  of  two  per- 
fons,  he  chofe  to  affert  no  more  than  one 
nature1;  and  to  make  out  this,  he  main- 
tained fomctimes  that  the  body  of  Chrift 
was  no  otherwife  animated  than  by  the 
Deity,  though  at  other  times  he  allowed 
him  to  have  had  a  fenfitive  foulm,  or  fuch 
as  is  common  to  all  animals,  yet  ftill  de- 
nying him  fuch  as  is. properly  human  or 
rational,  and  fuppofing  all  the  intelle&ual 
faculties  to  be  fupplied  by  that  fulnefs  of 
the  Godhead  whkh  dwelt  in  him.  Nay, 
he  went  on  to  teach,  or  at  leaft  he  gave  a 
handle  for  his  followers  to  believe,  that 
the  flefh  of  Chrift  it  felf  was  not  taken 
from  the  bleffed  Virgin  (for  which  reafon 
they  refilled  to  call  her  the  Mother  of  God) 
but  that  he  brought  it  with  him  from  hea- 
venn,  that  it  is  indeed  confubftantial  with 
the  Deity  °,  being  either  a  portion  of  the 
divine  Word  converted  into  that  form,  or 
cife  fo  mixed  with  the  divinity  as  to  have 
its  fubfiance   alter  d   and  become  divine?. 


v  Vid.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  ?2.  p.  748,  749. 

1  Apollinar.  in  Eulog.  apud  Phot.  cod.  230.  p.  8yos 


Ruffin.  H.  E.  1.  11.  alias  2.  c.  20. 

*  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  f\.  p.  738. 

•  Vid.  Athanaf.  ad  Epift.  §.  2.  p.  poi. 


The 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  253 

The  horrid  confequences  chargeable  up-  Serm.v; 
on  this  do&rine  were  obvious  and  una-  ^^VN/ 
voidable.  In  the  firft  place,  it  fruftrated  the 
fcheme  of  our  redemption,  by  denying 
that  the  Son  of  God  affumed  that  part  of 
our  nature  which  is  mod  confiderable,  I 
mean  the  reafonable  or  human  foul,  which 
Chiefly  flood  in  need  of  his  falvation  i. 
And  then  it  either  blafphemed  the  nature 
of  God  ',  by  reprefenting  it  as  pajjlble  and 
expofed  to  fufFerings,  fince  that,  according 
to  this  notion,  was  the  foul  which  actuated 
Chrift's  human  bodyf,  and  confequently 
fuffer'd  with  it,  (which  however  it  might 
fuit  the  Arian  fcheme  of  a  created  Ao^(gL, 
and  for  that  reafon  had  been  little  confi- 
der'd  in  the  Arian  controverfy c,  yet  was  it 
by  no  means  tolerable  in  Apollinaris> 
who  pretended  to  confefs  a  confubjiantial 
Trinity:)  or  elfc  it  muft  imply  the  very 
body  of  Chrift  to  be  impajjible  and  im- 
mortal11, and  confequcntly  reprefent  all 
that  is  laid  of  Chrift's  fufFerings  and  death 


p  Vid.  Eulog.  in  Phot,  ut  fupra.  Leont.  Byiant.  de  fcript. 
fuppof.  in  fraud,  Apolhnar*  p.  1035-.  in  torn.  4.  Bibl.  Patr. 
Paris  1624. 

i  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  5*1.  p.  740. 

1  Vid.  Athanaf  contra  Apol.  J.  1.  §.  2.  &  de  incarn.  p.  92  3* 

1  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  46".  p.  722. 

'  Orat.  ft.  p.  740. 

•  Athanaf.  ibid.  8c  ad  EpicT:.  p.  906.  §.  7. 

I  to 


2  J4         dn  Hifioricql  Accounts/ 

Serm.  v.  to  be  merely  fantaftick   arid  imaginary  w. 

VOT^  Tis  true ,  Apoll'maris  himfelf  did  upon 
occafion  reject  and  anathematize  thefe  no- 
tions of  the  divine  nature  being  pajjible^ 
and  the  body  of  Chrift  confubftantial  with 
the  Deity x.  But  they  were  clear  confe- 
qucnces  of  his  other  affertions,  and  were 
accordingly  acknowledg'd  by  his  followers  y, 
qf  whom  the  antients  have  reckoned  up 
three  different  feels,  fome  adhering  chiefly 
to  one  part  of  this  fchemc,  and  others  to 
another z. 
360.  TiiGfe  notions  feem  to  have  been  fpread 
362.  in  fome  meafure  before  the  death  of  Con- 
ft  ant  ins :  but  Apollinaris  himfelf  was  fo 
%*  from  declaring  for  them  openly,  that 
he  had  his  deputies  concurring  in  that  very 
council  which  condemn'd  them  at  Alex- 
andria*,  in  the  reign  of  Julian.     After 


f  Greg.  Naz.  Oraf.  14..  p.  211. 

x  Leont.  de  Scrip,  fuppof.  p.  1033. 

y  Theod.  de  haer.  I.4.  c.  9. 

7  Non  Deum  tantum  dicimus  Chriftum,  ficut  hseretici  Ma- 
tuchxi  i  ncc  hominem  tantum,  ficut  hseretici  Piiotiniani  ; 
nee  ita  hominem,  ut  aliquid  minus  habeat,  quod  ad  humanam 
certum  eft  pertinere  naturam,  five  animam,  five  in  ipsa  ani- 
m;t  mentem  rationalem,  five  carnem  non  de  femina  fumptam, 
fed  factam  de  verbo  in  carnem  converfo  atque  mutatoj  quae 
omnia  tria  falfa  8c  vana  haereticorum  ApoJiinariftarum  tres 
partes  varias  diverfa'fque  fecerunt.  D.  Auguft.  cle  dono  Perfeve- 
rantU  prope  fin.  torn.  10.  col.  Sy8.  Edit.  Bened.  vidt  8c  Epi- 
phan.  hser.  77.  §.  20,  8cc. 

a  Vid.  Athanaf.  ad  Antiochenf.  p.  776.  Tillemont.  torn.  7. 
Let  Apollinariftes,  §.  7. 

this 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  2  5  j 

this  Athanafius   labour'd  to  oppofe  them  serm.  v. 
with  great  earneftnefs,  but  without  making  v^nr^> 
any  mention  of  their  proper  author  b.    Af-     369* 
ter  the  death  of  Athanafius,  tho'  fome  be- 
gan  to  accufe  Apollinaris  as  the   abettor 
of  thefe  fentiments,  yet  there  were  others 
could  hardly  give  credit  to  the  accufationc; 
neither  Pope  cDamafusy    nor  the  council 
held  under  him  at  Rome,  whilft  they  con-     375. 
demn'd  the  tenets,   took  the  freedom  to 
charge  them  upon  any  author d  5    and  tho' 
Epiphanius  mentions  hime,  yet  he  does  it     37^ 
very  tenderly,   and  inftead  of  denominat- 
ing the  fed  after  him,    chufes  to  defcribe 
the  perfons  of  fuch  fentiments  by  the  name 
of  cDimterit£y    as  believing  only  one  part 
of     the    dodlrine     of    the     incarnation  : 
againft  whom  therefore,   as  well  as  againft 
the  Macedonians,    fome   of  thofe  expref- 
fions  were  very  clearly  levell'd,   which  arc 
inferted  in  thofe  creeds  or  forms  of  con- 
feflion,  which  are  produced  by  Epiphanius*. 
But   at  length,    when  he  had  form'd   his 
fchifm  openly,  and  ordain  d  Bifhops  of  his 


b  Athanaf.  de  incarnat.  contra  Apollinar.  It  is  to  be  oof  rid 
that  Apollinaris'*  name  is  put  in  the  title  of  thefe  books  by  ano- 
ther hand,  but  does  not  appear  in  the  books  themfeheu 

c  St.  Bafil  fpeaks  doubtfully,  Epift.  5-9,  82," 

4  Concil.  Roman.  Labbe  torn.  2.  p.  897. 

e  Epiphan.  hasr.  77.  §.  2,  24. 
fin  Ancorat.  verfus  finem- 

own 


2  $6         An  Hijiorical  Account/?/ 

Serm.  v.  own  party,   he  was  not  only  difclaimedf 
^^T^  by  the  Catholicks  of  AJia  and  Egypt,  but 
exprefly  cenfur'd  by  a  council  held  under 
Pope  ^Damafus  at  Rome  s,  whole  fentence 
378.    was    immediately    confirmed    by    another 
council  held  at  Alexandria h  y  and  foon  af- 
ter by  a  third  in  his  own  neighbourhood 
at  Antioch'K     Notwithstanding  which,   he 
380.    had  the  confidence,   two  years  after  that, 
to  expect  that  the  See  of  Antioch  fhould 
be  put  into  the  hands  of  his  party  by  Theo- 
dofiiis:    when   being  difappointed  of   his 
claim,  he  perftfted  in  his  herefy  with  greater 
obftinacy,    which  drew  on  the  cenfures  of 

3  S 1 .    the  general  council  of  Conftantinopley  but 

left  the  feeds  of  many  fatal  divifions  for 
the  following  centuries k. 

378.  But  to  return  to  the  empire  upon  the 
death  of  Valens:  Gratian  and  Valentinian 
the  younger,   who  had  fucceeded   to  the 

375.  Weft,  upon  the  death  of  their  father,  were 
now  in  poilellion  of  the  whole  empire1; 
the  latter  of  whom  being  too  young  for 
action,  the  whole  burden  lay  upon  the 
former,  who  began  his  feign  with  as  large 


f  D.  Bafil.  Epifl.74.8c  295. 

g  ConcU.  Labbe  torn.  2.  col.  S99.   Sozom.  1.  8.  c.  if, 

"  Ruflin.  H.  E.  1.  1  1.  alias  2.  c.  20. 

1  Concil.  Labbc  torn.  2.  col.  900. 

fc  Thcod.  H.  E.  I.  jr.  c  2,4. 

'  Socrat.  1.;-.  c.  2.  Sozom.  I.7.  c.  1.  Theodor;  I.  f .  c.  r. 

a  ftcp 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  257 

&  ftep  as  could  well  be  made  immediately  Serm.  v; 
in  favour  of  the  Catholicks  $  namely,  with  V-^^M 
calling  back  the  exiles,  and  granting  an 
indulgence  to  all  feds  and  parties,  except 
the  Manichaans,  cPhotinians,  and  Euno- 
miansm\  He  foon  found  it  neceffary  to  379» 
divide  the  burden  of  his  government  5  and 
committing  the  empire  of  the  Eaft  to 
TheodoJitiSy  he  contented  himfelf  (as  his 
father  had  done)  with  that  of  the  JVeft n : 
where  hoping  with  more  cafe  to  deftroy 
the  fmall  remains  of  herefy,  he  thought  it 
not  needful  to  grant  the  fame  indulgence 
he  had  done  in  the  Eaft>  but  utterly  for- 
bad the  hercticks,  of  whatever  denomi- 
nation, either  to  difpute  in  publick  the 
matter  of  their  tenets,  or  hold  their  fcpa- 
rate  affcmblies0. 

Theodofins  was  no  lefs  diligent  to  effed 
the  reformation  of  the  Eaft ;  and  laying  to 
heart  how  he  might  purge  the  capital  city 
of  Conftantinopky  (where  cDemophilusJ  a- 
bout  eight  years  before,  had  fuccccdcd  to 
EtidoxiuSy  fo  that  it  had  now  been  in 
the  hands  of  the  Arians  for  near  forty 
years,)  he  concurred  with  the  general  defire 
of  the  Catholicks,    that  Gregory  Nazian- 


ra  Suidas  in  voce  r^-navo's.  Socrat.  8c  Sozom.  ut  fupr. 
n  Socrat.  ibid.  Sozom.  1.  7.  c.  2.  Theod.  1.  5-.  c.  6. 
0  Cod.  Theodof.  10".  tit.  $■►!./.  vid.  comment.  Gothofred. 
ibid. 

S  zen 


2 y 8  An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

serm.  v.  zen  might  be  placed  in  that  SeeP,   who, 
lta/v^v>  purfuant   to  the  appointment  of  the  late 
378.    council  of  Antiochj  had  been  greatly  help- 
ful to  them  in  fettling    their  affairs,  and 
confirming  them  in  the  profeffion  of  the 
catholick  faith.    His  inftalment  in  this  great 
See,    was  folcmnly   approved   and  ratified 
in  the  firft  feillon  of  the  general  council, 
which  met  quickly  after  in  that  city  3    but 
381.    rinding  it  was  like  to  be  a  matter  of  much 
odium  and   conteft,    he  prudently  refign'd 
it  again  %    and  the  council  thought  fit  to 
make  choice  of  Nett 'arms  in  his  roomr. 

The  Emperor  in  the  mean  time  publifh- 
cd  his  laws  to  reftrain  the  hereticks  from 
holding  their  congregations  in  the  towns 
or  cities f 5  lb  that  however  bufy  they  might 
be  in  fomenting  divifions,  and  declaring 
for  feparatc  affemblies*,  they  were  like  to 
do  lefs  mifchief,  when  they  were  forced 
to  go  out  of  town,  than  if  their  places  of 
worlhip  had  been  nearer  at  hand. 

After  lb  long  and  grievous  a  confufion 
as    the  Churches  of  the  Eajl  had  under  - 


'  "  Socrat.  1.  ?.  c.  6.  Sozom.  1.  7.  c.  3.  Theod.  I  jr.  c.  8. 
vid.  8c  Cave  Hift.  Lit.  vol.  1.  ad  an.  370.  &  vol.  2.  in  concil. 
Gonftantinop.  ad  an.  381.  and  life  of  Greg.  Naz.  feci:.  3,  4,5-, 

1  Socrat.  i.y.  c  7.  Sozom.  1. 7.  c.  7.  Theod.  ibid., 

r  Socrat.  Uj..c.  8.  Sozom.  I.  7.  c.8.  Theod.  1.  f.  c.  8,9. 

1  Cod.  Theodof.  16.  tit.  5-.  1.  6.  p.  1 17, 1 18.  Edit.  166^. 

1  This  feems  to  be  hinted  at  in  the  conclufion  of  the  fynodical 
rptftle  of  the  council  of  Conftantinople.  Theodor.l.^.  c,p. 


gone 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  t  jp 

gone  fince  the  death  of  Conftantine^  there  Serm.  v. 
could  be  no  better  expedient  for  rcftoring  ^^^ 
peace  and  order,  than  to  convene  a  free 
and  general  council  of  the  Eaftern  Bifhops, 
befides  that  of  the  Weftern  Bifhops,  who 
met  at  Ao[uileia.  They  affembled  there-  3 Si. 
fore  at  Constantinople,  to  the  number  of 
an  hundred  and  fifty,  who  were  ready  and 
difpofed  to  re-eftablifh  the  ancient  and  ca- 
tholick  do&rine  of  the  Church u.  They 
had  little  grounds  to  exped,  that  they  who 
had  been  moil  forward  and  active  to  pro- 
mote the  caufe  of  Arianifm,  would  ever 
be  prevailed  with  to  come  into  any  terms 
of  accommodation  with  them.  But  they 
had  better  hopes  of  the  Macedonians  or 
Tneumatomachi,  who  leaning  ( fome  of 
them)  to  be  orthodox  in  refpc&  of  the  fe- 
cond  perfon  of  the  Trinity ',  and  others  on- 
ly doubtful,  in  refped  of  the  third,  and 
having  in  the  late  time  of  diftrefs  even  fo- 
liated an  union  with  the  Catholicks,  were 
fuppofed  to  be  lefs  defperatcly  bent  upon 
their  error,  and  were  therefore  invited w 
to  be  prcfent  at  this  council.  Six  and 
thirty  of  their  Bifhops  came  accordingly, 
but  inftead  of  coming  over  altogether,  they 
even  rctra&ed  their  former  accommodati- 
on,   and  declared  themfelves   in   a  better 


I  Socrat.  ly.  c.8,  w  Ibid. 

S  2  difpo- 


1 60         An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  v.  difpofition  to  embrace  Arianifm,  than  ad- 
^Y^  mit  of  the  Nicene  confeffion x.  After 
their  departure  to  confirm  their  party  in 
the  fame  fentiments,  the  firft  bufinefs  of 
the  council,  with  relation  to  the  faith,  was 
to  rc-cftablifli  that  confeffion  which  the 
hereticks  reje&ed,  and  be  fomewhat  more 
expreis  againft  the  modern  innovations  of 
the  Apollinarians  and  ^Pneumatomachi. 

It  has  been  mention  d  more  than  once,' 
that  the  Nicene  creed  concluded  with  a 
bare  profeffion  of  belief  in  the  Holy  GhoJly 
Vrithout  any  farther  explication  of  that  ar- 
ticle, or  the  addition  of  any  other  after  it; 
it  being  not  the  defign  of  its  compilers  to 
draw  up  a  compleat  declaration  of  faith, 
but  only  to  explain  that  important  article 
of  the  Son's  Divinity,  which  the  Arians  at 
that  time  contefted.  Not  that  we  are  to 
iiippofe  there  was  no  creed  in  the  Church 
which  proceeded  farther  than  this !  There 
were  other  forms,  which  had  been  anci- 
ently made  ufe  of  in  the  feveral  Churches 
(admitting  of  fome  variety  in  the  expref- 
fton,  but  agreeing  in  their  main  fcope  or 
defign)  which  it  was  not  the  meaning  of 
that  auguft  council  to  fet  afide  or  abolifh ; 
and   accordingly    it    was  obferv'd  r>    that 


f  Socrat.  1.  ?.  c.  8.         *  Sec  ferm.  4.  p.  1S8. 

they 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  t6t 

they  continued  afterwards  in  ufe  in  thofe  Serm.  v. 
Churches  refpe&ively.  The  African7-  and  ^^W 
European*  creeds  in  general  (which  cer- 
tainly were  not  longer  than  the  Eaftern) 
are  well  known  to  have  exprefs'd  fome  o- 
ther  articles  after  that  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
as  the  catholick  Churchy  the  forgivenefs 
of  fins ',  the  refurreflion  of  the  ftefh,  and 
everlafting  lifeb.  And  it  is  no  lefs  cer- 
tain that  the  Eaftern  creeds  exprefs'd  the 
fame  articles,  as  may  appear  from  that  of 
Jerufalem,  explaind  by  St.  Cyril  to  his 
Catechumens c,  that  of  Antioch,  or  fome 
other  Eaftern  Church,  preferv'd  among  the 
Confutations  called  Apoftolical^,  and  that 
propofed  by  Arius  and  Euzoius,   as  taken 


x  Neceflario  adjiciturEcclefia:  mentio.  Tertul.  de  Bapt. 

cap.  6.  ■  In  quern  enim  tingueret  ?  In  poenitentiam  ? 
■  In   peccatorum    remifiionem  ?  In    femetipfum  ? 

■     ...  In  Spiritum  San&um  ?  In  Ecclefiam?   ibid.  c.  n. 

— Dicunt,  credis  remifiionem  peccatorum,  &  vitam  seter- 
nam  per  fan&am  Ecclefiam?  Cypr.  Epift.  dp.  vid.  St  Ep.  70. 
Edit.  Oxon. 

a  De  Romano  &  Aquileienfi  fymbolo.  Vid.  Rufnn.  expof. 
in  fymbol.  Apoft.  inter  opera  D.  Cypriani  Oxon.  Only  ob- 
ferve,  that  the  article  of  everlafting  life,  wat  not  then  wferted  in 
the  Roman  Creed. 

b  Vid.  D.  Bull  Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  cap.  6*.  §.^. 

c  Kest  lie,  fjuUv  xyixv  x.x$o\iKyy  IkkX^Axv  xes*  <r#£«e?  ec.vct?X<ri*% 
xcti  h$  &w  wmuv.  Cyril.  Hierof.  Catech.  18. 

d  ■      .i  ,"Ei$  7Tviufx>Ui  ivseytvuv—*    h  tvj  xyict  xxQoXtKy  In* 

K-Mt.*.,  s<5  <r«pxos  uvci<?x<riv,  kxI  ii$  ecQttriv  d^xynm^  v.x\  ue,  /3x~ 
rtXeietv  ovpxvav,  kx\  iic,  tyw  tS  jAsAAeyros  &&*&*,  Conft.  Apoft. 
I.J,  C.  41. 

S  \  from 


i6z  An  Hiflorkal Account  of 

Serm.  v.  from  the  ancient  forms c.  Some  of  which 
^^T^  however  are  more  exprefs  as  to  the  Unity 
of  the  Church  Catholick^  and  the  nc- 
cefllty  of  baptifm,  as  the  means  of  re~ 
miJfion*\  and  if  they  may  not  all  be  re- 
ferred, in  every  one  of  thofe  articles,  to  the 
apoftolical  age  it  felf,  yet  furely  no  one 
would  contend  to  bring  them  lower  than 
the  fecond  century,  when  the  Valentinian 
and  other  Gnoftick  hereftes  gave  manifeft 
occafton  for  inferting  them  h.  Againft  the 
fame  hereticks,  who  afferted  the  Holy 
Ghoft  and  the  Paraclete  to  be  diftincl:  from 
one  another,  and  both  of  them  to  be  di- 
ftinguifhed  from  the  infpirer  of  the  ancient 
Prophets1 :  againft  thefe,  I  fay,  it  was  un- 
doubtedly, that  fome  of  thofe  fame  anci- 
ent creeds  inferred  this  character  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  or  fomething  to  the  fame  pur- 
pofe,  that  he  is  the  Paraclete  who  /pake 
by  the  Prophets  k. 

All 


e  'E<$  to  tcyioy  t:vs.u[J<jK,  x.ou  J»$  cc/L^coc,  eiyotfouriv,  xea  itq  £oiw 
7%  u,ix\o)ir(&>  ccwv®*',   y.a]  he,  ficLtriMictv  ovpeevctiv,    xeti  in;  fjj.a.9  »#- 

CcXiXtV    iKKX'/!(TlCCy     TOU     SiOU     7V)V     Ct.~0     KIOOCTOJV    iOOC,    TTifOlTfiJ1;*  6)5 

vrourcc  xxSohtv/)  ixx.Xycr.ci,  x.od  ui  ypcctyai  Jl^eKnctstriv.  Aril  fymbol. 
Apud  Soerat.  H.  E.  1.  1,  c.  z6. 

f  Mixv  iKxXqcr-ccv.    Arius  8c  Cyrillus  ut  fupra. 

8  K.cu  Lt  tv  fiuzTitrtJua  pzTave'ioct .  Cyril.  Hierof.  Cat,  Myft.  i, 
(.6. 

h  Vid.  D.  Bull  Jud.  Eccl.  Cath.  c.  6.  §.  10,  &c. 

*  See  the  fecond  Sermon,  p.  66. 

k  'E<?  h  ccytcv  smfyoes,  -ro  Txxet/.KXvjroi,  ro  XctXycrccv  2*J&  tzjv 
•&p9<pn™v»  Cyril.  Hic^of.  Catcch.  16.    'Eur*  vnZtAx  tv  uymt 

TtfTfft 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i6$ 

All  thefe  articles  therefore,  which  were  Sekm.  v, 
already,  and  had  been  long,  fettled  and  re-  ^^>T^ 
ceived  in  the  feveral  Churches,  the  Fathers 
who  were  aflemblcd  at  this  fecond  general 
council,  thought  fit  to  annex  to  that  con- 
feflion  of  faith1  which  had  been  drawn 
up  at  Nice.  But  becaufe  the  Afollinarian 
hercfy  was  now  greatly  encreafed,  which 
not  only  difown'd  ChrifVs  being  polTeiied 
of  a  reafonable  or  human  foul,  but  even 
denied  Chrift's  fleih  to  be  of  the  fame  kind 
with  ours,  or  taken  from  the  fubftance  of 
his  Mother,  nay  afferted  (fome  of  'em)  its 
being  confubftantial  with  the  Deity :  it 
was  thought  but  necelfary  that  fome  more 
exprefs  declaration  mould  be  added  in  op- 
pofition  to  iiich  dangerous  abfurdities.  And 
therefore  what  the  Nicene  creed  had  more 
concifely   exprefs'd,    that   he   came  down. 


ej$,  vVspev  •■)  oi7roTxXivt  <£  roXc,  0,7:0^0X0^.  k.t.X.    Conftit.  Apofl. 
I.7.  c.  4.. 

1  They  inferted  likewife  from  ancient  creeds  this  explication  of  the 
Son's  generation,  that  it  was  zzfo  ztccvtuv  tumm  5  which  phrafe, 
however  it  had  been  abufed  by  the  Arians  to  another  fen fe,  was 
underjlood  to  include  the  Notion  of  Eternity.  And  as  they  made 
thefe  additions,  fo  they  omitted  fome  claufes  of  the  Nicene  creed* 
as  having  their  fenfe  fufficiently  exprefs  d  in  others.  Such  were, 
(1.)  ©joy  Ik  B-ioZy  which  is  included  in  what  follows,  B-zov  uX^mov 
Ik  B-iou  kXy&ivcv.  (2.)  Tutz  h  roTc,  ovpcivoTc,  kcu  to*  h  ry  yvt 
which  is  included  in  what  went  before,  &'  *  tu  Tnivrcc  lymro. 
And  (■$.*)  TtsTifiv  Ik  t??  wwwbs  tov  nxrfos,  which  is  included  in 
the  celebrated  claufe  opova-M  ra  ttoct^L  Vid.  Suicer.  Thefaur. 
Ecclef.  in  voce  wpbofay. 


S  4  and 


u^r>^ 


264  An  Hiftorical  Accounts/ 

Serm.  v.  and  was  incarnate ,  ayid  was  made  man*, 
was  now  explain  d  by  inferring  that  claufe 
from  the  fhortcr  creed  of  Epiphanius, 
which  had  been  lately  leveil'd  againft  this 
new  herefy,  that  he  came  down  from  hea* 
<ven,  and  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghofi 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man  j 
which  is  dill  more  fully  explain  d  in  their 
fynodical  epiftle^,  where  they  profefs  to 
retain  the  doctrine  of  our  Lords  incarna- 
tion ancorrupt,  not  efleeming  him  to  be 
without  foul  or  mind,  nor  reprefenting  the 
difpenfation  of  the  flefo  to  be  my  way  im~ 
perfect,  but  acknowledging  the  whole,  that 
as  before  all  ages  he  fubfifted  the  perfect 
Word  of  God,  fo  for  our  falvation  in  thefe 
latter  days  he  became  perfect  man. 

And  fo  again,  ftnce  the  do&rine  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft's  Divinity  was  now  impugned 
by  another  fort  of  hereticks,  who  agreed 
fo  far  with  the  Church  as  to  confefs  him 
the  Paraclete  mentioned  in  the  GofpeJ, 
and  the  fame  who  had  fpoken  by  the  an- 
cient Prophets,  the  Canft^ntinopolitan  Fa- 
thers very  rightly  judg  d  that  this  part  of 
the  creed  which  had  hitherto  fufficed  to 
guard  againft  the  Gnofiick  herefy,  ought 
now  to  be  more  dire&ly  pointed  at  the 
Pneumatomachi,     For  this  reafon  it  was, 


JJ  Thepd.  H.  E.  If.  c.  9. 

(hat 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  165 

that  inftead  of  the  name  of  Taraclete,  serm.  v. 
they  inferted  (again  from  the  fame  creed  ^Y^ 
of  Epiphanms)  thofe  other  more  auguft 
characters,  that  he  is  the  Lord  and  giver 
of  life,  that  he  proceedeth  from  the  Fa- 
ther, and  with  the  Father  and  the  Son 
together  is  worshiped  and  glorified^.  They 
aicribe  to  him  the  divine  name  and  nature, 
when  they  call  him  Lord  in  that  high  and 
eminent  fenfe  which  anfwers  to  the  in- 
communicable name  of  Jehovah,  They 
afcribe  to  him  the  divine  power  and 
operations,  when  they  reprefent  him  as 
the  author  and  giver  of  life  \  whether  na- 
tural, and  that  as  well  at  firft  in  the  crea- 
tion, as  hereafter  in  the  rcfurre&ion ;  or 
elfe  fpiritual,  by  his  inward  and  fanctifying 
graces,  by  the  transforming  and  renewing 
of  our  minds.  But  then,  that  they  might 
preferve  the  divine  Unity,  they  were  care- 
ful to  teach,  not  that  he  is  aVnfe©.,  or 
Gad  of  himfelf  but  that  he  (as  well  as  the 
Son)  has  the  divine  eflence  communicated 
or  derived  to  him.  In  refpeft  of  this  com- 
munication, as  the  Son  is  laid  in  Scripture 
to  be  begotten  of  the  lather,  io  likewife  is 
the  Holy  Ghoft  faid  to  proceed  from  him. 


mm    11   iR«t    SJ$    TO    Xiiblbtt,    TO    CS/IGV,      TOV    K'jOiCV,     TO    &O7T0HV,     TO 

*       c-  .       \     »  /  <r         '  \     \  \      \  i '  ~  1 

£K    TCU     XCCT^OC,     iKX6flV<y(typv ,      TO     (T'JV    XXTgl    KCCl    UlM    <rV(X,7rpc<rKtWX- 

fdp*v  xcel  riwhlcctyffyjot.    vi&  Cone.  Ccnftantinop.  ex  Edit. 
Labbe  torn,  a.  col.  95-4. 

This 


i66  An  Hiftorical  Acco u n t  of 

Serm.  v.  This   therefore  is   the   expreffion  retained 
Ks*/SJ  here  in  the  creed,  and  this  being  fufficient 
to  guard  againft  that  charge  of  Tritheifmy 
which  the  Macedonians  were  apt  to  urge 
againft  them0,    (not  conftdering  that  the 
fame    arguments    which   vindicated  them 
from  <rDitheifm,    would  vindicate  the  Ca- 
tholicks  from  Tritheifm  likewife;)   I  fay, 
this  being   fufficient   for  the  prefent  pur- 
pofe,  they  did  not  defcend  to  that  queftion 
which  in  after-ages  was  improved  to  fuch 
a   breach   between   the   Greek  and  Latin 
Churches  ;    whether  he  proceeds  from  the 
Son  as  well  as  from  the  Father,  but  went 
on  to  affert   that  equality  of  honour  and 
worship  which  the  hereticks  denied,   when 
they  excluded  him  from  their  doxologies, 
that  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  together 
he  is  worshiped  and  glorified. 

As  this  council  of  Constantinople  was 
not  immediately  acknowledged  by  all 
Churches  for  a  general  council  p,  fo  there 
is  reafon  to  believe  that  the  explications  of 
their  creed  were  not  univerfally  inferted 
in  the  creeds  of  all  Churches.  The  Wef- 
tern  Churches  ftill  ftuck  to  their  ancient 
forms,  and  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria 
the  Nicene  creed  feems  <i  ftill  to  have  con- 


°  Vid.  Greg.  Naz.  Or2t.  37.  p.  600. 
p  Sec  Dupin  fourth  Cent.  Cone,  of  Conftant.  A.  D.  383. 
q  Steph.  de  Altimura  (i.  e.  Le  Quien)  in  Panoplia  fe£h  1 1 .' 
J.  §.$. 

tinued 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  i6y 

tinued  without  the  new  explications,  fince  Serm.  v. 
the  council  of  Ephefus  (at  which  St.  Cyril  ^YN-* 
of  Alexandria  preftded )  not  only  makes 
mention  of  no  other,  but  exprefly  for- 
bidsr  any  enlargement  or  addition  to  it: 
which  tho'  perhaps  it  might  ftri&ly  intend 
to  exclude  nothing  elfe  but  the  addition  of 
new  or  inconfiftent  do&rincs,  yet  feems1" 
withal  to  imply,  that  they  had  not  at  that 
time  receiv'd  any  farther  explication  of  the 
old  ones.  And  in  the  council  of  Chalce- 
don1,  though  the  Conftantinopolitan  expli- 
cations were  admitted,  yet  we  may  juftly 
conclude  from  the  behaviour  of  the  Egyp- 
tian Bifhops,  that  they  had  not  hitherto 
been  ufcd  to  them.  There  had  likewife 
been  a  creed  lately  compiled  at  Antiochy 
agreeable  to  that  of  Nice,  which  being  ap- 
proved of  in  this  very  council  of  Conftan- 
tinople,  might  probably  be  ufed  by  many 
of  the  Eaftern  Churches.  But  whatever 
be  faid  of  this  variety  of  forms,  yet  the 
perfect  harmony  which  is  obfervcd  be- 
tween the  feveral  Churches,  in  delivering 
their  notions  of  the  matter  contain  d  in 
them,  will  not  fuffer  us  to  doubt  but  that 
fhey  all  agreed  in  the  do&rine  taught  by 
thefe  explications,  and  underftood  their  re- 

r  Cone.  Ephef.  par.  2.  Ad.  6.  p.  363.  Bin. 
f  Le  Quien  ut  fupr.  §.  p,  &c. 
*  Cone  Chalc.  Act.  j.  p.  ^7. 

fpedtive 


16%  An  Historical  Account  of 

SmM.  v.  fpe&ive   creeds  in  that  very  fenfe  which 
V-'OT^  the  Conftantinopolitan   fathers  had    more 
fully  exprefs'd. 

Whilft  thefe  determinations  were  mak^ 
ing  by  the  council,  the  Emperor  added  the 
fanftion  of  his  penal  laws,  not  only  ex- 
cluding the  hereticks  from  the  churches 
381.  already  built,  but  even  forbidding  them  to 
build  new  ones,  whether  in  town  or  out 
of  itu.  Thefe  laws  do  not  at  firft  appear 
to  have  been  ftrictly  executed :  but  as  if 
Theodo/liiss  defign  had  been  rather  to  keep 
the  hereticks  in  awe,  than  really  opprels 
them,  he  was  fevere  upon  none  befides 
EunommSy  (nor  upon  him  conftantly, ) 
leaving  the  reft  to  hold  their  refpc&ive 
communions  without  difturbancew;  till  at 
laft  Amphilochius  the  Bifhop  of  Iconhim 
ufed  preffing  and  repeated  inftances  to  get 
him  to  reftrain  their  affemblies**  where- 
383.  upon  the  fame  laws  were  renewed  y,  as 
388.  likewife  again  fome  years  afterwards2, 
when  he  was  marching  againft  Maximus^ 
who  had  ufurp'd  the  Wefiem  empire  upon 
the  death  of  Gratian*. 


*  Cod.  Theod.16'  tit.  7.  1.8.  p.  123.  Edit.  i66y. 
w  Socrat.  H.  E.  1.5-.  c.  20. 

*  Sozom.  L7.  c.6.   Theod.  1.  5-.  c.  16. 

y  Cod.  Thcodof.  \6.  tit.  j-.  1.  11.  p.  126.  &  1. 12.  p,  i%j} 
Sc  L13.  p.  129. 

7  L.  14.  p.  130.  vid.  Comment.  GothofVed* 
»  Sozom.  H.  E.  1 7.  c.  13, 

From 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  16 9 

From  this  Emperor  therefore,  and  the  Serm.v: 
general  council  under  him,  we  may  date  ^-OTV 
the  downfal  of  Arianifm  in  the  Eaft,  af- 
ter it  had  flood  for  about  fifty  years,  rec- 
koning from  the  time  of  the  depofttion  of 
Eujiathius  ;  or  little  more  than  forty, 
from  the  death  of  Conftantine.  And 
all  this  while  by  what  methods  had  it 
been  fupported*  Namely,  by  various  ar^ 
tifices  and  difguifes  contrived  to  impofe 
upon  the  Emperors,  by  ufing  the  power 
they  obtained  in  that  manner  with  utmoft 
rage  and  violence,  by  manifold  calumnies 
and  flanders  invented  to  aiperfe  the  Ca- 
tholicks,  and  by  perpetual  alterations  and 
changes  in  their  own  principles,  varying 
their  creeds  (as  'twere)  with  every  wind, 
whilft  the  Catholicks  ftuck  all  along  to 
the  confeflion  of  Nice. 

But  whilft  herefy  fecmed  thus  to  be  al- 
moft  rooted  out  of  the  whole  empire,  and 
having  loft  the  fupport  of  fecular  power, 
dwindled  by  degrees  into  fmall  and  incon- 
iiderable  parties,  it  was  moft  unhappily 
tranilated  into  the  barbarous  nations  of 
the  North.  It  happen  d  near  the  conclu-  377, 
fion  of  the  reign  of  Valens,  that  his  tranf- 
adions  with  the  Goths,  pr-rather  their  own 
neceflities,  brought  Ulphilas  the  Gothick 
Bifhop  to  his  court b,  who  having  formerly     360, 


Sozom.  H.  E.  1.  6.  c.  27. 

rub 


270         An  Htfiortcal Account^/ 

Serm.v.  fubfcribed  the  confeffion  of  Rimini,    tho* 
V^OP^  inadvertently c,    was  now,    whether    thro* 
convi&ion,    or  for  fecular  ends,    perfuad- 
cd    to    embrace    the    fafhionable    herefy, 
and    declare  for   open  ArianiftnA.      The 
reputation  he  had  gaind  among  his  coun- 
trymen by  his  great  abilities,   and  the  fpe- 
cious   pretences  he  made  ufe  of  to  'em, 
that  the    conteft  was  not  about    the   ef- 
icncc  of  religion,    but   merely   a  flrife  a- 
bout  words,   and  made  fubfervient  to  am- 
bitious purpofes,  were  the  unhappy  means 
of  fcducing  the  generality  of  them  into 
the  fame  delufione,   from  whom  it  quick- 
ly   fpread    to    other    Northern    nations f. 
This    in    the    next    century  became    the 
ground  of  the  revival  of  Arianifm  in  the 
IVeft,    when  upon  the   fpreading  of   the 
Goths  and  Vandals  through  Gaul,  Italy, 
Spain  and  Africk,   they  brought  their  he- 
refy  into  thofe  parts  as  the  companion  of 
their  conquering  arms,    and  triumph'd  o- 
ver  the  faith  of  the  empire,  together  with 
its  civil  liberties.      But  a  more  particular 
notice  of  that  matter  will  fall  within  the 
compafs  of  the  next  difcourfe. 
Now  to  God  the  Father,  &c. 


c  Sozom.  ibid.   Socrat.  1.2.  c.  41.         d  Sozom.  nt  fupra. 

•  Ibid.  &  Theodor.  1.  4.  c.^y. 

f  Jornand.  de  orig.  &  rebus  geftisGothoruni,c.  25*.  p.  646. 
Edit.  Grotian.  vid.  &  Grotii  Prolegom.  ad  Hiftor.  Gothor. 
p.  30. 

SER- 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy. 


271 


SERMON  VI. 


Preach'd  April  2,  1713-4. 


<$$$$$  4'$$$$$$$4'$$4'$$4'$$$4'$$$$$$  •fc'H^'fr 


HE  two  laft  difcourfcs  did  fo  sbrm.  vt. 
far  fet  forth  the  rife,  the  pro-  ^Y^ 
grefs,  and  the  downfal  of  Art- 
anifm,  that  there  is  little  far- 
ther notice  to  be  taken  of  it 
in  the  Eafi.  The  do&rine  which  came 
not  from  God,  could  never  gain  any  con- 
fiderable  ground,  when  unfupportcd  by 
man :  and  however  many  under  Arian 
Emperors  had ,  either  thro'  ambition  or 
cowardice,  concurr'd  with  reigning  iniqui- 
ties, yet  now,  fince  thofe  fecular  motives 
were  fet  afide,  their  numbers  were  extremely 
.J.  reduced, 


iy 1  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  reduced,  and  the  catholick  caufe  flourifhed 
S**^TS~'  under  the  countenance  of  Theodofiiis  and 
his  fucceffors,  without  the  execution  of 
fiich  fad  feverities  as  their  predeceffors  had 
ufed  for  the  fupport  of  herefy.  The  Avi- 
ans, 'tis  true,  continued  for  fome  time  to 
hold  their  meetings  out  of  town,  and  even 
to  fmg  their  hymns  within  the  city  gates, 
and  in  their  publick  proccilions,  as  appears 
by  the  practice  at  Conftantinople>  in  the 
time  of  St.  Chryfojlom a  '■>  where,  by  reafon 
of  fome  difordcrs  in  the  ftate,  (and  parti- 
cularly from  the  Gothic  Arians  in  the  reign 
of  Arcadius,)  they  kept  longer  footing  than 
in  other  places ;  but  as  they  daily  decreaf- 
cd  and  grew  iefs  considerable,  fo  even  they 
that  remain  d  did  in  fome  fort  reform  their 
fyftem,  and  abftain  from  the  groffer  kind 
of  blafphcmies b. 

But  when  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  fo  well  eftablilhed,  and  had  outftood 
the  (hock  of  fuch  long  and  earned:  opposi- 
tion, that  he  who  is  the  father  of  all  lies 
and  herefy  could  no  longer  draw  men  to 
an  open  denial  of  their  Saviour's  T>ivi?2ityy 
as  he  had  long  fuice  been  baffled  upon  the 
fubject  of  the  incarnation:  he  now  again 
attempted  to  evacuate  or  fruftrate  the  con- 
FcHion  of  both  j  on  one  hand,  by  dividing 

'  Socrat.  H.  E.  I.  6.  c   8.  *  Socrat.  I.7,  c.6. 

i  and 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  %?§ 

and  feparating  thefe  two  natures  in  fuch  Serm.  vl. 
manner,  that  the  weaknefs  of  the  one^^^ 
might  not  be  properly  united  with  the 
power  of  the  other  5  on  the  other  hand, 
by  fo  blending  and  confounding  them  to- 
gether, that  the  properties  of  neither  might 
remain  diftinfl:.  Thefe  oppofite  herefies, 
which  chiefly  exercifed  the  E  aft  em  Writers 
of  the  fifth  and  fixth  centuries,  do  fo  far 
affect  the  Trinitarian  cant r over fy>  that 
they  ought  not  to  be  wholly  overlooked, 
and  yet  are  fo  far  removed  from  the  main 
queftion  concerning  it,  that  they  may  well 
be  ftated  in  a  fummary  way,  without  de- 
fcending  fo  minutely  to  particulars,  as  was 
requiftte  upon  the  Arian  fcheme. 

It  was  in  the  reign  of  the  junior  Theo* 
doftusy  and  after  Neftorius's  promotion  to 
the  Patriarchate  of  Conftantinotrfe,  that^f- 
naftaftus,  a  Presbyter  of  that  Church,  did 
in  a  publick  fermon  caution  his  hearers  a-  42  S„ 
gainft  calling  the  blcffed  Virgin  ^soroxgt, 
or  the  Mother  of  God--,  not  in  the  fame 
fenfe  as  the  Apollinarians  had  declared  a- 
gainft  it  formerly,  b  who  denied  Chrift  to 
have  received  his  body  from  the  fubftance 
of  the  Virgin ;  but  upon  quite  different 
grounds,  namely,  becaufe  that  me  having 
no  other  than  the  human  nature,  it  was 
impoflible  that  God  mould  be  born  of  her c. 

*  Sec  the  foregoing  Sermon,  p.  ifi,      *  SocrarJ.  7.  c.  32. 

T  Many 


274  ^n  Hijiorkal  Account^/ 

SfiRM.  vi.  Many  of  the  clergy  and  people  of  Con* 
Km0^>sj  Jlantinople  were  ftartled  at  this  do&rine, 
as  difapproving  the  language  of  the  anci- 
ent fathers,  relapfing  into  downright  Ju- 
daifm-,  and  implying  Chrift  to  be  no  more 
than  mand. 

Nejiorius  was  a  man  of  good  parts  and 
ready  utterance,  but  of  a  fierce  and  refo- 
lute  temper,  heighten'd  by  an  immoderate 
conceit  of  his  own  abilities,  and  not  con- 
ducted by  any  confiderable  degree  of  learn- 
ing, or  knowledge  of  antiquity e.  It  is 
fuggefted  that  Anajlafius>  who  was  entirely 
his  creature,  had  taken  this  do&rine  from 
him  as  its  author  and  patron  U  and  it  is 
certain  he  was  fo  far  from  difallowing  it 
in  his  Presbyter,  that  he  openly  defended 
it  himfelf,  and  by  his  management  in  this 
controverfy  made  it  eafily  appear,  that  it 
was  not  merely  a  quibble  about  words, 
but  however  there  might  be  fome  on  both 
fides  who  were  only  to  blame  for  their 
inaccuracy  of  expreffion  ;  ( from  whence 
the  hiftorian  compares  them  to  people 
fighting  in  the  dark,  as  injudicioufly  af- 
firming and  denying  the  very  fame  things  &,) 
yet  for  his  own  part  he  feems  to  have  really 

d  Vid.  eofd.  ibid.  e  Vid.  Socrat.  ibid. 

'  Vid.  Rvagr.  ut  fupra. 

g  Kca  c&azfiy  av  \tj%T,ofx,u.^(t(cc  xoiQif&Tts,    vuv  t/jv,v  rsturec  tXtyov  vuv 

'J   TU  tTif>Xx   (rVyxtiTfTKJMTO  Ti  CMTOtVTM,     KM    yifVOUVTO.     SOCrat.  H.  E. 

difown'd 


the  Trinitarian  Coniroverfy.  275- 

difown  d  that  ftricl:  and  hypofiatical  union  Serm.  vfc 
of  two  natures  in  Chrift,  which  the  Ca-  S^^KJ 
tholicks  afferted.  Tis  likely  there  were 
fome  of  the  fame  fentiments  before,  un- 
awares, perhaps,  betray 'd  into  them  in 
the  heat  of  their  difpute  with  the  Apolli- 
narians.  Tis  certain  at  leaft,  that  the  A- 
pollinarians  charged  them  as  the  common 
opinion  of  the  Catholicksh.  But  now  they 
were  more  openly  avow'd  and  maintain  d 
by  Nejloritis.  He  acknowledged  the  ©/"- 
*uinity  of  the  PFord,  but  feems  to  have  tin- 
derftood  its  indwelling  in  Chrift  no  other- 
wife  than  as  the  Holy  Ghoft  dwelt  in  the 
ancient  Prophets.  From  hence  he  fpeaks 
of  Chrift  as  a  man  bearing  God  within 
him1-,  which  is  known  to  be  the  character  of 
other  holy  perfons  5  and  fome  what  more  than 
intimated  that  the  blefled  Virgin  could  no 
otherwife  be  dcerrfd  the  Mother  of  the 
Word,  than  her  couftn  Elizabeth  might  be 
term' d  the  Mother  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  with 
whom  her  fon  the  Baptift  was  filled  front 
his  mothers  \vombk.     He  refufed  ta  call 


h  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  fz. 

Neftor.  apud  Cyril.  Alex,  adverf.    Neft.    1.  i.  c.  a.  p.  ia 
torn.  6. 

'O  \uoimft  6  (ZotTTupiq  •srpoKrfvrhTeci  7rxfc4  nrZv  uyim  ityytXcoi; 
'cti  TrAn^tjo-STett  to  /3p/<£®~  7rvsvfAjotT(&J  ec^n  srt  o/tt  itoiXtobf  fA>rt- 
FtyS    e&VTv'     km)    nvtZfjusc   otyiov    »£&»*,    wrca<z   »  p«,xecyi(&*  /3e»Tii<pji 

aXiTllLTiTO.     71    iSV     KOCXiiq     77JC    'EXhTUqST     TTViVfAUTOTDKOV  }       KeftOf, 

apud  Cyril.  Alex.  1.  f.  adverf.  Neftor.  c.y.  in  torn,  6  p.  i  9. 


T  J 


176  An  Hiflorkal  Account  0/ 

Serm.  vl.  him  God,  who  was  but  a  child  of  two  or 
VYN^  three  months  old !,  and  exprefs'd  himfelf 
in  fo  irreverend  a  manner,  that  at  firft  he 
was  fufpecled  to  have  efpoufed  the  fenti- 
ments  of  Tatd  of  Samofata  m,  and  to  have 
confefs'd  no  other  but  the  human  nature 
in  Chrift  n.  When  upon  farther  explications 
he  appear'd  to  acknowledge  the  'Divinity 
of  the  Wordy  he  yet  feem'd  in  fuch  man- 
ner to  feparate  it  from  the  humanity,  as 
would  really  deftroy  the  myftery  of  the 
incarnation,  reprefenting  the  blefled  Virgin 
to  be  xgi&r&ios,  or  the  Mother  of  Chrift0, 
tho'  not  of  God;  which  was  in  effect  to 
fay  that  the  humanity  alone  is  Chrift,  or 
in  other  words,  that  Chrift  is  not  truly 
God,  but  only  conjoin  d  with  the  Word 
of  God  as  with  another  perfon  p.  For  that 
reafon  he  declined  the  ufe  of  thofe  ex- 
preflions  which  do  mod  ftrongly  import 
the  indiflbluble  hypoftatick  union  of  both, 
and  chofe  rather  to  reprefent  it  by  fuch  in- 
ferior defcriptions,  as  might  put  little  diffe- 
rence  between  him  and  a  Prophet   emi- 


uv  3-zbv  ovc(ji>oi<rxi(jtji.  Socrat.  1.  7.  c.  34.  Evagr.  1. 1.  c.  2. 

m  Vid.  Cone.  Eph.  par.  1.  §.13. 

n  Vid.  Socrat.  1.  7.  c.  32. 

0  Neftor.  Epift.  ad  Cyril,  in  concil.  Eph.  par.  1.  §.  9. 

*  Vid.  Evagr.  1.  1.  c.  2.  &  Cyril,  ut  fupr.  vid.  &  l.zl 
C.  8.  J>.  j-o. 


aently 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  277 

nently  infpirecK  So  that  according  to  his  Serm.  vi. 
ftate  of  the  matter,  there  fhould  be  two  v-OT^ 
different  Sons,  one  begotten  of  the  Father 
from  all  eternity,  and  another  born  of  a 
Virgin  in  the  fulnefs  of  time1.  For  tho* 
he  pretended  to  acknowledge  only  one 
Chrift,  one  Lord,  and  one  Son,  yet  he 
plainly  meant  this  of  an  unity  of  dignity, 
and  not  of  perfon  or  hyftoftafis,  that  the 
humanity  was  fo  far  exalted  by  this  con- 
junction with  the  Word,  that  thefe  names 
or  titles  were  promifcuoufly  attributed  to 
'em  both  f.  Which  evafive  conftrudion  was 
fo  grofs  and  abominable,  that  when  after- 
wards he  would  have  confented  to  accept 
the  term  SgoToxd^,  the  Church  could  not 
be  fatisfied  with  his  prevaricating  fubmif- 
fion*. 


q  See  Mr.  ReeveV  Notes  upon  the  Commonitory  of  Vincentius 
Lirinenfis,  p.  295-. 

r  Vid.  Vine.  Lirin.  adv.  hcer.   c.  17. 

ETrdyuys  (justo.  rxura  to  ty,^  (rvvacpttoct  ec^fjutc,    'on  Tut  £v* 

tj    CLvQlVTlU  KOUV)'    OTi   TUV  OUO   TCCVTOV   TO    ufywfJUX   TUV   <Pu<TfC»V   ^iVHQUV  y 

ofjjoXoyit  Tiiv  tk<,  ec^Us  hornrcc.  Neftor.  apud  Cyril.  ].  2.  c.  j-„ 
p.  44.  Auuffza-ie,  &k  sst  rnc,  (rvvcc^uocg  rS  aZ)ia/*ciT&>>  Ttji  vtorvi- 
to$}  1  iTr,$  -j  S-iorn7<&'  xeti  kv^W7rr)TYtTo\  f<?i  tyecifiiris  .y  «yb 

i%ofJtjlv  $uo  Xftritt,    %&  &°  i"«S  *    «^A'  ^To\  0  tic,  ifi  &7rXis$y 

iv   rv\  «i|/ot,    ecXXoc  rvj  (p<j<ru.    Ibid.    cap.  6.     -—'E7rufrv>7ri$   tKuvp 

CVyit7TTCCl  Tft>   IV   OC-^ch    ^Ti    vi?    "*&    ^^    &VTCV    (TtwetfifavTty    OU    OUV0C- 

7 tci  kcctu  to  ccfyaujX  7?j$   viorijro^  olcvpionv  oz£oioJ&'    xoctcc  to  ecj^<y~ 

fJUOC  <Pt)[Jbi   TV\S>    VlQTt)T(&J,     OV   KCtTU.   TU.C,    QuOTHC,'    %l<£    TOUTO   KCCl    £*i<J9$ 

0  Stoq  Xoyoe,  ovo^cc^iTXty  i7ruZio  \%u  Ttiv  crvvu(pttxy  <nv  nys  to» 
W&v    aivnixvc    kou  ovk  tft    tov    &iov   hoyov   avsv   t^s    kvhwxvTtftfn^ 

cap.  8. 
I  Vid.  Socrat.  H.  E.  I.7,  c.34. 

T  3  The 


178  An  Hifiorical Ac  count  of 

Serm.  vi.  ,  The  ferious  Catholicks  were  griev'd  iri 
^W  earncft  to  fee  men  indulge  fuch  wanton 
fpeculations  about  thofe  myfteries  which 
the  Angels  themfelves  can  never  fathom. 
But  when  fuch  explications  were  given 
out  as  could  not  confift  with  the  catho- 
lick  do&rine  of  redemption,  it  was  necef- 
fary  for  them  to  oppofe  em,  and  declare 
with  what  ftri&nefs  and  propriety  they 
believ'd  the  hypoflatical  union  of  two  na- 
tures in  Chrift.  They  carried  this  fo  far 
as  even  to  term  it  hwm.  f&wk  *>  natural 
unionn,  to  affert  the  doctrine  of  one  incar- 
nate nature,  and  to  explain  this  matter 
from  the  fimilitude  of  foul  and  body, 
which  by  virtue  of  their  pcrfonal  union 
are  reckon  d  to  make  but  one  manw. 
From  hence  they  concluded,  that  as  the 
actions  of  the  body  are  attributed  to  the 
foul,  fo  might  what  happened  to  Chrifl's 
human  nature,  be  juftly  attributed  to  the 
divine  Word,  infomuch  that  God  the  Word 
might  be  faid  to  have  been  born,  to  have 
fuffer'd,  to  have  died  for  usx. 

B   — 'Evo?  £p<f-eu  —-X.U7K  trvvo^bv  77; y  kvJ'  two-iv  (pvpixw,     Cyril. 

Anathem.  2. 

w  Mia,  yj  ^n  voutcci  Porte  ^kita  tj]v  tvutriv  vi  aLarou  tw  Myx  crs~ 
irot^KU^Ofvij  x.aSct.xsg  Ufjuttei  x.oii  i<p'  v.^hw  ocvThvyooir'  uv  hxtTOic;  ctv 

i(&)7TC5    y>   lie,  CCXn^iOq  (TVyXilfAjlVO^   i\  UvOf/jtiUy   7rpxyf/,ccTCJv,    yt»^JJ5   <^J 

hiyu  kx\  c-ttfJuu.To<i.  Cyril  adv.  Neftor.  1.2.  p.  31.         j 

*  Ytymqxi  *£>  [7ru.gfcvoc]  coc^xixa)^  oztyxa  ysyovorct  tvv  ix  Bsou 
votrpoc,  xiyov.  Cyril.  Anath.  r.  —  Tev  rcZ  B-ioZ  Xcyov  xctQcvri 
rxgxi,    Kcci  is-Kvycijptycv  trupx,,',    xea   $-xvutx  ytvrecfisvcv  arayxi.    A~ 

path.  14. 

This 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  270 

This  gave  the  handle  to  Neftorius  and  se*m.vi. 
Ills  friends  to  charge  the  Catholicks  with  ^^T^> 
reviving  the  herefy  of  Apollmaris,  with 
fuppofing  Chrift's  Divinity  to  fupply  the 
place  of  the  human  or  reafonable  foul, 
with  reprefenting  it  therefore  as  fubjecr,  to 
paffion  and  infirmity,  which  can  have  place 
in  none  but  a  created  nature;  and  indeed 
with  utterly  deftroying  the  diftincllon  of 
two  natures,  by  mixing  and  confounding 
their  properties  together  ?. 

The  more  judicious  Catholicks  did  eafdy 
explain  thcmfelves  to  avoid  all  thefe  ab- 
furdities.  They  confefs'd  the  perfection  of 
Chrift's  Manhood  as  well  as  his  'Divinity, 
and  aflerted  the  per  final  union  of  the  Aq<- 
yo^u  not  merely  with  an  human  body, 
but  with  a  body  and  reafonable  foul  toge- 
ther z.  They  confefs'd  the  divine  Word  to 
retain  its  natural  diverfitya,  and  when  they 


y  'E<?  (JUiOiv  Invexnt  (Tiwuytt  cvy^ssuv  tw^  <pu<rM$,  <pv<rtxv,v  i*iv 
S-s'uy  svaa-ti  uzroxxXav.  Orienralium  object,  ad  Anath.  3.  Cyrilli, 
ejufiem  Apologise  infert.  tom.  6.  p.  164.     'Ou  «£>"  itDuXxh  tt> 

'        a"        ~  cC  '     £  '  .    -      \        >/       ,      r       \      >    »      «/       *    »/-       A       n\ 

CC.TSteiC    TV,  ifilCt   (pufTii'    0    tiZMV,    iTTXVi    (TCi(.Ki,   OVOSV    iTCQOV  *<?*),   V,   [AiiOC 

CXC^c,    TTOtOfiv'   KX.V   %y    f/sSTlZ    JYA   0"X%y{$<,   i7ix6ti    ffdQqTOC,    COf/jOXcy^ldt. 

eorund.  objeft.  ad  Anath-  12.  p.  195*. 

*  To  &H-;6iv  tS  Siw  Xcya  jwfjcx,  <pccp\v  lp,-tyvxfi>6%  "fyvxyi  Xoytx.vt. 
Cyril,  adverf.  Neftor.  1.  2.  p.  31. 

a  'Krsfx-  ffyj  y}  ©5W  tcv  Iy,  B-bcu  Xoyov  ij  iretfZ,  ku>tu  yi  tb* 
this  iotas  tyvviat,  Xcycvy  irteot  Si  irotXw  cvviuScos  i)  kvTou  too  Xcya 
0o<ri<;.  Ibid.  'Ov  trvy%sw  tu<;  (P'Jtrsic,  jj  UvottcpivM  to?  ^&W$, 
aXX  o7i  <rzfv£$  kxI  cufjueiro^  [/t£Ti%r)Y.a$  6  rou  SscZ  Xoyoc,,  uc,  a<i 
nctfay  Kcci  \tTu<i  0  l^  mutoh  kuI  oyopecfyrou.  \.  z.  c.  6.  p.  4J. 


T  4  fpake 


1 80  An  Hiftorical  Account^ 

Serm.  vi.  fpake  of  a  natural  union,  and  one  nature 
^W  incarnate,  they  meant  that  this  Word,  which 
had  always  been  divine,  and  had  the  D/- 
vinity  as  its  f^ta  $#aiS  its  proper  nature, 
did  in  time  affume  the  human  nature  to 
the  ftri&eft  union  with  himfelfS  To  that 
they  were  as  truly  one  from  the  firft  mo- 
ment of  conception,  as  the  foul  and  body 
are  in  uscj  that  it  was  the  very  perfon  or 
$jd$w&$  of  the  Word,  which  took  in  the 
human  nature  to  fo  ftricl  a  conjunction 
with  himfelf,  that  the  flefh  which  he  put 
on  was  properly  his  own  flefh,  and  might 
in  that  refpect  be  term'd  divine,  as  the  flefh 
of  a  man  is  term'd  human*  5  which  did  not 


b   At/o  [op  tyupzic,  yvaidQ  QotfAzv,  [Jjstu  ol  yz  tv\ v  zv&cnv,  a>c,  Zc.r,y%- 

UtViYiC,   h^n   TK   i<?   000    OlcCTOfJU^j    fJUiX'J  HVCCi  7Tl<3ZVGf/iZV    TViV   TOU   VtOU    <pU- 

eriv,  he,  ivo$}  5tA>iv  li/ai-fy^^Wyroe  xcci  c-itrupKOJfjjzya.  Cyril,  ad  Acae. 
JVlditen.  in  cone.  Eph.  par.  3.  §.  35*.  E*s  y<*g  sV*  kccI  ou  M%u. 
urates  6  koctu.  Qutriv  tJiav  \\o>  cap  1(9 5  xmI  kipxroc,.  Cyr.  adv. 
Neft.  1.  2.  C.  6.  p.  4f  •  On  <rvyxzcv%(;  rote,  <pu<rzt<;,  %tz  f*nv  ec>.- 
^fatits  oevrsic,  uvcc@ifovTi$—~  <pv<mt\v>  <pctffyj  yzvzofy  rr.v  zv&xrtv'  #AA* 
s*  Ji/a   ■zrpctyutUTCJv   UvcpHM,    B-zoryros   rz  icca    ci.ytysoTrvTnrcq,    tpu 

iVCC      yzVZofy     KgtfOV     Y-CU       ViCV    X.&1      KtJ^OV      0\u}*>Vo0U%ltjZ§CL      7rXVTC&%<$. 

