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




><$ -?. 

o i 

1 1 


/Uu I 

h u 



A N 

Hiftorical Account 

O F T H E 


That have been in the 


Concerning the Doctrine of the 

Holy and Everbleffed Trinity: 


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&V t {A1M.0- 

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


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^ 


FTE R the learned and ufe- 
ful labours of thofe who have 
gone before me, in ajferting 
the Chriflian c Dot~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 
c DoEirine, 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 Preface. 

the firft and fur eft ages of Chrifttanity, 
when the fame terms were made ufe of 
to explain this myftery y 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- 

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- 


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 


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 


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 
fubje0 9 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 


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 ? c Doft 
« 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. 


S E R- 

' MaS^**' 


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 

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- 

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 Church 3 . 

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 thee c . 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 difcipline e , but likewife 
of fpme others of a doctrinal kind f , 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 traditions 11 . 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, 


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 
charifmata y 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. 


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 


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 heaven y 
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 anathema m . 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 . 


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. 


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 


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. 


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- 

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 


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 

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. i m 
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 w T ho 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 men r , 
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 articles 11 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. 


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 1, 2, 

% Iren. adv. haer. 1. 1. c. 2. 1. 3. c. 5,4. Ed- Feuard. 
"Tertul. de vetand. Virgin, 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- 

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- 

k c Vid. Authores proxime laudar. '■ 


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 ufc d . 

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¥ vtlv t KO.I uq to uyioy -zmZfAcC) 

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


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 
them c . 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. 


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 s y that he pafs'd 
among them for the great power of God h , 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. 


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 herejy k > 
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. 


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 companion 111 . 
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 
Eufebius 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 Gnoftick 1 . 
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©. 


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.^. 


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 ftatuc u 
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 M r . 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- 

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£7rev6ivoci t 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. 


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 Mofes y tho' that one would fuppofe 
muft be merely hypocritical , 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 pow T ers 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 principles 6 ; 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-. 


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 
Lord h : 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- 
fkanius 1 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- 
thians n y 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 faith 1 , but fpeaks of the 
Ebionites with the utmoft abhorrence, as 
of themoft abandond hereticks u . 

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. 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. 


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 heard y 
they f aw,, they handled him z , 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 either . 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 Gofpel d . An im- 
portant confeffion, from an adverfary, of 
the great antiquity of this dodrine ! 

a 1 Joh. iv. 2, 3. b Joh.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. 


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 Chrift h . 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 
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. 


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 ver 1 , ^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 men , 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. 

'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. 

p p 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. 


4^ An Hiflorkal Account of 

Sum. I. terms as to the Father himfelf 1 , 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 liveth y 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 


' r Sl [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} ©£05, xki 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 2 d , (vid. Godefchalc. Steweck. in comment, ad Veget. p. 2. 


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 c Philoj)atris 
alcribed to Lucian 7 -. 

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, 


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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy, 



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

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

HAVING at large afferted in a 
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. 


4<S An Hiftorkal Account of 

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

'^sy^J mas anc [ s t# 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. 


' the Trinitarian Controversy. 47 

ednefs to all mankind ; 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 him f . 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. 


4 8 An Hiftorical Account^/ 

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


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, 


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 article , 
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 , 


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

° Xp<$-» rS B-iS ijfAavt . ■ 1 «£> S-£o<; 'lwS$ 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 v t pjav \yyX% 
atv\Si !«•». Ad Ephef. § 15*. 

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

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 c Davidv, 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. 


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 deceivers , 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- 
my f . 

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- 
created 11 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 
i a 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- 
tioch y 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 ceconomy y 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 


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. 

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


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 laws z . 
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. 


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 Aoxn1ai 7 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. Jerom e , 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. 


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*, Tertullian h 7 Epipha- 
nius' c y 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? 


the Trinitarian Controversy. yp 

rent feds c , zsthzSecundians, Ttolornseans, 
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)emiurgus 7 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 Nus y 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\ 


6 o An Hijlorkal Account 0/ zyEons, and producd by Monogenes> for 
V^V 1 ^ 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 c Ple- 
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>emiurgus y 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. _. .- 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 61 

Chrift who appear'd on earth, whereas Ce- 
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. 
aon h : 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 imaginary 1 ; and did more open- 
ly blafpheme the Creator of the world as 
the author and origin of evil k . 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. 


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 
ads or martyrdom of St. c Pvlycarp y 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. 


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 worfhip . 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. 


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 * 6 l°J el 
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 
Ghoft z , 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 Uiat sevm ixQovreC u • 
.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 
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- x 77* 
tions God the Father, God the Son, and 
the Holy Ghoft, as the objed of their faith 
and worihip b . 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(P m 
r 7iu^ 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 Athenagoras i J 

c e Evoq 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, 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 7TvivpjX t ti$ h 


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


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/ton h , 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- 

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 9 Au1'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 God y 
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 wifdom 1 ; 
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, Tatian y 

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 on iy f or 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. 


■ the Trinitarian Controversy . 71 

ber'd with relation to the 
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 


to earth, in his divine nature, whilft he 
dwelt upon it, than the Father himfclf is 
to heaven, where he keeps his refidence . 
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 
Lord 1 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. 

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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 73 

truly Gody as well as he, might be unde- 
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£ons y ) 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 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. y^ 

co'exift.with the Father*^ equal to. him in 
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 overall 2 ; 
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 Spirit h , 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 Wifdom c y 
by whom likewife he ftill preferves and 
governs them d , 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. ff 9 

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. 


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 


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 himfelf 1 , 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 Spiritum 1 fit 
homo fecundum iimilitudinem Dti, Iren. 1. f. c. 6. 


the Trinitarian Controversy, 77 

for -all obferv'd, that the prepofition $$& 
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 afterwards 1 , 
Clemens was the celebrated Schoolmafter i9 2 « 
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*. 


78 An Hijlorical Account^/ 

Serm.ii. the conduct of a chriftian life, and labours 
K^T^ to preferve the apofiolical tradition in its 
genuine purity 1 ". 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- 
ty , 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 A6y(§K C. 6. p. I 10. 

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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 79 

originate ,c , or God of himfelf, yet the Son 
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. 


