:-^'
'■■y '^"
■^ JAN 8 1901, *,
0ivi$l©n,
sec
Section.,
tsm
No .
/, Z-.
THE
K S
Of the Right -Reverend
GEORGE BULL, D.D.
Late Bifhop of St. 'DAVIT>%
Concerning the Holy Trinity.
I. The Defence of the Nicene
Creed.
II. Judgment of the Catho-
lick Church of the three
firft Centuries, concern-
ing the Neceffity of be-
lieving that our Lordjefus
Chriji is true God, aflerted
againft M Simon Ejbifco-
puSy and others.
CONSISTING OF
III. The Primitive and A-
poftolical Tradition con-
cerning the received Do-
arine in the Catholick
Church, of our Saviour
Jefus Chrift'3 Divinity,
afferted, and plainly pro-
ved, againftD^^^'^^'Z^^'^'^^^
a Pruffian, and his late
Difciples in England.
Tranflated into ENGLISH:
V/ I T H
The Notes and Ohfervations of Br. GRAB E. And fome
Rejlemons upon the late Controvertifts in this Dodrine.
By Fr. Holland, M^. Reftor of Sutton, WUts,
and Chaplain to the Rt Hon. nomas Lord Vifcount Weymouth.
VOL. II.
LONDON:
Printed for STEPHEN AUSTEN at the
Angel ^nd Bible, in St, Paul's Church-Tar d, J 7 3^'
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2011 witii funding from
Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library
littp://www.arGliive.org/details/worksofriglitreve02bull
(iii)
T O
The Revere ND
JOHN rOUNGER,D.D.
Dean of S a R u M,
Honoured Sir^
H E Defign of this Tranfla-
tion is to acquaint the Peo-
ple with the Antiquity and
Univerfality of their mod
Holy Faith in the Son of God 3 to
[A l] fliew
iv DEDICATIO N.
fiiew them, that his true and proper
Divinity is part of that Profeffion firfl
deliver'd to the Saints. The Gnoftics
(as great Pretenders to Knowledge as
the Arians of this Age) gave it an
early oppofition. This has been un-
fortunately revived in many fucceed-
ing Centuries, but never fubfifted ex-
cept by Fraud or Force ; and when
at the higheft, ovvd its growth not
to Councils legally calFd, and freely
held, not to the general Suffrage of
antient Dodors, but to the Conni-
vance or Encouragement of fecular
Powers. By thefe excellent Pieces,
the groundlefs Affertions of fome
zealous Moderns are dete(5ted, who are
often fending us to Montanus or Rome
for holding tliis Article, tho* (a) Ter-
tullian
XJ
•%) Ed. Rigak. adv. Praxeam, p. ^? 5. Fos verd & fem-
per, & nunc magis ut inftrudliorcs per Paracletum, de-
dU<3oromi^fciliGet omnis veritatis, 6<c. St. Jerome charges
,. the
bEDICATIO N. y
tdlian declares he belie v'd it, whilft
he was a Catholick ; and the World
neither felt nor fear'd the Errors and
Tyranny of Papal Power, when it
unxverfally obtain'd in the Weftern
Church.
I hope the Defign is executed
with exacftnefs enough to make it
ferviceable. As you have been re-
markable in your Station for oppo-
fing the Revival of old Herefy, and
modern Fanaticifm, I have taken the
Liberty to infcribe it to you. The
intended Refped: to your Characfter,
begs your Excufe rather than your
the Monfanifis -uc'ith Sabellianifm, fo far are they frora be-
ing Trinitarians, Ed. Froben. Tom. 2. p. 128. Ep. ad
Marceliam. Primum in Fidei regula difcrepamus, Ncs
Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum Sanftum infua unumquem-
que perfona ponimuf, licet fubftantia copulemus : \\\\
[Montanifiac] SabeUii dogma fedantes, Trinitatem in uniuj
perionse anguftias cogunt. , According to TertuUian, if they
^/•^ Trinitarians, that Faith ii not peculiar to Montanifm ;
according to Jerome, they are the contrar^^ even Sabel-
uans-
Ac-
vi t)ED iCATIOK
Acceptance, and is wholly grounded
upon a Sentiment univerfally receiv'd
and put in pracflice ; That Honour
is always due to Merit and Station,
and that it is the Duty of one to offer
it, where there is no addition to ano-
ther in receiving it.
Honoured Sir^
Tour mop; Humble Ser'vant^
Fr. Holland.
THE
THE
Contents of the Second Volume.
A Defence of the Nicene Faith. Sed. 4. Of the
Subordination of the Son to the Father, as to his
Original and Principle. Pag. r
C H A P. I.
"fhe Firfl T'hejts is proposed concerning this Subordination,
and confirmed by the unanimous Confent of the Anti-
entSy &c. ibid.
CHAP. II.
The Second T'hefis is proposed and confirm' d, in which is
Jhewn, That the Amients with one Voice taught, dec. p. 1 5
CHAP. III.
A large Anfwer to the ObjeEiion, agaikjl what has been f aid
in the former Chapter, &c. p. 3 7
CHAP. IV.
The third Thejis ispropofed, in which the XJfe vf the DoElrine
of the Son's Subordination is explained. p. 66
TheConduJion of the whole Work. p. 88
TH E Judgment of the Catholick Church of the
three Firft Centuries, &c. Preface. Pag. 102
The IntroduHion. p. io5
CHAP. I.
The Tefiimonies of the Primitii/e Fathers^ That the Article
^ ^f our Lord's Divinity is abfolutely necejfary to be believed,
in order to Salvation. p. 109
CHAP. II.
Of thofe who in the Firft Age of Qhriftianity oppofed the
Do Brine of the Gofpel, concerning Chrifi's being God and
. M^n. p. 124
V C H A P. III.
Of thofe who deny'd Jefus Chrift to be true God, in the fe-
cond and third Ages, p. 152
CHAP,
viu The C O N T E N T S.
CHAP. IV.
Of the Creeds of the Primitive Church : And firjiy of the
fir (I and mfl ' antient Creed^ and the Explications i>j it
iw'lren^us WTercullian. p. i^o
C H A P. V.
Of the Creed, call* d the Apoflles. P- i?*
^ CHAP. VL : ^,
Of the antient Eaftern Creed. p- hoo
Notes upon the sth, 6th, and yth Chapters. p. 229
CHAP. VII.
Of ,a famous Place in Juflin'i Dialogue with l^ryiphothe
'' Jew. P- ^48
Appendix to the Seventh Chapter. p. 2(58
r^'"- I-i E Primitive and Apoftolical Tradition con-
r^J^. cerning the received Dcdrine in the Catholick
'• Church, &c/ ithe IntroduBion. -u.,"^- p. 284
'-'■■' C H A P. ;I.
'^hat J.u{lin tx^as not the fir fl who introduced the DoBrine of
[.. ^-'mir Saviour's Pre-exi/ience before the World was madey
■^ C H A P. IT. '
I'/j^f'Juftin wasnot.d&ceivd hy the Frauds of f/)^ Sim Om-
an's, &o. P- 303
^j. , ' :cH A P. HI.
CaATfJ-K^w^ Hegefippus, and his Opinion of the Peifon of
-^efusChri/l. W3^9
-^■^ C H A P; IV.
CfM'he Orphic Verfes, -^k^ i^y way of Digrejfton, (f the
' 'SvbilHne Oracies, . &c. p. a iS
; C H A P. V. ^ •-
T'hat Juftin did not Witrnfrom the Platonics the Notions he
has 9'i'ven m of the JVord. P- 359
;^r C H A p. VI.
That Juftin entirely abhorr'd Paganifm^ and the Worjhip (f
more Gods, &c. V . U J p. 34^
nAH ^ ^
m
'^aiv iJ^::>:: :::i:;r!il V^^/X %, /^i <fe % tkfniv, (fa.
A
D E F E N C
O F T H E
NiCENE Faith.
Vol. IL
SECT. iV.
Of the Subordination of the Son to the
Father y as his Original and Principle.
CHAP. I.
2^^ Firfl lihefis is proposed co72cernmg this
Suhordinatio7z^ and confirm'' d by the unani-
mous Confe7it of the Aiiticjzts. It isfljewn^
that the ina^tner of fpeaki7ig of j'o7ue
Moder7is, in which they call the Son God of,
or from Himfelf, is cozitrary to the Nicene
Sy7tod^ and the Opinio7i of all Catholick
i)oBors before and after it.
E have faid a great deal concerning the
Subordination of the Son to the Father,
by the way, in the preceding Seditions ;
but the Argument is very well worthy a
more accurate Explication by it fell, efpe-
cially fince in the beginning of our Work^ we pro-
VoL. U, A pofe4
2 J DEFENCE of
pofed to confirm it by Teftimonies, as a diftlnft Head
ot Dodrine, deliver'd in the Nicene Creed. Lee this
be the Thefis concerning this Subordination.
T H E S I S I.
"The Catholick DcSiors ivho have wrote before and Jt nee the
ISliceije Council, have, by their Suffrage, confirmed that
Decree of the Council, in which it a, determined, that the
Son is God of God. For they have -with one Mouth taught,
that the Divine Nature and PerfeBicns agree to the Fa'
ther and the Son^ not collaterally, or co-ordinately, but
Jubrrdinately^ i. e. "That the Son hath indeed the fame
Dtvine Nature common with the Father, but communi-
cated by the Father ; fo that the Father alone hath that
Divine Nature of him fe If, orjnm no other ; but the Son
from the Father, and therefore, that the Father is the
Fountain, Original, and Principle of the Divinity which
is in the Son.
1. We need not give our felves much Trouble iri
proving that Part of our Thefis which relates to the
Ante-Nicene Dodors, becaufe it is fufficiently con-
firmed by moft of the Teftimonies cited concerning
the Generation of the Son in the fecond and third
Sections. T^he very Words Son and Generation do at firft
imply the f Subordination of the Son to the Father,
who begat him i and thefs Words they ufe every
where. Novatian, or the Author of the Book con-
cerning the Trinity among Tertullian*s Works, hath
indeed exprefs'd the common Notion of thefe Antients,
in a Place cited by us before more than once. What-
iotvtx, fays he, the Son is, he is not ofhimfelf, be-
caufe not unborn ', but of the Father, becaufe be-
gotten. Whether he is the Word, or the Power,
t T)f. Whitby nvouU make his Reader hslleve that B'tjlocp Bull
hats cwr'd a Subordination in Ejffence ; for to the Bipop'j Words he has
very honeffly added thefe [quoad elTentiam] and prh.ted the whole
Sentence in a dfferent CharaBer. But this is not the only Paffat^e, . In
vohirh h'- has teen forced upon very unfair Methods In order to prove
anAhfurd'ty upon the great Prelate, Vid. Modeftae DifquifitioDCs
praef, p, 23.
or
the NickneFaith. I
or the Wifdom, or the Light, or the Son, and whgt-
foever of thefe he is, he is that from no other
Caufe than the Father, owing his Original to his
Father. "Jufitn Martyr ^ exprefly fays, {a) that the
Father is to the Son the Caufe of hi^ Being. Hence
it is ufual with the fame Jufiin^ and the other Ante-
Nicene Writers, to call God the Father, by way of
Diftinclion ; fometimes God abfolucely, fometimes
the one God, fometimes the God and Father of
all, (according to the (b) Scriptures) namel)', becaufe
the Father alone is' God of himfelf, but the Son Godl
of God. For this Caufe alfo thofe Writers, as oftea
as they name the Father and the Son together, com-
monly give the Name of God to the Father, denoting
the fecohd Perfon by the Title of Son of God,
or Saviour, or Lord, or fome fuch like Appel-
lation. 'TertuUian fpeaks well upon this Point : I
will follow the Apoftie, fays he^ fo that if the Fa-
ther and Son are to be named together, Til call the
Father God, and Jefus Chrift our Lord. Now I
can only call Chrift God, as the fame Apoftie does ;
of whom Chrift, who is God over all, blelTed for
ever. For I will call a Ray of the Sun by itfelf,
the Sun ; but when I name the Sun, whofe Ray it
is, ril not at the fame time call the Ray alfo the
Sun.
3.. But, as I faid, No-body can doubt whether the
Ante-Nicene Dodors acknowledge the Subordination,
of which we fpeak. It remains then to fhew, that
the Poft-Nicene Fathers delivered the fame Dodrine,
and were conftant Defenders of the Faith determin*d
in it, chat no one may think we have miftaken the
Words of the Nkene Creed. They alfo bravely afErm,
that the Father is the Caufe, Principle^ and Author
of the Son, and even call the Father the One God.
Firft, then, they call the Father the Principle of the
Son, namely, as that Word Principle iignifies that,
{a) Juftin, j&. 358, {h) 1 Cor. viii. 4. EpJi.iv. 6- John xvii. 5.
A a from
4 :^DEFENCE^/
from which fomething arifes, no matter how ,* that is,
whether in Time, or from Eternity ; not as it figni-
lies a Beginning of Exiftence, when a thing, which
before was not, begins to be. Athanajius thus {a) ex-
plains thofe Words of ^ohn: In the Beginning luas the
Word, as though the Evangehft had written, the Son
was in the Father : for according to John, the Word
was in this Principle, and the Word was with God. For
God is the Principle, and fince the Word was from
it, the IVord was God. Now Gregory Nyjfen {b) ac-
curately explains the (c) Notion of the Word Principle^
how the Son hath the Father as his Principle; and
alfo, how he is without Principle : But fence the Word
'Af;^, or Principle, hath many Significations, and
an extenfive Idea, we fay there are fome of them, in
which we are not to deny to the only begotten Son
the Title of Beginninglefs. For when by the Word Be-
ginninglefs, we have the Notion of having a Subfiftence
from no Caufe, we confefs it to be proper to the Fa-
ther only : but when the Queftion is of any of the
other Significations of the Word Beginning, as when
it hath the Idea of the beginning of any Creature, of
Time and Order, in thefe we bear Teftimony to the
only Begotten, that he is above, or higher than Begin-
ning '} fo that we believe him, by whom all things
•were made, to be above every Beginning of Creation,
Notion of Time, and Degree of Order : So that the
Word is not Beginninglefs in Subfiftence, but in every
other refpe<5i:, is confefledly Beginninglefs j that the
Father is Beginninglefs, and Unbegotren, but that
the Son is after the manner aforefaid Beginninglefs,
but not Unbegotten. Thus alfo (d) Gregory Naz,ianz,en
explains how the Three Divine Perfons are equally
(^) Vol. I. Tom. I. p. 6\i,
{h) Ed. Grets. p. ii8. Lib. i. contra Eunomium.
(c) This Notion of St, Gregory Nyflen is aburtdavtly confrnid by
mavy Places of the AntientSy both before and after the Nicene Covtri'
cil, as is plain fromfeveral Notss I have made before,
(<0 Orat. 35. p. 56a, " " ^
Beginning-
the N I c E N E F A I T h; 5.
Beglnninglefs, and how the Father alone is Beginning"
lefs. How are they, the Son and Spirit, not Beginning-
lefs with him, the Father, if eternal with him ? They
are from him, but not after him. What is Beginning-
lefs, is Eternal j but what is Eternal, is not altoge-
ther Beglnninglefs, fo long as it is referred to the
Father, as the Beginning, they are not then Begin-
ninglefs with refpeft to the Caufe. And again^ (a)
the Father is properly faid of him that is Beglnning-
lefs, the Son of him that is begotten Beglnninglefs.
Laftly, Cyrillus Akxandrinus, in the beginning of his
firft Book of Commentaries upon John, teaches, that
the Father is the Principle of the Son or Beginning,
only as he is that from which he proceeded.
4. The Word Caufe ^/J/©-, or «e/77*, in Latin Caufa,
is of the fame nature with Principle, or Principium.
I have a little before obferv'd, that Jujiin Martyr hath
faid that the Father is the Caufe of the Son. Now,
the Catholick Authors who wrote after the Rife of
the ^r/^;^ Controveffy, fpeak after the like manner:
They fay that one Perfon in the Trinity, namely,
God the Father, is the Caufe, and that there are
which are caufed, the Son and Holy Spirit, (b) So
Confiamme the Great ; The Father is the Caufe of
the Son, and the Son is caufed. (c) So Athanafius
(or fome other Perfon, Catholick without doubt in tliis
Dodrine) The Son is not the Caufe, but the Caufed.
(d) Bnfil fays, We fay the Father is fet before the
Son, as Caufes are before thofe things that proceed
from them. And again, (e) The Father, what elfe
doth it fignify, but to be the Caufe and Beginning of
him, who is begotten of him ^ In like manner,
Gregory Naz>ianz,en (f) aflerts more than once, that
the Father is the Caufe of the Son and Holy Spirit :
For he would be the Principle of fmall things, and
(a) Pag. 590. (b) Eufeb. E. H, p. 4,80. (c) Tom. s.
p. 959. (d) Bafil, Tom. I. p. 720, (e) p. 724, (/) Greg»
JTaz. Orat. 29. Tonii i. p. 490.
A 3 things
6 ;:^ DEFENCE^/
things unworthy of him, if he was not the Caufe of
the Godhead in the Son and Holy Spirit. And a
little after ^ in the fame place ; There is one God,
the Son and Holy Spirit being referr'd to one Caufe.
And again he faith, that God the Father is the Princi-
ple, as the Caufe, Fountain, and eternal Light f.
Damafcme {a) alfo writes thus : We acknowledge
a Difterence of Sabfiftence in thefe Three Properties
only, in the Father's and uncaus'd ; the Son's and
c^us'd ; the Proceffive and caus'd. The fame Per-
fon, in his firft Book of Images, not far from the be-
ginning : The Son is the Image of the invifible God,
who hath the Father in him, and is in all things the
fame with him, except in this one, that he is from
him, as from a Caufe. For the Father is the natural
Caufe from which the Son proceeds. Of the Latins,
(b) Marius Vi£lorimis has fpoke after the fame manner :
But the Father is grearer, in that he gave all things to
the Son, and is to the Son the Caufe of his Being,
and of his being after fuch a manner. Now before,
T/itlorinus had faid, that the Son indeed was the prin-
cipal Caufe ot all things, but the Father the fuperior
Caufe, as bemg the Caufe of the Son. Hilary (c) calls
the Father the Caufe of the Nativity of the Son.
And (d) /peaking of the eternal Generation of the
Son, he faith. And being born of a Caufe, yet per-
fect and immutable, it is necelfary he be born of that
Caufe in the Propriety of that Caufe. Laftly, Au-
gufline (e) alfo fpeaks after the fame manner : God is
the Caufe of all things that are. As he is the Caufe
of all things, he is the Caufe of his own Wifdom,
nor was God ever v/ithout his Wifdom. Therefore he
is the eternal Caufe of his own eternal Wifdom, nor
is he prior in Time to his own Wifdom.
t Compare, with thefe Orat. 24. p. 429. and Orat, 27. p. 501.
(<?) Damafc. Lib. 5. de Orthod. fide, c. 5. Q)) In Lib. i.
adv. Arium. (c) Hil. de Trin. Lib. 11. (^) Lib. 12.
{e) Auguft. Lib. 73. Quseft. 16.
5. The
the NiceneFaith. / 7
5. The Word Author is of the fame Signification,
which the Lat'm Doftors frequently attribute to the
Father, in refped of the Son. Thus {a) Hilary upon
that place of 5^o^w, chap. 5. ver. ip. If hedoeth what
he doth, by Authority 6f the paternal Nature in him,
the Father doeth it, who even now worketh on the
Sabbath. The Son is not to be accus'd of working,
inafmuch as he hath before him the Authority of the
Father's working. For the Words [the Son can't, C^c]
xnuft not be referred to Infirmity, but Authority,
Again, (b) Now fince the unbegotten God was the
Author of the perfed Nativity of the Divine BlefTed-
nefs, to be the Author of the Nativity is a facred
Property of the Father. But he is not difgrac'd, who
by a genuine Nativity makes up a compleat Image of
his Author. Nay, the fame Hilary does in other
Places very frequently ufe this Word i as in the ^th
Book, explaining the 44?^ Pfalm, he faith : Where-
fore God hath anointed thee, even thy God. Thy^
with relation to the Author ; T'hee, to him who is of
the Author: For he is God of God. Again^ he is fo
the Image, not as to differ in kind, but to lignify his
Author. So in the Book of Synods, and in the Place
which we have cited elfewhere : He is fubjed to the
Father, as his Author, (c) Atiguftine q.\(o fpeaks nicely,
according to Cuftom : In the Fatrher, is infinuated to
us Authority; in the Son, Nativity i and in the Holy
Spirit, the Community of the Father and Son ; in the
Three, Equality. Of the fame Import are the Words
Root, Fountain, Head, which the antient Catholicks
do in like manner attribute to God the Father, with
refped to the Son and Holy Spirit. So Bajil: (d) For
the Father is he who hath a perfed; Exiftence, wanting
nothing, the Root and Fountain of the Son and Holy
Spirit. Thus alfo Amhrofe ; (e) The Father is Lord,
becaufe the Root of the Son. And again : (f) The
{rt) Lib. 9. de Trin. {h) Ibid. {c) Serm. ii.de Verb.
Domini fecurd.Matth. {d) Homil. 27. contraSabell. Toin. i.
p. 60(5. (e) Lib. 10. in Lucam. (/) In Lib. 4. de fulm. c. 5.
A 4 Father
? :.^ D E F E N C E ^/
Father is the Fountain of the Son, the Father is the
Root of the Son. And Ruffinus, upon the Creed,
calls the Father the Head of the Son. And though he
is the Head of ail things, the Father is the Head of
him.
6. Laftly. The Afitieiits were not afraid to call
God the Father, as being the Principle, Caufe, Au-
thor, and Fountain of the Son, the one and only God.
Thus the very Nicene Fathers begun their Creed,
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, &c. And
then fubjoin, And m one Jefus Chrifl— — God of God.
^The {a) Great Athanajius^ who knew the Senfe of the
JSlkene Council as well as any one, yields that the Fa-
ther is juftly caird the one God, becaufe only unbe-
gotten, and oniy the Fountain of the Godhead.
Omitting others, which I might cite, I (hall only add
to him the Auchoricy of Hilary. He explains the Paf-
fage of 'John the Evangelift, chap. 17. ver. 3. in his
3^ Book upon the Trinity, and Vv-rites thus: The
Son gives the Father due Honour, when he fays,
'^hee the only true God. But yet the Son doth not fepa-
rate himfelf from the Truth or ReaHty of God, or
the Godhead, when he adds, And Jefui Chri/i whom
thou hafi fent. There is n j Difterence in the Confef-
fion of Believers, becaufe in both of them is the Hope
of Life. Neither is the true God gone off from him,
who has him joindy [with the Son] When therefore
it is faid. That they may know thee the only true
God, and Jefus Chrifl: whom thou haft fent ', under
this Signification of him that fendeth, and him that is
fent, the Truth and Divinity of the Father and Son
is no way diflinguifhM ; but the Faith of our Religion
is fet to the Confeffion of one that begat, and another
that is begotten. To all thefe Tefiimonies, I will
add this by way of Conclufion, That this Dodrine of
one Principle in the Trinity without Principle, namely,
the Father, was fo fix'd and eftablifh'd in the pyimi-
('t) Tom. 2. p. 570
/y^^ N I C E N E F A I T H. g
tive Church, that in the 49th of thofe Canons, call'd
Apoftohcal, he is condemned, who fhall baptize into
Three [Perfons] Beginninglefs, or without Principle.
Upon which Canon, this is j Zonarai*s Note i For the
Church is taught to worfhip one Beginninglefs, the
Father, as having no Caufe j and one Son, as being
ineffably begotten j and one Comforter, the Holy
Ghoft.
7. This Thefis is efpecially worth Notice, upon ac-
count of fome * Moderns, who obftinately contend,
that the Son may properly be call'd God of himfelf.
This Opinion now is both repugnant to their Hypo-
thefes who defend it, and to Cacholick Confent. For,
they fay, that the Son of God is from God the Father,
as he is Son, not as he is God ; that he had his Perfon,
not his Effence or Divine Nature, from the Father.
But this is contradictory : For as Petavius (h) rightly
obferves, the Son cannot be begotten of the Father,
unlefs he have from him his Nature and Godhead.
For what elfe i^ it to be begotten, than to be born
of another after a Similitude of Nature ? Thus it is
necefTary that he who is begotten, (hould have a Na-
ture communicated from him that begat, that he may
be like him. But if Chrift, as he is the Son of God, is
not God, or without Divinity, he only had a Relation
from the Father : But a Relation can't be without a Sub-
jeft. A Perfon here can't be without a Subftance, unlefs
•j- See hoiv the Avfijuer to the Quenes trajiJlateSf and mutilates
^onaras, p. 85.
* Dr. Clarke endeavoun tojhenv^ that this Notion is contrary to
another of the Bipop's, (Se£i:. 2. Chap. 9.) <where he dijilnguijhes our
iLord into God ahfoJuteJy, or relatively as God of Gody &c. and urges^
that he muji either believe as they doy vihom he oppo/es, or contridlci
himfelf : Butivhere is the ContradiBion to fay this ? The Man that de-
vivd his Being from another is abfolnte Man^ and alfo Man in the
B.elation of a Son to him. from whom he deriv'd itt Car't this Di-
fiin&ion be made, and different Regards be had to this Man in each of
thefe refpeHsy nvithout affirming him to he in one of them a Man^ and
in the other a Perfon only. Is he not as <weU a Perfon j as he is an ab"
fblute Man, as he is one cvheti relatively con^derd?
(0 De Trin.Lib. 3. c. 5. n. 5.
lo ::^^DEFENCE^/
you make a Perfon in the Divinity to be only a mere
Mode of Exiftence, which is SabeUianiJm.
Hence the lame Petavms hath in another place jullly
pronounc'd them to be in a very great Error, (a) noc
verbal, as Bellarmme thought, but real, who would
have the Son to be God of himfelf. He fubjoins his
Reafons, that it overthrows, what he feems plainly to
profefs, namely, that the Son is gencra::ed of the Fa-
ther. For, fays he. Generation cannot be conceivM
without the Communication of fomething ; nay, fur-
ther, of no otiier thing, but Nature, ElTence, Sub-
fiance, for as much as the Produdion is I'ubftantial ;
and Geueration in this differs from other Propagations
of Quality or Quantity. But if ElTence is communi-
cated to the Son by Generation, he hath EfTence from
the Father, not from himfelf. Otherwife he would
either not be begotten, or not be begotten of another.
Hence Damafcenus (b) very well fays. All things which
the Son and Spirit have, they have of the Father,
even Exiftence itfelf.
8. How this Opinion is repugnant to CatholickCon-
fent, I nave (hewn a little before. The very Synod
of Nice hath decreed, that the Son is God of God :
but he who is God of God, can't be faid to be God
from himfelf, without a manifeft Contradiction. But
why do I endeavour to tye them up by the Authority
of the Nkene Council, who have no Regard to it ?
For the Rinjz-leaaer of this Sed is not afraid to call
the venerable Fat itrs of it Fanaticks; the Form of Con-
feffion, namely, God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God, harfh, rautologous, and fitter for a
Sonnet than a Creed. * I dread to repeat what he
has
(a) De Trin. Lib. 6. c. ii. n. lo. (h) De Fide Orthod.
Lib. 1. c. ic.
* Dr. Clarke, fiPc take great Nice of this Pajfage', a dijjoirjtedy
Rnele Sfnteuce ', as they alfo do of niojl of the other Phces, which ex-
trefs or imjly the Subordrn'^tio^y either h the Holy Fathers, or cur
k 'rned wd pious B:Jl)op. It is enou7h <w ih them to f^y, that the
fVeight oj Truth obligd them to make fuch Concejfions. This Weapon
will
/Z'^ N I C E K E F A I T H^ II
has faid, and ferioufly exhort the pious and ftudious
Youth to beware of that Spirit, from which fuch
things proceeded. We have indeed great Obligations
to that Perfon for his good Service in the Popifti Con-
troverfy ; but far be it from us to take him for our
Mafter, to fwear what he thinks fit to fay j or, laftly,
to be afraid, upon all juft Occafions, freely to cenfure
his manifeft Errors, his novel, uncatholick Tenets.
Whofoever he is, or in other refpefts how great foever,
who defpifes the Authority of the antient Catholick
Church, {o far we fhall give him no Credit or Au-
thority. The Sonnet, fo much derided by the Great
Man, was fung by a facred Choir of about three
Hundred Bifhops, and Presbyters and Deacons innu-
merable, aflembled in that Firft and moft Auguft
Oecumenical Synod. The Ame - Nicene Catholick
Dodors fung the fame with wonderful Harmony, as
we have provM by Citations from them in the fecond
and third Sedions. In a word. That the Son of God
is God of God, is the Voice and Song of the whole
Catholick Church of Chrift, confonant to the Word of
God in his holy Oracles, and never [in primitive
Times] oppofed by any, but at his own Peril.
9. I will add one thing further from Petavius,
(a) That that Opinion is manifellly contrary to the
Dofitrine of the firft Reformers, Luther and Melan-
Bhon. For Luther, (b) among many other things er-
roneoufly determined by that corrupt Church, reckons
that Decree of the Lateran Council, that the divine
Eflfence neither generates, nor is generated. Who
nviUferve any Perfon that ivlll make ufe of It. Suppofe the DoBor and
his Friends had, as they boaji^ all the Antients on their fide y and fame
Orthodox Adverfary JhouJd glean a feiv Pajfages, 'which they rather
chufe to rejeEl ivith Indignntiony than explain confijlently with their
Scheme^ tacking to them the famous Glofs {fee how far the Weight of
Truth will oblige^ &c.) how eaftjy might he be anf^verd ?
{a) DeTrin. Lib. 6. c, 12. n. i. (i) Tom. 2. fol. 70. Lib.
de Captiv. Babylon,
then
12 'J DEFENCE of
then can doubt but that he thought their Opinion a
unanifeft Error, who plainly deny that God is born of
God, and teach that the Son is God, not from the
Father, bur himfelf ? MeLwBhcHj in his Explication
of the Nkene Creed, thinks it truly faid, that the Ef-
fence of the Son is begotten, as it is faid in the Creed,
God of God, Light of Light. Then he thus anfvvers
to th'^; Objedion : The fame cannot beget itfelf;
theref re fince EfTence is the fame, Effence can't beget
Eflence : The fame as incommunicable, can't beget
itfelf J but tne fame as communicable, is communi-
cated to the begotten : but Effence is communicable,
therefore is communicated to the Begotten. At the
fame time and place, Petavius very ridiculoufly hugs
himfelf in the Difagreement of Hereticks, as he calls
them, among themfelves. As though, forfooth, there
"Was no Clafiiing in the Church of Rome-, when in
this very Point, there is a manifeft Contradittion
between Richardus ViEiorinm^ and the Mailer of
the Sentences ; (to fay nothing of the Abbot 'Joa-
chim) the one faying with Auflin, and the other Fa-
thers, that Subftance begets Subftance, and Wifdom
Wifdom i the other aflerting, that Eflence doth not
beget Eflence. For Petavius, in vain, attempts to re-
concile thefe jarring Notions : He confefles, that moft
of the Schoolmen and Divines thought, that the Late-
ran Council had determined before tor the Opinion of
the Mafter againft the Dodrine of Richard. The Je-
fuit mufl: pardon us, if we give Credit to the Gene-
rality of Schoolmen and Divines, rather than Petavius
only. I will add, that by the fame Subtilties by
which Petavius endeavours to fet a Glofs upon the
Opinion of the Council and the Mafl;er, he may alfo
excufe that Error of Calvin's, which fo highly pro-
vokes him. The Cafe will be plain to any one, who
confiders it clofely. But I wifh that the Schoolmen on
both (ides of the Queftion, would forbear their trifling
Subtilties upon this mofl: venerable Myftery j and that
we might all embracCj with an holy Simplicity of Faith,
the
the: NiceneFaith. i|
the Opinion of the Catholick Church, namely, that
the Son of God is God of God, and very God of
very God.
ID. What a great Man ob jefls, {a) That the Son is
by Origen call'd Wifdom itfelf. Truth and Righteouf-
nefs itfelf, is nothing at all to the purpofe. For it is
certain, that in thofe Words, the Pronoun which we
render [itfelf] imports only the Reality of the Thing,
not the Caufe, or Original ; fo that Origen intended
no more than that the Son, even as the Father, is the
moft perfed Wifdom, Truth and Righteoufnefs, not
in the mean time denying that the Son had all thefe
Perfedions from another, namely, from the Father,
For fo the fame Origen (b) calls the Son in another
Place, not only Wifdom itfelf, or the very Wifdom,
but alfo the very Son. Where it is plain He is call'd
the very Son, not as being the Son of himfelf, (for
what cou'd be more abfurd ?) but as being the true
and genuine Son of God. In this Senfe alfo Athannjius
applies the fame Words to the Son of God, as we
have cited him before. And in this Senfe, no Catho-
lick will deny that the Son of God is, 'A-j^oS?^?, i. e.
true and very God. Hence Eufebius {c) himfelf, who
acknowledged the Subordination of the Son to the
Father, as his Original and Principle, as much as any
one, never doubted to fay, that our Saviour was truly
to be worrtiip'd as the genuine Son of the Supreme
God, and as very God. Here the Word 'Av]o^h, it
is manifeft, does not denote God of, or from himfelf,
but the very God ; both becaufe the Son of God is
here caird 'At.^o2rfo<r, and that in the fame Breath the
Father is call'd the Supreme God, and alfo that the
Word 'Av7o.^of is explanatory of what went before,
namely the genuine Son : and laftly, from what fol-
lows in the fame Place ; for a little after, Eufehiu§
fpeaking of the Government, and fupre me Empire of
(^) Chamier. Corp. Theolog.l. 5.C. 19. p. 10^. (^) Com-
ment, in Joannem, Torn. 32. £,d. Huet.p. ^\6. (c) li, H. 307.
our
14 ^J DEFENCE of
our Saviour, fays, What could refift the Will of the
Word, King of all, Governour of all, and very God ?
Now the Son is by Eufehius call'd 'Auo^o?, as being
very God, truly God, or God himfelf. But perhaps
it may be worth the while to recite what the excellent
Valefius hath noted upon the Place (d). This Place,
fays he, is efpecially to be obferv'd, in which Eufebius
calls Chrift truly and of himfelf God; for this Place,
in my Judgment indeed, is fufficient to refute all the
Calumnies of thofe, who have believM Eufebius to be
infeded with Arianifm. The very learned Father
then is abundantly cleared of this Accufation by the
more plain Teftimonies we have cited before. But I
return to Origen. He exprefly affirms (e),That the Father
alone is God of himfelf, and ought to be call'd in that
Place, where he thus oppofes thofe Perfons, who,
that they might not feem to deny one God, either de-
termin'd, that the Father and the Son were the fame
Perfon, or that the Son was effentially different from
the Father : I'hey muji fay that God, with the Article,
is the 'At-^oOeof or very God of himfelf ,* beaufe our
Saviour fays, in the Prayer to the Father, That they
may know thee the only true God. But every thing
belides the '^v]o^,'q<; or God of himfelf, is, by participa-
tion of the Divinity, made God. f In the mean time,
in that very Place, Origen condemns thofe as denying
the Divinity of the Son, who place his Property, and
circumfcribe his Efl'ence, as different from the Father.
He then confefs'd that the Father and Son are of the
fame Subftance, therefore that the Son is true God as
(J) Valef. Not. p. 172. {/) Comment, in Joannem,Tom. 2.
p. 47. Ed. Huet.
f Tl:e Aff'ii-er to the Qj^erles (p. 41 .) 'ites tiao P(fjp>ges cut of
Origen'j Commer.t upon St. John (^the Place from 'whch thefe are
cited) hut takes no mrice cf this ■plain Declaration , '^vhich he m:ght
alfo have feen., if he hdd pleas' d. If he bonotu'd thef-j Fr. gmer^fs of
Dr. Clarke indeed, he is r2ct fo n:Uih to be hl-inid ; fo, p. 4, and 5.
of the Script. I)oBrir?e, hoih Origen and Athanafius are repvefented in
the fame maim'd conditicn*
well
^^^ N I C E N E F A I T H, 15
well as the Father ; he confefs'd this, I fay, in the
fame Breath, in which he pronounc'd that the Father
alone could be call'd 'AyTuSto?, or God of himfelf ; fo
that Peta'uius doth in vain carp at Origen in this Place.
Confult Huetius upon the Place if you pleafe.
Grabe'j Annotations upon SeBion 10.
To the Places cited from Origenj Athanajtus^ and
EufebiuSy for the Phrafe in which the Son of God is
cail'd 'At/7o3tof, may be added the Authority of Epi-
phanius (a) : God the Word having in himfeif all Per-
fection, being Perfedion itfelf, very God, Power,
Mind, and Light itfelf. In what Senfe thefe Words
of his are to be taken by us, {b) Athanafius hath ex-
cellently told us. He is not thefe by Participation, or
as though he had thefe things externally, as thofe who
are partakers of him, or made wife by him, or arc
powerful or rational in him, but He is the very proper
Wifdom, Word, and Power of the Father. The
Word 'At/To prefixed to Names, for the moft part
fignifies, that the thing denoted by thefe Names is
properly, effentially, and in its own nature fuch [as
it is faid to be :] Thus Suidas teaches. The Philo-
fophers, ufed the Word 'A.v]o for properly fpeaking, and
they noted the Idea by this Word, faying 'AuWp9p»Tof,
(a very Man, or the Idea of Man) and 'AvTaJh^a^y^ than
which is properly, or rather to be thought. After
this manner, no Catholick can deny, as one excellent
Author has well obferv'd, that Chrift is 'At/76;^or, or
very, proper God. Nor does he lefs truly deny that
he is to be calTd 'Al'7;>.©-, as the prefixed tlulo denotes
that this or that is fo, or fo of itfelf, but hath not a
Subftance or Quality deriv'd from another. For it is
certain that Chrift had his Godhead and Divine At-
tributes from the Father.
(_a) Epiphan. Haeref, 77. (V) Vol. 1. Tom. p. 46.
CHAP
i6
::^DEFENCE/
CHAP. IL
'Ihe Second I'hefis is proposed and coitfirvPd^
in which isjhewn^ 'That the Antie7its with
one Voice taught^ that God the Father^ as
heing the Original and Principle of the
JSon, was greater tha?i He, and alfo-, that
the Son is in Nature equal to the Father,
ISuppofe I have, in the former Chapter, fufficiently
demonftrated chat the Antients commonly acknow-
ledg'd the Subordination of the Son to the Father, as
his Original and Principle. Now that I am about to
fhew what they determin'd in confequence of it, I
propofe to illuftrate and confirm this Tnefis.
T H E S I S II.
A he Catholick DoSlors loth before and after the Synod o/Nice,
have unaninKuJly determin'd , that God the Father it
greater than the Son, even with refpeSl to his Divinity^
namely, not in Nature, or any effential Perfection which is
in the Father and not in the Son ; but in Authority, i. e.
Original alone, as the Son is from the Father, not the
Father from the Son.
In this Thefis we afTert two Things, ifi. That the
Antients determin'd. That God the Father was great-
er than the Son, even with refped to his Divinity :
idly. That they neverthelefs taught that the Father
was greater than the Son in Original only, but that
both were in Nature equal. We will ihew that the
Antients delivered both thefe Dodrines with one
Voice ; and firfl: we will begin with thofe who wrote
before the Rife of Arianifm.
2. Of whom Juflin, almoft the antienteft of them
all, manifelUy makes a certain Order, or as it were
Pegree
the N'iceneFaith. 17
Degree of Dignity in the Holy Trinity. In the
Apology in the Vulgar Editions, call'd the Second, he
faySj (a) That the Chfiftians did rationally reverence
Chrift, giving him the fecond Place. And immediately
after he again fays, That the Chriftians did juftly give
to Jefus Chrift the fecond Place after the unchangeable,
eternal God the Father of all Things {h). Again, in
the fame Apology i The firft Power after God, the
Father and Lord of all things, is the Son, who is the
Word. And it is parallel to this, that in the fame
Apology, he again calls the Son (c) the Power next
after the fupreme God. Laflly, In the Dialogue with
T'rypho, (d) he calls the Son theMinifterial God of God,
the Maker of all things. Yet the fame Juftia elfe-
where, namely, in his Epiftle to Diognetm, exprefly
denies that the Son of God is a Minifter, calling him the
Maker and Creator of all things. See the remarkable
Paflage cited entire before (e). You'll fay, how caa
thefe things be reconcil'd ? Eafily. When the Son is
call'd the fecond, or next after the Father, or the
Minifter of the Father, thefe Words denote a Subor-
dination of Perfons, as being originated one of ano-
ther, but not a Difterence or Inequality of Nature in
the Divine Perfons. The Father, as Father, is firft
in the Holy Trinity , the Son is next to the Father.
In all the Divine Operations, the Son is the Minifter
of the Father, as he operates from God the Fa-
ther, the Fountain and Original both of the Di«
vine Eftence and Operations ; and the Father by
him; not the Father from him, or he by the Father.
Upon which account, Clement of Alexandria, (f) a true
Catholick in this Article, doubted not to write thus
concerning the Son of God : All the Power of the Lord
is referr'd to the Almighty i and if we may fo fpeak,
the Son is the Energy of the Father. In the mean
time, in moft of thofe places in which he calls the Son
the Minifter of the Father, he has refped to that
(«) Pag. 60, {F) p. 74. (c) p. 93. (^) p.27j;. (OSea. 2.
Ch.4. n. 6. (f) p. 505. Clem. Alex.
Vol. II. B Difpen-
i8 ^DEFENCE ^/
Difpenfation which he the Son freely underwent for
the Salvation of Mankind j (as I (hall fhew hereafter)
and that not firft begun from his Incarnation, but
from the Fall of Man. But the Son is truly denied
to be the Minifler, or Servant of the Father, with
refpeft to the fame Divine Nature, which he hath in
common with the Father, though communicated by
him, I. e. as he is not one of the Creatures of God,
which are properly faid to minifter to God ; but true
God, even as the Father. The Son is alfo juftly call'd
the Maker and Creator of all things, as well as the
Father, becaufe, though he had the Divine Nature
and Omnipotence from the Father, he made all things
not by that of another Perfon, but by his own natu-
ral Power and Omnipotence. Some of the Antients
indeed have faid that the Father made this World by
the Son, as by an Inftrument, meaning a connatural,
not an extraneous Inftrument, as Grotius hath well ob-
ferv'd fomewhere. Hence Irenaus hath faid, that the
Son minifterM to the Father in the very Creation ;
who is, notwithftanding, as ftrenuous as any Man, ia
aflerting the natural Equality of the Father and Son.
(a) 'Juftm has fully and exadly comprehended the
whole Matter in a few Words, in his Dialogue with
Irypho, where, in his Notes upon this place of Genejis,
'The Lord rain'd Fire from the Lord out of Heaven ^ he
faith ; The Words of the Prophet fhew that there
were two in number ; one on Earth, who fays, that
he defcended to fee the Cry of Sodom ; another in Hea-
ven, who is the Lord of the Lord upon Earth, as be-
ing Father, and God and the Caufe of Exiftence to
him, who is alfo powerful, and Lord and God ; I fay,
that from this ftiort Sentence, we have a Key to open
the Senfe of all thofe Places, in which ^uflin feems to
have fpoken lefs honourably of the Son of God. Here
he teaches that God the Father is God, and Lord of
his Son : How ? As he is the Fountain of the Divinity,
('*)PaSC35S»
and
the N I C E N E F A I T H. ip
and the Caufe of the Son's Exiflence. The fame
Perfon, notwithftanding, doth no Jefs clearly teach
in the fame Breath, that dje Son is God and Lv^rd,
even as the Father ,* or that the Fatiier granted ^it to
the Son, that he (hould be what he is, G^d and Lord.
The Son then is lefs man the Father, as he hath a
Caufe ,• but equal to him in Nature, The Son is
equally God and Lord as the Fattier, and in this only
differs from the Father, that he is God and Lord From
the Father, who is God and Lora ot mm lei f^ /". e. as
the Ntcene Synod hach determined it, God of God,
and very God of very God We aifo conclude more
firongly (if indeed there can be any Difficulty in
fuch plain Words ) from hence, that this is Jujiin's
Meaning, becaufe in the Words immediately pre-
ceding, he defcribes the Generation of the Son from
the EfTence of the Fatner, and fays, that the Son is
begotten of the Father, not by a Divifion of the pa-
ternal Elfence, but by a fimple Communication, fuch
as is betwixt the Fire that kindles, and the Fire thac
is kindled.
The Fire kindled, as Jufiin elfe where (a) exprefly
fays, is of the very fame Nature with that from which
it was kindled, and only differs in that Communica-
tion. Thus the Son is the true Divine Light, as well
as the Father, nor is any way inferior to him, but as
he is Light of Light, according to another Determi-
nation of the Nicene Council. And, indeed, to put
the Reader in mind of it once for all, whofoever ac-
knowledges the Son to be confubflantial with the Fa-
ther (which Jufiin, and the other Antients, have done
to a Man, as I have fliewn before) he, upon that very
account, does by confequence necefl'arily confefs thac
the Son is in Nature equal to the Father. How, I
befeech you, can any one believe the fame Divine Na-
ture to be common to the Son with the Father, and
yet think that the Son wants fome exTential Property
(a) See SeSt. 2. chap, 4. n. 5.
B a of
20 ^J DUVENCU of
oF the Divine Nature, and is confequently inferior to
the Father ? It' Chrift be the Son of God, and the
true Son, namely, begotten of the Effence of the Fa-
ther, he is neceflarily equal to his Father in Nature,
i. e. in thofe things which are proper to the Father,
as God. This we fee in the Propagation of all Animals,
efpeciaily Men ; for all Men are by Nature equal,
and only differ in Accidents, which have no place in
God, or the Divine Nature. Nay, further, no Sub-
ftance can be more a Subftance or lefs a Subftance than
another : If fo, then there can be no Queftion or
Controverfy concerning the Diffimilitude of thofe
things, which cannot be more or lefs perfed one than
another, namely, of Subftances in general, and by
confequence of the Divine Subftance : But this by the
way. I proceed from yuftin to the other Fathers.
5. Irenmii exprefly fays, that the Father is greater
than the Son. {a) The Lord-, fays he^ is the only true
Mafter for us to learn from, that the Father is above
all ; for he faith, the Father is greater than I. Now
we have before fhewn, that here he had an efpecial
Regard to the human Nature of Chrift. But he faith,
(I;) That the Father commanded the Son to make the
World : And again, That the (c) Son miniftreth to
the Father in all things; which Words manifeftly fig-
nify a certain Eminence of the Father above the Son,
even as he is moft properly the Son of God. Yet the
fame Irenaus faith, (d) that the immenfe Father is mea-
fur'd in the Son, and that the Son is the Meafure of
the Father, becaufe he comprehends him. In this
place, I have fufficiently demonftrated before, that
the Equality of the Father and Son, as to Nature, is
plainly declarM. Therefore, according to IrenauSy
the fame Son, who, in refped to his Original from
the Father, and the Difpenfation he undertook, was
lefs than the Father j in refped to his Divine Nature,
(/») Page 207. (^) p. 334. (OP'^JO. (rf) Vid. fupra,
Se^, 2, chap. 5. n. 4.
which
f y^^ N I c E N E Fait h » 2 1
which he hath in common with him, is equal to the
Father j namely, fo as to contain and comprehend
him all, how great foever. In like manner, in taat
famous Place, where he compares the Word and the
Creatures, he exprefly notes this principal Difference,
that no Creature is equal to his Maker, God the Fa-
ther i thereby maniteftly fignifying that the Word and
Son of God is altogether equal to God the Father.
See the entire Place, Se6t. 2. chap. 5. n, 5. But what
need of m.any Words ? whofoever has any Scruple in
this Matter, let him read Book 2. Chap. 24. of Irenaus,
There the holy Man is wholly employ'd in fhewing
againft the ValentinianSj that it is very abfurd and
blafphemous to fay, the Word was imperfed, which
■proceeded from the perfeft Father. In the fame Place,
he fharply rebukes the fameHereticks, for making cheir
Nus or Mind a perfed JEon, and abfolutely equal to
the Father of all things j yet believing their Word, the
Offspring of Ntis, to be imperfed, and plac'd in a
State of Deminoration, (as the Verfion hath it.) Of
many things in that Chapter to our purpofe, we wnll
cite this Place, {a) For, fays he^ the Father of all is
not (as we have fhew'd before) like a certain com-
pounded Animal, fomething befide the Nus or Mind ;
but Nus is the Father, and the Father is Nus. It is
therefore neceffary, that he who is the Word from
him, nay, that the very Nus, which is the Word,
fhould be perfed and impaffible. And a little after.
The Logos then (not poffeffing, * as they fpeak, the
third Order of Generation) was not ignorant of the
Father, as they teach. For this will be thought more
probable perhaps in the Generation of Men, fince
they often know not their Parents ^ but it is abfo-
lutely impoffible in the Word of the Father. After-
wards he boldly pronounces in the fame place, that
they are blind to right Reafon, who fay the Word
(«) Page 179.
* 7he Valentinians fald the Word nuas tie Thkd, Irenasus the
Seconds
B 3 was
22 :^ DEFEN CE (?/
was fent forth in a State of Inferiority. It is then
very certain that Irenaus ackno\vledg*d the natural
Equality of God the Father, and of his Word, or
Son.
4. Clement of Alex, feem'd to have taught in a Place
{a) afore-cited, that the Son of God is the next Power
after his Father. But the fame Clement (in a Place,
which I have alfo cited before) fays, that the Son is
the perfect Word, born of the perfed Father j that is,
that the Son is not inferior to the Father in any degree
of Perfedion. But he fpeaks yet more exprefly in
another place : Tne D:vine Word, moll manifeftly
G 'd, who is made equal to the Lord of the Univerfe>
for he V as his Son, and tne Word was in God. Ob-
ferve. The Word, or Son ot God, whom he had in
another Place cali'd, with refped to his Original, the
fecond from and next to God, he here exprelly pro-
nounces as equalized to the Father; and that upon
this account, becaufe he is hs Son, that is, begotten
of him, and of the fame Nature and Eflence with
him ; and becaufe the Word is in God, that is, fub-
fifts in his D'vine ElTence, in which there is nothing
imperfect. Now it is efpecially to be obferv'd, that
in the fame Breath, in which he makes the Son equal
to the Father, he owns a certain Eminence or Pre-
rogative of the Father above the Son, whilft he calls
the Father Lord of all. God the Father namely, is,
by V ay of Diflindion, call'd Lord of all, as being the
Caufe and Origir.al not only of all the Creatures, but
of the Son himfelf, though after a different manner ;
namely, as he is the Caufe of him., by an eternal Ge-
neration out of his own Eflence ; of them^ by a Pro-
dudion out of Nothing, made in Time. Saving there-
fore to the Father his Prerogative.^ by which he is the
Father and Original of every Being, Clement teaches *
that
{d) Se8:. 2. chap. 6. n. 6.
* Hhefe Words might have led fome late Writers into another <way
^ffp^^^'^g '1 fi*' "When they ajfert that the Son is not in Nature the
fame
the NiceneFaith, 2j
that the Son is equal to him, namely, as he hath the
fame common Nature with him. What Sandius an-
fwers to this Place, is ftrange indeed. It is plain,
fays he, that it is corrupt. Yes, indeed ? Can Sandius
(a) then, produce one Book, in which the Place is
ocherwife read ? He cannot. But the Sophift does as
he ufes to do. As often as he is prefsM with the
Teftimony of any Antient, which he can*t otherwife
elude, he cuts the Knot, which he can't untyej impu-
dently afferting, in fpight of the Confent of all Co-
pies, that the Place is corrupt, that the Author
thought and wrote otherwife. But who gave this
Trifler fuch a Power over the Antients, as to rejed,
as fpurious, what he does not like ? Now, fays he, it
appears to be corrupt, by the Reafon produced, be-
caufe he was his Son. From which Reafon, it was
natural for the Gentiles to conclude the quite con-
trary i for it never enterM into their Minds to think
that the Son was equal to and coeval with the Father.
But why has Sandius added the Word Coeval? That
Word is not in the Place cited, nor does Clement there
diredly treat of the Son's Coeternity, (he hath aflferted
that in other PaflTages, which we have elfewhere cited^
but of his natural Equality with the Father j which
he rightly gathers from hence, becaufe he is the true
and genuine Son, begotten of his Subftance, and fub-
iifting in him. This Inference is firm and folid in the
Judgment of all Men. For the human Father and the
human Son are, in refped of the fame human Nature
common to both, altogether equal, as I have faid be-
fore. But if Clement had from the fame Reafon con-
cluded that the Son is coeval with the Father, he had
not mifs'd the Mark : For the Coeternity of the Son
neceffarily follows from his Confubftantiality, as we
fitme ivith the Father, the Reafon they give for it is, hecaufe he is mt
fupreme. If they had dejign'd to have brought this Controverfy to an
Head, they fhould have confiderd the B flop's Salvo. 1 meddle not luitb
the Notion, nor attempt to expofe, -what is fo manifeflly zinphilofophicaU
{a) Appendix ad Nucl. p. 99, and 139.
P 4 have
H ^ DEFENCE of
have fliewn before. For the in Men the Son mull
be later than his Father, in God Reafon teaches us
the very contrary. No Perfon can begin to exift from
and in the Divine Eflence, who was not before, with-
out deftroying the Immutability of God. Now that
God is immutable, is the common Notion of Man-
kind. Therefore if the Son be the true and genuine
Son of God the Father, that is, proceeds from the
Subftance of the Father, and fubfifts in him, he muft
be naturally equal to his Father, and alfo coeval and
coeternal. Thus Sandius at laft concludes his Anfwer:
I fee not how Clement can make the Son equal, who
calls him the Minifler of the Father's Will. But if
Sandius did not fee it when he wrote thefe things, he
nay now fee it from what we have difcourfed in this
Chapter. Indeed, to fpeak freely, this profound Wri-
ter, by what he hath difputed in this place, and
afterwards, feems to be forfaken of the Catholick
Faith, and found Judgment. God grant him a more
fober Mind.
5. Tertullian is the next to Clement. He in many
places gives the Father a Pre-eminence over the Son.
Peta'ums, Sandius, and others, have fo proclaimed this,
that I fhall not fpend my time upon it. But the fame
'Tertullian (which they have generally conceal'd) doth
often, and that no lefs plainly and exprefly determine,
that the Son is naturally equal to the Father. Thus,
he fays, that (a) the Father gave all things made by
him to the Son f, who is not inferiour to himfelf.
Sandiui's Anfwer to this Place is more worthy Deri-
fion, than Refutation : For he makes a Difficulty
•where he finds none. The fame Tertullian exprefly
faith, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
are not only of one Subftance, but of ope Power alfo ',
{a) . ?. 44c. iri fine.
f We have a crificnt Si-i/pii'ion cf Vr* Whitby'j upon the Ke<td'ng,
hut no Author'ity for altering it^ except that then' it he:t:-r ferved the
DoBors Purpof^. Hk Bilh-ys Reading has the Ai^thriiy of the An-
dents for it. ■ ■ ' ■ •'
f;^^ Nic EN E Faith. 2$
that all the Names and Attributes of the Father agree
to the Son ; and that the Son is equal to the Father ;
that the Father and Son are join*d, and equaliz'd.
\Vc have cited the exprefs Places, which can-c be
eluded, in SeB. 2. Ch. 7. N. 4. To thofe you may
add thefe : (h) TertuUian owns, as we have before ob-
ferv'd, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a
Trinity of one Divinity. In thefe Words, it is cer-
tain Tertullian intended, that all the three Perfons are
abfolutely in Nature equal. Thus he fays againft
HeriMgenes : Nor fhall we border upon the Gentile No-
tions, which, when forcM to confefs a God, place
other Gods below him. But Divinity hath no Degree,
as being only one. And a little after. The Divinity
can never be lefs than itfelf. Whence he exprefly
teaches, in the fame Book (c), that God had his Wif-
dom coexifting with him from Eternity, as not being
inferiour to him, or in State different from him. Here
he therefore plainly concludes, that the Wifdom, or
Son of God, is equal to God, whofe the Wifdom is,
becaufe not in ftate different from him ,• that is, con-
fubftantial with him. When therefore {d) Tertullian
fays, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three,
not in State, but Degree ; by Degree he means Order,
and not a greater or lefs Divinity. For thofe whom
he confefl'es to be three in Degree, he denies to be
different in State. Now, as we have feen, when
Tertullian fays any thing is not in State different from
another, he means the fame as if he had faid, It is
not inferiour to it, but equal and alike. Upon which
account he fays, in the fame place, a little after, that
the three Perfons of the Sacred Trinity are all of one
Power, and confequently none of them more power-
ful, or excellent than another. Thus the Divinity
has no Degree ; that is, as TeriulHan exprefly inter-
prets himfelf, is never inferiour to itfelf: But yet
there are Degrees in the Divinity, that is, a certain
0)P, 231. CO p.. 239' (^)p'5^i'
Order
^6 ^DEFENCE ^/
Order of Perfons, of which one takes his Original
;from another ; fo that the Father is the firft Perfon
exifting of himfelf, the Son the fecond from the Fa-
ther, and the Holy Ghoft the third, who proceeds
from the Father by the Son, or from the Father and
the Son. Wherefore Come Learned Men have unjuftly
charged Tertullian with the Herefy of Apollinaris, who
made Steps or Degrees of Dignity in the Divine Per-
fons; and, as Theodoret (f) reports, faid, that there was
in the Trinity, Great, Greater, and Greateft; as tho'
the Spirit was great, the Son greater, and the Fa-
ther greateft. But our very Learned Writer plainly
rejeded this Dotage. Novatian, or the Writer of the
Book about the Trinity, inferted among T'ertullians
Works, is of T'ertullians mind. For he, when he
makes the Son lefs than the Father, fo explains him-
felf, as to refer this Inferiority to his Original only.
His Words are exprefs (f) ; It is necefifary that the
Son (hould be lefs than the Father, as knowing him-
felf to be in him, having an Original, becaufe he is
born. As for the Divine Nature, the fame Perfon
exprefly teaches, that the Father and Son are one.
For explaining thofe Words of our Lord to the yewf,
I and the Father are om^ he writes thus (g) : So as for
the Crime of Blafphemy, he calls himfelf the Son,
not the Father ; but as to his Divinity, by faying * /
and the Father are cne^ he hath prov'd, that he is the
Son, and God. He is therefore God, but fo God, as
(0 Contra Hserel^ p. 107. (/) p. 729. (^) p. 722.
* It is perfeBly naufeous to cbferve, how often fame late Wrlteys In
this Contvovevfy have mentiond other Interpretations of thefe Words
from this Author, nvithcut any Limitation or Exception, or any regard
to this. Where the Authors are voluminous, and the Pajfages nvidely
dijianty fomcthinv may he faid in excufe ; but fo often to cite an Au-
thor, all zihofe Writings dont make 30 entire Faires, and negleB to
reconcile their AJfertions from him, with other Pajfages ivhich feem to
enervate them, looks like writing for a Canfe, rather than Truth.
The Rfadr will do well to corfult Tertullian alfo upon this Text^
(ad'/. Prax. c. 22, &c.) and obferve with what Candour and In-
genuity he is cited in the modeji DifqiiifilionSy p. 141.
that
the NiceneFaith^ 27
that he is the Son, not the Father. The Senfe of the
Author is plain : Chrift, in his Difcourfe to the Jews,
preferv'd both the Pre-eminence of the Father, and
aUb his true Divinity equal to the Father's ; the one
by owning the Father, and confeiling himfelf the Son ;
the other, by faying that he and the Father are one.
Hence the Author infers, that the Son is true God,
as well as the Father, with this Difference only, that
the one is the Father, the other the Son.
6. Origen (h) profefledly defends the Prerogative of
the Father comparM to the Son : Grant, fays he, that
fome in the Multitude of thofe that believe^ and diffent
from us, inconfiderately fuppofe that our Saviour is
God over all ; yet we don't think him fuch, who are
perfuaded by him, when he faith, 'The Father thatfent
me is greater than 1. He lafhes the Noetians, as I ob-
ferv'd before, who faid our Saviour was the very God
the Father, who is called the Lord of all. Againft
them, he fhews that our Saviour did fo differ from
the Father, as that he was in fome Senfe inferiour to
him. And he gives us this Profeffion of his, as a
common Doftrine of the Church, ranging thofe with
the Heterodox who thought otherwife (/'). A little
after, when Celfus objeds to the Chriftians as their
common Sentiment, the Dodrlne of Marcion, who
taught that Jefus, who is from God the Father, is
God Superiour to the Maker of the World, he thus
anfwers : For we who fay that the vifible World is
his who made all things, plainly affirm that the Son is
not greater than the Father, but lefs. And this we
fay, perfuaded by him who hath told us_, The Father
that Jem me is greater than I. Laftly, the fame Origen
calls the Son the fecond God {k). This notwith-
ftanding Origen in more places than one manifeRly
teaches, that the Son is equal to the Father. Thus,
when the Epicurean Celfus palm'd this Sentiment upon
the Chriftians, becaufe {I) God is great, and not to
(^) p. 387. contra Celfum* (i)p.388. (y^Op-^jS. COp-S^S.
be
28 ::^ D E F E N C E ^/
be beheld, having put his own Spirit into a Body like
ours, he fent him hither, that we might hear and
learn of him, he anfwers thus : The God of all, even
the Father, is not great alone, as we think. For he
hath communicated himfelf and his Greatnefs to the
only Begotten, and firft-born of every Creature, that
he being the Image of the invifible God, might in
Greatnefs alfo preferve the Image of the Father. For
it was not poffible, if I may fo fpeak, that he fhould
be a proportionate and true Image of the invifible
God, if he did not reprefent the Image of his Great-
nefs. Here you fee that Origen^ who elfewhere fays
that the Son is inferiour to the Father, exprefly affirms,
that the Father hath even communicated his Great-
nefs to the Son, fo that the Son is equal to his Fa-
ther in Greatnefs. How will you reconcile thefe
things ? The Cafe is plain : The Son is inferiour to
the Father, with refped to his Original ; but equal
to the Father, as born of him, and having the fame
common Divine Nature with him. The Son is as
great as God the Father; but that he is fo, is owing
to the Father. Nay further, the fame Origen (m) fo
calls the Son the fecond God, as to put in this exprefs
Caveat, That we are not to underftand it of any Di-
vine Perfeftion in the Father, and not in the Son.
Thefe are his Words : When we call him the fecond
God, let them know, that by the fecond God we
mean nothing elfe, but a Power comprehenfive of all
Powers. Immediately after, he calls the Divine Per-
fon of Chrift, the very Word, the very Wifdom, and
Righteoufnefs. Origen then very clearly fignifies, that
he and other Catholick Chriftians, who called Chrift
the fecond God, never intended to afcribe to the Son
an imperfed Divinity ; but, on the other hand, ownM,
that the Son was fo the fecond God, that he was very
God, and not in any Perfedion of the Divinity infe-
riour to the Supreme Godj even the Facher; there-
(w) p. 2^8.
fore
the N 1 c E N E F A I T H. 29
fore that he was in this fenfe only called the fecond
God, as he was God of God, and originate of the
Father. In a word, Ovigen called the Son fecond God
no otherwife, than as Bafil call'd the fame Son fe-
cond in Order from the Father. Whilft I read Origen
thus fpeaking, how am I griev*d for thofe Calumnia-
tors, who have chargM this Herefy upon the very
Learned and Holy Father ; namely, that the Son, com-
pared with the Father, is a petty God ! For without
doubt there is fcarce one of the Primitive Fathers,
who hath more openly rejeded this Blafphemy. !
7. Dionyfius Alexandr. in his Anfwers to the Queries
fet after his Epiftle to Paulus Samofat, thus brings in
Chrift, fpeaking out of the Prophet 'Jeremy : I Chrift,
a Perfon always exifting, equal to the Father, as being
in nothing unHke him. You may read the entire
Place cited. Sect. III. C/;. 4. iV. 3. Now what is
clearer than thefe Words ? He exprefly fays the Son
is equal to the Father, and proves it, becaufe he is
in nothing unlike him i that is, hath the fame Divine
Nature in common with the Father. This is the
very thing which we aflfert, that the ancient Atite-
Nicene Dodors own'd the Son to be naturally equal
to the Father. The fame Dionyjius^ in the fame An-
fw^ers, fays ; He is the fame to whom the Father fub-
jeded all things, f being not inferiour to the Father,
he pray'd for us. Here he exprefly denies that the
Son is inferiour to the Father. Laftly, the fame Per-
fon, in his Apology in Athanafius^ confeffes the Tri-
nity indiminifhM. Ey this he can mean nothing elfe,
than that the Divinity is not lefs in one Perfon than
in another ; but that there is in every Perfon an entire,
full, and perfed Divinity. See the Place cited ac
large. Sect. XL Ch.ii. N. <y.
In like manner, the Creed of Gregory 'Thaumattirgus
plainly proclaims a co-eternal and co-equal Trinity :
For he clearly aflerts a perfed Trinity, which is not
t Or^ ihonot inferioHr
divided.
30 :.^ D E F E N C E ^/
divided, or feparated in Glory, Government, and
Empire. As for the Son in particular, the fame Con-
feflion teaches, that God the Father is perfect Father
of perfe6t ; and then calls the Holy G.ioft the pert-ed:
Image of the perfeB Son (k). The fame Gregory^ in his
Panegyrical Oration upon Origen^ his genuine Work
by the Confeflion of all Men, as he teaches, that the
Son honours and praifes the Father, (which fhews the
Pre-eminence of the Father, as Father, and the Dif-
penfation undertaken by the Son) fo he exprefly fays,
that the Father hath honoured the Son with a Power
every way equal to his own, and circumfcrib'd his
infinite Majefty in the Son (o). The ^ix Bilhops, who
wrote an Epiftle to Paulus Samofatenus in the Name of
the whole Synod oi Antioch, are of this fame Opinion.
(/>) Thefe are their exprefs Words concerning the
Son of God in that Epiftle: He is believM to be God
by the whole Church under Heaven, having empty 'd
himfelf of his Equality to God, and to be Man of the
Seed of Davidy according to the Flefh. Here they
profefs that they have delivered the Confent of the
Catholick Church ; and they plainly interpret the
famous Place of St. Paul to the Pbilippans (^), as the
prefent Catholicks do. Further, the very Creed of
Lucian Martyr, the great Boaft of the Avians, exprefly
teaches, that the Son is not only God of God, but
Whole of Whole, and Perfeft of Perfed ; which Words
abfolutely exclude that partial and imperfect Divinity
of the Son, of which the Hereticks dreamt (r). Laftly,
The Senfe of Amobius, who very often proclaims the
Son of God to be true and very God, is exprefs : (s)
God derived, as God, differs not at all from the other.
Nor can that, which is one in kind, be more or lefs
in its Parts, ftill fuppofing it to keep the Uniformity
of its proper Quality. Therefore, according to ^r-
nobius, the Son of God, as God, differs not at all
(n) Seft. II. ch. 12. n. i.
(o) n. 4. {f) Bibl. Pat. Tom. 11. p. 300.
(^) c. 2. V. 6. {r) Sea. II. c. 13. n. 5. (j) Seft. III. c. 4. n. 9.
trom
the N I C E N E F A I T H^ 51
from God the Father ; nor is there more in the Son
than in the Father, but in both the Divine Perfons
the Divinity is uniform ; that is, God the Father and
the Son, are abfolutely equal in Nature. Amobius in-
deed was of T'ertuUians Mind, That the Divinity has
no degree, nor is ever lefs than itfelf. Yet the fame
Amobius^ in more Places than one, calls God the Father
the Supreme God, in the Senfe we have before ex-
plained.
8. Hitherto we have explain'd the Senfe of the
Antients in the three firft Ages. We are now to fliew
that the Catholick Dodors, who wrote after the Rife
of the Arian Controverfy, and were conftant Defen-
ders of the Faith eftabliftiM by the Nicene Fathers,
agreed with them. Alexander, the Bifhop of Alex-
andria, who firft put a flop to the growing Impiety of
Arius, in an Epiftle * to his Name-fake of Conftantinople^
accurately explains the Catholick Doftrine of the
Father's Pre-eminence over the Son in thefe Words (^),
We muft then take care to preferve to the unbegotten
Father his proper Dignity, affirming, that no one is
to Him theCaufe of Exiftence. We muft alfo give to_
the Son the Honour which futes him, namely, his be-
ginninglefs Generation of the Father, and as we have
faid before, attribute Worfhip to him, and pioufly and
religioufly fay, that he was, and always was, and be-
fore Ages ; not rejeding his Divinity, but always
afcribing to him the Likenefs ftridly due to the Image
and Character of the Father, efteeming it as the only
* Dr. Whitby tells us. That this Alexander In the beginning of
the D'lfpute waver d^ fomet'imes commending one Side, fometimes ano-
ther; but he fays nothing of what follows immediatel'^ in the f ami-
Hiftoriany that at lafl he got over his Difficulties, ajferted the Confuhf^^-
fiantiality and Coeternity of the Son, and excommunicated Arius, 6cc.'
for their Herefy. This unprejudic'd Behaviour, fyculd rather recom-
mend than depreciate the DoBrine he ajferted. He alfo affirms. That
this Epijile contains many things which foew he. was not Orthodox,
Thofe he inflances in, are all agreeable to AKtiquity, a7:d the Bijhpp's
Scheme ; and the Credit of this fingle Pajfagey is fufficient to ^rovs
it.
(g") Theodor.E. H. Lib. i. cap. 4. p. iS.
Pro-
32 ^J DEFENCE of
Property or Peculiarity of the Father to be unbegotten ;
forafmuch as our Saviour himfelf hath faid. My Fa-
ther is greater than /, the Words need no Comment.
Athanafius (h) his SuccefTor in the See oi Alexandria^ ex-
pounding the Words of our Saviour, My Father is
greater thanl^ writes thus : The Son did not fay, the Fa-
ther is better than I, that no one might fuppofe him
different in Nature from the Father i but he faid, He
is greater, not in Majefty or Age, but upon account
of his Generation of the Father.
p. The great Bajil (i) explains the Matter in thefe
W'ords clearly : Becaufe the Son's Origin is from the
Father, the Father is greater, as being the Caufe, or
Origin : for which caufe the Lord fays thus. My Fa-
ther is greater than /, namely as Father. Now what does
Father iignify, but to be the Caufe, or Origin of him
that is begotten of him ? But even according to your
wife Notions, Subftance is by no means faid to be
greater or lefs than Subftance. Again {k)^ The Son
is indeed the fecond from the Father, in Order, be-
caufe of him i and in Dignity, becaufe the Father is
the Principle, and Caufe of his Exiftence. Thus
Gregory Naz,ianz,en (I) ; To be greater, refpeds Caufa-
lity ; to be equal. Nature. And'; in the fame Place,
he refutes their Interpretation, who would have
the Father faid to be greater than the Son, as Man,
with this excellent Reafon ; For to fay that he is greater
than him, confider'd as Man, is true indeed, but not
much ; for what wonder that God is greater thaa
Man ? Lajily, He writes thus (wz). That he is greater
is not in Nature, but Caufality ; for none of thofe
things that are Confubftantial, are in Subftance great-
er or lefs. Upon this Place, Nicetas obferves thus ;
Becaufe the Son hath his Caufe from the Father, the
Father is greater, as being the Caufe ; but the ElTence
of one, is not by any means greater or lefs than the
(b^ Orat. I. contra Arianos. (i) Tom. i. p. 72,4. Lib- i.
contra Eunom. (k) Lib. 5. non longe ab initio, (/) Orat. ^6.
p. 582. (w) Orat. 40. p. 6^9.
EfTence
tije N I C E N E JF A I T H. ^1
ElTence of another. Chryfojlom fays C^}, But if any
one Ihall fay, that the Father is greater, as he is the
Caufe of the Son, we don't contradict it. So CjriUus
Alexandrinus (oj afErms, that the Father is faid to be
greater, as he is the Caufe ; thefe are his Words, The
Son being equal to the Father in Subftance, and like
him in all things, fays that He (the Father) is greater
as being beginninglefs j whereas he (the Son) hath a
Principle only in refped of Proceffion, tho' he hath the
fame Exiftence with him. Laftly, Joannes Damafcenus
(p) faith, Now when we fay that thffe Father is tie
Beginning or Principle of the Son, and grearer than
he, we don't mean that he is before him in Time cc
Nature (for by him he made the Ages) or any other
way, than as being the Caufe of him ; that is, that
the Son is of the Father, not the Father of the Son^
and that the Father is the natural Caufe of the Son,
lo. We will now cite a few of the many Evidences
among the Latins. What Marius ViBorinus fays for
this Sentiment, we have told you before (q). Hilary
interprets the Place of St. John, the Father is greater
than ly nicely in thefe Words (r). Or is not the Fa-
ther greater ? yes, the Father is greater, as Father i
but the Son is not lefs, as Son. The Nativity of the
Son makes the Father greater, and the Nature of the
Nativity fuffers not the Son to be lefs. And a little
before : The Father is therefore greater, plainly
greater than the Son, to whom he granted that he
fhould be as great as he himfelf is ; who by the Myfte-
ry of his Nativity makes him the Image of Innafcibi-
lity ; whom he begets of himfelf in his own Form."
Again (j-), when it is faid they are in one another, un-
derftand the Divinity of God of God ; when it is
faid the Father is greater, underftand the Confeffion
of the Father's Authority. The Author of the Qpe-
ftions in both Teftaments, which is in the end of the
(ji) Homil. 72. in Joan. (0) In Thefauris, lib. ir. p. 8 J,
{p) De fide Orthod. lib. i. cap. 6> {of) The ^^recedlng Chapter,
(»•) In nono Libro de Trin. {s) Lib, ji.
Vol.. IL C fourdi
'54 ^ D E F E N C E 0/
fourth Tome of Auftine\ Works, fays (f), He differs
not at all in Subftance, becaufe a true Son i yet he
differs in the Degree of Caufality, becaufe all Power
in the Son is from the Father. The Son is not lefs in
Subflance ; but the Father is greater in Authority.
Auftine himfelf alfo affirms. That the Father is not
only greater than the Son, becaufe of his affumM
humane Nature, but alfo his eternal Generation.
Thus in his Book of the Faith and Creed (w), where he
fays, thofe Words of 'John are fpoken partly becaufe
of his taking upon him humane Nature, and partly
becaufe the Son oweth what he is to the Father even
this, that he is equal to the Father. But whatever
he is, the Father is oblig'd to no one for it. But why
do I reckon up the Opinions of particular Dodors ?
The Catholick Council of Sardka, confifting of about
2,00 Eaftern and Weftern Bifhops, (250 according to
I'heodcret,) plainly deliver'd the fame Dodrine in a
Synodical Epiftle. Nor does any one deny (fay the
Fathers) that the Father is greater than the Son, but
not as of another Subftance, or any other DiflFerence,
except that the Name of Father is greater than that
of Son (xy).
II. This therefore was the conftant Opinion of
Catholick Antiquity : That we muft religioully pre-
ferve to God the Father his proper Dignity , as being
only Unbegotten, but fo, as that we mufl by no
means deftroy the true Divinity of the Son. Nay, it
is for the Glory of God the Father that we think
worthily of his Son ; and on the other hand, he in-
jures and difgraces the Father, who imagines that he
hath begotten an imperfed Son, or determines, that
any thing is diminifh'd in the Divine Nature. The
iorm^Y, Hilary hath excellently explain'd in thefe Words
(x) : Being about to fpeak the abfolute Majefty, and
compleat Divinity of the only begotten Son of God,
we don't fuppofe any one will think our Difcourfe con-
(0 Qucft. 122. («) Cap. 9, (w) Theodoret. lib. a.
cap. 8. p. 82, (y) De Trin. lib, 4*
tumc-
if;^^ N I C E N E F A I T hJ | 5
tumellous to God the Father ; as tho' what was re-
fcr'd to the Son, was taking away from the Dignity
of the Father i fince rather the Honour of the
Son is the Honour of the Father, and he muft be a
glorious Author, from whom proceeded fo glorious
a Perfon : For the Son hath nothing but what is be-
gotten, and the Admiration of the Honour begot-
ten, muft redound to the Honour of him that be-
gat it. The Notion of Contumely ceafes then, when
■whatfoever Majefty is taught to be in the Son fliall
redound to enlarge his Power, fiall tend to make his
Pozuer appear more glorious, who begat fuch an one.
Zeno VeronenfiSy or whoever is the Author of the Dlf-
courfe afcribM to Zeno, upon thefe Words: Wloenhe
(hall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Fa-
ther, hath clearM the latter as well (y) ; The Father
poifefleth the whole, fodoch the Son, what belongs to
one, belongs to both ; what one pofTeiTes, is each
one's ; as our Lord faith, AU things, whatfoever the Fa'
ther hath, are mine ; for the Father abideth in the Son,
and the Son in the Father ; to whom he is glorioufly
fubjed in Affedion, not Condition -, in Love, notNe-
ceflity ; by whom the Father is always honoured.
Laftly, He faith, land the Father are one. Upon which
account, as I faid, the Son is fubjed:ed to the Father
not in a diminutive, but religious Subjedion j ,for as
much as one PofTeffion of an original and perpetual
Kingdom, one Subftance of Coerernity and Omnipo-
tence, one Equality, one Power of the auguft Ma-
jefty, one Dignity is retain'd in an united Light ,
for if you take any thing from the Son, you'll injure
the Father, whofe Whole he hath ; nor is there any
thing in him, which is inferior 5 becaufe as the Fa-
ther, fo he can neither have more nor lefs. The one is
infusM into the Fullnefs of the other ; fo that the
Blefled God is all in all, the Father in the S-^'n, and
the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, Amen.
iy) Bibl. Patr. Tom. a. Col. 424.
C 2 11, This
36 ^J DEFENCE of
12. This famous PafTage of Zeno puts me In mind
of a remarkable Scory in Soz,omeny with which I will
conclude this Chapter (2:.}. When 7'heodojius the Great
was Emperor, and came to fee Conftaminople, the Bi-
fhops who were in the City went to the Palace to fa-
lute him, according to Cuftom ; amongfl: them, it is
faid, there waSs,a certain old Man, the Bifhop of an
obfcure City, plain indeed, and not well feen in Civil
Affairs, but a good Divine. The other Bifhops in
a courtly and refpeftful manner complemented their
Prince, fo did the old Man alfo : however, he did
not honour the Emperor's Son as the others had done ;
but approaching him as a Boy, faid, God fave thee.
Son ! and began to flroke him with his Hand. The
Emperor was mov'd, and refenting it as an injury
done to his Son, that he was not equally honoured as
himfelf, commanded the old Bifhop to be expell'd with
Difgrace. As they were removing him, he turn'd and
faid. Thus think, O King, that the Heavenly Father
is angry at thofe who honour not the Son with equal
Honour, and prefumptuoufly fay, that he is lefs than
him, that begat him. In thefe Words the pious Man
rubb'd the Arians^ysho were as yet numerous from the
Favour fhewn them by the Emperors Conflantius and Va'
lens, and very freely aifembling together, difcours'd
concerning God and his Subflance, and perfuaded the
Favourers of their Faith at Court to attempt the Em-
peror. The Emperor, ftruck with the Saying, call'd
back the Bifhop, and having ask*d his pardon, con-
fefs'd he had faid true.
{z) Sozom, lib. 7. chap. 6. p. 577,
CHAP.
/^^ N I C E N E F A I T H, 57
CHAP III.
A large Anfwer to the OhjeUioit^ againfl
what has he en [aid in thefor?ner Chapter,
taken from thofe Tlaces of the A7icte?its^ in
which they feem to ha've denied the Im-
me7sjity and Inmfthility of the Son of God.
TH E Teftimonles of the Antients, which we
have mentioned in the former Chapter, con-
cerning the abfolute natural Equality of the Father
and Son, faving to the Father, as Father, his Pre-emi-
nence, are very clear. Now we have obferved upon,
and explain'd moft of thofe Sayings of the Antients,
which feem to contradid thefe, in the fecond Sedion,
and the third, where we explain their Notion of the
Eternity and Confubftantiality of the Son particularly.
There is yet one Knot to be untyM, and that very
well worthy our Labour i which we have therefore
refervM for this Place, becaufe it is not in one, or two
of the Primitive Fathers, but almoft runs through all
their Works. I confefs I once flumbled at that Stone
my felf, and therefore think it my Duty to endea-
vour the removing it. The ancient Caiholicks then,
who were before Arius^ feem almoft all of them to
have known nothing of the Son of God's invifible
and immenfe Nature. For fometimes they fo fpeak
of the Son of God, as tho* he was in his Divine
Nature finite, vifible, included in fome determinate
Place, and circumfcribed by certain Bounds. When
they would prove that he, who formerly appear *d to
thePatriarchs and Holy Men under the Old Teftament,
and fpoke to them, being graced with the Title Je-
C 3 hovahl
gS :^ D E F E N C E ^/
hovah^ was the very Son of God, they generally ufe
this disjunftive Argument : That he who appeared,
was either the Son of God, or a created Angel, or
God the Father. That he was not a created Angel
they conclude, becaufe he is called by the Holy Spirit,
Jehovah and God ; that it was not the Father they
prove, becaufe he is immenfe, filling all Places, inclu-
ded in none, and therefore it is impious to think that
he appeared in feme certain Place, and little Corner of
the Earth ; as tho' it might be fafely faid of the Son
of God. After the like manner the fame Perfons
t6ach that the Son of God is vifible.
2. Thus one of the moft ancient Fathers, Jufim
Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho. There when
Trypho denies that the Angel which appeared to Mo-
fes in the burning Bufh, was very God, and alTerts
that an Angel did indeed appear in a Flame of Fire,
but that God, namely the Father, talk'd with Mofesy
fo that there was in the Vifion two, God and the
Angel ; JuJIin anfwers thus, (a) Grant, my Friend,
that this was done, namely, that both God and an
Angel appeared to Mofes in a Vifion ; and not that it
was as I have demonftrated to you before : yet that
God was not the Maker of this Univerfe, who faid to
Mofes, I am the God of Abraham^ and of Ifaac^ and of
"Jacob ; but the fame which I before fliewM to have
been feen by Abraham ^SLnd Jacobj namely, he, who mini-
flers to the Will of the Maker of all things, and who
alfo minifter'd to his Will and Purpofe in the Judg-
ment upon Sodcm. So that, tho^itbe as you affirm, that
there were two, namely, God and an Angel, no wife
Man will prefume to fay that the Author and Parent
of all things left all his heavenly Manfions, and exhi-
bited his Prefence in a fmall part of the Earth. There
is a parallel Place to this elfewhere in this Dialogue.
I'heophilus Antiochenus hath ufed the fame way of rea-
foning (^). So Irenam^ Origeriy and the fix Bifhops, who
(4) P. 282. and 283. (6) P. 100. Appnd.lv&\xi.
wrote
the N I c E N E Fait h. ^9
wrote the Epiflle from the Synod of Antioch to Paulus
Samofatenus^ as we fhall cite them hereafter.
5. Of the Latim^ T'ertuUian hath the fame: (c) But
how could he walk in Paradife in the Evening, feek-
ingAdam, and fhut the Ark after Noah was gone into it,
and refrefh himfelf with Abraham under the Oak, &c.
who is the omnipotent invifible God, whom no Man
hath feen, nor can fee, who dwelleth in the Light,
which is inacceffible, who dwelleth not in Temples
made with Hands, at whofe Sight the Earth trembles,
the Mountains melt as Wax, who holdeth the whole
World in his Hand, as a Neft, to whom the Heaven is
a Throne, and the Earth a Footftool, in whom is all
Place, and he not in any, who is the extreme Line of
the Univerfe, and the moft High ? Thefe things
indeed could not have been believ'd of the Son of
God, except they had been written j but are not to
be believ'd of the Father tho' written, whom they
bring down into Mary's Womb, fet before Pilate's
Tribunal, and feal up in Jofeph's Tomb. The
Error then appears to be from this ; that being igno-
rant that the Order of Divine Difpenfation did from
the beginning pafs thro' the Son ; they believ'd that
the Father appeared, and conferred, and wrought, &c,
Novatian^ or the Author of the Book about the Tri-
nity, among the Works of 'TertuHian, follows him in
this, as in other Matters (d) : But if the fame Mofes
every where reprefents God the Father as Immenfe,
Infinite, not included in Place, but who includes all
Place, not in any Place, but rather all Place in him,
containing and comprehending all things, fo that he
cannot properly afcend or defcend, as containing and
filling all things ; and yet neverthelefs introduces
God defcending to the Tower which the Sons of Men
built, confidering and faying. Come and let us defcend^
&c. What God would they have it to be that defcend-
ed, and was about to vifit thofe Men ? God the Fa-
(c) Page 51 c. C^) P. 725.
C 4 ther ?
40 :;^ D E F E N C E 0/
tber ? then he is included in Place, and then how does
he comprehend all things ? Or does he fay, that an
Angel defcending with Angels fpoke. Come let us, &c.
But we obferve in Deuteronomy that God faid thefe
things, &c. Therefore then the Father did not de-
fcend as the Cafe fhews, nor did an Angel command
or exhort, &c. as the thing proves. It remains then
that he defcended, of whom the Apoflle Paul fpeaks.
Be that defcended, is the fame that afcended, &c. tiiat is,
the Son of God, the Word of God.
4. Who would not be amazM at thefe llrange Say-
ings of the Antients ? that they jfhould be fo dull and
jnconfiftent, as to fay, that the Son of God, whom in
other Places they frequently call very God of very
God, is circumfcrib'd within the narrow Bounds of
one fmall Place, and to believe him in his own Nature
vifible. Faroe it from us, to chink fo of the greateft
Men. You'll fay then, what Remedy can you find for
this Dlfeafe ? I am clearly of Opinion that thofe An-
tients who fpoke fomething harfhly of this Matter,
did not properly and juftly exprefs their otherwife true
Sentiment. They had to deal with Adverfaries, who
pofitively deny'd, that the Father was perfonally di-
ftind from the Son, and in the heat of Oppoficion,
did not exprefs themfelves with due caution. Any
one who will look into the Authors, will plainly fee
that this is the Cafe in thofe Sayings of 'Jufiin^TertuUian^
and Novatianj which I have recited entire. Thefe,
as well as the other I have mention'd, meant no more
by fuch Expreffions, than that the Son of God, who
is every where with his Father, and equally invifible
as his Father, was by Difpenfation feen in fome certain
places, that is, fhew'd himfelf to Men by certain ex-
ternal Symbols of his Prefence, bringing to them the
Will and Commands of God the Father. But you'll
fay, if thefe Fathers, tho' they affirm, and plainly
enough hint. That the Son of God was fome time
fhut up in the narrow Compaf§ of a certain Pi^ce,
and leen by Men, meant no more^, than that he exhi-^
the N I c E N E F A T T H. 41
hiblted in certain Places fome fenfible Symbols or
Tokens of his Prefence, why do they fo cautioufly
remove this Thing from God the Father as unworthy
of him ? For it feems that God the Father alfo might,
without any diminution of his Majefty, have mani-
fefted himfelf to Men. I anfwer, the Primitive Doctors
did not think fo i for according to them, God the Fa-
ther neither was, nor cou'd be feen by any one,
even in aflum'd Forms. He had no Beginning, was
fubjed to none '■> nor cou'd any more be faid to be
fent of another, than born of another. On the other
hand, the Son of God, as born of God the Father,
does certainly upon that account owe all his Authori-
ty to the Father ; nor is it lefs honourable to him to
be fent by the Father, than to be born of him. He is
of the Father, by him the Fatlier made all things that
are in the World, and afterwards, by him, communi-
cated himfelf to the World. Tho' there is no difpa-
xity of Nature in the Holy Trinity between the Fa-
ther and the Son, yet there is a certain Order, accord-
ing to which, the Father is the Principle and Head of
the Son. This Order wou'd be inverted, if the Ad-
sniniftration was the Son's by the Father, not the Fa-
ther's by the Son. To come nearer to the propos'd
Objedion : The primitive Fathers refer'd all thofe
Apparitions formerly made to Holy Men, to the Dif-
penfation of Man's Salvation, which Difpenfation
they thought the Son of God had undertaken, not
then firft, when he came in the Flefii, but from the
very Fall of the firft Man, as is before (hewn : but
they always thought that that very Difpenfation was
foreign to God the Father, The Catholick Church of
Chrifl always acknowledged again ft the Patripafjlans^
that the Incarnation, which the Son underwent, did
not become God the Father, for the fame Reafon
for which the Antlents afterted, That thofe Appea-
rances did not belong to the Father, but the Son ;
namely, becaufe they really were Preludes of the In-
carnation. That this was the very meaning of the
An-
42 "J DEFENCEof
Antients, two Things prove j becaufe they all elfe-'
where frequently confefs, that the Son is in his Na-
ture immenfe and invifible, as the Father ; and be-
caufe moft of them do interpret thefe their Sayings
exprefly of the Difpenfacion. Now we will confirm
our Anfvver, by particularly examining thofe Sayings
of the Antients, which we have mentioned, and com*
paring them with other exprefs Sayings of theirs.
5. Jiijiin Martyr, who, in his Dialogue with Trj'/'^a
contends, that the Perfc3n who appeared to Mofes in the
Bu(h, was the Son of God, becaufe it would be ab-
furd to fay, that God the Father appear'd in a little
Corner of the Earth ; as though it might, without
Abfurdity, be faid of the Son of God : This Juflin
fpeaks elfewhere very honourably of that very Per-
fon. For, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, he writes
thus : (a) For, I fuppofe, it was neceflary that he
who was to be the Prince and Leader of the Hebrews,
fhould firft know the God of all things. Wherefore
having appear'd to him firft, as far as it was
pofTible for God to appear to Man, he faid to him,
/ am he that is. The God then that appear'd to
Mofei in the burning Bufli, appear'd not otherwife
than became God, that is, not by paffing from Place
to Place, or fo as to be included in the narrow Bounds
of fome Place ," but he manifefted himfelf to the Holy
Prophet, by forming a vifible Appearance, and an au-
dible Voice. A little after he fays, as we have noted
before, that the Defcription, by which the Perfon ap-
pearing in the Bufli fignify'd himfelf to Tkfq/^^, lam
he that is, was fui table to God, who always exifts.
Now that 'Juftin acknowledg'd the always exiftent
God to be in his own Nature immenfe and invifible,
no Man can doubt. Thofe things therefore which
juflin hath elfewhere faid concerning that divine
Perfon which appear'd to Mofes, that he appear'd as
though included in a little Corner of the Earth, are
-'{a) Page 20.
the N I c E N E F A I T nil 45
to be referr'd to the Difpenfation I fpoke of, which
the Son undercook. Tne fame 'Jufim explains the
Matter more clearly in the Apology commonly calfd
the Second, where he again contends, {h) that it was
our Saviour who talked with Ivhfes out of the Bufli,
in the Appearance of Fire, faying, Lmfe thy Shoes^
c$me hither and hear. And a little after, he clearly
teaches, that Chrift, in his own Perfon, faid thofe
Words ; J am he that is, the God of Abraham, &c.
(c) What is faid to Mofes out of the Bufh, (fays he)
lam he that is, the God of Abvaham, and the God of
Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of thy Fatherf,
is fignificative of this, That they, though dead, did
remain, and belonged to Chrift. But what manner of
A ppearance could be fuitable to the Son of God, if
the always exiftent God, the God of Abraham, &c.
which would not become the Father ? Jujiin himfelf
hath folv'd the Difficulty in the fame place. For tho'
Chi'ift be the genuine Son of God, and always
exiftent, and the God 0/ Abraham, &c. as well as the
Father ; yet as Jufiin fpeaks, he is the Angel and
Apoftle of God the Father, appointed by the Father
for this end, to tell Men his Will. Whilft he doth
this Office, he doth nothing unworthy himfelf; nor,
as I before faid, is it lefs honourable to be fent of the
Father, than to be born of him. The Words of
yufiin are (d). The Word of God is his Son, as we
have faid before, and he is call'd Angel and Apoftle.
For he tells us what is proper to be known, and is fent
to fhew us what is told. Now that all thefe things
belong to that Difpenfation, which the Son of God
undertook from the Rife of the Church, and at length
compleated by his Incarnation, the blelTed Martyr
plainly fignifies a Uttle after. This (e) Difcourfe is to
fhew that Chrift is the Son of God, and his Apoftle,
being kfore^ the Word, and fometime feen in an
Appearance of Fire, fometime in the Image of incor-
(h) Pag. 95. (c) p. 9^, id) p. 95. (0 p. 95.
poreal
'44 :;^ D E F E N C E ^/
poreal Things ; but mv:, by the Will of God, being
made Man for the fake of Mankind. To the fame
purpofe Juftinj in the Dialogue with TryphOy after he
hatii enumerated the Titles given our Saviour in
Scripture, namely, the Glory of the Lord, the
Son, the Wifdom, the Angel, God, Lord and Word,
immediately adds, (/) He is to be call'd by all
thefe Names from his miniftring to the Father's
W^ill, and being freely born of the Father. Now,
without doubt, he referred the Name Angel to his
miniftring to the Father's Will ,• as he did the other
Appellations, Glory of the Lord, Son, Wifdom,
Word, to the Divine Generation of the Father. More-
over, it is manifeft, Juflin acknowledged the Omni-
prefence of the Son of God, both from other Places,
and alfo from thefe exprefs Words in his Apology,
commonly call'd the Firfi : (g) The Word was and is
exiftent in all, &c. There he teaches that the Word,
alfo call'd the Son of God, does, as it were, penetrate
and pervade the whole Compafs of the Creation, and is
prefent in all things ; and therefore can't be confin'd in
any Place, much lefs in a little Corner of the Earth. In
the fame Senfe, the Father himfelf is in Scripture (h)
faid to be through all, and in all. The fame Jufiin
thought that the Son of God, as mod properly fuch,
was not the Objed of Sight, nor could be compre-
hended by the Mind of Men or Angels : for in a re-
markable Place, which I have before cited from the
Epiftle to Diognetus, he calls the Son of God the holy
and incomprehendble Word and Truth (/}. Thus
much for Juftitz.
6. From Irerntus, the Matter will yet be clearer.
(k) The Word (fays he) was made the Difpenfer of
the Father's Grace, for the Benefit of Men, for
whom he made fuch glorious Difpofitions, fhewing
Gcd to Man, and Man to God ', and preferving the
(/) Pag. 284. {g} p. 48 and 49. C^) Eph. iv. 6. (0 Seft. 2.
Ch. 4. n. 7. (k) p. 571-
Invifi'
the N I c E N E Faith. 4$
Invlfibility of the Father, that Man fhould not de»
fpife God, and ihould always have fomething to at-
tain to 5 but fhewing God vifible to Men by many
Difpofitions, left Man wholly going off from God,
fhould ceafe to be. In thefe Words, he teaches us,
as Petaiiius himfelf has obferv'd, that the Father ne-
ver appear'd, nor was fo much as difguisM under fome
outward Shape : but that the Word fhewM himfelf
to the Antients, not in himfelf, not in his proper Sub-
ftance, but under fome Likenefs. I add, that Irenaus
doth here exprefly fay, that in all the Manifeftations
of God the Father by his Word, the Word was the
Difpenfer of the Father's Grace, for the Benefit of
Man ; that is, that all the Appearances of the Son of
God belong (as I have faid) to that DifpenfatioHj
which he took upon him from the Beginning, for the
Salvation of Men. We have a Place parallel to this
in the fame Chapter : (a) Therefore if neither Mofes
faw God, nor Elias^ nor Ez^ekiel^ who faw many hea-
venly Vifions ', and if thofe things which were feen
by them, were Likenefles of the Lord's Glory, and
Prophecies of what was to come ; it is manifeft the
Father is invifible, of whom the Lord alfo faid. No
one hath feen God at any time; but his Word, according
to his Pleafure, hath fliew'd the Glory of the Father,
to the Advantage of thofe that behold him, and laid
open his Difpofitions ,• as alfo the Lord hath faid. The
only begotten, who is in the Bofom ©f the Father, hath
declared, cfTc. And in another phcclrenaus exprefly tells
us, (h) That all thofe Appearances of the Son of God
under the Old Teflament, were Preludes, and, as ic
were. Specimens of the future Incarnation, and had all
of them a View to the CEconomy of our Salvation,
which the Son had undertaken : It is he who fays to
Mofes J have furely feen theVexation of my People in Egypt,
and am come down to deliver them. The Word of God
being accuftom'd from the Beginning to afcend and
C«) Pag. 372. . (I-) p. 344^
defcend
4^ :;^DEFENCE^/
defcend, for the help of thofe who were in Trouble.
But then Irenam plainly affercs, that the Son of God
is, in his own Nature, invifible as well as the Fa-
ther, (a) For he fays, we are taught by the Chriftian
Religion, that there is one God, who is above all
Principality and Dominion, and Power, and every
Name that is named » and that his Word is naturally
invifible, but was made vifible and palpable among
Men, and defcended even to Death, the Death of the
CroCs. Here alfo Lenaus (which, perhaps, is worthy
our Notice by the way) in thefe Words, [che Word
naturally invifible, but made vifible and palpable
among Men, and defcended to Death] feems to me
to have in his Eye a remarkable Pafiage in the Epillle
of Ignatius to PoJycarp^ Lenaus' s Mafter j in which the
Apoftolical Man calls Chrifi: the Son of God invifible,
but vifible for our fakes, impalpable, and impailible,
but paflible for our fakes. See the entire Place, Stdi. 5.
Chap. I. n. 3. Again, Irenaus (b) explains the whole
Matter clearly, and teaches that the Father and Son
are indeed equally incomprehenfible by the Creatures,
and equally comprehenfible by one another j yet that
all the Manifeftation of the Father is made by the
Son, and therefore that the Father fends, and the Son
is fent : Thefe are the Words, But fince the only be-
gotten Son came to us (contracling his oiun Subftance
into himfelf) from the One God, who made this
World, form'd us, contains and adminifters all things,
I have a fl:rong Faith in him, and an immoveable Love
towards the Father, God giving me both. For no
one can know the Father, but by the Revelation of
the Word, that is, the Son of God j nor the Son, but
by the Good Pleafure of the Father. Now the Son
fulfils the Good Pleafure o^ the Father : For the Fa-
ther fends, and the Son is fent. And his own Word
knows the Father, who is indeed invifible, and infi-
nite as to us ; Tho' he is not to be declar'd [by us]
(rt) Page 37p. (^) p. 330*
he
the NiceneFaith; 47
he declares him to us. Again, the Father alone
knows his Word. Now the Lord hath ihewn that
both thefe things are thus j and for this Realbn, the
Son declares the Knowledge of the Father, by the
Manifeftation of himfelf. For the Knowledge of the
Father is the Manifeftation of the Son \ for all things
are manifefted by the Word. Thefe things fuffi-
ciently prove that Irenaus was found and catholick.