Apol.  adv.  Orient,  ad  Anatb.  3.  p.  16*7. 

c  r/£2iTT£p   <^>    zi    ric,   rev  kx6'  Y,(J/ci.i  oatdpcj7rov  oC7roKTSva}Vy    ovyg  ac, 
evo    vrx  fjuoc'AXiv    wucriKUXi    av6gci)T}£<;,    Kccryyepoir'  uv  it^ra^   esAA* 

?JC6    KCCI    [ACjVOV,    X.X.V   ZVVOoTtO    TVffV  ZK    tyvfflC,   KCCl     (T Ci) fJUBCT 0$ ,     KCCi    t£)V 

liAAn'AoiS  (Fvi&tshw~oTa»  it  ffiarti  av  \w  ov%  v>  oivrvi  [AciAXov  kx^oe, 
S^gQepoc;  ism  TricXiv  sffl  %^<?cu  vonrzor  cvyag  rot  di7rXdtJ$  iftv  ocXX" 
|<5  rz  kccI  jt^vo^  xtyioe,  x,x)  bm3  o  zk  Siou  TtciTQc,  Aoyos,  ou  fifcet 
c-ctpyji.  I.  1.  c.6.  p-45".  , 

d  Mieii    iTsv^aariv   rw   rou    Xcyou   VitrctpitafJUivZio    f.  ■  m  {f,x.i<rce, 

vttiv  y>  B-£oT/i~u,  yvAoQ  cpuyjiv  rou  Xcya  vw  cufKic.  Ssiotv  Jj  [AccX- 
Xev,  uc,  iciw  U'jrcZ1  u  yap  ccv^ana  <ru.p\  it  cevfywrnvy  Xiyzrcct  tx  to 
W&fa  fV.f  '•"/'  $t(&    tfoib  rny  re7)  $<■■£>  Ac/'yy,    1,2,  C,8.  p.  fl. 


deftroy 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  281 

deftroy  the  diftin&ion  of  the  natures,  but  Serm.  vi: 
only  preferv'd  the  unity  of  perfon e.  How-  WV 
ever,  fince  this  mention  of  one  nature  had 
furnim'd  fuch  a  handle  for  cavil,  and  was 
perhaps  the  leaft  to  be  juftified  from  an- 
cient precedents,  it  quickly  grew  into  dif- 
ufe  among  the  Catholicks,  and  it  became 
rather  the  language  of  the  Church  to  ac- 
knowledge two  natures  in  one  perfon  or 
VTriguw,  agreeably  to  that  confeffion  of 
John  Bifliop  of  Antioch*,  which  was  ap- 
proved of  by  St.  Cyril  himfelf.  Laflly, 
they  believed  the  divine  nature  to  be  per- 
fectly impajjible^j  and  when  they  main- 
tain d  that  God  was  born  and  fuffer'd,  they 
only  meant  that  he  was  born  and  furTer'd 
according  to  the  flefhh,  in  that  human  body 


e    Owfr  coc,  rios  t£>v  0'Jcrtuv  2Jcf.<pogy,$  kvqpyjtAife  S*l&  r\v  i'vutriv 
cc7roTiXarc.ircov  '3   fjuoc^Xov   v4^av  75 v  zvx  xugiov   l^trouv  ffli^ov  xu.i  biov* 

svoTjjrst  <TMj^c^Jn<i.    Cyril,   ad  Neftor.  in  Cone.  Ephe£  par.  1. 


f  8. 

xvyiot  ofAoXv/euftiit,  Jo3n.  Antioch.  Epift.  ad  Cyril,  in  Cone. 
EpheCpar.  3-,  §;3°>  34- 1 

?  Tie,  'arox,  ifAcpovryToc,,  <y$  rye,  kvo3roe.ru  TrcurZy  ovgjoct  to  tyMsu- 

4ic,  xetdoflgsiv ;  j  1  ■  ■  Zttuoz  yap  Sflv  o  Uvroq  Side,  t£  c(Jjou  x.ccl  <£v- 
tyfiJTTOC.,    Ci7TX$>)<;    (AiV    TO  y«  V1K0V  lie.  T/jv   t£$  $£OTVITCC,   QlJGriV,  TtOiQviTOC,   j 

x-ctru  ro  civSpaxtvov,  77  ro  uroxoy,  li  to  7rci.8i?v  KiQvfyri  Xzyzrcci 
xcthTv,  tm  7rcc6uv  ovk  u^cri  pivjirwac,  a.nu.^%.  Cyril,  adverf 
Orient,  ad  Anathem.  12.  p.  197,  198. 

Eripov  j  to  truoxi  nothw  A*V«e^f    «#*   i'rtpov  opo.'uiq  to  TciSuv 

Asy^  U  ty  tk  S-Jrvros  (pvret,  Ibid.  p.  19$.  vid.  8c  ipfa  A- 
,aathem,  i.  &  iz. 

which 


28i  An  Hiflorkal  Account  of 

Serm*  vi.  which  was  properly  his  own ' ;  fo  that  tho3 
v^ofV  he  could  fuffer  nothing  in  his  divine  na- 
ture, yet  fuffering  in  his  human,  it  was  he 
that  furTer'd,  fince  that  chara&er  is  plainly 
perfonal,  in  which  the  two  natures,  how- 
ever different  in  their  properties,  muft  ne- 
ver be  divided  k. 

The  doctrine  of  Neftorius  having  quickly 
crofs'd  the  fea,   to  Alexandria,    St.  Cyril, 
who  was  then  Patriarch,   became  the  moft 
zealous    and  induftrious   of  his   oppofers : 
who,    after  other  ineffectual  attempts  for 
his  recovery,  digefted  the  herefy  of  Nefto- 
rius,   and  the  catholick  doctrine  oppofed 
to  it,    into  twelve  heads  or  chapters,    de- 
nouncing his  anathemas  againft  thofe  who 
fhould   affert  the  one,    or   impugn  the  ci- 
ther K     Thefe  anathemas  were  ratified  in  a 
4 30.    council  held   at  Alexandria™,    and   were 
then  fcnt  to  Neftorius  to  be  fubicribed  by 
him,  in  order  to  prevent  their  concurrence 
in  that  fentencc  of  excommunication  which 
Pope  Caleftrne  had  already  denounced   in 
another  council  held  at  Rome  n. 

*  'Orcct  rolvw  g-ccpk}  xiytTat  TrccfoTv,  ova.  oivros  li$  Colecv  <pj<nv 
vaurcii  TccQav,  Kccfo  Sioc,  i?iv'  $otfofyUi&6s  j  juoiXXov  to  TmQof  ouy- 
reu  ylco  yiyovi  to  tvuGiv  ocvto)  g-Z/ax.    Cyril,  ibid.  p.  197. 

*  O  rife   huTiuc,   X',yoc„    ova   cc'/vott    f/ytt   tjjv  S^Qofuv,    s|if>;(Ti 

*}  t),v  5^g,(pvriv.  Cyril,  adv.  Neft.  La.  c.  6.  p.  4/.  vid.  &:  c.  8* 
P-  fo. 

1  See  thefe  Anatheraatifms,  with  his  explication  and  defenfe  of 
tl.em,  in  the  fixtb  tome  of  his  works. 

m  Vid.  Cone.  Ephef.  par.  1,  §.  16 

"  Ibid.  §.  iS,  19. 

Neftorius 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  183 

Neftorius  the  mean  while  was  Co  far  Serm.  vt. 
from  fubfcribing  thefe  anathemas  of  Cyril,  ^OPs/ 
that  he  drew  up  others  of  equal  number 
in  oppofition  to  him  °.  Nor  was  he  with- 
out fome  friends  and  abettors  of  confide- 
rable  name  and  chara&er.  John,  who 
was  at  that  time  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  and 
Theodorit  the  Bifhop  of  Cyrus,  had  been 
educated  with  him  in  their  youth  p,  and 
they  retain  d  fuch  an  efteem  and  value  for 
their  fchoolfellow,  that  however  they  de^ 
teftcd  the  herefies  which  were  laid  to  his 
charge,  yet  they  really  believ'd  him  to  be 
innocent,  and  to  retain  a  fenfe  or  mean- 
ing which  was  altogether  catholick  5  not- 
withffcinding  they  would  gladly  have  ad- 
vifed  him  to  be  lefs  fcrupulous  of  that 
expreflion  of  the  Mother  of  God,  which 
they  thought  was  eafy  to  be  juftified  by 
ancient  authorities,  and  the  meaning  of 
which  they  imagined  that  Neftorius  him- 
felf  was  willing  to  allows  On  the  o- 
thcr  hand,  they  fulpeded  St.  Cyril's  anathe- 
matifms,  as  really  advancing  another  he- 
refy,  by  feeming  to  avoid  this ;  as  defcrib- 
ing  this  mvfterious  union  in  terms  Co  (Irons 
and  emphatical,    that  they  could  no  way 


0  Vid.  duodecim  capftula  blafphem.    Neftor.    inter    opera 
Marii  Mercac.  par.  2.  p.,  116,  8tc.    Edit.  167  3. 
P  Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  an.  423  SC427. 
-?  Cone.  Ephef.  par.  1.  §.25.  Joan.  Antioch.  ad  Neftor. 


avoid 


284  dn  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  avoid  that  odium  of  Apollinarianifrn,  or 
^Of"^  fome  other  abfurd  mixture  of  two  natures 
into  one  ,  which  Neftorius  had  charged 
upon  themr.  Thefe  being  men  of  intereft 
and  reputation,  their  opinions  were  pretty 
generally  received  among  thofe  Bilhops 
who  were  fubje&to  the  Patriairch  of  Anti- 
och{,  and  who  in  a  more  peculiar  fenfe  are 
ternVd  the  Eaftern  Bifhops,  by  way  of 
contradiftin&ion  to  thofe  of  Egypt  and 
the  leffer  Afia.  By  this  encreafe  of  par- 
ties, headed  by  fuch  potent  Patriarchs,  the 
differences  naturally  ran  high,  and  both 
fides  thought  it  was  high  time  to  confult 
the  Church's  peace,  by  applying  to  Theo- 
dofitiSy  for  the  interposition  of  his  imperial 
authority,  to  call  a  general  council,  which 
was  appointed  accordingly  to  meet  at  E- 
fhefus  h 

It  had  been  happy  for  the  Church,  if 
all  the  Bifhops  could  have  met  together, 
by  the  day  the  Emperor  appointed.  But 
after  feveral  days  waiting  for  the  Eaftern 
Bifhops,  who  were  reckon  d  favourable  to 
43 1.  Neftorius y  the  council  was  opend  at  laft 
without  them,  upon  the  arrival  of  two  of 
their  number,  who  gave  affurances  of  their 


r  Vid.  Cave  ut  fupra. 

f  See  the  objections  of  the  Eajterm  to  St.  Cyrtfs  Anathe- 
matifms,  in  the  fixth  tome  of  his  works. 
\  Cone.  Ephef.  p.  1.  §.31,31.  Evagr,  1. 1,  c.  3. 

con- 


the  Trinitarian  Controvert .  2  8  y 

confent  to  their  cntring  upon  bufinefsu.  Serm.vi. 
NefioriuSy  after  three  citations,  refufing  to  ^^ 
appear,  and  detaining  a  fmall  party  with 
him,  the.  council  (which  confifted  of  about 
two  hundred  Bifhops)  proceeded  to  exa- 
mine his  writings,  and  thofe  of  Pope  O- 
leftine  and  St.  Cyril  againft  him  5  after 
which  they  cenfured  and  depofed  Nefiorius, 
and  ratified  the  do&rine  of  his  oppofers  as 
primitive  and  catholick  w.  The  Eafiern  Bi- 
fhops, upon  their  arrival,  refented  what 
was  done,  and  holding  a  feparate  aflembly 
by  themfelves,  prefumed  even  to  pronounce 
a  fentence  of  deprivation  againft  St.  Cyril, 
and  Memnon  Biihop  of  Ephefus*.  The 
differences  by  this  means  rofe  to  a  great 
height,  and  continued  for  fome  years. 
Mean  while  Nefiorius  was  actually  difpof- 
feffed  of  his  See,  and  another  confecrated 
in  his  roomy.  And  as  matters  came  to 
be  refle&ed  on  with  more  coolneis  and 
candour,  the  Eafiern  Bifhops  in  the  end 
grew  generally  fatisfied  with  St.  Cyril's 
explications,  and  defirous  of  his  commu- 
nion2. They  were  more  hardly  brought 
to  anathematize  the  perfon  of  Nefiorius*. 


*  See  Dupin  in  the  Council  of  Ephefus,  fifth  century. 
w  Cone.  Ephef.  A€t.  r. 

x  Ibid,  in  Aft.  conciliabuli  vid.  Sc  Evagr.  H.E   1,  i.  c.  f. 

y  Socrat.  1.  7.  c.  35*. 

z  Cone.  Ephef.  par,  3,  c,  27,  z8>  30, 

*  Dupin  ut  fupra. 

Yet 


2 $6  An  Hiflorkal Account^/ 
Wvi.  Yet  even  this  was  fubmittcd  to  by  moft  of 
*nrv  thcmb,  and  Theodorit  himfelf,  who  ftuck 
out  for  many  years,  did  yet  at  laft  confent 
to  it  in  the  council  of  Chalcedony  So  lit- 
tle rcafon  b  there  to  fufpeft,  that  Nvjte 
rms  met  with  hard  ufage,  or  was  mi/inter- 
preted d,  when  his  caufe  was  not  only  de- 
termined by  a  numerous  council,  but  given 
up  at  laft  by  the  greateft  of  his  friends*. 

It  is  no  wonder  if,    in  the  heat  of  fuch 
a  controverfy,  fome,  who  meant  to  efpoufe 
the  catholick  caufe,  fliould  oppofe  the  pre- 
vailing  herefy  with   fuch    vehemence,    as 
not  to  be  enough  cautious  of  the  contrary 
extreme,    and  by  the  manner  of  their  ex- 
preffion  (at  leaft)  to  give  a  handle  to  other 
men,    to  advance   another  herefy   dire&ly 
oppofite.     Thus   if  St.  Cyril,    who  was  a 
man  of  judgment  and  good  fenfe,    knew 
how   to   guard  his  expreffions,    and  keep 
within  the  bounds  of  catholick  propriety, 
yet  'tis  to  be  fear'd  there  might  be  others 
fo  weak  or  inadvertent,  as  to  imagine  that 
the  Godhead  itfclf  is  pajjible*.     This  was 

\  *bid'  '  Vid'  Conc'  ChaIced-  Aa-  8-  P.  *74-  Bin; 

^  See  Bifliop  Burnet  upon  the  fecond  article. 

c  See  Mr.  Reeves';  Notes  upon  Vincentius  Lirinenfis,    pae 
2 bo,  294.  ra&' 

aL^no^t\  ad  ,an'  43  r'  cUrgei  Acacius  °f  Meliterie  with 
affertmg  this  before  the  Emperor,  but  if  fi,  'us  cert  am  he  correBed 

councd^a.u  p.,8i.  Bin.)  mi  in  (par.  3.  §.  J.)  bu  homily. 

direftly 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  287 

dire&ly  the  herefy  of  the  Apollinarians  *,.  serm.  vi. 
and  it  may  be  fome  excufe  for  the  Eafiern  ^^TV 
Bilhops  in  charging  St.  Cyril  with  that  he* 
refy,  if  this  inaccuracy  of  fome  of  his  fup- 
porters  had  given  but  too  plaufible  a  ground 
for  it. 

And  if  this  were  nothing  more  than  in- 
accuracy in  fome  at  that  time,  yet  after- 
wards it  came  to  be  maintain  d  with  greater 
obftinacy,  when  in  order  to  maintain  this 
paradox  of  a  fajjible  'Divinity,  the  God- 
head was  fometimes  fuppofed  to  be  con- 
verted into  flefhy  or  fo  mixed  up  at  leaft 
with  human  nature,  as  to  retain  no  pro- 
perties diftincl:.  Nay,  and  the  flefli  of 
Chrift  it  felf  was  thought  to,  be  of  a  dif- 
ferent kind  of  fubflance  from  ours,  either 
brought  with  him  from  heaven  (as  the  A- 
pollinarians  had  ufed  to  fuppofe)  or  at 
leaft  created  anew,  and  not  properly  taken 
from  the  fubftance  of  his  mother. 

There  was  an  Abbot  at  Conftantinople, 
Eutyches  by  name,  who  had  ftrenuoufly 
afferted  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  againft 
Neftoriush,  but  in  the  heat  of  controverfy 
had  ftrained  the  matter  to  the  other  ex- 


*  Sec  the  foregoing  fermon,  p.  -25*3,  25*4. 

h  See  this  acknowledg'd  in  Flavian'*  letter  to  Leo,  n  6.  par.  xi 
and  in  Pope  Leo'/  letter  to  him  M  the  beginning  of  the  Council 
ef  Chalccdon. 

treme, 


2  8  8  An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  treme,  and  was  at  length  accufcd i  of  ad- 
VOfV-'  vancing  the  principles  already  mention  d. 
Flavian,  who  at  that  time  was  Patriarch 
of  Conftantinople ,  thought  it  a  matter 
which  deferv'd  the  animadverfion  of  a 
'448.  fynod.  Accordingly  he  cited  the  Abbot  to 
appear  k?  who  as  he  declined  it  either  with 
obflinate  refufals  or  dilatory  excufes,  fo  he 
impofed  upon  the  meiTengers  who  came  to 
him  with  equivocating  accounts  of  his 
faith,  profeffing  to  adhere  to  the  decilions 
of  the  councils  of  Nice  and  Efhefusy  yet 
not  without  fuch  a  referve  as  might  (if  he 
were  pincrfd)  evacuate  that  profcfiion1* 
and  refufing  to  acknowledge  two  natures 
in  Chrift,  tho'  united  hypoftatically m,  un- 
der pretence  of  a  mighty  fcrupuloufnefs  to 
determine  any  thing  about  the   nature  of 


1  Bejiiles  the  original  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  fee 
this  whole  matter  fated  in  the  fifth  tome  of  Dupin,  and  mart 
briefly  by  Dr.  Cave,   H.  L.  vol.  2.   p.  169. 

c  The  Acis  of  this  Conftantinopolitan  Synod  are  recited  in  the 
firfl  Act  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

EroifX/ov  yaa  seevrov  uieit  'i<px<rK£  tcuc,  Ix-^itno-i  tzov  Uyim'noiTioa* 
TufTtcv  iitxcuce.  xxi  ci  s<pi(ra>  rvy  (rovooov  xoiv)<roc.yAvwv  G-wnQia^,  xxl 
uTToypcctptiy  reus  if[/,riV$t'eii$  oiv-ruv  af/jsXayu'  it  oi  zrz  ru%oi  tl  7?ctf 
cc'vtzjv  it  run  M%£(riv  vj  2^$.v<pa>,$iv  v]  ^.xXav/ikv,  txto  fjjy)  ^ 
olxt>u/\X$iy,  yjijJi  xurctoii%to%-  fjjovcA  d%  rets  ypv.Qcis  'e^KwS*,  &$  /3f- 
teoctersfa?  street;  rvt<;  tuv  zrc&Tifav  ixAuriuc,.  A£t.  2.  Conftant.  red- 
tat.  in  A&.  1.  Cone.  Chalced.  p.  79.  Binius. 

To  'j  tx.  duo  <pu<rtav  svaiQiurZv  Xdtff  bnv?ci<rtv  yiysyv.o^  rot  xvoiov 
Hftwv  tytroZv  Xfiscv,  f^vin  [*j£fAciQt)Kivcci  h  rait;  sx.6&or£<ri  tZv  ciyim* 
fAyrs  KotTotai%i<fyt  it  Toftoi  ti  olvru  toioZto  Q%a  rme,  v7m»eiyi- 
vua-Kio\y  2^$.  tv  Ttt.c,  B-siuq,  is  ifoyiv,  cifjtiu'wxi  f,ki^  TutTrecrt" 
fay  hfo«r}<.u,\Uc>.    Ibid. 


H 


his 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  299 

his  God  n.      He  utterly  denied  his  having  Serm.  vi. 
ever  maintained    that  the  fiefh  of    Chriit  ^OTN> 
came  down  from  heaven  5  he  allowed  him 
to  have  taken  it  from  the  bleiled  Virgin, 
but  very  inconfiftently  refufed  to  own  its 
being  eonfubftantial,   or  of  the  fame  kind 
with  ours°  :   appealing  for  this  to  the  Ni- 
cene  creed,  which  mentions  no  other  con- 
fubftantiality  befides  that  with  the  Father?. 
So  that  inftead  of  fuppofing  the  Godhead 
to  be  converted  into  flefn  (as  his  dodtrine 
has  ufually  been  reprefented,  and  as  fcvcral 
of  his  followers  moft  probably  underftood 
it,  in  imitation  of  their  fore-runners  in  he- 
refy  the  Apollinarians  ?)  he  feems  rather  to 
have  fuppofed  that  the  flejh  itfelf  was  dei- 
fied*,  and  made  not  by  way  of  appropria- 
tion, but  fiibftantially,  divine. 


n  Mv  yivctlo  f-V«v  if/ji,  en  ouo  <pv<rrMi  7vv  fflw,  Ij  (pvtrioXoy&y 
t»\  3-icv  [*%.  Act.  6.  Conftant.  ibid.  p.  87. 

0  nps<r£77^f  3,  or*  XoiJb&ixs  tuck;,  aq  \<Pnt  Xt^Hcrvjt;  «aw  aorSt 
<v§  cwth  &fiW£Tc$  on  yt  6$i  l\  zpxvz  mv  ffzcfKX  6  B-iaq  Xoy®-  x«- 
Ttwvo%tvt  a>$  course,  Uy£udtw(&'  Tvy>giv{  rv\c,  Toiaorvic,  Xoi^og/cc;^ ,  . 
xx)   rouiTot   Xtyuv  au*oXoy{  teXsiov    Stov    tivut  xou   rtXitov  ecn6aa>7eo» 

TVV    yiVVWiVTOC    C/K    TV)C,   ZS-XcdiVH   (X/XgAOtS,      {/jV\    ifcOVTCC    CTCCpXX    r,u,0UCTlSf 

*i[aZv.  Aft.  2.  Conft.  p.  79. 

P  ''Etpr)  0  u^ifjuxv^£/.rt)^  ivrv]&t$,  to  yjoi^vifJbX  7rc>%  gv^j  *$*>         ■ 

ItiCWY&y     OTI     ZTiO    TO    f/jX^iJ/JOX    ifti,     Cf/jOiSClOV     TO)   7?X7&    f/jCVCV.    CiVTl- 
TlQilC-tV     0     U^L^XV^oItVI^     iVTVfflS,      XiyC')Vt      jtT6>$     XV     ifet     <£     CUJTbC^ 

Conft.  in  Cone.  Chalc.  Ad.  i.  p.  105-.    Bin. 

*  See  the  fifth  fermon,  p.  25*2,  25-4. 

r  See  Dr.  Waterland*s  Critical  Hiftory  of  the  Athawftm 
Creed,  chap.  7.  p.  10/, 


U  When 


300  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.vl       When  at  laft  he  was  prevailed  with  to 
V^YX^  appear  before  the  council,    he  perftfted  in 
much  the  fame  declarations,  except  that  he 
confented   to    acknowledge    Chrift's    flelh 
confubftantial  with  ours,    in  consideration 
that  the  council  declared  it  fo  to  bef.     But 
then  he  refufed  to  concur  in  anathematiz- 
ing thofe  who  taught  the  contrary,  under 
pretence  that  in  fo  doing  he  muft  anathe- 
matize many  of  the  Fathers t  and  ancient 
Catholicks,    whole  doftrine  was  the  fame 
with  that  of  which  he  had  been  accufed. 
This  was  in   effect   to  own  that  he  (till 
continued  of  the  fame  mind,    and  confe- 
quently  that  the  fubmiilion   he  had  pro- 
mifed  to  their  fynodical  determination  up- 
on that  queftion,  muft  be  feign  d  and  hy- 
poftatical,  and  (as  he  fcrupled  not  to  own) 
a  matter  of  neceffity  rather  than  of  choice, 
which  was  fuch  a  fort  of  fubmiilion  as 
the   fynod  had  utterly  difclaim'd".      This 

therefore, 


r'E&/§  criifAtpot  iycunov  to  trap*  t%  xvffts,  ^  Stx  y[*Sv  cj/joito-iw 
tfMv,  Ttv  2)  x<q>8tvov  Sfjt/oXoya  iivcci  vij/av  c(juou<nov,  ^  oti  l\  cwrw 
<i<ru,%Kudn  o  3-sos  ifbSit  A6t.  7.  Conftant.  p.  91.  «  3  toj* 

st5Tf~y  ix  tyi<,  zrupQivy,    <&  oyjo^trtov  yyjTn,   <cN  T*ro  Xtyu. 

t  'H  dyiu.  <r6vo£oc,  tfcf  &i  <rt  <rct$Z<i  ofAohoyKtrcci,  <£  ccvufofbx- 
•Turcei  Trow  to  l7ntxvricv  tuv  vuv  ccvxyva&ivTM  ccyfAXTa)?.  'Evrv- 
tyc,  srps<r««T£pe$  ««"»■  wfov  rv[  otriornri  byjav,  oti  zrgg  ntra  &k 
iMyov'  vvv  ij  Isrw^j  t«to  Ji$t<rx4  it  owotik  Ipa*,  Xtya>\  f§  ocko- 
?\ts8a>  rcic,  TrctTfocw  »n  p  ov  tx~$  ypxtyxTs  kvpov  <rx<pZq   txto,    art 

•»   ST«CT£p£$    U7T0V  '71XVTIC,'     IXV    j    cCVU.QtyjXTl<rk>i    £cu  ft/Ol.fSlV,     CTl  Tits 
TCXTlfXC,  fA,*  UnxStfA/XTt^U.      p.  92. 

■  'O  tiyi»rtCT&  if^HTwrtfeT®*  t&n?  *x*f  m\    uyecyxuo, 

XT* 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  301 

therefore,  together  with  his  perfifting  in  Serm.  vi. 
the  afiertioil  of  two  natures  before  incar-  v~"VN-> 
nation,  and  but  one  afterwards  wj  whereas 
the  Catholicks  could  neither  allow  the  hu- 
man nature  of  Chrift  to  have  ever  fubfifted 
feparately  from  the  divine,  fo  as  that  there 
might  be  two  natures  before  incarnation, 
but  to  have  been  affumed  by  it  in  the  very 
moment  of  conception,  nor  again  the  pro- 
perties of  either  to  have  been  altered  or 
confounded,  fo  as  that  after  incarnation 
there  mould  be  but  oneK:  Thefe  things,  I 
fay,  together  convinced  the  Patriarch  and 
his  fynod  of  the  heretical  pravity  that 
reignd  within  him,  and  gave  ground  for 
denouncing  their  anathemas  againft  him/. 
Their  fentence  was  ratified,  and  the  ac- 
tions of  their  fynod  found  to  have  been 
truly  reprefented,  after  a  frefh  examination 
by  another  fynod  at  Conjlantinople7-^   and    449. 


XXTOt 


%iirvt '  aspTi  xi/p»'  8tws  i%a. «  ■  6  olyiUTotT<&>  uyxtii7n(ritcn(&'  si7rsv% 
*«  Vf&it$  xxivorofjijxfSp,  ocXX'  61  zritTiQt$  i^ihvra'  <£  KccQaq  y  Ikti- 
6i?<ret  mfiq  srejp'  cwtuv  i%{,  xrac,  mrtvovrsi;,  txtcis  ifiif/jzXvx:  Ufiretv* 
TtCi  fixhofAtOcc,  xj  f/jrMvoc  KuivorofAtuv.  Ibid.  p.  $\,  92. 

w  'Of/toXoya  cm  ovo  Quriuv  ytyivvio^  rov  y.vyiov  i-[/,av  ;rpd  Ttj$ 
DMtVf'  jX/iToc.  5  7jjj>  lywviv  fj/iccv  <pv<rtv  6(Jbofoya>,   p.  92. 

*  Gotvf/jct^a  tdv  isTuq  otAAcxcTor,  £  Sttw  £u<?gX[X>[A,ivtui  cfXttXo- 
/txy,  ■  effort  rov  cujrof  Tgoftcv  i$iv  uc-i^iq  to  Piiystv,  a$  cit 
cue  <Pv<rtav  ngo  tjjs  ivotv6geonyi(riuq  6  (jccvoyivy.s  Ir-iv  Ltct;  red  B-iov, 
vomg  fV<v  cidi^rov  to  2^d£iZciitZo%i    6>$  f/jiTx  to  rev  htyov  0-ocex.x 

y»io%  pi*  h  ewrZ  <poanq  Ifir.  Leonis  Papx  Synod.  JEpifi.  ad 
Flavian  in  A&.2.  Concii.  Chalced.  p.  16  j. 

*  A&.  7.  Conftant.  in  Aft.  1.  Chalc.  p.  03. 

*  P.  0^.  Evagr.  1. 1.  c  o. 

U  2  Pope 


3oi  An  Hiftorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.  vi.  Pope  Leo  by  his  fy nodical  and  other  let- 
^^^  ters,  commended  the  zeal  of  Flavian,  ex- 
^9-    prefllng  his  concurrence  with  him  in  the 
doctrine  of  two  natures  hypojiatically  li- 
nked, and  his  condemnation  of  the  fcheme 
of  Eutyches*. 

Yet  after  all,  the  heretick  was  too  ftub- 
born  to  fubmit :  his  friends  made  applica- 
tion for  the  Emperor's  afliftanceb;  and 
Theodojius,  by  I  know  not  what  unhappy 
mifcondutt,  whether  influenced  by  his 
courtiers,  ( among  whom  Eutyches  had  a 
confiderable  intereft,  but  Flavian  had  none) 
or  really  fearing  that  the  Catholicks  might 
relapfe  into  Neftorianifm,  did  fo  far  in 
fad  yield  to  the  requeft,  as  to  order  ano- 
449.  ther  council  to  be  called  at  Ephefus,  in 
which  T>iofcorusy  who  had  fucceeded  St„ 
Cyril  in  the  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria? 
was  appointed  to  prefidec. 

The  Egyptians  had  learnt  from  St.  Cyril 
to  have  the  utmoft  abhorrence  of  Nejlo- 
rianifmy  and  they  (tuck  with  fuch  rigour 
to  the  ftri&eft  of  his  expreffions,  as  hardly 
to  admit  of  thofe  guards  and  explications 
by  which  Cyril  himfelf  had  fenced  his  doc- 
trine againft  the  oppofitc  extreme.     There 


a  Vid  Epift.  Leonis  fupra  citat.  p.  161,  &c.  prater  alias  in 
prima  parte  conciiii. 

•  Vid.  Dupin  vol.4,  p.  224. 

e  Vid.  Theodof.  Epiftolas  in  A&.  1.  Cpncil.  Chalced. 
p.  43 »  &c» 

4*  was 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  303 

was  befides  this  a  {landing  emulation  be-  Serm.  vi. 
tween  the  See  of  Alexandria  and  that  of  v-*"V^-> 
Conftantinople.  Upon  both  accounts  T)i- 
ofcorus,  in  this  council  (which  has  the  op- 
probrious title  of  the  felonious  council6) 
did  openly  efpoufe  the  caufe  of  Eatyches> 
and  proceeded  with  fiich  partiality  and  vio- 
lence, as  even  to  compel  the  arlefibrs,  mo- 
del the  awe  of  a  military  force,  not  only 
to  abfolve  him,  upon  his  prefenting  the 
Nicene  Creed,  and  perfifting  in  the  fame 
profeilions  he  had  made  at  Conftantinopley 
but  even  to  depofe  Flavian  from  his  Pa- 
triarchal See,  who  died  foon  after  of  the 
injuries  he  had  received e. 

He  had  appealed  however  to  a  general 
council  both  of  the  E  aft  em  and  the  IVef- 
tern  Bifhops f :  and  tho'  all  the  applications 
which  were  made  to  Theodoftusy  could  not 
prevail  with  him  to  content  to  fuch  a 
council,  or  to  difapprove  of  that  which 
had  been  done  at  Ephefust,  yet  upon  his 
death,  which  happen  d  quickly  afterwards, 
Valentinian  the  Surviving  Emperor  of  the 
IVeft,   and  Marcian  who  fucceeded  in  the     450.' 


i  "Z'Svohs  Aysfuot.   Concilium  latrocinale. 

*  Pr£terAci.  hujufce  fynodi  Epheiin.  in  Aft.  I.  Cone.  Chalced. 
recitat.  vid.  Evagr.  H.  E.  1. 1.  c.  10. 

f  Vid.  Dupin,  p.  227. 

£  Vid.  de  bac  re  varias  ad  Theodof.  epiftolas,  cum  ejufdem 
refponfionibHS  in  prima  parte  Conci).  Chalced.  num.  19,  &c. 

U  5  Eaftj 


304  -^  Hiflorical Account  of 

Szrm.  vi.  Eafi,   concurred  in  the  appointment  of  a 
C^VNJ  general  council,   which  aflembied  at  ChaU 
**I#    cedonh. 

There  all  that  had  been  done,  both  at 
Conflantinople  and  at  Ephefus,  was  care- 
fully reviewed.  It  was  difcreetly  obferv'd 
that  Eutyches,  by  propofing  his  creed  in 
the  terms  of  the  firft  general  council,  which 
was  held  long  before  the  rife  of  the  Apol- 
linarian  herefy,  had  craftily  evaded  that 
explication  which  was  made  by  the  fecond 
general  council,  upon  the  article  of  our 
Saviour's  incarnation1.  In  the  firft  it  was 
exprefs'd  in  few  words,  that  he  came  down, 
and  was  incarnate,  and  was  made  man, 
which  however  liable  to  be  perverted  by 
an  heretical  fubtlety,  not  then  forefeen, 
had  yet  the  very  fame  ^  meaning,  which 
was  afterwards  more  fully  exprefs'd  by  the 
Conjlantinopolitan  Fathers,  that  he  came 
down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  by 


h  Vid.  varias  bac  de  re  epift.  tn  Condi.  Chalced.  par,  i„ 
pum.  33,  &c. 

1  AsA£'f6><;  7rpo(T£Ta|£  7>jv  it  vikcuoc  vuv  eLytat  TTctrtpav  vuvoect—— — 

' A.7T0AXllUt!.&J     </i     OiyriTQll    7JJ!»     CV    VUiCClU     UyiXV    (TUVO0OV.      XtCTot.    TKt 

.  '/      «  .      fit  \   .     J  ,     <i  ,1  I 

dtyMUv    TTctgccvcf/jioty   tx.Xxyjisct.vav  to  pyrvv    mM  ■  01   «^>  uyict  %6tTi£i% 

CI    UjiTcC   TCtZrcCf   TO    tO~CCPX.6)(!t)   0    H7T0V  01  CtyiOl  CV  VIXMU.  7TCCTiplC,f     t (Ttft- 

Cone.  Chalc.  Aft.  r.  p.  5-7. 

K   Tutok;    )£)    y,(XjU,c,    s'~:e!^   ait    ^   Te%  Xoyoic,,     >£  roic]  d)iypiuet(rivf 
ivvowrctc,  n  t}>  (ru?>ccGy)vat  £  ivx-,ifycJ7rr,<rcci  o/i}m   tov    Ik  B-tou  /\cyo», 

x.  r.  a.  Cyril.  Alex.  Epift.  ad  Neitor.  reci^at.  in  Concil. Chal- 
ced. Aft.  1.  p.  60. 

the 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjyl  305: 

the  Holy  Ghoft  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and serm.vi. 
was  made  man  5  in  oppofition  to  the  doc-  ^T^ 
trine  of  the  Apollinarians  \  who  pretended 
that  he  brought  his  body  from  heaven,  and 
did  not  firft  come  down  in  order  afliime 
it  of  the  fubflance  of  the  bleffed  Vir- 
gin111. In  vain  then  did  Eutyches  al- 
ledge  the  firft  and  third  councils,  whilft 
he  skipt  over  the  fecond  ;  which  how- 
ever it  might  fatisfy  the  Egyptians,  who 
difclaimed  any  additions  to  the  Nicene 
confeffionn,  yet  the  majority  of  the  coun- 
cil would  not  be  fatisfied ,  unlefs  that 
were  received  with  the  explications  of  the 
council  of  Conjlantinople.  He  had  indeed 
confefs'd  that  Chrift's  body  was  not  brought 
from  heaven,  but  he  cared  not  to  be  ex- 
plicit in  declaring  whence  it  was°i  and  ai- 
tho'  when  he  was  urejed  and  interrogated 
clofely,  he  might  pretend  ( as  we  have 
feen)  to  own  that  Chrift  derived  his  fub- 
flance from  his  Mother,  yet  that  lookJd 
more  like  an  extorted  declaration  than  his 
genuine  fentiment,  fmce  he  ftill  difownd 
Chrift's  body  to  be  of  the  fame  kind  or 
fubftance  with  ours. 


fy.v  kcckw  'A7rohXivueix.  k.  t.  A.   p.  5*7. 

m  Sec  the  foregoing  fermon,  p.  25-2,  25-4. 

n  'Oi  'Aiyu7rlioi,  <£  in  ovv  cvjtoic,  ivXcc^t^cila  iynenco— 01,  i^ivcija-ctti 
x&U  &%ereu  tt^o^kIvj,  kAis  puuriv.  Cone.  Chalced.  Acl.  1, 
p.  5-7.     See  the  foregoing  Sermon,  p.  267. 

•  Concil.  Chalced.  p.  <■&. 

V  4  Sfc 


3  06  An  Hiflortcal  Account^/ 

Serm.  vi.       So   that   upon   the  whole,   the   council 
\-s^f\s  thought  it  proper,  as  well  to  confirm  the  de- 
position of  Eutyches,  as  moreover  to  depofe 
cDiofcorus  and  the  principal  of  his  adherents, 
to  anathematize  the  hcrefies  that  had  been 
anathematized  by  the  three  former  general 
councils,    and  to  ratify  the  fame  doctrine 
which  they  had  already  declared ;  not  only 
the  creed  as  dated  firft  at  Nice,  and  afterwards 
enlarged  at  Conflantinople,  but  likewife  the 
anathematifms  and  explications  of  St.  Cyril, 
approved  of  by  the  council  of  Ephefus,  more 
particularly  his  fynodical  epiftles  to  Nefto- 
rius  and  to  the  Eaftern  Bifhops ;  and  with- 
al  to   fubjoin  a   more  exprefs  declaration 
againft  the  do&rine  of  Eutyches  as  well  as 
Neflorius,    by  fubfcribing    to  Pope  Leo's 
late  fynodical  epiftle  to  Flavian,    and  an- 
nexing to  all  this   ample  paraphrafe  upon 
the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  p,   that  we 
confefs  one  and  the  fame  Son  our  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift,  the  fame  perfetl  in  Godhead, 
and  the  fame  perfect  in  manhood,   truly 
God  and  truly  man,  the  fame  confifting  of 
a  reafonable  foul  and  body,    conftibflantial 
with  the  Father  as  touching  the  Godhead, 
and  the  fame  conftibflantial  with  us  as 
touching  the  manhood,   in  all  things  like 
unto  us  without  fin :   begotten  of  the  Fa- 
ther,  as  to  his  'Divinity,  before  the  worlds, 

'  Concil.  Chalced.  Act.  u f.  vid.  8c  Evagr.'H.  E.  1.2. 

t*  4,  ib\ 

but 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  07 

but  the  fame  in  the  loft  days  born  ac-  Serm.  vi: 
cording  to  his  humanity ',  of  Alary  the  Vir-  ^OTV 
gin  and  Mother  of  God,  for  us  and  for 
our  falvation:  one  and  the  fame  Jeftis 
Chnft,  the  Son,  the  Lord,  the  only  Be- 
gotten, acknowledged  in  two  natures,  with- 
out mixture,  unchangeably,  indivifibly,  in- 
feparably  {the  difference  of  natures  being 
in  no  wife  deftrofd  by  th$s  union,  but  ra- 
ther the  propriety  of  each  nature  preferv- 
ed,  and  concurring  in  one  per f on  or  hypof 
taps)  not  as  parted  or  divided  into  two 
perfons,  but  one  and  the  fame  only  begot- 
ten Son,  God  the  Word,  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrifty  as  both  the  former  Prophets  have 
taught  concerning  him,  and  Chrift  has 
taught  us  himfelf  and  the  Creed  of  the 
Fathers  has  deliver  d  to  us. 

Such  was  the  refult  of  the  fourth  gene- 
ral council  afTembled  at  Chalcedon.  And 
now  the  Church  ieeming  to  have  con- 
quered every  poilible  herefy  that  could  be 
formed  with  relation  to  the  Trinity  or  In- 
carnation, the  terms  of  this  controverfy 
admitted  but  little  variation  afterwards, 
and  the  confeflions  which  were  drawn  up 
in  feveral  parts  of  the  Church,  were  form'd 
upon  the  foot  of  thofe  which  were  alrea- 
dy eftablinYd.  Mean  while  it  may  be  worth 
our  obferving,  that  thefe  councils  made  no 
addition  to  the  faith,  nor  alTumcd  any  au- 
thority 


308         At  Hiftorkal Account  of 

Se»m.  vi.  thority  to  coin  new  do&rines,  but  only  to 
K*^>T>~>  exprefs  more  fully  what  had  always  been 
believed,  as  new  herefies  arofe  which  re- 
quired more  explicit  declarations.  At  firft 
it  might  fuffice  to  make  fuch  a  general 
profeffion  of  chriftian  faith  at  baptifm,  as 
might  teftify,  in  the  candidates  for  baptifm, 
their  fincere  renunciation  of  'Pagan  idola- 
try or  Jewifh  fuperftition,  and  their  embrac- 
ing the  do&rine  of  the  Gofpel.  But  when  this 
profeffion  was  it  felf  abufed  to  cover  impi- 
ous herefies,  particularly  with  relation  to  the 
Son  of  God,  the  fecond  perfon  confeffed  at 
baptifm,  it  then  became  neceffary  to  explain 
themfelves  more  fully,  and  fhew  that  they 
did  not  acknowledge  Chrift  in  the  fenfe  of 
the  hereticks,  but  according  to  the  catho- 
lick  dodrine  and  expofition  of  the  Church. 
From  hence  it  came  to  pafs  that  the 
creeds  of  the  Eaftern  Churches,  where 
fuch  hereftes  abounded  moft,  were  larger 
upon  that  head  than  the  Roman  and  other 
Weftern  creeds,  which  had  lefs  occafion  to 
infert  fuch  explications.  Yet  even  they 
were  not  fufficient  to  guard  againft  the  A^ 
rian  fubtleties  5  and  therefore  the  council 
of  Nice  infertcd  a  few  words,  not  then 
newly  invented,  but  taken  from  catholick 
and  ancient  authors,  for  the  better  fecuring 
of  the  ancient  faith.  The  Nicene  creed 
concluding  with  the  article  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  and  then  fubjoining  its  mathemas* 

is 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  309 

is  a  fufficient  argument  that  it  was  not  Serm.  vr: 
meant  to  let  afide  the  other  creeds,  but  v^VrN^ 
only  to  explain  them  with  relation  to  the 
do&rine  of  the  Trinity,  or  to  fpeak  more 
ftri&ly,  the  Divinity  of  Chrift.  Accordingly 
the  feveral  Churches  after  this  retained  their 
former  creeds,  (as  appears  from  the  creed  of 
Jerufalem  explained  by  St.  Cyril,  and  the 
Weftern  creeds  in  general,)  and  only  un- 
derftood  their  fenfe  to  be  more  fully  ex- 
plain d  by  the  council  of  Nice  upon  the 
article  of  the  Sons  Divinity.  But  when 
Arianifm  was  ftill  found  to  fpread  and  en- 
create,  it  feems  as  if  thole  Eaflern  Churches 
which  remained  uncorrupt,  did  infert  the 
Nicene  explications  into  their  creeds  fe- 
fpectively,  from  whence  the  Conftantino- 
politan  fathers  fpeak  of  the  Nicene  creed, 
not  only  as  the  rnoft  ancient,  (being  but 
a  fuller  declaration  of  the  fenfe  of  the 
Eaflern  creeds,  in  refped  of  the  Trinity) 
but  likewife  as  accommodated  to  the  office 
of  baptifm,  which  muft  argue  it  not  to  be 
ufed  by  it  felf  (for  then  the  articles  after  the 
Holy  Ghoft  would  be  omitted)  but  rather 
incorporated  with  the  baptifmal  creed,  by 
having  its  explications  (as  was  faid)  inferted 
in  their  proper  place  ^. 

Epift.  Synodic.  Concil.  OEcumen.  Conftantinop.  api^d  Theo- 
fioric.  H.  E.  1.  ?,  c.  9.  vid.  Annot.  Valcfii. 

The 


3 1 o  An  Hiftorkal Account*?/* 

serm.  vi.  The  Macedonian  and  Apollinarian  here- 
v^Y"^  fy  gave  occafion  afterwards  to  more  en- 
largement, and  there  were  two  other  forms 
drawn  up  in  the  time  of  Epiphdnius,  and 
prefcribed  by  the  Church  to  catechumens^ 
for  a  furer  guard  againft  the  fubtleties  of 
bothr.  As  thefe  creeds  were  ftill  but  ex- 
planatory of  the  ancient  doctrine,  and  the 
firft  of  them  which  is  the  more  concife f, 
excepting  what  was  inferted  in  opposition 
to  thefe  new  herefies,  was  nearly  exprefsM 
in  the  fame  terms  with  the  Nicene,  he 
made  no  fcruple  to  mention  it  as  the  Ni- 
cene,  and  even  Apoftolical1.  Prom  hence 
the  council  of  Conftantinople  took  their 
creed,  which  therefore  in  like  manner  is 
generally  term' d  the  Nicene,  and  having  in 
it  thofe  other  articles  after  the  Holy  Ghoft 
which  the  council  of  Nice  omitted,  it 
feems  to  have  obtained  in  many  Churches, 
tho'  not  in  all,  and  is  alledged  as  the  com- 
476.    mon  baptifmal  creed,  not  only  by  Bafilifcus  u 


r  Epiphan.  in  Ancorat.  §.  120, 121. 
{  Ibid.  §.  120. 

'K«<  ctvTYj  ffyj  vi  7n&$  tfotpiobSy  ecms  rm  dytwv  oCTto^Xuv^  v^  on 
tKK>VTtu  rq  clyix.  ttoXu,  uttv  rrwiruv  cfbou  ruv  tlyiuv  i7ritrx.o7:u9 
hxif  TfiuKoaiuv  dix.cc  rev  oc^Sf^ov.  Ibid.  Similiter  Petrus  Mongus 
tid  Acacium  apud  Evagr.  1,  2.  c.  17. 

—    To  cvfjuooMv  rtov  77J)  ec^iuy   zrocnoav  rav   ov  vuccuot  f7nc\ctt 
thira.  rev  clym  7Tytv[j(,ctr<§h  tKX.Z.i<i<ruc<8iYrm,   uc,  o  Yf/ijiTc,  rt  «,  -miv- 

nc,  0  zr^o  Ypv*  Trt^ivo-xvrtq,  tGtittffaqfy,  Bafilifcus  in  Epift.  En- 
cycl.  apud  Evagr.  1.  3 .  c.  4. 

and 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  it 

and  Zeno  w  in  the  fifth  century,  but  by  the  Serm.  vt. 
following  councils  of  Tyre*,   Jertifalemi>  ^^V^-* 
and  Conftantinople z.      It   was    about  the     5 1  * 
conclusion  of  the  fifth  century  that  it  be- 
gan to  be   received  into  the  daily  offices 
of  the  Church.     The  firft  example  was  fet 
by  the  Eutychians,  who  pretending  to  ad- 
here to  the  Nicene  creed  without  the  ad-    circa 
ditions  at   Conftantinople,    did  firft   intro-    490. 
duce  it  both  in  the  Patriarchal  See  of  An- 
tioch*>   and  then  in  Conftantinople  itfelfb. 
From   hence  the  pra&ice   feems   to    have 
fpread     it    felf    throughout     the    Eaftern 
Churches,    the  Catholicks  reciting  it  with 
the   Conftantinopolitan  infertions,    as   the 
Eutychians  did  without  them :    in  imita- 
tion of  which,  about  an  hundred  years  af-     589* 
ter  the  like  publick  ufe  of  the  Conflanti- 
iiopolitan  creed  was  prefcribed  in  the  JVeJl 


tivBtvTtt;   pv    ccytoi  nccltgic,,  y^  7ru<rs$  j  c'*  ^•a,0i  T0^  cran^ta^ 

Tctt.  Zenonis  henotic.  apud  Evagr.  1.2.  c.  14. 

x  *£v  oivru  [fymbolo  Niceno]  ficcxh&ivTis  x*  (ict7TTi^ovTzc,. 
Epift.  Synodic.  Concil.  Tyrii  in  Aft.  y.  Concil.  Conftant.  fub 
Agapet.  &  Menn3.  p  738.    Bin. 

y     Tav    iV  VIKUlUm  iK.6sftyUCJV    Tj    CiyiOy  CVfA'*)0?.CV,     itt,    '0   ioCCTTTt- 

&tffy>    (c1  ficc7njgo{d/j.     Epift.   Synodic.   Concil.    Hierof.    ibid. 

P-  7  35*- 

z  Similia  habentur  in  Epift.  Synod.  Concil.  Conftantinop. 
todem  anno.  Ibid.  p.  726. 

a  'Tisfaid  of  Petrus  Fullo,  the  Eutychian  BiJJjop  of  Antioch, 
that  he  order'd  sv  xct<rt)  vwcc%{  to  rupGoAoy  xiyz&ou.  Theodor.. 
Leftor.  lib.  2.  p.  $66. 

1  By  Timothy  an  Eutychian  likewife,  p.  j-5*. 

bv 


3 1 2,         An  Hijiorical Account^/ 

Serm.  vi.  by  the  council  of  Toledo c,   tho3  it  feems 
V<*V  not  to  have  obtained  at  Rome  it  felf  tiil  a 
confiderable  time  afterwards d. 

The  rife  of  the  Neftorian  zw&Eutychian 
herefies  had  made  it  neceffary  for  the  ge- 
neral councils  of  Efthefus  and  Chalcedon 
to  be  more  explicit  upon  the  doctrine  of 
the  incarnation?  in  which  they  were  imi- 
tated by  moft  of  the  confeflions  that  were 
afterwards  drawn  up,  tho'  I  do  not  find 
that  their  explications  were  ever  inferted 
in  the  publick  offices. 

It  is  eafy  to  obferve  from  this  fhort  view 
of  the  cafe,  how  the  fubtleties  of  herefy 
have  occafion'd  fome  variation  in  the  ftile 
of  the  Church,  without  altering  her  doc- 
trines ;  and  if  our  adverfaries  can  fee 
ground  for  any  part  of  fuch  variation, 
with  refped  to  the  Neftorians  and  Etity- 
chians,  they  muft  excufe  us,  if  we  judge  it 
to  be  no  lefs  reafonablc,  with  refpeft  to  the 
Arians  and  "Tneumatomachi. 

After  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  the  fe- 
veral  parties  continued  to  purfue  the 
fchemes  they  had  efpoufed  5  and  fome 
who  did  not  think  fit  to  rejed  the  coun- 
cil abfolutely,  yet  took  the  liberty  to  ex- 
prefs  fome  diffent  from  it  as  to  three  arti- 

e  Cone.  Toled.  3.  can.  2.  in  caranz.  p.  360.    Edit.  DuaC, 
1679. 
J  Lc  Quien.  Panopl.  faec.  11.  c.  4.  §.22, 

cles, 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3 1 3 

cles,  called  the  three  chapters ;  which  be-  Serm.  vr. 
came  the  ground  of  grievous  contentions,  v-^T^ 
efpecially  in  the  reign  of  Juftinian,  who 
very  plainly  countenanced  thofe  who  con- 
demned the  three  chapters,  and  perfecuted 
with  great  violence  thofe  that  decided 
*eme.  To  this  day  the  Eafiern  feds  are 
chiefly  reducible  to  three,  in  proportion  to 
that  threefold  divifion  which  was  therf  in 
the  Church.  And  accordingly  they  have 
had  their  diftind  Patriarchs f,  the  Catho- 
licks  for  the  moft  part  in  all  the  ancient 
Churches  s,  the  Neftorians  at  Muzal  in 
Mefopotamiah,  which  probably  fupplies  the 
place  of  the  ancient  See  of  Antioch ;  and 
the  Eutychians  fometimes  in  all,  but  more 
conftantly  at  Alexandria1.  Tho'  which 
fide  fhould  have  the  a&ual  poffeflion,  de- 
pended in  good  meafure  upon  the  difpofi- 
tion  of  the  Emperor,  and  other  incidental 
circumftanccs.     The  Catholicks  were  they 


e  Victor.  Tunun.    ad   Calc.  Eufeb.  Chron.    Edit.  Scalig. 
p.  10,  &c.    vid.  &  Cave  H.  L-  in  confpeft.  face.  6. 
f  See  Dr.  Smith's  Account  of  the  Greek  Church,  pag.  7. 

*  Only  it  Jhould  be  obferved>  that  for  feme  ages  the  Patriarchal 
See  has  been  removed  from  Antioch  to  Damafcus,  fill  retaining 
the  old  fiyle  of  Patriarch  of  Antioch.  Brerewood,  chap.  16. 
Smith,  p.  f. 

h  See  Brerewood's  Enquiries  touching  the  diverilty  of  Lan- 
guages and  Religions,  c.  19. 

*  See  Brerewood,  chap.  21,  22,  25.  only  in  the  later  ages  it  is 
to  be  obferved  that  their  Alexandrian  Patriarch  has  ufed  to  refide 
At  Grand  Cairo,  and  the  Antiochian  in  Mefopotamia. 

*  who 


314  <$n  Hiftorical  Account/?/ 

Serm.  vi.  who  receiv'd  the  decifions  of  the  council, 
^y^^  and  adhered  to  the  Catholick  Patriarchs* 
and  thefe  in  the  more  Eaftern  parts  were 
afterwards  term'd  Melchitesk,  by  way  of 
contempt;  which  is  as  much  as  to  fay, 
Kings-men,  becaufe  they  efpoufed  the  fame 
ftde  with  Martian  the  Emperor. 

As  the  caufe  of  Nefiorkts  had  been 
chiefly  favoured  by  thofe  who  were  fubjett 
to  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  'tis  likely  his 
herefy  might  have  pretty  much  footing  in 
thofe  parts,  from  whence  it  fpread  farther 
Eafiwardy  in  the  feventh  century,  by  the 
countenance  (as  is  conje&urcd)  of  Cofroes 
King  of  cPerflay  who  ftrove  to  promote 
this  fed  among  the  Chriftians,  out  of  mere 
oppofition  to  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  whp 
was  engaged  in  the  Etttychian  intereft  \ 

The  Cophti  or  Egyptians,  on  the  other 
hand,  and  the  Ethiopians  or  Abyffenes, 
befides  fever al  rnonafteries  as  well  as  fome 
other  perfons  of  figure  throughout  the  Eaft, 
had  exprefs'd  fuch  an  hearty  averfion  for 
Nefiorianifm  y   that  they  declined  into  the 


k  From  the  Hebrew  l7l?0,  or  the  Syria'c  J^a^sio, 
which  jignifies  a  King  ;  (vid.  Niceph.  H.  E.  ].  18.  c.  5-2. 
Brerewood'*  Diverfity  of  Religions,  ch.  16.  Hottinger.  Hi  ft. 
Orient-.  I.  2.  c.  2.)  or  more  immediately  from  the  Arabic  mrd 
*JXU  fecla  Regict.  vid.  Golii  Lexicon. 

1  Paulus  Diaconus  Hiltor.  Mifcel.  1.  18.  quoted  by  Brere- 
wood,  cap.  10. 

other 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  3  t  f 

other  extreme  %  and  tho'  fome  of 'em  made  no  Serm  vi; 
feruple  to  condemn  the  perfon  of  Eutyches,  ^*^ 
yet  withal  they  reje&ed  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  and  efpoufed  the  caufe  of  'Diofcorus, 
fo  that  they  are  all  looked  upon  as  perfons  of 
Eutychian  principles  m.  At  firft  they  were 
called  Monophyfita,  from  their  do&rine  of 
one  nature  only n  5  and  Aeephali,  from 
their  being  deftitute  of  any  Head  or  Patri- 
arch0 ;  nay,  it  is  faid  by  Nicephorus,  with- 
out any  Bifhops  to  prefide  over  them, 
which  is  meant  of  them  more  peculiarly 
who  flood  out  againft  the  comprehensive 
fcheme  of  the  Emperors  Zeno  and  Anafta- 
Jius,  who  were  neither  for  approving  nor 
condemning  the  council  of  Chalcedony.  But 
in  the  fixth  century,  as  their  numbers  were 
greatly  encreafed  under  the  favour  of  fome 
fucceeding  Emperors,  fo  the  wantonnefs  of 
their  her efy  took  various  turns  %  which  gave 
ground  to  various  other  appellations1. 

Sometimes,   in  confideration  that  Chrift 
fufFe^d  on  the  crofs,  their  do&rine  of  the 


*  Vid.  Evagr.  H.  E.  lib.  5.  Brerewood,  c.  if,  §cc. 

"  Niceph.  Callift.  H.  €.  J.  18.   c.  4;.   vid.  &  Suicer.  in 

•  Vid.  Niceph.  ibid.  &  Suicer.  in  voce'Axdpxhet. 

p  Evagr.  H.  E.  1.  2.  c;  14,  zo,  22,  30.  <&  Niceph.  J.  18, 
c.  47. 

•  Ii  in  duodecim  feftas  difTefti  funt,   ex  quibus  multa  ndl* 
lia  haerefum  pullularunt.  Niceph.  1. 18.  c.  45-. 

*  Vid,  Care  Hift.Iit.  in  confpeftu  fecuL'tf. 

X  unity 


3 1 6  An  Hiftorical  Account^/ 

Serm.vi.  unity  of  nature  led  them  to  maintain  that 
^^y\J  the  T>eity  it  felf  is  paffible,  which  is  down- 
right Apollinarianifm  \  and  from  thence 
they  had  the  name  of  Theopafchites^  And 
this  was  carried  to  fuch  extravagance  as  to 
infert  a  claufe  in  the  hymn  called  Trifa~ 
' giumz,  which  feem'd  to  imply  either  that 
the  whole  Trinity  had  fuffer-d,  or  at  leaft 
the  Holy  Ghofi  together  with  the  Son,  or 
elfe  that  he  who  fuffer'd  was  a  fourth  per- 
fon  diftind  from  either  of  the  three.  The 
two  laft  of  thefe  abfurdities  were  particu- 
larly urged  by  Pope  Felix y  who  earneftly 
inveighed  againft  that  innovation,  as  de- 
ftroying  the  dodrine  of  confubflantiality > 
and  by  conflquence  introducing  a  plura- 
lity of  Gods,  fince  that  which  is  mortal, 
and  that  which  is  immortal,  could  never 
■be  efteemed  confubftantial".  At  other 
times  being  convinced  that  the  Godhead 
cannot  fuiFer,  the  fame  dodrine  of  unity 
led  them  to  deny  that  even  the  humanity 
of  Chrift  endured  any  pain,  or  was  fubjed 
to  the  common  infirmities  of  human  na- 


r  Vid.  Suicer.  in  voce  SsoTxepTctt. 