80 An Hifiorkql Account^/ of the Church. WhilA the controversy 
v^OP^ w ith 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?i y 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< 


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- 
piter b . To which the Heathen replied* 
that this was a thing he could no way un-* 
derftand, how One fhou'd be Three, and 
Three One c . 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 Lucum t 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 Epiphanius c , 
under the name of Alogi y 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 them f , 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-; 
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- 
nople h , 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 man 1 . Which probably gave occafion. 
to the Church to fix upon his hcrefy the cha- 
racter of agWl'fli©* c&7rcgx(7ia k 7 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 Zephyrin y he 
was, not without difficulty, reftored to 
the communion of the Church 1 . 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 philofophy . 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 Reafon y 
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^/ and cbvcr'd in fiich allegorical defcnptions, 
^V^-* as were commonly taken in the groffer 
ienfe to denote fo many diftincl: divine 
Subftances f . 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. 


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 

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 Alexandria 2 -, which if 


* 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 Pantcenus s 


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. 

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 (Oj J <&. 
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. 


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 (c 1 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.XiXTlXOV y <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 (c 1 '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, 


<?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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. <p i 

Plato, by Speujippus and Xenocrates his 
immediate followers 1 , 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 c Plotinus n > 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 century , 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. 

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. 


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 Ariftotle y 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.ti t 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^© 


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- 
mory r . 

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 notions 1 *, and made it one 
great branch of their accufations againft 
the antient hereticks*, as firft againft the 


* 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- 


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 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. 


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<Pius t 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. 


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 c Platonick 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- 
pher d . 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* 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 97 

fuppofe them imitators of the heathens, 
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 c Plato, 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 reft e , 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. them f . 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.iv y 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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. pp 

to this purpofe, to colled out of the wrv 
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 Scripture 1 , 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 had 1 . 

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&Tuv f &' 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^ ^) 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^ f a i t h h ac i 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 dead m , 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. 


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 
^Plato y 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 c Divine 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 
c Platonifm 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. 

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 power t was clearly coincident with the Arian Syjlem. 

s E Pv- 

the Trinitarian Controver/y, 



Preach'd Jan. 2, 1723-4. 


HE doftrinc of the fccond serm. lit 
century, in relation to the e- ^OT ' 
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- 

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 
Ghofl c . 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. 


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 I9 g. 
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 him f $ 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». c Praxeas> 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. 


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 
Judea y 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'd 1 , 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 Rome y 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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy \ 107 

fiafm of Mont anus ^ yet there was a fed Serm. hi; 
of the Montanifis themfelves imbibed his <s~T^J 
herefy 1 , 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 Montanifts y 
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 *Pacian n 
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 himfelf . The 


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/. 

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


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 nominal y 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. 


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 both 1 . 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 Ghoft 1 . Thus they 


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 


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 


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 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. 


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 
< Praxeas d , 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 &Son c . 
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 word 3 
if it be not (as fome have thought) an er- 
ror of tranfcribers h , 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. 


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 
Smyrna 1 . 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/ians 11 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 

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'etus y 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 does y 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 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*xrt f 
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 Tertullian y 
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' Acy®* ctvoc^K^ j — -Aoy®- <r«j)| 
«y, TFtiuf/jot *tv t ourctf/jiq vfl. §»4« m tm zrctvreov &eo$ ivAoyq\o$ 
ysyivtjTctt, t£ C6v8g6>7r&> yivbufytgh Site, l<?u uq t»s cuavccq. §. 6\ 
&k unv on iya <£ 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- 
fflovovm m . . *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 Xeyov y %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 \iywv t % eMo S-jjr^ 
^£Va>, <*AA* »? ^(S^ ex. (puToi. §. 1 1. Auo tap zsx. ipa) $■«»$, uXX" 
h £k«, xpo<ru7ru j a\jo l qikovc^ccv -j rpir^us, ^J'" t» #34# mmtftatt 
*** §.14. 


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 
Sabellius z 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 ellence c . 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. 


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 

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 way 1 , 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. 


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 hereticks k , 
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. 


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 Celfus y 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- 
dergone 11 . 

It was in his time that Beryllus Biftiop 
of Boftra in Arabia y after he had for fome 
time governed his Church with reputation , 
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. 

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. 


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 faith 1 . 
A few years after the death of Origen y 
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«r f 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 one t 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 
Gods 1 ? 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 fame 2 
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 - / ^ r V 
unoriginate, yet mil confider'd as fountain 
of the Deity, communicating the divine 
fubftance to the Son, and therefore plainly 

The poifon however of Sabellianifm, 
being firft broached at 'Ptolemais, a city of 
Tentapolis in Jlfrica b > 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) < DionyJius J 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, 


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 Sabellians y 
and drew on their complaints againft him 

262. to his name fake c Dionyfius> 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 
them h , as was plain from the manyexprefs 
confeffions he had interfperfed of the ca- 
tholick faith 1 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 $&£, fi>^rs p <P^H l$i6V t 
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. 


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 perfo r 
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 coeternity y 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 f A7rxuyxirfAX j ov (pajroc, oc,'$ov t ncivTai; xxl xvn<; &$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 fent 1 . 

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 fynod m ^ 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 
book 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 it f , do exprefly affert it to have 
been found in his works. Nay, and En* 
febius himfelf 1 , 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,(v t 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 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 powers 7 -. 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 paflagcs 3 , 
fo he exprefly declares, in the behalf of 
c Pierius y 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 herefy c ! 
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 Son d . 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 Trinitarian Contvoverfy. 1 3 y 

The cafe of Theognoftus 7 another Alex- Serm. hi. 
andrian writer of thofe times, and Tieri- Vop^J 
uss fucceflbr in the government of that * 

fchool f , is fomewhat different. He is 
produced by Athanaftus% 7 as an iliuftrious 
witnefs to the catholick doctrine. And it 
is confefled by c Photms h 7 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<v s 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 faith 1 . 

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 

'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 


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. 


138 An Htjlorkal Account?/' 

Serm. hi. join'd together by unity of efience. This 
v/V^ is evident from that epiftle of Pope e Dio- 
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/tvii t 
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%ov t 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. 


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 
too r , 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 Athanafiuss y 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 Xoyov t 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 ^^V x - ; 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- 
ting w . 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. 


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- 
gory r , without any more exprefs citation 
produced in form a . 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 
finus h , 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 

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 defign b . So lit- 
tle reafon had any of our modern writers , 
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 Boftra d , 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~ 
febius c , charges him with denying his God 


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 Antioch y 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 man f . 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. 

' '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] x u y jai ^- 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. 


