:-^' 
 
 '■■y '^" 
 

 ■^ JAN 8 1901, *, 
 
 0ivi$l©n, 
 
 sec 
 
 Section., 
 
 tsm 
 
 No . 
 
 /, Z-. 
 
THE 
 
 K S 
 
 Of the Right -Reverend 
 
 GEORGE BULL, D.D. 
 
 Late Bifhop of St. 'DAVIT>% 
 Concerning the Holy Trinity. 
 
 I. The Defence of the Nicene 
 
 Creed. 
 
 II. Judgment of the Catho- 
 lick Church of the three 
 firft Centuries, concern- 
 ing the Neceffity of be- 
 lieving that our Lordjefus 
 Chriji is true God, aflerted 
 againft M Simon Ejbifco- 
 puSy and others. 
 
 CONSISTING OF 
 
 III. The Primitive and A- 
 poftolical Tradition con- 
 
 cerning the received Do- 
 arine in the Catholick 
 Church, of our Saviour 
 Jefus Chrift'3 Divinity, 
 afferted, and plainly pro- 
 ved, againftD^^^'^^'Z^^'^'^^^ 
 a Pruffian, and his late 
 Difciples in England. 
 
 Tranflated into ENGLISH: 
 
 V/ I T H 
 
 The Notes and Ohfervations of Br. GRAB E. And fome 
 Rejlemons upon the late Controvertifts in this Dodrine. 
 
 By Fr. Holland, M^. Reftor of Sutton, WUts, 
 
 and Chaplai n to the Rt Hon. nomas Lord Vifcount Weymouth. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for STEPHEN AUSTEN at the 
 
 Angel ^nd Bible, in St, Paul's Church-Tar d, J 7 3^' 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.arGliive.org/details/worksofriglitreve02bull 
 
(iii) 
 
 T O 
 
 The Revere ND 
 
 JOHN rOUNGER,D.D. 
 Dean of S a R u M, 
 
 Honoured Sir^ 
 
 H E Defign of this Tranfla- 
 tion is to acquaint the Peo- 
 ple with the Antiquity and 
 Univerfality of their mod 
 Holy Faith in the Son of God 3 to 
 
 [A l] fliew 
 
iv DEDICATIO N. 
 
 fiiew them, that his true and proper 
 Divinity is part of that Profeffion firfl 
 deliver'd to the Saints. The Gnoftics 
 (as great Pretenders to Knowledge as 
 the Arians of this Age) gave it an 
 early oppofition. This has been un- 
 fortunately revived in many fucceed- 
 ing Centuries, but never fubfifted ex- 
 cept by Fraud or Force ; and when 
 at the higheft, ovvd its growth not 
 to Councils legally calFd, and freely 
 held, not to the general Suffrage of 
 antient Dodors, but to the Conni- 
 vance or Encouragement of fecular 
 Powers. By thefe excellent Pieces, 
 the groundlefs Affertions of fome 
 zealous Moderns are dete(5ted, who are 
 often fending us to Montanus or Rome 
 for holding tliis Article, tho* (a) Ter- 
 
 tullian 
 
 XJ 
 
 •%) Ed. Rigak. adv. Praxeam, p. ^? 5. Fos verd & fem- 
 
 per, & nunc magis ut inftrudliorcs per Paracletum, de- 
 
 dU<3oromi^fciliGet omnis veritatis, 6<c. St. Jerome charges 
 
 ,. the 
 
bEDICATIO N. y 
 
 tdlian declares he belie v'd it, whilft 
 he was a Catholick ; and the World 
 neither felt nor fear'd the Errors and 
 Tyranny of Papal Power, when it 
 unxverfally obtain'd in the Weftern 
 Church. 
 
 I hope the Defign is executed 
 with exacftnefs enough to make it 
 ferviceable. As you have been re- 
 markable in your Station for oppo- 
 fing the Revival of old Herefy, and 
 modern Fanaticifm, I have taken the 
 Liberty to infcribe it to you. The 
 intended Refped: to your Characfter, 
 begs your Excufe rather than your 
 
 the Monfanifis -uc'ith Sabellianifm, fo far are they frora be- 
 ing Trinitarians, Ed. Froben. Tom. 2. p. 128. Ep. ad 
 Marceliam. Primum in Fidei regula difcrepamus, Ncs 
 Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum Sanftum infua unumquem- 
 que perfona ponimuf, licet fubftantia copulemus : \\\\ 
 [Montanifiac] SabeUii dogma fedantes, Trinitatem in uniuj 
 perionse anguftias cogunt. , According to TertuUian, if they 
 ^/•^ Trinitarians, that Faith ii not peculiar to Montanifm ; 
 according to Jerome, they are the contrar^^ even Sabel- 
 
 uans- 
 
 Ac- 
 
vi t)ED iCATIOK 
 
 Acceptance, and is wholly grounded 
 upon a Sentiment univerfally receiv'd 
 and put in pracflice ; That Honour 
 is always due to Merit and Station, 
 and that it is the Duty of one to offer 
 it, where there is no addition to ano- 
 ther in receiving it. 
 
 Honoured Sir^ 
 
 Tour mop; Humble Ser'vant^ 
 
 Fr. Holland. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 Contents of the Second Volume. 
 
 A Defence of the Nicene Faith. Sed. 4. Of the 
 Subordination of the Son to the Father, as to his 
 Original and Principle. Pag. r 
 
 C H A P. I. 
 "fhe Firfl T'hejts is proposed concerning this Subordination, 
 and confirmed by the unanimous Confent of the Anti- 
 entSy &c. ibid. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 The Second T'hefis is proposed and confirm' d, in which is 
 Jhewn, That the Amients with one Voice taught, dec. p. 1 5 
 CHAP. III. 
 A large Anfwer to the ObjeEiion, agaikjl what has been f aid 
 in the former Chapter, &c. p. 3 7 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 The third Thejis ispropofed, in which the XJfe vf the DoElrine 
 of the Son's Subordination is explained. p. 66 
 
 TheConduJion of the whole Work. p. 88 
 
 TH E Judgment of the Catholick Church of the 
 three Firft Centuries, &c. Preface. Pag. 102 
 The IntroduHion. p. io5 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The Tefiimonies of the Primitii/e Fathers^ That the Article 
 
 ^ ^f our Lord's Divinity is abfolutely necejfary to be believed, 
 
 in order to Salvation. p. 109 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Of thofe who in the Firft Age of Qhriftianity oppofed the 
 
 Do Brine of the Gofpel, concerning Chrifi's being God and 
 
 . M^n. p. 124 
 
 V C H A P. III. 
 
 Of thofe who deny'd Jefus Chrift to be true God, in the fe- 
 cond and third Ages, p. 152 
 
 CHAP, 
 
viu The C O N T E N T S. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Creeds of the Primitive Church : And firjiy of the 
 
 fir (I and mfl ' antient Creed^ and the Explications i>j it 
 
 iw'lren^us WTercullian. p. i^o 
 
 C H A P. V. 
 
 Of the Creed, call* d the Apoflles. P- i?* 
 
 ^ CHAP. VL : ^, 
 
 Of the antient Eaftern Creed. p- hoo 
 
 Notes upon the sth, 6th, and yth Chapters. p. 229 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 Of ,a famous Place in Juflin'i Dialogue with l^ryiphothe 
 '' Jew. P- ^48 
 
 Appendix to the Seventh Chapter. p. 2(58 
 
 r^'"- I-i E Primitive and Apoftolical Tradition con- 
 r^J^. cerning the received Dcdrine in the Catholick 
 
 '• Church, &c/ ithe IntroduBion. -u.,"^- p. 284 
 
 '-'■■' C H A P. ;I. 
 
 '^hat J.u{lin tx^as not the fir fl who introduced the DoBrine of 
 
 [.. ^-'mir Saviour's Pre-exi/ience before the World was madey 
 
 ■^ C H A P. IT. ' 
 
 I'/j^f'Juftin wasnot.d&ceivd hy the Frauds of f/)^ Sim Om- 
 an's, &o. P- 303 
 
 ^j. , ' :cH A P. HI. 
 
 CaATfJ-K^w^ Hegefippus, and his Opinion of the Peifon of 
 
 -^efusChri/l. W3^9 
 
 -^■^ C H A P; IV. 
 
 CfM'he Orphic Verfes, -^k^ i^y way of Digrejfton, (f the 
 ' 'SvbilHne Oracies, . &c. p. a iS 
 
 ; C H A P. V. ^ •- 
 
 T'hat Juftin did not Witrnfrom the Platonics the Notions he 
 has 9'i'ven m of the JVord. P- 359 
 
 ;^r C H A p. VI. 
 
 That Juftin entirely abhorr'd Paganifm^ and the Worjhip (f 
 more Gods, &c. V . U J p. 34^ 
 
 nAH ^ ^ 
 
m 
 
 '^aiv iJ^::>:: :::i:;r!il V^^/X %, /^i <fe % tkfniv, (fa. 
 
 A 
 
 D E F E N C 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 NiCENE Faith. 
 
 Vol. IL 
 
 SECT. iV. 
 
 Of the Subordination of the Son to the 
 Father y as his Original and Principle. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 2^^ Firfl lihefis is proposed co72cernmg this 
 Suhordinatio7z^ and confirm'' d by the unani- 
 mous Confe7it of the Aiiticjzts. It isfljewn^ 
 that the ina^tner of fpeaki7ig of j'o7ue 
 Moder7is, in which they call the Son God of, 
 or from Himfelf, is cozitrary to the Nicene 
 Sy7tod^ and the Opinio7i of all Catholick 
 i)oBors before and after it. 
 
 E have faid a great deal concerning the 
 Subordination of the Son to the Father, 
 by the way, in the preceding Seditions ; 
 but the Argument is very well worthy a 
 more accurate Explication by it fell, efpe- 
 cially fince in the beginning of our Work^ we pro- 
 VoL. U, A pofe4 
 
2 J DEFENCE of 
 
 pofed to confirm it by Teftimonies, as a diftlnft Head 
 ot Dodrine, deliver'd in the Nicene Creed. Lee this 
 be the Thefis concerning this Subordination. 
 
 T H E S I S I. 
 
 "The Catholick DcSiors ivho have wrote before and Jt nee the 
 ISliceije Council, have, by their Suffrage, confirmed that 
 Decree of the Council, in which it a, determined, that the 
 Son is God of God. For they have -with one Mouth taught, 
 that the Divine Nature and PerfeBicns agree to the Fa' 
 ther and the Son^ not collaterally, or co-ordinately, but 
 Jubrrdinately^ i. e. "That the Son hath indeed the fame 
 Dtvine Nature common with the Father, but communi- 
 cated by the Father ; fo that the Father alone hath that 
 Divine Nature of him fe If, orjnm no other ; but the Son 
 from the Father, and therefore, that the Father is the 
 Fountain, Original, and Principle of the Divinity which 
 is in the Son. 
 
 1. We need not give our felves much Trouble iri 
 proving that Part of our Thefis which relates to the 
 Ante-Nicene Dodors, becaufe it is fufficiently con- 
 firmed by moft of the Teftimonies cited concerning 
 the Generation of the Son in the fecond and third 
 Sections. T^he very Words Son and Generation do at firft 
 imply the f Subordination of the Son to the Father, 
 who begat him i and thefs Words they ufe every 
 where. Novatian, or the Author of the Book con- 
 cerning the Trinity among Tertullian*s Works, hath 
 indeed exprefs'd the common Notion of thefe Antients, 
 in a Place cited by us before more than once. What- 
 iotvtx, fays he, the Son is, he is not ofhimfelf, be- 
 caufe not unborn ', but of the Father, becaufe be- 
 gotten. Whether he is the Word, or the Power, 
 
 t T)f. Whitby nvouU make his Reader hslleve that B'tjlocp Bull 
 hats cwr'd a Subordination in Ejffence ; for to the Bipop'j Words he has 
 very honeffly added thefe [quoad elTentiam] and prh.ted the whole 
 Sentence in a dfferent CharaBer. But this is not the only Paffat^e, . In 
 vohirh h'- has teen forced upon very unfair Methods In order to prove 
 anAhfurd'ty upon the great Prelate, Vid. Modeftae DifquifitioDCs 
 praef, p, 23. 
 
 or 
 
the NickneFaith. I 
 
 or the Wifdom, or the Light, or the Son, and whgt- 
 foever of thefe he is, he is that from no other 
 Caufe than the Father, owing his Original to his 
 Father. "Jufitn Martyr ^ exprefly fays, {a) that the 
 Father is to the Son the Caufe of hi^ Being. Hence 
 it is ufual with the fame Jufiin^ and the other Ante- 
 Nicene Writers, to call God the Father, by way of 
 Diftinclion ; fometimes God abfolucely, fometimes 
 the one God, fometimes the God and Father of 
 all, (according to the (b) Scriptures) namel)', becaufe 
 the Father alone is' God of himfelf, but the Son Godl 
 of God. For this Caufe alfo thofe Writers, as oftea 
 as they name the Father and the Son together, com- 
 monly give the Name of God to the Father, denoting 
 the fecohd Perfon by the Title of Son of God, 
 or Saviour, or Lord, or fome fuch like Appel- 
 lation. 'TertuUian fpeaks well upon this Point : I 
 will follow the Apoftie, fays he^ fo that if the Fa- 
 ther and Son are to be named together, Til call the 
 Father God, and Jefus Chrift our Lord. Now I 
 can only call Chrift God, as the fame Apoftie does ; 
 of whom Chrift, who is God over all, blelTed for 
 ever. For I will call a Ray of the Sun by itfelf, 
 the Sun ; but when I name the Sun, whofe Ray it 
 is, ril not at the fame time call the Ray alfo the 
 Sun. 
 
 3.. But, as I faid, No-body can doubt whether the 
 Ante-Nicene Dodors acknowledge the Subordination, 
 of which we fpeak. It remains then to fhew, that 
 the Poft-Nicene Fathers delivered the fame Dodrine, 
 and were conftant Defenders of the Faith determin*d 
 in it, chat no one may think we have miftaken the 
 Words of the Nkene Creed. They alfo bravely afErm, 
 that the Father is the Caufe, Principle^ and Author 
 of the Son, and even call the Father the One God. 
 Firft, then, they call the Father the Principle of the 
 Son, namely, as that Word Principle iignifies that, 
 
 {a) Juftin, j&. 358, {h) 1 Cor. viii. 4. EpJi.iv. 6- John xvii. 5. 
 A a from 
 
4 :^DEFENCE^/ 
 
 from which fomething arifes, no matter how ,* that is, 
 whether in Time, or from Eternity ; not as it figni- 
 lies a Beginning of Exiftence, when a thing, which 
 before was not, begins to be. Athanajius thus {a) ex- 
 plains thofe Words of ^ohn: In the Beginning luas the 
 Word, as though the Evangehft had written, the Son 
 was in the Father : for according to John, the Word 
 was in this Principle, and the Word was with God. For 
 God is the Principle, and fince the Word was from 
 it, the IVord was God. Now Gregory Nyjfen {b) ac- 
 curately explains the (c) Notion of the Word Principle^ 
 how the Son hath the Father as his Principle; and 
 alfo, how he is without Principle : But fence the Word 
 'Af;^, or Principle, hath many Significations, and 
 an extenfive Idea, we fay there are fome of them, in 
 which we are not to deny to the only begotten Son 
 the Title of Beginninglefs. For when by the Word Be- 
 ginninglefs, we have the Notion of having a Subfiftence 
 from no Caufe, we confefs it to be proper to the Fa- 
 ther only : but when the Queftion is of any of the 
 other Significations of the Word Beginning, as when 
 it hath the Idea of the beginning of any Creature, of 
 Time and Order, in thefe we bear Teftimony to the 
 only Begotten, that he is above, or higher than Begin- 
 ning '} fo that we believe him, by whom all things 
 •were made, to be above every Beginning of Creation, 
 Notion of Time, and Degree of Order : So that the 
 Word is not Beginninglefs in Subfiftence, but in every 
 other refpe<5i:, is confefledly Beginninglefs j that the 
 Father is Beginninglefs, and Unbegotren, but that 
 the Son is after the manner aforefaid Beginninglefs, 
 but not Unbegotten. Thus alfo (d) Gregory Naz,ianz,en 
 explains how the Three Divine Perfons are equally 
 
 (^) Vol. I. Tom. I. p. 6\i, 
 
 {h) Ed. Grets. p. ii8. Lib. i. contra Eunomium. 
 
 (c) This Notion of St, Gregory Nyflen is aburtdavtly confrnid by 
 mavy Places of the AntientSy both before and after the Nicene Covtri' 
 cil, as is plain fromfeveral Notss I have made before, 
 
 (<0 Orat. 35. p. 56a, " " ^ 
 
 Beginning- 
 
the N I c E N E F A I T h; 5. 
 
 Beglnninglefs, and how the Father alone is Beginning" 
 lefs. How are they, the Son and Spirit, not Beginning- 
 lefs with him, the Father, if eternal with him ? They 
 are from him, but not after him. What is Beginning- 
 lefs, is Eternal j but what is Eternal, is not altoge- 
 ther Beglnninglefs, fo long as it is referred to the 
 Father, as the Beginning, they are not then Begin- 
 ninglefs with refpeft to the Caufe. And again^ (a) 
 the Father is properly faid of him that is Beglnning- 
 lefs, the Son of him that is begotten Beglnninglefs. 
 Laftly, Cyrillus Akxandrinus, in the beginning of his 
 firft Book of Commentaries upon John, teaches, that 
 the Father is the Principle of the Son or Beginning, 
 only as he is that from which he proceeded. 
 
 4. The Word Caufe ^/J/©-, or «e/77*, in Latin Caufa, 
 is of the fame nature with Principle, or Principium. 
 I have a little before obferv'd, that Jujiin Martyr hath 
 faid that the Father is the Caufe of the Son. Now, 
 the Catholick Authors who wrote after the Rife of 
 the ^r/^;^ Controveffy, fpeak after the like manner: 
 They fay that one Perfon in the Trinity, namely, 
 God the Father, is the Caufe, and that there are 
 which are caufed, the Son and Holy Spirit, (b) So 
 Confiamme the Great ; The Father is the Caufe of 
 the Son, and the Son is caufed. (c) So Athanafius 
 (or fome other Perfon, Catholick without doubt in tliis 
 Dodrine) The Son is not the Caufe, but the Caufed. 
 (d) Bnfil fays, We fay the Father is fet before the 
 Son, as Caufes are before thofe things that proceed 
 from them. And again, (e) The Father, what elfe 
 doth it fignify, but to be the Caufe and Beginning of 
 him, who is begotten of him ^ In like manner, 
 Gregory Naz>ianz,en (f) aflerts more than once, that 
 the Father is the Caufe of the Son and Holy Spirit : 
 For he would be the Principle of fmall things, and 
 
 (a) Pag. 590. (b) Eufeb. E. H, p. 4,80. (c) Tom. s. 
 p. 959. (d) Bafil, Tom. I. p. 720, (e) p. 724, (/) Greg» 
 JTaz. Orat. 29. Tonii i. p. 490. 
 
 A 3 things 
 
6 ;:^ DEFENCE^/ 
 
 things unworthy of him, if he was not the Caufe of 
 the Godhead in the Son and Holy Spirit. And a 
 little after ^ in the fame place ; There is one God, 
 the Son and Holy Spirit being referr'd to one Caufe. 
 And again he faith, that God the Father is the Princi- 
 ple, as the Caufe, Fountain, and eternal Light f. 
 Damafcme {a) alfo writes thus : We acknowledge 
 a Difterence of Sabfiftence in thefe Three Properties 
 only, in the Father's and uncaus'd ; the Son's and 
 c^us'd ; the Proceffive and caus'd. The fame Per- 
 fon, in his firft Book of Images, not far from the be- 
 ginning : The Son is the Image of the invifible God, 
 who hath the Father in him, and is in all things the 
 fame with him, except in this one, that he is from 
 him, as from a Caufe. For the Father is the natural 
 Caufe from which the Son proceeds. Of the Latins, 
 (b) Marius Vi£lorimis has fpoke after the fame manner : 
 But the Father is grearer, in that he gave all things to 
 the Son, and is to the Son the Caufe of his Being, 
 and of his being after fuch a manner. Now before, 
 T/itlorinus had faid, that the Son indeed was the prin- 
 cipal Caufe ot all things, but the Father the fuperior 
 Caufe, as bemg the Caufe of the Son. Hilary (c) calls 
 the Father the Caufe of the Nativity of the Son. 
 And (d) /peaking of the eternal Generation of the 
 Son, he faith. And being born of a Caufe, yet per- 
 fect and immutable, it is necelfary he be born of that 
 Caufe in the Propriety of that Caufe. Laftly, Au- 
 gufline (e) alfo fpeaks after the fame manner : God is 
 the Caufe of all things that are. As he is the Caufe 
 of all things, he is the Caufe of his own Wifdom, 
 nor was God ever v/ithout his Wifdom. Therefore he 
 is the eternal Caufe of his own eternal Wifdom, nor 
 is he prior in Time to his own Wifdom. 
 
 t Compare, with thefe Orat. 24. p. 429. and Orat, 27. p. 501. 
 
 (<?) Damafc. Lib. 5. de Orthod. fide, c. 5. Q)) In Lib. i. 
 adv. Arium. (c) Hil. de Trin. Lib. 11. (^) Lib. 12. 
 {e) Auguft. Lib. 73. Quseft. 16. 
 
 5. The 
 
the NiceneFaith. / 7 
 
 5. The Word Author is of the fame Signification, 
 which the Lat'm Doftors frequently attribute to the 
 Father, in refped of the Son. Thus {a) Hilary upon 
 that place of 5^o^w, chap. 5. ver. ip. If hedoeth what 
 he doth, by Authority 6f the paternal Nature in him, 
 the Father doeth it, who even now worketh on the 
 Sabbath. The Son is not to be accus'd of working, 
 inafmuch as he hath before him the Authority of the 
 Father's working. For the Words [the Son can't, C^c] 
 xnuft not be referred to Infirmity, but Authority, 
 Again, (b) Now fince the unbegotten God was the 
 Author of the perfed Nativity of the Divine BlefTed- 
 nefs, to be the Author of the Nativity is a facred 
 Property of the Father. But he is not difgrac'd, who 
 by a genuine Nativity makes up a compleat Image of 
 his Author. Nay, the fame Hilary does in other 
 Places very frequently ufe this Word i as in the ^th 
 Book, explaining the 44?^ Pfalm, he faith : Where- 
 fore God hath anointed thee, even thy God. Thy^ 
 with relation to the Author ; T'hee, to him who is of 
 the Author: For he is God of God. Again^ he is fo 
 the Image, not as to differ in kind, but to lignify his 
 Author. So in the Book of Synods, and in the Place 
 which we have cited elfewhere : He is fubjed to the 
 Father, as his Author, (c) Atiguftine q.\(o fpeaks nicely, 
 according to Cuftom : In the Fatrher, is infinuated to 
 us Authority; in the Son, Nativity i and in the Holy 
 Spirit, the Community of the Father and Son ; in the 
 Three, Equality. Of the fame Import are the Words 
 Root, Fountain, Head, which the antient Catholicks 
 do in like manner attribute to God the Father, with 
 refped to the Son and Holy Spirit. So Bajil: (d) For 
 the Father is he who hath a perfed; Exiftence, wanting 
 nothing, the Root and Fountain of the Son and Holy 
 Spirit. Thus alfo Amhrofe ; (e) The Father is Lord, 
 becaufe the Root of the Son. And again : (f) The 
 
 {rt) Lib. 9. de Trin. {h) Ibid. {c) Serm. ii.de Verb. 
 Domini fecurd.Matth. {d) Homil. 27. contraSabell. Toin. i. 
 p. 60(5. (e) Lib. 10. in Lucam. (/) In Lib. 4. de fulm. c. 5. 
 
 A 4 Father 
 
? :.^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 Father is the Fountain of the Son, the Father is the 
 Root of the Son. And Ruffinus, upon the Creed, 
 calls the Father the Head of the Son. And though he 
 is the Head of ail things, the Father is the Head of 
 him. 
 
 6. Laftly. The Afitieiits were not afraid to call 
 God the Father, as being the Principle, Caufe, Au- 
 thor, and Fountain of the Son, the one and only God. 
 Thus the very Nicene Fathers begun their Creed, 
 We believe in one God the Father Almighty, &c. And 
 then fubjoin, And m one Jefus Chrifl— — God of God. 
 ^The {a) Great Athanajius^ who knew the Senfe of the 
 JSlkene Council as well as any one, yields that the Fa- 
 ther is juftly caird the one God, becaufe only unbe- 
 gotten, and oniy the Fountain of the Godhead. 
 Omitting others, which I might cite, I (hall only add 
 to him the Auchoricy of Hilary. He explains the Paf- 
 fage of 'John the Evangelift, chap. 17. ver. 3. in his 
 3^ Book upon the Trinity, and Vv-rites thus: The 
 Son gives the Father due Honour, when he fays, 
 '^hee the only true God. But yet the Son doth not fepa- 
 rate himfelf from the Truth or ReaHty of God, or 
 the Godhead, when he adds, And Jefui Chri/i whom 
 thou hafi fent. There is n j Difterence in the Confef- 
 fion of Believers, becaufe in both of them is the Hope 
 of Life. Neither is the true God gone off from him, 
 who has him joindy [with the Son] When therefore 
 it is faid. That they may know thee the only true 
 God, and Jefus Chrifl: whom thou haft fent ', under 
 this Signification of him that fendeth, and him that is 
 fent, the Truth and Divinity of the Father and Son 
 is no way diflinguifhM ; but the Faith of our Religion 
 is fet to the Confeffion of one that begat, and another 
 that is begotten. To all thefe Tefiimonies, I will 
 add this by way of Conclufion, That this Dodrine of 
 one Principle in the Trinity without Principle, namely, 
 the Father, was fo fix'd and eftablifh'd in the pyimi- 
 
 ('t) Tom. 2. p. 570 
 
/y^^ N I C E N E F A I T H. g 
 
 tive Church, that in the 49th of thofe Canons, call'd 
 Apoftohcal, he is condemned, who fhall baptize into 
 Three [Perfons] Beginninglefs, or without Principle. 
 Upon which Canon, this is j Zonarai*s Note i For the 
 Church is taught to worfhip one Beginninglefs, the 
 Father, as having no Caufe j and one Son, as being 
 ineffably begotten j and one Comforter, the Holy 
 Ghoft. 
 
 7. This Thefis is efpecially worth Notice, upon ac- 
 count of fome * Moderns, who obftinately contend, 
 that the Son may properly be call'd God of himfelf. 
 This Opinion now is both repugnant to their Hypo- 
 thefes who defend it, and to Cacholick Confent. For, 
 they fay, that the Son of God is from God the Father, 
 as he is Son, not as he is God ; that he had his Perfon, 
 not his Effence or Divine Nature, from the Father. 
 But this is contradictory : For as Petavius (h) rightly 
 obferves, the Son cannot be begotten of the Father, 
 unlefs he have from him his Nature and Godhead. 
 For what elfe i^ it to be begotten, than to be born 
 of another after a Similitude of Nature ? Thus it is 
 necefTary that he who is begotten, (hould have a Na- 
 ture communicated from him that begat, that he may 
 be like him. But if Chrift, as he is the Son of God, is 
 not God, or without Divinity, he only had a Relation 
 from the Father : But a Relation can't be without a Sub- 
 jeft. A Perfon here can't be without a Subftance, unlefs 
 
 •j- See hoiv the Avfijuer to the Quenes trajiJlateSf and mutilates 
 ^onaras, p. 85. 
 
 * Dr. Clarke endeavoun tojhenv^ that this Notion is contrary to 
 another of the Bipop's, (Se£i:. 2. Chap. 9.) <where he dijilnguijhes our 
 iLord into God ahfoJuteJy, or relatively as God of Gody &c. and urges^ 
 that he muji either believe as they doy vihom he oppo/es, or contridlci 
 himfelf : Butivhere is the ContradiBion to fay this ? The Man that de- 
 vivd his Being from another is abfolnte Man^ and alfo Man in the 
 B.elation of a Son to him. from whom he deriv'd itt Car't this Di- 
 fiin&ion be made, and different Regards be had to this Man in each of 
 thefe refpeHsy nvithout affirming him to he in one of them a Man^ and 
 in the other a Perfon only. Is he not as <weU a Perfon j as he is an ab" 
 fblute Man, as he is one cvheti relatively con^derd? 
 
 (0 De Trin.Lib. 3. c. 5. n. 5. 
 
lo ::^^DEFENCE^/ 
 
 you make a Perfon in the Divinity to be only a mere 
 Mode of Exiftence, which is SabeUianiJm. 
 
 Hence the lame Petavms hath in another place jullly 
 pronounc'd them to be in a very great Error, (a) noc 
 verbal, as Bellarmme thought, but real, who would 
 have the Son to be God of himfelf. He fubjoins his 
 Reafons, that it overthrows, what he feems plainly to 
 profefs, namely, that the Son is gencra::ed of the Fa- 
 ther. For, fays he. Generation cannot be conceivM 
 without the Communication of fomething ; nay, fur- 
 ther, of no otiier thing, but Nature, ElTence, Sub- 
 fiance, for as much as the Produdion is I'ubftantial ; 
 and Geueration in this differs from other Propagations 
 of Quality or Quantity. But if ElTence is communi- 
 cated to the Son by Generation, he hath EfTence from 
 the Father, not from himfelf. Otherwife he would 
 either not be begotten, or not be begotten of another. 
 Hence Damafcenus (b) very well fays. All things which 
 the Son and Spirit have, they have of the Father, 
 even Exiftence itfelf. 
 
 8. How this Opinion is repugnant to CatholickCon- 
 fent, I nave (hewn a little before. The very Synod 
 of Nice hath decreed, that the Son is God of God : 
 but he who is God of God, can't be faid to be God 
 from himfelf, without a manifeft Contradiction. But 
 why do I endeavour to tye them up by the Authority 
 of the Nkene Council, who have no Regard to it ? 
 For the Rinjz-leaaer of this Sed is not afraid to call 
 the venerable Fat itrs of it Fanaticks; the Form of Con- 
 feffion, namely, God of God, Light of Light, very 
 God of very God, harfh, rautologous, and fitter for a 
 Sonnet than a Creed. * I dread to repeat what he 
 
 has 
 
 (a) De Trin. Lib. 6. c. ii. n. lo. (h) De Fide Orthod. 
 Lib. 1. c. ic. 
 
 * Dr. Clarke, fiPc take great Nice of this Pajfage', a dijjoirjtedy 
 Rnele Sfnteuce ', as they alfo do of niojl of the other Phces, which ex- 
 trefs or imjly the Subordrn'^tio^y either h the Holy Fathers, or cur 
 k 'rned wd pious B:Jl)op. It is enou7h <w ih them to f^y, that the 
 fVeight oj Truth obligd them to make fuch Concejfions. This Weapon 
 
 will 
 
/Z'^ N I C E K E F A I T H^ II 
 
 has faid, and ferioufly exhort the pious and ftudious 
 Youth to beware of that Spirit, from which fuch 
 things proceeded. We have indeed great Obligations 
 to that Perfon for his good Service in the Popifti Con- 
 troverfy ; but far be it from us to take him for our 
 Mafter, to fwear what he thinks fit to fay j or, laftly, 
 to be afraid, upon all juft Occafions, freely to cenfure 
 his manifeft Errors, his novel, uncatholick Tenets. 
 Whofoever he is, or in other refpefts how great foever, 
 who defpifes the Authority of the antient Catholick 
 Church, {o far we fhall give him no Credit or Au- 
 thority. The Sonnet, fo much derided by the Great 
 Man, was fung by a facred Choir of about three 
 Hundred Bifhops, and Presbyters and Deacons innu- 
 merable, aflembled in that Firft and moft Auguft 
 Oecumenical Synod. The Ame - Nicene Catholick 
 Dodors fung the fame with wonderful Harmony, as 
 we have provM by Citations from them in the fecond 
 and third Sedions. In a word. That the Son of God 
 is God of God, is the Voice and Song of the whole 
 Catholick Church of Chrift, confonant to the Word of 
 God in his holy Oracles, and never [in primitive 
 Times] oppofed by any, but at his own Peril. 
 
 9. I will add one thing further from Petavius, 
 (a) That that Opinion is manifellly contrary to the 
 Dofitrine of the firft Reformers, Luther and Melan- 
 Bhon. For Luther, (b) among many other things er- 
 roneoufly determined by that corrupt Church, reckons 
 that Decree of the Lateran Council, that the divine 
 Eflfence neither generates, nor is generated. Who 
 
 nviUferve any Perfon that ivlll make ufe of It. Suppofe the DoBor and 
 his Friends had, as they boaji^ all the Antients on their fide y and fame 
 Orthodox Adverfary JhouJd glean a feiv Pajfages, 'which they rather 
 chufe to rejeEl ivith Indignntiony than explain confijlently with their 
 Scheme^ tacking to them the famous Glofs {fee how far the Weight of 
 Truth will oblige^ &c.) how eaftjy might he be anf^verd ? 
 
 {a) DeTrin. Lib. 6. c, 12. n. i. (i) Tom. 2. fol. 70. Lib. 
 de Captiv. Babylon, 
 
 then 
 
12 'J DEFENCE of 
 
 then can doubt but that he thought their Opinion a 
 unanifeft Error, who plainly deny that God is born of 
 God, and teach that the Son is God, not from the 
 Father, bur himfelf ? MeLwBhcHj in his Explication 
 of the Nkene Creed, thinks it truly faid, that the Ef- 
 fence of the Son is begotten, as it is faid in the Creed, 
 God of God, Light of Light. Then he thus anfvvers 
 to th'^; Objedion : The fame cannot beget itfelf; 
 theref re fince EfTence is the fame, Effence can't beget 
 Eflence : The fame as incommunicable, can't beget 
 itfelf J but tne fame as communicable, is communi- 
 cated to the begotten : but Effence is communicable, 
 therefore is communicated to the Begotten. At the 
 fame time and place, Petavius very ridiculoufly hugs 
 himfelf in the Difagreement of Hereticks, as he calls 
 them, among themfelves. As though, forfooth, there 
 "Was no Clafiiing in the Church of Rome-, when in 
 this very Point, there is a manifeft Contradittion 
 between Richardus ViEiorinm^ and the Mailer of 
 the Sentences ; (to fay nothing of the Abbot 'Joa- 
 chim) the one faying with Auflin, and the other Fa- 
 thers, that Subftance begets Subftance, and Wifdom 
 Wifdom i the other aflerting, that Eflence doth not 
 beget Eflence. For Petavius, in vain, attempts to re- 
 concile thefe jarring Notions : He confefles, that moft 
 of the Schoolmen and Divines thought, that the Late- 
 ran Council had determined before tor the Opinion of 
 the Mafter againft the Dodrine of Richard. The Je- 
 fuit mufl: pardon us, if we give Credit to the Gene- 
 rality of Schoolmen and Divines, rather than Petavius 
 only. I will add, that by the fame Subtilties by 
 which Petavius endeavours to fet a Glofs upon the 
 Opinion of the Council and the Mafl;er, he may alfo 
 excufe that Error of Calvin's, which fo highly pro- 
 vokes him. The Cafe will be plain to any one, who 
 confiders it clofely. But I wifh that the Schoolmen on 
 both (ides of the Queftion, would forbear their trifling 
 Subtilties upon this mofl: venerable Myftery j and that 
 we might all embracCj with an holy Simplicity of Faith, 
 
 the 
 
the: NiceneFaith. i| 
 
 the Opinion of the Catholick Church, namely, that 
 the Son of God is God of God, and very God of 
 very God. 
 
 ID. What a great Man ob jefls, {a) That the Son is 
 by Origen call'd Wifdom itfelf. Truth and Righteouf- 
 nefs itfelf, is nothing at all to the purpofe. For it is 
 certain, that in thofe Words, the Pronoun which we 
 render [itfelf] imports only the Reality of the Thing, 
 not the Caufe, or Original ; fo that Origen intended 
 no more than that the Son, even as the Father, is the 
 moft perfed Wifdom, Truth and Righteoufnefs, not 
 in the mean time denying that the Son had all thefe 
 Perfedions from another, namely, from the Father, 
 For fo the fame Origen (b) calls the Son in another 
 Place, not only Wifdom itfelf, or the very Wifdom, 
 but alfo the very Son. Where it is plain He is call'd 
 the very Son, not as being the Son of himfelf, (for 
 what cou'd be more abfurd ?) but as being the true 
 and genuine Son of God. In this Senfe alfo Athannjius 
 applies the fame Words to the Son of God, as we 
 have cited him before. And in this Senfe, no Catho- 
 lick will deny that the Son of God is, 'A-j^oS?^?, i. e. 
 true and very God. Hence Eufebius {c) himfelf, who 
 acknowledged the Subordination of the Son to the 
 Father, as his Original and Principle, as much as any 
 one, never doubted to fay, that our Saviour was truly 
 to be worrtiip'd as the genuine Son of the Supreme 
 God, and as very God. Here the Word 'Av]o^h, it 
 is manifeft, does not denote God of, or from himfelf, 
 but the very God ; both becaufe the Son of God is 
 here caird 'At.^o2rfo<r, and that in the fame Breath the 
 Father is call'd the Supreme God, and alfo that the 
 Word 'Av7o.^of is explanatory of what went before, 
 namely the genuine Son : and laftly, from what fol- 
 lows in the fame Place ; for a little after, Eufehiu§ 
 fpeaking of the Government, and fupre me Empire of 
 
 (^) Chamier. Corp. Theolog.l. 5.C. 19. p. 10^. (^) Com- 
 ment, in Joannem, Torn. 32. £,d. Huet.p. ^\6. (c) li, H. 307. 
 
 our 
 
14 ^J DEFENCE of 
 
 our Saviour, fays, What could refift the Will of the 
 Word, King of all, Governour of all, and very God ? 
 Now the Son is by Eufehius call'd 'Auo^o?, as being 
 very God, truly God, or God himfelf. But perhaps 
 it may be worth the while to recite what the excellent 
 Valefius hath noted upon the Place (d). This Place, 
 fays he, is efpecially to be obferv'd, in which Eufebius 
 calls Chrift truly and of himfelf God; for this Place, 
 in my Judgment indeed, is fufficient to refute all the 
 Calumnies of thofe, who have believM Eufebius to be 
 infeded with Arianifm. The very learned Father 
 then is abundantly cleared of this Accufation by the 
 more plain Teftimonies we have cited before. But I 
 return to Origen. He exprefly affirms (e),That the Father 
 alone is God of himfelf, and ought to be call'd in that 
 Place, where he thus oppofes thofe Perfons, who, 
 that they might not feem to deny one God, either de- 
 termin'd, that the Father and the Son were the fame 
 Perfon, or that the Son was effentially different from 
 the Father : I'hey muji fay that God, with the Article, 
 is the 'At-^oOeof or very God of himfelf ,* beaufe our 
 Saviour fays, in the Prayer to the Father, That they 
 may know thee the only true God. But every thing 
 belides the '^v]o^,'q<; or God of himfelf, is, by participa- 
 tion of the Divinity, made God. f In the mean time, 
 in that very Place, Origen condemns thofe as denying 
 the Divinity of the Son, who place his Property, and 
 circumfcribe his Efl'ence, as different from the Father. 
 He then confefs'd that the Father and Son are of the 
 fame Subftance, therefore that the Son is true God as 
 
 (J) Valef. Not. p. 172. {/) Comment, in Joannem,Tom. 2. 
 p. 47. Ed. Huet. 
 
 f Tl:e Aff'ii-er to the Qj^erles (p. 41 .) 'ites tiao P(fjp>ges cut of 
 Origen'j Commer.t upon St. John (^the Place from 'whch thefe are 
 cited) hut takes no mrice cf this ■plain Declaration , '^vhich he m:ght 
 alfo have feen., if he hdd pleas' d. If he bonotu'd thef-j Fr. gmer^fs of 
 Dr. Clarke indeed, he is r2ct fo n:Uih to be hl-inid ; fo, p. 4, and 5. 
 of the Script. I)oBrir?e, hoih Origen and Athanafius are repvefented in 
 the fame maim'd conditicn* 
 
 well 
 
^^^ N I C E N E F A I T H, 15 
 
 well as the Father ; he confefs'd this, I fay, in the 
 fame Breath, in which he pronounc'd that the Father 
 alone could be call'd 'AyTuSto?, or God of himfelf ; fo 
 that Peta'uius doth in vain carp at Origen in this Place. 
 Confult Huetius upon the Place if you pleafe. 
 
 Grabe'j Annotations upon SeBion 10. 
 
 To the Places cited from Origenj Athanajtus^ and 
 EufebiuSy for the Phrafe in which the Son of God is 
 cail'd 'At/7o3tof, may be added the Authority of Epi- 
 phanius (a) : God the Word having in himfeif all Per- 
 fection, being Perfedion itfelf, very God, Power, 
 Mind, and Light itfelf. In what Senfe thefe Words 
 of his are to be taken by us, {b) Athanafius hath ex- 
 cellently told us. He is not thefe by Participation, or 
 as though he had thefe things externally, as thofe who 
 are partakers of him, or made wife by him, or arc 
 powerful or rational in him, but He is the very proper 
 Wifdom, Word, and Power of the Father. The 
 Word 'At/To prefixed to Names, for the moft part 
 fignifies, that the thing denoted by thefe Names is 
 properly, effentially, and in its own nature fuch [as 
 it is faid to be :] Thus Suidas teaches. The Philo- 
 fophers, ufed the Word 'A.v]o for properly fpeaking, and 
 they noted the Idea by this Word, faying 'AuWp9p»Tof, 
 (a very Man, or the Idea of Man) and 'AvTaJh^a^y^ than 
 which is properly, or rather to be thought. After 
 this manner, no Catholick can deny, as one excellent 
 Author has well obferv'd, that Chrift is 'At/76;^or, or 
 very, proper God. Nor does he lefs truly deny that 
 he is to be calTd 'Al'7;>.©-, as the prefixed tlulo denotes 
 that this or that is fo, or fo of itfelf, but hath not a 
 Subftance or Quality deriv'd from another. For it is 
 certain that Chrift had his Godhead and Divine At- 
 tributes from the Father. 
 
 (_a) Epiphan. Haeref, 77. (V) Vol. 1. Tom. p. 46. 
 
 CHAP 
 
i6 
 
 ::^DEFENCE/ 
 
 CHAP. IL 
 
 'Ihe Second I'hefis is proposed and coitfirvPd^ 
 in which isjhewn^ 'That the Antie7its with 
 one Voice taught^ that God the Father^ as 
 heing the Original and Principle of the 
 JSon, was greater tha?i He, and alfo-, that 
 the Son is in Nature equal to the Father, 
 
 ISuppofe I have, in the former Chapter, fufficiently 
 demonftrated chat the Antients commonly acknow- 
 ledg'd the Subordination of the Son to the Father, as 
 his Original and Principle. Now that I am about to 
 fhew what they determin'd in confequence of it, I 
 propofe to illuftrate and confirm this Tnefis. 
 
 T H E S I S II. 
 
 A he Catholick DoSlors loth before and after the Synod o/Nice, 
 have unaninKuJly determin'd , that God the Father it 
 greater than the Son, even with refpeSl to his Divinity^ 
 namely, not in Nature, or any effential Perfection which is 
 in the Father and not in the Son ; but in Authority, i. e. 
 Original alone, as the Son is from the Father, not the 
 Father from the Son. 
 
 In this Thefis we afTert two Things, ifi. That the 
 Antients determin'd. That God the Father was great- 
 er than the Son, even with refped to his Divinity : 
 idly. That they neverthelefs taught that the Father 
 was greater than the Son in Original only, but that 
 both were in Nature equal. We will ihew that the 
 Antients delivered both thefe Dodrines with one 
 Voice ; and firfl: we will begin with thofe who wrote 
 before the Rife of Arianifm. 
 
 2. Of whom Juflin, almoft the antienteft of them 
 all, manifelUy makes a certain Order, or as it were 
 
 Pegree 
 
the N'iceneFaith. 17 
 
 Degree of Dignity in the Holy Trinity. In the 
 Apology in the Vulgar Editions, call'd the Second, he 
 faySj (a) That the Chfiftians did rationally reverence 
 Chrift, giving him the fecond Place. And immediately 
 after he again fays, That the Chriftians did juftly give 
 to Jefus Chrift the fecond Place after the unchangeable, 
 eternal God the Father of all Things {h). Again, in 
 the fame Apology i The firft Power after God, the 
 Father and Lord of all things, is the Son, who is the 
 Word. And it is parallel to this, that in the fame 
 Apology, he again calls the Son (c) the Power next 
 after the fupreme God. Laflly, In the Dialogue with 
 T'rypho, (d) he calls the Son theMinifterial God of God, 
 the Maker of all things. Yet the fame Juftia elfe- 
 where, namely, in his Epiftle to Diognetm, exprefly 
 denies that the Son of God is a Minifter, calling him the 
 Maker and Creator of all things. See the remarkable 
 Paflage cited entire before (e). You'll fay, how caa 
 thefe things be reconcil'd ? Eafily. When the Son is 
 call'd the fecond, or next after the Father, or the 
 Minifter of the Father, thefe Words denote a Subor- 
 dination of Perfons, as being originated one of ano- 
 ther, but not a Difterence or Inequality of Nature in 
 the Divine Perfons. The Father, as Father, is firft 
 in the Holy Trinity , the Son is next to the Father. 
 In all the Divine Operations, the Son is the Minifter 
 of the Father, as he operates from God the Fa- 
 ther, the Fountain and Original both of the Di« 
 vine Eftence and Operations ; and the Father by 
 him; not the Father from him, or he by the Father. 
 Upon which account, Clement of Alexandria, (f) a true 
 Catholick in this Article, doubted not to write thus 
 concerning the Son of God : All the Power of the Lord 
 is referr'd to the Almighty i and if we may fo fpeak, 
 the Son is the Energy of the Father. In the mean 
 time, in moft of thofe places in which he calls the Son 
 the Minifter of the Father, he has refped to that 
 
 («) Pag. 60, {F) p. 74. (c) p. 93. (^) p.27j;. (OSea. 2. 
 Ch.4. n. 6. (f) p. 505. Clem. Alex. 
 
 Vol. II. B Difpen- 
 
i8 ^DEFENCE ^/ 
 
 Difpenfation which he the Son freely underwent for 
 the Salvation of Mankind j (as I (hall fhew hereafter) 
 and that not firft begun from his Incarnation, but 
 from the Fall of Man. But the Son is truly denied 
 to be the Minifler, or Servant of the Father, with 
 refpeft to the fame Divine Nature, which he hath in 
 common with the Father, though communicated by 
 him, I. e. as he is not one of the Creatures of God, 
 which are properly faid to minifter to God ; but true 
 God, even as the Father. The Son is alfo juftly call'd 
 the Maker and Creator of all things, as well as the 
 Father, becaufe, though he had the Divine Nature 
 and Omnipotence from the Father, he made all things 
 not by that of another Perfon, but by his own natu- 
 ral Power and Omnipotence. Some of the Antients 
 indeed have faid that the Father made this World by 
 the Son, as by an Inftrument, meaning a connatural, 
 not an extraneous Inftrument, as Grotius hath well ob- 
 ferv'd fomewhere. Hence Irenaus hath faid, that the 
 Son minifterM to the Father in the very Creation ; 
 who is, notwithftanding, as ftrenuous as any Man, ia 
 aflerting the natural Equality of the Father and Son. 
 (a) 'Juftm has fully and exadly comprehended the 
 whole Matter in a few Words, in his Dialogue with 
 Irypho, where, in his Notes upon this place of Genejis, 
 'The Lord rain'd Fire from the Lord out of Heaven ^ he 
 faith ; The Words of the Prophet fhew that there 
 were two in number ; one on Earth, who fays, that 
 he defcended to fee the Cry of Sodom ; another in Hea- 
 ven, who is the Lord of the Lord upon Earth, as be- 
 ing Father, and God and the Caufe of Exiftence to 
 him, who is alfo powerful, and Lord and God ; I fay, 
 that from this ftiort Sentence, we have a Key to open 
 the Senfe of all thofe Places, in which ^uflin feems to 
 have fpoken lefs honourably of the Son of God. Here 
 he teaches that God the Father is God, and Lord of 
 his Son : How ? As he is the Fountain of the Divinity, 
 
 ('*)PaSC35S» 
 
 and 
 
the N I C E N E F A I T H. ip 
 
 and the Caufe of the Son's Exiflence. The fame 
 Perfon, notwithftanding, doth no Jefs clearly teach 
 in the fame Breath, that dje Son is God and Lv^rd, 
 even as the Father ,* or that the Fatiier granted ^it to 
 the Son, that he (hould be what he is, G^d and Lord. 
 The Son then is lefs man the Father, as he hath a 
 Caufe ,• but equal to him in Nature, The Son is 
 equally God and Lord as the Fattier, and in this only 
 differs from the Father, that he is God and Lord From 
 the Father, who is God and Lora ot mm lei f^ /". e. as 
 the Ntcene Synod hach determined it, God of God, 
 and very God of very God We aifo conclude more 
 firongly (if indeed there can be any Difficulty in 
 fuch plain Words ) from hence, that this is Jujiin's 
 Meaning, becaufe in the Words immediately pre- 
 ceding, he defcribes the Generation of the Son from 
 the EfTence of the Fatner, and fays, that the Son is 
 begotten of the Father, not by a Divifion of the pa- 
 ternal Elfence, but by a fimple Communication, fuch 
 as is betwixt the Fire that kindles, and the Fire thac 
 is kindled. 
 
 The Fire kindled, as Jufiin elfe where (a) exprefly 
 fays, is of the very fame Nature with that from which 
 it was kindled, and only differs in that Communica- 
 tion. Thus the Son is the true Divine Light, as well 
 as the Father, nor is any way inferior to him, but as 
 he is Light of Light, according to another Determi- 
 nation of the Nicene Council. And, indeed, to put 
 the Reader in mind of it once for all, whofoever ac- 
 knowledges the Son to be confubflantial with the Fa- 
 ther (which Jufiin, and the other Antients, have done 
 to a Man, as I have fliewn before) he, upon that very 
 account, does by confequence necefl'arily confefs thac 
 the Son is in Nature equal to the Father. How, I 
 befeech you, can any one believe the fame Divine Na- 
 ture to be common to the Son with the Father, and 
 yet think that the Son wants fome exTential Property 
 
 (a) See SeSt. 2. chap, 4. n. 5. 
 
 B a of 
 
20 ^J DUVENCU of 
 
 oF the Divine Nature, and is confequently inferior to 
 the Father ? It' Chrift be the Son of God, and the 
 true Son, namely, begotten of the Effence of the Fa- 
 ther, he is neceflarily equal to his Father in Nature, 
 i. e. in thofe things which are proper to the Father, 
 as God. This we fee in the Propagation of all Animals, 
 efpeciaily Men ; for all Men are by Nature equal, 
 and only differ in Accidents, which have no place in 
 God, or the Divine Nature. Nay, further, no Sub- 
 ftance can be more a Subftance or lefs a Subftance than 
 another : If fo, then there can be no Queftion or 
 Controverfy concerning the Diffimilitude of thofe 
 things, which cannot be more or lefs perfed one than 
 another, namely, of Subftances in general, and by 
 confequence of the Divine Subftance : But this by the 
 way. I proceed from yuftin to the other Fathers. 
 
 5. Irenmii exprefly fays, that the Father is greater 
 than the Son. {a) The Lord-, fays he^ is the only true 
 Mafter for us to learn from, that the Father is above 
 all ; for he faith, the Father is greater than I. Now 
 we have before fhewn, that here he had an efpecial 
 Regard to the human Nature of Chrift. But he faith, 
 (I;) That the Father commanded the Son to make the 
 World : And again, That the (c) Son miniftreth to 
 the Father in all things; which Words manifeftly fig- 
 nify a certain Eminence of the Father above the Son, 
 even as he is moft properly the Son of God. Yet the 
 fame Irenaus faith, (d) that the immenfe Father is mea- 
 fur'd in the Son, and that the Son is the Meafure of 
 the Father, becaufe he comprehends him. In this 
 place, I have fufficiently demonftrated before, that 
 the Equality of the Father and Son, as to Nature, is 
 plainly declarM. Therefore, according to IrenauSy 
 the fame Son, who, in refped to his Original from 
 the Father, and the Difpenfation he undertook, was 
 lefs than the Father j in refped to his Divine Nature, 
 
 (/») Page 207. (^) p. 334. (OP'^JO. (rf) Vid. fupra, 
 Se^, 2, chap. 5. n. 4. 
 
 which 
 
f y^^ N I c E N E Fait h » 2 1 
 
 which he hath in common with him, is equal to the 
 Father j namely, fo as to contain and comprehend 
 him all, how great foever. In like manner, in taat 
 famous Place, where he compares the Word and the 
 Creatures, he exprefly notes this principal Difference, 
 that no Creature is equal to his Maker, God the Fa- 
 ther i thereby maniteftly fignifying that the Word and 
 Son of God is altogether equal to God the Father. 
 See the entire Place, Se6t. 2. chap. 5. n, 5. But what 
 need of m.any Words ? whofoever has any Scruple in 
 this Matter, let him read Book 2. Chap. 24. of Irenaus, 
 There the holy Man is wholly employ'd in fhewing 
 againft the ValentinianSj that it is very abfurd and 
 blafphemous to fay, the Word was imperfed, which 
 ■proceeded from the perfeft Father. In the fame Place, 
 he fharply rebukes the fameHereticks, for making cheir 
 Nus or Mind a perfed JEon, and abfolutely equal to 
 the Father of all things j yet believing their Word, the 
 Offspring of Ntis, to be imperfed, and plac'd in a 
 State of Deminoration, (as the Verfion hath it.) Of 
 many things in that Chapter to our purpofe, we wnll 
 cite this Place, {a) For, fays he^ the Father of all is 
 not (as we have fhew'd before) like a certain com- 
 pounded Animal, fomething befide the Nus or Mind ; 
 but Nus is the Father, and the Father is Nus. It is 
 therefore neceffary, that he who is the Word from 
 him, nay, that the very Nus, which is the Word, 
 fhould be perfed and impaffible. And a little after. 
 The Logos then (not poffeffing, * as they fpeak, the 
 third Order of Generation) was not ignorant of the 
 Father, as they teach. For this will be thought more 
 probable perhaps in the Generation of Men, fince 
 they often know not their Parents ^ but it is abfo- 
 lutely impoffible in the Word of the Father. After- 
 wards he boldly pronounces in the fame place, that 
 they are blind to right Reafon, who fay the Word 
 
 («) Page 179. 
 * 7he Valentinians fald the Word nuas tie Thkd, Irenasus the 
 
 Seconds 
 
 B 3 was 
 
22 :^ DEFEN CE (?/ 
 
 was fent forth in a State of Inferiority. It is then 
 very certain that Irenaus ackno\vledg*d the natural 
 Equality of God the Father, and of his Word, or 
 Son. 
 
 4. Clement of Alex, feem'd to have taught in a Place 
 {a) afore-cited, that the Son of God is the next Power 
 after his Father. But the fame Clement (in a Place, 
 which I have alfo cited before) fays, that the Son is 
 the perfect Word, born of the perfed Father j that is, 
 that the Son is not inferior to the Father in any degree 
 of Perfedion. But he fpeaks yet more exprefly in 
 another place : Tne D:vine Word, moll manifeftly 
 G 'd, who is made equal to the Lord of the Univerfe> 
 for he V as his Son, and tne Word was in God. Ob- 
 ferve. The Word, or Son ot God, whom he had in 
 another Place cali'd, with refped to his Original, the 
 fecond from and next to God, he here exprelly pro- 
 nounces as equalized to the Father; and that upon 
 this account, becaufe he is hs Son, that is, begotten 
 of him, and of the fame Nature and Eflence with 
 him ; and becaufe the Word is in God, that is, fub- 
 fifts in his D'vine ElTence, in which there is nothing 
 imperfect. Now it is efpecially to be obferv'd, that 
 in the fame Breath, in which he makes the Son equal 
 to the Father, he owns a certain Eminence or Pre- 
 rogative of the Father above the Son, whilft he calls 
 the Father Lord of all. God the Father namely, is, 
 by V ay of Diflindion, call'd Lord of all, as being the 
 Caufe and Origir.al not only of all the Creatures, but 
 of the Son himfelf, though after a different manner ; 
 namely, as he is the Caufe of him., by an eternal Ge- 
 neration out of his own Eflence ; of them^ by a Pro- 
 dudion out of Nothing, made in Time. Saving there- 
 fore to the Father his Prerogative.^ by which he is the 
 Father and Original of every Being, Clement teaches * 
 
 that 
 
 {d) Se8:. 2. chap. 6. n. 6. 
 
 * Hhefe Words might have led fome late Writers into another <way 
 ^ffp^^^'^g '1 fi*' "When they ajfert that the Son is not in Nature the 
 
 fame 
 
the NiceneFaith, 2j 
 
 that the Son is equal to him, namely, as he hath the 
 fame common Nature with him. What Sandius an- 
 fwers to this Place, is ftrange indeed. It is plain, 
 fays he, that it is corrupt. Yes, indeed ? Can Sandius 
 (a) then, produce one Book, in which the Place is 
 ocherwife read ? He cannot. But the Sophift does as 
 he ufes to do. As often as he is prefsM with the 
 Teftimony of any Antient, which he can*t otherwife 
 elude, he cuts the Knot, which he can't untyej impu- 
 dently afferting, in fpight of the Confent of all Co- 
 pies, that the Place is corrupt, that the Author 
 thought and wrote otherwife. But who gave this 
 Trifler fuch a Power over the Antients, as to rejed, 
 as fpurious, what he does not like ? Now, fays he, it 
 appears to be corrupt, by the Reafon produced, be- 
 caufe he was his Son. From which Reafon, it was 
 natural for the Gentiles to conclude the quite con- 
 trary i for it never enterM into their Minds to think 
 that the Son was equal to and coeval with the Father. 
 But why has Sandius added the Word Coeval? That 
 Word is not in the Place cited, nor does Clement there 
 diredly treat of the Son's Coeternity, (he hath aflferted 
 that in other PaflTages, which we have elfewhere cited^ 
 but of his natural Equality with the Father j which 
 he rightly gathers from hence, becaufe he is the true 
 and genuine Son, begotten of his Subftance, and fub- 
 iifting in him. This Inference is firm and folid in the 
 Judgment of all Men. For the human Father and the 
 human Son are, in refped of the fame human Nature 
 common to both, altogether equal, as I have faid be- 
 fore. But if Clement had from the fame Reafon con- 
 cluded that the Son is coeval with the Father, he had 
 not mifs'd the Mark : For the Coeternity of the Son 
 neceffarily follows from his Confubftantiality, as we 
 
 fitme ivith the Father, the Reafon they give for it is, hecaufe he is mt 
 fupreme. If they had dejign'd to have brought this Controverfy to an 
 Head, they fhould have confiderd the B flop's Salvo. 1 meddle not luitb 
 the Notion, nor attempt to expofe, -what is fo manifeflly zinphilofophicaU 
 {a) Appendix ad Nucl. p. 99, and 139. 
 
 P 4 have 
 
H ^ DEFENCE of 
 
 have fliewn before. For the in Men the Son mull 
 be later than his Father, in God Reafon teaches us 
 the very contrary. No Perfon can begin to exift from 
 and in the Divine Eflence, who was not before, with- 
 out deftroying the Immutability of God. Now that 
 God is immutable, is the common Notion of Man- 
 kind. Therefore if the Son be the true and genuine 
 Son of God the Father, that is, proceeds from the 
 Subftance of the Father, and fubfifts in him, he muft 
 be naturally equal to his Father, and alfo coeval and 
 coeternal. Thus Sandius at laft concludes his Anfwer: 
 I fee not how Clement can make the Son equal, who 
 calls him the Minifler of the Father's Will. But if 
 Sandius did not fee it when he wrote thefe things, he 
 nay now fee it from what we have difcourfed in this 
 Chapter. Indeed, to fpeak freely, this profound Wri- 
 ter, by what he hath difputed in this place, and 
 afterwards, feems to be forfaken of the Catholick 
 Faith, and found Judgment. God grant him a more 
 fober Mind. 
 
 5. Tertullian is the next to Clement. He in many 
 places gives the Father a Pre-eminence over the Son. 
 Peta'ums, Sandius, and others, have fo proclaimed this, 
 that I fhall not fpend my time upon it. But the fame 
 'Tertullian (which they have generally conceal'd) doth 
 often, and that no lefs plainly and exprefly determine, 
 that the Son is naturally equal to the Father. Thus, 
 he fays, that (a) the Father gave all things made by 
 him to the Son f, who is not inferiour to himfelf. 
 Sandiui's Anfwer to this Place is more worthy Deri- 
 fion, than Refutation : For he makes a Difficulty 
 •where he finds none. The fame Tertullian exprefly 
 faith, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 
 are not only of one Subftance, but of ope Power alfo ', 
 
 {a) . ?. 44c. iri fine. 
 
 f We have a crificnt Si-i/pii'ion cf Vr* Whitby'j upon the Ke<td'ng, 
 hut no Author'ity for altering it^ except that then' it he:t:-r ferved the 
 DoBors Purpof^. Hk Bilh-ys Reading has the Ai^thriiy of the An- 
 dents for it. ■ ■ ' ■ •' 
 
f;^^ Nic EN E Faith. 2$ 
 
 that all the Names and Attributes of the Father agree 
 to the Son ; and that the Son is equal to the Father ; 
 that the Father and Son are join*d, and equaliz'd. 
 \Vc have cited the exprefs Places, which can-c be 
 eluded, in SeB. 2. Ch. 7. N. 4. To thofe you may 
 add thefe : (h) TertuUian owns, as we have before ob- 
 ferv'd, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a 
 Trinity of one Divinity. In thefe Words, it is cer- 
 tain Tertullian intended, that all the three Perfons are 
 abfolutely in Nature equal. Thus he fays againft 
 HeriMgenes : Nor fhall we border upon the Gentile No- 
 tions, which, when forcM to confefs a God, place 
 other Gods below him. But Divinity hath no Degree, 
 as being only one. And a little after. The Divinity 
 can never be lefs than itfelf. Whence he exprefly 
 teaches, in the fame Book (c), that God had his Wif- 
 dom coexifting with him from Eternity, as not being 
 inferiour to him, or in State different from him. Here 
 he therefore plainly concludes, that the Wifdom, or 
 Son of God, is equal to God, whofe the Wifdom is, 
 becaufe not in ftate different from him ,• that is, con- 
 fubftantial with him. When therefore {d) Tertullian 
 fays, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three, 
 not in State, but Degree ; by Degree he means Order, 
 and not a greater or lefs Divinity. For thofe whom 
 he confefl'es to be three in Degree, he denies to be 
 different in State. Now, as we have feen, when 
 Tertullian fays any thing is not in State different from 
 another, he means the fame as if he had faid, It is 
 not inferiour to it, but equal and alike. Upon which 
 account he fays, in the fame place, a little after, that 
 the three Perfons of the Sacred Trinity are all of one 
 Power, and confequently none of them more power- 
 ful, or excellent than another. Thus the Divinity 
 has no Degree ; that is, as TeriulHan exprefly inter- 
 prets himfelf, is never inferiour to itfelf: But yet 
 there are Degrees in the Divinity, that is, a certain 
 
 0)P, 231. CO p.. 239' (^)p'5^i' 
 
 Order 
 
^6 ^DEFENCE ^/ 
 
 Order of Perfons, of which one takes his Original 
 ;from another ; fo that the Father is the firft Perfon 
 exifting of himfelf, the Son the fecond from the Fa- 
 ther, and the Holy Ghoft the third, who proceeds 
 from the Father by the Son, or from the Father and 
 the Son. Wherefore Come Learned Men have unjuftly 
 charged Tertullian with the Herefy of Apollinaris, who 
 made Steps or Degrees of Dignity in the Divine Per- 
 fons; and, as Theodoret (f) reports, faid, that there was 
 in the Trinity, Great, Greater, and Greateft; as tho' 
 the Spirit was great, the Son greater, and the Fa- 
 ther greateft. But our very Learned Writer plainly 
 rejeded this Dotage. Novatian, or the Writer of the 
 Book about the Trinity, inferted among T'ertullians 
 Works, is of T'ertullians mind. For he, when he 
 makes the Son lefs than the Father, fo explains him- 
 felf, as to refer this Inferiority to his Original only. 
 His Words are exprefs (f) ; It is necefifary that the 
 Son (hould be lefs than the Father, as knowing him- 
 felf to be in him, having an Original, becaufe he is 
 born. As for the Divine Nature, the fame Perfon 
 exprefly teaches, that the Father and Son are one. 
 For explaining thofe Words of our Lord to the yewf, 
 I and the Father are om^ he writes thus (g) : So as for 
 the Crime of Blafphemy, he calls himfelf the Son, 
 not the Father ; but as to his Divinity, by faying * / 
 and the Father are cne^ he hath prov'd, that he is the 
 Son, and God. He is therefore God, but fo God, as 
 
 (0 Contra Hserel^ p. 107. (/) p. 729. (^) p. 722. 
 
 * It is perfeBly naufeous to cbferve, how often fame late Wrlteys In 
 this Contvovevfy have mentiond other Interpretations of thefe Words 
 from this Author, nvithcut any Limitation or Exception, or any regard 
 to this. Where the Authors are voluminous, and the Pajfages nvidely 
 dijianty fomcthinv may he faid in excufe ; but fo often to cite an Au- 
 thor, all zihofe Writings dont make 30 entire Faires, and negleB to 
 reconcile their AJfertions from him, with other Pajfages ivhich feem to 
 enervate them, looks like writing for a Canfe, rather than Truth. 
 The Rfadr will do well to corfult Tertullian alfo upon this Text^ 
 (ad'/. Prax. c. 22, &c.) and obferve with what Candour and In- 
 genuity he is cited in the modeji DifqiiifilionSy p. 141. 
 
 that 
 
the NiceneFaith^ 27 
 
 that he is the Son, not the Father. The Senfe of the 
 Author is plain : Chrift, in his Difcourfe to the Jews, 
 preferv'd both the Pre-eminence of the Father, and 
 aUb his true Divinity equal to the Father's ; the one 
 by owning the Father, and confeiling himfelf the Son ; 
 the other, by faying that he and the Father are one. 
 Hence the Author infers, that the Son is true God, 
 as well as the Father, with this Difference only, that 
 the one is the Father, the other the Son. 
 
 6. Origen (h) profefledly defends the Prerogative of 
 the Father comparM to the Son : Grant, fays he, that 
 fome in the Multitude of thofe that believe^ and diffent 
 from us, inconfiderately fuppofe that our Saviour is 
 God over all ; yet we don't think him fuch, who are 
 perfuaded by him, when he faith, 'The Father thatfent 
 me is greater than 1. He lafhes the Noetians, as I ob- 
 ferv'd before, who faid our Saviour was the very God 
 the Father, who is called the Lord of all. Againft 
 them, he fhews that our Saviour did fo differ from 
 the Father, as that he was in fome Senfe inferiour to 
 him. And he gives us this Profeffion of his, as a 
 common Doftrine of the Church, ranging thofe with 
 the Heterodox who thought otherwife (/'). A little 
 after, when Celfus objeds to the Chriftians as their 
 common Sentiment, the Dodrlne of Marcion, who 
 taught that Jefus, who is from God the Father, is 
 God Superiour to the Maker of the World, he thus 
 anfwers : For we who fay that the vifible World is 
 his who made all things, plainly affirm that the Son is 
 not greater than the Father, but lefs. And this we 
 fay, perfuaded by him who hath told us_, The Father 
 that Jem me is greater than I. Laftly, the fame Origen 
 calls the Son the fecond God {k). This notwith- 
 ftanding Origen in more places than one manifeRly 
 teaches, that the Son is equal to the Father. Thus, 
 when the Epicurean Celfus palm'd this Sentiment upon 
 the Chriftians, becaufe {I) God is great, and not to 
 
 (^) p. 387. contra Celfum* (i)p.388. (y^Op-^jS. COp-S^S. 
 
 be 
 
28 ::^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 be beheld, having put his own Spirit into a Body like 
 ours, he fent him hither, that we might hear and 
 learn of him, he anfwers thus : The God of all, even 
 the Father, is not great alone, as we think. For he 
 hath communicated himfelf and his Greatnefs to the 
 only Begotten, and firft-born of every Creature, that 
 he being the Image of the invifible God, might in 
 Greatnefs alfo preferve the Image of the Father. For 
 it was not poffible, if I may fo fpeak, that he fhould 
 be a proportionate and true Image of the invifible 
 God, if he did not reprefent the Image of his Great- 
 nefs. Here you fee that Origen^ who elfewhere fays 
 that the Son is inferiour to the Father, exprefly affirms, 
 that the Father hath even communicated his Great- 
 nefs to the Son, fo that the Son is equal to his Fa- 
 ther in Greatnefs. How will you reconcile thefe 
 things ? The Cafe is plain : The Son is inferiour to 
 the Father, with refped to his Original ; but equal 
 to the Father, as born of him, and having the fame 
 common Divine Nature with him. The Son is as 
 great as God the Father; but that he is fo, is owing 
 to the Father. Nay further, the fame Origen (m) fo 
 calls the Son the fecond God, as to put in this exprefs 
 Caveat, That we are not to underftand it of any Di- 
 vine Perfeftion in the Father, and not in the Son. 
 Thefe are his Words : When we call him the fecond 
 God, let them know, that by the fecond God we 
 mean nothing elfe, but a Power comprehenfive of all 
 Powers. Immediately after, he calls the Divine Per- 
 fon of Chrift, the very Word, the very Wifdom, and 
 Righteoufnefs. Origen then very clearly fignifies, that 
 he and other Catholick Chriftians, who called Chrift 
 the fecond God, never intended to afcribe to the Son 
 an imperfed Divinity ; but, on the other hand, ownM, 
 that the Son was fo the fecond God, that he was very 
 God, and not in any Perfedion of the Divinity infe- 
 riour to the Supreme Godj even the Facher; there- 
 
 (w) p. 2^8. 
 
 fore 
 
the N 1 c E N E F A I T H. 29 
 
 fore that he was in this fenfe only called the fecond 
 God, as he was God of God, and originate of the 
 Father. In a word, Ovigen called the Son fecond God 
 no otherwife, than as Bafil call'd the fame Son fe- 
 cond in Order from the Father. Whilft I read Origen 
 thus fpeaking, how am I griev*d for thofe Calumnia- 
 tors, who have chargM this Herefy upon the very 
 Learned and Holy Father ; namely, that the Son, com- 
 pared with the Father, is a petty God ! For without 
 doubt there is fcarce one of the Primitive Fathers, 
 who hath more openly rejeded this Blafphemy. ! 
 
 7. Dionyfius Alexandr. in his Anfwers to the Queries 
 fet after his Epiftle to Paulus Samofat, thus brings in 
 Chrift, fpeaking out of the Prophet 'Jeremy : I Chrift, 
 a Perfon always exifting, equal to the Father, as being 
 in nothing unHke him. You may read the entire 
 Place cited. Sect. III. C/;. 4. iV. 3. Now what is 
 clearer than thefe Words ? He exprefly fays the Son 
 is equal to the Father, and proves it, becaufe he is 
 in nothing unlike him i that is, hath the fame Divine 
 Nature in common with the Father. This is the 
 very thing which we aflfert, that the ancient Atite- 
 Nicene Dodors own'd the Son to be naturally equal 
 to the Father. The fame Dionyjius^ in the fame An- 
 fw^ers, fays ; He is the fame to whom the Father fub- 
 jeded all things, f being not inferiour to the Father, 
 he pray'd for us. Here he exprefly denies that the 
 Son is inferiour to the Father. Laftly, the fame Per- 
 fon, in his Apology in Athanafius^ confeffes the Tri- 
 nity indiminifhM. Ey this he can mean nothing elfe, 
 than that the Divinity is not lefs in one Perfon than 
 in another ; but that there is in every Perfon an entire, 
 full, and perfed Divinity. See the Place cited ac 
 large. Sect. XL Ch.ii. N. <y. 
 
 In like manner, the Creed of Gregory 'Thaumattirgus 
 plainly proclaims a co-eternal and co-equal Trinity : 
 For he clearly aflerts a perfed Trinity, which is not 
 
 t Or^ ihonot inferioHr 
 
 divided. 
 
30 :.^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 divided, or feparated in Glory, Government, and 
 Empire. As for the Son in particular, the fame Con- 
 feflion teaches, that God the Father is perfect Father 
 of perfe6t ; and then calls the Holy G.ioft the pert-ed: 
 Image of the perfeB Son (k). The fame Gregory^ in his 
 Panegyrical Oration upon Origen^ his genuine Work 
 by the Confeflion of all Men, as he teaches, that the 
 Son honours and praifes the Father, (which fhews the 
 Pre-eminence of the Father, as Father, and the Dif- 
 penfation undertaken by the Son) fo he exprefly fays, 
 that the Father hath honoured the Son with a Power 
 every way equal to his own, and circumfcrib'd his 
 infinite Majefty in the Son (o). The ^ix Bilhops, who 
 wrote an Epiftle to Paulus Samofatenus in the Name of 
 the whole Synod oi Antioch, are of this fame Opinion. 
 (/>) Thefe are their exprefs Words concerning the 
 Son of God in that Epiftle: He is believM to be God 
 by the whole Church under Heaven, having empty 'd 
 himfelf of his Equality to God, and to be Man of the 
 Seed of Davidy according to the Flefh. Here they 
 profefs that they have delivered the Confent of the 
 Catholick Church ; and they plainly interpret the 
 famous Place of St. Paul to the Pbilippans (^), as the 
 prefent Catholicks do. Further, the very Creed of 
 Lucian Martyr, the great Boaft of the Avians, exprefly 
 teaches, that the Son is not only God of God, but 
 Whole of Whole, and Perfeft of Perfed ; which Words 
 abfolutely exclude that partial and imperfect Divinity 
 of the Son, of which the Hereticks dreamt (r). Laftly, 
 The Senfe of Amobius, who very often proclaims the 
 Son of God to be true and very God, is exprefs : (s) 
 God derived, as God, differs not at all from the other. 
 Nor can that, which is one in kind, be more or lefs 
 in its Parts, ftill fuppofing it to keep the Uniformity 
 of its proper Quality. Therefore, according to ^r- 
 nobius, the Son of God, as God, differs not at all 
 
 (n) Seft. II. ch. 12. n. i. 
 
 (o) n. 4. {f) Bibl. Pat. Tom. 11. p. 300. 
 
 (^) c. 2. V. 6. {r) Sea. II. c. 13. n. 5. (j) Seft. III. c. 4. n. 9. 
 
 trom 
 
the N I C E N E F A I T H^ 51 
 
 from God the Father ; nor is there more in the Son 
 than in the Father, but in both the Divine Perfons 
 the Divinity is uniform ; that is, God the Father and 
 the Son, are abfolutely equal in Nature. Amobius in- 
 deed was of T'ertuUians Mind, That the Divinity has 
 no degree, nor is ever lefs than itfelf. Yet the fame 
 Amobius^ in more Places than one, calls God the Father 
 the Supreme God, in the Senfe we have before ex- 
 plained. 
 
 8. Hitherto we have explain'd the Senfe of the 
 Antients in the three firft Ages. We are now to fliew 
 that the Catholick Dodors, who wrote after the Rife 
 of the Arian Controverfy, and were conftant Defen- 
 ders of the Faith eftabliftiM by the Nicene Fathers, 
 agreed with them. Alexander, the Bifhop of Alex- 
 andria, who firft put a flop to the growing Impiety of 
 Arius, in an Epiftle * to his Name-fake of Conftantinople^ 
 accurately explains the Catholick Doftrine of the 
 Father's Pre-eminence over the Son in thefe Words (^), 
 We muft then take care to preferve to the unbegotten 
 Father his proper Dignity, affirming, that no one is 
 to Him theCaufe of Exiftence. We muft alfo give to_ 
 the Son the Honour which futes him, namely, his be- 
 ginninglefs Generation of the Father, and as we have 
 faid before, attribute Worfhip to him, and pioufly and 
 religioufly fay, that he was, and always was, and be- 
 fore Ages ; not rejeding his Divinity, but always 
 afcribing to him the Likenefs ftridly due to the Image 
 and Character of the Father, efteeming it as the only 
 
 * Dr. Whitby tells us. That this Alexander In the beginning of 
 the D'lfpute waver d^ fomet'imes commending one Side, fometimes ano- 
 ther; but he fays nothing of what follows immediatel'^ in the f ami- 
 Hiftoriany that at lafl he got over his Difficulties, ajferted the Confuhf^^- 
 fiantiality and Coeternity of the Son, and excommunicated Arius, 6cc.' 
 for their Herefy. This unprejudic'd Behaviour, fyculd rather recom- 
 mend than depreciate the DoBrine he ajferted. He alfo affirms. That 
 this Epijile contains many things which foew he. was not Orthodox, 
 Thofe he inflances in, are all agreeable to AKtiquity, a7:d the Bijhpp's 
 Scheme ; and the Credit of this fingle Pajfagey is fufficient to ^rovs 
 it. 
 
 (g") Theodor.E. H. Lib. i. cap. 4. p. iS. 
 
 Pro- 
 
32 ^J DEFENCE of 
 
 Property or Peculiarity of the Father to be unbegotten ; 
 forafmuch as our Saviour himfelf hath faid. My Fa- 
 ther is greater than /, the Words need no Comment. 
 Athanafius (h) his SuccefTor in the See oi Alexandria^ ex- 
 pounding the Words of our Saviour, My Father is 
 greater thanl^ writes thus : The Son did not fay, the Fa- 
 ther is better than I, that no one might fuppofe him 
 different in Nature from the Father i but he faid, He 
 is greater, not in Majefty or Age, but upon account 
 of his Generation of the Father. 
 
 p. The great Bajil (i) explains the Matter in thefe 
 W'ords clearly : Becaufe the Son's Origin is from the 
 Father, the Father is greater, as being the Caufe, or 
 Origin : for which caufe the Lord fays thus. My Fa- 
 ther is greater than /, namely as Father. Now what does 
 Father iignify, but to be the Caufe, or Origin of him 
 that is begotten of him ? But even according to your 
 wife Notions, Subftance is by no means faid to be 
 greater or lefs than Subftance. Again {k)^ The Son 
 is indeed the fecond from the Father, in Order, be- 
 caufe of him i and in Dignity, becaufe the Father is 
 the Principle, and Caufe of his Exiftence. Thus 
 Gregory Naz,ianz,en (I) ; To be greater, refpeds Caufa- 
 lity ; to be equal. Nature. And'; in the fame Place, 
 he refutes their Interpretation, who would have 
 the Father faid to be greater than the Son, as Man, 
 with this excellent Reafon ; For to fay that he is greater 
 than him, confider'd as Man, is true indeed, but not 
 much ; for what wonder that God is greater thaa 
 Man ? Lajily, He writes thus (wz). That he is greater 
 is not in Nature, but Caufality ; for none of thofe 
 things that are Confubftantial, are in Subftance great- 
 er or lefs. Upon this Place, Nicetas obferves thus ; 
 Becaufe the Son hath his Caufe from the Father, the 
 Father is greater, as being the Caufe ; but the ElTence 
 of one, is not by any means greater or lefs than the 
 
 (b^ Orat. I. contra Arianos. (i) Tom. i. p. 72,4. Lib- i. 
 
 contra Eunom. (k) Lib. 5. non longe ab initio, (/) Orat. ^6. 
 p. 582. (w) Orat. 40. p. 6^9. 
 
 EfTence 
 
tije N I C E N E JF A I T H. ^1 
 
 ElTence of another. Chryfojlom fays C^}, But if any 
 one Ihall fay, that the Father is greater, as he is the 
 Caufe of the Son, we don't contradict it. So CjriUus 
 Alexandrinus (oj afErms, that the Father is faid to be 
 greater, as he is the Caufe ; thefe are his Words, The 
 Son being equal to the Father in Subftance, and like 
 him in all things, fays that He (the Father) is greater 
 as being beginninglefs j whereas he (the Son) hath a 
 Principle only in refped of Proceffion, tho' he hath the 
 fame Exiftence with him. Laftly, Joannes Damafcenus 
 (p) faith, Now when we fay that thffe Father is tie 
 Beginning or Principle of the Son, and grearer than 
 he, we don't mean that he is before him in Time cc 
 Nature (for by him he made the Ages) or any other 
 way, than as being the Caufe of him ; that is, that 
 the Son is of the Father, not the Father of the Son^ 
 and that the Father is the natural Caufe of the Son, 
 
 lo. We will now cite a few of the many Evidences 
 among the Latins. What Marius ViBorinus fays for 
 this Sentiment, we have told you before (q). Hilary 
 interprets the Place of St. John, the Father is greater 
 than ly nicely in thefe Words (r). Or is not the Fa- 
 ther greater ? yes, the Father is greater, as Father i 
 but the Son is not lefs, as Son. The Nativity of the 
 Son makes the Father greater, and the Nature of the 
 Nativity fuffers not the Son to be lefs. And a little 
 before : The Father is therefore greater, plainly 
 greater than the Son, to whom he granted that he 
 fhould be as great as he himfelf is ; who by the Myfte- 
 ry of his Nativity makes him the Image of Innafcibi- 
 lity ; whom he begets of himfelf in his own Form." 
 Again (j-), when it is faid they are in one another, un- 
 derftand the Divinity of God of God ; when it is 
 faid the Father is greater, underftand the Confeffion 
 of the Father's Authority. The Author of the Qpe- 
 ftions in both Teftaments, which is in the end of the 
 
 (ji) Homil. 72. in Joan. (0) In Thefauris, lib. ir. p. 8 J, 
 
 {p) De fide Orthod. lib. i. cap. 6> {of) The ^^recedlng Chapter, 
 
 (»•) In nono Libro de Trin. {s) Lib, ji. 
 
 Vol.. IL C fourdi 
 
'54 ^ D E F E N C E 0/ 
 
 fourth Tome of Auftine\ Works, fays (f), He differs 
 not at all in Subftance, becaufe a true Son i yet he 
 differs in the Degree of Caufality, becaufe all Power 
 in the Son is from the Father. The Son is not lefs in 
 Subflance ; but the Father is greater in Authority. 
 Auftine himfelf alfo affirms. That the Father is not 
 only greater than the Son, becaufe of his affumM 
 humane Nature, but alfo his eternal Generation. 
 Thus in his Book of the Faith and Creed (w), where he 
 fays, thofe Words of 'John are fpoken partly becaufe 
 of his taking upon him humane Nature, and partly 
 becaufe the Son oweth what he is to the Father even 
 this, that he is equal to the Father. But whatever 
 he is, the Father is oblig'd to no one for it. But why 
 do I reckon up the Opinions of particular Dodors ? 
 The Catholick Council of Sardka, confifting of about 
 2,00 Eaftern and Weftern Bifhops, (250 according to 
 I'heodcret,) plainly deliver'd the fame Dodrine in a 
 Synodical Epiftle. Nor does any one deny (fay the 
 Fathers) that the Father is greater than the Son, but 
 not as of another Subftance, or any other DiflFerence, 
 except that the Name of Father is greater than that 
 of Son (xy). 
 
 II. This therefore was the conftant Opinion of 
 Catholick Antiquity : That we muft religioully pre- 
 ferve to God the Father his proper Dignity , as being 
 only Unbegotten, but fo, as that we mufl by no 
 means deftroy the true Divinity of the Son. Nay, it 
 is for the Glory of God the Father that we think 
 worthily of his Son ; and on the other hand, he in- 
 jures and difgraces the Father, who imagines that he 
 hath begotten an imperfed Son, or determines, that 
 any thing is diminifh'd in the Divine Nature. The 
 iorm^Y, Hilary hath excellently explain'd in thefe Words 
 (x) : Being about to fpeak the abfolute Majefty, and 
 compleat Divinity of the only begotten Son of God, 
 we don't fuppofe any one will think our Difcourfe con- 
 
 (0 Qucft. 122. («) Cap. 9, (w) Theodoret. lib. a. 
 
 cap. 8. p. 82, (y) De Trin. lib, 4* 
 
 tumc- 
 
if;^^ N I C E N E F A I T hJ | 5 
 
 tumellous to God the Father ; as tho' what was re- 
 fcr'd to the Son, was taking away from the Dignity 
 of the Father i fince rather the Honour of the 
 Son is the Honour of the Father, and he muft be a 
 glorious Author, from whom proceeded fo glorious 
 a Perfon : For the Son hath nothing but what is be- 
 gotten, and the Admiration of the Honour begot- 
 ten, muft redound to the Honour of him that be- 
 gat it. The Notion of Contumely ceafes then, when 
 ■whatfoever Majefty is taught to be in the Son fliall 
 redound to enlarge his Power, fiall tend to make his 
 Pozuer appear more glorious, who begat fuch an one. 
 Zeno VeronenfiSy or whoever is the Author of the Dlf- 
 courfe afcribM to Zeno, upon thefe Words: Wloenhe 
 (hall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Fa- 
 ther, hath clearM the latter as well (y) ; The Father 
 poifefleth the whole, fodoch the Son, what belongs to 
 one, belongs to both ; what one pofTeiTes, is each 
 one's ; as our Lord faith, AU things, whatfoever the Fa' 
 ther hath, are mine ; for the Father abideth in the Son, 
 and the Son in the Father ; to whom he is glorioufly 
 fubjed in Affedion, not Condition -, in Love, notNe- 
 ceflity ; by whom the Father is always honoured. 
 Laftly, He faith, land the Father are one. Upon which 
 account, as I faid, the Son is fubjed:ed to the Father 
 not in a diminutive, but religious Subjedion j ,for as 
 much as one PofTeffion of an original and perpetual 
 Kingdom, one Subftance of Coerernity and Omnipo- 
 tence, one Equality, one Power of the auguft Ma- 
 jefty, one Dignity is retain'd in an united Light , 
 for if you take any thing from the Son, you'll injure 
 the Father, whofe Whole he hath ; nor is there any 
 thing in him, which is inferior 5 becaufe as the Fa- 
 ther, fo he can neither have more nor lefs. The one is 
 infusM into the Fullnefs of the other ; fo that the 
 Blefled God is all in all, the Father in the S-^'n, and 
 the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, Amen. 
 
 iy) Bibl. Patr. Tom. a. Col. 424. 
 
 C 2 11, This 
 
36 ^J DEFENCE of 
 
 12. This famous PafTage of Zeno puts me In mind 
 of a remarkable Scory in Soz,omeny with which I will 
 conclude this Chapter (2:.}. When 7'heodojius the Great 
 was Emperor, and came to fee Conftaminople, the Bi- 
 fhops who were in the City went to the Palace to fa- 
 lute him, according to Cuftom ; amongfl: them, it is 
 faid, there waSs,a certain old Man, the Bifhop of an 
 obfcure City, plain indeed, and not well feen in Civil 
 Affairs, but a good Divine. The other Bifhops in 
 a courtly and refpeftful manner complemented their 
 Prince, fo did the old Man alfo : however, he did 
 not honour the Emperor's Son as the others had done ; 
 but approaching him as a Boy, faid, God fave thee. 
 Son ! and began to flroke him with his Hand. The 
 Emperor was mov'd, and refenting it as an injury 
 done to his Son, that he was not equally honoured as 
 himfelf, commanded the old Bifhop to be expell'd with 
 Difgrace. As they were removing him, he turn'd and 
 faid. Thus think, O King, that the Heavenly Father 
 is angry at thofe who honour not the Son with equal 
 Honour, and prefumptuoufly fay, that he is lefs than 
 him, that begat him. In thefe Words the pious Man 
 rubb'd the Arians^ysho were as yet numerous from the 
 Favour fhewn them by the Emperors Conflantius and Va' 
 lens, and very freely aifembling together, difcours'd 
 concerning God and his Subflance, and perfuaded the 
 Favourers of their Faith at Court to attempt the Em- 
 peror. The Emperor, ftruck with the Saying, call'd 
 back the Bifhop, and having ask*d his pardon, con- 
 fefs'd he had faid true. 
 
 {z) Sozom, lib. 7. chap. 6. p. 577, 
 
 CHAP. 
 
/^^ N I C E N E F A I T H, 57 
 
 CHAP III. 
 
 A large Anfwer to the OhjeUioit^ againfl 
 what has he en [aid in thefor?ner Chapter, 
 taken from thofe Tlaces of the A7icte?its^ in 
 which they feem to ha've denied the Im- 
 me7sjity and Inmfthility of the Son of God. 
 
 TH E Teftimonles of the Antients, which we 
 have mentioned in the former Chapter, con- 
 cerning the abfolute natural Equality of the Father 
 and Son, faving to the Father, as Father, his Pre-emi- 
 nence, are very clear. Now we have obferved upon, 
 and explain'd moft of thofe Sayings of the Antients, 
 which feem to contradid thefe, in the fecond Sedion, 
 and the third, where we explain their Notion of the 
 Eternity and Confubftantiality of the Son particularly. 
 There is yet one Knot to be untyM, and that very 
 well worthy our Labour i which we have therefore 
 refervM for this Place, becaufe it is not in one, or two 
 of the Primitive Fathers, but almoft runs through all 
 their Works. I confefs I once flumbled at that Stone 
 my felf, and therefore think it my Duty to endea- 
 vour the removing it. The ancient Caiholicks then, 
 who were before Arius^ feem almoft all of them to 
 have known nothing of the Son of God's invifible 
 and immenfe Nature. For fometimes they fo fpeak 
 of the Son of God, as tho* he was in his Divine 
 Nature finite, vifible, included in fome determinate 
 Place, and circumfcribed by certain Bounds. When 
 they would prove that he, who formerly appear *d to 
 thePatriarchs and Holy Men under the Old Teftament, 
 and fpoke to them, being graced with the Title Je- 
 
 C 3 hovahl 
 
gS :^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 hovah^ was the very Son of God, they generally ufe 
 this disjunftive Argument : That he who appeared, 
 was either the Son of God, or a created Angel, or 
 God the Father. That he was not a created Angel 
 they conclude, becaufe he is called by the Holy Spirit, 
 Jehovah and God ; that it was not the Father they 
 prove, becaufe he is immenfe, filling all Places, inclu- 
 ded in none, and therefore it is impious to think that 
 he appeared in feme certain Place, and little Corner of 
 the Earth ; as tho' it might be fafely faid of the Son 
 of God. After the like manner the fame Perfons 
 t6ach that the Son of God is vifible. 
 
 2. Thus one of the moft ancient Fathers, Jufim 
 Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho. There when 
 Trypho denies that the Angel which appeared to Mo- 
 fes in the burning Bufh, was very God, and alTerts 
 that an Angel did indeed appear in a Flame of Fire, 
 but that God, namely the Father, talk'd with Mofesy 
 fo that there was in the Vifion two, God and the 
 Angel ; JuJIin anfwers thus, (a) Grant, my Friend, 
 that this was done, namely, that both God and an 
 Angel appeared to Mofes in a Vifion ; and not that it 
 was as I have demonftrated to you before : yet that 
 God was not the Maker of this Univerfe, who faid to 
 Mofes, I am the God of Abraham^ and of Ifaac^ and of 
 "Jacob ; but the fame which I before fliewM to have 
 been feen by Abraham ^SLnd Jacobj namely, he, who mini- 
 flers to the Will of the Maker of all things, and who 
 alfo minifter'd to his Will and Purpofe in the Judg- 
 ment upon Sodcm. So that, tho^itbe as you affirm, that 
 there were two, namely, God and an Angel, no wife 
 Man will prefume to fay that the Author and Parent 
 of all things left all his heavenly Manfions, and exhi- 
 bited his Prefence in a fmall part of the Earth. There 
 is a parallel Place to this elfewhere in this Dialogue. 
 I'heophilus Antiochenus hath ufed the fame way of rea- 
 foning (^). So Irenam^ Origeriy and the fix Bifhops, who 
 (4) P. 282. and 283. (6) P. 100. Appnd.lv&\xi. 
 
 wrote 
 
the N I c E N E Fait h. ^9 
 
 wrote the Epiflle from the Synod of Antioch to Paulus 
 Samofatenus^ as we fhall cite them hereafter. 
 
 5. Of the Latim^ T'ertuUian hath the fame: (c) But 
 how could he walk in Paradife in the Evening, feek- 
 ingAdam, and fhut the Ark after Noah was gone into it, 
 and refrefh himfelf with Abraham under the Oak, &c. 
 who is the omnipotent invifible God, whom no Man 
 hath feen, nor can fee, who dwelleth in the Light, 
 which is inacceffible, who dwelleth not in Temples 
 made with Hands, at whofe Sight the Earth trembles, 
 the Mountains melt as Wax, who holdeth the whole 
 World in his Hand, as a Neft, to whom the Heaven is 
 a Throne, and the Earth a Footftool, in whom is all 
 Place, and he not in any, who is the extreme Line of 
 the Univerfe, and the moft High ? Thefe things 
 indeed could not have been believ'd of the Son of 
 God, except they had been written j but are not to 
 be believ'd of the Father tho' written, whom they 
 bring down into Mary's Womb, fet before Pilate's 
 Tribunal, and feal up in Jofeph's Tomb. The 
 Error then appears to be from this ; that being igno- 
 rant that the Order of Divine Difpenfation did from 
 the beginning pafs thro' the Son ; they believ'd that 
 the Father appeared, and conferred, and wrought, &c, 
 Novatian^ or the Author of the Book about the Tri- 
 nity, among the Works of 'TertuHian, follows him in 
 this, as in other Matters (d) : But if the fame Mofes 
 every where reprefents God the Father as Immenfe, 
 Infinite, not included in Place, but who includes all 
 Place, not in any Place, but rather all Place in him, 
 containing and comprehending all things, fo that he 
 cannot properly afcend or defcend, as containing and 
 filling all things ; and yet neverthelefs introduces 
 God defcending to the Tower which the Sons of Men 
 built, confidering and faying. Come and let us defcend^ 
 &c. What God would they have it to be that defcend- 
 ed, and was about to vifit thofe Men ? God the Fa- 
 (c) Page 51 c. C^) P. 725. 
 
 C 4 ther ? 
 
40 :;^ D E F E N C E 0/ 
 
 tber ? then he is included in Place, and then how does 
 he comprehend all things ? Or does he fay, that an 
 Angel defcending with Angels fpoke. Come let us, &c. 
 But we obferve in Deuteronomy that God faid thefe 
 things, &c. Therefore then the Father did not de- 
 fcend as the Cafe fhews, nor did an Angel command 
 or exhort, &c. as the thing proves. It remains then 
 that he defcended, of whom the Apoflle Paul fpeaks. 
 Be that defcended, is the fame that afcended, &c. tiiat is, 
 the Son of God, the Word of God. 
 
 4. Who would not be amazM at thefe llrange Say- 
 ings of the Antients ? that they jfhould be fo dull and 
 jnconfiftent, as to fay, that the Son of God, whom in 
 other Places they frequently call very God of very 
 God, is circumfcrib'd within the narrow Bounds of 
 one fmall Place, and to believe him in his own Nature 
 vifible. Faroe it from us, to chink fo of the greateft 
 Men. You'll fay then, what Remedy can you find for 
 this Dlfeafe ? I am clearly of Opinion that thofe An- 
 tients who fpoke fomething harfhly of this Matter, 
 did not properly and juftly exprefs their otherwife true 
 Sentiment. They had to deal with Adverfaries, who 
 pofitively deny'd, that the Father was perfonally di- 
 ftind from the Son, and in the heat of Oppoficion, 
 did not exprefs themfelves with due caution. Any 
 one who will look into the Authors, will plainly fee 
 that this is the Cafe in thofe Sayings of 'Jufiin^TertuUian^ 
 and Novatianj which I have recited entire. Thefe, 
 as well as the other I have mention'd, meant no more 
 by fuch Expreffions, than that the Son of God, who 
 is every where with his Father, and equally invifible 
 as his Father, was by Difpenfation feen in fome certain 
 places, that is, fhew'd himfelf to Men by certain ex- 
 ternal Symbols of his Prefence, bringing to them the 
 Will and Commands of God the Father. But you'll 
 fay, if thefe Fathers, tho' they affirm, and plainly 
 enough hint. That the Son of God was fome time 
 fhut up in the narrow Compaf§ of a certain Pi^ce, 
 and leen by Men, meant no more^, than that he exhi-^ 
 
the N I c E N E F A T T H. 41 
 
 hiblted in certain Places fome fenfible Symbols or 
 Tokens of his Prefence, why do they fo cautioufly 
 remove this Thing from God the Father as unworthy 
 of him ? For it feems that God the Father alfo might, 
 without any diminution of his Majefty, have mani- 
 fefted himfelf to Men. I anfwer, the Primitive Doctors 
 did not think fo i for according to them, God the Fa- 
 ther neither was, nor cou'd be feen by any one, 
 even in aflum'd Forms. He had no Beginning, was 
 fubjed to none '■> nor cou'd any more be faid to be 
 fent of another, than born of another. On the other 
 hand, the Son of God, as born of God the Father, 
 does certainly upon that account owe all his Authori- 
 ty to the Father ; nor is it lefs honourable to him to 
 be fent by the Father, than to be born of him. He is 
 of the Father, by him the Fatlier made all things that 
 are in the World, and afterwards, by him, communi- 
 cated himfelf to the World. Tho' there is no difpa- 
 xity of Nature in the Holy Trinity between the Fa- 
 ther and the Son, yet there is a certain Order, accord- 
 ing to which, the Father is the Principle and Head of 
 the Son. This Order wou'd be inverted, if the Ad- 
 sniniftration was the Son's by the Father, not the Fa- 
 ther's by the Son. To come nearer to the propos'd 
 Objedion : The primitive Fathers refer'd all thofe 
 Apparitions formerly made to Holy Men, to the Dif- 
 penfation of Man's Salvation, which Difpenfation 
 they thought the Son of God had undertaken, not 
 then firft, when he came in the Flefii, but from the 
 very Fall of the firft Man, as is before (hewn : but 
 they always thought that that very Difpenfation was 
 foreign to God the Father, The Catholick Church of 
 Chrifl always acknowledged again ft the Patripafjlans^ 
 that the Incarnation, which the Son underwent, did 
 not become God the Father, for the fame Reafon 
 for which the Antlents afterted, That thofe Appea- 
 rances did not belong to the Father, but the Son ; 
 namely, becaufe they really were Preludes of the In- 
 carnation. That this was the very meaning of the 
 
 An- 
 
42 "J DEFENCEof 
 
 Antients, two Things prove j becaufe they all elfe-' 
 where frequently confefs, that the Son is in his Na- 
 ture immenfe and invifible, as the Father ; and be- 
 caufe moft of them do interpret thefe their Sayings 
 exprefly of the Difpenfacion. Now we will confirm 
 our Anfvver, by particularly examining thofe Sayings 
 of the Antients, which we have mentioned, and com* 
 paring them with other exprefs Sayings of theirs. 
 
 5. Jiijiin Martyr, who, in his Dialogue with Trj'/'^a 
 contends, that the Perfc3n who appeared to Mofes in the 
 Bu(h, was the Son of God, becaufe it would be ab- 
 furd to fay, that God the Father appear'd in a little 
 Corner of the Earth ; as though it might, without 
 Abfurdity, be faid of the Son of God : This Juflin 
 fpeaks elfewhere very honourably of that very Per- 
 fon. For, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, he writes 
 thus : (a) For, I fuppofe, it was neceflary that he 
 who was to be the Prince and Leader of the Hebrews, 
 fhould firft know the God of all things. Wherefore 
 having appear'd to him firft, as far as it was 
 pofTible for God to appear to Man, he faid to him, 
 / am he that is. The God then that appear'd to 
 Mofei in the burning Bufli, appear'd not otherwife 
 than became God, that is, not by paffing from Place 
 to Place, or fo as to be included in the narrow Bounds 
 of fome Place ," but he manifefted himfelf to the Holy 
 Prophet, by forming a vifible Appearance, and an au- 
 dible Voice. A little after he fays, as we have noted 
 before, that the Defcription, by which the Perfon ap- 
 pearing in the Bufli fignify'd himfelf to Tkfq/^^, lam 
 he that is, was fui table to God, who always exifts. 
 Now that 'Juftin acknowledg'd the always exiftent 
 God to be in his own Nature immenfe and invifible, 
 no Man can doubt. Thofe things therefore which 
 juflin hath elfewhere faid concerning that divine 
 Perfon which appear'd to Mofes, that he appear'd as 
 though included in a little Corner of the Earth, are 
 
 -'{a) Page 20. 
 
the N I c E N E F A I T nil 45 
 
 to be referr'd to the Difpenfation I fpoke of, which 
 the Son undercook. Tne fame 'Jufim explains the 
 Matter more clearly in the Apology commonly calfd 
 the Second, where he again contends, {h) that it was 
 our Saviour who talked with Ivhfes out of the Bufli, 
 in the Appearance of Fire, faying, Lmfe thy Shoes^ 
 c$me hither and hear. And a little after, he clearly 
 teaches, that Chrift, in his own Perfon, faid thofe 
 Words ; J am he that is, the God of Abraham, &c. 
 (c) What is faid to Mofes out of the Bufh, (fays he) 
 lam he that is, the God of Abvaham, and the God of 
 Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of thy Fatherf, 
 is fignificative of this, That they, though dead, did 
 remain, and belonged to Chrift. But what manner of 
 A ppearance could be fuitable to the Son of God, if 
 the always exiftent God, the God of Abraham, &c. 
 which would not become the Father ? Jujiin himfelf 
 hath folv'd the Difficulty in the fame place. For tho' 
 Chi'ift be the genuine Son of God, and always 
 exiftent, and the God 0/ Abraham, &c. as well as the 
 Father ; yet as Jufiin fpeaks, he is the Angel and 
 Apoftle of God the Father, appointed by the Father 
 for this end, to tell Men his Will. Whilft he doth 
 this Office, he doth nothing unworthy himfelf; nor, 
 as I before faid, is it lefs honourable to be fent of the 
 Father, than to be born of him. The Words of 
 yufiin are (d). The Word of God is his Son, as we 
 have faid before, and he is call'd Angel and Apoftle. 
 For he tells us what is proper to be known, and is fent 
 to fhew us what is told. Now that all thefe things 
 belong to that Difpenfation, which the Son of God 
 undertook from the Rife of the Church, and at length 
 compleated by his Incarnation, the blelTed Martyr 
 plainly fignifies a Uttle after. This (e) Difcourfe is to 
 fhew that Chrift is the Son of God, and his Apoftle, 
 being kfore^ the Word, and fometime feen in an 
 Appearance of Fire, fometime in the Image of incor- 
 
 (h) Pag. 95. (c) p. 9^, id) p. 95. (0 p. 95. 
 
 poreal 
 
'44 :;^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 poreal Things ; but mv:, by the Will of God, being 
 made Man for the fake of Mankind. To the fame 
 purpofe Juftinj in the Dialogue with TryphOy after he 
 hatii enumerated the Titles given our Saviour in 
 Scripture, namely, the Glory of the Lord, the 
 Son, the Wifdom, the Angel, God, Lord and Word, 
 immediately adds, (/) He is to be call'd by all 
 thefe Names from his miniftring to the Father's 
 W^ill, and being freely born of the Father. Now, 
 without doubt, he referred the Name Angel to his 
 miniftring to the Father's Will ,• as he did the other 
 Appellations, Glory of the Lord, Son, Wifdom, 
 Word, to the Divine Generation of the Father. More- 
 over, it is manifeft, Juflin acknowledged the Omni- 
 prefence of the Son of God, both from other Places, 
 and alfo from thefe exprefs Words in his Apology, 
 commonly call'd the Firfi : (g) The Word was and is 
 exiftent in all, &c. There he teaches that the Word, 
 alfo call'd the Son of God, does, as it were, penetrate 
 and pervade the whole Compafs of the Creation, and is 
 prefent in all things ; and therefore can't be confin'd in 
 any Place, much lefs in a little Corner of the Earth. In 
 the fame Senfe, the Father himfelf is in Scripture (h) 
 faid to be through all, and in all. The fame Jufiin 
 thought that the Son of God, as mod properly fuch, 
 was not the Objed of Sight, nor could be compre- 
 hended by the Mind of Men or Angels : for in a re- 
 markable Place, which I have before cited from the 
 Epiftle to Diognetus, he calls the Son of God the holy 
 and incomprehendble Word and Truth (/}. Thus 
 much for Juftitz. 
 