* '  Ay*©-  o  ,9-to5,  u.yi(&'  i%v£c$t  ccyi(&>  ec8cc¥xr(^'.  To  this  form 
Eutychians  futjom'd,  b  fctvqafaU  h'  ipcis,  particularly  Petrus 
Fullo  of  Antioch.  Niceph.  Calift.  1.  if.  c.  28.  &  1. 18.  c  fu 
If  this  be  referr'd  to  all  the  three,  it  feems  to  mix  Sabellianifm 
with  the  Eutychian  fcheme.  But  otherwife  it  infers  Polytheifm. 
^  u  Vid.  Pap&  Felicis  Epi/l.  Monitor,  ad  Petrum  Fullonem  An- 
tiochenf  primum,hujufce  additatnenti  Antborem,  in  Caranza  Aim. 
Goncil.  p.  30^. 

ture, 


the  Trinitarian  Controvert \  317 

tare;  which  came  near  to  the  ancient  he-  Serm.  vf. 
refy  pf  the  Simonians>  that  his  body  was  ^-OT^ 
merely  phantajiick  and  imaginary  j  and 
from;  jthence  they  had  the  name  of  Aph- . 
thartodocetse™.  They  who  held  the  op- 
posite, opinion,,  that  his  body  was  mbjeel:  to 
infirmity,  were  therefore  called  corrupti- 
coi/e*  >  and  fome  of  them  carried  the  point 
fo high  as  to  maintain?  that,  in  coniequence 
of  that  change  or  mixture  which  they 
taught,  the  divine  Word  it  feif  had  loft  its 
omniicience ;  and  from  thence  they  had 
the  name  of  Agno'et£z.  Joannes  ^Philo- 
ponus  was  an  eminent  philofopher  of  the 
fixth  and  feventh  centuries :  he  fell  into 
Eutychianifm  upon  this  falfe  principle  that 
nature  and  hypoflajis  have  but  one  idea\ 
and  when  the  Catholicks  argued  againft: 
him  from  the  inftance  of  the  Trinity,  where 
there  arc  three  hypoftafes  in  one  nature  or 
effence,  rather  than  quit  his  former  herefy, 
he  advanced  a  new  one,  that  the  three 
divine  perfons  are  three  natures  or  fub- 
Jlances,  being  no  otherwife  than  fpecifically 
one  j    from   whence  he  and  his  followers 


w  Niceph.  1.  17*  c.  29.  1.  18.  c.  45*.  Eavagr.  1.  4.  c.  39, 
Suicer.  in  voce  A<pB-ocpTo$bxv)Tcct. 

*  Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  ad  an,  5-35-. 

y  Vi&or.  Tunun.  Apione  5-  Cof.  p.  8,  9. 

z  Cave  ibid.  Suicer.  in  voce  AyinyTcu.  Danajus  in  Auguft.  de 
h#ref.  cap.  93. 

X  2  have 


3 1 8  An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  have  the  name  of  Tritheifts*.  Laftly,  the 
*~OT^  controverfy  was  put  upon  this  iffue,  whe- 
ther the  properties  of  the  two  natures 
were  not  fo  confounded,  as  that  Chrift  had 
but  one  will  remaining  in  him )  The  Eu- 
tychians  in  general  afferted  it ;  from  whence 
they  had  the  name  of  Monothelites  b :  and 
this  was  the  prevailing  herefy  of  the  fe- 
venth  century,  when  not  only  the  Empe- 
ror HeracliuSy  but  Pope  Honorius  himfelf 
declined  into  itc.  And  to  what  other  ex- 
travagances might  they  not  have  run,  if 
God,  in  his  juft  judgment  againft  the  ma- 
nifold impieties  of  thofe  who  called  them- 
felves  Chriftians,  had  not  fuffered  the  fol- 
lowers of  Mahomet  to  meet  with  moft 
prodigious  fucceffes,  to  the  great  diminu- 
tion, and  ftnce  that  to  the  utter  over- 
throw, of  the  Eaftem  Empire,  and  the 
grievous  oppreffion  of  thofe  who  had  fo 
wantonly  abufed  their  former  profperityd. 
But  fince  I  am  upon  this  fubjed,  I  ought 
hot  to  omit,  that  as  thefe  appellations 
were  taken  from  the  nature  of  the  doc- 
trine they  profefs'd,  fo  there  were  fome 
others  taken  from  the  names  of  thofe  who 


"  Vid.  Cave  ad  an.  60 1.    Suicer.  in  voce  T^kirut>.  Niceph. 
1.  18.  c.  46,  47. 

6  Vid.  Suicer.  in  voce  Skikfpt**  n.  II.  5. 

c  Vid.  Cave  in  confpeftu  fecul.  7.  &  ad  an,  626. 

*  Set  Brerewood,  ch,  2j.  verfus  finem. 

Were 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  j  1 9 

were  the  chief  afierters  and  propagaters  of  Serm.  vi. 
it.  The  Aphthartodoceta  were  term'd  Ju-  ^OP^ 
lianifisy  from  Julian  Bifhop  of  Halicar- 
naffusy  a  chief  leader  of  their  fe&e;  as  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Corrupticola  were 
termed  Severians,  from  Severus  of  Anti- 
och  f ;  and  Theodo/ians  from  Theodojius  of 
Alexandria  s.  But  the  moft  prevailing 
name  for  the  whole  body  of  Eutychians-> 
and  which  flicks  by  'em  to  this  day,  is 
that  of  Jacobites,  from  one  Jacob  or  James 
a  Syrian  by  birth h,  and  as  fome  relate l  a 
difciple  of  Severus. 

Tis  poffible  that  fome  weak  perfons  a- 
ttiong  them  might  conceive  a  catholick 
meaning  under  an  inaccurate  and  unca- 
tholick  phrafe;  their  do&rine  might  be 
found,  whilft  they  difcover'd  want  of  judg- 
ment and  right  apprehenfion  in  their  man- 
ner of  expreffing  it.  This  at  leaft  has 
been  alledg'd  in  behalf  of  the  prefent  re- 
mains of  them  in  fome  parts,  who  profefs 
indeed  to  acknowledge  but  one  nature  in 
Chrift,  to  adhere  to  *Diofcorus,  and  rejed 
the  council  of  Chalcedon  >  but  then  at  the 


c  Niceph.  H.  E.   I.  18.  c.  4^.    Vi&or.   Tunun.   Apions 
fCoC.  p.  8.    Edit.Scalig. 

f  Vid.  Cave  in  confpedtu  fecul.  6.  &  ad  an.  5 13. 

£  Cave  ad  an.  5*3  5*. 

*  Niceph.  H.  E.  1.  18.  0.5-2.    See  etlfo  Brerewood,  ch.  21. 

I  Vid.  Hottinger.  Hiftor.  Oriental,  lib.  I.  cap.  2. 

X  3  fame 


320  An  Htfloricai 'Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  fame  time  they  rejed  Eutyches  too,  they 
V-^V^  confers  the  properties  of  the  'Divinity  and 
the  humanity  to  remain  perfedlydiftind, 
altho'  after  union  they  make  but  one  na- 
ture k.  So  that  they  feem  to  take  the 
word  nature  in  a  fenfe  different  from  us  5 
and  had  Eutyches  of  qld  confefs'd  fuch  a 
diftinftion  of  properties,  I  perfuade  my 
felf  he  had  not  incurred  the  eenfures  of  the 
council  of  Ch  alee  don. 

It  may  now  be  time  to  take  our  leave 
of  the  Eaft,  where  there  has  been  little 
heard  of  Arianifm>  from  the  time  of  Theo- 
dofius  the  great.  But  it  ought  to  be  re- 
membered, that  the  Gothic  nation,  which 
had  been  tin&ured  with  that  herefy  in  the 
reign  of  ValensXj  had  fome  troops  employed, 
after  the  divifion  of  the  empire  between 
the  fons  of  Theodojius,  to  fupport  the  pri- 
vate interefts  and  ambition  of  their  refpec- 
tive  favourites"1.  This  threatened  at  firft  a 
revival  of  Arianifm  at  Constantinople  5  and 
when,  after  many  ravages  committed,  the 
Gothick  army  reiiding  in  thofe  parts  was 
entirely  defeated  n,  the  next  attempt  of  thofe 
that  remain  d  under  the  command  oi-Ald- 

*  See  Brerewood,  cb.  21,  22,  24,  25*.  in  fin.  vid.  &  Ludolfi 
Hift.  iEthiop.  1.  j.  c.  8.  confer.  &  ejufJem  commentar.  n.  88,  &c 

1  See  the  foregoing  fermon,  p.  269,270.    ' 

*  V\d.  Zofim.  HiJL  lib.  j-.  pag.  a 92.  Edit.Oxon. 

2  P.  322 

rick 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  3  %  r 

rick  was  made  upon  the  Wejiern  empire  n.  serm.  vr. 
Whereupon  it  would  be  tedious  to  recount  ^OT^ 
the  various  entercourfes  of  the  Romans 
with  the  Goths  and  other  barbarous  na- 
tions, whether  in  Spain,  in  Italy  or  Gaul, 
and  with  what  various  fuccefs  they  were 
difpatch'd,  fometimes  in  alliance,  and  o- 
ther  times  at  variance  5  fometimes  defeated, 
and  at  other  times  victorious.  The  parti- 
culars of  thefe  affairs  wTill  be  better  learnt 
from  larger  hiftoriesj  whilft  we  attend  on- 
ly to  fuch  circumftances  as  may  inflrud  us 
in  the  turns  and  revolutions  of  the  Arian 
controversy. 

There  was  an  army  in  Africk,  under  the 
command  of  Boniface,  which  confuted 
both  of  Roman  and  of  Gothick  foldiers. 
The  General  himfelf  was  a  man  of  catho- 
lick  principles,  and  virtuous  conduct,  and, 
as  appears  by  the  letters  of  St.  Aaguftine, 
honoured  with  the  intimate  friendihip  of 
that  catholick  Bifhop.  But  the  Gothick 
part  of  his  army  being  Arians,  he  could 
not  be  without  fome  of  the  Arian  Clergy 
to  attend  him,  and  particularly  their  Bifliop 
Maximin,  whofe  difputes  with  St.  Auguf- 
tine,  in  relation  to  the  Trinity,  gave  occa- 


■  There  was  fome  attempt  before  this  made  by  the  Emprefs  Juf- 
tina  Mother  of  Valentinian  II.  But  as  it  vas  hinder  d>  by  tit 
enre  and  vigilance  of  St.  Ambrofc,  from  having  any  confiderablfi 
effect,  at  leafi  from  producing  any  alteration  in  the  Weftern  efta« 
plifljment,  I  have  omitted  the  mention  of  it  in  this  $(ice* 

X  4  fioa 


3 % t  An  Hifiorical  Account/?/ 

S£rm.  vi.  fion  to  fome  of  his  valuable  writings  up- 
WOT^  on  that  fubjeel:. 

But  the  -African  Church  had  a  feverer 
trial  yet  to  Undergo :  The Vandals,  who  foon 
after  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century0 
had,   in  conjunction  with  the  Sueves  and 

4°9-  Aldins,  poffeft'd  themfelves  of  Spain,  and 
diftrefs'd  the  Catholicks  of  thofe  parts* 
were,  by  the  time  that  the  Neftorian  her efy 

430.  grew  confiderable  in  the  Eafi,  become 
mafters  of  great  part  of  Africa?  $   invited 

427-  thither  by  Boniface  himfelf,  in  whom  his 
crafty  rival  at  Rome  had  created  an  urirea- 
fonable  jealoufy,  which  put  him  upon 
courting  a  mdft  fatal  alliance  with  thefe 
Barbarians  %  There  were  many  of  the 
Alains  mixed  among  them,  but  they  were 
all  generally  included  in  the  name  of  Van- 
dais1.  And  though  King  Giferic,  who  is 
reckoned  an  apoftate  to  AriUnifm^  for 
fome  time  did  not,  in  cbnfequence  of  his 
trufce  with  the  Romans  >  attempt  to  obtrude 
any  innovations  on  filch  of  the  Catholicks 

*  Idat.  Chron.  Olymp.  297.   p.  ai. 

*  For  the  particttlats  of  the  African  ferfectttion,  which  are  here 
hut  fummartly  related,  fee  Victor.  Vitenf;  de  perfec.  Vandal. 
Procop.  Vandalor.  Hift.  lib.  1,  Greg.  Turon.  Hift.  Franc.  1.  2. 
cap.  2,3.  Maimbourg  Hiftoire  de  Y  Ariahifme  1.  9.  Ruinart. 
Hift.  perfec.  Vandal,  prater  Evagrium  in  hift.  Ecclef.  l.d.j 

1  Procop.  Hift.  Vand.  1.  1.  p.  1 1.  Ed.  Grot. 

'  P.  18. 

r  Gefericus— -  ex  Catholico  eflfectus  Apoftata  in  Arfianarrt 
primus  fertur  tranfiffe  perfidiam.  Ifidor.  Chron.  p.  733, 
Edit.  Grot,  vid,  &  Idat.  Chron.  Olymp.  301.  p.  22.  adCalc. 
Eufeb.  Chron. 

3  as 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  323 

as  were  under  their  proteftion ;   yet  when  Serm.  vr. 
he  found  himfelf  fettled  in  this  new  pro  ^^ 
vince,  he  endeavour'd,  by  confifcation  and    437- 
banifhment,  and  all  forts  of  violence,   to 
promote  the  caufe  of  Arianifm,  and  dif- 
poffeffing  fhofe  African  Bifhops  who  main- 
tain d  the  catholiek  faith  within  his  terri- 
tories, to  fill  their  Sees  with  filch  as  fhould 
oppofe  it.     Which  mifchief  extended  yet 
farther,   when  Giferic,    by  furprizing  Car-    43  9* 
tkage*,    and   breaking  faith  with  the  Ro~ 
mans,  had  broke  thro'  the  only  reftraint  of 
his  cruelty,  that  he  might  carry  on  the  pet^ 
fecution  with  greater  violeitcej  and  thro'  a 
wider  compafs. 

Not  only  the  Clergy,  but  the  people  of 
Africk,  made  a  noble  ftand  in  this  day  of 
adverfity.  But  the  troubles  encreafed  ra- 
ther than  abated :  the  Vandal  King  extend-  44°- 
ed  his  cohqueft,  and  with  that  his  perfe- 
ction, to  Sicily,  'till  the  Emperor  Valen- 
tinian  defpairing  of  the  recovery  of  Car- 
thage, confented  to  a  new  peace,  in  which 
he  agreed  to  divide  the  African  provinces  44^ 
between  himfelf  and  Giferic*.  Thus  again 
a  part  of  Africk  was  refcued,  whilft  the 
reft  continued  to  groarl  under  the  Vandal 
tyranny w.  And  tho'  Giferic  did>  at  the 
inftance  of  the  Emperor  Vakntinian,  allow 
a  catholick  Bifhop  to  refide  at  Carthage*,    454- 

f  Ruinart.  ftiflr.  Perf.  Vand.  par.  4.  t.  f. 

I  c,  6.  §.  i,       ,4.        *  §.jr.        f  c.<j.  §.<>, 

yet 


3  24         dk  Hifiorical  Account^/ 

Serm.  vi.  yet  the  death  of  that  Emperor,  which  fol- 
^W*'  lowed  in  the  fame  year,  gave  him  a  plau- 
455.  fible  handle  for  facking  Rome  it  felf,  in 
order  to  take  vengeance  of  his  murderers  y. 
457.  After  which  the  death  of  the  new  Bifhop 
of  Carthage,  and  the  viftble  declenfion  of 
the  Weftern  empire,  gave  him  fuch  frefh 
courage  in  his  barbarous  purfuits,  that  in- 
ftead  of  allowing  any  other  Bifhop  to  be 
chofen  at  Carthage,  he  carried  on  a  moft 
grievous  perfecution  againft  the  Catholicks, 
not  throughout  Africa  alone,  but  many  o- 
ther  of  the  Roman  provinces z :  and  not- 
withstanding the  book  which  one  of  the 
Moorish  Bilhops  had  prefented  to  him  in  de- 
fenfe  of  the  faith,  he  flill  went  on  to  en- 
creafe  the  noble  army  of  Martyrs,  till,  af- 
ter a  long  and  bloody  reign,  his  life  and 
his  cruelties  had  one  period ;  and  he  was 
477.  fucceeded  in  the  government  of  Africk  by 
his  fon  Hunneric. 

His  reign  at  firft  was  mild  and  gentle, 
when  allowing  the  Catholicks  to  eled  Eu- 
481.  genius  to  the  Bifhoprick  of  Carthage*,  he 
left  them  like  wife  at  liberty  to  affemble 
in  their  churches  publickly  without  diftur- 
bance.  But  the  Arians  immediately  fug- 
gefted  to  him  the  neceffity  of  altering  his 
meafures  b,  and  prevailed  with  him  not  only 


[  $.8.         •$.„.  :c.7.s.«.  .    ; 

to 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  325: 

to  retrad  the  prefent  favour  and  indulgence,  Serm.  vt. 
but  even  to  break  out  againft  the  Catho-  ^V 
licks  with  greater  fury,  than  the  Church  had    4  5* 
ever  fek  from  any  of  its  heathen  perfecu- 
tors. 

The  better  to  countenance  his  cruelties, 
there  was  a  conference  appointed  to  be 
held  at  Carthage,  in  which  the  Catholick 
Bifhops  fhould  be  obliged  to  give  proof  of 
their  do&rine  from  the  holy  Scriptures. 
There  was  little  good  to  be  expected  by 
conferring  with  perfons  fo  profoundly  ig- 
norant as  the  Arian  Vandals  y  and  that  un- 
der the  awe  of  a  military  force,  and  the 
terror  of  ail  kinds  of  cruelties.  The  Ca- 
tholicks  however  appear'd,  to  the  number  484. 
of  more  than  four  hundred  and  ftxty  Bi- 
fhops, with  Eugenius  at  their  head c  3  and 
tho'  they  faw  their  adverfaries,  inftead  of 
parties,  were  fet  up  for  judges,  yet  they 
prelented  an  orthodox  confeffion  of  their 
faith,  with  a  particular  view  to  the  con- 
Jubftantialityy  and  thofe  invincible  argu- 
ments by  which  it  is  fupported.  Inftead 
of  anfwers,  they  were  receiv'd  with  noife 
jand  tumult,  and  Htmneric  being  eafy  to 
receive  the  reprefentations  of  the  Avians  <*, 
who  charged  the  Catholicks  with  that  tu~ 

c  Concil.  Labbe  torn.  4.  col.  1 141  .8.  ad  an.  484* 

Hninart.  Hift.  Perfec.  Vandal,  p.  12$,  &c. 

i  §ts  Hunneric'j  Decree  ir*  Lab.be  Cpl.  1 138,  &c. 

jnul- 


$i6  An  Hiftorkal  Account^/ 

Serm.  vi.  multuous  condud  of  which  themfelvcs 
W^  were  guilty,  made  that  the  handle  for  car- 
rying on  his  perfecution  with  the  greater  vio- 
lence, and  either  by  exile,  flavery  or  death, 
diftrefling  them  who  had  the  courage  to 
hold  faft  their  integrity  3  amounting  to  well 
nigh  four  hundred  Bifhops,  or  about  four 
thoufand  in  the  whole,  taking  in  the  cler- 
gy and  laity  of  all  degrees e. 

The  ftupidity  of  thefe  Barbarians  made 
them  little  capable  of  convi&ion  from  any 
arguments  that  might  be  drawn  either 
from  Scripture  or  antiquity.  And  there- 
fore God  was  pleafed  to  work  divers  mi- 
racles, as  well  for  the  conviftion  of  fuch 
as  were  not  hardend  beyond  all  remedy, 
as  for  the  greater  fupport  of  his  faithful 
lcrvants  under  that  fevere  trial  to  which 
they  were  expofed.  Among  the  reft,  there 
is  none  more  confiderable,  than  that  of  the 
clergy  and  inhabitants  of  Typafa  in  Mauri- 
tania j   who  when  they  could  not  be  pre- 


e  Catholicos  jam  non  folum  facerdotes,  &  cun&i  ordinis 
Clericos,  fed  8c  Monachos  atque  Laicos  quatuor  circiter  millia 
exiliis  durioribus  relegat,  &  Confeflbres  ac  Martyres  facit, 
Vi&or.  Tunun.  Chron.  p. 4,  ad  tale.  Eufeb.  Edit.  Scalig. 

Nam  exulatis,  diffugatifque  plufquam  334  orthodoxorum 
epifcoporum,  ecclefiifque  eorum  claufis  plebs  fidelium  variis 
iuba&a  fuppliciis,  beatum  confummavitagonem.  Marcel.  Com. 
Chron.  p.  45*.  Theod.  8c  Venant.  CofT.  But  according  to  Sir- 
imondus^  account  in  Labbe,  there  were  three  hundred  and  feventy 
eight  Bifhops  thus  recken'd,  Corfica  relegati46.  Hie  relegati30  2, 
Fugerunt  2S.    Paflus  i«   Confeflbr  t.  vid,  §t  Ruinart. 

vail'd 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  3  if 

vail'd  with  to  profefs  Arianifmy  and  be  re-  Serm.  vr, 
baptized,  (as  was  the  common  pra&ice  of  v~-OfN/ 
the  Arians  at  that  time,)  but  continued  to 
celebrate  the  praifes  of  Chrift  as  confub- 
ftantial  with  the  Father,  had  their  tongues 
cut  to  the  roots  by  the  command  of  Hun- 
neriCy  and  then,  by  a  furprizing  inftance 
of  God's  good  Providence,  they  were  en- 
abled to  fpeak  articulately  and  diftin&ly 
without  their  tongues,  and  fo  continuing 
to  make  open  profeffion  of  the  fame  doc- 
trine, they  became  not  only  the  preachers, 
but  living  witneffes  of  its  truth. 

I  am  not  infenfible  that  miracles  have 
often  been  pretended  in  thefe  latter  ages, 
which  may  be  juftly  called  in  queftion,  as 
being  both  obfeurely  performed,  and  infuf- 
ficientry  attefted.  But  this  is  related  with 
fuch  publick  circumftances,  and  attefted  by 
fuch  competent  witneffes,  that  I  fee  not 
how  we  can  difcredit  it  without  fhaking 
the  whok  faith  of  hiftory,  and  rejefting 
all  accounts  of  miracles  befides  the  fcrip- 
tural f.  It  was  not  the  cafe  of  any  fingi'ie 
perfon,  but  a  great  number  of  the  inhabi- 
tants s  gf  a  city  well  known  in  Mauritania. 


*  Vid.  Ruinart.  Hift.  Perfec.  Vandal,  p.  370.  ft  Baron. 
Annal.  Ecclef.  ad  an.  Chr.  484. 

g  In  Typafenfi—  Mauritania  majoris  civitate  ■ 

Hum  fuse  Civitati  Arrianum  Epifcapum  ex  No.tario  Cyrillam 
ad  perdendas  animas  ordinatum  vidiflent :  ononis  £xriul  civi- 
fas,  &c.  1   congregata  iKjjfi  omni  prpvincia.    Vi^ior. 

vitenf.  dc  Perfec,  Vandal.  1.  c.  §.  6.  ex  Edit.  Ruinart. 

it 


ji8        An  Hifiorkal Account  of 

SERM.vi.lt  was  not  the  wonder  of  a  day  or  two* 
V^V^  but  this  faculty  of  fpeech  continued  to 
the  end  of  their  lives,  excepting  only  two 
perfons  of  their  whole  number  V  who,  for 
the  immorality  of  their  pra&ices>  were  pu- 
nifhed  by  Divine  Providence  with  the  lofs, 
of  that  extraordinary  favour,  which  had 
been  bellowed  on  them  for  the  orthodoxy 
of  their  faith1.  It  was  not  an  obfeure 
matter  uncertainly  reported  from  a, corner, 
of  Africky  but  many  of  theie  Confeflbrs 
traveird  to  Conftantinople  it  felf,  where 
their  cafe  was  examined  by  fuch  as  knew 
the  world,  and  whofe  teftimony  leaves  no 
ground  for  fufpe&ing  an  impofturek, 

Trocopius  of  Cafarea,  who  lived  in 
their  time,  and  was  himfelf  a  Senator  of 
Conftantinople,  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  matter 
that  was  publick  and  well  known  in  that 
place,  and.  has  left  us  his  account  of  the 
fa£t  under  his  own  hand  h  So  likewife 
has  <iy£neas  of  Gaza,  who  relates  in  his 
Dialogue,  under  the  perfon  of  Axitheus, 
with  what  curiofity  he  had  examined  into 
the  truth  of  this  ftrange  fad,    and  open  d 


h  Gregory  the  Great  mentions  but  one. 

'  Vid.  Evagr.  H.  E.  1. 4.  c.  14.  Procop.  p.  14. 

*  Ibid. 

tn  k)  it;  if//*  tti^wric,  cv  Bvtytvito*  i%guvTo  UKguitpvn  t*J  Qmy. 
Procop.  Hift.  Vandal.  1.  1.  c.  8.  Edit.  Par.  1662.  torn.  1. 
p.  106.  at  in  Edit.  Latin.  Grotian.  p.  24. 

4-  their 


r 
the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  3 1 9 

their  very  mouths  to  make  his  obfervations  Serm.vl 
with  the  more  exa&nefs m.  They  were  ^^TsJ. 
feen  there  by  Juftinian,  who  was  after- 
wards Emperor,  and  jgave  account  how  he 
had  heard  from  themfelves  a  relation  of 
their  own  fufFerings n.  And  Marcellinus 
Comes i  who  was  Jufiiniaris  Chancellor, 
has  left  it  likewife  under  his  hand,  that 
he  faw  'em  there  himfelf,  and  has  added 
this  confiderable  circumftance,  that  one  of 
the  confefibrs  treated  m  this  manner  had 
all  his  life  time  been  dumb,  until  the  ex- 
ecution of  this  barbarity0.  Beftdes  all 
which,  we  have  ViBor  Vitenfisy  an  Afri- 
can Bifhop  and  Confeflbr  of  thofe  times, 
not  only  relating  it  as  certain  fa£h,  but  re- 
ferring any  one  that  doubted  of  it  to  Con- 
stantinople-, where  .one  of  them  was  ftill 
living,  and  held  in  great  reverence  by  the 


m  Mn.  Gaz.  de  immortal,  animae  in  magna  Biblioth.  Patr. 
tom.f.  p.  640.  Col.  Agr.  1618. 

n  Juftinian  Cod.  tit.,  27,  1.  1.  Archelao  Pra»fe&.  Pmor. 
Afric.  Evagrius  Scholafticus  fn.%  I.4.  c.  14.)  &  Nicephorus 
Callifthus  (1. 17.  c.  11.)  have  by  mijiake  afenbed  this  Conftitu- 
tion  to  the  Emperor  Juftin. 

0  Nempe  tunc  idem  vex  Hunnericus,  unius  Catholici 
adolefcentis,  vitam  a  nativitate  fua  line  ullo  fermone  ducentis, 
linguam  prsecepit  excidi,  idemque  mutus  quod  fine  humano 
auditu  Chrifto  credens  fide  didicerat,  mox  prarcifo  fibi  lingua 
locutus  eft,  gloriamque  Deo  in  primo  vocis  fuas  exordio  de- 
dit.  Denique  ex  hoc  fidelium  contubernio  aliquantos  ego  re- 
ligiofiflimos  viros,  prseciiis  linguis,  manibus  truncatis,  apud 
Byzantium  Integra  voce  confpexi  loquentes.  Marcellin.  Com. 
in  Chron.  Theodorico  &  venantio  CoiT.  p.  4^.  Edit.  Scaliger. 

whole 


33°         dfr  Hifiorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  whole  court,  and  particularly  by  the  Em+ 
^^V^  prefs  her  felf  p.  And  fo  again  Viftor  Tu- 
nunenfisy  another  African  JSiftiop  who  lived 
foorx  after  them,  (as  being  both  Bifhop  and 
Confeflbr  in  the  reign  of  Juftinian,)  al- 
ledges  the  teftimony  of  the  royal  cityy  (i.  e. 
Conftantinople)  where  their  bodies  were  in- 
terr  d  3.  Not  to  infift  now  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Gregory  the  Great,  who  had  his 
account  like  wife  from  an  ancient  Bifhop 
who  had  adually  feen  them1,  and  Ifidore 
Archbifliop  of  Sevil{9  who  was  cotempo- 
rary  with  Gregory,  and  a  perfon  of  too 
much  iearnh)g  and  judgment  to  be  deceiv- 
ed in  fo  important  a  fad,  which  was  not 
a  century  before  him. 

Though  this  miraculous  event  was  not 
enough  to  foften  the  abandon'd  Hunrteric, 


p  Linguas  eis  &  manus  dexteras  radicitus  abfcidiflet. 

Qqod  cum  faftum  fuiflet,  Spiritu  San$o  praeftante,  ita  locuti 
funt  &  loquuntur,  quomodo  antea  loquebantur.  Sed  fi  quis 
increduhis  cfle  voluerit,  pergat  nunc  Conftantinopolim,  &  ibi 
reperiet  unurn  de  illis,  fubdiaconum  Reparatum,  fermonespo- 
litos  fine  ulla  ofFenfione  loqucntem :  ob  quam  caufam  yenc- 
rabilis  nimium  in  palatio  Zenonis  Imperatoris  habetur,  8c  prar- 
cipue  Regina  mira  eum  reverentia  veneratur.  ViOt.  VitenC 
J.  f.  §.  6".   Edit.  Ruinart. 

t    *  Quos  confeflbres,    quod   linguis  abfciftis,   perfecte 

finem  adufque  locuti  funt,  urbs  Regia  adteftatur,  ubi  eorum 
corpora  jacent.  Vi£or.  Tunun.  in  Chron.  Zenone  Aug.  Cof. 
p.  4.  Edit.  Scaliger.  ad  calccm  Chron.  Eufeb.  Amft.  i6/?0 
rid.  &  pag.  12. 

'  Greg.  Mag.  in  dialog.  1.  j.  c.  32. 

1  Ifidor.  Hifpal.  Chron.  p.  73/.  in  Grotii  Hift.  Goth. 


m 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  331 

yet  his   perfecution   foon  after  concluded  Serm.  vl. 
with  his  life>  when  God  was  pleafed  to  put  V-OTV 
an  end  to  his  days  by  fuch  a  loathfome 
difeafe  as  he  has  often  chofen  to  take  ven- 
geance on  the  perfecutors  of  his  Church*. 
He  was  fucceeded  by  his  nephew  Gonda-    484. 
mondy   who  having  been  ill  ufed   by  his 
uncle,   is  by  fome  fuppofed,  out  of  mere 
averfion,  to  have  begun  his  reign  with  con- 
trary meafures,  and  recalled  the  Catholicks 
from  banifhment b.     But  however  he  might 
be  a  perfon  of  greater  lenity  than  his  pre- 
deceffor,  yet  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  but 
that  the  Arians  found  means  to  carry  on 
their  perfecution  under  himc.     The  third 
year  of  his  reign  was  moft  probably  the 
beginning  of  the  relaxation  d,   when  the     487^ 
great  Eugenius  of  Carthage  was  aftually 
recalled   from  banifhment.     And  then   it 
was  that  fome,   who  had  yielded   in  the 
heat  of  perfecution,   and  fubmitted  to  the 
Arian  baptifm,  made  their  earneft  applica- 
tion to  be  reftored  to  the  communion  of 
the  Church :    which  was  thought  but  rea- 
fonable,  by  a  fynod  held  at  Rome,  under    487- 
Pope  Felix,    upon  their  waiting  fuch  a 


a  Vi&or.  ut  fupr,  Greg.  Turon.  Hift.  1. 1.  c.  3.  Ifidor.  in 
Hift.  Vandal.  Chronic,  p.  72  c.  Edit.  Grot. 
b  Ifidor.  ibid. 

c  Vid.  Procop.  1.  1.  p.  24.  Ed.  Grot. 
J  Ruinart.  par.  2.  c-  io,  §.4. 


Y  jima 


3 3 *  -^  Hifiorical  Account  0/ 

Serm.vi.  time  of  penance  as  might  bear  proportion 
v*OT>^  to  the  different  aggravations  of  their  apof- 
tacye.  Yet  ftill  the  Catholicks  were  not 
altogether  free  from  the  reftraints  of  Avian 
tyranny.  It  feems  not  to  have  been  till  the 
tenth  year  of  his  reign,  that  he  confented 
494.  to  a  general  reftoration  of  their  exiled  Bi- 
fhops,  and  opening  of  their  Churches,  at 
the  humble  requeft  and  inftance  of  Euge* 
nius. 

Whilft  this  was  the  ftate  of  religion  on 
the  African  fide,  it  may  be  fit  to  take  a 
ihort  view  of  the  affairs  of  Europe.  The 
Vijigoth  Avians ,  who  had  been  long  in 
poffeffion  of  a  part  of  Gaul,  did,  after  the 
expedition  of  the  Vandals  into  Africa,  ex- 
tend their  dominions  thro'  a  part  of  Spain, 
and  by  their  alliance  with  the  Suevifh  co- 
lony fettled  in  Gallicia,  had  feduced  them 

460.  to  a  profeffion  of  the  fame  herefy f.  Soon 
after  this,  in  the  reign  of  King  Euric,  the 

467.  Goths  enlarged  their  conquefts,  as  well  in 
Spain  as  in  Gaul,  to  the  great  diminution 

476.  of  the  Suevifh,  and  the  utter  extin&ion  of 
the  fmall  remains  of  Roman  power  in 
thofe  parts  s.     The  Burgundians,  who  in- 


*  See  Tope  Felix**  Synodical  Epiftle  in  Binius,  torn.  2.  par.  1 2 
p.  45-4.  ficinLabbe  torn.  4.  col.  1075-.  vid.  &  col.  tlfo. 

f  Marian.  1.  y.  c.  ft  de  rebus  Hifpan. 

*  Marian,  ibid. 

habited 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy*  333 

habited  another  part  of  Gaul,    concurr'd  serm.  vi. 
with  them  in  the  profeffion  of  Arianifm.  ^-^r^ 
And   fo   did   the  Herulij    who,    after  the 
downfal  of  the  Roman  Empire,   had  made 
themfelves   mailers  of    Italy    under   their    47  5. 
King  Odoacer.      But  their   dominion  had 
not  long  continued,  when  the  Arian  Of     492* 
trogoths  wrefted  it  out  of  their  hands h,  by 
that  famous  irruption  which  they  made  in- 
to Italy ,    under  the  command  of  the  vic- 
torious Theodoric. 

But  in  all  thefe  places,  there  was  no 
fuch  peri  edition  raifed  againft  the  Catho- 
licks  as  we  have  feen  in  Africa  \  except 
perhaps  within  the  Suevifh  territories  \  and 
for  a  fhort  time  among  the  Vi(igothsy  in 
the  latter  end  of  the  reign  of  Euric,  who 
perfecuted  with  great  violence  about  the  480, 
ipace  of  three  years k,  banifhing  fome  Bi- 
fhops,  imprifoning  others,  and  putting  o- 
thers  to  death,  without  allowing  new  ones 
to  be  fubftituted  in  their  room :  fo  that 
the  churches  became  defolate,  and  the 
true  religion  feemed  in  danger  of  being 
loft  in  thofe  parts,  for  want  of  perfons  to 
adminifter  in  facred  offices.  Excepting,  I 
fay,   this  Gothic  perfecution  under  Euric, 


h  Procop.  Caefar.  de  bel.  Got.  I.  i.  J>.  140.  Edit.  Grot. 
'Marian.  1.  5-.  c.  9. 

k  Sidon.  ApoJ.  1.  7.  ep.  6*.  Greg.  Turon*  Hift.  Franc,  t  2. 
c.  ij\  Marian.  1.  f.  c.  f. 


Y  2  the 


334         dn  Hijlorkal  Account  of 

Serm.  vi.  the  Catholicks  had,  for  ought  appears,  the 
^^T^  ufe  of  the  churches,  and  the  liberty  of  ce- 
lebrating divine  worfhip  according  to  the 
ancient  rule.  The  Catholicks  had  their 
Bifhops,  and  the  Arians  had  theirs.  Only  it 
is  certain  that  the  countenance  of  the  civil 
powers  was  on  the  fide  of  herefy ;  fo  that 
Arianifm  might  be  term'd  the  reigning  re- 
ligion of  the  IVefty  as  Eutychianifm  was 
at  the  fame  time  in  the  Eaft>  under  the 
Emperor  Anaflafius.  Our  country  of  Bri- 
tairiy  the  mean  while,  was  over-run  with 
Pagantfm  ;  and  fo  was  that  part  of  Gaul 
which  was  inhabited  by  the  Franks. 

Whilft  thus  the  whole  chriftian  world 
was  fubjecl:  cither  to  hereticks  or  infidels, 
in  fome  parts  more  heavily  opprefs'd,  and 
in  others  indulged  a  little  more  liberty ;  at 
length  there  arofe  a  light  to  the  Church, 
in  the  midft  of  her  obfeurity,  and  fome 
gleams  of  comfort  darted  in  upon  her, 
from  a  quarter  from  whence  they  might 
lcaft  have  been  expefted.  It  was  towards 
496.  the  conclufion  of  the  fifth  century,  that 
Clovis  King  of  the  Franks  or  French,  did 
with  a  great  part  of  his  people  renounce 
the  'Pagan  fuperftition,  and  embrace  the 
faith  of  Chriftianity  >  the  faith  I  mean  in 
its  true  and  catholick  purity  \  without  the 

1  Vid.  Greg.  Turon.  hi,  c.  31.  Aimoia.  dc  geft.  Franc, 
1.  i.  c.  j<5. 

cor* 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  33  j 

corruptions  of  Avians  or  other  hereticks,  Serm.  vi. 
Which,  happening  at  a  time  when  all  the  ^^ 
other  Princes  in  Chrifiendom  oppofed  the 
orthodox  faith,  did  very  probably  give  birth 
to  that  title  of  the  Moji  Chriftian  King, 
which  has  ever  fince  been  claim'd  by  his 
fucceffors  the  Kings  of  France  m. 

About  the  fame  time  the  catholick  doc-  499; 
trine  gain'd  fome  profelytes  among  the 
BurgundianSy  by  means  of  a  conference 
which  had  been  held  between  the  Catho- 
lick  Bifhops  and  the  Arians,  whilft  King 
Gondebald  himfelf  could  not  entirely  con- 
ceal his  conviftion,  tho'  for  fecular  reafons 
he  perfifted  to  fupport  Ariantfm*.  But 
Clovisy  who  was  then  at  war  with  the  Bur- 
gundianSy  did  foon  after  obtain  fuch  a  con-  5^3 * 
queft  over  'em  as  put  him  in  condition  to 
give  the  catholick  caufe  the  countenance 
and  fan&ion  of  a  civil  eftablifhment.  This 
was  followed  by  another  vi&ory  over  507J 
Alaric  and  his  Vijigoths  who  were  fettled 
\\\  Gaul  °  :     And  thefe  victories  obtain  d 


m  Maimbourg. Hifioire de  1'  Arianifme,  livr.  10.  p.i  13, 1 14, 
See  Selden'i  Titles  of  Honour,  ch.  y.  §.3.  This  is  not  the  only 
ground  ajfign'd,  but  I  think  it  the  moft  probable. 

n  Collar.  Epifc.  cor.  Rege  Gundabal.  ex  Hift.  Epifc.  Gall. 
Hieron.  Vignerii  Spicileg.  tom.  f.  inter  Concil.  Edit.  Par.  167 1. 
Labbe'  Sc  CofTart.  tom.  4.  col.  13 18,  Sec.  vid.  &  Greg.Turon. 
Hift.  Francor.  1.  2.  c.34. 

0  Vid.  Sigebert.  Chron.  ad  an.  5-09.  Greg.  Turon.  1.  zl 
c.  37.  Aimoin.  1, 1.  €.20, 12. 


X  3  ^y 


3  3<$  An  Hiflorical Account  of 

s£Rm.  vi.  by  Clovis,  were  afterwards  compleated  by 
M'VtV  his  fons.    From  henceforth  the  French  were 
in  a  manner  entire  matters  of  Gaul,    ex- 
tending their  dominion  as  far  as  the  cPyre- 
n<ean  mountains  i  infomuch  that  the  whole 
country,  from  this  nation  of  Franks,  had 
afterwards  the  name  of  France :  the  inhabi- 
tants whereof  being  by  this  means  refcued 
from  the  mifchiefs  oiArianifm  5  what  me- 
thods were  taken  for  the  fupport  of  Or- 
thodoxy, and  for  gaining  it  the  like  fuccefs 
in  Africk,   Italy  and  Spain,   I  mail  have 
farther  occafion  to  lay  before  you  in  ano- 
ther difcourfe. 

Now  to  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghojl,  three  per  fons  in  the  unity  of 
the  fame  eternal  Godhead,  be  all  ho- 
nour and  glory  henceforth  for  evermore. 
Amen. 


.   i  SE&- 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy*  337 


SERMON  VII. 

Preach'd   May  7,    1724. 


$***a*********^*;fc**^^ 


F  T  E  R  having  feen  the  down-  serm.vii. 
fal  of  Arianifm  in  the  Eafty  v^^V 
and  the  various  divifions  of  the 
Church  afterwards,  by  the  rife 
of  the  Nejlorian  and  Eutychiam 
herefies  :  we  went  on  to  take  a  view  of 
the  Churches  of  Europe  and  Africk,  with 
relation  to  the  controverfy  now  before  us. 
Thofe  parts,  excepting  a  few  years  towards 
the  end  of  Conftanttus\  reign,  had  been 
but  little  infefted  with  the  Arian  contagion, 
till  about  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, when  the  irruption  of  the  Goths  and 
Vandals,    and    other   Northern    nations, 

Y  4  brought 


338  An  Hift  or  teal  Accounts/ 

Serm.vii.  brought  Ariantfm  in  as  the  companion  of 
^^-OfV  their  conquering  arms,  and  overthrew  at 
once  the  religion  of  the  empire,  together 
with  its  civil  liberties.  Catholick  Bifhops 
there  were  ftill,  and  many  of  the  ancient 
inhabitants  continued  to  hold  faft  their  in- 
tegrity. But  the  Arians  had  poffeffion  of 
the  Churches,  and  the  countenance  of  the 
civil  government  ;  whilft  the  Catholicks  at 
beft  were  content  with  bare  toleration,  and 
fometimes  laboured  under  the  heavieft  op- 
preffions. 

The  fcene  began  to  change  when  Clovis 
4,9  <5.    the  French  King  was  converted  from  Pa« 
ganifm  to  the  Catholick  Faith,  and  by  his 
conquefts  obtain'd  over  the  greateft  part  of 
Gaul,  whether  inhabited  by  Goths  or  Bur- 
gtmdianSy  reftored  the  Catholicks  of  thof$ 
parts  to  the  protection  of  the  civil  powers, 
v1I#    and  left  the  government  at  his  death  to  be 
fhared  among  his   four  fons a.     The  rem- 
nant that  was  left  of  the  Burgtmdzans,  did 
foon  afterwards,    by  the  example  of  their 
King   Sigifmund,    embrace    the   catholick 
J16, 5-27,  faith  b,  and  after  that  were  fo  entirely  fub- 
/i8»  si1-  dued  as  to  become  one  people  with  the 
French c. 

a  Vid.  Greg.  Turon.  Hift.  Francor.  1.2.  c.  43.  &»1.  3.  c.  J^ 
Aimoin.  Hift.  Franc.  I.  2.  c.  1. 

b  Vid.  Maimbourg.  Hiftoire  de  Y  Ariarnfme,  livr.  10. 

c  Greg.  Turon.  1.  3.  c.  6.  Ado  Viennenf.  in  chron.  iri  mag.' 
Biblloth.  Patr-  torn,  9.  par,  2.  p.  286,  Almoin.  1.  2.  c  4. 

The 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  339 

The  Viftgoths  indeed,   who  were  now  Serm.vii. 
poflefs'd  of  a  good  part  of  Spam,  and  that  ^^r^ 
part  of  Gallia  Narbonenjis  which  is  now     5°5" 
called  Langttedoc,    perfiftcd  ftill  in  Aria-     *°7' 
nifm:  but  they  likewife  at  laft  were  fo  ut- 
terly defeated  by  the  fons  of  Clovisd,  that    531. 
from  thenceforward  we  may  look  upon 
Arianifm  as  in  a  manner  extinguifhed  in 
France  or  Gaul,  and  very  much  weakend 
in  Spain ;    whilft  the  Catholicks,  who  had 
always  kept  footing  in  thofe  parts,  were 
clearly  recovering  ground. 

Mean  while  the  OJlrogoths  were  matters 
of  Italy  5  and  King  Theodoric,  a  perfon  of 
great  prowefs  and  martial  exploits,  though 
entirely  addicted  for  his  own  part  to  the 
Arian  intereft,  yet  gave  the  Catholicks  fo 
little  difturbancc,  that  they  continued  in 
poffeffion  of  the  See  of  Rome  itfelf,  with 
many  and  great  privileges c,  till  at  lad  being 
informed  how  the  Emperor  Juftin  had  late- 
ly publifhcd  a  fevere  cdift  againft  the  fmall  525, 
remains  of  the  Arians  in  the  Eajl,  (who 
feem  to  this  time  to  have  continued  a  fuc- 
ceffion  of  Biihops  at  Confiantinople,  one 
of  whom,  *D s  enteritis  by  name,  had  not 
many  years  fince  prefumed  upon  a  con-  circa 
fiderable  innovation  in  altering  the  ftated     510, 


*  Greg.  Turon.'l.  3.  c.  9, 10.  Aimoin.  1.2.  c.2. 
I  Vid.  Ccchlaei  vit,  Theodoric,  c.9.  p.  8e,  &c. 


fornt 


34^         An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Serm.vii.  form  of  baptifm f  i  I  fay,  Theodoric  being 
S^f^J  informed  of  Juftin's  edid  againft  this  rem- 
nant oiArians  in  the  E aft)  he  determined 
with  himfelf  either  to  procure  a  revoca- 
tion of  that  edid,  or  elfe  to  make  reprifals 
upon  the  Catholicks  of  Italy  to  the  laft 
extremity.  To  this  purpofe  he  obliged  the 
Bifhop  of  Rome  himfelf  to  undertake  an 
embaffy  to  Conftantinople*,  whereby  thoJ 
he  obtain  d  his  end  in  mitigating  the  Em- 
peror's feverity,  yet  he  imprifon  d  the  Pope 
at  his  return  h,  and  loaded  him  with  irons, 
for  the  zeal  which  he  difcover'd  in  the  ca- 
tholick  caufe1,  and  for  envy  that  the  ca- 
tholick  Emperor  had  treated  him  with  fo 
much  refped  k.  After  which  his  death  did 
quickly  put  a  period  to  his  miferies,  and 
Theodoric  proceeded  to  appoint  a  fuccef- 
for  by  his  own  authority l.  Theodoric  fur- 
vived  him  but  a  few  months,  when  leav- 
526.    ing  the  kingdom  to  his  grandfon  of  eight 


i*CL7mQv     /5X^72^£TC61     @0CqGcCS     tie,     TO     OVOfAiGC    TOO    7roCTfO$,     Oi     lioZt 

h  dytca  7rv£tj{joecri.  Theodor.  Left.  Excerpt.  1.2.  p.  f6i. 

*  Marcellin.  Comes  in  chron.  Filoxeno  &  Probo  Cofl*.  ad 
calc.  Eufeb.  ex  Edit.  Scalig.  p.  j-o,  j-i.  Anartaf.  Biblioth. 
H.  E.  p.  fj.  Edit.  Paris.  1649.. 

h  Cochlaei  vita  Theodoric.  c  18. p.  142,  &c.  vid.&Anaffof. 
Biblioth.  de  vitis  Pontiff.  Roman,  in  S.  Joan.  c./4r 
'  Greg.  Turon.  de  glor.  Martyr.  1%  L*  c.  40. 

*  Marianus  Scotus  ad  an.  1-24.  Ado  Vien.  in  chron.  ad 
an.fio.   in  Mag.  Bibl.  Patr.  torn.  9.  par.  2.  p.  286. 

*  Paul.  Diac.  Hi#.  Mifcel.  1,  1  j\  c,  10.  Anaitaf,  ut  fupr. 
Marian.  Scot,  in  Chron.  ad  an.  f  23. 

yeao 


the  "Trinitarian  Controvert .         341 

years  old,   under  the  tuition  of  a  prudent  Serm.vit. 
mother1",   the  affairs  of  Italy,   as  to  the  ^-""W. 
point,  of  religion,  continued  for  fome  years 
without  any  material  alterations. 

Whilft  this  was  the  pofture  of  affairs  in 
Eur  ope  >  there  fell  out  a  very  confiderable 
change  or  revolution  on  the  African  fide. 
The  Vandal  perfecution  which  feem'd  to 
be  concluded  in  the  time  of  Gondamondy  496. 
was  afterwards  renew'd,  tho'  in  a  more 
artful  way,  and  with  lefs  fhew  of  violence, 
by  his  brother  Thrafimond.  The  tortures 
and  outrage  of  the  former  reigns  he  craf- 
tily forbore,  and  chofe  rather  to  conquer 
the  Catholicks  by  an  appearing  mildnefs, 
and  throwing  only  the  weight  of  fecular 
honours  and  advantages  on  the  fide  of  A- 
\ianifmn.  Thus  much  might  be  naturally 
expedted.  But  he  went  on ,  as  their  Bi- 
fhops  were  removed  by  death,  to  inhibit 
them  ftri&ly  from  ordaining  any  fuccef- 
fors°,  well  knowing  that  this  was  an  <;f- 
fe&ual  way  to  ftab  the  caufe  of  Ortho- 
doxy, and  that  natural  death  would  in  time 
leave  their  churches  as  deftitute  of  Paftors, 
as  the  moft  furious  perfecution  could  have 


■  Procop.  de  bel.  Got.  1.  i.  p.  14;.  Edit.  Grot. 

■  Vid.  Procop.  de  bel.  Vandal.  1. 1.  p.  25-.  cjufd.  Edit. 

0  Ferrand.  E)jac.  ia  vita  S.  Fulgent,  cap.  16.    ante  opera 
Fulgent, 

done. 


3 4 *•  ^n  Hiftorhal Account^/ 

Serm.vii.  done  p.  But  the  Catholicks  were  aware  of 
^sy*^  this  as  well  as  Thrajitnond,  and  in  one 
province  at  leaft  refolved  upon  it  as  their 
duty,  to  ordain  Bifhops  in  all  the  vacant 
^507.  churches,  without  regarding  the  edid  that 
had  been  publifhed  to  the  contrary  i.  The 
celebrated  Fulgentius  was  one  of  the  Bi- 
'50S,  fhops  ordain'd  in  this  conjunctures  But 
Thrafimondy  who  had  only  put  on  a  di-f- 
lembled  lenity,  foon  laid  by  his  difguife, 
and  fending  their  Bifhops  into  banifhmentr, 
for  the  moft  part  to  the  ifland  of  Sardinia, 
indulged  the  Arians  in  committing  various 
facrileges*:  which,  however  they  might 
feem  to  be  done  without  his  command, 
(who  pretended  all  the  while  to  the  great- 
eft  ^equanimity,  in  admitting  the  people  to 


p  Vid.  Maimbourg.  Hiftoire  de  l'Arianifme,  I.e.  p.  161. 

q  Vita  Fulgent,  ut  fupr.  vid.  8c  Ruinart.  Hift.  Perfec. 
Vandal,  par. 2.  c.  n. 

r  Vit.  Fulg.  c.  17. 

f  Paul.  Diac.  Hift.  Mifcel.  1.  iy.  c.  i<5.  Sigcb.  in  Chron.  ad 
an-  498.  The  number  of  tbefe  exiVd  Bifhops  is  varioujly  re- 
fort ed :  fometimes  fixty,  vit.  S.  Fulgent,  c.  20.  fometimes  an 
hundred  and  twenty,  Ifidor.  Chron.  Wanda],  p.  73^.  Ed.  Grot. 
Vi&or.  Tununenf.  Chron.  ad  calc.  Eufeb.  Chr.  p.  "f.  'Tis  pro- 
bable the  fir  ft  Author  includes  only  the  Bifhops  of  the  Province  of 
Byzacium,  whilfl  the  reft  take  in  the  other  Provinces.  Some  have 
encreas'd  the  number  to  two  hundred  and  twenty,  two  hundred  and 
twenty  five,  or  two  hundred  and  thirty  j  including  perhaps  fuch  as 
were  baritflid  to  other  places  befides  Sardinia.  Vid.  Ruinart.  Hift. 
Perfec.  Vandal,  par.  z.  c.  11.  §.  8— —14.  Yet  Ado  Vien- 
nenf.  in  Chron.  ad  an.  492.  /peaks  of  two  hundred,  and  twenty 
as  banifhed  to  Sardinia. 

1  Vit.  S.  Fulgent,  c. 21,  if,  Ruinart.  ut  fupr.  §.21,22., 

offer 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  34* 

offer  their  obje&ions,  and  even  fetching  Serm.vil 
Fulgentius  from  Sardinia,  in  order  to  a  ^OP^ 
conference,)  were  yet  too  plainly  counte- 
nanced by  his  unreafonable  bigotry,  when, 
at  the  inftigation  of  his  Arian  favourites, 
he  quickly  remanded  back  Fulgentius  to 
his  former  banifhment u.  Which  proceed- 
ings, m  the  end,  were  punifhed  by  his  lofs 
of  a  fignal  battel  with  the  Moors w,  and 
foon  after  with  the  death  of  Thrafimond. 

Hilderky  the  next  King  of  the  Vandals 
in  Africky    was  of  a  different  difpofition. 
He  recaird  the  Bifhopsx  whom  Thrafimond    523; 
had  baniflied,  and  gave  full  liberty  for  the 
ordaining  new  ones,   and  holding  fynods  y, 
the  effeft  of  which  did  quickly  appear  in 
the  confecration  of  Boniface  to  the  Bifhop-     52$; 
rick  of  Carthage,    and  the  council  that 
was  holden  under  him.     But  this  favour- 
able Prince  was  not  long  permitted  to  en- 
joy that  repofe  himfelf,   which  he  fo  wil- 
lingly indulged  to  others,  but  was  in  a  few 
years  depofed  by  the  confpiracy  of  Gilimer,     53U 
who  after  he  had  imprifon  d  him,  with  the 


u  Procop.  de  bel.  Vandal.  1. 1.  p.  id.  Ed.  Grot. 

w  Procop.  de  bel.  Vandal.  1. 1.  p.  26,  27.  Evagr.  H.  E.  1. 4. 
c.  15-.  Niceph.  Callift.  H.E.  1.  17.  c.  1 1. 

*  Ruinart.  p.  2.  e.  12. 

y  Procop.  Hift.  Vandal.  1.  1.  p.  27.  vit.  S.  Fulgent,  c.  29. 
Victor.  Tunnunenf.  in  Chron.  ad  calc.  Eufeb.  Chr.  pag.  7.- 
Ifidor.  in  Chron.  p.  736.  Ed.  Grot.  Concil.  Labbe  torn.  4. 
col.  1628,  Sec.  ad  an.  ?zf. 

two 


3 44        ^n  Hifiorical Account  0/ 

Serm.vii.  two  Princes  his  brothers,  ufurp'd  the  throrie 

y^f^J  to  himfelf 2. 

Juftinian  had  by  this  time  fucceeded  his 
uncle  Juftin  in  the  Empire  of  the  Eafi  5 
and  as  he  had  maintained  a  perfect  corre- 
fpondence  with  Hilderic,  he  could  not  fee 
him  crufh'd  by  the  treafon  of  his  own 
people,  without  contributing  his  belt  en- 
deavours for  his  refcue  and  enlargement3. 
When  Gilimer  therefore  appear5  d  deaf  to 
all  propofals  of  accommodation  id  this 
matter,  the  Emperor  prepared  for  war. 
There  wanted  not  many  popular  arguments 
to  diffuade  him  from  it :  the  forces  of  the 
Empire  had  formerly  experienced  the  ftout- 
nefs  of  the  Vandals-,  to  their  coft  5  fince 
which  the  Empire  had  been  weakened  by 
the  ^Perjtan  war,  and  appeared  lefs  capable 
of  fo  great  an  undertaking.  The  Vandals 
likewife  were  judg'd  to  be  very  powerful 
by  fea,  whilft  Juftiniaris  forces  had  been 
only  exercifed  in  land-fervice.  And  which 
was  more  than  all,  the  Emperor  feeni  d  to 
run  great  hazards  if  the  war  fhould  prove 
unfuccefsful,  and  had  little  to  expect  from 
his  fuccefs  in  it  that  would  be  worth  the 
keeping.  But  notwithftanding  all  thefe 
plaufible  difcouragements,  the  fupreme  Go- 
vernor of  heaven   and  earth,   who  rneant 


*  Procop.  de  bel.  Vandal.  1. 1.  p.  28. 

*  Ibid.  See  him  alfi  for  the  other  particulars, 

*  ty 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  3  4  ^ 

by  his  means  to  root  Arianifm  out  of  A-  Serm.vii. 
frica,    fo  dire&ed   his  counfels   againft  all  ^W 
human  probability,   that  he  fent  over  his     534. 
army  under  the  command  of  the  celebrated 
Beltfarius,  who,  in  few  days  after  his  land- 
ing in  Africk,  made  his  entry  into  Carthage 
it  felf,    and  in  a   few  months  after  that, 
entirely   refcued  the  Churches  of  Afrtck 
from  that  Arian  opprellion  which  had  laft- 
ed  for  a  century  and  more.     After  which 
we  find  the  catholick  Bifhops  again  meet-     5  3  5. 
ing  in  council,    under  Reparatus  then  Bi- 
Ihop  of  Carthage,    and  labouring,   as  well 
by  the  indulgence  of  the  Emperor,    as  by 
the  advice  of  Agapetus  Bifhop  of  Rome,  to 
fecure  the  profeffion  of  the  ancient  faith  b, 
by  the  reftoration  of  wholefome  difcipline. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  death  of 
the  young  King  of  the  OJlrogoths  in  Italy 
made  way  for  the  fucccflion  of  Theodat,  534-? 
who  is  reprefented  as  a  perfon  of  no  ho- 
nour or  probity,  and  capable  of  any  wic- 
kednefsc.  He  endeavour'd,  by  the  intereft 
of  the  Princefs  who  had  lately  been  Re- 
gent, and  by  whom  his  own  acceffion  to 
the  crown  had  been  facilitated,  to  fecure 
his  peace  with  the   Emperor  Juftinian*: 

b  Labbe  ad  an.  5-34.  torn.  4.  col.  i7j-$-,  1784,  178^,  1701, 
5792.   vid.   &  Ruinart.  Hift.  Perfec.  Vandal,  par.  2.  c.  12. 

c  Procop.  de  bel.  Goth.  1. 1.  p.  14/,  &C 
*  Procop.   p.  140,  1  jo. 

and 


346         <An  Hiftorkal  Account  of 

sekm.vii.  and  yet  at  the  fame  time,  to  gratify  the 
^-^Y^  envy  or  revenge  of  fome  about  him,   he 
ordered  her  to  be  firft  confined,   and  after 
murdered e. 