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 c Dionyfius of Alex- 
andria, in anfwer to the queftions of this 
heretick be genuine 1 , he there feems to 
acknowledge the divinity and eternity of 
the Aoy@^ y or Word of God k , which (as 
Epiphanius 1 ftates his opinion) came and 
dwelt in Jefus y being man. So that we 
may the lefs wonder at Thotius's being fo 
exprefs m , that Neftorius> who afterwards 
divided the two natures into two perfons, 
derived his herefy from Taulus Samofa- 

But to fay the truth, by comparing all 
accounts together 11 , 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. 


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 Artemon y 
and afterwards (as Thilaftrius* and St. A11- 
gujline 1 obfervc) it was copied by 'Thotznus. 

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

%i£ OU #vfy#5T» KX^lX 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.$iT o<pSsvrx t *£ IvTiZhv r>is vxuofeas tw a^v ij/woTX, »£ 
icey/y fixrth&ets ZetfuXyQoTocr Xoyov 3 Iviyyov t% Xfxvh <£ c-etyix* 
ci cevrf opoXcyii' rca (dp 7reno^TfJij<f 7T(y cutuvm itTU, ry 'j U7ru$%e4 
cot vx^ccgiT xvxhtyjiinx' Ivx sis sly, <pn<rlv, sVj xxvrx 3-se$ 
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 perfon w . 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 #p*S"o$ «^S» oCk %v 6f//0iscri©^ l?t t» sresrpj, j£ 
*cvx.yK>) rptl$ %<na$ ihcit t 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. Xtyav Gfjcovriov r&ix Xiyu t inetv 
two. Tff^ov^ox.iifJUw>nVy j£ Ttfs Ik rcwrm ymaffyxs ofhoacn^ 
i7y-" ic&v tsv 0*05 ofjuoxart®" y T<a ffcer?), ctvo&yKT) upo'iino- 
XiioR c&vtm ir.ocj j| «§ <£ iymii&wciV) <£ /w»» tivxt Toy ffyu %XTita s 
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. ' 


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 exiftence 3 . 

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 c DionyJius 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 fentiments c . 
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 him d , 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 lvret y 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 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 Lucian y 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 him f 
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 Samofata h y 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?iov 9 


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 Father 1 . 

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 


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 names k , 
abiding to that purpofe, it is probable, the 
term of confubftantiality x > tho' ftill they ve- 
ry inconfiftently feparated the divine perfons 
in a manner more agreeable to the Avian 
fyftem m . 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 Manicheans n 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. , 

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. 


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 . 


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>- 
fop y 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- 


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 Samofata n > 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 vM y 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%k 9 csp. 5-0. p. 48. Edit. Oxon. vJW tm 

r&'j cM>» fiKi netTft, », r, A» 


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 
men a , 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 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. 


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. 


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 GhoJl c . 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 
Thaumaturgus G : 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&, 


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. 



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 ancients 1 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 occafion m 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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 161 


Preach'd Feb. 6 y 1723-4. 

#♦♦ ♦ ♦ 4 ? ^4 ? 4?^4 ? ^4 , 4 , ^4 ? ^4 ; 4^4 , ^ r l ? ^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 beautified 4 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 himfelf b . 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 

3 2 3» 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. 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 . 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 163 

But ah the mifchief which came in and Sbrm. iv 4 
encreafed as faft as eafe and profperity ! y ^ // ^T s ^ 
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- 
fhip 1 : 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 rr t v 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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. \6$ 

and (like the created angels) might have serm. iv. 
fallen intoJin n : 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°, tho J 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 
time y 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 c Dionyfius, 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". 

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 Samofata 1 $ 
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 reprefented 11 
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. 


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 

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 purpofe b . 

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 
Nicomedia c . This, however it might lay 
reftraint upon fome d , 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 him c ; and another foon afterwards 
in 'Palejline, where the affeffors granted 
leave to him and his adherents, to gather 
congregations in their refpe&ive diocefes 3 

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. 


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 him f . 
And to this time we may refer that attempt 
of Arius, which is mention d by Theodorzts, 
to change the c Doxology 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) 

f SozDm. 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. t j lrown ff hi s 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 
profpcrity k . 

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 feems m 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. 

vetick 3 

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- 
ceiver 11 , 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. 

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 

I chriftian 

xyz An Hifiorical Account af 

Serm. iv. chriftian world, befides Priefts and Dea- 
W^ cons without number 1 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, g f 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. c 9 . 

r Socrat. 1. & c. 8. Thcod. L 1, c. 7. 


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 Church 2 . 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. Cyril b . It profeffes a belief 
in the Son, as being God of God, and be- 
gotten of the Father before all worlds . 
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. 

media y 

174 ^n Hiftorical Account of 

Serm. iv. media y 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 confeffion f . But 
perhaps both accounts may be confiftent 
enough $ when it was firft offered by Eu- 
febius of Ctefarea y 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. 


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 him h 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 Father 1 . 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 God k . 
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?" i yivo[/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. 


\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 dew 1 . 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- 
tures 11 , 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. 


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- 
cil . 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 

— '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 fenfe y 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 time r , 
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 

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[Ai6x t 

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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy* 1?$ 

preffions was well known and underftdod : Ser M . iv; 
but that laid no reftraint on thefe evafive v **^V r V 
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 
honefty f ! 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 
Nicomedia y produced in council, that he 
was moft: averfe to the acknowledgment 
of that charafter, as no way reconcileable 
4:o his fcheme u . 

f See Dr. Waterland'j two Treatifes of the Cafe of Arian Sub- 

1 See the Nicene Creed in the Councils, H'tftorims y 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 will y (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 fubftance y 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\ 


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 fatisfled 2 : 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- 
ftinacy b . 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 ejjence y 
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- 
rians y 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&v 3 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, 


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 

* See the firft Sermon, p. 16*— —10. 


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 r An 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 Arius y 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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 8 y 

to anfwer this purpofe fo effectually as the s E rm. 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 
word m , 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 it n . 

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 

tztihi -j (2 ot mpl ivo~t£tov ^ ' Ap«oy, Trgb x^vav [Sp ihcit rov itov 

t\sy0V « m ii w ^ 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%u t <£ 7r?x<rct$ owtZv 7K5 TTtGuvoryTcit, ov m$ 
vtpufTTziQso-t t»5 ctKi^cdx^ IxQciXXi" 7mvTX yxv o\>v &[/%><&> G"c<piQo% 
(c 1 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 them r . 
After all, they concluded with a particu- 
lar cenfure of the moft offenfive blafphe- 
mies of Arius i \ 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/jUt wn 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 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 187 

confeffion of faith, and the anathema's s E rm. iv. 
annexed to it*. Indeed their condud af- v^or^-* 
terwards v 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- 
lently r , 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 (c 1 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, 


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" 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&rtov 7 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 Epiphanius c , ^^^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 banifhment d , 
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./. 