 6. From Irerntus, the Matter will yet be clearer. 
 (k) The Word (fays he) was made the Difpenfer of 
 the Father's Grace, for the Benefit of Men, for 
 whom he made fuch glorious Difpofitions, fhewing 
 Gcd to Man, and Man to God ', and preferving the 
 
 (/) Pag. 284. {g} p. 48 and 49. C^) Eph. iv. 6. (0 Seft. 2. 
 Ch. 4. n. 7. (k) p. 571- 
 
 Invifi' 
 
the N I c E N E Faith. 4$ 
 
 Invlfibility of the Father, that Man fhould not de» 
 fpife God, and ihould always have fomething to at- 
 tain to 5 but fhewing God vifible to Men by many 
 Difpofitions, left Man wholly going off from God, 
 fhould ceafe to be. In thefe Words, he teaches us, 
 as Petaiiius himfelf has obferv'd, that the Father ne- 
 ver appear'd, nor was fo much as difguisM under fome 
 outward Shape : but that the Word fhewM himfelf 
 to the Antients, not in himfelf, not in his proper Sub- 
 ftance, but under fome Likenefs. I add, that Irenaus 
 doth here exprefly fay, that in all the Manifeftations 
 of God the Father by his Word, the Word was the 
 Difpenfer of the Father's Grace, for the Benefit of 
 Man ; that is, that all the Appearances of the Son of 
 God belong (as I have faid) to that DifpenfatioHj 
 which he took upon him from the Beginning, for the 
 Salvation of Men. We have a Place parallel to this 
 in the fame Chapter : (a) Therefore if neither Mofes 
 faw God, nor Elias^ nor Ez^ekiel^ who faw many hea- 
 venly Vifions ', and if thofe things which were feen 
 by them, were Likenefles of the Lord's Glory, and 
 Prophecies of what was to come ; it is manifeft the 
 Father is invifible, of whom the Lord alfo faid. No 
 one hath feen God at any time; but his Word, according 
 to his Pleafure, hath fliew'd the Glory of the Father, 
 to the Advantage of thofe that behold him, and laid 
 open his Difpofitions ,• as alfo the Lord hath faid. The 
 only begotten, who is in the Bofom ©f the Father, hath 
 declared, cfTc. And in another phcclrenaus exprefly tells 
 us, (h) That all thofe Appearances of the Son of God 
 under the Old Teflament, were Preludes, and, as ic 
 were. Specimens of the future Incarnation, and had all 
 of them a View to the CEconomy of our Salvation, 
 which the Son had undertaken : It is he who fays to 
 Mofes J have furely feen theVexation of my People in Egypt, 
 and am come down to deliver them. The Word of God 
 being accuftom'd from the Beginning to afcend and 
 
 C«) Pag. 372. . (I-) p. 344^ 
 
 defcend 
 
4^ :;^DEFENCE^/ 
 
 defcend, for the help of thofe who were in Trouble. 
 But then Irenam plainly affercs, that the Son of God 
 is, in his own Nature, invifible as well as the Fa- 
 ther, (a) For he fays, we are taught by the Chriftian 
 Religion, that there is one God, who is above all 
 Principality and Dominion, and Power, and every 
 Name that is named » and that his Word is naturally 
 invifible, but was made vifible and palpable among 
 Men, and defcended even to Death, the Death of the 
 CroCs. Here alfo Lenaus (which, perhaps, is worthy 
 our Notice by the way) in thefe Words, [che Word 
 naturally invifible, but made vifible and palpable 
 among Men, and defcended to Death] feems to me 
 to have in his Eye a remarkable Pafiage in the Epillle 
 of Ignatius to PoJycarp^ Lenaus' s Mafter j in which the 
 Apoftolical Man calls Chrifi: the Son of God invifible, 
 but vifible for our fakes, impalpable, and impailible, 
 but paflible for our fakes. See the entire Place, Stdi. 5. 
 Chap. I. n. 3. Again, Irenaus (b) explains the whole 
 Matter clearly, and teaches that the Father and Son 
 are indeed equally incomprehenfible by the Creatures, 
 and equally comprehenfible by one another j yet that 
 all the Manifeftation of the Father is made by the 
 Son, and therefore that the Father fends, and the Son 
 is fent : Thefe are the Words, But fince the only be- 
 gotten Son came to us (contracling his oiun Subftance 
 into himfelf) from the One God, who made this 
 World, form'd us, contains and adminifters all things, 
 I have a fl:rong Faith in him, and an immoveable Love 
 towards the Father, God giving me both. For no 
 one can know the Father, but by the Revelation of 
 the Word, that is, the Son of God j nor the Son, but 
 by the Good Pleafure of the Father. Now the Son 
 fulfils the Good Pleafure o^ the Father : For the Fa- 
 ther fends, and the Son is fent. And his own Word 
 knows the Father, who is indeed invifible, and infi- 
 nite as to us ; Tho' he is not to be declar'd [by us] 
 
 (rt) Page 37p. (^) p. 330* 
 
 he 
 
the NiceneFaith; 47 
 
 he declares him to us. Again, the Father alone 
 knows his Word. Now the Lord hath ihewn that 
 both thefe things are thus j and for this Realbn, the 
 Son declares the Knowledge of the Father, by the 
 Manifeftation of himfelf. For the Knowledge of the 
 Father is the Manifeftation of the Son \ for all things 
 are manifefted by the Word. Thefe things fuffi- 
 ciently prove that Irenaus was found and catholick. 
 
 7. What Clement o{ Akxandr. has difcours'd upon this 
 Matter, is clearer than the Light. For he )oms the 
 Immenfity and Omniprefence of the Son of God with 
 the CEconomy undertaken by him in this very notable 
 PafTage : (c) The Son of God is never out of his 
 Wacch-Tower. Not divided, or fever'd, not paf- 
 fing from place to place; but being always every 
 where, and not circumfcribed, all Mind, all paternal 
 Light, all Eye, feeing all things, hearing all things, 
 knowing all things, by his Power fearching all Powers. 
 To him all the Hoft of Angels and Gods is fubjeft, 
 to the paternal Word, who hath undertaken the Dif- 
 penfation becaufe of him who fubje(5ted. Obferve I 
 He clearly teaches, that the Word, or Son of God, 
 is not divided, or fever 'd, pafles not from place to 
 place, is always every where, and no where circum- 
 fcribM. Neverthelefe, he allows that the very Son of 
 God undertook the Holy Difpenfation laid upon him 
 by God the Father j namely, then under the Old 
 Teftament, when he appeared to the Prophets, and 
 Holy Men, in the difguife, either of a Man, or feme 
 other corporeal Thing ; then efpecially under the 
 New, when, having taken very Man into the Unity 
 of his Perfon, he converfed with Men upon Earth. 
 Sure nothing can be more exprefs than this. That 
 ftiamelefs Scribbler Sandius (d) impudently denies, 
 contrary to the Faith of all Copies, that Clement wrote 
 thus : but he is fitter to be hifs*d than anfwer'd. 
 
 (r) Page 505, 8c<:. C^ Append, ad Nucl. p. pp. 
 
 8, Ter^ 
 
4? :.^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 8. T'ertullian^ who told us before. That it was the 
 Son, not che Father, who formerly appeared to Holy 
 Men, and in che Fulnefs of Time was incarnate, be- 
 caufe the Father is invifible, and not to be included in 
 Place : Tne fame (e) afterward exprefly tells us. That 
 it is not to be underftood of a Difparity of Nature 
 in the Father, and the Son, fince they are mutually 
 infeparable, both equally immenfe, and omniprefent ; 
 but of the CEconomy, which the Son, not the Father, 
 undertook. For thus he writes upon that Place, in 
 the lytih Chapter of St. Matthew : You have the Son 
 on Earth, the Father in him ,• this is not a Separation, 
 but a Divine Difpofition. But you are to know that 
 God is in the Abyifes, is every where by his Force 
 and Power; that the Son alfo, as indivifible, is every 
 where with him. Notwithftanding in the CEconomy 
 the Father would have the Son on Earth, himfelf in 
 Heaven, to which Place the Son looking up, prayed 
 and begg'd of the Fathers whither he hath alfo taught 
 us to lift ourfelves up, and to pray. Our Father , which 
 art in Heaven, whereas he is alfo every where. The 
 Reafon is the fame of the Divine CEconomy before 
 the Incarnation, even of all the Appearances under 
 the Old Teftament. For as Tertullian hath excellently 
 told us before, all the Order of the Divine CEconomy, 
 from the Beginning, pafles through the Son. In like 
 manner Novatian, (as before) when he had prov'd 
 that it was the Son, who came down to the Tower of 
 Babel, &c. for this reafon, that God the Father was 
 immenfe, and not included in Place, as tho the Son 
 "was not alfo immenfe and omniprefent ; yet in another 
 place, in the fame Book, he exprefly attributes to 
 the Son of God that Immenfity and Omniprefence 
 which is proper to the Divine Nature, (f) For he 
 thus maintains the true Divinity of the Son againft 
 Hereticks : If Chrift is only Man, how is he pre- 
 fenc every where, when invok'd, fince it is not the 
 
 (0 Page 513 md 514. (/) p. 717. {g) p. 724* 
 
 Nature 
 
^>^^ N I C E K E F A 1 T hJ 49 
 
 Nature of Man, but of God, to be every -where ? 
 How then are thefe Appearances of God to Holy 
 Men in former Times to be thought compatible with 
 the Son, not the Father alfo ? The Author himfelf, 
 I think, hath clearly taken away that Difficulty, 
 ■where he thus difcourfes concerning the Angel which 
 appeared to Sarah's Maid : (a) Let the Hereticks con- 
 fider what they will fay to the Place before us : Was 
 it the Father who was feen by Agar, or not ? For ic 
 is faid, God. Far be it from us to fay the Angel is 
 God the Father, left he, whofe the Angel is, be fub- 
 jed to another. But they'll fay it was an Angel. 
 How then God, if an Angel, fince that Name is not 
 ever allow'd to Angels ? The Truth which lies on 
 both fides concludes us in this Opinion, that we are 
 to underftand it to be the Son of God ; who, as of 
 God, is juftly call'd God, becaufe the Son of God ; 
 and as fubjeil to God, and the Preacher of the Fa- 
 ther's Will, is call'd the Angel of the Great Counfel. 
 The Sum is this : He who appear 'd to Agar^ was ei- 
 ther a created Angel, or an uncreated God. He 
 proves he was no Angel, becaufe call'd God and Je- 
 hovah, an incommunicable Name, and never given 
 any Creature, not even to Angels, the fupreme Order 
 of Creatures. It is plain then, that it was the true 
 God ; but, if I may fo fpeak, what God ? The Fa- 
 ther, or the Son ? That it was not the Father, he 
 proves, becaufe the Name of an Angel fuggefts Miffion 
 from another, and confequently a certain Subjedion ; 
 but God the Father is fubjed to none, as being of 
 himfelf. It remains therefore, that he who appear 'd 
 be the Son of God ; who is fubjed to the Father, as 
 having his Original from him, and to whom the Office 
 of an Angel, or Preacher of the Father's Will, is not 
 unbecoming. In a word, God the Father could not 
 be an Angel, and preferve his Pre-eminence, as Fa- 
 ther j for then he would have been fent by another, 
 
 (4) Page 724, 
 Vol. II. D who 
 
50 "J DEVENCE of 
 
 ■who hath no Dependence upon another : But to the 
 Son of God, the Name God truly agrees, as being 
 very God ; and the Name Angel, as being fo true 
 God, as to be God ot God, and therefore capable 
 to receive and undertake trom God, of whom he is^ 
 the Miffion or Oeconomy committed, without Injury 
 to the Dignity of his Perfon. This very thing was, 
 no doubt, intended by the Fathers, who wrote the 
 Synodical Epiftle from the Council of Antioch to Paul 
 of Samofata. They contend that the Son is he, who 
 every now and then appeared to and conferred with 
 the Fathers under the Old Teftament : Sometimes at- 
 tefted as an Angel, fomecimes as Lord, and fometimes 
 as God. For believe, it is impious to call the God of 
 the Univrrfe an Angel, but the Son is the Angel of the 
 Father, tho' himff H Lord and God. For it is written, 
 'The Angel of the Great Counfel. Where the Holy Pre- 
 lates clearly teach, that the Titles of God and Lord 
 agree to the Father, and confequently to the Son ; 
 but that the Title of Angel, as fignifying a Miffion 
 from another, does by no means agree to the Father, 
 who can no more be (aid to be fent by another, than 
 to be born of another ; but may be rightly attributed 
 to the Son, who is begotten of the Father, who is 
 therefore in Scripture call'd the Angel of the Great 
 Counfel. 
 
 p. lenullian Co) is to be expounded after the fame 
 manner, ivhere he diftinguilhes the Son from the Fa- 
 ther, becaufe he is vifible, but the Father invifible. 
 In this alfo Novatian, or the Author of the Book 
 concerning the Trinity, imitates him. Can any one 
 fufped that Tertullian, and his Ape (no Fools) be- 
 lieved the Son of God, as God, and born of the in- 
 vifible God, to be vifible ? Without doubt they faid 
 the Son was vifible, not in his own Nature, but ac- 
 cording to the Oeconomy before explain^'d, in which 
 -he fometimes from the Beginning (hew^'d himfelf to 
 
 {a) Page 508. 
 
 Men 
 
the NiceneFaith. 51 
 
 Men by certain external and vifible Symbols of his 
 Prefence. If you queftion this, hear "Tenullian, in 
 the fame Book and Chapter, very exprefs in explain- 
 ing himfelf ; For we fay that the Son is upon his own 
 account fo far invifible, as he is the Word and Spirit 
 of God from the Condition [or Nature] of his Sub- 
 ftance, even as he is God, and the Word and Spirit ; 
 but that before he was incarnate, he was vifible after 
 the manner he fpeaks of, to Aaron and Miriam : And 
 if there be a Prophet among you, 1 "will be known to him in 
 a Vijion, dec. What can be clearer ? Sandius then and 
 others, may be afhamM fo confidently to fix upon 
 T'ertullian this abfurd Opinion, that he believ'd the 
 Word and Son of God to be in his own Nature finite 
 and vifible. For, if they had ever attentively read 
 that Book of "TertuUian, from which they gathered it, 
 they could not but know that the learned Waiter re- 
 jeded it in fo many Words. If they knew this, and 
 yet would palm it upon T'ertullian^ what are they to 
 be accounted but Sophifters and Prevaricators ? But if 
 they never read the Book, or never read it with At- 
 tention, fure they are very rafh Perfons, from fuch 
 {lender Grounds to fay what T'ertullian s Opinion 
 was. 
 
 10. I come at length to Origen. He teaches that 
 God the Father condefcended to Men, not locally, 
 but providentially ; the Son locally, in former Days, 
 in feignM or aflum'd Shapes; in the laft Times having 
 put on real Man : but yet fo as that he was never in- 
 cluded in Place, but was and is always every-where, 
 as well as the Father. Thefe are his Words : {a) God 
 therefore, according to his Goodnefs, condefcends to 
 Men, not locally, but providentially. And the Son 
 of God was not then only, but is always with his own 
 Difciples, fulfiUing that which he faid. Behold, I am 
 •with you al-way, to the end of the World. If a Branch 
 can't bring forth Fruit, except it remain in the Vine, 
 
 (a) Page 239. contra Celf. 
 
 D 2 neither 
 
52 :^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 neither can the Difciples of the Word, the fpiritoal 
 Branches of the true Vine, the Word, bring forth 
 the Fruit of Virtue, unlefs they abide in the true 
 Vine, the Chrift of God, who was locally with us 
 here below, upon Earth ; who is with thofe who 
 every where adhere to him, yea, and with thofe alfo 
 every where, who don't know him. This John tells 
 us in his Gofpel, in the Perfon of John the Baptift, 
 who faidj He flands in the midfi of you, whom ye know 
 not i it is he who cometh after me. From this he imme- 
 diately infers, that Prayers and Vows are not to be 
 made to the Sun, Moon and Stars, but to God the 
 Father and the Son, who are every-where prefenr. 
 So Book the Second, (a) he proves by Teftimonies of 
 Scripture, that the Son of God is not circumfcrib'd 
 in the Body he hath aflum'd, but is every-where. 
 And he very clearly reconciles the Defcents of the 
 Son of God to Men, with his Immenfity and Omni- 
 prefence. Book 4. where, when Celfus objefts againft 
 the Incarnation of the Son of God, that if God de- 
 fcends to Men, it is to be fear'd he leaves his Throne, 
 he thus anfwers, (not in his own name only, but in 
 the name of all Chriftians) (h) For he knew not the 
 Power of God, and that the Spirit of the Lord fiU'd 
 the World, and that he who comprehendeth all things, 
 hath Knowledge of the Voice. Nor can he underftand 
 this : Dont 1 fill Heaven and Earth, faith the Lord ? 
 Neither doth he confider, that according to the Chri- 
 flian Word, we all live, and move, and exift in him 1 
 as alfo St. Paul taught in his Sermon to the Athenians. 
 Therefore though the God of all things doth by his 
 Power defcend with Jefus for the Life of Man ,- tho* 
 he, who in the Beginning was the Word with God, 
 who alfo was God, comes to us, he is not out of his 
 Seat, he hath not left his Throne, as though any 
 Place could be empty of him, and another full, which 
 had him not before. For the Power and Deity of 
 
 («) Pag. 63. contra Celf. (h) p. 154. 
 
 God 
 
the NicENEFAiTHr 55 
 
 God gibeth as it pleafeth, and where it findeth room, 
 not changing tlie Place, nor leaving the Room empty 
 of him, and filling another. Can Sandius fay, as he did 
 juft now of Clement, that thefe Words are fuppofi- 
 titious, and not written by Origen? He may, if he 
 pleafes i but no Man, in his Senfes, will pay any Re- 
 gard to the rafh Creature's Opinion : efpecially when 
 it appears that Origen delivers the fame Dodrine 
 in this very Book, and in many other Places, (a) Let the 
 Wretch at length learn from Origen, whom he efpe- 
 cially, but erroneoufly admires, and cites, as of 
 ^rius*s Opinion, his own Ignorance ; who profefTes he 
 liever can think, that the Son of God defcended to the 
 ■Earth, without going from place to place : fo that 
 even th^n, when he was made Man, and conversed 
 with Men, he was prefent in Heaven, yea, every- 
 where 'i and condemns the Opinion as wicked and 
 blafphemous. The holy Man truly has in the Perfon 
 of Celjus, the Epicurean, pronounc'd him wholly ig- 
 norant of the divine Power. 
 
 1 1. I will add this by way of Appendix : It is very 
 probable, that from the Words of Chriftian Writers, 
 who taught that the Appearances of God, mentioned 
 in the Old Teftament, are not to be underftood of 
 the Father, whom no Man can fee; but ought to be 
 referred to the Son, and that the Incarnation agreed 
 to the Son, not the Father: I fay from thefe, not 
 rightly underftood, it is very probable Celfus took an 
 handle to objed to the Chriftians, as though they 
 taught that God the Father, himfelf great, and in- 
 ififihle, or difficult to he contemplated, fent his Son, made 
 vifible, or vifihle, or eafy to be contemplated, to Men. 
 This we have obferv'd before of him, and have given 
 part of Origen s, Anfwer to it. The other part is alfo 
 very appofite, for thus he proceeds: (^) Grant then 
 that God is difficult to be contemplated ; but he alone 
 is not difficult to be contemplated : His only begot^ 
 
 {a) Pag. i68, i^p, 17c. 324. 325. (^) p. 323? 
 
 P 3 ten 
 
54 ^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 ten is Hkewlfe fo. For God the Word is alfo diffi- 
 cult to be contemplated, and fo is his Wifdom, by 
 •which he made all things. Who can particularly con- 
 template the Wifdom by which God made exery 
 thing ? Therefore God did not fend his Son, a God 
 eafy to be contemplated, becaufe he was difficult ; as 
 Celfus, not underftanding our Meaning, hath faid for 
 us; — but, as we have reply 'd, though the Son, as 
 God the Word, by whom all things were made, was 
 difficult to be contemplated, yet he dwelt among us. 
 In thefe Words Origen again profeffes, in the name of 
 all Chriflians, that the Father did not therefore fend 
 the Son into the World, becaufe he was eaiier to be 
 contemplated, tor both are alike incomprehenfible, as 
 he hath elfewhere informed us. For what Caufe did 
 he fend him ? For that which we have told you be- 
 fore, namely, becaufe God the Father, being of him- 
 feif, could not be fent by any one ,• but it would not 
 be unbecoming the Son of God, begotten of the Fa- 
 ther, to be fent by him. I muft here, by way of Di- 
 greffion, obferve to the Reader, not much vers'd in 
 the Writings of the Antients, that in thefe Words 
 [the Wifdom alfo is difficult to be contemplated] 
 by Wifdom is denoted the Holy Spirit. This we 
 have before taken notice of in "Theophilus Antiochenus 
 and Ireriisus. Pttavius thus difcourfes of the Caufes 
 why the Antients have ufed this way of fpeaking : 
 (h) They are therefore to be thought to call the Holy 
 Spirit Wifdom, becaufe the Gift of Wifdom is dif- 
 fused from him among Angels and Men ; as the Logos 
 is therefore faid to be fo called, becaufe it makes them 
 rational. Thus becaufe that excellent, and heavenly 
 Gift of Wifdom, as it is a Gift, and communicated 
 to us by God, with fingular Love and Goodnefs, is 
 the proper Efficiency of the Holy Spirit; therefore 
 the Fountain of Wifdom, as of all other Gifts, is 
 fometimes figuratively called by the very Name Wif" 
 
 (J) De Triiio Lib. 7. chap. 12. n, 17. 
 
 dom. 
 
fi?^ N I C E N E F A I T H. 5^ 
 
 dom. There may be other Reafons for this Appella- 
 tion, namely, becaufe the Wifdom, which is the Gift 
 of God, and is oppofed to human Wifdom, fuch as 
 the Gentile Philofophers had, is join'd with the Love 
 of God, and Charity, as St. Thomas fays. Where- 
 fore the Holy Spirit may as truly be call'd Wifdom, 
 as Love or Charity. But if you confider Wifdom in 
 its Nature and Property, as it relates to the Under- 
 ftanding, and is a kind of Knowledge, the Title is 
 peculiar to the Son and Word of God ; but not to 
 the Spirit, except extrinfecally ; and, if I may fo fay, 
 caufatively. Moreover, thofe other Words of Ori- 
 gen may deferve our Obfervation, namely, God difE- 
 cult to be contemplated,— the W^ord difficult to be 
 contemplated, fo alfo Wifdom difficult to be con- 
 templated ; as being exadly parallel to thofe Words 
 of the Creed, commonly ca.\l'd. AthanaJIan, The Fa- 
 ther incomprehenfible, the Son incomprehenfible, and 
 the Holy Ghoft incomprehenfible. But to return. 
 
 12. From what has been faid, it is very clear, that 
 the Doftors of the Church, who wrote before the 
 Rife of Arianifm, and argue that it was not God the 
 Father, but the Son, who appearM under the Old 
 Teftament, and was in the Fulnefs of Time incar- 
 nate ; that the Father is imnienfe, not included in 
 Place, and invifible, not poflible to be feen by any 
 one ,• did never intend to deny that the Son of God 
 "was equally immenfe and invifible : but only defign'd 
 to fignify that all the Appearances, and the Incarna- 
 tion refpe(5ted the Oeconomy which the Son of God 
 took upon him ; which Oeconomy was by no means 
 proper to the Father, as being of himfelf, and obliged 
 to no one for his Authority. We will now fhew, that 
 moft of the Pofl-Nicene Catholick Fathers agreed 
 with them in this Sentiment. We have before clearly 
 prov'd that Eufebius was a Catholick, by Citations 
 from him. Now he, in his Ecclefiafikal Hiftory, (a 
 Work he publifh'd after all his other Writings, and 
 even after the Nkene Council) thus proves that thQ 
 
 D 4 Angel 
 
5^ L^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 Angel worfhipp'd by Abraham, as God and Judge of 
 all, was not the Father, but the Son (c) : If it is 
 againft Reafon, that the uncreate and immutable Na- 
 ture of God Almighty fhould put on the Appearance 
 of Man j or that he fhould deceive the Eyes of the 
 Beholders with a Phantom, or that the Scriptures 
 fliould forge fuch things j who elfe can it be faid 
 that the God and Lord, who judges the whole Earth, 
 and doth Judgment, and appeared in a human Shape, 
 is, (if we are not to fay it is the firft Caufe of all 
 things) but his Word only who pre-exifted ? Thus he 
 hath alfo reafon'd in his Evangelical Demcnfiration (d). 
 For thefe, and fuch like Sayings, the Jefuit Petavius 
 hath made no fcruple of calling the venerable and 
 "well-deferving Prelate impious and profane^ tho' furely 
 not ignorant that Eufehhis never intended that Senfe, 
 which the Words at firft fight feem to exhibit ; name- 
 ly, That the Son of God, who formerly appeared in 
 a vifible Shape, was indeed of a Nature different from 
 the Father, finite and mutable j nay, more, was 
 aftually chang'd in thofe Appearances. For Eufebius 
 hath plainly rejefted that Dodrine in an hundred 
 places; (of which Petavius himfelf hath cited one) 
 yea, he exprefly teaches that the Word of God, after 
 he had taken real Man into the Unity of his Perfon, 
 remain'd God immutable, immenfe, and omniprefent. 
 Thefe are his Words: CO -^^d thefe things he did, mini- 
 firing to the Father's Counfels, ftill remaining imma- 
 terial, as he was before with the Father, not changing 
 his Subftance, not lofing his Nature, not confin'd by, 
 the Bonds of the Flefti, nor only being there, where 
 the human Veffel was, and abfolutely hinder'd from be- 
 ing in other Places: But even then, when he liv'd among 
 Men, he fiU'd all things, he was with the Father, and 
 in him. He then had all things in Heaven and Earth 
 in his Care, being by no means excluded frpm being 
 every-wherej as we are. And a little after, He was not 
 
 (c) Lib. I. chap. 2. p. 4. (^) Lib. 5. p. 147. (e) p. 53 7.E. H* 
 
 poUuteda 
 
the NiceneFaith, 57 
 
 polluted, when his Body was begotten ; nor, being 
 impaflible, did he fuffer, when it was violently fe- 
 parated from him. What can be more Catholick ? 
 Without doubt therefore Eufebius intended nothing 
 elfe in the Places afore-cited (unlefs we would call 
 the learned Man, as Petavius does, a dull Fellow) 
 than the Fathers before him, whofe Opinion we have 
 before explained, namely, that the Oeconomy did not 
 agree with God the Father, being unbegotten, either 
 fo as that he fhould be fent by another, or fo, as that he 
 Ihould appear in feign'd Shapes ; but that it was not 
 unbecoming the Son of God, by the Will of the Fa- 
 ther, of whom he was born, to undertake that 
 Oeconomy ; and for that reafon, not the Father, but 
 the Son fhew'd himfelf formerly to the Patriarchs in 
 the Shape of a Man ', as in thefe laft Times, not the 
 Father, but the Son, took real and very Man into 
 the Unity of his Perfon. But to proceed from Eufe^ 
 hius to the other confeffedly Catholick Fathers. 
 
 13. Cyril of Jerufakm^ (a) thinks that to be the 
 Son, which Ifaiah beheld fitting upon a Throne : No 
 Man (fays he) hath feen the Father at any time ; he 
 then who appeared to the Prophet, was the Son. Bafil 
 {h) proves it was the Son who appear'd to Mofes in the 
 Bufh, becaufe it is written, that the Angel of the 
 Lord appear'd in the Bufh, and becaufe that very 
 Angel afterwards faid, I am that I am. Hence he ar- 
 gues thus : Who then is this Angel and God ? Is it 
 not he, of whom we are informed, his Name is call'd 
 the Angel of the Great Counfel? Bafil then thought, 
 as the Antients before-mention'd, namely, that the 
 Name of God did equally belong to the Father and the 
 Son ; that the Name of Angel did not, being proper to 
 the Son, who was in every Age fent by the Father, 
 and difcover'd his Will to Men. A little after, in 
 the fame place, Bafil thus concludes : It is then mani^ 
 fefi to every one, that where the fame Perfon is call'd 
 Angel and Go^, the only begotten is meant, who 
 
 («) In Catechefi 14, (jb) 1638, Ed. Par. p. 742. 
 
 mani- 
 
5^ J DEFENCE of 
 
 manifefted hlmfelf in the Ag^s to Men, and told his 
 Saints the Will of the Father. Theodoret alfo proves 
 that the Father (a) is invifible, and Ihews that he nei- 
 ther is, nor can be feen. And in the fifth Queft ion 
 upon Exodus, {b ' he contends, that it was not the Fa- 
 ther who appear'd to Mofes in the Bufti, and faid he 
 was God ; tor he can't be the MefTenger of any one : 
 but the Son, which Son alfo is not an inferior Mini- 
 fter, or Servant. 
 
 14. Of the Latin Fathers, we cite thefe Evidences. 
 Bilary^ (c) an holy Man, and a very fev^ere Adverfary 
 of Arianiim, very often and exprefly dehvers the fame 
 Dodrine. Thus he proves the Angel, who appear'd 
 to Jgar, the Son of God, becaufe he is calTd both 
 God and Lord, and the Angel of God; but both 
 thofe Names can't properly be given to any one but 
 the Son of God, who alone is in his own Nature 
 God, and in his Office and Difpenfation the Angel of 
 God, i. e. the Preacher of the Father's Will, Now 
 this Function is not unbecoming him, as hfe hath his 
 Original from the Father. For, among other things, 
 he writes thus in the fame place : He who is call'd 
 the Angel of God, is alfo God and Lord ,• but ac- 
 cording to the Prophet, the Son of God is the Angel 
 of the Great Counfel. That the Dillindion of Per- 
 fons might be abfolute, he is call'd the Angel of God ; 
 for he who is God of God is the Angel of God. But 
 that he might have his due Honour, he is proclaimed 
 God and Lord. Hence alfo, about the end of the 
 fame Book, he contends, that the Son alone was feen 
 by Men, but that the Father was invifible. For upon 
 the Place of Jeremy, he writes thus : You have then 
 God feen upon Earth, and converging with Men. I 
 ask how you think thefe Words are to be underftood : 
 iVb Man hath feen God at any time, but the only begotten 
 Son, vjho is in the Bofom of the Father i fince Jeremy 
 
 . (0 ^« 50 adv. Hscref. c. i, {h") In Qusft. 5. in Exo4. 
 
 (r) In Lib. 4. de Trin. 
 
 proclaims 
 
the NiceneFaith; ^9 
 
 proclaims him God, who was feen upon Earth, and 
 converfed with Men ? The Father, no doubt, is not 
 to be feen by any but the Son. Who then was he, 
 who was feen and conversed among Men ? Certainly 
 our God, the God vifible among Men, and handled 
 by them. And a little after : He was feen upon 
 Earth, and conversed with Men. For there is one 
 Mediator of God and Men, who is God and Man ; 
 and the Mediator both under the Lavj^ and alfo when 
 he took Flefh upon him — -He alone was born God 
 of God, by whom all things in Heaven and Earth 
 were made, by whom the Times and Ages were 
 made. All that is, is of his making. It is he then 
 alone who promis'd to Abraham^ who fpake to MofeSy 
 who teftify'd to Ifrael^ who dwelt in the Prophets, 
 was born by the Virgin of the Holy Spirit, &c. 
 Here, by the way, it is to be obferv'd againft Bellar^ 
 mine, and other Popifh Writers, that Hilary exprefly 
 affirms (what the Antients, it is plain, generally 
 taught) that our Saviour was Mediator under the 
 Law, and before his Incarnation ,* and therefore not 
 only Mediator in refped of the human Nature, which 
 he had not then affum'd ; a thing they have eagerly 
 contended for. Further, the fame Perfon, fpeaking 
 of the Angel again {a) which appeared to Agar, fays i 
 The Angel of God fpeaks to Agar, and the fame An- 
 gel is God. But perhaps he therefore is not true 
 God, becaufe the Angel of God : For that feems to 
 be a Name of an inferior Nature, and where the 
 Name is of another kind, there it is thought the Sub- 
 ftance is not of the fame kind. The former Book 
 hath indeed fliewn the Vanity of this Queflion ; for 
 in the Name Angel is rather the Idea of the Office 
 than the Nature. And a little after : The Law there- 
 fore, or rather God by the Law, willing to fignify 
 the Perfon of the Father, call'd the Son of God the 
 Angel of God, i* e. the Meffenger of God. He in- 
 
 (a) In Lib. 5. dq Trin, 
 
 timares 
 
6o ::^DEFENCE^/ 
 
 timates to us his Office, when he calls him MefTenger j 
 but the Reality of his Nature, when he calls him 
 God. This then is the Order of the Difpenfation, 
 not of the Nature ,* for we preach no other than the 
 Father and the Son, and we fo equalize the Nature 
 of the Names, as that the Nativity of the only be-^ 
 gotten God of the unbegocten God hath the Reality 
 or Verity of God. The Senfe of the Perfon that 
 fends, and the Perfon that is fent, is no other than of 
 Father and Son ; and it does not take away the Re- 
 ality of the Nature, or deftroy the Propriety of the 
 native Divinity in the Son. Laftly, the fame Perfon 
 fpeaks thus of the God feen by Ifaiah : For Ifaiah faw 
 God ; and though it is written. No one hath feen 
 God at any timey but the only begotten Son^ who is 
 in the Bofom of the Father , he hath declared him ; 
 yet the Prophet faw God, and fo beheld his Glory, 
 as it was thought even the Dignity of a Prophet was 
 not admitted to fee it j for he was put to death for it 
 by the ^evjs. The only begotten then, who is in the 
 Bofom of the Father, hath declared the God, whom 
 no one hath feen. And a little after, {a) The Pro- 
 phet fays, the Gofpel witneiTes, the Church confeflfes, 
 that he is true God, who is feen ; and yet no one al- 
 lows that the Father is feen. Here he aflerts this 
 Dodrine, That the Father was never feen to any one, 
 to be fo Catholick in his Age, that no Catholick 
 durfc then defend the contrary Opinion. 
 
 15. Even Aufiin concludes from thefe Words of 
 ^ohn, ib) No one hath feen God at any time^ the only be^ 
 gotten Son^ ivho is in the Bofom of the Father ^ he hath de^ 
 clar'd him ', That the Son of God, who is the Word 
 of God, not only brought Tidings of the Father in 
 the lafl times, when he vouchfaf'd to appear in the 
 Flefh, but alfo difcover'd him before from the Con- 
 ftitution of the World, to whom he would, either 
 by fpeaking, or appearing, either as fome Angelical 
 
 (a) Ibid. p. 58, {h) In Lib, cont, A dim, cap. 9, 
 
 Power^, 
 
the N 1 C E N E F A I T H. 6l 
 
 Power, or fome other Creature. Which Conclufion 
 is of no force, unlefs it be taken for granted, that the 
 Senfe of the Evangelift's Words are, that God the Fa- 
 ther himfeir never Ihew'd himfelf to any one. There- 
 fore Auflin contradifts himfelf, as he often does, and 
 fays that, which Hilary affirms, he thought no Catho- 
 lick durfl fay, when in another place he fpeaks thus : 
 (a) That it is too rafh to fay, that God the Father 
 never appeared in any vifible Shapes to the Fathers or 
 Prophets. This Saying of Aujiins^ Petavius rafhly 
 approves as certain. Under the New Teftament in- 
 deed we know that God the Father hath fpoke to 
 Men, as in the Baptifm of Chrift, and at his Tranf- 
 figuration, faying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
 •wellpleafed j and in that Voice, I have bothglorify^d^ and 
 Villi again glorify. From thefe Places of Scripture, 
 Petavim, defirous to prove Auflin s Aflertion, namely, 
 that God the Father had fometime appeared to the 
 Prophets, argues thus : For it is not more unworthy 
 that fupreme and moft excellent Majefty of God, to 
 make himfelf after fome fort heard by Men, by fome 
 fenfible Means, than to make himfelf vifible to them 
 by the temporary Ufe of fome corporeal Shape. Here 
 muft be a falfe Print ; It is not more unworthy z 
 The Jefuit, I fuppofe, wrote, or fhould have wrote. 
 It is not more worthy ; otherwife the Reafoning is 
 very loofe. But I fay, that is not fo certain, as Peta- 
 njius thought j for according to the Opinion of the 
 Antients, as I have often faid, thofe Appearances of 
 God in fome vifible corporeal Shape, were Preludes 
 and Figures of the future Incarnation, which did no 
 way agree to the Father. But grant it certain, the 
 Places cited are impertinent ; for Auflin, whofe De- 
 fence Petavius undertakes, hath exprefly fpokeii 
 of the Appearances of God formerly made to the 
 Fathers, and the Prophets under the Old Teflament. 
 Befides it was extraordinary, and alfo neceflary to 
 
 if) In Lib 2. de Trin. chap. 17, 
 
 confirm 
 
62 'J DE¥EN CE of 
 
 confirm the Miflion of the Son from the Father, who 
 appeared now upon Earth as a mere Man, that the 
 Father fhould pronounce fuch words of his Son : But 
 this by the way. Further, whereas thofe Appearan- 
 ces of God under the Old Teflament regarded the 
 Miflion of the one by the other, and the Funftion 
 committed by one to the other, upon which account 
 generally he that appeared, was not only called God, 
 but alfo Angel, that is, fent; Auflin himfelf plainly 
 confefTes that Miflion does not agree to God the Fa- 
 ther. For in the fourth Book of the Trinity he writes 
 thus : (a) As therefore the Father begat, and the Son 
 is begotten ; fo the Father fent, and the Son is fent. 
 Again, As to be begotten, is to the Son the fame as to 
 exift from the Father ; fo to be fent, is to the Son the 
 fame as to be known to be of, or from him. And in the 
 end of the fame fourth Book he afl'erts it very abfurd 
 to fay, that the Father is fent by the Son whom he 
 begat, or by the Holy Spirit, who proceeded from 
 him; tho he is pleafed vifibly to appear by a Creature 
 fubjed to him. But he fpeaks the moft clearly in thefe 
 Words : {b) The Father alone is not faid to be fent, 
 becaufe he hath no Author, of whom he was begotten, 
 or from whom he proceeds. And tiie Father is there- 
 fore not faid to be fent, not becaufe of a diverfity of 
 Nature, for there is no fuch thing in the Trinity ; 
 but becaufe of his Authority. For the Splendor or 
 Heat fends not the Fire, but the Fire fends the Splen- 
 dor or Heat, (c) To which you have this parallel 
 place : For it was fit, not that the Father fhould be 
 fent by the Son ; but the Son by the Father. Now 
 this is not an Inequality of Subftance, but an Order of 
 Nature; not that the one is prior to the other, but 
 that the one is of the other. But as to the Appearan- 
 ces under the Old Teftament, thus far we agree with 
 Auft'm^ whom Petavius follows, that God was not al- 
 way in the Angel'by a fpecial Prefence; but admini- 
 
 («) Cap. 20. (h) In Lib. contra Arian. SeriHi c. 4. (c) Lib. 
 2. contra Maximin. Arian. c. 14. 
 
 ftred 
 
the N I C E N E F A I T H^ 6i 
 
 ftred many Affairs by Angels only ; nay, we deny not, 
 that Tome Antients have gone too far in this Queftion. 
 Further we freely confefs, that it is often difficult to 
 conjecture when a mere Angel, and when God in an 
 Angel appearM ; and with Petavius embrace the Rule 
 of Alphonfus TofiatuSy as a good one; namely, that there 
 are fome things recorded in Scripture which are fmall, 
 and belong but to fome one, or a few ; others^ which 
 are extraordinary, remarkable, and of univerfal con- 
 cern. In the former. Angels alone are the Mmifters, 
 which the Scripture fo exprelTes, as not to give any 
 hint of a diving Perfon. The latter are tranfaded by 
 God, and fo declared, as that it appears, not only ,that 
 an Angel was prefenc, but that God a<5ted and fpoke 
 by him what he pleafed. But ftill we think this the 
 moft certain Token of the Divine Prefence, when he 
 who appears or fpeaks, openly profefles himfelf to be 
 God, or he that is, or the God of Abraham^ &c. or 
 the God of the Fathers; and requires Divine Worfhip 
 and Adoration to be paid him ; This we know was 
 done by him, who fpoke to Mofes in the Bufh, and to 
 the Jfraelites in Mount Sinai. In the mean time, we 
 conftantly affirm, that wherefoever it is plain God ap- 
 peared, there is to be underftood not the Father, but 
 the Son ; and herein we Religioufly follow the con- 
 fentient Judgment of primitive Antiquity. But to 
 return. 
 
 16. Befides the Evidence we have brought, Petavius 
 himfelf has helpM us to fome. Prudemius very fully 
 proves againft the P atrip afftans, that the Word only 
 appeared to the Antients, not in its proper fhape, 
 but a corporeal one, and that becaufe the Father could 
 not be feen of any one. Thus amongfl other things he 
 writes, {a) Was God paffible, whofe fhape and figure 
 was never feen by any one ? That Majefty is not eafy 
 to be comprehended by Senfe, the Eyes, or Hand. 
 We have the famous Teflimony of the great Johtii 
 
 ia)TvHdent'msva. initi© Apoth. Ed. Amfterd. Janf. p. 155. 
 
 that 
 
64 "J DE-P EN CE of 
 
 that God could never be feen. Jgain, (b) Whofoever 
 is reported to have feen God, hath feen his Son: For 
 the Son is that, which fhining forth from the Father, 
 makes himfelf vifible by Ihapes, which human Sight 
 can comprehend. Then he fays that the Word only 
 was feen under a corporeal fhape by Abraham and 
 Mofes J not by any means the Father : (c) Believe me, 
 no one hath feen God, no one, believe me. God of 
 the Fountain God is vifible ; God the Fountain himfelf 
 is not. He who is begotten may be feen, not he who 
 is unbegotten, &c, 
 
 Caffian fays, (d) This is he only, who fpake to the 
 Patriarchs, dwelt in the Prophets, was conceived of 
 the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, &c. T'hen, For 
 "was the Father ever feen upon Earth, who is never 
 faid to be vifible but to the Son ? Was he brought forth 
 in the Flefh, or did he converfe among Men ? No 
 fure. Laftly, IJidore (e) fays : For it is the very Son, 
 who being always fent by the Father, appeared vifibly 
 to Men. From his MilHon therefore he is rightly cal- 
 led the Angel, (f) 
 
 17. I'll only add one thing more as worthy obferva- 
 tion. That antiently the Symbols of fome Churches, 
 did by way of diftinclion profefs God the Father invi- 
 fible, and impaflible, namely in the Senfe explained. 
 Ruffwus indeed, in his Explication of the Creed com- 
 monly called the Apoftles, exprefly witnefl'eth, that 
 the Creed of Aquileia in the Article concerning the 
 Father had in his time after [Almighty] Invifible and 
 Impaflible. Whence alfo in the Epiftle of Auxentius, 
 Arch-bifhop of Milan, in Hilary, the firft Article of 
 the Creed is even now read thus : I believe in God 
 the Father Almighty, Invifible, Impaflible, Immortal. 
 Erafmus, in his Anfwer to the Cenfure of the Paris Di- 
 vines fays, that the Eaftern Churches had alfo received 
 
 (h) Ibid. (c) p. 1 5 5. (J[) In Lib. 4. de Incarnationc, c. 9. 
 (e) De Natura Domini, cap. i. (/) Whofoever dejives more upon 
 this Head, may cepfult Petav. de Trin. Lib. 8. cap. 2, 
 
 the 
 
Z;^^ N I c E N E Faith* 6f 
 
 the fame Addition ; whicli (a) Voffius too taought pro- 
 bable. But^without doubt this Addition was oppofed to 
 a Herefy, which Tome {b) whofe Names are loft, did 
 firft defend, and then Praxeas, afterwards Beryllus^ aid 
 Noetusj and laftly SabeUius i all holding, that not the 
 Son of God, but God the Fatiier himfelf, was ittxi 
 by Men under the Old Teftament, and in the Fulnefs 
 of Time was incarnate and fuffered. 
 
 Dr. Grabe*s Annotation upon Ch.-^. S. $. &c. 
 
 I only add this to the Reverend Author's Difcourfe 
 Upon Juftin Martyr, that if the Adverfaries will there- 
 fore conclude that JuJIin deny'd the Immenfity and 
 Omniprefence of God the Son, becaufe he hath faid 
 that he appeared in a fmall part of the Earth, as tho 
 he had left the Heavens ; they may as well conclude, 
 that Jujiin denyM the Immenfity and Omniprefence 
 of God the Father, becaufe he feems to confine him, 
 as it were, to the Regions above. For he fays (c) that 
 God the Father always abides in the higheft Heavens. 
 And (d) he abides in his own Region, whatfoever 
 that is, feeing and hearing quickly. But as God the 
 Father is faid to be in Heaven, becaufe the Angels in 
 Heaven behold his Face, Matt. i8. lo ,• fo the Word 
 is faid to be on Earth, becaufe on Earth he appeared 
 in a vifible fhape to the Patriarchs, and other holy 
 Men : Tho both of them do equally fill Heaven and 
 Earth, Jerem.2^. 24. Befides, there is a remarkable 
 Place to be added to the Citations from Irenaus for the 
 Invifibility and Incomprehenfibility of the Son of God. 
 It is this: {e) He then took Man upon himfelf, invifible 
 became vifible, incomprehenfible comprehenfible, im- 
 paflible paflible, and the Word Man, fmnming up, or 
 gathering together all things into himfelf; that as the 
 Word of God ischief in Super-celeftial, Spiritual and 
 Invifible things; fo he might have the Principality iti 
 
 (rt) De Tribus Symb. p. i6. {b) Jujiin Apol. 2. p. ^6. Dialog 
 cumTryph. p. 35S. (0 p. 275. (d)p. 557. (Op.277- 
 yoL. IL E vifible 
 
1S6 
 
 'A DEFENCE (?/ 
 
 vifible and corporeal things, taking the Primacy upon 
 himfelf, and placing himfelf Head of the Church, that 
 in due time he may draw all things to himfelf. See 
 Clement of Alexand. Strom. 7. I add nothing concern- 
 ing the other Fathers, for brevity's fake. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 T^be *T/nrd T'befis is profofed, in which the 
 TJfe of the TioBrine of the So7i^s Suhordi- 
 nation is explained* 
 
 T! H O I have fo largely explained the Sentiment 
 of the Antients concerning the Subordination of 
 the Son to the Father i it ftill remains that I fay fome- 
 thing concerning the excellent Ufe the Antients ob- 
 served in this Dodrine. This then fhall be the third 
 Thefis, and the laft of this laft Sedion. 
 
 THESIS III. 
 
 The Antient DoBors thought this DoEirine of the Suhordma- 
 tion of the Son to the Father , as his Original and Princi^ 
 tle^very ufeful and ahfohitely necejfary to be known and be- 
 lieved ; becaufe by this efpecialfy the Divinity of the Son 
 may be ajferted^ and the Unity of the Divine Monarchy 
 preferved mtwithjianding. For tho the Name and Na- 
 ture be common to tiuo, namely to the Father and his Son, 
 yet becaufe the one is the Principle of the other , from 
 which he is propagated, and that by an interior not an ex- 
 ternal ProduBion, God is truly faid to be only One. This 
 Reafon thofe Antients did alfo believe equally to belong te 
 the Divinity of the Holy Ghoji. 
 
 2. According to the Opinion of the Antients, which 
 is alfo the Voice of Common Senfe^ if there were two 
 
 unbfe- 
 
the NicENE Faith. 67 
 
 unbegotten, or independent Principles in the Divinic}^^ 
 the Confequence would be, that not only the Father 
 would be deprived of his Pre-eminence, being of and 
 from himfelf alone (of which we have largely treated 
 before} but alfo that there would neceflarily be two 
 Gods. On the other hand, fuppofing the Subordina- 
 tion, by which the Father alone is God of himfelf, and 
 the Son God of God, the Do(5lors have thought both 
 the Father's Pre-eminence, and the Divine Monarchy 
 fafe. This they would have extended to the Holy 
 Spirit alfo, the tliird Perfon of the Deity, whom, 
 as having his Original from the Father by the Son, 
 they believed in no wife to bring in Tritheifm. There 
 are many things well worth reading to be found in the 
 Fathers upon this head, efpecially in thofe, who have 
 wrote more largely concerning the Trinity. We will 
 give you a fewfeled Paflagesout of the great Quantity. 
 3. We have before heard v4r/j6'«tf^or^i (<z) infer that 
 there is but one God the Father, Son, and Holy Spi- 
 rit, becaufe there is but one Fountain of the Divinity, 
 namely the Father, from whom both the Son and Ho- 
 ly Spirit have their Original. 'TertulUan {h) hath very 
 fully explained the Matter, inhere he thus learnedly 
 argues againft the Praxeans^ who under the Pretence 
 of averting one God, denied the Diftindion of Perfons : 
 We muft always review what we have treated of, left 
 we feem to have condemn'd every thing that is wrong 
 without examination, and by prejudice; efpecially this, 
 which thinks itfelf in pofleffion of the very Truth, 
 fuppofing that we cannot otherwife believe one God, 
 than by faying that the Father, the Son, and the Ho- 
 ly Spirit are the very fame; as tho all were not alfo 
 thus one, as being all of one, namely by Unity of Sub- 
 ftance,and theMyftery oftheCEconomy was preferved 
 notwithftanding, which makes the One three. Some 
 time after he proceeds thus : They publifh that we 
 preach two or three Gods, and prefume, that them- 
 
 (4) SeeSeSl. 1, Ch,4. n.9, (i) Tert.p. 501. Jo** 
 
 E 2 pelves 
 
68 ::^ DEFENCE^f 
 
 felves are the Worfhippers of the one God ; as tho a 
 miftaken Unity is not heretical, and a right Trinity 
 is not the Truth. They fay we hold the Monarchy : 
 The Latins J even thofe of them that are barbarous, 
 fo exprefs the Sound, that you would think they as 
 "well underftood the Word Monarchia, as pronounced 
 k. Now the Latins ftudy to fpeak Monarchia i even 
 the Greeks wall not underftand the Difpenfation. But 
 jf I have got any knowledge of the two Languages, I 
 know that Monarchy fignifies nothing but the Go- 
 verrtment of One ; but yet that it hath not that Title, 
 becaufe of one, of him whofe it is, or that he hath 
 not a Son, or that he made himfelf a Son to himfelf, 
 or doth not adminifter his Monarchy by whom he 
 pleafes. Now I fay, that no Government is to the 
 Government of one himfelf fo fingular to a Monarchy, 
 as that it is not adminifterM by others, whom he 
 makes his Officials. If he has a Son, who has a Mon- 
 archy, that the Monarchy is not neceflarily divided, 
 and ceafes to be a Monarchy, if he takes his Son in 
 Collegue; that it is principally his therefore, from 
 whom it was communicated to the Son j and as his, is 
 therefore a Monarchy, which is jointly held by two 
 fomuch one. If then the Divine Monarchy is admini- 
 ftred by fomany Legions and Hofts of Angels, as it 
 is written, A tbmfand Millions flocd by him, and an 
 hundred 'Thoufand appeared before him ; and yet ic 
 ceafes not to be the Government of one, a Monarchy, 
 tho adminifter'd by fo many thoufand Powers : how 
 is it that God feems to be divided and difperfed in 
 the Son and Holy Spirit, fo Partakers of the Fa- 
 ther's Subftance ; and yet is not divided and difperfed 
 in fuch a Number of Angels fo different from the Fa- 
 ther's Subftance ? Thou falfly thinkeft the Members, 
 Pledges, Inflruments, Powers, and the whole Parade 
 of Monarchy to be the deftrudion of it. I would have 
 thee ufe thyfelf to the Senfe of the Thing, not the 
 Sound of the Word. This thou art to underftand to 
 be the overthrowing the MonarcJiyj when asiother Go- 
 ^ , vernment 
 
the NicENE Fait h^ 69 
 
 vernment of its own proper fmme and ftate^ is by this 
 introduce as a Rival of it \ when another God is ad- 
 vanced ii3 oppolition to the Creator. Then it is evil, 
 when w« fet up more, as Prodicus and Valentinus did » 
 then we ruin the Monarchy, when we pull down the 
 Creator. Now when I don't derive the Son from any 
 thing elfe, but the Subftance of the Father, and repre- 
 fent him as doing nothing without the Father's Will, 
 and as having obtainM all his Power from the Father; 
 how can I indeed deftroy the Monarchy, which I 
 preferve in the Son, being delivered to him by the Fa- 
 ther? I may urge this aifo in the third Perfon, for as 
 much as I think the Spirit to have proceeded no othee 
 way than from the Father by the Son. Take care then, 
 left thou rather deftroyeft the Monarchy, who over- 
 turneft the Difpenfation and Difpofition of it in fo 
 many Perfons as God pleafed. Hitherto "tertuUian 
 very Learnedly. 
 
 4. The like we have in Novatian^ where he thus 
 writes concerning God the Father and the Son : (a) 
 Namely, God proceeding from God, making a fecond 
 Perfon, but not depriving the Father of being the One 
 God. For if he had not been born, the unborn com- 
 pared with the unborn, an Equality appearing, would 
 have made two Unborns, and therefore two Gods. If 
 he had been unbegotten, compared with the unbegot- 
 tcn, and found equal, the unbegottens would have 
 truly made two Gods, and therefore Chrift would 
 have made two Gods, If he had been found without 
 Original, as the Father, and had himfelfbeen the 
 Principle of all things, as the Father, making two 
 Principles, he had confeqijently made us two Gods, 
 Then a little after he adds : But now whatfoever he is, 
 he is not of himfelf, becaufe not unborn ; but of the Fa- 
 ther, becaufe begotten. Whether therefore he is the 
 Word, or the Power, or the Wifdom, or the Light, 
 or the Son, or whatfoever of thefe, fince he is of no 
 .other, as I faid before, but the Father^ owing his Q- 
 (^a) P, 710, and 730. 
 
 E I riginal 
 
 »4 
 
70 J DEFENCE of 
 
 riginal Eo his Father, he cannot divide the Divinity 
 into two Gods, who had his Original by being born 
 of the One God. Upon account of which, being 
 the only begotten and the firlt begotten of him, who 
 hath no beginning, he alone is the Principle and Head 
 of all things. Laftly, towards the end he thus dif- 
 courfes : The Son is fhewn to be God, to whom the 
 Divinity is feen to be reach 'd out and delivered; * but 
 yet the Father is proved to be the One God, becaufe 
 of that Reciprocation of the Divinity and Majejiy of the 
 Son to the Father ^ uho gave it. 
 
 5. We have elfewhere c'lttd Hipplytus, thus dif- 
 courfing in his Book againft Noetusi When I fay the 
 Son is different from the Father, I do not fay, that 
 there are two Gods; but as it were. Light from Light, 
 Water from the Fountain, and a Ray from the Sun. 
 For there is one Power from the Whole, the Father 
 is the Whole, trom which this Power, the Word. 
 
 * Tloe Avfnver to the QtieY'ies interpolates this Place^ as alfo Dr. 
 Clarke, by adding the Words [by ackno^jjledgment. ] Not content 'With 
 this, they have thought ^t to leave out thefe Words [UnusDeusoften- 
 ditur verus & aeternus Pater, d quo folo haec vis Divinitatis e- 
 mifla, ctiam in Filium tx-adita & direOra, rurfum per Subftan- 
 tisE communionem ad Patrem revolvitur] Lywhich Se£t. 2. Ch. 
 8. n. 5. rot only the Senfe and Meaning., hut alfo the Sum and Sub" 
 fiance of ivhat preceded., isjirajigely mangled. It is faid hejides^ that 
 thefe Words [ Cujus fic Divinitas traditur, ut non aut diflonantia 
 aut inaequalitate Divinitatis duos Dcos reddidifle videatur] are 
 coryupty and Dr. Clarke lamely attempts the emendation of them : 
 but really they fland in no need of it, unlefs they mufl be forced into 
 the VoBor's Scheme. — Atifiver to the Queries p. 5<J, ^k^57. Againfi 
 My. Nelfon's Frleiid, p. 15 S, 139. Surely [aut diflonantia aut in 
 aequalitate] cojifiderd hi Syntax is fuch "Latin as never even Africa 
 produced. The fenfe of the Place is pretetided to be the befl underfiooi 
 from the confideration of what goes before : But every ordinary Reader 
 ivill quicMy fee, that Novatian intends to give the Reafon of that 
 Sentence in ii-h at follow sit. He ufes the Particle [enim ] to introduce 
 it, and plainly means, that the Divinity of the Son does not jar with 
 that of the Father, becaufe the SuhjeEHon of every thing to the Son 
 is from the Authority of the Father; that the Divinity of the Son is not 
 wiecfual to that of the Father, becaufe their Nature is common and ye- 
 nprocal; fo that they are not two either in the Exercife of Authority^ 
 tr thi hequajjy ^ or Separation of Exijience. ■ . ■ ■ 
 
 Here 
 
f^^ N I C E N E F A I T H. 71 
 
 Here I have obferved, that the Father and Son are 
 therefore proved, the diftind in Perfon, to be one 
 God, becaufe the Son is not Godofhimfelf, but God 
 of God, even of the Father, as Light proceeds from 
 Light, Water from the Fountain, and Ray from the 
 Sun. Laftly, to omit many others, whom I might 
 cite, Origen makes this Note upon Ch. p. v, 5. of the 
 Epiflle to the Romans : Chrift then is of them, as con- 
 cerning the Fleih, who is over all God BlelTed for ever. 
 That Chrift is one according to the Flefh, and ano- 
 ther according to the Spirit, he fignified in the former 
 Parts of this Epiftle, where he faith : Who was made 
 of the Seed of D^-y/ J according to the Flefli who was 
 the Predeftinated Son of God in Power according to the 
 SanEiification of the Spirit. How he is according to the 
 Spirit the Son of God, and according to the Flefh the 
 Son of Davidj we have more fully explained before. 
 He then, whom he there calls the Son oi God accord- 
 ing to the Spirit, is here in the following part of his 
 Doctrine, his Auditors having made a proficiency, 
 called God over all Bleflfed for ever. I wonder how 
 thofe that read what the fame ApoP.Ie fays in other 
 Words, 'There is one God the Father , of luhom are all 
 things, and one Lord Jefus Chrifi, by -whom are all things ; 
 deny that they are obliged to profefs the Son of 
 God to be God, left they feem to fay there are 
 two Gods. What; will they make of this place alfo, 
 in which Chrift is plainly ftyl'd God over all ? But they 
 mind not, who are of this Opinion, that as he called 
 the Lord Jefus Chrift not fo one Lord, as that God 
 the Father is not alfo called Lord ; fo he called not 
 God the Father, fo one God, as that the Son may not 
 alfo be thought God. For the Scripture is true, 
 which fays, Kmiu ye that the Lord is God. Now both 
 are onei God j becaufe the Son hath no other beginning 
 of his Divinity than the Father; but the Son (as Wif- 
 dom faith) is the moft pure Emanation of the very one 
 Paternal Fountain. I know {a) Erajmus hath ^xq- 
 {a) Erafmus in locum. 
 
 E 4 tended 
 
72 '^ D E F E N C E (?/ 
 
 tended (the better to defend his own abfurd Interpfe- 
 tation of that remarkable Pafifage of St. Paul, Rom. 9. 
 V. 5.) that this Paragraph wascorrefted by Jerojn^ or 
 fome other of Origens Interpreters, and hath endea-* 
 vour'd to prove it, becaufe it was ftrange Origen (hould 
 here tell us, that there were Men then, who durft not 
 call Chrift God, left they fhould feem to make two 
 Gods: but why is that fo ftrange ? Becaufe the Doc- 
 trine of the Avians is here noted, which (as Erafmus 
 afterwards explains himfelf) was not condemned till 
 raany Years after Origen. But who would not won- 
 der that the great Erafmus fhould either not know, 
 or not remember, that there were many, not only in 
 Origen s time, but many Years before, who were a-' 
 fraid to acknowledge Chrift to be a Divine Perfon di- 
 ilinft from the Father, left they fhould feem to make 
 two Gods. Did not the Praxeans before Origen, deny 
 tha^ God the Father had a Son Perfonally diftindt 
 from him, and of the fame Nature with him, under 
 pretence of the Monarchy ? Did not Noetus, Origens 
 Contemporary, defend the fame Herefy ? Hath not 
 ^eryllus taught it, with whom Origen difputed in a 
 Synod of Bifhops? There were others befides, in the 
 Days of Origen gnd before, who univerfally and abfo- 
 lutely deny'd the diftinct Subfiftence of the Son in 
 the Divine Eflence, and even his Divinity, left they 
 fhould make two Gods? Did the very learned Man 
 never hear of the Ebionites, (a) who profeffing them^^ 
 felves Worfhippers of the One God the Father, 
 affirm- d that Chrift was a mere Man? And who are 
 in more places than one by name taken notice of by 
 Origen ? Did not T^heodotus Coriarius teach this Doc- 
 trine long before Origen^ Laftly, (h) That you may not 
 think the Text cited to be interpolated by Jerom, or 
 fome other Interpreter, fee the fame Origen in the Com-; 
 mentary upon ^ohn publifh'd in Greek by Huetius, en- 
 
 (^) In Libris contra Celfum. {b) Confult the J-udgment of the 
 CathoUck Church concerning aU the Hexeticks hitherto m^rit'ioned, ivho. 
 ^eny our Lord's Vmmty, 
 
f /&^ N I C E K E F A 1 T H. 75 
 
 gaging the fame Herefy with the fame Weapons (a). 
 Further, the fame Origen in his firft Book upon GenefiSy 
 after he had faid, that the Son was the eternal Splen- 
 dor of the eternal Light, fubjoins; He exifted, but not 
 fo as we have faid of the eternal Light, left we fhould 
 feem to bring in two Principles of Light; but as the 
 Splendor of the unbegotten Light, having that Light 
 his Beginning, and Original. Laftly, in his undoubt- 
 ed Work againft Celfiis {h) he contends, that the Chri- 
 ftians are not guilty of Sedition againft God the Fa- 
 ther of all Things, tho they adore the Son with Divine 
 Worfhip, as well as the Father; and he proves it by 
 this Argument, becaufe all the Honour of the Son re- 
 dounds to God the Father. The Words are: Now 
 Celfiis cannot ftiew that we are guilty of any Sedition 
 concerning the Son. For we even worfhip the Father, 
 when we admire his Son, the Word, and Wifdom, 
 and Truth, and Righteoufnefs, and whatfoever we have 
 heard the Son of God is, fo begotten of fuch a Father. 
 6. Now left any one fliould reckon thefe among 
 the dangerous Sayings of the Primitive Fathers, I add, 
 that the Poft-Nicene Fathers who kept clofeft to the 
 Decrees of that Council, taught the fame Doftrine. 
 The great Athanafius, the moft rigid Defender of the 
 Nicene Faith, is ample Evidence of this Matter. Thus 
 he {peaks in his Oration againft theSabeUians: (c) Where 
 there is but one Principle, and one Begotten of it, the 
 exact and natural Image, becaufe begotten of him, 
 there is one God; the Divinity being conceiv'd per- 
 fe^ in the Father, and the Father's Divinity fubfifting 
 perfed in the Son. But he is more full in his fourth 
 Oration (<:^) againft the ^^r/^TZi" .- Since Ghrift is God 
 of God, and the Word, Wifdom, Son and Power of 
 God ; therefore we are told there is one God in Holy 
 Scripture. For the Word being the Son of the One 
 God, is refer M to him, whofe he is. So that there are 
 two, the Father and Son, but ftill an indiftblved, un- 
 
 (rf) C. I. n. 10. of this SeBbn, (b) P. 38(5, 3S7. (c) Tom.2.p.45. 
 ^) Vol-i.Tpm.i.p.617. 
 
 divided 
 
74 '^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 divided Unity of the Godhead. Thus we muft fay 
 one Principle of che Godhead, not two. Hence pro- 
 perly comes the Monarchy. Of this Principle the 
 Word is the Son, not as another Principle fubfifting 
 of himfelf, nor begotten extrinfecally of the fame, 
 left by the diverfity there fhould be a double, or mani- 
 fold Principality. But the one Principle hath its proper 
 Son, Wifdom, and Word, fubfifting from or of him. 
 'jThis is very clear. 
 
 7. Baftl defends the Unity (a) of God after the 
 fame manner. There are not two Gods, nor two 
 Fathers. He that introduces two Principles, preaches 
 up two Gods. Gregory (b) Naz.ianz,en elegantly calls 
 the Father the Union, becaufe (which Petavius well 
 pbferves) the Produdion, the Proceflion of one Perfon 
 from another, or the Unity of Principle is the Caufe 
 of the Unity in the Trinity. The three, fays he^ have 
 one Nature, that of God. The Father is the Union, 
 or Unity, of whom, and to whom thofe that follow, 
 are refer'd. Again^ (c) The One God, as I think, 
 would be preferv*d, if the Son and Holy Spirit are re- 
 fer'd to one Caufe, without compofition or confufion. 
 Cafarius fays, that Mofes wrote, (d) The Lord thy God 
 is one Lord; that he might exalt us to the Unity of 
 Principle, and Knowledge of God. Which one Prin- 
 ciple is the Father, from whom the Son and Holy 
 Spirit proceed. Damafcene fays, (e) Neither do we 
 affirm, that there are three Gods, Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit; but rather one God, the Sacred Trinity, 
 the Son and Spirit being brought back to the one 
 Principle, not mixM, or confounded, as Sabellius taught. 
 Where it is plain, Damafcene hath made ufe of Gregory 
 Naz.ianz.ens Expreflion. Of the Latins Til only give 
 you an Author or two. Hilary ( f) fays : The Father 
 does not therefore ceafe to be the One God, becaufe 
 the Son is God. For he is God of God, One of One ; 
 
 (.i) Orat. 2,7. contra Sabellianos. (6) Orat.32. p. 510, 
 
 (r) Orat. 29. p. 490, (ii) In Dialog, r. ad Int. 4. (J) In Lib. i. 
 deOrthod. fide, c 2. if)ln 4Lib.deTrin, p.;?- 
 
 who 
 
the N I € E N E F A I T H. ^^ 
 
 who is therefore the One God, becaufe God of him- 
 felf j on the other hand, the Son is not lefs God, be- 
 caufe the Father is the One God. For he is the only 
 begotten Son of God, not unbegotten fo as to take 
 from the Father his being the One God; nor yet him- 
 felf being any thing elfe but God, becaufe begotten of 
 him. Thus Fulgentius (a) alfo anfwers an Arian Ob- 
 jeftion : In two unbegotten there is a different Divi- 
 nity, but in one begotten of one unbegotten is plainly 
 a natural Unity. 
 
 8. Now concerning this Method of the Antient Ca- 
 tholicks, by which they prove the Unity of God, 
 there are two things efpecially obfervable. Firft, that 
 the Avians alfo did in Words embrace it. For the 
 Bifhops of the Arian Faftion in the Council of Sirmium, 
 when in the beginning of their Creed they had pro- 
 feffed to believe with the Nicene Fathers, that the Son 
 of God was God of God, Light of Light, at theend 
 they define thus : If any one fay that the Son is unbe- 
 gotten, without Beginning or Principle, as faying, that 
 there are two without Beginning or Principle, two un- 
 begotten, and as making two Gods, let him be Anathema. 
 For the Son is the Head and Principle of all things ; 
 but God is the Head of Chrift. For thus we pioully 
 reduce -all things thro the Son to the one Principle of 
 all things without beginning. But thefe Words, it is 
 certain, were not fincerely, but after their Sophiflical 
 manner fpoke by them. For the Avians believed, that 
 the Son of God was produced of God the Father, as 
 of a Principle, in a created way, as all other things are; 
 and made this only difference between the Son of God, 
 and the other Creatures; that the Son was firft and 
 immediately produced out of nothing by the Father; 
 and then all other things by the Son, This the Sir- 
 mians plainly fignify in thefe Words : We pioufly refer 
 all things to the One Principle by the Son. Here they 
 fuiEciently (hew that they equally refer the Son and 
 
 {a) In Lib. cont, Obj. Arian. 01].$, (}) Socrates. Lib. 2. Ch. 
 30. p. IG.3. 
 
 all 
 
76 ::^DEFENCE<2r 
 
 ail other things to the Father as a Principle; the Son 
 indeed immediately ; and the other things by the Son. 
 But it is vain and very ridiculous for any one to at- 
 tempt to prove that the Father and Son are one God, 
 becaufe the one exifts from the other as his Principle, 
 VLnlek by Principle he means a Confubftantiai Principle. 
 For tmlefs this be fuppofed, it will alfo follow (which 
 is very abfurd) that every created thing is one God 
 with the Father,- for every Creature hath in fome fort 
 his Original from God the Father, as from a Principle. 
 A notable God of God the Arians have, who is no 
 otherwife of God than by way of Creation, as all o- 
 ther created things are! You'll fay, that thefe things 
 don't affed the Semi-Ariam however, who determine 
 that the Son of God is produced of God the Father, 
 not of Nothing ; and yet abfolutely deny that he was 
 begotten of the Subftance of the Father. I own there 
 were fuch Men formerly, and I have explained their 
 Sentiment above : But I always thought them very 
 weak Creatures. For, (a) as before the Creation there 
 was no medium between the Subftance of God and No- 
 thing, fo there could be no middle Production between 
 a Produdion of the Subftance of God, and a Produc- 
 tion of Nothing. The Semi- Avian thtrQ^ort^ and the 
 Semi-God, and the Se?ni-Creature, are equally Monfters, 
 and Prodigies, truly to be dreaded by all pious and 
 found Minds. The Son of God muft either be true 
 God, or a mere Creature. It is an Axiom of Eternal 
 Truth, that there is nothing between God and Crea- 
 ture, unmade and made. Therefore the Catholick 
 Fathers had a much better right toufe this Argument, 
 as all of them unanimoufly aflerting the Son's Confub- 
 ftantiality. 
 
 $>. The other thing, which I propofe to the Reader's 
 Obfervation, is. That this Reafoning taken from the 
 Unity of Principle, tho the Principle be fuppofed Con- 
 fubftantiai, is not, univerfvilly aqd abfolutely confidet'd, 
 
 (4)S£a. 2.Ch,(j.n. ii» 
 
//^^ N tC EN E F AITH. 77 
 
 fit and aceommodate, to clear up and prove the Unity 
 of the Father and Son. For it hath, as Petavius hath 
 rightly cautioned, a general Power of concluding in all 
 things, efpecially Vital and Animal, in which we fee 
 this Generation, properly fpeaking. But thefe, tho 
 of the fame Nature with their Principle, make many 
 feparate and diftinfb Individuals. Therefore I pur- 
 pofely added in the Thefis, that the Father is the 
 Principle of the Son and Holy Spirit, and that both 
 of them are propagated from him by an interior Pro- 
 dudion, not an external one. Hence it comes to pa&, 
 that they are not only of the Father, but in him, and 
 the Father in them, and that there can't be one Per- 
 son feparate from another in the Holy Trinity, as three 
 humane Perfons, or three other Subjeds of the fame 
 Species are feparate. Thofe that think fo of the Divine 
 Perfons, well defer ve to be called Tm/je-Z/^j, of whom 
 Hieronymus Zanchius (a) learnedly writes thus: This is 
 their Comment, who have alfo dream'd, that the Son 
 is fo born of the Father, as to be without or extrinficof 
 his Eflfence, as our Children are. For they can't per- 
 ceive, how any thing can be born of any thing, and 
 be his Son, and yet remain in him, of whom he is born. 
 This is fo, becaufe they believe all Generation is ex- 
 terior, not any interior. I fay the fame concerning 
 the Proceffion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and 
 the Son. Now they have come to thefe Conclufions, 
 becaufe contemplating the Divine Eflence in their finite 
 Mind, they cou'd not raife to themfelves any other 
 than a finite Ideaj nor cou'd otherwife diftinguifli 
 the Perfons from one another, than by feparating the 
 EJfence of one from the EJfence of another. When the Sa- 
 hetlians objeded this fame Error to the Catholicks^, 
 who faid that the Son did as well fubfift by himfelf as 
 the Father, the Eaftern Bifhops aflembled at Antiocb 
 A. D. 345. in their Confeffion of Fairh called Macro- 
 fichus, did no lefs Catholickly than Elegantly anfwer 
 
 £/») De tribus E,lohivn, Lib, 5, C» i. n. 2.. 
 
 thus: 
 
78 "J DEFENCE of 
 
 thus ; ( I venture to fay fo, tho not a few of thofe 
 Bifliops were found in the Intereft of Arianifm, and 
 the Word Confubftantialis omitted in the Confeflion.) 
 («) But though we fay that the Son exifts by himfelf, 
 lives and fubfifts as the Father doth, we don't there- 
 fore feparate him from the Father, conceiving in a bo- 
 dily manner, certain places and intervals, by which 
 they are joined. For we believe, that they are joined 
 without any Medium, or Interftice, and that they fub- 
 fift infeparably from one another ; The whole Father 
 having the Son in his Bofom, the whole Son depen- 
 dent upon, and coherent to the Father, and only al- 
 ways refting in his Bofom. It would be flrange, thac 
 the Artans at that Council fubfcribed thefe Words, if 
 there were not alfo other things in that Creed, dia- 
 metrically oppofite to Arianifmj which they alfo con- 
 firmed by their Sabfcription. Such is that efpecially, 
 that the Son of God is true and perfed God by Na- 
 ture : But thofe dark Fellows were ready to approve 
 any Creed, which had not the Homoou/ion; tho it 
 had other Terms in it, altogether of the fame import. 
 To return, the Father and Son then are fo one, thac 
 the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son : 
 neither can the one be fcparated from the other. This 
 manner of Union the Greeks call nse/::^^':^^^?. The Latins 
 ( the School-men I mean, ) Cirmmincefjlo or Circumin-' 
 fejjlo. Genehrard {b) among others thus explains the 
 Word : n«p/;^'p«c;7f and Gnumimefjlo may be faid to 
 be that Union, by which one thing exifts in another, 
 not only by a Participation of Nature, but alfo by a 
 full and intimate Prefence. This kind of exifting in, 
 if I may fo fay, our Divines call Circuminceflion, be- 
 caufe by it fome things are very much diftinguifh*d 
 from one another without feparation j are in, and as 
 it were penetrate one another, without confufion. 
 
 («) Socrate^Sj Lib. a. Chap. 19. pag.85, (b) ISh, 2.J&9 
 
 Trin. — 
 
 10. I 
 
f^^ Nl CEK E F AITH^ 79 
 
 10. I will now fhew, that the Antlents generally 
 acknowledg'd fuch an Union as this in the Divine Per- 
 fons, and firft I fhail begin with the the Ame-Nicene 
 Dodors. Now here I would defire my Reader to re- 
 cur to that Treafure of Teftimonles produc'd in the 
 former Sedions. There he will find places cited from 
 the refpedive Fathers, which teach either, that the 
 Son of God fubfifts in God, or remains in the Bofom 
 of God, or that the Word is implanted in his Heart; 
 and in like manner, that the Father is in the Son, all 
 which Expreffions plainly fignify the Union, of which 
 we treat. But this Notion is fo clearly exprefled in 
 almoft all the Writings of the Antients, and fo repug- 
 nant to the Avian Hypothefis, that I have often won- 
 der*d, that wife and well-read Men in the Antiquities 
 of the Church, could ferioufly accufe thofe Writers 
 oi Arianifm. Indeed they might with much greater 
 probability have charg'd them with SaheUianifm^ tho 
 that Calumny alfois ealily to be repelled, as I have elfe- 
 where fhewn. To the fame Purpofe is that, which 
 the fame Antients with one Voice profefs, that the 
 Son is begotten of the Father without any Sedion ot 
 Divifion, and fo brought forth of the Father, as not 
 to be feparated from him. Thus 'Juflin, T'atian^ T'beO' 
 philus Antiochenus^ Tertulliany Novatian, yeaall of theni. 
 Hence Tertullian : (a) This is the Preferver of Unity, 
 by which we fay (namely all the Catholicks in the Ar- 
 ticle of the Trinity) that the Son was brought forth 
 of the Father, not feparated from him. What can be 
 more clear than that place oi AthenagoraSy cited h^on? 
 (i>) There the very learned Writer, after he had faid, 
 that the Father and Son were one, declares the manner 
 of their Union thus : The Father being in the Son,and 
 the Son in the Father by the Unity and Power of the 
 Spirit. Parallel to this, is Clement of Alexandria in the 
 fameSe<5lion {c). Tertullian as plainly and ixiccmBlf 
 exprefles the fame, (d) where he fays that the Holy 
 
 {a) Adv. Prax. Cb. 8. {l) Seft, z, Ch. 4. n, 8, (0 <^*6. n.40 
 N) Adv, Prax, Cb. 115, 
 
 Trinity 
 
So 'A DEFENCE of 
 
 Trinity Is one Subftance in three Coherents ; not then 
 diverfe Subftances in three mutually feparate. {a) The 
 fame T'ertullianhys^ The Connexion of the Father in 
 the Son, and the Son in the Paraclete, make three Co- 
 herents, which three are one Thing, not one Perfon. 
 Again, (b) The Trinity paffing down from the Fa- 
 ther thro joint and connected degrees, is not repugnant 
 to the Monarchy. Laflly, He fays, that (c) in the 
 Trinity there is Number without Divifion. That is 
 alfo a very clear PafTage of Origen, which we cited before^ 
 (d) where he profefledly oppofes their Error, who cut 
 the Divine Nature into Parts, and as much as lies in 
 them divide God the Father. For, fays he, even to 
 lufped fuch things of an incorporeal Nature, is not 
 only the utmoft Impiety, but the groffeft Folly i nor 
 indeed is it agreeable to Reafon at all, to have an Idea 
 of a fubftantial or material Divifion in an incorporeal 
 Nature. Now we fhould rather think, as the Will 
 proceeds from the Mind, and does not take away or 
 cut off any part of the Mind, or is feparated or divided 
 from it, fo the Father begat the Son. The fame Origen, 
 in that undoubted Piece of his againft Celfus, often 
 teaches, that the Divine Nature and EfTence is com- 
 jnon to the Son with the Father, as hath been abun- 
 dantly fliewn above ; and yet in the fourth Book of 
 the fame Work, he afferts exprefly, that the Nature 
 of God is incorruptible, fimple, uncompounded and 
 indivifible. There alfo he adds, that the Son of God 
 fubfifts in the Form or Nature of God, and therefore 
 hath the fame Attributes. A little after, he calls the 
 Son of God, God the Word in the Father. Surely who- 
 ever duly confiders that remarkable PafTage of Origen, 
 will find in it, that the two Perfons, Father and Son,fub- 
 fifl undivided in the fame EfTence (e). See alfo the fa- 
 mous Teftimony of Dionyjtus Rom. to the fame purpofe 
 (/). There the great Man (harply cenfures thofe, who 
 
 {a} Ibid. Cb. 25. C^") Ch.8. (c) Ch.2. (rf)Ch.9. n. 19- 
 Setl. s. (e)Se£t,2.Ch.9.n, 14. (/) Ch, 11. n.i. 
 
 divide 
 
the N I C E N E F A I T Ha Si 
 
 divide, fplit, and overturn the Sacred Doflrine of God's 
 Church, parting the Principle of Unity into three cer- 
 tain Powers, three divided Perfons, three Deities. 
 To their Herefy he quickly after oppofes the Catho- 
 ]ick Doctrine thus : For it is necelTary the Word of 
 God be united to the God of all, and that the Holy 
 Spirit abide and dwell in God; and it is abfolutely 
 neceflary that the Divine Trinity be gathered toge- 
 ther, and united into one, as a certain Head, or Sum, 
 I fay, into the Ahuighty God of all things. Thefe 
 Words of Dionyfius greatly confirm the Definition of 
 the w5p/;t^'?"^f> which the learned Bellarmine hath em- 
 braced, (a) when he fays it is that intimate and per- 
 feft Inhabitation of one Perfon in another. Laftly, not 
 to be too long upon fo plain a Cafe, you may find in 
 the fame place, a PafTage of Dionyfius^ in which thac 
 celebrated Writer cenfures their Ignorance, who know 
 not that the Father, as Father, can be alienated from 
 the Son ; for that it is an efpecial Term of Connexion : 
 and that the Son cannot be removed from the Father ; 
 for that the Term Father denotes Communion : and 
 that the Holy Spirit is in the hands of them both, and 
 cannot be feparated from him that fent, and him thac 
 brought him. It is alfo a faying of the fame Perfons, 
 (b) that the Indivifible and Indirainifli'd Trinity is col- 
 leded into Unity. Laflly, in his Anfwer to the fourth 
 Queft'. oiPauhisSamofat. he thus fpeaks concerning the 
 three Perfons of the Trinity : The two Perfons are 
 infeparable, and alfo the ImperfonM or Subfiftent Spi- 
 rit of the Father, which was in the Son. 
 
 II. It remains that I fliew, that the Fathers after 
 the Rife of Arianifm agreed with thofe before it. Now 
 fince the Places, which might be alledgM for this pur- 
 pofe, are innumerable, we Ihall only give you a few 
 for a Specimen. Alexander oi Alexandria in his Epiflle 
 to Alexander of Conftantim^k writes thus upon that 
 Text of St. '^ohn, 'The only begotten Son nuho is in 
 
 {a) Lib. 2. de Chrifto, Cap.j. (J>) See tU Annot. upn Chap. 1 1 « 
 .Vol. II. F th& 
 
Ss J DEVENCE of 
 
 the Bofom of the Father : (a) The Divine Teachcf 
 purpofing to fhew ciie two things infeparable from one 
 another, the t'ather and the Son, faid that he was in 
 the Bofom of the t'ather. The fame Perfon in the 
 fame Epiftle fays afterwards, that the Words of Chrift, 
 land the Father are One^ are a Declaration of his na- 
 tural Glory, Pedigree, and Abode with the Father. 
 Thus Athanajius : (h) But as he who fays the Father 
 and Son are two, means one God ', fo he who fays 
 there is one God, means two Perfons, the Father and 
 Son being one in Godhead, and that the Word by 
 proceeding, or exifting from him, is not to be parted, 
 divided, or feparated from the Father. Pfetido Divny- 
 fius Areopagita, as far as divine Things can be fhadow* 
 ed forth by corporeal, hath declared the mutual Ex- 
 igence of the Divine Perfons in one another by an ex- 
 cellent Similitude: (c) The abiding of the Perfons, 
 which are of one Principle, one in another (if we may 
 fo fpeak) is united and common, and their Station or 
 Place is univerfally united in the greateft degree ; like 
 the Lights of Lamps (to ufe a fenfible and plain Ex- 
 ample) which are in one Houfej they are all mutually 
 entire and unmixMj they have a real exad Diftindlion 
 one from another, united in Diftindion and diftin- 
 guifti'd in Union. For when there are many Lamps 
 in one Houfe, we fee all the Lights united into one, 
 and fending forth one undiflinguifli'd Illumination; 
 nor cou'd any one, I fuppofe, part the Light of one 
 X,amp from that of the others out of the Air which 
 furrounds them all, or fee one without the others, 
 the Light of them being univerfally and mutually mix'd 
 together. Now if any one fhould take one of thefe 
 Lamps out of the Houfe, all its own proper Light: 
 will depart with it, it will not take away with it any 
 of the others Light, nor leave any of its own. For, 
 as I faid before, there was a perfed Union of them all 
 
 («) E. H. Theodoret. Lib. i. Ch. 4. pag. 11,15. C^) Tom. I* 
 p. 1, pag. (J24, (c) De Divinis Nominibus, Ch, 2, 
 
tloe N 1 C E N E F A I T H. ^| 
 
 to all entirely unmix'd, and in no part confounded. 
 Thefe things happen really in Bodies, the Air for in- 
 ftance J Light depending upon a material Fire: Yec 
 we fay that fupereflential Union is of an higher Na- 
 ture than that of Bodies or Souls, or Minds, &c. \t 
 is very certain, Dimyjius the Areopagite did not write 
 thefe excellent Words : but it is alfo certain, that the 
 Author was very anrient. The very Learned and 
 right Reverend Bifhop Pearfon (a) places him not far 
 from the beginning of the fourth Century ; and I am 
 much of his mind. 
 
 12. Bafil explains this Matter well in many Places,' 
 Epiftle the 42d (^} efpecially, where he thus difcourfes 
 concerning the three Divine Perfons : We are not by 
 any means to think of Seftion or Divifion, fo as to con- 
 ceive the Son without the Father, or divide the Spirit: 
 from the Son. But there is in them, a certain unfpeak- 
 able inconceivable Communion and Diftinftion, neither 
 the Diverfity of Perfons diftrading the Gonjundion of 
 Nature, nor the Community of Elfence confounding 
 the Property of their Diftindlion. Bafil hath more 
 worthy your reading, which follows in the famePlace. 
 Cyril oi Alexandria (c) fays the Father is the Son's natu- 
 ral place. Euthymitis does indeed briefly, yet accurate- 
 ly explain {d) the whole Notion of the Circuminceflion 
 in thefe Words : We fay thefe Perfons are in one an- 
 other, becaufe of their mutual containing and infer- 
 ring one another; becaufe they are infinite and 
 
 immenfe, and becaufe the Godhead of them all is one. 
 Damafcene in more places than one difcourfes upon this 
 Point, and explains it well, (e) ThtiSy after he had faid, 
 that Subjeds in a created Nature are not one in ano- 
 ther, but exift feparately, and that we therefore fay 
 two, or three, or many Men; he ftiev/s that the man- 
 ner, in which the Perfons of the Holy Trinity exift, 
 
 (a) Vind. Ignat. pag. i. Ch. lo. (/;) Tom. 3. pag. 97. (c) la 
 feptimo Llb.Thefaur. {d) Parti. Tit. 2. Panoplia. dogtn. 
 Orthod, Fidei, (c) In Lib. i . de Orthod, Fide , Ch,i i. 
 
 Fa is 
 
84 "J DV.VENCE of 
 
 is different * For we caii'c affigii any local Dillance, 
 when we fpeakof the unlimited Deity, as we can with 
 refpect to ourfelves. For the Perfons are in one an- 
 other, not fo as to be confounded, but contain'd ac- 
 cording to the Word of the Lord, 1 in the Father^ and 
 the Father in me. And a little after he fays, The Deity, 
 in a word, is indivifible in parts, and like the one mix- 
 ture and conjundion of Light in three Suns, contiguous 
 and without interval. Where he almoft ufes the fame 
 Similitude, that the Pfeudo-Dionyjitis did. (a) Again, 
 fpeaking of the Divine Perfons, he fays, That they 
 cou'd not depart, or be diftant from one another, that 
 they were united and mutually contained one another 
 without confufion i united without confufion, for they 
 are three, tho united; divided without Interval, for 
 tho every one fubfifted by himfelf, was a perfeft Per- 
 fon, and had his own Property, or different Manner of 
 Exiftence ; yet they are united in EfTence, in Phyfical 
 Properties, in that they are not diftant, they cannot 
 depart from the Father's Perfon. They are, and are 
 called one God. To thefe Teftimonies oi tho, Greeks, 
 I fhall only add for the Reader's refrefhment the Hymn 
 oiSjnefius Bifhop of Cyrene, whoflourifh'd in the begin- 
 ning of the 5 th Century. I celebrate thee, O Trinity. 
 Thou art one and three. Thou art three and one. In 
 Conception divided, but thy Divifion is indivifible. 
 Hymn 3, fo alfo Hymn 4. 
 
 13. Of the Latins, Marius {b) ViBorimis thus fpeaks 
 concerning God the Father and the Son ; When we 
 confefs each of them God, we only mean one God, 
 and both of them that one God ; becaufe the Father is 
 in the Son, and the Son in the Father. So Amkofe 
 fays, (c) Both the Father is Lord, and the Son Lord : 
 "The Lord faid to my Lord, but not two Lords, but 
 one Lord ; becaufe both the Father is God, and the 
 Son God, yet but one God ; becaufe the Father is in 
 
 {d) In Lib. 5. Ch. 5. (&) la initio Lib. 2. adv. Arium. 
 (c) Libs 10. in Lucam ad Ch.20. 
 
 the 
 
the N I c E N E F A I T rn 85 
 
 the Son, and the Son in the Father. Again, (a) The 
 Father and Son have a Dlllinftion, as Father and Son, 
 but no Separation of Divinity. Again, (b) He thus 
 briefly and neatly exprefTes both the Unity of Princi- 
 ple and the Circuminceffion: He is therefore call'd God 
 the Father, becaufe he is the Fountain, and the Wif- 
 dom, becaufe that by which all things were difpos'd ; 
 and the Love, becaufe that by which they will that 
 all things (hould fo remain as they are difposM. The 
 Fountain then, and he that is of it, and he by whom 
 thefe Two love another, are Three, and thefe Three 
 are therefore One, becaufe thefe Two are fo of One, 
 as not to be feparate from him : but they are from 
 him, becaufe not of themfelves ; and they are in him, 
 becaufe not feparate ; and they are the fame as he, 
 and he the fame as they, and they not the fame as he, 
 and he not the fame as they. Here he joins together 
 the Unity of Principle, and the Circuminceffion, ftiew- 
 mo that the Son and Holy Spirit are not only ifrom 
 the Father, but in him, nor can any way be feparated 
 from him 5 and therefore that all the Three are one 
 God, one and the fame in Nature and EfTence, but 
 three in Subfiftence. Hilary (c) fays. The Father is in 
 the Son, and the Son in the Father, by the Unity of 
 an infeparable Nature, not confus'd, but undivided ; 
 not mixt, but common ; not coherent, but exiftent ; 
 not inconfummate, but perfeft. For it is a Nativity, 
 not a Divifionj a Son, not an Adoption j a God, not 
 a Creation. The Apoftle holding this Faith of the 
 Son abiding in the Father, and the Father in the Son, 
 fays, that there is to him, one God the Father, and 
 one Lord Jefiis Chrifi. Where, when Hilary denies 
 the Union of the Father and Son to be coherent, he 
 only excludes fuch Cohefion as is feen in material 
 Things. Otherwife the Catholick Doctors have not 
 been afraid to fay, that the Father and the Son are 
 
 (/t) Lib. 2. de Fide, cap. 2. (h) De Dignitate conditionis 
 Jmmanae, cap. 1 1. (0 De Trin. Lib. 8, 
 
 F 3 mutually 
 
S6 ^^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 mutually coherent. Jerome^ upon the third Chaptei* 
 of Er^ekiel, fays, The Son is the Place of the Father, 
 and the Father of the Son, according to our Lord and 
 Saviour, / in the Father, and the Father in me. Laftly, 
 Fulgentius (a) teaches. That one Man is with another, 
 by whom he is greatly belov*d, after another manner 
 than the Word is with the Father. For a Man is fo 
 with a Man, as that he not only can be from him, but 
 alfo when he is with him, cannot be fub{lantia,lly in 
 him. He who is thus with another, is truly without 
 hinij becaufe when he is with him in the Sincerity of 
 Love, he is from him in Place, how greatly foever 
 they be join'd in Aftedion. But the Word is fo with 
 God, as the Word is in the Mind, or Counfel in the 
 Heart. For when the Mind hath the Word with it, 
 it hath it by thinking; for to talk with one's felf, is 
 nothing elfe bijt to think. When therefore the Mind 
 thinks, and by Thinking begets the Word within 
 itfelf, it begets the Word of its own Subftance i and 
 fo begets that Word of itfelf, that even when be- 
 gotten, it hath it within itfelf. Nor is the Word 
 any thing inferior to the Mind, of which it is born, 
 becaufe, as great as the Mind is which begets the 
 Word, fo great is the Word itfelf. For as the Word 
 is born of the whole Mind, fo when born, it remained 
 within the whole Mind. And becaufe when the 
 Mind thinks, there is no Part of it, in which the 
 Word is not, therefore the Word is as great as the 
 Mind, of which it is ; and when it is with it, is in it ; 
 and, as great as it is, fo great is the Word, becaufe 
 it is of the Whole, and in the whole Mind. The 
 W-3rd is as great as the Mind and Word together ; 
 fior is the Word fo born of the Mind, as to be locally 
 fever'd from it. ' 
 
 14. Of the CircuminceiHon of the Perfons in the 
 facred Trinity, we further ciDferve three Things, 
 
 {a) Lib. 3. ad Monimum, cap. 17. / 
 
the Nic EKE Faith. %j 
 
 Pirflj When fome of the Antieyits (a) attribute thf? 
 Circuminceffion to the two Natures in Chrift, which 
 they aflert do penetrate, mutually embrace, or con- 
 tain each other, we are to determine that there they 
 fpeak improperly. For fince the Circuminceffion is 
 properly the Union of thofe Things, which do mu-, 
 tually every way penetrate one another, (as the Pre- 
 pofition denotes) it is ret^uifite to it, that neither of 
 the Things fo united be without the other, but that 
 wherefoever the one is, there the other fhould exift 
 alfo. Now in Chrlft,the Divine Nature does indeed pe- 
 netrate the Humane every way, but not fo the Humane 
 the Divine : For that is finite and circumfcribM, this 
 infinite and immenfe j upon which account it cannoc 
 be, that this fhould be wherefoever that is. But in, 
 the Trinity the Circuminceffion is truly proper and 
 perfect j for the Perfons mutually contain one another, 
 and all Three have an immenfe Place, fo that where-? 
 foever one Perfon is, there arc the other two, i. e^ 
 they are all every where. Whence 'TertulUan (h) fays. 
 You are to know that God is within the very Abyfs, 
 is every where, and that the Son alfo is indivifible 
 from him, is every where with him. Secondly^ \ 
 would obferve to my Reader, that this Doctrine of 
 the Circuminceffion of the Perfons in the Trinity, is fo 
 far from bringing in Sahellianifm, that it is very ufeful 
 Cas Petavius alfo hath obferv'd) to prove the Diver- 
 fity of the Perfons, and refute that Herefy. For it> 
 order to that mutual Exlftence in one another, which 
 we fee in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is ne- 
 cefTary that there be fome Diftinftion of thofe that 
 ^re join'd together, that is, that thofe which exift in 
 one another, be really, and not in Notion only diffe-j^ 
 rent. For that which is fimply one, is not faid to be 
 in itfelf, or to penetrate itfelf, This (c) Cyril oiAlexan^ 
 
 (^) Gregof. Naz. Qrat, 51. p. 740. Damafcen. de Oi>. 
 thod. Fide, Lib. 5. cap. 5, {U) Adv. Prax, cap. 5, {^'^ Litj, 
 Thefaur, la, 
 
 F 4 <?r7^. 
 
dria hinted : That by this their appearing to be 
 this in that, and that in this, he might fhew the Iden- 
 tity of the Godhead, and the Unity of Eflencej and 
 by their being one in another, they might not be con- 
 ceived to be one numerical Thing. See alfo the place 
 of Pfeudo-Dionyfius, before cited. Laftly, This is efpe- 
 cially to be coniiderM, that this Circuminceffion of 
 the Divine Perfons is indeed the greateft Myftery ; 
 which we ought rather religioufly to adore, than cu- 
 rioully examine. No Simihtude, no 'Words can ever 
 be found every way exprefEve of it : It is an Union 
 above all other Unions, as the learned Pfeudo Dionyjius 
 hath told us. We fpeak, we think in fuch Obfcurity, 
 like Children concerning this and other Myfteries ! 
 Whilft we are here, we behold our God, as it were in a 
 Glafs, darkly ; but the Time will come, the Eternity 
 which far exceeds all Time, in which we fhall fee him 
 Face to Face. The Beatifick Vixion will difpel all the 
 Darknefs of our Minds ; which that he of his divine 
 Mercy may grant us, let us always moft earnefily 
 pray. In the mean time, whilft we are Travellers 
 here, we rather wifh to know (as the learned Athena- 
 goras (a) fays) than clearly know, what is the Union 
 of the Son to the Father, what the Communion of the 
 Father with the Son, what the Spirit is, what is the 
 Union of them,, what their Diftinftion when united^ 
 namely, of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit, 
 
 T^he Concliifion of the whole Jforh 
 
 WE are now, by the Grace of God, arrived, and 
 I hope happily, thro^ the immenfe Sea of the 
 Antients, at our defigned Port. I think I have per- 
 formed what I promiied ia the beginning j .namely, | 
 
 ^d) Athenagpr, p. 12, 
 
the NicekeFaith. 89 
 
 have fhewn, by many clear Teftimonies, that Primi- 
 tive Antiquity agrees with the Nicene Fathers in thefe 
 four Points : (i.) That the Lord Chrift exifted in his 
 better Nature before the Bleflfed Virgin Mary^ yea 
 before the Creation, and that all things were made by 
 him. (2.) That he in that very Nature was confub- 
 ftantial with God the Father, i. e. not of any created, 
 mutable Eflence j but altogether of the fame Nature 
 with the Father, and therefore true God. (3.) Which 
 is a Confequence of the former, that he is coeternal 
 with God the Father, i. e. a Divine Perfon co-exifting 
 with the Father from Eternity. (4.) Laftly, That 
 this notwithftanding, he is fubordinate to God the 
 Father, as his Author and Principle. The firfl: I 
 handled lightly and by way of Stridure, becaufe the 
 Arians confefs it ,* tho' by this Conceffion, namely, 
 that God the Father made all things out of nothing, 
 by the Son, they plainly appear to me to have be- 
 trayed their own Caufe. For I'm of opinion, with 
 the more found Schoolmen^ that a power of producing 
 other things out of nothing can't be communicated 
 to a Creature made of nothing, fuch as the Arians 
 dreamt that the Son was. Of thefe Schoolmen Efiius 
 faith (a). That a Creature cannot be advanced, by 
 fupernatural Power, to a6t as a phyfical Inftrument in 
 the Work of Creation ; becaufe it is of the nature of 
 fuch an Inftrument to ad by fomething of its own Pow- 
 er, fuitably to or in conformity with the ading of the 
 principal Caufe. For which reafon the Divine Power 
 cannot give to a Creature the Power to create, as a 
 phyficai Inftrument, without deftroying the proper 
 Nature of its phyfical Efficiency or Inftrumentality. 
 The Foundation of this Argument he had before ex- 
 plained in the fame Place : Nothing can be the Caufe of 
 Creatlngjbut what hath an infinite Power. For by how 
 much the Form to be produced is the more remote 
 from Power, fo much the greater Power is required 
 
 ia) In lib. 2. Diftin^^. i. Se£t. 4= Vide etiam Athanafium. 
 
 in 
 
90 [/DEFENCE^/ 
 
 in the Agent ; therefore an infinite Power is requiredf 
 to produce a Form out of no Power, which is done 
 in Creation. Now it is impoffible this fhould be 
 communicated to any Creature. Hence, namely from 
 the Work of the Creation, common to the Son with 
 the Father, the antient, yea the Ante-Nicene Catho- 
 licks concluded the Divinity of them both cora^ 
 mon. Qrigen himfelf expreily teaches, that nothing 
 but the Word of God, that is, nothing but very 
 God could perfed: the Creation of all things {a). 
 For upon that place of Genefis, Let us make Man, &c. 
 and upon that of the Pfalmiil, He [poke, and they were 
 wade, he thus difcourfes in the fame Place : For if 
 God commanded, and the Creatures were made, who, 
 according to the Prophet, fhould be the Executor 
 of fo great a Command of the Father, but he, if 
 I may fo fpeak, who is his animated Word and Truth? 
 Nay, the moft antient Fathers generally fliarply re- 
 proved the Gnofiics for teaching, that this World was 
 made by Angels, and Powers different from and infe- 
 riour to God. The Places of Irenaus {b) above-cited 
 are efpecially clear in this Point : The only one God 
 the Creator is he, who is above all Principality, Do- 
 minion, and Power; this Father, this God, this Cre- 
 ator, and Maker, he made thefe things by himfelf, 
 i. e. by his Word and Wifdom he made the Heaven, 
 the Earth, the Sea, and all that is in them. Again (c), 
 T^herefore the Angels did not make or form us, nop 
 could the Angels make the Image of God, nor any 
 one, no Power diftant from the Father of all things, 
 but the Word of the Lord. For God did not (land 
 in need of them to make what he had determined 
 with himfelf to have made, as tho' he had not Hands 
 of his own. For his Word and Wifdom are always 
 with him, the Son and Spirit, by whom, and in whom 
 he freely made all things, to whom he fpeaks alfo, 
 
 {a) SeO:. i. chap. 9. n. 5. {F) ScQi.2. Chap. 5. n. 7. Iren. 
 Lib. 2. ch. 55. p. S14. (c) Lib. 4. Ch. 57. p, 5^.9, 
 
 favin?:^ 
 
fZ?^ N I c E t^ E F A I T H^. gt 
 
 faying, Let us make Man after cur own Image and Si- 
 militude-y taking from himfelf the Subftance of the 
 Creatures, the Copy of the Things made, and the 
 Figure of the Ornaments in the World. In whicli 
 Places, Irenaus clearly teaches. That God the Father 
 neither made, nor had occafion to make, nor cou'd 
 make the World by any thing extrinfic of himfelf; 
 and at the fame time as plainly teaches, that he crea- 
 ted all things by the Son and Holy Spirit. 
 
 I have very largely demonftraced the fecond Point, 
 concerning the Confubftanciality of the Son, becaufe 
 the Controverfy manifeftly depends upon it. If in this 
 particular, Primitive Antiquity appear on our fide, 
 the Caufe will foon be determined in all the other Parts 
 of it with the Arians. For this being granted, that 
 the Son is of the fame Nature and Eflence with the 
 Father, the whole Frame and Strudure of their Herefy 
 is overturnM. But they can't name one Ante-Nicens 
 Doftor who hath not confelTed the Confubftantiality. 
 As for the third Point, I have evidently fhewn, that 
 the greateft and better part of the Primitive Fathers, 
 have clearly and plainly profefsM to believe the Son's 
 Eternity i and that the other Doctors of the Church, 
 who attributed to the Son a Generation from fome 
 • Beginning, tho they differed from the other in Words, 
 agreed with them in Senfe. Laftly, I have clearly 
 proved, that the Aute-Nicene Fathers did not define 
 any other Subordination of the Son to^he Father, than 
 the Catholicks acknowledged, who wrote after, and 
 againft Arius; and that their harfher ExprefHons do 
 not only admit, but require a Catholick Senfe. From 
 all this it is manifeft, that Petavius was too liberal, in 
 allowing to the Arians the Suffrages of the Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers i and, that Sandius and others, who relying 
 upon the Authority of that Jefuit, boldly affirm'd, 
 that all the Dodors of the firft Ages were of Arius's 
 Opinion, are miftaken. 
 
 The Opinion of the Catholick Fathers, who en- 
 gaged the Ariam in (oxmQX Days, was widely different 
 ^ ■ ' • " from 
 
92 'J D E F E N C E of 
 
 from this. They were fo far from being afraid of 
 the Primitive Dodcors, that they willingly appealed 
 to them. Athanafius (a) after he had cited the Tefti- 
 monies of fome Antients in defence of the Nicene Creed, 
 thus fpeaks to tht Arians '. Behold we fhew, that 
 the Notion has pafTedfrom Fathers to Fathers'; but you 
 Novel Jews J and Difciples of CaiaphaSy what Fathers 
 can ye produce for your Forms ? You cannot name us 
 one wife or prudent Man. All abhor you but the 
 Devil: He only was to you the Author offuch an 
 Apoftafy. Athanafius had feen Pieces of the Antients, 
 which to the great detriment of the Church are now 
 loft : But of all he had read, he boldly afl'erts, and 
 that, not in a Sermon to the People, but in a written 
 Difputation againft the Avians, that the Heretkh coxx^d 
 not produce one approved Author, who defended 
 their Blafphemies. And indeed, we have fufficiently 
 prov'd in this Work, that there was not one of the 
 Antient Catholick Fathers, whofe Divine Writings 
 Providence has fecur'd from the Shipwreck, to us 
 their late Pofteriiy, who was not of the Side of the 
 Nicene Eifloops. Nay, the very Avians themfelves, tho 
 they pretended to the ignorant Populace, that they 
 held the Faith deliver'd by the Fathers, and gave fome 
 Colour to their Herefy, from certain Sayings of fome 
 Fathers not rightly underftood (as we have fhewn be- 
 fore) yet, when prefs'd in Difputation, abfolutely de- 
 cline the Judgment and Authority of the Antients. 
 The Story of Sifinnius in Socvates^ (p) which we hinted 
 before, is a noted one. * The Emperor T'heodofms 
 having fent for the Bifliop Neciarius^ ferioufiy dif- 
 courfed with him, about fome Method of freeing the 
 
 {a) Vol. 1. Tom. i. p.235. (h) Socrat. H. E. Lib. 5. Ch. 10. 
 