Juftiniany  who  had  fo  lately  made  a  fuc- 
cefsful  war  in  Africk  upon  a  like  occafion, 
refolved  now  to  enter  upon  Italy,  and  by 
taking  vengeance  on  thefe  murderers,  to 
regain,  if  it  were  poffible,  the  capital  city 
of  the  Empire,  with  the  countries  in  fub- 
jeftion  to  it.  The  fuccefsful  Belifarius 
was  the  General  employ'd  on  this  occa- 
$$6.  fionf,  who  having  firft  gaind  Sicily,  as  the 
governor  of  Illyricum  on  the  other  fide 
had  gaind  ^Dalmatia,  he  foon  entred  into 
Italy  5  where  tho'  his  progrefs  was  not  (6 
quick  as  it  had  been  in  Africa,  yet  in  a  few 
years  the  whole  country  yielded  to  his  vic^ 
torious  arms,  and  defired  to  acknowledge 
him  their  King  &.  But  he  being  recaird  at 
^40.  that  time  by  the  Emperor h,  in  order  to  do 
farther  fervice  in  the  Terfian  war,  the  Goths y 
tho'  then  reduced  to  a  defpicable  number, 
refolved  to  fight  under  a  King  of  their  own, 
and  attempt  a  recovery  of  the  country  they 
had  loft.  They  fucceeded  fo  well  in  this 
defign,  at  firft  under  Idtbald,  but  chiefly 
under  his  nephew  Totilas,    that   in  about 


*  Procop.  ibid.   Jornand.  de  reb.  Getio.  c.  5-9.. 

f  Procop.  bel.  Got.  I.  1.  p.  ijz. 

s  Ibid.  1.  2.  p.  299.  J  Ibid.  p.  302. 

ten 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  347 

ten  years  time  they  were  again  matters  of  Serm.vii; 
Italy,  and  the  Emperor  found  it  neceflary  V-X^N-^. 
to  fend  all  the  forces  he  could  fpare  undex     **°° 
the  command  of  Narfes  \  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  dishonour  of  lofmg  the  conquefts 
he  had  made.     One  decifive  battel  deter- 
mined the  matter  on  the  Emperor's  fidek,     552] 
when  not  only  Totilas  himfelf  was  loft, 
but  the  whole  Gothic  army  fuftain'd  fuch 
damage  as   could  never  be  repaired.     For 
tho'  they  ventured  to  hazard  a  battel  the 
year  following,    yet  that  was  rather  done     553.' 
as  defperadoes  than  as  men  hoping  for  vic- 
tory >  and  the  defpicable  remains  of  'em  af- 
ter that,   being   now  convinced   that   the 
hand  of  God  was  againft  them,  made  it  their 
own  offer  to  depart  the  Empire,  upon  this 
only  condition,  that  they  might  have  leave 
to  carry  their  effeds  along  with  them  K 

It  might  have  been  obferv'd  that  the 
country  of  Provence  in  the  South  of  France* 
which  had  been  feiz'd  by  the  OJlrogoths, 
in  the  reign  of  Theodoric,  was  in  the  time 
of  thefe  convulfions  furrender'd  to  the 
French,  in  order  to  engage  their  help  a- 
gainft  the  Emperor.  So  that  now  all  France7 
and  Italy,  and  Africa  being  thus  delivered 
from  the  encroachments  of  Goths  and  Van- 


1  Procop  bel.  Got.  1.  4.  p.  474,  *  P.  joi 

1  Procop.  bel.  Got.  1 4.  in  fine. 


dais. 


3  4$  An  Hiflorhal  Account^/ 

Sehm.vii.  dais,  and  thereby  from  Arian  tyranny,1 
^sy^  there  remain'd  at  this  time  no  other  part 
of  the  Empire  but  Spain,  infefted  with  that 
herefy,  which  was  foon  after  refcued  in  a 
quieter  manner,  not  by  the  conqueft,  but 
the  converfton  of  their  Kings. 

The  Suevifb  colony  which   was  fettled 
in  Spain,   had  been  originally  Catholicks, 
till  their  unhappy  alliance  with  the  Vifigoths 
in  Gaul,    became  the   means  of  pervert- 
ing them  to  Arianifm1.     But  not  many 
j  6o.    years  after  the  redu&ion  of  Italy,  the  de- 
scendants of  thofe  Sueves?    among  whom 
Anantfm  had  now  prevailed  fomewhat  bet- 
ter than  a  century,  were  likewife  recoverd 
.to  the  catholick  faith,    after  the  example 
of  their  King  Theodemir,   who  not  only 
563.    made  open  profeffion  of  it  .himfelf m,    but 
569.    encouraged    their    clergy   to   aifemble   in 
council  for  its  better  eftablifhment n.     The 
572.    fame  proceedings  were  obferved  under  his 
fon,    when  the   converts   from  Arianifm 
were  folemnly  reconciled  and  received  to 
the  communion  of  the  Gatholick  Church  ^ 
The  converfion  of  the  Vifigoths,  who 
were  matters  of  the  reft  of  Spain,  was  not 


1  See  the  fixth  Sermon,  p.  322. 

m  Vid.  Greg.  Turon.  de  mirac.  S.  Martin.  1.  1.  c.  11. 

■  Marian,  de  reb.  Hifpan.  TTf.  c.  9.  Ifidor.  in  cfrron.  Suev* 

P-  739-  .      A 

0  —  Sacro  chriimate  delihura  fronrc,  (eo  ritu  recipiepantur 

in  eccle/km  Arian i)—  Marian,  de  reb.  Hiij^'!.  f.  c.  12. 

<3  fa 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  49 

fo  quick  and   immediate.      For  tho'  their  Serm.VIL 
King  Athawgilde  is  faid    before  this    to  ^-OfV-* 
have"  had  a  fecret  inclination  to  the  catho- 
lick   faith,    and  his  two   daughters,   who 
were  match'd  in  France  >  had  made  actual     5  54* 
profeffion  of  it  p  ^   yet  for  politick  reafons 
he  concealed  his  fentiments,  and  left  Ari- 
anifm  at  his  death  the  eftabliih'd  religion  of 
the  Goths.     The  governor  of  that  (mail 
remnant  of  Goths  that  were  left  in  La?igtte^ 
doc  was  chofen  to  fucceed  him ;  but  he  af- 
fecting a  more  cafy  and  quiet  kind  of  life, 
made  his  brother  Leiiyigilde  his  partner  in     569,, 
the  kingdom,    and  committed  the  govern- 
ment of  Spain  entirely  to  him  %  who  foon 
after,    by  his  death,    had  the  poffeffion  of     571* 
the  whole.     He  was  a  zealous  Arian,  and 
fo  was  his  Queen  Gofuinda,    which  occa- 
sion d  a  grievous  perfecution  of  the  Catho- 
licks  5  when  not  only  the  hopes  of  wealth 
and  honour,  and  whatever  advantage  is  ex- 
pected from  a  Prince's  favour,  but  the  ter- 
rors of  exile,    imprifonment  and  confisca- 
tion, and  all  kinds  of  violence,  were  em- 
ployed to  engage  his  fubjefts  on  the  fide 
of  herefyr.     He  had  two  fons,    however, 


p  Greg.  Tur.  Hift.  Franc.  I.4,  c.  27,    Airaoin.  Hill  Franc, 

1  Aifnoin.  1.  3.  c.  17. 

r  Greg.  Tur.  Hift.  Fr.  l.jr.  c.  2.9.  8c  de  glor.  Martyr.  1,  j: 
c.  82.  Ifidor.  in  Chron.  Goth.  p.  727. 


Z  %  by 


350  An  Hiflorkal  Account  of 

SxRM.vir.  by  a  former  wife,  who  was  a  lady  of  ca- 
V-OO^  tholick  principles.  The  eldeft  of  thefe  be- 
ing ftrengthend  by  an  alliance  with  the 

378.  family  of  France,  foon  declared  himfelf  on 
the  fame  fide  5    but  for  the  defence  of  it 

^80.  was  drawn  into  fuch  behaviour  towards 
his  father  as  is  not  to   be   juftified,    and 

586.  which  ended  in  his  utter  overthrow f.  Du- 
ring this  conteft  it  was  thought  but  necef- 
fary  that  the  Avians  fhould  make  fome 
conceffions  to  the  Catholicks  5    and  there- 

S%z-  fore  in  a  council  aflemblcd  at  Toledo*,  they 
forbad  the  re-baptizing  of  fuch  Catholicks 
as  came  over  to  them,  which  had  been  hi- 
therto pra&ifed,  and  pretended  to  acknow- 
ledge the  Son  of  God's  equality  with  the 
Father,  though  this  was  but  an  inftance  of 
their  grofs  prevarication,  fmce  they  meant 
it  not  of  a  natural  equality,  but  admitted 
fuch  a  latent  refcrvation  as  might  reconcile 
the  catholick  language  with  their  moft  un- 
catholick  opinions".  But  after  that  this 
conteft  had  ended  in  the  downfal  and  death 

$S6.  of  his  fon,  the  heretical  King  renew'd  his 
perfecution  w  with  the  greater  fury,  and 
(which  was  more  confiderable )  made  fuch 


f  Greg.  Turon.  ut  fupra.  Marian,  de  reb.  HiTpan.  I.e.  c.12. 
Joan.  Biclar.  in  Chron.  ad  calc.  Eufcb.  Chr.  p.  ijv 
1   Joan.  Biclar.    p.  i^. 
"  Marian,  ut  fupra. 
w  Aimoin.  1.  3,  c.  38.   Marian.  J.  c.  c.  13. 

3  advantage 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  $  j  x 

advantage  by  a  revolution  which  had  lately  Serm.vii. 
happen d  among  the  neighbouring  Sueves,  ^-^W/ 
that  he  added  their  part  of  Spain  to  the 
dominions  of  the  Got  hick  Empire*,  and 
no  doubt  endeavourd,  in  the  heat  of  the 
prefent  perfecution,  to  force  a  people  back 
to  Arianifm,  who  had  generoufly  return  d 
to  the  profeflion  of  the  catholick  faith. 

And  yet,  that  we  may  learn  to  admire 
and  adore  the  unfathomable  counfcls  of 
divine  Providence,  at  this  very  jun&ure, 
when  the  catholick  intereft  fcem'd  to  be 
entirely  funk  throughout  the  kingdom  of 
Spain,  and  all  things  profper'd  on  the  fide 
of  hercfy  5  at  this  very  jundure  it  fell  out 
that  the  catholick  religion  was  moft  fig- 
nally  cftablrihed ,  and  Arianifm  in  thofc 
parts  univcrfally  extirpated.  Leuvigild  di- 
ed quickly  after  this  enlargement  of  do- 
minion, but  before  his  death  was  touched 
with  a  fcnfible  remorfe  for  having  fo  out- 
ragcoufly  opprefs'd  the  Catholicks,  and 
flood  out  with  fuch  inflexible  obftinacy, 
againft  a  doctrine  fo  abundantly  confirnVd  y. 
He  left  orders  in  his  will  for  recalling  the 
Catholick  Biihops  he  had  baniftYd  formerly, 
and  recommended  the  farther  purfuance  of 
this  reformation  to  the  ferious  reflexions 


*  Ifidor.  in  Chron.  Suevor.  p.  740. 

1  Greg.  Tur-  1.  8.  c.  46.  Marian.  Lf.  c,  13. 


Z  3  of 


3 5 1  An  Hiflorlcalkc count  of 

Serm.vh.  of  his  Son  Recarede,  who  being  Well  in- 
t^v^vJ  clined  already,  began  his  reign  with  ap~ 
38<5,  pointing  a  fair  and  impartial  conference  be- 
tween the  Catholick  and  Arian  Bifhops*. 
The  advantage  in  difpute  was  eafily  per- 
ceiv'd  to  lie  on  the  fide  of  the  former ; 
and  this,  added  to  the  ftrong  evidence  by 
which  it  had  been  all  along  fupported,  left 
the  pious  King  no  longer  room  to  delibe- 
rate, but  pufh'd  him  on  with  a  becoming 
eagernefs  to  declare  himfelf  a  Catholick. 

He  behaved  on  this  occafion  with  fuch 
art  and  addrefs,  that  there  could  be  little 
difficulty  to  convince  the  body  of  his  peo- 
ple, both  in  Spain  and  Languedoc,  of  the 
reafonablenefs  of  his  proceedings,  and  con- 
sequently of  their  following  his  example  K 
Some  difrurbance  there  was  raifed  by  in- 
forrettion  and  confpiracies ;  but  they  were 
vg^.  foon  difcover'd  and  fupprefs'd,  and  the  au- 
^§g#  thors  incapacitated  for  the  purfuit  of  'em 
either  by  death  or  baniihmentb.  But  that 
the  intended  reformation  might  be  fettled 
on    a   folid  and   immoveable   foundation, 

*  Greg.  Tur.  1.  9.  c.  iy. 

3  Recaredus  primo  regni  fui  anno  menfe  decimo  catholi- 
cus,  Deo  juvante,  efficirur,  &  facerdotes  fectas  Arrianse  fa- 
pienti  co'loquio  aggreffus,  ratione  potius  cjuam  imperio  con- 
verti  ad  catholicam  fidem  facit,  gentemque  omnium  Gotho- 
rum  &:  Suevorum  ad  unitatem  8c  pacem  revocat,  Ecdefiae 
Chriftianse.  Joan.  Abbas  Biclar.  in  Chron.  ad  Ca!c.  Eufeb.  Chr. 
Araft.  165-8.  p.  16.  vid.  8c  Greg.  Tur.  1.  9.  c.  15-. 

b  Greg.  Tur.  ut  fupra.  Joan.  Biclair.  in  Chron.  ad  rale. 
Eufeb,  Chr,  p.  16,  17-  Marian.  L/.  c.  14. 

there 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  3  j  jj 

there  was  foon  after  a  council  affembled  at  Serm.vii. 
Toledo  c,  where,  without  noife  or  violence,  *~'~NrvJ 
without  the  awe  and  terror  of  a  military  *  9' 
force,  the  ancient  faith  was  happily  re-efia- 
blifhed,  and  after  the  example  which  had 
for  fome  time  prevail'd  in  the  Eajl>  the 
Conjlantinopolitan  creed  was  appointed  to 
be  folemnly  recited d  in  the  common  of- 
fices. And  yet  fuch  temper  there  was 
fhewn  towards  thofe  who  had  intruded  in- 
to the  Sees  of  the  exiled  Bifhops,  that  up- 
on their  embracing  the  catholick  commu- 
nion, they  were  allowed  to  enjoy  the  ftyle 
and  title  of  Bifhops,  altho'  the  exiles  were 
reftored  to  the  poffeffion  of  their  Stcs, 
and  the  exercife  of  jurifdiftion  5  from 
whence  we  meet  with  fome  examples  of 
the  fubfcription  of  two  Bifhops,  for  the 
fame  Scee. 

Whilft  France  and  Spain  were  thus  en- 
tirely refornVd  from  the  Arian  herefy,  fo 
entirely  reform'd,  that  whatever  other  er- 
rors may  have  ftnce  crept  in,  yet  this  has 
never  yet  been  able  to  recover  its  ground ; 
it  pleafed  God,  in  the  unfearchabie  coun* 


c  Marian.  1.  $\  c.  i  j\  vid.  &  Concil.  Toletan.  3.  in  torn,  f, 
Concil.  Labbe  col.  997,  &c.  vcl  in  Caranz,  fumma  CdnciL 
p.  35-6.   Edit.  Duac.  1689. 

d  Can.  2.  Concil.  Tolet. 

;  Labbe,   tom.  j\,  col,  ioif. 


Z  4  fds 


3  y  4  ^n  Hijiorical  Accounts/ 

Serm.vit.  fels  of  his  Providence,  to  fuffer  Italy  once 
Ks^r^>  more  to  fall  a  prey  to  Arian  conquerors, 
and  let  in  the  enemies  of  Chrift's  Divinity 
to  rival,  or  even  to  triumph  over  thofe,  who 
adhered   to  the  profeflion  of  the  ancient 
faith. 
•353.        The  imperial  General,  who  had  expeli'd 
the  Goths,   was  thought  the  fitteft  perfon 
to   be   governor  of  Italy.     But  before  he 
had  enjoy'd  that   ftation  fifteen  years,  he 
was,  for  avarice  or  male-adminiftration,  or 
perhaps  thro'  the  envy  and  falfe  fuggeftions 
567.    of  ill  people,   removed  from  that  dignity, 
and  another  was  appointed  in  his  roomf. 
His  fpirit  was  too  great,   or  in  propriety 
of  fpeech  too  little,  to  be  fatisfied  with  re- 
tirement and  privacy  $  and  not  having  fub- 
dued  his  paflions   by  the  humble  precepts 
of  religion,  he  invited  a  barbarous  people  to 
revenge  his  wrongs,  and  facrificed  at  once 
the  religion  and  the  quiet  of  the  country 
to  his  own  refentments. 

The  Lombards  were  a  Northern  people, 
for  the  moft  part  Ariansh,  who  fmce  their 
parting  the  'Danube,  had  fettled  in  Tanno- 
nia'x.     To  thefe  the  difcontented  General 


*  Vid.  Paul.  Warnefrid.  alias  Paul.  Diac.  de  geftis  Lango- 
bard.  1.  2.  c.  $•.  Anaftaf.  Biblioth.  de  vitis  PontiX  in  Joan.  3. 
cap.  62. 

8  Ibid. 

*  Vid.  Greg.  Mag.  Dial.  1.  2.  c.  28,  29,  30. 

1  Procop.  de  bel.  Goth-  J.  3.  p.  387.  Paul.  Warnefr.  feu 
Diac.  de  geftis  Langobard.  1. 1.  c.  22. 

addrefs'd 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  355 

addrefs'd  himfelf,    inviting  their  entrance  Serm.vh. 
into  Italy 9    reprefenting  the   weaknefs  of  *<^Y^ 
its  prefent  condition,   the  great  eafe  and 
difpatch  with  which  it  might  be  fubdued, 
and  the  little  refiftance  that  could  be  made 
againft  themk.     A  people  of  a  fierce  and 
warlike  genius  could  need  but  little  invita- 
tion to   fuch  an  enterprize;    and  accord- 
ingly King  Alboin    the   next  year  entred     S^S- 
Italy  with  a  numerous  army  of  Lombards 
and    other  Barbarians1,    who  ravaged  the 
country  with  a  cruelty  equal  to  their  fuc- 
cefsm,    and,    except  Rome  and  Ravenna, 
and  a  few  places  more,    did,  in  the  com- 
pafs  of  three  years,    or  thereabouts,   bring     57 *• 
all  in  fubje&ion  to  themfelves11,    and  give 
fuch  a  fhock  to  the  power  of  the  Emperor 
in  thofe  parts,  as  he  was  never  able  to  re- 
cover afterwards. 

The  Lombards  after  this  divided  the  574- 
country  into  five  and  thirty  provinces, 
which  were  governed  by  fo  many  of  their 
chief  Lords  °j  and  during  this  kind  of 
government,  which  lafted  but  ten  years, 
the  greateft  outrages  were  committed  both 
upon  the  churches  and  the  perfons  of  the 


*  Paul.  Warn.  1. 1.  c.f.  vid.  8c  Maimbourg. 

1  Paul.  Warn.  1.  i.e.  6,  y. 

r  Vid.  Greg.  Mag.  1.  4.  ep.  34. 

n  Paul.  Warn.  1.  2.  c.  z6. 

9  Ibid.  c.  x%\ 


Catholick^ 


356         An  Htfiortcal  Account  of 

serm.vii.  Catholicks,  whilft  Rome  it  felf  was  forced 

*~Ofv^  to  purchafe  its  liberty  at  great  expence  b, 

notwithftanding   that    many    miracles    are 

faid  to  have  been  wrought  for  the  convic- 

tion  of  thefe  barbarous  intruders'!. 

Perhaps  their  ravages  had  ftill  continued, 
if  the  Catholicks  had  been  the  only  Of- 
ferers :   But  as  the  ftate  and  dominion   of 

584.  the  Lombards,  which  was  now  threatned 
by  a  war  from  France,  was  fenfibly  im* 
pair'd  by  the  licentioufnefs  of  the  times, 
and  this  partition  of  authority1 5  they  found 
it  neceflary  to  reftore  the  monarchy  for 
their  mutual  fupport,  and  fo  fettle  the  go* 
vernment  upon  its  former  bafis f.     To  this 

585.  end  they  placed  Atitharis  upon  the  throne, 
who,  befides  his  being  next  in  defcent 
from  their  laft  King,  was  poflefs'd  of  many 
of  thofe  accomplifhments  which  are  the 
proper  ornaments  of  majefty r.     He  quickly 


p  Vid.  Greg.  Mag.  1.  3.  Epift.  34. 

1  Vid.  Greg.  Mag.  Dial.  J.  3.  c.  29,  37.  Some  indeed  have 
chjscied  againft  thefe  Dialogues  as  none  of  Gregory's,  beeauft 
they  are  unwilling  to  give  credit  to  the  Miracles  related  in  them. 
Yet  Dr.  Cave  (hift.  lit.  ad  an.  S9°-)  Mows  it  to  be  his  work, 
charging  him  however  "with  being  too  credulous  in  many  cafes,  and 
admitting  the  book  in  fome  parts  to  be  interpolated.  He  certainly 
wrote  a  book  upon  this  fubjeft  5  and  where  there  is  no  other  objec- 
tion, but  what  arifes  from  the  miraculoufnefs  of  the  thing  related, 
I  fee  not  why  we  foould  difpute  the  facJs,  unlefs  it  could  b%.  proved 
(as  it  mofi  certainly  cannot)  that  Miracles  were  ceafed. , 

r  Vid.  Greg.  Turon.  1.  4.  c.  39.  Paul,  de  Cs£.  Lang.  J.  $* 
c.  8,  9. 

f  Paul.  Warn,  de  geft.  Langob.  1. 3,  c.  16, 17. 

f  Op.  31.  Airaoin.  1,3.  c.  36. 

brought 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  3  5-7 

brought  their  affairs  into  a  better  order,  sERM.vir. 
and  in  a  while  fo  routed  and  tired  out  the  V-^VV-^. 
French  army  which  was  in  thofe  parts, 
that  being  at  laft  greatly  reduced,  through 
the  inclemency  of  weather,  and  the  want 
of  provifions,  they  were  glad  to  retire  out  589. 
of  Italy-,  and  fo  eafed  the  Lombards  of 
their  prefent  apprehenfions  of  danger  from 
that  quarter".  In  his  time  the  Italian 
Bifhops  feem  to  have  applied  themfelvefc 
with  fuch  zeal  and  earneftnefs  to  convert 
the  Lombards  from  Artanifm  to  the  catho- 
lick faith  w,  as  did  not  want  a  good  degree 
of  fuccefs,  that  both  fides  might  conquer 
in  their  turns,  the  one  by  force  of  argu- 
ment, as  the  other  had  by  force  of  arms. 
To  put  a  flop  to  fuch  proceedings,  the 
King  publifh'd  an  edi£t  to  inhibit  his  Lorn-  590, 
bards  the  baptizing  of  their  children  in 
the  catholick  coriimunion,  and  confine 
them  to  xhzArian  onlyx.  But  the  fuccefs 
of  his  fcheme  was  providentialy  hinder'd 
by  his  death,  which  happened  quickly  after- 
wards: When  dying  without  iffue  he  left 
his  Queen  Theudelinda,  a  Lady  of  catholick 
principles,  and  fo  well  efteenVd  by  the 
whole  nobility,  that  they  readily  acknow- 


u  Greg.  Turon.  Hift.  Franc.  1.  to,  c.  3.  Paul.Warnefr.  I.  3. 
c.  30,  32. 

*  Greg.  Mag.  I.3,  Epift.  17, 
■  Ibid, 

ledged 


3 5 8  An  Hiflorkal  Account  0/ 

Serm.vii.  ledged  her  their  Sovereign,  and  confented 
^OT^  that  whomfoever  fhe  ihould  chufe  to  be 
her  con  fort,  they  would  fubmit  to  as  their 
Kingx.  Agihtlphus,  who  was  honoured 
with  this  alliance,  was  himfelf  an  Arian  5 
but  as  the  catholick  caufe  got  ground  apace 
among  his  people,  partly  by  the  difcreet  in- 
fluence of  Queen  Theudelinda,  and  partly 
by  the  zeal  and  diligence  of  the  Italian 
Bifhops,  enforced  on  both  hands  by  the 
earned  application  of  Gregory  the  Great2, 
who  entred  about  this  time  upon  the  See 
of  Rome:  fo  it  Ihortly  happen d  that  the 
King  himfelf  was  added  to  the  number  of 
the  converts a,  which  could  not  but  make 
the  ftate  of  the  Church  to  appear  flourinV 
591.  ing  and  profperous,  by  the  restoration  of 
thofe  honours  and  privileges  which  ufually 
attend  the  favour  of  the  civil  powers b. 
S9i,  &c  The  war  however  which  enfued c  between 
the  Lombards  and  the  Romans.,  gave  fome 
interruption  to  the  perfecting  of  their  con- 
604.  yerfion,  till  at  laft  fuch  a  peace4  was  con- 
cluded as  gave  freili  opportunity  for  its 
completion.      After   which  Agilidphus   at 


y  Paul.  Warnefr.  de  gelt.  Langob.  1. 3.  c.  36.  p.  826.  Edit. 
Grot. 

z  Vid.  Greg.  Mag.  1. 1.  Epift.  17. 

a  Paul.  Warnefr.  1.  4.  c.  6.  p.  829. 

b  Ibid. 

c  Vid.  Greg.  Mag.  1. 4.  Epjft.29,  31,  Paul.  Warnefr.  1 4. 
c.  8.  *  Cap.  31. 

his 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  35-9 

his  death  left  his  fon  Adaloaldus  of  twelve  serm.vii. 
years  old,  under  the  regency  of  the  Queen  ^^^^ 
Theudelinda*.     This  lafted  for  ten  years,     6l6m 
during  which  the  catholick  caufe  met  with 
all    that    fuccefs    and  countenance  which 
might  be  ex^efted  from  a  Princefs  really 
religious f.     But  at  length  a  revolution  hap-     $26. 
pen'd  in  the  civil  government,    when  her 
fon  was  fet  afide,  and  her  fon-in-law  Ario- 
aldus  placed   upon  the  thrones.     He  was 
an  Arian  by  principle,    but  his  Queen  a 
Catholick  5    to  whofe  influence  it    might 
probably  be  owing,    that,   excepting   one 
unchriftian  aft  of  violence  h,  he  fuffer'd  the 
Church  to  enjoy  an  undifturbed  tranquili- 
ty 5    which  was  fo  far  continued  under  his     ^3  S.1 
fuccefTor  Rotharis'\    and  his  fon  Rodoal- 
dusk>  that  though  the  Arians  had  their  Bi-     654J 
fhops  in  moft  cities  of  Italy,   yet  the  Ca- 
tholicks  had  theirs  too l  $  and  thoJ  they  could 
not  avoid  the  evil  of  feparate  communions, 
yet  they  had  all  the  privilege  which  they 
could  ask  in  the  celebration  of  their  own. 


*  Greg.  Mag.  T.  12.  Epift.  7.    Paul.  Warnefr .  1.  4.  c.  43." 
P-  8j*. 

f  Ibid. 

*  Paul.  ibid.  8c  Aimoin.  Hift.  Franc.  1. 4.  c.  10. 

h  Vid.  Jonaf.    de  reb.  geft.    S.  Bertolf.  apud  Baron,   ad 
an.  616. 

1  Paul.  Warnefr.  1  4.  c.  43,  44. 

k  Cap.  48,  49. 

J  Cap.  44.  pag.  8;  3. 

But 


3  6o        An  Hijiorical  Account  of 

Sefm.vii.  But  after  the  death  of  Rodoald,  Aribert 
^^T^  was  King  m,  who  is  reafonably  prefumed  to 
*9'   have  been   a  Catholickn,   and  whofe  font 
673,    Bertaride,   when  he  came  tp  the  crown, 
was  fo  very  zealous  in  the  catholick  caufe, 
and  took  fuch  prudent  meafures   for  the 
converfion  of  his  people,   that  by  degrees, 
and  without  noife  or  violence,  the  Aricty 
herefy   feems  to  have  been  utterly   extir- 
pated 9  among  the  Lombards,   and  the  ca- 
tholick religion  was  profefs'd  withouj:  in- 
*£<w.673,terruption  for  about  a  hundred  years,  when 
**  in'    by  the  conquefts  of  Tipn  King  of  France, 
and  his  fon  Charles  the  Great,   the  very 
nation  of  the  Lombards  was  entirely  ex- 
tinguifh'd  p,  and  Italy  (excepting  what  thefe 
conquerors  had  granted  to  the  Pope)  was 
for  a  while  annexed  to   the  dominions,  of 
Soo.    France,  which  gave  occafion  for  reviving 
in  Charles  the  Great  the  title  of  the  Roman 
Emperor  i. 

It  was  in  his  time  that  Felix  the  Bifliop 
of  Urgel  in  Catalonia,  was  confulted  by 
Flip  audits  Bifhop  of  Toledo ,  upon  this 
queftion,  Whether  Jefus  Chrift,  as  man, 
were  the  adoptive  or  natural  Son  of  God  > 


ta  Cap.  5-0*  p.  85-7. 

n  Vid.  Maimbourg.  Hiftoire  de  I'Arianifme,  1.  12.  p«3ip. 

•  Vid.  Paul.  Warnefr.  If.  033,  34,  &c. 

f  Vid.  Petav.  Rationar.  temp.  1.8.  c.  7. 

J  Ibid.  cap.  8. 


He 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  %6i 

He  anfwer'd,  adoptive  \  and  maintained  his  Serm.vii. 
opinion  by  feverai  writings  difperfcd  not  ^OTV 
only  throughout  Spain,  but  France  and 
Germany1.  This  was  thought  to  fall  in 
with  the  Neftorian  fcheme,  an,d  revive  the 
notion  of  two  different  fonsf.  for  which 
reafon  the  council,  which  met  at  Ratisbon  792. 
quickjy  afterwards,  having  firft  condemn  d 
the  pspixtion x,  fent  its  author  to  Rome  > 
where  after  Pope  Adrians  concurrence 
with  the  ientence  of  the  fynod,  Felix  was 
induced  to  recant.  But  then  at  his  return 
to  Spain,  he  relaps'd  into  his  former  fen- 
timentsu,  encouraged  by  the  refolution 
of  his  brethren  in  thofe  parts,  and  parti- 
cularly by  a  letter  of  Elipandiis,  written 
on  purpofe  to  defend  them  yf  This  gave 
frefh  occafiqn  for  the  animadversions  of 
Pope  Adrian*,  who  quickly  oppofed  thefe 
innovations  in  a  letter  direded  to  the  Spa- 
nish Bifhops,  which  was  accompanied  by 
the  general  decifion  of  the  JVeftern  Church, 
in  that  famous  council  of  Frankfort,  which     794, 


'  See  DupinV  Eighth  Century,  p.  15-0, 

f  Vid.  r^ujus  rei  hiftor.  .in  torn,  7.  Concil.  Labbe. 

'Ibid.  col.  10 10,  10 1 1.  vid.  &  Dupin.  ut  fupr.  item  Cave 
Hift.  lit.  vol.  2.  p.  2.63. 

u  Vid.  annotat.  Binii  apud  Labbe  torn.  7.  co).  1067.  item 
Couftant.in  vindic.  vet,  codic.  confirm,  par.  3.  cap.  8.  p«  jij, 
prsetcr  opera  Alcuini. 

w  Vid.  Concil.  8c  Dupjn  m  fupr. 

■  W. 

oppofed 


3  6 1  An  Hifiorkal  Account  of 

Serm.vii.  oppofed  at  the  fame  time  r  the  growing 
Vx'W-'  pra&ice  of  the  worfhip  of  images,  that  had 
7^4-  iateiy  been  eftablifh'd  in  the  Eajl*.  And 
the  decrees  of  the  council,  with  refpeft 
to  Felix  y  were  enforced  by  letters  from 
Charlemaign  himfelf,  dire&ed  like  wife  to 
the  Spanijh  Bifhops.  But  when  all  this  was 
inefficient  to  reclaim  Felix  and  his  affo- 
ciates,  there  was  another  council  holden  at 
Rome a  under  Pope  Leo  the  third  5  and  an- 
799-  other  the  fame  year  at  Aix,  where  at  the 
inflance  of  Charles  the  Great,  Felix  was 
prefent  again,  and  fo  effectually  refuted  by 
the  dexterity  of  Alcuin,  that  he  volunta- 
rily renounc  d  his  error,  and  made  an  or- 
thodox confeflion  b  of  his  faith  5  tho'  (till 
the  experience  of  his  former  inconftancy 
made  it  reafonable  to  prevent  his  return- 
ing any  more  to  Spain,  and  oblige  him  to 
fpcnd  the  remainder  of  his  days  at  Lyons'. 

When  thus  the  Arian  herefy  was  uni- 
verfally  extirpated,  and  there  remaind  not, 


y  Some  of  the  popifjj  writers,  as  Surius  and  Binius  ("infer  cone 
torn.  7.  co!.  1068,  8cc.)  have  denied  that  *£«  Council  of  Frank- 
fort^/ condemn  the  worfhip  of  Images.  But  Sirmondus  (ibid, 
col.  1  of 4.)  and  Dupin,  (ut  fupra)  not  to  mention  our  own 
Dr.  Cave,  have  maintained  the  faft  againft  them. 

z  Concil.  Nicen.  i.  in  torn.  7.  Concil.  Labbe. 

'  Concil.  torn.  7.  col.  1149,  &c-  Labbe.  Dupin  ut  fupra. 

b  Concil.  torn.  7.  col.  115*1,  1  iyz. 

c  Vid.  Couftant.  vind.  vet.  cod.  confirm,  par.  $.c.  8,10,18. 


(that 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  3  6 3 

(that  we  know  of)  any  Arian  communion  Serm.vii; 
upon  earth,  there  was  yet  a  fierce  conteft  ^^^ 
in  France,  with  relation  to  this  fubjed* 
which  feem'd  to  be  little  elfe  but  a  difc 
pute  about  words.  Hincmar  Archbifhop  &6$* 
of  Rheims  being  offended  at  an  expreffion 
in  the  publiek  offices,  namely,  Trrna  ©*»/- 
tas,  or  triple  Godhead,  which  he  thought 
mult  have  the  fame  meaning  with  three 
Godheads  or  three  Gods,  took  upon  him 
to  alter  the  expreffion  to  fumma  T^eitas. 
This  innovation  gave  offence  to  many  ; 
and  Ratram  in  particular,  and  after  him 
Gothefcalcus,  undertook  to  juftify  the  ex- 
punged expreffion  from  any  charge  of 
Tritheifm,  as  implying  no  more  than  that 
the  Godhead,  altho'  fubft  ant  tally  but  one, 
is  yet  perfonally  threefold,  and  as  being 
therefore  eaftly  defended  by  the  ancient 
ftyle  and  language  of  the  Church,  whilft 
they  who  fhould  fcruple  it,  when  thus  ex- 
plain^, could  hardly  efcape  the  imputation 
of  Sabellianifm.  Hincmar  was  neverthe- 
lefs  refolute  in  his  opinion,  and  wrote  a  $67. 
large  treatife  upon  this  fubjed,  not  only 
for  the  clearing  of  himfelf,  but  to  load 
his  oppofers  with  the  odious  charge  of 
blafphemy.  The  matter  all  this  while  was 
chiefly  (as  I  hinted)  a  difpute  about  words, 
and  whatever  be  determined  about  Hinc- 
mar s  altering  the  hymns  of  the  Church, 
yet  their  notions  on  both  fides,  with  re- 

A  a  gard 


3  6 4  An  Hifiorkal  Account  of 

SerM.vit.  gard  to  the  Trinity,  appear  to  have  been 

^W  the  fame<*. 

But  about  the  fame  time,  another  ques- 
tion was  more  unhappily  improved  to  di- 
vide and  alienate  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches  from  each  other.  A  queftion, 
which  has  fo  much  relation  to  the  Trini- 
tarian Controverjy,  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
wholly  omitted  in  this  place.  The  creed 
which  had  been  eftablifh'd  by  the  fecond 
general  council  affembled  at  Constantinople, 
and  which  was  now  generally  ufed  in  the 
common  offices  throughout  the  Eaftern 
and  Weft  em  Churches,  had  in  fuch  man- 
ner exprefs'd  the  procejjion  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  as  to  aflert  no  more  than  this,  that 
He  proceedeth  from  the  Father.  This,  in 
procefs  of  time,  was  enlarged  or  interpo- 
lated in  the  Latin  Church  with  the  addi- 
circa  tion  of  the  word  Jilioque:  Which  at  the 
$62.  time  when  Thotius  was  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, became  the  handle  for  fo  wide 
a  breach  of  communion  between  the  two 
Churches,  as  no  length  of  time,  nor  de- 
claration of  their  refpe&ive  meanings,  has 
yet  been  able  to  repair  j  and  whilft  both 
fides  meant  to  advance  the  honour  of  the 
ever-bleffed  Trinity,  yet  each  had  the  rafh- 


4  See  this  matter  Jlated  more  at  Urge  by  Couftant.  vind.  vet. 
cod.  .confirm,  par.  4.  cap.  2,.  ,  ,.8.  See  #^.DupinV  Eccl. 
Hid.  ninth  Cent.  c.  2.  in  fine. 


nefs 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  36  f 

nefs  to  accufe  the  other  of  difhonouring  Serm.vii: 
(if  not  deftroying)  ite.  This  appear'd  by  the  V-^^N^ 
debates  upon  this  fubjeft  long  after  in  the 
council  of  Florence* i  when  the  Latins >  for  1439* 
aflerting  the  procejjion  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
from  the  Son  as  well  as  from  the  Father, 
were  thought  to  introduce  two  caufes  or 
principles,  and  two  fountains  of  the  Deity, 
and  to  teach  a  compound,  inftead  of  a 
fimple,  aft  of  production :  Whilft  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Greeks,  for  denying  it, 
were  charged  with  feparating  the  divine 
fubftance  from  the  perfon  of  the  Son.  And 
though  in  the  procefs  of  their  debates,  the 
meaning  of  both  was  fo  far  explained  that 
they  came  to  accommodation  with  each 
other  in  the  council,  yet  the  Greek  Patri- 
archs after  all,  and  others  who  were  ab- 
fent,  refufed  to  confirm  the  union,  and  fo 
the  breach  between  the  two  Churches  re- 
main d  as  wide  as  ever. 

Whoever  confiders  the  circumftances  of 
thofe  times,  when  this  quarrel  firfl  broke 
out,  will  readily  be  apt  to  conclude,  that  this 
was  rather  a  pretence  greedily  taken  up, 
than  any  real  ground  of  reparation.  The 
great  ufurpations  and  encroachments  of 
the  Bifhop  of  Rome,  which  had  been  grow- 


c  See  Dr.  Cave'*  Life  of  Greg.  Naz.  feft  f.  §.  z. 
f  Vid.  Concil.  Fiorent.  Labbe  torn.  13.    Dupin   Eccl.  Hilt, 
Cent,  if,  ch.  3.  . 


A  a  2  ing 


$66         An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

S£«m,vh.  ing  for  two  centuries  and  more,  under  that 
t-sy*^  vainglorious  chara&er  of  univerfal Bifhops, 
which  Gregory  the  Great  himfelf h  had  fo 
fever ely  cenfurd  in  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
ftantinople  $  the  increafe  and  acceflion 
hereby  made  to  thofe  jealoufies  and  emu- 
lations which  had  long  fubfifted  between 
the  Bifhops  of  thofe  great  Churches i  5  and 
aLl  this  enflamed  and  heighten'd  to  the  laft 
degree,  by  the  contefts  that  arofe  about 
the  particular  cafe  of  Thotius,  and  the 
right  of  jurifdi&ion  over  the  Bulgarians^  : 
Thefe  were  the  great  grounds  of  contro- 
verfy  5  and  the  cafe  of  the  filioque  being 
thrown  in  at  this  time,  when  their  minds 
were  already  fo  much  exafperated  againft 
each  other,  That  likewife  was  made  a 
matter  of  accufation  on  one  fide,  and  a 
plaufible  handle  for  the  widening  of  that 
breach  which  was  opening  before.  Thus 
if  the  Greeks  exclaim'd  againft  this  infer- 
tion  of  the  Latins  as  a  diabolical  device, 
and  the  great  eft  of  all  evils,  adulterating 
the  holy  creed  with  fpurious  fenfes  and  un- 
written exprejfions l  $  fo  on  the  other  hand 

the 


8  Cave  Hill.  Lit.  Sccul.  7.  feu  Monotbelit.  in  confpe&u 
faeoili. 

h  Vid.  ibid. 

!  Vid.  Cave  Hift.  Lit.  in  Leone  primo  Pontifice,  Anatolio  & 
Acacio  Conftantinop.  ad  an.  44.0,  449,  47  1. 

k  Cave  Hift.  Lit.  facul  9.  in  confpe&u  fasculi. 

yguTois 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  ^67 

the   favourers  of  the  Tapal  claim  have  serm.vii. 
been  no  lefs  fevere  upon  the  Greeks,    but  V^YN-^ 
have  proceeded  even  to  afcribe  the  mife- 
ries  which  have  fince  befallen  'em,  to  this 
caufe  5  and  particularly  the  taking  of  Con- 
ftantinople  by  the  Turks,   upon  the  very    1453. 
feftival  of  Whitfunday,  which  is  facred  to 
the  honour  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  m. 

It  muft  on  all  hands  be  acknowledged, 
that  this  phrafe  was  not  originally  inferted 
in  the  creed,  as  approved  by  the  Fathers  at  i%i. 
Conftantinople.  Eut  then  the  caufe  is 
like  wife  evident,  that  it  was  not  reje&ed, 
but  only  never  offer'd,  as  being  a  claufe 
of  which  they  had  not  any  particular  occa- 
fion  in  guarding  againft  the  hcrefics  of 
thofe  times.  As  for  the  do&rine  it  felf, 
that  it  was  then  received  in  the  Church 
may  be  eaftiy  demonftrated.  Among  the 
Latins,  beftdes  thofe  who  came  after  St. 
Auguftine,  whom  fome  would  fugged  n  to 
have  been  the  firft  author  of  this  do&rine, 
we  find  it  exprefly  aflerted  by  St.  Ambrofe0^ 


rov  zs-ovvipoZ  fjt,t)^ecv7)fJjecTav'  to  zrnvfAet  to  ccyuv  »«  ex  tov  7rct,Tgc% 
(Asvov,  ccXXcc  yz  £  sk  tcu  biov,  Im:o^6io%  Kcci7oteyyi<rxvTt$,  Phot, 
in  Epift.  Encycl.  p.  fi. 

m  See  Dr.  CaveV  Life  of  Greg.  Naz.  fe&.$\  §.2. 

n  Vid.  Steph.  de  Altimura,  i.e.  Le  Qirien  in  Panoplia  con- 
tra Graee.  Centur.  1 1.  cap.  4.  §.  2. 

0  Spiritus  Santtus,  cym  procedit  a  Patre  &  Filio,  non  fe- 
paratur  a  Patre,  non  feparatur  a  Filio.  D.  Ambrofe  de  Spir. 
Sanct.  1. 1.  c.  10,  alias  11. 


A  a  3  and 


3^8  An Hifiorical Account  of 

Serm.vii.  and  the  fame  thing  in  effed  advanced  be- 
UYV  fore  him  by  St.  Hilary  p,  at  that  very  time 
when  his  exile  for  the  fake  of  the  faith  had 
obliged  him  to  ufe  the  converfation  of  the 
Greeks y  and  fo  gave  him  the  better  oppor- 
tunity to   underftand  the  do&rine  of  the 
Eaft  as  well  as  of  the  Weft  in  this  parti- 
cular.    And  indeed  the  do&rine  of  the 
Greek  Fathers  themfelves  is  exprefs'd  in  a 
manner  fo  agreeable  to  his,  that  their  har- 
mony with  the  Latins  is  from  hence  mod 
evident,    as  to  the   matter  of  their  faith, 
though  there  be  fome  little  variation  in  the 
form  of  the  expreffion  ;  which  can  be  no 
wonder,  when  it  is  conftder'd,  that  the  point 
had  not   been  hitherto  debated  or  fettled 
by  any  council.    They  interpret  that  text  in 
which  our  Saviour  fays,  he  fhall  take  or  re- 
ceive of  mine  %  as  importing  that  the  Holy 
Ghoft  derives  his  cffcncc  from  the  Son.  And 
even  that  other  text  which  afferts  his  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Fat  her  y   was  thought  to 
imply  as  much,  when  taken  in  comparifon 
with   this,    becaufe  all  things    that   the 


p  De  Spiritu  autem  San&c-— «  qui  Patre  &  Filio  auctori- 
dus  confitendus  eft.  Hilar,  de  Trin.  1.  2.  §.  29.  col.  802.  Edit. 
Bened.  — Et  utrum  id  ipfum  fit  a;  Filio  accipere,  quod  a  Patre 
procedere.  Quod  fi  difTerre  credetur  inter  accipere  a  Filio  8c 
a  Patre  procedere,  certe  id  ipfum  atque  unum  e(Fe  exiftima- 
bitur,  a  Filio  accipere,  quod  fit  accipere  a  Patre.  I.  8.  §.  10. 
yid.  &  fequen. 

?  Job.  xvi.  !£„ 

$  Father 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  g  So 

Father  hath  are  here  declared  to  be  the  serm.vil 
Son  si.  vorv 

From  hence  St.  Athanafiiis  made  no 
doubt  to  aflert  that  the  Holy  Ghoft  has  the 
like  order  and  nature  with  refpetl  to  the 
Son,  as  the  Son  has  with  refpeB  to  the 
Father*,  and  advances  upon  that  foot  even 
to  ftyle  the  Son  the  fountain  of  the  Holy 
GhoJlr.  Which  perhaps  may  give  fome 
light  to  that  paflage  ofEccleJiafticus,  which 
mentions  the  Word  of  God  to  be  the  foun- 
tain of  wifdom^  as  wifdom  on  the  other 
hand  has  already  been  obferv'd"  among 
fome  ancient  writers  to  be  the  denomina- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  And  to  the  fame 
purpofe  St.  Baflw  obferves,  that  as  Chriji 
is  the  image  of  the  invifible  God,  fo  the 
Holy  Sprit  is  the  image  of  the  Son.  From 
whence,  it  has  been  reafonably  judgd,  fome 





1    'EK7rcgtOSTCCl    ffyj     <yb     Uq     IK     ToZ    $-£oZ   ^    5T6d7p4$    TO    7TvsZfJUCC    TO 

uyiovy  kcctoc  tvy  toZ  <ra>TMp(§^  (pavw,  ocXX'  &x.  ocXXor^ov  Z?i  toZ 
itoZ'  KotvTot,  >f>  t%tt  fAtrx  roZ  7rur^oc;  (£  rcZro  uvrci;  tMc/J£tv  unuv 
xtg}  roZ  dyCa  7rviu(A,a,T&''  7recvrcc  ctrcc  i%n  6  nccTvp  *[*«■  «V*  2^& 
tcZto  utfov  vfMVy  en  Ik  toZ  if/joZ  Xvrymxi,  f£  ecvocyyiXii  if/jTy.  Cyr. 

Alex.  adv.  Theod.  in  Anathem.  9. 

1    TotCCVTU/J     2)     TK^iV     f^     <Pu<TiV     iy^QVTO^     ToZ    XViUf//UT&'    57po£    TCI 

vtov,  otocv  0  Mies  t%tt  ffgoc,  rov  TrccTipoc.  Athan.  Epift.  1.  ad  Serap. 
de  Spir.  Sandt  §.21.  p  660. 

1  0*«    rfi   nxfoe,    rat    ifiu>    ttutpi    cvtu  t«v  viov  Trytyvp  tou  aym 
vtiufjuetr^.  Athanaf.  de  incarnat.  contra  Arianos.  §.  9.  p.  897. 

'  U*iyv>  xro<pio(4  Aey©-  SioZ.    Ecclus.  i.  5. 

°  See  the  fecond  fermon,  p.  70. 

w  'Eix&iy  (fyj  S-£ow  ^;f*5"^,  05  zfi,  (Pn<rtv,  ukuv  toZ  B-tcZ  rcZ  o&ogu- 
rev.  iixa?  p  hiov  to  miZp»t  D.  Bafil-  adv.  Eunom.  l.j.p.  1 16. 


A  a  4  light 


370  An  Hijlorical  Account^/ 

&rm.vii.  light  may  be  derived  to  a  paflagc  of  Ire- 
^^YV  n£usw9  fpeakitlg  °f  the  Son  as  the  Off- 
Jpring  of  God>  and  the  Holy  Ghoft  as  the 
figuration  of  the  Son.  But  upon  this  fubjed 
/peaks  Epiphanius  yet  more  exprefly,  that 
as  Chrift  is  believed  to  be  from  the  Father, 
God  of  God,  fo  is  the  Holy  Ghoft  believd 
to  be  from  the  Son,  or  from  them  both,  #s 
Chrift  has  faid,  fotyj  proccefcety  from  ttje 
jFaffjer,  and,  ije  fljail  rccetta  of  mine*.  So 
that  he  plainly  underftood  as  much  by 
the  one  expreffion  as  he  did  by  the  other, 
namely,  that  the  bleffed  Spirit  is  fubftan- 
tially  derived  from  both  perfons,  fmce  to 
be  or  to  exift  from  any  perfon,  muft  imply 
(as  the  Nicene  creed  explains  it  in  another 
particular)  a  communication  of  the  fub- 
ftance  of  that  perfon  y.  And  therefore  al- 
tho'  Epiphanius  has  fometimes  ufed  diffe- 
rent prepofitions z,  to  preferve  the  diftin&i- 
on  of  perfons  with  the  greater  clearnefs; 


w  Miniftrat  enim  ei  ad  omnia  fua  progenies  &  figuratio 
fua  [leg.  ejusj  i.  e.  Filius  &  Spirit  us  Sandius,  verbum  &  fa- 
pientia.  Iren.  adv.  haer.  1.  4.  c.  7.  alias  17.  vid.  &  MafTuet. 
annot.  ad  loc. 

X    'E*   3    ffll?0$    Sfc    TO?     KtlTQCt,     TTlfitJiTCCi,      $-£0$     I*     &iO?,     Xj    Ttf 

vtvvjyjot,  Ik  too  X?l*°u>  *•  ^P*  ^(^<pori^ay,  o>S  <p*)<rw  6  ^f'fSj  • 
jrewk  tow  jr«rpo5  tKTrogivtreci,  £  »t®-  «s  tow  s/X/o«  X^irca.  Epi- 
phan.  in  Ancorat.  §.  67.  p.  70.  2/4  $»  haer.  74*  §.4.  p.  891. 
vid.  &  haer.  61. 

y  —  .Ttvv^ivrtc  in  rov  7rurpocm,  ,  ■  TtfTifjy  ««  t?$  i«n«£  red  ffec- 
t£c$.  Symbol-  Nicen.  vid.  Le  Quien.  Panopl.  Centur.  11. 
cap.  4.  $.  6. 

*  — n«Pct  TwrretTfot  j$  Ik  tcu  Uqv,  Epiph.  Ancor.§.73.p.78. 

yet 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  371 

yet  to  fhew  he  meant  no  more,  he  has  Serm.vii. 
elfe\vherea  applied  the  fame  prepofition  to  v-*"^>^ 
both,  and  confequently  meant  as  much  as 
the  Latin  Fathers  could  do  by  aflerting 
him  to  proceed  from  the  Son  {in  terminis) 
as  well  as  from  the  Father.  St.  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  is  no  lefs  full  and  exprefsb,  and 
tho'  he  has  not  ufed  the  very  word  IxnroeitJi- 
rat,  yet  he  has  plainly  ufed  another  of  the 
fame  import,  which  equally  denotes  pro- 
ceffionc,  and  his  derivation  of  fub  fiance 
from  the  Son  d  as  well  as  from  the  Father. 
The  fame  was  very  clearly  implied  and  un- 
derftood  in  that  language  which  obtained 
fo  generally  afterwards  in  the  Greek  Church, 
viz.  that  the  Holy  Ghoft  proceeds  and  ex- 
ijts  from  the  Father ■,  by  or  through  the 
Sone.     Theodorit  is  perhaps  the  only  one 


3  1  1  ■  To  5  muZf/jCt  icy  109  tmfet  uja^otj^uv,.  ■  m  Kx^ot  Trctrpos 
9§  btoZ.  Epiph.  Ancor.  <j.  70,7  i.  p.  jf,  j6.  ■  mJEk  rtfe  cw- 
T>i5  ovma^y  Ik  t>js  ccutm  B-$cty>tc$,  *k  jretTpes  t£  vwZ,  <rvv  %xr^ 
»£  vm  Zvv?rv<?ccToy  ecu  7rviZf*jcc  icy  toy.    Haer.  62.  §.  4.  p.  ^1^. 

b  pi  1  *  On  Ik  tv&  tsaiocs  rou  nxroos .  kxI  roZ  uiou  ro  nnufju*  ro 
ccyw.  Cyril.  Alex,  fub  AfTert.  34.  Thefaur.  torn.  e.  p.  344. 
Paris   1638. 

c  ■  1  ■  Tip e«tn  ij  Ik  irccTfc$  xx]  bioZ.  7roio\Xoy  ort  r^c,  Stlxt,  sri* 
%<nx$,  xo-iu^ac,  iv  etvTff  teed  *|  kvrv^  &fitor".  Ibid.  p.  347.  vid.'Sc 
Pial.  6.  ad  Herm.  de  Trinirat.  p.  5-93. 

d  ■  •,'Avuy'Kt)  ro  Trnvyjx  tJjc  *<n#$  cfAohoyuy  rcZ  vm.  Thc- 
faur.  p.  35-8. 

e  'E7ruo»7rtg  8  fjyvov  ix7ropiuio%  Xiytreci  Ik  necrfa  ^4'  u<o«,  ocX^k 
xxi  Ik  SioZ  JV  bioZ  tTvxi'.i      !■  <rvy%6>(oZf3p  ec\'oHu<j  Ik  Trxrfos  o\'  uieS 

vrpoiiw  Ktci  tlvxi  r0  km/ax.    Georg.  Scholar,  five  Gennad.  adv. 
Latinos,  tyud  jLe  Quien  Panopl.  Cent.  11.  cap. 4.  §.  13. 

in 


371         dn  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm.vii.  in  all  antiquity  who  exprefly  difaliowed  of 
S^T^  every  affertion  of  that  kind ;  and  it  feems 
rather  to  have  dropt  from  him  in  the  heat 
of  his  difpute.  in   the  caufe  of  Neftorius, 
before  this  queftion  had  been    accurately 
ftated  and  examined,   than  to  have  flowed 
from  any  fedate  deliberation  of  his  cooler 
judgment  $    fmce  he  himfelf  allowed  him 
to  be  the  proper  Spirit  of  the  Son,   and  of 
the  fame  nature  with  hint*. 
' ,  ■.' 
Thus  far  therefore  we  are  clear  as  to 
the  antiquity  of  this  do&rine.     But  for  its 
infertiqn   in  the  Conftantinopolitan  creed, 
we  can  fay  nothing  about  it  with  any  cer- 
tainty,  till  towards  the  conclufion  of  the 
^gp,    itxth  century,  when  the  council  of  Toledo 
alfembled  in  the  reign  of  Recarede,  which 
appointed  the  recital  of  that  creed  in  the 
publick  offices,   produced  a  copy  of  it  for 
that  purgofe,   with  this  claufe  exprefly  in- 
ferred £.-  From  henceforth  it  will   be  rea- 
fonable  to  prefume,  that  that  interpolation 
was  received  in  Spain*     And  in  the  eighth 
and  ninth  centuries,   when  the  herefy  of 


f  ''i^OJl   ^   TO    XViVliiCt     TOW    VICU,     ll    pi*   61$    OfitO^Vtq    XCtl   SK    X*TfO$ 

ix.xoQtvoffyjov  i<p^t  '  cuvofAoXoyyi(roftyj,    xctl   ue,  ivnGti  JifyopsSa  lyv 

Qmir     U   £'■  6>S  l|  tWi    t  JV   UiOU    7JJV   faufjfav    *%0V3     6>$    fiXu(T<ptlf^6)> 

row  kccI  aq  eOja-nSti  ccxoppfyoffyj.  JTheodorit.  adverf.  Cyril,  in 
Anathem.  9. 

e  —Ex  Patre  &  Filio  procedeateip,  Concil.  Tolet.  3 .  tom.f . 
col.  1006.  Labbe. 

Felix 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  373 

Felix  and  Elipandus  gave  occafion  firft  to  Serm.vil 
a  large  confeffion  of  faith  inferted  in  the  ^*^T^ 
epiftle  of  Charles  the  Great h,  and  after  to 
the  publick  recital  of  the  fame  creed  794. 
throughout  the  Churches  of  France  and 
Germany-,  they  kept  to  that  form  which 
had  been  fo  long  received  in  the  Spanish 
Churches,  and  acknowledged  the  proceffwn 
of  the  Holy  Ghofi  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  This  however  met  with  great  oppo- 
fition  from  Pope  Leo  the  third,  who  tho' 
far  from  difapproving  of  the  do&rine  it- 
felf,  yet  exprefs'd  a  great  difllke  of  any  8°9- 
fiich  alteration  of  the  words  of  the  creed, 
without  the  fame  authority  of  a  general 
council,  which  had  eftablifhed  it  at  firft. 
For  which  reafon  he  order'd  it  to  be  en- 
graved both  in  Latin  and  Greek  characters 
without  that  interpolation,  and  hung  up  in 
filver  plates  in  St.  Tetefs  at  Rome,  as  a 
lading  monument  to  be  left  for  pofterity  K 
By  this  means  he  kept  the  claufe  from  be- 
ing receiv'd  at  Rome ;  but  as  it  was  ftill 
continued  in  other  parts  of  the  Latin 
Church,  and  poffibly  introduced  at  Rome 
it  felf,    in  the  time  of  Pope  Nicholas^,     852» 


h  Concil.  Francoford.  torn.  7.  col.  10^3.  Walafrid.  Strabo 
de  rebus  Ecclef.  cap.  22.  citante  Binio  apud  Labbe  torn.  7. 
col.  1 198.  vid.  Le  Quien  ut  fupr.  §21. 

'l  Vid.  Cave  Hift.  lit.  ad  an.  795-. 

J  See  Dr.  CaveV  Life  of  Greg.  Naz.  fe&.j-.  §.2. 


this 


374  dn  Hifiorical  Account^ 

Serm.vii.  this  gave  the  handle  for  that  obje&ion  of 

^^^  T  hot  ins  already  mentioned,  which  grew 

*62'    ftronger  by  the  time  that  Michael  Cerula- 

rius  was  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople  in  the 

I053«  eleventh  century,   when  the  Pope's  legates 

themfelvcs  were  fo  little  apprized  of  the 

origine  of  this  infertion,  that  they  took  it 

to  have  been  originally  in  the  creed,  and 

therefore   made  it    an   obje&ion    to    the 

Greeks  that  they  omitted  this  very  claufe 

in  the  recital  of  it  *. 

We  are  now  got  down  to  thofe  ages  of 
the  Church,  in  which  learning  was  fo  far 
loft  and  decay 'd,  that  there  can  be  little 
wonder  if  fome  fhould  fall  into  error,  thro' 
defeft  of  judgment,  and  others  fhould  be 
cenfured  as  erroneous,  merely  for  want  of 
being  rightly  underftood.  I  hardly  know 
which  of  thefe  judgments  to  pafs  upon 
*Petrus  Abelardus  in  the  twelfth  century. 
He  was  a  perfon  learned,  for  his  time,  and 
muchaddi&ed  to  the  ftudy  of  philofophym. 
He  feems  indeed  too  far  to  have  indulged 
his  fpeculative  genius,  in  the  explication  of 
religious  myfteries11.  And  from  hence  he 
was  accufed  of  various  herefies,  as  well  by 
1 1 20.  St.  Bernard,  who  was  his  cotemporary,  as 
1 140.  by  the  two  Gallic  an  councils  of  Soijfons 

1  Le  Quien  ut  fupr.  §.  if. 

"  Cave  Hift.  Lit.  ad  an.  n  20. 