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, 


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 s E rm. 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 ConJiantine y by complaining 
that Arius had been mifreprefented, and 
differed nothing in his fentiments from the 
Nicene Fathers 111 , 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 catholick , 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. 

We have the form both in Socrates and Sozomen, as above 

* Ruffin. H. E. 1. 10. c. 2j% 


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- 
rence 1 . 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. 


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 hypoftafes y 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 oYizhypoftdJis h , 
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 Y L yov(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 Marcellus 9 
(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> t i e 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 hiftorian e 
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 Weft y 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. 

f Greg. Naz.Orat. 21. p. 30/. vid. & Suiccr. in vocibus 


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# 
£afi h 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- 
pofiajis 1 : having taken his notions (as it 
feems) from Antioch y where he heard and 
was ordain d by c Paulinus m , 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- 
bellianifm . 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 Arians y influenced, v^>Ts^ 
it is probable, with the fpecious cry of Sa- 
belltanifm y 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 Arians 1 . 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 orthodox 11 : and however the difpute 348. 
about "Doxologies w , and the ordination of 


* 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 c Diodorus to leave Leontius's commu- 
nion, yet it feems they did not a&ually 
feparate, but continued in fubjedion to 
the Arian Bifhop x . 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 Meletius 7 -. 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 Antioch y 
after the beginning of the fifth century . 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 h e 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- 
niihment h , 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„ 



the Trinitarian Controversy. 201 

When the firft of thefe points was s E rm. iv. 
gained, there could be no great difficulty V-^v^N^ 
in reftoring Arius to communipn. But 
being now obliged to adjourn to Jerufa- 
lem y 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- 
tion 1 . 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 Jerufalem y 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- 


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 herefy . This 
w r as thought ground enough to get him 
depofed and excommunicated by the next 
council at ConJiantinople y 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 

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 
ages r . 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 d 1 Ancyre, 


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 Biihoprick x . 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 

y Hilar, frag. 2. §.21, col. 1209. Ed. Ben. 


204 An Hifiorical Account of 

sirm. iv. cellus had join'd with that party of Ca- 
^OT^ tholicks which admitted but one hypo- 
Jlafis z , 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. Baftl z y 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- 
nion , 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 Catholicks d . 

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- 
con 5 * Differ tat ion above cited. 

d Vid. Legat, Marcel, ad Athanaf. in Montfauc. Nova 
collec. torn. 2. 


the Trinitarian Controverjy, 20 j 

that Eufebian council in his favour, and s E rm. 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. 


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 Taul y 
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 room h , 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 fons k , that whilft 
the Weft em Churches under Conftans and 
the younger Conftantine, enjoy'd a perfect 
peace and tranquility 1 , the Eaftern were 
337* grievoufly affli&cd by Conftantius y 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. 


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)v t rtM' * kxt S7nyva- 
triv. Orat. 11. in laud. Athanaf p. 38/. 

• Ovid Metaph. 1. 2. 


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- 
4j 9 . 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.- 




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 



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 



1 1 6 Art Hiflorical Account^/ 

Serm. iv. the confeffion of faith, which was agreed 

^-Of^ on by thefe Eaftem heretieks a . 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. 


the Trinitarian Conirdverfy. 



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 


An Hifiorical Account^/ 

Serm. v. tphotinus the Bifhop of Sirmium in IltyZ 
s *sY s *> 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 
Sabellius , 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- 
tis f . 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. 


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 Jefus 7 
which feems rather to fall in with the he- 
refy of *Paulus Samofatenus k , 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 Biihops 1 349, 
had fo little outward effeci, that he con- 
tinued in pofleflion of his bifhoprick m , 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 
difputation , 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 
r 3?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 Thilippopolis 7 -. 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 - 

r l49. ed inftances with Athanafius to haften his 

return to his bifhoprick, which was now 

facilitated by the death of the intruder . 

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- 
nifhment e . 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, 
4 22 f 


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 
Conftantius 1 . 

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 
Arianifm n y 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. 

Lucifer de non conven. cum H^ref. p. ijq. Be mori- 
endum pro Filio Dei. p. iyc, } &c. 


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 Pontificate 1 . 

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 
zeal f , 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.f 4 . 

* Hilar, frag. <$. §. 4, 5% 6, 
1 Hilar, de fynod. §. 2, 5, 


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 it u . 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. §. 7 8. 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. 


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, 


222 An Hifiortcal Account of 

Serm. v. the Son to be qjuloih?i(&,, or of like fiibft ante 
^^T^ w ith 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 fometimes 1 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-*©-. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. zi\ 

of Antioch k ? was now the favourite of s E rm. 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 fubftance y 
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* 

* 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 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, uvoy J ci(3h'^ m T6p 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 difputings v 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„ 


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 Catholicks 3 , 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 Sirmium b , in that impious con- 
feiTion which is recited by Athanafius c y 
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. 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. 



n6 An Hifiorkal Account of 

Se*m. v. equally condemn'd e . 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- 

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: 

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*. 


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 Sirmmm m , 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 Scriptures 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 fadion r . 
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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 119 

difcreet dire&ions which the council gave Serm. v. 
them 1 , 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 Eaft K , (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?is y 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. 


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- 
tion 1 , 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>k m , where 
giving up A'etius to banifhment and the 
Emperor's difpleafure n , 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, 


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 hypoftafis 1 . 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,icus n , who afterted the Anomaan doc- 
trine with fuch freedom and boldnefs that 

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. 


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-arians 2 , 
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. 


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 - - - - : 


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 Divinity 5 . 

This Se&, who from the doctrine they 
efpoufed were called c Pneumatomachi> 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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 237 

fors h , began his reign with recalling them Serm. v. 
who had been fent into banifliment, and ^^^ 
admitting all, whether Catholicks, Semi- 
arians y Eunomians or Thotinians, to the 
enjoyment of equal liberty or licenfe 1 . 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- 
andria x y 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 Afia y 
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. 7 Si. 

■ Athanaf. torn, ad Antiochen. torn. 1. par. 2. p. 770, &c. 

