l£(^X£TVERVr/£j
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1948

AN
Hiftorical Account
O F T H E
CONTROVERSIES That have been in the
C H U R C H,
Concerning the Doctrine of the
Holy and Everbkffed Trinity:
^ight SERMONS, Preached at the
Cathedral-Church of St. PaUly London^
In the Years 1723, and 1724.
At the LECTURE founded by the
Worthy Lady MO TE R, deceafed.

By William B.erriman, D. D.
Re&or^ of St., Andrew's. Ukderfhaft.
'O Kug*(§>* Srai i£i$iiif9, k-niso'Act ix,!yv%t»v, irctrigit 4ltrifij<r«ii, pike-
Tvfic, ibitxawo-uv kpxtt&iiTt xiym ac, iS\2k%fiv)i, km jm pitii r«s
rocpin toStcc BafiLHom. 27.

LOND 0 N:.
Printed for T.Ward in Middle-T'emple Lam, and
CRivington at the Bible and Crotmt in St. Pakl\
Church-Yard. M. DCC. XXV.

453

n

THE
P R E F A C E.
F TE R the learned and ufe-
ful labours of thofe who have
gone before me, in ajferting
the Chriftian T)o£trine of the
Holy and Everbleffed Trinity $
there feem'd to be no part of the Contro-
'tierfy left behind, in which I might more
feafonavly be employ 'd, than the placing it
in that light which may * be thrown upon
it by an hiftorical relation of the fever al
turns which it has taken through the ages
that are paft. By this means the fiate of
the cafe will "be more clearly under flood,
fome of the objections of the ad-verfe party
more eafily removed, and the Chriftian
'Doctrine, in its original purity, more ad-
vantagemfty fupported and maintain'd a-)
gainfi them.
As ail men are defirous to be thought in
the right, it has been, earneftly contended
by thofe of Arian fentiments, that the doc
trine of the Church in the beginning was
on their ftdf, but feceiv'd a mighty alte-,
ratim at the Council of -Nice,*, when a
new J^ke-m was efiabltfb'd invppofition to,
A z theirs,

The Preface.
theirs, and the partifans of Arius decried
as hereticks. They have been learnedly
confuted over and over by much abler
hands, and the Fathers who lived before
the Council have been fhewn to have em
braced one faith with thofe who followed
it. But their vindication may appear to
more advantage, when put in a hiitorical
view, which will difpldy the particular
ends or deftgns they had in their rejpec-
tive writings, and fuggeft the reafon of
their ufing fuch exprejfions, in order to
guard againft the herefies of their times,
ai may pojfibly appear fomewhat harfh and
dangerous, when the fpirit of error has ta
ken a different turn, and led men to the
oppofite extreme.
It is again frequently objected by our
adverfaries, that this doBrine of the Tri
nity is clog'd and encumber' d with variety
of terms not found in Scripture, which at
beft are doubtful m their fenfe, and very
improperly obtruded in matters of faith,
which ought to be regulated by the fland-
ard of revelation. But by this hiftory of
the Controverfy, it appears that thofe terms
were very early introduced, not firft in
vented by the Council of Nice, but found
ed upon ancient precedent % fo that toe who
would accufe -the Church of ufurping a
tyrannical > dominion in this method of
explaining her doctrines, muft accufe it in

The Preface:
the firft arid pur eft ages of Chriftianity,
when the fame terms were made ufe of
to explain this myftery, which are ft ill
continued and retained , by us. It will
likewife appear upon what occafion fuch
terms were originally introduced: not to
alter the doctrine of the Go [pel, but to pre-
ferve it in its purity ; not for the fake of
novelty and fubtle difquifition, but indeed
for a furer fence againft novelty, and to
expofle the perverfe interpretations of he-
reticks, who had urged the phrafe, with
out the meaning, of Scripture, ,and knew
how to conceal the moft pernicious tenets
under the cloak and garb of fcriptural ex-
prefjion. There is likewife this advantage to be
drawn from an hiftorical ftating of the
Controverfy : that the conduct of the dif
ferent parties may be weigh' d and okferv d;
from whence fome judgment may be made
of the merits of the cdufe, when it ap
pears who acted moft like perfons of up
right and unbiafs'd intentions, who were
not afraid of coming to the light, but ex
pected an advantage . from the brightnefs
of their evidence •, and who rather fought
their refuge in obfcurity, by fuch infincere
fhujflings and prevarications, fuch mani
fold artifice and fubterfuge, fuch irrefolute
changing of their forms and endlefs un
certainty , as is no unreaforiable preju^
A 3 dice

The Preface.
dice againft the juftice of their fcheme,
which was rather ruined than defended by
fuch mean and difreputable arts. So that
fome have thought, there hardly needs any
other confutation of the Arians, but to fet
them forth in their proper colours, andfhew
how different a figure from the Orthodox
they have made in all their controverftes.
It will be faid perhaps, that the ac
counts of Maimbourg and Tillemont are
fufficient to this purpofe, and that it
feems a ufilefs labour to undertake the
Hiftory of Arianifm after them. But this
objection will, appear moft conftderable to
them who are le aft converfant in fuch en
quiries. Their accounts are both written
in another language, which makes them
ufelefs to an Engliih reader } and though
that defect is in fome meafure fupplied by
the tranftation of a part of Tillemont by
Mr. Deacon, under the title of The Hiftory
of the Arians, yet that reaches but about the
compafs offtxty years, and is fo far from
being an entire Hiftory of that time, that he
is forced to make frequent references to what
he has elf ew here faid, under the different
titles of Alexander, Eufebius, Marcellus^
Athanafiiis, Euftathius, Meletius, &c.
But beftdes the language, there are other
confiderations which convince us, that a
defign of this kind can be no way unfea-
fonable

The Preface.
fonable or fuperfluous. Tillemont is an
Author, whofe judgment, fidelity and di
ligence deferve our commendation -, but
then his defign was large. and extenfive,
not confined to the fingle point of Arian
ifm or the doctrine of the Trinity ; but in*
tended to take in the whole compafs of
Ecclefiaftical Hiftory for fix centuries. So
that what concerns the fubjett we have
now before us, is fcatter d throughout dif
ferent parts of a voluminous work, which
^omes but into few hands, and is not
without pains and much confumption of
time, to be laid together and. connected in a
proper Order. Befides which it is obferva-
ble, that however exact as to the tranf ac
tions of thofe times, yet he is lefs particu
lar than might be wzfhed, as to the merits
of the caufe -, fo that it is not every reader
that would be able to pick out a jiift ftate
of the Controverfy from his. relation.
This obfervation is lik&wifg applicable to
the Hiftory of Maimbourg, ¦' {which is
'fhortly pwmifed to the publick in Mr. Het-
bertV tranflktioti). who in attending to the
¦moft remarkable events And occurrences, is
many times defective as to. xthe manage
ment of the .dilute, the true hitfge:m
'which it ttfuatty turned. Withal 'it i^cer-
tain, that however he May have idigefi&d
Ms materials , into a more, uniform tMftdfy,
pn4 collected what relates particularly *to
; A 4 the

The Preface.
the cafe of Ariahifm, yet he' is an Author
in whom we want the exactnefs and the
diligence of Tillemont, and who therefore
ought not to be read without fome cau
tion, to correct his errors, and fupply his
defects, which we hope to fee in fome mea-
fure remedied by the notes of his Trans
lator. His Hiftory, beginning but from
the rife of Arius, is pretty much confined
to the proceedings of his followers : whilft
the fentiments of the Apollinarian, the
Neftorian and Eutychian herefies are over
look d and neglected; as well as the difi
ference between the Greeks and Latins,
concerning the proceffion of the Holy
Ghoft, and fome other matters of import
ance in the middle centuries. But it was
thought material, that whatever Contro-
verfies had been moved, which did . any
way affect the Do&rine of the Trinity, as
well before the time of Arius, as after
wards, JhouJd be put together in a Jhort
and eafy view, and ftated for the benefit of
-thofe who have not leifure or capacity for
fo exact a fearch into the ancient monu
ments. haft.lyir:his account of Socinian-
i&gt is mdntfeftly, very lame and imperfect i
nnor do I know of. any one that,\hdd under
taken that part with any juft exactnefs,
' till laft. year there came out a Hiftory
of \ Socinianifm, in French, from whence
^eighth Sermon, {which was drawn up
v.vi before

.The Preface.
before I faw it) has receiv'd many addi
tional improvements.
For my own part, I have endeavour' d to
enlarge- moft upon ihe different opinions of
the hereticks, and the declarations of the
Church againft them {which are the main
hinges whereupon the Controverfy always
turn'd) and to contract my felf, where the
ft ate of the Controverfy has received no al
teration ; fo that a long recital of faBs
would but have dwindled into civil Hiftory.
If I have any where been fhorter than was
requifite to the clearing of the caufe, the
confinement I was in before a publick au
dience may be fome fort of apology. And
yet if after all I have fewer defeBs than
might well have been expeBed from aper-
fon fo unequal to the undertaking; next to
the divine ajfifiance, which oftentimes en
ables the weak things of this world to con
found the wife and the mighty, the reader
muft efteem it to be in great meafure owing
to the advice and ajfifiance of two of my
worthy predeceffors in this LeBure, T>r.
Waterland and T)r. Knight.
There is one particular in the conduct of
St. Bafil, which may be thought to deferve
a little farther clearing in this place. It
is mention'd in the fifth Sermon (pag. 248,
249.) how upon the great growth of he-
refy under the Emperor Valens, when the
Orthodox

The Preface.
Orthodox Bijhops were almoft every where
deprived, and St. Bafil in a manner flood
Jingle to. uphold the Catholick Caufe, yet
even he did fo far yield to the iniquity of
the times, as to forbear the Jpeaking out in
exprefs words, that the Holy Ghoft is God.
This was objeBed to him, by fome of the
more zealous Catholicks, as an argument
of meannefs ofjpirit. His principles were
well known, not only by many Catholicks,
to whom he open'd himfelf freely, both in
his private conferences, and occasional wri
tings $ but even by his adverfaries them-
fefves, who for that reafon perpetually
watch' d their opportunity, to catch fome
direct confejfion of it out of his own mouth.
This induced him to] forbear it in his po
pular difcourfes, not from the fear of any
Jufferings to which he might expoje him
felf, but from a fuft apprehenjton of the
great damage which might accrue to the
Church, by having his See vacated in that
.time of general calamity. At the fame
time he was far from making any criminal
compliances,- he advanced nothing incon-
fiftent with the Catholick Faith ; nay, he
was careful in thofe very difcourfes to af-
fert the fame doBrine in terms equivalent,
tho' he forbore the open ufe of that expref-
fion, which might have given them the
readieft handle to proceed againft him. For
an inftance of this, I would here fet down
3 a part

The Preface.
a part of one of his Homilies upon this
fubjeB, as the moft fubftantial apology that
can be made for him. It is in his twenty
feventh Homily, entitled, Contra Sabelli-
anos, & Arium & Anomxosf where after
having afferted the perfonality of the Son
againft. the Sabellians, and his Divinity a-
gainft the Anomaeans, he thus proceeds:
«  •  " But again, I perceive you to
" be offended at the fubjeB ¦ of my dif-
" courfe, and feem to my felf to hear you
" (as it were) complaining, that whilft I
t< jfpend the time in treating of uncontro-
" verted points, I forbear to touch upon
** thofe which are the ufual matter ofdif-
" pute. For now every one's ears are at-
11 tentive to hear fomething difcourfed of
" the doBrine of the Holy Ghoft. This I
" fhould defire above all things to deliver
" to my hearers in the fame naked fimpli-
" city in which I have receiv'd it my felf,
" with the fame freedom from cwiofity in
" which I have embraced it ; that I might
" not be perpetually anjwering the fame
" queftions, but might give fatisfaBion to
" thofe who learn of me by one open deela-
" ration. But fince you ft and about us as
" judges rather than difciphs, defirous to
<c make trial of us, and not fie eking to learn
« your felves, it will be necejfary for us as
^ in a court of judicature, to prolong the
" dilute, always to be thus interrogated, " and

The Preface.
" and always anfwering what we have re-
" ceiv'd. But you we exhort, that you
" would by no means expeB to hear from
" ^j what may be agreeable to your felves,
" to rafter uv&^tf is pleajmg tp God, and
" confonant to Scripture, and not repugnant
" to the Fathers of the Church. . What,
" therefore has been faid of the Son, that
" we ought to acknowledge his proper per-
" fonality, the fame we are to fay likewife
" of the Holy Ghoft. For the Spirit is not
" to be fuppofed the fame with the Father,
" from its being fatd that God is a Spirit.
" Nor yet may the perfon of the Son and
" Spirit be imagined one and the fame,
" from its being faid again, if any one
*' have not the Spirit of Chrift, he is none
" of his: but Chrift is in you. From
" hence indeed fome have been led to mif-
" take, as if the Spirit and Chrift were the
" fame. But what fay we ? namely, that
" the property of nature is hereby demon-
" ftrated, but not any confufion of the per-
" fons. The Father is he who hath aper-
" feBeffence, and ftands in need of nothing,
" the root and fountain of the Son and
" Holy Ghoft. The Son alfo is the living
" Word in the fulnefs of the Godhead,
" and the offspring of the Father with-
" out any defect. In like manner the Spi-
" r it is full, not part of another, but con-
cc fidefd as perfeB and entire in himfelf. " Thus

1 ne Preface.
Thus the Son is infeparably united with
the Father, and the Spirit is infeparably
united with the Son, there being nothing
to divide, nothing- which might cut off
this eternal conjunBion. There has no
age or diftance of time paffed between
them, nor can our mind conceive any fe-
c paration, by which the Son jhould not al-
' ways co'exift with the Father, or the Holy
1 Ghoft with the Son- TVhen therefore we
1 conjoin the Holy Trinity, think not of it
1 as three parts of ' fomething which only is
' not in faB divided {for this were an im-
e pious imagination) but underftand the in-
' fep arable coexiftence of three who areper-
' feB and incorporeal. For where there is
' the pre fence of the Holy Ghoft, there alfo
' is the pre fence of Chrift, and where Chrift
1 is, there the Father is evidently alfo.
' Know ye not, that your bodies are the
£ temple of the Holy Ghoft? and if any one
defile the temple of God, him fhall God
deftroy. Being fanBified therefore by the
Holy Ghoft, we receive Chrift dwelling in
us in the inner man, and with him the
Father, making a common abode with
thofe who are worthy. The fame con
junBion Ukewife is denoted by the tradi
tion of baptifm, and the confeflion of
faith. For if the Spirit be different in
nature, how came he to be number d toge-
(j ther with them? And if in a courfe of
*' time

The Preface.
te time he was only produced into being, and
" added to the Father and. the Son, how
" came he to be rank'd with the eternal na-
" ture? '. So. that they who divide the Spirit
*\ 'from the Father and the Son, and number
" him among tjoe creatures, muft at once
" imply the: form of baptifm to be infignifi-
" cant, and the confeffion of faith defective.
" For the Trinity wUl be no more a Trinity,
" if the Spirit be taken from it : And yet if
" any part of the creation be taken in, the
cc whole creation may come in \by the fame*
" reafon] and be number' d with the Father
" and the Sofa. For what tin this cafej
ec Jkmld hinder us from faying, I believe inj
'f the Father, and the Son, and in the whole
" creation .'tor in every creature Q Since if
" it be pious to believe in apart of the cre-
'.* ation, .much more will it became us to take'
" in the whole creation into our confejfiow.
" But if ym believe in the whole creation,
" you then believe not only in angels and"
" miniftr'mg Jpirits, but in whatever ad-
" v erf e powers there may be, feeing they
" alfo are a: part of the creation, and yow
" are jain'd to. thefe in the confeffion of
"• faith. Thus does the blafphemy agakift
" the Holy Ghoft lead into wicked and un->
" lawful afferfidns: And as foon as you
" have fpoke what ;yowo)ught not concerning
" the Spirit, the dere&Biaw of the Spirit if
'«* manif eft from thencei For as he that
^ fhuts

The Preface.
" fhuts his eyes carries "darknefs with him-
" felf i, fa he who departs frorn. the Spirit,
" kfivgdeftitute of him that fhattld mMgh-
ce ten Mw» «" overwhelmed withfpiritual
l( blindmjs. Moreover, let tradition kawe
Ci its weight to deter thee from feparating
'< the^ Holy Ghoft from the Father and the
<l Son. This is the doBrine which the Lord
11 hath t(OMgh&^ and theApoftles preached;
"which th# Fathers hmte preferv'd, and
11 the Martyrs have eotyfirm'd; Let it fuf-
u. fice to fp&ak as thou haft learnt, and let
" me\h&av\n.o more fuch fdphifins as thefet
li EitJae* he is unbegotten, or begotten : if
" unbegotten he isa father, ift begotten he
ic is ia; fon :. but if neither of thefe, he is ar
u, creature; . For my own part, I mkimw-
" kdge the? Spirit mdeedymith'the Father;
tl but not M he the Father: and 1 have re-
" ceiv'd him incoiyiMBibn. with the Son,
" yet mt und&r.theeharaBer or name of the
" Sm„ But I understand >hh relation to*
" the Father, bmattfie he pracAedeth. from
" the Father ; andthatfo the Sion, becaufe
" Ihpar, if any oiae-tnasftt'.not^ithe Spirit'
(e of Chrift, he is nonc©£~his.~ 'iNokv if he*
" were not tbe.^b^^Spirit of Ghr^how
" fhould he appropriate^ its *a ftit»?$&hvdir.
"him aiffi >texm°d tkienSpirk ua$ trtsefos and
<c the. Lord, isiht.txw.tki \ Butyw&eml >heaf*
11 him called the Spirit of adoption, this
f falls to mind that unity he has by. na-
"~ tr ;_i v (c ture

The Preface/
" ture with the Father and the Son. For
" how Jhould that which is alien, adopt ?
" How Jhould that appropriate which it felf
€< is different in kirid?< Thus therefore am I
tc cautious neither to coin new words, nor
" diminish the majefty of the Spirit. But as
** for thofe who dare to call him a creature, /
« bewail and lament them, that 'by flight
<c fophiCms and fpecious fallacies, they throw
" themfelves headlong into hell. \ For be-
" caufe our mind {fay they) takes in thefe
" three things, and there is nothing in na-
w ture which falls not within this divifion,
" that it is either unbegotten, begotteflj or
«.* created ; fince the Spirit is neither the firft,
" nor fecond of them, rb rglrov fya, it miift
" . be the third. This aoa {or inference) of
" yours, will render you obnoxious to an e-
^ ternal d$ {or cur fe.) Haft thou fear ch'd
ef out all things? Haft thou a compafs of
" thought to bring every thing under this
" divifidn? Haft thou left nothing unexa-
" mined? Haft thou conceived and Jhut up
" all things in thy .under ft anding? T>oft
" thou know what is under the earth, or in
" the deep? — : 
From all this it is evident, that St. Baiil
was not only entirely catholick in his own
fentiments, but was likewife careful to cul
tivate and improve them in his people.

S E R.-

SERMON I.
Preach'd Kovemb. 7, 172 3 .

Deut. XXXII. 7.
Remember the days of old, conjider
. ... the years of many generations ;
Afk thy father, and he will fhew
thee-, thy elders, and they will tell
thee.

N order to difcern or eftablilh serm. v.
the truth of any of thofe doc- V*OTs4
trines of religion, which are
not difcoverable by the light
of nature or principles of hu
man reafon,- there is no doubt we muft
appeal to the divine revelation as our
guide, that that may be the only ftandard
of b'vtr iaith which God has been pleafed
B to

1 An Hifiorkal Account of
Serm. i. to impart to us. But if it be difputed
VOT*-* where fuch revelation may be found, or
by what rule it ought to be interpreted ;
fome other help muft be called in for the
refolution of this queftion, that the books
of Scripture may be certainly known, and
their meaning rightly underftood.
Where fuch help may be found, is a
matter which deferves our enquiry. Shall
we call them to the bar of our own pri
vate reafon and judgment, efteeming that
to be true which fuits beft with our thoughts
and conceptions, and rejecting that as falfe
which to our apprehenfion may appear ab-
furd or incredible? That would but be
forming a religion to ourfelves, whilft thofe
books mould be genuine which were moft
pleafing to us, or their meaning fhould be
liich as might be moft conformable to our
prejudices. Shall we fay the Scriptures are
fo clear as to want neither proof nor ex
planation ? This is but begging the quefti
on inftead of anfwering it ; and I dare ven
ture to appeal to them who are moft con-
verfant in the ftudy of thofe holy Oracles,
for proof of this aflertion, that there are
many paffages even of the greateft moment
which want to be explain'd, and cannot be
rightly underftood, by a bare reading or
perufal of them. Shall we then expect
the favour of immediate infpiration, to
lead us into aU truth, without the additi on

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3
on of other outward and convenient af- serm. i;
fiftances ? That might do the bulmefs in- ^W
deed : but I know of no promife to warrant
us in fuch prefumption ; we may as well
hope to be inftructed without reading the
Scriptures at all, as expect the divine illu
mination to follow upon the bare reading,
whilft we neglect thofe neceflary means of
underftanding them, which the divine Pro
vidence has laid before us. Laftly, ftiall
we enquire . how the Church in former
ages underftood and explained them, what
proportions were anciently collected from
them as the genuine doctrine of Chrift, and
his Apoftles, what hereiies arofe in oppofi-
tion to fuch doctrine, and by what argu
ments the champions for the truth did
baffle and "defeat them? This feems to be
the cleareft, or indeed the only way, to.
put an end to controverftes pf this kind,
and eftablilh our faith on an immoveable
foundation, fince this catholick tradition
depends not upon mere oral, conveyance,
which might be liable to great alterations
and corruptions, nor upon, the modern te-
ftimony of any particular Church, much
lefs upon the pretended infallibility of any
fingle perfon, but fetches its fupport from
the writings of the moft primitive profef-
fors pf Chriftianity, from the confent of
all the Churches which were planted in
their times, and from theconftant fucceffi-
B a on

4 An Etiftorlcal Account of
Serm. I. on or continuance of fuch tradition thro*
VV>w> all ages cf the Church*.
This has always been found a more cer
tain method for difcoverihg the truth, than
for men to reafon entirely out of their
own heads, and hope to find out fuch doc
trines as were hidden from - the ages that
are paft. It was fo judg'd as long fmce as
the days of Job, when Bildad made this
appeal to the experience and teftirribrry of
antient times : Enquire, I pray thee, of the
former age, and prepare thy felf to the
fearch of their fathers -3 for we are but of
yefterday, and know nothiiigb. So Mofes,
in the text, advifed the Israelites, as a re
medy againft their future infidelity, that
they would look back, thro' antient hiftory
or tradition, to the wonderful things which
God had done for them, and his covenant
founded thereupon. T)o ye thus requite
the Lord, O foolijb people and unwife ? Is
not he thy father that hath bought thee?
hath he not made thee, and eftablijhed
thee ? Remember the days of old, confider

* Id verius quod prius, id prius quod 8c ab initio. TertuL
contra Marcionem, lib. 4. cap. j. Id due verum quodcunque
primuni, id elle adulterum quodcunque poftcrius. Tertul.
adv. Praxeam, cap. 2. Quod univerfa tenet ecclefia, nee con -
ciliis inftitutura, fed femper retentum eft, non nifi apofto-
lica au&oritate traditum re&iflime creditur. D. Auguft. de
Baptifm. contra Donatift. lib. 4. cap. 24. * Job viii. 8, 9.
1 the

the Trinitarian Controverfy. j
the years of many generations : Ask thy serm. i.
father, and he will jbew thee-, thy Elders, ^-OT^
and they will tjell theec. And in like
manner trie Prophet Jeremy di Thus faith
the Lord, (land ye in the ways and fee,
and ask for the old paths, where is the
good way, and walk therein, and ye faall
find reft for your fouls.
And will not the fame method of en
quiry become us now under the new tefta-
ment, which was thus recommended and
prefcribed under the old,? The Apoftles
undoubtedly have left us their directions to
the fame purpofe. From hence St. Taul
not only (peaks of certain ordinances and
fTAditiWS, with regard to matters of prac
tice and outward ,difciplinee, but likewife
of fome others of a doctrinal .kindf, ,of a
.certain form of found words s to be retain'd
or holden faft; which muft mean fome
fummary or fyftem of belief, conformable
indeed to Scripture, but diftinct from it.
Our blefled Lord, 'tis true, upbraids the
'Pharifees with utterly evacuating the word
of God by their numerous traditions h. And
it cannot be denied, but there has been too
much reafon to complain, likewife in the
chriftian Church, of the manifold abufes

* Deut. xxxii. 6, 7. * Jer. vi. 16. ' 1 Cor. xi. 2.
a Thef. ii. if. ' 2 Thef. iii.6. 8 2 Tim. i. 13.
* Mat. xv. o. Mark vii. 7, p.
B 3 done

6 An Hifiorlcal Account of
Serm. I. done under colour of this kind of evidencey
t-OO-' to the weakning at leaft, or rather to the
entire defeating and fetting aftde of many
of the genuine and moft important doc
trines of the Gofpel. But in both cafes it
ought to be obferv'd, they are but pretend
ed traditions of a modern date, not only
fallible but falfe, and fo far from giving
light to Scripture, that they contradict it.
And what has this to do with thofe tradi
tions which are eafy to be traced up to the
earlieft ages, fo that they have the jufteft
claim to antiquity 3 thro' the feveral Churches
where the Gofpel has been planted, fo that
they are truly univerfal ; and this not on
ly as the opinion of a few private perfons,
but as the fenfe or doctrine of thofe Churches,
fo that they have the fulleft and moft am
ple confent i ? Such traditions as thefe,
will not obfcure or pervert, but clear the
fenfe of Scripture, and whilft they lend a
luftre to the facred writings, will receive
from them in return a confirmation of their
own authority.
This therefore is the method by which
the catholick doctrine has always been de
fended againft the innovations and corrup-

' In ipsa item ecclefia catholica magnopere curandum eft,
ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod temper, quod ab omnibus
creditum eft. Hoc eft etenirn vere proprieque catholieum.
.Vincent. Lirin. Commonit. cap. 3, * tions

the Trinitarian Controverfy. %
tions of Hereticks. The fathers of the Serm. fc
Church have conftantly appealed to ca- V*''W
tholick tradition k : to that doctrine which
was at firft derived from the Apoftles, and
from them continued in all Churches for
the firft three centuries at leaft : after
which, tho' it met with interruption in
fome places, yet not in all, never entirely
fupprefs'd, but finding fome to affert it un
der all extremities, and thro' a conftant
fucceflion, capable of being traced back
ward to the earlieft ages.
Surely nothing can be more reafonable
than this method of proceeding. For as it
cannot be difputed but the Apoftles ex-
plain'd themfelves more fully and at large
in their preaching and occasional difcourfes,
but efpecially in the inftructions which they
gave to thofe whom they appointed to go
vern and infpect the Church : So if their
meaning were in any thing obfcure, there
is no doubt but their difciples would be

K Traditionem itaque Apoftolorum in toto mundo mani-
feftatam, in omni ecclefia adeft relpicere omnibus qui vera
velint videre; & habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apoftoljs
inftituti funt epifcopi in ecclefiis, 2c fucceffores eorum ufque
ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt quale ab
Lis deliratur. Iren. adv. hxr. lib. 3. cap. 3.
Edant ergo origines ecclefiarum fiiarum, evolvant ordinem
epifcoporum fuorum, ita per fuccefliones ab initio decurren-
tem, ut primus ille epifcopus aliquem ex Apoftolis vel apo-
ftolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apoftolis perfeveraverit, habue-
rit auftorem Sc anteceflbrem. Tertul. de Frxfcr, c. 31.
B 4 careful

# An Hifiorkal Account/?/
Serm. i. careful to make fiich enquiries as might
V^YN-/ give them occafion to remove that obfcu-
rity, and draw them into farther- explica
tions. After- this, however it might be pre-
fumed that the Apoftles would make choice
of none, but perfons of the greateft inte
grity and beft ^abilities to fucceed them in
the care of the Churchy yet we need -ask
no more of bur adversaries; than to grant
that they chofe men of common fenfe and
common honefty. The firft will free the
perfons chofen from any fufpicion of be
ing miftaken themfelves in points of great
importance; the other will defend them
againft any charge of intending to deceive
their followers. The fame is to be faid of
thofe who came in the next fucceflion af
ter them1: nor ought we to' forget that the
charifmata, or extraordinary gifts of the
Holy Ghoft, which were continued dn their
days* and for a considerable 'time after
wards, muft needs add great weight and
confirmation to the teftimony of thofe ho
ly perfons. But above all, when the tra
ditions of the Several Churches are com-

'• Canftat proinde omnem do&rinam qua: cum illis eccle-
fiis apoftolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei coriipiret, vert-
tati deputandam, fine dubio tenentem quod ecclefia; ab Apo
ftolis, Apdftoli a Chrifto, Chriftus a Deo accepit : omnem vera
doflrinam de mendacio prejudicahdam. quselapiat contra ve-
ritatem Ecclefiarum, & Apdftolprumy & Chrifti, & Dei. Tertul.
de Prfcfcript* cap. 21.

pared

the Trinitarian Controverfy.. 9
pared together, and all are found to agree Serm. 1.
in one uniform, harmonious and catho- ^^^^
lick confeflion, this is the ftrongeft evi
dence that can be asked of their being
/genuine and authentick, and derived, as is
/ alledg'd, from the authority of the Apoftles.
So that when all is done, the fathers of
the Church are appeafd to in this cafe no
otherwife than as witnefles of fact, not as
the firft preachers or founders of any doc
trine to be built upon their own authori
ty, but as attefting it to have been the doc
trine of .the. Church in their times, receiv'd
from their fathers as the catholick doctrine,
and fo from the Apoftles themfelves.
Suppofe we were enquiring after the ge
nuine fentiments of any philofopher : Next
to the confulting of his own writings, which
are ftill extant, Should we not imagine it
concern'd us to examine how his doctrine
was explain'd and understood by the moft
eminent of his followers, who lived in or
-neareft to his own times ? Or fuppofe we
were for fettling the purport and deSign of
any antient Statute law : Would it not be
thought reafonable, beSides weighing the
force and propriety of the expreSiions, in
which modern readers might be apt to
miSiake, to add the circumftances ( of the
times when that law was enacted, the prac
tice that immediately folio w'd thereupon,
and the determinations of thofe judges who
remem-

i o An Hiflorkal Accounts/
Serm. i. remember'd the occafion of enacting it ?
V^^NJ And yet in neither of thefe cafes would
there be half the certainty which there is
in appealing to antient and catholick tra
dition for the genuine doctrines of the
Chriftian Church. *•
True, it may be you will fay, in mat
ters of human learning, or of human po
licy, we may content our felvcs to reft up
on human evidence: But the foundation
of our faith muft be divine, and the au
thority of men, tho' the moft holy and ju
dicious, is too weak a ground to build up
on fecurely, unlefs we be able to make out
their claim to infpiration. No queftion
but this principle is right ; and if any man
whatever, nay, if an Angel from heaven,
Should prefume to teach us any other gof
pel, than that which the infpired writers
have already taught us in the books of
Scripture, let him be anathemam. But
can this make it impoflible for their books
to receive light and. illustration from hu
man evidence ? If fo, there Should no one
be qualify'd to expound them, but he who
is himfelf infpired. And yet, if human
evidence be taken in ; then whether is it
better to receive the testimony of; the pri
mitive fathers, men who had the greateft

Gal i. 8, p, OppOfri

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 1
opportunity to know, the leaft appearance Serm. i.
of worldly intereft to ferve, and the high- **sy^/.
eft proofs of integrity ; or truft to the mo
dern inventions of afluming criticks, who
would pretend to explain what they never
underftood, and pafs their judgment on
the primitive writings, without knowing
the fenfe or tradition of the primitive
Church ? This laft may be the way to a-
mufe and perplex, but the other to inform
and edify!
Well? but this, it may be pleaded, is
it felf a matter of critical enquiry : and
Shall no one be fuppofed to know the
grounds of his faith, but he who has lei-
fure and capacity to read the fathers in their
own languages, to distinguish their genuine
writings from what is fpurious, and byfum-
ming up the whole evidence together to
collect what has been the doctrine of the
Church throughout every age of Christi
anity ? Why yes ; every man muft judge
for himfelf in proportion to thofe abilities
which God has given him. If he have op
portunity and learning for that purpofe, he
will do well to fearch into the records of
antiquity : But otherwife he muft content
himfelf with the reports of learned men,
of thofe especially to whofe charge he is
committed, and of whofe integrity he can
have no reafonable doubt. I know no
other way by which he may be able to
* prove

1 2 An Hiflorical Account of
Sbrm. I. prove that the new Teftament it felf, upon
%^T^ which he founds his belief, is really the
word of God. He muft truft to the tradi
tion of the Church, and particularly to the
fidelity, of the Sirftfuccefibrs of the Apoftles,
that fuch books were really written by thofe
holy perfons, under whofe names they are
tranfmitted to us. And Since there were
many other histories (as St. Luke.n bears
witnefs) of our Saviour's life and actions,
he muft truft them again in distinguishing
between 'em, and judging which were writ
ten by infpiration of God, and, which were
merely ;human compositions. After this
he muft truft 'em with .the fafe cuftody of
thefe books, and taking care that copies
might be faithfully transcribed from them.
Then he muft truft the copyifts of Succeeding
ages with tranferibing from fuch as were
before !em : and when the art of printing
was found out, he muft truft the feveral
editors with collating the copies which oc-
cur'd to them, and noting their refpective
variations. So farthe learned and unlearn
ed muft truft to them alike : but the latter
beSides all. this muft tely upon the credit
of translators, for faithfully conveying to
them the fenfe of the original. So that
to Shut out human evidence from the proofs

Luke i. i. Of

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i 3
of our faith, fo far as 'tis capable of being sjrm. l
proved by facts, is really to fap the fouh- V-OT^
dation upon which it Stands, and fet men
loofe to eternal fcepticifm and uncertain
ty. It is in effect to fay, we Should be
lieve no farther than our fenfes reach ; and
then there is an end of all the credibility
of hiftory for the ages that arepaft, or even
for the prefent, excepting in thofe few oc
currences of which we may happen to be
witneSfes ourfelves.
But what, it may be farther argued, if
the fathers Should be found to lay down
Various and incohStftent rules of faith, if
the fame writer Should happen to differ
from himfelf, or feveral to contradict each
other ? Are we bound to receive both,
however bppofite in principle ? or ought
we not rather to lay both afide, and be
take us to fome other method for difco-
vering the truth * This, I may venture to
fay, will hardly be the cafe among the
primitive writers in matters of great weight
and importance. But if at any time it
Should appear to be fo, the men of learn
ing and candour will know how to weigh
their authority in fuch manner, as not to
prejudice the caufe of pure Christianity.
They will remember that the fathers, how
ever zealous or good, are yet never ap-
peal'd to as infallible directors, but only
as reafonable guides. From hence they wiU

14 An Hifiorkal Account*?/
Serm. I. will be taught to distinguish when thofe
*-^W venerable writers do but indulge their fan
cy in explaining fome private opinion of
their own, and when they difcharge their
undeniable duty in delivering the publick
and avow'd fenfe of the Church. In the
former cafe we may allow them to ufe
greater latitude, but in the other they muft
ftrictly be regarded as witneSfes of fact.
Again, it ought to be confider'd what par
ticular point they had in view in their re-
fpective writings, whether they might not
in guarding againft one herefy, become
lefs cautious and obfervant of another, and
fo give men an unwary handle to charge
them with opinions which they never
thqught of. BeSides which, the whole, of
their writings ought to be compared toge
ther, that what is harlh or obfcure in one
place may be clear'd by another ; and the,
opinion of the antients concerning them,
Should be taken into the account, in or
der to difcern what is genuine in their
works, from that which is Spurious or
foifted in by hereticks. Laftly, we ought
not to reft upon the judgment of any Sin
gle writer, but to take in the concurrent
fuffrjage of antiquity : and by a diligent
obfervance of all thefe directions, it will
not be difficult to trace the catholick
doctrine throughout every age in, matters
qf the chief moment and importance. But

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i $
But is it after all fo fure a thing, that Serm. i.
fucceflion and tradition may be fairly plead- ^V^
ed in behalf of the chriftian doctrine ? May
it not be urged againft us, that Christianity
has had its turns and alterations as well as
other fects of religion ? Is there not a wide
disparity obfervable between the writings
of the earlieft and the later fathers ? Have
not the former deliver'd the prime articles
of faith in fuch manner as they who are
now called hereticks would not fcruple to
confefs, whilft the other have introduced
fuch a multitude of new phrafes as may
create a fufpicion of fome new doctrine^
not gather'd from the books of holy Scrip
ture, but learnt from the decrees of Coun
cils, /'. e. from human decisions ? Accord
ingly, is it not certain that both antient
and modern hereticks have laid claim to
antiquity as well as the orthodox ; and how
ever they might not think fit to lay too
much Strefs on the authority of fathers, yet
they have thought they had fufhcient
grounds to reckon them on their Side ?
Nay, have not fome of the modern affer-
tors of orthodoxy given up the caufe, and
granted to the heterodox Side fome of the
greateft names in antiquity?
In anfwer to all this, I may venture to
aSFert, becaufe it is no more than much
abler hands have already made good, that
the faith of the catholick Church has al
ways

i6 An Hiftorkal Account 0/
Serm. i. ways been the fame as to the main heads
^^y^-^ and fubftance of its doctrine ; and what
ever appeals the hereticks may have made
to antiquity, they have always been defeat
ed upon that head, whilft the catholick
tradition has been eaftly defended and main-
tain'd againft them. ' If after this there
Should appear to be fome little variety in
the manner of exprefling it, that is no more
than what ufually falls out in every other
discipline and fcienc'e,; the true force and
import of words being liable to vary, in
proportion to the different ufages of per
fons and places, and the circumftances of
the times. So long as the multitude of be
lievers were of one heart and of one foul,
there was the leSs need of caution in their
manner of expreSIion, becaufe they knew
their meaning to be fully underftood 5 and
were under no apprehenfion that their words
might be perverted to a contrary fignifica-*
tion. But when the fubtilty of hereticks
took advantage of this primitive Simplicity
of expreSIion, and explain'd the catholick
words to an heretical fenfe, it became ne
ceflary to ufe fuch terms as might guard
againft their wicked artifices, and leave them
as little fubterfuge as words could do. It
is the fenfe of the article, and not the words,
Which is the object of our faith : and there
fore it can avail our hereticks but little, to
plead that they will Stand to the primitive} expref-

• the Trinitarian Controverfy. 17
"Cxpreflions, fo long as it is clearly demon? Seem, i:
Arable that they have departed from the pri- V"^YNJ
mitive fenfe0, and denied that faith which
was once deliver' d unto the faints*.
Here indeed the corrupters of the anti
ent doctrine take pleafure to difplay their
rhetorick ; they -declaim loudly and long
of the unreafonablehefs of forming articles
in other words than thofe in which the Ho
ly Ghoft has thought fit to lay them down
In Scripture ; they think this is to aim at
being wife above the Holy Ghoft, who beft
knew in what terms' to propofe the doc
trines of our holy religion, and .could more
eaSily provide againft the fubtilties of any
future herefy, than the moft exquifite art or
fagacity of man can do againft the prefent.
Far, far be it from us to difpute 'either
the.wifdom or the power of our God, his
prefcience to forefee, or to have cdndemn'd
in moft exprefs terms all the various hereSics
of future times. But where is the force or
conclusion of this argument, that he muft
certainly have done thus, becaufe it was
not impoSIible for him to have done it ?
It is furely fufficient that he has. made a re
velation of hianfelf fo clear and perfect,
that men of riiodeft and humble difpofi-
tions, who ufe all thofe helps . which his
Providence allows them for understanding
0 Tantum veritati obftrepit adulter fenfus, quantum & cor
rupter ftilus. Tertul. de Prsefcript. cap. 17. f Jude, ver. 3.
C it,

to An Uiflorkal Ac C o u n t of
Serm. i. it, may be able to difcern the 'nature of
VOT^ thofe truths Which they ought t6 believe,
as well as of thofe duties which they are
bound ' to obfervc. And can this he
reckbn'd tb exclude or restrain the paftors
of the Church from guarding thofe truths,
as new occasions offer,, againft thofe falla
cious and eyafive constructions, whereby
Some would wreft the very phrafes of the
Gofpel, to evacuate its principal defign >
imitating herein the father of all lies and
iierefy, Who ufed' the fame Stratagems of
fcripture-phrafe tp feduce, had that been
poflible, the Lord of Glory i. We Own
the Scriptures to be fo far clear 'as that
they may be underftobd, yet hot fo as that
they cannot be mistaken : God having thus
feen fit, as 'well to try bur humility, and
to e-xercife our faith, as to require bur di
ligence in Studying the' facred Oracles, and
ufing all the proper, methods in our power
for fixing' "their true fenfe a'nd'defign. ^e
ufe therefore of fuch phrafes as may moft
effectually conduce to that end, is not de
parting from the Scripture, but adhering
to it; and let men exclaim as they pleafe
' Kkt <f> retf Ixm rat yfapat 'As|«s yjs&lpairi, fMi att%tfr6t tBk
Vj«<pow«"' *«» r« pi/jtiUTX rife ojl)»Jo|i«s $6tyfu»lxi, 'fiuvih btsij tws
A«a5o-i Wfao-s^s/s, b y> o'(6>j. Slavolct, AetAsVw, «M* as it$b[/itt jrpo-
C«7-« fijfieelcs ^ifi^tiMefHiifm, t*Sb6a Tie tj? 'Aef'ts' <P(cvS<rtv, «i; a
tSi dioitriu? Kxfayifbiit Sia/ieX®-, xj ^ xmk&i©* iX«.Xp pa Tet
ix rat y(x0m, icpijjjain Si a^jJ tb 'cWftjes. Athanaf. Epift.
EncycWd Epifc.jEg. &Lyb.§8.Tdm. r.p; 278. Edit. Bened.
4* againft

%> the Trinitarian Controverfy. ip
jagainft human.cteeds, and irnppSitjons, there s.e.rm. i»
^wilLbe always ground to fuip,ect, that it: is •VxTV
not fo much .the form of words, as ,the
(doctrine contain d in 'em,:i which .gives
-•them fueh id^iaSte, Since. he who is fatis-
fied. about the; fenfe, can have little reafon
/to. quarrel with the phrafe. ,, ,c
:.-, Well ,; but thefe; terms, it is alledg'd,, have
4r.awn.meavoff.:&-piri.the.;finipflicity of the
i^r^artL doctrjLne, inpo fiuitlels and unedi-
fyifig /peculations ; they have fubftituted
i jnetaphyfical , fubtilties in the , room of ar
ticles /of; faith, and pbtruded.>tfor, catholick
,;do&rhies the jdeftifipns pf men. f( As if the
;hlame of fubtilty, and .vain Speculation were
..chargeable only pn the orthodox fide, ,and
..fyeite not .rather due , to the innovations.of
hereticks, who not content with that .-Sim-
.p.Hcity in, which the christian .doctrine was
originally jpropofed, were L for ..inventing
fuch new and .eyaliye expositions, . as re-
tain'd the words, .without the meaning,, of
-;Ch?iftianity. -/When they began ,to philo-
. fophize .upon thegreat myfteriesof our re
ligion, ; and. to,infift that they muft either
be explain'd in their ,way,, or exp.fl.fed as full
.of abfurdity^nd contradiction ; it was then
¦neceflary .for the catholick Christians tb.ex-
_ plain themfelves, and 'Shew how their te
nets were defeniihle againft thofe .fubtle
reafoners. --When thefe points came -after
wards. tov be difcufs'd in the fchools, I.t\%
C a" pofnole

ib An Hiflorkal Account 0/
Serm. i, poflible they might be fpun into fome nice-
W^ ties, too fine for common ' underftandings,
•and too far remote from the fubftance of re
ligion to be neceflary for them. But this was
not the condition of the Church in the earli
est ages of the Gofpel ; they had then neither
leifurenor luxury enough to indulge them
felves in wanton curibftties ; and ' if any
thing of this kind Should appear in the works
of fome particular Author, it will be eafy
to feparate it from the known and ^al
io w'd doctrine of the Church. So that of
thefe we may be fafely : ignorant, without
giving up thofe Significant explanations by
which the primitive Church found it !rie-
ceflary to guard againft the 'innovation and
calumny of all gainfayers. 'Tis for that Very
reafon that the enemies of truth have all
along complain'd with fo much warmth
and vehemence againft thefe explanations.
But let the blame be laid where it really is
due, and let them be anfwerable for the in
troduction of other terms, who had firft in-
Vented to themfelves another fenSe, and
taught how to difguife the grbfleft Pagan-
ifm under the veil of Christianity.
As well the occafion of my Standing here
at prefent, as the plain tendency of this
difcourfe it felf, may fuggeft it to be cal
culated for the defence of the orthodox
doftrine of the Trinity in Unity, againft
the clamorous objections of Arians and
* other

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 2 1
other hereticks, by an hiftorical deduction serm. r.
of this controverfy from the Gofpel-times, v/Y^^-
to Shew the constant afiertion of that doc
trine in the Church, the opposition which
was made to it from time to time by in
fidels and hereticks, the different lights in
which that may have placed the contro
verfy, and the manner whereby the fathers
of the Church have found it proper to
guard againft fuch opposition.
Thofe without all doubt were judg'd the
moft important doctrines of the Gofpel, in
which the Catechumens were required to
be instructed, before they were receiv'd in
to the Church by baptifm : Since that con-
feSJion could not but be efteem'd eflential
to Christianity, without which no one was
permitted to be made a Chriftian. It has
been conjectured by fome learned menr,
that the original creed propofed to Cate
chumens, was no other than this Short con-
feSIion taken from the form of baptifm,
I believe in the Father, or in God, the Fa
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft •, which
in the fecond century came to be enlarg'd
in opposition to the various fects and
branches of the Gnoftick herefy, which
had either difown'd or perverted every

' Vid. Epifcop. Inft. Theol. 1. 4. § 2. c. 34. D. Bull. Judt
Eccl. Cath. c. 4. § 3. D. Wall. Hift. of Infant Bapt. part 2.
ch. 9. § ia. C 3 doctrine

21- Ah Hiftorical Ai c c o un t fl/
Serm. i. doctrine of Chriftianity, Bur as* this maft
%>^y^-f be acknowledged' to be nothing: more thanr
matter of ' conjeili'mrc",- fo pTerfeaps;it may ap
pear to liavelefs foundation ftlianr has been
commonly ihiagin'di, when wer haVe madic
a little reflection upon the -State > of 8 the
ChUrch at the beginning of .Christianity, fi ¦/
It is certain', that the firft converts were
made either from Judaifm or {Paganifm ;
among the latter of whom there were ma-:
ny who had": belfleV'd the eternity of' the
world, and to both the dbctrine of a cru
cified Saviour had beet* matter of offeree'*.
Arid therefore it Cannot but be thought
exceeding' rational and pertinent, that be
ing thu's reciaim'd from the fbrementiori?d
infidelity, they Should make a more expli-
cite profeffion of their belief' In Gbd .as
the Creator, an'd in Chrift as humbling
himfelf to take out nature tipoh him, and
redeem us by his5 death Md paffion, in or
der to give the fuller proof of the reality
of their coiivetfio'n. Aceordikgly it is ob-
fervable, that trie ApoStles ertlafged much
upon thefe articles11 in the difcourfes made
by 'em to their cbhverts before baptifm ; as
^ -„¦... i-i.-J

. ---v. .._/ ._ .

:'" -"^ '¦ .-..>"• ,:.j, b- ',.
r Vid. Grabii Annot. ad Bull. Jud. EccL Cath. cap. 6. and
Mr. Reeve's Notes upon Jufiht Mw/j^s- Ape-logy, pag. 108,
'',»9t- See alfo the critical Hiftory. of the Apoftles Creed,
ch. i. p. 3 1, &c:
1 i Cor. i. a j-. » A<fts ii. 14, &c. ch. viii. 3^. cfc x.
36, &c. ch. xiif. z6. ch. xvii. 23. •;¦¦ .5
upon

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 23
upon points in which it was rnpft neceflar Serm. r.
ry to have them fully inStruded; and of V-<"W
which by confequence they Should be ex
pected to make a more, distinct and parti
cular, confeflion. To this purpofe they
feera yery. early to have been digested into
the form of a creed. 5. from whence we fine!
mention made in Scripture of a form of
do Brine deliver a w, and a form of found
words x s nay, we have the heads of divers
articles recited in the epiftle to the He-
brews ?, under the tit^e of the. foundation for
merly laid, and! the^ principles of the doflrine
of Chrift i which will moft reasonably be
understood^ to refer to ^o^ae, cpnfeSfion of
faith,, conSifting p,f fey eral particulars, and, re-
^ed at the, time of baptifm, when men were
f^rft incorporated into, the christian Church.
If is. certain aga^n, frpm the writings of
thofe who lived jaear the age of the
ApoSUes, as Irenes *, Tertullian K and
Origen *>, that there was fonie publick form.
of confeSnon, or ruje of faith, not always
exprefs'd \v\ the very fame phrafe, but StiU
the fame in fubftance (excepting one or
twq particulars) with that creed which we
now call the AppStles. And it ought tp
• Rom. vi. 17. x"aTim.'i. 13.' y Heb.vi. 1, 2.
1 Iren. adv. hsr. 1. I. c. 2. 1. j. c. 5,4. Ed- Feuard.
'TefFuT'de v3&ind. Virgin, c. 1. de PrselcTIpt. c. ','1 3 . adverf.
Praxeam. c. 2. *Pr'gen>,'^?,..4ff J ?n PrQen).
C 4 be

14 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. i. be obferved, that this'r^fe of faith is al-
,-^^N> ledged by them in confutation of the he
reticks of their times, tinder the character
of that tradition which the Apoftles had dc-
liver'd to their fucceflprsc; and therefore
can fcarce be fuppofed to have been then
newly drawn up in opposition to thofe ve-
jy hereticks, who could hardly be expect
ed to have much regard to the novelty of
Such compofure. And laftly, in confirma
tion of all, it may be fit to reflect upon'
the great uniformity of antient creeds,
which is no inconsiderable proof that they
had been taught from the beginning. From
whence we find, that the weftern or Ro
man creed (which we now call the Apof
tles) was in fubftance the fame that was
, receiv'd throughout all parts of the Church,
tho' a little more exprefs in the Eaft about
the article of the Son's Divinity, becaufe
that part of the Church being more in-
fefted with hereSies in that refpect, it be
came in procefs of time more neceflary to
guard their Catechumens againft thofe cor
ruptions. But tho' for thefe reafons it may feem
probable that the Original creed for Cate
chumens was not fo very Short and con-
cife as is alledg'd, but cpntain'd more arti-

! Vid. Authores proxime laudat,"
des,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i f
cles, for fubftance the fame in all Churches, Serm. i:
though not entirely in the fame order or ^V^
phrafe, yet there can be no doubt but that
profeSIion of faith in the three Divine Per
fons was contained in it, fuch a distinct
profeSIion of believing in them all, with
out any intimation of difference or inequa
lity, as was underftood by the antients to
imply an equal acknowledgment of their Di
vinity. Nay, and as the other articles were
but declaratory of what the Church be
lieves concerning each Perfon, the creati
on of all things by the Father,, the redem
ption of mankind by the Son, and the be
nefits which we receive by the fanBificati-
on of the Holy Ghoft : For this reafon the
whdle creed is < fometimes reckon'd to be
fum'd up in this acknowledgment of three
Divine Perfons, even when there can be
no doubt but longer forms were in ufed.
Indeed, in which ever form we fuppofe
the baptifmal creed to be expreffed, it can
not be imagined that this Should be taken
for a full and compleat declaration of faith,
•but only for a Short memorial, whereby
thofe who were about to be receiv'd into
the Church by baptifm, were firft required
to make profeSIion of their concurrence

' Tiiritia e*5 rev srcMfx., xj t'j$ toi vim, xai lie, To uymv TryiujliU,
*«< *'s h pcc/lirf/ict, jxifitmm'itii, Cyril. Hierof. My ft. i. § 6.

with

1 6 At* Hiftoviaal A c c o y n<t of
s-erm* L with the Church, in acknowledging thofe
W^*-* three Perfons for the one. obje& of theiij
faith and worlhip ; being before instructed
by their respective Catechifts, what was the
avo.w'd meaning; and deSIgn: of that pro*
feffion, andi ¦what, they were underftood tp
believe: cone^miiBig: each Perfon, whea; they,
thus openly <teclaajed> that they believed iyt
themc. This is the. more cpnfifm/d, be-
caufe the confeSfion of faith was ufed by
way of anfwer to one of the interrogato
ries at baptifm, and! as, the natural cpnfe-
quencest of that renuniciatioaf of the deyil,
which went ipme^at^ly bsfem itf5 fo that
frara renouncing the d^yii they proceed
ed to profefs their faith in Qod : And who
is that God, but Father, Son, apd Holy
Ghoft ? to each of whom they 414 then
dedicate themfelves by fubmitting tp b? in
corporated in their name. There cap be
no difpute of the ufe of fuch interrogato
ries in the age after the Apoftles j an4 as
that is a good argument of its being de
rived from them, fo it feems tp be not
obfcurely alluded to by St, 'Peter himfelf,
when in treating of kaptifm, he mak§s
mention of the mfmt Qf a ggod confidence
towards Gods,

K D. Bull, u$ fupr. D. Wateriand, Serm. 8.
f Vid. Conft.Apoft. 1.7. c. 41. Cyprian. Epift. 70. Cyril
Hierof, Myft. 1. § ff. « 1 Pet. iii. 11. Before

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i?
Before the rife of herefy, Such general Serm. i:
anfwers might fuffiee;. and they who had VYV
no miftruft that their words Should be
perverted by any heretical pravity, might
content themfelves with thefe Short hints-
in the confeillon it felf, So long as the
meaning of them was well known and'
avow'd,- and more at large explaia'd in
catechetical difcourfes; But it was not
long that the Church of Chrift could en
joy the benefit of fuch Simplicity. The
myfteiy of iniquity began to work betimes,.
and fuch herefies arofe, as quickly gave too
jaft Occafion for enlargement. Yet fuch,
withal we may dbferve, was the condition!
of many of thefe herefies, and fuch the
method in which the catholick* oppofed
them1, that the knowledge of this matter
cannot but reflect a luftfe, and add a mighty
confirmation to the orthodox belief in this
doctrine of the ever-blefled Trinity.
Iii the very days of the Apoftles, began
Simon Magus to broach his herefy ; and
he who, before he made profeSIion of
Christianity, had fo deluded the people of
Samaria with his forceries, that he pafs'd
among theni fbr the great power of Godh, a. d. 34.
was too fond of their efteem to drop his
pretentions afterwards ; and therefore when
he found himfelf not likely to fucceed Ion-

Afts viii. 5, 1 o.

ger

1 ff An Hiftorical Accounts/
serm. 'I. ger in Paleftine, as being neither able to
CofV equal the Apoftles, nor to bribe them to
his intereft, he took his journey to Rome,
that he might fpread the poifon of his he
refy in the Weftern World * ; where though
St. Peter's arrival effectually expofed the
£.D. 64. falfhood and vanity of the impoftor, yet
fo many and fo monftrous were the delu-
fions advanced by him and his immediate
followers, that he is from hence efteem'd
to be the head or founder of every herejyk,
not only as being firft in order of time,
but as having foWn the feeds or principles
of all the reft. He Still gave out him
felf for the fupream God, who had ap
pear'd in Samaria as the Father, in Judea.
as the Son, and in other nations as the
Holy Ghoft1. The firft production of his
mind, he pretended to be a female Spirit
called Enncea, who having, as the mother

1 Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 14. " Simon autem Sa-'
maritanus, ex quo univerfa: hxreCes fubftiterunt— — .Iren.
J. 1. c. :o. al. 2 j. vid. &c. 30. alias 28. c. 33. al. 29. Wong
fiia tsv kjjYfiyn ecifciriui wgarct y'm&tu Ten Xi/Aimet SMfiiAifpitpfy.
Eufeb. H. E. 1. 2. c. 13. ' Iren. 1. i.e. 2<a. alias 23.
Epiphanius. (Hser. 21.) makes him to have given out himfelf fir
the Father and the Sm, and Helena for the Holy Ghoft. But I
have chofen to follow Irenseus, who was not only a writer of much
greater accuracy, but lived much nearer to the time of that im
poftor. And his tefiimony is confirm'd bi Simon'; own words as
quoted by St. Jerom (in comment, ad Mat. xxiv.' Ed. Ben.
torn. 4. p. 1 14.) Ego fum Sermo Dei, Ego Paracletus,
ego Omnipotens. Vid. Grabe Spicileg. Secul. i.f.'ioj.
) .of

the Trinitarian Controverfy, c$p
of all things, produced thofe angels and serm. i:
inferior powers, whom he pretended to be ^-^V^V
the creators and governors of this lower
world, did at that ' time actuate or dwell
in the body of that Helena whom he en
tertained as his infeparable companion™.
After which he, or certainly his earlieft
difciples, framed moft extravagant conceits
of n their <i/Eons or genealogies of Gods,
which were afterwards more fubtilly pro-
pofed and methodized by thofe who fuc-
ceeded inthe fecond century. In this they
prided themfelves for their fuperior know
ledge, ''¦ affirming the vain-glorious title : of
the Gnofticks, or knowers ; which though
Eufebius0 and Epiphanius p do fometimes
feem almoft to appropriate to the difciples
of Carpocrates, does yet appear from Ire-
naus i to have belong'd in common to the
followers of Simon-, from a collection of
whofe abfurdities < the Carpocratian herefy
it felf was framed, and was therefore per
haps more eminently ftiled the Gnoftick t.
Which character, as we learn from Ire-
naus, extended alfo to th£ Nicolaitans,
a feet expreSIly ¦condemn'd in Scripture, A.d. S7.

*"lren. 1. i^ c. 20. alias 13. n Iren.l. r c. 33, 34.
GTeg. Naz. orat. 44. p. -jaf. ° Eufeb. H. E. 1. 4. c.7.
* Epiph. Hser. 27. § 1. * Iren.l. 1. c. 33. vid.&Tiilem.
Memoirs pour., iervir a l-'hiftoire Ecclefiaftique,' torn. 2.fous
titre Les Gnofliques. ' Vid. D. Cave Hift. Lit. ad An. 1 is.

{Rev.

.30 Akt Hiftorical Ac count 0/
-s m«. 1. ( i?«/. ii. 6, ,-i-o. ) and ;c which took r.their
fc^Y^-* name, though perhaps not their princi
ples, from one of the Seven deaeojis in
the. AMs (vi. 5.) ;Befides feveral abMnina-
bk; tenets with relatfoji to pra&ice, ithey
. had : much the fame cionceits of the ? .Supe
rior powers or iXjA^ws, and blafphemed
the Creator of the worM as an .iq^ejiior

being

s

f

¦;o

From hence new 1 wa may rejafon4My*ar-
gue for the equal DiyMty bf Fafheiy.Son,
and Holy Ghoft, as the too wn, and. avow'd
-doctrine of ,the Church ; fince otherwife-
this impoftor had but expofed and ruined
rhis owA.icaufe iji/aSfuming to himfelf. the
-characters -Of all the three. :Mean while
>.jt is worth our obferv,ation that here feem
. to have j been laid the feeds both of the
SabeUian and the Arian herefy. cFor as in
arrogating to himfelf that threefold, cha
racter he/mayvfeem to intimate, that he
-meant them >.for three >names of one ; and
.the fame Diyineiperfon,; which is pure and
undoubted Sabellianifim : So by teaching that
; Helena oxEnnoea^ho ;plainly fubfifted fe-
/^ara^elyifrom himfelf, .was yet the .firft pro
duction of his mind, he did at the fame
time fuppofe, that all productions of the

r See Till. torn. 2. Les Nicolaites. Iren, I. 3..C. .11. Epi-
phan. n.ij. 3. Philaflr.c. 33.Aug.cj.

Deity;

the Tr infeati&n Commberfy. % i
Deity fmuft'b'e'idoied from fowie heginning, Bm m. t.
and have a divided or ' feparate iefciStracei; ^^VN^
which is "the >vetfy ;fu*n and Substance rdf
xheArkm fyft^m.
We learnifrolfi 'Sfwjlin- Martyr % who was
himfelf a n&tftfe^fah© Province Of Samaria,
thatJrnoft of'the tpepleof that city conti
nued- Under the {pdwerjof'hisxIeluSions 5: and
foit Should feenvdid foment Rome -it ielf,
•Where (we are ?Old>) there was a Statue*1
erected to -his ^honour, tho' "this muft be
underftood of 'theJ"hea$hen inhabitants, > and
^artieUlariy of the ^mperorC^*&»j, iwho
had the power ofefe&ing:Slatttes, and riot
Of the Chr-ntians oi'Rome, <¦ whom St.^-
natius Jfome time after commends "» £dr
the purity of the-ir' faith. Within the Chardi
indeed, his ?he)?&fy cannot be tmaginedto
have-rhade 4ny GOhSide-rabk. Brogrefs iwhilft
the ApolMes lived. <But when they were all
dead, except St. John, it began to Shew
i its ¦ head 'with • greater hoMnefs ; and heing
differently model'd according to the dif-

' Juft, Mart, in Apolog. p. 69. inter-epera. ""-This is
njferted by, Juftin, Irenaeus, -and Eulebius, in the placet already
cited, ret fome modern criticks have judg'd it a miftake, becaii/h
there was another 'flame dug up in the k/l century, with an in-
fcription fomething like it: Which however concludes nothing,, unlefs
it be fnfpofedimfoJJible for two fuch flat ues to have been at Rome.
Vid. Tillemont. Memoirs, torn. 2. not. 1. far Simon le Ma-
gicien. See alfo Mr. Reeve'; Notes upon Juftin's "Apology; p. f 4?
ff, f6- and Mr. Thirlby, Annot. in lac. p. 29.
."Ignat.Epift.ad Rom. in Grab. Spicil. Se'cul. z. p. 13.
ferent

3* An Hiftorical 'Ac couni :'.of
Serm. r. ferent hilmour of his followers, it was
VnT^ .branch'd out into various, fects, which be
ing none of them able to.rdigeft the; doc
trine of God incarnate, chpfe either to di
vide the Divine nature' from the human in
our blefled, Saviour, or elfe to fupppfe his
aSTumption rof the human to be nothing
more than iphantafm and outward ihew.
; The latter was the herefy of Simon him
felf*, and: after him propagated in the fchoql
rof Menander his immediate fucceflbry, and
.of others Who were afterwards called > Ao-
¦znlcu or Qavlctqnctcu, from 'this very notion
of Chrift's taking only the appearance of a
man, confeffing clearly the proofs of, his
Divinity,' when for that .reafon they de-
,nied him to be cloath'd;with the fubftance
*of our fleSh z. But the other was the blaf-
-jphemy of Cerinthus, who allowing that
Jefus was really a man, and fuSfer'd in fuch
manner as the Gofpel relates, believ'd ne-
verthelefs (and in that Irenaus* joins him

* n«0e*!« & )m> ttaratuiu', «AAoi Shxvo-ti fiiivm. Epiphan. Harr.
it. § i. Ita & Iren. adv. Hser.l. i. c.20. alias 23.
y ' Ol/tOUC 0S ra ictvlis AlSbuTKaXce ret truvlx <runv<p»ivav v^> ii
'SiIiXhtIi ry StSumMhla. Epiphi Haer. 22. § 1. Vid. & Iren.
1. 1. c. 21. alias 23.
1 Alii quoque Haeretici ufque aded Chrifti manifeftam com-
plexi funr Divinitatem, ut dixerint ilium fuifie fine carne, Sc
totum illi fufceptum detraxerint hominem, ne decoquerent in
illo Divini noirjinis poteftatem, fi humanam illi fociaflent, ut
arbitrabantur, nativritatenv Novat. de Trin. c. 18.
J Iren.l. 3. c. 11. -rt -
with

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 3
\dth the Nicerlajtffls) that Chrift was a dl- serm. u
ftinct being, a Divine power, or one oi his ^-^VNrf
invisible zyEans, who defcending upon^-
Jus at the time of his hapfiifrn, reveard to
him the unknown Father; and after he
had enabled him to work miracles, for-
fook him again before his crucifixion b.
Here feems to be fomething like that he
refy which was afterwards charged upon
Nefiorius, which divided the natures into
two, perfons; or elfe like that of Theodo
tus, Artemon, Paul of Samofata., Photic
nus and Socinus, who all fuppofed him to
be merely man, altho' in a moft eminent
manner gifted and infpired from above.
To this he added the obfervation of the
law of Mofes, tho' that one would fnppofe
muft be merely hypocritical c, to avoid the
perfecution and envy of the Jews, Since it
is evident he agreed with all the other fol
lowers of Simon, in Supposing this .world
to be created not by the Shpream God, but
by fome inferior, nay evil powers,; of whom
one was afterwards the lawgiver of the
Jems, and the iasSipiiier of the antient pro
phets d, though not it feems without fome
exception; for they diftinguifiYd (we are
told) between the antient prophecies as pro-

* Ireri. 1. 1. c. 25-. Epiphan. BJasr. 28. § 1.
' Vid.D. Bull.Def. fid. Nic' .fed}:. 3. cap. %.%f.
f Epiph. Haer. 28. § 1, z.
D ceeding

3 4 An Hiftorical Account*?/
Serm. I. ceeding from two different principles6; and
VOO*' where-ever they could wreft any thing to
look favourably to their fentiments, they
were willing to afcribe it to the fpirit of
truth. Here again was the fountain and
foundation of the Manichaan herefy, which
could not otherwifc account for the ori
gin of evil, but by aflerting a diftinct prin
ciple of darknefs, befides the author and
fountain of all light and goodnefs.
To thefe we may add the Ebionites, ano
ther fort of hereticks ariiing in the firft
century, fo named from Ebion, the difciple
of Cerinthus^ who obferv'd the Jewifh
law out of principle, as his mafter had done
out of hypocrify, and agreed with him in
acknowledging Jefius to be merely man,
tho' without that fiction of Chrifi, as ano
ther perfon defcending on him at his bap
tifm; without concurring likewife in his
notion of the a/Eons, or afcribing the
creation of the world to an inferior being.
It has been earneftly Contended, by fome
of our modern hereticks s, that this feet of
the Ebionites were no other than the pure
and orthodox Chriftians from among the

¦ Iren. I. z. c.66. alias if. Epiph. Haer. z6. 6.
f Philaftr. cap. 37.
s Zuicker Irenicum Irenicor. cited by Bp Butt in his prim.
& afojl. trad. Hiftory of the Unitarians Let. 1. p. z6. To-
Jmd's Nazarenus, ch. p. p. 2/.

Jews

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 y
Jews, who were otherwife known by the Serm. v.
name of the Nazar ens, and retain'd the ^Ts/
obfervation of the Jewifh ;law, together
with their faith in Chrift as the Mejfiah.
And as it cannot be denied but the Naza-
rens and Ebionites agreed in tlieir opinion
of the law of Mofies, and were for that
reafon both of 'em pretty much neglected
by the catholick Chriftians, from the time
at leaft of the deftruction of Jerufalem -,
fo 'tis not unlikely that this fimilitude of
circumftances might occafion them to cul
tivate fuch correspondence with each other,
as might in procefs of time produce a far
ther agreement in their notions of our
Lordh: At leaft it might give. a handle to
the catholicks, who were but little ac
quainted with them, to treat them as per
fons of the fame fentiments *. From hence
all the judaizing Chriftians are term'd E-
bionites by Origen^; and however Epi
phanius1 himfelf pretends not to any cer
tainty that the Nazarens deny'd the Divi
nity of our blefled Saviour, but indeed ex
preSIly allows m that there was fome diffe-

11 Vid. Epiph. Haer. 30. §2.
1 Vid. Bull. Jud. Eccl. Cath. cap. 2. § 16.
' k Orig. contra Celf. 1. 2. juxta init.
1 n=f< £p<Ta i% ix o'<Jas iWi, It xm avjai ¦Jn?ib» uthurrot
¦ tt/ii^wu. Epiph. Haer. 29. § 7.
t ™ A(«^spov](« fHisi 'trig®* srgos Toy srspo* *«]« rt. 'Hser. 30. § 2,'

D 2 rence

$6 An Hiftorical A ceo unt of
Serm. i. irence between them and the Ebionites i
V^W Yet having rathly cenfured them, upon ac
count of their adherence to the law, as
perfons of like fentiments with the Cerin-
thiansn, this probably gave the handle to
Theodoret0 for representing them as Jews,
who honbur'd Chrift only as a righteous
perfon. In which point notwithstanding,
We have the exprefs testimony of St. Au-
gufiin? and St. Jeromi for their ortho
doxy ; befides forrie pretty clear intimati
ons in Juftin Martyr r, and the apoftolical
constitutions'", that there Were certain ju
daizing Chriftians Who acknoWledg'd the
Divinity Of Chrift> as well as others that
deny'd it; and all this confirrh'd by the
concurrent accounts of ecclefiaftical hifto
ry, which makes honourable mention of
the firft Chriftians at Jerufialem, as perfons
of an orthodox faith f, but fpeaks of the
Ebionites with the utmoft abhorrence, as
of the moft abandoh'd hereticks u.

" N«2J»j>«iij .. vvy%etnu $<rm aXXtiXais [de Cerinthianis
ante dixeratj mu «(*«w xsxt2»7«si t« cpgm&ft/alit. Haer. 20. § 1.
0 Theodoret. Haer. fab. 1. 2. c. 2.
p D. Auguft. de Haer. cap. 9, 1 o.
* D. Hieron. ad Auguft. Epift. 89. alias 74;
1 Juft. Mart, in dialog. cumTryph. -p.z6f.
T Conftit. Apoft. \.6.t. 10, 12. See thefe teftimimies farther
explain'd and vindicated by Bifkop Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cath. cap. 2.
§ «J> '4< 1/- & in Prim. & Apoft. tradit. cap. 1. §7,8,9, 10.
« Eufeb. H. E. 1. 4. c. f.y& Sulp. Sev. facr. hift. 1. 2. C.4C,
! Eufeb. E.H.l.j.c-if.

Upon

the Trinitarian Controverfy . 37
Upon the whole however, thus much is Serm. t.
evident, that there were two oppofite he- v^W
reSies fpruhg up, before the death of St.
John, concerning the perfon of our blef-
fed Lord : one, which denied the reality of
hiis incarnation and fufferings, and repre-;
fented the whole hiftory of his life and
death as. matter only of appearance and
outward <Shew : the other, Which confefs'd
him to be truly partaker of the human na
ture, but denied., its perfonal union with
the divine. Accordingly it is ohvious to take
notice, how St. J<ohn in his epiStles and
his goipel (which laft was written as a fup-
plemeht it© the . other evangelists, and as
St. Jer am™ adds, at the instance of the a.d. $f:
Afiatick BiShops, for a remedy againft the
growing herefies) has manifeSMy'ffiruck at
both thefe miSchievous opinions?. ~
Againiftithe former he maintains that the
Word was really incarnate, arid pitch'd his
tabernacle among men, fo that they beheld
hi? glory x ; their Senfes were the undoubted
witnetfesof this- great doctrine, .they heard,
they Jaw, they handled .hinfz, infomuch,
that what Jpirit foever Should not confefs
his coming in the fiefh, could not be of

m Catal. icript- Ecclef. in Johamte, cap. p. Vid. & Irerji
iv. haer. 1. 3. c. 11.
* Iren. ibid. '-Job. i. 14. J 1 Joh. i. 1.
D 3 Cod,

3 S An Hiftorical A c c o UN T of
Serm, i, GW, but was the fipirit of Antichr ift*.
J-'YV Againft the other in like manner he
maintains, that this fame Word which in
time became incarnate, did neverthelefs exiSt
in the beginning, that he was the Word of
life eternal, that he was with God the Fa
ther, that he was God himfelf b : fo that
whofoever Should deny Jefus to hclChrift,
(as the Cerinthians, who made Chrift no
be a perfon diftinct from Jefus) or deny'd
him to be the Son of God, (as both they
and the Ebionites) was likewife to be
efteem'd Antichrift denying both the: Fa
ther and the Son, and having no true com
munion with either0. And this is the
more considerable, becaufe it is ackriow-
ledg'd by Julian the Apoftate, who de
nied it of the other Apoftles, th&tSt.John
at leaft afferted his Divinity, f which he a-
fcribes to the growth of this opinion a-
mong the 'Christians difperfed thro? many
of the cities of Greece . and Italy, by the
time of publishing his Gofpel d. An im-.
portant ^onfeSIion, from an ' adverfary, Of
the. great antiquity of this.doitrine!

* i Joh.iv. 2, 3. b Joh.i. i,a, 1 Joh. i. 1, 2.
1 1 Joh. ii. 22,23... iv. if. v. j-, 10, n, 12,13,20'."
* Tm i/otw 'hirSf 'in IlSuA©- iriXftitura Altai ©son, ctPt M«r-
ttti®*, srs Axxiq, s'ti M#£x@- «AA' 0 y^i^oi laAv.ii.flac&JjKiE-
s©* WSj :ToA» TtTuii®* iaXanui iv noXheuc, vat, sVimi^W Juct IraMnii.
rSkn Xatem uvo tuvtvh ?%<; '•¦¦~n' srp2j'®J fTo^/fitiirst. infta.
Julian, apud Cyril. 1. 10. contra Julian, in torn. 6. p 317.
' Laftly,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 30?
Laftly, in opposition to the common opini- s e r m. ft
on of all the followers oi Simon, concerning ^^>P^4
the creation of the world by an inferior be
ing, and not by the fupream God, the fame"
Apoftle aflerts that by this Word were all
things made, and without him was not
any thing made that was made e, more
particularly that the world was made by.
himi, and therefore when he came into
the world, he came but to his owns. Not
to infift now upon his hinting at the abro
gation of Mofaick rites, when he fays that
the law was given by Mofes, but grace
and truth came by Jefus Chrift^. Such
light does the Gofpel it felf receive from
hiftory and ecclefiaftical tradition !
Upon this oppofition which St. John
made to the. earlieft herefies, I would de7
fire to make the following remarks ; name
ly, (1.) that tho' the catholick doctrine was
before this well known and underftood in
the Church (for other wife the AfianlMihoips
had not been fo much offended at the
growth of herefy) yet the rife of thefe de
ceivers made it neceflary to have it pro-
pofed after another method, and in terms
more directly level'd againft their delufions.
And was not this example a full warrant

;joh. i. 3; f ver. 10. ?ver.ii; J ver. 17!
D 4 fot

'4§ An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. i. for the Church's practice afterwards, to ex-
WN*> prefs hfer Self in fuch terms as might moft
effectually guard the aiirieht rule of faith
againft the innovations of any other here
fy •> (2.) That this however made no al
teration or addition to the faith 3 the Afian
Miftops dei«efted thofe very herefies before
the Writing Of St. John, and defired him
to write on purpofe to 'confute them*
(3.) That whdn the antient defenders of
<5&r faith afCribe the work of creation to
the Son of God, they do herein prefup-
pofehis true and proper Divinity, as urging
it in oppofition to the Gn&ftick hereticks,
who aflerted that to be the work Of an
inferior being.
The other writers about Ae time of
St. John, wei% St. Barndhm, St.MerMOsy
aftd "St. Clement of Rome, who tho' not
writing profefledly againft the hereticks (as
St. John appears to have done) becaufe as
they wrote fomew-hat -e&rlifer, fo probably
the places where they lived were lefs in
fested with them, have yet exprefs'd theit
" Sehfe in fuch a manner as Shews their faith
to have been perfectly confiftent and con
formable to his ; not without glancing now
Hand then at thoie herefies which were ^jtuft
fpringing up. By the two former, the Son
is not only faid * to have been begotten be-
¦ S.'Barnab. epift.'c. y. Filius t)ei bmni creatura antiquior.
Hcrm. Paftor. 1. 3. fim. p. § 12.
fore

the Trinitarian ^^itroverfy. 41
fore the world, but ILkcwife to be its Ma- Se.rm. i:
ker and Lordk, and its immenfe prefer'ver1, ^^OTV
to dwell in the hearts of the faithful as
in Temples confecrated to him m ; not to
be himfelf in the condition of a creature
or aflervantn, yet to have taken upon him
human fiep, fo as to be, obvious to the
fight of .men °, and his body to have been
fknBijmd <by the Holy Ghoft,, as preparato
ry to its being dwelt in tby the 'Deity00.
St. -Clement wrote his firft epiftle before
thofe tepefies were grown fo considerable, A- D« 6fi
and while the temple of JemfldlOm was yet
Standing re : So that Photius .had. little rea
fon to firad fault p, if he was not fo ifoH-
citous to eftablifh a doctrine which was
har&lyi ^brought mat© difpute. Yet even
lihe&e,. Jsy making aaneiiticai of the Jkfifer-
ings of God% as well as by directing his
tito&dlogLes. to Chriftj in the fame ample

*"S. Barnab. ¦Eprft.-c. f.-&Herm.ut fupr.
1 Nomen Filii Dei magnum & immenfum eft, & totus al*
eo fuftentatur orbis. Herm. Paft. 1. 3. fim. p. § 14.
m S.-Bariwb.JEpift. cap. .6".
" In fervili conditione filius -Dei non ponitur, fed~in mag
na poteftate &.imperio. Herm. A. z..(im.f.§ 6.
° 'E< yap f/in\7i.hi h treffx,}, srSs -cut tratwrci* tottmtoi it /3A<-
sj-ci/ks /*«r«'». ;Bflrnab. Epift. c.^f. "° Herm. L 3. fim.-f.^ 6.
?p Vid. 'Clement. Epift. ad Corinth, cap. .40, .41. item
Wotton*. rfrzfat. yig, zo.f.
* Photn Bjblibth- codi 1 z6.
1 Clem. Epift. 1. ad Corinth, cap. 2. where that it fliotdd b»
read -ituAltptttx, and not .^'x.^^, read Dr. GrabeV Armotatitmt
upon Bifhop Bull, p. do. and Mr. Wotton's Note upon the .place.
terms

4 J An Hiftorical Account of
Se.rm..i. terms as to the Father himfelf1, he hastef-
Vnrv tified his belief of our Saviour's Divinity:
and in his fecond epiftle, he cautions the
Corinthians againft thinking meanly of our
falvation, - (with an eye 'tis probable1" to
the herefies which- were then coming in
vogue) and advhed 'em to think of Jefus
Chrifi in like manner as of God £, that he
had a fpiritual or Divine Being, before that
he aflumed the fubftance of our SleShu.
But the moft remarkable paflage is that
preferv'd by St. Baftl™ : God liveth, and
the Lord Jefius Chrifi, and the. Holy. Spi
rit, where the principle of life, is equally
attributed to all the three, in the form of
an oath (as it Should feem) taken from the
Jewijh form of fwearing, the . Lord li
veth*, -and agreeable to that military oath
which, was certainly I ufed by the Chriftians
of the fourth century 7j and was probably derived

' SJ. ['xffs'f ] i $>%& xou ' i fhiyaXtcrun fie tbs atmui raw
kunm.'Apib. Clem. Epift. i. pap. 20. & fo. See Mr.Wotton's
"iZotes. Confer'. & S. Barriab. Epift. cap. 17.
' Vid. Bull. def. fid. Nic. fe£r. 2. cap. 3. § j-.
* Clement Epift. 2. ad Corinth, cap. 1. " Cap. cf.
w ZjJ i&ici, xeu 0 xi/ju©* H)(rK6 Jgj'syS, xai to ay lot Ttviutliic}
Gem: Rom. > apud D.Bafil. de Spir. lanfto.cap. 29.
* Jer. iv. 2. and elfewbere frequently. Seethe fecond Review
of Mr, Whifton's account of Doxolqgies, p. 4 1,42.
* Flavius Vegetius Renatus ¦(«» Heathen Author} in his book
de re mih'tarf, 1. 2. c. f. which was written under Valentinian
the zd, (vid. Godefchalc. Steweck. in comment, ad Veget. p. 2.
Edit.

"the Trinitarian Controverfy. 43
derived to them from former times, fince serm. i:
it agrees fo well with that which is ex- vxYN**
pofed and ridiculed in the 'Philopatris
afcribed to Lucian z.
And if any one Should doubt of the
genuinenefs of this paffage, becaufe St.Ba-

Edit. vefal. 1670.) gives -this account of the military oath of the
Chriftians: Jurant autem per Deum, 8c per Chriftum, & per
Spiritum fanftum, & per maj'eftatem Imperatoris qua; lecun-
dum Deum generi humano diligenda eft 8c colenda. An oath
is certainly an ad of religious worfhip. But then, how came they
to f near by the majefty of the Emperor? Tertullian (/'» whofe
time likewife this praBice prevail 'd) makes a diftinBion between,
this kind of oath, arid froearing ' by the Emperor's genius. The
latter he condemns as, doing honour to devils: But the other hi
commends as reverencing the Providence of God in the per [on of
the Emperor. Tertul. Apol. cap. 3 2 . See Mr. Reeve's Notes on
the Apologies, Vol. 1. p. 42, 310. So that two things are im
plied in this way of exprejfion : (j .) that God is refer'd to as the
Author of the Emperor's fafety (qui Deo regnat Au&ore. Veget.
ubi fupraj and fo may be metonymically underftood under the name
of his fafety or defence, (vid. Spanbem. dub. Evang. par. 3 duW
124. p. 646,) agreeably to the doctrine of the Canonifts: Scien
dum eft quod fandti non tarn per creaturas quam per Au&o-
rem creaturarumjurabant : nee in creaturis aliud quam Crea-
torem ipfarum venerabantur : ficut Jofeph, qui per Pharaonem
jurando, hoc in eo veneratus eft, quod -Dei judicio poiitus
erat in infimis. Gratian: deer. par. 2. cauf. 22. q. 1. c. 16.
And, (2.) that the Emperor's fafety was hereby underftood to be
devoted to God, in this fenfe : So may the Emperor be fafe as
I, $>c ./vid. Spanhem. ut fiipr.) in like manner as at other
times when the fwearer mentions his own fafety, or any thing that
is dear to him. As, ftMrm (pUtot rot ijunn xiti <riv. Synef. Epift.
49, 103. 0 Kara tiis ttuirS c-aiTjjpiees Ifftmi Stout 'pa tifiiwwi
xara tS QiS. Bafilic. Eclog. 1. 22. tit. f.c'20. quoted by
Mr. Selden. @)uem etiam vid. in not. ad Smyrn. deer, inter
Marmora Arund. p. 147, 8cc. vid. 8c Lydius de Juramento,
cap. 3. § if.
• See more of this in the next Sermon,

ftl

44 dn Hiftorical Accountc/
Serm. i.fil has not faid from whence he quotes ir,
W^ it miay be worth confidering, that in the
undoubted epiftle of St. Clement, the three
perfons are join'd together in a manner
not very different : Have we not (fays he)
one God, and one Chrift, and one Spirit of
grace*. To thefe apoftolical fathers, I Should add
St. Ignatius, the difciple of St. John, who
is more full and , exprefs upon this article.
But with him I purpofe to begini the fe
cond century, when God Shall grant us
another opportunity. Ta whom, Father,
Son, and Holy Ghoft 3 Trinity in Unity,
and Unity in Trinity, be all Honour, &c.

* V3v^;t im ®$\v %x^ti, km tut, jyffsiv, »)u 'iv %nvft,ct, t?j
jjk(>»I®-. to i*,%vAv» ty itpZij Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Corintbj
eap. 4tf.

SER^

the Trinitarian Controverfy.

45*

-^A. --W H -

S E R M O N II.
PreactYd D E c e . m b. y, 1 7 2 3 .

AVING at large aflerted in a serm.it.
former difcourfe the ufe of ca- v^OTV
tholick tradition, for afcer-
taining the genuine faith f and
doctrine of the Gofpel; and
(hewn how the firft herefies that arofe, at
tacking either the Divinity or incarnation
of the Son of God, were for that reafon
rejected by the faithful Chriftians with the
utmoft abhorrence, and plainly Struck at
by St. John, both in his Gofpel and Epiftles ;
(not to mention fome paSfages of like kind
in his Apoca'lypje) I went On to take no
tice of the concurrent teftimony of other
ecclefiaftical writers in the fame century.
~. ~ * Of

j4^ An Hiftorical Account*?/*
Serm.ii. Of thefe I mention'd St. Barnabas, Her-
V*"YV^ mas and St. Clement of Rome, who tho'
they do not feem to have level'd their dif
courfes directly againft thefe herefies, as
Writing probably before they were grown
very considerable, or for the ufe of fuch
perfons as were lefs infefted with them,
have yet exprefs'd themfelves in fuch a
manner, as testifies their perfect agreement
with the catholick faith.
The next to be confider'd is St. Ignatius,
the difciple of St. John, and by him con
stituted Bifhop of Antioch, before the de
struction of Jerufialem, in the reign oiVefi-
fafian: who might therefore be reckon'd
among the fathers of the firft century, al-
tho' his epiftles, which are Still extant, were
written but ;uft before his martyrdom, in
'A.D. 107. the reign of Trajan, about the year 107,
or fome years afterward;, for in that chro-
nologers are divided a. It was towards the
beginning of his reign, and about the year
». d.i 00. of Chrift 100, that Cornelius Tacif us wrote
his Annals b; in which he charged the
Chriftians as being guilty of moft pernici
ous fuperftition, and odious for their wick-

* Vid. Cave Hift. lit. in Ignat. Pearfon. diflert. de anno
Martyr. Ignat. Edit. Smith, p. f%. Pagi critic, in Baron.
torn. 1. ad. an. 107'.
* Cave's Hift. lit. vol. i.p. fir.'

cdnefs

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 47
ednefs to all mankind' 5 which might be Serm.ii:
probably occafion'd by the abominable im- ^^VN-^
purities of the Gnofticks at that time, who
eafily pafs'd among the heathens under the
common veil of Chriftianity. This pro
bably might give occafion to the third per
fection under Trajan, which feems not
to have been fet on foot by any new law,
but rather by enforcing the old, under co
lour that the alfemblies of the Chriftians,
were fuch clubs or focieties as were for
bidden by the Roman laws d. Trajan, not
withstanding this, being inform'd by the
junior 'Pliny'', that however fuperftitious,
yet their manners were unblameable, and
the main of their crime conSifted in their
finging hymns to Chrifi, as God, (a clear
proof that the worlhip of the Son of God
was ufed in the Church from the begin
ning ! ) gave orders to his Proconjul for re
laxing the perfecution, neither fearching out
any that were guilty of this crime, nor re
fusing to punifh fuch as Should be brought
before himf. In this circumstance of the
Church, the good BiShop of Antioch could

* Tacit. Annal. 1. 15-. c. 44.
d Cave p. Zf. vid. 8c Lex Gab'mia in Rennet's Rom. Antiq.
par. 2.1. 3. c. 24.
e Pliri. 1. 10. Epift. 97. vid. 8c Tertul. Apol. c. 2. Eufeb.
H.E.1. 3. c. 33>
• f Tertul. 8c Eufeb. ibid.
not

4& Ak Hiftorical Account of
Serm. n. not efcape, but was fent to Rome for pb-
VT^ nifhment, by order of the Emperor him
felf R.
By that time the aforefaid herefies were
mightily encreafed, by Cerinthus in Afia*,
by Menander in Samaria and Antioch l, by
Carpocrates in Egypt m]i, and by Ebion
(moft probably) in Judea x. No wonder,
therefore, if the Bilhop of Antioch, in his
epiftles at this time written to the Churches
oiAfia, as well as Rome, Should be very
earneft to caution them againft fuch impi
ous and blasphemous opinions, if he Should
mention thofe deceivers With abhorrence1?',

8 Eufeb. 1. 3. c. 36". h Epiphan. Hasr. 28. § 1.
' Euftb.H.E. I.3.0 36".
* Clem. Alex. Strom. 1 3. juxta init. p. 428. Ed. Paris, ret
the exaft age of CarpoGrates is more doubtful than the reft. See
Tillemont % Memoirs, torn. 2. Les Carpocratiens.
1 The name cf Ebionites is by Eufebius (H. E. 1. 3. c. 27.)
md' others of the antient t explained to pgnify poor w'mean per
fons, and is applied to their abjeff notions of the perfon if Chrift,
for which reafon fome have, thought thftt they had hot their name
from any Herefiarch called Ebion. ret Tertullian, (de Pr^foipt .
048.) Epiphanius (fcfeer. 30.) and others of the antient s f peak
cf Ebion as founder cf that feci. And they who would infer
the contrary from that mention which is made tfthe meaning of the
Word, might as well argue that there was no fetch man as Nabal,
Manes, or Arius, as Btfhop Bull has juftly obferved, fince the like
allufuns have been made to the meaning of thofe words, vid. Bull.
Jud. Eccl. Cath. c. 2. § 17. However, from that aUufion to its
Hebrew fignificatien, one would be apt to imagine ; that that fed
muft have fpread chiefly in Judea.
^ a ©«f<«-— Vws AwcoWfe, -Wpo^wV, Ignat. ad Ephef. § 7.
ae-snp ^amnfuei pit/Accum SlStylu; pitf •mjumAi}®". Ad TraJk
§ 6. arpopwWrw Si i/pHs «itq rm &ii{le» vm wlfwcouiiftpw. Ad
Smyrn. § 4. as

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 49
as Atheifts and Infidels, as ravenous dogs, serm.ii.
as wild beafis in human fhape, as mixing V^YN-*
deadly poifon with the fweet wine of the*
Gofpel; if befides inveighing againft the con
tinuance of the Mofiaic rites n, he Should
aflert Chrift to be God with the article0,
and afcribe to him that omnifcience p which
the Gnofticks denied their Ao^fgL, and the
Ebionites could never acknowledge in a
mere man ; if he Should maintain his dwell
ing in the hearts of the faithful, as in tem
ples confecrated to him % which is the pro
perty of none but the fupream God, fo
that Chriftians might from thence be term'd
¦3Eopo££i and vawfyji, bearers of God, and
bearers of his Temple r ; if in one word he
Should aflert him to be without beginning
of time f, the eternal ACy(& , not proceeding
out of filencex. By which laft phrafe, whe
ther he Struck at the Sige of the Gnofticks a,
whom

" Ad Magnef. §8,9, 10. AdJPhiladelph. §. 6.
-'"¦Xpis-S tS SiS ifaat 0 y5 9-so? ipm 'IwSs i jfcf's-os. Ad
Ephef. in falutat. & §. 18. tawpnjiwls pu pitfiAi elnu tS sr«0«
tj« B-aS uiS, ad Rom. §. 6.
rj"Oiwli> A«vO«v« tov Kilf urn, aAAa x} Tte-'xgpffl* tif/,av lyyiij
ftvIS iriv. Ad Ephef.' §15-.
' 'Avieu tv vij/ian [leg. «/*«] xoIommwt©-', a* ttftiit «,VToZ yact,
jiaawasw ¦«» i/mt Sros ipnav.- ibid.
' Ad Ephef S. o. $> m /ro«/e omnium epitlolarum.
1 Tot Vnt^tUUfm ITfOtrOOXCC, TO CC%(Om, TOU CCcfeCTCH TO) et tifticts
iperit. Ad Polycarp. §.'3.
« Aiy®* utSi®*, ivx.-'ijis- triym itguMm. Ad Magnef § 8.
• " That the . Gnofticks had their Mons before Valentinus, is
certain. [See Voflius'i Notes upon the place Sc-Pearfbn. v indie.
¦_ ; E . Ignas,

fo An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. II. whom they fuppofed to have been coupled
V-YV with Bythus, and from both to have pro
ceeded the whole race of t^/Eons ; or elfe
meant that this Word had always a fub-
ftantial existence, and was not as a mere
voice or found which follows after filence w *
either way the argument is clear for his
eflential and eternal Divinity. No wonder
again, if the fame holy writer infifted much
upon the certainty of his incarnation and
death, that he was conceiv'd in the womb
of the Virgin Mary x, that he was of the
feed and family of 'DavidY, that he was
truly born, eat and drank2, and was bap
tized3 5 that he was truly perfecuted under
fontius ^Pilate, was truly crucified, and
died, and arofe truly from the dead b, that

Ignat. par. 2. c. 3. ,7.] That they, and particularly the
Cerinthians, had the name of Sige, as coupled with Bythus; from
whom was produced Monogenes, and from him Aoy(^, is evi
dent from Irenaeus, 1. 3. c. 11. compared with Greg. Naz. orat.
23. p. 414. Which was afterwards, with fitch improvements^
as they faw fit, tranfcribed by all the fells of the Gnofticks. Vid.
Iren. 1. 2. c. 48. alias 28. 8c Bull. Def. fid. Nic. feft. 3.0 1.
§ 8.i 14. So that there can be no argument from hence againft
the genuinenefs cf thefe Epi/lles.
w Vid. Coteler. in loc. Pearlbn. Vind. Ignat. par. 2. capj
3, 4. Du Pin's Hift. of Ecclef. Writers, Vol. r. p. 41.
* Xjts-os ix,vt>Qo$tot ¦vW Mecglsti. Ignat. ad Ephef. §18.
* 'Ex tnrigpMT©* fMv AxGtS. ibid. t£ mrx eruqxtc in ysWj
Au&'S. § 20. Conf. ad Smyrn. §1.
1 Oi aXitfvi iymth, i<p*ya t% xmi ixm. Ad Trail. § cf.
1 K*« &mri&%. Ad Ephef. § 18. Conf. ad Smyrn. § 1.
'AtofiZs io\a%(h) ijr\ zrwrvm zri^arov, ot^vSSi hxvfaSy xat
lirtiemt—itoiBSs ty'tgn >W Muf&i Ad Trail. § 9. Conf. ad
Smyrn. § 1, 2, 3.
we

the Trinitarian Controverfy. -f\
we Should labour to canfirm ourfclves in serm.ii:
this belief; as of true and real facts, forti- *^T**J
fying ourfclves againft the infinuation of
thofe vain deceivers0, who would deny
their reality d, and aflert him to have fuf-
fer'd only in appearance e, which this zea
lous father lOOk'd upon as horrid blafpe-
myf. Thus was the blefled Martyr (like the
Apoftle St. John) at once careful to aflert s
the Divine and human nature of Chrift,
that he was both the Son of Mary and of
God, as well partaker of the fubftance Of
our .flelhi as fpiritually united with the Far
ther, in one *efpect a Creature, but iiri>
created h in the other, God really incarnate,

c 0£Ao zrgeqtot&ovtt&iu uu,Zs f6» i^i7tiiviv eif to. iytcitycc r»5
xtvoSb^Us, aXXa, Tt&rfafelpoQii&ai h tvj ysywiirs* xou iu isahi, xnst
tS «var«<T£i— . .^sx'/tfimt, aMbois Mit $£,a(ut, Xsro 'Itjc-cu j$<t£i
tSj i krtS®~ iftm, ty iwffttiibm jbwW bftiat yttciTo. Ad Mag-
nef. §11. Conf. ad Philadelpri. .§-8.
d ToC £«M*ti* kmo%, w -tivn; ifnivrat. Adt Magnef. §. 9.
e Aiycvfiv to o\x.i!i xixctStvM avrii. Ad Trail. §. I o. . Ad
Smyrn. § 2 .
' ' TfT 3 xuhtt fbov /SAao^ijJM.s", fiiyi oaioPi.oySi avrov tragxp.
Cpotfw, 6 ^ To3ie putt Xf/aii rt^a'ai timet JUtj/ntTM.'.. Ad §ffiyr&
§•;• 8 D. Pearfon. Vind. Ignat. par. 2.0 1.
h AyeW©* and AysvmT©- were ufed indifferently by the
iftoft primitive writers to Signify uncreated; and they feem
to have had no fiich term as unbegotten. See Dr. Wattrlmd's
z" Det. p. Zf6, 8cc. But in proeefs of time, they eame to
make ajdiftin&ieu, under/landing the former to have the lame
foify with &x.Tts®», and the latter with ftiit -. yamfck, whica
character cannot be applied to the SorjC Vid.. Ctfteier. Not.' ift
Ignat. ad Ephef. §.7.
lu.'ij E? vifible

$i An Hiftorical AccoOnto/
Serm. II. vijible arid invifible, pajfible arid impajfi-
V'W Ue K Only it is' obfcrvable, that St. John
arefiding in Afia, where Cerinthus had chief
ly broach'd his blafphemous opinions, en
larges moft upon the prOof of the Divini
ty; whereas Ignatius being Bifhop of An
tioch, where Menander had. fpread the poi-
fon of his herefy, is moft full and expreSs
in his aflertions of the incarnation. How
ever, as it was natural for thefe hereticks,
by infifting upon what was faid of Chrift
in one refpect, to draw off their followers
from crediting the other; this made it ne
ceflary for the fathers of the Church to
diftinguifh carefully between thefe two cha
racters, and teach their people to obferve
how fome things were Spoke of him as
"man, which could not be applied to him
as God, and fo vice verfia. The former
were faid to be fpoken xaT otzovojuuctv, with
regard to the eeconomy, or that myfterious
difpenfationot* Divine love, whereby the
Son of God condefcended to affume our
nature, and undertake the work of our re
demption. This term we find firft of all

"' ' Ei; <Vrp«s i«w g-dspxuts; r« km ainuamrncoi, ymvrii'iuu kylf-
tvroi, h <r«pxi yitt(inv©~ ©sag, i km U j**fi«s *«« & S-waJ
srpirw #*6»itk, xiti rin UTtottfc. Ad Eph. § 7.1 as cufKixot,
tutlTttf imvpieirucai; impim, rS xxti'i. Ad Smyrn. § 3.«—^- tw
klexret Si' ipits igurtrmm—, rn uxufa, rh Si' if/itii italbiri?.
Ad Polycarp. § 3.

ufed

the Trinitarian Controverfy. j$
ufedby St. Ignatius k, after him by Jufiin serm.it:
Martyr l, and Irenaus m, and by the latter v/V^
fathers frequently". It is fometimes ex-
plain'd to mean the incarnation of Chrift ° ;
but this ought not to be reftrain'd merely
to his aflumption of the human nature,
but underftood to include all he did and
fuffer'd in this fiate of humiliation, for the
procuring of our pardon and reconciling
us to God p ; nay, all that he did in various
appearances, under the old Teftament, with
a view to the fame great work of our fal-
vation <i : from whence we find that word
ufed by Irenaus z in the plural, as tho' there were

* XfJS-oj iiuoQaqifin inro Mcepcti xtef" eUovofiiixv 6tou — no, Tat
srafe, x.v.K Ignat. ad Ephef. §. 18.
¦*' Ilpiv tov %Pi^hv he, Tip otKovo/Jiictv, tw xarrct to /3eu?wfjoa too
srewpoj ytytvinfiiaw Jit" kvrtu bcl tZ rctvgaffiivsti ihfaTt. Juft. Mart.
Dial, cum Try ph. p. 2 3 1 . t!j tob 57«tes kvroi oiWo/aios.
p. 247.
m TSLctTa, tw oMovof/uctv— tov i%»tov avlfoiTtov iii kvotyinwa tou
zoutij kvb^anx iciQnvivou. Iren. 1. 1. c. 10.
" Theodoret. Dial. 2. torn. 4. p. 62. 8c ad c. 4. Ep. ad
Hebr. torn. 3. p. 414. Greg. Naz. Orat. 38. p. 616. Joh.
Damafc. I. 3. orthod. fid. c. if. p. 231. vid. Eufeb. E. H.
1. 1. c. 1. Ephraem. Antiochen. apud Phot. cod. 228.
0 Tw ivetvioaTttiiru tou ©sob Aoys xa^ovfAiv iixove/nnuv. Theo
doret, Dial. 2. ut fupra. See Bifliop of London's Letter de
fended, p. 7, 8. Suicer. in voce oixovo/jua.
«• Vide Ignat. Juftin. Iren. ut fupra. item Valefii Annot. in
Eufeb. p. 4.
1 A primordio omnem ordinem Divinae difpofitionis per
filium decucurrifie. Tertul. contra Praxeam. cap. 16. Vid. 8c
D. Bull. def. fid. Nic. feci:. 4. cap. 3- §.4, 8, 9.
' — T*$ oucoyojttt'a;,' xai t«? sAewrtis — Iren. 1. 1. 02. . There
is yet another fenfe of the word oixovopdx,, as it denotes the myfte-
E 3 riom