*  Vid.  Abeterd.  introduft.  ad  TheoJog.  inter  opera,  p.  073,  &c. 

and 


the  Trinitarian  Controvert .  377 

and  Sens  °.  He  was  charged  with  favour-  Serm.vii; 
ing  of  Arianifm,  when  he  treated  of  the  ^W 
Trinity,  of  Telagianifm  when  he  treated 
of  Grace,  and  of  Neftorianifm  laftly,  when 
he  treated  of  the  per  fori  of  ChriftP.  He 
fo  far  acquitted  himfelf  from  all  9,  either 
by  more  fully  explaining  what  he  had  deli- 
ver'd  more  harfhly  and  uncautioufly  be- 
fore1, or  at  leaft  by  acknowledging  the 
catholick  do&rine,  in  oppofition  to  any 
errors  in  this  point  which  his  former  works 
might  contain r,  that  he  was  foon  after  re- 


0  Care  ibid.  vid.  $>  de  hac  re  tot*  Dupin  Hift.  Eccl. 
Cent.  12.  cap.  j.  ut  &  ipfum  Abelard.  in  hiftor.  calamitat. 
fuar.  inter  opera  cap.  9,  &c. 

p  Cum  de  Trinitate  loquitur,  fapit  Arium ;  cum  de  gratia, 
fapit  Pelagium;  cum  de  perfona  Chnfti,  fapit  Neftorium. 
D.  Bernard,  ad  Guidon-  Epift.  192. 

q  Vid.  Abelard.  Apolog.  feu  confefT.  fidci  inter  opera  p.  3  ?o,  &c. 
Ab  his  ipfum  liberant,  ejus  qui  fuperfunt  libri,  praecipue  apo- 
logia ilia  feu  fidei  confeflio,  qua  mentem  fuam  perfpicue  ex- 
plicat,  &  hujufmodi  obje&a  penitus  diluit,-  &  leviflima  plane 
funt,  &  incaute  potius  8c  duriufcule  quam  falsd  aut  hetero- 
dox e  di&a,  qua?  in  operibus  ejus  notant  ipfi  cenfores  Pari- 
fienfes.  Verbo  dicam,  in  hoc  maxime  peccafle  videtur  Abe- 
lardu5,  quod  ad  argutias  Dialefticas,  8c  infolentes  quofdam 
Philofophise  terminos  dogmata  Theologica,  8c  fumma  qua> 
dam  fidei  Catholics  myfteria  revocare  lit  conatus.  Notandum 
denique  plura  malefana  dogmata  ipfi  affi6h,  ex  aliorum  libris 
haufta  efle,  quos  ipfe  pro  fuis  nunquam  agnovit.  Cave  Hift. 
lit.  ad  an.  1110. 

r  Vid.  Cave  8c  Dupin  ut  fupra. 

f  Nam  quicquid  fit  de  Refipifcentia  8c  apologia,  necnon 
de  fidei  confeffione  ad  Heloiflam  ( in  qua  cyjoxeioiy  quidem 
Patris  Filii  8c  Spiritus  Sanfti  diferte  fatis  profitetur  [Abelar- 
dus]  ac  nee  fatista&ionem  Chrifti,  nee  peccatum  originis  ira 
ediflerit,  ut  omnino  fatisfaciat)  manifeftum  certe  eft,  See. 
Calov.  oper.  Antifocin.  vol.  2.  p.  6.  (^4.  §.  6\ 

1  conciled 


3  7  <>         'db*.  Hifiortcal  K  c  c  o  u  n  t  of 

Serm.vii.  reconciled  even  with  St.  Bernard  himfelf, 
MW  and  obtained  his  abfplution  from  Pope  In- 
nocent  the  Fecond1.  And  it  ought  withal 
to  be  remembered,  that  feveral  of  the  he- 
refies  which  were  fo  freely  charged  upon 
him,  were  taken  out  of  a  book  of  feri- 
tences  which  he  utterly  difown'dv  and 
which  was  probably  publifhed  by  fome  o- 
ther  man  under  the  colour  of  his  name. 

1 147.  Soon  after  this,  one  Gillebert  Bifhop  of 
Toiffiiers  is  faid  to  have  advanced  fome 
monftrous  paradoxes,  with  relation  to  the 
Trinity :  But  as  he  was  quickly  refuted  and 
convinced  by  St.  Bernard™,  and  his  herefy 
fupprefs'd  by  the  cenfures  of  diverfe  fynods, 
there  can  be  little  need  to  ftate  it  more  at 
large  in  this  place. 

1 1 50.  It  was  about  the  middle  of  the  fame 
century,  that  Teter  Lombard,  the  famed 
Mafter  of  the  Sentences,  who  was  firfl: 
ProfefTor  of  Divinity,  and  afterwards  Bi- 
fhop of  Taris,  introduced  that  method  of 
fcholaftick  'Divinity,  which  grew  into  fo 
high  a  reputation  in  the  following  century. 
There   had    been   fome   preparatory    fteps 

1  Vid.  Cave  lit  fupr.  6c  opera  Abelardi.  p.  3 35">,  337^  344* 
u  Vid.  Cave  8c  Dupin  &  Abelardi  apolog.  item  D.  Bernard. 
Epift.  188.  & 

Z  Cave  Hift.  lit,  ad  an.  1 1  iy.  Dupin  Cent,  i  2.  ch.  8. 

made 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjyl  3  77 

made  towards  it  before  his  time  *  5  and  Sbrm.vii. 
<Petrus  Abelardus  in  particular,  whom  we  V^VV 
juft  now  mentiond,  had  by  his  fubtle  dif- 
quifitions  given  the  more  immediate  handle 
for  thofe  improvements,  which  Lombard 
came  to  make  in  his  famous  book  of  the 
fentencesi  where  thoJ  he  always  endeavoured 
to  fupport  himfelf  by  the  authority  of  the 
Fathers  y,  yet  he  had  a  particular  regard  to 
the  work  of  Abelardus z,  and  fplit  his  fyf- 
tem  into  fuch  refined  and  curious  fpecula- 
tions,  as  furnifhed  out  the  ground-work  for 
thofe  many  and  intricate  perplexities,  which 
employed  the  thoughts  and  ftudy  of  the 
Schoolmen  that  fucceeded  him. 

Mean  while  it  ought  to  be  remember'd 
that  the  metaphyfical  difquifitions  of  the 
mafter  of  the  fentences,  concerning  the 
divine  effence,  confider'd  abftra&edly  and 
without  perfonal  proprieties,  that  it  is  nei- 
ther begetting,  begotten,  nor  proceeding, 
thofe  being  perfonal  characters,  and  not 
eflential,  met  with  fome  oppofition  from 
Joachim  the  Abbot  of  Flora,  about  the  1201, 
beginning  of  the  next  century  5  who,  ima- 
gining this  the  way  to  introduce  a  quater- 
nity  inftead  of  a  Trinity,  three  which  had 
fome  one  of  thofe  chara&ers,  and  a  fourth 


x  V.  Cave Hift.  lit.  in  confpedhi  fxc.  13.  Dup. Cent. ii.c.iy. 
y  Dupinut  fup.  vid.  8c  pnsfat.  ad  opera  D.  Bernard.  Ed.  Par. 
1  This  is  attefted  by  Joan.  Cornubienf.  ap:td  Andr.  Qiierce- 
tan.  in  annot.  ad  Abelard.  p.  UJ9* 

which 


378  An  Hifiorical  Account  of 

Serm  vii.  which  had  neither,  undertook  to  main- 
V^OT^  tain,  that  however  it  might  be  faid  that 
the  three  perfons  are  of  one  and  the  fame 
ejfence,  yet  it  cannot  be  faid,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  fame  ejfence  is three  perfons. 
So  that  he  was  not  without  fome  ground 
fufpefted  of  Tritheifm,  and  underftood  to 
allow  no  other  Unity,  but  fuch  as  is  col- 
lective or  fpecificaL  Yet  fuch  was  his 
modefty  in  propofing  his  notions,  that  I 
find  no  mention  of  any  animadverfions  or 
cenfures  pafs'd  upon  him  whilft  he  lived  $ 
and  even  after  his  death,  when  the  coun- 
1215.  cil  of  Later  an  condemn'd  his  opinions, 
and  declared  for  the  mafter  of  the  fen- 
tences,  they  yet  fpared  at  the  fame  time 
the  memory  of  Joachim,  and  exprefs'd  a 
fingular  regard  and  efteem  for  hima. 

As  the  credit  of  Lombard  was  thus  ful- 
ly eftablifh'd,  the  fcholajlick  fpeculations 
could  not  but  go  on  and  encreafe;  and 
from  henceforth  the  ancient  ftmplicity,  in 
which  the  chriftian  dodrine  had  been  fta- 
ted,  was  almoft  wholly  neglc&cd,  and  the 
ftudy  of  'Divines  was  employ 'd  firft  to 
find  out  arduous  and  puzzling  queftions, 
and  then  to  give  'em  what  they  thought  a 


a  Vid.  Conci).  Lareran.  4.  cap.  2-  torn,  tk  par.  1. 
col.  144,  fc-c.  item  Dupin  Ecclcf.  Hift.  13  Cent,  c  4,  6. 
Cave  Hift.  lit.  vol.  1.  ad  an.  120  1.  &  vol.  z.  ivtcr  concilia  ad 
an.  121/. 

fatif- 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  379 

fatisfa&ory  folution.  It  was  not  enough  Serm.vit, 
to  wait  till  the  boldnefs  or  the  fubtlcty  ^"W^ 
of  hereticks  fhould  propofe  their  objecti- 
ons againft  the  received  fcheme  of  chrifti- 
anity,  but  they  even  loaded  it  with  diffi- 
culties of  their  own  difcovery,  that  they 
might  afterwards  difplay  their  parts  and 
skill  in  laying  the  fhantofm  they  had  raif- 
ed  themfelves.  I  do  not  deny  but  a  good 
ufe  is  to  be  made  of  their  writings,  if  read 
with  candour  and  judgment,  and  a  finccre 
purpofe  of  adhering  to  truth.  But  perhaps 
the  fame  good  ufes  might  have  been  icrv- 
cd  more  efFe&ually,  if  they  had  lefs  in- 
dulged fo  inquifitive  a  genius  -,  and,  con- 
tenting themfelves  with  rcafoning  about 
what  we  do  comprehend,  and  appealing  to 
divine  teftimony,  for  what  we  do  not,  they 
had  forbore  to  run  up  the  fublimc  myfte- 
ries  of  faith  into  curious  and  uncdifying 
fpeculations.  It  is  greatly  to  be  fcar'd,  that 
by  this  method  of  proceeding  they  have 
furniihed  out  matter  for  perfons  of  un- 
liable minds,  or  malicious  difpofitions,  to 
err  concerning  the  faiths  and  have  flat- 
ter'd  mankind  with  fuch  a  liberty  of 
thought,  as  gives  the  greateft  handle  in 
nature  for  hcrefy  and  contradiction. 

It  would  be  needlcfs  to  lay  before  you 
in  particular  how  this  fubtlcty  of  deputa- 
tion perplexed  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity 
and  Incarnation,   as  well  as  other  articles 

Bb  of 


380  An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Serm.vii.  of  religion  5  or  at  leaft  fpun  them  out  in- 
^^T^  to  fuch  fine  metaphyfical  niceties  as  were 
wholly  unintelligible  to  perfons  of  a  lower 
capacity,  and  unedifying  (as  to  the  fub- 
ftance  and  great  ends  of  religion)  even  to 
tliofe  who  pretended  to  a  deeper  penetration. 
It  may  fuffice  to  obferve  that  this  fcha- 
lajiick  method  of  <rDrc'mity  kept  its  repu- 
tation in  fomc  following  centuries,  till  the 
many  corruptions  and  abufes  which  had 
crept  into  the  Church  of  Rome,  during 
the  darknefs  and  obfeurity  of  the  middle 
ages,  put  fomc  people  upon  looking  back 
to  Scripture  and  Antiquity,  in  order  to  find 
put  fome  better  rule  than  they  obferved  at 
prcfent,  both  in  faith  and  difcipline. 

But  as  it  rarely  happens  that  what  is 
wrong  can  be  entirely  rectified,  but  fomc 
ill  people  will  take  the  opportunity  to  in- 
troduce abufes  of  another  kind,  and  under 
the  fpecious  name  of  reformation,  will 
prefume  to  innovate  and  alter  what  is 
right,  lb  at  that  time  it  fell  out,  that  whilft 
there  were  fome  who  exerted  a  laudable 
induftry  and  zeal  in  correcting  or  reform- 
ing the  corruptions  of  popery,  there  were 
others  who  attempted  even  to  fhake  the 
foundations  of  Chriftianity  it  felfi,  by  play- 
ing that  game  over  again  which  had  been 
loft  fo  many  ages  fince,  and  reviving  thofe 
very  hercfies  which  had  oftentimes  already 
been  baffled  and  exploded.    What  fteps  they 

took 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  8 1 

took  for  this  purpofe,  and  what  progrcfs  Serm.vii. 
they  made,  by  what  arts  they  have  infi-  ^-^W> 
nuated  themfelves,  and  by  what  means 
they  have  been  defeated,  how  they  have 
ibmetimes  carried  on  their  defigns  in  le- 
cret,  and  at  other  times  have  lifted  up 
their  heads  with  greater  boldnefs,  are  par- 
ticulars which  will  be  fit  to  be  hinted  to 
you  in  fuch  manner  as  the  time  fhall  ad- 
mit, at  the  next  opportunity  for  our  af- 
fembling  together. 

Now  to  God  the  Father  y  Son  and  Holy 
Ghojl,   three  perfons  in  the  unity  of 
the  fame  eternal  Godhead^   be  all  ho- 
nour  and  glory  henceforth  for  evermore. 
Amen. 


Bb  2 


ser; 


382,  An  Hifiorkal  Account*?/ 


SERMON  VIII 

Preach'd   June  4,    1724. 


*****  *************************  ***** 


Ser.VIII. 


AVING  brought  down  our, 
hiftory  of  the  Trinitarian  Con- 
trovcrfy  as  low  as  the  time  of 
the  Reformation,  when  for  fe- 
veral  a2;es  it  had  given  but 
little  difturbance  to  the  Church  ;  it  nmft 
be  own  d  that  it  began  now  to  revive  with 
an  unufual  vehemence,  and  almoft  every 
herefy  which  had  been  crufh'd  by  ancient 
councils,  now  lifted  up  its  head  anew  with 
greater  boldncfs. 

Ifhall 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  383 

I  (hall  forbear  to  fpeak  of  Caflto*,  Cel-  Ser.viii. 
lariushy  and  Heizerusc,  who  are  reckon d  ^^^^ 
among  the  firft  oppofers  of  the  doftrine  of    x*2'* 
the  Church  in   this  particular,    in   regard 
their  caufe  was  more  vigoroufly  underta- 
ken about  the  fame  time  d  by  Michael  Set- 

vetusy 

■  Vid.  Sandii.  Bibl.  Antitr.  p.  i.  Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme, 
par.  2.  ch.  1.  The  charge  againfl  Capito  is  founded  only  on  two 
particulars \  ( i .)  that  he  -wrote  a  Preface  to  fome  works  of  Cella- 
riusj  and,  (2.)  that  he  is  mentioned  with  efieem  by  the  Tranfyl- 
vanians,  and  other  heretkks ,  as  a  per/on  of  their  fentiments. 
But  he  is  likewife  mentioned  with  fuch  efieem  by  Calvin,  and  others 
who  were  averfe  to  the  herefy,  and  particularly  is  reckon' d  to  have 
been  mifreprefented  by  Servetus,  that  there  may  be  reafon  to  doubt 
whether  he  ever  gave  fuffcient  ground  for  this  charge  againfl 
him. 

b  Sandius  ut  fupr.  p.  1  j*.  Hift.  du  Socin.  ibid. 
c  Heizerus  was  beheaded  for  herefy,  ann.  1519.  Sandius,  p.  id. 
Hifl:.  du  Socin.  ibid. 

d  Beza  (in  vit.  Calvin,  prope  init)  makes  him  to  have  propa- 
gated  his  doctrine  for  thirty  years  together,  and  in  hii  8 1 ft  Bpiflle, 
p.  295*.  he  makes  it  thirty  years  and  more.  Now  as  it  is  certain  he 
was  executed  in  if?$>  (vid.  Note  fur  1'  Hiftoire  du  Socini- 
anifme, p.  22.)  //  we  take  off  thirty  years  from  thence,  that  will 
carry  us  back  to  1^2  3.  But  Calvin  himfelf,  m  his  epijlle  to  Sult- 
zerus,  (p.  7°«  Edit.  Amft.  1667.)  which  was  written  that  very 
year,  allows  but  twenty  years  to  the  propagation  of  his  herefy :  which 
would  carry  us  back  no  farther  than  1 5-3  5 .  Sandius  (Biblioth. 
p.  7.)  is  for  reconciling  thefe  accounts,  by  fuppofmg  the  one  to  com- 
pute from  the  time  when  he  firfl  advanced  thefe  opinions,  the  other 
from  the  time  when  he  firfl  publtfljd  them  in  print.  But  as  Cal- 
vinV  computation  is  not  altogether  exacl  in  the  point  of  publication, 
(for  Servetus'.*  firfl  book  was  pnbliftid  in  the  year  1 5-3  1,)  fo  we 
can  hardly  maintain  Beza'j  calculation,  as  to  the  beginning  of  hit 
herefy,  if  the  account  given  in  the  late  Hiftory  of  Michael  Ser- 
vetus  (p.  26  )  be  true,  that  he  was  born  but  in  the  year  1/09; 
for  at  this  rate  he  mufl  have  fet  up  for  an  Herefiarch  at  about 
fourteen  years  of  age. 

But  againjl  this,  I  confefs,  it  may  be  urged,  that  Socinus  (in 
rcfp.  ad  Vujek.  cap.  2.)  reprefents  Servetus  as  a  man  in  years  at 
the  time  of  his  execution,  and  much  elder  than  Calvin  (who  was 

B  b  3  born 


384  ^  HijloYical  Account  of 

s&r.  vin.  <vetus,  who  being  a  Spaniard  by  birth,  ad- 
\sy~^  dieted  firft  to  the  ftudy  of  the  civil  la\v> 
and  afterwards  of  phyiick,  and  hearing  of 
the  progrefs  that  was  made  by  Luther  and 
fome  others  in  reforming  the  corruptions 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  applied  himfelf 
to  enquire  into  the  nature  of  her  do&rines, 
and  among  others  pitched  upon  this  article 
1528.  of  the  ever- bleffed  Trinity,  as  one  of  thofe 
doctrines  that  needed  reformation  5  taking 
his  hint,  or  at  leaft  his  improvement  of 
that  matter,  from  the  Alcoran,  if  we  may 
depend  on  the  account  which  a  Socinian 
Hiftorian  gives  concerning  himc.  With 
this  view  he  fet  up  to  perfed  the  work 
which  was  already  begun  :  and  from  hence 
Popery  was  represented  under  the  image  of 
a  magnificent  temple,  of  which  Luther  la- 

born  in  that  very  year  15*09.)  From  whom  the  a  nt hor  of  Hiftoire 
du  Socinianifme  (in  bis  Notes,  p.  23.)  concludes  that  he  could 
not  be  lefs  than  fifty  five  years  of  age,  if  not  fifty  [even, 
"  Moft  probably  neither  Calvin  nor  Beza  meant  a  firici  calculations 
and  the  truth  perhaps  may  lie  between  them.  Ftr  which  reafon  I 
have  pitched  upon  the  year  15*28:  which,  as  it  agrees  well  enough 
with  Nicolas  de  la  Fontaine,  who  in  his  petition  preferr'd  againft 
Servetus,  allows  the  fpmce  of  twenty  four  years,  or  thereabouts,  to 
the  fpreading  of  his  herefy  (  Hiftory  of  Servetus,  p.  96.)  and 
with  Servetus'j  account  of  leaving  his  own  country  about  twenty 
four  or  twenty  five  years  before  his  apprehenfion  at.  Geneva,  (ibid, 
p.  1  14.)  fo  it  may  well  confijl  with  the  report  of  the  Paftors  of 
Bafil,  who  in  their  letter  dated  1 5-5-5,  (inter  Calvin.  Epifr.  p.  72.) 
mn£e  mention  how  OEcolampadius  had  found  him  out  twenty  three 
years  before,  and  forefaw  that  Servetus  would  give  trouble  to  the) 
Church. 

•  Lubieniec.  Hift.  Reform.  Polon.  I.  2.  c.  5-.  cited  in  the  Hift. 
of  Servct.  p.  196.  &  Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme,  par.  2.  c.  3. 

i  bour'd 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  385- 

bour'd  only  to  uncover  the  roof,  Ziiingli-  ser.viil- 
tis  and  Calvin  employ 'd  their  engines  for  ^^^T^ 
battering  the  walls,  but  it  was  the  work  of 
Servetus  and  thofe  that  followed  him,  to 
lap  the  very  foundations*". 

His  hercfy  is  reprcfented  to  have  had 
fomcthing  in  it  peculiar  and  unintelligible?, 
but  feems  for  the  moil  part  to  have  fallen 
in  with  the  ancient  herciics  of  Sabellius  and  1 5  3  ** 
7 aulas  Samofatenus h,  acknowledging  a 
Trinity  of  Terfons  in  no  other  {zw^z  than 
what  thofe  hercticks  allow'd [ ;  namely,  in 
the  fenfe  of  theatrical  character  or  mani- 
feftation  only,  and  withal  cftceming  the 
Divine  Word  to  be  fuch  an  emanation 
from  God,  fuch  a  mere  imaue  or  idea  of 
Chrift,  as  had  no  real  exigence  before  the 
world,  but  was  in  the  end  fo  really  made 
flefh,  thcit  that  flefh  itfelf,  initead  of  being 
confubjlantial  with  ours,  was  fubjl  ant  tally 
divine,    as  being  taken  from  the  fub fiance 


f  Rift,  du  Socin.  par,  i.  c.  3. 

g  See  Hift.  of  Servetus,  p.  28.  Beza  ?nahes  it  a  mixture  of 
ahnoft  all  hcrefies.  Ecce  in  unico  Serveto  revocati  funt  ab  in- 
feris  Samofatenus,  Arius  6c  Eutyche?.  Addere  autem  eti- 

am  iftis  licet  Marcionis  St  Apollinaris  delirium  mfp.niaz  proxi- 
mum  adeo  portentum  illud  iuit  errorum  omnium feceundum. 
Vid.  Bez.  Epift.  Si.  p.  294. 

1  Vid.  Calvin,  refut.  error.  Servet.  item  Paftof.  Bafil.  Bern. 
6c  Tigurin.  inter  Calvin.  Epift.  p.  72,  &c.  Beza  in  vit.  Calv. 
ad  an.  15-5-8.  Melanth.l.  1.  Epift.  111.  Hift.  of  Servet.  p.  39. 
Sand.  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p.  0. 

'  See  Serm.  %.  p.  119,  nj,  144.  Melan&h.  loc.  Theol.  fol. 
if  I,  15-4.  Edit-  Witch.  16*01.  Hift.  of  Servet,  p.  92,  ioy. 


B  b  4  of 


3  8  6  An  Hiftorkal  Account^/ 

ser.viii.  of  God,  and  might  in  that  refped  be  pro- 
^V^  pcrly  term'd  the  Word  and  Son  of  Godk. 
He  was  zealous  in  the  propagation  of  his 
impious  tenets  for  many  years,  and  gave  a 
handle  for  introducing  fuch  bold  fpecula- 
tions  in  Divinity,  as  'Philip  Melantthon  l, 
one  of  the  earlieft  Reformers,  could  not 
but  apprehend  might  prove  of  dangerous 
and  fatal  confequence.  And  indeed  it 
ought  to  be  acknowledge d,  that  as  this  be- 
came the  means  of  feducing  many  from 
tKe  ancient  faith  of  the  Church,  fo  it 
could  not  fail  of  obftrudting  in  great  mea- 
furc  the  progrefs  of  the  Reformation-,  fince 
many  who  could  not  well  diftinguifh  be- 
tween the  different  fpirit  of  thofe  who 
had  let  up  for  reformers,  would  be  apt  to 
llifpect  all  for  the  fake  of  a  few,  and  fo 
chtlfe  to  retain  'Popery  with  all  its  corrupti- 
ons, rather  than  engage  in  a  defign  which 
feem'd  to  wound  Chriflianity  in  its  moft 
vital  parts. 

But  yet  withal  it  muft  be  own'd,  that 
this,  which  proved  a  hindrance  to  the  Re- 
formation, has  hclp'd  the  more  to  ftrengthen 
and  confirm  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  e- 
ven  among  thofe  who  are  reformed.  They 
who  came  off   from  Popery  would  natu- 


k  S3ndius  ut   fupr-   e  hbro  Serveti  de  Trinitatis  erroribus. 
An.  15-31.     See  alfo  Hift.  of  Servct.  p.  134,  &c.   109,  21c 
1  Melan.  1.4.  Epift.  140.  Hill.  Servet.  p.  37.  . 

rally 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  3  87 

rally  be  difpofcd  to  feparate  or  caft  offsER.vin. 
from  the  do&rine  of  Chrift,  whatever  V-^W 
they  could  difcover  to  have  been  fuper- 
added  to  it,  either  through  the  ignorance 
or  knavery  of  men.  Yet  fome  things 
might  poffibly  be  overlooked  thro'  hafte 
or  want  of  due  attention  ;  or  they  might 
at  lead  be  fufpe&ed  to  yield  too  much  to 
ancient  prejudice  in  thofe  points  upon 
which  they  did  not  beflow  a  particular  and 
diftind  examination.  So  that  if  there  had 
been  no  controverfy  moved  about  the 
dodrine  of  the  Trinity,  fome  bufy  people 
might  have  afterwards  pretended  that  this 
was  a  matter  over-looked  at  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  which  needed  therefore  flill  to 
be  reformed.  But  when  it  is  confider'd  that 
the  matter  was  at  that  time  thoroughly 
canvafs'd  and  debated,  and  that  the  moil 
celebrated  Reformers  exprefs'd  the  utmoft 
abhorrence  of  any  alteration  in  this  doc- 
trine, whilft  the  feducers,  who  oppofed  it 
were  fplit  into  different  and  inconfiftent 
fchemes,  and  were  forced  to  fix  upon  fuch 
a  method  of  interpreting  Scripture,  as 
drove  them  to  a  thoufand  extravagancies, 
and  has  always  ended  in  their  fhame  and 
confufion  5  I  fay,  when  all  this  is  confi- 
der'd, it  will  be  judg  d  no  flight  advantage 
to  the  orthodox  fchemc,  no  contemptible 
argument  for  its  being  a  genuine  and  ori- 
ginal doftrine  of  the  Chriftian  Religion. 

1  In 


388  An  Hifloricai  Account^/ 

Ser.  viii.      In  the  time  of  Servetus,   we  find  men^ 
^^v^  tion  of  Valdes,    a  perfon  of  a  noble  fa- 

I542-  mily  in  Spain,  and  Secretary  of  State  at 
Naples  x,  who  in  like  manner  oppofed  the 
doctrine  of  the  ever-blefled  Trinity.  From 
him  it  has  been  faid  that  Bernardinus  Ochi- 
mts,  an  Italian  by  birth,  and  (as  fome  have 
related)  the  Pope's  own  confefTor,  received 
his  principles111.  But  whether  he  did  im- 
mediately embrace  his  fcheme  with  relation 
to  the  Trinity,  or  only  in  thofe.  points 
wherein  he  agreed  with  the  Reformers  of 
thofe  times  in  reje&ing  the  corruptions  of 
'Popery,  it  is  at  this  diltance  very  difficult 
to  judge.  It  is  allowed  however,  that  he 
made  no  open  profeffion  of  the  former, 
whilft  he  ftaid  ill  Italy.     But  being  quick- 

1542.  ly  forced  to  retire  to  Geneva,  he  is  charged 
by  fome  with  having  vented  there  the  A- 
rian  herefy*   and  incurring  for  that  reafon 

j  546.  the  difpleafure  of  Calvin,  and  the  magi- 
ftrates  of  that  place  n.     Others  have  thought 

j  5  50.  this  improbable,  be caufe  Calvin,  after  that, 
has  mentioned  him  with  fuch  refpc&°  as  is 
hardly  confident  with  any  fufpicion  of  Co 
grofs  an  herciy.      And  indeed,    the  great 


1  Sand.  BibHoth.  Anti'tr.  pag.  2.  Bayle  Di&.  in  voceVs\deC 

ni  Sandius,  ibid. 

n  Hid.  du  Socininn.  par.  2.  c.  4.  •   , 

0  Quos  [Memachos']  Itali  Bernardino  Ochino,  8c  Petro  Ver- 
miiio  opponent?  CalV.  de  Scandal,  inter  tra&at.  TbeoK  p.  83. 
Arr.tf.  1667. 


eftcem, 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  389 

efteem  with  which  he  was  received  in  Eng-  Ser.  viil 
land  in  the  reign  of  King  Edward,  whilft  ^^OTv^ 
Arianifm  was  held  in  the  utmoft  detefta- 
tion,  may  induce  us  to  believe,  that  if  he 
had  any  fuch  notions  he  kept  them  to  him- 
felf  p,  and  made  no  publick  profeffion  of 
them,  till  he  was  forced  to  retire  out  of 
this  kingdom,  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Mary :  and  even  then  it  feems  as  if  he  ra- 
ther propofcd  them  in  the  way  of  doubt 
and  uncertainty,  than  as  any  fixed  or  fettled 
notions  of  his  owni. 

But  to  return  to  Italy ;  the  heretical 
principles  which  had  been  introduced  by 
ValdezzOy  and  perhaps  fecretly  cultivated 
by  Ochinus,  did  one  way  or  other  meet 
with  fuch  fucccfs,  that  there  was  quickly  a  1 546* 
club  of  more  than  forty  pcrfons  of  cha- 
racter and  education,  among  whom  Lce- 
Ikis  Socinus  was  one,  who  were  ufed  to 
hold  their  aflcmblics  in  the  country  of  Ve- 
nice, and  debate  about  matters  of  religion, 
and    particularly   concerning  the  dodtrines 


p  This  agrees  with  BezaV  account  of  the  concealment  of  his  prin- 
ciples, who  calls  him  fceleratus  hypocrita,  Arianorum  clandefti- 
nus  fautor;  and  adds,  —  jufto  fane  Dei  judicio,  ne  latere  diu<- 
tius  tantum,  malum  poffet,  delatus  at  magiftratum—  juftus 
eft  e  Tigurinomm  agro  faceiTere.  Beza  ad  Dudith.  Epift.  i. 
dated  15-70.  inter  opera  Theolog.  torrf.  3.  p.  190.  And  again, 
Favit  etiam  illis,  fed  niniium  fero  detetlus,  Bernardinus  ills 
Ochinus,  impuriffimus  hypocrita.  Ep.  81.  dated  15-67.  p.  lof. 

q  Ochinus  callidior,  dubitare  de  firigulis,  A  cade  mi  cor  um 
more*  videtur  maluiile,  quam  quicquam  definire.  Bez.  Ep.  Si. 

Of 


390  An  Hijlorkal Account^/ 

Ser.vin.  of  the  Trinity,  and  Satisfaction  of  ChrifR 
**s~)T\J  They  were  agreed  in  oppofing  the  re- 
ceiv'd  doclrinc  of  the  Church  :  But  as  to 
the  fcheme  which  fhould  be  fubftituted  in 
its  room,  there  was  not  one  and  the  fame 
opinion  of  them  all.  Gribaldus  was  for 
advancing  the  Tritheijlick  notion  of  three 
eternal  Spirits,  different  in  degree  or  dig- 
nity, as  well  as  number f.  Valentinus  Gen- 
tiliSy  cPauhis  AlciattiSy  mdBlandrata.  are 
fometimes  represented  as  concurring  in  the 
fame  fentiments  *.  But  if  we  examine 
their  pofitions  with  greater  accuracy,  they 
fhould  rather  feem  to  have  been  engaged 
in  the  Arian  hypothefis,  or  at  leaft  to  have 
fallen  into  it  afterwards  \  afferting  the 
Son  to  have  been  created  in  the  latitude 
of  eternity w  -,  i.  e.  before  there  was  any 
diftind  computation  of  time.  And  tho' 
Vale?itinus  Gentilis  pretended  to  diffent 
from  Arius,  in  that  he  ailow'd  the  Son  to 
be  begotten  of  the  divine  Subftance>   nay, 


r  Sandius  ut  fupr.  p.  iS.  I-Iift.  du  Socin.  par.  r.  c.  4, 

f  Beza  Epift.  8  1.  Sandius  ut  fupr.  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  2* 
c  7. 

1  See  Benedicts  Aretius'/  account  of  Val.  Gen.  c.  1.  p.  18.  of 
the  Englifli  Edition,   and  c.  y.   p.  41.    Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  2. 
cap.  8. 

u  Account  of  Val.  Gen.  ch.  1.  p.  23,  24.  As  their  fcheme 
was  not  yet  fixed,  'tis  likely  their  notions  might  be  differently  pro- 
fbfed  at  different  timet.    Vid.  Bayle  in  Val.  Gen. 

w  This  svas  Valcnr.  Gentilis'i  ajfertion  in  Poland,  ann.  if  62. 
ap;id  Sandium  in  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p.  26. 

to 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  391 

to  be  eternal,  and  not  made  out  of  no-  sER.virr. 
thing*,  yet  fince  he  agreed  with  him  in  ^OTs/ 
the  point  of  feparate  fubftances,  and  un- 
derftood  his  eternity  with  reference  to  his 
fubftance,  rather  than  his  perfon ;  this  low 
and  abfurd  notion  of  his  confubftantiality, 
which  multiplied  or  divided  the  moft  fim- 
ple  fubftance  of  God,  if  it  might  ferve  to 
vindicate  him  from  the  charge  oi  Arianifm, 
muft  at  the  fame  time  load  him  with  the 
guilt  of  a  greater  herefy  v.  Loclius  Socinus, 
the  mean  while,  was  rather  in  the  Ebionite 
or  Samofatenian  fchcmc z,  which  did  after- 
wards generally  take  place  of  the  reft,  and 
gave  fuch  a  figurative  fcnfe  of  ibme  texts, 
which  imply  a  prc-cxiftcnt  nature  in  Chrift, 
as  very  artfully  eluded  the  force  of  many 
of  thofc  arguments  which  cither  Catholicks 
or  Arians  might  urge  againil  him.  Tho'  it 
feems  he  had  fuch  art  to  propofe  his  no- 


*  Account  of  Val.  Gen.  ch.  8.  p.  5-8,   &c. 

y  Vid.  Beza  in  Epift.  81.  p.  295'.  According' to  Beza  (in 
vit.  Calvin,  an.  if  78.)  Valentinus  Gentilis  maintain* d  the  fu- 
preme  Deity  of  the  Father  only,  but  after  ted  notwithftanding  that 
the  other  two  perfons  are  eternal,  immenfe,  omnipotent,  fo 
making  three  Gods.  He  has  thefe  exprefs  words  (apud  Calvin,  in 
explic.  perfid.  Va).  Gen.)  Pater  fuit  Temper  Pater.  Yet  he 
[peaks  withal,  as  if  there  were  a  point  or  time  of  generation,  that 
the  fubftance  were  eternal  in  the  Father.  So  perplex'd  a  thing  is 
herefy ! 

1  Vid.  Beza  Epift.  81.  p.  205-.  Zanchii  Praefat.  ad  libr.  de 
tribus  Elohim  in  fin.  vita  Faufti  Socini  operibus  prefix.  Fol. 
Signat.  *  *  2  Sandii  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p,  ip.  Hiftoire  du  So- 
cinianifme,  par.  2.  c.j\ 

tions, 


39 i         An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Ser.viii.  tions,  rather  in  the  way  of  one  that  doubt? 

WOfN-'  ec[  tiian  cf  one  i-h^  affirm'd,  that  he  was 
not  till  after  his  death  publickly  known  to 
be  infected  with  them*. 

But  however  the  members  of  this  focie- 
ty  might  differ  from  each  other  in  their 
private  fentiments,  which  were  not  yet  di- 
geftcd  into  any  uniform  or  compleat  fcheme 
of  Divinity,  yet  ftnee  they  were  agreed  in 
oppofing  the  notion  of  a  confubftantial  and 
coequal  Trinity,  this  made  them  look  up- 
on each  other  as  common  friends  and  bre- 
thren, whilft  the  Orthodox  eftee'med  them 
all  as  perfons  in  a  manner  of  the  fame 
principles. 

It  was  not  to  be  imagined,  that  they 
fhould  be  Ions:  indulc'd  in  fuch  licentious 
meetings.  And  when  they  were  fhortly 
1547.  after  forced  to  fly  from  Italy,  two  of 
their  number  being  apprehended  firft,  and 
put  to  death b,  they  met  not  with  much 
kinder  reception  among  Protectants.  Ser- 
1553-  vetus  had  been  but  lately  burnt  for  herefyc 
at  Geneva  itfclf,  in  imitation  of  the  Topift 
ievcrities,   when   thefe  Italian  gentlemen 


1  Favit  quoque  Lcelius  Sozinus  Senenfis,  incredibiliter  ad 
contra  dicendum  6c  varios  nectendos  nodos  comparatus,  nee 
niii  poll:  njortem  cognitus  hujufraodi  perniciofiffimus  haerefi- 
bus  iaborare.  Beza  Epift.  81.  p.  20j-. 

b  Sand.Biblioth.  p.  19.  &  Andr.  Wiflbwat.  in  narrat.  com- 
pend.  ad  calc.  ejufd.  Biblioth.  p.  210. 

I  Sandii  Biblioth.  p.  7,  8.    Hift.  of  Servet,  p.  194,  See. 

had 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  393 

had   fome  of  them  the  courage   to  plant  Ser.  vnr. 
themfelves   in  that  city,    and  renew  their  ^^rs-i 
endeavours  in  behalf  of  hcrcfyd,  after  hav-      ^*- 
ing  made  the  experiment  in  other  places, 
without    any   considerable  progrefs.      But 
when  their  defigns  were  detected   at  Ge- 
neva,   they   at  firft  fallacioufly  iubferibed 
an  orthodox  confeffion  e,  but  quickly  after 
found  it  for  their  intereft  to  change  their    1 5  5  8, 
fituation.      Blandrata   went    immediately 
for  'Poland*,  the  fame  year  that  Loelius  So- 
cinus  arrived  there  from  Zurich*.     And  a 
few  years  after,  when  this  Socinus  was  re- 
turned and  died  at  Zurich,  Valentinus  Gen- 
tilis  and  Taulus  Alciatus,  who  had  taken    1562} 
other  places  in  their  way,  arrived  likewife 
in  Poland^'-,   the  former  of  whom  having 
retraced  his  opinions  at  Geneva,  did  after 
his  efcape   effe&ually   convid   himfelf    of 
grofs  prevarication  and  perjury1,  by  labour- 
ing to  fpread  them  with   the  fame  carneft- 
nefs,  for  which  at  laft  he  was  beheaded  at 
Bemek,   agreeably  to  that   feverity  which 


d  See  Hilt,  of  Valent.  Gentil.  ch.  i.  Beza  vit.  Calvin,  ad 
*».  1757, 1578. 

c  Hiftoire  du  Socin.  par.  2.  c.6,S.  Bez.  vit.Calv.  an.  1578. 

f  Sandii  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p.  28. 

*  Andr.  WiiTowat.  in  narrat.  compend.  ad  calcem  Sandii 
p. 210. 

h  Sandius,  p.  26,  27. 

'  Vid.  Bez.  in  vit.   Calv.  an.  15-5-8. 

k  Beza  in  vit.  Calvin,  ad  an.  15* 5-8.  Benedict.  Aretius  Ac- 
count of  Valent. Gentil.  chap.  20.  Sandius,  p.  26.  Hifloire  du 
Spcinianiime,  par.  2.  c.  6. 

the 


394         ^n  Hifiorkal  Account  of 

Ser.  viii.  the  temper  of  thofe  times  allowed  to  be 
y+sV*^  inflided  upon  hereticks. 

l>°°-  This  was  not  the  firft  occafion,  upon 
which  fuch  dodrines  had  been  broach* d  in 

1546.  'Poland.  There  had  been  feveral  years  be- 
fore one  Spritus  a  "Dutchman *,  who  had 
ftarted  fuch  difficulties  upon  this  fubjed, 
as  left  much  impreflion  upon  the  mind  of 
Modrevius  a  Totifb  Knight,  in  the  reign  of 
Sigifmond  the  firft,  who  being  Secretary  to 
Sigifmond  AugufttiSy  the  next  King  of  To- 

1565.  landyWas  employed,  by  his  command,  to  write 
an  account  of  this  important  controverfy  m, 
and  feems,  in  regard  of  his  character  and 
ftation,  to  have  been  the  principal  inftru- 
ment  of  propagating  herefy  in  thofe  parts n. 
Where  being  early  embraced  by  many  per- 
fons  of  quality  and  diftindion,  it  had  e're 
this. obtained  the  favour,  if  not  of  publick 
toleration,  yet  of  a  general  connivance  °. 
It  was  That  had  given  encouragement  to 

155 1.  Lozlhls  Socinus  to  take  a  former  journey 
into  this  country  p  :  where  he  had  the  op- 


1  Andr.  Fric.  Modrev.  Sylvar.  1. 1.  tra&.  2.  c.  2.  citat.  apud. 
WiiTovvat.  ad  calc.  Sandii  p.  210,  216.  This  Spiritus  is  fup- 
pofed  by  fome  to  be  the  fa?»e  with  Adam  Pallor.  ViJ.  Hift.  da 
Socin.  par.  1.  c.f.  par.  2.  €.20.  &  in  annot.  p.  3. 

*"  Sand.  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p. 36. 

r  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  1.  c.  c. 

0  Ibid. 

r  Wiflbwat.  uf.  fupr.  p.  211,  212.  Przipcov.  in  yitaFaufr. 
Socin.  in  firatr.  Polon.  vol.  1.  Afhwell  de  Socino  &  Socini- 
aniimo.  §.3.  p.  4. 


portunity 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  395- 

portunity   of    corrupting   his    countryman  Ser.viii. 
LifmaninuSy   who  was  at  that  time  Con-  ^^T^. 
feffor  to  the  Queen  Mother,  and  (o  much 
in  favour  at  court,  that  he  was  foon  after 
fent  abroad  by  the  King  on  purpoie  to  ob-    1553. 
fcrve  the  date  ?f  religion  in  other  coun- 
tries,   in  order  to  difcern  what  alterations 
might  be  proper  in  his   ownl     This  de- 
sign was  defeated  by  his  ill  management : 
but  he  returned  with  his  heretical  notions,    1556. 
tho'  for  a  while  concealed.     And  about  the 
fame  time  Petrus  Gonefius,    who  was  a 
Pole  by  birth,    had  in  his  travels  through 
Germany  and   Switzerland    imbibed    the 
principles  of  the  Arian  herefy,    which  he 
likewifc  brought  back  with  him,  and  made    1 5  5  <S« 
open  profeffion   of   in  his   own  country, 
where  he  is  reckon  d  the  firfr  that  ventured 
to  efpoufe  it  openly1. 

But  now,  as  they  were  fixed  in  greater  1562. 
numbers,  and  had  gained  over  more  pro- 
felytes,  they  grew  confiderable  enough 
to  be  diftinguinYd  by  a  name,  and  accord- 
ingly began  to  be  denominated  *Pinczd- 
*viansy  and  after  that  Racovians^  from 
thofe  Polish  cities  in  which  they  chiefly  re- 
fidedf;  as  well  as  Arians,  Photinians,  and 
the  like,  from  their  imitation  of  thofe  he- 

q  Hifloire  du  Socinian.  par.  2.  c.  12. 

r  Sand.  Bibl.  Antitr.  p.  41.  Hid.  du  Socin.  par.  2.  c.  10. 
p.  278. 

f  WifTowat.  compend.  narrat.  ad  calc.  Sand.  p.  2  1 1.  6c  Ep. 
<5e  vita  WifTowat.  ibid.  p.  227. 

C  c  reticks^ 


39<$  AnHiflorical  Account  of 

SEiuVtii.  reticks,  in  refpeft  of  the  doftrine  of  the 
V-OP^  Trinity ;  and  fometimes  Anabaptifts,  from 
their  difallowing  the  baptifm  adminiftred 
to  infants1.  Their  principal  or  fuperinten- 
dent  at  that  time  was  Gregorius  *Pauli,  at 
I $62.  the  very  time  of  whofe  preaching  againft 
the  catholick  do&rine,  in  the  Trinity  Church 
at  Cracow j  and  upon  the  very  feftival  of 
the  ever-bleffed  Trinity r,  the  fudden  damage 
which  was  done  by  lightning u,  gave  a 
providential  rebuke  to  his  impiety,  how- 
ever he  and  other  adverfaries  of  the  truth 
would  ftrain  even  this  remarkable  occur- 
rence in  favour  of  their  herefyw. 

The  reformed  Orthodox,  who  were  fu- 
perior  in  number,  were  careful  the  mean 
while  to  oppofe  this  growth  of  .herefy; 
and  after  diverfe  fynods  held  with  various 
fuccefsx,  and  concluded  by  the  conference 
1565.  at  cPetricowy  found  it  neceffary  to  hold  no 
more  communion  v  with  the  abettors  of 
fuch  open  impiety :  whofe  numbers  grew 
confiderable,  even  altho'  fuch  among  them 
1564.  as  were  foreigners  had  already  been  re- 
quired to  depart  the  kingdom2,  in  compli- 
ance with  the  repeated  inftances  of  fuch 


1  Ibid.  p.  22$\ 

u  Hiftoire  du  Socin.  par.  2.  c.  10. 

*  Ibid.  &  Sand.  Bib).  Antitr.  p  43.  WifTowat.  p.  lift. 

*  Vid.  Hifl:.  du  Socin.  par.  1.  c.j,         ,    .10. 
1  Wiflbwar.  p.  211,  212. 

*  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  2.  c  4,  6. 

as 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  39? 

as  were  orthodox;  which  fcntence  was  af-  Ser.viii* 
terwards    extended    to   the  natives  them-  v"^v^"1 
felves a,  tho'  it  feems  they  had  fuch  intereft   l  $ 
at  court,  as  kept  it  from  being  ftriftly  put 
in  execution b.     Nay,  the  King  indeed  had 
fo  much  regard  to  thofe  of  his  Nobility, 
who  were  infe&ed  with  this  herefy,    that 
tho'  he  did  not  countenance  it  by  any  ex- 
prefs  law  of  indulgence,    yet  he  ufed  the 
hereticks  with  fo  much  complaifance  and 
civility,  as  gave  them  opportunity  to  grow 
under  his  government,   and  make  a  formi- 
dable progrefs  in  that  part  of  Europe0. 

This  opportunity  encreafed,  when,  upon 
the  death  of  that  King,  the  States  came  to    l$7h, 
an  agreement  called  the  7  acta  Convent  a, 
by  which  his  fucceflbrs  in  time  to   come 
were  bound  both  to  fubferibe   and  make 
oath,  that  they  would  maintain  an  univer- 
sal toleration  in  matters  of  religion a.     It 
was  upon  thefc  terms  that  Henry  of  Valois    l$7t* 
Duke  of  Anjou,    and   after   him   Stephen 
Bathori  Prince  of  Tranfylvania^  accepted    lS7^* 
of  the  crown  of  Toland*.     This  gave  the 
eafier   occafion  to  Faujlus  Socinus ,   who 


a  Ibid*  par.  tt  c.  12. 

k  Ibid.  par.  2.  c.  14.  Schoman.  Tdtam.  ad  calcem  Sandi^ 
p.  194. 

c  Vid.  Hid:,  du  Socin.  par.  I.  c.  12,  21* 

d  Ibid,  c.  21.  vid.  8c  Vindic.  Unitar,  ad  calc.  Sandii  Bibl. 
Antitr  p.  269. 

•  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  1.  c.  21,  22, 


C  c  1  arrived 


3 98  An  Hiftorical  Account  0/ 

Ser.viii.  arrived  there  in  the  reign  of  King  Stephen, 
^-^^J  for   propagating    the   herefy   he  had    em- 
579'   braced  :    And  that  occafion  grew  more  fa- 
I587.  vourable  under  his  fucceffor  Sigifmond  the 
third,  who  not  only  made  good  the  condi- 
tions of  the  TaBa  Convent  a,  but  even  be- 
llowed  upon  thefe  hereticks  fuch  favours 
and  preferments   as,    in  the  courfe  of  his 
till  1633.  long  reign,   could  not  but  put  them  in  a 
flourifhing  condition  f,    by  the  foundation 
of  many    churches,    beildes    colleges  and 
fchools  for  the  education  of  their  youth, 
and  the  freedom  of  the  prefs  for  publifh- 
ing  their  herefics. 

But  before  I  proceed  in  this  account,  it 
ought  to  be  remember'd,  how  fortunately 
for  Blandrata  it  had  happen  d,  that  before 
the  edict  abovementioned  againft  Foreign- 
ers, in  the  reign  of  Sigifmond  Auguftus, 
and  whilft  he  was  hotly  purfued  by  Cal- 
<viris  letters  againft  him  to  the  Reformed 
in  Poland,  he  was  called  from  thence  into 
1 5  6  3.  Tranfylvania,  and  taken  into  the  protecti- 
on of  John  Sigifmond,  Prince  of  that 
country,  and  King  of  Hungary,  as  his 
principal  phyficianS:  which  gave  him  op- 
portunity for  poilbning  the  minds  of  the 
people,  whilft  he  prefcribed  remedies  for 
bodily  difeafes,    by  fcattering  the  feeds  of 


f  Vid.  Hifl.  du  Socin.  par.  i.  c.  23,24.  par.  2.  c.  21,  &c. 
\  Sandii  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p.  28. 

2  his 


the  Trinitarian  Contr  overfly.  399 

his  pernicious  hcrefy,  and  trying  their  pro-  Ser.viii. 
lifick  quality  in  a  new  plantation.  v^OT^ 

It  has  already  been  obferv'd,  that  he  and 
ibme  others  do  fecm  at  firft  to  have  fallen 
in  pretty  nearly  with  the  Avian  hypothecs  5 
and  tho'  the  fear  of  fuffering  had  twice 
drawn    him    into  orthodox   fubferiptions,  g 

both  at  Geneva   and  in.  'Poland,    yet  ftill    l,6l' 
he  continued  to   retain  his   hcrefy,   till  a- 
bout  this  time  he  changed  it  for  that  Sa- 
mofatenian  fcheme   which  had   been  pro- 
poled  by  Lee  litis  Socinus :  and  both  he  and 
Alciattts  ufed  their  endeavours  with  Gre-    1564* 
gorius  Pauli,  one  of  their  Polifh  converts, 
to  bring  him  back  from  Tritheifm  to  the    1565. 
fame  fcheme  of  Socinus h.     But  however 
they  might   fucceed  with   him   and    fomc    15  66* 
others,    'tis  certain   they   could   not  do  fo 
with  all  their  profelytes  in  Poland.    Gone- 
fius  and  Farnovius,  as  to  the  iecond  perfon 
in  the  Trinity,  if  not  as  to  the  third,  were 
refolute  in  Avian  principles,    and  carried 
their  zeal  for  that  herefy  fo  high  as   even 
to  feparate  from  thofe  wdio  had  been  their    i5^7« 
inftru&ers,  and  form  a  diftincl  communion 
by  themfelvcs,    which  laflcd  in.  thofe  parts 
for  fome  years  after  the  beginning  of  the    1614. 
next  century1. 


h  Vid.  Calvin.  Adh  Valent.  Gent.  fol.  yo,- j6.  cited  by 

•Sandius  p.  28. 

1  Sandius  Bibl. Antitr.  p.4i,f2.  Wiflbwat.  p  213.  Sc  vita 
Wiflbwat.  p.  iz6„  Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme  par.  2.  c.u. 

Ccj  As 


400  An  Hifiortcal Account  of 

Ser.viii.      As  the   fchcmc  that   was  propofed    by 
^^T^  thefc  modern  hercticks  did,  above  all  others, 
flatter  the  vanity  of  private  judgment,  and 
defpife   the  arguments  which  were  drawn 
from   antiquity,    and   that   too   at  a  time 
when  it  was  well  known  how  the  Roma- 
nifts  had  abufed   the  pretence  of  ancient 
authority,  for  the  introducing  of  many  no- 
velties in  doclrine  and  iuperftitious  ufages: 
All  this  taken  together,   help  d  to  make  it 
appear  popular  and  plaufible  in  the  eyes  of 
fupcrricial  or  vain-glorious  obfervers.    And 
therefore  there  can  be  little  wonder  if  in  the 
IS 66.   feveral  conferences  that  were  held  between 
1568.   them  and  the  Orthodox,    in  the  prefence 

1570.  of  John  Sigifmond  Prince  of  Tranfylva- 
nia  k,  and  many  of  his  Nobles,  thofe  great 
men,  who  knew  but  little  of  the  contro- 
verfy,  and  were  already  prepoffefs'd  in  fa- 
vour of  the  hereticks,  mould  openjy  de- 
clare the  advantage  to  lie  on  their  fide1, 
or  if  that  declaration  mould  be  followed 
by  a  great  encreafe  of  profelytes  in  that 
part  of  Europe. 

Sigifmond  was  fucceeded  in  the  Frinci- 

1571.  pality  of  Tranfylvania,  by  Stephen,  and  he 
1573.    (in  two  years  after)  by  Chrifiopher  Bathoriy 

who  tho'  both  of  'em  Romanijls  by  prin- 
ciple, were  yet  fo  far  influenced  by  Blm- 

*  Wiftbwat.  p.  213. 

\  Hiftqire  du  Socinianifmc  par.  r.  c.  14. 

1  drata% 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  40 1 

drat a?  and  others  of  his  party,  as  to  con-  ser.  viii. 
tinue  the  hereticks  in  pofleffion  of  their  W^ 
former  privileges m.  The  troubles  and  re- 
volutions which  happen  d  afterwards  in  that 
principality,  gave  them  farther  opportunity 
to  confirm  their  intereft,  and  make  this 
country  a  defirable  Afylumy  for  fuch  as 
fhould  be  driven  out  of  other  places". 

But  not  to  come  too  low  with  our  hif- 
tory :  whilft  Tranfylvania  was  thus  occupied 
by  hereticks,  who  feenVd  to  have  all  things 
run  fmoothly  on  their  fide,  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  civil  powers  5  a  providential 
check  there  was  fuddenly  given  to  their  pro- 
ceedings by  a  grievous  diffention  that  arofe 
among  themfelves.  From  the  doftrine  they 
advanced  of  Chrift  having  no  other  but  the 
human  nature,  there  were  fome,  as  particular- 
ly Franctfcus  'Davidis  °,  and  Jacobus  Talao- 
logus^y  who  readily  concluded  that  he  could 
not  then  be  the  objed  of  religious  wor- 
ihip,  and  that  confequently  all  prayers  to, 
and  invocations  of  Chrift,  were  altogether 
as  unwarrantable  as  thofe  of  Saints  and 
Angels.     Blandrata  oppofed  this  conclu- 


m  Hiftpire  du  Socinianifme,  par.  i.  c.  ij. 

n  Ibid.  c.  27. 

0  Sand,  in  Biblioth.  p.  f6,  Hiftoire  du  Socio,  par.  i.  c.  if. 
par.  2.  c.  17.  vid.  &  Socin.  Praetat,  ad  difput.  cum  Franciic. 
David. 

?  Sand.  p./.  Hift.  du  Socin.  par. z.  c.  13. 


Cc  4  fiOU 


40  %  An    Hiftorical  Account/?/ 

Ser.viii.  fion  with  his  utmoft  diligence  j  but  not 
v^v^°  finding  himfelf  able  to  item  the  torrent 
1578.  alone,  he  invited  Fauflus  Socinus,  the 
nephew  of  Lcelius  already  mentioned,  to 
come  to  him  out  of  S wit zer land  %  in 
order  to  fupprefs  this  dangerous  opinion, 
which  they  fecm  to  have  dreaded  even 
more  than  the  catholick  do&rine  of  a 
confubftantial  Trinity r. 

This  Fanjtus  Socinus  had  been  fo  far  in- 
fluencd  by  his  uncle  Lcelius,  that  in  his 
life-time  he  perfectly  embraced  his  fenti- 
mentsr,  and  in  the  very  year  that  Lcelius 
died,  being  now  become  the  heir  and  pof- 
1562.  feffor  of  his  manufcripts,  he  publiftYd  that 
explication  of  the  firft  chapter  of  St.  John\ 
which  has  been  imce  the  ftandard  of  the 
Socinian  hypothefis,  and  was  then  judg'd 
fo  agreeable  to  the  notions  advanced  by 
his  deceafed  uncle,  that  it  was  imagined, 
not  only  by  Zanchius*,  and  other  Calvi- 
ni/ls,  but  by  fome  even  of  the  'Polifh  he- 
reticks  themfelves,   to  have  been  writ  by 


1  WifTowat.  p.  213. 

r  Qui  reje&o  de  filio  Dei,    Deo  Patri  confubftantial?, 

errore;  in  alium  MAG  IS  perniciofum  delapfus  eft,  de  Chri- 
&o  religiofe  non  honorando  nee  invocando.  WifTowat.  ibid. 

f  Vid.  Przipcov.  in  vita  F.  Socin,  Fol.  S'tgnat.**  2  item 
Afhwel  de  Socino  &  Socinianifmo,  §.  3.  p.$\ 

r  Vid.  Fauft.  Socin.  Epift.  ad  Dudithium /Script',  an.  i^So, 
vol.  1.  p.  479' 

■  Vid.  Zancb.  PrxTat.  ad  lib,  de  tribus  Elohim. 


Lcelius. 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  403 

Loelius™.     Fauftus  however  continued  a-  Ser.viil 
bout  twelve  years  in  the  Duke  of  Tufca-  ^^v^-* 
ny's  court x  5  after  which  he  retired  to  Ba-    1574* 
jily  and  there  cultivated  his  herefy  both  by 
writing  and  print,  till  he  was  invited  into 
Tranjylvania  (as  was  juft  now  mentioned)  in 
order  to  oppofe  that  improvement  which    1578. 
fome  had  made  upon  his   herefy,  by  dis- 
claiming all  religious  worfhip  and  invoca- 
tion of  Chrift. 

During  his  flay  in  that  country,  he  en- 
deavour 'd,  both  by  writing  and  by  confe- 
rence, to  reclaim  them  from  this  error, 
and  bring  them  to  acknowledge  the  ne- 
ceffity  of  adoring,  and  the  lawfulnefs  of 
invocating  Chrift  y.  But  in  the  manage- 
ment of  this  controverfy,  it  is  true,  he 
did  not  efcape  the  cenfures  of  that  party, 
whofe  caufe  he  undertook  to  cfpoufe.  For 
whilft  he  contended  only  for  the  lawful- 
nefs, and  not  for  the  ftrid  obligation  or 
necejfity  of  that  part  of  worfhip  which  is 


w  Nefcio  an  urtquam  oculis  tuis  oblata  fit  brevis  quaedam 
explicatio  inirii  primi  capitis  Johannis,  a  Zanchio  &  Beza,  8c 
ex  parte  a  Polonis  iftis,  Lcelio  afcripta :  ea  vero  jam  ante  an- 
nos  o&odecim  ex  officina  noftra  prodiit.  F.  Socin.  ad  Dudith, 
ut  fupra. 

x  Vit.  Socin.  per  Przipcov.  ut  fupr.  Sandii  Biblioth.  p.  6\. 
Afhwel  de  Socino  8c  Socinianifmo,  §.4.  p.  6. 

y  V'ul.  Socin.  Refp.  ad  Francifc.  David,  de  tnvocatione  Chrijli, 
in  torn.  2.  p.  713,  8cc.  v'td.  &  Epift.  2.  ad  Radec  in  torn.  1. 
p.  387,  8cc.  item  p.  35*3.  8c  difput.  cum  Chriftian.  Franken 
de  adoration*  Chrijli,  torn,  2.  p,  767,  8cc. 

call'd 


404         An  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Sir.  viii.  caird  invocation  y   he  was  underftood  to 
V^Y^  give  up  the  principal  point  in  queftion,  and 
leave  his  adverfaries  to  the  option  of  neg- 
lecting it z.     The  plain  truth  is,  Socinns  was 
heartily  afraid,    left   by  carrying  the  point 
too  high  againft  thefe  deeper  hereticks,  he 
might  give  an  unfcafonable  handle  to  the 
Orthodox,  for  maintaining  their  notion  of 
an  effential  Divinity.    And  therefore  what- 
ever  remonftrances   the    generality  of  his 
brethren  might  make  againft  it,   he  refo- 
lutely  ftuck  to  his  aflertion  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  fuch  worfhip  as  is  not  ftriftly  ne- 
cef/ary. 