7. What Clement o{ Akxandr. has difcours'd upon this
Matter, is clearer than the Light. For he )oms the
Immenfity and Omniprefence of the Son of God with
the CEconomy undertaken by him in this very notable
PafTage : (c) The Son of God is never out of his
Wacch-Tower. Not divided, or fever'd, not paf-
fing from place to place; but being always every
where, and not circumfcribed, all Mind, all paternal
Light, all Eye, feeing all things, hearing all things,
knowing all things, by his Power fearching all Powers.
To him all the Hoft of Angels and Gods is fubjeft,
to the paternal Word, who hath undertaken the Dif-
penfation becaufe of him who fubje(5ted. Obferve I
He clearly teaches, that the Word, or Son of God,
is not divided, or fever 'd, pafles not from place to
place, is always every where, and no where circum-
fcribM. Neverthelefe, he allows that the very Son of
God undertook the Holy Difpenfation laid upon him
by God the Father j namely, then under the Old
Teftament, when he appeared to the Prophets, and
Holy Men, in the difguife, either of a Man, or feme
other corporeal Thing ; then efpecially under the
New, when, having taken very Man into the Unity
of his Perfon, he converfed with Men upon Earth.
Sure nothing can be more exprefs than this. That
ftiamelefs Scribbler Sandius (d) impudently denies,
contrary to the Faith of all Copies, that Clement wrote
thus : but he is fitter to be hifs*d than anfwer'd.
(r) Page 505, 8c<:. C^ Append, ad Nucl. p. pp.
8, Ter^
4? :.^ D E F E N C E ^/
8. T'ertullian^ who told us before. That it was the
Son, not che Father, who formerly appeared to Holy
Men, and in che Fulnefs of Time was incarnate, be-
caufe the Father is invifible, and not to be included in
Place : Tne fame (e) afterward exprefly tells us. That
it is not to be underftood of a Difparity of Nature
in the Father, and the Son, fince they are mutually
infeparable, both equally immenfe, and omniprefent ;
but of the CEconomy, which the Son, not the Father,
undertook. For thus he writes upon that Place, in
the lytih Chapter of St. Matthew : You have the Son
on Earth, the Father in him ,• this is not a Separation,
but a Divine Difpofition. But you are to know that
God is in the Abyifes, is every where by his Force
and Power; that the Son alfo, as indivifible, is every
where with him. Notwithftanding in the CEconomy
the Father would have the Son on Earth, himfelf in
Heaven, to which Place the Son looking up, prayed
and begg'd of the Fathers whither he hath alfo taught
us to lift ourfelves up, and to pray. Our Father , which
art in Heaven, whereas he is alfo every where. The
Reafon is the fame of the Divine CEconomy before
the Incarnation, even of all the Appearances under
the Old Teftament. For as Tertullian hath excellently
told us before, all the Order of the Divine CEconomy,
from the Beginning, pafles through the Son. In like
manner Novatian, (as before) when he had prov'd
that it was the Son, who came down to the Tower of
Babel, &c. for this reafon, that God the Father was
immenfe, and not included in Place, as tho the Son
"was not alfo immenfe and omniprefent ; yet in another
place, in the fame Book, he exprefly attributes to
the Son of God that Immenfity and Omniprefence
which is proper to the Divine Nature, (f) For he
thus maintains the true Divinity of the Son againft
Hereticks : If Chrift is only Man, how is he pre-
fenc every where, when invok'd, fince it is not the
(0 Page 513 md 514. (/) p. 717. {g) p. 724*
Nature
^>^^ N I C E K E F A 1 T hJ 49
Nature of Man, but of God, to be every -where ?
How then are thefe Appearances of God to Holy
Men in former Times to be thought compatible with
the Son, not the Father alfo ? The Author himfelf,
I think, hath clearly taken away that Difficulty,
■where he thus difcourfes concerning the Angel which
appeared to Sarah's Maid : (a) Let the Hereticks con-
fider what they will fay to the Place before us : Was
it the Father who was feen by Agar, or not ? For ic
is faid, God. Far be it from us to fay the Angel is
God the Father, left he, whofe the Angel is, be fub-
jed to another. But they'll fay it was an Angel.
How then God, if an Angel, fince that Name is not
ever allow'd to Angels ? The Truth which lies on
both fides concludes us in this Opinion, that we are
to underftand it to be the Son of God ; who, as of
God, is juftly call'd God, becaufe the Son of God ;
and as fubjeil to God, and the Preacher of the Fa-
ther's Will, is call'd the Angel of the Great Counfel.
The Sum is this : He who appear 'd to Agar^ was ei-
ther a created Angel, or an uncreated God. He
proves he was no Angel, becaufe call'd God and Je-
hovah, an incommunicable Name, and never given
any Creature, not even to Angels, the fupreme Order
of Creatures. It is plain then, that it was the true
God ; but, if I may fo fpeak, what God ? The Fa-
ther, or the Son ? That it was not the Father, he
proves, becaufe the Name of an Angel fuggefts Miffion
from another, and confequently a certain Subjedion ;
but God the Father is fubjed to none, as being of
himfelf. It remains therefore, that he who appear 'd
be the Son of God ; who is fubjed to the Father, as
having his Original from him, and to whom the Office
of an Angel, or Preacher of the Father's Will, is not
unbecoming. In a word, God the Father could not
be an Angel, and preferve his Pre-eminence, as Fa-
ther j for then he would have been fent by another,
(4) Page 724,
Vol. II. D who
50 "J DEVENCE of
■who hath no Dependence upon another : But to the
Son of God, the Name God truly agrees, as being
very God ; and the Name Angel, as being fo true
God, as to be God ot God, and therefore capable
to receive and undertake trom God, of whom he is^
the Miffion or Oeconomy committed, without Injury
to the Dignity of his Perfon. This very thing was,
no doubt, intended by the Fathers, who wrote the
Synodical Epiftle from the Council of Antioch to Paul
of Samofata. They contend that the Son is he, who
every now and then appeared to and conferred with
the Fathers under the Old Teftament : Sometimes at-
tefted as an Angel, fomecimes as Lord, and fometimes
as God. For believe, it is impious to call the God of
the Univrrfe an Angel, but the Son is the Angel of the
Father, tho' himff H Lord and God. For it is written,
'The Angel of the Great Counfel. Where the Holy Pre-
lates clearly teach, that the Titles of God and Lord
agree to the Father, and confequently to the Son ;
but that the Title of Angel, as fignifying a Miffion
from another, does by no means agree to the Father,
who can no more be (aid to be fent by another, than
to be born of another ; but may be rightly attributed
to the Son, who is begotten of the Father, who is
therefore in Scripture call'd the Angel of the Great
Counfel.
p. lenullian Co) is to be expounded after the fame
manner, ivhere he diftinguilhes the Son from the Fa-
ther, becaufe he is vifible, but the Father invifible.
In this alfo Novatian, or the Author of the Book
concerning the Trinity, imitates him. Can any one
fufped that Tertullian, and his Ape (no Fools) be-
lieved the Son of God, as God, and born of the in-
vifible God, to be vifible ? Without doubt they faid
the Son was vifible, not in his own Nature, but ac-
cording to the Oeconomy before explain^'d, in which
-he fometimes from the Beginning (hew^'d himfelf to
{a) Page 508.
Men
the NiceneFaith. 51
Men by certain external and vifible Symbols of his
Prefence. If you queftion this, hear "Tenullian, in
the fame Book and Chapter, very exprefs in explain-
ing himfelf ; For we fay that the Son is upon his own
account fo far invifible, as he is the Word and Spirit
of God from the Condition [or Nature] of his Sub-
ftance, even as he is God, and the Word and Spirit ;
but that before he was incarnate, he was vifible after
the manner he fpeaks of, to Aaron and Miriam : And
if there be a Prophet among you, 1 "will be known to him in
a Vijion, dec. What can be clearer ? Sandius then and
others, may be afhamM fo confidently to fix upon
T'ertullian this abfurd Opinion, that he believ'd the
Word and Son of God to be in his own Nature finite
and vifible. For, if they had ever attentively read
that Book of "TertuUian, from which they gathered it,
they could not but know that the learned Waiter re-
jeded it in fo many Words. If they knew this, and
yet would palm it upon T'ertullian^ what are they to
be accounted but Sophifters and Prevaricators ? But if
they never read the Book, or never read it with At-
tention, fure they are very rafh Perfons, from fuch
{lender Grounds to fay what T'ertullian s Opinion
was.
10. I come at length to Origen. He teaches that
God the Father condefcended to Men, not locally,
but providentially ; the Son locally, in former Days,
in feignM or aflum'd Shapes; in the laft Times having
put on real Man : but yet fo as that he was never in-
cluded in Place, but was and is always every-where,
as well as the Father. Thefe are his Words : {a) God
therefore, according to his Goodnefs, condefcends to
Men, not locally, but providentially. And the Son
of God was not then only, but is always with his own
Difciples, fulfiUing that which he faid. Behold, I am
•with you al-way, to the end of the World. If a Branch
can't bring forth Fruit, except it remain in the Vine,
(a) Page 239. contra Celf.
D 2 neither
52 :^ D E F E N C E ^/
neither can the Difciples of the Word, the fpiritoal
Branches of the true Vine, the Word, bring forth
the Fruit of Virtue, unlefs they abide in the true
Vine, the Chrift of God, who was locally with us
here below, upon Earth ; who is with thofe who
every where adhere to him, yea, and with thofe alfo
every where, who don't know him. This John tells
us in his Gofpel, in the Perfon of John the Baptift,
who faidj He flands in the midfi of you, whom ye know
not i it is he who cometh after me. From this he imme-
diately infers, that Prayers and Vows are not to be
made to the Sun, Moon and Stars, but to God the
Father and the Son, who are every-where prefenr.
So Book the Second, (a) he proves by Teftimonies of
Scripture, that the Son of God is not circumfcrib'd
in the Body he hath aflum'd, but is every-where.
And he very clearly reconciles the Defcents of the
Son of God to Men, with his Immenfity and Omni-
prefence. Book 4. where, when Celfus objefts againft
the Incarnation of the Son of God, that if God de-
fcends to Men, it is to be fear'd he leaves his Throne,
he thus anfwers, (not in his own name only, but in
the name of all Chriftians) (h) For he knew not the
Power of God, and that the Spirit of the Lord fiU'd
the World, and that he who comprehendeth all things,
hath Knowledge of the Voice. Nor can he underftand
this : Dont 1 fill Heaven and Earth, faith the Lord ?
Neither doth he confider, that according to the Chri-
flian Word, we all live, and move, and exift in him 1
as alfo St. Paul taught in his Sermon to the Athenians.
Therefore though the God of all things doth by his
Power defcend with Jefus for the Life of Man ,- tho*
he, who in the Beginning was the Word with God,
who alfo was God, comes to us, he is not out of his
Seat, he hath not left his Throne, as though any
Place could be empty of him, and another full, which
had him not before. For the Power and Deity of
(«) Pag. 63. contra Celf. (h) p. 154.
God
the NicENEFAiTHr 55
God gibeth as it pleafeth, and where it findeth room,
not changing tlie Place, nor leaving the Room empty
of him, and filling another. Can Sandius fay, as he did
juft now of Clement, that thefe Words are fuppofi-
titious, and not written by Origen? He may, if he
pleafes i but no Man, in his Senfes, will pay any Re-
gard to the rafh Creature's Opinion : efpecially when
it appears that Origen delivers the fame Dodrine
in this very Book, and in many other Places, (a) Let the
Wretch at length learn from Origen, whom he efpe-
cially, but erroneoufly admires, and cites, as of
^rius*s Opinion, his own Ignorance ; who profefTes he
liever can think, that the Son of God defcended to the
■Earth, without going from place to place : fo that
even th^n, when he was made Man, and conversed
with Men, he was prefent in Heaven, yea, every-
where 'i and condemns the Opinion as wicked and
blafphemous. The holy Man truly has in the Perfon
of Celjus, the Epicurean, pronounc'd him wholly ig-
norant of the divine Power.
1 1. I will add this by way of Appendix : It is very
probable, that from the Words of Chriftian Writers,
who taught that the Appearances of God, mentioned
in the Old Teftament, are not to be underftood of
the Father, whom no Man can fee; but ought to be
referred to the Son, and that the Incarnation agreed
to the Son, not the Father: I fay from thefe, not
rightly underftood, it is very probable Celfus took an
handle to objed to the Chriftians, as though they
taught that God the Father, himfelf great, and in-
ififihle, or difficult to he contemplated, fent his Son, made
vifible, or vifihle, or eafy to be contemplated, to Men.
This we have obferv'd before of him, and have given
part of Origen s, Anfwer to it. The other part is alfo
very appofite, for thus he proceeds: (^) Grant then
that God is difficult to be contemplated ; but he alone
is not difficult to be contemplated : His only begot^
{a) Pag. i68, i^p, 17c. 324. 325. (^) p. 323?
P 3 ten
54 ^ D E F E N C E ^/
ten is Hkewlfe fo. For God the Word is alfo diffi-
cult to be contemplated, and fo is his Wifdom, by
•which he made all things. Who can particularly con-
template the Wifdom by which God made exery
thing ? Therefore God did not fend his Son, a God
eafy to be contemplated, becaufe he was difficult ; as
Celfus, not underftanding our Meaning, hath faid for
us; — but, as we have reply 'd, though the Son, as
God the Word, by whom all things were made, was
difficult to be contemplated, yet he dwelt among us.
In thefe Words Origen again profeffes, in the name of
all Chriflians, that the Father did not therefore fend
the Son into the World, becaufe he was eaiier to be
contemplated, tor both are alike incomprehenfible, as
he hath elfewhere informed us. For what Caufe did
he fend him ? For that which we have told you be-
fore, namely, becaufe God the Father, being of him-
feif, could not be fent by any one ,• but it would not
be unbecoming the Son of God, begotten of the Fa-
ther, to be fent by him. I muft here, by way of Di-
greffion, obferve to the Reader, not much vers'd in
the Writings of the Antients, that in thefe Words
[the Wifdom alfo is difficult to be contemplated]
by Wifdom is denoted the Holy Spirit. This we
have before taken notice of in "Theophilus Antiochenus
and Ireriisus. Pttavius thus difcourfes of the Caufes
why the Antients have ufed this way of fpeaking :
(h) They are therefore to be thought to call the Holy
Spirit Wifdom, becaufe the Gift of Wifdom is dif-
fused from him among Angels and Men ; as the Logos
is therefore faid to be fo called, becaufe it makes them
rational. Thus becaufe that excellent, and heavenly
Gift of Wifdom, as it is a Gift, and communicated
to us by God, with fingular Love and Goodnefs, is
the proper Efficiency of the Holy Spirit; therefore
the Fountain of Wifdom, as of all other Gifts, is
fometimes figuratively called by the very Name Wif"
(J) De Triiio Lib. 7. chap. 12. n, 17.
dom.
fi?^ N I C E N E F A I T H. 5^
dom. There may be other Reafons for this Appella-
tion, namely, becaufe the Wifdom, which is the Gift
of God, and is oppofed to human Wifdom, fuch as
the Gentile Philofophers had, is join'd with the Love
of God, and Charity, as St. Thomas fays. Where-
fore the Holy Spirit may as truly be call'd Wifdom,
as Love or Charity. But if you confider Wifdom in
its Nature and Property, as it relates to the Under-
ftanding, and is a kind of Knowledge, the Title is
peculiar to the Son and Word of God ; but not to
the Spirit, except extrinfecally ; and, if I may fo fay,
caufatively. Moreover, thofe other Words of Ori-
gen may deferve our Obfervation, namely, God difE-
cult to be contemplated,— the W^ord difficult to be
contemplated, fo alfo Wifdom difficult to be con-
templated ; as being exadly parallel to thofe Words
of the Creed, commonly ca.\l'd. AthanaJIan, The Fa-
ther incomprehenfible, the Son incomprehenfible, and
the Holy Ghoft incomprehenfible. But to return.
12. From what has been faid, it is very clear, that
the Doftors of the Church, who wrote before the
Rife of Arianifm, and argue that it was not God the
Father, but the Son, who appearM under the Old
Teftament, and was in the Fulnefs of Time incar-
nate ; that the Father is imnienfe, not included in
Place, and invifible, not poflible to be feen by any
one ,• did never intend to deny that the Son of God
"was equally immenfe and invifible : but only defign'd
to fignify that all the Appearances, and the Incarna-
tion refpe(5ted the Oeconomy which the Son of God
took upon him ; which Oeconomy was by no means
proper to the Father, as being of himfelf, and obliged
to no one for his Authority. We will now fhew, that
moft of the Pofl-Nicene Catholick Fathers agreed
with them in this Sentiment. We have before clearly
prov'd that Eufebius was a Catholick, by Citations
from him. Now he, in his Ecclefiafikal Hiftory, (a
Work he publifh'd after all his other Writings, and
even after the Nkene Council) thus proves that thQ
D 4 Angel
5^ L^ D E F E N C E ^/
Angel worfhipp'd by Abraham, as God and Judge of
all, was not the Father, but the Son (c) : If it is
againft Reafon, that the uncreate and immutable Na-
ture of God Almighty fhould put on the Appearance
of Man j or that he fhould deceive the Eyes of the
Beholders with a Phantom, or that the Scriptures
fliould forge fuch things j who elfe can it be faid
that the God and Lord, who judges the whole Earth,
and doth Judgment, and appeared in a human Shape,
is, (if we are not to fay it is the firft Caufe of all
things) but his Word only who pre-exifted ? Thus he
hath alfo reafon'd in his Evangelical Demcnfiration (d).
For thefe, and fuch like Sayings, the Jefuit Petavius
hath made no fcruple of calling the venerable and
"well-deferving Prelate impious and profane^ tho' furely
not ignorant that Eufehhis never intended that Senfe,
which the Words at firft fight feem to exhibit ; name-
ly, That the Son of God, who formerly appeared in
a vifible Shape, was indeed of a Nature different from
the Father, finite and mutable j nay, more, was
aftually chang'd in thofe Appearances. For Eufebius
hath plainly rejefted that Dodrine in an hundred
places; (of which Petavius himfelf hath cited one)
yea, he exprefly teaches that the Word of God, after
he had taken real Man into the Unity of his Perfon,
remain'd God immutable, immenfe, and omniprefent.
Thefe are his Words: CO -^^d thefe things he did, mini-
firing to the Father's Counfels, ftill remaining imma-
terial, as he was before with the Father, not changing
his Subftance, not lofing his Nature, not confin'd by,
the Bonds of the Flefti, nor only being there, where
the human Veffel was, and abfolutely hinder'd from be-
ing in other Places: But even then, when he liv'd among
Men, he fiU'd all things, he was with the Father, and
in him. He then had all things in Heaven and Earth
in his Care, being by no means excluded frpm being
every-wherej as we are. And a little after, He was not
(c) Lib. I. chap. 2. p. 4. (^) Lib. 5. p. 147. (e) p. 53 7.E. H*
poUuteda
the NiceneFaith, 57
polluted, when his Body was begotten ; nor, being
impaflible, did he fuffer, when it was violently fe-
parated from him. What can be more Catholick ?
Without doubt therefore Eufebius intended nothing
elfe in the Places afore-cited (unlefs we would call
the learned Man, as Petavius does, a dull Fellow)
than the Fathers before him, whofe Opinion we have
before explained, namely, that the Oeconomy did not
agree with God the Father, being unbegotten, either
fo as that he fhould be fent by another, or fo, as that he
Ihould appear in feign'd Shapes ; but that it was not
unbecoming the Son of God, by the Will of the Fa-
ther, of whom he was born, to undertake that
Oeconomy ; and for that reafon, not the Father, but
the Son fhew'd himfelf formerly to the Patriarchs in
the Shape of a Man ', as in thefe laft Times, not the
Father, but the Son, took real and very Man into
the Unity of his Perfon. But to proceed from Eufe^
hius to the other confeffedly Catholick Fathers.
13. Cyril of Jerufakm^ (a) thinks that to be the
Son, which Ifaiah beheld fitting upon a Throne : No
Man (fays he) hath feen the Father at any time ; he
then who appeared to the Prophet, was the Son. Bafil
{h) proves it was the Son who appear'd to Mofes in the
Bufh, becaufe it is written, that the Angel of the
Lord appear'd in the Bufh, and becaufe that very
Angel afterwards faid, I am that I am. Hence he ar-
gues thus : Who then is this Angel and God ? Is it
not he, of whom we are informed, his Name is call'd
the Angel of the Great Counfel? Bafil then thought,
as the Antients before-mention'd, namely, that the
Name of God did equally belong to the Father and the
Son ; that the Name of Angel did not, being proper to
the Son, who was in every Age fent by the Father,
and difcover'd his Will to Men. A little after, in
the fame place, Bafil thus concludes : It is then mani^
fefi to every one, that where the fame Perfon is call'd
Angel and Go^, the only begotten is meant, who
(«) In Catechefi 14, (jb) 1638, Ed. Par. p. 742.
mani-
5^ J DEFENCE of
manifefted hlmfelf in the Ag^s to Men, and told his
Saints the Will of the Father. Theodoret alfo proves
that the Father (a) is invifible, and Ihews that he nei-
ther is, nor can be feen. And in the fifth Queft ion
upon Exodus, {b ' he contends, that it was not the Fa-
ther who appear'd to Mofes in the Bufti, and faid he
was God ; tor he can't be the MefTenger of any one :
but the Son, which Son alfo is not an inferior Mini-
fter, or Servant.
14. Of the Latin Fathers, we cite thefe Evidences.
Bilary^ (c) an holy Man, and a very fev^ere Adverfary
of Arianiim, very often and exprefly dehvers the fame
Dodrine. Thus he proves the Angel, who appear'd
to Jgar, the Son of God, becaufe he is calTd both
God and Lord, and the Angel of God; but both
thofe Names can't properly be given to any one but
the Son of God, who alone is in his own Nature
God, and in his Office and Difpenfation the Angel of
God, i. e. the Preacher of the Father's Will, Now
this Function is not unbecoming him, as hfe hath his
Original from the Father. For, among other things,
he writes thus in the fame place : He who is call'd
the Angel of God, is alfo God and Lord ,• but ac-
cording to the Prophet, the Son of God is the Angel
of the Great Counfel. That the Dillindion of Per-
fons might be abfolute, he is call'd the Angel of God ;
for he who is God of God is the Angel of God. But
that he might have his due Honour, he is proclaimed
God and Lord. Hence alfo, about the end of the
fame Book, he contends, that the Son alone was feen
by Men, but that the Father was invifible. For upon
the Place of Jeremy, he writes thus : You have then
God feen upon Earth, and converging with Men. I
ask how you think thefe Words are to be underftood :
iVb Man hath feen God at any time, but the only begotten
Son, vjho is in the Bofom of the Father i fince Jeremy
. (0 ^« 50 adv. Hscref. c. i, {h") In Qusft. 5. in Exo4.
(r) In Lib. 4. de Trin.
proclaims
the NiceneFaith; ^9
proclaims him God, who was feen upon Earth, and
converfed with Men ? The Father, no doubt, is not
to be feen by any but the Son. Who then was he,
who was feen and conversed among Men ? Certainly
our God, the God vifible among Men, and handled
by them. And a little after : He was feen upon
Earth, and conversed with Men. For there is one
Mediator of God and Men, who is God and Man ;
and the Mediator both under the Lavj^ and alfo when
he took Flefh upon him — -He alone was born God
of God, by whom all things in Heaven and Earth
were made, by whom the Times and Ages were
made. All that is, is of his making. It is he then
alone who promis'd to Abraham^ who fpake to MofeSy
who teftify'd to Ifrael^ who dwelt in the Prophets,
was born by the Virgin of the Holy Spirit, &c.
Here, by the way, it is to be obferv'd againft Bellar^
mine, and other Popifh Writers, that Hilary exprefly
affirms (what the Antients, it is plain, generally
taught) that our Saviour was Mediator under the
Law, and before his Incarnation ,* and therefore not
only Mediator in refped of the human Nature, which
he had not then affum'd ; a thing they have eagerly
contended for. Further, the fame Perfon, fpeaking
of the Angel again {a) which appeared to Agar, fays i
The Angel of God fpeaks to Agar, and the fame An-
gel is God. But perhaps he therefore is not true
God, becaufe the Angel of God : For that feems to
be a Name of an inferior Nature, and where the
Name is of another kind, there it is thought the Sub-
ftance is not of the fame kind. The former Book
hath indeed fliewn the Vanity of this Queflion ; for
in the Name Angel is rather the Idea of the Office
than the Nature. And a little after : The Law there-
fore, or rather God by the Law, willing to fignify
the Perfon of the Father, call'd the Son of God the
Angel of God, i* e. the Meffenger of God. He in-
(a) In Lib. 5. dq Trin,
timares
6o ::^DEFENCE^/
timates to us his Office, when he calls him MefTenger j
but the Reality of his Nature, when he calls him
God. This then is the Order of the Difpenfation,
not of the Nature ,* for we preach no other than the
Father and the Son, and we fo equalize the Nature
of the Names, as that the Nativity of the only be-^
gotten God of the unbegocten God hath the Reality
or Verity of God. The Senfe of the Perfon that
fends, and the Perfon that is fent, is no other than of
Father and Son ; and it does not take away the Re-
ality of the Nature, or deftroy the Propriety of the
native Divinity in the Son. Laftly, the fame Perfon
fpeaks thus of the God feen by Ifaiah : For Ifaiah faw
God ; and though it is written. No one hath feen
God at any timey but the only begotten Son^ who is
in the Bofom of the Father , he hath declared him ;
yet the Prophet faw God, and fo beheld his Glory,
as it was thought even the Dignity of a Prophet was
not admitted to fee it j for he was put to death for it
by the ^evjs. The only begotten then, who is in the
Bofom of the Father, hath declared the God, whom
no one hath feen. And a little after, {a) The Pro-
phet fays, the Gofpel witneiTes, the Church confeflfes,
that he is true God, who is feen ; and yet no one al-
lows that the Father is feen. Here he aflerts this
Dodrine, That the Father was never feen to any one,
to be fo Catholick in his Age, that no Catholick
durfc then defend the contrary Opinion.
15. Even Aufiin concludes from thefe Words of
^ohn, ib) No one hath feen God at any time^ the only be^
gotten Son^ ivho is in the Bofom of the Father ^ he hath de^
clar'd him ', That the Son of God, who is the Word
of God, not only brought Tidings of the Father in
the lafl times, when he vouchfaf'd to appear in the
Flefh, but alfo difcover'd him before from the Con-
ftitution of the World, to whom he would, either
by fpeaking, or appearing, either as fome Angelical
(a) Ibid. p. 58, {h) In Lib, cont, A dim, cap. 9,
Power^,
the N 1 C E N E F A I T H. 6l
Power, or fome other Creature. Which Conclufion
is of no force, unlefs it be taken for granted, that the
Senfe of the Evangelift's Words are, that God the Fa-
ther himfeir never Ihew'd himfelf to any one. There-
fore Auflin contradifts himfelf, as he often does, and
fays that, which Hilary affirms, he thought no Catho-
lick durfl fay, when in another place he fpeaks thus :
(a) That it is too rafh to fay, that God the Father
never appeared in any vifible Shapes to the Fathers or
Prophets. This Saying of Aujiins^ Petavius rafhly
approves as certain. Under the New Teftament in-
deed we know that God the Father hath fpoke to
Men, as in the Baptifm of Chrift, and at his Tranf-
figuration, faying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
•wellpleafed j and in that Voice, I have bothglorify^d^ and
Villi again glorify. From thefe Places of Scripture,
Petavim, defirous to prove Auflin s Aflertion, namely,
that God the Father had fometime appeared to the
Prophets, argues thus : For it is not more unworthy
that fupreme and moft excellent Majefty of God, to
make himfelf after fome fort heard by Men, by fome
fenfible Means, than to make himfelf vifible to them
by the temporary Ufe of fome corporeal Shape. Here
muft be a falfe Print ; It is not more unworthy z
The Jefuit, I fuppofe, wrote, or fhould have wrote.
It is not more worthy ; otherwife the Reafoning is
very loofe. But I fay, that is not fo certain, as Peta-
njius thought j for according to the Opinion of the
Antients, as I have often faid, thofe Appearances of
God in fome vifible corporeal Shape, were Preludes
and Figures of the future Incarnation, which did no
way agree to the Father. But grant it certain, the
Places cited are impertinent ; for Auflin, whofe De-
fence Petavius undertakes, hath exprefly fpokeii
of the Appearances of God formerly made to the
Fathers, and the Prophets under the Old Teflament.
Befides it was extraordinary, and alfo neceflary to
if) In Lib 2. de Trin. chap. 17,
confirm
62 'J DE¥EN CE of
confirm the Miflion of the Son from the Father, who
appeared now upon Earth as a mere Man, that the
Father fhould pronounce fuch words of his Son : But
this by the way. Further, whereas thofe Appearan-
ces of God under the Old Teflament regarded the
Miflion of the one by the other, and the Funftion
committed by one to the other, upon which account
generally he that appeared, was not only called God,
but alfo Angel, that is, fent; Auflin himfelf plainly
confefTes that Miflion does not agree to God the Fa-
ther. For in the fourth Book of the Trinity he writes
thus : (a) As therefore the Father begat, and the Son
is begotten ; fo the Father fent, and the Son is fent.
Again, As to be begotten, is to the Son the fame as to
exift from the Father ; fo to be fent, is to the Son the
fame as to be known to be of, or from him. And in the
end of the fame fourth Book he afl'erts it very abfurd
to fay, that the Father is fent by the Son whom he
begat, or by the Holy Spirit, who proceeded from
him; tho he is pleafed vifibly to appear by a Creature
fubjed to him. But he fpeaks the moft clearly in thefe
Words : {b) The Father alone is not faid to be fent,
becaufe he hath no Author, of whom he was begotten,
or from whom he proceeds. And tiie Father is there-
fore not faid to be fent, not becaufe of a diverfity of
Nature, for there is no fuch thing in the Trinity ;
but becaufe of his Authority. For the Splendor or
Heat fends not the Fire, but the Fire fends the Splen-
dor or Heat, (c) To which you have this parallel
place : For it was fit, not that the Father fhould be
fent by the Son ; but the Son by the Father. Now
this is not an Inequality of Subftance, but an Order of
Nature; not that the one is prior to the other, but
that the one is of the other. But as to the Appearan-
ces under the Old Teftament, thus far we agree with
Auft'm^ whom Petavius follows, that God was not al-
way in the Angel'by a fpecial Prefence; but admini-
(«) Cap. 20. (h) In Lib. contra Arian. SeriHi c. 4. (c) Lib.
2. contra Maximin. Arian. c. 14.
ftred
the N I C E N E F A I T H^ 6i
ftred many Affairs by Angels only ; nay, we deny not,
that Tome Antients have gone too far in this Queftion.
Further we freely confefs, that it is often difficult to
conjecture when a mere Angel, and when God in an
Angel appearM ; and with Petavius embrace the Rule
of Alphonfus TofiatuSy as a good one; namely, that there
are fome things recorded in Scripture which are fmall,
and belong but to fome one, or a few ; others^ which
are extraordinary, remarkable, and of univerfal con-
cern. In the former. Angels alone are the Mmifters,
which the Scripture fo exprelTes, as not to give any
hint of a diving Perfon. The latter are tranfaded by
God, and fo declared, as that it appears, not only ,that
an Angel was prefenc, but that God a<5ted and fpoke
by him what he pleafed. But ftill we think this the
moft certain Token of the Divine Prefence, when he
who appears or fpeaks, openly profefles himfelf to be
God, or he that is, or the God of Abraham^ &c. or
the God of the Fathers; and requires Divine Worfhip
and Adoration to be paid him ; This we know was
done by him, who fpoke to Mofes in the Bufh, and to
the Jfraelites in Mount Sinai. In the mean time, we
conftantly affirm, that wherefoever it is plain God ap-
peared, there is to be underftood not the Father, but
the Son ; and herein we Religioufly follow the con-
fentient Judgment of primitive Antiquity. But to
return.
16. Befides the Evidence we have brought, Petavius
himfelf has helpM us to fome. Prudemius very fully
proves againft the P atrip afftans, that the Word only
appeared to the Antients, not in its proper fhape,
but a corporeal one, and that becaufe the Father could
not be feen of any one. Thus amongfl other things he
writes, {a) Was God paffible, whofe fhape and figure
was never feen by any one ? That Majefty is not eafy
to be comprehended by Senfe, the Eyes, or Hand.
We have the famous Teflimony of the great Johtii
ia)TvHdent'msva. initi© Apoth. Ed. Amfterd. Janf. p. 155.
that
64 "J DE-P EN CE of
that God could never be feen. Jgain, (b) Whofoever
is reported to have feen God, hath feen his Son: For
the Son is that, which fhining forth from the Father,
makes himfelf vifible by Ihapes, which human Sight
can comprehend. Then he fays that the Word only
was feen under a corporeal fhape by Abraham and
Mofes J not by any means the Father : (c) Believe me,
no one hath feen God, no one, believe me. God of
the Fountain God is vifible ; God the Fountain himfelf
is not. He who is begotten may be feen, not he who
is unbegotten, &c,
Caffian fays, (d) This is he only, who fpake to the
Patriarchs, dwelt in the Prophets, was conceived of
the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, &c. T'hen, For
"was the Father ever feen upon Earth, who is never
faid to be vifible but to the Son ? Was he brought forth
in the Flefh, or did he converfe among Men ? No
fure. Laftly, IJidore (e) fays : For it is the very Son,
who being always fent by the Father, appeared vifibly
to Men. From his MilHon therefore he is rightly cal-
led the Angel, (f)
17. I'll only add one thing more as worthy obferva-
tion. That antiently the Symbols of fome Churches,
did by way of diftinclion profefs God the Father invi-
fible, and impaflible, namely in the Senfe explained.
Ruffwus indeed, in his Explication of the Creed com-
monly called the Apoftles, exprefly witnefl'eth, that
the Creed of Aquileia in the Article concerning the
Father had in his time after [Almighty] Invifible and
Impaflible. Whence alfo in the Epiftle of Auxentius,
Arch-bifhop of Milan, in Hilary, the firft Article of
the Creed is even now read thus : I believe in God
the Father Almighty, Invifible, Impaflible, Immortal.
Erafmus, in his Anfwer to the Cenfure of the Paris Di-
vines fays, that the Eaftern Churches had alfo received
(h) Ibid. (c) p. 1 5 5. (J[) In Lib. 4. de Incarnationc, c. 9.
(e) De Natura Domini, cap. i. (/) Whofoever dejives more upon
this Head, may cepfult Petav. de Trin. Lib. 8. cap. 2,
the
Z;^^ N I c E N E Faith* 6f
the fame Addition ; whicli (a) Voffius too taought pro-
bable. But^without doubt this Addition was oppofed to
a Herefy, which Tome {b) whofe Names are loft, did
firft defend, and then Praxeas, afterwards Beryllus^ aid
Noetusj and laftly SabeUius i all holding, that not the
Son of God, but God the Fatiier himfelf, was ittxi
by Men under the Old Teftament, and in the Fulnefs
of Time was incarnate and fuffered.
Dr. Grabe*s Annotation upon Ch.-^. S. $. &c.
I only add this to the Reverend Author's Difcourfe
Upon Juftin Martyr, that if the Adverfaries will there-
fore conclude that JuJIin deny'd the Immenfity and
Omniprefence of God the Son, becaufe he hath faid
that he appeared in a fmall part of the Earth, as tho
he had left the Heavens ; they may as well conclude,
that Jujiin denyM the Immenfity and Omniprefence
of God the Father, becaufe he feems to confine him,
as it were, to the Regions above. For he fays (c) that
God the Father always abides in the higheft Heavens.
And (d) he abides in his own Region, whatfoever
that is, feeing and hearing quickly. But as God the
Father is faid to be in Heaven, becaufe the Angels in
Heaven behold his Face, Matt. i8. lo ,• fo the Word
is faid to be on Earth, becaufe on Earth he appeared
in a vifible fhape to the Patriarchs, and other holy
Men : Tho both of them do equally fill Heaven and
Earth, Jerem.2^. 24. Befides, there is a remarkable
Place to be added to the Citations from Irenaus for the
Invifibility and Incomprehenfibility of the Son of God.
It is this: {e) He then took Man upon himfelf, invifible
became vifible, incomprehenfible comprehenfible, im-
paflible paflible, and the Word Man, fmnming up, or
gathering together all things into himfelf; that as the
Word of God ischief in Super-celeftial, Spiritual and
Invifible things; fo he might have the Principality iti
(rt) De Tribus Symb. p. i6. {b) Jujiin Apol. 2. p. ^6. Dialog
cumTryph. p. 35S. (0 p. 275. (d)p. 557. (Op.277-
yoL. IL E vifible
1S6
'A DEFENCE (?/
vifible and corporeal things, taking the Primacy upon
himfelf, and placing himfelf Head of the Church, that
in due time he may draw all things to himfelf. See
Clement of Alexand. Strom. 7. I add nothing concern-
ing the other Fathers, for brevity's fake.
CHAP. IV.
T^be *T/nrd T'befis is profofed, in which the
TJfe of the TioBrine of the So7i^s Suhordi-
nation is explained*
T! H O I have fo largely explained the Sentiment
of the Antients concerning the Subordination of
the Son to the Father i it ftill remains that I fay fome-
thing concerning the excellent Ufe the Antients ob-
served in this Dodrine. This then fhall be the third
Thefis, and the laft of this laft Sedion.
THESIS III.
The Antient DoBors thought this DoEirine of the Suhordma-
tion of the Son to the Father , as his Original and Princi^
tle^very ufeful and ahfohitely necejfary to be known and be-
lieved ; becaufe by this efpecialfy the Divinity of the Son
may be ajferted^ and the Unity of the Divine Monarchy
preferved mtwithjianding. For tho the Name and Na-
ture be common to tiuo, namely to the Father and his Son,
yet becaufe the one is the Principle of the other , from
which he is propagated, and that by an interior not an ex-
ternal ProduBion, God is truly faid to be only One. This
Reafon thofe Antients did alfo believe equally to belong te
the Divinity of the Holy Ghoji.
2. According to the Opinion of the Antients, which
is alfo the Voice of Common Senfe^ if there were two
unbfe-
the NicENE Faith. 67
unbegotten, or independent Principles in the Divinic}^^
the Confequence would be, that not only the Father
would be deprived of his Pre-eminence, being of and
from himfelf alone (of which we have largely treated
before} but alfo that there would neceflarily be two
Gods. On the other hand, fuppofing the Subordina-
tion, by which the Father alone is God of himfelf, and
the Son God of God, the Do(5lors have thought both
the Father's Pre-eminence, and the Divine Monarchy
fafe. This they would have extended to the Holy
Spirit alfo, the tliird Perfon of the Deity, whom,
as having his Original from the Father by the Son,
they believed in no wife to bring in Tritheifm. There
are many things well worth reading to be found in the
Fathers upon this head, efpecially in thofe, who have
wrote more largely concerning the Trinity. We will
give you a fewfeled Paflagesout of the great Quantity.
3. We have before heard v4r/j6'«tf^or^i (<z) infer that
there is but one God the Father, Son, and Holy Spi-
rit, becaufe there is but one Fountain of the Divinity,
namely the Father, from whom both the Son and Ho-
ly Spirit have their Original. 'TertulUan {h) hath very
fully explained the Matter, inhere he thus learnedly
argues againft the Praxeans^ who under the Pretence
of averting one God, denied the Diftindion of Perfons :
We muft always review what we have treated of, left
we feem to have condemn'd every thing that is wrong
without examination, and by prejudice; efpecially this,
which thinks itfelf in pofleffion of the very Truth,
fuppofing that we cannot otherwife believe one God,
than by faying that the Father, the Son, and the Ho-
ly Spirit are the very fame; as tho all were not alfo
thus one, as being all of one, namely by Unity of Sub-
ftance,and theMyftery oftheCEconomy was preferved
notwithftanding, which makes the One three. Some
time after he proceeds thus : They publifh that we
preach two or three Gods, and prefume, that them-
(4) SeeSeSl. 1, Ch,4. n.9, (i) Tert.p. 501. Jo**
E 2 pelves
68 ::^ DEFENCE^f
felves are the Worfhippers of the one God ; as tho a
miftaken Unity is not heretical, and a right Trinity
is not the Truth. They fay we hold the Monarchy :
The Latins J even thofe of them that are barbarous,
fo exprefs the Sound, that you would think they as
"well underftood the Word Monarchia, as pronounced
k. Now the Latins ftudy to fpeak Monarchia i even
the Greeks wall not underftand the Difpenfation. But
jf I have got any knowledge of the two Languages, I
know that Monarchy fignifies nothing but the Go-
verrtment of One ; but yet that it hath not that Title,
becaufe of one, of him whofe it is, or that he hath
not a Son, or that he made himfelf a Son to himfelf,
or doth not adminifter his Monarchy by whom he
pleafes. Now I fay, that no Government is to the
Government of one himfelf fo fingular to a Monarchy,
as that it is not adminifterM by others, whom he
makes his Officials. If he has a Son, who has a Mon-
archy, that the Monarchy is not neceflarily divided,
and ceafes to be a Monarchy, if he takes his Son in
Collegue; that it is principally his therefore, from
whom it was communicated to the Son j and as his, is
therefore a Monarchy, which is jointly held by two
fomuch one. If then the Divine Monarchy is admini-
ftred by fomany Legions and Hofts of Angels, as it
is written, A tbmfand Millions flocd by him, and an
hundred 'Thoufand appeared before him ; and yet ic
ceafes not to be the Government of one, a Monarchy,
tho adminifter'd by fo many thoufand Powers : how
is it that God feems to be divided and difperfed in
the Son and Holy Spirit, fo Partakers of the Fa-
ther's Subftance ; and yet is not divided and difperfed
in fuch a Number of Angels fo different from the Fa-
ther's Subftance ? Thou falfly thinkeft the Members,
Pledges, Inflruments, Powers, and the whole Parade
of Monarchy to be the deftrudion of it. I would have
thee ufe thyfelf to the Senfe of the Thing, not the
Sound of the Word. This thou art to underftand to
be the overthrowing the MonarcJiyj when asiother Go-
^ , vernment
the NicENE Fait h^ 69
vernment of its own proper fmme and ftate^ is by this
introduce as a Rival of it \ when another God is ad-
vanced ii3 oppolition to the Creator. Then it is evil,
when w« fet up more, as Prodicus and Valentinus did »
then we ruin the Monarchy, when we pull down the
Creator. Now when I don't derive the Son from any
thing elfe, but the Subftance of the Father, and repre-
fent him as doing nothing without the Father's Will,
and as having obtainM all his Power from the Father;
how can I indeed deftroy the Monarchy, which I
preferve in the Son, being delivered to him by the Fa-
ther? I may urge this aifo in the third Perfon, for as
much as I think the Spirit to have proceeded no othee
way than from the Father by the Son. Take care then,
left thou rather deftroyeft the Monarchy, who over-
turneft the Difpenfation and Difpofition of it in fo
many Perfons as God pleafed. Hitherto "tertuUian
very Learnedly.
4. The like we have in Novatian^ where he thus
writes concerning God the Father and the Son : (a)
Namely, God proceeding from God, making a fecond
Perfon, but not depriving the Father of being the One
God. For if he had not been born, the unborn com-
pared with the unborn, an Equality appearing, would
have made two Unborns, and therefore two Gods. If
he had been unbegotten, compared with the unbegot-
tcn, and found equal, the unbegottens would have
truly made two Gods, and therefore Chrift would
have made two Gods, If he had been found without
Original, as the Father, and had himfelfbeen the
Principle of all things, as the Father, making two
Principles, he had confeqijently made us two Gods,
Then a little after he adds : But now whatfoever he is,
he is not of himfelf, becaufe not unborn ; but of the Fa-
ther, becaufe begotten. Whether therefore he is the
Word, or the Power, or the Wifdom, or the Light,
or the Son, or whatfoever of thefe, fince he is of no
.other, as I faid before, but the Father^ owing his Q-
(^a) P, 710, and 730.
E I riginal
»4
70 J DEFENCE of
riginal Eo his Father, he cannot divide the Divinity
into two Gods, who had his Original by being born
of the One God. Upon account of which, being
the only begotten and the firlt begotten of him, who
hath no beginning, he alone is the Principle and Head
of all things. Laftly, towards the end he thus dif-
courfes : The Son is fhewn to be God, to whom the
Divinity is feen to be reach 'd out and delivered; * but
yet the Father is proved to be the One God, becaufe
of that Reciprocation of the Divinity and Majejiy of the
Son to the Father ^ uho gave it.
5. We have elfewhere c'lttd Hipplytus, thus dif-
courfing in his Book againft Noetusi When I fay the
Son is different from the Father, I do not fay, that
there are two Gods; but as it were. Light from Light,
Water from the Fountain, and a Ray from the Sun.
For there is one Power from the Whole, the Father
is the Whole, trom which this Power, the Word.
* Tloe Avfnver to the QtieY'ies interpolates this Place^ as alfo Dr.
Clarke, by adding the Words [by ackno^jjledgment. ] Not content 'With
this, they have thought ^t to leave out thefe Words [UnusDeusoften-
ditur verus & aeternus Pater, d quo folo haec vis Divinitatis e-
mifla, ctiam in Filium tx-adita & direOra, rurfum per Subftan-
tisE communionem ad Patrem revolvitur] Lywhich Se£t. 2. Ch.
8. n. 5. rot only the Senfe and Meaning., hut alfo the Sum and Sub"
fiance of ivhat preceded., isjirajigely mangled. It is faid hejides^ that
thefe Words [ Cujus fic Divinitas traditur, ut non aut diflonantia
aut inaequalitate Divinitatis duos Dcos reddidifle videatur] are
coryupty and Dr. Clarke lamely attempts the emendation of them :
but really they fland in no need of it, unlefs they mufl be forced into
the VoBor's Scheme. — Atifiver to the Queries p. 5<J, ^k^57. Againfi
My. Nelfon's Frleiid, p. 15 S, 139. Surely [aut diflonantia aut in
aequalitate] cojifiderd hi Syntax is fuch "Latin as never even Africa
produced. The fenfe of the Place is pretetided to be the befl underfiooi
from the confideration of what goes before : But every ordinary Reader
ivill quicMy fee, that Novatian intends to give the Reafon of that
Sentence in ii-h at follow sit. He ufes the Particle [enim ] to introduce
it, and plainly means, that the Divinity of the Son does not jar with
that of the Father, becaufe the SuhjeEHon of every thing to the Son
is from the Authority of the Father; that the Divinity of the Son is not
wiecfual to that of the Father, becaufe their Nature is common and ye-
nprocal; fo that they are not two either in the Exercife of Authority^
tr thi hequajjy ^ or Separation of Exijience. ■ . ■ ■
Here
f^^ N I C E N E F A I T H. 71
Here I have obferved, that the Father and Son are
therefore proved, the diftind in Perfon, to be one
God, becaufe the Son is not Godofhimfelf, but God
of God, even of the Father, as Light proceeds from
Light, Water from the Fountain, and Ray from the
Sun. Laftly, to omit many others, whom I might
cite, Origen makes this Note upon Ch. p. v, 5. of the
Epiflle to the Romans : Chrift then is of them, as con-
cerning the Fleih, who is over all God BlelTed for ever.
That Chrift is one according to the Flefh, and ano-
ther according to the Spirit, he fignified in the former
Parts of this Epiftle, where he faith : Who was made
of the Seed of D^-y/ J according to the Flefli who was
the Predeftinated Son of God in Power according to the
SanEiification of the Spirit. How he is according to the
Spirit the Son of God, and according to the Flefh the
Son of Davidj we have more fully explained before.
He then, whom he there calls the Son oi God accord-
ing to the Spirit, is here in the following part of his
Doctrine, his Auditors having made a proficiency,
called God over all Bleflfed for ever. I wonder how
thofe that read what the fame ApoP.Ie fays in other
Words, 'There is one God the Father , of luhom are all
things, and one Lord Jefus Chrifi, by -whom are all things ;
deny that they are obliged to profefs the Son of
God to be God, left they feem to fay there are
two Gods. What; will they make of this place alfo,
in which Chrift is plainly ftyl'd God over all ? But they
mind not, who are of this Opinion, that as he called
the Lord Jefus Chrift not fo one Lord, as that God
the Father is not alfo called Lord ; fo he called not
God the Father, fo one God, as that the Son may not
alfo be thought God. For the Scripture is true,
which fays, Kmiu ye that the Lord is God. Now both
are onei God j becaufe the Son hath no other beginning
of his Divinity than the Father; but the Son (as Wif-
dom faith) is the moft pure Emanation of the very one
Paternal Fountain. I know {a) Erajmus hath ^xq-
{a) Erafmus in locum.
E 4 tended
72 '^ D E F E N C E (?/
tended (the better to defend his own abfurd Interpfe-
tation of that remarkable Pafifage of St. Paul, Rom. 9.
V. 5.) that this Paragraph wascorrefted by Jerojn^ or
fome other of Origens Interpreters, and hath endea-*
vour'd to prove it, becaufe it was ftrange Origen (hould
here tell us, that there were Men then, who durft not
call Chrift God, left they fhould feem to make two
Gods: but why is that fo ftrange ? Becaufe the Doc-
trine of the Avians is here noted, which (as Erafmus
afterwards explains himfelf) was not condemned till
raany Years after Origen. But who would not won-
der that the great Erafmus fhould either not know,
or not remember, that there were many, not only in
Origen s time, but many Years before, who were a-'
fraid to acknowledge Chrift to be a Divine Perfon di-
ilinft from the Father, left they fhould feem to make
two Gods. Did not the Praxeans before Origen, deny
tha^ God the Father had a Son Perfonally diftindt
from him, and of the fame Nature with him, under
pretence of the Monarchy ? Did not Noetus, Origens
Contemporary, defend the fame Herefy ? Hath not
^eryllus taught it, with whom Origen difputed in a
Synod of Bifhops? There were others befides, in the
Days of Origen gnd before, who univerfally and abfo-
lutely deny'd the diftinct Subfiftence of the Son in
the Divine Eflence, and even his Divinity, left they
fhould make two Gods? Did the very learned Man
never hear of the Ebionites, (a) who profeffing them^^
felves Worfhippers of the One God the Father,
affirm- d that Chrift was a mere Man? And who are
in more places than one by name taken notice of by
Origen ? Did not T^heodotus Coriarius teach this Doc-
trine long before Origen^ Laftly, (h) That you may not
think the Text cited to be interpolated by Jerom, or
fome other Interpreter, fee the fame Origen in the Com-;
mentary upon ^ohn publifh'd in Greek by Huetius, en-
(^) In Libris contra Celfum. {b) Confult the J-udgment of the
CathoUck Church concerning aU the Hexeticks hitherto m^rit'ioned, ivho.
^eny our Lord's Vmmty,
f /&^ N I C E K E F A 1 T H. 75
gaging the fame Herefy with the fame Weapons (a).
Further, the fame Origen in his firft Book upon GenefiSy
after he had faid, that the Son was the eternal Splen-
dor of the eternal Light, fubjoins; He exifted, but not
fo as we have faid of the eternal Light, left we fhould
feem to bring in two Principles of Light; but as the
Splendor of the unbegotten Light, having that Light
his Beginning, and Original. Laftly, in his undoubt-
ed Work againft Celfiis {h) he contends, that the Chri-
ftians are not guilty of Sedition againft God the Fa-
ther of all Things, tho they adore the Son with Divine
Worfhip, as well as the Father; and he proves it by
this Argument, becaufe all the Honour of the Son re-
dounds to God the Father. The Words are: Now
Celfiis cannot ftiew that we are guilty of any Sedition
concerning the Son. For we even worfhip the Father,
when we admire his Son, the Word, and Wifdom,
and Truth, and Righteoufnefs, and whatfoever we have
heard the Son of God is, fo begotten of fuch a Father.
6. Now left any one fliould reckon thefe among
the dangerous Sayings of the Primitive Fathers, I add,
that the Poft-Nicene Fathers who kept clofeft to the
Decrees of that Council, taught the fame Doftrine.
The great Athanafius, the moft rigid Defender of the
Nicene Faith, is ample Evidence of this Matter. Thus
he {peaks in his Oration againft theSabeUians: (c) Where
there is but one Principle, and one Begotten of it, the
exact and natural Image, becaufe begotten of him,
there is one God; the Divinity being conceiv'd per-
fe^ in the Father, and the Father's Divinity fubfifting
perfed in the Son. But he is more full in his fourth
Oration (<:^) againft the ^^r/^TZi" .- Since Ghrift is God
of God, and the Word, Wifdom, Son and Power of
God ; therefore we are told there is one God in Holy
Scripture. For the Word being the Son of the One
God, is refer M to him, whofe he is. So that there are
two, the Father and Son, but ftill an indiftblved, un-
(rf) C. I. n. 10. of this SeBbn, (b) P. 38(5, 3S7. (c) Tom.2.p.45.
^) Vol-i.Tpm.i.p.617.
divided
74 '^ D E F E N C E ^/
divided Unity of the Godhead. Thus we muft fay
one Principle of che Godhead, not two. Hence pro-
perly comes the Monarchy. Of this Principle the
Word is the Son, not as another Principle fubfifting
of himfelf, nor begotten extrinfecally of the fame,
left by the diverfity there fhould be a double, or mani-
fold Principality. But the one Principle hath its proper
Son, Wifdom, and Word, fubfifting from or of him.
'jThis is very clear.
7. Baftl defends the Unity (a) of God after the
fame manner. There are not two Gods, nor two
Fathers. He that introduces two Principles, preaches
up two Gods. Gregory (b) Naz.ianz,en elegantly calls
the Father the Union, becaufe (which Petavius well
pbferves) the Produdion, the Proceflion of one Perfon
from another, or the Unity of Principle is the Caufe
of the Unity in the Trinity. The three, fays he^ have
one Nature, that of God. The Father is the Union,
or Unity, of whom, and to whom thofe that follow,
are refer'd. Again^ (c) The One God, as I think,
would be preferv*d, if the Son and Holy Spirit are re-
fer'd to one Caufe, without compofition or confufion.
Cafarius fays, that Mofes wrote, (d) The Lord thy God
is one Lord; that he might exalt us to the Unity of
Principle, and Knowledge of God. Which one Prin-
ciple is the Father, from whom the Son and Holy
Spirit proceed. Damafcene fays, (e) Neither do we
affirm, that there are three Gods, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit; but rather one God, the Sacred Trinity,
the Son and Spirit being brought back to the one
Principle, not mixM, or confounded, as Sabellius taught.
Where it is plain, Damafcene hath made ufe of Gregory
Naz.ianz.ens Expreflion. Of the Latins Til only give
you an Author or two. Hilary ( f) fays : The Father
does not therefore ceafe to be the One God, becaufe
the Son is God. For he is God of God, One of One ;
(.i) Orat. 2,7. contra Sabellianos. (6) Orat.32. p. 510,
(r) Orat. 29. p. 490, (ii) In Dialog, r. ad Int. 4. (J) In Lib. i.
deOrthod. fide, c 2. if)ln 4Lib.deTrin, p.;?-
who
the N I € E N E F A I T H. ^^
who is therefore the One God, becaufe God of him-
felf j on the other hand, the Son is not lefs God, be-
caufe the Father is the One God. For he is the only
begotten Son of God, not unbegotten fo as to take
from the Father his being the One God; nor yet him-
felf being any thing elfe but God, becaufe begotten of
him. Thus Fulgentius (a) alfo anfwers an Arian Ob-
jeftion : In two unbegotten there is a different Divi-
nity, but in one begotten of one unbegotten is plainly
a natural Unity.
8. Now concerning this Method of the Antient Ca-
tholicks, by which they prove the Unity of God,
there are two things efpecially obfervable. Firft, that
the Avians alfo did in Words embrace it. For the
Bifhops of the Arian Faftion in the Council of Sirmium,
when in the beginning of their Creed they had pro-
feffed to believe with the Nicene Fathers, that the Son
of God was God of God, Light of Light, at theend
they define thus : If any one fay that the Son is unbe-
gotten, without Beginning or Principle, as faying, that
there are two without Beginning or Principle, two un-
begotten, and as making two Gods, let him be Anathema.
For the Son is the Head and Principle of all things ;
but God is the Head of Chrift. For thus we pioully
reduce -all things thro the Son to the one Principle of
all things without beginning. But thefe Words, it is
certain, were not fincerely, but after their Sophiflical
manner fpoke by them. For the Avians believed, that
the Son of God was produced of God the Father, as
of a Principle, in a created way, as all other things are;
and made this only difference between the Son of God,
and the other Creatures; that the Son was firft and
immediately produced out of nothing by the Father;
and then all other things by the Son, This the Sir-
mians plainly fignify in thefe Words : We pioufly refer
all things to the One Principle by the Son. Here they
fuiEciently (hew that they equally refer the Son and
{a) In Lib. cont, Obj. Arian. 01].$, (}) Socrates. Lib. 2. Ch.
30. p. IG.3.
all
76 ::^DEFENCE<2r
ail other things to the Father as a Principle; the Son
indeed immediately ; and the other things by the Son.
But it is vain and very ridiculous for any one to at-
tempt to prove that the Father and Son are one God,
becaufe the one exifts from the other as his Principle,
VLnlek by Principle he means a Confubftantiai Principle.
For tmlefs this be fuppofed, it will alfo follow (which
is very abfurd) that every created thing is one God
with the Father,- for every Creature hath in fome fort
his Original from God the Father, as from a Principle.
A notable God of God the Arians have, who is no
otherwife of God than by way of Creation, as all o-
ther created things are! You'll fay, that thefe things
don't affed the Semi-Ariam however, who determine
that the Son of God is produced of God the Father,
not of Nothing ; and yet abfolutely deny that he was
begotten of the Subftance of the Father. I own there
were fuch Men formerly, and I have explained their
Sentiment above : But I always thought them very
weak Creatures. For, (a) as before the Creation there
was no medium between the Subftance of God and No-
thing, fo there could be no middle Production between
a Produdion of the Subftance of God, and a Produc-
tion of Nothing. The Semi- Avian thtrQ^ort^ and the
Semi-God, and the Se?ni-Creature, are equally Monfters,
and Prodigies, truly to be dreaded by all pious and
found Minds. The Son of God muft either be true
God, or a mere Creature. It is an Axiom of Eternal
Truth, that there is nothing between God and Crea-
ture, unmade and made. Therefore the Catholick
Fathers had a much better right toufe this Argument,
as all of them unanimoufly aflerting the Son's Confub-
ftantiality.
$>. The other thing, which I propofe to the Reader's
Obfervation, is. That this Reafoning taken from the
Unity of Principle, tho the Principle be fuppofed Con-
fubftantiai, is not, univerfvilly aqd abfolutely confidet'd,
(4)S£a. 2.Ch,(j.n. ii»
//^^ N tC EN E F AITH. 77
fit and aceommodate, to clear up and prove the Unity
of the Father and Son. For it hath, as Petavius hath
rightly cautioned, a general Power of concluding in all
things, efpecially Vital and Animal, in which we fee
this Generation, properly fpeaking. But thefe, tho
of the fame Nature with their Principle, make many
feparate and diftinfb Individuals. Therefore I pur-
pofely added in the Thefis, that the Father is the
Principle of the Son and Holy Spirit, and that both
of them are propagated from him by an interior Pro-
dudion, not an external one. Hence it comes to pa&,
that they are not only of the Father, but in him, and
the Father in them, and that there can't be one Per-
son feparate from another in the Holy Trinity, as three
humane Perfons, or three other Subjeds of the fame
Species are feparate. Thofe that think fo of the Divine
Perfons, well defer ve to be called Tm/je-Z/^j, of whom
Hieronymus Zanchius (a) learnedly writes thus: This is
their Comment, who have alfo dream'd, that the Son
is fo born of the Father, as to be without or extrinficof
his Eflfence, as our Children are. For they can't per-
ceive, how any thing can be born of any thing, and
be his Son, and yet remain in him, of whom he is born.
This is fo, becaufe they believe all Generation is ex-
terior, not any interior. I fay the fame concerning
the Proceffion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and
the Son. Now they have come to thefe Conclufions,
becaufe contemplating the Divine Eflence in their finite
Mind, they cou'd not raife to themfelves any other
than a finite Ideaj nor cou'd otherwife diftinguifli
the Perfons from one another, than by feparating the
EJfence of one from the EJfence of another. When the Sa-
hetlians objeded this fame Error to the Catholicks^,
who faid that the Son did as well fubfift by himfelf as
the Father, the Eaftern Bifhops aflembled at Antiocb
A. D. 345. in their Confeffion of Fairh called Macro-
fichus, did no lefs Catholickly than Elegantly anfwer
£/») De tribus E,lohivn, Lib, 5, C» i. n. 2..
thus:
78 "J DEFENCE of
thus ; ( I venture to fay fo, tho not a few of thofe
Bifliops were found in the Intereft of Arianifm, and
the Word Confubftantialis omitted in the Confeflion.)
(«) But though we fay that the Son exifts by himfelf,
lives and fubfifts as the Father doth, we don't there-
fore feparate him from the Father, conceiving in a bo-
dily manner, certain places and intervals, by which
they are joined. For we believe, that they are joined
without any Medium, or Interftice, and that they fub-
fift infeparably from one another ; The whole Father
having the Son in his Bofom, the whole Son depen-
dent upon, and coherent to the Father, and only al-
ways refting in his Bofom. It would be flrange, thac
the Artans at that Council fubfcribed thefe Words, if
there were not alfo other things in that Creed, dia-
metrically oppofite to Arianifmj which they alfo con-
firmed by their Sabfcription. Such is that efpecially,
that the Son of God is true and perfed God by Na-
ture : But thofe dark Fellows were ready to approve
any Creed, which had not the Homoou/ion; tho it
had other Terms in it, altogether of the fame import.
To return, the Father and Son then are fo one, thac
the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son :
neither can the one be fcparated from the other. This
manner of Union the Greeks call nse/::^^':^^^?. The Latins
( the School-men I mean, ) Cirmmincefjlo or Circumin-'
fejjlo. Genehrard {b) among others thus explains the
Word : n«p/;^'p«c;7f and Gnumimefjlo may be faid to
be that Union, by which one thing exifts in another,
not only by a Participation of Nature, but alfo by a
full and intimate Prefence. This kind of exifting in,
if I may fo fay, our Divines call Circuminceflion, be-
caufe by it fome things are very much diftinguifh*d
from one another without feparation j are in, and as
it were penetrate one another, without confufion.
(«) Socrate^Sj Lib. a. Chap. 19. pag.85, (b) ISh, 2.J&9
Trin. —
10. I
f^^ Nl CEK E F AITH^ 79
10. I will now fhew, that the Antlents generally
acknowledg'd fuch an Union as this in the Divine Per-
fons, and firft I fhail begin with the the Ame-Nicene
Dodors. Now here I would defire my Reader to re-
cur to that Treafure of Teftimonles produc'd in the
former Sedions. There he will find places cited from
the refpedive Fathers, which teach either, that the
Son of God fubfifts in God, or remains in the Bofom
of God, or that the Word is implanted in his Heart;
and in like manner, that the Father is in the Son, all
which Expreffions plainly fignify the Union, of which
we treat. But this Notion is fo clearly exprefled in
almoft all the Writings of the Antients, and fo repug-
nant to the Avian Hypothefis, that I have often won-
der*d, that wife and well-read Men in the Antiquities
of the Church, could ferioufly accufe thofe Writers
oi Arianifm. Indeed they might with much greater
probability have charg'd them with SaheUianifm^ tho
that Calumny alfois ealily to be repelled, as I have elfe-
where fhewn. To the fame Purpofe is that, which
the fame Antients with one Voice profefs, that the
Son is begotten of the Father without any Sedion ot
Divifion, and fo brought forth of the Father, as not
to be feparated from him. Thus 'Juflin, T'atian^ T'beO'
philus Antiochenus^ Tertulliany Novatian, yeaall of theni.
Hence Tertullian : (a) This is the Preferver of Unity,
by which we fay (namely all the Catholicks in the Ar-
ticle of the Trinity) that the Son was brought forth
of the Father, not feparated from him. What can be
more clear than that place oi AthenagoraSy cited h^on?
(i>) There the very learned Writer, after he had faid,
that the Father and Son were one, declares the manner
of their Union thus : The Father being in the Son,and
the Son in the Father by the Unity and Power of the
Spirit. Parallel to this, is Clement of Alexandria in the
fameSe<5lion {c). Tertullian as plainly and ixiccmBlf
exprefles the fame, (d) where he fays that the Holy
{a) Adv. Prax. Cb. 8. {l) Seft, z, Ch. 4. n, 8, (0 <^*6. n.40
N) Adv, Prax, Cb. 115,
Trinity
So 'A DEFENCE of
Trinity Is one Subftance in three Coherents ; not then
diverfe Subftances in three mutually feparate. {a) The
fame T'ertullianhys^ The Connexion of the Father in
the Son, and the Son in the Paraclete, make three Co-
herents, which three are one Thing, not one Perfon.
Again, (b) The Trinity paffing down from the Fa-
ther thro joint and connected degrees, is not repugnant
to the Monarchy. Laflly, He fays, that (c) in the
Trinity there is Number without Divifion. That is
alfo a very clear PafTage of Origen, which we cited before^
(d) where he profefledly oppofes their Error, who cut
the Divine Nature into Parts, and as much as lies in
them divide God the Father. For, fays he, even to
lufped fuch things of an incorporeal Nature, is not
only the utmoft Impiety, but the groffeft Folly i nor
indeed is it agreeable to Reafon at all, to have an Idea
of a fubftantial or material Divifion in an incorporeal
Nature. Now we fhould rather think, as the Will
proceeds from the Mind, and does not take away or
cut off any part of the Mind, or is feparated or divided
from it, fo the Father begat the Son. The fame Origen,
in that undoubted Piece of his againft Celfus, often
teaches, that the Divine Nature and EfTence is com-
jnon to the Son with the Father, as hath been abun-
dantly fliewn above ; and yet in the fourth Book of
the fame Work, he afferts exprefly, that the Nature
of God is incorruptible, fimple, uncompounded and
indivifible. There alfo he adds, that the Son of God
fubfifts in the Form or Nature of God, and therefore
hath the fame Attributes. A little after, he calls the
Son of God, God the Word in the Father. Surely who-
ever duly confiders that remarkable PafTage of Origen,
will find in it, that the two Perfons, Father and Son,fub-
fifl undivided in the fame EfTence (e). See alfo the fa-
mous Teftimony of Dionyjtus Rom. to the fame purpofe
(/). There the great Man (harply cenfures thofe, who
{a} Ibid. Cb. 25. C^") Ch.8. (c) Ch.2. (rf)Ch.9. n. 19-
Setl. s. (e)Se£t,2.Ch.9.n, 14. (/) Ch, 11. n.i.
divide
the N I C E N E F A I T Ha Si
divide, fplit, and overturn the Sacred Doflrine of God's
Church, parting the Principle of Unity into three cer-
tain Powers, three divided Perfons, three Deities.
To their Herefy he quickly after oppofes the Catho-
]ick Doctrine thus : For it is necelTary the Word of
God be united to the God of all, and that the Holy
Spirit abide and dwell in God; and it is abfolutely
neceflary that the Divine Trinity be gathered toge-
ther, and united into one, as a certain Head, or Sum,
I fay, into the Ahuighty God of all things. Thefe
Words of Dionyfius greatly confirm the Definition of
the w5p/;t^'?"^f> which the learned Bellarmine hath em-
braced, (a) when he fays it is that intimate and per-
feft Inhabitation of one Perfon in another. Laftly, not
to be too long upon fo plain a Cafe, you may find in
the fame place, a PafTage of Dionyfius^ in which thac
celebrated Writer cenfures their Ignorance, who know
not that the Father, as Father, can be alienated from
the Son ; for that it is an efpecial Term of Connexion :
and that the Son cannot be removed from the Father ;
for that the Term Father denotes Communion : and
that the Holy Spirit is in the hands of them both, and
cannot be feparated from him that fent, and him thac
brought him. It is alfo a faying of the fame Perfons,
(b) that the Indivifible and Indirainifli'd Trinity is col-
leded into Unity. Laflly, in his Anfwer to the fourth
Queft'. oiPauhisSamofat. he thus fpeaks concerning the
three Perfons of the Trinity : The two Perfons are
infeparable, and alfo the ImperfonM or Subfiftent Spi-
rit of the Father, which was in the Son.
II. It remains that I fliew, that the Fathers after
the Rife of Arianifm agreed with thofe before it. Now
fince the Places, which might be alledgM for this pur-
pofe, are innumerable, we Ihall only give you a few
for a Specimen. Alexander oi Alexandria in his Epiflle
to Alexander of Conftantim^k writes thus upon that
Text of St. '^ohn, 'The only begotten Son nuho is in
{a) Lib. 2. de Chrifto, Cap.j. (J>) See tU Annot. upn Chap. 1 1 «
.Vol. II. F th&
Ss J DEVENCE of
the Bofom of the Father : (a) The Divine Teachcf
purpofing to fhew ciie two things infeparable from one
another, the t'ather and the Son, faid that he was in
the Bofom of the t'ather. The fame Perfon in the
fame Epiftle fays afterwards, that the Words of Chrift,
land the Father are One^ are a Declaration of his na-
tural Glory, Pedigree, and Abode with the Father.
Thus Athanajius : (h) But as he who fays the Father
and Son are two, means one God ', fo he who fays
there is one God, means two Perfons, the Father and
Son being one in Godhead, and that the Word by
proceeding, or exifting from him, is not to be parted,
divided, or feparated from the Father. Pfetido Divny-
fius Areopagita, as far as divine Things can be fhadow*
ed forth by corporeal, hath declared the mutual Ex-
igence of the Divine Perfons in one another by an ex-
cellent Similitude: (c) The abiding of the Perfons,
which are of one Principle, one in another (if we may
fo fpeak) is united and common, and their Station or
Place is univerfally united in the greateft degree ; like
the Lights of Lamps (to ufe a fenfible and plain Ex-
ample) which are in one Houfej they are all mutually
entire and unmixMj they have a real exad Diftindlion
one from another, united in Diftindion and diftin-
guifti'd in Union. For when there are many Lamps
in one Houfe, we fee all the Lights united into one,
and fending forth one undiflinguifli'd Illumination;
nor cou'd any one, I fuppofe, part the Light of one
X,amp from that of the others out of the Air which
furrounds them all, or fee one without the others,
the Light of them being univerfally and mutually mix'd
together. Now if any one fhould take one of thefe
Lamps out of the Houfe, all its own proper Light:
will depart with it, it will not take away with it any
of the others Light, nor leave any of its own. For,
as I faid before, there was a perfed Union of them all
(«) E. H. Theodoret. Lib. i. Ch. 4. pag. 11,15. C^) Tom. I*
p. 1, pag. (J24, (c) De Divinis Nominibus, Ch, 2,
tloe N 1 C E N E F A I T H. ^|
to all entirely unmix'd, and in no part confounded.
Thefe things happen really in Bodies, the Air for in-
ftance J Light depending upon a material Fire: Yec
we fay that fupereflential Union is of an higher Na-
ture than that of Bodies or Souls, or Minds, &c. \t
is very certain, Dimyjius the Areopagite did not write
thefe excellent Words : but it is alfo certain, that the
Author was very anrient. The very Learned and
right Reverend Bifhop Pearfon (a) places him not far
from the beginning of the fourth Century ; and I am
much of his mind.
12. Bafil explains this Matter well in many Places,'
Epiftle the 42d (^} efpecially, where he thus difcourfes
concerning the three Divine Perfons : We are not by
any means to think of Seftion or Divifion, fo as to con-
ceive the Son without the Father, or divide the Spirit:
from the Son. But there is in them, a certain unfpeak-
able inconceivable Communion and Diftinftion, neither
the Diverfity of Perfons diftrading the Gonjundion of
Nature, nor the Community of Elfence confounding
the Property of their Diftindlion. Bafil hath more
worthy your reading, which follows in the famePlace.
Cyril oi Alexandria (c) fays the Father is the Son's natu-
ral place. Euthymitis does indeed briefly, yet accurate-
ly explain {d) the whole Notion of the Circuminceflion
in thefe Words : We fay thefe Perfons are in one an-
other, becaufe of their mutual containing and infer-
ring one another; becaufe they are infinite and
immenfe, and becaufe the Godhead of them all is one.
Damafcene in more places than one difcourfes upon this
Point, and explains it well, (e) ThtiSy after he had faid,
that Subjeds in a created Nature are not one in ano-
ther, but exift feparately, and that we therefore fay
two, or three, or many Men; he ftiev/s that the man-
ner, in which the Perfons of the Holy Trinity exift,
(a) Vind. Ignat. pag. i. Ch. lo. (/;) Tom. 3. pag. 97. (c) la
feptimo Llb.Thefaur. {d) Parti. Tit. 2. Panoplia. dogtn.
Orthod, Fidei, (c) In Lib. i . de Orthod, Fide , Ch,i i.
Fa is
84 "J DV.VENCE of
is different * For we caii'c affigii any local Dillance,
when we fpeakof the unlimited Deity, as we can with
refpect to ourfelves. For the Perfons are in one an-
other, not fo as to be confounded, but contain'd ac-
cording to the Word of the Lord, 1 in the Father^ and
the Father in me. And a little after he fays, The Deity,
in a word, is indivifible in parts, and like the one mix-
ture and conjundion of Light in three Suns, contiguous
and without interval. Where he almoft ufes the fame
Similitude, that the Pfeudo-Dionyjitis did. (a) Again,
fpeaking of the Divine Perfons, he fays, That they
cou'd not depart, or be diftant from one another, that
they were united and mutually contained one another
without confufion i united without confufion, for they
are three, tho united; divided without Interval, for
tho every one fubfifted by himfelf, was a perfeft Per-
fon, and had his own Property, or different Manner of
Exiftence ; yet they are united in EfTence, in Phyfical
Properties, in that they are not diftant, they cannot
depart from the Father's Perfon. They are, and are
called one God. To thefe Teftimonies oi tho, Greeks,
I fhall only add for the Reader's refrefhment the Hymn
oiSjnefius Bifhop of Cyrene, whoflourifh'd in the begin-
ning of the 5 th Century. I celebrate thee, O Trinity.
Thou art one and three. Thou art three and one. In
Conception divided, but thy Divifion is indivifible.
Hymn 3, fo alfo Hymn 4.
13. Of the Latins, Marius {b) ViBorimis thus fpeaks
concerning God the Father and the Son ; When we
confefs each of them God, we only mean one God,
and both of them that one God ; becaufe the Father is
in the Son, and the Son in the Father. So Amkofe
fays, (c) Both the Father is Lord, and the Son Lord :
"The Lord faid to my Lord, but not two Lords, but
one Lord ; becaufe both the Father is God, and the
Son God, yet but one God ; becaufe the Father is in
{d) In Lib. 5. Ch. 5. (&) la initio Lib. 2. adv. Arium.
(c) Libs 10. in Lucam ad Ch.20.
the
the N I c E N E F A I T rn 85
the Son, and the Son in the Father. Again, (a) The
Father and Son have a Dlllinftion, as Father and Son,
but no Separation of Divinity. Again, (b) He thus
briefly and neatly exprefTes both the Unity of Princi-
ple and the Circuminceffion: He is therefore call'd God
the Father, becaufe he is the Fountain, and the Wif-
dom, becaufe that by which all things were difpos'd ;
and the Love, becaufe that by which they will that
all things (hould fo remain as they are difposM. The
Fountain then, and he that is of it, and he by whom
thefe Two love another, are Three, and thefe Three
are therefore One, becaufe thefe Two are fo of One,
as not to be feparate from him : but they are from
him, becaufe not of themfelves ; and they are in him,
becaufe not feparate ; and they are the fame as he,
and he the fame as they, and they not the fame as he,
and he not the fame as they. Here he joins together
the Unity of Principle, and the Circuminceffion, ftiew-
mo that the Son and Holy Spirit are not only ifrom
the Father, but in him, nor can any way be feparated
from him 5 and therefore that all the Three are one
God, one and the fame in Nature and EfTence, but
three in Subfiftence. Hilary (c) fays. The Father is in
the Son, and the Son in the Father, by the Unity of
an infeparable Nature, not confus'd, but undivided ;
not mixt, but common ; not coherent, but exiftent ;
not inconfummate, but perfeft. For it is a Nativity,
not a Divifionj a Son, not an Adoption j a God, not
a Creation. The Apoftle holding this Faith of the
Son abiding in the Father, and the Father in the Son,
fays, that there is to him, one God the Father, and
one Lord Jefiis Chrifi. Where, when Hilary denies
the Union of the Father and Son to be coherent, he
only excludes fuch Cohefion as is feen in material
Things. Otherwife the Catholick Doctors have not
been afraid to fay, that the Father and the Son are
(/t) Lib. 2. de Fide, cap. 2. (h) De Dignitate conditionis
Jmmanae, cap. 1 1. (0 De Trin. Lib. 8,
F 3 mutually
S6 ^^ D E F E N C E ^/
mutually coherent. Jerome^ upon the third Chaptei*
of Er^ekiel, fays, The Son is the Place of the Father,
and the Father of the Son, according to our Lord and
Saviour, / in the Father, and the Father in me. Laftly,
Fulgentius (a) teaches. That one Man is with another,
by whom he is greatly belov*d, after another manner
than the Word is with the Father. For a Man is fo
with a Man, as that he not only can be from him, but
alfo when he is with him, cannot be fub{lantia,lly in
him. He who is thus with another, is truly without
hinij becaufe when he is with him in the Sincerity of
Love, he is from him in Place, how greatly foever
they be join'd in Aftedion. But the Word is fo with
God, as the Word is in the Mind, or Counfel in the
Heart. For when the Mind hath the Word with it,
it hath it by thinking; for to talk with one's felf, is
nothing elfe bijt to think. When therefore the Mind
thinks, and by Thinking begets the Word within
itfelf, it begets the Word of its own Subftance i and
fo begets that Word of itfelf, that even when be-
gotten, it hath it within itfelf. Nor is the Word
any thing inferior to the Mind, of which it is born,
becaufe, as great as the Mind is which begets the
Word, fo great is the Word itfelf. For as the Word
is born of the whole Mind, fo when born, it remained
within the whole Mind. And becaufe when the
Mind thinks, there is no Part of it, in which the
Word is not, therefore the Word is as great as the
Mind, of which it is ; and when it is with it, is in it ;
and, as great as it is, fo great is the Word, becaufe
it is of the Whole, and in the whole Mind. The
W-3rd is as great as the Mind and Word together ;
fior is the Word fo born of the Mind, as to be locally
fever'd from it. '
14. Of the CircuminceiHon of the Perfons in the
facred Trinity, we further ciDferve three Things,
{a) Lib. 3. ad Monimum, cap. 17. /
the Nic EKE Faith. %j
Pirflj When fome of the Antieyits (a) attribute thf?
Circuminceffion to the two Natures in Chrift, which
they aflert do penetrate, mutually embrace, or con-
tain each other, we are to determine that there they
fpeak improperly. For fince the Circuminceffion is
properly the Union of thofe Things, which do mu-,
tually every way penetrate one another, (as the Pre-
pofition denotes) it is ret^uifite to it, that neither of
the Things fo united be without the other, but that
wherefoever the one is, there the other fhould exift
alfo. Now in Chrlft,the Divine Nature does indeed pe-
netrate the Humane every way, but not fo the Humane
the Divine : For that is finite and circumfcribM, this
infinite and immenfe j upon which account it cannoc
be, that this fhould be wherefoever that is. But in,
the Trinity the Circuminceffion is truly proper and
perfect j for the Perfons mutually contain one another,
and all Three have an immenfe Place, fo that where-?
foever one Perfon is, there arc the other two, i. e^
they are all every where. Whence 'TertulUan (h) fays.
You are to know that God is within the very Abyfs,
is every where, and that the Son alfo is indivifible
from him, is every where with him. Secondly^ \
would obferve to my Reader, that this Doctrine of
the Circuminceffion of the Perfons in the Trinity, is fo
far from bringing in Sahellianifm, that it is very ufeful
Cas Petavius alfo hath obferv'd) to prove the Diver-
fity of the Perfons, and refute that Herefy. For it>
order to that mutual Exlftence in one another, which
we fee in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is ne-
cefTary that there be fome Diftinftion of thofe that
^re join'd together, that is, that thofe which exift in
one another, be really, and not in Notion only diffe-j^
rent. For that which is fimply one, is not faid to be
in itfelf, or to penetrate itfelf, This (c) Cyril oiAlexan^
(^) Gregof. Naz. Qrat, 51. p. 740. Damafcen. de Oi>.
thod. Fide, Lib. 5. cap. 5, {U) Adv. Prax, cap. 5, {^'^ Litj,
Thefaur, la,
F 4 <?r7^.
dria hinted : That by this their appearing to be
this in that, and that in this, he might fhew the Iden-
tity of the Godhead, and the Unity of Eflencej and
by their being one in another, they might not be con-
ceived to be one numerical Thing. See alfo the place
of Pfeudo-Dionyfius, before cited. Laftly, This is efpe-
cially to be coniiderM, that this Circuminceffion of
the Divine Perfons is indeed the greateft Myftery ;
which we ought rather religioufly to adore, than cu-
rioully examine. No Simihtude, no 'Words can ever
be found every way exprefEve of it : It is an Union
above all other Unions, as the learned Pfeudo Dionyjius
hath told us. We fpeak, we think in fuch Obfcurity,
like Children concerning this and other Myfteries !
Whilft we are here, we behold our God, as it were in a
Glafs, darkly ; but the Time will come, the Eternity
which far exceeds all Time, in which we fhall fee him
Face to Face. The Beatifick Vixion will difpel all the
Darknefs of our Minds ; which that he of his divine
Mercy may grant us, let us always moft earnefily
pray. In the mean time, whilft we are Travellers
here, we rather wifh to know (as the learned Athena-
goras (a) fays) than clearly know, what is the Union
of the Son to the Father, what the Communion of the
Father with the Son, what the Spirit is, what is the
Union of them,, what their Diftinftion when united^
namely, of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit,
T^he Concliifion of the whole Jforh
WE are now, by the Grace of God, arrived, and
I hope happily, thro^ the immenfe Sea of the
Antients, at our defigned Port. I think I have per-
formed what I promiied ia the beginning j .namely, |
^d) Athenagpr, p. 12,
the NicekeFaith. 89
have fhewn, by many clear Teftimonies, that Primi-
tive Antiquity agrees with the Nicene Fathers in thefe
four Points : (i.) That the Lord Chrift exifted in his
better Nature before the Bleflfed Virgin Mary^ yea
before the Creation, and that all things were made by
him. (2.) That he in that very Nature was confub-
ftantial with God the Father, i. e. not of any created,
mutable Eflence j but altogether of the fame Nature
with the Father, and therefore true God. (3.) Which
is a Confequence of the former, that he is coeternal
with God the Father, i. e. a Divine Perfon co-exifting
with the Father from Eternity. (4.) Laftly, That
this notwithftanding, he is fubordinate to God the
Father, as his Author and Principle. The firfl: I
handled lightly and by way of Stridure, becaufe the
Arians confefs it ,* tho' by this Conceffion, namely,
that God the Father made all things out of nothing,
by the Son, they plainly appear to me to have be-
trayed their own Caufe. For I'm of opinion, with
the more found Schoolmen^ that a power of producing
other things out of nothing can't be communicated
to a Creature made of nothing, fuch as the Arians
dreamt that the Son was. Of thefe Schoolmen Efiius
faith (a). That a Creature cannot be advanced, by
fupernatural Power, to a6t as a phyfical Inftrument in
the Work of Creation ; becaufe it is of the nature of
fuch an Inftrument to ad by fomething of its own Pow-
er, fuitably to or in conformity with the ading of the
principal Caufe. For which reafon the Divine Power
cannot give to a Creature the Power to create, as a
phyficai Inftrument, without deftroying the proper
Nature of its phyfical Efficiency or Inftrumentality.
The Foundation of this Argument he had before ex-
plained in the fame Place : Nothing can be the Caufe of
Creatlngjbut what hath an infinite Power. For by how
much the Form to be produced is the more remote
from Power, fo much the greater Power is required
ia) In lib. 2. Diftin^^. i. Se£t. 4= Vide etiam Athanafium.
in
90 [/DEFENCE^/
in the Agent ; therefore an infinite Power is requiredf
to produce a Form out of no Power, which is done
in Creation. Now it is impoffible this fhould be
communicated to any Creature. Hence, namely from
the Work of the Creation, common to the Son with
the Father, the antient, yea the Ante-Nicene Catho-
licks concluded the Divinity of them both cora^
mon. Qrigen himfelf expreily teaches, that nothing
but the Word of God, that is, nothing but very
God could perfed: the Creation of all things {a).
For upon that place of Genefis, Let us make Man, &c.
and upon that of the Pfalmiil, He [poke, and they were
wade, he thus difcourfes in the fame Place : For if
God commanded, and the Creatures were made, who,
according to the Prophet, fhould be the Executor
of fo great a Command of the Father, but he, if
I may fo fpeak, who is his animated Word and Truth?
Nay, the moft antient Fathers generally fliarply re-
proved the Gnofiics for teaching, that this World was
made by Angels, and Powers different from and infe-
riour to God. The Places of Irenaus {b) above-cited
are efpecially clear in this Point : The only one God
the Creator is he, who is above all Principality, Do-
minion, and Power; this Father, this God, this Cre-
ator, and Maker, he made thefe things by himfelf,
i. e. by his Word and Wifdom he made the Heaven,
the Earth, the Sea, and all that is in them. Again (c),
T^herefore the Angels did not make or form us, nop
could the Angels make the Image of God, nor any
one, no Power diftant from the Father of all things,
but the Word of the Lord. For God did not (land
in need of them to make what he had determined
with himfelf to have made, as tho' he had not Hands
of his own. For his Word and Wifdom are always
with him, the Son and Spirit, by whom, and in whom
he freely made all things, to whom he fpeaks alfo,
{a) SeO:. i. chap. 9. n. 5. {F) ScQi.2. Chap. 5. n. 7. Iren.
Lib. 2. ch. 55. p. S14. (c) Lib. 4. Ch. 57. p, 5^.9,
favin?:^
fZ?^ N I c E t^ E F A I T H^. gt
faying, Let us make Man after cur own Image and Si-
militude-y taking from himfelf the Subftance of the
Creatures, the Copy of the Things made, and the
Figure of the Ornaments in the World. In whicli
Places, Irenaus clearly teaches. That God the Father
neither made, nor had occafion to make, nor cou'd
make the World by any thing extrinfic of himfelf;
and at the fame time as plainly teaches, that he crea-
ted all things by the Son and Holy Spirit.
I have very largely demonftraced the fecond Point,
concerning the Confubftanciality of the Son, becaufe
the Controverfy manifeftly depends upon it. If in this
particular, Primitive Antiquity appear on our fide,
the Caufe will foon be determined in all the other Parts
of it with the Arians. For this being granted, that
the Son is of the fame Nature and Eflence with the
Father, the whole Frame and Strudure of their Herefy
is overturnM. But they can't name one Ante-Nicens
Doftor who hath not confelTed the Confubftantiality.
As for the third Point, I have evidently fhewn, that
the greateft and better part of the Primitive Fathers,
have clearly and plainly profefsM to believe the Son's
Eternity i and that the other Doctors of the Church,
who attributed to the Son a Generation from fome
• Beginning, tho they differed from the other in Words,
agreed with them in Senfe. Laftly, I have clearly
proved, that the Aute-Nicene Fathers did not define
any other Subordination of the Son to^he Father, than
the Catholicks acknowledged, who wrote after, and
againft Arius; and that their harfher ExprefHons do
not only admit, but require a Catholick Senfe. From
all this it is manifeft, that Petavius was too liberal, in
allowing to the Arians the Suffrages of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers i and, that Sandius and others, who relying
upon the Authority of that Jefuit, boldly affirm'd,
that all the Dodors of the firft Ages were of Arius's
Opinion, are miftaken.
The Opinion of the Catholick Fathers, who en-
gaged the Ariam in (oxmQX Days, was widely different
^ ■ ' • " from
92 'J D E F E N C E of
from this. They were fo far from being afraid of
the Primitive Dodcors, that they willingly appealed
to them. Athanafius (a) after he had cited the Tefti-
monies of fome Antients in defence of the Nicene Creed,
thus fpeaks to tht Arians '. Behold we fhew, that
the Notion has pafTedfrom Fathers to Fathers'; but you
Novel Jews J and Difciples of CaiaphaSy what Fathers
can ye produce for your Forms ? You cannot name us
one wife or prudent Man. All abhor you but the
Devil: He only was to you the Author offuch an
Apoftafy. Athanafius had feen Pieces of the Antients,
which to the great detriment of the Church are now
loft : But of all he had read, he boldly afl'erts, and
that, not in a Sermon to the People, but in a written
Difputation againft the Avians, that the Heretkh coxx^d
not produce one approved Author, who defended
their Blafphemies. And indeed, we have fufficiently
prov'd in this Work, that there was not one of the
Antient Catholick Fathers, whofe Divine Writings
Providence has fecur'd from the Shipwreck, to us
their late Pofteriiy, who was not of the Side of the
Nicene Eifloops. Nay, the very Avians themfelves, tho
they pretended to the ignorant Populace, that they
held the Faith deliver'd by the Fathers, and gave fome
Colour to their Herefy, from certain Sayings of fome
Fathers not rightly underftood (as we have fhewn be-
fore) yet, when prefs'd in Difputation, abfolutely de-
cline the Judgment and Authority of the Antients.
The Story of Sifinnius in Socvates^ (p) which we hinted
before, is a noted one. * The Emperor T'heodofms
having fent for the Bifliop Neciarius^ ferioufiy dif-
courfed with him, about fome Method of freeing the
{a) Vol. 1. Tom. i. p.235. (h) Socrat. H. E. Lib. 5. Ch. 10.
* See alfo the Story of Acefius in the fame Socrates, p. 52. H«
Anf'vaevto Conftantjne, when ask'd whether he woud jfubfcrlbe the
Nicene Creed, was this: The Synod, 0 King, has defined nothing news
I have read this Dejinition of Faith ■ ' vt j what was antient Tra"
^.4'!onf even from the Bsginningf the very Times of the Apjiles.
Chriftiaii
the N 1 c E N E F A I T H. 95
Chriflian Religion from Differences, and redoring the
Unity of the Church. He faid the Controverfy which
divided the Churches ought to be difcuffed; that thus
the Occafions of Difcord being taken away. Peace
might be recalled. Upon hearing this, NeBarius was
anxious and foUicitous. He fent for AgelliuSy then a
Novatian Bifhop, but one who agreed with him in the
Faith, and openM to him the Emperor's Purpofe: Agel-
liuSj otherwife a Pious and Religious Man, but not
able to engage in a clofe Difpute, chofe Sifinnius his
Reader, to undertake that Province. But Sijinnius^ an
Eloquent and a Prudent Man, one, who befides his
knowledge of the Holy Writ underftood the Greek Phi-
lofophy excellently, well-knowing that Herefy was ra-
ther inflamed than Divifions healed by fuch Difputa-
tions, gave NeBarius this Advice: Since he was affur'd
that the Antients had been very cautious of attributing
to the Son any Beginning of Exiftence, as thinking
him Co-eternal with the Father, he perfuades him to
wave Logical Branglings, to bring in Evidence the Ex-
pofitions of the Fathers, and to put the Emperor upon
asking the Leaders of the refpeiiive Seds, whether
they thought regard was to be had to the Antient Doc-
tors who taught before the Divifion in the Church, or
whether they rejefted them as Aliens to the Chriftian
Religion. If they rejed them^ you may then venture
to anathematize them. Now if they prefume to do
that, they will be thruft out by the People ; and thus
the Truth will plainly appear vidorious. But if they
fhall not rejeft the Antient Dodors, it will be our
bufinefs to produce their Books. Socrates proceeds to
inform us, that NeBarius communicated this Advice
to the Emperor, who eagerly embrac'd it, and upon
the Experiment, obferves, that the K^r^fidi depended
upon Logical Difputation, not the Expofition of the
Antients: for they all refufed to abide by the Judg-
ment of the Fathers. Soz,omen (c) gives us the fame
(0 Pag. 583. Lib. 7. Ch,. 1 2,
Story,
94 'J DEFENCE of
Srory. To which we may add, what Alexander of
Alexandria witneffeth, (d) That the firft Champions of
Arianifm defpis'd the Antient Doctors, and like the
prefent Fanatkks and Emhufiajis^ impudently boafted,
that they themfelves were taught by Infpiration. For
thus he writes in his Epiftle to Alexander oi Conjianti^
nopk: They will not have any of the Antients compared
with them ] they cannot bear to be fet upon a Level
with our Mafters from our Childhood ; nor do they
think that any of our Collegues in the Miniftry have
attaint even a fmall fhare of Wifdom. They fay,
that they alone are wife, f mortify 'd to Worldly-things:
The Inventors of Doclrines, and that that is reveal'd
to them alone, which never enterM into the Thoughts
of any other Perfon under the Sun. In thefe Words
Alexander fignifies, that the Avian Notion is not only
contrary to the Dodrine of the Antients, but alfo to
that of his immediate Predeceifors, and of all the Bi^
fhops, who governed the Church at that time, when
Arhis firft raifed the unhappy Controverfy.
But you'll fay, if the Opinion of Ariits was fo
Heterodox, how came it fo greatly to prevail in a
fhort time after its rife, that almoft the whole Chri-
flian World became Arian, as 'Jerom ccmplain'd ? I an-
fwer, that if by [becoming Avian] be underftood em-
bracing the genuine Tenets of Arius, with Jercm's
leave it is not true, that the greateft part of Chriftians
was Avian. In the days of Conflantius indeed, and
fome time after, very many came over to the Avians;
but few, comparatively fpeaking, to Arianifm. Thofe
deceitful Mortals concealed their impious Doclrines,
and profelfed their Faith in Words, which exhibited
the antient Catholick Sentiment ; unlefs when they
Xd) Theod. Eccl. H. Lib. i. Ch.4. p.i(J.
\ ^AKJiiuo ^(y»o Rendrhgy nor Criticifm lean meet 'withypteafes me.
Tier, is neither true in faB^ mr feems any way Jlgnijicati've here*
The Arians ivere Poiverfuly Popular and Intriguing ; but if they hud,
ret been fo, they were unlikely to boajt oj their Poverty ^ in delivering
their Opivica about an ArtUk of Faitbt
, -^ found
tie N I c E N E Faith; ^%
found an Audience fit for their Purpofe : whence
it came to pafs, that thefe were almoft every-where
taken for, and acknowledg'd as Catholicks, even by
thofe, who heartily detefted their Tenets. By this
Fraud they got into the Favour, of not only the
Chriftian People, but many over-credulous Bifhops.
Read the Avian Creeds copy'd by Athanajtus and others,
for the moft part expreiVed in fuch Catholick Terms,
that you wou'd fcarce believe their Compilers were of
another Strain. Tliey fay Chrlft is God, true God„
nay true and perted God by nature ; That he is a
Creature, they hold to be an abominable AfTertion,
and profefs he exifted before all Ages. What Catho-
lick Expreffion do they not ufe, except the Homooufion.
or ConfubflantiaU Hence Bilary^ who lived in this
Reign of Ami-Chriflianifm^ congratulated the Truth,
that the Chriftian People remain'd Catholick under
the Arian Bifhops, with whom they commun cated.
The innocent People received with all reverence fucli
Bifhops as Conflamius fet over them, not knowing the
impious Tenets they held ; they admitted the Heretkh^
but never embraced their Herefy, as not underftanding
they were guilty of it. The Words of (e-) Hilary SiXQ
worthy the recital. Now I think Ami- Chrift fhould
have been introduced and believ'd on by thefe Wretches
•with lefs Perfidioufnefs. They give Chrift the Name:
of God, beaufe this Name is given to Men. They
tjonfefs, that he is truly the Son of God, becaufe by
the Sacrament of Baptifm every one is truly made fo.
They own him to be before Times and Ages, in fuch
a Senfe, as is not to be deny'd of Angels and the Devil.
Thus our Lord Chrift hath only fuch Attributes given
him as are proper to Angels, or to us : But what is
lawfully and truly due to Chrift God is deny'd, name-
ly, that he is true God, ?'. e. that his Divinity is the
fame as the Father's. And even to this day the growth
of this Impiety is promoted by Fraud, in fo much thac
the Chriftian People don't fall away under their Ami-
it) hih* contra A riant 6<<^«xent. p. a 15*
Chrijlian
9<^ ::^DEFENCE^
Chrifltan Prlefls, whilft they believe that to be theFaith^
which is only the Form. They hear that Chrift is
God, and they think it fincerely fpoken ; they hear
he is the Son of God, and they think, that the Truth
or real Eflfence of God is in the Nativity or Birth of
God. They hear that he is before Times, and they
think before Times, and Always, to be the fame. The
Ears of the People are more Holy than the Hearts of
the Priefts. Thus Hilary excellently fpeaks : But (/)
Alexander of Alexandria^ inhis Letter to his Name fake
oi Confiantimpkj teflihes, that Arius and his firft Dif-
ciples, after they had been condemned in a certain
Synod at Alexandria, held before that of Nice, by dif-
fimiilation obtainM commendatory Letters to other Bi-
fhops, which they frequently made ufe of to confirm
thofe poor Creatures in Error, whom they had deceived.
They have endeavourM, fays he, making Excurfions
againft us, to pafs over to our Collegues of the fame
Opinion with us, pretending a defire of Peace and Le-
nity, but really attempting by fair Speeches to infect
fome of them; defiring fulfome Letters of them, that
by reading them to thofe they have deceived, they may
harden them in Impiety, and render them impenitent
in their Errors, as having the Suffrage and Sentiment
ofBifhops with them. They don't confefs to them
their wicked Life and Dodrine, for v/hich' we caft
them out; but either fay nothing of thefe Matters, or
gloiling them with forgM Words and Letters, they de-
ceive. They catch him that is expofed to Error, by
gilding over their pernicious Doftrine with plaufible
and cunning Speeches, not forbearing to calumniate
our pious Principle to all Men. Whence it is, that
fome have fubfcribed their Letters, and received them
into the Church. If any of the Arians queftion the
Credit of this good Man Alexander, let him hear two
of the moft noted of his own Party, Eufebius of Nico-
media, and' Tbeognis. They in their Penitentiary Libel
write, that they had indeed fubfcribed the Nicene
(/) Theod. E, H. Lib. i. Ch. 4. p. 10.