Vid. Hieron. adverf. Luciferian. torn. 4. par. 2. col. 302, 
Ed. Ren. 

p Vid. Sozom. I.4. e. 27. & X',f< c. 14. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 1 3 9 

broadly to be mifunderftood) loft credit s E rm. 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 Ecclefiafticks f , 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 offices 1 , 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. tyrs n y 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 diforders w . 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 oppreilions 2 . 
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. 


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- 
och h , which openly confciVd the confub- 
Jlantiality y 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 

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 Eudoxius h \ 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 
credulity ,) 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- 
feflion e . 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 fubftancc f ? (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. portance h . 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 Ilfyricum k 
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- 

It was obferv'd before 1 , 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 Weft m , 
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. 



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 

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 fubftance . 
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. Athanafius y 
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. 


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- 
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. 


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, 


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 
life e . 

• 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. 


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 Apollinaris y Bifhop 
of Laodicea, who was a perfon of great 
parts and learning, and had been highly 
efteem'd among the Catholicks f as a fuf- 
ferer for the truth, and a ftrenuous aflertef 
of a confubftantial Trinity : tho J 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 
Sabellianiflm 1 , 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. 


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 
nature 1 ; 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 foul m , 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- 
ven n , 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. 8yo s 

Ruffin. H. E. 1. 11. alias 2. c. 20. 

* Greg. Naz. Orat. f\. p. 738. 

• Vid. Athanaf. ad Epift. §. 2. p. poi. 


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 body f , 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- 
mortal 11 , 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. 


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 accufation c ; 
neither Pope c Damafus y 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 him e , 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 c Dimterit£ 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- 


2 $6 An Hijiorical Account/?/ 

Serm. v. own party, he was not only difclaimed f 
^^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 Conftantinople y 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 empire 1 ; 
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, c Photinians, and Euno- 
mians m \ 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 affcmblies . 

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 c Demophilus J 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. 
Cod. Theodof. 10". tit. $■►!./. vid. comment. Gothofred. 

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 room r . 

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. 


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 GhoJl y 
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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. t6t 

they continued afterwards in ufe in thofe Serm. v. 
Churches refpe&ively. The African 7 - 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 life b . 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 
Prophets 1 : 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 . 


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, TTifOlTfiJ 1 ;* 6)5 

vrourcc xxSohtv/), 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 Lt tv fiuzTitrtJua pzTave'ioct . Cyril. Hierof. Cat, Myft. i, 

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 uym t 


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 faith 1 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 •■) oi7roTxXiv t <£ 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-ioZ y which is included in what follows, B-zov uX^mov 
Ik B-iou kXy&ivcv. (2.) Tutz h roTc, ovpcivoTc, kcu to* h ry yv t 
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 


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. 


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. 


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 Tritheifm y 
which the Macedonians were apt to urge 
againft them , (not conftdering that the 
fame arguments which vindicated them 
from <r Ditheifm, 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. §.$. 


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- 
bids r 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 feems 1 " 
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- 
don 1 , 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 Antioch y 
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. 


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 it u . 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 difturbance w ; 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 afterwards 2 , 
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, 


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. 


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 Arianiftn A . 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 delufion e , 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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 



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 **^T S ~' 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?2ity y 
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* 
doftus y 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 man d . 

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>X x (rVyxtiTfTKJMTO Ti CMTOtVTM, KM yifVOUVTO. SOCrat. H. E. 


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 Catholicks h . 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 
him 1 -, 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 \vomb k . 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>r t - 
FtyS e&VTv' km) nvtZfjusc otyiov »£&»*, wrca<z » p«,xecyi(&* /3e»Tii<pji 


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 Chrift , 
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. 

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. 


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 time 1 . 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- 

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* 


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 $uo Xftritt, %& &° i"«S * «^A' ^To\ tic, ifi &7rXis$ 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$ 

Stoq Xoyoe, ovo^cc^iTXt y 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 
union n , 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 man w . 
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 us x . 

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. 


the Trinitarian Controverjy. 270 

This gave the handle to Neftorius and se* 
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 diverfity a , 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' tiZMV, iTTXVi (TCi(.Ki, OVOSV iTCQOV *<?*), V, [AiiOC 

CXC^c, TTOtOfiv' KX.V %y f/sSTlZ JYA 0"X%y{$<, i7ix6t i 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.v t . 
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 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 us c j 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) bm 3 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'jrcZ 1 u yap ccv^ana <ru.p\ it cevfywrnvy Xiyzrcct tx to 
W&fa fV.f '•"/' $t(& tfoib rny re 7 ) $<■■£> Ac/'yy, 1,2, C,8. p. fl. 


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 flefh h , 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 v 4 ^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, 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,^%. 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. 


28i An Hiflorkal Account of 

Serm* vi. which was properly his own ' ; fo that tho 3 
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. 


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 

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. 


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 them r . 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. 


the Trinitarian Controvert . 2 8 y 

confent to their cntring upon bufinefs u . 
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- 
nion 2 . 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. 


2 $6 An Hiflorkal Account^/ 
Wvi. Yet even this was fubmittcd to by moft of 
*nrv thcm b , 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. r a &' 

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. 


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 
Neftorius h , 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. 


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 Efhefus y yet 
not without fuch a referve as might (if he 
were pincrfd) evacuate that profcfiion 1 * 
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$iy, yjijJi xurcto i i%to%- fjjovcA d% rets ypv.Qcis 'e^KwS*, &$ /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<fy t 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. 



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<r r Mi 7vv fflw, Ij (pvtrioXoy&y 
t»\ 3-icv [*%. Act. 6. Conftant. ibid. p. 87. 

nps<r£77^f 3, or* XoiJb&ixs tuck;, aq \<Pn t Xt^Hcrvjt; «aw aorS t 
<v§ cwth &fiW£Tc$ on yt 6$i l\ zpxvz mv ffzcfKX 6 B-iaq Xoy®- x«- 
Ttwvo%tv t a>$ course, Uy£udtw(&' Tvy>giv{ rv\c, Toiaorvic, Xoi^og/cc;^ , . 
xx) rouiTot Xtyuv au*oXoy{ teXsiov Stov tivut xou rtXitov ecn6aa>7eo» 


*i[aZv. Aft. 2. Conft. p. 79. 

P ''Etpr) 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 U^L^XV^oItVI^ iVTVfflS, XiyC')V t 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 be f . 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 


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, <c N 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, 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 301 

therefore, together with his perfifting in Serm. vi. 
the afiertioil of two natures before incar- v ~"V N -> 
nation, and but one afterwards w j 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 one K : 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 Conjlantinople 7 -^ and 449. 