 * See alfo the Story of Acefius in the fame Socrates, p. 52. H« 
 Anf'vaevto Conftantjne, when ask'd whether he woud jfubfcrlbe the 
 Nicene Creed, was this: The Synod, King, has defined nothing news 
 I have read this Dejinition of Faith ■ ' vt j what was antient Tra" 
 ^.4'!onf even from the Bsginningf the very Times of the Apjiles. 
 
 Chriftiaii 
 
the N 1 c E N E F A I T H. 95 
 
 Chriflian Religion from Differences, and redoring the 
 Unity of the Church. He faid the Controverfy which 
 divided the Churches ought to be difcuffed; that thus 
 the Occafions of Difcord being taken away. Peace 
 might be recalled. Upon hearing this, NeBarius was 
 anxious and foUicitous. He fent for AgelliuSy then a 
 Novatian Bifhop, but one who agreed with him in the 
 Faith, and openM to him the Emperor's Purpofe: Agel- 
 liuSj otherwife a Pious and Religious Man, but not 
 able to engage in a clofe Difpute, chofe Sifinnius his 
 Reader, to undertake that Province. But Sijinnius^ an 
 Eloquent and a Prudent Man, one, who befides his 
 knowledge of the Holy Writ underftood the Greek Phi- 
 lofophy excellently, well-knowing that Herefy was ra- 
 ther inflamed than Divifions healed by fuch Difputa- 
 tions, gave NeBarius this Advice: Since he was affur'd 
 that the Antients had been very cautious of attributing 
 to the Son any Beginning of Exiftence, as thinking 
 him Co-eternal with the Father, he perfuades him to 
 wave Logical Branglings, to bring in Evidence the Ex- 
 pofitions of the Fathers, and to put the Emperor upon 
 asking the Leaders of the refpeiiive Seds, whether 
 they thought regard was to be had to the Antient Doc- 
 tors who taught before the Divifion in the Church, or 
 whether they rejefted them as Aliens to the Chriftian 
 Religion. If they rejed them^ you may then venture 
 to anathematize them. Now if they prefume to do 
 that, they will be thruft out by the People ; and thus 
 the Truth will plainly appear vidorious. But if they 
 fhall not rejeft the Antient Dodors, it will be our 
 bufinefs to produce their Books. Socrates proceeds to 
 inform us, that NeBarius communicated this Advice 
 to the Emperor, who eagerly embrac'd it, and upon 
 the Experiment, obferves, that the K^r^fidi depended 
 upon Logical Difputation, not the Expofition of the 
 Antients: for they all refufed to abide by the Judg- 
 ment of the Fathers. Soz,omen (c) gives us the fame 
 
 (0 Pag. 583. Lib. 7. Ch,. 1 2, 
 
 Story, 
 
94 'J DEFENCE of 
 
 Srory. To which we may add, what Alexander of 
 Alexandria witneffeth, (d) That the firft Champions of 
 Arianifm defpis'd the Antient Doctors, and like the 
 prefent Fanatkks and Emhufiajis^ impudently boafted, 
 that they themfelves were taught by Infpiration. For 
 thus he writes in his Epiftle to Alexander oi Conjianti^ 
 nopk: They will not have any of the Antients compared 
 with them ] they cannot bear to be fet upon a Level 
 with our Mafters from our Childhood ; nor do they 
 think that any of our Collegues in the Miniftry have 
 attaint even a fmall fhare of Wifdom. They fay, 
 that they alone are wife, f mortify 'd to Worldly-things: 
 The Inventors of Doclrines, and that that is reveal'd 
 to them alone, which never enterM into the Thoughts 
 of any other Perfon under the Sun. In thefe Words 
 Alexander fignifies, that the Avian Notion is not only 
 contrary to the Dodrine of the Antients, but alfo to 
 that of his immediate Predeceifors, and of all the Bi^ 
 fhops, who governed the Church at that time, when 
 Arhis firft raifed the unhappy Controverfy. 
 
 But you'll fay, if the Opinion of Ariits was fo 
 Heterodox, how came it fo greatly to prevail in a 
 fhort time after its rife, that almoft the whole Chri- 
 flian World became Arian, as 'Jerom ccmplain'd ? I an- 
 fwer, that if by [becoming Avian] be underftood em- 
 bracing the genuine Tenets of Arius, with Jercm's 
 leave it is not true, that the greateft part of Chriftians 
 was Avian. In the days of Conflantius indeed, and 
 fome time after, very many came over to the Avians; 
 but few, comparatively fpeaking, to Arianifm. Thofe 
 deceitful Mortals concealed their impious Doclrines, 
 and profelfed their Faith in Words, which exhibited 
 the antient Catholick Sentiment ; unlefs when they 
 
 Xd) Theod. Eccl. H. Lib. i. Ch.4. p.i(J. 
 
 \ ^AKJiiuo ^(y»o Rendrhgy nor Criticifm lean meet 'withypteafes me. 
 Tier, is neither true in faB^ mr feems any way Jlgnijicati've here* 
 The Arians ivere Poiverfuly Popular and Intriguing ; but if they hud, 
 ret been fo, they were unlikely to boajt oj their Poverty ^ in delivering 
 their Opivica about an ArtUk of Faitbt 
 
 , -^ found 
 
tie N I c E N E Faith; ^% 
 
 found an Audience fit for their Purpofe : whence 
 it came to pafs, that thefe were almoft every-where 
 taken for, and acknowledg'd as Catholicks, even by 
 thofe, who heartily detefted their Tenets. By this 
 Fraud they got into the Favour, of not only the 
 Chriftian People, but many over-credulous Bifhops. 
 Read the Avian Creeds copy'd by Athanajtus and others, 
 for the moft part expreiVed in fuch Catholick Terms, 
 that you wou'd fcarce believe their Compilers were of 
 another Strain. Tliey fay Chrlft is God, true God„ 
 nay true and perted God by nature ; That he is a 
 Creature, they hold to be an abominable AfTertion, 
 and profefs he exifted before all Ages. What Catho- 
 lick Expreffion do they not ufe, except the Homooufion. 
 or ConfubflantiaU Hence Bilary^ who lived in this 
 Reign of Ami-Chriflianifm^ congratulated the Truth, 
 that the Chriftian People remain'd Catholick under 
 the Arian Bifhops, with whom they commun cated. 
 The innocent People received with all reverence fucli 
 Bifhops as Conflamius fet over them, not knowing the 
 impious Tenets they held ; they admitted the Heretkh^ 
 but never embraced their Herefy, as not underftanding 
 they were guilty of it. The Words of (e-) Hilary SiXQ 
 worthy the recital. Now I think Ami- Chrift fhould 
 have been introduced and believ'd on by thefe Wretches 
 •with lefs Perfidioufnefs. They give Chrift the Name: 
 of God, beaufe this Name is given to Men. They 
 tjonfefs, that he is truly the Son of God, becaufe by 
 the Sacrament of Baptifm every one is truly made fo. 
 They own him to be before Times and Ages, in fuch 
 a Senfe, as is not to be deny'd of Angels and the Devil. 
 Thus our Lord Chrift hath only fuch Attributes given 
 him as are proper to Angels, or to us : But what is 
 lawfully and truly due to Chrift God is deny'd, name- 
 ly, that he is true God, ?'. e. that his Divinity is the 
 fame as the Father's. And even to this day the growth 
 of this Impiety is promoted by Fraud, in fo much thac 
 the Chriftian People don't fall away under their Ami- 
 it) hih* contra A riant 6<<^«xent. p. a 15* 
 
 Chrijlian 
 
9<^ ::^DEFENCE^ 
 
 Chrifltan Prlefls, whilft they believe that to be theFaith^ 
 which is only the Form. They hear that Chrift is 
 God, and they think it fincerely fpoken ; they hear 
 he is the Son of God, and they think, that the Truth 
 or real Eflfence of God is in the Nativity or Birth of 
 God. They hear that he is before Times, and they 
 think before Times, and Always, to be the fame. The 
 Ears of the People are more Holy than the Hearts of 
 the Priefts. Thus Hilary excellently fpeaks : But (/) 
 Alexander of Alexandria^ inhis Letter to his Name fake 
 oi Confiantimpkj teflihes, that Arius and his firft Dif- 
 ciples, after they had been condemned in a certain 
 Synod at Alexandria, held before that of Nice, by dif- 
 fimiilation obtainM commendatory Letters to other Bi- 
 fhops, which they frequently made ufe of to confirm 
 thofe poor Creatures in Error, whom they had deceived. 
 They have endeavourM, fays he, making Excurfions 
 againft us, to pafs over to our Collegues of the fame 
 Opinion with us, pretending a defire of Peace and Le- 
 nity, but really attempting by fair Speeches to infect 
 fome of them; defiring fulfome Letters of them, that 
 by reading them to thofe they have deceived, they may 
 harden them in Impiety, and render them impenitent 
 in their Errors, as having the Suffrage and Sentiment 
 ofBifhops with them. They don't confefs to them 
 their wicked Life and Dodrine, for v/hich' we caft 
 them out; but either fay nothing of thefe Matters, or 
 gloiling them with forgM Words and Letters, they de- 
 ceive. They catch him that is expofed to Error, by 
 gilding over their pernicious Doftrine with plaufible 
 and cunning Speeches, not forbearing to calumniate 
 our pious Principle to all Men. Whence it is, that 
 fome have fubfcribed their Letters, and received them 
 into the Church. If any of the Arians queftion the 
 Credit of this good Man Alexander, let him hear two 
 of the moft noted of his own Party, Eufebius of Nico- 
 media, and' Tbeognis. They in their Penitentiary Libel 
 write, that they had indeed fubfcribed the Nicene 
 (/) Theod. E, H. Lib. i. Ch. 4. p. 10. 
 
 Creed 
 
?i;^ N I c E N E Fait h.^ 97 
 
 Creed (a), butrefus'd thz Anathematifm; and immediately 
 fubjoin their Reafon for it in theie Words : Not as 
 cenfuring the Creed, but as not believing that the 
 Perfon accufed was fuch an one [as reprefentedj being 
 fully afifured that he was not, both by Letters particu- 
 larly wrote to us by him, and alfo by perfonal Dif- 
 courfe with him. What Valejtm has obferv'd is wor- 
 thy Notice, {b) namely, that this Eufebius of iVirVo- 
 medta held conftant Communion with the Church of 
 Rome till his Death. Whence one of thefe things fol- 
 lows : either, that Eufebius was not really an Arian, 
 but had beUev'd their Profeflions, and made one of 
 their Party thro too much Credulity i or, that tho he 
 was an Arian, he deceived the Church of Rome by the 
 fame Arts, which the other Arians ufed. Any one 
 will rather think the latter true, who fhall attentive- 
 ly read (c) the Letter of Arius to this Eufebius^ and 
 that of this Eufebius to Paulmm at Tyre. Who is not 
 Ihock'd with the Account Socrates gives of (d) Arius 
 from the Authentick Letters of Conjiamine ? The Em- 
 peror willing to make an Experiment upon Arius, fent 
 for him to the Palace, and ask'd him, whether he a- 
 greed to the Definitions of the Nicene ^Council. He 
 readily, and without delay, fubfcribed in a Sophifti- 
 cal manner the Definitions of Faith before them. The 
 Emperor amazed, gave him his Oath. By the fame 
 Arts he took this alfo. The Fraud of his Subfcription, 
 as I have heard, was this^ Arius, fays my Author, hav" 
 ing wrote his own Opinion in a Paper, carryM it un- 
 der his Arm, and fwore, that he really believed- as he 
 had wrote. That this was fo, I write from Fame, 
 but that he fwore to what he had fubfcribed, I have 
 read in the Emperor's Epiftles. No Man fure can 
 wonder, that the remarkable Divine Vengeance re- 
 corded by Socrates in the fame Place, fliould follow up- 
 
 i^d) Socvaies^lAh, I. Ch.14. p.;^. {F) Vide Valefii notas, P.T45. 
 (c) Theod. E. H. p. 20, Lib.i, Ch. j, and 6, (rf) Socrates, E. H. 
 Lib. I, Ch. 38. p. (Si, 
 
 Vol. IL G on 
 
98 J DEFENCE of 
 
 on fo deteftable a Perjury. Other Ecclefiaftical Wri- 
 ters tell the fame Story, tho with different Cireum- 
 ftances. 
 
 Atbanafius, in his Book of the Synods of Rimine and 
 Seleucia, witnefl'eth, that George the Bifhop of Laodkea 
 was the firft who perluaded the Avians to difguife 
 their Impiety in Cacholick ExpreiTions. {a) For he re- 
 ports of George^ that he wrote to the Arians^ Why do 
 you blame * Pope Alexander for faying the Son is of the 
 Father ? Fear not your felves to fay, that the Son is 
 of God. For if the Apoftle wrote, that all things are 
 of God, and it is manifeft that all things were made 
 of nothing, and the Son is a Creature, and one of thofe 
 things which were made, the Son alfo may be faid to 
 befo of God, as all things are of God. The Avians 
 then learn'd of him feignedly to pronounce the Words 
 is of Gody to ufe them in a bad Senfe. 
 
 But the Avians feem to have their mod fpecious pre- 
 tence from the Word Homooujtonj eftablifh'd by the 
 Nicene Fathers. For the Sophifis complain'd, that they 
 were condemn'd by the Nicene Fathers for rejeding one 
 little Word, no where found in the Scriptures, and of 
 dangerous meaning, whereas otherwife they in no- 
 thing receded from the Antient Catholick Faith. Ma- 
 ny believing this Profeffion of theirs, not only of the 
 People, but alfo of the Catholick Bifhops, freely gave 
 them the right-hand of Chriftian Fellowship and Com- 
 munion i not aware of the -4r/^K Perfidy, abhor'd thofe 
 Catholick Bifhops, who clofely adhered to the Homo- 
 oufion, as contentious Men, given to Difputations a- 
 bout Words, Difturbers of the Church's Peace for 
 Trifles, nay Hereticks, who under that Word conceal'd 
 an Heterodox Sentiment. Now as many as rejeded 
 the Word Homooufion upon any Score, tho they from 
 their Heart acknowledged the Catholick Meaning of 
 the Word, which the Nicene Fathers intended, thefe, 
 who were very many, were generally accounted Avians. 
 
 id) Vol. 2. Tom, I. Pag. 731, * Bipop of Akxandna^ 
 
 Foi: 
 
/i»^ N I C E N E F A I T H. 99 
 
 For this Caufe chiefly, Eufebim of Cafarea was, I fup- 
 pofe, call'd an Ariati; namely becaufe, tho he never 
 a^folutely did'ik'd the Homooujion, yea always approv*d 
 it in the Senfe of the Nicene Fathers, he openly oppos'd 
 Euflathius and other celebrated Catholicks, who, as he 
 thought, ufed it in a Senfe too favourable to SabeUia- 
 nifm (a). What fay you to Theodoret alfo, (b) who tefti- 
 fies, that the Emperor Conjiamius, a moft bitter Enemy 
 to the Defenders of the Homooujion, was really always 
 SL Catholick? For tho being deceived by his Managers, 
 he did not admit the Word Homooujion, he fincerely 
 acknowledged the Senfe of it : For he called the Word 
 God, the genuine Son begotten of the Father before 
 Ages, and plainly condemned thofe who prefum'd to 
 fay that he was a Creature. This Teftimony of 'Theo' 
 doret is greatly confirmed by the Encomium Gregory 
 (c) Naz,ianz,en gives of Conflantiiis, amongft other 
 Names calling him the moft Divine Prince, and a very 
 great Lover of Chrift. Thefe Praifes Naz,ianz,en never 
 wou'd have heap'd upon Conflantius^ as a Catholick in- 
 deed, and aprofeflfed Enemy of the Arians, if he had im- 
 bibed their Herefy. To this we may add, that the Arian 
 Confeflions publifh'd in their Conventicles affembled 
 under Conftantius, did moft of them profefs the fame 
 Faith in Words, as the Nicene Council decreed, except 
 only the Homooujion. For the Sophifls well knew, that 
 the Emperor's Pious and Catholick Soul could not bear 
 their impious Tenets, if fimply and honeftly proposed. 
 Thus, he who was the greateft Patron of the Ariam^ 
 from his Heart abhor 'd the genuine Tenets of Ariusi 
 and again, he who was the fevereft Perfecutor of the 
 Catholicks, did always really hold the Catholick Faith 
 and Opinion. This fo great a Prodigy appear'd in 
 the Chriftian World, through the Fraud of the A- 
 yianSj never enough to be decefted by all good Men I 
 Elias Cretenjis (d) does in part expofe this Fraud in 
 
 {a) See the Ohfevvat'ion out of Socrates, Se£i:. 2. Ch. 1. n. 8. 
 (b)E.H, Lib. 3. Ch. 3. p. 126. (c) In priori InveSliva adv. 
 JuUam p«63. {d) Comment. i« Greg. Naz., p. 8 13, 
 
 G 2 thefe 
 
loo ;^ D E F E N C E ^/ 
 
 thefe Words. The Emperor feduced by Heretich gave 
 the Impious, Privileges againft the Pious, and made 
 Laws againft the Orthodox Dodrine. For when the 
 Arians craftily and wickedly brought in the Word E- 
 quifubftantial ( fo Elias renders h/Miovaiov ) inftead of 
 Confubftantial, the Emperor came into their Senti- 
 ment, wrote, that Equifubftantial was the fame as 
 Confubftantial, and of no detriment at all to Piety. 
 This indeed is not Heterodox (for that which is like, 
 is not the fame with that to which it is like, but 
 partly equal and partly unequal) if pioufly underftood; 
 namely fo, as that the Words [without any difference] 
 be taken along with that Word. Hence, moreover, the 
 Heretich got free power, and fo rejected the Word 
 Confubftantial. But if I wouM fully explain all the 
 {a) Crafty Arts of the Arians, in propagating their im- 
 pious 
 
 (<?) Logical Niceties f 'Equivocal ExpreJporSy Occajlonal Salvoes and 
 ReferveSf Refufal of Avtient Tejiimony, Intrigues nvlth Minijlers of 
 Sfatey Subornation of Evidence., Ivfinuations of ill PraBices or Incli- 
 nations toivards the Government, Offers of Preferment, and the moji in- 
 human Force upon the Minds, the Bodies and Properties of their Ad- 
 vevfaries ; Arts, as our Learned and Good Bifhopfays, Crnfty and Im- 
 ■pious too ; hut yet fo generally ufed, as that the mojl carelefs Reader 
 may he left to himfelf to obferve upon them, thro the nvhole courfe of 
 the Avian Hijlory, 
 
 One Avtijice more flagrant than the reji, ivas an attempt to draiv 
 eff the People from their Zeal for the Doctrine, by reprefenting the Con- 
 iroverfy as too minute, and concerning matters that might as ivell be let 
 alotie. The Writers of the prefent Age have come up to them, if not ex- 
 ceeded them in this particular : But the Cafe is much miflaken : For 
 the VoBrine of the Sons Divinity nvas rigidly injljled upon, but fome 
 particulars in explaining it, ivere thought too fuhtle. The Arian fide 
 ive generally find charged with thefe Subtleties. Dr. Whitby cites So- 
 crates to this purpofe. There Conftantine writes, that the Controverfy 
 was net ahoutaVr'mc\'(i&.\ Doftrine, hut concerning very fmall 
 Matters, vain and unneceffary things, ivithout which there might beJJ- 
 nity in Faith and Opinion. W7:oever ivill look into the Ecclefiaflical 
 Jliftcrians, will find this to he all m'rfreprefentaflon. Any of thi'm will 
 inform him, that the Doctrine was held to be a Principal one, but the 
 Explication fuhtle, vain, unneceffary, dangerous to be attempted by 
 weak Men, and perplexing to the Populace, I flj.ill only take Notice 
 of a few yfcrds in £iufebius and Socrates, which the Doctor has not 
 
 ohfervedf 
 
^y^^ N I c E N E Faith. ioi 
 
 pious Sentiment, the Conclufion of this Book would 
 make another : Wherefore I will here make an end. 
 From what we have difcourfed in this Work, it is 
 plain, the Nicene is the Faith once delivered to the 
 Saints, and always religiouily preferved in the Cacho- 
 lick Church of Chrift. Let us therefore bravely con- 
 tend for this Faith, as it becomes Men inflam'd with 
 an Holy Zeal for God ; and let us conftantly perfevere 
 in it to the end of our Lives. God grant we may. 
 
 To the mofl Holy and Undivided Trinity, God the 
 Father, the Son, and Holy Ghoft, be all Praife 
 Glory and Honour, for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 ohfervedy and which fame of his Friends likey as they are at pefent 
 jalfely tranjlated. Conftantine writes thus : When you^ Alexander 
 aslid the Opinion of your Presbyters concerning a certain Place in the 
 LatUy or rather concerning the [1'v3s ixctain ?si1ii|xa]o? /xsps?] a part 
 of an idle Queftion. Here Valefius'j ufual Diligence and Acumen 
 have forfalzen him \ for if he had collated this place ivith Eufebius 
 he ivoud have found ti^yiffsuig read, not ?>fl*if<-aT05, which (tho indeed he 
 has there tranjlated it as tho he had read IvUviiictloq) qviU force us to 
 tranjlate Iconcerning an Idle, or vain part of a Quejiion'] and thai too 
 fuch an one J as was necejfary and In general common to the Orthodox 
 andthe Arians. 'aaa' sVa xai t5v avjow 'i%f£ )^oytaij.ov. (Eufeb.p. 201) 
 namely the Divinity of our Lord ; the nominal Pvofejfion of which, 
 the Antient Arlans greatly gloried Wt eamejily contended for^ and de- 
 clared abfolutely necejfar^p 
 
 G 3 THE 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 THE 
 
 JUDGMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Catholick Church 
 
 OF T H E 
 
 Three Firfl Centuries, 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 The NecefTity of Believing, That our Lor d 
 Jesus Christ is true God; 
 
 Afierted againft M. Simon EpiscgpiuSj and others. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 H EN 1 formerly perused the Theological 
 Inftitutions of Epifcopius, upon reading 
 the Chapter Concerning the Neceffity oF 
 believing the Manner, in which Jefus 
 Chrift was the Son of God, {a) I wrote^ 
 or rather drew the Out-Lines of^ an Anfwer, 
 for my own ufe^ to the Arguments^ by which the learned 
 
 (4) Ch. 34. Lib. 4. Se£l.2, 
 
 Man 
 
PREFACE iGj 
 
 M(in has there endeavour'd to prcDBj that the Article con- 
 cerning the Di'vine Generation of the Son of Gody our Sam- 
 our^ from God the Father before Ages^ was not taken in th? 
 Primitive Churches ^ for an Article neceffary to be believed in 
 order to Salvation ; and that thofe Churches held Communion 
 luithfuch as deny'd it ; with fuch as believed and taught, 
 that Chriji was a mere Man^ and did not exijl before the 
 Blejfed Virgin. 'This Jhort Anfwer I have enlarg'd, and 
 confiderably augmented at the Inflames of my Friends, hav- 
 ing added to it three whole Chapters i in which, if I mi flake 
 not, 1 have clearly confuted Epifcopius^s Opinion, from the 
 Tejiimonies of the Firft Fathers and Ecclefiaflical Hiflory. 
 
 My Reafon for publifloing this Piece, fuch as it is, I'll 
 give you in a feio IVords. Our own Nation within thefe 
 few Tears has produced feveral Books, in which the impious 
 Authors, boldly defending fometimes the Arian, fometimes 
 the Samofacenian Herefy, have with all their Power atr- 
 tempted to deflroy the Chief Article of our Faith ; that, upon 
 which the Whole of Chrifltanity depends ; namely, That of 
 the Son of God born of God the Father before all Ages, 
 very God of very God, by whom all things were made, who 
 for our Salvation was incarnate, and made Man. The Cen^ 
 fure that great Man Zanchius paffes upon Socinus, and o-^ 
 thers of the fame Strain in his days, I may juftly apply to 
 them : (a) I have read, but with great Indignation, 
 the fooHfh Dotage of our Modern Arians and Photi-^ 
 nians; and can affirm this, that they fall far fhort o£ 
 the Antient Hereticks. Every thing is either endlefs 
 Repetition, or frefh Abfurdicy. That thefe vain Men 
 might neither glory againfl the Truth, nor f educe the Infirm, 
 fome of our own Country, Perfons of Piety and Learning, 
 have oppofed their Books, and upon that account recommend^ 
 ed themfelves to the Favour and Applaufe of all good Men^ 
 
 APiong thefe have appeared a fort of Men, as Mediators, 
 of a pacificatory Genius, and an odd Dejign, to bring toge^ 
 ther Contraries, and reconcile the Catholick Church and He-. 
 reticks, i. e. Chrift and Belial. Thefe Men^ tho they pra^. 
 
 ^a) Ef . Vedicat, to bis Boc^ de Tribus Elohim. 
 
 G 4 fefs 
 
104 PREFACE 
 
 fefs (I luifbj Jincerelf) to believey as the CathoUcks doy the 
 Truth of the Article, that the Son is Co-ejfemial ii-ith God ; 
 fiippofe you need not mjtji upon it, that to Salvation it is 
 fufficient to believe, no matter hovj, in Jefus Chrift the 
 Son ot God and Saviour of Mankind, and that you need 
 not trouble yourfelf, whether he is only mere Man, by Grace 
 and Adoption made a God, and promoted to Divine Honours; 
 or whether he is really and by Nature God. T'hey defend 
 this their Opinion by much the fame Arguments, as Epifco- 
 pius has borrowed from Socinus. T'hey talk loud, that the 
 Nicene Fathers firfl ejiablifo'd the Confubftantiality of the 
 Son, and rafloly guarded it with an Anathema ; but that 
 the Primitive Church, more moderate, and as became a ten- 
 der Mother, received thofe into her Bofom, who believed our 
 Saviour nothing more than Man. This they go about to 
 frovefroin the Creed commonly called the Apofiles, and from 
 a celebrated Paffage in (a) Juflin Martyr. This is alfo 
 their Boa/l, and how little there is in it, the following Trea,- 
 tife will fhew. 
 
 The Ajfertion o/Epifcopius, upon which they vainly build, 
 and which I have undertaken to refute, is unbecoming any 
 Man of Probity, and even a [lender Acquaintance with the 
 Fathers and Church Hi/lory. I charge not Epifcopius with 
 Improbity. Charity forbids me to do that, and indeed I can- 
 not think it. Was he ignorant then ? No. But he can ne" 
 ver efcape the Cenfure of being inconjl derate, to pronounce fo 
 boldly in a matter of fuch importance, concerning the Opinion 
 of the Primitive Church, before he well knew it himfelf ; 
 and to do the greateft difoomur to the DoElors, Bifloops, Con- 
 fejfors and Martyrs of the beji Ages, in reprefenting them as 
 perfecily indifferent in defending the chief Article of the 
 Chriftian Religion. Thus the Cafe mufi ftand. The Inge- 
 nious, and in many refpecis the very Learned Man had not 
 carefully confulted, had abfolutely dcfpifed the Antient^. 
 Hear what he fays in his Anfver to (b) Father Wading's 
 empty Boa/Is cf Fathers and Councils. He fpeaks his Mind 
 
 {a) Dial, with Trypho. {h) Epifcopius ad Wading, de Cuitu 
 Jmsi^vaam, Vol.1. 'g.ll2.Ed.BleaU) Amprdt, 
 
 ^ery 
 
PREFACE. io<; 
 
 qjery freely in thefe Words : I'll tell you my Thoughts 
 once for all. You fhall never engage me in that 
 drudgery, my Friend ', I feek no applaufe from fuch 
 low Enterprizes, nor envy them the Glory of their 
 great Reading, and capacious Memory, who are plea- 
 fed to fpend all their time and pains in thofe wild Re- 
 fearches of Fathers and Councils. I am not for buy- 
 ing Repentance at fuch a Price. With him forfooth ! 
 diligently to perufe the laudable Study cf the Fathers and 
 Councils J is only to be fpoken of in a Proverb of Contempt. 
 It is only a low Ambition ^ a Lofs of "Time and Labour i 
 fomething that will bring you to Repentance. A little after 
 in the fame Place he endeavours weakly to depreciate their 
 Works, is out of humour with the Name and Style of Fa- 
 thers ufualiy given them, and at length thus concludes : (a) 
 This is the Reafon why I do not give myfelf much 
 Trouble about them. 
 
 But Oh, that he had here excepted the Fathers of the 
 three firfi Ages at leaji ! Had he fpent more of his Time and 
 Study upon them, he would have been more ufeful to himfelf 
 and the Church ofChrifi. He would never havefo far en- 
 gaged in the Defence of Arius and Socinus, as to palliate 
 that DoElrine of theirs concerning the Perfon of our Saviour, 
 as Erroneous perhaps, but not Heretical, from the Autho- 
 rity and Judgment of the Primitive Churches ; which Doc- 
 trine all thofe Churches had unanimoujly condemn d for a very 
 pernicious, and a mortal Herefy. 
 
 I think you have this abundantly proved in the Differta- 
 tion I now prefent to you, which may ferve as the Comple- 
 ment, or FinijJoing of my Defence of the Nicene Creed, 
 publifh'd fome Tears ago. For as in that Work, I have 
 vindicated the Nicene Creed from the Calumnies of Here-?. 
 ticks, and fully fhewn the DoSirine of it exaEily agreeable 
 to the Faith of the Catholick Church in the three firfi Centuries 
 (without a Reply, that I know of, from theAdverfaries of the 
 Holy Synod) fo in this Piece I maintain and defend the A- 
 pathematifm annexed to that Creed. For it is hence plain, 
 
 that 
 
10.6 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 that the Nlcene Fathers, agreeably to the "Judgment of the 
 firfl Churches, even from the Days of the Apoflles, had e- 
 ftalliflo'd their Creed under this Anathematifm : {a) The 
 Holy Catholick and Apoftolick Church anathematizes 
 thofe that fay that the Time was, when he was not> 
 and he was not before he was born, and he was made 
 of nothing ; and that affirm he was of another Sub- 
 fiance or Eflfence, or created, or convertible, or mu- 
 table. All pom andfoher Men mufl revere this Judgment 
 of the whole Church of Chrifi in all times ', and of confe- 
 quence beiuare of, and entirely abhor the Herefyofthe Sa- 
 mofatenians and Arians, which deny their God. Do you 
 fo^ Reader, I feriou/ly exhort you, whoever you are. Farewel. 
 
 THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 H E very learned Epifcopiut in his Theologi^ 
 cal Inftitutions fhews, (b) 'That God is called 
 the Father of Jefus Chrifi, and that Jefus 
 Chrifi is called the Son of God the Father, even 
 as he is Man, in an eminent manner, in Holy 
 Scriptures four ways i namely, upon account of his Conception 
 bj the Holy Spirit, his Mediatorial Office, his RefurreSiion 
 front the Dead, and his Exaltation at the Father s Right- 
 hand : He then adds, and proves it from certain Places of 
 Holy Scriptures, and from Scriptural Confequence (tho he 
 behaves very coolly in all the Difputation of this im- 
 portant Truth) that Jefus Chrifi is alfo the Son of God 
 upon another and a more excellent account than any of thofe 
 
 {a) Socrates, p. £1, 22. cap. 8. Lib. Tc (}) Lib. 4. SeQ;. 2. c. 55. 
 
 p. 334. Qr-c. Vol I, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 107 
 
 four, namely uponfuch an one, as could not vefpeEl him as 
 Man 'i becauje the Scripture frequently /peaks fo of Jefus 
 Chrifiy i. e. He luho was afterwards called Jefus Chrifi, 
 as that it can fcarce be doubted, whether he exijled really ^ 
 as the true and only Son of the Father, before he was born 
 Man of Mary his Mother, and confequently (as he after- 
 wards more fully explains himfelf ) before the Creation^ 
 and that infuch a manner^ as to be the Author ofit, and 
 therefore God. 
 
 He puts this Queftion, after his manner, at laft'. (a) 
 IVhether that fifth Manner of Jefus Chrifi's Filiation be ne' 
 cejfary to be known and believed, in order to Salvation ; 
 and thofe Perfons are to be anathematiz.*d, who deny it ? 
 He undertakes to defend the Negative by three Argu- 
 ments. Leaving the two former to be difcufTed by o- 
 thers, I propofe to examine the laft only, as properly 
 falling to my Lot. His Argument is this : {b) 
 
 'The Faith and Profefjton of this fpecial Filiation, was not 
 judged neceffary to be known and believed in order to Salva- 
 tion, in the Primitive Churches, down from the Apojiles du- 
 ring three Centuries at leafi. Therefore there is no reafon, 
 why it Jhould be thought necejfary now. The Confequence is 
 clear from the Rule of Vincentius Lirinenfis : M^hat is 
 neceffary to be known and believed in order to Salvation, ntufl 
 have been determind to be held and believed as fuch every 
 where, by all, and always. 
 
 The Confequence we readily embrace i but the 
 Antecedent (to pafs by Epifcopius his Soloecifm, that 
 the Faith and Profeflion, &c. was not neceflary to be 
 Jtnown and believed, &c. whereas doubtlefs he would 
 have faid, that Faith and Profeflion, &c. were not ne- 
 ceflary to Salvation) we contend is plainly falfe, and 
 will abundantly prove it in this Work. 
 
 Phe thing we muft premife to our Reader, That 
 the judgment of the firft Churches, concerning the 
 Neceffity of this, or any other Article of our Religion, 
 cannot be otherv'ife better known by us, their J^te 
 
 {a) Ch. 54. p. 338, (h) p. 339, in fine. 
 
 Poflerity, 
 
io8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Pofterlty, than firft by confulting the extant Writings 
 and Monuments of the Catholick Fathers, and more 
 celebrated Doftors in thofe Churches, that we may 
 thence know their Thoughts upon the Queflion; and 
 then by fearching Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, concerning 
 thofe, who in the firft Ages denyM the Divinity of 
 our Lord Jefus Chrift, that we may underftand what 
 Judgment the Churches of thofe times pafs'd upon 
 them i whether they retained them in their Communion, 
 or rejeded them as Aliens from Chrift's Body. There 
 is indeed a third Method of diftinguifhing what Doc- 
 trines the Primitive Church held neceflfary to be be- 
 lieved ; namely, by the Symbols and Confeflions of 
 Faith, which fhe required of all, who defired to en- 
 joy her Communion. We don't decline this Method, 
 nay we readily accept it, as will appear "hereafter : 
 But for as much as very many, in thefe worfl of Times, 
 interpret the Antient Creeds, as well as the Holy 
 Scriptures, not according to the Rule of the Catho- 
 lick Church (which Vimentius has told us of) but ac- 
 cording to their own Pleafure j and for as much as E- 
 pifcopius and his Followers have drawn an Argument 
 for their Opinion from the Creed, commonly called 
 the Apoftles, I think it better to defer what I have to 
 fay of Creeds, till I come to anfwer their Reafonings 
 from them. 
 
 Thefe things premised, wefhall eafily refute Epifco- 
 plus's Aflertion in this Method, (i.) I will bring the 
 Teflimonies of the Firft Fathers, very plainly teaching. 
 That the Dodrine of the true Divinity of Chrift is 
 abfolutely neceffary to be believed in order to Salva- 
 tion. (2.) I will fhew from Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that 
 never any one deny'd the Divine Generation of our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift from God the Father before all Ages, 
 who was not excommunicated for it, and deem'd an 
 Heretkh Laftly, I will put in a full Anfwer to thofe 
 Arguments, which Epifcopius has ufed, in order to 
 prove his point. This is the End and Defign of our 
 Diifercation, 
 
 CHAP, 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 'fhe I'ejiimomes of the TrimitwQ Fathers^ 
 T^hat the Article of our Lord's T)i'vinity is 
 ahfolutely necejfary to he belied* dy in order 
 to Sahation. 
 
 will begin with the Teflimonies of the 
 firfl: Fathers. JgnatiuSy a contemporary 
 Bifhop with the Apoftles, or at leaft with 
 St. 'Johtij in his genuine Epiftles, publifti'd 
 by If. Vojpus, very often inculcates the Doctrine of 
 Chrift, God and Man, true God, and true Man, as 
 abfolutely neceflary to be behev'd, againft the Here- 
 ticks of that Age, who denied either of Chrifl^s Na- 
 tures. So, in his Epiftle to the Ephefans, after he 
 had recited their Praifes, which Onefmus their Bifhop 
 had given of them ; namely, that they held faft the 
 orthodox and apoftolick Dodrine, and kept them- 
 felves pure from Herefy : he admonifhes them to per- 
 fevere in the Catholick Faith, ufing all Caution againft 
 Hereticks, who at that time were cunningly fowing 
 their Tares in the Field of the Church. His Words 
 are thefe ; 'There are fome who are worn to bear about the 
 Name [of Chrijf\ deceitfully^ but aEl fuch things as are 
 unworthy of God. Such you ought to a'void as Beafls. For 
 they are mad Dogs, they bite privately. Tou ought to be^ 
 ware of them, as being themfehes in a defperate State, 
 difficultly to be cur'd, [and therefore dangeroufly in- 
 fectious.] The celebrated Place concerning the two 
 Natures of Chrift is fubjoin'd ; There is one Phyjician, 
 carnal and fpiritual, made and unmade, God incarnate, 
 the true Life in Dmh, both of Mary and of God. Im- 
 mediately 
 
116 TZ'^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 mediately follows : T'herefore let no Man deceive you, 
 i. e. in that great Truth explained to you in the 
 Words preceding, concerning the two Natures of 
 our Saviour. It is therefore very plain that the Here- 
 ticks noted by {a) Ignatius^ denied the apoftolical Doc- 
 trine of Chrift being God and Man ; and that the 
 apoftolical Man therefore cenfur'd them, as mad 
 Dogs, biting privately, and injeding the deadly Poi- 
 fon of their Doftrine into the Minds of Men, as Per- 
 fons to be entirely avoided by all who would confult 
 their own Salvation. 
 
 It is moreover obfervable, that after the holy Man 
 had faid thefe Hereticks were in the utmoft Danger of 
 their eternal Salvation, he gives this Reafon for thus 
 fpeaking, immediately : Vor there is one Phy/kianj car- 
 nal and fpiritual, &c. As if he fhould have faid, 
 there is no Salvation for Men, but through that one 
 Phyfician of Souls, Chrift, who is God and Man, and 
 the Mediator between God and Man : But thefe Men 
 will not allow, don't acknowledge any fuch Phyfi- 
 cian and Mediator; therefore their Salvation is defpe- 
 rate, unlefs they at length ferioufly repent of their 
 Herefy, embrace, and with all Devotion reverence 
 God the Son, incarnate and made Man for their Sal- 
 vation. 
 
 The fame Perfon afterwards, in the fame Epiftle, 
 again pronounces thefe Hereticks worfe than the 
 worft of Men i he affigns them and their Followers 
 to the Flames of Hell, and calls their Opinion a dia- 
 bolical Dodrine. Thefe are his Words : {b) Be not de- 
 ceived, my Brethren. They that defile the Houfe, [their 
 Bodies, by Adultery] fiall not inherit the Kingdom of 
 God. If then they who have done this in a carnal Senfe 
 [defilM their own Bodies, which are call'd the Tem- 
 ples of the Holy Ghoft, &c.'] are dead or perifb*d ; 
 how much more {hall he who corrupts the * Faith of Gody for 
 
 {a) Pag. 13. Vol. 2. Patr. Apoft. {h) P. 15. 
 
 * Archbijhop Uftier reads^ yhs Chttrchl ivhich preferves tie Anti- 
 
 which 
 
the Catholick Church, (J-^. in 
 
 vihich Jefus Chrifi luas crucify dj by evil DoEirine. Such 
 an one is become defiVdy and jhall go into unquenchable 
 Fire, asfialialfo his Hearer. And a little after, (a) Be ye 
 not anointed with the ill Savour of the DoEirine of the 
 Prince oj this W'orld. He then propofes the Apoftolical 
 Faith, as oppofite to this evil diabolical Doftrine, in 
 thefe Words : Our God Jefus Chrifi was conceived by Mary, 
 according to the Difpofition of God, of the Seed of David, 
 and of the Holy Spirit. The mild Ignatius therefore 
 thunders againfl thefe Seducers and Seduced ; therefore 
 threatens them with eternal Fire, becaufe they endea- 
 voured to fubvert the chief Truth of the Chriftian 
 Religion [that great Myftery of Godhnefs, God 
 manifeft in the Flefh] of which every true Church, as 
 the Apollle tells us, (^b){hould be the Pillar and Bafts ; by 
 profefling it, defending it by her Teftimony, and pre- 
 ierving it by her preaching the Gofpel. There were 
 in the Times of Ignatius two forts of Hereticks who 
 attempted this Impiety, as contrary to one another, as 
 they both were to the Truth ^ the one attributing to 
 our Saviour a certain Divine Nature, abfolutely di- 
 verted him of the Human, affirming, that he only 
 imaginably liv'd, fuffer'd, and died among Men, as a 
 Man. Of this Herefy were the Simonians, Menandri" 
 ans^ SaturninianSj &c. all which the latter Ages there- 
 fore caird Doceta and Phantajiafia. The other, on the 
 Reverfe, only acknowledged an human Nature in 
 Chrift, namely, the Cerinthians and Ebionites. It is 
 not eafy to fay, whether is the more dangerous Herefy ; 
 though the latter indeed does plainly refled more 
 upon the Dignity of our Lord's Perfon. The 
 Learned agree, and it is in itfelf clear, that Ignatius 
 had an eye to them both, as well in other Parts of 
 his Epiftles, as in the Places cited. Whofoever (hall 
 read thefe PafTages, without Prejudice and Partiality, 
 can never furely be of Epifcopius*s mind, or believe 
 that the Dodrine concerning the true Divinity of our 
 
 C'*) p. itf. (6) I Tim, Chap. V. 15, i(J. 
 
 Lord 
 
112 r^^JUDGMEN i' of 
 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, was not judg'd neceffary to be be- 
 liev'd, in order to Salvation in the primitive Church, 
 much lefs that fhe held Communion with thofe that 
 deny'd it, a thing Efifcopius has ventured to affirm. 
 Thus much for Ignatius. 
 
 2. We fhall prove the fame of Juflin in a more 
 proper Place, notwithftanding the UCe Epifcopius and 
 his Followers make of him, for want of Candour or 
 Skill. 
 
 3. In the mean time, let Irenaus fucceed Ignatius. 
 He, in his Youth, was a conftanc and a diligent 
 Hearer of Polycarp, a Difcipkofthe Apoflle {a}y fo that 
 in his old Age, he very well retained the Words and 
 Dodrine of that bleffed Man, and therefore could 
 eafily be informed byhim, what the Apoflolical Church 
 deem'd to be heretical. Now he, as well as Ignatius^ 
 every where in his Writings rejeds thofe as Here- 
 ticks who denied Chrift to be God-Man, true God 
 and true Man, and pronounces them Aliens from the 
 faving Knowledge of Chrift. His Words concerning 
 the Ebionites and Cerimhians are very clear : (l^) But they 
 again ivlio fay he is barely Man, begotten of Jofeph, are 
 deady continuing in the Servitude of their former Difobe- 
 dience^ being not yet incorporate with the Word of God 
 the Father^ not through the Sun obtaining Liberty, as he 
 himfelf faith ; If the Son make you free, then are you 
 
 free indeed. Now not knowing him, who, born of the Vir^ 
 gin, is God with us, they are deprived of his Gift, which 
 is eternal Life i and not receiving the incorruptible TVord, 
 they abide in the mortal Flefh^ and are obnoxious to Death, 
 not partaking of the enlivening Antidote. Here he charges 
 the Hereticks with two Errors, teaching that Chrift 
 is Man begotten of Man, not born of a pure Virgin ; 
 and that he is Man, and nothing elfe. Upon both 
 thefe Errors, he denies their Salvation, affirming 
 that they are dead, continuing in the Servitude of their 
 
 (^d) Eufeb. Eccl. Hift. Lib. 5. chap. 20. 
 Ih) Lib. 3. chap, 21. p. 28^. 
 
 former 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c* 115 
 
 farmer Difobedience ,• that they dont obtain Liberty thro* the 
 Son ; that they are deprived of the Gift of Chrijl^ which 
 is eternal Life ; and lajily, are obnoxious to Death. Now 
 he therefore efpecially pronounces this dreadful Sen- 
 tence upon thenij becaufe they have not known Imma- 
 nuel, or God ivith us, becaufe they have not received 
 the incorruptible Word, refting in the mortal Flefh ; 
 i. e. becaufe they have not acknov^ledgM the Divine, 
 Incorruptible, and Immortal Nature of Chrift. 
 
 Parallel to thefe are his Words againfl: the Ebionites 
 in particular, (a) The Ebionites are fniflaken, not re^ 
 cei'ving into their Souls the Union of God and Man by Faith* 
 And a little after, {b) Thefe therefore rejeSi the Mixture 
 of the Heavenly Wine, and ivill have the Earthly Water 
 only, not taking God into their (c) Cup. They reft in that 
 Adam, who was overcome and expell'd Paradife, not con- 
 Jidering that, as from the beginning of our Formation in 
 Adam, the Breath of Life, which was from God, united 
 to Matter, animated the Man, and exhibited the rational 
 Animal ; fo in the end, the Word of the Father, and the 
 Spirit oj God, united to the antiem Stibflance of our Forma- 
 tion, hath made the living and perfeci Man, To thefe, 
 add the Paflage oi Irenaus, cited by Theodoret ; (d) He 
 will ask the Ebionites, how can they be fav'd, except he 
 was God, who wrought the Salvation upon Earth ? Or how 
 fjall Man go to God, unlefs God come to Man ? 
 
 ^.' (e) Tertullian affirms, that the Article concerning 
 the Generation of God the Son, from God the Fa- 
 ther, before Ages, is certainly part of that Rule of 
 Faith, which hath among Chrifiians no Queflions or Contro- 
 nierfies but what Here/tes introduce, and which make Here- 
 ticks. This Place I fhall cite at large hereafter , but be- 
 fides, I fhall in this Chapter, bring a remarkable 
 Teftimony for the Neceffity of this Article, from 
 Tertullian, as you'll find by and by. 
 
 {a) Lib. 5. chap. i. p. 455, (£) Ibid. (c) Commixtionem- 
 (</) Lib.4. chap. 59. p, 397. , (0 TertuU. p, 207, 
 
 Vol. IL H 5. To 
 
114 ?i^ JUDGMENT/ 
 
 5. To T'ertullian^ we muft join No'vatiaUy or the 
 Author of the Book concerning the Trinity in T'ertul- 
 Hans Works. In that Eook^ he condemns their Doc- 
 trine, as the moll dangerous Herefy, and contumeli- 
 ous to the Father himfelf, who deny the Divinity of 
 .Chrift, and fay he is a mere Man, or a Creature. 
 Thus he difcouries ; (a) For it is very dangerous to fay , 
 that the Sa'viour of Alankind^ the Lord and Prince of the 
 ivhok World, to vjhom all things are given and granted by 
 the Father, by whom all things were defignd^ made, and 
 difps'd, the King of all Ages and Times, the Prince of all 
 Angels, before luhtm nothing was, except the Father f, to 
 fay that he is only Man, and to deny his Divine Authority 
 in thefe Things. This Contumely of the Hereticks, wiU 
 redound to God the Father alfo ; as though God the Father 
 could not beget himfelf a Son : But the Blindnefs of Hereticks 
 muft not prefer ibe to Truth. Again, the fame Perfon 
 exprefly teaches, that he can't be fav'd, who does not 
 own Chrift to be God : (b) IVhy then jfbould we fcruple 
 to fay, zvhat the Scripture does not fcruple ? IVhy fhould a 
 true Faith hefitate, where the Authority of Scripture is 
 clear ? Behold the Prophet Hofea fpeaking in the Perfon of 
 the Father -, Now I will not fave them by the Bow, or by 
 Horfemen, but I willfave them * by the Lord their God. If 
 God, fays he, faves by God, when hefaves no otherwife 
 than by Chrifl ', why then fhould Man doubt to call Chrift 
 God, whom he cbferves ftyled God by the Father in Scrip- 
 ture ? Nay, if Gcd the Father faves not but by God, and 
 no one can be fav'd by God the Father, unlefs he confefs 
 Chrift to be God, in whom and by whom the Father pro- 
 7m[es to give Salvation ; as whofoever acknowledges him ta 
 be God, fhall furely find Salvation in Chrift God ', fo who- 
 foever does not acknowledge him to be God, muft lofe that 
 
 (^) Pag. 713' 
 •f Ihefe Words of Novatian are expJaind in the Defence of the 
 Nicene Creed, Seft.5. chap. 8. $. 7. 
 (fc) Ibid. & 714. 
 
 * By tie Wtrd ef the Lord their God. So ]or\^tha.n s Targum i 
 arid the Fathers generally expour.d the Place of Chrlfi the Word and 
 Sen of God. See the Dcf. of the Nic. F. Seft. r. chap. i. feft. 19, 
 
 Saha-° 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c, iif 
 
 Sahatim^ ixihich he cant any where elfe find but in Chril^ 
 God. Lajlly, fpeaking of both the forts of Here- 
 ticks, thofe that fay the Father is the Son, and thofe 
 who deny the Son to be God, he truly and elegantly 
 fays, {a) That our Lord is indeed cruciffd, as it vjere^ he" 
 tiueen two 'Thie'ves, as he cnce was, and fo receives the fa" 
 crilegious Rejffroaches oj Hereticks en both fides. 
 
 6. I now come to Origen^ who, if any of the An- 
 cients, was a Free-thinker in Divinity, a Latitudina- 
 rian Father : But for all this, difcourfing profeffedly of 
 the neceffary Articles of Chriftian Faith, he exprefly 
 gives this concerning the Son's Divinity a Place 
 among the firft. The Paflage is a very remarkable 
 one, and therefore I'll give it you, though fomething 
 long. It is thus in the Apology ot Pnmphilus Martyr : 
 (h) Whereas there are many, tuho think they underfiand 
 Chri/iianity, and yet forne of them differ from their An- 
 ceflors I and whereas the DoSlrine of the Church is pc 
 fer'U*d, being delivered dovrnfrom the Apoftles by the Order 
 of SucceJJion, and remains in the Churches to this njery Time, 
 that only is to be believed true^ -which in nothing differs from 
 the Church's Tradition. Now ire mujl know that the holy 
 ApoJileSj "when they preached the Chrijlian Faith, treated 
 'Very plainly concerning fome Points ^ which they belie'v'd ne* 
 ceffary to Salvation for all Believers, though before thofe 
 who were not forward in their Search after divine Know- 
 ledge ; leaving the Reafon of their Affertions to be enquired 
 into by thofe, who Jhould be thought worthy to ' - .-'vefrom 
 the Spirit the excellent Gifts of the Spirit, a:ui efpecially the 
 Gifts of the Word of Wifdom and Knoii^ledge. Of other 
 Points, they vnly f aid, that they we-^-e, but faidnoth-nghow, 
 or whence they were ; that fo all thofe of their Po/lerity, 
 who were more fiudious than others, and Lovers of Kmw 
 ledge and Wifdom, might have Scope for the Exercife of 
 their Wit, namely, thofe who jhould make themfelves worthy 
 and capable of Wifdom. Now the Particulars, which 
 
 id) Pag. 7S8. 
 (i) Among Jerome'* fj^rife/, Tom. 9. p. 115, 11^, Ed. Vi^or. 
 
 H % were 
 
ti6 r^^JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 'u:eYe fJa'mly treated in the Apofiolkal InfiruEiioUy are thefe. 
 Firft, 'That there is one God^ ivho made and composed all 
 things, and ivho made them out of nothing, &c. That 
 this God, as he had promifed before by his Prophets^ 
 fent the Lord Jefus Chrifi in the lafl Days, &c. 
 'Then that this 'Jefus Chrifi, who came, "was born of 
 the Father, before every Creature. That he, luhen he had 
 miniflerd to the Father in the Creation of ail things (for 
 by him were all things made) emptying himfelf in the lafi 
 Days, "Was made Man : Was incarnate ^ tho* God ; and re- 
 main d God, tho' made Man. In thefe Words Origen fays, 
 that the Dodrine of the Son's Divinity was part of 
 the Ecclefiaftical Inftrudion delivered by the Apoftles 
 themfelves, and always preferv'd in the Churches ; 
 and whereas the Apoftolical Doctrine was of diffe- 
 rent Kinds, he places this Article among thofe, 
 which they treated of very plainly, as being neceffary 
 for all, even the more rude and ignorant Believers. 
 
 In the fame Apology {a) is cited Origen s Book upon 
 the Epiftle to Titus. In this Book, upon thefe Words, 
 An Heretick rejeSi after the third Ad?mnitiDn, he comments 
 thus: The Name of Herefy, as far as I can find, is 
 thus alfo mark'd out in the Epiftle to the Corinthians. 
 For there miifl be Hereftes, that thofe who are approved 
 may be made manifefi among you. And again to the 
 Galatians, Herefy is reckoned among the WorJ(s of 
 the Flefh : Now the Works of the Flefh are manifefi^ 
 which are thefe. Fornication, Uncle annefs, Wantonnefs, 
 Idolatry, Witchcraft, Enmity, Contentions, Emulations, 
 Wrath, Strife, Difcord, Henfes, ^c. of which I ha'ue 
 told you before, that they who do fuch things, fhall not in- 
 herit the Kingdom of God. By thefe Words we un- 
 derftand, that as they who are defil'd by Fornication, 
 Uncleannefs, and the Worfhip of Idols, fhall not in- 
 herit the Kingdom of God ; fo neither fhall they 
 who are gone off to Herefy. Wherefore, according 
 to the Apoftle, we muft as well avoid the Imputation 
 
 {a) Pag. 117. 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c* i 17 
 
 of Herefy, as the other Evils enumerated by him, 
 and not fo much as join in Prayers with fuch Perfons. 
 A httle after, Origen fhews who are to be accounted 
 Hereticks, in thefe Words : Let us defcribe as well 
 as "we can ivhat an Heretick is. Every one luho pro^ 
 fejfes to believe in Chrifl, and yet fays there is one 
 God of the La'vJ and the Prophets, and another of 
 the Gofpels, &c. ' Our Opinion mufl be the fame 
 concerning thofe who have any falfe Notions of our 
 Lord yefus Chrifl, whether according to them, who 
 fay he was born of Jofeph and Mary, fuch are the 
 Ebionites and (a) Valentinians; or according to them 
 who deny him to be the Fir fi- born, the God of the 
 whole Creation, the Word, and Wifdom, which is 
 the Beginning of the Ways of God, begotten before 
 any thing was made, before the Foundation of the 
 Worlds, before all the Hills ; and who fay that he is 
 only Man. Sure nothing can be clearer than thefg 
 Words. 
 
 7. Dionyfius, the famous Bifliop of Rome, who 
 flourifh'd not long after Origen, in his Epiftle againit 
 the Sabellians, cited by Athanajlus, calls the Dodrine 
 of the Holy Trinity, the mofl venerable DoBrine of the- 
 Church of God, which no one was in the leaft to vio- 
 late. He charges thofe alfo, who dar'd affirm thac 
 the Son of God was a Creature, and fomeching made, 
 not only with Herefy, but the greateft Blafphemy : 
 Jt is then, fays (f) he, no ordinary Blafphemy, nay the 
 greatefl, to fay the Lord was in any refpeSi made ; for if 
 the Son was made, there was a 'Time when he was not, but 
 he always was. It is certain then, that in the Days of 
 Dionyfius, the Church of Rome, then truly the moft 
 honourable of all Churches, thought the Article of 
 the Son's eternal Generation abfolutely neceifary to be 
 believ'd j and did not hold Communion with thofe 
 who did not acknowledge Chrifl; to be God, but af- 
 firmed he was a Creature. 
 
 {a) See Huetius upon Origeni' s Comment, p. 120^ 
 
 fb) Tomi prim, pars prim. p. 231, 252. 
 
 H 3 8. U 
 
iiS 27^^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 8. It would be endlefs to lay before you all the 
 Teftimonies of the Fathers to this purpofe ; wherefore 
 to what has been alledgM, I will only add this general 
 Obfervation, namely, that in the firft Ages there was . 
 a very great Controverfy between the 'Jeins and Chri- 
 ftians, concerning the Perfon of Chrift, whether he was 
 to be God and Man, as the Prophets had foretold, or 
 only mere Man. The Jews and fome Judaiz>ing Chri- 
 ftians affirmed the latter, and objefted the Gentile Po- 
 lytheifm to thofe who aflerted the Divinity of Chrift : 
 The former, all the Catholick Chriftians ftrenuoufly 
 defended, as the Ground of their Faith and Salvation, 
 fo as to efteem thofe Aliens from the Church of Chrift, 
 and Renegadoes to the Synagogue, who, tho* found in 
 all other refpefts, denyM this Point. It feem'd in- 
 deed the very fame thing to them to deny Jefus to be 
 the Chrift, as to deny him to be God. 
 
 9. When yujiin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, 
 endeavoured to fhew, that Chrift foretold by the Pro- 
 phets was God, and was to be born Man of a Virgin, 
 Trypho objefls thus : (a) It does not only feem flrange 
 tojne^ but abfurd, that you JImild fay, this Chrifl was God, 
 and pve-exifled before Ages j then condefcended to be born, 
 being 7nade Man, and that he was not Man of Man, To 
 which yuflin replies: / know this matter feems flrange^ 
 and efpecially to the Men of your Nation, vjho are neither 
 willing to tinder (land, or do the things of Gody but thofe of 
 pur own ATafterSy as God himfelf complains. Origen (b) 
 blames his Epicurean, that in perfonating a Jew he had 
 not obfervM decorum, but put into his mouth. Words 
 that did not agree with his Charader, namely thefe: 
 My Prophet formerly prophefy'd in Jerufalem, that the Son 
 of God would come a 'Judge of the Pious, and an Avenger 
 ef the Injuft, He then gives the Reafon of this Repre- 
 henfion : (c) A Jew ivould not have confefs*d that any 
 Pyophetfaidj the Son of God would come. For what they 
 
 (/t) See the <whoh PaJJags at Ipge hereafter, (h), Origen agakfi 
 Celfus, p. 38. COlbid. -• . ' 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c» iig 
 
 fay J is J that the Chrift of God will come. And they often 
 difpute with us direEily concerning the Son of God^ as tho* 
 there was no fuch P erf on nor aity fuch Prophecy. He again 
 (a) upbraids Celfus with the fame thing : Nor does he 
 know thiSjthat the Jews don tat all fay, that Chrift will de^ 
 fcend^ or come into the IVorld^ as being Godj or the Son of God. 
 lo. 'Tertulian writes (b) more appofite to this Ob- 
 fervation : Now the Jewifh Faith is thiSj fo to believe one 
 Gody as not to own bejtdes him the Son, and bejides the Son 
 the Spirit. For otherwife, what difference would there be 
 between them and us ? What need of the Gofpel^ which is the 
 Subfiance of the New "Tefiament, and determines, that the 
 Law and the Prophets are till John ; unlefs from that 'Time 
 the three. Father^ Son and Spirit believed [on by us~\ ex" 
 hibite to us one God? God was pleas' d to renew the Cove^ 
 nant with us, as that he Jhould now a-new be believed one 
 by the Son and Spirit ; as that God fhould now be openly 
 known in his proper Names and Perfons^ who antiently 
 being preached by the Son and Spirit^ was not tmderflood. 
 Let the Anti-Chrifts then look to it, who deny the Father 
 and the Son, &c. But what Novatian fays (c) upon 
 that Place of St. John, {flho 1 tefiify of my f elf , my Tejii- 
 mony is true^ becaufe I know whence I came, and zuhither I 
 go. But ye know not whence I come, nor whither I go, 
 Te judge according to the Fleflo] is moft to the purpofe, 
 and very good : Behold here he fays, that he will re- 
 turn thither, whence he fays he came before ', He was fent 
 from Heaven. He defended then lohence he caine, as he 
 goes thither, whence he defended. Wherefore, if Chrifl had 
 only been a Man, he had not come thence (d) ; but by coming 
 from whence Man cant come, hejhews himfelf to have been 
 God, who came. Now the Jews, ignorant and not appriTj^d 
 (f this his Defcent, made thefe Men their Heirs in the Hc' 
 Yefy ; to whom it is faid, Tou know not whence I come, nor 
 
 ^d) P. 162, {h) P. 518. (0 Novatian. c. 23. 
 
 {d) Thefe Words are omitted in the BiJi3op''s Citation? And confe- 
 quently had not gone thither, becaufe he did not come from 
 thence« 
 
 H 4 whither 
 
120 7'beJVDGMENT of 
 
 whither I go: Tou judge according to the Fkjh. "The Jews, 
 as well as they^ held onl^ the Carnal Nativity ofChriJi^ and 
 believed Chrifi to be nothing elfe but Man i not conjideringy 
 that, as Man could not come from Heaven ^ fo as to challenge 
 a Return thither^ he muft be God^ who defended thence^ 
 whence Man could not come. 
 
 11. In this refpeft the Author (whoever he was) of 
 the Epiftle to Hero the Deacon, afcribed to Ignatius^ 
 is worthy Notice, becaufe he condemns their Herefy, 
 who deny the Divinity of Chrift, as a Jewijh Impiety 
 and Blafphemy. Thefe are his Words : (a) If any one 
 fays the Lord is a mere Man, he is a Jew, a Murderer of 
 Chrifi. The fame Author, probably, has Words much 
 to the fame purpofe in the Epiftle to the Antiochians, 
 where he exhorts them (b) to throw off all Jewifh and 
 Gentile Error ; and neither to introduce a multitude of 
 Gods, nor under the pretence of one God to deny Chrifi. And 
 a little after he adds : Whofoever then preaches one only 
 God, f as to defiroy the Divinity of Chrifi, (c) is the Devi\ 
 and an Ene77iy of all Righteov fiefs. 
 
 12. Laftly the great ^^/;<^«^y/z/; has (according to 
 cuftom) excellently exprefsM the Senfe of the Primi- 
 tive Catholick Church in this Point : The fews, fays 
 {_d) he, have a great deal to fay againfi Idolaters, and 
 jufily, accuflng them of Worfiyipping the Creature bejides the 
 Creator. But tho* they blame this Impiety, they are not 
 therefore Pious ^ when they deny the Son of God, by whom all 
 things rcere made, and charge us with Polytheifmfor lVor~ 
 fi)ipping the Father by him. We therefore came out of, and 
 are feparate from the Gentiles, that we might not be enga- 
 ged in their impure Idolatries ', and we alfo are come out of 
 the Blafphemy of the Jews, conf effing the Son of God. A 
 little after: (e) IVe differ from the ]\x6.2i\itts, who cor^ 
 Yupt Chrifiianity with Judaifm, and denying him who is 
 God of God, affirm, ' as the Jews do, that there is one Godi 
 
 {a) Tom. 2. P. A. p. 1 14. (^> Ibid. p. lop, and no. (c) Oy it 
 Calumniator, as the old Verjion feems to render Fiiius DiaboH* 
 (^) Tom. Sec. p. 37. (0 Ibid. 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c. \1\ 
 
 not therefore faying that he is the only God, as he is only 
 unbegotten, only the Fountain of the Deity j but as being "with' 
 out a Son, a living Word and JVifdom. What follows in 
 Athanajius is very well worth readings namely, what 
 he [Excellent Man] fays from ver. i . of Chap, i . of St. 
 John, and from Reafon, to prove it impoflible God 
 fhould be rightly conceiv'd One in the Senfe of the 
 'Je'udSy and 'Judaiz.ing Hereticks, i. e. that he fhould only 
 be one Perfon i whereas it is neceflary, that God, 
 who is an eternal Mind, fhould have in and with him 
 his Word, not fuch as the Human, but a Living and 
 Subfifting Word, and therefore a Perfon : and as this 
 Word is from God the Father, therefore a Divine Per- 
 fon diftind from, the Father; and yet becaufe the 
 Word is in the Father, and the Father's Word, there- 
 fore one God with the Father. But thefe things be- 
 long to another Head. 
 
 13. Before I conclude this Head, it may be ufeful 
 to take a tranfient View of the "Jews Notion concern- 
 ing their Meffiah. Now, it is obfervabie, that their 
 Prophets, have in many Places plainly fignify'd, that 
 the Meffiah was to be God and Man together, as is 
 largely (hewn by (a) 'Juflin Martyr &mon^t\\Q Anutms, 
 The Noble and Learned (b) Du Pleffis hath fully prov- 
 ed, that the more underftanding part of the Hebrew 
 Doctors were not altogether ignorant of it. However, 
 it is certain that the generality of the ]fe%vsj even in 
 our Saviour's time, had but a mean and low Notion 
 of their Meffiah, thinking him to be no more than a 
 Man. Thus we read (c) the Holy Jefus caught the 
 captious 3^6xuj by this Queftion ; IVh at think you of 
 Chrifi ? IVhofe Son is he ? For when they anfwer*d ; 
 T'he Son of David, (for they expeded a Meffiah^ who 
 fhould be merely the Son oi David, not dreaming of 
 the Son of God) our Saviour urgM them with this 
 
 (/) See the "Dlahgue ivith Trypho. (}) Of the tr^s Chvlfmn Reli- 
 ^iorijQh.zdf {c) Matt, Ch,2.z. V. 42. 
 
 furti 
 
 ler 
 
122 !rz^^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 further difficult Queflion, How then doth David hy 
 the Spirit call him Lord^ f'^y^^&i I'he Lord faid unto my 
 Lord? If then David call him Lord, how Is he his Son? 
 This graveird the Pharifees^ which, upon Tuppofition 
 that they had a Notion of Chrift's Divinity, would 
 have been eafily anfwer'd. They might have faid, 
 that Chrift indeed was to be the Son of David accor- 
 ding to the Flefhj but his Lord, with refped to his 
 Divine Nature, 
 
 This Notion of the Jews had its Original doubtlefs 
 from their grofs and carnal Conceptions of the Meffiah. 
 They expec^ted he fhould be a glorious King, Rich 
 and Powerful, fo as to exalt their Sceptre and Nation 
 above all the Empires of the World i that he fhould 
 fubdue all the Enemies of his People, and having laid 
 the Emprefs of the Earth, haughty Rome^ in Ruins, 
 fhould advance Jerufakm to herMetropolitical Dignity. 
 What occafion had fuch a Mej'fiah for Divinity ? All 
 thefe things a Cyrus^ an Alexander^ or a Cafar, with 
 the Divine Providence, might have accomplifliM : Not 
 to fay, that fuch an Earthly Kingdom would have been 
 abfolutely unworthy of God. No wonder then, if the 
 Jews thus thinking of their MeJJlahj never acknowledged 
 his Divine Nature. 
 
 14. But that there are, or ever were Men of fuch 
 Notions among the Chriilians, who have been clearly 
 taught in the Gofpel things much more Holy and Sub- 
 lime of their Chrift, is exceeding (Irange indeed. To 
 fay nothing of thofe Places in the Old Teftament, 
 which immediately refped his Divinity, in which he 
 is proclaimed the Son of God, and God before Ages, 
 by whom all things were made (Places fo many and fo 
 plain, that he piuft be wilfully blind, who does not 
 fee them) even thofe Places, which fpeak of the CEco- 
 nomy, which relate to his Office or Honour, as he is 
 our Mefff ah and Mediator^ they certainly fpeak of fome- 
 thing more than a Man, or a Creature. His (Economy 
 neceflarily fuppofes, and pven determines his Divinity, 
 For the Holy Scriptures preach to us, and we profefs 
 
 to 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c» 125 
 
 to believe them, fuch a Chrift, as is the Saviour of our 
 Souls, as is to us Wifdom, Juftice, Sanctification and 
 Redemption, /. e. as makes us Wife, Juft, Holy and at 
 laft perfedly BleiTed i as immediately hears the Prayers 
 of thofe who every where call upon his Holy Name, and 
 therefore is every where, knows all things, even the 
 Heart j as is always with his Church difperfed over the 
 World, and fo protefts and defends it with his Al- 
 mighty Power, as that neither the Powers of the Earth, 
 nor the Gates of Hell fliall prevail againft it ', as is of 
 equal Majefty with God the Father, and to be adored 
 with Divine Worfhip, not only by us humble Mortals, 
 but by Angels, Arch- Angels, and all the Super-celeftial 
 World,* as, laftly, fhall come in the end of the World, 
 fhiningin the brighteft Glory, and guarded with Mi" 
 niftring Angels, to judge the World, to bring into o- 
 pen light, not only the Deeds of all Men, but the 
 Secrets of their Hearts, to banifh his Enemies into 
 Hell, and to beftow upon his Servants not Riches, or 
 Honours, or Earthly Pleafures, but Heavenly Glory, 
 and eternal Life. Are thefe things compatible with 
 mere Man, or any Creature ? I muft fay, he that 
 thinks fo, fcts himfelf not only againft Faith, but Rea- 
 fon alfo. 
 
 This by way of Digreffion. To return ; I fuppofe 
 I have confuted the rafli Aflertion of Epifcopius^ by 
 fufficient Teftimonies of the Antients: I therefore 
 proceed to the fecond Head, (.a) 
 
 (a) See the femarkahle FaJJage of St. Cypvian to the fame purpofe 
 Vfith the other 4ntkm cited in this Chapter^ Def. N, C, SeS.s. Ch.io, 
 6, 2, 
 
 HAP. 
 
124 !ra^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 C H A P. II. 
 
 Of thofo who 171 the Firft Age of Chriftiamtf 
 oppofed the 'Do^ririe of the Gofpcl, concern- 
 ing ChnfTs being God and Majz. 
 
 E come now to Ecclefiaflical Hiftory, which 
 whofoever will confult, muft wonder, I doubt 
 not, with what face Epfcopius could affirm, That in 
 the Primitive Churches, from the Apoftles times, for 
 three entire Centuries, the Faith and Profefjion of this 
 fpecial Manner ofjefus Chrift's Filiation (in which he is 
 defined the Son of God, and God before all Ages) vjas 
 not judged necejfary to Salvation. For nothing can be 
 more repugnant to ail Church-Hiftory. In order to 
 make this clear, I muft repeat that Caution I gave in 
 the Beginning of this Diflertation, namely, that the 
 Primitive Church could not by any other better way 
 declare her Judgment, concerning the Neceffity of 
 Believing any Article of our Religion, than by Excom- 
 municating thofe who deny'd it. The Anathema of 
 the Church, as TevtuUian fpeaks, was formerly held by 
 all Chriftians, j^r the great eft Prefumption of the future 
 Judgment. And thus the Perfons Excommunicate, 
 thofe whom the Church had thrown out of her Pale, 
 till they repented, and defired the Peace of theChurch, 
 were efteemed out of the State of Salvation, accord- 
 ing to that old Saying, Out of the Church no Salvation. 
 This indeed Epifcopius by ftating this Queftion, \_lVhe- 
 ther that fifth Manner of the Filiation of Jefus Chriji be 
 necejfary to he known and believed to Salvation, and whether 
 they who deny it, are liai^le to Excommunication'] plainly 
 confeffes ; namely, that to excommunicate any Perfon 
 for denying any Dodrinc, is the fame, as to judge and 
 pronounce that Dodrine necelTary to be known and 
 Relieved to Sslyation. If then the Primitive Churches 
 
 ex= 
 
the Catholick Church, fyc> 125 
 
 excommunicated thofe, who denied this fifth Manner 
 of Chrift's Filiation ; then, according to E^ifcopius him- 
 felf, they are to be thought the Aflertei^s of that Man- 
 ner, as necelTary to Salvation. But it is very plain 
 from Church-Hillory, that for the three firfl; Centuries, 
 no one deny*d that Manner of Chrift's Filiation, in 
 which he was God, begotten of God before all Ages, 
 who was not anathematized, and excluded the Com- 
 munion of the Church, as a Foreigner, an Alien from 
 Chrift's Body, unlefs he fpeedily retraced and con- 
 demned his Herefy. Therefore, &c, which was the 
 Thing to be demonftrated. 
 
 2. Cerinthus and Ehion^ who lived in the Days of the 
 Apoftles, were the Firft who difturb'd the Church 
 with this Herefy. This only difference there was be- 
 twixt their refpedive Opinions, concerning the Lord 
 Jefus, That Cerinthus feparated Jefus from Chrift, and 
 made Jefus a mere Man, the Son of ^ofeph and Mary^ 
 into whom Chrift defcended from above after his 
 Baptifm, and retired from him at his Paffion, and re- 
 turned to his Pleroma, or Complement j but Ebion 
 (for we fhall fhew this to be the Name of a Man 
 hereafter, notwithftanding the contrary Sentiment of 
 fome learned Men) affirmed, that Jefus and Chrift 
 was the fame, the Son of Jofeph and Mary, and from 
 the Beginning to the End of his Life only mere Man- 
 This difference we learn from Lenaus : (a) One Ce- 
 rinthus an Afiatick taught^ that the World was not 
 made by the Supreme God, but by a Power feparate and 
 njery diftant from that Principality which is over all, and 
 ignorant of that God who is over all. He added, that Jefus 
 was not born of a Virgin (for thatfeernd impojjibk to hint) 
 but that he was the Son of Jofeph and Mary, like other Men; 
 and excelled all others in Jufiice, Prudence and Wifdom ; 
 that Chrifi after his Baptifm defcended into him in thefjape 
 of a Dove, from that Principality, which is over all ; that 
 he then preached the unknown Father , worked Miracles ^ and 
 
 ,(<t) Lib. T. Ch. 25. pag. ii6, 
 
 at 
 
3c6 2"^^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 nt lafl flew back from ^efus ; that Jefus fufferd and rofe 
 iigain, but that Chrijl remain* d impaffible^ being Spiritual, 
 Again he thus fpeaks of the Ebionites; (a) T'hofe that 
 are called Ebionites are unanimous y that the World was 
 made by God, and differ alfo from Cerinthus and Carpo- 
 cvates concerning ou'- Lord. Here if we follow the re- 
 ceived Reading, Irenaus plainly makes two differences 
 between the Tenets of Cerinthus aiid Ebion, one con- 
 cerning the Creation of the World, or God the 
 Creator, and another concerning our Lord Jefus. 
 Cerinthus would have it, that the World was not 
 made by the Supreme God, but fome inferior Power i 
 but the Ebionites confefled, that the World was made 
 by God, the Supreme Principle of all Things. Again, 
 Cerinthus taught, that Chrift (I know not who) de- 
 fcended from that Supreme Principality, which is a- 
 bove the Creator of the World, into Jefus for a Time, 
 after his Baptifm ; but the Ebionites own no fuch Prin- 
 cipality, nor any Chrifl who came into Jefus from that 
 Principality. But if you'll alter the Reading, and with 
 a very (b) learned Man put [Conjimi liter inflead of Non- 
 fimiliter'] then the Senfe of Jrenmis will be, that the £- 
 bionites thus far agreed with Cerinthus, as to teach, that 
 Jefus was a mere Man born of jfofeph and Mary (as 
 Irenaus alfo teflifies in other Places cited by us) tho 
 they rejeded that other Fidlon concerning a certain 
 Chrifl. And indeed how could they receive that 
 Fancy of a Chrifl defcending into Jefus from the Prin- 
 cipality, which is above the Creator of the World, 
 who taught that the World was created by the fu- 
 preme God ? This Tertuliian alfo exprefly teflifies in 
 thefe Words : Ebion fucceeded Cerinthus, though not in 
 all refpeBs concurring with him, in that he fays the World 
 was made by God, not by Angels. Thus Irenaus and 'Tev" 
 tullian concerning the firfl Ebionites. Afterwards there 
 arofe two forts of Ebionites^ one who denied both the 
 
 (d) V.ii-j. Ch.25. Lib. I. (i) B']^c/i Pearfon, Vind. Ignat, 
 pare 2. C. 2. p.351. E^. P. Ap. Vol. 2, 
 
 Divinity 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c* 127 
 
 Divinity of our Lord, and his Nativity of the Vir- 
 gin i another who, though they denied Chrift to be 
 God, confefsM, as the Catholicks do, that he was 
 conceiv'd by the Holy Ghoft, and born of the Virgin 
 Mary. Of thefe we fhall fpeak hereafter. 
 
 3. Now, as for the common Tenet of Ebion and 
 Cerinthus, namely. That our Saviour Jefus was a mere 
 Man, not the true Son of God, born of God the 
 Father before all Ages,* how execrable it feem'd to the 
 Apoftolical and the next fucceeding Church; how^ 
 the Teachers of it were efleem*d Aliens from the 
 Church of Chrift, and confequently from Salvation 
 by Chrift, in the firft Ages ,• i have clearly fliew'd al- 
 ready, from the Writings of Ignatius and henaus. 
 To them I mud add what (a) 'Jerome gives us from 
 the Monuments of the Antients, That the Apoftle 
 St. John wrote his Gofpel upon the Requeft of the 
 Aftan Bijhops^ againft Cerinthus and other Hereticks, 
 and efpecially againft the rifing Doctrine of the Ebio- 
 nites^ who allerted, that Chrift was not before Mary. 
 As for Cerinthus, Irenaus agrees with Jerome, where he 
 exprefly {b) writes, that the Apoftle St. jf^^jw intended 
 by his Gofpel to root out the Error which Cerinthus 
 had propagated. Hence we may gather, that the 
 Bifhops of AJia, namely, of thofe Parts where Cerin- 
 thus and Ebion firft taught, as foon as they had found 
 that thofe Hereticks had broke in upon, or rather 
 crept into their Churches^ immediately calling a Coun- 
 cil, as it became good Shepherds, againft the De- 
 vourers of Chrift*s Flock (as Eufebius (c) fpeaks con- 
 cerning the Synod of Antioch, aflembled againft Paul 
 of Samofata) met together, and mutually entring into 
 Meafures for the fpeedy Suppreffion of the growing 
 Hereftes, immediately implorM the Aid and Affiftance 
 of the Apoftle St. John, then alive, who, upon that 
 occafion, as well as to fupply the Defeds of the for- 
 
 {a) Catalogus Scriptor. Ecclef. in Joann. (h) Lib. 5. cap. ir. 
 
 mer 
 
128 2".^^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 mer Evangelifts, wrote his Gofpel ; in the beginning 
 of which, by his Apoftolical Authority, he checked 
 the Madnefs of Cerimhus, Ebion, and other Hereticks, 
 (as Irenaus fays in the Place Jaft cited) and made up 
 the Canon of Trutii, which afterwards prevail'd in 
 the Church. 
 
 4. And indeed, whofoever, but indifferently skill'd 
 in the Herefiology of the firll: Age, fhall attentively 
 read the beginning of St. Johns Gofpel, muft imme- 
 diately perceive that the Apoftle particularly mark'd 
 out all thofe Hereticks, and by his Apoftolical Power 
 confuted their impious Tenets. He allerts the Divine 
 Nature of our Lord againft Cerinthus and Ebion, v. i. 
 In the beginning tons the Word, and the Vl^ord was ivith 
 God J and the IVord was God. The Word was in the 
 Beginning, much more then, behrc J of eph and Mary ; 
 and it was God, therefore not only mere Man. The 
 Evangelifl has an Eye to the Dodrine of Cerimhus, 
 and other Hereticks, concerning the Creation of the 
 World, ver. 3 . All things were made by him, [the Word.] 
 Thofe Hereticks faid, as we have before obferv^d, 
 that this World was made by inferior Powers, far re- 
 moved from, altogether foreign to, and unaffifted by 
 the fupreme God. On the other hand, the Evange- 
 lifl teaches, that all things were made by the Word, which 
 was with God, and was God. In the fame Verfe, he 
 adds againft the fame Hereticks, And without him was 
 nothing made that was made. Whofoever does not at- 
 tend to the Apoftle^s Defign, can fee nothing in thefe 
 Words but vain Tautology. Now thofe Hereticks, 
 (as Grotius has well obferv'd) would have It, that there 
 was one Maker of this vifible World, but that there 
 were other Makers of the invifible things, and that 
 each Pleroma, or Complement, had its own Maker. 
 St. John therefore fays, that every thing which 
 was made, was made by the Word. The Evangelift 
 plainly aims at thefe fame Hereticks again, ver. 10, & 
 II. He was in thelVorld, and the IVorld was made by 
 him, and the IVovld knew him not. He came to his oiun, 
 
 and 
 
tfoe ^-ATHOLiCK Church, ^c 129 
 
 md his own received him not. It was the known Opinion 
 of Cerimhus and all the other Hereticks, who diftin- 
 giiifli'd betwixt the fupreme God, and the Maker of 
 this World, that our Saviour Chrift came into this 
 World from the fupreme Principality, as into the^ 
 Creation of another, with this Intent, that he mighc 
 redeem Man from the Dominion and Slavery of the 
 Maker of the World, into 1 know not what Liberty, 
 or rather Licentioufnefs. In oppofition to thefe Men^ 
 the Apollle teaches, that the Word or Son of God, 
 our Saviour, came down from his Father into this 
 World, as into his own Houfe and Creation, with this 
 Defign, as it prefently follows, ver. 12, & 13. That he 
 might alTert thofe who received him, into the true Li- 
 berty and Adoption of the Sons of God ; tho' ungrate- 
 ful Man, for the generality, did not acknowledge him 
 as their Creator and Redeemer. Vm fully perfuaded, 
 this was the true and genuine Serife of the Apoftle in 
 thofe Words. Thus alfo (a) Iretiaus underftood them, 
 where he makes this Note: According to Marcion, and 
 the Men of his Strain, (namely, Cerinthuf, and the other 
 Forerunners of Marcion, whom (/O Tertullian calls the 
 early and abortive Marcionites) the World ivas nor made 
 by him, nor did lie co?ne to his own, but another's. Thus, 
 he fays, (c) that St. ^ohn, in the beginning of his 
 Gofpei, does manifeftly fhew to all that will hear, i. e. 
 that, have Ears, that there is one God the Father 
 over all, and one Word of God, who is through all, 
 by whom all things were made ; that this World is 
 properly his, and made by him at the Will of the 
 Father, and not by Angels, nor by Apoftacy, De- 
 fedion, or Ignorance, &c. Further, the Apoftle 
 teaches againft the Simonians, Satmninians, and the 
 other Doceta, that the Word or Son of God was reaiiy 
 incarnate, and made Man j 1;. 14. T^he Word was made 
 
 {a) Lib. 5. chap. it. p. 257. See alfo Novatian, chap. 14. 
 {F) Lib. 5, chap. §.p. 401, (c) Lib. 5. chap. 18. p. 463. 
 
 VoL.n. I F/#, 
 
i|o 77:^^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 Tlejhy and dwelt among us, and we beheld his Glory ^ as 
 of the only begotten of the Father^ &c. Nay, in this 
 one Sentence, he hath concluded all the Herecicks of 
 his Age ; for, as Irenaus has truly faid in the Place 
 often cited before, none of the Hereticks thought 
 that the Word was made Flefh. All the Hereticks 
 who had falfe Notions of the Perfon of Chrift (as we 
 have before obferv'd) may be divided into two Clafles : 
 One, of the Phantajtaflaj who plainly acknowledging 
 the Divinity in our Saviour, denied his human Na- 
 ture, fuppofing the Conjundion of the Human Na- 
 ture abfolutely unbecoming the Divine Majefty. Of 
 thefe Novatian writes excellently, (a) There are other 
 Hereticks fo rigid for the Divinity of Chrifi, as to fay that 
 he was not incarnate ^ as to take from him all that Humanity 
 •a'hich he took upon himfelf lefl they fhould dilute the Power 
 of the Divinity^ by joining to it (^as they fupposMj the 
 Human Nature, 'This we dont approve^ hut however ar- 
 gue from it J (b) That Chrifi was fo far God, that fome, 
 taking away his Humanity, thought him to be Only God. 
 On the other hand, another Clafs of Hereticks only 
 own'd the Human Nature in Chrift, namely, the C?- 
 rinthians and Ebionites. It is but too plain on both 
 fides, that it was denied that the Word was made 
 Flefh, that is, that Chrift was God and Man. Laftly, 
 The Herefy in common to Cerinthus and Ebion con- 
 cerning the Obfervation of the Mofaical Law, as ne- 
 cefTary to Salvation, is (as Grotius has obferv'dj tran- 
 fiently confuted by the Apoflle, ver. 17. The Law was 
 given by Mofes, but Grace and Truth by Jefus Chrifi. 
 
 5. Moreover, the holy Apoftle plainly cenfures the 
 fame Hereticks in his firft Epiftle alfo, and calls them 
 all by that one Name of Anti-Chrifls, as Irenaus, Ter- 
 tuUian, and others of the Antients have obfervM. The 
 beginning of the Epiftle exadly tallies with the begin- 
 ning of his Gofpel ; for in them both, the Divine lays 
 
 {a) Pa^e 718. 
 
 {b) So Tertullian agalnfi Marcion, Lib. 3. cap, §=. 
 
 Open 
 
the Catholtck Church^ i^C'^ t^i 
 
 open and explains the great Myflery of GodlinefSi 
 God manifeft in the Flefh ; very pompoufly unfolding 
 both the Divinity and Oeconomy of our Saviour. We 
 have fhewn it in the Gofpel already ; now the Epiftle 
 begins thus : Ihat which was from the Beginnin^^ which 
 we have heard, which we havejeen with our Eyes, and our 
 Hands have handled of the Word of Lije, (for the Lifi 
 luas made manifefi, and we faw it^ and tefiify of it^ 
 and tell unto you that eternal Life which was with the Fa- 
 ther, and was made manifefl to us) What we have 
 feen and heard, that do we relate to you, &c. Here 
 St. 'yohn affirms againft the Doceta, who denied thae 
 our Saviour was real Man, that he and the reft of the 
 Apoftles heard the Word of Life, or the enlivening 
 Word, and faw him with their Eyes, handled him 
 with their Hands : here he calls in all the proper 
 Senfes to give Teftimony of his Incarnation. -Againft 
 thofe who affirmed the Lord Jefus to be meer Man, 
 the Apoftle teaches that the Word was from the Be- 
 ginning, namely, of the Creation, and therefore did 
 not begin to exift when born of Mary. Againft the 
 fame Perfons he aflferts in like manner, that the Life, 
 the eternal Life, the Word, was firft with the Father, 
 with God I but afterwards, having taken upon him 
 Flefh, was made manifeft to Men. This is the plain, 
 clear Senfe of the Place ; and thus, as {a) T'ertullian 
 tells us, it was received in the primitive Church s 
 But that novel Interpretation of theirs, who expound 
 the [Word of Life] by the Gofpel, or Dodrine of 
 Life immortal, is indeed very abfurd. To fay no 
 more againft it, what pretty Senfe is this, that the 
 Apoftles not only heard the Gofpel, but faw it with 
 their very Eyes, and handled it with their Hands ? 
 The Great Man C^) Dionyfius Alexandrinus hath for- 
 merly obferv'd the Agreement of the beginning of 
 St. Johns Gofpel with that of this firft Epiftle of his, 
 
 (a) Pag. 508 and 509. ■ 
 
 (^) Eufeb. E. H. p. 224, &c. Lib. 7. chap. 25. 
 
 la in 
 
132 fT/^^ JUDGMENT of 
 
 in thefe Words: 'The Go/pel and the Epiftle anfwer each 
 ether ^ and begin alike : The one fays. In the Beginning vjas 
 the Word ; the other, That which uas from the Beginning : 
 The one, The Word was made Fle/hj and dwelt among us, 
 and we beheld his Glory ^ as of the Only-begotten of the Fa- 
 then The other has the fame thing, in fomewhat 
 other Words, What we have heard, what we have 
 feen with €uy Eyes ; what we have feen, and our 
 Hands have handled, of the Word of Life; and the 
 Life was made manifeft. For he * premifes thefe 
 things, intending them, (as he fliows afterwards) againft 
 thofe who denied that Chrift was come in the Flefh. 
 Upon this account he adds, And what we have feen, 
 v:e tefiify, and preach unto you that eternal Life which was 
 "With the Father, and was made manifefl to us. What we 
 have feen and heard, we preach unto you. Here he inffts^ 
 and recedes not from what he had propounded. 
 
 6. In the fecond Chapter of the fame Epiflle, after 
 the Apoftle had told the Faithful that there were then 
 many Anti-chrifts, and that they came forth from the 
 Bafom of vhe Church, ver. i8, and ip, (now he calls 
 the Hereticks who fpread falfe and impious Doftrines 
 concerning the Perfon of Chrift, Anti-Chrifts) he 
 paints fome of them in their proper Colours, ver. 22, 
 and 23. Who ii a Lyar, hut he that denies that J ef us is 
 the Chrifi ? This is Anti-Chrijl, who denies the Father and 
 the Son ; Every one that denies the Son, hath not the Fa- 
 ther. Among the Hereticks of the firft Age, there 
 •were fome, who falfly took upon them the Chriftian 
 Name, (which may feem ftrange) and yet denied Je- 
 fus to be the Chrift. Thus the Cerinthians, as we 
 fhew'd in the beginning of this Chapter, from Irenaus, 
 feparated Tefus from Chrift, and taught that Jefus 
 was one, and Chrift another. Hence (a) Epiphanius, 
 upon the Cerimhian Herefy, exprefly teftifies that they 
 taught that Jefus was not the Chrift. Thefe Words 
 
 * / couU not think it necejfary to peferve the mu^cal AUnJfon in the 
 fiords Ufoa.va.y.pt'eTCH & l^if-ieAws. 
 
 {a) HsrefissS. / 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c^ ijj' 
 
 ©f St. jfo/j». Who is a Lyar^ but he that denies that Jefus 
 is the Chrifi? were direded againft thefe Hereticks ; as 
 alfo thofe other Words, chap. 5. ver. i. Every one that 
 belie'ves Jefus if the Chrift^ is horn of God. Thus that 
 beft Interpreter of St. John^ (I?) Irenaus teaches us ', and 
 indeed you can no where find any other, to whom 
 they are more fuitable. For it is very plain, from the 
 Context, that the Apoftle does not fpeak of the pro'- 
 fefs'd Enemies of our ReHgion, who denied Jefus to 
 be the Chrift foretold by the Prophets, and faid we 
 were to expedt another ; but of the falfe Prophets and 
 Deceivers, under the Mask of Chriftianity. The fol- 
 lowing Words of the Apoftle [^his is Anti-Cbrifl^ he 
 that denies the Father and the Son. Every one, who denies 
 the Sony hath not the Father'] manifeftly ftrike at the- 
 common Herefy of Cerinthus and Ebion. Both of them 
 abfolutely denied that Jefus was the true Son of God, 
 born of God the Father before Mary, and even before 
 the Creation ; and therefore, by the Apoftle's Judg- 
 ment, did not really confefs God the Father ; beOaufe 
 fince the Gofpel was revealed, no Man can believe in 
 and worfnip God the Father as he ought, but he who 
 alfo holds God the Son. 
 
 7. Again, in the fourth Chapter of this Epiftle, ver u 
 the Apoftle guards the Chriftians againft the Hereticks 
 of his time, in thefe Words : Beloved, believe not every 
 Spirit, but try the Spirits^ whether they are cf God ; for 
 many falfe Prophets are gone out into the World. In the 
 Verfes following, ver. 2, and 3, he propofes two 
 Marks, by which thefe falfe Prophets may be known, 
 one of which plainly belongs to the Doceta, the other 
 to the Cerinthians and Ebionites : By this know ye the 
 Spirit of Godj every Spirit that confejfes that Jefus Chrifl 
 is come in the Flejh, is of God ; but every Spirit that con- 
 fejfes not that Jefus Chrift is come in the Flefh, is not of 
 God : "This is the Spirit cf Anti-Chrift, which ye have 
 heard jhould come into the IVorld, and which is now in the 
 
 Qd) Lib. 3. chap, iS. p. 278, 
 
 I 3 World, 
 
T J4 'I'^elXJD G M E N T ^/ 
 
 World. Upon which Place of the Apoftle, we have a 
 very credible Interpreter^ namely Polycarp^ the Difciple 
 of Sc. JohKy Y/ho, in his Epiftle to the Philippians^ 
 cites the latter part or it, and exprefly expounds it, 
 not of the open Enemies of Chriftianity, who denied 
 that Jefus was the true MeiBah, becaufe he was come 
 in the Flefh, i. e. in an humble Condition, (as Gro- 
 tins miftakes the Apofde ;) but of the Hereticks, who 
 profefs'd Chriftianity. For after that the Apoftolical 
 Man had exhorted the Philippians to ferve Jefus Chrift 
 ^vith all Fear and Reverence, he adds immediately ; 
 (^a) Being Folkvjers of that which is goody keeping off from Ofr- 
 fenceSy and falfe Brethreny and hypocritical Profejfors of 
 ' Chrifiianity y who deceive vain Men j For every one^ who 
 does not confefs that Jefus Chrifl is come in the Flejhy is 
 \Anti-Chrifi ; and whofoever does not confefs the 'Tefiimony ov 
 Martyrdom of the Crofs, is of the Devil. Therefore 
 they were falfe Brethren, and Pretenders to the Name 
 of Chrift, who denied that Jefus Chrift was come in 
 the Flefli. This alfo is very plain from the Defign 
 of the Apoftle, who gives the Marks and Tokens, by 
 which the Faithful might diftinguifh falfe Prophets 
 from orthodox Teachers. What need of Tokens to 
 diftinguifh the open and profefs'd Enemies of Chri- 
 fiianity ? But who thofe Hereticks were, who, pro- 
 feffing Chriftianity, denied that Jefus Chrift was come 
 in the Flefh, we have feveral times told you ; namely, 
 Menandery Saturninus, and the other Docetay (whofe 
 Herefy Marcion revived, when Polycarp wrote thefe 
 things) abfolutely denied that our Lord was come 
 into this World in human Flefh, or really fufferM and 
 V'as crucify 'd ; and even (as Polycarp fpeaks) in no 
 wife confefs 'd the Martyrdom of the Crofs. 
 
 8. This Herefy (/>) Ignatiusy the other Difciple and 
 Acquaintance of St. JohUy every where confutes iq 
 his Epiftles, efpecially in that to the Smyrneans, which 
 
 {a) Vol. 2. P. A. p. 1 85 and i8j» 
 C^) Pag. 36. Vol. 2. RAp, 
 
 I? 
 
the Catholick Church, cJ'A 135 
 
 is almoft wholly leveird againft this pernicious Doc- 
 trine. What^ fays he, {hall any one profit me, who praifes 
 me, and blafphemes my Lord, not conjeffwg him incarnate. 
 Whojoever does not ajfert this, perfecily denies him, and is 
 in a State of Death. Here every one may fee that this 
 of Ignatius, not to confefs the Lord incarnate, is alto- 
 gether the fame with that of St. 'John, not to confefs 
 that Jefus Chrift is come in the Flefih. A little be- 
 fore, in the fame Epiftle, Ignatius (a) had thus ex- 
 plained the Herefy of the Doceta, as oppofite to the 
 Catholick Dodrine : But he truly fuffer'd, and really 
 raised himf elf, not as fome Infidels fay, only fuffer' din Jp^- 
 pearance, themfehes only being [Chrifi:ians'\ in Appearance^ 
 The Senfe is, that they who teach that our Lord was 
 only made Man, and only fuffer'd in Appearance, are 
 themfelves only to be accounted Chriftians in Ap- 
 pearance. Afterwards he refutes thofe fantaftical 
 Hereticks, from the remarkable Hiftory of Jefus, 
 fhewing his Body, and fuffering the Wounds upon it 
 to be handled by his Difciples, after his Refurredion, 
 and efpecially by T'homas. Upon this Hiftory, he 
 makes this Remark : (b) Straightly they touched him, and 
 being convinc'd by his Flefh and Spirit, i. e. convinc'd by 
 that Experiment, they believ'd our Lord to be true 
 Man and true God. For Spirit^ as we have fhewn 
 before, in Chrift, denotes among the Writers of the 
 firft Age the divine Nature of Chrift, efpecially 
 where it is oppofed to Flefh. Ignatius here manifeftly 
 alludes to Thomas's Confeffion, who, upon feeing and 
 handling the Wounds of Chrift, broke out into thefe 
 Words, My Lord and my God ! A little after, (c) the 
 holy Man calls them Brutes in the Shape of Men, 
 meaning, that; they who taught contrary to the plain 
 Truth, that our Lord was only Man in Appearance, 
 were not worthy to be thought reafonable Men, but 
 Brutes in human Shape. Laftly, he obferves (d) of 
 them, that they wholly abftain'd from the Lord's 
 
 C^) Pag. 34- C^^ P- 34,. & 35- (^) ?• 3^- i^) P- 37- 
 
 I 4 Supper, 
 
156 r/^^ JUDGMENT (?/ 
 
 Supper, as noc confeffing that the Eucharifl was the 
 Fiefh of OUT Saviour Jefus Chrift, who fuffer'd for 
 our Sins ; that is, they did not believe our Lord to 
 have been true Man, and really to have fuffer'd upon 
 the Crofs, (which Poljcarp exprefles, to confefs the 
 Martyrdom of the Crofs) and therefore they would 
 not celebrate the Memory of his Pafliou. Thefe 
 plain Teftimonies of the two Difciples of St. John, 
 don't fufier us to doubt, whether the Falfe Prophets 
 and Anti-Chrifts, faid by the Apoftle to have denied 
 that Chrift came in the Flefh, vvere any other than 
 Menander, Saturnimis^ Bajilides^ and the other Phan- 
 tallicals of the nrft Age. Moreover, after Ignatius 
 and Poljcaypy Irenam, T^eviullian, and almoft all the 
 Antients near the Apoflolical Age, have obferv'd, 
 that the Apollle, in this place, intended to cenfure 
 thofe Men, ' 
 
 p. To proceed with our Apoftle, after fome things 
 in the fame Chapter, he charadenzes another Herefy 
 concerning the Perfon of Chrift, contrary to that of 
 the Doceta, wr. 1 5 . Whofoever fiali confefs that Jefus is 
 the Son of Gody God dvjel/eth in him, and he in God, 
 The oppoftte Member, exprefsM in the former Obfer- 
 vation, is underftood here : But whofoever ftiall net 
 confefs that Jefus is the Son of God, God dwelleth 
 not in him, nor he in God. Now it is not to be 
 doubted, but that the Apoftle demands in thefe 
 Words the Conleflion of that Son of God, whom he 
 had before preach'd in this Epiftle in part, and whom 
 Fie more fully declares in his Gofpel, namely, of the 
 Son of God, who is the Word ot God the Father, 
 'who vjof in the Beginning, ijuas vjith God^ and was God, 
 by whom all things were made, &c. By thefe Characters, 
 the Adverfaries with whom we have now to do, deny 
 not that the true and proper Son of God, born of 
 God the Father, ' before all Ages, is denoted 3 nay, it 
 is clear to all who will fee, when they may. But Ce- 
 rintikus did' "Qt confefs oiir Jefus to be fu^h ^ Son of 
 God, nor Ebion after himj both of them teaching, 
 
 that 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c» 137 
 
 that Jefus was a mere Man, not exifiing before Mary -, 
 both of them therefore, in the Apoftle's Judgment, were 
 Aliens from God. Now becaufe Cerinthianifm was 
 then the moft growing Herefy, the Apoflle every 
 ■where urges, inculcates, and commends that Faith, 
 by which we beheve Jefus to be the Son of God (a). 
 Thefe Tokens, given in the fecond and fourth 
 Chapter of this Epiftle, were iufficient for the Faith- 
 ful of the Apoflolical Age to difcover all who were 
 Heterodox concerning the Perfon of our Saviour. 
 This is the Sum of them, That every Teacher, who 
 confcfs'd that one Jefus Chrift, the true Son of God, 
 was really made Man for Man's Salvation, was of 
 God, (namely, with refped to that Doclrine, as EJiius 
 well obferves) but on the other hand, that whoever 
 does not confefs this, is to be deemed a Falfe Prophet, 
 and an Anti-Chrift. But the Apoftle chiefly infifts 
 upon thefe Tokens to mark out Hereticks, who de- 
 nied our Saviour to be true God, or true Man. Thus 
 ^ertulljan (I?) : [_'yohn] does efpecialiy call thofe Anti- 
 Chrifis in his Epiftle, who denied that Chrifl ivas come in 
 the Flejh, ami "who did not think that 'Jefus ivas the Son of 
 God: Marcion icas of that Opinion , (and hefore hiitty 
 Menander, Saturninus, and others ;) Ebion 'u:as of that 
 'Opinion alfo. I have been the longer upon this, be- 
 caufe it may hence appear not only from the Monu- 
 ments of the moft antient Fathers, but from the Apo- 
 flolical Writings, that there were feme in the Age of 
 the Apoftles, who denied the Divinity of our Lord, 
 and who were upon that account efteemM by the 
 Apoftles Hereticks, and even Anti-Chrifts, (far from 
 Brethren, and true Members of the Church.) Fur- 
 ther, it is hence very plain, that as the Dodrine of 
 our Lord's Incarnation, his being truly God, and 
 truly Man, was varioufly opposM by various Here- 
 ticks; fo it was ^:he moft ftudioufly guarded and pre- 
 
 ta) Cap: 3. ver, 23, 5. ver. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20. {b) P. 214. 
 
 'fov'd 
 
i^S r^^ JUDGMENT^?/ 
 
 ferv'd by all true Paftors of the Church, as the 
 Ground and Perfedion of the Chriftian Faith, 
 
 lo, I fhould here have concluded what I defign'd 
 concerning the Hereticks of the firft Age, who de- 
 nied our Lord's Divinity, namely, the Cerinthians and 
 Ebionites^ but that I can't pafs over the flrange Com- 
 ment of an (a) impious Author, upon the Ebionites : for 
 if what he ftrenuoufly contends to prove, be true, 
 there is no occafion to aflert the Neceflity, or even 
 defend the Truth of our Lord's Divinity ; and the 
 Ebicnites, at leaft thofe of latter Date, were fo far from 
 being Hereticks, that we muft efteem them the only 
 faithful Keepers of the Apoftolical Dodrine and Tradi- 
 tion concerning Chrift. He boldly affirms, that the 
 Ehionites (who confefs'd Chrift born of the Virgin, but 
 denied him to be God) were no other than the Naz,a- 
 renes, or the firft and moft antientChriftians of Jerufa- 
 lem, who, after they had received the Faith of Chrift, 
 retained the Obfervation of the Law, and religioufly 
 preferv'd the Doctrine of our Saviour's mere Hu- 
 manity, which, forfooth ! ' they had been taught by 
 the Apoftles j their Church continuing to the Times of 
 Adrian, by whom they were driven out of their own 
 Country, call'd in Contempt Ehionites, and accounted 
 Hereticks by the reft of the Chriftians. The vain 
 Man pleafes himfelf mightily with this Device, and 
 greatly glories in it, as a Tradition far more antient 
 and certain than all the Traditions of the Catholicks 
 concerning the Son's Divinity. 
 
 1 1. From what we have faid before, it is plain this 
 is an abominable impudent Fidion. For to fay no- 
 thing of the Scripture cited by us, what Apoftolical 
 "Writer ever heard of it ? Which of them has not given 
 in his Teftim.ony to the contrary ? And how eafily is 
 this boafted Tradition to be refuted from Ecclefiafti- 
 cal Hiftory? Eufebius (h) exprefly witnelTeth, that 
 he had learn'd from the Antients, that all the fifteen 
 
 {a) Zuicker, in his Irenicum Irenicqrum. C^) Lib. 4, 
 chap. 5. P' 95. 
 