Creed
?i;^ N I c E N E Fait h.^ 97
Creed (a), butrefus'd thz Anathematifm; and immediately
fubjoin their Reafon for it in theie Words : Not as
cenfuring the Creed, but as not believing that the
Perfon accufed was fuch an one [as reprefentedj being
fully afifured that he was not, both by Letters particu-
larly wrote to us by him, and alfo by perfonal Dif-
courfe with him. What Valejtm has obferv'd is wor-
thy Notice, {b) namely, that this Eufebius of iVirVo-
medta held conftant Communion with the Church of
Rome till his Death. Whence one of thefe things fol-
lows : either, that Eufebius was not really an Arian,
but had beUev'd their Profeflions, and made one of
their Party thro too much Credulity i or, that tho he
was an Arian, he deceived the Church of Rome by the
fame Arts, which the other Arians ufed. Any one
will rather think the latter true, who fhall attentive-
ly read (c) the Letter of Arius to this Eufebius^ and
that of this Eufebius to Paulmm at Tyre. Who is not
Ihock'd with the Account Socrates gives of (d) Arius
from the Authentick Letters of Conjiamine ? The Em-
peror willing to make an Experiment upon Arius, fent
for him to the Palace, and ask'd him, whether he a-
greed to the Definitions of the Nicene ^Council. He
readily, and without delay, fubfcribed in a Sophifti-
cal manner the Definitions of Faith before them. The
Emperor amazed, gave him his Oath. By the fame
Arts he took this alfo. The Fraud of his Subfcription,
as I have heard, was this^ Arius, fays my Author, hav"
ing wrote his own Opinion in a Paper, carryM it un-
der his Arm, and fwore, that he really believed- as he
had wrote. That this was fo, I write from Fame,
but that he fwore to what he had fubfcribed, I have
read in the Emperor's Epiftles. No Man fure can
wonder, that the remarkable Divine Vengeance re-
corded by Socrates in the fame Place, fliould follow up-
i^d) Socvaies^lAh, I. Ch.14. p.;^. {F) Vide Valefii notas, P.T45.
(c) Theod. E. H. p. 20, Lib.i, Ch. j, and 6, (rf) Socrates, E. H.
Lib. I, Ch. 38. p. (Si,
Vol. IL G on
98 J DEFENCE of
on fo deteftable a Perjury. Other Ecclefiaftical Wri-
ters tell the fame Story, tho with different Cireum-
ftances.
Atbanafius, in his Book of the Synods of Rimine and
Seleucia, witnefl'eth, that George the Bifhop of Laodkea
was the firft who perluaded the Avians to difguife
their Impiety in Cacholick ExpreiTions. {a) For he re-
ports of George^ that he wrote to the Arians^ Why do
you blame * Pope Alexander for faying the Son is of the
Father ? Fear not your felves to fay, that the Son is
of God. For if the Apoftle wrote, that all things are
of God, and it is manifeft that all things were made
of nothing, and the Son is a Creature, and one of thofe
things which were made, the Son alfo may be faid to
befo of God, as all things are of God. The Avians
then learn'd of him feignedly to pronounce the Words
is of Gody to ufe them in a bad Senfe.
But the Avians feem to have their mod fpecious pre-
tence from the Word Homooujtonj eftablifh'd by the
Nicene Fathers. For the Sophifis complain'd, that they
were condemn'd by the Nicene Fathers for rejeding one
little Word, no where found in the Scriptures, and of
dangerous meaning, whereas otherwife they in no-
thing receded from the Antient Catholick Faith. Ma-
ny believing this Profeffion of theirs, not only of the
People, but alfo of the Catholick Bifhops, freely gave
them the right-hand of Chriftian Fellowship and Com-
munion i not aware of the -4r/^K Perfidy, abhor'd thofe
Catholick Bifhops, who clofely adhered to the Homo-
oufion, as contentious Men, given to Difputations a-
bout Words, Difturbers of the Church's Peace for
Trifles, nay Hereticks, who under that Word conceal'd
an Heterodox Sentiment. Now as many as rejeded
the Word Homooufion upon any Score, tho they from
their Heart acknowledged the Catholick Meaning of
the Word, which the Nicene Fathers intended, thefe,
who were very many, were generally accounted Avians.
id) Vol. 2. Tom, I. Pag. 731, * Bipop of Akxandna^
Foi:
/i»^ N I C E N E F A I T H. 99
For this Caufe chiefly, Eufebim of Cafarea was, I fup-
pofe, call'd an Ariati; namely becaufe, tho he never
a^folutely did'ik'd the Homooujion, yea always approv*d
it in the Senfe of the Nicene Fathers, he openly oppos'd
Euflathius and other celebrated Catholicks, who, as he
thought, ufed it in a Senfe too favourable to SabeUia-
nifm (a). What fay you to Theodoret alfo, (b) who tefti-
fies, that the Emperor Conjiamius, a moft bitter Enemy
to the Defenders of the Homooujion, was really always
SL Catholick? For tho being deceived by his Managers,
he did not admit the Word Homooujion, he fincerely
acknowledged the Senfe of it : For he called the Word
God, the genuine Son begotten of the Father before
Ages, and plainly condemned thofe who prefum'd to
fay that he was a Creature. This Teftimony of 'Theo'
doret is greatly confirmed by the Encomium Gregory
(c) Naz,ianz,en gives of Conflantiiis, amongft other
Names calling him the moft Divine Prince, and a very
great Lover of Chrift. Thefe Praifes Naz,ianz,en never
wou'd have heap'd upon Conflantius^ as a Catholick in-
deed, and aprofeflfed Enemy of the Arians, if he had im-
bibed their Herefy. To this we may add, that the Arian
Confeflions publifh'd in their Conventicles affembled
under Conftantius, did moft of them profefs the fame
Faith in Words, as the Nicene Council decreed, except
only the Homooujion. For the Sophifls well knew, that
the Emperor's Pious and Catholick Soul could not bear
their impious Tenets, if fimply and honeftly proposed.
Thus, he who was the greateft Patron of the Ariam^
from his Heart abhor 'd the genuine Tenets of Ariusi
and again, he who was the fevereft Perfecutor of the
Catholicks, did always really hold the Catholick Faith
and Opinion. This fo great a Prodigy appear'd in
the Chriftian World, through the Fraud of the A-
yianSj never enough to be decefted by all good Men I
Elias Cretenjis (d) does in part expofe this Fraud in
{a) See the Ohfevvat'ion out of Socrates, Se£i:. 2. Ch. 1. n. 8.
(b)E.H, Lib. 3. Ch. 3. p. 126. (c) In priori InveSliva adv.
JuUam p«63. {d) Comment. i« Greg. Naz., p. 8 13,
G 2 thefe
loo ;^ D E F E N C E ^/
thefe Words. The Emperor feduced by Heretich gave
the Impious, Privileges againft the Pious, and made
Laws againft the Orthodox Dodrine. For when the
Arians craftily and wickedly brought in the Word E-
quifubftantial ( fo Elias renders h/Miovaiov ) inftead of
Confubftantial, the Emperor came into their Senti-
ment, wrote, that Equifubftantial was the fame as
Confubftantial, and of no detriment at all to Piety.
This indeed is not Heterodox (for that which is like,
is not the fame with that to which it is like, but
partly equal and partly unequal) if pioufly underftood;
namely fo, as that the Words [without any difference]
be taken along with that Word. Hence, moreover, the
Heretich got free power, and fo rejected the Word
Confubftantial. But if I wouM fully explain all the
{a) Crafty Arts of the Arians, in propagating their im-
pious
(<?) Logical Niceties f 'Equivocal ExpreJporSy Occajlonal Salvoes and
ReferveSf Refufal of Avtient Tejiimony, Intrigues nvlth Minijlers of
Sfatey Subornation of Evidence., Ivfinuations of ill PraBices or Incli-
nations toivards the Government, Offers of Preferment, and the moji in-
human Force upon the Minds, the Bodies and Properties of their Ad-
vevfaries ; Arts, as our Learned and Good Bifhopfays, Crnfty and Im-
■pious too ; hut yet fo generally ufed, as that the mojl carelefs Reader
may he left to himfelf to obferve upon them, thro the nvhole courfe of
the Avian Hijlory,
One Avtijice more flagrant than the reji, ivas an attempt to draiv
eff the People from their Zeal for the Doctrine, by reprefenting the Con-
iroverfy as too minute, and concerning matters that might as ivell be let
alotie. The Writers of the prefent Age have come up to them, if not ex-
ceeded them in this particular : But the Cafe is much miflaken : For
the VoBrine of the Sons Divinity nvas rigidly injljled upon, but fome
particulars in explaining it, ivere thought too fuhtle. The Arian fide
ive generally find charged with thefe Subtleties. Dr. Whitby cites So-
crates to this purpofe. There Conftantine writes, that the Controverfy
was net ahoutaVr'mc\'(i&.\ Doftrine, hut concerning very fmall
Matters, vain and unneceffary things, ivithout which there might beJJ-
nity in Faith and Opinion. W7:oever ivill look into the Ecclefiaflical
Jliftcrians, will find this to he all m'rfreprefentaflon. Any of thi'm will
inform him, that the Doctrine was held to be a Principal one, but the
Explication fuhtle, vain, unneceffary, dangerous to be attempted by
weak Men, and perplexing to the Populace, I flj.ill only take Notice
of a few yfcrds in £iufebius and Socrates, which the Doctor has not
ohfervedf
^y^^ N I c E N E Faith. ioi
pious Sentiment, the Conclufion of this Book would
make another : Wherefore I will here make an end.
From what we have difcourfed in this Work, it is
plain, the Nicene is the Faith once delivered to the
Saints, and always religiouily preferved in the Cacho-
lick Church of Chrift. Let us therefore bravely con-
tend for this Faith, as it becomes Men inflam'd with
an Holy Zeal for God ; and let us conftantly perfevere
in it to the end of our Lives. God grant we may.
To the mofl Holy and Undivided Trinity, God the
Father, the Son, and Holy Ghoft, be all Praife
Glory and Honour, for ever and ever. Amen.
ohfervedy and which fame of his Friends likey as they are at pefent
jalfely tranjlated. Conftantine writes thus : When you^ Alexander
aslid the Opinion of your Presbyters concerning a certain Place in the
LatUy or rather concerning the [1'v3s ixctain ?si1ii|xa]o? /xsps?] a part
of an idle Queftion. Here Valefius'j ufual Diligence and Acumen
have forfalzen him \ for if he had collated this place ivith Eufebius
he ivoud have found ti^yiffsuig read, not ?>fl*if<-aT05, which (tho indeed he
has there tranjlated it as tho he had read IvUviiictloq) qviU force us to
tranjlate Iconcerning an Idle, or vain part of a Quejiion'] and thai too
fuch an one J as was necejfary and In general common to the Orthodox
andthe Arians. 'aaa' sVa xai t5v avjow 'i%f£ )^oytaij.ov. (Eufeb.p. 201)
namely the Divinity of our Lord ; the nominal Pvofejfion of which,
the Antient Arlans greatly gloried Wt eamejily contended for^ and de-
clared abfolutely necejfar^p
G 3 THE
( 102 )
THE
JUDGMENT
OF THE
Catholick Church
OF T H E
Three Firfl Centuries,
CONCERNING
The NecefTity of Believing, That our Lor d
Jesus Christ is true God;
Afierted againft M. Simon EpiscgpiuSj and others.
PREFACE.
H EN 1 formerly perused the Theological
Inftitutions of Epifcopius, upon reading
the Chapter Concerning the Neceffity oF
believing the Manner, in which Jefus
Chrift was the Son of God, {a) I wrote^
or rather drew the Out-Lines of^ an Anfwer,
for my own ufe^ to the Arguments^ by which the learned
(4) Ch. 34. Lib. 4. Se£l.2,
Man
PREFACE iGj
M(in has there endeavour'd to prcDBj that the Article con-
cerning the Di'vine Generation of the Son of Gody our Sam-
our^ from God the Father before Ages^ was not taken in th?
Primitive Churches ^ for an Article neceffary to be believed in
order to Salvation ; and that thofe Churches held Communion
luithfuch as deny'd it ; with fuch as believed and taught,
that Chriji was a mere Man^ and did not exijl before the
Blejfed Virgin. 'This Jhort Anfwer I have enlarg'd, and
confiderably augmented at the Inflames of my Friends, hav-
ing added to it three whole Chapters i in which, if I mi flake
not, 1 have clearly confuted Epifcopius^s Opinion, from the
Tejiimonies of the Firft Fathers and Ecclefiaflical Hiflory.
My Reafon for publifloing this Piece, fuch as it is, I'll
give you in a feio IVords. Our own Nation within thefe
few Tears has produced feveral Books, in which the impious
Authors, boldly defending fometimes the Arian, fometimes
the Samofacenian Herefy, have with all their Power atr-
tempted to deflroy the Chief Article of our Faith ; that, upon
which the Whole of Chrifltanity depends ; namely, That of
the Son of God born of God the Father before all Ages,
very God of very God, by whom all things were made, who
for our Salvation was incarnate, and made Man. The Cen^
fure that great Man Zanchius paffes upon Socinus, and o-^
thers of the fame Strain in his days, I may juftly apply to
them : (a) I have read, but with great Indignation,
the fooHfh Dotage of our Modern Arians and Photi-^
nians; and can affirm this, that they fall far fhort o£
the Antient Hereticks. Every thing is either endlefs
Repetition, or frefh Abfurdicy. That thefe vain Men
might neither glory againfl the Truth, nor f educe the Infirm,
fome of our own Country, Perfons of Piety and Learning,
have oppofed their Books, and upon that account recommend^
ed themfelves to the Favour and Applaufe of all good Men^
APiong thefe have appeared a fort of Men, as Mediators,
of a pacificatory Genius, and an odd Dejign, to bring toge^
ther Contraries, and reconcile the Catholick Church and He-.
reticks, i. e. Chrift and Belial. Thefe Men^ tho they pra^.
^a) Ef . Vedicat, to bis Boc^ de Tribus Elohim.
G 4 fefs
104 PREFACE
fefs (I luifbj Jincerelf) to believey as the CathoUcks doy the
Truth of the Article, that the Son is Co-ejfemial ii-ith God ;
fiippofe you need not mjtji upon it, that to Salvation it is
fufficient to believe, no matter hovj, in Jefus Chrift the
Son ot God and Saviour of Mankind, and that you need
not trouble yourfelf, whether he is only mere Man, by Grace
and Adoption made a God, and promoted to Divine Honours;
or whether he is really and by Nature God. T'hey defend
this their Opinion by much the fame Arguments, as Epifco-
pius has borrowed from Socinus. T'hey talk loud, that the
Nicene Fathers firfl ejiablifo'd the Confubftantiality of the
Son, and rafloly guarded it with an Anathema ; but that
the Primitive Church, more moderate, and as became a ten-
der Mother, received thofe into her Bofom, who believed our
Saviour nothing more than Man. This they go about to
frovefroin the Creed commonly called the Apofiles, and from
a celebrated Paffage in (a) Juflin Martyr. This is alfo
their Boa/l, and how little there is in it, the following Trea,-
tife will fhew.
The Ajfertion o/Epifcopius, upon which they vainly build,
and which I have undertaken to refute, is unbecoming any
Man of Probity, and even a [lender Acquaintance with the
Fathers and Church Hi/lory. I charge not Epifcopius with
Improbity. Charity forbids me to do that, and indeed I can-
not think it. Was he ignorant then ? No. But he can ne"
ver efcape the Cenfure of being inconjl derate, to pronounce fo
boldly in a matter of fuch importance, concerning the Opinion
of the Primitive Church, before he well knew it himfelf ;
and to do the greateft difoomur to the DoElors, Bifloops, Con-
fejfors and Martyrs of the beji Ages, in reprefenting them as
perfecily indifferent in defending the chief Article of the
Chriftian Religion. Thus the Cafe mufi ftand. The Inge-
nious, and in many refpecis the very Learned Man had not
carefully confulted, had abfolutely dcfpifed the Antient^.
Hear what he fays in his Anfver to (b) Father Wading's
empty Boa/Is cf Fathers and Councils. He fpeaks his Mind
{a) Dial, with Trypho. {h) Epifcopius ad Wading, de Cuitu
Jmsi^vaam, Vol.1. 'g.ll2.Ed.BleaU) Amprdt,
^ery
PREFACE. io<;
qjery freely in thefe Words : I'll tell you my Thoughts
once for all. You fhall never engage me in that
drudgery, my Friend ', I feek no applaufe from fuch
low Enterprizes, nor envy them the Glory of their
great Reading, and capacious Memory, who are plea-
fed to fpend all their time and pains in thofe wild Re-
fearches of Fathers and Councils. I am not for buy-
ing Repentance at fuch a Price. With him forfooth !
diligently to perufe the laudable Study cf the Fathers and
Councils J is only to be fpoken of in a Proverb of Contempt.
It is only a low Ambition ^ a Lofs of "Time and Labour i
fomething that will bring you to Repentance. A little after
in the fame Place he endeavours weakly to depreciate their
Works, is out of humour with the Name and Style of Fa-
thers ufualiy given them, and at length thus concludes : (a)
This is the Reafon why I do not give myfelf much
Trouble about them.
But Oh, that he had here excepted the Fathers of the
three firfi Ages at leaji ! Had he fpent more of his Time and
Study upon them, he would have been more ufeful to himfelf
and the Church ofChrifi. He would never havefo far en-
gaged in the Defence of Arius and Socinus, as to palliate
that DoElrine of theirs concerning the Perfon of our Saviour,
as Erroneous perhaps, but not Heretical, from the Autho-
rity and Judgment of the Primitive Churches ; which Doc-
trine all thofe Churches had unanimoujly condemn d for a very
pernicious, and a mortal Herefy.
I think you have this abundantly proved in the Differta-
tion I now prefent to you, which may ferve as the Comple-
ment, or FinijJoing of my Defence of the Nicene Creed,
publifh'd fome Tears ago. For as in that Work, I have
vindicated the Nicene Creed from the Calumnies of Here-?.
ticks, and fully fhewn the DoSirine of it exaEily agreeable
to the Faith of the Catholick Church in the three firfi Centuries
(without a Reply, that I know of, from theAdverfaries of the
Holy Synod) fo in this Piece I maintain and defend the A-
pathematifm annexed to that Creed. For it is hence plain,
that
10.6
PREFACE.
that the Nlcene Fathers, agreeably to the "Judgment of the
firfl Churches, even from the Days of the Apoflles, had e-
ftalliflo'd their Creed under this Anathematifm : {a) The
Holy Catholick and Apoftolick Church anathematizes
thofe that fay that the Time was, when he was not>
and he was not before he was born, and he was made
of nothing ; and that affirm he was of another Sub-
fiance or Eflfence, or created, or convertible, or mu-
table. All pom andfoher Men mufl revere this Judgment
of the whole Church of Chrifi in all times ', and of confe-
quence beiuare of, and entirely abhor the Herefyofthe Sa-
mofatenians and Arians, which deny their God. Do you
fo^ Reader, I feriou/ly exhort you, whoever you are. Farewel.
THE
INTRODUCTION.
H E very learned Epifcopiut in his Theologi^
cal Inftitutions fhews, (b) 'That God is called
the Father of Jefus Chrifi, and that Jefus
Chrifi is called the Son of God the Father, even
as he is Man, in an eminent manner, in Holy
Scriptures four ways i namely, upon account of his Conception
bj the Holy Spirit, his Mediatorial Office, his RefurreSiion
front the Dead, and his Exaltation at the Father s Right-
hand : He then adds, and proves it from certain Places of
Holy Scriptures, and from Scriptural Confequence (tho he
behaves very coolly in all the Difputation of this im-
portant Truth) that Jefus Chrifi is alfo the Son of God
upon another and a more excellent account than any of thofe
{a) Socrates, p. £1, 22. cap. 8. Lib. Tc (}) Lib. 4. SeQ;. 2. c. 55.
p. 334. Qr-c. Vol I,
INTRODUCTION. 107
four, namely uponfuch an one, as could not vefpeEl him as
Man 'i becauje the Scripture frequently /peaks fo of Jefus
Chrifiy i. e. He luho was afterwards called Jefus Chrifi,
as that it can fcarce be doubted, whether he exijled really ^
as the true and only Son of the Father, before he was born
Man of Mary his Mother, and confequently (as he after-
wards more fully explains himfelf ) before the Creation^
and that infuch a manner^ as to be the Author ofit, and
therefore God.
He puts this Queftion, after his manner, at laft'. (a)
IVhether that fifth Manner of Jefus Chrifi's Filiation be ne'
cejfary to be known and believed, in order to Salvation ;
and thofe Perfons are to be anathematiz.*d, who deny it ?
He undertakes to defend the Negative by three Argu-
ments. Leaving the two former to be difcufTed by o-
thers, I propofe to examine the laft only, as properly
falling to my Lot. His Argument is this : {b)
'The Faith and Profefjton of this fpecial Filiation, was not
judged neceffary to be known and believed in order to Salva-
tion, in the Primitive Churches, down from the Apojiles du-
ring three Centuries at leafi. Therefore there is no reafon,
why it Jhould be thought necejfary now. The Confequence is
clear from the Rule of Vincentius Lirinenfis : M^hat is
neceffary to be known and believed in order to Salvation, ntufl
have been determind to be held and believed as fuch every
where, by all, and always.
The Confequence we readily embrace i but the
Antecedent (to pafs by Epifcopius his Soloecifm, that
the Faith and Profeflion, &c. was not neceflary to be
Jtnown and believed, &c. whereas doubtlefs he would
have faid, that Faith and Profeflion, &c. were not ne-
ceflary to Salvation) we contend is plainly falfe, and
will abundantly prove it in this Work.
Phe thing we muft premife to our Reader, That
the judgment of the firft Churches, concerning the
Neceffity of this, or any other Article of our Religion,
cannot be otherv'ife better known by us, their J^te
{a) Ch. 54. p. 338, (h) p. 339, in fine.
Poflerity,
io8 INTRODUCTION.
Pofterlty, than firft by confulting the extant Writings
and Monuments of the Catholick Fathers, and more
celebrated Doftors in thofe Churches, that we may
thence know their Thoughts upon the Queflion; and
then by fearching Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, concerning
thofe, who in the firft Ages denyM the Divinity of
our Lord Jefus Chrift, that we may underftand what
Judgment the Churches of thofe times pafs'd upon
them i whether they retained them in their Communion,
or rejeded them as Aliens from Chrift's Body. There
is indeed a third Method of diftinguifhing what Doc-
trines the Primitive Church held neceflfary to be be-
lieved ; namely, by the Symbols and Confeflions of
Faith, which fhe required of all, who defired to en-
joy her Communion. We don't decline this Method,
nay we readily accept it, as will appear "hereafter :
But for as much as very many, in thefe worfl of Times,
interpret the Antient Creeds, as well as the Holy
Scriptures, not according to the Rule of the Catho-
lick Church (which Vimentius has told us of) but ac-
cording to their own Pleafure j and for as much as E-
pifcopius and his Followers have drawn an Argument
for their Opinion from the Creed, commonly called
the Apoftles, I think it better to defer what I have to
fay of Creeds, till I come to anfwer their Reafonings
from them.
Thefe things premised, wefhall eafily refute Epifco-
plus's Aflertion in this Method, (i.) I will bring the
Teflimonies of the Firft Fathers, very plainly teaching.
That the Dodrine of the true Divinity of Chrift is
abfolutely neceffary to be believed in order to Salva-
tion. (2.) I will fhew from Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that
never any one deny'd the Divine Generation of our
Lord Jefus Chrift from God the Father before all Ages,
who was not excommunicated for it, and deem'd an
Heretkh Laftly, I will put in a full Anfwer to thofe
Arguments, which Epifcopius has ufed, in order to
prove his point. This is the End and Defign of our
Diifercation,
CHAP,
( 109 )
CHAP. I.
'fhe I'ejiimomes of the TrimitwQ Fathers^
T^hat the Article of our Lord's T)i'vinity is
ahfolutely necejfary to he belied* dy in order
to Sahation.
will begin with the Teflimonies of the
firfl: Fathers. JgnatiuSy a contemporary
Bifhop with the Apoftles, or at leaft with
St. 'Johtij in his genuine Epiftles, publifti'd
by If. Vojpus, very often inculcates the Doctrine of
Chrift, God and Man, true God, and true Man, as
abfolutely neceflary to be behev'd, againft the Here-
ticks of that Age, who denied either of Chrifl^s Na-
tures. So, in his Epiftle to the Ephefans, after he
had recited their Praifes, which Onefmus their Bifhop
had given of them ; namely, that they held faft the
orthodox and apoftolick Dodrine, and kept them-
felves pure from Herefy : he admonifhes them to per-
fevere in the Catholick Faith, ufing all Caution againft
Hereticks, who at that time were cunningly fowing
their Tares in the Field of the Church. His Words
are thefe ; 'There are fome who are worn to bear about the
Name [of Chrijf\ deceitfully^ but aEl fuch things as are
unworthy of God. Such you ought to a'void as Beafls. For
they are mad Dogs, they bite privately. Tou ought to be^
ware of them, as being themfehes in a defperate State,
difficultly to be cur'd, [and therefore dangeroufly in-
fectious.] The celebrated Place concerning the two
Natures of Chrift is fubjoin'd ; There is one Phyjician,
carnal and fpiritual, made and unmade, God incarnate,
the true Life in Dmh, both of Mary and of God. Im-
mediately
116 TZ'^ JUDGMENT ^/
mediately follows : T'herefore let no Man deceive you,
i. e. in that great Truth explained to you in the
Words preceding, concerning the two Natures of
our Saviour. It is therefore very plain that the Here-
ticks noted by {a) Ignatius^ denied the apoftolical Doc-
trine of Chrift being God and Man ; and that the
apoftolical Man therefore cenfur'd them, as mad
Dogs, biting privately, and injeding the deadly Poi-
fon of their Doftrine into the Minds of Men, as Per-
fons to be entirely avoided by all who would confult
their own Salvation.
It is moreover obfervable, that after the holy Man
had faid thefe Hereticks were in the utmoft Danger of
their eternal Salvation, he gives this Reafon for thus
fpeaking, immediately : Vor there is one Phy/kianj car-
nal and fpiritual, &c. As if he fhould have faid,
there is no Salvation for Men, but through that one
Phyfician of Souls, Chrift, who is God and Man, and
the Mediator between God and Man : But thefe Men
will not allow, don't acknowledge any fuch Phyfi-
cian and Mediator; therefore their Salvation is defpe-
rate, unlefs they at length ferioufly repent of their
Herefy, embrace, and with all Devotion reverence
God the Son, incarnate and made Man for their Sal-
vation.
The fame Perfon afterwards, in the fame Epiftle,
again pronounces thefe Hereticks worfe than the
worft of Men i he affigns them and their Followers
to the Flames of Hell, and calls their Opinion a dia-
bolical Dodrine. Thefe are his Words : {b) Be not de-
ceived, my Brethren. They that defile the Houfe, [their
Bodies, by Adultery] fiall not inherit the Kingdom of
God. If then they who have done this in a carnal Senfe
[defilM their own Bodies, which are call'd the Tem-
ples of the Holy Ghoft, &c.'] are dead or perifb*d ;
how much more {hall he who corrupts the * Faith of Gody for
{a) Pag. 13. Vol. 2. Patr. Apoft. {h) P. 15.
* Archbijhop Uftier reads^ yhs Chttrchl ivhich preferves tie Anti-
which
the Catholick Church, (J-^. in
vihich Jefus Chrifi luas crucify dj by evil DoEirine. Such
an one is become defiVdy and jhall go into unquenchable
Fire, asfialialfo his Hearer. And a little after, (a) Be ye
not anointed with the ill Savour of the DoEirine of the
Prince oj this W'orld. He then propofes the Apoftolical
Faith, as oppofite to this evil diabolical Doftrine, in
thefe Words : Our God Jefus Chrifi was conceived by Mary,
according to the Difpofition of God, of the Seed of David,
and of the Holy Spirit. The mild Ignatius therefore
thunders againfl thefe Seducers and Seduced ; therefore
threatens them with eternal Fire, becaufe they endea-
voured to fubvert the chief Truth of the Chriftian
Religion [that great Myftery of Godhnefs, God
manifeft in the Flefh] of which every true Church, as
the Apollle tells us, (^b){hould be the Pillar and Bafts ; by
profefling it, defending it by her Teftimony, and pre-
ierving it by her preaching the Gofpel. There were
in the Times of Ignatius two forts of Hereticks who
attempted this Impiety, as contrary to one another, as
they both were to the Truth ^ the one attributing to
our Saviour a certain Divine Nature, abfolutely di-
verted him of the Human, affirming, that he only
imaginably liv'd, fuffer'd, and died among Men, as a
Man. Of this Herefy were the Simonians, Menandri"
ans^ SaturninianSj &c. all which the latter Ages there-
fore caird Doceta and Phantajiafia. The other, on the
Reverfe, only acknowledged an human Nature in
Chrift, namely, the Cerinthians and Ebionites. It is
not eafy to fay, whether is the more dangerous Herefy ;
though the latter indeed does plainly refled more
upon the Dignity of our Lord's Perfon. The
Learned agree, and it is in itfelf clear, that Ignatius
had an eye to them both, as well in other Parts of
his Epiftles, as in the Places cited. Whofoever (hall
read thefe PafTages, without Prejudice and Partiality,
can never furely be of Epifcopius*s mind, or believe
that the Dodrine concerning the true Divinity of our
C'*) p. itf. (6) I Tim, Chap. V. 15, i(J.
Lord
112 r^^JUDGMEN i' of
Lord Jefus Chrift, was not judg'd neceffary to be be-
liev'd, in order to Salvation in the primitive Church,
much lefs that fhe held Communion with thofe that
deny'd it, a thing Efifcopius has ventured to affirm.
Thus much for Ignatius.
2. We fhall prove the fame of Juflin in a more
proper Place, notwithftanding the UCe Epifcopius and
his Followers make of him, for want of Candour or
Skill.
3. In the mean time, let Irenaus fucceed Ignatius.
He, in his Youth, was a conftanc and a diligent
Hearer of Polycarp, a Difcipkofthe Apoflle {a}y fo that
in his old Age, he very well retained the Words and
Dodrine of that bleffed Man, and therefore could
eafily be informed byhim, what the Apoflolical Church
deem'd to be heretical. Now he, as well as Ignatius^
every where in his Writings rejeds thofe as Here-
ticks who denied Chrift to be God-Man, true God
and true Man, and pronounces them Aliens from the
faving Knowledge of Chrift. His Words concerning
the Ebionites and Cerimhians are very clear : (l^) But they
again ivlio fay he is barely Man, begotten of Jofeph, are
deady continuing in the Servitude of their former Difobe-
dience^ being not yet incorporate with the Word of God
the Father^ not through the Sun obtaining Liberty, as he
himfelf faith ; If the Son make you free, then are you
free indeed. Now not knowing him, who, born of the Vir^
gin, is God with us, they are deprived of his Gift, which
is eternal Life i and not receiving the incorruptible TVord,
they abide in the mortal Flefh^ and are obnoxious to Death,
not partaking of the enlivening Antidote. Here he charges
the Hereticks with two Errors, teaching that Chrift
is Man begotten of Man, not born of a pure Virgin ;
and that he is Man, and nothing elfe. Upon both
thefe Errors, he denies their Salvation, affirming
that they are dead, continuing in the Servitude of their
(^d) Eufeb. Eccl. Hift. Lib. 5. chap. 20.
Ih) Lib. 3. chap, 21. p. 28^.
former
the Catholick Church, ^c* 115
farmer Difobedience ,• that they dont obtain Liberty thro* the
Son ; that they are deprived of the Gift of Chrijl^ which
is eternal Life ; and lajily, are obnoxious to Death. Now
he therefore efpecially pronounces this dreadful Sen-
tence upon thenij becaufe they have not known Imma-
nuel, or God ivith us, becaufe they have not received
the incorruptible Word, refting in the mortal Flefh ;
i. e. becaufe they have not acknov^ledgM the Divine,
Incorruptible, and Immortal Nature of Chrift.
Parallel to thefe are his Words againfl: the Ebionites
in particular, (a) The Ebionites are fniflaken, not re^
cei'ving into their Souls the Union of God and Man by Faith*
And a little after, {b) Thefe therefore rejeSi the Mixture
of the Heavenly Wine, and ivill have the Earthly Water
only, not taking God into their (c) Cup. They reft in that
Adam, who was overcome and expell'd Paradife, not con-
Jidering that, as from the beginning of our Formation in
Adam, the Breath of Life, which was from God, united
to Matter, animated the Man, and exhibited the rational
Animal ; fo in the end, the Word of the Father, and the
Spirit oj God, united to the antiem Stibflance of our Forma-
tion, hath made the living and perfeci Man, To thefe,
add the Paflage oi Irenaus, cited by Theodoret ; (d) He
will ask the Ebionites, how can they be fav'd, except he
was God, who wrought the Salvation upon Earth ? Or how
fjall Man go to God, unlefs God come to Man ?
^.' (e) Tertullian affirms, that the Article concerning
the Generation of God the Son, from God the Fa-
ther, before Ages, is certainly part of that Rule of
Faith, which hath among Chrifiians no Queflions or Contro-
nierfies but what Here/tes introduce, and which make Here-
ticks. This Place I fhall cite at large hereafter , but be-
fides, I fhall in this Chapter, bring a remarkable
Teftimony for the Neceffity of this Article, from
Tertullian, as you'll find by and by.
{a) Lib. 5. chap. i. p. 455, (£) Ibid. (c) Commixtionem-
(</) Lib.4. chap. 59. p, 397. , (0 TertuU. p, 207,
Vol. IL H 5. To
114 ?i^ JUDGMENT/
5. To T'ertullian^ we muft join No'vatiaUy or the
Author of the Book concerning the Trinity in T'ertul-
Hans Works. In that Eook^ he condemns their Doc-
trine, as the moll dangerous Herefy, and contumeli-
ous to the Father himfelf, who deny the Divinity of
.Chrift, and fay he is a mere Man, or a Creature.
Thus he difcouries ; (a) For it is very dangerous to fay ,
that the Sa'viour of Alankind^ the Lord and Prince of the
ivhok World, to vjhom all things are given and granted by
the Father, by whom all things were defignd^ made, and
difps'd, the King of all Ages and Times, the Prince of all
Angels, before luhtm nothing was, except the Father f, to
fay that he is only Man, and to deny his Divine Authority
in thefe Things. This Contumely of the Hereticks, wiU
redound to God the Father alfo ; as though God the Father
could not beget himfelf a Son : But the Blindnefs of Hereticks
muft not prefer ibe to Truth. Again, the fame Perfon
exprefly teaches, that he can't be fav'd, who does not
own Chrift to be God : (b) IVhy then jfbould we fcruple
to fay, zvhat the Scripture does not fcruple ? IVhy fhould a
true Faith hefitate, where the Authority of Scripture is
clear ? Behold the Prophet Hofea fpeaking in the Perfon of
the Father -, Now I will not fave them by the Bow, or by
Horfemen, but I willfave them * by the Lord their God. If
God, fays he, faves by God, when hefaves no otherwife
than by Chrifl ', why then fhould Man doubt to call Chrift
God, whom he cbferves ftyled God by the Father in Scrip-
ture ? Nay, if Gcd the Father faves not but by God, and
no one can be fav'd by God the Father, unlefs he confefs
Chrift to be God, in whom and by whom the Father pro-
7m[es to give Salvation ; as whofoever acknowledges him ta
be God, fhall furely find Salvation in Chrift God ', fo who-
foever does not acknowledge him to be God, muft lofe that
(^) Pag. 713'
•f Ihefe Words of Novatian are expJaind in the Defence of the
Nicene Creed, Seft.5. chap. 8. $. 7.
(fc) Ibid. & 714.
* By tie Wtrd ef the Lord their God. So ]or\^tha.n s Targum i
arid the Fathers generally expour.d the Place of Chrlfi the Word and
Sen of God. See the Dcf. of the Nic. F. Seft. r. chap. i. feft. 19,
Saha-°
the Catholick Church, ^c, iif
Sahatim^ ixihich he cant any where elfe find but in Chril^
God. Lajlly, fpeaking of both the forts of Here-
ticks, thofe that fay the Father is the Son, and thofe
who deny the Son to be God, he truly and elegantly
fays, {a) That our Lord is indeed cruciffd, as it vjere^ he"
tiueen two 'Thie'ves, as he cnce was, and fo receives the fa"
crilegious Rejffroaches oj Hereticks en both fides.
6. I now come to Origen^ who, if any of the An-
cients, was a Free-thinker in Divinity, a Latitudina-
rian Father : But for all this, difcourfing profeffedly of
the neceffary Articles of Chriftian Faith, he exprefly
gives this concerning the Son's Divinity a Place
among the firft. The Paflage is a very remarkable
one, and therefore I'll give it you, though fomething
long. It is thus in the Apology ot Pnmphilus Martyr :
(h) Whereas there are many, tuho think they underfiand
Chri/iianity, and yet forne of them differ from their An-
ceflors I and whereas the DoSlrine of the Church is pc
fer'U*d, being delivered dovrnfrom the Apoftles by the Order
of SucceJJion, and remains in the Churches to this njery Time,
that only is to be believed true^ -which in nothing differs from
the Church's Tradition. Now ire mujl know that the holy
ApoJileSj "when they preached the Chrijlian Faith, treated
'Very plainly concerning fome Points ^ which they belie'v'd ne*
ceffary to Salvation for all Believers, though before thofe
who were not forward in their Search after divine Know-
ledge ; leaving the Reafon of their Affertions to be enquired
into by thofe, who Jhould be thought worthy to ' - .-'vefrom
the Spirit the excellent Gifts of the Spirit, a:ui efpecially the
Gifts of the Word of Wifdom and Knoii^ledge. Of other
Points, they vnly f aid, that they we-^-e, but faidnoth-nghow,
or whence they were ; that fo all thofe of their Po/lerity,
who were more fiudious than others, and Lovers of Kmw
ledge and Wifdom, might have Scope for the Exercife of
their Wit, namely, thofe who jhould make themfelves worthy
and capable of Wifdom. Now the Particulars, which
id) Pag. 7S8.
(i) Among Jerome'* fj^rife/, Tom. 9. p. 115, 11^, Ed. Vi^or.
H % were
ti6 r^^JUDGMENT ^/
'u:eYe fJa'mly treated in the Apofiolkal InfiruEiioUy are thefe.
Firft, 'That there is one God^ ivho made and composed all
things, and ivho made them out of nothing, &c. That
this God, as he had promifed before by his Prophets^
fent the Lord Jefus Chrifi in the lafl Days, &c.
'Then that this 'Jefus Chrifi, who came, "was born of
the Father, before every Creature. That he, luhen he had
miniflerd to the Father in the Creation of ail things (for
by him were all things made) emptying himfelf in the lafi
Days, "Was made Man : Was incarnate ^ tho* God ; and re-
main d God, tho' made Man. In thefe Words Origen fays,
that the Dodrine of the Son's Divinity was part of
the Ecclefiaftical Inftrudion delivered by the Apoftles
themfelves, and always preferv'd in the Churches ;
and whereas the Apoftolical Doctrine was of diffe-
rent Kinds, he places this Article among thofe,
which they treated of very plainly, as being neceffary
for all, even the more rude and ignorant Believers.
In the fame Apology {a) is cited Origen s Book upon
the Epiftle to Titus. In this Book, upon thefe Words,
An Heretick rejeSi after the third Ad?mnitiDn, he comments
thus: The Name of Herefy, as far as I can find, is
thus alfo mark'd out in the Epiftle to the Corinthians.
For there miifl be Hereftes, that thofe who are approved
may be made manifefi among you. And again to the
Galatians, Herefy is reckoned among the WorJ(s of
the Flefh : Now the Works of the Flefh are manifefi^
which are thefe. Fornication, Uncle annefs, Wantonnefs,
Idolatry, Witchcraft, Enmity, Contentions, Emulations,
Wrath, Strife, Difcord, Henfes, ^c. of which I ha'ue
told you before, that they who do fuch things, fhall not in-
herit the Kingdom of God. By thefe Words we un-
derftand, that as they who are defil'd by Fornication,
Uncleannefs, and the Worfhip of Idols, fhall not in-
herit the Kingdom of God ; fo neither fhall they
who are gone off to Herefy. Wherefore, according
to the Apoftle, we muft as well avoid the Imputation
{a) Pag. 117.
the Catholick Church, ^c* i 17
of Herefy, as the other Evils enumerated by him,
and not fo much as join in Prayers with fuch Perfons.
A httle after, Origen fhews who are to be accounted
Hereticks, in thefe Words : Let us defcribe as well
as "we can ivhat an Heretick is. Every one luho pro^
fejfes to believe in Chrifl, and yet fays there is one
God of the La'vJ and the Prophets, and another of
the Gofpels, &c. ' Our Opinion mufl be the fame
concerning thofe who have any falfe Notions of our
Lord yefus Chrifl, whether according to them, who
fay he was born of Jofeph and Mary, fuch are the
Ebionites and (a) Valentinians; or according to them
who deny him to be the Fir fi- born, the God of the
whole Creation, the Word, and Wifdom, which is
the Beginning of the Ways of God, begotten before
any thing was made, before the Foundation of the
Worlds, before all the Hills ; and who fay that he is
only Man. Sure nothing can be clearer than thefg
Words.
7. Dionyfius, the famous Bifliop of Rome, who
flourifh'd not long after Origen, in his Epiftle againit
the Sabellians, cited by Athanajlus, calls the Dodrine
of the Holy Trinity, the mofl venerable DoBrine of the-
Church of God, which no one was in the leaft to vio-
late. He charges thofe alfo, who dar'd affirm thac
the Son of God was a Creature, and fomeching made,
not only with Herefy, but the greateft Blafphemy :
Jt is then, fays (f) he, no ordinary Blafphemy, nay the
greatefl, to fay the Lord was in any refpeSi made ; for if
the Son was made, there was a 'Time when he was not, but
he always was. It is certain then, that in the Days of
Dionyfius, the Church of Rome, then truly the moft
honourable of all Churches, thought the Article of
the Son's eternal Generation abfolutely neceifary to be
believ'd j and did not hold Communion with thofe
who did not acknowledge Chrifl; to be God, but af-
firmed he was a Creature.
{a) See Huetius upon Origeni' s Comment, p. 120^
fb) Tomi prim, pars prim. p. 231, 252.
H 3 8. U
iiS 27^^ JUDGMENT^/
8. It would be endlefs to lay before you all the
Teftimonies of the Fathers to this purpofe ; wherefore
to what has been alledgM, I will only add this general
Obfervation, namely, that in the firft Ages there was .
a very great Controverfy between the 'Jeins and Chri-
ftians, concerning the Perfon of Chrift, whether he was
to be God and Man, as the Prophets had foretold, or
only mere Man. The Jews and fome Judaiz>ing Chri-
ftians affirmed the latter, and objefted the Gentile Po-
lytheifm to thofe who aflerted the Divinity of Chrift :
The former, all the Catholick Chriftians ftrenuoufly
defended, as the Ground of their Faith and Salvation,
fo as to efteem thofe Aliens from the Church of Chrift,
and Renegadoes to the Synagogue, who, tho* found in
all other refpefts, denyM this Point. It feem'd in-
deed the very fame thing to them to deny Jefus to be
the Chrift, as to deny him to be God.
9. When yujiin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho,
endeavoured to fhew, that Chrift foretold by the Pro-
phets was God, and was to be born Man of a Virgin,
Trypho objefls thus : (a) It does not only feem flrange
tojne^ but abfurd, that you JImild fay, this Chrifl was God,
and pve-exifled before Ages j then condefcended to be born,
being 7nade Man, and that he was not Man of Man, To
which yuflin replies: / know this matter feems flrange^
and efpecially to the Men of your Nation, vjho are neither
willing to tinder (land, or do the things of Gody but thofe of
pur own ATafterSy as God himfelf complains. Origen (b)
blames his Epicurean, that in perfonating a Jew he had
not obfervM decorum, but put into his mouth. Words
that did not agree with his Charader, namely thefe:
My Prophet formerly prophefy'd in Jerufalem, that the Son
of God would come a 'Judge of the Pious, and an Avenger
ef the Injuft, He then gives the Reafon of this Repre-
henfion : (c) A Jew ivould not have confefs*d that any
Pyophetfaidj the Son of God would come. For what they
(/t) See the <whoh PaJJags at Ipge hereafter, (h), Origen agakfi
Celfus, p. 38. COlbid. -• . '
the Catholick Church, ^c» iig
fay J is J that the Chrift of God will come. And they often
difpute with us direEily concerning the Son of God^ as tho*
there was no fuch P erf on nor aity fuch Prophecy. He again
(a) upbraids Celfus with the fame thing : Nor does he
know thiSjthat the Jews don tat all fay, that Chrift will de^
fcend^ or come into the IVorld^ as being Godj or the Son of God.
lo. 'Tertulian writes (b) more appofite to this Ob-
fervation : Now the Jewifh Faith is thiSj fo to believe one
Gody as not to own bejtdes him the Son, and bejides the Son
the Spirit. For otherwife, what difference would there be
between them and us ? What need of the Gofpel^ which is the
Subfiance of the New "Tefiament, and determines, that the
Law and the Prophets are till John ; unlefs from that 'Time
the three. Father^ Son and Spirit believed [on by us~\ ex"
hibite to us one God? God was pleas' d to renew the Cove^
nant with us, as that he Jhould now a-new be believed one
by the Son and Spirit ; as that God fhould now be openly
known in his proper Names and Perfons^ who antiently
being preached by the Son and Spirit^ was not tmderflood.
Let the Anti-Chrifts then look to it, who deny the Father
and the Son, &c. But what Novatian fays (c) upon
that Place of St. John, {flho 1 tefiify of my f elf , my Tejii-
mony is true^ becaufe I know whence I came, and zuhither I
go. But ye know not whence I come, nor whither I go,
Te judge according to the Fleflo] is moft to the purpofe,
and very good : Behold here he fays, that he will re-
turn thither, whence he fays he came before ', He was fent
from Heaven. He defended then lohence he caine, as he
goes thither, whence he defended. Wherefore, if Chrifl had
only been a Man, he had not come thence (d) ; but by coming
from whence Man cant come, hejhews himfelf to have been
God, who came. Now the Jews, ignorant and not appriTj^d
(f this his Defcent, made thefe Men their Heirs in the Hc'
Yefy ; to whom it is faid, Tou know not whence I come, nor
^d) P. 162, {h) P. 518. (0 Novatian. c. 23.
{d) Thefe Words are omitted in the BiJi3op''s Citation? And confe-
quently had not gone thither, becaufe he did not come from
thence«
H 4 whither
120 7'beJVDGMENT of
whither I go: Tou judge according to the Fkjh. "The Jews,
as well as they^ held onl^ the Carnal Nativity ofChriJi^ and
believed Chrifi to be nothing elfe but Man i not conjideringy
that, as Man could not come from Heaven ^ fo as to challenge
a Return thither^ he muft be God^ who defended thence^
whence Man could not come.
11. In this refpeft the Author (whoever he was) of
the Epiftle to Hero the Deacon, afcribed to Ignatius^
is worthy Notice, becaufe he condemns their Herefy,
who deny the Divinity of Chrift, as a Jewijh Impiety
and Blafphemy. Thefe are his Words : (a) If any one
fays the Lord is a mere Man, he is a Jew, a Murderer of
Chrifi. The fame Author, probably, has Words much
to the fame purpofe in the Epiftle to the Antiochians,
where he exhorts them (b) to throw off all Jewifh and
Gentile Error ; and neither to introduce a multitude of
Gods, nor under the pretence of one God to deny Chrifi. And
a little after he adds : Whofoever then preaches one only
God, f as to defiroy the Divinity of Chrifi, (c) is the Devi\
and an Ene77iy of all Righteov fiefs.
12. Laftly the great ^^/;<^«^y/z/; has (according to
cuftom) excellently exprefsM the Senfe of the Primi-
tive Catholick Church in this Point : The fews, fays
{_d) he, have a great deal to fay againfi Idolaters, and
jufily, accuflng them of Worfiyipping the Creature bejides the
Creator. But tho* they blame this Impiety, they are not
therefore Pious ^ when they deny the Son of God, by whom all
things rcere made, and charge us with Polytheifmfor lVor~
fi)ipping the Father by him. We therefore came out of, and
are feparate from the Gentiles, that we might not be enga-
ged in their impure Idolatries ', and we alfo are come out of
the Blafphemy of the Jews, conf effing the Son of God. A
little after: (e) IVe differ from the ]\x6.2i\itts, who cor^
Yupt Chrifiianity with Judaifm, and denying him who is
God of God, affirm, ' as the Jews do, that there is one Godi
{a) Tom. 2. P. A. p. 1 14. (^> Ibid. p. lop, and no. (c) Oy it
Calumniator, as the old Verjion feems to render Fiiius DiaboH*
(^) Tom. Sec. p. 37. (0 Ibid.
the Catholick Church, ^c. \1\
not therefore faying that he is the only God, as he is only
unbegotten, only the Fountain of the Deity j but as being "with'
out a Son, a living Word and JVifdom. What follows in
Athanajius is very well worth readings namely, what
he [Excellent Man] fays from ver. i . of Chap, i . of St.
John, and from Reafon, to prove it impoflible God
fhould be rightly conceiv'd One in the Senfe of the
'Je'udSy and 'Judaiz.ing Hereticks, i. e. that he fhould only
be one Perfon i whereas it is neceflary, that God,
who is an eternal Mind, fhould have in and with him
his Word, not fuch as the Human, but a Living and
Subfifting Word, and therefore a Perfon : and as this
Word is from God the Father, therefore a Divine Per-
fon diftind from, the Father; and yet becaufe the
Word is in the Father, and the Father's Word, there-
fore one God with the Father. But thefe things be-
long to another Head.
13. Before I conclude this Head, it may be ufeful
to take a tranfient View of the "Jews Notion concern-
ing their Meffiah. Now, it is obfervabie, that their
Prophets, have in many Places plainly fignify'd, that
the Meffiah was to be God and Man together, as is
largely (hewn by (a) 'Juflin Martyr &mon^t\\Q Anutms,
The Noble and Learned (b) Du Pleffis hath fully prov-
ed, that the more underftanding part of the Hebrew
Doctors were not altogether ignorant of it. However,
it is certain that the generality of the ]fe%vsj even in
our Saviour's time, had but a mean and low Notion
of their Meffiah, thinking him to be no more than a
Man. Thus we read (c) the Holy Jefus caught the
captious 3^6xuj by this Queftion ; IVh at think you of
Chrifi ? IVhofe Son is he ? For when they anfwer*d ;
T'he Son of David, (for they expeded a Meffiah^ who
fhould be merely the Son oi David, not dreaming of
the Son of God) our Saviour urgM them with this
(/) See the "Dlahgue ivith Trypho. (}) Of the tr^s Chvlfmn Reli-
^iorijQh.zdf {c) Matt, Ch,2.z. V. 42.
furti
ler
122 !rz^^ JUDGMENT^/
further difficult Queflion, How then doth David hy
the Spirit call him Lord^ f'^y^^&i I'he Lord faid unto my
Lord? If then David call him Lord, how Is he his Son?
This graveird the Pharifees^ which, upon Tuppofition
that they had a Notion of Chrift's Divinity, would
have been eafily anfwer'd. They might have faid,
that Chrift indeed was to be the Son of David accor-
ding to the Flefhj but his Lord, with refped to his
Divine Nature,
This Notion of the Jews had its Original doubtlefs
from their grofs and carnal Conceptions of the Meffiah.
They expec^ted he fhould be a glorious King, Rich
and Powerful, fo as to exalt their Sceptre and Nation
above all the Empires of the World i that he fhould
fubdue all the Enemies of his People, and having laid
the Emprefs of the Earth, haughty Rome^ in Ruins,
fhould advance Jerufakm to herMetropolitical Dignity.
What occafion had fuch a Mej'fiah for Divinity ? All
thefe things a Cyrus^ an Alexander^ or a Cafar, with
the Divine Providence, might have accomplifliM : Not
to fay, that fuch an Earthly Kingdom would have been
abfolutely unworthy of God. No wonder then, if the
Jews thus thinking of their MeJJlahj never acknowledged
his Divine Nature.
14. But that there are, or ever were Men of fuch
Notions among the Chriilians, who have been clearly
taught in the Gofpel things much more Holy and Sub-
lime of their Chrift, is exceeding (Irange indeed. To
fay nothing of thofe Places in the Old Teftament,
which immediately refped his Divinity, in which he
is proclaimed the Son of God, and God before Ages,
by whom all things were made (Places fo many and fo
plain, that he piuft be wilfully blind, who does not
fee them) even thofe Places, which fpeak of the CEco-
nomy, which relate to his Office or Honour, as he is
our Mefff ah and Mediator^ they certainly fpeak of fome-
thing more than a Man, or a Creature. His (Economy
neceflarily fuppofes, and pven determines his Divinity,
For the Holy Scriptures preach to us, and we profefs
to
the Catholick Church, ^c» 125
to believe them, fuch a Chrift, as is the Saviour of our
Souls, as is to us Wifdom, Juftice, Sanctification and
Redemption, /. e. as makes us Wife, Juft, Holy and at
laft perfedly BleiTed i as immediately hears the Prayers
of thofe who every where call upon his Holy Name, and
therefore is every where, knows all things, even the
Heart j as is always with his Church difperfed over the
World, and fo protefts and defends it with his Al-
mighty Power, as that neither the Powers of the Earth,
nor the Gates of Hell fliall prevail againft it ', as is of
equal Majefty with God the Father, and to be adored
with Divine Worfhip, not only by us humble Mortals,
but by Angels, Arch- Angels, and all the Super-celeftial
World,* as, laftly, fhall come in the end of the World,
fhiningin the brighteft Glory, and guarded with Mi"
niftring Angels, to judge the World, to bring into o-
pen light, not only the Deeds of all Men, but the
Secrets of their Hearts, to banifh his Enemies into
Hell, and to beftow upon his Servants not Riches, or
Honours, or Earthly Pleafures, but Heavenly Glory,
and eternal Life. Are thefe things compatible with
mere Man, or any Creature ? I muft fay, he that
thinks fo, fcts himfelf not only againft Faith, but Rea-
fon alfo.
This by way of Digreffion. To return ; I fuppofe
I have confuted the rafli Aflertion of Epifcopius^ by
fufficient Teftimonies of the Antients: I therefore
proceed to the fecond Head, (.a)
(a) See the femarkahle FaJJage of St. Cypvian to the fame purpofe
Vfith the other 4ntkm cited in this Chapter^ Def. N, C, SeS.s. Ch.io,
6, 2,
HAP.
124 !ra^ JUDGMENT^/
C H A P. II.
Of thofo who 171 the Firft Age of Chriftiamtf
oppofed the 'Do^ririe of the Gofpcl, concern-
ing ChnfTs being God and Majz.
E come now to Ecclefiaflical Hiftory, which
whofoever will confult, muft wonder, I doubt
not, with what face Epfcopius could affirm, That in
the Primitive Churches, from the Apoftles times, for
three entire Centuries, the Faith and Profefjion of this
fpecial Manner ofjefus Chrift's Filiation (in which he is
defined the Son of God, and God before all Ages) vjas
not judged necejfary to Salvation. For nothing can be
more repugnant to ail Church-Hiftory. In order to
make this clear, I muft repeat that Caution I gave in
the Beginning of this Diflertation, namely, that the
Primitive Church could not by any other better way
declare her Judgment, concerning the Neceffity of
Believing any Article of our Religion, than by Excom-
municating thofe who deny'd it. The Anathema of
the Church, as TevtuUian fpeaks, was formerly held by
all Chriftians, j^r the great eft Prefumption of the future
Judgment. And thus the Perfons Excommunicate,
thofe whom the Church had thrown out of her Pale,
till they repented, and defired the Peace of theChurch,
were efteemed out of the State of Salvation, accord-
ing to that old Saying, Out of the Church no Salvation.
This indeed Epifcopius by ftating this Queftion, \_lVhe-
ther that fifth Manner of the Filiation of Jefus Chriji be
necejfary to he known and believed to Salvation, and whether
they who deny it, are liai^le to Excommunication'] plainly
confeffes ; namely, that to excommunicate any Perfon
for denying any Dodrinc, is the fame, as to judge and
pronounce that Dodrine necelTary to be known and
Relieved to Sslyation. If then the Primitive Churches
ex=
the Catholick Church, fyc> 125
excommunicated thofe, who denied this fifth Manner
of Chrift's Filiation ; then, according to E^ifcopius him-
felf, they are to be thought the Aflertei^s of that Man-
ner, as necelTary to Salvation. But it is very plain
from Church-Hillory, that for the three firfl; Centuries,
no one deny*d that Manner of Chrift's Filiation, in
which he was God, begotten of God before all Ages,
who was not anathematized, and excluded the Com-
munion of the Church, as a Foreigner, an Alien from
Chrift's Body, unlefs he fpeedily retraced and con-
demned his Herefy. Therefore, &c, which was the
Thing to be demonftrated.
2. Cerinthus and Ehion^ who lived in the Days of the
Apoftles, were the Firft who difturb'd the Church
with this Herefy. This only difference there was be-
twixt their refpedive Opinions, concerning the Lord
Jefus, That Cerinthus feparated Jefus from Chrift, and
made Jefus a mere Man, the Son of ^ofeph and Mary^
into whom Chrift defcended from above after his
Baptifm, and retired from him at his Paffion, and re-
turned to his Pleroma, or Complement j but Ebion
(for we fhall fhew this to be the Name of a Man
hereafter, notwithftanding the contrary Sentiment of
fome learned Men) affirmed, that Jefus and Chrift
was the fame, the Son of Jofeph and Mary, and from
the Beginning to the End of his Life only mere Man-
This difference we learn from Lenaus : (a) One Ce-
rinthus an Afiatick taught^ that the World was not
made by the Supreme God, but by a Power feparate and
njery diftant from that Principality which is over all, and
ignorant of that God who is over all. He added, that Jefus
was not born of a Virgin (for thatfeernd impojjibk to hint)
but that he was the Son of Jofeph and Mary, like other Men;
and excelled all others in Jufiice, Prudence and Wifdom ;
that Chrifi after his Baptifm defcended into him in thefjape
of a Dove, from that Principality, which is over all ; that
he then preached the unknown Father , worked Miracles ^ and
,(<t) Lib. T. Ch. 25. pag. ii6,
at
3c6 2"^^ JUDGMENT ^/
nt lafl flew back from ^efus ; that Jefus fufferd and rofe
iigain, but that Chrijl remain* d impaffible^ being Spiritual,
Again he thus fpeaks of the Ebionites; (a) T'hofe that
are called Ebionites are unanimous y that the World was
made by God, and differ alfo from Cerinthus and Carpo-
cvates concerning ou'- Lord. Here if we follow the re-
ceived Reading, Irenaus plainly makes two differences
between the Tenets of Cerinthus aiid Ebion, one con-
cerning the Creation of the World, or God the
Creator, and another concerning our Lord Jefus.
Cerinthus would have it, that the World was not
made by the Supreme God, but fome inferior Power i
but the Ebionites confefled, that the World was made
by God, the Supreme Principle of all Things. Again,
Cerinthus taught, that Chrift (I know not who) de-
fcended from that Supreme Principality, which is a-
bove the Creator of the World, into Jefus for a Time,
after his Baptifm ; but the Ebionites own no fuch Prin-
cipality, nor any Chrifl who came into Jefus from that
Principality. But if you'll alter the Reading, and with
a very (b) learned Man put [Conjimi liter inflead of Non-
fimiliter'] then the Senfe of Jrenmis will be, that the £-
bionites thus far agreed with Cerinthus, as to teach, that
Jefus was a mere Man born of jfofeph and Mary (as
Irenaus alfo teflifies in other Places cited by us) tho
they rejeded that other Fidlon concerning a certain
Chrifl. And indeed how could they receive that
Fancy of a Chrifl defcending into Jefus from the Prin-
cipality, which is above the Creator of the World,
who taught that the World was created by the fu-
preme God ? This Tertuliian alfo exprefly teflifies in
thefe Words : Ebion fucceeded Cerinthus, though not in
all refpeBs concurring with him, in that he fays the World
was made by God, not by Angels. Thus Irenaus and 'Tev"
tullian concerning the firfl Ebionites. Afterwards there
arofe two forts of Ebionites^ one who denied both the
(d) V.ii-j. Ch.25. Lib. I. (i) B']^c/i Pearfon, Vind. Ignat,
pare 2. C. 2. p.351. E^. P. Ap. Vol. 2,
Divinity
the Catholick Church, ^c* 127
Divinity of our Lord, and his Nativity of the Vir-
gin i another who, though they denied Chrift to be
God, confefsM, as the Catholicks do, that he was
conceiv'd by the Holy Ghoft, and born of the Virgin
Mary. Of thefe we fhall fpeak hereafter.
3. Now, as for the common Tenet of Ebion and
Cerinthus, namely. That our Saviour Jefus was a mere
Man, not the true Son of God, born of God the
Father before all Ages,* how execrable it feem'd to the
Apoftolical and the next fucceeding Church; how^
the Teachers of it were efleem*d Aliens from the
Church of Chrift, and confequently from Salvation
by Chrift, in the firft Ages ,• i have clearly fliew'd al-
ready, from the Writings of Ignatius and henaus.
To them I mud add what (a) 'Jerome gives us from
the Monuments of the Antients, That the Apoftle
St. John wrote his Gofpel upon the Requeft of the
Aftan Bijhops^ againft Cerinthus and other Hereticks,
and efpecially againft the rifing Doctrine of the Ebio-
nites^ who allerted, that Chrift was not before Mary.
As for Cerinthus, Irenaus agrees with Jerome, where he
exprefly {b) writes, that the Apoftle St. jf^^jw intended
by his Gofpel to root out the Error which Cerinthus
had propagated. Hence we may gather, that the
Bifhops of AJia, namely, of thofe Parts where Cerin-
thus and Ebion firft taught, as foon as they had found
that thofe Hereticks had broke in upon, or rather
crept into their Churches^ immediately calling a Coun-
cil, as it became good Shepherds, againft the De-
vourers of Chrift*s Flock (as Eufebius (c) fpeaks con-
cerning the Synod of Antioch, aflembled againft Paul
of Samofata) met together, and mutually entring into
Meafures for the fpeedy Suppreffion of the growing
Hereftes, immediately implorM the Aid and Affiftance
of the Apoftle St. John, then alive, who, upon that
occafion, as well as to fupply the Defeds of the for-
{a) Catalogus Scriptor. Ecclef. in Joann. (h) Lib. 5. cap. ir.
mer
128 2".^^ JUDGMENT ^/
mer Evangelifts, wrote his Gofpel ; in the beginning
of which, by his Apoftolical Authority, he checked
the Madnefs of Cerimhus, Ebion, and other Hereticks,
(as Irenaus fays in the Place Jaft cited) and made up
the Canon of Trutii, which afterwards prevail'd in
the Church.
4. And indeed, whofoever, but indifferently skill'd
in the Herefiology of the firll: Age, fhall attentively
read the beginning of St. Johns Gofpel, muft imme-
diately perceive that the Apoftle particularly mark'd
out all thofe Hereticks, and by his Apoftolical Power
confuted their impious Tenets. He allerts the Divine
Nature of our Lord againft Cerinthus and Ebion, v. i.
In the beginning tons the Word, and the Vl^ord was ivith
God J and the IVord was God. The Word was in the
Beginning, much more then, behrc J of eph and Mary ;
and it was God, therefore not only mere Man. The
Evangelifl has an Eye to the Dodrine of Cerimhus,
and other Hereticks, concerning the Creation of the
World, ver. 3 . All things were made by him, [the Word.]
Thofe Hereticks faid, as we have before obferv^d,
that this World was made by inferior Powers, far re-
moved from, altogether foreign to, and unaffifted by
the fupreme God. On the other hand, the Evange-
lifl teaches, that all things were made by the Word, which
was with God, and was God. In the fame Verfe, he
adds againft the fame Hereticks, And without him was
nothing made that was made. Whofoever does not at-
tend to the Apoftle^s Defign, can fee nothing in thefe
Words but vain Tautology. Now thofe Hereticks,
(as Grotius has well obferv'd) would have It, that there
was one Maker of this vifible World, but that there
were other Makers of the invifible things, and that
each Pleroma, or Complement, had its own Maker.
St. John therefore fays, that every thing which
was made, was made by the Word. The Evangelift
plainly aims at thefe fame Hereticks again, ver. 10, &
II. He was in thelVorld, and the IVorld was made by
him, and the IVovld knew him not. He came to his oiun,
and
tfoe ^-ATHOLiCK Church, ^c 129
md his own received him not. It was the known Opinion
of Cerimhus and all the other Hereticks, who diftin-
giiifli'd betwixt the fupreme God, and the Maker of
this World, that our Saviour Chrift came into this
World from the fupreme Principality, as into the^
Creation of another, with this Intent, that he mighc
redeem Man from the Dominion and Slavery of the
Maker of the World, into 1 know not what Liberty,
or rather Licentioufnefs. In oppofition to thefe Men^
the Apollle teaches, that the Word or Son of God,
our Saviour, came down from his Father into this
World, as into his own Houfe and Creation, with this
Defign, as it prefently follows, ver. 12, & 13. That he
might alTert thofe who received him, into the true Li-
berty and Adoption of the Sons of God ; tho' ungrate-
ful Man, for the generality, did not acknowledge him
as their Creator and Redeemer. Vm fully perfuaded,
this was the true and genuine Serife of the Apoftle in
thofe Words. Thus alfo (a) Iretiaus underftood them,
where he makes this Note: According to Marcion, and
the Men of his Strain, (namely, Cerinthuf, and the other
Forerunners of Marcion, whom (/O Tertullian calls the
early and abortive Marcionites) the World ivas nor made
by him, nor did lie co?ne to his own, but another's. Thus,
he fays, (c) that St. ^ohn, in the beginning of his
Gofpei, does manifeftly fhew to all that will hear, i. e.
that, have Ears, that there is one God the Father
over all, and one Word of God, who is through all,
by whom all things were made ; that this World is
properly his, and made by him at the Will of the
Father, and not by Angels, nor by Apoftacy, De-
fedion, or Ignorance, &c. Further, the Apoftle
teaches againft the Simonians, Satmninians, and the
other Doceta, that the Word or Son of God was reaiiy
incarnate, and made Man j 1;. 14. T^he Word was made
{a) Lib. 5. chap. it. p. 257. See alfo Novatian, chap. 14.
{F) Lib. 5, chap. §.p. 401, (c) Lib. 5. chap. 18. p. 463.
VoL.n. I F/#,
i|o 77:^^ JUDGMENT^/
Tlejhy and dwelt among us, and we beheld his Glory ^ as
of the only begotten of the Father^ &c. Nay, in this
one Sentence, he hath concluded all the Herecicks of
his Age ; for, as Irenaus has truly faid in the Place
often cited before, none of the Hereticks thought
that the Word was made Flefh. All the Hereticks
who had falfe Notions of the Perfon of Chrift (as we
have before obferv'd) may be divided into two Clafles :
One, of the Phantajtaflaj who plainly acknowledging
the Divinity in our Saviour, denied his human Na-
ture, fuppofing the Conjundion of the Human Na-
ture abfolutely unbecoming the Divine Majefty. Of
thefe Novatian writes excellently, (a) There are other
Hereticks fo rigid for the Divinity of Chrifi, as to fay that
he was not incarnate ^ as to take from him all that Humanity
•a'hich he took upon himfelf lefl they fhould dilute the Power
of the Divinity^ by joining to it (^as they fupposMj the
Human Nature, 'This we dont approve^ hut however ar-
gue from it J (b) That Chrifi was fo far God, that fome,
taking away his Humanity, thought him to be Only God.
On the other hand, another Clafs of Hereticks only
own'd the Human Nature in Chrift, namely, the C?-
rinthians and Ebionites. It is but too plain on both
fides, that it was denied that the Word was made
Flefh, that is, that Chrift was God and Man. Laftly,
The Herefy in common to Cerinthus and Ebion con-
cerning the Obfervation of the Mofaical Law, as ne-
cefTary to Salvation, is (as Grotius has obferv'dj tran-
fiently confuted by the Apoflle, ver. 17. The Law was
given by Mofes, but Grace and Truth by Jefus Chrifi.
5. Moreover, the holy Apoftle plainly cenfures the
fame Hereticks in his firft Epiftle alfo, and calls them
all by that one Name of Anti-Chrifls, as Irenaus, Ter-
tuUian, and others of the Antients have obfervM. The
beginning of the Epiftle exadly tallies with the begin-
ning of his Gofpel ; for in them both, the Divine lays
{a) Pa^e 718.
{b) So Tertullian agalnfi Marcion, Lib. 3. cap, §=.
Open
the Catholtck Church^ i^C'^ t^i
open and explains the great Myflery of GodlinefSi
God manifeft in the Flefh ; very pompoufly unfolding
both the Divinity and Oeconomy of our Saviour. We
have fhewn it in the Gofpel already ; now the Epiftle
begins thus : Ihat which was from the Beginnin^^ which
we have heard, which we havejeen with our Eyes, and our
Hands have handled of the Word of Lije, (for the Lifi
luas made manifefi, and we faw it^ and tefiify of it^
and tell unto you that eternal Life which was with the Fa-
ther, and was made manifefl to us) What we have
feen and heard, that do we relate to you, &c. Here
St. 'yohn affirms againft the Doceta, who denied thae
our Saviour was real Man, that he and the reft of the
Apoftles heard the Word of Life, or the enlivening
Word, and faw him with their Eyes, handled him
with their Hands : here he calls in all the proper
Senfes to give Teftimony of his Incarnation. -Againft
thofe who affirmed the Lord Jefus to be meer Man,
the Apoftle teaches that the Word was from the Be-
ginning, namely, of the Creation, and therefore did
not begin to exift when born of Mary. Againft the
fame Perfons he aflferts in like manner, that the Life,
the eternal Life, the Word, was firft with the Father,
with God I but afterwards, having taken upon him
Flefh, was made manifeft to Men. This is the plain,
clear Senfe of the Place ; and thus, as {a) T'ertullian
tells us, it was received in the primitive Church s
But that novel Interpretation of theirs, who expound
the [Word of Life] by the Gofpel, or Dodrine of
Life immortal, is indeed very abfurd. To fay no
more againft it, what pretty Senfe is this, that the
Apoftles not only heard the Gofpel, but faw it with
their very Eyes, and handled it with their Hands ?
The Great Man C^) Dionyfius Alexandrinus hath for-
merly obferv'd the Agreement of the beginning of
St. Johns Gofpel with that of this firft Epiftle of his,
(a) Pag. 508 and 509. ■
(^) Eufeb. E. H. p. 224, &c. Lib. 7. chap. 25.
la in
132 fT/^^ JUDGMENT of
in thefe Words: 'The Go/pel and the Epiftle anfwer each
ether ^ and begin alike : The one fays. In the Beginning vjas
the Word ; the other, That which uas from the Beginning :
The one, The Word was made Fle/hj and dwelt among us,
and we beheld his Glory ^ as of the Only-begotten of the Fa-
then The other has the fame thing, in fomewhat
other Words, What we have heard, what we have
feen with €uy Eyes ; what we have feen, and our
Hands have handled, of the Word of Life; and the
Life was made manifeft. For he * premifes thefe
things, intending them, (as he fliows afterwards) againft
thofe who denied that Chrift was come in the Flefh.
Upon this account he adds, And what we have feen,
v:e tefiify, and preach unto you that eternal Life which was
"With the Father, and was made manifefl to us. What we
have feen and heard, we preach unto you. Here he inffts^
and recedes not from what he had propounded.
6. In the fecond Chapter of the fame Epiflle, after
the Apoftle had told the Faithful that there were then
many Anti-chrifts, and that they came forth from the
Bafom of vhe Church, ver. i8, and ip, (now he calls
the Hereticks who fpread falfe and impious Doftrines
concerning the Perfon of Chrift, Anti-Chrifts) he
paints fome of them in their proper Colours, ver. 22,
and 23. Who ii a Lyar, hut he that denies that J ef us is
the Chrifi ? This is Anti-Chrijl, who denies the Father and
the Son ; Every one that denies the Son, hath not the Fa-
ther. Among the Hereticks of the firft Age, there
•were fome, who falfly took upon them the Chriftian
Name, (which may feem ftrange) and yet denied Je-
fus to be the Chrift. Thus the Cerinthians, as we
fhew'd in the beginning of this Chapter, from Irenaus,
feparated Tefus from Chrift, and taught that Jefus
was one, and Chrift another. Hence (a) Epiphanius,
upon the Cerimhian Herefy, exprefly teftifies that they
taught that Jefus was not the Chrift. Thefe Words
* / couU not think it necejfary to peferve the mu^cal AUnJfon in the
fiords Ufoa.va.y.pt'eTCH & l^if-ieAws.
{a) HsrefissS. /
the Catholick Church, ^c^ ijj'
©f St. jfo/j». Who is a Lyar^ but he that denies that Jefus
is the Chrifi? were direded againft thefe Hereticks ; as
alfo thofe other Words, chap. 5. ver. i. Every one that
belie'ves Jefus if the Chrift^ is horn of God. Thus that
beft Interpreter of St. John^ (I?) Irenaus teaches us ', and
indeed you can no where find any other, to whom
they are more fuitable. For it is very plain, from the
Context, that the Apoftle does not fpeak of the pro'-
fefs'd Enemies of our ReHgion, who denied Jefus to
be the Chrift foretold by the Prophets, and faid we
were to expedt another ; but of the falfe Prophets and
Deceivers, under the Mask of Chriftianity. The fol-
lowing Words of the Apoftle [^his is Anti-Cbrifl^ he
that denies the Father and the Son. Every one, who denies
the Sony hath not the Father'] manifeftly ftrike at the-
common Herefy of Cerinthus and Ebion. Both of them
abfolutely denied that Jefus was the true Son of God,
born of God the Father before Mary, and even before
the Creation ; and therefore, by the Apoftle's Judg-
ment, did not really confefs God the Father ; beOaufe
fince the Gofpel was revealed, no Man can believe in
and worfnip God the Father as he ought, but he who
alfo holds God the Son.
7. Again, in the fourth Chapter of this Epiftle, ver u
the Apoftle guards the Chriftians againft the Hereticks
of his time, in thefe Words : Beloved, believe not every
Spirit, but try the Spirits^ whether they are cf God ; for
many falfe Prophets are gone out into the World. In the
Verfes following, ver. 2, and 3, he propofes two
Marks, by which thefe falfe Prophets may be known,
one of which plainly belongs to the Doceta, the other
to the Cerinthians and Ebionites : By this know ye the
Spirit of Godj every Spirit that confejfes that Jefus Chrifl
is come in the Flejh, is of God ; but every Spirit that con-
fejfes not that Jefus Chrift is come in the Flefh, is not of
God : "This is the Spirit cf Anti-Chrift, which ye have
heard jhould come into the IVorld, and which is now in the
Qd) Lib. 3. chap, iS. p. 278,
I 3 World,
T J4 'I'^elXJD G M E N T ^/
World. Upon which Place of the Apoftle, we have a
very credible Interpreter^ namely Polycarp^ the Difciple
of Sc. JohKy Y/ho, in his Epiftle to the Philippians^
cites the latter part or it, and exprefly expounds it,
not of the open Enemies of Chriftianity, who denied
that Jefus was the true MeiBah, becaufe he was come
in the Flefh, i. e. in an humble Condition, (as Gro-
tins miftakes the Apofde ;) but of the Hereticks, who
profefs'd Chriftianity. For after that the Apoftolical
Man had exhorted the Philippians to ferve Jefus Chrift
^vith all Fear and Reverence, he adds immediately ;
(^a) Being Folkvjers of that which is goody keeping off from Ofr-
fenceSy and falfe Brethreny and hypocritical Profejfors of
' Chrifiianity y who deceive vain Men j For every one^ who
does not confefs that Jefus Chrifl is come in the Flejhy is
\Anti-Chrifi ; and whofoever does not confefs the 'Tefiimony ov
Martyrdom of the Crofs, is of the Devil. Therefore
they were falfe Brethren, and Pretenders to the Name
of Chrift, who denied that Jefus Chrift was come in
the Flefli. This alfo is very plain from the Defign
of the Apoftle, who gives the Marks and Tokens, by
which the Faithful might diftinguifh falfe Prophets
from orthodox Teachers. What need of Tokens to
diftinguifh the open and profefs'd Enemies of Chri-
fiianity ? But who thofe Hereticks were, who, pro-
feffing Chriftianity, denied that Jefus Chrift was come
in the Flefh, we have feveral times told you ; namely,
Menandery Saturninus, and the other Docetay (whofe
Herefy Marcion revived, when Polycarp wrote thefe
things) abfolutely denied that our Lord was come
into this World in human Flefh, or really fufferM and
V'as crucify 'd ; and even (as Polycarp fpeaks) in no
wife confefs 'd the Martyrdom of the Crofs.
8. This Herefy (/>) Ignatiusy the other Difciple and
Acquaintance of St. JohUy every where confutes iq
his Epiftles, efpecially in that to the Smyrneans, which
{a) Vol. 2. P. A. p. 1 85 and i8j»
C^) Pag. 36. Vol. 2. RAp,
I?
the Catholick Church, cJ'A 135
is almoft wholly leveird againft this pernicious Doc-
trine. What^ fays he, {hall any one profit me, who praifes
me, and blafphemes my Lord, not conjeffwg him incarnate.
Whojoever does not ajfert this, perfecily denies him, and is
in a State of Death. Here every one may fee that this
of Ignatius, not to confefs the Lord incarnate, is alto-
gether the fame with that of St. 'John, not to confefs
that Jefus Chrift is come in the Flefih. A little be-
fore, in the fame Epiftle, Ignatius (a) had thus ex-
plained the Herefy of the Doceta, as oppofite to the
Catholick Dodrine : But he truly fuffer'd, and really
raised himf elf, not as fome Infidels fay, only fuffer' din Jp^-
pearance, themfehes only being [Chrifi:ians'\ in Appearance^
The Senfe is, that they who teach that our Lord was
only made Man, and only fuffer'd in Appearance, are
themfelves only to be accounted Chriftians in Ap-
pearance. Afterwards he refutes thofe fantaftical
Hereticks, from the remarkable Hiftory of Jefus,
fhewing his Body, and fuffering the Wounds upon it
to be handled by his Difciples, after his Refurredion,
and efpecially by T'homas. Upon this Hiftory, he
makes this Remark : (b) Straightly they touched him, and
being convinc'd by his Flefh and Spirit, i. e. convinc'd by
that Experiment, they believ'd our Lord to be true
Man and true God. For Spirit^ as we have fhewn
before, in Chrift, denotes among the Writers of the
firft Age the divine Nature of Chrift, efpecially
where it is oppofed to Flefh. Ignatius here manifeftly
alludes to Thomas's Confeffion, who, upon feeing and
handling the Wounds of Chrift, broke out into thefe
Words, My Lord and my God ! A little after, (c) the
holy Man calls them Brutes in the Shape of Men,
meaning, that; they who taught contrary to the plain
Truth, that our Lord was only Man in Appearance,
were not worthy to be thought reafonable Men, but
Brutes in human Shape. Laftly, he obferves (d) of
them, that they wholly abftain'd from the Lord's
C^) Pag. 34- C^^ P- 34,. & 35- (^) ?• 3^- i^) P- 37-
I 4 Supper,
156 r/^^ JUDGMENT (?/
Supper, as noc confeffing that the Eucharifl was the
Fiefh of OUT Saviour Jefus Chrift, who fuffer'd for
our Sins ; that is, they did not believe our Lord to
have been true Man, and really to have fuffer'd upon
the Crofs, (which Poljcarp exprefles, to confefs the
Martyrdom of the Crofs) and therefore they would
not celebrate the Memory of his Pafliou. Thefe
plain Teftimonies of the two Difciples of St. John,
don't fufier us to doubt, whether the Falfe Prophets
and Anti-Chrifts, faid by the Apoftle to have denied
that Chrift came in the Flefh, vvere any other than
Menander, Saturnimis^ Bajilides^ and the other Phan-
tallicals of the nrft Age. Moreover, after Ignatius
and Poljcaypy Irenam, T^eviullian, and almoft all the
Antients near the Apoflolical Age, have obferv'd,
that the Apollle, in this place, intended to cenfure
thofe Men, '
p. To proceed with our Apoftle, after fome things
in the fame Chapter, he charadenzes another Herefy
concerning the Perfon of Chrift, contrary to that of
the Doceta, wr. 1 5 . Whofoever fiali confefs that Jefus is
the Son of Gody God dvjel/eth in him, and he in God,
The oppoftte Member, exprefsM in the former Obfer-
vation, is underftood here : But whofoever ftiall net
confefs that Jefus is the Son of God, God dwelleth
not in him, nor he in God. Now it is not to be
doubted, but that the Apoftle demands in thefe
Words the Conleflion of that Son of God, whom he
had before preach'd in this Epiftle in part, and whom
Fie more fully declares in his Gofpel, namely, of the
Son of God, who is the Word ot God the Father,
'who vjof in the Beginning, ijuas vjith God^ and was God,
by whom all things were made, &c. By thefe Characters,
the Adverfaries with whom we have now to do, deny
not that the true and proper Son of God, born of
God the Father, ' before all Ages, is denoted 3 nay, it
is clear to all who will fee, when they may. But Ce-
rintikus did' "Qt confefs oiir Jefus to be fu^h ^ Son of
God, nor Ebion after himj both of them teaching,
that
the Catholick Church, ^c» 137
that Jefus was a mere Man, not exifiing before Mary -,
both of them therefore, in the Apoftle's Judgment, were
Aliens from God. Now becaufe Cerinthianifm was
then the moft growing Herefy, the Apoflle every
■where urges, inculcates, and commends that Faith,
by which we beheve Jefus to be the Son of God (a).
Thefe Tokens, given in the fecond and fourth
Chapter of this Epiftle, were iufficient for the Faith-
ful of the Apoflolical Age to difcover all who were
Heterodox concerning the Perfon of our Saviour.
This is the Sum of them, That every Teacher, who
confcfs'd that one Jefus Chrift, the true Son of God,
was really made Man for Man's Salvation, was of
God, (namely, with refped to that Doclrine, as EJiius
well obferves) but on the other hand, that whoever
does not confefs this, is to be deemed a Falfe Prophet,
and an Anti-Chrift. But the Apoftle chiefly infifts
upon thefe Tokens to mark out Hereticks, who de-
nied our Saviour to be true God, or true Man. Thus
^ertulljan (I?) : [_'yohn] does efpecialiy call thofe Anti-
Chrifis in his Epiftle, who denied that Chrifl ivas come in
the Flejh, ami "who did not think that 'Jefus ivas the Son of
God: Marcion icas of that Opinion , (and hefore hiitty
Menander, Saturninus, and others ;) Ebion 'u:as of that
'Opinion alfo. I have been the longer upon this, be-
caufe it may hence appear not only from the Monu-
ments of the moft antient Fathers, but from the Apo-
flolical Writings, that there were feme in the Age of
the Apoftles, who denied the Divinity of our Lord,
and who were upon that account efteemM by the
Apoftles Hereticks, and even Anti-Chrifts, (far from
Brethren, and true Members of the Church.) Fur-
ther, it is hence very plain, that as the Dodrine of
our Lord's Incarnation, his being truly God, and
truly Man, was varioufly opposM by various Here-
ticks; fo it was ^:he moft ftudioufly guarded and pre-
ta) Cap: 3. ver, 23, 5. ver. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20. {b) P. 214.
'fov'd
i^S r^^ JUDGMENT^?/
ferv'd by all true Paftors of the Church, as the
Ground and Perfedion of the Chriftian Faith,
lo, I fhould here have concluded what I defign'd
concerning the Hereticks of the firft Age, who de-
nied our Lord's Divinity, namely, the Cerinthians and
Ebionites^ but that I can't pafs over the flrange Com-
ment of an (a) impious Author, upon the Ebionites : for
if what he ftrenuoufly contends to prove, be true,
there is no occafion to aflert the Neceflity, or even
defend the Truth of our Lord's Divinity ; and the
Ebicnites, at leaft thofe of latter Date, were fo far from
being Hereticks, that we muft efteem them the only
faithful Keepers of the Apoftolical Dodrine and Tradi-
tion concerning Chrift. He boldly affirms, that the
Ehionites (who confefs'd Chrift born of the Virgin, but
denied him to be God) were no other than the Naz,a-
renes, or the firft and moft antientChriftians of Jerufa-
lem, who, after they had received the Faith of Chrift,
retained the Obfervation of the Law, and religioufly
preferv'd the Doctrine of our Saviour's mere Hu-
manity, which, forfooth ! ' they had been taught by
the Apoftles j their Church continuing to the Times of
Adrian, by whom they were driven out of their own
Country, call'd in Contempt Ehionites, and accounted
Hereticks by the reft of the Chriftians. The vain
Man pleafes himfelf mightily with this Device, and
greatly glories in it, as a Tradition far more antient
and certain than all the Traditions of the Catholicks
concerning the Son's Divinity.
1 1. From what we have faid before, it is plain this
is an abominable impudent Fidion. For to fay no-
thing of the Scripture cited by us, what Apoftolical
"Writer ever heard of it ? Which of them has not given
in his Teftim.ony to the contrary ? And how eafily is
this boafted Tradition to be refuted from Ecclefiafti-
cal Hiftory? Eufebius (h) exprefly witnelTeth, that
he had learn'd from the Antients, that all the fifteen
{a) Zuicker, in his Irenicum Irenicqrum. C^) Lib. 4,
chap. 5. P' 95.
Bifhops
the Catholtck Church, ^c> 1^9
Bifhops who prefided over the Church of Jerufalem till
the Times of Adrian^ held the Knowledge of Chrift
pure and fincere : I could no where find how long thofe Bi^
Jloops fat in particular^ who prefided over Jerufalem. Jt is
faid they all fat but a fJoort 'time. But this I have learn d
from the Antiem Monuments, that till the Time of the Siege
tinder Adrian, there were fifteen in a continued Succefjion,
aU of them originally Yi^htG^NS, and who had received the
genuine Knowledge of Chrifi. Now Eufehius would never
have faid this of them, if he had been informed by the
Antiencs, that they were Ebionites i a fort of Men,
which he charges with Impiety, for denying Chrift to
be God the Word before Ages, and pronounces to be
brought under the Power of the Devil. For thus he
writes concerning both forts of the Ebionites: (a) But
ethers, whom the malignant Spirit could not abfolutely move
from the Chriftian Religion, finding their weak-fide, he hath
brought under his own Power. I'hefe the Antients called
Ebionites, becaufe they thought meanly and lowly of Chrift.
\they faid he was a mere common Man, and nothing elfe,
was juflified by a Proficiency in Virtue, and begotten of
Mary, as other Men are. Moreover, they held the Obfer-
wation of the Law to be abfolutely necejfary, as tho Salva-
tion was not to be obtained by the Faith of Chrift only, and
a Life led according to it. "There was another fort under
the fame Name, who rejeEled the abfurd Notion of their
Predeceffors, and did not deny that Chrift was begotten of the
Virgin by the Holy Spirit ; but thefe alfo were engaged in the
Impiety of thofe before them, not confejfing his Pre-exiftence
(IS God the Word and PVifdom, and alfo efpecially being e-
qually z,ealous Followers of the Corporeal Worfhip of the Law.
Surely from thefe two Places of (b) Eufebius collated,
it is very clear that the later Ebionites (whom Nice-
phorus calls the Lefs) were in two refpeds different
from the firft Chriftians o'i 'Jerufalem. (i.) They had
impious Notions of Chrift, not confefting him to be
God, the Word and Wifdom, and to have fubfifted
ia) Ia\>. 3. chap. 27. p, 79. (h) EccL Hift.Lib, 13. chap. 13.
before
HO 21^^ JUDGMENT^/
before the Nativity of his Flefhj but the firft Chrifti*
ans of 'Jerufakm embraced the genuine Knowledge of
Chrift. (2.) They infifted upon the Mofakal Rites, as
abfolutely neceflary to be obferved, and denied that
the Faith of Chrift was fufficient without them. This
Eufebius exprefly obferves of the former Ebionites^ and
alfo affirms of the later, that they as well as the other
were Admirers of the Mofakal Law ; and even in this
plainly fignifies, that fome part of their Impiety
confifted. The Senfe of Eiifebius is plainly this, that
zhoit Ebionites had added to their former deadly Error,
in which they denied Chrift to be God, that other
pernicious one, of the Neceffity of Mofes's Law, and
therefore were upon two accounts impious, and out
of the Means of Salvation. But though the Chriftians
of jemfakm obferved Circumcifion, and other Mo-^
/^zf^/ Rites, (according to that Concefiion the Apo-'
ftles made to tlieir Infirmity) Eufebius never charges
them with Impiety for it j becaufe they both had a
right Notion of Chrift, and did not require the Mo-
fakal Obfervations at the hands of the Gentile Chri-
ftians. Indeed, if they had done this, they had plainly
oppofed the Decree of the Council of Jeyufaie?nj in
which Ja7neij the firft Bifhop of that See, prefided.
There is no doubt but that Eufekms thought thofe Chri?
{iians o^ Jenifalem culpable, thofe efpecially who lived
after the Deftrudion of the Temple by T^tus, in that
they did not at length perceive that the Ritual VVorr
fhip, prefcribM by Mofes, was entirely abolifh'd : But
he therefore praifes them, becaufe they did not ob-
trude thofe legal Rites they obferv*d, upon other
Chriftians ; and that in all other refpeds, efpecially
with regard to that part of it which concerns the Per-
fon of our Lord Chrift, they fincerely held the Ca-
tholick Faith.
J 2. Sulpkius Severus, a very grave Hiftorian, con-
firms and illuftrates this Teftimony of Eufebius cour
cerning the primitive Church of Jerufaletn, and her
Birtiops, in thefe Words: Becaufe the. Chriftians imys
thci:g'>}t
if/^^ Gatholick Church, ^c* i4i
thought for the mo fi part Jews (for then the Church of Je*
rufaiem had no Bifiop, but mjho was of the CircumcJ/ion)
Adrian ordered a Band of Soldiers to keep perpetual Watch ^
and hinder all the Jews from coming to Jerufalem. 'This
indeed ivas of good ufe to Chrifiianity^ becaufe then almofi
all kliez'd Chriji to be God, and obfervd ths Law. For
it was ordered by Chrifi, that the Servitude of the Laiu
flmild be taken away by the Liberty of Faith and the Church,
Here the Words [almofi all] are ufed, becaufe there
were then at Jerufalem (a) Gentiles, who embrac'd the
Faith, although tewer than the Jews, who believ'd
Chrift to be God, without obferving the Law.
Now, what Eufebius reports from the Antients of
the Chriftians at Jerufalem, who were of the Cir-
cumcilion, namely, that they had received the genuine
Faith and Knowledge of Chrift ; the fame, but a
little more clearly, Sulpicius affirms here, when he
,teftifies that they believ'd Chrift to be God. Ncthing
can be more clear. Wherefore, if they who were
called Naz,arenes, were the Pofterity and Offspring
of the Chriftians of Jerufalem, who were of the Cir-
cumcifion, (as moft learned Men think iJ and if they
did really (as the Author of the Irenicum fays) take
Chrift to be a mere Man, we muft conclude, that
they had gone off from the Faith of their Anceftors.
1.3. But we have very good Authority for faying,
that the Nax.arenes alfo had more fublime Notions of
Chrift. Philaflrius does not charge them with any
Herefy concerning the Perfon of Chrift ; and Aufiin^
in his Book of Herefies, {b) after he had fpoke of the
Cerinthians, who taught that Men fliould be circum-
cifed, and that fuch other Precepts ought to be ob-
ferv'd, that Jefus was only a Man, &c. thus explains
the renets of the Naz>arenes and Ebionites (c) : T'he
Nazarenes, though they confefs Chrifi to be the Son of
God, (and in that refped diffent from the Cerimhians,
who held that he was only Man) yet obfirve all the old
(<«) Chrift Uns in the Em-perors T^otiom
{b) Cap. 8. CO 9 6w 10,
Lavi
142 27^^ J U D G M E N T ^/
Lavi (in this agreeing with the Cerimhians) •which the
Chriftians had learnt not to obferve carnally from Apofiolkal
Tradition, but to underftand fpiritually. "The Ebionite$
(juft as the Cerimhians) alfo faid that Chrifl zvas
only Man ; they obferve the carnal Precepts of the
Law^ &c. Here it is manifeft (notwithftanding this
Author's Cavils) that Aufiin intended in this to di-
ftinguiftl the Naz,arenes from the Cerimhians and EbiO"
nites ; that the Naz^arenes did not confefs him to be
Man only, as the Cerimhians and Ebionites, but the
Son of God, and fo God. Befides, it is weli known
what Auftin meant by confeffing Chrifl to be the Son
of God; for he own'd no other Son of God than
that, which was begotten of God the Father, before
all Ages. Moreover, there is alfo a very plain Tefti-
mony of Jerome's, where he thus writes concerning
Cerinthus, Ebion, and the Naz,arenes (a): If this be
true, ive are fallen into the Herefy of Cerinthus and Ebion,
lu/jo believing in Chrifl, luere for this alone anathematizJ' d
by the Fathers ; 'That they mix'd the legal Ceremonies vjith
the Chrijlian Gofpel, and fo held the new, as not to let go
the old. But ivhy do Ifpeak of the Ebionites, -who only
■pretend themfehes Chrifiians ? Even to this Day, in all the
Synagogues of the Eaft, there is an Herefy call* d the M-hiX],
commonly the Nazarenes, who believe in Chrifl; the Son of
God, born of the Virgin Mary, and fay it is he whofuffer'd
under Pontius Pilate, and rofe again, in whom we believe.
But whilfi they would both be Jews and Chrifiians, they are
neither. In which Words, Jerome agrees with Auflin,
and exprefly fays, that they believM in that Son of
God, in which we believe : fo that he owns no diffe-
rence between the Naz.arenes and the Catholicks in
this Dodrine of the Son of God. That this was
Jerome's Meaning, will yet be more plain, from his
Defign in the Place cited. There was a Controverfy
between Jerome and Auftin, upon the Words of
St. Paul y^-rvi Te?cra:rof 'axnm AVTknVi Whether he did in
(a) Ep. 89. ad Auguflin*
earneft
the Catkolicic Church, &c. 14^
carneft blame Peter, or whether the whole was fiftitious,
and tranfa^ted between them in a holy Diffimulation.
Auflin held the former, and that rightly : 'Jerome, from
the Confent of fome Greek Interpreters, defended the
latter, contrary to the plain Truth, rendering thefe
Words, K^To. rr^'ocmTnvj not to his Face,but in Appearance.
The chief Argument by which he defended his Opinion,
(into which he ingenuoufly confefTes that he fell by chance,
whilft in reading the Greek Commentaries, and trea-
furing up feveral things in his Mind, he call'd for his
Notary, and didated to him fometimes his own
Thoughts, fometimes another's, without Regard to
Order, Words, or Senfe) was thus : That Paul him-
felf fometimes judaiz'd, therefore could not juflly
charge Peter with what he himfelf was guilty of. To
this Auflin very well anfwer'd. That Paul did not
blame Peter for obferving the j^fxu//^^ Cufloms, in which
he was born and educated, though he did not ob-
ferve them among the Gentiles i but for impofing them
upon the Gentiles by his own Example, which Paul
never did. For the legal Ceremonies might be in-
dulged to the 'Jews for a Time, though they ought
not to be impofed upon the Gentiles. Jerome, not
willing to take this Anfwer, inveighs againft Auflin
in his oratorial manner, as though the Sum of his
Opinion had been, that even fince the Gofpel of Chrift,
the believing Jews might do well to keep the Precepts
of the Law, i. e. offer Sacrifice, &c. Againft this
Opinion, which indeed is not Auflin s^ he thus argues,
fighting with his own Shadow : If this be true, we are
fallen into the Herefy of Ebion and Cerinthus, who be-
lieving in Chrifly were for this only anathematit,' d by the
Fathers^ that they mix'd the legal Ceremonies with the Chri-
ftian Gofpel. In thefe Words, Jerome did not mean
chat Cerinthus and Ebion held no other Herefy, for
which they were anathematiz'd by the Fathers, (for
he could not but know, that Ebion was condemned by
the Antients for denying Chrift's Divinity, and that
Csrinihus, was expelled for the fame, and fome other
heretical
J44 72'^ J U D G M E N T <?/
heretical Tenets 0 but that if they had been in all
other refpefts Orthodox, this Error alone would hava
been fufficient Ground for an Anathema. Now being
fenfible that he might be callM to account for this,
by the Adverfary he had rais'd to himfelf, he recedes
from the Example of Ebion and Cerinthus, and puts
the whole of his Caufe upon another Example from
the Naz^arenes, which could not bear a Cavil. But
ivhy, fays he, do I fpeak of the Ebionites, ijjho pretend
themfehes Chrijiians? Even to this Day, through all the
Synagogues of the Eafi, &c. As if he fhould fay. As
to the Ebionites J perhaps you'll objeft, and I don't de-
ny it, that they had impious Notions concerning our
Lord Chrift, as though he was only a Man, therefore
though they feign'd themfeives fuch, they were not
to be accounted true Chriflians ; but with refpeft to
the Naz^arenes, no fuch thing can be pretended, they
were in all things Catholick, except the Obfen^ation'
of the Mofaical Law ; and yet for that, deem'd Here-
ticks by the Church. It is very plain, that this is
yerome's Meaning. Now no body could know the
Opinion of the Naz^arenes better than Jerome^ who
had ufed their Converfation, and had been favoured
by them with an Opportunity of copying the Hebrew
Gofpel of St. Matthew, as he himfelf tells us. (a)
14. To the Teftimonies brought already, I will add
two others, in which, though the Naz,arenes are not
particularly mentioned, they and their Opinion feem
to me to be manifellly declar'd : The former fhall be
that of a Writer, without doubt, much antientec
than any yet cited, Juftin Martyr, in his Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew; where T'rypho propofes fome
Queftions concerning the Obfervation of the Mofaical
Law to Jujiin*s Solution. The firft, concerning thofe
who liv'd under the Law before the Coming of Chrift,
is this : Shall they who liv'd according to the Laro of
Mofes, lii>e with Enoch, Noah, and Job, in the Refuv"^
(^a) De Scriptor. Eccl. in Match,
reBion I
the Catholick Church, ^c, 145
r^Uim ? To vvhich Jufiin anfwers (a) : In the Law of
Mofes, thofe Things -which are naturally excellent^ pious
atidju/iy are enaBed to i>e perform' d l^y the Obedient i and
alfo thofe things are found in itj which were commanded for
the hardnefs of the Peoples Hearts , which they alfo obferv'd,
luho were under the Law. IVherefore^ they who didfuch
things, as were univerfally, naturally, and perpetually good,
pleafed God, and by this Chrifi fhall befav*d in the Refur-
reSiion, as well as thofe their jufl and pious Anceflors
Enoch, Noah, Job, or any others ; together with thofe
"who acknowledge this Chrifi the Son of God, who ii)as before
Lucifer and the Moon ', and who being incarnate by a Vir"
gin of the Stock of David, condefcended to be born, that
by this Difpenfation the Serpent, malignant from the Begin^
fling, and the Angels, like him, might be fubdued. Death
wanquijlo*d, and might wholly ceafe from them at the fecond
Coming of Chrifi, who believe in him, and live as he would
have them, and then might be no more ; when fome fhall be
fent into the Condemnation and Punipment of eternal Fire ;
and others live together in a Freedom from fuffering, in In-*
corruptibility, in Indolence and Immortality. Of which
Anfwer this is the plain Meaning : That thofe, who
living under the Law of Mofes, both obfervM the
Rites impos'd upon them by God, and efpecially
faithfully obey'd the eternal Laws of Juftice -, as alfo
the pious Men who were before the Law, fhould ob-
tain eternal Life through the Grace of Chrift, toge-
ther with us Chriftians, although they had not thac
explicit Faith concerning Chrift, which is now required
of us. And that the explicit Faith requiiite to our
Salvation, under the Gofpel, is, to acknowledge Jefus
Chrift to be the Son of God, who was before Ages ;
and in theFuInefs of Time being incarnate, was made
Man of a Virgin, in order by that Difpenfation-, to
fubdue the Devil and Death ; who fliall come af^aim
in the End of the World to judge all Men, to puniih
she Wicked with eternal Fire, and exalt the Pious to
(4) Pag.253,8ea(J4,
Vol. IL jj the
1^6 r^^^ JUDGMENT^?/
the Kingdom of eternal Glory and Blifs. Here, by
the way, let the Reader obferve the Rule of Faith
concerning Chrift, given by ^uftin^ as neceflary to
Salvation, and lay it up in his Memory, to ferve him
upon occafion. After this, Trypho asks whether he
who embraced this Faith concerning Chrift, and re-
tained with it the Obfervation of the Mojaical Law,
could be fav*d ? But if^ fays he, Jome Perfons will Ji Hi
live in the Obfer-vation of the Mofaical i^xu, and yet be-
lieve in this crucify' d Jefus, civning him to be the very
^Chrifi (jj Gody (namely, what you, Jnftin, have juft
now defcribed him) and that the judgment of all things
is committed to him, and that his Kingdom is eternal (as
you have alfo aflerted) can thefe alfobe fav'd ? To this
Queftion before Juflin anfwers, he, in his turn, asks
Irypho fome things concerning thofe Rites which can,
or cannot be obferv'd finc.e the Deftruftion of the
Temple. After Trypho has difpatch'd thefe, he re-
peats his Quefllon, and again asks whether he who
holds the Faith in Chrift, above defcrib'd, and yet
will obferve thofe legal Rites, which can be obferved
now, may be fav'd ? To which Juflin at length an-
fwers, in thefe Words : It is my Opinion, Trypho, that
fuch an one (hall be fav'd, unlefs he nniverfally and
flrenuoufly contends to perfuade ethers, I mean thofe of the
Gentiles, v^ho have been circumcised from Error by Chrifl,
to obferve the fame things he does, and affirms they cant be
fav'd except they do fo. From thefe Words [It is my
Opinion] Trypho takes occafion to ask another Queftion t
Are there any then, who fay fuch Men foall not be fav'd ?