%iirvt ' aspTi xi/p»' 8tws i%a. « ■ 6 olyiUTotT<&> uyx t ii7n(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 afliftance b ; 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>iofcorus y who had fucceeded St„ 
Cyril in the Patriarchate of Alexandria? 
was appointed to prefide c . 

The Egyptians had learnt from St. Cyril 
to have the utmoft abhorrence of Nejlo- 
rianifm y 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 council 6 ) 
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 Conftantinople y 
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 Theodoftus y 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 g en eral council, which aflembied at ChaU 
** I# cedon h . 

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 incarnation 1 . 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 m M ■ 01 «^> uyict %6tTi£i% 

CI UjiTcC TCtZrcCf TO tO~CCPX.6)(!t) 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(riv f 
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 Trinitarian Controverjyl 305: 

the Holy Ghoft of the Virgin Mary, and 
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- 
gin 111 . 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 
confeffion n , 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 look J d 
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 
c Diofcorus 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\ 


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- 

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* 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 309 

is a fufficient argument that it was not Serm. vr: 
meant to let afide the other creeds, but v ^V rN ^ 
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. 


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 
both r . 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 Apoftolical 1 . 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 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 f 7nc\ctt 
thira. rev clym 7Tytv[j(,ctr<§h tKX.Z.i<i<ruc<8iYrm, uc, o Yf/ijiTc, rt «, -miv- 

nc, zr^o Ypv* Trt^ivo-xvrtq, tGtittffaqfy, Bafilifcus in Epift. En- 
cycl. apud Evagr. 1. 3 . c. 4. 


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 itfelf b . 
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> (c 1 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*. 


3 1 2, An Hijiorical Account^/ 

Serm. vi. by the council of Toledo c , tho 3 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, 
J Lc Quien. Panopl. faec. 11. c. 4. §.22, 


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 
*em e . 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 
Mefopotamia h , which probably fupplies the 
place of the ancient See of Antioch ; and 
the Eutychians fometimes in all, but more 
conftantly at Alexandria 1 . 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 Melchites k , 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 c Perfla y 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 l 7 l ?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. 


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- 
arch ; 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 appellations 1 . 

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^/ 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~ 
' gium z , 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^. 


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 it c . 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 profperity d . 
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. 


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 Valens X j 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 


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 w T ill 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 

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 century 
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- 
dais 1 . 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. §.<>, 


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.«. . ; 


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- 

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- 
Jubftantiality y 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* Cpl. 1 138, &c. 


$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. 


the Trinitarian Controverjy. 3 if 

vail'd with to profefs Arianifm y 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. 


ji8 An Hifiorkal Account of 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 faith 1 . 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 impofture k , 

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 

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 barbarity . Beftdes all 
which, we have ViBor Vitenfis y 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. 

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. 


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 city y (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 them 1 , 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/? 
rid. & pag. 12. 

' Greg. Mag. in dialog. 1. j. c. 32. 

1 Ifidor. Hifpal. Chron. p. 73/. in Grotii Hift. Goth. 


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 him c . 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/ time of penance as might bear proportion 
v*OT>^ to the different aggravations of their apof- 
tacy e . 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* 

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. f t de rebus Hifpan. 

* Marian, ibid. 


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(igoths y 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. 


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 
Clovis y 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. 

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 £R m. 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 c Pyre- 
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. 

. i SE&- 

the Trinitarian Controverjy* 337 


Preach'd May 7, 1724. 


F T E R having feen the down- serm.vii. 
fal of Arianifm in the Eaft y 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- 

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, 
v 1I# 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 » si 1 - 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 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 Clovis d , 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 again ft 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. 


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 tho J 
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 caufe 1 , 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 lioZ t 

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./4 r 
' 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. 


the "Trinitarian Controvert . 341 

years old, under the tuition of a prudent Serm.vit. 
mother 1 ", 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 Gondamond y 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- 
\ianifm n . 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. 

Ferrand. E)jac. ia vita S. Fulgent, cap. 16. ante opera 


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 banifhment r , 
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., 


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 Bifhops x 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. 


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 enlargement 3 . 
When Gilimer therefore appear 5 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- 
kednefs c . 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. i 7 j-$-, 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. 


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 . 

Juftinian y 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. fion f , 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. 


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 fide k , 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 France 7 
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. 


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 Arianifm 1 . 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 

— 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 herefy r . 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~ 
3 8<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 baniihment b . 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. 


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 Sce e . 

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 
•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 room f . 
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 Arians h , 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. 


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 them k . 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 Barbarians 1 , who ravaged the 
country with a cruelty equal to their fuc- 
cefs m , 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 themfelves 11 , 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%\ 


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 authority 1 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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 5-7 

brought their affairs into a better order, s E RM.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 only x . 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, 


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 Great 2 , 
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 . 
S9 i, &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 peace 4 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. 

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. 


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- 
dus k > that though the Arians had their Bi- 654J 
fhops in moft cities of Italy, yet the Ca- 
tholicks had theirs too l $ and tho J 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. 


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 Catholick n , 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. 


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 
Germany 1 . This was thought to fall in 
with the Neftorian fcheme, an,d revive the 
notion of two different fons f . 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- 
timents u , encouraged by the refolution 
of his brethren in thofe parts, and parti- 
cularly by a letter of Elipandiis, written 
on purpofe to defend them y f 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 vindic. vet, codic. confirm, par. 3. cap. 8. p« jij, 
prsetcr opera Alcuini. 

w Vid. Concil. 8c Dupjn m fupr. 

■ W. 


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- i ate i y 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. 


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 

Ser M .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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 36 f 

nefs to accufe the other of difhonouring Serm.vii: 
(if not deftroying) it e . 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 


8 Cave Hill. Lit. Sccul. 7. feu Monotbelit. in confpe&u 

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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. ^67 

the favourers of the Tapal claim have serm.vii. 
been no lefs fevere upon the Greeks, but V ^Y N -^ 
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. Ambrofe ^ 

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. 

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 
GhoJl r . 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. Bafl w 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 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£us w 9 fp eakitl g °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 7rurpoc m , , ■ 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. 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 371 

yet to fhew he meant no more, he has Serm.vii. 
elfe\vhere a 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 exprefs b , 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- 
ceffion c , 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 
Son e . 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. ■ mJ Ek 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 r km/ax. Georg. Scholar, five Gennad. adv. 
Latinos, tyud jLe Quien Panopl. Cent. 11. cap. 4. §. 13. 