#4 An Hiftorical Account of
sisRM.ii. were feveral ceconomies or difpenfations of
V*"^"N> Chrift. The oppofite term to this was
^io?ioy(a, the Theology f, the obvious mean
ing of which muft carry our thoughts to
his Diyine nature 5 and tho' we have not
fuch early examples of the ufe of this term
as of the other, yet the fenfe of it is fuSfi-
ciently evident, as from other arguments,
fo from the very application of the oppo
site term oixovo/A/a, which had been ufelefs,
if there were not a fuperior nature, from
which the human was diftinguifh'd. Nay,.
and the very word ^whoy'i* is mention'd
without any Stricture by Eufebius*, as a
word both well known and approved of
by himfelf; and therefore (we may rea-
fonably prefume) in familiar ufe before
the Council of Nice. And indeed, about
the conclusion of the fecond century, we
find an anonymous writer in Eufebiusu
confuting Artemon from thofe hymns which

rious fubor dination of the perfons, or their mternal relation to each,
other, the difpofition of the unity of the Gpdhead into a trinity
cf perfons. Oeconomiae lacramentum quse Unitatem in Tri-.
nitatem difponit. Tertul. contra Praxeam e. 2. Monarchiam
fonare ftudent Latini ; ceconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam
Grseci, cap. 3.
r — T<y« jkiek ytjj S-toXoylas, Tivec 3 T»5 q(l«OT(*l«s hitfiHTa.
Theodoret ad cap. 4. Epift. ad Hebr. torn. 3. p. 414. Vide
Suicer. in voce 3-ioXoyuc,
'« Eufeb. E. H. 1. i. c. 1. vid. & Valefii Annotat.
^rccbfooi ei tuti aSicl kSityZv krtotgjffn wto iti^k ypctpiurcu,
rov Ao'yw tou &u> rot i^itov iftmvo-i S-ittoyovnti. Eufeb. E. H.
l.j. c.a8.
wore

the Trinitarian Controverfy. jy
were anciently fung in honour of Chrift, Serm.ii,
whereby the Church did (as he fpeaks) <-^P<>
&io>\Qyeiv, or acknowledge his Divine na
ture. By remembring this distinction it
will be eafy to account for Several expref-
fions in the antient writers, which might
otherwife look harSh and inconfiftent with
the ufual tenor of their doctrine.
It does not yet appear that thefe firft
hereticks had utter'd any blasphemous opi
nions concerning the perfon of the Holy
Ghoft, except it were indirectly and ob
liquely, by aScribing the infpiration of tlie
ancient prophets, not to the divine, but
to an inferior, and indeed an evil Being.
It is not therefore to be wonder'd, if the
firft fathers of the Church Should be lefs
full and explicit upon this head, and not
direct their writings againft fuch herefies as
were not yet rifen. Yet as occafion of-
fefd, they have made fuch mention of that
ever-blefled Spirit, as very amply, testifies
their fenfe and acknowledgment of his
Divinity. We faw in the laft difcourfe
how St. Clement oi Rome join'd him witli
the Father and the Son, as equal in his na
ture and attributes, the principle of life,
the fearcher of hearts, and the revenger
of violated oaths. And what lefs could
be intended by Ignatius, when he advis'd
his Magntfians to be fiubject to the Bifbop
and to one another, as Chrift according to
E 4 the

5 6* An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.ii. the fiefh (or in his human nature) was to
^"Y"^ the Father -, and as the Apoftles (who had
no other but the human nature) were to
Chrift, and to the Father and the Spirit w ?.
Or by thofe his companions, whofe narra
tive of his martyrdom concludes with this
doxology, directed jointly to all three —by
whom, and with whom, {viz. the Son,)
glory and dominion be to the Father, with
the holy Spirit, for ever. Amen x.
After Trajan's death the perfecution of
the Church continued in the reign of A-
drian, when Quadratus and Ariftides, two
Athenian, but Chriftian Philofophers, pre-
'126. fented the Emperor with their apologies
for Chriftianity y; which met with fuch fuc-
cefs, that they obtain'd an edict that no
Chriftian Should be punifh'd meerly upon
popular clamours, but only fuch as were
legally convicted of acting againft the laws1.
Thefe books being loft, we cannot cer
tainly pronounce of the doctrine contain'd

w 'TiToTosysrs to) Ixurxoita x.a.1 kAAuAoc;, 035 'lijtroZi xfifoi tS
avserpi r.xra iruoxct., km oi kiri^oXoi r% xt1?? **' ry ttmrpl xal T»
irnoftMTt. Ignat. ad Magnef. §.13.
* — Ai s »«i jtotfl" a tS ittvroX i So\a xai to xfaroi, <fuv ts>
a'yisi mtifhmt tie, «,lm«.i. Apw. Martyr. Ignat, apud Grabe
fpicileg. fecul. 2. p. 22. Ruinart. A£h Martyrum, p. 708.
Edit. 4to. and Smith Ignat. p, jz. The genuinenefs of this
piece is difputed by Mr. whifton: but fee what is faid againft
him, in the Additions to the feafonable Review of his account
of Doxologies, p. 3, 4, f. and in the fecond Review, p.
I Eufeb. E. H. I.4. c.3. ;Cap.9. • • in

the Trinitarian Controverfy. j/
in them, only that Eufebius fpeaks of the serm.ii.
authors as faithful men, and their doctrine <s-OCV
truly apoft olical*.
Mean while, both the branches of the
Gnoftick herefy were exceedingly encrea-
fed, the Aoxnlai, or Simonian Gnofticks,
having for their teachers two of the difci
ples of Menander, namely, Saturninus at
Antioch, and Bafilides in Egypt b, both
agreeing in their grand principle of deny
ing the incarnation, though with forne^
-difference in other refpects, as particularly
in the genealogy of the <^Eons, which
Bafilides had improved with greater fub-
tiltyc: though both he and his fon Ifido-
rus were elegantly confuted by Agrippa
Cafior, a writer of their own age, whofe
book, now loft thro' the injuries of time,
is fo highly commended, not only by Eu
febius^, but by St.Jerome, and Theodoret*,
that there can be no doubt of its agree
ment with that which is Still acknow
ledged for the catholick faith.
The other branch of that herefy was,
though not without fome alterations
and additions, continued likewife in E-
gypt, by Carpocrates and his celebrated
» Eufeb. E. H. 1. 4. c. 3.
* Cap. 7. item Epiph. haer. 23. §. 1. 8c haer. 24. §. 1.
c Vide Epiphan. riser. 24. §'. 1.
" Eufeb. E. H. I.4 c.7.
c Hieron. de fcriptoj1. c« 21.
f Theodoret. de hser. ft!, 1. 1. 04.
fon

$ % An Hiftorical A c c o t in t of
^erm.ii. fon Epiphanes, who, though not fur-
Vi^VNJ viving the age of feventeen years, was yet
120. fo Strenuous an aflertor of his father's he
refy, that whilft living he became the dar
ling Of the party, and when dead was
honour'd as a gods.
But the perfection of Gnoftick herefy
was that of Vakwtinus, who form'd to
himfelf a fyftem out of all the reft, more
artificial in its contrivance, and more uni
form in itfelf, tho' full of grofs absurdi
ties, if called to the bar of reafon or au
thority. The zjEons of the former Gno
fticks he advanc'd to the number of thir
ty, and from the fall of one of thofe (tho*
afterwards recover'd) he accounted for the
origin of evil, and the production of this
animal material world. It is bcfides my
purpofe to lay open ail his wild and ex
travagant opinions, which are at large ex
plained by Irenaus*, Tertullian*, Epipha
nius c-, and Theadoret4. And though thefe
Valentinians were Subdivided into diffe-

£ Clem.4. lex. Strom. 1. 3. p. 428. Edit. Tar. tpiphanius
¦(htr. ;i. §.3, 4. J reckons him among the Secundums, a
branch of the Valentinian herefy: but his early death wiK
hardly allow it, for both he and Valent'mm are referr'd to the
year no. See Cave Hift. Lit.fecul. 2.
•iren.l. 1. 0 1. & alibi.
* Tertul. adv. Valentin.
c Epiphan. hsr. 31, 8cc.
? Theod. de haeret. fab. lib. 1. cap. 7: rent

the Trinitarian Controverfy* jo
rentfeftse, as the Se c undians, Ttolomaans, serm.ii.
and others, yet they were reckon'd to a- v-oPv*
gree in the main points of their herefy,
arid were confuted in a manner by the
fame arguments. The chief of their po
sitions which affected the doctrine we are
now confidering, were thefe that follow :
(i.) That 'Demiurgus, or the Creator of
this world, is not the fupream God, nor
indeed of a Spiritual but animal nature,
inferior to that 'Pleroma or plenitude of
the Deity, in which the whole race of-
djEons is contain'd, and into which the
Spiritual part of mankind (as to be fure
they eSteem'd themfelves) Shall hereafter be
received f. {2.) ThatA^^i, or the Word,
is not the immediate fon oi Bythus, ox the
Father, but of Nits, or Momgenes, the only
begotten, fo that they are reckon'd as two
difti.nct (uEons. Thefe two were the current
Opinions Of all the Gnofticks. (3.) That
there is a Superior or heavenly Chrift, di
stinct from the A^@L, and that he and
the Holy Ghoft were posterior to the thirty

' 'Hv Snqpcptl /fyt hwt Mm h put gJwyfrju i.i<fp(t4t«i «>
trXnypiivuv. Epiphan. haer. 31. §. 1.
1 satuminus firft taught the diftin&ion of mankind as na
turally good or evil. (Iren. 1. 1. c. 22. al. 24.) The other he
reticks took it, but Valentinus improved it, by placing be
tween the material and fpiritual man (the one of which
could not perifti, nor the other be laved) the animal, who
was capable or inclining either way. fre», 1. 1 . c. 1. al.y, 6,

t^/Eons,

6*0 An Hiftorical Account^/
serm.ii. tyEons, and produc'd by Monogenes, for
\sy*sj the confirmation and eftablifhment of the
Tleroma. This feems to have been partly
taken from Cerinthus, but augmented and
improved by Valentine. (4.) That Jefus,
or the Saviour, was diftinct from Chrift,
and the product of all the c/EonS jointly,
who, with the angels to attend him, con
cluded all the productions within the Tle-
roma. This feems to have been the pe
culiarity of Valentine alone. (5.) That
Chrift, who appear'd here upon earth, was the
Son oi 'Demiurgus, ot the Creator ; and had
a body of a more fubtle and artificial kind
of matter than ours, or rather truly divines,
fo that he could not be efteemed to receive
the fubftance of his fiefh from the bleSfed Vir
gin. Which looks fomething like the herefy
of the Doceta ; or rather, perhaps, like the
Apollinarians, or Eutychians h, whom we
Shall hereafter obferve to have introduced
the like abfurdities as to the body of Chrift.
(6.) That after the baptifm of this Chrift,
Jefus defcended upon him from the 'Plero-
ma, and left him again before his paSIion :
which is a plain imitation of the doctrine
of Cerinthus, only givirig him the name of
e OvuMmtci 5 xttXtv, xouot Tiis TtiotSbq to Ttetiei Ai'ysi, Tvfi
&toTirroi ftiifot rijF <rkox» Qmrafyftitm; Athanaf. contra Apol-
linar. lib. 2. §. 3. p. 942.
" 'Jiwt^ivri'io^ yap xutx */£(» jrnv Afyu".. tot y*AiWa, iti
XpiyS SooQttru^ btyorrtiv, accent xctTte%to/A,iv ybvura: is/xnte y«f\
tou ititrou suti kefir* plm t?ttu t\i qtfot, (pxptv. Eulog. Alex.
apud Phot, cod. 230.
' - i Chrift

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 61
Chrift who appear^ on earth;, whereas Ce- sekm.il
rinthus gave it to him who defeended **sy^s
from above.
Thefe, and others of the like'abfurdity,
were the doctrines which Valentine firft 120.
broach'd in Egypt > and afterwards at Rome ;
from whence they were propagated by his
followers thro' many provinces, till his he
refy became the moft prevailing and consi
derable of the fecond Century. His fiction
of the t^/Eons feems to have been entirely
embraced by Cerdon, and his difeiple Mar- 140.
cionh: but they differ'd from him in fome
meafure, as to the body of Chrift; which
thefe; exprefly afferted to be merely fan-
taftick and imaginary ' ; and did more open
ly blafpheme the Creator of the- world as
the author and origin of evil K -The re-
merhbrance of thefe heretical tenets may
be a ufefiil key to explain feveral paffages
in. the writers Of thofe times, not only in
fuch books as were written pufpofely a-
gainft thofe hereticks, as the books oi Ire
naus, and fome parts of Clemens Alexaw
drinus, and Tertullian; but even in their
occasional writings, whether againft Jews
!":Vid. Iren. 1. 2.; c.. 1, 3;-'48..'Greg-. Nar. in orat. 44^
V'1°S' 7°6. ac annotat. Elise cretenf. in orat. 23. p. S19. ve-
lirn autem conferas D. Bull. defV-fid.-Nicr left. 3-. cap. 1. §; vri
12,13. * Vid. Epiphan. haer. 42.' Tertul. de prsfcript. cap. jr.
: fc'Iren.tl. 1. c. 28, 29. 'Tertul* ut- fupra Epiphan. haer.
4«» 4*.
, ¦. "'j or

6% An Hiftorkalxko. c 6 U n f of
Serm.ii. or Heathens, or for the ufe and irnsprovt-
-VOTv^ ment of their fellow Ghriftians^
Againft the Jews we have ftill extant a
celebrated piece of Juftiti Martyrs, name
ly, his dialogue with Trypho ; and another
of Tertullian, not written till after the ber
ginning of the third century. Againft the
heathens we have not only thofe Solemn
apologies* which were prefented to the
heathen.Emperors, for aliaiying the heat of
perfecution ; to Antoninus Tittsbyjuftin $
to Marcus Antoninus by the farhe Juftin
again, arid Athenagoras } and by Tertullian \
either to the Roman fynaic, or to the ma*
giStrates of Carthage**, under tharEmperor
Severus, beSides another afterwaidsfdiftindtly
addrefs'd to Scapula the governor oi)0Jhica e
but we have likewife thofe other tareatifes
which, were Written upon more , private
occasions, fuch as the books Of Thwphihs
BiShop of Antioch, to Autolycus, the trea*
tife of Tatian againft the GentUei, and
fome parts of Clemens the presbyter and
catechift oi Alexandria, befides two books
of the nations written by Tertullian, and
his teftimony of the foul. Thefe ' had^
queftionlefs, their ufe among private Chrif
tians; but there were others more.parti-

*—

'Tillem. not. 9. fur Tert. torn. 3.
m See Mr. Reese's Notes on his Translation of. Tert/ttiitto's
Apol. p.ij-3, 1^4. s.
4- cularly;

the Trinitarian Conttwerfy. 6$
cularly calculated for that purpofe, as the Sehm.it.
acts or martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the w^Tv>
Tadagogue of Clemens, and feveral trea-
tifes of Tertullian, as well before as after
he became a Montanift, which howevec
are of equal authority in the prefent con-t
troverfy, becaufe he declares that his doc*
trine had always been the fame in that
particular". In. thefe kind of writings it
isreafonablc to expect that men of gravity
and candour would not indttlge' any flights
of their own fancy, fo far as to alter any
of the great articles of chriftian belief, but
would faithfully deliver the doctrines of
the Gofpel, as they receiv'd 'em from the
former age* and profefs^d 'em in their own.
But efpecially when they aflert it as plain
matter of fact, that fbch was the avow'd
doctrine, and fuch the worfhip1 of the
Church, conformable to the known rule
of fakh and apoftolical tradition ; we can^
not fufpeet them to have fabfifted in thefe
particulars, without calling their fenfe as
well as honeSty in qmeStionj. nay, and the
fenfe of all mankind befides, who cotfd
not confute fo obvkras a falfity.
Let k then be owr etsqiuiry what ac»
count raay be cblktted of the d^sStitine toe^
fore us, from thofe ancient expositions and

¦ TeWufc adveWf. PttSKearrt. cap. a,
de-

6*4 An Hiftorical A c c o u n t of
Serm. ii. defences of our holy religion, illuftrated
^Y*^ thus by looking, back to the time and occa
fion upon which, they were written. The
edict of Adrian already mention'd, did not
fo entirely Stop the rage of perfecution,
but that it continued to be carried on in
fome places, under the reign of his fuccef-
for Antoninus Tius, altho' not of himfelf
difpofed to' fuch feverities.; which feems
to have been owing to that ancient decree
mention'd by Tertullian, whereby the Em
peror himfelf was difabled from corife-
crating or appointing the worShip of any
new godi without the approbation Of the
fenate; which was fuch an authority as
Tiberius himfelf had not been able to pro
cure for the chriftian worShip °. Befides
which, the Chriftians were in general ca
lumniated by the heathens, as atheifts. in
principle, and debauchees in practice: fo
that when they were accufed of being
Chriftians (a charge; which they were, not
backward to acknowledge) that name was
fuppofed to include every crime, and with*
out farther examination into particular
fads, they were immediately condemned to
capital punifhment as the grofieft offen
ders. This, Juftin*, in his firft apology.

• Tertul. Apol. cap. f. fee Mr. Reeves't Notes.
* In oper. Juft. Mart. p. $4, ff. fo alfo in his other Apo-
l°g?» p. 4»> 4j, confer. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 7. p. 701.

prefented

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 6$
prefented to that Emperor, complains of serm.ii:
as a very grievous hardship : and the fame vx"W»».
complaint was made afterwards by Melito x^"
Bifhop of Sardisi, by Athenagoras the ^ v'tt
Athenian*, and by Tertullian the presby- I77.
ter of Carthage1, in their refpective apo- 202J
logies. But as to the calumnies themfelves,
they defied their enemies to make proof
of fuch aboriiinations as Were pretended,
upon the catholick Chriftians, whofe prer
cepts of morality were utterly inconsistent
with them r ; and if they found any guilty (as
among the Gnofticks, who falfly called themr
felves Chriftians, it was too probable v they
might) they defired not to skreen them from
the punifhment due to their iniquity.
To the charge of atheifm, the fame
Jufiin has replied, by Shewing both the
object and the method of their worShip,
and concluding it moft unreasonable to
repute them atheifts, by whom the Fa
ther and the Son, and the prophetick Spi*
rit, were worfhip'd, adofd and honour' d,

1 Applog, Melitonis cujus fragm. apud Eufeb. E. H.L4. c. 26'.'
••"Athenag. legat. pro chriftianis, §. i.p. 7, &c.Edit. Oxon.
Chronologers are not agreed as to the date of this apology of Athe
nagoras- It was certainjy written in the reign cf Marcus Anto
ninus. Vid. Caye Hifl-. lit. ad an. 177.
r Tertul. Apql. c. 2, 3.
1 Juftin, p. 61, &c. Athenag. §. 2. p. 10, &c. §. 27.
p. 123, &c. Tertul. ubi fupra.
v Kortholtus (de moribus chriftian. affi&is cap. 9.) ended'
vours to vindicate the Gnofticks againft this charge. But fee
Mr. Reeves's Notes upon Juft'm, p. 57, /8.
5' in

66 An Hiftorical Account^/
Serm.ii. in fipirit and in truth"". Which is fe-
t-OTv-' conded hy another paflage in the fame
apology, where he not only' mentions the
Father for the object of worShip, but like-
wife the Son in the fecond place, and the
prophetick Spirit in the thirdx.
1 would juft obferve by the way, that the
character of the prophetick Spirit feems to
be directed againft that part of the Gnofiick
herefy, which alferted the lawgiver of the
Jews, by whom the prophets of the old
Teftament were infpired, to have been a
being of inferior nature and capacity. To
which likewife it was owing, that in the
ancient Eaftern- creeds (as may appear frorn
that which was explained in the cateche
tical lectures of St. Cyril of Jerufialemf,
as well as other defcriptions of the Holy
Ghoft z, long before the council of Con-
ftantinople.) he is term'd the 'Paraclete
who fpake by the, prophets. Whereby a-
gai-n another error of the Valentiniarts
was manifestly Struck at, who fuppofed

™ 'AAV txiivov ts [iT«r/p«] k) tov icaa' kvTx iuv '^a'"~ --
miuftiet ts to ttoo<P>)tixov <rt/io'ftii6K xj n-ooo-xvvSfitttv, Xoya td kM-
6tM Tif/iSvTii. Juftin, p. f6*
x T« Jiijti/ispyoy o-iSiftitvoh , rov SiSaurxtOw ti— M %{i-
£07— VIOV OiUTOU TOU 0VT6>i' S-tOO fhOiioVTli, <£ j, Sivr'soot xaoect t%ov-
Tli, ICVW^IiX. TS KptprfTIXOV IV T(IT$ Ttt£», OTf fhWCt Aoys TtftiUftilV,
kvrohttpfbii. Idem, p. <5o.
* Cyril. Hierof. catech.4. §.12.
* Iren. 1. 1. c. 2. 1. 4. c. 62. aliiqi a D. Bull, citati in Jud.
Eccl. Cath. c.6. §.11,12.
«i 1 the

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 6y
the Paraclete and Holy Ghoft to be diftinct serm.ii:
from one another a. v^oTV
But to return to Jujlin's argument : If the
Scriptures and the reafon of" the thing, as
well as the doctrine of Juftin in other places,
did not clearly inftruct us that God only, in
the proper fenfe, can be the object of reli
gious worShip; and if it were not confe-
quently evident from hence, that the Father,
Son and Holy Ghoft muft here be fuppofed
to be God in the proper Senfe, becaufe the
object of worfhip ; yet the occafion upon
which this argument is here produc'd wou'd
fufficiently evince it. They are mention'd,
we fee, in anfwer to the charge of atheifim :
We are not atheifts, fays Juftin-, and how
does he prove that ? becaufe we worship God;
and how does that appear ? namely, by our
worfhiping Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft.
The like way of arguing was ufed to the i<58, aUi,
next Emperor, by Athenagoras, who men- J77?
tions God the Father, God the Son, and
the Holy Ghoft, as the object of their faith
and worShip b. Where, tho' he has not
repeated the word God three times over,
yet the nature of his argument, as urged
in opposition to the charge of atheifim,
does fufficiently imply the third Perfon to
be God as well as the two former. Be-
* Vid. D. Bull. §. n.
Tii out ix. av kxoficrcii MyovTai &iev ffxrifee, xal viev &to», xa\
Tttiof/itt ccyiot— kxouo-te, kfam x8te[i>evits. Ath. leg. §. 10. p. 40.
F 2 fides

6 8 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.ii. Sides which, his other explications of the
Vrf^'Vv nature of their union do very clearly con
firm it; namely, by fpeaking of the Father
as the fountain of the Deity, whofe divine
nature is communicated to the other two
perfons ; infomuch that as the Son is not like
the fabulous productions of the heathen dei
ties, but the Mind, the Word, the Wifdom of
the Father, and one with him, the Son be
ing in the Father, and the Father in the
Son, fo this is farther explain'd by the
unity and power of the Spirit c, who is
himfelf as a Stream or emanation from the
fame fountain of light d : which manifestly
points out to us, that nnpjL^cyimi; Or ivu-
*a?f<?e> that indwelling or pervafion,
whereby thefe divine perfons do mutually
comprehend, and (if I may fo fpeak) mea-
fure out each other's immenSity, being
thus, according to the fame Athenagoras* >
Evog cvroi tou Ttavrooi xett Too viou' oVTOi S Too vlov iy ttoltii,
ie»i 'itovryoi ivviS, tvoTttri xal Svvotfiui TtnvftieiTOi, toui xai Acycc
TOU XOTtOi, 0 BIOS TOU &£«?. §.9. p, 38.
Ayion miopia knoffoucv sivat tpaptiiv tou @eou, kitotpiov xai
Itrki/aipioopetov, 415 kxrua folic. §. 10. p. 40. No2s, Ao'yos, vc$i*
v'tof tou iretTfci' **( kiri'pfout, hi Cpeie, eJTosrog&s, to miuftoa. §. 22,
p. 96.
' Vid. D. BuIL def. fid. Nic. feci:. 4. c. 4. §. 10, &c.
f — Siixvuvrxf kiirav xal tw iv Ttj ivao-u Suvapjiy, 'xai t\v h Tvt
fa\u Siai'csriv. §. 10. p. 40. tis it' too «5 srpos ri» snws'p* ivo-
T1J, Tli X TOU K«.T00i iooe TOV VUV XOIVUVM, TI TO TtVtUfUa, Tli i
tw too-ovtw itoiorie xai Slatovrii, -ivxpiivwv tou mtup,aroi, too
rtaiSoi, tou f*T(o'e.^ §. 1 1. p. 46. @l0, Cpapiiy, xal vib* Toy Ao'yw
«btob, xai TMufha ayiov, houpnta p,tt tutTct SuvKtfiiv tov vaTtcot,
tov my, to miopia, §, 12.. p. 96. difiinclt

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 69
diftinft but yet united, and that not meerly s erm.ii.
by equality of nature, but by the clofeft ^^T^
communion of fubftance ; whilft the Father
alone being 'At/!$i@u, or God of himfelf,
does yet communicate his Godhead to the
Son and Holy Ghoft.
It was this way that the ancient fathers
fuppofed their faith to be fecured in the
monarchy (as they often s term'd it) or uni->
ty of the divine ejfence, notwithftanding
their admiflion of three really and distinctly
fubfifting in it ; fo really and distinctly,
that they might be juftly number'd as one,
and another, and a third. And from
hence it comes to pafs, that the character
of Procejfion1*, and the very name of Holy
Spirit'1, is fometimes given to the Son, be
caufe he, as well as the Holy Ghoft, has
his efience by communication, and is not

B 'Eufebius, E. H. 1. 4. fays that Juftm Martyr wrote a
Treatifc, Jlffl §>*<!? fipiifW^) a fragment of which we have
in Juftin's Works, under .that Title. We have the fame ufe
of the Word in Tertullian againft Praxeas, and elfewhere fre
quently. h 'A<p' iiet it<tio\i wt»tM\a. Ignat. ad Magnef. §. 7. Ser
mo ipfius qui ex ipfo proceflerit. Tertul. adv. Praxeam. c. 2.
Ita Jfc Novatian. de Trin. 0 31. vid. & Grot, annotat. ad
Marc 2. 8.
1 Filius autem Spiritus fan#us eft. Herm. Paftor. 1. 3 . lim. f.
§. f. He is alfo called, miopia, by Barnabas, Epift. c. 7. Ignat.
ad Smyrn. in infcript. Theoph. ad Autolyc. 1. 2. p. 81. Edit.
Oxon. Iren. adv. Haer. 1. f. c. 1. Hippolyt. contra Noet.
c. 16. vid. Bull. Dei", fid. Nic. left. 1. c.2. ..§../, 6. & Grot.
ut fupra.

F 3 properly

yo An Hiftorical Account/?/
Serm.ii. properly 'Auldfe©., or God of himfelf;
^^T^ which is the peculiar character of the Fa
ther only. And if the Holy Ghoft be not
on the other hand call'd the Son of God,
nor faid to be begotten, yet is he fome-
times defcribed among the ancients under
the name of Wifdom\ as being the giver
or difpenfer of true heavenly wifdom • ;
though that be other wife the ufual appel
lation of the fecond Perfon.
I pafs by many other palfages which
might be produced in confirmation of this
catholick doctrine, from Juftin, Tatifin,
and Theophilus of Antioch, as well as the
doxology of St. Polycarp, juft before his
martyrdom, who (tho' properly a father of
^4. the firft century, and placed at Smyrna by
167, at St. John, yet) fuffer'd not till the reign of
juxta a- Marcus Antoninus : I pafs by thefe, I fay,
lies, 147. not oniv for brevity, and becaufe they
have been often urged by abler hands, but
likewife becaufe it is not fo much my de
fign- at prefent to defend the truth from
the number of authorities, as to connect
the do&rine with the hiftory of the Church,
that one may add a light and luftre to the
other. Yet two things Should be remem-

" Theoph. ad Autolyc. 1. 2. p. 8 1, 106. Iren. 1. 2. c. ff.
1. 4. c. 17, 37. Hippolyt. contra Noet. c. 10. Origen. contra
Celfum. 1.(5. p. 323.
J Vide Petav. de Trin. 1. 7. c. 12. §. 16. ber'd

the Trinitarian Controverfy. yt
ber'd with relation to the fathers of this s erm.ii.
age, without which they may be eafilymif- l"/^v
underftood by an uncautious reader : name
ly, (i.) That thofe among them who fpeak
of the tir%j{\ivav; of the Word, or his com
ing out of the Father juft before the crea
tion of the world, and call that his gene
ration, do not thereby mean to intimate
either that that was his beginning of exif-
tence (for they fpeak of him before that,
as always fubfiSting in and with the Father)
nor yet that it was any actual feparation of
him from the Father, with whom he muft
be one eternally, but only that it was the
firft manifestation or oftenfion of him in
that Stupendous operation"1. And, (2.) That
thofe paflages which distinguish the Son
from the Father as being vifible, and com
prehended by place, were plainly not de-
fign'd to exclude that immenfity.of the di
vine nature in the Son, which the fame
writers have otherwife moft clearly afferted,
but only to refer to that (economy, where
by the Son, and not the Father, conde-
fcending to affume our nature, and previ
ously to that, to appear to the prophets and
patriarchs of old, was in that refpect only
circumfcribed by place, and offer'd to the

m See this largely explainKd ty Bifhop Bull, Def. fid. Nic-
fe<5t. 3. cap./, 6,7, 8, 9.

F 4 fight

7% An Hiftorical he counts/
Serm.ii. fight of men"; no more indeed confin'd
t-SY^J to earth, in his divine nature, whilft he
dwelt upon it, than the Father himfelf is
to heaven, where he keeps his refidence0.
This laft obfervation is the more consi
derable, becaufe thofe expreflions feem to
be levell'd againft certain hereticks, who
appear, from fome paSfages oi Juftin Mar
tyr?, and Tatiani, to have been in thofe
times ; and had been, probably, from the
time of Simon Magus, eSpoufing the fame
notion which was afterwards more Strenu
ously propagdted by Praxeas, Noetus, and
Sabellius ; namely, that the Godhead is in
all refpects but one, not only without any
divifion of fubftance, but likewife without
all distinction of fubSiftence. And perhaps
this might be the ground of Juftin's mak
ing ufe of that Strong expreSIion ; when
fpeaking of the Son, he fays, there is
%rri$j<;, another, befides the Maker of all
things, who is, and is termed, Goa and
¦Lord1 ; by Which, that he could not mean
another, or a feparate God, but only a
diftind perfon from the Father, who is

n Vide Bull. Def. fid. Nic. fe&. 4. cap. 3.
° Vide D. Grabe annot. in Bull. p. 279.
r Juft. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 35-8. Paris.
1 Tatian Orat. contra Gra:. p. 145-. alias 21. §.8.
' Oil iti r.a.i biyirai 0m; xiiii xufios erifioc: tisrtp to» Tcnmgy Tap
eten, Juft. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 27?. vid. & p. 283.

truly

the Trinitarian Controverfy. ?¦$
truly God, as well as he, might be unde- Serm.ii.
niably demonftrated from the fcope and V-OT^
tenor of^that martyr's writings'".
It might probably be in oppofition to
the fame herefy, that Theophilus the Bi- ,
Shop of Antioch, in treating of this myf-
tery, made the firft ufe or application of
the word Trinity1, to denote the real di
stinction of Father, Son, and holy Ghoft,
who are as truly three in one refpect, as
they are one in another : unlefs we Should
choofe to explain him in this place, as
Striking at the Vakntinians, who by their
various combinations of the c^yEons, did
not only distribute them into fo many
'Dyads, i. e. pairs or couples, but likewife
into an Ogdoad, confuting of the four firft
couple; a Decad, confifting of five pair
produced from the third couple of the Og
doad; and laftly, a Dodecad, confifting of
fix pair produced from the laft couple of
the Ogdoad*. In oppofition to thefe ex
travagances, the Bilhop oi Antioch might
mean it, that there is in the Deity neither
Ogdoad, 'Decad nor 'Dodecad, but a Triad

r See Dr. Grate's Notes on Bilhop Bull, p. jf, j6.
1 'ClvuvTUi xai di T(iii jpitoai tuwoi u'tri t?s rpiteJo;, tou
©sou, xal tou Ao'ys dirou, xal riis n-opi'aj osuVov. Theoph. ad
Autolyc. 1. 2. -p. 1 06. Ed. Oxon.
" T}?.iifa pia Tftjffi Satapiivoy tii oySo&Sa, xal SixiSa, xal Su-
Six&Sit. Iren. 1. 1. c. i. vid. & Epiphan.Hasr. 31.
1 or

74 An Hiftorical Ac co unto/
Serm.ii. or Trinity only; Which word, as the Sa-
i-sy*^ bellian herefy grew on and encreafed, was
very properly retain'd by the Catholick
writers, to denote a perfonal distinction of
the facred Three.
Contemporary with Theophilus was Ire
naus, who being (as it feems) by birth
an Afiatick, and an hearer of St. Polycarp,
167. but afterwards promoted to the bifhoprick
of Lyons in France, and withal a perfon
of great integrity and accuracy of judg
ment, muft needs be a very fit and unex
ceptionable witnefs of the doctrine that was
receiv'd both in the Eaftern and the Weftern
176. Church. His writings are oppofed to the
various fects of the Gnofticks, which pre-
vail'd much in his time •, but particularly
the Valentinians, who, befides their other
-corruptions, had err'd very grievoufly with
relation to the Word and Wifdom of God,
which they held to be not only distinct in
perfon from Bythus, (who was father of
the <iyEons,) but even feparate in fubftance,
posterior to him in the order of existence,
inferior in point of immenfity, ignorant
of his infinite perfections, and wholly un-
concern'd (as well as Bythus himfelf) in
the creation Of the world.
Againft thefe monftrous abfurdities, the
holy Bifhop has declar'd himfelf in very
Strong and fignificant expressions, not only
that the Word did always exift, did always c'oexift

the Trinitarian Controverfy. }<;
coexift with the Father*, equal to him in s erm.ii.
immenfity, and as it were meafuring out him v-TV
who is unmeafurable r, that he is therefore
truly and properly God, as well as truly
man, God of the living, and God overall2;
but he likewife includes the Holy Ghoft
in the participation of the fame Divinity a,
when he aSferts that the Father has always
with him the Word and Wifdom, the Son
and Spirith, who therefore concurr'd with
him in the act of creation, when the Fa
ther is faid to have made all things by him
felf, that is, by his Word and Wifdomz,
by whom likewife he Still preferves and
governs themd, and beftows on men the
bleffings of eternal life and falvationc.

* Non enim infe£tus es, O homo, neque femper coexifte-
basDeo, ficut proprium ejus verbum. Iren. 1. 2. c. 43. Sem
per autem coexiftens filius Patri. 1. 2. c. ff. Fiiius Dei ex-
iftens femper apud Patrem. 1. 3. c. 20.
r — Ipfum immenfum Patrem in Filio menfuratum. Men-
fura enim Patris Filius, quoniam Stcapit eum. I.4. c. 8.
*¦ Ipfe proprie Deus. 1. 3. c. 21. vere homo & vere Deus.
1. 4. c. 1 4. Ipfe igitur Chriftus cum Patre vivorum eft Deus.
I.4. c. 11. Deus luper omnes. 1. 3. c. 18.
' Spiritum quidem proprie in Deo deputant. 1. f. c. 12.
b Adeft enim ei femper Verbum & Sapientia, Filius & Spi
ritus, per quos & in quibus omnia libere & fponte fecit, ad
quos & loquitur dicens, faciamus hominem, &c. I.4. c. 37.
c — Qui fecit ea per femetipfum, hoc eft per Verbum &
Sapientiam fuam. 1. 2. c. ff.
" —Per Verbum 8c Spiritum fuum omnia faciens, dilpo-
nens 8c gubernans 8c omnibus effe prseftans. 1. 1. c. 19.
c Ea autem quae lalvant ait effe nomen Domini noftri Jefu
Chrifti, 8c Spiritum Dei noftri. 1;/. cm. vid. & cap. 13.

Son,

7 6 An Hiftorical Account of
serm.ii. So that there is one God the Father, one
v^yN-' Son, and one divine Spirit*, properly di-
ftinguifh'd from each other, altho' infepa
rably united in that Divinity which is but
ones. What defcriptions could be thought of
Stronger, or more emphatical; which thO'
directly levell'd at fuch herefies as are now
utterly extinct, are yet abundantly furfici-
ent to convince us of the falfhood Of fuch
as were then hardly rifen? What then tho'
the Word and Spirit be fometimes men
tion'd by the fame author h as minifiring
to the Father? This is not in the quality of
agents inferior in their nature, but con
natural with himfelf1, infomuch that we
have feen they are faid to be himfelf; and
what he does by them, he is faid to do,
by his own hands s that is, by his Word
and Spiritk. From whence it may be once

f In omnibus & per omnia unus Deus Pater, & unum Verr
bum & unus Filius & unus Spiritus. I.4. c. 14.
e Unus Deus omnipotens— per Verbum 8c Spiritum fuum
omnia faciens. 1. 1. c. 19. fie unus Deus Pater oftenditur
'qui eft fuper omnia, 8c per omnia, 8c in omnibus: fuper om-
n'a quidem Pater — per omnia autem Verbum — in omnibus
autem nobis Spiritus. 1. f. c. 18. Whe thr.ee characters fire firft
attributed to the me God, [Confer, cap. 17. in fine] and then
diftributed diftinSly to the three Perfons.
* Miniftrat enim ei ad omnia fua .progenies 8c figuratio
fua, [leg. ejus'] id eft Filius & Spiritus fanftus, Verbum & Sa
pientia. I.4. c. 17.
'• Vide D. Bull. tDef. fid. Nic. &&. 2. c. f.%.6,7.
¦* Per manus enim Patris, id eft per Filium & -Spiritum fit
homo fecundum fimilitudinem Dei. Iren. 1. /. c. 6. Jor

the Trinitarian Controverfy. yy
for all obferv'd, that the prepofition hd Serm.il
cannot be fairly urged to infer a diverfity v^'V*-'
of nature between the Father and the o-
ther two Perfons, fince they act but as his
hands, nay, as himfelf, and therefore clearly
confubftantial. And this teftimony oi Ire
naus is the more considerable, becaufe he
lays it down as the catholick doctrine of
the Church, throughout all parts of the
world, and derived by a constant and un
interrupted tradition from the days of the
Apoftles k : in which he could not well be
mistaken, having been himfelf the hearer
of St. Polycarp, as he was of St. John.
Before the death of Irenaus, according
to fome, or certainly foon afterwards1,
Clemens was the celebrated Schoolmafter i92«
and Catechift of Alexandria, whofe works
are Stored with great variety of learning,
digested with exadtnefs of judgment; where
in he not only expofes the abfurdities of
Pagan fuperftition, and heretical perverf-
neSs, but lays down excellent precepts for

* Iren. L. i. c. 2, 3. 1. 2. c. 9. 1. 3. c. 2, 3, 4. & in prsefat.
' Some fuppofe Iren&us to have been born not long before
the year 140, and to have furfer'd martyrdom under Severus,
in the. beginning of the third century. Others fuppofe him
to have been born in the year 97, and to have died in the
year 189, or fbon after. This, however, is certain, that he
was Bifhop of Lyons next after Pothinus, about the year 167.
Vid. Cave Hift. lit. eo anno. Clemens began to flourifh about
tie year 192. the

78 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.ii. the conduct of a Chriftian life, and labours
VYN> to preferve the apoftalical tradition in its
genuine purity™. To that purpofe he is
full of very high and lofty defcriptions of
the Son of God, terming him God with
the article n as well as without it, Almigh
ty0, one with the Father p, and to whom
belongs the inspection of our hearts % and
of all things in the univerfe1; the ever
lasting Word, the infinite Age or zyEon,
(in oppofition to the Valentinians, who
dreamt of the Afy§H as a finite zyEon :)
He terms him, moreover, the eternal Light f,
infomuch that however it be the peculiar
character of the Father to be ara^oc, as
that word is understood to denote him un-

m "HeVjj i ' ypa^a -S. ri'eWen krixfui x) <rxtoy(a$ta Teh ivao-
yav xal tpityxat ixiivav, o>» ,xa%%ta6iiv ixaxSa-att.)djyti>t ti xal
kvSgov pMxuglav xal tZ evil kfyoXoyw kM.' pi fSfl n)P aAijdl)
t?5 paxaclof o-y^oilii ASatrxaJitai Xa^otSbo-iv iului kitem~ tZv etyi-
m kjrotc&pt, mitf ¦aa^n. sraTpos ixSs}£opitv@*m-. vixov Sit cut &s£ xal
»5 ipiai Ta trgeyonxh ixaia xai kirosoXtxa xaToiixropisyot tarip-
p>a\a. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p-274, 27$-. alias 322,^323.
." Toy Bsoy Toy *iym., Paedag. l.i. ,C. f. prope fin.Jsr®- ifU
6 3-eos o Aey©>. c. 6. p. I IO.
0 TS fravTcxfalcfixai Bi.\ip,uli 1. 4. p. flj.
t E» yi> api^f, o Ssh. Pedag. 1. I. C. 8. p. 113, its xa\
5T«rn£, iv upiQa, xufis. I.3.C. 12. p. z66.
1 'Ovoii }.shr,$sv kvrhv tZv ivvoiav xai ray SiaXoyurpMt at 7ta&~
p/tla. Toy xogtoi ijjitbii Asyw, Toy t« XatroxoalooixS B-tPtipialt im-
o-xottoi t?5 xaoSiaq ipiSv. Strom. I.4. p. f 1 7.
' "O iui tou S-sou, & piitt^o'pjf®', ix kito{ipivo'p}f&,!t it piila-
Zattav ix totcis £15 toXov, is«.v\ 3 m tcovtots , xal pitflapivi 7tsoi%-
Xcp\<&; iA©^ ySi, 'dX<&- <p£i TtaTgaoy, cA©- eQtaftpioc, ttkvTct
ifSv, TTcaira kxioiv, si'Sai nana. 1. 7. p. '702.
f Ac'y©- kiva©*, kim ' «z*et©-, <p2i kiSm, Hymnus ad
caleem Pedagog. origi-

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 7 $
originate1, or God of himfelf, yet the Son Serm.ii:
likewife is dvct^pq, without beginning*, ^^V
as the fame word is understood to haVe
reference to time, or a beginning of exis
tence. So again the Holy Ghoft is clearly
included in his notion of the Trinity w, as
every where prefent with the Father and
the Son*, and therefore join'd with 'em in
his remarkable Doxology y, as entirely one
with them, the upholder of eternity, and
author of all good.
After all this, it is wonderful that any
one Should charge this Alexandrian Pref-
byter with fentiments different from thofe
that were eftablilh'd at the council of
Nice, upon account only of one or two
expreflions, which, tho' not perfectly agree
able to modern ftyle, are yet eafily recon
cilable with the catholick faith, upon a
view of the ancient State and circumftances

' Vide D. Bull. Def. fid. Nic. feft. 4. c. 1 . §. 3.
u Toy kxfoyoy xal uvat%fiy~~ tov vilv. Stipm. 1. 7. p. 700."
— tb xvpiit kxalSi kvuexpi yivopisvx. p. 703.
Oux a/tAUi syays s%axva, n t»v aytav Toiaea pimtoiojg toitoi
plfi ijO eiVoji to itytov miopia' tov uiov jj Stirsooy. 1. f. p. f^S .
* ' Si S-aupiorr®* pivttxou; tn top i TI.""] t»» oXav ?raT>ic sn -j
xai o tuv oaxov Aoyoi' xoei to irysupiot to aytov sv xai to auro
vravraxou. Pedag. I. i. c. 6. p. 102.
y — 'JLvvaqifisvtai ktvsty, ktyovvTas ivvaottsty, tu p,ovS 7tXTgi
xai uia, uiif xai irarot — 0-011 xai ra) ayta ornopiairf nana t»
im* iv. a. Tot vtavTA' Si 'ov Ta ttotvra sv' Sf- ot to kst' is piXti ttkv-
TEi' ts So^po. ktuysi' iravTa tS kyaOw, Ttatra t£> xaXtji, Ttavra tS
c-otpu. tS Sixain ra Ttayra' a if Si%a xai vvv xal sii Tttf kimai'
"l*4». 1. 3. C, II. p. 266.
of

8 o An Hiftorical Account©/
serm. ii. of the Church. Whilft the controverfy
<sy~sJ wim hereticks was not ftrictly trinitarian,
or concerning the fubfiftence of three in one,
as that with the Gnofticks moft certainly was
not, nor that othet with thofe who held
Chrift to be a mere man, without deter
mining any thing about the nature of God ;
it is no wonder if tlie terms nature and
perfon Should not be fo accurately and con
ftantly diftinguifh'd, but that Clemens might
make mention of the nature of the Son7-,
where the writers Of following ages would
have chOfe to fay his perfon, although his
meaning be perfectly the fame with theirs,
as muft appear to any one who would
take an impartial view of his whole doc
trine fum'd up together.
Indeed that appears to have been the
176. known and avow'd doctrine of the Church
before his time, and as Such was prophane-
ly ridiculed by Lucian, or whoever elfe
was author of that Dialogue entitled Phi-
lopatris, (certainly a one of equal, if not
greater antiquity,) where the Chriftian pro-
pofes to the -Heathen, that inftead of fwear-

* — 'H uioutyuvii, i t£ pitygftayiroxpLWfj itgoo'Jtftffeirit. Strom.
1. 7. p. 702. For a fuller iatisfacJiQn as to this and other
expre-ffions of this father, particularly thole cited by Photius,
from his book called Bypotypefes, wsbich is now loft, fee Bull
Def. fid. Nic. feci. 2. v. 6. §. 6, 7, 8, 9. and fecond Review of
Whifton'j Doxologies, p. fy, 60, 6,1.
* Vid. Fabric. Biblioth. Grseca 1. 4. c. 16.

the Trinitarian Controverfy. % i
irig by his Jupiter, he Should rather ap* sbrm.ii;
peal to the Moft High God, to the Son vxW
of the Father, and the Spirit proceeding
from the Father, One of Three, and Three
of One, efieeming this to be God or Ju
piter15. To which the Heathen replied^
that this was a thing he could no way un
derstand, how One Shou'd be Three, and
Three Onec. So openly was this doctrine
then profefs'd in the Church, that. the
heathens themfelves were not Strangers to
it ! Which was a confideration long ago of
fuGh weight with Socinus d, that fuppofing
this paSfage were genuine (againft which he
offers nothing but the bare conjedure of
fome perfons whom he has not named)
he could not but efteem it as the moft
considerable proof of the Trinity in all

fc 't-tyipiiSbvra §iht, pjiyav, etp£tmei, ifayttttit, iiov irotTfoft
miopia ix iraTfbi ixtreoiuipffiot, it ix Tttuy, xa\ *>| ito\ Tftet,
tout a vipii^s Zma, Toy S' viytu $*iv. Lucian. Philop.
• 'Ovx oiS» «£ Ti Ajyiij, t» rela, t(m it. Concerning this
Dialogue afcribed to Lucian, I would obferve, (i.) That it was
certainly written by fome heathen, fince no Chriftian can be
fufpe&ed to have forged fuch a burlefque upon our holy re
ligion. Confequently, (2.) That it was not written to fup-
port the doftrine of the Trinity, but to expofc it. (3.) That
it Was written before the words fubftance or hypoftafit were
commonly ufed in the explication of this myftery : other*
wife the fcoffer would certainly have mention'd them. And
4. That the ftile, and other internal characters, do argue its
antiquity, as is obferv'd by the Editors of Lucian.
d Sarin, in Dsfenf. Animadv. adverf. Gabriel. Eutrop,
W. 'jr.

antiquity,

8:2? An Hiftorical Account^/
serm.ii. antiquity, and fuch as might conclude it
VanPV to have been the opinion of fome ChriftH
ans in that age. But for his. own part, he
profeSTes without referve, that tho' it Should
be proved, that this dodrine was univer-,
f4lly receiv'd by all Chriftians from the
very days of the Apoftles, yet he Should
riot be induced to admit it as true chriftian
dodrine : which is fuch a barefaced af
front to all antiquity and catholick tradi
tion, as deferves no other anfwer but the
utmoft contempt.
280. ; About this time we are to place a fort
Of hereticks mention'd by Epiphanius e,
lirider the name of Alogi, fo called for
their denying the- perfonal fuhfiftence of
ihe Word, or its union with the human;
nature of Chrift, and rejeding,, for that»
reafon, the GoSpel of St. John, which io
clearly aSTerts both. I Should imagine they-"
were no other but a branch of the Ebio-
ffites, made known under another naftie ;
fince Theodotus, who is faid to have taken
^fe Very principles from them f, is not
withstanding defcribed as the father or head
iff thys, apoft acy s, which muft at leaft imply
lawn to be the firft who left the catholic^
dodrine for fuch impiety, whilft the Ebio-

:••* Epiph. H. fi. Aug. H. 30. f Epiph. hser. ^4. §. 1.
» Euf. l.f. c. 28,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. % j-
mites' Were riot reckon'd to have apoftatiz- se rm.it;
ed frorri the Church, but rather to be meer ^"V*^
Jews, and fo never receiv'd into it s. Or
perhaps it may be faid that Epiphanius'
was rrlStaken in fuppofing Theodotus to
tranfcrlbe after the Alogi, when they were
rather followers of him.
He was a currier by trade, and a citizen
of Byzantium, called afterwards Conftanti-
nopleh, who having denied Chrift in the
tithe oi perfeeution, and being afterwards
afhamed of his offence, ehdeavour'd to ex
tenuate by increasing it, and difown'd our' 193.
Saviour's Divinity for the fake of this wretch
ed pretence, that he had Hot denied God
Bkt man'1. Which probably gave occafion
to the Church to fix upon his herefy the cha
racter of dgpfi&t%(&, dnrogacfict^, to Shew he
Was fo far from proving that he had not
dtriied God in the time of persecution,
that the opinion Which hC now avow'd was
it felf a cofltihued denial of God, arid
enough to rhake good the accufation
brought againft him. But fo offenfive was
his dodtine to the Chtifeh at that time,

'¦'"*- Bull. Jud: £c. Cath. e. 3-. §. r, 2.
\^Tert.de prasfcr.e. f3. Eufeb. H. 8. F. f- C 2,8. Epiph.-
hser. 54. Philaftr. de haaref. c. fo. D. Aug. de hsjr. c. 33.
TJieodor. haer. fab. I. 2. C f,
1 — ©sov'fya iv ioniFapilto k'XXa Itvfoanoy Ipwapnjy. Theod.
zptid EprphaH. har. 5-4. §. f. l ¦ " ,' ,
k Eufeb. ut fupra.
-"'-- G 2 that

84 An Hiftorical Account*?/
Serm. h. that he was immediately excommunicated
^s~*T^J by Pope Victor; and when Natalis, one
194- 0f nis followers, was reclaim'd from his
201. errors under the next Pope Zephyrin, he
was, not without difficulty, restored to
the communion of the Church*. So that
it was an instance of the moft Shamelefs
impudence in Artemon, who propagated
eina %of. the fame herefy very near the beginning of
the third century, to pretend that the doc-,
trine of the Son's Divinity had not been
preach'd before the time of Vittor, but
only from the time of the pontificate of
Zephyrin. He was confuted, as Photius m
bears witnefs, by Caius a Roman Presbyter
of that time, a fragment of whofe book
is probably preferv'd by Eujebiusn, who
produces an anonymous author disputing
againft Artemon, not only from many
great authorities before Victor, but like-
wife from the books of Scripture, and
thofe publick hymns in honour of Chrift,
which had been ufed from the beginning.
So far we have feen the dodrine
of the Church during the fecond century.
But here it will concern me, by a Short di-
greShon, to vindicate this dodrine of the
Church, againft the calumny invented by
1 Eufeb. ut fupra. m Phot. Cod. 48.
¦ Eufeb. ut fupr. vid. Pearfon. op. pofthum. p. 147, 8cc.
Cave hiR. lit. an. no.
1 fome

the Trinitarian Controverfy. % f
fome modern criticks, who charge even serm.ii.
the fathers of the fecond century as retain- v-OT^
ing fome tindure of the ancient fuperfti-
tion, and adulterating the truth of the
Gofpel with the errors oi philo fophy°. TO
this purpofe they fuggeft that the notion
of three principles was firft advanced by
*Plato, which he term'd Goodnefs, or the
good Being, his Ao>(gL, Word or Reafon,
and the Anima Mundi, or Spirit which
aduates and influences the whole fyftcm
of beings in the univerfep. They tell us
that this Ao}@L was confider'd by the Pla-
tonifis, either as it was originally in God,
containing the pattern or archetype of all
things to be made, or elfe as in time it
proceeded or came forth out of him in
the adual produdion or creation of the
univerfei. Some of them have imagined
that Plato meant nothing by all this but
to defcribe the three properties or attri«
butes of the one God difplay'd in the cre
ation, namely, his goodnefs, wifdom and
power*, which is called the more refined
or fobtleP latonijm, being thus, thro' fear of
the averfion of the populace to any acknow
ledgments of the divine Unity, wrapt up

" Vid. Cleric, ars critic?, vol. i. p. f $6,
9 Platonifrne devoile par. i. c. f. '
' Ibid. cap. 9. 1 ¦
[ Ibid. cap. f, 7.
G 3 and

$$ An Hiftorical Account of
Jerm.ii. and cover'd in fuch allegorical dcfcriptioris,
VW» as were commonly taken in the grofler
fenfe to denote fo many diftinct divine
.Subftances f. From hence it is insinuated
that Juftin Martyr, who had been edu
cated in the fehool of Plato, and the fa
thers that followed hina, whether converts
from idolatry, or instructed by fuch as
were, mix'd up with Chriftianity the prin
ciples that were imbibed va.paganifim; and
if any of them underftood the more re-*.
fined and allegorical fenfe, yet to vulgar
apprchenfions at leaft they introduced a
tyitkeiftick worfhip f, which came at length
to be eftablifh'd by the council of Nice u,
and continued in fuceeeding ages. So that
fhe dodiine of the Church Catholick, e-
ven in thofe early ages* was nothing, elfe-,
in the judggneat of thefe wonderful dif-
eoverers, but i|he corruption of phifofophy,
and the fathers of the Church were even
worfe inftrudors than Plato or Plgtffius!
Nay, fome have gone yet farther,, and in
cluded the Apoftle St. John m the fame

' Ibid. cap. 12, 1 8.
•Ibid. cap. i. Vide Le Clere Biblioth-. choifie torn.- 3*
p. 86, &c. The like attempt is made, tho' with another view,
by Cudworth, InteHfef. Syftemi c.4. '§. 3*.
" Vid. Curcella;. Infr. reli Chrift. 1. 2, c. 20, 22. item Qja-
tern. Differtat. difl". 1. §. 72, &c. '
• .-• f
„ ...
charge

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 4? 7
charge of Platonifmw, as borrowing his se^m.it.
notions of the divine Afygt, if not iirime- ^^T^
diately from Plato himfelf, yet at leaft
from Philo the Jew of Alexandria, who
feekns to have been much addided to Pla-
toniek fpeeulations x. No wonder if the
fiiceeflbrs of the Apoftles be accufed of
fuch apoftaey, when the inspiration of the
Apoftles themfelves has not fecured them
-all from the Same accufation; tho' fome
have try'd to foften it by Suggesting that
St. John ufed the Style Of the philofopher,
but with a better meaning, only to Shew
how far the language of the Platanifts
might be accommodated to a chriftian
fenfey.
> But let us enquire a little, whether there
be at laft any real ground or foundation
for all this cry of Platonifm. The firft
Schools of the Chriftians, as appears by
that famous one at Alexandria^, which if
not

. " See the hiftorical vindication 6f the naked Gofpel, quoted
by Bifhop Bull, in his Prim. & Apoft. trad. c. f. §. 7. and by
Mr. Reeves; in his preliminary Difcourfe to Juftin Martyr'&
Apology, p. 4.
¦ ? Cleric. SrsCritica, vol. 3. ep. 7,8. Biblioth. Uriiv. torn. 10.
p. 40b, &c. as cited by Saltus.
y Vid. ejufdem Epift. de Hammondo & critica, p. iff. .
1 Alexandria — -— ubi a Marco EvarigelifH femper ecclefi-
aftici fuere doftores. D. Hieron, de feriptbr. Ecclef. hi P'an-
tceno. cap. 3d. Phih'ppus Sidetes makes Atteriafebras to have
been the firft mafler of this fchool in the riigni cf Adrian and
^Jtoninusj and to have been fttcceeded m that office by Clemens,'
G 4 Pantcenus,

88 An Hiftorical Ac counts/
Serm.ii. not firft of all ereded whilft St. Mark was
A-e'W-' theur BiShop, was at leaft continued in the
time of his fucceflbrs, under the direction
of thofe celebrated mailers, Pantaenus,
Clemens, Origen and Heracles -, were ma-
nifeftly defign'd for training up the chrif
tian youth in the dodrines of our holy
Religion, as laid down in Scripture3, and
not in the peculiar principles or tenets of
any fed of philofophers. And though the
oppofition which they met with frorh the
heathen writers, made it neceflary in time
to have fome fchools ereded for the Study
pf philofophy, as thofe of Ammonius\
Anat alius c, and others ; or at leaft to fer
led fome of their difciples for that fort of
education, as Eufibius relates pf Origen dj

Pantcenus, Origen, Heraclas, Dionyfius, Pierius, Theognoftus,,
Serapion, Peter, Macarius, Didymus and Rhodon, who re
moved -the fchoolfrom Alexandria to Side, in the reign of the Se
nior Theodofius. See Dodwelh Appendix to his Differtations
upon Irenaeus, p. 488, &c Vid. Cave Hift, lit. vol. 2. p. ft.
' •— 'E| ko%aiov \Sovi SlSatrxatetou tZv ttgav Aoyew irag' kurj£$
vvmittaToi . TlkyTaivoi ., , £airy fayvj <£ 2^& o-vyypapj-
ftiarat ' nut, ray, B-uon Soypfkruv Suraufoui ivopmpiartCt, p\<§h,.
Eufeb. E. H. I.,f.-.C. ,10. See more fully upon this pint 'Father
BaltusV Qefenfe des SS. Peres accufez de PJ^tpnifme livr. -^.'
ch. 1.
b Porphyr. in Eufeb. 1. 6, c. 19. y.icl. & Hierocl. apud
Phot. cod. 214. who fpeaks of Ammonius as having read phi
lofophy to Origen. ''' ¦ -
l-.;? AtaioKusS afterwards 'Bifhop of Laodjcea. Vid. Eufeb. H. E.
3.7. c.32. But Dr. Cave fuppofes the Schoolmafter and Bifhop tf
have been different perfons. Hift. Lit.' vol. 2. ad an, 270, . .
: t Eufeb. 1. 6. c. 1 8,

y^

the Trinitarian Controverfy. So
yet they were not addided to any diftind Serm.?t.
fed, but rather fet themfelves to expofe VW
what was abfurd in all the different feds,
and to colled that which was right e ; that
fo they might dispute with thefe philofo-
phers upon their own principles, and make
their philofophy as much fubfervient to
the caufe of Chriftianity, as the various
arts and fciences of human learning are to
philofophy itfelf f. Even Origen himfelf,
who feems to have indulged a philofophick
genius farther than the reft, yet caution'd s
his pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus to keep it
within thefe reftridions ; and declar'd, for
his own parth, that he had confin'd him
felf wholly to the word of God, till the.
confluence pf philofophers, as well as he
reticks r.eSoEting to his ledures, made it
neceflary, in order to adapt his arguments

" CbtXoa-otpiat 3,' & "Zraixm Xiyu, io% ryv WatTavixw, i> mr
"E/icixtttsi'oy re <£ A(i?otiMk>iv, a.\X o<ra tionsrai wetg ixutry rat
eitpio'iav T&Tav xaXlii, Slxaioo-utlttt p,ira VJtri-eSi iitinpr/ii ixSl-
SatrxtyTa, tSto a-iptxav to ixMxrixov, ipiXorofyav <faw' oca j
kvSg&nrlviiy Xcyia-piZv kkoTipfitptjmi yraat%aoa%av, Tavra ix ay Xort
S-tYa iiToip,' av. 'Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 1. p. 288.
f 'AAA* l>i Ta iyxuxXta piakripara o-vpfeaXXiTai srfos tyihovo-
cplat Tun Sio-yroivat kvrav, ira $ <f)i\o<ro<p(a Uutvi a'go? trotplatt
xTYio-iv o-iwspyii". Clem. Aleac. Strom. 1. 1. p. 284. **b
cptXocroipi'ai; kurfij. ktat&ttXsvTov <puAa<rcriiv rut nifty, p. 29 I.
1, '"' osrsj ipatri <ptXoo-ci<pZi yrcuSsi Tttg/i ysapiSTQ/iai, <f p,mo-t-
tUK, S^apipnaTm^i p Cf ptiTotixn, & 'Afgotopiiat, a; trwny&m
tptXoTotp'ta, tZS Mpiisik sitrafop s§ xs& kvTqi tyXoffotyiOi wgjs ;gpi=
eiavivpiov. Origen in Philocal. cap. 13. *
' * Philocal. cap. 13.'
J Eufeb. H, E. lib. 6, c. 19.
tJ f :: "~'; " the

$o An Hiftorical Ace oun t vf
Serm. IP the better to their prejudices, that he Should
^-Of^ be firft acquainted With their books and
fentiments. So that the dodrines of the
Gofpel were riot meanly fubmitted to the
correction of their fyftems, but they were
rather correded and reform'd by the Stan
dard Of the Gofpel. The chriftian apolo
gists were fo far from yielding to therii
in matters of faith, that they expos'd their
errors and ineonfiftent perplexities* even
in the theories of nature, and questions of
morality K
But if it could be fuppos'd that they who
had been firft educated to the ftudy Pf
philofophy, retain'd fome tindure of their
former notions, even after their cOhver-
fion to the faith Of Chrift, yet why muft
Pldtonifm be fuppofed to have had greater
influence than all the Other heatherilSh fyf
tems put together ) It is certain that the
ePeripateticks, the Epicureans, and above
all the Stpicks, were the moSt prevalent
and flourishing feds in the firft ages of the
Gofpel fe, whilft the Platonick fyfterri, which
had been corrupted foon after the death of

'* Vid. Hermiae Philofbphor. Gentil. iffifio ad calc. Juft.
Mart. Lactam, Diviri. Inftit. 1. 3. c. 2—7. Eufeb. praepar:
Evang. I. if, c. 1, 32, 61. Theodor. Serm. 4. de materia $»
mitnddf inter opera torn. 4. p. 5:27, &c.
* Vid. Baltus Defenfe'des $S. Peres accufez de Platbnifrh&
1. 1. c. 1 1, 12. and jfttdgmmt of the Jewifh ehmrtb againft the
Unitarians, c. 23. .'.,..¦*;.
~-'Li Plata,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. y\
-Plato, by Speufippus and Xenocrates his serm.il
immediate followers1, and after that fell *-<Y"V
into general difrefUte by the various dif-
fenfions of the Academicksm, was almoft
utterly extind, till in the third century it
was revived by Plotinusn, who open'd a
ichQol for that purpofe at Rome, and was
fuceeeded in the profeSIion of that fed, by
Porphyry, Iamblichus, and others, down
to Proclus in the Sixth century9, fo that
before this the generality of converts might
be fuppofed to have come from any other
fed rather than Platonifim 5 and I know
not of any one among the Fathers, befides
Jufiin. M&xiyr, who had adually made
profeSIieri Of that fed. And eari it then
be imagined that Chriftianity Should be
form'd upon the foot of the Phtoniek
fyftem r efpecially when it is added, that
after the revival of Platmifm, the profef.
fors of that fed were the moft virulent

' Numenius opted Eufeb. praep. Evang. 1. 1 4. c. f.
m Numenius , ibid, c. <5, 7, 8, 9. Itaque tot familias Ph.i.lo-
fophorum fine fucceilbre deficiunt. Academici & veteres &
minores nullum antiftitem reliquerunt. Senec. nat. Qrtaprti
1.7. c. 32.
¦ Plot inus was the fellow pupil of Origen, under Amrnoflius',
[vid. Hierod. apud Phot. Cod. 1 14.} and fiottrifhed in the re'tgii
of Galienus [vid. Pdrphyr. in viraV Plotini.] Tunc Plotini
Schola Ram* floruft. D. Auguft. Epift. 1 18. alias f6. ad Di-
"tftorunt, §. 33.
0 Vid. D. Auguft. de Civit. Dei, I. 8. c. 12. & Suid. iir
voee UXuTm$. See.-.alftt the lives cf-fevtral of them by Euna-
pius, an heathen writer of the fourth century.
- J.i oppofers

9 1 An Hiftorical Account^/
{Serm.ii. oppofers of Chriftianity p, and therefore
C^yv might naturally be expected rather to create
an averfion, than incline to any imitation
of them.
The truth is, as the Philofophers were
the chief fupporters of Paganifm, the Fa
thers of the Church were fo far from be
ing attached to any of them, that they
have exprefly declared againft them all, and
confider'd 'em as their avow'd adverfaries,
infomuch that even Juftin himfelf % ' who
Stands firft in this charge of introducing a
Platonich theology, has freely expos'd the
fyftems both of Plato and of Ariftotle, as
abfurd and inconsistent, whether confider'd
in themfelves, or compared with one ano
ther j as built, at beft, upon conjedure and
uncertain reafonings, unable to defend
them againft the oppofite hypothefis of any
other philofopher, or to create that firm
and unfhaken aflent of- mind which is due
only to the oracles of God, and the infalr

f? Vid. . Porphyr. in vita! Plotini. Eunap, in vita MdeRi,
p. 64, 6f. Edit. 1 6 1 6. Suid. in voce IIpeK^a;.
q "Ovra p$ -iv \xi& ray iy igavoti wgjs uXXiXni SiutpsgmTus,
yroaypieerav [IIAostot s£ 'AfifoTsXni]' iii ti iiSitat npotrwtt, tri is
fi-^i toi noo' ipM.itTaula yvatai Sluntfsvlii, k\xk $ vigji rirur
3-gj5 kxxi>.m Stiyt%Qti]ti, ix kZfotriroi tpuvitroylai trig* ray ci ig*-
toti Siwlsp%>oi. Juft n. Martyr, cohort, ad Grae?. p. 7. j&id m
his Dialogue with Trypho, (p.. if 2. Edit. Thiriby; alias 225-.)
(peaking of the Scriptures, he fays, to&tIv, pnvtuo ivtirxov QiXwt-
$!av kvQaXyi rt y$ vip^opr frus 5^3^ reiHr* ?iAfVa$®«
tya,
liblc

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 03
lible affurance of divine teftirnony. They Serm.ii,
who* notwithftanding this, can charge v^^/S*
Juftin with Platonifm, after his conver
sion, becaufe he was before it an admirer
of Plato, may e'en as well fuppofe him
to have been a Pagan ftill, with equal
truth, and juftice to the Martyr's me
mory1. >
Nay, to do 'em right, it muft be far
ther added, that the Catholicks did all a-
long exprefs the greatest jealoufy of thofe
whom they perceiv'd to incline to phi
lofbphick notions1", and made it one
great branch of their accufations againft
the antient hereticks', as firft againft the
Vdlen-

' Vid. Baltus Defenfe des SS. peres accufez de Platonifme.
1. 2. c. 4.
f This is particularly obfcrvable in the cafe of Origen, whoi
mtwithftanding his great piety, and the danger he feems to have
fometimes apprehended from mixing Divinity with philofbphick
notions, was yet fo much addided to /peculation and metaphys
eal enquiries, that he became very much fufpeded in this particular,
find was by many of the ancients feverely cenfttred upon that ac
count. AijAoy S* ifi </> tuv tS HXaTav®- pitpivvip)ti<&- lege pui-
pivspyj®- [Slfiyinii] , Soypikruy, <£ tiis tov koyfiy nao' kurS Sia*-
tptflti, zr£pi ktyjut yiyoatpt /SiSxlov. *.. r. X, Marcel. Ancyran.
apud Eufeb. contra Marcel. 1. 1. c. 4. p. 23.
' Ipfae denique haerefes a philofophia fubornantur. Inde
Aiones & forma: nefcio quae Hinc ilia: fabulx & ge
nealogist interminabiles, & quaeftiones infrudtuofie, Sc fer-
mones ferpentes velut cancer a . quibus nos apoftolus refrae-
nans, naminatim philofophiam teftatur caveri oportere. m«
Fuerat Athenis, Sc iftam fapientiam humanam, afFe&atricem
& interpolatricem veritatis, de congreffibus noverat, ipfam
quoque in fuas hxrefes multipartitam varietate fe&arum in-
vicem

94 An fiiftorkdl Account of
s-BRM.u.ValeMinians* and other Gnofticks v and
Vno*' afterwards againft the Arians*, that they
had tranfcribed after Plato and his follow
ers, and corrupted the fimplkity of the
Christian faith with mixtures of philofophy

vicem repugnantium. Quid ergo Athenis 8c Hierofolytriis? ¦
Quid- Academtae Sc Ecdeiia;? Quid,Ha:reticis Sc Chriftianis ?
Noftra inftitutio de pbrticu Salorhbnis eft, qui 8c ipfe tradi-
detat Doniinum in fimplicitate cordis efle quan-endum. Vi-
derint 'qui Stoicum, Sc Platonicum, 8c Diale&icum Ghriftia-
riifliftium prothlerunt . ' Tertul. de pntfcript. cap. j . Doleo
bona fide Phtonem omnium Haereticorum condimcntarium
fa&um. Idem, de Anima cap. 2 j. Haereticorum patriarchse
philofophi. Idem advtrf. Hermgg. cap. 8. De Platonis philo-
fophia major & antiquior eft expoftulatio chnfKariorum pa-
trurrh ur Et verd res per fe loquitur, ac prifcarum omni
um harrefum, quae primis tribus faeculis exortae funt, hifto-
ria ipfa t'eftatur, Simonianos, Valentinianos, Marcionitas,
Manichasos ac cseteros non aliunde quam ex cornmentis Pla
tonis fiibbriiatbs ene, Sc.' "Petav. Dogm. Theolog. in holegom.
c. 3. §.2. vid. & eund. de Trin. l.i.c.i.
¦ u -Qjet autem: dkiaift Imagines elffi hate eorum 'qua? fun'r,
& rursus manifeftiffime Democriti 8c Platonis fenfcntiarh
ediflerunt. Vren. adv.hHr.l.i. e. 19. alias 14. Ipfa* dterirque
haerefes a Philofophy fubdrriatttun Iride ^Gones 8c rorhisfc
nefcitt qusiEj 8c Trhtitas hoinihis apiid" Valentirium : Platoni-
cus fuerat. Ttrtul. de praftr. t. 7. teoc fecit ihfelfx Valentin
nus & Bafilidesi hoc fecit 8c Marcion hseretfci, furati funt
ifti linguas aureas de Hief itha, 8fc PBilbfbphoturti hobrs non
re£bs in Eeclefijls introducere cohati funt fedhs 8t polluerC
omnem ecclefiam Domini. OHgeti hom 7. injefuxn-.
• 'w 'ftxoPtgdwi 'j'tsT* TtZs 1$ a ilXoiray rSSi tS- piuia' f»riWe>
• Mann, *) Tt^yyt TitTis i -i&y xoihh>p%uv TvunkSv Sivm&is, op* '
pMior, ros; atpotpjai- ttM<pdrii . ot 3 vtapipiiamt Kufr6XgaTynh
k) fLpriQesyw, si) U^Siy.oi, 1^ or Kxtlwct rot <riiao% ploy mpiofatlii-
rir.ii i Theodbrit. Hser. fabi l.f. c. 20. p. 297.
* Ariana haerefis magis cum fapienti'S feculi facit, & argu^
mentationum rivbs de Ariftotelis fbritibus mutuatur. D. Hier,
in dialog, adverf. Eiiciferianosi inter opera torn. 4. par. i.
eph ±06. Ed. Ben.
and

^F Trinitarian Controverfy: 9 j
and ^ain deceit. The heathens were fen- Serm.it.
fible of this averfion in the Catholicks to WN-"
their philofophy : nor were they wanting,
for that reafon, to upbraid them as for-
fakang the eloquence and wifdom of the
Greeks, to. embrace the dodrine of Bar
barians^. The Catholicks were fo far
farom diSfembling this charge, that they
readily, acknowkdg'd it % and justified
themfelves, by observing what abfurdities
and contradidions, what doubt and incon
sistency, What ufelefs Speculations, at the
belt, were found in the greatest phikfophers,
whilft whatever was ufeful or valuable in
their writings, was entirely borrowed,
from the Sacred oracles ; a. They rejeded

1 TttTuitoi virie risk ixXtpieti, vittf To aftutov tZv 0tXoro$.xvTav
fiXta®. xatvortptfi" ra flaffiaeav Siypuar*. It* Ethnici apud.
Tatian. in orat. contra Grate. §.fj. p. 124. alias 170. Eufe
bius takes notice of the like objeSion, rl Sri aoa xaXot S|o-sf*-
tot iSotrsi a* T«; |8*pC«fwv ye&pipiao-t, rfy ttotTgatst t£ HyerSi
<piXoo-o<ptat, tk iXXfaov Xiya, xooxftiiuy avra Stanpotip^a. Pisep.
Evans. 1. .14. in proem. «— t«i »«™a««™» nz <r<prn%a-,
xai ra iovSatvv itoovitoiovpiWay. Celfus apud Origen. 1. f.p. 35*9.
in. like manner (peaks VbtpUyry of Origen, in Eufeb. H, E'. 1. f.
c. iff. and Julian, apud Cyril. Alex, contra Julian, 1. 2. p. 43 .
Paris, 1638. ___
""*"vld. Tatian. uYfupr. §.76*. Orig.ibid. Cyril. Aler. ibid.
& I.7. p. 230, 231.
' Avtixm Tut timpdv'ar ova pity ittirijffii XsXixtoii ¥3 kvS/il
vuuTgi%oi icy ToT( M«n-» StSbypiivoif tr* Jj pnn kfttrteerrit -MnirtZ
xai rut 7t(o<pl\Taii iziXaQti, ix ity vjtfit a-uviTura Tor hiym. Eu
feb. pnep. Evang. 1. 11. c,a8. vid, 85 Aug. de.civ. Dei, 1.8;
c. II.
¦¦ -- . all

9 6 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. n. all the parts oi philofophy with fuchdifdain
^^Y*^ and contempt, that the moderns who think
fit to make ufe of it in their fearches after
truth, have found it neceflary to take fome
pains, in order to reconcile their pradice
with this judgment of the ancients b.
And no wonder, whilft the whole ftudy
of philofophy was employ'd to beat down
Chriftianity, if , the chriftian writers Should
think of it with different fentiments from
thofe which have been entertain'd fince the
ceafingof fuch danger, and profefs'd opposi
tion c. As the Platonick fyftem was the moft
fpecious and plaufible, fo there was the
greateft danger apprehended from it ; and
for that reafon the ancient writers of. our
religion have exprefs'd themfelves with
greater zeal and vehemence againft Plato,
than they have againft Zeno, Ariftotle, or
jLpicurus } they have labour'd to expofe
his abfurdities as well in moral as in na
tural philofiophy ; and in Short, they feerri
not more averfe to any thing, than to con*
fefs the credit or authority of this philojb-
pherd. So that if we were refolv'd to

k Vide Petav. Dogm. Theolog. in Prolegom. cap. 4,'
§. 12—  17.
c Vide Baltus defenfe.des SS. Peres accufes dc Platonifme,
1. 2. c. 18.
* Vide ejufd. 1, $. per toturrt

fuppofe

the Trinitarian ContYoverfp 97
fuppofe them imitators of ch'e heM'ensi s fe n M.ir:
we might feem to offer Mefi violence t© ^^^
their writings, fey afcribing them to any o-
ther fed than to the P lat onifisi fince -there
is no other of which they have fo amply
expreffed their deteftation and abhorrence.
•Not that they had really a worfc 6-
pinion Of Plato, than they had of any
©ther philo fopher ! but only as they ap^
prehended more danger from him, there
was the greater neceflity of being fuller
and more explicit in their declarations a-
gdinft him. Otherwife it muft be owned
that fome of them, when they have taken
the philofophers in a comparative view,
have fpoke of P^laPO in terms of lefs dl£
like than the refte, as approaching nearer
in Ills notions to the truth of things, and
lefs oppofed to the dodrines of the Gofpel.
But it ought no more to be concluded
from hence that they were followers of
*PlatO, than froth our faying of the here
ticks and infidels of thefe days,' that fome
ate lefs hurtful than others, and nearer to
the catholick iakh, it might be argued>
that we did really approve of any of 'emj
and concurr'd in the. fame fentiments with

• 'Oblos pnv®* ^IXaTuy] 'soixs Ty Sl&fl riti' itlAeK ixttakev-T'otSt.
Eulfeb, Pram. Evang. 1. n. in prbeih. vid. St D. Auguft.rde
Civ. Dei. 1. 8. c. f, &c, 1; 16. c. i.

H them,

98 An Hiftorical Ac cou NT of
ser m. 11. them f. The glimmerings of truth which
t-SY*^ appear'd in Pythagoras, or Plato, they a-
fcribed to the remains of Hebrew learning
pick'd up by them in Egypt*, which they
had greatly corrupted and adulterated by
their own vain and contradidory opinions.
And it is worth our obferving, that the
learned Dr. Cudworth, amidft all his en
deavours to Shew the agreement between
the Platonifts and the ancient Fathers*
fuppofes Plato himfelf to have derived his
notions from a Divine or Mofaick Cab
bala, tho' by many of his followers de
praved and mifunderftood h.
From hence therefore, when the Fathers
were endeavouring to convince the hea
thens of the truth of Christianity, they
Very xeafonably. judg'd it might be ufeful

f Ifti philofbphos ceteros nobilitate atque au6toritate vice-
runt, non ob aliud, nifi quia longo quidem intervallo, verun-
tamen reliquis propinquiores funt veritati. D. Aug. de Civ.
Dei. 1. 11. c. y. Ideo iftos philofbphos dixi aliis fuifle melfr
ores, in comparatione pejorum 8c in quo illi meliores
erant, quamvis in multis a veritate deviantes, tamen in quo
erant iftis fuperiores, veritati fuerant propinquantes. D. Aug,
Serm- de temp. 139 alias 2.4.0.
8 UXotTav kitoSi%iiefy&' pkt, hi totxtv, t\v ittfi &05 x) piovrt
3w, Mac-sat £ ray itXXuy yrootptirtiy SiSarxaXiay, i)» iv Ai'ytVI*
ysvo/S/i®' iyta. x. r.x. Juft. Mart. Cohort, ad Grsec. nxkreiy
T«- *§ nuSayofas Si^icjm $ itai iirtetxifipot yrtgi ti tt5 ^ xoor-
p,V <riwiiXc'%atri 3 tv/i h'$ t2to xatSlvriv, t*Txv izrifipilu Ai'ywr*
Tuii ipfisGXitKoTti, ica( o\\ Sr, rnXii 0 itse\ t% TraytroQit Mao-sas
Aoy©- iv, xaijruv nag kila. SoypatTuv to taupj* itrnipiile. Cyr.
Alex, advcrf. Julian. 1.2. p. 47. Paris, 1638.
;? Cudworth. Intelle&. Syftejn. p.j-j7.
- : •¦ ' i . ¦ : tO

the Trinitarian Controverfy. ap
to this purpofe,' to eolled.out of the wrir Serm.ii.
tings of their own philofophers, fuch paf- v~OP^
fages as contain'd any of thefe glimmer
ings of truth, that from thence they might
argue for the greater certainty of that, reli
gion, by which thofe matters were pro-
pofed with greater evidence and perspicui
ty. Among the reft, as Plato had treated
of many points unknown to other philofo
phers, and had fometimes exprefs'd himfelf
almoft in the very Words of Scripture1, in-
fomuch that fome of his own followers k
look'd upon him to be but as another Mo-
fes Jpeaking Greek, it muft be reafonable
to conclude, with the concurrence of all
antiquity, that he had either feen the
Jewifh books in his travels, or at leaft
had pick'd up fome notices of their reli
gion by converfing with them that had1.

s Ti>s ifyxtat yfatpKi sip' sxara Sq-piioufyypittTav isripavio-Qf xal
t-Ssv o Ssli on xaXoV xai Isri t? xavrny avyxstpaXaiutrsi (patrxi-
o-tli xai sTSiv o Qsoi Ta irana, xal t'Si xaXa Xiav. 'Axons tS
TiXdrav®- Xsyovr®-, sipsp Sn xaXoi ifiv oSs o xo<rp,&,, ors As;-
piMvtyii kyaSoi, S%Xoy ac, ts£o% to ki'Sioy' ioXizs. xai tiotXiy' o pit
y> xaXXti-©* tUv ytyovoTuv, i S' . agi?&' rav kiriav, Eufeb.
Fraep. Evang. 1. 1 1. c. 3 i. H&c & alia vid. apud Bait. Defenfe
des SS. Peres 1. 4. c. 24.
* Noa^Wfm©- 5 .0 Jlvdayoesi®* <piXe<rop<&* ' oevrixovi ygaipsi, t)
V«p hi IiXarav, r) Matrii kAxitat. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 1.
p. 342.. vid. & Eufeb. Prsep. Evang. 1. 9. c. 6. Theodorit.
Serm. 2. p.j-oy. Suid. in voce Noujw.au®-.
1 See this proved by Father Baitus, in his Defenfe des SS. Peres
I.4. c. 22, 23. See Bifuop Bull, Def. fid. Nic. feclr. 1. cap. 1.
§. 18, 19. 8c Prim. 8c Apoft. trad. cap. f. §. f. and Dr. Allix
Judgment of the Jewifh Church, chap. 23.
H 2 So

loo An Hiftorical Account of
sERM.ir. So that as the ancient defenders of out
^"V"^ faith had obferved in his and other pagan
writings, fome obfcure footfteps of the
Mofaick hiftory of the creation and the
deluge, and of the dodrines of the im
mortality of the foul, and the reJkrreBion
of the dead1", it is no wonder if among
the reft, they Should not fail to urge what
' he has faid of the divine Word, and ap
ply it to difpofe thofe heathens with whom
they difputed to a readier reception of the
Chriftian myfteriefs. But can it be con
cluded from all this, that they took their
notions from Plato, or approved of all
the fuperftitious mixtures with which he
had blended and corrupted what was true!
No ; we might argue With as much reafon,
that their notions of the foul's immortality
and the rejurreiiion of the body were ta
ken from Plato too! Let us but obferve
wjth what feverity many of the ancients
treat the works oi Origen, upon fuSpicion
of his indulging too much tb philofophick
reafonings, and accufe the hereticks in ge
neral Of corrupting the Simplicity of the
chriftian dodrine by fuch kind of fpecula-
tions ; nay, how Origen himfelf was not

" Tho' the Platonifts difown'd and ridiculed ihe chriftian notion
cf the refurre&ion ; yet there feem to be fome footfteps of it in
ttieir doctrine of incorruptible bodies, and of the tranfmigra-
tion of fouls.

infen-

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 101
Infenfible that his philo fophick ftudies were s erm.ii.
a matter which needed fome apology " ¦, ^-^V^
and it can never be imagined that the
common dodrine of the Church, in mat
ters of fuch vaft moment, Should be^ form
ed upon the maxims of philofophy, but
only that thofe maxims might be urged up
on occafion, to convince the heathens a-
mong whom they were receiv'd.
And yet where, after all, is this prodi
gious conformity between the principles of
Plato, and the christian dodrine of the
Trinity ? Does there any thing appear like
it in the writings of Plato himfelf, or of
thofe who have given any account of his
notions, before the conclusion of the fe
cond century ? What is there in Tully, or
in Plutarch, in Apuleius, or 'Diogenes
Eaertius, which might countenance this
insinuation? There might be fomething
for the Chriftians to lay hold of in their
arguments about the Trinity; fomething
Plato had faid of the 'Divine Word or
Wifdom, which might help to take off that
averfion the heathens had ufually exprefs'd
againft this myftery : but the dodrine it
felf, as Stated by the Fathers, was not prQr
pofed among them, nor any thing that
look'd like it, till the revival of Tlat.o-
- ¦ 5 Eufeb. H. E. 1.6. c. io,
H 3 nifm

102 'An Hiftorical A c c 6 u n f of
serm.ii. nifrn in the third century, when it was"

UYNJ

new drefs'd.up and paraphrafed upon by
Platinus and his followers, and the very
terms of the Church were introduced in
to the fchools of the philofophers0. As
Plato had profited by the Jewifh writings,
fo did Plotinus by the Chriftian ; but like
his matter too, he corrupted the dodrine
by tranfcribing it, and afferted the divinity
of three Hypoftafes fubfifting feparately
from each other. This differ'd little from
the Arian fyftem p, but was never admit-.
ted by the Catholicks.
Haying thus far remov'd the charge, of
Platonifm from the Church, I Should next
go on with Tertullian, Hippolytus and
Origen, and the Fathers that followed in
the third century. But with them I puiv
pofe to proceed (God willing) at fome o-
ther opportunity, -: -

Now to God the Father, God the Son,
a,nd God the Holy Ghoft, ,&c, -

° TIioi^tZv r-ftav kf%t%£v bfroraa-iav. Plotin. Enncad. f. J. i.
-*vyjw -f> ytvva >£;,. ., »£ j y'swiipM *o'y©° ti; xtii iuriftttrn to
'Siavoipitvov. Ibid. cap. 7.
r Vid. Petav. de Trin, \. 1. c. 8. §. 2. yet Dr. Cudworth
fP-f7f. of his Intellectual §yftem> obferves this difference, that
the Platonifts fuppofed their three principle's eternal. See Socrat.
H. E. J. 7. c. 6. However, their admitting a divifion both cf
txiflence and power, va$ clearly coincident with th> Arian Syftem.
' ?' . , S E R~

the Trinitarian Controverfy. . 103

SERMON III.
Preach'd Jan. 2, 17 2 3-4*

H E dodrine of the fecond serm. in..
century, in relation to the e- v^oT*^
verbleffed Trinity, was fo far
clear'd up and explain'd, when
I was laft in this place, as can
leave us in no reafonable doubt of its hav
ing been, as to the main and Subftance of
it, the fame with that which is Still acknow
ledge for the catholick faith; however
fome new terms may have been introduced,
as others may have grown obfolete, in
proportion to the different circumftances
of the Church, and the oppofition it re
ceived, from hereticks. The charge which
fome novelifts have brought againft it, as
tho' 'twere borrowed from the fchool of
Plato, and were nothing elfe but pagan
H 4, phik>

p 04 4n Hiftori&il A, C c 0 on t -ff
Serm. iii. philofophy drefs'd up under a chriftian
^-^V^ garb, was Shewn at the fame time to be
altogether groundlefs, and without any
fupport. So that being thus far clear in
our original, we may have leave now to
come lower down, and obferve what turns
this controverfy took, as new herefies a-
rofe, which required a new kind of op-
poiitiojji. 7 ,r] f '\ y-'- ,f "*>
It wks noar .thrk:^ yiaars hefoix the. coo*
clufion of the fecond century3, that the
enthuftaftjjck TjShjt- oi'Mhitanus had made
172. its claim to a divine authority, and by the
moft . fpecious ... appearances of piety and
great aufterity, had gain'd over many pro-
fel^te.Sj, ajid w_as . grown in.tQ. a good de
gree" pf refutation b, ft; is" not, to be difi
puteti hut thi§: -fnthufiaft^ acknowledged
the pn£ Godhead pf Father, Sqn and Holy
"Cpipfk6." And linefeed out a^verfaries arj
fo.f^-'fronj difputiritg 'it,( that fome pf them
wou^d fuggeft, , the doctrine was. derived
fxpn^ him,' and;, cannot be traced to any
.better original'*. But th.e falfhood, ojt.tha^

' Vid, Cave, Hift/ Lit. ad. an.. 172.
' * See the Hiftory or* Montimifm. Art. r, 2. - '¦ "1
\ Hift. pf Mpnts. Art,. 2. §. 13. Theo/ferlt.. t$gr. •&&, I.- s>
c. 2. PJiiJaftr. de %r_. c 49. %iphan, .Hasr^S, §. 1.
* Schhchting. pra:fat4. ad Ecclef'Evbtr^.'pa'ftores, p. 17, &<*.
Sandijfe in Nud. HiffSfid 1, 1. p. 126.; Edit i<5«5p. .¦«*£
ton's true, origins af the] SabeWap. and. Athaaafia.ri, do8r\nes,
p. 64/&C. ' ' " 3I "^ "' ' a -'~*' l'-'
fuggeftion

theft i initaiiant Controverfy. i o j
fuggeftion will eafily appear, when 'tis con- serm, in.
fider'd that Mont anus and his followers VW
were for a, good while fuffer'd to remain
in the communion of the Church, which
could never hayc been allowed, if then?
dodrine in this important article had been,
new and inconfiftent with the catholick
faith. / And when at laft they were actually
excluded, this made no part of the charge
againft them, which was founded on the-if
breach of order and unity, and arrogant 3-
fdibing ^n^ pretended revelations to the
impulfe ol the Holy Ghoft e4 After dm, they e;rM , 9%-
are faid to h#ve- taken occafion, feoja the
controversy ^p^ Rafter, to court th§ favour;,
©I" Pop^ V%fhrx and did fo far insinuate
themfelves, into Jftis:- efteemj as to obtain
letters #* communion from. hinj,f; tiJJr
Prapcew,, coming %0m. Afia to Emm, gave
him a djffgr*e$rj: nasion oi the men,, arid
prevail'd with Mo? to revoke and cajftee^
the Lcomtmrnm ^hich he had Sthg-wa
'ems. ^mxeas,_ however, wasaofchuiTb
-djf-; -. '.. . ; ..h%r\ ~ " ^*
c Vid. Eufeb. H. E. I. f. c. 14, 16.
S Th&Eap£s~name, -mho. gttmtetL thefe letters, is not- in- Ter
tullian. Mr. Dodwel, in Diflert. de Rom. Pontiff, c. if.
§. 9, &g. contends tkat. Pr^e^s came to. Ronja in the tetni of
%£e.Zeph,yir4n,, wk>, fyctjed#(..yi$m.: but. hk argument pawl
only th,at h^ifioafk'd hjs herefy, under, him W! that he came ta
Rome »g $##•> _$$»/! Bcwifln (Oiff. j. c. 0.}. te mote ta
fay for referring it to the time of Eleutherus, who WAS before
Victor. But tfo, mure general opinion lies between them.
8 Tertul. adv. Praxeam. cap, 1. .-, felf

1 06 An Hiftorical Account*?/
Serm. ill. felf dear from the charge of herefy, whilft
<?"/>-» for fear of destroying the Unity of the
divine Nature, he acknowledg'd no other
than a nominal diftindion, and believ'd
the Father Almighty to be in all points
the fame who was born and fuffer'd in
Judea, and to differ no otherwife than as
he was confider'd under different views,
and fo term'd the Father in one jefped,
the Son in another, and the Holy Ghoft
in a third11.
It has been formerly obferv'd1, that fome
fuch fort of principle feems to have been
advanced by Simon Magus, and was cer
tainly efpoufed in the time of Juftin and
Tatian, by ^ fome obfcure perfons of no
name in hiftory. But now, by the adi-
vity and diligence oi Praxeas, it fpread
with greater fuceefs;' being propagated by
him firft at Rome, and afterwards in A-
frickv: where tho' he was once brought
to a retradation, yet he foon refumed the
exploded herefy, and afferted it with greater
vigour; infomuch that notwithftanding
the oppofition he had made to the enthu- ,,

" Itaque poft tern pus Pater natus, & Pater pafliis, ipfe
Deus, Dominus omnjpotens, Jefus Chriftus predicatur 
dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam fi ipfum
eundemque & Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum fanftum dicat.
Ibid. c. 2.
1 See the foregoing Sermons, p. 28, S0> 72.
J Hift. of Mont. art. 8. §.4, fiafm

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i 07
fiafm.of Mont anus, yet there was a fed serm. hi:
of the Montanifts- themfelves imbibed his ^OTV
herefy1, who were term'd the followers of
t^/Efchines, in contradiftindion to an
other fed of thofe enthufiafts, who were
the followers of Proclus. So that St. Je-
rom muft be underftood with fome caution,
when he makes mention of the Montanifts,
without any diftindion, without any di-
ftindion, as embracing the dodrine of Sa-
follius m. And from hence we may ac
count for the mention which Paciana
has made of Praxeas himfelf as a teacher
of the Montanifts.
From the nature of this Praxean herefy;
it may. juftly be obferved, how clearly the
dodrine of the Church had declared for
the proper Divinity of the Son and Holy
Ghoft, infbmuch as to give a handle for
confounding them with each other, and
reprefenting them as nothing elfe but o->
ther names for the Father himfelf0. The
Unity
1 Sunt enim qui Kata Proclum dicuntur, funt qui. fecun-
dum iEfchinem pronunciantur. Privatam autem blaf-
phemiam illi qui funt Kata iEfchinem, hanc habent qua ad;
jiciunt etiam hoc, ut dicant Chriftum ipfum effe Filium &
Patrem. Tertul. de Prxfcript. cap. fi. vid. Sc Theodor. Haer.
fab.'1. j. c. 2.
¦" Hieron. Ep. 5-4. alias 27. .
n Pacian. Ep. 1 . contra Novatianos in torn. 4. mag, Bi
blioth. Patr. col. Agrip. 16 18. p. 237. , ,
0 jEftiment ergo an hie fit Deus, cujus audtoritas tantum
WJOvit quofdam, ut putarent, ilium jam ipfum Patrem De-
*. umj

io8 Ah Hiftorical 'Account of
Serm. Hi; Unity of tlie divine Nature was confefs'd
v^VV on both fides : but. the difficulty was how
to include the Three in this divine Unity.
The hereticks took away all real diftindion,
left they Should divide the fubftance : And;
had the Catholicks conceiv'd of them as
the Arians did afterwards, that they are
beings truly Separate, they would have
found no difficulty in maintaining the rea
lity of their diftindion, and the poffibility
of one affuming human nature without tlie
other. But the truth is, they were ios
preserving both, and therefore fometimes
were at a lofs for proper words to exprefs
themfelves in fueh manner as to avoid the
falling into either extream, They had
fometimes Spoke of lather, Son and Holy
Ghoft, as one and defame; and when
fome perfons, without regarding thofe o^
ther paffages: which implied a real distinc
tion, had frpm hence taken occafion to re-
prefent it as tho' 'twere only nominal, this
made it neceffary for them to introduce new
termsin the explication of this myftery, in or*
der to guard their fenfe againft any miftake,
that they might neither give the hereticks
any handle to Support their own tierefy,

um ; effrenatius & effufius in Chrifto Divinitafem con,fi?eri,
ad hoc illos.manifcfta Chrifti Di?initate cogente, ut quem Eir
lium legerent, quia Deum anjmadvert«erer»t", Patrem putarcnt.
Novat. de Trin, c. 18.
nor

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 109
fior incur the hlame of fetting up ano- shrm. iii.
ther p. ' V>V^>
Tertullian was the firft who wrote pro- 209-
fefledly againft this dangerous opinion : and
tho' he was by that time fallen into Mori'
tdnifm, yet it is remarkable that he does
not afcribe his information in this matter
to Montanus, but only his farther affurance
and confirmation in it ; he mentions it as
the dodrine he had always believed, and
appeals for it to that ride of faith which
had been handed down from the days of
the Apoftles % The great fcdpe of his
book againft Praxeas, is to prove a real
diftindion of the facred Three, which he
expreSfes in fuch high terms as to call the
Son another from the Father, and the Ho
ly Ghoft another from both1. Yet this way
of exprelfion, he knew, would need fome
apology i and therefore he adds, that he
meant not hereby to intimate any fepara*

* See Or. Wall's Hiftory of Infant Baptifm, par. 2. ch. fi
§.12. * Nos vero & femper & nunc magis ut inftruetiores per
Paracletum unicum quidem Deum credimus, lbb
hac tamen difpenfatione quam oeconomiam dicimus, ut unict
Dei fit & Filius fermo ipfius, qui ex ipfo .procefferit  — —
qui exinde miferit, fecundum promiffionem fuam, a Patre
Spiritum Sandlum Paracletum, fan£r,ificatorem fidei eorum qui
credunt in Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum San&nm. Hanc
regulam ab initio evangelii d'ecucurrifle, &c. Tertul. adver'f.
Praxeam c. 2.
i * Ecce enim dico alium effe Patrem, ScaHium FiKnai, &
alium SpiritutQi cap, p.
i tion

no An Hiftorical Account©/
serm. in. tion of them from each other, but Spake
^""Y"V-> thus merely of neceflity, to guard againft
the captious difpofition of his adverfaries ;
who, attending to the Monarchy or Unity,
in prejudice of this facred O economy, con
tended, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft
were the Jamef.
. Thus was he all along careful to ob
viate the capital objedion of the hereticks
which was taken from the Unity of the
divine Nature, which this Father thought
to be abundantly fecured by the i catholick
dodrine, whilft, the Unity deriving the
Trinity out of it felf, was not (as he fpeaks)
deftroy'd but adminifter'd; fo that the Fa
ther only was fountain of the Deity, and
the fame fubftance was acknowledged un-
originately in the Father, but derivatively
in the Son and Holy Ghoft c. Thus they
were

¦"Male accipit idiotes quifque aut perverfus hoc didhim,-
quafi diverfitatem fonet, & ex diverfitate feparationem pro-
tendat, Patris & Filii & Spiritus. Neceftitate autem hoe di
co, cum eundem Patrem & Filium & Spiritum contendunt,'
adverfus ceconomiam monarchic adulantes, non tamen diver
fitate alium Flium a Patre, fed diftributione; nee divifione
alium, fed diftin&ione. Tertul. adverf. Praxeam. c. 9.
1 Perverfitas. ¦ quse unicum Deum non alias putat cre-
dendum -quam ft ipfum eundemque 8c Patrem Sc Filium 8c
Spiritum Sanftum dicat: quafi non fie quoque unus fit om
nia, dum ex uno omnia, per fubftantiae fcilicet unitatem j 8c
nihilominus cuftodiatur ceconomise facramentum, quae Uni
tatem in Trinitatem difponit, tres dirigens, Patrem 8c Filium
8c Spiritum Sandum. cap. 2. -.Unicum quidem, fed
sum fua ceconomia effe credendum- . , ¦ quando unitas ex
femetipsa

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 1 1
were three, not in dignity, but order; not Serm. iii.
in fubftance, but form; not inpower, but ^-OPV
manifeftation*. Tho' really diftinguifh'd,
they were at the fame time infeparably
coharent: though fubftantially united, yet
they were diftindly enumerated'", their
numbers being no lefs certain than their
jnfepar ability*. From hence he made no
fcruple of attributing the title of God to
every one of the Three; though Still he
was determined to acknowledge no more
Gods or Lords than Onei. Nay, and for
the

femetipsa derivans Trinitatem, non deftruatur ab illi fed ad-
mimftretur. cap. 3. Cxterum qui Flium non aliunde de-*
duco, fed de fubftantia Patni— quomodo poffum de fide de-
ftruere monarchiam, quam a Patre Filio traditum in Fiiio
fervo? Hoc mihi & in tertium gradum di&um fit, quia Spi
ritum non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Vide
ergo ne tu potius monarchiam deftruas, qui difpofitionem 8c
difpenfationem ejus event's, &c. cap. 4.
u Tres autem non ftatu, fed gradu; nee fubftantia, fed
forma ; nee poteftate, fed fpecie ; unius autem fubftantia:, 8c
unius flatus, 8c unius poteftatis; quia' unus eft Deus; ex quo
8t gradus ifti & forma: 8c fpecies in nomine Patris 8c Filii 8c
Spiritus San&i deputantur. cap. 2.
w Unique, teneo unam fubftantiam in tribus cohairentibus ta
men alium dicam oportet ex neceftitate fenfus eum qui jubet.
8c eum qui facit. cap. 1 2. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, 8c
Filii in Patacleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero,
qui tres unum funt, non unus, quomodo didtum eft ego 8c
Pater unum fumus, ad fubftantia; unitatem, non ad numerl
fingularitatem'. cap. if.
' * Quomodo autem numerurh fine divifione patiuntur pro-
cedentes rerra&atus demonftrabunt. cap. 2.
r Duos tamen Deos 8c duos Dominos nunquam ex ore
noftro proferimus, non quafi non & Pater Deus,. & Filius
Deus, & Spiritus Deus, 8c Deus uniufquifque. cap. 13. — Ne ia

in An Hiftorical k c e <& U n T of
sEfeM. in. the clearer difpatch of this conttoveffy,
^^Y^^ he feems to have been the firft that intro
duced the term Perfon, in cOntradiftindion
to Subfiunce\ and from hehce he freety
fpeaks of per'fonal characters appropriate to
each of the Three. And therefore when
an' ancient author b fays, that that term
was never ufed in the Church till Sabellius
made it neceffary, he mult be understood
of fuch perfons as advanced the SabeUian
tenets, tho' long before the rife of Sabel
lius himfelf.
But however the confubftantiality of the
perfons be thus clearly aflerted, it muft be
pwned there is a paflage in Tertullian's

in ifto fcandalizcntur rationem reddidimusj <jua Dei non di-
cantur, nee Domini, fed qua Pater & Filius duo; 8c hoc non
ex feparatione fubftantia:, fed ex difpofitione, quum indiyi-
duum & infeparatufn Filium a Patre pronunciamus ; nee ftatu,
fed gradu alium ; qui etfi Deus dicatur, quando nominatur,
ftngularis non ideo duos Deos faciar, fed unum, hoc ipfo
quod 8c Deus ex unitate Patris vocari habeat. cap. 19.
a Sic 8t csstera quse nunc ad Patrem de Filio, nunc ad Fi»
Hum de Patre, vel ad Patrem, nunc ad Spiritum pronuncian-
tur, unamquam,que perfonam in fuS proprietate conftituunt.
cap. 11. .— -Scriptura diftiuguit inter jperfonas r . ¦ Alium
autem quomodo accipcre debeas jam profeffus ium ; perfonx
non fubftantia: nomine j ad diftindtionem, non ad divifionem.
cap. 12.
• Perfonarum autem nomen, non nifi cum Sabellius im-
pugnaret ecciefiam, neceffario in ufum praedicationis affump-
tum eft; ut qui femper tres credit! funt 8c voeati. Pater 8c
Filius 8c Spif itus Sanctus, uno quoque, fimui & communi
perfonarum nomine vecarcntur. Faojnd. Defcnf. trium Sapit.
1. 1. c. 3. p. 19.