 Bifhops 
 
the Catholtck Church, ^c> 1^9 
 
 Bifhops who prefided over the Church of Jerufalem till 
 the Times of Adrian^ held the Knowledge of Chrift 
 pure and fincere : I could no where find how long thofe Bi^ 
 Jloops fat in particular^ who prefided over Jerufalem. Jt is 
 faid they all fat but a fJoort 'time. But this I have learn d 
 from the Antiem Monuments, that till the Time of the Siege 
 tinder Adrian, there were fifteen in a continued Succefjion, 
 aU of them originally Yi^htG^NS, and who had received the 
 genuine Knowledge of Chrifi. Now Eufehius would never 
 have faid this of them, if he had been informed by the 
 Antiencs, that they were Ebionites i a fort of Men, 
 which he charges with Impiety, for denying Chrift to 
 be God the Word before Ages, and pronounces to be 
 brought under the Power of the Devil. For thus he 
 writes concerning both forts of the Ebionites: (a) But 
 ethers, whom the malignant Spirit could not abfolutely move 
 from the Chriftian Religion, finding their weak-fide, he hath 
 brought under his own Power. I'hefe the Antients called 
 Ebionites, becaufe they thought meanly and lowly of Chrift. 
 \they faid he was a mere common Man, and nothing elfe, 
 was juflified by a Proficiency in Virtue, and begotten of 
 Mary, as other Men are. Moreover, they held the Obfer- 
 wation of the Law to be abfolutely necejfary, as tho Salva- 
 tion was not to be obtained by the Faith of Chrift only, and 
 a Life led according to it. "There was another fort under 
 the fame Name, who rejeEled the abfurd Notion of their 
 Predeceffors, and did not deny that Chrift was begotten of the 
 Virgin by the Holy Spirit ; but thefe alfo were engaged in the 
 Impiety of thofe before them, not confejfing his Pre-exiftence 
 (IS God the Word and PVifdom, and alfo efpecially being e- 
 qually z,ealous Followers of the Corporeal Worfhip of the Law. 
 Surely from thefe two Places of (b) Eufebius collated, 
 it is very clear that the later Ebionites (whom Nice- 
 phorus calls the Lefs) were in two refpeds different 
 from the firft Chriftians o'i 'Jerufalem. (i.) They had 
 impious Notions of Chrift, not confefting him to be 
 God, the Word and Wifdom, and to have fubfifted 
 
 ia) Ia\>. 3. chap. 27. p, 79. (h) EccL Hift.Lib, 13. chap. 13. 
 
 before 
 
HO 21^^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 before the Nativity of his Flefhj but the firft Chrifti* 
 ans of 'Jerufakm embraced the genuine Knowledge of 
 Chrift. (2.) They infifted upon the Mofakal Rites, as 
 abfolutely neceflary to be obferved, and denied that 
 the Faith of Chrift was fufficient without them. This 
 Eufebius exprefly obferves of the former Ebionites^ and 
 alfo affirms of the later, that they as well as the other 
 were Admirers of the Mofakal Law ; and even in this 
 plainly fignifies, that fome part of their Impiety 
 confifted. The Senfe of Eiifebius is plainly this, that 
 zhoit Ebionites had added to their former deadly Error, 
 in which they denied Chrift to be God, that other 
 pernicious one, of the Neceffity of Mofes's Law, and 
 therefore were upon two accounts impious, and out 
 of the Means of Salvation. But though the Chriftians 
 of jemfakm obferved Circumcifion, and other Mo-^ 
 /^zf^/ Rites, (according to that Concefiion the Apo-' 
 ftles made to tlieir Infirmity) Eufebius never charges 
 them with Impiety for it j becaufe they both had a 
 right Notion of Chrift, and did not require the Mo- 
 fakal Obfervations at the hands of the Gentile Chri- 
 ftians. Indeed, if they had done this, they had plainly 
 oppofed the Decree of the Council of Jeyufaie?nj in 
 which Ja7neij the firft Bifhop of that See, prefided. 
 There is no doubt but that Eufekms thought thofe Chri? 
 {iians o^ Jenifalem culpable, thofe efpecially who lived 
 after the Deftrudion of the Temple by T^tus, in that 
 they did not at length perceive that the Ritual VVorr 
 fhip, prefcribM by Mofes, was entirely abolifh'd : But 
 he therefore praifes them, becaufe they did not ob- 
 trude thofe legal Rites they obferv*d, upon other 
 Chriftians ; and that in all other refpeds, efpecially 
 with regard to that part of it which concerns the Per- 
 fon of our Lord Chrift, they fincerely held the Ca- 
 tholick Faith. 
 
 J 2. Sulpkius Severus, a very grave Hiftorian, con- 
 firms and illuftrates this Teftimony of Eufebius cour 
 cerning the primitive Church of Jerufaletn, and her 
 Birtiops, in thefe Words: Becaufe the. Chriftians imys 
 
 thci:g'>}t 
 
if/^^ Gatholick Church, ^c* i4i 
 
 thought for the mo fi part Jews (for then the Church of Je* 
 rufaiem had no Bifiop, but mjho was of the CircumcJ/ion) 
 Adrian ordered a Band of Soldiers to keep perpetual Watch ^ 
 and hinder all the Jews from coming to Jerufalem. 'This 
 indeed ivas of good ufe to Chrifiianity^ becaufe then almofi 
 all kliez'd Chriji to be God, and obfervd ths Law. For 
 it was ordered by Chrifi, that the Servitude of the Laiu 
 flmild be taken away by the Liberty of Faith and the Church, 
 Here the Words [almofi all] are ufed, becaufe there 
 were then at Jerufalem (a) Gentiles, who embrac'd the 
 Faith, although tewer than the Jews, who believ'd 
 Chrift to be God, without obferving the Law. 
 Now, what Eufebius reports from the Antients of 
 the Chriftians at Jerufalem, who were of the Cir- 
 cumcilion, namely, that they had received the genuine 
 Faith and Knowledge of Chrift ; the fame, but a 
 little more clearly, Sulpicius affirms here, when he 
 ,teftifies that they believ'd Chrift to be God. Ncthing 
 can be more clear. Wherefore, if they who were 
 called Naz,arenes, were the Pofterity and Offspring 
 of the Chriftians of Jerufalem, who were of the Cir- 
 cumcifion, (as moft learned Men think iJ and if they 
 did really (as the Author of the Irenicum fays) take 
 Chrift to be a mere Man, we muft conclude, that 
 they had gone off from the Faith of their Anceftors. 
 
 1.3. But we have very good Authority for faying, 
 that the Nax.arenes alfo had more fublime Notions of 
 Chrift. Philaflrius does not charge them with any 
 Herefy concerning the Perfon of Chrift ; and Aufiin^ 
 in his Book of Herefies, {b) after he had fpoke of the 
 Cerinthians, who taught that Men fliould be circum- 
 cifed, and that fuch other Precepts ought to be ob- 
 ferv'd, that Jefus was only a Man, &c. thus explains 
 the renets of the Naz>arenes and Ebionites (c) : T'he 
 Nazarenes, though they confefs Chrifi to be the Son of 
 God, (and in that refped diffent from the Cerimhians, 
 who held that he was only Man) yet obfirve all the old 
 
 (<«) Chrift Uns in the Em-perors T^otiom 
 {b) Cap. 8. CO 9 6w 10, 
 
 Lavi 
 
142 27^^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 Lavi (in this agreeing with the Cerimhians) •which the 
 Chriftians had learnt not to obferve carnally from Apofiolkal 
 Tradition, but to underftand fpiritually. "The Ebionite$ 
 (juft as the Cerimhians) alfo faid that Chrifl zvas 
 only Man ; they obferve the carnal Precepts of the 
 Law^ &c. Here it is manifeft (notwithftanding this 
 Author's Cavils) that Aufiin intended in this to di- 
 ftinguiftl the Naz,arenes from the Cerimhians and EbiO" 
 nites ; that the Naz^arenes did not confefs him to be 
 Man only, as the Cerimhians and Ebionites, but the 
 Son of God, and fo God. Befides, it is weli known 
 what Auftin meant by confeffing Chrifl to be the Son 
 of God; for he own'd no other Son of God than 
 that, which was begotten of God the Father, before 
 all Ages. Moreover, there is alfo a very plain Tefti- 
 mony of Jerome's, where he thus writes concerning 
 Cerinthus, Ebion, and the Naz,arenes (a): If this be 
 true, ive are fallen into the Herefy of Cerinthus and Ebion, 
 lu/jo believing in Chrifl, luere for this alone anathematizJ' d 
 by the Fathers ; 'That they mix'd the legal Ceremonies vjith 
 the Chrijlian Gofpel, and fo held the new, as not to let go 
 the old. But ivhy do Ifpeak of the Ebionites, -who only 
 ■pretend themfehes Chrifiians ? Even to this Day, in all the 
 Synagogues of the Eaft, there is an Herefy call* d the M-hiX], 
 commonly the Nazarenes, who believe in Chrifl; the Son of 
 God, born of the Virgin Mary, and fay it is he whofuffer'd 
 under Pontius Pilate, and rofe again, in whom we believe. 
 But whilfi they would both be Jews and Chrifiians, they are 
 neither. In which Words, Jerome agrees with Auflin, 
 and exprefly fays, that they believM in that Son of 
 God, in which we believe : fo that he owns no diffe- 
 rence between the Naz.arenes and the Catholicks in 
 this Dodrine of the Son of God. That this was 
 Jerome's Meaning, will yet be more plain, from his 
 Defign in the Place cited. There was a Controverfy 
 between Jerome and Auftin, upon the Words of 
 St. Paul y^-rvi Te?cra:rof 'axnm AVTknVi Whether he did in 
 
 (a) Ep. 89. ad Auguflin* 
 
 earneft 
 
the Catkolicic Church, &c. 14^ 
 
 carneft blame Peter, or whether the whole was fiftitious, 
 and tranfa^ted between them in a holy Diffimulation. 
 Auflin held the former, and that rightly : 'Jerome, from 
 the Confent of fome Greek Interpreters, defended the 
 latter, contrary to the plain Truth, rendering thefe 
 Words, K^To. rr^'ocmTnvj not to his Face,but in Appearance. 
 The chief Argument by which he defended his Opinion, 
 (into which he ingenuoufly confefTes that he fell by chance, 
 whilft in reading the Greek Commentaries, and trea- 
 furing up feveral things in his Mind, he call'd for his 
 Notary, and didated to him fometimes his own 
 Thoughts, fometimes another's, without Regard to 
 Order, Words, or Senfe) was thus : That Paul him- 
 felf fometimes judaiz'd, therefore could not juflly 
 charge Peter with what he himfelf was guilty of. To 
 this Auflin very well anfwer'd. That Paul did not 
 blame Peter for obferving the j^fxu//^^ Cufloms, in which 
 he was born and educated, though he did not ob- 
 ferve them among the Gentiles i but for impofing them 
 upon the Gentiles by his own Example, which Paul 
 never did. For the legal Ceremonies might be in- 
 dulged to the 'Jews for a Time, though they ought 
 not to be impofed upon the Gentiles. Jerome, not 
 willing to take this Anfwer, inveighs againft Auflin 
 in his oratorial manner, as though the Sum of his 
 Opinion had been, that even fince the Gofpel of Chrift, 
 the believing Jews might do well to keep the Precepts 
 of the Law, i. e. offer Sacrifice, &c. Againft this 
 Opinion, which indeed is not Auflin s^ he thus argues, 
 fighting with his own Shadow : If this be true, we are 
 fallen into the Herefy of Ebion and Cerinthus, who be- 
 lieving in Chrifly were for this only anathematit,' d by the 
 Fathers^ that they mix'd the legal Ceremonies with the Chri- 
 ftian Gofpel. In thefe Words, Jerome did not mean 
 chat Cerinthus and Ebion held no other Herefy, for 
 which they were anathematiz'd by the Fathers, (for 
 he could not but know, that Ebion was condemned by 
 the Antients for denying Chrift's Divinity, and that 
 Csrinihus, was expelled for the fame, and fome other 
 
 heretical 
 
J44 72'^ J U D G M E N T <?/ 
 
 heretical Tenets but that if they had been in all 
 other refpefts Orthodox, this Error alone would hava 
 been fufficient Ground for an Anathema. Now being 
 fenfible that he might be callM to account for this, 
 by the Adverfary he had rais'd to himfelf, he recedes 
 from the Example of Ebion and Cerinthus, and puts 
 the whole of his Caufe upon another Example from 
 the Naz^arenes, which could not bear a Cavil. But 
 ivhy, fays he, do I fpeak of the Ebionites, ijjho pretend 
 themfehes Chrijiians? Even to this Day, through all the 
 Synagogues of the Eafi, &c. As if he fhould fay. As 
 to the Ebionites J perhaps you'll objeft, and I don't de- 
 ny it, that they had impious Notions concerning our 
 Lord Chrift, as though he was only a Man, therefore 
 though they feign'd themfeives fuch, they were not 
 to be accounted true Chriflians ; but with refpeft to 
 the Naz^arenes, no fuch thing can be pretended, they 
 were in all things Catholick, except the Obfen^ation' 
 of the Mofaical Law ; and yet for that, deem'd Here- 
 ticks by the Church. It is very plain, that this is 
 yerome's Meaning. Now no body could know the 
 Opinion of the Naz^arenes better than Jerome^ who 
 had ufed their Converfation, and had been favoured 
 by them with an Opportunity of copying the Hebrew 
 Gofpel of St. Matthew, as he himfelf tells us. (a) 
 
 14. To the Teftimonies brought already, I will add 
 two others, in which, though the Naz,arenes are not 
 particularly mentioned, they and their Opinion feem 
 to me to be manifellly declar'd : The former fhall be 
 that of a Writer, without doubt, much antientec 
 than any yet cited, Juftin Martyr, in his Dialogue 
 with Trypho the Jew; where T'rypho propofes fome 
 Queftions concerning the Obfervation of the Mofaical 
 Law to Jujiin*s Solution. The firft, concerning thofe 
 who liv'd under the Law before the Coming of Chrift, 
 is this : Shall they who liv'd according to the Laro of 
 Mofes, lii>e with Enoch, Noah, and Job, in the Refuv"^ 
 
 (^a) De Scriptor. Eccl. in Match, 
 
 reBion I 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c, 145 
 
 r^Uim ? To vvhich Jufiin anfwers (a) : In the Law of 
 Mofes, thofe Things -which are naturally excellent^ pious 
 atidju/iy are enaBed to i>e perform' d l^y the Obedient i and 
 alfo thofe things are found in itj which were commanded for 
 the hardnefs of the Peoples Hearts , which they alfo obferv'd, 
 luho were under the Law. IVherefore^ they who didfuch 
 things, as were univerfally, naturally, and perpetually good, 
 pleafed God, and by this Chrifi fhall befav*d in the Refur- 
 reSiion, as well as thofe their jufl and pious Anceflors 
 Enoch, Noah, Job, or any others ; together with thofe 
 "who acknowledge this Chrifi the Son of God, who ii)as before 
 Lucifer and the Moon ', and who being incarnate by a Vir" 
 gin of the Stock of David, condefcended to be born, that 
 by this Difpenfation the Serpent, malignant from the Begin^ 
 fling, and the Angels, like him, might be fubdued. Death 
 wanquijlo*d, and might wholly ceafe from them at the fecond 
 Coming of Chrifi, who believe in him, and live as he would 
 have them, and then might be no more ; when fome fhall be 
 fent into the Condemnation and Punipment of eternal Fire ; 
 and others live together in a Freedom from fuffering, in In-* 
 corruptibility, in Indolence and Immortality. Of which 
 Anfwer this is the plain Meaning : That thofe, who 
 living under the Law of Mofes, both obfervM the 
 Rites impos'd upon them by God, and efpecially 
 faithfully obey'd the eternal Laws of Juftice -, as alfo 
 the pious Men who were before the Law, fhould ob- 
 tain eternal Life through the Grace of Chrift, toge- 
 ther with us Chriftians, although they had not thac 
 explicit Faith concerning Chrift, which is now required 
 of us. And that the explicit Faith requiiite to our 
 Salvation, under the Gofpel, is, to acknowledge Jefus 
 Chrift to be the Son of God, who was before Ages ; 
 and in theFuInefs of Time being incarnate, was made 
 Man of a Virgin, in order by that Difpenfation-, to 
 fubdue the Devil and Death ; who fliall come af^aim 
 in the End of the World to judge all Men, to puniih 
 she Wicked with eternal Fire, and exalt the Pious to 
 
 (4) Pag.253,8ea(J4, 
 Vol. IL jj the 
 
1^6 r^^^ JUDGMENT^?/ 
 
 the Kingdom of eternal Glory and Blifs. Here, by 
 the way, let the Reader obferve the Rule of Faith 
 concerning Chrift, given by ^uftin^ as neceflary to 
 Salvation, and lay it up in his Memory, to ferve him 
 upon occafion. After this, Trypho asks whether he 
 who embraced this Faith concerning Chrift, and re- 
 tained with it the Obfervation of the Mojaical Law, 
 could be fav*d ? But if^ fays he, Jome Perfons will Ji Hi 
 live in the Obfer-vation of the Mofaical i^xu, and yet be- 
 lieve in this crucify' d Jefus, civning him to be the very 
 ^Chrifi (jj Gody (namely, what you, Jnftin, have juft 
 now defcribed him) and that the judgment of all things 
 is committed to him, and that his Kingdom is eternal (as 
 you have alfo aflerted) can thefe alfobe fav'd ? To this 
 Queftion before Juflin anfwers, he, in his turn, asks 
 Irypho fome things concerning thofe Rites which can, 
 or cannot be obferv'd finc.e the Deftruftion of the 
 Temple. After Trypho has difpatch'd thefe, he re- 
 peats his Quefllon, and again asks whether he who 
 holds the Faith in Chrift, above defcrib'd, and yet 
 will obferve thofe legal Rites, which can be obferved 
 now, may be fav'd ? To which Juflin at length an- 
 fwers, in thefe Words : It is my Opinion, Trypho, that 
 fuch an one (hall be fav'd, unlefs he nniverfally and 
 flrenuoufly contends to perfuade ethers, I mean thofe of the 
 Gentiles, v^ho have been circumcised from Error by Chrifl, 
 to obferve the fame things he does, and affirms they cant be 
 fav'd except they do fo. From thefe Words [It is my 
 Opinion] Trypho takes occafion to ask another Queftion t 
 Are there any then, who fay fuch Men foall not be fav'd ? 
 As if he ihould have faid, It feems ftrange to me, 
 that any Chriftian fhould deny them Salvation who 
 believe as they do in all other refpeds, for this Rea- 
 fon only, That they are tenacious of a Law made by 
 God. But Juflin anfwers : T'here are fuch, Trypho^ 
 and thofe v:ho carry the Matter fo far, as that tJyey dare not 
 converfe or eat ivith them -, hit I am not of their mindi 
 They thought that after fo long and fo clear a Pro- 
 mulgation of Chrift's Gofpelj Mofes's Law was noc 
 
 only 
 
the Catholtck Church, ^c- 147 
 
 only dead, but killing. Nor does 'Juflin deny it aE 
 all, but grants that fome of thefe 'Judaiz.ing Chrillians 
 may be faved, namely they only who through Infirmity 
 (as he fays afterwards) adhered to the Mofakal Rices. 
 Hence then it is clear, that there were ^eixis in Jufiins 
 time^ who mix'd the Catholick Faith of Chrift, name- 
 ly, that he was the Son of God, who exifted before all 
 Creatures, and at a certain time was incarnate for the 
 Salvation of Men, and was made Man of a Virgin,with 
 the Obfervation of the Ritual Law of Mofes ; but yet 
 would not impofe the neceffity of obferving this Law 
 upon the Gentile Chriftians. Who were thefe, I be- 
 feech you ? No other certainly than the lSlaz>arenes ^ or 
 Chriftians oi'Jeyufakm, who now in the Days o'i Juflin 
 had been driven out of their own Country by Adri- 
 an (a). Thefe things Juflin wrote concerning the 
 NaZjarenes ; for fome time after in. the fame Dialogue, 
 he tranfiently laflies the Tenet of the Ebionltes, as we 
 fhall ftiew hereafter, when we come to E^ifco^ius's 
 Arguments. 
 
 15. Another Teftimony I fhall fetch from the fixth 
 Book of the Apoflolical Infiitutionsj where the Author, 
 reckoning up the Hereticks who difturb'd the Apofto- 
 lical Church, in particular touches upon the Ceriu" 
 thians and Ebionites^ where he takes notice of thofe who 
 taught, that it was neceifary to be circumcis'd accor- 
 ding- to the Law, and to believe in Jefus Chrift, as aa 
 holy Man and a Prophet. Afterwards he explains the 
 Apoftolical Dodrine againft all the Hereticks, whofe 
 mad Tenets he had before mention'd. But in the end 
 of the Chapter, he expounds the Catholick Faith in 
 thefe Words, dirediy againft Cerimhus and EUon (h) : 
 fVe confefs Chrifi, mt a mere Man, but God the Word and 
 Man, the Mediator of God and Men, the High Priefl of 
 the Father ; neither are we circiimds^d, as the Jews are. 
 In the Chapter immediately following, (c) he has to 
 do with others, who thought the Rituals of Mofss were 
 
 {a) Vol. t P. A. p.339. ih) P. J40. if) P. 341. 
 
 K . tq 
 
148 ri;^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 to be obferved by them. The Title of the Chapter Is, 
 Againfl them who confefs [ChriflU and yet ivill 'Judaiz.e, 
 i. e. Againft thofe who in all other things held the Ca- 
 tholick Faith explained in the Chapter before, and efpe- 
 cially that part of it which is in the laft Chapter, 
 namely, that Chrift is God and Man, but yet fo far 
 confented to the Je\m^ and departed from the Chrifti- 
 ans, as ftill to adhere to the ritual Law oiMofes. Now 
 who can doubt but that thefe, who confefs'd, and 
 would notwithflanding Judaize, were the very Naz^a- 
 renes. After this manner we before heard 'Jerome 
 teftifying concerning the Naz^arenes, that they con- 
 fefs 'd the fame Son of God in whom we believe, but, 
 whereas they would be both Jevjs and Chriftians, they 
 were really neither : and indeed you will never find 
 any but the Naz^arenes, to whom Pfeudo- Clement's De- 
 fcription agrees. 
 
 16. The Teftimony of one Man, (a) T^heodoret, a 
 Writer of the later Age, affirming, that the Naz^arenes 
 only honoured Chrift as a juft Man, is of little weight 
 againft thefe fo many, and fo confiderable Teftimonies 
 of the Antients. As for (b) Epiphanius^ tho he joins 
 the NaTLurenes to the Cerinthians as Men of the fame 
 Sentiments, yet in the fame Herefy he ingenuoufly con- 
 feffes, that he had not found what opinion the JSlaz.a- 
 renes had of Chrift, namely, whether they held the Ce~ 
 rinthian Impiety, or the Catholick Notion. For thus 
 he writes concerning them: Concerning Chri ft y I cannot 
 fay whether hurry*d en by the Impiety of the Cerinthians, 
 or Merinthians, they think him to be a mere Man ; or, as 
 the truth is, affirm that he was begotten of Mary by the 
 Holy Spririt. "Tis clear then that Epiphanius did not 
 know their Tenets. What he had inconfiderately faid 
 before, that the Opinions of the Cerinthians and Na- 
 T.arenes were alike, I'heodoret, who writes after him, 
 feems to have taken up, and from thence to have deli- 
 ver'd, that the Naz.aYenes as well as the Cerinthians 
 
 (w) Haeretic. Fab. Lib. 2, Cap. 2, {b) Hseref. 29. Cap. i. 
 
 honour'd 
 
the Catholick Church, 6^. 149 
 
 Iionour*d Chrifl; only as a juft Man. Epiphanius indeed 
 writes, that the Naz^arenes and Ebionites laid their 
 heads together, and communicated to each other their 
 wicked Herefy. Nor is it unlikely indeed that the 
 latter Naz,arenes, a long time rejeded and defpisM by 
 the generality of Chriftians, contrafted a familiarity 
 with the Ebionites upon account of their common Sen- 
 timent concerning the Obfervation of the Mojaical 
 Rites, and from thence that fome of them were at 
 length polluted by their Herefy. Perhaps alfo the 
 Ebionites, call'd the Later, or the Lefs, who are not 
 mentioned by any one before Origen, might be of the 
 number of thefe degenerated Naz,arenes. But how- 
 ever, the plain Teftimonies juft now alledg'd by us 
 from the Antients put it out of all doubt, that there 
 were Naz^arenes long after the Siege of Jemfakm in 
 Adrians time, and at leaft down to the times of j^^- 
 rome and Auftin, who kept the Faith of the firft Na- 
 z^arenes, the primitive Chriftian Church of the Cir- 
 cumcifion at Jerufakm, entire ; namely, who believed 
 Chrift to be God, tho they obferv'd the Law. 
 
 17, From all thefe it appears fufficiently, how the 
 Author of the Irenicum does in vain fatigue himfelf in 
 colouring the execrable Herefy of the Ebionites^ and 
 in challenging it as the very Tenet delivered by the 
 Apoftles themfelves to the hrft Chriftians at yemfaJe?n, 
 namely, to t he Naz,arenes. It is not necefl'ary then 
 to contend much with this Sophift about the Name 
 EBION, and the Original of it. But yet, fince I find 
 fome learned Catholicks are of his Opinion in this 
 Point, fo as to deny that there ever was an Herefiarch, 
 whofe Name was Ebion ; and that the Name of Ebio- 
 inteswas antiently given to thofe Jewifh Chriftians, by 
 way of Reproach, who had a low and mean Opinion 
 of our Lord ; I fhall therefore fay fomething briefly 
 concerning this Matter. One of the moft antient He- 
 refiologers we now have, TertuUian ImesLi), ^xprefsly 
 fays in a place afore-cited, that there was once a Fel- 
 low of that Name, who thus far went along with Ce^ 
 
 K z rinthus^ 
 
15Q T'be ]\JDGMENr of 
 
 yinthm, as to teach that our Lord was only Man. Phi" 
 lafirius, "Jerome and Epiphanius agree with T^enullian ; 
 fo alfo Ri'-ffinus and others {a). Nor does it fignify 
 any thing againft this, that the Word Ebion (as many 
 have obCerved) in the Hebrew denotes [poor]. For 
 from this you can conclude no more, than that the 
 Notion of Ebion concerning Chrift, correfponded to 
 his Name, Thus in the Sacred Scriptures, As his Name 
 is, fo is he ; his Name is Nabal, and Folly is with him. 
 The hke Allufions to the Names oF Herefiarchs fre-? 
 quently occur in Ecclefiaflical Hiftory. So Eufebius 
 
 (b) concerning the Manichees : Then alfo l^anes, or the 
 mad Man, of a Name worthy his dsvihfl) Herefy, attempted 
 the fubverfion of* Reafon ; the Devil himfelf\ that Oppofer 
 of God, Satan having produced him for the Deftruclion of 
 many. In Hke manner, Gregory Naz..ianz,en fpeaks of 
 
 (c) Anus : Arius, firnam'd fo from Fury^ dJfiurb'd and 
 corrupted a great part of the Church. Upon which place 
 Nicetas makes this Note ; Arius /ro»2 "Afn<, Mars, « 
 fvery turbulent and furious Damon. Hence his Followers 
 are by Athanaftus and others call'd Ariomanita. More 
 of this kind might be produced, if it were worth the 
 vhile. Epiphanius (d) plainly expounds and confirms 
 our Opinion, where he thus difcourfes concerning 
 Ebion s Name : Ebion, tranflated from Hebrew into 
 Greek, is uruxo^y 0'^ Poor in Englifh.) And ivell might 
 he be call'd poor in Underfianding, in Hope, and in Deed, 
 •who thought Chrift a mere Man, one who had hope in him 
 upon a poor ground of Faith. A little after he adds i 
 He was truly and naturally call'd Ebion, who by Prophecy, 
 I fuppofe, had the very Name of it, poor and miferable 
 Wretch, from his Parents. 
 
 1 8. Therefore they only were antiently call'd Ebio- 
 nites, who were the Difciples of the Herefiarch Ebion, 
 and embraced both his Tenets, that the Mofaical Law 
 
 (a) Hieron. adv. Luciferian. cap. 8. Epiphan. Hseref. 50. 
 -Raffin. in Symbol, prope finem. {h) Lib. 7. cap. 31. p. 2519 
 * hoyi(T(j.y, OftheDoBvlneconc&rn'TngtheAoy'Q-, 
 (0 DeArio. Orat. 20. (^) Haeref. %o. cap. 17* 
 
 mufl 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c. ift 
 
 niuft be obferv'd, and that Chrift was a mere Man i 
 But afterwards we are taught by (a) Origen alone ^ that 
 about the middle of the third Century, thofe were 
 called Ebionites by fome, who held Chriftianity toge- 
 ther with the Obfervation of the Law : Some of the 
 Jews, ix)ho believe on ysfus^ don't for fake the Law of their 
 Fathers. They live according to it, and have gotten them' 
 fehes a Name fuit able to the Meannefs and Poverty of their 
 Lazo. For a poor Man is call' d 'Ebion by the Jews, and 
 they of the Jews vjho receive Jefus as the Chriji, are called 
 Ebionites. No body that I know of, except Origen, has 
 faid this. But ftill this may juftly be obferv'd from 
 this Paflage, that thofe who were then in that largec 
 Senfe call'd Ebionites, were not fo call'd, becaufe they, 
 like the firft EbiGnites, thofe properly fo nam'd, thought 
 lowly and meanly concerning Chrift, (for we have 
 provM that all the Jews who believ'd in Chrift, and, 
 obferv'd the Law, were not of that Opinion) but be- 
 caufe of the Poverty of the Law to which they adhe- 
 red, or becaufe (as St. Paul fpeaks) they yet valued, 
 and had in religious Efteem, thofe weak and beggarly 
 Elements. Now in another Place, {b) Origen fpeaks 
 concerning the Ebionites, in a ftrifter Senfe fo calfd, 
 thofe who own'd not the Divinity of Chrift, as of Per- 
 fons, who were indigent, or wanting as to the Faith 
 of Chrift. Thus much we have at large difcourfed 
 (for fo the nature of the thing required) concerning 
 the Hereticks, who deny'd the Divinity of our Lord 
 in the firft Century. What relates to the Hereticks 
 of the two following Ages, who defended the fame 
 impious Tenet, we fhall, by God's Pcrmifllon, diC- 
 patch with more brevity. 
 
 ^d) Lib. 2. p. 55, (Jj) Comment, Ed. Huet. p. 427,42^* 
 
 K 4 CHAP. 
 
1^2 T/Jf ]\J DGMUNT of 
 
 CHAR IIL 
 
 Of thofe who denfd Jefus Chrifl to he "True 
 God^ m the fecond and third Jges. 
 
 ABOUT the Year rpo^when Severus was Emperor, 
 Theodotus of Byz.ammm^ from his Trade call'd 
 Coriarius^ dar'd openly to affirm and defend the perni- 
 cious Tenet of the Ebionhes. Caius the Presbyter , or 
 fome other antient Writer, calls him (a) the Prince 
 and Father of the Atheiftical Apoftafy, who firft faid 
 that Chrifl was mere Man. I fuppofe he intended that 
 he was the firft among thofe who were purely Chrifti- 
 ans, Chriftians of the Gentiles ; for as much as the more 
 early AfTerters of this Blafphemy, generally defended 
 Judaifm under the Profeffion of Chriftianity, and were 
 rather to be accounted Members of the Synagogue 
 than the Church, Jews than Chriftians, or fomething 
 betwixt both. Hence the Ebionhes were by fome of 
 the Antients thrown into the Lift of Jewijh Herefies, 
 and diftinguifhed, as we fhail (hew hereafter, from 
 the Hereticks which arofe in the Chriftian Church. 
 'fertuHian (b) fays of this 'Theodotus , and his Herefy ; 
 Befdes thefe was one Theodotus 0/ Byzantium, wh be- 
 ing apprehended as a Chrijlian^ denied [his Profeffion] and 
 ever after blafphemed Chrifl. For he introduced the DoBrim 
 of his being purely Man, and denied his Divinity ; of his 
 being indeed born of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, but being 
 only and barely Man, in nothing fuperior to other Men, hut 
 only in Juftice. Epiphanius (c), Aufiin, and almoft aU 
 the Herefiologers, give the fame Account of him. Now 
 
 ia) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 5. cap. 28. p. Ijp. (h} Pag. 223? 
 
 (f) Haeref. 54. DeHgsref. Cap. 3$. 
 
 thi5 
 
the Catholick Chukch, &c* 153 
 
 this impious Opiniator was anathematiz'd by ViBor 
 Bifliop of Romey as (d) Cairn teftifies. 
 
 2. I can't think it too much here to recite a re* 
 markable Story, which the fame Caius tells us in the 
 fame place, and which is very appolite to our prefenc 
 purpofe. J "will put many of our Brethren in mind of a 
 notable AEiion in our days -, what, if it had happened in 
 Sodom, would J I thinky have brought the Inhabitants of it 
 to repentance. 'There was one Natalis a C'jnfejfor, who liv^d 
 in theprefent Age, and not long ago. This Man, as it hap- 
 pened, was feduced by ACclepiodotus and another Theo" 
 dotus, a Siher-Smith, both of them Difcipks of that Theo-* 
 dotus the Qirrier, who wasfrfi excommunicated by Vidtot 
 then B/Jhop fas I faid before) for this Opinion, or rather 
 Madnefs. Thefe Perfons perfuaded Natalis to accept a Sa^ 
 larj, and be made Bi/Jyop of the Herefy, or SeB. The Sum 
 they were to pay him^ was one hundred and fifty Denarii a 
 Month. Being now made one of them, he was often rebuked 
 by the Lord in Dreams. For our mofi merciful God and 
 Lord Jefus Chrijl would not that he fhould perifh out of the 
 Church, who had been a Confeffor of his Sufferings in it. 
 But when Natalis little regarded tf>efe Night-Vifions, being 
 captivated by the Honour of Precedency among them, and the 
 Dejire of filthy Lucre (which has deftroyd many) he was 
 at length beaten with IVhips, and much wounded by Saints 
 all the whole Night ; fo that he arofe asfoon as it was Light, 
 put on Sackcloth and Afhss, and immediately threw himfelf 
 with Tears at the Feet o/Zephyrinus the Bi/hop, profira- 
 ied himfelf not only to the Clergy, but the Laity ; affeBed 
 and mov'd the merciful Church of the merciful Saviour with 
 his weeping. Having ufed rmch imreaty, and/hew'd them 
 the Stripes of thofe Wounds he had received when a Con- 
 feffor, he was at lafl with difficulty admitted to Communion. 
 So hard was it for a Man, who had otherwife defer- 
 ved very well of Chriftianity, to recover the Peace of 
 the Church, after he had fall'n into that impious He- 
 lefy. As for the repeated Vifions, in which Chrift is 
 
 {d) In th place juji nciv cited frfm EufcbiuSa 
 
 faid 
 
154 T^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 faid to have Ihew'd himfelf an AfTertor of his own 
 Majefty, and to have ehaftis'd the Madnefs of the 
 laps'd Confeflbr, no Man will eafily reject them, who 
 obferves that they are told by the very ConfefTor him- 
 felf, when a ferious Penitent for his very foul Lapfe, 
 before many Witneffes, to the moft of whom then li- 
 ving, the grave Author of this Story appeals ; and 
 who recollects that there are many Examples of fuch 
 Vifions, even in the moft authentick Writings of the 
 third Century. See the 'very learned Dodweirj Cypria- 
 nic Diflertations (e). 
 
 5. Not far from the beginning of the third Century, 
 there was one Artejnon, or Artemas^ an Enforcer of the 
 I'heodotian Herefy. Againft him and his Difciples, 
 Caius, or the antient Writer, above-cited, wrote a 
 learned Piece. In that the Author, as Eufehius (f) fays, 
 "writes exaftly thus of the Artemonites : 'they affirm that all 
 the Antients, and even the Apofiles themfehes^ receivd and 
 taught what they nozo ajfert ; that the true DoElrine was 
 frefer'v'd till the times of Victor the thirteenth B'ljJoop of 
 Rome /row Peter, but was adulterated in the time of his 
 Succejfor Zephyrinus. Now what they fay might feem true, 
 may be, unlefs the Holy Scriptures were againfl it in the firfi 
 place, and then the Books of certain Brethren more antient 
 than Vi(5tor, which they wrote in defence of the Truth, a-- 
 gainfl the Gentiles, and the Hereticks of their own Age, 
 Such are Juftin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many 
 others, in all whofe M/ritings the Divinity of Chrift is main- 
 tain d. As for the Books of Irenseus, Melito, &c. in 
 which they have preached Chrift, as God and Man, they are 
 too well known to be ?nentioned. The (g) Pfalms alfo and 
 Songs of the Brethren wrote from the beginning by the Faith- 
 ful, do all celebrate Chrift as the Word of God, and afcribe 
 to him Divinity. Since then the DoElrine of the Church has 
 been preached fo many Tears ago, how is it that all Perfons 
 
 (e) Diflertation IV. uponEp. 8. (/) Eufeb. E, H. Lib. 5. 
 cap. 28. p. 158, 159. {g) 5?ePliny Ep. 97. Lib. 10. ^fid 
 
 ihe Ohfewations upon this place of Caius, in the Vsfence of- the N' C, 
 SeG. $. cap. 2. feO;, 5, 
 
the Catholick Church, (^c, 155 
 
 hanje only promulg'd their DoEirins till Vidor'j Days ? 
 Where is their Mode fly to drefs upfuch a Calumny againfi 
 Vidor, when they know that Theodocus Coriarius, the 
 Author and Parent of that impious DefeEiion, andwhofirfi 
 ajjerted that Chrifl was mere Man, was excommunicated 
 for it by Vidor ? For if , as they fay, Victor approved 
 their Blafphemy, why did he remove the Author of it, Theo- 
 dotus, from the Church ? I have the more willingly 
 tranfcribed this entire and remarkable Fragment of the 
 learned Author, that all Perfons may fee the prodigi- 
 ous Impudence of the Irenicum, which calls the Arte' 
 monites, the moft creditable Evidences of Apoftolick 
 Tradition. For furely it is from hence clear, that 
 they flood convided of the moft flagrant Untruth in 
 this Pretence. Nay, I dare aflirm that this one Frag- 
 ment of our venerable Author rightly confider'd, is a 
 fufficient Confutation of all the fiflitious Stuff pack'd 
 up together by that Scribler. But what is moft to 
 our purpofe, it is alfo very clear that the Artemomtes 
 were thrown out of the Catholick Church, from the 
 Words of the Antiochian Fathers concerning Paulus Sa- 
 mofatemis then Anathematized : Thus they (a) fpeak 
 in their Sy nodical Epiftle, Let him write to Artemas 
 and let the Artemonites communicate with him. 
 
 4. In the fame (b) Age not long after, BeryUus the 
 Biriiop of Boflra overturning the Rule of the Church, 
 attempted to bring in certain DoSlrines different from the 
 Truth, prefuming to fay, that our Lord and Saviour did 
 not properly exifi before he came among Men, nor had a pro- 
 per Divinity, but only the Adminiftration of the Father's 
 committed to him. From thefe Words of Etifebius, one 
 may conjedure that he [BeryUus'] alluded to the Herefy 
 of Noetus, afterwards Sabellianifm. But 'Jerome has 
 faid no fuch thing of him. Til cite his Words pre- 
 fently. Now a great many Bifhops met in Council 
 againft him, with an intent, no doubt, to excommu- 
 
 {a) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 7. cap. 50. p. 250, 
 Q)) Eufeba E, H= Lib. 6. cap. 33. p. i88» 
 
 tiicgte 
 
15^ !r^^ JUDGMENT 6/* 
 
 nicate him ,• but Origen being there, and convincing 
 him of his Error, hefubmitted to the Truth, and re- 
 turn d to the Amient found Sentiment. Thus alfo (a) 
 Jerome fpeaks of him : Beryllus the BifJoop of Boftra in 
 Arabia, after he had governed the Church glorioufly for 
 fome time, at laft falling into that Herefy, -which denies that 
 Chrifl zvas before his Incarnation, being fet right by Origen, 
 •wrote federal little Pieces, and efpecially Epifiles, in ivhich 
 he thanks Origen, &c. 
 
 J. About the (b) Year 260, the famous Paul, call'd 
 Samofatenus from his own Country, and from his See 
 Antiochenus, reviv'd the Herefy of the Artemonites. He 
 had a low and mean Opinion of Chrifl, contrary to the Do- 
 ctrine of the Church, as tho he was only a common Man by 
 Nature. Thus (c) Athanaftus writes of him : Paul of 
 Samofata confeffes God of the Virgin, God born in Naza- 
 reth, thence taking the beginning of his Exiflence, and of 
 his Kingdom ; he alfo confeffes the Word and Wifdom from 
 Heaven aSiive in him, which by Predeftination was before 
 Ages, but was only in Aci exhibited from Nazareth. Here 
 by the Word, which is in Chrift, P^w/underilood not 
 the Perfon of the Word, or Son of God ; for he 
 own'd no fuch Word : but a certain Divine Power, 
 by which he was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin, 
 and which ever after operated in him. Thus only did 
 he think that Chrift was conceived by the Holy Spirit, 
 (for he did not own any fuch thing as a Divine Per- 
 fon under that Name) and for this reafon did he be- 
 lieve that he was call'd God in Scripture. Auflin (d) 
 fays of the fame Paul and his. Followers : The Pauli- 
 ans, from Paulus Sam"^ofat. fay. That Chrifl was not al- 
 ivays, that he took his Beginning from his Birth of the Vir- 
 gin, and they think him nothing but a Man. This was 
 formerly the Herefy of one Artemon, but . retrieved in its 
 decay by Paulus. But let us hear the Fathers of the 
 Antiochian Synod, who certainly beft underftood PauVs 
 
 (a) De Script. Eccl. cap. 71. (^) Eufeb. Lib. 7. cap. 27. 
 p. 225. (c) Tom. J. Pars 2. p. 942? C^) DeHaeref. c.44. 
 
 Opinion. 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c 1^7 
 Opinion. They in their (a) Symdkal Epiftle teftify, 
 that this Paul deny'd his God and Lord, i. e. deny'd 
 the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Chrift. A little 
 after in the fame Epiftle they fay, that he would not 
 with them confefs that the Son of God came down 
 from Heaven ; but faid that he was from below. Laft- 
 ly, in the fame place they exprefly call him a Perfon 
 who has abjur'd the Myftery, and gone in to the ex- 
 ecrable Herefy of Artemas. Paul then and Artemas a- 
 greed in their Notion of Chrift. 
 
 6. Some of the Antients fay, that Paul made his 
 Court to Zenobia^ a Jewefs (as (b) Athanafius fays) 
 but however much addided to 'Judaijm^ and then 
 Queen of the Eaft, by the defence of this '^emfly Blaf- 
 phemy. So {c) Chryfoflom and Theodoret. After fome 
 fuch fort the modern Defenders of Arian and Samofa- 
 tenian Principles with us, contend that the Dodrine 
 of Chrift the coeflential Son of the Father, and con- 
 fequently that of the Holy confubftantial Trinity, 
 Ihould be \v holly fupprefs'd in the Church, that ic 
 may not give any further hindrance to the Converfion 
 of the 'Turks and Jews (d). They would have us, for- 
 footh, not to be Chriftians indeed, that we may make 
 a fort of Chriftians of thofe Infidels. 
 
 7. There were two Synods of Bifhops aflembled a- 
 gainft this impious Man, at Antioch. In the former of 
 them indeed, under the (e) Emperor Gallienus^ about 
 the twelfth Year of his Reign, and the 255 th Year of 
 Chrift, the Sophifl deceived the Biflops by Pretences, and 
 efcap'd with impunity : But in the latter, a very nume- 
 rous Synod, under Aurelian about the Year 270, Mai- 
 chioij, a Presbyter, and a very learned Perfon, deceded 
 his Herefy plainly ; and then he was not only degraded 
 from the Epifcopal Dignity, but alfo entirely forbid- 
 den all Communion with the Catholick Church. Eu- 
 
 {a) Eufeb. Lib! 7. cap. ^o. p. 228. (b) Tom. i. Parsi. 
 
 p. 38^. (c) Homil, 8. in yoannern. Haeretic. Fab. Lib. 2. 
 
 cap, 8. {d) See the Anfwer toth? Queries^ p. 14. (e) Eufeb. 
 
 E. H. Lib. 7, cap. a?, & a8. p. zi<i, 6c 227, 
 
 febius 
 
158 5ft^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 felfius (a) thus briefly gives us the Hiftory of thac 
 Synod : J12 the Times of this Emperor [Aurelian] a Synod 
 of very many Bifjpops was affembled -y in which this Here- 
 fiarch Paul, was conviBed at Antioch, and being by aU 
 found guilty of that jalfe Tenet, was excommunicated the 
 whole Catholick Chunh under Heaven. One Malchion, a 
 very eloquent Man, did chiefly confute and dif cover his fiudy'd 
 Subterfuges. It is worthy Obfervation, how vehe- 
 mently and how fliarply the holy Fathers inveigh 
 agalnft the Herefiarch, and his Herefy, in their Sy- 
 nodical Epiftle : (b) They call him a Man, who denied 
 his God, who receded from the Rule of Faith, i. e. was an 
 Apoftate, who fet himfelf in oppofltion to God. They call 
 his Opinion a deadly DoBrine, fuch a degree of Malice as 
 denied God, an execrable Herefy. Hence it is manifeft, 
 that the Great and Holy Synod, and confequently the 
 Catholick Church of that Age, thought the Dodrine 
 of our Lord's real Divinity abfolutely necefTary to 
 be known and believ'd in order to Salvation. 
 
 8. I remember not any other Perfon in the Eccle- 
 fiaftical Hiflory of the third Century, who, after this 
 Paul, oppos'd the Divinity of our Saviour, except 
 one Lucian, who was alfo excommunicated for it. (c) 
 
 9. Some of our modern Arians may here objed, 
 that all the Hereticks afore-mentionM denied that 
 Chrift was before Mary, which the Arians acknow- 
 ledge, yea, they confefs that he was before all Ages ; 
 therefore all that is urged, how much foever it may 
 concern the Socinians, does not all afieft the Arians : 
 but this is nothing to the purpofe. For it is plain 
 that the Hereticks afore-mention'd, were condemn'd 
 by the Church, for a Reafon common to them with 
 the Arians themfelves, namely, for denying that our 
 Saviour was God. Look back upon what has been 
 obferv'd ^n this Chapter concerning Theodotus, Arte- 
 mon, and Paul of Samofata, from the Antients, and 
 
 Qa) Chap. 2g. p.,227. (h) E. H. Eufeb. Lib. 7. chap. 30. 
 {c) See the Defence of the Nicene Creed, Seft, 2. chap. 1 5. fe£l. 8a 
 
 you'll 
 
the Catholicic Church, ^^, 159 
 
 you'll fee that the Fathers place every one of their 
 Herefies in this i not that they made our Saviour a 
 Being lower in the Creation than he really was, buc 
 that they made him a mere Creature, and did not own 
 him as truly God. In a word, they were convided of 
 and condemn'd for a Herefy, that denied God, as 
 Cuius fays of Theodotus and Artemon^ and the Amicchiau 
 Fathers of Paul of Samofata. Now certainly the 
 Herefy of Arius was no lefs an Herefy that denied 
 God than theirs: nor was -the Difference betwixc 
 their Opinion and that of Arius fuch, as that the 
 Church could think the one tolerable, but the other 
 worthy the fevereft Cenfure. For by both of them 
 Chrift was determin'd to be a mere Man, only they 
 ■were not agreed upon the Time when he began to 
 be fo. 
 
 JO. This notwithftanding we muft add, which we 
 have elfewhere obfervM, that the very principal Te- 
 nets of Arius, namely, of the Produdlion of the 
 Word before Ages, but yet from fome Beginning, 
 and of the Diftance of his Eflfence from the Nature of 
 the fupreme God, were formerly condemn'd in the 
 Church in the moft antient Herefiarchs, i. e. the 
 Gmfttch {a). Nor is the famous Hiftory of Dionyjius 
 Alexandrinus to be forgot, who being falfely accusM 
 by the Sabellians to Divnyfius Romanus^ of thofe fame 
 Tenets, which Arius afterwards aflferted,- when Diony- 
 jius Romanus called a Synod upon that Occaiion, in 
 which the Tenets were univerfally condemn'd as im- 
 pious, Dionyfius Alexandrinus^ who was faid to defend 
 them, had certainly been condemn'd, unlefs he had 
 feafonably clear'd himfelf, by Letters, from that foul 
 Calumny, (b) I fuppofe, then, it is very plain, from 
 what has been largely difcours'd in this Chapter, and 
 that before it, that the Opinion which denies our Sa- 
 
 {d) Defence of the Nicene Creed, Se£l-. 2. chap. i. feSt. 15, 
 Seft 5. chap. 1. fe£l. 1 5, and 16. chap. 10. fe£l. i(5. 
 
 {b) See this Hificry at large in th& Defence of the Nicene Creedj 
 Seft. 2, chap, 11, fe£l. 2. Ql'c, 
 
 viour 
 
i6o 7'^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 viour to be true God, was always held in the Church 
 of the three firll Ages for a deadly Herefy, and a de- 
 teftable Blafphemy ; and that thofe who aflerted it, 
 were abfolutely rejeded as impious Opiniators, and 
 utter Strangers to the true faving Faith of Chrift. 
 Strange, then! tha.t Epifco^ius fhould, with anySo- 
 phifms or Pretences (tor he could bring nothing folid 
 againft fuch plain Teftimonies) attempt to defend his 
 contrary Affertion. Whatever it is he has faid in this 
 forlorn Caufe, I fhall now proceed to examine accu- 
 rately. 
 
 CHAP. IV, 
 
 Of the Creeds of the Tri7mti've Church : An A 
 fivfif of the firfi and moft antient Creedy 
 and the Explications of it in Irenaeus and 
 Tertullian. 
 
 FO R the Proof of his Propofition, namely, 
 [That the Faith and Profeffion of that fpecial 
 Filiation of Jefus Chrift, by which he is faid to be the 
 Son of God before Ages, and God of God, was not 
 judged neceffary to Salvation in the primitive Churches 
 from the Time of the Apoftles, at leaft during three 
 whole Centuries] Epifcopius (a) brings two Argu- 
 ments ; the firft of which is this : (i.) T'he Creeds of the 
 Churches, by which antiemly Chriftians were difiinguijh'd 
 from Infidels, as by certain Badges and "Tokens, and upon 
 the Profeffion of which Men were matriculated into Chri- 
 fiianity, prove it, fays he. For in them no fuch Profeffion 
 is required or made. The mofl antient of them, and that 
 which prevaiVd in the firft Adminijiration cf Baptifm, 
 
 («) Epifcopii Vol. prim. p. 540, 
 
the Catholtck Church, &c* i^i 
 
 tvenfrom the Times of the Apoflles, was this : 2 heUcve i^ 
 Godj the Father, Sorif and Holy Spirit j according to th^' 
 Form prefcrib'd by our Saviour himfelf, Go teach all Na" 
 tions, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit. None of the ami em Explanations of 
 this Creed^ luhich we have in Irena^us, TertuUian, (^c 
 contain the Profeffion of this Filiation^ much lefs declare the 
 Neceffny of profeffmg it. And yet ItQnxus fpeaks greatly 
 of his Creed, as fo perfeEi, that the befl Skill in Divinity 
 could make no Additions^ nor the greatejl Simplicity detraf^ 
 from it. TertuUian alfo fays of his, That though a Maii 
 knew nothing bejides it, he knew all things. Sec. That the 
 Creed caltd the Apo/iles, in what Timefoever it was made 
 (for that is uncertain) was by degrees augmented by the Ad-^. 
 dition of this or that Article, as fever al Herefies gave occa-, 
 /ion, is what J never doubt : This, like the other, is fo ac" 
 curately composed, that fome, the Romanills namely, have 
 heliev'd, though falfely, that it was made by all the ApO"^ 
 files, every one giving-£ven the very Words of one Article^ 
 and fome one of them by confent putting them together', but, 
 however this be, fill Chrijiian Churches have received it as 
 an undoubted, perfecl, Catholick Rule of Faith, if not as 
 it flood in the three fir ft Ages, at leafl as it hath continud 
 from the fourth Century to this day : This Creed, I fay^ 
 makes no mention of this Filiation, but is content with that 
 jhort Formy I believe in Jefus Chrift his Only Son cue 
 Lord. 
 
 2. I anfwer, (t.) That Tuch Arguments are of no 
 force in this Matter j for when it is fuiHciently 
 prov'd from the Teftimonies above-cited, and as clear 
 as poflible, that the Faith and Profeffion of this pecu- 
 lar Filiation of Jefus Chrift, was by the Primitive 
 Churches judg'd necefTary to Salvation, who will be- 
 lieve him that goes about to prove tne contrary, be- 
 caufe the Creeds us'd by thofe Churches does ngc 
 plainly enough contain that Faith and Profeffion ? We 
 fhould rather conclude quite contrary, namely, that 
 fince it is very plain from other Arguments, that the 
 Faith and Profeffion of that Filiation svas judg'd ab- 
 
 yoL. II. L folutely 
 
i62 fT/^^ JUDGMENT 0/ 
 
 folutely neceflary to Salvation by the Primitive 
 Churches, it muft be, that this peculiar Filiation was 
 either very plainly contain d in the Creeds they ufed, 
 or certainly by them thought to be fo. Nay, it is cer- 
 tain indeed, that the Catholick Do(5lors, who liv*d 
 long before the Nicene Creed, thought the Dodrine of 
 our Lord's true Divinity to be really contain*d in the 
 Rule of Faith, or Creed then received in the Church. 
 For Irenaus and T'ertuWany as we fhall fhew hereafterg 
 exprefly affirm it to belong to the Rule of Faith. 
 Cairn alfo (a) fays of the Aytemotiites, who denied 
 Chrift to be God, that they delpis'd the Rule of an- 
 tient Faith. So the Antiochian Fathers, {b) in their 
 Synodical Epiftle, fay, that Paul o( Samofata departed 
 from the Faith, was an Apcftate. Therefore Epifco^ 
 pus's Argument, if it proves any thing, proves this 
 only, that the Primitive Churches have not clearly 
 enough exprefs'd that Article in their Creeds; which, 
 notwithftanding, they thought necelTary. But (2.) there 
 is no Ground for this Impeachment; and, to make it 
 plain that there is not, we will go through the Creeds 
 which he mentions, all along treading in his Steps. 
 
 3. iThe mojl antient of them^ fays he, and what was 
 tifed in the fir ft Adminiftration of liaptifn, even from the 
 'Times of the Apcflles themfehes^ was this : I believe in 
 Gody the Father, Sen, and Holy Spirit. I anfwer, ( i.) That 
 was never taken to be a full and compieat Creed, 
 which did exprefly comprehend all the necelTary Arti- 
 cles of Faith, (a Man muft fcarce be in his Senfes, to 
 think the whole Chrillian Faith was comprehended in 
 fo fmall a Compafs) but only a fhort and compendious 
 Confeffion of the primary Article of rhe H^ly Trinity, 
 to be made by the Perfon to be baptized, who was firfi: 
 taught the Senfe of it by the Carech ft more fully and 
 exactly. (2.) But yet in this Creed (fucn as it is) tne 
 true Divinity of the Son (and even of the Holy Spi- 
 
 {a) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 5. chap. ult. p. 160* 
 (&)Lib. y.chap. 30. p.aaS. 
 
//^^ Catholicic Church, ^cl t6f 
 
 tit) Is as plainly deliverM as poffible in fo few Words» 
 JFor (i.) it is manifeft, that in this Form, \_I believe in 
 God the Father J Son^ and Holy Ghvff] that the Word 
 God is in common apply'd to all the Three, the Fa- 
 ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. This the Greeks 
 exprefs more clearly [by their diftinftive Article] 
 
 Thusalfo the Antients underftood this fhort Confeffion, 
 Hence {a) 'TertuUian^ expounding the common Faith 
 of the Chriftians, in the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, fays : 'The Fatheir is God, and the Son is God, 
 and the Holy Ghoft is God, and every one of them is God* 
 Cyprian alfo thus argues againft the Baptifm of Here- 
 ticks : (b) If any one could he baptiz,*d among the Hereticks, 
 he might alfo retain Remiffton of Sins ; and if he obtain d 
 Remijfoii of Sins^ be fanEiijy*d and made the Temple of 
 God. I ask, of Vuhat God ? If of the Creator^ he could 
 not J "who id^d not believe in him j if of Chrifi, neither 
 could he be his Ttmple, who denies Chrifi to be God : If of 
 the Holy Spirit, ftnce thefe Three are One, how could the 
 Holy Spirit be reconciled to him^ who is an Enemy to the 
 Father and the Son ? Where he plainly alludes to the 
 Form of Confeffion, concerning the Holy Trinity, 
 which was ufually requir'd of thofe who were to be 
 baptiz'd, in which they profefsM to believe the Fa- 
 ther was God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghofl 
 God, and that thefe Three are One. By the way, 
 the attentive Reader may obferve, that in this place 
 St. Cyprian manifeftly teaches, that the Article of the 
 true Divinity of our Lord is abfolutely neceflary to 
 Salvation : For he exprefly faySj that he can't be the 
 Temple of God (which is the fame as to fay, he can*c 
 be fav*d) who denies Chrift to be God. But to re- 
 turn, I think that in thefe few Words, / believe in 
 God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit^ that great 
 Truth, that the Son and Holy Ghoft are one God 
 with the Father, is, in fome refpeds, more clearly ex- 
 
 {a) Pag. 507. adv. Prax, (^) P. 203, 
 
 L a prefs'd. 
 
1 64 77:;^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 prefs'd, than in the larger Creeds that followed : For by 
 the Additions after thofe Words, / believe in God the Fa- 
 ther, and the Additions after the Mention of the Son^ 
 the Word God not being repeated in the Articles con- 
 cerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Title of 
 God might feem, and indeed did feem (contrary 
 to the plain Meaning of thofe that made them) to 
 belong only to the Father. (2.) In this Form 
 the Son {'as alfo the Holy Spirit) is joined to the 
 Father as Collegue in his Government, as Sharer 
 of that Faith, Honour, Worfhip and Obedience, 
 which the Perfon to be baptiz'd promifes and 
 vows ; which whofoever can think compatible with 
 mere Man, or any Creature, has no Notion of the 
 horrid Sin of Idolatry. To make this ftill the plainer, 
 it is efpecially to be obferv'd, that in the Primitive 
 Church two Things were required of thofe who were 
 thought fit for Baptifm, immediately before they re- 
 ceived it ; the renouncing Satan, and lifting under 
 Chrift. The Defertion, or Renunciation, was made 
 in thefe Words, / renounce the Devil and all his Works^ 
 and his Worjhip^ &c. After this, immediately followed 
 the Lifting with Chrift i I believe inGod the Father, the Son 
 and the Holy Ghofl (a). Both thefe Forms were received 
 in the firft Ages through all the Churches, fo that it 
 is not to be doubted but that they came from the 
 Apoftles. Now as by the one, they who came to 
 Baptifm, renouncM the Worfhip of the Devil, and 
 confequently of all Idols and falfe Gods ; fo by the 
 other, they gave themfelves up to the Worfhip of the 
 only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. This 
 is plainly gather'd from a Dialogue of Lucians (h)^ 
 or fome Contemporary of his, of a like Genius. 
 There the Author, coeval with the firft Succeffion of 
 the Apoftles, a profane Man indeed, but one who well 
 underliood Chriftianity, in a fcoffing Way introduces 
 
 {a) See tToe Apofi. Confilt. Lib. 7. chap. 41. p. $79. And Cyril's 
 ZAyjlag. Catech'ifm. 
 
 \b) Luciani Opera ; Vmted <?/Hagenaw, i535» Vol, 2. p. 9?^, 
 
 one 
 
tie Catholick Church, ^c. 1^5 
 
 one I'riephonj who was to perfonate a Chriflian Doftor 
 or Catechift, among other things, inftruaing his Cate- 
 chumen in the Myftery of the Trinity : For when the 
 Catechumen asks, By whom thenJJoaU I fwear ? Triephon 
 anfwers. By the God which reigns en high^ the Great , the 
 Immortal^ the Hea'venly, the Son of the Father , the Spirit 
 proceeding from the Father ^ One of "three ^ and Three of One : 
 Suppofe this to be ]ove, think this your God. Hence I fay, 
 we may gather, that the Profelytes from Gentilifm to 
 the Chriftian Church, were oblig'd, inftead of their 
 vain Deities they before worihipp'd, to give them- 
 felves up to the Worfhip and Obedience of the 
 Trinity in Unity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, 
 as of their only God. See this Place more largely eX' 
 plain d J and fufficiently defended from the Cavils of Sandius, 
 in the Defence of the Nicene Faith {a). Thus much 
 jnay fuffice for the firft and moft antient Creed. 
 
 4. Let us now proceed to the Explications of this 
 Creed in Irenaus and T'ertulUan. None of them, fays 
 EpifcopiuSj contain the Profeffton of this Filiation ; i. e. 
 There is not any thing in any of thefe Expofitions, 
 which declares our Saviour to be the Son of God, 
 otherwife than is confident with him, as only a mere 
 Man, and not exifting before Mary. But this is fo 
 falfe, that I wonder with what Judgment, Perfuafion, 
 or Confcience, the learned Man could fo boldly affirm 
 it. Vi\ begin with (b) Irenaus. He tranfientiy men- 
 tions the Rule of Faith, which every Chriftian recei- 
 ved in Baptifm. He afterwards propounds and ex- 
 plains it varioufly, and in feveral places, but every 
 where in the fame Senfe. In all thefe Expofitions, he 
 plainly enough declares the divine Filiation of our Sa- 
 viour, but in fome, nothing can be clearer. Thus he 
 gives us the Rule of Faith, (c) For the Church, though 
 difpers'd through the whole World^ to the Ends of the 
 Earthy hath received from the ApofileSy and their IDifci-' 
 
 {a) SeO:. 2. chap 4. feft. ir, {h) Lib, i« chap. j. read the 
 a-hoJe Chapter, ^c) Lib, i. chap. 2, P. JOi 
 
 J- 3 P^es^ 
 
j65 The JUDGMENT of 
 
 pies, this Faith in One God, the Father Almighty, tvha 
 hath made the Heazens, the Earth, the Sea, and all things 
 in them ; and in One 'Jefus Chrifl, the Son of God, incar- 
 natefor our Salvation y and in the Holy Ghoft, who preach' d 
 by the Prophets the Difpenfations of God, and his Coming, 
 and his Generation of the Virgin, and his Pafftcn, and 
 RefurreSiion from the Dead, and the Jffumption of our 
 leloved Lord fefus Chrifl in the FleJJ? into Heaven, and his 
 coming from Heaven in the Glory of the Father, to gather 
 all things together, to raife all human Fle/h, that fy every 
 Knee in -sHeaveii, in Earth, and under the Earth, may 
 hovj, according to the Good-pleafure of the invifible Father^ 
 to Chrifl fefus our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King ', 
 and every "Tongue flo all confefs to him, and he Jhall execute 
 iufl Judgment in all things, &c. In this Expofition of" 
 the antient Creed, the Catholick Church, every 
 where difpers'd, is faid to beheve in Chrifl, as the 
 Son of God, incarnate for our Salvation ; which 
 Words are almoft the very fame with thofe in the 
 Conftantinofolitan Creed, and thofe in the moft antient 
 larger Oriental Creed, as we fhall ihew hereafter. 
 In thefe Words, all that will, may fee it fignify'd 
 that our Saviour did exift, and was the Son of God, 
 in a Nature without Flefh, before he was made Man ; 
 that he then took upon him Flefh, or human Nature, 
 out of Love to Mankind, that he might procure for 
 us eternal Salvation (a). Nor can any one doubt what 
 kind of Incarnation Irenaus believ'd, who is not en- 
 tirely a Stranger to his Works. I will illuftrate this 
 Matter by one Paffage, of the many which occur ,- in 
 which, after a Recapitulation of thofe things difputed 
 before, he thus writes (h) : Having plainly floewn, that 
 the Word, which was with God in the Beginning, by whom 
 all things were made, and who was always prefent to Man- 
 hind, that he was in the lafl Times, according to the Pre-^ 
 determination of the Father, united to his own Creature, he- 
 ing made pajflbk Man ; there is no room for their Contra- 
 
 ia) Clem. Rom. Ep. 2. (b) tib. 3, chap. 20. p. a$2, 
 
 diSUo^^ 
 
the Catholick Church, cJt. 1^7 
 
 diflion, who fay. If therefore Chrifl was then born, he was 
 not before. Fur we have fhew*d that the Son of God did not 
 then begin to be, having always exified with the Father i 
 but when he was incarnate, and made Man, he took upon 
 himfelf the fad, forlorn Condition of Man, compendioufly 
 procuring Salvation for us ; that fo what we had loft in 
 Adam, the Likenefs and Similitude of God, we might re^ 
 cover in Chrifl 'Jefus. For Jtnce it xoai impoffible that 
 Man, who was once fuhdued, and thrown off by Difobe- 
 dience, fioould be. renew d, and receive the Reward of Vic 
 tory ; and alfo impoffible that he fjould obtain Salvation, 
 who was fallen under Sin i the Son, who was the IVord oj 
 God, defending from the Father, and perfeciing the Difpen- 
 fation of our Salvation, did both [for us.^ From hence 
 it is very plain, what Irenaus meant by believing in the 
 Son of God, who was incarnate for our Salvation. More- 
 over, in the Expofition of Faith before us, our Saviour 
 is not only callM the Son of God, but exprefly God; 
 which Name, according to (a) Irenaus, ought not to 
 be given to any one abfolutely, nor is fo given ia 
 Scripture, but to him who is really God. 
 
 5. Further, Irenaus, in another (b) place, gives us the 
 Rule of Faith, and explains it. There not only the 
 Pre-exiftence of the Son before Mary, but alfo before all 
 Creatures, and the Creation of all things by him, as 
 by a Word, not extrinfick to God his Father, as ail 
 Creatures are, even Angels, but moft intimate and 
 co-eflential with him, is very clearly exprefs'd. Read 
 the place, and judge for your felf : Since then we hold the 
 Rule of Faith, namely, that there is one God Almighty^ 
 who made all things by his Word, who fll'd and framed 
 them out of nothing into Being, as the Scripture faith , The 
 Heavens were made by the Word of the Lord, and all the 
 Hofls of them by the Breath of his Mouth. And again, 
 All things were made by him, and without him was nothing 
 made. All things excepts nothing -, but the Father made all 
 things by him, whether 'viji.ble or invifible^ fenjible^ or in" 
 
 {«) Lib. 3, chap 6. p? zb^6. ih) Lib. u chap. ip. p. 114, 
 
 L 4 telligible. 
 
t6S ^^e J \J DGMENT of 
 
 i eligible, temporary things for a certain End, or eternal; 
 ^ ^nd Jince God made all thefe things^ not by Angeh, nor 
 fome Powers diflinSi in Sentiment from him^ {for he wants 
 nothing) hut by his IVord and Sprit makes, difpofes, 
 governs, and gives Exifience to all, &c. "Therefore holding 
 this Rule, though they ufe many and various Arguments^ 
 pe eajtly prove that they have gone off from the Truth, (a) 
 
 6. You may add to this a third Expolition of the 
 antient Creed from the fame Jrenaus ; where, intend- 
 ing to fhew that the Tradition of Truth was not to 
 be fought for in the Conventicles of Hereticks, but 
 in the Catholick Church, he thus difcourfes (b) : Sup- 
 fofe the Apofiks had left us no Scriptures, mufl we not have 
 followed the Order of Tradition, which they committed to 
 thofe with whom they entrufied the Churches ? To this, 
 many Nations of the Barbarians, who believe in Chrifl, af- 
 fenty having Salvation written in their Hearts by the Spirit, 
 'Without Letters or Ink, and diligently preferving the old 
 Tradition, believing in One God, the Maker of Heaven and 
 'Earth, and of all things in them, by Jefus Chrift^ the Son 
 ef God 'j who, cut of his exceeding Love towards his own 
 Creature, f'jfer'd himfelf to he born of a Virgin, unitir.g 
 in himfelf Man to Gcd, fuffer'd under Pontius Pilate, 
 vofe again, was received into Glory, and (hall come again the 
 Saviour of thofe that are fav^d, and the (c) Judge of 
 thofe that are judgM, fending into eternal Fire thofe who 
 change the Truth, and clef pi fe his Coming and his Fathers. 
 T'hey who without Letters have believed this Faith, are, 
 nvith refpeEi to our Language, Barbarians ; but with re^ 
 JpeB to Sentiment, (4) Moral, and Converfation, very wif$ 
 through Faith, and pleafe God, living in all 'Juftice, 
 Chajiity, and Wifdom, T'o thefe Perfuns, if any one report 
 
 (a) Confult the parallel Places of hen£U!, cited in the Dcf 
 fence of the Tslicene Creed, Sefl: 2. chap. 5. fed. 7. 
 
 (i) Lib. 3. chap. 4. p. 242. 
 
 (c) The Condemner of thofe that are to he condemn'' d. This 
 Miftake in tranflating the Word Kpivw, 8cc. frequently oecur? 
 among the old Interpreters, even in Scripture. 
 
 {d) Qonfuetudinem, 5^605. 
 
 ths 
 
the Catholick Church, (^c* 1^9 
 
 the Inventions of Heretich, f peaking to them in their oivn 
 Language^ they quickly (hut their Ears y and fly as far as 
 pfjtble from them^ not induring to hear their blafphemous 
 Difcourje. In this Rule of Faith, Chrifl is faid to be 
 that Son of God, by whom the Heaven, the Earth, 
 the Sea, and all things in them were made ; who, of 
 his great Love to, and Compaffion of the Work of his 
 Hands, Mankind, himfelf condefcended to be born 
 Man of a Virgin, and thus join'd Man to God. /re- 
 naus affirms {a) the Tradition of this Faith to be fo 
 univerfal and antient, that the very Barbarians^ thofe 
 who had yet no Verfions of the Scripture, held it, as 
 received at firft from the Apoflles, or their Difciples, 
 together with the Gofpel, of which it is indeed the 
 greateft part ; and efteem'd by all Catholick Chriftians 
 at that time fo facred, that the Barbarians abhorr*d all 
 Do(5trine inconfiftent with it, as impious Herefy and 
 Blafphemy. 
 
 7. Let us now examine TertuUians Explications. In 
 his Book de Velandis Virginibus the Rule of Faith is ra- 
 ther hinted by the way, than recited, and therefore 
 not full and perfed:. For there Chrift is not fo much 
 as cali'd our Lord, or the only begotten Son of God, 
 but fimply the Son of God. This notwithftanding 
 was enough for 'TertuUian to have faid of Chrift by 
 the way, who with the other antient Catholicks, al- 
 ways underftood the Title of Son of God to be given 
 to the Son in a fublime Senfe. In that Rule of Faith 
 there is no mention of the Conception of the Man 
 Chrift by the Holy Spirit, nor of the Holy Spirit him- 
 felf. It is indeed my Opinion, that TertuUian had there 
 an efpecial regard to the Creed then ufed in the Afri-- 
 can Church, which was almoft the fame as the Ro^ 
 man : for the Roman Church agreed in her Creed with 
 the African Churches, as (b) 'TertuUian fays. Now 
 the Rvman Creed, tho larger than it is there given us 
 by TertuUian^ yet as in other refpefts, fo in this Ar- 
 
 ^a) Pag. I7|, ^h) Praefcript, adv. Heret. p. 215? 
 
 tide 
 
17° f^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 tide of the Son of God, it was fhorcer than the Creeds 
 of the Eaflern Churches, for reafons 1 (hall take notice 
 of by and by : But ftill the Faith of the Roman and 
 the £aj^^r;2 Churches was always the fame. They ail 
 confefs'd the Article of the Son of God in the fame 
 extent of Meaning, the in other Words. And this 
 alfo Tertullian well knew. 
 
 8. Hence in another place noted by (a) Epifcopius, 
 where he delivers the Rule of Faith, he gives us thjs 
 Article of the Son of God more full and explicite, de- 
 fcribing his Exiftence very clearly, as not only before 
 the blelfed Virgin, but alfo before all Ages, and even 
 before the Creation of all Things by him. For there, 
 after he has faid, that that only ought to be contro- 
 verted, which may be difputed without prejudice to 
 the Rule of Faith, he immediately fubjoins the Rule 
 in thefe Words : 'That is the Rule of Faithy by which we 
 frofefi what "we belie've, namely that, in which we believe 
 that there is only one God, and no other be (ides the Creator 
 cf the IVorld, who made all Things oj nothing by his Word 
 firjt of all fent jorth ; that the IVbrd, call*d his Son, ap" 
 ^ear*d •varicujly to the Patriarchs in the Name of God, ah 
 ivaysfpoke in the Prophets, lafily was brought down into the 
 Virgin Mary by the Spirit and Power of God the Father, 
 was made Flefly in her Womb, and born Man of her, and is 
 ^efus Cbrift, &c. Having ended the Creed, he adds, 
 'This Rule inftituted by Chrifi, asjjyallbeprovd, admits of 
 no Quejlions, which are not heretical, and make the Perfons 
 concern d in them Hereticks. What can be more clear 
 or exprefs againft Epifcopius's AlTertion than thefe 
 Words ? The fame Rule of Faith you have in (b) 
 mother place thus : M-^e, fays he, believe that there is 
 only one God, but under this Difpenfation, "which we call 
 Oeconomy, that the Son his IVord, who proceeded from him, 
 hy whom he made all Things, and without whom nothing 
 was made, is of that one God ', That he "was fent by the 
 Father into the Virgin, and born of her, Man and God, the 
 
 {a) Pag. 20^. (b) Pag. 501. 
 
the Catholick Church, (^c» 171 
 
 ^on of Man and the Son of God^ called Jefus Chrifl. After- 
 wards he adds : "That this Rule had come down from the be^ 
 ginning of the Gofpel, even before any of the antiem Here^ 
 ticks ^ much more before the modern Praxeas j both the late 
 Rife [Pofteritas] oj all the Hereticks in general, and the 
 isjovelty of ?t3ixeas in particular, but ofTefierday^'will prove. 
 From what has been faid, it is abundantly manifeft 
 that Epifcopius's Appeal to the Explications of Irenaus 
 and Tertultian, with refped to the antient Creed, was 
 rafh and impudent. 
 
 C H A p. V. 
 
 Of the Creedy calVd the Jpoftlcs* 
 
 COME now to the Creed call'd the Apoflles, 
 
 concerning which Epifcopius fays, T'he very Creed 
 
 call'd the Apoflles, makes no mention at all of this Filiation^ 
 hut is content with this Jhort Form i I believe in Jefus Chrifl , 
 his only Son our Lord, This is Epifcopius's chief Argu- 
 ment J and after him, the Author of the Irenicum and 
 Sandius have greatly urg'd it. The fame our late 
 Revivers of the Avian and Socinian Herefy have every 
 where boafted of in their infipid Libels, and think 
 themfelves fafe from the Charge of Herefy juftly laid 
 againft them by the Catholicks, whilfl intrenchM in 
 this Strong-Hold. 
 
 2. In order to give a full Anfwer to this Argument, 
 in which they fo greatly glory and confide, I propofe 
 to demonftrate thefe four Politions. (i.) That the 
 Creed call'd the Apoflles, how conformable foever to 
 their Dodrine, was not diftated or composed by the 
 Apoflles themfelves in fo many Words, in that Form 
 and Method in which we now have it i but indeed is 
 nothing elfe than the Creed of the Roman Church, 
 which afterthe Year 400 was at lafl compleated in that 
 Church, the Churches of the Eafl in the mean time 
 uiing another Creed. (2.) That the Church of Rome 
 
 formerly 
 
172 The JUDGMENT of 
 
 formerly might, and accordingly did ufe a more fuc 
 cinft and fhort Creed, than was neceflfary for the 
 Churches of the Eafi, thefe being difturb'd with all 
 kinds of Herefies j when in the Roman Church not 
 one Herefy arofe, which taught them to underftand 
 their lliorter Confeffion othervvife than according to 
 its right Meaning, and the true Senfe of the Church. 
 (3.) That this, notwithftanding there really is in the 
 Roman Creed a Profeffion of this fpecial Filiation of 
 Jefus Chnft, namelj', in thefe Words, I believe mje^ 
 Jus Chriji his (i. e. God the Father's) Only-begotten Son, 
 (4.) And lafdy. That in the Creed, or Rule of Faith, 
 which prevailed in the mod antient Churches of the 
 Eafty before the Council of Nice^ this fpecial Mode of 
 Jefus Chrift's Filiation was exprefly taught and declared. 
 
 5. That very great Man J. G. VojfiuSy hath abun- 
 dantly proved the firft Polition, in his Difl'ertations 
 concerning the three Creeds : To the firfl of thefe 
 Diflertations, (not to do the fame thing over again) 
 I recommend my Reader. 
 
 The fecond Polition is confirm'd by the Tellimony 
 of Riiffinus, who thus prefaces his Expofition ©f the 
 Oeed : Before I begin to explain the Senfe of the IVordsy 
 leant but think itfeafonabk to tell my Reader, that in di~ 
 'vers Churches fome Additions have been made in the PJ^ords, 
 JVbui in the Church of Rome, this has not been done, which 
 Jfuppofe happened upon this account, lecaufe no Herefy hath 
 taken its Rife from thence, and becaufe they keep up an old 
 Cuftom, That thofe who are to receive Baptifm, floall pub- 
 lickly repeat the Creed in the Ears of the People, and they 
 •zuho were before them in the Faith did not bear the Ad- 
 dition of the leafl IVord : But in other places, as far as I 
 can find, fome IVords feem to have been added by reafon of 
 fome Hereticks, by which the Senfe of the novel DoEirine 
 was thought to be excluded. Thus he writes, and in- 
 deed it is plain, that the Sirnonians, Cerinthians, Ebio- 
 nites, and the other Pefts of the primitive Church, did 
 not fpread their impious Tenets at Rome, but in the 
 Eafif and efpecially in Afi^- Heace Ignatius frequently 
 
 ~ lafhe§ 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c- 171 
 
 kflies thofe Hereticks in his Epiftles to the Afiatkk 
 Churches ; but writing to the Romans^ takes notice of 
 no Herefy among them : Nay, he exprefly commends 
 them in his Salutations, for their entire Purity of Faith, 
 V^hilft he calls them {a), T'heVnited in every Command of 
 Chrijij filled ivith every Grace of God, without DiftinBiony 
 and purify d from every Spot, or firain' d from all Dregs. It 
 is, I fuppofe, upon this account more particularly 
 that Tertullian calls the Roman Church, a Church in 
 Profperity. O that this Profperity, this Purity of 
 the Faith, had continu'd always in it 1 but alas, now 
 we may cry out in the Words of the Prophet, How is 
 the faithful City become an Harlot ! 
 
 4. I come now to the third Pofition, and intend to 
 enlarge upon it. Now it is eafy to prove that 
 Chrift, in the Roman Creed, is called the Only- 
 begotten Son of God, with refped to that Divine 
 Nature of his, in which he exifted not only before 
 Mary, but before all Ages, from God the Father, and 
 with him. This Proof we will bring, (i.) From the 
 Holy Scripture, in which the Word Only-begotten is 
 attributed to Chrift, (for we can't fufped that the 
 Church underflood the Word otherwife than the Scrip- 
 ture, from which they borrow 'd it.) (2.) From the 
 Force and Propriety of the Word. (3.) From the Or- 
 der and Context of the Creed : and, (4.) From the 
 conftant Senfe, and perpetual Interpretation of the 
 Catholick Church. 
 
 (i.) As for the Scripture, the firft Place in which 
 this Word is apply'd to Chrift, is John i. 14. And the 
 Word was made Flefo, and dwelt among us, and we beheld 
 his Glory, as of the Only-begotten of the Father. Here ic 
 is plain, that the Only-begotten of the Father is he who 
 alone was begotten of him. Some Perfons would re- 
 fer the Words [of the Father'] to the Words [/^^ Gloryl 
 fo as to read, {^And we beheld his Glory (given him, or 
 receiv'd by him) fromj or of the Father!} But befides the 
 
 {a) Tom, 2. P. A. p. s(f. {h) Fag. 215, 
 
 Confu-' 
 
174 y^^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 Confufion in the Words thus conftrued, there are not 
 indeed enough to exprefs this Meaning ; a Violence 
 which ihould never be oflfer'd without Neceflity. 
 Again, the Expreflion [the Only-begotten of, or from the 
 Father)^ feems to me more fignificantly to declare the 
 Divine Generation of the Son from the Father, than 
 {the Only-begotten of the Father] the Particle [o/, OTfrojn] 
 fuggefting that he is fo the Only Son of God the Fa- 
 ther, as that he alone is indeed begotten of and from 
 the very Father. Moreover, the (a) Apoftle gives 
 this Title to the Word, namely, to him, who ruas in 
 the Beginning with God, who was God, and by whom all 
 things were made. Hence it is plain, that Chrift was 
 caird the Only-begotten of or from the Father, in re- 
 fped of his Divine Nature, by which he exifted be* 
 fore Ages. Laftly, The Observation of Grotius is 
 not impertinent, that St. John aims at the Gnofticks 
 here, who made the Word to be one, the Only- 
 begotten another, and Jefus a third ; and who 
 reckoned the Only-begotten among their ^ons^ born 
 before this World. The Apoftle therefore (hews, that 
 our Lord Chrift is the only true Word, and the true 
 Only-begotten Son of, or from the Father, as being 
 alone begotten by him before Ages. To the fame 
 purpofe is this Word underftood in (b) other places^ 
 even in (c) Epifcopius's Judgment, who reafons thus! 
 upon thofe places : It is certain that the Love of God tO" 
 •wards us is greatly exalted [in thofe places] in that he fent 
 his Only-begotten Son into the World, and gave him up to 
 the Death of the Crofs, to fave Sinners, the Children of 
 Wrath. But if the Son of God denotes no more than Jefus, 
 born of the Virgin, we can't fee fo clearly why this Lcv& 
 fhculd be fo greatly extolled, as if it denotes the Son, whom 
 he begat before Ages. For the Son, born of the Virgin, was 
 therefore born of her, that he might die for Sinners. Nov), 
 where was the extraordinary Love of God, in giving upi 
 
 {a) St. John' J Go/peJ^ 1. 1 , 2. {F) John iii. 1 6, and the £^h, v> ff' 
 0>) Epiicopii Tom. I . p. 3 3 7 • 
 
 thai 
 
the Catholick Church, cJt. 17^; 
 
 that Son to Death, ijoho luas begot of the Virgin, by his 
 Pleafure, and conceived of the Holy Spirit for that pw 
 pofe ? But if you conceive it to be the Son if God, ivho was 
 begotten of the Father before Ages, who was under no ne- 
 ceffity of being fent into the World, whofe Dignity was 
 greater than that he Jhould be fent, or come in the Fhjjy, 
 much lefs die, whofeemed dearer to the Father, than that 
 he would force him upon fo much Calamity ; then indeed the 
 Splendor and Glory of the Divine Love towards Mankind 
 fhines forth greatly. Thus Epifcopius. That he had wrote 
 fo always ! Indeed it will be very clear to any one who 
 ferioufly confiders the Matter, that according to the 
 Arian and Socinian Scheme, God rather fhew'd his 
 Love towards this Son of his, than towards us Men. 
 For he who is called Chrift, was chofen to this Grace 
 and Favour by the Good-pleafure of God only, that 
 after a fhort Obedience perform'd upon Earth, of 
 a mere Man, according to the Socinians, of a mere 
 mutable Creature, according to the Arians -, he fliould 
 become God, have Divine Honours paid him, not 
 only by us Men, but by Angels and Arch-Angels, 
 and even obtain Power and Dominion over all other 
 Creatures. Further, the Love of the Only-begotten 
 Son of God towards us Men (fo greatly celebrated ia 
 Scripture, and efpecially in the (a) Epiftle to the 
 Ephejtans) does not appear, unlefs we conceive him 
 to be the Son of God, who was begotten of the Fa- 
 ther before Ages, by whom all things were made, who for 
 us Men and our Salvation, defended from Heaven, and was 
 incarnate, &c. But upon this Suppofition, as Ireaaus 
 fpeaks, we clearly fee the moft eminent Love of God 
 'towards his own Work. This by the bye. Now I 
 can't fee how we can reconcile Epifcopius to himfelf. 
 In the Places of Scripture, where Chrift is called the 
 Only-begotten Son of God, he contends that the 
 Only-begotten Son muft iignify that Son, whom the 
 Father begat before Ages, and therefore that in that 
 
 {a) Chap. 3. ver. i8, §C ip. 
 
 Title 
 
i7<5 27j'^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 Title Is contaln'd this fpecial Mode of Chrifl's Filia- 
 tion: But in the (a) Creed, extraded from the Scrip- 
 tures, in which we profefs our Faith in Chrift, the 
 Only-begotten Son of God, he abfolutely denies thac 
 this fpecial Mode of Filiation is contained. 
 
 5. (1.) It may be prov'd from the Force and Pro- 
 priety of the Word, that Chrift is call'd the Only- 
 begotten in the Creed, with refped to his Di- 
 vine Nature. For he is called Only-begotten, who 
 alone, and not in a Community of Sonftip, is Son ', 
 i. e. whom the Father hath alone, who, in the way in 
 which he is Son, hath no Brother : Moreover, who is 
 Son by Nature, begotten of or from the Father, not 
 a made or adopted Son. Now Chrift can^t be called 
 the Only-begotten Son of God, unlefs with refpe<5t 
 to his Divine Generation : For the Title does not be- 
 long to him as Man. To make this the more clear, 
 •we will confider the four Ways, in which Chrift, as 
 Man, is in Scriptures (according to C^) Epifcopius) 
 by way of Eminence, call'd God. 
 
 The ifl is, becaufe, as Man, he was conceived of 
 the Holy Ghofl. T'he Holy Ghofl jjoall come upon thee, and 
 the Power of the Higheft /ball over/hadoiv thee ; therefore 
 that Holy One which fhall be born of thee^ (hall he called 
 the Son of God. Anfw. At prefent, I fhall fay nothing 
 of (c) Juftin Martyr's and 'Tertullians Interpretation of 
 the Place, who expound [the Holy Spirit'] and {the 
 Power of the Higheji] of the Word himfelf ; nor yet of 
 Nouatian's Criticifm, who places an Emphafis upon 
 the Particle \_And.'\ This is my Anfwer, Tho' Chrift: 
 be there called the Son of God, upon account of his 
 Conception by the Holy Ghoft in the Womb of the 
 Virgin, as Man ; yet he is not there called the Only, 
 or the Only-begotten Son of God. But (fays EpifcO' 
 
 (^d) He mufi defend the Creedy and depreciate the ScrlptHres ; and 
 Joe may as well do ity as Dr. Whitby prefers the Authority 0/ Clemens 
 Romanus before St. Paul. p. 16. Mod, Difquif. 
 
 (h) Epifcop. Tom, i. p. 335. 
 
 (0 Juftin, pag. 75. Tert, p. 515, Novat, chap. 2p. 
 
the Catholtck Church, &c* i77 
 
 fius) this Eminence (whereby he was form'd in the 
 Virgin's Womb, by the Power of God) is proper to 
 the Man Jefus Chrift, and there never was, nor ever 
 will be the like. I fay that is not true. For the Flefli 
 of Chrift was conceiv'd and form'd in the Virgin's 
 Womb, by the Divine Power, without a Father. 
 And was not the firft Man form'd by the Hands of 
 God himfelf, without either Father or Mother? And 
 is he not therefore exprefly call'd the (a) Son of God ? 
 The Eminence then of Jefus Chrift, as Only-begotten 
 Son, is not in this : For in this the firft Adam may in 
 fome fort be faid to be fuperior to the fecond, becaufe 
 made by God, without Father or Mother, whereas 
 this had only no Father, {b) Philo Judaus elegantly de- 
 fcribes the illuftrious Generation of our firft Parent, 
 in thefe Words : Who, for the Nobility of his Genera^ 
 tion, "Was not to be compared luith any Mortal, being form'd 
 into a bodily Image, by the Hands of God, with the utmojl 
 flafiick Art i and having a Soul given him, not from any 
 created Being, God breathing into him as much of the Di" 
 njine Power as mortal Nature was capable of. fVas not that 
 the Excellence of Nobility, with which that, of all the refl 
 which were named, could not be compared ? 'Their Glory was 
 the Nobility of their Anceftors. Their Anceflors were Men, 
 mortal, corruptible, and their Profperity unftable ', and, for 
 the moft part, of jhort Continuance : but no Mortal was his 
 Father, nor any one the Caufe of hii Being but God, 
 Hence St. Irenaus fays, the Man Chrift, the fecond 
 Adam, was made like the firft in his Generation, not 
 indeed alcogecher, but as much fo as the Oeconomy of 
 our Salvation would permit. For after he had (c) ob- 
 ferv'd, that as the Man firft form'd of the Virgin 
 Earth (not yet manur'd or till'd, as Tertullian inter- 
 prets) was made by the Hands of God himfelf; fo 
 Chrift, the Renewer of the firft Adam, was made, as 
 to his Humanity, of the Virgin Mary, by the Holy 
 Spirit : a little after he adds i Now if he was taken. 
 
 {a) Luke3. -oer.^S. (h) Ed. Tuineb, Paris, 1552, p. 6ii. 
 
 \c) Lib. ;.chap. 31. p. 158, & 295. 
 
 Vol. II. M font 
 
17S fO'^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 from the Earth, and God form'd him, it became him zvh^ 
 was to gather together into himf elf Man-made by God, to ha've 
 a Similitude of Generation with him. Why then did not 
 God take the Duft of the Earth again, but caufed him to 
 be made of Mary ? T'hat there fhould not he another Forma^ 
 tion^ another Being to be faved^ hut that he the fame 
 \.Man'] Jhould be renew d in his own Similitude (a). The 
 very great Excellence then of our Saviour's Filiation, by 
 which he is called the Only-begotten, or the Only 
 Son of God, lies not in this, that he was produced 
 of the Virgin Mary, by the Power of the Higheft, 
 without having a Man to his Father ; for in this the 
 firft Man was equal, in fome fort fuperior to him : 
 but in a far more fublime Generation, namely, that in 
 which he was the Son of God, not only before Mary, 
 but alfo before Adam, and indeed before all Ages. If you 
 obferve upon the Generation of them both, certainly 
 the fecond no way excels the firft, as mere Man, 
 but in this greateft Difference imaginable, as God 
 and Man. Whatfoever the Addition is, by which the 
 human Nature of the fecond Adam exceeds the firft, 
 is all owing to that Union by which the Soul of Chrift 
 is, by the greateft and moft intimate {h) Communion 
 imaginable, (by fuch a Communion, as that another 
 more clofe can't be) joined to the Divine Perfon of 
 the Only-begotten Son of God- Thus (to obferve 
 this by the way) the divine (c) Apoftle makes the 
 Comparifon between the firft and fecond Adam : T'he 
 frfi Man is of the Earth earthy, the fecond Man is the 
 Lord from Heaven. Some there are indeed, but vain and 
 abfurd Men, who will have the Words {from Heaven~\ 
 applied to the fecond Adam, as born of the Virgin Mary, 
 by an abfolutely divine and celeftial Power, without 
 a Father ; for thus, as we have feen before, it may be 
 faid of the firft Adam. What the Meaning is of thofe 
 '^oxds^fromHeaven'\ inoppoficion to [_of the Earth earthy'] 
 is very plain from the Saying of (d) John the Baptift, 
 
 (^y Pag. 321 (T (^) Origen, (c) i Cor, i5.'r;er.47. 
 id) Sf.John'j Go/pel^ chap 3, ver, Ji. Compare •with thiSfC. 1. v. 30* 
 
 com- 
 
the CAtHOLieK: Church, ^c\ if^ 
 
 comparing hirofelf, as a Son of Adam, with the Lord 
 Chrift : He that comes from alpove, is above all ; be that is 
 of the Earth is earthy, and fpeaks earthy things i he that 
 comes from Hea'ven, is above aU. Befides, I don^t doubc 
 but that [the Man, the Lord from Heaven\ is the fame 
 which is called by the Cabaliftick 'Jews {that Adam 
 from above which is blefs^d] by which Periphrafis they 
 certainly meant the true God. For indeed what the 
 Cabalifts taught concerning the Marriage of that 
 Adam from above, who is bleffed, with the Congre- 
 gation of Ifrael, myftically fignifyM by the Con- 
 jundion of the earthy Adam and Eve, is manifeftly re- 
 fer'd by the {a) Apoftle to the Union of Chrift and 
 the Church. Now thofe other Words of the (b) Apo- 
 ftle muft be underftood in the fame Senfe : The firfi 
 Man was made a living. Soul, the lafl Man was made ^ 
 quickning Spirit. The firft Man was made, /. e. ac« 
 cording to a well-known Idiom of the Hebrew Lan-* 
 guage, was a living Soul ; the laft was a quickning 
 Spirit. The Senfe is, the firft Man was only Man^, 
 the fecond more than Man, even a Spirit which gave 
 Life, i. e. God. The Spirit in Chrift, as we have 
 often obfervM, doth frequently in Holy Scripture, and 
 the Writers of the firft Age, denote the divine Na- 
 ture in him. Now it is the Property of the Divine 
 Nature, (as is here faid) to give Life to Men, upoia 
 which account Chrift is elfewhere faid to be the 
 (c) Prince of Life, and Life itfelf He is the Author of 
 all our Life, natural, fpiritual, and morale as {d) Cle^ 
 mens Akxandrinus has elegantly exprefs'd it : The Word^ 
 which in the Beginning, after the formation, gave Life as 
 the Creator, taught afterward to live well as an InftruBor ; 
 that after that, as God, he might befiow eternal Life. As 
 this Interpretation rifes neceftarily from the Words o£ 
 the Text, fo it is very agreeable to the Context. For 
 the Apoftle had faid, that there were two Bodies, one 
 
 (<«) Eph. V. ver. 32. (h) i Cor. chap. 15. ver, 45^ 
 ASts iii, 1 5 . J ohn 1.4. {d) P. 4, & 5. 
 
 v ■.. M 2 animal^' 
 
iSo Tbe]VBGMENr of 
 
 animal, another fpiritual, which he here fhews from 
 their contrary Caufes. For as we received thefe our 
 animal and mortal Bodies from the firft Adam, a mere 
 Man, and confiding of a Body, in its own nature at 
 leaft animal and mortal ,• fo we fhali hereafter receive 
 fpiritual Bodies from Chrift, the fecond Adam, who is 
 more than Man, in whom is the Divine Nature, and 
 who is the Fountain of all Life. The Change of our 
 vile Bodies into the Likenefs of his glorious Body, to 
 be performM by Chrift in the RefurreCtion, is alfo 
 (a) attributed to his Almighty Power; and this is not 
 compatible with him but as God. The Interpreta- 
 tion which Grotius has lick*d up from the Sociniam, 
 that Chrift was then only made an enlivening Spirit, 
 after he was rais'd from the Dead, and had afcended 
 into Heaven, is vain. For, (i.) It is very plain the 
 Apoftle fpeaks of the primigenial Nature of them 
 both, and not of either of them, as to what they were 
 afterwards made. He then who was not always an 
 enlivening Spirit, never could be made fo. The made 
 God is one of thofe Monfters w hich the Avians and 
 Socinians have blefs'd us wnth, odious to found Reafon 
 and true Religion. Laftly, It is certain Chrift was an 
 enlivening Spirit, even before his Refurredion ; for as 
 fuch, he recalled his Body from {b) Death to Life, 
 Hence Ignatius^ a Difciple of the Apoftles, fays of 
 Chrift, He truly fuffer'd, as he alfo truly rais'd himfelf up. 
 The Refurreftion of the Body of Chrift from the 
 Dead, is alfo in Scripture afcrib'd to God the Fa- 
 ther : and what then ? Whatfoever the Son doth, he 
 doth it from the Father; and whatfoever the Father 
 doth, he doth it by the Son. Hence alfo the Creation 
 of all things is attributed to the Father and the Son, 
 becaufe the Father made all things by the Son. But, 
 to return from this brief Digreflion, the fupreme and 
 efpecial Eminence of our Lord's Filiation is fo far from 
 confifting in his Nativity of the Virgin Mary, that on 
 
 (<») Phil.iii. 21. (fc) John ii, ver. 19. 
 
 |;he 
 
 I 
 
the Catholick Church, f^c* iSt 
 
 the contrary, that very Nativity is to be efleem*d a 
 wonderful Condefcenfion. This, if we will indeed 
 follow the Holy Spirit, the facred Writings plainly 
 and frequently teach : nor does Epifcopius deny it. 
 Thus the Catholick Church, from the Times of the 
 Apoftles themfelves, always believ'd. Hence 'Juftin^ 
 afore-cited, fays, "That this is the Faith of Chrifiians con- 
 cerning Chrifl, namely^ they own Chriji to be the Son of 
 God, "Who was before Lucifer and the Moon, and who con- 
 defcended to be made Flefh, and horn of a Virgin, of the 
 Seed of David. We have betore cited Irenaus, affirm- 
 ing, that all Chriftians every where profefs'd in their 
 Rule of Faith to believe in the Son of God, by whom 
 the Father created all things ,• and who, of his very 
 great Love to his own Creature, endur'd to be born 
 of a Virgin, &c. Hence the fix famous Bifhops, in 
 the {a) Epiflle from the Synod of Anuoch, which they 
 wrote to Paul of Samofata, not without the Confenc 
 of the whole Synod, pronounce, with the greateft 
 AiTurance, that this was the confentient Doftrine and 
 Faith of the Catholick Church. Their Words are 
 thefe : In the whole Church of God, he [Chrijil is believ'd 
 to be God, emptying himfelf of his Equality with God ; and 
 Man, of the Seed of David. Laflly, Hence it is, that 
 to this day, maugre the Avians and Socinians, the 
 Church does, and always will fing. Thou an the King 
 of Glory, Chrifi ; thou art the everlafiing Son cf the Fa- 
 ther ', when thou tcokefi upon thee to deliver Man, thou didfl 
 not abhor the Virgin's Womb. Thus much for the firft 
 Mode, in which Epifcopius has obferv'di that Chrift, 
 as Man, is in Scripture call'd the Son of God. 
 
 6. The fecond is, 'That Jefus Chrifl^ upon account of 
 that office of Mediator, by the fpecial Cornmand of the Fa- 
 ther laid upon him, is caU'd the Son of God (b). I an- 
 fwer, (i.) That Chrift can't, upon this account, be 
 properly call'd a Son begotten of God, much lefs 
 Only-begotten. He who is thus a Son, is a Son not 
 
 (a) Bibl, Patr.Tom. 2. Vide Valefium ad chap. 50. Lib. ?» 
 Elifeb^ C^) John X, ver. 55, ^6. 
 
 M I I by 
 
iS2 Tbe JUDGMENT of 
 
 by Nature, but by Grace, (2.) That in this fenfe 
 Clirift had rnany Brethren, all who were anointed 
 Kings or Prophets by God ,• all who were fent upon 
 any fpecial Command to the People of God. In this 
 kind of Fihation, Chrift may be called the chief, 
 principal, and far the mofl excellent Son of God, but 
 not the Only-begotten. Buu, (3.) Whoever examines 
 the Text cited, thoroughly, will find that Chrift did 
 not there call himfelf, or would only be believM to be 
 the Son of God, becaufe he came from God as an 
 Ambaffador fent to Men, and furnifh'd with extraor- 
 dinary Powers ; but upon a far more exalted Ground, 
 namely, as he was with God the Father before he 
 was fent into the World, as his true, genuine, co- 
 effential Son, and indeed very God. Nor was Epif- 
 fopius ignorant of this, for (a) elfewhere he has drawn 
 an Argument from this place for the divine Filiation 
 of Jefus, againft the Socinians. But it may be worth 
 our while to enlarge upon this place, and prove this 
 matter more clearly than he has done. It is manifeft, 
 that our Saviour, in the Words {h) before, had fo 
 fpoken to the ^ews, that they neither underftood nor 
 believ'd that he faid any thing elfe, but that he was 
 God. Thefe are their Words, For a good M^ork we 
 fione thee not, but for Blafphemyy becaufe that thou be- 
 ing a Man, makeft thyfelj God. He had often called his 
 Father God, by way of Diftinftion ; and a little before 
 he had faid, that he and the Father are one. Now it 
 is diligently to be obferv'd, that Chrift made not that 
 Anfwer which he muft have made, if he had not 
 known himfelf to be truly God, namely, that he was 
 not really God, nor had ever arrogated that Title to 
 ^limfelf; (for by this Anfwer, could he have truly 
 iii;ide it, he might eafily have appeafed the Anger of 
 the !?^^^5 and it was alfo incumbent upon him, with 
 Jndignation, to rejed fo plain an Accufation of BlaG- 
 
 {a) Vol.s. p. 2. Bodecherus inefitiens, p. ^z^HisUnied, 
 (S) Fy 'OT ver, a$. to ver. 30, 
 
//^^ Catholick Church, (^c* i^f 
 
 Blafphemy) but on the contrary, clearly fignify'd,' 
 that he was the very Son of God, and confequently 
 God. For he defends himfelf againft the Jeivf thefe 
 two ways, (i.) By an Argument from their (a) Law : 
 Jefus anfwer'd thern^ is it not written in your Lav:, I have 
 faid, -ye are Gods ? Which place, as Grotius has well 
 obferv'd, feems to be meant of the Judges of the 
 Great Synedrium. From this place, Chrift thus de- 
 fends himfelf : If he hath called thofe Gods, to whom the 
 Word of Gad came, and the Scripture can't be broken ; do 
 ye fay that 1 blafpheme, whom the Father hath fanBify*d, 
 and fent into the World, becaufe I faid, I am the Son of 
 God? This kind of Argument, from the lefs to the 
 greater, proceeds thus : If thofe, who having nothing 
 divine in them, namely, the Judges of the Great 
 Synedrium, to v.'hom the Pfalmift there fpeaks, (for 
 I am of CapeUus^s mind) are called Gods for this rea- 
 fon only, that they have in them a certain imperfeffc 
 Image of divine Power and Authority ; how much 
 more may I be called the Son of God, and even God, 
 who am the natural Son of God, and belides in an 
 extraordinary manner authoriz'd by God the Father ? 
 Chrift indeed hath not exprefly faid this, but he hath 
 plainly intimated it in thefe Words, [that /, whom the 
 Father hath fanBify'd and fern into the World.~\ Here 
 (obferve) he fays not [whom God hath fanBifyd] but 
 [whom the Father hath fanBify'd] hinting that his fpe- 
 cial Reafon for calling God his Father, was not that 
 he was fandify'd by God, i. e. fet apart, and defign'd 
 for the Bulinefs laid upon him, and fent into the 
 World ; but on the other hand, that he was fandify^d 
 and fent into the World by God already his Father^ 
 Befides, I don't doubt but that there is a great dea,l 
 of reafon in the Emphafis (b) Maldonaie lays upon the 
 Words [fent into the World ^ in which is fignify'd that 
 Chrift is the Son of God, born not after the manner- of 
 others upon Earth, but in Heaven, and from thence 
 
 ^4) Pf^iliUpl^xxii.yer.^. (J) In locuni^ ' -s^,:-^ 
 
iH ^'be ] \J DGMENT of 
 
 fent into this World. For thus the Lord, fpeaking to 
 his Difciples^ more clearly explains himfelf, (a) I came 
 forth from the Father, and came into the World, and again 
 I leave the IVorld, and go to the Father. In which 
 Words any Man, but a fagacious Socinian, may per- 
 ceive that Chrift intended, that he, in his better Na- 
 ture, was in Heaven wdth God, and that as his Father, 
 before he firft came into this World, that is, was 
 made Man. Our Lord proceeds with this Defence, 
 and eflablifhes the Divinity he had in common with 
 the Father, by another Argument from his Miracles : 
 (J^) If I do not the JVorki of my Father, believe me not j 
 lut if I do them, though ye beUe've me not, believe the 
 JVorh, that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in 
 me, and I in him. As if he fhould have faid, becaufe 
 I called myfelf by way of Diftindion the Son of God 
 the Father, and faid that I and the Father were one, 
 ye accufe me of Blafphemy. This indeed you might 
 be thought to do very juftly, if I aflerted this Divinity 
 in Words only, not in Deeds s but now that I do the 
 fame Works of Omnipotence with the Father, why 
 do ye not believe me to be of the fame Nature with 
 him ? I don't defire to bear Witnefs of m5'felf, but at 
 leaft by my Works to perfuade you, that the Father 
 IS in me, and I in him ; that is, that I and the Father 
 are one, as I faid before. 
 