Yet  neither  thus  were  his  reafonings 
conclufive.  His  adverfaries  had  clearly  the 
advantage  in  the  argument  upon  his  own 
principles?  and  tho'  he  had  plain  paiTages 
of  Scripture  to  produce  againft  them,  yet 
fuch  was  the  loofe  method  of  interpreting 
Scripture  made  ufc  of  by  himfclf,  and  fuch 
the  unbridled  licentioufnefs  of  private 
judgment,  as  gave  them  an  eafy  handle  to 
elude  the  cleareft  demonftrations  of  this 
kind,  and  wreft  them  fo  as  to  confift  with 
their  opinions*.  It  was  impoflible  there- 
fore for  Socimts,  to  overthrow  their  prin- 


3  Vid.  F.  Socin.  Epift.  Dedic.  ad  Miniflr.  TranfyV.  torn.  1. 
p.  7  10.  vid.  &  p.  716. 

■  See  his  controverts  with  Francifc.  David,  and  Chriftian 
Fiat; ken,  in  the  fecouJ  volume  cf  his  rrcrks. 

ciplcs, 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  407 

ciples,  and  to  defend  his  own.  And  ao  Ser.  vih, 
cordingly  he  was  fo  far  from  convincing  V^/VV 
'Davidis  of  his  error,  that  Blandrata  him- 
felf,  who  had  called  him  to  that  work,  is 
faid  at  laft  to  have  deferted  himb,  and 
gone  over  to  that  party  he  had  fo  zealouf- 
ly  oppofed.  So  that  we  may  the  lefs  won- 
der if  being  thus  unfettled  in  his  princi- 
ples, he  was  in  the  end  induced  either 
wholly  to  defert,  or  at  leaft  to  negled  the 
Socinian  intereft,  and  attend  entirely  to  the 
making  of  his  fortune  in  the  world c.  To 
all  which  difficulties  arifmg  from  this  con- 
troverfy, it  feems  to  have  been  owing,  that 
Socinas  himfelf,  fome  years  afterwards,  in  1586* 
^Polandy  was  in  a  manner  fore  d  to  fvvcrve 
from  his  own  ftated  maxims,  and  appeal 
to  the  traditional  fenfe  and  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  for  his  own  fupport  in  this  par- 
ticular41.    The  next  year  after  his  coming    1579J 


b  Hi  ft.  du  Socin.  par.  i.  c.  if. 

c  Vid.  Socin.  Refponf.  ad  Vujek.  cap.  2. 

d  Nam  unde  factum  efie  exiftimas,  ut  ab  ipfo  ferme  nafcen- 
tis  Ecclefiae  Chrifli  initio  ufque  ad  noftra  tempora,  tot  viri, 
adeo  ut  nullus  fit  numerus,  non  minus  pietate  cjuam  doctrina 
clarifTimi,  tot  ipfius  Chrifti  San&ifiimi  Martyres,  eum  alioqui 
graviflimum  errorem  fecuti  fuerinr,  quod  Chriftus  fit  unus 
iJJe  Deus  qui  omnia  creavit,  aut  certe  ex  iliius  propria  fub- 
ftantia  genitus,  nifi  quia  nimis  aperte  in  fanctis  literis  ea  illi 
tribui  animadvertunt,  quse  foli  Deo  tribui  confueverunt,  & 
inter  caetera  potifilmum  adorationem  &  invocationem,  eave, 
a  quibus  adoratio  8c  invocatio,  ilia  ut  prorfus  debita,  haec  ut 
plane  conveniens,  nullp  pacta  fejungi  pofliint?  Sociq.  Ep.  5. 
ad  Mat.  Radec.  in,ter  opera  torn.  1.  p.  301.  col.  3.  vid.  8c 
Aihwel  de  Socino  §.39.  p-,f6>  j7« 

into 


406  An  Hiflorkal Account^/ 

Ser.  viii.  into  Tranjylvania,  his  part  was  fo  far  taken 
V^V^  by  the  civil  powers,  that  his  principal  op- 
pofer  Franctfcus  Ttavidis  was  imprifon  d, 
and  died  foon  afterwards  under  his  con- 
finement e. 

It  was  at  this  time  that  Socinus  travelled 
into  Tolandj  and  upon  his  arrival  at  Cra- 
cow, found  the  hereticks  of  thofe  parts  ve- 
ry much  divided,  and  much  averfe  to  one 
another.  Simon  Budnmts  had  a  number 
of  followers,  who  difclaim'd  the  worfhip 
of  Chrift  like  thofe  in  Tranfylvania,  and 
receiving  from  him  fome  other  judaizing 
notions,  were  known  there  under  the  name 
of  Btidnoeifts*.  Thefe  were  moft  of  all 
1 5  84.  detefted  and  excommunicated  by  the  reft  y 
but  continued  for  fome  time  to  keep  up  a 
diftindt  communion,  even  after  their  chief 
leader  had  deferted  thems.  On  the  other 
hand,  Farnovhis  was  a  ftrenuous  alfertor 
of  the  Arian  hypothefis  of  a  pre-exiftent 
nature  in  Chrift,  and  difdain  d  to  commu- 
nicate with  thofe  who  could  think  fo 
meanly  of  him  as  of  a  mere  man  h.  Be- 
tween both  was  the  greater  body  of  here- 
ticks,   who  agreed  with  the  Budmifts  in 


*  Sand.  Biblioth.  p.  $G.  Afhwel  de  Socino  &  Socinianifmo3 
§.38.  p.  ff. 

*  Sand.  p.  5-4.  vita  Wiflowat.  ad  calcem  Sandii  p.  226. 

*  Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme,   par.  2.  c.  1 1.  p.  286. 
I  Sandius,  p.j-2.  vita  Wiflowat.  p.  216. 

acknow- 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  407 

acknowledging   no  other  but  the  human  Ser.viil 
nature  in  Chrift,  and  with  the  Farnovians  ^Y^ 
in  aliening  him,   notwithstanding  that,  to 
be   the  objed  of  religious  worfhip.     Yet 
even  thefe  had  fome  difference  with  Soci- 
nusy  and  however  they  might  concur  with 
him  in  their  notions  of  God,    and  of  the 
perfon  of  Chrift,  yet  they  fo  far  difagreed 
about  the  do&rine  of  fatisfa&ion,  and  fome 
other  particulars,  that  they  even  refufed  to    1580* 
admit   him  into  their   communion \    and 
continued  for  fome  time  to  rejeft  him  with 
warmth  and  vehemence. 

It  was  during  this  repulfe,   that  he  fell 
under  the  difpleafure  of  the  King  of  To- 
land,    by  efpoufing   fome  notions    which    1581." 
were   deenVd  prejudicial  to  civil  govern- 
mentk:    which  obliged  him  to   retire  for    1583. 
fome  years  from  Cracow  to  the  country- 
feat  of  a  Tolijh  Nobleman1,  in  whofe  houfe 
he  held  a  fet  difputation  with  Chrijlianus    1 5  84^ 
Franken1  the  Budnoeift,  about  the  worfhip 
of  Chrift m,    and  finifhed  his   controverfy 


1  Przipcov.  in  vita  Socini.  Wiflbwat.  narrat.  compend. 
p.  214.  Afhwel  §.  3y.  p.  49. 

k  Thefe  were  contain' d  in  his  Apologia  feu  Refponfio  pro  Ra- 
covienfibus,  -written  in  oppofition  to  Jacobus  Palxologus'j  Book 
De  Magiftratu  Politico,  and  publifoed  in  1^81.  Vid.  Sandii 
Bibl.  p.  70.  item  Afhwel  §,  $,  p.  6. 

1  Przipcov.  8c  Afhwel  ut  fupr. 

m  Sandius,  p.  7 1 .  Afhwel,  §.  38.  p.  $6,  vid.  Socini  opera, 
vol.  2. 


with 


408         An  Hijiorkal  Account^/ 

Ser.viii.  with  Erafmus  Johannis,  who  had  efpoufed 
^*Ofv->  the  Arian  or  Farnovian  hypothefis n. 
1586.  After  his  return  to  Cracow,  he  labour'd 
to  confirm  his  fcheme,  as  well  againft  the 
Champions  of  the  orthodox  fide,  as  againft 
thofe  who  differ'd  from  him  in  the  dating 
of  their  herefy.     And  his  endeavours  of 

1588.  this  kind  met  with   fuch  fuccefs,   as  well 

1589.  in  publick  difputations,  as  by  private  let- 
ters and  conference,  that  not  a  few  of  the 
principal  hereticks  °  in  thofe  parts  were  re- 
conciled to  his  fentiments,  and  came  over 
entirely  to  his  fide :  tho*  ftill  there  was  fo 
much  averfion  to  his  herefy  remain  d  a- 
mong  the  people  of  ^Poland,   that  a  good 

1598.  while  after  this  we  find  him  in  the  hands 
of  the  mob,  and  treated  with  fuch  indig- 
nity and  violence  as  forced  him  again  to 
retire  from  Cracow p,   whither  he  returnd 

1604.  no  more  to  the  time  of  his  death,  which 
happen  d  about  fix  years  ..afterwards. 

Some  other  misfortunes  happend  to  his 

16 1 1, ^.followers  in  different  parts  of  To/and,  as 
particularly  in  the  city  of  Lublin,  where 
after  the  Socinians  had  for  diverfe  years 
found  fo  much  countenance  from  the  Re- 


n  Socini  opera,  vol.  2.  p.  5-28.  Sandius  in  Biblioth.  p.  72, 
2c  37.   Aftnvel  de  Socino  &  Socianifmo,  §.  37.  p.  $-4. 

0  Vid.  Przipcoy.  in  vit.  Socin.  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  1. 
c.  24. 

p  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  2.  c.  22. 


formi 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  405? 

farnid  as  to  be  receiv'd  to  their  religious  Ser.viil 
aflemblies,  the  Trinity  Church  was  fud-  ^^^ 
denly  deftroy'd  by  lightning,  and  feveral  l  l  * 
of  the  congregation  perifiYd  %  whilft  one 
of  the  hereticks  (as  it  is  faid)  was  preach- 
ing againft  the  catholick  do&rine  of  the 
Trinity  in  Unity r.  However  the  Socinians 
might  interpret  this,  as  they  had  formerly 
done  a  like  inftance  at  Cracow,  to  be  a 
declaration  from  heaven  on  their  fide  f,  yet 
the  generality  of  the  people  rather  look'd 
upon  it,  as  a  judgment  fent  upon  them  for 
having  fo  long  fuffer'd  their  impieties,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  fatisfied  till,  befides 
many  indignities  offered  in  a  tumultuous 
way,  they  in  the  end  obtain d  a  legal  {en-  1*527," 
tence  (which  yet  feems  not  to  have  been 
ftri&ly  executed)  for  reftraining  them,  and 
with  them  all  the  Reformed,  from  holding 
either  annual  fynods  or  religious  aflemblies 
in  that  city1. 

But  whatever  be  faid  of  fome  particular 
places,  yet  generally  it  muft  be  owned 
the  caufe  of  Socinianifm  flourifh'd  much  in 
Poland,  through  the  reign  of  Sigifmond. 
Many  indeed  were  the  wild  opinions  which 


«  Vid.  Stoin.  Epitom.  Hifh  Unitar.   ad  calc.  Sardii  BibL 
Antitrinit.  p.  iSS. 

*  Hid.  da  Socin.  par.  I.  c.  2f. 

c  Stoinias  ut  fupr. 

'  Hill,  du  Socin.  ut  fupra, 

had 


410  An  H'iftorical  Account  of 

Ser.  viii.  had  rifcn  from  the  luxuriant  liberty  of  pri- 
^"V^  vate  judgment,  whilft  every  man  was  deem- 
ed capable  of  forming  a  fcheme  of  religion 
to  himfelf,  by  interpreting  the  Scriptures 
in  his  own  fenfe,  without  the  help  of  that 
light  which  is  held  out  to  them  by  the 
tradition  and  hiftory  of  former  times.  But 
fuch  had  been  the  arts  of  Socinus  to  en- 
gage and  pcrfuade,  fuch  his  command  of 
temper,  and  appearance  of  modefly,  and 
fuch  withal  his  ftudious  application  to  polif h 
more  and  more  the  fcheme  he  had  ad- 
vanced, and  to  oppofe  the  feveral  forts  of 
adverfaries  that  appeared  againft  it,  that  irk 
the  end  the  various  fefts  of  Antitrinitari- 
ans  had  combined  in  oneu,  which  from 
him  have  been  ufually  denominated  the 
Socinians,  tho'  their  own  writers  chofe  ra- 
ther to  diftinguifh  themfelves  by  the  name 
of  Unitarians™,  to  import  their  aflertion 
of  the  numerical  unity  in  fuch  a  fenfe,  as 
excludes  all  plurality  oiperfons  in  the  God- 
head as  well  as  ejfences. 

The  doctrines  of  Socinus  were  by  fome 
of  his  followers  methodized  and  digefted 
into  regular  fyftems,  and  by  others  defend- 
ed againft  the  various  obje&ions  whether  of 
Romanifts  or  Troteftants*.  A  fcheme  it 
■> — — — —  , 

u  Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme  par.  i.  c.  24. 
w  Vita  WifTowat.  ad  calcem  Sandii  p.  225*. 
*  Vid.    Afhwel  de  Socino  8c   Socinianifmo  §.  8.   p.  10. 
Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme  par.  2  .  c.  2^,  &c. 

was 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  411 

was,  which  did  entirely  change  the  whole  Ser.viii; 
nature  and  defign  of  Chriftianity.     It  not  *>"W 
only  took  in  that  grand  point,  in  which  the 
Sabellians  and  the  Arians  agreed,  that  the 
fupreme  Deity  is  perfonally  but  one,  con- 
curring alio  with  the  latter,    that  our  blet 
fed  Saviour  is  not  God  over  all ;  and  with 
the  former,   that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  only  a 
divine  influence,  without  any  perfonal  fiib- 
Jifience  5  but  it  went  on  with  Artemon  and 
others,    to  deny  that  Jefus  Chrift  had  any 
real  exiftence  before  his  birth  of  the  Virgin ,; 
and  its  patrons  having  fct  up  private  judg- 
ment as  their  fupreme  rule,  concluded  from 
the  whole,  more  impioufly  indeed,  but  (till 
more    confidently   than    former    hereticks, 
that  whatever  is  faid  of  the  merit  and  fa- 
tisf action   of  Chrift,    his  facrifice   for  fin, 
and  his  redemption  of  finners,  his  unchange- 
able priejlhoody    and  interceffion  for  us  at 
God's   right  hand,    has  altogether  a  meta- 
phorical or  figurative  meaning,  widely  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  the  Church  had 
always  underftood  and  made  ufe  of  thofe 
exprcfllonsy.     To  thefe  if  we  add  the  ma- 
ny other  errors  of  this  newfangled  leucine, 
concerning  the  conftitution  of  the  chriftian 
Churchy  and  the  appointment  of  its  Mini- 


y  Prater  ipfos  Atithores  Soc'mianos.   Vid.  Afhwel  de  Socino  Sc 
Socinianifmo.  §.67.. p.  126,  Sec. 


D  d  (try, 


4i2  An  Hiftorkal  Account*?/ 

SER.viu.Jlry,  the  efficacy  of  its  Sacraments,  and 
V-^VT>^>  the  fecret  operations  of  divine  Grace,  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  the  r«/^ 
of  chriftian  Obedience,  the  ftate  of  the 
*£?///  after  death,  the  refurreffion  of  the 
Body,  and  the  future  judgment  -,  we  fhall 
have  caufc  to  fay,  that  there  was  never  any 
herefy,  that  did  fo  artfully  difguife  To  great 
a  number  of  impieties  as  this  hydra  of  So- 
cinianifm2-:  which  made  fo  low  an  ac- 
count of  the  unfathomable  myftery  of  our 
redemption,  that  there  can  be  little  ground 
to  wonder,  if  befides  the  judai zing  errors 
already  mention  d,  there  mould  be  fome 
who  apoftatized  (as  Socinus a  himfelf  could 
not  entirely  difown)  into  Mahometifmh> 
or  into  downright  Atheifm* ;  nay,  even  if 
fome  of  thofe  who  did  not  openly  apofta- 


■  i  Inftar  Hydrse  Lernass:,  quce  &  capite  multiplied  hor- 
rorem  incuflit,  Sc  vencno  mortem  intulit.  Alhwel  §,  j-8. 
p.  i or. 

a  — Ea  ver6  [Cbrijli  adoratione  &  snvocattone]  fpreta  vel  ab- 
jccla,  nulla  ratione  fieri  poteft,  ne  ubique  Judaifmus  vigeat, 
vel  potius  turpis  Epicurcifmus  atcjue  Atheifmus.  Socin-.  acV 
fyn.  Wrrgrov.  torn.  i.  p.  491.  vid.  8c  ejufd.  refponf.  ad3ofcr. 
ab  excellenti  viro  propofit.  ad  fcrup.  18.  torn.  1.  p.  331. 

b  This  is  particularly  charged  upon  Paulus  Alciatus,  (See  Be- 
nedit"rus  AretiusV  account  of  Valentinus  Gentilis,  chap.  1.)  Tjet 
the  f aft  is  not  roell  ftipported,  but  rather  the  contrary.  (SceBayle's 
Di&ianary,  in  voce  Alciatus.)  The  fame  charge  again]}  Franciic, 
Lifmaninus  is  not  credited:  (Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme,  par.  2. 
c.  12.)  But  it  is  allorv'd  (chap.  18.)  of  Adam  Neufherus.  And- 
John  Sylvanus  (ibid.)  funk  fo  far  into  Judaiim  as'  to  praclife 
Circumcifion. 

*  Vid.  Afhwel  de  Socino  &  Socinianifmo,  §.29.  p.3°'4°» 

2  tize, 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  415 

tize,    fhould  yet  boaft  of  their  agreement  ser.viiI. 
with  the  followers  of  Mahomet d  in  their  V^VN*> 
notions  of  the  divine  Unity,  and  their  little 
difference  from  them  in  reipeit  of  Chrifte. 

Nor  was  the  malignity  of  this  pernicious 
herefy  confined  to  Poland  and  the  Eaftem 
parts  of  Europe :  it  threatned  the  fpread- 
ing  of  its  baneful  influence  in  oxxWeftern 
world.  The  fanatical  madnefsof  thzAna- 
baptifts,  which  appeared  fo  outragious  in  Ger- 
many and  the  Netherlands  for  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  fixteenth  century f,  had  no 
little  mixture  of  this  herefy  with  it.  And 
even  that  party  among  them,  which  for- 
bore the  moil  frantick  of  their  extrava- 
gances, and  from  one  of  their  chief  lead- 
ers are  Hill  known  under  the  name  of 
Mennonites,  did  however  concur,  though 
not  perhaps  in  any  uniform  fcheme  (for 
they  again  were  fubdivided  among  them- 
felves)  yet  in  fome  method  or  other  to 
oppofc  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  %.  Be- 
fides  which  it  ought  not  to  be  omitted, 
that  in  the  laft  century,   when  the  narrow 


4  VM.  Lubieniec.  de  Serveto  in  tbeHift.  of  Server,  p.  196. 

c  See  the  Socinian  Dedication  to  the  Morocco  Ambajfedor,  tn- 
ferted  in  Mr.  Lefty's  Preface  to  tht  fixth  pari  of  the  Socmizn  Con- 
troverfy difcufled.     See  alfo  p.  25-, i 3  1 . 

f  Vid.  Hiftoire  du  Sociniamffne,  par.  1.  c.  18.  fit  par.  2, 
c.  19. 

*  Ibid.  par.  ?.  010,  lo.  par.  2.  c.  20.  Set  Collier'/  Dicti- 
onary in  'voce  Mennonites. 

D  d  z  no- 


414  dn  Hiflorical  Account*?/ 

ser.viii.  notions  of  the  Calvinifts,    in  refpeft    of 
^-^^  God's  grace  and  decrees,  had  provoked  the 
1609.   oppofition  of   fome  perfons  of  a  clearer 
judgment,    who    from   the  Remonftrance 
prefented  by  them  to  the  States  of  Hol- 
land,   bore  the  name  of  Remonftrants h : 
this  oppofition  was  managed  in  fuch  man- 
ner, that,  as  it  often  happens  in  the  warmth 
of  difpute,   they  feem  (fome  of  them  at 
lead)  not  content  with  correcting  the  ex- 
ceffes  of  Calvin,  to  have  lean  d  too  much 
towards  the  other  extreme,    and  given  in 
with  too  little  guard  and  caution  to  the 
rcafonings  of  Socimis.     And  when  they 
were  thus  far  agreed  with  him,  there  were 
fome  who  fcrupled  not  to  follow  him  in 
other  initances.     Conradus  Vorftius  in  par- 
1599.  ticular,  who  had  been  formerly  fufpe&ed, 
1 610.   did  now  fo  fully  betray  his  inclination  to 
herefy,   by  publishing  a  noted  piece  of  So- 
cimis, as  well  as  others  of  his  own,  that 
he  is  generally  given  up  by  the  orthodox 
writers1,   and  claim'd  by  the  Antitrinita- 
rians  k. 

h  Curcellaeus  in  prasf.  ad  oper.  Epifcop.  See  Collier**  Di6H- 
onary  in  voce  Remonftrants.  HeylinV  Hift.  of  the  Presbyte- 
rians, 1.  11.  Hift.  Quinquart.  par.  1.  c.f.  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  1 . 
c.  33,  Sec. 

4  Vid.  Afhwel  de  Socino  &  Socinianifmo,  §.  61.  p.  uii 
Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  2.  c.  37. 

k  Vid.  Sandii  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p.  98.  So  likewjfe  Stephan. 
Curcellxus,  8c  Guil.  Henr.  Vorftius  appear  in  the  fame  Bibliq- 
theque,  p.  100,  143,  as  well  as  in  the  Hiftoire  du  Socini- 
anifme. 

The 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  4 1  j 

The  body  of  the  Remonftrants  however  sEr.  vnr. 
are  not  to  be  charged  with  this  impiety  >  V-^V\> 
it  muft    be  owned   that  the  generality  of 
them  have  expreily  declared  againft  it.     But 
yet  as  they  were  treated  not  long  after  by    161 8. 
the  fynod  of  T)ort  with  great  rigour  and 
feverity,  the  ill  ufage  they  received  had  but 
too  natural  a  tendency  to  take  off  their  re- 
verence  for  fynods,   and  confirm  them  in 
the  Socinian  fentiments  of  the  unreftrained 
authority  of  private  judgment.      This  na- 
turally difpofed  them  to  think  amifs  of  ar- 
ticles of  faith  prefcribed  as  terms  of  com- 
munion 5   and  from  hence  it  came  to  pafs 
that  they  who  were  the  moil  orthodox  a-    1650. 
mong  them  with  refped  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity ',  yet  thought  the  errors  in  that 
point  were  fuch  as  ought  to  be  indulged1, 
and  were  willing    therefore    to    maintain 
communion  with  Socinians,  as  with  Chris- 
tian brethren. 

As  herefy  was  thus  infenfibly  creep- 
ing to  the  Weft  of  Europe,  fo  in  procels 
of  time  it  was  entirely  extirpated  in  that 
kingdom,  where  it  had  hitherto  found  fo 
much  encouragement.  After  the  long 
reign  of  Sigifmond  the  third,  Uladiflas  at 
laft  fucceeded  to  the  crown  of  Poland-,  in  1633. 
whofe  time  the  freedom  of  the  prefs  at 

J  Vid.  Epifco.p.  Inftit.  Theolog.  lib.  4.  Jfed.2.  c.  34,  ^y. 

Dd  3  Racoviciy 


4i6  An  Htfiorkalhc count  of 

Ssr.viii.  Racovia,  the  ufc  of  their  Church,  and  the 
*sY^  government  of  their  School  or  Univerfity, 
1638.   were  taken  from  them  at  once,   upon  oc- 
cafion    (as  themfelves   give  out)   of  their 
youth  offering  fome  affront  to  the  Topifh 
fuperftition  m.      This  was  followed    fome 
1644.   time  after  with  the  like  inhibitions  in  o- 
ther  parts  of  Toland*.     But  the  fucceed- 
ing  reign  of  Cafimir  was  more  particularly 
unfortunate  and  fatal  to  them.     The  trou- 
>648;&c.  bles  which  arofe  by  the  irruption  of  the, 
Coffacks,   fell  with  greateft  violence  upon 
the  Unitarians,  as  being  more  particularly 
odious  to  them  on  account  of  their  hcre- 
fy°.      And  therefore   when   the   King   of 
Sweden  made  fuch  advantage  to  himfelf  of 
1655.   thefc  diforders,   as  to  invade  Toland  with 
his  army  like  a  torrent,   thefe  Unitarians, 
not  without  the  concurrence  (I  confefs)  of 
many  others,  thought  it  for  their  intereft  to 
fubmit  to  him  for  the  benefit  of  his  protec- 
tion p.     This,  aggravated  by  the  zeal  which 
they  exprefs'd   in   that  intereft,    not   only 
expofed   them  to   great   ravages  from  the 
infurre&ion  of  the  Tolifh  peafantsi,    but 
1657.   when  Cafimir  recovered  his  loffes,    it  was 


m  Vita  Wiflbwat.  ad  calcem  Sandii,  p. 233.  Hift.  du  Socin. 
par.  t.  c.  20. 

■  Vit.  Wiflbwat.  p.  236,  &c. 

0  Vit.  Wiflbwat.  p.  241.   Hift,  du  Socin.  par.  t.  c.2/. 

p  Vit.  Wiflbwat*  p.  244* 

farther 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  417 

farther  remembered  to  their  d  i  (advantage r,  Ser.vih. 
when  a  royal  Edid  was  published,  with  the  ^*VN~> 
concurrence  of  the  Diet  of  IVarfaw,  to  1658. 
require  all  of  this  profeilion  to  depart  that 
kingdom  under  pain  of  death,  but  with 
an  indulgence  of  three  years  time  to  dif- 
pofe  of  their  effeds,  provided  they  forbore 
the  exercife  of  their  religion1".  This  time 
of  indulgence  was  afterwards  made  mortem 
by  a  year :  And  then  tho'  many  were  in- 
duced to  renounce  their  former  errors,  1660, 
either  thro'  real  convidion,  or  thro'  fear 
of  banifhment ;  yet  there  were  others  who 
pcrfifted  under  all  hazards  to  profefs  their 
fentiments,  and  were  thereupon  difperfed  u 
through  Tranfylvama,  Hungary ',  Holland, 
and  fuch  parts  of  the  Empire  where  they 
could  find  any  favourable  reception.  In 
which  places  they  have  been  always  adive 
to  propagate  their  notions,  and  pervert  as 
many  as  was  poffible  to  concur  with  them. 
They  have  not  indeed  been  able  from 
that  time  to  form  any  very  formidable 
party,  or  engage  the  fecular  powers  to 
fupport  and  patronize  them.  The  moft 
that  is  any  where  allowed  'em  is  a  bare  to~ 


*  Hift.  du  Socin.  par.  i.  c.  if. 

f  Vita  Wiflbwat.  ad  calcem  Sandii  Biblioth.  Antitr.  p.  248, 

1  Pag.  25-4. 


Dd  4  kration, 


4 1 8  An    Hifiorical  Accounts/ 

Ser.viii.  leration™,  and  even  that  is  generally  denied 
^OT^  'em?  whilft  they  arc  confider'd  as  the  open 
enemies  of  the  chriftian  name,   and  their 
blaiphemies  unfit  to  be  endured  by  thofe 
who   have  any  reverence  for  Chriftianity. 
I  take  this  to  be  the  ground,  why  the  im- 
.  jpugners  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  are 
exprefly  excluded  from  the  benefit  of  our 
ad    of   Toleration.     And  if  the  Quakers 
are  included   in   it,    notwithstanding  that 
deep  tin&ure  of  Socinianifm  which  feems 
to  run  thro*  their  hypothecs  (whom  I  chufe 
thus  to  mention  by  the  way,    that  I  may 
be  excufed  the  treating  of  them  more  at 
large)  perhaps  this  might  be  partly  owing 
to   the   intricacy    and   obfeurity   of    their 
opinions,  wThich  are  as  little  underftood  by 
other  people,  as  generally  by  themfelves. 

But  notwithftanding  that  exclusion  from 
indulgence,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  fome 
perfons  of  fuch  fentiments  have  from  time 
to  time  crept  in  among  us,  fometimes  more 
openly  avowing,  at  other  times  more  art- 
fully concealing  them,  or  even  daring  to 
fubferibe  to  articles  directly  repugnant  to 
their  principles.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
Reformation)  among  the  great  number  of 

w  As  in  a  few  cures  of  Tranfylvania,  in  fome  farts  of  the  United 
Netherlands ;  and  out  of  Chriftendom,  in  fome  parts  of  the  Ma- 
hometan and  Pagan  Dominions.    Hift,  of  the  Unitar.  let.  i; 

p.  20,    30. 

foreigners 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  419 

foreigners    who   took    fanduary   in    thefe  ser.  viii. 
parts,    there  were  fome   perfons  too  cer-  v^^^s-' 
tainly    infeded    with   Anabaptiftical    and      ^7m 
Antitrinitarian  tenets x.  Bernardinus  Ochi-      *^ 
nus,  whom  fome  have  charged  with  pro- 
moting Arianifm  in  Italy,   or   at  leaft   at 
Geneva?,    came  over  early  in  the  reign  of 
King  Edward7-.     But  by  the  friendfhip  he    x547. 
had  contraded  with  Veter  Martyr,  and  the 
favour  he  obtain'd  with  Archbilhop  Cran- 
mer  himfelf,    he  feems  to  have  conceaUd 
his  fentiments   in    thefe   matters,    and  to 
have  fienalized  himfelf  only  by  his  zeal  a- 
gainft  the  Tapal  ufurpation a.    Whether  he 
might  fecretly  promote  thofe  Art  an  noti- 
ons b,  with  which  fome  have  fuppofed  him 
to  be  tindurcd  before  his  coming  over,    I 
pretend  not  to  affert :  But  'tis  certain  there 
were  others  who  did  it  openly0,  and  there    *549« 
is  this  ufe  to  be  made  of  the  fad,    that 
the   dodrinc    of    the  Trinity    cannot    be 
reckond   a  point  that  was  overlooked  or 
unconfider'd.  in  our  Reformation,  any  more 
than  abroad  5    there  were  perfons  that  op- 


31  See  Bifliop  Burnet';  Hift.  of  the  Reformat,  par.  2.  iib.  1. 
p.  no.  an.  1^49.  Strype';  Eccleiiaft.  Memorials,  vol.  2.  1.  1. 
c.  9. 

y  See  above,  p.  388. 

z  Vid.  Sandii  Bibiioth.  p.  3.  Strype  ut  fupr.  c.  24. 

*  Strype  ibid,  item  c.  if. 

b  Vid.  Hiftoire  du  Socinianifme,  par.  2.  c.4-  p.  2  3 9. 

I  B'tjhop  Burnet  ut  fupr.  Strype  c.  26.  &  1.  2.  c.  j_f. 


pofed 


420         An  Htftorical  Account  of 

Ser.viii.  pofed  it  as  one  of  the  corruptions  of  Po- 

V*OT^  pery,    and   this   made  it  neceiTary  for  our 

Reformers  to  examine  the   cafe,    and  fee 

whether  in  reality   it  were  one  of  thofe 

points  which  needed  reformation. 

And  what  was  the  refult  of  fuch  en- 
quiry >  We  find  by  the  rigorous  difcipline 
of  thofe  times,  there  were  two  perfons 
burnt  for  herefy,  one  for  denying  the  Di- 
vinity of  Chriftd,  another  for  denying  that 
he  took  the  flelh  of  the  fubftance  of  the 
Virgin e :   The  Englifh  Liturgy,  which  had 

1548.   been  lately  drawn  upf,  was  after  this  care- 

1550.  fully  reviewed  and  examkuU;  and  yet  (till 
its  colle&s  and  doxologies  were  entirely  re- 
pugnant  to  the  Arian  hypothefis :    There 

1552.  was  a  drift  enquiry  made  after  the  Ariansh 
as  a  moft  pernicious  fort  of  hereticks  5  and 
Mr.  Thilftot  in  particular  exprefs'd  the  ut- 
moft  abhorrence  of  their  blafphemies,  and 
wrote  againft  them  with  great  zeal  and 
vehemence,  as  perfons  unfit  for  the  fociety 
of  Chriftian  people1 :  And  laftly,-  there  were 

1552.  Articles  of  Religion  drawn  up  at  firft  by 


d  Bp.  Burnet  ut  fupr.  p.  112. 

e  Burner,  p.  m.  Strype,  vol.  2.  ].  1.  c,i6, 

fG  ir. 

*  C.  26.  &  1.  2.  c.  1  j. 

*  L.  2.  c.  if. 

*  Strype 's  Ecclef.  Memor.  vol.  3.  c.  33.  p.  261.  See  al/o 
his  Catalogue  of  Originals  at  the  end  of  that  Volume,  N°4-8. 
P.  Hf>  &c. 

the 


the  Trinitarian  Controvevfy.  421 

the  Bifhops k,  and  afterwards  publifhed  by  Ser.  viil 
the  King  s  authority  \    and  required  to  be  ^VN> 
fubfcribed  by  all  the  Clergy,    as   well  at    1553. 
the  time  of  ordination,  as  at  their  entrance 
upon  preferment m,  which  are  faid  to  have 
been  fo  nearly  the  fame  with  our  prefent 
Articles",   that  they  muft  needs  be  admit- 
ted as   good   evidence  of  the  doctrine  of 
our  Church  at  that  time  in  thefc  particu- 
lars. 

The  reign  of  Queen  Mary  followed  x 553* 
quickly  after,  when  many  of  our  Divines, 
to  avoid  the  violence  of  her  perfecution, 
were  forced  to  feek  for  refuge  in  foreign  1554. 
countries0.  As  this  fell  out  juft  after  the 
execution  of  Servetus  at  Geneva ,  and 
when  the  Arian  controverfy  was  warmly 
debated  among  the  Trotefiants  abroad,  it 
could  not  but  give  our  Refugees  the  eafier 
opportunity  to  acquaint  themfclvcs  with 
the  true  merits  of  the  caufe,  and  deter- 
mine their  own  judgments  with  the  more 
impartiality.  And  yet  at  their  return,  in 
the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  they  were 
fo  far  from  oppofmg  the  do&rinc  which 


k  Strype,  vol.  2.  1.2.  c.  12,  ir. 

'  C.  ^,. 

m  C.  22.  See  Bp.  Burnett  Hift.  of  the  Reformat,  vol.  $. 
book  4.  p.  212.  and  Br.  Bennett  Eflay  on  the  thirty  nine 
Articles,  chap.  28.  p.  371. 

n  See  Strype,  vol.  2.  1.2.  c.  12.  p.  341. 

I  Vol.  3.  chap.  18. 

had 


z%  An  Hifiortcal Account^/ 

sek.viii.  had  been  fettled  in  the  time  of  King  Ed- 
^W  wardy  that  in  two  different  Convocations, 
that  body  of  Articles  which  is  ftill  in  ufe 
1562.  was  approved  and  fubfcribed,  in  Latin 
firftp,  and  afterwards  in  Englifh%  Which 
1 571.  being  at  laft  ratified  by  Parliament,  was  re- 
quired to  be  fubfcribed  by  the  inferior 
Clergy*,  and  has  been  ever  fince  efteem'd 
the  (landing  confeffion  of  the  Church  of 
England.  And  though  there  might  be  at 
that  time  a  pretty  great  mixture  of  Soci- 
nianifniy  among  the  many  feditious  and 
fanatical  tenets  of  the  Anabaptiftsy  Brown- 
iftsy  Family  of  Lovey  and  fuch  like  wild 
Enthufiafts  j  yet  it  is  certain  withal,  that 
they  were  reftrain  d  and  puniflVd  with  great 
feverity,  both  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Eli- 
zabeth and  King  James  the  firft.  So  far 
have  we  always  been  from  having  any  he- 
terodox fchemes  in  this  particular  eftabliflYd 
among  us,  or  indeed  expreily  tolerated! 
Nor  do  I  find  that  they  gain  d  any  con- 
fiderable  ground  with  private  perfons,  till 
in  or  near  the  time  of  Cromweh  ufurpa- 
tion. 
1 644.  It  was  about  that  time  that  John  Biddley 
a  Schoolmafter  in  GlouceJlery   where  the 


p  See  Br.  Bennett  EfTay  on  the  thirty  nine  Articles,   chap. 

q  Ibid.  ch.  io,_22. 

r  See  Stat,  of  13  Eliz.  cap.  12.    See  alfi  Dr.  Bennett  EfTay, 
ch.  32. 

rebels 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  423 

rebels  had  a  ftrong  garrifon,  began  to  pub-  Ser.vui. 
lifh  and  make  open  profeflion  of  his  he-  ^OT^ 
refy f.      He   was   mainly   in  the   Socinian 
fcheme,    except   that  with  the  ^Pnenmato- 

machi  of  old,   he  admitted  the  perfonality " 

of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  denying  only  his 
'Divinity,  afferted  him  to  be  no  more  than 
chief  among  the  holy  Angels1.  But  bad  as 
the  times  were,  yet  the  impiety  of  his  opi- 
nions was  too  grofs  and  Ihocking  to  be 
filently  endured.  He  was  argued  with  in  • 
order  to  convince  him  of  his  error,  he 
was  examined  as  well  by  the  Magistrates 
and  Committee  at  Gloucejler,  as  by  the  in- 
famous Parliament  then  fitting  at  Weftmin- 
fter,  he  was  in  both  places  imprifon  d  for 
his  obftinacy ;  and  yet  after  all  he  was  fo 
far  from  retracing  his  opinions,  that  he  1647- 
avow'd  them  in  print.  His  book  hereupon 
was  ordered  to  be  burnt,  and  tho'  the  en- 
deavours of  the  Affembly  of  Divines  were  i<?48- 
not  effe&ual  for  his  execution,  yet  he  con- 
tinued in  prifon  till  an  ad  of  oblivion  un- 
der Cromwel  reftored  him  to  his  liberty:  1651, 
which  he  abufed  by  gathering  a  congrega- 
tion here  in  London,  in  order  to  propagate 
his  notions,    and   publilhing    his    twofold 


f  Sandii  Biblioth.  p.  15-9.  Life  of  Mr.  Tho.  Firmin,  p. 
9,  10.  Ant.  a  Wood  Athena:  Oxon.  vol.  2.  col.  300,  &c, 
Edit.  1 72 1. 

f  Ibid,  and  Account  of  Mr.  Firmin's  Religion,  p.  4. 


Catechifm 


424         ^n  Hifiorical Account/?/ 
Seb.viii.  Catechifm  for  the  corruption  of  the  com- 
v*of^->  mon  people.     This  drew  on  him  the  ani- 

1  **'  madverfions  of  the  new  Parliament,  who 
not  only  fentenced  his  Catechifm  to  the 
flames,    but  the  author  like  wife  to  a  new 

1655.  impnfonment  5  who  after  this  was  removed 
by  Cromweh  order  to  the  Ifle  of  Scillyy 

1658.  from  whence  being  again  releafed,  he  con- 
tinued to  propagate  his  herefy,  till  after  the 
Reftoration  he  was  once  more  confined,  and 

1662.  died  under  his  imprifonment u.  But  he  had 
firft  formed  a  fed  or  party  of  followers,  who 
took  from  him  the  name w  of  BidellianS? 
till  it  was  loft  in  the  more  common  appel- 
lation of  Socinians,  or,  which  they  rather 
chofe  for  themfelves,  that  of  Unitarians*. 
And  there  was  one  among  his  followers  y 

1664.  who  tho'  he  lived  not  to  reach  the  age  of 

1665.  fixteen  years,  yet  had  zeal  and  forwardnefs 
enough  to  be  eftcem'd  the  patron  of  the 
party,  and  as  well  by  his  tranflation  of 
Bidet's  Catechifm  into  Latiny  as  by  pub- 
lishing an  Oration  of  his  own,  was  a&ive 
to  promote  its  intercft. 

1669.  It  was  not  long  after  this  that  Sandius 
publiflfd  his  Ecclefiafiical  Hiftoryz,  mani- 

u  Ant.  a  Wood  ut  fupr.  coj.  3  of. 

fe  Sandius,  ibid.  &  p.  172. 

x  Account  of  Mr.  Firmm's  Religion,  p.  4. 

y  By  name  Nathariael  Stuckey.  vid.  Sandii  Bibliotb.  p.  1/0, 
172.  Ant.  a  Wood  Athen.  Oxon.  vol.2,  col.  306.. 

z  Nucleus  Hiftorix  Ecclefiaftics,  faft  fubltfied  in  tfje  year 
t66p. 

fcftly 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy.  415 

feftly  calculated  for  thc.fcrvi.ee  of  the  Arian  Ser.viil 
caufe,  and  to  pcrfuade  his  readers,  that  till  ^^T^ 
the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council,  the  Ca- 
tholicks  had  thofe  very  fentiments  which 
were  then  embraced  by  Arms  and  his  af- 
fociates,  and  all  who  differed  from  them 
in  thefe  points  had  been  cfleenYd  as  here- 
ticks.  This  groundlefs  calumny  (which  had 
been  but  too  much  countenanced  by  the 
writings  of  cPetavius*,  tha  with  a  diffe- 
rent view)  gave  occafion  to  that  admirable 
'Defence  of  the  Nicene  Faith,  which  was  not  pukiifi,- 
drawn  up  by  our  incomparably  learned edf,u  l6*f 
Bifhop  Bully  in  oppofition  at  once  to  the 
Arian  and  the  Jefuit  5  and  which  was  af-  1 694* 
terwards  followed  by  his  other  treatife  of 
the  Judgment  of  the  Catholick  Church  con- 
cerning the  neceffity  of  believing  Chri/l'sT)i- 
vinityy  in  oppofition  to  Epifcopius  and  his  Re- 
monjirant  brethren.  Mean  while  the  contro- 
versy which  prevaii'd  chiefly  among  us,  was 
not  upon  the  Arian  but  Socinian  fcheme  -, 
trio  as  Sandius  had  plainly  fhewn  his  opi- 
nion, that  there  was  nothing  which  fhould- 
hinder  thofe  two  parties  from  communi- 
cating with  each  other  \  fo  the  Socinians 
were  generally  of  the   fame  mindc,    and 


a  In  bis  Dogmata  Theolog,  de  Trin.  lib.  i.  finjl.piblijh'd  in 
the- y  tar-  1644... 

b  Nucl.  Hift.  Ecclef.  I.  1.  p.  186.  W<  Paulo  Samofat.  Sz 
p.  229.  de  Aria. 

I  Vid.  vit.  Wiflbwat.  ad  calccm  Sand.  Bibl.  p.  iz6. 

con- 


4 i 6  An  Hiftorkal 'A ccount  of 

Ser.  viii.  content  to  join  with  fuch  as  advanced 
**s^T^  fomewhat  higher  than  themfelves,  provid- 
ed they  denied  the  Son  s  proper  and  ef- 
fential  Divinity.  Some  of  them  adhered 
1687.  to  Biddies  fcheme  already  mentioned d, 
but  the  greater  part  feem  to  have  embraced 
the  grofieft  fort  of  Socinianifm,  as  well  by 
difowning  the  perfonality  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  as  difclaiming  likewife  all  worfhip 
or  invocation  of  Chrift,  for  which  the  ¥0- 
lifh  Socinians  would  doubtlefs  have  rejefted 
their  communion e. 

The  great  increafe  and  boldnefs  of  this 
hcrefy,  gave  occafion  to  a  celebrated  Di- 
1690.  vine  of  our  Church,  to  write  his  Vindica- 
tion of  the  doffrine  of  the  holy  and  ever- 
bleffed  Trinity  ih  who,  by  lbme  terms  he 
made  ule  of  in  the  explication  of  that 
great  myftery,  gave  but  too  plaufible  a  co- 
-lour  (in  the  judgment  of  lbme  perfons)  for 
the  charge  of  Tritheifms  which  became 
the  foundation  of  a  moft  unhappy  contro- 
verfy,  and  provoked  another  great  Divine 
of  our  Church-to  enter  the  lifts  with  him, 
and  propofe  a  different  fcheme  s,  which 
however  it  made  ufe  of  the  catholick  ex- 


A  See  brief  Hift.  of  the  Unitarians,  p.  33,  99. 
c  Ibid.  p.  109. 

f  Dr.  Sherlock1*  Book  with  that  title  was  publijhed  ip  the  year 
[690. 
f  See  Dr.  SouthV  Animadverflons  upon  Dr.  Sherlock. 

'     •• 

2  preffions> 


the  Trinitarian  Controverjy,  427 

preffions ,  was  neverthelcfs  charged  with  Ser.  villi 
Sabellianifm.  Great  was  the  advantage  V^VV4 
which  our  Socinian  adverfaries  made  by 
this  contention.  They  boaftcd  that  the 
Church  was  divided  between  real,  and 
merely  nominal,  Trinitarians  -,  that  thefe 
laft  at  the  bottom  differed  nothing  from 
themfclves,  for  that  under  the  veil  of  ca- 
tholick  expreflions  they  aliened  the  divine 
Unity  in  fuch  a  fenfe,  as  admitted  of  no 
other  diverftty,  but  what  lay  in  the  mode 
of  appearance  or  manifejlation  only  5  that 
therefore  the  Unitarians  themfelves  were 
ready  to  conform,  and  fubferibe  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  they 
expounded  ith;  and  accordingly  they  pre- 
tended to  draw  up  a  fcheme  of  agreement'1 , 
in  which  they  profefs'd  to  own  as  much  as 
thofe  they  called  the  Nominals,  by  admit- 
ting a  Trinity  of  perfons,  provided  by  the 
word  perfons  they  might  be  allow'd  to  un- 
derftand  no  more  than  mere  modes  or  names 
of  relation  k. 

Thus  Socinianifm,    on  a  fudden,   as  far    1694^ 
as   it  refpects  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  Unity,  was  transformed  into  the  ancient 


b  See  Life  of  Mr.  Tho.  Firmin,  p.  17,18,  24..  ^Account 
of  his  Religion,  p.  6. 

'  See  that  fcheme  it  felf  inferted  in  the  Account  of  Mr,  Fir- 
ming Religion,  p.  8,  Sec 

;  ibid  p.  18, 1  p. 


E  e  SabeU 


4i8  An  Hiflorical  Account  of 

Ser.viit.  Sabellianifm.     And  upon  that  bottom  it 
^V^  feems  chiefly  to  have  flood  (altho'  it  made 
but   little  figure)  'till  within   a  few  years 
fince,    the  Arian  fcheme  has  taken  place 
1708.  of  it  again,  being  advanced  by  one  writer 
with   great  freedom    and  affiirance1,    and 
171 2.  more  artfully  difguifed  and  palliated  by  an- 
other"1.    What  topicks  have  been  ufed  to 
recommend  and  enforce  it,  as  well  among 
the  members  of  the  eftablifh'd  Church,    as 
thofe  who  diiTent  from  it ;  and  what  argu- 
ments have  been  employed  to  beat  it  down 
and  deftroy  it,  that  it  feems  now  again  to 
lie  as  'twere  expiring,    are  matters  of  fad 
too  frefh  in  memory  to  need  any  diftindt 
recital. 

We  have  now  brought  down  the  Trini- 
tarian Controverfy  to  our  own  times ;  and 
upon  the  moft  impartial  review  of  the  facls 
which  have  been  dated,  I  conceive  it  muft 
appear,  that  from  the  very  beginning  of 
Chriftianity,  the  Church  has  always  ac- 
knowledged the  real  and  diftind  fubfiftence 
of  three  in  number,  eternally  fubfifting  in 
the  Godhead  5  that  each  of  thefe  by  him- 
felf  has  always  been  acknowledged  to  be 


'Sal  Mr.  Whiflan'i  Letters  in  his  Hiflorical  Preface,  dated 
1708. 

m  Dr.  ClarkeV  Scripture  Doclrine  of  the  Trinity,  firfl  pub* 
lifl?ed  in  thejear   1712. 

truly 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  429 

truly  divine,  and  poffefs'd  of  thofe  perfec-  Ser.  viii; 
tions  which  are  infeparable  from  the  na-  ^^^ 
ture  of  God  i  that  the  Unity  of  the  God- 
head notwithftanding,  has  been  conftantly 
maintained,  arid  when  that  has  been  urged 
as  a  difficulty  in  the  catholick  fcheme,  it 
has  been  ufually  accounted  for  by  referring 
the  fecond  and  third  of  thefe  to  the  firft, 
as  their  head  and  origine,  from  whom 
they  are  eternally  derived,  and  with  whom 
by  a  mutual  inexiftence  and  the  clofeft  u- 
nion,  they  are  cfTentially  and  indivifibJy 
one  5  that  tho'  the  terms  of  generation  and 
procejjlon  were  not  ufed  by  all  the  Ante- 
nicene  writers,  in  the  fame  fenfe  to  which 
the  Toflnicenes  have  applied  them,  namely, 
to  denote  this  eternal  communication  of 
the  divine  nature,  yet  they  allowed  the 
notion  it  felf,  which  the  other  Fathers 
chofe  to  fet  forth  by  thofe  expreffionsj 
that  finally,  althoJ  there  have  been  new 
terms  occasionally  introduced  by  the  Ca« 
tholicks,  yet  thefe  have  made  no  alteration 
in  the  doftrine  it  felf,  but  ferved  only  to 
guard  againft  the  perverfe  conftru&ions  and 
innovations  of  hereticks,  who  abufed  the 
fimplicity  of  the  catholick  language,  to 
conceal  the  deformity  of  their  various  and 
inconfiftent  fentiments. 

But  whilft  we  have  this  conftant  and 
uniform  tradition  to  appeal  to  on  the  ca- 
tholick fide,  what  remains  for  our  adver- 

Ee  z  faries 


'436         &i  Hiftorical  Account  of 

Ser.viii.  faries  to  plead  out  of  antiquity,  for  the  de~ 
^-Of^  fence  and  fupport  of  their  hypothejis? 
They  who  have  obferved  their  manage- 
ment of  this  controverfy,  will  eafily  per- 
ceive, that  they  lay  an  unreafonable  ftrefs 
upon  certain  fcatter'd  paffages  of  fome  an- 
cient authors,  who  writing  before  the  ufe 
of  terms  came  to  be  accurately  fixed  and 
fettled,  did  naturally  fall  into  a  more  laxe 
kind  of  expreflion,  and  cannot  be  imagin- 
ed to  have  guarded  purpofely  againil  fuch 
herefies  as  arofe  not  till  after  them  5  when 
yet  thofe  very  herefies  are  clearly  incon- 
fiftent  with  the  main  fcope  and  defign  of 
thofe  authors  themfelves,  as  well  as  with 
the  whole  ftream  of  antiquity  befides.  As 
foon  as  any  herefies  arofe  in  this  particular, 
whether  upon  the  Sabellian,  the  Satnofa- 
teniany  or  the  Ar'tan  fcheme,  we  have  feen 
how  the  Church  immediately  received  them 
with  abhorrence,  and  held  them  in  the  ut- 
moft  deteftation. 

And  what  has  the  fpirit  of  error  been 
doing  all  this  while,  but  perpetually  fhift- 
ing  its  fcenes,  and  (as  if  it  had  been  driven 
from  one  fortrefs  to  another)  taking  up 
thefe  different  herefies  by  interchangeable 
fucceffion,  and  obtruding  one  delufion  up- 
on the  world,  when  another  has  been  baf- 
fled and  exploded  > 

The  difficulty  of  forming  to  our  felves 

any  juft  idea  of  fo  fublime  a  myftery,  is 

2  that 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  431 

that   fatal  rock  upon  which  thofe  magni-  Ser.viii. 
fiers  of  human  reafon  have  fo  unhappily  ^^ 
fplit    and    made  fhip wrack   of    the   faith. 
The  followers  of  Ebion  firft,    and   after- 
wards of  Theodotus  and  Artemon,   would 
acknowledge  no  other  nature  in  Chrift  be- 
fides  the  human,  that  they  might  aflat  the 
fupreme  Godhead  of  the  Father  only.     But 
when  this  principle  was  found  impoffible 
to  be  maintaind,    and  the  teftimonies  of 
ChrhTs  Divinity  were  too  clear  to  be  e- 
luded,  then  came  Traxeas  and  others  that 
fucceeded   in  the  third  century,    averting 
the  Father  himfelf  to  be  incarnate,   who 
under  that  manifeftation  obtain  d  the  name 
of  the  Son,    that   fo  they  might  acknow- 
ledge  a   divine  nature  in  Chrift,    without 
giving   up  their  darling  hypothefis  of   no 
more  than  one  perfon  really  fubfifting  in 
the  Godhead.     When  this  hypothefis  was 
fufficiently  run  down,  Taulus  Samofatenus 
the  Bifhop  of  Antioch,    feems  inclined  to 
have  revived  the  herefy  of  Artemon  5   but 
after    all    came  Arms  and    his  partifans, 
who  aim'd  to  fplit  the  difference  between 
'em,    by  fuppofing  the  Son  indeed  to  be 
diftinft  from  the  Father,    and  (in  his  new 
fenfe  of  that  expreffion)   to  have  exifted 
before  all  ages,  yet  ftill  without  partaking 
of  the  fame  Subftance  or  Divinity,    to  be 
no  other  than  an  inferior  conftituted  kind 
of  Deity,    altogether  dependent   on  tfce 
E  e  3  will 


43 %  An  Hifiorkal Account  of 

Ser.viii.  will  or  appointment  of  the  Father.     So 
KSY^  that  whilft  they  agreed  with  the  hereticks 
on  both  fides,    in  acknowledging  the  fu- 
preme  Godhead  of  the  Father  only,   they 
yet  afferted  the  diftin&ion  againft  Sabelliu$? 
but  fuch  a  diftin&ion  as  has  no  myfteryj 
namely,   the   fame  which  occurs  between 
creatures  and  Creator  5    and  in  like  man- 
ner they  afferted  Chrift's  Divinity   againft 
Artemon,    but  fuch   a  Divinity   as   agrees 
much   better    with  the   Pagan,    than  the 
Chriftian  Theology  5    namely,    fuch  as   is 
derived  from  arbitrary  conftitution,  and  is 
not  of  its  own  nature  the  fame  from  all 
eternity.     Yet  in  this  too  they  had  diffe- 
rent turns  and  alterations,  fometimes  more 
open  in  their  blafphemies,    at  other  times 
approaching  nearer  to  the  Catholicks,   dif- 
fembling,    difguifing  and  concealing  their 
fentiments,   and  at  length  almoft  granting 
to  the  Catholicks  the   article  of  the  Son, 
that  they  might  oppofe  the  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft  with  greater  earncfhiefs.  When 
thefe  points  had   been  pufhed  every  way, 
and  then  lain  as  it  were  buried  for  many 
centuries  (not  to  mention  now  the  here-* 
ftes  which  arofe  upon  the  do&rine  of  the 
incarnation  only)   we  have,  feen  how  the 
Samofatenian  fcheme  revived  about   two 
hundred  years  ago,  which  after  much  flut- 
tering  and  uncertainty,    and  fplitting  into 
various  parties,  was  by  fomc  modern  rea- 

foners 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  4^  j 

foners  exchanged  for  the  Sahellian,  andsEu.vin. 
that  (when  it  was  found  incapable  of  be-  ^Y^ 
ing  longer  defended)  has  very  lately  re- 
fign'd  its  place  to  the  Arian ;  which  being 
by  this  time  pretty  well  beaten  from  its 
ftrong-holds,  if  it  {hall  ftill  Hand  out  a- 
gainft  the  conviction  of  truth,  it  may  be 
eafy  to  forcfee,  that  it  muft  foon  make 
way  for  the  revival  of  the  Socinian  hypo- 
thefis,  and  the  moft  extravagant  licentiouf- 
nefs  of  private  judgment,  or  elfe  (which  is 
no  diftant  confequence)  lead  men  into 
downright  atheifm  and  infidelity. 

Such  are  the  continued  rounds  and 
changes  of  the  fpirit  of  error.  And  fuch 
they  muft  always  be,  fo  long  as  men  pre-. 
fume  to  judge  of  thefe  fublime  myfteries 
by  the  narrow  compafs  of  their  own  ab- 
ftra&ed  reafonings.  There  can  be  no  end 
of  wrangling  and  contention,  unlefs  we 
refolve  to  fubmit  our  rcafon,  in  matters 
which  we  cannot  fathom,  to  fuch  directi- 
on and  authority  as  is  fufficient  to  conduit 
it,  unlefs  we  humbly  refer  our  felves  to 
revelation,  explained  by  that  light  which 
catholick  tradition  may  furnifh  from  the  ' 
earlicft  ages.  There  muft  be  difficulties  in 
every  other  fcheme  that  is  advanced  about 
the  nature  of  God,  not  lefs  we  may  be 
fure,  and  I  might  have  ventured  to  fay 
much  greater,  than  any  that  can  be  charged 

E  e  4  upon 


434  dn    Wifidricnl  Account  of 

Ser.viit.  upon  the  Catholick.  So  that  they  who 
v^OT^  are  to  be  frighted  with  the  bare  naming 
of  difficulties,  will  be  only  driven  from 
one  fcheme  to  another,  toffed  to  and  fro ', 
and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doc- 
trine,n,  ever  learning,  but  never  able  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  °. 
They  who  are  converfant  in  the  queftions 
which  relate  to  the  exiftence  of  God,  or 
the  government  of  his  providence,  the 
operations  of  his  grace,  or  the  execution 
of  his  decrees,  cannot  be  infenftble,  that 
whatever  fcheme  they  take,  there  muft 
fomething  be  admitted,  which  exceeds  the 
comprehension  of  our  narrow  underftand- 
ings,  and  fwallows  all  our  thoughts  in  an 
unfathomable  obfcurity. 

It  is  time  then,  when  we  are  treating 
of  fuch  Stupendous  myfteries,  as  the  an- 
gels themfelves  can  never  penetrate  j  it  is 
time  to  have  done  with  all  fuch  vain  con- 
fidences in  our  own  reafonings,  to  cafi 
down  imaginations,  and  every  high  thingy 
that  exalteth  it f elf  againft  the  knowledge 
of  God,  and  bring  into  captivity  every 
thmight  to  the  obedience  of  Chrijl*.  It 
is  time  that  we  look  back  to  the  rock 
whence  we  are  hewn%  and  to  the  hole  of 


p  Ephef.  iv.    14,  •  i  Tim.  Hi.  7. 