' the Trinitariari Controverfy u 113
Book againft Hermogenes c, that feems at firft sekm. iii;
fight to bear hard againft the Son's eterni- VXY^-*
ty. Which yet, upon a ftrider examinati
on, and comparing it with his book againft
ePmxeasA, may appear to be only a nicer
Speculation of that Father, who had per
haps too fubtilly improved upon the di
ftindion Of the ancients between the inter-*
nal Reafon always coexifting with the Fa
ther, and the fame Reafon brought forth
to an external Word, and fo in time ob
taining the charader and name of a Son*.
But whatever be determined pi Tertul-*
Han's notion of the nature of the Son, yet
With refped to the Holy Ghofi at leaft, it
is pretended by fome of our anti-trinita-
rian writers f, that the notion of his Di
vinity was entirely new, and derived from

c Non tamen ideo Pater 8c Judex femper, quia Deus fern.
per : nam nee Pater potuit effe ante Filium, nee Judex ante
delictum. Fuit autem tempus cum Sc delictum 8c Filius non
fuit. Tertul. adv. Hermog. cap. 3.
4 Ante omnia enim Deus erat foluf— quia nihil aliud ev-
trinfecus praster ilium. Caeterum ne tunc quidem folus ;
habebat enim fecum quam habebat in femetipfb,- rationem
fuam fcilicet... . Nam etfi Deus nondum fermonem fuura
miferat, proinde eum cum ipsa 8c in ipsa ratione intra femet-
ipfum babebat, tacite cpgitando 8c difponendo fecum, quae'
per fermonem mox erat di&turus. Tertul. adv. Prax. c. f .
' ' Vid^ de hac re fufius D. Bull. Def. fid. Nic. feft. 3,
cap. 10.
. f Vid. Schlichting, in prsefat. ad Ecclefiar. Evangelicar;
Paftores, difputationi de SS.Trinit. prsefix3. p. 21. WhiftonV
origin of the SabeUian and Athanaf! dodrine, p. 64, &c.
: f the

H4 An Hiftorical Accounts/
Sekm. in. the Spirit of Montanus, and that Tertul
i~sYs*' Han g intimates as much himfelf, when he
profeffes to believe the Godhead as con
fifting of two, the Father and Son, and
now three with the Holy Ghoft. From
that word now, they would infer that
his acknowledgment of the Holy Ghoft
was matter of new light receiv'd Since he
became a Montanift. But when it is re-
membred that he mentions all as matter
of catholick tradition, contained in the
rule of faith, and founded on the Scrip
tures of the old and new teftament, it
muft be moft unreafonable. to fuppofe all
this overthrown by an ambiguous word,
in a writer of fo many peculiarities in
Style as Tertullian, when that very word,
if it be not (as fome have thought) an er
ror of tranfcribersh, may however be
much better explain'd to refer to the ful
ler confirmation of an old dodrine, by his
pretended prophet, than to the firft reve
lation of a new one1.

8 Duos quidem definimus, Patrem 8c Filium, 8c jam tres
cum Spir itu San&o. Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. I j. Itaque duos
8c tres jam jaftitant a nobis pradi eari. cap.;.
h Et jam, if the words be joht'd, will be etiam. Vid. Calov.
Script. Antifbcin. vol: 2. p. foj.
' Thus Tertullian himfelf a little lower, ubi venit Chriftui
— — fa£his ftcandus a Patre, 8c cum Spiritu tertius etjam
Pater per ipfum- plcnius manifeftatus; 8tc, Tertul. adv. Prax.
cap. i j.

Such

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i i j
Such was the ftate of the Trinitarian con- serm. ni:
troverfy in the time of ~ Tertullian, who lived ^^Y^*/
&t the clofe of the fecond, and beginning
of the third century. But all the oppofition
Which he made to the herefy of Praxeas
in Africa, cOuld not hinder it frOm fpread-
ittg afterwards k into Afia, by the induftry
and cunning of Noetus, an inhabitant of
&*yrnal. And therefore as the perfons of 238.
this principle, who from the nature of
their herefy were called at firft Monarchi
ans by TertuUian**, and afterwards Patri-
paffians* by the Latin Church, had like*

• * Epiphanius (haer. f-j. §. I.) fpeaking of the age of Noetus,
fayt he ffread his herefy about an hundred and thirty years ago,
more or lefs : the way of fpeaking fhews he did not 'intend an exaS
calculation, but fomething near it. Now Epiphanius began to
¦write hit books againft herefies in the year. 374; (fee Cave hift.
lit. an. 368.) from whence that account would bring us to the
jjiar 244. On the other hand, Hippolytus, who wrote againft
IWoetus, and therefore muft hive writ after him, tho' not longj,
(s 3-59 iroXXx' x,®t* ytvt>p\/&-. Hippol. contra Noet. §. 1.) it
faid by fome io have died ', in the par 230. (vid. Tillem. torn. 4.
in Les Sabelliens) by others in the year t-if, but both upon un-
curiam grounds, (vid. D. Cave, hift. lit. ad an. 220. inutroque
volum.) The truth may be, probably, between both. So that
Noetus might appear about the year 238, and Hippolytus'i an-
fwer might be written about the year 240, if Maximin'* perfecu-
tionheldfo bag, otherwife his martyrdom muft be brought down
to Decius. See Till, torn. 3. S. Hippolyre.
No&tis pioinrai, 05 to fur)yst&- y\vH,piogiat<&: Hippol. contr.
Noetum §. 1. vid. Fabric, annot. item Theodor. hser. fab.
I.3. c.3. Epiphanius (haer. fj. §. 1.) fpeaks of him asbeingof
Ephefus. m Quod vaniflimi ifti Monarchiani volunt. Tertul. adv.
Prax. cap. 1 o.
n Vid. Philaftr, de hseref. cap. 5-4. 8c D, Auguft. de hseref.
cap. 41.
I 2 wife

-i 1 6 An Hiftorical A c'c o u n t of
Serm. iii. wife the name of Praxeans0, from their
VY^ chief leader in Africk, fo now they began
to be made known in the Eaft under the
name of Noetians*.
Againft this herefy of Noetus, there
foon appeared a feafonable antidote, wxit-
240. ten by Hippolytus the BiShop of Porto in
Arabia % which is Still extant, tho' denied
by our modern Arians to be genuine, and
called with confidence enough, the inter
polated Hippolytus1. But this, for no bet
ter reafon that I know of, than becaufe at
the fame time that he confutes the Noe
tians, he carefully guards againft the other
extreme, which was afterwards taken by

• lidero ibidem.
r Philaftr. cap, 5-3. D.Aug, cap. 36.
* St. Jerom (de Script. Ecclef. cap. 61. J knew not of wt/at
place he was Bifhop: Eufebius does, not obfcurely, intimate it to
have been fomewhere in Arabia (E. H. 1. 6. c. 20.) Gelaiius
(de duob. natur. apud Le Moyne in Proleg.) makes him Bifhop
of the metropolis of Arabia. We have not yet the name of the
city ; but fometimes we find him called Bifhop of Rome, and
fometimes of Porto of Rome, (vid. Fabric, in prarfat. ad Hip
pol.) which has inclined fome to think him Bifhop of Portus Ro^
man us at the mouth of the Tibur, which was thought to be not
a little confirmed by 4 monument of him dug up at Rome about
an hundred and feventy years ago. But how does this agree with
his being Bifhop of Arabia? A learned Author [Le Moyne proleg.;
ad varia facra fol. * 29. 2-.] has happily removed the -dif
ficulty, by fuppoftng him to have been Bifhop of Aden in Arabia
Faelix, called by Greek writers, papjatxov ipiTtoeiov, which gavtt
ground to the miflake. Vid. 8c D.Cave hift. lit. ad an. 220. in
utroque vol.
I See Reply to Dr. Waterland, p. 1 \-j.md elfewhere. the

the Trinitarian Controverfy. \iy
the Arians, ^and to which the Praxean or, Serm. iii."
Noetian hereticks did conftantly endeavour v-^OT^
to reduce the orthodox. That he wrote a
book againft thirty two herefies, conclud
ing with that of the Noetians, is attested
by Photius*. That this piece which now
remains is a fragment of that larger work,
may be fairly argued from the firft words
of it*, which plainly refer to fomething
that had gone before upon the fubjed of
other herefies. And that it is the con
cluding part, may be farther argued from
the folemn doxologya with which it ends.
That author's way of thinking, and of ex
plaining this myftery, is fo much the fame
with Tertullian's, that whilft it Shews the
perfed harmony between the Greeks and
JLatins, it muft likewife argue it the ge
nuine produd of that age, and therefore
of Hippolytus.
It appears from this writer, as well as
from Tertullian, that the grand argument
Of the Monarchian or Unitarian hereticks
was taken from the Unity of the divine
nature, by which they hoped to reduce the

rPhot. Biblioth. Cod. 121.
* "Etsooi rati irsgat o\Saa-xa)tiat ira'iiirayiriv, x.t.X. Hippol.
fontra Noet. §. 1. ... ,
" 'Autq ij e%%a & to xtaT©* dpa xaryi <S eiyio icyivpiart,
g* rj) dyla ixxXnoia <£ toy (f kei >£ iti mi UtotyOi ?Zv kiavav,
kpiifi. §. 18. in fine. . .

I 3 Catholicks

118 An Hiftorical Ace oun t of
Serm. hi. Catholicks to the unhappy dilemma of
S-<YV either accepting of their fcheme, or de
claring fox' open Tritheifm. Hippolytus^
replies in the fame way with Tertullian,
that they aSTerted the Unity of nature and
power as much as any of them all, but
tt this deftroy'd not that myfterious Oeco-
ny, whereby a plurality of Persons
fiibfifterd in a proper order, the Father hav
ing always his Word and Wifdom in him-'
felf, which were manifested in due time tp
perform his wondrous operations w. AH
which agrees well with {Jippvlytus's doc^
trine upon other oecafionsj as when dif-
puting with the Jews he reprefents the

w Tis «J? oaa. sgsi/svaS-jot sivtttj i^V i r\v oixovopitat kyai$Ttt.
Hippol. contra Noet, §. 3. — pivrifiov oixovopiitti — b varnf it
«i tS bty, Kj 0 oiai <w t5 stoiToi, ip,7ToMTiv<ip%J\s tS hut c* keSgd-
sreis. —115 »» w in iqavy «AA" 0 A«'y©" ouragt&> ; ~-)J>y©r <r^p|
in, zsviopia b,v, Suiapiti W. §.4, o Av im zroivTuy Stib$ iuXoy-^lli
yiymrrai, 'ti, eivhuti®- ytvota/i®- S-ie's i?» si; t«s iianw;. S. <J.
3t» sct£v art. tya t 0 5T«tw> sv siuii, «/\A<* e> <ru>»* T» yap £o-«,i»
* !,»¦ 1..1- 1/'  i^i. iJLlt '  ?A..:e... A'-  i .71:

—j. •- — . i,--^r—,-z  nr, ,.- — -.--- — --., f~«r- ^.'^rw -«•-—, -^ ---f ^-r
xara tvd, tytp,$iv, ife in 9-sss, oq-oy h xaxot Tvp oixonpiiay, Tft%tif
ti s7iihifyi. §. S. ©£05 pjov©* <nify%m, <£ pivikv i%m iavrS troy.
XOmm'.,. ¦ 1 iwos 3 jLbo'ra; iv jtoAiis Jv 'irt y> aAoy©-, bte «<j-o-
^©-, STE kSuyar©*, xts kGifauT©" ur. tov 5 yivopisyay kg-
JKuyov j£ «-ou,S*Ao» >£ itykmv iy'svtte. Xoyov, ov Ptoyoy 'v%m ei s'ati-
tS— ioaiit itoiti, TtooTsoat tpavmv QhyyofS/,®-—— kvrS ptva
Itfoftfov ota-ny birvig%ovTa  ^ot Ae'ys £ <ro<piaii 1 Ao'yw ^4"
*y?B»i e-e^i'es ^ xoo-pm, §. 1 o. "Et^ov. 5 >ttym, i Suo SriSt
Aey", AM' «5 ?35 sV fare's. §. 1 1. Aim «4» ** «P« $**U "¦**"
Htm, xoovu7ta -jivo, oitutopufu 5 rotTka, frct^t rts *%tv xwpia-
T»5. §. 14-
Son

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i ij>
Son as coetemal with the Father*, and in Serm. hi.
oppofition to certain hereticks advancing ^^YSJ
the fame dodrine which was afterwards
efpoufed by Eutyches, he afferts him to be
at the fame time the infinite God and a
finite man, perfedly poffefs'd of the per-
fed fubftance of bothy.
Contemporary with Hippolytus was Ori
gen, whofe great averfion to the Noetian
herefy occafion'd him to exprefs the di
ftindion of the three divine Perfons in
terms Still Stronger and more Significant.
It feems as if the hereticks had by this
time taken advantage (in like manner as
Sabellius7- certainly did afterwards) of the
ambiguity of the word » -z«r£coz»7roi', which
fometimes Signifying no more than an ap
pearance, manifeftation, or theatrical cha-
rader, they were content to admit, that
in this fenfe there were three vejW7rtt in
the Godhead, leaving out that other fenfe
in which the Catholicks plainly meant it,
that they were three perfons really fub-
fifting. It was therefore neceflary to ufe
fome other term which might guard againft

* Hippol. contra Judxos §• 7. 'Aims yog if a 0 tS wecrgi oru-
va'tOfti. 1 — Qsov ops k) mtlyeouiTo* av^ttty I'vra ti xj vegpiatv, tw
ioiav ixaTsoov Tshsiai tQ*Uv s£<>>rss. Hippol. contra Beron. 8c
Helic. §.1.
1 Bafil Ep.64. 391. p. 102.
' See Dr. Waterland's fecond Dtfenft, p. 11 a, 21 j.

I 4 their

i io AnHiftorhalH. c c b tm f of
Serm. iii. their fubtle evafions. Accordingly Origen,
'V^VN^ as it is well known, applied the word 0V0-
,gx.criih, which befides a bare appearance Or
manifestation, muft needs convey fome nor
tion of fubftance under it, and that with fuch
an appropriate charader as. may diftinguifh
it from other hypoftafes fubfifting in the
fame eSfence c. I do not fay he was the
firft that ever ufed that word with relation
to the Deity, and much lefs that he bor
rowed it from the Platonick philofophy,
as Grotius has hardily aSTerted4 ; whereas it
might with better reafon beprefumed that
the modern Platonifts took it from the
Chriftianse. When Tertullian, who loved
to imitate the Greek phrafes, fpeaks of the
Son as being f res fiubfiantiva, and held it
abfurd to imagine he Should want fub
ftance who proceeded from fo great a fub
ftance s, he feems plainly to allude to the
phrafe now in view, and reprefents the
Son as a diftind uttocjxctic;. Yet neither can
I fay that that word is fo applied by any

* Thus 1.8. contra Celfum p. 386. he blames the heretitkt
who denied Mo slvai wtoftariii 7tours\a tij uiev, and afterwards con
cludes, SgrLo-xiuop%i ist -nv ita-n^a rJs ahifiiiat, & tiv but -nit fl>A«-
0siav i!>rx mo rSj uTftfiursi ytgaypiara,
c Vid. Suicer. in voce s?»3«w<5.
•" Grot. Annot. ad Joh. i. 2. & Heb. i, 3.
• Seetbe foregoing fermon, p. 102.
f Deus Dei tanquam fubftantiva res. Tert. ady. Prax. cap. 26*.
* — Nee carere fubftantia quod de tanta frbftantiiproceflit.
Tertul, adv." Praxi c. 7. vid. 8c cap. »tf;
r Greek

the- Trinitarian Controverfy. i z r
Greek writer that is now extant, before serm. iii.
the time of Origen: who, from the fpread- *^TV
ing of the Noetian herefy, found it necef-
fary to be as exprefs as poSfibie, in affert-
ing the real and perfonal diftindion of
Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, and the mu
tual relations they bear to one another,
which argue them to fubfift in a regular
fubordination, and by confequence to be
diftihd. All this has been urged againft him by
fome writers of fucceeding ages, as a proof
of his inclining to the oppofite extreme,
and being tainted with that herefy, which
in the next century was called Arian : and
the Arians accordingly have ufually appeals
ed to him as a great patron and defender of
their caufe. But it ought to be obferved,
that amidft all the ftorms which were raifed
againft him whilft he lived, there was never
any fufpicion of this kind fixed upon him,
as there plainly was upon Dionyfius of A-
Uxandria in the like cafe ; nor for a good
while after> till about the beginning of the
fourth century, when many of his books,
writ only for private ufe h, with lefs care
and accuracy, and many times in a pro
blematical way1, came to be difperfed in-

h D. Hieron. Epift. 41. alias-6j*. ad Pammach, 8c Ocean.;
' Vid. Athanaf. de deer, fyn. Nic, §.27. torn. 1, p,232,
| Ed. Par. 1608. to

in An Hiftorical Ac co unt of
Serm. iii. to many hands, and appealed to as the
'wYV ftandard of his real fentiments : when ma
ny fpurious writings were probably ob
truded on the world under the Shelter of
his venerable name, and thofe which were
really of his compofure, had been greatly
corrupted and interpolated by hereticks k,
who (as he complains t himfelf) had be
gun to ufe that freedom with him in his
own time, and would not, probably, be
lefs audacious after he was dead. Yet not
withftanding this, he wanted not many men
of name and charader to plead hiscaufe, and
vindicate him from the charge of herefy.
Befides Pamphilus and Eufebius, whofe
apology we have in the translation of
Rufinus, there were many others of di-
ftinguifh'd zeal for orthodoxy (and among
them the great Athanafius m himfelf) who
were not afhamed to profefs their efteem
for Origen, and appeal to him as a patron
of the catholick caufe. Nor do I find
that many Catholicks of figure judged o-
therwife of him, till towards the middle
of the fourth century, when the Eufta-
thian party had run high, and almoft en-
danger'd a relapfe into Sabellianifm.

" Ruffin. de adulterat. libror. Origen. in torn, f. opcrurn
D. Hieron. p. 249, 8tc. Ed. Ben.
' In epiftoia. eidem. apologia anncxsl.
m Athanaf. ubi fupra. In

tbt Trinitarian Controverfy. 123
In his writings that remain, and particu- Serm. ih.
larly in his books againft Celfks, (which v-orv
were written with more care and exadnefs,
when his judgment was grown to greater
ripenefs and perfedion, and in which there
is leaft room to fufped any corruption)
there are many paffages which are wholly
inconfiftent with the Arian fcheme, and
could proceed from none but who be
lieved that faith which the council of Nice
did afterwards declare. The few paifages
which have been urged to the con
trary, from his books againft Celfius, have
been Shewn by learned men to admit of
an eafy reconciliation j and aU that is al
ledg'd againft us from his other writings,
may be well afesibed to that corruption,
which. hi§ wofks have unquestionably un
dergone1*. It was in hjs time that Beryllus BiShop
of Boftm in Arabia, after he had for fome
time goyern'd his Church with reputation °,
advanced at length fome heretical tenets
concerning the perfon of our blefled Sa
viour P, that he did not fubfift by a diftind

» Vid. D. Bull. Def. Nic. §. 2. cap. 9. and Dr. Wajerland
in his- fafe and fecond Defenfe, frequently -, particularly fecond
Defenfe, p. 347, 8c c.
" D. Hieron. de fcript. Eccl. cap. 7 1 .
» Eufeb. E. H. 1. 6. c. 33. Cave ad an ijp. Bui. J. E. C.
cap. 3. §.4.

perfona-

1 24 An Hiftorical Accounts/
$bm. in, perfonality % before his incarnation, nor
%^^T>J had any Divinity of his own, but that of
circ* 242. the Father only "W. His herefy feems to have
been mixed up of thofe oi Artemon and
Noetus? but was fo doubtfully exprefs'd,
that when a fynod was conven'd to consi
der it, Origen, to whom the chief ma-
243. nagement of that aSfair was committed,
was forced to ufe fome art to difcover the
true meaning of his propositions; after
which he eafily convinced him of his er-^
ror, and brought him back to the confef-
fion of the catholick faith r.
A few years after the death of Origen',
258. arofe Sabellius, in Africa, the difciple (as
fome f have reported) of Noetus, , but to
be fure a Strenuous aflertor and propagator-
of his herefy; which from him has ever
fince been denominated the SabeUian;
The nature of the argument alledg'd by
him and his partifans, plainly Shews that
the Church at that time believed a confub-

* Kar tiiay &ei*s 7tttiyoa<p\t, the literal tranflation is by a
proper difference of fubftance: but this, as the word is now
ufed, had been no herefyv Therefore Beryllus muft have ufed
the word idia to mean the fame with i/sroswns, as was done
by fome others of that age. Vid. Valef. ad loc. p. 128. '•
qq That the Godhead of the Father and the Son is one, is ca
tholick doclrine. But Beryllus muft have meant that our Sar
viour is not himfelf properly and tffentially God, but only by par
ticipation. Vid;, Valefji amiot. ubi fupra.
, | Eufeb. ut fupra. Cave ut fup. & vol. 2. p. 60,
' Philaftr. de hxref. cap. 74, D.Aug, de hser. cap.41.
, \ 3 ftantial

ihe Trinitarian1 Controverfy. 1 2 j
ftantial Trinity, or that each of the three Serm. ui.
perfons is truly God : Which they pre- ^W
tended not to oppofe by difowning their '
Divinity, but only by aSferting them to be
nothing elfe but three names of one and
the fame hypoftafts. For thus they ftate the
queftion : ha. Shv ?%p/ui&p « r^&ts 3s»s ; Are
we to have one God (fay they) or three
Gods1? A queftion, which had been plain
ly impertinent in them, if each of the three
perfons were not confefledly. divine !
They were quickly oppofed by that book
of Novatian, which is Still extant, uporf
the fubjed of the Trinity: wherein the
author has demonftrated, with great Strength
of argument and Scripture evidence, the
real diftindion of the three perfons. This,
with reSped to the Holy Ghoft, was abun
dantly Sufficient, without entring into the
particular proofs of his divine power and
excellency ; there being no hereticks in
thofe days who acknowledg'd his Perfona
lity, and yet disputed his Divinity. And
as far as Novatian's controversy lay with
the Sabellians, the fame had been fuSfici-
ent likewife with reSped to the Son ; fince
thofe: hereticks acknowledged a divine na
ture in Chrift, and only denied his perfo-
nal diftindion from the Father. But for-

' Epiphan. hxi, 6t. §. 2. p.f 14.
afmuch

* 2 6 An Hiftorical: A ccouKtj/
Serm. hi. afmuch as there were other herefies relating
WV to the perfon Of Chrift, fome which de^-
' hied the reality of his incarnation, as the
Simonians and Marcitmites; and others,
which aSflrm'd him to be man only, with*
out any perfonal union of the Divinity,
as the followers of Ebion and ArteMM,
he thought it for his purpofe to irtfert a
feafonable antidote againft them both.
The firft he overthrows itt few words",
as being both lefs plaufible, and by this
time, without queftion, lefs in Vogue. But
the other he confutes by a large indudiort
of testimonies from the facred oracles*,
attesting Chrift to be properly and truly
God, fubfifting from all eternity. NoW
this point being as much denied by the
Arians, as it was by thofe more ancient
hereticks, it follows that the Arians Would
have been equally detefted by the ancient
Church, and confuted in a manner by the
lame arguments*. As to the unity of the
divine nature, which was the capital ob-
jedion of the early hereticks r, Novatian's
fenfe feems in the main to be the fame16
with that of the catholick writers of thofe
times, tho' his expreSIion is perhaps more

". Cap. io. * Cap. 1 1, Sec.
* Bui. |. E. C. c. 2. §.9. r Novat. Cap. 30, 8cc.
» Vid. Bui. Def. fid.' Nic fe&>4. c. 4.' §.4.
3 confufed

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 127
tonfufed and inaccurate', whilft he attri- Serm. iii:
butes the title of one God to the Father, as ^^
unoriginate, yet Still confider'd as fountain
of the Deity, communicating the divine
fubftance to the Son, and therefore plainly
confubftantial. The poifon however of Sabellianifm,
being firft broadi'd at Ptolemais, a city of
Pent apo lis in Africa*, was greedily im
bibed, not only by the people, but fome
biihops of that country, infomuch that the
Father was declared to have taken on him
human flefh, and there were hardly any in
thofe parts had the honefty or courage to
make mention in their Churches of the
Son of God c. *D'ionyfius, who had former
ly been Origen's pupil, was at that time
Patriarch (I beg leave to ufe a term which
did not obtain its peculiar acceptation till
a good while afterwards) IDimyfius, I fay,
was at that time Patriarch of Alexandria :
and he inherited fb much of the zeal and
fpirit of his mafter, that he could not fee
fuch corruption of the chriftian dodrine
prevailing within his jurifdidion, without
contributing his utmoft efforts to difcou-,
rage and reftrain it. To this end he wrote

¦ See D. Wateri. fecond Def. p. 124, itf, 147:
k Eufeb. E. H. I.7. C.6.
c Vid. Athanaf. de fent. Dionyf. $. f. p. 246", 247. Ed.
Bened.
them

128 An Hiftorical t\ c cou n t of
„Serm. in. them feveral epiftlesV afferting the real
isy*^ and neceflary diftindion between Fame*
259. and Son, of which he gave Some account
in another letter to Sixtus or Xyftus at
that time Bifhop of Romee. But, as it
often happens in the heat of controverfy,
he let drop fome expreSltons not fufficient
ly guarded againS? the other' extreme {.
This quickly expofed him to the jealoufy s
of the Orthodox as well as the Sabellians,
and drew on their complaints againft him
262. to his namefake 1)ionyfius, the fucceSfor of
Xyftus in the Roman See. The Patriarch
263. oi Alexandria defended himfelf at large a-
gainft their accufations, to the entire Satisfac
tion of his namefake, and the fynod aflem-
bled under him, on this occafion. He urged
that his accufers had not quoted his words
entirely, nor in the fenfe wherein he meant
themh, as was plain from the many exprefs,
confefiions he had interfperfed of the ca
tholick faith1; that whilft he confider'd
the Son . as cloath'd with human SleSh, it
was under that view that he mention'd

* Eufeb. 8c Athanaf. ut fupra.
" * Eufeb. ibid.
f Tlotqpa Xj ysyirrcv itvat tov out t2 &ts, pin 3 ty'trst \%oy,
aXKx. \syov x«T ioiat kvTov titut Tli jrewpo';, x Athanaf §. 4.
P- *4°"-
s Athanaf de fent. Dionyf, §.13.
y §.14 p. 2*3,.
- ; §. tf,i6, p.tfj, 2f4.
r thofe

the Trinitarian C&ntrwerfy. 129
thofe allufions which intimated a fubftan- Serm. iii;
tial difference between him and his Fa- V-^N-'
ther^ in order to induce the Sabellians to
a readier acknowledgment of their perfo?
nial diftindion j but that he had likewife
enlarged more fully upon others, having
exprefs'd their confubftantiality under the
allufions of ;a man and his fon, the plant
and the feed, the fountain and the rivulet j
their coeternity, by terming the Son a ray
of the Eternal Light, coeval -with the Fa
ther, as light is with the fun ; their infe-
ptwable conjunction, their indiviftbk unity
of fubftance, by moft exprefly aSferting it
of all the three divine perfons, fo extendr
ing (as it were) the Unity without divifim
to. a Trinity, and collecting- again or ga
thering up that Trinity without diminution
into Unity*: that, finally, tho' he had no
where ufed the word o/xoim&as not read
ing it in Scripture, yet he had laid down
the full fenfe and import of it in thefe
Strong kind of expreSfions, which his ad-

* '-,' ' Kitaltyao-pa '$ ay 'tpUToi k'i$\ov, ffcetras icat kutii cCioiei iftv
Ivr®- y> kit tou tya-m, d'^Aov ai iftv ksi to ktrauyatrpi.au m . 1 1
il \f,iv i'Ai®-, W« kuyj Sstu ptsv ipisii iii ts tv.v toiooXc
TVfl pioyotaa. nXcnuvopiv katatPSTov, xai tijv toiocoU. TtaTiiv ospstuToy
iti iiv pioyahx. o~vyxi<paXatjsp&6a . xat <g ktipontsiav ycyy/t
eracsdipitiv, JvjAov 415 korav opayivij ,. » 1 xat y xai (Pvtos sisroy
ktto a--i(piAi, ¦ h kao ft'Cpi kvsXlov, stsoov sivat xat -ItavTUi
epiotpuii, xa} nirapiov km nrtyn fsovra. Athanaf. de fent. Dio-
nyf. §. if 1 j,i8. K verfaries

130 An Hiftorical Ace oun t of
Serm. iii. verfaries had not been fo fair as to repre^
V-T^ fent». From this charge which was brought a-
gainft fo great a Patriarch, and the recep
tion which it found at Rome, fo far as to
be examined by a publick fynodmj from
hence, as well as from the earneft apology
he made for himfelf, we may have leave to
colled thefe two things; namely, (1.) that
the dodrine of the Church was at that
time manifestly oppofite to the fchemc
which was afterwards efpoufed by Arius :
lince otherwife the Patriarch's unguarded
expreffions could not have given fuch mat
ter of fcandal and offence, nor have oc
cafion'd his brother Bilhops to have cal
led upbn him for fo large a vindication.
(2.) That the word o/jtoturi®, was at that
time ufed by the Catholicks in this con
troverfy, and they who rejeded it were
thought blameable in the judgment of the
Church: for it made part of the charge a-
gainft him, that he denied the conjubftan-

' Ei'y>x«i to lyopia tSto ipoaa-iov tpifpii pm ivetticsvai, paiP kvsy.
puxivect wou tov djiuv ygapav, aMa yt too sni-j&ttitipiaTa piov Ttt
ijjpi, a, e-tTiatrnxairi rni itavoiai TauTifc ix kvneo\i. ¦ Athanaf. de
fent. Diony. §. 18. p. iff. — 'Ei xai pm tijv ifi\ir TUurtiv sv
toy ci rati yeaCbaTi' aAA' i\ kvrut fay yta&m tov row crvtuyayav,
ityyuv oti vto$ an xat Xoyoi x \itoi at sin im naias tou orargoi.
§. 20. p. 2J7. vid. 8c Athanaf de deer. fyn. Nic. §. if. p. 23 1.
gc de fynod. Arim. 8c Seleuc: §.44. torn. 1. par. 2. p. jfS.
m Vid. Labbe' 8c Coflarr. conci], ad an. 263. 8c Cave hift.
it. vol. 2. p. 62. tiality,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 131
tiality n ; and it was in anfwer to this Serm. ift;
charge, that the Patriarch thought himfelf V*OTV
concern'd to Shew* that he had taught! the
fame dodrine which was meant by that
word, tho' he had hitherto declined the
exprefs ufe of the word itfelf
Indeed there is no doubt but that word
had been fo ufed and applied long before
the time of cDionyftus. We find it in the
book0 which is, falfly indeed, aferibed to
Mercurius Trifmegifius, but was certainly
written not long after the age of the A-
poftles p. Tertulliaris Unius Subftantid
feems to be nothing elfe but a tranflatioa
of iti. And the ancient apologists for O*
rigen, as well before the council of Nice*t
as after itf, do exprefly aSTert it to have
been found in his works. Nay, and Eu
febius himfelf1, who had much better op*

n 'Yrooifci eti ist'mpia xai ysvu-tiv ?iym toi iter pn ipioiruy tS
yrarei. Athanaf. de deer. fyn. Nic. §. if.
0 'O ra Srseu Xoyoc. vivoii)^ t3 S'iiplovoy» yS, opoitrioi -jb
%y. Mercur. Trifmegift. ih Pimahdr. cap. 1 1
r Vid. Petav. dogm. Theol. detrin. 1. 1. c.2. §.3,4.
*i Tertul. ad. Prax. cap. 2.
' Quae utraeque fimilitudines manifeft^ oftendunt commu*
nionem fubftantia: effe Filio cum Patre: aporrhaea enim ip>e-
tTui videtur, 8cc. Origen apud Pamphilum in apologia
torn. f. Ed. Ben; p. 236. inter opera Hieron.
r Patrem 8c Filium unius fubftantia;; quod Grace* ip»b<riot
dicitur* defignavit. Ruffin. de adulterat. libn Origen. ibidem
pag. ij-o. i t
''tyesi xai tuv yexXaiav That Hojiam mti IxiQtmSi hurxetTtvt
nat FoyytaQtat tyyttpity, bei •%$ tou xaTfijt xal vim SruXtjtas,
rf nu opiotsoiav a-vyxfixrapisyoVi iyopiAi. Eufebii epiftola apud
Socratem. E. H. 1, it c. 8. versus finem.
K a portunity

i$z An Hiftorkd A c c o v n t of
Serm. in. portunity than we of looking intp; ancient
¦<v*OTV books, afiures us he haid feen this word
ufed by fome learned and eminent bifhops
and writers among the ancients, to exprefs
the one Divinity of Father arid Son. A
word it was. admirably fitted to guard &-
gainft the herefies in both extremes: for as
it manifestly Overthrows the Arian caufe,
by aSTcfting an equality of nature; fo if
rightly underftood, it clearly de'ftroys' the
SabeUian, fince none but perSbna really
diftinguifh'd can be properly efteemed con-
fubftantial to each other u.
It Should likewife be obferv'd, that in
oppofition to this herefy there was a claufe
inferred in the creed of Afymleia™, and
poifibly in fome others", to confefs the
Father's being invifible and impajjiblej and
ecoifequently not that very perfori, who
being cloath'd with human fkfh made his
appearance in Judea, and fuffer'd for the
fins of men.
It is not to be admir'd if in the warmth
of this dispute, and before, the ufe of terms
came to be accurately fixed and fettled,

",. 'Awrit p i cpmvi xat to tdu "SxtSshttmi. xax\t imtap^oufai'
ttpufu.rftttiH' iO-'uriTuxa^-tui iprosuirsai, xai. ito-.ayii rtXsiw r<5»
Ttooo-omuv tijv syvoiav & yj kv-n si iftt sauta opioSto-iot, «AA' 'stt-
pv. 'trigs. D. Bafil. Epift. 3pof.
* Vid. Ruffin.- in Symb. ad calc. Cyprian. & Suicer. in
voce. BrajMi&Aw. .
* Erafm. in refp. ,ad cenfur. Theol. Paris.

the

the Trinitarian &oniroverfy. \ 3 »
the moft catholick i^riters Should forne^- serm. hi.
times exprefs themfelves in Such manner ^y^C^*
as may feem to ftrairi the point too much
the other way, especially if judged of by
the ftandard of modern ufe and accepta
tion. This was Obfcrvable a little after-
Wards in the Writings of that fecond Ori- 26$.
gen, Pierius the Presbyter and Catechift
of Alexandria, who aflerted the Father and
Son to be two fubftance s and two natures ?,
as well as yet later in Methodius the BiShop 290.
of Tyre, and no friend to Origen, who
affirm'd them to be two powers1-. And
yet as Photius, who was never guilty of
too much tendernefs in cenfuring the an
cients, has found no fault with that ex
preSIion of Methodius, but rathet intimates
his orthodoxy from fome other paflages3,
fo he exprefly declares, in the behalf Of
Pierius, that the whole fcope of the con
text Shew'd his faith in this matter to be
pious and catholick, Whilft he meant no
more by the words nature and fiibfiance,

y Apud Phot. cod. 119. Pierius is fometimes referr'd to the
year. 22$. (vid. Cave Hift. lit. ad eum annum.) But his fuc
ceeding Dionyfius in the government of the fchool at Alexandria,
makes it inert r en finable to pUce him in %6f. See Mr, Dod-
wel's Appendix to his Differtations upon Irenasus. p. 488, 5-08, Sec.
item Cave Hift. lit. vol. 2. p. f8, f$.
* Method, apud Phot. Cod. i$f-
' Ibid. 8c Cod. 237. vid. Bull. Def. fid. Nic. fee*. 2. c. rj.
§.9, 10. and fecVj!. c. £-§.'¦>¦

K 3 than

134 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. iii. than others did by Hypoftafts K So little
V^W reafon have our modern Arians to boaft
pf thefe writers as patrons of their herefy c!
It is added indeed by Photius, that
with rcfped to the Holy Ghoft the opinion
of Pierius was more dangerous, in that
he made him to be inferior in glory to
the Father and the Son*1. Had we but
IPierius's dodrine in his own words, I
make little doubt it might be eafy to de
fend him againft the charge of herefy : for
as we axe well acquainted with the fever
rity of that critick in cenfuring the anci
ents, fo there feems little ground to ima
gine that he whofe dodrine was catholick
in rcfped of the Son, Should in thofe days
labour under any grievous error relating
to the Holy Ghoft ; and the inferiority he
fpeaks of was probably no other than that
(economical fubordination, which the anci
ents have conftantly fuppofed in the Tri
nity, and which implies not any inferior-
rity of nature, hut of order only ?.

fc IIspi pit iraTQOi x«i liou iuo-tSZi vtoioZsuit' ir\i,v oti otieiccs Ho
xat tpio-iti Siio Af'yti' t$ t»s ivaias xai ipuTiai ivopitUt, on; o\\ov an
Tt tov ixopttym xai Tttovyovpnyay tou %a(tov, ttm% t% bfToraa-taii,
*at ovx.' "i 'Apa» itgxravaxilpiivot %pap,svoi. Photius ibid.
.'_"• Vid. Sandi'i. Nucl. Hift. Ecd. 1. 1. p. 291. Ed. 1669.
n«fl piv rot rot! Tttsuuioroi ixi<rtpaXSc, ?uay xai iuoviGSi
OoypaTttjii, ixoGsGqxivai y> kvro r«f; tou trargoi xal btau kttf
Q&rxu Sifyfi. Photius ubi fupra. ,
I Vid. D. Bull. Def. fid. Nic. fe<». «ap. 13. §.2.

The

282.

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 135;
The cafe of Theqgnoftus, another Alex- Serm. hi.
andrian writer of thofe times, and Pieri- ^^YK*
us's fucceffor in the government of that
fchool f, is fomewhat different. He is
produced by Athanafiuss, as an illustrious
witnefs to the catholick dodrine. And it
is confeffed by Photiush, that in fome part
of his work he has treated orthodoxly of
the nature of the Son. 'Tis true, he
charges him with grievous errors in other
parts, and fuch as were afterwards the di
stinguishing dodrines of the Arian herefy.
But unlefs we would fuppofe fo great an
author, vn one and the fame work, to be
guilty of the groSTeft contradidions, we
muft admit of the folution which Atha-
nafius * has given, • and which Photius k
himfelf could not entirely difown, that
thofe heretical dodrines were only pro-
pofed in the way of difputation, but that
Theognoftus's own opinion was that which

f Vid. Dodwel Append, ad Differr. in Iren. p. 488, Scfii.
Cave Hift. lit. vol.2. An. 282.
* D. Athanaf. de deer- fyn. Nic. § if. p. 230.
" 'Et s toi sCiff..— ivtrsZsssoov ar»5 xsgji Tt Tat aXXuv mu-
bap'oavii, xat paXtsa irstt too s-sAei too Aoyov, trifi tou oiw.
Phot. Biblioth. cod. 106.
1 'O p.sv my S-soy»»s-o{, to ntoTita an iv yvpvanct i%STcco-af,
issgot -mt saurou h%av nis)i, evrai tignxa. Athanaf ubi fupra.
k -— 'Eits ipiotui ixsiva iutriFtSsiot iaXaxai, -its (iti'ay 7-15 Itir 01)
ixMiag-apinq Tilt lirsf kurou kito\oyu*.v, ci yvuiyamut Ac'y» xat iu
$|?!f TauTft ttooTtUi/f. Pbot. ut fupra.

K 4 fol.

1 3 tf An Hiftorical A c c o u?n t %f
Skrm. iii. followed, entirely agreeable to the catho-
^V^iiek faith i.
But however thefe writers be capable of
juft defenfe, yet it muft be owned, that
the great zeal which was Shewn in that
age againft the Noetian and Stibellian he*
refies, did adually give 'rife to two diffe
rent errors, into which the men of lefs
caution and difcernment were very apt to
decline. They are both exprefly pointed
363. out by ¥)ionyfius of Rome, in a letter
written, moft probably, m at that time
when the affair of his namefake at Alex
andria lay before the fynodj a noble frag
ment whereof is preferv'd among the
works of Athmtyftus. He takes notice
there were fome who overthrew the do
ctrine of the Church, by cutting and di
viding the Monarchy or divine Unity into
three powers, three feparate hypoftafesi
foreign to each other, Which was the fame
thing, in his account, as faying three
Qods": Whereas the Trinity is (as ft were)'

' See Bp. Bull, Def. fid. Nic, fe<fh 2. cap. ip. §. 7, 8.
m Athanaf. tfe fent, Dion. §. 13. p. 25-2. See bujin's Hif)
tory of Ecclefiaftical Writers, vol. i: p. 174.
" — Atai(ooy\ai, xai xaTarspyovlai, xai kvatcouyrai to irspivo-
tutov xifvypa rifj ixxMnas too &tou, . iyiv pototp%tav iti Tfsii 0%-,
t.up,sti Ttvai, xal piipipitrpiivai visosavsii, xai &so'ti)]#s -f-~. . ' ' ,
it 3 T(s~i $-soui T£cnov Titot xttfurlouiriv, iti Tfiii uyro^-kirsii %svai,
#AAijA«f -xavTaxao-i xsxtuote-pivai StatgotivTSi h^y dy'tav povaiu.
Dionyf Rom. apud Athanaf. de deer, fyn.' Nic. §; 26. p. 23 1.

gathefi

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 137
gather d up into one tDivmity, by refer- serm. hi.
ring the Second and third perfons to the v^oT^
firft as their head and origine, with whom
they are eflfentklly united0. He takes no
tice there were others, (and he- blames it
as a grievous blafphemy, ) who thought
them to be not only feparate in fubftance,
but even inferior in nature, efteeming the
Son, and by confequence the Holy Ghoft,
to be no other than created BeingsP:
which was afterwards the very fcheme
efpoufed by Arms and his followers. Thefe
dangerous extremes made it neceflary for
him and other Fathers of the Church to
ufe the greater Caution in their manner of
expreSIion, that they might not by drawing
back from one herefy, give advantage to
another equally pernicious. The method
therefore which he took was not to de
ny that there are three hypoftafes, but to
maintain that they are- not -f&ai, that they
are not Kz%dep&pb(va,t, by no means Jepara-
ted or divided from each other, but perfedly

? 'HvaSwJ y> kvotymi T« 3-f5 iZv o>an Toy S-eisv Aa'yw ipjpiP\o-
jgapsi p t£ $-sS xai i)o\atTiao% ehT tp kytoy trysupia- v[o\ J xal
lijy 3-wcv Tftkda si; iya. ao-xip iti xopvifi it tw«, Toy 3-«» tuv «A«»
toy aayTOXtjOTOta: xiyu, <rvyy.$<pateiouo% TS xat cuyotyio% XtiL<ra
kykyn.- Ibid.
P 'Ov piSov or ia rti xwrapspiQoiTo xal tbs xoiiipa tov buy
tivat Sbfya^oyTai, xat ytyoyaai tit fJetoy, inrmg 'iv ti i'vloif yiio-
pmttyj • yppitgotrm- $>mrpripuiv iv iu -ip t?%°h piytsov
pisv xv, ^fiootniim Tfoffd/ Ttt* At^ar -toy Kufar. {dem. ibid. 8c
join'd

138 An Hiftorical Account*?/'
SeWm. iii. joih'd together, by unity of eflence. This
V/YV is evident from that epiftle of Pope cDio-
nyfius already mention'd, which may well
be understood to exprefs the fentiments of
the whole Roman fynod, that this way
the divine Trinity, and the holy dodrine
of the Unity might be jointly preferv'dP.
254. The like caution is obfervable in the
1 creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus BiShop of
Neoc a fare a in Pontus, which declares the
Trinity to be perfeB, (and therefore really
distinct,) but yet not divided in glory, eter
nity or power; to have nothing in it. that
is fiervile or created, nothing fiuperinduced
or adventitious, nothing which formerly
did not exift and. was brought into it af
terwards: forafmuch as the Son was ne
ver wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit
to the Son, but the Trinity is always un
alterably and invariably the fame "i.
There are many, arguments to convince
us of the genuinenefs and authority of
this creed of St. Gregory: I don't mean &s

P "Ovra yao av xal i 3-tla roictq, xal to ay toy xipiyptX tbc
pittat^iai S'lourutiitT.o. Idem. ibid. p. 232. , ¦ •
* Tfiai Ttkaa, ilti xai kiborvrri xal (Sao-tteta, py, piciZppir/i,
t JS.K»... 2.. _Z  /.}. !!~.

-.1 nvtlpia, &AA1 «wpss,1«i „
ktayOiolaTOi i kurii Tflat kti. Opera Greg. - Thaumat. p. 1.
Edit. Par. 1622. fumpt. e vita1 Greg. Thaumat. per Greg.
Nyff. in oper. torn, 3. p. f^6,fnj. Edit, Par, 1638.,

tQ

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 139
to the method of its being taught him by serm. iii.
revelation, (tho' that may be well attefted <-OfV
too1, and will not feem incredible to thofe
who Shall confider how highly this great
perfon was diftinguiSh'd by the Charifma-
tar, or extraordinary gifts of the Holy
Ghoft,) but I mean as to the certainty of
its having been taught by St. Gregory to
his Church of Neocafarea, and continued
from his time till towards the conclusion
of the fourth century. St. Bafil was a
native of that city; and he Speaks with
great affurance, that the faith which he
profefs'd, which is well known to be no
way different from Athanafius's, was the
fame he had been taught in his infancy,
in the very words of that moft holy Gre
gory t: whofe memory was fo exceeding
precious among the people of that place,
that no length of time could wear it out,
or prevail for the admifllon of any form
or ufage different from his prefcriptionsu.
From hence it follows, that the creed as

' Greg. Nyflen ut fupra. See alfo Cave'j Life cf him.
f Vid. prater alios Bafil. de Spir. Sand. cap. 29.. «
' TiWsoii Si rj? itpsrsooi tj's av yivoire weepyfs-sj* knioht%ii, ij
c ti TtaiptvTSi jpiij io\2a%6>ipit m tou paxagtoTUTW Totryofuu
(ipala. Bafil. Epift. Jf.
" Toutov p,sya sti xai tuv ToTi sy%o)cioic. to 9-xupu, xai vixpa
xal ku xooclpaioi ii piiipn ra"; ixxhipiati ivifyvrai, ovitvl xt'"?
kpiaveppsmr ivxouv ov icito\iv Ttva, iu Koyoy, ov tuvcov Ttva pv<?i-
xot, itao' 'ov ixstvoti xarsM^t, rij ixxfafflct trcorifajKay. Bafil. de
Spir. Sancho, cap. 29.
3 well

1 4a An Hiftorical Account of
Se6m,iii. well as the dOxology, which was ufed in
^^r^ the Church Of Neocafarea, in the time of
St. Bafil, muft have been the fame that '
they had received from Gregory Thauma
turgus, and agreeable to the Nicene faith.
And Gregory Nyjfen, the brother of St. Ba
fil, is exprefs, that this was the very creed
by which that people had been inftruded
to that very time, and preferv'd from all
heretical pravity, appealing for the truth
of it- to a copy which was carefully pre
ferv'd of Thaumaturgus' % own hand wri
ting w. To all which it may be added,
that fome part Of it is quoted by St. Gre
gory Nazianzen*, as taken from a wife
man in the former age, and therefore of
good authority, -and the whole is acknow
ledge by Rujfinusy for the genuine creed
of Thaumaturgus. i
It has indeed been obje&ed of latez,
that if this were really his creed, it feems
- ' 1 * i ~i
"-— Ai' v\i prv^a^iiyiiTai -fhixP Ttti yuf o iltsSnii A805, troto-iti
aifirixlii x«ki«5 hapstvai kasifaroj itat' o'n otvra ra x16-
oaf/para- -rvTi paxxatxi ixs'mi Xs'$i *'$ tri "^ "^" olao-a><]i-tai.
Greg. NyfTen. in vita Greg. Thaumat. inter opera torn. 3.
p. f4.6i 5-47. "'¦ ,. ' , '.
* Greg. Naz. ©rat. 40. p. 668: torn. 1. andm another place,
Orat. 37. p. 609. Elias Cretenfis (vol. 2. p.gjSJfttppofes 'him.
to mean Thaumaturgus, itnder the chamlier of ti« ^mi'.ptxtS,
irgo&tv S-sctpogav. The paffage there quoted runs much in the 0le
ef his Creed, but is faid Jy'Elias to be taken from a book cailea\ hit
Apocalypfe: and if is no wonder he fhould keep the fame Pyle in
¦ether writings.
y Ruffin. tranflat. Eufeb; H. E. 1. 7. c. if.
I Whitby Difquif. modefta: in prefar. p. 18, &c
wonderful

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 141
wonderful St. Bafil Should not have made Serm. HI.
fome mOre exprefs mention of it, in that ^-^W
epiftle particolarly, which was written with
defign to vindicate his memory againft the
charge of herefy. But when it is confi
der'd that Sx. Bafil ^rote that epiftle to
the Church of Neocafarea, where the mat
ter was well known and understood, a
ftiOirt hint of it may be judg'd fufficifent
to his purpofe, under tlie title of the
words of Gregory, or the tradition of Gre
gory, without any more expreSs citation
produced ill form1. At leaft, it muft be
moft unreafonahle, from this negative ar
gument, to rejed Gregory Njjfen's account
as Spurious or interpolated, and that fo
early as to be received for genuine by Rufi
finusb, and inferted in his hiftory without
any hesitation.
But notwithftanding all this great man's
caution in Steering between both extremes,
he had the misfortune, in the fourth cen
tury, to be appeal'd to as the patron of
them both, and alledg'd by different per
fons in defence of the oppofite tenets of
Sabellius and Arius. But St. Bafil, than
whom no man was better acquainted with
his charader and writings, has refcued his
' — Ti) ttaoaUa-st t£ ptyaX* y}yyefus. Bafil. Epift. 04. — Toi
tS paxaqutraris ypnyo&«s jipara. Epift. jf.
b Rufous indeed makes no mention of its being taught by re
velation; but feems rather to have underftood it as Gregory'*
tompofure.
1 memory

1 41 An Hiftorical Account*?/
Serm. iii. memory from their abufive reprefentations',
V-OPO and Shewn all their pretences to be found
ed either in corrupt copies of his works,
or a grofs mistake of his defign b. So lit
tle reafon had any of our modern writers0,
to appeal to St, Bafil as a witnefs of his
heterodoxy! Such was the State of the Trinitarian
controverfy after the middle of the third
century. But foon after Sabellius, it ought
263. to be remembred, there arofe Paulus Sa-
mofatenus, the BiShop of Antioch, and the
firft Bifhop of the Chriftian Church who
Stands charged as anHerefiarch, except Beryl
lus of Boftra*, who was quickly reclaim'd
from his errors by Origen, and had no ec-
clefiaftical cenfures adually denounced a*
gainft him.
It is not eafy, at this diftance of time>
to give a perfed account of the whole
fcheme of this Paul of Samofata. The
fynodical epiftle Of -the council of An
tioch, of which we have an extrad in Eu±
febius e, charges him with denying his God and

k Bafil. Epift. 64. See alfo Bifljop'EuW Def. fid. Nic. feci:. 2.'
cap. 12. §.<5.
c Petav. Dogm. Theol. de Trin. 1. 1. cap. 4. §. 11. Whif-
tbn's Prim. Chrift. vol.4. Append, p. 44.
" Vid. Eufeb. E. H. 1. 6. c. 22. See before, p. 123, 124,
-•-toy j; 01/ tov savTou xai xuotov aetovpsyov aoyifrtifsou
et-VTou xax.tar -yaXpoui J) Tobi pit iti lit xuotov ipav l>io-ci>v
XPtfat yraStTKi, i>i o» iswTifovi xat ysuTifoty ky»\av trvyytiptfuatti iti

the Trinitarian Controverfy . 143
and his Lord, terms his herefy, a^iw/Oe©, Serm. iii.
xttKla, and aSfigns this as the proof, that V^W
he deny'd Chrift to have come down from
heaven, and aSferted him to have Sprung
from beneath; prohibiting therefore any
hymns to be fung to his honour in the
Church of Antioch, whilft at the fame
time he impioufly fubftituted others to ce
lebrate himfelf. From hence they conclude
him fit to be ranked among the followers
of Artemon, who foon after the beginning
of this century had aSferted Chrift to be a
mere manf. And from hence, as well
Eufebius s, who lived but little after him,
as St. Augufiine\ who was later by a cen
tury, have made no fcruple to reprefent
him as the reviver of the herefy of Ar
temon, and teaching to think meanly of
Chrift as of a common man. But yet
there may be fome doubt whether he ac
tually denied the divine nature in Chrift,

iii iavTov -yotPipuSstv yvtatxai; tfaaatrxivatyiy i m psv
yao uihv tou Srsou ov ficiiterai e-vvopo)\oystt s\ wfayou xaTsM^isvat^^
Atysi wtroZv xf'-r°" rMTuts-h tu -j 'Aoripa oiroi IsrifsAAfrai.
xat 01 Ta 'Aorspa tppovooyrti toutoi xoivuvitTuirav, Eufeb. H. E.
J.7.C. 30.
1 'AfTspovoj. aiBttrtv 4<(Aw atSfaTtov yiv.Sf, tit a-aTt!(a <pk-
e-xovo-av. Eufeb. H. E. 1. f. c. 28.
* 'H» aulif 0 <m Xapetroiray XlauXoi xat! ipai ktovtiatfaS^ 7tt-
9ti:oaTai, Eufeb. ibid. Ttatuv* xal jytftittactrii *t(i T°o xfifoo
Cpoovv/ratroi, ai xotvoZ t>>v tpivtv ktSgonrov yivopitvov, lib. 7.'
cap. 27.
b Ifta hserefis aliquando cujufdam Artemonis fuit, fed quum
defecifiet, inftaurata eft a Paulo. D. Auguft. de hseref. cap. 44.
or

1 44 An Hiftorical A c c d u N t of
Sbrm. in. or only fo far feparated it frprn thehtt*
"^YK* man, as to destroy the, unity jof perfon.
If the extant epiftle, of eDiw^/tusi ,of \^i/ex-
andria,: in anfwer to the queStjpns ,©f this
h-eretick be genuine1, he there feems to
acknowledge the ; divinity aqd; eternity of
the Ad^fgL, or Word of God k, which (as
Epiphanius1 States his opinion) came and
dwelt in jefus, being man. So that we
may the lefs wonder at Phot'ms'* being fo
exprefs m, that Neftorius, who afterwards
divided the two natures into two perfons,
derived his herefy from P^auhts Samofa-
tenus. But to fay the truth, by comparing all
accounts together", I Should rather ima
gine he agreed fo far with Sabellius as to
confefs no more than one perfon in the
Godhead, notwithftanding the pains a
learned man has taken to Shew fome diffe
rence between them0, and that the Aoy©^

1 LearKett men are much divided in their opinions about this
tpiftle. But fee what is faid for it by Mr. Thirlby, in his De
fence of the AnfWer to Mr. Whiflon, p. 48, &c.
ifc ' Ours yao i Ao'yos XisTai utto issclatm, p» ysvono «AA' 0 vaoi
tou xlyx. Queft. 3. Pauli ijamofatenfis in epiftola Dionyfii A-
lexand. apud Labbe &'Coftart. Concil. torn. I. Col. 860.
1 'EAflovT* 5 tov Xoyov xai ivotxrpayTa iy ivToo kyfymta ovti.
Epiphan. hser'. 6f. §. i. '
m NsecQtos mt 9-oXieav vopxTtiit trttatrai tob "ZapotraTsui Xluv-
Xov. x.T.X.' Phot. Epift. 3J-.
" Vid. Tiliem. torn. 4. in Paul. deSamofates, §.2,
"Vid. Garner. Difiert. i.de hxrefi & libris Neftprii c. 4.
§.3. ad calc. oper. Marfi. Merest; p.3-07.
he

the Trinitarian Controverfy. . i^f
he: fpake of was either Afygl w^fatfl^s &RM' iii.!
(as the Greeks exprefs it) and not iavi^m ; • vxV>i>
not- a divine perfon fubftantially existing,
but only a divine influence, -Since Epiphai
nius? Is exprefs that he denied him to be*
the perfohal or fubftantia!- Son of -God/
and believed him to be nO'otherwife iii
God, than as1 a thought is in the heart of
man; or elfe (as Athanafius i States it) that
his perfonaf existence began at Nazareth}
and was feparate from God, beiirg' no o-
therwife before all- ages than according, to
divine predefiination, or fore- appointment
Of his future being. This made a mate
rial difference between him 1 and Nefiorius1,
but it juftly rank'd him with Artemon,
and afterwards (as Philafiriusc and St. Au-
guftine* obferve) it was copied by Photimtf.

r *E» 9-sai "-j ksl iyra Toy kvr5 Aoyevj (? to Ttvsvpa kvTp, ai
tci£ c* kvHoamis xa^la i ijl©- Aoy©-, pat 'sltqt -j tov buy tS S'sS
iyv misaTov, ' «AAos ci kvrS Ta $ri£. Epiphan. Ut fupr.
1 I\tu/X@- 0 Xaporarsui, Ssov <m nig iraoQivis opoXoys", : B-sot c«
yafytgsT o<p6i-ira, »£ ivTsvhv ri)^ uttub |s»5 tvn koxvn hffilapa, ' x,
kox<t> tiairtXtias 7?aosiXnq>oTam Xoyov j ivsoyov s| spwS £ a-oQtai
aykoTf opoXoysX' rS pt/i xgooourpS X(i() MWtov ovtcc, Ty j UTTa^lfi
cie »«^«g£T " kto\o\tx$irTtV tva sn ity, <pw\v, o ivrt nana Stsoi b
trartio. Athanaf. contr. Apollinar. 1.2. § 3. p. 942.
' Neftorius circa; verbum Dei, non quidem ur Paulus fenrit,'
qui non fubftantivum fed prolatitium potentia; Dei, efficax
verbum efle definit. Marius Mercatdr iri epift. de'clifcrim.
Pauli & Neftorii in init. vid. fy eund. de duodec. anathemat.
Neftorii. n. 19. item Fabricii annotat. in Philaflr. de hsref.
c. 64. ¦ ¦
f Philaftr. cap. 6,-.
\ D. Aug. de haaref. cap. 44, 4 j-;
L Saint

14^ An Hiftorical Ace oil m of
Serm. in. Saint Hilary w- intimates , that he re-
^0YS^ eeiv'd the word 6/uto4en@u, but in an ill
fenfe, meaning to reprefent the Father and
Son as one and the fame perfon w. But
this, has been ufually reckon'd a miftake
of Hilary, fince Athanafius* and Bafth,
who feem to be more competent witnef-
fes of this matter, have aSfured us, not
that he allow'd the word S/d,o4ai@^, but-
that he difputed againft Chrift's divinity
from the impossibility of his being con-
fubfiantial; having firft explain'd that worcU

T Mal£ homooufion Samofatenus confeffus eft: fed nun-
quid melius Ariani negaverunt? Hilar, de fynod. adv. Arian..
cap. 86,
* And fo Sandius, Nucl. Hift. Eccl. I. *. pi tS-2, 8tc. Con
stant, likevoife follows Hilary's account. Vind. vet. cod. confirm.
par.4. c. 4. p. 343, '
* TS >Teu/Xis tnpt%u!$ ts $sXovt<&; t£j AsywT^., It pv i\ kv-i
tgoiray yeywsv i xf'W 9*«S» •»» S» ipoia-i<& ifi tS itarojPsQ
kvotyxn TgsTi iotas tivai, piat pJ/l srtonyisp%i2ui, t«? ^j $00 e|
ixn'nti. Atfianaf. de fynod. Arim. & Seleuc. §. 4^-. torn. 1 .
par. 2. p. If 9. Ed. Sett. 0 Xsyuy ipio&tnov-T&ia Xsytt, iofiar
viva TPpwroxupitfiinv, x) Tin ** toutih ysvwfipttti cpomnm
iivai iav it i liii ofWri©- )j ra Tta-rol, kykyxq -aoouTta-
*«<2| kvrm ioiay If J; & iywiko-av, <£ p\ stvat Toy (fyi 7taTi\a,
*ov j buy, uXX' kp^oTifm kSsXtyii^ §• ft. p. 764.
y Etpavav y> ixitvoi tkv ipoxoiis tpavm ar«gir«ii svtotay icnai «
jg t#v kit kvTKi, i>i ti xarapm&surav -iijy iaiav itatixiiv ¦»>>»
iponoia -zroo<rny o&'-at roii iti ie AufsSii. TSto k %aXxou pjfi xj
i£v kis' kvroS vopittrpiirdy sxti ma Aoyev to' o\atonp,a, itti 9-uu
rj TtaTooi, £ $tob~ btou, ix ittia osottrGvTioa, iF u7Stoxup>m kp/pott
SriytiiTHi., Ti y) if yivoirt tou kyivvyris trftfSvTigoy ; kvai-
fiirui J ix fiis @Xaircpvip,i'*s Towryn & it itg 'rey oraTsg* si, but
mm khxtpa $> MXXdZiii T« J| iyti. btp'srafa, t>. Bafil.
Epift. 200.

m

the Trinitarian Controverfy.
in a. wicked and abfurd fenfe: He took it Sekm.,i'hV
grofly and corporeally, juft as thofe things
are reckon'd c on fub ftantial ,- which are
made out of the Same common pre-exift-
ing fubftance, as diSferent pieces of money
made of the fame.mafs of metal 5 fo that
here are three different . things fuppofed in
this notion of confubftantiality $ viz. a
pre-exifting fubftance, and two diftincl: be
ings produced out of it. Which notion,-
if applied to the Godhead, would not on
ly take away the mutual relation of Father"
and Son, but effectually deftroy the eter
nity of both. And this feems to be the
true reafon why the council of Antioch
difufed the word, not becaufe it taught an?
equality of nature, but becaufe it had been?
rhifapplied to infer a divifion of fubftancey
and beginning pf existence a.
There s were indeed two b councils hol
den at Antioch upon this occafiohy at the
firft of which Firmilian of Gafdrea prefided j 2 6f:
and cDionyfius of Alexandria, though hin-
der'd from being prefent by his age and
infirmities, (which carried him1 off during
the feSfion of that council,) yet he fhp-
" See this farther Jlated by Bifhop Bull, Def. fid. Nic feci. C
Cap: 1. §,9, 10, 1 1, 12. Thirlby'i Anfwer to Whiftcn'y Sufpi-
iions, p. 104, &c. Second Review1 of Whiftbn'/ XXox&ogies,'
p. 24, &c,
•Tillemont (tohi. 4. in Taut de Smofaies §. 4.5 ftippofes
L z i

f 48 &* Hiftorical A c c o u n rlof
Serm. itf plied his abfence by his letters, bearing
^"Y^ teftimony tO the truth which Paul had
difobey'd. The herctick, however, beha
ved himfelf with ' fo niuch cunning and
fophiftry, and diSfembled fuch ah inclina
tion to the catholick fide, that tho' his er
rors were condemn'd, yet there was- Ho
fentence pafs'd upon himfelf, in hopes he
might be reduced to better fentiments c.
-£70. Before the next council (which fate five
years afterwards) Firmilian was dead. But
Malchion the Presbyter of Antioch attack'd
the heretiek with fo much learning and
dexterity, that he ftript him of every dif-
guife, and expofed him to the council
With all the filth and deformity of his 0-
pinions; which was prefently foilbw'd by
his deposition from the See oi Antioch,
and the nomination of cDomnus to fuc-
ceed himd, the council having firft declared
their catholick , fentiments, in. an epiftle
figned by fix of the principal Bifhops then
affembled, concerning Chrift's being God
in fubftance and hypoftafis e. Where thofe
words feem to be ufed as equivalents, how
ever fometimes diftinguifh'd by the writers
of -this century. 

c See Eufeb. H. E. \.jj c 28, 30. juxta init.
d Eufeb. H. E. 1.7. c 29, 30.
c ~2,o<piay ,jtj Xoyov. ¦£, lutapty -Bspu 7t£a ktuvw . o'vt«., i Trtoyva-
tra, aXX' inu, x^ bzroekrst Sso'y.' Epift. HyfhenaH, &c in
Concil. Labbe & Coflart. ad an. 266. torn. 1. col. 84. f.
? ^ " The

tfye Trinitarian Contrmerfy. 149
. : The crafty advantage which that here- serm. ih.
tick made of the word ojuoiAatt&i, gave o,c- v/fs<i'
cafion to its being dropt by that council,
and forvthat reafon, probably, by other
catholick writers, in thofe parts especially
where this crafty abufe of it was known
and underftood. And this migjit i be a
good reafon, if there were no other, why
in the creed of Lufian, the Presbyter of
Antioch, (if it be truly his, which is
doubted by Sozomen,) we find no mention
of the word , 6/Mx<?i(§k, which made the
Asians : in .the next century boaft of himf
as a patron of their caufe, altho' the pro
per divinity of the Son of God be other-
wife fujffieiently exprefs'd s, and nothing
that may fairly rank him among the pa
trons of the Arian herefy.
. There is indeed Some ground to fu-
ipect, that this Lucian did at firft fide
with his heretical Bifhop and country
man Paul of Samofata h , deceiv'd ( it
.is probable) by his fophiftical pretences,
and imagining his meaning at bottom to
be orthodox. For which reafoh he is faid

{ Sozomen. H. E, 1. 3. c. f.
S —Efeiya xuotov iiftrouv xf^o', to* ut<" kurou tov piotoysvr,, i&sov,
et i Ta it ana iysviTo- 73» ysyvvfilvra yrpo ir&tTm yav kiayav ix tou
TTar^oi, §-fbv ix. S-sau, oXoy J| 'oX&, pnovoy.ix pmvx, TsAsisn ix ts-
Xmz.i 1 . 'aTgialov ts 5? kvaXXoioiTov, -nsv tyu SsoTtrr©*, xaiai ts
sij ovtkpisai, <? /3aAi)5, iC o\fy)i tS Karfoi k-JtaoaXXaxTov sixova,
Luciani Syraboj^m apud Socrat. H. E. 1. 2. c. 10.
I Vid. Tillemont. t. f. in '5. lucien d' Amkche. Sc in not. 1.

L 3 to

% |<S An Hiftorical h ccoun t of
serm! in. to have been feparated from the commtK
VYV nion of the Church, under the three fucr
ceeding Biihops of Antioch. And if it
were during that time that Arius and his
aSSociates were bred up under him, they
had but little reafon to boaft of their Tu
tor as they did, or glory in the title of
Collucianifts. If he were really in the
fame fentiments with Paul, the creed
which was produced under his name in
the fourth century, could not have been
drawn up by him at that time, but rather
after his reftoration to the communion of
the Churchy in which he Had the honour
'a; 2. to fuffer as a martyr under Maximine.
His creed, it was acknowledg'd, as well as
fome other writings of that time, made no
mention of the word ojuoiet^ >. yet was
not that word entirely laid afide in all
places. For 'Pamphilus, who lived no/far
ther off than Cttfarea in Paleft'me, and
ipg. was aSIifted in his apology by Eufebius, has
Shewn his own orthodoxy' in the begin
ning of the fourth century, by afferting
that of Origen from this , argument, that
he taught that the Son is a/towi®*, or of
one fubftance with the Father^.
It was not long after the deposition of
Paul of Samofata, that the Manichean
' Pamphili apolog. pro Orig. inter opera D. Hieron. torn, f .
Ed. Ben. p. zj6."' - ' ' ¦ ' ¦ !i

the Trinitarian Controverfy. I y i
herefy began to grow confiderable, which Serm. hi.
befides denying the reality of'Chrift's bo- v-ofN>
dy ', feems to have efpoufed the SabeUian
principle, by reprefenting Father, Son and
Floly Ghoft as one God, under three names\
abufing to that purpofe, it is probable, the
term of conjubfiantiality1, tho' Still they ye-
ry inconfiftently feparated the divine perfons
in a manner more agreeable to the Arian
fyftem*1. But as their fcheme contain'd
likewife a collectipn of the moft deteftable
abominations of the heathens and the worft
of hereticks, they will deferve to be con
fider'd' rather- as a feci: of Pagans than of
Chriftians, and need not detain us in any
longer fearches or enquiry after them.
The like may be faid of the Prifcillianifts,
when rightly underftood, a fort of here
ticks that arofe towards the condufion of
the next .century, and whom (as nearly re-

1 D. Aug. Serm. 116. torn. f. col. 578. Ed. Ben.
* Igitur nos Patris quidem Dei omnipotentis, & Chrifti,
Filii ejus, & Spiritus Sancti, unum idemque fub triplici ap-
fellatione colimus numen. Fauftus Manichstts apjtd Auguft.
contra Fauft. 1. 20. c. 2.
1 Nunquam dicere aufi funt Patrem & Filium nifi unius
effe fubftantia?. D.Aug. Serm. 12. Ed. Ben. alias dediverfis id.
yid. & Phot. Cod. 179.
m Thus Fauftus {apud Aug. J. 20. c. 2.) affigns them Afferent
places and operations: from whence St. Auguftine (cap. 12. J thus
expo/lulates with him: Cur enim fub triplici, ac non potius
fub multiplici, non appellatione tantum, fed re, fi quot no
mina, tot perfons funt? —Aut quomodo unum numen, fi
flivcrfa opera ? £ t\. . fenablin^

% j $ ^ Hiftorical Account of
^rm. hi. fembling the Manjeheans* in their princi-
VW pies) I choofe juft to mention in this place,
that I may be excufed the taking any di
ftind. notice of them" afterwards.
Thus far we have feen the doctrine of
the Church with relation to the ever-blef-
fed Trinity, and the fev eral herefies by
which it was attacked before the rife of
Arius. And had the ancient liturgies been
tranfmitted down entire* it, plight here
have been an ufeful labour. to have made
fuch obfervatjons upon them, that the
worfhip of the Church might come in to
the better illustration of her doctrine, and
the language of difjtinct Churches might
appear confiftent' and harmonious. But in
the lamentable fhipwrack and lofs of an
cient writings, it cannot be denied that
moft of the publick forms of worfhip have
been utterly deftroyed0, and the reft fo
miferably injured by the corruptions and
interpolations of later times, that it may
oftentimes be difficult to distinguish what
is genuine and original, from that which
is fhruft in and of a later date. ¦

" Auguft. de.hxeef. cap. 79. Tillem. torn. 8. Les Prifcil-
lianiftes, §. 1. .,
0 Renaudotius (in cojleft. liturg. orient, torn. 1. p. 9. diflert.
de liturg. orient, origin, cap. 2.) is of opinion, that the Eaftern
Churches had not their liturgies committed to writing, before
the time of St. Bafil in the fourth century.
In,

. /^.Trinitarian Controverfy. j y $
In this cafe therefore, the beft evidence Serm. iii.
that can be brought, is from the fcatter'd v^oTV
accounts which the writers of thofe times
have left, who are the fitteft witnefles of
the worfhip, as well as of the doct rine of
the Church. J^.s the Father was constant
ly acknowledged for the fountain of the
Deity, and never reprefented as acting in
fubor dination to the other perfons 5 who,
on the contrary, were always confider'd
as fubor 'dinate to him, and fuftaining their
respective offices in the work of our re
demption. From hence it is no wonder
if the prayers of the Church Should gene
rally be addrefs'd to tlie perfon of the Fa
ther, and make fuit for the graces of the
Holy Ghoft to be given thro' the merits of
Chrift 5 no wonder if , its praifes Should be
likewife oSfer'd up through the prevailing
name and merits of the fame Redeemer,
and in virtue of the fanctification of that
bleSTed -Spirit plentifully poured out. We
acknowledge the plain footfteps of this
worfhip to appear thro' all antiquity 5 and
the Church has defervedly continued it to
this day. Let our adverfaries make the
moft of this conceffion. A real diftindi
on, and certain fubordination of the per
fons may juftly be concluded from it, but
nothing againft the infeparable Union, and
proper Divinity of all the three. Nay,
-rather fuch are the perfections implied in
3 thofe

1 54 An Hiftorical k ccounto/
Serm. hi- thofe tranfeendent operations which are
V-orw here afcribed to them, as cannot, in the
.eye of candid readers, but conclude for their
Divinity p. And indeed this point feems
capable of being carried higher Still; and
thofe phrafes do fometimes require to be
fo explain'd as to imply their unity of
nature, no lefs than the diftindion of their
perfons ; that as the Son derives his eSfence
from the Father, fo the worShip which is
paid the Father, can be oSFer'd only thro'
the Sop.-, i.e. fo as to take the Son in its
way to him, and confequently honour
both in the fame ad of worfhip 9, All
which. may likewife be faid to be done in
the Holy Ghoft, whilft he is confider'd as
the band of unity, , and honour'd as a per
fon fubftantially united with the other
two r. Yet

* Vid. Bafil. de Spir, Satj£K cap. 8. »« *, ii' S, Qm, lif'-
Vtoyiay tvh wfotoaraoxTtiaK ki-tiai «£«•• i ra wforitray ii^it^>,
ffm pijirii oo^oXtfiots hi nxipao-ti, cap. 22.
11 --Per Spiritum quidem [ad] Filium, per Filium autem afcei)-
dere ad Patrem. Iren. If. c. 36. p. 327.Ed.Ben. M^Tta^ ™ «-
(bay Toy itaTsoa vopntftv, sy ti tov iaipiafynpaTat toy buy mtorcTtwru-
J0/>, etXX as Tra-rip' ii' svbi btou -isooo-xvttt&u, k) piy, piietQ&u i itfoir-
«W;5." Cyril. Catecfa.ii. p 143. Qxon. §. 6. -Mi* ycceis-tr
fl'~T\\^\ ,2f* r*T° I*** T,r** **' r**1 '*¦' *fttrH&tmf, i ci
1iw xat eT kvrou ymfijn tu etwrg/t. Athanaf. Orat. 3. p. yff.
%¦ 6. See alfo Dr. Waterland's Defenfe of Queries, p. zio,
261; ^Second Defenfe, p. 398.
* 'Eya ^ tii' £, UuToi Qtulu) kTipivr'stai tfvat ilavoixs *tt(asu-
Igynitj e#, ?oXha%v, kxx' vyiaihxxap&avop.ltw, x°U 7J pl-

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 5 j-
Yet neither are we without witnefs that Serm. hi;
fome parts of the worfhip of the Church <SY\J
were immediately direded to each perfon,
and in terms the moft exprefs and parti
cular. Of the Son there can be no quef
tion ; this being' plainly the purport of
thofe hymns which were mention'd by
'Pliny, in the time of Trajan f, alledg'd^
by Caius the Roman Presbyter, (or who/
ever elfe was that anonymous writer in
Eufebius1, that confuted Artemon,) and
prohibited laftly in the Church of Antioch
by Paul of Samofatau, as inconsistent
with his heretical opinions. Not to men
tion now the many examples oi fuch
worShip to be found among the ancient
Writers, and their exprefs testimonies as to
the pradice of the Church in this parti
cular! There is only one paffage in a
piece afcribed to Origen™, which exprefly
difclaims the invocation of the Son ; but
it is fo contrary to Origen himfelf in other
— . ,
yiffoj/ irbtf kvayut Ton ilavolai, ottisys xat, kyri riis a-uy, vtoXXaxS
' aup'svlu, kvnit TtTt)ti)xap%i. Bafil de Spir. Sane), c. zf, Ovto( 5
tou btou ci Ttarot xal itarooi ci> via, birrrrt xal Saiapist TsviopiaTtii
Athenag. legat. §.9. p. 38. O^qn. Bull fe&. 2. c, 3. §. 13.
Petav. 1.7. c-12. §.8.—,
r Plin. lib. 10. epift. 97. Vid. & Tertul. Apol. c. 2. and
Eufeb. H. E. I.3. c. 33.
-' ' Eufeb. H. E. 1. f c. 28.
" Idem. I.7. c. 30.
* Origen. xsfl ivxw, cap. fo. p. 48. Edit. Oxon. *&$ t*>>
yiinirruv woktsvxtsov iftv, iii kuTQ tm JCgrfff , kXXa ft'** -ra $4«>
frav iiXat mi tfaTti, x^ Tj A, places,

$f$ An Hiftorical Account*?/
serm. iii. places x, and to his Own teftimony in that
.*^^V yery 'book- concerning the pradice of the
Churchy, as well as to the whole Stream
of antiquity befides, that it muft be con
cluded, either fhat book is none of Ori?
gen's, or iat leaft it is one of thofe which
have fuffer'd corruption. The Arians
Khemfelvesr are content to admit the invo*
cation of the Son : only they attempt to
distinguish it from that of the Father, as
an inferior kind of worfhip due to him as
Mediator ; and this they take to be, meant
by catachreftical worfhip, in a certain paf-
fage of Origen7-, which has been explain'd
to fo much better purpofe by fome learned
men3, that it muft be moft unreafonable
to lay ftrefs upon a fingle (,and at leaft
doubtful) palTage, in oppofition to many
others that are clear on the contrary.
And as the Son, fo likewife the Holy
Ghoft was acknowledged by the primitive
Church, for the proper and undoubted

31 Vid. Annotat. ad Ioc, in Edit. Oxon. p. f6. item.
D. Waterland ubi fupra)
r TS B-iou S^g. xpirou. o-mitSpXoyvpi'svtt, c* tS djiu TtysupntTi
wuwpvxp'itit. Orig. *t(i iu'xSi. p. 14^, alias 134,
Ai7HropisGar • |) xat Jcvtou tou Aoyof , xal iyTdi\opiibsa kvrtji,
xat iuxaptiitrepjsvp xal Kfoo-dj%ops6a 3, 'i«u PwapiSa xararMsty
•mi itsoi nqo<rdix*ii, »»pn>As|wes xai xaTaxfasas. , Orig. contra
•Celfum lib. 5-. p. 233.
¦* Bp. Bull,_Def, fid. Nic. feci. 2. cap. 9. §. jf. Dr. Water-
land's Defenfe of Queries, p. 260, i6\. and Second Defenfe,
p. 39 §, &c. See alfo p. 3 71, &c.

objed

the T rinitarian CbntVoverfy. i y ^
Object of divihe worfhip. It was the ne- Serm. iii;
ceSfary refult and eonfequence of the pri- V~""V>-!
rhitive dodrine,' concerning his ihfeparable
union ahd coequality in nature with the
Father' and the Son. It " muft be owned
indeed, that, as the graces wrought in us
by that bleSfed Spirit, , who is reprefented
in Scripture to be fent Or given by the
Father and the Son, were the chief mat
ters of petition ' offer'd up by the Church $
fo 'tis natural 'to imagine their prayers for
fuch graces Should be perfonally direded
to the giver, rather than to him who is
the gift. This looks more expreffive of
lhat myfteriouS oeconomy, under which the
method of our redemption is defcribed to
us. But yet as they were not bound in e-
vefy expression to refer to that ceconomy,
fo they did not fail in fome part of the
publick offices, to pay their devotions di-
redly and perfonally to the Holy Ghoft, as
at other times they eaSily underftood him
to be included in the one God: infpmuch
that Jufiin Martyr and Athenagoras af-
-fert it as the pradice of the Church in
their time, to worfhip and adore not only
the Father and Son, but the Prophetick
Spirit^. They exprefs'd this .more parti
cularly in their hymns and doxologies, and
* See the paffages in the foregoing Sermon* p. 6f, 66, 6-j.
v.'i-. other

158 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. hi. other ads Of praife, that fo being baptifed
i^fnf\j according to the form they had receiv'd
(wherein the three perfons are named iii
the fame manner, without any difference
or inequality) they might continue' to be*
lieve as they had been baptified, and to
glorify as they believ'd, the Father, and
the Son, arid the Holy Ghoft c. St. Bafil,
ih the fourth century, wrote a treatife on
purpofe to prove the ancient, ufe of that
doxology, which exprefly afcribes equal
glory to the three perfons. And he Shews
it not only from the ufe and approbation
Of private and particular authors, but like-
wife frorri the publick ufages and pradice
of the Church, as the rule or canon ob
ferved at Alexandria*, which the Patriarch^
"JDionyfius had received from the Presbyters'
that were before him 5 the known arid a-
v'ow'd pradice atftfeocafarea in Pontus,
which had continued without any alteram
tion, at leaft from the time of Gregory
Thaumaturgus* : and in Short, the gene
ral ufage as well of the Weftern as the"
Eaftern Churches, derived to 'erri by dnci->
ent and apoftolical tradition, confirmed by
immemorial and uninterrupted practice,
v ' AsT y* ipick /Subf-ti^tc^ pisv «s rtovoiXo&tp\' ttiftusty J a'cf
\. fLaTCTtZppiiia. iolpsZfo 3 iti orstttftuxa/dj/r otUTscet, xal buy,' x*r'
ityttv msipia. D. Bafil. Epift. 78.
Oaoa tuv a^a. ipay a^ta-vun^m TuTtov xal xavova iraguXttyiTii.
n. t.X. Dionyf. Alexandr, apud Bafil. de Spir. San&.cap. 29."
* See above, p. 14%
from1

the Trinitarian Controwrfy. iy$
from the time that the Gofpel was firft Serm, ih,
preached among them*. And however the V-^W
liturgies they ufed be now either loft or
much corrupted, yet it may be fome fatif-
fadion to obferve, that in all the remains
we have of them, whether tranfmitted to
us by Catholicks or Hereticks, as that in
the Conftitutions , which was probably
made ufe of by the Church of Antioch s,.
and has been transmitted to us through
the hands of Arians -f that which bears
the name of Saint James, and was u-
fed by the Church of Jerufalem^; that
which bears the name of St. Mark, made
ufe of by - the Church of Alexandria * ;
thofe which were compiled by St. Bafil,.
St. Chryfoftom, and others j the various li
turgies in ufe among thofe who favour'd
the Neftorian or Eutychian herefies k, and
who therefore cannot. well be fufpededof
partiality towards any known innovations
of the Catholicks: 1 fay k may be fome

' — Hv ipttTi ix tws kvurmjiiuTit trvvyfisuti rati kiut?gfyoic,y
•suv ixxXtiozav ivevtepiitvuo-av tu{ep%i. D. Bafil. de Spir. Sand*
C 27. — 'I©" yravtii pivupm kyiiuotWK ~-—£-'—r-y a<f>'
£ xaTrr/ysXn to tuetyyiXiey pt%fi tou vuy. c. 29.
* See Dr. Comber of liturgies, p. 1 ro, 1 1 1 .
h Vid. Comber, p. 96. vid. Eufeb. Renaudof. Diflerf. de!
Orig. liturg. orient, p. xf.
1 Ibid. p. 26".
* Confult Renaudotius'j Collision of Eitufgies. It may b*
added, that the fame Doxologies appear in ihe jEthiopick Edi-r
tion of Apoftolical Conftitutions, at publiflfd by Ludolfus, in
bit Comment, ad hift. ^Ethiopia p. 2-2-4.

*66 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. ih. fatisfadion to obferve, that in- all 'thefe 3f6*.
^OTW itiains and- imitations of aritient liturgies.
We have the cleareft examples of that form
of doxology, which* afcribes equal glory
to the Holy Ghoft, with the Fathef and
the Son. And indeed,' the very riame of
Holy Ghoft was -by the ancients1 under
ftood to imply fuch a natural and effentiaf
holinefs, as cannot comport with the pre
carious condition of a creature, and is
therefore itfelf an implicit or virtual' doxb-
hgy. But as this queftion has been upon
another occafion"1 explained and ftated
more at large, and I may perhaps be ob
liged to take farther notice of it hereaf
ter, I Shall difmifs it for the prefent, arid
conclude with that form of praife which I
take to be fo juftly defensible.
Now to God the Father, the Son and
¦•the Holy Ghoft, three perfons in the
'¦ ¦ Unitfit of jhe fame eternal Godhead,
be all honour .and glory, world with
out end. Amen. .

1 Natura Spiritus Sandi, quae fan&a eft, non recipit pol-
lutionem. Naturaliter enim vel fubftantialiter fan<3a eft. Si
qua autem alia natura fanfta eft, ex ^afTumptionc hac vel ki-
fpiratione Spiritus Sanfti habet ut fanifii'ficetur : non ex fud
natura hoc poflidens fed accidens ; propter quad & deciderc
poteft quod accidit,- Origen. apud .Pamphil. in Apolog. inter
Opera D: Hierqn. torn. f. Ed. Ben. col, 231.
; m In the Seafonable Review of Mr. Whifton's Account of
Primitive Doxologies, and the Second Review j both printed
in the year 17 19.
SER-

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 16*1

SERMON IV.
Preach'd Feb. 6y 1723*4.

E were got down as low as serm. W
the beginning of the fourth v*oTM
ctntury, in our enquiries after
the fenfe and tradition of the
Church, with relation to the
dodrine of the Trinity. From thence
forth the outward ftate of the Church ap
pear'd with a quite different face. The
bloody perfecution which Was begun by
tDioclefian and Maximian, had continued
for fome time under Maxentius and Max- 3135
imin, till they were both fubdued by Con-
ftantine the Great, and both parts of the
M empire

161 An Hiftorical Ac cou nt of
Serm. iv. empire became fubjed to one who was
i-sY^s himfelf a profeffor of the chriftian faith.
The Chriftians,: after that, had Churches
not only built and beautified8 by publick
authority, and at the publick expence, but
enriched and adorned with many coftly
gifts 5 and the Bifhops, however mean in
their appearance, were treated with much
honour and refped, and thought fit to be
confiilted by the Emperor himfcj!fb;^And
tho' Licinius, who was brother-in-law to
Confiantine, and his colfegue in the em
pire, very foon laying afide that .regard he
either really bore or had pretended to the
320. caufe of Christianity0, did at firft more co-
321. vertly, for fear of Conftantine, and after
wards more openly, abufc his power d to
diftrefs the Eaftern Churches, > infomueh
that as far as Egypt and Libya they were
forced to hold their affemblies with fe-'
crecy and caution e: yet thevidory which
Conftantine obtained over him did foon
323> put an end to his perfecution, and reftored
the Church to a flourishing condition thro*
the whole empire. -c.'>

¦ Eufeb. H. E. 1. 10. c. 2. & de vita Conftant. l.i. C.4U
Socrat. H. E. 1. 1. c. 2. Theodora. H. E. 1. 1. ca.
fc Vid. Eufeb. ut fupra.
* Eufeb. H. E. 1. 10. c. 8. Sozom. 1. 1. 0.-2,7.
* Vid. Till. torn. y. in La perfec. de 1* Eglife d' Orient;
Sous P Emper. Licinius. . j.
« Socrat. ut fupr. Sozom. H. E. l.i. c.2, But

the T r unitarian Controverfy. 1 6 3
-. But ah the mifchief which came in and Serm: iv.
encreafed as faft as eafe and profperity! ^^Y^J
The Devil, who faw his idol temples irt
moft places Shut up, hi6 images demolifh'd;
his faerifiees< prohibited, and his votaries
apace embracing Chriftianity, began now
to contrive how he might uphold his king
dom by ariother method, and bring that
very evil into the Church, which he could
no longer maintain out of it ; that fince he
could not now perfuade men to worfhip
creatures under the notion of gods, he
might however prevail with them to con
sider and to worfhip the Creator himfelf
under the notion of a creature f. And,
which made the cafe yet more deplorable,
the Bifhops of the Church themfelves were
not unanimous, as formerly, in declaring
their deteftation of fuch great impiety ; but
fome, even of them, were found to patro
nize the hereticks the reft had cenfured,
and fometimes they had intereft enough to
draw in the civil powers to take their part
againft the Catholicks.
The See oi Alexandria being made vacant
by the martyrdom of Peter in the time of. 311.
the tenth perfecution s, his immediate fuc-

f tloXXiti iti tit nqorsgav s7tavbyays icXavLo, i tjjv XTta-tv ttotXtp
tfooa-xwitoSZ, tra^ourxsvao-ai, aXXa Toy Ttotvnyjy xai o\p<iistyoy cvyra-
Xffivai rij x-iio-u xaTao-xivourai. Theodor. H. E. 1.1, C. 2.
* Vid. Eufeb. H.E. 1. 8. c 12.

M z ceffor

1 64 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. iv. ceffor Achillas did not long furvive him :
V-TN"' after whom Alexander, who had been di*
312. ftinguifh'd by his zeal for Chriftianity,
was worthily advanced to the Patriarchal
Dignity h. Arius at that time was one of
the Presbyters oi Alexandria, and fopufPd
up with an opinion of his own merit,
that he thought himfelf flighted in having
a brother fet over his head, and difdain'd
to fee the higheft Station in that Church
fupplied by any other than himfelf. This
envy and ambition brought on a fatal re-
folution to oppofe his BiShop : and becaufe
he could find nothing exceptionable in A-
lexander's life and conduct, he had no
handle left but to quarrel with his dodrine'.
And this he did in a moft weighty and
important article. For whilft Alexander
ftedfaftly adhered to the catholick dodrine,
that the Son is of one fubftance with the
Father^, and the objed of the fame wor
ship1: Arius, on the contrary, was bold
and daring in his blafphemies, that there
was a time when the Son was not, that
he was a creature, and made out of no
thing m; that he is mutable in his nature,
¦. 
* Theodoret. ut fupra. "' Ibid.
— Tou jj-aw-jos 7b'» utov Spoio~tov Xsyovr^-. Theod. hser. fab..
I.4. c. 1.
lOpoTipov \xsys tou, swwgij? -rot buy, xai -mv auTtir ivaiat *%a*
tS yiy.sty«xoTi B-sg. Theod. H. E. 1. 1. c. 2.
m O 5 ' Aon©* ccvrixovq Ttj aAuflsf^s paj(cp%i&', x-iitrp* xa\
ttoivpi* iTfotriiyc'otusv xal ot ?» aire ots o(!k iii» wform'6*;. Ibid.
and

^^Trinitarian Controverfy. \ 6y
and (like the created angels) might have serm. iv.
fallen into Jm*: that being united to the v-Of?*-'
human flelh, he fupplied the place of the
human foul, and confequently muft be
liable to fufferings and pain°, tho' confi
der'd as the AfygSl or Word of God.
Thefe two laft articles feem to go a Step
farther than ever any heretick had gone
before : and in refped of them Sozomeri%
remark may be trueP, that no one before
him had ever dared to advance fuch posi
tions in the Church. But for the main
of his herefy, that the Son was created in
tithe, arid out of nothing, and not from all
eternity begotten, or fubfifting of the fub
ftance of the Father, we have feen i he
had fome forerunners in the third century,
who are plainly Struck at in that fragment
of Pbpe "Dionyfius, ' which is preferv'd a-
rnong the works of Athanafiws .- Nay, con
sidering that the natural tendency of all
hisr affertions, was to deftroy the Son's
proper and effential Divinity, it was not
without reafon that his BiShop cenfured
him as a reviver of the herefies of Ebion,

n Kai kvrs%isa-ioTrrri xaxlai xal kfitiii hxTtxoy vitltftfiy. S0Z.
1. 1. c. if. Socrat.. 1.1. c. 9. vid. 8c c. 6.
* Athanaf. adverf. Apbllinar. I, z. torn. I. par. 2. pag.942,
Ed. Ben.
r Sozom. ut fupra.
3 See the foregoing fermon, p. 136, 137;

M 3 'and

1 66 An Hiftorical A c C Q u N t of
Sekm. iv. and Artemon, and Paul of Samp fat a ? -j.
KsY^-> it being all one in the account of the an
cient Church, what other. nature they a-
fcribed to him, fo long as they refufed; to
acknowledge his divine,. -.- ;,-.;,
'Tis likely* he might veht his blafphfi-
mies at firft in private, ; and . wait till he
had gain'd a competent; number- of difcipfes
to eSpoufe themr, or at leaft might :difpofe
them by degrees, till he Should;find; a pro
per occafion to declare his principles. And
at length a publick conference of Alexanr
317. .der with his Clergy gave him the defired
opportunity of publifhirig his herefy. The
Bifhop had been fomewhat^ curiouSly treat
ing of the dodrine of the Trinity 1 and
in his catholick method of explaining jit
had aSTerted the infeparable unity of fufy-
ftanceP; icondefccnding, however, (as the
matter at leaft was • afterwards reprefentedu
to Qonfiantiney to ask the opinion, of fhis
Presbyters then prefent, upon the fenfe :$f
every text he had produced. , This gayp
Jtrius the handle to charge, him with ; Sa
ke Hi ani fm, and to fet up himfelf as a ,pa-
iron of the oppofite extreme, by avow?

* Vid. Alexandri epift, apud Theodorit.. H- E. 1. 1. c.£ \
f See FJpijry, 1, ip. .p. 79. at cited bv TjlJemont, Memoires,
$pm. 6. Let Arsons, feci;. 3.
'Socrat. H.E, l.i. c<f.
1 Cap. j '

'M

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 67
ing thofe blafphemous pofitions already serm. iv.
mentioned. /The Patriarch had fo much V-Of1**/
efteem for the parts and abilities of his
Presbyter, that he incurr'd the difpleafure
of fome zealous Catholicks, by allowing
him the liberty of disputation w ; he en-
deavour'd for fome time to reclaim him by
milder admonitions x, writing monitory 318.
letters for that purpofe, with the confent
and approbation of the Alexandrian Cler
gy ; but when he appear'd : incorrigible, it
was neceSTary to proceed to greater feve-
rity, and therefore he and his adherents
were by a council of an hundred Bifhops 319.
of Egypt and Libya, not only degraded
from their orders in the Church, but like-
wife anathematifed and caft entirely out of
ity. Arius, after this, thought it his intereft
to apply to other Bifhops, and, under the
fpecious pretence of defiririg to be recon
ciled to Alexander, he labour'd with his

" Sozom. 1. 1. c. if. * Theod. H. E. 1. r. e. z.
* Socrat. J. i.e. 6, The firft rife of Arianifm is pretty ob-
fcute. Montfaucon (in "vita Athanafii. vid. & ejufd. animadv. fA
in vit. Athanaf. in colleel:. nov. Patr. Graecbr. torn. 2.) placet
the beginning of Arius'/ herefy in the year 319, and fuppofes thai
the year following Alexander wrote monitory letters to reclaim him,
and convened a fynod of Alexandrian and Mareotic Presbyters and
Deacons to concur in thofe letters : proceeding to excommunication
with his council of Bifhops, Ann. 321. But thit feems not to leave
room for the letters that followed to the beginning of Licinius'*
perfecution. And therefore it feems better to place the beginning of
Arianifm with Pcmius in 317, Dogm. Theol. de Trin. 1. 1.07.
M \ utmpft;

1 68 An Hiftorical A e c q ts n t «/
utmoft diligence to Strengthen his intereft
againft hima. His endeavours wanted not
a good degree of fuccefs; arid among the
chief of his patrons was Eufebius BiShop of
Nicomedia, who not only received him to
communion, but ufed his intereft with o^
ther Bifhops to the fame purpofe b. . .
Mean while neither, was Alexander negli
gent, on the other hand, tojuftifyhis con-
dud to other Churches. He wrote to his
brother Bifhops, to reprefent the pbftinate
impiety of this heretick, and complain of
the encouragement he found from fome
Bijfhops, and particularly from Eufebius of
Nicomedia*. This, however it might lay
reftraint upon fomed, yet did not hinder
others from being adive in his intereft ; a
council being then convened under Eufe^
bins in Bithynia, to declare for the fenti
ments of Arius, and write to other abfent
Bifhops for their concurrence, and for adr
ding their endeavours, with Alexander to
reftore hime; and another foon afterwards
in Paleftine, where the affefiprs granted
leave to him and his adherents, to gather
congregations in their refpedive diocefes,

* Vid. Alexandr. epift, in Theodor. H. E. 1. 1. c.4.
* Cap. 6.'
* Socrat. 1. 1. c. 6. Theod. I. 1. c. 4.
* Epiphan. haer. 69. §. 4.
J Sozom, H. E. j. 1. c. if. advifing

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 6c}
advifing them however to fubmit to Alex- serm. iv.
ander, and ufe their utmoft endeavours to v^oT^
maintain peace and communion with himf.
And to this time we may refer that attempt
of Arius, which is mention'd by Theodor its,
to change the 1)oxology from giving glory
to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft together,
into that other form, which did not fo di-
redly overthrow his herefy, Glory be to
the Father, through the Son, in the Holy
Ghoft. Not that this latter form had never
been made ufe of by perfons of the moft
OrtfiodOx principles ! There is no doubt it
had, and in a fenfe perfedly agreeable with
the catholick faith h. But then the other
form had been ufed too, and it was Arius's
meaning to leave it out entirely, and ufe
none but that which appear'd lefs oppofite
to his principles.
Thus far we may fuppofe matters to have
rifen, during the time that Licinius either
had or diffembled a regard to Chriftianity :
who keeping his court at Nicomedia, gave
the greater opportunity to Eufebius, the
Bifhop of that place, to promote the caufe
of Arianijm, and particularly (as it feems)

f Sozom. H. E. 1. 1. c. if.
g 4°i!»?"» t>!6 i%ottari)i!lfiisi ilia%ts tov itaTsoa, St^ tS biS,
r-A r» dyia msupan. Theod. hser. fab. 1. 4. c. 1.
See the foregoing fermon, p. 15-3. as alfo the feafonable
Review, and fecond Review of fVhiflen's Doxologies.
i to

ijro An Hiftorical 'Ac co u nt of
Serm. iv. to prepoffefs the Emprefs Conftantia in fa-
v-oro your of it*. But when Licinius had
i320, thrown off his difguife,' and perfecuted o-
penly the chriftian name, exprefly forbid
ding any councils to affemble, there was
probably but little progrcSs made on either
323. fide, till his defeat by Conftantine reftored
the Churches of the Eaft to peace and
profperity K
Conftantine being, then at Nicomedia,
was much - concern'd at the account of
thefe unhappy differences, and writing both
to Alexander and Arius upon the fubjed,
324. he icht'rHoftus the celebrated Bifhop ' of
Corduba'im Spain, to make a more exad
enquiry into the merits of the caufe \. The
, refult whereof feems m to have been (tho*
we have not any clear account of the mat'
ter) that Hofius in council approved the
condud of the Patriarch, and ratified the
, Sentence he had denounced againft the he?