 Hence it is clear that our Lord, when the Jews ac- 
 cufed him of Blafphemy, for calling himfelf the Son 
 of God, by way of Diftindion, and thereby plainly 
 intimating that he was God, in his Anfwer, was fo 
 far from denying the Crime objeded, that he prov'd 
 it by the ftrongeft Arguments. This the Jews well 
 underflood, dull and ftupid enough, yet able to con- 
 demn thofe wifeft of Mortals, the Socinians, of the 
 grolTeft Blindnefs : For they, inftead of abfolving him 
 |fpy this Anfwer, were ready to feizehim immediately as 
 
 {a) John xvi. aSi compare John iii, 13, {h) John x. 37, 
 
the Catholick Church, (^c* iS^ 
 
 a Blafphemer. For it follows, (a) 'Then fought they again 
 to apprehend him^ kit he efcaped out of their hands. When 
 the Evangelift fays [jhen,'\ he intimates that the Jews 
 again provok'd by thofe very Words which our Sa- 
 viour had fpoken in his Defence, would have appre- 
 hended him, that having drawn him out of the Tem- 
 ple, Cy where he had this Difcourfe with them, they 
 might ftone him. Grotius's Comment is quite wrong, 
 where he will have it, that the JevjSy after our Lord 
 had clear 'd himfelf beyond exception of the Blaf- 
 phemy charg'd upon him, left off the Thoughts of 
 ftoning him as a Blafphemer, and endeavour'd to de- 
 liver him up to the Government, to find or make 
 fome other Accufation againft him. For the Jews did 
 not therefore intend to apprehend Chrift, that they 
 might bring him before the Sanhedrin, but that they 
 might carry him off to fome place, where they could 
 murder him without Sacrilege. The Temple, within 
 the Verge of which our Saviour ftood and talk'd, was 
 every way facred, and not to be polluted by any 
 (c) Slaughter, or Blood. Befides, the Word [again] 
 plainly fhews, that the Jeius were for repeating the 
 Attempt they had before made, to {d) ftone him. In 
 that place alfo the Word [again] occurs, and mani- 
 feftly denotes another time alfo, when the Jews^ upon a 
 like Occafion, would have floned {e) Chrift. For 
 thercalfo the Jeius rightly thought, from our Saviour's 
 Difcourfe, when he faid that he was (/) before Abra- 
 ham, that he attributed to himfelf a certain Nature, 
 in which he was before Abraham^ that is, a Divine 
 Nature, and therefore called himfelf God. 
 
 7. I proceed to the third manner, in which Epifco-^ 
 pius fays Chrift, as Man, is in Scripture called God, 
 namely, Becaufe he was raifedfrom the Dead to Life im- 
 mortal by the Father^ and, as it were, begotten again of the 
 
 (a) Ver. 39. (h) Ver. 25. (r) Compare ACts xxi. 50. 
 (d) Ver, 31, (e) John viii. ver. 55, (/) Ver. 58. 
 
 Wo}nb 
 
lU 2'^je JUDGMENT of 
 
 Womb of the Earth, (a) vjithottt any Mother. I anrwer, 
 Chrift could, not this way be called the Only-begotten 
 Son of God, for in this fenfe, all good Men, who rife 
 again, are called Sons of God, becaufe Sons of the 
 (b) RefurreBicn. The Man Chrift may, upon account 
 of his Refurredion, be called the Firft-begotten from 
 the Dead, and indeed he is exprefly fo called, (c) be- 
 caufe he, the firft of all the Dead, return'd from 
 Death to Life, never to die any more. Befides, in 
 the places where Chrift in Scripture is call'd Only- 
 begotten, God the Father is faid to have fent his Only- 
 begotten Son into the World, and to have (d) given 
 him to Men. Therefore he was the Only-begotten 
 Son of God when he firft came into the World, not 
 then only, after he was by Death taken out of it, 
 then raifed from the Dead, and about to afcend into 
 Heaven. But the Apoftle St. Paul, in the place cited 
 by Epifccpius, applies the Words of David, T'hou art 
 my SoYiy this Day have I begotten thee, to the Refurrec- 
 tion of Chrift from the Dead. Now it is to be ob-. 
 ferv'd againft the modern Anemonites, that this is noc 
 fo to be underftood, as tho' he then only began to be 
 the Son of God in the moft excellent Senfe, and to be 
 begotten of him by and after the Refurredioni but that 
 by the Refurret^ion, he was the moft powerfully declar'4 
 and exhibited as the True and Only-begotten Son of 
 God. For this is the way of the Scripture, to fay 
 that things are then made, when they are manifefted 
 and difcover themfelves. Hence (e) Juflin Martyr, 
 (as we have elfewhere obfervM) upon citing this place, 
 adds 'Then faying that he was born to Men, when he was 
 going to be known of them. Thus indeed St. Paul inter- 
 prets himfelf concerning his Son, made oftheSeedofI)sLv'id, 
 after the Flejh, and declared the Son of God with Power, 
 (f) ^ft^^ ^^■'^ ^^h Sp^ih ■ by the RefurreBion from the 
 
 (d) A£ls xiii. ver. 52, & 35. (^) Luke xx. ver. ^6, 
 
 (0 CoLi; ver. 18. (d) Johniii, 16. i Ep, of St.lohn/iv., ^« 
 
 {d Pag. 31^. ( / ) Ro^' !■ ver. 3 , 4, 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c 187 
 
 Dead. Here Cbryfoftom interprets he/.^vT^?-, which 
 we tranflate declared, by Jhevjn, manifefied, judged, by 
 the Opinion and Suffrage of all. To the fame fenfe' 
 the Greek Scholiafls, the Syriac and j^thiofic Verfions. 
 The Latin Interpreter alone, contrary to the Faith of 
 all the Greek Copies, renders [yoho is predeftinated the 
 Son of God] as though it had been written -sTg^se/^^^W?. 
 But what a fort of a Son of God was Chrift declared 
 and proved to be by the Refurredion ? No doubt, a 
 Son of God co-eflential to his Father, and therefore 
 very God. For as in this place [according to the Flejhj 
 denotes the human Nature of Chrift, fo [according to 
 the Spirit of Holinefs] denotes his divine. Nature. Now 
 as Chrift, according to the Flefh, is faid to be of the 
 Seed of David, i. e. the Son of David ; fo he is called 
 the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Holinefs. 
 We have obferv'd fo often before, that the Spirit in 
 Chrift, efpecially when oppos'd to the Flefh, denotes 
 his divine Nature, that it is needlefs to repeat it. 
 Nor ought it to feem ftrange that Chrift, as the Son 
 of God, and God, is here called the Spirit of Holi- 
 nefs, an Appellation generally given to the third Per- 
 fon of the Divinity ; for the fame divine, fpiritual and 
 holy Nature, is common to every Perfon of the 
 Trinity, Hence we have obferved, that Hermas, sl 
 Contemporary of St. Paul, has exprefly called the 
 divine Perfon of the Son of God an Holy Spirit ; and 
 that Ignatius, an Apoftolical Man, and a ftudious Imi- 
 tator of St. Paul's Style, has called him the immaculate 
 spirit (a). Beftdes, the fame Ignatius feems to have 
 had refped to this Text of St. Paul's, and to have 
 given us a Paraphrafe of it in that illuftrious Place, 
 more than once cited by me : T'here is one Phyjiciaix, 
 carnal and fpiritual, made and unmade, God made in the 
 Flejh ; (or as Gelafius, Athanaiius, and Theodorer, 
 God in Man) the true Life in Death, both of Maryj and 
 of God. Here, as in St. Paul^ Chrift is faid to have 
 
 (aj Vef, N, C. 5e^. 1 , chap. s. fe£l, 5, 
 . . two 
 
iS8 ^/^^ JUDGMENT cf 
 
 two Natures, a carnal and a fpiritual : According to 
 the carnal Nature, or, as St. Paul fpeaks, according 
 to the Fie fb, Chrift is (aid to be begotten, or made, 
 and mortal Man : According to the fpiritual Nature, 
 or, as St. Paul^ according to the Spirit of Holinefs, 
 he is unbegotten, or unmade, the true Life, and con- 
 fequentiy God ; as carnal, of Mary^ i. e. the Seed of 
 David I as fpiritual, of God, i. e. the Son of God (a). 
 
 8. We are now come to the fourth and laft manner, 
 in which Epifcopius will have it, that the Man Chrift 
 is called the Son of God in Scripture j namely. As Je- 
 fus Chriji^ being raifid from the Dead, was made entire 
 Heir of all things in his Father's Houfe j and therefore 
 Lord of all the Heavenly Pojfefftons, and of his Father's 
 MiniflerSj i. e. of all the Angels (b). I anfwer. That 
 Chrift could not properly be called the Son of God 
 upon this account only, much lefs then his Only- 
 begotten Son. For an Heir is not neceflarily the true 
 natural Son of him, whofe Heir he is, much lefs his 
 Only-begotten Son j becaufe a Relation, or a Stranger, 
 may be made Heir (c). Further, our Lord^ as I faid 
 a little before, was the Only-begotten Son of God 
 when he was firft fent into this World by his Father, 
 therefore not then only made the Only-begotten Son 
 of God, when taken up again into his Father's Hea- 
 venly Manfion, and made Heir and Lord of all. 
 
 Now as for the place refer'd to in the Epiftle to the 
 Hebrews J Chrift is not there called the Son of God, 
 much lefs God, becaufe made Heir of all ', but on the 
 
 (a) Compare iTim.iii. i6. I Pet. iii. i8, 19,20. 
 
 (b) Heb. i. ver. 5. 
 
 (c) 7he Author of the Queries^ though prolix upon this Head, has not 
 thought ft to take any notice of Dr. BuUV Arguments. In thlsy and the 
 three preceding Modes, in tvhich our Lord is by Epifcopius afirrnd to 
 he the Only-begotten Son, that Gentleman hat exaBly follow' d him, 
 without fo much as a StriSlure upon that found Reafning the Bijhop has 
 ttfed in his Confutation. If his Book did not betray the contrary, a 
 Jdan ivould fcarce believe he had any Acquaintance ivith this excellent 
 Piece. Compare the Jnfiver to the ^eries^ p. 65, ^c, with our ^«- 
 iker. 
 
 Other 
 
tloe Catholick Church, ^C' 189 
 
 other hand, he is faid to be made Heir of all, be- 
 caufe the Son firft ; the Son, I fay, by whom God the 
 Father made the Worlds, and who was before Ages. 
 The Words are thefe : God in thefe laft Days hath 
 fpoken to us by his Son, luhom he hath made Heir of all 
 things, by whom alfo he made the World. Here the 
 Socinian Comment is monftrous, namely, that God is 
 therefore faid to have made the Worlds by his Son, 
 becaufe he reformed Mankind by him, and brought 
 them into a new State. A Man may fafely fwear, not 
 one of the Hebrews, to whom this Epiftle was written, 
 underflood the Author's Words in this fenfe ; or ever 
 dreamt that by [the Worlds'] was only meant Mankind, 
 much lefs only that part of them to whom the Light 
 of the Gofpel had then appeared. The Words, which 
 we render Worlds, are, by an Hebraifm, ufed for the 
 whole created Univerfe. Thus again in another 
 place, (a) By Faith we perceive that the Worlds were made 
 by the Word of God. Nor can you, I believe, either 
 in Holy Scripture, or any profane Greek Author, find 
 the Word underftood in their Senfe. In the ^ewijjy 
 Liturgy, God is frequently called God, or Lord of 
 Ages, i. e. of all created things. They, as the Criticks 
 in that Literature obferve, make a three-fold JEon^ 
 Age, or World : The firft, the inferior, the elementary 
 Region ; the fecond, the middle, the celeftial Orbs , 
 the third, the fuperior, the Manlion of the Divine 
 Majefty and the Angels, which St. Patil calls the 
 {b) "third Heanjen. The Divine Author then intended 
 to teach us that God the Father made all thefe JEom, 
 Ages, Worlds, by his Son. This he again exprefly 
 affirms in the fame (c) Chapter, where he fays, that 
 the Words of the Pfalmift were fpoken to the Son of 
 God : 'thou Lord in the Beginning hajl founded the Earth, 
 the Heavens are the Works (f thy Hands, they fJoaU periJJy., 
 but thou endureft ; tJ^ey all (hall wax old as a Garment, and 
 as a Veflure fhalt thou fold them up, and they fJjaU be 
 
 {a) Chap. 1 1, ver. 3, (6) 2 Cor. xii, 2, {c) Ver, 10, 1 1, 1 2. 
 
 changed: 
 
190 T'be JUDGMENT of 
 
 changed: hut thou art the fame ^ and thy Tears JloaU not fail. 
 What do the Hereticks again with thefe Words ? As 
 they ufed to do. They deny the Paragraph is applied 
 to the Son of God, and fay only that part of it, 
 which fpeaks of what is not yet done, but future, 
 namely, the Deflruftion of the World, is by the Au- 
 thor accommodated to him. But (not to fay that it is 
 the plain Defign of the Author, to fhew the Excel- 
 lency of the Son of God from his prefent adual At- 
 tributes I nor to add, that both the Creation and De- 
 ftrui^ion of the World are alike the Work of a Di- 
 vine Power, and not communicable to any Creature) 
 what is this, if not impudently to contradid the Di- 
 vine Author to his Face ? Now, they fay, it is too 
 too plain, that thefe Words of the Pfalmift are fpoken 
 to the fupreme God, namely, to God the Father; 
 Grant it, what then ? Does it thence follow, that 
 they are not alfo fpoken to the Son of God ? On the 
 contrary, whatfoever is fpoken to God the Father, as 
 the Creator of the World, is fpoken alfo to the Son, 
 becaufe God the Father, as the Author had faid be- 
 fore, created all things by the Son. Moreover, tho' 
 that Pfalm feem to be nothing elfe than the Supplica- 
 tion of the People or Prophet for rebuilding Jerufalem, 
 rafed by tht Chaldi^^ans i yet (according to the gene- 
 rality of Interpreters^ as the earthly Jerufakm is a 
 Figure of the Church of Chrift, fo thefe things which 
 are fpoken of the rebuilding the earthly yerufatem^ 
 are myftically to be refer'd to the building the fpiritual 
 and heavenly Jerufalem, the Church, the City and 
 Kingdom of Chrift. For the following Paflages of this 
 Pfalm are not perfedtly fulfillM, except in Chrift and 
 his Church, (a) 'Thou fialt arife and have Mercy upon 
 Zion, for it is time to have Mercy upon her, yea the time is 
 come. And, The Gentiles floaU fear thy Name, Lord, 
 and all the Kings of the Earth thy Glory ; for the Lord 
 hath built Zion, and f)aU be feen in his Majefiy. Andj 
 
 {a) Pfalm cii. > 
 
the Catholick Churich, ^c* 191 
 
 "tU LoVd looked down from Hecifven upon the Earthy &c. 
 And, When the People met together^ and the kings alfo to 
 ferve the Lord. Wherefore the other things alfo fpoken 
 of God belong to Chrift. And indeed, if this v^ras 
 not plain from the Context, we muft yield to the Au- 
 thority of an infpir'd Writer. I will yet add, that 
 the literal Senfe of the Pfalrh, as it relates to the 
 freeing God's People from the Bahylomjl^ "Captivity, 
 belongs to Chrift, becaufe he, as the Word and Son 
 of God, always exifting with God his Father, prefided 
 over and provided for the Chutch from the Beginning ; 
 yea, by his Providence, ruled and govern'd all created 
 things. Nor can we think (as T^enuUian tells us, in 
 concert With the whole Church of Chrift) that only 
 the Works of the World were made by the Son, but 
 alfo the things tranfaded by God fince the Creation. 
 Hence (a) St. Paul plainly teaches, that it was Chrift 
 who prefided over the People of Ifrael in the Wilder- 
 nefs, after he had brought them out of the Egyptian 
 Bondage, and who went before, and led them by the 
 Hand, as it were, into the Promifed Land. 
 
 Thefe impious, troublefome Fellows, proceed in 
 their Argument thus : If the Author of the Epiftle 
 had therefore cited this Teftimony of the Pfalmift to 
 prove that the World was made by the Son of God, 
 he had mifs'd his End ; for that was to fhew that Ex- 
 cellency of the Son only which he had, being now 
 placed at the Right Hand of God ; a Purpofe which 
 could no way be fervM, by applying to him the Crea- 
 tion of the World. But on the other hand, foraf- 
 much as the Author cites this place of the Creation, 
 and exprefty applies it to the Son of God, we are af- 
 fur'd that it was not his Defign only to fhew that Ex- 
 cellency of the Son, which he at length arriv'd at, af- 
 
 {a) I Cor. X. ver. 9. See the Defence of the N. C. Seft. i, 
 chap. I. almofi entirely concjvnlng this matter j but efpeclalJy feft, i2j 
 14,15, 16. , 
 
 ter 
 
192 T'Z'^ J U D G M E N T «?/ 
 
 ter his Exaltation at the Right Hand oF God the Fa- 
 ther. Befides, in the very beginning of the Chapter, 
 the Author had briefly faid thefe three Things of our 
 Saviour i That he is the Son of God, by way of Di- 
 ftinftion; that the Ages, or Worlds, were made by 
 him; and, laftly, that he was made and declared Heir 
 of all, when in his Flefh he was taken up into the 
 higheft Heavens, and there placed at the Right Hand 
 of God the Father. For thefe feveral Reafons, the 
 Author afterwards fhews from Citations of Scripture, 
 that he was not only far more excellent than the Pro- 
 phets of God (as has been noted before) but alfo than 
 the Angels themfelves. Now this Teftimony, ,of 
 which we are treating, manifeftiy belongs to the 
 fecond. For which Reafon the Word tranflated [king 
 made'] ought to be render'd [vjho is ;] or, according to 
 Chryfojiom and 'Theophylaci, expounded [being exhi^ 
 hited and declared^ Laftly, the Sophifters urge : If 
 the Author of the Epiftle had really believM, and 
 been fully perfuaded that all the Creatures were made 
 by the Son of God, why ftiould he fo elaborately have 
 made the Comparifon between him and the Angels ? 
 Who could doubt whether the Creator was more ex- 
 cellent than the Creatures ? I agree with them, that 
 no one could. But at that Time, when this Epifl:le was 
 written, there were many, namely, the Cerinthiam 
 and others, who attributed the Creation of this via- 
 ble World at leaft: to the Angels, in the mean time 
 believing our Lord only a mere Creature, a Man, and 
 no more, not exifl:ing before Mary, and confequently 
 much inferior to the Angels. Further, the carnal 
 7ewf, who had not yet received the Dodrine of 
 the Gofpel, the Brethren of thofe to whom this 
 Epiftle is wrote, believed that the Ghrift, or 
 Mefliah promifed by the Prophets, was to be no- 
 thing but a Man j and many of their Doftors 
 thought that the Angels were Fellow-Workers 
 with him in the Creation of the Lower World; 
 
 and 
 
the Catholick Church, cJ"^. 19 ^ 
 and that it was faid to them by God, {a) Let m make 
 Man. Againft thofe the Divine Author fees himfel£ 
 to good purpofe, when he explains the Excellency of 
 Chrift the Son of God above Angels ; and he very ap- 
 poiitely inftruds us againft them, when he fays, that 
 the Creation is certainly the Work of the fupreme 
 God by his Son, who himfelf is alfo God -, and that this 
 Work is not compatible with Angels at all, who are 
 themfelves Creatures, and {b) miniftring Spirits to God, 
 I return at laft to the Words of the Author : God 
 in thefe lafl Days hath fpoken to us by his Son, whom he 
 hath made Heir of all things ^ by whom alfo he made the 
 JVorlds. It is indeed very clear, that the facred 
 Writer here intended to (hew the Congruity of the 
 Divine Difpenfation, by which it was fo manag'dj 
 that the World fhould, in theFulnefs of Time, be re- 
 newed by the fame Son by which it was made in the 
 Beginning ; that he who was Lord in the old Crea- 
 tion, fhould be Heir and Lord in the new. Thus 
 alfo St. Paul argues, (c) where he celebrates the fame 
 Son of God whom he had proclaim'd the Firfl-begotten 
 of every Creature^ i. e. begotten of God before every 
 Creature, and Maker of all things (for he who denies 
 that the Apoftle here fpeaks of a Creation, properly fo 
 calledj may, with the fame Affurance, deny that fuch 
 a Creation is any where defcribed in Scripture ; and 
 confequently contend that the firft Chapter of Genefis 
 is to be expounded allegorically)^?^ the Head of the 
 Body, the Churchy and the Firfi- begotten from the Dead. 
 Immediately after (d) he adds this Reafon, That he 
 might have the Pre-eminence in all things^ i. e. that every 
 way he might be above all, in refped of Reftorationi 
 as well as Inftitution, as the Beginning of the World, 
 and Head of the Church. Thus, after examining all 
 Epifcopius's four Manners, in which our Saviour, as 
 
 {d) See Paul Fagius upon the Place ; Philo Judstis de opificio 
 6 dierum ; and JuftinV Dialogue ^mh Trypho, p. 285. 
 
 Q>) Ver. 14. (c) ColoflT. chap. i. ver, 16, 17, {d) Ver. 180 
 
 yoL. II. H Mao, 
 
194 ^Ti^^ JUDGMENT <?/ 
 
 Man, is, by way of Eminence, called the Son of God 
 in Scripture ; we have proved that he can't, by any 
 of them, be called the Only, or Only-begotten Son i 
 nay, over and above, we have fhewM, that in the 
 Places of Scripture in which thefe Modes or Manners 
 feemM to be contain'd, another, and a far more excel- 
 lent Filiation of our Saviour is intended, namely, that 
 in which he was with God, as the Only Son of God, 
 before he was made Man, yea, before the Crea- 
 tion. 
 
 p. I proceed to the third Argument, taken from 
 the Order and Context of the Creed itfelf. Now it 
 is manifeft, that Epifccpius's four Modes are all ex- 
 prefsM elfewhere in the Creed, therefore not denoted 
 in thofe Words [his Only-hegotten Son,'] unlefs we ad- 
 mit a Tautology in fo fhort a Form. The fecond 
 Mode, concerning the Miffion, or Undion of our Sa- 
 viour to his Office, is fignifyM juft before, in the 
 Word [Chriji.'] The other Three, his Conception by 
 the Holy Spirit, his Refurredion from the Dead, and 
 his Exaltation at the Right Hand of God the Father, 
 are all afterwards exprefs'd in diftinft Articles. Where- 
 fore, when in the Creed we confefs Jefus Chrift the 
 Only-begotten Son of God, we plainly fignify that 
 he hath another Filiation, namely, a divine one, dif- 
 ferent from all the other. 
 
 The Author of the Iremcum eagerly (as his Cuftom 
 is) contends, that the Words of the Creed, which 
 follow thefe [and in ^efus Chrifi his Only-begotten Son^ 
 are only added for Defcription-fake, That it might ap" 
 pear what a Son of God is here under flood, namely, fuch an 
 me as ivas horn of the Virgin Mary, crucijfd, dead, 
 raifed again, taken up into Heaven, and fits at the Right 
 Hand of the Father, andfloall come to judge the Quick and 
 the Dead i aU which things denote afingular, an only-hegot' 
 ten^ and a proper Son of God. But here the Heretick is 
 as much miftaken as can be. For, (i.) No fober 
 Man will believe, that in fo fhort a Creed, all thofe 
 things which are added concerning him, after he is 
 
 confefs 'd 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c. 19^ 
 
 confefs'd to be the Only-begotten Son of God, arc 
 only added h^ way of Explication, that it might ap- 
 pear what a Son of God he is j for they make at leaft 
 half the Creed. (2.) Moft of thofe things that follow, 
 make nothing any way to the purpofe of our Lord ^s Filia- 
 tion," namely, He fuffer'd under VQVxwxsYA^l^^ixiascYud'' 
 fyd^ dead, and buried, he defcended into Bell. Thereforej 
 C3.) Wemuft conclude, that thofe things that follow the 
 Profeffion of Faith in the Only-begotten Son of God, 
 are not only added, that it might be the more clearly 
 underftood who this Son of God was, in whom we 
 mufl believe ,* but alfo that it might appear what this 
 Son of God did and fuffer'd for us, what he under- 
 took, and difcharg'd for our Salvation j namely, thae 
 he was conceivM by the Holy Spirit, born of the Vir- 
 gm Mary, was even made Man, and fuffer'd undet 
 Pontius Pilate. This (a) Ruffinus tells us, who well 
 knew the fenfe of the Roman Church, which ufed this 
 Creed : After that the dejigned Order of the Creed hath 
 been laid before us<, the ineffable Myflery of the Sons Na~ 
 tivity from the Father, it now defends to his vouchfafing to 
 engage in the Bujinefs of Man^s Salvation, and fays that 
 he J ivhom it had before called the Only Son of God, and 
 cur Lord, was born of the Virgin Mary, by the Hdy Ghofl. 
 I'his Nativity relates to the Difpenfation among Men, that 
 [Sonfhip and Dominion] to his Divine Subftance. This 
 belongs to his Condefcenfion, that to his Nature. In order 
 to underftand this Expofition of Ruffinus the better, 
 we are to confider that the antient Doftors of the 
 Church divided all their Difcourfes upon Chrift into 
 thefe two Parts, T'he Theology and the economy. They 
 callM that the 'Theology^ which belonged to the Di- 
 vinity of our Saviour, That he was the Son of God; 
 begotten of God the Father before all Ages, and even 
 God, and that by him ail things were made. They 
 called that the Oecommy, or Difpenfation, which be- 
 longed to his Incarnation- and what he did upon 
 
 (<») Expofitio Symboli, 
 
 N 3 Earth 
 
19^ 27^^ JUDGMENT (?/ 
 
 Earth in the FJefh, to procure the Salvation of Man- 
 kind. Therefore in the Creed, eali'd the Apofiks^, 
 thofe Words in which we profefs our Faith in the 
 Only-begotten Son of God, relate to the Theology ; 
 but thofe that follow, concerning his Conception by 
 the Holy Spirit, his Nativity of the Virgin, and his 
 Paffion, to theDifpenfation, or Oeconomy (a). Thus 
 fehe Bifhops and Doctors of the Catholick Church, 
 from the Apoflles, underflood and expounded the 
 Rule of Faith concerning our Lord Chrift. So (l>) Ig- 
 natius^ in his genuine Epiflle to the Ephejians : Our 
 God Jefus Chrifi v^as conceiwd by Mary, according to the 
 Difpenfation oj God, of the Seed of David, and the Holy 
 Spirit, He was born and baptizJ'd. Therefore the Con- 
 ception of the Virgin Mary^ the Nativity, &c. qlc 
 cor 6.'\Vigio Ignatius y doth not belong to the Defcription 
 of the Son of God, but to that Difpenfation which 
 the Son of God, himfelf alfo God, undertook for our 
 Salvation. Thus AuJIin, in the place often cited upon 
 another occafion, fays. This is the Faith requifite to 
 the Salvation of all that live under the Gofpel, by 
 which they acknowledge Chrifi the Son of God, 'who ivas 
 e'ven before Lucifer and the Mocn^ and who being incar- 
 nate^ condefcended to be born of the Virgin, that by this 
 Difpenfation, the Serpent^ an Evil-doer from the Begin- 
 ning, and the Angels like him, might be defiroy'd, &c. 
 Here the Nativity is exprefly refer'd to the Difpenfa- 
 tion, "which the Son of God, who was before Ages, 
 ■underwent for our fakes. Irenaus alfo giving us the 
 Rule of Faith received in all the Churches, (which we 
 have, for the moft part, recited before) after the Pro- 
 feffion of Faith in the Oaiy-begotten Son of God, 
 that is, after the Theology, prefently adds, that the 
 Holy Spirit had foretold by the Prophets, the Difpenfa- 
 tions and Advents, the Nativity of the Virgin, the Paf- 
 Jion, RefurreElion from the Dead, and the incarnate Af- 
 
 (/») Compare Gal. iv. ^. ivith Eph. i. lo. 
 ih) A.P. Tom. 2.p. i5. 
 
 fumption 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c. 197 
 
 fumplm into Heaven of our beloved Lord Cbrifi Jefus. 
 Here he exprefly refers the Articles oF the Creed, con- 
 cerning the coming of our Saviour into this World, 
 /. e. concerning his Nativity of the Virgin, his Paf- 
 fion, and what he did upon Earth, till his Afcent 
 into J^eaven, to thofe Difpenfations which he, the 
 Only-begotten Son of God, underwent for our Salva- 
 tion. The fame Perfon, (a) elegantly defcribes the 
 Faith of a fpiritual Man, a true Chriftian Catholick, 
 concerning the Holy Trinity, in thefe Words : He 
 hath all things i he has an entire Faith in the One Almighty 
 Gody from ivhcm are all things-, a firm Perfuajion in our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift^ the Son of God^ by whom are all things ; 
 and in his Difpenfations, by which the Son of God was 
 made Man i and a true Knowledge of the Holy Spirit of 
 God, who through every Age reprefents to Men, according to 
 the IViU of the Father, the Difpenfations of the Father 
 and the Son. Here again the holy Man fhews, that 
 there is a two-fold Knowledge of Chriftians concern- 
 ing Chrift contained in the Church's Rule of Faith; 
 one which refpeds his Divine Perfon, that he is the 
 Son of God, by whom all things were made; ano- 
 ther which refped:s the Difpenfations, that he the Son 
 of God was made Man, &c. It will not be difficult 
 then to judge, whether Expofition of the Creed is to 
 be prefer'd, that of thefe Apoftolical Men and Mar- 
 tyrs, (to whom all the following Catholick Fathers 
 agree) or that of the Author oi l\\t Lrenicum, a modern 
 Opiniator. 
 
 10. Our fourth and lafl Argument is deduced from 
 the Senfe and Jnterpretation of the primitive Catho- 
 lick Church. In the three firfl Ages, (for there is no 
 Controverfy about the following Ages) the Title of 
 the Only-begotten^ or Only Son of God, given to Chrifl, 
 is plainly determined by the conftant and perpetual 
 ufe of all Catholick Dodors, to mean his Divine Ge- 
 neration from God the Father, before all Ages. All 
 
 ^a) Lib. 4. chap. 5^. p. 399. 
 
 K 1 of 
 
198 ri'^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 of them agree to that of T'ertullian (a)^ concerning 
 the Son ot God : He is the Firji- begotten, as being be- 
 gotten before all things ; and the Only-begotten^ as being 
 alone begotten of God^ properly, out of the Womb of his 
 Heart, For they all of them owned no other Son of 
 God than he, who was begotten of the very ElTence of 
 God the Father ; that is, who was the Logos and Word 
 from his eternal Mind, as we have el fe where abundantly 
 proved (b). Now this is fo fure and mauifeft, that 
 (c) Peta'uius himfeU, otherwife a rigid Cenfor of them, 
 is forced to contefs concerning thofe Ante-Nicene 
 .Writers, who feem to have denied the Eternity of 
 the Only-begotten Son of God, (for they only feem 
 to deny it) that they aflerted the Son to be of the Sub- 
 fiance cr Nature of the Father. What would we have, 
 then? Hath not the Roman Church plainly enough 
 expreffed that peculiar manner of Jefus Chrift's Filia- 
 tion, concerning which Epifcopius fpeaks in this Creed ? 
 Hath fhe not ufed the very Words by which all Per- 
 fons confefs this manner of Filiation was denoted in 
 that Age and Church ? What though fome modern 
 Heretick can coin a new Expofition ? Surely, the 
 Creeds of the Churches are to be expounded from the 
 Senfe of the Churches, and not the wild Imagination 
 of Hereticks. If this were once admitted, there 
 would foon be an end of every Article of our Faith. 
 . He does not hold the Creed of any Church, who does 
 not underftand it in the fenfe of the Church. The 
 Author of a Piece afcrib'd to 'Juflin, has fpoke excel- 
 lently upon this Head : (d) It is not the bare giving Glory 
 to the Father and the Son, that is to us the Means of Sal" 
 Kuaticn ', but a found Confejjton of the Trinity conveys to us 
 the Enjoyment of thofe good things laid up for the Pious. 
 For one may hear Heterodox Men praiftng the Father and 
 the Son, but not ivorfhipping them in the true Senfe. In 
 like manner (e) St. Cyprian, upon thofe Words of 
 
 {a) Pag. 505. (h) Defeme of the Nicene Faith, SeO:. Z' 
 ihvcughout. (c) DeTrinitate, Lib, 1. chap. 5. fefl:. 7, {d) P. 572- 
 (e) P. ZOO. 
 
 Chrifl, 
 
the Catholicic Church, ^c* 199 
 
 Chf ift, Go ye and teach aU Nations^ baptiz^ing them in the 
 Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit : He 
 fuggefls the Trinityj into which Myflery the Gentiles are 
 baptizfd. But does Marcion hold this Trinity ? Does he 
 (ijfert the fame Creator, God the Father, as "we do ? One 
 and the fame Son Chrifl, who was born of the Virgin Mary, 
 and made Fkflo, &c. No, Marcion, and the other Here^ 
 ticks, have a Faith widely different from ours, nay rather, 
 they have nothing among them, but Perfidy, Blafphemy, and 
 Contention, the Enemies of 'Truth and Holinefs. 
 
 Thus let us alfo refute Epifcopius and others, who 
 would perfuade us that the Avians and Socinians are to 
 be efteem'd our Brethren, becaufe, forfooth, they re- 
 ceive the common Creed of the Church, and profefs 
 Faith in Chrift, the Only-begotten Son of God, as 
 well as we. But do they believe in the fame Only- 
 begotten Son of God, in which we Catholieks at this 
 day, and all the Catholick Church always believM ? 
 No, their Faith is widely different, or rather, they 
 have none. The Church believes, and always did be- 
 lieve in the Only-begotten Son of God, who was be- 
 gotten of God the Father before all Ages, and was 
 himfelf God , fuch a Son of God as neither of thofe 
 Herefies fincerely confefs. For the Arians (if you 
 ftrip their Notion of its Vizard) have a Son of God 
 Only-begotten too, who is indeed a Creature made of 
 nothing, though more excellent than all the reft, and 
 produced before them. The Socinians Only-begotten 
 Son is a mere Man, not exifting before his Nativity 
 of the Virgin. Both of them in Word profefs the 
 Faith of the Church concerning the Only-begotten 
 Son of God j but their inward Notion and Sentiment 
 is clean Herefy and Blafphemy. Further, from what 
 we have difcourfed fo largely concerning the Creed 
 called the Apoftles, you may fee the Vanity, the Folly, 
 and, if you pleafe, the matchlefs Impudence of the 
 {a) Racovian Catechift, who boafts, That he and his 
 
 {a} Catech, Racov. ido^.p. 59. 
 
 N 4 Friends 
 
200 T^e]\JDGMENr of 
 
 Friends only believe concerning the P erf on of Chrifi^ that he 
 is b] Nature truly Man^ as the Creed^ commonly called the 
 Apoftles, and embraced by all Chriftians in common with 
 them, teflifies. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Of the Antient Eaftern Creed- 
 
 I. T Come now to the fourth and laft Pofitlon; 
 J^ namely, 
 
 'That fpecial Mode of Jefus Chrifl's Filiation, in which 
 he exijied in his better Nature before all Ages, being be- 
 gotten of God the Father, and therefore God, is exprefly 
 taught and, declared in the Creed, or Rule of Faith, which 
 cbtaind in the mofi antient Eaftern Churches before the 
 
 . Council of Nice. 
 
 1. It is not to be doubted but that the Eajlern 
 Churches had their Creed, or rather Creeds, before 
 the Council of Nice ; Creeds, I mean, more large and 
 explicit than that firft and moft antient Creed Epifco^ 
 fius mentions, conceiv'd in thefe Words only, / be- 
 lieve in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
 It is very plain that the Roman, and the other Wep,ern 
 Churches, had their Creed before the Council of Nice, 
 larger than that fimple Confeflion of the Trinity, 
 from Ruffinus and Aufiin ; nay, from TertuUiany Cy- 
 prian, and the Writers of the third Century. As for 
 the Roman Church, which the other Wefiern Churches 
 generally followM, Vofftus {a) hath given us the ex- 
 prefs W^ords oiVigilius, where he writes thus : AUprofefs 
 to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jefus Chrijl 
 his Son, our Lord, To this Head he [Eutyches] calum- 
 
 id) Voffius de tribus Symboliso 
 
 nioufiy 
 
the Catholtck Church, ^c* 201 
 
 mmfly ohjeSis this : Why do they not fay. And in one Jefus 
 Chrift his Son, according to the Decree of the Council of 
 Nice ? But at Rome, enjen before that Synod met, even from 
 the 'Times of the Apoflles till now, and under Caeleftine, of 
 bleffed Memory, who he owns to be Orthodox, the Creed was 
 the fame ; nor are the Words any way prejudicial, where the 
 Senfe is found. 
 
 Now if the Roman and Weflern Churches had fuch 
 a Creed before the Council of Nice, why not the 
 Eaftern alfo ? Nay, fuch a Creed was more neceflary 
 for thefe Churches than for the Roman, as I have 
 (a) before obferv'd from Ruffinus, becaufe they were 
 grievoufly difturb'd in the firft Ages by Hereticks, 
 who gave the Roman Church no Trouble. Befides, 
 the Greek Ante-Nicene Writers frequently mention the 
 Rule of Faith in their Writings; and Irenaus, an 
 Afiatick, and doubtlefs one of them, gives us this 
 Rule at large. So Eufebius, in the Synod of Nice, re- 
 cited a larger Confeffion of Faith, which the Cate- 
 chumen was taught, and profefs'd in the Baptiftery, 
 before the Fathers had made their Creed (b). 
 
 3. Further, we muft needs conclude, that the 
 Churches of the Eafl did not rejed their ancient 
 Creed, after that of the Council was fet forth. For 
 we fee that the Roman Church retain'd her old Creed 
 after the Council. And who can doubt but that the 
 Churches of the£^^ did fo likewife ? For the Decrees 
 of the Nicene Council being Oecumenical, did equally 
 refpeft all the Churches of Chrift i fo that the cafe in 
 this matter was the fame as to Eaftern and Weflern. 
 Now the Nicene Fathers, I fuppofe, never had any De- 
 fign either to make a new Creed, or to deliver down 
 the old Eaftern Creed entire, with their own Addition ; 
 but only to affert the true and receiv'd Senfe of that 
 Article of the old Creed relating to the Son of God, 
 againll the Arians. They indeed premife the Article 
 of the old Creed, concerning God the Father (chough 
 
 {a) See abfve, (b) Socrates, Lib, i. chap. 8. p. 20, & 21, 
 
 not 
 
202 7"/^^ JUDGMENT^?/ 
 
 not entire) to their Confeffion concerning the Son of 
 God, and they fubjoin to it fomething concerning the 
 Faith in the Holy Spirit. But this they did, as think- 
 ing the Faith concerning the Son of God could not 
 be explained juftly, without a ProfefTion of the Father 
 and Holy Spirit. Hereupon, as foon as they have 
 barely mentionM the Holy Spirit, they immediately 
 return to the Article concerning the Son, their main 
 Bufinefs, and denounce an Anathema againft thofe 
 who denied his true and eternal Divinity. Now I 
 will prove hereafter, and that indifputably, that many 
 things were left out in the Nicene Creed after thofe 
 Words \_and in the Holy Ghojf\ which were extant in 
 the Creed receiv'd by the firft Eaftem Churches. This 
 however is certain, that the Nicene Bifliops never in- 
 tended that their Creed fhould from that time be ufed 
 in admini firing Baptifm, (the Anathematifm which 
 concludes it, is repugnant to that end) but left every 
 Church to ufe their former Creeds. Sure, if the 
 Holy Synod had intended that, either the Roman and 
 JVeflern Churches, whofe Bifhops made a great pare 
 of the Synod, did not underfland her Meaning, or 
 defpifed it j which no fober Man can imagine. For 
 B^uffinm^ in his Preface to the Expofition of the Aqui- 
 leian Creed, exprefly teftifies, T'bat at Rome they kept 
 up the old Cujiom^ that they ivho ivere to receive the Grace 
 of Baptifm, floould repeat the Creed in the Audience of the 
 People i the old Roman Creed, of which he had been 
 fpeaking before. And a little after he fays, that he 
 took upon him the old Creed of Aquileia (in forae 
 things different from the Roman) in the Grace of Bap- 
 tifm ; that is, profefs'd that Creed vvhen he was 
 baptiz'd. / 
 
 4. Thefe things premised, I proceed to prove my 
 Pofition. The Churches of Paleftine were the moft an- 
 tient of all other, and of them the Church of 'Jerufa^ 
 lem, as being that from which the Doftrine of the 
 Gofpei firft came, and was derived to the other parts 
 of the World. Hence the Conftaatinopolitan Fathers 
 
 called 
 
^/^^ Catholick Church, cJt. 205 
 
 called it the Mother of all Churches (a). Though this 
 firft Church, almofl from the Inftitution of Metro- 
 politans till the Council of Chalcedony was fubjeded to 
 Cafarea ; yet, for the Reafon above-mention'd, all 
 other Churches held it in great Efteem. Now what 
 the antient Creed o^Jerufakm was, and what it taught 
 to believe concerning the Perfon of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, Cyril, made Bifhop of that Church in 350, 
 will beft inform us. He, while yet a Catechift, efx- 
 plain'd this Creed by parts to the Competentes ; all 
 which parts, joined together, make this Confeflion : 
 / belie've in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of Hea- 
 wen and Earth, and of all things 'uijible and inuifihle ; and 
 in One Lord 'Jefus Chrifi^ the Only-begotten Son of God, be^ 
 gotten of the Father- before all Worlds, true God, by whom 
 all things -were made, incarnate and made Man, crucify* d 
 and buried', who rofe again from the Dead the third Day, 
 and afcended into Heaven, and Jitteth at the Right Hand 
 cf the Father, and "who cometh to judge the Quick and the 
 Dead, zvhofe Kingdom jloall have no End : And in the 
 Holy Spirit the Comforter, who hath fpoken by the Prophets j 
 the one Baptifm of Repentance, for the Remiffion of Sins i 
 and in the one Catholick Church i the RefurreElion of the 
 FlejJo, and the Life Everlafling. 
 
 5. It is plain, this is not the Nicsne Creed, and that 
 it hath not the Additions of the Conflantimpolitan con- 
 cerning the Holy Ghoft. The latter no one can won- 
 der at, who remembers that Cyril's Catechifms, in 
 which this Creed is recited, were wrote many Years 
 before the Council of Conftaminople, i. e. before the 
 Year 381. It remains then, that this muft be the old 
 Creed of the Church oi Jerufalem. This is alfo clear, 
 becaufe Cyril expounds it to the Candidates for Bap- 
 tifmr.now in the Adminiftration of Baptifm, both 
 the Eaftern and IVeflern Churches held their old Creeds, 
 as I have fhewn before, after the Nicene Council. In 
 this Creed, every one may fee the Divine Generation 
 
 {d) Theodor. E, H. Lib, 5. cap, 9. p.211. 
 
 of 
 
204 ri'^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 of the Son from God the Father, declar'd in the 
 plaineft Terms, namely, in thefe : T'he Only-begotten 
 Son of Gody begotten of the Father before all Agei, 
 true God, by ivhom all things were made. Nor do 
 I doubt but that EufebiuSy a. Palefiine. born, and after- 
 Wards Bifhop of Cafarea^ had an eye to this Creed ; 
 when, in the Council of Nice, giving an Account of 
 the Confeflion he received in his Catechifation and 
 Baptifm, he thus deUvers the Article concerning the 
 Son of God : (a) And in One Lord Jefus Chrifi^ God of 
 Godj the Only-begotten Son, begotten of God the Father be- 
 fore all Ages, by whom all things were made. Here we 
 have the very Words of tlie Creed of Jerufalemy ex- 
 cept that for ITrue God] Eufehius fubftitutes [God of 
 God'\'. where he cautioufly, as ahnoft every where 
 elfe, thought proper to guard againft the Sabellians, by 
 fo aflerting the true Divinity of the Son, as ftill to pre- 
 ferve the Father's Prerogative, who is God of himfelf, 
 and the Diftin<9:ion between Father and Son, founded 
 in that Prerogative. To this alfo the Nicene Fathers 
 confented, and fo put the Words [God of God] in 
 their Confeffion concerning the Son of God ; yet ad- 
 ding, according to the old Creed, [true God of true God] 
 and more fully explaining it, when they immediately 
 call the Son of God confubftantial with the Father ; 
 /, e. not of any created or changeable Nature, but al- 
 together of the fame truly divine and immutable Na- 
 ture with God the Father : which alfo was always 
 Eufehius's Opinion (b). 
 
 6. There are indeed fome learned Men, who con- 
 tend that thofe Catechifms are not CyriVs, but one 
 Johns, his PredecefTor, or Succeffor in the See of Je- 
 nifalem. If this was true, we have nothing to fear 
 from it I for whether Cyril or John wrote them, it 
 is certain the Creed in them is that ufually ex- 
 plained to the Competentes in the Church of Jerufakm^ 
 
 (a) Socrates, Lib. t. chap. 8. p. 2i. 
 
 {b) See the Defence of the Nicene Creed, 5e£l, 4i, chap. i. 
 
 and 
 
the Catholicic Church, t^c> 205 
 
 and therefore antiently received in it. But {a) Vofjtus 
 has clearly proved the Catechifms to be Cyril's, againft 
 thefe fuperfine Criticks. (h) Jerome, Cyril's Contem- 
 porary, exprefly fays they are his, and that they were 
 wrote in his Youth. And T'heodoret, to name no more, 
 cites them as Cyril's. But yet the fame Vvffitis fays in 
 the fame place, 'Thac there is fomething ivhich may occajion 
 a Scruple, not touch'd upon by any, namely, that in this 
 Creed there are fome things which feem to I2 taken from the 
 Conflantinopolitan, i. e. what is added after the Words 
 [the Holy Spirit] the Paraclete, who ffake by the Pro- 
 fhets, and in the one Baptifm of Repentance, &c. The 
 learned Man thought that thofe things were not in 
 the Eaflern Creed before the Council of Conflantimple ; 
 induced, as he himfelf tells us, by the Conclufion of 
 the Nicene Creed, in thefe Words [and in the Holy Spirit.'] 
 But there is nothing in this (though the great Eraf- 
 mus has alfo urg'd it) as hath already appeared from 
 the beginning of this Chapter, and as I (hall make 
 more plain by what I have to fay hereafter. As for 
 the Additions in the Creed of Jerufalem, after the 
 Words \in the holy Spirit'] I will clearly prove that they 
 were not taken from the Conftantimpolitan Creed, buc 
 were in the moll antient Eaflern Creeds long before 
 the Council of Conftantinople, or even that of Nice. 
 
 ,7. (i.) It is certain that the Creeds which the 
 Wefiern Churches ufed before the Council of Conftan^ 
 timple, and even that of Nice, did not end in thofe 
 Words [_and in the Holy Spiritl but had after them other 
 Articles of Faith. Now who can confider what we 
 have before obferv'd concerning the Original of al- 
 moft all Herefy in the Eafl, and yet eafily believe that 
 the Weftern Creeds were larger than theirs. Now it is 
 readily proved that there were fome Heads of Chri- 
 flian Dodrine in the antient Creeds of the Wefi, fub- 
 joined to the Article concerning the Holy Spirit. For 
 
 {a) De tribus Symbolis, ViJ. i, Tkef.yi, {b) Catalogus 
 Scriptor. Ecclei^ 
 
 Cyprian 
 
2o6 7'^e ]UD G M ENT of 
 
 (a) CypYiaHy fpeaking to Magnus of the Creed the Nova^ 
 tians^ as well as the Catholicks, ufed in Baptifm, fays ; 
 PJ/hentheyfayj Dofl thou believe theRemiffion of Sins ^ and Life 
 Everla/ling by the Holy Church ? T'hey ask afalfe Que (lion ^ 
 hecaufe they have no Church. Here you have three Arti- 
 cles, of the Churchj the Remiffion of Sins, and Ever- 
 lafting Life, exprefsM in the old African Creed. Fur- 
 ther, (b) 'tertullian exprefly makes the Article concern- 
 ing the Church a neceflary Part of the Confeffion to 
 be made by one who is to be baptiz'd. Now when the 
 Evidence of our Faith^ and the Security or AJfurance of 
 our Salvation is fledgd to us before three \_divine Perfom, 
 namely. Father, Son, and Holy Sprit] the mention of the 
 Church is necejfary to be added. To the fame purpofe is 
 what (c) Tertullian fays of Chrift not baptizing in his 
 own Perfon : Into nxhat Jhould he baptiz,e them ? Into Re- 
 pentance ? To what purpofe then was his Fore-runner ? Into 
 Remijjton of Sins ? He gave that with a Word. Into him- 
 felf, whom he veiled with Humility ? Into the Holy Spirit^ 
 who was not yet defcended from the Father ? Into the Church, 
 whom the Apoftles had not yet built ? Here we have the 
 Article of the Re?niffion of Sins hinted, &c. This I 
 mention in particular, upon Erafmus's account, who 
 fays that Article was added againft Novatus. But 
 Novatus had not yet appear'd in the World in Ter- 
 tuHians time ; for he was Novatians Contemporary, 
 affifted him in promoting his Schifm, and therefore 
 diflurbed the Church in St. Cyprians days ; whence it 
 came to pafs that fome, efpecially the Greeks, con- 
 founded Novatus and Novatian, as the fame Herefiarch; 
 contrary to which (d) St. Cyprian writes, Tou have be- 
 hav^d with Diligence and AffeBivn, dearefl Brother, in 
 fending Nicephorus the Acolyth to us fpeedily, to tell the 
 glorious and agreeable News to us and the Confeffors which 
 are return d, and to inflruB us fully againfl the pernicious 
 and novel Attempts of Novatus and Novatian to oppofe 
 
 (^) P. 185. Ep. ad Magnum. (.&) P.225. (c) P.228. 
 (4 P. 95. Ep. adCornelium 52. 
 
 the 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c 207 
 
 the Church of Chrifi. Befides, the Novatians baptiz'd 
 into the fame Rule of Faith with the Cacholicks ; and 
 more, required of their Followers the Profeffion of the 
 Article concerning the Remiflion of Sins, as is plain 
 alfo from {a) St. Cyprian. For Novatus, or Novatian, 
 did not (imply deny the Remiflion of Sins, but both 
 of them, that that Remiflion did not belong to cer- 
 tain heinous Sins (fuch as they were polluted with, 
 who facrific'd to Idols, or pretended to have done it) 
 committed after Baptifm ; or at leaft were not to be 
 remitted according to the courfe of Church-Difci- 
 pline (I/). But this by way of Digreflion. 
 
 8. (2.) In the (c) ApofiolicalConfthutions^ we have a 
 Confeflion of Faith, or a Creed to be recited by Perfons 
 to be baptiz'd ; in which, after the Profefl^on of Faith in 
 God the Father tmbegotten, and in his Only-begotten Son, be' 
 gotten before Ages, begotten^ not made ; it follows, / am 
 alfo baptiz>'d into the Holy Spirit, that is, the Comforter, 
 •who hath operated in all Saints from the Beginning, and 
 who ivas lately fent to the Apoflks by the Father, accord^ 
 ing to the Promife of our Saviour the Lord 'Jefus Chrifi ; 
 and after the Apoflles, to all that belienje in the Holy Catho- 
 lick Church, the RefurreSiion of the Flefh, the Remiffton of 
 Sins, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Life of the World 
 to come. Here we have almoft all thofe Words, which 
 in the Jerufalem Creed follow that Article, [_And in 
 the Holy Ghofi'] with this difference, that the Author 
 expounds the Words [whofpake by the Prophets'] thus, 
 [who operated in all Saints from the Beginning'] and tranf- 
 pofes the other Articles. Thofe Words only [And in 
 me Baptifm of Repentance'] are wanting, of which here- 
 after. Now that very excellent Perfon (d) Cardinal 
 Bona, and other learned Men, give this confentienn 
 Opinion of the Conftitutions : Whatfoever may be faid 
 of the Author of thefe Conjlitmions, all agree that it is cer- 
 tain and evident they were more antient than the Council of 
 
 («) See (thve. (b) Socrates, E. H. Lib. I. cap. lo. 
 (c) Tom. I. P. A. Lib. 7. cap. 41. p. 5 So. 
 {d) Rcrum Liturg, Lib. i, cap. 8. Sell:. 4. 
 
 Nice ; 
 
2oS T'y^^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 Kice i and that in them is contain d the Difcipline of ths 
 Chriftian Church before Conftantine the Great, as the 
 learned (a) Morinus tells us ; to "whom {h) Joannes Pron- 
 to ajfents in his Obfervations before the Roman Calendar. 
 Now as to the Creed in thofe Conftitutions, the Au- 
 thor (or rather Interpolater) of the Book gives us an 
 entire Paraphrafe of it, according to Cuftom; but 
 yet it is clear, that the Creed in his Eye was neither 
 the Nicene nor the ConjiantinopoUtany (it has not the 
 Additions of the one againft Arius, nor of the other 
 againft Macedonius) but manifeftly agrees with the 
 Creed of Jerufalem. 
 
 9' (S') T'he third Argument may be taken from 
 the Confeflion of Faith which Arius and Euz.oius of- 
 fer'd to Confiamine in their own Names, and thofe of 
 their Accomplices ; and by which they intended to 
 perfuade the Emperor, that in all things they believ'd 
 as the whole Catholick Church and the Scriptures teach (c). 
 Now in that Confeflion, after the Article concerning 
 the Holy Spirit, are thefe words : And in the Refur~ 
 reEiion of the Flejhy and the Life of the World to come^ and 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, and the one Catholick Church of 
 God. Here you have three of the four Articles in the 
 yerufaletn Creed placed after the Article concerning 
 the Holy Spirit, though not in the fame Order. But 
 fince this Confeflion of Faith was written many Years 
 before the Synod of Confiaminopky it is impoflible that 
 the Hereticks fhould have follow'd that Precedent in 
 the Recital of thofe Articles. It remains then, that 
 they had an Eye to the old Eaftern Creed, in which 
 thofe Articles are. In the like manner, in the Creed 
 of the Eafiern Bifhops at Sardica (an Arian Council) 
 as we have it in the Fragments of Hilary, after the 
 Profeflion of Faith in God the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, &c. are thefe Words; 
 IVe believe in the Holy Church, the Remiffton of SinSj the 
 
 {a) De facris Ordin. pars z- p. 20. (J>) InPraenotatis ad Ca- 
 lendar, Rom. feS. 5. (c) Socrates, Lib. i, cap. 26* p. 51. 
 
 Re/ur-- 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c^ 209 
 
 RefurreBion of the Flejh, and eternal Life. Here you 
 have the Article of Remiflion of Sins, which was 
 omitted in the former Confeffion. 
 
 10. C4.) To thefe clear Arguments, I have yet one 
 evident Reafon to add. Thofe Words in the Jerufa- 
 km Creed which follow \_and in the Holy Spirit] mani- 
 feftly concern certain Herefies which difturbM the 
 Church of Chrift, efpecially the Eaftern^ moft in the 
 fecond Century, and which were filencM long before 
 the Council of Conflantinople : It is therefore abfurd to 
 determine that thofe Additions were then made to the 
 Eafiern Creed; I mean, the Herefies of Simon, Menan- 
 der, Cerinthus, and others, comprehended under the 
 general Name of Gnoflich, which {a) Gregory Naz,ian-- 
 z,en, who flourifh'd at the time of the Council of Con- 
 Jlantinople, and before it, fays, had in his days a long 
 time difappear'd. It remains, then, that I prove thofe 
 Articles which follow that of the Holy Spirit in the 
 Creed of yerufalem, to be leveird againft the Dotage, 
 or rtther the monflrous Opinions of the Gmftich, 
 If in the explaining this matter, I (hall be longer than 
 ordinary, I fuppofe it will neither be ungrateful or 
 unprofitable to a Lover of Antiquity. 
 
 11. I fhall begin with the Words immediately fol^- 
 lowing, [the Comforter, luhofpake by the Prophets^ The 
 Word here render'd Comforter, is in the Scripture a 
 known. Appellation of the Holy Spirit, and of an ex- 
 tenfive Signification ; for it denotes a Teacher, a Com- 
 forter, and an Advocate. Now this Epithet of the 
 Holy Ghoft is not in the Conflantimpolitan Creed, the 
 Reafon of which Omiffion I fhall explain a little here- 
 after : but it is (as I have ftiewn above) in the C/^- 
 mentine.Qxe,td, and in the Creed of the Ariam at Sar-' 
 dica. It is very probable, that Word was added 
 againft the Gnoflich ; for moil of thofe Hereticks 
 taught that the Paraclete and Holy Spirit were two 
 different Mons (b). But not to infift upon this, the 
 
 {a) Orat. 23. (6)VideTertuliian contra Valentin, p. S53,&a55. 
 Vol. II. O foh 
 
210 Tbe iVDGMENT of 
 
 fjllowing Words [whofpake by the Prophets^ are plainly 
 direfted againft the Herely of the Gnofiicks. For al- 
 moft all of them taught, that there was one God, the 
 Maker of this vifible World, preach'd by the Law 
 and the Prophets, and another who is manifefted in 
 the Gofpel ; and that the old Prophets were not in- 
 fpir*d by the Holy Spirit, but by a certain Power 
 proceeding from that God of the World, (which fome 
 of them were not afraid to call Evil) therefore their 
 W^ri tings were not to be regarded, nay, to be utterly 
 rejeded. Ignatius ^ no doubt, had an eye to this 
 Herefy, when he thus admonifhes the Philadelphians : 
 (a) Let us love the Prophets, hecaiife they alfo preach'd the 
 Gofpel. His Interpol ater has rightly underftood 
 his Meaning; (b) "The Prophets and Apoftles received 
 from God by Jefus Chrift the fame Holy Spirit, the good, 
 the great, the true, the communicative, the right Spirit. For 
 there is one God of the Old and Neiu T'eflamem. There is 
 one Mediator of God and Men, for the Creation of fpiritual 
 and fenjible Things, and a proper and regular Providence 
 ever them : And there is one Paraclete, who operated in 
 Mofes, the Prophets and Apoftles. And a little after. 
 If any one confejfes the Lord J ef us Chrifi, but denies the 
 God of the Law and the Prophets, affirming that the Father 
 of Chrift is not the Maker of Heaven and Earth, fuch an 
 one is not in the Truth, even as the Devil is not; and fuch 
 an one is a Difciple of Simon Magus, but not of the Holy 
 Spirit. Many fuch like Paflages you may find in Ire- 
 naus, TertuUian, and other Antients. 
 
 12. I am wholly of opinion, that thofe Words 
 \who fpake by the Prophets'] or thofe equivalent to them, 
 ■were placed in the moft antient Eaftern Creeds, againft 
 this Blafphemy of the Gmftich. For Irenaus giving us 
 the Rule of Faith which obtained in his time, hath 
 thefe Words upon the Article concerning the Holy 
 Spirit, [who preach'd the Difpenfations of God by the PrO' 
 phets.l In like manner, in the Compendium of the old 
 
 {a) Tom. 2, P. A. p. 32. (b) P, 82» 
 
 Creedj» 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c, 21 J 
 
 Creed, cited in Greek by Damafcene^ and by us tran- 
 fcribed entire abov^e, the Faith in the Holy Spirit is 
 thus expounded : And a true Kmivledge of the Holy Spi^^ 
 rit, ivhich reprefents to Men in every Age the Difpenfations 
 of God, as the Father pleafesi Thus Athenagoras, fome- 
 thing antienter than Irenaus, giving us the Confeffion 
 of all Chriftians concerning the Trinity in Unity, 
 thus reprefents the Catholick Faith concerning thei 
 Holy Spirit : (a) And ive fay that the Holy Ghofl, which 
 •worked in the Prophets, "was an Efflux of God. In the 
 fame place, a little before he had faid, I'he prophetical 
 Spirit alfo fays as lue do. Before thefe, (b) Jufiin alfo 
 expounding the Chriftian Faith concerning the moft 
 glorious Trinity, defcribes the third Perfon after 
 the fame manner ; We alfo ivorjhip and adore him^ 
 and the Son that came from him, and the prophetick 
 Spirit, honouring them in Reafon and Truth. To this 
 we have a (c) parallel place: We with reafon honouf, 
 the prophetick Spirit in the third place. Again, fpeaking 
 of the Prophets of the Old Teftament, he adds, 
 (^d) By whom the prophetick Spirit foretold what was to 
 come before it came. What follows in the {e) fame Piece, 
 comes yet nearer to the Words of the Jerufalem 
 Creed, where again treating of the Faith and Con- 
 feffion of the Holy Trinity, into which the Chriftians 
 of his time were baptized, he thus expreifes what be- 
 longs to the third Perfon : And he who is bapti:zJ'd, is 
 alfo wafh'd in the Name of the Holy Spirit, who foretold by 
 the Prophets all the things concerning jefus. Sure he muft 
 have little Judgment or Candour, who can confider fo 
 many and fo plain Teftimonies, and yet deny that the 
 Words [who fpake by the Prophets] or Words equiva- 
 lent to them, were ufed to defcribe the Holy Spirit 
 in the moft antient Eaflern Creed. I have indeed of- 
 ten wonderM that the Con/lantinopoUtan Fathers fhould 
 add [who fpake by the Prophets] after thefe Words ap- 
 
 (^) Pag. 10, & It. (6) P. 5^. (c) Rdo. (^ P.72. 
 P. 94^ 
 
 O 2 plied 
 
212 T"/^^ JUDGMENT o/ 
 
 Plied to the Holy Spirit Ithe Lord^ giving Life^ proceed" 
 ing'from the Father, luho, together laith the Father and the 
 Son, is worfloipfd and glorify'd.'] The Addition feem'd 
 low and mean, after thofe magnificent Expreilions. 
 But after I underflood that the old Eaftern Creed had 
 thefe Words [the Paraclete, who /pake by the Prophets^ 
 I came to this Determination, that the Synod, inftead 
 of [the Paraclete'] had given us thofe magnificent Ex- 
 preffions, the more clearly to afifert the true Divinity 
 of the Spirit againfl Macedonius ; and then added 
 [who f pake by the Prophets'] becaufe it was fo read in the 
 antient Creed : This by the way. 
 
 13. I proceed to the following Article, In one Bap- 
 tifm of Repentance, in the RemiJJton of Sins. Thefe, in 
 CjriVs printed Catechifms, are two diflinft Members; 
 but by all means to be joined in one Article, as we 
 have it in the Conftantinopolitan Creed : / confefs one Bap- 
 iifm for the Remiffton of Sins ; fo that Baptifm is here 
 made the means of obtaining Remiflion, and Remif- 
 {ion the end of Baptifm. This Article, I am fully 
 perfuaded, is direfted againfl the Herefy of the 
 Gnojiicks. For Irenaus (a) fays of the Valentinians, that 
 by the Delufions of the Devil they were led into the 
 Denial of Baptifm, by which we are regenerated to 
 God, and confequently into the Rejedion of all Faith. 
 Now all of them did not defend this Impiety after; 
 the fame manner; for one Sed of them did annul the 
 only Baptifm of Chrifl, by the Diflindion of a two-fold 
 Baptifm ; the other took away all Baptifm which is 
 performed by external Rites. Of the former, Irenaus 
 writes a little after, in the fame Chapter, thus : For the 
 Baptifm of Jefus, who appeared, is that of the Remifjton if 
 Sins ; but the Redemption of Chrifl, who defended into 
 him, is to PevfeBion. The one they fuppofe to be animal, 
 the other fpiritual ; that Baptifm was preach' d by John fo 
 Repentance, but the Redemption was brought by 'Jefus to 
 PerfeSiion, And that this is what he f peaks of, when he 
 
 {a) Pag. 10(5, Lib, i, cap, iS, 
 
the Catholtck Church, ^c* 213 
 
 Jaysy I have another Baptifm to be baptiz'd with, to 
 which I prefs forward with all Might. Of thefe, 
 Irenaus fpeaks afterwards, that they celebrated that 
 external Water-Baptifm in another Form, and by other 
 Rites than thofe received in the Catholick Church, 
 Of the later Sed of the ValentinianSy {a) Irenau^ 
 treats towards the end of the Chapter, cited thus i 
 But others vejeEling all thefe things, fay, loe ought not to 
 perform the Myftery of the tinfpealiable and invijlble Powers 
 by vifible and corruptible Creatures i of inconceivable and 
 incorporeal things ^ by thofe -which are fenfible and bodily ; 
 and that the perfeEi Redemption is the very Acknowledgment 
 of the ineffable Majefty. Is it not plain, then, that the 
 Article of the J erufalem Creed ^ J believe in one Baptifm 
 of Repentance for the RemiJJton of Sins, is a very proper 
 Antidote againft thefe impious Tenets of the Gnofticks. 
 For die Catholicks profefs'd in thefe Words, Firft, 
 That Baptifm was neceflary, both as commanded, 
 and as a mean, at leaft an ordinary one : Then, that 
 there was only one Baptifm of Chrift, namely, that 
 which the Church obferves. Laflly, that that one 
 Baptifm, is the Baptifm of Repentance and Remiffion 
 of Sins; and that no Man arrives at that Perfeftion in 
 this Life, as not to fland in need of Remiffion of Sins. 
 Moreover, I therefore really think, that Irenaus had 
 an eye to this Article of the old Eafiern Creed ; be- 
 caufe, in his Rule of Faith, he obferves, that we are 
 taught to believe, that eternal Salvation will be given 
 not only to them who have kept the Commandments 
 of our Lord from the Beginning, but alfo to them 
 who have done it by, or after Repentance; univerfal 
 Repentance, a Departure out of a State of Sin and 
 Death, into a State of Righteoufnefs and Salva-. 
 tion. 
 
 14. I now come to the Article [_And in one Catholick 
 Church.'] The Word Catholick, fome Petfons think to 
 })e lately added, againft the Noyatians, and other 
 
 ^a) Pag. 108. 
 
 O t SQUk 
 
214 Tbe JUDGMENT of 
 
 Schifmaticks, who, in the third Century, diflurbM 
 the Peace of the Church. Of this Opinion was 
 (a) y. G. P'offms. Howev^er, it is certain, (though the 
 great Man feems not to have obferv'd it) that the 
 Church had that Attribute in the very Age after the 
 Apoflles. For in the EpiftJe of the Smjmaan Bre- 
 thren, concerning the Biefled Polycarfs Martyrdom, we 
 Jiave it mentioned in the Salutation thus : fl^) The 
 Church of Godivhuh is at Smyrna, to the Church at Philo- 
 mehum, and to all the Diocefes of the Holy Catholkk 
 Church every inhere ^ Mercy ^ Peace, and the Love of God 
 the Father J and our Lord Jefus Chrifi, be multiplied. In 
 the fame Epiflle, the Smyrnaans fay, that Polycarp be^ 
 ing about to die, remember'd in his Prayers, The 
 whole Catholick Church throughout the World (c). Nay, 
 before Polycarp, Ignatius exprefly gives this Epithet to 
 the Church of God, faying, Wherefoever Chrifl Jefus 
 is, there is the Catholick Church. Well, then, faid 
 (d) Valefius, This Sirname appears to have been given the 
 Church about the fir ft Succeffion of the Apoftles, -when Here- 
 ties arofe in many places, and attempted to fubvert the true 
 Faith of Chrifl, and the Tradition of the Apoflles. For 
 then the Name Catholick was given to the Orthodox only, 
 that the true genuine Church of Chrifl might be diflinguifh d 
 from the fpurious Conventicles of Hereticks. Now it is 
 further to be obfervM, that the Cnofticks, who chiefly 
 fpread their Herefies in the firfl Succeffion of the 
 Apoflles, were moft of them fo confummately impu- 
 dent, as to boaft, that the pure and fincere Gofpel 
 was only taught in their Conventicles j that they 
 alone had difcover'd and knew the Myfteries of God, 
 and the true Way of obtaining Salvation, whence alfo 
 they affum*d the Name of Gnoflicks : but that that 
 Doftrine which the Catholick Church had received 
 from the Apoftles, and embraced, was generally falfe 
 
 {a) De tribus Symbolis, Dijf. i. 7 he/. 39. 
 {h) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 104. 
 (0 A. p. Tom. 2. p. 37*. 
 ^rf) Notes upon Eufeb. Lib. ;» 
 
 andt 
 
the Catholicic Church, ^c^ 215 
 
 and fpurious. Thus {a) Irenaus writes of them : 
 When they are refuted out of the Scriptures, they arraign 
 them, as not right, nor authoritative, as having various 
 Readings, and not being able to inflruEi thofe in the Truth, 
 who know not Tradition. For they fay, that the Truth was 
 not written, but fpoken ; and that Paul therefore f aid, But 
 we fpeak Wifdom among thofe that are perfed, but 
 not the Wifdom of this World. Now every one of 
 them calls his own FiEiion Wifdom ; fo that according to 
 them, fcrfooth, the Truth is fometimes in Valentinus, 
 fometimes in Marcion, fometimes in Cerinthus, and laflly, 
 in Bafilides. For every one of them being very forward, is 
 not afham'd to preach up himfelf, corrupting the Rule of 
 Truth. Again, When we appeal to Apoftolical Tradition, 
 preferved in the Churches through the Succefpons of Presby 
 ters, they oppofe Tradition ; advance, that they have found 
 out thefincere Truth^ and are wifer not only than the Pref- 
 hyters, but even the Apofiles ; that the Apoftles mix the 
 things of the Law with the Words of our Saviour ; and 
 that not only the Apofiles, but our Lord himfelf fpoke fome- 
 times from the Creator, fometimes from a middle Povier, and 
 fometimes from the highefi ; but that they do certainly, purely 
 andjimerely know the hidden My fiery, which is the mofl im- 
 pudent Blafphemy againfl their Maker. Againft thefe 
 impious Opiniacors, all the Sons of the Church of 
 that Age Avere very juflly engagM to profefs their 
 Faith in one Catholick Church, /. e. that they would 
 conftantly adhere to that Dodrine and Faith, which, 
 according to the Holy Scriptures, was preach'd with 
 one Confent in all the Apoftolical Churches by the 
 Bifhops and Dodors. The Senfe of the Article can't 
 be better exprefs'd than it is by (b) Irenms : We ought 
 not now to feek the Truth of others, which we may eaftly 
 have from the Church, fince the Apofiles ha've very largely 
 cafl into it, as into a rich Treafury, all Truth ; fo that he 
 who will, may draw from it living Water. This is the 
 •way to Life, all the reft are Thieves and Robbers; wherefore 
 
 la) Lib. 3. cap. s. p. 230. (&) Lib. 3. cap. 4. p. 242. 
 
 O 4 ^6 
 
2i5 !r/:7^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 we might to avoid them j but, ivith all diligence, to chufi 
 what the Church offers, and to lay hold upon the Tradition of 
 T^ruth. 
 
 15. The other two Articles, of the RefurreSiion of 
 the bead, and Eternal Life, we have exprefly in the 
 Clementine Creed, in the Confeflion of Arius and Ew 
 z,oius, in that alfo of the pretended Arian Synod of 
 Sardica, and in Irenaus's Rule of Faith. It is too 
 well known, to need any Proof, that moft of the 
 Gnofiicks denied the Refurredion of the Flefh, and 
 confequently the Life Everlafting. For thus (a) Ire- 
 naus ipeaks of them .* Surely they are vain Men to con- 
 ieiTtn the whole Difpenfatim of God, to deny the Salvation 
 cf the Flefh, and to rejeEl its Renovation, faying, that it is 
 not capable of Incorruptibility. The fame Herefy he 
 (b) charges upon BafiUdes by name, and (c) Marcion, 
 in which (d) TertuUian agrees with him. The fame 
 impious Tenet (e) Aufkin imputes to Simon Magus, Car^ 
 pocrates, Valentinus, ApeJIes, and other Hereticks of the 
 fame Stamp. Now from what has been faid, it fol- 
 lows plainly, that the Words in the Jerufalem Creed, 
 after thefe, [^and in the Holy Spirit'] were not added to 
 the Eajiern Creed by the Conftantinopolitan Fathers, but 
 placed there long before the Synod of Confiantinople, 
 or that of Nice, againft the impious Dotage of the 
 Gnojiicksj who began in the beginning of the fecond 
 Century to fet their falfe Wares to publick Sale. 
 
 1 5. That you may plainly fee the Antiquity of 
 this whole Hierofolymitan Creed, I will not think it 
 too much briefly to fliew, that even the preceding Ar- 
 ticles of it, concerning God the Father and the Son, 
 are fo drawn up, as manifeftly to flrike at the Blaf- 
 phemy of the Gnoflicks. The Article concerning God 
 the Father, is conceived in thefe Words : / believe in 
 one God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earthy 
 
 («) Lib. 5. cap. 2. p. 43 4. Qj) Lib. i. cap. 25. p. 1 19. 
 (c) Cap. 29. p. 129. {d) De prasfcript. adv. Hasreticos, 
 (J) De Hserefibus, 
 
 wi 
 
the Catholick Church, (j-c. 217 
 
 md of all things njtflhle and inrnfible. The Cerinthiam, 
 and the other Gmftkks, did not acknowledge God the 
 Father as Creator, aflercing, ih^itDemiurgus^ the Crea- 
 tor, the God of this Worjd, was one, and the Father 
 of our Lord Chrift another. The Cerdonites and 
 MarcioKites were not afraid to fay, that there were 
 two Gods, two Principles. But all the Gmfiicks attri^ 
 buted the vifible and invifible things to different Cre- 
 ators, and denied that this vifible World was made by 
 the fupreme God. It follows in the Creed, [^and in one 
 Lord Jefus Chrifl.'] The Cerinthians (as I have fhewa 
 in this Piece, and elfewhere) denied that Jefus Chrift 
 was one, feparating Jefus from Chrifl ,- and affirming, 
 that Chrift defcended from above into Jefus, when he 
 was baptiz'd, and at his Paffion flew back again into 
 his Pleroma. The fame Cerinthians^ and the Carpocra- 
 tiam (with whom the Ebiomtes alfo agreed in this) 
 taught that our Lord Jefus was a mere Man, the Son 
 of a Man, and that he did not exift before he was 
 born of Mary. The following Words glance at them, 
 namely, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Fa- 
 ther before all Ages^ true God. AH the Gnojiicks denied 
 that God the Father made all things by his Son ; it was 
 therefore added, by whom all things were -made. What 
 follows, namely. Incarnate, and made Man, crucify d, &c. 
 manifeftly ftrike at the Doceta, who affirmed, that our 
 Lord only feemed to be born, to fuffer, and to die ; 
 which Herefy almoft all the Gnojiicks defended. After 
 the Article concerning Chrift's coming to judge the 
 Quick and the Dead, are thefe Words, Whofe King- 
 dom /hall have no end. Thefe Words, though not in 
 the Nicene Creed, are in the Conflantinopolitany not- 
 withftanding that they have no relation to the Mace- 
 donian Controverfy. We have alfo the fame Words 
 in the Clementine Creed. Now that they w^ere tioc 
 added by the Conjlantimpolitan Fathers, but were in the 
 old Creed which obtained in the Eaft long before the 
 Council of Conjlantinople^ or even of Nice, is plain 
 from this, that we find Words equivalent to ther^i in 
 
 moft 
 
2iS 21^^ J U D G M E N T of 
 
 inoft of the {a) Avian Confeifions, in which they en- 
 deavour'd to perfuade others, that they had flridly 
 obferv'd the antient Rule of Catholick Faith. So the 
 (^h) EufebianSj in their Confeflion, fay, they believe 
 that Chrifl will ame to judge the Quick and the Dead, and 
 ivill remain a King and a God for evet. Thus alfo the 
 Ccnfeflion of {c) 'Theophronius fpeaks of Chrift, 'That 
 hefloaU come again with Glory and Power to judge the Q^iick 
 and the Dead, and /ball remain for enjer. The ConFef- 
 fion of the Arians, fent into France by MarceHus, and 
 others, more fully explains thisClaufe, thus: (d)Whofe 
 indijjoluble Kingdom remains for infinite Ages. Their 
 Confeflion fent into Italy by Macedonius^ and others, 
 and the Confeflion of the Council of SyrmiwHy fpeak 
 to the fame purpofe. It is therefore manifeft, that 
 Claufe concerning the Eternity of Chrift's Kingdom 
 was in the old Eaflern Creed. That moft ancient 
 Writer {e) Ju/iin Martyr feems alfo to have had an 
 eye to this Creed, in his Dialogue with Tryphoy where, 
 after a Paraphrafe upon the Rule of Faith concerning 
 our Lord Chrift, he introduces T/^'/'/jo, as it were, re- 
 peating the Article of Chrift's future Judgment, thus : 
 For to him it is given to judge all Men without exception^ 
 and his is the eternal Kingdom. Now, I am of opinion, 
 that the Claufe [.whofe Kingdom fj jail have no endy] was 
 defign'd againft the Cerinthiansy who taught that thofe 
 glorious things fpoken in Scripture concerning Chrift; *s 
 Kingdom, were to be underftood of a certain, earthly, 
 carnal, and even Epicurean Kingdom, which fhould 
 continue only a thoufand Years. There WTre indeed 
 in the firft Age after the Apoft.les, very many of the 
 Catholicks (Jiiftin alfo, whom I have cited, was one 
 of them) who expeded that Chrifl fliould reign upon 
 Earth a thoufand Years: but then their Opinion, 
 though perhaps erroneous, was widely different from 
 
 (a) Pars 2. Tom. i . p. 735. Athanafius, {b) P, 7 3 7. 
 (c) P. 738. {d) Vide quae fequuntur de iSynodis, &c, 
 (e) P. 2^4. 
 
 the 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c, 219 
 
 the Cemthian Herefy. For the Catholicks did not 
 place the Happinefs of that Kingdom in the Grati- 
 fications of the Belly and the Flefli, in Meats an4 
 Drinks, ahdi Marriages i which, as Dionyfius Alexan- 
 drinus (a) informs us, was the obfcene and fordid Opi- 
 nion of Cermthiii ; but expefted a Kingdom, in which 
 Peace Ihould flourifli. Truth, Juflice, and Piety 
 fhould prevail, and the holy Name of God (hould be 
 every where duly praifed. Laftiy, the Catholicks 
 only expeded this temporary Kingdom of Chrifl, as 
 a Prelude (if we may fo fpeak) of that heavenly 
 Kingdom which they believed was to endure for 
 ever. 
 
 17. From what we have difcours'd, I fuppofe, it is 
 now very clear, that the Jerufalem Creed is very an- 
 tient, and indeed no other than the old Eaftern Creed, 
 which the Apoftolical Men compofed as an Antidote 
 againft the manifold Herefy of the Gmflkks, that very 
 infolently exerted itfelf in thofe Parrs, juft after the 
 Deceafe of the Apoftles. Hence (b) Cyril calls it 
 the Holy Apoftolical Faith y deliver' d to us for our Profejjton, 
 Moreover, from thefe things, we may eafily conclude 
 it more antient than all the Creeds of the Weft^ not 
 excepting the Roman. Voffius reports it as a ftrange 
 and abfurd Opinion of a learned Man, Joannes Ro^ 
 dolphus La'vaterus, that he thought the Creed called 
 the Apoftles, was made out of the Conftantimpolitan ; 
 and cites thefe Words of his concerning Chrift's De- 
 fcent into Hell : / uerily believe this Confeffion (of the 
 Council o/Conftantinople) vjas afterwards a little changed^ 
 and put off for the Apoftles Creed. Now I profefs my 
 felf fo far of this learned Man's Opinion, as to think 
 the Creed called the Apoftles, that is, the Roman, was 
 made up out of the Jerujalem, or antient Eaftern Creed, 
 with which the Conftantinopolitan well agrees, except in 
 the Additions made againft Arius and Macedonius. 
 
 {a) Eufeb. E. H. p. 223. Lib. 7. cap. 25. 
 (6) Catech. 1 8. p. 501. 
 
220 T';^^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 1 8. I will explain my Opinion more clearly in the 
 following Pofitions : (i.) The Form, in which the Per- 
 fons to be baptized did antiently profefs their Faith 
 in the Holy Trinity, was fimple, and conceived gene- 
 rally in thefe Words, / believe in God the Father ^ Son 
 and Holy Spirit. This is the allow'd Opinion of the 
 jnoft learned modern Divines, nor hath Epifcopius, as 
 we have feen already, diflented from it. (2.) The 
 Hereticks would not fuffer the Church long to enjoy 
 this fimple Confeffion of the Trinity : For whereas in 
 the very times of the Apoftles, there arofe the Simo- 
 niansy Menandrians, Cerinthians, and other Hereticks, of 
 the fame Stamp, who were very bufy in privately cor- 
 rupting the found Doftrine concerning God the Fa- 
 ther, the Son and Holy Spirit, and other chief Arti- 
 cles of Chriftianity ; thefe falfe Apoftles, foon after 
 their Deceafe, began more audacioufly to fpread their 
 Herefies. Hereupon, the Bifliops of the Churches 
 where the Hereticks gave difturbance, thought fit to 
 compofe a larger ConfeiTion of Faith, and require it 
 of the Perfons to be baptiz'd ,' namely, fuch an one 
 as might more clearly expound the true Notion of the 
 Trinity j adding alfo thofe other Articles of the Chri- 
 Hian Faith, which the fame Hereticks did in like man- 
 ner oppofe. (3.) Thofe firft Hereticks arofe in the 
 Eafly and, for the moft part, difturb'd the Eafiern 
 Churches alone, as hath been proved. (4.) Hence we 
 eaiily gather, that the firft larger Confeflion of Faith 
 was made in the Eafl ; for where the Poifon was firft 
 fpread, there the Antidote was prepared. C5.) The 
 Explanations and Additions which were made by the 
 Orientals to the firft and mod fimple Confeffion of 
 Faith, were moft of them (though fome later than 
 others) received into their Confeffion of Faith after- 
 wards by the Roman and We/iern Churches. For in the 
 times of Ruffimis, the Creeds of Rome and Aquikia had 
 not [.Creator of Heaven and Earth'} in their Article con- 
 cerning God the Father. For Ruffinus doth not ex- 
 plain thefe Words in the Aquikian Creed, nor tell us, 
 
 , that 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c» 221 
 
 that they were added in the Roman. But it is plain, 
 from what has been faid before, that the Claufe con- 
 cerning the Creation of all things by the fupreme 
 God, was put into the moft antient Eaftem Creeds, 
 againft the Herefy of the Gnoftkks. Hence Irenaus^ in 
 his Rule of Faith, fays exprefly, T'he Maker of Hea- 
 ven and Earth. In the Article concerning the Church, 
 the Word [Catholick'\ was wanting in the Creeds of 
 Rome and Aquileia in Ruffinus's days : for he does noe 
 explain it in that of Aquileia, nor obferve that it was 
 mention'd in that of Rome. Indeed the Pammelian 
 Edition has it, but contrary to the Faith of the moft 
 antient Copies. What I fhall obferve next, may per- 
 haps feem trivial, though indeed of very great Impor- 
 tance. The Article concerning the Belief of the Life 
 Everlafting (which, as we have feen, was in the 
 Eafiern Creed long before) was not in the Creeds of 
 Rome and Aquileia till the times of Ruffinus ; and after- 
 wards, as (a) Voffms hath plainly proved. See alfo 
 the Notes of the {b) Bifhop of Oxford^ B. M. upon 
 the Synodical Epiftle of St. Cyprian. But this Article 
 was in the African Creed in St. Cyprians time, as we 
 have proved before. 
 
 19. I faid that moft, not all the Additions of the 
 Eaftem Churches, were received by the Church of 
 Rome into her Rule of Faith. For thofe things which 
 feemed to abound in the Eaflern Creed, or to be ad- 
 vanced againft Herefies, fcarce known in the Weftern 
 Parts, the Church of Rome afteding Brevity, omitted 
 in her Confeflion. So in the firft Article, concerning 
 God the Father, fhe received, though not very foon, 
 thofe Words [_Maker of Heaven and Earth,'] but not 
 thofe following \_and of all things "vifible and in'vifible i\ 
 becaufe fhe thought them contained in the former, 
 Befides, the People of Rome had fcarce heard of thofe 
 Monfters, who afligned the vifible and invifible things 
 to different Authors. In the fame, and the following 
 
 (a) De tribus Symbolis, Vijf. i. Thef. 43. (b) P, ipo. 
 
 Article^; 
 
222 !ra^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 Article, the Roman Church, as Rujfinus tells us, omic^ 
 ted the Word LOne] in One God, dec. and in One Lord 
 Jefus, which all the Eaflern Churches had in their 
 Creeds 5 becaufe they knew little of thofe blafphe- 
 nious Creatures who denied One God the Father, the 
 Creator, or One Jefus Chrift. Again, in the fecond 
 Article, after the Words ithe Only-begotten Son of God,'] 
 the Church of Ro^ne lath not added what immediately 
 follows in the Eaflern Creed, [.begotten of the Fathev be^ 
 fore nil Ages,'] becaufe they were in the Catechifm in- 
 ftruded, and underftood the latter Words to be vif 
 tually contained in the former. So thofe Words are 
 wanting in the Roman Creed, which in the Eaflern im- 
 mediately follow in the feventh Article, concerning 
 the Coming of Chrift to judge the Quick and the 
 Dead, namely, [jwhofe Kingdom floall haue no end,~] be- 
 caufe no Man at Rome had dreamt of Cerinthus's Mag- 
 got. The eighth Article of the Roman Creed is with- 
 out any Explication or Addition, juft as we have it 
 in the firft and moft fimple Form [/ believe in the Holy 
 Spirit^ which I have formerly much admired. For, 
 as we have obferv'd in the Articles concerning God 
 the Father and the Son, the Church of Rome has bor- 
 rowed fome things from the Eaflern Creeds to add to 
 her own. Nay, further, after the Article concerning 
 the Holy Spirit, fhe has added, in imitation of the 
 Eaflern Churches, certain Articles, namely, concern- 
 ing the Church, the Remiflion of Sins, &c. Why, 
 then, has Ihe given us no Explication of the Article 
 concerning the Holy Spirit ? Why has fhe not imi- 
 tated the Eaflern Churches, and added [Paraclete, who 
 fpoke by the Prophets'] ? If indeed this Omiffion was de- 
 ligned, we may fay, as before, that thofe Words were 
 therefore omitted in the Roman Creed, becaufe they 
 flruck at an Herefy which gave that Church no di- 
 flurbance, Nor was there occafion of any Addition 
 here, becaufe, except that Herefy of the Gnoflicks (which 
 was not fomuch direded againft the Holy Spirit, as the 
 Law and the Prophets) there never arofe any other, 
 
 that 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c 22^ 
 
 that did profefTedly and openly attempt the Dignity of 
 the Holy Spirit before Macedonius, againft whofe 
 Blafphemy the ConflantimpoUtan Fathers made fufficient 
 provifion. AriuSj indeed, by denying the Son's Di- 
 vinity, has by confequence more ftrongly denied the 
 Divine Majefty of the Holy Spirit. For the Here- 
 tick could not be fo ftupid, as to prefer the Holy 
 Spirit before the Son of God (upon which account 
 {a) Epiphanius, {b) Amhrofe^ and (c) Auftin, accufe him 
 of making the Holy Spirit the Creature of a Creature) j 
 but this was not his Aim, which alfo is a Reafon why 
 the Council of Nice hath defined nothing againft him 
 concerning the Holy Spirit. The Anti-Trinitarians, 
 indeed, have in every Age chofe to attack the Di- 
 vinity of the Son firft, taking occalion from many 
 places of Scripture, which relate to his Incarnation, 
 and what he undertook for our Salvation, (neglefting, 
 or rather refufing, very many places of the fame Scrip- 
 ture, which plainly fpeak his Divinityj a Pretence 
 they could not have in oppofing the Divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit; and therefore were content indiredly, 
 and by confequence, to make this Point. However, 
 this is obfervable, that fome of the antient Latin 
 Dodtors, in expounding the Article of their Creed 
 concerning the Holy Spirit, have had an eye to that 
 Addition of the Orientals. Thus Novatian, Cyprian's 
 Contemporary, and Presbyter of the Church of Romey 
 in his Rule of Faith, or, as we now call it, his Book 
 of the Trinity, has thefe Words upon the Article 
 concerning the Holy Spirit : (d) But our Lord Chrifl 
 fometimes calls this Spirit the ParacletCj fometimes pronounces 
 him the Spirit of 'Truth^ which is not new under the Gofpel^ 
 nor newly given. For this very [Spirit] accufed the People 
 by the Prophets^ and accomplifh'd the calling of the Gentiles 
 by the Apo files. And a little after, It is then one and the 
 fame Spirit^ which was in the Prophets and the Apofiles, &c. 
 
 {a) Haeref. 69. n. 52, & ^6. (h) Ambr. de Symbol, cap. 2. 
 (t) De Hseref. cap. 65>. (<f) P.727. 
 
 Here 
 
224 Tbe iUDGMENT of 
 
 Here we have the Senfe and Meaning of the Words 
 [the Paraclete J who /pake by the Prophets'] clearly ex- 
 plain'd, namely this, that there was not one Spirit 
 under the OldTeftament, and another under the New; 
 not one of the Prophets, and another of the Apoftles : 
 but that one and the fame Spirit which infpir'd the 
 Apoftles, fpoke alfo by the antient Prophets, contrary 
 to what the aforefaid Hereticks taught. In hke man- 
 ner Ruffinus, in his Expoficion of the Creed, after he 
 had obferv'd that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was 
 hinted, by the way of expreffing it, [I believe in the Holy 
 Spirit~\ not [/ believe the Holy Spirit^ immediately adds. 
 It ivas therefore the Holy Spirit^ who, under the Old Tejia- 
 ment, infpired the Law and the Prophets i and, under the 
 KleWj the Go/pel and the Apoftles. Laftly, The tenth 
 Article of the Roman Creed, of the Remiffion of Sins, 
 is plainly nothing but a piece of an Article, exprefs'd 
 more fully in the old Eaftern Creed, thus : / believe in 
 me Baptifm of Repentance for the RemiJJton of Sins ; or, 
 as the Conftantimpolitan Fathers give it us, I confefs one 
 Baptifm of Repentance for the Remiffion of Sins. Now 
 the Romans feem to me to have omitted the former 
 Pare of this Article, becaufe under no Apprehenfions 
 from the Gnoftick Herefy concerning that Sacrament, 
 which I mentionM before. But notwithftanding that 
 in all the preceding Obfervations, the Roman Creed is 
 more contracted than the Eaftern, yet it is now, by 
 two entire Articles, more large than it ; namely, in 
 thefe, concerning the Defcent of Chrift into Hell, and 
 the Communion of Saints. Learned Men (a), indeed, 
 have, fome time fince, obferv'd, that thefe Articles 
 were not antiently in the Roman Creed. Thus you 
 have my Reafons for believing the Eaftern Creed, ex- 
 plained by Cyril, more antient than the Roman, called 
 the Apoftles ; and the one, the Roman, compiled and 
 derived from the other, the Eaftern. 
 
 {d) See Voffius de tribus Symbolis, Vijfert. I. T^ef. 34, and the 
 Notes upon the joth Epijile of St. Cyprian, p. ipo. Ed, Oxon. 
 
 ao. I 
 
the CathOltck Church, ^c. 225' 
 
 20. I will add one Obfervation more, and fo con- 
 clude this long Diflertation concerning the antient 
 Creeds. It is to be obferv'd, then, that the Arlam 
 themfelves, in their Confeflions of Faith, cited before 
 in this Chapter, have given us the Article concerning 
 the Son of God, almoft after the fame manner as it is 
 in the 'Jerufalem Creed. For thus their firft Confeflion 
 has it. {a) And in one Only-hegotten Son of God, who 
 exified before all Ages^ and ivas with the Father that begat 
 him, by whom all things were made. Thus, again, ano- 
 ther Confeflion, immediately following the former i 
 And in one Lord Jefus Chrijiy his Only-begotten Son, God^ 
 ly whom are all things, God, begotten of his Father before 
 Ages. Thus T'heophronius's Confeffion .- And in one 
 Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jefus Chrifi, by whom are all 
 things, begotten, perfeEl God of the Father before Agesi 
 Where perfeEi God is, no doubt, equivalent to true 
 God in the Jerufakm Creed. So the Confeffion of the 
 fame {_Arians^ fent by Narctjfus, and others, into 
 France, to be delivered to Conflans : And in his Only^ 
 begotten Son, our Lord 'Jefus Chrifl, begotten God of the Fa"^ 
 ther before all Ages, by whom all things were made. Thus 
 almoft all their Confeflions, which follow in Athanafius^ 
 give us the Article. Now they fay, that in thefe 
 Confeffions, they have religioufly obferv'd the Rule o£ 
 Faith delivered down from the Beginning. Thus iti 
 the Preface to their firft Confeffion, We hanje not recei' 
 rued any other Faith, than that which was delivered from 
 the Beginning : Thus they begin the Confeffion, IVe 
 have learnt from the Beginning to believe, dec. Thus 
 alfo another of their Confeffions, IVe believe agreeable 
 to Evangelical and Apoftolical Tradition. From this we 
 again conclude, that the fpecial Mode of the Filiation 
 of Jefus Chrift, concerning which Epifco^ius difputes, 
 namely, that by which he, in his more excellent Na- 
 ture, was begotten God of God the Father before all 
 Ages, by whom all things were made, was plainly declard 
 
 (ji) Athanafius. Pars 2. Tom. i. p. 755, SVj 
 
 Vol. II. P Itt 
 
226 !r^^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 in the Creed, or Creeds, extant in the Eaflem 
 Churches before the Council of Nice, juft as we have 
 found it in the Creed of the Church of Jemfalemy the 
 moft antient of all the Churches of the Eaft. For the 
 Avians were Orientals, who fet forth thofe Confef- 
 (ions ; and that, as they profefs, according to the 
 Rule of Faith receiv'd in their Churches from the Be- 
 ginning. 
 
 21. Hence it alfo appears, that xho^t Arians wexe 
 felf-condemn'd : For in confeffing that the Son of 
 God was begotten of God before all Ages, that he 
 "was true or perfeft God, and that the Creatures were 
 made by him, they have confuted their own Opinion. 
 What fober Man will believe that nothing elfe is meant 
 by this Confeffion, than that the Son of God was a 
 mere Creature, made of nothing, though before all 
 other Creatures, which was the Avian Tenet ? How 
 was he before all Ages, who only receivM the begin- 
 ning of Exiftence, in the beginning of the Creation, in 
 the firfl Moment of the firft Age ? How could he be 
 God, true and perfed God, and create all things of 
 nothing, who himfelf was a mere Creature ? For, as 
 (^a) Athanapus has well obferv'd. It is not poffible that 
 the things made, and he that made them^ fhould have one 
 Genevation. Laftly, How could he be begotten of 
 God, who was made of nothing ? Upon this account, 
 the great (b) Athanafius fharply reproves the Avians, 
 from their own Confeilionsi Even you have wvote, that the 
 Son is begotten of the Fathev. If then when yon name the 
 Fathev, ov God, you don't mean the EJfence, ov he that is, 
 accovding to his EJfence i but fomething, I can't tell what, 
 about him, ov infeviov to him : you Jhculd not xvvite that the 
 Son is fvom the Fathev, but fvom Jomething civcumflantial 
 tOj or inhevent in him ; that fo avoiding the calling him 
 truly God the Fathev, and conceiving him that is fimple, to 
 he compound and corporeal, ye might be the Invent ers of a 
 new Blafphemy. And a little after, (c) Te have f aid thai 
 
 (a) Tom. I. pars 2. p. 751, (^) P. 750* (0 Ibidem. 
 
 , thi: 
 
the Cathouck Church, f^c, 227 
 
 ihe Son is of God, namely, ye have f aid that he is of the 
 Ejfence of the Father. Moreover, granting that the 
 Words of the antient Creed will bear the Arian Senfe, 
 it is certain the primitive Church, which ufed thai- 
 Creed, underftood them in another more noble Senfe. 
 For the Catholick Dodors before Arius, how uncau- 
 tioufly or obfcurely foever fome of them have fome- 
 times fpoken upon this Queftion concerning our Lord's 
 Divinity, yet all of them, with one confent, have 
 confefs'd the Son of God to be begotten of God the 
 Father, fo as to be born of his very Effence, and to be 
 really God, as we have proved throughout the whole 
 fecond Sedion of our Defence of the Nicene Creed. In 
 vain then did the Ariam boaft, that they had not in 
 the leaft receded from the antient Rule of Faith, fince 
 they only held the Words of that Rule, not the true 
 primitive Senfe of it. 
 
 22. Laftly, It is hence manifeft, that the Synod of 
 Nice did well, did neceflfarily advance the Claufe of 
 the Confubftantiality, againft thofe impious Com- 
 ments of the Arians, and for the aflerting the true 
 and genuine Senfe of that Article of the old Creedj, 
 concerning the Son of God. Inftead of what Hood 
 in the old Creed \Xhe Only-begotten Son of God, begotten 
 of the Father before all Worlds, true God, by "whom all 
 things "were made,2 the Nicene Fathers have given us^ 
 The Only-begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, of the 
 Father's Effence ; God of God, Light of Light, true God 
 of true God, begotten, not made, of one Subfiance vJith the 
 Father, by whom all things were made. Where we lee 
 the Words of the old Creed after [Only-begotten^ name- 
 ly [begotten of the Father before all Ages'] left out, to 
 make way for the Claufe of the Confubftantiality. 
 But the Conjiantinopolitan Fathers retained thofe Words, 
 adding what was fuificient concerning the Confub- 
 ftantiality out of the Nicene Creed, thbs : [Xhe Only" 
 begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father b^frejill Ages^ 
 God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begot" 
 ten^ not made^ confuljiantial with the Father , by who?n all 
 
 f Z things 
 
228 r^^ JUDGMENT (?/ 
 
 things were made^ Now it is plain, nothing was here 
 added to the old Eaftern Creed, which was not vir- 
 tually in it before. For he who was begotten of God 
 the Father before all Ages, was true God ,• and he 
 by whom all things were made, can't buc be confub- 
 flantial, that is, oi the fame Naiure or Efl'ence with 
 the Father ; (which is all the Fathers intended by the 
 Word) and thus all Catholicks always underftood the 
 V/ords of the old Creed, before the Avian Controverfy 
 arofe. 
 
 23, To draw the whole matter into a fhort com- 
 pafs : Since it is agreed between the Catholicks and 
 ArianSj that ail are oblig'd, by the primitive Rule of 
 Faith, to believe in the Only-begotten Son of God, 
 begotten of God the Father before all Ages, true, or 
 (as the Arians would rather fpeak) perfed God, by 
 whom all things were made j the Queftion is only this. 
 Whether fide hath interpreted this Rule better, more 
 agreeably to the obvious Senfe of the Words, and the 
 receivM Meaning of the Church ; the Arians, who 
 have taught that the Son of God is nothing elfe but 
 the firft Creature, made of nothing by God, (for after 
 all their colours, this is their real Sentiment j) or the 
 Catholkhj who believ'd him to be very God, of the 
 fame Nature or EfTence with God the Father ? Sure 
 there is no room for a Doubt, fince it is very clear, 
 that the Catholicks only have kept to the genuine 
 Senfe of this Rule, and the Avians have departed from 
 it, and confequently left the Rule itfelf as much as 
 poffible. * Every one then may eafily determine con- 
 cerning 
 
 * The cafe is very dear 'With vefpeB to tie Arians. 7hey have de- 
 jind the Sen of God to be the chief of all Creatures, and made of no- 
 ih'mg. The Semi-Arians alfo^ uho taught that the Word '•^as born of 
 the Father, a fid therefore of a like Nttfure; but not begotten of the 
 Suhjlance of God the Father, and of the fame Nature, nvent off asivell 
 from the proper Signif cation of the Words in their own, and in the 
 CafhoJick Creeds, as from the antiet't Senfe of the Fathers. For as 
 Athanafius obferves, that ivhich is naturally begotten of any one, and 
 not ac^uird from without ^ Nature owns as a Son^ land that is the 
 
 lierj 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c^ 229 
 
 cerning the 'TheodotianSj Artemonites^ Sar/iofatenians^ Pho^ 
 timcins, and the Monfters of our own Age, the Sg- 
 ciniam^ (in the Defence of whofe Caufe Epffccpms hath 
 neither been afraid nor afhamM to appear.) 
 
 Having thus difcover'd, and accurately examined the 
 Creeds which were in the Church before the Council 
 of Nice^ it is now fufficiently clear how vainly Epifco- 
 plus attempted to prove, 'That in the pYimitive Churches^ 
 from the times of the Apoflles^for three mtire Centuries at leaji, 
 that fpecial Mode ofjefus Chrifi*s Filiation^by which he was 
 begotten of God the Father before aU Ages, and confequently 
 was himfelf Gody was not judged necejfary to be known and 
 belie'v'd in order to Salvation. We have certainly proved 
 the contrary Aflertion from the fan:ie Creeds. Let us 
 proceed now, by the Affiftance of Chriil our Saviour, 
 and our God, to difpatch what remains. 
 
 Notes upon the 'yth, 6th, andjth Chapter s* 
 
 Concerning the firfl Draughts of a Confeffwn of Faith mads 
 in Baptifm ; of the Filling up^ and Finiflnngs of it, in 
 the Age, and by the Authority or Permi[fion of the 
 Apoftles. 
 
 IAm fenfible my Attempt to prove the firfl; Elements 
 of the Apoftles Creed, the Additions afterwards 
 made, and the finifhing of it, to have been compafs'd 
 in the time of the Apoftles^ and by their Advice or 
 
 levy Meaning of the Word, Hence^ if the Semi-Arians had meant 
 that the Word of God was indeed begotten of the Father^ and ivasprc 
 prly a Sony they ivould have confefs'd that be <was born of the mevf 
 Subjiance of the Father ^ and coejfentiai with him. Thus mofi of thi 
 looly Ante-Nicene Fathers have in Senfe taught ^ andforn* of them in 
 ^xprefs Words. See Seft. 2. of the Defence\f the Nicene Creed, 
 CDr« Grabe's iVtffp^J 
 
 P ^ Pcrmif?. 
 
2^0 T^eJXJl) GUENTof 
 
 Permiflion, is a Matter of great Moment, grown ob* 
 fcure by Age, and made more fo by the novel Com- 
 ments of many. The Aflertion of Efifcopius we may 
 well place in this Clafs, that the moft antient Creed, 
 and that ufed in the firft Adminiftration of Baptifm, 
 V as, / helieue in God the Father^ the SoUy and the Holy 
 Ghiji (a) To this the Reverend Bull has ex- 
 prefly anfwer'd, (^) That that was never taken for a full 
 and perfeB Creed ^ expre/ly comprehending in it all the ne- 
 ceffary Articles of Faith. This he has alfo learnedly 
 prov'd, (0 that the Weftern, as well as the Eaftern, 
 Church, ufed a more large and explicit Creed in the 
 Sacrament of Baptifm before the Synod oi Nice, than 
 that mentioned by Epifcopius : I belieije in God the Fa- 
 ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, In particular, he 
 hath (d) demonftrated, that the Creed of both the 
 Churches before the Synod of Nice^ did not end in 
 the Article [Ihelie've in the Holy Ghoft] but that thofe 
 other Articles concerning the Church, the Remiffion 
 of Sins, the Refurredion of the Flefh, and the Life 
 of the World to come, had then been a long time 
 added. But what if from an accurate Confideration 
 of Holy Scriptures, and juft Confequences from them, 
 it fhould appear, (i.) That the firft Lines of the 
 Creed ufed by the Apoftles, in the moft antient Ad- 
 miniftration of Baptifm, were larger than Epifcopius'Sy 
 J believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ? 
 (2.) That that Creed foon receivM fuch Additions, as 
 that in the Apoftles time, and by their Authority, or 
 at leaft Permiffion, it grew to be as large as the Creed 
 called the Apoflles, and had in it all the Articles of 
 that except two, namely, thofe concerning the De- 
 fcent into Hell, and the Communion of Saints. 
 