I  a  Cor.  x.  $%  «  Ifai.lio  i. 


the 


the  Trinitarian  Controversy.  43  $ 

the  pit  whence  we  are  digged  y  that  wesER.vin; 
confider  the  foundation  of  that  Church,  ^W 
into  which  we  pretend  to  be  incorporat- 
ed, and  be  careful  "  <ito  preferve  that 
u  moft  valuable  depofttum,  which  has 
"  been  delivered  to  us  through  the  ages 
"  that  are  paft  5  worfliiping  the  Father  and 
"  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghoft,  acknow- 
"  ledging  the  Father  in  the  Son,  and  the 
"  Son  in  the  Spirit,  in  whofe  name  we 
<c  were  baptized,  in  whom  we  have  pro- 
u  felted  our  belief,  to  whom  we  have  de- 
"  dicated  our  felves ;  diftinguifhing  thus 
*'  in  order  to  unite  them,  and  uniting  in 
"  order  to  diftinguifh  them  ,  efteeming  not 
"  the  three  to  be  one  only  perfon  (as  if 
u  they  were  (o  merely  nominal,  as  to 
x<  have  no  real  fubfiftence!  or  as  if  the 
"  riches  of  God's  grace  extended  to  us  in 
<c  names  or  words  rather  than  realities ! ) 
<c  but  flill  believing  the  fame  three  to  be 
"  one,  though  not  in  perfon,  yet  in  fub- 
"  fiance  or  Godhead,  [that  it  may  not 
be  a  Trinity  of  different  natures,  (for 
why  fhould  the  word  Trinity  be  under- 
ftood  to  number  together  things  different 
in  kind,  any  more  than  a  decad  or  a 
century1?)    but  the  natural   and  neceffary 

conjunftion 


*  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  12.    in  fine. 


43^         '<An  H'tjlorkal  Ac co unt  of 

SER.VIH.  conjun&jon  of  three  perfons  in  the  fame 
VV^  eflence]    "  the  Unity    being  to  be   wor- 
"  fhiped  in  Trinity,    and  the  Trinity  col- 
'"  le&ed  into  Unity,   all  royal,    all  adore- 
"  able,   poffefs'd  of  the  fame  throne  and 
"  glory,    above    all   worlds,    and    before 
"  all   times,    uncreated,    invifible,    inac- 
"  ceffible,  incomprehenfible  5  which  alone 
"  can  underftand  its  own  order  and  oeco-? 
"  nomy,    but  is  equally  by  us  and  with- 
"  out    any    difference    to     be    worfhip'd 
"  and  adored  5    which  only  dwells  in  the 
cc  moft  holy   place   [prefigured  by  the  in- 
raoft    fancluary    in    the    Jewifh    temple] 
"  leaving   all  creatures  without,    fome  fe- 
"  parated  by  the  firft,   and  others  by  the 
"  fecond  veil ;   the  firft  excluding  the  coe- 
?<  leftial    and    angelical    fpirits    from    the 
"  Deity  it  felf,  the  other  {hutting  out  our 
"  human   nature,    as   ftill   inferior   to  the 
<c  angelical.     Let  thefe,    my  brethren,    be 
"  the   fentiments  of  our  minds,    and  the 
"  directions  of  our  pra&ice.     And  as  for 
"  them  who  are  of  an  oppofite  judgment 
cc  as  though  they  labour'd  under  fome  ma- 
"  lignant  difeafe,  let  us  endeavour  all  that 
<e  in  its  lies  for  their  recovery.     But  when 


v'jxiT'.QzfAtvl'A  ;     7roAAes,   «£>   Ufttiuiyfopct,     aecl    kahu    T\£rm%    ctXX 

ix.   q>W£6.'$t     KCtl    OVA    $6><njS    (TXSMl&WXl    CSpify/,2    AVOjAiiyOi    Tti     lhA   AVO- 

l*ivx.   Greg,  Naz.  Orat.  13.  p.  211. 

"  the 


the  Trinitarian  Controverfy.  437 

"  the  difeafe  mall  appear  to  be  incurable,  Ser.  viit. 
[/.  e.  when  fuch  hereticks  fhall  continue  ^-^W/ 
obftinate  and  irreclaimable  after  all  our 
admonitions]  P  it  may  then  concern  us 
"  to  avoid  them  as  the  plague,  and  fhun 
"  them  as  the  bane  of  Chriftianity,  left 
u  inftead  of  imparting  to  them  our  own 
"  health  and  foundnefs  of  mind,  we  mould 
"  our  felves  in  the  end  be  infe&ed  with 
"  their  malignity".  God  grant  that  none 
of  us  may  thus  be  led  away  with  the  er- 
ror of  the  wicked  to  fall  from  our  own 
ftedfaftnefs1,  into  that  gulph  of  perdition, 
but  may  all  continue  in  one  fpirit,  "ftriv- 
cc  ing  together  for  the  faith  of  the  goJj>el{, 
"  a£ted  as  it  were  by  one  foul,  and  mind- 
"  ing  the  fame  thing* 3  that  being  thus 
"  arm'd  with  the  impenetrable  fhield  of 
"  faith,  and  ftrengthen  d  with  the  girdle 
"  of  truth,  we  may  have  but  one  war  to 
iC  manage,  namely,  that  againft  the  evil 
"  one,  and  fuch  as  fhall  prefume  to  fight 
"  under  his  banner  and  dire&ion";  that 
finally  being  thus  combined  in  the  unity 
of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
Son  of  God,  its  influence  may  reach  our 
pra&ice,  and  bind  us  up  by  juft  degrees 
unto  the  perfeff  man,  unto  the  meafure  of 
the  ft  attire  of  the  fidnefs  of  Chriftv,  teach- 

r» |j 

^  ?.  Pet.  Hi.  1 7.    f  Phil,  b  27.     '  Chap.iii.16.     v  Eph.iv.13. 

3  m 


43  8  An  Hiflorical  Accounts/ 

Sir.  viii.  ing  us  to  deny  all  ungodlinefs  and  worldly 
WV  luftsy   and  to  live  foberly,   righteoufly  and 
godly  in  this  prefent  world,   as  looking  for 
that  blejfed  hope,    and  the  glorious  ap- 
pearing of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour 
Jefus  Chrijl w,   to  whom  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Ghoft,   three  peribns  in  the 
unity  of  the  fame  eternal  Godhead,  Unity 
in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity,   be  ren~ 
der'd  and  afcribed,   by  us  and  all  reafon- 
able  creatures,   as  is  moft  due,  all  honour, 
glory,   praife,   might,    majefty  and  domi- 
nion,  now  and  henceforth  for  evermore. 
Amen. 

Z  Tit.  ii.  12,   13. 

FINIS. 


An 


THE 


INDEX. 


mm 


§ 


tioch 


A. 


elardus  (Peter)  being  accufed  of  Herefyy 
apologized  for  himfelf.    Page  374, 37^,  376. 

how  regarded  by  Peter  Lombard    377 

Acacius  (Heretick)  Bijhop  of  Csefarea  in 
Paleftine  22^ 

Chief  of  the  groffer  Arians  23a 

feems  falfe  to  them  233 

is  confenting  in  the  Orthodox  Council  of  An- 

241 

244 

91 

164 


but  not  without  fallacy 
Academicks/*//  into  difrepute  by  their  dijfenjions 
Acephali,  Eutychians/o  called,  and  why 
Achillas  Bijhop  of  Alexandria 

Adaloaldus  King  of  the  Lombards  under  the  regency 

of  Theudelinda,  but  after  a  while  depofed  35-9 

Adoptive  Sonfhip,  how  maintained  by  Felix  Bijhop  of 

Urgel,  and  condemned  by  the  Church      360, 361, 362 

Adrian  {Emperor)  perfecuted  theChriftians,  but  relaxed 

5^,64 

Adrian  (Pope)  his  cenfure  of  Felix  Bifiop  of  Urgel    361 

iEneas  of  Gaza,  an  eye'witnefs  of  the  Confeffors  f peaking 

without  tongues  328,  329 

iEcms 


The   Index. 

/Eons  of  the  Gnofticks  29,  49,  5*0,  $7,  5-8 

. Nicolaitans  30 

— Gerinthians  33 

Bafilides  57 
Valentinus  5*8,' J9, 60, 61,73, 74, 78 

■  Cerdon  and  Marcion  61 
iEfchinifts  (fa  called  from  iEfchines)  afeSt  of  the  Mon- 

tanifts                          '  107 

Aetians,  a  groffer  fort  of  Arians,  224.  fo  called  from 

Aetius,  ordain' d  Deacon  by  Leontius  198 

revives  the  tenets  of  Arius  222,223,  224 

•  isJirnamedAtheift  224 

■  his  fuccefsful  progrefs  2  2  f 
■  is  banijh'd  by  Conftantius  228 

»        ■    ■  deferted  by  his  friends  232 

Agapetus  Bi/hop  of  Rome  345* 

*Ay»«T®- 1  ufed  indifferently  at  firft  to  fignify  uncreat- 

and  ^ed,  fi,  183.  'till  the  latter  had  the  fenfe  of 
*Ayw»T&>J  unbegotten,*» oppofition to Sabellianifm,  183, 

and  became  the  capital  topick  of  the  Arians,  224.   how 

anfwe-Sd  byCatholicks  22£ 

Agilulphus  an  Arian,  marrying  Theudelinda,  is  made 

King  of  the  Lombards,  and  becomes  a  Catholick  35*8 
•— —  he  dies  35*9 

AgnoetcX,  a  feB  of  Eutychians  317 

Agrippa  Caftor  confuted  the  Gnofticks  57 

Alains,  #  Northern  People  come  with  the  Vandals  into 

Spain,  and  remove  to  Africa  322 

Alaric,    Gothic  General  attacks  the  Weftern  Empire 

320,321 

— fettles  in  Gaul  335* 

Alboin  King  of  the  Lombards  conquers  Italy  35" S 

Alciatus  (Paulus)  one  of  Lcelius  SocinusV  Club      390 

arrives  in  Poland  -393 

— — — joins  with  Blandrata  to  promote  the  Samofate- 

m&nfcheme  399 

charged  with  Mahometifm,    but  without  juffi- 


cient  grounds  412 

Alcoran,  the  ufe  made  of  it  by  Servetus  324 

Alcuin,  his  confutation  of  Felix  Bi/hop  of  Urgel  362 

Alexander  Bijhop  of  Alexandria,  oppofed  by  Arius  1 64 

at  a  public k  conference  about  the  Trinity  166 

\  ■"  firft  admoMJh'd  Arius,  then  degraded  him  1 67 


corn^ 


The  Index. 

'  complains  of  the  countenance  fiewn  him  by  fome 
Bijhops  168 

is  written  to  by  Conftantine  170 

^is  Cenfures  confirm' d  at  Nice  187 


Alexander  Bijbop  o/Antioch  199 

Alexander  Bifhop  of  Conftantinople  rejects  Arius    20? 
Alexandria,  School  of  by  whom  governed  87,  88 

Alogi  {Hereticks)  82, 83 

Ambrofe  Bijbop  of  Milan  after  Auxentius  242 

fruftrates  the  Emprefs  Juftina'j  endeavours  for 
Arianifm  321 

■  his  doctrine  of  the  proceffion  of  the  holy  Ghoft 

367 
Ammonius,  Chriftian  Philofopher  88,  91 

Amphilochius  Bijbop  of  Iconium  induces  Theodofius 
to  reftrain  Hereticks  268 

Anabaptifts,  fome  Socinians  fo  called  396 

their  outrages  in  Germany  41 3 

■  their  fanatical  tenets  in  England  419,  422 

"Aweft^  the  twofold  fenfe  of  that  word  78,  79 

Anaftafius  Presbyter  of  Conftantinople,  firfi  broacher 
of  Neftorianifm  273 

— is  fup^orted  by  Neftorius  27 j- 

ilnaftafius  (Eutychian  Emperor)  334 

his  fcheme  of  comprehenjion  315' 

Anatolius,  Chriftian  Philofopher  88 

Anima  Mundi  {one  of  the  Platonick  principles)         8? 

Anomaeans,  Hereticks,  224,  227,  228,  231,  232,  233, 
241.    fo  called  from  their  averting  the  Son  to  be 

'Av&(*oi<&>  r5  itwrtf.   That  phrafe  introduced  by  Aetius  223 

'A»'j*«^.  That  word  rejected  at  Rimini,  as  well  o[*°x<ri(&» 
and  offioixtri®'  2 30,  232 

Antioch,  the  fchifm  in  that  Church  confideSd,  196, 197, 
198,  199.  It  occajioned  a  mifunderftanding  between 
the  Eaftern  and  Weftern  Churches  199 

Antoninus  Pius  (Emperor)  62,  64 

Aphthartodocet*.T  *  **  *  Eutychwns  317 

• ' — called  alfo  Julfanifts  319 

Apollinarfans  60,189,237 

■  ■  had  aBiJJjop  at  Antioch  199 

■  their  tenets,  and  the  judgment  of  the  Catholic h 
concerning  them  25*1— —25-6 

■     three 


The  Index. 

—     ■  ■  three  different  fe£is  of  them  3,^4 

'how  ftruck  at  by  the  Council  of  Conftantinople 

260, 263, 264, 304, 30? 

■  rejected  the  word  ©£otb'*©^  for  a  reafon  different 

from  Neftorius  273 

charged  Catholicks  with  the  herefy  which  was  af- 


ter embraced  by  Neftorius  27? 

"  ■  occajion'd  enlargements  in  the  Creed  310 

thow  imitated  by  the  Eutychians      287, 299, 316 
Apollinaris  Bilbop  of  Laodicea:  his  Herefy,  25-1,  25*2. 
the  horrid  conferences  of  it,  2  $3.    not  own'd  by  him- 
felf  25*4 

'is  ufed  tenderly  by  the' Catholicks,  iff.    till  Se- 
parating he  is  dif claimed  if 6 
'his  notions  charged  upon  fame  Catholicks  in  the 


fifth  century,  by  Neftorius  279,  284 

Apology  of  Quadratus  ^6 

of  Ariftides  ibid. 

of  Juftin  Martyr  61, 64,  66 

>of  Athenagoras  61,6s 

of  Tertullian  ibid 

• ofMelito                         >  6/,  67 

Apuleius  had  no  notion  of  the  Trinity  from  Plato     101 

Arcadius,  Eaftern  Emperor  272 

Arianifm,  its  firft  rife,  167.     its  malignity  174 

• -palliated  by  Eufebius  of  Nicomedia  21 1 

— —  encouraged  by  Conftantius  ibid. 

■■           its  favourers  offended  at  Photinus  2  r  4 

■  openly  efpoufed  by  Conftantius  218 

■  carried  high  at  Alexandria,  by  George  of  Cap- 
padocia  220 

■  triumphs  over  Orthodoxy  221 
'brought  to  perfection  by  Aetius  224,  225* 


ftruck  at  in  all  its  branches,  by  Athanafius     241 

■     ...  its  ft  ate,  how  different  in  the  Eaft  and  Weft 

242 

■  its  downfal  in  the  Eaft  269 

declined  without  human  fupport  271 

■      its  revival  in  the  Weft  by  Goths,  &c.  270, 320, 

,        ,       334.337, 338 

exttnguijhyd  /wGaul,  and  weakened  in  Spain  339 

rooted  out  of  Africa,  345*.   and  Italy,  347.   and 
Spain  3  ji,  3P;  3*3 

1  intro- 


The  I  n  d  e  x. 

'Introduced  again  into  Italy  by  the  Lombards 

3f4 
111  in  what  ft  ate  it  continued  under them ,  3^9.  and 

hovj  it  was  fubdued  360 

is  univerfally  extirpated  362 

■  charged  upon  Peter  Abelard  37^ 
profefs'dby  fame  of  Loelius  SocinusV  Club     39a 

how  introduced  into  Poland  395*,  399 
how  brought  into  England  419,428,433 

-  and  how  detefted  389,  420,  &c, 


Arianizers 

Arians  chargd  with  mixtures  of  Philofophy 

differ1  d  little  from  Platonifts 

lay  claim  to  Origefl 

—  are  choafCd  with  the  word  c/*«»e-*^* 

■  invocate  the  Son 

their  abufe  of  catholick  phrafes     1 74- «  1 79 

■  ■  ■  encreafe  at  Constantinople  206 

■  their  manifold  divijions  207 

-* whether  caWd  by  the  name  of  Photinians      214 

"  ■  their  fubdi-vifions  221 

^  whole  world  become  Arian  231 

groffer  Arians  232,  243 

— heretical  about  the  Holy  Ghoft  234 

their  agreement  with  Macedonians  246 

'  their  behaviour  under  Theodolius  272 

■  variation  of  ftyle  againft  them  not  Unreafonablt 

311 
how  long  they  had  Bijhops  at  Constantinople 

339 

■  Polifh  Hereticks  caWd  Arians  39^ 
ho  w  far  agreed  with  Sabcllians  41 1 
ana  with  Socmians                                         42^ 


Aribert,  King  of  the  Lombards  thought  to  be  a  Catho- 

lick  m  36° 

Arioaldus,  an  Arian,   made  King  of  /^Lombards, 

had  a  Catholick  Queen,  and  was  favourable  35*9 

Ariftides  Chrifltan  Apologift  56 

Anftotle  (Philofopher)  dijliked  by  Juft.  Mart.  92 

lefs  efteem'd  than  Plato        !  96 

Anus     130, 137, 141,  iyo,  15-2,190, 191, 192,  204,  207, 

222,226' 
1  being  difappo'mted  of  the  Bijhoprick  of  Alexan- 

F  f  dria, 


The  I  n  d  e  x. 

dria,  broach* d  his  Herefy  in  oppojition  to  him  who  was 

chofen  164 

»        his  blafphemous  pofitions  about  the  Son  of  God  1 64,1 6f 

rankd  with  Ebion,  &c.  i6y,  166" 

charged  his  Bijhop  with  Sabellianifm  166 

-is  degraded,  but  applies  to  other  Bijh ops  167 

is  countenanced  by  fome  1 68 

how  [aid  to  change  the  Doxology  169 

• written  to  by  Conftantine  170 

— —  difcountenanced  by  him  171 
his  behaviour  at  Nice;  and  the  proceedings  there- 
upon                                                      172            -187 
■  '■       banijh'd  by  the  Emperor,   189.    whom  he  after- 
wards  fatis fie  d  by  prevaricating  191 

is  rejected  by  Athanafius  1 92, 200 

■  raifes  difturbances  at  Alexandria  205" 

and  at  Conftantinople,  where  he  impofes  on  the 

Emperor  205 

his  aftonijhing  death  206 

\ the  Creed propofed  by  him  261 

— — pretended  to  fplit  the  difference  between  both  ex- 

tr  ernes  431,432 

'ApnoiOi®' **o?ewi*t  Th  eod otusV  herefy  fo  called  83 

*4fTOg»&©-  xukU,  Paul  of  Samofata'j  herefy  fo  called  143 
Artemon  (Herejiarcb)    33,  5*4,  84,  124,  126,  143,  145-, 
"    157,166,213,411,431,43a 
Articles  of  Reltgton  (Englifh)  how  oppofite  to  Arianifm 

420,421,  422 
AfTembly  of  Divines,  their  oppofition  to  Biddle  423 
Afterius  the  Arian  Sophift,  written  againfl  by  Mar cellus 

202,  203 

Athanagilde  King  of  the  Vifigoths  in  Spain,  fecretly  a 

Catholick,  yet  fupported  Arianifm  349 

Athanaiius     136, 139, 145-,  146,165, 190, 191, 205-,  22?, 

235-,  245-,  246 

— —  defends  Origen  122 

■  and  commends  Theognoftus  135 

was  a  Deacon  at  the  Council  of  Nice  172 

— but  active  againfl  Arius  173 

'  .  is  made  B ijhop  of  A 1  exan d  r  ia  191 

'  will  not  admit  Arius  to  communion         192, 200 

gpim  i    fettles  the  meaning  of  the  word  vms-uw     194, 

195-,  196 


The  Index, 

1  "  '  is  charged  with  many  crimes  at  Tyre,  depofed 
and  banijhed  20O 

■—  his  friendjhip  and  doubts  about  Marcel  1  us      204 
is  recalled  from  banijhment  by  Conftamius,  but 


foon  dijlurb'd  again  208 

accufed  to  Pope  Julius,  but  acquitted  ibid. 

recalVd  again  by  Conftantius  216 

condemn *d  at  Aries  and  Milan  217 

— — -—fhrc'd  again  to  fly  to  the  defer ts  220 

returns  under  Julian,   and  promotes  Orthodoxy 


with  his  Council  237 

»'  writes  to  the  Church  of  Antioch  in  behalf  of  fuch 

Clergy  as  h.id  fallen  and  were  reconciled,  but  is  op- 

pofed  by  Lucifer  238 

holds  another  Council  under  Joviari  241 

1  is  obliged  to  a  fhort  retirement  under  Valens  247 

6  his  oppojition  to  the  Apollinarians  254,  iff 

■  his  doclrine  with  refpeB  to  the  proceflion  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft  369 

Atheifm  charged  upon  the  Chriftians  64 

■  the  charge  of  it  how  anfwefd  by  Juftin  6f,  66, 67 

■  and  by  Athenagoras  67, 68 
-  charged  on  fome  Socinians  41 2 
Athenagoras,  Chri/iian  Apologifl         62, 6f,  67, 68, 15-7 

mafler  of  the  fchool  at  Alexandria  87 

Auguftine  {Saint  and  Bifhop  of  Hippo)       36, 143, 14^ 

.  his  letters  to  Boniface,  and  difputes  with  Maxi- 

mine  32r 

■  his  dofirine  of  the  proceflion  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 

367 
Autharis  King  of  the  Lombards  tn  Italy  35-6 

puts  their  affairs  in  better  order  357 

^  publijhes  an  Edic?  againft  Catholick  Baptifm^  and 

dies  ibid- 

Autolycus,  TheophilusV  book  addrefs'd  to  him  62 

'Ai/tb^©-,  Character  of  the  Father  only  6%  70, 26? 

Auxentius  (x^rian)  Bifiop  of  Milan  24a 

Axitheus,  an  Interlocutor  in  iEneas  of  GafcaV  dialogue 

328 


F  f  %  Baptifmj 


B 


The   Index. 


b. 

Aptifm,  the  form  of  it  the  ftandard  both  of  faith  and 
worjhip  1^8 

■  '  how  altered  by  Eunomius  234 

and  how  by  Deuterius  340 

Catholick  prohibited  by  Autharis  35-7 

Barnabas  (Apoftle)  40,  46 

Bafil  (Magnus)        42,139, 142,146,15-8,204,246 

his  Liturgy  15-9 

■  ■  his  promotion  to  the  See  of  Caefarea :  his  care  of 

the  Churches  under  perfecution :  his  caution  in  fpeak- 

ing  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  248, 249 

his  doctrine  with  refpefi  to  the  proceffion  of  the 


Holy  Ghoft  369 

Bafil  (Semiarian)  Bijhop  of  Ancyra  202,226 

Bafilides,  difciple  of  Menander,   improved  the  doctrine 

of  iEons  57 

Bafilifcus  (ufurping  Emperor)  310 

Bathori  (Chri(topher)  Prince  of  Tranfylvania  400 

Bathori  (Stephen)  Prince  of  Tranfylvania,    and  then 

King  of  Poland  397,  398,  400 

Belifarius,  JuftinianV  General  fub due d  the  Vandals  in 

Africa  34? 

■ '  and  afterwards  the  Oftrogoths  in  Italy         346 

— /j  employ' d  in  the  Perfian  War  ibid. 

Bernard  {Saint)  oppofes  Petrus  Abelardus  374 

but  is  reconciled  %j6 

confutes  Gillebert  of  Poictiers  ibid, 

Bertaride  King  of  the  Lombards  is  zealous  to  convert 

his  people  from  Arianifm,  and  effects  it  360 

Beryllus  Bijhop  of  Boftra,    his  herefy  and  conversion 

123,124,142 
Biddellians,  a  fort  of  Socinians,  424.    followers  of 
Biddle  (John)  his  herefy  and  fufferings     422,  423,  424, 

426 

Blandrata,  one  of  Loelius  SocinusV  club  390 

—  detected  at  Geneva,  goes  to  Poland  393 

'is  purfued  by  Calvin V  letters,  but  invited  to 

Tranfylvania  as  Phyfician  398 

>fate« 


leaves  the  Arian,  and  propagates  the  Samofate- 
nian  fcheme                                                   399, 401 
« */>* 


The   Index.' 

'" "         oppofes  thofe  who  denied  the  worjhlp  of  Chri/i, 
and   calls  in  Fauftus  Socinus  to  his  ajfiftance  401, 

402 

"  yet  after  that  went  over  to  them,  and  in  the  end 

left  the  Socinians  40^ 

Boniface,  Roman  General  in  Africk  correfponds  with 

St.  Auguftine  321 

■  invites  the  Vandals  into  Africa,  and  why     322 

Boniface  Bijhop  of  Carthage  343 

Brownifts,  a  fed  of  Englilh  Enthufiafts  422 

Budnaeifts,   Hereticks  in  Poland,   406,  407.    fo  called 

from 
Budnasus  (Simon)  who  denied  the  worfhip  of  Chrifi 

406 
Bull  {Bijhop)  his  writings  on  the  fubjecl  of  the  Trinity 

425* 
Bulgarians,  the  right  of  jurifdicJion  over  them  difputed 

366 
Burgundians,   Arian  inhabitants  of  part  of  Gaul  332, 

333 
fome  of  them  converted  by  conference  with  Ca- 
tholicks  335* 
•conquered  by Clovis                                           ibid. 
-             become  Cat  ho  licks,  and  one  people  with  the  French 

338 
By  thus,  one  of  the  Gnoftick  JEons  j®yS%74* 


CAius,  Roman  Presbyter,  wrote  againfl  Artemon 

Calvin,  his  account  of  Servetus  383,384 

— — —  his  part  in  the  reformation  385* 

his  opinion  of  Ochinus  388 

■  his  letters  to  Poland  againfl  Blandrata  398 

■  his  exceffes  about  Grace  drove  fome  to  the  other 

extreme  414 

Calvinifts,  miftake  of  fome  of  them  about  the  Author  of 

the  explication  of  the  firfl  of  St.  John  404 

«— — -their  narrow  notions  of  God's  Grace  and  Decrees 

414 
Capito  charged  with  herefy,  and  on  what  grounds  383 
Carpocrates  (Herefiarch)  48, 57 

Ff3  Carpo- 


The   Index. 

Carpocratians,  fpecially  ftyled  Gnotiicks  29 

Cafimir  King  of  Poland  fuppreJYd  and  banijh'd  the  So- 
cinians  416,417 

Catechumens,  how  intruded  21,  &c.  188 

Cellarius  tindured  with  herefy  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Reformation  383 

Cerdon  (Herejiarch)  61 

Cerinthians  (Hereticks)  36,  38,  S°  f°  caWd  from 
Cerinthus  (Herejiarch)  32,  48,  p,  60 

Charifmata,  in  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  139 

Chailemaign,  or  Charles  the  Great,  conquers  ^Lom- 
bards, and  has  the  title  of  Roman  Emperor  360 
'his  interpojition  in  the  cafe  of  Felix  Bifhop   of 
Urgel                                                         36^373 
Chrift  (heavenly)  poflerior  ?o  ValentineViEoiis,  5-9.  and 
diflind  from  Chrift  upon  earth  60 
XfisWiws,  that  term  hovj  ufed  by  Neftorius                  276 
Chryfoftom,  his  Liturgy                                           1^9 
Claudius  (Emperor)  31 
Clemens  Alexandrinus                                    61, 62, 63 
i              his  teftimonies  conjlder'd                    77>'       '      So 

1 r-Mafter  of  the  School  at  Alexandria  87, 88 

Clemens  Romanus  40,41,43,46, $ f 

Clovis  King  of  the  Franks  converted  to  Chriftianity  334 

■ —-the  Mod  Ghriitian  King  335- 

conquers  Burgundians  and  Goths  ibid„ 

j -—and  efiablipes  Catholicifm  335*,  338 

Cceleftine  (Pope)  excommunicates  Neftorius  282 

his  ads  are  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Ephefus 

285- 
Collucianifls,  firft  Arians  called  themfelves  15-0 

Communion,  letters  of  105* 

Conftans  joined  with  younger  Conftantine  in  the  Wef- 
tern  Empire  .206 

■—— — -"hears  $he  deputies  of  Macedonius  209 

and  thinks  ill  of  them  2 1  p 

r —protects  Orthodoxy  211 

»       ,.'    joins  with  Conllantius  to  call  the  Council  of 

Sardica  215* 

t  \    .      '  injifls  on  reftoring  the  deprived  Bifoops,  <and  dies 

216 
Conflantia,  wife  to  Licinius,  fifter  of  Conftantine,  fa- 
vours Arius  170 


The  Index. 

i  i         ■  recommends  an  Arian  to  ConftantineV  favour^ 

who  impofes  on  him  191 

Conftantine  the  Great  {Emperor)        ,  161,166 

encouraged  the  Church,    and  fubdued  Licinius 

162,  170 

■  writes  to  Alexander  and  Arius  170 
m  being  fatisfied  by  Hofius  of  the  impiety  of  the 

latter,  refohes  to  call  the  Council  of  Nice   "        171 
banifhes  thofe  whom  the  Council  excommunicates 

189 
1  yet  is  after  all  impofed  on  by  the  Arians  190 

and  particularly  by  one  whom  his  Sifter  had  re- 
commended 191 

■  his  Church  at  Jerufalem  dedicated  201 
>is  impofed  on  by  Arius  20 J* 
his  death                                                      206,  269 


Conftantine  the  younger,  joined  with  Conftans  in  the 
Weftern  Empire  206 

Conftantius  (Eaftern  Emperor)  bdnifi'd  Meletius    198 
1  is  a  great  perfecutor  206,  207 

<yet  at  firft  recals  the  banip'd  Bi/hopj  208 

whether  really  an  Arian  207 

encouraged  Arianifm  in 

■     .  confents  to  the  Council  of  Sardica  21  £ 

again  recals  the  deprived  Bijhops  216 

is  in  poffejfion  of  the  whole  Empire  ibid. 

...         1  1  appears  then  more  openly  in  the  inter  eft  0/ Aria- 
nifm, and  carries  on  a  grievous  per fecution     218,  &c 

favours  the  Semiarians  227,228 

.  his  proceedings  with    the  Council  of  Rimini 

229,  &c. 
he  is  after  drawn  over  by  the  gr offer  Arians  232 
-his  death  236 


Conftitutions  (Apoftolical)  36 

the  Liturgies  in  them  l$9 

■  the  Creed  261 
Confubftantial,  vid.  ipwi®* 

Cophti,  Egyptians  fi  called,  for  the  mo  ft  part  Eutychi- 

ans,  and  why  3*4 

Corrupticolse,  afefi  of  Eutychians  317 

■  by  what  other  names  called  319 
Cofroes  King  of  Perfia,  promoted  Neftorianifm,  and 

why  3H 

F  f  4  Cof&cks, 


The   Index, 

ColTacks,  their  irruption  in  Poland  416 

Council  of 

—  Aix  la  Chapelle,  againft  Felix  of  Urgcl       362 

. Alexandria  againft  Arius  167 

about  the  word  v^s-a^s,  &C.    19^,  196, 

237,  25-4 
certifying  for  Athanafius  209 

under  Jovian,  held  by  Athanafius       241 

•*£<«»/?  Apollinaris  25*6 

Antioch  «£o#*  Paulas  Samofatenus     142,  147, 

148,  149,  183,  184 
under  Jovian,  held  by  Meletius,   24T, 

244 
againft  Apollinaris,  and  to  reflore  Ortho- 


doxy 25*8 

« Aquileia  under  Theodofius  214,  2^9 

Ariminum  or  Rimini,  228,.    iwpofed  on  by' the 


Arians  229, 232 

Aries  forced  into  Arian  rneafures  216 

Carthage  under  Boniface  343 

under  Kcparatus  345" 


Chalcedon  (General)     267,  280,  286,  304,  &c. 

3lS,H9 
— — Conftantinople  (General)  66>  243, 256,  2^9,  &c 

364 

« againft  Eutyches  288,  301 

in  the  fixth  century  311 

Ephefus  {General)  267,284,  &c. 

— I — -Florence,  concerning  the  differences  between  the 
Greeks  and  Latins  36^ 

Frankfort  condemned  Felix  of  Urgel  361 

"        whether  it    condemned   the  worfhip  of 

images  362 

Jerufalem,  in  the  fixth  century  .311 

lllyricum  244,25-0 

'- —  Lateran  againft  Joachim  378 

■ Milan  tf^/tf  Photinus  213 

about  Athanafius  217 


-  Nice  {General)  5-4.  charged  with  Platonifm,  86. 

The  proceedings  in  it  ft  ate  d  111^ J&9 

Ratisbon  againft  Felix  of  Urgel  361 

Rimini,  via.  Ariminum 

— — Rome  about  Diony Cms  Alexandrinus   128,130 


The  Index. 

■•  "  about  deprived  Eaftern  Biftops  20$ 

""  ■  againfl  Apol  1  inaris  2ff,  25-6 

■  ■  under  Pope  Felix  331 

againfl:  Felix  B/^&op  of  Urgel  362 

"-Sardica  203,213,215* 

■Sens  againfl  Peter  Abelard  37^ 

Soifons  againfl  Peter  Abelard  374 

Toledo,   »»^r  /£/»£  Recarede,  prefcribed  the 

recital  of  the  Creed  in  the  daily  offices  310,311,35-3, 

372 
• ■  Tyana  in  Cappadocia  245* 

■  ■        Tyre,  in  the  Jixth  Century  311 
Councils  {heretical  or fepar ate)  of 

! Ancyra:  Semiarians  againfl  the  Anomseans227 

— —  Antioch  depofed  Euftathius  196 

■  another  makes  Meletius  Bifbop  198 

appointed  a  Biftop  in  the  room  of  Atha- 

nafius  208, 2C0 

—  Casfarea  in  Paleftine  200 

• Conftantinople:   Eufebians  deprive  Marcellus 

202 
grojfer  Arians  headed  by  Acacius       232 


—  Ephefus,  held  feparately  from  the  General     285* 

Philippopolis  falfly  called  Sardica  215* 

Seleucia/W<?r  Conftantius  228,231,232 

Toledo :  Arians  under  Leuvigilde  35-0 

■Tyre  depofed  Athanalius  200 

Cranmer  (Archbijhop  of  Canterbury)  his  favour  to  O- 
chinus  419 

Creation  of  the  world  performed  by  inferior  powers,  ac- 
cording to  Simon,  29.  and  the  Nicolaitans,  30.  and 
all  Simon'j  followers,  33,  39.  Cerdon  and  Mar- 
cion  61 

■ —  this  notion  oppofed  by  St.  John  39 

■ its  being  performed  by  Chrift  urged  againfl  the 

Gnofticks  as  a  proof  of  his  Divinity  40 

Creed  (baptifmal)  taught  the  Catechumens  in  the  firfl 

ages  21, 26,309,310 

■  of  Irenceus,  Tertullian,  Origen  23 

*  enlarged  as  herejies  arofe  24,  260 

x^poftles  or  Roman  ibid.  188,261 

j-» fttmnfd  up  in  the  confeffion  of  three  divine  per- 
sons 2? 

more 


The  Inde  x. 

—  '  more  largely  explained  by  Catechifls  26 

—  Eaftem  Creeds,  66,261.     why  larger  308 

—  Weftern  1 88, 266,  308,  309 

—  of  Aquileia  1 32, 1 88, 261 

— of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  1 38 1 41 

— —  of  Eufebius  of  Caefarea  offered  at  Nice  1 73 

■  of  Eufebius  of  Nicomedia,   rejected  at     4-ce 
with  abhorrence  1 74 

>of  Jerufalem  173, 188, 261,309 


*  of  Nice,  1 8?,  308 ,  &C.     —Jubfcri  bed  h    .  >me 

of  Anus's  friends,  but  notfincerely,  186, 1H7.  not 

meant  as  the  baptifmal  Creed,  yet  iti  explications  in- 

ferted  in  the  Eaftern  Creeds,  i§8,  309.     did  not 

fuperfede,  but  explain  the  Creeds  Ufed  in  the  fever al 

Churches,  260, 261, 262,  309. what  alterations 

were  made  in  it  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 

263,  &c.     it  was  retained  at  Alexandria  after 

the  Council  of  Constantinople  266,267 

of  Epiphanius  189, 2ft',  264.265*,  310 

of  Conltantinople  189,260, 268,310 

—  Arian  Creeds  in  great  variety,  207, 218, 225*,  227, 

228,230,233,270 

African  261 

■ European  ibid. 

« •  of  Antioch  in  the  Apoftolical  Confutations  ibid. 

■  and  another  approved  at  Conftaiitinople  267 
— —  ancient  Creed  propofed  by  Arius  and  Euzoius  261 
"            ■  later  Creeds  form  d  upon  the  foot  of  ancient  307 

whenfirfi  received  into  the  daily  offices  in  the  Ealt 

311 
and  when  in  the  Weft :  as  firji  in  Spain,     311, 

3*3*37* 

■  /»  France  and  Germany  373 

■  when  augmented  with  the  word  Filioque  364, 

374 
Cromwel,  his  ufurpation  422 

— his  treatment  of  Biddle  423, 424 

Cud  worth,  his  opinion  of  Plato'/  doctrine  98 

■  obferves  a  difference  between  Ariansd#*/Plato- 

nifts  '      102 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  prefided  in  the  Council  of  Ephefus, 

267 
^-— — for  Anathemas  «g*/#/2Neftorius      .  282 

■■  i     and 


The  Index. 

■     '  and  Neftorius'j  againfl  him  283 

■  opinion  of  John  of  Antioch,  and  Theodorit  con- 
cerning him  283, 284 
ns  anathemas  are  confirmed  by  the  Council  of 


Ephefus  285- 

is  cenfured notwithfianding  by  the  feparate  Coun- 


cil ibid. 

■  is  received  at  laft  by  the  Eaftern  Bijhops       ibid. 

guarded  hisfenfe  better  thanfome  of  his  followers 

286,287 
'■  is  fucceeded  by  Diofcorus  302 

r  his  teftimony  with  refped  to  the  proceffion  of  the 

Holy  Ghoft  369,  371 

Cyril  of  Jerufalem  66 

*        '  'his  Creed  173, 188,261,309 

D. 


D 


Amafus  (Pope)  195* 

oppofes  the  Apollinarians  25*5',  25-6 

Davidis  (Francifcus)  oppofes  the  worfhip  of  Chriit  401 

1 is  oppofed  by  Socinus,  403,  404.     but  without 

effea         #>  405* 

dies  in  prifon  406 


Debauchery  charged  upon  the  Chriftians  64 

1  denied  by  their  Apologia*  s  65* 

■  perhaps  owing  to  the  Gnofticks  ibid. 

Decad  of  the  Valentinians  73 

Dedication  of  the  Churcn  at  Jerufalem  201 

Demiurgus,  the  Creator  according  to  Valentinus  59,60 
■ origine  of  evil,  according  to  Cerdon  and  Mar- 

cion  61 

Demophilus,  Arian  Bijhop  of  Constantinople  257 
Deuterius,  Arian  Bijhop  of  Conftantinople,  altered  the 

form  of  Baptijm  339 

Didymus,  Schoolmafler  of  Alexandria  88 

Dimaeritae,  another  name  for  Apollinarians  25'f 

Dioclefian,  Emperor  and  Pe*fcutor  161 

Diogenes  Laertius,  had  no  notion  of  the  Trinity  from 

Plato  ior 

Dionyfins  (Pope)  lag 

■  his  eptftle  jhews  there  were  fom?  Tritheifls  and 

forerunners  of  Arius,  but  difupproved}  136,  137, 138, 

165- 
Dionyfius, 


The  Index. 

Dionyfius,   Schoolmafter  (after  Bijhop)  of  Alexandria 

88,121 

ft his  Doxology  1 5-8 

• writes  againft  the  Sabellians  127 

—  and  is  charged  with  the  contrary  extream  128 

—  but  defends  himfelf  at  large  to  his  namefake  of  Rome 

128,129 

1 from  whence  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  at  that 

time  is  evident  1 30 

—  his  epijtle  to  Paul  of  Samofata,   whether  genuine 

144 

why  not  at  the  Council  of  Antioch  147 

Diofcorus  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  prejides  in  the  fe- 
lonious Council  of  Ephefus  302 

and  favours  Eutyches  303 

is  depofed  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  306 

yet  efpoufed  by  fome  who  condemned  Eutyches  31$% 

3J9 
Ditheifm  266 

Dodecad  of  the  Valentinians  73 

Dodwel,  his  opinion  of  the  time  of  Praxeas  105- 

Docetxr  3*>57,<k 

Domnus  Bijhop  of  Antioch  148 

Doxology  in  what  form  41, 5-6, 70,  79, 117, 15-7 

« defended  by  St.  Bafi 1  1  y8, 247 

——  virtual  in  the  name  of  Holy  Ghoft  1 60 

■ whether  changed  by  Arius  1 69 

disorders  about  it  in  the  Church  of  Antioch        1  97 

difputeswith  the  Macedonians  concerning  it  246, 

247 
Dyads  of  the  Valentinians  73 


E. 

EBion  (Hereftarch)  48, 1 26, 1 6^,  2  i  2, 2 1 3,  43 1 

Ebionites  (judaizing  Here  ticks)  denied  ChrijVs  Di- 

"'"''*        r*.    «r  ,vt  34,38,49,82,83 

»  ■      were  dtftmcl  from  the  Nazarens  '■'  <        35" 

■         always  detefted  by  the  Church  36 

« were  chiefly  in  Judaea  48 

—  their  herefy  revived  by  Lcelius  Socinus  391 

Edward 


The  Index. 

Edward  VI.  King  of  England :  what  was  thought  of  A- 

rianifm  under  htm  389, 419, 422 

Eleutherus  fuppofed  by  Bijhop  Pearfon  to  be  Pope  when 

Praxeas  came  to  Rome  joj* 

Elipandus  Bijhop  of  Toledo,    his  concern  with  Felix 

Bijhop  of  Urgel,  upon  the  quejlion  of  adoptive  Son- 

(hip  360,361,373 

Elizabeth  Queen  of  England :  fiate  of  Arianifm  under 

her  421,42a 

Ennoea,    the  pretended  female  production  of  SimonV 

mind  28 

'EvwWpl^^  what  it  means  68 

Epicureans  (feci  of  Philofophers)  90.   caWdfrom 
Epicurus  96 

Epiphanes  fin  of  Carpocrates  (Heretick)  5-8 

Epiphanius     29,  35*,  5-8,  82,  83, 144, 145-,  220,  226,  iff 

1 his  Creed  I 89,  25*5',  264, 265* 

his  teftimony  with  refpeft  to  the  proceffion  of  the 

Holy  Ghoft  370,  371 

Epifcopius,    his  latitudinarian  notion  with  refpett  to 

Chrift's  Divinity  confuted  by  BiJhopBull  425* 

Erafmus  Johannis,  Heretick  in  the  Athnfcheme:   his 

controverfy  with  Socinus  408 
'Erfpouo-io^  that  term  introduced  by  AetlUS  223 
Evagrius  (Euftathian)  Bijhop  0/ Antioch  199 
Eudoxius  (Arian)  Bijhop  o/Antioch  196,225- 
is  depofed                                                               228 

—  translated  to  Constantinople  198, 233 
— —help'd  to  pervert  Valens  242 

is  fucceeded  by  Demophilus  257 

Eugenius  Bijhop  of  Carthage  324 

has  a  conference  with  the  Arians  325* 

is  recall1  d  from  banijhment  331 

injlrumental  in  rejloring  others  332 

Eulalius  (Arian)  Bijhop  0/ Antioch  196 

Eunomians :  groffer  Arians  224 

• indulged  by  Julian  237 

yet  loji  ground  239 

—  excepted  from  GratianV  indulgence  257 
Eunomius  (Herejiarch)  224 

banffidby  Conftantius  228 

~ made  Bijhop  of  Cyzicus  233 

de- 


The  Index. 

'■— — *  depofed  for  the  groffnefs  of  his  herefy,  and  often  ba» 
nijh  d  234 

1 alter }d  the  form  of  Baptifm  ibid 

how  treated  by  Theodofius  268. 

Euphronius  (Arian)  Bijhop  of  Antioch  196 

Euric  King  of  the  Viiigoths,  enlarges  the  Gothic  domi- 
nion, 332.    and  perfecutes  the  Catholicks  333 
Eufebians  (fo  called  from  Eufebius  of  Nicomedia)  196, 

20f,  208 
Eufebius  of  Ccefarea       29,  ^4,  57* 84, 88, 142, 143, 1 ss 

his  apology /^rOrigen  *   122 

■ his  teftimony  to  the  word  c[A$cocno<;  131,132 

his  Greed  offered  at  Nice  1 73, 1 74 

-  agrees  with  the  Council  181,182 

writes  againft  Marcellus  202 

Eufebius  of  Nicomedia  patronizes  Arius  168, 169, 170 
« his  Creed  rejected  by  the  Council  with  abhorrence 

r       •     ,     ,      o  *73,  174 

— —  denied  the  Son  to  be  of  the  fubftance  of  the  Father 

177 

—  mofi  averfe  to  the  term  opecta-tos  1 79 

ftands  out  a  while  againft  the  Council  1 81 

—  at  laftfubfcribes  infincerely  187 

. yet  is  banijtfd,  but  quickly  reftored  1 90 

afperfes  Athanafius  200 

wants  to  be  tranflated  to  Constantinople  206 

is  actually  inftalCd  208 

appoints  Gregory  to  the  See  of  Alexandria,  and 

dies  209 

— p allt at* d  Arianifm  211 

* what  fort  of  likenefs  he  allowed  of  the  Son  to  the 

Father  222 

Eufebius  of  Vercelles  banifh^d  by  Conftantius  218 

Euftathians,  a  party  of  Catholicks,  who  were  fufpetied 

of  inclining  to  Sabellianifm  122 

held  but  one  hypoftafis  1 97 

did  notfubmit  to  the  Arian  Bifiop  of  Antioch  ibid. 

• nor  yet.  join  with  the  other  Catholicks  198 

but  had  a  diftintlt  Bijhop  of  their  own  199 

.krirftntimenti  embraced  by  Marcellus      ,        204 

Euitathius  Bijhvp  of  Antioch  (head  of  the  Euftathians) 

charged  with  Saoellianifm,   and  with  immoralities, 

but  not  proved:  yet  is  deprived  196,  269 

Euftathius 


The  Index, 

Euftathius  (SemiarianJ  Bijhop  of  Sebaftia,  receives  the 
ivurd  ofjuoova-ioc,^  and  in  what  fenfe:  but  afterward  re- 
jects it  243 
Eutyches  (Abbot  of  Conftantinople)  bis  berefy  firft  ad- 
vanced  by  Valentinus,  60.     and  embraced  by  others 

119 

fell  into  Apollinarianifm  thro*  his  fierce  oppofition 

to  Neftorius  287 

his  behaviour  before  Flavian  288 

— —  his  herefy  flated  299,  &C. 

— —  is  cenfured  by  the  Council  of  Conftantinople     30 1 

• is  favoured  by  Theodolius  II.  302 

. and  cleared  by  the  felonious  Synod  of  Epheflis  303 

but  at  loft  condemned  by  the  General  Council  of 
Chalcedon  304'  -307 

. his  craft  in  propojing  the  Nicene  Creed      304, 30J 

is  condemn1  d  byfome  who  are  yet  deer/Cd  Eutychi- 

ans  31 h  32° 

Eutychianifm  the  reigning  religion  of  the  Eaft  334 

feems  in  fame  perfons  to  have  been  little  elfe  but  in- 
accuracy of  ftyle  ^  3IQ>32° 
Eutychians  (Hereticks)  60 
firft  recited  the  Creed  in  the  daily  offices            31 1 

-■ various  feels  or  branches  of  them  31^ 

drew  the  Church  into  farther  explications         312 

continued  to  have  diftinft  Patriarchs  313 

their  fcheme  how  mix*d  up  by  Petrus  Fullo        316 

Euzoius  (Avian)  Bijhop  of  Antioch  in  the  room  of  Me- 
t    letius  198 

— —  Creed  propofed  by  him  261 

Exucontians,  the  grojfer  Arians,  224.  fo  called  becaufe 

they  afferted  the  Son  to  be 
*E|  ovk  I'vtm.  223 


FAmily  of  Love  :  afcB  of  Englifh  Enthufiafts    422 
Farnovius,  a  Polifh  Heretick  in  the  Arian  fcheme 

399,  406 
Fathers:  their  authority  confident  1^,  &c. 

Felix  (Pope)  oppofed  ^Eutychians  316 

— his  clemency  to  Penitents  after  the  African  perfec- 
tion 33' '332 
^  Felix 


The  iNDEt 

Felix  Bifeop  of  Urgel :  his  herefy  what,  and  how  c en- 
fare  d\  retraced  by  himfelf  and  maintain' d  again ; 
condemn' 'd  by  divers  Councils,  and  finally  renounced 
by  himfelf  360,  361,  362,  373 

Filidque:  the  insertion  of  that  word  in  the  Creed  con- 

fidefd  364,  &c. 

it  widened  the  breach  between  Greeks  and  Latins 

366 

Firmilian  Bijhop  of  Caefarea  in  Cappadocia  prefided  at 
the  firfi  Council  of  Antioch  147 

and  died  before  the  fecond  1 48 

Flaccillus  alias  Placentitis,  Arian  Bijhop  of  Antioch 

196 

Flavian,  a  man  of  catholick  principles,  yet  fubmitted  (as 
many  others  did)  to  the  Arian  Bijhop  of  Antioch,  till 
the  time  of  Meletius  1 98 

is  made  Bijhop  of  Antioch  himfelf  199 

Flavian  Patriarch  of  Conflantinople  oppofes  Eutyches 

288,  &c. 

Cv  is  depofed  and  abufed  by  the  felonious  Council  of 
Ephefus,  and  dies  303 

Franken  (Chriltianus)  his  difputation  with  Socinus  a- 
bout  the  worfriip  of  Chrift  407 

Franks  or  French,  people  from  Germany,  inhabiting 
part  of  Gaul,  converted  to  Christianity  334 

—  conquer  Goths  and  Burgundians  in  Gaul,  from 
thence  called  France  33 f,  336,  338 

make  an  attempt  upon  the  Lombards  m  Italy    35-6 

■ but  are  repeWd  357 

yet  conquer  them  at  lafl  3 60 

Fulgentius  ordained  Bijhop  in  Africa,  and  twice  banijhyd 

34*>  343 
G. 


G 


AWenus  (Emperor)  '91 

Generation:  that  term  how  abufed  by  the  Arians 

•  ,  *7<$ 
ufed  by  fome  Fathers  to  denote  only  the  srposAswns  71 
how  diftinguijh'dfrom  Creation  by  the  Catholicks, 


and  how  by  the  Arians  177,  178 

George  of  Cappadocia  (Arian)  made  BiJJjop  of  Alexan- 
dria in  the  room  of  Achanafius,  and  infifts  upon  reor- 
dination  220 


The  Index, 

8  %    '      he  favours  Aetius  223 

Gilimer,  Vandal  King  of  Africa,  Ufurper  343 

■  has  war  made  upon  him  by  the  Emperor  344 
1  and  is  defeated  34^ 

Gillebert  Bijhop  of  Poicliers  :  his  herefy,  and  his  con- 

vicJion  376 

Giferic,    King  of  the  Vandals,  Apoflate  to  Arianifm 

322, 
makes  truce  with  the  Romans,  322.     but  breaks 

**  .  323 

»  his  perfecution  of  the  Catholicks  in  Africa,  323, 

324.    which  holds  long,  till  at  laft  he 

dies,  and  is  fucceeded  by  Hunneric  324 

Gnofticks  perverted  Chriliianity  2r 

followers  of  Simon  Magus  29 

■  their  impurities,   47,  6y.     doubted  of  by  Kor- 
tholtus  65- 

their  impious  tenets,  49,  fo.  vid.  iEons. 

■    <*their  fcheme perfected  by  Valentinus        5"S,  &c. 

■  all  feels  of  them  oppofed  by  Irenaeus  74 

■'  controVerfy  with  them  not  firiftly  Trinitarian 

80 
*— charged  with  Platonifm  94 

occajion'd  fome  infertions  in  the  Creed  262, 


God  :  Chrift  fo  called  by  the  Arians,  in  what  fenfe    175* 
God  of  God :  that  phrafe  how  abufed  by  them        ibid. 
Gondamond,  Vandal  King  of  Africa,  relaxes  the  per~ 
fecution  33T3  341 

Goneiius  (Petrus)  profefs'd  Arianifm  in  Poland     395*, 

399 
Gofuinda  (Arian)  Queen  of  the  Vifigoths  349 

Gothefcalcus,    his  difpute  with  Hincmar  about    the 

phrafe  Trina  Deitas  363 

Goths  :  ValensV  war  with  them  25-0 

»are  drawn  into  Arianifm  by  Ulphilas     270,320 

* •"-occafion  diforders  in  the  reign  of  Arcadius     27a 

■    »         have  troops  in  the  fervice  of  the  Empire,  which 
threaten  a  revival  of  Arianifm  at  Conftantinople 

320 
■  hit  more  unhappily  effett  it  in  the  Weft  32I,&C 
»    " particularly  dtftinguijh'd  into  two  nations,  viz 
Oftrogoths,  or  Eaftern  Goths :  who  gain' d  \\*- 


\y  from  the  Heruli  333 

Q  g  _-.^vf 


The  Index. 

'gave  little  difturbance  to  the  Catholicks 

339 
'  had  afuccejfion  of  Kings  345- 

•     ■  were  pojfefs'd  of  Provence  in  France 

347 

—  have  war  made  upon  them  by  Juftinian, 

and  why  346 

arefubduedbyhim,  hut  revolt    346,347 

are  again  fubdued^and  driven  out  of  Italy 

347 
Vifigoths,  or  Weftern  Goths :  who 

'poffeffd  a  part  of  Gaul  and  Spain      332 
enlarge  their  dominions,  and  perfecute 


the  Catholicks  under  Euric  332, 333 

were  in  great  meafure  fubdued  in  Gaul 


by  Clovis  and  his  fins  335S336,  338 

continue  Arians  in   Spain   and  Gallia 


Narbonenfis  339 

pervert  the  Sueves  332, 348 

are  not  quickly  converted  348 

'perfecute  the  Catholicks  under  Leuvi- 


gilde  349, 3  J° 

^conquer  the  Sueves,    and  enlarge  their 


dominion  35*1 

<are  converted  under  Recarede    35*2, 35*3 


Gratian  ( Weftem   Emperor) ;   his  act  of  indulgence, 

and  its  exceptions  214,25*7 

fucceeds  Valens  in  the  Eaftern  Umpire         z$6 

•      ■        appoints  Theodolius  in  that  part  257 

1      his  death  268 

Gregory  (Arian)  thruft  into  the  See  of  Alexandria  209 

his  death  216 

Gregory  the  Great  (Pope)  his  witnefs  to  the  ConfefTors 

fpeaking  without  tongues  330 

' his  Dialogues,  whether  genuine  35*6 

— — -  is  made  Pope,  and  promotes  the  converfion  of  the 

Lombards  35-8 

cenfures  the  title  of  univerfal  Bilhop  366 

Gregory  Naiianzen  140,246 

— his  opinion  of  Conftantius  ,.       207 

his  notion  of  the  phrafe  **tcc  Tu$yyct<p\c$  226 

gg is  made  Biftop  of  Constantinople,  but  refigns 

35-7, 35-8 
Gregory 


The  Index. 

Gregory  Ny  Hen  140,141 

Gregorius  Pauli  (Polifti  Heretick)  preaches  again  ft  the 
Trinity,  and  how  rebuked  ^g6 

'  how  brought  from  Tritheifm  to  Socinianifm  399 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Origen'j  Pupil  89 

■  his  doftrine  as  to  the  Trinity  138 

■  his  Creed  defended  1 39, 1 4 1 
was  charged  with  the  herefies  in  both  extreams 

141 

but  defended  by  St.  Bafil  142 

his  Doxology  ^g 

his  prefcriptions  flriftly  obferved  by  the  Chuich  of 

Neocaefarea  247 

Gribaldus  a  Tritheift,  of  Loelius  Socinus\r  club       390 

Grotius,  his  notion  of  the  origine  of  the  word  hypoftafis 

120 
H. 

HEizerus,  beheaded  for  herefy  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Reformation  3S3 

Helena,  companion  of  Simon  Magus    .  28, 29 

Henry  of  Valois,  Duke  of  Anjou,  chofen  King  of  Po- 
land 397 
Heracles,  Schoolmafter  {after  Bijbop)  of  Alexandria  88 
Heraclius,  Eaftern  Emperor,  Eutychian  314 
— —  of  the  fe<2  of  the  Monothelites  3 1 8 
Hermas,  Author  of  the  Paftor  40,46 
Heruli,  mafters  of  Italy  after  the  ruin  of  the  Empire, 
but  foon  fubdued  by  the  Oftrogoths  333 
Hilary,  Bijbop  of  Poi&iers                        146, 178, 225- 

■  ■   ■       'is  bant/hJd  by  Conftantius  219 

■  his  doctrine  with  refpecJ  to  the  proceffion  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  a  good  key  to  the  Greek  fathers         368 

Hilderic,  Vandal  King  of  Africa,  favourable  to  Catho- 

licks^  depofed  and  imprifoned  343 

Hincmar,  Archbijhop  of  Rheims,  his  conteft  about  the 

phrafe  Trina  Deitas  363 

Hippolytus,  where  Bifoop  116 

1       at  what  time  he  wrote  againfl  Noetus  1 1  ^ 

■  his  book  whether  genuine  1 1 6, 1 1 7 

■  his  notion  of  the  Trinity  1 1 7, 1 1 8, 1 1 9 
^■"■;-  his  harmony  with  Tertull ian  1 1 7 

Ggi  Holy 


The   I  n  d  e  x. 

Holy  Ghoft  :  why  the  Fathers  were  lefs  exprefs  concern- 
ing his  Divinity,   than  of  the  other  two  perfons,  ff. 
which  yet  they  have  not  failed  to  affert,  ff,  f&  parti- 
cularly Irenaeus,  75*,  76.  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  79 
.    ■  not  fo  directly  blafphemed  by  the  fir  ft  hereticks    5*5: 

pofterior  to  the  thirty  iEons  in  Valentine' sfcheme 

5-9,  60 

■■  that  name  fometimes  given  to  the  Son  69 

.  defcyibed  under  the  name  of  Wifdom  70, 75*,  76, 

118,369 

•  the  dotirine  of  his  Divinity  not  taken  from  Mon- 

tanus  114 

■ his  name  a  virtual  Doxology  160 

•— the  queftion  of  his  Divinity  not  debated  at  Nice 

186,260,244 

i 'yet  never  believed  by  the  Arians  234 

■  when  fir  ft  called  formally  in  queftion  235* 

■  ajferted  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  as  explained  by  the 


Council  of  Alexandria  241 

herefy  of  the  Macedonians  concerning  him  235% 


236,  24^,  &c.  2jT9-    revived  in  England  by  Biddle 

423,426 
>why  term'd  the  Paraclete  who  fpake  by  the  Pro- 


phets 66, 262 

what  is  delivered  concerning  him  in  the  Con- 


ftantinopolitan  Creed  265*,  266 

his  procefTion:   what  difputes  about  it  between 
the  Greeks  and  Latins  3^4)3^5" 

from  the  Son,  always  believed  in  the 


Church,  367, 371.     and  infer  ted  in  the 

Creed,  before  the  end  of  the  fixth  century,  37a 

that  infertion  di fallowed  by  Pope  Leo  the  third, 

yet  admitted  afterwards  373 

Homoiifians,  the  Catholicks  fo  called  236 

Honorius  (Pope)  Monothelite  318 

Holms,   Bijhop  of  Corduba  in  Spain,    being  fent  by 

Conftantine  to  enquire  into  the  catifc  of  Arius,  makes 

report  againft  him  I/O,  Vft 

. 'drew  up  the  Nicene  Creed  ft} 

- hisfallinthetimeofperfecution  J       219 

Hunneric,  Vandal  King  of  Africa  after  Giferic"      324 
»  -  his    grievous    perfecution    of    the    Catholicks 

3251,  &c. 
3  — —  appoints 


•    The   Index. 