' Conftantia the wife of Licinius, and.JMxjof- Conftantine,
was, according' to St. Jerorfr, perverted by flfius, but probably
riot -without the'Jielp.of his friend and patron Eufebius, in whofe
city ¦Jheyefided, r and who is faid to have entertained Arius at his
houfe. Arius, tii orbem deciperet,- fbrorem principis ante de
crepit. D. Hieron. adverf. Pelagian, epift. 43. ad Ctefiphon,
col. 477. "
* Eufeb. de vita Conftant. 1.2. c. 19, &c. Socrat, H. E.
1. 1. c. 4. ,
1 Eufeb. de vit. Conftant. 1. 2. c.63, &c. Socrat. 1. i. c.7.
Sozom. I. i. c. 16.
m Philoftorg. 1. 1. c. 7. Confer. Tillemont. torn, 6. in S.A
lexandre D'-Alexandrie, §.19, retick,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. , 171
retick,' at leaft that at his return he fatisfied Serm. iv.
the Emperor of the reafonablenefs of it. v^-OfV
Arius had great indignation at this treat
ment .; yet neither by letters nor by con-
ferencei, neither by gilding his herefy nor
by difowning it, could he prevail with
Conftantine to Shew him any countenance :
who both perceiving the craft; and con
futing the notions of this peftilent de
ceiver8, thought it time to call a general
council ° for fecuring the peace of the
Church againft the endeavours of that reft-
leSs incendiary, who was not to be other-
wife reclaim'd. The city of Nice in Bi-
thynia was pitch'd upon by the Emperor,
as the moft proper place for the meeting
of 'this-; council 5 and that the Bifhops
might be enabled to repair to it from all
parts with more Convenience, Conftantine
himfelffiwas pleafed to furnifh them with
all fit .accomodations for the journey p.
When the Council was affembledj which
conSiSted of three hundred and eighteen
Bifhops % eolleded from all parts of the
" See Conftantine'/ letter to Arius, in Gelafius Cyzicen. Aft.
Concil. Nic. 1. 3. the genuinenefs whereof is defended by Tille
mont, m the fifth note upon hit hiftory of the Arians/, p.jf02.
tf Mr. Deacon 's tranflatm.
0 Eufeb. vita Conft. 1. 3. c. f, 6.
' Eufeb. ibid. Theodorit. H. E. 1. 1. c. ft
' The number of the Bifhops is related with fome variety ; but
moft authors agree in this number, or thereabouts. See Tillemont'*
fecond note upon the Council of Nice. p. 66 f. of Mr. Deacon'*
franflatioa. . , | christian

\7i Aft \ Hiftorical Account of
Smm. iv. christian world, befides tPriefts arid Dea-
SSY\J cons without number r$ the firft bufinefs
was to deliberate about ithe particulars of
that faith which r was deliverJd. to the
Church1", and then conferring with Arius
himfelf, to require at his own mouth an
open declaration of his real fentiments'.
The heretick flood to his affertions with
fuch boldnefs and obftiriacy, as fiU'd the
venerable Prelates whJii horror and afto-
nifhmcnt, and at once convinced' them of
the neceSlity there1 was to anathematize
fuch impious blaSpherhksu. Yet there
„ wanted not fome to patronize him *, who
tho' they chofe to abstain from the broad-
eft and moft offenfive of his expre'flioHs,
and could fpeak pretty much in the fame
phrafe that had been ufed among the Ca
tholicks, yet'^they fufficiently difcover'd
their meaning to agree with his, and that
- they only perverted the catholick language
to fpeak the fenfe of herefy. St. Athana-
Jius, though at that time 'no more than a
Deacon of, Alexandria, yet for the repu-

* Eufeb. de vit. Conftant. 1. 3. c. 8. V '
' Ruffin. H. E. 1. 1. alias 10. c. 2, f. Sozom. H.E. 1. 1.
c, 17, 19.
1 Ruffin. 1. 10. c.f. confer Sozom. ut fupra,
n Vid. Athanaf. epift. encycl,, ad .epifc. ^Egypt. & Lyb.
p. 283. Edit. Ben. torn. 1. Socrat. H. E. J. 1. c. 9. Theod.
H.E. l.i.c.9. / ¦:;„y:v. ^
I Socrat. 1. u c. 8. Theod. I. 1. c. 7. ; tatiorj

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 173
tation of his parts and skill' in this con- Serm. iv:
troverfy/ had an honourable place aSfigned V^W
him in the councils and with1 great dex
terity expofed the fophiftry of thofe who
pleaded on the fide oi Arius y.
At this time we find that Eufebius Bi
Shop of Cafarea in Palefiine prefented the
council with a form of a creed, which
he fays was the fame he had profefs'd at
his baptifm, had receiv'd from the Bifhops
that were before him, and had both be
lieved and taught thro' the feveral Stations
he had filled in the Church2. This creed
agrees pretty much with that which was
made ufe of in the Church of Jerufa-
lem*, and explain'd in the catechetical lec
tures of St. Cyrils It profeffes a belief
in the Son, as being God of God, and be
gotten, of the Father before all worlds c.
And therefore it is no wonder, if (as Eu
febius d affirms) the council had nothing to
objed to it. And yet if this were the
fame creed e which Theodorit obferves to
have been propofed by Eufebius of Nico-

1 Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 381.
T Ruffin. 1. 10. c. 14. Socrat. 1. 1. c.8. Theod. 1. 1. c. x6.
z Theod. 1. 1. c. 12.
* Vid. D. Bull. Jud. Eccl. Cath. cap. 6. §.f.
* Cyril. Hierof. Catech. 4, &c.
* —&siy ix °— " irpo TtaVTm ray ktavat ix tou ftartu
yiytvvtip'noy. Eufeb. Epift. apud Theodorit. H. E. 1. 1. c. 12.
d Ibid.
* Vid. Montfauc. ia vit. Athanaf. p. 9. mediat

174 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. iv. media, and the other favourers of Arius r,
V-^VV*' we are told the council tore it in pieces
as foon as it was read, and judged.it to be
a Spurious and corrupt confeSIionf. But
perhaps both accounts may be confiftent
enough ; when it was firft oSfer'd by Eu
febius of Cafarea, the craft and fophiftry
of the Arians might not be Well under
stood, and therefore, the other. Bifhops
might approve of the creed> as taking its
phrafes in their ancient Simplicity. But
when in the procefs of their debates it
appear'd that the favourers of Arius had
given a new meaning to the ancient ex
pressions, the council might well refiife to
accept this form at their hands, and rejed
it with the utmoft indignation.
It was at firft the intention of the coun
cil to declare the catholick faith in the
words of Scripture, and in the moft plain
and Simple manner of expreSIion s. But
the malignity of Arianifm was not to be
fo reftrain'd. Its patrons could apply the
phrafe, to overturn the fenfe of Scripture,
and knew how to reconcile the moft ap
proved expreflions with the moft execrable
blafphemies. 1 They knew how to acknow-

' — t\y kvaym&tTcray iui'sui elitttfcav aitunic,, i'oiov >£ xtS o\Xov
iyopouravTSi. Theodof. H. E. 1. I. C. 8.
s Athanaf. de deer. Syn. Nic. §. 19. & ad African. §. f.
item Theod. H. E. 1. 1. c. 8.

ledge

the Trinitarian Controverfy . iye
ledge that the Son was God, and yet un- sesm. iv.
detftood not that term to imply the fame V«-^W
nature with the Father, but only to be a
title of honour conferr'd on him h at . the
free pleafure and appointment of the Fa
ther, tho' in a more excellent and peculiar
fenfe than any other enjoy'd it. They
could fay that he was true or very God,
and yet mean by it no more than this,
that he was truly dignified in fuch manner
by the Father'. They could go on, that
he is God of God, without attributing to
him any higher privilege than the Scrip
ture has attributed to the whole creation,
when it fays that all things are of GodK
They could fay moreover, that he is
kegotien of God, and yet not fuppofe any

h Tribuunt Chrifto Dei nomen, quia hoc & hominibus fit
tributum. Hilar, contra Auxent. col. 1266. Ed. Bened.
Deinde dicis interdum Deum Chriftum: fed ita die Deum
verum, ut plenitudinem ei paternae Divinitatis affignes; funt
enim qui dicuntur Dii, five in ccelo, five in terra. Non
ergo perfun&orie nuncupandus Deus, fed ita ut eandem di-
vinitatem praalices in Filio, quam Pater habet. Ambrof. de
fide 1. 3. c. 16. alias 7. vid. & Eufeb. contra Marcel, de Ec-
clefiaft. Theologia. 1. 1. c. 10.
1 'Ei 3 x«i S-ibv kXrfiivhv Xsywri tov buy, iv A»sr£~' ysvopsv©*
«£> kxtilivoi, kXyfivli htv. Apud Athanaf. ad Afr. §. f. &
Theod. H. E. 1. 1. c. 8. Fatentur vere Dei Filium, quia fa-
cramento baptifmi, vere Dei Filius unufquifque perficitur.
Hilar, contra Auxent. col. 1266.
Oi Ttiti ioo-sGiov ilsXaXxv aXXijXoic oiivQapsSa' xal jag ipsii
ix tou H-sou io-psy • ia 3 travTa ix tou Ssou. Athanaf. &
Theod. ibid, tmrra h «'* S»w. Eufeb. Nicomed. apud Theod.
H. E, l.i. c.<S.
> commu-

176* An Hiftorical Account 0/
Serm. IV; communication of the divine fubftance,
K»/^KJ becaufe the term generation is fometimes
put figuratively, and applied not only to
men, but even to inanimate creatures, as
when God is faid to have begotten the
drops of dew1. Nay, they could fay he
was begotten before all worlds, without
Underftanding either his eternal generati
on or exiftence, fo long as they fuppofed
him to be produced into being before
the creation of the heavens and the earth,
and in order to create them *. They ,
could confefs him to be the brightnefs of
his Father's glory, and the exprefs image
of his perfon; they could term him the
Word, the Power and Wifdom of the Fa
ther, and yet understand all this in fo low
a fenfe as might be applicable to crea
tures", and no real argument of a natural
equality. The grand point plainly was
this, to bring them to a confeflion of the

'*Ei S to yavrrmt dvroy XtysoX. umAanv rtta trabixi, »J «»
, *, , 1 ~ . " 1 y »/ » / ¦ \
tx ms ovotai Tm iraToixtii avTov ysyovoiu, xat sxsiv tx tutu Ttit
, f. 1 - i- fi., \ * ~ 1 1
TuvToTina tus tpuosai, ytvao-xopl/i eti ov ttsft avrov piovts to yivtti-
mv tTvat <pwt i ygatpli, a'XXot xal itrt rav oivopintSv avrot xovra
wavTOTtj tpuri' KB" }"( !&•> *iT* avtyunruv tpmnv vua iymtim •
ypi iv i-Aooii <Pwi, Tii-o Ttroxui fiaXm i)>oo~is. Eufeb. Nicom.
ut fupra.
' m Ante tempora & faecula confitentur, quod de Angelis at
que diabolo eft nonnegandum. Hilar, contra Auxent. col. 1 261.
Ed. Ben.
" Vid. Athan. de deer. fyd. Nic. ad Afric. 8c Theod. H.E.
1. 1. c. 8. Son's

ihe Trinitarian Controverfy. 177
Son's having, the. fame nature and fub- serm. iv:
.Stance^ the, fame infinite powers and per- ^-^Vs*
rfedfens with. the'iFathen None of the
terms., hitherto mentioned were fufficierit
¦fox that purpofe, for tho' they fairly car
ried that meaning in their juft and. ohvious
import, yet: the Ariams and their favourers
had fophiftry enough to elude them, by
their evafive explications.- The council
therefore thought fit. to explain his genera
tion to he, of the fubftance of the Father,
which Eufebius of Nicomedia had exprefly
denied before the alfembling of the coun*
cil°. But alas! the fubtle hereticks do
fome of them feem to have learnt after
wards, to understand no more by this, than
they had done by his being SegOtten of the
Father ; not that the divine fubftance was
really communicated, hut only that the
Father himfelf was the author of his being p.
The council proceeded to distinguish be
tween generation and creation, and aSferted
-
0 —'Ovx ix rifs ioiat outS Vsy«»"5, xadoXa tvh tyuo-sai t«
kymifrts pn pvtsx'v, il ov ix t«s icioK cuitS, dXXa ys^ows oXo%i-
p»S sTtfoy rjj <pio-{ si) t!) iuvapi, srpos TiXeiay ipoioTniTa ' v ¦»
tS xtvowKcT©- ysvop\ioy. Eufeb. Nicom. ut fupra.
p Eufebius of Caefarea (apud Theodor. H. E. 1, i. c. 12-.)
gives this as the expojition of the council, "To sx tiis iatoiim ,
iyiXoiTiKov ibat tS sx pw tS TtaTgoi sly at, & put &>s pso©* vxxg-
Xia tv TtaTfii. Arid no doubt that expofition is capable of a very
found fenfe, it being certain that the fubftance cf the Godhead is
not divided. But if we compare it with what Eufebius of Ni
comedia had afferted in the laft citation, there will be reafon to
believe that the Arians took a handle from it to explain away the
meaning of the article.
N the

iy% An Hiftorical Accounts/
"SkRM. iv. the Son to be begotten but' not madli
^rY\j ^d tne Arians were ready atP distinguish
ing too, and thought -the Son was faid to
be begotten, becaufe he was produced by
the Father himfelf, immediately in an ex
traordinary manner; whereas all other
things are faid rather to be made or c reated,
becaufe they were produced by the Son as
the minister or instrument of the Father,
and all after one uniform manner "J. By
this means indeed the common people were
preferv'd orthodox, whilft they took thefe
phrafes, quite down to St, Hilary' % time1,
in their old catholick meaning, and not
in that fraudulent acceptation which fome
of their paftors had devifed, to conceal
their herefy under the veil of catholick
; expreSfions. And what then was to be done with
fuch fallacious and fophiftical antagonists?
The meaning of the council in thofe ex-
*> Kccto TcuJTtt. 3 «) to, ytvyifieyra & itotvfisvTa xaraiifytpisl!*^
ixstiq to TtoirHsvTa tutvov sipourxot sltat tSv Xoit&v xtio-piaTuy Ss^gl
tou btou .yttopyiay, av iSit b'poiov 's'xttv riv biev. Eufeb. Caefarienf,
apud Theodorit. H. E. 1. 1. c. 12.
' Et hujus quidem ufque adhue impietatis fraude perficitur,
ut jam fub Antichrifti facerdotibus Chrifti populus non occi-
dat, dum hoc putant illi fidei effe quod vocis eft. Audiunt De
um Chriftum ; putant effe quad dicitur. Audiunt Filium Dei j
putant in Dei nativitate ineffe Dei veritatem. Audiunt ante
tempora ; putant id ipfum ante tempora effe, quod femper eft.
Sanftjores aures plebis, quam corda funt facerdotum. Si De
um verum Ariani prsdicant Chriftum, Deum fine fraude con-
feffi funt : Quod fi Deum dicunt, & negant verum ; tribuunt
nomen & adlmunt veritateml Hilar, contra Auxent. col. 1261.
preflions

the Trinitarian Controverfy* 179
prefiions was well known and underftood: Serm. iv.'
but that laid no reftraint on thefe evafive ^YV
difputants, who feem to have aded upon
that principle, Which has been openly a-
vow'd by their fucceSfors in our days, that
they were at liberty to fubfcribe any arti
cle of religion, in that fenfe wherein they
thought it reconcileable to Scripture, how
ever different from the known and avow'd
fenfe of the compilers. A- maxim of the
moft pernicious confequence, as being real
ly deftrudive of all truth and common
honeftyf ! Yet there was one word, which
might plead the authority of ancient ufe,
that feem'd hardly capable of being per
verted to any fenfe conSiftent with the Ar
rian hypothefis. This therefore the Nicene
Fathers thought proper to infert in their
explication of the catholick faith, and ac
cordingly declared the Son to be q[a,o&<wv
*<$ 'srar^Ji, confubftantial with the Father1.
And there was the greater reafon to hope
for fucceSs from this explication, becaufe
it appear'd from a letter of Eufebius of
Nicomedia, produced in council, that he
was moft averfe to the acknowledgment
of that charader, as no way reconcileable
to his fchemen.

f See Dr. Waterland'* two Treatifes of the Cafe of Arian Sub
scription. ' See the Nicene Creed in the Councils, Htftorians, &c.
I Vid Ambr. de fid. 1. j. c. if. (alias 7.) col./i8. Ed. Ben.
N 2 Th*

i8o An Hiftorical h^c. ov® r of
Seri4,iv. The meaning of ifhat word has beeji
•VVV (0 clearly proved w, tp denote the Son's
having as much the fame nature with
ther Father in reSped of his Godhead,
a$ he had the fame nature with us in re-
Sped of his humanity,, that I need not
take pains to prove riV in this place.
Not that they meant hereby to insinuate
(as fome modem writers'* have unfairly
concluded) that- thefe two Perfons and the
Holy Cho/t, are no otherwife united than
as three men are in the fame fpCfks, or
three friends in goodwill, (which had been
downright Tritheifm;) but that they ; had
certainly the fame nature and effential at
tributes ; which was thq grand point that
the Arians denied, and the Catholicks
thought themfelves concern'd to aSTer-t a?
gainft them by the teijni ; :q/^oa<xj@L. And
tjien for their infeparable unity and com
munion of fubftance, tho' that be catholick.
dodrine too, and an eafy confequence of
the other, when it is firft underftood that
there is but one God ; yet this not being
the point that was formally debated in ^he
council, where both fides were agreed that
the fuprerne Godhead is but one, I take

w See Bp. Bull Def. fid. Nic. fe£t.2. cap.i.
1 Curcelk. Inftifr. relig. Chrift. 1. 2. c. 22. §. 9. & in Qua-
tern. differtat. diff. i; §.70, &c. CudworthV Intellectual Syf-
tem, p. 60 f, &c. Le Cietc's Additions to Dr. Hammond in thi
Englilh Tranflation, p. 622. ad 1 Joh, v. 6. that

the' Trinitarian Cbntroverfy. \ % %
that to be the reafon why 'we have rio di- sEiM. iv.
red determination upon this head, ^^s-tfy*
Of all the three hundred and eighteen
Bifhops that were prefent, there wefe but
feventeen who did not readily Subfcribe td
this charader of. the Son of God?. And
even among them the greatest part Were
quickly fatisfied * : in Which number we may
fuppofe Eufebiui'oi Cafdrea to have beefi
one, who declared himfelf to acqufefce in
the explication Of the council, and wrote
a letter to his didcefe on purpofe' tO ex-
plainthe ground of his proceedings, Where
in he acknowledges that word' to be fiip-
ported by the authority of ioWt eiriihent
Bifhops, arid other Writers of former times3.
But Still Eufebius of Nicomedia, and four
more with him, flood out with greater ob
stinacy1'. The argument upon which they
feem to have laid greateft ftrefs, Was
much likti the old fallacy of Paul of Sa-
mofatazh namely, the abfurdity of fup$\D-
fing GOd the Father and the Soh, to ftarid
related either as parents and their children,
or as the root arid its branches, Or as twO
yeffels made of the fame mafs of gold*

i Ruffin. H. E. 1. i. alias io. c.j. Sozom. 1. 1. c. 20.
f Ruffin. & Sozom. ut fupra.
' Theodor. H. E. 1. 1. c. 12. Socrat. 1. 1. c. 8. p. 26,
* Socrat. ut fupra. p- 23.
1 See the foregoing Sermon, p. 146", 147}

N 3 oris

1 8 2 An Hiftorical Ace o u n t of
Serm. iv. one of which they thought, muft needs be
VW implied in the notion of confubftantialityd.
But this capital objedion the cpuncil re
moved, (as we learn from the letter, of
Eufebius abovementioned, ) by declaring
that they meant not by this to Shggeft any.
divifion or alteration of the, divine ejfence,
which is utterly incapable' of it, but only
to exempt the Son from ..being like the,
creatures iii any. refped,- altogether re-
fembling, as to his nature or fubftance,
the Father who begat him. ,.; A .
Another, objedion urged after the coun
cil, and perhaps in it? was, that this word
is unfcriptural, and that it is unreafenable
to bind men to fuch forms pf confeSIion,
as are exprefs'd in any other but the words
of Scripture e. But of all men in the
world, there were none could manage thl§
ohjediori with a worfe grace than the A-
rians, !who had not only Vifibly eluded
the fenfe of Scripture, by perverting its
words to a different Signification, but had
themfelves introduced a multitude of "terms
not ufed in Scripture, as particularly that
TLtcii yJ itpavav ipoio-tov livat, a sx Tttoi Isiv, \i suct» ibi*
fia-psv, t xaT* piutrtv,r) xara xeoQiXvi? xaTotf'if^SoX^y, " "ai ms
ftZfiv /SXat-tipia- xaTa^rf itua-tv, ac, oi xaTpngi ytetiiii' *ot\u pi-
fioy$V p, i>i 'fiuXijtyueiSsi'iu'o r) Ti&i' tuor '&& 5 rvr'm 'hit a
•"•«¦ ?& «»>•• i o-v,yxxTa-ntto% t$ mftiMyey. Socrat. H. E.
|. i.r;8. p.-2j.-5-4 -*¦'¦¦¦'' • ¦ ¦• • -¦¦
' '. ^id- Athanaf ad African. §. 6". torn. i. par. 2. pag. 8j>5;
favourite

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i#£
favourite word dyivm'^k,, unmade or unbe- Serm. iv.'
gotten*; not to mention others which ^VS/
were contrary to Scripture, as well in the
fenfe as in i the phrafe s. It was this fort
of eondud that forced the Catholicks to
the ufe of fuch terms as might fecure the
fenfe of Scripture,, .and preferve the doc
trines of our holy religion, in their genuine
purity b. . ...
-¦LaStly, it: was likewife objeded by the
Arians, and the plea at firft looks plaufi-
ble, that this very term 6/^o^K^L had been
receded by the council of Antioch, in the
foregoing century 'l. But the replies to this
were various : In the firft place, it is cer
tain the word had been in ufe: before the

- f Kal aurol j, ii&tf aoa iuvavrai, iurexfivi&oiB-etv 7mi$ h/poy ti*
ctytaCpov tcuitLu Xs\iv, i> itoiot ojatota tov hiti otysyirroy Xsytttri. .
Ath. de deer. fyn. Nic. §. 28. p. 234. It was obferv'd before ,
(fee p. f 1.) that the words iyidn©- and kylwirr®', were at firfl
ufed indifferently, tofignify uncreated; and the Ancients had no
word, that anfwer 'd .to the fenfe of unbegotten. But at length,
th oppofition to the Sabellians, who afferted gehitum ex virgine
Patrem, the lather was declared to be ingenitus. Vid. Vigil,
Tapfenf. Dialog, publifh'd under the name of Vigil. Trident.
inter opera Caflandri. p. 474'. Neither cf the terms are in Scrip
ture, but the Arians were fond of. both.
¥ Kal A yoyymrppi kvtZv brt ay pa<pot iia-tv at /«|si?, sXcyxs-
Tat vtaff kvTui pcnai©-, e'| kyfatyuv ktriQiyra-vrii- ayfapx ^
to, i| ix Ivrav, s£) to, y)y tcotS ots ix w. Athan. ad Afric. ut
fupra. -  -
* See the firft Sermon, p. 16*— ' 19.
1 'Oi to "ZapiotraTsa 'xaTttixgfivavkii sttvriueitioi, yoaQovTti iieqxao-t
tm utai ipiotuTiov Toy bioy ra xaTgi. Athan. de fyn. Arim. 2c
geleuc, §.45% torn. 1. par. 2. p. 75-7.

N 4 council

'l $4 An HiftoricalkQG o-tfjN <r\<?/
\*.w. iv. cohncil of Antioch, and therefore it aouM'
WTV be,. no morex blameabk. injthe^i^w^Fa*
tkers to admita word wMtbtk&Antiochian
Fathers fet afide, than/it was. in thofe An*-
tiachims themfd<veslto difufe a word which
the Fathers before memrhadalfcw&dJ*. . In?
the next place, thej.oxcaftoiiiisj were manin
feftly different/:; The "council \oi Antioch
was affembled againft Taul of Samafata^
who utterly deny irig. any nature in\Ghiift,
wherein he perfonallyrfnbfiftfed. before, hfe
conception according to the. flofh, -its was
eafy to cenfure and guard * ag&infii hi^. he
refy, without, ufing a word which he was-
known to interpret in a wicked and. ah*
furd Senfe: whereas the council- of Nim
was affembled againft Arius, who tho' he
brought down The Son to the condition of
a creature, inferior, for that reafon, in na
ture, tp the Father; yet he acknowledged'
his perfonal fubfiStence before the worlds
arid his fuperiprity in nature to all the
things that were created by him. So that
there wa,s need of fome higher exprefliori
iii this cafe than the other, to import his
equal dignity pf nature with the Father
and Creator pf aU; and nothing was foftrid

• sv. %\ "V K". ItiipViTqt nS roTi, cl vtxaia o~twtXSou<riv, a$ ii^i^o-i
•xa§a rai $b£ct,vTa 7015 trpo, ky-my, o kv-nn. pifp-tyatT av it^TUi @
joif "i ojf !*"> to t&v v£o kyrSy iQuXafyt;!,. Ibid. §. ty. p. Jf&:
to

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i . g. e;
to! anfwer this purpofe fo effeduallyas the serm. iv:
term o/stoa'ar^1. In the laft place 'tis ob- ^YV
fervable, that though fome of the .favour
ers of Arius in the council, would have
put the fame abftird confkudion upon the
ward°y which Paulus Samofatenus had
done formerly, yet the generality of them
gave it up, when the council had exprefly
declared1 againft any fuch abfurd and im
pious defign in it".
Upon the whole matter, this 'word was
inferred in the creed drawn up by Hofius °,
as the fecureft fence againft the Arian pre-
vaficationsj; and the article of ' the Son's

• ¦ '.:jS( fH/ifaTlW> TW oiki$toy it z-arspti itst<popai^ip,yiip,ovivo'ar
srspi-rS opioxoix, y xi% w»»r«s ipai .ila$s( m% T^'i kvrisi, kXXts
•sir stoaoiay ctvr'Zt ipimav, *£ ntttymii fopflo-ofoyf' kuipdtipav tZv trv-
toduv Tin opiovotav ''B/ttstht y> i 'S.apoa-ariui ifyovi, p>i sitae
vrpo- ¦ piagicci -rov btov, Tgris~hytxsv it tots o-ivoiXSivrsi -xahiXoy pl/i
tcvnv, j£ dioiTixoy kitstyvivav, srspi 3 -nti iiS S-sotsjt©' d-xxlssspp,
ysatpivTii,- i xaTsv'svovro nsel tjjv tS ipisssois kxgj&siav ,
ixste\-'j><fr 01 jrspi IvcrsSiov }^ ' Ap»»KS • wja xcyvav f3p siyat Toy btov
tXsyovi 1, . 'j -Z) cm Bs5 kxx' on, to ti'rprg. t&th £«-
piv « c* ytxant, truusXioyrsi, \S-tagia-avrsi 7tj» xavxpyiav tSy Ura
(ptovivrvt, >£j orwucyuyotTsi cm tSv, ypoUpav iri'' iikvotav, Xsvyjrsgoy
ytaQovTSi iienxao-i to ipionortov' Iva xi to yvvitrtov kXrfiZi cm t&tis
ytoist^ th utis, <£ pnoa xotvay s;£)f!T£«s tutov m ysvvnu. 1 y> -mi
As|i*5 Teujtvnkxgs&tfa, T&V ts -bviixtio-ty oov'to/v, iotv Xsyaxrt to c«
tS S'sS' psfre/, ^VsAsy^a, <? •jrvtirat aural? 7WS TttiayoTrrras, cl «Js\
i^«fOT§fin tks kxsoaltti, ixS'aXXijt -mvTaySt Svvkp\®- o-oQifyoift:
<* pSTatrotHy, hi 5--iXao~i, tcwtZm pgvlto Tyv Xt^tv, o>i! msXtyx^aii-
aurm tWi oupscriv, ieiiiuriv' viv it ytctrsftc,, amrip ijrtTCtfgia'pa xxroy
mirmkir'iSoui imtoiac oujtSv iypatyav. Ath. fyn. §. ty, p.7 f 9,7 60.
m See above, p. 181, 1 82.
" Vidi Soerat. H. E. 1. 1. c. 8. Theodorit. J.'r. c. 12.
g Athanaf. Hift. Arianoryad tylon. §.42. p. 369.
j Pivinity

1 8 6 An Hiftorical A c c o ij mt«/
$erM. iv. Divinity being 'j thus far explain'd, the?
**sy\j council thought it not neceSfaryto enlarge
much upon other matters; but tho' they
did in general confefs their belief in the'
Father and the Holy Spirit, as being num-
ber'd together in the fame Divinity p, yet
that feems rather to have been becaufe
their belief in the Son was not compleat
without; iti, than for; the fake of Stating
fuch particular dodrines as were not then
the fubjed of the debates before them1.
After aU, they concluded with a particu
lar cenfure of the moft offensive blafpher;
mies oi Arius1: and it is obferyable- that
of the five Bifhops who had hitherto coun
tenanced his caufe, "there were only two'
that durft Stand out againft fo great a ma
jority, the reft fubfcribing at once to the

. p Ti 3 mrtuop%), ovx <*ft*ai 'sipirai, kXXa i msti iti Ton; S-sw^
<£ iti ita xugtot tvtrouv ypifor. .. . s§ i'li to 'uytw mivpu iti
pitav io%oXoyav, >£ iti plat staa-tv 9-sotht©^, £ pitav epeiarioTiir
Ta, iti rpla iiXiia, piav 3 9-eotiit«, pikv ouoiav., putty ,it%/>Xoytav,
pitav xvpioTr,ra, k?ci tou Xt?tuop%l >i, 7tl?i6.op%) xal zriftuofy, Epi-
phan. hser, 74. §. 14. prope fin. .
« See Bp.rBull Jud. Eccl. Cath. cap. 6. §. 3. '
* 'O j a i(l tov miupiaT®* Aoy©- ci srapui^op^ xetTttt, ovh-
fjfitai i\ipyatriai k^tuSsli, 2>l& "" ftili&P 7B'r£ touto xtxtvv,o% to
^Tvpa. Baf. Epift. 78. 'Ov yiyoysp) tyrt ttsfl toZ. mi&par©*
i tjHTWti, otpoi- y> to u7TomAt ooxaietj) xj xtuejS at o-utoibi Ttjv
io-tpkxeiav otoiouyrat. Epiph. har. 74. p. 904. De Ario tunc,
non de Origene queftio fuit : de Filio, non de Spiritu San&ct,
Confefli funt quod negabatur ; tacuerunt de quo nemo quss-
rebat. p. Hieron. ad Pammaclr. & Ocean. Epift. 41. alias 6f.
See the condufion of the Nicene Creed in the Councils and
fiiftorians.

<;ojif?Sfipr|

fba Trinitarian Controverfy. 187
confeSIion of faith, and the anathema's serm. iv.
annexed to it1. Indeed their condud af- COfV
terwards v gives too much reafon to think
they did not fubferibe upon convidion, or
with a true chriftian fimplicity pf heart,
becaufe they continued, fometimes more.
openly, and at other times in fecret, to
promote the very dodrines they condemn
ed^, infomuch that 'Thilofiorgius himfelf
has charg'd them with :fubfcribing fraudu
lently, and for fear of banifhment, .intend
ing no more thart^a like fubftance, whilft
they fubferibed to the fame fubftance x.
The refult of all was this, that the anar
thema which Alexander had denoune'd
upon Arms and his affociates, was cpn-
firm'd by the fentence of the council, and
thofe two Bifhops who Stood by him to
the laft were concluded, in the fame cen-
furey. The confeSlion . which . had now
been drawn up, .was every where received
as an authentick exposition of the catho
lick faith, tho' it does not appear to have

¦ Theodorit. 1. 1. c. 7. vid. & Athanaf. de deer. fyn. Nic.
p. 210. §.3.
* Ath.de deer. fyn. Nic: §.4. p. 211. -i '
w — 'T7TijXac, $ ovx itXtxgivus. Theodor. ibid., tots p% XsXti-
loTUi,' tots y Tipotpavui m; kTto-tyrfpt&tto-ai yrpsortsuito-i ib\ai. Eu-
ftath. Antiochen. apud Theodorit. l.i. c. 8.
* n^os tvh o-utoiot piTsrafytTo, ibXai puv, kj to hpcoitrio-i
c* t!( tou opioitsorx Qavtj bnoxXttyaiTii.m 'Rurs&s, 'uTttypar^ai,
iva pusSpfiSys. Philoftorg. Epitom. 1. 1. c.9, 10.
I Socrat. H. E. 1. 1. c. 8. T*eod. 1. 1. c. 8.
been

'¦Account, of
serm. iv: been either defign'd by the council, or any
^<Y^ where ftridly ufed as the baptijmal creed.
The anathematijms added in the conclu
sion of it, and the omiSfion of thofe arti
cles which • in other creeds ufe to follow
the confeSfion of the Holy Ghoft, are a
Sufficient 'proof that' it -could not be de
signed for the recital of catechumens at
their baptifm2. And accordingly it is fuf
ficiently evident, ' that the Weftern creeds
(as thofe of yRame and Aquileia, mention'd
by Rufinus A, and the Jerufialem creed ex
plained by St. Cyril h to his catechumens)
were continued iri the administration of
that Sacrament. But yet We are not With
out reafon to believe, that ; as Arianifm
prevailfd moft in the Eaft, fo thofe Edftern
Churches which remain'df uricorrupt,. did
by ; degrees infert the Nicene explications,
and particularly the : terin hfjudkmv, into
their creeds- refped'iveiy; frorri whence (as
I may have farther' occafion to take notice
hereafter)'' the Nitene Creed is referr'd by
the. Co.nftantinopolitan Fathers, and by o-
thers after them, as accommodated to th$
ufe of baptifm.
As new hereftesr broke but, there was
the like neceflity .' of guarding; againft
¦  , i i i i i -"i ,11^ nirr i -t- '
1 Vid. Bull, pet: Eccl. Cath..cap. 6. §. 2, 3.
' Ruffin. hvpraefat. ad expqf Sy mh. inter opera P., Cy
prian. Oxotr. '
* Vjd. Cyril. Hierof Catecfu 6", &c.' ' them ;

the Trinitarian Csntroverfy. 1 8 o
them 5 and therefore it. is Obfervable, that sbrm. iv.
in the form produced by Epiphanius", ^^Y^J
near ! fifty years, after the council of Nice, 373..
it was not onlp added to the acknowledg
ment of the Son's incarnation, that he was
incarnate by the Holy Ghoft of the Virgin
Mary, iri oppofition to the Apollinarian
herefy, Which denied Chriffs flefh to be
confubftantial with ours, or taken from
the fubftance of the bleffed Virgin : but
likewife the article of the Holy Ghoft (in
oppofition to the 'Pneumatomachi) was far
ther explained by declaring him to be the
Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth
from the Father, and who with the Fa
ther and the Son together is worfhiped and
glorified. Which were fuch material ex
plications, that the council of Confianti-
nople thought fit to retain 'em in their 381.1
creed, which is in a manner the fame with
this of Epiphanius.
But to return to Nice, the fentence of
the council pronounc'd againft Arius and
his aflbciates, was follow'd by another of
the Emperor, whereby the excommunicate
perfons were condemn'd to banifhmentd,
that they might be debarr'd the fociety of
their countrymen, whom the Church had

c Epiphan. in Ancorat. §.120.
i Socrat. H. E. 1. 1. c. 8. p. 23. Ruffin. 1. 10. eg.

judg'd

i £o An Hiftorical A e c o u n T 0/*
Serm. iv. judg'd unworthy to remain iri her cOni-
V«^V%> jnunion. . Soon after which, Eufebius of
Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, . being
found to. continue their countenance and
protedion to the Arian caufe, to commu
nicate with thofe whom they had anathe
matized, and concur in thofe wicked fen-
timentsr which they had cohdemn'd by their
fubfcriptions ; they were both fubjeded to
the fame penalty of exile by the Emperor e,
they were adually depofed (as we learn
from Athana/iusi) and had fucceSfors or-
dain'd to their Sees; tho' hiftory is Silent
as to the council by which this was done.
But fuch was the good, nature and cre
dulity of Conftantine, that thefe men by
their ufual artifices, eafily inipofed upon
him, and brought him to fuch a full per-
fuafion of their . agreement with the Ni-
328. cene faith, that in about three years times
they were not only recall'd from banish
ment, but reftored to their Sees, which
had been fill'd with other Bifhops in their
abfenCe, and to a considerable degree of
intereft at court h. Their thorough attach
ment to the caufe oi Arius, and their ha-

' Theodorit. H. E. 1. i. c. 19, 20. Philoftorg. Epit. 1. i,
c. IO. f Ath. Apol. contra Arian. §.7. p. 129.
e Philoftorg. 1. 2. c.7.
J Socrat. 1. 1. c. 14,23. Theod. 1. 1. c, 20. in fine]

tied

^Trinitarian Controverfy. 101
tted of Athanafius, who had fo vigoroufly Serm. iv.
withftood them in the council, and was ^VN^
now advanced to the See of Alexandria \
made them watchful of every opportunity
to carry on their old defigns, and defeat
the decisions of the council k.
In the mean time one who wifh'd well
to their defigns, and whom Conftantia had
upon her death- bed recommended to the
Emperor l, did fo far prevail upon the eafy
credulity of Conftantine, by complaining
that Arius had been miSreprefented, and
differ'd nothing in his fentiments from the
Nicene Fathers"1, that the indulgent Em
peror recall'd him from his banifhmenti 3 30;
and required him to exhibit in writing a
confeSfion of his faith n. He did it in fuch
terms, as tho' they admitted of a latent
refervation, yet bore the appearance of be
ing entirely catholick °, and therefore not I
only gave fatisfadion to the Emperor, but
even offended fome of his own followers,
who from that time forth feparated from
him p. The difcerning Athanafius was not

1 Socrat. 1. 1. c. if. Theod. 1. 1. c. 20.
fc Socrat. 1. 1. c. 23.
1 Ruffin. H. E. 1. 10. c. 11. Socrat. 1. 1. c. zf. Sozom.'
1. 2. c. 27.
"Ibid. " Socrat. & Sozom. ibid.
0 We have the form both in Socrates and Sozomen, as abwt
cited. r Ruffin. H. E. 1. 10. c. zg.
fo

ill An Hiftorical Account©/
£erm. iv. fo eafily impofed upon as Conftantine, but
¦•V^V^y .jbeing well affured of the heretiek's preva
rication, was refolute in refufing to, admit
him to communion, whom the Nicem
330. council had fo openly condernn'di.
This therefore was the time for the fa
vourers of Arms to ufe theidr intereft at
court, and their fophiftry in councils, to
reprefent jthe moft zealous of the Catho-
licks a$ downright Sabellians, arid relapfk
ing into that herefy of which their fore
fathers/ faad> exprefs'd the utmoft abhor
rence1..- And unfortunately it >happeh?d>
than the manner in which fome Catholicks
oppofed the prefent herefy, gave but too
plaufibie a handle for fuch calumnies. It
is- obfervable that the council oi.Nice had
made, no exprefs. determination concerning
the word. viroswrts, whether in the Godhead
there be one only, or elfe three hypoftafes.
And as that word is differently under;-
Stood, either in the abftrad to denote the
divine' fubftance it felf, or in the concrete
to denote fubftance with its propriety, or
as it is perfonalized ; both affertions may
be true. In the latter fenfe it had been
taken by fome Fathers of the third cen
tury, who affcrted three hypoftafes in op
pofition to Noetus and Sabellius f ; and fo

1 Socrat. H. E. 1. 1. c. 27! * C. 2 J.
f Sec the foregoing Sermon, p. 120, 137. it

ihe Trinitarian Confroverfty* fpf
it continued to be taken in the fourtn serm. ift
century, by many a who weire far enough ^sY>4
from admitting either the Tritheiftkk no
tion of three Co-ordinate principles, or the:
Arian device of three hypoftafes, not on
ly divided frorii each other, but different
in kind. Yet fince it had in this mari
ner been abufed, to make them entirely
diftind and feparate beings, there were
fome Catholicks thought better to take k
in the other acceptation, and affert, thaG
in the Godhead there is but one hypoftafish
And to carry the matter againft Arianifrft
as high as poSIible, they interpreted the
Word hfM&oif&1 c in fuch a ferife as feemed
to Strip it of all guard againft SabeWanifm'i
whereas that word was plainly levell'd *-'

a Vid. Athanaf ad Antiochefl. §. fi p. 77}. «"«!» Baiftl
Epift. 391. p. nfi.
k 'Tlvs&?a<riv fSf) Xsyop\i, y,you/8/m TavTov slvai( itasTy inis-ao-tit
j£ outlay Qg. -n ix r«; iumai tou traTQbo, tXvai rot btov, <? tyf
thi TOVToTnTM Ty\i tpia-SUi' pitav y> SsoTitra, j& pMv tltat Tta
TeutTtii (put-iv mssuopsv. Orthodoxi quidam apud Athanaf, Epift.
fynod. ad Antiochen. §.6.
c "Us certain the Arians who had formerly objected againft the
word opia^a-i©* as dividing the Godhead, tame at length to obftc%
againft it on the other hand, at deflroying the perfonality. Fruflf a
autem verbum iftud propter Sabellianos declinare fa dicunt.
Ambrof. de fide 1. 3. c. if. (alias 7.) col. 5-19. torn. 2. Ed. Bern
This was probably owing to fome Catholicks (I raining it beyond ot.bee
fides its original defign. With which St. Safil charges Marcellus./
(Epift. -fS.) "Osrs ye xai 'M.apxiXX<§* tToXpittsv krs£2y iti Tvjt
UTsirao-ty tou xvpln ipav iivrou XptToil, xat ij/iXoy out it Vfa/fyoy&ttfsf*
xlyot, iniiSsv £nempe ex fymbolo Nicinoj ^(of>a<norao% r*£
**£%*$ iiXr/lpivat tou itttot-oix f'nv Siavoiay- xaxZi ifyiytu'piiv®'.
0 gainfl

i 94 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. iv. gainft both extremes d. This gave the fub-
V-VV tie adverfaries of the truth the handle for
that charge of Sabellianifm : and I make
no queftion it prevail'd with fome of or
thodox principles to join with them, for
fear of falling into the oppofite impiety.
And thus, it feems, that many who agreed
in their fentiments of things, came to dif-
pute about words ; which the hiftorian*
aptly compares to mens fighting in the
dark, uncertain where their blows will
light, whether upon friends or enemies.
The Latins, who had no other way of
rendring the word virfeiov;, but as they
did the word ioia, namely, by the word
Jubftantia(, thought it neceflary to join
with thofe who allowed but one hypoftafis,
left they Should feem to admit of three
fubfiances, contrary to the Standing doc
trine of the Church. But when Athana
fius, by his travels into the Weft, as well
as by his converfation with the Catholicks
of both fides in the Eaft, was fully fatif-
fied that this was merely a dispute about
words, and that both fides did really ac
knowledge the fame diftindion in the God-

•* Reete' ergo ipioio-m Patri Filium dicimus, quia verbo eo
& perfonarum diftin&io Sc naturae unitas fignificatur. D. Am-
brof ut fupra. See alfo above, p. 132.
• Socrat. H. E. 1. 1. c.23.
f Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 397. vid. & Suicer. in vocibus
ivfiti irgjonnrov, viiif*rii,
head,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. ioy
head, he fo fuccefsfully explain'd the rnat- Serm. iv;
ter in a council held at Alexandria s, that ^^Y\J
fforri henceforward the Churches of the 3 2*
Mafth and the Weft'1, in their fynodical
^piftles to each other, condefcended to
make ufe of either Stile, and explain'd three
perfons by three hypoftafes, as terms fyno-
nymous. Yet after all the Latins adhered
to the word perfon among themfelves j
and tho' moft of themk allow'd the mean
ing of the Greeks to be orthodox, yet St.
Jerom, a good while afterward, Speaks
not without fome warmth to Pope T)a-
mafus of this application of the word hy~
poftafs1: having taken his notions (as it
feems) from Antioch, where he heard and
was ordain'd by cPaulinusm, and where
there fubfifted a party for a long time
which could not perfedly reconcile them
felves to that way of expreSIion, tho' they
did at firft fubmit to the explication of

* Athanaf. ut fupr. §. f, 6. b Theod. I. 4. c. 8.
' Lib. f. cap. 9.
k Vid. Hilar, de fynod. col. 1170, 1172. Edit. Bened. item
D. Auguft. de Trin. 1. 7. c. 4. §.7,8.
1 Tota fecularium literarum fchcJa nihil aliud hypoftafln,
nifi ufiam norit. Et quifquam, rogo, ore facrilego tres fub-
ftantias pradicabit? Hieron. Epift. 14. ad Dam. Ed. Bened.
torn. 4. par. 2. col. 20. alias Epift. $7. Ita & Fauftinus in
fide Imperatori Theodofio miff* A.D. 384. Miramur autem
catholicos illos probari pofle, qui Patris & Filii Sc Spiritus
Sanfii tres fubftantias confitentur.
' ¦ Vid. D. Cave Hift. lit. ad an. 378.
O 2 the

io6 An Hiftorical Ac cot) nt of
serm. iv. the Alexandrian council held by Athana-
^Y^fiusn,
The Arians, as was faid, and the Eufe-
bians, could not fail to make their ad
vantage of fuch divifions : and the firft
who felt their rage was the great Eufta-
thius of Antioch. He lay under the im
putation, which we have mention'd, of Sa-
bellianifm0. But the Arians not being yet
willing to try their Strength upon this caufe,
loaded him with other crimes of an immo
ral nature, which tho' not made out by any
competent proof, and after all notoriously
confuted, yet anfwer'd the end which they
propos'd, and ferv'd for a pretence to de-
330. prive him of his bifhoprick, by a council
which was called at Antioch p. There was
a quick fucceSIion of feven Arian Bifhops
in that Church i: and tho' a party of the
Catholicks adhered to their true Bifhop Eu-
ftathius, who continued (as far as he had-
opportunity) tp exercife his office with zeal
and refolution, even when driven into ba-

¦ Athanaf. ut fupr. p. 777. Epiphan. hair. 77. §. 21.
• Socrat. H. E. 1. 1. c. 23, 14.
r Sozom. 1. 2. c. 19. Theod. 1. 1. c. 21.
' Firft Paulinus of Tyre, and then Eulalius. Philoftorg. 1. 3 1
c. if. after him Euphronius, and next Placentitis or Flaccillus,
Theod. J. 1. c. 22. Then. Stephen whom the Arians depofed for
his enormities, and then Lcontius. Athanaf. Hiftor. Arianor.
ad Monachos §. 4. p. 347. Theod. 1. 2. c.t), 10. And Uflly,
Eudoxius, Socrat. 1.2. c. 37.

nifhment

the Trinitarian Controverfy. \oy
nifhment r : yet the greater part of them serm. iv.
were mixed by the Arians, influenced, ^OP^>
it is probable* with the Specious cry of Sa-
bellianifm, with which it was ufual at that
time to blacken the Euftathian party, up
on account of their aflerting one hypoftafis,
whilft they, in return, were not wanting
to accufe thofe who fpake of three hypo-
fiafes as declining into Arianifm*, for
which they feem'd to have/ the fairer han
dle, When they faw therri joining their de
votions with profefs'd Arians*. For in the
time of Leontius, which was about the
middle of the fourth century, altho' the
Clergy of Antioch were very much cor
rupted by the influence of Arian Bifhops,
yet the majority of the people Still conti
nued orthodox11: and however the difpute 348.
about "Doxologies w, and the ordination of
Aetius,

' Vid. Cbryfbft. torn. i. orat, gi. in Euftath. Antfochen.
' "Bit a o-absXXtavio-pioi itTauSa, iftsvoifivi ToTi TpiTt npoiraTtoii,
Xat 'Apiravurpei Ta~c, TgioZv ba-oraTio-i too tJs <ptXov\sxtai kvairXcar-
jmala. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 39S.
' Theod. 1, 2. c. 31. Philoftorgius reprefents them as com
municating with the Arians in payers, hymns and confutations,
and almoft every thing but the Eucharift. Philoft. 1, 3. c. 14.
v Theodor. 1. 2. c. 24.
* Philoftorgius (1. 3. c.i$.j pretends that Flavianus did now
firft introduce that form of Doxology, which aftribes equal glory
direBly to the three perfons. But the truth is, both forms had an
tiquity to plead. The Arians liked one beft, and the Orthodox
the other, and ufed them accordingly in publick'. Soz. 1. 3. c. 20.
Leontius was too timorous to decide the matter, and therefore
mumbling over the Doxology to himfelf, pronounced only the laft
!>Q 3 word*

198 An Hiftorical Account^/
Serm. iv. Aetius, had like to have provoked Flavian
^"W> and 'Diodorus to leave Leontius's commu
nion, yet it feems they did not adually
feparate, but continued in fubjedion to
the Arian Bifhop*. Thus was there a
grievous fchifm between the Eufiathians
and the other Catholicks: and tho' after
the death of Euftathius, and tranflation of
Eudoxius to Conftantinople, Meletius a
360, catholick Bifhop was appointed to fucceed
at Antioch, by a council holden in that
city, which confuted chiefly of Arians, yet
he, after a month's continuance, was fo
little acceptable to thofe who had pro
moted him, that they got him banifh'd by
Conftantius, and the Arian Euzo'ms was
thruft into his roomy.
From this time therefore the Antiochians
were fplit into three feparate communions.
Thofe Catholicks who before had fubmitted
to the Arians, did now refufe to join them,
j and adhered to Meletius1. And yet fuch
was the jealoufy between them and theis«-
ftathians, that one fide afperfing the other
as Sabellians, and they in return looking

words [for ever and ever] in the hearing of the people. See
Theodorit as above, and the Second Review of Mr. Whiflon's
Account of Doxologies, p. 8f, &c.
* Vid. Theodor. 1. 2. c. 24, 31.
'» Philoftorg. J. g . c. g. Theod. 1. 2. c. g t.
J Theodor, ibid.
£ uP°ri

the Trinitarian Controverfy, roe>
upon them as favourers of Ariamifm a, (not Serm. iv.
merely for their dodrine of three hypo- V-^W
ftafes, but becaufe Meletius himfelf had
been ordain'd, and the generality of his
adherents baptifed by Arians b) there could
be no effedual method of accommodation
found between them, neither during the
three banifhments, nor at the different re
storations of Meletius, nor indeed of a
good while after his death: but the Eu-
ftathians, who had procured the ordina
tion of Taulinus by Lucifer of Cagliari, 36z*
continued to have a Bifhop of their own,
and a diftind communion, till the fuccef-
fion oi Alexander to the See oi Antioch,
after the beginning of the fifth century0. 417J
Not to mention now that the Apollina-
rians likewife had for fome time a Bifhop
in this city, and a different communion
from all.
I was willing to ftate this affair of the
Church of Antioch all at once, that it
might give no interruption in the fequel

' Vid. Theod. ibid. 8c I. 3. e.g. St \.g. c. 3, 24. Tet the
'Arians themfelves charged Meletius with being a SabeUian.
Theod. 1. 2. c. 3 1 . As Paulinus was now ordain'd Bifhop of the
Euftathians in oppofition to Meletius, fo was Evagrius afterwards
in oppofition to Flavian. And this occafion'd for fome time an un
happy mifttnderftanding between the Eaftern and the Weftern
Churches. Theod. \.g. c. 2 3 .
k Socr. 1. 2. c. 44. 1. g. c. g. Soz. 1. 7. c. 3.
! Theodor. 1. 3. c. /. 1. g. c. 3/. j

O 4 of

'% 09 An Hiftorical Account of
Ssrm. iv. of this difcourfe. But to return, to Arius;
%S*fsJ jje being rejeded, as was faid, by Athana-
132. ft*** began to raife difturbartces at Alex
andria*, the blame of which Was eafily
thrown upon the Patriarch by Eufebius oi
Nicomedia and his partifans, whofe inte-*
reft at court was very confiderable. Many
calumnies were raifed to blacken the Pa
triarch's reputation, which however ab*
fujrdly laid, or ill fiippOrted, had fuch ef-
fed with the: credulous (though catholick)
Emperor, that after a council meeting
withput effect at Cafarea. of Takftine*,
he appointed1 the council* which was cak
§3 5- ^ f°r ^*e dedication of the Church of
Jerufalem, to meet firft at Tyre, and con-
fider the caufe of Athanafius f. Where,
although the Patriarch did fufficiently con-
frop: their evidence, and difprove their al
legations, yet the favours of Arius had
irttereft enough to procure his deprivation
at that times, and fook afterwards his ba
nishment •», by pretending to the Emperor
a new crime of hirtdring the exportation
of corn from Alexandria'1.

* Socrat. H. E. 1. i; c. 27. e Sozom. 1. 2. c. s.f.
f Socrat, 1. 1. c. 28. Sosom. 1. 2.. c. %g. Theodor. 1. \\
« Vid. Theod. ibid. Socrat. J. 1, c. 32.
* Theod. 1. 1. c, 31.
j Spcr, 1. 1. c, 2^. Theod. 1, 1, c. 3 j.

When

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 201
When the firft of thefe points was serm. iv.
gained, there could be no great difficulty v>*yn*>
in restoring- Arius to communion. But
being nOw obliged ,to adjourn to jernfa-
lem, for the dedication of the Church
which Conftantine hzd built k, the bufinefs
of Arius was referved till then, and car
ried (as it feems) without much opposi
tion1. The Catholicks who Were prefent,
might be probably intimidated by the cre
dit which the friends of Arius had gained
with the Emperor by their grofs equivoca
tions. Or fome of them, perhaps, might
be impofed npon in the fame, manner as
the Emperor himfelf. Yet fome, we are
inform'd, Withdrew m from their affembly ;
and Marcellus in particular, the Bifhop of
Ancyra, was fo offended With their proceed
ings both at Tyre and Jerufdlem^ that he
refufed to cornmunicate any longer with
the abettors of fuch wickednefs, or even
to join with 'em in their prefent dedica
tion". This could not fail provoking
them to work hisdownfal: they reprefent-
ed it as a contempt of the Emperor's au
thority 3 and remembring that he had lately

k Sdcrat. 1. i. c. 33. Sofcofil. 1. 2, c. 26. Theod. 1. 1.
c. 3U -p
* Socrat. Ifrrd. Sozom. r 1.2. c. 27.
m As Paphumius Bijhof in Thebjfl, and JiT^ihius of Jeru
salem. Sukom. 1.2. c. if.
' Cap. 33.
..: written

201 An Hiftorical Ac cou nt of
serm. iv. written a piece againft the . Arians, in
^Y^ which he made ufe of fome expreflions
perhaps not duly guarded againft other he
refies, they made this the foundation of a
charge againft him, as a reviver of the
ePaulian or Samofatenian herefy0. This
was thought ground enough to get him
depofed and excommunicated by the next
council at Conftantinople, where Bafil of
Ancyra was appointed to fucceed hiniP;
and tho' after the death of Conftantine he
returned to his See, yet the favourers of
Arianifm quickly expell'd him again, and
forced him to fly for refuge to the Weftern
Churches. :
Eufebius of Cafarea, in his books writ
ten profeSTedly againft him, treats him as
a SabeUian^. And he had the misfortune
to be fo efteem'd by many of the moft
orthodox among the Greek Fathers, and
fome among the Latins, as well as by
the generality of the learned in thefe latter
ages r. But I have often wonder'd, they
Should fo eafily give credit to this accu--

• Sozom. ibid. Socrat. 1. 1. c. 36.
p Socrat. 1. 2. c. 42. Sozom. ut fiipr?
' Eufebii contra Marcellum libri duo; fpeciatim lib. z".
cap. 2. item de Ecclefiaftica Theologia contra eundem libri
tres, fpeciatim lib. 1. cap. 1, f, 14, if, 16, 17. lib. 2.
cap. 1, 4, f, 11, jf, 24, & Hb. 3. cap. 4.
' See the fentiments df all ftated by TiUtmont, torn. 7. in
Marcel d'Ancyre.
fation

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 203
fation of the Arian fadion, with whom Serm. iv.
nothing could be more familiar than to V<ofV
fallen this Slander on the Catholicks. 'Tis
certain his cafe was more favourably judg'd
of at that time, as well by fome in the
Eaftf, as generally in the Weft, where af
ter a diftind examination of the paffages
excepted againft in his book againft the
Arian Afterius, and a view of that con-
feSIion of faith he had prefented to Pope
Julius1, he was honourably acquitted by
the councils of Rome'1 and Sardica™, and
was thereupon reftored to the poffeflion
of his Bifhoprick*. Even Hilary himfelf,
tho' he charges him with herefy, yet ' he-
thinks that charge1 could never be main-
tain'd from any thing which he has faid in
his book againft Afterius, but from fome
thing elfe which had pafs'd in his difcour
fes after the time of his acquittal by thofe
councils y. It muft be own'd, that as Mar-

f 'EAsywo Jj s-gjs Tivav Taura 05 c* fyfria-ei iipw%, MccpxiXXoi*
xj ai apoXoyqpiva 3ifefJosSXiio% xai kvra tS fiao-tXti -aaaa tuv
kptpi Toy ivtr&tov. Sozom. 1. 2. C. 3 3.
¦ Vid. Epiphan. haer. 72. §. 1, 2.
¦ Vid. Julii epift. fynod. apud Athanaf. in Apolog. contra
Arianos §. 32. p. tfo. Ed. Ben. item Hift. Arianor. ad Mo-
nach, §. 6. Hilar, frag. 2. §.6.
w Vid. Epift. Synod. Concil. Sardic apud Athan. in Apol.
contra Arianos §.47. p. i6g.
* Sozom. H. E. 1. 2. c. 33. vid. & Athanaf. & Hilar, ut
fupra. 1 Hilar, frag. 2. §.21, col. 1299. Ed. Ben. cellus

204 An Hiftorical Ace ount of
serm. iv. celhs had join'd with that party of Qa-
^^Y^J diolicks which admitted but one hypo-
ftafts7-, and had perhaps been too loofe
and unguarded in his expressions upon that
fubjed, this naturally raifed the jealoufy of
the other party, which Was improved to
fuch heights by St. Bafil*, and other great
men of that time, that even Athanafius
himfelf, who had maintain'd a long and
intimate friendship with him, was drawn
into fome doubt of his Orthodoxy b, and
almoft perfuaded to renounce his commu
nion0, when Marcellus, not long before
his death, averted the Storm, by fending
him a clear ednfeSIk>rt of his faith, entire
ly agreeable to the fentiments of the Eu-
ftathian Catholicks *
But to return to/ the hiftory oi Arms :
whilft his oppofers were thus run down,
as has been faid, his ends were yet far
from being fatisfied. After the decifion Of

k Vid. Montfaut in diflert. de Xfarcellb prsefixa tomo fe-
cundo novae colleta. Patrum Grsecorwn. Item Montacutii
annot. in Eufeb. adverf. Martel. p. 6, 7. Edit. Paris 1628.
' Vid. Bafil. Epift. fz, 74, & 203.
b Epiphan. hosr. 72. §. 4.
c Hilary (frag. 2, ut fupra.) will have it that Athariafius did
aSlually refufe Marcellus'* communion, before the rife of Pho
tinus: And Tillemont (in not. ad Marcel, torn. 7.) agrees that
he did fo before his death. But for the contrary, fee MontfaU-
con'j Tfifftrtation above cited. ' "
d Vid. Legat. Marcel, ad Athanaf. in Montfaiic. Nova
collec. tond.2,-

that

the 1 naif arian Controverfy. 205
that Eufebian council in his favour, and sbra*. iv.
the banifhment of Athanafius, he made no WV
doubt of being acknowledg'd and receiv'd
by the Church of Alexandria. But in
that he found himfelf difappointed. The
people of that Church were too fenfible
of the loft of their good Patriarch, and
the disturbance which had already rifen
from this incendiary, to admit him into
their communion e. The Emperor, upon
this, fummon'd him to Conftantinoplei
where, upon his delivering in a confeSiion
of faith, in terms lefs offenfive than his
firft propositions, but Still in an evafive and
uncatholick fenfe, and appealing withal to
the Searcher of hearts as the witnefs of his
integrity, or the avenger of his falfhood,
the indulgent Emperor was fo far impofed
upon by his prevarication, that he either
himfelf enjoin'd, or at leaft the Eufebians
depending on his favour, had threatned A-
lexander the BiShop of that Church with
force and violence, in order to get Arius
admitted the next day to his communion f.
The good Patriarch was refolute againft
compliance; and that very evening the

• Socrat. 1. 1. c. 37. Sozom. 1, 2. c. 29,
f Socrat. 1. 1. c. 38. Sozom.. !• 2. c. 29, 30. Theodorjt.
hxr. fab. J. 4. c. 1. Athanaf. ad Serap. de morte Arii §.2.
p. 341. item. Epift. Encycl. ad Epifc. J%ypt. & Lyb. §. 1.9.
p. 289.

hand

2 o 6* An Hiftorical account/?/
Serm. iv. hand of Providence did vifibly interpofe
^¦^Q^ to put an end to the contention, and took
3 3 . ' away the perfidious heretick who had be-
tray'd the dodrine of Chrift, by a death
anfwerable to his who formerly betray'd
his perfon, in that he burfi afiunder in the
midfi, and his bowels gufhed out s.
The Arian fadion however continued
to prevail much at Conftantinople ; and
tho' upon the death of Alexander, the Ca
tholicks had Strength enough to eled 'Paul,
an orthodox Bifhop, to fucceed him, yet his
banifhment was quickly procured; howe
ver it came to pafs that Eufebius of Nico
media, who greatly defircd to be fubftituted
in his roomh, could not get it effeded at
that time "l. The death of Conftantine in the
mean time occafion'd fuch a division of
the empire between his fonsk, that whilft
the Weftern Churches under Conftans and
the younger Conftantine, enjoy'd a perfed
peace and tranquility1, the Eaftern were
337. grievoufly aSflided by Conftantius, who
being thoroughly impofed upon by Arian
Stratagems, did openly oppofe the Nicene
faith, and proved a moft furious perfe-

8 Vid. Authores fupra laudat.
h Athanaf. Hift. Arianor. ad Monachos. §. 7. p. 34S.
1 Vid. Tillem. torn. 7. in S. Paul de Conftantinople.
fc Vid. Socrat. l.i. c. 38.
¦ Socrat. 1. 2. c. 2.

cutor

ttie'Lnmtmm Controverfy. 207
cutor of the Church of Chrift ra. It is Serm. iv:
doubted indeed by fome whether he meant ^^V^
the fame thing with Eufebius and the reft";
but it is certain his adions tended wholly
to their intereft, and to abolifh and extir
pate Orthodoxy wherever his authority -
could reach.
It would be tedious to explain the ma
nifold divisions, which after this arofe a-
mong the Arians themfelves, the various
councils which were holden by them, the
different forms of confeSIion which were
drawn up, fome more openly afferting the
blafphemies of Arius, others by no means
difclaiming them, and none of 'em pro-
feSIing the whole faith of the Church, but
leaving fome referve or fubterfuge for
their impiety.

•facies non omnibus una

Nee diverfa tamen, qualem decet effe fororum0.
The beginning of Confiantius's reign
was too much involv'd with other diSfi-

m Vid. omnes iftius asvi fcriptores.
" Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 3. contra Julian, p. 63, &c.)
exprejfes a great opinion of Conftantius's integrity and good mean
ing. And more plainly fpeaking of his favour to George of A-
lexandria, he has thefe words, 'OixuStui -j -^y $ao-tXio>i dsrxi-
TuTa" iro <£> *y? *«*• Ttjv xtstp'oTvtra, wo%pJfi@* -nit svXabstaV
xai y> %v it ea TaXvfisi itttSy, £itAeii ps/i s%uv, kXX' b x»T itnyvoi-
triv. Orat. 21. in laud. Athanaf p. 38/.
; Ovid Metaph. 1. 2. cutties,

2 o 8 An tiijtoncai A c c o u n ir of
Sermi, iv. elilties to hiader his concurrence with hi*
v-^rs' brethren in recalling Athanafius and the
3^8' other Bifhops from their banifhment p. But
the Eufebians (who appear'd more and
more favourable to the Arian principles)
had too much power in the Eaft to per
mit them to be long in quiet. The Bi-
335,, Shop of Conftantinople was again removed
by the decree of a fynod, and Eufebius
oi Nicomedia was adually inftall'd his fuc
ceSfor i. They not only revived the old
calumnies againft Athanafius, but added
new ones to them, and having by the au
thority of a fynod at Antioch placed an
other in the See of Alexandria, ih op
position to Athanafius, they ventured to
fpread their calumnies in the Weft by fend
ing accufations, againft him and the other
340. deprived Bilhops, to Pope Julius*, who
in full council f acquitted them from all
342. their calumnies, and treated them as in
nocent perfons ', after a juft examination
into their accounts of themfelves, as well

t Athanaf. Hift. Arianor. ad Monach. §.8. p. 349.
1 Socrat. 1. 2. c. 7. Soz. 1. 3. c. 4. Tillem. torn. 7. irt
S. Paul de Conftantinop.
' Athanaf. Hift. Arianor. ad Monach. §. 9.
' r Athanafius went to Rome in 339, according to Tillemonf,
(torn. 8. S. Atbanafe §. 34.) but in the year cf Gregory'} in-
trufion, 3^ according to Montfaucofly in vit. Arh. p. 39.
t Vid. JulTi Epift. fynod. apud Athanaf. Apol. contra Arian.
§.31. p. 15-0. as

- the Trinitarian Controverfy. % op
as thp teSHmony of the Alexandrian fynod Serm. iv;
with reSped to Athanafius. -¦ V^V
. Mean while JEufebius arid his partifans, H-
iiiftead of attending at this Roman , council
which themfelves had defired, . refblvedtp
adhere to that which they had lately held
at Antioch u, .wiiere laying afide 'Pifius, 34-ij
•who was the A^ti-bijhop beforementioned,
they appointed Qr£gory to take the bifhop
rick of Alexftn/ipa w. This was quickly
followed by thc;rdeath of Eufebius oi Ni- 34-21;
comedia, who. was now in poSfeSIion pf the
See oi Conftantinople x. Upon his death,
the Arians, who had placed him there a-
bout three years before, in oppofition to i\9i
Taid the, lawful Bifhop, to^jk care to fup-
ply fiis. place.,\wicii another of the fame
Sentiments, and proceeded to ordain Ma-
cedonius as his fucceSfor t. This created
-much diforder-and confufion in the city,
between the, oppofite followers of Paul
and Macedonius-i till at laft the fecular /
power interpofed, and carried it with vio
lence in favour of the latter 2. About the
fame time deputies were fent to Conftans
the Weftern Emperor, to" lay before him

" Socrat. 1. 2. c. 8. c
w Socrat. I. 2. c. io. Sozom. J. 3. c. f, 6.
* Socrat. 1. 2. C 12.
r Ibid.
* Socrat. I. 2. c. 13, 16. Sozom. 1,3. c. 7, cf.
-¦?'' P th<§

i i o ^ Hiftorical A c c b u n t of
Se^. iv, the corifeSiion of faith, which was agreed
^^V^^on by thefe. Eafiern hereticks*. But Con-
flans was the more confirmed in the ill o-
pinion he had conceiv'd of them, and per-
ceiv'd their, profecutions of the catholick
Bifhops to be perfedly malicious b.
Such was the ftate of the Church, with
relation to this controverfy, towards the
middle of the fourth century, when the
rife of 'Photinus firft, and ^ then Macedo-
nius, gave it a different 'turn7, of which I
purpofe to lay a fuller account before youj
•when God Shalt grant us '&6thdr Opportu
nity together. °'7 ;
:• : ; Oi r, It'..'. . '.
~ ^T'owhotfi, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft,
"' , be all honour and glory, now and
' ' henceforth for evermorei\ Amen.
h'j ¦ < '¦ : . r i>\tl , ¦'
rV"! ¦- ¦' ". V. . — : — : — t-tt  :  r-
*' Athanaf. de fynod. Arim. & Seleuc. §r if. Tg'.'ijjl
Socrat. J. 2. c. 18. Sozom. 1. 3. c. 10. , . j. .;
_t l Sozom. ibid, i .;.-." • . „

ocU

SEJG

the Trinitarian Controverfy.

211

SERMON V.
Preach'd March j, 1723-4.

V.J .':! /
E~ have .feen the beginning and serai, v:
incrcafe of Arianifm in the ^YSA
fourth 1 century-^ tho' fomewhat
difguifed and palliated by Eu
febius' oi Nicomedia, and his
,partifans; we have feen what encourage
ment they found from the Eaftern Empe
ror Conftanfius'.; whilft the', Churches of
the Weft, under his brother Conftans, did
peaceably and uniformly retain the ancierit
profeSIion of the catholick faith..
Before the middle of this fourth centu
ry, there was jforne disturbance in the
Eaftern parts of Europe > occafion'd by
:. - -. P 2, Thotinui

in An Hiftoricdl A c c o v n t of
Serm. v. Photinus the Bifhop of Sirmium in Illy-
\SY^ ricum. He had been brought up under
Marcellus of Ancyra a, and had fo efta-
blifh'd his reputation as an orthodox Di
vine, that his promotion to this bifhop
rick gave an univerfal ^fatisfadion b. The
herefy, which he advanced after this, is not
conftantly reprefented by the ancierits in
one and the fame manner, he being fome
times faid to have revived 'the herefy ©f
Sdbelliust, at other times that of Ebion*,
or Paul of Samofatae, and at other times,
laftly, to have advanced the fame herefy
which was afterwards efpoufed by Neftori-
us{. And no doubt there was Something
in his fcheme which concurr'd with every
one of thefe herefies. He deny'd any real
diftindion of perfons in the Godheads;
and fo far he agreed with Sabellius. But
he deny'd withal the perfonal union of the
divine and human nature11, and fo he dif-

• Hilar, fragm. 2. §. 19. col. ii$f. Ed. Bened. Socrat.1
H. E-. 1. 2. 0 18. Sulp. Sev. 1. 2. c. fi.
b Vincent. Lirinenf. commonit. cap. 16.
' Hil. frag. 12. Theod. hser. fab 1. 2. c. 11.
d Hil. de Trin. 1. 7. §. 3. col. 916. D. Hieron. de fcriptl
Ecclef. c. 107.
e Vid. Epiph. ha:r. 71. §. 1, 2.
f Vid. Mar. Mercat. torn. 2. p. 128, 312, 313. Garner.7
diflert. de Neftorjo. Tillemont. Les Ariem §.37.
* Vincent. Linn. cap. 17.
Photinus-***-. a Sabellio quidem in unione diflentiens.
Sulp. Sev. facr. Hift. 1. 2. c. gj.

fcr'd

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 213:
fer'd from the Sabellians, (who carried Serm. v^
this union fo high that they were term'd ^-^YK*
Patripaffians,) and agreed rather with Nef-
torius. Yet in this he differ*! likewife
from Neftorius, that he did not acknow
ledge the eternal Word, to be a perfon
diftindly fubfifting from the Father1, but
only the divine virtue or power of the Fa
ther himfelf, infpiring or ading upon Jefus,
which feems rather to fall in with the he
refy of Paulus Samofatenusk, and differs
not much from thofe of Ebion and Arte
mon, who confider'd Jefus as no other in
nature than a mere man.
Altho' his dodrine was immediately re
ceiv'd with deteftation and horror by men
of learning and penetration, yet fuch was
the popularity he had acquired by his ready
parts and dexterity, that the cenfures paf- 347.
fed upon him by the catholick Bifhops1 349.
had fo little outward effed, that he con-
tinued in poffeffion of his bifhoprick m, till

' Epiphan. tea. 71. §. 4. Sozom. 1. 4. c. 6. Socrat. 1. 2.'
c. 19.
K See Serm. III. p. 145-.
' Either in the counciVof Sardica, A. D. 347. Epiph. hser. 7 1.
§. 1. or rather in another held the fame year at Milan. >• Hilar.
frag. 2. col. 1296 Ed. Ben. (fee Tillemont'* Hiftory of the
Arians, note 39, 40.) but certainly in another council held either
at Sirmium, or at Milan, A. D. 349. Hilar, ut fupr. vid. Sc
annotat. ibid.
" Hilar, frag. 2. §. 21. col, 1299.

P 3 fome

% 1 4 An Hiftoridal A c c o u N "fr of
Serm. v. fome years afterwards the favourers of A-
W^ rianifm themfelves were fo offended at the
groflhefs oi his pdiitions, that they depofed
551, him in a. council held in his own city of
Sirmium\ and. confuted him. in a folemn
difputation?. He Seeriis not to have . had
many followers in the Eaft, where by the
time of Theodorit his herefy was perfedly
extinguifh'dP. But in the Weft they were
J37?. excepted, hy Gratian the Emperor, from
that indulgence or toleration* which was, at
his entrance upon the empire of the Eaft*
• allowed to molt other feds that : called themn
felves Christians %c<\ And this might give
ground for the council Of Aquileia to com
plain of the affeinblies which they held in
'381, Sirmium, contrary to law r. And we find
fome little mention of them -. afterwards f,
unlefs it Should be faid that the Arians
- ; are fometimes1 defign'd under the name: Of
P'hot'mians,: becaufe the Catholicks made
little difference , between thofe herefies
which debafed the Son of God to the con
dition of a creature, whatever fort of crea?,
lure they might make of him. :
t i_, •'. — :  ~  ll\ * -,;-'..a'' v.1- '. — f
" Socrat. I. 2. c. 29. ? Cap. 30. versus finem.
f Theodor. hair, -hb.'l 2. c, t, 1. '¦ ¦< ¦ "'.•>:'. '
9 Socrat. H. E. 1. f. c. 2. Sozom. I.7; C. 1.
• ', See Tillemontfe; Hiftory of the, Ariaps.. §.47.
f. Sidonius ApoIIinar. J. 6. Epift. 12. Concil. Labbe tom.al
p. 1270, 1271. tom.4: p. 1013.' . ... v .< '
¦- I Tillemont. Hift. of the Arians, §. 47.
cT In

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 1 <j
In the mean time, whilft the affair , of Serm. V.
Photinus was depending, we fearn that V-'~VN"4
Conftans, the orthodox Emperor ! of the
Weft, ufed the intereft hejhad with his
brother Conftantius u, for the calling of a
general council : which met accordingly 347>
at Sardica^. The great appearance of the
Weftern Bifhops, together with Athanafius
and the reft who were excluded from the
Eaft, foon convinced the Arjanizers that
they could not here infult as they had
done in Afta, and therefore they withdrew
by night to Philippopolis, under the Jurif-
didion of Conftantius, and there, held a
feparate atfembly of their own1, in which
they fallaciously affumed to themfelves the
Stile and title of the council of Sardicar,
The confequence was this, that the two
councils aded in dired oppofition to each
other. The deposition of Athanafius and
the reft was reverfed at Sardicax and anew
confirm'd at Philippopolis7'. The chiefs
of each council -were anathematized by the
other*, and the State of the Church ap
pear'd then in the utmoft diforder.

* Athan. Apol. ad Imperat. Conft. §. 4. p. 297. Ed. Bened.
w Athanaf. Apolog.. contra Arianos. §. 36. p. 174.
* Hilar, frag. 2. §.7. col. 1288. Socrat. 1.2.. c. 2p. So?.'
1. 3. c. II,
y Hil. frag. 3. t
% Hilar. Socrat. & Sozom. ut fupra.
* Ibid. vid. & de Condi. Sardic. Athanaf in Apologia
contra Arianos.
P 4 Conftans

1 1 6 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. v. Conftans the WefterftErnpttot, who had
Sx^V^ occafion'd the calling of this council, was
not to be thus eluded, but fent exprefly to
his brother Conftantius, to demand the re-
* [348. ftoration of thofe deprived Bifhops whom the
council had acquitted ; with which demand
the Eaftern Emperor was not in a condition
to refufe compliance bi or perhaps he might
relent a little upon account of that Arian
treachery, which had lately been deteded
at Antioch. Certain it is, he ufed repeat-
§49. ed inftances with Athanafius to haften his
return to his bifhoprick, which was now
facilitated by the death of the intruder*.
But it was not long that the Church
was permitted to enjoy fuch full profpe-
350. rity. The death of the Emperor Conftans,
arid the defeat of Magnentius afterward^,
352. put Conftantius in poffefiibn of the whole
einpire, and fo left him at liberty to ob
lige the Arians, and to Opprefs the Catho
licks, not only in the Eaft (as he had hi
therto done) but likewife in the Weftern
parts of the world. A council was quick
ly, ly convened at Aries, where the affeflbrs,
by manifold injuries and open violence,

" Socrat. I. 2. c. 22, 23. Sozom. 1. 3. c. 20; vid. & Til-
lem. Memoires torn. 8. S. Athanafe §.5*4.
c Montf. vit. Athanaf. p. 44. & Athanaf. Apb'l. contr.
Arian. p. 170, &c. Tillerh. S. Athanaf. %.g&.
1 were

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 217
were forced to condemn St. Athanafius, serm. vj
and renounce his communion 4 ; and Pau- ^OT*-'
Unus Bifhop of Treves, for daring to op-
pofe it, incurr'd both deposition and ba-
nifhmente. The council of Milan fol-
low'd within two years afterwards, where 3J5-
when the Arians infifted upon a confirma
tion of the fame Sentence againft Athana
fius, (which was now the Standing teft of
their party) the Catholicks pleaded the ne
cessity of fubferibing firft and fettling the
confeffion of faith, before they proceeded
to the cenfure of particular perfons. The
Arians, who knew that would too eafily
expofe their defigns, found means to ad
journ the council to the Emperor's palace f;
and then partly by impofing on the other
Bifhops with falfe pretences s, and partly
intimidating them with the Emperor's au
thority11, they not only procured. a con
firmation of the fame fentence1, but like-
Wife a formal declaration of the Arian
principles, which they publifh'd irt the form

d Athanaf. Apol. ad Impcrat. Conftant. §. 27. p. 312. &
Hil- ad Conft. 1. 1. §.8.
c Hilar, frag. 1. §. 6. col. 1282. Athanaf. Apol. de fuga
§. 4. p-322. & Hift. Arianor. ad Monachos. §.33. p. 363.
f Hilar, ad Conft. 1. 1. §. 8. col. 1222. Sulp. Sev. 1. 2. c. ff.
* Ruffin. H. E. l.io. c.20.
"Athanaf. Hift. Arianor. ad Monach. §.'33. p. 363.
: Vid. prater fupra dici. Hilar, ad Conftant. 1. 1. col.
>224.
Of

2 1 8 An Hiftorical; A c c o u n t of
;Serm.v. of a letter under the name of Conftantius i
v-0/^>-» that if it met with approbation they might.
own it: themfelves , or \otherwife might
throw the odium on the Emperor \, Af
ter which thofe of the Bilhops and inferior
¦ :. Clergy who had kept out of the palace,,
and refufed to join in their meafures, as
Eufebius of Vercelles, Lucifer of Cagliari,
and fome others, were Sentenced into ba-
nifhment, which laftcd thro' the reign of
Conftantius1. /
So that now came on the time for the
Arians to propofe their herefy without
difguife or artifice1". They had hitherto
equivocated in the various forms of con
fession, which were drawn up by them,
and tho' they had perfecuted the zealous
profeffors of the Nicene faith, yet they did
it under pretence of fiditious crimes of
quite another nature, and excepting Mar-*
cellus, chofe rather to accufe them of inv
morality than herefy. But now the mask
was taken off, Conftantius, by their insti
gation, appear'd openly in the intereft of
Arianifm11, and exerted his imperial au
thority to eftablifh and confirm it<*. Thp

k Sulp. Sev. 1. 2. c. ff. ' Athanaf. ip locis fupra citat.
m Tillcm. Hift. of Arians, §.5-1,
" Vid, Lucifer, ad, Conftant. pro Athanaf. 1. 2. in magn3
Biblioth. Patr. Edit. Col. Agrip.'idiS. torn. 4. p. 143.
0 Lucifer de non conven. cum Ha:ret. p. 1/9. & mori-
endum pro Filio Dei. p. 1 79, gec COllfe-

the Trinitarian' Controverfy. 1 1 o
confequence of which was a moft grievous Serm. v.
perfecution, defcribed at large by the wri- v-OfN-*
ters of thofe times p, in the courfe of which
the zealous Catholicks labour'd under hea
vy oppressions; fuch as were wavering or
weak in the faith, were drawn into apof-
tacy; and even fome who had Stood the
Shock of diverfe fevere trials, yet yielded
after all to the violence of the temptation,
as the famous Hofius of Corduba in Spain, 3 57-
unwilling to endure the fatigues of banifh-
ment in the extremity of old agei, and
Pope Liberius himfelf, too eagerly defirous
of being reftored to his Pontificate*.
In the mean time it ought to be remem-
ber'd, that St. Hilary Bifhop of Poibtiers,
and feveral other Bifhops of the Weft, par
ticularly in Britain and Gaul, had diftin-
guifh'd themfelves /with an uncommon
zealf, and tho' fome of them, e'er this,
were driven :jinto banifhment, (as St. Hi
lary in particular, who by his refidence in
the Eaft acquired fuch a perfed infight inT

P Vid. prater alios Athanaf. Hift. Arianor. ad Monach.
§.31, &c. & Lucifer, ut fupra.
* Some have doubted of the truth of this fait. But they feem
to aB moft reafonably, who only exoufe it as the effeS of dotage.
., ¦ 1 nimium feculi fui amantem. Hilar, de fynod. §. 87.
col. 120 1. iuifi fatifcente xvo (etenim centenario major
fuit, ut S. Hilarius in epiftolis refert) deliraverit. Sulp. Sev.
1.2. c.f4.
' Hilar, frag. 6. §..4, f, 6.
'Hilar, de fynod; §."», 3.
to

1 2d At Hiftorical Account of
serm. v. to the ftate of this controverfy, as gave
%sy\-t the greater value to his writings upon that
fubjed) yet their Churches feem' generally
to have retain'd the ancient faith, and re
jeded the Arian cominunion. All parts
indeed of the Eaft as well as Weft, fur
nished fome eminent examples ' of fuch as
openly profeffed the truth, or at leaft chofe
rather to fpend their lives in folitude than
be tempted to renounce itu. In Egypt it
kept better footing w, than in moft other
parts of the Eaft, till forcing Athanafius
356. again to fly for fhelter to the deferts*, the
Arians thruff George of Cappadocia into
the See oi Alexandria?, who carried Ari-
anifm fo high, as even to infift upon the
re-ordination of all thofe Bifhops in his
Province, who had been formerly ordain'd
by Catholicks z, and bring thofe, who had
the courage to be orthodox, under the
greatest oppreSlionsa. So that whilft mat
ters were inanaged in this manner, there
was good ground for' Epiphanius'^ fufpi-
cion, that the generality of thofe who com-

¦ Vid, Athanaf Apolog. ad Conftan. §. 32. p. 316.
™ Athan. Hift. Arianor. ad Mon. §. 20. p. iff.
" Ibid, §. 78. p. 391. .....
31 Athan. Apol. ad Conftan. §. 32. p. 316. .See alfo .Dr.
Cave's Life of Athanafius. feci. 10.
T Sozom. 1. 3. c. 7. & I.4. c. 10.
* Athanaf. Apol. ad Conflan. § 31. p. jig.
I See Cave's Life of Athanafius, .fed. xo.

plied

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 221
plied with the iniquity of the times, did serm. v."
it rather, upon fecular motives than any v*oTV
real convidionb.
The ftate of the Church was no better
at Conftantinople ,and the country adjoin
ing, where Macedonius having ufurp'd the
See (after the deposition of the catholick
Patriarch, who quickly died in banish
ment,) and being withal fupported by the
Emperor's authority, carried on the perfe*
cution with the utkioft rage and violence,
difguis'd .under the fpecious colour and ap
pearance of law, not only demolishing
the Churches of the Catholicks, and driv
ing them out of the very towns, but even
adding . the farther penalties of tortures,
confifcation and hanifhment, and Some
times even dragging them by force to his
aficmblies c.
< • v Thevhereticks, who were thus far agreed in
.oppreSfingand pulling down the Church, af
ter that bufinefs was done, and Arianifm eve
ry where triumph'd over Orthodoxy, began
now to fubdivide among themfelves, and
fpendtheir fury upon one another. There
were fome of thofe who difliked the term 0^0-
b<h@1, that yet were willing to come as near
it in found as poflible, and therefore aSferted

k Epiphan. hser. 69. §. 12. p. 736.
5 Socrat. H. E. \. 2. c. 27, 38. Sozom. 1. 4. c. 2, 10".

the

222 An Hiftorical Account of
sekm, v. the Son to be lfAoiva'i©i, or of like fubftanee
VYV Wjitri the Father 4. ¦ This term1 is faid to
have been firft ufed by Macedonius*, but
was quickly /embraced by many Others of
that party f; and indeed:. the fame thing in
effedhad been long ago advanced by Eu
febius of Nicomedia, at 'the firft: rife of
Arius : fr Oni whofe rnanner of expVedlion fe
we may judge what fort of fimilitude; it
was that they intended ;t namely, fuch; on
ly wherein it is poflible for the higheft
and: moft excellent creature to refernble;his
Creator h..-: : <-;•¦< -:if.-i;.v. ¦
Yet even this exprefliort' approaehrd too
near the Catholicks for: fome of the 'more
rigid Arians to digeft it. . . A : likenefs in
fubfiance,. or (as 'it was fometimes1 ex^-
prefs'd) ,a likenefis, xxtii tzvlvto,-, in alhthmgs
. they thought to be, as it really is* -too
high a charader for any creature. Aetius,
who had firft been a Deacon in the Church

d Sozom. l.i. c, 18. vid. & Suicer. Thef. Ecclef. in voce
cpotto-t®^. * 'Opuoioufiov otvTt too" opotsmtt Grgofi-Xivotja-i. Theodor. hxfj
fab. I.4. c.f. ¦'..,].
, ''Vid, Epiphan. jia:r. 73. §. 1. p. 845*.
£ 11 'Ovx ix Tni itr.xs ouitou ¦ ••xXXct . ¦ 'vrsoov rsj Qu-
trit xat Ttj ahtapsi, . ytpoi TsXsiav apiotirr/ra S^Sso-tUi ts xal o\tc&-
p,ini( tou srssroojx.or©- yst'opitoy. Eufeb. Nicomed. in Epiftoll
ad- Paulinum Tyrj -apud Theodorit. H. E. 1. 1. c. &.
* Vid. Ruffin. H. E. 1. 10. c.if..
'' Theodor. H. E. 1. 2. c. 6. & hair. fab. !. 4. c.f. Philoftorg.
1. 4. c. 8. vid. & Suicer. in voce ip,oitrt<&.

of

the Trinitarian Controverfy . 2 2 $
hi- Antioch \ was now the favourite of sErm,v.
George of Alexandria, and openly declar- V^W
ed1 for that dodrine which had been taught
by Arius and his partifans at the beginning,
not merely that the Son is m*8a-i(§L m of
another fubftance, but that he is g| a* 6W«p
made out of nothing, and as their mock
council at Philippopolis had already" de
clared, ai^oj,^, t& 'srctt^t, unlike to the
Father: which tho' it were fometimes un
derstood : of an unlikenefs in fubftance',
without- denying a refemblance of attri
butes, yet it feems at firft to have been
propofed- by him, and it was afterwards
explained by his followers p, when they had
gain'dthe afcendant, as intending an entire
diSIimiKtude in allfefpedsi, unlike in will
and attributes, as Well as effence or
fiance. ¦

" Sbcrat.l. 2. c. 3f.
1 Ibid, item Sozorri. l.vi. c. 12. vid. & Epiphan. hasr. 76*.'
5.. 'a. - -¦ •* - -'- j- - ¦ .
m Vid. Suicer. in voc. hpo{sm&> & cpowi(&.
. "Socrat. I.2. c.20. --,_-..
0 'Avopotoy Toy utov.. , xxi iv TavTov s'tvai rvj B-iirttrt zrpot;
Toy.ytarspa\ Epiph. hser. 76., §. 2. p. 914. ptihplav tx.siv opot-
itrtra xar iuaiat, Harmenop. de feclis fedt. 13. citante Suiccro
ubi fupra.
r 'Ovxsti sttixou7tTovTii, aXXa kva$avo%v Xsyotrfi,- in xaTet
TmtTa ktopot©" i Ji®° Ta sraTpt, ov pytev xcctcc t\v «r, kx-
Xa o\ r.ai xaTot ttjv /ZouMtnt, Socr. H. E. 1. 1. c.-4f.
' JlarnXSn; Uvopoi<&.m^ Tea ar«TfJ, xal xar' ouj£va -tpootoy opol@*.
-Athanaf. de fynod. Arim^Sc Seleuc. §.31. p. 748= difli-
milem per omnia Patri. Auguft. de Hseref cap. ^4.
T This

224 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.v. This. was Arianifm, in perfedipnj> and
t-^'W tho' the principle was, doubtkfs, enter-
tain'd by many others , before Acpfus, yet
being now more openly avow'd,, its vota
ries were formed into a jdifiindfeft, :from
their chief leader callcdAe tians, ^and from
the nature, of their dodrine Ex.utf^tians"
and Awmaans*, tilf alter wards, -when Eu
nomius grew more considerable, , /hyjbeing
advanced to, the epifeopal dignity, -and in-
duftriouSly propagating this pernicipusi he-r
refy, they were from him more;,, gene
rally term'd, Eunomians$ tho' Sometimes
from their fubdivillons into djifferent par
ties, and other fpecial .circumftanqe^i^hey
had yet mpre discriminating appellations c.
The grand argument of Aetiius (who? for
his hold difputings v about , facred myfteries,
was firnamed the Atheifi) was the. .fame
which has ever been, the capital topick of
iHAridnsI namely, the Father's being felf-
exifient, pr^norig^nafeyy, which was iirged
. to deftroy all fimilitude of iubftance be-

* Becaufe they faid the Sort teas '*| ovx Strew. Pr«ferrAu^
thorn fupra Itwdat. Vid. Suicer. Thefaur. Ecclef. invocei\\c.
I&VT101. r Suicer in voce kvopiot©*.
' In voce ivvlpt®*.
y Vid. Socrat. & Sozom. ubi fupra.
w *«o-*n 5—— »ft '" oXtaT'ai ti'kymvroy epiouy t7vat r£
ytnira. Epiph. hser. 76. §. 6. p. 918. Ita & Eunom. apud
D. Bafil. contra Eunom. 1. 1. p. 10, »o, 26. Ed.Parif. 1618,
tween

ihe Trinitarian Controverfy. n$
tween him and the Son, who was begot- serm. v.
ten and derived from him. v^ysy
This reaforiing,7 however conclusive up
on Arian principles, was neverthelefs eafi
ly anfwer'd by the Catholicks8, who ob
ferv'd, that the charaders of begotten and
unbegotten, felf-ex'iftent and derived, do
not neceffarily imply any diverfity of efi
fence, but rather an equality of nature, in
which they are diftinguiuYd by this diffe
rent mode of their exiftenee, thefe being
the charaders of perfonality, and not of
fubftance. But yet the fallacy was fo fuc
cefsfully urged by Aetius at that time, and
it had indeed fo much force, wherever
the main grounds of Arianifm were ad
mitted, that he got- his dodrine not only 3 5 7.
ratified at Sirmiumb, in that impious con-
feflion which is recited by Athanafius0,
and Hilary d, but farther confirm'd Some
time afterwards by a fynod held at Anti
och, where being more particularly fup
ported by Eudoxius, who had now got 358,
poffeffion of that See, and Ac arius oi Pa-
leftine in Cafarea, he had the fatisfadion
of feeing the terms ojm.ouai^ and o/jt,oixcri(Gk,

' Bafil. ibid. p. 19. Auguft. deTrin. 1. y. c. 3,6. Damafcen.
de fid; orthod. 1. 1. c. 9. 8c 1. 4. c. 7. vid. Sc comment, ibid.
b Socrat. l.a. c. 30.
c Athan. de fynod. p. 744.
* Hilar, de fynod. §. 1 1. col. 1 if 6, &c.

equally

i%6 Art Hiftorical Account of
Serm. v. equally condemn'de. They argued after-
V-''*Y"V wards againft both from the fame r^afOP
which the other Arians had urged againft
one ; namely, that they are not to be
found in Scripture?; and w^re for drop
ping the word fubftam^ altogether, tho'
they confented to acknowledge the Son
like the Father according to the Scriptures $.
By which they meant no more than our
prefent Arians do by fubfcribing to arti
cles in fuch a fenfe as is agreeable to Seripr
ture; which was bringing the point down
to their own notions and interpretations
of Scripture, and fo made their dodrine
(as Nazianzen* complains) variable with
every wind, capable of fitting the groSfeft
contradidions, and refembling a pidure,
which is made to look towards every fpec-
tator. From henceforth we are to look upon
Bafil of Ancyra and his afibciates, who
aSTerted the o/u,oixmov, to be no. other than
femi (or half) Arians, as Epiphanius l ex
prefly calls them, becaufe they did: not
run into the broader blafphemies-of Arius:

c Sozom. H. E. I.4. c. 12.
f Athan. de fynod. §. 36, 37. p. 7Ji,7f2.
E Athan. ut fupra.
" Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 386. vid. & annot. Elise Cre-
tenf. p. 789.
'' Epiph. hser. 73. p. 844,84*.

<:¦')

tho"

the Trinitarian Controverfy. I if
tho* to fpeak ftridly that name feems to serm. v.
be more properly reftiahi'd to a diftind ^/VN-'
branch of thete fed which fprwng from
them afterwards; k. Thefe Semi-ariams were
adive enough in their endeavours to fup-
prefs this growing boldnefs of the Anoma'-
ans. They immediately condemn'd theni
in a fynod at Ancyra1, and drawing up a
declaration of anathemas againft them*
they ient a deputation from their own body
to Conftantius, then at Sirmium1*, where
they obtaifi'd to have their confeSllon fign'd
by fuch Bifhops as were about the court;
among whom were fome who had before
this declared themfelves for the oppofite
party, and foon afterwards drew up an- 3 59*
Other eonfeffion whkh plainly favour'd it,
with the addition only of one foftning
ckwife, that the Son was like the Father
in ail things according to the Scripture s°j
where tho' this phrafe [in all things'] was
(in their fenfe of it) explain'd away by the
Other, yet they inferted it purely to ob-

k Vid. Suicer. in Voce 'At!p,oi<&'.
•Epiph. her. 73. §, id. p. %f6. Hilar, de f^noi. §. ia,
col. iij-8-.
"" Vid. prater fupra laudat. Sozom. 1. 4. c. 13.
n Hilar, de fynod. §ii-j. col. i\6-j. Sozom. 1. 4* c. if.
* Qpoiov to) ystnarayri kuroi zrarfl xara toe. yrttp-r 
apoiey y Xtyopiiy Tov.utoy toi fcrfltrpi k«t« TratToc «$ & at aytat
ytatfA-Xiytisiri «' xat fjlbmtiirt. Ath. de fyn, §. 8, p. 721,722.

Q, 2 lige

218 An Hiftorical Ac eov kt of
Serm. v. lige the Emperor p, who fo far favonr'd
^-OP*-' the Semi-arians at this time, as to Write tO
Antioch for the depofition of Eudoxius %
and confent to the banifhment of Aetius j
Eunomius, and other heads of the Ano-
maan fadion1.
359. After this it was agreed to have two
councils called, one at Rimini- in Italy for
the Weftern Bifhops; the other for the
Eafterns at Seleucia in Ccele-Syria. The
council of Rimini confifted of more than
four hundred Bifhops of the Weji, who
notwithftanding the endeavours- which had
been hitherto ufed to jdraw or drive them
into Arianifm, did yet generally agree to
condemn the Arian herefy, depofing them
that patronized it, and ratifying the con-
feSfion which had been formerly drawn
up at Nice{- The Arians however had
propofed a different confeflion : and both
fides fent their deputies to notify the mat
ter to the Emperor. The catholick depu
ties being young and unexperienced per
fons, did not conform themfelves to the

- p AtKanaf' de fynbdi Arim- & Seleuc. §. 8. p. 722. Epi
phanius likewife intimates their infmcerity. Hser. 73. §. if.
p. 862. . : • ;'-,;.•",
q ^ozom. 1. 4. c. 14. -¦ ' ¦• -'¦;¦••
~~r- Philoftorg.. lib. 4.- cap. 8.
f .Athan. de fynod. Arim- & Seleuc. §.'9: p. 722. & ad
African:- §.3. p. S93. Hilar, frag. 7. col. 1341. Socrat. 1.:.
c. 37. Sozom. I.4. c. 17.

difcreet

the Trinitarian Controverfy. up
difcreet diredions which the council gave serm. v.
them1, but partly by the ill ufage they re- v^V^>
ceived, and partly by the falfe pretences
of the Arians, they were feduced to re
voke all that had been done at Rimini,
to communicate with thofe whom the
council had condemn'd, and to Sign a new
confeSllon, ; in which the word fubftance
was entirely omitted v, and the Son only
declared (agreeably to the fallacy already
mention'd) to be like the Father according
to the Scriptures.
This conqueft being made over the de
puties, Conftantius quickly fent his orders
for the other Bifhops of the council to
concur with them w ; who having at firft
withftood the propofal, did yet yield at
laft, partly thro' fear of banifhment, and
other oppressions, and partly for want of
understanding either the terms or the tranf-
adions of the Eaftx, (which: were artfully
mifreprefented to 'em, as if barely drop
ping the word fubftance would have re
stored the peace of the Church,) but efpe-
cially in confideration of the offer which

. * See their directions, apud Athanaf de fynod. Arim. & Seleuc.
§. io„ p. 724. & § ff, p.. 768. Confer. Sulpic. Sever. Hift.
Sacr. lib. 2. c. f-j.
"Athanaf. ad African. §. 3. p. 893. Hilar, frag. 8, 9. col.
1346, 8cc. Sulpic. Sever. Hift. facr. 1. 2. c. J9.
w Ath. de fyn. §. 30. p. 747.
f Ruffin. 1. 10. alias 1. c. 21.

Q_ 3 WAS

t jo An Hiftorical Act o u n t of
serm. v. was made them by the oppofite party, to
\*>SY\J join with their anathemas againft the prin
cipal blafphemies oi Arius, and to reject the
word a,v6/u,0i(&, as well as 6/*Bs«n(§L. I fay,
influenced by thefe motives, many of the
moft diftinguifiVd Catholicks were drawn
into a compliance, and both fides imagin'd
the decisions of the council to have fa-
vour'd them*. Yet after this fuch depu'
ties were difpatch'd to the Erriperor tb
give account of their proceedings, as made
no fcrupfe of communicating with the
Anomceans % who made fuch advantage by
this concurrence, that they even forced
the Seminarians, however zealous for a
fikenefs of. fubftance, to fubfcribe the con-*
feSSion of Ariminum, and fo, in effed, to
give up the dodrine for which they moft
contended b.
Such was the unhappy refult of the coun*
cil of Ariminum. But they who had been
thus over-reach'd in the council, could
not long afterwards continue under the;
miftake. The Arians quickly boaftedc of
1 D. Ambrof. de-fid, 1. 3. c. 16. alias 7. col. \fiy. Edit,
Bened. D. Auguft. in opere imperfelio contra Julianum. 1. 1.
c, 7f,j6. tom- Jo. col. 919. Ed. Bened. D. Hieron. in Lu-
ciferian. tom. 4. par. 2. col. 300. Ed. Bened. Sozom. 1. 4.
C. 19. Sulpic. Sev. ut fupra.
" Hilar, frag. 10. §. 2. col. 135-0. confer, annotat. ibid.
b Hilar, contra Conftan. §. if, 26. col. 12/0, 12/6. Soz,'
H.E.I.4.C.23, * Hieron. in Luciferian. torn. 4. par. 2. col. 300. their

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i%\
their treacherous conqueft : arid the whole Serm. V.^
world (as St. Jerm* fpeaks) Bdth grieved
and was Jhrprized to filid itfelf become'
Arian unawares. The catholick BiShops*
who were abfent or not commenting, ex
prefly declared themfelves againft this cri
minal compliances and dlfowh'd the com
munion of the compilers. And thfc great-
eft part of them that had cortcurr'd, did
afterwards become fefifible of their Weak-
nefs and Ifidiftrfetfoh, either adually Shun
ning, Ot at feaft bewailing their rfiisfor-
ttihe to be thtts efrtarigled in, the Arian
communion f.
Whilft thefe matters W*ere agitated in
the Weft, it ought to be remembred that
the EafteM Bifhops were fittiffg at Sekiicia.
Among them indeed the majority were
Semi-arians, and frorrf. the averfion they
had coftcelved againft the AnomaaHs, feem
airftoft to have become Catholicks, ap
proving of the comlcll of Nice in every
thing but the wbrd dpt(s&ai&,£, and (if
Theodorit be right) defending even that,
afterwards, before the Emperor h.

d Ingemuit tows' orbis, & Afianrtm Ci effe miratus eft.
Hieron. iff Lucif. ut fupra.
c Viii. Hilar, frag", i^. cor. 13/3, &c.
f Hieron in Luciferian. vid. & Hflai*. frag. 12, 13.
e Athanaf. de fynod. Arfrri. {£ iel'euc. §. ii. p. 726. Hilar.
contra Conftan. §. 12. col. T2^8. Socrat. H. E, I. 2. c. 39.
* Thpodor. H..E. 1.2. c.i-j.