 2. In order to prove both thefe Propofitions, with 
 what Brevity and Clearnefs the fubjeft Matter of 
 them will allow, I premife two Things : That the 
 |irft Chriftians, whether of the Jeius, or of the Gen^^ 
 
 (4) Chap. 4. Sea, u (h) Sed:, $. (0 Chap, 6. (d) Se£t. 7. 
 
 tiler^ 
 
the Catholtcic Church, ^c* 231 
 
 tihs, obCerv'd that, in the folemn Profeffion of their 
 Faith before Baptifm, either by their own Inclination, 
 or the Command of the ApoftieSj which Reafon dic- 
 tates, and the Ufe of all Times confirms to have been 
 obferv'd by all who came over from one Sed to an- 
 other ; namely, to confefs the Truth of the Articles, 
 call'd Fundamental, of that Church to which they 
 came over, direftly oppofite to the Errors of thac 
 Se<5t they left. (2.) That the fame Primitive Believers, 
 before they received the Sacraments, did teftify their 
 Aflent to thofe Heads of Chriftian Dodrine in which 
 they had been catechiz'd : For thofe Heads were noc 
 only delivered to them, that they fhould embrace 
 them with their Heart, but alfo protefs them with 
 their Tongue. Thus the (a) Apofile, after he hath 
 mentionM the Word of Faith, adds, that, If you con^ 
 fefs the Lord ysfus vnth the Mouthy and believe in the 
 Heart that God rais'd hhft from the dead^ you flyall be 
 fav'd : For with the Heart "we believe unto Righteoufnefs^ 
 and ivith the Tongue Confeffion is made to Salvation. But 
 if any Defender of Epifcopim, or other Perfon what- 
 foever, fhall deny me thefe Suppofitions, I know not 
 how he will be able to perfuade himfelf, or any others, 
 that the Confeffion of Faith, / believe in God the Father^ 
 Son, and Holy Ghofl, or any other, was made by the 
 lirft .Difciples of the Apoftles. Omitting therefore 
 any further Proof of thefe Premifes, I proceed to 
 prove what I build upon them. 
 
 5. As for the firft Article, I believe in God the Father, 
 that it was enlarged from the very firft Converfion of 
 the Pagans, by thefe, or the like Words, [One, Almighty^ 
 Creator of Heaven and Earth~\ I thus prove by virtue 
 of the Premifes : The chief Error of the Heathen, 
 at leaft the promifcuous Multitude, was a Perfuafioii 
 that there were many Gods ; one of the Heaven, an- 
 other of the Earth, a third of the Sea, &c. and the 
 vain Adoration of them. Hence the (b) Apofik ; Then 
 
 (<»)Rom. 10. 8,s>, 10. (h) Gitl4. ^*, 
 
 P 4 mhsd 
 
2g2 r/;^ JUDGMENT of 
 
 indeed not knowing God, ye ferv'd thofe who are not Gods 
 ly Nature. On the other hand, the primary Article 
 o£ the Chriftian Faith is concerning the one true God, 
 on whom all things in Heaven, in Earth, and the Sea 
 {depend, and of whom (c) St. PauVs Words are wor- 
 thy our Notice and Confideration : T'ho there be that 
 fire call'd Gods, both in Heaven and in Earth (among the 
 Heathen) fvr there are Gods many, and Lords many j yet 
 to us (Chriftians) there is but one Gud the Father, of 
 ivhom are all things , and we in him ', and one Lord 'Je- 
 fus Chrift, by whom are all things, and zve by him. Upon 
 this account, the {d) Apofile, in his firfl Sermons, 
 preacird to them the one true God Almighty, warn- 
 ing them to be converted from thefe vain Idols to 
 the Living God, as we have it concerning Paul and 
 Barnabas. In like manner, St. Paul declarM the 
 unknown God to the fame Athenians, faying, 
 (^e) Whom ye igmrantly wor/hip, him we preach to you : 
 God who made the World, and all things in it, being Lord 
 ef Heaven and Earth, Sec. Who can doubt then, but 
 that the Confeffion of one Almighty God was chiefly 
 required of the Heathen Profelytes ? You'll fay that 
 the Heathens believed one fupreme God, upon whom 
 all things depended, and therefore there was no oc- 
 cafion that they fhould be inftruded in it by the 
 Chriftians, or confefs it. I anfwer, it is very true of 
 the Philofophers, and more learned Men among them ; 
 but for the meaner fort, that moft of them knew not 
 that there was one true God, and that he was Al- 
 mighty, the Words of the Apoftle to the Galatians 
 aforecited fully prove. Now fince moft of the new 
 Heathen Converts were of the meaner fort, and igno- 
 rant in (/) Philofophy, it was neceffary they fhould be 
 taught the Knowledge of the One Almighty God, 
 and that they fhould confefs it before Baptifm. But 
 the more learned Heathens alfo, tho they determined 
 
 (0 I Cor. 8. 6. (J) Aflsi;. 23. (OAds 17. 23. 
 (/) I Cor. I. 2^, 27, 
 
 thaf 
 
the Catholick Church, (^c. 23 3^ 
 
 that there was one God, yet were ignorant, or rather 
 obflinately deny'd that he made the Heavens, the 
 Earth, the Seas, and all things therein out oi nothing. 
 Upon which account the Apoilles, in their Inftrudion 
 of the Gentiles J when they mention the one God, im- 
 mediately add, that he created the Heaven, the Earth, 
 and the Sea, as is plain from the aforecited Sermon of 
 St. Pauho th^Atheniam ; and alfo from another (g) Place, 
 where, after thefe Words [the Living God] he adds, 
 luho made the Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that in 
 them is. Thus in the end of the World, when the 
 Fulnefs of the Gentiles fhall be brought over to the 
 true God, the Angel, who hath the eternal Gofpel to 
 preach to all that dwell upon the Earth, every Nation, 
 Tribe, Tongue, and People, will fay, (h) Fear the Lord 
 and adore him, who made Heaven and Earth, and the Sea 
 and the Fountains of Waters. The Gentiles therefore be- 
 ing folemnly to repeat their Creed, were efpecially to 
 profefs in it, that they believ'd in one God Almighty, 
 Creator of Heaven and Earth , whom they had hitherto 
 not known, or deny'd, but were now taught by the 
 Chriftians. 
 
 4. I can't therefore fubfcribe to the Opinion of cer- 
 tain Learned Men, who think the Words aforefaid 
 were added to the Creed in the fecond Century, 
 againft the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other Gmfticks^ 
 becaufe they deny'd the Unity of God, and the fu- 
 preme Omnipotence of the Creator of the World ; as 
 is clear from Irenaus, "Tertullian, and others who wrote 
 againfl: them. For it is no lefs clear from the fame 
 Authors, that they urg'd that very Confeffion of one 
 God the Creator, in the Creed, as received from the 
 Apoftles themfelves. Thus (i) Iremzus, after he had 
 mention'd the unmoveable Rule of Faith which every 
 one receives in Baptifm, he fubjoins it with this Pre- 
 face : {k) For the Church, tho differs' d through the -whole 
 JVorld, even to the Ends of the Earth, having received from 
 
 {g) Afts 14. 14. {h) Apocal. 14. ^, 7. (J) Lib. i. cap, i. p. 40. 
 (fe) Cap. s. p. 500 
 
 the 
 
m T'^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 the Apoflles^ and their Difciples, the Faith in oiie God the 
 Father Almighty^ who hath made Heaven and Earthy and the 
 Sea, and all that in them is. And (/} afterwards. Since 
 then lue hold the Rule of Truth, that there is one God Al- 
 mighty, who made all things by his Word. Again, he 
 mentions the old Tradition (m), and reciting it briefly, 
 fays : ihey believe in one God, Maker of Heaven and 
 Earth, and of all things therein (n). Laftly, he fays (o) ; 
 I'he entire Faith is in one God Almighty, of whom are all 
 things, [by Creation.] In like manner (p) TertuUian : 
 'That is the Rule of Faith, by which we believe that there is 
 only one God, and that he is no other than the Maker of the 
 World. Again, reciting the Creed, he fays (q) : In one 
 only God Almighty, Maker of the World. Now he ex- 
 prefly writes (r), that this Rule has come down to us from 
 the beginning of the Gofpel From thefe and many other 
 Teftimonies of the Antients, which I omit for bre- 
 vity fake, it is plain, that they oppos'd the Confef- 
 lion of one God the Creator to the Hereticks, as 
 what was deliver'd, m the beginning of the Gofpel, 
 by the Apoftles themfelves. But they had dealt de- 
 ceitfully and very abfurdly, they had expos 'd them- 
 felves to the Hatred and Derifion of the Hereticks, 
 if they had attempted to confute them by a Claufe of 
 the Creed lately advanc'd by the Bifhops their Ad- 
 verfaries, and had pretended it to be an Apoftolical 
 Tradition. Therefore it was not opposM to the Doc- 
 trine of the Hereticks by the Bifliops, but to the Er- 
 ror of the Heathens by the Apoftles, and by them 
 made an Article of the Creed. 
 
 5. In the fecond Article of the Creed, Epifcopius 
 hath falfly afTerted, that there was only mention of 
 the Title \_Son-i] for the Names Jefus Chrifi are ex- 
 preOy read in the Confeffton of Candace's Eunuch, Q.aeen 
 of j^thicpia (j) : / believe that Jefus Chrifi is the Son of 
 God. But neither is this to be elleem'd a compleac 
 
 (/) Cap. 19, p, 114. (nt) Lib. 3. cap. 4. 
 
 cap. 9. p. 158, ("> r i1^ /I "<•" <" " onr 
 
 114. (wO Lib. 3. cap. 4. p. 242. (K)Lib. 2, 
 (0) Lib. 4. cap. 62. p. 399. (p) Tert. p. 2o5. 
 r) P. 50 r. CO Ads 8, 37, 
 
tToe Catholicic Church, ^c". 25$ 
 
 Profeffion of Faith concerning the Son of God. For 
 it will be no good Conclufion that the Eunuch faid no 
 more, becaufe St. Luke has not told us that he did \ e- 
 fpecially when it appears from other Places of the (f) 
 ABs, that Luke fometimes abridged the Speeches of 
 others. So in the Hiftory of St. l^auW Converfion we 
 only read thefe Words of Ananias to him i Brother 
 Saul, the Lord luho appeared to thee in the zmy, as thou 
 camefi^ hath Jem me^ that thou jhouldfi receive thy fight y 
 and be filled with the Holy Ghofl. But the Apoftle him- 
 felf, afteriuards, gives us thefe additional Words of 
 Ananias ; (u) The God of our Fathers hath preordained thee, 
 that thou Jhouldji know his WiU, and fee the jufl one, and 
 hear the Word of his Mouth i for thou fbalt he his Witnefs 
 to all Men of thofe things thou haft feen and heard. And 
 now why tarriefi thou ? Arife, and be baptizi'd, and waffy 
 away thy Sins^ calling upon him. Who can doubt whe- 
 ther the Eunuch teftify'd his AlTent to thofe things 
 which Vhilip had preach'd concerning the Paflion, 
 Death, and Refurredion of Chrift, upon the Words 
 of Ifaiah ; He was led as a Sheep to the Slaughter ? 
 Thus it is alfo a Confequence of our Hypothefis, that 
 others, before Baptifm, made a Profeffion of the Ar- 
 ticles mentioned, in which they had been inftrucled 
 before. For, (ij it is clear that the (x)Apofiles pv each' d 
 the Paffion, Death, and Refurre6lion of Jefus to the 
 Jews, as well as the Gentiles. Whence Paul faid to 
 Agrippa, that he teftifyM to Small and Great, thac 
 Chrift fhould fuffer, and fhould, firft rifing from the 
 dead, ftiew Light to the People and the Gentiles. The 
 Words of the fame Cj') St. Paul are very obfervabie, 
 where he-fays, I have delivered to you principally what I 
 alfo receiv'dj that Chriji died for our Sim according to the 
 Scripture y and that he was hury'd, and that he rofe again 
 the third Day according to the Scriptures. Thefe are three 
 Members of the Article concerning Chrift, exprefs'd 
 jn the fame order as in the Apoftles Creed, w^hich the 
 
 (0 Aasp. 17. (a)Aas 22. 14. (^x)\Q:sz. 22, SCr. 3. i^y&c. 
 |0. 35, S^r. I3.S7,Sf.-. 2<J, 2^,25. iy) lCor.15. 3,4. 
 
 Apoflle 
 
^l6 72^^ JUDGMENT^/ 
 
 Apoftle fays he deliverM as principal Heads of Faith 
 to che Corinthians. And no wonder, for the jf^tuf ob- 
 flinately deny'd the Death and Paflion of Chrift, or 
 the Mejjlaby and the Refurredion of Jefus: The Gen- 
 tiles ridicul'd both. Whence the Apoftle writes to 
 the fame Perfons thus : (z.) We preach Chrift crucify dy to 
 the Jews a Stumhling'-blocky and to the Greeks Foolijhnefs; 
 but to them that are cali'd, Jews and Greeks, Chrift the 
 Pozver and Wifdom of God. By virtue then of our 
 other Suppofition, both of them, before their Baptifm, 
 did profefs the chief Articles of the Faith, which 
 were rejeded on both fides, either by their own In- 
 clination, or upon the Apoftles Command. 
 
 6. What follows afcer the KefurreEiion of Chrift, his 
 Afenjion into Heaveriy his fitting at the right Hand of God 
 the Father, and his return te judge the Quick and the Deady 
 were without doubt denyM by, or unknown to the 
 yews and Gentiles. Hereupon, when our Saviour fpoke 
 of eating his Flefh, and drinking his Blood, and his 
 Difciples jmmm!r*d at it, he faid to them j Doth this of- 
 fend you'? What if ye ftjallfee the Son of Man afcend 
 li^here he was before (a) ? As tho his Afcenfion fhould 
 yet feem more abfurd to them, than the Myftery of 
 eating his Flefh, and drinking his Blood. And in- 
 deed when our Lord had faid before the High Prieft, 
 (b) Hereafter ye floall fee the Son of Man fitting at the 
 right Hand of Power, and coming in the Clouds of Heaven ; 
 the High Prieft rent his Clothes, faying, he hath blafphemed, 
 ivhat need have we of further Wttneffes ? Behold now ye 
 have heard his Blafphemies, zvhat think ye ? And they an- 
 fweving, faid, he is guilty of Death. Hence St. Peter, 
 the Prince of the Apoftles and Priefts of the New 
 Teftament, in his Catechetical Difcourfes, as well to 
 the ^evos as the Gentiles, made mention of the Afcen- 
 lion of Chrift into Heav^en, or his Exaltation to the 
 right Hand of God, to rale over ail things, and to 
 
 (O I Cor. I. S3, 24. 00 Joh, 6, di, 62.* Q>) Mat. 2.6» 
 (^4, ($5,6(5. 
 
 pafs 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c^ z^j 
 
 pafs Judgment in the end upon the Living and the 
 Dead, (c) He teftifies alfo, in his Difcourfe to Cor^ 
 nelius, that he does this by the Command of Chrifl : 
 And he hath commanded us to -preach to the People^ and to 
 teftify that he is appointed hy God the ^udge of Quick and 
 Dead. Upon our Suppofitions, we may again con- 
 clude from thefe things, that the Jews and Gentiles 
 lately converted, and to be baptiz'd, did make a juft 
 Confeflion of thefe Articles alfo. 
 
 7. I anT therefore forc'd to difagree with a late 
 Learned Writer upon the Hiftory of the Apoftles 
 Creed, who thinks the Article concerning the Afcen- 
 fion of Chrifl was added to this Creed in the fecond 
 Century, againfl Apelles the Difciple of Marcion, of 
 whom the Author of the Appendix to T'ertullians 
 Book of Prefcription, &c. writes thus : (d) He neither 
 fays that Chriji ivas only a Phantom^ as Marcion ; nor in 
 the Subfiance of a true Body^ as the Gofpel teaches : kit 
 that when he defended from the higher Regions^ in the 'very 
 Defcent that he made himfelf a heavenly and aerial Body, 
 and that in his RefurreBion and Afcenty he refior'd to all 
 the feveral Elements y ivhat in his Defcent he hadborroia'd 
 of them; and fo all the Parts of his Body being difpers'd, 
 he only brought the Spirit again into Heaven. For from 
 thefe Words, and thofe of other Fathers, concerning 
 Apelles y it is plain he did not abfolucely, deny the A- 
 fcenlion of Chrifl:, but of Chrift's Flefh into Heaven. 
 If then the Fathers had advanced this Article againft 
 that Error, they would not barely have faid. He 
 afcended into Heaven ; but they would have affirm'd 
 the Afl'umption of his Flefh into Heaven, as (e) Irenaus 
 doth, having very probably this Herefy of Apelles in 
 his mind, tho he doth not mention it. Thus, if this 
 Article had been leveliM at the Maggot of HermogeneSy 
 that the Body of our Lord was lodgM in the Sun, 
 Chrifl would have been faid to have afcended with his 
 Body above all Heavens, above every Star. By a 
 
 (r)Aas2. 53,e!>t. 5. 20, ai. 10.42. C^)P. 223. 
 
 p) p. 50. lib. I. cap. 2» 
 
 Parity 
 
238 Tl^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 Parity of Reafon in thofe Articles concerning his Sef-' 
 fion at the right Hand of God, and his coming to 
 judge the Quick and the Dead, if one of them had 
 been oppos'd to thofe who faid that our Saviour's 
 Flefli fate in Heaven void of Senfe, and like an empty- 
 Scabbard, the Chrift being drawn out (f) i or the other 
 had been advancM partly againft the Herefy of the 
 MarctoniteSy who deny'd that God the Father of Chrift 
 was juft, or a Judge; partly againft the Gmftkksj who 
 took away Free-will, as the Learned Perfon afore- 
 cited thinks J both of them would have been con- 
 ceiv'd, if not in more Words, in fuch as ftiould have 
 been more direft to the Points. But now, that the 
 Authors of the Creed have taught the Catechumens 
 to profefs that Jefus Chrift the Son of God afcended 
 into Hea'ven, fits at the right Hand of God the Father^ 
 and /ball come from thence to judge the Quick and the Dead^ 
 in plain general Terms i we muft think that they in- 
 tended this Confeffion for thofe who as yet deny'd, 
 or were abfolutely ignorant of thefe things j namely, 
 the Jews and Gentiles converted to the Faith. 
 
 8. What fhall we fay to the Articles which precede 
 the Paffion^ Death, RefurreBion, &c. namely, the Con- 
 ception of Jefus Chrift by the Holy Spirit ^ and his Nativity 
 cf the Virgin Mary ? Did the Jevji and Gentiles from 
 the Beginning ow^n thefe before Baptifm ? Indeed I'm 
 in fome doubt about this, in the very beginnings of 
 Chriftianity ; becaufe there is no mention of the Con- 
 ception by Power of the Holy Spirit, without Human 
 Seed, or the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in any Ca- 
 techetical Difcourfe in the Acis ; nor do we read any 
 where, that the Apoftles preach'd them to the 'Jevis 
 or Gentiles, or that they were difputed againft by the 
 one or the other, as is plain, concerning the Refurrec- 
 tion. We may well fuppofe, then, that the Publica- 
 tion of this Myftery was referv'd to a more full Ex- 
 poiition of the Gofpel after Baptifm ] becaufe it feem'd 
 
 (/) Tertull. p. 325, de came Chrifli, 
 
 plainly^ 
 
the Catholick Church, err. 259 
 
 plainly impoflible to all univerfally, IfraeUtes, and 
 others, that a Virgin fhould bring forth without a 
 Man (a) J or becaufe a Knowledge of the fupernatural 
 Conception and Nativity of Chrift was not fo necef- 
 fary, as the Belief of his Paffion and Refurreftion. 
 Hence there is not only nothing faid of the former, in 
 any Difcourfes of the Apoftles, as I faid before, but 
 it is alfo omitted in fome of the Gofpels. St. Mattheia 
 and St. Luke indeed largely defcribe it j St. Mark (to 
 fay nothing of St. John) has not a word about it : buc 
 all of them have exprefly enlarged upon the latter, and 
 afterwards none of the four Evangelifts have omitted 
 to give a long Account of it. Now there is no doubt, 
 but that not long after the Foundations of Chriftianity 
 were laid, and efpecially after the Gofpels were pub- 
 lifh'd, both ^evjs and Gentiles began to oppofe the 
 wonderful Birth and Conception of our Lord, and 
 thence an occafion was given, and a neceffity impos'd 
 upon the Converts of both to confefs his immaculate 
 Conception and Nativity, as well as the other Articles 
 of Faith. I cannot therefore think the opinion of 
 thofe Learned Men probable, who pretend thofe 
 things, of which I have hitherto difcourfed, were added 
 to the Creed againft the Herefy of Carpocrates, Cerin- 
 thuSy and the Ebionites, (who impioufly afferted that 
 Chrift was begotten of Jofeph and Mary.) Tho' fup- 
 pofing, but not granting this, it may ftill be, that 
 the faid Additions to the Creed, are owing to Apofto- 
 lical Authority, or Permiffion at leaft ; for that exe- 
 crable Herefy had then its hellifli Rife, when St. John, 
 and perhaps others of the Apoftles were yet aUve.{b) 
 
 9. I proceed to the third Branch of the Apoftles 
 Creed concerning the Holy Spirit, in whom (as 
 Epifcopms himfelf well affirms) the Difciples of the 
 Apoftles teftified their belief in Baptifm ; but others 
 fallly deny it, thinking the Knowledge and Profeflion 
 
 {a) See the Pajfage of Juftin in his Dialogue mth Trypho, citeA 
 Ch, 7. Se£t. 4. hereafter, 
 
 C^) See Irensus^ Lib. 3. Cap, 3, pag'233* 
 
240 r^^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 of Jefus Chrift the Son of God to be only necciTary-.' 
 ^heHiflory of the (a) AEis is a fufficient Confutation of 
 thefe Men. But then what is to be faid for the fol- 
 lowing Articles of the Creed ? Let us confider them 
 particularly, beginning with the Remiffion of Sins ; 
 for the Article of the Church in the moft ancient 
 Creeds, or at leaft in the Creeds of many Churches, 
 is not placed immediately after that of the Holy 
 Spirit, but in a lower, and fometimes in the laft place^ 
 as is plain from our Learned Author's Obfervations in 
 this very Chapter. Now both Peter and Paul did ex- 
 prefly teach the Je-ws and Gentiles in their firft Inftruc- 
 tions, that Remiilion of Sins was obtain'd by Chrift, 
 and given to the Faithful by Baptifm into his Name. 
 St. Peter (h) in his firft Sermon at Jerufakm, fays. 
 Repent and be haptiz>ed every one ofyoUy in the Name of the 
 Lord Jefus, for the Remiffion of Sins. (From hence, by 
 the way, the Article of the antient Hierofolymitan 
 Greed feems to be form'd, / helieve in one Baptifm of 
 Repentance for the Remiffion of Sins.) He alfo concludes 
 his firft Difcourfe to the Gentiles with this Dodrine, 
 faying, (c) To him [ChriftH give all the Prophets ivitnefsy 
 that all vjko believe in him fhall receive Remiffion of Sins by 
 his Name. Thus (<^) St. P^^^/ : Beit known to you Men and 
 Brethren, that by him is preached unto you Remiffion of 
 Sins, and that every one who believes is by him juftified 
 fro?n all things, from which he could not be jufiified by the 
 Lnvj of Motes. Nor is it to be admir'd, for our Sa- 
 viour himfelf after his Refurredion told his Apoftles, 
 That Repentance and Remiffion of Sins mufl be preach' d to 
 all Nations in his Name, beginning at Jerufalem, &c. (e) 
 Therefore as the Apoftles and their Succelfors deli- 
 vered this Sum of the Gofpel, and the advantage of 
 the Vr'hole Difpenfation of the Son of God expounded 
 in the preceding Words of che Creed, in their Cate- 
 chetical Difcourfes s fo on the ocher hand there is no 
 
 {a) Chap. 19. 2. (h) Afts 2. 58. (c) ASs 10.43. 
 
 {d) A£i:s 13.38, 35. (e) Luke 24. 27. 
 
the CaTholick Church, ^c, a^i 
 
 idbiibt but that the Catechumens profefsM the fame in 
 their Creed before Baptifm. That fome did now and 
 then profefs this, in the very Beginnings of Chriftia- 
 nity, the above cited Author of the Hiftory of the_ 
 Apoftles Creed confeflfesj but then he determines, 
 that the conftant mention of Remiffion of Sins in the 
 Confeffion of Faith only obtained in the days o£ 
 St. Cyprian, upon the account of Hereticks, efpecially 
 the Novatians, who deny'd that the Church had a 
 power of forgiving Sins committed after Baptifm* 
 Now this Conjefture can't be allow'd, becaufe in the 
 Novatian Creed this Article of Remiffion of Sins was 
 €i<:pre/ly mention d, as St. Cyprian (x) teftifies in thefe 
 words : But if any one fhall anfwer, that Novatian o^- 
 ferv'd the fame Rule with the Catholicks, namely, to bap- 
 tiz,e with the fame Creed as we i let him kmw^ luhofever he 
 iSy that we and the Schifmaticks have not the fame Rule of 
 Faith ^ nor the fame Interrogatory. For when they fay, Doft 
 thou believe the Remiffion of Sins, and the Life ever- 
 lafting, by the Holy Church ? they are wrong in their 
 Interrogatory y becaufe they have no Church, &c. But be- 
 (ides, it is not probable that the Novatians would 
 place, or retain in their Confeffion of Faith, the Re-* 
 miffion of Sins by the Hgly Church, unlefs they had feen 
 the fame received into the Creeds of all other Churches 
 Laftly, if the Profeffion of Remiffion of Sins, not ufed 
 before in fome Churches, had been at length inferted 
 into their Creed againft the Novatian Rigour, either 
 mention would have been made of Sins committed 
 after Baptifm, or fome fuch Phrafe would have been 
 ufed. But, on the other hand, we read in all oi theni 
 cither Remiffion of Sins in general, or one Baptifm of 
 Repentance, or one Baptifm for Remiffion of Sins ; 
 the former of which doth not at all contradid the 
 Novatian Herefy, and the latter may feem to favour 
 ir. What the learned Man objeds, that no mention 
 is made of Remiffion of Sins in the Accounts given of 
 
 (»•) See this P bee cited before. 
 
 Q. thg 
 
242 21^^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 the Creed by T'ertuUian and Origen^ may be thus briefly 
 anfwer'd. That the Hereticks, to whom they oppos'd 
 the Apoftolical Rule of Faith, did not deny the Re- 
 miffion of Sins, were not known by them to deny it, 
 and that therefore they had no occafion to mention 
 this Article. However, our Reverend Author has in- 
 genuoufly fhewn, that both Irenaus and TertuUian al- 
 luded to it in their Writings (y). 
 
 lo. The Learned Author of the Hiftory of the Apo- 
 ftles Creed (a), thinks the Refurredion of the Dead 
 was inferted from the very Beginnings of Chriftianity. 
 This I doubt of a little, becaufe the Catechetical Dif- 
 courfes of St. Feter (a) and St. Paul conclude with the 
 Remtjjion of Sins^ nor does the latter mention the Re- 
 furreftion of the Dead in his Sermon to the Athe- 
 nians (h), but only theRefurredion of Jefus Chrift from 
 the Dead ', tho indeed his Auditors feem from that ta 
 infer the univerfal Refurreftion of the Dead. For it 
 is faid. When they heard cf the RefurreSiion from the 
 Dead, fome of them derided it, but other i faid. Let us 
 hear thee concerning this Matter again. From thefe words 
 we are to take our Explication of what is faid of 
 St. Paul, ver.iS. ithat he preached to them ^efus and the 
 RefnrreSiion, that is, the RefurreElion of 'Jefus, or heguti 
 in Jefus; as it is alfo written of the other Apoftles, 
 (c) And with great Power the Apffiles gave I'ejlimony of 
 the RefurreElion of the Lord Jefus. Further, when fome 
 arofe among the {d) Corinthians, who faid there was no 
 Refurrection of the Dead, the Apoftle puts them in 
 mind of what he had preach'd there, fays that he had 
 firft of all delivered to them the Death and Refurrec- 
 tion of Chrift, and from that proves the Refurrettion 
 of all the Faithful ; but he no where hints that he had 
 taught them this Article before, but they had re- 
 ie(5ted it. Thus he writes to the (e) Thejfalonians : We 
 would not. Brethren, that you Jhoud be ignorant concerning 
 
 (y) In this 6Ch, S. 7. gc 15. (z) P. 39b. {a) A£ts2. 10, n. 
 {b^ Afts 17. 51, 32. CO Aa:s4,. 3,5. (d) I Cor. 15. 12. 
 (e) iTheC4.i3, 
 
 thofi 
 
th^ Catholick Church, ^c» 241 
 
 ^hofe thatfleep, leji you fhould be troubled ^ as other s^iuho ha've 
 no hope. For if we believe that^efus is dead and rifen again, 
 fo alfo thofe that Jleep in yefus /hall God bring with him. 
 This he fpeaks as tho they had hitherto been ignorant 
 of it, fo that it became neceflary to give them this 
 Corollary from the Refurredion of Jefus, which they 
 had before heard. The words of St. Luke alfo con- 
 cerning the FresLching oi Sz. Paul to thQ The/falonianf, 
 are worthy Obfervation : (fjHe difcourfed to them out of 
 the Scripture three Sabbath-days^ opening and alledging that 
 Chrifl was to fuffer^ and to rife fom the Dead, and thai 
 this is Chriji Jefus, *whom I preach unto you. Here is 
 mention of the Refurreclion of Chrift, but not of that 
 of ail the Faithful : St. Paul then doth not feem to 
 have given the Catechumens the Doftrine of the Re- 
 furreclion of the Dead foon after their Entrance to 
 Chriftianity among the firft Rudiments of it : But yec 
 I aflure myfelf, he gave it them as an Appendix to the 
 other Articles, as foon as he found it oppofed and 
 difputed. Hence, I fuppofe, the Apoftle (g) mentions 
 the RefurveBion of the Dead, and the eternal 'Judgment^ 
 among the Fundamentals of Chriftianity, but yet puts 
 them in the laft place, diftind from Faith in God, and 
 the Doftrine of Baptifms. I conclude alfo, that the 
 Article concerning eternal Life was then added (ac 
 leaft in fome Churches) after that concerning the Re- 
 furredion of the Dead, becaufe St. Paul here joins 
 the eternal Judgment with the Refurredion of the 
 Dead. 
 
 II. As for the Article concerning the Church, I 
 think it was added and inferted laft of all, not only 
 becaufe (h) Cyprian gives it us in the Novatian Creed 
 in the laft place, and it is fo read in the Confeflion of 
 Arius and Euz,oius ; but becaufe there is no mention 
 of it in the Catechetical Difcourfes, and Epiftles of 
 the Apoftles : fo that this Article feems to have been 
 added about the end of the firft, or beginning of the 
 
 (/) Aftsi7,2, 3, (ff) Heb.d. a, (;&) Above cited, 
 
 Q^z fecond 
 
244 Tbc JUDGMENT of 
 
 fecond Century, agalnft the Hereticks and Schifma^ 
 ticks, after they began to have feparate Meetings from 
 the Orthodox. For in the Times oi T'ertulUan^ xh^ 
 Faithful did profefs the Holy Church in their Creed, 
 as is plain from his firft Piece concerning Baptifm : 
 But when an Attefiation of Faith ^ and a Security of Sal- 
 'vation, are pkdg'd under three^ there muji be mention of 
 the Church '3 for where three ^ i.e. Father^ Son and Holy 
 Ghcfi, are J there is the Churchy which is a Body of three (i). 
 There needs no words concerning the Communion of 
 Saints J for it is plain there was no mention of it in the 
 Creed before the fourth Century. 
 
 12. There is one Article more, which I omitted 
 on purpofe, concerning the Defcent of Chrifi into HeU, 
 The above cited Author of the Hiftory, &c, has gi- 
 ven us the genuine Senfe of it fo learnedly, that more 
 could not have been expefled from the moft accom- 
 plifh'd Divine. Near the end of his long D'Jfertation^ 
 lie gives his Opinion that this Article was inferted 
 againft tiie Arians and ApcUinarians, who deny*d the 
 Soul or Spirit of Chrift, and againft whom the Holy 
 Fathers arguM thus : Chrift defcended into Hell ei- 
 ther by his Divinity, bis Soul, or his Body; but ic 
 is abfurd to afcribe this Defcent either to his Divi- 
 nity, or his Body : Therefore we muft conclude 
 that he defcended by his Soul, and confequently that 
 he had a Soul. But it may be faid againft this, that 
 Chrift is not afErm'd in any Creed to have been in 
 Hell by his Soul, but (imply to have defcended into 
 Hell, or the lower Places of the Earth ; and befides, 
 that this Article is in fome Creeds of the Arians, and 
 in others more antient than Apollinaris. I therefore 
 think it was rather added againft the Valentinians and 
 Manionites. For they, as {k) Irenam informs us, fay, 
 That as focn as they are dead, they afcend above the Hea- 
 venSy and the Demiurgus, and go to the Mother ^ or to 
 
 (i) Compare tvhh this amthev Tajfage of Teriullian cited in this 
 ^ Ch. Se£t. 7. (fe) Lib. 5. Cap. 31. p. 4511, 
 
 him. 
 
th^ Catholick CHURciit, ^c* 245 
 
 hxm, ixihom they have feign* d to themfehes the Father, A 
 little after : (I) They fay this World of ours is HeBy ani<i 
 that their inward Man leaving the Body here^ afcends into 
 the fuperceleftial Place. Tertuliian (mj glancing at this 
 Notion, fays : We believe Hell to be, not a mere Void, nor 
 fome Sink of this fublunary World, but a vafi wide Place 
 in the Trench and Depth of the Earth, and an ahflrufe 
 Depth in the Bowels of it. Therefore the Holy Fathers, 
 to prove the Exiflence of a lower Place under the 
 Earth, and the Defcent of the faithful Souls into ir, 
 fetch'd an Argument from the Defcent of Chrift him- 
 felf into it ; concerning which, Irenaus thus fpeaks in 
 the Place cited : Ifthefe things had beenfo, a( they fay, the 
 Lord himfelf, in whom they profefs to believe, had not rifen 
 again the third Day, but expiring upon the Crofs, had im- 
 mediately afcended, leaving his Body to the Earth. But now 
 he flay d three days, where the Dead were, as the Prophet 
 fays of him, 8cc. But the Apoflle alfofays. He afcended ; 
 now what is that, but that he alfo defcended into the 
 lower Parts of the Earth ? it his alfo David faid, pro- 
 fhefying of him. Thou haft delivered my Soul from the 
 lower Hell. If then the Lord obferv'd the Manner of the 
 Dead, that he might be the firfl-begctten from the Dead, and 
 fiay'd till the third Day in the lower Parts of the Earth, 
 afterwards rifing in the Fleflo to Jhew his Difciples even 
 the Marks of the Nails, and fo afcended to the Father ; 
 how are they not afhamed, who call this World Hell, dec. 
 For whereas the Lord walked in the ?nidji of the Shadow of 
 Death, where the Souls of the Dead are, afterwards rofe 
 again, and after his RefurreElion was taken tip ; it is fnani- 
 fefi that the Souls of his Difciples, for whom he did thefe 
 things, fhall go into an invifible Place, appointed for them 
 by God, and fhall flay there till the RefurreSlion, in expec- 
 tation of it'y afterwards having received their Bodies, and 
 being rifen per feEily, i.e. corporeally, even as the Lord rofe, 
 they fhall thus appear in the Prefence of God. T'ertullian 
 has ufed (») the fame Argument : We read, that Chrifl 
 
 ^0 Ibidem. (w)?. 505. {71) In the Vlic^ afore cketi, 
 
 Q_ 3 ivas 
 
24<^ ^ieJUDGMENT of 
 
 m^as three Days dead in the Heart of the Earthy \. e. in th^ 
 'moft intimate and internal Kecefs^ covered hy the Earthy 
 dug within it, but yet built upon the lower Abyjjes. Now 
 ijChrifl God, becaufe alfo Alan, died according to the Scrip- 
 tures, was bury'd according to the fame, fulfilled this Condi- 
 tion of human Death alfo, to defend into Hell, and did 
 not afcend into thofe Places which are higher than the Hea- 
 vens, before he defended into the lower Parts of the Earth, 
 there to communicate himfelfto the Patriarchs and Prophets ; 
 you mtift believe a fubterraneous Region of Hell, and rejeSi 
 thofe Dreamers, who proudly think the Souls of the Faithful 
 abo^e defending into Hell, Servants above their Mafiers, 
 taho, forfooth, if in Abraham'^ Bofom, wmld difdain the 
 Comforts of an expecied RefurreBion. The Herefy then 
 of the Valeminiam and the Marcionites, was rather the 
 Occafion of this Article, than that of the Arians or 
 Apollinarians ; unlefs any Perfon has a mind to affirm^, 
 that the firft Inftruftions of the Apoftles themfelves 
 gave occafion to the Catechumens fometimes to profefs 
 it in their Confeffions of Faith. For the Chief of the 
 Apoftles, in his hrfl; Sermon at ferufalem on the Day 
 of Pentecoft, hath very clearly expounded this Article 
 jn thefe words : 'That his Soul was not left in Hell, nor 
 his Fkfh faw Corruption (o). 
 
 13. From what has been faid, if duly weigh'd, % 
 think it very plain, that all the Articles of the Apo- 
 flles Creed, except that of the Communion of Saints, 
 ("may be alfo that of the Church) and that of Chrift's 
 JDefcent into Hell, were profefs 'd by the firft Chri- 
 ftians in their folemn Confeflions of Faith, by the Au- 
 thority, or at leaft Approbation of the Apoftles them- 
 felves ; and therefore that the Creed, for the Sub- 
 fiance of moft of its Articles, is rightly called Apo- 
 flohcal, and truly challeng'd by Irenaus (to mention 
 none of the latter Fathers) as a Tradition received 
 from the Apoftles, and their Difciples. Nor indeed 
 can it well be, if at all, that fo many Churches in 
 
 (0 ASs 2. 3 1. 
 
 fucH 
 
the Catholtck Church, f^c* 247 
 
 fuch diftant Parts of the World, fhould agree in a 
 Form of Creed, and fo many Articles, unlefs they had 
 received it in that Form, ^c. from an Authority acT 
 knowledg*d by them all. The reafon why the Creeds 
 of feveral Churches differ in Words and Phrafes, is 
 this (as Cp) Jerome has obferved) that the Symbol of ouv 
 Faith and Hope, delivered down from the Apoftles, was not 
 written with Ink and Paper , but upon the Fl^ly Tables of 
 the Heart. Hence it became free to every one to exprefs 
 his own Senfe in his own Words ; but yet I will not 
 take upon me to prove that Tradition, which {q) Ru- 
 finus hath given us concerning the twelve Apoftles ; 
 Being about to depart from one another , they made a common 
 Rule or Standard of their future Preachings left perhaps 
 being feparated, they pould teach thofe they invited to Chri- 
 ftianity fomething different : AU of them therefore being tO" 
 gether^ and fi(I*d with the Holy Spirit, compofed that fhort 
 Standard of their future Preaching, compiling into one 
 Form every one's Sentiment ; and refolved it fhould be de^ 
 liver d to the Believers. Tho, for the Subfiance, or firft 
 Elements, of this Creed of the Apoftles, drawn out 
 in the Catechetical Difcourfes of St. Peter and St. Paul, 
 fome fuch thing as this might not be improbable ; 
 yet the Divifion of the twelve Articles of the Creed 
 among the twelve Apoftles, which we have in a Piece 
 among the Works of CO St. Auflin, and fome fuch 
 other Fancies, which it would be impertinent to fpeak 
 of here, are of no value or conlideration. 
 
 (f) Ep. 61. c. 9. iq) Expofit. Symbol. 
 
 (*•) Tom. 1(3. Serm. iij. de Tempore. 
 
 
 "^^^*( 
 
 Q.4 CHAP, 
 
H8 r^^ JUDGiMENT^/ 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Of CI famous Tlace in Juftin'j dialogue with 
 Trypho the Jew. 
 
 THERE is yet another Argument, by which 
 (0 Epifcopus attempts to fupport his Aflertion. 
 'The Second Argument^ fays he, by which I prove my An- 
 tecedentj is this : It is clear from Juftin, a very antient 
 Author, (for he flourijh^d in the Tear of Chrifl 150) and 
 a Martyr for the Chriflian Religion, that the Chriftian 
 Churches of thofe Days not only thought the Determination 
 and Profeffton of that peculiar Mode not neceffary to Salva- 
 tion ; hut alfo held Communion with thofe that denied it, 
 and profeffed to believe that Jefus Chrifl was no more than 
 were Man, Man of Man, and jnade Chrifl, or the Meffiah, 
 by EleBion. The Place 0/ Juftin, from which this is prov'd, 
 is in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew CO, which you may 
 find cited in the Apology of the Re^nonflrants, near the End of 
 the Anfwer to the Cenfure, Chapter the third, and largely 
 argued upon, and eflablijh*d in my (ii) Anfwer of the Re- 
 monfirants to the Specimen cf Calumnies, &c. of the four 
 Profeffurs of hey den; to zvhich, not to be guilty of Repeti- 
 tion, I refer you. Thus Epifcopius. 
 
 2. I will here give you the entire Place, not man- 
 gled and curtail'd, as it is cited by the Remonftrants 
 in their Apology. Thus Jnflin difcourfes in that Paf- 
 fage : C^c) Now Trypho, I don't fail in my Proof that this 
 is the Chrifl of God, tho 1 fl:>ould not be able to Jhew, both 
 that he pre-exifled the Son of the Creator of all things, being 
 God, and that he was begotten Man of the Virgin ; for it 
 being notwithftanding every way demon ftrated that he, who- 
 foever he is, is the Chrifl of God, tho I dont prove that he 
 
 (s) Epifcop. p. %i^o. vol. T, par. i, (0 Vol. i. p. 2. p. 13d. 
 Sit) Ibid. p»?95<. {») P.i^j* 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c> 249 
 
 fre-exijied, and condescended according to the Council or Pur- 
 pofe of the Father, to be begotten Man of like Paffions viith 
 us, being incarnate, you can only in juftice fay that I am 
 mifiaken ; but you cant deny that he is the Chrifi, tho he only 
 feems to be Man begotten of Man, and be prov'd to be made 
 Chrijl by EleBion. For there are even fome of our Sort, 
 my Friends, -who confefs him to be the Chrijl, and yet affirm 
 that he is Man of Men. I am not of the fame Opinion with 
 thefe Men, nor are there many of my Sentiments ivho "will fay 
 as they do ; for we are not exhorted by Chrijl to give our 
 f elves up to human Arguments or DoSlrines, but to thofe which 
 were preached by the Holy Prophets, and taught by himfelf 
 I have diffented from Juflins Interpreter, both in 
 fome fmaller Matters, and alfo in rendring the Words 
 in the Margin {y), .which indeed he has tranflated nei- 
 ther agreeably to the Greek Text, nor to good Senfe. 
 For from the Words going before, this muft bejujlin's 
 (z,) Senfe : If I have elfewhere folidly prov'd from the 
 Prophets, that our Jefus is that Chrift of God, fucK 
 an one as he was to be according to their Prophecies, 
 whether God to be born Man of a Virgin, which is 
 the Catholick Notion, and mine ; or Man begotten of 
 a Man and a Woman, as you,. Trypho, and the Jews 
 
 (y) AAA iK "TTCtvlog ci'TroieinvviJ.ivii on HTog Iqiv 6 Xpic^bi;, 6 ti? fley, 
 ■o'?'? sVoc tc;cit. 
 
 (x) Tho it is very clear that Juftin is only arguing ivith Trypho 
 upon his own Suppojttion, and ad Hominem : Tou think the Mejpah 
 is only to be /Man, therefore tho I Jhould not be able to prove the Pre- 
 exijience of Jefus ^ if I prove him to be the Mefftahy it is enough a- 
 gainji you. Dr. Whitby is .pleas'd to bring this Paffage as an Argu- 
 ment from Juftin, that the proper Divinity of Chrifl is not to he con- 
 cluded from his being the proper Son of God. But the Deftgn of it is 
 no fuch thing, (2.) The Sentimenty nvhatever the DoBor will have 
 if, is not Juftin'/, but that of Trypho or the Jews, and fome cor- 
 rupt Chrijiians ; and the DoBor might have feen this himfelf, and in- 
 form'd his Render of it, if he would have read the Words immediately 
 folloaving thofe^ with which he ends this Citation, and not have taken 
 it as he found it in Epifcopius : I'm not of their Opinion, &cc. In- 
 deed the DoHor feems to have thought that Juftin would do nothing 
 for him, by interpolating his W'.rds, to give them the only Turn they 
 ha^e towards his Sentiments 
 
4S50 fTi'^ J U D G M E N T ^ 
 
 jare of opinion) tho I can*t demonftrate that he is the 
 Son of God, and made Man of a Virgin, yet you are 
 not therefore to deny that he is the very Chrift fore- 
 told, and promifed by the Prophets. 
 
 5. I'm fure there is nothing in thefe Words of 
 ^uftiny from which Epifcopius, or the Remonftrants, 
 can prove either that the Church in Juftin's Time, 
 or that Juftin himfelf held the Dodrine of the Son's 
 Divinity not neceflary to Salvation, much lefs that 
 they kept up Communion with thofe Churches that 
 ^eny*d it. If indeed the Remonftrants can prove any 
 thing from it, they prove too much, which is a certain 
 Sign of a very bad Argument. For the Perfons here 
 noted by Juftin^ not only affirm'd that our Saviour 
 was only Man, but Man begotten of the Coition of a 
 3^an and a Woman after the common Manner of 
 Men. From this, if the Remonftrants argue rightly 
 from the Place, it will follow that Juftm, and the 
 Church in Juftins Days, heldX^ommunion with thofe, 
 who, defpiiing the Authority of the Holy Evangelifts, 
 and the conftant and confentient Tradition of the 
 Catholick and Apoftolick Church, were not afraid to 
 deny that the Man Chrift was born of the Virgin 
 Mary ; an Opinion worthy a Mad-Man only. I have 
 not yet indeed (a) feen the Anfwer of the Remonftrants to 
 ■ihe Specimen of Calumnies, &c. fo as to know certainly 
 how they confirm their AfTertion from the Place cited 
 out of Juftiny and therefore can only argue conjee- 
 iuraUy. 
 
 4. But have they given It as their Opinion, that 
 what they contend for, follows from this that7"/» 
 tin fays, namely, that it could not be falfe, that 
 Jefus was the promifed Chrift, tho it was not demon- 
 ftrable that he was God, and born Man of the Vir- 
 gin? Now it is very clear that j?«y?/« here ufes the 
 Argument ad Hominem^ which is very common in thefe 
 
 {a) Our Revereni Author afterwards got a Sight of this tvorthy 
 Tiecef and hath dlre^lyy and at large^ confuted it in the Appendix* 
 
 DifputeSo 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c. 251 
 
 Difputes. ^ujlin had before attempted to prove that 
 it was foretold of Chrift by the Prophets, that he, 
 tho exifting before Ages, the Son of God, and God, 
 ihould at laft be born Man of a Virgin. When he 
 afterwards made a Digreffion concerning fome other 
 Matters, Trypho calls him back to the finifhing the 
 iformer Point. (^) IVe have heard the Sentiment of thefe 
 things, now refume the Difcourfe, where you left off, and 
 finijjo it ', for it feems to me a Paradox, and imfofjible 'to be 
 proved. T'hat you /bould fay this Chrifl pre-exified, being 
 God before Ages, and afterwards condefcended to be begotten, 
 being made Man, and that he is not Man of Man, is, 1 
 I think, not only flrange, but abfurd. Juflin then, as 
 \trypho defires, refumes the Difputation, and finiflies 
 it at large, fully proving that the Chrift foretold by 
 the Prophets was to be both God and Man, born of 
 a Virgin. In the mean time, to ftop the Mouth of 
 his cavilling Adverfary at prefent, he gives him a 
 twofold Anfwer. Firft, he fharply blames his Blind- 
 nefs and Obftinacy, and that alfo of the Jeiuijh Na- 
 tion, who rejected the Dodrine concerning Chrift, 
 the Son of God, and God, who was alfo to take upon 
 him Flefh from a Virgin, tho plainly deliver'd in the 
 Old Teftament, as incredible, abfurd, and foolifti, 
 and chofe rather to believe their own doating Rabbies 
 in this Matter, than the Voice of God by his infpired 
 Prophets: (c) I know, fays he, the Difcourfe feems 
 firange, and efpecially to thofe of the Nation or Kindred, 
 who are not inclined either to underfiand or perform the 
 "Things of God, but thofe of your own Teachers ; as God 
 himfelf cries out againfl you. It is eafy to guefs (by the 
 way} to how much greater Blindnefs juftin would 
 have thought thofe Men abandon'd and condemn'd, 
 who, profeillng themfelves Chriftians, and living in 
 the cleareft Light of the Gofpel, (to which the old 
 Prophecy, comparatively fpeaking, was only as a Light 
 fhining in a dark Place) have with equal Pertinacy 
 
 {b) P. 2^7 . (c) Ibidem, , 
 
 rejeded 
 
2-52 "f^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 rejefted that Dodrine. Surely now, if Epifcopius and 
 the Remonftrants had attentively read thefe words of 
 Juflin immediately going before thofe cited by them, 
 they could never have thought the Place for their 
 purpofe. But to proceed. 
 
 5. After this, Juftin anfwers, by refuting Trypho^ 
 from Principles o\\ nM by him, in the Place cited by 
 the Remonftrants : Buty Trypho, I don't fail in my 
 Proof that this is the Chrift of God, &c. As tho he fhould 
 have faid : If I could not prove from the Prophets, 
 (which I have partly done already, and fhall do here- 
 after more fully and effedually) that the Chrift was to 
 be God, and Man born of a Virgin for our Salvation ; I 
 fhould not therefore quite lofemy Caufe, at leaft with 
 you 'Ji^'^Sy who cannot, agreeably to your Principles, 
 deny that our Jefus is that Chrift j for you expeft no 
 other Chrift, or Meffiah foretold and promifed by the 
 Prophets, than one that is mere Man, begotten of Men. 
 This Trypho himfelf quickly confeffes : (d) We aU^ 
 fays he, look for Chrifi as Man begotten of Man. It is 
 then plain, that Juflin here argues, not from his own 
 Sentiment, or the Truth of the Thing icfelf, but from 
 the Hypothefis of the Jews, with whom he difpuces. 
 For Juftin indeed could not, without the grofleft Con- 
 tradiction, and a manifeft Refutation of a great part of 
 what he has eagerly contended for in this Dialogue, 
 affirm, or allow that it did not really follow that Je- 
 fus was not that Chrift of God foretold by the Pro- 
 phets, if he was not true God, born Man of a Vir- 
 gin. There he lays himfelf out greatly, in proving 
 that it was very plainly foretold of that Chrift of God 
 by the Prophets, that he fhould be abfolutely God, 
 and Ihould take Flefh from a Virgin. Befides, Jujlin 
 elfewhere exprefly teaches, that no one could be equal 
 to the Office of Chrift the Mediator, unlefs he was 
 the very Son of God, and confequently God. There 
 is a remarkable PalTage in the Epiftle to Diognetus : 
 
 id) V. i6S. 
 
 He 
 
the Catholick Church, ^^. 255 
 
 (e) He gave his own Son a Ranfom for us^ the Holy for the 
 Sinner Sy the Innocent for the Eiil, the 'Juft for the Unjuft^ 
 the Incorruptible for the Corruptible, the Immortal for the 
 Mortal. For what elfe could cover our Sins but his 
 Righteoufnefs ? By whom luas it poffibk for us Sinners 
 and Impious to be jufiify'd, but by the only Son of God. O 
 the fweet Redemption, the unfearchable Work ! There- 
 fore, according to Juflin, it could not be that any 
 Ihould fatisfy God the Father for our Sins (the chief 
 Office of our Saviour Chrift) befides the proper, in- 
 corruptible, immortal Son of God. Now who this 
 Son of God is, fo celebrated by Juftin, every one who 
 is the leaft acquainted with the Holy Martyr's Works, 
 well knows ; namely, that Son of God, who was be- 
 gotten of God the Father before every Creature, 
 who was his Counfellor and Affiftant in the Creation 
 of all things ; who laftly, at the appointed time, de- 
 fcended from Heaven, being made Man, for Man's 
 Salvation. Parallel to this, is what we have in this 
 (f)fame Dialogue, where firft having given a clear ac- 
 count of the Catholick Doftrine, both of the univerfal 
 Guilt of Mankind, from that celebrated Place, Curfed 
 is every one, ivho hath not continued in thofe things, lohkh 
 are "written in the Book of the Law, to do them ; and of 
 the Satisfadion made by Jefus Chrift crucify 'd, who 
 took upon him the Curfe of all Men ', he immediately 
 adds, that what the Jews were entirely ignorant of, 
 was foretold by God, that this Jefus is before all things, 
 and the eternal Prieft of God, and King, and was to be the 
 Chrifl. By thefe words he fignifies God's Intention 
 and Decree, that the Sins of Men fhould not be ex- 
 piated but by an eternal Prieft, who exifted before 
 C^) all things. Compare alfo what he fays in this 
 
 Dialogue 
 
 (e)P. 500. (/)P.323- 
 
 {g) —'That Mankhd could not he freed fiom the Corrupt' on con^ 
 iracied by the Fall of Adam, hut by the Incarnation of him, who was 
 In his own 'Nature Life, that is God, or ihe EJfe?itial Son of God, 
 Juftin hath ejcprefly taught In a loji Oration cf his againft the Gen- 
 tiles ; 
 
2^4 ne J\JDGMUNr of 
 
 Dialogue (h) horn the iioth Pfalm concerning Chrift, 
 a Prieft according to the Order of Mekhiz.edeck, Nor 
 was this a Singularity of Juflm'Sy but the common 
 Sentiment of the Primitive Fathers, who have ail with 
 one Confent taught, that it is abfolutely neceflary the 
 Saviour and Mediator of Men with God, fhould be 
 God and Man ; a Point, if ic was not foreign to my 
 Purpofe, which I could prove by a great many Evi- 
 dences. However, at prefent I'll produce two Evi- 
 dences of Catholick Dodrine for all, but thofe very 
 ample, one more antient than Jufiwy and the other juft 
 after him. Ignatius^ a Bifiiop of the Apoftolick Age, 
 teaches this plain in a Place I have often cited from 
 him : 'There is one Phyjician^ carnal and fpritual, made 
 and unmade, God in the Flefh, true Life in Death, &c. 
 He thought ic was God- Man alone who could give a 
 faving Medicine to our Souls, grievoufly diftemper'd, 
 and mortally fick. But (f) Irenaus, next to ju/iin, 
 frequently urges and inculcates the. fame Dodrine, 
 and efpecially where he explains it in a. Learned Man- 
 ner, thus : He then united Man to Gcd. For if Man 
 had not conquered the Adverfary of Man, he had not been 
 lawfully conquer' d. Again ^ if God had not given Saliva- 
 tion, ive could not have firmly obtain d it ; and if Man 
 had not been united to God, he could not have been Par^ 
 taker of Incorruption. For it behoved the Mediator of God 
 
 tiles ; from 'which Leontius, in his fecond Book againji the Euty- 
 chians and Neftorians, hp.th cited thefe words : Corruption being 
 become natural to us, it was neceflary that he, who would 
 fave us, fhould deftroy that which corrupted us. This could 
 not otherwise be, except what was naturally Life was join'd 
 to that which was corruptible, to vanquifh Corruption, and 
 for the future preferve that Immortal which was obnoxious 
 to it. It was therefore neceflary that the Word fhould be 
 embody *d, to free us from the Death of our natural Corrup- 
 tion. Gr^be. See the Spicilejr. Tom. I. Cent.%. p-il^- ivhere you 
 have this entire Fragment irnnfcribed in GreeJc, from a MS. in the 
 Bodleian, and In p. 173. the parallel Place of Iren^us, here cited 
 hy the Right Reverend Author. 
 
 {h) P. 250, &c. CO P. 284. Lib. 3. Cap. 20. 
 
 and 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c, 255 
 
 and Men, by a proper Familiarity with both, to bring them 
 to Friendfiip and Unanimity , to prefent Man to God, and 
 to make kmivn God to Men. Neither Jufiin therefore, 
 nor any Catholick of that Age, could fafely grant, 
 that it did not follow that Jefus was not the Chrift, 
 upon fuppofition that he was mere Man only. For 
 from this Hypothefis ('which was Juflin's, and Catho- 
 lick^ Whofoever is Chrifl, mufi be God ; it neceflarily fol- 
 lows, that they who deny Jefus to be God, deny him 
 to be Chrift. We muft then conclude, that 'Juflin in 
 the Place controverted, argued from the Hypothefis 
 of the Jeias, with whom he had to do, and who be- 
 lieved that Chrift was to be a mere Man only. 
 
 6. But befides this, it may be objeded that 'Juflin. 
 fpeaks plainly of fome, who in his days confefsM Je- 
 fus to be the Chrift, and yet both deny*d his Divi- 
 nity, and that he was born of a Virgin, as tho they 
 were in the Communion of the Catholick Church, and 
 efteem'd true Chriftians : for he fays that they were 
 of one Sort, i. e, of the Chriftian Kind. But this is 
 nothing. For thofe Opiniators might be call'd by 
 yuflin, of ours, i. e. of the Chriftians, as receiving the 
 Chrift, and upon that account boafting themfelves to 
 be Chriftians, as (k) Origen fpeaks of the Ebionites, 
 whom we fhall alfo find hereafter to be intended in 
 this Place by 'Juftin. The fame (I) Origen alfo, treat- 
 ing of fome other notorious Hereticks, calls them 
 fome in the Multitude of Believers, i. e. of thofe that 
 profefsM Chrift. So alfo {m) Juflin^ in his fecond Apo- 
 logy to Antoninus Plus, having firft; fpoke of the Dif- 
 ciples of Simcn^ Menander, and Marcion ('the worft 
 of Hereticks) adds ; AU that fprung from thefe, are 
 £aU*d Chrijlians^ as thofe, who, tho not of the fame Semi" 
 ments, entirely bear the common Name given to Phikfophers. 
 Indeed, if Juflin had here difputed with fome Sed of 
 Chriftians that difTented from him, and had call'd 
 
 (k) Lib. 5. contra Celfwni, p. 272. 
 (0 Lib. 8, p. 357. {m) P,7o, 
 
 them;,' 
 
2^6 ^y^^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 them, by way oF Contradiftindion, of our Sort, whofdl 
 Sentiment he defcribes concerning Chrift as mere Man, 
 it might have been probably concluded, that he held 
 them for Men of the fame Communion, and confe- 
 quently for true Members of the Catholick Church. 
 But the Cafe is far otherwife. For in this place, 'Juflin 
 difputes with Trypho^ and his Friends the Jews, pro- 
 fefs'd Enemies of Chriftianity, from whom Men of 
 every Seft, under the common Name of Chriftians, 
 might be juftly diftinguifh'd. Moreover, where Juf- 
 tiu fpeaks of Chriftians diflenting from him in any 
 Point, but yet in the Communion of the Church, and 
 holding the Catholick Faith, he clearly fignifies it. 
 Thus in this (ji) very Dialogue, fpeaking of the Catho- 
 lick Chriftians who rejected the Millennium, which he 
 embraced, he fays they were Chriftians in other re- 
 fpefts of pure and pious Principles. If Jufiin had 
 given fuch a Charafter of thefe Men, who deny'd the 
 Divinity of our Lord Chrift, the Remonftrants mighc 
 have had fomething to have rejoiced at in the Com- 
 munion, which 'Jufiin, and the Church in his time, 
 held with them. But in vain do they attempt to 
 prove this, becaufe 'Juflin call'd thofe Hereticks [of 
 eur Sort.'] Now what if thefe fhould not be Juflin's 
 Words ? Indeed I am verily perfuaded there is an 
 Error here, and one that may be eafily correded only 
 by the Change of a Letter, i. e. by writing CuiTifn in- 
 ftead of nuc-ritii. which if admitted, the Words muft 
 be rendered of your Sort, that is, of the j^^xi^7/Z> Na- 
 tion. An Error which has happened in this fame Pe- 
 riod, the writing tziktzu for rr^.zv^ fhews how eafily this 
 we are now obferving might be. But my Reafons for 
 this Correftion are plainly thefe: (i.) Wherefoever in 
 this Dialogue this Form of Speaking occurs [0/ utto yi- 
 j-Kf] the word -^ii'oi is taken not metaphorically, but 
 properly for a Nation or Kindred ; fo that [oi avn yir^i 
 771 i:] may be faid to be Perfons of a certain Nation 
 
 r») P. 50^.' 
 
 OP 
 
the CAtHOtiCK Church, ^c\ 20 
 
 or Kindred. So in the Sentence before the Parage 
 cited, and in the preceding Page^ and every where. 
 Now in this fenfe, Jufiin could not, by that Expref- 
 fion, mean the Prof'efTors of the Chriftian Religion, 
 for Chriftians were not all of one Nation, dTc. Up- 
 on this account, I don'c remember that you can 
 find any Place where Chriftians univerfally are by 
 ^vfiin call'd our Nation. (2.) The Heterodox, Juflin 
 fpeaks of, were Ebionttes^ as we fhaU prove by and by i 
 now they were indeed of the Jevjifi) Nation : Hence 
 the Antient Ecclefiaftical Writers uiually range the 
 Herefy of the Ebionites omong thofe, which rofe amongft 
 the Jews. See the {0) ApoftolkalConflhutions, and what 
 we have faid before (pX (3 .) In the Paflage of the 
 preceding Page, refer'd to before, Juftin manifeftly 
 treating of the Ebionites, writes thus : Ij thcfe of the 
 Nation^ ivho profefs to believe in this Chrifl, Trypho, 
 compel thofe of the Gentiles, ix>ho belieme in this Chrifi^ to 
 live exaSlly according to the Laixi of Mofes, or elfe deny to 
 communicate -with them in fuch a way, (namely, that he 
 had fpoke of a little before, of having all things in 
 common as Brethren, and Men of the fame Bowels) 
 / fiould alfo refufe them. Thofe Chriftians of tht'Jevjs^ 
 who not only obferv'd the Ritual Law of Mofes them- 
 felves, but alfo impos'd upon the Gentile Chriftians a 
 Neceflity of doing the fame, were certainly the Ebio* 
 nites, and no others. Add to thefe the Teftimony of 
 (q) Epphanius, that the Ebionites taught Circumcifion. 
 as inftituted by God, and commanded to all for the 
 fake of Purity, and obtaining the Inheritance of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. Now fince xht Ebionites are here 
 defcrib*d by this Periphrafis, [thofe of your Nation who. 
 profefs to believe in this Chriji] who can doubt but in the 
 Place cited by the Remonft rants, Juftinfyeakmg of the 
 Xiame Ebionites y in like manner calls them \_fome vf your 
 PEZVii/fow, -who conjefs that he is Chrift?"] (4.) Laftly, if this 
 Reading is receiv'd, 'Juflin will be confiftent, other- 
 Co) C.6. Lib.^, {jf) Ch.5. Sea, 1, 3, (?) HwreCjo. C.50. 
 
 R wife 
 
258 T'^e JUDGMENT of 
 
 Wife not. He had {aid, as we have obferv'd, that tho 
 "e could not prove, that our Jefus was both God be- 
 *ore Ages, and in the Fulnefs of Time made Man of 
 a Virgm i yet that Trypbo, who was a 7^ti;, ought 
 not therefore to deny that he was the Chrift, or Mef- 
 fiah promifed by the Prophets. This he proves very 
 fitly, and iliullrates by the Example of fome of the 
 ^eivi/h Nation, who neither acknowledged the Divi- 
 nity of Jefus, nor his Nativity of a Virgin, and yet 
 confefs'd him to be Chrift. The Cafe is indeed clear 
 to me, and if I am not greatly miftaken, the impartial 
 Reader, who weighs the Scope and Context of the 
 Place with Diligence and Judgment, will be of my 
 Opinion. 
 
 7. But perhaps fome Perfon will urge, that yuflin 
 (imply profeffes his own Diffent from the Heterodox 
 he glances at, without any other Brand of Infamy 
 upon them. He only fays, he is not of their mind, 
 and neither calls their Opinion Herefy, nor them He- 
 reticks. I anfwer. What if it be fo ? He has no bu- 
 finefs with them in that place. He is upon another 
 Defign, and only mentions them by the by. But 
 is it abfolutely necefl'ary, that he who thinks another 
 an Heretick, fhould call him fo, as often as he 
 fpeaks of him? I doubt not but that Juftin, in the 
 Book profeffedly wrote by him againft all Herefies 
 (which he alfo mentions in this Dialogue) has fharply 
 , treated this, and painted it in proper Colours. Be- 
 fides, here is a plain Miftake, that Juftin has not ftig- 
 matized thefe vain Thinkers. For he plainly fays, 
 that they did not only diifent from him, but from the 
 Faith and Opinion of moft Chriftians, i. e. the Catho- 
 lick Church. And indeed in Juflins time, thofe who 
 taught that our Lord was only Man begotten of Man, 
 were either Carpocratiansy or CerimhianSy or laftly, Ebi- 
 mites, who all in one Body were a very few, compared 
 with the other Chriftians, and were all of them fepa- 
 rated from the Communion of the Apoftolical Churches. 
 No one doubts it of the Carpocratiam and Cerinthians. 
 
 As 
 
the CathOlick Church, ^c 259' 
 
 As for the Ebionites^ it is clear from what we have 
 cited out of Ignatius and IrenauSj that they, from their 
 firft Original, were accounted Hereticks by the Ca;- 
 tholick Church. Moft of the Chriftians of the Cir- 
 cumcifion, that is, the Na^iaraans^ who retained the 
 Primicive Faith of the Church of Jerufalem^ founded 
 by the Apollles, condemn d their Opinion of Chrift as 
 rnere Man (r); and they, as we fhall fhew hefeafter, 
 neither were, nor could be in Communion with the 
 Church of the Gentile Chriftians. Further, Juflin 
 (ignifies that they of whom he fpeaks, did not only go 
 contrary to Catholick Confent, but alfo oppos'd the 
 Sacred Oracles of the Old, and efpecially the New 
 Teftament. This he plainly hints in the laft words 
 of the cited Paragraph, which the Remonflrants, with 
 more Cunning than Candour, have omitted. /, fays 
 he, am not of their mindy nor mofl Chriftians ; for ws 
 are exhorted by Chrift to believe^ not the Traditions and 
 Doctrines of Men, but thofe which the Holy Prophets have 
 publifh'd^ and Chrift himfelf hath taught. Nay, 'Juflin 
 clearly hints in thefe words fas fhall be prov a here* 
 after) that thofe Heterodox Men rather gave credit to 
 human Traditions, than the Predidions of the old 
 Prophets, or the Words of Chrift himfelf in his Go- 
 fpeh This furely was enough for ^uflin to fay of 
 them by the way. 
 
 8. What I have often mention'd, that xhtEbionites 
 are here cenfur'd by ^uftin^ I come now to explain 
 and confirm at large. Now if we confult Ecclefiafti- 
 cal Hiftory, and the antient Herefiologers, we fhall 
 find that there is no Sed of Chriftians, either in 'Juf- 
 tins rime or before> with which the Opinion here de- 
 fcribM does exadiy agree, except the Ebionites. For 
 the the Carpocratians and Cerinthians, as well as the 
 Ebionites^ did affirm Jefus .to have been only a mere 
 Man, propagated of both Sexes ; yet it never was 
 their Opinion, that he was by Election promoted to 
 
 (0 See Ch. 2. of iUsTreaiifej Se£t. il,i2« 
 
 R a the 
 
^6o K'^ JUDGMENT ^/ 
 
 the Office of Mediator. Nay, I know not whether 
 they had any Thoughts of the Chrift or Meffiah fore- 
 told by the Prophets. The Carpocratiam, as (s) Irenaut 
 reports, placed the Dignity and Excellence of our 
 Jefus in this. That his Soul being firm and pure , he Ye- 
 member d thofe things which he hadfeen^ when he was car- 
 vfd about in the unbegotten Gody and that therefore God 
 gave him power to vanqujfb the Makers of the Worldy and 
 having pafs'd thro all, and delivered all, to afcend to God. 
 This Whim never enter'd into the Head of thofe 
 whom Jujlin cenfures. Befides, thofe Carpocratians 
 were the worft of Men, given to Magick ; and ar- 
 riv'd at fuch a pitch of Impiety, as to deny all Dif- 
 tindion of Good and Evil, as Irenaus in the fame place 
 informs us. We can't therefore believe that Jufiin 
 would build any Argument againft Trypho, and his 
 Friends the Jezvs, upon the Opinion of thefe Men, or 
 rather Brutes in human Shape j efpecially when the 
 Jews, in other refpeds, whether of their Country, or 
 the Sacred Rites, had nothing in common with them. 
 As for the Cerinthiam alfo, tho they indeed fymboliz'd 
 with the Jews, to avoid the Perfecutions rais'd by 
 them; yet the Opinion defcrib'd and cenfur'd by 
 Jufiin, does not quadrate with them. For the Cerin- 
 thians did not confefs Jefus to be the Chrift, but un- 
 derftood the word Chrifl, not as denoting Office or 
 Honour, but as fignifying a certain ^on, or Power, 
 which defcended from the Chief of all Powers to Je- 
 fus for a time only, as we have often obfervM before. It 
 remains then that 'Jujlin be thought to intend the Ebi- 
 onites. For befides thefe three Seds, there is no other 
 mention'd by any Ecclefiaftical Writer, which either 
 an the Days of ^tfiiny or before, taught that Jefus was 
 only a Man begotten of Men. Almoft all the other 
 Hereticks of thofe Times, who were Heterodox con- 
 cerning the Perfon of Chrift, have fpoke againft the 
 Truth and Reality of his human Nature. Now the 
 
 (0 Lib. I. Cap. 24* P* I2i» & 122. 
 
 Ehiomtes 
 
the Catholtck Church, (Jr. 261 
 
 Ehionites being Jeivs^ when they went off from the 
 Primitive Faith and Opinion of the Church of Jeru- 
 falem^ embraced the common Notion of the 'Jews con- 
 cerning the Me/fiah, which was the very fame 'Jufiin 
 defcribes in the Place cited. Hereupon Trypho foon 
 after commends and approves it : / thmk thofe ivhofay 
 he was made Man, and by EleBicn anointed and made the 
 Chrifi, fpeak more probably than thofe, ivho fay as ym fay. 
 For all we expeSi, that Chrifl will be made Man of Man^ 
 and that Elias will come and anoint him. And afterwards 
 he (t") advifes 'Juftin, if he would perfuade the '^ews 
 and others that Jefus is the Chrift, to teach that he 
 was Man of Man, and for his ftrid and perfed way 
 of Life, was thought worthy to be chofen the Mef- 
 fiah («). This indeed was the very Opinion of Ebion, 
 and his firft Dilciples, tho the later Ebionites went off 
 from it, and took up feveral Opinions concerning 
 Chrift, many of them embracing fomething not unlike 
 Cerinthianifm, as (x) Epiphanius fays. 
 
 p. But to return to the controverted Place of Jufiin. 
 The laft Words of it, in which Jnfiin hints that the 
 Heterodox cenfur'd by him did attend more to human 
 Dodrines than the Sayings of the Prophets, and of 
 Chrift himfelf in the Gofpel, clearly point out the 
 Ebionites. For they were fo wedded to the Scheme 
 they- had receiv'd from the Hebrew Doftors concerning 
 Chrift's mere Humanity, that they would not luffer 
 themfeives to be divorced, tho the Predidions of the 
 Prophets, and the Teftimonies of the Evangelifts and 
 Apoftles of Chrift, oppos*d it. They fhut their Eyes, 
 and ftopt their Ears againft the Predictions of the Pro- 
 phets, which exprefly declare the Divine Glory and 
 Majefty of the Meffiah. They, as well as the fews^ 
 deprav'd the Prophetical Oracle concerning the Virgin 
 
 (0 P. 291. 
 
 {it) Very vemavkahle that In Juftin'j T^nys^ anii fomK pretended 
 Chrijllan Priejis in our Times-, jlmtld agree in facihtAting the Com'tr- 
 Jion of Aiankindy by denying the Divinifx of Chf'Ji, 
 (v) Hseref. ;o, C. 5. collet, C. 1 {. 
 
 H S BU-th. 
 
5^2 f^^ JUDGMENT^?/ 
 
 Birth, by an infipid Comment. And, for the Scrip- 
 tures of the New Teftament, they only received the 
 Gofpel of St. AlattheWj rejecting the other three, efpe- 
 cially that of St. Johrij becaufe he, both in the begin- 
 ping of his Gofpel, plainly and profefledly declares 
 the eternal Divinity of our Lord, and very often eife- 
 where reports how he alTerted his Divine Majefty be- 
 fore the Jews. Nay, they mutilated the very Gofpel 
 of St. Matthew; for they took away the firft Chapter, 
 and begun with thofe things which happened in the 
 Times oi Herod and Caiaphas the High Prieft, for this 
 reafon, becaufe that Chapter contained a clear Tefti- 
 mony concerning Chrift's Nativity of the Virgin, 
 They were not afraid openly to rejed whatfoever in 
 the Scriptures of the New Teftament contradifted 
 their Rabbinical ^oi\Qns. Perhaps Ignatius had an eye 
 upon the Impudence and Wickednefs of thefe Men in 
 his (y) Epiftle to the Philadelphians (in which, no doubt, 
 be plainly cenfures the Hereticks, who then attempted 
 to bring Judaifm into the Churches of the Gentiles .) 
 J have heard fome^ ivho fayy XJnlefs I find it in the An- 
 tientSj I dont believe it in the Gofpel ; and when I havQ 
 laid to them. It is written, they have reply'd^ It is no- 
 thing worth, tho written, or it is eftablifh'd before 
 [in the Antients.'] The Antients, I fuppofe, are the 
 old Rabbins, Mailers, or Do^Sors of the Hebrezus, who 
 "were famous fome Years before our Lord's Coming, 
 "whofe Dodrines and Traditions the Jezus and their 
 mad Admirers efteem'd as Oracles. The word -^r^jcV.s/Tw/ 
 is unintelligibly rendered by the old Interpreter [pr^- 
 jacet.'] It often fignifies to be thrown away, as of no 
 value or worth. If fo, Ignatius's Senfe muft be. That 
 thefe Men, of whom he {peaks, were not afhamed tq 
 profefs, that they would only fo far believe the Gofpel, 
 gs it was agreeable to the Traditions of thefe Do(3:ors; 
 and that when he refuted the Opinions they had re- 
 jjeiv'd from them, by the Scriptures of the New Te- 
 
 C^O VoLa. P,A,p.33= 
 
 (lament 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c» 2^3 
 
 flament receiv'd in the Church, they replyM that they 
 rejeded thofe Scriptures, as ot' no Autnoricy. Thus 
 the pretended Ignatius feems to have underdood the 
 Word, when he thus enlarges upon the Place : (z,) It is 
 hard to kick againft the Pricks^ it is hard to disbelieve Chrifl^ 
 it is hard to rejeci the Preaching of the Apofiles. But the 
 Word may alio be referred to the Opinion thefe Here- 
 ticks defended againft the Scriptures, alledg'd by Ig' 
 natius in another and a contrary Signification : For as 
 the fimple Verb Kii-mt fometimes fignifies, It is laid 
 down, it is an Axiom, upon which account fuch Propo- 
 fitions are call'd Kzi^^vcti fo 'm^pYju-n/.i may fignify. It is 
 laid dotvn^ fix'd, defind, or efialplifh'd before. If fo, the 
 Senfe will be. That the Hereticks reply'd to Ignatius^ 
 difputing with them out of the Scriptures of the New 
 Teftament, that their Opinion was defin'd and efta- 
 blifh'd before, namely, by the Antients, when the 
 Scriptures were not as yet publifh'd. Take it which 
 way you pleafe, you may plainly fee the fame foolifli 
 Veneration of the Antients, the fame profane Con- 
 tempt of the Scriptures. But this, by the way ; I 
 proceed. Thefe Ebionites alfo, in order to defend the 
 univerfal Obligation of the Ritual Mo/^/W Law, re- 
 jeded all St. PauVs Epiftles, and call'd him an Apo- 
 ftate from the Law. Well then, were not thefe Men 
 Hereticks, and did not 'Judin efteem them fo ? Did 
 the Church in 'Juflins Time, or did 'Juflin himfelf hold 
 Communion with them ? He may believe it that can, 
 but I can't. Nay more, ^ufiin could not communicate 
 with the EbioniteSy if he would, for they would not com- 
 municate with the Gentile Chriftians, and were there- 
 fore rejeded as Hereticks by Jufiin, as is plain from a 
 PaiTage we have before cited. horn him, in this Chapter. 
 
 10. I fuppofe I have now fufficiently prov'd that the 
 Paflage in Ju/iiny cited by Epifcopius and the Remon- 
 ftrants, was in vain alledg'd by them to prove, that 
 the Church in Jufiins time held Communion with 
 thofe that deny'd the Divinity of our Lord Jefus, 
 
 iz) Ibid. p. 84. 
 
 R 4 Fot 
 
4^4 r^^ J U D G M E N T of 
 
 For from what has been faid, it is very evident, that 
 thofe Opiniators noted by yuftin in that place, both 
 deny'd the Divinity of Cnriit, and alfo his Nativity 
 of the Virgin ; and that they might uefend their Hy- 
 pothelis, held it neceflfary to rejeft^ and confequently 
 did impioufly and impudently rejed the Sacred Go- 
 fpels or Chrift receivM by the Catliolick Church, and 
 daily read in their Sacred A£femblies; that is, that 
 the Ehionitei were certamly intended by Juftin, who 
 were caft off by the other Chriftians of the Circum- 
 cifion, namely the Naz^araans, and who neither could, 
 nor would communicate with any Church of the GetJ" 
 tiles. 
 
 II. To what has been faid, I will only add fome 
 Places out of this very Dialogue with Trypho^ by 
 which it will plainly appear, what Jufiin himfelf 
 thought of the Neceflity of believing the Articles of 
 ouy Saviour's Divinity, and of thofe Ebionites and o- 
 thers who deny*d it. Firfl then, let us confult {a) the 
 Place, I have often cited upon another Occafion ; 
 where he fays, that their Faith concerning Chrift, who 
 are favM under the Gofpel, is fuch, as acknowledges 
 Chrift to he the Son of God, who was before Lucifer and 
 the Moottf and who being made Flefb, condef ended to be 
 horn of the Virgin of the Houfe of David, that by this Dif- 
 fenfation the Serpent, who was fir ft an Evil-doer, and the 
 Angels who are like to him, might be deftroy*d, dec. From 
 this we may eafily conclude, that Jufiin did not e- 
 fteem their Faith, who believM in fuch a Chrift, or 
 Son of God, as did not exift before Mary, and who 
 yas not begotten of the Virgin Mary, but of fofeph 
 and Mary, to be the Chriftian Faith, or fuch a Faith 
 concerning the Perfon of Chrift, as is fufficient to 
 Salvation. Surely every Man, who reads the entire 
 Place, muft think that fuftin has there given us the 
 Symbol or Rule of Faith, fo far as it relates to Chrift, 
 %ii^ what he undertook, which in his time w^s re- . 
 
 y) p. 2^4, 
 
 ceive4 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c* 265 
 
 celved in the Church, and confequently that thofe, 
 who contradii^ed it, could not but be efteem'd by 
 the Church, and of courfe by him, who conftantly 
 adhered to it, as Apoflates from the Rule, /. e. Here- 
 ticks. This will be more clear yet from another Paf- 
 fage in the fame {b) Dialogue, N^here he feems to give 
 us, as it were, a ihort Account of that Piece he had 
 composed againft all Herefies : 'there are theriy fays he, 
 and have been many Profelytes to Chrifiianhy, ivho have 
 taught athetflkal and blafphemous tenets and PraBkes. 
 We have given them their Denomination from thofe, from 
 Vihom every DoSirine and Opinion fprung. Some of them 
 teach one way, and others another of blafpheming the 
 Maker of the Univerfe, and Chrifi^ whom he had fore- 
 told (hould come, even the God 0/ Abraham, Ifaac, and 
 Jacob. IVe communicate with none of thefe, as knowing 
 themfelves to be atheiftical, impious, unjufi and irregular, 
 md inftead of Worjhippers of fefus^ only nominal Confejfors 
 of him. they call themfelves Chrifiians indeed, as the Hea- 
 then give the Name of God to things made with hands, and 
 communicate in unlawful and impious Myfteries. Some of them 
 are call'd Marcionites, fome Valentinians, fome Bafili- 
 dians, fome Saturnilians, and others by other Names, every 
 one being denominated from the Author of his Opinion. 
 Here 'Juflin manifeftly treats of all the Hereticks which 
 in his Age or before had difturb'd the Church ; he 
 only names fome of them, and adds that there were 
 others known by other Names taken from their re- 
 fpedive Herefiarchs, viz>. Carpocratians from Carpocrates, 
 Cerinthians from Cerinthus, Ebionites from Ehion, and 
 many others. All thefe Hereticks did in fome fore 
 blafpheme God the Father, or the Son, or both, by 
 their DoArine. Some, fays he, teach one way, others 
 another, of blafpheming the Maker of the Univerfe, and 
 Chrifi, whom he had foretold f^ould come, even the God of 
 Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. Here it is efpecially to 
 J)e obferv*d, that this Chrift and the God oi Abraham, 
 
 (h) P. 253. 
 
 Ifaac, 
 
^66 T';^^ J U D G M E N T ^/ 
 
 Ijaac^ and '^acob, are fpoken of as the fame Perfon, 
 namelyj as he whom the Maker of the Univerfe foretold 
 fhould come, that is, the Son of God. For firft, the 
 God of Abraham^ Jfaac and Jacobs is plainly diftin- 
 guifh'd from the Maker of the Univerfe, that is, from 
 God the Father. Then it is notorious, thsLt Juftin 
 every where in this Dialogue teaches, that it was 
 Chrift, or the Son of God, who appeared to Mofes in 
 the burning Bufh, and call'd himfelf the God of Abra* 
 ham^ Jfaac and ^acob. Well then, did not the Ebi" 
 mites blafpheme CHrifl, the God of Abraham^ Ifaac and 
 Jacob, at all, who openly deny'd that Chrift was the 
 God of Abrahamj Jfaac and Jacob ? who taught that he 
 did not exift before Abraham, no not before Mary j 
 'A^ho prefumed to affirm that he was no more than a 
 meer' Man begotten of Jofeph and Mary 1 Further, 
 Jufiin fays, that thefe Hereticks were, inftead of Wor- 
 Ihippers of Jefus, only nominal Ccnfeffors of him. Don'c 
 thefe words alfo ftrike at the Ebionites? Sure they 
 do. For of what Worfhip or Adoration doth Juftin 
 fpeak ? Of that, doubtlefs, which he, in this Dia- 
 logue, contends is due to Jefus Chrift, and in which 
 he enlarges himfelf upon the Proof, that he is both 
 adorable and God, that is, to be adored as God. 
 "Without doubt he fpeaks of the Worfhip, which all 
 Catholick Chriftians then gave to Chrift, who glori- 
 fy 'd and adored him as God, together with the Father 
 and Holy Spirit, in Hymns and Doxologies, as he 
 (c) hitnfelf informs us (d). Did the Ebionites give fuch 
 Worfhip to Chrift ? Nay, could they give it ? By 
 no means. Therefore it is certain that Juflin placed 
 the Ebionites.^ and all others, who, as well as they, op- 
 posM our Savivour's Divinity, in the Catalogue of He- 
 reticks, with vshich the Church had no Communion, 
 and whom they rejefted as impious, and utterly un- 
 worthy the Name of Chriftians. 
 
 (c) p. 56' {d) See 'VDhat We have /aid upon this Place in the 
 
 Defence of the Nicene Creed, SeQ. 2. Ch. 4. S. 8, 
 
 12. To 
 
the CATHoticK Church, ^c* 267 
 
 12. To thefe, if you pleafe, you may add a third 
 Place in this fame Dialogue. There Juftitij at the 
 Infligation of T'rypho, attempts largely to prove, 
 that in the Old Teftament he is frequently call*d 
 God, and true God, not God improperly fpeaking, 
 who is yet perfonally diflinft from God the Parent of 
 the Univerfe, meaning this Jefus Chrift, in whom we 
 believe : and further undertakes to bring fucH Argu- 
 ments for it from the Law and the Prophets, as no 
 Man fhall be able to contradid. Then he immediately 
 adds concerning the Proofs he was about to produce : 
 (e) T'hey luill feem firange to you^ tho daily read by you. 
 From this you may know^ that God has hid the Power of 
 under ft anding the Wifdom of his Words from you ', except 
 ftichj to ivhom, as K^iah fpeaks, according to his very great 
 CojnpaJJioriy he has left as a Seed to Salvation, that your 
 Nation might not utterly perifo, like thofe of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah. Here every one may plainly fee that the 
 yews, who believ'd in Ghrift, and embrac'd his Doc- 
 trine, are underftood as thofe, who alone o( thejewi/b 
 Nation are left by God as a Seed unto Salvation. But 
 yuflin plainly enough fignifies, that all thefe under- 
 ftood the Wifdom, or Myftery of Chrift the Son of 
 God, and confequently God, to be deliver'd in the 
 Old Scriptures; therefore he by no means thought, 
 that they of the Jewiflo Nation, who profefling to be- 
 lieve in Chrift, did not yet perceive that Wifdom ei- 
 ther in the Writings of the Prophets, or in the clear 
 Light of the Gofpel, namely the Ebionites, did belong 
 to the Seed referv'd by God to Salvation, that is, were 
 truly Believers, or Chriftians ; but rather judg'd them 
 to be of the fame Clafs with the Jews, who were repro- 
 bate, and blinded by the juft Judgment of God. What I 
 have before difcourfed of the old Naz.aranm if), or the 
 Hierofolymitan Chriftians of the Circumcifion, is very 
 proper to be confulted here, as "what will both give 
 light to this Place, and be better underftood by it. 
 
 (0 P.274. (/) Ch.2. ^.9, II,l2>I3)I4>l5• 
 
568 T^e JUDGMENTof 
 
 A'PTBNTilXto the Seventh Chapter. 
 
 AFTER I had finifli'd my former Obfervations 
 upon the celebrated Paffage of Juflin, I pro- 
 cured the other Volume of Epifcopius* sWorkSy in which 
 I found the fecond Edition of the Anfwer to the Specimen 
 of Calumnies, &c. 
 
 Now in that Anfwer the Remonftrants ufe many 
 tg) Arguments to prove from that Place, that the An- 
 tient Primitive Chrifllan Church held Communion with 
 thofe who believ*d and profefs'd that Chrift Jefus was 
 mere Man only, Man of Man, and made Chrift by 
 Eledion. They boaft of fome of their Arguments as 
 the cleareft imaginable, and propofe others as highly 
 probable. As for the firft fort, every unprejudiced 
 Man may fee from what I have faid before, that they 
 are fo far from being the moft clear imaginable, that 
 they can't juftly be call'd highly probable. Never- 
 thelefe, we will briefly examine thefe very clear Ar- 
 guments of Eptfcopius and the Remonftrants. 
 
 2. (ijjuftin, {a.ys EpifcopiuSy affirms it pojjible to de- 
 mon/irate folidlyy that Jefus is the Chrifi of Gody the pro- 
 mifed Mefftahy tho he cant prove that Chrift pre- exi fled as 
 the Son of God. He therefore believed that he mighty by a 
 fure Faith, be taken for ^ and ivorjjjipped as the Meffiah, 
 tho he uas deny'd to be the eternal Son of God. I refer my 
 Reader to a full and clear Anfwer to this in the fore- 
 going Chapter (h). The Ground of Epfcopius's Error, 
 and that of the Remonftrants, was their not obferving 
 thsitjuflin in this Place we are fpeaking of, does not 
 argue from his own Sentiment, or the Truth of the 
 Thing itfelf, but from the Jewi/h Hypothefis, with 
 whom he difputes. Nothing can be plainer. (2.) 
 
 {g) Vol. 2. p. 2. Op. Epifcop. p. 295, & 294. 
 (fc) Ch. 7. Sea. 4, 5- 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c, 26^ 
 
 'Juflin^ Epifcopius adds, affirms, that, if anyone believes 
 Cbrifi to be only Man begotten of Man, and made Chrifl 
 by EleSiion, he only errs, but does not deny the Chrifl. He 
 therefore believed this EYror to be fuch an one, as was con-* 
 jiflent with that Faith, by which we believe Chrifl to be the 
 Mejflah, in which he places the EJJence of Chriflianity. 
 Now the Antecedent is plainly falfe. For Jtlflin no 
 where affirms what Epifcopius fays he doth. The 
 words of 'Juflin, in which Epifcopius fancy 'd his Ante- 
 cedent, are thefe : But if I fljould not demonflrate that 
 he [our Jefus] didpre-exifl, and condefcended to be made 
 Man of like Paffions with us, and incarnate according t9 
 the purpofe of the Father, you may juflly fay Vm miflaken 
 in that Point, but you cant deny that he is the Chrifl. Mif- 
 taken in what ? In affir?mng hit Pre-exiflence and Nativity 
 of the Virgin. But then Tou, Trypho, who art a Jew, 
 and expeElefl no other Mejflah than a mere Man, Man be- 
 gotten of Man, can take no advantage of my Miflake ; it 
 is good againfl you flill (i). Epifcopius proceeds to argue 
 thus from the Place of Juflin : He affirms that if this 
 Point can be made good, namely, that Jefus is the Chrifl, or 
 Mejjtah ', it may and ought to fatisfy a Jew, tho he knew not, 
 or deny' d, or could not prove that Jefus pre- exifled as the Son 
 of God, or even affirmed that he was no more than mere 
 Man. I fcarce know what the learned Man means 
 here. Does he mean, that if ajew could only prove, 
 and was only perfuaded that Jefus was the Chrift, or 
 MefTiah, that it would be fufficient for his Salvation, 
 tho he knew not, or deny'd that Jefus pre-exifted the 
 Son of God, and even afHrmM that he was nothing but 
 mere Man, begotten of Man ? He mufl either intend 
 this, or he has faid nothing to the purpofe. But then 
 where has Juflin alSrm'd this ? If this was indeed 
 his Opinion, he has taken a great deal of pains in this 
 Dialogue to no purpofe, and gathered Arguments from 
 every part of the Old Teftament to convince the Jews 
 that it was foretold of Chrift, or the Melfiah, that he 
 
 (0 5«Ch.7. J.4,5. 
 
 fliould 
 
270 !ra^ JUDGMENT^?/ 
 
 fhould both be God, and born Man of a Virgin. In 
 vain does he fo often and fo fharply corred and re- 
 prove their unparalleled Obftinacy, in that they would 
 not believe and confefs thefe things; nay, forhetimes he 
 even bewails and compaffionates them as forfaken of 
 God, and blinded by his juft Judgment. Surely when 
 he did thus, he was not in earneft ; for if Epifcopius 
 fay true, he at the fame time thought, it was not 
 neceflary for the Jews thus to believe, it was enough 
 for their Salvation, to make a MefTiah of him fome way 
 or other. Had it not been better for ytifiin to have 
 faid nothing of thefe Myfteries, than, by being eager 
 upon unneceffary Truth, to drive them from an abfo- 
 lutely neceffary Faith ? But not to multiply words, 
 I have evidently prov'd before, that "Jufiin^ and the 
 Catholick Church of his Times, efteem'd thofe Jews^ 
 the Ebionites I mean, to be Hereticks, who confefs 'd 
 Jefus to be the Chrift, and yet deny'd his Pre-exiftence 
 before Ages, and his Nativity of the Virgin, and held 
 them to be Aliens from the true faving Knowledge and 
 Faith of Chrift. After thefe things, the Remonftrants 
 urge thofe words, C^or there are fome of our Sori] but 
 they have been clearly anfwer'd before ^4). Thefe are 
 the Arguments which Epifcopius and the Remonftrants 
 boaft of as the moft clear imaginable; with what 
 Judgment and Fidelity, let the impartial Reader 
 
 3. Let us now proceed to the Arguments he pro- 
 pofes as highly probable, but what, I confefs, I fhould 
 never have dreamt of without his affiftance. (i.) He 
 urges, (/) That thofe words of Juftin [Nor will very 
 many fay fo, who are of my Opinion] feem tofieiu that 
 there were a few of that Opinion^ in his Community. For 
 he has not faid [No one of thofe who are of my Opi- 
 nion {in contradiJiinSiion to the other Heretical SeBs^ the 
 Marcionites, Valentinians, &c. whom he always diftin- 
 gutfhes from his own) would fay foU l^ut [very few, &c.2 
 
 (k) Ch. 7. g.5. (/) Epifcop. p.aptf. 
 
 Here 
 
the Catholtck Church, (^c. 271 
 
 Here then you have this Argument : T'he Words of 
 Juftin CNor will very many fay fo, who are of my 
 Opinion] foew that fame {hut a few) in the Churchy where 
 he communicated^ believed Chrifl to be only Man begotten of 
 Man : therefore the Church in Juftin'j" 'Time held Commu- 
 nion with thofcj who believed Chrifl mere Man. I own 
 the Confequence is very juft : But without Epifcopius's 
 Spedacles, there is no finding the Antecedent. Epif- 
 copius takes the words, as tho they implyM a Partition 
 or Diftindion : [ZVcr will very many of them, who are of 
 my Opinion^ fay fi-l But this is wrong. The Greek will 
 not bear it. Befides, thofe he calls [th^t are of my 
 Opinion'] are here plainly, fuch as thought the fame 
 concerning Chrift as Juflin did, namely, that he was 
 before Ages, and made Man of a Virgin ; never a 
 one of which, you may be fure, would fay that he 
 was Man begotten of Man. This is evident from 
 *Jrypho*s Anfwer immediately following : I think, fays 
 he, they who fay he was made Man, and by EleSiion a- 
 nointed and conflituted Chrifl, [peak more probably than thofe 
 who fay as you fay. Here no doubt Z^^ofe who fay as 
 you fay2 are the fame with thofe calfd by Juflin [who 
 are of my Opinion] but \jhofe who fay as you fay] are 
 without doubt fuch as with him affirm'd that Chrift 
 both pre-exifted as God, and was born of a Virgin as 
 Man-, whofe Opinion Trypho oppofes, and prefers be- 
 fore it theirs, who afl'erted he was made Man, and by 
 Election anointed and conftituted Chrift. It is then 
 manifeft that the Words in Controverfy are explica- 
 tory, not diftin6tive ; that ct-ae/s-o/ is oppos'd to -nvi^;, 
 which went before, and that therefore the Words of 
 Juflin muft be underftood in this fenfe : There are 
 fome, O Trypho, of our Sort, or rather of your Nation, 
 who cdnfefs that Jefus is the Chrift, and yet affirm 
 that he is only a Man begotten of Man. I'm not 
 of their Opinion j nor indeed would far the greateft 
 part of Chriftians fay (o, for in this Point they think 
 as I do. Who now would conclude from this, as 
 Epifcopius does, that there were fome, with whom 
 
 Juftin 
 
272 I'be JUDGMENT of 
 
 Juftin held Communion, who thought our Saviour to 
 be only mere Man ? To this you may add, that it 
 \vas impoffible the Heterodox, of whom Jujiin (peaks, 
 fhould have any Place in the Congregation or Afl'embly 
 of any Catholick Church ; becaufe they not only de- 
 ny'd the Divinity of our Lord, but alfo his Nativity as 
 Man of the Virgin : and that they might fupport both 
 their Hypothefes, plainly rejefted the Gofpels receiv'd 
 in the Catholick Church, and read in her Sacred Af- 
 femblies. Nay, thofe in Jufims time, who publickly 
 deny'd the Divinity of Chriit our Lord, could not be 
 prefent at the Divine Service of the Catholicks, with- 
 out deriding the Chriftian Worfhip. For in the Li- 
 turgies of the Catholick Church, both in 'Juflins time, 
 and before, even from the beginning, our Saviour was 
 adorMand glorify *d as God. Jiiflin himfelf bears witnefs 
 of his own Age, as we have (hewn before , and before 
 'Jujiin, Pliny (m) reports this from the Confeflion of the 
 Chriftian Apoftates : They affirmed this ivas all their 
 Crimey or their Error y that they ufually met at an appointed 
 time before day, and fung an alternate Hymn to Chrifiy as 
 God. A Catholick Author (n) has appealed to thefe Hymns, 
 againft Artemon, who impudently rejeded the Opinion 
 of the Church concerning our Saviour's Divinity, as 
 novel : I'he Pfalms and Hymns, all that have been zvrote 
 by the faithful Brethren, celebrate the Word of God as God. 
 Kay, the Confeffion of our Lord's Divinity was fo 
 plain and exprefs in thofe Hymns, that Paulus Same- 
 fatenus for that reafon could not bear them, and even 
 attempted (as the Antiochian Fathers tell us in their 
 Synodical Epiftle) to throw them out of all the 
 Churches under his Government. ^ The fecond of £- 
 pifcopius's highly probable Arguments, is this : T'hofe 
 •words Qof our Sort! feem to imply a more near Relation 
 and Communion of Faith, than that, which is only nominal 
 and external. Nou Juftin fays of thefe Men, whom he 
 
 (w) Plinij Ep. Ed. Hackran.i(f6p. Lib. lo. Ep.97, p. 714. 
 («) Eufeb.E.H. Lib, 7. Cap. 50. p.azp. 
 
 calls 
 
the Catholick Church, ^-q, 27^ 
 
 cah Cof his own SortD that they did not deny him to be 
 the Chrifly or that it did nor foliow from their Opinion^ that 
 yefus was not the Chrift. This Argument is made up 
 of two, which I particularly confuted (0) hefire. " Con- 
 cerning the words [cf our Sort'^ fee Clap.']. Seel. 6. 
 And as for the Reafon, which Epifcopius fubjoins, we 
 have proved that to be a grofs Mifiake of his. 
 
 5. The third Argument is this: It Jhjuld not feeni 
 'very jirange to any cne^ that Juftin took thcfe for Members 
 of the true Churchy who thought our Lord was mere Man i 
 when he alfo efieem'd Socrates and Heraclitus to be Chri' 
 fiians, who li'ued zvith Chriji^ the jirji- be gotten of God : as 
 Scultetus in his Analyfis of the Apology for the Chrifliam 
 to Antoninus Pius (that is, Jufiin's) reports from ]u{i\n. 
 A ftrange, foreign, far-fetch'd Argument ! But how- 
 ever, I anfver, I have clearly Ihewn before, thatjuflin 
 held all thofe Profeflors of Chriilianity, who did noc 
 take Chrift for the true God, the God of Abraham, 
 Ifaac and 'Jacob, and did not worfhip him as fuch, to 
 be impious Hereticks, w ith whom neither he, nor the 
 Catholick Church, had any Communion. As for the 
 Heterodox alfo, noted in the Place before us, I have 
 fairly provM that both jfwy?i«, and all Catholicks, e- 
 fleem'd them heretical upon more accounts than one. 
 Therefore if that is true, which Epifcopius alledges 
 from. Scultetus, namely, that Jujlin took Socrates and 
 Heraclitus for true Chriftians, this only wnll follow, 
 that the holy Man had conceived a better Opinion of 
 Socrates and Heraclitus than of thofe Hereticks. Nor 
 ftiould any one admire, ii Jufiin thought more ho- 
 nourably, and hoped better of the Heathens, who, 
 Without Divine Revelation, according to their fmall 
 Portion of Light and Knowledge, worfhipped one 
 God, the Maker of all things, and followed after Ver- 
 tue, (as he was ot opinion that Socrates and Heraclitus 
 did) than of thofe, who, boafting themfelves Chri- 
 ftians, did impudently and wickedly rejed the firft 
 
 CO Ch. 7. §, 4, 5/ 
 
 S Prill- 
 
274 The J \JDGMENr of 
 
 Principles of their Religion reveal'd by God, and a 
 bundantly confirmed by fo many, and fo great Mira" 
 cles, plainly delivered by Chrift and his Apoftles, for 
 this reiafon, that they could not with their weak Heads 
 comprehend the whole Method and Reafon of them. 
 
 But when Jupn, in the (p) Apology infcrib'd the 
 Second, calls Socrates and Heraditm Chriftians, he does 
 not mean Chriftians abfolutely and perfedly, but in 
 part only, and fo far as they followed the Guidance 
 of right Reafon, defpisM the Heathen Idols, and, like 
 the Chriftians, acknowledgM and worihip'd one God, 
 the Parent of all things ; fo far as in their Writings 
 they taught, and in their Lives exprefs'd, a great deal 
 of very good, and indeed Chriftian Morality. For 
 ^uftin teaches, that the Reafon, which is in every 
 Man, is, as it were, a Seed or Portion of the Divine 
 Word, or Reafon that is of Chrift, for which caufe 
 he calls him the umnjerjal Reafon-, and confequently 
 that the Gentile Philofophers, who, before the coming 
 of Chrift, conformed their Opinions and Lives to the 
 Rule of that Reafon within them, were fo far Chri- 
 ftians i but that thofe alone were abfolutely Chriftians, 
 who were taught, and did embrace the Divine Infti- 
 tution and Difcipline of the univerfal Reafon, i.e. of 
 Chrift, deliver'd in the Gofpel, and far more excellent 
 than all human Wifdom. This 'Juflin partly fignifies 
 in that very place Scidtetus had his eye upon (q) : We 
 have been taught, fays he, that Chrijl is the firft-born of 
 God, and ive have before fjeuon that he is the Reafon, of 
 tx)hich all Mankind partakes. And they ijoho live rationally^ 
 are Chriftians, &c. But he gives us his Mind more fully 
 in the Apology commonly publifliM as the firft i there, 
 fpeaking of certain Philofophers among the Gentiles, 
 who were hated of their own People, for the excel- 
 lent Morality they deliver'd by the Seed of Reafon, 
 natural to all Mankind ; and having again produced 
 the Example of Heraclitus^ and one Mufmius his Con- 
 
 (?) P. Sg, (^) Ibid, 
 
 temporary^ 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c* 275 
 
 temporary, he prefently adds (y) : Tor^ as ive have 
 Jhevi'd before, the Damons have always made all them to 
 be hatedy who, according to the befl of their power, have 
 endeavoured to avoid Evil, and live according to Reafon^ 
 And no wonder if they are found much more aBive in pro^ 
 curing them hatred, who live according to a Portion of the 
 original Reafon [in iTome fort rationallyD yea, according 
 to the Knowledge and 'Theory of the univerfal Reafon, which 
 is Chrifi. You fee here in what fenfe Jufiin call'd He- 
 raclitus and fuch Perfons Chriftians, namely, as they con- 
 formed their Manners in fome fort to a Portion of the original 
 Reafon, lived according to Reafon, and endeavoured to a- 
 void Evil. But betwixt them and the true Chriftians 
 he makes a wide difference ; for the true Chriftians are 
 they, who live according to the Knowledge and 'Theory of 
 the univerfal Reafon, which is Chrifi. Now if any one 
 fufpeds that Jufiin thought a Man, by the only Af- 
 (iftance of his natural Reafon, might arrive at fuch a 
 Knowledge of God, as would be fufficient to procure 
 him Life and Blifs, heavenly and eternal, let him hear 
 what he fays for himfelf in the Conclufion of his Pa- 
 ranefis {s) : Tou mufi therefore know this univerfally, that 
 you can no otherwife learn the things of God and true Reli- 
 gion, than by the Prophets only, thofe who teach you by 
 Divine Infpiration. His words are alfo very exprefs in 
 his Epiftle to Diognetus (t) : No Man hath known God 
 himfelf, or difcover'd him to, another ; but he hath exhibited 
 himfelf, and this he hath done by Faith, by which only it is 
 granted to us to fee God. 
 