"             appoints  a  conference  at  Carthage  325- 

— —  not  foftenyd  by  Miracles  330 

•              dies  miferably  3  3 T  ?  3  3  ^ 
Hypoftafis,  wd.  v^xc^ 

I. 

JAcob,  or  James  the  Syrian,  difciple  of  Severus  tb* 
Eutychian,  319.    from  whom  the  feSi  of 
•  Jacobites,  a  common  name  for  Eutychians  310 

Iamblichus,  Platonick  Philofopher  or 

James  {Saint,  Apoftle)  his  Liturgy  1^0 

James  I.  King  of  England,  his  feverity  againft  Enthu- 
.   fiatls  422 

Jdibald,  King  of  *£*  Oftrogoths  in  Italy,  Jhakes  off  the 
Emperor's  authority  31 5 

Jerom,  36,  5*7,  T 07.     diflihes  the  word  uTrvrxc-iq  jpy 

Jefus,  in  the  Valentin ian  fcheme,  being  produced  by  alt 
the  iEons  in  the  pleroma,  dcfcendcd  on  Chrill  at  his 
baptifm,  and  left  him  at  hjs  pajflon  60 

Ignatius  (Saint)  B* if W&SS 

• ordain' }d  BiJJsop  of  Antioch  by  St.  John  46 

• martyred  under  Trajan  46,  &c. 

■  ■  his  abhorrence  of  heretichs,   48,  49.     particularly 

ofthofe  who  denied  either  the  Divinity  or  the  Incarna- 
tion ofChrld  ibid.  5-0,  fi 
Innocent  II.  (Pope)  abfohes  Peter  Abelard  376 
Interrogatories  at  Baptifm  26 
Invisible  and  impaflible  :  thofe  characters  added  to  the  ar- 
ticle of  the  Father,  in  the  Greed  of  Aquileia,  againft 
tf^Sabellians,  who  believ' 'd  him  to  be  incarnate     132 
Invocation  of  Chrift,  vid.  Worihip 
Joachim,  Abbot  of  Flora,  oppofes  the  Mailer  of  the  Sen- 
tences                                                                    377 

— *is  fufpefied  of  Tritheifm,  and  his  pofitions  cen- 

fured  378 

Joannes  Philoponus,  Eutychian  and  Tritheift  317 

John  (Saint,  Apoftls)  lived  to  fee  the  increafe  of  herejy, 

chiefly  in  refpeti  of  the  Incarnation  and  Divinity  of 

Chrill  3i,&c. 

1  wrote  againft  both  extr earns  at  the  requeft  of  the 

Afiatick  Bijhops,  37,  38,45*.  but  chiefly  againjl  the  lat- 

tsr^  J2.    this  own  d  by  Julian/^  Apoilate  38 

G  &  3  his 


The  Index."  * 

his  Gofpel  rejected  by  the  Alogi  Sz 

charged  with  Platonifm  86, 87 

Socinus'i  explication  of  the  firft  chapter 


of  it  402 

John  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  a  Catholic ki  but  great  Friend 
of  Neftorius  283 

I holds  a  feparate  Council  <« JEphefus  28^ 

is  at  laft  fatisfied  with  Cyril'/  explications     ibid. 

— his  confeffion  approved  by  Cyril  281 

Jov  ian  (Cat  ho  lick  Emperor)  240, 241 

Ifenaeus  *3',&,S3>$%>61 

■  ■  wrote  chiefly  againfl  the  Valentinians  74 

his  tefttmony  Jiated  74,— ——77 

• calls  'the  Holy  Ghoft  the  figuration  of  the  Son 

37° 
IfidorusHifpalenfis,  his  witnefs  to  the  Confeffbrsfpeak- 
mg  without  tongues  330 

.Ifidorus  Sou  of  Baiilides  the  Gnoftick  57 

Judaifm  charged  upon  Neftorians  274 

Judgment  (private)  not  fit  to  interpret  Scripture  without 
proper  helps  and  reftrifiions  1,  II 

— its  extravagant  licentioufnefs  433 

}xX\$x\.(Apoftate  Emperor)  owns  that  St.  John  ajferted 

Chrift's  Divinity  38 

his  indulgence  to  all  feds  236, 137 

• his  per f edition  239,240,241 

Julian  Bipop  of  HalicarnafTus,  Eutychian,  319.   from 

whom  the 

Julianifls,  a  feci  of  Eutychians,  otherwife  called  Aph- 

thartodocetoe  319 

Julius  (Pope)  acquits  MztctMxxS)  203.  with  Athanaiius 

and  others  208 

Juftin  (Emperor)  his  edi&  againfl  Arians  339 

■  is  fucceded  by  Juftinian  344 

Juftin  Martyr      31, 36, 53, 62, 64, 6ft  66. 67, 70, 72, 106 

educated  in  the  fchool  of  Plato  86,91 

and  chargd  with  bringing  Platonifm  into  the 

Church  ,  86,92 

yet  freely  declared  his  dijlike  of  Plato  and  Ari- 

ftotle  '    92, 93 

'gives  account  of  the  Chriftian.Worfhip  6ft  66,1 5*7 

Juftina  (Emprefs)  her  endeavours  in  favour  -0/ Arianifm 

1    321 
Juftiniaa 


The  Index,1 

Ju  ft  in  ian  (Emperor )  favoured  Eutychianifm,  and  perfe- 
cted the  Catholicks  gxg 
■           faw  the  Confelfors  Jpeaking  without  tongues 

329 
* makes  war  on  the  Vandals  to  fupport  Hilderic, 

344.     and  fubdues  them  34^ 

• as  afterwards  the  Oftrogoths  in  Italy  346 


K 


K. 

Ortholtus  doubts  of  the  impurities  charged  upon  the 
Gnofticks  6s 

L. 


LE  O  the  Great  (Pope)  his  fynodical  epiftle  againfl 
Eutyches  306 

Leo  III.  {Pope)  his  Council  againfl  Felix  Bijhop  of 
Urgel  362 

■  ■  oppofes  the  infertion  of  the  word  filioque  in  the 
Creed  373 

Leontius  (Arian)  Bijhop  of  Antioch  196 

■  his  conduct  in  relation  to  Doxologies      197, 198 
Leuvigilde  (Arian)  King  of  the  Vifigoths  perfecutes  the 

Catholicks  349, 35-0 

■  '  his  eldcfl  fon*s  unjtiflifiable  behaviour  and  over- 
throw 35*0 

—  '  his  conqueft  of  the  Sueves,  remorfe,  death,  and 

inftr unions  to  his  Jon  Recarede  35-1 

Liberius  {Pope)  his  fall  in  time  of  perfecution  219 

Licinius  (Emperor)  brother-in-law  to  Con  (taurine,  at 
fir  ft  pretended  to  ChrifHanity,  but  after  perfecuted  ity 
till  fub due d  by  Conftantine  162,167,169,170 

Likenefs  of  the  Son  to  the  Father:  how  allowed  by  the 
grolTer  Arians  232 

■  'and  how  by  Eufebius  of  Nicomedia     222.  titd* 

Likenefs  of  Subftance,  vid.  hpwi®' 

Lifmaninus,  Confejfor  to  the  Queen  of  Poland,  per- 
verted by  Loelius  Socinus  394i  39S 
"  charged  with  Mahometifm,  but  without  cer- 
tainty 412 

G  g  4  Liturgies 


The   Index, 


Liturgies  (ancient)  either  loft  or  much  corrupted  '  ifi. 
what   remains  of  them    argues  for   the  Catholicks 

_ (Englifh)  how  oppofite  to  Arfanifm  420 

AeW  the  eternal  Word  of  God    49,  p,  74,  7?,  76,  78,   . 

118 

. '—the  fountain  of  wifdom  369 

Aiyte,  of  the  Arians  165* 

Aoyos  one  of  the  Gnoftick  iEons  49,  50,  5-9,  74, 78 

Aoyos  paffible,   according  to  the  Apollinarians,  #;  iw^// 
as  Arians  25-3 

AeVs  of  Plato  ,   85-,  1  ot 

Aoyoc,  7r^e(po^Ko<i  and  ot/cr*«$js,  2^  diftindion  between  them 

Lombard  (Peter)  Mafterof  the  Sentences,  and  Father  of 
the  Schoolmen  376 

~ oppofed  by  Joachim  Abbot  of  Flora  377 

, -fupporte'd  by  the  Council  of  Lateran  378 

Lombards,  a  people  from  the  North,  moftly  Arians, 
who  had  fettled  in  Pannonia  35*4 
*  are  invited  into  Italy  by  Narfes,  and  fubdue  it, 
dividing  it  into  thirty  five  provinces  3^5* 
»■  ^are  necejfitatedto  reftore  the  Monarchy  %f6 
many  of  them  converted  by  the  Italian  Bijhops 

.35-7 
their  war  with  the  Romans  interrupted  it  358 
entirely  converted,  and  afterwards  conquered  by 


the  French  36Q 

tdician  (Heathen)  his  teftimony  to  the  doctrine  of  the 

Trinity  confider'd  43, 80, 81 

• — ■  whether  author  of  the  Dialogue  entitled  Philo- 

patris  Sx 

Lucian  Presbyter  of  Antioch:  his  Creed   has  not  the 

word  cixjooOqtioc,^  but  is  not  otherwife  heretical  149, 1  SO 
"    '"       is  boafted  of  by  the  Arians  as  their  Patron,  and 

did  probably  take  part  affirft  with  Paul  of  Sarnofata 

149 
continued  excommunicate  under  three  Bijhops, 

was  Tutor  to  Alius  and  his  officiates,   at  length  re- 

ftored  to  Communion,  andfuffer^d  Martyrdom  15*0 
Lucifer  Bijhop  of  Cngliari  ordains  Paulinus  at  Antioch 

I09 
— —  *j  banijh'd  by  Con  ft  antius  218 

rejufef 


The  In  d  e  x. 

1  refufes  to  receive-  the  Clergy  who  had fallen,  and 
divides  Communion  238 

Lucjferians  :  the  origine  of  their  fchifm  ibid. 

Luther,  his  activity  in  reforming  ffo  Church,  and  the 
iff  ufe  which  fome  made  of  it  /  284,  28^ 


M 


M. 

Acarius  Schoolmafler  of  Alexandria  88 

Macedonians  (Hereticks)      236.  wid.  Pneuma- 

tomachi 
—  their  encreafe  under  Julian  238 

—difcountenanced  and  perfecuted  by  Valens     243 
admit  the  Nicene  Creed,  but  fallacioufly     ibid. 


and  without  any  declaration  about  the  Holy  Ghoft 

244 

are  received  by  the  Catholicks  245* 

— are  fplit  into  two  parties  ibid. 

'their  behaviour  at  Conftantinople,   and  the  de- 


cifions  of  the  Council  againft  them  259, 264,  &c. 

— —  enlargement  of  the  Creed  on  their  account  ibid. 

310 
had  their  name  from 


Macedonius  (Arian)  made  Bifiop  of  Conftantinople 

209 
becomes  the  head  of  a  new  herefy  210 

• raifes  a  perfecution  at  Conftantinople  221 

■I  is  faid  to  have  brought  in  the  word  o^oioutnei  222 

■     fi is  difplaced  by  the  grolTer  Arians  235* 

1  andfucceeded  by  E  ud  o  x  i  u  s  233 

his  herefy  about  the  Holy  Ghoft  235^  236 

Magnentius  (Ufurper)  defeated  by  Conftantius    '      216 

Mahomet  (Impoftor)  the  fuccefs  of  his  followers       ,318 

■  '  his  notions  how  far  countenanced  by  the  Socini- 

ans  412, 413 

Malchion  Presbyter  of  Antioch,  detected  Paxil  of  Samo- 

.    fata  148 

Manjcheans  (Hereticks)  34, 150,  iji,  152 

-excepted  from  GratianV  indulgence  25-7 

MarcellinusGomes,Chancellor^  juftinian,^*?}^-^- 

nefs  to  the  ConfeflLOVsfpeaking  without  tongues     329 

Mafcellus  Bijhop  of  Ancyra  withdrew  from  the  favour- 

ers  of  Arius  201 

— —  charged 


The  Index; 


jii        ™  charged  with  Sabellianifm,  and  twice  expeWd 
from  his  Church  202 

■  m  acquitted  in  the  Weft  203, 20$T 

1     had  all  along  joined  with  the  Euftathians      204 
1  was  tutor  to  Photinus  212 

Marcian  (Eaftern  Emperor)  calls  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  303, 304 

■  efpoufes  the  Catholicks  314 

Marcion  (Herejiarch)  61.    from  whom  are  called  the 
Marcionites,   Hereticks  denying  the  reality  of  Chrift'x 
Incarnation  126 

Marcus  Antoninus  (Emperor)  6z 

Mark  (Saint  and  Evangelijl)  whether  Bijhop  of  Alexan- 
dria when  the  fchool  was  founded  87, 88 

■  his  L  iturgy  1 5-9 
Mary  Queen  of  England,  drove  out  the  foreign  reform'd 

1    ■  violence  of  her  perfecution  421 

Maxentius  (Emperor)  perfecutor  1 61 

Maximian  (Emperor)  perfecutor  ibid. 

Maximin  (Arian)  his  difputes  in  Africk  with  St.  Auguf- 
tine  321 

Maximin  (Emperor)  perfecutor  in  the  third  century  1 1  ? 
Maximin  (Emperor)  perfecutor  in  the  fourth  century 

15-0, 161 
Maximus  Bijhop  of  Jerufalem  withdrew  from  the  fa- 
vourers of  Arius  201 
Maximus,  Ufurper  of  the  Weftern  Empire  268 
Melchites  (*JEll  fecla  regia)  the  Eaftern  Catholicks 
why  fo  called  314 
Meletius,  a  Catholick,  yet  made  Bijhop  o/Antioch^v 
the  Arians,  is  banijhyd  by  Conftantius,  has  a  party  of 
Catholick*  adhere  to  him,  198.     but  is  not  join  d  by 
the  Euftathians,  199.     is  often  banijhyd%  ibid,     holds 
a  Council  under  Jovian                                         241 
Memnon  Bijhop  of  Ephefus,  a  great  oppofer  of  Nefto* 
rius,  depofed  by  the  feparate  Council  of  Ephefus  28^ 
Menander  (Herejiarch)                                 3h4^S^S7 
Mennonites,  their  herefy                                            413 
Metaphylical  fubtleties  objected  to  the  Catholicks,  but 
more  juftlv  charged  upon  the  Hereticks                19, 20 
Methodius  feifoop  of  Tyre  133 
Michael  Cerularius,  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople  374 
3                         Modrevius 


The  I  n  D  e  x7 

Modrevius,  a  Polifli  Knight,  and  great  promoter  of  he- 
i  refy  in  Poland  394 

Monarchy,}*  wto  H  meam  h  God  6* 

how  abufed  by  Praxeas  no 

■  divided  by  other  Hereticks  1 36 
Monarchians  (Hereticks)  1 15-,  1 1 7 
Monogenes,  one  of  the  Gnoftick  ./Eons  jo, 5-9,  60 
Monophyfitae,  another  name  for  Eutychians  31  f 
Monothelites,  a  feft  of  Eutychians  3 1 8 
Montanifts  (Hereticks)  diftinguijhyd  into  different  feds 

107 

one  fort  followed  PraxeasV  doftrine  about  the 

Trinity  ibid. 

—  had  their  name  from 

Montanus :  held  the  catholick  dofirine  of  the  Trinity 

104 
1  but  was  not  author  of  it  105? 

11  why  excluded  the  Church  ibid- 

Mofaick  Cabbala,   allowed  by  Dr.  Cud  worth  to  have* 
been  known  to  Plato  98 

Mofaick  Law,   obferv'd  by  the  Cerinthians,  but  hypo- 
critically 33 

—  ■       by  Ebionites  34 

and  Nazarens  3^ 

came  from  evil  powers  according  to  Cerinthus 

■  came  from  inferior  powers,  according  to  all  the 
Gnoflicks  66 

Mother  of  God  :  that  title  of  the  bleffed  Virgin  rejected 

by  the  Apollinarians,  and  why  25*2,  273 

why  rejected  by  Neftorians  273 

1  accepted  by  Neftorius,  but  equivocally  276 

m  opinion  of  John  Bijhop  of  Antioch  and  Theo- 

dorit  concerning  it  283 

N. 

NA#,  Ghriftians  fo  called  by  Ignatius  49 

Narfes,  JuftinianV  General,  expels  the  Goths  out 
of  Italy,  347.  is  made  Governor,  but  being  removed 
invite s  the  Lombards  into  Italy  3S4i3Sf 

Natalis,  a  followe r  of  Theodotus,  but  penitent         §4 

Nature ; 


The  Index. 

Nature :   that  word  has  fometimes  the  fame  fenfe  with 

perfon  or  hypoftafis  80, 133, 134 

Nazarens,  judaizing  Chriftians,  but  not  hereticks  35*,  36 

Neclarius,  Bijhop  of  Constantinople  25-8 

Neltorianifm,  the  fear  of  it  gave  advantage  to  the  Eu- 

tychians  30a 

■■  drew  the  Church  to  be  more  explicit  31a 

1   their  Patriarch.  315 

where  it  chiefly  prevailed  314 

•charged upon  Felix  and  Elipandus  361 

and  on  Peter  Abelard  375* 

Neftorius  33, 144,  I45',2i2,  213 

wW<?  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  273 

his  character,  27 4.     and herefy  2jf,&c. 

how  oppofed  by  Catholicks  278 

charges  Catholicks  with  Apollinarianifm  279, 

284 

how  replied  to  by  Catholicks  279, £8* 

is  excommunicated  by  Pope  Caeleftine  282 

1  refufes  to  fubfcribe  St.  CyrilV  anathemas,  and  is 
fupported  by  fome  great  men  283, 284, 372 

•is  depofed  at  Ephefus  285* 

is  given  up  by  his,  friends  286 


Neufnerus  (Adam)  a  Socinian  that  fell  intti  Mahome- 
tifm  4IX 

Nice,  vid.  Council,  vid.  Creed 

Nicephorus  Callifthus,  ecclejiajlical hiftorian  315* 

Nicholas  (Pope)  feems  to  have  allowed  the  filioque  at 
Rome  373 

Nicolaitans  (Hereticks)  29,  30,  33 

Noe'tians  (Hereticks)  116,117,121,136 

Noetus  (Herefiarch)  72,124,192 

~ at  what  time  he  embraced  the  herefy  of  Praxeas 

— — —was  confuted  by  Hippolytus  116,  &c. 

Novatian,  bis  bookoftheTrimty  againftSabeUius     Uf 

yet  not  without  an  eye  to  fome  other  her efies,  126.   and 

clearly  preventing  that  of  the  Arians  ibid. 

t his  explication  of  the  divine  Unity  1 26, 1 27 

Nus,  one* of- the  Gnoftick  JEohs  '    S9 

.   i 

■ 

Oaths 


The  I  n  d  e  x. 


o. 

OAth :  form  of  it  the  name  of  three  perfons,  produced 
from  St.  Clement  42, 

military,   o/Chriftians  **  the  fourth  century, 
naming  three perfons  42,  43 

1  recommended  by  the  Chriftian  *#LucianV  Philo- 
patris  43,81 

■  by  the  Emperor's  Safety,  how  under ftoodbyy^i- 
tullian  and  others  43 

Ochinus  (Bernardinus)  his  herefy  and  concealment  of  it, 
which  gained  him  credit  with  the  Orthodox       388, 

389 

■  his  reception  in  England  419 
Odoacer,  King  of  the  Heruli  in  Italy  333 
'OtxovopU  1  15*7.  that  term  how  applied  to  Chrift^x 
OEconomy.Tcondefcenfion,  5-2,  53,  71.    and  Ukewife 

to  the  fubordination  of  peFfons  in  the  Trinity   5-4, 

110,118,134 

OfAetoq  Kctra,  7mvrcc                                         -  222,227 

—  kcctu,  rocs  yp*p«s  226,  227 
1                «tfT*  ovaiuv  243 
'Ofjuoiooo-ios^  ffoai  word  when  firft  introduced  by  the  here- 
tic ks  ill 

dijliked  by  the  more  rigid  Arians  ibid. 

-  and  condemned,  21  f.  as  little  different  from 
c^oscn©^  23^,236.  from  whence  the  Semiarians  came 
to  admit  the  word  b^wus  243, 244, 2^0 

KOpooit<rio<;^  that  term  ufed  of  the  Divine  Word  in  the  fe- 

cond  century  131 

^— —  imitated  by  TertuUmi's  unius  fubftantics     ibid. 

■  ufed  by  Origen  ibid . 
acknowledge  by  Eufebius  to  be  of  ancient  ufe 

132 

•^not  ufed  by  DionyGus  Alexandrinus,  becaufe  un- 

fcriptural,  129.     who   was  therefore  blamed  by  the 

Catholicks,    130.      but  excufed   him f elf  as   having 

taught  the  fame  thing  in  other  words  129, 131 

^overthrows  the  here  fie  s  in  both  extremes  13a 

how  abufed  by  Paulus  Samofatenus         146, 147 

dr opt  for  that  reafon  by  the  Council  of  Antioch, 


147, 149.  and  probably  by  other  Catholicks  "         149 


The  Index. 

%yet  approved  by  Pamphilus  and  Eufebius  i^o 

*abufed  by  Manicheans  and  Prifcillianifts  iyi 

•inferted  in  the  Nicene  Creed  1 79 

•  and  other  Eafterti  Creeds  188 


its  meaning  or  import  cleared  from  Tritheifm 

180 
—  three  grand  objections  againfl  it  ftated  and  an- 

fwer'd  \  181, 185- 

fometimes  charged  with  Sabellianifm     193,194 

■  divijion  of  the  Heretic ks  about  it  221,  &c. 

condemned  by  the  Anomeans  22? 

the  only  vjord  rejected  by  the  Semiarians  at  Se- 


leucia  231 

<at  lafi  accepted  by  them  ibid, 

■  enforced  by  Athanaiius  in  the  time  of  Julian 

*37 

and  both  by  him  and  Meletius  under  Jovian 

24  r 
— — —  how  admitted  and  evafively  explained  by  Mace- 
donians and  other  Hereticks  243, 244 
1  ■  '  whofe expofition  is  resetted  by  ^Coun- 
cil of  Illyricum  244,2^0 
—-acknowledged  by  Apollinaris  25*1,  253 
how  deftroy'd  by  the  Eutychians  316 

■  maintained  by  the  Catholicks  in  Africa         32$* 
—  ChriftVBodyconfubftantial  with  the  Deity,  ac- 
cording to  fome  Apollinarians,  25*4, 263, 299. 
and  to  Servetus  38^386 

its  confubftantiality  with  our  body  not 


ownJdby  Eutyches  299,  30^ 

but  ajferted  by  the  Council  of  Chalce- 


don  306 

Origen  23,  35-,  119, 133, 15-0 

—Schoolmafler  of  Alexandria  88 

■  addicted  to  Philofophy,  yet  made  it  fubfervient 

to  Chriftianity  89 

•was  notwithstanding  fufpefted  on  that  account 

93,100,101 
1  ufed  the  word  wttdsws,  why,  and  in  what  fenfe 

12,0,121 

took  it  not  from  the  Platonifts  120 

—  is  claimed  by  the  Arians,  but  without  fufficient 

grounds  121,  &c. 

■  has 


The  Index, 

•— ■■  has  bad  great  Apologifts  1 22, 131 

— —  has  many  things  contrary  to  Arianifm  123 

his  books  have  been  corrupted  122, 123 

—  —  not  all  defigtfdfor  the  publick  121 
■     ■— — «ng»  «W5,  either  not  his  own  or  corrupted  iff% 

if  6 
converted  fferyllus  124,142 

'  ufed  the  word  opoofous  z  g  j 

—  his  mention  of  catachreftical  worfhip  i^6 
Oftrogoths,  wdm  Goths 

P. 

PAcian  107 

Pac"ta  Conventa  :    an  a£l  of  the  ftates  by  which  the 
King  of  Poland  was  bound  to  maintain  toleration 

397>398 
Paganifm  in  Britain  and  part  of  Gaul  334 

Pateologus  (Jacobus)  oppofed  the  worfliip  of  Chrift 

401 
Pamphilus,  Apologift  for  Origen  1 22, 1 5-0 

Pantaenus,  Schoolmafier  of  Alexandria  88 

Paphnutius,    Bijhop   in  Thebais,  withdrew  from  the 
favourers  of  Anus  20 1 

Paraclete  the  character  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  ancient 
Creeds,  262.     why  altered  in  the  Conftantinopolitan 

264,265* 

—  who  fpake  by  the  Prophets:   that  claufe  why  in- 
ferted  66 

fuppofed  by  the  Valentinians  to  be  different  from  the 
Holy  Ghoft  67 

Patripaflians  (Hereticks)  1 1  j,  2 1 3 

Paul  Bijhop  of  Conftantinople  banffid  206 

is  recaWd  by  Conftantius,  but  removed  again ,  and 
hisSeefilPd  208 

— — opposition  between  his  followers  and  thofeof  Mace- 
donia 209 

Paul  of  Samofata  (Herefiarch)  33, 142,' —  iyo,  15-5-, 

166,181,184,187,212,213,43* 

—  what  difference  between  him  and  Neftorius  144, 

M* 

—  cenfured  at  the  fecond  Council  of  Ailtioch       148 

• his  error  charged  upon  Neftorius  276 

TTT1  *****  rsvned  by  Servetus  3^ 

■•        from 


The   Index*  * 

*  ■        ■  from  'him  is  named  the 

Paulian  herefy  202, 

Paulinus  (Arian)  made  Bijhop  of  Antioch  from  Tyre, 

in  the  room  of  Euftathius  iy$ 

Paulinus  (Euftathianj  Bijhop  of  Antioch,  ordained  St. 

Jerom  w 

< —  zy^j"  ordain* d  by  Lucifer  ipo 

Paulinus  Bijhop  of  Treves  is  depofed  at  Aries  for  de- 
fending Athanafius  217 
Pearfon  (Bi/hop)  his  opinion  of  the  time  of  Praxeas  105* 
Pelagianifrn  charged  on  Peter  Abelard  37^ 
Peripateticks  (fe3  of  Philofophers)  90 
Hi^xa)^^  what  it  means  <58 
Perfon  :  that  word  when  firji  ufed  in  contradiflinBion  to 
fubftance  by  the  Latins,  112.   and  when  by  the  Greeks 

118 

■  continued  by  the  former  rather  than  hypoftafis 

194, 19? 
Petavius,  his  mifreprefentation  of  the  Antenicene  Fa- 
thers, confuted  by  Bijhop  Bull  425* 
Peter  Schoolmajler  {after  Bifiop)  of  Alexandria  88,163 
Peter  Martyr,  his  frtendjhip  with  Ochinus  419 
Petrus  (Gnapheus,  orFullo)  Eutychian  Bijhop  of  Anti- 
och, began  to  recite  the  Creed  in  the  daily  offices    311 

■  >  interpolated  the  Trifagium  316 
WWwsw  ( Heretic ks)  32 
Philaftrius  145: 
Philo  Judasus  charged  with  Platonifm  87 
Philofophy "taught  by  the  ancient  Chriftians,  88.     who 

yet  were  not  additled  to  any  particular  feci,  89.   nor 

fubmitted  the  dodrines  of  Chriftianity  to  them,  90.  but 

rather  looked  on  its  profejfors  as  its  greateft  enemies, 

92,  96.     and  were  jealous  of  all  that  inclined  towards 

them,  9$.    objected  their  abfurdities,  9/.    and  rejected 

all  parts  of  Philofophy  96 

Philoltorgius  187 

Philpot,  his  abhorrence  of  Arianifm  420 

Photinians :  whether  Arians  be  fometimes  meant  under 

that  name  •  214 

—  indulged  by  Julian  •     237 

excepted  from  Gratian'i  indulgence        214, 257 

Polifh  Hereticksfo  called  395" 

Photinus  (Herefiarcb)  33, 145-,  2.10, 215- 


The   Index. 

— — -  his  notions  Jiated  212,  213 

cenfured  by  Gatholicks,  213.     ^^Eufebians  214 

Photius  41,  84, 117, 133, 134, 135*,  144 

Patriarch  of  Conftantinople  364 

contefts  about  his  promotion,   the  main  grounds  of 

difference  between  Greeks  and  Latins,  366.     and  of 

his  vehemence  againft  the  filioque  366,  374 

Pierius,  Schoolmafter  0/ Alexandria  §8 

fecond  Origen  133 

what  he  meant  by  fubftance  and  nature        133, 134 

■     ■  -his  dottrine  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  134 

Pinczovians,  a  name  for  the  Polifh  Hereticks  39$ 

Pipin,  King  of  France,  his  conquefts  over  the  Lombards 

360 
Piftus,  Antibijhop  of  Alexandria  209 

Placentius  (alias  Flaccillus)  Arian  Bijhop  of  Antioch 

196 

Plato :  his  notions  whether  the  fame  with  the  Chriflians 

in  the  point  of  the  Trinity  85*,  &c. 

■ nearer  the  truth  than  other  Philofophers  97 

yet  maft  oppofed,   becaufe  efteem'd  mofi  dangerous 

9%  97 

—-another  Mofes  fpeaking  Greek  99 

learnt  fome  notions  from  the  Jews,   but  corrupted 

them  98,99,100,102 

Platonifm,  charged  upon  the  Fathers,  8y,  &c.     but  not 

rightly  87,  &c. 

• not  in  repute  in  the  fir  ft  ages  of  the  Church  90, 91 

revived  but  in  the  third  century  91,101,102 

and  then  new  dreffed  up  102 

Platonifts  {modern)  the  moft  virulent  oppofers  of  Chris- 
tianity 9I>92' 

and  the  moft  plaujible,  therefore  mofi  oppofed        96 

yet  borrowed  the  terms  of  the  Church  126 

and  gave  handle  for  the  charge  of  Platonifm     i°2 

Pleroma  of  the  Valentinians  S9->  &* 

Pliny  (junior)  his  account  of  Chriftians  47?  lSS 

Plotinus,  Plztomck  Philofopher  86 

- — —  the  reviver  of  Platonifm,  by  opening  a  School  at 
Rome  in  the  third  century  91, 1 01, 1 02 

imitated  the  chriftian  language,    but  corrupted  it 

102 
Plutarch  had  no  notion  of  the  Trinity  from  Plato      101 

H  h  Pneuma- 


The   Index. 

Pneumatomachi  (Heretlcks)  189 

. impugn  the  Hoi  y  GhoftV  Divinity  236 

'their  behaviour  at  Conftantinople,  and  decifion  of 

the  Council  againft  them  2^9,  &c. 

occafwn*d j'ome  variation  of  Jlyle  312 

. revived  by  Biddle  in  England  423 

Did.  Macedonians 
Polycarp:  his  ads,  63.     his  doxology  70 

■ --properly  a  Father  of  the  fir  ft  century,  but  fujfer'd 

.    under  Marcus  Antoninus  ibid. 

Porphyry,  Platonick  Philofopher  91 

Praxeans  (Heretic ks)        107, 1 16, 1 1 7.    fo  called  from 
Praxeas  7^>43i 

. difabufed  Pope  Victor  in  refpedl  of  the  Montanilts 

yet  fell  into  herefy  under  Zephyrin  ibid. 

> fuppofed  the  Father  to  have  fuffeSd,   admitting  a 

.    nominal  diftiniiion  1 06 

• propagated  it  much,  retraced,  and  relapfed     ibid. 

-fpreads  it  even  among  the  Montanifts  107 

his  herefy  a  proof  of  the  catholick  doctrine,   and 

how  107,108 

oppofed by  Tertullian  109 

fpread  in  A i>a  by  Noetus  1 15- 

Prifcilltanilts,  their  herefy  iji 

Proceffion:  the  perfonal  character  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 

265- 
-from  the  Father :  afferted  by  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  why  no  more  166 
— f-  from  the  Son  :  always  believed,  though  inferted  af- 
terwards:   the  difference  concerning  it  between  the 
Greeks  and  Latins                                         364,  &c. 
■    ■    ■  that  character  fometimes  applied  to  the  Soil  69 
Proclus,  head  of  a  feci:  of  Montanifts                       107 
Proclus,  Platonick  Philofopher                                  91 
Procopius  of  Casfarea,   hiftorian  and  fenator  of  Con- 
stantinople, attefts  the  Jtory  of  the  Confeflbrs  fpeak- 
ing  without  tongues                                                 328 
TT£otA40<ns,  or  coming  forth  of  the  Word  out  of  the  Fa- 
ther, fometimes  called  generation,  but  not  /^begin- 
ning of  his  exi  ft  en  ce  7 1 
Il{«  xwrur  rav  tutnvr  that  phrafe  approved  by  Catholick  $ 

x73 
— ■*-  abufed 


The   Index. 

— —  abufed  by  A  nans  ]  74, 1 76 

implies  eternity  263 

Prophetick  Spirit,  1 5*7.     the  meaning  of  that  character 

66 
Xlpvancr  that  word  tt fed  by  Hippolytus  11S 

abufed  by  the  Noetia n's  119 

therefore  changed  by  fame  fur  virv?*Tiq  j  2  O 

Ptolomeans,  a  fed  of  the  Valeminians  5-9 

Pythagoras  (Phtlofopher)  his  notions  (fame  of  them)  ow- 
ing to  the  remains  of  Hebrew  learning  in  Egypt     9S 


0.' 


Uadratus,  Chriflian  Apologift  5*6 

Quakers,  why  tolerated  41 S 


R, 


RAcovians  :  Polifh  Hereticks  fo  called  39^ 
Ratram,   his  controverfy  with  Hincmar  about  the 
phrafe  trina  Deitas  363 
Rebaptization,  praclifed  by  the  Arians  in  Africa       32.7 
the  Rebaptized  how  reftored  to  the  Church  33 t, 

at  Ufi  reftrairfd  by  an  Arian  Council  **  Toledo 

ISO 
Recarede,  King  of  the  Vi.figQths,  his  prudent  reforma- 
tion in  Spain,  and  eflablipment  of  the  ancient  faith 

2tf*>  2*3,37* 

Reformation,  became  the  handle   for  errors  about  the 

Trinity  3S2, 384 

and  was  obftrudled  by  them  3S6 

in  England  4ip,&c. 

Remonflrants,  from  whence  fo  called:  fome  of  them 
leaned  towards  Socinianifm  414 

yet  not  to  be  charged  with  it  in  general:    their  ill 

ufage  at  Dort  led  them  to  a  latitude  of  thinking     4 1 5* 
Reparatus  Bijhop  of  Carthage  345* 

Revelation,  the  only  fufficieni  rule  of  faith       I,  io->433 
Rhodon,  removed  his  School  from  Alexandria  to  Side 

SS 
H  h  2  Rodoaldus 


The   Index. 

Rodoaldus  (Arian)  King  of the  Lombards,  hut  favour- 
able to  Cat h oli cks,  35-9.     his  death  360 

Rotharis  (Arian)  King  of  the  Lombards,  but  favourable 
to  Catholicks  35-9 

Rurfinus,  his  Apology  for  Origen  122 

his  recital  of  the  Creed  of  Gregory  Thauma- 

turgus  141 

and  thofe  of  Rome  and  Aquileia       188 


Rule  of  faith,  the  title  of  the  Creed  23,  24, 1 14 


s 


Abellianifm,  fpread  in  Africa  127 

■■  was   oppofed  by   Dionyfius  Alexandrinus 

ibid. 
1— —  and  drove  fume  into  the  contrary  extreme      136 
was  charged  by  Arius  upon  hisBijhop,  166.    and 


generally  by  his  followers  upon  Catholicks  203 

:harg'd  upon  Hincmar  for  expunging  the  phrafe 


TrinaDeitas  363 

chargd  upon  an  Englifh  Divine  427 

/?wm//Socinianifm  in  England    427,428,433 

every  where  detefted  by  the  Church  430 


Sabellians  (Hereticks)  124,125-,  128,15-1,183,  192,213 
their  notion  in  the  Church  as  early  as  Simon 

Magus,  30,72.     and  in  Juftin  MartyrV  time,  72. 

long  before  Sabellius  112 

— ■ choak'd  with  the  word  opewmoqy  132.  which  yet 

is  charged  with  Sabellianifm  193,  194 

how  far  they  agreed  with  the  Arians  411 


Sabellius  (Herejiarch)     71,112,141,142,144,192,212 

■ abufed  the  wor d  hypoftafis  1 19 

embraced  the  doflrine  of  NoetUS  124 

■  his  quejlion  Jhews  the  opinion  of  the  Catholicks 

125- 

is  confuted  by  Novatian  1 25^  &c, 

and  by  Dionyfius  Alexandrinus  i27,&c. 

1  his  error  revived  by  Servetus  38^ 

Samofatenian  herefy  202,430 

revived  by  "Servetus  385,  432 

'  and  by  Lcelius  Socinus  391 

Sandius,    his  mifreprefentation  of  the  Antenicene  Fa- 
thers, confuted  by  Bifoop  Bull  424,425* 
1  his 


The   Index. 

■  his  notion  of  the  agreement  between  Arians  and 

Socinians  42$* 

Saturninus,  difciple  of  Menander  57 

Scapula,  Governor  of  Africa  62 

Scholaftick    Divinity,    introduced  by  Peter  Lombard 

"•  its  increafe  in  the  next  century  378 

*  its  ufe  and  abufe  379 1,  3  So 

Secundians,  a  fed  of  the  Valentinians  5-8,  $9 

Self-exiiient  :   a  perfonal  charader,    and  not  efjential 

225* 

Semiarians  in  the  larger  acceptation     226,- 228 

230,231,232 

• ■  and  tn  the  ftr idler  227, 235-,  246 

■  pretend  to  keep  a  medium  between  Arians   and 

Catholicks  236 

"  indulged  by  Julian  237 

•*  their  advantage  above  other  heretic ks  246 

Serapion,  Schoolmafter  of  Alexandria  88 

Serapion,  Bijhopof  Thmuis:  Athanafius'/  epifllesto  him 

235* 

Servetus  (Michael)  his  age  and  herefy         383,— — 3§6 

1  his  execution  383,  392,421 

Severians,  a  fed  of  Eutychians,   called  otherwife  Cor- 

rupticolse,  319.     had  that  name  from  49 

Severus,  Eutychian  Patriarchof  Antioch  319 

Severus  (Emperor  and  Perfecutor)  6z 

Sherlock  (Dodor)  his  vindication  of  the  dodrine  of  the 

Holy  and  Ever-bleJfedT x'm\ty  426 

Sige,  one  of  the  Gnoltick  JEons  49 

Sigifmond,  King  of  the  Burgundians,    becomes  a  Ca- 

tholick  338 

Sigifmond  I.  King  of  Poland  394 

Sigifmond  Auguftus,  King  of  Poland  :  the  growth  of 

herefy  under  him  394,  &c.  397 

■  his  edid  againji  heretical  foreigners        396,  398 

■  extended  to  natives,   but  not  executed 

39? 
Sigifmond  III.  King  of  Poland :  his  favour  to  the  Soci- 
nians, and  long  reign  398>4C9*4I5 
Sigifmond  (John)  Prince  of  Tranfylvania,   and  King 
of  Hungary,   myites  Blandrata,    398.     and  declares 
for  Socimanifm  408 

Hh  3  Simop 


The   Index. 

Simon  Magus,    27.     founder  of  every  herefy\  28.     the 

Gnoftick,   29,  33.     Sabellian,   50,  ig<5.     Arian,  30 

■  had  a  ftatue  at  Rome  31 

» fuppofed  Chrift'j  body  imaginary  32 

Simonians,  a  feci  of  Gnolticks/o  called  from  Simon, 
denying   the  reality  of  Chrift'j  incarnation    57,  126, 

Sixtus  or  Xyftus  I.  (P*/*)  128 

Socinianifin,  transform 'd  into  Sabellianifm       427,428 

« 'great  mixture  of  it   in  our  Englifh  feds  418, 

422 

how  far  received  by  Biddle  423,  424 

' —groJJ eft  fort  in  England  426 

Socinians,  too  much  countenanced  by  the  Reform'd  408 

■ — mifmterpret  God's  judgments  409 

< are  r eftr ain 'd ft om  afjembling  at  Lublin         ibid. 

'yet  flour  tp  generally  in  Poland  ibid. 

— comprize  the  fever a'l  feels  of  Antitrinitarians  410 

how  countenanced  by  the  Remonftrants  414,415' 

Socinus  (Fau(lus)  his  judgment  of  LucianV  teftimony, 

81.   and  contempt  of  Antiquity  82 

• came  to  Poland  in  the  reign  of  Stephen  Bathori 

397,  39S 

*  was  nephew  to  Lcelius,  and  embraced  his  fenti- 

mer.ts  402 

lived  in  the  Duke  of  Tufcany'j  Court,  then  re 


tired  to  Baiil  403 

comes  into  Tranfylvania,  defends  the  w  or  (hip  of 


Chrift,  and  how  402,  &c. 

his  difference  with  the  Polifh  Hereticks  407 

'his  deputation  with  Chriftianus  Franken     ibid. 

his  controverfy  with  Erafmus  Johannis  408 

his  art  in  propagating  his  herefy,  and  the  fuccefs 


of  it  408,  410 

— — -  his  ill  treatment  by  the  Mob,  and  his  death  408 

"his  doctrines  methodized  by  his  followers        410 

the  impiety  of  his  fcheme  411,412 


Socinus  (Loelius)  402,403  his  heretical  Club  at  Ve- 
nice. 389.  the  feveral  fchemes  propofed  among 
them,  390,  391.  yet  agreed  in  the  main,  392.'  how 
difpers'd  392, 393 

*  was  in  the  Ebionite  or  Samofatenian  fcheme, 

391,399 
— —  went 


The   Index,' 

mm  i.  ...  -went  twice  to  Poland  393)394 

• corrupted  Lifmaninus  395- 

his  death  393 

Son  of  God,  in  what  fenfe  vifible,    and  comprehended 

by  place  7 1 

South  (Dofior)  his  animadverfions   upon  Dr.  Sherlock 

426 
Speufippus,   Platonick  Pbilojopher,   corrupted  the  i'yl- 

tem  9r 

Spiritus,  a  Dutchman  fo  called^   the  firft  introducer  of 

herefy  into  Poland  394 

Stephen  (Arian)  Bijhop  of  Antioch,  depofed  by  the  A- 

rians  themfelves  196 

Stoicks,  a  feci  of  Philofophers  moft  in  repute  at  the  be- 
ginning of  Chrillianity  90 
Stuckey  (Nathanael)  a  young  difdple  of  Diddle  424 
Subfcription,  fallacious  and  equivocating^  praclifed  by 

the  Arians  244 

Subltance,  communion  of  69 

■  has  fomet imes  the  fenfe  in  which  we  ufe  the  word 

perfon  or  hypoftafis  133,  134 

■  1     '      altogether  dijliked  by  the  rigid  Arians  22)-,  229, 

■>  -i  -» 

Sueves,  a  Northern  people  came  with  the  Vandals  ivu 
Spain  322 

• are  drawn  into  Arianifm,   by  alliance  with  the 

Goths  332, 348 

"perfecuted  the  Catholicks  333 

'"are  at  length  recovered  to   the  Catholick  Faith 

34s 

and  after  that  fubdued  by  the  Goths  35-1 

Sylvanus  (John)  *  Socinian,  fell  into  a  kind  of  Judaifm 

412 
Synod,  o/Dort  41?.  vid.  Council 


T, 


TAcitus  (Cornelius)   his  charge  againft  Chiidians 
46>47 
Tatian  62,  70, 72, 1C6 

Tertullian  23, 5-8,  61,  62,  64,  1 1 5-,  1 1 7,  118 

Hh  4  —had 


The   Index, 

■"  ■■  had  the  fame  notions  of  the  Trinity  before  he  was 
a  Montanift,  as  afterwards  63, 109 

wrote  againfi  Praxeas  1 09,  1 1 3 

his  notion  of  the  Trinity  no,  111,112 

\w  as  forced  to  the  ufe  of  new  terms        no,  1 1 2, 

■ his  book  againft  Hermogenes  113 

—  denied  not  the  SonV  Eternity  ibid. 

— his  diftindion  between  internal  reafon,  and  ex- 
ternal word,  which  he  calls  the  Son  ibid. 
-his  doftrine  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  not  derived  from 


Montanus  114 

»■  ■  imitates  the  word  'wmscuris,    120.     and  opcouirio^ 

131 
Theodat  King  of  the  Oftrogoths  in  Italy,  a  perfon  of 

ill  character  and  practices  34  f 

— has  war  made  upon  him,  and  is  fubdued  by  Jus- 
tinian 346 
Theodemir,  King  of  the  Sueves,  converted  from  Ari- 

anifin  348 

Theodoret  36,.  57, 5-8, 169, 173,214,231 

■ 'is  Bijfcop    of  Cyrus,    and  efpoufes  Neftorius 

283,  37* 

«- — —  but  at  lafl  gives  him  up  286 

his  dodrine  with  refpefi  to  the  proceflion  of  the 

Holy  Ghoft  371",  372 

Theodoric  fArian)  King  o/^Oftrogoths  conquers  the 

Heruli  in  Italy  333 

•l -refents  the  editi  of  Juftin  the  Emperor  againfi 

Arians  339 
— thinks  of  reprifals,  and  fending  the  Pope  in  em- 

baffy,  ufes  him  ill  at  his  return,  and  dies  340 
in  his  time   Goths  are  pojfefs'd  of    Provence 

347 
Theodofians,  a  fe&  o/Eutychians  {alias  Corrupticolas) 

319.    fo  called  from 
Theodoiius,  Eutychian  Patriarch  of  Alexandria      319 
Theodofius  the  Great,  made  Emperor  of  the  Eaft  25-6, 

» labours  to  purge  Conftantinople  25*7 

his  endeavours  to  extirpate  herefy  ,   268 

Theodofius  junior,  Eaftern  Emperor  '  273 

» calls  the  General  Council  of  Ephefus  284 

— '-—favours 


The  Inde  x. 

n    -J     favours  Eutyches,  and  orders  the  calling  of  the 

felonious  Council  of  Ephefus,  302.    and  flands  by 

itto  his  death  303 

Theodotus  (Coriarius)  33*82,83,431 

Theognis  Bijhop  of  Nice,  baniftfd  for  favouring  Arius, 

hut  recall  d    *  190 

Theognoftus,  Schoolmafter  of  Alexandria  88 

his  doftrine  commended  by  Athanafius,  thai*  cen- 

fured  by  Photius  13^ 

GfoAs^cV   that  word  how  applied  to  ChriJVs  Divinity 

94 

Ttelfafchkes}  a  fe61  °f  Eutychians  3'6 

Theophilus  Bijhop  of  Antioch  62,  70 

• — —*firft  ufed  the  word  Trinity,  and  why         73,  74 
©M^flpw,  Christians  fo  called  by  Ignatius  49 

e»7»*85,  <vid.  Mother  of  God 

Theudelinda,  Catholick  Queen  of  the  Lombards,  is 
married  to  Agilulphus  35-8 

■'  is  left  Regent  during  her  forts  minority,  and  pro- 
metes  the  Catholick  Caufe  35-9 
Thrafimond,  Vandal  King  of  Africa:   his  arts  to  jup- 
prefs  Orthodoxy                                                      341 
*             broke  at  laft  into  greater  violence                     342 

■  his  death  343 
Tiberius  {Emperor)  not  able  to  procure  the  Senate'/  ap- 
probation of  Chriftianity  -64 

Timothy,  Eutychian  Bijhop  of  Conftantinople,  recited 

the  Greed  in  the  daily  offices  311 

Toland,  his  notion  of  the  Ebionites  and  Nazarens  con- 

futed  34,  &c. 

Toleration  granted  to  Socinians  in  fome  places,  buuge- 

nerally  denied  .418 

Tongues  cut  out  of  fomeCosffeffors  in  Africa,  who  yet 

continued  to  fpeak,  That  jlory  vindicated  327,  &C 
Totilas  King  of  the  Oftrogoths  in  Italy,  recovered  their 

dominions  346 

■  is  fubdued  by  Narfes  347 
Tradition  (Catholick)  a  good  help  to  interpret  Scrip- 
ture                                                                   3,433 

■  recommended  in  Scripture  4 

i —  do&rinal  as  well  as  ritual  $ 

^ „  in  what  fenfe  condemned  by  Chrift  6 

—  appealed 


The   Index. 

'+—— appeal' d  to  by  the  Fathers  7, 78 

r- and  very  reasonably  7,  &C. 

• objections  againft  it  confidered  1  o,  &c. 

Trajan  (Emperor)  46, 15- 5* 

■  his  persecution  47 
"  his  death  y6 
Trinitarians,  real  and  nominal  427 
Trinity,  or  Triad  :  that  word  when  firft  ufed,  and  why 

73 
*- inconfiftent  with  the  Sabellian  herefy  74 

and  with  the  Arian  (fee  the  errata)  43$* 

r— > —  the  dottrine  charged  with  Platonifm,    85*.     and 

Tritheifm,  86.     but  unjuftly  ibid. 

disputes  about  it  objirucl:  the  Reformation,     386 

but  confirm  the  doctrine  it  J elf  387 

Trinity  Church  at  Cracow,   damaged   by  lightning, 

whilft  Gregorius  Pauli  the  Heretick  was  preaching  in 

it  againft  the  Trinity  396 

Trinity  Church  at  Lublin  deftroy*d  by  lightning,  whilft 

another  Heretick  was  preaching  in  it  to  the  fame  pur- 

pofe  409 

Trifagium,  how  interpolated  by  Eutychians  316 

Trifmegiftus    (Mercurius)  the  book   under  his  name 

l3l 
Trkheifm,  unjuftly  charged  upon  the  Catholicks     86, 

118,266 

■  ■        not  implied  in  the  opoouci*;  1 80 

nor  in  three  hypoftafes  1 93 

not  juftly  charged  upon  the  phrafe  Trina  Deitas 

-—charged  upon  Joachim  Abbot  of  Flora  378 

embraced  by  fome  Here  ticks  Jince  the  Reformation, 
oppofed  by  others  .  390, 399 

Tritheifts,  a  feci  of  Eutychians  3 1 7, 3 18 

Trypho,  JuftinV  dialogue  with  him  61 

Tully  had  no  notion  of  the  Trinity  from  Plato  101 
Turks  took  Conftantinople  367 


Valdw 


The  Index.' 


V Aides  a  Spaniard  brought  berefy  into  Italy     388, 
389 
Valens,  Eaftern  Emperor,  Arian  and  Perfect/tor,  had 
been  a  Catholick  and  Confeffor  under  Julian     241, 

242 

diftreffes  the  Macedonians,   and  favours  gro£'er 

Arians  243 

persecutes  grievoujly  the  Catholicks  248 

his  tranfadions  with  the  Goths  269 

his  death  2 $o, if  6 

Valentinian  I.  Weftern  Emperor,  Catholick,  and  had 
been  Confeffor  under  Julian  241,  242 

—  the  peace  of  the  Church  under  him  242,  249 
his  concurrence  with  the  Council  of  Ulyricum,  and 

death  25*0 

Valentinian  II.  joined  with  Gratian  in   the  Weftern 

Empire  256 

was  fon  of  Juftina  the  Arian  Emprefs  321 

Valentinian  III.  Weftern  Emperor,  agrees  to  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon  303, 304 

divides  Africk  with  the  Vandals,    but  obtains  a 

Catholick  Bijhop  at  Carthage  323 

his  death  324 

Valentinians  (Hereticks)  how  fub  divided  j-S 

occajion  d  fome  infertions  in  the  Creed         66,  i6z 

—ftruck  at  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  73.    and  Ire- 

naeus,  74.    and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  78 

charged  with  Platonifm  94 

—  were  fo  called  from 

Valentinus  (Herejiarch)  not  firjl  inv enter  of  iEons  49 

yet  perfected  the  Gnoftick  fcheme  5-8,  &c 

« the  moft  confiderable  Heretick  of  the  fecond  century 

6\ 

W*Platonift  94 

Valentinus  Gentilis,  one  of  SocinusV  Club,  whether 

Tritheift  or  Arian  390 

**~ — his  prevarication  at  Geneva,  arrival  in  Poland, 

and  execution  at  Berne  393 

Vandals, 


The  Index, 

Vandals,  a  people  from  the  North :  how  drawn  into  A- 

rianifm  270 

■■        ■  pojfefs'dfirft  of  Spain,  go  next  into  Africa  322, 

,  .    .  332. 

thetr  ignorance  325',  326 

Very  God:  that  phrafe  as  applied  to  Chrift,  how  abufed 
by  the  An'ans  17$* 

Victor  (Pope)  excommunicated Theodotus  84 

'favoured  the  Montanifts,  till  better  advifed  by 

Praxeas  105* 

Victor  Tununenfis,  African  Bijhop  and  Confeffor,  at- 
tefts  the  ftory  af  the  Confeifors  fpeaking  without 
tongues  330 

Victor  Vitenfis,  African  Bijhop  and  Confeffor,  a  cotem- 
porary  witnefs  to  the  Confeflbrs  fpeaking  without 
tongues  329, 330 

Virlgoths,  iid.  Goths 

Uladiitus,  King  of  Poland,  difcountenanced  Socinian- 
ifm  41 5-,  41 6 

Ulphilas  the  Go-thick  Bijhop,  269.  being  perverted  to 
Arianifm,  draws  in  his  countrymen  and  other  Nor- 
thern nations,  who  afterwards  overfpread  the  Weftern 
Empire  270,  321,  &c. 

Unbegotten,  vid.  *Ayw»jro$ 

Unitarians  in  the  third  century  1 1 7 

J another  name  for  Soeinians  41  o,  424 

— their  fcheme  of  agreement  in  England  427 

— joining  with -the  King  of  Sweden,  are  fupprefs  d 

in  Poland  416,417 

U 11  originate :  the  Arian  abufe  of  that  word  224 

Unfcriptural  terms,  no  obje&ion  to  a  dodrine,  if  the 
fenfe  be  fcriptural  16 

■  introduced  to  avoid  the  cavils  of  her eticks,  ibid. 
without  any  dijhomur  done  to  Scripture  17,  18 

* warranted  by  the  example  of  St.  John       39, 40 

—particularly  covfidered  with  refpeB  to  the  word 
■itAowtnos  182,  183 

■  urg V  by  rigid  Arians  both  againft  ofttnwrwi  and 
cfAoioucrux;  226 

Vortlius  (Conradus)  charged  with  Socinianifm      '414 


Wifdom 


The  Index. 


w 


w. 


Ifdom,  ufually  the  name  of  the  fecond perfon  in  the 
Trinity  68 

■  but  fometimes  applied  to  the  third    70,  7^,  76, 

118,  369 
Wifdom  (Sep/*)  a  Valentinian  iEon  74 

Word.  vid.  Acyoi 

Worfliip,  to  the?Father,  through  the  Son,  in  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoft :  what  meant  by  it  153, 15-4 
■  ■  directly  paid  to  the  Son                         If$,if6 

■  and  to  the  Holy  Ghoft  1  y6, 1 5-7, 1  ?8 

■  catachreftical  1  j"6 
Worfhip  of  Chrift,  oppofed by  fome  hereticks  in  Tranfyl- 

vania,  401.    and  in  Poland  406 

■  "'how  defended  by  the  other  Socinians     403,  &c. 


X. 


XEnocrates,  Platonick  Philofopher,  corrupted  Pla* 
to'/  fyftem  91 

Xyftus  or  Sixtus  I.  (Pope)  128 


Y. 


*  \/w       \  that  term  when  fir  ft  ufed  of  the  per- 
il Hypoftafis  Jions  in  the  Godhead,  and  why       120 
fometimes  ovoioc,  or  <pu<m  ufed  inftead  of  it     133, 

J34 

• fometimes  reflricTions  neceffary,  as  that  they  are 

not  feparate  or  divided  hypoftales  136, 137,  195 

-has  fometimes  the  fame  fen fe  in  which  we  ufe  evaiet 

148 
■  its  meaning  not  defined  at  Nice  192 

'great  contefts   about   it  in    the  fourth  century 

I92,&c.  197 
»  Latins  wanted  a  word  to  render  it  by  194 

——•one  only  afferted  by  Marcel  1  us  204 


'the 


The  Index. 

■■'        the    word    wholly    rejected    by    rigid  Arians 

233 
its  meaning  candidly  fettled  by  Athanafius  194, 

19^196,237 

how  applied  to  the  perfona!  union  of  two  natures 

in  Chrift,  and  the  difputes  about  it  280,  281 

1    how  abufed  by  the  Eutychian  Tritheifts  317 


Z. 


ZAnchius,  his  miftake  about  the  author  of  the  ex- 
plication of  the  firft  of  St.  John  402 
Zeno,  Eaftern  Emperor  31  r 

his  fcheme  of  cbmprehenfion  315- 

Zeno,  Stoick  Philofopher  96 

Zephyrin  (Pope)  reft  or  ed  Natalis  to  communion,    not 

without  difficulty  84 

fnppofed  by  Mr.  Dodwel   to  have   been  Pope 

when  Praxeas  came  to  Rome  10^ 

ZuickerV  notion  of  Ebionites  and  Naxarens  confuted 

34,  &c. 
'     Zuinglius,  an  early  Reformer  38^ 


*****  4p4?^4?^4?4?4?4?4?4?4^^4?^4?4?4?4,4?^^^4,4?  ***** 
Errata  &  Addenda. 

PAge  74.  line  f.  add  —withal  it  denoted  at  the  fame 
time  their  equality  of  nature,  and  like  a  decad,  a  century, 
a  myriad,  and  other  the  like  names  of  number,  it  could  not  be 
reafonably  underftood,  to  reckon  together  things  different  in 
kind,  but  fucb  as  are  properly  the  fame  or  confubfiantial.  Set 
farther,  p.  435-.  p.  107.  1.  9.  dele  without  any  diftinctton. 
p.  1 19.  1.  penult,  r.  Bafil  Ep.  64.  p.  8/0.  8c  Ep.  391.  p.  1172. 
p.  132.  l.ult.  r.  Infuper  in  priore  articulo  orientalcs  eccle- 
iix  non  folum  legunt  in  Deo  Patre  omnipotente,  fed  addunt 
invifibili  &  impaflibili.  Erafm.  in  refp.  ad  cenfur.  Theol.  Paris, 
Tit.  1 1.  de  fymb.  A  port.  But  -what  authority  Erafmus  had  for 
this  affertion  about  the  Eaftern  Churches,  7  know  not.  p.  144. 
I.3.  r.  vccfAUTuv.  p.  148. 1.2^.  r.  equivalent,  p.  18^.  1.  22, 
r.  srpo  fcpeW.  p.  188.I.23.  r.  referr'd  to.  p.  192  is  mif- 
number'd  122.  p.  193.  L  antepenult,  r.  vfjuu*.  p.  197. 1.  2. 
for  byr.  with,  ibid.  1.  3.  for  -with  r.  by.  p.  201.  I.  antepenult, 
r.  Paphnutius.  p.  248. 1.29.  r.  B-iov  Tovrrxr^et.  p.  2/3.  I  pro- 
antepenult,  r.  vid.  Athanaf.  de  incarn.  contr.  Apol.  p.  278. 
\.  antepenult,  t- ttuOcvtu.  p.  289  is  mifnumber'd  299;  and  in 
proportion  all  the  following  pages  are  mifnumber'd.  p.  3  2 1 . 1.  an- 
tepenult, r.  care.  p.  330.  1.  28.  r.  abfciflis.  p.  385-.  I.  27. 
r.  fcecundum.  p.  389.  1.  27.  r.  ad  magiftraturr— —  juflus. 
p.  391.  1.  28.  for  that  r,  though,     p.  422  is  mifnumber'd  22. 


******  ***********  **********  ******** 


<$