%+ Yet

2 } i An Hiftorical A c c ,o u n i-of
Serm. v. Yet certain it. is, the Anqmaans, tho'de-
^-OP^* pofed l by the council, idid io cunningly play
their part both at Seleueia arid [Conftantino
ple, (deferting Aetius their leader, anddif-
fembling their real fentiments, rejeding the
term aVo^oiigL as well as 6Juoi«'cri@t,k, and
acknowledging a likenefs, tho' not pi fub
ftance; fo cunningly (I fay), they play.'d
their part,) that they turn'd the edge of
the Emperor ,, .againft the Semi-arian fac
tion x, and meeting with - the firft deputies
of the council of Rimini, drew them into
that, compliance which was mention'd be
fore, and which was quickly followed by
the general concurrence, firft of the Wef
tern, and after of the Eaftern Bifhops.
Whilft things ran thus fmoothly on the
fide of the groffer Arians, among whom
Acacius of Cafarea appear'd now to be
chief, we are not fo wonder, if they held
360. another council at Conftantinople"1, where
giving up Aetius to banifhment and the
Emperor's difpleafure", they, managed other

'¦ Athan." ubi fupra Socrat. 1.2. c. 40.
H Athanaf de Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. §.29. p. 74S. Wheri
Hilary charged them with inconfifiency for rejecting both thefe terms,
they replied that he was like the Father, but not like, -God :
which anfwer encreafing his furpriz.e,;. they went en, that he was
begotten by his will, but not of his fubftance. Hilar, contra
Conftan. §..14. col. 1249, 1270.
' Socrat. !. ^.,0.41. Theod. 1. 2. c. 27.
m Socrat, Ibid. Sozom. I. 4. c. 24. ,
J Sozom. ibid. matters

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 233
matters as they pleafed themfelves,. depo- Serm. v.
fing the chiefs of the oppofite party °, not ^W
under pretence of herefy, but crimes of
another kind, filling up their Sees with
fuch men as they approved p, and rigoroufly
exading fubfcriptions to the creed of Ri-
minii; but with this addition exprefled,
that no mention Should be made either of
fubftance or hypofiafis*. But whether it
were that they mistook their men, or that
Acacius proved falfe to the caufe which
he appear'd to efpoufe, the effed ought to
be afcribed to the good Providence of God,
who for preferving his truth in this time
of general apoftacy, provided that among
the new-promoted Bifhops there might be
fome who proved zealous affertors of the
catholick caufe f: tho' there were others
who were no lefs plainly Anomaans, as
Eudoxius who was translated to Conftanti
nople in the room of Macedoniusr, and
Eunomius promoted to the See of Cy-
zicusa, who aSferted the Anomaan doc
trine with fuch freedom and boldnefs that

0 Sozom. ibid. Socrat. 1.2. c.42. Philoftorg. 1. f. c. 1.
r Ibid.
« Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 387. Sozom. I.4. c. 26.
' Socrat. 1. 2. c. 41.
rVid. Philoftorg. If. c. 1. & de Acacio,' vid. Epiphan.'
haer. 73. §.28. p. 876.
' Socrat. 1. 2. c. 43. Sozom. 1, 4, c.26.
£ Theodor. \.z. c. 27.
he

234 Ah Htftdrkal Account */
serm.v. he incurt'd the difpleaSUre of the Impe-
^Y^ tor w, and being depofed by a fynod frorii
his Bifhoprick *, was afterwards conderrin'd
to various banlfnments*, and defervirtg ff om
henceforth to be confider'd as the head Of a
diftind herefy, he gifew fo audacious in pro*
pagating his impieties* as hot Orily to re-*
baptize both Catholicks arid Semi>-dtians%,
but even to alter the forrh of baptifni
Which Chrift has instituted, and prefcribe
it to be adminifter'd among his followers
In the name Of the uncreated Father, and
of the created Son, and of the fdHEfifyin£
¦Spirit, created by that treated Son*. SO
irtconfiftent did he think the ancient Forfri
of baptifm, with hte oWn novel and moft
execrable blafphernies !
There is no doubt but both the forts of
Arians, all this while, were heretical in the
article of the Holy GhOfti as well as of the
Son, it being hard 'to imagine that they
who deny'd the proper Divinity of the fe
cond Perfon, Should acknowledge that of
the third b. But yef' it is obfervable, that
hitherto there had been little or no men-

" Cap. 29. ..* Ibid,
* See Tillembnt'i Hiftory of the Arians, §. 99.
* Philoftorg. lib. 1 o. cap. 4.
a - - 11 ' Ata*a7t-n£st 3 ow'tss Ii; otopa 9-eeu kx-Asss, ti)itiovop%
uiou xsxTurpfits, $ iii ovopa Trvsipat®* tLyiasixoi, y£, ossi T«3
xixTtc-pyii uiou xTtSisvi®-. Epiphan. haer. 7.6"'.. §. 6. p, o<r2.
J Vid. Athanaf. Epift, 1. ad Serap. §. 2. p. 649. tion

the Trinitarian Controverfy, 235"
tion made of that matter, in their publick serm. v.
disputes, neither the hereticks feeming to ^*W^
oppofe, nor the Catholicks to defend it,
infomuch that the council of Nice it felf
was content in general terms to profefs a
belief in the Holy Ghoft, without proceed
ing to any more diftind explication of that
article c. But in the time of Athanafius'% 358,
folitude, . there were fome who pretended
to deteft the Arian herefy in reSped of the
Son, but ventured even to exceed it in re-*
fped of the Holy Ghoft, afferting him to
be not only a Creature, but one of the mi"
niftring Spirits, that differ'd from the holy
Angels only in degree d. This gave the
ground for Athanafius' % epiftles to Serapion,
upon that fubjed, in which he ranks thefe
hereticks With the Arians themfelves, and
reckons their blaSphemy againft the Holy
Ghoft, to be an implicit denial of the Son's
Divinity. And now that Macedonius and'
his Seminarian brethren, were deprived of 360.
their Churches, and for afferting the like-
nefs of Subftance between Father and Son,

'. Vid.; Epiph. hser. 74. fuk fin> BaGL. Epift; 78. 8s Hieron.
Epift. 41. alias 63.
d A I » \ * / t >..\ A<".
m » un "1 fynyxay aura, put Mgwi x-napa, mm xen ray- Xitrovp-
ytxav zrnvpiarav sv awn sit at xat paBpa p$vot avro ola<pspsiv -ray
kyyixav. Athanaf. ad Serap. Epift. 1 . §. 1 . p. 648. " Couftanr.
fbppofet: that f^ifth to have, bejen, written m 360, or 361. Vindic.
vet. cod. confirmat. par. 2. c. 4. p. 77. and that the hereticks
fhere meftnt were no other than thi- Macedonians,
wpre

236* An Hiftorical Account©/
Serm. v. were looked upon: as little different from
,^*V^ the Homoufians, they quickly fhew'd a
wide difparity between them, by adopting
the notion of thefe pretended Catholicks,
and whatever likentfs they might affert of
the fecond Perfon,' to the firft, (in which
point they - pretended to fplit the diffe
rence6, and keep a juft medium between
the Catholicks and Arians,) yet they'whol-
ly difclaim'd it in the third,- efteeming him
to be a created and minifiring Spirit', en
titled to thofe charaders which the Scrip
ture gives to Angels, but not to any
which might argue his . Divinity f.
This. Sed, who from the dodrine they
efpoufed were called Pneumatomachi, or
fighters with the. Spirit, r and from their
Chief leader, Macedonians, had foon after
an opportunity of .encreafing their num
bers, when upon the death of Conftantius
361. 'he was Succeeded in the empire by Julian
the apoftate, who thinking at once to in
gratiate himfelf by, an: ad of popularity s,
(which at ;the fame time refleded upon
the memory of his predeceffor, ) and to
deftroy the' chriftian faith by encouraging
the fchifnis and difputes - .of its profef-

' Vid. Sozom. i. f. c. 14;
•f Socrat; 1. 1. c. 45-. Sozom. 1. 4. c. 27. vid. & D. Bafil.
Epift. 78. 80, 141. aliofque paflfim.
e Socrat. 1. 3. c. 1. Theod. h 3. c. 4. fors,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 237
forsh, began his reign' with recalling them Serm.v.
who had been fent into banifhment, and ^^Y^J
admitting all, whether Catholicks, Semi-
arians, Eunomians or Photinians, to the
enjoyment of equal liberty or licenfe'- And
though his policy fucceeded but too well
with fuch perfons as were weak in the
faith, and more inclined to follow fecular
motives than thofe of truth and piety k,
yet the event did not entirely come up to
his expedations. For when the restraints
of fecular force were taken off, and nei
ther party of hereticks had any advantage
above the Catholicks, the latter clearly re
covered ground, the belief of a confubftan-
tial Trinity was openly profefs'd in a coun- 362.
cil held by the great Athanafius at Alex
andria1, the human foul of Chrift was af-
ferted, in oppofition to the Apollinarian
dodrine which was lately Started, and the
ineaning of thofe who maintain'd either
one or three hypoftafes, was candidly ex
plain'd, and Shewn to be confiftent. Then
many who had fallen, thro' weaknefs or
inadvertency, were ready to retrad their
error,, and fubfcribe to the Nicene confef-

h Sozom. \.g. c.f. Ammian. Marcellin. 1. 22. c. f. p. 301.
Edit. Valef.
1 Vid. Authores fupra citat.
" Greg. Naz. Orat. 3. p. jf.
1 Socrat. 1. 3. c. 7. Athanaf Epift. ad Antiochen. tom. 1.
p. 775- §.f,6, 7. Cone. tom. 2, p. 6og, ike. Labbe.
3 fion;

2 3 8 Art Hiftorical A ccouUt«/
Serm.v. fion; as we may teafonably colled from
V^*VV the general concurrence of all Churches]1'*.
And thofe heroick confeffors, who had
weather'd out the hardships of the Arian
perfecution, thought it but neceflary, alter
fo general a confufion, to receive them as
brethren, upon thefe conditions, and re^
Store them not only to catholick commu
nion, but likewife to their refpedive Sta
tions in the Church; Upon whieh ac
count St, Athanafius, in the nanie of his
council, wrote that celebrated letter to the
Church of Antiotch\ which met with op-
pofitiqn from Lucifer of Cagliari and his
pariifans, who were fo over-rigoEOtts in
refufing to admit the Bifhops of this cha-
tader, that when they found themfelves
over-ruled, they even forfook the commtt-
nion of the Church, and form'd that fehifm
which bore the name of Luciferian". '
Yet in the Eaft, it muft be own'd, and
particularly in Hellefpont and lefifer Afidj
the Macedonians likewife gain'd ground ff,
by the return of their Bifhops, and! the Ew
nomian herefy (which had now fpoke too

m Vid. Athanaf. ad African. §. 1. p. 891. & ad Jovian.
§. 2. p. 781.
" Athanaf. tom. ad Antiochen. torn. 1. par. 2. p. 770, 8tc.
0 Vid. Hieron. adverf Luciferian. tom. 4. par. 2. col. 302.'
Ed. Ben.
* Vid. Sozom. I.4. e.27. 8c \.g. c. 14.

broadly

^Trinitarian Gwtvmrjy. 1 3 9
broadly to be mifunderftood) loft credit serm. vy
in proportion as the other advanced. v-^W
But the gentlenefs of Julian being only
difguife, it quickly gave way to a feverer
perfecution. His natural temper was fierce
and cruel, and his artificial lenity might
furnifh out a plaufible pretence for treating
them with greater violence, with whom
the gentler methods of perfuafion had been
found ineffeduaH He hegan the perfe
cution in his own court, and purfued it
in his army ', and then carried it on againft
the Bifhops. and other Ejcclefiafticksf, that
they being not only ftript of their privi-
ieges, but in many places driven frorq
their churches, the people might have none
to exercife rehgious. offices.', and fo the
very knowledge ©f Chriftianity might by
degrees be loft among them. Nor did the
people themfelves entirely efcape his vio
lence. Tortures and exile, imprifonment
and death in various Shapes, were the lot
of many perfons of different condition;
and tho' he always, ufed fome other pre
tence in excufe of his feverities, that he
might at once avoid the odious name of
a perjecutor, and take from them the ho«
nourable titles of Confejfors and Mar-

1 Greg. Naz. Orat. 3. p. 74. 'Ibid. p. jf.
t So'/.om. I. f . c. if.
t of this perfecution, fee Tillemont, tom. 7.
\ 3 tyrs,

240 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.v. tyrsa, yet it was clear enough that Reli-
V-<V>J gion was the real ground of thefe pro
ceedings, and that his main defign was to
extirpate 'Chriftianity. The magiftrates
who aded under him he countenanced in
an abufe of power "to this purpofe, and
the populace themfelves in publick tumults
and diforders.w. Arid had he fucceeded
in his Perftan war, he vow'd an utter de-
ftrudion of the ' chriftian' name x, which
hitherto he had not own'd to be the ground
of his feverity. , Now in all this, as well
as in his interdid of the Chriftians from
any ufe of human literature y, all feds and
parties being equally aggrieved, this cannot
but be fuppofed to have correded the heat
of their controversies for the prefent, when
both parties made it matter of their prayer
to God to be freed from his oppreilions2.
363. His reign was but Short, and that of Jo
vian his fucceSfor was Still Shorter. So that
as the firft could do but little injury to the
catholick caufe, the latter could do it lit
tle fervice. Yet as he plainly counte
nanced thofe who efpoufed the council of
Nice, (tho' with fuch temper and mildnefs
as had not been ufed by the Arians to-

u Greg. Naz. Orat. 3. p. 72. " Ibid. p. 87, &C
* Orat. 4. p.. 1 14. y Theod. H.E.I. 3. c.8."
* Sozom. 1. 6. c. 4. wards

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 241
wards the Catholicks) fo there were two Serm. v:
councils held, the one by Athanaftus at A- VfW
lexandria a, the other by Meletius at Antt~
deh h, which openly confefs'd the cOnJub-
ftantiality, and admitted the Nicene creed.
Only it is obfervable, that in this laft (in
which Acacius himfelf, and fome others
of his party were.confentingj the manner
of exprefllon feems chiefly to be levell'd
againft the Anomaans, and there is no ex
prefs mention made of the Holy Ghoft' s
Divinity; whereas the other' plainly Strikes
at all the branches of ' Arianifm, and.ex-
plairis the Nicene creed as joining the Holy
Ghoft with the Father and the Son, and ac
knowledging' but one Godhead of the holy
Trinity. Jovian was immediately Succeeded by 364.
yalentinian, who contenting himfelf With
the Weftern empire, committed to his bro
ther Valens the government of the Eaftt.
This made a wide difference between' the
ftate of thofe two parts of the empire, in
reSped of religion: for the two brethren,
however join'd in intereft, arid Confeffors
Alike in the reign of Julian^ were yet op
posite in principle, the latter being, foon
after his advancement to the empire, fe-

' Theodor. H- E. lib. 4. cap. 2, 3.
" Socrat. 1. 3. c.tf. Sozom. 1.6. c.4.
1 Socrat. I.4. c. 1, 4. Sozom. 1. 6. c- 7. ;
R duced

2 42 An Hiftorical Account*/
i«4*. duced to the profeition of herefy, by the
^y^ perSuafion of his Emprefs, and the artifice's
of Eudoxiush:'fo that Orthodoxy flouriffi'd
In the Weft, under the countenance of
Valentinian, and Arianifm, except in very
few places, (as particularly at Milan, where
Auxent ius, by his grofs prevarications, had
nbut too mUch impofed upon the Eriiperor's
"credulity0,) feem'd to be utterly extirpated :
whilft in the Qaft the cafe was much 6-
therwife, ^lefeJherefy gain'd ground, be-
Tng fupported by Valens'; and the Catho1-
"licks were, on the Other hand, expofed fO
grievous outrages arid peffecutions. FoV
fuch, we riiay obferve, was the true diffe
rence between them, that Orthodoxy could
., _ .fubfiSt by its own Ught and evidence1; arid
as it was not to be utterly ' conquer'd by
oppreffion, fo it always prevail'dwheh
outward, force jwas fet afide : 'Whereas A-
rianijm, ,pri the other hand, could be no
Otherwife Supported but by force and ma
nifest opp^'elijon. ."'.
In the Declining of the reign of Valens,
¦rM, Jjv Jl. A-' ,'.-. - ' '. ¦ I ,¦:¦!-.- I 1 -.-jl-f.-
.r:'':i '¦.-'.. .-IV.- .'. ¦.-.' ,-; -,!?IO',
O? XKepdort J. 4.:c. ^2. ;, ,^„.-; , • ' , . ; ;jj
c Vid. Maimbourg. Hiftoire de I'Ananifmel./. p. ff, 8cc.'
If may howvfr- be-»bf».v'.d,.~that~ Auxentius mas conjured \ by a
council at Rome, in the year 3705 and the damage he had
done wat in fome meafure repaired; by the fuccejjiim of- 'St. Am-
brofe to the See of Milan;ri» tiU' year 374. Via". Gave Hift. lit
in utroque vol. -"¦ "' -'-1
'"'"" ":j V the

'the Trinit&rjsin Qfitofl&ft. 243
xte'M&Cfdomans, and thj,g#ffer4n>f?Jd, sERW. y.
had^eaeh; ^i;i*ii, the.ir \r$j^§m, fyngds, V/V^-t
in <\Khieh theiJ^^ii^sredrto the cpnfefiion
of \Sfk$cU,[^tiirXln Othef to that of Ri-,
^kimup jBut t6h^tiiip§?or-heirRg ptegeffeflGd
in ifo&our of .the L^'^&rprflPejded (topers
CepMiths^a&eddnigftJir'm' common with
'lhe>£jath9,H^^SJwMcii'jiefeinblance of chr
Ctti»fiane«& 'MaM - ,the vf§sniG£ think of
ftrengthping jtheif intefi#»;hy, joining with
them in eoiiiiBfMjri©$i.i rlft; this. gn& they
fent deputies to the W&fieirn Bifhops, J tp 366.
teftify their readinefs to receive thi? word
SyCtsbOT^L, and fubferibe to; the -Nicene epn-
fefiron^. There .feenis fojjigr. reafon tofur
Iped^ that thsy. did not (atjfeaf| npt all of
them) confetti? $q -this in a. fenfe entirely
ea^hcdick , - fiadc riot; only Evftatkms M
Sehaftia (who^svas one of thefe deputies)
did.' afterwards arejed, the Jyj><>£cre@k, and af-
fort only a Ukenefs .of {kh$a®zg,%: ( mhigh
appeared likewife; to. be \t&e gelteraj fenfe
cif/ithfi Momapm^f ipttty, in. -the council of
tSo^^tdsop/e^ihntitkQ^ diddn this very
eriibafty eispiainidaie one pb«affehyjth.eiOthe^
arid' a^tfjthemflCD helseriBsxif) eqaial J#fc

'd Socrat. lib. 4. cap,' 6".  .- - --¦-•,-  -
1 Socrat. 1. 4. c. 12. Sozom. 1.6^ c.'id./ii. 1r'*!'
f Keil' iuoiav opiotov. D. Bafil. Epift,: 8i. !p. oit.jrjf.'
.« Socrat. 1. f. c.8. Sozom. I.7. cV'jv 7 <"'*c* *
,, » -,,«>,,,,,„¦<,.'¦/ ¦ ' ;' r if . ..I'icd' I ;T •

R 2 portance.

244 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.v. portaneeh; Which is the fame explication
\*T*J wherein Ac actus himfelf1 had not long be
fore fubfcribed it in the council of Anti
och'1, and which the council of Illyrieumk
did fome few Years afterwards exprefly
condemn, as infincereand evafive. But at
this time, it is probable, the 0eftem Bifhops
being not well skill'd in the proprieties of
the Greek language, nor in all the niceties
of the Eaftern disputes, might not perceive
the latent artifice, nor fufped them of e-
quivocating, when they offer'd their fub-
fcription. n
It was obferv'd before1^ that the Nicene
confefiion was lefs explicit upon the article
of the Holy Ghoft, as a point which had
not been openly debated at the time when
that creed was compiled; So that the Mar
cedonians did with lefs difficulty retain
their herefy in refped of the Holy Ghoft,
at the fame time that rthey fubfcribed to
the confubftantiaiity of the Son ; and whe
ther it were that this improvement of their
herefy was not yet underftood in the Weft™,
or whether it was not thought proper, in
that time of confufiori, to sejed any who

h M.i$it rt tiaipiout tou ipmteix -ti opotot. , Socrat. 1. 4. c. 12.
'Socrat. 1. 3. c.ig. ? '.,'",'
* Theodor. 1. 4. c, 8^ ' ¦¦> \ ,', ,
1 See above, p. i8<5. .,.,o^ ' '.
m See Tillemont. Memoires feclefiaftiqu" torn. 6. en Les
Ariens. §. 1 09.
~: r ' : would

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 245
would acquiefce in the general expreSfions serm. v.
of the creed upon that article ; yet fo it ^?Vn-'
was, that the fubfcription of thefe deputies
was accepted, and themfelves admitted to
communion. At their return into the Eaft, this news 367.
was joyfully receiv'd by the catholick
Bifhops, who were then Sitting at Tyana
in Cappadocia*; and perhaps the union
had been compleated, ifj whilft the A-
rians prevented the defign'd council at
Tarjus, the Macedonians themfelves had
not (many of 'era) diffented from the pro-
pofed accommodation, and judg'd it ne
ceflary to make exprefs profeSIion of no
thing farther than a likenefs of fubftance".
So that from henceforth the Macedonians
appear to be Split into two different par
ties ; the one which owned not any pro
per Divinity either of the Son or Holy
Ghoft ; and the other, which embraced the
confefiion of the council of Nice, but yet
differ'd from the Catholicks, (like thofe
namelefs hereticks in Athanafius a few,
years higher) in their explication of that
article which related to the Holy Ghoft,
either plainly afferting him to be a meer
creature, or at leaft refilling to acknow
ledge Tiis Divinity p.

n Sozom. I. 6. c. 12. •' Ibid.
I Vit. Greg. Naz. p. 17.
v/i~ R 3 Thefe

i 4& . An Hift&xi&*l: A c.d 0 u N t 0/
Serm.v. Thefe laft were. moft pirio$rfriy;the Semi*
Vi^rw arians i; agreeirig with ths Catholicks in
refped bf the fecond perfoiut and with the
Arians in refped. of the third .^j And the
council of Nice, having nothing exprefly
levelfd againft \hefr tenets, .gave them an
advantage atosWev the iothcr> hereticks, infi>
much1 that they-impofed upon feveral- well-
meaning peopley and drew foriie into their
fed whorii < Nd^ianssen commends * not
only as being orthodox in reSped of the
Son, bub likewife blanieleSs in their Jives
and converfationsf. But the Catholicks
foon found it neceflary to guard againft
the poifon.>0f their herefy* St. Athanafius,
ift both his fynOdical epiftles already men
tioned, is very full and exprefs in aSfelting
the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft*. And
from the writings of St. Bafil and Gregory
Nazianzen,^ we fee what care was taken
37Q- afterwards to preferve the people from this
dangerous contagion.
And now, above all times, the queftion
of doxologies feems to have been agitated
with moft warnith and vehemence. For
as Afpans and Macedonians were all agreed
'm denying the Divinity of the Holy Ghofi,

,n.ji . j o

.« Ibid..
' Vi9. Suicer. Thefaur. "EccleT. in voce vipUntot.
' Greg. Naz. orat. 44. p. 7 1 o, 7 1 1 .
c Athanaf Epift. ad Antiocheu. & 'fi Jovian, lit fupra.
¦>'- "' &ey

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 247
they could not fail to objed againft that Serm.v.
form of doxology, which afcribes glory to v-O^V
him in cpnjundion with the Father and
the Son. The clamours which they raifed
on that account in Cappadocia, gave occa
fion to that excellent treatife of St. Bafil
upon this fubjed", wherein he has defend
ed his conduct, as well by plain authorities
of Scripture, as. by the ancient ufages and
pradice of the Church.
Amidft all this corruption of the Eaft,
there was a remnant efcaped. The people
in fiibjedion to the See of Alexandria,
feem generally to have adhered to the doc
trine of their great Athanafius, who being
now in the decline of life, had been ob- 3 67.
liged only to a Short retirement, and after
that was permitted, whilft he lived, to fit
down in quiet w, and govern his affedip-
nate Church of Alexandria. Mean while
St. Bafil's endeavours were not without ef
fect, in Cappadocia. And in the Church
of Neocafarea in Pontus*, the true faith
was preferv'd, by their ftrid adherence to
thofe forms and ufages which had been
long before prefcribed by Gregory Thaus
maturgus. There was moreover fome rem-

¦ D. Bafil. de Spiritu Sanfto ad Amphilochium.
w Vid. Montfauc. in vir. Athanaf. p. 84, 8j".
¦* Greg. NyfT. in vit. Thaumat. t. 3. p. gAfi, g^j. Bafil de
Spir. Sanft. cap. 24.

R 4 nant

248 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. v.' nant of the Catholicks in the Other provin-
vrv ces> notwithstanding the rage and barbarity
of Valens, whofe cruelties reached not only
to banifhment, but death, and feem'd even
to vie with the outrages of heathen perfe-
cutors.
'370. The great St. Bafih promotion, in this
time of violence, to the nietropolitical
See of Cafarea in Cappadocia, was provi
dentially defign'd for the confirmation of
thofe who 'adhered to the Nicene faith:
which he Studioufly endeavoured, not only
by his earneft exhortations to thofe under
his own jurifdidion, but likewife by his
feafonable letters of advice to other
Churches, in which the rage of perfecu-
tiori had been more violent, and deprived
them of their proper Paftors. Yet this
muft be obferved, that he was fo far
forced, in his popular difcourfes x, to yield
to the iniquity of the times, as to forbear
fpeaking out in fo many words that the

* I have dejtgnedly faid [in his popular difcourfes:] for
we have undoubted inflancet of his calling the Holy Ghoft God m
the moft exprefs terms upon other occafiont. , thus, 1. g. contra
Eunom. p. 113. Gsoi at a to Ttytupia to ayiot, >£ T»{ oturtii iytf-
y<Hur, tS iiaT£i >£ tZ IiS. And fo again, in his 141 fi Epiftle,
which -mas written by way cf Apology to his own Church of Gse-
farea, he has thefe words, p. 925". Ason opioXoysTv Toy Ttanoa, B-sot
tov utoy, 9-iov to itviupta to aytov. Again, p. 9 3 3 .  To Xtiupa
1 '-ipiooirm tS stargt xat iti. And after many inftances of
their being join'd together, he infers, p. 034, ©«s it to xyGipa
to ayiov, . .
Holy

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 249
Holy Ghoft is God, at which the hereticks Serm. v:
about him were moft apt to take excep- v-OTn-J
tion : but he forbore it, not for fear of
fuffering in the caufe of truth, being ready
(as his whole condud, fhew'd) to quit, not
only his bifhoprick on that account, but
even life it felf thro' various tortures, but
meerly to prevent their taking that handle
to thruft another into his See who might
promote the caufe of herefy. In the mean
time he was careful to affert the very fame
dodrine in terms equivalent y, to back it
with the cleareft argurnents of Scripture;
and even to enforce it from the conceffi-
ons of his very adverfaries, as reckoning
our falvation to depend, not on the ufe
of the word, but the belief of the thing;
upon which he was ready to explain
himfelf more fully to as many as con-
fulted him ; though even thus he did not
efcape the cenfure of fome feverer Catho
licks2. Such was the condition of the Eaftern
Church, whilft the Churches of the Weft
profefs'd the catholick dodrine with the
greateft peace and fecurity : and it feems

1 Greg. Naz. Orat. 20. funebr. in Bafil. p. 364,, $6f.
See mtfte of Ms matter in the Preface.
* Greg. Naz. Epift. 26. & D. Bafit Epift. '73.

to

2 j§ An Hiftorical Account of
serm. v. to have been during :triis. ftate pf things %
<sV*J that the Bifhops of Illyricum, fupported by
375' Valentinian's authority, and concern'd at
the reports they heard of the Macedonian
herefy, afferted in council the confubftan-
tiality of the whole Trinity, rejected that
explication which abufed the word q^s-
eriigL it felf, as implying no more than a
likenefs of fubftance, depofed fuch ampng
themfelves as were heretical, in refped ei
ther of the Son or Holy Ghoft, and wrote
to the Churches of the Eaft, to encourage
their return to, or perfeverance in the true
faith''. Which was feconded by a letter of
the Emperor Valentinian to the fame pur
pofe, and his exprefs prohibition of any
farther perfecution of the Orthodox'.
Wherewith 'tis probable his brother Va
lens, whofe name is join'd in that letter,
muft neceffarily have complied, if the
375- death toi Valentinian^ had not foon left
him at liberty to continue his barbarities,
till the Gothick war, a few years afterwards,
obliged him to forbear, and put an end to
378. his perfecution firft, and foon after to his
lifee.

• See Tillemont, Note 86. fur UsAriens.
* Theodor. I.4. c. .7, 8, p.
* Cap. 8.
" Socrat. 1. 4. c. 31. See Tillemont. lesAriens. §. 128.
• Socrat. 1. 4. c. 3/, 38. Sozom, 1. 6. c. 39, 40. Theod.
1- 4. c. }6.
By

the, Trinitarian Controverfy. i j i
By this time we may obferye the ApolU- «*»«. v;
narian herefy was grown confiderable, fo [*sy~\s
called from the junior; Apollinaris, Bifhop
of Laodicea, who was * perfon of great
parts and learning, and had been highly
efteem'd among the Catholicks f as a fuf-
ferer for the truth, and a Strenuous afferter
of a confubftantial Trinity : tho' as he de
lighted to Shew his parts rather by arguing
from human reafon, and pretended demon
strations, than from the authority, of holy
Writ s, he is charged , with declining Some
times towards Ar'umfm^, by afferting dif
ferent degrees of dignity between the
three perfons ; and at other times towards
Sabellianifm l, by confounding their per-
fonal proprieties with one another. But
the point in Which he moft unhappily in
novated, was the rayfterious dodrine of the
Incarnation. He was appf ehenfive that the
Catholicks, by teaching that the entire man
hood was united With the Deity, did really
divide Chrift into two, and by that means
introduce a creature?wOrShip, or the Wor?

' Epiph. H. 77. §. 24. Bafil &p. 293. p. 1018.
« Bafil 'Ep. 74.
* Theod. H.E. \.g. c.j. & de haa-. L.4. eg,
? Bafil Ep. j-p. & .292. & Theod. de hser. ut fup.

Ship

1 5 i An Hiftorical Account?/"
Serm.v. Ship of a man who carried God within
*-^VN^himk. For this reafon, rather than give
way to this imaginary danger of two peiS
fons, he chofe to affert no more than one
nature1; and to, make out this, he main-'
tain'd fometimes that the body of Chrift
was no otherwife animated than by the
Deity, though at other times he allowed
him to have had a ferifitive foul15, or fuch
as is common to all animals, yet Still de
nying him fuch as is properly human or
rational, and fuppofing all the intelledual-
faculties to be Supplied by that fulnefs of
the Godhead which dwelt in him. Nay,
he- went on to teach,1 or at leaft he gave a
handle for his followers to believe, that
the fiefh of Chrift it 'felf was not taken
from the bleffed Virgin '(for which reafon
they refufed to call her the Mother of God)
but that he brought it with him from hea
ven", that it is indeed confubftantial With
the Deity °, being either a portion of the
divine Word converted into that form, or
elfe fo mixed with the divinity as to have
its fubftance alter'd and become divine p.

" Vid. Greg. Naz. Orat. gx. p. 748, 749.
1 Apollinar:' in Eulog. apud Phot. cod. 230. p.'8fcV
» Ruffin. H.E.I. 11. alia, z. c. 20. ¦'
" Greg. Naz. Orat. ft. p^738.
. J Vid. Athanaf ad Epi&. §.*. p. paa. > . '•'

The

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 273
The horrid confequences chargeable up- serm.v:
on this dodrine were obvious and una- ^W
voidable. In the firft place, it frustrated the
fcheme of our redemption, by denying
that the Son of God affumed that part of
our nature which is moft confiderable, I
mean the reafonable or human foul, which
chiefly Stood in need of his falvations.
And then it either blafbhemed the nature
of God r, by reprefenting it as pajfible and
expofed to Sufferings, fince that, according
to this notion, was the foul which aduated
Chrift's human bodyf, and confequently
fuffer'd with it, (which however it might
fuit the Arian fcheme of a created Afy§l,
and for that reafon had been little confi
der'd in the Arian controverfy', yet was it
by no means tolerable in Apollinaris,
who pretended to confefs a confubjhantial
Trinity:) or elfe it muft imply the very
body of Chrift to be impajfible and im
mortal", and confequently reprefent all
that is faid of Chrift's fufferings and death

* Vid. Eulog. in Phot. Ut fupra. Leont. Byzant. de fcript.
fuppof in fraud. ApolUnari p. 103?.- in tom. 4. Bibl. Patr.
Paris 1624.
« Greg. Naz. Orat. ji. p. 740.
' Vid; Athanaf contra Apol. I. i.§. 2. &'de incarn. p.923^
f Greg. Naz. Orat. 46. p. 722.
1 Orat. gi. p. 740.
^Athanaf. ibid. & ad Epic*, p. 906. §; 7, '
-;-h 1 'id

% f 4 An HiftarkM A c c'o'u n t of
serm.v: tp be merely faotaftipkiiand imaginary w.
^Vv^'Tis: true;,, Apollinaris' himfelf did upon
occafion Jiejeft and; Anathematize thefe no
tions of ^he divine ankture being pajfible,
and the hody of Chrift cmfubfimtial with
the Deity K Butodhey were clear xonfe?
quences! of his other affertions, and were
accordingly acknowlfidg'd by his folio weirs ^
of whorrii the antients have reckfflrised up
three ^ifffBettt feds; fome ^adhering! chiefly
to One^pait of thi&; fcheme, 'and others .to
kxother^ii^ii' v '"al -id:.' y/ , : '-j-);iPu\< r
360. ' Tkcfo ' notions feern • to : have been fpread
3 6z . hi fome meafuise ! before, thg ? death of ( Con-
fiantMs : Jibm Api£inari^jhimi^ wiasifo
far foorri deelarihg-,fbr idshena openly,.1 tfhat
he had; his. deputies concmtihg iriithatjvery
council' l^biich coridejonin'd ths,miat<Alcxr
mdrtdty^\mthe reignj oft Jtdiam .After
'•_•¦.•/ *j.rli v'.-ifrii -.ui, a otuj /to ,-. \Vu\U '.
-,;., ;,iV; -aV.JVV r~: "71 ¦ .' flftd'") "to V.bo"'
l.:R Greg,£rJaKfj@rat.'i4. ji(i,2ii,: 13 bfifi t";''...o.
1 Non Deum tantum dicimus Chriftum, ficut haeretici Ma-
nic1iarrV''T'ec-iiominem-tantumj"fteHt--ha;reH6i Photinkni }
nee ita hominem, ut aliquid minus habeat, quod ad humanam
asrtufflijiBftjpestjaereinsairaji*,,^!^, anjmam, ftveip ipsa ani
ma mentem.^atiflB3lejn,^j?arBerBs«ot}..de farniuja <fumptam,
fed fa&am de verbo in carnem 'converfo atque rriutaf#; quse
omnia tria falfa 8c vana bjeretj^oruBi Apollinar^larum tres
|iflrte^.vart8Si^iists-flfque.fecerUnt»^i?«-f4^^. fa'dono ferfetve-
rantU prope fin. tom. 10.' cpLii^Sf Edit. Bened. yid- .& Epi-
phan. hser. 77. §. 20, &c. ..-,, .j
a Vid. Athanaf,^d«Aao«c^en£i.jS776. Tillemonf. tpm. 7.
Let Apollinarifles, §.7.' this

^Trinitarian Controverfy. 2jf
this Athanafius labour'd to oppofe them $ERM. yj
with great earneftnefs, but without making torO
aiiy mention of their proper author b. Af- 3 69 .
ter the death of Athanafius, tho' fome be
gan to accufe Apollinaris as the -abettor
of thefe fentiments> yet there were Others
tOuld hardly give credit to the accufationc;
neither Fope <DatnaJus, nor the council
held under him at Rome, whilft they con- '375.
demn'd the tenets, took the freedom to
Charge them upon any author J;" and tho*
Epiftfrariius mentions hime, yet he does it 376.
Very tenderly, and inftead of denominat
ing the fed after him, chufes to defcribe
the perfons Of fuch fentiments by the name
of 'Dimterrta, as believing Only one part
of the dodrine of the ihcafhation :
againft whom therefore, as Well as againft
the Macedonians, fome of thofe -expref-
Kons were very clearly fevell'd^ which are
irifetted in thofe creeds or forms oi con
fefiion, -which arcproduced by Epiphanius*.
But at length, when he had; form'd his
fchifm openly, and1 ordain'd ^Bifhops of his

b Athanaf de incarnat. contra Apollinar.. It, is joke obferv'd
that Apollinar h's name is put -in ithe- title of thefe books by ano
ther -hOnd, but -dolet not 'appear °iB the books themfelves;
c St. Bafil fpeah doubtfully, ,*Ep}ft". fg, 82.
* Concil. Roman. Labbe<tom. 2. ^,"897;"
• Epiphan. haer. 77. §. j, 24.
- ' In Ancorat. vef fus rmefh.
own

z 5*-°* An Hiftorical Ac c o un T of
'Serm.v. own party, he was not only difclaimedf
yyy^j hy the Catholicks of Afia and Egypt, but
exprefly cenfur'd by a council held under
Pope '\Damajus at Romee, whofe; fentence
378. was .immediately confirm'd by another
council held at Alexandria^ ; and foon af
ter by a third in his own neighbourhood
at Antjoch tX Notwithftanding whicfii he
3 8 p. had theicprifidcnce, two years .after that,
to exped.that the See of Antioch fhpuld
be put into the hands of his party by Theo-
dofius : . when being difappointed of his
claim, he perfijfted in his herefy with greater
obftinacy, r which drew on the cenfures of
381. the general council of Conftantinople, but
left the iceds of many fatal divifipris for
the following centuries k.
378. But to return to the empire upon, the
death pi Valens: Gratian and Valentinian
the younger, who had ; fucceeded to the
375. Weft, upon the death pf their father, were
now in poffeffion of the whole empire1;
the latter of .whom being too young. for
adion, tlje whole; burden lay upon the
former, who began his reign with as large

' -l ¦ :i
r D. ,Bafil. Epift, 74, 8c 29$/ ;., ,
8 Concil. Labbe tom. 2. col. 899. Sozom. 1. 8. e.xg.,
h Ruffin. H. E. lj 1 1. alias 2. c. 20.
1 Concil. Labbe tom. 2. col. 509. \
" Theod. H. E. 1. f. C 3,4.'
1 Socrat. 1. j-. c.,2. Sozom. I.7. a t. Thcodpr. \.g. c. 1.

a Step

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 257
a ftep as could well be made immediately Serm. v."
in favour of the Catholicks ; namely, with V^VV/
calling back the exiles, and granting an
indulgence to all feds and parties, except
the Manichseans, 'Photinians, and Euno-
miansm. He foon found it neceflary to 379*
divide the burden of his government ; and
committing the empire of the Eaft to
Theodofius, he contented himfelf (as his
father had done) with that of the Weft n :
where hoping with more cafe to deftroy
the fmall remains of herefy, he thought it
not needful to grant the fame indulgence
he had done in the Eaft, but utterly for
bad the hereticks, of whatever denomi
nation, either to difpute in publick the
matter of their tenets, or hold their fepa
rate affemblies0.
Theodofius was no lefs diligent to effed
the reformation of the Eaft ; and laying to
heart how he might purge the capital city
of Conftantinople, (where cDemophilus, a-
bout eight years before, had fucceeded to
Eudoxius, fo that it had now been in
the hands of the Arians for near forty
years,) he concurr'd with the general defire
of the Catholicks, that Gregory Nazian-

" Suidas in voce t^aTiatii. Socrat. & Sozom ut fupr.
" Socrat. ibid. Sozom. 1. 7. c. 2. Theod. 1. f. c. 6.
0 Cod, Theodof 16. tit. $-¦ l.f. vid. comment. Gothofred.
ibid.
S sen

2 5 8 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. v. sen might be placed in that SeeP, who,
V"VX> pUrfuant to the appointment pf, the late
378. council of Antioch, had been greatly help
ful to them in fettling their affairs, and
confirming them in the profeflion of the
catholick faith. His inftalment in this great
See, was folemnly approved and ratified
in the firft fefiion of the general council,
which met quickly after in that cityi but
381. finding it was like to be a matter of much
odium and conteft, he prudently refign'd
it again % and the council thought fit to
make choice of NecJarius in his room1.
The Emperor in the mean time publifh-
cd his laws to reftrain the hereticks from
holding their congregations in the towns
or cities f ; fo that however bufy they might
be in fomenting divisions, and declaring
for feparate affemblies', they were like to
do lefs mifchief, when they were forced
to go out of town, than if their places of
worfhip had been nearer at hand.
After fo long and grievous a confufion
as the Churches of the Eafi had under-

p Socrat. 1. f. c. 6. Sozom. I. 7. c. 3. Theod. l.f. c. 8.
vid. & Cave Hift. Lit. vol. 1. ad an. 370. &vol. 2. in concil.
Conftantinop. ad an. 381. and life of Greg. Naz. fe£t. 3, 4,5-.
q Socrat. If. c 7. Sozom. 1. 7. c. 7. Theod. ibid.
' Socrat. 1. f. c. 8. Sozom. 1. 7. c. 8. Theod. 1. f . c. 8, 9.
r Cod. Theodof 1 6. tit. f. 1. 6. p. 1 1 7 , 1 1 8. Edit. 1 66 f .
c This feems to be hinted at in the condufion of the fynodical
epiftle of the council of Conftantinople. Theodor. 1. f. c. 9.
gone

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 2 59
gone fince the death of Conftantine, there serm. v.
could be no better expedient for restoring V-"~VN,>
peace and order, than to convene a free
and general council of the Eaftern Bifhops,
befides that of the Weftern Bifhops, who
met at Aquileia. They affembled there- 381.
fore at Conftantinople, to the number of
an hundred and fifty, who were ready and
difpofed to re-eftablifh the ancient artd ca
tholick dodrine of the Church". They
had little grounds to exped, that they who
had been moft forward and adive to pro
mote the caufe of Arianijm, would ever
be prevail'd with to come into any terms
of accommodation with them. But they
had better hopes Of the Macedonians or
'Pneumatomachi , who feeming (fome of
them) to be orthodox in reSped of the fe
cond perfon of the Trinity, and others on
ly doubtful, in refped of the third, and
having in the late time of diftrefs even fo
liated an union with the Catholicks, were
fuppofed to be left defperately bent upon
their error, and were therefore invited*
to be prefent at this council. Six and
thirty of their Bifhops came accordingly,
but inftead of coming over altogether, they
even retraded their former accommodati
on, and declared themfelves in a better

* Socrat. !. f. c. 8. ^ Ibid.
S z difpo-

2 6*o An Hiftorical Account^/
Serm. v. difpofition to embrace Arianifm, than ad-
fc^YV m[t 0f tne Nicene confefiion *. After
their departure to confirm their party in
the fame fentiments, the firft bufinefs of
the council, with relation to the faith, was
to re-eftablifh that confefiion which the
hereticks rejeded, and be fomewhat more
exprefs againft the modern innovations of
the Apollinarians and Tneumatomachi.
It has been mention'd more than once*
that the Nicene creed concluded with a
bare profeflion of belief in the Holy Ghoft,
without any farther explication of that ar
ticle, or the addition of any other after it ;
it being not the defign of its compilers to
draw up a compleat declaration of faith,
but only to explain that important article
of the Son's Divinity, which the Aridns at
that time Contefted. Not that we are to
fuppofe there was no creed in the Church
which proceeded farther than this ! There
were other forms, which had been anci
ently made ufe of in the feveral Churches
(admitting of fome variety in the expref-
fion, but agreeing in their main fcope or
defign) which it was not the meaning of
that auguft council to fet afide or abolifh ;
and accordingly it was obferv'd f, that

Socrat. 1. /. c. 8. r See ferm. 4- p. 188. they

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 261
they continued afterwards in ufe in thofe Serm. v.
Churches- refpedively. The African7- and ^W
Europaan* creeds in general (which cer
tainly were not longer than the Eaftern)
are well known to have exprefs'd fome o-
ther articles after that of the Holy Ghoft,
as the catholick Church, the forgivenefs
of fins, the reJurrecJion of the fiefh, and
everlafting lifeb. And it is no lefs cer
tain that the Eaftern creeds exprefs'd the
fame articles, as may appear from that of
Jerufalem, explain'd by St. Cyril to his
Catechumens0, that oi Antioch, or fome
other Eaftern Church, preferv'd among the
Conftitutions called Apoftolicald, and that
propofed by Arius and Euzoius, as taken

1 — — Neceflari& adjicitur Ecclefia: mentio. Tertul. deBapt.
cap. 6. 1 In. quem enim tingueret ? In poenitentiam ?
- In peccatorum remiftionem ? In femetipfum ?
•i. ¦ In Spiritum Sanftum? In Eccleiiam? ibid. on.
Dicunt, credis remiffionem peccatorum, & vitam ster-
nam per fancStam Ecclefiam? Cypr. Epift. 69. vid. & Ep. 70.
Edit. Oxon.
" De Romano & Aquileienfi fymboh. Vid. Ruffin. expof.
in fymbol. Apoft. inter opera D. Cyprian,! Oxon. Only ob
ferve, that the article of everlafting life, mat not thin inferted in
the Roman Creed.
" Vid.D. Bull Jud. Eccl. Cath. cap. 6. §.|.
c K«i sic, piay dytav xa6oXixr,v haoXmeim' xai tt-aexni avasatrtf
xai iti Zontv aimioy. Cyril. Hierof Catech. 18.
' d 'Ei; —'"•• - trtfyw-Ki'— iv rj) ciyia xecloXtxtf tx*
xXvioia, iti a-afxo$ avusaviv, xat iu, atfsFtv dpaoTtZv, xeei sic /3a~
o-iXsiav oucavav, xa\ iti fy>\» tS ptixhoyroi «J^»©-. Conft. Apoft.
L7. c. 41. S 3 fron%

26*2 An Hiftorical Ac count of
Serm. v. from the ancient forms e. Some of which
^^Y^ however are more exprefs as to the Unity
of the Church Catholicks, and the ne-
ceflity of baptifm, as the means of re-
mijfiont: and if they may not all be re
ferred, in every one of thofe articles, to the
apoftolical age it felf, yet furely no one
Would contend to bring them lower than.
the fecond century, when the Valentinian,
and other Gnofiick herefies gave manifest
occafion for inferring them h. Againft the
fame hereticks, who aSferted the Holy
Ghofi and the 'Paraclete to be diftind from
one another, and both of them to be di
stinguished from the infpirer of the ancient
Prophets1 : againft thefe, I fay, it was un
doubtedly, that fome of thofe fame anci
ent creeds inferted this charader of the
Holy Ghoft, or fomething to the fame pur
pofe, that he is the Taraclete who fpake
by the TrophetsK All

1 'Ei; to ayiov ytyiupiot, xal In, <rcc(x.'ic etvoie-amv, xat iti £f°*t»
tS piXXo?T&* kiZn®-, xal iti fiavtXstav iufavay, xat iti pitav xa-
Qo'Mkw sxxXiiffiay tou Bsou t«v OTtt yrioaTav sue, ~..~—.^ I ^
vtao-a xaOoXtxii ix»Xr,oia xat at yoaipai il^ao-xtto-it. Aril fymbol.
tipud Socrat. H. E. 1. i. c. 26.
f Mlav lxx.x-vr.av. Arius 8c Cyrillus ut fupra.
* K«i iti iv fiutrrie-pia piiTayotxs. Cyril. Hierof. Cat. Myft. 1 .
§. 6. - Vid. D. Bull Jud. Eccl. Cath. c. 6. §. i», &c.
s See the fecond Sermon, p. 66.
'Eis iv my toy zrvsupia, tb zragaxXiirev, to XaXwrav sig. my
Wf^tltay. Cyril. Hierof Catech. 1 6. 'E'5 to zrnupa ti aytoy,
TKTlft

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 2 6* 3
All thefe articles therefore, which were serm. v,
already, and had been long, fettled and re- v^Y"^
ceived in the feveral Churches, the Fathers
who were affembled at this fecond general
council, thought fit to annex to that con
fefiion of faith1 which had been drawn
up at Nice. But becaufe the Apollinarian
herefy was now greatly encreafed, which
not only difown'd Chrift's being poffeffed
of a reafonable or human foul, but even
denied Chrift's flefh to be of the fame kind
with ours, or taken from the fiubfiance of
his Mother, nay afferted (fome of Jem) its
being confubftantial with the Deity : it
was thought but neceflary that fome more
exprefs declaration Should be added in op
position to fuch dangerous abfurdities., And
therefore what the Nicene creed had more
concifely exprefs'd, that he came down,

TXTSfi rov TfctPeuc AvTov, to &vtoyv,vet,ii cv *7nx,<riv T0l$ «!T etwrfSr* u.yi~
0*5, bfsoav j otxoftzAtv, <£ t«s e&TtoroAots. «., r. ^. Conftit. Apoft.
1.7. c.41.
' They inferted likewife from ancient creeds this explication of the
Son's generation, that it -was z?(o ztuvtoiv mavav ; -ahich phrafe,
however it had been abufed by the Arians to another fenfe, ivas
underftood to 'include the Notion of Eternity. And as they made
thefe additions, fo they omitted fome claufe's of the Nicene creed,
as having their fenfe fufficiently exprefs'd in others. Such mere,
( 1 .) &soy ix S-sou, which is included in what folloms, Ssw aX/fiivcv
sx &sou aXvfityou. (2.) Tars sv rois ovoavoti xai tu iy t~,[ y%,
which is included in what went before, A' i to mavTa iylvsTo.
And f 3.) TgTtTiv ix rtii hucriai tou Ttarooi, which is included in
the celebrated claufe op,oio-iov tS aaroi. Vid. Suicer. Thefaur.
Ecclef. in voce o-ip&oXoy.

S 4 and

UT\-»

26*4 An Hiftorical Ace ou Nf of
Sum. v. • and was incarnate, and was made man,
was now explain'd by inferting that claufe
from the Shorter creed of Epiphanius,
which had been lately levell'd againft this
new herefy, that he came down from hea-'
ven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghoft
of the Virgin Mary, and was made man j
which is ftill more fully explain'd in their
fynodical epiftle"1, where they profefs to
retain the doctrine of our Lord's incarna
tion uncorrupt, not efteeming him to be
without Jbul or mind, nor reprefienting the
dijpenfation of the fiefh to be any way im
perfect, but acknowledging the whole, that
as before all ages he fubftfted the perfect
Word of God, fo for our falvation in thefe
latter days he became perfect man.
And fo again, fince the dodrine of the
Holy Ghoft's Divinity was now impugned
by another fort of hereticks, who agreed
fo far with the Church as to confefs him
the 'Paraclete mention'd in the Gofpel,
and the fame who had fpoken by the an
cient Prophets, the Conft antinopplit an Fa
thers very rightly judg'd that this part of
the creed which had hitherto fufneed to
guard againft the Gnaftick herefy, ought
now to be more diredly pointed at the
•Pneumatomachi, For this reafon it was,

"Theqd. H. E. Ig. c, ?, that

the Trinitarian Controverfy. i6f
that inftead of the name of Paraclete, serm. v.
they inferted (again from the fame creed v^-y*n>
of Epiphanius) thofe other more auguft
charaders, that he is the Lord and giver
of life, that he proceedeth from the Fa
ther, and with the Father and the Son
together is worshiped and glorified n. They
aferibe to him the divine name and nature,
when they call him Lord in that high and
eminent fenfe which anfwers to the in
communicable name of Jehovah. They
aferibe to him the divine power and
operations, when they reprefent him as
the author and giver of life ; whether na->
tural, and that as well at firft in the crca*
tion, as hereafter in the refurredion ; or
elfe fpiritual, by his inward and fandifying
graces, by the transforming and renewing
of our minds. But then, that they might
preferve the divine Unity, they were care
ful to teach, not that he is aVrorJgjS^, or
God of himfelf, but that he (as well as the
Son) has the divine effence communicated
or derived to him. In refped of this com
munication, as the Son is faid in Scripture
to be begotten of the Father, fo likewife is
the Holy Ghoft faid to proceed froin him.

" m^mmK-ai iii to msvpa to ayiov, tov xuftov, to fcaovrotiv, t»v
ix Toy 7taTjoi ix7tfiosuop\ov, TV fm -JraTf\ xa\ iiiS orvpTsaoa-xauis-
fS/iov »a\ <riwo\%a'CofB/ioy. Vid, Cone. Conftantinop. ex Edit.
Labbe tom, 2. col. of 4.
This

166 An Hiftorical Account^/
Serm.v. This therefore is the expreffion retain'd
t-ofv here in the creed, and this being fufficient
to guard againft that charge of Tritheifm,
which the Macedonians were apt to urge
againft them°, (not confidering that the
fame arguments which vindicated them
from cDitheifm, would vindicate the Ca
tholicks from Tritheifm likewife;) I fay,
this being fufficient for the prefent pur
pofe, they did not defeend to that queftion
which in after-ages was improved to fuch
a breach between the Greek and Latin
Churches; whether he proceeds from the
Son as well as from the Father, but went
on to aflert that equality of honour and
worfhip which the hereticks denied, when
they excluded him from their doxologies,
that with the Father and the Son together
he is worfhiped and glorified.
As this council of Conftantinople was
not immediately acknowledged by all
Churches for a general council p, fo there
is reafon to belieVe that the explications of
their creed were not univerfally inferted
in the creeds of all Churches. The Wef
tern Churches Still Stuck to their ancient
forms, and in the Church of Alexandria
the Nicene creed feems i Still to have con-

" Vid. Greg. Naz. Orat. 37. p. <foo.
p See Dupin fourth Cent. Cone, of Conftant. A.D. 383.
i Steph. de Altimura (i.e. Le Quien) in Panoplia feft. n.
c.3. §.8. ^- ' Y tinued

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 26*7
tinued without the new explications, fince Serm. v.
the council of Ephefus (at which St. Cyril *~OT^>
of Alexandria prefided ) not only makes
mention of no other, but exprefly for
bids r any enlargement or addition to it :
which tho' perhaps it might ftridly intend
to exclude nothing elfe but the addition of
new or inconsistent dodrines, yet feems f
withal to imply, that they had not at that
time receiv'd any farther explication of the
old ones. And in the council of Chalce
dony though the Conft ant inopolit an expli
cations were admitted, yet we may juftly
conclude from the behaviour of the Egyp
tian Bifhops, that they had not hitherto
been ufed to them. There had likewife
been a creed lately compiled at Antioch,
agreeable to that of Nice, which being ap
proved of in this very council of Conftan
tinople, might probably be ufed by many
of the Eaftern Churches. But whatever
be faid of this variety of forms, yet the
perfed harmony which is obferved be
tween the feveral Churches, in delivering
their notions of the matter contain'd in
them, will not fuffer us to doubt but that
they all agreed in the dodrine taught by'
thefe explications, and underftood their re-

' Cone. Ephef par. 2. Aft. 6. p. 363. Bin,
r Le Quien ut fupr. §. g, &c.
* Cone Chalc. Aft. 1. p. g-j. fpedivc

26*8 An Hiftorical Ac cou nt of
Serm.v. fpedive creeds in that very fenfe which
*-OfV^ the Conftantinopolitan fathers had more
fully exprefs'd.
Whilft thefe determinations were mak->
ing by the council, the Emperor added the
fandion of his penal laws, not only ex
cluding the hereticks from the churches
381. already built, but even forbidding them to
build new ones, whether in town or out
of it". Thefe laws do not at firft appear
to have been ftridly executed : but as if
Theodofius' % defign had been rather to keep
the hereticks in awe, than really opprcls
them, he was fevere upon none befides
Eunomius, (nor upon him constantly,)
leaving the reft to hold their refpedive
communions Without disturbance w; till at
laft Amphilochius the Bifhop of Iconium
ufed prcfling and repeated inftances to get
him to restrain their affemblies'' ; where-
383. upon the fame laws were renew'd y, as
388. likewife again fome years afterwards*,
when he was marching againft Maximus,
who had ufurp'd the Weftern empire upon,
the death of Gratian\

" Cod. Theod. \6 tit. 5-. 1. 8. p. 123. Edit. %66f.
w Socrat. H. E. 1. f. c. 20.
* Sozom. I.7. c. 6. Theod. l.f. c. 16.
y Cod. Theodof 16. tit. f. 1. 11. p. I26\ & .1. 12. p. 127}
Sc 1. 13. p. 129.
1 L. 14. p. 130. vid. Comment. Gothofred,
J Sozom. H. E. I.7. c. 13.
From

the Trinitarian Contr overjoy. 26*9
From this Emperor therefore, and the Serm.v.
general council under him, we may date ^~^Y\*
the downfal of Arianifm in the Eaft, af
ter it had flood for about fifty years* rec
koning from the time of the deposition of
Euftathius ; or little more than forty,
from the death of Conftantine. And
all this while by what methods had it
been fupported? Namely, by various ar
tifices and difguifes contrived to impofe
upon the Emperors, by ufing the power
they obtained hi that manner with utmoft
rage and violence, by manifold calumnies
and flanders invented to afperfe the Ca
tholicks, and by perpetual alterations and
changes in their own principles, varying
their creeds (as 'twere) with every wind,
whilft the Catholicks ftuck all along to.
the confefiion of Nice.
But whilft herefy fecmed thus to be al-
moft rooted out of the whole empire, and
having loft the fupport of fecular power,
dwindled by degrees into fmall and incon-
fiderable parties, it was moft unhappily
translated into the barbarous nations of
the North. It happen'd near the conclu- 377.
fion of the reign of Valens, that his tranf-
adions with the Goths, or rather their own
necefllties, brought Ulphilas the Gothick
Bifhop to his court b, who having formerly 360.

* Sozom. H. E. 1. 6, c. 37. fub-

270 An Hiftorical Accqunto/
Serm. v. fubferibed the confefiion of Rimini, tho*
"w^W inadvertently0, was now, whether thro*
convidionj or for fecular ends, perfuad-
ed to embrace the fafhionable herefy,
and declare for open Arianifm d. The
reputation he had gain'd among his coun
trymen by his great abilities, and the fpe-
cious pretences he made ufe of to 'em,
that the conteft was not about the ef
fence of religion, but merely a Strife a-
bout words, and made fubfervient to am
bitious purpofes, were the unhappy means
of feducing the generality of them into
the fame delufione, from whom it quick
ly fpread to other Northern nations f.
This in the next century became the
ground of the revival of Arianifm in the
Weft, when upon the Spreading of the
Goths and Vandals through Gaul, Italy,
Spain and Africk, they brought their he
refy into thofe parts as the companion of
their conquering arms, and triumph'd o-
Ver the faith of the empire, together with
its civil liberties. But a more particular
notice of that matter will fall within the
compafs of the next difcourfe.
Now to God the Father, &c.
'' Sozom. ibid. Socrat. 1. 2. c.41. " Sozom. ut fupra.
• Ibid. & Theodor. I.4. c.37.
f Jornand. de orig. & rebus geftis Gothorura, c. if. p. 64.6.
Edit. Grotian. vid. & Grotii Prolegom. ad Hiftor. Gothor.
p. 30.
SER-

the Trinitarian Controverfy.

271

SERMON VI.
Preach'd April 2, 1723-4.

HE two laft difcourfes did fo serm. vi.
far fet forth the rife, the pro- v*Of^
grefs, and the downfal of Ari
anifm, that there is little far
ther notice to be taken of it
in the Eaft. The dodrine which came
not from God, could never gain any con
fiderable ground, when unfupported by
man : and however many under Arian
Emperors had, either thro' ambition or
cowardice, concurr'd with reigning iniqui
ties, yet now, fince thofe fecular motives
were fet afide, their nunibers were extremely
.J. reduced,

17% An Hiftorkal Account©/*
Serm. vi. reduced, and the catholick caufe flourifhed
^-^Yv under the countenance of Theodofius and
his fucceffors, without the execution of
fuch fad feverities as their predeceffors had
ufed for the fupport of herefy. The Ari
ans, 'tis true, continued for fome time to
hold their meetings out of town, and even
to fing their hymns within the city gates*.
and in their publick procefllons, as appears
by the pradice at Conftantinople, in the
time of St. Chryfioftom a ; where, by reafon
Of fome difordcrs in the ftate, (and parti
cularly from the Gothic Arians in the reign
of Arcadius ',) they kept longer footing than
in other places ; but as they daily decreaf-
cd and grew lefs confiderable, fo even they
that rcmain'd did in fome fort reform their
fyftcm, and abstain from the grofler kind
of blasphemies b.
But when the dodrine of the Trinity
, was fo well eftablilhed, and had outftood
the fhock of fuch long and earneft opposi
tion, that he who is the father of all lies
and herefy could no longer draw men to
an open denial of their Saviour's 'Divinity,
as he had long fince been baffled upon the
fubjed of the incarnation: he now again
attempted to evacuate or frustrate the con
feSfion of both ; on one hand, by dividing
H Socrat. H. E. 1. 6. c 8. * Socrat. I.7. c.6.
i and

the Trinitarian Conthvefjy. 273
and feparating thefe two natures in fuch Serm. vi:
manner, that the weaknefs of the one K~irY>*/.
might not be properly united with the
power of the other; on the other hand,
by fo blending and confounding them to
gether, that the properties of neither might
remain diftind. > Thefe oppofite herefies,
which chiefly exercifed the Eaftern Writers
of the fifth and Sixth centuries, do fo far
affed the Trinitarian controverfy, that
they ought not to be wholly overlooked,
and yet are fo far removed from the main
queftion concerning it, that they may well
be ftated hi a fummary way, without de-
fcending fo minutely to particulars, as was
requisite upon the Arian fcheme.
It was in the reign of the junior Theo
dofius, and after Nefiorius's promotion to
the Patriarchate of Conftantinople, that^f-
naftaftus, a Presbyter of that Church, did
in a publick fermon caution his hearers a- 4.28^
gainft calling the bleffed Virgin 3-iorox.^,,
or the Mother of God-, not in the fame
fenfe as the Apollinarians had declared a-
gainft it formerly, b who denied Chrift to
have received his body from the fubftance
of the Virgin ; but upon quite different
grounds, namely, becaufe that She having
no other than the human nature, it was
impoflible that God Should be born of herc.
— . - 1.1 1 1 - - 1
£ See the foregoing Sermon, p. 2/2. * Socrat. 1. 7. c. 32.
T Many

2 74 An Hiftorical A c c p U n t of
Serm. vi. Many of. the clergy and people of Con-
x~^Y\s ftantinople were ftartled:at this dodrine,
as difapproving the language of the anci
ent fathers, relapfing into downright, Ju-
daifim, and implying Chrift to be no more
than mand.
Nefiorius was a man of good parts and
ready utterance, but of a fierce and refo-
lute temper, heighten'd by an immoderate
conceit of his own abilities, and not con-
duded by any confiderable degree of- learn
ing, or knowledge of antiquity e. It is
fuggefted that Anafiafius, who was entirely
his creature, had taken this dodrine from
him as its author and patron* ; and it is
certain he was fo far from difallowing it
in his Presbyter, that he openly defended
it himfelf, and by his management in this
controverfy made it eafily appear, that it
was not merely a quibble about words,
but however there might be fome on both
fides who were only to blame for their
inaccuracy of expreSIion; (from whence
the hiftorian compares them to people
fighting in the dark, as injudicioufty af
firming and denying the very fame things s,)
yet for his own part he feems to have really

d Vid. eofd. ibid. • Vid, Socrat. ibid.
* Vid. Evagr. ut fupra. - : '
K Kai aoafio ov vux.TOp,a%;tot xadsraTSi, vVv puv TOUTa sXiV't w»
-j tu. tripa, 0-vyxa.TtTi'isvToTS ootuvtS, Kal ifvouvTo. Socrat. H. E.
1.7, c 32. difown d

"* the Trinitarian Controverfy, 275
difown'd that ftrid and hypqftaticat union Serm. vi:
of two natures in Chrift, which the Ca- V-^V
tholicks aSferted. "Tis likely there were
fome of the fame fentiments before, un
awares, perhaps, betfay'd into them in
the heat of their difpute with the Apolli-
narians. 'Tis certain at leaft, that the A*
pollinarians charg'd them as the common
opinion of the Catholicks11. But now they
were more openly avow'd and maintain'd
by Neftorius. He acknowledg'd the 'Di
vinity of the Word, but feems to have un
derstood its indwelling in Chrift no other-
wife than as the Holy Ghoft dwelt in the
ancient Prophets. From hence he fpeaks
of Chrift as a man bearing God within
him>, which is known to he the charader of
other holy perfons ; and fomewhat more than
intimated that the bleSfed Virgin could no
otherwife be deem'd the Mother of thi
Word, than her coufin Elizabeth might be
term'd the Mother of the Holy Ghoft, with
whom her fon the Baptift was filled from
his , mother's womb*. He refufed to call

" Greg. Naz. Orat. ft. l
1 — Mt) 3-ios ioXifSSi, il-toipoooi j) paXXot mOotm®* v)v b Xfliif.
Neftor. apud Cyril. Alex, adverf. Neft. 1. r. c. 2. p. 10,
tom. 6.
k 'O laavnii 0 fba-XTvpii zr*)or-tyuT\tTai ttaoa tSv dyiuv kyyiXav,
'in vrXy&io-STOi to /Zoitp©- ttviupiaT®* oiftts iti dl xolXiaf 'jMf
T^i koTjt- xai Ttvtupia. ityiov 's-^uv, iroii 0 pax.uft@* j3eew)ifi)$
ttytsTixTSTo. ti iv xaXsTi -n/y 'EXurabsr Ttvtvparo-nxAV j Neftor,
apud Cyril. Alex. 1. i. adverf Neftor. e.g. ift tom. 6 p. » 9.
V ¦•'.t T a him

276 £n Hiftorical Account of
Serm. vi. him God, who was but a child of two or
bSY^J three months old1, and exprefs'd himfelf
in fo irreverend a manner, that at firft he
was fufpeded to have efpoufed the fenti
ments of Paul of Samofata m, and to have
confefs'd no other but the human nature
in Chrift n. When upon farther explications
he appear'd to acknowledge the ^Divinity
of the Word, he yet feem'd in fuch man
ner to feparate it from the humanity, as
would really deftroy the myftery of the
incarnation, reprefenting the bleffed Virgin
to be ^ijdti&os, or the Mother of Chrift0,
tho' not .of God; which was in effed to
fay that the humanity alone is Chrift-, or
in other words, that Chrift is not truly
God, but only conjoin'd with the Word
of God as with another perfon p. For that
reafon he declined the ufe of thofe ex-
preflions which do moft Strongly import
the indiffoluble hypoftatick union of both,
and chofe rather to reprefent it by fuch in
ferior defcriptions, as might put little diffe
rence between him and a Prophet emi-

1 -— ''E<p>! Nt^'pi^, tov ytvopcw Sipwuitov, xa] TtiptwtaHu, in
etv B-iov oyopM<raipt. Socrat. 1. 7. c. 34. Evagr. l.i. c. 2.
" Vid. Cone. Eph. par. 1. §.13.
¦ Vid. Socrat. 1. 71 c. 3*.
• Neftor. Epift. ad Cyril, in concil. Eph. par. 1. §. 9.
t Vid. Eragr. 1. 1. c. 2. Sc Cyril, ut fupr. vid. & l.*J
f. 8. p. jo, - -' 

ftenth/

the Trinitarian Controverfy, 277
hently infpired i. So that according to his serm. vr.
ftate of the matter, there Should be two V^VV
different Sons, one begotten of the Father
from all eternity, and another born of a
Virgin in the fulnefs of time". For tho*
he pretended to acknowledge only one
Chrifi, one Lord^ and one Son, yet he
plainly meant this of an unity of dignity,
and not of perfon or hypoftafis, that the
humanity was fo far exalted by this con-
jundion with the Word, that thefe names
or titles were promifcuoufly attributed to
'em both r. Which evafive conStrudion was
fo grofs and abominable, that when after
wards he would have confented to accept
the term 3-go7Dx^, the Church could not
be fatisfied with his prevaricating fubmit
fion'.
* See. Mr. Reeve'* Notes upon the Commonitory of Vincentius
Lirinenfis, p. 295*.
r Vid. Vine. Liriri. adv. haer. c. 17.
r 'fjTmyays puta rau-ra to -tyi <ruv«q>ttoti afyap*, art tS, $b*
il ccvisrsia xotvi' ori iav ouo Tcturtv to afyapx tov Cfwrsay pimrnv,
iuioXoyit'T^y 7?s «2(«5 tvorrtra. Neftor. apud Cyril. 1. 2. c. e.
p. 44. Atuifio-ti sx fs-i ms ovmtpitas th atltttp,ttiT&',. tih viorx-
to; rii; i 3-MTijT©- xai itvUgtMsimToi ietSdaifsFij , i yi
iX,°piv out %q 15-415. *«« 000 uuti aXX au-ni o us sift AytXttf,
iu tvj «?i'«s, otXXa ry Cpivst. Ibid. cap. 6. --- "EstbJijH'es ixsivot.
"  ~  '¦'  "  —' ~"" "-  ,,;-¦- ... juw

tha (pnpt tus uio-nrr®*, ov xa.ru, -ms Quo-its' tya Totiri k») XS'^i
b S'soe' Xoyoi iyop/a&Tai, wtsiita tvsi ttjv trtivaQsiav, tvv treac Ttt
XPtftv ittfitxyr xat aux tfi toy- itsov Xoyov tenu Tin Uvlgtiinmrrof
-uoff&pu ti- atwx&iGaTttt <y> I15 aixfat a-iwaQiiav, ovx us e%!totiara.
cap. 8.
J Vid. Socrat. H. E. 1. 7. c. 34:
Ts The

17% An Hiftorical A C c o u n t of
Sbrm. vi. .'The ferious Catholicks were griev'd ,hr
^i^V^ earneft to fee men indulge fuch wantoni
fpeculatiohs: about thofe myfteries which
the Angels the'mfelVes can . never fathom.5
But. when .fuch explications were given
out as 'could not corifift with the catho
lick dodrine of redemption, it was necef-
fary for them to oppofe 'em, and declare
with what ' ftridnefs and propriety they
'oeliev'd the hypoftatical union of two na
tures in Chrift. They, carried this fo far
as even to term it Ivcean; >fvaam, a natural
union\ to aflert the dodrine of one incar
nate nature, and to explain this matter.
from the fimilitude of 1 foul andi body,
which by virtue of their', per fonal unicHh.
are reckon'd to make but one man^.
From hence they concluded, that as the
adions- of the body are attributed to the
foul, fo might what happened to Chrift's
human nature, be juftly attributed to the
divine Word, inSomuch that God the Word
might be faid to have been born, to have
fuffer'd, to have died for us *.
._  "— *  «-- — ; "'",' ¦ • ¦- - ¦
" ... 'Evj5 ^fi^-ou — xaiu tuyoo\y tiU xaff svuirty Qvo-txw,,'. Cyril.
Anathem. 3. '' ' '" . '"_'-. ... "
" Mia <$ «3ij ^eE~rEe( (pi/0-15 piia -nivsvao-iv i coutov tou Xoyx c-f-
raoxaihJin, xalax'se auusXst xat i<p' itu,Zt avmt vooir av iixoTUi^ ay-
mu7tos y> a; ocXwui'o~uyxtipsvos s\ avopoiuv no ayparm, tyvffli .dti
Xtyo> xai o-apaTOf. Cyril, adv. Neftor. 1. 2. p. 3 1.. '-" '
* rsyiyyijxs y> [xagQsvoi] o-aoxixai aatxa yeyomV* tbj ix S'so9
itaTtos Ac'yo». Cyril. Anath. I. — -T«» • rii?* 3-soo Aoyw %a$ivri
tragxt, xai fravfaipiyov oraoxi, xai Sayarx yivtrapaov oraoxi. A-
nath. 12.
.y-i'l This

*\ the Trinitarian Controverfy. 279
This gave the handle to Nefiorius and Serm.vi.
his friends to ; charge the^ Catholicks with v^vy
reviving the herefy of Apollinaris, with
fuppofing- ChriSfs Divinity to fupply the
place of the human or reafoflable foul,
with Apixfen ting1 it -therefore as fubjed to
paffi on and 'infirmity, which can have place
hi none but a created nature; and indeed
with-utterly deftroying the diftindion of
two natures, by -mixing and confounding
their 'properties- together yj* ' -'J]''^
The more judicious Gatholicks did eafily
explaiti --' themfelves- to avoid all thefe ab
surdities;- ;'; They confefs'd -the perfedion of
Chrift's ManhdJd "'as well as his Divinity,
and jtfierted the perfonal union of the Aa-
yo^ not merely with an human body,
but with a, body and reafonabie foul toge
ther2. 1 They confefs'd the divine Word to
retain Its natural diverfity a, and when they

r. 'Kn ptav 'wdsaa-tv' a-uypyju o-vy%soiv to$ Quo-Hi, Qvo"tx»v ttiv
S-iiav stoio-tv otnoxaXav. Qrientalium objed. ad Anath. 3, Cyr illi,
eiufdem Apologia infert. tom. 6. p. 164.. 'On <$ stpuXah ti
a,7i«.Us tv, !tzM (puo-if a stTim, sTCftsi o-ctyxi, ouBfy stioov stpri, n ps\a
v-apuss na&ttv' xav xy p,p-)x.Tyiiir(io^i "iitah, vTa6tiT0i apioXoytilai,
corund. abje£t. ad, Anath. 12. p. i9g.
z To sniitv ra 3-s2' Xoy ai aZp.a, Qapsv ip,^iu%ao% ^Wl ^Vtlef'
Cyril, adverf. Neftorii. 2. p. 31.
" "Erica p\i <yS 5^5)0! rov ix 3-sou Aoyo» i <r«p|, narot yt Toy
.nuiJoia^tpuTioii Xcryov, sriga o\\trotXu ovtrtcvoZi i avrou rou Xoyit
<po<rii. Ibid.. 'Ou . trvy%S6/y -mi, -<pio-sn, ij eCvaxfivSiv sui tpuvsti,
ioXX' oti o-aonsii xat aip.aroi pSTifgtiKUi o TiS. 3-sou, Xoyoi, sn on
JtotXlt xai jsTui i i,toi ytstrat xat ovopa^tTai. 1. 2. C. 6. p. 4j*.

T 4 fpake

2 8 o An Hiftorical A c'c pun rof
serm.vi. fpake of a natural mion* ;lznd one nature
.V^VV incarnate, they meant that; this Word, which
had always.- been divine, and had the Di
vinity as its *§te pu'ffi?, its proper nature,
did in time ..aSfume the hjiman nature to
the ftrideft union With himfelf b;i fo that
they were , as truly one from the firft mo
ment of conception, as the foul and body
are in us^ that it was the very perfon or
vyngzatc; ,oi the Wor4ir which took in the
human nature to fo; itrid a conjundion
With himfelf, that the ftefh which he fput
on was properly his own fiefh, and; might
in that refped be term'd divine, as the fiefh
of a mail is term'd humgn* ; which did not

b Aw>. (op Qoo-sti ,iivao% Qapsv,, ptrcc h ys <pjy svcoe-ty, o%i etymtf
•tiimi V?n tvk iti'Sio StaTopHi, play iivat Ttif'sooptsv t\\v tou uiou <pu-
trtv, «5 hoi, irtein, fyaylfa^iynravroi xat o-vraoxapsvH. Cyril, ad Acao.
Meliten. in cone. Eph, par. 3. §. %f . E15 y«j «V» W, «w o%x»
trafqgi 0 xa-rd tpuo-'tv may s\o> trdotfgq xal atparos. Cyr. adv.
Neft. 1. 2. C 6. p. 45-. 'Ou o-uyxsoyjsi rici Quo-tti, ire pv,v ot\-
XiXaii lunu£ hvaQioovTii--. cpustxv\v tpapyi ysv«3g tm ivuTir SOX
ix Stio TToayparav itvopaim, B-iorriris ts xat avloaoiaTirrai, tie
ha ysvso% x&js'oV' xai uiov xai xuotov o\ct£iiai£pzt)a tratrdfcoy.
Apol. adv. Orient, ad Anath. '3. p. 167.
c SlmriQ ys si,r<5 -rov xai' itpxs avfyw7tov axoxntav, iv% e%
$&> ita paXXov wlxrixai ecvtyamti, x*Tffltto\r' av iti&rai, aXX'
tva xat pgvov, xav ivvowro ro^y'ix tyi/tya xai vipictttti, xal t3»
icXXviXoti o-up^&ix.oTuv rt'^u&ii'eu set) av% i hurvi piboXXpv aXXa
Zk\g.$oeoi'- km vmXiv iitl yijifoZ voyst'sov iu yu.% toi o\itXou% if or aXX
iti ts xal f/J>os xfyioi xai '010$, 0 ix, Siou xargys Xcyoi, iu ii'%x
trofnai. 1; 2. c. 6. p. 4<r.
--- tMi*ii uimfoto-iv thv rav Xoyou fto'ttfKOipisyuo , mtrtt
f*s» ^p d-soTtrra ytvio% tpapiiv rou Xoytt r\t eraoxec, Sritay 5 " jp>a%.
My, 0>i t'eiay oiuTou' si yap- avlpayris. troipQ-ii kvitonrm Xiyirai n ti
jwtotot m Kal 9-ii'os, imsTt Tvst tou Ste$ hi^ts. 1. 2. c8.-p.JI.

destroy

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 1 8 1
deftroy the diftindion of the natures, but serm. vi:
only preferv'd the unity of perfon^. How- v^nTV
ever, fince this mention of one nature had
furnifh'd, fuch a handle for cavil,, and was
perhaps the leaft to be justified from an
cient precedents, it quickly grew into dif-
ufe among the Catholicks, and it became
rather the language of the Church to ac
knowledge two natures in one operfon or
iJ-OTcao-i?, agreeably to that confefiion of
John Bifhop oi Antioch*, which was ap
proved of by St. Cyril himfelf., Laftly,
they believed the. divine nature to be per-
fedly impajfible%, and: when they, main-
tain'd that God was born and fuffer'd, they
only meant that, he was born and fuffer'd
according to the fiefh}1, in that human body

:,', * 'Ovy, ai raj tuv <piiriusx^g.<pooy.i knipipivys 2^$ tviv svaa-iy
atTtoTsXsirao'm 3 paXXov viptv rov \va xvfitoy irtaieuy ffltfov xat ulcv,
Srsornroi ts xal otv^foiytomroi, S^gi trfi atpokfi xal ktcofpirfs tfpoj
boTYtra o-iuifyopZi. Cyril, ad- Neftor, in Cone. Ephe£ par. 1.
' f Auo yao (puorioii ivaa'is yiyovC e\b xat iva xpisov, sva fitly, tva
.-*a\toy SpoXoyoupitv. Joan., Antioch. Epift. ad Cyril, in Cone.
Ephef. par. 3. §. 30, 24.
- 's-wfrsr * t° r " • ~ » / ~ , , , ,/
, « Ti6*r«5 spJctavTiiTai, an Tvfi aywreCTv irao-uv wetots ii ipyta-
iti iaiofiguv j 1 ' 1. iirntfe yap ifty i kuroi Bso'i « ip,ou xal av~
Vfimii, kiratrii ply liytlxov iii t>j» t?s S-ioTwoi Qua-iv, ttahroi 3
xara To icvloaxivey, 71 to otroTtoy, it to ira&sTt Ttapv^rt xiyt-tat
vtait~vf tS ytalsTv hx itoH-rt pipmxais kvottbi. Cyril; adverf.
Orient, ad Ana them. 12. p. 197, 198.
.* ' Erspov p to 0T«f*i irattHv XtVso%, xal srsooy opolas to Italia
Asytfylv T^T^hia-ntToi (point. Ibid. p. 198. vid. & ipfa A-
Bathem, 1. & 12.
which

itt An Hiftorical Account of
serm. viz which was properly his own'1', fo that tho*
t-OTsJ he could- fuffer nothing in his divine na
ture, yet fuffering in his human, it was he
that fuffer'd, fince that charader is plainly
perfonal, in which the two natures, ', how?
ever different in their properties, muft ne
ver be divided k.
- The dodrine oi Nefiorius having quickly
crofs'd the fea, to Alexandria, St. Cyril,
who was then Patriarch,' became the moft
zealous and induftrious of his oppofers :
who, after other ineffedual attempts for
his recovery, digefted the herefy of Nefio
rius, and the catholick dodrine oppofed
to it,r into twelve heads or chapters, de
nouncing his anathemas- againft thofe who
Should aflert the one, or impugn the; O1-
ther l. JThefe anathemas were ratified in a
430. council held at Alexandria^1, and were
then fent to Nefiorius to be fubferibed by
him, in order to° prevent their concurrence
in that fentence of excommunication which
Pope Calefiine had already denounced in
.another council held at Rome n.
Orav rotvvv ragxt Xtysrai itaQuv, eux avras s'S ioHav (buo-iy
voiirai nafasy, xaSo 9sii iftv i^to9roiip,iyeq ^ paXXov to 7m6oim ku-
toS yap ysyovt*To 'huSiv avrai <rZpoo. Cyril, ibid. p. 197. V
".* O r%S iva<rso>i Xoyos, ovx 'ayvosi pa ryv 2^g.(popav, sfyfYi<rt
-5 Tijv s^Cfttrn. Cyril, adv. Neft.' l.'i.'c. 6.. p. 4/. vid. & c. 8.
p. fo. ¦ " : '- ...
J See thefe Anatbematifrns, , with his explication and defenfe tf
•them, in the <' fikth 'tome of his works'. '' ' V,-
" Vid. Cone. Ephef par. 1.6. 16.
: ibid. §. is, .9.
-• -rw Nefiorius

"^ the Trinitarian Qontroverfy. *8 $
Nefiorius the meanwhile was ;fo far Serm. vi.
from fubfcribing thefe anathemas of Cyril, ,k-'"VN/
that he drew up others of equal number
hi oppofition to him °. Nor was he with
out Some friends and abettors of confides
rable; name and. charader, John, who
was; at that time .Patriarch of Antioch, and
Theodorit the Bifhop of Cymspt had been
educated with hind in their youth p,m and
they retain'd fuch an efteem and value for
their fchoolfeliow, that however they de-
tefted: the herefies which Were laid to his
charge/ yet they really believ'd him; to be
innocent; and to retain a fenfe or mean
ing --which was altogether catholick ; not-
wMtft;aiiiJding theyvjitould gladly .have ad*
vifed hiht ta, be-jlefs^fcrupulous of rhac
expreffiffln- of ^thebJMfotker of. God,- which
they thought was eafy to be justified' by.
anciebt: authorities, and the Meaning- of
which they imagined, that Meftdxfasfhittiz
felf was willing to. allow 9; it Oh thb o-i
ther hand, theyfudpeded St. Cyril's anatbe-
matifmsi as really advancing another he^
refy, byi feeming to avoid this; asdefcrib-
ihg this myflerious union in terms, fo Strong
and emphatical,"' that they could no way?

0 Vid. duojlecim capitula blafphem. Neftor. inter opera
Marii Mercat. par, 2. p.ii<5, &c. Edit. 1673. .>.,
» Vid. Cave Hift. lit.^an. 423 81427. ";.
J Cone. Ephef. par.i. §.2/. Joan. Antioch. ad. Neftor. .
3 avoid

284 An Hiftorical Account yof
serm. vi. avoid that odium oi Apollinarianifm, or
V7V fome other abfurd mixture pf two natures
into one, which Nefiorius had charged
upon them1. Thefe being men of intereft
and reputation, their opinions were pretty
generally receiv'd among thofe Bilhops
who were fubjed to the Patriarch of Anti*
ochf, and: who in a more peculiar fenfe are
term'd the Eaftern Bifhops, by .'way of
contradiftihdion to thofe of Egypt and
the lefler Afia. By this encreafe of par
ties, headed by fuch potent Patriarchs, the
differences naturally ran high, and both
fides thought it was high time - to ' confute'
the Church's peace, by applying to Theo-
dkfius, for the interpoSkion of his imperial
authority, to call a. general council, .which
was appointed, accordingly to meet at E-
phefiust. ¦
It had been happy for the Church, if
all the Bifhops could! have, met together/
by the day the Emperor appointed. But
after feveral days waiting for the Eaftern
Bifhops, who were reckon'd favourable to
4.31. Nefiorius, the council was open'd at laft
without; them* upon the arrival of two of
their number, who gave affurances of their

* Vid. Cave ut fupra.
f See the objections of the Eaflems to St. Cyrtts Anatbe*
matifms, in the fixth tome of bis works.
! Cone. Ephe£ p. 1. §. 31,52. Evagr. 1. 1. c, 5. ,
con«

\the Trinitarian Controverfy. 285
confent to their entring upon bufinefs". Serm.vi.'
Nefiorius, after three citations, refufing to ^^Y\J
appear, and detaining a fmall party with
him, the council (which confifted of about
two hundred Bifhops) proceeded to exa
mine his writings, and thofe of Pope Cce-
leftine and St. Cyril againft him ; after
which they cenfured and depofed Nefiorius,
and ratified the dodrine of his oppofers as
primitive and catholick w. The Eaftern Bi
fhops, upon their arrival, refented what
was done, and holding a feparate affembly
by themfelves, prefumed even to pronounce
a fentence of deprivation againft St. Cyril,
and Memnon Bifhop of Ephefus*. The
differences by this means rofe to a great
height, and continued for fome years.
Mean while Nefiorius was adually difpof-
feffed of his See, and another confecrated
in his room ?. And as matters came to
be refleded on with more coolnefs and
candour, the Eaftern Bifhops in the end
grew generally fatisfied with St. Cyril's
explications, and defirous of his commu
nion2. They were more hardly brought
to anathematize the perfon of Nefiorius a.

¦ See Dupin in the Council of Ephefus, fifth century.
¦ Cone. Ephef. Aft. i.
* Ibid, in Aft. conciliabuli vid. & Evagr. H. E 1. 1. c. f.
t Socrat. 1. 7. c. $f.
* Cone. Ephef. par. 3, c, 27, 28, 30,
J Dupin ut fupra.
. Yet

' 28^ Ah Hiftorical A c C 6 u NT vf
Serm, vi. Yet even this was fubmitted to by moft of
-VVV themb, and Theodorit himfelf, who ftuck
out for many years, did yet at laft confent
to it in the council of Chalcedonc. , Sp lit
tle reafon is there to fufped, that Nefio
rius met with hard ufage, or was misinter
preted d, when his caufe was not only de
termined by a numerous council, but given
up at laft by the greateft of his friends6.
It is no wonder if, in the heat of fuch
a controverfy, fome, who meant to eSpoufe
the catholick caufe, Should oppofe the pre
vailing herefy with fuch vehemence, as
not to.be enough cautious of the contrary
extreme, and by the manner of their ex
pression (at leaft) to give a handle tp other
men, to advance another herefy diredly
oppofite. Thus if St. Cyril, who was a
man of judgment and good fenfe, knew
how to guard his expreSfions, and keep
within the. bounds of catholick propriety,
yet 'tis to be fear'd there might be others
fo weak or inadvertent, as to imagine that
the Godhead itfelf is paffiblei. This was
" Ibid. c Vid. Cone. Chalced. Aft. 8. p. 274. Bio.
d See Bifliop Bttrnet upon the fecond article.
' See Mr. Reeves'* Notes upon Vincentius Lirinenfis, pag.
280, 294.
1 Dr. Cave, ad an. 431. charges Acacius of Melitene with
afferting this before the Emperor; but if fo, 'tis certain he corrected
his notion afterwards, for he afferjed the contrary, both in the
council (Aft. .. p. 181. Bin.) md in (par. 3. §.y.) his homily.
diredly

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 2 #7
diredly the herefy of the Apollinarianss, siw. vf.
and it may be fome excufe for the Eaftern 5 VW
Bifhops in charging St. Cyril with that he
refy, if this inaccuracy of fome of his fup-
porters had given but too plaufible a ground
for it.
And if this were nothing more than in
accuracy in fome at that time, yet after
wards it came to be maintain'd with greater
obftinacy, when in order to maintain this
paradox of a pajfible Divinity, the God
head was fometimes fuppofed to be con
verted into fiefh, or fo mixed up at leaft
with human nature, as to retain no pro
perties diftind. Nay, and the fiefh of
Chrift it felf was thought to be of a dif
ferent kind oi fubftance from ours, either
brought with him from heaven (as the A-
pollinarians had ufed to fuppofe) or at
leaft created anew, and not properly taken
from the fubftance of his mother.
There was an Abbot at Conftantinople,
Eutyches by name, who had ftrenuoufly
aSferted the dodrine of the Church againft
Nefiorius*; but in the heat of controversy
had Strained the matter to the other ex-

* See the foregoing fermon, p. if 3, xf$.
b See this acknowledg'd in Flavian'* letter to Leo, n 6. par. 1.
and in Pope Leo'; letter to him at the beginning of the Council
cf Chalcedon. treme,

2 8 8 An Hiftorical Account^/
Serm. vi. treme, and was at length accufed*. of ad-
.VVV vancing the principles already mention'd.
Flavian* who at that time was Patriarch
.of Conftantinople , thought it a matter
which ,-deferv'd the anlmadverfion of a
448. fynod.' Accordingly he cited the Abbot to
appear k, who as he declined it either with
obftinate refufals or dilatory excufes, fo he
impofed upon the meffengers who cariie to
him with equivocating accounts of his
faith, profefling to adhere to the decifions
' of the councils of Nice and Ephefius, yet
not without fuch a referve as might (if he
were pinch'd) evacuate that profeSIion1,
and refufing to acknowledge two natures
in Chrift, tho' united hypoftatically m, un
der pretence of a mighty fcrupuloufnefs to
determine any thing about the nature of

1 Befides the original Ails of the Council of Chalcedon, fee
this whole matter fluted \n the fifth tome of Dupin, and more
briefly by Dr. Cave, H. L. vol. 2. p. 169.
, The ASs of this Conftantinopolitan Synod are recited in the
firft Act of the Council of Chalcedon.
c.roipov yap savrov itvat stpawxs rati sxt/sa-te-t -ray aytwv vtartpao
tuvti cy ytxaiet xat oil sd>sa-a tviv truvoo\v tToimrapisyav o-uyrlSso%, xat
. I *. . ~ c . » ' r. ( . / . W I \ *
UTtoypatpstv rati spp-mttaii ctu-mv apoXoytf si es tfts tu%oi ti itap
a'wmy 'sv tio-i Xi\soriv v\ Syga-poiXSiv 1j 2^g.7tXan$iv, txto pii Jj
elavaXXsiv, pith xarao\^io%- piovat 0% ras ypaOpai spsvvav, us fit-
Qaiorspai 'iorai tvk tuv vtar'spuy Ixttsosai., Adi. 3. Conftant. rec't-
tat. in AOc. 1. Cone. Chalced. p. 79. Binius.
m To '-j sx Mo (pia-suv svakia-Sy xab" b-mfao-iv ysyiy1io!% tov xvptoi
upav ino-ouv ;Kpir»v, piirt pitpafy&wai h rati ixiso-ici rav oiytm,
piHTs xaTaSi%so\, ii tu%oi ti dura toiouto ©-mas' Tivoi u-muayi-
vae-xsaK, 2\g, to tui Ss'tai, iti iXiyty, dpiiirwas sfycUT^q iHyiteticir
gay ohohtarrMXiai. Jbid. * his

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 299
his God A. He utterly denied .his having Serm. vi.
ever maintained ihat the fiefh of Chrift ^VV
came down from, heaven ; he allowed him
to have taken it from the bleffed Virgin,
but very ingonfiftently refufed to own its
being, cpnfitbft^ntial, or of the fame kind
with ours* : appealing for this to the Ni
cene creed, which mentions no other con-
fiibftantiality befides that with the Father p.
So jthat inftead. Of fuppofing the Godhead
Jo 1 be converted into fiefh (as his dodrine
has uihally been rdprefented, and as feveral
of his followers moft probably understood
it, in imitation of their fore-runners in he
refy the Apallimriansi) he feems rather to
have Swppofed that the Jkfh itfelf was dei^
fifidli and made. riot by way of appropria
tion, but fubftantially, divine.

* Ufa ysv$o (lyfiiy Jpp, apt iflo Cpuoriuv tov %ptfiij h tyso-toXty&b
liv $sot ftiis. A£t. 6. Conftant. ibid. p. 87.
0 np«o*£7j9^J3, «•« XotSoSiion Taos, «5 Sp», Xs-)(,ieto~iti xoil' eou'rS,
iti aurS eijpyii(gToi irt jyt^J^j^^'S ,Tgv «»(«« » .fea Af*,?»-
Tsviivo-fcsv, ai ctUTOi etysuiiui^' rv/if^vj T1J5 ToieuiTin XcAg/ou.- , ,
xai Towra Xsyoiy uihoXoyi nXtfov dm that xai nXitoy avieatco,
'"\ ---.>'»' ' ~ ',/"-' 1 * 1 ' '• '
•nv yswmsvra om tvh zta^svn paQfiat, pm s^ayra trapxa op.oxo-10*
ifc%M.J. Coqft. £,79... > , ¦-,- ~ ., ./
p- E0n 0 apfctpayele/iTins svTy%r,i, to p,u6npia -it as txii styt . . i,
iUasnis, ort zrsp to paiyipa txi, ipotsViov rZ vtarg/t povov. kvri-
¦nhtrti i ap^ipavSjoi-tTK evrvyjitij Xtyuv, 'urus iv i%s fi «"'»?,
»ar«iJ>5 xaya jsrai s^u' STS0yri ix i-mfapnv ,ci rjj 'uzoisost* AiSt.
Conft. in Cone. Chalc. -A& '¦• P- ' ®f • ?'n.
, '* See the fifth |ermonJ:pv25;2,2j,4..
'See Dr. If^aterlan^'s .Qatical Hiftory of ^& Athtg^1"*
Creed, chap. 7. p. 10 f.
.:'¦',' "tJ 'When

VT^

300 An Hiftorical A C count of
Serm. vi. When at laft he was prevailed with to
appear before the council; he perfifted in
much the fame declarations, except that he
confented to acknowledge Chrift's flefh
confubftantial with ours, in consideration
that the council declared it fo to be f. But
then he refufed to concur in anathematiz
ing thofe who taught the contrary, under
pretence that in fo doing' he muft andthe- '
matize many of the Fathers l and ancient
Catholicks, whofe dodrine was the fame
with that of which he had been accufed.
This was in effed to own that he Still
continued of the fame mind, and confe
quently that the fubmifllon he had pro-
mifed to their fynodical determination up
on that queftion, muft be feign'd and hy-
poftatical, and (as he fcrupled not to own)
a matter of neceSIity rather than of choice,
which was fuch a fort of TubmiSIIon as
the fynod had utterly difclaim'du. This
therefore;
f Ea; o~&ptpov ix siVov to o-ap,a r$ xvput, xj S-sS ipav ipionnoi
*)pTv, tviv 3 orao6ivov ipoXoyS stvai ipty opio&iriov, xjj on i\ euirnt
itratxtth i B-ics i.pm Aft. 7. 'Conftant. p. 91. » 5 A?
iiyttTy ix 7?« zraclivt), ff ipo&Piov ip7y, ff tSto Xtyot.
' H tiyta. o-uvoioi sins' isi <rt a-atpas hpiaXtywrat, ff aiakpa-
•neat truy to utrivav-nav tSv vSv kvayvu&ivTuv hypxrm. ' 'J&irrtt-
%vi a-pio-wVtpos sixty tttrov Ty io-iomrt hpSv,, art ts-g£ rim ix
iXsyoV vm -j iitiio\ tSto Si&xi i ierioTtii bpiSv, Xtyo, xj ««e'-
Xviai Ta~f yraTpcurtv »rj 3 ci rati ypeUpeiii hvpcv o-xQas tSto, «ti
it tmrspti it-toy -mivTti' iav 5 avafopa-nrv -, iai pioi win, 'in risi
various ps ayaSipav^a. p. 92.
J *0 dywTttT<& ^ww-sot®. j,W ixw not! iictyxie, ttTtt

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 o r
therefore) together1 with his perfifting in serm. vir
the affertion of two natures before incar- V-^V^«>
nation, and but one afterwards wj whereas
the Catholicks could neither allow the hu
man nature of Chrift to have ever fubfifted
feparately from the divine, fo as that there
might be two natures before incarnation,
but to have been affumed by it. in the very
moment of conception, nor again the pro
perties of either to have ; been alter'd or
confounded, fo as that after incarnation
there Should be but oneK: Thefe things, I
fay, together convinced the Patriarch and
his fynod of the heretical ¦ pravity that
reign'd within him, and gave ground for
denouncing their anathemas againft him.y.
->¦ Their fentence was ratified, ' and the ac
tions of their fynod found to have been
truly reprefented, after a frefh examination
by another fynod at Conftantinople2-; and 449»
xara yvaplu), tvv kX-itSn tntu opioXoysti, 'E.tiru%v,i vrgsorGiirsg®''
tiyltv osprt r.upi stTUi t%a. , i Uy larar©* apj^tstna-xotT®- tbrtv
ix ipsis -xatvoTopiSpp, a XX' it zr arspn i%s6syre' ff xxias i Ixrt-
tiiira'Tni-ii trap' ad'iwv t%{, 'irai itifaiayrti, riroii ippsuat otntav-
T«« fisXipiila, k} pitxUv'a mivorapsiv . Ibid. p. 91, 91.
" 'OptoXoyu c*. Sue tpus-tuy ysysvmll, rot xoptov ipav orpo rvti
ivua-soicr psra 3 Tqv tvaa-tv ptwi Qutrty opoXoyS. p. 92.
* QavpaZa Toy isrus aXXoxoTov, ff Utoj ahsc-tappsvlai opoXo-
Jiw, 1 o/ttort rev oiutov rgcam ssty ct.irv.si TO Xsystv, as cik
Ji/» tpofftav 7t£a t?s ivayS'fiiaia'sai 0 poyoysvdi s$iv luc. rou Ssou,
itnrig if iv itlspiTey to S^.ZiiaioZS^, 415 psra To Ton xlyov <ratx»
ytvso% pia iv owtS q>uo~ti ifiv. Leonis Papa; Synod. Epift. ad
Flavian in Aft. 2. Concil. Chalced. p. i6f. ,
1 Aft. 7. Conftant. in Aft. 1. Chalc, p. 93. '. " '
I P. 9/. Evagr. 1. 1. c. p. ¦ i
U.j Pope

3 o 2 An Hiftorical Ace 6 un t of
Serm. vi. Pope Leo by his fynodicat >and cither let*
<ix^rso' ters, commended the zeal 6i Flavian, ex*
^9' preSSirig his concurrence with him in the
dodrine of two natures hfpoftatically u-
nited, and his condemnation' of the fcheme
oiyEutyches*. ^V .'rb mf.-i-
, r Yet after- all, the heretick v. was too Stub*
born to. fubmit : his friends made applica
tion for the Emperor's afliftance b ; and
Theodofius,. by I know not what unhappy
mifcondud, whether influenced by his
courtiers, ( among whom Eutyches had a
confiderable intereft, bnt Flavian had none)
or really fearing, that the Catholicks might
rekpfe: into Neftorianijm, did fo far in
fad yield to the requeft, as to order ano-
449. ther council to be called at Ephefus, in
which. 1)iofcorus, who had Succeeded*. St.
Cyril, in the Patriarchate of Alexandria,
was appointed to prefidec.
—The Egyptians had learnt from St. Cyril
tp have the utmoft abhorrence, of Nefto
rianijm, and they ftuck with fuch rigour
to the ftrideft of his expreSfions, as hardly
to admit of thofe guards and explications
by Which Cyril himfelf had fenced his doc
trine againft the oppofite extreme. There

.* Vid Epift. Leonis fupra citat< p/ifi", &c. praeter alias in
prima parte concil ii. -*
* Vid. Dupin vol.4. p.224. "^
' Vid. Theodof. Epiftoiaa in Aft. 1. Condi. Ojalced.
p. 43, &c.
. - 4 wa?

the Trinitarian Controverfy. $03
was befides this a Standing emulation be- Serm. vi.
tween the See of Alexandria and that of ^^Y^*
Conftantinople. Upon both accounts ©A
efcorus, in this council (which has the op
probrious title of' the felonibus council &)
did openly efpoufe the caufe ' of -'Eutyches,
arid proceeded With fuch partiality and vio
lence, as even to compel the affeflbrs, mil
der the awe of a military" force, not only
to abfolve him, upon his prefenting the
Nicerie Cre£&, and perfifting iri the fame
professions he had made at Conftantinople,
but even to depbfe Flavian from his Pa
triarchal See,* who died foon after of the
injuries he had received e. :
He had appeal'd however to a general
council both of the Eaftern arid the Wef
tern Bifhops f : arid tho' all -the applications
which were made! to Theodofius, Could not
prevail' 'with' him to confent to fuch a
council, or to difapprove • of that which
had be§n done at .Ephefus?, . yet upon his
death, which happen'd quickly afterwards,
Valentinian the fiirviving Emperor of the
Weft, and Marcian who fucceeded in the 450^

•* "SavoSoi Xnsputvi; C&ncilittm latrocinale.
e Pr&terAct. hujufcefynodi Ephefiri. in AH. i. Cone. Chalced.
teciiat. vid. Evagr. H.E. 1. 1. c. io.
f- Vid. Dupin, p. 227. ' ' -' '
E-Vid-. ile hac re vttrias ad Theodof. epiflolat, cuni ejufdem
refponfionibus in prima parte Concil. Chalced. num. 19, istc.