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 *%0V 3 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. 


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^, 8 5 2 » 

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. 


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 philofophy m . 
He feems indeed too far to have indulged 
his fpeculative genius, in the explication of 
religious myfteries 11 . 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. 


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- 
fore 1 , 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- 

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 Fecond 1 . 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. 


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 tho J 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* 


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 him a . 

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/. 


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 <r Drc'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 


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. 

Bb 2 


382, An Hifiorkal Account*?/ 


Preach'd June 4, 1724. 

***** ************************* ***** 


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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 383 

I (hall forbear to fpeak of Caflto*, Cel- Ser.viii. 
larius h y and Heizerus c , 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- 


■ 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 

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 him c . 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) 

• 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 God k . 
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. . 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 3 87 

rally be difpofcd to feparate or caft 
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- 

I54 2 - 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 principles 111 . 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. • , 

Quos [Memachos'] Itali Bernardino Ochino, 8c Petro Ver- 
miiio opponent? CalV. de Scandal, inter tra&at. TbeoK p. 83. 1667. 


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. 


390 An Hijlorkal Account^/ 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 c Pauhis 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. 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 391 

to be eternal, and not made out of no- s E R.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\ 


39 i An Hiflorical Account of 

Ser.viii. tions, rather in the way of one that doubt? 

WOfN-' ec [ t i ian c f 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 

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 herefy c 
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. 


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 hcrcfy d , 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 perjury 1 , by labour- 
ing to fpread them with the fame carneft- 
nefs, for which at laft he was beheaded at 
Beme k , 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. 


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. 


r Wiflbwat. uf. fupr. p. 211, 212. Przipcov. in yitaFaufr. 
Socin. in firatr. Polon. vol. 1. Afhwell de Socino & Socini- 
aniimo. §.3. p. 4. 


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 openly 1 . 

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- 
*vians y and after that Racovians^ from 
thofe Polish cities in which they chiefly re- 
fided f ; 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 infants 1 . 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 herefy w . 

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 
fuccefs x , and concluded by the conference 
1565. at c Petricow y 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 kingdom 2 , 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. 


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 Europe . 

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 l S7^* 
of the crown of Toland*. This gave the 
eafier occafion to Faujlus Socinus , who 

a Ibid* par. t t 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- 
I5 8 7. 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 century 1 . 

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 fide 1 , 
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 Bathori y 

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 Afylum y 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. 

Sand, in Biblioth. p. f6, Hiftoire du Socio, par. i. c. if. 
par. 2. c. 17. vid. & Socin. Praetat, ad difput. cum Franciic. 

? 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- 
ments r , 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. 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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 him b , 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- 
ticular 41 . 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« 


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 & Socinianifmo 3 
§.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. 


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- 
nus y 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- 
ment k : which obliged him to retire for 1583. 
fome years from Cracow to the country- 
feat of a Tolijh Nobleman 1 , in whofe houfe 
he held a fet difputation with Chrijlianus 1 5 84^ 
Franken 1 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. 


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. 

Vid. Przipcoy. in vit. Socin. Hift. du Socin. par. 1. 
c. 24. 

p Hift. du Socin. par. 2. c. 22. 


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 city 1 . 

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, 


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 one u , 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. 


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- 
cinianifm 2 -: 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 Mahometifm h > 
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 

* 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 ^V N *> 
notions of the divine Unity, and their little 
difference from them in reipeit of Chrift e . 

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 
writers 1 , 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- 


the Trinitarian Controversy. 4 1 j 

The body of the Remonftrants however s E r. 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 indulged 1 , 
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. 

Vit. Wiflbwat. p. 241. Hift, du Socin. par. t. c.2/. 

p Vit. Wiflbwat* p. 244* 


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 religion 1 ". 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, w T hich 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. 


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 Edward 7 -. But by the friendfhip he x 547. 
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 openly , 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. 


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 Chrift d , another for denying that 
he took the flelh of the fubftance of the 
Virgin e : The Englifh Liturgy, which had 

1548. been lately drawn up f , 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 Arians h 
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 people 1 : 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, 

f G 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 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- 

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. 
countries . 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. 


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 Love y 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- 
1 644. It was about that time that John Biddle y 
a Schoolmafter in GlouceJler y 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. 


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 Angels 1 . 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<?4 8 - 
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. 


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 Scilly y 

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 Latin y 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 Hiftory z , 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 


the Trinitarian Controverjy. 415 

feftly calculated for 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 c Petavius*, 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 mind c , 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. 


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 i h 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. Sherlock 1 * Book with that title was publijhed ip the year 
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 it h ; 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 affiirance 1 , 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 

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 

m Dr. ClarkeV Scripture Doclrine of the Trinity, firfl pub* 
lifl?ed in thejear 1712. 


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, altho J 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- 


the Trinitarian Controverfy. 4^ j 

foners exchanged for the Sahellian, 
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 thing y 
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 Trinitarian Controversy. 43 $ 

the pit whence we are digged y that; 
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 
century 1 ?) but the natural and neceffary 


* 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 
ftedfaftnefs 1 , 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 Chrift v , 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. 

Z Tit. ii. 12, 13. 









elardus (Peter) being accufed of Herefy y 
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- 





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 


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 


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 


— 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 


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 

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 


■ its downfal in the Eaft 269 

declined without human fupport 271 

■ its revival in the Weft by Goths, &c. 270, 320, 

, , 334.337, 338 

exttnguijh y d /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 

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, 


Arians chargd with mixtures of Philofophy 

differ 1 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 

how long they had Bijhops at Constantinople 


■ 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 3 6 ° 

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, 

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 

g pi m i f ettles 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 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 

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 


F f % Baptifmj 


The Index. 


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 

Biddellians, a fort of Socinians, 424. followers of 
Biddle (John) his herefy and fufferings 422, 423, 424, 


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 


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, 


" 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 

Budnasus (Simon) who denied the worfhip of Chrifi 

Bull {Bijhop) his writings on the fubjecl of the Trinity 

4 2 5* 
Bulgarians, the right of jurifdicJion over them difputed 

Burgundians, Arian inhabitants of part of Gaul 332, 

fome of them converted by conference with Ca- 
tholic ks 335* 
•conquered by Clovis ibid. 
- become Cat ho licks, and one people with the French 

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 

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 3 6 ^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 

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 

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 

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, 

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. 