As if he ihould have faid, It feems ftrange to me,
that any Chriftian fhould deny them Salvation who
believe as they do in all other refpeds, for this Rea-
fon only, That they are tenacious of a Law made by
God. But Juflin anfwers : T'here are fuch, Trypho^
and thofe v:ho carry the Matter fo far, as that tJyey dare not
converfe or eat ivith them -, hit I am not of their mindi
They thought that after fo long and fo clear a Pro-
mulgation of Chrift's Gofpelj Mofes's Law was noc
only
the Catholtck Church, ^c- 147
only dead, but killing. Nor does 'Juflin deny it aE
all, but grants that fome of thefe 'Judaiz.ing Chrillians
may be faved, namely they only who through Infirmity
(as he fays afterwards) adhered to the Mofakal Rices.
Hence then it is clear, that there were ^eixis in Jufiins
time^ who mix'd the Catholick Faith of Chrift, name-
ly, that he was the Son of God, who exifted before all
Creatures, and at a certain time was incarnate for the
Salvation of Men, and was made Man of a Virgin,with
the Obfervation of the Ritual Law of Mofes ; but yet
would not impofe the neceffity of obferving this Law
upon the Gentile Chriftians. Who were thefe, I be-
feech you ? No other certainly than the lSlaz>arenes ^ or
Chriftians oi'Jeyufakm, who now in the Days o'i Juflin
had been driven out of their own Country by Adri-
an (a). Thefe things Juflin wrote concerning the
NaZjarenes ; for fome time after in. the fame Dialogue,
he tranfiently laflies the Tenet of the Ebionltes, as we
fhall ftiew hereafter, when we come to E^ifco^ius's
Arguments.
15. Another Teftimony I fhall fetch from the fixth
Book of the Apoflolical Infiitutionsj where the Author,
reckoning up the Hereticks who difturb'd the Apofto-
lical Church, in particular touches upon the Ceriu"
thians and Ebionites^ where he takes notice of thofe who
taught, that it was neceifary to be circumcis'd accor-
ding- to the Law, and to believe in Jefus Chrift, as aa
holy Man and a Prophet. Afterwards he explains the
Apoftolical Dodrine againft all the Hereticks, whofe
mad Tenets he had before mention'd. But in the end
of the Chapter, he expounds the Catholick Faith in
thefe Words, dirediy againft Cerimhus and EUon (h) :
fVe confefs Chrifi, mt a mere Man, but God the Word and
Man, the Mediator of God and Men, the High Priefl of
the Father ; neither are we circiimds^d, as the Jews are.
In the Chapter immediately following, (c) he has to
do with others, who thought the Rituals of Mofss were
{a) Vol. t P. A. p.339. ih) P. J40. if) P. 341.
K . tq
148 ri;^ JUDGMENT ^/
to be obferved by them. The Title of the Chapter Is,
Againfl them who confefs [ChriflU and yet ivill 'Judaiz.e,
i. e. Againft thofe who in all other things held the Ca-
tholick Faith explained in the Chapter before, and efpe-
cially that part of it which is in the laft Chapter,
namely, that Chrift is God and Man, but yet fo far
confented to the Je\m^ and departed from the Chrifti-
ans, as ftill to adhere to the ritual Law oiMofes. Now
who can doubt but that thefe, who confefs'd, and
would notwithflanding Judaize, were the very Naz^a-
renes. After this manner we before heard 'Jerome
teftifying concerning the Naz^arenes, that they con-
fefs'd the fame Son of God in whom we believe, but,
whereas they would be both Jevjs and Chriftians, they
were really neither : and indeed you will never find
any but the Naz^arenes, to whom Pfeudo- Clement's De-
fcription agrees.
16. The Teftimony of one Man, (a) T^heodoret, a
Writer of the later Age, affirming, that the Naz^arenes
only honoured Chrift as a juft Man, is of little weight
againft thefe fo many, and fo confiderable Teftimonies
of the Antients. As for (b) Epiphanius^ tho he joins
the NaTLurenes to the Cerinthians as Men of the fame
Sentiments, yet in the fame Herefy he ingenuoufly con-
feffes, that he had not found what opinion the JSlaz.a-
renes had of Chrift, namely, whether they held the Ce~
rinthian Impiety, or the Catholick Notion. For thus
he writes concerning them: Concerning Chri ft y I cannot
fay whether hurry*d en by the Impiety of the Cerinthians,
or Merinthians, they think him to be a mere Man ; or, as
the truth is, affirm that he was begotten of Mary by the
Holy Spririt. "Tis clear then that Epiphanius did not
know their Tenets. What he had inconfiderately faid
before, that the Opinions of the Cerinthians and Na-
T.arenes were alike, I'heodoret, who writes after him,
feems to have taken up, and from thence to have deli-
ver'd, that the Naz.aYenes as well as the Cerinthians
(w) Haeretic. Fab. Lib. 2, Cap. 2, {b) Hseref. 29. Cap. i.
honour'd
the Catholick Church, 6^. 149
Iionour*d Chrifl; only as a juft Man. Epiphanius indeed
writes, that the Naz^arenes and Ebionites laid their
heads together, and communicated to each other their
wicked Herefy. Nor is it unlikely indeed that the
latter Naz,arenes, a long time rejeded and defpisM by
the generality of Chriftians, contrafted a familiarity
with the Ebionites upon account of their common Sen-
timent concerning the Obfervation of the Mojaical
Rites, and from thence that fome of them were at
length polluted by their Herefy. Perhaps alfo the
Ebionites, call'd the Later, or the Lefs, who are not
mentioned by any one before Origen, might be of the
number of thefe degenerated Naz,arenes. But how-
ever, the plain Teftimonies juft now alledg'd by us
from the Antients put it out of all doubt, that there
were Naz^arenes long after the Siege of Jemfakm in
Adrians time, and at leaft down to the times of j^^-
rome and Auftin, who kept the Faith of the firft Na-
z^arenes, the primitive Chriftian Church of the Cir-
cumcifion at Jerufakm, entire ; namely, who believed
Chrift to be God, tho they obferv'd the Law.
17, From all thefe it appears fufficiently, how the
Author of the Irenicum does in vain fatigue himfelf in
colouring the execrable Herefy of the Ebionites^ and
in challenging it as the very Tenet delivered by the
Apoftles themfelves to the hrft Chriftians at yemfaJe?n,
namely, to t he Naz,arenes. It is not necefl'ary then
to contend much with this Sophift about the Name
EBION, and the Original of it. But yet, fince I find
fome learned Catholicks are of his Opinion in this
Point, fo as to deny that there ever was an Herefiarch,
whofe Name was Ebion ; and that the Name of Ebio-
inteswas antiently given to thofe Jewifh Chriftians, by
way of Reproach, who had a low and mean Opinion
of our Lord ; I fhall therefore fay fomething briefly
concerning this Matter. One of the moft antient He-
refiologers we now have, TertuUian ImesLi), ^xprefsly
fays in a place afore-cited, that there was once a Fel-
low of that Name, who thus far went along with Ce^
K z rinthus^
15Q T'be ]\JDGMENr of
yinthm, as to teach that our Lord was only Man. Phi"
lafirius, "Jerome and Epiphanius agree with T^enullian ;
fo alfo Ri'-ffinus and others {a). Nor does it fignify
any thing againft this, that the Word Ebion (as many
have obCerved) in the Hebrew denotes [poor]. For
from this you can conclude no more, than that the
Notion of Ebion concerning Chrift, correfponded to
his Name, Thus in the Sacred Scriptures, As his Name
is, fo is he ; his Name is Nabal, and Folly is with him.
The hke Allufions to the Names oF Herefiarchs fre-?
quently occur in Ecclefiaflical Hiftory. So Eufebius
(b) concerning the Manichees : Then alfo l^anes, or the
mad Man, of a Name worthy his dsvihfl) Herefy, attempted
the fubverfion of* Reafon ; the Devil himfelf\ that Oppofer
of God, Satan having produced him for the Deftruclion of
many. In Hke manner, Gregory Naz..ianz,en fpeaks of
(c) Anus : Arius, firnam'd fo from Fury^ dJfiurb'd and
corrupted a great part of the Church. Upon which place
Nicetas makes this Note ; Arius /ro»2 "Afn<, Mars, «
fvery turbulent and furious Damon. Hence his Followers
are by Athanaftus and others call'd Ariomanita. More
of this kind might be produced, if it were worth the
vhile. Epiphanius (d) plainly expounds and confirms
our Opinion, where he thus difcourfes concerning
Ebion s Name : Ebion, tranflated from Hebrew into
Greek, is uruxo^y 0'^ Poor in Englifh.) And ivell might
he be call'd poor in Underfianding, in Hope, and in Deed,
•who thought Chrift a mere Man, one who had hope in him
upon a poor ground of Faith. A little after he adds i
He was truly and naturally call'd Ebion, who by Prophecy,
I fuppofe, had the very Name of it, poor and miferable
Wretch, from his Parents.
1 8. Therefore they only were antiently call'd Ebio-
nites, who were the Difciples of the Herefiarch Ebion,
and embraced both his Tenets, that the Mofaical Law
(a) Hieron. adv. Luciferian. cap. 8. Epiphan. Hseref. 50.
-Raffin. in Symbol, prope finem. {h) Lib. 7. cap. 31. p. 2519
* hoyi(T(j.y, OftheDoBvlneconc&rn'TngtheAoy'Q-,
(0 DeArio. Orat. 20. (^) Haeref. %o. cap. 17*
mufl
the Catholick Church, ^c. ift
niuft be obferv'd, and that Chrift was a mere Man i
But afterwards we are taught by (a) Origen alone ^ that
about the middle of the third Century, thofe were
called Ebionites by fome, who held Chriftianity toge-
ther with the Obfervation of the Law : Some of the
Jews, ix)ho believe on ysfus^ don't for fake the Law of their
Fathers. They live according to it, and have gotten them'
fehes a Name fuit able to the Meannefs and Poverty of their
Lazo. For a poor Man is call' d 'Ebion by the Jews, and
they of the Jews vjho receive Jefus as the Chriji, are called
Ebionites. No body that I know of, except Origen, has
faid this. But ftill this may juftly be obferv'd from
this Paflage, that thofe who were then in that largec
Senfe call'd Ebionites, were not fo call'd, becaufe they,
like the firft EbiGnites, thofe properly fo nam'd, thought
lowly and meanly concerning Chrift, (for we have
provM that all the Jews who believ'd in Chrift, and,
obferv'd the Law, were not of that Opinion) but be-
caufe of the Poverty of the Law to which they adhe-
red, or becaufe (as St. Paul fpeaks) they yet valued,
and had in religious Efteem, thofe weak and beggarly
Elements. Now in another Place, {b) Origen fpeaks
concerning the Ebionites, in a ftrifter Senfe fo calfd,
thofe who own'd not the Divinity of Chrift, as of Per-
fons, who were indigent, or wanting as to the Faith
of Chrift. Thus much we have at large difcourfed
(for fo the nature of the thing required) concerning
the Hereticks, who deny'd the Divinity of our Lord
in the firft Century. What relates to the Hereticks
of the two following Ages, who defended the fame
impious Tenet, we fhall, by God's Pcrmifllon, diC-
patch with more brevity.
^d) Lib. 2. p. 55, (Jj) Comment, Ed. Huet. p. 427,42^*
K 4 CHAP.
1^2 T/Jf ]\J DGMUNT of
CHAR IIL
Of thofe who denfd Jefus Chrifl to he "True
God^ m the fecond and third Jges.
ABOUT the Year rpo^when Severus was Emperor,
Theodotus of Byz.ammm^ from his Trade call'd
Coriarius^ dar'd openly to affirm and defend the perni-
cious Tenet of the Ebionhes. Caius the Presbyter , or
fome other antient Writer, calls him (a) the Prince
and Father of the Atheiftical Apoftafy, who firft faid
that Chrifl was mere Man. I fuppofe he intended that
he was the firft among thofe who were purely Chrifti-
ans, Chriftians of the Gentiles ; for as much as the more
early AfTerters of this Blafphemy, generally defended
Judaifm under the Profeffion of Chriftianity, and were
rather to be accounted Members of the Synagogue
than the Church, Jews than Chriftians, or fomething
betwixt both. Hence the Ebionhes were by fome of
the Antients thrown into the Lift of Jewijh Herefies,
and diftinguifhed, as we fhail (hew hereafter, from
the Hereticks which arofe in the Chriftian Church.
'fertuHian (b) fays of this 'Theodotus , and his Herefy ;
Befdes thefe was one Theodotus 0/ Byzantium, wh be-
ing apprehended as a Chrijlian^ denied [his Profeffion] and
ever after blafphemed Chrifl. For he introduced the DoBrim
of his being purely Man, and denied his Divinity ; of his
being indeed born of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, but being
only and barely Man, in nothing fuperior to other Men, hut
only in Juftice. Epiphanius (c), Aufiin, and almoft aU
the Herefiologers, give the fame Account of him. Now
ia) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 5. cap. 28. p. Ijp. (h} Pag. 223?
(f) Haeref. 54. DeHgsref. Cap. 3$.
thi5
the Catholick Chukch, &c* 153
this impious Opiniator was anathematiz'd by ViBor
Bifliop of Romey as (d) Cairn teftifies.
2. I can't think it too much here to recite a re*
markable Story, which the fame Caius tells us in the
fame place, and which is very appolite to our prefenc
purpofe. J "will put many of our Brethren in mind of a
notable AEiion in our days -, what, if it had happened in
Sodom, would J I thinky have brought the Inhabitants of it
to repentance. 'There was one Natalis a C'jnfejfor, who liv^d
in theprefent Age, and not long ago. This Man, as it hap-
pened, was feduced by ACclepiodotus and another Theo"
dotus, a Siher-Smith, both of them Difcipks of that Theo-*
dotus the Qirrier, who wasfrfi excommunicated by Vidtot
then B/Jhop fas I faid before) for this Opinion, or rather
Madnefs. Thefe Perfons perfuaded Natalis to accept a Sa^
larj, and be made Bi/Jyop of the Herefy, or SeB. The Sum
they were to pay him^ was one hundred and fifty Denarii a
Month. Being now made one of them, he was often rebuked
by the Lord in Dreams. For our mofi merciful God and
Lord Jefus Chrijl would not that he fhould perifh out of the
Church, who had been a Confeffor of his Sufferings in it.
But when Natalis little regarded tf>efe Night-Vifions, being
captivated by the Honour of Precedency among them, and the
Dejire of filthy Lucre (which has deftroyd many) he was
at length beaten with IVhips, and much wounded by Saints
all the whole Night ; fo that he arofe asfoon as it was Light,
put on Sackcloth and Afhss, and immediately threw himfelf
with Tears at the Feet o/Zephyrinus the Bi/hop, profira-
ied himfelf not only to the Clergy, but the Laity ; affeBed
and mov'd the merciful Church of the merciful Saviour with
his weeping. Having ufed rmch imreaty, and/hew'd them
the Stripes of thofe Wounds he had received when a Con-
feffor, he was at lafl with difficulty admitted to Communion.
So hard was it for a Man, who had otherwife defer-
ved very well of Chriftianity, to recover the Peace of
the Church, after he had fall'n into that impious He-
lefy. As for the repeated Vifions, in which Chrift is
{d) In th place juji nciv cited frfm EufcbiuSa
faid
154 T^e JUDGMENT of
faid to have Ihew'd himfelf an AfTertor of his own
Majefty, and to have ehaftis'd the Madnefs of the
laps'd Confeflbr, no Man will eafily reject them, who
obferves that they are told by the very ConfefTor him-
felf, when a ferious Penitent for his very foul Lapfe,
before many Witneffes, to the moft of whom then li-
ving, the grave Author of this Story appeals ; and
who recollects that there are many Examples of fuch
Vifions, even in the moft authentick Writings of the
third Century. See the 'very learned Dodweirj Cypria-
nic Diflertations (e).
5. Not far from the beginning of the third Century,
there was one Artejnon, or Artemas^ an Enforcer of the
I'heodotian Herefy. Againft him and his Difciples,
Caius, or the antient Writer, above-cited, wrote a
learned Piece. In that the Author, as Eufehius (f) fays,
"writes exaftly thus of the Artemonites : 'they affirm that all
the Antients, and even the Apofiles themfehes^ receivd and
taught what they nozo ajfert ; that the true DoElrine was
frefer'v'd till the times of Victor the thirteenth B'ljJoop of
Rome /row Peter, but was adulterated in the time of his
Succejfor Zephyrinus. Now what they fay might feem true,
may be, unlefs the Holy Scriptures were againfl it in the firfi
place, and then the Books of certain Brethren more antient
than Vi(5tor, which they wrote in defence of the Truth, a--
gainfl the Gentiles, and the Hereticks of their own Age,
Such are Juftin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many
others, in all whofe M/ritings the Divinity of Chrift is main-
tain d. As for the Books of Irenseus, Melito, &c. in
which they have preached Chrift, as God and Man, they are
too well known to be ?nentioned. The (g) Pfalms alfo and
Songs of the Brethren wrote from the beginning by the Faith-
ful, do all celebrate Chrift as the Word of God, and afcribe
to him Divinity. Since then the DoElrine of the Church has
been preached fo many Tears ago, how is it that all Perfons
(e) Diflertation IV. uponEp. 8. (/) Eufeb. E, H. Lib. 5.
cap. 28. p. 158, 159. {g) 5?ePliny Ep. 97. Lib. 10. ^fid
ihe Ohfewations upon this place of Caius, in the Vsfence of- the N' C,
SeG. $. cap. 2. feO;, 5,
the Catholick Church, (^c, 155
hanje only promulg'd their DoEirins till Vidor'j Days ?
Where is their Mode fly to drefs upfuch a Calumny againfi
Vidor, when they know that Theodocus Coriarius, the
Author and Parent of that impious DefeEiion, andwhofirfi
ajjerted that Chrifl was mere Man, was excommunicated
for it by Vidor ? For if , as they fay, Victor approved
their Blafphemy, why did he remove the Author of it, Theo-
dotus, from the Church ? I have the more willingly
tranfcribed this entire and remarkable Fragment of the
learned Author, that all Perfons may fee the prodigi-
ous Impudence of the Irenicum, which calls the Arte'
monites, the moft creditable Evidences of Apoftolick
Tradition. For furely it is from hence clear, that
they flood convided of the moft flagrant Untruth in
this Pretence. Nay, I dare aflirm that this one Frag-
ment of our venerable Author rightly confider'd, is a
fufficient Confutation of all the fiflitious Stuff pack'd
up together by that Scribler. But what is moft to
our purpofe, it is alfo very clear that the Artemomtes
were thrown out of the Catholick Church, from the
Words of the Antiochian Fathers concerning Paulus Sa-
mofatemis then Anathematized : Thus they (a) fpeak
in their Sy nodical Epiftle, Let him write to Artemas
and let the Artemonites communicate with him.
4. In the fame (b) Age not long after, BeryUus the
Biriiop of Boflra overturning the Rule of the Church,
attempted to bring in certain DoSlrines different from the
Truth, prefuming to fay, that our Lord and Saviour did
not properly exifi before he came among Men, nor had a pro-
per Divinity, but only the Adminiftration of the Father's
committed to him. From thefe Words of Etifebius, one
may conjedure that he [BeryUus'] alluded to the Herefy
of Noetus, afterwards Sabellianifm. But 'Jerome has
faid no fuch thing of him. Til cite his Words pre-
fently. Now a great many Bifhops met in Council
againft him, with an intent, no doubt, to excommu-
{a) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 7. cap. 50. p. 250,
Q)) Eufeba E, H= Lib. 6. cap. 33. p. i88»
tiicgte
15^ !r^^ JUDGMENT 6/*
nicate him ,• but Origen being there, and convincing
him of his Error, hefubmitted to the Truth, and re-
turn d to the Amient found Sentiment. Thus alfo (a)
Jerome fpeaks of him : Beryllus the BifJoop of Boftra in
Arabia, after he had governed the Church glorioufly for
fome time, at laft falling into that Herefy, -which denies that
Chrifl zvas before his Incarnation, being fet right by Origen,
•wrote federal little Pieces, and efpecially Epifiles, in ivhich
he thanks Origen, &c.
J. About the (b) Year 260, the famous Paul, call'd
Samofatenus from his own Country, and from his See
Antiochenus, reviv'd the Herefy of the Artemonites. He
had a low and mean Opinion of Chrifl, contrary to the Do-
ctrine of the Church, as tho he was only a common Man by
Nature. Thus (c) Athanaftus writes of him : Paul of
Samofata confeffes God of the Virgin, God born in Naza-
reth, thence taking the beginning of his Exiflence, and of
his Kingdom ; he alfo confeffes the Word and Wifdom from
Heaven aSiive in him, which by Predeftination was before
Ages, but was only in Aci exhibited from Nazareth. Here
by the Word, which is in Chrift, P^w/underilood not
the Perfon of the Word, or Son of God ; for he
own'd no fuch Word : but a certain Divine Power,
by which he was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin,
and which ever after operated in him. Thus only did
he think that Chrift was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
(for he did not own any fuch thing as a Divine Per-
fon under that Name) and for this reafon did he be-
lieve that he was call'd God in Scripture. Auflin (d)
fays of the fame Paul and his. Followers : The Pauli-
ans, from Paulus Sam"^ofat. fay. That Chrifl was not al-
ivays, that he took his Beginning from his Birth of the Vir-
gin, and they think him nothing but a Man. This was
formerly the Herefy of one Artemon, but . retrieved in its
decay by Paulus. But let us hear the Fathers of the
Antiochian Synod, who certainly beft underftood PauVs
(a) De Script. Eccl. cap. 71. (^) Eufeb. Lib. 7. cap. 27.
p. 225. (c) Tom. J. Pars 2. p. 942? C^) DeHaeref. c.44.
Opinion.
the Catholick Church, ^c 1^7
Opinion. They in their (a) Symdkal Epiftle teftify,
that this Paul deny'd his God and Lord, i. e. deny'd
the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Chrift. A little
after in the fame Epiftle they fay, that he would not
with them confefs that the Son of God came down
from Heaven ; but faid that he was from below. Laft-
ly, in the fame place they exprefly call him a Perfon
who has abjur'd the Myftery, and gone in to the ex-
ecrable Herefy of Artemas. Paul then and Artemas a-
greed in their Notion of Chrift.
6. Some of the Antients fay, that Paul made his
Court to Zenobia^ a Jewefs (as (b) Athanafius fays)
but however much addided to 'Judaijm^ and then
Queen of the Eaft, by the defence of this '^emfly Blaf-
phemy. So {c) Chryfoflom and Theodoret. After fome
fuch fort the modern Defenders of Arian and Samofa-
tenian Principles with us, contend that the Dodrine
of Chrift the coeflential Son of the Father, and con-
fequently that of the Holy confubftantial Trinity,
Ihould be \v holly fupprefs'd in the Church, that ic
may not give any further hindrance to the Converfion
of the 'Turks and Jews (d). They would have us, for-
footh, not to be Chriftians indeed, that we may make
a fort of Chriftians of thofe Infidels.
7. There were two Synods of Bifhops aflembled a-
gainft this impious Man, at Antioch. In the former of
them indeed, under the (e) Emperor Gallienus^ about
the twelfth Year of his Reign, and the 255 th Year of
Chrift, the Sophifl deceived the Biflops by Pretences, and
efcap'd with impunity : But in the latter, a very nume-
rous Synod, under Aurelian about the Year 270, Mai-
chioij, a Presbyter, and a very learned Perfon, deceded
his Herefy plainly ; and then he was not only degraded
from the Epifcopal Dignity, but alfo entirely forbid-
den all Communion with the Catholick Church. Eu-
{a) Eufeb. Lib! 7. cap. ^o. p. 228. (b) Tom. i. Parsi.
p. 38^. (c) Homil, 8. in yoannern. Haeretic. Fab. Lib. 2.
cap, 8. {d) See the Anfwer toth? Queries^ p. 14. (e) Eufeb.
E. H. Lib. 7, cap. a?, & a8. p. zi<i, 6c 227,
febius
158 5ft^ JUDGMENT ^/
felfius (a) thus briefly gives us the Hiftory of thac
Synod : J12 the Times of this Emperor [Aurelian] a Synod
of very many Bifjpops was affembled -y in which this Here-
fiarch Paul, was conviBed at Antioch, and being by aU
found guilty of that jalfe Tenet, was excommunicated the
whole Catholick Chunh under Heaven. One Malchion, a
very eloquent Man, did chiefly confute and dif cover his fiudy'd
Subterfuges. It is worthy Obfervation, how vehe-
mently and how fliarply the holy Fathers inveigh
agalnft the Herefiarch, and his Herefy, in their Sy-
nodical Epiftle : (b) They call him a Man, who denied
his God, who receded from the Rule of Faith, i. e. was an
Apoftate, who fet himfelf in oppofltion to God. They call
his Opinion a deadly DoBrine, fuch a degree of Malice as
denied God, an execrable Herefy. Hence it is manifeft,
that the Great and Holy Synod, and confequently the
Catholick Church of that Age, thought the Dodrine
of our Lord's real Divinity abfolutely necefTary to
be known and believ'd in order to Salvation.
8. I remember not any other Perfon in the Eccle-
fiaftical Hiflory of the third Century, who, after this
Paul, oppos'd the Divinity of our Saviour, except
one Lucian, who was alfo excommunicated for it. (c)
9. Some of our modern Arians may here objed,
that all the Hereticks afore-mentionM denied that
Chrift was before Mary, which the Arians acknow-
ledge, yea, they confefs that he was before all Ages ;
therefore all that is urged, how much foever it may
concern the Socinians, does not all afieft the Arians :
but this is nothing to the purpofe. For it is plain
that the Hereticks afore-mention'd, were condemn'd
by the Church, for a Reafon common to them with
the Arians themfelves, namely, for denying that our
Saviour was God. Look back upon what has been
obferv'd ^n this Chapter concerning Theodotus, Arte-
mon, and Paul of Samofata, from the Antients, and
Qa) Chap. 2g. p.,227. (h) E. H. Eufeb. Lib. 7. chap. 30.
{c) See the Defence of the Nicene Creed, Seft, 2. chap. 1 5. fe£l. 8a
you'll
the Catholicic Church, ^^, 159
you'll fee that the Fathers place every one of their
Herefies in this i not that they made our Saviour a
Being lower in the Creation than he really was, buc
that they made him a mere Creature, and did not own
him as truly God. In a word, they were convided of
and condemn'd for a Herefy, that denied God, as
Cuius fays of Theodotus and Artemon^ and the Amicchiau
Fathers of Paul of Samofata. Now certainly the
Herefy of Arius was no lefs an Herefy that denied
God than theirs: nor was -the Difference betwixc
their Opinion and that of Arius fuch, as that the
Church could think the one tolerable, but the other
worthy the fevereft Cenfure. For by both of them
Chrift was determin'd to be a mere Man, only they
■were not agreed upon the Time when he began to
be fo.
JO. This notwithftanding we muft add, which we
have elfewhere obfervM, that the very principal Te-
nets of Arius, namely, of the Produdlion of the
Word before Ages, but yet from fome Beginning,
and of the Diftance of his Eflfence from the Nature of
the fupreme God, were formerly condemn'd in the
Church in the moft antient Herefiarchs, i. e. the
Gmfttch {a). Nor is the famous Hiftory of Dionyjius
Alexandrinus to be forgot, who being falfely accusM
by the Sabellians to Divnyfius Romanus^ of thofe fame
Tenets, which Arius afterwards aflferted,- when Diony-
jius Romanus called a Synod upon that Occaiion, in
which the Tenets were univerfally condemn'd as im-
pious, Dionyfius Alexandrinus^ who was faid to defend
them, had certainly been condemn'd, unlefs he had
feafonably clear'd himfelf, by Letters, from that foul
Calumny, (b) I fuppofe, then, it is very plain, from
what has been largely difcours'd in this Chapter, and
that before it, that the Opinion which denies our Sa-
{d) Defence of the Nicene Creed, Se£l-. 2. chap. i. feSt. 15,
Seft 5. chap. 1. fe£l. 1 5, and 16. chap. 10. fe£l. i(5.
{b) See this Hificry at large in th& Defence of the Nicene Creedj
Seft. 2, chap, 11, fe£l. 2. Ql'c,
viour
i6o 7'^e JUDGMENT of
viour to be true God, was always held in the Church
of the three firll Ages for a deadly Herefy, and a de-
teftable Blafphemy ; and that thofe who aflerted it,
were abfolutely rejeded as impious Opiniators, and
utter Strangers to the true faving Faith of Chrift.
Strange, then! tha.t Epifco^ius fhould, with anySo-
phifms or Pretences (tor he could bring nothing folid
againft fuch plain Teftimonies) attempt to defend his
contrary Affertion. Whatever it is he has faid in this
forlorn Caufe, I fhall now proceed to examine accu-
rately.
CHAP. IV,
Of the Creeds of the Tri7mti've Church : An A
fivfif of the firfi and moft antient Creedy
and the Explications of it in Irenaeus and
Tertullian.
FO R the Proof of his Propofition, namely,
[That the Faith and Profeffion of that fpecial
Filiation of Jefus Chrift, by which he is faid to be the
Son of God before Ages, and God of God, was not
judged neceffary to Salvation in the primitive Churches
from the Time of the Apoftles, at leaft during three
whole Centuries] Epifcopius (a) brings two Argu-
ments ; the firft of which is this : (i.) T'he Creeds of the
Churches, by which antiemly Chriftians were difiinguijh'd
from Infidels, as by certain Badges and "Tokens, and upon
the Profeffion of which Men were matriculated into Chri-
fiianity, prove it, fays he. For in them no fuch Profeffion
is required or made. The mofl antient of them, and that
which prevaiVd in the firft Adminijiration cf Baptifm,
(«) Epifcopii Vol. prim. p. 540,
the Catholtck Church, &c* i^i
tvenfrom the Times of the Apoflles, was this : 2 heUcve i^
Godj the Father, Sorif and Holy Spirit j according to th^'
Form prefcrib'd by our Saviour himfelf, Go teach all Na"
tions, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. None of the ami em Explanations of
this Creed^ luhich we have in Irena^us, TertuUian, (^c
contain the Profeffion of this Filiation^ much lefs declare the
Neceffny of profeffmg it. And yet ItQnxus fpeaks greatly
of his Creed, as fo perfeEi, that the befl Skill in Divinity
could make no Additions^ nor the greatejl Simplicity detraf^
from it. TertuUian alfo fays of his, That though a Maii
knew nothing bejides it, he knew all things. Sec. That the
Creed caltd the Apo/iles, in what Timefoever it was made
(for that is uncertain) was by degrees augmented by the Ad-^.
dition of this or that Article, as fever al Herefies gave occa-,
/ion, is what J never doubt : This, like the other, is fo ac"
curately composed, that fome, the Romanills namely, have
heliev'd, though falfely, that it was made by all the ApO"^
files, every one giving-£ven the very Words of one Article^
and fome one of them by confent putting them together', but,
however this be, fill Chrijiian Churches have received it as
an undoubted, perfecl, Catholick Rule of Faith, if not as
it flood in the three fir ft Ages, at leafl as it hath continud
from the fourth Century to this day : This Creed, I fay^
makes no mention of this Filiation, but is content with that
jhort Formy I believe in Jefus Chrift his Only Son cue
Lord.
2. I anfwer, (t.) That Tuch Arguments are of no
force in this Matter j for when it is fuiHciently
prov'd from the Teftimonies above-cited, and as clear
as poflible, that the Faith and Profeffion of this pecu-
lar Filiation of Jefus Chrift, was by the Primitive
Churches judg'd necefTary to Salvation, who will be-
lieve him that goes about to prove tne contrary, be-
caufe the Creeds us'd by thofe Churches does ngc
plainly enough contain that Faith and Profeffion ? We
fhould rather conclude quite contrary, namely, that
fince it is very plain from other Arguments, that the
Faith and Profeffion of that Filiation svas judg'd ab-
yoL. II. L folutely
i62 fT/^^ JUDGMENT 0/
folutely neceflary to Salvation by the Primitive
Churches, it muft be, that this peculiar Filiation was
either very plainly contain d in the Creeds they ufed,
or certainly by them thought to be fo. Nay, it is cer-
tain indeed, that the Catholick Do(5lors, who liv*d
long before the Nicene Creed, thought the Dodrine of
our Lord's true Divinity to be really contain*d in the
Rule of Faith, or Creed then received in the Church.
For Irenaus and T'ertuWany as we fhall fhew hereafterg
exprefly affirm it to belong to the Rule of Faith.
Cairn alfo (a) fays of the Aytemotiites, who denied
Chrift to be God, that they delpis'd the Rule of an-
tient Faith. So the Antiochian Fathers, {b) in their
Synodical Epiftle, fay, that Paul o( Samofata departed
from the Faith, was an Apcftate. Therefore Epifco^
pus's Argument, if it proves any thing, proves this
only, that the Primitive Churches have not clearly
enough exprefs'd that Article in their Creeds; which,
notwithftanding, they thought necelTary. But (2.) there
is no Ground for this Impeachment; and, to make it
plain that there is not, we will go through the Creeds
which he mentions, all along treading in his Steps.
3. iThe mojl antient of them^ fays he, and what was
tifed in the fir ft Adminiftration of liaptifn, even from the
'Times of the Apcflles themfehes^ was this : I believe in
Gody the Father, Sen, and Holy Spirit. I anfwer, ( i.) That
was never taken to be a full and compieat Creed,
which did exprefly comprehend all the necelTary Arti-
cles of Faith, (a Man muft fcarce be in his Senfes, to
think the whole Chrillian Faith was comprehended in
fo fmall a Compafs) but only a fhort and compendious
Confeffion of the primary Article of rhe H^ly Trinity,
to be made by the Perfon to be baptized, who was firfi:
taught the Senfe of it by the Carech ft more fully and
exactly. (2.) But yet in this Creed (fucn as it is) tne
true Divinity of the Son (and even of the Holy Spi-
{a) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 5. chap. ult. p. 160*
(&)Lib. y.chap. 30. p.aaS.
//^^ Catholicic Church, ^cl t6f
tit) Is as plainly deliverM as poffible in fo few Words»
JFor (i.) it is manifeft, that in this Form, \_I believe in
God the Father J Son^ and Holy Ghvff] that the Word
God is in common apply'd to all the Three, the Fa-
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. This the Greeks
exprefs more clearly [by their diftinftive Article]
Thusalfo the Antients underftood this fhort Confeffion,
Hence {a) 'TertuUian^ expounding the common Faith
of the Chriftians, in the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghoft, fays : 'The Fatheir is God, and the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghoft is God, and every one of them is God*
Cyprian alfo thus argues againft the Baptifm of Here-
ticks : (b) If any one could he baptiz,*d among the Hereticks,
he might alfo retain Remiffton of Sins ; and if he obtain d
Remijfoii of Sins^ be fanEiijy*d and made the Temple of
God. I ask, of Vuhat God ? If of the Creator^ he could
not J "who id^d not believe in him j if of Chrifi, neither
could he be his Ttmple, who denies Chrifi to be God : If of
the Holy Spirit, ftnce thefe Three are One, how could the
Holy Spirit be reconciled to him^ who is an Enemy to the
Father and the Son ? Where he plainly alludes to the
Form of Confeffion, concerning the Holy Trinity,
which was ufually requir'd of thofe who were to be
baptiz'd, in which they profefsM to believe the Fa-
ther was God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghofl
God, and that thefe Three are One. By the way,
the attentive Reader may obferve, that in this place
St. Cyprian manifeftly teaches, that the Article of the
true Divinity of our Lord is abfolutely neceflary to
Salvation : For he exprefly faySj that he can't be the
Temple of God (which is the fame as to fay, he can*c
be fav*d) who denies Chrift to be God. But to re-
turn, I think that in thefe few Words, / believe in
God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit^ that great
Truth, that the Son and Holy Ghoft are one God
with the Father, is, in fome refpeds, more clearly ex-
{a) Pag. 507. adv. Prax, (^) P. 203,
L a prefs'd.
1 64 77:;^ J U D G M E N T ^/
prefs'd, than in the larger Creeds that followed : For by
the Additions after thofe Words, / believe in God the Fa-
ther, and the Additions after the Mention of the Son^
the Word God not being repeated in the Articles con-
cerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Title of
God might feem, and indeed did feem (contrary
to the plain Meaning of thofe that made them) to
belong only to the Father. (2.) In this Form
the Son {'as alfo the Holy Spirit) is joined to the
Father as Collegue in his Government, as Sharer
of that Faith, Honour, Worfhip and Obedience,
which the Perfon to be baptiz'd promifes and
vows ; which whofoever can think compatible with
mere Man, or any Creature, has no Notion of the
horrid Sin of Idolatry. To make this ftill the plainer,
it is efpecially to be obferv'd, that in the Primitive
Church two Things were required of thofe who were
thought fit for Baptifm, immediately before they re-
ceived it ; the renouncing Satan, and lifting under
Chrift. The Defertion, or Renunciation, was made
in thefe Words, / renounce the Devil and all his Works^
and his Worjhip^ &c. After this, immediately followed
the Lifting with Chrift i I believe inGod the Father, the Son
and the Holy Ghofl (a). Both thefe Forms were received
in the firft Ages through all the Churches, fo that it
is not to be doubted but that they came from the
Apoftles. Now as by the one, they who came to
Baptifm, renouncM the Worfhip of the Devil, and
confequently of all Idols and falfe Gods ; fo by the
other, they gave themfelves up to the Worfhip of the
only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. This
is plainly gather'd from a Dialogue of Lucians (h)^
or fome Contemporary of his, of a like Genius.
There the Author, coeval with the firft Succeffion of
the Apoftles, a profane Man indeed, but one who well
underliood Chriftianity, in a fcoffing Way introduces
{a) See tToe Apofi. Confilt. Lib. 7. chap. 41. p. $79. And Cyril's
ZAyjlag. Catech'ifm.
\b) Luciani Opera ; Vmted <?/Hagenaw, i535» Vol, 2. p. 9?^,
one
tie Catholick Church, ^c. 1^5
one I'riephonj who was to perfonate a Chriflian Doftor
or Catechift, among other things, inftruaing his Cate-
chumen in the Myftery of the Trinity : For when the
Catechumen asks, By whom thenJJoaU I fwear ? Triephon
anfwers. By the God which reigns en high^ the Great , the
Immortal^ the Hea'venly, the Son of the Father , the Spirit
proceeding from the Father ^ One of "three ^ and Three of One :
Suppofe this to be ]ove, think this your God. Hence I fay,
we may gather, that the Profelytes from Gentilifm to
the Chriftian Church, were oblig'd, inftead of their
vain Deities they before worihipp'd, to give them-
felves up to the Worfhip and Obedience of the
Trinity in Unity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft,
as of their only God. See this Place more largely eX'
plain d J and fufficiently defended from the Cavils of Sandius,
in the Defence of the Nicene Faith {a). Thus much
jnay fuffice for the firft and moft antient Creed.
4. Let us now proceed to the Explications of this
Creed in Irenaus and T'ertulUan. None of them, fays
EpifcopiuSj contain the Profeffton of this Filiation ; i. e.
There is not any thing in any of thefe Expofitions,
which declares our Saviour to be the Son of God,
otherwife than is confident with him, as only a mere
Man, and not exifting before Mary. But this is fo
falfe, that I wonder with what Judgment, Perfuafion,
or Confcience, the learned Man could fo boldly affirm
it. Vi\ begin with (b) Irenaus. He tranfientiy men-
tions the Rule of Faith, which every Chriftian recei-
ved in Baptifm. He afterwards propounds and ex-
plains it varioufly, and in feveral places, but every
where in the fame Senfe. In all thefe Expofitions, he
plainly enough declares the divine Filiation of our Sa-
viour, but in fome, nothing can be clearer. Thus he
gives us the Rule of Faith, (c) For the Church, though
difpers'd through the whole World^ to the Ends of the
Earthy hath received from the ApofileSy and their IDifci-'
{a) SeO:. 2. chap 4. feft. ir, {h) Lib, i« chap. j. read the
a-hoJe Chapter, ^c) Lib, i. chap. 2, P. JOi
J- 3 P^es^
j65 The JUDGMENT of
pies, this Faith in One God, the Father Almighty, tvha
hath made the Heazens, the Earth, the Sea, and all things
in them ; and in One 'Jefus Chrifl, the Son of God, incar-
natefor our Salvation y and in the Holy Ghoft, who preach' d
by the Prophets the Difpenfations of God, and his Coming,
and his Generation of the Virgin, and his Pafftcn, and
RefurreSiion from the Dead, and the Jffumption of our
leloved Lord fefus Chrifl in the FleJJ? into Heaven, and his
coming from Heaven in the Glory of the Father, to gather
all things together, to raife all human Fle/h, that fy every
Knee in -sHeaveii, in Earth, and under the Earth, may
hovj, according to the Good-pleafure of the invifible Father^
to Chrifl fefus our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King ',
and every "Tongue flo all confefs to him, and he Jhall execute
iufl Judgment in all things, &c. In this Expofition of"
the antient Creed, the Catholick Church, every
where difpers'd, is faid to beheve in Chrifl, as the
Son of God, incarnate for our Salvation ; which
Words are almoft the very fame with thofe in the
Conftantinofolitan Creed, and thofe in the moft antient
larger Oriental Creed, as we fhall ihew hereafter.
In thefe Words, all that will, may fee it fignify'd
that our Saviour did exift, and was the Son of God,
in a Nature without Flefh, before he was made Man ;
that he then took upon him Flefh, or human Nature,
out of Love to Mankind, that he might procure for
us eternal Salvation (a). Nor can any one doubt what
kind of Incarnation Irenaus believ'd, who is not en-
tirely a Stranger to his Works. I will illuftrate this
Matter by one Paffage, of the many which occur ,- in
which, after a Recapitulation of thofe things difputed
before, he thus writes (h) : Having plainly floewn, that
the Word, which was with God in the Beginning, by whom
all things were made, and who was always prefent to Man-
hind, that he was in the lafl Times, according to the Pre-^
determination of the Father, united to his own Creature, he-
ing made pajflbk Man ; there is no room for their Contra-
ia) Clem. Rom. Ep. 2. (b) tib. 3, chap. 20. p. a$2,
diSUo^^
the Catholick Church, cJt. 1^7
diflion, who fay. If therefore Chrifl was then born, he was
not before. Fur we have fhew*d that the Son of God did not
then begin to be, having always exified with the Father i
but when he was incarnate, and made Man, he took upon
himfelf the fad, forlorn Condition of Man, compendioufly
procuring Salvation for us ; that fo what we had loft in
Adam, the Likenefs and Similitude of God, we might re^
cover in Chrifl 'Jefus. For Jtnce it xoai impoffible that
Man, who was once fuhdued, and thrown off by Difobe-
dience, fioould be. renew d, and receive the Reward of Vic
tory ; and alfo impoffible that he fjould obtain Salvation,
who was fallen under Sin i the Son, who was the IVord oj
God, defending from the Father, and perfeciing the Difpen-
fation of our Salvation, did both [for us.^ From hence
it is very plain, what Irenaus meant by believing in the
Son of God, who was incarnate for our Salvation. More-
over, in the Expofition of Faith before us, our Saviour
is not only callM the Son of God, but exprefly God;
which Name, according to (a) Irenaus, ought not to
be given to any one abfolutely, nor is fo given ia
Scripture, but to him who is really God.
5. Further, Irenaus, in another (b) place, gives us the
Rule of Faith, and explains it. There not only the
Pre-exiftence of the Son before Mary, but alfo before all
Creatures, and the Creation of all things by him, as
by a Word, not extrinfick to God his Father, as ail
Creatures are, even Angels, but moft intimate and
co-eflential with him, is very clearly exprefs'd. Read
the place, and judge for your felf : Since then we hold the
Rule of Faith, namely, that there is one God Almighty^
who made all things by his Word, who fll'd and framed
them out of nothing into Being, as the Scripture faith , The
Heavens were made by the Word of the Lord, and all the
Hofls of them by the Breath of his Mouth. And again,
All things were made by him, and without him was nothing
made. All things excepts nothing -, but the Father made all
things by him, whether 'viji.ble or invifible^ fenjible^ or in"
{«) Lib. 3, chap 6. p? zb^6. ih) Lib. u chap. ip. p. 114,
L 4 telligible.
t6S ^^e J \J DGMENT of
i eligible, temporary things for a certain End, or eternal;
^ ^nd Jince God made all thefe things^ not by Angeh, nor
fome Powers diflinSi in Sentiment from him^ {for he wants
nothing) hut by his IVord and Sprit makes, difpofes,
governs, and gives Exifience to all, &c. "Therefore holding
this Rule, though they ufe many and various Arguments^
pe eajtly prove that they have gone off from the Truth, (a)
6. You may add to this a third Expolition of the
antient Creed from the fame Jrenaus ; where, intend-
ing to fhew that the Tradition of Truth was not to
be fought for in the Conventicles of Hereticks, but
in the Catholick Church, he thus difcourfes (b) : Sup-
fofe the Apofiks had left us no Scriptures, mufl we not have
followed the Order of Tradition, which they committed to
thofe with whom they entrufied the Churches ? To this,
many Nations of the Barbarians, who believe in Chrifl, af-
fenty having Salvation written in their Hearts by the Spirit,
'Without Letters or Ink, and diligently preferving the old
Tradition, believing in One God, the Maker of Heaven and
'Earth, and of all things in them, by Jefus Chrift^ the Son
ef God 'j who, cut of his exceeding Love towards his own
Creature, f'jfer'd himfelf to he born of a Virgin, unitir.g
in himfelf Man to Gcd, fuffer'd under Pontius Pilate,
vofe again, was received into Glory, and (hall come again the
Saviour of thofe that are fav^d, and the (c) Judge of
thofe that are judgM, fending into eternal Fire thofe who
change the Truth, and clef pi fe his Coming and his Fathers.
T'hey who without Letters have believed this Faith, are,
nvith refpeEi to our Language, Barbarians ; but with re^
JpeB to Sentiment, (4) Moral, and Converfation, very wif$
through Faith, and pleafe God, living in all 'Juftice,
Chajiity, and Wifdom, T'o thefe Perfuns, if any one report
(a) Confult the parallel Places of hen£U!, cited in the Dcf
fence of the Tslicene Creed, Sefl: 2. chap. 5. fed. 7.
(i) Lib. 3. chap. 4. p. 242.
(c) The Condemner of thofe that are to he condemn'' d. This
Miftake in tranflating the Word Kpivw, 8cc. frequently oecur?
among the old Interpreters, even in Scripture.
{d) Qonfuetudinem, 5^605.
ths
the Catholick Church, (^c* 1^9
the Inventions of Heretich, f peaking to them in their oivn
Language^ they quickly (hut their Ears y and fly as far as
pfjtble from them^ not induring to hear their blafphemous
Difcourje. In this Rule of Faith, Chrifl is faid to be
that Son of God, by whom the Heaven, the Earth,
the Sea, and all things in them were made ; who, of
his great Love to, and Compaffion of the Work of his
Hands, Mankind, himfelf condefcended to be born
Man of a Virgin, and thus join'd Man to God. /re-
naus affirms {a) the Tradition of this Faith to be fo
univerfal and antient, that the very Barbarians^ thofe
who had yet no Verfions of the Scripture, held it, as
received at firft from the Apoflles, or their Difciples,
together with the Gofpel, of which it is indeed the
greateft part ; and efteem'd by all Catholick Chriftians
at that time fo facred, that the Barbarians abhorr*d all
Do(5trine inconfiftent with it, as impious Herefy and
Blafphemy.
7. Let us now examine TertuUians Explications. In
his Book de Velandis Virginibus the Rule of Faith is ra-
ther hinted by the way, than recited, and therefore
not full and perfed:. For there Chrift is not fo much
as cali'd our Lord, or the only begotten Son of God,
but fimply the Son of God. This notwithftanding
was enough for 'TertuUian to have faid of Chrift by
the way, who with the other antient Catholicks, al-
ways underftood the Title of Son of God to be given
to the Son in a fublime Senfe. In that Rule of Faith
there is no mention of the Conception of the Man
Chrift by the Holy Spirit, nor of the Holy Spirit him-
felf. It is indeed my Opinion, that TertuUian had there
an efpecial regard to the Creed then ufed in the Afri--
can Church, which was almoft the fame as the Ro^
man : for the Roman Church agreed in her Creed with
the African Churches, as (b) 'TertuUian fays. Now
the Rvman Creed, tho larger than it is there given us
by TertuUian^ yet as in other refpefts, fo in this Ar-
^a) Pag. I7|, ^h) Praefcript, adv. Heret. p. 215?
tide
17° f^e JUDGMENT of
tide of the Son of God, it was fhorcer than the Creeds
of the Eaflern Churches, for reafons 1 (hall take notice
of by and by : But ftill the Faith of the Roman and
the £aj^^r;2 Churches was always the fame. They ail
confefs'd the Article of the Son of God in the fame
extent of Meaning, the in other Words. And this
alfo Tertullian well knew.
8. Hence in another place noted by (a) Epifcopius,
where he delivers the Rule of Faith, he gives us thjs
Article of the Son of God more full and explicite, de-
fcribing his Exiftence very clearly, as not only before
the blelfed Virgin, but alfo before all Ages, and even
before the Creation of all Things by him. For there,
after he has faid, that that only ought to be contro-
verted, which may be difputed without prejudice to
the Rule of Faith, he immediately fubjoins the Rule
in thefe Words : 'That is the Rule of Faithy by which we
frofefi what "we belie've, namely that, in which we believe
that there is only one God, and no other be (ides the Creator
cf the IVorld, who made all Things oj nothing by his Word
firjt of all fent jorth ; that the IVbrd, call*d his Son, ap"
^ear*d •varicujly to the Patriarchs in the Name of God, ah
ivaysfpoke in the Prophets, lafily was brought down into the
Virgin Mary by the Spirit and Power of God the Father,
was made Flefly in her Womb, and born Man of her, and is
^efus Cbrift, &c. Having ended the Creed, he adds,
'This Rule inftituted by Chrifi, asjjyallbeprovd, admits of
no Quejlions, which are not heretical, and make the Perfons
concern d in them Hereticks. What can be more clear
or exprefs againft Epifcopius's AlTertion than thefe
Words ? The fame Rule of Faith you have in (b)
mother place thus : M-^e, fays he, believe that there is
only one God, but under this Difpenfation, "which we call
Oeconomy, that the Son his IVord, who proceeded from him,
hy whom he made all Things, and without whom nothing
was made, is of that one God ', That he "was fent by the
Father into the Virgin, and born of her, Man and God, the
{a) Pag. 20^. (b) Pag. 501.
the Catholick Church, (^c» 171
^on of Man and the Son of God^ called Jefus Chrifl. After-
wards he adds : "That this Rule had come down from the be^
ginning of the Gofpel, even before any of the antiem Here^
ticks ^ much more before the modern Praxeas j both the late
Rife [Pofteritas] oj all the Hereticks in general, and the
isjovelty of ?t3ixeas in particular, but ofTefierday^'will prove.
From what has been faid, it is abundantly manifeft
that Epifcopius's Appeal to the Explications of Irenaus
and Tertultian, with refped to the antient Creed, was
rafh and impudent.
C H A p. V.
Of the Creedy calVd the Jpoftlcs*
COME now to the Creed call'd the Apoflles,
concerning which Epifcopius fays, T'he very Creed
call'd the Apoflles, makes no mention at all of this Filiation^
hut is content with this Jhort Form i I believe in Jefus Chrifl ,
his only Son our Lord, This is Epifcopius's chief Argu-
ment J and after him, the Author of the Irenicum and
Sandius have greatly urg'd it. The fame our late
Revivers of the Avian and Socinian Herefy have every
where boafted of in their infipid Libels, and think
themfelves fafe from the Charge of Herefy juftly laid
againft them by the Catholicks, whilfl intrenchM in
this Strong-Hold.
2. In order to give a full Anfwer to this Argument,
in which they fo greatly glory and confide, I propofe
to demonftrate thefe four Politions. (i.) That the
Creed call'd the Apoflles, how conformable foever to
their Dodrine, was not diftated or composed by the
Apoflles themfelves in fo many Words, in that Form
and Method in which we now have it i but indeed is
nothing elfe than the Creed of the Roman Church,
which afterthe Year 400 was at lafl compleated in that
Church, the Churches of the Eafl in the mean time
uiing another Creed. (2.) That the Church of Rome
formerly
172 The JUDGMENT of
formerly might, and accordingly did ufe a more fuc
cinft and fhort Creed, than was neceflfary for the
Churches of the Eafi, thefe being difturb'd with all
kinds of Herefies j when in the Roman Church not
one Herefy arofe, which taught them to underftand
their lliorter Confeffion othervvife than according to
its right Meaning, and the true Senfe of the Church.
(3.) That this, notwithftanding there really is in the
Roman Creed a Profeffion of this fpecial Filiation of
Jefus Chnft, namelj', in thefe Words, I believe mje^
Jus Chriji his (i. e. God the Father's) Only-begotten Son,
(4.) And lafdy. That in the Creed, or Rule of Faith,
which prevailed in the mod antient Churches of the
Eafty before the Council of Nice^ this fpecial Mode of
Jefus Chrift's Filiation was exprefly taught and declared.
5. That very great Man J. G. VojfiuSy hath abun-
dantly proved the firft Polition, in his Difl'ertations
concerning the three Creeds : To the firfl of thefe
Diflertations, (not to do the fame thing over again)
I recommend my Reader.
The fecond Polition is confirm'd by the Tellimony
of Riiffinus, who thus prefaces his Expofition ©f the
Oeed : Before I begin to explain the Senfe of the IVordsy
leant but think itfeafonabk to tell my Reader, that in di~
'vers Churches fome Additions have been made in the PJ^ords,
JVbui in the Church of Rome, this has not been done, which
Jfuppofe happened upon this account, lecaufe no Herefy hath
taken its Rife from thence, and becaufe they keep up an old
Cuftom, That thofe who are to receive Baptifm, floall pub-
lickly repeat the Creed in the Ears of the People, and they
•zuho were before them in the Faith did not bear the Ad-
dition of the leafl IVord : But in other places, as far as I
can find, fome IVords feem to have been added by reafon of
fome Hereticks, by which the Senfe of the novel DoEirine
was thought to be excluded. Thus he writes, and in-
deed it is plain, that the Sirnonians, Cerinthians, Ebio-
nites, and the other Pefts of the primitive Church, did
not fpread their impious Tenets at Rome, but in the
Eafif and efpecially in Afi^- Heace Ignatius frequently
~ lafhe§
the Catholick Church, ^c- 171
kflies thofe Hereticks in his Epiftles to the Afiatkk
Churches ; but writing to the Romans^ takes notice of
no Herefy among them : Nay, he exprefly commends
them in his Salutations, for their entire Purity of Faith,
V^hilft he calls them {a), T'heVnited in every Command of
Chrijij filled ivith every Grace of God, without DiftinBiony
and purify d from every Spot, or firain' d from all Dregs. It
is, I fuppofe, upon this account more particularly
that Tertullian calls the Roman Church, a Church in
Profperity. O that this Profperity, this Purity of
the Faith, had continu'd always in it 1 but alas, now
we may cry out in the Words of the Prophet, How is
the faithful City become an Harlot !
4. I come now to the third Pofition, and intend to
enlarge upon it. Now it is eafy to prove that
Chrift, in the Roman Creed, is called the Only-
begotten Son of God, with refped to that Divine
Nature of his, in which he exifted not only before
Mary, but before all Ages, from God the Father, and
with him. This Proof we will bring, (i.) From the
Holy Scripture, in which the Word Only-begotten is
attributed to Chrift, (for we can't fufped that the
Church underflood the Word otherwife than the Scrip-
ture, from which they borrow 'd it.) (2.) From the
Force and Propriety of the Word. (3.) From the Or-
der and Context of the Creed : and, (4.) From the
conftant Senfe, and perpetual Interpretation of the
Catholick Church.
(i.) As for the Scripture, the firft Place in which
this Word is apply'd to Chrift, is John i. 14. And the
Word was made Flefo, and dwelt among us, and we beheld
his Glory, as of the Only-begotten of the Father. Here ic
is plain, that the Only-begotten of the Father is he who
alone was begotten of him. Some Perfons would re-
fer the Words [of the Father'] to the Words [/^^ Gloryl
fo as to read, {^And we beheld his Glory (given him, or
receiv'd by him) fromj or of the Father!} But befides the
{a) Tom, 2. P. A. p. s(f. {h) Fag. 215,
Confu-'
174 y^^ JUDGMENT ^/
Confufion in the Words thus conftrued, there are not
indeed enough to exprefs this Meaning ; a Violence
which ihould never be oflfer'd without Neceflity.
Again, the Expreflion [the Only-begotten of, or from the
Father)^ feems to me more fignificantly to declare the
Divine Generation of the Son from the Father, than
{the Only-begotten of the Father] the Particle [o/, OTfrojn]
fuggefting that he is fo the Only Son of God the Fa-
ther, as that he alone is indeed begotten of and from
the very Father. Moreover, the (a) Apoftle gives
this Title to the Word, namely, to him, who ruas in
the Beginning with God, who was God, and by whom all
things were made. Hence it is plain, that Chrift was
caird the Only-begotten of or from the Father, in re-
fped of his Divine Nature, by which he exifted be*
fore Ages. Laftly, The Observation of Grotius is
not impertinent, that St. John aims at the Gnofticks
here, who made the Word to be one, the Only-
begotten another, and Jefus a third ; and who
reckoned the Only-begotten among their ^ons^ born
before this World. The Apoftle therefore (hews, that
our Lord Chrift is the only true Word, and the true
Only-begotten Son of, or from the Father, as being
alone begotten by him before Ages. To the fame
purpofe is this Word underftood in (b) other places^
even in (c) Epifcopius's Judgment, who reafons thus!
upon thofe places : It is certain that the Love of God tO"
•wards us is greatly exalted [in thofe places] in that he fent
his Only-begotten Son into the World, and gave him up to
the Death of the Crofs, to fave Sinners, the Children of
Wrath. But if the Son of God denotes no more than Jefus,
born of the Virgin, we can't fee fo clearly why this Lcv&
fhculd be fo greatly extolled, as if it denotes the Son, whom
he begat before Ages. For the Son, born of the Virgin, was
therefore born of her, that he might die for Sinners. Nov),
where was the extraordinary Love of God, in giving upi
{a) St. John' J Go/peJ^ 1. 1 , 2. {F) John iii. 1 6, and the £^h, v> ff'
0>) Epiicopii Tom. I . p. 3 3 7 •
thai
the Catholick Church, cJt. 17^;
that Son to Death, ijoho luas begot of the Virgin, by his
Pleafure, and conceived of the Holy Spirit for that pw
pofe ? But if you conceive it to be the Son if God, ivho was
begotten of the Father before Ages, who was under no ne-
ceffity of being fent into the World, whofe Dignity was
greater than that he Jhould be fent, or come in the Fhjjy,
much lefs die, whofeemed dearer to the Father, than that
he would force him upon fo much Calamity ; then indeed the
Splendor and Glory of the Divine Love towards Mankind
fhines forth greatly. Thus Epifcopius. That he had wrote
fo always ! Indeed it will be very clear to any one who
ferioufly confiders the Matter, that according to the
Arian and Socinian Scheme, God rather fhew'd his
Love towards this Son of his, than towards us Men.
For he who is called Chrift, was chofen to this Grace
and Favour by the Good-pleafure of God only, that
after a fhort Obedience perform'd upon Earth, of
a mere Man, according to the Socinians, of a mere
mutable Creature, according to the Arians -, he fliould
become God, have Divine Honours paid him, not
only by us Men, but by Angels and Arch-Angels,
and even obtain Power and Dominion over all other
Creatures. Further, the Love of the Only-begotten
Son of God towards us Men (fo greatly celebrated ia
Scripture, and efpecially in the (a) Epiftle to the
Ephejtans) does not appear, unlefs we conceive him
to be the Son of God, who was begotten of the Fa-
ther before Ages, by whom all things were made, who for
us Men and our Salvation, defended from Heaven, and was
incarnate, &c. But upon this Suppofition, as Ireaaus
fpeaks, we clearly fee the moft eminent Love of God
'towards his own Work. This by the bye. Now I
can't fee how we can reconcile Epifcopius to himfelf.
In the Places of Scripture, where Chrift is called the
Only-begotten Son of God, he contends that the
Only-begotten Son muft iignify that Son, whom the
Father begat before Ages, and therefore that in that
{a) Chap. 3. ver. i8, §C ip.
Title
i7<5 27j'^ J U D G M E N T ^/
Title Is contaln'd this fpecial Mode of Chrifl's Filia-
tion: But in the (a) Creed, extraded from the Scrip-
tures, in which we profefs our Faith in Chrift, the
Only-begotten Son of God, he abfolutely denies thac
this fpecial Mode of Filiation is contained.
5. (1.) It may be prov'd from the Force and Pro-
priety of the Word, that Chrift is call'd the Only-
begotten in the Creed, with refped to his Di-
vine Nature. For he is called Only-begotten, who
alone, and not in a Community of Sonftip, is Son ',
i. e. whom the Father hath alone, who, in the way in
which he is Son, hath no Brother : Moreover, who is
Son by Nature, begotten of or from the Father, not
a made or adopted Son. Now Chrift can^t be called
the Only-begotten Son of God, unlefs with refpe<5t
to his Divine Generation : For the Title does not be-
long to him as Man. To make this the more clear,
•we will confider the four Ways, in which Chrift, as
Man, is in Scriptures (according to C^) Epifcopius)
by way of Eminence, call'd God.
The ifl is, becaufe, as Man, he was conceived of
the Holy Ghofl. T'he Holy Ghofl jjoall come upon thee, and
the Power of the Higheft /ball over/hadoiv thee ; therefore
that Holy One which fhall be born of thee^ (hall he called
the Son of God. Anfw. At prefent, I fhall fay nothing
of (c) Juftin Martyr's and 'Tertullians Interpretation of
the Place, who expound [the Holy Spirit'] and {the
Power of the Higheji] of the Word himfelf ; nor yet of
Nouatian's Criticifm, who places an Emphafis upon
the Particle \_And.'\ This is my Anfwer, Tho' Chrift:
be there called the Son of God, upon account of his
Conception by the Holy Ghoft in the Womb of the
Virgin, as Man ; yet he is not there called the Only,
or the Only-begotten Son of God. But (fays EpifcO'
(^d) He mufi defend the Creedy and depreciate the ScrlptHres ; and
Joe may as well do ity as Dr. Whitby prefers the Authority 0/ Clemens
Romanus before St. Paul. p. 16. Mod, Difquif.
(h) Epifcop. Tom, i. p. 335.
(0 Juftin, pag. 75. Tert, p. 515, Novat, chap. 2p.
the Catholtck Church, &c* i77
fius) this Eminence (whereby he was form'd in the
Virgin's Womb, by the Power of God) is proper to
the Man Jefus Chrift, and there never was, nor ever
will be the like. I fay that is not true. For the Flefli
of Chrift was conceiv'd and form'd in the Virgin's
Womb, by the Divine Power, without a Father.
And was not the firft Man form'd by the Hands of
God himfelf, without either Father or Mother? And
is he not therefore exprefly call'd the (a) Son of God ?
The Eminence then of Jefus Chrift, as Only-begotten
Son, is not in this : For in this the firft Adam may in
fome fort be faid to be fuperior to the fecond, becaufe
made by God, without Father or Mother, whereas
this had only no Father, {b) Philo Judaus elegantly de-
fcribes the illuftrious Generation of our firft Parent,
in thefe Words : Who, for the Nobility of his Genera^
tion, "Was not to be compared luith any Mortal, being form'd
into a bodily Image, by the Hands of God, with the utmojl
flafiick Art i and having a Soul given him, not from any
created Being, God breathing into him as much of the Di"
njine Power as mortal Nature was capable of. fVas not that
the Excellence of Nobility, with which that, of all the refl
which were named, could not be compared ? 'Their Glory was
the Nobility of their Anceftors. Their Anceflors were Men,
mortal, corruptible, and their Profperity unftable ', and, for
the moft part, of jhort Continuance : but no Mortal was his
Father, nor any one the Caufe of hii Being but God,
Hence St. Irenaus fays, the Man Chrift, the fecond
Adam, was made like the firft in his Generation, not
indeed alcogecher, but as much fo as the Oeconomy of
our Salvation would permit. For after he had (c) ob-
ferv'd, that as the Man firft form'd of the Virgin
Earth (not yet manur'd or till'd, as Tertullian inter-
prets) was made by the Hands of God himfelf; fo
Chrift, the Renewer of the firft Adam, was made, as
to his Humanity, of the Virgin Mary, by the Holy
Spirit : a little after he adds i Now if he was taken.
{a) Luke3. -oer.^S. (h) Ed. Tuineb, Paris, 1552, p. 6ii.
\c) Lib. ;.chap. 31. p. 158, & 295.
Vol. II. M font
17S fO'^ JUDGMENT ^/
from the Earth, and God form'd him, it became him zvh^
was to gather together into himf elf Man-made by God, to ha've
a Similitude of Generation with him. Why then did not
God take the Duft of the Earth again, but caufed him to
be made of Mary ? T'hat there fhould not he another Forma^
tion^ another Being to be faved^ hut that he the fame
\.Man'] Jhould be renew d in his own Similitude (a). The
very great Excellence then of our Saviour's Filiation, by
which he is called the Only-begotten, or the Only
Son of God, lies not in this, that he was produced
of the Virgin Mary, by the Power of the Higheft,
without having a Man to his Father ; for in this the
firft Man was equal, in fome fort fuperior to him :
but in a far more fublime Generation, namely, that in
which he was the Son of God, not only before Mary,
but alfo before Adam, and indeed before all Ages. If you
obferve upon the Generation of them both, certainly
the fecond no way excels the firft, as mere Man,
but in this greateft Difference imaginable, as God
and Man. Whatfoever the Addition is, by which the
human Nature of the fecond Adam exceeds the firft,
is all owing to that Union by which the Soul of Chrift
is, by the greateft and moft intimate {h) Communion
imaginable, (by fuch a Communion, as that another
more clofe can't be) joined to the Divine Perfon of
the Only-begotten Son of God- Thus (to obferve
this by the way) the divine (c) Apoftle makes the
Comparifon between the firft and fecond Adam : T'he
frfi Man is of the Earth earthy, the fecond Man is the
Lord from Heaven. Some there are indeed, but vain and
abfurd Men, who will have the Words {from Heaven~\
applied to the fecond Adam, as born of the Virgin Mary,
by an abfolutely divine and celeftial Power, without
a Father ; for thus, as we have feen before, it may be
faid of the firft Adam. What the Meaning is of thofe
'^oxds^fromHeaven'\ inoppoficion to [_of the Earth earthy']
is very plain from the Saying of (d) John the Baptift,
(^y Pag. 321 (T (^) Origen, (c) i Cor, i5.'r;er.47.
id) Sf.John'j Go/pel^ chap 3, ver, Ji. Compare •with thiSfC. 1. v. 30*
com-
the CAtHOLieK: Church, ^c\ if^
comparing hirofelf, as a Son of Adam, with the Lord
Chrift : He that comes from alpove, is above all ; be that is
of the Earth is earthy, and fpeaks earthy things i he that
comes from Hea'ven, is above aU. Befides, I don^t doubc
but that [the Man, the Lord from Heaven\ is the fame
which is called by the Cabaliftick 'Jews {that Adam
from above which is blefs^d] by which Periphrafis they
certainly meant the true God. For indeed what the
Cabalifts taught concerning the Marriage of that
Adam from above, who is bleffed, with the Congre-
gation of Ifrael, myftically fignifyM by the Con-
jundion of the earthy Adam and Eve, is manifeftly re-
fer'd by the {a) Apoftle to the Union of Chrift and
the Church. Now thofe other Words of the (b) Apo-
ftle muft be underftood in the fame Senfe : The firfi
Man was made a living. Soul, the lafl Man was made ^
quickning Spirit. The firft Man was made, /. e. ac«
cording to a well-known Idiom of the Hebrew Lan-*
guage, was a living Soul ; the laft was a quickning
Spirit. The Senfe is, the firft Man was only Man^,
the fecond more than Man, even a Spirit which gave
Life, i. e. God. The Spirit in Chrift, as we have
often obfervM, doth frequently in Holy Scripture, and
the Writers of the firft Age, denote the divine Na-
ture in him. Now it is the Property of the Divine
Nature, (as is here faid) to give Life to Men, upoia
which account Chrift is elfewhere faid to be the
(c) Prince of Life, and Life itfelf He is the Author of
all our Life, natural, fpiritual, and morale as {d) Cle^
mens Akxandrinus has elegantly exprefs'd it : The Word^
which in the Beginning, after the formation, gave Life as
the Creator, taught afterward to live well as an InftruBor ;
that after that, as God, he might befiow eternal Life. As
this Interpretation rifes neceftarily from the Words o£
the Text, fo it is very agreeable to the Context. For
the Apoftle had faid, that there were two Bodies, one
(<«) Eph. V. ver. 32. (h) i Cor. chap. 15. ver, 45^
0 ASts iii, 1 5 . J ohn 1.4. {d) P. 4, & 5.
v ■.. M 2 animal^'
iSo Tbe]VBGMENr of
animal, another fpiritual, which he here fhews from
their contrary Caufes. For as we received thefe our
animal and mortal Bodies from the firft Adam, a mere
Man, and confiding of a Body, in its own nature at
leaft animal and mortal ,• fo we fhali hereafter receive
fpiritual Bodies from Chrift, the fecond Adam, who is
more than Man, in whom is the Divine Nature, and
who is the Fountain of all Life. The Change of our
vile Bodies into the Likenefs of his glorious Body, to
be performM by Chrift in the RefurreCtion, is alfo
(a) attributed to his Almighty Power; and this is not
compatible with him but as God. The Interpreta-
tion which Grotius has lick*d up from the Sociniam,
that Chrift was then only made an enlivening Spirit,
after he was rais'd from the Dead, and had afcended
into Heaven, is vain. For, (i.) It is very plain the
Apoftle fpeaks of the primigenial Nature of them
both, and not of either of them, as to what they were
afterwards made. He then who was not always an
enlivening Spirit, never could be made fo. The made
God is one of thofe Monfters w hich the Avians and
Socinians have blefs'd us wnth, odious to found Reafon
and true Religion. Laftly, It is certain Chrift was an
enlivening Spirit, even before his Refurredion ; for as
fuch, he recalled his Body from {b) Death to Life,
Hence Ignatius^ a Difciple of the Apoftles, fays of
Chrift, He truly fuffer'd, as he alfo truly rais'd himfelf up.
The Refurreftion of the Body of Chrift from the
Dead, is alfo in Scripture afcrib'd to God the Fa-
ther : and what then ? Whatfoever the Son doth, he
doth it from the Father; and whatfoever the Father
doth, he doth it by the Son. Hence alfo the Creation
of all things is attributed to the Father and the Son,
becaufe the Father made all things by the Son. But,
to return from this brief Digreflion, the fupreme and
efpecial Eminence of our Lord's Filiation is fo far from
confifting in his Nativity of the Virgin Mary, that on
(<») Phil.iii. 21. (fc) John ii, ver. 19.
|;he
I
the Catholick Church, f^c* iSt
the contrary, that very Nativity is to be efleem*d a
wonderful Condefcenfion. This, if we will indeed
follow the Holy Spirit, the facred Writings plainly
and frequently teach : nor does Epifcopius deny it.
Thus the Catholick Church, from the Times of the
Apoftles themfelves, always believ'd. Hence 'Juftin^
afore-cited, fays, "That this is the Faith of Chrifiians con-
cerning Chrifl, namely^ they own Chriji to be the Son of
God, "Who was before Lucifer and the Moon, and who con-
defcended to be made Flefh, and horn of a Virgin, of the
Seed of David. We have betore cited Irenaus, affirm-
ing, that all Chriftians every where profefs'd in their
Rule of Faith to believe in the Son of God, by whom
the Father created all things ,• and who, of his very
great Love to his own Creature, endur'd to be born
of a Virgin, &c. Hence the fix famous Bifhops, in
the {a) Epiflle from the Synod of Anuoch, which they
wrote to Paul of Samofata, not without the Confenc
of the whole Synod, pronounce, with the greateft
AiTurance, that this was the confentient Doftrine and
Faith of the Catholick Church. Their Words are
thefe : In the whole Church of God, he [Chrijil is believ'd
to be God, emptying himfelf of his Equality with God ; and
Man, of the Seed of David. Laflly, Hence it is, that
to this day, maugre the Avians and Socinians, the
Church does, and always will fing. Thou an the King
of Glory, 0 Chrifi ; thou art the everlafiing Son cf the Fa-
ther ', when thou tcokefi upon thee to deliver Man, thou didfl
not abhor the Virgin's Womb. Thus much for the firft
Mode, in which Epifcopius has obferv'di that Chrift,
as Man, is in Scripture call'd the Son of God.
6. The fecond is, 'That Jefus Chrifl^ upon account of
that office of Mediator, by the fpecial Cornmand of the Fa-
ther laid upon him, is caU'd the Son of God (b). I an-
fwer, (i.) That Chrift can't, upon this account, be
properly call'd a Son begotten of God, much lefs
Only-begotten. He who is thus a Son, is a Son not
(a) Bibl, Patr.Tom. 2. Vide Valefium ad chap. 50. Lib. ?»
Elifeb^ C^) John X, ver. 55, ^6.
M I I by
iS2 Tbe JUDGMENT of
by Nature, but by Grace, (2.) That in this fenfe
Clirift had rnany Brethren, all who were anointed
Kings or Prophets by God ,• all who were fent upon
any fpecial Command to the People of God. In this
kind of Fihation, Chrift may be called the chief,
principal, and far the mofl excellent Son of God, but
not the Only-begotten. Buu, (3.) Whoever examines
the Text cited, thoroughly, will find that Chrift did
not there call himfelf, or would only be believM to be
the Son of God, becaufe he came from God as an
Ambaffador fent to Men, and furnifh'd with extraor-
dinary Powers ; but upon a far more exalted Ground,
namely, as he was with God the Father before he
was fent into the World, as his true, genuine, co-
effential Son, and indeed very God. Nor was Epif-
fopius ignorant of this, for (a) elfewhere he has drawn
an Argument from this place for the divine Filiation
of Jefus, againft the Socinians. But it may be worth
our while to enlarge upon this place, and prove this
matter more clearly than he has done. It is manifeft,
that our Saviour, in the Words {h) before, had fo
fpoken to the ^ews, that they neither underftood nor
believ'd that he faid any thing elfe, but that he was
God. Thefe are their Words, For a good M^ork we
fione thee not, but for Blafphemyy becaufe that thou be-
ing a Man, makeft thyfelj God. He had often called his
Father God, by way of Diftinftion ; and a little before
he had faid, that he and the Father are one. Now it
is diligently to be obferv'd, that Chrift made not that
Anfwer which he muft have made, if he had not
known himfelf to be truly God, namely, that he was
not really God, nor had ever arrogated that Title to
^limfelf; (for by this Anfwer, could he have truly
iii;ide it, he might eafily have appeafed the Anger of
the !?^^^5 and it was alfo incumbent upon him, with
Jndignation, to rejed fo plain an Accufation of BlaG-
{a) Vol.s. p. 2. Bodecherus inefitiens, p. ^z^HisUnied,
(S) Fy 'OT ver, a$. to ver. 30,
//^^ Catholick Church, (^c* i^f
Blafphemy) but on the contrary, clearly fignify'd,'
that he was the very Son of God, and confequently
God. For he defends himfelf againft the Jeivf thefe
two ways, (i.) By an Argument from their (a) Law :
Jefus anfwer'd thern^ is it not written in your Lav:, I have
faid, -ye are Gods ? Which place, as Grotius has well
obferv'd, feems to be meant of the Judges of the
Great Synedrium. From this place, Chrift thus de-
fends himfelf : If he hath called thofe Gods, to whom the
Word of Gad came, and the Scripture can't be broken ; do
ye fay that 1 blafpheme, whom the Father hath fanBify*d,
and fent into the World, becaufe I faid, I am the Son of
God? This kind of Argument, from the lefs to the
greater, proceeds thus : If thofe, who having nothing
divine in them, namely, the Judges of the Great
Synedrium, to v.'hom the Pfalmift there fpeaks, (for
I am of CapeUus^s mind) are called Gods for this rea-
fon only, that they have in them a certain imperfeffc
Image of divine Power and Authority ; how much
more may I be called the Son of God, and even God,
who am the natural Son of God, and belides in an
extraordinary manner authoriz'd by God the Father ?
Chrift indeed hath not exprefly faid this, but he hath
plainly intimated it in thefe Words, [that /, whom the
Father hath fanBify'd and fern into the World.~\ Here
(obferve) he fays not [whom God hath fanBifyd] but
[whom the Father hath fanBify'd] hinting that his fpe-
cial Reafon for calling God his Father, was not that
he was fandify'd by God, i. e. fet apart, and defign'd
for the Bulinefs laid upon him, and fent into the
World ; but on the other hand, that he was fandify^d
and fent into the World by God already his Father^
Befides, I don't doubt but that there is a great dea,l
of reafon in the Emphafis (b) Maldonaie lays upon the
Words [fent into the World ^ in which is fignify'd that
Chrift is the Son of God, born not after the manner- of
others upon Earth, but in Heaven, and from thence
^4) Pf^iliUpl^xxii.yer.^. (J) In locuni^ ' -s^,:-^
iH ^'be ] \J DGMENT of
fent into this World. For thus the Lord, fpeaking to
his Difciples^ more clearly explains himfelf, (a) I came
forth from the Father, and came into the World, and again
I leave the IVorld, and go to the Father. In which
Words any Man, but a fagacious Socinian, may per-
ceive that Chrift intended, that he, in his better Na-
ture, was in Heaven wdth God, and that as his Father,
before he firft came into this World, that is, was
made Man. Our Lord proceeds with this Defence,
and eflablifhes the Divinity he had in common with
the Father, by another Argument from his Miracles :
(J^) If I do not the JVorki of my Father, believe me not j
lut if I do them, though ye beUe've me not, believe the
JVorh, that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in
me, and I in him. As if he fhould have faid, becaufe
I called myfelf by way of Diftindion the Son of God
the Father, and faid that I and the Father were one,
ye accufe me of Blafphemy. This indeed you might
be thought to do very juftly, if I aflerted this Divinity
in Words only, not in Deeds s but now that I do the
fame Works of Omnipotence with the Father, why
do ye not believe me to be of the fame Nature with
him ? I don't defire to bear Witnefs of m5'felf, but at
leaft by my Works to perfuade you, that the Father
IS in me, and I in him ; that is, that I and the Father
are one, as I faid before.
Hence it is clear that our Lord, when the Jews ac-
cufed him of Blafphemy, for calling himfelf the Son
of God, by way of Diftindion, and thereby plainly
intimating that he was God, in his Anfwer, was fo
far from denying the Crime objeded, that he prov'd
it by the ftrongeft Arguments. This the Jews well
underflood, dull and ftupid enough, yet able to con-
demn thofe wifeft of Mortals, the Socinians, of the
grolTeft Blindnefs : For they, inftead of abfolving him
|fpy this Anfwer, were ready to feizehim immediately as
{a) John xvi. aSi compare John iii, 13, {h) John x. 37,
the Catholick Church, (^c* iS^
a Blafphemer. For it follows, (a) 'Then fought they again
to apprehend him^ kit he efcaped out of their hands. When
the Evangelift fays [jhen,'\ he intimates that the Jews
again provok'd by thofe very Words which our Sa-
viour had fpoken in his Defence, would have appre-
hended him, that having drawn him out of the Tem-
ple, Cy where he had this Difcourfe with them, they
might ftone him. Grotius's Comment is quite wrong,
where he will have it, that the JevjSy after our Lord
had clear 'd himfelf beyond exception of the Blaf-
phemy charg'd upon him, left off the Thoughts of
ftoning him as a Blafphemer, and endeavour'd to de-
liver him up to the Government, to find or make
fome other Accufation againft him. For the Jews did
not therefore intend to apprehend Chrift, that they
might bring him before the Sanhedrin, but that they
might carry him off to fome place, where they could
murder him without Sacrilege. The Temple, within
the Verge of which our Saviour ftood and talk'd, was
every way facred, and not to be polluted by any
(c) Slaughter, or Blood. Befides, the Word [again]
plainly fhews, that the Jeius were for repeating the
Attempt they had before made, to {d) ftone him. In
that place alfo the Word [again] occurs, and mani-
feftly denotes another time alfo, when the Jews^ upon a
like Occafion, would have floned {e) Chrift. For
thercalfo the Jeius rightly thought, from our Saviour's
Difcourfe, when he faid that he was (/) before Abra-
ham, that he attributed to himfelf a certain Nature,
in which he was before Abraham^ that is, a Divine
Nature, and therefore called himfelf God.
7. I proceed to the third manner, in which Epifco-^
pius fays Chrift, as Man, is in Scripture called God,
namely, Becaufe he was raifedfrom the Dead to Life im-
mortal by the Father^ and, as it were, begotten again of the
(a) Ver. 39. (h) Ver. 25. (r) Compare ACts xxi. 50.
(d) Ver, 31, (e) John viii. ver. 55, (/) Ver. 58.
Wo}nb
lU 2'^je JUDGMENT of
Womb of the Earth, (a) vjithottt any Mother. I anrwer,
Chrift could, not this way be called the Only-begotten
Son of God, for in this fenfe, all good Men, who rife
again, are called Sons of God, becaufe Sons of the
(b) RefurreBicn. The Man Chrift may, upon account
of his Refurredion, be called the Firft-begotten from
the Dead, and indeed he is exprefly fo called, (c) be-
caufe he, the firft of all the Dead, return'd from
Death to Life, never to die any more. Befides, in
the places where Chrift in Scripture is call'd Only-
begotten, God the Father is faid to have fent his Only-
begotten Son into the World, and to have (d) given
him to Men. Therefore he was the Only-begotten
Son of God when he firft came into the World, not
then only, after he was by Death taken out of it,
then raifed from the Dead, and about to afcend into
Heaven. But the Apoftle St. Paul, in the place cited
by Epifccpius, applies the Words of David, T'hou art
my SoYiy this Day have I begotten thee, to the Refurrec-
tion of Chrift from the Dead. Now it is to be ob-.
ferv'd againft the modern Anemonites, that this is noc
fo to be underftood, as tho' he then only began to be
the Son of God in the moft excellent Senfe, and to be
begotten of him by and after the Refurredioni but that
by the Refurret^ion, he was the moft powerfully declar'4
and exhibited as the True and Only-begotten Son of
God. For this is the way of the Scripture, to fay
that things are then made, when they are manifefted
and difcover themfelves. Hence (e) Juflin Martyr,
(as we have elfewhere obfervM) upon citing this place,
adds 'Then faying that he was born to Men, when he was
going to be known of them. Thus indeed St. Paul inter-
prets himfelf concerning his Son, made oftheSeedofI)sLv'id,
after the Flejh, and declared the Son of God with Power,
(f) ^ft^^ ^^■'^ ^^h Sp^ih ■ by the RefurreBion from the
(d) A£ls xiii. ver. 52, & 35. (^) Luke xx. ver. ^6,
(0 CoLi; ver. 18. (d) Johniii, 16. i Ep, of St.lohn/iv., ^«
{d Pag. 31^. ( / ) Ro^' !■ ver. 3 , 4,
the Catholick Church, ^c 187
Dead. Here Cbryfoftom interprets he/.^vT^?-, which
we tranflate declared, by Jhevjn, manifefied, judged, by
the Opinion and Suffrage of all. To the fame fenfe'
the Greek Scholiafls, the Syriac and j^thiofic Verfions.
The Latin Interpreter alone, contrary to the Faith of
all the Greek Copies, renders [yoho is predeftinated the
Son of God] as though it had been written -sTg^se/^^^W?.
But what a fort of a Son of God was Chrift declared
and proved to be by the Refurredion ? No doubt, a
Son of God co-eflential to his Father, and therefore
very God. For as in this place [according to the Flejhj
denotes the human Nature of Chrift, fo [according to
the Spirit of Holinefs] denotes his divine. Nature. Now
as Chrift, according to the Flefh, is faid to be of the
Seed of David, i. e. the Son of David ; fo he is called
the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Holinefs.
We have obferv'd fo often before, that the Spirit in
Chrift, efpecially when oppos'd to the Flefh, denotes
his divine Nature, that it is needlefs to repeat it.
Nor ought it to feem ftrange that Chrift, as the Son
of God, and God, is here called the Spirit of Holi-
nefs, an Appellation generally given to the third Per-
fon of the Divinity ; for the fame divine, fpiritual and
holy Nature, is common to every Perfon of the
Trinity, Hence we have obferved, that Hermas, sl
Contemporary of St. Paul, has exprefly called the
divine Perfon of the Son of God an Holy Spirit ; and
that Ignatius, an Apoftolical Man, and a ftudious Imi-
tator of St. Paul's Style, has called him the immaculate
spirit (a). Beftdes, the fame Ignatius feems to have
had refped to this Text of St. Paul's, and to have
given us a Paraphrafe of it in that illuftrious Place,
more than once cited by me : T'here is one Phyjiciaix,
carnal and fpiritual, made and unmade, God made in the
Flejh ; (or as Gelafius, Athanaiius, and Theodorer,
God in Man) the true Life in Death, both of Maryj and
of God. Here, as in St. Paul^ Chrift is faid to have
(aj Vef, N, C. 5e^. 1 , chap. s. fe£l, 5,
. . two
iS8 ^/^^ JUDGMENT cf
two Natures, a carnal and a fpiritual : According to
the carnal Nature, or, as St. Paul fpeaks, according
to the Fie fb, Chrift is (aid to be begotten, or made,
and mortal Man : According to the fpiritual Nature,
or, as St. Paul^ according to the Spirit of Holinefs,
he is unbegotten, or unmade, the true Life, and con-
fequentiy God ; as carnal, of Mary^ i. e. the Seed of
David I as fpiritual, of God, i. e. the Son of God (a).
8. We are now come to the fourth and laft manner,
in which Epifcopius will have it, that the Man Chrift
is called the Son of God in Scripture j namely. As Je-
fus Chriji^ being raifid from the Dead, was made entire
Heir of all things in his Father's Houfe j and therefore
Lord of all the Heavenly Pojfefftons, and of his Father's
MiniflerSj i. e. of all the Angels (b). I anfwer. That
Chrift could not properly be called the Son of God
upon this account only, much lefs then his Only-
begotten Son. For an Heir is not neceflarily the true
natural Son of him, whofe Heir he is, much lefs his
Only-begotten Son j becaufe a Relation, or a Stranger,
may be made Heir (c). Further, our Lord^ as I faid
a little before, was the Only-begotten Son of God
when he was firft fent into this World by his Father,
therefore not then only made the Only-begotten Son
of God, when taken up again into his Father's Hea-
venly Manfion, and made Heir and Lord of all.
Now as for the place refer'd to in the Epiftle to the
Hebrews J Chrift is not there called the Son of God,
much lefs God, becaufe made Heir of all ', but on the
(a) Compare iTim.iii. i6. I Pet. iii. i8, 19,20.
(b) Heb. i. ver. 5.
(c) 7he Author of the Queries^ though prolix upon this Head, has not
thought ft to take any notice of Dr. BuUV Arguments. In thlsy and the
three preceding Modes, in tvhich our Lord is by Epifcopius afirrnd to
he the Only-begotten Son, that Gentleman hat exaBly follow' d him,
without fo much as a StriSlure upon that found Reafning the Bijhop has
ttfed in his Confutation. If his Book did not betray the contrary, a
Jdan ivould fcarce believe he had any Acquaintance ivith this excellent
Piece. Compare the Jnfiver to the ^eries^ p. 65, ^c, with our ^«-
iker.
Other
tloe Catholick Church, ^C' 189
other hand, he is faid to be made Heir of all, be-
caufe the Son firft ; the Son, I fay, by whom God the
Father made the Worlds, and who was before Ages.
The Words are thefe : God in thefe laft Days hath
fpoken to us by his Son, luhom he hath made Heir of all
things, by whom alfo he made the World. Here the
Socinian Comment is monftrous, namely, that God is
therefore faid to have made the Worlds by his Son,
becaufe he reformed Mankind by him, and brought
them into a new State. A Man may fafely fwear, not
one of the Hebrews, to whom this Epiftle was written,
underflood the Author's Words in this fenfe ; or ever
dreamt that by [the Worlds'] was only meant Mankind,
much lefs only that part of them to whom the Light
of the Gofpel had then appeared. The Words, which
we render Worlds, are, by an Hebraifm, ufed for the
whole created Univerfe. Thus again in another
place, (a) By Faith we perceive that the Worlds were made
by the Word of God. Nor can you, I believe, either
in Holy Scripture, or any profane Greek Author, find
the Word underftood in their Senfe. In the ^ewijjy
Liturgy, God is frequently called God, or Lord of
Ages, i. e. of all created things. They, as the Criticks
in that Literature obferve, make a three-fold JEon^
Age, or World : The firft, the inferior, the elementary
Region ; the fecond, the middle, the celeftial Orbs ,
the third, the fuperior, the Manlion of the Divine
Majefty and the Angels, which St. Patil calls the
{b) "third Heanjen. The Divine Author then intended
to teach us that God the Father made all thefe JEom,
Ages, Worlds, by his Son. This he again exprefly
affirms in the fame (c) Chapter, where he fays, that
the Words of the Pfalmift were fpoken to the Son of
God : 'thou Lord in the Beginning hajl founded the Earth,
the Heavens are the Works (f thy Hands, they fJoaU periJJy.,
but thou endureft ; tJ^ey all (hall wax old as a Garment, and
as a Veflure fhalt thou fold them up, and they fJjaU be
{a) Chap. 1 1, ver. 3, (6) 2 Cor. xii, 2, {c) Ver, 10, 1 1, 1 2.
changed:
190 T'be JUDGMENT of
changed: hut thou art the fame ^ and thy Tears JloaU not fail.
What do the Hereticks again with thefe Words ? As
they ufed to do. They deny the Paragraph is applied
to the Son of God, and fay only that part of it,
which fpeaks of what is not yet done, but future,
namely, the Deflruftion of the World, is by the Au-
thor accommodated to him. But (not to fay that it is
the plain Defign of the Author, to fhew the Excel-
lency of the Son of God from his prefent adual At-
tributes I nor to add, that both the Creation and De-
ftrui^ion of the World are alike the Work of a Di-
vine Power, and not communicable to any Creature)
what is this, if not impudently to contradid the Di-
vine Author to his Face ? Now, they fay, it is too
too plain, that thefe Words of the Pfalmift are fpoken
to the fupreme God, namely, to God the Father;
Grant it, what then ? Does it thence follow, that
they are not alfo fpoken to the Son of God ? On the
contrary, whatfoever is fpoken to God the Father, as
the Creator of the World, is fpoken alfo to the Son,
becaufe God the Father, as the Author had faid be-
fore, created all things by the Son. Moreover, tho'
that Pfalm feem to be nothing elfe than the Supplica-
tion of the People or Prophet for rebuilding Jerufalem,
rafed by tht Chaldi^^ans i yet (according to the gene-
rality of Interpreters^ as the earthly Jerufakm is a
Figure of the Church of Chrift, fo thefe things which
are fpoken of the rebuilding the earthly yerufatem^
are myftically to be refer'd to the building the fpiritual
and heavenly Jerufalem, the Church, the City and
Kingdom of Chrift. For the following Paflages of this
Pfalm are not perfedtly fulfillM, except in Chrift and
his Church, (a) 'Thou fialt arife and have Mercy upon
Zion, for it is time to have Mercy upon her, yea the time is
come. And, The Gentiles floaU fear thy Name, 0 Lord,
and all the Kings of the Earth thy Glory ; for the Lord
hath built Zion, and f)aU be feen in his Majefiy. Andj
{a) Pfalm cii. >
the Catholick Churich, ^c* 191
"tU LoVd looked down from Hecifven upon the Earthy &c.
And, When the People met together^ and the kings alfo to
ferve the Lord. Wherefore the other things alfo fpoken
of God belong to Chrift. And indeed, if this v^ras
not plain from the Context, we muft yield to the Au-
thority of an infpir'd Writer. I will yet add, that
the literal Senfe of the Pfalrh, as it relates to the
freeing God's People from the Bahylomjl^ "Captivity,
belongs to Chrift, becaufe he, as the Word and Son
of God, always exifting with God his Father, prefided
over and provided for the Chutch from the Beginning ;
yea, by his Providence, ruled and govern'd all created
things. Nor can we think (as T^enuUian tells us, in
concert With the whole Church of Chrift) that only
the Works of the World were made by the Son, but
alfo the things tranfaded by God fince the Creation.
Hence (a) St. Paul plainly teaches, that it was Chrift
who prefided over the People of Ifrael in the Wilder-
nefs, after he had brought them out of the Egyptian
Bondage, and who went before, and led them by the
Hand, as it were, into the Promifed Land.
Thefe impious, troublefome Fellows, proceed in
their Argument thus : If the Author of the Epiftle
had therefore cited this Teftimony of the Pfalmift to
prove that the World was made by the Son of God,
he had mifs'd his End ; for that was to fhew that Ex-
cellency of the Son only which he had, being now
placed at the Right Hand of God ; a Purpofe which
could no way be fervM, by applying to him the Crea-
tion of the World. But on the other hand, foraf-
much as the Author cites this place of the Creation,
and exprefty applies it to the Son of God, we are af-
fur'd that it was not his Defign only to fhew that Ex-
cellency of the Son, which he at length arriv'd at, af-
{a) I Cor. X. ver. 9. See the Defence of the N. C. Seft. i,
chap. I. almofi entirely concjvnlng this matter j but efpeclalJy feft, i2j
14,15, 16. ,
ter
192 T'Z'^ J U D G M E N T «?/
ter his Exaltation at the Right Hand oF God the Fa-
ther. Befides, in the very beginning of the Chapter,
the Author had briefly faid thefe three Things of our
Saviour i That he is the Son of God, by way of Di-
ftinftion; that the Ages, or Worlds, were made by
him; and, laftly, that he was made and declared Heir
of all, when in his Flefh he was taken up into the
higheft Heavens, and there placed at the Right Hand
of God the Father. For thefe feveral Reafons, the
Author afterwards fhews from Citations of Scripture,
that he was not only far more excellent than the Pro-
phets of God (as has been noted before) but alfo than
the Angels themfelves. Now this Teftimony, ,of
which we are treating, manifeftiy belongs to the
fecond. For which Reafon the Word tranflated [king
made'] ought to be render'd [vjho is ;] or, according to
Chryfojiom and 'Theophylaci, expounded [being exhi^
hited and declared^ Laftly, the Sophifters urge : If
the Author of the Epiftle had really believM, and
been fully perfuaded that all the Creatures were made
by the Son of God, why ftiould he fo elaborately have
made the Comparifon between him and the Angels ?