U3 Eaft,

304 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. vi, Eaft, concurr'd in the appointment of a
<*~^Y^J general council, which affembled at Chain
4-5 1# cedonh. , There ah that had, been done, both, at
Conftantinople and at Ephefus, was care
fully review'd. It was difcreetly obferv'd
that Eutyches, by proppfing his creed in
the terms of the firft general council, which
was held long before the rife of the ApoU
linarian herefy > had craftily evaded that
explication which was made by the fecond
general council, upon the article of our
Saviour's incarnation1. In the firft it was
exprefs'd in few words, that he came down,
and was incarnate, and was made man,
which however liable to be perverted by
an heretical fubtlety, not then foreseen,
had yet the very fame H meaning, which
was after wards, more fully exprefs'd by the
Conftantinopolitan Fathers, that he came
down from heftyen, and was incarnate by

r *" Vid. vgr'un hac.de re epift. in CqnciJ. Chalced. par, *.
num. 33, &c. "'..'',
' AoAifS; yipoa-a-aiji; iitiv iv vixaia-tuy. tiyuSy Zaripoiv vivoeov— —
'AiroAAiwfi©-1 y eivirai ttiv ci vtxuta ayiav o-vvoibv, xa-fa tv\v
. , , . . f>l \ , i t <£ ,1 ,
atxstav iraqavapitav jixXapMttmv to .fUiroi'ii ¦ 1 1 vt yi etyitt.TtaTs^ii
ei psra rcwra, to l<r«f**i&j 0 liirov 01 aytot c* vixouet Ttarifti, ie-a-
cpivio-av sivTovrsi' ix ttvsopa]®? eijiit,. , xj paglas Tt\i vtaeiivti.
Cone. Chalc,. AQ;. 1. P.f 7,, .
15 Tsrei; si) ipai iittofy, e%~ ,*] i rei; Xoyoii, ti) Toli Kypxo-n,
iwowrac, ti to vaexottivai ff ivavUpavrlwrat o%Xoi Toy ix &tdu Xoyov.
x. t. x. Cyril. Ale^ £pift, ad Neftor,, recita.t. in Concil. Chal
ced. Aft. I. p. do.

the

the Trinitarian Controverjy. 307
the Holy Ghoft of the Virgin Mary, 4»</serm.vi.
was made man-i in oppofition to the doc- ^-OT^
trine of the Apollinarians1, who pretended
that he brought his body from heaven, and
did not firft come down in order affume
it of the fubftance of the bleffed Vir
gin m. In vain then did Eutyches ai-
ledge the firft ,. and third councils, whilft
he skipt over the fecond ; which how
ever it might fatisfy the Egyptians, who
difclaimed any additions to the Nicene
confefiion », yet the majority of the coun
cil would not be fatisfied , unlefs that
were receiv'd with the explications of the
council of Conftantinople. He had indeed
confefs'd that Chrift's body was not brought
from heaven, but he cared not to be ex-:
plicit in declaring whence it was0.; and al
tho' when he was urged and interrogated
clofely, he might pretend ( as _we have
feen) to own . that Chrift derived his fub
ftance from his Mother, yet that look'd
more like an extorted declaration than his
genuine fentiment, fince he Still difown'd
Chrift's body to be of the fame kind oe
fubftance with ours.

1 'E«|«to 5 vpo&ifuni' Ttapa "rav ccyiuv yrarsgotv, IXfufr rtiv svvoiux
WjV xaxnv ' AicoXXtvagus, x. t. X. p. fj.
m See the foregoing fermon, p. 2^2, 25*4.
" *Oi 'Aiyosrlisi, ff hi my oouroii suXaQstalot simxamt. i%s£c7irav>
iesii o\%srat irga&lixlui, iasn psiactv. Cone. Chalced. Aft. I.
p. ft. See the foregoing Sermon, p. 267.
J Qwcil. Chalced. p.-f8.
U 4 Sa

30 & An Hiftorical Account of
serm. vi. So that upon the whole^ the couneik
v-*~V'v» thought it proper, as well to confirm thede-
pofition of Eutychesi as moreover to depofe
*Diofcorus and the principal of his adherents,
to anatheriiatize the herefies that had been
anathematized by the three former general
councils, and to ratify the fame dodrine
which they had already declared; not only
the creed as ftated firft atNiiCe, and afterwards
enlarged at Conftantinople; but likewife the
anathematifms and explications of St. Cyrils
approv'd of by the council of Ephefius, more
particularly his fynodical epiftles to Nefio->
rius and to the Eaftern Bifhops 5 and with
al to fubjoin a rriore exprefs declaration
againft the dodrine of Eutyches as well as
Neftoriup, by fubfcribing to Pope Leo's
late fynodical epiftle to Flavian, and an
nexing to all this ample paraphf afe upon
the dodrine of the incarnation p, that we
e&nfefs one and the fame Son our Lord
Jefus Chrift, the fame perfect in Godhead,
and the fame perfect in manhood, truly
God and truly man, the fame confifting of
a reafonable foul 'and body; confubftantial
with the Father as touching the Godhead,
md the fame confubftantial with us as
touching the manhood, in all things like
unto us without Jin : begotten of the Fa
ther, as to his Divinity > before the worlds,
' Concil. Chalced. Aft. r— -j. vid. & Evagr. H. E. 1, 2.
e, 4, 18.

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 07
Sut the fame in the lafi days born ac- serm. vr:
cording to his humanity, of Mary the Vir
gin and Mother of God, for us and for
our falvation: one and the fame Jefus
Chrifti the Son, the Lord, the only Be
gotten, acknowledged in two natures, with
out mixture, unchangeably, indivifibly, in
feparably (the difference of natures being
in no wife defiroy'd by this Union, but ra
ther the propriety of each nature prefierv-*
ed, and concurring in one perfon or hypof-
tafis) not as parted or divided into two
perfons, but one and the fame only begot
ten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jefus
Chrifi, as both the former "Prophets have
taught concerning him, and Chrifi has
taught us himfelf, and the Creed of the
Fathers has deliver', d to us.
Such was the refult of the fourth gene
ral council affembled at Chalcedon. And
now the Church feeming to have con-
quer'd every poflible herefy that could ba
formed with relation to the Trinity or 2#-
carnation, the terms of this controverfy
admitted but little variation afterwards,
and the confeffions which were drawn up
in feveral parts of the Church) were form'd
upon the foot of thofe which were alrea
dy eftablifh'd. Mean while it may be Worth
Our obferving, that thefe councils made no
addition to the faith* nor affumed any au
thority

3 o % An Hiftorical A ccounto/
Serm. vi. thority to coin new doctrines, but only to
V^VN> exprefs more fully what had always been
believed, as new herefies arofe which re
quired more explicit declarations. At firft
it might fufflce to make fuch a general
profeSIion of chriftian faith at baptifm, as
might teftify, in the candidates for baptifm,
their Sincere renunciation of Pagan idola
try or Jewifh fuperftition, and their embrac
ing the dodrine of the Gofpel. But when this
profeSIion was it felf abufed to cover impi
ous herefies, particularly with relation to the
Son of God, the fecond perfon confeffed at
baptifm, it then became neceflary to explain
themfelves more fully, and fhew that they
did not acknowledge Chrift in the fenfe of
the hereticks, but according to the catho
lick dodrine and exposition of the Church.
From hence it came to pafs that the
creeds of the Eaftern Churches , where
fuch herefies abounded moft, were larger
upon that head than the Roman and other
Wefiern creeds, which had lefs occafion to
infert fuch explications. Yet even they
were not fufficient to guard againft the A-^
rian fubtkties; and therefore the council
of Nice inferted a few words, not then
newly invented, but taken from catholick
and ancient authors, for the better fecuring
of the ancient faith. The Nicene creed
concluding with the article of the Holy
Ghoft, and then fubjpining its, anathemas^

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 309
is a fuSficient argument that it was not Serm. vij
meant to fet afide the other creeds, but ^-OTV
only to explain them with relation to the
doctrine of the. Trinity, or to fpeak more
ftridly, the Divinity of Chrift. Accordingly
the feveral Churches after this retained their
former creeds, (as appears from the creed of
Jerufalem explained by St. Cyril, and the
Weftern creeds in general,) and only un
derftood their fenfe to be more fully ex
plain'd by the council of Nice upon the
article of the Son's Divinity. But when
Arianifm was Still found to fpread and cn-
creafe, it feems as if thofe Eaftern Churches
which remain'd uncorrupt, did infert the
Nicene explications into their creeds re
fpedively, from whence the Conftantino
politan fathers fpeak of the Nicene creed,
not only as the moft ancient, (being but
a fuller declaration of the fenfe of the
Eaftern creeds, in refped of the Trinity)
but likewife as accommodated to the office
of baptifm, which muft argue it not to be
ufed by it felf (for then the articles after the
Holy Ghoft would be omitted) but rather
incorporated with the baptifmal creed, by
having its explications (as was faid) inferted
in their proper place °s.
1 'Tsej tS; suayysXix^ msioii Tiis « vtxaia, xvpo/fsuryc ,
w poXii Ttors ytpio-ovj-aritv rt iway, 10, axoXaQovrw $avtTio-pali-—i
Epift. Synodic. Concil. OEcumen. Conftantinop. apud. Theo
dorit. H. E. 1. f. c. 9. vid. Annot. Valefii.
The

3 i 0 An Hiftorical Account 0/*
Serm. vi. The Macedonian and Apollinarian herc-
***'*irW fy gave occafion afterwards to more en*
largement, and there were two other forms
drawn up in the time of Epiphanius, and
prefcribed by the Church to catechumens,
for a furer guard againft the fubtleties of
both1. As thefe creeds were Still but ex
planatory of the ancient dodrine, and the
firft of them which is the more concife*",
excepting what was 'inferred in oppofition
to thefe new herefies, was nearly exprefs'd
in the fame terms with the Nicene, he
made no feruple to mention it as the Ni
cene, and even Apofiolicalx. From hence
the council of Conftantinople took their
creed, which therefore in like manner is
generally term'd the Nicene, and having in
it thofe other articles after the Holy Ghoft
which the council of Nice omitted, it
feems to have obtained in many Churches*
tho' not in all, and is alledged as the cOm-
47<5. mon baptifmal'creed, not only by Bafilificus w

' Epiphan. In Ancorat. §. 120; iii.
' Ibid. §. 1,20.
'Kal uvrn fioj/i i Tns-ts Hupstilri km tov dyim kxofoXm, jcJ at
ixxXvjna rij djia jtiXtl, koto titatoiv ipeu ray tiyiuy iicto-xtlim
'writ rptaxooiuv Six* Toy kpitp,iu Ibid. Similiter Petrus Mongus
ad Acacium apud Evagr. 1. 3. c.17.
n ~\ / ' * -- « / *• / > .. » 1.1-
— 10 a-up'coXcv ray -ni ayiav warspan rav co vixutu •mtXat
pttTec tou a fig Wytdpiar®- ixxXito'ta&svTOt, iii 3 iptii ti x) ttut-
tii i -apo ip,Sy tttrtua-uvrii, iGtatiimi&p, Bafilifcus in Epift. En-
cycl. apud Eragr. 1. 3. c.4. and

" the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 1 1
and Zend * in the fifth century; but by the -«*««; vf.
following councils of Tyre*, Jerufalemr,, ^w#
and ConftantmbpJe *. It was about the 5l8,
conclusion of the \fijfth century that it be
gan to be received into the daily offices
of the Church, a The firft example was fet ,
by the Eutychians, -who pretending to ad
here to the Nicene creed without the ad- circa
ditions' ax. Conftantinople, did firft intro- 490.
duce it both in the Patriarchal See oi An
tioch*, ?and then in Conftantinople itfelfK
From hence the pradice feems to have
fpread it felf throughout the Eaftern
Churches, the Catholicks reciting it with
the Conftantinopolitan infeirions, as the
Eutychians did without then*: fiih imita^
tion of which, about an hwndred years af- 589.
ter the like publick ufe pf the Conftanti
nopolitan creed was preferibed in the Weft

w ---"ZvpZcXx rSy nr) dyiuv xarspuv, oxsp itixuairas it pnpo-
ysvlevTti pv ayioi vtaligss k, -aaosi 3 at Xaoi' tou o-orntpiaSvi
k\\ap\ot tpuTto-piaT©", kuri >i, psvov wapaXapGuvovrsi fiamifyy-
toi. Zenonis henoric. .apud Evagr. 1. 3. c. 14. -
* 'Ev kvra [fymbolo Niceno] fia-rJitBivTsi ii @a?r-nfyvTS(;t
Epift. Synodic. Concil. Tyrii in Aft. f. Concil. Gdnftant. fub
Agapeij. 8j ^enna, p. 738. Bin.
T Tav iy vtxaict. iyAspljiuv to 'ay toy o-upZoX.ov, in, a iSaif^,
&tjS/> -ff fait-tiSppy. Epift. Synodic. Concil. Hierof. ibid.
p. 73 *.:< • .'- <¦
* Similia habejitftr in Epift. S.ynod. Qoneil.. Coflftantinop.
eodem anno! Ibid. p. 726.
* 'Tts faid of Petrus Fullo, ihe Eutychian Si/Jtop of Antioch,
that he- ¦order'di iv yrotm trvv&% rl vup€oXoy xiyt&at. Theodor.
Leftor. lib. 2. p. f66.
* By Timothy an E-utyehian7&«»/ye, p. f6$. '"&'
¦¦'-'-> by

3 1 1 Ah Hiftorical A c c o u n t of
Serm. vi. by the council of Toledo*, tho' it feems
^y>*^ not to have obtained at Rome it felf. till a
confiderable. time afterwardsd. > ;.)
The rife of theNeftorian and Eutychian
herefies had made it neceffary for, the ge
neral councils of Ephefus and Chalcedon
to be more explicit upon the dodrine of
the incarnation, in which they were imi
tated by moft of the confeSIIons that were
afterwards drawn up, tho* I do riot find
that their explications; were ever inferted
in the. publick offices. ; ;
It is eafy to obferve from this fhort view
of the cafe, how the fubtleties , of herefy
have occafion'd fome variation in the Stile
of the Church, without altering her doc
trines ; and if our >; adverfaries can fee
ground for any part of fuch variation,
with refped to the Neftorians\nd Euty-
jchians, they muft excufe us, if we judge it
to be no lefs reafonable, with refped to the
Arians and 'Pneumatgmachi.
After the council of Chalcedon, the fe-
veral parties continued to purfue the
fchemes they had efpoufed ; and fome
who did not think fit to rejed the coun
cil abfolutely, yet took the liberty to ex
prefs fome diffent from it as to three arti-
c Cone. Toled. 3. can, 2. in caranz. p. so^a. Edit. Duae.
1679. ; Le Quien. Panopl. fax. 11..C.4. §.21. cles,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 313
ties, called the three chapters ; which be- serm. vf.
came the ground of grievous contentions, v-'V^
especially in the reign of Juftinian, who
very plainly countenanced thofe who con
demned the three chapters, and perfecuted
With great violence thofe that defended
*eme. To this day the Eaftern feds are
chiefly reducible to three, in proportion to
that threefold divifion which was then ia
the Church. And accordingly they have
had their diftind Patriarchs f, the Catho
licks for the moft part in all the ancient
Churches s, the Neftorians at Muzal in
Mefopotamia\ which probably fupplies the
place of the ancient See of Antioch ; and
the Eutychians fometimes in all, but more
conftantly at Alexandria1. Tho" which
fide Should have the adual poffefllon, def-
pended in good meafure upon the difpofi
tion of the Emperor, and other incidental
Circumftances. The Catholicks were they

* Viftor. Tunun. ad Calc. Eufeb. Chron. Edit. Scalig.
p. 1 o, &c. vid. & Cave H. L. in confpeft. fiec. 6.
f See Dr. Smith's Account of the Greek Church, pag. 7.
* Only it Jhould be obferved, that for fome ages the Patriarchal
See has been' removed from Antioch to Damafctts, fiill retaining
the old ftyle of Patriarch of Antioch. Brerewood, chap. 16,
Smith, p.! f .
h See Brerewood's Enquiries touching the diverfity of Lan
guages and' Religions, c. 19.
1 See Brerewood, chap. 2 1, 22, 23. only in the later ages it ii
to be obferved that their Alexandrian Patriarch has ufed to refute
ttt Grand Cairo, and the Antiochian in Mefbpotamia.

¦ i.i

whp

3 14 An Hiftorical J\;c:c o u N t pf
Serm. vi. who receiv'd the dccifip^ of the cpunclf,
VO^V and £ adhered to the Cathplick P^triarichsj;
and thefe in the more JEafterri pant* were
afterwards term'd Melchitesk, .by way of
contempt ;;, which is as, much as to, fay.
Kings-men, becaufe they .efpoufed the fame
fide with Marcian the Ejnperor,, r . u, ,
. As the caufe of Nefiorius had /been
chiefly fayour'd by thofe whp were, fubjed
to the, Patriarch of Antipch, 'tis- likely his
herefy? might have pretty much footing in;
thofe parts, from whence it fpread farther
Eaftward, in the. Seventh century, by the
countenance (as isconjedured) oi Coffees
King of 'Perfia, whot/Strpve tp prompts
this fed among the Chriftians, out pf isper?
oppofition fo the Emperpr HerddmSi who
was engaged in the Eufiyfhian infier^ft K. I '¦
. The Cophtio* Egyptians, on the other
hand, : and , the Ethiopians or Abyffenes,
befides .Several monasteries, as well Jt?rfoj^g;
other perfons of figure throughout the Eaft,
had exprefs'd" fuch an hearty averfion "for
NefiorianiJiW, that they declined into the

a .-> '.'.*.>.

- .._., r  ^ — . - - -   " - ¦*
• A\ ¦ :>¦ - -A'- '' >'\ .'• A'.''
ik From the Hebrew "T7i2,tor the Syriac LO.V^O?
which ftgniftes a King; (vid. Niceph. H. E. 1, 18. c. 5-2.
Brerewood'.i Diverfity of Religions, ch. 16. Hottinger. Hift.
Orient. 1. 2. c. 2.) or more immediately from the Arabic -tvpri
*£*W feSa Bfgijt. vid. Golii Lexicon. V., m -a svi
si' Pa)*W Diacoilus Hiftor. Mifcel.'l. iS. quoted by Brere-
wobd, cap. J9. jaAyV" .ji..' .-
i ../ ¦- other

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 315"
other extreme ; and tho' fome of 'em made no Serm. vr.'
fcruple to condemn the perfon of Eutyches, V^W
yet withal they rejeded the council of Chal
cedon, and efpoufed the caufe of 'Diofcorus,
fo that they are all looked upon as perfons of
Eutychian principles m. At firft they were
called Monophyfita, from their dodrine of
one nature only n ; and Acephali, from
their being destitute of any Head or Patri
arch0; nay, it is faid by Nicephorus, with
out any Bifhops to prefide over them,
which is meant of them more peculiarly
who flood out againft the comprehensive
fcheme of the Emperors Zeno and Anafta-
fius, who were neither for approving nor
condemning the council oi Chalcedon*. But
in the Sixth century, as their numbers were
greatly encreafed under the favour of fome
fucceeding Emperors, fo the wantonnefs of
their herefy took various turns % which gave
ground to various other appellations1.
Sometimes, in consideration that Chrift
fuffer'd on the crofs, their dodrine of the

¦ Vid. Evagr. H. E. lib. 3. Brerewood, c. 21, &c.
¦ Nicepb. Callift. H. E. J. 18. c. 4f. vid. 8c Suicer. in
%ece Moya^vo-tTtti.
* Vid. Niceph. ibid. 8c Suicer. in voce ' AxstpaXot.
f Evagr. H. E. 1. 2. c. 14, 20, 22, 30. 8c Nicepb. I. id.
1 Ii in duodecim feftas diflefti funt, ex qutbus fflitlta mil-
lit haerefum pullularunt. Niceph. 1. 18. c. 47.
[ Vid. Care Hift. tit. in confpeftu fecul. 6;

X mit/

3i6* An Hiftorical Ac cou nt of
S£rm.vi. 'unity of nature led them to maintain that
**^Y\s theT)eity it felf is pajfible, which is down
right Apollinarianifm-, and from thence
they had the name of Theopafchites*. And
this was carried to fuch extravagance as to
infert a claufe in the hymn called Trifa-
gium1, which feem'd to imply either that
the whole Trinity had fuffer'd, or at leaft
the Holy Ghpfi together with the Son, or
elfe that he who fuffer'd was a fourth per
fon diftind from either of the three. The
two laft of thefe abfurdities were particu
larly urged by Pope Felix, who earnestly
inveighed againft that innovation, as de
ftroying the dodrine of conjubftantiality,
and by confequence introducing a plura
lity of Gods, fince that which is mortal,
and that which is immortal, could never
be efteemed conjubfiantial a. At other
times being convinced that the Godhead
cannot fuffer, the fame dodrine of unity
led them to deny that even the humanity
Of Chrift endured any pain, or was fubjed
to the common infirmities of human na-

f Vid. Suicer. in voce §-tara%yrui.
* "Ayi^. i &J05, coyt®' i^ueot, etyt®* ktctva.T®'. To this fome
Eutychians fubjoin'd, i favpoiisk ii' v\pas, particularly Petrus
Fullo of Antioch. Niceph. Calift. 1. ij\ c. *8. 8c l.i 8. c fi.
If this be referr'd to all the three, it feems to mix Sabellianifm
With the Eutychian fcheme. But otherwife it infers Polytheifrh.
" Vid. Papa Felicis Bpift. Monitor, ad Petrum Fullonem An«
tiochen£ primum hujufce ttdditamentiAnthortm. in Caranza fum.
5^ncil. p. j of. ture,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 317
ture ;. which came near to the ancient he- Serm. vi.
refy of the Simonians, that his body was ,>-or^-»
merely phantaftick- and imaginary -, and
from thence they had the name of Aph-
thartodoceta™. They who held the op
pofite opinion, that his body was fubjed to
infirmity, were therefore called corrupti-
colte* ; and fome of them carried the point
fo high as to maintain y that, in confequence
of that change or mixture which they
taught, the divine Word it felf had loft its
omnifcience ; and from thence they had
the name of Agnoeta z. Joannes 'Philo-
ponus was an eminent philofopher of the
Sixth and feventh centuries : he fell into
Eutychianifm upon this falfe principle that
nature and hypofiafis have but one idea;
and when the Catholicks argued againft
him from the inftance of the Trinity, where
there are three hypofiafes in one nature or
ejfence, rather than quit his former herefy,
he advanced a new one, that the three
divine perfons are three natures or fiub-
fiances, being no otherwife than fpecifically
one; from whence he and his followers

w Niceph. 1. 17. c. 29. 1. 18. c. 4-f. Eavagr. 1. 4. c. 39.
Suicer. in voce AtpS-aprohxvrrai.
* Vid. Cave Hift. lit. ad an. fjc.
» Viftor. Tunun; Apione f Cof p. 8, 9.
1 Cave ibid. Suicer. in voce Ayvovrai. Danxus in Auguft. de
hxref. cap. 93.

X 2 have

3 18 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. vi. have the name of Tritheifts*. Laftly, the
v-Of^ controverfy was put upon this iffue, whe
ther the properties of the two natures
were not fo confounded, as that Chrift had
but one will remaining in him ? The Eu-
tychians in general aSferted it ; from whence
they had the name of Monothelites b : and
this was the prevailing herefy of the Se
venth century, when not only the Empe
ror Heraclius, but Pope Honorius himfelf
declined into itc. And to what other ex
travagances might they not have run, if
God, in his juft judgment againft the ma
nifold impieties of thofe who called them
felves Chriftians, had not fuffered the fol
lowers of Mahomet to meet with moft
prodigious fucceffes, to the great diminu
tion, and fince that to the utter over-
throwi Of the Eaftern Empire, and the
grievous opprefiion of thofe who had fo
wantonly abufed their former profperity d.
But fince I am upon this fubjed, I ought
not to omit, that as thefe appellations
were taken from the nature of the doc
trine they profefs'd, fo there were fome
others taken from the names of thofe who

¦ Vid. Cave ad an. 6o\. Suicer. ih voce Tfili'tTai. Niceph.
1. 18. c. 45, 47.
b Vid. Suicer. in voce B-sXtipia. n. II. 3.
c Vid. Cave in confpeftu fecul. 7. & ad an. 6z6.
* Set Brerewood, ch. 2/. verfus finem.
were

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 10.
Were the chief afferters and propagaters of serm. vj.
it. The Aphthartodoceta were term'd Ju- ^"Y^
lianifts, from Julian Bifhop of Halicar-
najfus, a chief leader of their fed e; as on
the other hand, the Corrupticola were
termed Severians, from Severus of Anti
och*; and Theodofians from Theodofius of
Alexandria s. But the moft prevailing
name for the whole body of Eutychiansj
and which flicks by 'em to this day, is
that of Jacobites, from one Jacob or James
a Syrian by birth h, and as fome relate • a
difciple of Severus.
'Tis poflible that fome weak perfons a-
mong them might conceive a catholick
meaning under an inaccurate and unca-
tholick phrafe; their dodrine might be
found, whilft they difcover'd want of judg
ment and right apprehenfion in their man
ner of exprelfing it. This at leaft has
been alledg'd in behalf of the prefent re
mains of them in fome parts, who profeSs
indeed to acknowledge but one nature in
Chrift, to adhere to T^iofcorus, and rejed
the council of Chalcedon ; but then at the

' Niceph. H. E. 1. 18. c. 4f. Viftor. Tunun. Apione
f Cof. p. 8, Edit. Scalig.
f Vid. Cave in confpeftu fecul. 6. 8c ad an. 5-13.
* Cave ad an. f 3 j\
" Niceph. H. E. 1. 18. c.j-2. See alfo Brerewood, ch. 21.
! Vid, Hottinger. Hiftor, Oriental, lib. %, cap. 2,

X 3 fame

3 20 An Hiftorical Ac ebv NT of
Serm. vi. fame time they rejed Eutyches too, they
i^Y\J confefs the properties of the 'Divinity and
the humanity to remain perfedly diftind,
altho' after union they make but one na-
tureK So that they feem to take the
word nature in a fenfe different from us;
and had Eutyches of old confefs'd fuch a
diftindion of properties, I perfuade my
felf he had not incurr'd the cenfures of the
council Of Chalcedon.
It may now be time to take our leave
of the Eaft, where there has been little
heard oi Arianifm, from the time of Theo
dofius the great. But it ought to be re-
member'd, that the Gothic nation, which
had been tindured with that herefy in the
reign of Valens1, had fome troops employ'd,
after the divifion of the empire between
the fons of Theodofius, to fupport the pri
vate interests and ambition of their refpec-
tive favourites m. This threaten'd at firft a
revival of Arianifm at Conftantinople ; and
when, after many ravages committed, the
Gothick army refiding in thofe parts was
entirely defeated n, the next attempt of thofe
that remain'd under the command of Ala-

* See Brerewood, ch. 21, 22,24, if. in fin. yid. 8c Ludolfi
Hift. ^Ethiop. I. j. c. 8. confer. & ejttfdem commentar. n. 88, &C.
1 See the foregoing fermon, p. 269,270-
™ Vid. £ofinj. Hift, lib- J. pag. 292. Edit.OXm.
I P. J«,
rick

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 % 1
rick was made upon the Weftern empire ». serm. vi.
Whereupon it would be tedious to recpunt v-OT^
the various entercourfes of the Romans
with the Goths and other barbarous na
tions, whether in Spain, in Italy or Gaul,
and with what various fuccefs they were
diSpatch'd, fometimes in alliance, and o-
ther times at variance ; fometimes defeated,
and at other times vidorious. The parti
culars of thefe affairs will be better learnt
from larger histories -, whilft we attend on
ly to fuch circumftances as may inftrud us
in the turns and revolutions of the Arian
controverfy. There was an army in Africk, under the
command of Boniface, which confifted
both of Roman and of Gothick foldiers.
The General himfelf was a man of catho
lick principles, and virtuous condud, and,
as appears by the letters of St. Auguftine,
honour'd with the intimate friendihip of
that catholick Bifhop. But the Gothick
part of his army being. Arians, he could
not be without fome of the Arian Clergy
to attend him, and particularly their BiShop
Maximin, whofe difputes with St. Auguft
tine, in relation to the Trinity, gave occa-
 1 1 1 ,,.
" There roas fome attempt before this made By the Bmprefs Juf-
tina Mother of Valentinian II. But at it was hinder 'd, by the
cnre and vigilance cf St. Ambrofe, from having any confiderable
' effeU, at leafl from producing any alteration in the Weftern efitt-
flifhmtnt, I have omitted the mention of it in this place.
X 4. fion

$it An Hiftorical Ace ount of
Serm. vi. fion to fome of his valuable writings up*
V*^W on that fuhjed.
But the African Church had a feverer
trial yet to undergo : The Vandals, who foon
after the beginning of the fifth century °
had, in conjundion with the Sueves and
4.09. Alains, poffefs'd themfelves of Spain, and
diStrefs'd the Catholicks of thofe parts,
were, by the time that the Neftorian herefy
430. grew considerable in the Eaft, become
mafters of great part of Africa p ; invited
427* thither by Boniface himfelf, in whom his
crafty rival at Rome had created an unrea
sonable jealoufy, which put him upon
courting a moft fatal alliance with thefe
Barbarians V There were many of the
Alains mixed among them, but they were
all generally included in the name of Van-
dak1. And though King Giferic, who is
reckon'd an apoftate to Arianifm1, for
fome time did not, in confequence of his
truce with the Romans, attempt to obtrude
any innovations on Such of the Catholicks
0 Idat. Chron. Olymp. 29.7. p. 21.
f For the particulars cf 'the African perfemilov, Hthich are here
but funmarily related, fee Viftor. Vitenf. de perfec. Vandal.
Procop. Vandalor. Hift. lib. 1. Greg. Turon. Hift. Franc. 1. 2.
cap. 2, 3. Maimbourg Hiftoire de 1" Ariariifme 1. 9. Ruinart.
Hift. perfec. Vandal, prater Evagrium in hift. Ecclef. 1. 6\J
*> Procop. Hift. Vand. 1. 1. p. 11. Ed. Grot.
* P. 18.
r Gefericus— -_ ex Catholico effeftus Apoftata in Arrianafn
primus fertur tranfifle perfidiam. Ifidor. Chron. p. 733.
Edit. Grot. vid. & Idat. Chron. Olymp. 301. p. 22. adCalc.
Eufeb. Chron. 3 SIS

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 323
as were under their protedion ; yet when serm. vi.
he found himfelf fettled in this new pro- ^OTN-*
vince, he endeavour'd, by confifcation and 437-
banifhment, and all forts of violence, to
promote the caufe of Arianifm, and dif-
poffeSfing thofe African Bifhops who main-
tain'd the catholick faith within his terri
tories, to fill their Sees with fuch as Should
oppofe it. Which mifchief extended yet
farther, when Giferic, by furprizing Car* 439.
thagex, and breaking faith with the Ro
mans, had broke thro' the only reftraint of
his cruelty, that he might carry on the per
fecution with greater violence, and thro' a
wider compaSs.
Not only the Clergy, but the people of
Africk, made a noble Stand in this day of
adverfity. But the troubles encreafed ra
ther than, abated : the Vandal King extend- 44°-
ed his conqueft, . and. with that his perfe- . %
cvttion, to Sicily \ 'till the Emperor Valen*-
tiniart despairing of the recovery of Car-
thage, confented to a new peace, in which
he agreed to divide the African provinces 4+2/
between himfelf an<&Giferic\ Thus again
a. part of Africk was refcued, -whilft the
reft continued to groan under the Vandal
tyranny ^. And tho' Giferic did,; at the
inftance of the Emperor Valentinian, allow
a catholick Bifhop to refide at Carthage?, 454<

¦ Ruinart. Hift. Perf. Vand. paF. 2. c. j.
I C. 6. J. i-_^4. :§.*. ;C6V§.6-.

yet

314 An Hiftorical f Account of
Serm. vi. yet the death of that Emperor, which fol-
V-'VV lowed in the fame year, gave him a plau-
455. fible handle for facking Rome it felf, in
order to take vengeance of his murderers r.
457. After which the death of the new Bifhop
of Carthage, and the vifible declenfion of
the Weftern empire, gave him fuch frefh
courage in his barbarous purfuits, that in
ftead of allowing any other Bifhop to be
chofen at Carthage, he carried on a moft
grievous perfecution againft the Catholicks,
not throughout Africa alone, but many o-
ther of the Roman provinces2: and not
withstanding the book which one of the
Moorifh Bifhops had prefented to him in de
fenfe of the faith, he Still went on to en-
creafe the noble army of Martyrs, till, af
ter a long and bloody reign, his life and
his cruelties had one period ; and he was
477. fucceeded in the government oi Africk by
his fon Hunneric.
His reign at firft was mild and gentle,
when allowing the Catholicks to eled Eu-
481. genius to the Bifhoprick of Carthage*, he
left them likewife at liberty to affemble
in their churches publickly without distur
bance. But the Arians immediately Sug
gested to him the necefflty of altering his
meafures b, and prevail'd with him not only

;*-8- •$•** :c7.f...
I G. t> §. io, ia.

eo

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 2 y
to retrad the prefent favour and indulgence, Serm. vr:
but even to break out againft the Catho- v^y>v*
licks with greater fury, than the Church had * 3*
ever felt from any of its heathen perfecu-
tors. The better to countenance his cruelties,
there was a conference appointed to be
held at Carthage, in which the Catholick
Bifhops Should be obliged to give proof of
their dodrine from the holy Scriptures.
There was little good to be expeded by
-conferring with perfons fo profoundly ig
norant as the Arian Vandals, and that un
der the awe of a military force, and the
terror of all kinds of cruelties. The Ca
tholicks however appear'd, to the number 484.]
of more than four hundred and Sixty Bi
lhops, with Eugenius^ at their head6; and
tho' they faw their adverfaries, inftead of
parties, were fet up for judges, yet they
prefented an orthodox confeSfion of their
faith, with a particular view to the con-
fubftantiality , and thofe invincible argu
ments by which it is fupported. Inftead
of anfwers, they were receiv'd with noife
and tumult, and Hunneric being eafy to
receive the reprefentations of the Arians *,
who charged the Catholicks with that tu-

c Concil. Labbe tom. 4. col. 1 141 18. ad an. 484.
Jluinart. Hift. Perfec. Vandal, p. 123, &c.
f See Hunneric'* Decree in Labbe Col. 1 138, Sec
mul-

3 i6 An Hiftorical Account*/*
Serm. vi. multuous condud of which themfelves
VW were guilty,, made that the handle for car
rying on his perfecution with the greater vio
lence, and either by exile, Slavery or death,
diftreSIing them who had the courage to
hold faft their- integrity; amounting to well
nigh four hundred Bifhops, or about four
thoufand in the whole, taking in the cler
gy and laity of all degrees e.
The Stupidity of thefe Barbarians made
them little capable of convidion from any
arguments that might be drawn either
from Scripture or antiquity. And there
fore God was pleafed to work divers mi
racles, as well for the convidion of fuch
as were not'harden'd beyond all remedy,
as for the greater fupport of his faithful
fervants under that Severe trial to which
they were expofed. Among the reft, there
is none more confiderable, thari that of the
clergy and inhabitants of Typafa in Mauri
tania ; who when they could not be pre-

* Catholicos jam non folum facerdotes, & eunfti ordinjs
.Clericos, fed & Monachbs atque Laicos quatuor cireiter millia
exiliis durioribus relegat, & Confeflbres ac Martyres facit.
Viftor. Tunun. Chron. p. 4. ad calc. Eufeb. Edit. Scalig.
Nam exulatis, diffugatifque plufquam 334 orthodojcorurn
epifcoporum, ecclefiifque eorum claufis plebs fidelium variis
fubafta fuppliriis, beatumeotifummawit-agonem. Marcel. Com.
Chron. p. t,f. Theod. & Venant- CofT. But according to Sir-
•mondus*/ account in Labbe, there mere three hundred and ftv'enty
eight Bifhops thus . *ckon'd, Corfica relegati46. Hie relegatiaVa.
Fugerunt 28. PaiTus 1. Confeflbr 1. vid. 8c Ruinart.

vail'd

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 17
f ail'd with to profefs Arianifm, and be re- serm. vt.
baptized, (as was the common pradice of ^^Y\^
the Arians at that time,) but continued to
celebrate the praifes of Chrift as conjub-
ftantial with the Father, had their tongues
cut to the roots by the command of Hun-
neric; and then, by a furprizing instance
of God's good Providence, they were en
abled to fpeak articulately and diftindly
without their tongues, and fo continuing
to make open profession of the fame doc
trine, they became not only the preachers,
but living witnefles of its truth.
I am not infenfible that miracles have
often been pretended in thefe latter ages,
which may be juftly called in question, as
being both obfcurely performed, and infuf-
ficiently attefted. But this is related with
fuch publick circumftances, and attefted by
fuch competent witnefles, that I fee not
how we can difcredit it without Shaking
the whole faith of hiftory, and rejeding
all accounts of miracles befides the fcrip-
tural f. It was not the cafe of any Single
perfon, but a great number of the inhabi
tants s of a city well known in Mauritania.
1 Vid. Ruinart. Hift. Perfec. Vandal, p. 370. & Baron.
Annal. Ecclef ad an. Chr. 484.
e In Typafenfi Mauritania; majoris civitate. 1
Dum fuas Civitati Arrianum Epifcopum ex Notario Cyrillanv
ad perdendas animas ordinatum vidiiTent: omnis fimul civi
tas, &c. 1 congregate illuc omni provincia. Viftor.
yitenf. de Perfec. Vandal. 1. /. $. 6. ex Edit. Ruinart. It

3 18 An Hiftorical Account of
SenM.vT.lt was not the wonder of a day or twoj*
VW^but this faculty of Speech continued to
the end of their lives, excepting only two
perfons of their whole number h, who, for
the immorality of their pradices, were pu-
nifhed by Divine Providence with the lofs
of that extraordinary favour, which had
been beftowed on them for the orthodoxy
of their faith ». It was not an obfcure
matter uncertainly reported from a corner
of Africk, but many of thefe Confeflbrs
travell'd to Conftantinople it felf, where
their cafe was examined by fuch as knew
the world, and whofe teftimony leaves no
ground for fufpeding an, impofture k.
'Procopius of Cafarea, who lived. in
their time, and was himfelf a Senator of
Conftantinople, Speaks of it as a matter
that was publick and well known in that
place, and has left us his account of the
fad under his own hand1. So likewife
has (i/Eneas of Gaza, who relates in his
Dialogue, under the perfon of Axitheus,
with what curiofity he had examined into
the truth of this ftrange fad, and open'd

* Gregory the Great mentions but one.
1 Vid. Evagr. H. E. 1. 4. c. 14. Procop. p. 24.
* Ibid-
1 TloXXav *j ,§ toj yXaa-irXi iim/^i kit' kvr% tpotevyy®*' it
"* "£ *5 */"*« niQt'ovTii c* Bv^ety-iiu i^Zyro kk^ouQvu Ttj tpeny.
Procop. Hift. Vandal. 1. 1. c. 8. Edit. Par. 1662. torn. 1.
p. 196. at in Edit. Latin. Grotian. p. 24.
4. their

the Trinitarian Controverjy. 3 29
their very mouths to make his Obfervations s»m.'vl
with the more exadnefsm. They were ^VN^
feen there by Juftinian, who was after
wards Emperor, and gave account how he
had heard from themfelves a relation of
their own fufferings11. And Marcellinus
Comes, who was Juftinian's Chancellor,
has left it likewife under his hand, that
he faw 'em there himfelf, and has added
this confiderable circumstance, that one of
the confeSTors treated in this manner had
all his life time been dumb, until the ex
ecution of this barbarity0. Befides all
which, we have Victor Pitenfts, an Afri
can BiShop and Confeffor of thofe times,
not only relating it as certain fad, but re
ferring any one that doubted of it to Con
ftantinople, where one of them was ftill
hving, and held in great reverence by the

m Mn. Gaz. de immortal, animse in magna Biblioth. Patr.
tom. f. p. 640. Col. Agr. 1618.
" Juftinian Cod. tit. 27. 1. I. Archelao Prarfeft. Pmor.
Afric. Evagrius Scholafticus (H.E. 1.4. c. 14.) 8c Nicephorus
Callifthus (1. 17. c. 11.) have by miftake afcribed this Conftitu-
tion to the Emperor Juftin.
0 Nempe tunc idem vex Hunnericus, unius Catholici
idolefcentis, vitam a nativitate fua fine ullo fermone ducentis,
lihguam praecepit excidi, idemque mutus quod fine humano
auditu Chrifto credens fide didicerat, mox praecifa fibi lingua
locutus eft, gloriamque Deo in primo vocis fuse exordio de-
dit. Denique ex hoc fidelium contubernio aliquantos ego re-
ligiofiffimos viros, preciiis linguis, manibus truncatis, apud
Byzantium integra voce confpexi loquentes. Marcellin. Com.
in Chron. Theodorico 8c venantio Coff. p. 4/. Edit. Scaliger.

whole

330 An Hiftorical Account©/
serm, vi. whole court, and particularly by the Em<
^r^J p^efs her felf p. And fo again Victor Tu-
nunenfis, another African BiShop who lived
foon after them, (as being both BiShop and
Confeffor in the reign of Juftinian?} al-
ledges the teftimony of the royal city, (i.e.
Conftantinople) where their bodies were in-
terr'di. Not to infift now on the autho
rity of Gregory the Great, who had his
account likewife from an ancient BiShop
who had adually feen them1, and Iftdore
Archbifhop of Sevilf, who was cotempo-
rary with Gregory, and a perfon of too
much learning and judgment to be deceiv
ed in fo important a fad, which was not
a century before him.
Though this miraculous event was not
enough to foften the abandon'd Hmneric,

* .Linguas eis Sc manus dexteras radicitus abfcidiuet.
Quod cum faftum fuiffet, Spiritu Sanfto prxftante, ita locuti
funt 8c loquuntur, quomodo antea loquebantur. Sed fi quis
incredulus effe voluerit, pergat nunc Conftantinopolim, & ibi
reperiet unum de illis, fubdiaconum Reparatum, fermones po-
litos fine ulla offenfione loquentem : ob quam caufam vehe-
rabilis nimium in palatio Zenonis Imperatoris habetur, Sc prse-
cipue Regina mira eum reverentia veneratur. Vift. Vitenf.
1. f . §. 6". Edit. Ruinart.
i Quos confeflbres, quod Unguis abfciftis, perfcfte
finem adufque locuti funt, urbs Regia adteftatur, ubi eorum
corpora jacent. Viftor. Tunun. in Chron. Zenonc Aug. Cof.
p. 4. Edit. Scaliger. ad calccm Chron. Eufeb. Amft. 16 fS.
vid. 8c pag. 1 2.
' Greg. Mag. in dialog. 1. 3. c. 32.
f Ifidor. Hifpal. Chron. p. 73/. in Grotii Hift. Goth.' yet

\4ke Trinitarian Controverfy. 331
yetijhis >perfeerJtion foon after concluded Serm. vi;
iJrirh his iife,^ when God was pleafed to put v-OP*-*
an end to his days by fuch a loathfome
dife&fe as he ihas often chofen to take ven-
" geaniee on the perfecutors of his Church3:
Hcnwsas fucceeded by his aiephew Gonda- 484.
ntond, 'who having been ill ufed by his > >
tmcte, !is by fome fuppofed, out of mere
avgtfiohv to jfaave'bSegunjhisireigii with con
trary meafures, and recall'd the Catholicks
from banifhment b. But however he might
be a perfon' of ^greater lenity than his pre-
deceflbr, yet it can hardly be doubted, but
that the Arians found means to carry xm
their perfecution under himx. The third
year of his jrqign was moft probably the
beginning .of the relaxation d, when the 48 ji
great , Eugenius ©f iCmthage was adually
*e£3llsd !&om banifhmenti . And then it
Was that fome, who had yielded in the
heat -of. perfecution, and ifubmitted tp the .'.-.
Arian baptifm, a made their earneft applica-
Aiontfo be reftored to the communion > of ->
the Church : which was thought but rea
sonable, by a Synod held at Rome, under .4$.^
iPope Felix, upon their waking fuch a
-.:;. oil /' "•¦¦ .- . ,lsq .ioP
* Viftor. ut fupr. Greg, Turon. Hift. 1. 2, c. 3. Ifidor. in
&ift. .Vandal. Chronic, p. 73/. Edit. Grot.
'" t$9f. ibid. „,v
c Via. Procop."!. i.j>. 24. Ed. Grot.
t Ruinart. par. 21 c- 10. §.4.
Y lime

$ 5 1 An Hiftorical A c c 6 u n f.vf
Sfek'M.-vi. time of penance as might bear proportion
VTN/ to the different aggravations- of their apo£
tacye. Yet ftill the Catholicks were not
altogether free from the restraints of Arian
tyranny. It feems not to have been till the
pnv tenth year of his reign, that he confented
494. to a general reftoration of their exiled Bi«s
Shops, and Opening of their Churches,: at
the humble requeft and instance of Euge
nius.
3ii .• ''¦ --J ;,' -,r.
--Whilft this was the ftate of religion ori
the African fide, it may be fit to take a
ihort view of the affairs of Europe. The
Vifigoth Arians, who had been long in
poifeSfion of a part of Gaul, did^ after the
expedition of the Vandals into Africa, exr
tend their dominions thro' a part of Spain,
ind by their alliance with the Suevi fb eo*
Jony fettled in Gallicia, had feduced'them
460. to a profeSIion of the fame herefy f. Soon
after this, in the reign of : King Euric, the
467. Goths enlarged their cOnquefts, as well fn
Spain as in Gaul, to the great diminution
^47 6. of the Suevifb, andthe utter extindion of
the fmall remains of Roman power in
thofe parts s. The Burgundians, who in*

* See tope Felix'* Synodical Epiftle in Binius, tom. 2. par. t\
p. 4.5-4. 8c in Labbe tom. 4. col. 107/. vid. 8c col. 11/0.
' Marian. 1. f . c. f. de rebus Hifpan.
£ Marian, ibid. habited

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 333
habited another part of Gaul, concurr'd serm. vr,
with them in the profeSfion of Arianifm. ^YV
And fo did the. Heruli, whoy after the
downfai of the Roman Empire* had made
themfelves mafters of Italy ^ under their 47 &'
King Odoacer. But their dominion had
not long continued, when the Arian Of- 4S>i».
trogoths wrefted it out of their hands h, by
that famous irruption which they made in^
to Italy, -under the command of the vic
torious Theodoric, . ;
But ! in all thefe places, there was no
fuch. perfecution raifed againft the Catho
licks as we have feen in Africa ; except-
perhaps within the Suevifh territories ', and
for a Short time among the Vifigoths, in
the latter end of the reign of Euric, wha
perfecuted with great violence about the 4 so.
Space of three years k, banifhing fome Bi-
ShopSj, imprifoning others, and putting o-
thers to death} without allowing new ones
to be fubftituted in their room : fo that
the churches became defolate , and the
true religion feemed in danger of being
loft in thofe parts, for want of perfons to
administer in, faered offices. Excepting, I
fay, this Gothic perfecution under Euric,

''Procop. Csefar. de bel. Got:. I, i. p. 140. Edit. Grot.
'Marian. 1. j. c. $>.
* Sidon. Apol. 1. 7. ep..6\ Greg. Turom Hift. Franc. 1. 2 J
iC. if. Marian; 1. j. c. f.

y 2 the

3 34 dn Hiftbrical Ac Cov it r of
Serm. vi. the Cathdliekls had, for Ought appears, trte
^^Y^ ufe 0f the churches,- and the liberty of ce
lebrating divine worfhip according to the
ancient rule. The Catholicks had their
Bifhopsj and the Arians had theirs. Only it
is certain that the countenance of the civil
powers was on the fide of herefy $ fo that
Arianifm might be term'd the reigning re
ligion of the Wefi, as Eutychianifm was
at the fame time in the Eaft, under the
Emperor Anafiafius. Our country of Bri
tain, the mean while, was over-tun with
'Paganifm-, and fo was that part di Gaul
which was inhabited by the Franks.
Whilft thus the whole chriftian world
was fubjed either to hereticks or infidels,
in fome parts more heavily opprefs'd, and
in others indulged a little mOre liberty? at
length there arofe a light to the Church,
in the midft of her obfcurity, and fome
gleams of comfort darted in upon her,
from a quarter from whence they might
leaft have been expeded. It was towards
49<>. the conclufton of the fifth century, that
Clovis King oi the Franks ti>r French, did
with a great part of his people renounce
the Tagan . fuperftition, and . embrace . the
faith of Chriftianity j the faith I mean in
its true and catholick purfty x, without the
1 Vid. Greg, Turon. 1. a. c. 31. Aimoin. de geft. Franc,
1. 1. c. 16. cor-

¦ike* Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 3 j
Corruptions of Arians or other hereticks. serm. vi.
Which, happening at a time when all the ^VN/
other Princes in Chrifiendom oppofed the
orthodox faith, did very probably give birth
to that title of -the Moft Chriftian King,
which has ever fince been claim'd by his
fucceffors the Kings of France m.
About the fame time the catholick doc- 499*
trine gain'd fome profelytes among the
Burgundians, l by means of a conference
¦which had been held between the Catho
lick Bifhops and the Arians, whilft King
Gondebald hknfelS? could- not entirely con
ceal his convidion, tho' for- fecular reafons
he perfifted to Support^ Arianifm*. But
Chvis, who was then at war with the Bur
gundians, did foon after obtain fuch a con- 5^5 ?
queft over 'em as put him in condition to
give the catholick caufe the countenance
and fandion of a civil eftablifhment. This
was followed by another vidory over 507;
Alaric and his Vifigdths who were fettled
in Gaul°: And thefe vidories obtain'd

" Maimbourg. Hiftoire de 1" Arianifine, livr. i o. p. 1 1 j , 1 1 4.
See Selden'j Titles of Honour, ch. f. §.3. This is not the only
ground affign'd, but I think it the mo/l probable.
-" Collar, Epifc. cor. Rege Gundabal. ex Hift. Epifc. Gall.'
Hieron. Vignerii Spicileg. tom. f. inter Concil. Edit. Par. 167 1.
Labbe gt Coflarr. tom. 4. coj. 1318, 8cc. vid. & Greg.Turon.
Hift. Francor. 1. 2. c. 34.
*, Vid. Sigebert. Chron. ad an. j-oq. Greg. Turon. 1. 2?
c. 37. Aimoin. 1. 1, c. 20, 22.

3U W.

31 tf An Hiftorical A c c 6 utt T of
sERM. vi. by Clovis, were afterwards compleated by
*,U"W-' his fons-:. From henceforth the French were
in a manner entire mafters oi Gaul, ex
tending their dominion, as far as the Ityre-
n£an, mountains; infomuch that the whole
country, from this nation oi Franks, had
afterwards the name of France: the inhabi
tants whereof heing by this means refcued
from the mifphiefs pf Arianifm ; what me
thods were taken for the fupport of Or
thodoxy j and for gaining it the like fuccefs
in Africk, Italy and Spain, I- Shall have
farther, occafion tp lay before ypu in ano
ther difcourfe-
dYpw to God the Father, Son and Holy
Ghoft, three perfons in the unity of
the fame eternal Godhead, be all ho
nour and glory henceforth for evermore.
Arnen,

§ER-

\^/&?fTTiiiitarian Coniroverjyl £yyr

Oiii

SERMON VIR

Preach'd M ay ^ ' 1 7 2 4

::j.-..»

FTER having feen the down- serm.vil
fal of Arianifm in the Eaft, v^YsM
and the various divisions of the
Church afterwards, by the rife
of the Neftorian and Eutychian
herefies : we went on to take a view of
the Churches of Europe and Africk, with
relation to the controverfy now before us.
Thofe parts, excepting a few years towards
the end of Conftantius's reign, had been
fcut little infefted with the Arian contagion,
till about the condufion of the fourth cen
tury, when the irruption of the Goths and
Vandals, and other Northern nations,
Y 4 brought

33r& An Hiftorical Ac c o u n f of
Serm.vii. brought Arianifm in as the companion of
,-/V>-> their conquering arms, and overthrew. at
once the religion of the empire, together
with its civil liberties. Catholick Bifhops
there were ftill, and many of the ancient
inhabitants continued to hold faft their in
tegrity. But the Arians had pofleffion of
the Churches, and the countenance of the
civil government ; whilft,, the^Catholieks at
beft were content with bare toleration,, ancf
lometinies labour'd under the heavieft op-'
prefllons. The feene, began to change' when Clovis
496. the French King was converted, from Pa-
ganifm to the Catholick Faith, and by his
conquefts obtain'd over the greatest part of
Gaul, whether inhabited by Goths or Bur
gundians, reftored the Catholicks of thofe
parts to the protedion of the civil powersj
f<n.' and left the government at his death to be
Shared among his four fons *. The rem*
nant that was left of the Burgundians* did
foon afterwards, by the example Of their
King Sigifimund, embrace the catholick;
5-26, ^27, faith b, and after that were fo entirely fub*
**8>f3l-dued as to become one people withths
French c. ; I
,;¦* Vid. Greg.Turon. Hift. Frahcor. 1.2. c.42. 8c 1. j.c t".
Almoin. Hift. Franc. 1. 2. c. 1;
"' * Vid; Mairnbburg. Hiftoire dal'Arianiftne, livr. toi "
. • Greg.Turon. 1; 3. C. 6; Ado Viennenf in chron. in tt&gl
Biblioth. Fatr. tarri, 9. fir. z. p. ag$. Aimoin. 1. 2. 6 4. ,_
*¦'•¦•¦ The

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 5-39
The yifigoths indeed, who were now Serm.vik
poffefs'd of a good part of Spam, and that v-ors^
part of Gallia Narbonenfis which is now * 5*
called Languedoc, perfifted Still in Aria- 5 7*
nifm: but they likewife at laft were fo ut
terly defeated by the fons of Clovis A, that 531*
from thenceforward we may look upon
Arianifm as in a manner extinguifhed in
France or Gaul, and very much weaken'd
in Spain ; whilft the Catholicks, who had
always kept footing in thofe parts, were
clearly recovering ground.
Mean while the Oftrogoths were matters'
oi Italy, and King Theodoric, a perfon of
great prowefs and martial exploits, though
entirely addided for his own part to the
Arian intereft, yet gave the Catholicks fo
little disturbance, that they continued in
pofleSlion of the See of Rome itfelf, with
many and great privileges6, till at laft being
inform'd how the Emperor Juftin had late- c
ly published a fevere edid againft the fmall 525.
remains of the Arians in the Eaft, (who
feem to this time to have continued a fuc-
ceSfion of Bifhops at Conftantinople, one
of whom, cDeuterius by name, had not
many years Since prefumed upon a con- circa
fiderable innovation in altering the ftated 510.

' Greg. Turon. 1. 3. c. 9, 10. Aimoin. 1.2. c.8.
; Vid. Cochlssi vit, Theodoric. co. p. 80, &Ci
form

34° Ah Hiftorical A c c ount of
Serm.vii. form of baptifm': I fay, Theodoric being
V-'VV inform'd of Jufiin's edid againft this rem
nant oi Arians in the Eaft) he determined
with himfelf either to procure a revoca
tion of that edid, or elfe to make reprifals
upon the Catholicks of Italy to the laft
extremity. To this purpofe he obliged the
Bifhop of Rome himfelf to undertake an
embafly to Conftantinople %, whereby tho?
he obtain'd his end in mitigating the Em
peror's feverity, yet he imprifon'd the POpe
at his return h, and loaded him with irons,
for the zeal which he difcover'd in the ca
tholick caufe », and for envy that the ca*
tholick Emperor had treated him with fo
much refped: k. After which his death did
quickly put a period to his miferies, and
Theodoric proceeded to appoint a fuccef-
for by his own authority1. Theodoric fur-
vived him but a few months, when leav-
^26. ing the kingdom to his grandfon of eight

f AaiTsfi©* tou etoitayav sotia-KOiToi ,, i fxitv iro'XfijyiTtv iif
ieuxrtQy fSear-n^sTcit (IcecGcti iti to ovottisc tow tretTfoi, oh' uiou,
iv ccytu wysifiMTii Theodor. Left. Excerpt. 1. 2. p. f6z.
- g Marcellin. Comes in chron. Filoxeno 8c Probo CofT. ad
calc. Eufeb. ex Edit. Scalig. p. j-o, fi. Anaftaf. Biblioth.
H. E. p. fi. Edit. Paris. 1640.
h Cochlsei vita Theodoric. c. 18. p. 142, 8cc. vid. & Anaftaf.
Biblioth. de vitis Pontiff. Roman, in S. Joan, c.j-4.
._' Greg. Turon. de glor. Martyr. 1. 1. c. 40.
* Marianus Scotus ad an. 5-24. Ado Vien. in chron. ad
an. ft 9. in Mag. Bibl. Patr. tom. 9. par. 2. p. 280".
1 Paul. Djac. Hiftj Mtfcel. 1. if. c. 10. Anaftaf. utftpr.
Marian. Scot, in Chron. ad an. f2j. years

^Trinitarian Controverfy. 341
years old, under the tuition of a prudent Se*m.vii,
mothers, the affairs of Italy, as to the V*"W
•point of religion, continued for fome years
without any material alterations.
Whilft this was the pofture of affairs in
Europe, there fell out a very confiderable
change. or revolution on the African fide. 4
The Vandal perfecution which feem'd to
be concluded in the time of Gondamond, 49<S^»
was afterwards reqew'd, tho' in a more
artful way, and with lefs Shew of violence,
by his brother Thrafimond. The tortures
and outrage of the former reigns he craf
tily forbore, and cliofe rather to conquer
the Catholicks by an appearing mildnefs,
and throwing only the weight of fecular
honours and advantages on the fide of A-
rianifim*. Thus much might be naturally
expeded. But l^e went on, as their Bi
fhops were removed by death, to inhibit
them ftridly from ordaining any fuccef
fors0, well knowing that this was an efr
fedual way to Stab the caufe of Orthor
doxy, and that natural death would in time
leave their churches as destitute pf PaStprs,
as the moft furious perfecution could have

m Procop. de bel. Got. I. i. p. 145. Edit. Grot.
" Vid. Procop. de bel. Vandal. 1. 1. p. zf. ejufd. Edit.
? Ferrand. Diac, in vita S. Fulgent, cap. 16. ante opera
fulgent- *'
$•:¦., done,

34* An Hiftorical Accoun T of
Serm.vii. done *. But the Catholicks were aware pf
***Y^ this as well as Thrafimdnd, and in one
province at leaft refolved upon it as their
duty, to ordain Bifhops in all the vacant
507. churches, without regarding the edid that
had been publifhed to the contrary l The
celebrated Fuigentius was one of the Bi-
508. Shops ordain'd in this conjundure*. But
Thrafimond, who had only put on a dif-
fembled lenity, foon laid by his difguife,
and fending their Bifhops into banifhmentf,
for the moft part to the ifland of Sardinia,
indulged the Arians in committing various
facrileges*: which, however they might
feem to be done without his command,
(who pretended all the while to the great-
eft equanimity, in admitting the people to

p Vid. Maimbourg. Hiftoire de PArianifrne, I.e. p. 162.'
* Vita Fulgent, ut fupr. vid. '& Ruinart. Hift. Perfe£.
Vandal, par. 2. c. 1 1 . ' -
1 Vit, Fulg. c. 17. .
' Paul. piac. Hift. Mifcel. I if. c. 16. Sigeb. in Chron. ad
an. 498. The number of thefe. exil'd Bifhops is variottfly re-
prted: fometimes fixty, vit. S. Eulgent. c. 20. fometimes an
hundred and twenty, Iftdor. Chron. Wanda), p. j$f. Ed. Grot.
Vidtor. Tununenf. Chron. ad calc. Eufeb. Chr. p. f . 'Tispr^-,
table the firft Author includes only the Bilhops of the "Province of
Byzacium, whilft the reft take in the other Provinces. Some hawex
entreat' d the number to two hundred and twenty, two hundred and
twenty five, or two hundred and thirty ; including perhaps fuch as
were bani/h'd to other places befides Sardinia. Vid. Ruinart. Hift.
Perfec. Vandal, par. 2. c. 11. §,. 8 „ , . , 14. Tet Ado Vjen-
nenf. in Chron. ad an. 492. jpeakt tf two hundred and twenty
as banifhed to Sardinia.
* Vit, S. Fulgent, c, 21J if, Ruinart. ut fupr. §,21,12. offefr

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 345
offer their objedions, and even fetching Serm.vil
Fulgentius irom Sardinia, in order to a'^YV
conference,) were yet too plainly counte
nanced by his unreafonable bigotry, when,
Ttt the instigation of his Arian Savoiarites,
he quickly remanded back Fulgentius to
his former banishment". Which proceed
ings, in the end, were punifhed by his lofs
of : a %nal battel with the Moors™, and
foon after with the death of Thrafimond.
Hilderic, the next King of the Vandals
in Africk, was of a different difpofition.
He recall'd the Bifhops* whom Tbmfimond 523.'
had baniShed, and gave full liberty for the
ordaining new ones, and holding fynodsy,
the efFed of which did quickly appear in
the confecration of Boniface to the Bifhop-' 525."
rick of Carthage, and the council that
was holden under him. But this favour
able Prince was not long permitted to en
joy- that repofe himfelf, which he fo wil
lingly indulged" to others, but was in a few
years depofed by the confpkaey of Gilimer, 531.'
who after he had imprifon'd him, with the

" ¦ Prbcop~;de bel. Vandal. 1. 1. p. alo". Ed. Grot-
. y Proeop. de bel. Vandal. Li. p.26,27. Evagr. H.'E. I.4,
C, ij-. Niceph. Callift. H.E. \. 17. c. 11.
'" Ruihart. p. 2. zSii.- ¦¦¦ " 
* Procop. Hift. Vandal. 1. 1. p. 27. vit. S. Fulgent, c. 29.
ViiTor. Tiirinunenf. fnChren. 'ad 'cate. -Eufeb. -ChTrpag-.^.
Ifidor. in Chron. p. 736. Ed. Grot. Concil. Labbe tom. 4.
v col. 1628, 8cc. «£«a, fif.
*'.u two

3 44 '& Hiftorical A c c o u fi t of
&rm.vii. two Princeshis brothers* ufurp'd the throfle*
V^Y^ to himfelf'. ,,-. v .,...,. ,<
Juftinian had by this time fucceeded his
uncle Jufiin in the Empire of the Eaft 5.
and as he had mairitain'da perfed corre-.
fpondence with Hilderic, the could not fee;
hint, crufh'd t : by the treafbh ai his c own
people^ witihoilt contributing his beft en*;
deavours for hisirefcue and enlargement*.
When Gilimer, therefore i appear'd .deaf < to;
all propofals of accommodation hi this
matter, the: Emperor prepared for.\w.ari."
There wanted not many popular arguments
to difluade him -from it: the forces of the
Empire had formerly experienced the ftout-
nefs of the Vandals, to. their coft; fince;
which the Empire had been weaken'd by
the Terfian war, and appear'd lefs capable
of fo great an undertaking. The Vandals*
likewife were judg'd to be very powerful-
by fea>; whilft Juftinian's forces had been
only exercifed in land-fervke. And which
was more than all, the Emperor feem'd to
run great hazards if the war Should prove
unfuccefsful, and had little to exped from
his fuccefs in it that would be worth the
keeping. But notwithftanding all thefe
plaufible difcouragements, the fupreme Go
vernor of heaven and earth, who meant?

* Procop. de bel. Vandal. 1. 1. p. 28:.
I Ibid. Set him alfo for the other particulars.

the Trinitarian Controverjf. $ 4 jr
by his means to root Arianifm out of A- s*rm.vii-
frica, fo direded his counfels againft all ^OT^
human probability, that he fent over his 534.
army under the command of the celebrated
Belifarius, who, in few days after his land
ing in Africk, made his entry into Carthage
it felf, and in a few months after that,
entirely refcued the Churches of Africk
from that Arian oppreflion which had last
ed for a century and more. After which
we find the catholick Bifhops again meet- 5 3 5*
ing in council, under Rep ar at us then Bi
Shop of Carthage, and labouring, as well
by the indulgence of the Emperor, as by
the advice of Agapetus Bifhop of Rome, to
fecure the profemon of the ancient faith \
by the reftoration of wholefome difcipline;
It was about this time that the death of
the young King of the Oftrogoths in Italy
made way for the fucceflion of Theodat, i"i\*
who is reprefented as a perfon of no ho
nour or probity, ! and capable of any wic-
kednefs?. He endeavour'd, by the intereft
of the Princefs who had lately been Re
gent, and by whom his own acceSIion to
the crown had been facilitated, to fecure
his peace with the Emperor Juftinian^:
6 Labbe ad an. 5-34. tom. 4. coL fjff, 1784, 1787, r^ot,
1792. vid. & Ruinart. Hift. Perfec. VandaL par. 2. c. 12.
6- 9-
' Procop. de bel. Goth. 1. 1. p. ±tf, &c.
* Procop. p. 140, 1 jo.
and

3 4<£ 4». HiJkriudrfoQC ovkittif
sbrm,v^i. and yet at the fame time, to gratify the
V"YV envy or revenge -of fome about hinv Jhti
order 'd her to be firft confined, *nd after
murdered e.
Juftinian, who had io lately made a fuc-
ceSsful war in Africk upon a like occafion,
refolved now to enter *upon Italy, and by
taking vengeance on -thefe murderers, to
regain, if it were poflible, the capital city
of the Empire,, with the. countries rin fub-
jedion to it. The fuccefsful Be^farms
was , the General employ 'd , on this occa-
5 3 6' fiori f, who having firft gain'd Sicily, as the
governor of Illyricum on the other fide
had gain'd 'Dalmatia, he foon entred into
Italy ;, where tho' his -progrefs was not fb
quick as it had been in Africa, yet in afew
years the whole country yielded to his vic
torious arms, and defired to acfkraawledge
him their Kings. But he being recall'd at
.540. that time by the Emperor \ in order to do
farther fervice in thefPerfiaar^ar, ih&GathSi
tho' then reduced to: a hdefpicable number,
refolved to fight under a King of their own,
and attempt a recovery of the country they
had loft. _o They fucceeded fo well dn- this
¦defign, •.; at , firft under Idibald, but; chiefly
under his nephew Totilas, that .in, 'about

e Procop. ibid. Jornand. de reb. Getic. c. f 9.
f Procop. bel. Got. l.-,i. p.rlci.
* Ibid. 1. 2. p. 299. * Ibid, p, :2K>jr>. .- cr teri

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 347
ten years time they were again mafters of sERM.vh;
Italy, and the Emperor found it neceflary ^YV
to fend all the forces he could fpare under 5 *°*
the command of Narjes'1, in order to pre*
vent the dishonour of lofing the conquests
he had made.- "One decifive battel deter
mined the matter on the Emperor's fidek, 552.
when not onif Totilas himfelf was loft,
but the whole Gothic army fuftain'd fuch
damage' as could never be repair'd. For
tho' they ventured to hazard a battel the
year following, yet that was rather done $$f.
as desperadoes than as men hoping for vie--
tory ; and the defpicable remains of 'em af
ter that, being now convinced that the
hand of God was againft them, made it their
own offer to depart the Empire, upon this
only condition, that they might have leave
to carry their effeds along with them1.
It might have -been obferv'd that the
country of 'Provence in the South of France^
which had been feiz'd by the Ofirogoths,
ih the reign oi Theodoric, was in the time
of thefe convulsions furrender'd to the
French, in order to engage their help a-
gainft the Emperor. So that now all France^
and Italy, and Africa being thus deliver'd
from the encroachments of Goths and Van-

' Procop bel. Got. 1. 4. p. 474. f P. f 06.
I Procop. bel. Got. I.4. in fine.

dais,

34? An Hiftorical Account©/
Serm. vii, dais, and thereby from Arian tyranny*
V*V"V there remain'd at this time no other part
$f the Empire but Spain, infefted wijib, that
herefy, which was; fppn after refeued in, a
gjujg|er manner, npt by the conqueft, but
ih^.^n-yerSipn pf their Kings. f .:
;.•; JJftec-Suevifh colony whjch was, fett;le4
in '§pain, had been originally Catholicks,,
fill their , ujgihapDya%yiance with, the Vifigoffas
in G^?;^|§ca$r|e^hgameajBs, of peryerfc
ing them \p jlriaftifimx. , But not many
5<Sa. years after th£ redud^iori. of Italy, the d&-
fcendants pf dipfe Sueves, among whom
Arianifm had-inow-preyariVd-lornewhat bet-r
ter than a century, were hkewife recover'd
to the catholick faith, after the example
of. ? their King Theoftem^r, who not pnlj;
563. made open profeSfion of it himfelf"1, but
569. encouraged their clergy, to aSfembfe in
council for-, its better eftabjifhment ^. { The
572. Same proceedings were obferved under his,
fori, when the converts from Ariatfiftn
were folemnly reconciled and received; tp
the, communion of the.Cathplick Churchy,
.flhe conversion pf the^Vifigoths, wh^
were, matters of the ,reft of Spain, wjas not.
'.¦'¦ y\- f-ofi, j I-- j^'a'-* " ¦' '
'I' ' I -' r-"J*i ti ' \.»i» ' *' \ '111 tr n"
-' '". *.' ' . , .J.tiO»:uf.. -?'=.., -~' '.l; DliJ J ... ~' 1
See the fixth Serrnon, p. 332.
-J" JVM; Greg. Turon. de.mirac. S. Martin. 1. 1. c. n." 
Marian, de reb. Hifpan. 1. f. c. 9. Ifidor. in chron. Suev.'
P- 739- ¦ ¦ r . K , „ • j ,.
0 — Sacro chrifmate delibuta frbnte, (eo ritij recipiehantur
in ecclefiam Ariani)  Marian. ' de reb, flifr-I 1. f. c.12*.
.¦'V'-" 3 w\ fo

the: T^rinitaiiM. fiontfovbrfy. ^4^
fo qlaick and immediatev For tho' their sbrm.vi j;
Kirigi AthandgMde is faid before this xxy^^Y^J
faawe had a Secret irwrlimadda to the catho-
Uok faith., and his two daughters, who*
¦fifere match'd inFrafoceii had made aduaii 554*
pioisifion of itP? yet for poJitick reafonsr
He cohceal'd his fentiments^ and left Ari-
antfin. at his death the eftafelifh'd religion: of
the.- Goths, The governor of that, fmall
remnant of Goihs that were left hi Languer
doc was chofen to fiicceed him; but he af
fecting a more eaTy and; quiet kind of life*
made his brother Leuruigilde his partner in $6$.
thd kingdbrri, -. and committed the govern
ment Of Spain entirely to him % who foon
afcef, by his death, had the pofleflion of? 571.
the whole. He was a- zealous Arian, and'
So was his Queen Gofuindas, which occa-
floit'd a grievous perfecution of the Catho*
licks 5 when not only the hopes of wealth
and honour,, and .whatever-advantage is ex
pected from a Prince's favour, but the ter
rors: of exile^ iniprifonrnent and cbhfifca-
tibh, and all kinds of violence, were em
ployed to engage his fubjeds-on the fide-
Of herefy1. He had two.fons, however,

*¦ Greg. Tur. Hift. Franc. 1. 4. c. 27. Airaoin. Hift. Franc.
j.3.c.4,jf. < Almoin. 1. 2. c. 17;
' Greg. Tur. Hift. Fr. l.f. c. 39. & de glor. Martyr. 1.1.
c. 82. Ifidor. in Chron, Goth. p. 727.
Z 2 by

3 jo An Hiftorical Account of
Serm. vn. b^ a former wife, who was a lady of ca-
^^Y^J tholick principles. The eldeft of thefe be
ing ftrengthen'd by an alliance with the
578. family of France, Soon declared himfelf on
the fame fide 5 but for the defence of it
j 80. was drawn into fuch behaviour towards
his father as is not to be justified, and
586. which ended in his utter overthrow f. Du
ring this conteft it was thought but necef-
fary that the Arians Should make fome
conceflions to the Catholicks; and there-
582. fore in a council affembled at Toledo1, they
forbad the re-baptizing of fuch Catholicks
as came over to them, which had been hi-
, therto pradifed, and pretended to acknow
ledge the Son of God's equality with the
Father, though this was but an inftance of
their grofs prevarication, fince they meant
it not of a natural equality, but admitted
fuch a latent refervation as might reconcile.
the catholick language with their moft un-
catholick opinions". But after that this
conteft had ended in the downfal and death
586. of his fon, the heretical King renew'd his
perfecution w with the greater fury, and
(which was more confiderable) made fuch

e Greg. Turon. ut fupra. Marian, de reb. Hi/pan. 1. jr. c.12.
Joan. Bielar?.in Chron. ad cole. Eufeb. Chr. p. ij".
• Joan.-Biclar. p. ij-.
" Marian, ur fupra.
" Aimoin. 1. 3. c. 38. Marian. I. j. c. 13.

advantage

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 c i
advantage by a revolution which had lately Serm.vii.
happen'd among the neighbouring Sueves, *~^Y\*
that he added their part of Spain to the
dominions of the Gothick Empire", and
no doubt endeavour'd, in the heat of the
prefent perfecution, to force a people back
to Arianifm, who had generoufly return'd
to the profeffion of the catholick faith.
And yet, that we may learn to admire
and adore the unfathomable counfels of
divine Providence, at this very jundure,
when the catholick intereft feem'd to be
entirely funk throughout the kingdom of
Spain, and all things profper'd on the fide
of herefy ; at this very jundure it fell out
that the catholick religion was moft Sig
nally eftablifhed, and Arianifm in thofe
parts univerfally extirpated. Leuvigild di
ed quickly after this enlargement of do
minion, but before his death was touched
with a fenfible remorfe for having fo out
rageously opprefs'd the Catholicks, and
Stood out with fuch inflexible obstinacy,
againft a dodrine fo abundantly confirm'd y.
He left orders in his will for recalling the
Catholick Bifhops he had banifh'd formerly,
and recommended the farther purfuance of
this reformation to the ferious reflexions

1 Ifidor. in Chron. Suevor. p. 740.
I Greg. Tur- 1. 8. c. 46. Marian. I. j. c. 13.

Z 3 Of

¦ 3 j * An Hiftorkal A ec 0 u n t 0/
Serm.vii. of his Son Reeftude9 whp being -well in»
^^7^ dined already, ibeg-anhis reign with apt
? - ^' pointing a fair and im-partiaj cpnfereiaee be
tween the Catholick and' Arian Bifhpps*>
The advantage in difpute was eafily p^rr
ceiv'd to lie on the fide of the former f
and this, added to the Strong evidence by
which it had been all along fupported, left
the pious King no longer room to delibe
rate, but pnftVd him on with a becoming
eagernefs to declare himfelf a Catholick. ,
He behaved on this occafion with Skch
ait and addrefs, that there could be little
difficulty to convince the body of his peo
ple, both in Spain and Languedoc, of the
re'afonablenejrs of his proceedings, and conr
fequently of their following his example *.
Some disturbance there was raifed by in-
furrcd-ion and coiifpiracies ; but they were
587, foon difcoverd and fupprefs'd, and the au-
^§^, thors incapacitated for the piirfuit of 'em
either by death or banifhment b. But that
the intended reformation might be fettled
oh a folid and immoveable foundation
1 Greg. Tur. 1. 9- c. if.
' RecaredUs primo regni fui anno fflenfe decimo catholi-
cus, Deo juvante, eflicitur, & facerdotes fe£fee Arrianse fa- ,
pienti coiloquio aggreflus, ratione potius ciuarn imperio con-
verti ad C2tholicam fidem facit, gentemque omnium Gotho-
rum & Suevdrurn ad unitatem & pacem revocat Ecclefias
Chriftianae. joan.AbSas B'iclar. in Chron. ad Calc. Eufeb. Chr.
Amll. i6f8. p. 1 6. vid. & Greg. Tur. l.p. c. if.
0 Greg. Tur. ut fupra. Joaji. BicJair. in Cbron. ad calc.
Eufeb. Chr. p.' i<5, 17. Marian, If. c. 14. there

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3*3
there was foon after a council affembled at Serm.vii.
Toledo c, where, without noife Or Violence, v-^^rsi'
without the awe and terror of a military 5 9'
force, the ancient faith Was happily re-efta-
blifhed, and after the example which had
for fome time prevail'd in the Eaft, the
Conftantinopolitan creed was appointed to
be folemhly recited d in the common of
fices. And yet fuch temper there was
Shewn towards thofe who had intruded in
to the Sees of the exiled Bifhops, that up
on theif embracing the catholick commu
nion, they were allowed to enjoy the Style
and title of Bifhops, altho' the exiles were
reftored to the poffeSfion of their Sees,
and the exercife of jurifdidion ; from
whence we meet with fome examples of
the Subfeription of two Bifhops, for the
fame Seee.
Whilft France and Spain were thus eri-
tirely reform'd from the Arian herefy, fo
entirely reform'd, that whatever other er
rors may have Since crept in, yet this has
never yet" been able to recover its ground;
it pleafed God, in the unfearchable cdunV

c Marian. 1. f, c. if. vid. & Concil. Toletan. i. in torn. f.
Concil. Labbe col. 997, 8cc. vel in Caranz. fumrrto Concil.
p. 35-6. Edit.. Duae. 16.89-.
* Cm. 2. COneil. Tdkt.
* I.abbe, tom. f. col. roij-,
Z 4 fels

3H An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.vii. fels of his Providence, to fuffer Italy once
l-sY^ more to fall a prey to Arian conquerors,
and let in the enemies of Chrift's Divinity
to rival, or even to triumph over thofe, who
adhered to the profeSIion of the ancient
"faith.
r553. The imperial General, who had expell'd
the Goths, was thought the fitteft perfon
to be governor of Italy. But before he
had enjoy'd that Station fifteen years, he
was, for avarice or male-adminiftration, or
perhaps thro' the envy and falfe fuggeftions
567. of ill people, removed from that dignity,
and another was appointed in his roomf.
His fpirit was too great, or in propriety
of fpeech too little, to be fatisfied with re
tirement and privacy ; and not having fub-
dued his paflions by the humble precepts
of religion, he invited a barbarous people to
revenge his wrongs, and facrificed at once
the religion and the quiet of the country
to his own refentments.
The Lombards were a Northern people,
for "the moft part Arians\ wh6 fince their
pafling the ^Danube, had fettled in Panno-
nia'1. To thefe the difcontented General
* Vid. Paul. Warnefrid. alias Paul. Diac. de geftis Lango-
bard. 1. 2. c. f. Anaftaf. Biblioth. de vitis Pontif. in Joan. 3.
cap. 6z.
* Ibid,
* Vid. Greg. Mag. Dial. 1. 3. c. 28, 29, 30.
' Procop. de bel. Goth. J. 3. p. 387. Paul. Warnefr. feu
Diac. de geftis Langobard. 1. 1. c. 22. addrefs'd

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 j j
addrefs'd himfelf, inviting their entrance serm.vii.
into Italy, reprefenting the weaknefs of ^-orv-f
its prefent condition, the great eafe and
difpatch with which it might be fubdued,
and the little refinance that could be made
againft themk. A people of a fierce and
warlike genius could need but little invita
tion to fuch an enterprizej and accord
ingly King Alboin the next year entred 5 68.
Italy with a numerous army of Lombards
and other Barbarians1, who ravaged the
country with a cruelty equal to their fuc-
cefsm, and, except Rome and Ravenna,
and a few places more, did, in the com
pafs of three years, or thereabouts, bring 571*
all in fubjedion to themfelves", and give
fuch a Shock to the power of the Emperor
in thofe parts, as he was never able to re
cover afterwards.
The Lombards after this divided the 574-
country into five and thirty provinces,
which were governed by fo many of their
chief Lords0; and during this kind of
government, which lafted but ten years,
the greateft outrages were committed both
upon the churches and the perfons of the

* Paul. Warn. 1.2. c.j\ vid. & Maimbourg.
3 Paul. Warn. 1. 2. c. 6, f.
* Vid. Greg. Mag. 1. 4. ep. 34.
" Paul. Warn. 1. 2. c. 2<S.
° Ibid. c. 32.

Catholicks,

3 J 6* An Hiftorical A ceo UN *"' &/
^erm.vii. Catholicks* whilft Rome it felf was forced
*-^Vsj> to purchafe its "liberty at great expence %
notwithftanding that mfcfiy miracles art
faid to have been wrought for the convic*
tiori of thefe barbarous intruders i
Perhaps their ravages had ftill eohriftuedi
if the Catholicks had been the only fuf-
ferers : • But as the ftate and dominion of
584, the Lombards, which was now thteatned
' by a war from France, was fenfibly im*
pair'd by the licentioufneffc Of the times>
and this partition of authority1 ; they found
it neceflary to restore the monarchy for
their mutual fupport, and fo fettle the go*
vernment upon its former bafisf. To this
585. end they placed Authuris upon the throne,
who, befides his being next in defcent
from their laft King, was poffefs'd of many
of thofe accomplishments which are the
proper ornaments of nlajefty *. He quickly

r Vid. Greg.. Mag. 1. 3. Epift. 34.
1 Vid. Greg. Mag. Dial. 1. 3. c. 29, 37. Some indeed have
objected againft thefe Dialogues as none cf Gregory'/, becaufe
they are unwilling to give credit to the Miracles related in them.
Xet Dr. Cave (hift. lit. ad an. f^o.) allows it to be his worfi,
charging him however with being too credulous in many cafes, and
admitting the book fit fome parts to be interpolated. He certainly
wrote a book upon thit fubjed i and where there is no other objec
tion, but what arifes from the miraculoufnefs of the thing related,
J fee not, why we Jhould difpute the fads, unlefs it could be proved
{as it moft certainly cannot) that Miracles were ceafed.
r Vid. Greg. Turon. I. 4.C39. Paul, de Ge£ Lang.' 1. 3.
c. 8, 9. "'
f Paul. Warn, de geft. Langob. I.3, c. 16, 17.
' Cap. 31. Aimoin. 1. 3. C.36Y brought

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3^7
brought their affairs into a 'better order, Serm.vii,
end in a while fo routed and tired out the V-^VN/
French army which was in thofe parts,
that being at laft greatly reduced, through
the mchmemy of weather, and the want
of provisions, they were glad to retire out 5 &9r
pf Italy, and fo eafed the Lombards of
their prefent apprehenfions of danger from
that Quarter". In his time the Italian
Bifhops feem to have applied themfelves
with fuch zeal and earneftnefs to convert
the Lombards from Arianifm to the catho
lick faith w, as did not want a good degree
of fuCcefs, that both fides might conquer
in their turns, the one by force of argu
ment, as the other had by force of arms.
To put a Stop to fuch proceedings, the
King publifh'd an edid to inhibit his Lorn- 590,
bards the baptizing of their children in
the catholick communion, and confine
them to the Arian only". But the fuccefs
of his fcheme was providentialy hinder'd
by his death, which happen'd quickly after
wards: When dying without iffue he left
his Queen Theudelinda, a Lady of catholick
principles, and fo well efteem'd by the
whole nobility, that they readily acknow-

u Greg. Turon. Hift. Franc. 1. io. c. 3. PauI.Warnefr. 1. 3.
c. 30, 32.
* Greg, Mag. 1. 1. Epift. 17.
* Ibid. ledged

358 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.vii. ledged her their Sovereign, and confented
V-OTn^ that whomfoever She Should chufe to be
her confort, they would fubmit to as their
Kingy. Agilulphus, who was honour'd
with this alliance, was himfelf an Arian j
but as the catholick caufe got ground apace
among his people, partly by the difcreet in
fluence of Queen Theudelinda, and partly
by the zeal and diligence of the Italian
Bifhops, enforced on both hands by the
earneft application of Gregory the Great \
who entred about this time upon the See
oi^Rome: fo it Shortly happen'd that the
King himfelf was added to the number of
the converts*, which could not but make
the State of the Church to appear flourish-
591. ing and profperous, by the restoration of
thofe honours and privileges which ufually
attend the favour of the civil powers b.
592, &c The war however which enfued e between
the Lombards and the Romans, gave fome
interruption to the perfeding of their con-
604. verfion, till at laft fuch a peace d was con
cluded as gave frefh opportunity for its
completion. After which Agilulphus at

? Paul. Warnefr. de geft. Langob. 1. 3. c. 36. p. 826". Edit.
Grot,. z Vid. Greg. Mag. l.i. Epift. 17.
* Paul. Warnefr. 1. 4. c. 6. p. 820.
b Ibid.
c Vid. Greg. Mag. 1.4. Epift. 29, 31. Paul. Warnefr. 1.4-
c. 8. f Cap. 31. his

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 j p
his death left his fon AdaloaldUs of twelve ssrm.vii.
years old, under the regency Of the Queen ^T^y*
Theudelinda e. This lafted for ten years, l '
during which the Catholick caufe met with
all that fuccefs and countenance which
might be expeded from a Princefs really
religious f. But at lettgth a revolution hap- 626.
pen'd in the civil government, when her
fon was fet afide, and her fon-in-law Ario-
aldus placed upon the thrones. He was
an Arian by principle, but his Queen a
Catholick ; to whofe influence it might
probably be owing, that, excepting one
unchriftian ad of violence h, he fuffer'd the
Church to enjoy an undifturbed tranquili
ty; which was fo far continued under his <S38.
fucceSfor Rotharis'1, and his fon Rodoal-
dus\ that though the Arians had their Bi- 654,
Shops in moft cities of Italy, yet the Ca
tholicks had theirs too l ; and tho' they could
not avoid the evil of feparate communions,
yet they had all the privilege which they
could ask in the celebration of their own.

• Greg. Mag. 1. 12. Epift. 7. Paul. Warnefr. 1. 4. c. 43.
p. ffZ.
f Ibid.
e Paul. ibid. & Airnoin. Hift. Franc. 1. 4. c. 10.
* Vid. Jonaf. de reb. geft. S. Bertolf. apud Baron, ad
an. 6x6.
' Paul. Warnefr. 1. 4. c. 43, 44.
* Cap. 48, 49.
. Cap. 44. pag. 8/3, But

0^o Artffiftomd Aff.ectufcT'if
Sp«m.vii, ^ut after the, d<ath of R^dodld* Ari&etif
^f^^ was King®, who is rejafoftably pej^edrtcr
&&> have, bj^m a> Catholick "» and -HiRfeb&vftft
673. jfterjapiffa, when he erame to the ctomn>
was fo ver-y z^foi^ ift the catholicte daufe,
aw^ jop^; fagh prijdefit ^m^S^s foil the?
rZ .. rt GopModfoft 'Q? his gfsQpJe*:1 that by: dsgre^
andi without, noife or violemeevthe Ariam
herfCy feems. tp; haf4^faeqsl.!utteriy extir-
pated .a ampng thg i^miwds, . and the c^
tholick ;r«eljgto& was- iBtoMsfd wififowsfc. im
*hm.*>ii, terriji§riojji fpjj about a^lbtridredr yeasts, when;
** 773- by ^le-epi^ueSjts 0C;SP^'/?iKing:^>f jf4aftce*
and hijs Sim C^^iSjJthe Grtfafc thiei wry
natiprif pf? th$ Lombards was< entirely ex*
/jf?> tingujfh'dP, and /^^ (excepting what thefe;
cpuqu^o^ had granted to the Pope) was;.
c for a while annex-U to the dominions of
SPo. France,, [ which gave occafion for reviving'
in Ghaxles the Great the title Pf the Roman
Emperor 1, e. ;;o7.* so:
It was in his time that Felix the Bifhop
of l%agfi£j. in Catalonia, ^y/as confulted by
Elipandus Bifhop of Toledo, upon this
queftion, Whether "Jefus Chrift, as man*
w^re, the adoptive or natural Son of God?

:-* Cap. fo; p. S-fj.
" Vid. Maimbourg. Hiftoire de l'Arianifme, 1. 12. p-329>
* Vid. Paul. Warnefr. l.f. c. 33, 34, &c.
» Vid. Petav. Rational, temp. 1.8. c. 7.
2. Ibid. cap. 8. . - - .-ff -
.''¦ .'ii- Hes

the Tfttiitarkri Contronerpy. 3^1
He anfwer'd, adoptive; and maintain'd his sbrm.vil
©pj*«fi& by federal writings difperfed not V»"VN/
©r1# thrpagfaojut Spain, but France and
©(ftsaag/y^. , Thisi was thought to fall in
Wi«h the Neftorian fcheme, and revive the
notion of two different fonsr. Eor which
reafon the council., which met at Matisbon 79 2-
qej^iyi, afterwards* having firft condemn'd
the Opinion % Sent, its author to Rome ;
Whete : aSteri Pope Adrian's Concurrence
with the fentence of the fynod, Fekx was
induee&lo recant. o;But then at his return
to Spain, ihe ^elaps'id into his former fen
timents *, encouraged by the resolution
of Im brethren in .thofe partep and parti
cularly Iby aj letter of Elipandus, written
on ptirpoiei to defend them^. This gave
frefh occafion: ..fbjjqthe animadversions of
Pope Adrian*, who. quickly oppofed thefe
innovations in a fetter direded to the Spa-'
nifh Bifhops, which was accompanied by
the general deeifionidf the Weft em Church,
in thafc famous council .of Fmwhfmti which 794,

' See Dupin'j EighthrCentury, ps jj-o.
f Vid. hujus rei hi ft or. in- torn. 7. Concil. Labbe.
¦Ibid, col. 1010, ion.;vid. 2e Dupin. ut fupr. item Cave
Hift. lit, vol. 2. p. 263. '''-'",¦-
" Vid. annotat. Binii apud Labbe ton*. 7 . col.1067. item
Couftant. in vindic. vet. codic. confirm, par. 3. cap. 8. p. 2 if.
prseter opera Alcuini.
w Vid. ConciK 8c Dupia ut fupr.
! Ibid- >'....

oppofed

3 6*- An Hiftorical A c c o u N T of
Serm. vn. oppofed at the fame time i the growing
C^VN-' pradice of the worfhip of images, that had
794* lately been eftablifli'd in the Eaft*. And
the decrees; of the council, with1 refped
to Felix, were enforced by letters from
Charlemaign himfelf, direded likewife to
the SpanifkBiihops. But when all this was
infufficient to reclaim Felix and his affo-
ciates, there was another council holden at
Rome a under Pope Leo the third j and an-
799- other the fame year at Aix, where at the
instance of Charles the Greati Fdix was
prefent again, and fo effedually 'refuted by
the dexterity of Alcuin, that he volunta
rily renounc'd his error, and made an or
thodox confeSIion b of his faith; tho' Still
the experience of his former inconstancy
made it reafonable to prevent his return
ing any more to Spain, and oblige him to
Spend the remainder of his days at Lyons".
When thus the Arian herefy was uni-
verfally extirpated, and there remain'd not,

i Some of the popifh writers, as Surius and Binius (inter cone.
tom. 7. col. 1068; &c.) have denied that this Council of Frank
fort did condemn the worfhip of Images. But Sirmondus (ibid.
col. 1074.) and Dupin, (ut fupra) not to mention our own
Ur. Cave, have maintain' d the fad againft their}.
1 Concil. Nicen. 2. in tom. 7. Concil. Labbe.
" Concil. tom. 7. col. 1 149, &c. Labbe. Dupin ut lupra.
* Concil. tom. 7. col. 1 lfj, 1 ifz.
I Vid. Couftant. vind. vet. cod. confirm, par. j.c. 8,10,18. (that

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 6*3
(that we know of) any Arian communion Serm.viK
upon earth, there was yet a fierce conteft V-*"VVI
in France, with relation to this fubjed,
which feem'd to be little elfe but a dif
pute about words. Hincmar Archbifhop %6f.
of Rheims being offended at an expreffion
in the publick offices, namely, Trina cDei-
tas, or triple Godhead, which he thought
muft have the fame meaning with three
Godheads or three Gods, took upon him
to alter the expreffion to fumma 'Deltas.
This innovation gave offence to many ;
and Ratram in particular, and after him
Gothefcalcus, undertook to juftify the ex
punged expreffion from any charge of
Tritheifm, as implying no more than that
the Godhead, altho' Jubfiantially but one,
is yet perfonally threefold, and as being
therefore eafily defended by the ancient
flyle and language of the Church, whilft
they who fhould fcruple it, when thus ex
plain'd, could hardly efcape the imputation
of Sabellianifm. Hincmar was neverthe-
lefs refolute in his opinion, and wrote a S67.
large treatife upon this fubjed, not only
for the clearing of himfelf, but to load
his oppofers with the odious charge of
blafphemy. The matter all this while was
chiefly (as I hinted) a difpute about words,'
and whatever be determined about Hinc
mar s altering the hymns of the Church,
yet their notions on both fides, with re-
A a sard

3 6*4 An Hiftorical Account©/
s*rm.vif. g'ard to the Trinity, appear to have been
^OCV the famed.
But about the fame time, another quef
tion was more unhappily improved to di
vide and alienate the Greek and Latin
Churches from each other. A queftion,
which has fo much relation to the Trini
tarian Controverfy, that it ought not to be
Wholly omitted in this place. The creed
which had been eftablifli'd by the fecond
general council affembled at Conftantinople,
and which was now generally ufed in the
common offices throughout the Eaftern
and Weftern Churches, had in fuch man
ner exprefs'd the proceffion of the Holy
Ghoft, as to aflert no more than this, that
He proceedeth from the Father. This, in
procefs of time, was enlarged or interpo
lated in the Latin Church with the addi-
circa tion Of the word filioque : Which at the
8 $2. time When Photius was Patriarch of Con
ftantinople, became the handle for fo wide
a breach of communion between the two
Churches, as no length of time, nor de
claration of their refpedive meanings, has
yet been able to repair,- and whilft both
fides meant to advance the honour of the
ever-bleffed Trinity; yet each had the rafh-

d See this matter ftated more at large by Couftant. vind. vet.
cod. confirm, par, 4. cap 2, , .8. See alfo Dupin'; Eccl.
Hift. ninth Cent. c.z. in fiue.

nefs

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 36 f
nefs to accufe the other of dishonouring serm.vii:
(if not deftroying) ite. This appear'd by the V-^Y>°
debates upon this fubjed long after ill the
council of Florence^ when the Latins, for 1439-
afferting the procejfion of the Holy Ghoft
from the Son as well as from the Father,
weire thought to introduce two eaufcs or
principles, and two fountains of the Deity,
and to teach a compound, inftead of a
Simple, ad of production ¦: Whilft on the
other hand, the Greeks, for denying it,
were charged with feparating the divine
fubftance from the perfon of the Son. And
though in the procefs of their debates, the
meaning of both was fo far explain'd that
they came to accommodation with each
other in the council, yet the Greek Patri
archs after all, and others who were ab*
fent, refufed to confirm the union, and fo
the breach between the two Churches re-
main'd as wide as ever.
Whoever considers the circumftances of
thofe times, When this quarrel firft broke
out, will readily be apt to conclude, that this
Was rather a pretence greedily taken up,
than any real ground of feparation. The
great ufurpations and encroachments of
the Bifhop of Rome, which had been grow-

' See Vr. CaveV Life of Greg, Naz^fecV f. §. 2.
f Vid. Concil. Florenr. Labbe tom. 15. Dupin Eccl. Hiftl
Cent. if. ch. 3.
A a 2 ing

$66 An Hiftorical Ac cou nt of
Serm.vii. ing for two' centuries and more, under that
y*smY^*-> vainglorious charader of univerfal Bifhops,
which Gregory the Great himfelf h had fo
feverely cenfur'd in the Patriarch of Con
ftantinople ; the increafe and acceflion
hereby made to thofe jealoufies and emu
lations which had long fubfifted between
the BifhopSsOf thofe great Churches1; and
all this enflamed and heighten'd tp^the laft
degree, by the contests that arofe about
the particular cafe of Photius, and the
right of jurifdidion over the Bulgarians^ :
Thefe were the great grounds of contro
verfy ; and the cafe of the filioque being
thrown in at this time, when their minds
were already . fo much exafperated againft
each other, That : likewife was made a
matter of accufation on one fide, and a
plaufible handle for the widening of that
breach which was opening before. Thus
if the Greeks .exclaim'd againft this infer-
tion of the Latins as a diabolical device,
and the greateft of all evils; adulterating
the holy creed with Jpurious fenfies and un
written exprejfions1 5 fo on the other hand the

8 Cave Hift. Lit. Seed. 7. feu Monothtlit. in confpe&u
feculi. * Vid. ibid.
¦ Vid. Cave Hift. Lit. in Leone primo Pontifice, Anatolio &
Acacio Conftantinop. ad an. 44.0! 449, 47 1 .
" Cave Hift. Lit. fecul: 9. in confpe&u fajculi.
1 — Te iifcy >g Uyiot rdpfathet ¦ yiioli fayurpiots, 7$ trufty-
ygasToij

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 6*7
the* favourers of the Papal claim have Sermvil
been no lefs fevere upon the Greeks, but v^rV>v>
have proceeded even to aferibe the mife-
ries which have Since befallen 'em, to this
caufe ; and particularly the taking of Con
ftantinople by the Turks, upon the very 1453'
festival of Whitfunday, which is facred to
the honour of the Holy Ghoft m.
It muft on all hands be acknowledged,
that this phrafe was not originally inferted
in the creed, as approved by the Fathers at 381.
Conftantinople. But then the caufe is
likewife evident, that it was not rejeded,
but only never offer'd, as being a claufe
of which they had not any particular occa
fion in guarding againft the herefies of
thofe times. As for the dodrine it felf,
that it was then received in the Church
may be eafily demonftrated. Among the
Latins, befides thofe who came after St.
Auguftine, whom fome would fuggeft n to
have been the firft author of this dodrine,
we find it eXprefly afferted by St. Ambrofe0,

yqcclois Aeytu;, j<5 fyictrgs ultsfahy xt£e\?ituily ilts%sipi<r*y 'il lip*
rou tToyypou ihrf^owi^kruy' 71 trystiflitt n itfytoy ix ix to! zrctTfcf
ft$yoy, aMcc ys £ ix rou uiou, ix7rofsoto% xeuyoMyiirouTii. Phot.
in Epift. Encycl. p. r 1.
m See Dr. Cave's Life of Greg. Naz. left. f. §. 2.
¦ Vid. Steph. de Altimura, i. e. Le Quien in Panoplia con
tra Graec. Centur. 1 1. cap. 4. §.2.
0 Spiritus Sanftus, cum procedit a Patre & Filio, non ft-
paratur a Patre, non feparatur a Filio. D. Ambrofe de Spir.
Sand. 1. 1. c, 10, alias 1 1.

A a 3 and

3 6*8 An Hiftorical Ac c o u n T of
Serm.vii. and the fame thing in effed advanced be-
*-*,W fpre him by St. Hilary p, at that very time
when his exile for the fake of tlie faith had
obliged him to ufe the converfation of the
Greeks, and fo gave him the better oppor
tunity to understand the dodrine of the
Eaft as well as of the Wefi in this parti
cular. And indeed the dodrine of the
Greek Fathers themfelves is exprefs'd in a
manner fo agreeable to his, that their hatr
mony with the Latins is from hence moft
evident, as to the matter of their faith,
though there be fome little variation in the
form of the expreSIion ; which can be no
wonder, when it is confider'd, that the point
had not been hitherto debated or fettled
by any council. They interpret that text in
which our Saviour fays, he fhall take or re
ceive of mine % as importing that the Holy
Ghoft derives his effence from the Son. And
even that other text which afferts his pro-
feeding from the Father, was thought to
imply as much, when taken in comparifon
with this, becaufe all things that the

» De Spiritu autem San&o-w-*!, qui Patre & Filio auftori.
bus confitendus eft. Hilar, de Trin. 1. 1. §. 29. col. 802. Edit.
Bened. — Et utrum id ipfum fit a Filio accipere, quod a Patre
procedere. Quod fi diftirre credetur inter accipere a Filio St
a Patre procedere, certe id ipfum atque unum effe exiftima-
bitur, a Filio accipere, quod fit accipere a Patre. 1. 8. §,20.
yid. & fequen.
? Joh, xvi. if. * father

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 360
Father hath are here declared to be the serm.vii.
Son'si. \^"Y"v>
From hence St. Athanafius made no
doubt to affert that the Holy Ghoft has the
like order and nature with refpect to the
Son, as the Son has with rejpecl to the
Father1, and advances upon that foot even
to Style the Son the fountain of the Holy
Ghoft f. Which perhaps may give fome
light to that paffage of Eccleftafticus, which
mentions the Word of God to be the foun
tain of wifdom*, as wifdom on the other
hand has already been obferv'd" among
fome" ancient writers to be the denomina
tion of the Holy Ghoft. And to the fame
purpofe St. Bafil'" obferves, that as Chrift
is the image of the invifible God, fo the
Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. From
whence, it has been reafonably judg'd, fome

* 'E»srof suitou faji <JB a$ sx rou Ssou x^ stxr(e( ro TSysuftiU ro~
ctyioy, yun.ru, r\y rou erariip©* 0»v»», «M' ax etMorfiiy i?i rou
bioS- %ayrst, y> 's%tt itisrie rou xccrgos' <? touto uutoi io\oa.\ii iorm
trtgi rou dyas srw»/M«©' reiur* oo-cc s%st o Tta-ztjf ifba ist S^g,
rouro uitoy hfiiiy, on ix rou s/juou Aijd/ssrot, x) ayctyyitai ufiity. Cyr,
Alex. adv. Theod. in Anathem. 9.
* Touturluo 3 to|iv x} (pulrty s%oyTCf Toil Ttysuftictr©" -xto% ray
illy, ottty 0 uioq 'typi irja; roy -itatr'sta,. Athan. Epift. 1. ad Serap.
de Spir. Sanft §.11. p. 660.
f Qife y> iruftt r5 B-sS a»r^t I'yret roy uioy wjjv*i» rou, )*j<a
issu/aut©". Athanaf. de incarnat. contra Arianos. §. 9. p. 897.
' Tliryii o-of!xs Any©- S-tou. Ecclus. i. f.
¦ See the fecond fermon, p. 70.
w 'Sixay /4" St™ Xl'tttt '( **"'» tyi™, i'xay rou 3-seii rou' ttogi*
rw, imm p viw re irysuf/iet, D. Bafil. adv. Eunom. I.e. p. 116.