3 l S,H9 
— — Conftantinople (General) 66> 243, 256, 2^9, &c 


« 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 1 1 1 ^ 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, 

• ■ 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 

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? 


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, 


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 

and when in the Weft : as firji in Spain, 311, 


■ /» France and Germany 373 

■ when augmented with the word Filioque 364, 

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, 

^-— — 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 

'■ 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 



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, 


The Index. 

Dionyfius, Schoolmafter (after Bijhop) of Alexandria 


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 


1 from whence the doctrine of the Church at that 

time is evident 1 30 

— his epijtle to Paul of Samofata, whether genuine 


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$% 

3 J 9 
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, 

2 47 
Dyads of the Valentinians 73 


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 


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 recall 1 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 


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 


— 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 


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 


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 condemn 1 d byfome who are yet deer/Cd Eutychi- 

ans 3 1 h 3 2 ° 

Eutychianifm the reigning religion of the Eaft 334 

feems in fame perfons to have been little elfe but in- 
accuracy of ftyle ^ 3 IQ >3 2 ° 
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' '33 2 
^ 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 


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 


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 banijh y d 

34*> 343 


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 

makes truce with the Romans, 322. but breaks 

** . 3 2 3 

» 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 

*— 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 33 T 3 34 1 

Goneiius (Petrus) profefs'd Arianifm in Poland 395*, 

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 

■ 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 

' had afuccejfion of Kings 345- 

• ■ were pojfefs'd of Provence in France 


— have war made upon them by Juftinian, 

and why 346 

arefubduedbyhim, hut revolt 346,347 

are again fubdued^and driven out of Italy 

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 

f ucceeds 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 

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 


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 


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/h J d 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, 


• 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 


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 

>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 

325 1 , &c. 
3 — — appoints 

• The Index. 

" appoints a conference at Carthage 325- 

— — not foften y d by Miracles 330 

• dies miferably 3 3 T ? 3 3 ^ 
Hypoftafis, wd. v^xc^ 


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 k i 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 

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 

The Index, 1 

Ju ft in ian (Emperor ) favoured Eutychianifm, and perfe- 
cted the Catholicks gxg 
■ f aw the Confelfors Jpeaking without tongues 

3 2 9 
* makes war on the Vandals to fupport Hilderic, 

344. and fubdues them 34^ 

• as afterwards the Oftrogoths in Italy 346 



Ortholtus doubts of the impurities charged upon the 
Gnofticks 6s 


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 it y 
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 Liturgi es 

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, . 


. '—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 

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 

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 

I0 9 
— — *j banijh'd by Con ft antius 218 


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^ 



Acarius Schoolmafler of Alexandria 88 

Macedonians (Hereticks) 236. wid. Pneuma- 

— 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 


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. 

had their name from 

Macedonius (Arian) made Bifiop of Conftantinople 

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 

■ f i 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 banijh y d by Conftantius, has a party of 
Catholick* adhere to him, 198. but is not join d by 
the Euftathians, 199. is often banijh y d % 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) diftinguijh y d into different feds 


one fort followed PraxeasV doftrine about the 

Trinity ibid. 

— had their name from 

Montanus : held the catholick dofirine of the Trinity 

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 


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, 


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 4 IX 

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 



The I n d e x. 


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, 


■ 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, 


OfAetoq Kctra, 7mvrcc - 222,227 

— kcctu, rocs yp*p«s 226, 227 
1 «tfT* ovaiuv 243 
'Ofjuoiooo-ios^ ffo ai 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 

K Opooit<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 


•^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 

— three grand objections againfl it ftated and an- 

fwer'd \ 181, 185- 

f ometimes 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 


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 

own J dby 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 

1 ufed the word wttdsws, why, and in what fenfe 


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 


PAcian 107 

Pac"ta Conventa : an a£l of the ftates by which the 
King of Poland was bound to maintain toleration 

Paganifm in Britain and part of Gaul 334 

Pateologus (Jacobus) oppofed the worfliip of Chrift 

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 


— who fpake by the Prophets: that claufe why in- 
ferted 66 

f uppofed 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-, 


— what difference between him and Neftorius 144, 


— cenfured at the fecond Council of Ailtioch 148 

• his error charged upon Neftorius 276 

TTT1 ***** rsvne d 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 


■ 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 

Piftus, Antibijhop of Alexandria 209 

Placentius (alias Flaccillus) Arian Bijhop of Antioch 


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 9 I >9 2 ' 

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? l SS 

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 

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 

-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 $ 

x 73 
— ■*- abufed 

The Index. 

— — abufed by A nans ] 74, 1 76 

implies eternity 263 

Prophetick Spirit, 1 5*7. the meaning of that character 

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 


Uadratus, Chriflian Apologift 5*6 

Quakers, why tolerated 41 S 


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 

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 

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 


Abellianifm, fpread in Africa 127 

■■ was oppofed by Dionyfius Alexandrinus 

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 opewmoq y 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 


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 


Semiarians in the larger acceptation 226,- 228 


• ■ 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 

2 35* 

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 

Sigifmond III. King of Poland : his favour to the Soci- 
nians, and long reign 398>4 C 9*4 I 5 
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, 


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, 

— — 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 

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 


and after that fubdued by the Goths 35-1 

Sylvanus (John) * Socinian, fell into a kind of Judaifm 

Synod, o/Dort 41?. vid. Council 


TAcitus (Cornelius) his charge againft Chiidians 
4 6 >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^ 

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 

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 


Ttelfafchkes} a fe61 ° f Eut y chians 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 

*- 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 

l 3 l 
Trkheifm, unjuftly charged upon the Catholicks 86, 


■ ■ 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 


The Index.' 

V Aides a Spaniard brought berefy into Italy 388, 
Valens, Eaftern Emperor, Arian and Perfect/tor, had 
been a Catholick and Confeffor under Julian 241, 


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 


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 


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 


The Index. 



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. 


XEnocrates, Platonick Philofopher, corrupted Pla* 
to'/ fyftem 91 

Xyftus or Sixtus I. (Pope) 128 


* \/w \ that term when fir ft ufed of the per- 
il Hypoftafis Jions in the Godhead, and why 120 
f ometimes ovoioc, or <pu<m ufed inftead of it 133, 

J 34 

• 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 

■ 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 Index. 

■■ ' the word wholly rejected by rigid Arians 

its meaning candidly fettled by Athanafius 194, 


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 


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 

f nppofed 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. 

****** *********** ********** ********