Who could doubt whether the Creator was more ex-
cellent than the Creatures ? I agree with them, that
no one could. But at that Time, when this Epifl:le was
written, there were many, namely, the Cerinthiam
and others, who attributed the Creation of this via-
ble World at leaft: to the Angels, in the mean time
believing our Lord only a mere Creature, a Man, and
no more, not exifl:ing before Mary, and confequently
much inferior to the Angels. Further, the carnal
7ewf, who had not yet received the Dodrine of
the Gofpel, the Brethren of thofe to whom this
Epiftle is wrote, believed that the Ghrift, or
Mefliah promifed by the Prophets, was to be no-
thing but a Man j and many of their Doftors
thought that the Angels were Fellow-Workers
with him in the Creation of the Lower World;
and
the Catholick Church, cJ"^. 19 ^
and that it was faid to them by God, {a) Let m make
Man. Againft thofe the Divine Author fees himfel£
to good purpofe, when he explains the Excellency of
Chrift the Son of God above Angels ; and he very ap-
poiitely inftruds us againft them, when he fays, that
the Creation is certainly the Work of the fupreme
God by his Son, who himfelf is alfo God -, and that this
Work is not compatible with Angels at all, who are
themfelves Creatures, and {b) miniftring Spirits to God,
I return at laft to the Words of the Author : God
in thefe lafl Days hath fpoken to us by his Son, whom he
hath made Heir of all things ^ by whom alfo he made the
JVorlds. It is indeed very clear, that the facred
Writer here intended to (hew the Congruity of the
Divine Difpenfation, by which it was fo manag'dj
that the World fhould, in theFulnefs of Time, be re-
newed by the fame Son by which it was made in the
Beginning ; that he who was Lord in the old Crea-
tion, fhould be Heir and Lord in the new. Thus
alfo St. Paul argues, (c) where he celebrates the fame
Son of God whom he had proclaim'd the Firfl-begotten
of every Creature^ i. e. begotten of God before every
Creature, and Maker of all things (for he who denies
that the Apoftle here fpeaks of a Creation, properly fo
calledj may, with the fame Affurance, deny that fuch
a Creation is any where defcribed in Scripture ; and
confequently contend that the firft Chapter of Genefis
is to be expounded allegorically)^?^ the Head of the
Body, the Churchy and the Firfi- begotten from the Dead.
Immediately after (d) he adds this Reafon, That he
might have the Pre-eminence in all things^ i. e. that every
way he might be above all, in refped of Reftorationi
as well as Inftitution, as the Beginning of the World,
and Head of the Church. Thus, after examining all
Epifcopius's four Manners, in which our Saviour, as
{d) See Paul Fagius upon the Place ; Philo Judstis de opificio
6 dierum ; and JuftinV Dialogue ^mh Trypho, p. 285.
Q>) Ver. 14. (c) ColoflT. chap. i. ver, 16, 17, {d) Ver. 180
yoL. II. H Mao,
194 ^Ti^^ JUDGMENT <?/
Man, is, by way of Eminence, called the Son of God
in Scripture ; we have proved that he can't, by any
of them, be called the Only, or Only-begotten Son i
nay, over and above, we have fhewM, that in the
Places of Scripture in which thefe Modes or Manners
feemM to be contain'd, another, and a far more excel-
lent Filiation of our Saviour is intended, namely, that
in which he was with God, as the Only Son of God,
before he was made Man, yea, before the Crea-
tion.
p. I proceed to the third Argument, taken from
the Order and Context of the Creed itfelf. Now it
is manifeft, that Epifccpius's four Modes are all ex-
prefsM elfewhere in the Creed, therefore not denoted
in thofe Words [his Only-hegotten Son,'] unlefs we ad-
mit a Tautology in fo fhort a Form. The fecond
Mode, concerning the Miffion, or Undion of our Sa-
viour to his Office, is fignifyM juft before, in the
Word [Chriji.'] The other Three, his Conception by
the Holy Spirit, his Refurredion from the Dead, and
his Exaltation at the Right Hand of God the Father,
are all afterwards exprefs'd in diftinft Articles. Where-
fore, when in the Creed we confefs Jefus Chrift the
Only-begotten Son of God, we plainly fignify that
he hath another Filiation, namely, a divine one, dif-
ferent from all the other.
The Author of the Iremcum eagerly (as his Cuftom
is) contends, that the Words of the Creed, which
follow thefe [and in ^efus Chrifi his Only-begotten Son^
are only added for Defcription-fake, That it might ap"
pear what a Son of God is here under flood, namely, fuch an
me as ivas horn of the Virgin Mary, crucijfd, dead,
raifed again, taken up into Heaven, and fits at the Right
Hand of the Father, andfloall come to judge the Quick and
the Dead i aU which things denote afingular, an only-hegot'
ten^ and a proper Son of God. But here the Heretick is
as much miftaken as can be. For, (i.) No fober
Man will believe, that in fo fhort a Creed, all thofe
things which are added concerning him, after he is
confefs 'd
the Catholick Church, ^c. 19^
confefs'd to be the Only-begotten Son of God, arc
only added h^ way of Explication, that it might ap-
pear what a Son of God he is j for they make at leaft
half the Creed. (2.) Moft of thofe things that follow,
make nothing any way to the purpofe of our Lord ^s Filia-
tion," namely, He fuffer'd under VQVxwxsYA^l^^ixiascYud''
fyd^ dead, and buried, he defcended into Bell. Thereforej
C3.) Wemuft conclude, that thofe things that follow the
Profeffion of Faith in the Only-begotten Son of God,
are not only added, that it might be the more clearly
underftood who this Son of God was, in whom we
mufl believe ,* but alfo that it might appear what this
Son of God did and fuffer'd for us, what he under-
took, and difcharg'd for our Salvation j namely, thae
he was conceivM by the Holy Spirit, born of the Vir-
gm Mary, was even made Man, and fuffer'd undet
Pontius Pilate. This (a) Ruffinus tells us, who well
knew the fenfe of the Roman Church, which ufed this
Creed : After that the dejigned Order of the Creed hath
been laid before us<, the ineffable Myflery of the Sons Na~
tivity from the Father, it now defends to his vouchfafing to
engage in the Bujinefs of Man^s Salvation, and fays that
he J ivhom it had before called the Only Son of God, and
cur Lord, was born of the Virgin Mary, by the Hdy Ghofl.
I'his Nativity relates to the Difpenfation among Men, that
[Sonfhip and Dominion] to his Divine Subftance. This
belongs to his Condefcenfion, that to his Nature. In order
to underftand this Expofition of Ruffinus the better,
we are to confider that the antient Doftors of the
Church divided all their Difcourfes upon Chrift into
thefe two Parts, T'he Theology and the 0 economy. They
callM that the 'Theology^ which belonged to the Di-
vinity of our Saviour, That he was the Son of God;
begotten of God the Father before all Ages, and even
God, and that by him ail things were made. They
called that the Oecommy, or Difpenfation, which be-
longed to his Incarnation- and what he did upon
(<») Expofitio Symboli,
N 3 Earth
19^ 27^^ JUDGMENT (?/
Earth in the FJefh, to procure the Salvation of Man-
kind. Therefore in the Creed, eali'd the Apofiks^,
thofe Words in which we profefs our Faith in the
Only-begotten Son of God, relate to the Theology ;
but thofe that follow, concerning his Conception by
the Holy Spirit, his Nativity of the Virgin, and his
Paffion, to theDifpenfation, or Oeconomy (a). Thus
fehe Bifhops and Doctors of the Catholick Church,
from the Apoflles, underflood and expounded the
Rule of Faith concerning our Lord Chrift. So (l>) Ig-
natius^ in his genuine Epiflle to the Ephejians : Our
God Jefus Chrifi v^as conceiwd by Mary, according to the
Difpenfation oj God, of the Seed of David, and the Holy
Spirit, He was born and baptizJ'd. Therefore the Con-
ception of the Virgin Mary^ the Nativity, &c. qlc
cor 6.'\Vigio Ignatius y doth not belong to the Defcription
of the Son of God, but to that Difpenfation which
the Son of God, himfelf alfo God, undertook for our
Salvation. Thus AuJIin, in the place often cited upon
another occafion, fays. This is the Faith requifite to
the Salvation of all that live under the Gofpel, by
which they acknowledge Chrifi the Son of God, 'who ivas
e'ven before Lucifer and the Mocn^ and who being incar-
nate^ condefcended to be born of the Virgin, that by this
Difpenfation, the Serpent^ an Evil-doer from the Begin-
ning, and the Angels like him, might be defiroy'd, &c.
Here the Nativity is exprefly refer'd to the Difpenfa-
tion, "which the Son of God, who was before Ages,
■underwent for our fakes. Irenaus alfo giving us the
Rule of Faith received in all the Churches, (which we
have, for the moft part, recited before) after the Pro-
feffion of Faith in the Oaiy-begotten Son of God,
that is, after the Theology, prefently adds, that the
Holy Spirit had foretold by the Prophets, the Difpenfa-
tions and Advents, the Nativity of the Virgin, the Paf-
Jion, RefurreElion from the Dead, and the incarnate Af-
(/») Compare Gal. iv. ^. ivith Eph. i. lo.
ih) A.P. Tom. 2.p. i5.
fumption
the Catholick Church, ^c. 197
fumplm into Heaven of our beloved Lord Cbrifi Jefus.
Here he exprefly refers the Articles oF the Creed, con-
cerning the coming of our Saviour into this World,
/. e. concerning his Nativity of the Virgin, his Paf-
fion, and what he did upon Earth, till his Afcent
into J^eaven, to thofe Difpenfations which he, the
Only-begotten Son of God, underwent for our Salva-
tion. The fame Perfon, (a) elegantly defcribes the
Faith of a fpiritual Man, a true Chriftian Catholick,
concerning the Holy Trinity, in thefe Words : He
hath all things i he has an entire Faith in the One Almighty
Gody from ivhcm are all things-, a firm Perfuajion in our
Lord Jefus Chrift^ the Son of God^ by whom are all things ;
and in his Difpenfations, by which the Son of God was
made Man i and a true Knowledge of the Holy Spirit of
God, who through every Age reprefents to Men, according to
the IViU of the Father, the Difpenfations of the Father
and the Son. Here again the holy Man fhews, that
there is a two-fold Knowledge of Chriftians concern-
ing Chrift contained in the Church's Rule of Faith;
one which refpeds his Divine Perfon, that he is the
Son of God, by whom all things were made; ano-
ther which refped:s the Difpenfations, that he the Son
of God was made Man, &c. It will not be difficult
then to judge, whether Expofition of the Creed is to
be prefer'd, that of thefe Apoftolical Men and Mar-
tyrs, (to whom all the following Catholick Fathers
agree) or that of the Author oi l\\t Lrenicum, a modern
Opiniator.
10. Our fourth and lafl Argument is deduced from
the Senfe and Jnterpretation of the primitive Catho-
lick Church. In the three firfl Ages, (for there is no
Controverfy about the following Ages) the Title of
the Only-begotten^ or Only Son of God, given to Chrifl,
is plainly determined by the conftant and perpetual
ufe of all Catholick Dodors, to mean his Divine Ge-
neration from God the Father, before all Ages. All
^a) Lib. 4. chap. 5^. p. 399.
K 1 of
198 ri'^ J U D G M E N T ^/
of them agree to that of T'ertullian (a)^ concerning
the Son ot God : He is the Firji- begotten, as being be-
gotten before all things ; and the Only-begotten^ as being
alone begotten of God^ properly, out of the Womb of his
Heart, For they all of them owned no other Son of
God than he, who was begotten of the very ElTence of
God the Father ; that is, who was the Logos and Word
from his eternal Mind, as we have el fe where abundantly
proved (b). Now this is fo fure and mauifeft, that
(c) Peta'uius himfeU, otherwife a rigid Cenfor of them,
is forced to contefs concerning thofe Ante-Nicene
.Writers, who feem to have denied the Eternity of
the Only-begotten Son of God, (for they only feem
to deny it) that they aflerted the Son to be of the Sub-
fiance cr Nature of the Father. What would we have,
then? Hath not the Roman Church plainly enough
expreffed that peculiar manner of Jefus Chrift's Filia-
tion, concerning which Epifcopius fpeaks in this Creed ?
Hath fhe not ufed the very Words by which all Per-
fons confefs this manner of Filiation was denoted in
that Age and Church ? What though fome modern
Heretick can coin a new Expofition ? Surely, the
Creeds of the Churches are to be expounded from the
Senfe of the Churches, and not the wild Imagination
of Hereticks. If this were once admitted, there
would foon be an end of every Article of our Faith.
. He does not hold the Creed of any Church, who does
not underftand it in the fenfe of the Church. The
Author of a Piece afcrib'd to 'Juflin, has fpoke excel-
lently upon this Head : (d) It is not the bare giving Glory
to the Father and the Son, that is to us the Means of Sal"
Kuaticn ', but a found Confejjton of the Trinity conveys to us
the Enjoyment of thofe good things laid up for the Pious.
For one may hear Heterodox Men praiftng the Father and
the Son, but not ivorfhipping them in the true Senfe. In
like manner (e) St. Cyprian, upon thofe Words of
{a) Pag. 505. (h) Defeme of the Nicene Faith, SeO:. Z'
ihvcughout. (c) DeTrinitate, Lib, 1. chap. 5. fefl:. 7, {d) P. 572-
(e) P. ZOO.
Chrifl,
the Catholicic Church, ^c* 199
Chf ift, Go ye and teach aU Nations^ baptiz^ing them in the
Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit : He
fuggefls the Trinityj into which Myflery the Gentiles are
baptizfd. But does Marcion hold this Trinity ? Does he
(ijfert the fame Creator, God the Father, as "we do ? One
and the fame Son Chrifl, who was born of the Virgin Mary,
and made Fkflo, &c. No, Marcion, and the other Here^
ticks, have a Faith widely different from ours, nay rather,
they have nothing among them, but Perfidy, Blafphemy, and
Contention, the Enemies of 'Truth and Holinefs.
Thus let us alfo refute Epifcopius and others, who
would perfuade us that the Avians and Socinians are to
be efteem'd our Brethren, becaufe, forfooth, they re-
ceive the common Creed of the Church, and profefs
Faith in Chrift, the Only-begotten Son of God, as
well as we. But do they believe in the fame Only-
begotten Son of God, in which we Catholieks at this
day, and all the Catholick Church always believM ?
No, their Faith is widely different, or rather, they
have none. The Church believes, and always did be-
lieve in the Only-begotten Son of God, who was be-
gotten of God the Father before all Ages, and was
himfelf God , fuch a Son of God as neither of thofe
Herefies fincerely confefs. For the Arians (if you
ftrip their Notion of its Vizard) have a Son of God
Only-begotten too, who is indeed a Creature made of
nothing, though more excellent than all the reft, and
produced before them. The Socinians Only-begotten
Son is a mere Man, not exifting before his Nativity
of the Virgin. Both of them in Word profefs the
Faith of the Church concerning the Only-begotten
Son of God j but their inward Notion and Sentiment
is clean Herefy and Blafphemy. Further, from what
we have difcourfed fo largely concerning the Creed
called the Apoftles, you may fee the Vanity, the Folly,
and, if you pleafe, the matchlefs Impudence of the
{a) Racovian Catechift, who boafts, That he and his
{a} Catech, Racov. ido^.p. 59.
N 4 Friends
200 T^e]\JDGMENr of
Friends only believe concerning the P erf on of Chrifi^ that he
is b] Nature truly Man^ as the Creed^ commonly called the
Apoftles, and embraced by all Chriftians in common with
them, teflifies.
CHAP. VI.
Of the Antient Eaftern Creed-
I. T Come now to the fourth and laft Pofitlon;
J^ namely,
'That fpecial Mode of Jefus Chrifl's Filiation, in which
he exijied in his better Nature before all Ages, being be-
gotten of God the Father, and therefore God, is exprefly
taught and, declared in the Creed, or Rule of Faith, which
cbtaind in the mofi antient Eaftern Churches before the
. Council of Nice.
1. It is not to be doubted but that the Eajlern
Churches had their Creed, or rather Creeds, before
the Council of Nice ; Creeds, I mean, more large and
explicit than that firft and moft antient Creed Epifco^
fius mentions, conceiv'd in thefe Words only, / be-
lieve in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It is very plain that the Roman, and the other Wep,ern
Churches, had their Creed before the Council of Nice,
larger than that fimple Confeflion of the Trinity,
from Ruffinus and Aufiin ; nay, from TertuUiany Cy-
prian, and the Writers of the third Century. As for
the Roman Church, which the other Wefiern Churches
generally followM, Vofftus {a) hath given us the ex-
prefs W^ords oiVigilius, where he writes thus : AUprofefs
to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jefus Chrijl
his Son, our Lord, To this Head he [Eutyches] calum-
id) Voffius de tribus Symboliso
nioufiy
the Catholtck Church, ^c* 201
mmfly ohjeSis this : Why do they not fay. And in one Jefus
Chrift his Son, according to the Decree of the Council of
Nice ? But at Rome, enjen before that Synod met, even from
the 'Times of the Apoflles till now, and under Caeleftine, of
bleffed Memory, who he owns to be Orthodox, the Creed was
the fame ; nor are the Words any way prejudicial, where the
Senfe is found.
Now if the Roman and Weflern Churches had fuch
a Creed before the Council of Nice, why not the
Eaftern alfo ? Nay, fuch a Creed was more neceflary
for thefe Churches than for the Roman, as I have
(a) before obferv'd from Ruffinus, becaufe they were
grievoufly difturb'd in the firft Ages by Hereticks,
who gave the Roman Church no Trouble. Befides,
the Greek Ante-Nicene Writers frequently mention the
Rule of Faith in their Writings; and Irenaus, an
Afiatick, and doubtlefs one of them, gives us this
Rule at large. So Eufebius, in the Synod of Nice, re-
cited a larger Confeffion of Faith, which the Cate-
chumen was taught, and profefs'd in the Baptiftery,
before the Fathers had made their Creed (b).
3. Further, we muft needs conclude, that the
Churches of the Eafl did not rejed their ancient
Creed, after that of the Council was fet forth. For
we fee that the Roman Church retain'd her old Creed
after the Council. And who can doubt but that the
Churches of the£^^ did fo likewife ? For the Decrees
of the Nicene Council being Oecumenical, did equally
refpeft all the Churches of Chrift i fo that the cafe in
this matter was the fame as to Eaftern and Weflern.
Now the Nicene Fathers, I fuppofe, never had any De-
fign either to make a new Creed, or to deliver down
the old Eaftern Creed entire, with their own Addition ;
but only to affert the true and receiv'd Senfe of that
Article of the old Creed relating to the Son of God,
againll the Arians. They indeed premife the Article
of the old Creed, concerning God the Father (chough
{a) See abfve, (b) Socrates, Lib, i. chap. 8. p. 20, & 21,
not
202 7"/^^ JUDGMENT^?/
not entire) to their Confeffion concerning the Son of
God, and they fubjoin to it fomething concerning the
Faith in the Holy Spirit. But this they did, as think-
ing the Faith concerning the Son of God could not
be explained juftly, without a ProfefTion of the Father
and Holy Spirit. Hereupon, as foon as they have
barely mentionM the Holy Spirit, they immediately
return to the Article concerning the Son, their main
Bufinefs, and denounce an Anathema againft thofe
who denied his true and eternal Divinity. Now I
will prove hereafter, and that indifputably, that many
things were left out in the Nicene Creed after thofe
Words \_and in the Holy Ghojf\ which were extant in
the Creed receiv'd by the firft Eaftem Churches. This
however is certain, that the Nicene Bifliops never in-
tended that their Creed fhould from that time be ufed
in admini firing Baptifm, (the Anathematifm which
concludes it, is repugnant to that end) but left every
Church to ufe their former Creeds. Sure, if the
Holy Synod had intended that, either the Roman and
JVeflern Churches, whofe Bifhops made a great pare
of the Synod, did not underfland her Meaning, or
defpifed it j which no fober Man can imagine. For
B^uffinm^ in his Preface to the Expofition of the Aqui-
leian Creed, exprefly teftifies, T'bat at Rome they kept
up the old Cujiom^ that they ivho ivere to receive the Grace
of Baptifm, floould repeat the Creed in the Audience of the
People i the old Roman Creed, of which he had been
fpeaking before. And a little after he fays, that he
took upon him the old Creed of Aquileia (in forae
things different from the Roman) in the Grace of Bap-
tifm ; that is, profefs'd that Creed vvhen he was
baptiz'd. /
4. Thefe things premised, I proceed to prove my
Pofition. The Churches of Paleftine were the moft an-
tient of all other, and of them the Church of 'Jerufa^
lem, as being that from which the Doftrine of the
Gofpei firft came, and was derived to the other parts
of the World. Hence the Conftaatinopolitan Fathers
called
^/^^ Catholick Church, cJt. 205
called it the Mother of all Churches (a). Though this
firft Church, almofl from the Inftitution of Metro-
politans till the Council of Chalcedony was fubjeded to
Cafarea ; yet, for the Reafon above-mention'd, all
other Churches held it in great Efteem. Now what
the antient Creed o^Jerufakm was, and what it taught
to believe concerning the Perfon of our Lord Jefus
Chrift, Cyril, made Bifhop of that Church in 350,
will beft inform us. He, while yet a Catechift, efx-
plain'd this Creed by parts to the Competentes ; all
which parts, joined together, make this Confeflion :
/ belie've in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of Hea-
wen and Earth, and of all things 'uijible and inuifihle ; and
in One Lord 'Jefus Chrifi^ the Only-begotten Son of God, be^
gotten of the Father- before all Worlds, true God, by whom
all things -were made, incarnate and made Man, crucify* d
and buried', who rofe again from the Dead the third Day,
and afcended into Heaven, and Jitteth at the Right Hand
cf the Father, and "who cometh to judge the Quick and the
Dead, zvhofe Kingdom jloall have no End : And in the
Holy Spirit the Comforter, who hath fpoken by the Prophets j
the one Baptifm of Repentance, for the Remiffion of Sins i
and in the one Catholick Church i the RefurreElion of the
FlejJo, and the Life Everlafling.
5. It is plain, this is not the Nicsne Creed, and that
it hath not the Additions of the Conflantimpolitan con-
cerning the Holy Ghoft. The latter no one can won-
der at, who remembers that Cyril's Catechifms, in
which this Creed is recited, were wrote many Years
before the Council of Conftaminople, i. e. before the
Year 381. It remains then, that this muft be the old
Creed of the Church oi Jerufalem. This is alfo clear,
becaufe Cyril expounds it to the Candidates for Bap-
tifmr.now in the Adminiftration of Baptifm, both
the Eaftern and IVeflern Churches held their old Creeds,
as I have fhewn before, after the Nicene Council. In
this Creed, every one may fee the Divine Generation
{d) Theodor. E, H. Lib, 5. cap, 9. p.211.
of
204 ri'^ JUDGMENT^/
of the Son from God the Father, declar'd in the
plaineft Terms, namely, in thefe : T'he Only-begotten
Son of Gody begotten of the Father before all Agei,
true God, by ivhom all things were made. Nor do
I doubt but that EufebiuSy a. Palefiine. born, and after-
Wards Bifhop of Cafarea^ had an eye to this Creed ;
when, in the Council of Nice, giving an Account of
the Confeflion he received in his Catechifation and
Baptifm, he thus deUvers the Article concerning the
Son of God : (a) And in One Lord Jefus Chrifi^ God of
Godj the Only-begotten Son, begotten of God the Father be-
fore all Ages, by whom all things were made. Here we
have the very Words of tlie Creed of Jerufalemy ex-
cept that for ITrue God] Eufehius fubftitutes [God of
God'\'. where he cautioufly, as ahnoft every where
elfe, thought proper to guard againft the Sabellians, by
fo aflerting the true Divinity of the Son, as ftill to pre-
ferve the Father's Prerogative, who is God of himfelf,
and the Diftin<9:ion between Father and Son, founded
in that Prerogative. To this alfo the Nicene Fathers
confented, and fo put the Words [God of God] in
their Confeffion concerning the Son of God ; yet ad-
ding, according to the old Creed, [true God of true God]
and more fully explaining it, when they immediately
call the Son of God confubftantial with the Father ;
/, e. not of any created or changeable Nature, but al-
together of the fame truly divine and immutable Na-
ture with God the Father : which alfo was always
Eufehius's Opinion (b).
6. There are indeed fome learned Men, who con-
tend that thofe Catechifms are not CyriVs, but one
Johns, his PredecefTor, or Succeffor in the See of Je-
nifalem. If this was true, we have nothing to fear
from it I for whether Cyril or John wrote them, it
is certain the Creed in them is that ufually ex-
plained to the Competentes in the Church of Jerufakm^
(a) Socrates, Lib. t. chap. 8. p. 2i.
{b) See the Defence of the Nicene Creed, 5e£l, 4i, chap. i.
and
the Catholicic Church, t^c> 205
and therefore antiently received in it. But {a) Vofjtus
has clearly proved the Catechifms to be Cyril's, againft
thefe fuperfine Criticks. (h) Jerome, Cyril's Contem-
porary, exprefly fays they are his, and that they were
wrote in his Youth. And T'heodoret, to name no more,
cites them as Cyril's. But yet the fame Vvffitis fays in
the fame place, 'Thac there is fomething ivhich may occajion
a Scruple, not touch'd upon by any, namely, that in this
Creed there are fome things which feem to I2 taken from the
Conflantinopolitan, i. e. what is added after the Words
[the Holy Spirit] the Paraclete, who ffake by the Pro-
fhets, and in the one Baptifm of Repentance, &c. The
learned Man thought that thofe things were not in
the Eaflern Creed before the Council of Conflantimple ;
induced, as he himfelf tells us, by the Conclufion of
the Nicene Creed, in thefe Words [and in the Holy Spirit.']
But there is nothing in this (though the great Eraf-
mus has alfo urg'd it) as hath already appeared from
the beginning of this Chapter, and as I (hall make
more plain by what I have to fay hereafter. As for
the Additions in the Creed of Jerufalem, after the
Words \in the holy Spirit'] I will clearly prove that they
were not taken from the Conftantimpolitan Creed, buc
were in the moll antient Eaflern Creeds long before
the Council of Conftantinople, or even that of Nice.
,7. (i.) It is certain that the Creeds which the
Wefiern Churches ufed before the Council of Conftan^
timple, and even that of Nice, did not end in thofe
Words [_and in the Holy Spiritl but had after them other
Articles of Faith. Now who can confider what we
have before obferv'd concerning the Original of al-
moft all Herefy in the Eafl, and yet eafily believe that
the Weftern Creeds were larger than theirs. Now it is
readily proved that there were fome Heads of Chri-
flian Dodrine in the antient Creeds of the Wefi, fub-
joined to the Article concerning the Holy Spirit. For
{a) De tribus Symbolis, ViJ. i, Tkef.yi, {b) Catalogus
Scriptor. Ecclei^
Cyprian
2o6 7'^e ]UD G M ENT of
(a) CypYiaHy fpeaking to Magnus of the Creed the Nova^
tians^ as well as the Catholicks, ufed in Baptifm, fays ;
PJ/hentheyfayj Dofl thou believe theRemiffion of Sins ^ and Life
Everla/ling by the Holy Church ? T'hey ask afalfe Que (lion ^
hecaufe they have no Church. Here you have three Arti-
cles, of the Churchj the Remiffion of Sins, and Ever-
lafting Life, exprefsM in the old African Creed. Fur-
ther, (b) 'tertullian exprefly makes the Article concern-
ing the Church a neceflary Part of the Confeffion to
be made by one who is to be baptiz'd. Now when the
Evidence of our Faith^ and the Security or AJfurance of
our Salvation is fledgd to us before three \_divine Perfom,
namely. Father, Son, and Holy Sprit] the mention of the
Church is necejfary to be added. To the fame purpofe is
what (c) Tertullian fays of Chrift not baptizing in his
own Perfon : Into nxhat Jhould he baptiz,e them ? Into Re-
pentance ? To what purpofe then was his Fore-runner ? Into
Remijjton of Sins ? He gave that with a Word. Into him-
felf, whom he veiled with Humility ? Into the Holy Spirit^
who was not yet defcended from the Father ? Into the Church,
whom the Apoftles had not yet built ? Here we have the
Article of the Re?niffion of Sins hinted, &c. This I
mention in particular, upon Erafmus's account, who
fays that Article was added againft Novatus. But
Novatus had not yet appear'd in the World in Ter-
tuHians time ; for he was Novatians Contemporary,
affifted him in promoting his Schifm, and therefore
diflurbed the Church in St. Cyprians days ; whence it
came to pafs that fome, efpecially the Greeks, con-
founded Novatus and Novatian, as the fame Herefiarch;
contrary to which (d) St. Cyprian writes, Tou have be-
hav^d with Diligence and AffeBivn, dearefl Brother, in
fending Nicephorus the Acolyth to us fpeedily, to tell the
glorious and agreeable News to us and the Confeffors which
are return d, and to inflruB us fully againfl the pernicious
and novel Attempts of Novatus and Novatian to oppofe
(^) P. 185. Ep. ad Magnum. (.&) P.225. (c) P.228.
(4 P. 95. Ep. adCornelium 52.
the
the Catholick Church, ^c 207
the Church of Chrifi. Befides, the Novatians baptiz'd
into the fame Rule of Faith with the Cacholicks ; and
more, required of their Followers the Profeffion of the
Article concerning the Remiflion of Sins, as is plain
alfo from {a) St. Cyprian. For Novatus, or Novatian,
did not (imply deny the Remiflion of Sins, but both
of them, that that Remiflion did not belong to cer-
tain heinous Sins (fuch as they were polluted with,
who facrific'd to Idols, or pretended to have done it)
committed after Baptifm ; or at leaft were not to be
remitted according to the courfe of Church-Difci-
pline (I/). But this by way of Digreflion.
8. (2.) In the (c) ApofiolicalConfthutions^ we have a
Confeflion of Faith, or a Creed to be recited by Perfons
to be baptiz'd ; in which, after the Profefl^on of Faith in
God the Father tmbegotten, and in his Only-begotten Son, be'
gotten before Ages, begotten^ not made ; it follows, / am
alfo baptiz>'d into the Holy Spirit, that is, the Comforter,
•who hath operated in all Saints from the Beginning, and
who ivas lately fent to the Apoflks by the Father, accord^
ing to the Promife of our Saviour the Lord 'Jefus Chrifi ;
and after the Apoflles, to all that belienje in the Holy Catho-
lick Church, the RefurreSiion of the Flefh, the Remiffton of
Sins, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Life of the World
to come. Here we have almoft all thofe Words, which
in the Jerufalem Creed follow that Article, [_And in
the Holy Ghofi'] with this difference, that the Author
expounds the Words [whofpake by the Prophets'] thus,
[who operated in all Saints from the Beginning'] and tranf-
pofes the other Articles. Thofe Words only [And in
me Baptifm of Repentance'] are wanting, of which here-
after. Now that very excellent Perfon (d) Cardinal
Bona, and other learned Men, give this confentienn
Opinion of the Conftitutions : Whatfoever may be faid
of the Author of thefe Conjlitmions, all agree that it is cer-
tain and evident they were more antient than the Council of
(«) See (thve. (b) Socrates, E. H. Lib. I. cap. lo.
(c) Tom. I. P. A. Lib. 7. cap. 41. p. 5 So.
{d) Rcrum Liturg, Lib. i, cap. 8. Sell:. 4.
Nice ;
2oS T'y^^ J U D G M E N T ^/
Kice i and that in them is contain d the Difcipline of ths
Chriftian Church before Conftantine the Great, as the
learned (a) Morinus tells us ; to "whom {h) Joannes Pron-
to ajfents in his Obfervations before the Roman Calendar.
Now as to the Creed in thofe Conftitutions, the Au-
thor (or rather Interpolater) of the Book gives us an
entire Paraphrafe of it, according to Cuftom; but
yet it is clear, that the Creed in his Eye was neither
the Nicene nor the ConjiantinopoUtany (it has not the
Additions of the one againft Arius, nor of the other
againft Macedonius) but manifeftly agrees with the
Creed of Jerufalem.
9' (S') T'he third Argument may be taken from
the Confeflion of Faith which Arius and Euz.oius of-
fer'd to Confiamine in their own Names, and thofe of
their Accomplices ; and by which they intended to
perfuade the Emperor, that in all things they believ'd
as the whole Catholick Church and the Scriptures teach (c).
Now in that Confeflion, after the Article concerning
the Holy Spirit, are thefe words : And in the Refur~
reEiion of the Flejhy and the Life of the World to come^ and
the Kingdom of Heaven, and the one Catholick Church of
God. Here you have three of the four Articles in the
yerufaletn Creed placed after the Article concerning
the Holy Spirit, though not in the fame Order. But
fince this Confeflion of Faith was written many Years
before the Synod of Confiaminopky it is impoflible that
the Hereticks fhould have follow'd that Precedent in
the Recital of thofe Articles. It remains then, that
they had an Eye to the old Eaftern Creed, in which
thofe Articles are. In the like manner, in the Creed
of the Eafiern Bifhops at Sardica (an Arian Council)
as we have it in the Fragments of Hilary, after the
Profeflion of Faith in God the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, &c. are thefe Words;
IVe believe in the Holy Church, the Remiffton of SinSj the
{a) De facris Ordin. pars z- p. 20. (J>) InPraenotatis ad Ca-
lendar, Rom. feS. 5. (c) Socrates, Lib. i, cap. 26* p. 51.
Re/ur--
the Catholick Church, ^c^ 209
RefurreBion of the Flejh, and eternal Life. Here you
have the Article of Remiflion of Sins, which was
omitted in the former Confeffion.
10. C4.) To thefe clear Arguments, I have yet one
evident Reafon to add. Thofe Words in the Jerufa-
km Creed which follow \_and in the Holy Spirit] mani-
feftly concern certain Herefies which difturbM the
Church of Chrift, efpecially the Eaftern^ moft in the
fecond Century, and which were filencM long before
the Council of Conflantinople : It is therefore abfurd to
determine that thofe Additions were then made to the
Eafiern Creed; I mean, the Herefies of Simon, Menan-
der, Cerinthus, and others, comprehended under the
general Name of Gnoflich, which {a) Gregory Naz,ian--
z,en, who flourifh'd at the time of the Council of Con-
Jlantinople, and before it, fays, had in his days a long
time difappear'd. It remains, then, that I prove thofe
Articles which follow that of the Holy Spirit in the
Creed of yerufalem, to be leveird againft the Dotage,
or rtther the monflrous Opinions of the Gmftich,
If in the explaining this matter, I (hall be longer than
ordinary, I fuppofe it will neither be ungrateful or
unprofitable to a Lover of Antiquity.
11. I fhall begin with the Words immediately fol^-
lowing, [the Comforter, luhofpake by the Prophets^ The
Word here render'd Comforter, is in the Scripture a
known. Appellation of the Holy Spirit, and of an ex-
tenfive Signification ; for it denotes a Teacher, a Com-
forter, and an Advocate. Now this Epithet of the
Holy Ghoft is not in the Conflantimpolitan Creed, the
Reafon of which Omiffion I fhall explain a little here-
after : but it is (as I have ftiewn above) in the C/^-
mentine.Qxe,td, and in the Creed of the Ariam at Sar-'
dica. It is very probable, that Word was added
againft the Gnoflich ; for moil of thofe Hereticks
taught that the Paraclete and Holy Spirit were two
different Mons (b). But not to infift upon this, the
{a) Orat. 23. (6)VideTertuliian contra Valentin, p. S53,&a55.
Vol. II. O foh
210 Tbe iVDGMENT of
fjllowing Words [whofpake by the Prophets^ are plainly
direfted againft the Herely of the Gnofiicks. For al-
moft all of them taught, that there was one God, the
Maker of this vifible World, preach'd by the Law
and the Prophets, and another who is manifefted in
the Gofpel ; and that the old Prophets were not in-
fpir*d by the Holy Spirit, but by a certain Power
proceeding from that God of the World, (which fome
of them were not afraid to call Evil) therefore their
W^ri tings were not to be regarded, nay, to be utterly
rejeded. Ignatius ^ no doubt, had an eye to this
Herefy, when he thus admonifhes the Philadelphians :
(a) Let us love the Prophets, hecaiife they alfo preach'd the
Gofpel. His Interpol ater has rightly underftood
his Meaning; (b) "The Prophets and Apoftles received
from God by Jefus Chrift the fame Holy Spirit, the good,
the great, the true, the communicative, the right Spirit. For
there is one God of the Old and Neiu T'eflamem. There is
one Mediator of God and Men, for the Creation of fpiritual
and fenjible Things, and a proper and regular Providence
ever them : And there is one Paraclete, who operated in
Mofes, the Prophets and Apoftles. And a little after.
If any one confejfes the Lord J ef us Chrifi, but denies the
God of the Law and the Prophets, affirming that the Father
of Chrift is not the Maker of Heaven and Earth, fuch an
one is not in the Truth, even as the Devil is not; and fuch
an one is a Difciple of Simon Magus, but not of the Holy
Spirit. Many fuch like Paflages you may find in Ire-
naus, TertuUian, and other Antients.
12. I am wholly of opinion, that thofe Words
\who fpake by the Prophets'] or thofe equivalent to them,
■were placed in the moft antient Eaftern Creeds, againft
this Blafphemy of the Gmftich. For Irenaus giving us
the Rule of Faith which obtained in his time, hath
thefe Words upon the Article concerning the Holy
Spirit, [who preach'd the Difpenfations of God by the PrO'
phets.l In like manner, in the Compendium of the old
{a) Tom. 2, P. A. p. 32. (b) P, 82»
Creedj»
the Catholick Church, ^c, 21 J
Creed, cited in Greek by Damafcene^ and by us tran-
fcribed entire abov^e, the Faith in the Holy Spirit is
thus expounded : And a true Kmivledge of the Holy Spi^^
rit, ivhich reprefents to Men in every Age the Difpenfations
of God, as the Father pleafesi Thus Athenagoras, fome-
thing antienter than Irenaus, giving us the Confeffion
of all Chriftians concerning the Trinity in Unity,
thus reprefents the Catholick Faith concerning thei
Holy Spirit : (a) And ive fay that the Holy Ghofl, which
•worked in the Prophets, "was an Efflux of God. In the
fame place, a little before he had faid, I'he prophetical
Spirit alfo fays as lue do. Before thefe, (b) Jufiin alfo
expounding the Chriftian Faith concerning the moft
glorious Trinity, defcribes the third Perfon after
the fame manner ; We alfo ivorjhip and adore him^
and the Son that came from him, and the prophetick
Spirit, honouring them in Reafon and Truth. To this
we have a (c) parallel place: We with reafon honouf,
the prophetick Spirit in the third place. Again, fpeaking
of the Prophets of the Old Teftament, he adds,
(^d) By whom the prophetick Spirit foretold what was to
come before it came. What follows in the {e) fame Piece,
comes yet nearer to the Words of the Jerufalem
Creed, where again treating of the Faith and Con-
feffion of the Holy Trinity, into which the Chriftians
of his time were baptized, he thus expreifes what be-
longs to the third Perfon : And he who is bapti:zJ'd, is
alfo wafh'd in the Name of the Holy Spirit, who foretold by
the Prophets all the things concerning jefus. Sure he muft
have little Judgment or Candour, who can confider fo
many and fo plain Teftimonies, and yet deny that the
Words [who fpake by the Prophets] or Words equiva-
lent to them, were ufed to defcribe the Holy Spirit
in the moft antient Eaflern Creed. I have indeed of-
ten wonderM that the Con/lantinopoUtan Fathers fhould
add [who fpake by the Prophets] after thefe Words ap-
(^) Pag. 10, & It. (6) P. 5^. (c) Rdo. (^ P.72.
0 P. 94^
O 2 plied
212 T"/^^ JUDGMENT o/
Plied to the Holy Spirit Ithe Lord^ giving Life^ proceed"
ing'from the Father, luho, together laith the Father and the
Son, is worfloipfd and glorify'd.'] The Addition feem'd
low and mean, after thofe magnificent Expreilions.
But after I underflood that the old Eaftern Creed had
thefe Words [the Paraclete, who /pake by the Prophets^
I came to this Determination, that the Synod, inftead
of [the Paraclete'] had given us thofe magnificent Ex-
preffions, the more clearly to afifert the true Divinity
of the Spirit againfl Macedonius ; and then added
[who f pake by the Prophets'] becaufe it was fo read in the
antient Creed : This by the way.
13. I proceed to the following Article, In one Bap-
tifm of Repentance, in the RemiJJton of Sins. Thefe, in
CjriVs printed Catechifms, are two diflinft Members;
but by all means to be joined in one Article, as we
have it in the Conftantinopolitan Creed : / confefs one Bap-
iifm for the Remiffton of Sins ; fo that Baptifm is here
made the means of obtaining Remiflion, and Remif-
{ion the end of Baptifm. This Article, I am fully
perfuaded, is direfted againfl the Herefy of the
Gnojiicks. For Irenaus (a) fays of the Valentinians, that
by the Delufions of the Devil they were led into the
Denial of Baptifm, by which we are regenerated to
God, and confequently into the Rejedion of all Faith.
Now all of them did not defend this Impiety after;
the fame manner; for one Sed of them did annul the
only Baptifm of Chrifl, by the Diflindion of a two-fold
Baptifm ; the other took away all Baptifm which is
performed by external Rites. Of the former, Irenaus
writes a little after, in the fame Chapter, thus : For the
Baptifm of Jefus, who appeared, is that of the Remifjton if
Sins ; but the Redemption of Chrifl, who defended into
him, is to PevfeBion. The one they fuppofe to be animal,
the other fpiritual ; that Baptifm was preach' d by John fo
Repentance, but the Redemption was brought by 'Jefus to
PerfeSiion, And that this is what he f peaks of, when he
{a) Pag. 10(5, Lib, i, cap, iS,
the Catholtck Church, ^c* 213
Jaysy I have another Baptifm to be baptiz'd with, to
which I prefs forward with all Might. Of thefe,
Irenaus fpeaks afterwards, that they celebrated that
external Water-Baptifm in another Form, and by other
Rites than thofe received in the Catholick Church,
Of the later Sed of the ValentinianSy {a) Irenau^
treats towards the end of the Chapter, cited thus i
But others vejeEling all thefe things, fay, loe ought not to
perform the Myftery of the tinfpealiable and invijlble Powers
by vifible and corruptible Creatures i of inconceivable and
incorporeal things ^ by thofe -which are fenfible and bodily ;
and that the perfeEi Redemption is the very Acknowledgment
of the ineffable Majefty. Is it not plain, then, that the
Article of the J erufalem Creed ^ J believe in one Baptifm
of Repentance for the RemiJJton of Sins, is a very proper
Antidote againft thefe impious Tenets of the Gnofticks.
For die Catholicks profefs'd in thefe Words, Firft,
That Baptifm was neceflary, both as commanded,
and as a mean, at leaft an ordinary one : Then, that
there was only one Baptifm of Chrift, namely, that
which the Church obferves. Laflly, that that one
Baptifm, is the Baptifm of Repentance and Remiffion
of Sins; and that no Man arrives at that Perfeftion in
this Life, as not to fland in need of Remiffion of Sins.
Moreover, I therefore really think, that Irenaus had
an eye to this Article of the old Eafiern Creed ; be-
caufe, in his Rule of Faith, he obferves, that we are
taught to believe, that eternal Salvation will be given
not only to them who have kept the Commandments
of our Lord from the Beginning, but alfo to them
who have done it by, or after Repentance; univerfal
Repentance, a Departure out of a State of Sin and
Death, into a State of Righteoufnefs and Salva-.
tion.
14. I now come to the Article [_And in one Catholick
Church.'] The Word Catholick, fome Petfons think to
})e lately added, againft the Noyatians, and other
^a) Pag. 108.
O t SQUk
214 Tbe JUDGMENT of
Schifmaticks, who, in the third Century, diflurbM
the Peace of the Church. Of this Opinion was
(a) y. G. P'offms. Howev^er, it is certain, (though the
great Man feems not to have obferv'd it) that the
Church had that Attribute in the very Age after the
Apoflles. For in the EpiftJe of the Smjmaan Bre-
thren, concerning the Biefled Polycarfs Martyrdom, we
Jiave it mentioned in the Salutation thus : fl^) The
Church of Godivhuh is at Smyrna, to the Church at Philo-
mehum, and to all the Diocefes of the Holy Catholkk
Church every inhere ^ Mercy ^ Peace, and the Love of God
the Father J and our Lord Jefus Chrifi, be multiplied. In
the fame Epiflle, the Smyrnaans fay, that Polycarp be^
ing about to die, remember'd in his Prayers, The
whole Catholick Church throughout the World (c). Nay,
before Polycarp, Ignatius exprefly gives this Epithet to
the Church of God, faying, Wherefoever Chrifl Jefus
is, there is the Catholick Church. Well, then, faid
(d) Valefius, This Sirname appears to have been given the
Church about the fir ft Succeffion of the Apoftles, -when Here-
ties arofe in many places, and attempted to fubvert the true
Faith of Chrifl, and the Tradition of the Apoflles. For
then the Name Catholick was given to the Orthodox only,
that the true genuine Church of Chrifl might be diflinguifh d
from the fpurious Conventicles of Hereticks. Now it is
further to be obfervM, that the Cnofticks, who chiefly
fpread their Herefies in the firfl Succeffion of the
Apoflles, were moft of them fo confummately impu-
dent, as to boaft, that the pure and fincere Gofpel
was only taught in their Conventicles j that they
alone had difcover'd and knew the Myfteries of God,
and the true Way of obtaining Salvation, whence alfo
they affum*d the Name of Gnoflicks : but that that
Doftrine which the Catholick Church had received
from the Apoftles, and embraced, was generally falfe
{a) De tribus Symbolis, Dijf. i. 7 he/. 39.
{h) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 104.
(0 A. p. Tom. 2. p. 37*.
^rf) Notes upon Eufeb. Lib. ;»
andt
the Catholicic Church, ^c^ 215
and fpurious. Thus {a) Irenaus writes of them :
When they are refuted out of the Scriptures, they arraign
them, as not right, nor authoritative, as having various
Readings, and not being able to inflruEi thofe in the Truth,
who know not Tradition. For they fay, that the Truth was
not written, but fpoken ; and that Paul therefore f aid, But
we fpeak Wifdom among thofe that are perfed, but
not the Wifdom of this World. Now every one of
them calls his own FiEiion Wifdom ; fo that according to
them, fcrfooth, the Truth is fometimes in Valentinus,
fometimes in Marcion, fometimes in Cerinthus, and laflly,
in Bafilides. For every one of them being very forward, is
not afham'd to preach up himfelf, corrupting the Rule of
Truth. Again, When we appeal to Apoftolical Tradition,
preferved in the Churches through the Succefpons of Presby
ters, they oppofe Tradition ; advance, that they have found
out thefincere Truth^ and are wifer not only than the Pref-
hyters, but even the Apofiles ; that the Apoftles mix the
things of the Law with the Words of our Saviour ; and
that not only the Apofiles, but our Lord himfelf fpoke fome-
times from the Creator, fometimes from a middle Povier, and
fometimes from the highefi ; but that they do certainly, purely
andjimerely know the hidden My fiery, which is the mofl im-
pudent Blafphemy againfl their Maker. Againft thefe
impious Opiniacors, all the Sons of the Church of
that Age Avere very juflly engagM to profefs their
Faith in one Catholick Church, /. e. that they would
conftantly adhere to that Dodrine and Faith, which,
according to the Holy Scriptures, was preach'd with
one Confent in all the Apoftolical Churches by the
Bifhops and Dodors. The Senfe of the Article can't
be better exprefs'd than it is by (b) Irenms : We ought
not now to feek the Truth of others, which we may eaftly
have from the Church, fince the Apofiles ha've very largely
cafl into it, as into a rich Treafury, all Truth ; fo that he
who will, may draw from it living Water. This is the
•way to Life, all the reft are Thieves and Robbers; wherefore
la) Lib. 3. cap. s. p. 230. (&) Lib. 3. cap. 4. p. 242.
O 4 ^6
2i5 !r/:7^ JUDGMENT^/
we might to avoid them j but, ivith all diligence, to chufi
what the Church offers, and to lay hold upon the Tradition of
T^ruth.
15. The other two Articles, of the RefurreSiion of
the bead, and Eternal Life, we have exprefly in the
Clementine Creed, in the Confeflion of Arius and Ew
z,oius, in that alfo of the pretended Arian Synod of
Sardica, and in Irenaus's Rule of Faith. It is too
well known, to need any Proof, that moft of the
Gnofiicks denied the Refurredion of the Flefh, and
confequently the Life Everlafting. For thus (a) Ire-
naus ipeaks of them .* Surely they are vain Men to con-
ieiTtn the whole Difpenfatim of God, to deny the Salvation
cf the Flefh, and to rejeEl its Renovation, faying, that it is
not capable of Incorruptibility. The fame Herefy he
(b) charges upon BafiUdes by name, and (c) Marcion,
in which (d) TertuUian agrees with him. The fame
impious Tenet (e) Aufkin imputes to Simon Magus, Car^
pocrates, Valentinus, ApeJIes, and other Hereticks of the
fame Stamp. Now from what has been faid, it fol-
lows plainly, that the Words in the Jerufalem Creed,
after thefe, [^and in the Holy Spirit'] were not added to
the Eajiern Creed by the Conftantinopolitan Fathers, but
placed there long before the Synod of Confiantinople,
or that of Nice, againft the impious Dotage of the
Gnojiicksj who began in the beginning of the fecond
Century to fet their falfe Wares to publick Sale.
1 5. That you may plainly fee the Antiquity of
this whole Hierofolymitan Creed, I will not think it
too much briefly to fliew, that even the preceding Ar-
ticles of it, concerning God the Father and the Son,
are fo drawn up, as manifeftly to flrike at the Blaf-
phemy of the Gnoflicks. The Article concerning God
the Father, is conceived in thefe Words : / believe in
one God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earthy
(«) Lib. 5. cap. 2. p. 43 4. Qj) Lib. i. cap. 25. p. 1 19.
(c) Cap. 29. p. 129. {d) De prasfcript. adv. Hasreticos,
(J) De Hserefibus,
wi
the Catholick Church, (j-c. 217
md of all things njtflhle and inrnfible. The Cerinthiam,
and the other Gmftkks, did not acknowledge God the
Father as Creator, aflercing, ih^itDemiurgus^ the Crea-
tor, the God of this Worjd, was one, and the Father
of our Lord Chrift another. The Cerdonites and
MarcioKites were not afraid to fay, that there were
two Gods, two Principles. But all the Gmfiicks attri^
buted the vifible and invifible things to different Cre-
ators, and denied that this vifible World was made by
the fupreme God. It follows in the Creed, [^and in one
Lord Jefus Chrifl.'] The Cerinthians (as I have fhewa
in this Piece, and elfewhere) denied that Jefus Chrift
was one, feparating Jefus from Chrifl ,- and affirming,
that Chrift defcended from above into Jefus, when he
was baptiz'd, and at his Paffion flew back again into
his Pleroma. The fame Cerinthians^ and the Carpocra-
tiam (with whom the Ebiomtes alfo agreed in this)
taught that our Lord Jefus was a mere Man, the Son
of a Man, and that he did not exift before he was
born of Mary. The following Words glance at them,
namely, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Fa-
ther before all Ages^ true God. AH the Gnojiicks denied
that God the Father made all things by his Son ; it was
therefore added, by whom all things were -made. What
follows, namely. Incarnate, and made Man, crucify d, &c.
manifeftly ftrike at the Doceta, who affirmed, that our
Lord only feemed to be born, to fuffer, and to die ;
which Herefy almoft all the Gnojiicks defended. After
the Article concerning Chrift's coming to judge the
Quick and the Dead, are thefe Words, Whofe King-
dom /hall have no end. Thefe Words, though not in
the Nicene Creed, are in the Conflantinopolitany not-
withftanding that they have no relation to the Mace-
donian Controverfy. We have alfo the fame Words
in the Clementine Creed. Now that they w^ere tioc
added by the Conjlantimpolitan Fathers, but were in the
old Creed which obtained in the Eaft long before the
Council of Conjlantinople^ or even of Nice, is plain
from this, that we find Words equivalent to ther^i in
moft
2iS 21^^ J U D G M E N T of
inoft of the {a) Avian Confeifions, in which they en-
deavour'd to perfuade others, that they had flridly
obferv'd the antient Rule of Catholick Faith. So the
(^h) EufebianSj in their Confeflion, fay, they believe
that Chrifl will ame to judge the Quick and the Dead, and
ivill remain a King and a God for evet. Thus alfo the
Ccnfeflion of {c) 'Theophronius fpeaks of Chrift, 'That
hefloaU come again with Glory and Power to judge the Q^iick
and the Dead, and /ball remain for enjer. The ConFef-
fion of the Arians, fent into France by MarceHus, and
others, more fully explains thisClaufe, thus: (d)Whofe
indijjoluble Kingdom remains for infinite Ages. Their
Confeflion fent into Italy by Macedonius^ and others,
and the Confeflion of the Council of SyrmiwHy fpeak
to the fame purpofe. It is therefore manifeft, that
Claufe concerning the Eternity of Chrift's Kingdom
was in the old Eaflern Creed. That moft ancient
Writer {e) Ju/iin Martyr feems alfo to have had an
eye to this Creed, in his Dialogue with Tryphoy where,
after a Paraphrafe upon the Rule of Faith concerning
our Lord Chrift, he introduces T/^'/'/jo, as it were, re-
peating the Article of Chrift's future Judgment, thus :
For to him it is given to judge all Men without exception^
and his is the eternal Kingdom. Now, I am of opinion,
that the Claufe [.whofe Kingdom fj jail have no endy] was
defign'd againft the Cerinthiansy who taught that thofe
glorious things fpoken in Scripture concerning Chrift; *s
Kingdom, were to be underftood of a certain, earthly,
carnal, and even Epicurean Kingdom, which fhould
continue only a thoufand Years. There WTre indeed
in the firft Age after the Apoft.les, very many of the
Catholicks (Jiiftin alfo, whom I have cited, was one
of them) who expeded that Chrifl fliould reign upon
Earth a thoufand Years: but then their Opinion,
though perhaps erroneous, was widely different from
(a) Pars 2. Tom. i . p. 735. Athanafius, {b) P, 7 3 7.
(c) P. 738. {d) Vide quae fequuntur de iSynodis, &c,
(e) P. 2^4.
the
the Catholick Church, ^c, 219
the Cemthian Herefy. For the Catholicks did not
place the Happinefs of that Kingdom in the Grati-
fications of the Belly and the Flefli, in Meats an4
Drinks, ahdi Marriages i which, as Dionyfius Alexan-
drinus (a) informs us, was the obfcene and fordid Opi-
nion of Cermthiii ; but expefted a Kingdom, in which
Peace Ihould flourifli. Truth, Juflice, and Piety
fhould prevail, and the holy Name of God (hould be
every where duly praifed. Laftiy, the Catholicks
only expeded this temporary Kingdom of Chrifl, as
a Prelude (if we may fo fpeak) of that heavenly
Kingdom which they believed was to endure for
ever.
17. From what we have difcours'd, I fuppofe, it is
now very clear, that the Jerufalem Creed is very an-
tient, and indeed no other than the old Eaftern Creed,
which the Apoftolical Men compofed as an Antidote
againft the manifold Herefy of the Gmflkks, that very
infolently exerted itfelf in thofe Parrs, juft after the
Deceafe of the Apoftles. Hence (b) Cyril calls it
the Holy Apoftolical Faith y deliver' d to us for our Profejjton,
Moreover, from thefe things, we may eafily conclude
it more antient than all the Creeds of the Weft^ not
excepting the Roman. Voffius reports it as a ftrange
and abfurd Opinion of a learned Man, Joannes Ro^
dolphus La'vaterus, that he thought the Creed called
the Apoftles, was made out of the Conftantimpolitan ;
and cites thefe Words of his concerning Chrift's De-
fcent into Hell : / uerily believe this Confeffion (of the
Council o/Conftantinople) vjas afterwards a little changed^
and put off for the Apoftles Creed. Now I profefs my
felf fo far of this learned Man's Opinion, as to think
the Creed called the Apoftles, that is, the Roman, was
made up out of the Jerujalem, or antient Eaftern Creed,
with which the Conftantinopolitan well agrees, except in
the Additions made againft Arius and Macedonius.
{a) Eufeb. E. H. p. 223. Lib. 7. cap. 25.
(6) Catech. 1 8. p. 501.
220 T';^^ J U D G M E N T ^/
1 8. I will explain my Opinion more clearly in the
following Pofitions : (i.) The Form, in which the Per-
fons to be baptized did antiently profefs their Faith
in the Holy Trinity, was fimple, and conceived gene-
rally in thefe Words, / believe in God the Father ^ Son
and Holy Spirit. This is the allow'd Opinion of the
jnoft learned modern Divines, nor hath Epifcopius, as
we have feen already, diflented from it. (2.) The
Hereticks would not fuffer the Church long to enjoy
this fimple Confeffion of the Trinity : For whereas in
the very times of the Apoftles, there arofe the Simo-
niansy Menandrians, Cerinthians, and other Hereticks, of
the fame Stamp, who were very bufy in privately cor-
rupting the found Doftrine concerning God the Fa-
ther, the Son and Holy Spirit, and other chief Arti-
cles of Chriftianity ; thefe falfe Apoftles, foon after
their Deceafe, began more audacioufly to fpread their
Herefies. Hereupon, the Bifliops of the Churches
where the Hereticks gave difturbance, thought fit to
compofe a larger ConfeiTion of Faith, and require it
of the Perfons to be baptiz'd ,' namely, fuch an one
as might more clearly expound the true Notion of the
Trinity j adding alfo thofe other Articles of the Chri-
Hian Faith, which the fame Hereticks did in like man-
ner oppofe. (3.) Thofe firft Hereticks arofe in the
Eafly and, for the moft part, difturb'd the Eafiern
Churches alone, as hath been proved. (4.) Hence we
eaiily gather, that the firft larger Confeflion of Faith
was made in the Eafl ; for where the Poifon was firft
fpread, there the Antidote was prepared. C5.) The
Explanations and Additions which were made by the
Orientals to the firft and mod fimple Confeffion of
Faith, were moft of them (though fome later than
others) received into their Confeffion of Faith after-
wards by the Roman and We/iern Churches. For in the
times of Ruffimis, the Creeds of Rome and Aquikia had
not [.Creator of Heaven and Earth'} in their Article con-
cerning God the Father. For Ruffinus doth not ex-
plain thefe Words in the Aquikian Creed, nor tell us,
, that
the Catholick Church, ^c» 221
that they were added in the Roman. But it is plain,
from what has been faid before, that the Claufe con-
cerning the Creation of all things by the fupreme
God, was put into the moft antient Eaftem Creeds,
againft the Herefy of the Gnoftkks. Hence Irenaus^ in
his Rule of Faith, fays exprefly, T'he Maker of Hea-
ven and Earth. In the Article concerning the Church,
the Word [Catholick'\ was wanting in the Creeds of
Rome and Aquileia in Ruffinus's days : for he does noe
explain it in that of Aquileia, nor obferve that it was
mention'd in that of Rome. Indeed the Pammelian
Edition has it, but contrary to the Faith of the moft
antient Copies. What I fhall obferve next, may per-
haps feem trivial, though indeed of very great Impor-
tance. The Article concerning the Belief of the Life
Everlafting (which, as we have feen, was in the
Eafiern Creed long before) was not in the Creeds of
Rome and Aquileia till the times of Ruffinus ; and after-
wards, as (a) Voffms hath plainly proved. See alfo
the Notes of the {b) Bifhop of Oxford^ B. M. upon
the Synodical Epiftle of St. Cyprian. But this Article
was in the African Creed in St. Cyprians time, as we
have proved before.
19. I faid that moft, not all the Additions of the
Eaftem Churches, were received by the Church of
Rome into her Rule of Faith. For thofe things which
feemed to abound in the Eaflern Creed, or to be ad-
vanced againft Herefies, fcarce known in the Weftern
Parts, the Church of Rome afteding Brevity, omitted
in her Confeflion. So in the firft Article, concerning
God the Father, fhe received, though not very foon,
thofe Words [_Maker of Heaven and Earth,'] but not
thofe following \_and of all things "vifible and in'vifible i\
becaufe fhe thought them contained in the former,
Befides, the People of Rome had fcarce heard of thofe
Monfters, who afligned the vifible and invifible things
to different Authors. In the fame, and the following
(a) De tribus Symbolis, Vijf. i. Thef. 43. (b) P, ipo.
Article^;
222 !ra^ J U D G M E N T ^/
Article, the Roman Church, as Rujfinus tells us, omic^
ted the Word LOne] in One God, dec. and in One Lord
Jefus, which all the Eaflern Churches had in their
Creeds 5 becaufe they knew little of thofe blafphe-
nious Creatures who denied One God the Father, the
Creator, or One Jefus Chrift. Again, in the fecond
Article, after the Words ithe Only-begotten Son of God,']
the Church of Ro^ne lath not added what immediately
follows in the Eaflern Creed, [.begotten of the Fathev be^
fore nil Ages,'] becaufe they were in the Catechifm in-
ftruded, and underftood the latter Words to be vif
tually contained in the former. So thofe Words are
wanting in the Roman Creed, which in the Eaflern im-
mediately follow in the feventh Article, concerning
the Coming of Chrift to judge the Quick and the
Dead, namely, [jwhofe Kingdom floall haue no end,~] be-
caufe no Man at Rome had dreamt of Cerinthus's Mag-
got. The eighth Article of the Roman Creed is with-
out any Explication or Addition, juft as we have it
in the firft and moft fimple Form [/ believe in the Holy
Spirit^ which I have formerly much admired. For,
as we have obferv'd in the Articles concerning God
the Father and the Son, the Church of Rome has bor-
rowed fome things from the Eaflern Creeds to add to
her own. Nay, further, after the Article concerning
the Holy Spirit, fhe has added, in imitation of the
Eaflern Churches, certain Articles, namely, concern-
ing the Church, the Remiflion of Sins, &c. Why,
then, has Ihe given us no Explication of the Article
concerning the Holy Spirit ? Why has fhe not imi-
tated the Eaflern Churches, and added [Paraclete, who
fpoke by the Prophets'] ? If indeed this Omiffion was de-
ligned, we may fay, as before, that thofe Words were
therefore omitted in the Roman Creed, becaufe they
flruck at an Herefy which gave that Church no di-
flurbance, Nor was there occafion of any Addition
here, becaufe, except that Herefy of the Gnoflicks (which
was not fomuch direded againft the Holy Spirit, as the
Law and the Prophets) there never arofe any other,
that
the Catholick Church, ^c 22^
that did profefTedly and openly attempt the Dignity of
the Holy Spirit before Macedonius, againft whofe
Blafphemy the ConflantimpoUtan Fathers made fufficient
provifion. AriuSj indeed, by denying the Son's Di-
vinity, has by confequence more ftrongly denied the
Divine Majefty of the Holy Spirit. For the Here-
tick could not be fo ftupid, as to prefer the Holy
Spirit before the Son of God (upon which account
{a) Epiphanius, {b) Amhrofe^ and (c) Auftin, accufe him
of making the Holy Spirit the Creature of a Creature) j
but this was not his Aim, which alfo is a Reafon why
the Council of Nice hath defined nothing againft him
concerning the Holy Spirit. The Anti-Trinitarians,
indeed, have in every Age chofe to attack the Di-
vinity of the Son firft, taking occalion from many
places of Scripture, which relate to his Incarnation,
and what he undertook for our Salvation, (neglefting,
or rather refufing, very many places of the fame Scrip-
ture, which plainly fpeak his Divinityj a Pretence
they could not have in oppofing the Divinity of the
Holy Spirit; and therefore were content indiredly,
and by confequence, to make this Point. However,
this is obfervable, that fome of the antient Latin
Dodtors, in expounding the Article of their Creed
concerning the Holy Spirit, have had an eye to that
Addition of the Orientals. Thus Novatian, Cyprian's
Contemporary, and Presbyter of the Church of Romey
in his Rule of Faith, or, as we now call it, his Book
of the Trinity, has thefe Words upon the Article
concerning the Holy Spirit : (d) But our Lord Chrifl
fometimes calls this Spirit the ParacletCj fometimes pronounces
him the Spirit of 'Truth^ which is not new under the Gofpel^
nor newly given. For this very [Spirit] accufed the People
by the Prophets^ and accomplifh'd the calling of the Gentiles
by the Apo files. And a little after, It is then one and the
fame Spirit^ which was in the Prophets and the Apofiles, &c.
{a) Haeref. 69. n. 52, & ^6. (h) Ambr. de Symbol, cap. 2.
(t) De Hseref. cap. 65>. (<f) P.727.
Here
224 Tbe iUDGMENT of
Here we have the Senfe and Meaning of the Words
[the Paraclete J who /pake by the Prophets'] clearly ex-
plain'd, namely this, that there was not one Spirit
under the OldTeftament, and another under the New;
not one of the Prophets, and another of the Apoftles :
but that one and the fame Spirit which infpir'd the
Apoftles, fpoke alfo by the antient Prophets, contrary
to what the aforefaid Hereticks taught. In hke man-
ner Ruffinus, in his Expoficion of the Creed, after he
had obferv'd that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was
hinted, by the way of expreffing it, [I believe in the Holy
Spirit~\ not [/ believe the Holy Spirit^ immediately adds.
It ivas therefore the Holy Spirit^ who, under the Old Tejia-
ment, infpired the Law and the Prophets i and, under the
KleWj the Go/pel and the Apoftles. Laftly, The tenth
Article of the Roman Creed, of the Remiffion of Sins,
is plainly nothing but a piece of an Article, exprefs'd
more fully in the old Eaftern Creed, thus : / believe in
me Baptifm of Repentance for the RemiJJton of Sins ; or,
as the Conftantimpolitan Fathers give it us, I confefs one
Baptifm of Repentance for the Remiffion of Sins. Now
the Romans feem to me to have omitted the former
Pare of this Article, becaufe under no Apprehenfions
from the Gnoftick Herefy concerning that Sacrament,
which I mentionM before. But notwithftanding that
in all the preceding Obfervations, the Roman Creed is
more contracted than the Eaftern, yet it is now, by
two entire Articles, more large than it ; namely, in
thefe, concerning the Defcent of Chrift into Hell, and
the Communion of Saints. Learned Men (a), indeed,
have, fome time fince, obferv'd, that thefe Articles
were not antiently in the Roman Creed. Thus you
have my Reafons for believing the Eaftern Creed, ex-
plained by Cyril, more antient than the Roman, called
the Apoftles ; and the one, the Roman, compiled and
derived from the other, the Eaftern.
{d) See Voffius de tribus Symbolis, Vijfert. I. T^ef. 34, and the
Notes upon the joth Epijile of St. Cyprian, p. ipo. Ed, Oxon.
ao. I
the CathOltck Church, ^c. 225'
20. I will add one Obfervation more, and fo con-
clude this long Diflertation concerning the antient
Creeds. It is to be obferv'd, then, that the Arlam
themfelves, in their Confeflions of Faith, cited before
in this Chapter, have given us the Article concerning
the Son of God, almoft after the fame manner as it is
in the 'Jerufalem Creed. For thus their firft Confeflion
has it. {a) And in one Only-hegotten Son of God, who
exified before all Ages^ and ivas with the Father that begat
him, by whom all things were made. Thus, again, ano-
ther Confeflion, immediately following the former i
And in one Lord Jefus Chrijiy his Only-begotten Son, God^
ly whom are all things, God, begotten of his Father before
Ages. Thus T'heophronius's Confeffion .- And in one
Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jefus Chrifi, by whom are all
things, begotten, perfeEl God of the Father before Agesi
Where perfeEi God is, no doubt, equivalent to true
God in the Jerufakm Creed. So the Confeffion of the
fame {_Arians^ fent by Narctjfus, and others, into
France, to be delivered to Conflans : And in his Only^
begotten Son, our Lord 'Jefus Chrifl, begotten God of the Fa"^
ther before all Ages, by whom all things were made. Thus
almoft all their Confeflions, which follow in Athanafius^
give us the Article. Now they fay, that in thefe
Confeffions, they have religioufly obferv'd the Rule o£
Faith delivered down from the Beginning. Thus iti
the Preface to their firft Confeffion, We hanje not recei'
rued any other Faith, than that which was delivered from
the Beginning : Thus they begin the Confeffion, IVe
have learnt from the Beginning to believe, dec. Thus
alfo another of their Confeffions, IVe believe agreeable
to Evangelical and Apoftolical Tradition. From this we
again conclude, that the fpecial Mode of the Filiation
of Jefus Chrift, concerning which Epifco^ius difputes,
namely, that by which he, in his more excellent Na-
ture, was begotten God of God the Father before all
Ages, by whom all things were made, was plainly declard
(ji) Athanafius. Pars 2. Tom. i. p. 755, SVj
Vol. II. P Itt
226 !r^^ JUDGMENT^/
in the Creed, or Creeds, extant in the Eaflem
Churches before the Council of Nice, juft as we have
found it in the Creed of the Church of Jemfalemy the
moft antient of all the Churches of the Eaft. For the
Avians were Orientals, who fet forth thofe Confef-
(ions ; and that, as they profefs, according to the
Rule of Faith receiv'd in their Churches from the Be-
ginning.
21. Hence it alfo appears, that xho^t Arians wexe
felf-condemn'd : For in confeffing that the Son of
God was begotten of God before all Ages, that he
"was true or perfeft God, and that the Creatures were
made by him, they have confuted their own Opinion.
What fober Man will believe that nothing elfe is meant
by this Confeffion, than that the Son of God was a
mere Creature, made of nothing, though before all
other Creatures, which was the Avian Tenet ? How
was he before all Ages, who only receivM the begin-
ning of Exiftence, in the beginning of the Creation, in
the firfl Moment of the firft Age ? How could he be
God, true and perfed God, and create all things of
nothing, who himfelf was a mere Creature ? For, as
(^a) Athanapus has well obferv'd. It is not poffible that
the things made, and he that made them^ fhould have one
Genevation. Laftly, How could he be begotten of
God, who was made of nothing ? Upon this account,
the great (b) Athanafius fharply reproves the Avians,
from their own Confeilionsi Even you have wvote, that the
Son is begotten of the Fathev. If then when yon name the
Fathev, ov God, you don't mean the EJfence, ov he that is,
accovding to his EJfence i but fomething, I can't tell what,
about him, ov infeviov to him : you Jhculd not xvvite that the
Son is fvom the Fathev, but fvom Jomething civcumflantial
tOj or inhevent in him ; that fo avoiding the calling him
truly God the Fathev, and conceiving him that is fimple, to
he compound and corporeal, ye might be the Invent ers of a
new Blafphemy. And a little after, (c) Te have f aid thai
(a) Tom. I. pars 2. p. 751, (^) P. 750* (0 Ibidem.
, thi:
the Cathouck Church, f^c, 227
ihe Son is of God, namely, ye have f aid that he is of the
Ejfence of the Father. Moreover, granting that the
Words of the antient Creed will bear the Arian Senfe,
it is certain the primitive Church, which ufed thai-
Creed, underftood them in another more noble Senfe.
For the Catholick Dodors before Arius, how uncau-
tioufly or obfcurely foever fome of them have fome-
times fpoken upon this Queftion concerning our Lord's
Divinity, yet all of them, with one confent, have
confefs'd the Son of God to be begotten of God the
Father, fo as to be born of his very Effence, and to be
really God, as we have proved throughout the whole
fecond Sedion of our Defence of the Nicene Creed. In
vain then did the Ariam boaft, that they had not in
the leaft receded from the antient Rule of Faith, fince
they only held the Words of that Rule, not the true
primitive Senfe of it.
22. Laftly, It is hence manifeft, that the Synod of
Nice did well, did neceflfarily advance the Claufe of
the Confubftantiality, againft thofe impious Com-
ments of the Arians, and for the aflerting the true
and genuine Senfe of that Article of the old Creedj,
concerning the Son of God. Inftead of what Hood
in the old Creed \Xhe Only-begotten Son of God, begotten
of the Father before all Worlds, true God, by "whom all
things "were made,2 the Nicene Fathers have given us^
The Only-begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, of the
Father's Effence ; God of God, Light of Light, true God
of true God, begotten, not made, of one Subfiance vJith the
Father, by whom all things were made. Where we lee
the Words of the old Creed after [Only-begotten^ name-
ly [begotten of the Father before all Ages'] left out, to
make way for the Claufe of the Confubftantiality.
But the Conjiantinopolitan Fathers retained thofe Words,
adding what was fuificient concerning the Confub-
ftantiality out of the Nicene Creed, thbs : [Xhe Only"
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father b^frejill Ages^
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begot"
ten^ not made^ confuljiantial with the Father , by who?n all
f Z things
228 r^^ JUDGMENT (?/
things were made^ Now it is plain, nothing was here
added to the old Eaftern Creed, which was not vir-
tually in it before. For he who was begotten of God
the Father before all Ages, was true God ,• and he
by whom all things were made, can't buc be confub-
flantial, that is, oi the fame Naiure or Efl'ence with
the Father ; (which is all the Fathers intended by the
Word) and thus all Catholicks always underftood the
V/ords of the old Creed, before the Avian Controverfy
arofe.
23, To draw the whole matter into a fhort com-
pafs : Since it is agreed between the Catholicks and
ArianSj that ail are oblig'd, by the primitive Rule of
Faith, to believe in the Only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of God the Father before all Ages, true, or
(as the Arians would rather fpeak) perfed God, by
whom all things were made j the Queftion is only this.
Whether fide hath interpreted this Rule better, more
agreeably to the obvious Senfe of the Words, and the
receivM Meaning of the Church ; the Arians, who
have taught that the Son of God is nothing elfe but
the firft Creature, made of nothing by God, (for after
all their colours, this is their real Sentiment j) or the
Catholkhj who believ'd him to be very God, of the
fame Nature or EfTence with God the Father ? Sure
there is no room for a Doubt, fince it is very clear,
that the Catholicks only have kept to the genuine
Senfe of this Rule, and the Avians have departed from
it, and confequently left the Rule itfelf as much as
poffible. * Every one then may eafily determine con-
cerning
* The cafe is very dear 'With vefpeB to tie Arians. 7hey have de-
jind the Sen of God to be the chief of all Creatures, and made of no-
ih'mg. The Semi-Arians alfo^ uho taught that the Word '•^as born of
the Father, a fid therefore of a like Nttfure; but not begotten of the
Suhjlance of God the Father, and of the fame Nature, nvent off asivell
from the proper Signif cation of the Words in their own, and in the
CafhoJick Creeds, as from the antiet't Senfe of the Fathers. For as
Athanafius obferves, that ivhich is naturally begotten of any one, and
not ac^uird from without ^ Nature owns as a Son^ land that is the
lierj
the Catholick Church, ^c^ 229
cerning the 'TheodotianSj Artemonites^ Sar/iofatenians^ Pho^
timcins, and the Monfters of our own Age, the Sg-
ciniam^ (in the Defence of whofe Caufe Epffccpms hath
neither been afraid nor afhamM to appear.)
Having thus difcover'd, and accurately examined the
Creeds which were in the Church before the Council
of Nice^ it is now fufficiently clear how vainly Epifco-
plus attempted to prove, 'That in the pYimitive Churches^
from the times of the Apoflles^for three mtire Centuries at leaji,
that fpecial Mode ofjefus Chrifi*s Filiation^by which he was
begotten of God the Father before aU Ages, and confequently
was himfelf Gody was not judged necejfary to be known and
belie'v'd in order to Salvation. We have certainly proved
the contrary Aflertion from the fan:ie Creeds. Let us
proceed now, by the Affiftance of Chriil our Saviour,
and our God, to difpatch what remains.
Notes upon the 'yth, 6th, andjth Chapter s*
Concerning the firfl Draughts of a Confeffwn of Faith mads
in Baptifm ; of the Filling up^ and Finiflnngs of it, in
the Age, and by the Authority or Permi[fion of the
Apoftles.
IAm fenfible my Attempt to prove the firfl; Elements
of the Apoftles Creed, the Additions afterwards
made, and the finifhing of it, to have been compafs'd
in the time of the Apoftles^ and by their Advice or
levy Meaning of the Word, Hence^ if the Semi-Arians had meant
that the Word of God was indeed begotten of the Father^ and ivasprc
prly a Sony they ivould have confefs'd that be <was born of the mevf
Subjiance of the Father ^ and coejfentiai with him. Thus mofi of thi
looly Ante-Nicene Fathers have in Senfe taught ^ andforn* of them in
^xprefs Words. See Seft. 2. of the Defence\f the Nicene Creed,
CDr« Grabe's iVtffp^J
P ^ Pcrmif?.
2^0 T^eJXJl) GUENTof
Permiflion, is a Matter of great Moment, grown ob*
fcure by Age, and made more fo by the novel Com-
ments of many. The Aflertion of Efifcopius we may
well place in this Clafs, that the moft antient Creed,
and that ufed in the firft Adminiftration of Baptifm,
V as, / helieue in God the Father^ the SoUy and the Holy
Ghiji (a) To this the Reverend Bull has ex-
prefly anfwer'd, (^) That that was never taken for a full
and perfeB Creed ^ expre/ly comprehending in it all the ne-
ceffary Articles of Faith. This he has alfo learnedly
prov'd, (0 that the Weftern, as well as the Eaftern,
Church, ufed a more large and explicit Creed in the
Sacrament of Baptifm before the Synod oi Nice, than
that mentioned by Epifcopius : I belieije in God the Fa-
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, In particular, he
hath (d) demonftrated, that the Creed of both the
Churches before the Synod of Nice^ did not end in
the Article [Ihelie've in the Holy Ghoft] but that thofe
other Articles concerning the Church, the Remiffion
of Sins, the Refurredion of the Flefh, and the Life
of the World to come, had then been a long time
added. But what if from an accurate Confideration
of Holy Scriptures, and juft Confequences from them,
it fhould appear, (i.) That the firft Lines of the
Creed ufed by the Apoftles, in the moft antient Ad-
miniftration of Baptifm, were larger than Epifcopius'Sy
J believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ?
(2.) That that Creed foon receivM fuch Additions, as
that in the Apoftles time, and by their Authority, or
at leaft Permiffion, it grew to be as large as the Creed
called the Apoflles, and had in it all the Articles of
that except two, namely, thofe concerning the De-
fcent into Hell, and the Communion of Saints.
2. In order to prove both thefe Propofitions, with
what Brevity and Clearnefs the fubjeft Matter of
them will allow, I premife two Things : That the
|irft Chriftians, whether of the Jeius, or of the Gen^^
(4) Chap. 4. Sea, u (h) Sed:, $. (0 Chap, 6. (d) Se£t. 7.
tiler^
the Catholtcic Church, ^c* 231
tihs, obCerv'd that, in the folemn Profeffion of their
Faith before Baptifm, either by their own Inclination,
or the Command of the ApoftieSj which Reafon dic-
tates, and the Ufe of all Times confirms to have been
obferv'd by all who came over from one Sed to an-
other ; namely, to confefs the Truth of the Articles,
call'd Fundamental, of that Church to which they
came over, direftly oppofite to the Errors of thac
Se<5t they left. (2.) That the fame Primitive Believers,
before they received the Sacraments, did teftify their
Aflent to thofe Heads of Chriftian Dodrine in which
they had been catechiz'd : For thofe Heads were noc
only delivered to them, that they fhould embrace
them with their Heart, but alfo protefs them with
their Tongue. Thus the (a) Apofile, after he hath
mentionM the Word of Faith, adds, that, If you con^
fefs the Lord ysfus vnth the Mouthy and believe in the
Heart that God rais'd hhft from the dead^ you flyall be
fav'd : For with the Heart "we believe unto Righteoufnefs^
and ivith the Tongue Confeffion is made to Salvation. But
if any Defender of Epifcopim, or other Perfon what-
foever, fhall deny me thefe Suppofitions, I know not
how he will be able to perfuade himfelf, or any others,
that the Confeffion of Faith, / believe in God the Father^
Son, and Holy Ghofl, or any other, was made by the
lirft .Difciples of the Apoftles. Omitting therefore
any further Proof of thefe Premifes, I proceed to
prove what I build upon them.
5. As for the firft Article, I believe in God the Father,
that it was enlarged from the very firft Converfion of
the Pagans, by thefe, or the like Words, [One, Almighty^
Creator of Heaven and Earth~\ I thus prove by virtue
of the Premifes : The chief Error of the Heathen,
at leaft the promifcuous Multitude, was a Perfuafioii
that there were many Gods ; one of the Heaven, an-
other of the Earth, a third of the Sea, &c. and the
vain Adoration of them. Hence the (b) Apofik ; Then
(<»)Rom. 10. 8,s>, 10. (h) Gitl4. ^*,
P 4 mhsd
2g2 r/;^ JUDGMENT of
indeed not knowing God, ye ferv'd thofe who are not Gods
ly Nature. On the other hand, the primary Article
o£ the Chriftian Faith is concerning the one true God,
on whom all things in Heaven, in Earth, and the Sea
{depend, and of whom (c) St. PauVs Words are wor-
thy our Notice and Confideration : T'ho there be that
fire call'd Gods, both in Heaven and in Earth (among the
Heathen) fvr there are Gods many, and Lords many j yet
to us (Chriftians) there is but one Gud the Father, of
ivhom are all things , and we in him ', and one Lord 'Je-
fus Chrift, by whom are all things, and zve by him. Upon
this account, the {d) Apofile, in his firfl Sermons,
preacird to them the one true God Almighty, warn-
ing them to be converted from thefe vain Idols to
the Living God, as we have it concerning Paul and
Barnabas. In like manner, St. Paul declarM the
unknown God to the fame Athenians, faying,
(^e) Whom ye igmrantly wor/hip, him we preach to you :
God who made the World, and all things in it, being Lord
ef Heaven and Earth, Sec. Who can doubt then, but
that the Confeffion of one Almighty God was chiefly
required of the Heathen Profelytes ? You'll fay that
the Heathens believed one fupreme God, upon whom
all things depended, and therefore there was no oc-
cafion that they fhould be inftruded in it by the
Chriftians, or confefs it. I anfwer, it is very true of
the Philofophers, and more learned Men among them ;
but for the meaner fort, that moft of them knew not
that there was one true God, and that he was Al-
mighty, the Words of the Apoftle to the Galatians
aforecited fully prove. Now fince moft of the new
Heathen Converts were of the meaner fort, and igno-
rant in (/) Philofophy, it was neceffary they fhould be
taught the Knowledge of the One Almighty God,
and that they fhould confefs it before Baptifm. But
the more learned Heathens alfo, tho they determined
(0 I Cor. 8. 6. (J) Aflsi;. 23. (OAds 17. 23.
(/) I Cor. I. 2^, 27,
thaf
the Catholick Church, (^c. 23 3^
that there was one God, yet were ignorant, or rather
obflinately deny'd that he made the Heavens, the
Earth, the Seas, and all things therein out oi nothing.
Upon which account the Apoilles, in their Inftrudion
of the Gentiles J when they mention the one God, im-
mediately add, that he created the Heaven, the Earth,
and the Sea, as is plain from the aforecited Sermon of
St. Pauho th^Atheniam ; and alfo from another (g) Place,
where, after thefe Words [the Living God] he adds,
luho made the Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that in
them is. Thus in the end of the World, when the
Fulnefs of the Gentiles fhall be brought over to the
true God, the Angel, who hath the eternal Gofpel to
preach to all that dwell upon the Earth, every Nation,
Tribe, Tongue, and People, will fay, (h) Fear the Lord
and adore him, who made Heaven and Earth, and the Sea
and the Fountains of Waters. The Gentiles therefore be-
ing folemnly to repeat their Creed, were efpecially to
profefs in it, that they believ'd in one God Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth , whom they had hitherto
not known, or deny'd, but were now taught by the
Chriftians.
4. I can't therefore fubfcribe to the Opinion of cer-
tain Learned Men, who think the Words aforefaid
were added to the Creed in the fecond Century,
againft the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other Gmfticks^
becaufe they deny'd the Unity of God, and the fu-
preme Omnipotence of the Creator of the World ; as
is clear from Irenaus, "Tertullian, and others who wrote
againfl: them. For it is no lefs clear from the fame
Authors, that they urg'd that very Confeffion of one
God the Creator, in the Creed, as received from the
Apoftles themfelves. Thus (i) Iremzus, after he had
mention'd the unmoveable Rule of Faith which every
one receives in Baptifm, he fubjoins it with this Pre-
face : {k) For the Church, tho differs' d through the -whole
JVorld, even to the Ends of the Earth, having received from
{g) Afts 14. 14. {h) Apocal. 14. ^, 7. (J) Lib. i. cap, i. p. 40.
(fe) Cap. s. p. 500
the
m T'^e JUDGMENT of
the Apoflles^ and their Difciples, the Faith in oiie God the
Father Almighty^ who hath made Heaven and Earthy and the
Sea, and all that in them is. And (/} afterwards. Since
then lue hold the Rule of Truth, that there is one God Al-
mighty, who made all things by his Word. Again, he
mentions the old Tradition (m), and reciting it briefly,
fays : ihey believe in one God, Maker of Heaven and
Earth, and of all things therein (n). Laftly, he fays (o) ;
I'he entire Faith is in one God Almighty, of whom are all
things, [by Creation.] In like manner (p) TertuUian :
'That is the Rule of Faith, by which we believe that there is
only one God, and that he is no other than the Maker of the
World. Again, reciting the Creed, he fays (q) : In one
only God Almighty, Maker of the World. Now he ex-
prefly writes (r), that this Rule has come down to us from
the beginning of the Gofpel From thefe and many other
Teftimonies of the Antients, which I omit for bre-
vity fake, it is plain, that they oppos'd the Confef-
lion of one God the Creator to the Hereticks, as
what was deliver'd, m the beginning of the Gofpel,
by the Apoftles themfelves. But they had dealt de-
ceitfully and very abfurdly, they had expos 'd them-
felves to the Hatred and Derifion of the Hereticks,
if they had attempted to confute them by a Claufe of
the Creed lately advanc'd by the Bifhops their Ad-
verfaries, and had pretended it to be an Apoftolical
Tradition. Therefore it was not opposM to the Doc-
trine of the Hereticks by the Bifliops, but to the Er-
ror of the Heathens by the Apoftles, and by them
made an Article of the Creed.
5. In the fecond Article of the Creed, Epifcopius
hath falfly afTerted, that there was only mention of
the Title \_Son-i] for the Names Jefus Chrifi are ex-
preOy read in the Confeffton of Candace's Eunuch, Q.aeen
of j^thicpia (j) : / believe that Jefus Chrifi is the Son of
God. But neither is this to be elleem'd a compleac
(/) Cap. 19, p, 114. (nt) Lib. 3. cap. 4.
cap. 9. p. 158, ("> r i1^ /I "<•" <" " onr
114. (wO Lib. 3. cap. 4. p. 242. (K)Lib. 2,
(0) Lib. 4. cap. 62. p. 399. (p) Tert. p. 2o5.
r) P. 50 r. CO Ads 8, 37,
tToe Catholicic Church, ^c". 25$
Profeffion of Faith concerning the Son of God. For
it will be no good Conclufion that the Eunuch faid no
more, becaufe St. Luke has not told us that he did \ e-
fpecially when it appears from other Places of the (f)
ABs, that Luke fometimes abridged the Speeches of
others. So in the Hiftory of St. l^auW Converfion we
only read thefe Words of Ananias to him i Brother
Saul, the Lord luho appeared to thee in the zmy, as thou
camefi^ hath Jem me^ that thou jhouldfi receive thy fight y
and be filled with the Holy Ghofl. But the Apoftle him-
felf, afteriuards, gives us thefe additional Words of
Ananias ; (u) The God of our Fathers hath preordained thee,
that thou Jhouldji know his WiU, and fee the jufl one, and
hear the Word of his Mouth i for thou fbalt he his Witnefs
to all Men of thofe things thou haft feen and heard. And
now why tarriefi thou ? Arife, and be baptizi'd, and waffy
away thy Sins^ calling upon him. Who can doubt whe-
ther the Eunuch teftify'd his AlTent to thofe things
which Vhilip had preach'd concerning the Paflion,
Death, and Refurredion of Chrift, upon the Words
of Ifaiah ; He was led as a Sheep to the Slaughter ?
Thus it is alfo a Confequence of our Hypothefis, that
others, before Baptifm, made a Profeffion of the Ar-
ticles mentioned, in which they had been inftrucled
before. For, (ij it is clear that the (x)Apofiles pv each' d
the Paffion, Death, and Refurre6lion of Jefus to the
Jews, as well as the Gentiles. Whence Paul faid to
Agrippa, that he teftifyM to Small and Great, thac
Chrift fhould fuffer, and fhould, firft rifing from the
dead, ftiew Light to the People and the Gentiles. The
Words of the fame Cj') St. Paul are very obfervabie,
where he-fays, I have delivered to you principally what I
alfo receiv'dj that Chriji died for our Sim according to the
Scripture y and that he was hury'd, and that he rofe again
the third Day according to the Scriptures. Thefe are three
Members of the Article concerning Chrift, exprefs'd
jn the fame order as in the Apoftles Creed, w^hich the
(0 Aasp. 17. (a)Aas 22. 14. (^x)\Q:sz. 22, SCr. 3. i^y&c.
|0. 35, S^r. I3.S7,Sf.-. 2<J, 2^,25. iy) lCor.15. 3,4.
Apoflle
^l6 72^^ JUDGMENT^/
Apoftle fays he deliverM as principal Heads of Faith
to che Corinthians. And no wonder, for the jf^tuf ob-
flinately deny'd the Death and Paflion of Chrift, or
the Mejjlaby and the Refurredion of Jefus: The Gen-
tiles ridicul'd both. Whence the Apoftle writes to
the fame Perfons thus : (z.) We preach Chrift crucify dy to
the Jews a Stumhling'-blocky and to the Greeks Foolijhnefs;
but to them that are cali'd, Jews and Greeks, Chrift the
Pozver and Wifdom of God. By virtue then of our
other Suppofition, both of them, before their Baptifm,
did profefs the chief Articles of the Faith, which
were rejeded on both fides, either by their own In-
clination, or upon the Apoftles Command.
6. What follows afcer the KefurreEiion of Chrift, his
Afenjion into Heaveriy his fitting at the right Hand of God
the Father, and his return te judge the Quick and the Deady
were without doubt denyM by, or unknown to the
yews and Gentiles. Hereupon, when our Saviour fpoke
of eating his Flefh, and drinking his Blood, and his
Difciples jmmm!r*d at it, he faid to them j Doth this of-
fend you'? What if ye ftjallfee the Son of Man afcend
li^here he was before (a) ? As tho his Afcenfion fhould
yet feem more abfurd to them, than the Myftery of
eating his Flefh, and drinking his Blood. And in-
deed when our Lord had faid before the High Prieft,
(b) Hereafter ye floall fee the Son of Man fitting at the
right Hand of Power, and coming in the Clouds of Heaven ;
the High Prieft rent his Clothes, faying, he hath blafphemed,
ivhat need have we of further Wttneffes ? Behold now ye
have heard his Blafphemies, zvhat think ye ? And they an-
fweving, faid, he is guilty of Death. Hence St. Peter,
the Prince of the Apoftles and Priefts of the New
Teftament, in his Catechetical Difcourfes, as well to
the ^evos as the Gentiles, made mention of the Afcen-
lion of Chrift into Heav^en, or his Exaltation to the
right Hand of God, to rale over ail things, and to
(O I Cor. I. S3, 24. 00 Joh, 6, di, 62.* Q>) Mat. 2.6»
(^4, ($5,6(5.
pafs
the Catholick Church, ^c^ z^j
pafs Judgment in the end upon the Living and the
Dead, (c) He teftifies alfo, in his Difcourfe to Cor^
nelius, that he does this by the Command of Chrifl :
And he hath commanded us to -preach to the People^ and to
teftify that he is appointed hy God the ^udge of Quick and
Dead. Upon our Suppofitions, we may again con-
clude from thefe things, that the Jews and Gentiles
lately converted, and to be baptiz'd, did make a juft
Confeflion of thefe Articles alfo.
7. I anT therefore forc'd to difagree with a late
Learned Writer upon the Hiftory of the Apoftles
Creed, who thinks the Article concerning the Afcen-
fion of Chrifl was added to this Creed in the fecond
Century, againfl Apelles the Difciple of Marcion, of
whom the Author of the Appendix to T'ertullians
Book of Prefcription, &c. writes thus : (d) He neither
fays that Chriji ivas only a Phantom^ as Marcion ; nor in
the Subfiance of a true Body^ as the Gofpel teaches : kit
that when he defended from the higher Regions^ in the 'very
Defcent that he made himfelf a heavenly and aerial Body,
and that in his RefurreBion and Afcenty he refior'd to all
the feveral Elements y ivhat in his Defcent he hadborroia'd
of them; and fo all the Parts of his Body being difpers'd,
he only brought the Spirit again into Heaven. For from
thefe Words, and thofe of other Fathers, concerning
Apelles y it is plain he did not abfolucely, deny the A-
fcenlion of Chrifl:, but of Chrift's Flefh into Heaven.
If then the Fathers had advanced this Article againft
that Error, they would not barely have faid. He
afcended into Heaven ; but they would have affirm'd
the Afl'umption of his Flefh into Heaven, as (e) Irenaus
doth, having very probably this Herefy of Apelles in
his mind, tho he doth not mention it. Thus, if this
Article had been leveliM at the Maggot of HermogeneSy
that the Body of our Lord was lodgM in the Sun,
Chrifl would have been faid to have afcended with his
Body above all Heavens, above every Star. By a
(r)Aas2. 53,e!>t. 5. 20, ai. 10.42. C^)P. 223.
p) p. 50. lib. I. cap. 2»
Parity
238 Tl^e JUDGMENT of
Parity of Reafon in thofe Articles concerning his Sef-'
fion at the right Hand of God, and his coming to
judge the Quick and the Dead, if one of them had
been oppos'd to thofe who faid that our Saviour's
Flefli fate in Heaven void of Senfe, and like an empty-
Scabbard, the Chrift being drawn out (f) i or the other
had been advancM partly againft the Herefy of the
MarctoniteSy who deny'd that God the Father of Chrift
was juft, or a Judge; partly againft the Gmftkksj who
took away Free-will, as the Learned Perfon afore-
cited thinks J both of them would have been con-
ceiv'd, if not in more Words, in fuch as ftiould have
been more direft to the Points. But now, that the
Authors of the Creed have taught the Catechumens
to profefs that Jefus Chrift the Son of God afcended
into Hea'ven, fits at the right Hand of God the Father^
and /ball come from thence to judge the Quick and the Dead^
in plain general Terms i we muft think that they in-
tended this Confeffion for thofe who as yet deny'd,
or were abfolutely ignorant of thefe things j namely,
the Jews and Gentiles converted to the Faith.
8. What fhall we fay to the Articles which precede
the Paffion^ Death, RefurreBion, &c. namely, the Con-
ception of Jefus Chrift by the Holy Spirit ^ and his Nativity
cf the Virgin Mary ? Did the Jevji and Gentiles from
the Beginning ow^n thefe before Baptifm ? Indeed I'm
in fome doubt about this, in the very beginnings of
Chriftianity ; becaufe there is no mention of the Con-
ception by Power of the Holy Spirit, without Human
Seed, or the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in any Ca-
techetical Difcourfe in the Acis ; nor do we read any
where, that the Apoftles preach'd them to the 'Jevis
or Gentiles, or that they were difputed againft by the
one or the other, as is plain, concerning the Refurrec-
tion. We may well fuppofe, then, that the Publica-
tion of this Myftery was referv'd to a more full Ex-
poiition of the Gofpel after Baptifm ] becaufe it feem'd
(/) Tertull. p. 325, de came Chrifli,
plainly^
the Catholick Church, err. 259
plainly impoflible to all univerfally, IfraeUtes, and
others, that a Virgin fhould bring forth without a
Man (a) J or becaufe a Knowledge of the fupernatural
Conception and Nativity of Chrift was not fo necef-
fary, as the Belief of his Paffion and Refurreftion.
Hence there is not only nothing faid of the former, in
any Difcourfes of the Apoftles, as I faid before, but
it is alfo omitted in fome of the Gofpels. St. Mattheia
and St. Luke indeed largely defcribe it j St. Mark (to
fay nothing of St. John) has not a word about it : buc
all of them have exprefly enlarged upon the latter, and
afterwards none of the four Evangelifts have omitted
to give a long Account of it. Now there is no doubt,
but that not long after the Foundations of Chriftianity
were laid, and efpecially after the Gofpels were pub-
lifh'd, both ^evjs and Gentiles began to oppofe the
wonderful Birth and Conception of our Lord, and
thence an occafion was given, and a neceffity impos'd
upon the Converts of both to confefs his immaculate
Conception and Nativity, as well as the other Articles
of Faith. I cannot therefore think the opinion of
thofe Learned Men probable, who pretend thofe
things, of which I have hitherto difcourfed, were added
to the Creed againft the Herefy of Carpocrates, Cerin-
thuSy and the Ebionites, (who impioufly afferted that
Chrift was begotten of Jofeph and Mary.) Tho' fup-
pofing, but not granting this, it may ftill be, that
the faid Additions to the Creed, are owing to Apofto-
lical Authority, or Permiffion at leaft ; for that exe-
crable Herefy had then its hellifli Rife, when St. John,
and perhaps others of the Apoftles were yet aUve.{b)
9. I proceed to the third Branch of the Apoftles
Creed concerning the Holy Spirit, in whom (as
Epifcopms himfelf well affirms) the Difciples of the
Apoftles teftified their belief in Baptifm ; but others
fallly deny it, thinking the Knowledge and Profeflion
{a) See the Pajfage of Juftin in his Dialogue mth Trypho, citeA
Ch, 7. Se£t. 4. hereafter,
C^) See Irensus^ Lib. 3. Cap, 3, pag'233*
240 r^^ JUDGMENT ^/
of Jefus Chrift the Son of God to be only necciTary-.'
^heHiflory of the (a) AEis is a fufficient Confutation of
thefe Men. But then what is to be faid for the fol-
lowing Articles of the Creed ? Let us confider them
particularly, beginning with the Remiffion of Sins ;
for the Article of the Church in the moft ancient
Creeds, or at leaft in the Creeds of many Churches,
is not placed immediately after that of the Holy
Spirit, but in a lower, and fometimes in the laft place^
as is plain from our Learned Author's Obfervations in
this very Chapter. Now both Peter and Paul did ex-
prefly teach the Je-ws and Gentiles in their firft Inftruc-
tions, that Remiilion of Sins was obtain'd by Chrift,
and given to the Faithful by Baptifm into his Name.
St. Peter (h) in his firft Sermon at Jerufakm, fays.
Repent and be haptiz>ed every one ofyoUy in the Name of the
Lord Jefus, for the Remiffion of Sins. (From hence, by
the way, the Article of the antient Hierofolymitan
Greed feems to be form'd, / helieve in one Baptifm of
Repentance for the Remiffion of Sins.) He alfo concludes
his firft Difcourfe to the Gentiles with this Dodrine,
faying, (c) To him [ChriftH give all the Prophets ivitnefsy
that all vjko believe in him fhall receive Remiffion of Sins by
his Name. Thus (<^) St. P^^^/ : Beit known to you Men and
Brethren, that by him is preached unto you Remiffion of
Sins, and that every one who believes is by him juftified
fro?n all things, from which he could not be jufiified by the
Lnvj of Motes. Nor is it to be admir'd, for our Sa-
viour himfelf after his Refurredion told his Apoftles,
That Repentance and Remiffion of Sins mufl be preach' d to
all Nations in his Name, beginning at Jerufalem, &c. (e)
Therefore as the Apoftles and their Succelfors deli-
vered this Sum of the Gofpel, and the advantage of
the Vr'hole Difpenfation of the Son of God expounded
in the preceding Words of che Creed, in their Cate-
chetical Difcourfes s fo on the ocher hand there is no
{a) Chap. 19. 2. (h) Afts 2. 58. (c) ASs 10.43.