A a 4 light

3 7 o An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.vii. light may be derived to a paffage of Ire-
S*/V>J nteusw, fpeaking of the Son as the Off-
fpring of God, and the Holy Ghoft as the
figuration of the Son, But upon this fubjed
fpeaks Epiphanius yet more exprefly, that
as Chrift is believed to be from the Father,
God of God, fo is the Holy Ghoft believ'd
to be from the Son, or from them both, as
Chrift has faid, tofjo procecortl) from n)e
ifafljer, and, |>e ujall rcmije of mine*. So
that he plainly underftood as much by
the one expreffion as he did by the other,
namely, that the bleffed Spirit is fubftan
tially derived from both perfons, fince to
be or to exift from any perfon, muft imply
(as the Nicene creed explains it in. another
particular) a communication of the fiub
fiance of that perfon f. And therefore al
tho' Epiphanius has fometimes ufed diffe
rent prepofitions z, to preferve the diftindi
on of perfons with the greater clearnefs ;

" Miniftrat enim ei ad omnia fua progenies & figuratio
fua \leg, ejus"} i. e. Filius & Spiritus San&us, verbum & fa-
pientia. Iren. adv. haer. 1. 4. c. 7. alias 17. vid. & MafTuet.
annot ad loc.
x 'Ei 3 x^Po<, ix rou 3Wf«s itifiisrai, Ssoc, IkSsouPiZ to
msufiUBi sx tou Xfifou, t) wetf ,4tMi<ptrs^m„ a>$ <Hva-ty 0 X('^t "
-z-clpx rou Karroos izttogtu'trcu, (t1 bt©-. ix rou iftiou yJ/ysTctt. Epi-
phan. in Ancorat. §. 67. p. 70. Ita & haer. 74. §.4. p. 891.
vid. & ban-. 62.
y —Tsyyyfisyra, sx rou mtTfoiii ,,.i, TXTtriy ix T?s ittiotf rou ittt-
rps. Symbol. Niccn- vid. Le Qui en. Panopl. Cen tur. 11.
cap. 4- §• <s.
* —rXltllai rou V«rp»s »g ix 70S mov. Epiph, AnCOr. §.7 2. p.78. yet

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 371
yet to Shew he meant no more, he has Serm.vii,
elfe where* applied the fame prepofttion to V«^W
both, and confequently meant as much as
the Latin Fathers could do by afferting
him to proceed from the Son {in terminis)
as well as from the Father. St. Cyril of
Alexandria is1 no lefs full and exprefs b, and
tho' he has not ufed the very word ixnro^idi-
tcu, yet he has plainly ufed another of the
fame import, which equally denotes pro-
ceJfionc, and his derivation of fubftance
from the Sond as well as from the Father.
The fame was very clearly implied and un
derstood in that language which obtaine4 1
fo generally afterwards in the Greek Church,
viz. thajLthe Holy Ghoft proceeds and ex
ift s from the Father, by or through the
Sone. Theodorit is perhaps the only one

3 1 1 1 -1 To -j mtuftiu aytoy 7ta,£ct, a-j^ipor^at icceta, ist/trfe
x) uiou. Epiph. Ancor. §.70,71. p. 7f,"j6. 'Ex. t«s uu-
riis ovotus, ix r%i adrift ^teVuroj, sx x»re\i Xj inou, triiy tttcrj>}
k, viS hoTfutrccroy itsi yryiuuict ityioy. Haer. 62. €. 4. p. cif.
1 11 On ix this italics rou ytecroof xttt Too uiou To msuiha. ra
uytoy. Cyril. Alex, fub Aflert.' 34. Thefaur. tom. f.'-p. 344.
Paris 1638.
c 1 •Xltisio'i 5 ix xttroos xxi utou. ttooo\>i.oy ot* t%$ Was tS"«»
Jtowts, tto-taiZi iy itury xai i| iuT«5 itooioy. Ibid. p. 3 4 J . vid.iSC
Dial. 6. ad Herm. deTrinitat. p. fc>i.
d 1 v ! 'Ay«y»n to itno[b* tSj s\n«s e/i*»Aoyt8 tob mow. The
faur. p. 3 j-8.
* 'Ea-f le^a'sj if jt(ovo» ixtteBsuto% Xsyirut ix sraTpn; eY uiou, a>Pai
xai sx S-sou eY utou tuieu' trvyxfiipou/d/i k't'oHac, ix ascrfoc, eY uiou
utooisytn x*\ sfvou to miufnite. Georg. Scholar, five Gennad. adv.
Latinos.; apud Le Quien Panopl. Cent. 11. cap. 4. §. 13. in

37* An Hiftorical Ac eov ist of
serm.vii. in all antiquity who exprefly difallowed of
*-OPW gyery affertion of that kind j and it feems
rather to have dropt from him in the heat
of his difpute in the caufe of Nefiorius,
before this queftion had been accurately
ftated and examined, than to have flowed
from any fedate. deliberation of his cooler
judgment ; fince he himfelf allowed him
to be the proper Spirit of the Son, and pf
the fame nature with himi.
Thus far therefore we are clear as to
the antiquity of this dodrine. But for its
infertion in the Conftantinopolitan creed,
we can fay nothing about it with any cer
tainty, till towards the condufion of the
589. &<th century, when the council of Toledo
alfembled in the reign of Recarede, which
appointed the recital of that creed in the
publick offices, produced a copy of it for
that purpofe, with this claufe exprefly in-
ferted s. From henceforth it will be rea-
fonable to prefume, that that interpolation
was received in Spain. And in the eighth
and ninth centuries, when the herefy of

f ''ls\oy 5 to tniufiiX roS utou, it (usy a>; oihotpvsi xxi ix -ttHTPoc.
ixitofiuo/S/iov iqni, o-iwoftio^yitrofSfi,- suit a>s iuosQi hZpibti* my
*$mfa' it S' «>; eg itoV, ti eY btou r^y. fot&tfyy i%et, i>( /3Aao-4>»(i*o»
tout* xa.1 a$ ibov&io ZteefjfyofDp. Theodorit. adverf. Cyril, in
Anathem. g.
« -.--Ex Patre & Filio procedentem. Cpflcil. Tolet, 3. torn.*-.
col, 1 006. Labbe.
Felix

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 373
Felix and Elipandus gave occafion firft to Serm.vil
a large confefiion of faith inferted in the *"-**VN*»
epiftle of Charles the Great h, and after to
the publick recital of the fame creed 794.
throughout the Churches of France and
Germany, they kept to that form which
had been fo long received in the Spanifb
Churches, and acknowledged the procejfion
of the Holy Ghofi from the Father and the
Son. This however met with great oppo
fition from Pope Leo the third, who tho'
far from difapproving of the dodrine it-
felf, yet exprefs'd a great diflike of any 8°9-
fuch alteration of the words of the creed,
without the fame authority of a general
council, which had eftablifhed it at firft.
For which reafon he order'd it to be en
graved both in Latin and Greek charaders
without that interpolation, and hung up in
filver plates in St. 'Peter's at. Rome, as a
lafting monument to be left for posterity K
By this means he kept the claufe from be
ing receiv'd at Rome s, but as it was Still
continued in other parts of the Latin
Church, and pofiibly introduced at Rome
it felf, in the time of Pope Nicholas*-; 852»

" Concil. Francofbrd. torn. 7. col. rorj. Wajafrjd. Strabo
de rebus Ecclef. cap. %i. citarttt JJMo m$ji4 Labbe tom. 7.
col. 1 198. vid. Le Quien ut fupr. §, 21.
¦ Vid. Ca< te Hift. lit. ad an. 79/.
£ See Dr. Cave'jLife of Greg. Na?. fecl.j-. §. 2. this

374 An Hiftorical Accoun Tof
Serm.vii. this gave the handle for that objediOn of
^^Y^-J 'Photius already mentioned, which grew
Stronger by the time that Michael Cerula-
rius was Patriarch of Conftantinople in the
105 3- eleventh century, when the Pope's legates
themfelves were fo little apprized of the
origine of this infertion, that they took it
to have been originally in the creed, and
therefore made it an obj edion to the
Greeks that they omitted this very claufe
in the recital Of it1. " ; ¦ '
We are now got down to thofe ages of
the Church, in which learning was fo far
loft and decay 'd, that there can be little
wonder if fome Should fall into error, thro'
defed of judgment, and" others- Should' be
cenfured as erroneous, merely for want of
being rightly underftood. I hardly know
which of thefe judgments to pafs upon
Tetrus Abelardus in the twelfth century.
He was a perfon learned, for his time, and
much addided to the ftudy of philofophy m.
He feems indeed too far to have indulged
his fpeeulative genius, in the explication of
religious myfteries n. And from hence he
was accufed of various herefies, as well by
1 1 20. St. Bernard, who was his cotemporary, as
1140. by the two Gallican councils of ' Soijfons
' Le Quien ut fupr. §. zf.
m Cave Hift. Lit. ad an. 11 20.
; Vid. Abelard. introduce, ad Theolog. inter opei£. p. 97 3, &c.
and

the Trinitarian' Controverfy. 3 7 j
and Sens °. He was charged with favour- Serm.vii:
ing of Arianifm, when he treated of the ^OT^
Trinity, of Telagianifm when he treated
of Grace, and of Neftorianifm laftly, when
he treated of the perfon of Chrift p. He
fo far acquitted himfelf from alii, either
by more fully explaining what he had deli-
ver'd more harfhly and uncautioufly be
fore*, or at leaft by acknowledging the
catholick dodrine, in oppofition to any
errors in this point which his former works
might contain f, that he was foon after re-

0 Cave ibid. vid. & de hoc re tot A Dupin Hift. Eccl.
Cent. 12. cap. 7. ut ©» ipfum Abelard. in hiftor. calami tar.
iuar. inter opera cap. 9, &c.
f Cum de Trinitate loquitur, fapit Arium ; cum de gratia,
fapit Pelagium; cum de perfona Chrifti, fapit Neftorium.
D. Bernard, ad Guidon Epift. 192. ,
' Vid- Abelard^Apblog. feu cbnfefT. fidei inter opera p. 3 }o, 8cc.
Ab his4pfijm liberant, ejus qui fuperfunt libri, praecipue apo
logia dla -feu. fidei confeflio, qua mentem fuam perfpicue ex
plicate 8c hujufmodi objedta penitus diluit,- & leviftima plane
funt, 8c Wcaute potius & duriufcule quam false* aut hetero-
doxe dicta, qua; in operibus ejus notant ipfi cenfores Pari-
fienfes. Verbo dicam,.- in hoc rnaxime peccafle videtur Abe-
lardus, quod ad argutias Diale&icas, Sc infolentes quofdam
Philofbphix terminos dogmata Theologica, & fumma qua-
darn fidei Catholics: myfteria revocare fit conatus. Notandum
denique plura malefana dogmata ipfi affi&a, ex aliorum libris
haufta effe, quos ipfe pro fuis nunquam agnovit. Cave Hift.
lit. ad an. 1120.
* Vid. Cave & Dupin ut fupra.
f Nam quicquid fit de Refipifcentia & apologia, necnon
de fidei confeffione ad Heloiflam ( in qua ifbonoixy quidem
Patris Filii & Spiritus Sanfti diferte^ fatis profitetur [Abelar-
dus] ac nee fatisfaftionem Chrifti, nee peccatum originis ita
ediflerir, ut omnino fatisfaciat) manifeftum cert£ eft, &c.
Calov. oper. Antifocin. vol. 2. p. fi. 0^4. §. 6.
1 conciled

3 76 An Hiftorical Accounts/
Serm.vii. reconciled even with St. Bernard himfelf,
^-OT^ and obtain'd his abfolution from Pope i»-
nocent the fecond1. And it ought withal
to be remember'd, that feveral of the he
refies which were fo freely charged upon
him, were taken out of a book of Sen
tences which he utterly difown'd u, and
which was probably published by fome o-
ther man under the colour of his name.
1 147. Soon after this, one Gillebert Bifhop of
Toifliers is faid to have advanced fome
monftrous paradoxes, with relation to the
Trinity : But as he was quickly refuted and
convinced by St. Bernard'", and his herefy
fupprefs'd by the cenfures of diverfe fynods,
there can be little need to ftate it more at
large in this place.
11 jo. It was about the middle of the fame
century, that Peter Lombard, the famed
Mafter of the Sentences , who was firft-
Profeffor of Divinity, and afterwards Bi
fhop of Paris, introduced that method of
fcholaftick T)ivinity, which grew into fo
high a reputation in the following century.
There had been fome preparatory Steps

' Vid. Cave ut fupr. & opera Abelardi. p. 335", 337> 344«
0 Vid. Cave & Dupin 8c Abelardi apoloe, item D. Bernard.
Epift. 188.
* Cave Hift. lit, ad an. n if. Dupin Cent. 1 a. ch. 8.
made

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 377*
made towards it before his time * ; and SB»M.vrf.
IPefrus Abelardus in particular, whom we V-<VV
juft now mention'd, had by his fubtle dif-
quifitions given the more immediate handle
for thofe improvements, which Lombard
came to make in his famous book of the
fentences ; where tho' he always endeavour'd
to fupport himfelf by the authority of the
Fathers y, yet he had a particular regard to
the work of Abelardus z, and fplit his fyf-
tem into fuch refined and curious fpecula-
tions, as furnifhed out the ground-work for
thofe many and intricate perplexities, which
employ'd the thoughts and ftudy of the
Schoolmen that fucceeded him.
Mean while it ought to be remember'd
that the metaphyfical difquifitions of the
matter of the fentences, concerning the
divine effence, confider'd abftradedly and
without perfonal proprieties, that it is nei
ther begetting, begotten, nor proceeding,
thofe being perfonal charaders, and not
effential, met with fome oppofition from
Joachim the Abbot of Flora, about the 1201."
beginning of the next century ; who, ima
gining this the way to introduce a quater-
nity inftead of a Trinity, three which had
fome one of thofe charaders, and a fourth
* V. Cave Hift. lit. in confpeclu face. 1 3. Dup. Cent. 1 2. c. 1 5-.
* Dupirmt fup. vid. & praefat. ad Opera D. Bernard. Ed. Par.
1 This is attefted by Joan. Cornubienf. apnd Andr. Querce-
tan. in annot. ad Abelard. p. 1 if 9.
which

3 7% An Hiftorical AcCovm of
serm.vii. which had neither, undertook to main-
\sy^ tain, that however it might be faid that
the three perfons are of one and the fame
effence, yet it cannot be faid, on the other
hand, that the fame effence is three perfons.
So that he was not without fome ground
fuSpeded of Tritheifm, and understood to
allow no other Unity, but fuch as is col
lective or fpecifical. Yet fuch was his
modefty in propofing his notions, that I
find no mention of any animadverfions or
cenfures pafs'd upon him whilft he lived j
and even after his death, when the coun-
121 5. cil of Lateran condemn'd his opinions,
and declared for the matter of the fen
tences, they yet fpared at the fame time
the memory of Joachim, and exprefs'd a
Singular regard and efteem for him*.
As the credit of Lombard was thus ful
ly eftablilh'd, the fcholaftick fpeculations
could not but go on and encreafe; and
from henceforth the ancient Simplicity, in
which the chriftian dodrine had been fta
ted, was almoft wholly negleded, and the
ftudy of 'Divines was employ'd firft to
find out arduous and puzzling questions,
and then to give 'em what they thought a

* Vid. Concil. Lateran. 4. cap. %¦ tom. 1.1. par. 1.
col. 144, &c. item Dupin Ecclef. Hift. 13 Cent. c. 4, 6.
Cave Hift. Ik. vol. 1. ad an. 120 1. & vol. 2. inter concilia ad
an. nif. fatif-

V/Y^

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 yo
fatisfadory folution. It was not enough Serm.vii.
to wait till the boldnefs or tlie fubtlety
of hereticks fhould propofe their objedi
ons. againft the receiv'd fcheme of chrifti
anity, but they even loaded it with difn>
culties of their own difcovcry, that they
might afterwards difplay their parts and
skill in laying the phantofm they had rail
ed themfelves. I do not deny but a good
life is to be made of their writings, if read
with candour and judgment, and a fincere
purpofe of adhering to truth. But perhaps
the fame good ufes might have been ferv-
ed more effedually, if they had lefs in
dulged fo inquifitive a genius ; and, con
tenting themfelves with reafoning about
what we do comprehend, and appealing to
divine teftimony, for what we do not, they
had forbore to run up the fublime myfte-
ries of faith into curious and unedifying
fpeculations. It is greatly to be fear'd, that
by this method of proceeding they have
furnifhed out matter for perfons of un
liable minds, or malicious difpofitions, to
err concerning the faith, and have flat-
ter'd mankind with fuch a liberty pf
' thought, as gives the greatest handle in
nature for herefy and contradidion.
It would be needlefs to lay before you
in particular how this fubtlety of disputa
tion perplexed the dodrines of the Trinity
and Incarnation, as well as other articles
B b of

380 An Hiftorical Account of
Serm.vii. of religion ; or at leaft fpun them out in-
W^ to fuch fine metaphyfical niceties as were
wholly unintelligible to perfons of a lower
capacity, and unedifying (as to the fub
ftance and great ends of religion) even to
thofe who pretended to a deeper penetration.
It may fufnce to obferve that this fcho-
laftick method of Divinity kept its repu
tation in fome following centuries, till the
many corruptions and abufes which had
crept into the Church of Rome, during
the darknefs and obfeurity of the middle'
ages, put fome people upon looking back
to Scripture and Antiquity, in order to find
out fome better rule than they obferved at
prefent, both in faith and discipline.
But as it rarely happens that what is
wrong can be- entirely redified, but fonie
ill people will take the Opportunity to in
troduce abufes of another kind, and under
the fpecious name of reformation , will
prefume to innovate and alter what is
right, fo at that time it fell out, that whilft
there were fome who exerted a laudable
induftry and zeal in correding or reform
ing the corruptions of popery, there were
others who attempted even to fhake the
foundations of Chriftianity it felf, by play
ing that game over again which had been
loft fo many ages Since, and reviving thofe
very herefies which had oftentimes already
been baffled and exploded. What fteps they;
took

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 % x
took for this purpofe, and what progrefs Serm.vii.
they made, by what arts they have infi- v^oro
nuated themfelves, and by what means
they have been defeated, how they have
fometimes carried on their defigns in fe-
cret, and at other times have lifted up
their heads with greater boldnefs, are par
ticulars which will be fit to be hinted to
you in fuch manner as the time Shall ad
mit, at the next opportunity for our af-
fembling together.
Now to God the Father, Son and Holy
Ghoft, three perfons in the unity of
the fame eternal Godhead, be all ho
nour and glory henceforth for evermore.
Amen.

B b 2 SER-

3 8 2 An Hiftorical A c c o u n t pf

f . i

SERMON VIIL
Preacji'd June 4, 1724..

¦^H* <H'M'Ht*$*444'#4?4''&.4'#*'$''.K-',fr* 4>#,$"t"fc

Ser. VIII.

AVING brought down our
hiftory of the Trinitarian Con
troverfy as low as the time of
the Reformation, when for fe-
veral ages it had given ' but
little difturbance to the Church ; it muft
be own'd that it began now to revive with
an unufual vehemence, and almoft every
herefy which had been crufh'd by ancient
councils, now lifted up "its head anew with
greater boldnefs.

Ifhall

ihe Trinitarian Controverfy. 383
i Shall forbear to fpeak of Capita3, Cel- ser.viii.
~tsb, and Heizerusc, who are reckon'd K-^l^s-J
among the firft oppofers of the dodrine of 3 ¦
the Church in this particular, in regard
their caufe was more vigoroufly underta
ken about the fame timed by Michael Ser
vetus,
* Vid. Sandii. Bibl. Antitr. p. I. Hiftoire du Socinianifme,
par. 2. ch. 1. The charge againft Capito is founded only on two
particulars, (1.) that he wrote a Preface to fome works of Cella-
rius; and, (z.) that he it mention'd with tfteetn by the Tranfyl-
vanians, and other hereticks , as a perfon cf their fentimentt.
But he is likewife mention'd with fuch efteem by Calvin, and others
who were av'erfi to the hertfy, and particularly is reckon'd to have
been mifreprefented by Servetus, that there may ie reafon to doubt
whether he ever gave fufficient ground for this charge againft
him. * Sandius ut fupr. p. if. Hift. du Socin. ibid.
e Heizerus was beheaded for herefy, ann. 1/29. Sandius, p. 1 6.
Hift. du Socin. ibid.
d Beza On vit. Calvin, prope ink-) makes him to have propa
gated his doElrine for thirty years together, and in his 8 ift Epiftle,
p. 2 Of. he makes it thirty years and more. Now as it is certain he
was executed in if f 3, (vid. Note fur 1' Hiftoire du Socini
anifme, p. 12.) if we. take ojf thirty years from thence, that will
carry tts back to if 23. But Calvin himfelf, in his epiftle to Sult-
zerus, (p. 70. Edit. Amft. 1667.) which was written that very
year, allows but twenty years to the propagation of his herefy. which
would carry us back no farther than r 5-3 3. Sandius (Biblioth.
p. 7.) is fir reconciling thefe accounts, by fuppofing the one to com
pute from the time when he firft advanced thefe opinions, the other
from the time when he firft publifh'd them in print. But as Cal*
vin'j computation is not altogether exatl in the point of publication,
(for Servetus'.) firft book was publifh'd in the year 15*3 1,) fo we
can hardly maintain Beza'j calculation, as to the beginning of his
herefy, if the account given in the late Hiftory of Michael Ser
vetus (p. 2.6 ) be true, that he was born but in the year If 09 ;
for at this rate he muft have fet up fbr an Herefiarch at about
fourteen years of age.
But againft this, I confefs, it may be urged, that Socinus (in
refp. ad Viijek. cap. 2.) reprefents Servetus as a man in years at
the time of his execution, and much older than Calvin (who was
B b 3 born,

384 An Hiftorical Ac counts/
sw. viii. vetus, who being a Spariiard by birth, ad-
y^Y^> dided firft to the ftudy of the civil law,
and afterwards of phyfick, and hearing of
the prpgrefs that was made by Luther and
fome others in reforming the corruptions
of the Church of Rome, applied himfelf
to enquire into the nature of her dodrines,
and among others pitched upon this article
1528. of the ever-bleffed Trinity, as one of thofe
dodrines that needed reformation; taking
his hint, or at leaft his improvement of
that matter, frqm the Alcaran, if we may
depend on the account which a Socinian
Historian gives concerning hime- With
this view he fet up to perfed the work
which was already begun : and from hence
Popery was reprefented under the image of
a magnificent temple, of which Luther la-
born in that very year if 09.) From whom the author of Hiftoire
du Socinianifme ( in. his Notes, p. 23.) concludes that he could
not be lefs than fifty five years of age, if not fifty feven.
Moft probably neither Calvin nor Bpza meant a ftriB calculation,
and the truth perhaps may lie between them. For which reafon I .
have pitched upon the year if 28 : which, as it agrees well enough
with Nicolas de la Fontaine, who in his petition preferr'd againft
Servetus, allows the fpace of twenty four years, or thereabouts, to
the fpreadmg of his herefy ( Hiftory of Servetus, p. 90.) and
with Servetus'* account of leaving his own country about twenty
four or twenty five years before his afprehenfion at Geneva, (ibid.
p, 1 14,.) fo it may well confift with the report of the Paftors of
Bafil, who m their letter dated 1 f f 3 , (inter Calvin. Epift. p. 7 2.)
make mention how OEcolampadius hud found him out twenty three
years before, and forefaw that Servetus would give trouble to the
Church. .' Lubieniec. Hift. Reform. Polon. 1. 2. c. f . cited in the Hid.
o£ Servet. p. 196. & Hiftoire du Socinianifme, par. z. c. 3,
1 bour'd

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 Ry
bour'd only to uncover the roof, 2*uingti- Ser.vIII,
us and Calvin employ'd their engines for ,-^V*s^
battering the walls, but it was the work of
Servetus and thofe that followed him, to
fap the very foundations f.
His herefy is reprefented to have had
fomething in it peculiar and unintelligible *,
but feems for the moft part to have fallen
in with the ancient herefies of Sabellius" and 1iit*.
Paulus Samofatenus h, acknowledging a
Trinity of Perfons in no other fenfe than
what thofe hereticks allow'd » ; namely, in
the fenfe of theatrical charader or mani
festation pnly, and withal efteeming the
Divine Word to be fudh an emanation
from God, fuch a mere image or idea oi
Chrift, as had no real existence before the
world, but was in the end fo really made
fiefh, that that fiefh itfelf, inftead of being
Confubftantial '-with ours, was fubftantially
divine, as being taken from the fubftance

f Hift. du Socin. pan i. c. i.
e See Hift. of Servetus, p. 281 Beza makes it a mixture cf
tdmoft all herefies. Ecce in unico Ser veto revocati funt ab in-
feris Samofatenus, Arius & Eutyches- ¦ <. Addere autem eti
am iftis licet Marcionis & Apollinaris delirium infaniae proxi-
mum adeo portentum illud fuit errorum omnium feceundum,
Vid. Bez> Epift. 81^.294.
* Vid. Calvin, refut. error. Servet. item Paftor. Bafil. Bern.
& Tigurin. inter Calvin. Epift. p. 72, &c. Beza in vit. Calv,
ad an. iff8. Melanth.l. 1. Epift. 111. Hift. of Servet. p. 39.
Sand. Biblioth. Antitr. p. 9.
' See Serm. ?. p. 119, I2f, 144. Melantlh. loc. Theol. fbl.
1/3, 1/4. Edit. Witeb. 1601. Hift. of Servet. p. 92, iof.
B b 4 of

386 An Hiftorical Account of
Ssr.viii. of God, and might in that refped be pro-;
t»""YN> pcrly term'd the Word and Son of GodkJ
He was zealous in the propagation of his
impious tenets for many years, and gave a
handle for introducing fuch bold Specula
tions in Divinity, as Philip Melancthon l,
one of the earlieft Reformers, could not
but apprehend might prove of dangerous
and fatal confequence. And indeed it
ought to be acknowledg'd, that as this be
came the means of feducing many from
the ancient faith of the Church, fo it
could not fail of obftruding in great mea-
fure the progrefs of the Reformation, fince
many who could not well diftinguifh be
tween the different fpirit of thofe who
had fet up for reformers, would be apt to
fufped all for the fake of a few, and fo
chufe to retain Popery with all its corrupti
ons, rather than engage in a defign which
feem'd to wound Chriftianity in its moft
vital parts.
But yet withal it muft be own'd, that
this, which proved a hindrance to the Re
formation, has help'd the more to ftrengthen
and confirm the dodrine of the Trinity, e-
ven among thofe who are reformed. They
who came off from Popery would natu-
k Satidius ut fupr- i libro Serveti de Trinitatis erroribus.
An. if 3 1. See alfo Hift. of Servet. p. 134, Sec. 199, 21a.
1 iMeian.l.4. Epift. 140. Hid. Servet. p. 37. rally

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 8 f
rally be difpofed to feparate or eaft off ser. viii;
from the dodrine of Chrift, whatever ^^VN^
they could difcover to have been fuper-
added to it, either through the ignorance
or knavery of men. Yet fome things
might poSIibly be overlooked thro' hafte
or want of due attention; or they might
at leaft be fufpeded to yield too much to
ancient prejudice in thofe points upon
which they did not bellow a particular and
diftind examination. So that if there had
been no controverfy moved about the
dodrine of the Trinity, fome bufy people
might have afterwards pretended that this
was a matter over-looked at the Reforma
tion, and which needed therefore ftill to
be reformed. But when it is confider'd that
the matter was at that time thoroughly
canvafs'd and debated, and that the moft
celebrated Reformers exprefs'd the utmoft
abhorrence of any alteration • in this dpc-
trine, whilft the Seducers, who oppofed it
were Split into different and inconfiftent
fchemes, and were forced to fix upon fuch
a method of interpreting Scripture, as
drove them to a thoufand extravagancies,
and has always ended in their fhame and
confuiion ; I fay, when all this is confi
der'd, it will be judg'd no flight advantage
to the orthodox fcheme, no contemptible
argument for its being a genuine and ori
ginal dodrine of the Chriftian Religion.
1 In

388 An Hiftorical A c CO un t of
ser. viii. In the time of Servetus, we find men*
<"SY**>J tion of Vald.es, a perfon of a noble fa-
1542. mily in Spain, and Secretary of State at
Naples l, who in like manner oppofed the
dodrine of the ever-bleffed Trinity. From
him it has been faid that Bermrdinus Ochi-
nus, an Italian by birth, and (as fome have
related) the Pope's own confeffor, receiv'd
his principles"1. But whether he did im
mediately embrace his fcheme with relation
to the Trinity, or only in thofe points
wherein he agreed with the Reformers of
thofe times in rejeding the corruptions of
Popery, it is at this diftance very difficult
to judge. It is allowed however, that he
made no open profeflion of the former,
whilft he ftaid in Italy. But being quick-
S542. ly forced to retire to Geneva, he is charged
by fome with having vented there the^-
rian herefy, and incurring for that reafon
j 546. the difpleafure of Calvin, and the magi-
fixates of that place n. Others have thought
j 5 50. this improbable, becaufe Calvin, after that,
has mention'd him with fuch refped ° as is
hardly confiftent with any fufpiciort of fo
grofs an herefy. And indeed, the great

' Sand. Biblioth. Antitr. pag. 2. Bayle Di&. in voce Valdef.
m Sandius, ibid.
" Hift. du Socinian. par. 2. c. 4.
* Quos [Monachos'] Itali Bernardino Ochino, & Petro Ver-
milio opponent? Calv. de Scandal, inter tradat. Theol. p. 83..
Arr.ft. 1667. cfteem

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 389
cfleem with which he was received in Eng- Sim. viil
land in the reign of King Edward, whilft v-OT^
Arianifm was held in the utmoft detefta*
tion, may induce us to believe, that if he
had any fuch notions he kept them to him
felf p, and made no publick profession of
them, till Re was forced to retire out of
this kingdom, in the reign of Queen
Mary : and even then it feems as if he ra
ther propofed them in the way of doubt
and uncertainty, than as any fixed or fettled
notions of his own 9.
But to return to Italy ; the heretical
principles which had been introduced by
Valdezzo, and perhaps fecretly cultivated
by Ochinus, did one way or other meet
with fuch fuccefs, that there was quickly a 1 546*
club pf more than forty perfons of cha
rader and education, among whom Loe-
tius Socinus was one, who were ufed to
hold their affemblies in the country of Ve
nice, and debate about matters of religion,
and particularly concerning the dodrines
* This, agrees with Beza'j account of the concealment of his prin*
ciples, who calls him fceleratus hypocrita, Arianorum clandefti-
nus fautor ; and adds, — jufto Cane Dei judicio, ne latere diu-
tius tantum malum poflet, delatus at magiftratum— — juftus
eft e Tigurinorum agro facefTere. Beza ad Dudith. Epift. i.
dated if 70: inter opera Theolog. tom. 3. p. 190. And again,
Favit etiam illis, fed nimium fero detedtus, Bcrnardinus ille
Ochinus, impuriffimus hypocrita. Ep. 81. dated tf6j.p.zgf.
q Ochinus callidior, dubitare de fingulis,. Academicorum
more, videtur rhaluifle, quam quicquam definire. Bez. Ep. 81.
P- *9/' Of

3 p6 An Hiftorical Accounts/"
Ser.vhi. of thi Trinity, and Satisfaction of Chrift f*
^IT^ They were agreed in oppofing the re
ceiv'd dodrine of tlie Church : But as to
the fchenie which, Should be fubftituted in
its room,, there was not one and the fanie
opinion of them all. Gribaldus was fot
advancing the Trithflftick notion Qf three
eternal Spirits, different in degree or dig
nity, as well as number (. Valentinus Gen-
tilii, Paulus Alciatiis, ' and Blandrata, are
fometimes reprefented as concurring in the
fame fentiments l. But if we examine
v their pofitions witli greater accuracy, they
Should rather feem to have been engaged
in the Arian hypothefis, or at leaft to have
fallen into it afterwards u, afferting the
Son to have been created in the latitude
of eternity w ; i. e. before there was any
diftind computation of time. And tho'
Valentinus Gentilis pretended to diffent
from Arius, in that he allow'd the Son to
be begotten of the divine Subftance, nay,

' Sandius ut fupr. p. 18. Hift. du Socin. par. i. c. 4.
r Beza Epift. 81. Sandius ut fupr. Hift. du SoCin. par. 1.
c. 7.
' See Benediftus Aretius'/ account of Val. Gen. C. t: p. 18. of
the Englifii Edition, and c. f. p. 41. Hift. du Socin. par. 2.
cap. 8.
" Account of Va!. Gen. ch. 1. p. 23, 24. As their fcheme
was not yet fixed, 'tis hkely their ' notions might be differently pro-
pofed at different times. Vid. Bayle in Val. Gen.
" This was Valent. Gentilis'/ affertion in Poland, ann. if6z.
apud Smdium in, Biblioth. Antitr. p. 26.
to

- the Trinitarian Controverfy. 391
to be eternal, and not made out. of no^ Ser. viii.
thing*, yet Since he agreed with him in ^-^V*^
the point of feparate fubftances, and un
derftood his eternity with reference to his
fubftance^ rather than his perfon ; this low
and abfurd nptipn of his confubftantialityj
which multiplied or divided the ; moft finv
pie fubftance of God, if it might ferve to
vindicate him from the charge oi Arianifm,
muft at the fame time load him with the
guilt of a greater herefy J. Loelius Socinus,
the mean while, was rather in the Ebionite
pr Satfiafiatenian fcheme2, which did after-
Wards, generally take place of the reft, and
gave fuch a figurative fenfe of fome texts,
which imply a pre-exiftent nature in Chrift,
as very artfully eluded the force of many
of thofe arguments which either Catholicks
ox Arians might urge againft him. Tho' it
feems he had fuch art to proppfe his 110-

* Account of Val. Gen. ch. 8. p. f S, &c. ; ¦ . .
* Vid. Beza in Epift. 81. p. 2pf. According 'to Beza (in
vit. Calvin, an, iff 8.) Valentinus Gentilis maintain' d the fu-
preme Deity of the Father only, but afferted notwithftanding that
the other two perfons are eternal, immenie, om'nipotent, fo
making three Cods. He has thefe exprefs words (apud Calvin, in
explic. "perfid. Val. Gen.) Pater fuit femper Pater. Tet he
fpeaks withal, as if there were a point or time of generation, that
the fubftance were etemal in the Father. So per plex'd a thing is
herefy I
*'Vid. Beza Epift. 81. p. 29f. Zanchii Prarfat. ad libr. de
tribus Elohim in fin. vita Faufti Socini operibus prefix. Fol.
Signai.** z Sandii Biblioth. Antitr. p, 19. Hiftoire du So
cinianifme, par. 2. cKf. tions,

39^ An Hiftorical Account*/
Ser. viii. tions, rather in the way of one that dOubt*
VTV; ed than of One that affirhi'd, that he was
not till after his death publickly known to
be infeded with them1.
But however the members of this foeie-r
ty might differ from each other irt their
•private fentiments, which were not yet di-
gefted into any uniform Or cOmpleat fcheme
of Divinity, yet Since they were agreed in
©ppofing the notion of a confubftantial and
coequal Trinity, this niade them 100k Up
on each other as common friends and bre
thren, whilft the Orthodox efteemed them
all as perfons in a manner of the fame
principles': It . was not to be imagined, that they
fhould be long iridulg'd in fuch licentious
meetings. ' And when they were Shortly
1547- after forced to fly from Italy, two of
their number being apprehended firft, and
put to death b, they met not with much
kinder reception among Proteftants. Ser-
1553. vetus had,, been but lately )»uriit for herefy c
at Geneva itfelf, in imitation of the Pop ifh
feverities, when thefe Italian gentlemen
3 Favit quoque Leelius Sozinus Senenfisi incredibiliter ad
contra dicendum & varios neftendbs nodos conrparatus, nee
nifi poft mortem cognitus hujufmodi pcrniciofifiimus hxreii-
bus Jaborare.- freza Epift. 81. p. zgy '.
" Sand. Biblioth. p. 19. & Aridr. Wiflbwat. iri narrat. com-
pend. ad calc. ejufd!. Biblioth. p.4'ro.
I Sandii Biblioth. p. 7, 8. Hift. of Servet. p. 194, 8cc.
had

the Trinitarian ControVerjy. 393
had forne of them the Courage to plant Shr. viii.
themfelves in that city, and renew their ^^Y^J
endeavours in behalf of herefy d, after havr 555'
ing made the experiment in other places,
without any confiderable progrefs. But
when their defigns Were deteded at Ge
neva, they at firft fallacioufly fubfcribed
an orthodox confeSfion e, but quickly after
found it for their intereft to change their i,J58r
fituation. Blandrata went immediately
for Poland1, the fame year that Lcelius So
cinus arrived there from Zurick*. And a
few years after, when this Socinus was re-
turn'd and died at Zurick, Valentinus Gen-
tilis and Paulus Alciatus, who had taken 1562.^
other places in their way, arrived likewife
in Poland*1; the former of whom having
retraded his opinions at Geneva, did after
his efcape effedually convid himfelf of
g'rofs prevarication and perjury1, by labour
ing to fpread them with the fame earneft
nefs, for which at laft he was beheaded at
Bernek, agreeably to that feverity which
* See Hift. of Valent. Gentil. ch. i . Beza vit. Calvin, ad
an.ifff,  iff 8.
* Hiftoire du Socin. par. z. c. 6, 8. Bez. vit. Calv. an. if f 8.
f Sandii Biblioth. Antitr. p. 28.
8 Andr. Wiflbwat. in narrat. compend. ad calcem Sandii
p. 210. h Sandius, p. 26, 27.
' Vid. Bez. in vit. Calv. an. iff 8.
k Beza in vit. Calvin", ad an. if f8. Benedict. Aretius Ac
count of Valent. Gentil. chap. 2 b. Saridfus, p. 26. Hiftoire du
Socinianifme, par. 2. c. 6. the

3 £4 An Hiftorical A c c o u n T of
Ser. vm. the temper of thofe times allowed to be
^V^y inflided upon hereticks.
1500. ,j-^s wa& not thQ grQ. occaf{on) Up0a
which fuch dodrines had been broadi'd in
1546. Poland, There had been fevcral years be
fore one Spiritus a Dutchman^, who had
Started fuch difficulties upon this fubjed,
as left much impreflion upon the mind of
fitodrevius a Polifh Knight, in the reign of
Sigifmond the firft, who being Secretary to
Sigifmond Auguftus, the next King of Po-
1565. land,vfas employ'd, by his command, to write,
an account of this important controverfy m,
and feems, in regard of his charader and
-.-..,,. Station, to. have been the principal instru
ment of propagating herefy in thofe parts n.
Where being early embraced by many per
fons of quality and diftindion, it had e're
this obtained the favour, if not of publick
toleration, yet of a general connivance0.
It was That had given encouragement to
i<<i. Lcelius Socinus to take a former journey
into this, country P: where he had the op-

1 Andr. Fric. Modrev. Sylvar. 1. 1. tradr.. 2. c. 2, citat. apud.
Wiflbwat. ad cajc. Sandii p. 210, zi6. This Spiritus is fup
pofed by fome to be the fame with Adam Paftor. Vid. Hift. du
Socin. par. 1. c,f. par. 2. €.20,. & in annot. p. 3.
m Sand. Biblioth. Antitr. p. 36.
" Hift. du Socin. par. 1. c. f .
0 Ibid.
f Wiffowat. ut. fupr. p. 211, 212. Przipcov. in. vitaFauft.
Socin. in fratr. Polon. vol. 1. Afhwell de SocinQ & Sociaj-
anifmo. §.3. p. 4. portunity

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 3 9 f
portunity of corrupting his countiryiiian Ser.vhi:
Ltifmaftmas, who was at that time Con- v>"vi'"V
feffor to the Qtieen Mother, and fo much
in favour at court, that he Was foon after"
fent abroad by the King on purpofe to ob- i 5 5 $ •
ferve the -ftate Of religion in other coun
tries, in order to difcern what alterations
might be proper in his own?. This de
fign was defeated by his ill management :
but he retum'd with his heretical notions, 1 5 5 6«.
tho' for a while cOnceal'd. And about the
fame time Pe frits Gonefius, who was a
Pole by birth, had in his travels through
Germany and Switzerland imbibed, the
principles of the Arian herefy, which he
likewife brought back with him, and made 1556.'
open profeflion of in his own country,
Where he is reckoned the firft that veritufe-d
to efpoufe it openly1.
But now, as they were fixed in greater 15 52 J
numbers, and had gained over more prO-
felytes, they grew confiderable enough
to be diftinguifh'd by a name, and accord
ingly began to be denominated Pinczo-
vians, and after that Racoviav.s, from
thofe Polifh cities in which they chiefly re
sided f; as well as Arians, Photinians, and
the like, from their imitation of thofe he-
* Hiftoire du Socinian. pat. 2. c. 12.
r Sand. Bibl. Antitr. p. 41. Hift. du Socin. par. 2. c. 10.
p. 278.
1 Wiflbwat. compend. narrat. ad calc. Sand. p. 211. &Tip.
de vita Wiflbwat. ibid, p; 227. C c reticks,

$p6 An Hiftorical Account of
Ser .viii. reticks, iii refped of the dodrine of the
^^N> Trinity ; and fometimes Anabaptifis, from
their difallowing the baptifm adminiftred
to infants1. Their principal or fuperinten-
dent at that time was Gregorius Pauli, at
1562. the very time of whofe preaching againft
the catholick dodrine, in the Trinity Church
at Cracow, and upon the very festival of
the ever-bleffed Trinity, the fudden damage
which was done by lightning u, gave a
providential rebuke to his impiety, how
ever he and other adverfaries of the truth
would Strain even this remarkable occur
rence in favour of their herefy w.
The reformed Orthodox, who were fu-
perior in number, were careful the mean
while to oppofe this growth of herefy;
and after diverfe fynods held with various
fuccefs*, and concluded by the conference
1565. at Petricow, found it neceflary to hold no
more communion y with the abettors of
fuch open impiety : whofe numbers grew
confiderable, even altho' fuch among them
1564. as were foreigners had already been re
quired to depart the kingdom % in compli
ance with the repeated inftances of fuch

' Ibid. p. 22f.
" Hiftoire du Socin. par. 2. c. 1 6.
v Ibid. & Sand. Bibl. Antitr. p 43. Wiflbwat. p. 212.
x Vid. Hift. du Socin. par. 1. c.7,  10.
> Wiflbwat. p. in,- 212.
* Hift. du Socio, par. 2. c, 4, 6. as

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 30-7
as were orthodox 3 which fentence was af- ser.viii*
terwards extended to the natives them- ^^C^*
felves % tho' it feems they had fuch intereft 1 5 -
at court, as kept it from being ftridly put
in execution b. Nay, the King indeed had
fo much regard to thofe of his Nobility,
who were infeded with this herefy, that
tho' he did not countenance it by any ex
prefs law of indulgence, yet he ufed the
hereticks with fo much complaifance and
civility, as gave them opportunity to grow
under his government, and make a formi
dable progrefs in that part of Europe0.
This opportunity encreafed, when, upon
the death of that King, the States came to I573>
an agreement called the PaUta Conventa,
by which his fucceffors in time to come
were bound both to fubfcribe and make
oath, that they would maintain an univer-
fal toleration in matters of religion**. It
was upon thefe terms that Henry of Valois l$7S*
Duke of Anjou, and after him Stephen
Bathori Prince of Tranfylvania* accepted I57^»
pf the crown of Poland*. , This gave the
eafier occafion to Fauftus Socinus, who

' Ibid, par. t» c'12. *-J
h Ibid. par. 2. c. 14. Schoman. Teftam. ad calcetn Sandii.
P- J94- „ , ,
c Vid. Hift. du Socin.' par. 1. c. a, zii
d Ibid. c. 2 1 . vid. 8c Vindic. Unitar. ad-calc. Sandii Bibl.
Anfirfpi 289^  ~
• Hift. du Socin. par. 1. c.21, 212,

C c 2 arrived

39$ An Hiftorical Account of
s^R.yin. arrived there in the reign of King Stephen-}
y-y^TKJ for propagating the herefy he had env
• 9" braced : And that occafion grew more fa-
1587- vourable under his fucceSfor Sigifmond the
third, who not only made good the condi
tions of the Pacta Convepta, but even be
stowed upon thefe hereticks fuch favours
and preferments as, in the courfe of his
till KJ33. long reign, could not but put them in a
flourishing condition f, by the foundation
of many churches, befides colleges and
fchools for the education of their youth,
and the freedom of the prefs for publish
ing their herefies.
But before I proceed in this account, it
ought to be remember'd, how fortunately
for Blandrata it had happen'd, that before
the edid aboyementipned againft Foreign
ers, in the reign of Sigifmond Augufius,
and whilft he was hotly purfued by Cal
vin's letters againft him to the Reformed
in Poland, he was called from thence into
1563. Tranfylvania, and taken into the protedi
on of John Sigifmo&d, Prince of that
country, and King of Hungary, as his
principal phyfician s : which gave him op
portunity for poifoning the- minds of the
people, whilft he prefcribed! remedies for
bodily difeafes, by fcattering the feeds, of

1 Vid. Hift. du Socin. par. t. c. 23, 24. par. 2. c. 2 1, &c.
* Sandii Biblioth. Antitr. p. 28.
2 his

/^Trinitarian Controverfy. 3&0
hfe pernicious herefy, and trying their pro- Ser. viii.
lifick quality in a new plantation. <»i<Y"v->
It has already been obferv'd, that he and
fome others do feem at firft to have fallen
in pretty nearly with the Arian hypothefis ;
and tho' the fear of fuffering had twice
drawn him into orthodbx fubfcriptions, «
both at Geneva and in Poland, yet ftill l<t<x'
he continued to retain his herefy, till a- *:
bout this time he changed it for that Sa-
tnofatenidn fcheme which had been pro-
pofed by Loelius Socinus : and both he and
Alciatus ufed their endeavours with Gre- 1564-
gorius Pauli, one of their Polifh converts,
to bring him back from Tritheifm to the ^5^si
fame fcheme of SociriusK But however
they might fucceed With him and fome 1566,
others, 'tis certain they could not do fo
with all their profelytes in Poland. Gone-
fius and Farrtovius, as to the fecond perfon
in the Trinity, if not as to the third, were
refolute in Arian principles, and carried
their zeal for that herefy fo high as even
to feparate from thofe who had been their 1 5 67.
-inftf utters, and form a diftind communion
by themfelves, which lafted in thofe parts
for fome years after the beginning of the 1614*
next century1.
h Vid. Calvin. Aft. Valent. Gent. fol. fo,—mf6. cited by
Sandius p. 28.
* Sandius Bibl. Antitr. p. 41,72. Wiflbwat. p 213. & vita.
Wiflbwat. p. 226. Hiftoire du Socinianifme par. 2. c. 11.
C c 1 A&-

4P0 An Hifiorkal Account©/
Ssr-viii. As the fcheme that was propofed by
\SY^J thefemodern hereticks did, above all others,
flatter the vanity of private judgment, and
defpife the arguments which were drawn
from antiquity, and that too at a time
when it was well known how the Roma-
nifts had abufed the pretence of ancient
authority, for the introducing of many no
velties in dodrine and fuperftitious ufages:
All this taken together, help'd to make it
appear popular and plaufible in the eyes of
fuperficial or vain-glorious obfervers. And
therefore there can be little wonder if in the
1566. feveral conferences that, were held between,
1568. them and the Drthodox,' in the prefence
1570, of John Sigifmond Prince of Tranfyha-r
nia k, and many .of his Nobles, thofe great
men, who knew but little of the contro
verfy, and were already prepoffefs'd in fa
vour of i the hereticks, -Should -openly de
clare the advantage to lie on their fide J,
or if that declaration Should he: followed
by a great, encreafe oftprofelytes in that
part of Europe.} .. a;:' -.>: ;-<.r<r;
Sigifmond -was fucceeded in theiPrihci-
1571. pality.of Tranfylvania, by Stephen, and he
157:3. (in two years after) by Chriftopher Bathori,
who tho' both of 'em Romanifts by prin
ciple, were yet fo far influenced by Blan-

."'

* Wiflbwat

p. 213. *
I Hiftoire du Socinianifme par. 1. c. 14.

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 401
drata, and others of his party, as to con- ser.viiI.
tinue the hereticks in poffeffion of their *~OT>>
former privileges m. The troubles and re
volutions which happen'd afterwards in that
principality, gave them farther opportunity
to confirm their intereft, and make this
country a defirable Afiylum, for fuch as
Should be driven out of other places".
But not to come too low with our hif
tory : whilft Tranjylvania was thus occupied
by hereticks, who feem'd to have all things
run fmoothly on their fide, under the pro
tedion of the ' civil powers 5 a providential
check there was fuddenly given to their pro
ceedings by a grievous diffention that arofe
among themfelves. From the dodrine they
advanced of Chrift having no other but the
human nature, there were fome, as particular
ly Ffaneifcus Davidis °, and Jacobus Palao-
logus?, who readily concluded that. he could
not then be the objed of religious wor
ship, 1 and that confequently all prayers to,
and invocations or Chrift, 'were altogether
as unwarrantable as thofe of Saints and
Angels. Blandrata oppofed this conclu-

" Hiftoire'du Socinianifme, par. i. c. if.
* Ibid. c. 27. i
0 Sand, in Biblioth; p. f6. Hiftoire du Socin. par. I. c. if.
par. 2. c.i 7. vid. & Socin. Prsefat. ad difput. cum Francifc.
David. f Sand. p. j. Hift. du Socin. par. 2. c. 13.

Cc4 fion

40 * An Hiftorical Account©/
Ser.viii. fion with his utmoft diligence » hut- not
WV. finding himfelf able to Stem the torrent
1578. alone, he invited Fauftits Socims, the
nephew of Lmlius already mentioned, to
come to him out of Switzerland % in
order to fupprefs this dangerous opinion,
which they feem to have dreaded even
more than the catholick dodrine of a
confubftantial Trinity t.
This Fauftus Socinus had been fo far in-
fiuenc'd by his uncle Loelius, that in his
life-time he perfedly embraced his fentir
ments f, and in the very year that Lmlius
died, being now become the heir and pof-
1562. feffor of his manuferipts, he publifh'd thai
explication of the firft chapter of St. John*,
which has been fince the ftandard of the.
Socinian hypothefis, and was then judg'd
fo agreeable to the notions advanced by
his deceafed uncle, that i| was imagined,
pot only by Zanchius*, and other Calvi-
nifis, but by fome even of the PoUfh he
reticks themfelves, to have been writ by

« Wiflbwat. p. 213.
r i,„ . .¦Qui.-xejedto de filio Dei, Deo Patri confubftantiali,
errore; in alium MAG IS perniciofum delapfus eft, de Chri-
fto religiofe non.honorando nee, invocando. Wiflbwat- ibid.
f Vid. Przipcov. in vita F. Socin. Fol. Signat,** 2 kern
Afbwel dg Socino &. Socinianifrr)p,, §s 3. p.f .
c Vid. Fauft, Socin. Epift. ad Dudithium Script, an. if 80.
yol. 1. p. 479'
2 Vid. Zancb, Prssfat, 3d life, de trib.us; E>him,

Loelius*

the Trinitarian (Controverfy . 403
Laeliusw. Faufius however continued a- ser.viii:
bout twelve years in the Duke of Tufica- ^-^vsv
ny's court x j after which he retired to Ba- 15 74*
fit, and there cultivated his herefy both by
writing and print, till he was invited into
Tranfylvania (as was juft now mentioned) in
order to oppofe that improvement which 1578.'
fome had made upon his herefy, by dif-
claiming all religious worfhip and invoca
tion of Chrift.
During his Slay in that country, he en
deavour'd, both by writing and by confe
rence, to reclaim them from this error,
and bring them to acknowledge the ne-
ceSfity of. adoring, and the lawfulnefs of
invocating Chrift T, But in the manage
ment of this controverfy, it is true, he
did not efcape the cenfures of that party,
whofe caufe he undertook to efpoufe. For
whilft he contended only for the lawful
nefs, and not for the ftrid obligation or
pecejfity of that part of worfhip which is

w Nefcio an unquam oculis tuis oblata fit brevis qusedam
explicatio initii primi capitis Johannis, a Zancbio 8c Beza, 8c
ex parte a Polonis iftis, Lcelio afcripta: ea vetd jam ante an-
nos o£todecim ex officina noftra prodiit. F. Socin. ad Dudith.
ut fupra.
* Vit. Socin. per Przipcov. ut fupr. Sandii Biblioth. p. 64."
Afhwel de Socino 8c Socinianifmo, §.4. p. 6.
1 Vid. Socin. Refp. ad Francifc. David, de invocatione Chrifti,
in torn. 2. p. 7 13, 8cc. vid. & Epift. 3. ad Radec. in tom. 1.
p. 387,. See. item p. 3f 3. 8c difput. cum Chriftian. Franken
tfe acloratiow Chrifti, torn, 2. ¥-j67> &C. cali'd

404 An Hiftorical Ac cou nt of
Ser. viii. call'd invocation, he was underftood to
VOfV give up the principal point in queftion, and
leave nis adverfaries to the option of neg-
leding itz. The plain truth is, Socinus wras
heartily afraid, left by " catirying the point
too high againft thefe deeper hereticks, he
might give an unfeafonable handle to the
Orthodox, for maintaining their notion of
an ejfential Divinity: And therefore what
ever remonstrances the generality of his
brethren might make 'againft it, he refor
lutely Stuck to his affertion of the law ful
nefs of fuch worfhip as is not ftridly ne-
ceffary.
¦' Yet neither thus were his reafonings
conclufive; His adverfaries had clearly the
advantage in the argument upon his own
principles ,- and tho' he had plain paffages
of Scripture to- produce againft them, yet
Such was the loofe method' of interpreting
Scripture made ufe of by himfelf, and fuch
the unbridled licentioufhfcfs of ^private
judgment,^ as gave them .aiueafy handle, to
elude the cleareft demonstrations of this
kind, and wreft them fo as to confift .with
their opinions3. It was impoflible therer
fore for Socinus, to Overthrow their prin-

• Vid. F. Socin. Epift. Dedic. ad Miniftr. Tranfylv. t,oro. a.
p. 710. vid. & p. 716.
* * See his cbntroWrfies with Francifc. David, and Chriftian
Franken, in the fecond volume of his works. ciples,

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 40 y
ciples, and to defend his own. And ac- Ser. viii."
cordingly he was fo far from Convincing ^VV
'Davidis of his error, that Blandrata him
felf,- who had called him to that work, is
faid at laft to have deferted himb, and
gone over to that party he had fo zealouf-
ly oppofed. So that we may the leSs won
der if being thus unfettled in his princi
ples, he was in the end induced either
wholly to defert, or at leaft to negfcd the
Socinian intereft, and attend entirely to the
making of his fortune in the world c. To
all which difficulties ariSihg from this con
troverfy, it feems to have been owing, that
Socinus himfelf, fome years afterwards, in 15863
Poland, was in a manner forc'd to fwerve
from his own ftated 'maxims, and appeal
to the traditional fenfe and dodrine of the
Church; ' for his Own fiipport ih this par
ticular d. The next year after his coming 1579.1

6 Hift. 'du Socin. parVi. c.'.if.
f Vid. 1 Socin. Refponf. ad Vujek. cap. 2. '• '•
*> Nam unde !,fa<Sr.um.efle pxiftimas, ut ab ipfo ferme nafcen-
tis Ecclefise Chriftfinitio ufque adnoftra tempora, tot viri.
adeo ut nullus fit numerus,' non minus pietate quam do£trin$
flarifllrni,,tot ipfius Chrifti Sanftiflimi Martyres, eum alioqui
gravifllmum errorem fecuti fuerint, quod Chriftus fit unus
ille Deus qui omnia creayit, jut_ certe ex illius propria1 fub..
ftantia genitus, nifi quia nimis aperte in fanftis literis ea illi
tribuj animadvertunt, quse foli- Deo tribui confueverunt, ¦ &
inter cstera potiflimum adorationem 8c invocationem, eave,
a quibus adoratio 8c invocatio, ilia ut prorfiis debits, hxc ut
plane conveniens, nullo pa&o fejungi poflunt? Socin. Ep. j.
ad Mat. Radec. 'inter opera torn. 1. p. 3^1, ^ol.j^. yid. 8c
Afhwel de Socino §.39. p. f 6, fj.
'^¦¦¦'•hJ , into

4© 6 An Hifiorkal A c c o v n T of
ser.viii. IstoTmnJylvania, his part was fo far taken
'-O^V by the civil powers, that his principal op-
pofer Frapctfcus llavidk was imprifon'd,
and died foon afterwards under his con
finement6. It was at this tim? that Socinus travell'd
into Poland, and upon his arrival at Cra^
cow, found the hereticks of thofe parts ve
ry much divided* and: much averfe to one
another^ Simon Budnaeus had a number
of followers, who dlfelaim'd the Worfhip
of Chrift like thofe in Tranfykuania, and
receiving from him fome other judaizing
notions, were known there under the name
of Budnmftsi. Thefe were moft of all
'1584. detefted and excommunicated by the reft j
but continued for fome time to keep up a
diftind communion, even after their chief
leader had deferted thems. On the other
hand, Farnovius was a Strenuous . affertor
of the Arian hypothefis of a pre-exiftent
nature in Chrift, and cUTdain'd to commu
nicate with thofe who could think fo
meanly of him as of a mere manh. Be
tween both was the greater body of here
ticks, who agreed with the Budrtceifis in

" Sand. Biblioth. p. f6. Afhwel de Socino & Socinianifmo,
$, 3®. p. ff.
f Sand; p. 5>4. vita Wiflbwat. ttd calcem Sandii pi 226.
v Hiftoire du SoCitiianifme, par. ». c. 1 1. p. 286.
-5 Slndius, p.fi. vits» Wiffowat. p. z%6.

acknow*

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 407
acknowledging no other hut the human Ser.viii.
nature in Chrift, and with the Farnovians (>^W
in afferting him, notwithftanding that, to
be the objed of religious worfhip. Yet
even thefe had fome difference with Soci
nus, and however they might concur with
him in their notipns of God, and of the
perfon of Chrift, yet they fo far difagreed
about the dodrine of fatisfadion, and fome
other particulars, that they even refined to 1580.'
admit him into their communion1, and
continued for fome time to rejed him with
warmth and vehemence.
It was during this repulfe, that he fell
under the difpleafure of the King of Po
land, by efpoufing fome notions which 15817
were deem'd prejudicial to civil govern
ment k: which obliged him to retire for 1583.
fome years irom Cracow to the country-
feat of a Pfolifh Nobleman1, in whofe houfe
he held a fet difputation with Chriftianus 1 5 84.1
Franken, the Budnceift, about the worfhip.
of Chrift m, and finifhed his controverfy

' Przipcov. in vita Socini. Wiflbwat. narrat. compend.
p. 2 14. Afhwel §. 3f . p. 49.
" Thefe were contain' d in his Apologia feu Refponfib "pro Ra-
covienfibus, written in oppofition to Jacobus Palarologus'j Book
De Magiftratu Politico, and publifited in ifSi, Vid. Sandii
Bibl. p. 70. item Afhwel §. f. p.-&
1 Przipcov. 8c Afhwel ut fupr.
m Sandius, p. 71. Afliwel, §.|8. p. f 6. vid. Socini opera,
vol. 2. ;
with

408 An Hiftorical Account 0/
Ser.viii. with Erafmus Jphannis, who had efpoufed
V^'^^the Arian or Farnovian hypothefis".
1586. After his return to Cracow i he labour'd
to confirm his fcheme, as well againft the
Champions of the orthodox Side, as againft
thofe who differ'd from him in the ftating
Of their herefy. And his endeavours of
1588. this kind met with fuch fuccefs, as well
1589. in publick difputations, as by private let
ters and conference, that not a few of the
¦principal hereticks ° in ,thofe parts were re
conciled to his fentiments, and came over
entirely to his fide : tho' ftill there was fo
much averfion to his herefy remain'd a-
mong the people of Poland, that a good
1598. while after this we find him in the hands
of, the mob, and treated with fuch indig
nity and violence as forced him again to
retire from , Cracow ?, whither he return'd
1604. no more to the time of his death, which
happen'd about fix years afterwards.
Some other misfortunes happen'd to his
161 1, ^.followers in different parts of Poland, as
particularly in the city of Lublin, where
after the Socinians had for diverfe years
found fo much countenance from the Re-

1
0 Socini opera, vol. z. p. f 28. Sandius in Biblioth. p. 72.
& 87. Afhwel de Socino & Socianifmo, §• 37>. P- f4*
0 Vid. Przipcov. in vir. Socin. Hift, du Socin. par. 1.
c. 24.
f Hift. du Socin. par. 2. e. xz.

form'd

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 40 cj
form'd as to be receiv'd to their religious Sbr.viil
affemblies, the Trinity Church was fud- V-W
denly deftroy'd by lightning, and feveral l6t6'
of the congregation perifh'di, whilft one
of the hereticks (as it is faid) was preach
ing againft the catholick dodrine of the
Trinity in Unity l. However the Socinians
might interpret this, as they had formerly
done a like inftance at Cracow, to be a
declaration from heaven on their fide f, yet
the generality of the people rather look'd
upon it, as a judgment fent upon them for
having fo long fuffer'd their impieties, and
therefore could not be fatisfied till, befides
many indignities offered in a tumultuous
way, they in the end obtain'd a legal fen- 1627.
tence (which yet feems not to have been
ftridly executed) for reftraining them, and
with them all the Reformed, from holding
either annual fynods or religious affemblies
in that city1.
But whatever be faid of fome particular
places, yet generally it muft be owned
the caufe of Socinianifm flourifh'd much in
Poland, through the reign of Sigifmond.
Many indeed were the wild opinions which

* Vid. Stoin. Epitom. Hift. Unitar. ad calc. Sandii Bibl,
Antitrinit. p. 1S8.
* Hift. du Socin. par. l. c. 2f .
f Stoinius ut fupr.
* Hift. du Socin. ut fupra. had

4* $ An Hiftorical Account of
Ser. viii. had rifen from the luxuriant liberty of pri-
^YV vate judgment, whilft every man was deem
ed capable of forming a fcheme of religion
to himfelf, by interpreting the Scriptures
in his own fenfe, Without the help of that
light which is held out to them by the
tradition and hiftory Of5 former times. But
fuch had been the arts of SOcinus to en
gage and perfuade, fuch his command of
temper, and appearance of modefty, and
fuch withal his Studious application to polifh
more and more the fcheme he had ad
vanced, and to oppofe the feveral forts of
adverfaries that appear'd againft it, that in
the end the various feds of Antitrinit ari
ans had combined in one™, which from
him have been ufually denominated the
Socinians, tho' their own writers chofe ra
ther to diftinguifh themfelves by the name
of Unitarians'", to import their affertion
of the numerical unity in fuch a fenfe, as
excludes all plurality oi perfons in the God
head as well as efjences.
The dodrines of Socinus were by fome
of his followers methodized and digested
into regular fyftems, and by others defend
ed againft the various objedions whether of
Romanifts or Proteftantsx. A fcheme it
" Hiftoire du Socinianifme par. i. c. 24.
" Vita Wiflbwat. ad calcem Sandii p. 2 2f.
* Vid. Alhwel de Socino 8c Soeinianifmo §. 8. p, 10J
Hiftoire du Socinianifme par. 2 . c. if, Ste.
was-

the Trinitarian Controver/y. 411
was, which did entirely change the whole Ser. viii:
1 nature and defign of Chriftianity. It not '-"'VM
only took in that grand point, in which the
Sabellians and the Arians agreed, that the
fupreme Deity is perfonally but one, con
curring alfo with the latter, that our blef-
fed Saviour is not God over all; and with
the former, that the Holy Spirit is only a
divine influence, without any perfonal fub-
fiftence ; but it went on with Artemon and
others, to deny that Jefus Chrifi had any
real exiftence before his birth of the Virgin *
and its patrons having fet up private judg
ment as their fupreme rule, concluded from
the whole, more impioufly indeed, but ftill
more confiftently than former hereticks,
that whatever is faid of the merit and fia-
tisf action of Chrift, his facrifice for fin,
and his redemption of Sinners, his unchange
able priefthood, and intercejfion for us at
God's right hand, has altogether a meta
phorical or figurative meaning, widely dif
ferent from that ' in which the Church had
always underftood and made ufe of thofe
expreSfions y. To thefe if we add the ma
ny other errors of this newfangled fcheme,
concerning the conftitution of the chriftian,
Church, and the appointment of its Mini-

1 Frtter ipfos Authores Socinianos. Vid. Aflrwel de Socino 8c
Socinianifmo. §.67. p. 126, &c.

D d firy,

4 1 1 An Hiftorical Account of
Sm.viiLfiry, the efficacy of its Sacraments, and
*-'"V\> the fecret operations Of divine Grace, the
interpretation of Scripture, and the r«/<?f
of chriftian Obedience, the State of the
Soul after death, the refurrection of the
Body, and the future judgment 3 we Shall
have caufe to fay, that there was never any
herefy, that did fo artfully difguife fo great
a number of impieties as this hydra of So-
cinianifim*: which made fo low an ac
count of the unfathomable myftery of our
redemption, that there can be little ground
to wonder, if befides the judaizing errors
already mention'd, there Should be fome
who apoftatized (as Socinus a himfelf could
not entirely difown) into Mahometifmh,
or into downright Atheifmi3 nay, even if
fome of thofe who did not openly apofta-

* — Jnftar Hydra; Lernaea;, quse' Sc capite multiplici hor-
rorem incuflk, & veneno mortem intulit. Afhwel §. c8.
p. 101.
¦ — Ea vera \J2hriftiadoratione & invocatione"] fpreta vel ab-
je&a, nulla" ratione fieri poteft, ne ubique Judaifmus vigeat,
vel potius turpis Epicureifmus atque Atheifmus. Socin. ad
iyn.Waegrov. tom. i. p.491. vid. & ejufd. refponf. ad3ofcr.
ab excellenti viro propofit. ad fcrup. 1 8. tom. 1 . p. 3 3 1 .
b This is particularly charged upon Paulus Alciatus. (See Be-
fiedidus AretiusV account of Valentinus Gentilis, chap. 1.) Tet
the fall is not well fupported, but rather the contrary. (See Bayle'i
Dictionary, in voce Alciatus.) The fame charge againft Francifc.
Lifmaninus is not credited: (Hiftoire du Socinianifme, par. 2.
c-12.) But it is allow'd (chap. 18.J of Adam Neufnerus. And
John Sylvanus (ibid.) funk fo far into Judailm as to prabtifc
Circumciilon. J Vid. Afhwel de Socino & Socinianifmo, §. 29. p. 39, 40.
2 tize,

thq Trinitarian Controverfy. 413
tize, Should yet boaft of their agreement ser.viii;
With the followers oi Mahomet A in their ^Y^->.
notions of the divine Unity, and their little
difference from them in refped of ChrifK
Nor was the malignity of this pernicious
herefy confined to Poland and^ the Eaftern.
parts of Europe : it threatned the fpread-
ing of its baneful influence in our jffefterq
world. The fanatical madnefs of the Ana
baptifis, which appear'd fo outragious in Ger-
many and the Netherlands for a confider
able part of the fixteenth century f, had no
little mixture of this herefy with it. And
even that party among them, which for
bore the moSt frantick of their extrava
gances, and from one of their ehjff lead
ers are ftill known under the name of
Mennonites, did however concur, though
riot perhaps in any uniform fcheme (for
they again were fubdiyided among them
felves) yet in fome method pr other tp
oppofe the dodrine of the ffjnityf.. Be
fides which it ought not to be omitted,
that in the laft century, when the narrow
t Vid. Lubipnjec.. 4f §erveto in the Hift. of Servet. p. 19^.'
c See the Socinian Dedication io the Morocco Ambaffaaor, in
ferred t)t A/J. L>efly?* Preface to the fixth part of the Socinian Con
troverfy difcufled. See alfo p. 2f, .31. ¦ >,
f Vid- Hiftoire di£ ;Socinjanifme, par. 1. c. 18. fe pan. 2.'
c >9- t ,;: ..:'¦ _'. ' '
,. f Ibid. par. 1, c. ip, 20. par. 2. ,c. 20, See ColIierV J?,I(Si-
onary in voce Mennonites.
<v Dd : no-

414 An Hiftorical Account 0/
Ser. vm. notions of the Calvinifis, in refped of
**s~Y\J God's grace and decrees, had provoked the
1609. oppofition of fome perfons of a clearer
judgment, who from the Remonftrance
prefented by them to the States of Hol
land, bore the name of Remonftrants11:
this oppofition was managed in fuch man
ner, that, as it often happens in the warmth
of difpute, they feem (fome of them at
leaft) not content with correding the ex-
ceffes of Calvin, to have lean'd too much
towards the other extreme, and given in
with too little guard and caution to the
reafonings of Socinus. And when they
were thus far agreed with him, there were
fome who ferupled not to follow him in
other inftances. Conradus Vorftius in par-
1599. ticular, who had been formerly fufpeded,
1 6io. did now fo fully betray his inclination to
herefy, by publishing a noted piece of So
cinus, as well as others of his own, that
he is generally given up by the orthodox
writers1, and claim'd by the Antitrinita-
rians k.
h Curcellseus in prsef. ad oper. Epifcop. See Collier'* Dicti
onary in voce Remonftrants. Heylin'* Hift. of the Presbyte
rians,!, n. Hift. Quinquart. par. i. c.f. Hift. du Socin. par. i.
c. 33, 8cc.
' Vid. Afhwel de Socino 8c Socinianifmo, $. 6z. p. 1 1 1;
Hift. du Socin. par. z. c. 37.
* Vid. Sandii Biblioth. Antitr. p. 98. So likewife Stephan.
Curcellxus, 8c Guil. Henr. Vorftius appear in the fame Biblio-
thcque, p. 109, 143. as well as in the Hiftoire du Socini
anifme.
The

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 4 1 <
The body of the Remonftrants however ser. viii.
are not to be charged with this impiety ; ^Y^~*
it muft be owned that the generality of
them have exprefly declared againft it. But
yet as they were treated not long after by 161 8.
the fynod of 1)ort with great rigour and
feverity, the ill ufage they receiv'd had but
too natural a tendency to take off their re
verence for fynods, and confirm them in
the Socinian fentiments of the unrestrained
authority of private judgment. This na
turally diipofed them to think amifs of ar
ticles of faith prefcribed as terms of com
munion; and from hence it came to pafs
that they who were the moft orthodox a- 1650.
mong them with refped to the dodrine of
the Trinity, yet thought the errors in that
point were fuch as Ought to be indulged1,
and were willing therefore to maintain
communion with Socinians, as with Chrif
tian brethren.
As herefy was thus infenfibly creep
ing to the Weft of Europe, fo in procefs
of time it was entirely extirpated in that
kingdom, where it had hitherto found fo
much encouragement. After the long
reign of Sigifmond the third, Uladiftas at
laft fucceeded to the crown of Poland; in 1633.
whofe time the freedom of the prefs at
J Vid. Epifcop. Inftit. Theolog-; lib. 4. feet. 2. c. 34, zf.
Dd 3 Racovia,

416 An Hiftorical Ac cbu Nt of
Ss?. yfn, Racovia, the life of their Church, and the
^^Y^J government of their School or Univerfity,
K53 8. were taken from thehi at once, upon oc
casion (as themfelves give out) of their
youth offering fome affrOn| to the Popifh
fuperftition m. Thiis was followed fome
1644. time after with the like inhibitions ih 0-
ther parts of Poland n. But the fucceed
ing reign of Cafimir was rriore particularly
unfortunate and fatal to them. The trbu-
[(648, &c. bles which arofe by the irruption of the
Cojfacks, fell with great eft violence upon
the Unitarians, as being more particularly
odious to them on account of thefit here
fy °. And therefore when the "King of
Sweden made filch advantage to hifnfelf of
1655, thefe difordeirs, as to invade Poland "with
his army like a torrent, thefe Unitarians,
not without the concurrence (I confefs) of
many others, thought it for their iri'tereft to
fubmit to him for the benefit of his protec
tion p. This, aggravated by the zeal which
they ^exprefs'd in that intereft, hot Only
expofed : them to great ravages fro'm the
infurredion of the Poljfh peafants\ but
J 6 5 7. when Cafimir recover'd his foffes; it was

in in

¦*¦ Vita Wiflbwat. adcatcem Sandii, p.2^3. Hift.ab5ociriJ
par. 1. c. 2ov ,
n Vit. Wiflbwat. p. 235, &c.
0 Vit. Wiflbwat. p. 24 r. Hift, du Socin. -par.ir crry.
f Vit. Wiflbwat. p. 2414, ' 1 ,: '/
farthej?

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 417
farther remember'd to their difadvantage r, ser. viii.
when a royal Edid was published, with the t-or^
concurrence^ of ; the Diet of Warfaw, to 1658.
require all of this profeffion to depart that
kingdom under pain of death, but with
an indulgence of three years time to dif-
pofe of their effeds, provided they forbore
the exercife of their religion1". This time
of indulgence was afterwards made fhorterf
by a year : And then tho' many were in
duced to renounce their former errors;, i6<Jo.
either thro' real convidion, ^or thro' feat
of banifhment ; yet there were others who
perfifted under all hazards to profefs their
fentiments, and were thereupon difperfed u
through Tranfylvania, Hungary, Holland,
and fuch parts of the Empire where they
could find any favourable reception. In
which places they have been always adive
to propagate their notions, and pervert as
many as was poHible to Concur with them.
They have not indeed been able from
that time to form any very formidable
¦pa*ty, or engage the fecular powers to
'fhpp«rt -and patronize them. The moft
that is any where allow'd 'em is a bare t'o-
^rj--?  ! — "¦"  -, - ¦  ~ — («v''i"\i -j ¦¦>'¦
' Hift. du Socin. pr. r. c. zf.
f Vita Wiflbwat, ad calcem Sandii Bibh'otb. Antitr. p. 248.
' >Pag- ***• • *'¦>¦
I iPag. iff. -I 1; .*Mti '
Dd 4 leration.

4*8 An Hiftorical Ace ou nt of
ser.viii. leration™, and even that is generally denied
ysy~*<-> 'em, whilft they are confider'd as the open
enemies of the chriftian name, and their
blafphemies unfit to be endured by thofe
who have any reverence for Chriftianity.
I take this to be the ground, -why the im-.
pugners of the dodrine Of the Trinity are
exprefly excluded from the benefit of our
ad of Toleration. And if the *§}uakers
are included in it, notwithftanding that
deep tindure; of Socinianifm which feems
to run thro' their hypothecs (whom I chufe
thus to mention by the way, that I may
be excufed, the treating of them more at
large) perhaps this might be partly owing
to the intricacy and obfeurity of their
opinions, which are as little understood by
other people, as generally by themfelves.
But notwithftanding that exclufion from
indulgence, it cannot be denied that fome
perfons of fuch fentiments have from time
to time crept in among us, fometimes mote
openly avowing, at other times more art
fully concealing them, or even daring to
fubferibe to articles diredly repugnant to
their principles. In the beginning of the
Reformation, among the great-number of
w As in afewicities'ofTianCylvmia, in fame parts of theUnited
Netherlands; and out of Chriftendom, in fome parts of the Ma
hometan and Pagan Dominions. Hift. of theUnitar. let. i;
p. 29, 30. foreigners

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 419
foreigners who took fanduary in thefe Ser. vm;
parts, there were fome perfons too cer- ^-^T***
tainly infeded with Anabaptifiical and *54g*
Ant itrinit arian tenets". Bernardinus Ochi- 5+
nus, whom fome have charged with pro
moting Arianifm in Italy, or at leaft at
Geneva?, came over early in the reign of
King Edward7-. But by the friendship he l S4-7*
had contraded with Peter Martyr, and the
favour he obtain'd with Archbifhop Cran-
mer himfelf, he feems to have conceal'd
his fentiments in thefe matters, and to
have Signalized himfelf only by his zeal a-
gainft the Papal ufurpation8. Whether he
might fecretly promote thofe Arian noti
ons1', with which fome have fuppofed him
to be tindured before- his coming over, I
pretend not to aflert : But 'tis certain there
were others who did it openly c, and there 1 549«
is this ufe to be made ,of the fad, that
the dodrine of the Trinity cannot be
reckon'd a point that was overlook'd or
unconfider'd in onr Reformation, any more
than abroad ; there were perfons that op- . -, -_•

* See Bifhop Burnet' j Hift. of ,the Reformat, par. 2. lib. 1.
p. 1 10. an. 1/49. Strype'j Ecclefiaft. Memorials, vol. 2. 1. I.
eg-
f See above, p. 388. . :- <j >
x Vid. Sandii Biblioth. p. 3. Strype ut fupr. c. 24.'
* Strype ibid., item c.zf... ., ,,.
b Vid,' Hiftoire du Socinianifme, par. 2. c.4,. p.2'39.
' Bifhop Burnet ut fupr. Strype c. 26". & 1. 2.C. if. .

pofed

4*d An Hiftorical Account of
Ser. viii. pofed it as One of the corruptions of Po-
Ss>^f\J pery, arid this made it neceflary ¦ for our
Reformers to examine the cafe* and fee
whether in reality it were one of -< thofe
points which needed reformation.
And what was the refult of fuch en
quiry ? We find by the rigorous difcipline
of thofe times, there Were two perfons
burnt for herefy, one for denying the Di
vinity Of Chrift d, another for denying that
he took the SleSh of the fubftance of the
Virgin e : The Englifh Liturgy, which had
1548. been lately drawn upf, was after this care-
1550. fully review'd and examiri'ds; and yet ftill
its colleds and doxologies were entirely re
pugnant to the Arian hypothefis : There
1552. was a ftrid enquiry made after the Aridnsk
as a moft pernicious Sort of hereticks; arid
•'• Mr. <Philpot in particular exprefs'd the ut-
mOft abhorrence of their blafphemies, and
wrote againft them -with great zeal and
Vehemence^ as perfons unfit for the fociety
of Christian people*: Arid laftly, there were
1552. Articles of Religion dirawn up at firft by

A Bp. Burnet ut fupr. p. 11 2.
* Burnet, p. 111. Strype, vtAii: 1. 1. c.x6.
'C11.
6 C. 25. & 1. 2.C.IJ-.
* L.- a? c if.
' Strype'* Ecdef. Memor. vol. 3. c. 33. p. 261., "See alfo
his Cafckjgue of Originals sir the aid of that Volume,' N°,48.
p. 1 4^ 'gcc, - ¦"¦-."¦ the

the Tf initarkn Controverfy. 4 i 1
the Bilhops k, and afterwards publifhtd by Ser. viir;
the King's authority1, and required to be ^-^Y^^
fobfcribed by all the Clefgy> as well at 1553.
the tirne of ordination, as at their entrance
upon preferment m, Which are faid to have
been So nearly the fame Witil our prefent
Articles11, that triey muft needs be admit
ted as good evidence of the dodrine of
Our Church at that time Iii thefe particW
lars. The reigh of Queen Mary followed J55J«
quickly after, when many of Our Divine's,
to avoid the violence of her perfecution,
were forced to feek for refuge in foreign 1 5 54.
countries °. As this fell out juft after me
execution of Servetus at Geneva, and
when the Ariafi cohtroveffy was ^arrhly
debated among the Protefiants abroad, it
could not but give out Refugees the eafter
opportunity to acquaint themfelves with
the true merits of the caufe, and deter
mine their own judgments with the more
impartiality. Andytt at their return, in
the reign of <^ueen Elizabeth, tliey -were
fo far from oppofing the dodrine which

ijjift

K

-Strype, vol. -a-. -L-». -c-i-2, i^.
'C. if. ,..  ,,,1 mn

r-C. 22. See ty. BurhetVHiir. of the fteFdrmit. Vol. 3.'
book 4. p. 212. and Dr. Bennet'/ Eflay on the .tiiirfy "nine
Articles, chap. 28,. p. zyi. " -—-.-.--•
"tfee Strype, vol. 2. 1.^. CV12. p.^r.
rg .yol. J. chap. 18.
had

2i An Hiftorical Ac coxj -a r of
Ser.viii. had been fettled in the time of King Ed-
WV ward, that in two different Convocations,
: that body of Articles which is ftill in ufe
1562. was approved and fubferibed, in Latin
firft p, and afterwards in Englifhi. Which
1 57 1. being at laft ratified by Parliament, was re-'
quired to be fubferibed by the inferior
Clergy1, and has been ever fince efteem'd
the ftanding confefiion of the Church of
England. And though there might be at
that time a pretty great mixture of Soci-
nianifm, among the many feditious and
fanatical tenets of the Anabaptifis, Brown-
. ifts, Family of Love, and fuch like wild
Enthufiafts ; yet it is certain withal, that
they were reftrain'd and punifh'd with great
feverity, both in the reign of Queen Eli
zabeth and King James the firft. So far
have we always been from having any he
terodox fchemes in this particular eftablifli'd
among us, or indeed exprefly tolerated!
Nor do I find that they gain'd any con
fiderable ground with private perfons, till
in or near the time of Cromwel's ufurpa-
tion.
1644. It was about that time that John Biddle,
a Schoolmafter in Gkucefier, where the

__ * See Dr. Bennet'j Eflay on the thirty nine Articles, chap.
q Ibid. ch. 19, ' ' .22.
' See Stat, of 13 Eliz. cap. 12, See dfo Dr. BennetV Eflay.
ch. 3a. rebels

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 423
rebels had a Strong garrifon, began to pub- Ser.viil'
lifh and make open profeSIion of his he- ^OPv^
refy f. He was mainly in the Socinian
fcheme, except that with the Pneumata-
machi of old, he admitted the perfonality
of the Holy Ghoft, and denying only his
'Divinity, aSferted him to be no more than
chief among the holy Angels1. But bad as
the times were, yet the impiety of his opi
nions was too grofs and Shocking to be
Silently endured. He was argued with in
order to convince him of his error, he
was examined as well by the Magistrates
and Committee at Gloucefter, as by the in
famous Parliament then fitting at Weftmin-
fter, he was in both places imprifon'd for
his obftinacy ; and yet after all he was fo
far from retrading his opinions, that he i<>47-
avow'd them in print. His book hereupon
was order'd to be burnt, and tho' the en
deavours of the Affembly of ^Divines were * 648.
not effedual for his execution, yet he con
tinued in prifon till an ad of oblivion un
der Cromwel reftored him to his liberty: 1651.
which he abufed by gathering a congrega
tion here in London, in order to propagate
his notions, and publifhing his twofold

f Sandii Biblioth. p. 15-9. Life of Mr. Tho. Firmin, p.
9, 10. Ant. a Wood Athena; Oxon. vol. 2. col. 300, See.
Edit. i72r.
' Ibid, and Account of Mr. Firmin's Religion, p. 4.

Catechifm

"4T4 An Hiftorical Account*?/
%ix.v\\\. Catechifm fox the corruption pf the cpm-
v"orV mon people. This drew on him the ani-
**' rnadverfions of the new Parliament,! who
not only fentenced his Catf c hjjm to the
flames, but the author likewife. to a new
165 5. imprifonment 5 who after this was removed
by Cromwel's order to the ISle of $cil$)!,
1658. from whence being again releafed, he conr
tinned to propagate his herefy, till after the
Reftoration he was once more confined, and
1662. died under his imprifonment1*. But he had
firft formed a fed or party of followers; who
took from him the name w of Bidellians,
till it was loft in the more common appel
lation of Socinians, or, which they rather
chofe for themfelves, that of Unitarians*-
And there was one among his followers /
.1664. whp tho' he lived not to reach the age of
1665. Sixteen years, yet had zeal and forwardness
enough, to be eSteem'd the patron of the
party, and as well by his translation of
Bidet's Catefhifm into Latin, as by pub
lishing an Qration of his own, was adive
to promote its intereft.
1669. It was not long after this that Sandius
publifh'd his Ecclefiaftkal Hiftory z, mani-
u Ant. a Wood ut fupr. col. 3 of.
™ Sandius, ibid. & p. 172.
* Account of Mr. Firmin's Religion, p. 4.
y By name Nathanael Stuiekey. vid. Sandii Biblioth. p. if 9,
'172. Ant. a Wood Athen. Oxon. vol.2, col. 306.
I * Nucleus Hiftoria: Ecdefiafticse, firft publifked in the year
1669. feftly

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 415;
feftly calculated for the ferviceof the Arian Ser.viir
caufe, and to perfuade his readers, that till v-OTV
the time of the Nicene Council, the Ca3
tholicks had thofe very fentiments which
were then embraced by Arius and his af-
fociates, and all who differ'd from them
in thefe points had been efteem'd as here
ticks. This groundless calumny (which had
been but too much countenanced by the
writings of Petavius*, tho' with a diffe
rent view) gave occafion to that admirable
'Defence of the Nicene Faith, which was not pubiifh-
drawn up by Our incomparably learned edtlU l6S?
Bifhop Bull, in oppofition at once to the
Arian and the J e fuit ; and which was af- 1 694.
terwards followed by his other treatife of
the Judgment of the Catholick Church con
cerning the neceffity of believing Chrift's Di
vinity, in oppofition to Epifcopius and his Re-
mmftrant brethren. Mean while the contro
versy which prevail' d chiefly among us, was
not upon the Arian but Socinian fcheme $
tho' as Sandius had plainly Shewn his opi
nion, that there was nothing which Should
hinder thofe two parties from communis
eating with each other b, fo the Socinians
were generally of the fame mindc, and
* In his Dogmata Theolog. de Trin. lib. i. firft publifh'd in
the year '^44-
bNucl. Hift. Ecclef. 1. i. p. i8<J. de Faulo Samofaf. 8e
p. 229. do Ar'tQ.
I Vid. vit. Wiflbwat. ad calcem Sand. Bibl. p. zz6.
con-

416 An Hiftorical Account of
Ser. vm. content to join with fuch as advanced
^SY*** fomewhat higher than themfelves, provid
ed they denied the Son's proper and ef-
fential Divinity. Some of them adhered
1687. to Biddle 's fcheme already mentioned d,
but the greater part feem to have embraced
the groffeft fort of Socinianijm, as well by
difowning the perfonality of the Holy
Ghoft, as difclaiming likewife all worfhip
or invocation of Chrift, for which the Po-
lip) Socinians would doubtlefs have rejeded
their communion e.
The great increafe and boldnefs of this
herefy, gave occafion to a celebrated Di-
1690. vine of our Church, to write his Vindica
tion of the doctrine of the holy and ever-
bleffed Trinity f 5 who, by fome terms he
made ufe of in the explication of that
great myftery, gave but too plaufible a co
lour (in the judgment of fome perfons) for
the charge of Tritheifm; which became
the foundation of a moft unhappy contro
verfy, and provoked another great Divine
of our Church to enter the lifts with him>
and propofe a different fcheme s, which
however it made ufe of the catholick ex-

* See brief Hift. of the Unitarians, p. 33, 99.
' Ibid. p. 109.
f Dr. Sherlock'* Book with that title was publifhed in the year
'1690. 8 See Dr. South'.) Animadverfions upon Dr. Sherlock.

preffionsj

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 417
preffions, was neverthelefs charged with Ser. viii:
Sabellianifm. Great was the advantage V-^VN/
which our Socinian adverfaries made by
this contention. They boafted that the
Church was divided between real, and
merely nominal, Trinitarians ; that thefe
kft at the bottom differed nothing from
tiiemfelves, for that under the veil of ca
tholick expreflions they aflerted the divine
Unity in inch a fenfe, as admitted of no
other diverfity, but what lay in the mode
of appearance or manifefiation only 5 that
therefore the Unitarians themfelves were
ready to conform, and fubfcribe to the
dodrine oi tht Church oi England, as they
expounded ith j and accordingly they pre
tended to draw up a fcheme of agreement'1,
ih which they profefs'd to own as much as
thofe they called the Nominals, by admit
ting a Trinity, of perfons, provided by the
word perfons they might be allow'd to un-
derftand no more than mere modes or names
of relation11.
: Thus Socinianifm, on a fudden, as far 1694.'
as it refpeds this dodrine of the Trinity
in Unity, was transform'd into the ancient

" See Life of Mr. Tho. Firinin, p. 17, 18, 24. and Account
of his Religion, p. 6.
''See that fcheme it felf inferted in the Account of Mr. Firr
min's Religion, p. 8, &c-
* Ibid. p. 18, 19.

E e Sabel-

4 1 8 An Hiftorical Account^/
Ser .Viii. Sabellianifm. And upon that bottom it
*~^Y^s feems chiefly to have flood (altho* it made
but little figure) 'till within a few years
fince, the Arian fcheme has taken place
1708. of it again, being advanced by one writer
with great freedom and affurance1, and
17 1 2. more artfully difguifed and palliated by an
other1". What topicks have been ufed to
recommend and enforce it, as well among
the members Of the eftablifh'd . Church, as
thofe who diffent from it ; and what argu*
ments have been employ'd to beat it down
and deStroy it, that it feems now again to
lie as 'twere expiring, are matters of fad
too frefh in memory to need any diftind
recital. We have now brought down the Trini-
t arian Controverfy to our own times; and
upon the moft impartial review of the fads
which have been ftated, I conceive it muft
appear, that from the very beginning of
Chriftianity, the Church has always ac
knowledge the real and diftind fubfiftence
of three in number, eternally fubfifting in
the Godhead ; that each of thefe by him
felf has always been acknowledg'd to be

_ 'See Mr. Whifton'j Liters in his Hiftorical Preface, dated
1708. ™ Dr. ClarkeV Scripture Doftrine of the Trinity, fir/i, pub
lifhtd in the year 1 7 1 2 , '
¦-'¦¦- ¦:-. truly

ihe Trinitarian Controverfy. 419
truly divine, and poffefs'd of thofe perfec- ser.viiS.'
tions which are infeparable from the na- ^-OT^.
ture of God ; that the Unity of the God
head notwithftanding, has been conftantly
maintain'd, and when that has been urged
as a difficulty in the catholick fcheme, it
has been ufually accounted for by referring
the fecond and third of thefe to the firft^
as their head and origine, from whom
they are eternally derived, and with whom
by a mutual inexiftence and the clofeft u-
nion, they are effentially and indivifibly
one ; that tho' the terms of generation and
froceffim were not ufed by all the Ante-
nitene writers, in the fame fenfe to which
the Pdfinicenes have applied them, namely,
to denote this eternal communication of
the divine nature, yet they allowed the
notion it felf, which the other lathers
chofe to fet forth by ehofe expreftions ;
that finally, altho' there have been new
terms occasionally introduced -by the Ca
tholicks, yet thefe have made no alteration
in the dodrine it felf, but fcrved only to
guard againft the perverfeeonftuudionsand
Innovations of hereticks, who abufed the
fimplicky of the catholick language, to
eorieeal the deformity of their various and
mcottftftent fentiments.
But whilft we have this conftant and
uniform tradition to appeal to on the ca
tholic fide* *Vhat remains for our adyet-
Ee 2 faries

4 3 ¦? ¦/& Hiftorical Account^/
Ser. viii. faries to plead out of antiquity, for the de-'
y-^YS-J fence and fupport of their hypothefis ?
They who have obferved their manage
ment of this controverfy, will eafily per
ceive, that they lay an unreafonable ftreSs
upon certain fcatter'd paffages of fome an
cient authors, who writing before the ufe
of terms came to be accurately fixed and
fettled, did naturally fall into a more laxe
kind of expreSIion, and cannot be imagin
ed to have guarded purpofely againft fuch
herefies as arofe not till after them ; when
yet thofe very herefies are clearly incon
sistent with the main fcope and defign of
thofe authors themfelves, as well as with
the whole Stream of antiquity befides. As
foon as any herefies arofe in this particular,
whether upon the SabeUian, the Samofa-
tenian, or the Arian fcheme, we have feen
how the Church immediately received them
with abhorrence, and held them in the ut
moft detestation.
And what has the fpirit of error been
¦, doing all this while, but perpetually Shift
ing its fcenes, and (as if it had been driven
from one fortrefs to another) taking up
thefe different herefies by interchangeable
fucceSlion, and obtruding one delufion up
on the world, when another has been baf
fled and exploded ? (
the difficulty of forming to our felves
any juft idea of fo fubUme a myftery, is
2 » that

V-OPv*

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 43
that fatal rock upon which thofe magni- Ser.viii.
fiers of human reafon have fo unhappily
fplit and made Ship wrack of the faith.
The followers of Ebion firft, and after
wards oi Theodotus and Artemon, would
acknowledge no other nature in Chrift be
fides the human, that they might aflert the
Supreme Godhead of the Father only. But
when this principle was found impoSfible
to be maintain'd, and the testimonies of
Chrift's Divinity were too clear to be e-
luded, then came Praxeas and others that
fucceeded in the third century, afferting
the Father himfelf to be incarnate, wlio
under that manifestation obtain'd the name
of the Son, that fo they might acknow
ledge a divine nature in Chrift, without
giving up their darling hypothefis of no
more than one perfon really fubfifting in-
the Godhead. When this hypothefis was
Sufficiently run down, Paulus Samofatenus
the BiShop of Antioch, feems inclined to
have revived the herefy of Artemon ; but
after all came Arius and his partifans,:
who amid to fplit the difference between
'em, by fuppofing the Son indeed to be
diftind from the Father^ and (in his new
fenfe of that expreSIion) to have exifted
before aU ages, yet Still without partakings
of the fame Subftance or Divinity, to be
no other than an inferior constituted kind
Of Deity, , altogether dependent on the
Ee 1 will,

4 3 "* An Hiftorical Account of
Ser. viii. will or appointment of the Father. SO
VY^ that whilft they agreed with the hereticks
on both fides, in acknowledging the fu
preme Godhead of the Father only, they
yet afferted the diftindion: againft Sabellius,
but fuch a diftindion as has no1 myfteryj
namely, the fame which occurs betfweerj.
creatures and Creator ; and in hike man
ner they afferted Chrift's Divhtity agajrfft-
Artemon, but fuch a Divinfoyr as agrees
much better with the Pagan;, chaff: the
Chriftian Theology; namely, fuch as is;
derived from arbitrary eonflatiajiioh', and is
not of its own* nature the f&me Strom all
eternity. Yet in this- too lifeey h#dj differ
r-ent ttirns and alterations, Sometimes moire
open in their blafphemies> at! Other tintesi
approaching nearer to the Catholicks, dif
fembling, difguifing and co»fieaj«g' their
fentiments, and at length* almieSt) gi^pthaigT
to the CathoMcks the artifefe of the Son*
that they might oppofe ShevDivinity of thb
Holy GhoSfewith greater eafiriefthefe, Whetfe
thefe points, had been p^Are-di; every way;
and then lain as it were braried l for many/
centuries (hot to mention how the here
fies which arofe upon the . dodrine of tfofo
incarnation only) we have feen ffiow th$
Samofatenian fcheme revivedabOiat ,t'W«i
hundred years ago, which after -inuch/ flute
tering and uncertainty * ami fplittiflgjintaa
various p»rtie%. .was by. fome -rnodariflt xet®
foners

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 4*5
foners exchanged for the SabeUian, and ser. vm"..
that (when it was found incapable of be- ^^T^
ing longer defended ) has very lately re-
fign'd its place to the Arian 5 - which being
by this time pretty well beaten from its
ftrorig-holds, if it Shall Still ftand out a-
gainft the convidion of truth, it may be
eafy to forefee, that it muft foon make
way for the revival of the Socinian hypo
thefis, and the moft extravagant licentiouf?
nefs of private judgment, or elfe (which is
no distant confequence) lead men into
downright atheiim and infidelity.
Such are the continued, rounds and
changes pf the Spirit of- error. And fuch
they muft always be, fo long as men pre-
fume to judge of thefe. Sublime myfteries
by the narrow compafs of their own ab-
ftraded reafanings. There can be no end
of wrangling and contention, linlefs we
refolve to fubmit our reafon, in matters
which We cannot fathom, to fuch dkedi-
on and iutftority as is fufficient to condud
it, unfefs we j hufnbly refer our Selves to
revelation, explained by that light which
catholick tradition may furniftt from the
earifeft a£esi There muft be. difficulties, in
every other fcheme that is advanced about
the nature of God, not lefs we may be
fure, and I riiight have ventured to fay
much greater, thdh' irty that cah be charged
. E e 4 upon

4 34 V dri Hiftorical A c c o u k T of ¦
ser.viii. upon the Catholick. So that they whov
isy^ are to be frighted with the bare naming
of . difficulties^, will, be only driven from
one -fchenie to another, faffed to and fro,
and carried about with every wind of doe-
trine ,ni ever learning, but never able toi
come to the knowledge of .the . truth0.
They who are converfant in the queftions
which, relate to the existence of . God, or
the government of his providence* the
operations of his grace, or the execution
of his decrees, cannot be infenfible,. that
whatever fcheme they take, there muft
fomething be admitted, which exceeds the
comprehension of our narrow underftand-
ings,.)and fwalloWs all our thoughts in an
unfathomable obfeurity.
It is time then,. when we are treating
of fuch Stupendous myfteries, • as the an
gels themfelves can never penetrate 3 it is
time to have donerwith all fuch vain conr
. fidences in our own reafonings, to eaft
down imaginations, and every high i thing,
that exalteth. it felf againft the knowledge
of God, and , bring into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Chrift*. It
is time > that we look back to the rock.
whence, we are hewn% and to the hole of

* Ephe£ iv. 14, • z Tim, iii. 7,
f % Qor. *. f. . ?Ifai.li.j.

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 43 c;
the pit whence we are digged; that we ser.viii.
confider the foundation of that Church, ^-OTV
into which we pretend to be incorporat
ed, and be careful " ito preferve that
" moft valuable depofitum, which has
" been delivered to us through the ages
"• that are paft ; wOrfhiping the Father and
*f the Son and the Holy Ghoft, acknow-
" ledging the Father in the Son, and the
" Son in the Spirit, in whofe name we
" were baptized, in whom we have pro-
" feffed our belief, to whom we have de-
li dicated our felves; diftinguifhing thus
<< in-order to unite them, and uniting in
'< order to diftinguifh them ; efteeming not
." the .three to be one only perfon (as if
t( they were fo merely nominal, as to
." have no real fubfiftence ! or as if the
" riches of God's grace extended to us In
*' names or words rather than realities1.)
ft- but ftill believing the fame three to he
*«' one, though not in perfon, yet in fub-
*' Stance or Godhead, fthat it may not
be a Trinity of different natures, (for
why Should the word Trinity be under
stood to number together things different
in kind, any more than a decad or a
century1?) but the natural and neceflary
conjundion
' yi ,1 1 '. J ¦ ¦ ) ' I ... I' IU ' »
1 Greg. Naz. Orat. 12. in fine.
' ~pxs j iu tt^itVftiir'at ectirav ' 2vxatitflt>im$i i ' 7> na^utt *«<
ityaJU, xat ixnToyrtcbt, ' dm\ ftttifiiiu mftioifyit firtit rwisTsit
''P.:, ftwr^

<c tc

436 An Hiftorical Account©/"
ses. viii. eonjundjon of three perfons in the fame
V^TV effence] "the Unity being to be wor-
" Shiped in Trinityj, and the Trinity col-
" leded ; into Unity, all royal, all adore-
" able;,:; poffefs'd of the fame throne and
" glory, above all worlds, and befoire
" all times , uncreated , inviftble , inac-
" cefiible, incomprehensible; which alone
" can understand its own order and oea>
nomy, but is equally by us and with
out any^ difference • to be Worfhip'd
ft and adored; which oTsljr dwells iri the
«5 moft holy place1 fprefiguced bythe-in-
moft fanduary in the Jewifh temple ]
" leaving all creatures without, fome fe-
" parated by the firft, and others by the
**> fecond veil ; the firft -excluding, the coe-
<5 kftial and langellcM1 fpirits from the
"Deity itielf, th© other Shutting out oiir
" human nature, as ftill inferior to tlfe
"•angelical. Let thefe, my -brethren, -be
W jfhe fentiments of our minds, and the
" diredions of our prance.' And as for
" them who< are of an oppofite judgment,
t(. as though idheylab'OM'd- under fo'me'-ma-
" lignant difeafe,-let us eisdeayouf all that
*' in uishes for then: recovery.- But whe-n

-.nry)

ofuurihuialta ; mMae Pfr- tcmtTgfa&BKr tat) ffXefar "r&rar &X)i
la-aii xcti oprimfiim cmMi)^!}. -.ivi<r?,s tjk jrp.emjyoftaes to, jjnoif/uaa,
fu. tpiiptai, xal ovx iit^ <r'ic*ffii&rtvsu'flfiff(tiiji hw\Miu -r]t ytX tu't-
po*. Greg. Naz. Orat. it. p. 211*.

the Trinitarian Controverfy. 437
*' the difeafe Shall appear to be incurable, Ser,vih.\
£/". e. when fueh hesesicks Shall continue v-OfNd
obftinate and irreclaimable after all our
admonition's] " it may then concern us
" to aVOid them as Ihe plague, and Shun
" them as the bane of Chriftianity, left
" inftead Of imparting to them our own
¦"• heaSth anxiJ S©dni&mS# of mind, we Should
" our Sfelves in the end be kafeded with
" their nSahg-nky". God grant that none
of us saiay thus be' led away with the er*
rot of the utficked to- fall from; our own
fteafsiftnefs*, intoi that gulph ©f. perdition,
but may all continue in one Spirit, "firivr
" ing together- for the faith- of the-gefpel%
fc aded as it were by one foul, and mind-
" ing the fame thing1; that being thus
" arm'd with the impenetrable fhield of
" faith, and ftrengthen'd with the girdle
." of truth, we may have but one war to
" manage, namely, that againft the evil
" one, and fuch as Shall prefume to fight
1 ' under his banner- and diredion " ; that
finally bexrM thus, 6^fibined t$ the unity
of the fawk, arid office kmmk^t* of the
Son of Gffd, - it* tanaeace may- reach our
pradice, ariAJ&$Bj& tgr uf- $fy juft degrees
unto the perfet% :-'jfen»#- unia'the meafure of
theftature of tfye^$%ftefisof Chrift'', teach-
.  .  Si 
I 2 Pet. iii. 17. ' Phil. 1.-27. ' Chap. iii. 1 6". * Eph. iv. i z i

4 3 ^ ^n Hiftorical Account*?/
ser. viii. ing us to deny all ungoalinefs and worldly*
%**YV> lufts, and to live foberly, righteoufiy and
godly in this prefent world, as looking for
that bleffed hope, and the glorious ap
pearing of the great God and our Saviour
Jefus Chrifi w, to whom with the Father
and the Holy Ghoft, three perfons in the
unity of the fame eternal Godhead, Unity
in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, be ren-
der'd and afcribed, by us and all reafon-
able creatures, as is moft due, all honour,
glory, praife, might, majefty and domi-
, nion, now and henceforth for evermore.