 6. I come now to Epifcopius's fourth and laft Argu- 
 ment, which proceeds thus : If any one, fays he, reads 
 the Writings of Juftin, and efpecially his Dialogue, call'd 
 Try p ho, with exaEinefs ; he will find that Juftin does in- 
 deed acknowledge Chrifi to be God and Lord', but every 
 where denies him to be Creator of the Univerfe, and af- 
 ferts that he is diftinB, and different from him not only in 
 PerfoNy but in Nature, tho not in jViU and Purpofe. 
 
 ir)V.^6, (i)P.37. C0P.499* 
 
 S 3 Now 
 
27^ "The JUDGMENT (?/ 
 
 Now if this be fo, ic fhould not be ftrange that he 
 thought thofe of his oiuw Sort^ who believed that he 
 did not pre-exift before all other things, or was cre- 
 ated, or made in the beginning, but was begotten and 
 born of Man in time. Nor is there fo great a diffe- 
 rence betwixt thofe Opinions, as to occafion a Schifm. 
 For Chrifl is by both defined a Creature, and the 
 Queftion only is, when he began to exift. Strange ! 
 What is the meaning of thofe words, that 'Ju^in every 
 where denies Chrift to be the Creator of the Univerfe ? 
 Does Epifcopius mean by them, that Jnftin every where 
 denies all created things to be brought out of nothing 
 into Exiftence by Chrift, i. e. the only begotten Son of 
 God, who exifted before all Ages, and after he had 
 taken Flefh upon him, was call'd Chrift ? This is 
 by no means true. For, on the other hand, ^uflin 
 every where attributes the Creation of all things to 
 the Son of God, as a Work common to him with 
 God the Father. Thus having firft fpoke (u) of God 
 the Father, he adds thefe words concerning the Son : 
 Hii Son, •who is only poperly caWd Son, the IVord^ who 
 tioas with him before the CreatureSy and borriy when he frfi 
 made and adorn d all things by him^ Sec. So in another 
 place (x) : But this Birth, which really came from the 
 Father before aU Creatures^ co-exijied with the Father , and 
 the Father converfed with hiiH; namely, in thofe words 
 a little before cited by him : Let us make Man, &:c. 
 And in the Epiftle to Diognetus, he teaches that the 
 Son is not a Servant, but the very Artificer and Ma- 
 ker of all things. Did Epifcopius then take the words 
 ^Creator (f the Univerfel perfonally, as they fay, as they 
 are the Title of God the Father, in refpeft of his be- 
 ing the Fountain of the Deity, and confequently of 
 all Divine Operations ? If this was his meaning, we 
 confefs Juftin deny'd fas the Catholick Church always 
 did) that Chrift was God the Father. That was a 
 Tenet condemn'd by the Church at feveral tiraeSa and 
 
the Catholtck Church, fyc* 277 
 
 in the Perfons of divers Hereticks. But Epifcopim 
 proceeds, faying that '[juflin every where aflercs Chrift 
 (in his more excellent Nature, wherein he exifted be- 
 fore Ages) to be different from the Creator of the U- 
 niverfe, that is God the Father ; and that not only 
 in Perfon, but in Nature, fo as to be only a Creature. 
 Surely he who ferioufly charges this Herefy upon '[Juf- 
 tWy can't be thought to have read the good Father's 
 Works with any exadnefs. For he is fo far from it, 
 that no one Place can be alledgM to this purpofe. 
 Nay, on the other hand, in the Places before cited out 
 of his firft Apology, and his Dialogue with Trypho^ he 
 plainly diftinguifhes the Word, or Son of God, pro- 
 perly fo caird, that is, the true and natural Son of 
 God', from the Creatures, and all thofe things that are 
 made by God, and attributes to him an Exiftence co- 
 eternal with God the Father. Alfo in the Place cited 
 (y) from the Epiftle to Diognetus^ he exprefly denies 
 that the Son of God is a Servant, /. e. a Creature. In 
 what fenfe the fame Jtiflin elfewhere, and other Pri- 
 mitive Fathers, have call'd him a Servant, and attri- ^ 
 buted to him a certain Difpenfation, not compatible 
 with the Father, in which he often from the begin- 
 ning defcended to the Earth, and in a vifible Shape 
 converfed with holy Men, you may fee largely ex- 
 plain'd \\\ another Place (z,). Further, in the fame E- 
 piftle to Diognetus (a), the Son of God is call'd by 
 Juftin [/;f luho always was, [but] to-day ts reputed the 
 Son {] fo in his Paranefts to the Greeks, he obferves (b)^ 
 that the Angel, who appeared to Mofes in the Bufh, 
 and whom he every where contends was the Son of 
 God, caird himfelf [he that is'] and afterwards ex-' 
 prefly notes that that Defcription belongs to the eterr- 
 nally exiftent God. Sare he wdio wrote thus, never 
 dreamt that the Son of God was a Creature. 
 
 iy) P. 498. (t) Defence of the Nicene Creed, Scvt. 4^ 
 
 Ch. 2. g. 2. & Ch. 3. $. 4, & 5. C^) P. 5c 1. 
 
 ih) P. 19, & 20. 
 
 S3 7. Ladly, 
 
57S 37^^ JUDGMENT(?/ 
 
 7. Laftly, the Holy Martyr frequently aflerts the 
 Confubftantiality of the Son, the he no where ufes 
 the very word, affirming that he is the true, real, ge- 
 nuine Son of God, begotten of the very ElTence of 
 the Father, and upon that account very God, as well 
 as the Father, as I have largely fhewn elfewhere (c). I 
 will here very briefly repeat two Places only, which are 
 there more copioufly handled, from which it will ap- 
 pear as clearly as poffible in what fenfe Jufiin afferted 
 that the Son of God was different from God the Fa- 
 ther. The former Place you find in his firft Apology : 
 (d) They that fay the Son is the Father j appear neither to 
 know the Father, mr that the Father of the Uni'verfe hath 
 a Son, who beivg the firft- horn Word of God, is alfo God. 
 Here you fee that fuflin fo teaches the Son to be dif- 
 ferent from the Father, as that he is not the Father, 
 but a Perfon diftind from him j but yet not different 
 from the Father in Nature, for he is upon that ac- 
 count very God, becaufe begotten of God the Father, 
 and that as the Word or Reafon of the Father's Mind. 
 For it can't be but that the Reafon or Word of the 
 firft eternal Mind, i. e. of God the Father, jfhould be 
 of the fame Nature and Eflence with him j which is 
 the caufe why the Primitive Fathers commonly ufe 
 this fame Argument to eflablifh the true Divinity of 
 the Son. The Reader will obferve with me, by the 
 V'ay, that it is evident even from this fingle Place, 
 what fuflin thought of thofe, who would have Chrift 
 to be a mere Man, and not the firft-begotten Son of 
 God, and God. He exprefly fays, that they who de- 
 ny the Son to be true God, and perfonally diftincS; 
 from God the Father, don't know God the Father, 
 i. ^. are Strangers to true Religion and Salvation. For 
 it is notorious, that [jtot to know the Father^ both irj 
 Scripture and in the Primitive Fathers, fignifies the 
 fame as to be deftitute of the faving Knowledge of 
 
 (0 Defence of the Nicene Creed, Secio 1, Ch, 4, 
 
the Catholick Church, fyc* 279 
 
 God the Father, In this fenfe the Apoftle St. ^ohm 
 (as I have fuggefted before) fays of the Hereticks in 
 his days, who deny'd Chrift to be the only-begottea 
 Son of God, He that denies the Son, hath not the Father. 
 But that the Senfe of this Place may be yet more clear, 
 it is to be obferv'd that 'Juflinj in the words before 
 fpoke of the ^ews^ who contended, that he who ap- 
 peared like an Angel to Mofes in the Bufh, and faid, 
 \I am he that is, the God 0/ Abraham, &c^ was not the 
 Son of God, but God the Father himfelf. For the 
 'Jews would not own or worfhip any Son of God, as 
 being God himfelf ; flattering themfelves that in this 
 their Obftinacy they worftiipM the one God the Fa- 
 ther, and that they were not obligM to worfhip any 
 other. Now 'Jtiftin plainly fhews, that thefe Men 
 ftand confuted as well by the Spirit of Prophecy, 
 namely, the Old Teftament, as by Chrift himfelf, and 
 that they knew not the Father. Then upon this oc- 
 cafion, he p^afl'es, as I think, to the Ghriftian Here" 
 ticks, and briefly cenfures them for teaching that the 
 Son o^ God was the very Father (of which Herefy 
 fome were guilty in Juftins time, and fome afterwards, 
 as Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, and others) concurring 
 herein with the j^e'tux, that they did not acknowledge 
 any Son of God, perfonally diftind from God the Fa- 
 ther, who was begotten of God the Father, and con- 
 fequently was himfelf God ; and upon account of thi$ 
 Herefy, pronounces them, as well as the "Jt^ws^ not to 
 have known God the Father, i. e. whatfoever they 
 pretended, to be deftitute of the faving Knowledge of 
 Chrift. After the Gofpel of Chrift had been preach d, 
 and fully explained by the Apoftles, no one could 
 worfhip God the Father as he ought, and favingly, 
 pnlefs.he alfo worfhipM and reverenced God,.the Son, 
 Does not then this Place o( Jn/im as truly aftect thofe, 
 who taught that Chrift was a mere Man, or Creature? 
 Without doubt ; for they no more acknowlece^* the 
 Son of God in j?«/?/Vs Senfe (who, as he is the W ^rd, 
 ;he firft-be^otten Word of God, is alfo God) than the 
 
 S 4 Jfw/j, 
 
28o T'be ]\JD G M E N T of 
 
 Jews, or thofe Hereticks. But this briefly by the 
 way. 
 
 8. I proceed to another Place of Jtiflin, in which 
 he profeiledly handles the Diftindion of God the Son 
 from GoQ the Father. It is in that Dialogue with 
 'TryphOj to which Epijcopiiu chieBy appeals. There he 
 relates (e) the Opinion oF fome, that the Son of God 
 did not fubiift diftindly from God the Father, but 
 only as a Power ifluing forth from the Parent of the 
 Univerfe. To their Hercfy he oppofes the Catholick 
 Opinion, in thefe words : / have before, in a jew 
 words, fbezvn that the Poiver, "which the Scripture calls God 
 (as is alfo proved at large)- and Angel, is not only rec- 
 kon d nominally, as the Light of the Sun, but is really and 
 numerically another after an exquifite manner. I have there 
 faid, that this Poiver is begotten of the Father by his Power 
 and Purpcfe, not by Abfcijlun, as tho the Father's Effence 
 •was divided, as aU other things, being divided or cut, ceafe 
 to be the fame which they were before. But I gave this 
 Example, that we fee other Fires kindled from one Fire, 
 that not being at all diminifb'd, but rtntaining the fame, 
 and capable of kindling many. Here fuflin plainly 
 teaches, that the Son is perfonally, or numerically, 
 different from the Father, but not fo in Nature j as, 
 being begotten of the very Elfence of God the Father 
 (not indeed by Sedion, or Partition of the Divine 
 Efience, but by fimpJe Communication of it, fuch as 
 is between the Fire produced or kindled, and the Fire 
 which produces or kindles it, without any lofs or 
 diminution of itfelf) and confequently a Son confub- 
 flantial with his Father, and true God as well as he (/). 
 From what has been {a^.d, it is clear that there is the 
 greateft difrerence between Jaflin's Opinion and theirs, 
 •who taught that Chrift was only Man begotten of 
 Man. For, on the one liand, Chrift is defined to be 
 a mere Creature, nay, nothing more than Man ; and, 
 
 (p') P. ;58. ( Toti mny corifuU Defence of the Woem 
 
 Creed, Sc6i. 2. Ch.4. S.5,4. 
 
 on 
 
the Catholick Church, ^c* 2S1 
 
 on the other hand, he is aflerted to be the Son of 
 God, coeflfential with God his Father, and even very 
 God. 
 
 ^. After thefe Arguments (which fcarce become an 
 honeft Man, who is a httle read in 'Juflin) Epifcopus 
 gives us a Corollary ; in which, if I miftake not, he 
 has deftroy'd all his preceding Difputation, himfelf 
 being Judge. For from what he had before dif- 
 cours*d, he gathers, that 'Juflin by thofe words {of 
 his own SorQ did not mean the Ehionites. But how 
 does he gather this ? It is by no means probable, fays he, 
 that Juftin intended them by that Phrafe, not only becaufs 
 he no where mentions the Ebionites in his Writings, but 
 hecaufe they alfo appear to be the worfi of Men j for their 
 Majler is reported to ha've loaded the Apofile St. Paul viith 
 Calumnies, to have accufed St. Peter of Lying, and to have 
 called him partly a Jew^ anE&nc, a Nazarxan, a Ce- 
 rinthian, and a Carpocratian ; And they moreover, as 
 Eufebius relates (g), believed that Chrifi was born of the 
 Coition of Jofeph and Mary, and taught that the Legal 
 Ceremonies muft be obferv^d. Epifcopius then confefles, 
 that it is by no means probable that 'Juftin thought 
 the Ebionites of his Sort (as that Phrafe ieemM to him 
 to import a near Relation and Communion of Faith) 
 becaufe they were the worft of Men, and taught im- 
 pious Dodlrines. Now who does not fee that the 
 Learned Man has ruin'd his own Caufe by this Con- 
 feffion ? For I have very clearly prov'd before, that 
 Juftin fpeaks of no other Perfons than the iE/^/o»//^r. 
 But it is ftrange what Epifcopius could mean, to prove 
 from Eufebius that the Ebionites believed Chrift to be 
 born of the Coition o^ Jofeph and Mary, and from that 
 to conclude that Juftin never fpoke of the Ebionites. 
 Has not Juftin exprefly fignify'd, that the Hereticks, 
 of whom he fpeaks, taught that Chrift was Man be- 
 gotten of Man ? Did not Epifcopius know the meaning 
 of thefe words ? Does not he, ■ who fays Chrift was 
 
 {£) Lib. 5. Cap. 17. p. 79. 
 
 Man 
 
282 fT/^^ J U D G M E N T of 
 
 Man begotten of Man, at the fame time fay that 
 Chrift was begotten by the Coition of a Man and a 
 Woman, namely, 'Jofeph and Mary ? Surely he who 
 was conceiv'd and torm'd by the Holy Ghoft in the 
 Womb of a pure Virgin, wicnout the Coition of a 
 Man, could not be Man begotten of Man. Further, 
 it is very frequently declared in this Dialogue what is 
 meant by Chrift 's being Man begotten of Man. For 
 there (h)Trypho prolixly derides the Chriftian Faith con- 
 cerning Jefus born of the Virgin Mary^ compares it 
 to the Fables of the Greeks concerning Perfeus born of 
 the Virgin Danae, Jupiter defcending upon her in the 
 Form of Gold ; and then adds, Toti who talk as they do, 
 jhould be ajhamed of it, and rather fay that this Jefus was 
 Man begotten of Man. Every one may here plainly fee 
 the Import of thofe words, Man begotten of Man. In 
 another Place, in the fame Dialogue (0, Ju/iin proves 
 from the Old Prophets, that Chrift was to be born 
 of a Virgin ; and from that concludes, that Chrift is 
 not Man of Man, begotten in the common way. 
 Laftly, Jufiin, in the very Place before us, plainly tells 
 us what the Hereticks meant, who affirmed Chrift was 
 Man begotten of Man. For he fays in the beginning 
 of this Paragraph, that his own, namely, the Catholick 
 Opinion concerning Chrift our Lord, was, That he 
 fre-exifted the Son of the Maker of the Unimerfe^ and was 
 horn Man of the Virgin ; then he fub joins the Opinion 
 of the Hereticks contrary to tlie Catholick Opinion, 
 "That Chrifl was Man begotten of Man. From this it is 
 evident, that thofe Hereticks deviated from the Truth 
 two ways : i. As they taught that Chrift was only 
 Man, not pre-exifting as the Son of God before Mary^ 
 2.. That Chrift- was Man begotten of Man, not of the 
 Virgin Mary by the overfhadowing of the Holy Spi» 
 rit. 
 
 From this and other Arguments we may conjefture 
 that Epifcopur ^nd />/V Remonftrants read the PalTage 
 
 (&) P. a^i, (i) P, 274' 
 
 of 
 
the Catholick Church, ^^. 285 
 
 of yuflin^ they fo greatly boafted of, very haftily firft, 
 fhurry'd away with the Sound of Words upon the firft 
 hearing, apparently favourable to their Prejudices^ 
 ^nd afterwards, neither accurately weigh'd the Words 
 tbemfelves, nor the Context. But however that may 
 be, this is very fure, that the Learned Men have in 
 vain alledgM it, to prove, 'That the Antient Primitive 
 Church of the Chrifiiam held Communion with them, luha 
 Believed and profejfed that Jefus Chrift "was only mere Matt^ 
 Man begotten of Man, and confiituted Chrift by EleBion. 
 
 To the mofl Holy and Undivided Trinity, God the Father^ 
 and his coeternal and coejfenttal Word and Son, in", 
 carnatefor our Salvation, together viith the Holy Spirit^ 
 the Paraclete, be given by Angels and Men all Praife^ 
 Honour and Glory for ever (ind ever^ Amen. 
 
 THE 
 
( 284 ) 
 
 THE 
 
 imitive and Apoflolical 
 
 RAD I T I O N, 
 
 CONCERKING 
 
 The receiv'd Doclrine in the Catholick 
 
 Church, of Our Saviour J e s us Ch r i s t's 
 Divinity ; 
 
 Atlerted and plainly provM, againfl Daniel Zuicker, 
 a Prtijjum, and his late Difciplcs in England, ^ 
 
 a '?• ^ "- ^ •-*■ -Si '*' ^^ "^ ^- ^-^ ^ C- ^3 ^ ^y & & && & 
 
 The Introduction. 
 
 HAT ^ejus Chriftj our Saviour, was 
 not only Man, but the living and fub- 
 fitling Word of God, who was with 
 God before any thing was created, and 
 therefore eternally ; who was God, by 
 whom all things were made, that were 
 made, whether vifible or invifibie ; and who, in the 
 fulnefs of time, was made Flefh for us Men, and for 
 
 our 
 
I'he Trmiti've Tradition, (j-c. 285 
 
 our Salvation, i. ^. took the true human Nature into 
 the Unity of his Perfon from the Virgin ; is the plain 
 Doftrine of the Nevj "fejlament, propagated and pre- 
 ferv'd by a conftanc and perpetual Tradition of all the 
 Churches founded by Chrift's Apoflles. This not- 
 V'ithftanding, there have been, and alas ! there are 
 now, even in our own Country, wicked Men, inftiga- 
 ted by the Devil, yet pretending Chriftianity, who not 
 only don't acknowledge this facred Dodrine, but alfo 
 oppofe it with all their might, and periecute it with 
 the moft foul Reproaches and Blafphemies. Our Ebionites 
 elude the force of that Scripture-Evidence, which 
 clearly aflferts that Chrifl: is God, one one way, and 
 another another. Mofl of them wrefl and pervert thofe 
 places, as their Fathers did, to a Senfe remote from 
 the Context, and the evident Propriety of the Words. 
 But (a) fome are arri'ved at that height of impudence 
 and wickednefs, (Allies to the Turks and Mahometans for 
 the deftrudion of Chriftianity) as openly and auda- 
 cioufly to affirm. That the Scriptures of the New 
 Tejiamem are foully corrupted and interpolated by the 
 Catholick Chriftians, Even (I;) Socims^ if he was a- 
 mongft us again, wou'd excommunicate thefe Monfters 
 in Chriftianity. As for Ecclefiaftical Tradition, they 
 all contend, that no true Tradition derived from the 
 times of the Apoftles can be produced for the Catho- 
 lick Opinion ; that the Apoftles and their Succeflbrs 
 preachM the pure naked Gofpel, that is, taught their 
 Opinion concerning the mere Humanity of Chrift ; 
 but that not long after, the Myftery of Iniquity for- 
 footh began to work, and the Purity and Simplicity of 
 the Gofpel was adulterated by Platonick Philofophers 
 who embraced Chriftianity, and efpecially by yuflin. 
 
 2. The firft Author of this abfurd Opinion, if 
 Tm not miftaken, was the Perfon who wrote the 
 
 (rt) The WJior'ca! Defence of the naked Gofpelj the Preface," The 
 judgment of the Fathers y &c,. p. 22. 
 
 (b) SocJn. Authorim,s $crip. Cap. i- ^. 3. 
 
 Ire- 
 
tB6 ^he ^rimiti've and 
 
 Jrenicum Irem'corum, a violent Ehionitey one Daniel Zmcker^ 
 «s the Anti-trinitarian Bibliotheque has lately inform'd us. 
 For he in his Irenkum, fearching into the Original of 
 the Change made in the Apoftles Doftrine concerning 
 Chrift^ gives us this tedious Tale (c) : (i.) It is proba- 
 hle that the Difciples of Simon Magus corrupted the found 
 DoSirine concerning God and Chrift, by feigning a new Gene^ 
 ration of Chriji^ and confequently introducing a new Chrifi; 
 this (d) Hegefippus attefis. Then that thofe Hereticks 
 made certain Verfes under the name of Orpheus, concern"' 
 ing the IVord of the Father pronounc'd by him, before the 
 Creation. Further, that Juftin firfi of all deceived by the 
 Arts and Reveries of the Simonians, and relying upon the 
 Orphaic Verfes as others did^ proposed his Opinion concern* 
 ing the Generation of Chrifi, or the Mind, Word, and Reafon 
 of the Father, from the Father, before the Creation, that 
 the IVorld might be made by him, and that he might defend 
 to Men, and at length be made Man. Laftly, that there 
 •were federal other Caufes which might lead Juftin and his 
 Followers into this Doflrin? ; namely, the kmwlege of, and 
 affeElionfor the Platonick Philofophy, the ?nemory of Genti" 
 lifm and many Gods not yet obliterated, the cufiom of deifying 
 excellent Men, and the fuperftition and dread of worfhipping 
 mere Man, &c. From all which he at laft concludes, 
 that he has done the Bufinefs, and laid open the Ori- 
 ginal of the new Produftion of Chrift, and confequent- 
 ly of a new Chrift. 
 
 3. When I read thefe things many years ago in the 
 Author of the Irenicum, I quickly drew up a fhorc 
 Confutation of the monftrous Fable, not intending it 
 for the Publick ,* but when I faw not long (ince, that 
 this fluff of Zuicker's was again brought upon the 
 Stage with pomp and oftentation by our Unitarians, I 
 fevifed this fhort Confutation, and, as I had opportuni- 
 ty, enlarged it. This fo improved (upon the Bookfel- 
 ler's Application, that if I had any larger Treatife 
 
 (c) Irenicum, p. 14, 15, 16, 
 
 Id) Eufeb.'*5. H. Lib. 4. Cap. 22, p. 115. 
 
 ready 
 
'Jpojlolical Tradition, (^c* 28^7 
 
 ready by me, I would fuffer him to print it off with the 
 new Edition of my Works) I offer to thy Candour, 
 Gentle Reader. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 ^hat Juftin was not the firft who i7ztrodmed 
 
 the l^oBrme of our Samoiir^s Tre-exiftence 
 
 before the World was 7;iadey and of the 
 
 Creation of all things by hiifiy into the Chri^ 
 
 Jiian Churches, 
 
 FIRST then, the Author of the Irenicum lays 
 this Foundation of his ruinous Structure, That 
 'Juflin introduced the Dodrine of the Son's Generation 
 of God the Father before the Creation, into the Chri- 
 ftian Churches. For he fays, that Juflin deceivM by 
 the delufion of the Gmflkh^ firft proposed that Opi- 
 nion. He alfo fays elfewhere (e) in exprefs Words : 
 'That no one can be cited more ancient than Juftin Martyr, 
 luho has in his •writings afcrilf'd the divine Nature to Chrifty 
 and call'd him God before Ages ; and that the Opinion of the 
 Artemonites (ivho taught that Chrift was mere Man) did 
 at leaft obtain in the Church from the days of the Apo files 
 till Juftin'j, and then at length was changed. Our late 
 Socinians, or as they affed to be call'd Unitarians^ have 
 follow'd him in this, and efpecially the Author of a 
 Book wrote in EngUflo^ intitled, [The Judgment of the 
 Fathers about theDoEirine of the Trinity ^againfl Mr. G. Bull*^ 
 Defence of the Nicene Creed] who frequently in that 
 Treatife, makes Jufiin the firft Author of the Dodrine 
 concerning the Son of God coexifting with God the 
 Father before every Creature. But who can believe 
 this Fable ? For befides the great improbability that 
 
 (0 Irenicum Irenicorum, p. 7, 
 
288 T^he 'Primiti've and 
 
 a very wife and pious Man (fuch ^uflin was without 
 doubt) could either be fo deluded in a Fundamental 
 of Chriftianity by the Frauds of the worft of Here- 
 ticks ,' or wou'd coin new Dodrines, and introduce a 
 new Faith as different as poffible from that of his An- 
 ceftors, and Apcftolical Tradition, (which he who 
 flourifh'd in the firll Succeffion of the Apoftles could 
 not but know :) beiides this, (which is a fufficient con- 
 futation of this wild Fancy) we have other Argu- 
 ments, which very evidently prove, that the Doftrine 
 of the Son's Pre-exiftence before the World was made, 
 and of the Creation of all things by him, is not the 
 Figment or Device of '^uftin^ but the commonly re- 
 ceived Faith of the Church before his time. 
 
 2. Firft, 'Jtiftin himfelf, in his Dialogue with I'yypho, 
 exprefly witnefleth, that not only he, but the Chri- 
 flians of his days commonly thought and believed that 
 Chrift was God before Ages ; except /i/^'tu known 
 Hereticks, who not only deny'd the Pre-exiftence of 
 our Saviour before Ages, but alfo his Nativity of the 
 Virgin (/). Again, the fame Juftin fet forth his 
 Confeffion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, 
 not as his own only, or feme private one, but as the 
 publick and notorious Faith and Opinion of all true 
 Chriftians of his time j and this before the Roman Em- 
 peror and Senate, as is clear from the Exhortation to 
 the Gentiles, and both his Apologies: What then, was 
 this Confentof Chriftians owing zo Jujlin only ? Did he 
 travel the World over to preach this Dodrine ? Or had 
 he his Apoftles to propagate it every where ? Cou'd it 
 be that this one Man fhould deftroy the Apoftolical 
 Tradition, change the receiv'd Faith of the Church, 
 and obtrude (as Zuicker fpeaks) even a new Chrift up- 
 on the Chriftian World ? Durfi no Difciple of the A- 
 poftles oppofe this impudent Innovator ? Durft not jPo- 
 lycarp himfelf, who had St. John for his Mafter, who 
 
 (/) See the place cited entirey and largely expJain'd in ?^e Judg- 
 ment of the Catholick Church, c. 7. 
 
 was 
 
^poftolical Tr a dition, (^cl 289 
 was alive when Jufiin publifh'd and defended the 
 Dodrine of the Son's Divinity in his Writings, and 
 who hv'd a long time after ? No fober Man can think 
 thefe things credible. 
 
 5. Befides, there are yet extant Writings of the 
 Fathers, who flourifh*d fome years before Juflin^ even 
 in theApoftolical Age, namely the Catholick Epiftle of 
 Barnabas^ the Shepherd of HermeSy and the Epiftles 
 of Ignatius the Martyr, out of which we have cited 
 clear Teftimonies of our Lord's Divinity, and largely 
 defended them from the Cavils of the Irenicum (g.) Thefe 
 Writings indeed, the Engliflo Author betoremention'd 
 entirely defpifes, and, as his cuftom is, even reproaches 
 and derides the Authors of them. But che moll learn- 
 ed Men, as well Antients as Moderns, have thought 
 otherwife of them, Men whofe Judgment is much to 
 be preferr'd before the Cenfure of that Scoffer. As 
 for the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Epiflle afcrib'd 
 to Barnabas, we conftantly affirm thefe two things 
 of them, what he durft not deny, and which come 
 up to out purpofe : (i.) That they are pieces of the 
 moft early Antiquity, and prior to Jujim Martyr. 
 (2.) That they were fo far approv'd by the Church, 
 as to be read publickly in the facred AfTembles, toge- 
 ther with the Canonical Scriptures in the primitive 
 days. The feven Epiffles of Ignatius, known to Ew 
 febitis, and publifli'd in Greek by If, Vcffms (which 
 only we have ufed) our very learned Pearfon has abun- 
 dantly prov'd to be the genuine Works of the Holy 
 Martyr in his Vindication of them, to which I refer 
 the Reader. 
 
 4. Moreover there were learned and pious Men be- 
 fore ^uftin, who fet forth Apologies for our Religion 
 againfl the Gentiles, among whom were Quadratus Bi- 
 ihop of Athens, and Arifiides, who prefented their 
 Apologies to Adrian in the beginning of his Reign. 
 Thefe Apologifts were oblig'd to vindicate the Chri- 
 
 {g) Defence of Nicene Creed, SeB. z, Ch, 2» 
 
 Vol. IL T flians 
 
^fo '[the Trimitwe ani 
 
 ftians from worfliipping a Man, and to refute that 
 common Objection, Tqu v^orfoip a Man that was born 
 and crucify'd. Nor could any of them anfwer this, 
 without declaring his Opinion concerning our Saviour's 
 Perfon, and fhewing himfelf either a Catholick, or 
 Heterodox upon that Article. Now (h) Eufehius and 
 Jerome (') atteft, That Quadratus and Ariftides provM 
 themfelves Cacholicks in their Apologies. Of Quadra- 
 tus^ Eufehius fays {k)^ He offe/d his Oration in defence of 
 our Religion to Adrian. It is now extant in the hands of 
 mofi of car Brethren, and I myfelf have it. From it you 
 may fee plain tokens of the Man's Sentimmt, and of Apo- 
 fiolical Orthodoxy. To Quadratus, he adds his Con- 
 temporary Ariftides as one of the fame Charafter. In 
 like manner, Jerome calls the Apologetic of Quadratus 
 a very ufeful Book, full of Reafon and Faith, and be- 
 coming the Apoftolical Dodrine. Of Ariftides alfo he 
 writes thus in the fallowing Chapter : Ariftides a very 
 eloquent Athenian Phikfopher, and a Difciple of Chrift, in 
 his former Philofophical Habit , prefented a Book to the Em- 
 peror Adrian, at the fame time Quadratus did, containing^ 
 an account of our Tenet. Without doubt then, in j?^- 
 row^'s opinion, Qj^iadratus and Ariflides hdd the Stan- 
 dard and Rule ot the Apoft;olical Faith in their Apolo- 
 getics. The Force of this Argument in fhort is this : 
 It is certain the Catholick Church gave divine Ho- 
 nours to our Saviour in the times of Quadratus and 
 Ariftides (and confequently from the beginning) as 
 we Ihall fhew hereafter in this Chapter. It is alfo cer- 
 tain, that the Heathens did efpecially objed that as 
 a Crime to the Chrillians ,• and therefore it was ne- 
 ceflary they fhould obviate this Objedion in the firft 
 place in their Defences of Chrift.iai;ity. This we fee 
 w-as done by all the Apologifts, whofe Works we 
 have. Laftly, it is certain that the Catholick Church 
 of Chrift (as alfo the Jewijb Church before Chrill) 
 
 (&) Eufeb. Lib. 4. Cap. 5. Pag. 94. 
 
 (,0 Catalog. Ecclef. Scriptor. in Quadrato, (k) Ibidem. 
 
 hel4 
 
'Jpqftolical Tradition, (^c. ' ' 
 
 held it for a Point fixM and eftablifh'd, That ^na ■ 
 Worfllip was only due to God, and that to pay 'ijt 
 to a mere Man, or Creature^ was certainly Idolatry i 
 "which Decree of the Univerfal Church we fhall here- 
 after (/) clearly demonrtrate in its proper place, co be 
 fupported by the Scriptures of the Old and New'Tefia- 
 mem, and by good Reafons. 
 
 It follows then, that the Worfhip and Religion of 
 Chriftians can't be defended, confidently with the 
 Principles of the Catholick Church, by any one, who 
 does not own that Chrift is really God. But Eiifebius 
 and 'Jerome expredy ceilify, Ihac the Ap!)logies of 
 Quadratus ana Ayflides were truly Catholick^, en* 
 tirely confident witn the Catholick Rule, and the 
 Apoftolick Faith To thefe you may add, if you 
 pleafe, the Ooiervaiion of Petavius (m), tnat in the 
 Roman Martyrology and that of Ado^ Nutkerus, &c: 
 it is reported. That Ariftides the Athenian prefented a, 
 Book to the Emperor Adrian concerning the Chriftian Reli- 
 gion, containing the Reafon of our Tenets ; and that he 
 very clearly andfuUy difcours'd, in the prefence of the Em-r 
 peror, that Jefus Chrift was the only Gcd. 
 
 5. I muft here alfo repeat a plain Tedimony of Eu- 
 febius cited beiore, where he fays^ he had learnt from 
 the Monuments of antient Authors, that all the fifteen 
 Bifhops, who prelided over the Church of Jerufalerri 
 till the times of Adrian^ were of the Circumcifion, 
 and yet received the genuine Knowledge of Chrift : 
 But tfiey only, according to EufebiiiSy receiv'd the 
 genuine Knowledge of Chrift, who confefs'd, thac 
 he pre-exifted, being God and the Wifdom. Thus 
 in (n) another place he interprets himfelf, where 
 he diftinguifhes the Catholicks and Ort lodox from 
 the Heretical Ebionites^ by this Charader, That they 
 \jhe EbioniteQ had a low and mean Opinion of 
 Chrift. Whar fays the Author of the "Judgment of 
 the Fathers J &c. to this ? Hear him, and you muft 
 
 (J) Ch. 8. (m) In prxfat. ad Tom, 2. Dogm^ Theolog. 
 
 {n) Lib. 3.Cap. ay.p. i^. 
 
 T % wonder 
 
^O0.'>nder at his Impudence. We grant ^ fays he fo), that 
 ^i-ufebius affirm'd tbofe Bijhops of Jerufalem profefs'd the 
 true Knowledge of Chrift , but ive anfwer, that he had this 
 from Hegefippus. Now Hegefippus was himfelf a 
 ^ewifh Chrijiian, that is, one of thofe, who thought our 
 Saviour was a mere Man ; therefore when he faid the Bi- 
 /hops of ]etu(alem prof efs'd the true Knowledge of Chrifi, 
 without doubt he meant^ that our Lord was truly a mere 
 Man, againft the Docetse, who taught that Chrift pre-ex- 
 ifled, and deny d that he was truly Man. Bur, (i.) he 
 muft make Etifebius a dull Creature indeed, a Man of 
 no Parts, nor Judgment, v/ho can think he fo foully 
 miftook in citing the Authors, whofe Teftimonies he 
 made ufe of. Eufebius faySjThat he had learnt from the 
 antient Monuments, that the Bifhops of 'Jerufalem^ 
 down to Adrian, had receiv'd the genuine Knowledge 
 of Chrift, i. e. in his Senfe, had acknowledged the 
 true Divinity of Chrift our Lord. But the Author 
 or Authors he referred to, if we may believe this Fel- 
 low, intended the direft contrary ; namely, that thofe 
 Bifhops where Ebionites, that is, took our Saviour to be 
 only mere Man. (2.) Eufebius (p) does not name Hegefip- 
 pus,3iS he ufedto do, when he cites anything from him, 
 but only in general fays, he had it from the Writings 
 of the Antients. Eufebius had read many other Au- 
 thors befides Hegefippus, which the large Library at 
 'Jerufalem, founded by Alexander, Bifhop of that City, 
 afforded him. Of which he thus writes : At the 
 fame time^ (namely in the Reign of Antoninus} many 
 learned Ecdefiafticks fouri/b'd, whofe Epiftles to me 
 another are yet preferv'd, and eafy to be found ; for they 
 are now in the Library at JEX\b., founded by Alexsinder, 
 Bifhop of that City, from which we have been enabled 
 to coileB the Matter of our prefent Work. Befides, 
 Eufebius (q) had alfo the Ufe of that noble Library of 
 the Martyr Pamphilus, in which there were Ecclefi- 
 
 (0) P. 45. (/>) Lib. 6. Cap. 20. p. 180, & iSu 
 
 (^) Lib. 6» Cap. 32, p. 188. 
 
 aftica^ 
 
^JpofloHcal Tradition, (^c* 295 
 aftical Authors coUeBed by the Biefled Man from all 
 parts. (3.) But grant that Enfebius wrote this from 
 Hegejippus^ what then ? Hegefippus^ he fays, was an 
 Unitarian, and believed our Saviour to be a mereMan, 
 Nothing can be more falfe. I defire to know from 
 what Author he had his Information ? from one Zuicker 
 (I fuppofe) Author of the Iremcum, a blind Leader of 
 the Blind. Now that Hegeftppus was a Catholick, and 
 conftantly perfifted in the Communion of the Catho- 
 lick Church, in which the Faith concerning the Di- 
 vine and Human Nature of Chrift obtained, we ftiall 
 evidently prove hereafter in a more convenient place. 
 
 6. After the Teftimony of Eufebius (not in the 
 firft place, as the Sophifter we have to deal with impu- 
 dently affirms) we cited a very grave Hiftorian, Sul- 
 pitius Severm, who exprefly (r) fays, that the Primi- 
 tive Church at 'Jerufalem, which had no Bifhops but of 
 the Circumcifion till Adrian's time, believd Chrifi to he 
 God, and obferv'd the Law, What fays the Trifler to 
 this again ? Whereas, fays he, Sulpitius affirms, that 
 thofe Chriftians believ'd in Chrifi as God, f've prov'd that 
 he is miftaken, from the Tefiimonies of thofe Fathers, who 
 convers d with the Jewifli Chriflians, Origen and The- 
 odoret, and of other Fathers, who were nearer to them 
 than Sulpitius, namely Epiphanius and St. Auftin. Sure 
 nothing can be weaker than this Anfwer. Sulpitius 
 fpeaks of the Primitive Church at 'Jerufalem, which 
 flourifh'd under her own Bifhops of the Circumcifion, 
 till the Deftruftion of Jerufalem under Adrian. But 
 did Origen and Theodoret converfe with thefe yewi/h 
 Chriftians ? or were Epiphanius, and St. Auflin, near- 
 er to them than Sulpitius ? Sulpitius exprefly affirms, 
 concerning the Chriftians of the Primitive Church at 
 *Jerufalem, that they believ'd in Chrift as God. Eufe^' 
 bius had faid the fame before him, and that by the Au- 
 thority of the moft antient Ecclefiaftical Monuments. 
 Has Origen, or Theodoret, or Epiphanius, or Auftin, or 
 
 (0 Hift. Sacr. Lib. 2. Cap. 45. 
 
 T I any 
 
j.y4 1f-)e "Frimitwe aitd 
 
 any other Father contraclifted Ei^fehius and SuJpitius in 
 this Point ? Nor at all. For they fpeak of the ^ewijjo 
 Chriftians, or Ehionites, or Naznreai^s, of their own 
 times, -that is, of a much later Age, and very differ 
 rently. I have in (s) another Place largely difcours'd 
 upon the Naz^areans ot the later Ages, and their Opi- 
 nion concerning the PerCon of Chrift. It will not be 
 amifs, however, juft to repeat the Heads of what I 
 have faid there, and vindicate them from the Cavils of 
 my troublefome Adverfary. 
 
 7. Firft, I have alledg'd Auflins Teftimony thus : 
 Auilin in his Buck of Herejies (t), ajter he had treated of 
 the Cerinthians, v^ho taught^ That rue muft be circumcifed^ 
 and chferve the other like Precepts of the Law j "That 'Jefus 
 •was only a Man^ 8cc. explains the ^Tenets of the Ebionites 
 and Nazareans thus (u) : The Nazareans, the they con- 
 fefs Chrifi to he the Son of God (and therefore in tins dijfent 
 from the Cerinthians, ijoho would have it that he is only 
 Man) yet (in this agreeing with the Cerinthians) they ob^ 
 ferve all the Precepts of the Old Lavjy which the Chriflians 
 by Apojlolical Tradition have learnt not to obferve carnally^ 
 hut to tindevfiand in a fpiritual fenfe. T'he Ebionites alfo 
 (as well as the Cerinthians aforefaid) fay that Chriji is 
 only MaUy chferve the Carnal Precepts of the Law^ 8cc. 
 Here it is plain, againft all the Cavils of the Irenicunty 
 T'hat Auftin intended to diflinguiflo the Nazareans both 
 from the Cerinthians and Ebionites, in this, that the 
 Nazareans confef^d Chrifi not only to be Man, as the Ce- 
 rinthians and Ebionites did^ but alfo the Sun of God dif~ 
 cretively, and confequently God. Here my Adverfary ac- 
 cufes me of Impudence, for inferring from this Tefti- 
 mony of St. Auftin, that the Naz^areans thought Chrifi 
 to be To the Son of God, as that he was born of God 
 before all Ages; whereas I was confcious to myfelf, 
 that xht Ebionites J who believ'd Chrift to be only mere 
 Man, own'd him to be theSon of God. Ireply, that the 
 
 {$) Judgment of the Catholick Church, Ch. 2. §. 13, &c. 
 (0 De HsereHbus, Cap. S. (z/) Cap. <?, & ic. 
 
 Ehionites 
 
Ehionites indeed call'd Chrift the Son of God, but not 
 in Auflins fenfe, or that of the Nai^arean^^ of whom 
 he fpeaks. For in this Aufl'm plainly diftinguifhes the 
 Naz.aream from the Ehionites, that the latter denyM 
 that Chrift was the Son of God, but the former ownM 
 it. Does he not plainly oppofe the Opinion of the 
 Naz.areanSj who confefs'd our Saviour to be the Son 
 of God, to the Opinion 'of the Ebionites and CeYin- 
 thianSj who taught that he was only Man ? There- 
 fore in the Senfe of Auftin and the Naz^areans, to own 
 Chrift for the Son of God, is the fame as to profefs 
 that he is not only Man. The Sophifter proceeds then 
 as tho he would corred my Interpretation of St. Auftin^ 
 and give his Reader the genuine Text, and Senfe of it. 
 But let us recite the very Words of St. Auftin (x) : "The 
 Nazareans, as they confejs Chrift to he the Son of God, fo 
 they ohferve the whole Law. "The Ebionites alfo fay, that 
 Chrifl is only Man. 'Thefe words fthe Ebionites alfo fay 
 that Chrift is only Man] would he plainly ahfird, unlefs 
 the Nazareans, of whom he f pake immediately before, had 
 likewije held that Chrifl was a mere Man. But this is 
 not reciting Auflins own Words, but corrupting and 
 depraving the Integrity of his Text. Auftin has it 
 Zcmn, that is, quanquam or tho J inftead of that, this 
 Author gives us Zflcut, or asi\ Sc. Auftin \jamen, or 
 yet~} he [ita, or fo.'} And, what is tlie top of his Arti- 
 fice, the Sophifter has wholly omitted what Auflin 
 fays in the Chapter juft before, concerning the Opi- 
 nion of the Cerinthians, tho, at the fame time, his ge- 
 nuine Senfe in the following words can't be under- 
 ftood without them. Now if you'll attend to thofe 
 preceding words, you'll find that St. Auftin s [jtiam, or 
 alfo~} in explaining the Opinion of the Ebionites, plain- 
 ly belongs to the Cerinthians, not the Naz-areans. Lee 
 the learned and impartial Reader confulc St. Auftin^, 
 and I doubt not but that he will be of my opinion. 
 
 {x) Cap. p, 8c 10. 
 
 T 4 I To 
 
«9^ ^^^ ^rimiti've and 
 
 8. To the Teftimony of St.Auflin, I add (y) Jerome^ s 
 Suffrage, who writes thus concerning the Naz^areans 
 (^with whom he was very w^U acquainted:) Even now 
 there is a Herefy among the Jews throughout all the Syna- 
 gogues of the Eaft, caWd the Minei, commonly Nazareans, 
 tu/jo believ£ in Chriji^ the Son of God, born of the Virgin 
 Mary j they fay he it is that fuffer'd under Pontius Pi- 
 late, and arofe again, in whom we alfo believe : But whilfl 
 they affeB to be both Jews and Chriftians, they are neither. 
 In thefe words Jerome^ as well as St. Aufiin, exprefiy 
 fays that the Naz,areans beheved in Chrift the Son oi' 
 God ; and not reding here, he explains himfelf, affirm- 
 ing that they believed in that Son of God, in which we 
 alfo ^the Catholicks'J believe : fo that in this Point he 
 owns no difference between the Catholicks and the 
 Naz,areans. Mark (if you can, without Horror) what 
 this vile facrilegious Talker anfwers to this : One would 
 have thought (fays he) when the Nazareans here fay that 
 they believed in the Son of God, born of a Virgin, kill'd 
 finder Pontius Pilate, and then raifed from the Dead, that 
 they fufficiently declared their Meaning, namely, that the 
 Son of God, in whom they believed, was the Man Chrifi 
 ^efus ', not that Son of God which could not be born of a 
 Virgin, could not die and rife from the Dead. But becaufe 
 Jerome adds [in whom we alfo believe] Dr. Bull cries 
 out, Obferve, the Naz,areans believed in that Son of 
 God, in whom the Orthodox believed. IVe own it. 
 Dr. Bull believed in the Son of God born of the Virgin^ 
 dead, and raifed again. "Tho the Orthodox (fo call'd) 
 have contriv'd another Son of God alfo, a Son which could 
 neither be begotten of Mary, nor born, nor die. A Son co- 
 eval with his Father^ a fecondary Almighty, another Cre- 
 ator^ firfl difcover'd and fet forth by the Nicene Fathers. 
 The Senfe of this Anfwer is this : Whofoever profeffes 
 to believe in the Son of God, born of the Virgin, who 
 fufferM and died under Pontius Pilate ; by that declares 
 that he believes in a Sen of God^ who is only Man, 
 
 {f) Ep. 89, ad Auguftirs^ 
 
 not 
 
^Jpqfiolkal TKAmnoi^, ^c', 297 
 
 not God. For the Divine Nature being impaffible, 
 could not be born of a Virgin, could not die and rife 
 again. But the NaiLuream profefs'd that they believed 
 in the Son of God, born of the Virgin, &c. There- 
 fore they did not believe in the Son of God, who is 
 God. But the Catholick Church of Chrift before the 
 Council of Nice, and the Na7.areans, as well as the 
 Catholicks, according to Jerome^ always believed in 
 the Son of God, who, tho very God, at the time ap- 
 pointed took upon him human Flefli of the Virgin, 
 died in it, and afterwards rofe from the Dead. For 
 he fays. The Naz,aream believed in that Son of God, 
 in whom we alfo \jhe Catholklis} beUeve. Befides, in 
 that Epiftle 'Jerome had, in Imagination, made Auftin 
 his Adverfary upon the Queftion, and had undertaken 
 plainly to prove, that thofe, who obferved the Ritual 
 Law of Mofesj were always by the Church deem'd 
 Hereticks. This he firft attempts from the Examples 
 of the Cerinthians and Ebionites; but confcious to him- 
 felf, that Et/ion was condemned of Herefy for denying 
 Chrift's Divinity, and that Cerinthus was excommuni- 
 cated for the fame Crime, and many other impious 
 Tenets, he recedes of his own accord from thefe Ex- 
 amples, and has recourfe to another unexceptionable 
 Argument from the Naz.areans. But ivhy^ fays he, do 
 J /peak of f/je Ebionites, ivho only pretend Chrijlianity ? 
 Even now there is a Herefy^ &c. As tho he fhould have 
 faid : You'll perhaps obje^S againft the El/ionites, and 
 I don't deny it, that they had impious Opinions con- 
 cerning our Lord Chrift, teaching that he was only 
 Man, pretending to be Chriftians, but really not to 
 be efteem'd fuch : but then, as to the Naz,areans, what 
 can you fay, who thought as we do concerning our 
 Lord^s Perfon, and yet were accounted Hereticks by 
 the Church, only for their Obfervance of the Ritual 
 Law (z,). 
 
 (z) See fits more at large in the Judgment of the Catholick 
 Church, Ch,2„ Sed. 13. 
 
 9- From 
 
298 T^he Tfimitwe and 
 
 9. From St. Aujlln and yerome^ I come to an {a) Au- 
 thor much more antienc than either of them, who 
 lived in the days of Adrian^ the Emperor, in whofe 
 time the Chriftian Church at JerufaleWj which was of 
 the Circumcifion, was expell'd the City, and difpers'd 
 into divers Countries, and who pubhfh'd his Works, 
 not long after that Difperfion ; I mean 'Jufiin Martyr. 
 From his Dialogue with Trypho^ I evidently gathered 
 that there were, even in his time. Men, who blended 
 together the Catholick Faith concerning Chrift, name- 
 ly, that he was the Son of God, who exifted before 
 all Creatures, and in the appointed time was incarnate 
 for the Salvation of Men, and made Man of the Vir- 
 gin, &c. with the Obfervation of the Ritual Law of 
 Mofes ; but yet did not impofe the Neceffity of ob- 
 ferving this Law upon others, i. e. the Gentile Chri- 
 ftians. To thefe Juftin profefl'es himfelf ready to give 
 the hand of brotherly Charity and Communion. Now 
 I fay, that thefe were no other than the Naz,areanSj or 
 Jerufakm Chriftians, who were expell'd their own 
 Country by Adrian. What fays the brazen Author to 
 this? / anfwer, fays be (^), zvhoever they were, they 
 were not Nazareans. Moft of the Gnofticks acknowledg d 
 the Pre-exijience of Chrifl, and obfew'd the Law of Mofes; 
 Why might they not be Cerinthians ? This is as much 
 as to fay : Whatfoever you prove, Fli keep clofe to 
 my Prejudices. I'll forge, or I'll believe any thing 
 rather than that the Naz^areans ownM Chrift's Divi- 
 nity. But here are many Reafons, why thefe could 
 not be either Cnimhians, or any other Sed of the 
 Gnojlicks. (i.) Thofe Chriftians, fpoken of by J ufiin, 
 confefs the true Incarnation of the Son of God, which 
 neither the Cerinthians, nor any other Sed of the Gno- 
 fticks own'd (c). Again, the Chriftians Jujlin fpeaks of^ 
 held the Orthodox Faith in all Points necelTary to 
 
 ((?) See Judgment of the Catholick Church, in the Place cited. 
 Soft. 14. (h) Judgment of the Fathers, p. 44. 
 
 fr) See the Defence of the Nicene Creed, Sect. 5. Ch. i. §.6, 
 and the ludgment of the Catholick Church, Ch. 2. Se^.4. 
 
 Sal- 
 
jipojmicai 1 RADiTioN, ^c, 299 
 
 Salvation, and in nothing difTented from the Cacho- 
 lick Church of Chrift, unlefs that they religioufiy 
 obferved the Mofaical Rites. On the other hand, the 
 Cerintbians and other Gnofiicks (o adulterated alraoft all 
 the Chriftian Religion, that there was fcarce one Ar- 
 ticle of Faith free from their Corruptions. Befides, 
 the Cerimhiam and other judaizing Gmfticks, as well as 
 the EbioniteSj taught the necefficy of oblerving the 
 Mofaical h^w^. But the Dodrine and Sentiment of 
 'Jiiftins judaizing Chriftians was quite contrary. 
 Lallly, 'Jufi'in held thofe yudaJz,i:-7g Chriftians to be 
 Brethren, and hoped well of their Salvation. But it 
 is evident the Holy Man abfolutely abhorred the 
 Cerimhiam and other Gnofiicks as peftilent Hereticks 
 from the Church of Chrift, and Aliens from Salvation 
 by Chrift. I am of opinion, our Adverfary was afliam'd 
 of this filly Anfwer, and therefore fought another Re- 
 fuge : Befides, fays he, it is tmcertain whether Juftin 
 intended to fay that there ivere feme Chriftians who olferved 
 the Law of Mofes, and yet believed the Pre-exiflence of 
 Chrifi before Ages, To draw this Senfe from him. Dr. 
 Bull is forced to add thefe Words to his [the Chrift, fuch 
 a one as you have defcribed juft now, '&cP\ Now he 
 who with diligence and attention fhali read the entire 
 Context of Jufiin's Words, will fee that I have put 
 no force upon them. Trypho had propos'd to Jufiin 
 fome Queftions concerning the Salvation of good 
 Men, both betore and under the ritual Law. 'Juftin 
 anfwers, that both Ihall be faved in the World to 
 come j and in the Conclufion of his Anfwer to thefe 
 Queftions, he defcribes that Faith concerning Chrift, 
 which is requifite to the Salvation of a Chriftian, and 
 fays it is. To believe that Chrift is the Son of God, 
 who was before Lucifer and the Moon, and being 
 made Fleih of a Virgin o£ the Lineage o£ David, conde- 
 fcended to be born, &c. Afterwards immediately fol- 
 lows T'rypho's Queftion, Whether thofe who believe in 
 Chrift, and together with that Belief, retain the Obfer- 
 yacion of the ritual Law of Alofes^ can be fav'd ? Now 
 
 who 
 
9 c o T!he Trmitwe and 
 
 who can doubt but that he means the fame Faith in 
 Chrift herCj as he had before defcribed ? I have there- 
 fore rightly paraphrased T^ryfho's Queftion thus : 
 But if there be any, ivho vjill miv live in the Ohfewation 
 of the Mofaical Law^ and believe in this crucified 'Jefus^ 
 owning him to be that Chrift of God, (which you have but 
 now defcribed) can they alfo be faved ? 
 
 10. Laflly, I brought an Evidence from the fixth 
 Book of the Apoftolical Conftitutions, cap. 12. inti- 
 tled, Againft thofe that confefs, but will ^udaiz,e. Con- 
 fefs what ? The Faith explain^ in the Chapter imme- 
 diately going before this, and efpecially that part of 
 it which is repeated in the end of the Chapter : We 
 confefs that Chrifl is not a mere Man \ but God the IVord^ 
 and Man, the Mediator qf God and Man. From this I 
 gather, that in the Age in which the Author of the 
 Conflitutions livM, there were fome who confeft Chrift 
 to be God and Man, and yet did fo far Judaize, and 
 diflent from other Chriftians, as ftill to adhere to the 
 ritual Law of Mofes. Thefe I fay were the very Na^ 
 z^aream. To this the Adverfary anfwers : Before 
 Dr. Bull convinces us of this, it lies upon him to prove, 
 that there were no Chriftians bejides the Nazareans, who 
 obferv'd the Lavj of Mofes, and believed alfo that Chrifl 
 was God the Word j but he well knew that the Cerin- 
 thians, and almoft all the Seds of the Gnofiicks, both 
 Judaiz'd and alfo believ'd the pre-exiftence of our 
 Saviour, and that he was God the Word. He that 
 could write this, difcovers his own grofs Ignorance of 
 Eccleiiaftical Hiftory, or his confummate Impudence. 
 Neither the Cerinthians, nor any other Sed; of the 
 Gnofiicksj fmcerely acknowledg'd that Chrift was God 
 the Word and Man, the Mediator of God and Men. 
 See what we have faid upon the Teftimony, cited 
 in the laft Sedion from Ji^flin. Befides, in the Con- 
 feffion recited Cap. 11. and referr'd to in the Title of 
 the i2th Chap, there is not one Article which the Ce- 
 rinthians, or any other Seft of the Gnoflich could fin- 
 cerely fubfcribe or acknowledge. In the very begin- 
 ning 
 
[^(T^^/zW Tradition, (^c, 301 
 
 nlng of the Confeflion, the Root of the Cerinthian He- 
 refy, and that of all the other Gmfikksy is ftruck at : 
 IVe preach one only God, the Lord of the Law and the 
 Prophets, the Maker of the Univerfe, and the Father of 
 Chrifi. To this wc have a parallel Place following : 
 One God the Father of one Son, not more, and thro' Chriji 
 of our Paraclete ', the Maker of other Orders ', one Creator y 
 Maker of the different Creatures by Chrifl, who alfo is the Pro- 
 curator and Lawgiver by him. Upon this account, the So- 
 phifter diftrufling this his Anfwer, quickly goes off 
 from it, and begins a new Queftion by way of diver- 
 fion, concerning the Author of the Conftitutions, 
 Whether he was a Catholick, or tainted with Aria- 
 nifm > IVe declar'd my Opinion freely in this Matter 
 elfewhere (id). Now as for the Confeflion of Faith con- 
 tain'd in the nth Chapter, the fagacious Reader may 
 eafily perceive in it fome tindure of Arianifm, and 
 alfo fomething which no Arian can truly and fincerely 
 profefs. Of this kind is the Author's difcretive Pro- 
 feflion, That God is the Father of Chrift, but the Ma- 
 ker of all other things by Chrift. This is more clearly 
 exprefs'd, where the Article of the Chriftian Faith, 
 concerning the only begotten Son of God, is thus ex- 
 plained : And in the Lord Jefus Chrifi, his only begotten 
 Son, begotten, not made ; by whom aU things were made. 
 In which words, Chrift the Son of God is abfolutely 
 excepted out of the Rank of Creatures, and there- 
 fore is acknowledg'd to be true God. But grant 
 that the Author in the recited Confeflion has iliewn 
 himfelf an Arian, it will not neceflarily follow, that 
 thofe who confefs'd it, mentioned in the Title of the 
 following Chapter, Ihould alfo be Arians : for it is 
 clear, that the Author intended to give us in thac 
 Chapter, the entire Rule of Faith, every where re- 
 ceived by the Chriftian Churches in his days ; but it 
 is alfo clear, that he has given us that Rule by way 
 of Paraphrafe, and thrown in his own Explications 
 
 id) Vef. N. C. Sea. 2. Ch. 3. g. 6, 
 
 here 
 
302 T!he Trmitwe ajzd 
 
 here and there. Now it is manifeft that he might 
 confefs that Rule of Faith, who would not admit of all 
 the Author's (or rather Interpolator's) GiofTes. 
 
 II. I return now to what my Adverfary's Di- 
 greffion forced me to leave. It is very plain from 
 what has been before cited from the Antients, that 
 the Chriftians of the Primitive Church at 'Jerufalem, 
 who were of theCircumcifion, had received the genuine 
 Knowledi^e of our Lord Jefus Chrift, i. e. had own'd 
 his true Divinity ; and that the fame Faith continued 
 in that Church, till the difperfion under the Emperor 
 Adrian. Now if the Doctrine of our Saviour Chrift's 
 Divinity was own'd, and always received in the Church 
 of Jerufalem, the Mother of all other Churches ; and 
 was faithfully preferv'd in it as long as it flood : it 
 can't be doubted but that the fame Faith was propa- 
 gated and difpers'd in all the other Churches, which 
 either the Apoftles themfeives, or their Minifters foun- 
 ded and conftituted. 
 
 i2.Laftly, it is plain from the Epiftle of Pliny 
 junior, to "Trajan, wrote in the Year io5, that the 
 Chrifliansof his times were wont in their Afl'emblies 
 to celebrate the Divinity of our Saviour in Hymns 
 and Pfalms. This he reports from the Confeffion of 
 apoftate Chriflians in thefe words ; Now they affirm* d 
 that this was the Sum of their Crime, or their Error, that 
 they ufually. met together upon a fet day before it was light, 
 and fung an alternate Hymn to Chrifl, as to God. An 
 old ^r/?":^^ ^«?/;or has appealed to thefe Pfalms againft 
 the Artemonites, who rejected the Tenet of our Lord's 
 true Divinity as novel : T'he Pfalms and Songs of the 
 Brethren celebrate Chr'tfl the Word of God, calling him God. 
 And thefe Pfalms fupply'd fuch clear and evident 
 teftimony of Chrift 's true Divinity, acknowledged by 
 the Apoftolical and Primitive Church, that Paulus Sa- 
 mofatenus, the reviver of ArtemonsBlaCphemy, could not 
 bear them, and therefore commanded the abolition of 
 them in all the Churches under his Government, as 
 the Antiochian Fathers, aflembled againft him, teftify in 
 ' their 
 
JpoftoUcal Tradition, ^c» 30^ 
 
 their Synodical Epifile. I doubt not but that the 
 Apoflle St. Paul had an eye to fome fuch Hymns in 
 his Epiftle to the Ephejtam, (e) where he writes, Speak- 
 ing to one another in Pjalms and Hymns, and fpiritual 
 Songs, ftnging and making melody ivith your Hearts to the 
 Lord \jChriflr\ By the way, let the Reader obferve, 
 that the Words Pliny ufes concerning the Chriftians, 
 that they were wont [_dicere fecum invicem'^ to fing an 
 alternate Hymn to Chrift, as God, exadly anfwer to 
 St. Paulas l\ct>.^vTii kcivroii] /peaking to one another, Sec. 
 By them the alternate, or refponfory way of finging, 
 as yet frequently ufed in the Churches, feems to be 
 fignified. From what has been faid in this Chapter, 
 we have eftablifhM it beyond all Controverfy, that the 
 Tenet of our Lord's Divinity was not the Invention 
 of JtiftiJi Martyr, but obtained in the Chriftian 
 Churches long before him ; yea, was every where deli- 
 vered and promulged by the firft Preachers of the 
 Gofpel, together with the Gofpel, of which it makes 
 no fmall part. j^. E. D. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 That Juftin was not deceid^d by the Frauds 
 of the Simonians, and that the Tenet of 
 Chrijfs l^imnity did 7iot proceed from th$ 
 School of Simon. 
 
 HAVING rafed the Foundation, the mon- 
 ftrous Pile the henicum has built upon it, falls of 
 itfelf. For whereas it is as evident as poffible, that 
 ^u/iin was not the Inventer of the Son's Generation 
 before the World was made ; and that that Tenet 
 obtained long before '^iifiin was born, even in the Apo- 
 ftolical Age ; it would not be neceifary carefully to 
 
 C«) Ephef. Ch. 5. ver, ip. 
 
 examine 
 
304 ^he Trifmti've and 
 
 examine what led Juftin into this erroneous Sentiment^ 
 But becaufe we have determined to follow this Au- 
 thor, ftep by flep, both that his own perverfe Blind- 
 nefs may appear the more, and that the Truth may be 
 better illuftrated j therefore we will freely difcufs 
 the feveral Caufes he has pretended. Now thefe 
 Caufes are either primary, fuch as did efpecially lead 
 *Juftm into this fuppos'd Error ', or fecondary, which 
 contributed to his making further Advances in it. The 
 Heretick reckons thefe two of the firft kind, (i,) The 
 Herefy of the Simonians, and, (2.) The Verfes made in 
 Orpheus's Name by thofe Hereticks, 
 
 2. Of the former he writes thus (/) : And 
 firjl it ispYohahle that after the Death of the Af flies ^ as (g) 
 titgeCippus fays, fome Chrifiians,falfe Chrifts^falfe Pro- 
 phets, and falfe Apo files, defended of thefe fe'ven Herefies 
 among the Chriflian People (h), "which the faid}ltgt^\p'p\xs 
 mentions in the fame place, and whofe Leader and Chief he 
 makes Simon Magus the Samaritan, (a Man in his own 
 Samaritan turn, not averfe to the mixture of true IVorfhip 
 'with falfe) firfi divided the Unity of the Church "withfeign- 
 edperverfe DoBrine {Note, thefe are the very words of 
 Hegefippus) againft God and Chrifl ; and (as will appear 
 hereafter from the DoBrine of Simon Magus) corrupted 
 the found DoBrine concerning God and Chrifl, by feigning a 
 new Generation of Chrifl, and introducing a new Chrifl . For 
 alltheEcclefaflical Hiflorians to a Man teflfy of Simon 
 Magus, that he was the firfl Oppofer of Chrifl, the firfi 
 that denied fefus to be the Chrifl and Redeemer, fuch an one 
 as died for our Sins ; and on the other hand afferted, that he 
 alone was the Son, who appeared among the Jev^^s, and the 
 Father who defended in Samaria, and the Holy Ghofi who 
 came among the Gentiles ; 'That he defended, transfigured'^ 
 that among Men he appeared indeed as Man, the' he was 
 not Man ; that he was fuppofed to have fuffered in Judea, 
 tho* he didnotfuffer i that he was the infinite Power j that 
 
 (/) Trenicum, p. 14. {g) Eufebius, lib. 4. cap. 22. p. \i6. 
 {h) Among the Jewifh Peophy he Jhoifld hiiiie fa'id. See Valefius, 
 p. 75>, md 80, in Eufe|?t 
 
 Selene 
 
^JpoJioUcal Tradition, ^c ^o^ 
 
 Selene "V^cis the firft Conception of his Mind (for he called 
 the fecond^ the Voice and Comprehenjion of Mind ; and the 
 third, Reafon or "Thought) that foe was the Mother of all 
 things, by •whom in the beginning he had thought to make 
 Angels, and Archangels. For he faid, that this Thought or 
 Notion going cut from him, and knowing the Mind of her 
 Father, defended into the lower Regions, and made Angels 
 and thofe Powers by which the World was made. Then he 
 adds, that yuftin was deceived by this dotage of the 
 Simonians. 
 
 3. But thisConje(5i:ure is very far from all probability. 
 For firft, what has Chrift to do with Belial, Light with 
 Darknefs, and the Fathers and Dodors of the Church, 
 ■with the moft notorious Hereticks ? It is certain thaE 
 all the Prelates and Doctors of the Churchj who ftic- 
 ceeded the Apoftles, (and by confequence all the 
 Chriftians, who adher'd to them) always heartily ab- 
 horM the Simonian Herefy j fo that they would fooner 
 fetch Fire from Hell, than any Doftrine from his 
 Forge. Their Writings now extant fufficiently prove 
 this. But that 'Juftin was efpecially free from this 
 Blot, is manifeft, (if from no other place) from tha£ 
 in his Dialogue with Trypho (i), where having men- 
 tioned the Gnoflicks under the Title of Nominal 
 Chriftians, who claimed to themfelves a Liberty of 
 eating things offer'd to Idols, he concludes that in this 
 that Prophecy of Chrift is fulfilled, in which he fore- 
 told that falfe Chrifts, and falfe Apoftles fhould arife, 
 deceiving many of the Faithful. Moreover, he adds 
 concerning them, With whom have no Communion, knoW' 
 ing t]jem to be atheiflical and impious. In another place 
 he fays {k), that Chrift foreknew what would happen 
 after his Refurred;ion and Afcenfion, that many falfe 
 Prophets, and falfe Chrifts, would come in his Name, 
 (under the Mask of a Chriftian Frofeflion Which, 
 fays he, is now come to pafs ; for there are many who have 
 pretended hii Stamp upon atheiflical, blafphemmis and unjuft 
 
 (0 P. 252. a) P. 508. 
 
 Vol. IL' U Tenets, 
 
^o6 'ihe 'Primiti'De and 
 
 l^enetSy who have taught, and even now teach thofe things 
 in the Name of Chrifi, which were put into their Minds by 
 that impure Spirit the Devil {I). Laflly, in his fecond 
 Apology {m)y he particularly names Simon and other 
 Hereticks, who came out of the School of Chrift ; he 
 cenfures and abhors them as the Pefts of Chriftianity. 
 But alas, the Wickednefs of our Days! Who would 
 have thought that Jufiin, the moft excellent Doflor of 
 the Church, who not only wrote very learned Books 
 againft all Herefies, but alfo fealM the truly Apofto- 
 lical Faith with his Blood, fhould have been fufpefted 
 as impos'd upon by the worft of Hereticks in a pri- 
 mary Doftrine of Chriftianity ? 
 
 4. But fecondly, it is fo far from true, that the 
 Doctors of the Church took their Opinion of the Son's 
 Divine Generation from the Fidions of the Simcnians^ 
 that it is manifeft the Hereticks drefs'd up their Fic- 
 tions (as every Error is the Imitation of fome Truth) 
 in the Garb of the Church, (transferring her Dodrine 
 into their Scheme :) The Cafe is clear. From whence, 
 I befeech you, was that blafphemous AlTertion of Si- 
 mon s, that he only was the Son who appeared among 
 the "Jews^ the Father who defcended in Samaria^ and 
 
 (/) P. ^9, & 70. 
 
 (w) 'Nr.j^ further in the fame Dialogue, he does not only mention the 
 feven Herejles cf the Jews, fpoken of by Zuicker (p. 307.) hut alfo 
 exprejly rejecls Simon Magus as an Herejiarch, and a falfe Chrlfilan 
 if- 349O '" ^^-^fs words : Neither did I make any account of 
 my own Countrymen, the Samar'tans, but when I wrote to 
 C'f//ri-, affirm'd that rhey were led into Error, by giving credit 
 to Simon Magus their Countryman, who, they fay, is God a- 
 bove all Principality, and Power, and Alight. Here Juftin has 
 an eye partly to the Place of the Apology cited hy the Reverend Author^ 
 partly to another, ivhich JIands thus in the Apolooy, commonly calVd the 
 firfl, p. 52. And I defpis'd my Countryman Simons impious and 
 erroneous DoQrrine. Moreover, that the Herefy of Simon and his 
 Followers was prcfejfedly opposed ^j' Juftin, and refuted in luriting, he 
 himfelf irfovnis us in the Apology, commonly entitled the Second^ 
 inhere [p. "O.) afier he has named Simon, Menander, and laflly 
 Marcion, he adds. There is alfo a Piece of mine compos a 
 againlt all the Herefies that have been. 
 
 the 
 
Jpojiolical Tradition J (j-c* 507 
 
 the Holy Ghoft who came upon the Gentiles ? From 
 whence was it taken, if not from the receiv'd Doc- 
 trine of the Church concerning the Holy Trinity, 
 God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ? Where 
 had the fame Simon that impious Tenet, that Jefus 
 appear *d to Men as Man, tho he uas not fo ; and 
 feem'd to have fufferM in Judeaj when he did not fuf- 
 feri but from the Apoftolical Dodrine concerning 
 Chrift, as God and Man ? For without doubt that 
 Impoftor would in vain have taught, that he was not 
 true Man, if the Apoflles had taught that he was only 
 mere Man. Laftly, that Expofition of Cerimhus (as 
 Zuichr calls it) that Chrift the Son of God defcended 
 into Jefus, when baptized, in the Form of a Dove, 
 from that Principality which is over all, and in him 
 wrought Miracles, and at his Paffion flew back again 
 from Jefus into the Heavens to the Father ; whence 
 came this Expofition, but from the Apoftolical Tradi- 
 tion of a Diftinftion betwixt the Divine and Human 
 Nature in Chrift ? Nay, both thefe Fancies, that of 
 Simon concerning the imaginary Body of Chrift, and 
 that of Cerimhus concerning the Separation of the Son 
 of God from the Man Jefus, feem therefore to have 
 been more pleafing to many, becaufe that venerable 
 Myftery of the Divine and Human Nature in the one 
 Perfon of Chrift, delivered by the Apoftles, appear'd 
 to them (as it doth to our modern Hereticks) abfurd, 
 and contrary to found Reafon. For upon this account 
 they thought it neceflary either quite to take away 
 one Nature, or to fe pa race the one from the other. 
 Let my Reader weigh thefe things attentively, and 
 then, if he is not dull indeed (as Zuicker fays) he will 
 certainly think as I do. 
 
 5:. Moreover, the very Words of Hegejtppus^ upon 
 which Zuicker lays fo great a ftrefs, namely {jChat the 
 Hereticks forged perverfe DoBrines againfl God and Chrifi'J 
 plainly hint that the Doftrine concerning God the Fa- 
 ther and his Son, did not come from the School of 
 Simon i but, on the contrary, that Simon warpt the 
 U 2 ' Apo- 
 
30^ 'The Trimitwe a^zd 
 
 Apoftolical Dodrine to his own wicked Tenets. Ob" 
 fervej Hegefypus does not fay concerning God and 
 Chrift, but aga'inft God and Clirift. Tliat Magician, 
 in an extraordinary blafphemous manner, accommoda- 
 ted the Apoftolical Tradition concerning the Father 
 and the Son to himfeif, his prcftitute Helena and other 
 Powers of his own Imagination. For he faid (ac- 
 cording to (n) Irenaus) againft God the Father, that 
 he was the moft fubHme Power ; i. e. the Father, who 
 is above all, and fuffer'd himfelf to be call'd, whatfo- 
 ever Men call the Father. Then he afferted againft 
 Chrift, that Helena, his firft hvoio.. Notion, or Idea, 
 made Angels, and the Powers by whom he faid the 
 World was madej that Men were faved by his Grace, 
 &c. 
 
 6. I cannot now but admire how Hegejippus comes 
 to be cited as a Witnefs for the Author of the Ireni- 
 cum, whereas no Antient more plainly fhews the Va- 
 nity and Falfiiood of his Conjecture. For he ex- 
 prefly witneffeth, that in his Age the Governours of 
 the Church held the Apoftolical Dodrine pure and en- 
 tire i for after he had told us what Churches he had 
 been to fee, and how many Bifhops of the Roman 
 Church efpecially, that moft eminent Patriarchate he 
 had vilited, he adds : In every Succeffton, and in every 
 City, it fiands fo, as the Law, and the Prophets, and the 
 Lord teach. Now when did Hegefippus live? Without 
 doubt he was Contemporary with Irenaus^ for he ex- 
 prefly mentions Pope Eleutherus (in whofe time Irenaus 
 certainly flourifh'd) as fucceeding Soter in the Epifco- 
 pal Seej fo that Jerome mu{k be clearly miftaken in 
 bringing him back to the times o( Adrian, being de- 
 ceived, I doubt nor, by (o) Eujebius, who has commit- 
 ted the fame Error, Book the ^th. Chapter the Sth of his 
 Hiftory: and afterwards (p), as tho correding his falfe 
 Chronology, places Hegejippus in the times of Marcus 
 
 (w) Lib. I. Cap. lo. p. 115, & 11 5. (0) Eufeb. E. H. Lib. 
 4. C. 8. p. 98. Valel.Not. (p. 5<J.) in locum. 
 (?) C.21. p. 115. 
 
 Anto^ 
 
'Amon'mus. How well now has Zukhr plav'd his game 
 from Hegefippus ? He afferts that the Dodors of the 
 Church, efpecially Jufiin, being deceiv'd by the Whim- 
 fies of the Simonians^ changed the Apoflolical Doftrine. 
 But lo! Hegefippus witnefTeth, that the Apoftolical 
 Dodrine was preferu'd whole and entire by the Doc- 
 tors in every Church down to his times, (/. e. to the 
 times of Irenms) i. e, till about thirty Years after "Juj- 
 tins days. Sure this Author would never have ap- 
 pealed to Hegefippus, if he had been well acquainted 
 with him; doubtlefs he had form'd a hafty, erroneous 
 Notion of this antient Writer. But this I fhall re- 
 ferve to be proved in the following Chapter. 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^ ^ 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Concerning Hegefippus, and his Opinion of 
 the Terfon of Jeftis Chriji, 
 
 THE Author ©f the Irenkum fpeaks everywhere 
 of Hegefippus as a Man of his own Sentiments, 
 i. e. as an Ehknite ; one of thofe who confefs our Sa- 
 viour's Conception of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, 
 but deny the Pre-exiftence of God the Word, before 
 Ages. All our prefent Socinians in England follow hirn, 
 and claim this very antient famous Author for their 
 own ; they lay this Foundation, and build upon it 
 certain ftrange Conclufions, which, if true, would be 
 fufficient to overthrow that Apoftolical Tradition of 
 the real Divinity of our Lord, which we aflert. From 
 thefe efpecially, the Author of the Judgment of the Fa* 
 thers (q) contends ftrenuoufly that Hegefippus was cer- 
 tainly an Ebionitej and has endeavoured to confirm it 
 by fome ftiallow Reafonings, which we propofe now 
 to examine. 
 
 {ef) Judgment of the Fathers, &c, p. 41,42. 
 
 U 3 ^- F'^'fl^ 
 
^10 T^he Trimitive and 
 
 1. Firfi, he fays, Hegefippus 'was a Jewifli Chri- 
 flian^ ^^ Eufebius tefiifies\ but all f/jeJewiOl Chriftians^ 
 acarding to Ori^&), iver e Eb'ionites; therefore deny' d the 
 Divinity of cur Saviour. I anfwer. It by a 'Jewijb 
 Chriftian, tihe Sophifler means a Chriftian who mix'd 
 the Obfervation oF the Ritual Law of Mofes with the 
 Faith ot" Chriil, it is abfolutely falfe that Eufehius ever 
 wrote that Hegejippis was fuch a one. This is all he 
 fays in the Place eited, that Hegefippus from his Wri- 
 tings might be concluded to be a BeUever of Hebrew 
 Extradition. But that he was not fuch a Jewifi Chri- 
 j^lian, as he would make him, We are alTurM from He- 
 gefippus himfelffr), who fays, that, as he went to 
 Rome, he vifited many Chriftian Churches of the Gen- 
 tiles, and communicated with them, but that when 
 he came thither, he continued very long in the Com- 
 munion of that famous Church. Hence (s) Eufehius 
 exprefly fays, that he flourifh'd in the Church, i. e, 
 in the fame Catholick Church, in which Irenaus and 
 others, Men undoubtedly Catholick, flourifhM at the 
 fame time, and Men with whom he is join'd. But 
 thofe Chriftians of the Jews, who, together with the 
 Faith of Chnft, rcrain'd the Obfervation of the Ri- 
 tual Law/ neither could, nor would live in Commu- 
 nion w'ith any Church of the Gentiles, Befides, it is 
 not true that the Jeivs^ who received the Faith of 
 Chriil:, and perfevered in the Obfervation of the Mo~ 
 faicalL^w, were all Ebionites, i. e. denyM the Divi- 
 nity of Chrift ; nor does Origen fay any \uch thing (t). 
 
 3. Our Ebionite proceeds in his Argument thus i 
 Secondly, the fame 'EuCtbius in the fame place fays, that 
 Hegefippus ifed the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, 
 ivhich luas nfed by the Ebionite and Unitarian Chriftians 
 only. I anfwer : Eufebius indeed fays^ that Hegefippus 
 cited fonie things' out of the Gofpel of the Hebrews j 
 but- he does not fay thai he ufeU that Gofpel, as the 
 
 (r) Lib. 4. Cap. i2. p. ti(5. (j) Lib. 4. C. 21. p. 115, 
 (t) Judgn-.enr Qt the CaEholic4< Churcbj C.. 2; Sed. iS. 
 
 ■''""■' Ebionite: 
 
Ehionkes ufed it, i. e. deemM it Canonical. Now if 
 to cite fome things from the Gofpel to the Hebrews, 
 is a fure Token of an ELionite, then very many Au- 
 thors may be efteemM Ebionites, who, of our certain 
 knowledge, are Cacholicks, and abhorred that Herefy 
 entirely. Then Jemne, that ftrenuous Aflertor ot the 
 Son's Confubftantiality, was an Ebionite. For he often 
 cites that Gofpel, and tranOated it, as he himfelt telh- 
 fies, into the Greek and Latin Tongues. Upon this 
 account Julian the Pelagian (u) acc\i(QS Jerome for ufing 
 a Teftimony out of the fifth Gofpel, which he him- 
 felf had tranflated into Latin. Then (x) Origen was an 
 Ehionite, tho he rejeded the Ehimites of both Sorts as 
 Hereticks, and Aliens from the Church of Chrift, 
 For Jerome fays, that Oigen very often ufed the Go- 
 fpel according to the Hebrews. Befides, Papias, as Ire- 
 naus (y) fays, a Difciple of St. Johns, and a Companion 
 of Polycarp's, hath given us a pretty long Account ot 
 the Difcourfe betwixt our Saviour, and the Woman 
 taken in Adultery, which was only to be found in 
 the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, as Eufebitis {z>) 
 tells us. Now all the antient Catholick Authors thac 
 have mentioned Papias, however of mean Abilities, 
 and erroneous in fome Points, teflify that he was a 
 Catholick, and conflantly maintainM the Px-ule of 
 Faith. Laftly, to mention no more, the bleffed Igna-^ 
 tins,- an excellent Defender of the great Myftery of 
 Godlinefs concerning God incarnate, againft the He- 
 reticks of his days, has fome things in his Epiftle to 
 the Smyrnaans, which (a) Eufebius confefTes he cannot 
 trace. In the Epiftle to the Smyrnseans, fays he, fpeak- 
 ing of our Saviour Chrift, he recites fome -words, -which I 
 cant tell where to find : But I know and believe, fays he, 
 that our Lord appeared in the Flejh after his RefurreEiion, 
 and ivhen he was come to Peter and his other Companions^ 
 
 (u) Catalogus Script. Ecclef. in Jacobo, Fratre Domini. 
 C^) Contra Celf. Lib.5. p.zjJ. (j) Lib. 5. Cap. 35. 
 
 p. 498. {z) Lib. 3. Cap. 39. p. 91. 
 
 ^a) Lib. 5. Cap. ^6, p. 86, 6c 87. . 
 
 U 4 >'^ 
 
?i2 T;he Trimiti've ajid 
 
 faid to them. Lay hold of me, handle me, and fee that 
 I am not an incorporeal Spirit. And immediately they 
 handling him, belie'ued. Now this is taken from the 
 Gofpe] to the Hebreius, as (b) Jerome has acquainted us, 
 tho (c) Eufebius knew nothing of it. 
 
 4. Hi.<. third Argument is thus contraded by him- 
 felf ; Hegefippus giving a Catalogue of the Hereticks, 
 who -were either of the Jews or Gentiles, makes no men- 
 tion of the Cerinthians or Ebionites in it, which, without 
 jdoubt^ he ivould have done, if he had believed the Pre' 
 exifience and Divinity of our Saviour. It is intolerable 
 to lee a Man trifle in Matters ferious, and of great 
 importance. For, i. Does he really believe thsiX. He- 
 gejtppus in the Place cited (d)^ intended to give a full 
 ana compleat Catalogue of ail the Hereticks, who 
 diflurbed the Church in his time, or who were by 
 him thought to be Hereticks } If fo, he knew no- 
 thing of Irenaus's Herefiology, who was Contempo- 
 rary with Hegejtf pus. 2. Does he ferioufly believe that 
 Hegefippus did not think the Cerinthians were Here- 
 ticks ? Then he who has prefumed to give us the 
 Judgment of the Fathers, is as ignorant as can be of 
 Cerinthus's Tenets, and a perfed Stranger in the Wri- 
 tings of the Ancients. Cerinthus taught, befides his 
 Ertor in common with Ebion concerning Chrift's mere 
 Humanity, other abfurd and impious Tenets. For he 
 afErmM, as we faid before, that this vifible World 
 "Was not made by the fupreme God, but by inferior 
 Powers, or Angels that did not know that God ; That 
 the Angel, who gave the Law by M(fes to the Ifraelites, 
 was an evil Angel, &c. Yea, (e) Epiphanius (ays, that 
 he defended almoft all the ihocking Errors of Carpo- 
 crates, and in this^ only differed from that Monfter, 
 that he obfervM the Mfaical Rites, not cordially, but 
 for convenience fake, to curry favour with the 'Jews^ 
 and efcape their Perfecuticns (f). What fay you now ? 
 
 (h) Hieronym. in Ignitio. (r) Eufeb. ibidem. 
 
 (£^) Lib. 4. Cap. 22. 'p.. 115, rid. {e) Hxref.iS. 
 
 (/) Defence uf the J^icene Creed, Se6l. 3. Ch. i. 5. 7. 
 
 Did 
 
Jpqftolical TRADnio-i^, C^C' 315 
 Did not Hegejippus account fuch a Prodigy of a Man 
 a Heretick ? Laftly, by this very Argument it may 
 as well be proved, that yuflin Martyr was an Ebionite, 
 or an Unitarian, that is, deny'd the Pre-exiftence and 
 Divinity of our Saviour. For Juftin, in his Difputa- 
 tion with TryphOj reckons up as many Jewifb Herefies 
 as Hegejtppus, namely feven, tho he calls them by dif- 
 ferent Names (^). Thefe are his words: Neither can 
 any me, that rightly conjiders the Matter, call the Saddu- 
 ces Jews, or fuch Hereticks, as the Genifts, the Me- 
 rifts, Galileans, Hellenians, the Pharifees and Baptifts. 
 Here the Cerinthians and Ebionites are omitted. He 
 particularly reckons up fome Hereticks which rofe a- 
 mong the Ghriftians, in another (h) Place of the fame 
 Dialogue ; namely, Marcionites, Valentiniam, Bajtlidiam, 
 and Saturnilians. Here again no mention is made of 
 the Cerinthians and Ebionites. Hence feme Perfon may 
 argue thus : 'Juftin giving an account of the Here- 
 ticks, 'Je'wijh and Chriftian, does not reckon the C(?- 
 rimhians and Ebionites among them, which, without 
 doubt, he would have done, if he had believed the 
 Pre-exiftence and Divinity of our Saviour. Yet who 
 is there that does not know that Juftin not only be- 
 lieved it himfelf, but alfo vehemently and ftrenuoufly 
 defended it againft both the 'Je'ws and Judaiz,ing Chri-" 
 ftians. . You'll fay that Jufiin names fome Chriftian 
 Hereticks, and adds [with others of ether Names.'} I 
 own it. And does not Hegejippus the fame ? Yes in- 
 deed. For after he has named fome Chriftian Here- 
 ticks, he adds immediately : And from thefe [have 
 fprung] falfe Chrifls^ falfe Prophets, falfe Apcfiles, laho 
 have broke the Unity of the Church by pernicious Words a- 
 gainft God and Chrifl. In which words are certainly 
 comprehended all the Hereticks, who rofe after the 
 aforenamed, and from them. 
 
 5. This is the laft of our Sophifter's Arguments: 
 Valefius, fays he, confcjfes that Hegelippus^ Ecckfiaftical 
 
 ig) Juftin, p. 307, C&) P. 253. 
 
 Jiijlory 
 
514 'The ^rimitwe and 
 
 Hiftory was neglecied by the Antients^ and therefore perifi'd, 
 hecaufe it was found too greatly to favour the '{Jmt^nSiUS. 
 It is abfolutely falfe that ever Valefms confefs'd this .- 
 He only fays this in general (z), That the Writings of 
 Hegejjppm and other Antients were negleded, and fo 
 penfh'd upon account of the Errors with which they 
 abounded. Thefe are his words, Being neglecied upon 
 account of the Errors with which they (Clement'i Hypo- 
 typofes) ahoundedy at length they were loft, T^he fame 
 reafon, I judge, may be given for the lofs of Papias, He- 
 gefippus, and other Antients. As for Hegefippus, I know 
 not what Errors of his Valefms intends or fufpeds. For 
 the antient Catholick Authors that had read his Works, 
 (Men we muft beheve rather than i^^/^y?wj^) ^commend- 
 ed them (as we fliall fee hereafter) for orthodox, 
 ufeful, and worth reading. Thus much (by way of 
 Examination) for the Sophifter's petty Reafonings. We 
 Ihall now do them the further honour, light and trifling 
 as they are, to oppofe to them the Teftimonies of the 
 Antients for Hegejippus, who reckoned him among the 
 Catholicks, even among the greateft Ornaments of the 
 primitive C^itholick Church. 
 
 <5. Firft then, Eufebius, who was oblig'd to his 
 Goliedions, and tranfcribed very many things out of 
 the Comnientaries of Hegeftppus into his Hiftory, 
 makes honourable mention of him every where, and 
 often, in an extraordinary and efpecial manner, com- 
 mends his Orthodoxy. Now if Hegefippus had been an 
 Ebionite, Eufebius would never have done fo ; for he 
 held even thofe Ebionites, who acknowledged the Con- 
 ception of Chrift of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, 
 but deny'd that he pre-exifted as God the Word and 
 Wifdom before Ages, for impious Hereticks, as I 
 have fhewn elfewhere (k). Nay, he extols him as a brave 
 Champion of the Catholick Faith againft the Hereticks 
 of his time. A glorious Champion indeed, and a 
 
 (i) Annot. m Eufeb. f. 85. 
 
 {¥) Judgment of the Catholick Chimhf Chap, 2. SeO:. ii. 
 
 He- 
 
Jpqftolkal Tk ADIT ioT<if ^-c. gi^ 
 
 Heretick himfelf ! Hear Eufebius (/) ; In thofe times 
 again the Truth had many Defenders, 'who contended for her 
 not only in Words, but tn -written Controverfy againjl the 
 impious Herejies. Among thefe, Hegefippus was famous, 
 an Author "we have made great ufe of in our former Booh , 
 having been obliged to his credit and report for what was 
 done in the Apoftolical T'imes. He has given us Memoirs of 
 the Apoflolical Preaching in five Books, written with good 
 Credit, and great Simplicity. There is another place 
 parallel to this (m) : In the fame times, Hegefippus, 
 whom we have mentioned in the former Booh, flour i/b^d in 
 the Church; and Dionyfius Bifloop of Corinth, and Vi- 
 nytus of Crete, befides Philip and Apollinaris, and 
 Melito, and lofily Irenseus, aU whofe Orthodox Writings 
 are come to our hands, and give us apoftolical 'Tradition, 
 and found Faith. But in the beginning of the follow- 
 ing Chapter (n), he again adds : Hegefippus indeed, 
 in the five Booh of Co?nmentaries, which are come down to 
 us, hath left us the mofl ample Tefiimony of his Faith, 
 
 7. What has our Adverfary now to oppofe to thefe 
 plain Teilimonies of Eufebius? After he has produc'd 
 the Arguments, by which he would prove Hegefippus 
 an Unitarian^ he immediately adds : If it be cbjelied. 
 Did Eufebius know nothing of this, for he every where 
 makes honourable mention of Hegefippus ? / anfwer, he 
 knew it very well, but he dm ft not tell it ; it was not fw 
 Eufebius to reprove an Apoftolical Father ; it was only for 
 him to diffemble what the Unitarians, and efpecially his own 
 Adverfary Marcellus, would not have negleSied to ufe in 
 Defence of their Caufe. Who in his Senfes is not amazM 
 at this Anfwer ? Sure, if Hegefippus had been an 
 Ebionite, and Eufebius knew it, he not only did amifs 
 in diflembling it, but alfo told a dired lye ; for he not 
 only does not fay that he was an Ebionite, but he ex- 
 prefly fays the contrary, namely, that he was entirely 
 Catholick^ and had given us the Apoftical Dodlrine 
 
 (/) Lib. 4. Cap, 7, and 8. p. 5)8» (w) Cap. 21, p. 115. 
 
 (n) Cap, 22, 
 
 and 
 
3 ^ ^ The ^rmiti've and 
 
 and Tradition clear and fincere in his Writings. Nay, 
 he has told a mofl impudent Falfhood ,• for the Com- 
 mentaries of Hegejtpptis were not read by Eufebius 
 only, but were common, at leaft among the Learned j 
 as being greatly celebrated both for. the venerable Anti- 
 quity of their Author, and the very ufeful Matter of 
 which they treated, namely, what happenM in the 
 days of the Apoftles, and the firft Succeffion after 
 them ', and upon thefe accounts, very agreeable to all 
 Lovers of Antiquity. Eufebius could not fafely lye in 
 this Matter, becaule he might eafily be convided of 
 the moft manifeft Falfhood ; and the Fraud being dif- 
 cover'dj would have expos 'd himfelf to the hatred 
 of all Lovers of Truth. Again, it is very ridiculous to 
 fay, Eufebius durft not reprove Hegejippus^ becaufe he 
 was an apofto'ical Father; for, if Hegefippus had in- 
 deed been an Ebionite^ he cou'd not have pafs*d for an 
 apoflolica! Fatner with the Catholick Church, to 
 which ic was £zit/f^m's Intereft to recommend him- 
 felf Laftly, Eufebius wou'd have offended both the Ca- 
 tholicks and Hereticks by this Lye of his j the Catho- 
 licks by commending an Heretick fo greatly, and the 
 Hereticks, by depriving them of fo great an Advo- 
 cate, and pretending he was of the other Side. I am 
 afham'd to dwell fo long upon fuch manifeft Trifles. 
 To proceed therefore : 
 
 8. Not only Eufebius, but other antient Catholick 
 Writers, have given teflimony that Hegejippus was Or- 
 thodox. Thus * Jerome not only praifes him for the 
 great Sanftity of his Life, but alfo recommends his 
 Writings (which he had read) as containing very ufe- 
 ful Things. For in his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Wri- 
 ters he thus fpeaks of Hegefippus : ' He liv'd near the 
 ' Apoftles days, and has put together all that was done 
 
 * in the Church from our Lord's Paffion, till his own 
 
 * Times, and hath collected from feveral Places many 
 ' ufeful Things. His Work is made up of five Books 
 
 * Catalogus Script. Ecdcf. in Hegefippo. 
 
 'in 
 
* in a plain Style, as tho' he had fludy'd to exprefs 
 
 * their Lives, whom he imitated in the manner of his 
 
 * writing/ Now if 'Jerome had found any Tares of 
 Herefy in the Works of Hegefippus, mix'd with the 
 good Grain of pure Doctrine, without doubt he 
 wou'd have caution'd his Reader againft them ,- if he 
 had difcover'd that he was an Ebionite^ he would never 
 have fuffer'd him to pafs without Note or Cenfure, 
 much lefs would he have honour'd him with fuch 
 Commendations ; for no Man was more bitter againft 
 the Herefy which deny'd our Saviour to be God, than 
 Jerome. Gobarus alfo (o) fays of Hegefippus, 'That he 
 •was an antient Apoftolkal Man i Antient with refpeft to 
 the Age in which he liv'd ; and Apoftolical, for the 
 Holinefs and Purity of his Life and Doftrine. 
 
 9. Let us now hear Hegefippus fpeak for him- 
 felf He fays in that very Chapter (p), from which 
 the Sophifter would prove him an Ebionite, that he, 
 in his journey to Rome, waited upon many Bi/kopSy and 
 from all of them heard one and the fame DoBrine. Then 
 he adds. And the Church of Corinth perfeve/d in the right 
 Faith till the times of Primus their Bifhop, li^ith whom I 
 convers*d familiarly in my Voyage to Rome, andftayd with 
 the Corinthians many days, both of us being greatly comfort- 
 ed by the right Faith of each other. But when 1 was come 
 to Rome, / abode there with Anicetus, to whom Eleuthe- 
 rus was then Deacon. Then he fubjoins ; Now the 
 fame things, which were preached by the Lazv, the Prophets^ 
 and the Lord himfelf, fiill remain in the fever al Succeffions 
 (f Bi/bops, and in the fever al Cities. Hegefippus then ap- 
 proved the Do(5trine of the Catholick Church of his 
 time, as true and entirely agreeable to the Scripture of 
 the Old and New, Tefiamem, and to Primitive and Apo- 
 ftolical Tradition. Now what the Doftrine of the 
 Catholick Church was in the days of Hegefippus, you, 
 may very well inform yourfelf from his Contemporary, 
 Jrenaus (q). I'll only cite two Places of the many- 
 Co) Photius, Cod. 252. p. 892, Q) Eufeb. Lib. 4. cap. 22. 
 {q) Lib. I. cap. 19. p. 114. 
 
 which 
 
liS T^he Trimitwc and 
 
 which occur in him. He thus defcribes the Rule of 
 Truth every where received in the Catholick Church 
 in his time : As we underfiand {or hold) the Rule of Truths 
 this is itj "That there is one God Almighty, who created all 
 things by his IVord^ who difpos^d, and brought them all into 
 exiftence cut of nothings as the Scripture faith : By the 
 word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hofis 
 of them by the breath of his mouth. And again. All things 
 were made by him, and without him was nothing made {but 
 out of all, nothing is excepted \ the Father made all things, 
 •whether njifible or invifble, fenjible or intelkBual, temporal 
 for feme certain end or purpofe, or eternal) and he made all 
 thefe things, not by Angels, nor by any Powers %f another 
 Will and Purpofe from him; for God wants nothing: but by 
 his Word and Spirit he makes all things, he difpofes, he go-^ 
 verns, he gives them exifience. CouM any Ebionite ap- 
 prove this Confeffion of Faith ? The other place you 
 have in the third Book, Chap. 3. in the very beginning 
 (r), collated with Chap. 4. of the fame Book. In the 
 former place he thus writes concerning the Tradition 
 of the Catholick Church : All Perfons who tuill fee the 
 truth then, may find in every Church the Tradition of the 
 Apoftles manifejied throughout the World j and we can 
 reckon up thofe who were made Bijloops by the Apofiles, and 
 their Succe jf or s, down to our own times, who neither taught, nor 
 knew any fuch thing as thefe Men dream of. Here he fpeaks 
 of univerfal Tradition manifefted in the whole World, 
 and in every Church (that is, as Hegefippus fays, in the 
 feveral Succeffions of Bifhops, and in the feveral Cities) 
 and fo manifefted, that every one who was a lover of 
 Truth, and would not fliut his Eyes againft it, might 
 fee it. Now what this univerfal, this manifeft Tradi- 
 tion was, in the Chapter immediately following, he 
 thus clearly explains : But what if the Apoftles had not 
 left us the Scriptures, muft we not have followed the Order 
 cf 'Tradition, which they delivered to thofe to whom they 
 committed the Care of the Churches .? The Order to which 
 
 (f) P. 232. p,242. 
 
 many 
 
'Jpoftolical Tradition^ ^c> 319 
 many Nations of the Barbarians, or rude ignorant 
 People, ivho belie've in Chrifty gi've their ajjent i who 
 have the Rule of Salvation written in their Hearts by 
 the Spirit, without Ink and Paper , and carefully p-e^ 
 ferve the old 'Tradition^ believing in one God the 
 Maker of Heaven, and Earth, and all things therein by 
 his Son yefus Chrifi ; who out of his very great Love to 
 his own Creation, condefcended to be born of a Virgin, by him- 
 felf uniting Man to God. 
 
 10. From thefe things it is very dear that Hegefip- 
 pus was entirely Catholick, and believ'd as the Ca- 
 tholick Church of his days did, in the Son of God, 
 who exifted before all Ages, by whom all things 
 were made, and who at the appointed time was him- 
 felf made Man for us. Very vain therefore are all 
 thofe Conclufions, which our Unitarians have drawn 
 from the contrary Hypothefis j namely, that Hegefippus 
 was an Ebionite. Hear now the Author of the Judg- 
 ment of the Fathers, &c. thus arguing from thac 
 Hypothefis (s) : Jf Hegefippus (the Unitarian He- 
 gefippus) was the Author Rufeb'ms follows in his account 
 of the fifteen Bifhops 0/ Jerufalem, that they prof efs'd the 
 true Knowledge of Chrifi {of which no Man who is ac- 
 quainted with his Writings can doubt) then we have gaind 
 a point of the greatefi advantage ; namely^ that not only the 
 Jewifli Chrifiians, but alfo the Church o/Rome, and all the 
 more famous Churches, which Hegefippus has vifited in 
 order to know their DoSrine and Difcipline, thought as the 
 Unitarians did ; that is, as Hegefippus did; that is, 
 that our Lord Chrifi was only Man. For he fays (t), that he 
 went to K,omt, and lived there under the Popes Anicetus, 
 Soter, and Eleutherus ; and that the DoEirines taught 
 by the Law, the Prophets, and our Saviour Jmnfelf, were 
 preferved there, and in all other Bifioopricks. In a word, 
 he confejfes, that he found the Churches Uniform and Ortho- 
 dox. Now this, /f Hegefippus was a Unitarian {as I 
 think I have proved) can mean nothing elfe, than that the 
 
 {/) P. 42, and 43. (0 Eufeb. fupra cit. 
 
 Churches 
 
3 20 T!he Tr if/lit we and 
 
 Churches helie'ved, as the Jewifh Chrifliam did^ that our 
 LordChriji was a Man^ a Prophet, an Embajfador of 
 God, upon whom the Logos or Word of God rejled. This is 
 entirely agreeable to what the antient Unitarians, {the 
 Artemonites) affirmed in Eufebius ; namely, that they 
 had preferred the Doclrine delivered by the Apvflles till 
 Vi6lor and Zepherinus oppofed it, who fucceedcd Eleu- 
 therus, ^j Z;^ ^/^ Socer, ^K^Soter Anicetus, the antient 
 Popes, with whom Hegefippus conversed. Thefe Con- 
 clufions, which the Sophifter infers from his own 
 Hypothefis concerning the Faith and Opinion of He- 
 gefippus, are fo abfurd, and fo manifeflly repugnanc 
 to the moft Authentick Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that 
 any Man who has a grain of Candour and Judgment, 
 mufl think the Hypothefis to be, what it really is, 
 abominably falfe. 
 
 II. This notwithftanding, the Author of a Book 
 entitled, "The true and antient Faith concerning the Divi- 
 nity of our Lord ajferted againfl Dr. Bull's Judgment of 
 the Church, 8i.c. has run the fame lengths wi ch this 
 Writer. For he writes thus (u). But Jmufi iritreat my 
 Reader to obferve, that all the Books of the Difiplas of the 
 Apoftles, who did not run into Platonifm, are loft. Now 
 among others, either by chance lofl, or on purpofe dcfiroy'd, 
 ive lament the Bocks wrote by the Chriflians of the drcum- 
 cifion : of them^ one Hegefippus a very famous IV, iter had 
 compiled the Ecclefiaftical Hiftory of the moft early Times , 
 hut the Errors whicib the Platonizing Chriftians have 
 charged upon him, haije occafioned the lofs of his valuable 
 Hiftory. Valefius is of my opinion, and makes this Obfer- 
 vation upon Eufebiu!> (x): Which Books (the Hypoty- 
 pofes of Clement Ale;x.) were neglefted and lofl becaufe 
 of the Errors with which they abounded. I judge 
 that the fame thin!?f was a!fo the occalion of our lofing 
 the Books of P apias, Hegefippus, and other An- 
 tients. In this nuryrber he reckons Hegefippus'/ Hiftory: 
 IVbat were the Ern irs of it, is not dijjxult to conjeciure i 
 
 («) P. 17S, 179, iHo. (x)Lib. 5. cap. ii. 
 
 fc;: 
 
for as much as all the Chrifiiam^ fuch as they are, that 
 formerlywere^ ormvjare Platonifts, call every thing an 
 Error , which doth not fute with their Hypothejls concerning 
 God the Word, begotten not made. Hegefippus was a 
 jew by Natiojiy and one of thofe whom the Pagan Profe-^ 
 lytes jiremioufly endeavour' d to oppref,for the fupport of the 
 Error concerning the Pre-exifience. Nor is it to be doubted 
 •whether the Errors, of which he was accufed, were the fame 
 as the Chrifiian Nazarenes held ; whether by the Virgin 
 Churchy of which he fpeaks in Eufebius, he under flood that 
 of the Circumcifon, which flood off the farthefl from Flato^ 
 nifm ; : and whether by the SeduEiion of Error, which 
 arofe under the Emperors Trajan, or Adrian, he intended 
 the Philofophy of Plato then introduced into the Church ; a 
 Philofophy of a direSi tendency to debafe Chriflianity, foully 
 to change, and thereby almofl deflroy it : "This the Apoflles 
 themfelves foretold, and it is fo true and manifefl in itfelf 
 that I find Valefius himfelf noting upon the place of 
 Eufebius aforecited (y), that the Father had underflood 
 the Words of Hegefippus in too large afenfe ; and accom- 
 modated that to the luhole Catholick Church, which he only 
 faid concerning the Virginity of the Church of Jerufalem. 
 
 'This is a matter of great Importance, and worthy Ob- 
 fervation. By it Hegefippus fets out the fatal time, when 
 the Chriflian Bifhops, formerly Heathen Philofophers, fuc 
 ceeded the Nazarene Bifloops ; and confequently when Pla- 
 tonifm jufiled out the pure and fimpk Truth, which the 
 Succejfors of St. James had preach' d. Now this happened 
 inthe Reign of AdnsLi), when all the Jews and uncir- 
 cumcifed Chriftians were expelled Jerufalem. Sulpitius 
 Severus had reafonfor what he faid, that the Chrifiian 
 Faith, i. e. the Plaronical Faith, (according to his Notion) 
 had confiderable Advantage from that Dfperfion ; for then 
 the fatal Evil fpread iifelf greatly, when the Primitive 
 Faith which the Nazarenes had preferved in its Purity, 
 could no longer bear up againfl Platonifm, And a little 
 after this, is the very thing of which the Artemonites 
 
 (y) Annot. in Eufeb, p. 49. 
 