{d) A£i:s 13.38, 35. (e) Luke 24. 27.
the CaTholick Church, ^c, a^i
idbiibt but that the Catechumens profefsM the fame in
their Creed before Baptifm. That fome did now and
then profefs this, in the very Beginnings of Chriftia-
nity, the above cited Author of the Hiftory of the_
Apoftles Creed confeflfesj but then he determines,
that the conftant mention of Remiffion of Sins in the
Confeffion of Faith only obtained in the days o£
St. Cyprian, upon the account of Hereticks, efpecially
the Novatians, who deny'd that the Church had a
power of forgiving Sins committed after Baptifm*
Now this Conjefture can't be allow'd, becaufe in the
Novatian Creed this Article of Remiffion of Sins was
€i<:pre/ly mention d, as St. Cyprian (x) teftifies in thefe
words : But if any one fhall anfwer, that Novatian o^-
ferv'd the fame Rule with the Catholicks, namely, to bap-
tiz,e with the fame Creed as we i let him kmw^ luhofever he
iSy that we and the Schifmaticks have not the fame Rule of
Faith ^ nor the fame Interrogatory. For when they fay, Doft
thou believe the Remiffion of Sins, and the Life ever-
lafting, by the Holy Church ? they are wrong in their
Interrogatory y becaufe they have no Church, &c. But be-
(ides, it is not probable that the Novatians would
place, or retain in their Confeffion of Faith, the Re-*
miffion of Sins by the Hgly Church, unlefs they had feen
the fame received into the Creeds of all other Churches
Laftly, if the Profeffion of Remiffion of Sins, not ufed
before in fome Churches, had been at length inferted
into their Creed againft the Novatian Rigour, either
mention would have been made of Sins committed
after Baptifm, or fome fuch Phrafe would have been
ufed. But, on the other hand, we read in all oi theni
cither Remiffion of Sins in general, or one Baptifm of
Repentance, or one Baptifm for Remiffion of Sins ;
the former of which doth not at all contradid the
Novatian Herefy, and the latter may feem to favour
ir. What the learned Man objeds, that no mention
is made of Remiffion of Sins in the Accounts given of
(»•) See this P bee cited before.
Q. thg
242 21^^ J U D G M E N T ^/
the Creed by T'ertuUian and Origen^ may be thus briefly
anfwer'd. That the Hereticks, to whom they oppos'd
the Apoftolical Rule of Faith, did not deny the Re-
miffion of Sins, were not known by them to deny it,
and that therefore they had no occafion to mention
this Article. However, our Reverend Author has in-
genuoufly fhewn, that both Irenaus and TertuUian al-
luded to it in their Writings (y).
lo. The Learned Author of the Hiftory of the Apo-
ftles Creed (a), thinks the Refurredion of the Dead
was inferted from the very Beginnings of Chriftianity.
This I doubt of a little, becaufe the Catechetical Dif-
courfes of St. Feter (a) and St. Paul conclude with the
Remtjjion of Sins^ nor does the latter mention the Re-
furreftion of the Dead in his Sermon to the Athe-
nians (h), but only theRefurredion of Jefus Chrift from
the Dead ', tho indeed his Auditors feem from that ta
infer the univerfal Refurreftion of the Dead. For it
is faid. When they heard cf the RefurreSiion from the
Dead, fome of them derided it, but other i faid. Let us
hear thee concerning this Matter again. From thefe words
we are to take our Explication of what is faid of
St. Paul, ver.iS. ithat he preached to them ^efus and the
RefnrreSiion, that is, the RefurreElion of 'Jefus, or heguti
in Jefus; as it is alfo written of the other Apoftles,
(c) And with great Power the Apffiles gave I'ejlimony of
the RefurreElion of the Lord Jefus. Further, when fome
arofe among the {d) Corinthians, who faid there was no
Refurrection of the Dead, the Apoftle puts them in
mind of what he had preach'd there, fays that he had
firft of all delivered to them the Death and Refurrec-
tion of Chrift, and from that proves the Refurrettion
of all the Faithful ; but he no where hints that he had
taught them this Article before, but they had re-
ie(5ted it. Thus he writes to the (e) Thejfalonians : We
would not. Brethren, that you Jhoud be ignorant concerning
(y) In this 6Ch, S. 7. gc 15. (z) P. 39b. {a) A£ts2. 10, n.
{b^ Afts 17. 51, 32. CO Aa:s4,. 3,5. (d) I Cor. 15. 12.
(e) iTheC4.i3,
thofi
th^ Catholick Church, ^c» 241
^hofe thatfleep, leji you fhould be troubled ^ as other s^iuho ha've
no hope. For if we believe that^efus is dead and rifen again,
fo alfo thofe that Jleep in yefus /hall God bring with him.
This he fpeaks as tho they had hitherto been ignorant
of it, fo that it became neceflary to give them this
Corollary from the Refurredion of Jefus, which they
had before heard. The words of St. Luke alfo con-
cerning the FresLching oi Sz. Paul to thQ The/falonianf,
are worthy Obfervation : (fjHe difcourfed to them out of
the Scripture three Sabbath-days^ opening and alledging that
Chrifl was to fuffer^ and to rife fom the Dead, and thai
this is Chriji Jefus, *whom I preach unto you. Here is
mention of the Refurreclion of Chrift, but not of that
of ail the Faithful : St. Paul then doth not feem to
have given the Catechumens the Doftrine of the Re-
furreclion of the Dead foon after their Entrance to
Chriftianity among the firft Rudiments of it : But yec
I aflure myfelf, he gave it them as an Appendix to the
other Articles, as foon as he found it oppofed and
difputed. Hence, I fuppofe, the Apoftle (g) mentions
the RefurveBion of the Dead, and the eternal 'Judgment^
among the Fundamentals of Chriftianity, but yet puts
them in the laft place, diftind from Faith in God, and
the Doftrine of Baptifms. I conclude alfo, that the
Article concerning eternal Life was then added (ac
leaft in fome Churches) after that concerning the Re-
furredion of the Dead, becaufe St. Paul here joins
the eternal Judgment with the Refurredion of the
Dead.
II. As for the Article concerning the Church, I
think it was added and inferted laft of all, not only
becaufe (h) Cyprian gives it us in the Novatian Creed
in the laft place, and it is fo read in the Confeflion of
Arius and Euz,oius ; but becaufe there is no mention
of it in the Catechetical Difcourfes, and Epiftles of
the Apoftles : fo that this Article feems to have been
added about the end of the firft, or beginning of the
(/) Aftsi7,2, 3, (ff) Heb.d. a, (;&) Above cited,
Q^z fecond
244 Tbc JUDGMENT of
fecond Century, agalnft the Hereticks and Schifma^
ticks, after they began to have feparate Meetings from
the Orthodox. For in the Times oi T'ertulUan^ xh^
Faithful did profefs the Holy Church in their Creed,
as is plain from his firft Piece concerning Baptifm :
But when an Attefiation of Faith ^ and a Security of Sal-
'vation, are pkdg'd under three^ there muji be mention of
the Church '3 for where three ^ i.e. Father^ Son and Holy
Ghcfi, are J there is the Churchy which is a Body of three (i).
There needs no words concerning the Communion of
Saints J for it is plain there was no mention of it in the
Creed before the fourth Century.
12. There is one Article more, which I omitted
on purpofe, concerning the Defcent of Chrifi into HeU,
The above cited Author of the Hiftory, &c, has gi-
ven us the genuine Senfe of it fo learnedly, that more
could not have been expefled from the moft accom-
plifh'd Divine. Near the end of his long D'Jfertation^
lie gives his Opinion that this Article was inferted
againft tiie Arians and ApcUinarians, who deny*d the
Soul or Spirit of Chrift, and againft whom the Holy
Fathers arguM thus : Chrift defcended into Hell ei-
ther by his Divinity, bis Soul, or his Body; but ic
is abfurd to afcribe this Defcent either to his Divi-
nity, or his Body : Therefore we muft conclude
that he defcended by his Soul, and confequently that
he had a Soul. But it may be faid againft this, that
Chrift is not afErm'd in any Creed to have been in
Hell by his Soul, but (imply to have defcended into
Hell, or the lower Places of the Earth ; and befides,
that this Article is in fome Creeds of the Arians, and
in others more antient than Apollinaris. I therefore
think it was rather added againft the Valentinians and
Manionites. For they, as {k) Irenam informs us, fay,
That as focn as they are dead, they afcend above the Hea-
venSy and the Demiurgus, and go to the Mother ^ or to
(i) Compare tvhh this amthev Tajfage of Teriullian cited in this
^ Ch. Se£t. 7. (fe) Lib. 5. Cap. 31. p. 4511,
him.
th^ Catholick CHURciit, ^c* 245
hxm, ixihom they have feign* d to themfehes the Father, A
little after : (I) They fay this World of ours is HeBy ani<i
that their inward Man leaving the Body here^ afcends into
the fuperceleftial Place. Tertuliian (mj glancing at this
Notion, fays : We believe Hell to be, not a mere Void, nor
fome Sink of this fublunary World, but a vafi wide Place
in the Trench and Depth of the Earth, and an ahflrufe
Depth in the Bowels of it. Therefore the Holy Fathers,
to prove the Exiflence of a lower Place under the
Earth, and the Defcent of the faithful Souls into ir,
fetch'd an Argument from the Defcent of Chrift him-
felf into it ; concerning which, Irenaus thus fpeaks in
the Place cited : Ifthefe things had beenfo, a( they fay, the
Lord himfelf, in whom they profefs to believe, had not rifen
again the third Day, but expiring upon the Crofs, had im-
mediately afcended, leaving his Body to the Earth. But now
he flay d three days, where the Dead were, as the Prophet
fays of him, 8cc. But the Apoflle alfofays. He afcended ;
now what is that, but that he alfo defcended into the
lower Parts of the Earth ? it his alfo David faid, pro-
fhefying of him. Thou haft delivered my Soul from the
lower Hell. If then the Lord obferv'd the Manner of the
Dead, that he might be the firfl-begctten from the Dead, and
fiay'd till the third Day in the lower Parts of the Earth,
afterwards rifing in the Fleflo to Jhew his Difciples even
the Marks of the Nails, and fo afcended to the Father ;
how are they not afhamed, who call this World Hell, dec.
For whereas the Lord walked in the ?nidji of the Shadow of
Death, where the Souls of the Dead are, afterwards rofe
again, and after his RefurreElion was taken tip ; it is fnani-
fefi that the Souls of his Difciples, for whom he did thefe
things, fhall go into an invifible Place, appointed for them
by God, and fhall flay there till the RefurreSlion, in expec-
tation of it'y afterwards having received their Bodies, and
being rifen per feEily, i.e. corporeally, even as the Lord rofe,
they fhall thus appear in the Prefence of God. T'ertullian
has ufed (») the fame Argument : We read, that Chrifl
^0 Ibidem. (w)?. 505. {71) In the Vlic^ afore cketi,
Q_ 3 ivas
24<^ ^ieJUDGMENT of
m^as three Days dead in the Heart of the Earthy \. e. in th^
'moft intimate and internal Kecefs^ covered hy the Earthy
dug within it, but yet built upon the lower Abyjjes. Now
ijChrifl God, becaufe alfo Alan, died according to the Scrip-
tures, was bury'd according to the fame, fulfilled this Condi-
tion of human Death alfo, to defend into Hell, and did
not afcend into thofe Places which are higher than the Hea-
vens, before he defended into the lower Parts of the Earth,
there to communicate himfelfto the Patriarchs and Prophets ;
you mtift believe a fubterraneous Region of Hell, and rejeSi
thofe Dreamers, who proudly think the Souls of the Faithful
abo^e defending into Hell, Servants above their Mafiers,
taho, forfooth, if in Abraham'^ Bofom, wmld difdain the
Comforts of an expecied RefurreBion. The Herefy then
of the Valeminiam and the Marcionites, was rather the
Occafion of this Article, than that of the Arians or
Apollinarians ; unlefs any Perfon has a mind to affirm^,
that the firft Inftruftions of the Apoftles themfelves
gave occafion to the Catechumens fometimes to profefs
it in their Confeffions of Faith. For the Chief of the
Apoftles, in his hrfl; Sermon at ferufalem on the Day
of Pentecoft, hath very clearly expounded this Article
jn thefe words : 'That his Soul was not left in Hell, nor
his Fkfh faw Corruption (o).
13. From what has been faid, if duly weigh'd, %
think it very plain, that all the Articles of the Apo-
flles Creed, except that of the Communion of Saints,
("may be alfo that of the Church) and that of Chrift's
JDefcent into Hell, were profefs 'd by the firft Chri-
ftians in their folemn Confeflions of Faith, by the Au-
thority, or at leaft Approbation of the Apoftles them-
felves ; and therefore that the Creed, for the Sub-
fiance of moft of its Articles, is rightly called Apo-
flohcal, and truly challeng'd by Irenaus (to mention
none of the latter Fathers) as a Tradition received
from the Apoftles, and their Difciples. Nor indeed
can it well be, if at all, that fo many Churches in
(0 ASs 2. 3 1.
fucH
the Catholtck Church, f^c* 247
fuch diftant Parts of the World, fhould agree in a
Form of Creed, and fo many Articles, unlefs they had
received it in that Form, ^c. from an Authority acT
knowledg*d by them all. The reafon why the Creeds
of feveral Churches differ in Words and Phrafes, is
this (as Cp) Jerome has obferved) that the Symbol of ouv
Faith and Hope, delivered down from the Apoftles, was not
written with Ink and Paper , but upon the Fl^ly Tables of
the Heart. Hence it became free to every one to exprefs
his own Senfe in his own Words ; but yet I will not
take upon me to prove that Tradition, which {q) Ru-
finus hath given us concerning the twelve Apoftles ;
Being about to depart from one another , they made a common
Rule or Standard of their future Preachings left perhaps
being feparated, they pould teach thofe they invited to Chri-
ftianity fomething different : AU of them therefore being tO"
gether^ and fi(I*d with the Holy Spirit, compofed that fhort
Standard of their future Preaching, compiling into one
Form every one's Sentiment ; and refolved it fhould be de^
liver d to the Believers. Tho, for the Subfiance, or firft
Elements, of this Creed of the Apoftles, drawn out
in the Catechetical Difcourfes of St. Peter and St. Paul,
fome fuch thing as this might not be improbable ;
yet the Divifion of the twelve Articles of the Creed
among the twelve Apoftles, which we have in a Piece
among the Works of CO St. Auflin, and fome fuch
other Fancies, which it would be impertinent to fpeak
of here, are of no value or conlideration.
(f) Ep. 61. c. 9. iq) Expofit. Symbol.
(*•) Tom. 1(3. Serm. iij. de Tempore.
"^^^*(
Q.4 CHAP,
H8 r^^ JUDGiMENT^/
CHAP. VII.
Of CI famous Tlace in Juftin'j dialogue with
Trypho the Jew.
THERE is yet another Argument, by which
(0 Epifcopus attempts to fupport his Aflertion.
'The Second Argument^ fays he, by which I prove my An-
tecedentj is this : It is clear from Juftin, a very antient
Author, (for he flourijh^d in the Tear of Chrifl 150) and
a Martyr for the Chriflian Religion, that the Chriftian
Churches of thofe Days not only thought the Determination
and Profeffton of that peculiar Mode not neceffary to Salva-
tion ; hut alfo held Communion with thofe that denied it,
and profeffed to believe that Jefus Chrifl was no more than
were Man, Man of Man, and jnade Chrifl, or the Meffiah,
by EleBion. The Place 0/ Juftin, from which this is prov'd,
is in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew CO, which you may
find cited in the Apology of the Re^nonflrants, near the End of
the Anfwer to the Cenfure, Chapter the third, and largely
argued upon, and eflablijh*d in my (ii) Anfwer of the Re-
monfirants to the Specimen cf Calumnies, &c. of the four
Profeffurs of hey den; to zvhich, not to be guilty of Repeti-
tion, I refer you. Thus Epifcopius.
2. I will here give you the entire Place, not man-
gled and curtail'd, as it is cited by the Remonftrants
in their Apology. Thus Jnflin difcourfes in that Paf-
fage : C^c) Now Trypho, I don't fail in my Proof that this
is the Chrifl of God, tho 1 fl:>ould not be able to Jhew, both
that he pre-exifled the Son of the Creator of all things, being
God, and that he was begotten Man of the Virgin ; for it
being notwithftanding every way demon ftrated that he, who-
foever he is, is the Chrifl of God, tho I dont prove that he
(s) Epifcop. p. %i^o. vol. T, par. i, (0 Vol. i. p. 2. p. 13d.
Sit) Ibid. p»?95<. {») P.i^j*
the Catholick Church, ^c> 249
fre-exijied, and condescended according to the Council or Pur-
pofe of the Father, to be begotten Man of like Paffions viith
us, being incarnate, you can only in juftice fay that I am
mifiaken ; but you cant deny that he is the Chrifi, tho he only
feems to be Man begotten of Man, and be prov'd to be made
Chrijl by EleBion. For there are even fome of our Sort,
my Friends, -who confefs him to be the Chrijl, and yet affirm
that he is Man of Men. I am not of the fame Opinion with
thefe Men, nor are there many of my Sentiments ivho "will fay
as they do ; for we are not exhorted by Chrijl to give our
f elves up to human Arguments or DoSlrines, but to thofe which
were preached by the Holy Prophets, and taught by himfelf
I have diffented from Juflins Interpreter, both in
fome fmaller Matters, and alfo in rendring the Words
in the Margin {y), .which indeed he has tranflated nei-
ther agreeably to the Greek Text, nor to good Senfe.
For from the Words going before, this muft bejujlin's
(z,) Senfe : If I have elfewhere folidly prov'd from the
Prophets, that our Jefus is that Chrift of God, fucK
an one as he was to be according to their Prophecies,
whether God to be born Man of a Virgin, which is
the Catholick Notion, and mine ; or Man begotten of
a Man and a Woman, as you,. Trypho, and the Jews
(y) AAA iK "TTCtvlog ci'TroieinvviJ.ivii on HTog Iqiv 6 Xpic^bi;, 6 ti? fley,
■o'?'? sVoc tc;cit.
(x) Tho it is very clear that Juftin is only arguing ivith Trypho
upon his own Suppojttion, and ad Hominem : Tou think the Mejpah
is only to be /Man, therefore tho I Jhould not be able to prove the Pre-
exijience of Jefus ^ if I prove him to be the Mefftahy it is enough a-
gainji you. Dr. Whitby is .pleas'd to bring this Paffage as an Argu-
ment from Juftin, that the proper Divinity of Chrifl is not to he con-
cluded from his being the proper Son of God. But the Deftgn of it is
no fuch thing, (2.) The Sentimenty nvhatever the DoBor will have
if, is not Juftin'/, but that of Trypho or the Jews, and fome cor-
rupt Chrijiians ; and the DoBor might have feen this himfelf, and in-
form'd his Render of it, if he would have read the Words immediately
folloaving thofe^ with which he ends this Citation, and not have taken
it as he found it in Epifcopius : I'm not of their Opinion, &cc. In-
deed the DoHor feems to have thought that Juftin would do nothing
for him, by interpolating his W'.rds, to give them the only Turn they
ha^e towards his Sentiments
4S50 fTi'^ J U D G M E N T ^
jare of opinion) tho I can*t demonftrate that he is the
Son of God, and made Man of a Virgin, yet you are
not therefore to deny that he is the very Chrift fore-
told, and promifed by the Prophets.
5. I'm fure there is nothing in thefe Words of
^uftiny from which Epifcopius, or the Remonftrants,
can prove either that the Church in Juftin's Time,
or that Juftin himfelf held the Dodrine of the Son's
Divinity not neceflary to Salvation, much lefs that
they kept up Communion with thofe Churches that
^eny*d it. If indeed the Remonftrants can prove any
thing from it, they prove too much, which is a certain
Sign of a very bad Argument. For the Perfons here
noted by Juftin^ not only affirm'd that our Saviour
was only Man, but Man begotten of the Coition of a
3^an and a Woman after the common Manner of
Men. From this, if the Remonftrants argue rightly
from the Place, it will follow that Juftm, and the
Church in Juftins Days, heldX^ommunion with thofe,
who, defpiiing the Authority of the Holy Evangelifts,
and the conftant and confentient Tradition of the
Catholick and Apoftolick Church, were not afraid to
deny that the Man Chrift was born of the Virgin
Mary ; an Opinion worthy a Mad-Man only. I have
not yet indeed (a) feen the Anfwer of the Remonftrants to
■ihe Specimen of Calumnies, &c. fo as to know certainly
how they confirm their AfTertion from the Place cited
out of Juftiny and therefore can only argue conjee-
iuraUy.
4. But have they given It as their Opinion, that
what they contend for, follows from this that7"/»
tin fays, namely, that it could not be falfe, that
Jefus was the promifed Chrift, tho it was not demon-
ftrable that he was God, and born Man of the Vir-
gin? Now it is very clear that j?«y?/« here ufes the
Argument ad Hominem^ which is very common in thefe
{a) Our Revereni Author afterwards got a Sight of this tvorthy
Tiecef and hath dlre^lyy and at large^ confuted it in the Appendix*
DifputeSo
the Catholick Church, ^c. 251
Difputes. ^ujlin had before attempted to prove that
it was foretold of Chrift by the Prophets, that he,
tho exifting before Ages, the Son of God, and God,
ihould at laft be born Man of a Virgin. When he
afterwards made a Digreffion concerning fome other
Matters, Trypho calls him back to the finifhing the
iformer Point. (^) IVe have heard the Sentiment of thefe
things, now refume the Difcourfe, where you left off, and
finijjo it ', for it feems to me a Paradox, and imfofjible 'to be
proved. T'hat you /bould fay this Chrifl pre-exified, being
God before Ages, and afterwards condefcended to be begotten,
being made Man, and that he is not Man of Man, is, 1
I think, not only flrange, but abfurd. Juflin then, as
\trypho defires, refumes the Difputation, and finiflies
it at large, fully proving that the Chrift foretold by
the Prophets was to be both God and Man, born of
a Virgin. In the mean time, to ftop the Mouth of
his cavilling Adverfary at prefent, he gives him a
twofold Anfwer. Firft, he fharply blames his Blind-
nefs and Obftinacy, and that alfo of the Jeiuijh Na-
tion, who rejected the Dodrine concerning Chrift,
the Son of God, and God, who was alfo to take upon
him Flefh from a Virgin, tho plainly deliver'd in the
Old Teftament, as incredible, abfurd, and foolifti,
and chofe rather to believe their own doating Rabbies
in this Matter, than the Voice of God by his infpired
Prophets: (c) I know, fays he, the Difcourfe feems
firange, and efpecially to thofe of the Nation or Kindred,
who are not inclined either to underfiand or perform the
"Things of God, but thofe of your own Teachers ; as God
himfelf cries out againfl you. It is eafy to guefs (by the
way} to how much greater Blindnefs juftin would
have thought thofe Men abandon'd and condemn'd,
who, profeillng themfelves Chriftians, and living in
the cleareft Light of the Gofpel, (to which the old
Prophecy, comparatively fpeaking, was only as a Light
fhining in a dark Place) have with equal Pertinacy
{b) P. 2^7 . (c) Ibidem, ,
rejeded
2-52 "f^e JUDGMENT of
rejefted that Dodrine. Surely now, if Epifcopius and
the Remonftrants had attentively read thefe words of
Juflin immediately going before thofe cited by them,
they could never have thought the Place for their
purpofe. But to proceed.
5. After this, Juftin anfwers, by refuting Trypho^
from Principles o\\ nM by him, in the Place cited by
the Remonftrants : Buty 0 Trypho, I don't fail in my
Proof that this is the Chrift of God, &c. As tho he fhould
have faid : If I could not prove from the Prophets,
(which I have partly done already, and fhall do here-
after more fully and effedually) that the Chrift was to
be God, and Man born of a Virgin for our Salvation ; I
fhould not therefore quite lofemy Caufe, at leaft with
you 'Ji^'^Sy who cannot, agreeably to your Principles,
deny that our Jefus is that Chrift j for you expeft no
other Chrift, or Meffiah foretold and promifed by the
Prophets, than one that is mere Man, begotten of Men.
This Trypho himfelf quickly confeffes : (d) We aU^
fays he, look for Chrifi as Man begotten of Man. It is
then plain, that Juflin here argues, not from his own
Sentiment, or the Truth of the Thing icfelf, but from
the Hypothefis of the Jews, with whom he difpuces.
For Juftin indeed could not, without the grofleft Con-
tradiction, and a manifeft Refutation of a great part of
what he has eagerly contended for in this Dialogue,
affirm, or allow that it did not really follow that Je-
fus was not that Chrift of God foretold by the Pro-
phets, if he was not true God, born Man of a Vir-
gin. There he lays himfelf out greatly, in proving
that it was very plainly foretold of that Chrift of God
by the Prophets, that he fhould be abfolutely God,
and Ihould take Flefh from a Virgin. Befides, Jujlin
elfewhere exprefly teaches, that no one could be equal
to the Office of Chrift the Mediator, unlefs he was
the very Son of God, and confequently God. There
is a remarkable PalTage in the Epiftle to Diognetus :
id) V. i6S.
He
the Catholick Church, ^^. 255
(e) He gave his own Son a Ranfom for us^ the Holy for the
Sinner Sy the Innocent for the Eiil, the 'Juft for the Unjuft^
the Incorruptible for the Corruptible, the Immortal for the
Mortal. For what elfe could cover our Sins but his
Righteoufnefs ? By whom luas it poffibk for us Sinners
and Impious to be jufiify'd, but by the only Son of God. O
the fweet Redemption, 0 the unfearchable Work ! There-
fore, according to Juflin, it could not be that any
Ihould fatisfy God the Father for our Sins (the chief
Office of our Saviour Chrift) befides the proper, in-
corruptible, immortal Son of God. Now who this
Son of God is, fo celebrated by Juftin, every one who
is the leaft acquainted with the Holy Martyr's Works,
well knows ; namely, that Son of God, who was be-
gotten of God the Father before every Creature,
who was his Counfellor and Affiftant in the Creation
of all things ; who laftly, at the appointed time, de-
fcended from Heaven, being made Man, for Man's
Salvation. Parallel to this, is what we have in this
(f)fame Dialogue, where firft having given a clear ac-
count of the Catholick Doftrine, both of the univerfal
Guilt of Mankind, from that celebrated Place, Curfed
is every one, ivho hath not continued in thofe things, lohkh
are "written in the Book of the Law, to do them ; and of
the Satisfadion made by Jefus Chrift crucify 'd, who
took upon him the Curfe of all Men ', he immediately
adds, that what the Jews were entirely ignorant of,
was foretold by God, that this Jefus is before all things,
and the eternal Prieft of God, and King, and was to be the
Chrifl. By thefe words he fignifies God's Intention
and Decree, that the Sins of Men fhould not be ex-
piated but by an eternal Prieft, who exifted before
C^) all things. Compare alfo what he fays in this
Dialogue
(e)P. 500. (/)P.323-
{g) —'That Mankhd could not he freed fiom the Corrupt' on con^
iracied by the Fall of Adam, hut by the Incarnation of him, who was
In his own 'Nature Life, that is God, or ihe EJfe?itial Son of God,
Juftin hath ejcprefly taught In a loji Oration cf his againft the Gen-
tiles ;
2^4 ne J\JDGMUNr of
Dialogue (h) horn the iioth Pfalm concerning Chrift,
a Prieft according to the Order of Mekhiz.edeck, Nor
was this a Singularity of Juflm'Sy but the common
Sentiment of the Primitive Fathers, who have ail with
one Confent taught, that it is abfolutely neceflary the
Saviour and Mediator of Men with God, fhould be
God and Man ; a Point, if ic was not foreign to my
Purpofe, which I could prove by a great many Evi-
dences. However, at prefent I'll produce two Evi-
dences of Catholick Dodrine for all, but thofe very
ample, one more antient than Jufiwy and the other juft
after him. Ignatius^ a Bifiiop of the Apoftolick Age,
teaches this plain in a Place I have often cited from
him : 'There is one Phyjician^ carnal and fpritual, made
and unmade, God in the Flefh, true Life in Death, &c.
He thought ic was God- Man alone who could give a
faving Medicine to our Souls, grievoufly diftemper'd,
and mortally fick. But (f) Irenaus, next to ju/iin,
frequently urges and inculcates the. fame Dodrine,
and efpecially where he explains it in a. Learned Man-
ner, thus : He then united Man to Gcd. For if Man
had not conquered the Adverfary of Man, he had not been
lawfully conquer' d. Again ^ if God had not given Saliva-
tion, ive could not have firmly obtain d it ; and if Man
had not been united to God, he could not have been Par^
taker of Incorruption. For it behoved the Mediator of God
tiles ; from 'which Leontius, in his fecond Book againji the Euty-
chians and Neftorians, hp.th cited thefe words : Corruption being
become natural to us, it was neceflary that he, who would
fave us, fhould deftroy that which corrupted us. This could
not otherwise be, except what was naturally Life was join'd
to that which was corruptible, to vanquifh Corruption, and
for the future preferve that Immortal which was obnoxious
to it. It was therefore neceflary that the Word fhould be
embody *d, to free us from the Death of our natural Corrup-
tion. Gr^be. See the Spicilejr. Tom. I. Cent.%. p-il^- ivhere you
have this entire Fragment irnnfcribed in GreeJc, from a MS. in the
Bodleian, and In p. 173. the parallel Place of Iren^us, here cited
hy the Right Reverend Author.
{h) P. 250, &c. CO P. 284. Lib. 3. Cap. 20.
and
the Catholick Church, ^c, 255
and Men, by a proper Familiarity with both, to bring them
to Friendfiip and Unanimity , to prefent Man to God, and
to make kmivn God to Men. Neither Jufiin therefore,
nor any Catholick of that Age, could fafely grant,
that it did not follow that Jefus was not the Chrift,
upon fuppofition that he was mere Man only. For
from this Hypothefis ('which was Juflin's, and Catho-
lick^ Whofoever is Chrifl, mufi be God ; it neceflarily fol-
lows, that they who deny Jefus to be God, deny him
to be Chrift. We muft then conclude, that 'Juflin in
the Place controverted, argued from the Hypothefis
of the Jeias, with whom he had to do, and who be-
lieved that Chrift was to be a mere Man only.
6. But befides this, it may be objeded that 'Juflin.
fpeaks plainly of fome, who in his days confefsM Je-
fus to be the Chrift, and yet both deny*d his Divi-
nity, and that he was born of a Virgin, as tho they
were in the Communion of the Catholick Church, and
efteem'd true Chriftians : for he fays that they were
of one Sort, i. e, of the Chriftian Kind. But this is
nothing. For thofe Opiniators might be call'd by
yuflin, of ours, i. e. of the Chriftians, as receiving the
Chrift, and upon that account boafting themfelves to
be Chriftians, as (k) Origen fpeaks of the Ebionites,
whom we fhall alfo find hereafter to be intended in
this Place by 'Juftin. The fame (I) Origen alfo, treat-
ing of fome other notorious Hereticks, calls them
fome in the Multitude of Believers, i. e. of thofe that
profefsM Chrift. So alfo {m) Juflin^ in his fecond Apo-
logy to Antoninus Plus, having firft; fpoke of the Dif-
ciples of Simcn^ Menander, and Marcion ('the worft
of Hereticks) adds ; AU that fprung from thefe, are
£aU*d Chrijlians^ as thofe, who, tho not of the fame Semi"
ments, entirely bear the common Name given to Phikfophers.
Indeed, if Juflin had here difputed with fome Sed of
Chriftians that difTented from him, and had call'd
(k) Lib. 5. contra Celfwni, p. 272.
(0 Lib. 8, p. 357. {m) P,7o,
them;,'
2^6 ^y^^ JUDGMENT ^/
them, by way oF Contradiftindion, of our Sort, whofdl
Sentiment he defcribes concerning Chrift as mere Man,
it might have been probably concluded, that he held
them for Men of the fame Communion, and confe-
quently for true Members of the Catholick Church.
But the Cafe is far otherwife. For in this place, 'Juflin
difputes with Trypho^ and his Friends the Jews, pro-
fefs'd Enemies of Chriftianity, from whom Men of
every Seft, under the common Name of Chriftians,
might be juftly diftinguifh'd. Moreover, where Juf-
tiu fpeaks of Chriftians diflenting from him in any
Point, but yet in the Communion of the Church, and
holding the Catholick Faith, he clearly fignifies it.
Thus in this (ji) very Dialogue, fpeaking of the Catho-
lick Chriftians who rejected the Millennium, which he
embraced, he fays they were Chriftians in other re-
fpefts of pure and pious Principles. If Jufiin had
given fuch a Charafter of thefe Men, who deny'd the
Divinity of our Lord Chrift, the Remonftrants mighc
have had fomething to have rejoiced at in the Com-
munion, which 'Jufiin, and the Church in his time,
held with them. But in vain do they attempt to
prove this, becaufe 'Juflin call'd thofe Hereticks [of
eur Sort.'] Now what if thefe fhould not be Juflin's
Words ? Indeed I am verily perfuaded there is an
Error here, and one that may be eafily correded only
by the Change of a Letter, i. e. by writing CuiTifn in-
ftead of nuc-ritii. which if admitted, the Words muft
be rendered of your Sort, that is, of the j^^xi^7/Z> Na-
tion. An Error which has happened in this fame Pe-
riod, the writing tziktzu for rr^.zv^ fhews how eafily this
we are now obferving might be. But my Reafons for
this Correftion are plainly thefe: (i.) Wherefoever in
this Dialogue this Form of Speaking occurs [0/ utto yi-
j-Kf] the word -^ii'oi is taken not metaphorically, but
properly for a Nation or Kindred ; fo that [oi avn yir^i
771 i:] may be faid to be Perfons of a certain Nation
r») P. 50^.'
OP
the CAtHOtiCK Church, ^c\ 20
or Kindred. So in the Sentence before the Parage
cited, and in the preceding Page^ and every where.
Now in this fenfe, Jufiin could not, by that Expref-
fion, mean the Prof'efTors of the Chriftian Religion,
for Chriftians were not all of one Nation, dTc. Up-
on this account, I don'c remember that you can
find any Place where Chriftians univerfally are by
^vfiin call'd our Nation. (2.) The Heterodox, Juflin
fpeaks of, were Ebionttes^ as we fhaU prove by and by i
now they were indeed of the Jevjifi) Nation : Hence
the Antient Ecclefiaftical Writers uiually range the
Herefy of the Ebionites omong thofe, which rofe amongft
the Jews. See the {0) ApoftolkalConflhutions, and what
we have faid before (pX (3 .) In the Paflage of the
preceding Page, refer'd to before, Juftin manifeftly
treating of the Ebionites, writes thus : Ij thcfe of the
Nation^ ivho profefs to believe in this Chrifl, Trypho,
compel thofe of the Gentiles, ix>ho belieme in this Chrifi^ to
live exaSlly according to the Laixi of Mofes, or elfe deny to
communicate -with them in fuch a way, (namely, that he
had fpoke of a little before, of having all things in
common as Brethren, and Men of the fame Bowels)
/ fiould alfo refufe them. Thofe Chriftians of tht'Jevjs^
who not only obferv'd the Ritual Law of Mofes them-
felves, but alfo impos'd upon the Gentile Chriftians a
Neceflity of doing the fame, were certainly the Ebio*
nites, and no others. Add to thefe the Teftimony of
(q) Epphanius, that the Ebionites taught Circumcifion.
as inftituted by God, and commanded to all for the
fake of Purity, and obtaining the Inheritance of the
Kingdom of Heaven. Now fince xht Ebionites are here
defcrib*d by this Periphrafis, [thofe of your Nation who.
profefs to believe in this Chriji] who can doubt but in the
Place cited by the Remonft rants, Juftinfyeakmg of the
Xiame Ebionites y in like manner calls them \_fome vf your
PEZVii/fow, -who conjefs that he is Chrift?"] (4.) Laftly, if this
Reading is receiv'd, 'Juflin will be confiftent, other-
Co) C.6. Lib.^, {jf) Ch.5. Sea, 1, 3, (?) HwreCjo. C.50.
R wife
258 T'^e JUDGMENT of
Wife not. He had {aid, as we have obferv'd, that tho
"e could not prove, that our Jefus was both God be-
*ore Ages, and in the Fulnefs of Time made Man of
a Virgm i yet that Trypbo, who was a 7^ti;, ought
not therefore to deny that he was the Chrift, or Mef-
fiah promifed by the Prophets. This he proves very
fitly, and iliullrates by the Example of fome of the
^eivi/h Nation, who neither acknowledged the Divi-
nity of Jefus, nor his Nativity of a Virgin, and yet
confefs'd him to be Chrift. The Cafe is indeed clear
to me, and if I am not greatly miftaken, the impartial
Reader, who weighs the Scope and Context of the
Place with Diligence and Judgment, will be of my
Opinion.
7. But perhaps fome Perfon will urge, that yuflin
(imply profeffes his own Diffent from the Heterodox
he glances at, without any other Brand of Infamy
upon them. He only fays, he is not of their mind,
and neither calls their Opinion Herefy, nor them He-
reticks. I anfwer. What if it be fo ? He has no bu-
finefs with them in that place. He is upon another
Defign, and only mentions them by the by. But
is it abfolutely necefl'ary, that he who thinks another
an Heretick, fhould call him fo, as often as he
fpeaks of him? I doubt not but that Juftin, in the
Book profeffedly wrote by him againft all Herefies
(which he alfo mentions in this Dialogue) has fharply
, treated this, and painted it in proper Colours. Be-
fides, here is a plain Miftake, that Juftin has not ftig-
matized thefe vain Thinkers. For he plainly fays,
that they did not only diifent from him, but from the
Faith and Opinion of moft Chriftians, i. e. the Catho-
lick Church. And indeed in Juflins time, thofe who
taught that our Lord was only Man begotten of Man,
were either Carpocratiansy or CerimhianSy or laftly, Ebi-
mites, who all in one Body were a very few, compared
with the other Chriftians, and were all of them fepa-
rated from the Communion of the Apoftolical Churches.
No one doubts it of the Carpocratiam and Cerinthians.
As
the CathOlick Church, ^c 259'
As for the Ebionites^ it is clear from what we have
cited out of Ignatius and IrenauSj that they, from their
firft Original, were accounted Hereticks by the Ca;-
tholick Church. Moft of the Chriftians of the Cir-
cumcifion, that is, the Na^iaraans^ who retained the
Primicive Faith of the Church of Jerufalem^ founded
by the Apollles, condemn d their Opinion of Chrift as
rnere Man (r); and they, as we fhall fhew hefeafter,
neither were, nor could be in Communion with the
Church of the Gentile Chriftians. Further, Juflin
(ignifies that they of whom he fpeaks, did not only go
contrary to Catholick Confent, but alfo oppos'd the
Sacred Oracles of the Old, and efpecially the New
Teftament. This he plainly hints in the laft words
of the cited Paragraph, which the Remonflrants, with
more Cunning than Candour, have omitted. /, fays
he, am not of their mindy nor mofl Chriftians ; for ws
are exhorted by Chrift to believe^ not the Traditions and
Doctrines of Men, but thofe which the Holy Prophets have
publifh'd^ and Chrift himfelf hath taught. Nay, 'Juflin
clearly hints in thefe words fas fhall be prov a here*
after) that thofe Heterodox Men rather gave credit to
human Traditions, than the Predidions of the old
Prophets, or the Words of Chrift himfelf in his Go-
fpeh This furely was enough for ^uflin to fay of
them by the way.
8. What I have often mention'd, that xhtEbionites
are here cenfur'd by ^uftin^ I come now to explain
and confirm at large. Now if we confult Ecclefiafti-
cal Hiftory, and the antient Herefiologers, we fhall
find that there is no Sed of Chriftians, either in 'Juf-
tins rime or before> with which the Opinion here de-
fcribM does exadiy agree, except the Ebionites. For
the the Carpocratians and Cerinthians, as well as the
Ebionites^ did affirm Jefus .to have been only a mere
Man, propagated of both Sexes ; yet it never was
their Opinion, that he was by Election promoted to
(0 See Ch. 2. of iUsTreaiifej Se£t. il,i2«
R a the
^6o K'^ JUDGMENT ^/
the Office of Mediator. Nay, I know not whether
they had any Thoughts of the Chrift or Meffiah fore-
told by the Prophets. The Carpocratiam, as (s) Irenaut
reports, placed the Dignity and Excellence of our
Jefus in this. That his Soul being firm and pure , he Ye-
member d thofe things which he hadfeen^ when he was car-
vfd about in the unbegotten Gody and that therefore God
gave him power to vanqujfb the Makers of the Worldy and
having pafs'd thro all, and delivered all, to afcend to God.
This Whim never enter'd into the Head of thofe
whom Jujlin cenfures. Befides, thofe Carpocratians
were the worft of Men, given to Magick ; and ar-
riv'd at fuch a pitch of Impiety, as to deny all Dif-
tindion of Good and Evil, as Irenaus in the fame place
informs us. We can't therefore believe that Jufiin
would build any Argument againft Trypho, and his
Friends the Jezvs, upon the Opinion of thefe Men, or
rather Brutes in human Shape j efpecially when the
Jews, in other refpeds, whether of their Country, or
the Sacred Rites, had nothing in common with them.
As for the Cerinthiam alfo, tho they indeed fymboliz'd
with the Jews, to avoid the Perfecutions rais'd by
them; yet the Opinion defcrib'd and cenfur'd by
Jufiin, does not quadrate with them. For the Cerin-
thians did not confefs Jefus to be the Chrift, but un-
derftood the word Chrifl, not as denoting Office or
Honour, but as fignifying a certain ^on, or Power,
which defcended from the Chief of all Powers to Je-
fus for a time only, as we have often obfervM before. It
remains then that 'Jujlin be thought to intend the Ebi-
onites. For befides thefe three Seds, there is no other
mention'd by any Ecclefiaftical Writer, which either
an the Days of ^tfiiny or before, taught that Jefus was
only a Man begotten of Men. Almoft all the other
Hereticks of thofe Times, who were Heterodox con-
cerning the Perfon of Chrift, have fpoke againft the
Truth and Reality of his human Nature. Now the
(0 Lib. I. Cap. 24* P* I2i» & 122.
Ehiomtes
the Catholtck Church, (Jr. 261
Ehionites being Jeivs^ when they went off from the
Primitive Faith and Opinion of the Church of Jeru-
falem^ embraced the common Notion of the 'Jews con-
cerning the Me/fiah, which was the very fame 'Jufiin
defcribes in the Place cited. Hereupon Trypho foon
after commends and approves it : / thmk thofe ivhofay
he was made Man, and by EleBicn anointed and made the
Chrifi, fpeak more probably than thofe, ivho fay as ym fay.
For all we expeSi, that Chrifl will be made Man of Man^
and that Elias will come and anoint him. And afterwards
he (t") advifes 'Juftin, if he would perfuade the '^ews
and others that Jefus is the Chrift, to teach that he
was Man of Man, and for his ftrid and perfed way
of Life, was thought worthy to be chofen the Mef-
fiah («). This indeed was the very Opinion of Ebion,
and his firft Dilciples, tho the later Ebionites went off
from it, and took up feveral Opinions concerning
Chrift, many of them embracing fomething not unlike
Cerinthianifm, as (x) Epiphanius fays.
p. But to return to the controverted Place of Jufiin.
The laft Words of it, in which Jnfiin hints that the
Heterodox cenfur'd by him did attend more to human
Dodrines than the Sayings of the Prophets, and of
Chrift himfelf in the Gofpel, clearly point out the
Ebionites. For they were fo wedded to the Scheme
they- had receiv'd from the Hebrew Doftors concerning
Chrift's mere Humanity, that they would not luffer
themfeives to be divorced, tho the Predidions of the
Prophets, and the Teftimonies of the Evangelifts and
Apoftles of Chrift, oppos*d it. They fhut their Eyes,
and ftopt their Ears againft the Predictions of the Pro-
phets, which exprefly declare the Divine Glory and
Majefty of the Meffiah. They, as well as the fews^
deprav'd the Prophetical Oracle concerning the Virgin
(0 P. 291.
{it) Very vemavkahle that In Juftin'j T^nys^ anii fomK pretended
Chrijllan Priejis in our Times-, jlmtld agree in facihtAting the Com'tr-
Jion of Aiankindy by denying the Divinifx of Chf'Ji,
(v) Hseref. ;o, C. 5. collet, C. 1 {.
H S BU-th.
5^2 f^^ JUDGMENT^?/
Birth, by an infipid Comment. And, for the Scrip-
tures of the New Teftament, they only received the
Gofpel of St. AlattheWj rejecting the other three, efpe-
cially that of St. Johrij becaufe he, both in the begin-
ping of his Gofpel, plainly and profefledly declares
the eternal Divinity of our Lord, and very often eife-
where reports how he alTerted his Divine Majefty be-
fore the Jews. Nay, they mutilated the very Gofpel
of St. Matthew; for they took away the firft Chapter,
and begun with thofe things which happened in the
Times oi Herod and Caiaphas the High Prieft, for this
reafon, becaufe that Chapter contained a clear Tefti-
mony concerning Chrift's Nativity of the Virgin,
They were not afraid openly to rejed whatfoever in
the Scriptures of the New Teftament contradifted
their Rabbinical ^oi\Qns. Perhaps Ignatius had an eye
upon the Impudence and Wickednefs of thefe Men in
his (y) Epiftle to the Philadelphians (in which, no doubt,
be plainly cenfures the Hereticks, who then attempted
to bring Judaifm into the Churches of the Gentiles .)
J have heard fome^ ivho fayy XJnlefs I find it in the An-
tientSj I dont believe it in the Gofpel ; and when I havQ
laid to them. It is written, they have reply'd^ It is no-
thing worth, tho written, or it is eftablifh'd before
[in the Antients.'] The Antients, I fuppofe, are the
old Rabbins, Mailers, or Do^Sors of the Hebrezus, who
"were famous fome Years before our Lord's Coming,
"whofe Dodrines and Traditions the Jezus and their
mad Admirers efteem'd as Oracles. The word -^r^jcV.s/Tw/
is unintelligibly rendered by the old Interpreter [pr^-
jacet.'] It often fignifies to be thrown away, as of no
value or worth. If fo, Ignatius's Senfe muft be. That
thefe Men, of whom he {peaks, were not afhamed tq
profefs, that they would only fo far believe the Gofpel,
gs it was agreeable to the Traditions of thefe Do(3:ors;
and that when he refuted the Opinions they had re-
jjeiv'd from them, by the Scriptures of the New Te-
C^O VoLa. P,A,p.33=
(lament
the Catholick Church, ^c» 2^3
flament receiv'd in the Church, they replyM that they
rejeded thofe Scriptures, as ot' no Autnoricy. Thus
the pretended Ignatius feems to have underdood the
Word, when he thus enlarges upon the Place : (z,) It is
hard to kick againft the Pricks^ it is hard to disbelieve Chrifl^
it is hard to rejeci the Preaching of the Apofiles. But the
Word may alio be referred to the Opinion thefe Here-
ticks defended againft the Scriptures, alledg'd by Ig'
natius in another and a contrary Signification : For as
the fimple Verb Kii-mt fometimes fignifies, It is laid
down, it is an Axiom, upon which account fuch Propo-
fitions are call'd Kzi^^vcti fo 'm^pYju-n/.i may fignify. It is
laid dotvn^ fix'd, defind, or efialplifh'd before. If fo, the
Senfe will be. That the Hereticks reply'd to Ignatius^
difputing with them out of the Scriptures of the New
Teftament, that their Opinion was defin'd and efta-
blifh'd before, namely, by the Antients, when the
Scriptures were not as yet publifh'd. Take it which
way you pleafe, you may plainly fee the fame foolifli
Veneration of the Antients, the fame profane Con-
tempt of the Scriptures. But this, by the way ; I
proceed. Thefe Ebionites alfo, in order to defend the
univerfal Obligation of the Ritual Mo/^/W Law, re-
jeded all St. PauVs Epiftles, and call'd him an Apo-
ftate from the Law. Well then, were not thefe Men
Hereticks, and did not 'Judin efteem them fo ? Did
the Church in 'Juflins Time, or did 'Juflin himfelf hold
Communion with them ? He may believe it that can,
but I can't. Nay more, ^ufiin could not communicate
with the EbioniteSy if he would, for they would not com-
municate with the Gentile Chriftians, and were there-
fore rejeded as Hereticks by Jufiin, as is plain from a
PaiTage we have before cited. horn him, in this Chapter.
10. I fuppofe I have now fufficiently prov'd that the
Paflage in Ju/iiny cited by Epifcopius and the Remon-
ftrants, was in vain alledg'd by them to prove, that
the Church in Jufiins time held Communion with
thofe that deny'd the Divinity of our Lord Jefus,
iz) Ibid. p. 84.
R 4 Fot
4^4 r^^ J U D G M E N T of
For from what has been faid, it is very evident, that
thofe Opiniators noted by yuftin in that place, both
deny'd the Divinity of Cnriit, and alfo his Nativity
of the Virgin ; and that they might uefend their Hy-
pothelis, held it neceflfary to rejeft^ and confequently
did impioufly and impudently rejed the Sacred Go-
fpels or Chrift receivM by the Catliolick Church, and
daily read in their Sacred A£femblies; that is, that
the Ehionitei were certamly intended by Juftin, who
were caft off by the other Chriftians of the Circum-
cifion, namely the Naz^araans, and who neither could,
nor would communicate with any Church of the GetJ"
tiles.
II. To what has been faid, I will only add fome
Places out of this very Dialogue with Trypho^ by
which it will plainly appear, what Jufiin himfelf
thought of the Neceflity of believing the Articles of
ouy Saviour's Divinity, and of thofe Ebionites and o-
thers who deny*d it. Firfl then, let us confult {a) the
Place, I have often cited upon another Occafion ;
where he fays, that their Faith concerning Chrift, who
are favM under the Gofpel, is fuch, as acknowledges
Chrift to he the Son of God, who was before Lucifer and
the Moottf and who being made Flefb, condef ended to be
horn of the Virgin of the Houfe of David, that by this Dif-
fenfation the Serpent, who was fir ft an Evil-doer, and the
Angels who are like to him, might be deftroy*d, dec. From
this we may eafily conclude, that Jufiin did not e-
fteem their Faith, who believM in fuch a Chrift, or
Son of God, as did not exift before Mary, and who
yas not begotten of the Virgin Mary, but of fofeph
and Mary, to be the Chriftian Faith, or fuch a Faith
concerning the Perfon of Chrift, as is fufficient to
Salvation. Surely every Man, who reads the entire
Place, muft think that fuftin has there given us the
Symbol or Rule of Faith, fo far as it relates to Chrift,
%ii^ what he undertook, which in his time w^s re- .
y) p. 2^4,
ceive4
the Catholick Church, ^c* 265
celved in the Church, and confequently that thofe,
who contradii^ed it, could not but be efteem'd by
the Church, and of courfe by him, who conftantly
adhered to it, as Apoflates from the Rule, /. e. Here-
ticks. This will be more clear yet from another Paf-
fage in the fame {b) Dialogue, N^here he feems to give
us, as it were, a ihort Account of that Piece he had
composed againft all Herefies : 'there are theriy fays he,
and have been many Profelytes to Chrifiianhy, ivho have
taught athetflkal and blafphemous tenets and PraBkes.
We have given them their Denomination from thofe, from
Vihom every DoSirine and Opinion fprung. Some of them
teach one way, and others another of blafpheming the
Maker of the Univerfe, and Chrifi^ whom he had fore-
told (hould come, even the God 0/ Abraham, Ifaac, and
Jacob. IVe communicate with none of thefe, as knowing
themfelves to be atheiftical, impious, unjufi and irregular,
md inftead of Worjhippers of fefus^ only nominal Confejfors
of him. they call themfelves Chrifiians indeed, as the Hea-
then give the Name of God to things made with hands, and
communicate in unlawful and impious Myfteries. Some of them
are call'd Marcionites, fome Valentinians, fome Bafili-
dians, fome Saturnilians, and others by other Names, every
one being denominated from the Author of his Opinion.
Here 'Juflin manifeftly treats of all the Hereticks which
in his Age or before had difturb'd the Church ; he
only names fome of them, and adds that there were
others known by other Names taken from their re-
fpedive Herefiarchs, viz>. Carpocratians from Carpocrates,
Cerinthians from Cerinthus, Ebionites from Ehion, and
many others. All thefe Hereticks did in fome fore
blafpheme God the Father, or the Son, or both, by
their DoArine. Some, fays he, teach one way, others
another, of blafpheming the Maker of the Univerfe, and
Chrifi, whom he had foretold f^ould come, even the God of
Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. Here it is efpecially to
J)e obferv*d, that this Chrift and the God oi Abraham,
(h) P. 253.
Ifaac,
^66 T';^^ J U D G M E N T ^/
Ijaac^ and '^acob, are fpoken of as the fame Perfon,
namelyj as he whom the Maker of the Univerfe foretold
fhould come, that is, the Son of God. For firft, the
God of Abraham^ Jfaac and Jacobs is plainly diftin-
guifh'd from the Maker of the Univerfe, that is, from
God the Father. Then it is notorious, thsLt Juftin
every where in this Dialogue teaches, that it was
Chrift, or the Son of God, who appeared to Mofes in
the burning Bufh, and call'd himfelf the God of Abra*
ham^ Jfaac and ^acob. Well then, did not the Ebi"
mites blafpheme CHrifl, the God of Abraham^ Ifaac and
Jacob, at all, who openly deny'd that Chrift was the
God of Abrahamj Jfaac and Jacob ? who taught that he
did not exift before Abraham, no not before Mary j
'A^ho prefumed to affirm that he was no more than a
meer' Man begotten of Jofeph and Mary 1 Further,
Jufiin fays, that thefe Hereticks were, inftead of Wor-
Ihippers of Jefus, only nominal Ccnfeffors of him. Don'c
thefe words alfo ftrike at the Ebionites? Sure they
do. For of what Worfhip or Adoration doth Juftin
fpeak ? Of that, doubtlefs, which he, in this Dia-
logue, contends is due to Jefus Chrift, and in which
he enlarges himfelf upon the Proof, that he is both
adorable and God, that is, to be adored as God.
"Without doubt he fpeaks of the Worfhip, which all
Catholick Chriftians then gave to Chrift, who glori-
fy'd and adored him as God, together with the Father
and Holy Spirit, in Hymns and Doxologies, as he
(c) hitnfelf informs us (d). Did the Ebionites give fuch
Worfhip to Chrift ? Nay, could they give it ? By
no means. Therefore it is certain that Juflin placed
the Ebionites.^ and all others, who, as well as they, op-
posM our Savivour's Divinity, in the Catalogue of He-
reticks, with vshich the Church had no Communion,
and whom they rejefted as impious, and utterly un-
worthy the Name of Chriftians.
(c) p. 56' {d) See 'VDhat We have /aid upon this Place in the
Defence of the Nicene Creed, SeQ. 2. Ch. 4. S. 8,
12. To
the CATHoticK Church, ^c* 267
12. To thefe, if you pleafe, you may add a third
Place in this fame Dialogue. There Juftitij at the
Infligation of T'rypho, attempts largely to prove,
that in the Old Teftament he is frequently call*d
God, and true God, not God improperly fpeaking,
who is yet perfonally diflinft from God the Parent of
the Univerfe, meaning this Jefus Chrift, in whom we
believe : and further undertakes to bring fucH Argu-
ments for it from the Law and the Prophets, as no
Man fhall be able to contradid. Then he immediately
adds concerning the Proofs he was about to produce :
(e) T'hey luill feem firange to you^ tho daily read by you.
From this you may know^ that God has hid the Power of
under ft anding the Wifdom of his Words from you ', except
ftichj to ivhom, as K^iah fpeaks, according to his very great
CojnpaJJioriy he has left as a Seed to Salvation, that your
Nation might not utterly perifo, like thofe of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Here every one may plainly fee that the
yews, who believ'd in Ghrift, and embrac'd his Doc-
trine, are underftood as thofe, who alone o( thejewi/b
Nation are left by God as a Seed unto Salvation. But
yuflin plainly enough fignifies, that all thefe under-
ftood the Wifdom, or Myftery of Chrift the Son of
God, and confequently God, to be deliver'd in the
Old Scriptures; therefore he by no means thought,
that they of the Jewiflo Nation, who profefling to be-
lieve in Chrift, did not yet perceive that Wifdom ei-
ther in the Writings of the Prophets, or in the clear
Light of the Gofpel, namely the Ebionites, did belong
to the Seed referv'd by God to Salvation, that is, were
truly Believers, or Chriftians ; but rather judg'd them
to be of the fame Clafs with the Jews, who were repro-
bate, and blinded by the juft Judgment of God. What I
have before difcourfed of the old Naz.aranm if), or the
Hierofolymitan Chriftians of the Circumcifion, is very
proper to be confulted here, as "what will both give
light to this Place, and be better underftood by it.
(0 P.274. (/) Ch.2. ^.9, II,l2>I3)I4>l5•
568 T^e JUDGMENTof
A'PTBNTilXto the Seventh Chapter.
AFTER I had finifli'd my former Obfervations
upon the celebrated Paffage of Juflin, I pro-
cured the other Volume of Epifcopius* sWorkSy in which
I found the fecond Edition of the Anfwer to the Specimen
of Calumnies, &c.
Now in that Anfwer the Remonftrants ufe many
tg) Arguments to prove from that Place, that the An-
tient Primitive Chrifllan Church held Communion with
thofe who believ*d and profefs'd that Chrift Jefus was
mere Man only, Man of Man, and made Chrift by
Eledion. They boaft of fome of their Arguments as
the cleareft imaginable, and propofe others as highly
probable. As for the firft fort, every unprejudiced
Man may fee from what I have faid before, that they
are fo far from being the moft clear imaginable, that
they can't juftly be call'd highly probable. Never-
thelefe, we will briefly examine thefe very clear Ar-
guments of Eptfcopius and the Remonftrants.
2. (ijjuftin, {a.ys EpifcopiuSy affirms it pojjible to de-
mon/irate folidlyy that Jefus is the Chrifi of Gody the pro-
mifed Mefftahy tho he cant prove that Chrift pre- exi fled as
the Son of God. He therefore believed that he mighty by a
fure Faith, be taken for ^ and ivorjjjipped as the Meffiah,
tho he uas deny'd to be the eternal Son of God. I refer my
Reader to a full and clear Anfwer to this in the fore-
going Chapter (h). The Ground of Epfcopius's Error,
and that of the Remonftrants, was their not obferving
thsitjuflin in this Place we are fpeaking of, does not
argue from his own Sentiment, or the Truth of the
Thing itfelf, but from the Jewi/h Hypothefis, with
whom he difputes. Nothing can be plainer. (2.)
{g) Vol. 2. p. 2. Op. Epifcop. p. 295, & 294.
(fc) Ch. 7. Sea. 4, 5-
the Catholick Church, ^c, 26^
'Juflin^ Epifcopius adds, affirms, that, if anyone believes
Cbrifi to be only Man begotten of Man, and made Chrifl
by EleSiion, he only errs, but does not deny the Chrifl. He
therefore believed this EYror to be fuch an one, as was con-*
jiflent with that Faith, by which we believe Chrifl to be the
Mejflah, in which he places the EJJence of Chriflianity.
Now the Antecedent is plainly falfe. For Jtlflin no
where affirms what Epifcopius fays he doth. The
words of 'Juflin, in which Epifcopius fancy 'd his Ante-
cedent, are thefe : But if I fljould not demonflrate that
he [our Jefus] didpre-exifl, and condefcended to be made
Man of like Paffions with us, and incarnate according t9
the purpofe of the Father, you may juflly fay Vm miflaken
in that Point, but you cant deny that he is the Chrifl. Mif-
taken in what ? In affir?mng hit Pre-exiflence and Nativity
of the Virgin. But then Tou, Trypho, who art a Jew,
and expeElefl no other Mejflah than a mere Man, Man be-
gotten of Man, can take no advantage of my Miflake ; it
is good againfl you flill (i). Epifcopius proceeds to argue
thus from the Place of Juflin : He affirms that if this
Point can be made good, namely, that Jefus is the Chrifl, or
Mejjtah ', it may and ought to fatisfy a Jew, tho he knew not,
or deny' d, or could not prove that Jefus pre- exifled as the Son
of God, or even affirmed that he was no more than mere
Man. I fcarce know what the learned Man means
here. Does he mean, that if ajew could only prove,
and was only perfuaded that Jefus was the Chrift, or
MefTiah, that it would be fufficient for his Salvation,
tho he knew not, or deny'd that Jefus pre-exifted the
Son of God, and even afHrmM that he was nothing but
mere Man, begotten of Man ? He mufl either intend
this, or he has faid nothing to the purpofe. But then
where has Juflin alSrm'd this ? If this was indeed
his Opinion, he has taken a great deal of pains in this
Dialogue to no purpofe, and gathered Arguments from
every part of the Old Teftament to convince the Jews
that it was foretold of Chrift, or the Melfiah, that he
(0 5«Ch.7. J.4,5.
fliould
270 !ra^ JUDGMENT^?/
fhould both be God, and born Man of a Virgin. In
vain does he fo often and fo fharply corred and re-
prove their unparalleled Obftinacy, in that they would
not believe and confefs thefe things; nay, forhetimes he
even bewails and compaffionates them as forfaken of
God, and blinded by his juft Judgment. Surely when
he did thus, he was not in earneft ; for if Epifcopius
fay true, he at the fame time thought, it was not
neceflary for the Jews thus to believe, it was enough
for their Salvation, to make a MefTiah of him fome way
or other. Had it not been better for ytifiin to have
faid nothing of thefe Myfteries, than, by being eager
upon unneceffary Truth, to drive them from an abfo-
lutely neceffary Faith ? But not to multiply words,
I have evidently prov'd before, that "Jufiin^ and the
Catholick Church of his Times, efteem'd thofe Jews^
the Ebionites I mean, to be Hereticks, who confefs 'd
Jefus to be the Chrift, and yet deny'd his Pre-exiftence
before Ages, and his Nativity of the Virgin, and held
them to be Aliens from the true faving Knowledge and
Faith of Chrift. After thefe things, the Remonftrants
urge thofe words, C^or there are fome of our Sori] but
they have been clearly anfwer'd before ^4). Thefe are
the Arguments which Epifcopius and the Remonftrants
boaft of as the moft clear imaginable; with what
Judgment and Fidelity, let the impartial Reader
3. Let us now proceed to the Arguments he pro-
pofes as highly probable, but what, I confefs, I fhould
never have dreamt of without his affiftance. (i.) He
urges, (/) That thofe words of Juftin [Nor will very
many fay fo, who are of my Opinion] feem tofieiu that
there were a few of that Opinion^ in his Community. For
he has not faid [No one of thofe who are of my Opi-
nion {in contradiJiinSiion to the other Heretical SeBs^ the
Marcionites, Valentinians, &c. whom he always diftin-
gutfhes from his own) would fay foU l^ut [very few, &c.2
(k) Ch. 7. g.5. (/) Epifcop. p.aptf.
Here
the Catholtck Church, (^c. 271
Here then you have this Argument : T'he Words of
Juftin CNor will very many fay fo, who are of my
Opinion] foew that fame {hut a few) in the Churchy where
he communicated^ believed Chrifl to be only Man begotten of
Man : therefore the Church in Juftin'j" 'Time held Commu-
nion with thofcj who believed Chrifl mere Man. I own
the Confequence is very juft : But without Epifcopius's
Spedacles, there is no finding the Antecedent. Epif-
copius takes the words, as tho they implyM a Partition
or Diftindion : [ZVcr will very many of them, who are of
my Opinion^ fay fi-l But this is wrong. The Greek will
not bear it. Befides, thofe he calls [th^t are of my
Opinion'] are here plainly, fuch as thought the fame
concerning Chrift as Juflin did, namely, that he was
before Ages, and made Man of a Virgin ; never a
one of which, you may be fure, would fay that he
was Man begotten of Man. This is evident from
*Jrypho*s Anfwer immediately following : I think, fays
he, they who fay he was made Man, and by EleSiion a-
nointed and conflituted Chrifl, [peak more probably than thofe
who fay as you fay. Here no doubt Z^^ofe who fay as
you fay2 are the fame with thofe calfd by Juflin [who
are of my Opinion] but \jhofe who fay as you fay] are
without doubt fuch as with him affirm'd that Chrift
both pre-exifted as God, and was born of a Virgin as
Man-, whofe Opinion Trypho oppofes, and prefers be-
fore it theirs, who afl'erted he was made Man, and by
Election anointed and conftituted Chrift. It is then
manifeft that the Words in Controverfy are explica-
tory, not diftin6tive ; that ct-ae/s-o/ is oppos'd to -nvi^;,
which went before, and that therefore the Words of
Juflin muft be underftood in this fenfe : There are
fome, O Trypho, of our Sort, or rather of your Nation,
who cdnfefs that Jefus is the Chrift, and yet affirm
that he is only a Man begotten of Man. I'm not
of their Opinion j nor indeed would far the greateft
part of Chriftians fay (o, for in this Point they think
as I do. Who now would conclude from this, as
Epifcopius does, that there were fome, with whom
Juftin
272 I'be JUDGMENT of
Juftin held Communion, who thought our Saviour to
be only mere Man ? To this you may add, that it
\vas impoffible the Heterodox, of whom Jujiin (peaks,
fhould have any Place in the Congregation or Afl'embly
of any Catholick Church ; becaufe they not only de-
ny'd the Divinity of our Lord, but alfo his Nativity as
Man of the Virgin : and that they might fupport both
their Hypothefes, plainly rejefted the Gofpels receiv'd
in the Catholick Church, and read in her Sacred Af-
femblies. Nay, thofe in Jufims time, who publickly
deny'd the Divinity of Chriit our Lord, could not be
prefent at the Divine Service of the Catholicks, with-
out deriding the Chriftian Worfhip. For in the Li-
turgies of the Catholick Church, both in 'Juflins time,
and before, even from the beginning, our Saviour was
adorMand glorify *d as God. Jiiflin himfelf bears witnefs
of his own Age, as we have (hewn before , and before
'Jujiin, Pliny (m) reports this from the Confeflion of the
Chriftian Apoftates : They affirmed this ivas all their
Crimey or their Error y that they ufually met at an appointed
time before day, and fung an alternate Hymn to Chrifiy as
God. A Catholick Author (n) has appealed to thefe Hymns,
againft Artemon, who impudently rejeded the Opinion
of the Church concerning our Saviour's Divinity, as
novel : I'he Pfalms and Hymns, all that have been zvrote
by the faithful Brethren, celebrate the Word of God as God.
Kay, the Confeffion of our Lord's Divinity was fo
plain and exprefs in thofe Hymns, that Paulus Same-
fatenus for that reafon could not bear them, and even
attempted (as the Antiochian Fathers tell us in their
Synodical Epiftle) to throw them out of all the
Churches under his Government. ^ The fecond of £-
pifcopius's highly probable Arguments, is this : T'hofe
•words Qof our Sort! feem to imply a more near Relation
and Communion of Faith, than that, which is only nominal
and external. Nou Juftin fays of thefe Men, whom he
(w) Plinij Ep. Ed. Hackran.i(f6p. Lib. lo. Ep.97, p. 714.
(«) Eufeb.E.H. Lib, 7. Cap. 50. p.azp.
calls
the Catholick Church, ^-q, 27^
cah Cof his own SortD that they did not deny him to be
the Chrifly or that it did nor foliow from their Opinion^ that
yefus was not the Chrift. This Argument is made up
of two, which I particularly confuted (0) hefire. " Con-
cerning the words [cf our Sort'^ fee Clap.']. Seel. 6.
And as for the Reafon, which Epifcopius fubjoins, we
have proved that to be a grofs Mifiake of his.
5. The third Argument is this: It Jhjuld not feeni
'very jirange to any cne^ that Juftin took thcfe for Members
of the true Churchy who thought our Lord was mere Man i
when he alfo efieem'd Socrates and Heraclitus to be Chri'
fiians, who li'ued zvith Chriji^ the jirji- be gotten of God : as
Scultetus in his Analyfis of the Apology for the Chrifliam
to Antoninus Pius (that is, Jufiin's) reports from ]u{i\n.
A ftrange, foreign, far-fetch'd Argument ! But how-
ever, I anfver, I have clearly Ihewn before, thatjuflin
held all thofe Profeflors of Chriilianity, who did noc
take Chrift for the true God, the God of Abraham,
Ifaac and 'Jacob, and did not worfhip him as fuch, to
be impious Hereticks, w ith whom neither he, nor the
Catholick Church, had any Communion. As for the
Heterodox alfo, noted in the Place before us, I have
fairly provM that both jfwy?i«, and all Catholicks, e-
fleem'd them heretical upon more accounts than one.
Therefore if that is true, which Epifcopius alledges
from. Scultetus, namely, that Jujlin took Socrates and
Heraclitus for true Chriftians, this only wnll follow,
that the holy Man had conceived a better Opinion of
Socrates and Heraclitus than of thofe Hereticks. Nor
ftiould any one admire, ii Jufiin thought more ho-
nourably, and hoped better of the Heathens, who,
Without Divine Revelation, according to their fmall
Portion of Light and Knowledge, worfhipped one
God, the Maker of all things, and followed after Ver-
tue, (as he was ot opinion that Socrates and Heraclitus
did) than of thofe, who, boafting themfelves Chri-
ftians, did impudently and wickedly rejed the firft
CO Ch. 7. §, 4, 5/
S Prill-
274 The J \JDGMENr of
Principles of their Religion reveal'd by God, and a
bundantly confirmed by fo many, and fo great Mira"
cles, plainly delivered by Chrift and his Apoftles, for
this reiafon, that they could not with their weak Heads
comprehend the whole Method and Reafon of them.
But when Jupn, in the (p) Apology infcrib'd the
Second, calls Socrates and Heraditm Chriftians, he does
not mean Chriftians abfolutely and perfedly, but in
part only, and fo far as they followed the Guidance
of right Reafon, defpisM the Heathen Idols, and, like
the Chriftians, acknowledgM and worihip'd one God,
the Parent of all things ; fo far as in their Writings
they taught, and in their Lives exprefs'd, a great deal
of very good, and indeed Chriftian Morality. For
^uftin teaches, that the Reafon, which is in every
Man, is, as it were, a Seed or Portion of the Divine
Word, or Reafon that is of Chrift, for which caufe
he calls him the umnjerjal Reafon-, and confequently
that the Gentile Philofophers, who, before the coming
of Chrift, conformed their Opinions and Lives to the
Rule of that Reafon within them, were fo far Chri-
ftians i but that thofe alone were abfolutely Chriftians,
who were taught, and did embrace the Divine Infti-
tution and Difcipline of the univerfal Reafon, i.e. of
Chrift, deliver'd in the Gofpel, and far more excellent
than all human Wifdom. This 'Juflin partly fignifies
in that very place Scidtetus had his eye upon (q) : We
have been taught, fays he, that Chrijl is the firft-born of
God, and ive have before fjeuon that he is the Reafon, of
tx)hich all Mankind partakes. And they ijoho live rationally^
are Chriftians, &c. But he gives us his Mind more fully
in the Apology commonly publifliM as the firft i there,
fpeaking of certain Philofophers among the Gentiles,
who were hated of their own People, for the excel-
lent Morality they deliver'd by the Seed of Reafon,
natural to all Mankind ; and having again produced
the Example of Heraclitus^ and one Mufmius his Con-
(?) P. Sg, (^) Ibid,
temporary^
the Catholick Church, ^c* 275
temporary, he prefently adds (y) : Tor^ as ive have
Jhevi'd before, the Damons have always made all them to
be hatedy who, according to the befl of their power, have
endeavoured to avoid Evil, and live according to Reafon^
And no wonder if they are found much more aBive in pro^
curing them hatred, who live according to a Portion of the
original Reafon [in iTome fort rationallyD yea, according
to the Knowledge and 'Theory of the univerfal Reafon, which
is Chrifi. You fee here in what fenfe Jufiin call'd He-
raclitus and fuch Perfons Chriftians, namely, as they con-
formed their Manners in fome fort to a Portion of the original
Reafon, lived according to Reafon, and endeavoured to a-
void Evil. But betwixt them and the true Chriftians
he makes a wide difference ; for the true Chriftians are
they, who live according to the Knowledge and 'Theory of
the univerfal Reafon, which is Chrifi. Now if any one
fufpeds that Jufiin thought a Man, by the only Af-
(iftance of his natural Reafon, might arrive at fuch a
Knowledge of God, as would be fufficient to procure
him Life and Blifs, heavenly and eternal, let him hear
what he fays for himfelf in the Conclufion of his Pa-
ranefis {s) : Tou mufi therefore know this univerfally, that
you can no otherwife learn the things of God and true Reli-
gion, than by the Prophets only, thofe who teach you by
Divine Infpiration. His words are alfo very exprefs in
his Epiftle to Diognetus (t) : No Man hath known God
himfelf, or difcover'd him to, another ; but he hath exhibited
himfelf, and this he hath done by Faith, by which only it is
granted to us to fee God.
6. I come now to Epifcopius's fourth and laft Argu-
ment, which proceeds thus : If any one, fays he, reads
the Writings of Juftin, and efpecially his Dialogue, call'd
Try p ho, with exaEinefs ; he will find that Juftin does in-
deed acknowledge Chrifi to be God and Lord', but every
where denies him to be Creator of the Univerfe, and af-
ferts that he is diftinB, and different from him not only in
PerfoNy but in Nature, tho not in jViU and Purpofe.
ir)V.^6, (i)P.37. C0P.499*
S 3 Now
27^ "The JUDGMENT (?/
Now if this be fo, ic fhould not be ftrange that he
thought thofe of his oiuw Sort^ who believed that he
did not pre-exift before all other things, or was cre-
ated, or made in the beginning, but was begotten and
born of Man in time. Nor is there fo great a diffe-
rence betwixt thofe Opinions, as to occafion a Schifm.
For Chrifl is by both defined a Creature, and the
Queftion only is, when he began to exift. Strange !
What is the meaning of thofe words, that 'Ju^in every
where denies Chrift to be the Creator of the Univerfe ?
Does Epifcopius mean by them, that Jnftin every where
denies all created things to be brought out of nothing
into Exiftence by Chrift, i. e. the only begotten Son of
God, who exifted before all Ages, and after he had
taken Flefh upon him, was call'd Chrift ? This is
by no means true. For, on the other hand, ^uflin
every where attributes the Creation of all things to
the Son of God, as a Work common to him with
God the Father. Thus having firft fpoke (u) of God
the Father, he adds thefe words concerning the Son :
Hii Son, •who is only poperly caWd Son, the IVord^ who
tioas with him before the CreatureSy and borriy when he frfi
made and adorn d all things by him^ Sec. So in another
place (x) : But this Birth, which really came from the
Father before aU Creatures^ co-exijied with the Father , and
the Father converfed with hiiH; namely, in thofe words
a little before cited by him : Let us make Man, &:c.
And in the Epiftle to Diognetus, he teaches that the
Son is not a Servant, but the very Artificer and Ma-
ker of all things. Did Epifcopius then take the words
^Creator (f the Univerfel perfonally, as they fay, as they
are the Title of God the Father, in refpeft of his be-
ing the Fountain of the Deity, and confequently of
all Divine Operations ? If this was his meaning, we
confefs Juftin deny'd fas the Catholick Church always
did) that Chrift was God the Father. That was a
Tenet condemn'd by the Church at feveral tiraeSa and
the Catholtck Church, fyc* 277
in the Perfons of divers Hereticks. But Epifcopim
proceeds, faying that '[juflin every where aflercs Chrift
(in his more excellent Nature, wherein he exifted be-
fore Ages) to be different from the Creator of the U-
niverfe, that is God the Father ; and that not only
in Perfon, but in Nature, fo as to be only a Creature.
Surely he who ferioufly charges this Herefy upon '[Juf-
tWy can't be thought to have read the good Father's
Works with any exadnefs. For he is fo far from it,
that no one Place can be alledgM to this purpofe.
Nay, on the other hand, in the Places before cited out
of his firft Apology, and his Dialogue with Trypho^ he
plainly diftinguifhes the Word, or Son of God, pro-
perly fo caird, that is, the true and natural Son of
God', from the Creatures, and all thofe things that are
made by God, and attributes to him an Exiftence co-
eternal with God the Father. Alfo in the Place cited
(y) from the Epiftle to Diognetus^ he exprefly denies
that the Son of God is a Servant, /. e. a Creature. In
what fenfe the fame Jtiflin elfewhere, and other Pri-
mitive Fathers, have call'd him a Servant, and attri- ^
buted to him a certain Difpenfation, not compatible
with the Father, in which he often from the begin-
ning defcended to the Earth, and in a vifible Shape
converfed with holy Men, you may fee largely ex-
plain'd \\\ another Place (z,). Further, in the fame E-
piftle to Diognetus (a), the Son of God is call'd by
Juftin [/;f luho always was, [but] to-day ts reputed the
Son {] fo in his Paranefts to the Greeks, he obferves (b)^
that the Angel, who appeared to Mofes in the Bufh,
and whom he every where contends was the Son of
God, caird himfelf [he that is'] and afterwards ex-'
prefly notes that that Defcription belongs to the eterr-
nally exiftent God. Sare he wdio wrote thus, never
dreamt that the Son of God was a Creature.
iy) P. 498. (t) Defence of the Nicene Creed, Scvt. 4^
Ch. 2. g. 2. & Ch. 3. $. 4, & 5. C^) P. 5c 1.
ih) P. 19, & 20.
S3 7. Ladly,
57S 37^^ JUDGMENT(?/
7. Laftly, the Holy Martyr frequently aflerts the
Confubftantiality of the Son, the he no where ufes
the very word, affirming that he is the true, real, ge-
nuine Son of God, begotten of the very ElTence of
the Father, and upon that account very God, as well
as the Father, as I have largely fhewn elfewhere (c). I
will here very briefly repeat two Places only, which are
there more copioufly handled, from which it will ap-
pear as clearly as poffible in what fenfe Jufiin afferted
that the Son of God was different from God the Fa-
ther. The former Place you find in his firft Apology :
(d) They that fay the Son is the Father j appear neither to
know the Father, mr that the Father of the Uni'verfe hath
a Son, who beivg the firft- horn Word of God, is alfo God.
Here you fee that fuflin fo teaches the Son to be dif-
ferent from the Father, as that he is not the Father,
but a Perfon diftind from him j but yet not different
from the Father in Nature, for he is upon that ac-
count very God, becaufe begotten of God the Father,
and that as the Word or Reafon of the Father's Mind.
For it can't be but that the Reafon or Word of the
firft eternal Mind, i. e. of God the Father, jfhould be
of the fame Nature and Eflence with him j which is
the caufe why the Primitive Fathers commonly ufe
this fame Argument to eflablifh the true Divinity of
the Son. The Reader will obferve with me, by the
V'ay, that it is evident even from this fingle Place,
what fuflin thought of thofe, who would have Chrift
to be a mere Man, and not the firft-begotten Son of
God, and God. He exprefly fays, that they who de-
ny the Son to be true God, and perfonally diftincS;
from God the Father, don't know God the Father,
i. ^. are Strangers to true Religion and Salvation. For
it is notorious, that [jtot to know the Father^ both irj
Scripture and in the Primitive Fathers, fignifies the
fame as to be deftitute of the faving Knowledge of
(0 Defence of the Nicene Creed, Secio 1, Ch, 4,
the Catholick Church, fyc* 279
God the Father, In this fenfe the Apoftle St. ^ohm
(as I have fuggefted before) fays of the Hereticks in
his days, who deny'd Chrift to be the only-begottea
Son of God, He that denies the Son, hath not the Father.
But that the Senfe of this Place may be yet more clear,
it is to be obferv'd that 'Juflinj in the words before
fpoke of the ^ews^ who contended, that he who ap-
peared like an Angel to Mofes in the Bufh, and faid,
\I am he that is, the God 0/ Abraham, &c^ was not the
Son of God, but God the Father himfelf. For the
'Jews would not own or worfhip any Son of God, as
being God himfelf ; flattering themfelves that in this
their Obftinacy they worftiipM the one God the Fa-
ther, and that they were not obligM to worfhip any
other. Now 'Jtiftin plainly fhews, that thefe Men
ftand confuted as well by the Spirit of Prophecy,
namely, the Old Teftament, as by Chrift himfelf, and
that they knew not the Father. Then upon this oc-
cafion, he p^afl'es, as I think, to the Ghriftian Here"
ticks, and briefly cenfures them for teaching that the
Son o^ God was the very Father (of which Herefy
fome were guilty in Juftins time, and fome afterwards,
as Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, and others) concurring
herein with the j^e'tux, that they did not acknowledge
any Son of God, perfonally diftind from God the Fa-
ther, who was begotten of God the Father, and con-
fequently was himfelf God ; and upon account of thi$
Herefy, pronounces them, as well as the "Jt^ws^ not to
have known God the Father, i. e. whatfoever they
pretended, to be deftitute of the faving Knowledge of
Chrift. After the Gofpel of Chrift had been preach d,
and fully explained by the Apoftles, no one could
worfhip God the Father as he ought, and favingly,
pnlefs.he alfo worfhipM and reverenced God,.the Son,
Does not then this Place o( Jn/im as truly aftect thofe,
who taught that Chrift was a mere Man, or Creature?
Without doubt ; for they no more acknowlece^* the
Son of God in j?«/?/Vs Senfe (who, as he is the W ^rd,
;he firft-be^otten Word of God, is alfo God) than the
S 4 Jfw/j,
28o T'be ]\JD G M E N T of
Jews, or thofe Hereticks. But this briefly by the
way.
8. I proceed to another Place of Jtiflin, in which
he profeiledly handles the Diftindion of God the Son
from GoQ the Father. It is in that Dialogue with
'TryphOj to which Epijcopiiu chieBy appeals. There he
relates (e) the Opinion oF fome, that the Son of God
did not fubiift diftindly from God the Father, but
only as a Power ifluing forth from the Parent of the
Univerfe. To their Hercfy he oppofes the Catholick
Opinion, in thefe words : / have before, in a jew
words, fbezvn that the Poiver, "which the Scripture calls God
(as is alfo proved at large)- and Angel, is not only rec-
kon d nominally, as the Light of the Sun, but is really and
numerically another after an exquifite manner. I have there
faid, that this Poiver is begotten of the Father by his Power
and Purpcfe, not by Abfcijlun, as tho the Father's Effence
•was divided, as aU other things, being divided or cut, ceafe
to be the fame which they were before. But I gave this
Example, that we fee other Fires kindled from one Fire,
that not being at all diminifb'd, but rtntaining the fame,
and capable of kindling many. Here fuflin plainly
teaches, that the Son is perfonally, or numerically,
different from the Father, but not fo in Nature j as,
being begotten of the very Elfence of God the Father
(not indeed by Sedion, or Partition of the Divine
Efience, but by fimpJe Communication of it, fuch as
is between the Fire produced or kindled, and the Fire
which produces or kindles it, without any lofs or
diminution of itfelf) and confequently a Son confub-
flantial with his Father, and true God as well as he (/).
From what has been {a^.d, it is clear that there is the
greateft difrerence between Jaflin's Opinion and theirs,
•who taught that Chrift was only Man begotten of
Man. For, on the one liand, Chrift is defined to be
a mere Creature, nay, nothing more than Man ; and,
(p') P. ;58. ( 0 Toti mny corifuU Defence of the Woem
Creed, Sc6i. 2. Ch.4. S.5,4.
on
the Catholick Church, ^c* 2S1
on the other hand, he is aflerted to be the Son of
God, coeflfential with God his Father, and even very
God.
^. After thefe Arguments (which fcarce become an
honeft Man, who is a httle read in 'Juflin) Epifcopus
gives us a Corollary ; in which, if I miftake not, he
has deftroy'd all his preceding Difputation, himfelf
being Judge. For from what he had before dif-
cours*d, he gathers, that 'Juflin by thofe words {of
his own SorQ did not mean the Ehionites. But how
does he gather this ? It is by no means probable, fays he,
that Juftin intended them by that Phrafe, not only becaufs
he no where mentions the Ebionites in his Writings, but
hecaufe they alfo appear to be the worfi of Men j for their
Majler is reported to ha've loaded the Apofile St. Paul viith
Calumnies, to have accufed St. Peter of Lying, and to have
called him partly a Jew^ anE&nc, a Nazarxan, a Ce-
rinthian, and a Carpocratian ; And they moreover, as
Eufebius relates (g), believed that Chrifi was born of the
Coition of Jofeph and Mary, and taught that the Legal
Ceremonies muft be obferv^d. Epifcopius then confefles,
that it is by no means probable that 'Juftin thought
the Ebionites of his Sort (as that Phrafe ieemM to him
to import a near Relation and Communion of Faith)
becaufe they were the worft of Men, and taught im-
pious Dodlrines. Now who does not fee that the
Learned Man has ruin'd his own Caufe by this Con-
feffion ? For I have very clearly prov'd before, that
Juftin fpeaks of no other Perfons than the iE/^/o»//^r.
But it is ftrange what Epifcopius could mean, to prove
from Eufebius that the Ebionites believed Chrift to be
born of the Coition o^ Jofeph and Mary, and from that
to conclude that Juftin never fpoke of the Ebionites.
Has not Juftin exprefly fignify'd, that the Hereticks,
of whom he fpeaks, taught that Chrift was Man be-
gotten of Man ? Did not Epifcopius know the meaning
of thefe words ? Does not he, ■ who fays Chrift was
{£) Lib. 5. Cap. 17. p. 79.
Man
282 fT/^^ J U D G M E N T of
Man begotten of Man, at the fame time fay that
Chrift was begotten by the Coition of a Man and a
Woman, namely, 'Jofeph and Mary ? Surely he who
was conceiv'd and torm'd by the Holy Ghoft in the
Womb of a pure Virgin, wicnout the Coition of a
Man, could not be Man begotten of Man. Further,
it is very frequently declared in this Dialogue what is
meant by Chrift 's being Man begotten of Man. For
there (h)Trypho prolixly derides the Chriftian Faith con-
cerning Jefus born of the Virgin Mary^ compares it
to the Fables of the Greeks concerning Perfeus born of
the Virgin Danae, Jupiter defcending upon her in the
Form of Gold ; and then adds, Toti who talk as they do,
jhould be ajhamed of it, and rather fay that this Jefus was
Man begotten of Man. Every one may here plainly fee
the Import of thofe words, Man begotten of Man. In
another Place, in the fame Dialogue (0, Ju/iin proves
from the Old Prophets, that Chrift was to be born
of a Virgin ; and from that concludes, that Chrift is
not Man of Man, begotten in the common way.
Laftly, Jufiin, in the very Place before us, plainly tells
us what the Hereticks meant, who affirmed Chrift was
Man begotten of Man. For he fays in the beginning
of this Paragraph, that his own, namely, the Catholick
Opinion concerning Chrift our Lord, was, That he
fre-exifted the Son of the Maker of the Unimerfe^ and was
horn Man of the Virgin ; then he fub joins the Opinion
of the Hereticks contrary to tlie Catholick Opinion,
"That Chrifl was Man begotten of Man. From this it is
evident, that thofe Hereticks deviated from the Truth
two ways : i. As they taught that Chrift was only
Man, not pre-exifting as the Son of God before Mary^
2.. That Chrift- was Man begotten of Man, not of the
Virgin Mary by the overfhadowing of the Holy Spi»
rit.
From this and other Arguments we may conjefture
that Epifcopur ^nd />/V Remonftrants read the PalTage
(&) P. a^i, (i) P, 274'
of
the Catholick Church, ^^. 285
of yuflin^ they fo greatly boafted of, very haftily firft,
fhurry'd away with the Sound of Words upon the firft
hearing, apparently favourable to their Prejudices^
^nd afterwards, neither accurately weigh'd the Words
tbemfelves, nor the Context. But however that may
be, this is very fure, that the Learned Men have in
vain alledgM it, to prove, 'That the Antient Primitive
Church of the Chrifiiam held Communion with them, luha
Believed and profejfed that Jefus Chrift "was only mere Matt^
Man begotten of Man, and confiituted Chrift by EleBion.
To the mofl Holy and Undivided Trinity, God the Father^
and his coeternal and coejfenttal Word and Son, in",
carnatefor our Salvation, together viith the Holy Spirit^
the Paraclete, be given by Angels and Men all Praife^
Honour and Glory for ever (ind ever^ Amen.
THE
( 284 )
THE
imitive and Apoflolical
RAD I T I O N,
CONCERKING
The receiv'd Doclrine in the Catholick
Church, of Our Saviour J e s us Ch r i s t's
Divinity ;
Atlerted and plainly provM, againfl Daniel Zuicker,
a Prtijjum, and his late Difciplcs in England, ^
a '?• ^ "- ^ •-*■ -Si '*' ^^ "^ ^- ^-^ ^ C- ^3 ^ ^y & & && &
The Introduction.
HAT ^ejus Chriftj our Saviour, was
not only Man, but the living and fub-
fitling Word of God, who was with
God before any thing was created, and
therefore eternally ; who was God, by
whom all things were made, that were
made, whether vifible or invifibie ; and who, in the
fulnefs of time, was made Flefh for us Men, and for
our
I'he Trmiti've Tradition, (j-c. 285
our Salvation, i. ^. took the true human Nature into
the Unity of his Perfon from the Virgin ; is the plain
Doftrine of the Nevj "fejlament, propagated and pre-
ferv'd by a conftanc and perpetual Tradition of all the
Churches founded by Chrift's Apoflles. This not-
V'ithftanding, there have been, and alas ! there are
now, even in our own Country, wicked Men, inftiga-
ted by the Devil, yet pretending Chriftianity, who not
only don't acknowledge this facred Dodrine, but alfo
oppofe it with all their might, and periecute it with
the moft foul Reproaches and Blafphemies. Our Ebionites
elude the force of that Scripture-Evidence, which
clearly aflferts that Chrifl: is God, one one way, and
another another. Mofl of them wrefl and pervert thofe
places, as their Fathers did, to a Senfe remote from
the Context, and the evident Propriety of the Words.
But (a) fome are arri'ved at that height of impudence
and wickednefs, (Allies to the Turks and Mahometans for
the deftrudion of Chriftianity) as openly and auda-
cioufly to affirm. That the Scriptures of the New
Tejiamem are foully corrupted and interpolated by the
Catholick Chriftians, Even (I;) Socims^ if he was a-
mongft us again, wou'd excommunicate thefe Monfters
in Chriftianity. As for Ecclefiaftical Tradition, they
all contend, that no true Tradition derived from the
times of the Apoftles can be produced for the Catho-
lick Opinion ; that the Apoftles and their Succeflbrs
preachM the pure naked Gofpel, that is, taught their
Opinion concerning the mere Humanity of Chrift ;
but that not long after, the Myftery of Iniquity for-
footh began to work, and the Purity and Simplicity of
the Gofpel was adulterated by Platonick Philofophers
who embraced Chriftianity, and efpecially by yuflin.
2. The firft Author of this abfurd Opinion, if
Tm not miftaken, was the Perfon who wrote the
(rt) The WJior'ca! Defence of the naked Gofpelj the Preface," The
judgment of the Fathers y &c,. p. 22.
(b) SocJn. Authorim,s $crip. Cap. i- ^. 3.
Ire-
tB6 ^he ^rimiti've and
Jrenicum Irem'corum, a violent Ehionitey one Daniel Zmcker^
«s the Anti-trinitarian Bibliotheque has lately inform'd us.
For he in his Irenkum, fearching into the Original of
the Change made in the Apoftles Doftrine concerning
Chrift^ gives us this tedious Tale (c) : (i.) It is proba-
hle that the Difciples of Simon Magus corrupted the found
DoSirine concerning God and Chrift, by feigning a new Gene^
ration of Chriji^ and confequently introducing a new Chrifi;
this (d) Hegefippus attefis. Then that thofe Hereticks
made certain Verfes under the name of Orpheus, concern"'
ing the IVord of the Father pronounc'd by him, before the
Creation. Further, that Juftin firfi of all deceived by the
Arts and Reveries of the Simonians, and relying upon the
Orphaic Verfes as others did^ proposed his Opinion concern*
ing the Generation of Chrifi, or the Mind, Word, and Reafon
of the Father, from the Father, before the Creation, that
the IVorld might be made by him, and that he might defend
to Men, and at length be made Man. Laftly, that there
•were federal other Caufes which might lead Juftin and his
Followers into this Doflrin? ; namely, the kmwlege of, and
affeElionfor the Platonick Philofophy, the ?nemory of Genti"
lifm and many Gods not yet obliterated, the cufiom of deifying
excellent Men, and the fuperftition and dread of worfhipping
mere Man, &c. From all which he at laft concludes,
that he has done the Bufinefs, and laid open the Ori-
ginal of the new Produftion of Chrift, and confequent-
ly of a new Chrift.
3. When I read thefe things many years ago in the
Author of the Irenicum, I quickly drew up a fhorc
Confutation of the monftrous Fable, not intending it
for the Publick ,* but when I faw not long (ince, that
this fluff of Zuicker's was again brought upon the
Stage with pomp and oftentation by our Unitarians, I
fevifed this fhort Confutation, and, as I had opportuni-
ty, enlarged it. This fo improved (upon the Bookfel-
ler's Application, that if I had any larger Treatife
(c) Irenicum, p. 14, 15, 16,
Id) Eufeb.'*5. H. Lib. 4. Cap. 22, p. 115.
ready
'Jpojlolical Tradition, (^c* 28^7
ready by me, I would fuffer him to print it off with the
new Edition of my Works) I offer to thy Candour,
Gentle Reader.
CHAP. I.
^hat Juftin was not the firft who i7ztrodmed
the l^oBrme of our Samoiir^s Tre-exiftence
before the World was 7;iadey and of the
Creation of all things by hiifiy into the Chri^
Jiian Churches,
FIRST then, the Author of the Irenicum lays
this Foundation of his ruinous Structure, That
'Juflin introduced the Dodrine of the Son's Generation
of God the Father before the Creation, into the Chri-
ftian Churches. For he fays, that Juflin deceivM by
the delufion of the Gmflkh^ firft proposed that Opi-
nion. He alfo fays elfewhere (e) in exprefs Words :
'That no one can be cited more ancient than Juftin Martyr,
luho has in his •writings afcrilf'd the divine Nature to Chrifty
and call'd him God before Ages ; and that the Opinion of the
Artemonites (ivho taught that Chrift was mere Man) did
at leaft obtain in the Church from the days of the Apo files
till Juftin'j, and then at length was changed. Our late
Socinians, or as they affed to be call'd Unitarians^ have
follow'd him in this, and efpecially the Author of a
Book wrote in EngUflo^ intitled, [The Judgment of the
Fathers about theDoEirine of the Trinity ^againfl Mr. G. Bull*^
Defence of the Nicene Creed] who frequently in that
Treatife, makes Jufiin the firft Author of the Dodrine
concerning the Son of God coexifting with God the
Father before every Creature. But who can believe
this Fable ? For befides the great improbability that
(0 Irenicum Irenicorum, p. 7,
288 T^he 'Primiti've and
a very wife and pious Man (fuch ^uflin was without
doubt) could either be fo deluded in a Fundamental
of Chriftianity by the Frauds of the worft of Here-
ticks ,' or wou'd coin new Dodrines, and introduce a
new Faith as different as poffible from that of his An-
ceftors, and Apcftolical Tradition, (which he who
flourifh'd in the firll Succeffion of the Apoftles could
not but know :) beiides this, (which is a fufficient con-
futation of this wild Fancy) we have other Argu-
ments, which very evidently prove, that the Doftrine
of the Son's Pre-exiftence before the World was made,
and of the Creation of all things by him, is not the
Figment or Device of '^uftin^ but the commonly re-
ceived Faith of the Church before his time.
2. Firft, 'Jtiftin himfelf, in his Dialogue with I'yypho,
exprefly witnefleth, that not only he, but the Chri-
flians of his days commonly thought and believed that
Chrift was God before Ages ; except /i/^'tu known
Hereticks, who not only deny'd the Pre-exiftence of
our Saviour before Ages, but alfo his Nativity of the
Virgin (/). Again, the fame Juftin fet forth his
Confeffion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God,
not as his own only, or feme private one, but as the
publick and notorious Faith and Opinion of all true
Chriftians of his time j and this before the Roman Em-
peror and Senate, as is clear from the Exhortation to
the Gentiles, and both his Apologies: What then, was
this Confentof Chriftians owing zo Jujlin only ? Did he
travel the World over to preach this Dodrine ? Or had
he his Apoftles to propagate it every where ? Cou'd it
be that this one Man fhould deftroy the Apoftolical
Tradition, change the receiv'd Faith of the Church,
and obtrude (as Zuicker fpeaks) even a new Chrift up-
on the Chriftian World ? Durfi no Difciple of the A-
poftles oppofe this impudent Innovator ? Durft not jPo-
lycarp himfelf, who had St. John for his Mafter, who
(/) See the place cited entirey and largely expJain'd in ?^e Judg-
ment of the Catholick Church, c. 7.
was
^poftolical Tr a dition, (^cl 289
was alive when Jufiin publifh'd and defended the
Dodrine of the Son's Divinity in his Writings, and
who hv'd a long time after ? No fober Man can think
thefe things credible.
5. Befides, there are yet extant Writings of the
Fathers, who flourifh*d fome years before Juflin^ even
in theApoftolical Age, namely the Catholick Epiftle of
Barnabas^ the Shepherd of HermeSy and the Epiftles
of Ignatius the Martyr, out of which we have cited
clear Teftimonies of our Lord's Divinity, and largely
defended them from the Cavils of the Irenicum (g.) Thefe
Writings indeed, the Engliflo Author betoremention'd
entirely defpifes, and, as his cuftom is, even reproaches
and derides the Authors of them. But che moll learn-
ed Men, as well Antients as Moderns, have thought
otherwife of them, Men whofe Judgment is much to
be preferr'd before the Cenfure of that Scoffer. As
for the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Epiflle afcrib'd
to Barnabas, we conftantly affirm thefe two things
of them, what he durft not deny, and which come
up to out purpofe : (i.) That they are pieces of the
moft early Antiquity, and prior to Jujim Martyr.
(2.) That they were fo far approv'd by the Church,
as to be read publickly in the facred AfTembles, toge-
ther with the Canonical Scriptures in the primitive
days. The feven Epiffles of Ignatius, known to Ew
febitis, and publifli'd in Greek by If, Vcffms (which
only we have ufed) our very learned Pearfon has abun-
dantly prov'd to be the genuine Works of the Holy
Martyr in his Vindication of them, to which I refer
the Reader.