Z Tit. ii. 12, i j,
F I N I S.

AH

THE

IN D E X.

A.

Wmm

tioch

Belardus (Peter) being aecufed of Herefy,
apologized for himfelf. Page 374, 375*, 376.
— — how regarded by Peter Lombard 377
Acacius (Heretick) Bifhop of Csefarea in
Paleftine 22J
¦ Chief of the groffer Arians 232
feems falfe to them 233
• is consenting in the Orthodox Council of An-

• but not without fallacy

241 244 9*
3rf 164

Academicks^// into difrepute by their diffenfions
Acephali, Eutychian sfo called, and why
Achillas Bifhop of Alexandria
Adaloaldus King of the Lombards under the regency
of Theudelinda, but after a while depofed 35*9
Adoptive Sonihip, how maintain 'd by Felix Bifhop of
Urgel, and condemn'd by the Church 360,361,362
Adrian (Emperor) perfecuted the Chriftians, but relaxed j-6,64
Adrian (Pope) his cenfure of Felix Bifhop o/Urgel 361
.flSneas of Gaza, an eye-witnefs of the Confeffors fpeaking
without tongues 318, 319
Mons

The Index.
j£ons of the Gnofticks 29, 49, f o, 5-7, $-8
 Nicolaitans 30
¦ Ceri n th ians 33
¦ Bafilides 57
¦ Valentinus f'8, f% 60, 61 , 73 , 74, 78
¦ Cerdon and Marcion 61
.ffifchinifts (fo called from JEfchmes) afeS of the Mon
tanifts 107
Aetians, agrofferfort of Arians, 224. fo called from
Aetius, ordain'd Deacon by Leontius 198
•  revives the tewets of Arius 222, 223, 224
• isfirnamedAtkeid 224
• his fuccefsful progrefs 22 f
m 'is banifWd by Conftantius 228
¦ a-deferted by his friends 232
Agapetus Bifhop of Rome . 34 f
'AyivnT®^ ~] ufed indifferently at firft to fignify uncreat-
and Ved, 5*1, 183. 'till the latter had the fenfe of
*AywmT©-3 unbegotten, in oppofition to Sabellianifm, 183.
and became the capital topick of the Arians, 224. how
anfwer' d by Catholicks , - 225*
Agilujphus an Arian, carrying Theudeliijida, is made
King of the Lombards, and becomes a Catholick 35-8
fa. dies 3^9
Agnoe'ue, a feet of Eutychians 317
Agrippa Caftor confuted the Gnofticks 57
Alains, a Northern People come with the Vaodals into
Spain, and remove to Africa 322
Alaric, Gothic General attacks the Weftern "Empire
320, 321
fettles in Gaul 33 J1
Alboin King of the Lombards conquers Jtjly 3$*$*
Alciatus (Paulus) one of Loelius SocmusV Club 390
arrives in Poland 393
 joins with Blandrata to promote the Samofate-
nian fcheme 305
 — cjwrg'd with Mahprnetifm* but without fuffi
cient grounds 412
Alcoran, the ufe made of it by Servetus 324
Alcuin, his confutation of Felix Bifhop of Ufgel 362
Alexander Bilhop of Alexandria, oppofed by Ar'ius 1 64
at a publick conference about the Vrinity 166
 — 'firft admonijh'd Arius, then degraded him i6f

The Index*
complains of the countenance fheiwa him by fome
'pops 1 68
<" - - is written to by Conftantine 170
¦ ' his Cenfures confirmed at Nice 187
Alexander Bifhop of Antioch 199
Alexander Bifhop of Conftantinople rejects Arius 205?
Alexandria, School of, by whom governed 87, 88
Alogi (Hereticks) 82, 83
Ambrofe Bifhop of Milan after Auxenttus 24a
¦:. . ... . ifruftrates the Emprefs JuftinaV endeavours for
Arianifm 321
¦ _ his doctrine of the proceflion of the holy Ghoft 367
Ammonius, Chriftian Philofopher 88, 91
Amphilochius Bijbop of Iconium induces Theodofius
to refirain Hereticks 268
Anabaptifis, fome Socinians fo called 396
their outrages in Germany 41 3
'.-. ^- -¦ their fanatical tenets /^England 419, 422
"ArtiX^*, the twofold fenfe of that word 78, 79
Anaftafius Presbyter of Conftantinople, firft broacher
of Neftorianifm 273
——  is fupported by Neftorius 2.75"
Anaftafius (Eutychian Emperor) 334
--— — his fcheme of comprehenfion 3 1 j
Anatolius, Chriftian Philofopher 88
Anima Mundi (one of the Platoniek principles) 8y
Anomxans, HettetUks, 224, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233,
241. fo call'd from their afferting the Son to be
'Ayc/inn®* 7$ a-esrpi' That phrafe introduced by Aetius 223
'Aft/toi®: Thatwovd rejected at Rimini, as W/"/"^
and iiMituri^ 230, 232
Antioch, the fchifm in tfsat Church confided 'd, 196,197,
198, 199. It Qccafioned a mifitnderftanding between
the Eaftern and Wefkm Qhurehes r99
Aatoninus Pius (Emperor) 62, 64
i~— --¦ .¦ called, alfo Ju If ani fts 319
AjoJIjaar.js|H.s 60,189,237
•a-T—. ^- had- a- Bifhop at Antioch 199
¦i — ¦ ¦-- '.tjseix Uftett, ana) ft&e judgment of the Catholicks
c$Ml*iffingjt them 25"! — ¦—-rttfo'

The Index.
¦ ¦ " 'three different feels of them . , - 254
- — «*how ftruck at by the Council of Conftantinople
260, 263, 264, 304, 30$-
1 rejected the word®**™*®-, for a reafon different
from Nefiorius 273
•charged Catholicks with the herefy which was af

ter embraced by Nefiorius 27J
—~ occafion'd enlargements in the Creed 310
how imitated by the Eutychians 287, 299, 316

Apollinaris B/Jhop of Laodicea : his Herefy, 25-1, zfz.
the horrid confequences of it, 25-3. not own'd by him
felf ' 2^4
• is ufed tenderly by the" Catholicks, 25 j-. till fe
parating he is dij "claim1 d if 6
—his notions charged upon fome Catholicks in the

¦ fifth century, by Nefiorius 279, 284
Apology of QuadratUs f6
of Ariftides ibid.
 of Juftin Martyr 62, 64, 66
• of Athenagoras 62, 6f
 of Tertullian ibid
 e/Melito' 65,67
Apuleius had no notion of the Trinity from Plato ior
Arcadius, Eaftern Emperor 272
Arianifm, its firft rife, 167. its malignity 174
"palliated by Eufebius of Nicomedia 21 1
• encouraged by Conftantius ibid.
• its favourers offended at Photinus 2 1 4
- openly efpoufed by Conftantius 218
• carried high at Alexandria, by George of Cap

padocia 220
triumphs over Orthodoxy 211
brought to perfection by Aetius 224, 22 f
— —~ftruck at in all its branches, by Athanafius 241
- its ftate, how different in the Eaft and Weft 242
• its downfal in the Eaft 269
• declined without human fupport 271
-its revival in theWeR. by Goths, &c. 270,320^
334,337, 3"38

 extinguifh'd /»Gaul, and weaken' d in Spain 339
rooted out o/Africa,. 345*, and Italy, 347. and
Spain . ...35-1.3^,3^3
 ' intro-

The Index."
1 ¦ introduced again into Italy by the Lombards
3H
m what ftate it continued under them, 359. and
how it was fubdued 360
 '•is uniiterfally extirpated 362
¦ •"'•charged upon Peter Abelard 37$*
•profefs'd by fome of Loelius SoeinUsV Club 39a
— ' — -how introduced into Poland 395*, 399
 how brought into England 419,428,433
• and how detefted 389, 420, &c.

Arianizers 21J
Arians charg'd with mixtures of Philofophy 94
' • differ' d little from Platoriifts 102
lay claim to Origen 121
'are choak'dwith the word «/*<**¦<©' 132, 13^
¦ invocate the Son Ij6
¦ their abufe of catholick phrafes 174 179
- ¦ encreafe at Conftantinople 206
¦ their manifold divijions 207
• whether call'd by the name of Photinians 214
¦ their fubdivifions 22 1
— — — whole world become Arian 231
froffer Arians 232, 243
eretical about the Holy Ghoft 234
their agreement with Macedonians 246
' their behaviour under Theodofius 272
' variation of ftyle againft them not Unreafonable 312
how long they had Bifhops at Conftantinople 339
¦— — — Polifh Hereticks call'd Arians 395-
¦ how far agreed with Sabellians 41 1
• and with Socinians 42$

Aribert, King of the Lombards thought to be a Catho
lick . 360
Arioaldus, an Arian, made King of the Lombards,
had a Catholick Queen, and was favourable ^S9
Ariftides Chriftian Apologift 56
Ariftotle (Philofopher) diftiked by Juft. Mart. 92
¦ lefs efteem'dlhan Plato 96
Arius 130,137,141,150,152,190,191,19a, 204, 207,
222, 220"
M~T difappointed fif the Bifhoprick e/Alexan-
6 Ff dtia,

The Index.
dria, broach' d his Herefy in oppofition to him who was
ehofen 1 64
 his blafphemous pofitions about the Son of God 1 64, 1 65
 rankd with Ebion, &c. 165,166
 -charg'd his Bifhop with Sabellianifm 166
 -is degraded, but applies to other Bifhops 167
¦  is countenanced by fome 168
•  how faid to change the Doxology 169
 written to by Conftantine i 70
¦ difcountenanced by him 1 71
' his behaviour at Nice; and the proceedings there
upon 172  187
•'  banijh'd by the Emperor, 189. whom he after
wards fatisfied by prevaricating 191
•  is rejected by Athanafius 192, 200
. raifes difturbances at Alexandria 205
 and at Conftantinople, where he impofes on the
Emperor 205
-?  his aftonifhing death . 206
¦^  the Creed propofed by him 261
 pretended to fplit the difference between both ex-
 treme s 431,432,
'Afimtfifa®* ct-itowiAx, Theodotus'/ herefy fo called 83
'Aitvcifo©* kcckU, Paul of SamofataV herefy fo called 143
Artemon (Herefiarch) 33, 5-4, 84, 124, 126, 143, 145,
r n , ^ I55,i66, 213, 411,431,431
Articles of Heltgton (Englifh) how oppofite to Arianifm
420,421,422
Aflembly of Divines, their oppofition to Biddle 423
Afterius the Arian Sophift, written againft by Marcellus 202, 203
Athanagilde King of the Vifigoths in Spain, fecretly a
Catholick, yet fupported Arianifm 349
Athanafius 136,139,145-, 146,165^190,191,205,225,
 ., . _ . 235,245,246
¦ defends Origen 122.
-  and commends Theognoftus 135
——was a Deacon at ihe Council of Nice 17a
f —but active againft Arius ' 1 73
*;  ¦ is made Bifhop of Alexandria 191
¦. will not, admit Arius to communion 1 92, 200
m«>»n 1 fettlet the meaning of the word immvn 194,
195-, 196
— — it

The Index*
"' ""' ' " charged with many crimes at Tyre, depofed
and baniped 200
 his friend/hip and doubts about Marcellus 204
•if recall'd from batiipment by Conftantius, but
foon difturh'd again 2,08
¦ accufed to Pope Julius, but acquitted ibid.
 recall'd again by C o n ft an t i u s 216
—— condemn d at Aries and Milan 217
 r*forc*d again to fly to the deferts 220
 -—returns under Julian^ and promotes Orthodoxy
with his Council 227
.writes to the Church of Antioch in behalf of fuch

Clergy as had fallen and were reconciled, but is op
pofed by Lucifer 238
•holds another Council under Jovian 241
^— — is obliged to a fitort retirement under Valens 247
— — his oppofition to the Apollinarians 25-4, 25-5:
• his doctrine with refpect to the proceflion of the)

Holy Ghoft 369
Atheifm charged upon the Chriftians 64
¦ the charge of it how anfwer 'd by Juftin 6f,66,6j
¦ and by Athenagoras 67, 68
• charged on fome Socinians 412
Athenagoras, Chriftian Apologifi 61, 65, 67, 68, 1 57
— <- • mafter of the fchool at Alexandria 87
Auguftine (Saint and Bifhop of Hippo) 36, 143, 14^
* ¦ ¦ his letters to Boniface, and difputes with Maxi-
mine 32 1
¦ his doctrine of the proceflion of the Holy Ghoft 367
Autharis King of the Lombards in Italy 356
•puts their affairs in better order 35-7
¦ 1 publipes an Edict againft Catholick Baptifm, and
dies ibid.
Autolycus, Theophilus'x book addrefs'd to him 62
fAursli®-, Character of the Father only 69, 70, 265-
Auxentius (Arian) Bipop of Milan 242
AxitheuSj an Interlocutor in iEneas of Gaza'/ dialogue 328

F f a fcaptffm,

B

The Index.

b.
Aptifm, the form of it the ftandard both of faith and
worpip 158
— how alter' d by Eunomius 234
and how by Denterius 340
'—  Catholick prohibited by Autharis 357
Barnabas (Apoftle) 40, 46
Baftt (Magnus) 42, 139,  -142, 146, 158, 204, 246
his Liturgy 1/9
¦ his promotion to the See of Cajfarea : his care of
the Churches under perfecution : his caution in fpeak
ing of the Holy Ghoft 248, 249
• his doctrine with refpectto the proceflion of the

Holy Ghoft 369
Bafil (Semiarian) Bipop of Ancyra 202, 226
Bafilides, difciple o/Menander, improved the doctrine
of iEons 57
Bafilifcus (ufurping Emperor) 310
Bathori (Chriftopher) Prince of Tranfylvania 400
Bathori (Stephen) Prince of Tranfylvania, and then
King of Poland 397, 398, 400
Belifarius, Juftinian'/ General fubdued the Vandals in
Africa 345
and afterwards the Oftrogoths in Italy 346
is employ'd in thePerdzn IVar ibid.
Bernard (Saint) oppofes Petrus Abelardus 374
1 but is reconciled 376 ,
¦ confutes Gillebert of PoiSiers ibid.
Bertaride King of the Lombards /'/ zealous to convert
his people from Arianifm, and effects it 360
Beryllus Bipop of Boftra, his herefy and converfion
123,124,142
Biddellians, a fort of Socinians, 424. followers of
Biddle (John) his herefy andfufferings 422, 423, 424, 426
Blandrata, one of Loelius Socinus'/ club 390
— : — —detected at Geneva, goes to Poland 393
¦ is purfued by Calvin'/ letters, but invited to
Tranfylvania as Phyfician 398
 —leaves the Arian, and propagates the Samofate-
nian fcheme 399»40l
*  ep*

The In d e x.'
¦ ¦ ¦ oppofes thofe who denied the worfhip of Chrift,
and calls in Fauftus Socinus to his ajfifiance. 401, 402
" yet after that went over to them, and in the end
• left the Socinians 405
Boniface, Roman General in Africk correfponds with
St. Auguftine 321
• invites the Vandals into Africa, and why 322
Boniface Bipop of Carthage 343
Brownifts, a feet of Englifh Enthufiafts 422
Budnsifts, Hereticks in Poland, 406, 407. fo call'd
from
Budnasus (Simon) who denied the worfhip of Chrift 406
Bull (Bipop) his writings on the fubject of the Trinity
Bulgarians, the right of jurifdictton over them difputed
1 366
Burgundians, Arian inhabitants of part of Gaul 332,
. , 333
—,-fome of them converted by conference with Ca
tholicks 3 Jf
'—— conquer' d by Clovis ibid.
¦ become Catholicks, and one people with the French 338
Bythus, one o/*/«Gnoftick JEons 50, 59,74.
C.
CAius, Roman Presbyter, wrote againft Artemon 54.15S1
Calvin, his account of Servetus , 383, 384
— r—~~ his part in the reformation 385*
—— — his opinion of Ochinus 388
—— b'ts letters to Poland againft Blandrata 398
his exceffes about Grace, drove fome to the other
extreme 4X4
Galvinifts, miftake of * fome of them about the Author of
¦ the explication of the firft of St. John 404
i ' their narrow notions, of God's Grace and Decrees 4[4
CapjtQ charged with herefy, and on what grounds 383
Carpocrates (Herefiarch) 4°, 57
r l Ff3 Carpo-

The Ind e"xT
Carpocratians, fpecially ftyled Gnofticks 29"
Cafimir King of ' P.ol&ndfupprefs'd and banijh'd cheSo-
cinians 416,417
Catechumens, how inftructed ' - 21, &c. 188
Cellarius tinctured vjith herefy in the beginning of the
Reformation • ' " 3^3'
Cerdon (Herefiarch) •¦•'¦ 6l
Cerinthians (Hereticks) 36, 38, 50 fo fdll'd from
Cerinthus (Herefiarch) 32, 48, 52, 60
Charifmata, in Gregory Thaumaturgus 139
Charlemaign, or Charles the Great, conquers thehom-
bards, and has the title of Roman Emperor 36q
¦ . his interpofition in the cafe of- Felix Bifhop of
Urge! ,362,373
Chrift (heavenly) pofterior ft) Valentine'/ iEons, S9- an^
diftinct from Chrift upon earth 60
X»»sWkos, that term how ufed by Nefiorius 2.76
Chry foftom, his Liturgy 159
Claudius (Emperor) ¦ '• 31'
Clemens Alexandrinus 61,62,63
r-i  his teftimonies confider'd 77>" — "^^So
,  Mafter of the School at Alexandria 87,88
Clemens Romanus • ! 40,41,43,46,55'
Clovis King fff*fe.Franks converted to Chr\&ianhy'~334
 'the Moft Chriftian King 335
—  -conquers Burgundians and: Goths •/¦ itiiti.
.  r-i-and eftablipes Catholicifm 335, 338
Cceleftine (Pope) excommunicates Nefiorius 282
- — :  his acts are confirm'd by the Council of Ephefus
Collucianifts, firft Arians called themfelves 1 yes
Communion, letters of, V> > • \of
Conftans join'd with younger, Conftantine in the^W-eit-
tern Empire  206
-,• •• ¦¦ - hears ihe deputies of Macedonius 209
¦  and thinks ill of them ¦ ¦¦ >¦ 210
" >. ^protects Orthodoxy . 2.11
-joins with Conftantius to call the Council of

Sardica < ; . ...-. 215
infifts on reftoring the deprived Bifoops, and dies 216
Conftantia, iuife~to Licinius, fifter of Conftahtinif", : fa
vours Arius \-- . ¦ ..-¦ ¦ -<- 1-70
«-»•— recomt

The Index.
¦r* ' ¦ recommends an Arian to Conftaiitihe'/ favour
who impofes on him igt
Conftaritiiie the Gteat (Emperor) 161, 166
¦ -encouraged the Church, and fubdued 'Licinius i6i, 170
¦ writes to Alexander and Arius 170
¦ being fatisfied by Hofius of the impiety of the
, latter^.refolVes to calf the Council of Nice 171
'' banifhes thofewhom the Council excommunicates 189
1 <yet is after all impofed on by the Arians 190
> and particularly by oHe whom his Sifter had re

commended 191
———¦his Church at Jerufalem dedicated' 201
• is impofed on by Arius 205
• his death 206, 269

Conftantine the younger, join'd with Conftans in the
Weftern Empire 206
Conftantius (Eaftern Emperor) banip'd Meletius 198
 is a great perfecutor 206, 207
»i  — yet at firft recals the banip'd Bifhops 208
¦•  whether really an Arian 207
 ^— encouraged Arianifm 211
¦  —confents to the Council of Sardica 215
— — — again recals the deprived Bipops 216
is in poffeffion of the whole Empire ibid.
¦ r appears then more openly in the intereft of Aria
nifm, and carries on a grievous perfecution 218, &c.
 favours the Semiarians 227, 228
.his proceedings with the Council pf Rimini
229, &c.
,;-_- is after drawn over by the gr offer Ariaris 232
.his death 236

Conftitutions (Apofiolical) ' 36
- — 1 — 'the Liturgies in them 159
—  the Creed 261
Confubftantial, vid. ipoin®-
Gophti, Egyptians fo called, for the moft pari E'utychi-
ans, and why 3J4
Corrupticolx, a feet of Eutychians 317
by what other names called 319
Cofroes King of Perfia,, promoted NeftoriamTm, and
whv 3*4
y Ff4 Coffacks,

The I n d e x;
Coflacks, their irruption in Poland 416
Council of
_.  -Aix la Chapelle, againft Felix of Urgel 362
 Alexandria againft Arius < 167
, — — — ' ' about the word yvifeurif, &C, 195, 196,
*3~7> *54
,_  ¦ u . 1 . u " certifying for Athanafius 209
- under Jovian, held by Athanafius 241
•againft Apollinaris ..-25-6

• Antioch about Paulus Samofatenus 142, 147,
148, 149, J83, 184
under Jovian, held.bj Meletius, 241* 244
•againft Apollinaris^ aud to reftore Ortho

doxy , 258
 Aquileia under Theodofius 214,259
¦ Ariminum or Rimini, 228. impofed on by the

Arians 229,. .232
— - — - Aries forced into Arian meafures 216
 Carthage under Boniface . 343
• under Reparatus - 345

¦Chalcedon (General) 267, 280, 286, 304, &c»
. VSi&9
•Conftantinople (General) 66, 243, 256, 259, &c.
364
?¦ 1 ' agamft Eutyches 288, 301
¦ in the fixth century 3 11

 Ephefus (General) 267, 284, &c.
— — Florence, concerning, the differences between the
Greeks and Latins 365
 Frankfort condemn'd Felix of Urgel 361
•whether it condemn'd the worfhip of

images .... 362
' ¦' ' jerufalem, in the fixth century 311
Illyricum 244,250
-r—— L.ateran againft Joachim 378
Milan about Photinus 213
•about Athanaftus 2^7

 Nice (General) 5-4. charged with Platopifm, 86.
The proceedings in it ftated, 171,^-^-189
 Ratisbon againft Felix of Urgel 361
— T-Rimini, vid. Ariminum
4 . .. Rome about Dionyfius Alexandrinus 128,130

The In d e x;
about deprived Eaftern Bipopt 203
"" "~ "  •againft Apollinaris 255,256
—— "* ¦ ¦ under Pope Felix 3-3.1.
1  againft Felix Bipop of Urgel 362
— Sardica 203,213,215"
— Sens againft Peter Abelard 375-
¦ Soifons againft Peter Abelard 374
 — Toledo, under King Recarede, prefcribed the
recital of the Creed in the daily offices 310,311,353, 37*
 Tyana in Cappadocia 245
Tyre, *'* the fixth Century 311

Councils (heretical or feparate) of
Ancyra: Semiarians againft the Anomsans 227
¦Antioch depofed Euftathius 196
another makes Meletius Bipop 198
«  r->- . appointed a Bipop in the room of Atha
nafius 208, 209
'" 1 Casfarea in Paleftine 200
¦  — Conftantinople: Eufebians deprive Marcellus 202
-groffer Arians headed by Acacius 232

¦ Ephefus, held feparately from ^General 285*
- Philippopolis falfty called Sardica 215
——Seleutia under Conftantius 228,231,232
Toledo: Arians under Leuvigilde 350
•  Tyre depofed Athanafius 200
Cranmer (Archbipop of Canterbury) his favour to. O-
chinus 4T9
Creation of the world performed by inferior powers, ac
cording to Simon, 29. ¦ and the NJcolaitans, 30. and
all Simon'/ followers, 33, 39. Cerdon and Mar
cion 61
this notion oppofed by St, John . 39
• its being perform'd by Chrift urged againft the
Gnofticks as a proof of his Divinity . 40
Creed (baptifmal) taught the Catechumens in the firft
ages 21,-  26,309,31c*
— — — ef Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen 23
:  enlarged as herefies arofe 24^.260
 tt Apoftles or Roman ibid. i88,;26i
r-t  •fumrn'd up in the confejfton of three divine per
fons 2S
— — ¦ more

The Index.
 more largely explain'd by Catechifts 26
 Eaftern Creeds, 66,261. why larger -308
——Weftern 188,266,308,309
 of Aquileia 132, 188; 261
 —of Gregory Thaumaturgus 138 — = — 141
 — of Eufebius of C&fae&offer'dat Nice 173
• of Eufebius of Nicomedia, rejected at Nice
with abhorrence 174
 of Jerufalem 173.188,261,309
•e/ Nice, 185, 3o8,&c. ——fubferibed by fome

of Arius'/ friends, but notfincerely, 186,187. •  -not
'meant as the baptifmal Creed j yet its explications in-
ferted in the Eaftern Creeds, 188,309.  did not
fuperftde,' but explain the Greeds ufed in the' fever al
Churches, 260,261,262,309.  what alterations
were made in it by the Council of Conftantinople,
263, &c.  it was retain'd at Alexandria after
the Council of Conftantinople 266,267
••of Epiphanius 189,255,264,265,310
of Conftantinople 189, 260,  268, 310
• Arian Creeds in great variety, 207, 2 1 8, 225, 227,
* ¦•' 228,230,233,270
¦African ''--' 261
¦ — !  European ibid.
.•of Antioch /'«*£* A'poflolical Conftitutions ibid.
¦ and another approved at Conftatitinopie' 267
1 •ancient Creed propofed 'by Arius and E.v.toms 261
¦ later Creeds form'd upon the foot of ancient 307
'» ¦ when firft receiv'd into the daily offices in the Eaft '
¦ •«. :.,.-. ¦' ¦ ¦ ,¦--,-:>. .,.,¦ , .... 3li
•-and when in theWeH : as firft in Spain, 311,
' ¦'--¦' 353,372.
• in France and Germany 373
• when augmented with the word Filioque 364,
\ ' '-' Vr~V <¦ ¦¦• ' 374
Cromwel, his ufttrpation 422
¦  —his treatment of Biddle 423,424
Cudworth, his opinion of PlatoV doctrine 98
"  —obferves a difference -between Arians and Plato-
nifts .... 102
Cyril 0/ Alexandria, prefidM in the Council of Epheftrs,
¦ • •'¦'¦''- ."''-• ;• ¦-"'• -267
L  'pbis Anathemas againft Nefiorius 282
— and

The I n d e x.
•and Nefiorius'/ againft him . ( : .3%?
 * opinion of John of Antioch, and Theodorit con
cerning him 283,284
1 -his anathemas are confirmed by the Council of
Ephefus.- x%f
' is cenfured notwithftanding by the feparate Coun-

cil . ibid.
L a receiv'd at laft by the Eaftern Bipops ibid;
guarded his fenfe better than fome of his followers 286,287
— -¦ — » is fucceeded by Diofcorus 302
1 his teftimony with refpect to the proceflion of the
Holy Ghoft 369,371
Cyril of Jerufalem 66
'  ¦ his Creed 173, 1 88, 26V, 309
D.
DAmafus (Pope) 195-
 oppofes the Apollinarians 255^256
Davidis (Francifcus) oppofes the worfhip of Chrift 401
- — ;  is oppofed by Socinus, 403, 404. but. without.
effect : 405-
¦ dies in prifon 406

Debauchery charged upon the Chriftians 64
- denied by their Apologifts • 6f
-  — 'perhaps owing to the Gnofticks --'¦ ibid.
Decad of the Valentiniahs 73
Dedication of the Church^ Jerufalem 201
Demiurgus, ^/Creator according to Valentinus .59,60
1 — ^-origineof evil, according to Cerdon and Mar
cion 61
Demophilus, Arian Bipop of Conftantinople 257
Deuterius, Arian Bipop of Conftantinople, alter'd the
form of Baptifm 339
Didymus, Schoolmafter of. Alexandria 88
Dimaeritse, another name for Apollinarians 255*
Diocl-eiiam,! Emperor and, Perfecutor ;j6l
Diogenes Laertius, had no notion of the Trinity from
Phlto ... , 101
Dionyfius (Pope) , ng
—  his epiftle pews, there were fome Tritheifts and
forerunners of Anus, but 4*j approve </, 136, 137, 138* i6f
Dionyfius,

The Index.
Dionyfius, Schoolmafter (after Bipop) of Alexandria
,):•- -'' t ,.¦ ...... 88,-i2i
 &*'/ Doxology 158
——writes againft the Sabellians ; 127
¦ and is charged with the contrary extream 128
¦ but defends himfelf at large to. his namefake of Rome
128,129
—from whence the doctrine of the Church at that
time is evident 130
 his. epiftle to Paul 0/ Samofata, whether genuine 144
.  •why not at the Council of Antioch '. 147
DiofcOrus Patriarch of Alexandria, prefides in the fe
lonious Council of Ephefus 302
——and favours Eutyches 303
 is depofed by AfcCounpil of Chalcedon 306
—yet efpoufed by fome who condemn'd Eutyches 315, 3*9
Ditheifm 266
Dodecad of the Valentinians 73
Dodwel,.J&</ opinion of the time of Praxeas ioj-
Docetxf , 3»i57,*>
Domnus Btpopof Antioch 148
Doxology in what form : 41,56,70,79,117,157
- — - defended by Si. Bafil 1 58, 247
¦f* — virtual in the name of HolyGhoft I 160
-. — —whether changed by Arius ' 169
 diforders about it in the Church of Antioch 1 97
 difputesJiviththe Macedonians concerning it 246,
'247
Dyads of'.ihe Valentinians 73

.' .'JX..
EBion (Herefiarch) 48, 1 26, 1 65, 2 1 2, 2 1 3, 43 1
Ebionites (judaizing Hereticks) denied Chrift's Di-
vinity 34.38,49,82,83
— *-*- -were diftinct from £&<?Nazarens ' 35"
— — always detefted by the ChUrch ' 36
— —type ehieftyin Juda?a -'- , - 48
— — their herefy revived by Loelius Socinus 391
Edward

The Index.
Edward VI. King of England : what was thought of A..
rianifm under him 389, 41 9, 42a
Eleutherus fuppofed by Bipop Pearfon to be Pope when
Praxeas came to Rome ioj-
Elipandus Bifhop of Toledo, his concern with Felix
Bipop of Urgel, upon the queftion of adoptive Son
ihip 360,361,373
Elizabeth Queen of England: ftate of Arianifm under
her 421, 42a
Ennaea, the pretended female production of Simon'/
mind 28
'En!jtecf%ti, what it means 68
Epicureans (feet of Philofophers) 90. call'd from
Epicurus 96
Epiphanes fon of Carpocrates (Heretick) 5-8
Epiphanius 29, 35, 58, 82, 83, 144, 145, 220, 226, 255"
¦  his Creed 1 89, 255, 264, 265*
 his teftimony with rejpect to the proceflion of the
Holy Ghoft 370, 371
Epifcopius, his latitudinarian notion with refpect to
Chrift's Divinity confuted by BipopBuW 425-
Erafmus Johannis, Heretick in the Arian fcheme; his
controverfy with Socinus 408
'Ertf eue-iei, that term introduced by Aetius 223
Evagrius (Euftathian) Bifhop of Antioch 199
Eudoxius (Arian) Bifhop of Antioch 196,225-
 *'/ depofed 228
 translated to Conftantinople 198,233
 help'd to pervert Valens 242
 is fucceeded by Demophilus 2 57
Eugenius Bipop of Carthage 324
 has a conference with the Arians 325
1 */ recall'd from banipment 33 r
 inftrumental in reft or ing others 332
Eulalius (Arian) Bipop of Antioch 196
Eunomians : groffer Arians 224
¦ indulged by Julian 237
 yet loft ground 239
——excepted from Gratian' j indulgence 25-7
Eunomius (Herefiarch) 224
 banip'd by Conftantius 228
 made Bipop of Cyzicus 233

The I n D e X.
..;. depofed for the groffiiefs of his herefy, and often ba*
nip'd 234
r-  alter'd the. form of Baptifm ibid
•  how treated by Theodofius 268.
Euphronius (Arian) Bipop of Antioch 196
"ExxricKing of the Vifigoths, enlarges *£<? Gothic domi
nion, 332. and perfecutes the Catholicks 333'
Eufebians (fo called from Eufebius of Nicomedia) 196,
205, 208
Eufebius of Caefarea 29, 54, 57, 84, 88, 142, 143, 1 ft;
his apology for Origen 1 22
 his teftimony to the word ipitova-ut 131,132
 hit-Greed offer' d at Nice 1 73, 1 74
 agrees with the Council 181, 182
 writes againft Marcellus 202
Eufebius of Nicomedia patronizes Arius 168, 169, 170
——his Creed rejected by the Council with abhorrence
, , n !73, 174
——denied the Son to be of the fubftance of the Father 177
— — moft averfe to the term hpawiruf 1 79
ftands out a while againft the Council 181
t— at laft fubfcribes infmcerely 187
—yet is banip'd, but quickly reftored 190
— — afperfes Athanafius 200
 wants to betranflated to Conftantinople 206
 // actually inftall'd 208
 appoints Gregory- to the See of Alexandria, and
, dies 209
 palliated Arianifm 211
what fort of likenefs he allow'd of the Son to the
Father 222
Eufebius of Vercelles banip'd by Conftantius 218
Euftathians, a party of Catholicks, who were fufpected
of inclining to Sabellianifm 122
-.  held but one hypoftafis 197
 did not fubmit to the Arian Bipop of Antioch ibid.
«  nor yet join with the other Catholicks 198
 but had a diftinct Bipop of their own 199
*  their fentiments embrac d by Marcellus 304
Eaftathius Bipop of Antioch (head of the Euftathians)
v charged with Sabellianifm, and with immoralities,
but not proved: yet is deprived 196, 269
Euftathius

The Index.
Euftathius (SemiarianJI Bipop of Sebaftia, receives the
word Spxiaoorios, and in what fenfe :' but afterward re
jects it 243
Eutyches (Abbot of Conftantinople) his herefy firft ad
vanced by Valentinus, 60. and embraced by others 119
fell into Apollinarianifm thro' his fierce oppofition
to Nefiorius 287
 his behaviour before Flavian 288
¦ his herefy ftated 299, &c.
 is cenfured by the Council of Conftantinople 301
 /'/ favour' d by Theodofius II. 30a
¦ and clear' d by the felonious Synod of Ephefus 303
but at laft condemn'd by the General Council of
Chalcedon 304 ..307
 his craft in propofing the Nicene Creed 304, 305-
is condemn'd by fome who are yet deem'd Eutychi
ans 315, 320
Eutychianifin the reigning religion of the Eaft 334
 feems in fome perfons to have been little elfe but in
accuracy of ftyle 319,320
Eutychians (Hereticks) 60
•  firft recited the Creed in the daily offices 311
 various feels or branches of them 315;
..— — drew the Church into farther explications 31a
 continued to have diftinct Patriarchs 313
 their fcheme how mix'd up by Petrus Fullo 316
Euzoius (Arian) Bipop of Antioch in the room of Me-
. letius 198
 Creed propofed by him 261
Exucontians, the groffer Arians, 224. fo called becaufe
.they afferted the Son to be
'%\ mix. i'vTav. 22J
F.
FAmily of Love : a feet of Englifh Enthufiafts 422
Farnovius, a Polifh Heretick in the Arian fcheme
399, 406
Fathers : their authority confider'd 15, &c.
Felix (Pope) oppofed the Eutychians 316
 his clemency fo Penitents after the African perftcu-
' tion ' 33 'il3.z
t Felix

The I n d e x.
Felix Bipop of Urgel : his herefy ivhat, and how cen-
fured; retracted by himfelf and maintain' d again;
condemn'd by divers Councils, and finally renounced
by himfelf 360, 361, 362, 373
Filidque: the infertion of that, word in the Creed con
fider'd 364 &c.
it widen'dthe breach between Greeks and Latins 366
Firmilian Bipop of Casfarea /'* Cappadocia prefided at
the firft Council of Antioch 147
»  and died before the fecond 148
Flaccillus alias Placentius, Arian Bifhop of Antioch 196
Flavian, a man of catholick principles, yet fubmitted (as
many others did) to the Arian Bipop of Antioch, till
the time of Meletius 198
>  is, made Bipop of Antioch himfelf 199
Flavian Patriarch of Conftantinople oppofes Eutyches 288, &c.
 is depofed and abufed by the felonious Council of
Ephefus, and dies 303
Franken (Chriftianus) his difputation with Socinus a-
bout the worfhip of Chrift 407
Franks or French, people from Germany, inhabiting
part of Gaul, converted to Chriftianity 334
conquer Goths and Burgundians in Gaul, from
thence called France 335, 336, 338
¦ ¦ ..{Bake an attempt upon the Lombards in Italy 356
but are repell'd 357
 yet conquer them at laft 360
Fulgentius ordain'd Bipop in Africa, and twice banip'd
34^,343
G.
GAHenus (Emperor) 91
Generation: that term how abufed by the Arians 176
 ufed by fome Fathers to denote only the srpoiAswns 71
— — bow diftinguiprdfrom Creation by the Catholicks,
and how by the Arians 1 77, 1 78
George 0/ Cappadocia (Arian) made Bipop e/ Alexan
dria in the room cf Athanajius, and infifts upon reorr
dination 220
— wbc

•The I NT>*E &
*'*' " *<? favours Aetius - - • ¦ - ,. ,_ ^.
Gilimer, Vandal King of Africa, Ufurper 343
<  -has war made upon him by the Emperor "34a
' ' -and is defeated .  da<
Gillebert Bifhop of Poitiers : his herefy, and his con
viction .' -¦ '- - -  ~?76
Gfferic, King of the Vandals, Apoftate to Arianifm """322
¦ makes truce with the Roman s, ; 3 2 2 . but breaks

•'"** . 323
•  'his perfecution- of the Catholicks in Africa, 323,
324. which holds long, till at laft he
dies*, and is fucceeded by Huuneric 324
Gnofticks perverted Chriftianity 21
' followers of Simon Magus 29
> 'their impurities, 47, 65. doubted of by Kor-
tholtus (!:" . ' -¦• 65
——their impious, tenets,, 49^ 50. vid. iEons.
" 'Pi their fefieme perfected by Valentinus 58, &c.
• all fects pf them oppofed by Irenasus 74
- controverfy iljith them not ftrictly Trinitarian 80
'•  — charged with Platonifm 94
occafion'd feme infertions iti the Creed 262

God : Chrifti0 called by the Arians, in what fenfe 175:
God of God: thai phrafe how abufed by them ibid.
Gondamond, Vandal King of Africa, relaxes' the per*
'->•' fecution ' 33 Ij J 41
Gonefius (Petrus) profefs'd Arianifm in Poland J95*,
' 399
Gofuinda (Arian) Queen of the Vifigorhs 349
Gothefcalcus, his difpute with Hincmar about the
frhrafe Trina Deitas 363
Goths : Valens'/. war with them 250
are drawn into Arianifm by Ulphilas 270,320
' "occafion diforders in the reign of Arcadius 27*
¦ . ¦ have trqopf in the ferwice of the Empire, which
¦ threaten1* a revival of Arianifm at Conftantinople
.-1 '¦ '320
' but more unhappily effect it in theWeR $it,&?
¦ ¦ particularly diftinguip'd into two nations, viz.
¦ Oftrogoths, or Eaftern Goths : who gain'd Ita

ly from the Heruli 333
Gg  g*v

The I n d e x.
•gave little difturbance to the Catholicks 339
- had afucceffton of Kings 345-
-were poffefs'd of Provence in France 347
•have war made upon them by Juftinian,

and why 346
' arefubdued by him, but revolt 346, 347
. " are again fub due d, and driven out of Italy 347
¦Vifigoths, or Weftern Goths : who
•poffefs'd a part of Gaul and Spain 33a
• enlarge their dominions, and perfecute

the Catholicks under Euric 332, 333
were in great meafure fubdued in Gaul

by Clovis and his fens 335, 336, 338
continue Arians in Spain and Gallia

Narbonenfis 339
 pervert the Sueves 332, 348
are not quickly converted 348
-perfecute the Catholicks under Leuvi-

gilde 349,350
• conquer the Sueves, and enlarge their

dominion 351
• are converted under Recarede 352,353

Gratian (Weftern Emperor): his a£t of indulgence,
and its exceptions 214,257
fucceeds Valens in the Eaftern Empire 256
• appoints Theodofius in that part 257
¦ " his death 268
Gregory (Arian) thruft into the See of Alexandria 209
—r— his death 211S
Gregory the Great (Pope) his witnefs to the Confeflbrs
fpeaking without tongues 330
his Dialogues, whether genuine 356
is made Pope, and promotes the converfion of the
Lombards 358
1 " cenfures the title of univerfal Bifhop 366
Gregory Nazianzen 140, 246
his opinion of Conftantius 207
•his notion of the phrafe wwVmsyfipJes 226
Mi.  it made Bipop of Conftanlinople, but refigns
357,358
Gregory

The Index.
Gregory Nyffen 140,141
Gregorius Pauli (Polifh Heretick) preaches againft the
Trinity, and how rebuked a95
v - how brought^ from Tritheifm to Socinianifm 399
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Origen'/ Pupil 89.
- his doctrine as to the Trinity . 1 08
'his Creed defended jgp T41
•was charged with the herefies in both extr earns 141
•but defended by St. Bafil 142
" bis Doxology , /; 1 5-8.
—his prefcriptions ftrictly obferved by the Church of
Neocxfarea 247.
Gribaldus a Tritheift, of Loelius Socinus'/ club 390
Grotius, his notion of the origine of the word hypoftafis 120
H.
HEizerus, beheaded for herefy in the beginning of the
Reformation 383.
Helena, companion of Simon Magus 28, 29
Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, chofenKing of Po
land 397
Heracles, Schoolmafter (after Bipop) of Alexandria 88
Heraclius, Eaftern Emperor, Eutychian 314
, of the feet of the Monothelites 31 8
Hermas, Author of the Paftor 40,46
Heruli, mafters of Italy after the ruin of the Empire,
but foon fubdued by the Oftrogoths 333
Hilary, Bifhop of Poi&iers 146, 178, 225
'  *'/ banip'd by Conftantius 2 1 9
.•his doctrine with refpect to the proceflion of the
Holy Ghoft, a good key to the Greek fathers 368
Hilderic, Vandal King 0/ Africa, favourable to Catho
licks, depofed and imprifoned 343
Hincmar, Archbipop of Rheims, his conteft about the
phrafe Trina Deitas 363
Hippolytus, where Bipop 116
• at what time he wrote againft Noetus ny
¦ his book whether genuine 1 1 6, 1 1 7
his notion of the Trinity 1 17, 1 1 8, 1 19
^ I. ii« his harmony with Tertullian 1 1 7
Gg z Holy

The;ir'N<;r}E2Xy
Holy Ghoft : why the Fathers were lefs exprefs concern
ing his Divini^. ikarl^of^efriiker ¦"< two- perfons, ffj
Vi/bich yet they have not 'fiUUdio njfert, ff, f6l •parti
cularly IteflsW, 7Yy 76; dMtMetri^ AlexahdrhnrsT^r
not fo direWyblafp)hm\d'-by the firft her'etMsWff

•^  pofterior to thfrthiriy Moris in Valentine'i fcheme
V.-sV." .'_ .. : ¦ -fo,6xy
 that name fometimeiglven to the Son  "do?
•¦• defcribed under the name of W'fdom 70, 75, 76»
;:iiCi . o -p . 1 18,-369"
— * — -the doctrine of hislDiymhynot taken1 frolnrmaTF
taniis '¦> ' ' " ,;;; 'i-'-1'-'- "••¦ •¦• '¦'¦ V**' '• • ¦ " - TT2f
———his name a virtual D oxo logy "¦ 160
 the queftion of his Divinity not debated at Nice
-'-,j ¦-¦' ¦ '- --¦ .. '- " i86,26o,2441
-yet never believ'd by the Arians 234
'formally

when firft called formally in queftion 235
 afferted in the Nicene Creed, as explain' djby the
Council 'of Alexandria ¦ ; ' 241
¦herefy of the Macedonians concerning him 235,

236, 245,. &c. 259. revived in England, by Biddle
• " ' 4a3>426
•why term'd. the Paraclete who fpake by thePro-r

phetsrUi-' - ¦ -J - ' ;. -66,262
¦what is deliver' d concerning him in- the Con

ftantinopolitan Creed 265, 266
 '¦ — ^//.proceflion: what difputes about it between
'the Greeks and Latins 364, 3651
¦fro'm the Son, ', always believ'd in the,

¦ •'fPhurch, 0,67,  ;— — 371. and inferted'in the
Creed, before the end of the fixth century p-^fi,
¦ that infertion difallowed by Pope Leo th'e ihtra",
yet admitted afterwards ,- • .'^73
Horno-iifiaiis, the Catholicks fe called •••'¦'' 236
Honorius (Pope) Monotfaelite. 318
Hofius, Bipop' of- Corduba in Spain, , being fent by
¦ Conftantine to enquire into the caufe of Arius, makes
' report againft him J I/to,! tjt
—  dre'vj'-up'ihe Nicene Creed ~""i 85
 '—his fall in the time/of perfecution '119
Hunneric, 'Vandal King of Africa after Giferic" " 324
" ' "-his grievous perfecution" of the- CatTioticks 325, &c.
3 '" "'  appoints

The In de x.
appoints a conference at. Carthage 32?
not foften'.d. fyi Miracles \ -L
'<¦.-. I..- dies miferably, . ' , ' . 321 232
Hypoftafis, */^. »!nW<«
r'c i.
:Acoh, or James tffo Syrian,, difciple of Severus *X
Eutychian", 510.,, from whom the feet of
. Jpbites, <» common name for Eutychians 319
fcutfbjjfb.uif Platonick Philofopher g[
James (Saint, Appftfe) -his Liturgy .. ,>v ij-q
James. J s -King of England, his feverity againft Enthu-
i„ fiafts, .-.; ::¦ \:t.vK'\\ ¦> ' ' A' ¦:'-...'. - 422.
Jdibald, -K7»g- of the Oftrogoth.s in Italy, pakes off the
Emperor's authority. .... . v, .!.- .-:" 'I ! 346
Jerom, 36, 57, io7- difiikes the word <tmk*m 195
yffifus, in the Valejjtu>ian fcheme, being produced ly all
>.-*he JEons in the pleroma, defeended. on Chrill at his
\n.kaptffvtii'^ndljeftj}im dt.hjs pajfion 6a
Ignatius (Saint) , 31, .52,53, 55-
,T7-  ordain'd Bifltgp of Antioch by St. Jolin 46
"¦- • martyr' d upder Trajan ... v 46,619.
&¦:  -his abhorrence of hereticks, 48,49. particularly
- oftrhgfe who denied either the Divinity. or the Incarna-
:, Jtion_ofoGhrift , ibid. 5-0, 5-1
Innocent II. (Popejaffplves-Pvlet Abelard ' ' 376
Interrogatories at Baptifm . 26
-luvifible ffldimpAfTihle: thofe characters 'added to the ar-
•¦fficle of the Father, in the Creed ,of Aquileia, againft
fc;j.^/&?.SabeUians, ¦wkofiel/ev'd him to be incarnate 13*2
iJnyocation of Chrifi, "vid. Worfhip
Jfqachim, Abbot of Flora, cfpofeuhe.M&ilerjftjheSeQ-
- fences .n--.r,Sl,.{ .-¦ l..-.-^i,.\ ,-- 377
,,m-—r-is-fu^Me,/( pf.Ttifo%$rrr,;4sd his, pofittons..ceif-
\v fitted " .,1..,; V«<\ ¦'• P:\.P . ¦ _¦ • 378
J.oamiesrPijiJopjsnuSi^itychianM^jrritheift .- 3*7
$ofo& (Saint, Apoftle) lived to fee the increafe. of- herefy,
-i i itmfy (j&ArlfyfSJitf.Mei'xlriCiUiwton and -Diviakf-ef
?o(Ghrift -,3i,'&c.
\*t j p j , fiirpte #g!0tft?.b&th>\eMr.eamxMt<;tJre requeftvf-^be
in\i^^',Bijk«p\47y^i^- hut chiefly agawfffhe lat-
xiffrr, 52." this own' d by Julian the Apoftate 3S

\

The I ri d e x.'
• his Gofpel rejected by the Alogi - 8a
• charged with Platonifm 86*87
• Socinus'/ explication of the firft thapter

of it ---¦-•-  ¦••>• 40a
John Patriarch of Antioch, aCatholick, but great Friend
of Nefiorius 2,83
'» 1 ¦ 1 holds a feparate Council at Ephefus 285"
. ;'/ at laft fatisfied with Cyril'/ explications ibid.
his confefiion approved by Cyril 2$j
J ovian (Catholick Emperor) 240, 241
Irenaeus -*3?3*if3»*8r6*
— — —wrote chiefly againft ft&* Valentinians ' 74
his teftimony ftated -,' 74)"~_— 77
——calls the Holy Ghoft V^ figuration of the Son
. . ¦::¦- • '-.¦«'"' ''¦¦'• ''370
Ifidorus Hifpalenfis, his witnefs to the GonfeQbtsfpeak-
< ing without tongues " ' ! 3 30
Ifidorus Son of Bafilides the Gnoftick 57
Judaifm charged >upon Neftorians 274
Judgment (private) not fit to interpret Scripture without
proper helps and reftrictions I,' 1 1
its extravagant licentioufnefs 433
Julian (Apoftate Emperor) owns that St. John afferted
Chrift's Divinity  38
his indulgence to all feet s 236, 237
¦ his perfecution 239,240,241
Julian Bipop of Halicarnaffus, Eutychian, 319. from
whom the
Julianifls, a feci: of Eutychians, otherwife calttd Aph-
thartodocetaj ' 319
Julius (Pope) acquits Marcellus, 203. with Athanafius
and others ¦"' ' 'ir 208
Juftin (Emperor)" his edict againft Arians 339
is fucceded by Juftinian 344
juftin Martyr 31, 36, 53, 62, 64, 65, 66, 6ft 70, 72-, 106
' " educated in the fchool of Plato 86,91
» ' and charg'd with bringing Platonifm into- the
Church - ', 86, oa
" ' -yet freely declared his diftike of Plato and Ari-
ftotle 9*>93
» " _ ogives actountoftheCritittim,, Worfhip 65*,-€6,i 57
Juftina {Emp reft) ber endeavours in favour ofAriahifm
¦'¦¦ ' -:: t'S«
Juftinian

The Index.'
Juftinian (Emperor) favour' d Eutychianifm, and perfe
cted the Catholicks ' F £-
""' "" faw the Confeflbrs fpeaking without tongues 329
¦ - makes war on the Vandals to fupport Hilderic,
344. and fubdues them *aI
 as afterwards the Oftrogoths in Italy 346

K.

K

Ortholtus doubts of the impurities charged upon the
Gnofticks 65

LE O the Great (Pope) his fynodical epiftle againft
Eutyches 306
Leo III. (Pope) his Council againft Felix Bipop of
Urgel 362
>•". •oppofes the infertion of the word filioque in the
Creed 373
Leontius (Arian) Bipop of Antioch 196
1 his conduct in relation to Doxologies 197, 198
Leuvigilde {Arian) King of the Vifigoths perfecutes the
Catholicks 349, 350
"-*1 •bis eldeft fen's unjuftifiable behaviour and over
throw 350
his conqueft of the Sueves, remorfe, death, and

inftructions to his fon Recarede 35-1
Liberius (Pope) his fall in time of perfecution 219
Licinius (Emperor) brother-in-law to Conftantine, at
firft pretended to Chriftianity, but after perfecuted it,
till fubduedby Conftantine 162, 167, 169, 170
Likenefs of the Son to the Father : how allow'd by the
grofler Arians 23a
».. '.and how by Eufebius of Nicomedia 222. vid.
Likenefs of Subftance, vid. i/Min®*
-Lifmaninus, Confeffor to the Queen of Poland, per
verted by Loelius Socinus 394, 39:5
" . charg'd with Mahometifm, hut without cer-
i tainty 4"
G g 4 LiWgies

Ther I N D iiXr
Liturgies (ancient) either, loft or much corrupted tfll
vvhat remains of them argues fir tfie, Catholicks
¦''¦-' , ;,_,, . -;¦;.;... >_ . . i53,&er
_  (Engliih) how oppofite to Arianifm 420
Acy«s, the eternal Word of God.. 49, 50,74, 75, 765^8? .: ri8
-— — ¦ -the fountain,©/ wifdom . . • -369
Altyti of the Ar\ms 165?
A»'y<>« one of the Gnoftick JEons 49, 50, f9, 74, 78
Ao'yss pafiible, according to the Apollinarians, as well
', as Arians ' '. ' 253'
A.'y»« of Plato .c.r.:i.,'.'"85, £Pt
Ao'yos Tpepsptxas and cv<riai\i, the diftinction between them
Lombard (Peter) Mafterof ihe Sentences, and Father of
. the. Schoolmen ¦¦. ~ ' .376
~  —oppofed 'by Joachim Abbot of Flora • ;, = 371
'. — — — fupported by the. Council of Lateran ¦ 3.7?
Lombards, a people from the North, inoftly Arians,
'who. had fettled in Pannonia ,.;.. / ¦ --354
. ... ' are invited into Italy by Narfes, and f ukdui.it,
dividing it into thirty five provinces .,35lf
y . are neceffitatedto reftore the Monarchy  356
'- — ¦  many of them converted' by the Italian Bipo0
p .'"''*"."..¦¦, ...3f7
• — ;  their war qoith the Romans interrupted it — 358
entirely converted; and afterwards conquer' d\ by

'-. ..the. French-. -,. . v, ¦• .,!,':.,¦; ¦ ••;..  36a
Lucian (Heathen) his... teftimony. , io. the do,ctfine .af the
Trinity, confider'd-. , , ..43,80,8!
?— — -^whether author of the Dialogue entitled, Philoj-
patris , :-.,-¦ ")-. .-... •...-i'.\ .. .81
Luciaa Presbyter of Antioch^ -Ms, Creed ^at.'not. the
word ofAiwita-iof, but is not otherwife heretical 149, .Ijb
•> ¦ ;'/ boafted of by the Arians as their Patriot find
' did probably, take-part .at .firft with Paul of S.a*ne*ato

; continued excommunicate ;uMdierithreexBip,Ap, _
. ,<ipas;Tutor to Arius and his, affociater, at 1 iengthtvi-
ftoredto Communion, and fuffer'd Martyrdom 150
Lucifer Bipop of Cagliari cr<&>/7s;.PauliBus at Anttoeh . •I99
fd by Conftantius 218
\, '-¦ ——refufes

ThecI;N;DE?r.
<TVSmeMe* torecei^fhe Clergy who Ud fallen,- «nd
f^r Communion ;J„ ,^.,238
fjMipns : the engine of^irfchifm ¦--.,-,... ibid»
"x&f'.ffifmy.*** 'Reforming the Church, anaUhe-
_ ufe which feme made:,of-\if ... U v*a 284^^
.:- --?'£ M. ' n-i'/rj
¦¦:: " .if-!'' .P 'J.% .'.' -¦?¦'¦-  -
jTACarius Schoolmafter of Alexandria W) ."¦ 88
il... Macedonians (Hereticks) .236. »/</. Pneuma-
-"1 -i ni' . tomaehi
U-J their encreafe under Jul ian . ; ' '¦ ; 1 ¦ j a A ' ¦ "• 238
¦ ) -.' l ' idifeounienanc'ed and perfeeutiM by Valens 243
» ' ."? •admit the Nicene Creed,- buifallacioufty ibid.
• and without any declaration about the Holy -Grroft
L''ffli. '..-; -;^'-. -.J ' , .\-.-i -vr. v.-. .': P (.244
f—-—are receiv'd by the, Catholicks 245
¦—s  are fplit into two parties - ..~a,\wj ¦¦ ibid.'
tt^— •their behaviour at Conftantinople, and the de-
.'.iKifions of the Council againft them < 259,264,0x1
.in, ^ enlargement of the Creed on their account ibid.
;rc "; 3I9
¦ ••••rh.ad iheir name from- p ( ''- '>¦
Macedonius (Arian) mttW-Bipj>p. of Conftantinople
»C'.i ..I 209
— — ^^^o^e/«fe^d»^r^(,^^h%e%-\*^ ? r"!-r 210
-— s  r^/ « perfecution^at Conftantifl^pre ' J "-' 221
« — j: // faid' to Miveibhught in- ike tiuo?dijhcti£yh<i 222
r—,  -isyi^lated\by-the(grp{kr,ihi:hy^lp) c-ji'.^i^f.
and fucceeded by Eudoxius '• 'p^ ~\ r''233

'¦. ; - v /&jr h^rtfy. «fc«K ^ -.HolyGhftftiiD . 235, 236
Magnentius (Ofetrpery <^/««&ii^ Conftantius ,/ 216
Mahomet flmpafiar) the fuccefs $f his followers .1 318
', /. "^/jj not^s^hgui far -countenanced by the Socini-
, ans " i;i.!Vo[ ^'i,; ¦• ..412,413
MfJlcjrion P$f$kytW.-fif; AntioGbjdetected Paul «f Samo -
i'.:fat<a/i.,,in'a"-^ [^ria^^rrwi.',- v> ¦¦;> v.'^v. ,.?ii,i48
Mam'cjiean* (Hereticks) .- \<94\tti5°> JT^i 5*
r^-^ excepted from Gratian'/ indulgence.-, iii -i:: 257
j/faregl^jn^is Cj)m'tefi^3hUn'eell6r#0' Juftinian pmeye-wif-
.,, 'n^s to' the Confe.fioftipW'»g- without tongues 329
$l£rcellus 5*y&op of Ancy rd^lMreW: from thefavour-
, Vr* o/rtiriBfi'i -.vi V. 0...fct'.'i-'l / I-'-'-''.' , 20If
r.f. = A r/i ¦  ?£«.2"<

The Index!
.-ii charged with Sabellianifm, and iviife expell'd
from bis Church •'¦'.' aoa.
acquitted in the Weft ' \ 203,208'
' ¦' »had all along join'd with the Euftathians 2,04
" ' ; was tutor to Photinus \ ? '•'¦ 21a
Marcian (Eaftern Emperor) calls the Council of Chal
cedon .l.i 3°3,3°4
• efpoufes the Catholicks 314
Marcion (Herefiarch) 6\. '. from whom are call'd the
Marcionites,-. -Hereticks denying the reality of Chrift V
Incarnation 126
Marcus Antoninus (Emperor) 6z
Mark (Sajntand Evangeliji) whether Bipop of Alexan
dria when the fchool was founded -87,88-
1 his PL,it#tgy  *59
Mary Queen of England, drove out the foreign reform'd
¦<,.: ¦- - 3S9
j . : ' violence of her perfecution ' • - 421
Maxentips (Emperor) perfecutor .-—i6l
Maximian (Emperor) perfecutor Ibid.
Maximin (Arian) his difputes.in Africk with St. Auguf
tine 321
Maximin (Emperor) perfecutor in the third century iif
Maximin (Emperor) perfecutor:. in the fourth century
ifo, 161
Maximus Bipop of Jerufalem withdrew from the fa
vourers cf Arius , — .aoi
Maximus, Ufurper of the Weftern Empire 268
Melchites (Sufttf fefta regia) the Eaftern Catholick s
why fo called 314
Meletivfs, aCatholick, yet made Bipop of Antioch by.
the Arians, is banip'd by Conftantius, has a farty of
Catholicks adhere to bimi-'i$&1. but is not join'd by
the Euftathians, 199^ is often banip'd, ibid" Mds
a Council under Jovian 241
Memnon Bipop of Ephefus, a great opp'ofer of Nefio
rius, depofed by the feparate Council of Ephefus 285"
Menander (Herefiarch) v 31> 48*52, 57
Mennonites, their herefy 413
Metaphyfical fubtleties objected to the Catholicks, but
more juftly. charged upon the Hereticks 1 9, ao
Methodius Bipop of Tyre 133
Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Conftantinople 374
3 Modrevius

The I n D e x."
Modrevius, a Polifh Knight, and great promoter of be-
\r*ft)in Poland * %",
Mawp^iV V , . . „ , ¦*
Monarchy, f VJ"a^ '* meani ** GW 69
- .. --how abufed by Praxeas 1 x 0
¦.¦ l divided by other Hereticks jq5
Monarchians f#?r««V/&/; 115,117
Monogenes, ow* of the Gnoftick ^ons 5-0,59, 60
Monophyfme, another name for Eutychians 31c
Monothelites,. a feet of Eutychians 31 5
Montanifts (Hereticks) diftinguip'd into different feet s
¦-. 167
" ¦' . 'one fort followed Praxeas'/ doctrine about the-
Trinity ibid.
¦. had their name from  •
Montanus: held the catholick doctrine of afc Trinity 104
but was not author of. it ioy
why excluded, the Church ibid.
Mofaick Cabbala, allowed by Dr. Cudworth to have-
-heem- known to Plato 98
Mofaick Law, obferv'd by the Cerinthians, but hypo
critically 33
by Ebionites. ' -. .;..._: 34
¦" and Nazarens 35"
came from eviL powers accprding to Cerinthus
>:- P:t.:r.-. .. " .. 33
» - ' [¦ came from inferior powers, according to all the
Gnofticks 66
Mother of God : that title of the bleffedVirgin rejected
by ^Apollinarians, and why 252,273
¦ <why rejected by Neftorians . 273
I accepted by Neftoms, but equivocally, . 276
opinion of John Bipop of Antioch and Theo
dorit concerning it , - ¦'. ¦ ¦_ : :. 283
. i : . N.
"VTA»?«'f«, Chriftians fo called by Ignatius 49
xN Narfes, Juftinian'/ General, expels the Qot\M put
of Italy, 347. is made Governor, but being removed
invites the Lombards into Italy 354> 35 $
Natalis, a follower of Theodotus, but penitent 84
. - * Nature :

The J * D 8rfe* <
l$Wg$%vth*t\woKdhai<fiMefiiiito iffa fawetf&efe- •&«£&'
^cgerfon or hypoftafis !. ::, §d} 133, 134
Gfcarens, judaizing Chriftians, but not hei<jetick&^ai&
ftaarius, Bipop 0/ Coh'ftaMn<olile*v ; P.p;v ¦¦,%$%
Nieftorianifm, the fear ofthgav]ei^tul^ge.to4ke^^
^rtychians -, '. ,\\w\ \ \ >tVi y>Y \; .. . .-P ¦¦ — — 30?
¦ , 1 -i . drew the Church to be tyare explicit 'j:-. 311
v,.'.i ,0: .their Patriarch :..i.'!.'nD vb, > ¦...; ,.."->:i.^.v. 313
TTJ  whernattschttefty. prevailed. ¦¦ '•¦¦¦¦¦ : \. , 1 11 • ¦; . " ' , 1314
*r?  charg'd upon Felix *a»i2 E.Hpai*dnst. j: . ¦ 361
,''M '¦g«^.o»Jfetet Abelarc^.S> tvLU.vM') .'-..'.-.v.. ..375;
Nefiorius 33,144,145,212,213
-r^r-*«i»<&£e-,Ratoforch ofCon'ftantihbple. \ . — — ^73-
¦!,'¦'[ •his character, 274. and herefy ijfi See.
'¦ ¦ - -few oppofed by Catholicks .'.-.- . ¦< ^i W-.  478
¦jiiarVoteir^r Gatholiclisi tess^Apollinarianifm. 1279',
i"i 284
¦ :i -how replied to ^Catholicks v « 279, " ,-2^a
•// excommunict^Bd'.'MPBitpe^QaleSkiae^^'' — »8*
•rfy»ykrhju.^^^/'^^^Wr/.«»«^^^ii^i^

¦ .fupported by feme great men ou.-l i *\ 12.83,^843^72
—— — /'/ <^/io}6ilfa*3Ephei'us'\ V i v>V\.i , t, ;. , T 28^:
•<i ¦ is given up by his friends - 286
Neufnerus (Adam) a Socinian thattfell '-faiiti Matrome*
j>tifm , 2i!-j'.B.\-r,k' 's.-v.-i,-— 2j*&
Nicefjw'df. CounVMi ^^sGJretedr ^ w.>-.\ v. o... — -~~— .
Nicephorus Callifthus, ecclefiaftical hiftorian 315"
Nicholas (Pope^ifeents^to^aveailowd. ^"filioqtje-B*
<v,Rome ?>!".; :l""'c373
Mcol¦a1t»hs.^^r5^/^/)', > ¦'•-'•' ^.'- : Lt.-T.'1 Hs*?^©, 33
NWe'tians (Hereticks) 'O'a. ' «v. t,',n i jioVii./rMiijO^d
Noetus (Herefiarch) '¦*¦ . ti.iVl ;'V- v. ./ ya-j 1^47-792
•<?2 -t^hai-tim^he^mbraYeU'^-iherefy-of PTaxeas
—  «;<?/ confuted by HippolytUS»' ';•¦>¦ <r "J- * iiMSljJ&C.
Novatian, A// book of the Trinity againft Sabellius 125-
yet not without an eye tVfome other herefies, 126. and
clearly preventing that of the Arians ibid,
ftr  his enpiists%ln,]ofi'ihe.)cUvine'\Juitf .' ; 126,127
Nus, ' «w' of -the, Gnotlick -Moas. ¦ . " . , -:h<M ¦, $9
...:>-. * ;.'.':'i»i ,-¦?... V.'iV'O ...'..'-. i. .^;>p ,;,;;],' ^
?¦>? -1 (Ji v ''el <,./* 'ibic-i.Vi.-. J :-.'-.*. isv'v.-.-.
•i 3 y -"¦¦- ¦':..'pP .cijJ.-jLo'ji: i '-;¦.,-;., \/, i>. { - -j-i-.J, {
:- -J^'t Oath;

I

<Tbe,:I nIde £.

o.

DAth : form of, in" the name of 'three perfons, produced
from St. Clement  42,
"<¦' ' military, of Chriftians in the fourth century,
naming three perfons v 42,43
• recommended by the Chriftian in Lucian'/ Philo-

, .patris > ''i'- 43,81
>'¦¦" 'by the Emptor's Safety, how underftood £y,Ter-
¦•-tullian and others''- " - 43
Ochinus (Bemardinus) his herefy and concealment of it,
• which gain'd him credit with the Orthodox ^%f

¦ his reception in England ' 419
Odoacer, King of the Heruli in Italy 333
'Oikmc^'m 1*57- that term how applied to XZWritYs
OtEconomy^condefcenfion, 52,53,71. and likewife.
¦ io the fubordination of perfons in the Trinity "54,
r:- •'¦• • , II°,II^ii4
Ofjuoioc, xara Tmsra 222. 227
xcctx -rets yfccQixs 220, £27
fiutT ovaictv "' ' 243
'<0}mtov<rioc that word when firft introduted by the here-
'- //Y&r 2.2,2
' ' diftiked by tie more rigid Arians ibid.
— ¦  and condiM^d, 225-. as little different from
-J/A080-*©-, 235,236. from whence the Semiarians came
to admit the wbrd^wPuKi . 243/244, 250
"tojwowinos, that term ufed of the Divine Word in the fe-^
cond century r3r
*— ;  imitated byTertoUim's unius fubftantia! ibid,
i  — -ufedby Origen. . 'bid.
'•'•¦ ¦ acknowledg'd 'by Eufebius to be of ancient ufe
'--'¦ 132
*-  not ufed by Dionyfius Alexandrinus, becdufexmr
fcriptural, 129. who 'was therefore 'blamed by the
Catholicks, 130. but excufed himfelf as having
fdught the fa-mi thing in other Words ' 1 29, 1 3 1
. - 1 fr ,r \tierthrows the herefies in both extremes 1 32
146,147

-how abufed by Paul u s Sambfaterius 1 46., 1 47
-drdpt for' thai reafon' by the Council of Antioch,
' J . , .1 / .1 .... n..L„l.'.tr 1-4... •Tv.ri

^47,' 149. and probably by other Catholicks "__j49

The In d e-x.
•yet approved by Pamphilus and Eufebius 150
-abufed by Manicheans and Prifcillianifts iyi
-inferted in the Nicene Creed 179
•and other .Eaftern Creeds 188

11 ¦ its meaning or import clear'd from Tritheifm
:,;,¦;¦:- -180
¦ three grand objections againft it ftated and *n-
fwer'd '; 181,—— -18$?
1 fometimes charg'd with Sabellianifm 193,194
— — divifion of the Hereticks; about it 221 , &C*
condemn'd by the Anomeans 225*
•the only word rejected by the Semiarians at Se-
leucia ; 231
at lafi accepted by them ibid.
enforced by Athanafius in the time of Julian 237
and both by him and Meletius under Jovian 241
— — — how admitted and evafively explained by Mace
donians and other H'reticks 243, 244
whofe expofition is rejected by the Coun
cil of Illyricum 244,250'
dcknowledg'd by Apollinaris 251, 253
how deftroy'd by the Eutychians 316
— ——maintain' d by the Catholicks in Africa 325
—7— Chrift'/ Body confubftantial with the Deity, ac*
cording to feme Apollinarians, 25*4, 263, zoo.
and to Servetus 385,3,86
•its confubftantiality with our body not

own' d by Eutyches 299, 305;
but afferted by the Council of Chalce
don 30$
Origen *3» 37, "9; 133, 150
——Schoolmafter of Alexandria _ 88
¦ addicted to Philofophy, yet made it fubfervient
to Chriftianity 89
¦ <was notwithftanding fufpected on that account
93, 100, 1.01
11 ufed the word hnKtuns, why, and in what fenfe
120,121
¦ ' y took it not from the Platonifts 120
—  is claim' d by the Arians, but without fufficient
grounds ia 1, £c
— — -has.

.The Index.
— — has bad great Apologifts I n, 1 3,
— lS T"P thtn&s emtrary to Arianifm il3
"——his books have been corrupted laa 123
 »ot all defign'd for the publick ' 121
"" T *H* «"#«, either not his own or corrupted 155", 15-6
1 ¦ converted Beryllus 12a 142,
—ufed the word ifum-ut jaj
— — his mention of catachreftical worfhip 156
Oftrogoths, vid. Goths P.
PAcian 107
Pafla Conventa : an act of the ftates by which the
King of Poland was bound to maintain toleration 397,398
Paganifm in Britain and part of Gaul 334
Palaeologus (Jacobus) oppofed the worfliip of Chrift 401
Pamphilus, Apologift for Origen 1 22, 1 5-0
Pantxnus, Schoolmafter of Alexandria 88
Paphnutius, Bipop in Thebais, withdrew from the
favourers of Arius 201
Paraclete the character of the Holy Ghoft in ancient
Creeds, 262. why alter'd in the Conftantinopolitan 264,265-
 who fpake by the Prophets : that claufe why in-
ferted 66
 fuppofed by the Valentinians to be different from the
Holy Ghoft 67
P at ripaffians (Hereticks) 1 1 5, 2 1 3
Paul Bipop of Conftantinople banip'd 206
——is recall'd by Conftantius, but removed again, and
hisSeefiWd 208
oppofition between his followers and thofe of Mace
donius 209
Paul of Samofata (Herefiarch) 33, 142,  150, 155-,
166,181,184,185,212,213,431
—•what difference between him and Nefiorius 144,
M£
 cenfured at the fecond Council of Antioch 148
—his error charged upon Nefiorius 276
— — — revived by Servetus 38*
•  '  5. 1 -from

.The t rt DeIx.
« i i .tu from him is named the \p'px ;-'' '
Paulian herefy'.' ¦'-¦''¦ '-¦''•, 'C;'- ; 'Joi
Paulinas ('Arian) mm& Bipop of Anticrca from Tyre,
«'» 2/&? roo»» ojF Euftathhls ', . .. yc.~ yp-g
Paulinus (Euftathian/ B*jfro/> of Antibcn'r ofdsWdSr.
Jerom 195*
»..t. t ^ &w ordain'd by Lucifer ' J Ip?)
Paulinus Bipop of Treves « depofed at Aries fir de-
* -finding Athanafius ' '"-¦'- !' ¦ 217'
Pearfon (Bipop) his opinion of the time of Praxeas ioj
Pelagianifm'f/&«r^W o« Peter Abelard 375-
Peripateticks (feet of Philofophers) 90
IfcpSBapiins, what it means ¦ • 68
Perfon : that word when firft ufed in contraSftinetion to
fubftance by the Latins, n a. dndwhenbythe Greeks 118
11 continued by the firmer rather' than hypoftafis
''¦ i( ; '¦'' ¦:¦ ,;  •:¦- •' '¦ --""-w -.:.i'94, 195
Pejfcavius, his mifreprefentation of the Antenicene Fa-
ther~S) confuted by Bj/hopBM "'" '+p ¦'¦'¦ '¦'— ¦ 425"
Peter Schoolmafter (after Bipdp) of Alexandria 88,163
Peter Martyr," his friehdplp with Ochinus 419
Petrus (Gnapheus, or Fullo) Eutychian 'Bipop of Anti
och, began to recite the Creed in the daily offices 3 1 1
! interpolated the Trifagiam •- t 316
<b*S\x<ri*etp (Hereticks) 32
Philaftrius i"4f
Philo Judseus charged with Platonifm 87
Philofophy taught by the ancient Chriftians, 88. who
yet were not addicted to any particular fe&, .89.' nor
¦fubmitted the doctrines of Chriftianity to them, 90.' but
*rather look'd on its profeffors as its greateft enemies,
92,96. and were- jealous of all that . inclined towards
them, 9$. objected their abfurdities, 95. and rejected
all pants- of Philofophy  "96
Philoftorgius 18.7
Philpot, his abhorrence of- Arianifm , "- '420
Photinians : whether Arians be fometimes meant under
thai, name •-. - ";' ¦ ...... -vl_ ... -. "^f^
• — : — - indulge^ by Julian 237
—-—-excepted from Gratiar? s indulgence* 214,2*57
* — -y-Polifh Hereticks fe called 39f
Photinus (Herefiarch) - -- - - . ^yx^fpriolfii^
-.:•'.— -^  his

The I n d e x.
 his notions ftated 212,213
— ¦ — cenfured by Catholicks, 213. and Eufebians 214
Photius _ 41,84,117,133,134,135,144
 Patriarch of Conftantinople 364
 contefts about his promotion, the main grounds of
: difference between Greeks and Latins, 366. and of
his vehemence againft the filioque 366, 374
Pierius, Schoolmafter of Alexandria 88
 fecond Origen 133
 what he meant by fubftance and nature 133, 134
 his doctrine of the Holy Ghoft 134
Pinczovians, a name for the Polifh Hereticks 395-
Pifiji, King of France, his conquefts over the Lombards 360
Piftus, Antibipop of Alexandria 209
Placentius (alias Flaccillus) Arian Bipop of i\ntioch 196
plato : his notions whether the fame with the Chriftians
in the point of the Trinity 85, &Ci
 nearer the truth than other Philofophers 97
-. — —yet moft oppofed, becaufe efteem'd moft dangerous 96, 97
•  another Mofes fpeaking Greek 99
—. — learnt feme notions from the Jews, f>ut corrupted
them .98,99,100,102
Platonifm, charged upon the Fathers, 85", &c. but not
rightly 87, &c
.  not in repute in the firft ages of the Church 90, 91
r—. — revived but in the third century 0\, 101, ioa
*-<  .and then new dr effed up *?*
Piatanifts (modern) the moft virulent oppofers of Chrif-
xi^nity }'' ¦ F j9h9\
— , — and the moft piaufipfe, therefore moft oppofed 96
— —-yet borrowed ihe terms of the Church _ 120
•r-* — and gave handle fir the charge o/'Platanifm ioa
Pler6ma of the Valentinians S9-> 6q
Pliny (junior):his account of Chriftians • 47, i:55
PJptirius, Platonick Philofopher . -
^-r-ihe reviver cf Platonifm, by opening a School <J*
Rome in the third century 91, Id, joZ
r— imitated the chriftian language^ but corrupted it
.. .... • ¦ ¦ 102
Pitttarch had no notion of the Trinity from Plato 101
• , ¦ H h Pneuma-

The I n d e x'.
Pneumatomachi (Hereticks) 189
 impugn the' Holy Ghoft'/ Divinity 236
 their behaviour at Conftantinople, and decifion of
the Council againft them 259, &c.
>  occafion' d feme variation offtyle 312
.  revived by Biddle in England 423
vid. Macedonians
Polycarp: his ads, 63. his doxoloigy 70
¦ — —properly a Father of the firft century, but fuffer'd
under Marcus Antoninus ibid.
Porphyry, Platonick Philofopher. 91
Praxeans (Hereticks) 107,116,117. fo called from
Praxeas 72, 431
•  difabufed Pope Victor in refpect of the Montanifts 105
— - — yet fell into herefy under Zephyrin ibid.
— -—fuppofed the Father to have fuffer'd, admitting a
nominal diftinetion 106
•  propagated it much, retracted, and relapfed ibid.
¦  'fpreads it even among the Montanifts 107
•  his herefy a proof of the catholick doctrine, and
how 107,108
1  — — oppofed by Tertullian 109
 —fpread in Afia by Noetus 1 1 y
Prifcillianifts, their herefy 15-1
Proceflion: /&* 'perfonal character of the Holy Ghoft 265:
¦ from the Father : afferted. by the Council of Con
ftantinople, and why no more 266
— — from the Son : always believed, though inferted af
terwards; the difference concerning it between the
Greeks and Latins 364,_&c.
¦that character fometimes applied to the Son 60
Proclus, head of a feet of Montanifts 107
Proclus, Platonick Philofopher 91
Procopius of Csefarea, hiftorian and fenator of Corj-
ftahtinople; attefts the ftory of the Confeflbrs fpeak-
. I ing without tongues 328
tteoixAint, or coming forth of the Word out of the Fa-
¦•• ther, fometimes called generation, but not the begin
ning of his exiftence v 71
flfi trine* rS> tt&m- that phrafe approved by Catholicks 174
• abufed

The Index.
-;  abufed by A rians 1 74, 1 7<5
 implies eternity ' 2g,
Prophetick Spirit, 157. the meaning of that character
„ . , 66
HgB<runor that word ufed by Hippolytus 1 1 8
 abufed by the Noetians II0
— — therefore chang'd by fome for vsbYko-ij j 2 0
Ptblomeans, a feet of the Valentinians s9
Pythagoras (Philofopher) his notions (feme of them) ow
ing to the remains of Hebrew learning in Egypt 98

o:

Q.
Uadratus, Chriftian Apologift 5-5
Quakers, why tolerated 41 8

R.

RAcovians : Polifh Hereticks fo called 395-
Ratram, his controverfy with Hincmar about the
phrafe trina Deitas 363
Rebaptization, practifed by the Arians in Africa 327
 the Rebaptized how reftored to the Church 331,
' . . 332-
 at lafi reftrain'd by an Arian Council at Toledo 350
Recarede, King of the Vifigoths, his prudent reforma
tion in Spain, and eftablipment of the ancient faith
252,25-3,372
Reformation, became the handle fir errors about the
Trinity 382, 384
——and was obftrUeted by them 380
 in England 4i9,&c,
Remonftrants, from whence fo called: feme of them
lead 'd towards Socinianifm 414
 yet not to be charged with it in general: their ill
ufage at Dort led them to a latitude of thinking 415
Reparatus Bipop of Carthage 345
Revelation , the only fufficient rule of faith 1, 10,433
Rhodon, removed his School from Alexandria to Side 88
H h 2 Rodoaldus

The Ind ex.
Rodoaldus (Arian) King of the Lombards, but favour
able to Catholicks, 359. his death .360
Rotharis (Arian) King of the Lombards, but favourable
to Catholicks 359
Ruffinus, his Apology for Origen 122
 his recital of the Creed 0/ Gregory Thauma
turgus 141
¦ and thofe of Rome and Aquileia 1 8§>

Rule of faith, the title of the Creed 23, 24, 1 14

' Abellianifm, fpread in Africa 127
>  was oppofed by Dionyfius Alexandrinus ibid.

• and drove fome into the contrary extreme 136
— was charged by Arius upon his Bipop, 166, and
generally by his followers upon Catholicks 203
• charg'd upon Hincmar fir expunging the phrafe

Triria Deitas 363
 charg'd upon an Englifh Divine 427
—fucceeds Socinianifm in England 427,428,433
every where detefted by the Church 430

SabtUians, (Hereticks) 124, 125, 128, 151, 183, 192,213
— rr~. — their notion in the Church as early as Simon,
Magus, 30,72. and in Juftin Martyr'/ time, 72.
long before Sabellius iii
-choak'd with the word ipcoutrus, 132. which yet

is charg'd with Sabellianifm 19.3, 194
— how far they agreed with the Arians ' 41 1

Sabellius (Herefiarch) 71,112, 141, 142, 144, "192,212
¦  • abufed the word, hypoftafis 1 19
 embraced the doctrine of Noetus \ 24
— his queftion pews the opinion of the Catholicks
, • ' -125
——is confuted by Novatian 125, &c
—  and £y Diony fius Alexandrinus ; 127, &c.
-.  his error revived by Servetus 38.5'
Samofatenian herefy 20a, 430
tt  revived by Servetus 385, 432
-. — — ~-  and by Loelius. Socinus 391
Sandius, his ¦f/iifreprefentation of the Antenicene Fa
thers, confuted by Bipop Bull 424, 425-
I  his

The Index.
"* ' ' ' "is notion of the agreement between Arians and
Socinians 42
Saturninus, difciple of Menander S7
Scapula, Governor of Africa 62
Scholaftick Divinity, introduced by Peter Lombard
 . . . 376
———its increafe in the next century 378
•its ufe and abufe 379, g8o
Secundians, a feet of ^Valentinians 5-8, 5-9
Self-exiftent : a perfonal character, and not effential
Semiarians in the larger acceptation 226,  228
.. , a .- 2.30,231,232
 and in the ftricter 227,235-, 246
* ' pretend to keep a medium between Arians and
Catholicks 236
¦*  • indulg'd by Jul ian 237
 ¦= — » their advantage above other hereticks 246
Serapion', Schoolmafter 0/ Alexandria 88
Serapion, Bipop of Ttimuis: Athanafius'/ epifilestobim 235-
Servetus (Michael) his age and herefy 383,  386
¦¦v - - - . his execution . 383,392,421
Severians, a USt of EutychianS, called otherwife Cor-
rupticolas, 319. had that name from 49
Severus, Eutychian Pairiareh of Antioch 319
Severus (Emperor and Perfecutor) 62
Sherlock (Doctor) hif vindication of the doctrine- of the
Hoty rand Ever-bleffed Trinity 426
Sige, one of the Gndftick* iEoris 49
Sigifmond^ King of ^Burgundians, becomes a Ca
tholick 338'
Sigifmond I. King of Poland' 394
Sigifmond Auguflus, King of Poland : the growth of
' hrefy under htm 394, &c. 397
. his edict againft heretical foreigners' 396, 398'
¦ - - ¦ . . extended to natives, but not executed 397
Sigifmond I'll. King of Poland": his favour-to the Soci
nians, and long reign 39^, 409, 415
%ifmond (John) Prince of Tranfylvania, and King
'of Hungary, invites Blandrata, 398. and declares
for Socinianifm _. 4°8
- H h 3 Simon

' The Index.
Simon Magus, 27. founder of every herefy, 28. the
Gnoftick, 29, 33. SabeUian, 30, 106. Arian, 30
¦ had a ftatue at Rome 3 1
 'fuppofed Chrift'/ body imaginary , 32
Simonians, a feel: of Gnofticks fo called from Simon,
denying the reality of Chrift'/ incarnation 57, 126, 317
Sixtus or Xyftus I. (Pope) 128
Socinianifm, transformed into Sabellianifm 427,428
——great . mixture of it in our Englifh fects 418, 422
¦—  how far received by Biddle 423, 424
"  SroFefi fort m England 426
Socinians, too much countenanc'd by the Reform'd 408
— ;  *- mifinterpret God' s judgments 4Q9
¦  are reftrain'dfrom affembling at Lublin ibid.
¦  ¦ yet flourip generally in Poland ibid.
•  comprize thefeveral fe£ls o/Antitrinitarians 410
« — how countenanc'd by the Remonftrants 414,415
Socinus (Faufius) his judgment of Lucian'/ teftimony,
81. and contempt of Antiquity 82
. 1 ' came to Poland in the reign of Stephen Bathori
,397,398
•  1 — was nephew to Loelius, and embraced his fenti
ments 402
• lived in the Duke of Tufcany'/ Courts then re

tired /o Bafil 403
•comes into, Tranfylvania, defends the worfhip of

Chrift, and how 402, &c.
 his difference wifh the Polifh Hereticks 407
•his difputation. with Chriftianus Franken ibid.
his controverfy with Erafmus Johannis 408
•his art in propagating his herefy, and the fuccefs

of it 408,41a
 his ill treatment by the Mob, and his death 408
 his doctrines methodized by bis followers 410
• the impiety of his fcheme 411,412

Socinus (Loelius) 402,403 his heretical Club at Ve
nice. 389. the feveral fchemes propofed among
. them, 390, 391. yet agreed in the main, 392. how
difpers'd '39*i393
>....-'¦•¦¦ ivas m the Ebionite or Samofatenian feheme\
39',399
r— went

The Index.
•  went twice to Poland q9, -,0.
 corrupted Lifmaninus iPl
 «r *«** g*
Son of God, *» wto /«£ vifible, and comprehended
by place ' yt.
South (Doctor) his animadverfions upon Dr. Sherlock
Speufippus, Platonick Philofopher, corrupted the fyf-
tem QI
Spiritus, a Dutchman fo called, the.firft introducer of
herefy into Poland 394
Stephen (Arian) Bipop of Antioch, depofed by the A-
rians themfelves 196
Stoicks, a ieSt of Philofophers moft in repute at the be
ginning of Chriftianity 90
Stuckey (Nathanael) a young difciple of Biddle 424
Subfcription, fallacious and equivocating, practifed by
the Arians 244
Subftance, communion of 69
• has fometimes the fenfe in which we ufe the word
perfon or hypoftafis 133,134
" • altogether difliked by the rigid Arians 225-, 229, ?3?
Sueves, a Northern people came with the Vandals into
Spain 322
are drawn into Arianifm, by alliance with the
Goths 332, 348
¦ .' perfecute d the Catholicks 333
' , — are at length recover'd to the Catholick Faith 348
—and after that fubdued by the Goths 351
Sylvanus (John) a Socinian, fell into a kind of Judaifm 412
Synod, of Dort 415". v*'</. Council
T.
TAcitus (Cornelius) his charge againft Chriftians 46,47
Tatian 62,70,72,106
Tertulliaa *3> S% 61, 62, 64, 1 1 5, » 7, * > »
Hh4 —

The I N D ErX.
i had the fame notions of the Trinity before he was
a Montanift, as afterwards* \ 63, 109
 ¦ wrote againft Praxeas 1 09, 1 1 3
 —his notion of the Trinity HO, III, 112
.  -was forced to the ufe of new terms HO, 112,
 his book againft Hermogenes _ 113
 ' denied not the Son's Eternity ibid .

 -his diftindion between internal reafon, and ex
ternal word, which he calls ihe Son ibid.
¦ his doctrine-. of the Holy Ghoft; not derived from

Montanus 114
-' 1 ¦ •imitates the word »sujW,<s, 120. and optatiiirm,
A 131
Theodat King of the Oftrogoths m Italy, a perfon of
ill character and practices'' 345
¦ has war made upon him, and. is fubdued by]m-
tinian 34^.
Theodemir, King of the Sueves, converted from Ari
anifm 34$
Theodoret .... 36, 57, 5$, 169,173,214,231
 is Bipop of Cyrus, and efpoufes Neftorius 3.83, 37*
a ¦ •¦ but at laft gives him up 286
, — rp, — his doctrine .with'refpeil. to the procefBon of the
. Holy Ghoft ' 371', 372
Theodoric CArian) King of the Oftrogoths conquers the
Heruli in Italy 333
¦i-i. ¦ refents the edict of Juftin the Emperor ttgamft
Arians _ ¦¦¦''¦¦- _ '339
w-  thinks of reprifals, and fending the Pope in em-
baffy, ufes him ill at his return, and dies 340
 Un his time Goths are 'ptfifefs\d of Provence 34

Theodofians, a feci o/Eutychians^/ai* Corruptee©!®)
319. fa called from
Theodofius, Eutychian Patriarch of A lexandria 319
Theodofius the Great, made Emperor of the Eaft 256, 257
— :  labours to purge Conftaptiriople 2 57
• his endeavours to extirpate herefy 268
Theodofius junior, Eaftern Emperor 273
— — -calls the General Council of Ephefus . 284
•favours

The I n d e x.
~" ; 'm(a'»ours Eutyches, and orders the calling of the
SLT/Ui2unci,0/Ephefus' 3°J- «**-**
Theodotus (Coriarius) „ 82 8? 1«
Theognis Bifhop of Nice, banilh'd fir favouring Arius,
but recall'd ' I go
Theognoftus, Schoolmafter of Alexandria 88
r* 77 *« doctrine commended by Athanafius, ?&>' <re«-
/arerf £y Photius I3j.
.©«*«>«'«• that word bow applied to Chrift's Divinity
Bioirite^a-ui "J ^
Thebpafchites/' * fedl ^ Eutychians 3<6
Theophilos Bipop c/Antioch 62, 70
•*" — - — firft ufed the word Trinity, and why 73, 74
Qimpqtt, Chriftians fo called by Ignatius 49
0eoW*»«, vid. Mother of God
Theudeltnda, Catholick Queen of the Lombards, is
married to Agilulphus 358
——is /^Regent during her fen's minority, and pro
motes the Catholick Caufe 359
Thrafimond, Vandal King of Africa: his arts to fup-
: prefs Orthodoxy 341
¦ broke at lafi into greater violence 342
•his death 343
Tiberius (Emperor) not able to procure the Senate'/ ap
probation of Chriftianity 64
Timothy, Eutychian Bipop of Conftantinople, recited
the Creed in the daily offices 31 1
Toland, his notion of the Ebionites and Nazarens con
futed 34, ore.
Tojeratibn granted to Socinians in feme places, but ge
nerally denied 418
Tongues cut out of feme Ctnf effort in Africa, who yet
continued to fpeak. That ftory vindicated 327, &c.
Totilas Kingvftbe OfhOgofhS in Italy, recover'd their
dominions 34®
- is fub due d by Narles 347
Tradition (Catholick) a good help to interpret Scrip
ture 3, 433
¦ — f recommended in Scripture 4
 — do&rinal as well as ritual 5
- ¦'¦ 1 in what fenfe condemn'd by Chrift . 6
'" ^ — - •' — —appeal'd

The I n d e x.
' ¦ ¦ "appeal' d to by the Fathers 7, 78
¦— — and very reafonably 7, &c.-
 objections againft it confidered 10, &c.
Trajan (Emperor) 46, 1 55
 his perfecution 47
— — — his death f6
Trinitarians, real and nominal 427
Trinity, or Triad : that word when firft ufed, and why 73
— inconfifient with the SabeUian herefy 74
— — and with the Arian (fee the errata) 435
the doctrine charged with Platonifm, 85. and
Tritheifm, 86. but unjuftly ¦• ibid.
 difputes about it obftruet the Reformation, 386
but confirm the doctrine it felf - 387
Trinity Church at Cracow, damaged by lightning,
whilft Gregorius Pauli the Heretick was preaching m
it againft the Trinity 396
Trinity Church at Lublin deftroy'd by lightning, whilft
another Heretick was preaching in it to the fame pur
pofe 409
Trifagium, how interpolated by Eutychians 316
Trifmegiftus (Mercurius) the book under Ms name 13I
Tritheifm, unjuftly charged upon the Catholicks 86,
118, 266
— not implied in the Sjtowirus 180
— — nor in three hypoftafts 193
— — not juftly charged upon the phrafe Trina Deitas 363
 charged upon Joachim Abbot of Flora 378
embraced by fome Hereticks fince the Reformation,
oppofed by others 390, 399
Tritheifts, a feci of Eutychians 317, 318
Trypho, Juftin'/ dialogue with him 6a
Tully had no notion of the Trinity from Plata 101
Turks took Conftantinople 367

"Valdej

The Index,

v,
\7 Aides a Spaniard brought herefy into Italy 388,
Valens, Eaftern Emperor, Arian and Perfecutor, had
been a Catholick and Confeffor under Julian 241, 24a
 diftreffes the Macedonians, find favours groffer
Arians 243.
•  perfecutes grievoufly the Catholicks „.. 248
 his tranfactions with the Goths 269
— r. — his death ,. 250,2.56-
Valentinian I. Weftern Emperor, Catholick, and had
been Confeffor under Julian 241, 242
 the peace of the Church under him 242, 249
 his concurrence with the Council of Illyricum, and
death 250
Valentinian, II. join'd viith Gratian in the Weftern
Empire 256
-1  was fon of Juftina the Arian Emprefs 321 '
Valentinian III. Weftern Emperor, agrees to the Coun
cil 0/ Chalcedon , 303,304
- — —divides Africk with the Vandals,., 'but obtains a
Catholick Bipop at Carthage -^ 323
 his death 324
Valentinians (Hereticks) how fubdivided 58
 occafion'd fome infertions in the Creed 66, 262
—ftruck at by Theophilus of Antioch, 73. and Ire
naeus, 74. and Clemens Alexandrinus 78
—  charged with Platonifm 94
¦r were fo called from
Valentinus (Herefiarch) not firft inventer%of iEons 49
•yet perfected the Gnoftick fcheme 58, &c.
 the moft confiderable Heretick of the fecond century .61.
 WaPIatonift 94
Valentinus Gentilis, one of Socinus'/ Club, whether
Tritheift or Arian , 39°
..... ' his prevarication at Geneva, arrival in Poland,
(ind execution at Berne 393
Vandals,

The Index.
Vandals, a people from the North : how drawn into A-
rianifm 270
¦ ¦ poffefs'd firft of Spain, go next into Africa 322,
-332.
 their ignorance 325,326
Very God: that phrafe as applied to Chrift,, how abufed
by the Arians 175
Victor (Pope) excommunicated Theodotus 84
———favour'd the Montanifts, till better advifed by
Praxeas 105
Vidtor Tunuuenfis, African Bipop and Confeffor, at-
tefls the fio-fy of the Confeflbrs fpeaking without
tongues 330
Victor Vitenfis, African Bipop and Confeffor, a cotem
porary tuitnefs to the Gonfeflbrs fpeaking without
tongues 329, 330
Vifrgoths, vid. Goths
Uladiftus, King of Poland, difeountenanced Sdcinfan-
ifm 41 5-, 41 6
Ulphilas the Gothick Bipop, 269. being perverted to
Arianifm, draws in his countrymen and other Nor
thern nations, who afterwards overfpread the, Weftern.
Empire' 270,, 321, &c.
Unbegotten, .vid. 'AyimiTH
Unitarians in' the third century 117
 another name fir Socinians 410, 424
——their fcheme of agreement in England" 427
joining with the King of Sweden, are fetpprefs d
in Ptiland 416,417
Unorigihate: the Arian abufe of that v\ord 224
Unfcriptural terms, no objection to a doctrine, if- the
fenfe be fcriptural 16
¦ introduced to avoid the cavils of hereticks, ibid.
without any diponour done to Scripture 17, 18
-'  ^warranted' by the example of St. John 39,40
¦  particularly cotifidered with reflect to the word
<J>ooi/V«5 l82, 183
—  urg'd by rigid Arians both againft o'/wWo-ies and,
cfAioictia-tot; 226
Vorftius (Conradus) chargedwhh SocinjaniTm 414

Wifdom

The .Index.

w.
Wifdom, ufually the name of the fecond perfon in the
Trinity 68
¦ but fometimes applied to the third 70, 75, 76,
118, 369
Wifdom (Sep/«) a Valentinian J&ox\ 74
Word. vid. Ao'yos
Worfhip, to the^Father, through the Son, in the Ho
ly Ghoft : what meant by it ¦ I53>154
—  directly paid to the Son 1 55, J 56
 and to the Holy Ghoft 156, 1 57, 158
— — catachreftical J56
Worfhip of Chrift, oppofed by feme hereticks in Tranfyl
vania, 401. and in Poland 4°6
••how defended by the other Socinians 403, &c.
X.
X Ettocrates, Platonick Philofopher, corrupted Pla
to'/ fyftem 91
Xyftus or Sixtus I. (Pope) 128
Y.
*\TwbV*s-(5 "l that term when firft ufed of the per-
1 I Hypoftafis.) fons/*^Go^e«^, and why 120
fometimes «W* or <pva-n ufed inftead of it 133, J34
 fometimes reftrietions neceffary, as that they are
not feparate or divided hypoftafes 136, 137, }9}
 has fometimes the fame fenfe in which we ufe «*».
 its meaning not defined at Nice 192.
 great contefts about it in the fourth century
6 J ., ¦ , i92,&c. 197
 Latins wanted a word to render it by 1 94
 one only afferted by Marcellus 204

The Index.
i the word wholly rejected by rigid Arians 233
•-—its meaning candidly fettled by Athanafius 194,
195,196,237
——how applied to the perfonal union of two natures
in Chrift, and the difputes about it 280,281
k how. abufed by the Eutychian Tritheifts 317

Z Anchius, his miftake about the author of the etr
plication of the firft of St. John , _ 402
Zeno, Eaftern Emperor 311,
 his. fcheme.of oomprehenfion 315
Zeno, Stoick Philofopher ¦"" 96
Zephyrin (Pope) reftored'tiatalis to communion, not,
without difficulty ''"' 84
fuppofed by Mr. Dpdwel to have been Pope
when Praxeas came to Rome 105
Zuicker'/ notion of Ebionites and Nazarens confuted
. ,, "-Zuinglius, an early Reformer 385

Errata & Addenda.
PAge 74,. line 5-. add ——withal it denoted at the fame
time their equality of nature, and like a decad, a century,
a myriad, and other the like names of number, it could not be
reasonably underftood, to reckon together things different in
kind, but fuch as are properly the fame or confubftantial. See
farther, p. 437. p. 107. 1. 9. dtle without any diftinfition,
p. 1 19. 1. penult, r. Bafil Ep. 64. p. 85-0. & Ep. 391. p. 1172.
p. 132. 1. ult. r. Infuper in priore articulo orientales eccle-
iise non fblum legunt in Deo Patre omnipotente, fed addunt
invifibili 8c impaffibili. Erafin. in refp. adcenfur. Theol. Paris.
Tit. 1 1 . de fy rnb. Apoft. But what authority Erafmus had for
this affertion about afo "Eaftern Churches, I know not. p. 144.
1. 3. r. vafbUTm. p. 148. 1. zf. 1. equivalent, p. 185-. 1. 22.
r. srfo xt°*a*. P- "88. 1. 23. r. referr'd to. p. 192 is mif-
numbered 122. p. 193. 1. antepenult, r. it\um, p. 197. 1. 2.
for by r. with. ibid. 1. 3. for with r. by. p. 201. 1. antepenult.
r. Paphnutius. p. 248. 1.29. r. 3»v t« sbtcJm. p. 2/3. l.pro-
amepenult. r. vid„- Athanaf. de incarn. contr. Apol. p. 278.
I, antepenult, r. iraftrrec.. p. 289 is mifnumber'd 299 r and in
proportion all the following pages are mifnumber'd. p. 3 2 1. 1. an
tepenult, r. care. p. 330. 1. 28. r. abfciflis. p. 38$-. 1. 27.
r. fcecundum. p. 389. 1. 27. r. ad rnagiftratum— — juflus.
p. 391.L 28. for that r, though, p. 412 is mifnumber'd 22.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08576 0024