4. Moreover there were learned and pious Men be-
fore ^uftin, who fet forth Apologies for our Religion
againfl the Gentiles, among whom were Quadratus Bi-
ihop of Athens, and Arifiides, who prefented their
Apologies to Adrian in the beginning of his Reign.
Thefe Apologifts were oblig'd to vindicate the Chri-
{g) Defence of Nicene Creed, SeB. z, Ch, 2»
Vol. IL T flians
^fo '[the Trimitwe ani
ftians from worfliipping a Man, and to refute that
common Objection, Tqu v^orfoip a Man that was born
and crucify'd. Nor could any of them anfwer this,
without declaring his Opinion concerning our Saviour's
Perfon, and fhewing himfelf either a Catholick, or
Heterodox upon that Article. Now (h) Eufehius and
Jerome (') atteft, That Quadratus and Ariftides provM
themfelves Cacholicks in their Apologies. Of Quadra-
tus^ Eufehius fays {k)^ He offe/d his Oration in defence of
our Religion to Adrian. It is now extant in the hands of
mofi of car Brethren, and I myfelf have it. From it you
may fee plain tokens of the Man's Sentimmt, and of Apo-
fiolical Orthodoxy. To Quadratus, he adds his Con-
temporary Ariftides as one of the fame Charafter. In
like manner, Jerome calls the Apologetic of Quadratus
a very ufeful Book, full of Reafon and Faith, and be-
coming the Apoftolical Dodrine. Of Ariftides alfo he
writes thus in the fallowing Chapter : Ariftides a very
eloquent Athenian Phikfopher, and a Difciple of Chrift, in
his former Philofophical Habit , prefented a Book to the Em-
peror Adrian, at the fame time Quadratus did, containing^
an account of our Tenet. Without doubt then, in j?^-
row^'s opinion, Qj^iadratus and Ariflides hdd the Stan-
dard and Rule ot the Apoft;olical Faith in their Apolo-
getics. The Force of this Argument in fhort is this :
It is certain the Catholick Church gave divine Ho-
nours to our Saviour in the times of Quadratus and
Ariftides (and confequently from the beginning) as
we Ihall fhew hereafter in this Chapter. It is alfo cer-
tain, that the Heathens did efpecially objed that as
a Crime to the Chrillians ,• and therefore it was ne-
ceflary they fhould obviate this Objedion in the firft
place in their Defences of Chrift.iai;ity. This we fee
w-as done by all the Apologifts, whofe Works we
have. Laftly, it is certain that the Catholick Church
of Chrift (as alfo the Jewijb Church before Chrill)
(&) Eufeb. Lib. 4. Cap. 5. Pag. 94.
(,0 Catalog. Ecclef. Scriptor. in Quadrato, (k) Ibidem.
hel4
'Jpqftolical Tradition, (^c. ' '
held it for a Point fixM and eftablifh'd, That ^na ■
Worfllip was only due to God, and that to pay 'ijt
to a mere Man, or Creature^ was certainly Idolatry i
"which Decree of the Univerfal Church we fhall here-
after (/) clearly demonrtrate in its proper place, co be
fupported by the Scriptures of the Old and New'Tefia-
mem, and by good Reafons.
It follows then, that the Worfhip and Religion of
Chriftians can't be defended, confidently with the
Principles of the Catholick Church, by any one, who
does not own that Chrift is really God. But Eiifebius
and 'Jerome expredy ceilify, Ihac the Ap!)logies of
Quadratus ana Ayflides were truly Catholick^, en*
tirely confident witn the Catholick Rule, and the
Apoftolick Faith To thefe you may add, if you
pleafe, the Ooiervaiion of Petavius (m), tnat in the
Roman Martyrology and that of Ado^ Nutkerus, &c:
it is reported. That Ariftides the Athenian prefented a,
Book to the Emperor Adrian concerning the Chriftian Reli-
gion, containing the Reafon of our Tenets ; and that he
very clearly andfuUy difcours'd, in the prefence of the Em-r
peror, that Jefus Chrift was the only Gcd.
5. I muft here alfo repeat a plain Tedimony of Eu-
febius cited beiore, where he fays^ he had learnt from
the Monuments of antient Authors, that all the fifteen
Bifhops, who prelided over the Church of Jerufalerri
till the times of Adrian^ were of the Circumcifion,
and yet received the genuine Knowledge of Chrift :
But tfiey only, according to EufebiiiSy receiv'd the
genuine Knowledge of Chrift, who confefs'd, thac
he pre-exifted, being God and the Wifdom. Thus
in (n) another place he interprets himfelf, where
he diftinguifhes the Catholicks and Ort lodox from
the Heretical Ebionites^ by this Charader, That they
\jhe EbioniteQ had a low and mean Opinion of
Chrift. Whar fays the Author of the "Judgment of
the Fathers J &c. to this ? Hear him, and you muft
(J) Ch. 8. (m) In prxfat. ad Tom, 2. Dogm^ Theolog.
{n) Lib. 3.Cap. ay.p. i^.
T % wonder
^O0.'>nder at his Impudence. We grant ^ fays he fo), that
^i-ufebius affirm'd tbofe Bijhops of Jerufalem profefs'd the
true Knowledge of Chrift , but ive anfwer, that he had this
from Hegefippus. Now Hegefippus was himfelf a
^ewifh Chrijiian, that is, one of thofe, who thought our
Saviour was a mere Man ; therefore when he faid the Bi-
/hops of ]etu(alem prof efs'd the true Knowledge of Chrifi,
without doubt he meant^ that our Lord was truly a mere
Man, againft the Docetse, who taught that Chrift pre-ex-
ifled, and deny d that he was truly Man. Bur, (i.) he
muft make Etifebius a dull Creature indeed, a Man of
no Parts, nor Judgment, v/ho can think he fo foully
miftook in citing the Authors, whofe Teftimonies he
made ufe of. Eufebius faySjThat he had learnt from the
antient Monuments, that the Bifhops of 'Jerufalem^
down to Adrian, had receiv'd the genuine Knowledge
of Chrift, i. e. in his Senfe, had acknowledged the
true Divinity of Chrift our Lord. But the Author
or Authors he referred to, if we may believe this Fel-
low, intended the direft contrary ; namely, that thofe
Bifhops where Ebionites, that is, took our Saviour to be
only mere Man. (2.) Eufebius (p) does not name Hegefip-
pus,3iS he ufedto do, when he cites anything from him,
but only in general fays, he had it from the Writings
of the Antients. Eufebius had read many other Au-
thors befides Hegefippus, which the large Library at
'Jerufalem, founded by Alexander, Bifhop of that City,
afforded him. Of which he thus writes : At the
fame time^ (namely in the Reign of Antoninus} many
learned Ecdefiafticks fouri/b'd, whofe Epiftles to me
another are yet preferv'd, and eafy to be found ; for they
are now in the Library at JEX\b., founded by Alexsinder,
Bifhop of that City, from which we have been enabled
to coileB the Matter of our prefent Work. Befides,
Eufebius (q) had alfo the Ufe of that noble Library of
the Martyr Pamphilus, in which there were Ecclefi-
(0) P. 45. (/>) Lib. 6. Cap. 20. p. 180, & iSu
(^) Lib. 6» Cap. 32, p. 188.
aftica^
^JpofloHcal Tradition, (^c* 295
aftical Authors coUeBed by the Biefled Man from all
parts. (3.) But grant that Enfebius wrote this from
Hegejippus^ what then ? Hegefippus^ he fays, was an
Unitarian, and believed our Saviour to be a mereMan,
Nothing can be more falfe. I defire to know from
what Author he had his Information ? from one Zuicker
(I fuppofe) Author of the Iremcum, a blind Leader of
the Blind. Now that Hegeftppus was a Catholick, and
conftantly perfifted in the Communion of the Catho-
lick Church, in which the Faith concerning the Di-
vine and Human Nature of Chrift obtained, we ftiall
evidently prove hereafter in a more convenient place.
6. After the Teftimony of Eufebius (not in the
firft place, as the Sophifter we have to deal with impu-
dently affirms) we cited a very grave Hiftorian, Sul-
pitius Severm, who exprefly (r) fays, that the Primi-
tive Church at 'Jerufalem, which had no Bifhops but of
the Circumcifion till Adrian's time, believd Chrifi to he
God, and obferv'd the Law, What fays the Trifler to
this again ? Whereas, fays he, Sulpitius affirms, that
thofe Chriftians believ'd in Chrifi as God, f've prov'd that
he is miftaken, from the Tefiimonies of thofe Fathers, who
convers d with the Jewifli Chriflians, Origen and The-
odoret, and of other Fathers, who were nearer to them
than Sulpitius, namely Epiphanius and St. Auftin. Sure
nothing can be weaker than this Anfwer. Sulpitius
fpeaks of the Primitive Church at 'Jerufalem, which
flourifh'd under her own Bifhops of the Circumcifion,
till the Deftruftion of Jerufalem under Adrian. But
did Origen and Theodoret converfe with thefe yewi/h
Chriftians ? or were Epiphanius, and St. Auflin, near-
er to them than Sulpitius ? Sulpitius exprefly affirms,
concerning the Chriftians of the Primitive Church at
*Jerufalem, that they believ'd in Chrift as God. Eufe^'
bius had faid the fame before him, and that by the Au-
thority of the moft antient Ecclefiaftical Monuments.
Has Origen, or Theodoret, or Epiphanius, or Auftin, or
(0 Hift. Sacr. Lib. 2. Cap. 45.
T I any
j.y4 1f-)e "Frimitwe aitd
any other Father contraclifted Ei^fehius and SuJpitius in
this Point ? Nor at all. For they fpeak of the ^ewijjo
Chriftians, or Ehionites, or Naznreai^s, of their own
times, -that is, of a much later Age, and very differ
rently. I have in (s) another Place largely difcours'd
upon the Naz^areans ot the later Ages, and their Opi-
nion concerning the PerCon of Chrift. It will not be
amifs, however, juft to repeat the Heads of what I
have faid there, and vindicate them from the Cavils of
my troublefome Adverfary.
7. Firft, I have alledg'd Auflins Teftimony thus :
Auilin in his Buck of Herejies (t), ajter he had treated of
the Cerinthians, v^ho taught^ That rue muft be circumcifed^
and chferve the other like Precepts of the Law j "That 'Jefus
•was only a Man^ 8cc. explains the ^Tenets of the Ebionites
and Nazareans thus (u) : The Nazareans, the they con-
fefs Chrifi to he the Son of God (and therefore in tins dijfent
from the Cerinthians, ijoho would have it that he is only
Man) yet (in this agreeing with the Cerinthians) they ob^
ferve all the Precepts of the Old Lavjy which the Chriflians
by Apojlolical Tradition have learnt not to obferve carnally^
hut to tindevfiand in a fpiritual fenfe. T'he Ebionites alfo
(as well as the Cerinthians aforefaid) fay that Chriji is
only MaUy chferve the Carnal Precepts of the Law^ 8cc.
Here it is plain, againft all the Cavils of the Irenicunty
T'hat Auftin intended to diflinguiflo the Nazareans both
from the Cerinthians and Ebionites, in this, that the
Nazareans confef^d Chrifi not only to be Man, as the Ce-
rinthians and Ebionites did^ but alfo the Sun of God dif~
cretively, and confequently God. Here my Adverfary ac-
cufes me of Impudence, for inferring from this Tefti-
mony of St. Auftin, that the Naz^areans thought Chrifi
to be To the Son of God, as that he was born of God
before all Ages; whereas I was confcious to myfelf,
that xht Ebionites J who believ'd Chrift to be only mere
Man, own'd him to be theSon of God. Ireply, that the
{$) Judgment of the Catholick Church, Ch. 2. §. 13, &c.
(0 De HsereHbus, Cap. S. (z/) Cap. <?, & ic.
Ehionites
Ehionites indeed call'd Chrift the Son of God, but not
in Auflins fenfe, or that of the Nai^arean^^ of whom
he fpeaks. For in this Aufl'm plainly diftinguifhes the
Naz.aream from the Ehionites, that the latter denyM
that Chrift was the Son of God, but the former ownM
it. Does he not plainly oppofe the Opinion of the
Naz.areanSj who confefs'd our Saviour to be the Son
of God, to the Opinion 'of the Ebionites and CeYin-
thianSj who taught that he was only Man ? There-
fore in the Senfe of Auftin and the Naz^areans, to own
Chrift for the Son of God, is the fame as to profefs
that he is not only Man. The Sophifter proceeds then
as tho he would corred my Interpretation of St. Auftin^
and give his Reader the genuine Text, and Senfe of it.
But let us recite the very Words of St. Auftin (x) : "The
Nazareans, as they confejs Chrift to he the Son of God, fo
they ohferve the whole Law. "The Ebionites alfo fay, that
Chrifl is only Man. 'Thefe words fthe Ebionites alfo fay
that Chrift is only Man] would he plainly ahfird, unlefs
the Nazareans, of whom he f pake immediately before, had
likewije held that Chrifl was a mere Man. But this is
not reciting Auflins own Words, but corrupting and
depraving the Integrity of his Text. Auftin has it
Zcmn, that is, quanquam or tho J inftead of that, this
Author gives us Zflcut, or asi\ Sc. Auftin \jamen, or
yet~} he [ita, or fo.'} And, what is tlie top of his Arti-
fice, the Sophifter has wholly omitted what Auflin
fays in the Chapter juft before, concerning the Opi-
nion of the Cerinthians, tho, at the fame time, his ge-
nuine Senfe in the following words can't be under-
ftood without them. Now if you'll attend to thofe
preceding words, you'll find that St. Auftin s [jtiam, or
alfo~} in explaining the Opinion of the Ebionites, plain-
ly belongs to the Cerinthians, not the Naz-areans. Lee
the learned and impartial Reader confulc St. Auftin^,
and I doubt not but that he will be of my opinion.
{x) Cap. p, 8c 10.
T 4 I To
«9^ ^^^ ^rimiti've and
8. To the Teftimony of St.Auflin, I add (y) Jerome^ s
Suffrage, who writes thus concerning the Naz^areans
(^with whom he was very w^U acquainted:) Even now
there is a Herefy among the Jews throughout all the Syna-
gogues of the Eaft, caWd the Minei, commonly Nazareans,
tu/jo believ£ in Chriji^ the Son of God, born of the Virgin
Mary j they fay he it is that fuffer'd under Pontius Pi-
late, and arofe again, in whom we alfo believe : But whilfl
they affeB to be both Jews and Chriftians, they are neither.
In thefe words Jerome^ as well as St. Aufiin, exprefiy
fays that the Naz,areans beheved in Chrift the Son oi'
God ; and not reding here, he explains himfelf, affirm-
ing that they believed in that Son of God, in which we
alfo ^the Catholicks'J believe : fo that in this Point he
owns no difference between the Catholicks and the
Naz,areans. Mark (if you can, without Horror) what
this vile facrilegious Talker anfwers to this : One would
have thought (fays he) when the Nazareans here fay that
they believed in the Son of God, born of a Virgin, kill'd
finder Pontius Pilate, and then raifed from the Dead, that
they fufficiently declared their Meaning, namely, that the
Son of God, in whom they believed, was the Man Chrifi
^efus ', not that Son of God which could not be born of a
Virgin, could not die and rife from the Dead. But becaufe
Jerome adds [in whom we alfo believe] Dr. Bull cries
out, Obferve, the Naz,areans believed in that Son of
God, in whom the Orthodox believed. IVe own it.
Dr. Bull believed in the Son of God born of the Virgin^
dead, and raifed again. "Tho the Orthodox (fo call'd)
have contriv'd another Son of God alfo, a Son which could
neither be begotten of Mary, nor born, nor die. A Son co-
eval with his Father^ a fecondary Almighty, another Cre-
ator^ firfl difcover'd and fet forth by the Nicene Fathers.
The Senfe of this Anfwer is this : Whofoever profeffes
to believe in the Son of God, born of the Virgin, who
fufferM and died under Pontius Pilate ; by that declares
that he believes in a Sen of God^ who is only Man,
{f) Ep. 89, ad Auguftirs^
not
^Jpqfiolkal TKAmnoi^, ^c', 297
not God. For the Divine Nature being impaffible,
could not be born of a Virgin, could not die and rife
again. But the NaiLuream profefs'd that they believed
in the Son of God, born of the Virgin, &c. There-
fore they did not believe in the Son of God, who is
God. But the Catholick Church of Chrift before the
Council of Nice, and the Na7.areans, as well as the
Catholicks, according to Jerome^ always believed in
the Son of God, who, tho very God, at the time ap-
pointed took upon him human Flefli of the Virgin,
died in it, and afterwards rofe from the Dead. For
he fays. The Naz,aream believed in that Son of God,
in whom we alfo \jhe Catholklis} beUeve. Befides, in
that Epiftle 'Jerome had, in Imagination, made Auftin
his Adverfary upon the Queftion, and had undertaken
plainly to prove, that thofe, who obferved the Ritual
Law of Mofesj were always by the Church deem'd
Hereticks. This he firft attempts from the Examples
of the Cerinthians and Ebionites; but confcious to him-
felf, that Et/ion was condemned of Herefy for denying
Chrift's Divinity, and that Cerinthus was excommuni-
cated for the fame Crime, and many other impious
Tenets, he recedes of his own accord from thefe Ex-
amples, and has recourfe to another unexceptionable
Argument from the Naz.areans. But ivhy^ fays he, do
J /peak of f/je Ebionites, ivho only pretend Chrijlianity ?
Even now there is a Herefy^ &c. As tho he fhould have
faid : You'll perhaps obje^S againft the El/ionites, and
I don't deny it, that they had impious Opinions con-
cerning our Lord Chrift, teaching that he was only
Man, pretending to be Chriftians, but really not to
be efteem'd fuch : but then, as to the Naz,areans, what
can you fay, who thought as we do concerning our
Lord^s Perfon, and yet were accounted Hereticks by
the Church, only for their Obfervance of the Ritual
Law (z,).
(z) See fits more at large in the Judgment of the Catholick
Church, Ch,2„ Sed. 13.
9- From
298 T^he Tfimitwe and
9. From St. Aujlln and yerome^ I come to an {a) Au-
thor much more antienc than either of them, who
lived in the days of Adrian^ the Emperor, in whofe
time the Chriftian Church at JerufaleWj which was of
the Circumcifion, was expell'd the City, and difpers'd
into divers Countries, and who pubhfh'd his Works,
not long after that Difperfion ; I mean 'Jufiin Martyr.
From his Dialogue with Trypho^ I evidently gathered
that there were, even in his time. Men, who blended
together the Catholick Faith concerning Chrift, name-
ly, that he was the Son of God, who exifted before
all Creatures, and in the appointed time was incarnate
for the Salvation of Men, and made Man of the Vir-
gin, &c. with the Obfervation of the Ritual Law of
Mofes ; but yet did not impofe the Neceffity of ob-
ferving this Law upon others, i. e. the Gentile Chri-
ftians. To thefe Juftin profefl'es himfelf ready to give
the hand of brotherly Charity and Communion. Now
I fay, that thefe were no other than the Naz,areanSj or
Jerufakm Chriftians, who were expell'd their own
Country by Adrian. What fays the brazen Author to
this? / anfwer, fays be (^), zvhoever they were, they
were not Nazareans. Moft of the Gnofticks acknowledg d
the Pre-exijience of Chrifl, and obfew'd the Law of Mofes;
Why might they not be Cerinthians ? This is as much
as to fay : Whatfoever you prove, Fli keep clofe to
my Prejudices. I'll forge, or I'll believe any thing
rather than that the Naz^areans ownM Chrift's Divi-
nity. But here are many Reafons, why thefe could
not be either Cnimhians, or any other Sed of the
Gnojlicks. (i.) Thofe Chriftians, fpoken of by J ufiin,
confefs the true Incarnation of the Son of God, which
neither the Cerinthians, nor any other Sed of the Gno-
fticks own'd (c). Again, the Chriftians Jujlin fpeaks of^
held the Orthodox Faith in all Points necelTary to
((?) See Judgment of the Catholick Church, in the Place cited.
Soft. 14. (h) Judgment of the Fathers, p. 44.
fr) See the Defence of the Nicene Creed, Sect. 5. Ch. i. §.6,
and the ludgment of the Catholick Church, Ch. 2. Se^.4.
Sal-
jipojmicai 1 RADiTioN, ^c, 299
Salvation, and in nothing difTented from the Cacho-
lick Church of Chrift, unlefs that they religioufiy
obferved the Mofaical Rites. On the other hand, the
Cerintbians and other Gnofiicks (o adulterated alraoft all
the Chriftian Religion, that there was fcarce one Ar-
ticle of Faith free from their Corruptions. Befides,
the Cerimhiam and other judaizing Gmfticks, as well as
the EbioniteSj taught the necefficy of oblerving the
Mofaical h^w^. But the Dodrine and Sentiment of
'Jiiftins judaizing Chriftians was quite contrary.
Lallly, 'Jufi'in held thofe yudaJz,i:-7g Chriftians to be
Brethren, and hoped well of their Salvation. But it
is evident the Holy Man abfolutely abhorred the
Cerimhiam and other Gnofiicks as peftilent Hereticks
from the Church of Chrift, and Aliens from Salvation
by Chrift. I am of opinion, our Adverfary was afliam'd
of this filly Anfwer, and therefore fought another Re-
fuge : Befides, fays he, it is tmcertain whether Juftin
intended to fay that there ivere feme Chriftians who olferved
the Law of Mofes, and yet believed the Pre-exiflence of
Chrifi before Ages, To draw this Senfe from him. Dr.
Bull is forced to add thefe Words to his [the Chrift, fuch
a one as you have defcribed juft now, '&cP\ Now he
who with diligence and attention fhali read the entire
Context of Jufiin's Words, will fee that I have put
no force upon them. Trypho had propos'd to Jufiin
fome Queftions concerning the Salvation of good
Men, both betore and under the ritual Law. 'Juftin
anfwers, that both Ihall be faved in the World to
come j and in the Conclufion of his Anfwer to thefe
Queftions, he defcribes that Faith concerning Chrift,
which is requifite to the Salvation of a Chriftian, and
fays it is. To believe that Chrift is the Son of God,
who was before Lucifer and the Moon, and being
made Fleih of a Virgin o£ the Lineage o£ David, conde-
fcended to be born, &c. Afterwards immediately fol-
lows T'rypho's Queftion, Whether thofe who believe in
Chrift, and together with that Belief, retain the Obfer-
yacion of the ritual Law of Alofes^ can be fav'd ? Now
who
9 c o T!he Trmitwe and
who can doubt but that he means the fame Faith in
Chrift herCj as he had before defcribed ? I have there-
fore rightly paraphrased T^ryfho's Queftion thus :
But if there be any, ivho vjill miv live in the Ohfewation
of the Mofaical Law^ and believe in this crucified 'Jefus^
owning him to be that Chrift of God, (which you have but
now defcribed) can they alfo be faved ?
10. Laflly, I brought an Evidence from the fixth
Book of the Apoftolical Conftitutions, cap. 12. inti-
tled, Againft thofe that confefs, but will ^udaiz,e. Con-
fefs what ? The Faith explain^ in the Chapter imme-
diately going before this, and efpecially that part of
it which is repeated in the end of the Chapter : We
confefs that Chrifl is not a mere Man \ but God the IVord^
and Man, the Mediator qf God and Man. From this I
gather, that in the Age in which the Author of the
Conflitutions livM, there were fome who confeft Chrift
to be God and Man, and yet did fo far Judaize, and
diflent from other Chriftians, as ftill to adhere to the
ritual Law of Mofes. Thefe I fay were the very Na^
z^aream. To this the Adverfary anfwers : Before
Dr. Bull convinces us of this, it lies upon him to prove,
that there were no Chriftians bejides the Nazareans, who
obferv'd the Lavj of Mofes, and believed alfo that Chrifl
was God the Word j but he well knew that the Cerin-
thians, and almoft all the Seds of the Gnofiicks, both
Judaiz'd and alfo believ'd the pre-exiftence of our
Saviour, and that he was God the Word. He that
could write this, difcovers his own grofs Ignorance of
Eccleiiaftical Hiftory, or his confummate Impudence.
Neither the Cerinthians, nor any other Sed; of the
Gnofiicksj fmcerely acknowledg'd that Chrift was God
the Word and Man, the Mediator of God and Men.
See what we have faid upon the Teftimony, cited
in the laft Sedion from Ji^flin. Befides, in the Con-
feffion recited Cap. 11. and referr'd to in the Title of
the i2th Chap, there is not one Article which the Ce-
rinthians, or any other Seft of the Gnoflich could fin-
cerely fubfcribe or acknowledge. In the very begin-
ning
[^(T^^/zW Tradition, (^c, 301
nlng of the Confeflion, the Root of the Cerinthian He-
refy, and that of all the other Gmfikksy is ftruck at :
IVe preach one only God, the Lord of the Law and the
Prophets, the Maker of the Univerfe, and the Father of
Chrifi. To this wc have a parallel Place following :
One God the Father of one Son, not more, and thro' Chriji
of our Paraclete ', the Maker of other Orders ', one Creator y
Maker of the different Creatures by Chrifl, who alfo is the Pro-
curator and Lawgiver by him. Upon this account, the So-
phifter diftrufling this his Anfwer, quickly goes off
from it, and begins a new Queftion by way of diver-
fion, concerning the Author of the Conftitutions,
Whether he was a Catholick, or tainted with Aria-
nifm > IVe declar'd my Opinion freely in this Matter
elfewhere (id). Now as for the Confeflion of Faith con-
tain'd in the nth Chapter, the fagacious Reader may
eafily perceive in it fome tindure of Arianifm, and
alfo fomething which no Arian can truly and fincerely
profefs. Of this kind is the Author's difcretive Pro-
feflion, That God is the Father of Chrift, but the Ma-
ker of all other things by Chrift. This is more clearly
exprefs'd, where the Article of the Chriftian Faith,
concerning the only begotten Son of God, is thus ex-
plained : And in the Lord Jefus Chrifi, his only begotten
Son, begotten, not made ; by whom aU things were made.
In which words, Chrift the Son of God is abfolutely
excepted out of the Rank of Creatures, and there-
fore is acknowledg'd to be true God. But grant
that the Author in the recited Confeflion has iliewn
himfelf an Arian, it will not neceflarily follow, that
thofe who confefs'd it, mentioned in the Title of the
following Chapter, Ihould alfo be Arians : for it is
clear, that the Author intended to give us in thac
Chapter, the entire Rule of Faith, every where re-
ceived by the Chriftian Churches in his days ; but it
is alfo clear, that he has given us that Rule by way
of Paraphrafe, and thrown in his own Explications
id) Vef. N. C. Sea. 2. Ch. 3. g. 6,
here
302 T!he Trmitwe ajzd
here and there. Now it is manifeft that he might
confefs that Rule of Faith, who would not admit of all
the Author's (or rather Interpolator's) GiofTes.
II. I return now to what my Adverfary's Di-
greffion forced me to leave. It is very plain from
what has been before cited from the Antients, that
the Chriftians of the Primitive Church at 'Jerufalem,
who were of theCircumcifion, had received the genuine
Knowledi^e of our Lord Jefus Chrift, i. e. had own'd
his true Divinity ; and that the fame Faith continued
in that Church, till the difperfion under the Emperor
Adrian. Now if the Doctrine of our Saviour Chrift's
Divinity was own'd, and always received in the Church
of Jerufalem, the Mother of all other Churches ; and
was faithfully preferv'd in it as long as it flood : it
can't be doubted but that the fame Faith was propa-
gated and difpers'd in all the other Churches, which
either the Apoftles themfeives, or their Minifters foun-
ded and conftituted.
i2.Laftly, it is plain from the Epiftle of Pliny
junior, to "Trajan, wrote in the Year io5, that the
Chrifliansof his times were wont in their Afl'emblies
to celebrate the Divinity of our Saviour in Hymns
and Pfalms. This he reports from the Confeffion of
apoftate Chriflians in thefe words ; Now they affirm* d
that this was the Sum of their Crime, or their Error, that
they ufually. met together upon a fet day before it was light,
and fung an alternate Hymn to Chrifl, as to God. An
old ^r/?":^^ ^«?/;or has appealed to thefe Pfalms againft
the Artemonites, who rejected the Tenet of our Lord's
true Divinity as novel : T'he Pfalms and Songs of the
Brethren celebrate Chr'tfl the Word of God, calling him God.
And thefe Pfalms fupply'd fuch clear and evident
teftimony of Chrift 's true Divinity, acknowledged by
the Apoftolical and Primitive Church, that Paulus Sa-
mofatenus, the reviver of ArtemonsBlaCphemy, could not
bear them, and therefore commanded the abolition of
them in all the Churches under his Government, as
the Antiochian Fathers, aflembled againft him, teftify in
' their
JpoftoUcal Tradition, ^c» 30^
their Synodical Epifile. I doubt not but that the
Apoflle St. Paul had an eye to fome fuch Hymns in
his Epiftle to the Ephejtam, (e) where he writes, Speak-
ing to one another in Pjalms and Hymns, and fpiritual
Songs, ftnging and making melody ivith your Hearts to the
Lord \jChriflr\ By the way, let the Reader obferve,
that the Words Pliny ufes concerning the Chriftians,
that they were wont [_dicere fecum invicem'^ to fing an
alternate Hymn to Chrift, as God, exadly anfwer to
St. Paulas l\ct>.^vTii kcivroii] /peaking to one another, Sec.
By them the alternate, or refponfory way of finging,
as yet frequently ufed in the Churches, feems to be
fignified. From what has been faid in this Chapter,
we have eftablifhM it beyond all Controverfy, that the
Tenet of our Lord's Divinity was not the Invention
of JtiftiJi Martyr, but obtained in the Chriftian
Churches long before him ; yea, was every where deli-
vered and promulged by the firft Preachers of the
Gofpel, together with the Gofpel, of which it makes
no fmall part. j^. E. D.
CHAP. II.
That Juftin was not deceid^d by the Frauds
of the Simonians, and that the Tenet of
Chrijfs l^imnity did 7iot proceed from th$
School of Simon.
HAVING rafed the Foundation, the mon-
ftrous Pile the henicum has built upon it, falls of
itfelf. For whereas it is as evident as poffible, that
^u/iin was not the Inventer of the Son's Generation
before the World was made ; and that that Tenet
obtained long before '^iifiin was born, even in the Apo-
ftolical Age ; it would not be neceifary carefully to
C«) Ephef. Ch. 5. ver, ip.
examine
304 ^he Trifmti've and
examine what led Juftin into this erroneous Sentiment^
But becaufe we have determined to follow this Au-
thor, ftep by flep, both that his own perverfe Blind-
nefs may appear the more, and that the Truth may be
better illuftrated j therefore we will freely difcufs
the feveral Caufes he has pretended. Now thefe
Caufes are either primary, fuch as did efpecially lead
*Juftm into this fuppos'd Error ', or fecondary, which
contributed to his making further Advances in it. The
Heretick reckons thefe two of the firft kind, (i,) The
Herefy of the Simonians, and, (2.) The Verfes made in
Orpheus's Name by thofe Hereticks,
2. Of the former he writes thus (/) : And
firjl it ispYohahle that after the Death of the Af 0 flies ^ as (g)
titgeCippus fays, fome Chrifiians,falfe Chrifts^falfe Pro-
phets, and falfe Apo files, defended of thefe fe'ven Herefies
among the Chriflian People (h), "which the faid}ltgt^\p'p\xs
mentions in the fame place, and whofe Leader and Chief he
makes Simon Magus the Samaritan, (a Man in his own
Samaritan turn, not averfe to the mixture of true IVorfhip
'with falfe) firfi divided the Unity of the Church "withfeign-
edperverfe DoBrine {Note, thefe are the very words of
Hegefippus) againft God and Chrifl ; and (as will appear
hereafter from the DoBrine of Simon Magus) corrupted
the found DoBrine concerning God and Chrifl, by feigning a
new Generation of Chrifl, and introducing a new Chrifl . For
alltheEcclefaflical Hiflorians to a Man teflfy of Simon
Magus, that he was the firfl Oppofer of Chrifl, the firfi
that denied fefus to be the Chrifl and Redeemer, fuch an one
as died for our Sins ; and on the other hand afferted, that he
alone was the Son, who appeared among the Jev^^s, and the
Father who defended in Samaria, and the Holy Ghofi who
came among the Gentiles ; 'That he defended, transfigured'^
that among Men he appeared indeed as Man, the' he was
not Man ; that he was fuppofed to have fuffered in Judea,
tho* he didnotfuffer i that he was the infinite Power j that
(/) Trenicum, p. 14. {g) Eufebius, lib. 4. cap. 22. p. \i6.
{h) Among the Jewifh Peophy he Jhoifld hiiiie fa'id. See Valefius,
p. 75>, md 80, in Eufe|?t
Selene
^JpoJioUcal Tradition, ^c ^o^
Selene "V^cis the firft Conception of his Mind (for he called
the fecond^ the Voice and Comprehenjion of Mind ; and the
third, Reafon or "Thought) that foe was the Mother of all
things, by •whom in the beginning he had thought to make
Angels, and Archangels. For he faid, that this Thought or
Notion going cut from him, and knowing the Mind of her
Father, defended into the lower Regions, and made Angels
and thofe Powers by which the World was made. Then he
adds, that yuftin was deceived by this dotage of the
Simonians.
3. But thisConje(5i:ure is very far from all probability.
For firft, what has Chrift to do with Belial, Light with
Darknefs, and the Fathers and Dodors of the Church,
■with the moft notorious Hereticks ? It is certain thaE
all the Prelates and Doctors of the Churchj who ftic-
ceeded the Apoftles, (and by confequence all the
Chriftians, who adher'd to them) always heartily ab-
horM the Simonian Herefy j fo that they would fooner
fetch Fire from Hell, than any Doftrine from his
Forge. Their Writings now extant fufficiently prove
this. But that 'Juftin was efpecially free from this
Blot, is manifeft, (if from no other place) from tha£
in his Dialogue with Trypho (i), where having men-
tioned the Gnoflicks under the Title of Nominal
Chriftians, who claimed to themfelves a Liberty of
eating things offer'd to Idols, he concludes that in this
that Prophecy of Chrift is fulfilled, in which he fore-
told that falfe Chrifts, and falfe Apoftles fhould arife,
deceiving many of the Faithful. Moreover, he adds
concerning them, With whom have no Communion, knoW'
ing t]jem to be atheiflical and impious. In another place
he fays {k), that Chrift foreknew what would happen
after his Refurred;ion and Afcenfion, that many falfe
Prophets, and falfe Chrifts, would come in his Name,
(under the Mask of a Chriftian Frofeflion 0 Which,
fays he, is now come to pafs ; for there are many who have
pretended hii Stamp upon atheiflical, blafphemmis and unjuft
(0 P. 252. a) P. 508.
Vol. IL' U Tenets,
^o6 'ihe 'Primiti'De and
l^enetSy who have taught, and even now teach thofe things
in the Name of Chrifi, which were put into their Minds by
that impure Spirit the Devil {I). Laflly, in his fecond
Apology {m)y he particularly names Simon and other
Hereticks, who came out of the School of Chrift ; he
cenfures and abhors them as the Pefts of Chriftianity.
But alas, the Wickednefs of our Days! Who would
have thought that Jufiin, the moft excellent Doflor of
the Church, who not only wrote very learned Books
againft all Herefies, but alfo fealM the truly Apofto-
lical Faith with his Blood, fhould have been fufpefted
as impos'd upon by the worft of Hereticks in a pri-
mary Doftrine of Chriftianity ?
4. But fecondly, it is fo far from true, that the
Doctors of the Church took their Opinion of the Son's
Divine Generation from the Fidions of the Simcnians^
that it is manifeft the Hereticks drefs'd up their Fic-
tions (as every Error is the Imitation of fome Truth)
in the Garb of the Church, (transferring her Dodrine
into their Scheme :) The Cafe is clear. From whence,
I befeech you, was that blafphemous AlTertion of Si-
mon s, that he only was the Son who appeared among
the "Jews^ the Father who defcended in Samaria^ and
(/) P. ^9, & 70.
(w) 'Nr.j^ further in the fame Dialogue, he does not only mention the
feven Herejles cf the Jews, fpoken of by Zuicker (p. 307.) hut alfo
exprejly rejecls Simon Magus as an Herejiarch, and a falfe Chrlfilan
if- 349O '" ^^-^fs words : Neither did I make any account of
my own Countrymen, the Samar'tans, but when I wrote to
C'f//ri-, affirm'd that rhey were led into Error, by giving credit
to Simon Magus their Countryman, who, they fay, is God a-
bove all Principality, and Power, and Alight. Here Juftin has
an eye partly to the Place of the Apology cited hy the Reverend Author^
partly to another, ivhich JIands thus in the Apolooy, commonly calVd the
firfl, p. 52. And I defpis'd my Countryman Simons impious and
erroneous DoQrrine. Moreover, that the Herefy of Simon and his
Followers was prcfejfedly opposed ^j' Juftin, and refuted in luriting, he
himfelf irfovnis us in the Apology, commonly entitled the Second^
inhere [p. "O.) afier he has named Simon, Menander, and laflly
Marcion, he adds. There is alfo a Piece of mine compos a
againlt all the Herefies that have been.
the
Jpojiolical Tradition J (j-c* 507
the Holy Ghoft who came upon the Gentiles ? From
whence was it taken, if not from the receiv'd Doc-
trine of the Church concerning the Holy Trinity,
God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ? Where
had the fame Simon that impious Tenet, that Jefus
appear *d to Men as Man, tho he uas not fo ; and
feem'd to have fufferM in Judeaj when he did not fuf-
feri but from the Apoftolical Dodrine concerning
Chrift, as God and Man ? For without doubt that
Impoftor would in vain have taught, that he was not
true Man, if the Apoflles had taught that he was only
mere Man. Laftly, that Expofition of Cerimhus (as
Zuichr calls it) that Chrift the Son of God defcended
into Jefus, when baptized, in the Form of a Dove,
from that Principality which is over all, and in him
wrought Miracles, and at his Paffion flew back again
from Jefus into the Heavens to the Father ; whence
came this Expofition, but from the Apoftolical Tradi-
tion of a Diftinftion betwixt the Divine and Human
Nature in Chrift ? Nay, both thefe Fancies, that of
Simon concerning the imaginary Body of Chrift, and
that of Cerimhus concerning the Separation of the Son
of God from the Man Jefus, feem therefore to have
been more pleafing to many, becaufe that venerable
Myftery of the Divine and Human Nature in the one
Perfon of Chrift, delivered by the Apoftles, appear'd
to them (as it doth to our modern Hereticks) abfurd,
and contrary to found Reafon. For upon this account
they thought it neceflary either quite to take away
one Nature, or to fe pa race the one from the other.
Let my Reader weigh thefe things attentively, and
then, if he is not dull indeed (as Zuicker fays) he will
certainly think as I do.
5:. Moreover, the very Words of Hegejtppus^ upon
which Zuicker lays fo great a ftrefs, namely {jChat the
Hereticks forged perverfe DoBrines againfl God and Chrifi'J
plainly hint that the Doftrine concerning God the Fa-
ther and his Son, did not come from the School of
Simon i but, on the contrary, that Simon warpt the
U 2 ' Apo-
30^ 'The Trimitwe a^zd
Apoftolical Dodrine to his own wicked Tenets. Ob"
fervej Hegefypus does not fay concerning God and
Chrift, but aga'inft God and Clirift. Tliat Magician,
in an extraordinary blafphemous manner, accommoda-
ted the Apoftolical Tradition concerning the Father
and the Son to himfeif, his prcftitute Helena and other
Powers of his own Imagination. For he faid (ac-
cording to (n) Irenaus) againft God the Father, that
he was the moft fubHme Power ; i. e. the Father, who
is above all, and fuffer'd himfelf to be call'd, whatfo-
ever Men call the Father. Then he afferted againft
Chrift, that Helena, his firft hvoio.. Notion, or Idea,
made Angels, and the Powers by whom he faid the
World was madej that Men were faved by his Grace,
&c.
6. I cannot now but admire how Hegejippus comes
to be cited as a Witnefs for the Author of the Ireni-
cum, whereas no Antient more plainly fhews the Va-
nity and Falfiiood of his Conjecture. For he ex-
prefly witneffeth, that in his Age the Governours of
the Church held the Apoftolical Dodrine pure and en-
tire i for after he had told us what Churches he had
been to fee, and how many Bifhops of the Roman
Church efpecially, that moft eminent Patriarchate he
had vilited, he adds : In every Succeffton, and in every
City, it fiands fo, as the Law, and the Prophets, and the
Lord teach. Now when did Hegefippus live? Without
doubt he was Contemporary with Irenaus^ for he ex-
prefly mentions Pope Eleutherus (in whofe time Irenaus
certainly flourifh'd) as fucceeding Soter in the Epifco-
pal Seej fo that Jerome mu{k be clearly miftaken in
bringing him back to the times o( Adrian, being de-
ceived, I doubt nor, by (o) Eujebius, who has commit-
ted the fame Error, Book the ^th. Chapter the Sth of his
Hiftory: and afterwards (p), as tho correding his falfe
Chronology, places Hegejippus in the times of Marcus
(w) Lib. I. Cap. lo. p. 115, & 11 5. (0) Eufeb. E. H. Lib.
4. C. 8. p. 98. Valel.Not. (p. 5<J.) in locum.
(?) C.21. p. 115.
Anto^
'Amon'mus. How well now has Zukhr plav'd his game
from Hegefippus ? He afferts that the Dodors of the
Church, efpecially Jufiin, being deceiv'd by the Whim-
fies of the Simonians^ changed the Apoflolical Doftrine.
But lo! Hegefippus witnefTeth, that the Apoftolical
Dodrine was preferu'd whole and entire by the Doc-
tors in every Church down to his times, (/. e. to the
times of Irenms) i. e, till about thirty Years after "Juj-
tins days. Sure this Author would never have ap-
pealed to Hegefippus, if he had been well acquainted
with him; doubtlefs he had form'd a hafty, erroneous
Notion of this antient Writer. But this I fhall re-
ferve to be proved in the following Chapter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^ ^
CHAP. III.
Concerning Hegefippus, and his Opinion of
the Terfon of Jeftis Chriji,
THE Author ©f the Irenkum fpeaks everywhere
of Hegefippus as a Man of his own Sentiments,
i. e. as an Ehknite ; one of thofe who confefs our Sa-
viour's Conception of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit,
but deny the Pre-exiftence of God the Word, before
Ages. All our prefent Socinians in England follow hirn,
and claim this very antient famous Author for their
own ; they lay this Foundation, and build upon it
certain ftrange Conclufions, which, if true, would be
fufficient to overthrow that Apoftolical Tradition of
the real Divinity of our Lord, which we aflert. From
thefe efpecially, the Author of the Judgment of the Fa*
thers (q) contends ftrenuoufly that Hegefippus was cer-
tainly an Ebionitej and has endeavoured to confirm it
by fome ftiallow Reafonings, which we propofe now
to examine.
{ef) Judgment of the Fathers, &c, p. 41,42.
U 3 ^- F'^'fl^
^10 T^he Trimitive and
1. Firfi, he fays, Hegefippus 'was a Jewifli Chri-
flian^ ^^ Eufebius tefiifies\ but all f/jeJewiOl Chriftians^
acarding to Ori^&), iver e Eb'ionites; therefore deny' d the
Divinity of cur Saviour. I anfwer. It by a 'Jewijb
Chriftian, tihe Sophifler means a Chriftian who mix'd
the Obfervation oF the Ritual Law of Mofes with the
Faith ot" Chriil, it is abfolutely falfe that Eufehius ever
wrote that Hegejippis was fuch a one. This is all he
fays in the Place eited, that Hegefippus from his Wri-
tings might be concluded to be a BeUever of Hebrew
Extradition. But that he was not fuch a Jewifi Chri-
j^lian, as he would make him, We are alTurM from He-
gefippus himfelffr), who fays, that, as he went to
Rome, he vifited many Chriftian Churches of the Gen-
tiles, and communicated with them, but that when
he came thither, he continued very long in the Com-
munion of that famous Church. Hence (s) Eufehius
exprefly fays, that he flourifh'd in the Church, i. e,
in the fame Catholick Church, in which Irenaus and
others, Men undoubtedly Catholick, flourifhM at the
fame time, and Men with whom he is join'd. But
thofe Chriftians of the Jews, who, together with the
Faith of Chnft, rcrain'd the Obfervation of the Ri-
tual Law/ neither could, nor would live in Commu-
nion w'ith any Church of the Gentiles, Befides, it is
not true that the Jeivs^ who received the Faith of
Chriil:, and perfevered in the Obfervation of the Mo~
faicalL^w, were all Ebionites, i. e. denyM the Divi-
nity of Chrift ; nor does Origen fay any \uch thing (t).
3. Our Ebionite proceeds in his Argument thus i
Secondly, the fame 'EuCtbius in the fame place fays, that
Hegefippus ifed the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew,
ivhich luas nfed by the Ebionite and Unitarian Chriftians
only. I anfwer : Eufebius indeed fays^ that Hegefippus
cited fonie things' out of the Gofpel of the Hebrews j
but- he does not fay thai he ufeU that Gofpel, as the
(r) Lib. 4. Cap. i2. p. ti(5. (j) Lib. 4. C. 21. p. 115,
(t) Judgn-.enr Qt the CaEholic4< Churcbj C.. 2; Sed. iS.
■''""■' Ebionite:
Ehionkes ufed it, i. e. deemM it Canonical. Now if
to cite fome things from the Gofpel to the Hebrews,
is a fure Token of an ELionite, then very many Au-
thors may be efteemM Ebionites, who, of our certain
knowledge, are Cacholicks, and abhorred that Herefy
entirely. Then Jemne, that ftrenuous Aflertor ot the
Son's Confubftantiality, was an Ebionite. For he often
cites that Gofpel, and tranOated it, as he himfelt telh-
fies, into the Greek and Latin Tongues. Upon this
account Julian the Pelagian (u) acc\i(QS Jerome for ufing
a Teftimony out of the fifth Gofpel, which he him-
felf had tranflated into Latin. Then (x) Origen was an
Ehionite, tho he rejeded the Ehimites of both Sorts as
Hereticks, and Aliens from the Church of Chrift,
For Jerome fays, that Oigen very often ufed the Go-
fpel according to the Hebrews. Befides, Papias, as Ire-
naus (y) fays, a Difciple of St. Johns, and a Companion
of Polycarp's, hath given us a pretty long Account ot
the Difcourfe betwixt our Saviour, and the Woman
taken in Adultery, which was only to be found in
the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, as Eufebitis {z>)
tells us. Now all the antient Catholick Authors thac
have mentioned Papias, however of mean Abilities,
and erroneous in fome Points, teflify that he was a
Catholick, and conflantly maintainM the Px-ule of
Faith. Laftly, to mention no more, the bleffed Igna-^
tins,- an excellent Defender of the great Myftery of
Godlinefs concerning God incarnate, againft the He-
reticks of his days, has fome things in his Epiftle to
the Smyrnaans, which (a) Eufebius confefTes he cannot
trace. In the Epiftle to the Smyrnseans, fays he, fpeak-
ing of our Saviour Chrift, he recites fome -words, -which I
cant tell where to find : But I know and believe, fays he,
that our Lord appeared in the Flejh after his RefurreEiion,
and ivhen he was come to Peter and his other Companions^
(u) Catalogus Script. Ecclef. in Jacobo, Fratre Domini.
C^) Contra Celf. Lib.5. p.zjJ. (j) Lib. 5. Cap. 35.
p. 498. {z) Lib. 3. Cap. 39. p. 91.
^a) Lib. 5. Cap. ^6, p. 86, 6c 87. .
U 4 >'^
?i2 T;he Trimiti've ajid
faid to them. Lay hold of me, handle me, and fee that
I am not an incorporeal Spirit. And immediately they
handling him, belie'ued. Now this is taken from the
Gofpe] to the Hebreius, as (b) Jerome has acquainted us,
tho (c) Eufebius knew nothing of it.
4. Hi.<. third Argument is thus contraded by him-
felf ; Hegefippus giving a Catalogue of the Hereticks,
who -were either of the Jews or Gentiles, makes no men-
tion of the Cerinthians or Ebionites in it, which, without
jdoubt^ he ivould have done, if he had believed the Pre'
exifience and Divinity of our Saviour. It is intolerable
to lee a Man trifle in Matters ferious, and of great
importance. For, i. Does he really believe thsiX. He-
gejtppus in the Place cited (d)^ intended to give a full
ana compleat Catalogue of ail the Hereticks, who
diflurbed the Church in his time, or who were by
him thought to be Hereticks } If fo, he knew no-
thing of Irenaus's Herefiology, who was Contempo-
rary with Hegejtf pus. 2. Does he ferioufly believe that
Hegefippus did not think the Cerinthians were Here-
ticks ? Then he who has prefumed to give us the
Judgment of the Fathers, is as ignorant as can be of
Cerinthus's Tenets, and a perfed Stranger in the Wri-
tings of the Ancients. Cerinthus taught, befides his
Ertor in common with Ebion concerning Chrift's mere
Humanity, other abfurd and impious Tenets. For he
afErmM, as we faid before, that this vifible World
"Was not made by the fupreme God, but by inferior
Powers, or Angels that did not know that God ; That
the Angel, who gave the Law by M(fes to the Ifraelites,
was an evil Angel, &c. Yea, (e) Epiphanius (ays, that
he defended almoft all the ihocking Errors of Carpo-
crates, and in this^ only differed from that Monfter,
that he obfervM the Mfaical Rites, not cordially, but
for convenience fake, to curry favour with the 'Jews^
and efcape their Perfecuticns (f). What fay you now ?
(h) Hieronym. in Ignitio. (r) Eufeb. ibidem.
(£^) Lib. 4. Cap. 22. 'p.. 115, rid. {e) Hxref.iS.
(/) Defence uf the J^icene Creed, Se6l. 3. Ch. i. 5. 7.
Did
Jpqftolical TRADnio-i^, C^C' 315
Did not Hegejippus account fuch a Prodigy of a Man
a Heretick ? Laftly, by this very Argument it may
as well be proved, that yuflin Martyr was an Ebionite,
or an Unitarian, that is, deny'd the Pre-exiftence and
Divinity of our Saviour. For Juftin, in his Difputa-
tion with TryphOj reckons up as many Jewifb Herefies
as Hegejtppus, namely feven, tho he calls them by dif-
ferent Names (^). Thefe are his words: Neither can
any me, that rightly conjiders the Matter, call the Saddu-
ces Jews, or fuch Hereticks, as the Genifts, the Me-
rifts, Galileans, Hellenians, the Pharifees and Baptifts.
Here the Cerinthians and Ebionites are omitted. He
particularly reckons up fome Hereticks which rofe a-
mong the Ghriftians, in another (h) Place of the fame
Dialogue ; namely, Marcionites, Valentiniam, Bajtlidiam,
and Saturnilians. Here again no mention is made of
the Cerinthians and Ebionites. Hence feme Perfon may
argue thus : 'Juftin giving an account of the Here-
ticks, 'Je'wijh and Chriftian, does not reckon the C(?-
rimhians and Ebionites among them, which, without
doubt, he would have done, if he had believed the
Pre-exiftence and Divinity of our Saviour. Yet who
is there that does not know that Juftin not only be-
lieved it himfelf, but alfo vehemently and ftrenuoufly
defended it againft both the 'Je'ws and Judaiz,ing Chri-"
ftians. . You'll fay that Jufiin names fome Chriftian
Hereticks, and adds [with others of ether Names.'} I
own it. And does not Hegejippus the fame ? Yes in-
deed. For after he has named fome Chriftian Here-
ticks, he adds immediately : And from thefe [have
fprung] falfe Chrifls^ falfe Prophets, falfe Apcfiles, laho
have broke the Unity of the Church by pernicious Words a-
gainft God and Chrifl. In which words are certainly
comprehended all the Hereticks, who rofe after the
aforenamed, and from them.
5. This is the laft of our Sophifter's Arguments:
Valefius, fays he, confcjfes that Hegelippus^ Ecckfiaftical
ig) Juftin, p. 307, C&) P. 253.
Jiijlory
514 'The ^rimitwe and
Hiftory was neglecied by the Antients^ and therefore perifi'd,
hecaufe it was found too greatly to favour the '{Jmt^nSiUS.
It is abfolutely falfe that ever Valefms confefs'd this .-
He only fays this in general (z), That the Writings of
Hegejjppm and other Antients were negleded, and fo
penfh'd upon account of the Errors with which they
abounded. Thefe are his words, Being neglecied upon
account of the Errors with which they (Clement'i Hypo-
typofes) ahoundedy at length they were loft, T^he fame
reafon, I judge, may be given for the lofs of Papias, He-
gefippus, and other Antients. As for Hegefippus, I know
not what Errors of his Valefms intends or fufpeds. For
the antient Catholick Authors that had read his Works,
(Men we muft beheve rather than i^^/^y?wj^) ^commend-
ed them (as we fliall fee hereafter) for orthodox,
ufeful, and worth reading. Thus much (by way of
Examination) for the Sophifter's petty Reafonings. We
Ihall now do them the further honour, light and trifling
as they are, to oppofe to them the Teftimonies of the
Antients for Hegejippus, who reckoned him among the
Catholicks, even among the greateft Ornaments of the
primitive C^itholick Church.
<5. Firft then, Eufebius, who was oblig'd to his
Goliedions, and tranfcribed very many things out of
the Comnientaries of Hegeftppus into his Hiftory,
makes honourable mention of him every where, and
often, in an extraordinary and efpecial manner, com-
mends his Orthodoxy. Now if Hegefippus had been an
Ebionite, Eufebius would never have done fo ; for he
held even thofe Ebionites, who acknowledged the Con-
ception of Chrift of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit,
but deny'd that he pre-exifted as God the Word and
Wifdom before Ages, for impious Hereticks, as I
have fhewn elfewhere (k). Nay, he extols him as a brave
Champion of the Catholick Faith againft the Hereticks
of his time. A glorious Champion indeed, and a
(i) Annot. m Eufeb. f. 85.
{¥) Judgment of the Catholick Chimhf Chap, 2. SeO:. ii.
He-
Jpqftolkal Tk ADIT ioT<if ^-c. gi^
Heretick himfelf ! Hear Eufebius (/) ; In thofe times
again the Truth had many Defenders, 'who contended for her
not only in Words, but tn -written Controverfy againjl the
impious Herejies. Among thefe, Hegefippus was famous,
an Author "we have made great ufe of in our former Booh ,
having been obliged to his credit and report for what was
done in the Apoftolical T'imes. He has given us Memoirs of
the Apoflolical Preaching in five Books, written with good
Credit, and great Simplicity. There is another place
parallel to this (m) : In the fame times, Hegefippus,
whom we have mentioned in the former Booh, flour i/b^d in
the Church; and Dionyfius Bifloop of Corinth, and Vi-
nytus of Crete, befides Philip and Apollinaris, and
Melito, and lofily Irenseus, aU whofe Orthodox Writings
are come to our hands, and give us apoftolical 'Tradition,
and found Faith. But in the beginning of the follow-
ing Chapter (n), he again adds : Hegefippus indeed,
in the five Booh of Co?nmentaries, which are come down to
us, hath left us the mofl ample Tefiimony of his Faith,
7. What has our Adverfary now to oppofe to thefe
plain Teilimonies of Eufebius? After he has produc'd
the Arguments, by which he would prove Hegefippus
an Unitarian^ he immediately adds : If it be cbjelied.
Did Eufebius know nothing of this, for he every where
makes honourable mention of Hegefippus ? / anfwer, he
knew it very well, but he dm ft not tell it ; it was not fw
Eufebius to reprove an Apoftolical Father ; it was only for
him to diffemble what the Unitarians, and efpecially his own
Adverfary Marcellus, would not have negleSied to ufe in
Defence of their Caufe. Who in his Senfes is not amazM
at this Anfwer ? Sure, if Hegefippus had been an
Ebionite, and Eufebius knew it, he not only did amifs
in diflembling it, but alfo told a dired lye ; for he not
only does not fay that he was an Ebionite, but he ex-
prefly fays the contrary, namely, that he was entirely
Catholick^ and had given us the Apoftical Dodlrine
(/) Lib. 4. Cap, 7, and 8. p. 5)8» (w) Cap. 21, p. 115.
(n) Cap, 22,
and
3 ^ ^ The ^rmiti've and
and Tradition clear and fincere in his Writings. Nay,
he has told a mofl impudent Falfhood ,• for the Com-
mentaries of Hegejtpptis were not read by Eufebius
only, but were common, at leaft among the Learned j
as being greatly celebrated both for. the venerable Anti-
quity of their Author, and the very ufeful Matter of
which they treated, namely, what happenM in the
days of the Apoftles, and the firft Succeffion after
them ', and upon thefe accounts, very agreeable to all
Lovers of Antiquity. Eufebius could not fafely lye in
this Matter, becaule he might eafily be convided of
the moft manifeft Falfhood ; and the Fraud being dif-
cover'dj would have expos 'd himfelf to the hatred
of all Lovers of Truth. Again, it is very ridiculous to
fay, Eufebius durft not reprove Hegejippus^ becaufe he
was an apofto'ical Father; for, if Hegefippus had in-
deed been an Ebionite^ he cou'd not have pafs*d for an
apoflolica! Fatner with the Catholick Church, to
which ic was £zit/f^m's Intereft to recommend him-
felf Laftly, Eufebius wou'd have offended both the Ca-
tholicks and Hereticks by this Lye of his j the Catho-
licks by commending an Heretick fo greatly, and the
Hereticks, by depriving them of fo great an Advo-
cate, and pretending he was of the other Side. I am
afham'd to dwell fo long upon fuch manifeft Trifles.
To proceed therefore :
8. Not only Eufebius, but other antient Catholick
Writers, have given teflimony that Hegejippus was Or-
thodox. Thus * Jerome not only praifes him for the
great Sanftity of his Life, but alfo recommends his
Writings (which he had read) as containing very ufe-
ful Things. For in his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Wri-
ters he thus fpeaks of Hegefippus : ' He liv'd near the
' Apoftles days, and has put together all that was done
* in the Church from our Lord's Paffion, till his own
* Times, and hath collected from feveral Places many
' ufeful Things. His Work is made up of five Books
* Catalogus Script. Ecdcf. in Hegefippo.
'in
* in a plain Style, as tho' he had fludy'd to exprefs
* their Lives, whom he imitated in the manner of his
* writing/ Now if 'Jerome had found any Tares of
Herefy in the Works of Hegefippus, mix'd with the
good Grain of pure Doctrine, without doubt he
wou'd have caution'd his Reader againft them ,- if he
had difcover'd that he was an Ebionite^ he would never
have fuffer'd him to pafs without Note or Cenfure,
much lefs would he have honour'd him with fuch
Commendations ; for no Man was more bitter againft
the Herefy which deny'd our Saviour to be God, than
Jerome. Gobarus alfo (o) fays of Hegefippus, 'That he
•was an antient Apoftolkal Man i Antient with refpeft to
the Age in which he liv'd ; and Apoftolical, for the
Holinefs and Purity of his Life and Doftrine.
9. Let us now hear Hegefippus fpeak for him-
felf He fays in that very Chapter (p), from which
the Sophifter would prove him an Ebionite, that he,
in his journey to Rome, waited upon many Bi/kopSy and
from all of them heard one and the fame DoBrine. Then
he adds. And the Church of Corinth perfeve/d in the right
Faith till the times of Primus their Bifhop, li^ith whom I
convers*d familiarly in my Voyage to Rome, andftayd with
the Corinthians many days, both of us being greatly comfort-
ed by the right Faith of each other. But when 1 was come
to Rome, / abode there with Anicetus, to whom Eleuthe-
rus was then Deacon. Then he fubjoins ; Now the
fame things, which were preached by the Lazv, the Prophets^
and the Lord himfelf, fiill remain in the fever al Succeffions
(f Bi/bops, and in the fever al Cities. Hegefippus then ap-
proved the Do(5trine of the Catholick Church of his
time, as true and entirely agreeable to the Scripture of
the Old and New, Tefiamem, and to Primitive and Apo-
ftolical Tradition. Now what the Doftrine of the
Catholick Church was in the days of Hegefippus, you,
may very well inform yourfelf from his Contemporary,
Jrenaus (q). I'll only cite two Places of the many-
Co) Photius, Cod. 252. p. 892, Q) Eufeb. Lib. 4. cap. 22.
{q) Lib. I. cap. 19. p. 114.
which
liS T^he Trimitwc and
which occur in him. He thus defcribes the Rule of
Truth every where received in the Catholick Church
in his time : As we underfiand {or hold) the Rule of Truths
this is itj "That there is one God Almighty, who created all
things by his IVord^ who difpos^d, and brought them all into
exiftence cut of nothings as the Scripture faith : By the
word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hofis
of them by the breath of his mouth. And again. All things
were made by him, and without him was nothing made {but
out of all, nothing is excepted \ the Father made all things,
•whether njifible or invifble, fenjible or intelkBual, temporal
for feme certain end or purpofe, or eternal) and he made all
thefe things, not by Angels, nor by any Powers %f another
Will and Purpofe from him; for God wants nothing: but by
his Word and Spirit he makes all things, he difpofes, he go-^
verns, he gives them exifience. CouM any Ebionite ap-
prove this Confeffion of Faith ? The other place you
have in the third Book, Chap. 3. in the very beginning
(r), collated with Chap. 4. of the fame Book. In the
former place he thus writes concerning the Tradition
of the Catholick Church : All Perfons who tuill fee the
truth then, may find in every Church the Tradition of the
Apoftles manifejied throughout the World j and we can
reckon up thofe who were made Bijloops by the Apofiles, and
their Succe jf or s, down to our own times, who neither taught, nor
knew any fuch thing as thefe Men dream of. Here he fpeaks
of univerfal Tradition manifefted in the whole World,
and in every Church (that is, as Hegefippus fays, in the
feveral Succeffions of Bifhops, and in the feveral Cities)
and fo manifefted, that every one who was a lover of
Truth, and would not fliut his Eyes againft it, might
fee it. Now what this univerfal, this manifeft Tradi-
tion was, in the Chapter immediately following, he
thus clearly explains : But what if the Apoftles had not
left us the Scriptures, muft we not have followed the Order
cf 'Tradition, which they delivered to thofe to whom they
committed the Care of the Churches .? The Order to which
(f) P. 232. p,242.
many
'Jpoftolical Tradition^ ^c> 319
many Nations of the Barbarians, or rude ignorant
People, ivho belie've in Chrifty gi've their ajjent i who
have the Rule of Salvation written in their Hearts by
the Spirit, without Ink and Paper , and carefully p-e^
ferve the old 'Tradition^ believing in one God the
Maker of Heaven, and Earth, and all things therein by
his Son yefus Chrifi ; who out of his very great Love to
his own Creation, condefcended to be born of a Virgin, by him-
felf uniting Man to God.
10. From thefe things it is very dear that Hegefip-
pus was entirely Catholick, and believ'd as the Ca-
tholick Church of his days did, in the Son of God,
who exifted before all Ages, by whom all things
were made, and who at the appointed time was him-
felf made Man for us. Very vain therefore are all
thofe Conclufions, which our Unitarians have drawn
from the contrary Hypothefis j namely, that Hegefippus
was an Ebionite. Hear now the Author of the Judg-
ment of the Fathers, &c. thus arguing from thac
Hypothefis (s) : Jf Hegefippus (the Unitarian He-
gefippus) was the Author Rufeb'ms follows in his account
of the fifteen Bifhops 0/ Jerufalem, that they prof efs'd the
true Knowledge of Chrifi {of which no Man who is ac-
quainted with his Writings can doubt) then we have gaind
a point of the greatefi advantage ; namely^ that not only the
Jewifli Chrifiians, but alfo the Church o/Rome, and all the
more famous Churches, which Hegefippus has vifited in
order to know their DoSrine and Difcipline, thought as the
Unitarians did ; that is, as Hegefippus did; that is,
that our Lord Chrifi was only Man. For he fays (t), that he
went to K,omt, and lived there under the Popes Anicetus,
Soter, and Eleutherus ; and that the DoEirines taught
by the Law, the Prophets, and our Saviour Jmnfelf, were
preferved there, and in all other Bifioopricks. In a word,
he confejfes, that he found the Churches Uniform and Ortho-
dox. Now this, /f Hegefippus was a Unitarian {as I
think I have proved) can mean nothing elfe, than that the
{/) P. 42, and 43. (0 Eufeb. fupra cit.
Churches
3 20 T!he Tr if/lit we and
Churches helie'ved, as the Jewifh Chrifliam did^ that our
LordChriji was a Man^ a Prophet, an Embajfador of
God, upon whom the Logos or Word of God rejled. This is
entirely agreeable to what the antient Unitarians, {the
Artemonites) affirmed in Eufebius ; namely, that they
had preferred the Doclrine delivered by the Apvflles till
Vi6lor and Zepherinus oppofed it, who fucceedcd Eleu-
therus, ^j Z;^ ^/^ Socer, ^K^Soter Anicetus, the antient
Popes, with whom Hegefippus conversed. Thefe Con-
clufions, which the Sophifter infers from his own
Hypothefis concerning the Faith and Opinion of He-
gefippus, are fo abfurd, and fo manifeflly repugnanc
to the moft Authentick Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that
any Man who has a grain of Candour and Judgment,
mufl think the Hypothefis to be, what it really is,
abominably falfe.
II. This notwithftanding, the Author of a Book
entitled, "The true and antient Faith concerning the Divi-
nity of our Lord ajferted againfl Dr. Bull's Judgment of
the Church, 8i.c. has run the fame lengths wi ch this
Writer. For he writes thus (u). But Jmufi iritreat my
Reader to obferve, that all the Books of the Difiplas of the
Apoftles, who did not run into Platonifm, are loft. Now
among others, either by chance lofl, or on purpofe dcfiroy'd,
ive lament the Bocks wrote by the Chriflians of the drcum-
cifion : of them^ one Hegefippus a very famous IV, iter had
compiled the Ecclefiaftical Hiftory of the moft early Times ,
hut the Errors whicib the Platonizing Chriftians have
charged upon him, haije occafioned the lofs of his valuable
Hiftory. Valefius is of my opinion, and makes this Obfer-
vation upon Eufebiu!> (x): Which Books (the Hypoty-
pofes of Clement Ale;x.) were neglefted and lofl becaufe
of the Errors with which they abounded. I judge
that the fame thin!?f was a!fo the occalion of our lofing
the Books of P apias, Hegefippus, and other An-
tients. In this nuryrber he reckons Hegefippus'/ Hiftory:
IVbat were the Ern irs of it, is not dijjxult to conjeciure i
(«) P. 17S, 179, iHo. (x)Lib. 5. cap. ii.
fc;:
for as much as all the Chrifiiam^ fuch as they are, that
formerlywere^ ormvjare Platonifts, call every thing an
Error , which doth not fute with their Hypothejls concerning
God the Word, begotten not made. Hegefippus was a
jew by Natiojiy and one of thofe whom the Pagan Profe-^
lytes jiremioufly endeavour' d to oppref,for the fupport of the
Error concerning the Pre-exifience. Nor is it to be doubted
•whether the Errors, of which he was accufed, were the fame
as the Chrifiian Nazarenes held ; whether by the Virgin
Churchy of which he fpeaks in Eufebius, he under flood that
of the Circumcifon, which flood off the farthefl from Flato^
nifm ; : and whether by the SeduEiion of Error, which
arofe under the Emperors Trajan, or Adrian, he intended
the Philofophy of Plato then introduced into the Church ; a
Philofophy of a direSi tendency to debafe Chriflianity, foully
to change, and thereby almofl deflroy it : "This the Apoflles
themfelves foretold, and it is fo true and manifefl in itfelf
that I find Valefius himfelf noting upon the place of
Eufebius aforecited (y), that the Father had underflood
the Words of Hegefippus in too large afenfe ; and accom-
modated that to the luhole Catholick Church, which he only
faid concerning the Virginity of the Church of Jerufalem.
'This is a matter of great Importance, and worthy Ob-
fervation. By it Hegefippus fets out the fatal time, when
the Chriflian Bifhops, formerly Heathen Philofophers, fuc
ceeded the Nazarene Bifloops ; and confequently when Pla-
tonifm jufiled out the pure and fimpk Truth, which the
Succejfors of St. James had preach' d. Now this happened
inthe Reign of AdnsLi), when all the Jews and uncir-
cumcifed Chriftians were expelled Jerufalem. Sulpitius
Severus had reafonfor what he faid, that the Chrifiian
Faith, i. e. the Plaronical Faith, (according to his Notion)
had confiderable Advantage from that Dfperfion ; for then
the fatal Evil fpread iifelf greatly, when the Primitive
Faith which the Nazarenes had preferved in its Purity,
could no longer bear up againfl Platonifm, And a little
after this, is the very thing of which the Artemonites
(y) Annot. in Eufeb, p. 49.
Vol. IL X com-
g22 ^he Trmithe and
complain in Eufebius ,- 'fhat all the Antlents, and even
the Apofiks therrtfeheSy received and taught "what $hey mxu
do j and that the 'Truth of the Gofpel -was prefervd till the
times vf Vidor, who ivas the i^th Bijhop of Rome from
Peter; but that from the times of Zephirinus, tuho
fucceeded Viftor, the T'ruth had been adulterated. But
this Author has one thing peculiar to himfelf, name-
ly, the unskilful or the impudent Ufe he makes of
Sulpitius Severus's Authority for the fupport of his
Dreams. Sulpitius Severus, fays he, affirms^ that the
Chrifiian Faith, that is, according to his Notion, the Pla-
tonical, had conjiderable advantage from that Difperfion
(of the Chriflians of the Circumcijion under Adrian) for
then the fatal Evil fpread itfelf when the Primitive Faith,
•which the Nazarenes had preferv'd in its Purity, could no
longer bear up againft Platonifm. Now Sulpitius exprefly
faith in this place, that the Chriflians of Jerttfalem,
"who were of the Circumcifion, before the Difperfion
under Adrian, beHev'd Chrift to be God. Nor does
he fpeak lefs clearly, that the Advantage which the
Chriftian Faith had from that Difperfion, confifted in
this. That it was the Occajion of fetting the Liberty of the
Faith and the Church free from the Servitude of the Law.
He did not fo much as dream that it had been an inlet
to Platonijm.
12. But no Man can wonder at thefe Follies in this
Author, who has obferv'd what Paradoxes he has ven-
tur'd to publifh and defend openly in the Chriftian
World. Thus, (2.) IVIien therefore the primitive Chriflians
fpcke of Chrifty as far fuperior to mere Man, or as the
pre-exifient M^ord, which was with God from the beginning,
they plainly meant that Holy Spirit, that Divine Power,
•which created the World, and form'd the Body of Jefus
Chrift, which inhabited it when form' d, and had it as the
temple, from which he would give out his Oracles publickly.
"This was the true and genuine Opinion concerning the Arti-
cle in Contrcverfy, which indeed afterwards began to be
CO Pag. 152, 153.
changd
j^pojfoikal Tradition, &c^* I* J
ihang^dfomewhaty becaufe the Difciples of thefe Men, pre^
judiced to a Platonicai 'Trinity, dtflinguijio d between the
JVord and the Spirit, and by an idle Platonicai Suhtilty^
made the fymnimous JVords into two different things. He
eagerly contends that this was the genuine Opinion of
Ignatius, Irenaus, and other very antient Fathers i and
every where in his Book affirms, that according to the
Scriptures and the Primitive Fathers, the greateft Ex-
ceilency of our Saviour, and that for which he is ce-
lebrated as God, is not, that he exifted before all
Ages, or that all things were made by him j but this
only, that he was wonderfully conceiv'd of a Virgin
by the Holy Spirit,whereas he had no Exiflence before.
Now he that after reading the Fathers can affirm
thefe things, muft either have no Confcience, or no
Reafon and Judgment at all. For, (i.) It is very cer«
tain that the Priraitve Fathers, by the IVord, which
was before the Creation, and by which the World was
made, did not underftand a certain Power, which had
no proper Perfon, but a living and fubjifiing IVord^
which we commonly call a Perfon. (2.) It is equally
certain, that thofe Primitive Fathers took the Word to
be a Perfon diftind from God the Father, and the
Holy Spirit. (3.) Laftly, it is evident that they did
not determine the greateft Dignity and Excellence of
our Saviour's Perfon to confift in his wonderful Con«
ception of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit ; but on the
contrary, that his Nativity of the Virgin did entirely
belong to his ftupendous Condefcenfion, and to that
Difpenfation, which he, of his infinite Mercy and
Goodnefs to Mankind, was pleased to take upon him.
AH who love the Truth, and are moderately vers'd in
the Primitive Antiquity, know this to be the true and
the antient Faith of the Church (a). -A,
13. But to return from thefe TriflerS to the Holy
Fathers, Hegefippis and Irenaus, two very fufficienc
Evidences of the Primitive Apoftolical Tradition. As
{a) Ste the Judgment of tfps Catholkk Chur^t c. 5. o. 5, Ss^>
X 3. ioi
'^24 ^he Trimitwe and
for JJegepppus^ he was near the Apoftolical Age, and
wrote the Hiftory of the Church from the Paflion of
our Lord, down to his own times. In order to com-
pleat this Hiftory, no doubt but that he confulted ve-
ry many Records of the Apoftohcal Age, and the next
Succeflion to it. Befides, as "yerome fays, he was an
Admirer of the Primitive Piety, a Man of holy Sim-
plicity, and very great Sanftity, and therefore an
Hiftorian very well worthy to be believ'd. This fame
Hegejippus witneffeth. That the Dodrine at firft deli-
vered by Chrift and the Apoftles in all Churches, in
his time (in which it is plain, the Tenet of Chrift *s
divine and human Nature was every were received in
the Catholick Church) remained pure and intire.
Irenaus teftifies the fame, who was Contemporary with
Hegefippusy and, as TertulUan thought, a very curious
Examiner of all Doflrines, and who had, befides this,
a very lingular advantage from the divine Providence,
of converfing with the {b) BlefTed Polycarp, a Difciple
of St. John, was thoroughly inftrufted in hisDoftrine;
and perfectly remembred it, as he himfelf fays in his
Epiftle to Florinus (c). He appeals to him as an Evi-
dence of the antient Tradition abovemention'd,
namely, of the Faith in one God, the Maker of Heaven
and Earth, and of all things therein, by the Son of God
Jefus Chrift ^ who of his 'very great affe[iion towards hii
own Creature, condescended to be born of the Virgin, uniting
in himfelf Man to God. Nay, he appeals to the Afiah
Churches and Bifhops, the Succeflbrs of Poly carp, as
Witnefl'es of the fame Tradition. For he writes thus :
Poly carp alfo, who was not only inftruSied by the Apoftles^
and conversed with many of them, but was alfo ?nade Bi-
jfhop of the Church of Smyrna, by the Apoftles, in Afia,
tuhom we have feen in our youth, (for he liv'd a great
"while, and being very old, departed this Life a Glorious
Idartyr) always taught us thofe things which he had lean^
^f the Apoftles, which he alfo deliver' d to the Church, and
{b) Eufeb, £, H. p. 152. (0 Lib, 3, cap. 3. p.235'
which
U'hich are only true* AU the Churches in Afia, and they
•who fucceeded Polycarp dovin to this day, give tefiimony to
thefe things. Surely then thofe who are not afliamed to
oppofe this ftupid Falrtiood of the Artemonites, Here-
ticks of a later date, to fuch creditable Evidence, are
very impudent indeed. Lee us now proceed to exa-
mine the reft of Zuicker's Whims.
CHAP. IV.
Of the Orphic Verfes, an^^ hy way of 2)/-
grejfwny of the Sybilline Oracles, alled^d
hy Juftin and other Antients againft the
Heathens.
.1. T ET us now in the fecond place examine
I i Zuicker^s wild Conjedure upon the Orphic
Verfes, He writes thus (d) i T'hefe Dreams, FiBions^
and Prodigies of ^\mow}sA3Lgus, with the additional Ex-
pojition of Cerinthus, concerning which I /hall difcourfe a
little after J feem altogether to have been the firji Draught
and the Elements of Orpheus'i Verfes (a Heathen, and^
as Paufanias fays, a Magician alfo) cited by Juftin Mar-
tyr in his Exhortation to the Greeks, {which run thus :
I adjure thee by the Word of the Father, which he
firft brought forth out of his Mouth, when by his advice
he made the Univerfe.) T'hefe Verfes, feme Impofior, a
Difcipleof Simon Magus, feems to have propagated among
the Chriflians under the Name of Orpheus, a Name fo fa"
mous (as Suidas reports) in the mofi antient times, that
very many Writings of other Authors, were faid to be his
genuine Works, to gain them the greater Credit, "Thefe
Juftin made f acred to himfelj and others, and pretended tHy
were derived from the DoBrine of MpfeS ^> Orphe^S^
(rf) Iren. p. 15, i5*
X ? . After*
J 26 TM Vrimiti've and
Afterwards he adds : T'hat Juftin depending upon thefe
Verfes^ and others ^ proposed their Opinion concerning the
Generation of Chrift, or the Mind, Wordy or Reafon of the
Father, from the Father, that the World might be made by
him, that he might come down to Men, and at length be made
one of them. The Heretick depends upon thefe two
Supports : (i.) That thofe Verfes under the Name of
Orpheus, were forg'd by the Simonians. (2.) That
Juftin relying upon thofe Verfes, had proposed his O-
pinion concerning the Generation of the Word before
the World was made.
2. As for the former, 'tis gratis diElum, nor can he
produce the leaft appearance of an Argument for it.
Kay, there are plain Reafons to the contrary. For
Erft, 'Juftin cites thofe Verfes, as well known before,
and formerly cited among the Heathen under the Name
of Orpheus -, it is therefore fcarce probable that they
Ihould be forg'd by Hereticks of late date, obfcure,
and but little known to the Heathens. Thus 'Juftin
(e) introduces his Citation of thefe Verfes : For Idont
fuppofe any af you, who read diligently the Hiftories of
Diodorus and others, who have committed thefe things to
'Writing, are ignorant that Orpheus, and Homer, and
Solon the Athenian Lawgiver, and Plato, and Pythago-
ras, andfome others who went to ^Egypt, and were ajjifted
ly the Books of Mofes, afterward taught quite contrary to
their former falfe Sentiments of the Gods.
5. In thefe Words, if I'm not miftaken, Juftin
hints to us the Original of the OrphickVerfes, namely,
that fome very antient Perfon, who underftood the
IL^earning of Mofes, and the Jewi/b Religion had for-
merly wrote thofe Verfes under the Name of Orpheus,
(for I can't believe as Juftin does, that Orpheus him-
felf was the Author of them) and that they were
famous among the Gentiles as the Verfes of the cele-
brated Poet Orpheus, fome Ages before Juftin was born.
I judge, / fay^ that it is very probable the Orphk
|0 Pa|, 15,
' "^ f^erfes
Verfes came from the Jewifh Learning. That Maa
mult be greatly wanting both in Prudence and Mo-
defty, who will deny that the Heathen Writers bor-
rowed many things from the Books of Mofes and the
Hebrews. The undoubted Writings of the Heathens,
which fpeak of the one God, the Creation of the
World, &c. things fcarcely, if at all to be had from
any other Quarter, fufEciently teflify this. Now the
Jewifh Religion then began to be the beft known to
the Pagans, when that People was firft expell'd their
own Country, and difpers'd every where among the
Heathen : afterwards the very Scriptures (God's fin-
gular Providence thus making way for the calling of
the Gentiles) were tranflated in Alexandria by the
Seventy, at the command of Ptolemy^ into a Tongue
common to almoft all the Heathen, I mean Greek:
From that time, who can wonder that there are fome
things in the Heathen Writings, which agree with the
Jetuifh Learning ?
4. But you'll fay, how cou'd they be accommoda-
ted to the Orphic Verfesy when in them there is men-
tion of the Logos, ov Wordy by which all things were
made, but which was not known to the 'Jevjs them-
felves ? I anfwer, it is clear from the Chaldee Para-
fhrafe, which calls that, by which God makes and
prescribes all things, the TVord ; that the Word of God
was very well known to the Jews. Many learned
Men have enlarg'd upon this Matter. Among others,
confult Hugo Grottus upon St. Johns firft and fecond
Chapters of his Gofpel. There alfo he conjeftures,'
that the Writer of the Orphic Verfes borrow 'd his No-
tion of the Word from the Hebrews ', that Heraclitus
followed him (Amelius has obferv'd, that he ufed the
Word in that Senfe) and that Plato and the Platonics
follow'd Heraclitus. But the late very learned Dr. Allix
has exhaufted this Subjeft, in his Book intitled, The
Judgment of the antimt Jewifh Church again ft the Unitari"
ans,
X 4 5 I
32S TheTrmitive and
5. I will give my Opinion by the bye, that the
SihylUne Oracles alfo produced againft the Heathens by
Juftm, and after him by others, might proceed from
the fame Original. For I can't be brought to believe
that thofe Prophecies were either forg'd by the Fa-
thers of the Primitive Church, and in the way of
Pious Frauds obtruded by them, as fome learned
Men confidently alTert, rafhly and impudently fas
Bifhop Montague (ays) throwing the greateft Refledion
upon thofe Holy Prelates. For what Argument do
they bring for the Support of fo ftrange an Affertion ?
Nothing but mere, vain, trifling Surmi fes. On the
other hand, the Reafons on our fide are clear, (i.) Who
can believe that Juftm and the other Fathers Cpious
and prudent Men) would prefume to alledge the fpu-
rious and fuppofititious Verfesof the Sil^yls before the
Emperors, before the Heathens Tto whom they could
not but be very well known) in defence of their Faith ;
appealing with the greateft Aflurance to the Copies,
which were in the hands of the Heathens. Nay,
yuflin near the end of his Exhortation appeals to thofe
SibyUine Oracles ^ as notorious to the whole World,
Thefe are his Words, (/) Be convinced by the moft antient
Sibyl, luhofe Booh are preferv'd every wherSy &c. I know
indeed that the Heathens objefted to the Chriftians
the infertion of many Things in the Sibylline Verfes^
'This Celfus alledgM, as we learn from Origen (g.) But
notwithftanding, I aifo know what Origen anfwers in
the fame place, That he had not fhewn what thofe In-r
fertions were ; tho' no doubt, he would have done it,
if he had had more antient and incorrupt Copies.
And indeed if that Fraud of the Chriftians cou'd have
been detected in the Times of Celfus ; T'heophilus, Cle-
mens AlexandrinuSy Origen, &c. had been the moft fool-
ilh, impudent Mortals imaginable, to have alledg'd
them with affurance againft the Heathens afterwards.
if) Pag. 16. ig) Pag. 355. Lib, 7.
€. Be-
^Jpoft oik al Tr ADIT ion y (^c» 329
6. Befides, we have fome things in the Heathen
Writers, who liv'd either before our Lord's Birth, or
when he was upon Earth, taken from thofe Sibylline
Books, exadly agreeing with what the Fathers cited
from them, '^uftin Martyr cites the Sibyls^ foreteUing
the Conflagration of the World, in thefe Words {h) ;
The Sibyl and Hyftafpis ha'ue faid, that there would be a
confumption of all corruptible things by Fire. The fame
Ovid had learn'd from the Prophetic Books (i).
Remembring in the Fates a time^ luhen Fire
Should to the Battlements of Heaven afpire;
And all the blaz,ing Worlds above fhould burn.
And all th' inferior Globe to Cinders turn.
The firft Chriftians produced many things out of the
Sibylline Oracles concerning Chrift their King, who
fhould give Peace and Salvation to the whole World.
Cicero alfo fays, {k) that an Interpreter of the Sibylline
Books complimented Julius Cafar (the real, tho* not
nominal King at that time) with this Sentence, That
they muft have a King, if they would be favd. By
which Prophecy, Molinaus (at other times no great
favourer of the Sibylline Oracles) profefTes he thought
Chrift and his Kingdom was intended, by which Sal-
vation was procur'd for all who would obey him.
Grotius {I) alfo was of the fame mind.
7. But thofe Paflages are more, efpecially clear,
which Virgil takes from the Cumaan Verfes of the
Boy, who was to defccnd from Heaven, to be born of
a Virgin, to rule the whole World, to blot out the
Sins of Men, to deftroy the Serpent, and reftore the
Golden Age ; all which things, the Poet gathering
from Circumftances that the time by the Sibyl intend-
ed was come, and not underftanding the Senfe of
them, by bafe Flattery, (or if you pleafe, poetical
Licence) apply'd to Sahninus the Son of PolUo, juft
Q)) Pag. 66. (0 Ovid's Metamovphofis, Lib. i.
{¥) Lib. de Divinatione 2. p. 275. Ed. Gryph. 1570. -vol. 2,
Opr> Fhihfoph CO Upon Matthew, cap. 2. ver. i,
born.
^^6 ^he Trimiti've and
born. Of thefe again MoUnaus profefTes, that when
he has confider'd them very attentively, he has often
been amaz'd, how it fhould happen that thofe Verfes
of that fourth Eclogue, taken, as Virgil ownSy from the
Sibylline Oracles^ fhould fo exadiy correfpond with the
Nativity and Kingdom of Chrift. Molinaus adds,
that the Verfes are more confiderable, as they were
wrote by Virgil at Rome, (where the Sibylline Books
were kept in the Palatine Library) at that time when
Chrift was born in ^udea. But it will be worth our
while to tranfcribe thefe Verfes with Molinaus's
Notes upon them. T^he Poet then rifing above the pitch
oj an Eclogue^ thus begins :
Sicilian Mufe^ begin a loftier Strain I
'Then addSf
'The lafl great Age, foretold by facred Rhimes^
Renews itsfinifh'd Courfe y Saturnian times
Roll round again ; and mighty YearSy begun
From their fir ft Orb^ in radiant Circles run :
The bafe degenerate Iron Offfpring ends ;
A Golden Progeny from Heaven defcends i
O chafte hucma fieed
Thefe things are wonderful, the Virgin, the Boy born, fent
down from Heaven, the Golden Ages under him, and thefe
things copy'd from the Sibylline Verfes, and that at the
time when Chrift was born, T'hen he thus addreffes the Boy :
7'hou Child being Conful, Virtue fhalt refiore.
And Crimes fhall threat the guilty World no more.
Jie foretels that our Sins fhall be blotted out by him. 0 how
ye?note from the common Poetical way ! But he promifes alfo
the Dejlruciion of the Serpent under his Reign i
The Serpem*s Brood fhall die ; the facred Ground
Shall Weeds and poifomus Herbs refufe to bear.
Each common Bufh fhall Syrian Rff'es wear.
^And a little after :
The
^jpqfloUcal Tradition, ^c, H^
The jarring Nations he in Peace fljall bind.
And ivith paternal Virtues rule mankind.
jB)'Cthe deceitful poifonous Herb]] he under flands the falfe
DoElrines and ijoorjh'p of Idols ; by the Aflyrian Aniomus,
which Jbould grow every where^ the DoSirine of the Gofpel
to be propagated through the World. In the Sibylline Ver-
fes it was the Syrian Amomus, &c. For Judea is in
Syria, from whence the preaching of the Gofpel firfi came.
ButVirgWjby an eafy change, put Aflyrian /or Syrian,^ir
the fake of his Metre,
8. You'll ask, whence the Heathens had thefe clear
Oracles concerning Chrift ? I fay from the Jews, efpe-
cially thofe of the Difperfion, who upon every oppor-
tunity given, and even without it, with great elation,
preachM up the magnificent Things in the Oracles of
the Prophets, as pertaining to their King the MeJJiah^
who was to come. For from the time that the Jews
were driven into Banifhment, the Promifes and Pre-
dictions of the Prophets concerning the Mejjiah and a
future State, were more clearly pcrceiv'd by all the
People of God than ever before ; the gracious Provi-
dence of God fo ordering it, that the afflided People,'
who groanM under a foreign Yoke, ftiould be rais'd
by the hope of the Promifes. The Writings of the
Hebrews, who liv'd between the Babylcni/b Captivity,
and the coming of the Lord, fully prove this Point.
He that doubts whether thefe famous Oracles came
into the hands of the Heathen, may do well to confi-
der that memorable Prophecy related both by Cornelius
Tacitus, and Suetonius, that there was a notion all the
World over, that one fliould arife out of Judea who
fhould govern the World. Tacitus fays, Cw) Many were
then perfuaded that it was contain d in the antient Learning
of the Priefis, that the Eaft fiould be famous, and the
Jqws fhould rule the World. Suetonius (n) : There was
{m) Tacit. Ulft. 5 Lib. p. 55s. Ed, Ryckii,
\n) Pag, iop5, Bafil 1542..
an
^^2 The ^riinitive and
an old uniform Opinion nil over the Eaft^ that it ijas de^
termined that the Jews fhould govern the World.
9. If you ask me another Queftion, . how thofe
^evjijh Omc\Q,s crept into the Sibylline Books "kt^t in the
Capitol, I've an anfwer ready for you. The Sibylline
Books were of two kinds, fome bought by Tarquin,
and preferved in the Capitol till the days of Sylla,
when they were burnt together with the Capitol 5
thefe, (as appears from Livy) were dictated by the
Devil upon account of the many impious, and idola-
trous Superftitions prefcribed in them. But befides
thefe, there were others fetch*d from Erythra^ and
alfo laid up in the Capitol at Rome^ by three Ambaf-
fadors appointed by the Senate for that purpofe after
the Capitol was rebuilt. Thefe (0) LaBantius fays
coqfifted of a thoufand Verfes, But Tacitus (p) tells
us, t*fiS6^^:fome Perfons were alfo fent by OBavius Au^
guftus to colled: the other Verfes in feveral Parts :
Having collecied the Sibylline l^erfes from Samos, Ilion,
Erythrje, through Africa alfo, Sicily, and the Italian
Colonies, the Priefts ivere employed, as 7nuch as humanly
they could, to dtftinguifh the genuine. And Suetonius (q) :
IVhatfoever Prophetical Books, Greek ok Latin, werefpread
abroad, either Anonymous or under Names Improbable, being
in number' abwe 2000, he gathered together and burnt ;
he only retained the Books of the Sibylline, and of them
but a feleci part, and laid them up in two Golden Cafes
under, the Safe of Apollo Palatinus. Further, Dionyjius
Halicqrnajfeus (r) writes thus of this Colleftion : 7he
Sibylline Verfes woic extant are what were celleSied out of
many places^ fome from the Italian Cities, fome from
Erythrs in Afia, and fome from other Countries', yea,
fome were tr.anfcrihed from the Papers of private Men.
Now in this fearch after the Sibylline Oracles, it is
plain many other Oracles, and even x.htie.Jewifh, might
be taken for the Sibylline (a name given to all fa-
(o) Lib. I. Cap. 5. p. £8. {p) P. U2. (^) P. 275.
r»0 Lib. 4.
IIIOUS
^poJtoHcal Tradition, ^c, \^ | j
nious Oracles, fuch as SibyUine properly fo called
were) and be brought to Rome among the reft. For
it was utterly impoffible for the Rom^/z Priefts, in fuch
an abundance of prophetick Books, to difcern the
genuine from the fpurious. For by what fure Token
could they find out which were truly Sibylline^ and
which only fo in pretence ? Were they fo well ac-
quainted with the Original, burnt in the Capitol,
that upon fight of a Copy, they could remember the
diflference ? No, no, for befides that thofe Prophe-
cies were bnly feldom, and upon extraordinary Cafes
confulted, that Original of the Sibylline Verfes was
loft in the Year of the City dyi, that is, 8 1 Years
before Chrift was born. This Review was made at
Rome mthz Year 741, that is 11 Years before the
Birth of Chrift, when Auguflus himfelf was Pontifex
Maximus, i So then there are 70 entire Years- be-
tween this ,Review and the Lofs of the Original,
when the Capitol was burnt. But were there not
other Copies remaining at Rome, after the lofs of this
Original as Baronius fuppofes ? It is very improbable.
For (as MoUnaus well obferves) if thefe Verfes had
furvived the Capitol, the Senate would not have fenc
an Embaffy to repair the Lofs, and colled them
through all Greece. What Rule had thefe Pfiefts,
by which they could diftinguifti the true Verfes
from the falfe ? None. 'Tacitus therefore fpeaks cau-
tioufly in the aforecited place [as much as humanly they
could^
10. The Original then of what are called the Si-
byUine Oracles concerning Chrift, is tome very clear :
They came^ from xht^ews. Gregory 'Naz^ianz^en' was
among the Antients alfo of this opinion (j), who
in his Poem to Ne?nefius, fays. That ^Trifme^ijius and
the Sibyl did not foretel what they prophefied of
God, by divine Infpiration, but borrowed rhem from
the facred Books of the Hebrews, In this alone he
(j) In Carnjine ad Nemefium*
was
JJ4 ^^ Trimitwe anSr
was miftaken, that he thought thofe Oracles were
compiled by the SyhyU : fo Clemens Alex, (t) before him
calls the Sibyl the Hebrew Prophetefs. Thus alfo
Crotm(u) ', and indeed in thefe Verfes there are many
plain Tokens of this Original. Such is that cited by
LaSiamius (x) in praife of the Jewi/b Nation : 7'he
J^ivine Nation of the happy and heaven-born Jews. And
that : TVhen Kome /hall unite Egypt to her Empire, then
the fupreme Kingdom of the immortal King fhall appear
ever Men. Which Words plainly contain an Explica-
tion of Daniel's Prophecy concerning the Divine Em-
pire of the Mefliah after the Pofterity of Seleucus and
Lagus ceas'd to reign. Of the fame kind is that con-
cerning the ereding the Holy City Jerufakm into the
Metropolis of the whole World :
(y) And i^e City which God hath made, he hath made
More fplendid than the Stars, and Sun, or Moon.
Nay, the CoUedor of thefe Sibylline Verfes almoft
every where fpeaks of the Mefliah*s Kingdom, as the
Jews do. Thus he writes of the univerfal Peace,
which fliould happen in his days :
'the Wolves pair with the Lambs upon the Mountains'^
*the Lynx eat Grafs with the Kids ',
'fheBears of a fav age Nature jhaUeat Hay at theMangers
With the Oxen,
And the Dragons fhall lie with the fucking Children
luithout their Mothers.
Compare (z.) Ifaiah's Defcription with this. Thus of
the Plenty :
Tlhen God fhall give great Joy to Men ;
Tor the Earth, the 'trees, and numerous Cattle
Shall yield Men their genuine Fruits,
Wine,fweet Honey, and white Milk
And Breads to Men the befl of all things,
(i) p. 35. C«) Ad Matth. Cap. 2. v. i. {x) Lib. 4.
cap. 20. p. 3(^4* (v) Lib. 7 Cap. 24. p. 6^^* (O Ch. ii«
V. (5, 7. and Ch, 55. 25.
And
\ApoJioUcal'Xv.imr\6% (^c, ^z%
And again in the fame manner :
The facredLand ofthefious only fhaU yield aU thefe things.
'To all the Jufl a River of Honey /ball flow from a Rock,
And Milk from a never-failing Fountain.
Where this is chiefly to be obferved as a Privilege
of the Holy Land of Judea. Thus the Prince of
Poets defcribes the Golden Ages of his King, who
was about to be born, in almoft the fame Words fromi
the Cumaan Verfes.
II. Now all thefe things are to be underftood con-
cerning the Sibylline Oracles alledged by Jufiin, Ck'-
mentj 'Theophilus, and thofe antienter Fathers ; for I
don't deny that the Chriftians of later days inferted
fome things into the Sibylline Books. Of this kind is
the Acrofticky which Conftantine, or, as others will have
it, Eufebius (aX mentioned in his Oration to the
Saints,- where the firft Letter of the Verfes make thefe
Words in Greek^ Jefus Chrifl, the Son of God, the
Saviour, the Crofs. Of which indeed, neither Jufiin,
nor Theophilm, nor Clement of Alex, have any where
faid any thing. Cicero (b) alfo fpcaks of an Acroftick
of the Sibyl, but no where tells us what was in it.
Without doubt alfo thofe Sibylline Oracles ar« like-
wife fpurious, in which we have an account of fome
things which Chrift did, fo clear and circumftantial,
that you'd rather take it for a Hiftory than a Prophe-
cy. Such is the miracle of the Loaves from LaBan^
tius (c) :
He fhallfeed (I've thoufand in the Wtldernefs
JVithfive Loaves, and tvjo Fijhes ;
And gathering what remains, after having broken to all^
Shall fill twelve Baskets, for thefupport of the Multitude
Who can think that thefe and other things like them*
which we have in LaEiantius, are not taken from the
Hiftory of the Gofpel ? You have not any fuch
{/) P, 4881 C^) De Divini p^ zii% (c) Lib, 4, cap, 15. p. 342.
things
^5^ T!heTri7uitl've and
things cited out of the Sibylline Verfes by Jufiin, T'he"
cphilus, or Clement; but they being very diligenc
^Readers of thefe Oracles, and omitting no Opportu-
nity of beating the Heathen with their own Wea-
pons, would never have pafs'd over in filence fuch
"flagrant Prophecies of Chrift, if any fuch had ap-
peared in their Copies. Now LaBantiuSy who wrote
his Books about the beginning of the 4th Century,
when Confiantine became Chriftian, was the firft who
produced thofe Verfes againfl; the Heathens, under
the name of Sibylline.
\""i2. The whole of the matter is this : (i.) It is cer-
tain there were fome Prophecies among the Heathens,
before the Birth of Chrift, which went under this
name, in which was expounded the Worfhip of the
one God, and thofe things which belonged to the
future Kingdom of Chrift, and which Jufiin and other
Primitive Chriftians did very properly appeal to, in
their Difputes with the Heathens. (2.) It*s v^ery
probable, that thofe Oracles did not come from the
Sibyls, Heathen Women, as was thought ; but from
wife Men, who flourifhed among the People of God,
the Jews after the Babyknifl? Captivity. Nor are we
to wonder that they have more fully and plainly laid
open the obfcure Oracles of the Prophets, if we con-
fider ferioufly the divine Purpofe, that the nearer the
Times of the Gofpel approach'd, the more clear the
Promifes and Predidions of it fhould fhine forth, that
God intended a brighter Dawn before the rifing of
this glorious Sun. Laftly, it is but too raanifeft, that
fome things were forgM, made up, and added to
thefe Oracles, in the way of clearer Explication of
them, by fome idle, ill-empIoyM ProfefTors of Chrifti-
anity. This the old Serpent feems to have effeded
with this Defign (as Molinaus has well obferv'd) that
there appearing a greater mixture of Falftiood than
Truth, he might render the Truth fufpeded. Thus
much by the way concerning the Sibylline Oracles^
which I hope will not be unacceptable to the Reader.
I now return to the Or f hie Verfes and Zuicker, i j.
jpofloUcal Tradition, &cl |57l
13. Now I have one Argument to produce^ •which
will put the Matter beyond all Queftion, that the
Orphic Verfes, cited by 'Juflin, let them come from
what Quarter they will, can't be the Forgery of any
Simonian. They contain in them fuch things con-
cerning God and the Creation of the World, as are
widely different from the Simonian Herefy. AH thofe,
who have had any acquaintance with Irenaus, 'Ter-'
tulliany and the other Fathers, that have wrote con*
cerning the Simoniam, know, that thofe Hereticks
taught the vifible World was made, not by God him-
felf, nor by his Word, but by inferior Powers. On
the other hand, the Author of the Orphic Verfes eve-
ry where affirms,That this vifible World was the work
of the fupreme God, and created by his Word, as you
may fee in that long Citation of them in (d) Jujiin's
Exhortation to the Heathen. Nay, the very Verfes
which Zuicker cites in part, and which immediately
follow thofe in Jufiin, contain the fame Dodrine.
Thus they run :
/ adjure thee hy the Heaven^ the work of the great and
wife God,
By the Voice of the Father , which he f pake in the beginning^
When he made the Univerfe hy his own Counfel.
So that I am of opinion the Verfes may rather ba
any Perfon's than Si Simonian s. Thus I have faid enough,
and too much concerning Zuicker*s Conjedure (or ra-
ther Delirium) that the Orphic Verfes were forg'd by
the Sinionians.
14. He has advanc'd another no lefs, nay much
more abfurd Guefs, one that has not any appearance
of Truth, namely. That ^uflin depending upon thefe
Verfes, proposed his Opinion of the Son's Genera-
tion before the World was made. For who in his
right Senfes could fufpeft, that a Holy and a Prudent
Man had built his Faith and Opinion concerning a
id) Pag. 15, & 16,
Vol. II. % jpri-i
^^S ^he Trimitwe and
primary Article of Chriftianity upon the Verfes of a
Heathen, and even (as Zuicker obferves) a Magician 3
or that an Argument of fo little weight, indeed o£
none at all, fhould move him to depart from the Rule
of the ApoftolicalDodrine, which obtained everywhere
in the Churches before his time ? It is further very
obfervable, that Juftin never profefledly cites the Or-
phic Verfes, to eftablifh his Opinion concerning the
Son's Generation. If I remember right, he only cites
them twice, and in both the Places only makes ufe of
them to defend the One God againft the Heathen Po-
lytheifm. In the former Place, he illuftrates thofe
Verfes concerning the Word and Voice of the Father,
by his own Notes, not giving the leaft intimation that
Orpheus had taught him the Doftrine of the Son's Ge-
neration ; but on the other hand exprefly affirming,
that that Author had been oblig'd to the facred Ora-
cles of the Old Teflament for his Notions of the
Word. Thus he writes : Here he calls the Word of
God Cthe Voice] that Word, by "which the Heaven, the
Earth, and every Creature luas made, as the divine Pro-
phecies oj the Holy Men teach lis, by confulting fome part
^f tjohich, in ^Egypt, this [Orpheus] found that alt
things ivere made by the IVord of God. He who reads
thefe Words of ^uflin, muft wonder, no doubt, how
Zuicker could for fhame fay, T/;<3? Juftin, and almofl
all his Succejfors, conformed and accommodated their Opt-
men oj Chrifi to the Orphic Verfes, as to a certain divine
Foundation. But why do I dwell upon fuch mahifeft
Trifles and Impertinences ? To repeat this Conjedure,
to fober Minds, is a fufficient Confutation of it.
C H A K
CHAP* V.
That Juftin did not learn from the Platonics,
the Notions he has givefi us of the Word^
HAVING confider'd, and very juftly reje<5ted
the primary Caufes, which, according to Zukke/s
Conjedures, movM Jufim to afcribe a divine Nature
to jefus Chrifi ,• I come now to examine the fecondary
Caufes vC'hich, Zukker pretends, induced him to con-
tinue in this Error. Nor do I doubt, but that, aftet
having defeated the main Body, which the Heretick
led up againft the divine Truth, I ihall gain a cheap
Vi&ory over his Forces in referve. Thefe Caufes are
four : (i.) TheLmJe of the Platonic Philofophy. (2.) 'The
Memory of Gentilifm not yet chliterated, (3.) The
cuflom of Deifying excellent Men. (4.) And the fuperfii-*^
tious Dread of worjhipping him who is only Man.
2. Before we examine thefe unhappily invented
Caufes particularly, and every one in its own Order,
we can't but in general obferve, that Zuicker ('for all
his Boafts that he has done the Bulinefs, and aftually
difcover'd the Original of making this new Chrift) is
doubtful, and altogether uncertain which way, ex-
cept from the Scripture, and the preaching of the A**
poftles, the Doftrine of the Son's Divinity could be
introduced into the Chriftian Church ; for if he could
have been fure of any one Caufe, to which he might
have afcrib'd the Original of ir, why Ihould he have
troubled us with fo many, and thofe (as we fhall fhew
by and by) contradidory to one another ? For firfl; he
attempts to fhew, that the Dodrine of the Catholick
Church, concerning our Lord's Divinity, fprung
from the Simonian Herefy. In this Strong-hold (a
Caftle in the Air, and, as we have feen, eafily demo-
lifh'd) he places the greatefl: hopes of his Herefy. BuE
neverchelefs, not thinking himfelf fecure in it, he has
fought another Refuge j pretending, that there were
Y a cer-
340 T^he Trimitwe and
certain Verfes forg'd by the Simonians under the Name
of Orpheus, which alas ! feduc'd Juftin into this Er-
ror, and after him, the whole Catholick Church.
,What can be more filly than this Fancy ? Diftrufting
it therefore, as he well might, he lifts a Quaternion of
flout Reafons into the fervice of his defperate Caufe,
boafts that he has done the Bufinefs, difcover'd the
Original of the Cheat, and feems to triumph over the
defeated Truth. But ftill he is not fo fafe as he would
feem to be j after he has mufter'd all his Forces, he has
a Referve for himfelf, either to raife more as he
pleafes, or to fet his Reader's Wit to work. The
Cafe is this : Zuichrws^s refolv'd to rejed theDodrine
of the Son's divine Nature, as abfurd, and contrary
to found Reafon, (a thing he often boafts, but never
fhews) therefore to ferve this Caufe, he would rather
afcribe the Original of it to any thing, than that
(which evidently appears from the thing itfelf to have
been the true Caufe) namely, that it was part of the A-
poftolical Do6l:rine,deliver*d and.promulg'd every where
in the Primitive Churches, together with the Gofpel
itfelf. But we will now attack this referv'd Body.
3. The Knowledge and Love of the Platonic Phi-
lofophy is (according to Zukker) the firft of thofe
Caufes, which engag'd Jufliri and his Followers to
receive the Son's Divinity. The Heretick would infi-
nuate forfooth, that Juflin, formerly an Admirer of
this Philofophy, and too much delighted with the
Tenets of his old Mafter, which he had read concern-
ing the Word, after he became a Chriftian, tranflated
them into the Chriftian Faith, and adulterated the
Purity and Simplicity of the Gofpel, with a mixture
of Heathen Philofophy. In this Cry the Unitarians
all run, this is the burden of their Song, Platonifm,
Platcnifm ! the Bane of the Jincere Apofiolkal Religion /
Now I'm fure that Zuicker and others, who have fo
hard an Opinion of that excellent and incomparable
Man (whom Photius juftly praifes in thefe loordi (e) :
(e) Cod. £34. p. 922.
A
'A Man neither in 'Time, nor Virtue , jar fhon of the Apo-
files) are either perfed Strangers in his Works, or are
refolv'd to deal with the venerable Father, without
any regard to Charity or Juftice. For how often,
and how plainly, with what a warm Zeal and Af-
fection does Jufiin himfelf (the Perfon unworthily ca-
lumniated by this Heretick) profefs, that after he
knew Chrift, he renounc'd, not only the Philofophy of
Plato, but alfo that of every other Sed, and only ad-
mired the moft Holy Scriptures. Read his incompa-
rable Dialogue with Trypho the Jevj. There indeed
(not far from the beginning) he confefTes that he was a
very great Admirer of Plato before he knew Chrifi ;
but there alfo, he cenfures his former Folly. Thefe
are his Words (/) ; Not knowing which way to turn, I
thought Jit to acquaint tnyfelf with the Platonifts, for
they were in great Fame ; I therefore conversed very much
•with an under/landing Man, who but lately came to our
City, a Mafter in Platonifm, J made a Proficiency and very
great Improvements daily. I was greatly taken ivith the
Notion of Incorporeals, and the Theory of Ideas raised my
Mind \ I thought myfelf wife in a little time, and vainly
dreamt of feeing God Jhorily. A little after in the fame
Dialogue, he gives the Reafons which drew him off
from Platonifm to Chriftianity, in a feignM Conference
(if I miftake not) between a certain venerable old
Man and Himfelf, while he liv'd in retirement. A-
mong other things, the old Man, when he propos'd to
him Plato, Pythagoras, and other wife Men, contrary
to the Truth, fays (g), I care not for your Plato, or Py-
thagoras, or indeed for any of your wife Thinkers in that
way, for this is the Truth. Then when Jufiin asks him
.{h). Who then mufl a Man take for his Mafler ,* or from
whom may he improve, if thefe Perfons have not the Trtith ?
The old Man anfwers. There was a fort of Men a long
time ago more antient than all the reputed Philofophers, hap"
p) j^fi} t^^^^ Men, who fpake by the Spirit of God, and
(/) P. 2ip, (^) P, 224. (Jj) Ibidem.
¥ 3 foretold
J42 l^he ^rimiti've and
foretold things future which are noro come to pafs, (they call
them Prophets) thefe only faw and reveal'd the Truth to
Men. The venerable old Man adds, in the fame
Place, many more things worth reading. But Juftin
himfelf in the clofe, fhews us how he was affefted by
the Conference (i).- My Soul xuas inflamed immediately,
find J was ali in love with the Prophets and the Friends ojf
Chrifi. After I had difcufs'd his Word's in myfelf, J found
this to he the only found and ufeful Philofophy. After this
Manner, and by thefe Steps, I became a Philofopher.
Therefore the Love of Platonifm, which burnt in
^ufiins Breaft before, was extinguifh'd by the KnoVv-^
ledge of the heavenly Dodrine. The new heat of the
3acred Writings came into the place of it, and pene-
trated the moft intimate Recefles of the holy Man. '■
4 With what Care he afterwards fed this heavenly
Flame, is alfo very clear from his Writings, in which
he every were wonderfully extols the Holy Scripttire^
(defpifing the beft Philofophy in comparifon of them)
appeals to them, and ftrenuoufly affirms, that they
are the only Fountains of divine Truth. His Words
jn the beginning of his Exhortation to the Greeks^ arfe
very obfervableCfe): there, after he had largely fhewn
that there is no certainty about divine Matters to be
found in the Writings of the Philofophers, of what Seft
foever, at length he concludes ; Since then it is not pof-
fible to learn the Truths of Religion of your Maflers, who
have given you fufficient demonflration of their Ignorance by
their JOi'vifion among themfelves ; it is rational to pafs over
to our Ancejiors, Men much more antient than your DoBors,
Men who don't teach us from their own Fancy, that dorit
'differ among themfelves, or attempt to overturn each other's
'Sc/j ernes ; but without Contention and Divifion, having re-
ceiv'd Knowledge from God, teach us the fame. For it
was not poiTible by Nature and human Thought to
Icnow the fublime things of God i but by the Gift of
pod, which then d^fcended from above upon thofe
10 P. 225. " ao p. 8, &9.
Holy
'JpqfioIicaJTKkBnioia, 6'c- 943
Holy Men. What can be more clear or dired to our
purpofe ? Jtiflin thought that we cou'd not come at
the certain Knowledge of any thing Divine from the
Heathen Philofophers, and therefore in fuch Difquili-
tions, we mull have recourfe to infpired Men. Is it
probable then that he wou'd borrow that Notion of
his concerning God, and the divine Perfons, (the moft
fubUme of all Divine things) from the Writings of
Plato, or the Philofophers of a;iy other Seft ? But he
exprefly teaches in another place, that the Scriptures
alone are to be heard in all QueftionS of Religion,
that our Proofs are to be fetched from them, that the
Words of Scripture are often and often to be inculca-
ted, and no Man can find any thing better than what
is taught in the fame Scriptures. Thefe are the
Words in the Dialogue with Trypho (/} ; It is a ridku-
lous thing to fee the Sun, the Moon, and Stars always take
the fame Courfe, and make the fame comierfions of Seafons ;
or to fee an Arithmetician not fcruple to anfwer that two
and two are four, when he is askd, tho* he has often faid
fo before -, and likewife to have other things, well ejia^lifh'd
already, again afferted and conjefs'd : but that a Perfon
JJjould ceafe to difcourfe from the Prophetick Writings, fyould
be weary of always repeating the fame Scriptures, andfup-
pofe he can fay fomething better than they. In thefe
Words he very elegantly defcribes that great Confi-
dence, with which a Chriftian firmly adheres to the
Holy Scriptures. You may fooner turn the Sun, the
Moon, and the Stars, out of their ufual Courfe -, or
perfuade a Mathematician to forfake his well-known
Principles, than move a true Chriftian from that facred
and certain Rule of his, the Scriptures. Who now
can fufped that fufiin, in the fundamental Dodrine of
Chriftianity, turn'd afide from the old Path to ftrange
Tenets, and would introduce into the Chriftian
Churches a new Doftrine concerning Chrift, and (to
fpeak in Zuickers Language) a new Chrifi, contrary to
(0 P. 5n> 6c 5Ut
y 4 «hci
344 TheTrmitwe and
the Truth of Scripture itfelf, and the unlverfal Apo-
ilolical Tradition before his Days.
5. Moreover, the excellent Father (as tho' he had
been a Prophet, and forefeen Futurity) has, as it were,
profelTedly prevented this Calumny of Zuicke/s in his
own Words, for he exprefly fays in feveral Places,
That the Doftrine of Chriftians, concerning theWord,
tho' like Plata's, is not deriv'd from the Platonics ;
but rather Plato had borrowed all his right Notions
concerning the Word of Qod from the Church, (to
which the Doflrine was formerly known in part).
Thus, after he hath confefs'd that the Dodrines of
Wlato are not unlike thofe of Chrift, he quickly fub-
joins {m) : Whatfoever things are /aid ixteU by all Wri-
ters^ are curs, 'who are Chriftians. For ive after God Qhe
Father] worfhip the IVord of the unhegotten ineffable God,
and lo've him j for as much as he was made Man for us^ that
fo being partaker of our Sufferings ^ he might cure us. For
all Writers, by the Seed of the natural Word which is in
ihemy are able, in a faint way, to difcern the things that
are. For the Seed of any thing, or the Imitation of it^
"which is given us according to our Capacity^ is one thing,
and that thing it felf by whofe Grace a Communication
from him, and an Imitation is granted, is another thing.
Here you'll obferve by the bye, that 'Juflin does not
defend what he had difcours'd concerning the Word,
as his own Sentiment, but as the common Doftrine
and Faith of all Chriftians. He fpeaks ftill more plain-
ly of this Matter in his fecond Apology to Antoninus,
near the end (n) j where, after having faid that Plato
had learn'd, that the Univerfe was made by the Word
of God, yea, that the third Perfon of the Trinity,
namely, the Holy Spirit, was not altogether unknown
to Plato, he adds : We then dont think the fame as others.,
^t all Men imitate us, and fay as we fay. With us you may
hear and learn the fame things from thofe, who know not
their Letters, who are Idiots and Barbarians in Speech, hut
(w) P, 51, («) P. :p$,
^pqftolical Tr ADIT loi^, drc* 54';
faithful and ivife in Mindy from Men that are maimed and
blind J from whence it is plain, thefe things are not brought
about by Mans IVifdom, but diBated by the Power of
Cod. This Place alone would be fufEcient, utterly to
demolifti all the Pile of Conjeftures (as great as it is)
which Zuicker has ereded againft the Truth. For, (i.)
In this Place Jujiin plainly teaches. That the Do(3:rine
of the Creation by the Word, was neither taken by
him, or any other Chriftian from the Works of Plato,
but rather, that Plato borrowM his Notions of the
Word from the Holy Books of the Chriftians (namely;
from the Old T'ejlament, as he afterwards explains
himfelf.) (2.) He aflerts and defends this Dodrine,
not as his own fingular Opinion, but as the Faith and
Doctrine of the Catholick Church, i. e. of all Chri-
ftians, before the Emperor and the Heathens. (3.) From
thefe things he very juftly concludes, that the Chri*
ftians were not taught that Dodrine by Man's Wif-
dom, (from the Writings of Plato, much lefs from the
filthy Dreams of theworft Hereticks) but utter'd it by
the Power of God, from Writings divinely infpiredi
and the Apoftolical Dodrine every where propagated.
Surely then, from this Evidence, it is plain that 'Jufiin^
had the fame Opinion of the Heathen Philofophy, as
TertuUian ; and, according to him, all the old Ca-
tholick Chriftians had. His Words are admirable (0) :
St. Paul tefiifies that we mufl take care of Philofophy, in
his Epiftle to the Coloflians : See that no man deceive
you by vain philofophy and fedudion, according to
the tradition of men. He had been at Athens, and
knew that human Wifdom familiarly, which offeEls the
Name of 'Truth, and adulterates it, which is fplit into a
multitude of SeEis mutually oppofing one another. What has
Jerufalem to do with Athens ? the Academy with the
Church ? and Chrifiians with Hereticks ? Our Jnflitution is
to be learnt from Solomon'j- Porch, who himfelf taught^
fb^at we mufl feek the Lord in fimplicity of Heart, let
(0) P. 204, and so 5.
them
14^ ^he Trimitwe and
them look to it, who have coind us a Stoical^ a Platoukaly
and a Logical ChYifiianity. We have no need of curio-
fity after Chrifi Jefus^ or an inquifition after the Gofpel.
When ive hlieve^ we have no occafion for believing fur-
ther J for the fir ft thing we believe, is, that we ought to be-
lieve no more.
6. It is nwv fcarce necefiary to revive, or continue
the Controverfy among the Learned, whether Plato's
Opinion concerning the Word be hke Jufiins, and
^others of the fame Mind. He, who has an Inclina-
poxi may confult (p) Cafaubon and Lanfelius. This is
certain, that there is fo great a Difference between the
Opinions of Flato and Juflin, that it is clear enough
from thence, that fuftin did not borrow his Notions
from Plato. Hence alfo, 'Jufiin himfelf tells us (q)
exprcfly, that P/«^o had but a /lender and obfcureview
of that Myftery.
7. Therefore, to conclude this Chapter, Zuicker
judg'd that fuftin had taken his Doftrine concerning
the Word, from the School of Plato^ with the fame
probability, as formerly Amelius the Platonic Philofo-
pher, upon reading the firft Verfes of St. Johns Go-
fpel, complain'd that the Evangelift had tranfcrib'd the
Myfleries of his Matter into his Book, and made Plato's
Secrets his own. By Jove^ fays he, the Barbarian is of
our Plato'j mind, 'That the Word of God is confiituted
in the order of a Principle. And we have an Unitarian
of our own, who has prefumed in plain Terms to
teach, that the Dodrine of the Apoftle St. John'm the
beginning of his Gofpel, is borrow'd from the Pla-
tonic Philofophersx It is the Author of a Book inti-
tJed, T'he Hiftorical Vindication of a Book call' d the ]>ia-
ked Gofpel, prefented to the^ Univerfity of Qxford.
In the Preface to the Reader, he bitterly inveighs
againft thofe who have adulterated the plain and primitive
jPunty of the Gofpel, with the Ceremonies arid vain Philo-
(p) Exercitationes ad Apparatum Baronianum, ^. 5. & Petrus
Lanfelius ad calcem operum Juftini Ms^rtyris, c, u
(^) In the place before c'Ued^
"JpofloUcal Tradition, &€. |47
phr of the Pagans, and obtruded the Enthufiafm of Plato
upon the World Jot Faith, Mjftery, and Revelation, &C.
No Man is fo dull as not to perceive, that the bacre4
Dodrine of the moft Holy Trinity, acknowledg d and
i-eceivM by the Catholick Church, is here ftruck at.
But in th€ Work it felf, he attempts toihew, hqw that
vain Philofophy, the Platonic Enthufiafm, firft made
its way into the Jewish, and then into the Chriltiati
Church. He fays (r), that the ^.tx-j difpers d^ m
Mgypt Bn& Syria, firft learnM the Philofophy of PlatQ
brought out of Greece into thofe Countries ; that there
were two principal Doarines of the Platonic Philofo-
phy, one concerning the Pre-exiftence of Souls, an4
the other of the Divine Trinity ; and that therefore
thefe two DodrineS did afterwards obtain in the
Tewifh Church. After this, in the next Page (l), you
have his exprefs Words : thefe 'were the Opinions of the
Jews i/z the Days of our Saviour and hts Apojtles ; and
hence, perhaps, it came to pafs, that fome of the Phrafes
and Manners of Speech ufed by theFhtomiis, as the Learned
haveobfervd, are found in thet^ewTeHammt, ejpeciaUy
in the Gofpel of St. John. The Obfervation of Amelius
the Platonic Philofopher, upon reading the beginning of
St. ]ohns Gofpel, is well known, namely, that the Apofik
fpoke like Plato. Indeed that Philofopher might fay, con-
fiflent with his Principles, the Reafon was in the beginning
with God, and was God. It is he who made aU things , and
is the Life and Light of Men. From the collation ot
thefe two Places, it is very evident, that this Author
thought the Doarine delivered by St. John m the be-
ginning of his Gofpel, was not divinely infpir d, but
taken from the vain Philofophy of the Pagans, and
very ftrong of the Platonic Enthufiafm. We may jult-
ly cry out again in the Words of Holy Polycarp, Goo4
God, for what times haft thoureferv'dus, that we fhould
hear thefe things! But this Author equally betrays his
Ignorance and his Impiety, in faying, that the antient
(v)Pag. u,i3. 0) Pag- H'
34^ I the Trimiti've and
yews in the Difperfion were inftruded by the Platonifis
•in the Myftery of the Holy Trinity : For on the con-
trary it is plain_, he learn'd all he wrote of this Matter
from the more antient Philofophy of the 'Jews. It is
<;ertain alfo, that we may fee in the Scriptures of the
Old Tefiament, much older than Plato, many Footfteps
of this Myftery, as Juftin has obferv'd. But if any
of our own G)untrym.en defire further Satisfadion in
this Point, let him go to that clear Treatife of our
learned A/lLx] wrote in EngUfJj, and intitled. The Judg^
mem of the Antient Jewifli Church againfl the Unitarians.
}iOi
'^ CHAP. VL
5; ' •■
^hat Juftin entirely ahhorr^d '^2ig2im^m, and
'■ the WorjJoip of more Gods. That the Ar^_
|,r giivient iifed by Juik'm and other Jntients in
• fupport 6f ChrijVs 1)imnity^ from the di-
,^ wie Worfhip gwen to him in Holy Scrip-
\ turesy is invincihle*
-ill I ^ H E other three Caufes Zuicker has invented,
■^^su;;; J^ may be reduc'd to two : The Memory of
'Gentilifm or more Gods not quite obliterated, and the
Guftom of Deifying excellent Men, may make one ;
(for no doubt the latter is a piece of Gentilifm not ob-
literated :) and the fuperftitious Dread of worfhipping
him who is only Man, another. As for the former, I
can't but admire Zukker'sy the Inventor's extreme
Impudence, or grcfs Ignorance in the Writings of
juftin. Read, I befeech you, his Exhortation to the
iGreeks, both his Apologies, and his Piece concerning
the Monarchy of God. How many good Arguments
does he there bring againft the Polytheifm of the
Heathens ? Befides, who can believe that an excel-
lent Doftor of the Chriftian Faith, was not fully
in^
\ApoftoUcal Tradition, f^c, 549
inftrufted in the prime Doclrine of the Gofpel con-
cerning one God ? Or, that the ftouteft Champion
of Chrift againft the Pagan Superftitions and Impie-
ties, yea, a Martyr alfo, was yet fo deep in the foul-
eft Error of Pagan ifm ?
2. As for that other Caufe (the laft which the He-
retick's little Head cou'd run to) it is to be obferv'd,
that it is diametrically oppofite to the former. For
doubtlefs, that any one ftiould be well-aifefted to the
Cuftom of Deifying Men, and yet fhould dread the
worfhipping him who was Man only, is impoflible,
thofe two things being inconfiftent. Having juft hint-
ed this, we will confider that Caufe by it felf. Now
here we will grant it to Zukker^ that Juflin, and other
Fathers, were perfuaded by this Argument among
others, to afcribe a Divine Nature to Chrift, namely,
that in the Holy Scriptures Worfhip and divine Ado-
ration are often and exprefly prefcribed to be given to
him 3 but what will the Heretick gain by this Concef-
{ion ? Nothing at all : for certainly that Reafon is a
Foundation fufficient to fupport the Opinion. That
the Worftiip and Adoration which is^ truly Divine,
ought not to be paid to any Creature, in himfelf tho'
never fo excellent, but to him only who is truly God,
Reafon dilates, and many exprefs Teftimonies of
Holy Scripture prove. I here ask your pardon,
Chriftian Reader, if I am fomething long in making
good this Point, not only upon account of my Pro-
mife in the beginning of this Piece, but becaufe this
Reafon, rightly weigh'd, ftrikes at the very Heart of
Socinianifm.
3. (i.) We have the exprefs (0 Cominatid of God
repeated by our Saviour, 'Thou [loalt luorfoip the Lord thy
Gody and him only /halt thou ferve. Where the exclu-
five Particle only appropriates divine Worfhip to our
Lord and God, and fufifers not any Creature at all to
(0 Deut. 6, 13, 10, 20. repeated hyour Lord In St, Matth. 4, 10,
par-
55^ 2l^^ ^fimtwe and
partake of it. The Socinians except thus (u), 'That hy
thefe exclufi've Panicles, fuch as only, &c. ufed of God,
thofe are never Jim^ly excluded, who are dependent upon God
in the Matter treated on. Thus God isfaid to be only IVife^
Powerful and Immortal 5 but yet ethers, who are made par~
takers of thefe things, are not to befimply excluded from IVif-
dom, Power and Immortality. Wherefore ivhen it is faid
that God only is to be wor/hipped, he is not to he Jimply ex-*
eluded, who in this particular depends upon God i but rather
is to be tacitly included upon account of the divine Govern-
ment he has received over all things. But, (i.) who gave
thefe bold Men a Power of excepting where the Law
does not except ? The Law (imply commands that
divine Adoration be given to God only. For what
they pretend, that it is faid in Scriptures God is only
wife, &c. but yet that others who are made parta-
kers of thefe things, are not to be fimply excluded
from Wifdom, &c. is a mere Sophifm. For tho*, when
it is faid in Scripture that God only is wife, others
are not excluded thereby from fuch a Degree of Wif-
dom, as comes to their fhare ; yet this is certain,
that by the exclufive Particle only in thofe Places, eve-
ry Creature is excluded from the divine Wifdom, which
belongs to God only. In like manner, when it is faid
in Scripture, that God only is to be worfhip'd, by that,
others are not excluded from fuch Refped and Honour
as belongs to them, yet all others are (imply and ab-
folutely excluded from that Worfhip which only be-
longs to God. (2.) This Anfwer fuppofes, that the
divine Government over all things may be communi-
cated to a mere Creature, which is by no means true.
For all fober Men, by the divine Government over all
things, underftand both that Almighty Power by
which God preferves, rules, and governs all thofe
Creatures he hath made; and alfo that Right and Do-
minion of God which follows from thence, by which
every Creature is fubjed to him, and every rational
(«) Schli£tingius ad Meifneri articulum de Deo, p. 2o5, 85
£07.
Crea-
^^t?//W Tradition, (fyc. 5$i
Creature obligM to fubmit himfelf, and all he has, to
God, for the Advancement of his Glory, and his own
Benefit. This Divine Government, at leaft, is the
only adequate Foundation of Divine Worfhip. Now
that fuch a Divine Government over all Things, is not
compatible with any Creature, is evident. If there-
fore Divine Worfhip is to be given to no one, but to
him, to whom the Divine Government over all things
is given, (which is certainly true) it will necefTarily
follow, that Divine Worfhip is to be given to God
only, as is provided by that exprefs Law we have al-
ledg'd.
4. (2.) St. Paul objeds this as a Crime to the Ga-
latiansj that for the time they knew not God, they
fewed thofe vjho voere not Gods by Nature (x). From this
Place it is plain, that Divine Worfliip was to be given
to no one, who had not the Divine Nature. For it
is impoffible, that what was the greateft Crime in the
Galatiam, whilft yet Pagans^ fhould be lawful for us,
blefs'd with the Light of the Gofpel, much lefs that
it fhould be the chief Duty of a Chriftian. Crellius's
Anfwer (y) upon this Place is very ridiculous. For
he writes thus : Hence alfo it appears ivhy St. Paul cb-
jeBs this as a Crime to the Galat'iainSy altho now paft and
ever, that when they knew not God, they fervid thofe, who
by Nature were not Gods ; namely, becaufe, before there was
no true God, thofe Galatians knew of none, as long as they
did not know the true God, who was not alfo God by Na-
ture ; and therefore whofoever then worjhip'd him imme-
diately and always, who was not God by Nature, wor/bip'd
^ falfe God. Who can believe St. Paul thought of
(x) Gal. 4. 8. Vr. Clarke reads. To Gods, which have no
]^ing in Nature. Where is the Difference ? Jidufi the Words vecef-
far'ily hs^ render d, as he /would have them, becaufe they lie in fuch an
Order in the Alex. MS ? And when they are fo render d, what do
they amount to more? See the Syriac, a Verjton well known hy the
Learned to he of great Authority. TToat reads^ Which are not in
their own nature Gods.
iy) Ed. Selenoburgi, p. 2S^, & 250,
this.
9^2 ^he Trimiti've and
this, when he wrote thefe Words? Befides, that
there fliculd be a true God, who is not God by Na-
ture, feems incomprehenfible to every fober Mind,
(whatever the Socinians may brangle to the con-
trary.)
5. But the moft remarkable Place is mtheApoca-
Ijpfe {tS), where the Angel thus fpeaks to ^ohn, who
"was proftrate at his feet in order to adore him : See
thou do it not, I am thy Fellow-Servant^ and of thy Bre-
thren, who have the Tefiimony of Jefus ; worjhip God. The
Angel refufes St. 'John's Worfliip upon two accounts :
(i*^ Becaufe he was his Fellow-Servant j as tho he
fliould fay, Whofoever is a Servant of God, is not to
be honour'd with Divine Worfhip ; but I am a Ser-
vant of God as well as you, tho in a higher Station :
therefore you are not by any means to worfhip me.
Surely this Reafon equally extends itfelf to every Crea-
ture, fince there is no Creature, in what eminent Sta-
tion foever, who is not a Servant of God, as well as
other Creatures. If therefore Chrift be a mere Crea-
ture, it is unlawful to give him Divine Adoration. I
know {a) Grvtius thought the Worfhip, which the
Angel refus'd from St.Juhn, was only Civil Worfhip,
fuch as we iread has been given fometime to the Pro-
phets without Sin ; and therefore that the Angel for-
bad it not, as in itfelf unlawful, but as too much
Refpeft from one in the Apoftolical Office. For fo
that very learned Perfon writes in his Explication of
the Decalogue : He that forbids Gifts and LihationSy
does not forbid 'Tokens of Reverence^ &c. For that the
Angel in the Apocalypfe refufes that Honour y was not, that
there was any thing unlawful in it, but that the Angel fets
the Apofile upon a level with himfelf, as being both the Ser-
'vanis of Chrift, who is now the Head of the Angels ', and
that the Office of an Apoftle, adapted to the Salvation of
Men, is in no refpeSi inferior to the Office of an Angel.
(O Ch. 19. ver. 10.
{a) In Explicatione Pecalogi, Prsecept. 2»
iVoxu
i^ow Collegues in 0-ffice don't ufe to give me another fuch
Tokens of Submiffion. But the great Man is miftaken
iti both Parts of his Opinion. For that it was not
Civil Worrtiip, or Refpeft only, which the Angel re-
j^ded, is very plain both from the Words of the
Angel, Worpip God, and alfo from thofe other Wordsj
See thou do it not ; a way of fpeaking which forbids
fomething, not as indecent only, but unlawful, and.
abfolutely to be avoided. Now the Great Man {Qetns
to have erred in this, that he hath not accurately di-
ftinguifh'd between the Proflration of St .John^ and
the Worfhip he waS about to give when proftrate.
The Words are clear, / fell down at his Feet to worfjoip,,
Here it is evident, the Defign of what St. John did, iS
chiefly cenfur'd, and that the Fad was culpable upon
that account. For to fall upon the Ground at the
Feet of ain Angel, is not evil in itfelf j becaufe it is
certain fuch Refped has formerly been given to Men,
to Kings and Prophets, and that often by Holy Men*
But the Apoftle is blamed for proftrating himfelf at
the Feet of the Angel, in order to worfhip him^ to
pay him Divine Worfhip, (perhaps the Sacrifice of
Praife, for his joyful Tidings of the Marriage of the
Lattib.y' Therefore the Angel did not fo much blame
what he had done, as forbid what he was about to
do : See thou do it not^ Nor is there any more Truth
in it, that the Angel forbad the Worfhip^ for that it
was too much for one, who was then honour^ with
the Apoftolical Office, becaufe it is clear from a fa^
YalM{b)Place^ that this Prohibition of the Angel was.
to be extended to all Chriflians. For there he fpeaks
thus : See thou do it not, 1 am thy FeJloia- Servant^ and of
thy Brethren the Prophets, and of thofe luho ehferve the
Pt^Ord of this Book : Worfioip God. Here not only the
Prophets are mention'd, but alfo all pious Ferfons, all
Chriftians, who are defcribed in thefe Words {^And of
thofe "Who obferve the Words of this Baok.'] This De-
{h) ApOC.22. pt
Vol. IL Z fcription
§$4 lHoe Trimit I've and
fcription Is large, and more general than the word
[^Propheti'] and therefore is fet after it, as fomething
more common. So Crellius {c) himfelf explains the
Place. But Grotius (d), contrary to the Faith of the
Greek Copies, and plain Reafon alfo, has omitted the
Particle [_and Q for what end, I know not, except to
ferve his own Purpofe. Thus much for the former
Reafon : The other we have in thefe Words, IVor/bip
Godj which feem to be taken from the Divine Com-
mand cited by our Lord. Now 'tis plain the Words
are to be taken exclufively, as tho the Angel had faid.
That Worfhip, which you was about to give, is only
proper to God i fee therefore that you don't give it
me. Otherwnfe there is no force in the Angel's Rea-
foning. Thefe Places then (to which I could add
many morej invincibly prove (what Zukker fays Juf"
tin laid as the Foundation of his Opinion concerning
the Divine Nature of Chrift) that Divine Worfhip is
not to be given to any one except God.
6. The Arguments brought againfl thefe by the
Socinians, are of no weight, (i.) They objed that
Holy Men, under the Old Teftament, paid Divine
Honours, and that without Sin, to Angels, who tranf-
afted with them in the Name of God. Now in our
Defence of the Nicene Creed {e), we have fully prov'd,
that as often as any Angel is in Holy Scripture call'd
Jehovah^ and has Divine Honours, the Fathers thought
him to be, not a mere Angel, bur an Angel join*d to
the Word ; and that this their Opinion is fo far from
contradidcing any part of Scripture, that it is con-
firmM by the exprefs Teftimony of Sz.Paul. I add,
that this Opinion is not a little (IrengthenM by the
Places treated of before, in which Divine Worfhip is
appropriated to the true God. But it is moil efpe-
cially confirmed by this. That we don^'t find in any
Age, or Place, under the Gofpel, any one, who was
faid to be an Angel, and yet thought wortiiy of fuch
(c) P. 288. id) In locum. (e) Se^* i. Cap. i.
Ho-
Jpoftolkal Tr a dition, ^c 5 ? $
Honour, unlefs bySt.j^o/^w, in the hurry of Aflfedion;
by St. John, who (lands condemn'd by the Angel, for
his Intention to pay him fuch a Worfhip as was above
the D gnity of Angels, and only due to God.
7. Seme Learned Divines enquire into the Caufe of
this; and amongft the reft, Rilera (f) writes thus:
Hovj is it, fays he, that Angels are adored before the CO"
wing of our Saviour, and fay nothing agninfl it ; but after -
wards refufe it ? It is becaufe they behold him clothed in
our Nature, which before they defpifed, and therefore are
afraid to fee it proftrate before them. 'They dare not noiu
contemn, as heluvci them, what they revere, as above them,
in the Kingdom of Heaven. Crellius (g) alfo is fond of
this Reafon. But indeed T think it rather fubtile, than
folid ; and I am therefore of that Opinion, becaufe in
the Place Ribera explains, there is no fhadow or ap-
pearance of it. On the other hand, the Angel refufes
the Worfhip which St. John intended him, upon
Grounds of perpetual Force and Truth, which equal-
ly belong to the Times of the Old and New Tefta-
Bienc. (i.) The Angel urges, that he is a Fellow-
Servant of the Faithful : Might the fame be faid of
the Angels under the Old Teflament ? To be fure :
For David then fpeaks of the Angels thus : (h) Who
wade his Angels Spirit, and his Minifters a flaming Fire.
The Angels then under the Old Teftament were no
lefs Minifters of God, than Men, tho in that higher
Station, in which they remain fince the Coming of
Chrift. This might be proved from many Places of
the New Teftament, which plainly fhew that more
eminent Honour and Reverence is due to them, than
to any Mortal* (/)• r2.^The other Reafon of the An-
gel's, in thefe words [JVorfoip God2 has alfo an evident
Relation to the Old Teftament. Nay, it feems, as I
faid before, to be taken from the Words of Mofes. In
(/) In Commentariis in Apocalypfin ad locum, Cap. ip,
ig) P. 277.
(h) Pfal. 104. 5. Compare with it Heb. J. 7. mdlafi,
(0 I Cor. u, 10. I Tim. 5. 21.
Z % £hort.
15^ ^he Trmitim and
fhort, when we fpeak about the Worfhip of Angels,
we either underiiand Civil Worfliip only, or that
which is Divine and Religious. The former is due
to them even under the Gofpel, for their great Ex-
cellency above Men, and the Eminence of their Power:
but under the Law itfelf, it is forbidden to pay them
the latter, becaufe of their infinite Diftance from the
Almighty God. Hence we read in the (^ Old Tefta-
ment, that the Angel, who appeared to Mamah with
the greateil Caution, prevented the Divine Worfhip, the
Sacrifice, intended for him. For when Mnmah would
have detained him, that he might make ready for him
a fucking Kid, he anfwers, If y('U detain me^ IwiU
not eat of the Meat; but if thou would ft make ready a
Sacrifice^ thouflralt cffer it to the Lord. As if he fhould
have faid, There are two Ends of providing Meat;,
either that it fhould be eaten after the manner of Men,
or burnt in Sacrifice to God; there is no occafion for
the former, and the latter is unlawful : for know, that
Sacrifice is only to be ofier'd to God.
8. You'll ask then, how fhall we folve the propos'd
Difficulty ? There is little in it indeed, if you'll
fiand by the Judgment of the Fathers. For they fay,
that the Word and Son of God under the Old Tefta-
ment, the Angel of the Covenant, very often conversed
"with Men by Angels, or Angelical Appearances, that
is, fuch as the Angels commonly ufed ; and therefore
was with very good reafon worfhipped by Holy Men,
to whom he appeared. Now thefe Appearances, be-
ing certain Earnefts, Shadows and Figures of the fu-
ture Incarnation of the Son of God, did with juft
ground ceafe after his coming in human Flefh : when
the Truth appeared, what occafion for the Shadows
of it ? Now this Reafon given by the Fathers, feems
to me much preferable to all the Conje<ftures of the
Moderns.
(fe) Judges, I |.i^^
^. Boc
9. But to wave all Conjeftures, this is certain, and
confefled by the Adverfaries themfelves, that the truly
Divine Worfhip, fuch as is in Scripture commanded
to be given to Jefus Chrift, never ought to be given
to Angels, nor ever was given to them by Holy Men
under the Old Teflament. Therefore the Hereticks
freely confefs that the Adoration formerly given to
Angels (granting that they were Angels) was by them
given after a very different manner from that which
in the Scripture of the New Teflament is given to
Jefus Chrift. They acknowledge this threefold Diffe-
rence. I. The Patriarchs adored the Angel as prefent
and in their fight, by proflrating themfelves before
him J but we are commanded to pay this Refpeft to
Chrift, tho not feen, and (as to his human Nature)'
far diftant from us, even in the Heavens, which chief-
ly, tho not only, diflinguifbes Human Worfhip from
Divine. Thefe are almoft the very Words of Crel-
lius (/). 2. He that formerly worfhip'd an Angel re-
prefenting God, truly worfhip'd God himfelf imme-
diately, the Angel only by accident ; nor then was
the Angel indeed worfhip'd as fuch, but as reprefent^
ing God {m). Nay, the Perfon of the Angel was no
more worfliip'd than the Ark of the Covenant, when
pious Men worfhip'd God himfelf towards it, as a
Token of the Divine Prefence. On the other hand,
our Lord Jefus is in Scripture propos'd to be wor-
fhip'd immediately. This is fo true, that Socinus himfelf
grants that Chrift is worthy of Divine Honour, and is
not. commanded to be worfhip'd in Holy Scripture
without the moft weighty Reafons^ as the Scriptures
themfelves teach us (n). 3. Such an Angel was only wor-
fhipped for that time, that he appear 'd upon Earth in
the Name of God, and reprefented him, after which
Divine Worfhip was no more efteem'd due to him.
But our Saviour is perpetually to be worfhip'd by us.
Crel/ius (0) reftrains this Perpetuity to the Duration of
(0 P. 289. (rti) P, S77. (w) Apocal. 5. ver. 12.
CO P. 275*
Z 1 the
35^ i^heTrtjniti'ue and
the World. For he writes thus : 'the Govsmment of
CJynft. as eternal, and according to what the Angel fays in
5/. Luke (/>), not to have an end, only extends fo far, as
there can be a Government over the Houfe of Jacob, and as
this prefent Frame of things fhall endure. Now this /bail
endure as long as the World, and as long as the lafl Enemy
of Chrifl^ Deaths floall remain unfubdud. Upon which ac-
count, the Son is fo to be honoured as the Father (q). Crellius
had an eye to a Paflage in the former Epiftle to the
Corinthians, where (r) St. Paul fays, that the Son, after
he has overcome the laft Enemy, Deaths fhall be fub-
jed to the Father, and will give up the Kingdom to
him. Now in my mind (s) Peter Martyr has very well
reconciled this Place, with thofe that afcribe an abfo-
lute Eternity to the Kingdom of Chrift. To reign, er
gcvern, is fometimes taken for excelling (thers, having the
Pre-eminence, or the highefi Place over others. Now in this
fenfe Chrifi will always reign. But if we fay, that to reign
is the fame as to exercife the Offices of a King, to fight
for^ to defend, to conquer, and the like ; Chrifi will not ah
way^ reign. For when we are perfe^ and compkat, we
Jhali have no cccafion for thefe Aids of Chrifi. When he
came into the World, he preach* d, he taught, he died for
our Salvation ; now alfo he intercedes for us with the Fa-
ther, he defends us frcm imminent Dangers, and never in-
termits his Mediatorial Offices and Aciions. But at the
end, when he hath made an univerfal Peace, he wiU rejign
thefe Offces tb the Father, becaufe then there will be no fur-
ther cccafion for them. Thus, when a powerful Prince fends
his only Son tofom.e Province of his Realm,which isfeditious,
tuJnultuary and rebeUiciis, the Son goes with Command and
a ftrong Force ; but when he has quieted the Commotions,
and fubdud the Rebels, he returns Conqueror to his Father,
triumphs, and delivers up the Province in Peace to his Fa-
ther, no longer ufes the military Command, or the Legions,
&c. Now that Chrift, after he has deliver*d the Me-
{f) Ch, I. ver. 55. ^q) Joh. 5. 2%, (r) i Cor. 15. 2?,
(j) Commu»ium"locorura CialT. 2. Cap. 17. ^.14. p^spj.
diatori^
-J-
^jip oft oil ceil T R A D T T T 0>r, ^C» ? 5 9
diatorial Kingdom to the Father, fhall not be deprivM
of his Divine Honour, Dignity, Command and Wor-
ftlip \ but, together with God the Father, (hall be
adored to all Eternity by all Saints, yea by Angels
and Archangels j many Plates of Scripture it) inform
us.
lo. Let the Hereticks then no longer defend their
finking Caufe from the Example of the Angels, who
reprefenting God under the Old Teftament, were
Partakers of Divine Worfhip ; fince, by their Confef-
fion, thofe Examples are nothing to their purpofe. For
from the threefold Difference jufl now mentioned, we
can draw three invincible Arguments for the Son's
Divinity. From the firfl we argue thus : Whofoever
in Heaven may and ought to be worfhipped by Men
on Earth, is God : But Chrift in Heaven, ^c. There-
fore Chrift is God. Our Adverfaries grant the Af-
fumption, and the Truta of the Propofition is clear.
For whofoever is fo worfhip'd, either underflands it,
or he does not j if, he underilands it not, he is wor-
fhip*d in vain j if he underftands it, he is omnifcienc
and omniprefent, and confequently God. You'll fay
that does not follow, becaufe he may underftand by
Divine Revelation. But, I fay, this is abfolutely im-
poilible. For that Knowledge is above a created Un^
derftanding, and therefore no Creature can have it
either of himfelf, or from another. For the Illuflra-
tion of this Matter, take that moft noble Part of Di-
vine Worihip, Divine Invocation, which clearly be-
longs to Chrift, as the Scriptures (ti) teftify. Sure it is
impoflible that a human Soul, illuminated by what
degree foever of Divine Light, fhould at the fame
time know and underftand all the Vows and Prayers,
daily put up by fo many Millions of Men, in fomany
Places fo widely diftant, to the Name pf Chrift, in the
(0 Rom. 9. 5. Heb. 13. 21. i Pet. 4. 11. — 5. n, coYitpaved
<with z Vet. '^. \%. Apocal. I, 5,<J. — 5.12,15.
(«) AQrs a, 21.— 7. 59.-9. 11, 14. 22. 16, Rom. jo. ?3.
I Cor. I. 2. I Thefl". 3. 11,12, 13. 2 Theff. 2.15,17.
Z 4 fanre
360 ihe primitive an^
feme moment. The Mind of Chrift as Man, and ex*
alted CO the right hand of God, is indeed wonderfully
great j but yet it is not infinite, io as to penetrate all
Places, and all Perfons, by whom his Sacred Name is
at the fame time invoked in both the Hemifpheres, and
to perceive alfo the moft fecret Thoughts of theif
JJearts, who call upon him. It is the Eye of God
only, who at one Glance beholds and furveys the
"whole Globe of the Earth. Whence the Socmians^
who make ufe of this lafl; fhift to eftablifh the Divine
Invocation of Chrift, tho' only mere Man, whilft they
laugh at the Popifh Dream, by which they commonly
defend the Invocation of Saints, the Glafs of the
Trinity fin which the Blefled can fee in the Effence
of God, as in a Glafs, all that is made or done upon
Earth ; yea, can even know the moft fecret Thoughts
of our Hearts) render themfelves indeed ridiculous to
all prudent Men : For if fuch an Omnifcience can
be communicated to the Soul of Chrift as Man, by
Divine Revelation, no good reafon can be given why
the Souls of the Saints, in the fame manner, may not
be, and are not made Partakers of the fame in their
way. N^matians Argument then is invincible, and in
fpite of the Hereticks will always continue fo : (x) If
Chrifi ix>as only Man, how is he prefent every where when
invok'd, Jtnce to he capable of being eiery where, is not the
jSlature of Man, but of God.
II. This Argument prcfs'd Socinus grievoufly, who
from it fearing the Ruin of his Caufe concerning the
ineer Humanity of Chrift, was forced to aflfert confi-
dently, that there was no Divine Precept which ob-
liged any Man to call upon the Name of Jefus Chrift
jp his Prayers. Thus in his third Epiftle to Radecius :
Jlere in the firft place he confounds Adoration with Invo-
cation, w^icb ought not ta be, Jince the Reafon of both is
different. For tho Idvnt at all doubt that there is a Pre-
eept for adoring Chrifi, and tJpat, th(j there was not,^ that he
:00 P. m^
certainly
'jipoJioUcal Tradition, ^r. 3^t
(mainly ought to he adored, yet I can't think the fame of
in'voking him, pnce Invocation is taken for the imploring his
Aid, and the DireBion of our Prayers. For here I am of
Opinion y that we may indeed ivell do it, that is, may jufily
direSi our Prayers to Chrifl himfelf, but yet that there is
nothing to oblige us to it. And in another Place (y) :
IVe may invoke the Lord Chrifl, but we are under no Ohli~
gation to do it. He is yet more boldly blafphemous,
\vhere he fays (2:.), But if any one has fuch a degree ofFaith^
as that he dares always apply himfelf direSily to God, he
has no occafion to invoke Chrifl. Thus he writes : i. Now
if Radecius confounds Adoration and Invocation, 3b«-
nus certainly diftingui flies them too fubtilely. For all
Men own that Invocation is that, in which theWor-
Ihip, or Adoration truly Divine, does efpecially con-
fift, and therefore that it is frequently taken for the
whole of Divine Worfhip in Holy Scripture. But
indeed what Divine Worfhip he grants to Chrift, who
denies him Invocation, I can't imagine. 2. That Say-
ing of his, TVe may worfhip Chrifl, but we are not obliged
to it, feems incomprehenfible. For I ask, is there any
Precept for invoking Chrift in Scripture, or not ? If
there is, then we ought, we are obliged to invoke
him. But if there is no fuch Precept in Holy Writ,
certainly we can't do it without Sin : unlefs indeed
Divine Invocation (the chief Part of the Divine Wor-
fhip) be entirely left at our Difpofal. You'll fay, tho
we are not commanded to invoke Chrift, yet there
are broad Hints in Scripture, which plainly fuggeft
to us, that he is a very proper Object of Divine Invo-
cation, and therefore may juftly be invoked by us.
What are thefe ? You'll tell me perhaps, it is plain
from Scripture, that Chrift is very well inclined to-
wards us, that he thoroughly knows all the Neeefllties
of our Souls and Bodies, and is a moft curious Infpedor
pf all the Secrets of our Hearts, fo as to know how
(y) Refponfio ad Fr. David.
Iz) Difputatio cum Frankenio, p. 4.
all
3^2 T!he Trimitwe and
all who call upon him, are affeded to him (a). Laftly,
that he is Almighty, can free us from all impending
Evils, be they never fo great, and can put us in pof-
feffion of all the good things "we want {b). I anfwer :
Thefe things are indeed requisite to make a proper
Objed of Divine Invocation. But, i. Thefe Attri-
butes argue the Divine Nature of him, who has them,
and cannot belong to mere Man, or any created Na-
ture. Therefore the Socinian Hypothefis finks, name-
ly, that Chrift is mere Man, or granting this, that he
is a fit Object of Invocation truly Divine. 2. Our
Argument is ftill good. For I ask. Whether thefe
Perfedions of Chrift, celebrated in Scripture, by
which he is made a proper Objed of Divine Invoca-
tion, be fuch, as that from them Ciirift has a right to
that Worfhip ? If you fay they are, then it will ne-
ceffarily follow, that we not only may, but ought to
invoke Chrift ; for certainly we ought to give every
one his due, efpecially Chrift : But if you deny that
they are, it will follow that Chrift can't lawfully be
invoked by us. For we can't, without Sin, give any
one Divine Worfhip (efpecially Invocation) who has
no right to it. So inconfiftent is that ; JVe may invoke
the Lord Chriflj hut ive are not obliged to it, Nomojevius^
otherwife a great Admirer of Socinus^ faw this, and
makes a Note, very well worth our obferving, upon
his Words juft now cited (c) : / have diligently read your
Anfwer to the Arguments of Francis David, "where you af-
fert the Invocation of the Lord Chrift, and the Honour due
to his Sacred Name, and defend it againfi his Calumnies.
But in my Thoughts you have not only obfcur^d your excel"
lent Opinion by a fezc IVords, but alfo render" d it dubious^
and confirmed your Adverfaries in their Error. Do you de-
fire to know what has done all this Mifchief? VU tell you
in fhort, T'hofe VPords which you often add CWe may in-
voke Chrift, but we are under no Tie or Obligatipi^ ,
{a) Apocal. 2. 25. {h) Phil. 3. 2,1.
(f) Ep. I. to Socinus, An.Dom. 1587,
10
^Jpqftolical T-RATtnioj^, dye* 3^5
to do it] threaten your Caufe vjjtb Ruin. I cantfercewe
hozv thefe things can be reconal'd, We are not oblig'd,
and \ec we may. As if in the J^arr of our Sahationy
it uas free for us to do, or emit any things as ive faw it
more or lefs neceffary.
12. Laftly, Ic is plain from Holy Writ, that we are
oblig'd to give the Worfhip of divine Invocation to
the Lord Chrift. Ic is manifeft even from this, thac
in Scripture, all Chridians, by virtue of their Reli-
gion, are fuppos'd to invoke Chriil. For this Realon
they are defcnb'd by thefe WVrds : 'thofe that call
upon the na?ne of Jefus (d). Befides, by divine Pre-
cept we are obliged to give the faii>e Worfhip and
Honour to the Son, as we give to the Father (e). But
no one will deny that Invocation is due to the Father.
Laftly, the Invocation of Jefus Chrift is commanded
us in theGofpel, as a Condition abfolutely iieceflary
to the obtaining Salvation : IVhofoever Jhall call upn the
name of the Lor d, floall be Javed (f). Here by the
Word Lord^ the Context plainly fliews that Chrift is
meant. For, Ci.) the Lord, concerning the invoking
vvhotn, he fpeaks, is evidently the fame, who is pro-
pos'd by him as the Objea of (g) Chriflian Faith^ that
is, the Lord Jefus. (2.) The Apoftle teaches, that
the fame Lord is to be call'd upon by all under Peril of
Salvation, in whom the Jews did not believe, and of
whom they might fay that they had net heard (h),ysh\ch
every Man may fee can only be underftood of our Sa-
viour. Now it is clear as any thing can be from the
Places cited, that the Invocation of this Lord, is not
only commanded, but alfo univerfally requir'd as an
aLfolucely neceflary condition of obtaining Salvation.
It is almoft as clear, that Qo cal-l upon the name of the
Lord']m this Place, is the fame as to implore the
Lord's aid, or to dired our Prayers to him, or at
ieaft, comprehends that under it. For invoking the
{A) Aas9. 14. I Cor. i. 2. (0 Joh" 5' 25-
(/) Rom. 10.13. ig) V. p, 10, IX, 12. {h) V.I4.
Name
§i54 T^ht ^rmitwe and
Name of God^ has certainly two Senfes in Holy Scrip-
ture, (i.) It is in general taken for the whole j^or-
fhi^ of God (i)- This Signification fcems to have had
this Original, (as Crellius well (k) obferves) that In-
vocation was more frequent than the other Parts of Re-
ligion, and upon that account more excellent than the
reft, fince Neceility itfelf ufually forces us to call up*
en him, and implore his aid, whom we elieem and
worfhip as our God ; infomuch, that among Men,
he that does not invoke any one, is never thought to
take him for his God. (2.) In a ftrider Senfe, it is
taken for Prayer to God ; which Word alfo is fome-
times ufed in a more large, and fometimes in a more
confin'd Senfe. In a more large Senfe, when it com-
prehends Thankfgiving, as it (/) frequently doth; and
that for this Reafon, becaufe they are commonly joinM
one with the other. In a ftrifter, or more confin'd
and proper Senfe, when it is taken for the defiring
fome Good, or imploring the divine Affiftance. The
former Senfe of the Word feems to me moft natural
in this Place ; but chuCe whether you pleafe, our
Argument from the Place is valid. But, O Blelfed
Jefus, to what times haft thou referv'd us, which can
fuffer fuch horrid Blafphemy againft thy Holy Name l-
Who can hear thefe things without weeping ; namely.
That no one is obIig*d to pray to thee for thy divine
Grace and Affiftance ; efpecially from thofe, who pre-*
tend themfelves Worfhippers of thy Majefty ?
13. Into the fame depth of Madnefs, driven by the
fame Neeeflity, (m) Volkelim fell after Socinus^ and
SchliEiingws : Yea, Crellim himfelf, who talks much
every where of the divine Worfhip of Jefus Chrift,
yet in fome Places either runs into the Opinion of
SdchmSy or is not far from it. Thus he fpeaks of thofe
(f) Gen. 12. S. &. 15. 4' & 21.37. Pfal. 14.4' & 55* 5*
Jiaiah 41.. 22. (k) P. 580.
(/) Luke 18. 10, II. Aas 3. I. & 16. 15. Phil. i. ;, 4.
(jn) Volkeii;u5: de Vena Relig. Lib. 4. Cap. ii. de Invoca-
tione Cbrifti a.d Meifner, p ZQ6y^ aoj,
who
JpoJioUcal Tradition, dxc* 565
who 111 their Prayers are defeftive, are chat way in
the Extremes', He efpecially notes thofe {n) who will not:
dtreSi Prayers to him^ and who don't direEl them, when there-
is cccajion, to him, to whom they not only might , but for
fome certain Reafons ought to do it; adding by way of
Example, As^ if any one will not in'voke Chrifi, when
others of the Faithful direEl their Prayers to him, or Edifi-
cation otherwife requires it, or the Sprit itfelf fuggefls and
diBates it to fome one. Obferve what a String of Limi-
tations ! The Heretick indeed confefles that we may
direct our Prayers to Chrift, but are not abfolutely
oblig'd to it, except in certain Cafes ; as when others
do it, left we fhould, make an unneceiTary Separation ;
or when Edification requires it, that is, when there is
Danger, that, if we refufe to invoke him, weak Bre-
thren fhould fufped, and not without Gaufe indeed,
that we deny divine Worfliip to Chrift ; or laftly^,
when the Spirit didates it, that is, when we have a
fancy to do it, or as oft as we have a mind. But
why, I befeech you, muft a Chriftian expeft the
Didate of the Spirit before he prefumes to dired his
Prayers to Chrift ? There is great danger, forfooth,
that he (hould pray to no purpofe, pour himfelf forth
into the empty Air; becaufe it is very uncertain,wheti
the Man Chrift is fenfible of our Devotions, or whea
he may be acquainted with the Prayers direded to
him, by divine Revelation : and therefore in this moft
dubious Cafe, we muft have Information from the Ho-
ly Spirit. Good God ! how deep a Myftery of Ini-^
quity is Socinianifm I
14. I've been the larger upon this Diflference, be-
caufe I thought it wou'd be of ufe to the Reader,
who is unacquainted with the Tricks and Frauds of
the Hereticks, with whom we are engag'd. I come
now to the fecond difference obferv'd by CreUius, and
from this I fhall draw another Argument for the Son*s
Divinity. Whofoever is to be worfhip'd immediate-
(») Pag. 39S,
^66 T^he Trimitwe a?id
ly, or in himfelf with divine Honour, and therefore is
alfo worthy of fuch Worfliip, muft be true God^
God by Nature : But Chrifl is to be worlhip'd im-
mediately, or in himfelf, with divine Honour, ^c.
as the Scripture exprefly affirms, and the Adver-
faries themfelves confefs. Therefore Chrift is true
God, God by Nature. The Propofition here is very
eafy to be prov'd. No one can be worthy of divine
Worjfhip, who has not a divine, that is, an infinite
Dignity and Excellence i (for that divine Excellence,
is the only Foundation of truly divine Worfhip) but
divine and infinite Dignity and Excellence only belong
to God, can't fall to the fhare of any Creature (for
finite is not capable of infinite) therefore, CiT'e. How
unanfwerable this Argument is, appears evidently
from the Difpute between Fauflus Socinus, and
Chriflianus Frankenius, concerning the Honour of
Chrift, where you find the unfortunate Heretick
ftrangely prefsM and reduc'd to his laft Shifts by his
Adverfary with almofl this very Syllogifm. This
Frankenius was one of Sidnm*s Difciples, who aflert-
ed, as well as he, that Chrift was mere Man, but ex-
tended the Tenet further than his Mafter would have
had him ; arguing from it, by necelfary Confequence,
that our Saviour was not to be worfhip'd by Religi-
ous or Divine Worfhip. He and Socinus had a dif-
pute about it in the Hall of Chnfiopher Pmlicovius^
March 14. 1584. Frankenius's firft Argument was
this (0) : As great as the Di flame is betiuixt the Creator and
a Creature^ Jo great the Difference ought to he between the
Honour given to the Creator and the Creature ; but there is
the greatefl Difference between the Creator and the Creature^
loth in Nature and in Dignity : 'Therefore there ought alfo
to be the greatefl Difference between the Honour of God and
the Creature. But the Honour chiefly owing to God is reli-
gious Adoration j therefore it is not to be given to a Crea-^
[ (0) Dc Adoratione Chrifti, difp. cum Frankenio, ^. 4.
ture 5
"JpqfloHcal Tk Ami ion, ^c* ^6j
ture ', therefore not to ChrifiyWhom you ovon to be a mere
Creature. What fays Socinus to this Argument ? He
anfwers thus : ^ho' there be the greatefl Difference between
God and a Creature, there is m Necejjtty that there fhould
be fuch a Difference between the Honour of God and a Cre-
ture. For God can commmunicate his Honour to whom he
pkafeSj efpecially to Chrift, who is worthy fuch Honour^
and is not commanded to be ador'd in Scripture without
the mofi weighty Reafons. A ridiculous Anfwer in-
deed, and a mere begging the Queftion ! For the
Queftion between Socinus and his Adverfary was
this : Whether Chrift, if ^ mere Creature, cou'd be
honour 'd with divine Worfhip ? Frankenius proves,
that he could not, becaufe the diftance between God
and a Creature, and confequently between the Ho-
nour due to one and the other, muft be infinite. Be-
(ides, God can't allow divine Worfhip to any to
whom he does not alfo give the divine Nature and
Excellence, of which no Creature is capable : For
that would be repugnant to both the divine Wifdom
and Truth ; to the divine Wifdom, becaufe thus God
would confer a Title without reality and foundation ;
and therefore to the divine Truth, becaufe then he
would oblige his Creature to a lye, /. e. would com-
mand him to afcribe divine Dignity and Excellence to
him, (for herein properly conlifts the truly divine Ado-
ration) in whom fuch Excellence neither was, nor
cou'd be. Laftly, How a mere Creature could be
worthy divine Worfhip, or what thofe weighty
Caufes are, for which Chrift, tho' mere Man, is com-
manded to be ador'd in Holy Scripture, no Socinian
will ever be able to explain. Therefore Socinus had
nothing elfe to reply to Frankenius, aher he had prov'd
by many Teftimonies, that Divine Worfhip cou'd not
be communicated to any Creature, but this (/>), lean
anfwer all thofe 'Tejiimonies. To this Frankenius re-
joins : (q) And J can give a probable Anfwer to all your
if) Pag. 7. (^)Pag. 8.
Places
|68 ^bB Trmiti^d md
Places 'which urge ths Adoration of Chrifl. At length Sb^
einus, overcome by the Arguments, but not willihg t6
yield, fays : fm as Jure of the Truth of my Opinion^ as 1
am that I have this Hat in my Hands. To which
frankenius by w^y of ridicule anfwers {r) : That AJfu-
ranee of yours can't be a Rule of Faith to me and otheth
For there is another will tell you, that he is very Jully pef-
fuaded from Holy Scripture of the T'ruth of the contrary
Opinion. Thus it is utterly impoiTible from the Sod-
nian Kypothefis, to defend the divine Worftiip (£
Jefus Chrift.
15. I come now to the third and lafl Difference,
fron) which I argue thus : Whofoever is :o be ho-
ncur*d wi:h divine Worfhip, as well as God the
Father, for ever, is by Nature God as well as. the
Father: But Chrifl; is to be honour'd wit:h , divine
Worfhip for ever, as well as the Father j therefofe
Chrift is God by Nature, as well as the Father,
The minor of this Argument we have prov'd be-
fore, (i.) From very plain Teftimonies of Holy Scrip-
ture, when we fpoke concerning this third Diffe-
rence. The Truth of the Proposition is clear from
thofe places of Scripture (which are very many^
where the true God is diftinguifh'd from the Crea-
tures, as being he, to whom alone divine Honour
and Glory is due for ever and ever (s). (2.) From
this undeniable Reafon, that the Foundation of
eternal Worfhip muft be eternal ; but there can
be no other eternal Foundation than this, that he
who is thus to be worfhipM, is by Nature God ;
therefore Chrift, who is thus to be worfhip'd, is God,
The Hereticks make the mediatorial Office of Chrift
the Foundation of the divine Worfhip due to him.
Now if this was true, it would necelfarily follow, that
the divine Worfhip of Jefus our Lord, fhould then
(r) Pag. 9.
(j) Matt. 5.15. Rom. i. 25. & 11, 5<^. Se i^. 27. Gal. i. y.
Eph. 3. ai, Phil4» 20, i Tiran i» 17. & Tim. 4. i8, Jude 25. v»
ceafe.
Jpq/!ok'cal Traditic-h, (^c* 3^9
ceafe, when the Scriptures exprefly affirm, that medi-
atorial Kingdom fliall ceafe, namely, after Death the
laft Enemy is conquered, i. e. after the Refurredion,
and the laft judgment (t) ; for the Caufe being taken
away, the Effeft muft ceafe. Thus much for the firft
Objedion of the Hereticks. What they have gain'd
by it, let the impartial Reader judge.
16. But our Adverfaries have yet another Argu-
ment in which they greatly confide. For they fay
that the Scriptures have exprefly decided the Queflion
concerning divine Worfhip due to Chrift for them ;
where they teach, both that Royal Authority, or
judicial Power, is the Foundation of the divine Wor-
fhip due to Chrift ; and that this Authority or Power
was given to him by the Father, as Man. Now
thefe two Points are clear from the Collation of
St. Johriy Chap. 5. v^ 22, 23. CFor the Father judgeth no
man, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men
(hould honour the Son, as they honour the Father~} with the
27th Verfe of the fame Chapter. And the Father
hath given him Power of exercifing Judgment becaufe
he is the Son of Man. To thefe two Places they add
a third («}, where the Apoftle exprefly teaches, that
God hath given to the Man Chrift, exalted to the
greateft height after his Death, and upon account of
it, a name above every name, that at the name of yefuf
every knee /hould bow, &c. Now that thefe Places of
Scripture, which fill every Page of their Writings,
(and which they repeat till they are hoarfe) are no-
thing to their purpofe, will plainly appear after an ac-
curate Difquifition concerning the true meaning of
them.
17. (i.) As for the 27th Verfe of the 5th Chapter
of St. John (the Interpretation whereof depends upon
the 2 2d and 23d Verfes of the fame Chapter) the
Opinions of learned Men have been various concern-
ing the Senfe of it. i. Chryfo/iom difapproves the
receivM Punftatlon of the Words, and thinks the
CO i Cor. 1 5. 24, gcc, C«) P^^il- a* ^i *C'
|VoL. II. A a Senfe
37^ T^he Trimiti^e and
Senfe Cadmitting that Pundationj inconfiftent ; fof
Chrift drd not therefote receive the Power of judging,
becaufe he was Man; if that had been the Reafon,
the fame Power muft have been given to all Men. He
therefore bids us diftinguifh or point the Reading
thus : And he hath given him -power alfo to exercife judg--
mem ; there make a Semicolon, and then proceed :
Wonder not at this, becaufe he is the Son of Man ; for the
hour cometh, &c. So then this is the Senfe : What I
have faid of the Power of giving eternal Life, and oj
'Judging^ don't you think incredible, becaufe you fee I am
a Man ; for lam alfo the Son of God, as /hall be evident to
you hereafter by the RefurreBion, which I will accomplifh-
This Pundation of Chryfoflom's has been approvM by
Cyril and 'TheophylaEi among the Antients, and by a ve-
ry learned Modern, RJunius. Nor indeed is it light-
ly to be rejeded ; for the Syriac Interpreter (of great
Authority, and with good Reafon) has diftinguifh *d
the Members of this Sentence after the fame manner,
and rendered it thus : And he hath given him the Power
ef exercijing 'Judgment. Wonder not at it now, becaufe he
is the Son of Man.
1 8. (2.) Others not changing the Pundation, think
our Saviour had an eye in thefe Words to that place
of (x) Daniel, where he prophefies that Power and
Government fhould be given to the Son of Man from
the Ancient of Days ; as if it had been faid, T'hat be^
carafe he is the Son of Man foretold by Daniel, therefore
Dominion, and an everlafting Kingdom over the Gentiles
fhould be given him. So Camero has inteirpreted it, and
after him Gro^/wj. But the want of the diftinftive
Article, or the Article by way of eminence (as Eraf-
mus obferyes) is repugnant to this Exposition. It is
written oI.eCtoi cti/Qp^Ts, not o7' 0 u/o?, &c. Now thus it
ought to have been written, if defign'd to point out
a Perfoh emphatically call'd the Son of Man.
ip. The generality of Divines expound this Place
concerning the Incarnation and Exinanition of the Son,,
(jc) Chap. 7. V. 15, 14. ' '-^J
tnus:
^
thus: The Father hath therefore given Chrift the ju-
diciary Power, becaufe he vouchfafed to be made the
Son of Man, that is, Man, for the Saltation of
Men ; and tho' God took upon him Humanity, that he
might fave Mankind, by expoiing it to Death.
Wherefore he merited by this fo great an Exinanition,
the being made Man, and dying for Men, this ad-
vancement to the judiciary Power, that fo he fhould
be the Judge as well as the Saviour of ail Men. Ac-
cording to this Expofition (a very probable one)
Chrift defcribes his own Humiliation fpoken of,
Phil. 2. 7. There the Apoftle exhorts the Faithful to
Humblenefs of Mind, from Chrift's Example, who,
tho' in the Form of God, /. e. God, .and therefore, in
refpeft of his Nature, equal to God the Father, yec
did not take upon him that Equality, did not carry
himfelf as God, did not make a fhew of it, being
far from Pomp and Oflentation ; but freely let him-
felf down, humbled himfelf, taking upon him the
form of a Servant, and being made Man, &c. there-
fore his Father gave him a Name above every Name,
&c. exactly as in the Paflage of St. John it is faid.
That therefore the power of judging was giuen to the Son^
hecaiife he zvas the Son of Man.
20. Lafty, Auftin and Bede iirterpret the Place thus;,
That- the Father had transferred the Power of judging
the quick and the dead upon the Son, becaufe he was
the Son of Man ; that is, as he was a Perfon proper and
fuitable to the Office. This Interpretation the learn-
ed Maldonnte (y) boldly affirms to be true ; who alfo
upon the 2 2d Verfe of the fame Chapter gives us the
fame Expoiition more at large {z.) : Now the Father is
faid to judge no Man, not that he doth not judge in deed ; for
whatfoenjer cne Perfon doth extra feipfam, as the Divines
define, all the Perfons do at the fame time -, but hecaufe he
doth not judge in the Perfon of a Judge "vijible to thoje
ivhom he judges, doth not talk with them^ pafs a verbal
Sentence upon them ; in a word, doth not judge in an external
laajy and judicial formj he is faid to judge no cne. For
(y) In locum, {z) In locum.
A a 3 thi
^J2 ^he Trifmtwe and
the Son alone judgeth in this Senfe^ becaufe he atone is Man^
fuch as hefjooud be Ivho judges me {a). T'herefore it is gi-
'ven as a Reason luhy the Father hath given all judgment to
the Son, becaufe he is the Son of Man. You fee how ma-
ny ways this Place may be expounded. Now take
which of the Expnfitions you pleafe, it will be of no
Service to the Hereticks. To coiifefs the Truth,
there is a little too much obfcurity and ambiguity, in
the Text, to make it the Foundation of any found
feafoning.
21. As for the Place cited out of the Epiftie to the
Philippians^ what the Hereticks prefume, is there af-
firmed, namely, That the Father gave Chrift, as mere
Man, a Divine Empire over Men, after his Death, is
falfe. The very Words of the Place teach the con-
trary, that is, that he who took upon him the Form
of a Servant, was made Man, before that, was in the
Form of God, and confequently equal to God (^);
and that he therefore obtainM the greateft Glory in
the Heavens, and a Name above every Name, becaufe
he condefcended to be made Man for the Salvation of
Men, and ifliew'd himfelf obedient to the Father, e-
ven to the Death of the Crofs. The Truth and Cer-
tainty of this Anfwer depends upon our Interpreta-
tion of the Words [^Being in the Form of God, and ta-
king upon him the Fvrm of a Servam?^ How true and
natural it is, every one will fee, who will conlider the
Words of Sc. Paul with Attention and Impartiality.
For the Apoftle plainly teaches two things in this
{a) Irenaeus, Lib. 5. Cap. 9.
(/») Dr. Clarke has labour d this Point without any notice of this
aciiirate Expojltio?!, and brought in our Author, as of his Mind in in-
ievpyeti?:g the greatejl Diffculfy of the Te/.', He r/iakes '^'«- fl^w, ov sfvxi
isibeov, tnoji prop:r!y to ftgmfyy To be honouv'd as God ; and fays
cur Lord ivillirgly condefcended to humble himfelf firfi into the Form of
a Sevjayit^ and then ivas exalted to 6e ?<?« 8e>'J, honour'd as Lord of
all things. // this he the true Interpretation j how fijall ive explain
thofe Texts of Script urey and thofe Parages of Antiquity ^ nvhich affevp
his Glory and Honour with the Father to be the fame before he came
d6wn frc-rn Heaven, as after ? V/hat a wonderftil Condefcenfion was
it in him, not to co-vet to be hojiourd as God, and what an incomprC'
henpls thing that he jhcidd think of it- at all^ who lyas not God ?
Place :
Pkce: I. That our Saviour was, and fubfifted in the
Form of God, before he took upon him the Form of
a Servant. Nothing is clearer. For here the Apo-
flle obferves upon, and propofes the Example of our
Saviour's wonderful Coiidefcenfion, who, tho in the
Form of God, empty 'd, or degraded himfelf in taking
upon him the Form of a Servant. Now all Conde-
fcenfion fuppofes a more exalted State before it, from
which a Perfon defcends into a lower. 2. That Chrifi:
then took upon him the Form of a Servant, when he
was made Man. This is evident from the Words
of the Apoflle : He empty*d himfelf^ taking upon him
the Form of a Servant, being made in the Likenefs of
Men. In this the old Latin Interpreter agrees with
the Greek. Here is a continu'd Expofition, in which
the latter Member of the Sentence immediately fuc-
ceeds the former, and explains it without any Con-
jundion copulative. If you ask how-Chrift empty'd
or degraded himfelf, the Apoftle tells you, by taking
upon him the Form of a* Servant. If again you ask
how Chrift took upon him the Form of a Servant, the
Anfwer immediately follows, by being made in the
Likenefs of Men, made Man, in all things. Sin only
excepted, like unto us. Now from what has been
faid, it is clear that our Saviour fubfifted, and that in
t,he Torm of God, before he took upon him human
Nature, and therein the Form of a Servant. To make
this ftill more evident, two things are efpecially to be
obferved. i. That the Form of a Servant doth not
here fignify the fervile Condition of Man, as it is op-
pofed to the State and Condition of a free Man, on^
that is his own Mafter, as the Hereticks contend, an4
fome Catholicks have impudently granted. For here
the Form of a Servant is manifeftly oppos'd to the
Form of God. Now all Creatures, compared to God,
have the Form of Servants, and (land oblig'd to obey
God. Hence the Apoftle, after he had faid that out
Saviour took upon him the Form of a Servant, being
made, in the likenefs cf Men, quickly adds, being
made obfdient, namely to God the Father. This the
A a 5 Apr-
S74 ^heTrimitwe and
Apcftk alio fignifies in another Place (c), where, after
having faid that God the Father, in the Fulnefs of
Time, fent forth his Son made of a Woman, he im-
mediately adds, jnade under the Lavj .- Our Saviour
therefore then took upon him the Form of a Servant,
when he took upon him the created, that is, the hu-
man Nature, and in that Nature was made obedient
to God. 2. The Apoflle's elegant Gradation, in de-
fcribing the Exinanition of Chrift, is to be obferved :
This by the Catholick Interpretation is preferved en-
tire ; but by the Heretical Comment is obfcur'd, yea
wholly deftroy'd. Chrift, fays the Apoftle, empty'd
hi7nfelf^ taking upon him the Form^ of a Sew ant. This
might have been faid of him, if he had taken upon
him the Nature of Angels,* for Angels themfelves are
the Minifters and Servants of God. Therefore he
fub joins, Being made in the likenefs oj Men^ and therefore
a little lower than Angels (d). It follows. And being
found in faflfion as a Man^ he humbled himfelf being made
obedient, &c. He not only, tho God, took upon him
human Nature, but alfo greatly humbled himfelf in
it,^ being made in all things obedient to the Farher,
even to Death, and that the Death of the Crofs, a
painful, infamous and ignominious Death. But that
the Words, in which the Apoftle defcribes the State,
in which our Saviour was before his Exinanition, may
be better utiderftood, we muft repeat, what we be-
fore obferved, that the Form ofGod^ and Form of a Ser^
rjantf or Similitude of Men, are opposM to one another.
As therefore Chrift was fo made in the Similitude of
Men, as to be a true Man ,- in like manner alfo he
was fo in the Form of God, as to be very God. Beiides,
from this Oppofition, of the Form of God, and the Form
cf a Servant, wc may ftrongly conclude againft the
Ariansy that the Nature of Chrift, in which he fub-
fifted as the Son of God, before his Incarnation, was
not a created Nature. The Son of God then only
took upon him the Form of a Servant, when he took
cpon him a created Nature, being made in the liKe-
(0 Gal. '4. 4, ^' id) Keb. :. 9. compavd-wlth vei\ 16.
nefs
'Jpojiolical Tradition, f^c. 57^
nefs of Man ; he was never before in the Form of a
Servant, but fubfifted in the Form of God. But ac-
cording to the Avians^ who take the Son of God for
a Creature, that Son of God was always, even before
his Incarnation, in the Form of a Servant. For every
Creature, even the moft excellent, as I obferved juft
now, compared to God, is in the Form of a Servant,
and is obliged to ferve and obey God. Hence it is
alfo plain, that the Son of God, according to his more
excellent Nature, in which he fubfifted before the
Incarnation, was equal to God his Father ; as is ma-
nifeftly taught by the Apoftle in the following Words.
Confult alfo what we have cited from the Primitive
,Fathers, Hermas, Clemens Romams, and Jufiin Martyr^
for the lUuftration oi this Place (e). From all^thefe
things it is clear, that the Socinians have appealed to
this PafTage of the Apoftle to no purpofe, nay to the
Ruin of their own Caufe.
22. But it may here be ask*d, how it can be under-
ftoodfrom our Hypothefis, by which the Son is God
of God, and Partaker of the fame Glory with God the
Father, that the Divine Government was delivered up
to him after his Paflion and Refurredion. I anfwer,
it may be underftood three Ways : i. After this man-
ner. That the Son of God, having accompliftiM th^
Work of Man's Redemption upon Earth, acquired to
himfelf a Divine Gorernment over Men by a new and
real Title, and confequently Divine Honour to be
paid him by Men, namely, by the Title of Saviour or
Redeemer. Our Learned '^jachfon (_/) very well ex-
plains this Matter in his Commentaries upon the A*'
poftles Creed, thus : Go^ the Father, tho he had neven
created this 'vifible jVorld, had been no lefs glorious than he
now is. . For the Creation indeed added much to the things
created, yea, gave them their All, but nothing to God, wha
is infinite in Effence. Neverthelefs, if God had created no-*
thing, there had been no Foundation for the Attribute of
(e) Defence of xhc Wceno Creed, Seft. 2. Gh.?* §. i* §8
Ch. 3. §. 4- & Ch.4. ^. 7.
(/) Vpn the Creed ej tie Jpofiles, Lib. ii. Ch. 5.
A a 4 Creatoi',
^7^ '^^ Trimitwe and
Creator, nay^ it had not been a true and real Attribute of
God. After the fame manner, f^PP^^fi ^^'^^ Son of God ne-
'ver to have defended, in order to the taking our Nature
upon him, he had remained no lefs glorious in Nature and
Perfon than he now is, yet he had not been glorify* d by, or
for the 'Title or Attribute of Incarnation. Or fuppofe tJye
fame Son of God had never humbled himfelf to Death, ha'
'ving taken upon him the Form of a Servant, (in this the
Learned Man is miftaken, that he refers the Form of
a Servant to the loweft degree of our Lord's Exinani-
tion) he had certainly remain d no lefs glorious in his Na-
ture, his Perfon, and his Attribute of Incarnation, than he
mvj is; hut yet he would not have had thofe magnificent Ti-
tles, by which he is cali'd OUR LORD, OUR RE-
DEEMER, and the Fountain of our Grace and Salva-
tion. All thefe Attributes are real, and therefore fuppofe a
real Foundation, namely, that Chriji humbled himfelf to
Death, and that the, Death of the Crofs. Nor are thefe
mly real Attributes, but aljo more honourable {both in refpeB
to God the Fatlj€r, who of his good pleafure gave his only-
begotten Son for us, and in refpeB to the Son of God, who
by his Exinanition was pleased to pay the Price of our Re-
demption) than the Attribute of Creation. Therefore the Son
of God alfo, not the Son of David only, was exalted after
Death by a nezv and real Title, namely, the Title of R E-
DEMPTlON and SALVATION.
' 2?. This, no doubt, was what the Apoflle had a
mind to (ignify to us in the (g) Place juft now cited,
where he teaches that Chrift (who, as the Son of God,
before he was made Man, was in the Form of God,
jand equal to God the Father} was fo exalted after
his Death by God the Father, that now all Men are
of right obliged to confefs he is their Lord; namely, by
a new Title, as he has redeemed them with his own
precibtis Blood, that they fhould no longer be in their
own power,' but his Servants, as bought with d Price (h).
Now the Merit of this Title is more than once greatly
extolled in the Apccalypfe. ' Thiis the four living Crea-
(^) Ver. II, (Jo) Cmpave i Cor. 6. Vevfethelafi, /tnd 7,
ver, z%, 23. tv'ith i Pet. i. ip. hutefpedaUy Rom. 14. 8,9. '
• ■■ ■*'" ' " ■ twres,
Jpojiolical Tradition, &c. 377
tures, and the twenty-four Elders, fing this new Song
to the Lamb of God (/) : "Thou an •worthy to receive the
Book, and to open the Seals thereof , for thou ivafi /lain, and
haft redeemed us to God by thy Blood, out of every 'Tribe ^ and
^Language, and People^ and Nation. Then fing the Choir
of Angels : (k) Worthy is the Lamb that was /lain, to
receive Power ^ and Riches, and IVifdcm, and Strength, and
Honour, and Glory, and Bleffing, This Divine Honour
is given po the Son of God in right of Redemption,
as that is given to God the Father in right of Creation^
which we find in another Place (I) : Worthy art thou, O
Lord, to receive Glory, and Honour, and Power ; for thou
hafl made all things, and j or thy pleafure they are and were
created. God the Father is glorify 'd for the Work of
the Creation, not as tho the Son, (jn) by whom he made
all things, was not alfo to be glorify 'd upon the fame
account j but as the Father is the Fountain of the
Deity, from whom the Son had both his Nature, and
all his Divine Operations. God the Son is glorify 'd
for the Work of Man*s Redemption, not as tho God
the Father was not alfo to be glorify 'd for the fame
Caufe (for he, of his infinite Compafiion to Mankind,
fent (n) his Son into the World for our Salvation) but
becaufe the Son alone took upon him Human Nature,
and in that Nature was made obedient even to Death,
therefore the Work of Man's Redemption is, as ic
were, appropriated to the Son.
24. Now from this, that the Son by his Humilia-
tion has a jufl Title, and a moft equitable Right to a
divine Authority over, and Honour from Men (to ob-
ferve this by the way) we have this ftrong Argument
for his Divinity : Whofoever has a juft Title to divine
Authority over Men, and divine Honours from them,
muft be God ; but the Son has a juft Title to divine
Authority over Men, &c. Therefore the Son muft be
God. The Hereticks acknowledge the Minor, nor
need we thank them for it, fince it is very clearly
prov'd from the Scriptures juft now cited, which in-
(i) Ch. 5. ver. 9. (fc) Ver. 12. (/) Ch. 4. verfe the lad.
(m) John 1. 5. Col, 1. 16, ' (w) John 3. 16.
form
37^ The ^ri?mtwe and
form us, that divine Authority, and divine Honours,
are as well due to God the Son, as Redeemer, as to
God the Father as Creator. For the Major, no fober
Man can doubt of it. For it is certain, and confefs'd
by our Adverfaries, that no Creature can ftriftly me-
rit that eternal Glory and Happinefs, which holy Men
fhali partake of in the other World. How much
more, abfurd (houM I fay, or rather (hocking, is it to
fay, that a mere Man can merit divine Honours, and
even acquire to himfeit' the Throne of God ? Suppofe,
as Socinus doth, that Chrift is only mere Man, how
can you find fuch Merit in his Obedience ? When he
was Man, he appearM as a common Man, he under-
went Death, and that, as God would have it, cl>e
Death of the Crofs. Now what did Chrift, more
than Peter the Apoftle of Chrift ? (if we may give Cre-
dit to Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.) Could he then, as Man
merit the Crown of the Saints by all his Sufferings .^
No. What the (o) Apoftle fays, is certainly true of all
the Sufferings of Men ; I reckon the Sufferings of thif
prefent ti?ne, not worthy to he co?npar*d to the Glory luhkh
fl>all be reveaPd to tis. How much lefs, if he was only
meer Man, could Chrift by his Paflion merit divine
Honours ? On the other hand, if, as the Apoftle doth,
you conceive the Son of God to have exifted firft in
the form of God, and confcquently in refped of his
Nature to have been equal to God ; then to have
taken upon him the form of a Servant, and to have
been made Man ; laftly, in this Nature to have obey'd
God the Father to Death, even the Death of the
Crofs; we (hall immediately perceive his infinite Con-
defcenfion, and of confequence, his infinite Merit.
This by way of DigrclTion. This then is the firft and
chief reafon why, as it were, a new divine Authority
is in Scripture given to the Son of God, partaker of
the divine Nature and Honour with God the Father,
after his Death i namely, becaufe after he had ac-
complifhM the Work of our Redemption, he acquired
this Authority by a new Title (p).
(p"^ Rom. S. iS. (i) See J>ef, N. Cr. SeS-fi.. cap. 3. ^. 15.
Jpoftolical Tradition, &C' 379
25. (2.) It may alfo be underftood of that new and
illuftrious Manifeftation of the Glory and divine Ma-
jefty of God the Son, made all the World over after
his Refurreftion and Afcenfion into Heaven. Whilfl:
the Son was upon Earth, he was found in fafhion as a
Man, a mere Man, made no appearance of any thing
more, except that in his Miracles fome glimpfe of
the divine Majefty fhew'd themfelves through the
Veil of the human Flelh. But after his Afcenfion
into Heaven, the Glory of the Son was wonderfully
reveal'd, by the Holy Spirit pour'd out upon the A-
poftles by him, by the ftupendous Miracles wrought
in his Name, by his Gofpel preach'd every where, the
Believers being baptized, not only in the Name of the
Father, but alfo of the Son and Holy Spirit. This
Manifeftation of the Son's divine Majefty was the
more illuftrious, becaufe, not only whilft he conversed
among Men in human Flefti, but alfo in the Ages be-
fore that, his Divinity was either but obfcurely known,
or wholly unknown. T'ertulUan fpeaks very well of
this Matter (q)- It pleased God Jo to renew the Covenant,
as that he fhould after a new manner he believd one through
the Son and Holy Sprit ; that he/hculd be o'penly knoxvn in
his proper Nafnes, who in times pajl was not under/iood to
he preach'd in the Son and Spirit. Well then is that faid
to be .a new divine Authority given to the Son after
his Refurredion, becaufe before that time his divine
Majefty and Authority was fcarce known unto Men,
(tho' as the Word of God, by whom all things were
made, he together with the Father exercis a divine
Authority over Men before the Creation.)
26. IfV I'm not greatly miftaken, this is what the
divine Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews (r) means:
God, who in diver fe manners hath in time pa ft jpoken to
the Fathers by the Prophets y hath in thefe lafi Days jpoken to
us by his Son, who?n he hath made Heir of all things, by
whom alfo he made the World : who being the Splendor cj
his Glory, and the exprefs Image of his Ejfence, and govern-
ing all things by his powerful Word, having purify' d our
(?) Pag- 5 »8. (»-) Chap. I, V. I, &P,
Sins
^Bo The Vr 17/11 1 we and
Sins by himfelf, is fat doivn en the right hand of the Ma-
je/iy on high. In thefe Vv^ords the Holy Writer clearly
expreffes both a new Manifeftation, and a new Title
of the Son's divine Authority ; a new Maniteftatioo,
•ver. 2. where he fhews, that the Son now at length,
in thefe laft days, had manifefted himfelf in the
Flefh, and after having accomplifh'd the Redemp-
tion of Mankind in that Flefh, was by the pro-
mulg'd Decree of his Father made Heir and Lord
of all things j but yet that his Authority did not then
take its beginning : fince that it is he^ by whom
God made the World j and (as it follows) with
v/ horn God the Father hath from the Creation admi-
nifter'd and difposM all things. Thus Ignatius fays of
the Son of God (0 •• IVho was with the Father before
j4ges^ and appeared at the end. So after him ^ujiin
fpeaks : He who was from the beginnings but appear' d of
late. And, He who always was, but to-day is efieem*d
the Son, And again : Saying that then he was born to
Mm, when he was about to be reveal' d. The divine Au-
thor declares his new Tide, ver. 3, Vv'here he teaches
that the Son of God, tho' he was the Splendor of his
Glorj', and the exprefs Image of his Father's Eflence,
and adminiftred all things by his mod powerful
Word ', yet made an expiation for our Sins, having
taken upon him our Flefh, died for us in it, and after
he had perfected the Expiation, afcended the Throne
of the divine Majefty on high, as having by the moft
juft Title, a right to that Seat. Great is the Empha-
fis of thofe Words, By himfelf made Expiation^ ike.
For by them is fignified, that the Son of God, the
Splendor of his Father's Glor}', &c. did not conftitute
another Minifter of this Expiation, but took our Na-
ture into the Unity of his divine Perfon, and in
that Flefh ofFer'd himfelf a Sacrifice for Sins. By the
fame Emphafis, God, or the Lord, is in another place
faid to have purchased the Church by his own Blood (t);
where the moft antient Alexandrian Copy, has it in a
form yet more emphatical, as tho' we fhould fay, pur-
(0 P. A. vol.2, p. 18. (0 A£ls2o. 28.
chas*d
Jpoftoikal Tkaditioi^, (j-c* 381
chas*d it by Blood, and that his own proper Blood.
The ftrefs of our Interpretation lies upon thefe Words,
By whom he made the Worlds^ which we have elfewhere
clearly and ac (u) large fhe'wn^ mufl: need be under-
ftood of the Creation of the World properly fo call'd.
This fuppos'd, it is clear from this place, that the
Son of God was before all Ages with God the Father,
and exifled in the Paternal Nature and Glory ; then
that the Univerfe was made by Him, and afterwards
by his moft powerful Authority and Command, go-
verned and directed ; neverthelefs that the divine Au-
thority of the Son lay hid, as it were, till the laft
times of the Gofpel, and was at length revealM, when
the Son took upon him human Nature, humbled him-
felf to Death for the Salvation of Mankind, and thus,
as it were, by a new and juft Title acquired divine
Authority over Men.
27, The Oeconomy of the Divine Perfons in the.
moft Holy Trinity, is to me indeed wonderful ; that
Oeconomy, by which every diftin(ft Perfon holds Man-
kind obliged to his Divine Authority,, by a diftind
Title, with which Title the diftinft Revelation of
every Perfon's Authority correfponds. We worfhip
the Father under the Title of Creator of the Uni-
verfe, v^ ho was alfo known to Men from the Creation
of the World : We worfhip the Son under the Title
of our Saviour and Redeemer, whofe Divine Glory
and Authority therefore was not revealed, till he had
accomplifhed the Affair of Man's Salvation and Re-
demption upon Earth. Laftly, we worfhip the Holy
Spirit under the Title of Paraclete, our Inlightner and
Sanflifier, whofe Divine Majefty did then appear
more plain after his Defcent upon the Apoftles and
firft Chriftians, exceeding illuflrious by the moft plen-
tiful Effufions of all forts of Gifts. Then at laft the
Apoftles, and that by their Lord's Command, bap-
tized the Nations into the full and united Trinity,
(as St. Cj-prian fpeaks) i. e. in the Name of the Father ^
Son, and Holy Ghofl. This is what T'ertulmn intends,
(m) yndgmsnt of the Cath. Chtinhy Cap. 5. Sewt. 8.
whea
382 'The Trimitwe and
when giving the reafon, why Chrift did not baptize
himfelf, he fays : Into luhom Jhould he baptiz^e I Into
Repentance ? What bujinefs then had his Forerunner ?^
Into the Remifjion of Sins^ which he gave by a Word ? Into
himfelf J whom he veiled with Humility ? Into the Holy
Spirit^ who was not yet defended from the Father ? After
this Revelation, by which the Divine Nature is known
in its diftind: Perfons, all thofe, to whom it is made,
are in Right bound, and by Divine Precept obh'ged
to pay the fame Divine Worfhip and Honour to the
Son, which they pay to the Father; tho before it was
fufEcient for all the Pious among God's People to
worfhip and adore One God the Father of all things^
without that diftinft Acknowledgment of Perfons.
Hence thofe Sayings, that under the Gofpel it is re-
quired, that all Men honour the Son, as they honour the
Father; and he that denieth the Son^hath not the Father (x).
28. We now come to the third way, or manner, by
which the Son of God, God of God the Father be-
fore Ages, acquired, as it were,' a new Divine Autho-
rity. The Son of God, having taken upon him hu-
man Nature, and in that humbled himfelf, being obe-
dient to the Father, even to the Death of the Crofs,
was truly and properly exalted after his Refurreftion,
and advanced to the right hand of the Father. Now
whatfoever was added to the human Nature either by
his Humiliation or Exaltation, is with good reafon in
Scripture attributed to the Son of God, upon account
of the nice and unfpeakable Communion of the Hu-
man Nature with the Divine Perfcn of the Son of
God, as Origen exprelles the hypofiatical Union. So
he who was in the Form of God, and equal to God, was
'madei obedient to the Death of the Crofs : He who is
the Splendor of the Father's Glory, by whofe moft
powerful Command and Authority all things are ad-
minifter'd, made an Expiation for Sins by himfelf:
He, who was the Prince of Life, is faid to Cy) be kiU'd,
and the Lord of Glory to (2^) be crucify* d. So, on the
' (x) John 5. 25. I John a, 15,, {y) Afls 5. 15.
{^ I Cor. 2, 8.
otheir
other hand, God [the Son] is faid to be received up into
Glory {a)y namely, in that Fiefh in which he was ma-
nifefted. To this Head alfo n3ay be refer'd the Words
of our Lord's Prayer, which he put up when he was
about to die (b) : I have glorify d thee upon Earthy I have
finifh^d the Work thou gavefl me to do ; and now. Father,
glorify me with the Glory J had with thee before the World
was. He defires that the Glory, which his Divine
Nature always had with the Father before the World
was made, may now be given to his Human Nature,
not only by railing it from the Dead, and exalting it to
Heaven i but alfo by placing it at the right hand of
God, where the Divine Nature always was. In vain
do the Hereticks endeavour to elude the Force of
this Place by interpreting it of the divine Predeftina-
tion, as their Predeceflfors did formerly (c) i for they
can't confirm this Interpretation by any fuitable Texts
of Holy Scripture. What they pretend, that the (,d) A-
pofile fpeaks after the fame manner, where he fays of
the Believers, that Grace was given to them before Ages,
is a very great Miftake. Let us read the entire Paf-
fage : Of him that fav'd us, and caWd us with an holy
Calling; not according to our Works ^ but his own Purpofe
and Grace given to us in Jefus Chriji before Ages. How
great a difference is there between this Place, and that
before us. For, 1. The Apoftle doth not abfolutely fay,
according to the Grace given^ but, according to the Purpofe
and Grace given. Now thefe words are either fpoken
figuratively, the Purpofe and Grace being put for the
graciousPurpofe (as (e) afterwards. Life and Incorruptibility
are put for the incorruptible Life) or they are to be ta-
ken in this plain Senfe i. According to the Grace, which
God purposed, or decreed to give us in Chrift before Ages.
Again, Chrift does not fay, the Glory which thou gaveft
me before the World was made, but, which J had. No
Man can avoid feeing the difference between thefe. For
it may be faid, that Grace is then given by God, with
fegard to the Certainty of his Purpofe, by which he
(a) I Tim. 5. 16. {b) John 17.4, 5. (r) Novatian de Tri-
lUitate. {d) a Tim. i. 9. (e) Ver. 10.
de-
584 ^he Tri7niti'veli^kvnTio^y ^C' \
decreed that the Faithful (hould have that Grace in
Chrift, in After- Ages, tho neither that Grace, nor
thofe Perfons, were then in adual being, who fhould
have what was given them. Now the word ZhaveJi is
pofTelHve, and denotes the prefent Ad and Fruition,
(as the {f) Bifhop of Ely has well obferv'd upon this
Place.) Laftly, it is thus in the Words of Chrift, the
Glory which I had with thee^ namely, when I exifted
along with thee. Nor is it to be doubted that thefe
Words of Chrift, T'he Glory which I had with thee be-
fore the World was made^ have the fame Senfe with the
Saying of St. 'John in the beginning of the Gofpel,
that the Word was in the beginning with Gody i. e. the Fa-
ther. Befides, we have fhewn in C^) another place, how
the human Nature of Chrift, exalted in the Heavens,
is partaker of the divine Glory and Honour.
25?. Thus much concerning the Adoration of Jefus
Chrift, and the Argument drawn from it by Jujiin
and other Fathers to prove his Divinity. From all
that has been faid, I think it is now very plain, that
the Religion of the beft Men, which made them afraid
of giving divine Worfhip to a mere Man, was not (as
ZuickeVy that infolent Defpifer of the Fathers imagin'd)
Vain, Puerile, and Superftitious j but fupported by
the beft and ftrongeft Reafons, which they, and their
Accomplices, the Worfhippers of Man, may much
eafier contemn than refute.
To the only God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be given
Adoration and Bleffing for ever and ever. Amen.
(/) A^ainji the Racovian Catechlfm, Seft. 23.
{g) Vef. N. Cr. Sea. 2. Cap. 3. & 1 5.
F J N I S.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11