 Vol. IL X com- 
 
g22 ^he Trmithe and 
 
 complain in Eufebius ,- 'fhat all the Antlents, and even 
 the Apofiks therrtfeheSy received and taught "what $hey mxu 
 do j and that the 'Truth of the Gofpel -was prefervd till the 
 times vf Vidor, who ivas the i^th Bijhop of Rome from 
 Peter; but that from the times of Zephirinus, tuho 
 fucceeded Viftor, the T'ruth had been adulterated. But 
 this Author has one thing peculiar to himfelf, name- 
 ly, the unskilful or the impudent Ufe he makes of 
 Sulpitius Severus's Authority for the fupport of his 
 Dreams. Sulpitius Severus, fays he, affirms^ that the 
 Chrifiian Faith, that is, according to his Notion, the Pla- 
 tonical, had conjiderable advantage from that Difperfion 
 (of the Chriflians of the Circumcijion under Adrian) for 
 then the fatal Evil fpread itfelf when the Primitive Faith, 
 •which the Nazarenes had preferv'd in its Purity, could no 
 longer bear up againft Platonifm. Now Sulpitius exprefly 
 faith in this place, that the Chriflians of Jerttfalem, 
 "who were of the Circumcifion, before the Difperfion 
 under Adrian, beHev'd Chrift to be God. Nor does 
 he fpeak lefs clearly, that the Advantage which the 
 Chriftian Faith had from that Difperfion, confifted in 
 this. That it was the Occajion of fetting the Liberty of the 
 Faith and the Church free from the Servitude of the Law. 
 He did not fo much as dream that it had been an inlet 
 to Platonijm. 
 
 12. But no Man can wonder at thefe Follies in this 
 Author, who has obferv'd what Paradoxes he has ven- 
 tur'd to publifh and defend openly in the Chriftian 
 World. Thus, (2.) IVIien therefore the primitive Chriflians 
 fpcke of Chrifty as far fuperior to mere Man, or as the 
 pre-exifient M^ord, which was with God from the beginning, 
 they plainly meant that Holy Spirit, that Divine Power, 
 •which created the World, and form'd the Body of Jefus 
 Chrift, which inhabited it when form' d, and had it as the 
 temple, from which he would give out his Oracles publickly. 
 "This was the true and genuine Opinion concerning the Arti- 
 cle in Contrcverfy, which indeed afterwards began to be 
 
 CO Pag. 152, 153. 
 
 changd 
 
j^pojfoikal Tradition, &c^* I* J 
 
 ihang^dfomewhaty becaufe the Difciples of thefe Men, pre^ 
 judiced to a Platonicai 'Trinity, dtflinguijio d between the 
 JVord and the Spirit, and by an idle Platonicai Suhtilty^ 
 made the fymnimous JVords into two different things. He 
 eagerly contends that this was the genuine Opinion of 
 Ignatius, Irenaus, and other very antient Fathers i and 
 every where in his Book affirms, that according to the 
 Scriptures and the Primitive Fathers, the greateft Ex- 
 ceilency of our Saviour, and that for which he is ce- 
 lebrated as God, is not, that he exifted before all 
 Ages, or that all things were made by him j but this 
 only, that he was wonderfully conceiv'd of a Virgin 
 by the Holy Spirit,whereas he had no Exiflence before. 
 Now he that after reading the Fathers can affirm 
 thefe things, muft either have no Confcience, or no 
 Reafon and Judgment at all. For, (i.) It is very cer« 
 tain that the Priraitve Fathers, by the IVord, which 
 was before the Creation, and by which the World was 
 made, did not underftand a certain Power, which had 
 no proper Perfon, but a living and fubjifiing IVord^ 
 which we commonly call a Perfon. (2.) It is equally 
 certain, that thofe Primitive Fathers took the Word to 
 be a Perfon diftind from God the Father, and the 
 Holy Spirit. (3.) Laftly, it is evident that they did 
 not determine the greateft Dignity and Excellence of 
 our Saviour's Perfon to confift in his wonderful Con« 
 ception of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit ; but on the 
 contrary, that his Nativity of the Virgin did entirely 
 belong to his ftupendous Condefcenfion, and to that 
 Difpenfation, which he, of his infinite Mercy and 
 Goodnefs to Mankind, was pleased to take upon him. 
 AH who love the Truth, and are moderately vers'd in 
 the Primitive Antiquity, know this to be the true and 
 the antient Faith of the Church (a). -A, 
 
 13. But to return from thefe TriflerS to the Holy 
 Fathers, Hegefippis and Irenaus, two very fufficienc 
 Evidences of the Primitive Apoftolical Tradition. As 
 
 {a) Ste the Judgment of tfps Catholkk Chur^t c. 5. o. 5, Ss^> 
 
 X 3. ioi 
 
'^24 ^he Trimitwe and 
 
 for JJegepppus^ he was near the Apoftolical Age, and 
 wrote the Hiftory of the Church from the Paflion of 
 our Lord, down to his own times. In order to com- 
 pleat this Hiftory, no doubt but that he confulted ve- 
 ry many Records of the Apoftohcal Age, and the next 
 Succeflion to it. Befides, as "yerome fays, he was an 
 Admirer of the Primitive Piety, a Man of holy Sim- 
 plicity, and very great Sanftity, and therefore an 
 Hiftorian very well worthy to be believ'd. This fame 
 Hegejippus witneffeth. That the Dodrine at firft deli- 
 vered by Chrift and the Apoftles in all Churches, in 
 his time (in which it is plain, the Tenet of Chrift *s 
 divine and human Nature was every were received in 
 the Catholick Church) remained pure and intire. 
 Irenaus teftifies the fame, who was Contemporary with 
 Hegefippusy and, as TertulUan thought, a very curious 
 Examiner of all Doflrines, and who had, befides this, 
 a very lingular advantage from the divine Providence, 
 of converfing with the {b) BlefTed Polycarp, a Difciple 
 of St. John, was thoroughly inftrufted in hisDoftrine; 
 and perfectly remembred it, as he himfelf fays in his 
 Epiftle to Florinus (c). He appeals to him as an Evi- 
 dence of the antient Tradition abovemention'd, 
 namely, of the Faith in one God, the Maker of Heaven 
 and Earth, and of all things therein, by the Son of God 
 Jefus Chrift ^ who of his 'very great affe[iion towards hii 
 own Creature, condescended to be born of the Virgin, uniting 
 in himfelf Man to God. Nay, he appeals to the Afiah 
 Churches and Bifhops, the Succeflbrs of Poly carp, as 
 Witnefl'es of the fame Tradition. For he writes thus : 
 Poly carp alfo, who was not only inftruSied by the Apoftles^ 
 and conversed with many of them, but was alfo ?nade Bi- 
 jfhop of the Church of Smyrna, by the Apoftles, in Afia, 
 tuhom we have feen in our youth, (for he liv'd a great 
 "while, and being very old, departed this Life a Glorious 
 Idartyr) always taught us thofe things which he had lean^ 
 ^f the Apoftles, which he alfo deliver' d to the Church, and 
 
 {b) Eufeb, £, H. p. 152. (0 Lib, 3, cap. 3. p.235' 
 
 which 
 
U'hich are only true* AU the Churches in Afia, and they 
 •who fucceeded Polycarp dovin to this day, give tefiimony to 
 thefe things. Surely then thofe who are not afliamed to 
 oppofe this ftupid Falrtiood of the Artemonites, Here- 
 ticks of a later date, to fuch creditable Evidence, are 
 very impudent indeed. Lee us now proceed to exa- 
 mine the reft of Zuicker's Whims. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Orphic Verfes, an^^ hy way of 2)/- 
 grejfwny of the Sybilline Oracles, alled^d 
 hy Juftin and other Antients againft the 
 Heathens. 
 
 .1. T ET us now in the fecond place examine 
 I i Zuicker^s wild Conjedure upon the Orphic 
 Verfes, He writes thus (d) i T'hefe Dreams, FiBions^ 
 and Prodigies of ^\mow}sA3Lgus, with the additional Ex- 
 pojition of Cerinthus, concerning which I /hall difcourfe a 
 little after J feem altogether to have been the firji Draught 
 and the Elements of Orpheus'i Verfes (a Heathen, and^ 
 as Paufanias fays, a Magician alfo) cited by Juftin Mar- 
 tyr in his Exhortation to the Greeks, {which run thus : 
 I adjure thee by the Word of the Father, which he 
 firft brought forth out of his Mouth, when by his advice 
 he made the Univerfe.) T'hefe Verfes, feme Impofior, a 
 Difcipleof Simon Magus, feems to have propagated among 
 the Chriflians under the Name of Orpheus, a Name fo fa" 
 mous (as Suidas reports) in the mofi antient times, that 
 very many Writings of other Authors, were faid to be his 
 genuine Works, to gain them the greater Credit, "Thefe 
 Juftin made f acred to himfelj and others, and pretended tHy 
 were derived from the DoBrine of MpfeS ^> Orphe^S^ 
 
 (rf) Iren. p. 15, i5* 
 
 X ? . After* 
 
J 26 TM Vrimiti've and 
 
 Afterwards he adds : T'hat Juftin depending upon thefe 
 Verfes^ and others ^ proposed their Opinion concerning the 
 Generation of Chrift, or the Mind, Wordy or Reafon of the 
 Father, from the Father, that the World might be made by 
 him, that he might come down to Men, and at length be made 
 one of them. The Heretick depends upon thefe two 
 Supports : (i.) That thofe Verfes under the Name of 
 Orpheus, were forg'd by the Simonians. (2.) That 
 Juftin relying upon thofe Verfes, had proposed his O- 
 pinion concerning the Generation of the Word before 
 the World was made. 
 
 2. As for the former, 'tis gratis diElum, nor can he 
 produce the leaft appearance of an Argument for it. 
 Kay, there are plain Reafons to the contrary. For 
 Erft, 'Juftin cites thofe Verfes, as well known before, 
 and formerly cited among the Heathen under the Name 
 of Orpheus -, it is therefore fcarce probable that they 
 Ihould be forg'd by Hereticks of late date, obfcure, 
 and but little known to the Heathens. Thus 'Juftin 
 (e) introduces his Citation of thefe Verfes : For Idont 
 fuppofe any af you, who read diligently the Hiftories of 
 Diodorus and others, who have committed thefe things to 
 'Writing, are ignorant that Orpheus, and Homer, and 
 Solon the Athenian Lawgiver, and Plato, and Pythago- 
 ras, andfome others who went to ^Egypt, and were ajjifted 
 ly the Books of Mofes, afterward taught quite contrary to 
 their former falfe Sentiments of the Gods. 
 
 5. In thefe Words, if I'm not miftaken, Juftin 
 hints to us the Original of the OrphickVerfes, namely, 
 that fome very antient Perfon, who underftood the 
 IL^earning of Mofes, and the Jewi/b Religion had for- 
 merly wrote thofe Verfes under the Name of Orpheus, 
 (for I can't believe as Juftin does, that Orpheus him- 
 felf was the Author of them) and that they were 
 famous among the Gentiles as the Verfes of the cele- 
 brated Poet Orpheus, fome Ages before Juftin was born. 
 I judge, / fay^ that it is very probable the Orphk 
 
 |0 Pa|, 15, 
 
 ' "^ f^erfes 
 
Verfes came from the Jewifh Learning. That Maa 
 mult be greatly wanting both in Prudence and Mo- 
 defty, who will deny that the Heathen Writers bor- 
 rowed many things from the Books of Mofes and the 
 Hebrews. The undoubted Writings of the Heathens, 
 which fpeak of the one God, the Creation of the 
 World, &c. things fcarcely, if at all to be had from 
 any other Quarter, fufEciently teflify this. Now the 
 Jewifh Religion then began to be the beft known to 
 the Pagans, when that People was firft expell'd their 
 own Country, and difpers'd every where among the 
 Heathen : afterwards the very Scriptures (God's fin- 
 gular Providence thus making way for the calling of 
 the Gentiles) were tranflated in Alexandria by the 
 Seventy, at the command of Ptolemy^ into a Tongue 
 common to almoft all the Heathen, I mean Greek: 
 From that time, who can wonder that there are fome 
 things in the Heathen Writings, which agree with the 
 Jetuifh Learning ? 
 
 4. But you'll fay, how cou'd they be accommoda- 
 ted to the Orphic Verfesy when in them there is men- 
 tion of the Logos, ov Wordy by which all things were 
 made, but which was not known to the 'Jevjs them- 
 felves ? I anfwer, it is clear from the Chaldee Para- 
 fhrafe, which calls that, by which God makes and 
 prescribes all things, the TVord ; that the Word of God 
 was very well known to the Jews. Many learned 
 Men have enlarg'd upon this Matter. Among others, 
 confult Hugo Grottus upon St. Johns firft and fecond 
 Chapters of his Gofpel. There alfo he conjeftures,' 
 that the Writer of the Orphic Verfes borrow 'd his No- 
 tion of the Word from the Hebrews ', that Heraclitus 
 followed him (Amelius has obferv'd, that he ufed the 
 Word in that Senfe) and that Plato and the Platonics 
 follow'd Heraclitus. But the late very learned Dr. Allix 
 has exhaufted this Subjeft, in his Book intitled, The 
 Judgment of the antimt Jewifh Church again ft the Unitari" 
 ans, 
 
 X 4 5 I 
 
32S TheTrmitive and 
 
 5. I will give my Opinion by the bye, that the 
 SihylUne Oracles alfo produced againft the Heathens by 
 Juftm, and after him by others, might proceed from 
 the fame Original. For I can't be brought to believe 
 that thofe Prophecies were either forg'd by the Fa- 
 thers of the Primitive Church, and in the way of 
 Pious Frauds obtruded by them, as fome learned 
 Men confidently alTert, rafhly and impudently fas 
 Bifhop Montague (ays) throwing the greateft Refledion 
 upon thofe Holy Prelates. For what Argument do 
 they bring for the Support of fo ftrange an Affertion ? 
 Nothing but mere, vain, trifling Surmi fes. On the 
 other hand, the Reafons on our fide are clear, (i.) Who 
 can believe that Juftm and the other Fathers Cpious 
 and prudent Men) would prefume to alledge the fpu- 
 rious and fuppofititious Verfesof the Sil^yls before the 
 Emperors, before the Heathens Tto whom they could 
 not but be very well known) in defence of their Faith ; 
 appealing with the greateft Aflurance to the Copies, 
 which were in the hands of the Heathens. Nay, 
 yuflin near the end of his Exhortation appeals to thofe 
 SibyUine Oracles ^ as notorious to the whole World, 
 Thefe are his Words, (/) Be convinced by the moft antient 
 Sibyl, luhofe Booh are preferv'd every wherSy &c. I know 
 indeed that the Heathens objefted to the Chriftians 
 the infertion of many Things in the Sibylline Verfes^ 
 'This Celfus alledgM, as we learn from Origen (g.) But 
 notwithftanding, I aifo know what Origen anfwers in 
 the fame place, That he had not fhewn what thofe In-r 
 fertions were ; tho' no doubt, he would have done it, 
 if he had had more antient and incorrupt Copies. 
 And indeed if that Fraud of the Chriftians cou'd have 
 been detected in the Times of Celfus ; T'heophilus, Cle- 
 mens AlexandrinuSy Origen, &c. had been the moft fool- 
 ilh, impudent Mortals imaginable, to have alledg'd 
 them with affurance againft the Heathens afterwards. 
 
 if) Pag. 16. ig) Pag. 355. Lib, 7. 
 
 €. Be- 
 
^Jpoft oik al Tr ADIT ion y (^c» 329 
 
 6. Befides, we have fome things in the Heathen 
 Writers, who liv'd either before our Lord's Birth, or 
 when he was upon Earth, taken from thofe Sibylline 
 Books, exadly agreeing with what the Fathers cited 
 from them, '^uftin Martyr cites the Sibyls^ foreteUing 
 the Conflagration of the World, in thefe Words {h) ; 
 The Sibyl and Hyftafpis ha'ue faid, that there would be a 
 confumption of all corruptible things by Fire. The fame 
 Ovid had learn'd from the Prophetic Books (i). 
 
 Remembring in the Fates a time^ luhen Fire 
 Should to the Battlements of Heaven afpire; 
 And all the blaz,ing Worlds above fhould burn. 
 And all th' inferior Globe to Cinders turn. 
 
 The firft Chriftians produced many things out of the 
 Sibylline Oracles concerning Chrift their King, who 
 fhould give Peace and Salvation to the whole World. 
 Cicero alfo fays, {k) that an Interpreter of the Sibylline 
 Books complimented Julius Cafar (the real, tho* not 
 nominal King at that time) with this Sentence, That 
 they muft have a King, if they would be favd. By 
 which Prophecy, Molinaus (at other times no great 
 favourer of the Sibylline Oracles) profefTes he thought 
 Chrift and his Kingdom was intended, by which Sal- 
 vation was procur'd for all who would obey him. 
 Grotius {I) alfo was of the fame mind. 
 
 7. But thofe Paflages are more, efpecially clear, 
 which Virgil takes from the Cumaan Verfes of the 
 Boy, who was to defccnd from Heaven, to be born of 
 a Virgin, to rule the whole World, to blot out the 
 Sins of Men, to deftroy the Serpent, and reftore the 
 Golden Age ; all which things, the Poet gathering 
 from Circumftances that the time by the Sibyl intend- 
 ed was come, and not underftanding the Senfe of 
 them, by bafe Flattery, (or if you pleafe, poetical 
 Licence) apply'd to Sahninus the Son of PolUo, juft 
 
 Q)) Pag. 66. (0 Ovid's Metamovphofis, Lib. i. 
 
 {¥) Lib. de Divinatione 2. p. 275. Ed. Gryph. 1570. -vol. 2, 
 Opr> Fhihfoph CO Upon Matthew, cap. 2. ver. i, 
 
 born. 
 
^^6 ^he Trimiti've and 
 
 born. Of thefe again MoUnaus profefTes, that when 
 he has confider'd them very attentively, he has often 
 been amaz'd, how it fhould happen that thofe Verfes 
 of that fourth Eclogue, taken, as Virgil ownSy from the 
 Sibylline Oracles^ fhould fo exadiy correfpond with the 
 Nativity and Kingdom of Chrift. Molinaus adds, 
 that the Verfes are more confiderable, as they were 
 wrote by Virgil at Rome, (where the Sibylline Books 
 were kept in the Palatine Library) at that time when 
 Chrift was born in ^udea. But it will be worth our 
 while to tranfcribe thefe Verfes with Molinaus's 
 Notes upon them. T^he Poet then rifing above the pitch 
 oj an Eclogue^ thus begins : 
 
 Sicilian Mufe^ begin a loftier Strain I 
 'Then addSf 
 
 'The lafl great Age, foretold by facred Rhimes^ 
 Renews itsfinifh'd Courfe y Saturnian times 
 Roll round again ; and mighty YearSy begun 
 From their fir ft Orb^ in radiant Circles run : 
 The bafe degenerate Iron Offfpring ends ; 
 A Golden Progeny from Heaven defcends i 
 O chafte hucma fiee d 
 
 Thefe things are wonderful, the Virgin, the Boy born, fent 
 down from Heaven, the Golden Ages under him, and thefe 
 things copy'd from the Sibylline Verfes, and that at the 
 time when Chrift was born, T'hen he thus addreffes the Boy : 
 7'hou Child being Conful, Virtue fhalt refiore. 
 And Crimes fhall threat the guilty World no more. 
 
 Jie foretels that our Sins fhall be blotted out by him. how 
 ye?note from the common Poetical way ! But he promifes alfo 
 the Dejlruciion of the Serpent under his Reign i 
 The Serpem*s Brood fhall die ; the facred Ground 
 Shall Weeds and poifomus Herbs refufe to bear. 
 Each common Bufh fhall Syrian Rff'es wear. 
 ^And a little after : 
 
 The 
 
^jpqfloUcal Tradition, ^c, H^ 
 
 The jarring Nations he in Peace fljall bind. 
 And ivith paternal Virtues rule mankind. 
 
 jB)'Cthe deceitful poifonous Herb]] he under flands the falfe 
 DoElrines and ijoorjh'p of Idols ; by the Aflyrian Aniomus, 
 which Jbould grow every where^ the DoSirine of the Gofpel 
 to be propagated through the World. In the Sibylline Ver- 
 fes it was the Syrian Amomus, &c. For Judea is in 
 Syria, from whence the preaching of the Gofpel firfi came. 
 ButVirgWjby an eafy change, put Aflyrian /or Syrian,^ir 
 the fake of his Metre, 
 
 8. You'll ask, whence the Heathens had thefe clear 
 Oracles concerning Chrift ? I fay from the Jews, efpe- 
 cially thofe of the Difperfion, who upon every oppor- 
 tunity given, and even without it, with great elation, 
 preachM up the magnificent Things in the Oracles of 
 the Prophets, as pertaining to their King the MeJJiah^ 
 who was to come. For from the time that the Jews 
 were driven into Banifhment, the Promifes and Pre- 
 dictions of the Prophets concerning the Mejjiah and a 
 future State, were more clearly pcrceiv'd by all the 
 People of God than ever before ; the gracious Provi- 
 dence of God fo ordering it, that the afflided People,' 
 who groanM under a foreign Yoke, ftiould be rais'd 
 by the hope of the Promifes. The Writings of the 
 Hebrews, who liv'd between the Babylcni/b Captivity, 
 and the coming of the Lord, fully prove this Point. 
 He that doubts whether thefe famous Oracles came 
 into the hands of the Heathen, may do well to confi- 
 der that memorable Prophecy related both by Cornelius 
 Tacitus, and Suetonius, that there was a notion all the 
 World over, that one fliould arife out of Judea who 
 fhould govern the World. Tacitus fays, Cw) Many were 
 then perfuaded that it was contain d in the antient Learning 
 of the Priefis, that the Eaft fiould be famous, and the 
 Jqws fhould rule the World. Suetonius (n) : There was 
 
 {m) Tacit. Ulft. 5 Lib. p. 55s. Ed, Ryckii, 
 \n) Pag, iop5, Bafil 1542.. 
 
 an 
 
^^2 The ^riinitive and 
 
 an old uniform Opinion nil over the Eaft^ that it ijas de^ 
 termined that the Jews fhould govern the World. 
 
 9. If you ask me another Queftion, . how thofe 
 ^evjijh Omc\Q,s crept into the Sibylline Books "kt^t in the 
 Capitol, I've an anfwer ready for you. The Sibylline 
 Books were of two kinds, fome bought by Tarquin, 
 and preferved in the Capitol till the days of Sylla, 
 when they were burnt together with the Capitol 5 
 thefe, (as appears from Livy) were dictated by the 
 Devil upon account of the many impious, and idola- 
 trous Superftitions prefcribed in them. But befides 
 thefe, there were others fetch*d from Erythra^ and 
 alfo laid up in the Capitol at Rome^ by three Ambaf- 
 fadors appointed by the Senate for that purpofe after 
 the Capitol was rebuilt. Thefe (0) LaBantius fays 
 coqfifted of a thoufand Verfes, But Tacitus (p) tells 
 us, t*fiS6^^:fome Perfons were alfo fent by OBavius Au^ 
 guftus to colled: the other Verfes in feveral Parts : 
 Having collecied the Sibylline l^erfes from Samos, Ilion, 
 Erythrje, through Africa alfo, Sicily, and the Italian 
 Colonies, the Priefts ivere employed, as 7nuch as humanly 
 they could, to dtftinguifh the genuine. And Suetonius (q) : 
 IVhatfoever Prophetical Books, Greek ok Latin, werefpread 
 abroad, either Anonymous or under Names Improbable, being 
 in number' abwe 2000, he gathered together and burnt ; 
 he only retained the Books of the Sibylline, and of them 
 but a feleci part, and laid them up in two Golden Cafes 
 under, the Safe of Apollo Palatinus. Further, Dionyjius 
 Halicqrnajfeus (r) writes thus of this Colleftion : 7he 
 Sibylline Verfes woic extant are what were celleSied out of 
 many places^ fome from the Italian Cities, fome from 
 Erythrs in Afia, and fome from other Countries', yea, 
 fome were tr.anfcrihed from the Papers of private Men. 
 Now in this fearch after the Sibylline Oracles, it is 
 plain many other Oracles, and even x.htie.Jewifh, might 
 be taken for the Sibylline (a name given to all fa- 
 
 (o) Lib. I. Cap. 5. p. £8. {p) P. U2. (^) P. 275. 
 
 r»0 Lib. 4. 
 
 IIIOUS 
 
^poJtoHcal Tradition, ^c, \^ | j 
 nious Oracles, fuch as SibyUine properly fo called 
 were) and be brought to Rome among the reft. For 
 it was utterly impoffible for the Rom^/z Priefts, in fuch 
 an abundance of prophetick Books, to difcern the 
 genuine from the fpurious. For by what fure Token 
 could they find out which were truly Sibylline^ and 
 which only fo in pretence ? Were they fo well ac- 
 quainted with the Original, burnt in the Capitol, 
 that upon fight of a Copy, they could remember the 
 diflference ? No, no, for befides that thofe Prophe- 
 cies were bnly feldom, and upon extraordinary Cafes 
 confulted, that Original of the Sibylline Verfes was 
 loft in the Year of the City dyi, that is, 8 1 Years 
 before Chrift was born. This Review was made at 
 Rome mthz Year 741, that is 11 Years before the 
 Birth of Chrift, when Auguflus himfelf was Pontifex 
 Maximus, i So then there are 70 entire Years- be- 
 tween this ,Review and the Lofs of the Original, 
 when the Capitol was burnt. But were there not 
 other Copies remaining at Rome, after the lofs of this 
 Original as Baronius fuppofes ? It is very improbable. 
 For (as MoUnaus well obferves) if thefe Verfes had 
 furvived the Capitol, the Senate would not have fenc 
 an Embaffy to repair the Lofs, and colled them 
 through all Greece. What Rule had thefe Pfiefts, 
 by which they could diftinguifti the true Verfes 
 from the falfe ? None. 'Tacitus therefore fpeaks cau- 
 tioufly in the aforecited place [as much as humanly they 
 could^ 
 
 10. The Original then of what are called the Si- 
 byUine Oracles concerning Chrift, is tome very clear : 
 They came^ from xht^ews. Gregory 'Naz^ianz^en' was 
 among the Antients alfo of this opinion (j), who 
 in his Poem to Ne?nefius, fays. That ^Trifme^ijius and 
 the Sibyl did not foretel what they prophefied of 
 God, by divine Infpiration, but borrowed rhem from 
 the facred Books of the Hebrews, In this alone he 
 
 (j) In Carnjine ad Nemefium* 
 
 was 
 
JJ4 ^^ Trimitwe anSr 
 
 was miftaken, that he thought thofe Oracles were 
 compiled by the SyhyU : fo Clemens Alex, (t) before him 
 calls the Sibyl the Hebrew Prophetefs. Thus alfo 
 Crotm(u) ', and indeed in thefe Verfes there are many 
 plain Tokens of this Original. Such is that cited by 
 LaSiamius (x) in praife of the Jewi/b Nation : 7'he 
 J^ivine Nation of the happy and heaven-born Jews. And 
 that : TVhen Kome /hall unite Egypt to her Empire, then 
 the fupreme Kingdom of the immortal King fhall appear 
 ever Men. Which Words plainly contain an Explica- 
 tion of Daniel's Prophecy concerning the Divine Em- 
 pire of the Mefliah after the Pofterity of Seleucus and 
 Lagus ceas'd to reign. Of the fame kind is that con- 
 cerning the ereding the Holy City Jerufakm into the 
 Metropolis of the whole World : 
 
 (y) And i^e City which God hath made, he hath made 
 
 More fplendid than the Stars, and Sun, or Moon. 
 Nay, the CoUedor of thefe Sibylline Verfes almoft 
 every where fpeaks of the Mefliah*s Kingdom, as the 
 Jews do. Thus he writes of the univerfal Peace, 
 which fliould happen in his days : 
 
 'the Wolves pair with the Lambs upon the Mountains'^ 
 
 *the Lynx eat Grafs with the Kids ', 
 
 'fheBears of a fav age Nature jhaUeat Hay at theMangers 
 
 With the Oxen, 
 
 And the Dragons fhall lie with the fucking Children 
 luithout their Mothers. 
 
 Compare (z.) Ifaiah's Defcription with this. Thus of 
 the Plenty : 
 
 Tlhen God fhall give great Joy to Men ; 
 Tor the Earth, the 'trees, and numerous Cattle 
 Shall yield Men their genuine Fruits, 
 Wine,fweet Honey, and white Milk 
 And Breads to Men the befl of all things, 
 
 (i) p. 35. C«) Ad Matth. Cap. 2. v. i. {x) Lib. 4. 
 
 cap. 20. p. 3(^4* (v) Lib. 7 Cap. 24. p. 6^^* (O Ch. ii« 
 V. (5, 7. and Ch, 55. 25. 
 
 And 
 
\ApoJioUcal'Xv.imr\6% (^c, ^z% 
 
 And again in the fame manner : 
 
 The facredLand ofthefious only fhaU yield aU thefe things. 
 'To all the Jufl a River of Honey /ball flow from a Rock, 
 And Milk from a never-failing Fountain. 
 
 Where this is chiefly to be obferved as a Privilege 
 of the Holy Land of Judea. Thus the Prince of 
 Poets defcribes the Golden Ages of his King, who 
 was about to be born, in almoft the fame Words fromi 
 the Cumaan Verfes. 
 
 II. Now all thefe things are to be underftood con- 
 cerning the Sibylline Oracles alledged by Jufiin, Ck'- 
 mentj 'Theophilus, and thofe antienter Fathers ; for I 
 don't deny that the Chriftians of later days inferted 
 fome things into the Sibylline Books. Of this kind is 
 the Acrofticky which Conftantine, or, as others will have 
 it, Eufebius (aX mentioned in his Oration to the 
 Saints,- where the firft Letter of the Verfes make thefe 
 Words in Greek^ Jefus Chrifl, the Son of God, the 
 Saviour, the Crofs. Of which indeed, neither Jufiin, 
 nor Theophilm, nor Clement of Alex, have any where 
 faid any thing. Cicero (b) alfo fpcaks of an Acroftick 
 of the Sibyl, but no where tells us what was in it. 
 Without doubt alfo thofe Sibylline Oracles ar« like- 
 wife fpurious, in which we have an account of fome 
 things which Chrift did, fo clear and circumftantial, 
 that you'd rather take it for a Hiftory than a Prophe- 
 cy. Such is the miracle of the Loaves from LaBan^ 
 tius (c) : 
 
 He fhallfeed (I've thoufand in the Wtldernefs 
 JVithfive Loaves, and tvjo Fijhes ; 
 And gathering what remains, after having broken to all^ 
 Shall fill twelve Baskets, for thefupport of the Multitude 
 
 Who can think that thefe and other things like them* 
 which we have in LaEiantius, are not taken from the 
 Hiftory of the Gofpel ? You have not any fuch 
 
 {/) P, 4881 C^) De Divini p^ zii% (c) Lib, 4, cap, 15. p. 342. 
 
 things 
 
^5^ T!heTri7uitl've and 
 
 things cited out of the Sibylline Verfes by Jufiin, T'he" 
 cphilus, or Clement; but they being very diligenc 
 ^Readers of thefe Oracles, and omitting no Opportu- 
 nity of beating the Heathen with their own Wea- 
 pons, would never have pafs'd over in filence fuch 
 "flagrant Prophecies of Chrift, if any fuch had ap- 
 peared in their Copies. Now LaBantiuSy who wrote 
 his Books about the beginning of the 4th Century, 
 when Confiantine became Chriftian, was the firft who 
 produced thofe Verfes againfl; the Heathens, under 
 the name of Sibylline. 
 
 \""i2. The whole of the matter is this : (i.) It is cer- 
 tain there were fome Prophecies among the Heathens, 
 before the Birth of Chrift, which went under this 
 name, in which was expounded the Worfhip of the 
 one God, and thofe things which belonged to the 
 future Kingdom of Chrift, and which Jufiin and other 
 Primitive Chriftians did very properly appeal to, in 
 their Difputes with the Heathens. (2.) It*s v^ery 
 probable, that thofe Oracles did not come from the 
 Sibyls, Heathen Women, as was thought ; but from 
 wife Men, who flourifhed among the People of God, 
 the Jews after the Babyknifl? Captivity. Nor are we 
 to wonder that they have more fully and plainly laid 
 open the obfcure Oracles of the Prophets, if we con- 
 fider ferioufly the divine Purpofe, that the nearer the 
 Times of the Gofpel approach'd, the more clear the 
 Promifes and Predidions of it fhould fhine forth, that 
 God intended a brighter Dawn before the rifing of 
 this glorious Sun. Laftly, it is but too raanifeft, that 
 fome things were forgM, made up, and added to 
 thefe Oracles, in the way of clearer Explication of 
 them, by fome idle, ill-empIoyM ProfefTors of Chrifti- 
 anity. This the old Serpent feems to have effeded 
 with this Defign (as Molinaus has well obferv'd) that 
 there appearing a greater mixture of Falftiood than 
 Truth, he might render the Truth fufpeded. Thus 
 much by the way concerning the Sibylline Oracles^ 
 which I hope will not be unacceptable to the Reader. 
 I now return to the Or f hie Verfes and Zuicker, i j. 
 
jpofloUcal Tradition, &cl |57l 
 
 13. Now I have one Argument to produce^ •which 
 will put the Matter beyond all Queftion, that the 
 Orphic Verfes, cited by 'Juflin, let them come from 
 what Quarter they will, can't be the Forgery of any 
 Simonian. They contain in them fuch things con- 
 cerning God and the Creation of the World, as are 
 widely different from the Simonian Herefy. AH thofe, 
 who have had any acquaintance with Irenaus, 'Ter-' 
 tulliany and the other Fathers, that have wrote con* 
 cerning the Simoniam, know, that thofe Hereticks 
 taught the vifible World was made, not by God him- 
 felf, nor by his Word, but by inferior Powers. On 
 the other hand, the Author of the Orphic Verfes eve- 
 ry where affirms,That this vifible World was the work 
 of the fupreme God, and created by his Word, as you 
 may fee in that long Citation of them in (d) Jujiin's 
 Exhortation to the Heathen. Nay, the very Verfes 
 which Zuicker cites in part, and which immediately 
 follow thofe in Jufiin, contain the fame Dodrine. 
 Thus they run : 
 
 / adjure thee hy the Heaven^ the work of the great and 
 
 wife God, 
 By the Voice of the Father , which he f pake in the beginning^ 
 When he made the Univerfe hy his own Counfel. 
 
 So that I am of opinion the Verfes may rather ba 
 any Perfon's than Si Simonian s. Thus I have faid enough, 
 and too much concerning Zuicker*s Conjedure (or ra- 
 ther Delirium) that the Orphic Verfes were forg'd by 
 the Sinionians. 
 
 14. He has advanc'd another no lefs, nay much 
 more abfurd Guefs, one that has not any appearance 
 of Truth, namely. That ^uflin depending upon thefe 
 Verfes, proposed his Opinion of the Son's Genera- 
 tion before the World was made. For who in his 
 right Senfes could fufpeft, that a Holy and a Prudent 
 Man had built his Faith and Opinion concerning a 
 
 id) Pag. 15, & 16, 
 
 Vol. II. % jpri-i 
 
^^S ^he Trimitwe and 
 
 primary Article of Chriftianity upon the Verfes of a 
 Heathen, and even (as Zuicker obferves) a Magician 3 
 or that an Argument of fo little weight, indeed o£ 
 none at all, fhould move him to depart from the Rule 
 of the ApoftolicalDodrine, which obtained everywhere 
 in the Churches before his time ? It is further very 
 obfervable, that Juftin never profefledly cites the Or- 
 phic Verfes, to eftablifh his Opinion concerning the 
 Son's Generation. If I remember right, he only cites 
 them twice, and in both the Places only makes ufe of 
 them to defend the One God againft the Heathen Po- 
 lytheifm. In the former Place, he illuftrates thofe 
 Verfes concerning the Word and Voice of the Father, 
 by his own Notes, not giving the leaft intimation that 
 Orpheus had taught him the Doftrine of the Son's Ge- 
 neration ; but on the other hand exprefly affirming, 
 that that Author had been oblig'd to the facred Ora- 
 cles of the Old Teflament for his Notions of the 
 Word. Thus he writes : Here he calls the Word of 
 God Cthe Voice] that Word, by "which the Heaven, the 
 Earth, and every Creature luas made, as the divine Pro- 
 phecies oj the Holy Men teach lis, by confulting fome part 
 ^f tjohich, in ^Egypt, this [Orpheus] found that alt 
 things ivere made by the IVord of God. He who reads 
 thefe Words of ^uflin, muft wonder, no doubt, how 
 Zuicker could for fhame fay, T/;<3? Juftin, and almofl 
 all his Succejfors, conformed and accommodated their Opt- 
 men oj Chrifi to the Orphic Verfes, as to a certain divine 
 Foundation. But why do I dwell upon fuch mahifeft 
 Trifles and Impertinences ? To repeat this Conjedure, 
 to fober Minds, is a fufficient Confutation of it. 
 
 
 C H A K 
 
CHAP* V. 
 
 That Juftin did not learn from the Platonics, 
 the Notions he has givefi us of the Word^ 
 
 HAVING confider'd, and very juftly reje<5ted 
 the primary Caufes, which, according to Zukke/s 
 Conjedures, movM Jufim to afcribe a divine Nature 
 to jefus Chrifi ,• I come now to examine the fecondary 
 Caufes vC'hich, Zukker pretends, induced him to con- 
 tinue in this Error. Nor do I doubt, but that, aftet 
 having defeated the main Body, which the Heretick 
 led up againft the divine Truth, I ihall gain a cheap 
 Vi&ory over his Forces in referve. Thefe Caufes are 
 four : (i.) TheLmJe of the Platonic Philofophy. (2.) 'The 
 Memory of Gentilifm not yet chliterated, (3.) The 
 cuflom of Deifying excellent Men. (4.) And the fuperfii-*^ 
 tious Dread of worjhipping him who is only Man. 
 
 2. Before we examine thefe unhappily invented 
 Caufes particularly, and every one in its own Order, 
 we can't but in general obferve, that Zuicker ('for all 
 his Boafts that he has done the Bulinefs, and aftually 
 difcover'd the Original of making this new Chrift) is 
 doubtful, and altogether uncertain which way, ex- 
 cept from the Scripture, and the preaching of the A** 
 poftles, the Doftrine of the Son's Divinity could be 
 introduced into the Chriftian Church ; for if he could 
 have been fure of any one Caufe, to which he might 
 have afcrib'd the Original of ir, why Ihould he have 
 troubled us with fo many, and thofe (as we fhall fhew 
 by and by) contradidory to one another ? For firfl; he 
 attempts to fhew, that the Dodrine of the Catholick 
 Church, concerning our Lord's Divinity, fprung 
 from the Simonian Herefy. In this Strong-hold (a 
 Caftle in the Air, and, as we have feen, eafily demo- 
 lifh'd) he places the greatefl: hopes of his Herefy. BuE 
 neverchelefs, not thinking himfelf fecure in it, he has 
 fought another Refuge j pretending, that there were 
 
 Y a cer- 
 
340 T^he Trimitwe and 
 
 certain Verfes forg'd by the Simonians under the Name 
 of Orpheus, which alas ! feduc'd Juftin into this Er- 
 ror, and after him, the whole Catholick Church. 
 ,What can be more filly than this Fancy ? Diftrufting 
 it therefore, as he well might, he lifts a Quaternion of 
 flout Reafons into the fervice of his defperate Caufe, 
 boafts that he has done the Bufinefs, difcover'd the 
 Original of the Cheat, and feems to triumph over the 
 defeated Truth. But ftill he is not fo fafe as he would 
 feem to be j after he has mufter'd all his Forces, he has 
 a Referve for himfelf, either to raife more as he 
 pleafes, or to fet his Reader's Wit to work. The 
 Cafe is this : Zuichrws^s refolv'd to rejed theDodrine 
 of the Son's divine Nature, as abfurd, and contrary 
 to found Reafon, (a thing he often boafts, but never 
 fhews) therefore to ferve this Caufe, he would rather 
 afcribe the Original of it to any thing, than that 
 (which evidently appears from the thing itfelf to have 
 been the true Caufe) namely, that it was part of the A- 
 poftolical Do6l:rine,deliver*d and.promulg'd every where 
 in the Primitive Churches, together with the Gofpel 
 itfelf. But we will now attack this referv'd Body. 
 
 3. The Knowledge and Love of the Platonic Phi- 
 lofophy is (according to Zukker) the firft of thofe 
 Caufes, which engag'd Jufliri and his Followers to 
 receive the Son's Divinity. The Heretick would infi- 
 nuate forfooth, that Juflin, formerly an Admirer of 
 this Philofophy, and too much delighted with the 
 Tenets of his old Mafter, which he had read concern- 
 ing the Word, after he became a Chriftian, tranflated 
 them into the Chriftian Faith, and adulterated the 
 Purity and Simplicity of the Gofpel, with a mixture 
 of Heathen Philofophy. In this Cry the Unitarians 
 all run, this is the burden of their Song, Platonifm, 
 Platcnifm ! the Bane of the Jincere Apofiolkal Religion / 
 Now I'm fure that Zuicker and others, who have fo 
 hard an Opinion of that excellent and incomparable 
 Man (whom Photius juftly praifes in thefe loordi (e) : 
 (e) Cod. £34. p. 922. 
 
 A 
 
'A Man neither in 'Time, nor Virtue , jar fhon of the Apo- 
 files) are either perfed Strangers in his Works, or are 
 refolv'd to deal with the venerable Father, without 
 any regard to Charity or Juftice. For how often, 
 and how plainly, with what a warm Zeal and Af- 
 fection does Jufiin himfelf (the Perfon unworthily ca- 
 lumniated by this Heretick) profefs, that after he 
 knew Chrift, he renounc'd, not only the Philofophy of 
 Plato, but alfo that of every other Sed, and only ad- 
 mired the moft Holy Scriptures. Read his incompa- 
 rable Dialogue with Trypho the Jevj. There indeed 
 (not far from the beginning) he confefTes that he was a 
 very great Admirer of Plato before he knew Chrifi ; 
 but there alfo, he cenfures his former Folly. Thefe 
 are his Words (/) ; Not knowing which way to turn, I 
 thought Jit to acquaint tnyfelf with the Platonifts, for 
 they were in great Fame ; I therefore conversed very much 
 •with an under/landing Man, who but lately came to our 
 City, a Mafter in Platonifm, J made a Proficiency and very 
 great Improvements daily. I was greatly taken ivith the 
 Notion of Incorporeals, and the Theory of Ideas raised my 
 Mind \ I thought myfelf wife in a little time, and vainly 
 dreamt of feeing God Jhorily. A little after in the fame 
 Dialogue, he gives the Reafons which drew him off 
 from Platonifm to Chriftianity, in a feignM Conference 
 (if I miftake not) between a certain venerable old 
 Man and Himfelf, while he liv'd in retirement. A- 
 mong other things, the old Man, when he propos'd to 
 him Plato, Pythagoras, and other wife Men, contrary 
 to the Truth, fays (g), I care not for your Plato, or Py- 
 thagoras, or indeed for any of your wife Thinkers in that 
 way, for this is the Truth. Then when Jufiin asks him 
 .{h). Who then mufl a Man take for his Mafler ,* or from 
 whom may he improve, if thefe Perfons have not the Trtith ? 
 The old Man anfwers. There was a fort of Men a long 
 time ago more antient than all the reputed Philofophers, hap" 
 p) j^fi} t^^^^ Men, who fpake by the Spirit of God, and 
 
 (/) P. 2ip, (^) P, 224. (Jj) Ibidem. 
 
 ¥ 3 foretold 
 
J42 l^he ^rimiti've and 
 
 foretold things future which are noro come to pafs, (they call 
 them Prophets) thefe only faw and reveal'd the Truth to 
 Men. The venerable old Man adds, in the fame 
 Place, many more things worth reading. But Juftin 
 himfelf in the clofe, fhews us how he was affefted by 
 the Conference (i).- My Soul xuas inflamed immediately, 
 find J was ali in love with the Prophets and the Friends ojf 
 Chrifi. After I had difcufs'd his Word's in myfelf, J found 
 this to he the only found and ufeful Philofophy. After this 
 Manner, and by thefe Steps, I became a Philofopher. 
 Therefore the Love of Platonifm, which burnt in 
 ^ufiins Breaft before, was extinguifh'd by the KnoVv-^ 
 ledge of the heavenly Dodrine. The new heat of the 
 3acred Writings came into the place of it, and pene- 
 trated the moft intimate Recefles of the holy Man. '■ 
 4 With what Care he afterwards fed this heavenly 
 Flame, is alfo very clear from his Writings, in which 
 he every were wonderfully extols the Holy Scripttire^ 
 (defpifing the beft Philofophy in comparifon of them) 
 appeals to them, and ftrenuoufly affirms, that they 
 are the only Fountains of divine Truth. His Words 
 jn the beginning of his Exhortation to the Greeks^ arfe 
 very obfervableCfe): there, after he had largely fhewn 
 that there is no certainty about divine Matters to be 
 found in the Writings of the Philofophers, of what Seft 
 foever, at length he concludes ; Since then it is not pof- 
 fible to learn the Truths of Religion of your Maflers, who 
 have given you fufficient demonflration of their Ignorance by 
 their JOi'vifion among themfelves ; it is rational to pafs over 
 to our Ancejiors, Men much more antient than your DoBors, 
 Men who don't teach us from their own Fancy, that dorit 
 'differ among themfelves, or attempt to overturn each other's 
 'Sc/j ernes ; but without Contention and Divifion, having re- 
 ceiv'd Knowledge from God, teach us the fame. For it 
 was not poiTible by Nature and human Thought to 
 Icnow the fublime things of God i but by the Gift of 
 pod, which then d^fcended from above upon thofe 
 
 10 P. 225. " ao p. 8, &9. 
 
 Holy 
 
'JpqfioIicaJTKkBnioia, 6'c- 943 
 Holy Men. What can be more clear or dired to our 
 purpofe ? Jtiflin thought that we cou'd not come at 
 the certain Knowledge of any thing Divine from the 
 Heathen Philofophers, and therefore in fuch Difquili- 
 tions, we mull have recourfe to infpired Men. Is it 
 probable then that he wou'd borrow that Notion of 
 his concerning God, and the divine Perfons, (the moft 
 fubUme of all Divine things) from the Writings of 
 Plato, or the Philofophers of a;iy other Seft ? But he 
 exprefly teaches in another place, that the Scriptures 
 alone are to be heard in all QueftionS of Religion, 
 that our Proofs are to be fetched from them, that the 
 Words of Scripture are often and often to be inculca- 
 ted, and no Man can find any thing better than what 
 is taught in the fame Scriptures. Thefe are the 
 Words in the Dialogue with Trypho (/} ; It is a ridku- 
 lous thing to fee the Sun, the Moon, and Stars always take 
 the fame Courfe, and make the fame comierfions of Seafons ; 
 or to fee an Arithmetician not fcruple to anfwer that two 
 and two are four, when he is askd, tho* he has often faid 
 fo before -, and likewife to have other things, well ejia^lifh'd 
 already, again afferted and conjefs'd : but that a Perfon 
 JJjould ceafe to difcourfe from the Prophetick Writings, fyould 
 be weary of always repeating the fame Scriptures, andfup- 
 pofe he can fay fomething better than they. In thefe 
 Words he very elegantly defcribes that great Confi- 
 dence, with which a Chriftian firmly adheres to the 
 Holy Scriptures. You may fooner turn the Sun, the 
 Moon, and the Stars, out of their ufual Courfe -, or 
 perfuade a Mathematician to forfake his well-known 
 Principles, than move a true Chriftian from that facred 
 and certain Rule of his, the Scriptures. Who now 
 can fufped that fufiin, in the fundamental Dodrine of 
 Chriftianity, turn'd afide from the old Path to ftrange 
 Tenets, and would introduce into the Chriftian 
 Churches a new Doftrine concerning Chrift, and (to 
 fpeak in Zuickers Language) a new Chrifi, contrary to 
 
 (0 P. 5n> 6c 5Ut 
 
 y 4 «hci 
 
344 TheTrmitwe and 
 
 the Truth of Scripture itfelf, and the unlverfal Apo- 
 ilolical Tradition before his Days. 
 
 5. Moreover, the excellent Father (as tho' he had 
 been a Prophet, and forefeen Futurity) has, as it were, 
 profelTedly prevented this Calumny of Zuicke/s in his 
 own Words, for he exprefly fays in feveral Places, 
 That the Doftrine of Chriftians, concerning theWord, 
 tho' like Plata's, is not deriv'd from the Platonics ; 
 but rather Plato had borrowed all his right Notions 
 concerning the Word of Qod from the Church, (to 
 which the Doflrine was formerly known in part). 
 Thus, after he hath confefs'd that the Dodrines of 
 Wlato are not unlike thofe of Chrift, he quickly fub- 
 joins {m) : Whatfoever things are /aid ixteU by all Wri- 
 ters^ are curs, 'who are Chriftians. For ive after God Qhe 
 Father] worfhip the IVord of the unhegotten ineffable God, 
 and lo've him j for as much as he was made Man for us^ that 
 fo being partaker of our Sufferings ^ he might cure us. For 
 all Writers, by the Seed of the natural Word which is in 
 ihemy are able, in a faint way, to difcern the things that 
 are. For the Seed of any thing, or the Imitation of it^ 
 "which is given us according to our Capacity^ is one thing, 
 and that thing it felf by whofe Grace a Communication 
 from him, and an Imitation is granted, is another thing. 
 Here you'll obferve by the bye, that 'Juflin does not 
 defend what he had difcours'd concerning the Word, 
 as his own Sentiment, but as the common Doftrine 
 and Faith of all Chriftians. He fpeaks ftill more plain- 
 ly of this Matter in his fecond Apology to Antoninus, 
 near the end (n) j where, after having faid that Plato 
 had learn'd, that the Univerfe was made by the Word 
 of God, yea, that the third Perfon of the Trinity, 
 namely, the Holy Spirit, was not altogether unknown 
 to Plato, he adds : We then dont think the fame as others., 
 ^t all Men imitate us, and fay as we fay. With us you may 
 hear and learn the fame things from thofe, who know not 
 their Letters, who are Idiots and Barbarians in Speech, hut 
 
 (w) P, 51, («) P. :p$, 
 
^pqftolical Tr ADIT loi^, drc* 54'; 
 
 faithful and ivife in Mindy from Men that are maimed and 
 blind J from whence it is plain, thefe things are not brought 
 about by Mans IVifdom, but diBated by the Power of 
 Cod. This Place alone would be fufEcient, utterly to 
 demolifti all the Pile of Conjeftures (as great as it is) 
 which Zuicker has ereded againft the Truth. For, (i.) 
 In this Place Jujiin plainly teaches. That the Do(3:rine 
 of the Creation by the Word, was neither taken by 
 him, or any other Chriftian from the Works of Plato, 
 but rather, that Plato borrowM his Notions of the 
 Word from the Holy Books of the Chriftians (namely; 
 from the Old T'ejlament, as he afterwards explains 
 himfelf.) (2.) He aflerts and defends this Dodrine, 
 not as his own fingular Opinion, but as the Faith and 
 Doctrine of the Catholick Church, i. e. of all Chri- 
 ftians, before the Emperor and the Heathens. (3.) From 
 thefe things he very juftly concludes, that the Chri* 
 ftians were not taught that Dodrine by Man's Wif- 
 dom, (from the Writings of Plato, much lefs from the 
 filthy Dreams of theworft Hereticks) but utter'd it by 
 the Power of God, from Writings divinely infpiredi 
 and the Apoftolical Dodrine every where propagated. 
 Surely then, from this Evidence, it is plain that 'Jufiin^ 
 had the fame Opinion of the Heathen Philofophy, as 
 TertuUian ; and, according to him, all the old Ca- 
 tholick Chriftians had. His Words are admirable (0) : 
 St. Paul tefiifies that we mufl take care of Philofophy, in 
 his Epiftle to the Coloflians : See that no man deceive 
 you by vain philofophy and fedudion, according to 
 the tradition of men. He had been at Athens, and 
 knew that human Wifdom familiarly, which offeEls the 
 Name of 'Truth, and adulterates it, which is fplit into a 
 multitude of SeEis mutually oppofing one another. What has 
 Jerufalem to do with Athens ? the Academy with the 
 Church ? and Chrifiians with Hereticks ? Our Jnflitution is 
 to be learnt from Solomon'j- Porch, who himfelf taught^ 
 fb^at we mufl feek the Lord in fimplicity of Heart, let 
 
 (0) P. 204, and so 5. 
 
 them 
 
14^ ^he Trimitwe and 
 
 them look to it, who have coind us a Stoical^ a Platoukaly 
 and a Logical ChYifiianity. We have no need of curio- 
 fity after Chrifi Jefus^ or an inquifition after the Gofpel. 
 When ive hlieve^ we have no occafion for believing fur- 
 ther J for the fir ft thing we believe, is, that we ought to be- 
 lieve no more. 
 
 6. It is nwv fcarce necefiary to revive, or continue 
 the Controverfy among the Learned, whether Plato's 
 Opinion concerning the Word be hke Jufiins, and 
 ^others of the fame Mind. He, who has an Inclina- 
 poxi may confult (p) Cafaubon and Lanfelius. This is 
 certain, that there is fo great a Difference between the 
 Opinions of Flato and Juflin, that it is clear enough 
 from thence, that fuftin did not borrow his Notions 
 from Plato. Hence alfo, 'Jufiin himfelf tells us (q) 
 exprcfly, that P/«^o had but a /lender and obfcureview 
 of that Myftery. 
 
 7. Therefore, to conclude this Chapter, Zuicker 
 judg'd that fuftin had taken his Doftrine concerning 
 the Word, from the School of Plato^ with the fame 
 probability, as formerly Amelius the Platonic Philofo- 
 pher, upon reading the firft Verfes of St. Johns Go- 
 fpel, complain'd that the Evangelift had tranfcrib'd the 
 Myfleries of his Matter into his Book, and made Plato's 
 Secrets his own. By Jove^ fays he, the Barbarian is of 
 our Plato'j mind, 'That the Word of God is confiituted 
 in the order of a Principle. And we have an Unitarian 
 of our own, who has prefumed in plain Terms to 
 teach, that the Dodrine of the Apoftle St. John'm the 
 beginning of his Gofpel, is borrow'd from the Pla- 
 tonic Philofophersx It is the Author of a Book inti- 
 tJed, T'he Hiftorical Vindication of a Book call' d the ]>ia- 
 ked Gofpel, prefented to the^ Univerfity of Qxford. 
 In the Preface to the Reader, he bitterly inveighs 
 againft thofe who have adulterated the plain and primitive 
 jPunty of the Gofpel, with the Ceremonies arid vain Philo- 
 
 (p) Exercitationes ad Apparatum Baronianum, ^. 5. & Petrus 
 Lanfelius ad calcem operum Juftini Ms^rtyris, c, u 
 
 (^) In the place before c'Ued^ 
 
"JpofloUcal Tradition, &€. |47 
 phr of the Pagans, and obtruded the Enthufiafm of Plato 
 upon the World Jot Faith, Mjftery, and Revelation, &C. 
 No Man is fo dull as not to perceive, that the bacre4 
 Dodrine of the moft Holy Trinity, acknowledg d and 
 i-eceivM by the Catholick Church, is here ftruck at. 
 But in th€ Work it felf, he attempts toihew, hqw that 
 vain Philofophy, the Platonic Enthufiafm, firft made 
 its way into the Jewish, and then into the Chriltiati 
 Church. He fays (r), that the ^.tx-j difpers d^ m 
 Mgypt Bn& Syria, firft learnM the Philofophy of PlatQ 
 brought out of Greece into thofe Countries ; that there 
 were two principal Doarines of the Platonic Philofo- 
 phy, one concerning the Pre-exiftence of Souls, an4 
 the other of the Divine Trinity ; and that therefore 
 thefe two DodrineS did afterwards obtain in the 
 Tewifh Church. After this, in the next Page (l), you 
 have his exprefs Words : thefe 'were the Opinions of the 
 Jews i/z the Days of our Saviour and hts Apojtles ; and 
 hence, perhaps, it came to pafs, that fome of the Phrafes 
 and Manners of Speech ufed by theFhtomiis, as the Learned 
 haveobfervd, are found in thet^ewTeHammt, ejpeciaUy 
 in the Gofpel of St. John. The Obfervation of Amelius 
 the Platonic Philofopher, upon reading the beginning of 
 St. ]ohns Gofpel, is well known, namely, that the Apofik 
 fpoke like Plato. Indeed that Philofopher might fay, con- 
 fiflent with his Principles, the Reafon was in the beginning 
 with God, and was God. It is he who made aU things , and 
 is the Life and Light of Men. From the collation ot 
 thefe two Places, it is very evident, that this Author 
 thought the Doarine delivered by St. John m the be- 
 ginning of his Gofpel, was not divinely infpir d, but 
 taken from the vain Philofophy of the Pagans, and 
 very ftrong of the Platonic Enthufiafm. We may jult- 
 ly cry out again in the Words of Holy Polycarp, Goo4 
 God, for what times haft thoureferv'dus, that we fhould 
 hear thefe things! But this Author equally betrays his 
 Ignorance and his Impiety, in faying, that the antient 
 
 (v)Pag. u,i3. 0) Pag- H' 
 
34^ I the Trimiti've and 
 
 yews in the Difperfion were inftruded by the Platonifis 
 •in the Myftery of the Holy Trinity : For on the con- 
 trary it is plain_, he learn'd all he wrote of this Matter 
 from the more antient Philofophy of the 'Jews. It is 
 <;ertain alfo, that we may fee in the Scriptures of the 
 Old Tefiament, much older than Plato, many Footfteps 
 of this Myftery, as Juftin has obferv'd. But if any 
 of our own G)untrym.en defire further Satisfadion in 
 this Point, let him go to that clear Treatife of our 
 learned A/lLx] wrote in EngUfJj, and intitled. The Judg^ 
 mem of the Antient Jewifli Church againfl the Unitarians. 
 
 }iOi 
 
 '^ CHAP. VL 
 
 5; ' •■ 
 
 ^hat Juftin entirely ahhorr^d '^2ig2im^m, and 
 '■ the WorjJoip of more Gods. That the Ar^_ 
 |,r giivient iifed by Juik'm and other Jntients in 
 • fupport 6f ChrijVs 1)imnity^ from the di- 
 ,^ wie Worfhip gwen to him in Holy Scrip- 
 \ turesy is invincihle* 
 
 -ill I ^ H E other three Caufes Zuicker has invented, 
 
 ■^^su;;; J^ may be reduc'd to two : The Memory of 
 'Gentilifm or more Gods not quite obliterated, and the 
 Guftom of Deifying excellent Men, may make one ; 
 (for no doubt the latter is a piece of Gentilifm not ob- 
 literated :) and the fuperftitious Dread of worfhipping 
 him who is only Man, another. As for the former, I 
 can't but admire Zukker'sy the Inventor's extreme 
 Impudence, or grcfs Ignorance in the Writings of 
 juftin. Read, I befeech you, his Exhortation to the 
 iGreeks, both his Apologies, and his Piece concerning 
 the Monarchy of God. How many good Arguments 
 does he there bring againft the Polytheifm of the 
 Heathens ? Befides, who can believe that an excel- 
 lent Doftor of the Chriftian Faith, was not fully 
 
 in^ 
 
\ApoftoUcal Tradition, f^c, 549 
 
 inftrufted in the prime Doclrine of the Gofpel con- 
 cerning one God ? Or, that the ftouteft Champion 
 of Chrift againft the Pagan Superftitions and Impie- 
 ties, yea, a Martyr alfo, was yet fo deep in the foul- 
 eft Error of Pagan ifm ? 
 
 2. As for that other Caufe (the laft which the He- 
 retick's little Head cou'd run to) it is to be obferv'd, 
 that it is diametrically oppofite to the former. For 
 doubtlefs, that any one ftiould be well-aifefted to the 
 Cuftom of Deifying Men, and yet fhould dread the 
 worfhipping him who was Man only, is impoflible, 
 thofe two things being inconfiftent. Having juft hint- 
 ed this, we will confider that Caufe by it felf. Now 
 here we will grant it to Zukker^ that Juflin, and other 
 Fathers, were perfuaded by this Argument among 
 others, to afcribe a Divine Nature to Chrift, namely, 
 that in the Holy Scriptures Worfhip and divine Ado- 
 ration are often and exprefly prefcribed to be given to 
 him 3 but what will the Heretick gain by this Concef- 
 {ion ? Nothing at all : for certainly that Reafon is a 
 Foundation fufficient to fupport the Opinion. That 
 the Worftiip and Adoration which is^ truly Divine, 
 ought not to be paid to any Creature, in himfelf tho' 
 never fo excellent, but to him only who is truly God, 
 Reafon dilates, and many exprefs Teftimonies of 
 Holy Scripture prove. I here ask your pardon, 
 Chriftian Reader, if I am fomething long in making 
 good this Point, not only upon account of my Pro- 
 mife in the beginning of this Piece, but becaufe this 
 Reafon, rightly weigh'd, ftrikes at the very Heart of 
 Socinianifm. 
 
 3. (i.) We have the exprefs (0 Cominatid of God 
 repeated by our Saviour, 'Thou [loalt luorfoip the Lord thy 
 Gody and him only /halt thou ferve. Where the exclu- 
 five Particle only appropriates divine Worfhip to our 
 Lord and God, and fufifers not any Creature at all to 
 
 (0 Deut. 6, 13, 10, 20. repeated hyour Lord In St, Matth. 4, 10, 
 
 par- 
 
55^ 2l^^ ^fimtwe and 
 
 partake of it. The Socinians except thus (u), 'That hy 
 thefe exclufi've Panicles, fuch as only, &c. ufed of God, 
 thofe are never Jim^ly excluded, who are dependent upon God 
 in the Matter treated on. Thus God isfaid to be only IVife^ 
 Powerful and Immortal 5 but yet ethers, who are made par~ 
 takers of thefe things, are not to befimply excluded from IVif- 
 dom, Power and Immortality. Wherefore ivhen it is faid 
 that God only is to be wor/hipped, he is not to he Jimply ex-* 
 eluded, who in this particular depends upon God i but rather 
 is to be tacitly included upon account of the divine Govern- 
 ment he has received over all things. But, (i.) who gave 
 thefe bold Men a Power of excepting where the Law 
 does not except ? The Law (imply commands that 
 divine Adoration be given to God only. For what 
 they pretend, that it is faid in Scriptures God is only 
 wife, &c. but yet that others who are made parta- 
 kers of thefe things, are not to be fimply excluded 
 from Wifdom, &c. is a mere Sophifm. For tho*, when 
 it is faid in Scripture that God only is wife, others 
 are not excluded thereby from fuch a Degree of Wif- 
 dom, as comes to their fhare ; yet this is certain, 
 that by the exclufive Particle only in thofe Places, eve- 
 ry Creature is excluded from the divine Wifdom, which 
 belongs to God only. In like manner, when it is faid 
 in Scripture, that God only is to be worfhip'd, by that, 
 others are not excluded from fuch Refped and Honour 
 as belongs to them, yet all others are (imply and ab- 
 folutely excluded from that Worfhip which only be- 
 longs to God. (2.) This Anfwer fuppofes, that the 
 divine Government over all things may be communi- 
 cated to a mere Creature, which is by no means true. 
 For all fober Men, by the divine Government over all 
 things, underftand both that Almighty Power by 
 which God preferves, rules, and governs all thofe 
 Creatures he hath made; and alfo that Right and Do- 
 minion of God which follows from thence, by which 
 every Creature is fubjed to him, and every rational 
 
 («) Schli£tingius ad Meifneri articulum de Deo, p. 2o5, 85 
 £07. 
 
 Crea- 
 
^^t?//W Tradition, (fyc. 5$i 
 
 Creature obligM to fubmit himfelf, and all he has, to 
 God, for the Advancement of his Glory, and his own 
 Benefit. This Divine Government, at leaft, is the 
 only adequate Foundation of Divine Worfhip. Now 
 that fuch a Divine Government over all Things, is not 
 compatible with any Creature, is evident. If there- 
 fore Divine Worfhip is to be given to no one, but to 
 him, to whom the Divine Government over all things 
 is given, (which is certainly true) it will necefTarily 
 follow, that Divine Worfhip is to be given to God 
 only, as is provided by that exprefs Law we have al- 
 ledg'd. 
 
 4. (2.) St. Paul objeds this as a Crime to the Ga- 
 latiansj that for the time they knew not God, they 
 fewed thofe vjho voere not Gods by Nature (x). From this 
 Place it is plain, that Divine Worfliip was to be given 
 to no one, who had not the Divine Nature. For it 
 is impoffible, that what was the greateft Crime in the 
 Galatiam, whilft yet Pagans^ fhould be lawful for us, 
 blefs'd with the Light of the Gofpel, much lefs that 
 it fhould be the chief Duty of a Chriftian. Crellius's 
 Anfwer (y) upon this Place is very ridiculous. For 
 he writes thus : Hence alfo it appears ivhy St. Paul cb- 
 jeBs this as a Crime to the Galat'iainSy altho now paft and 
 ever, that when they knew not God, they fervid thofe, who 
 by Nature were not Gods ; namely, becaufe, before there was 
 no true God, thofe Galatians knew of none, as long as they 
 did not know the true God, who was not alfo God by Na- 
 ture ; and therefore whofoever then worjhip'd him imme- 
 diately and always, who was not God by Nature, wor/bip'd 
 ^ falfe God. Who can believe St. Paul thought of 
 
 (x) Gal. 4. 8. Vr. Clarke reads. To Gods, which have no 
 ]^ing in Nature. Where is the Difference ? Jidufi the Words vecef- 
 far'ily hs^ render d, as he /would have them, becaufe they lie in fuch an 
 Order in the Alex. MS ? And when they are fo render d, what do 
 they amount to more? See the Syriac, a Verjton well known hy the 
 Learned to he of great Authority. TToat reads^ Which are not in 
 their own nature Gods. 
 
 iy) Ed. Selenoburgi, p. 2S^, & 250, 
 
 this. 
 
9^2 ^he Trimiti've and 
 
 this, when he wrote thefe Words? Befides, that 
 there fliculd be a true God, who is not God by Na- 
 ture, feems incomprehenfible to every fober Mind, 
 (whatever the Socinians may brangle to the con- 
 trary.) 
 
 5. But the moft remarkable Place is mtheApoca- 
 Ijpfe {tS), where the Angel thus fpeaks to ^ohn, who 
 "was proftrate at his feet in order to adore him : See 
 thou do it not, I am thy Fellow-Servant^ and of thy Bre- 
 thren, who have the Tefiimony of Jefus ; worjhip God. The 
 Angel refufes St. 'John's Worfliip upon two accounts : 
 (i*^ Becaufe he was his Fellow-Servant j as tho he 
 fliould fay, Whofoever is a Servant of God, is not to 
 be honour'd with Divine Worfhip ; but I am a Ser- 
 vant of God as well as you, tho in a higher Station : 
 therefore you are not by any means to worfhip me. 
 Surely this Reafon equally extends itfelf to every Crea- 
 ture, fince there is no Creature, in what eminent Sta- 
 tion foever, who is not a Servant of God, as well as 
 other Creatures. If therefore Chrift be a mere Crea- 
 ture, it is unlawful to give him Divine Adoration. I 
 know {a) Grvtius thought the Worfhip, which the 
 Angel refus'd from St.Juhn, was only Civil Worfhip, 
 fuch as we iread has been given fometime to the Pro- 
 phets without Sin ; and therefore that the Angel for- 
 bad it not, as in itfelf unlawful, but as too much 
 Refpeft from one in the Apoftolical Office. For fo 
 that very learned Perfon writes in his Explication of 
 the Decalogue : He that forbids Gifts and LihationSy 
 does not forbid 'Tokens of Reverence^ &c. For that the 
 Angel in the Apocalypfe refufes that Honour y was not, that 
 there was any thing unlawful in it, but that the Angel fets 
 the Apofile upon a level with himfelf, as being both the Ser- 
 'vanis of Chrift, who is now the Head of the Angels ', and 
 that the Office of an Apoftle, adapted to the Salvation of 
 Men, is in no refpeSi inferior to the Office of an Angel. 
 
 (O Ch. 19. ver. 10. 
 
 {a) In Explicatione Pecalogi, Prsecept. 2» 
 
 iVoxu 
 
i^ow Collegues in 0-ffice don't ufe to give me another fuch 
 Tokens of Submiffion. But the great Man is miftaken 
 iti both Parts of his Opinion. For that it was not 
 Civil Worrtiip, or Refpeft only, which the Angel re- 
 j^ded, is very plain both from the Words of the 
 Angel, Worpip God, and alfo from thofe other Wordsj 
 See thou do it not ; a way of fpeaking which forbids 
 fomething, not as indecent only, but unlawful, and. 
 abfolutely to be avoided. Now the Great Man {Qetns 
 to have erred in this, that he hath not accurately di- 
 ftinguifh'd between the Proflration of St .John^ and 
 the Worfhip he waS about to give when proftrate. 
 The Words are clear, / fell down at his Feet to worfjoip,, 
 Here it is evident, the Defign of what St. John did, iS 
 chiefly cenfur'd, and that the Fad was culpable upon 
 that account. For to fall upon the Ground at the 
 Feet of ain Angel, is not evil in itfelf j becaufe it is 
 certain fuch Refped has formerly been given to Men, 
 to Kings and Prophets, and that often by Holy Men* 
 But the Apoftle is blamed for proftrating himfelf at 
 the Feet of the Angel, in order to worfhip him^ to 
 pay him Divine Worfhip, (perhaps the Sacrifice of 
 Praife, for his joyful Tidings of the Marriage of the 
 Lattib.y' Therefore the Angel did not fo much blame 
 what he had done, as forbid what he was about to 
 do : See thou do it not^ Nor is there any more Truth 
 in it, that the Angel forbad the Worfhip^ for that it 
 was too much for one, who was then honour^ with 
 the Apoftolical Office, becaufe it is clear from a fa^ 
 YalM{b)Place^ that this Prohibition of the Angel was. 
 to be extended to all Chriflians. For there he fpeaks 
 thus : See thou do it not, 1 am thy FeJloia- Servant^ and of 
 thy Brethren the Prophets, and of thofe luho ehferve the 
 Pt^Ord of this Book : Worfioip God. Here not only the 
 Prophets are mention'd, but alfo all pious Ferfons, all 
 Chriftians, who are defcribed in thefe Words {^And of 
 thofe "Who obferve the Words of this Baok.'] This De- 
 
 {h) ApOC.22. pt 
 
 Vol. IL Z fcription 
 
§$4 lHoe Trimit I've and 
 
 fcription Is large, and more general than the word 
 [^Propheti'] and therefore is fet after it, as fomething 
 more common. So Crellius {c) himfelf explains the 
 Place. But Grotius (d), contrary to the Faith of the 
 Greek Copies, and plain Reafon alfo, has omitted the 
 Particle [_and Q for what end, I know not, except to 
 ferve his own Purpofe. Thus much for the former 
 Reafon : The other we have in thefe Words, IVor/bip 
 Godj which feem to be taken from the Divine Com- 
 mand cited by our Lord. Now 'tis plain the Words 
 are to be taken exclufively, as tho the Angel had faid. 
 That Worfhip, which you was about to give, is only 
 proper to God i fee therefore that you don't give it 
 me. Otherwnfe there is no force in the Angel's Rea- 
 foning. Thefe Places then (to which I could add 
 many morej invincibly prove (what Zukker fays Juf" 
 tin laid as the Foundation of his Opinion concerning 
 the Divine Nature of Chrift) that Divine Worfhip is 
 not to be given to any one except God. 
 
 6. The Arguments brought againfl thefe by the 
 Socinians, are of no weight, (i.) They objed that 
 Holy Men, under the Old Teftament, paid Divine 
 Honours, and that without Sin, to Angels, who tranf- 
 afted with them in the Name of God. Now in our 
 Defence of the Nicene Creed {e), we have fully prov'd, 
 that as often as any Angel is in Holy Scripture call'd 
 Jehovah^ and has Divine Honours, the Fathers thought 
 him to be, not a mere Angel, bur an Angel join*d to 
 the Word ; and that this their Opinion is fo far from 
 contradidcing any part of Scripture, that it is con- 
 firmM by the exprefs Teftimony of Sz.Paul. I add, 
 that this Opinion is not a little (IrengthenM by the 
 Places treated of before, in which Divine Worfhip is 
 appropriated to the true God. But it is moil efpe- 
 cially confirmed by this. That we don^'t find in any 
 Age, or Place, under the Gofpel, any one, who was 
 faid to be an Angel, and yet thought wortiiy of fuch 
 
 (c) P. 288. id) In locum. (e) Se^* i. Cap. i. 
 
 Ho- 
 
Jpoftolkal Tr a dition, ^c 5 ? $ 
 
 Honour, unlefs bySt.j^o/^w, in the hurry of Aflfedion; 
 by St. John, who (lands condemn'd by the Angel, for 
 his Intention to pay him fuch a Worfhip as was above 
 the D gnity of Angels, and only due to God. 
 
 7. Seme Learned Divines enquire into the Caufe of 
 this; and amongft the reft, Rilera (f) writes thus: 
 Hovj is it, fays he, that Angels are adored before the CO" 
 wing of our Saviour, and fay nothing agninfl it ; but after - 
 wards refufe it ? It is becaufe they behold him clothed in 
 our Nature, which before they defpifed, and therefore are 
 afraid to fee it proftrate before them. 'They dare not noiu 
 contemn, as heluvci them, what they revere, as above them, 
 in the Kingdom of Heaven. Crellius (g) alfo is fond of 
 this Reafon. But indeed T think it rather fubtile, than 
 folid ; and I am therefore of that Opinion, becaufe in 
 the Place Ribera explains, there is no fhadow or ap- 
 pearance of it. On the other hand, the Angel refufes 
 the Worfhip which St. John intended him, upon 
 Grounds of perpetual Force and Truth, which equal- 
 ly belong to the Times of the Old and New Tefta- 
 Bienc. (i.) The Angel urges, that he is a Fellow- 
 Servant of the Faithful : Might the fame be faid of 
 the Angels under the Old Teflament ? To be fure : 
 For David then fpeaks of the Angels thus : (h) Who 
 wade his Angels Spirit, and his Minifters a flaming Fire. 
 The Angels then under the Old Teftament were no 
 lefs Minifters of God, than Men, tho in that higher 
 Station, in which they remain fince the Coming of 
 Chrift. This might be proved from many Places of 
 the New Teftament, which plainly fhew that more 
 eminent Honour and Reverence is due to them, than 
 to any Mortal* (/)• r2.^The other Reafon of the An- 
 gel's, in thefe words [JVorfoip God2 has alfo an evident 
 Relation to the Old Teftament. Nay, it feems, as I 
 faid before, to be taken from the Words of Mofes. In 
 
 (/) In Commentariis in Apocalypfin ad locum, Cap. ip, 
 ig) P. 277. 
 
 (h) Pfal. 104. 5. Compare with it Heb. J. 7. mdlafi, 
 (0 I Cor. u, 10. I Tim. 5. 21. 
 
 Z % £hort. 
 
15^ ^he Trmitim and 
 
 fhort, when we fpeak about the Worfhip of Angels, 
 we either underiiand Civil Worfliip only, or that 
 which is Divine and Religious. The former is due 
 to them even under the Gofpel, for their great Ex- 
 cellency above Men, and the Eminence of their Power: 
 but under the Law itfelf, it is forbidden to pay them 
 the latter, becaufe of their infinite Diftance from the 
 Almighty God. Hence we read in the (^ Old Tefta- 
 ment, that the Angel, who appeared to Mamah with 
 the greateil Caution, prevented the Divine Worfhip, the 
 Sacrifice, intended for him. For when Mnmah would 
 have detained him, that he might make ready for him 
 a fucking Kid, he anfwers, If y('U detain me^ IwiU 
 not eat of the Meat; but if thou would ft make ready a 
 Sacrifice^ thouflralt cffer it to the Lord. As if he fhould 
 have faid, There are two Ends of providing Meat;, 
 either that it fhould be eaten after the manner of Men, 
 or burnt in Sacrifice to God; there is no occafion for 
 the former, and the latter is unlawful : for know, that 
 Sacrifice is only to be ofier'd to God. 
 
 8. You'll ask then, how fhall we folve the propos'd 
 Difficulty ? There is little in it indeed, if you'll 
 fiand by the Judgment of the Fathers. For they fay, 
 that the Word and Son of God under the Old Tefta- 
 ment, the Angel of the Covenant, very often conversed 
 "with Men by Angels, or Angelical Appearances, that 
 is, fuch as the Angels commonly ufed ; and therefore 
 was with very good reafon worfhipped by Holy Men, 
 to whom he appeared. Now thefe Appearances, be- 
 ing certain Earnefts, Shadows and Figures of the fu- 
 ture Incarnation of the Son of God, did with juft 
 ground ceafe after his coming in human Flefh : when 
 the Truth appeared, what occafion for the Shadows 
 of it ? Now this Reafon given by the Fathers, feems 
 to me much preferable to all the Conje<ftures of the 
 Moderns. 
 
 (fe) Judges, I |.i^^ 
 
 ^. Boc 
 
9. But to wave all Conjeftures, this is certain, and 
 confefled by the Adverfaries themfelves, that the truly 
 Divine Worfhip, fuch as is in Scripture commanded 
 to be given to Jefus Chrift, never ought to be given 
 to Angels, nor ever was given to them by Holy Men 
 under the Old Teflament. Therefore the Hereticks 
 freely confefs that the Adoration formerly given to 
 Angels (granting that they were Angels) was by them 
 given after a very different manner from that which 
 in the Scripture of the New Teflament is given to 
 Jefus Chrift. They acknowledge this threefold Diffe- 
 rence. I. The Patriarchs adored the Angel as prefent 
 and in their fight, by proflrating themfelves before 
 him J but we are commanded to pay this Refpeft to 
 Chrift, tho not feen, and (as to his human Nature)' 
 far diftant from us, even in the Heavens, which chief- 
 ly, tho not only, diflinguifbes Human Worfhip from 
 Divine. Thefe are almoft the very Words of Crel- 
 lius (/). 2. He that formerly worfhip'd an Angel re- 
 prefenting God, truly worfhip'd God himfelf imme- 
 diately, the Angel only by accident ; nor then was 
 the Angel indeed worfhip'd as fuch, but as reprefent^ 
 ing God {m). Nay, the Perfon of the Angel was no 
 more worfliip'd than the Ark of the Covenant, when 
 pious Men worfhip'd God himfelf towards it, as a 
 Token of the Divine Prefence. On the other hand, 
 our Lord Jefus is in Scripture propos'd to be wor- 
 fhip'd immediately. This is fo true, that Socinus himfelf 
 grants that Chrift is worthy of Divine Honour, and is 
 not. commanded to be worfhip'd in Holy Scripture 
 without the moft weighty Reafons^ as the Scriptures 
 themfelves teach us (n). 3. Such an Angel was only wor- 
 fhipped for that time, that he appear 'd upon Earth in 
 the Name of God, and reprefented him, after which 
 Divine Worfhip was no more efteem'd due to him. 
 But our Saviour is perpetually to be worfhip'd by us. 
 Crel/ius (0) reftrains this Perpetuity to the Duration of 
 
 (0 P. 289. (rti) P, S77. (w) Apocal. 5. ver. 12. 
 
 CO P. 275* 
 
 Z 1 the 
 
35^ i^heTrtjniti'ue and 
 
 the World. For he writes thus : 'the Govsmment of 
 CJynft. as eternal, and according to what the Angel fays in 
 5/. Luke (/>), not to have an end, only extends fo far, as 
 there can be a Government over the Houfe of Jacob, and as 
 this prefent Frame of things fhall endure. Now this /bail 
 endure as long as the World, and as long as the lafl Enemy 
 of Chrifl^ Deaths floall remain unfubdud. Upon which ac- 
 count , the Son is fo to be honoured as the Father (q). Crellius 
 had an eye to a Paflage in the former Epiftle to the 
 Corinthians, where (r) St. Paul fays, that the Son, after 
 he has overcome the laft Enemy, Deaths fhall be fub- 
 jed to the Father, and will give up the Kingdom to 
 him. Now in my mind (s) Peter Martyr has very well 
 reconciled this Place, with thofe that afcribe an abfo- 
 lute Eternity to the Kingdom of Chrift. To reign, er 
 gcvern, is fometimes taken for excelling (thers, having the 
 Pre-eminence, or the highefi Place over others. Now in this 
 fenfe Chrifi will always reign. But if we fay, that to reign 
 is the fame as to exercife the Offices of a King, to fight 
 for^ to defend, to conquer, and the like ; Chrifi will not ah 
 way^ reign. For when we are perfe^ and compkat, we 
 Jhali have no cccafion for thefe Aids of Chrifi. When he 
 came into the World, he preach* d, he taught, he died for 
 our Salvation ; now alfo he intercedes for us with the Fa- 
 ther, he defends us frcm imminent Dangers, and never in- 
 termits his Mediatorial Offices and Aciions. But at the 
 end, when he hath made an univerfal Peace, he wiU rejign 
 thefe Offces tb the Father, becaufe then there will be no fur- 
 ther cccafion for them. Thus, when a powerful Prince fends 
 his only Son tofom.e Province of his Realm,which isfeditious, 
 tuJnultuary and rebeUiciis, the Son goes with Command and 
 a ftrong Force ; but when he has quieted the Commotions, 
 and fubdud the Rebels, he returns Conqueror to his Father, 
 triumphs, and delivers up the Province in Peace to his Fa- 
 ther, no longer ufes the military Command, or the Legions, 
 &c. Now that Chrift, after he has deliver*d the Me- 
 
 {f) Ch, I. ver. 55. ^q) Joh. 5. 2%, (r) i Cor. 15. 2?, 
 (j) Commu»ium"locorura CialT. 2. Cap. 17. ^.14. p^spj. 
 
 diatori^ 
 
 -J- 
 
^jip oft oil ceil T R A D T T T 0>r, ^C» ? 5 9 
 
 diatorial Kingdom to the Father, fhall not be deprivM 
 of his Divine Honour, Dignity, Command and Wor- 
 ftlip \ but, together with God the Father, (hall be 
 adored to all Eternity by all Saints, yea by Angels 
 and Archangels j many Plates of Scripture it) inform 
 us. 
 
 lo. Let the Hereticks then no longer defend their 
 finking Caufe from the Example of the Angels, who 
 reprefenting God under the Old Teftament, were 
 Partakers of Divine Worfhip ; fince, by their Confef- 
 fion, thofe Examples are nothing to their purpofe. For 
 from the threefold Difference jufl now mentioned, we 
 can draw three invincible Arguments for the Son's 
 Divinity. From the firfl we argue thus : Whofoever 
 in Heaven may and ought to be worfhipped by Men 
 on Earth, is God : But Chrift in Heaven, ^c. There- 
 fore Chrift is God. Our Adverfaries grant the Af- 
 fumption, and the Truta of the Propofition is clear. 
 For whofoever is fo worfhip'd, either underflands it, 
 or he does not j if, he underilands it not, he is wor- 
 fhip*d in vain j if he underftands it, he is omnifcienc 
 and omniprefent, and confequently God. You'll fay 
 that does not follow, becaufe he may underftand by 
 Divine Revelation. But, I fay, this is abfolutely im- 
 poilible. For that Knowledge is above a created Un^ 
 derftanding, and therefore no Creature can have it 
 either of himfelf, or from another. For the Illuflra- 
 tion of this Matter, take that moft noble Part of Di- 
 vine Worihip, Divine Invocation, which clearly be- 
 longs to Chrift, as the Scriptures (ti) teftify. Sure it is 
 impoflible that a human Soul, illuminated by what 
 degree foever of Divine Light, fhould at the fame 
 time know and underftand all the Vows and Prayers, 
 daily put up by fo many Millions of Men, in fomany 
 Places fo widely diftant, to the Name pf Chrift, in the 
 
 (0 Rom. 9. 5. Heb. 13. 21. i Pet. 4. 11. — 5. n, coYitpaved 
 <with z Vet. '^. \%. Apocal. I, 5,<J. — 5.12,15. 
 
 («) AQrs a, 21.— 7. 59.-9. 11, 14. 22. 16, Rom. jo. ?3. 
 
 I Cor. I. 2. I Thefl". 3. 11,12, 13. 2 Theff. 2.15,17. 
 
 Z 4 fanre 
 
360 ihe primitive an^ 
 
 feme moment. The Mind of Chrift as Man, and ex* 
 alted CO the right hand of God, is indeed wonderfully 
 great j but yet it is not infinite, io as to penetrate all 
 Places, and all Perfons, by whom his Sacred Name is 
 at the fame time invoked in both the Hemifpheres, and 
 to perceive alfo the moft fecret Thoughts of theif 
 JJearts, who call upon him. It is the Eye of God 
 only, who at one Glance beholds and furveys the 
 "whole Globe of the Earth. Whence the Socmians^ 
 who make ufe of this lafl; fhift to eftablifh the Divine 
 Invocation of Chrift, tho' only mere Man, whilft they 
 laugh at the Popifh Dream, by which they commonly 
 defend the Invocation of Saints, the Glafs of the 
 Trinity fin which the Blefled can fee in the Effence 
 of God, as in a Glafs, all that is made or done upon 
 Earth ; yea, can even know the moft fecret Thoughts 
 of our Hearts) render themfelves indeed ridiculous to 
 all prudent Men : For if fuch an Omnifcience can 
 be communicated to the Soul of Chrift as Man, by 
 Divine Revelation, no good reafon can be given why 
 the Souls of the Saints, in the fame manner, may not 
 be, and are not made Partakers of the fame in their 
 way. N^matians Argument then is invincible, and in 
 fpite of the Hereticks will always continue fo : (x) If 
 Chrifi ix>as only Man, how is he prefent every where when 
 invok'd, Jtnce to he capable of being eiery where, is not the 
 jSlature of Man, but of God. 
 
 II. This Argument prcfs'd Socinus grievoufly, who 
 from it fearing the Ruin of his Caufe concerning the 
 ineer Humanity of Chrift, was forced to aflfert confi- 
 dently, that there was no Divine Precept which ob- 
 liged any Man to call upon the Name of Jefus Chrift 
 jp his Prayers. Thus in his third Epiftle to Radecius : 
 Jlere in the firft place he confounds Adoration with Invo- 
 cation, w^icb ought not ta be, Jince the Reafon of both is 
 different. For tho Idvnt at all doubt that there is a Pre- 
 eept for adoring Chrifi, and tJpat, th(j there was not,^ that he 
 
 :00 P. m^ 
 
 certainly 
 
'jipoJioUcal Tradition, ^r. 3^t 
 
 (mainly ought to he adored, yet I can't think the fame of 
 in'voking him, pnce Invocation is taken for the imploring his 
 Aid, and the DireBion of our Prayers. For here I am of 
 Opinion y that we may indeed ivell do it, that is, may jufily 
 direSi our Prayers to Chrifl himfelf, but yet that there is 
 nothing to oblige us to it. And in another Place (y) : 
 IVe may invoke the Lord Chrifl, but we are under no Ohli~ 
 gation to do it. He is yet more boldly blafphemous, 
 \vhere he fays (2:.), But if any one has fuch a degree ofFaith^ 
 as that he dares always apply himfelf direSily to God, he 
 has no occafion to invoke Chrifl. Thus he writes : i. Now 
 if Radecius confounds Adoration and Invocation, 3b«- 
 nus certainly diftingui flies them too fubtilely. For all 
 Men own that Invocation is that, in which theWor- 
 Ihip, or Adoration truly Divine, does efpecially con- 
 fift, and therefore that it is frequently taken for the 
 whole of Divine Worfhip in Holy Scripture. But 
 indeed what Divine Worfhip he grants to Chrift, who 
 denies him Invocation, I can't imagine. 2. That Say- 
 ing of his, TVe may worfhip Chrifl, but we are not obliged 
 to it, feems incomprehenfible. For I ask, is there any 
 Precept for invoking Chrift in Scripture, or not ? If 
 there is, then we ought, we are obliged to invoke 
 him. But if there is no fuch Precept in Holy Writ, 
 certainly we can't do it without Sin : unlefs indeed 
 Divine Invocation (the chief Part of the Divine Wor- 
 fhip) be entirely left at our Difpofal. You'll fay, tho 
 we are not commanded to invoke Chrift, yet there 
 are broad Hints in Scripture, which plainly fuggeft 
 to us, that he is a very proper Object of Divine Invo- 
 cation, and therefore may juftly be invoked by us. 
 What are thefe ? You'll tell me perhaps, it is plain 
 from Scripture, that Chrift is very well inclined to- 
 wards us, that he thoroughly knows all the Neeefllties 
 of our Souls and Bodies, and is a moft curious Infpedor 
 pf all the Secrets of our Hearts, fo as to know how 
 
 (y) Refponfio ad Fr. David. 
 
 Iz) Difputatio cum Frankenio, p. 4. 
 
 all 
 
3^2 T!he Trimitwe and 
 
 all who call upon him, are affeded to him (a). Laftly, 
 that he is Almighty, can free us from all impending 
 Evils, be they never fo great, and can put us in pof- 
 feffion of all the good things "we want {b). I anfwer : 
 Thefe things are indeed requisite to make a proper 
 Objed of Divine Invocation. But, i. Thefe Attri- 
 butes argue the Divine Nature of him, who has them, 
 and cannot belong to mere Man, or any created Na- 
 ture. Therefore the Socinian Hypothefis finks, name- 
 ly, that Chrift is mere Man, or granting this, that he 
 is a fit Object of Invocation truly Divine. 2. Our 
 Argument is ftill good. For I ask. Whether thefe 
 Perfedions of Chrift, celebrated in Scripture, by 
 which he is made a proper Objed of Divine Invoca- 
 tion, be fuch, as that from them Ciirift has a right to 
 that Worfhip ? If you fay they are, then it will ne- 
 ceffarily follow, that we not only may, but ought to 
 invoke Chrift ; for certainly we ought to give every 
 one his due, efpecially Chrift : But if you deny that 
 they are, it will follow that Chrift can't lawfully be 
 invoked by us. For we can't, without Sin, give any 
 one Divine Worfhip (efpecially Invocation) who has 
 no right to it. So inconfiftent is that ; JVe may invoke 
 the Lord Chriflj hut ive are not obliged to it, Nomojevius^ 
 otherwife a great Admirer of Socinus^ faw this, and 
 makes a Note, very well worth our obferving, upon 
 his Words juft now cited (c) : / have diligently read your 
 Anfwer to the Arguments of Francis David, "where you af- 
 fert the Invocation of the Lord Chrift, and the Honour due 
 to his Sacred Name, and defend it againfi his Calumnies. 
 But in my Thoughts you have not only obfcur^d your excel" 
 lent Opinion by a fezc IVords, but alfo render" d it dubious^ 
 and confirmed your Adverfaries in their Error. Do you de- 
 fire to know what has done all this Mifchief? VU tell you 
 in fhort, T'hofe VPords which you often add CWe may in- 
 voke Chrift, but we are under no Tie or Obligatipi^ , 
 
 {a) Apocal. 2. 25. {h) Phil. 3. 2,1. 
 
 (f) Ep. I. to Socinus, An.Dom. 1587, 
 
 10 
 
^Jpqftolical T-RATtnioj^, dye* 3^5 
 
 to do it] threaten your Caufe vjjtb Ruin. I cantfercewe 
 hozv thefe things can be reconal'd, We are not oblig'd, 
 and \ec we may. As if in the J^arr of our Sahationy 
 it uas free for us to do, or emit any things as ive faw it 
 more or lefs neceffary. 
 
 12. Laftly, Ic is plain from Holy Writ, that we are 
 oblig'd to give the Worfhip of divine Invocation to 
 the Lord Chrift. Ic is manifeft even from this, thac 
 in Scripture, all Chridians, by virtue of their Reli- 
 gion, are fuppos'd to invoke Chriil. For this Realon 
 they are defcnb'd by thefe WVrds : 'thofe that call 
 upon the na?ne of Jefus (d). Befides, by divine Pre- 
 cept we are obliged to give the faii>e Worfhip and 
 Honour to the Son, as we give to the Father (e). But 
 no one will deny that Invocation is due to the Father. 
 Laftly, the Invocation of Jefus Chrift is commanded 
 us in theGofpel, as a Condition abfolutely iieceflary 
 to the obtaining Salvation : IVhofoever Jhall call upn the 
 name of the Lor d, floall be Javed (f). Here by the 
 Word Lord^ the Context plainly fliews that Chrift is 
 meant. For, Ci.) the Lord, concerning the invoking 
 vvhotn, he fpeaks, is evidently the fame, who is pro- 
 pos'd by him as the Objea of (g) Chriflian Faith^ that 
 is, the Lord Jefus. (2.) The Apoftle teaches, that 
 the fame Lord is to be call'd upon by all under Peril of 
 Salvation, in whom the Jews did not believe, and of 
 whom they might fay that they had net heard (h),ysh\ch 
 every Man may fee can only be underftood of our Sa- 
 viour. Now it is clear as any thing can be from the 
 Places cited, that the Invocation of this Lord, is not 
 only commanded, but alfo univerfally requir'd as an 
 aLfolucely neceflary condition of obtaining Salvation. 
 It is almoft as clear, that Qo cal-l upon the name of the 
 Lord']m this Place, is the fame as to implore the 
 Lord's aid, or to dired our Prayers to him, or at 
 ieaft, comprehends that under it. For invoking the 
 
 {A) Aas9. 14. I Cor. i. 2. (0 Joh" 5' 25- 
 
 (/) Rom. 10.13. ig) V. p, 10, IX, 12. {h) V.I4. 
 
 Name 
 
§i54 T^ht ^rmitwe and 
 
 Name of God^ has certainly two Senfes in Holy Scrip- 
 ture, (i.) It is in general taken for the whole j^or- 
 fhi^ of God (i)- This Signification fcems to have had 
 this Original, (as Crellius well (k) obferves) that In- 
 vocation was more frequent than the other Parts of Re- 
 ligion, and upon that account more excellent than the 
 reft, fince Neceility itfelf ufually forces us to call up* 
 en him, and implore his aid, whom we elieem and 
 worfhip as our God ; infomuch, that among Men, 
 he that does not invoke any one, is never thought to 
 take him for his God. (2.) In a ftrider Senfe, it is 
 taken for Prayer to God ; which Word alfo is fome- 
 times ufed in a more large, and fometimes in a more 
 confin'd Senfe. In a more large Senfe, when it com- 
 prehends Thankfgiving, as it (/) frequently doth; and 
 that for this Reafon, becaufe they are commonly joinM 
 one with the other. In a ftrifter, or more confin'd 
 and proper Senfe, when it is taken for the defiring 
 fome Good, or imploring the divine Affiftance. The 
 former Senfe of the Word feems to me moft natural 
 in this Place ; but chuCe whether you pleafe, our 
 Argument from the Place is valid. But, O Blelfed 
 Jefus, to what times haft thou referv'd us, which can 
 fuffer fuch horrid Blafphemy againft thy Holy Name l- 
 Who can hear thefe things without weeping ; namely. 
 That no one is obIig*d to pray to thee for thy divine 
 Grace and Affiftance ; efpecially from thofe, who pre-* 
 tend themfelves Worfhippers of thy Majefty ? 
 
 13. Into the fame depth of Madnefs, driven by the 
 fame Neeeflity, (m) Volkelim fell after Socinus^ and 
 SchliEiingws : Yea, Crellim himfelf, who talks much 
 every where of the divine Worfhip of Jefus Chrift, 
 yet in fome Places either runs into the Opinion of 
 SdchmSy or is not far from it. Thus he fpeaks of thofe 
 
 (f) Gen. 12. S. &. 15. 4' & 21.37. Pfal. 14.4' & 55* 5* 
 Jiaiah 41.. 22. (k) P. 580. 
 
 (/) Luke 18. 10, II. Aas 3. I. & 16. 15. Phil. i. ;, 4. 
 
 (jn) Volkeii;u5: de Vena Relig. Lib. 4. Cap. ii. de Invoca- 
 tione Cbrifti a.d Meifner, p ZQ6y^ aoj, 
 
 who 
 
JpoJioUcal Tradition, dxc* 565 
 
 who 111 their Prayers are defeftive, are chat way in 
 the Extremes', He efpecially notes thofe {n) who will not: 
 dtreSi Prayers to him^ and who don't direEl them, when there- 
 is cccajion, to him, to whom they not only might , but for 
 fome certain Reafons ought to do it; adding by way of 
 Example, As^ if any one will not in'voke Chrifi, when 
 others of the Faithful direEl their Prayers to him, or Edifi- 
 cation otherwife requires it, or the Sprit itfelf fuggefls and 
 diBates it to fome one. Obferve what a String of Limi- 
 tations ! The Heretick indeed confefles that we may 
 direct our Prayers to Chrift, but are not abfolutely 
 oblig'd to it, except in certain Cafes ; as when others 
 do it, left we fhould, make an unneceiTary Separation ; 
 or when Edification requires it, that is, when there is 
 Danger, that, if we refufe to invoke him, weak Bre- 
 thren fhould fufped, and not without Gaufe indeed, 
 that we deny divine Worfliip to Chrift ; or laftly^, 
 when the Spirit didates it, that is, when we have a 
 fancy to do it, or as oft as we have a mind. But 
 why, I befeech you, muft a Chriftian expeft the 
 Didate of the Spirit before he prefumes to dired his 
 Prayers to Chrift ? There is great danger, forfooth, 
 that he (hould pray to no purpofe, pour himfelf forth 
 into the empty Air; becaufe it is very uncertain,wheti 
 the Man Chrift is fenfible of our Devotions, or whea 
 he may be acquainted with the Prayers direded to 
 him, by divine Revelation : and therefore in this moft 
 dubious Cafe, we muft have Information from the Ho- 
 ly Spirit. Good God ! how deep a Myftery of Ini-^ 
 quity is Socinianifm I 
 
 14. I've been the larger upon this Diflference, be- 
 caufe I thought it wou'd be of ufe to the Reader, 
 who is unacquainted with the Tricks and Frauds of 
 the Hereticks, with whom we are engag'd. I come 
 now to the fecond difference obferv'd by CreUius, and 
 from this I fhall draw another Argument for the Son*s 
 Divinity. Whofoever is to be worfhip'd immediate- 
 
 (») Pag. 39S, 
 
^66 T^he Trimitwe a?id 
 
 ly, or in himfelf with divine Honour, and therefore is 
 alfo worthy of fuch Worfliip, muft be true God^ 
 God by Nature : But Chrifl is to be worlhip'd im- 
 mediately, or in himfelf, with divine Honour, ^c. 
 as the Scripture exprefly affirms, and the Adver- 
 faries themfelves confefs. Therefore Chrift is true 
 God, God by Nature. The Propofition here is very 
 eafy to be prov'd. No one can be worthy of divine 
 Worjfhip, who has not a divine, that is, an infinite 
 Dignity and Excellence i (for that divine Excellence, 
 is the only Foundation of truly divine Worfhip) but 
 divine and infinite Dignity and Excellence only belong 
 to God, can't fall to the fhare of any Creature (for 
 finite is not capable of infinite) therefore, CiT'e. How 
 unanfwerable this Argument is, appears evidently 
 from the Difpute between Fauflus Socinus, and 
 Chriflianus Frankenius, concerning the Honour of 
 Chrift, where you find the unfortunate Heretick 
 ftrangely prefsM and reduc'd to his laft Shifts by his 
 Adverfary with almofl this very Syllogifm. This 
 Frankenius was one of Sidnm*s Difciples, who aflert- 
 ed, as well as he, that Chrift was mere Man, but ex- 
 tended the Tenet further than his Mafter would have 
 had him ; arguing from it, by necelfary Confequence, 
 that our Saviour was not to be worfhip'd by Religi- 
 ous or Divine Worfhip. He and Socinus had a dif- 
 pute about it in the Hall of Chnfiopher Pmlicovius^ 
 March 14. 1584. Frankenius's firft Argument was 
 this (0) : As great as the Di flame is betiuixt the Creator and 
 a Creature^ Jo great the Difference ought to he between the 
 Honour given to the Creator and the Creature ; but there is 
 the greatefl Difference between the Creator and the Creature^ 
 loth in Nature and in Dignity : 'Therefore there ought alfo 
 to be the greatefl Difference between the Honour of God and 
 the Creature. But the Honour chiefly owing to God is reli- 
 gious Adoration j therefore it is not to be given to a Crea-^ 
 
 [ (0) Dc Adoratione Chrifti, difp. cum Frankenio, ^. 4. 
 
 ture 5 
 
"JpqfloHcal Tk Ami ion, ^c* ^6j 
 
 ture ', therefore not to ChrifiyWhom you ovon to be a mere 
 Creature. What fays Socinus to this Argument ? He 
 anfwers thus : ^ho' there be the greatefl Difference between 
 God and a Creature, there is m Necejjtty that there fhould 
 be fuch a Difference between the Honour of God and a Cre- 
 ture. For God can commmunicate his Honour to whom he 
 pkafeSj efpecially to Chrift, who is worthy fuch Honour^ 
 and is not commanded to be ador'd in Scripture without 
 the mofi weighty Reafons. A ridiculous Anfwer in- 
 deed, and a mere begging the Queftion ! For the 
 Queftion between Socinus and his Adverfary was 
 this : Whether Chrift, if ^ mere Creature, cou'd be 
 honour 'd with divine Worfhip ? Frankenius proves, 
 that he could not, becaufe the diftance between God 
 and a Creature, and confequently between the Ho- 
 nour due to one and the other, muft be infinite. Be- 
 (ides, God can't allow divine Worfhip to any to 
 whom he does not alfo give the divine Nature and 
 Excellence, of which no Creature is capable : For 
 that would be repugnant to both the divine Wifdom 
 and Truth ; to the divine Wifdom, becaufe thus God 
 would confer a Title without reality and foundation ; 
 and therefore to the divine Truth, becaufe then he 
 would oblige his Creature to a lye, /. e. would com- 
 mand him to afcribe divine Dignity and Excellence to 
 him, (for herein properly conlifts the truly divine Ado- 
 ration) in whom fuch Excellence neither was, nor 
 cou'd be. Laftly, How a mere Creature could be 
 worthy divine Worfhip, or what thofe weighty 
 Caufes are, for which Chrift, tho' mere Man, is com- 
 manded to be ador'd in Holy Scripture, no Socinian 
 will ever be able to explain. Therefore Socinus had 
 nothing elfe to reply to Frankenius, aher he had prov'd 
 by many Teftimonies, that Divine Worfhip cou'd not 
 be communicated to any Creature, but this (/>), lean 
 anfwer all thofe 'Tejiimonies. To this Frankenius re- 
 joins : (q) And J can give a probable Anfwer to all your 
 
 if) Pag. 7. (^)Pag. 8. 
 
 Places 
 
|68 ^bB Trmiti^d md 
 
 Places 'which urge ths Adoration of Chrifl. At length Sb^ 
 einus, overcome by the Arguments, but not willihg t6 
 yield, fays : fm as Jure of the Truth of my Opinion^ as 1 
 am that I have this Hat in my Hands. To which 
 frankenius by w^y of ridicule anfwers {r) : That AJfu- 
 ranee of yours can't be a Rule of Faith to me and otheth 
 For there is another will tell you, that he is very Jully pef- 
 fuaded from Holy Scripture of the T'ruth of the contrary 
 Opinion. Thus it is utterly impoiTible from the Sod- 
 nian Kypothefis, to defend the divine Worftiip (£ 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 15. I come now to the third and lafl Difference, 
 fron) which I argue thus : Whofoever is :o be ho- 
 ncur*d wi:h divine Worfhip, as well as God the 
 Father, for ever, is by Nature God as well as. the 
 Father: But Chrifl; is to be honour'd wit:h , divine 
 Worfhip for ever, as well as the Father j therefofe 
 Chrift is God by Nature, as well as the Father, 
 The minor of this Argument we have prov'd be- 
 fore, (i.) From very plain Teftimonies of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, when we fpoke concerning this third Diffe- 
 rence. The Truth of the Proposition is clear from 
 thofe places of Scripture (which are very many^ 
 where the true God is diftinguifh'd from the Crea- 
 tures, as being he, to whom alone divine Honour 
 and Glory is due for ever and ever (s). (2.) From 
 this undeniable Reafon, that the Foundation of 
 eternal Worfhip muft be eternal ; but there can 
 be no other eternal Foundation than this, that he 
 who is thus to be worfhipM, is by Nature God ; 
 therefore Chrift, who is thus to be worfhip'd, is God, 
 The Hereticks make the mediatorial Office of Chrift 
 the Foundation of the divine Worfhip due to him. 
 Now if this was true, it would necelfarily follow, that 
 the divine Worfhip of Jefus our Lord, fhould then 
 
 (r) Pag. 9. 
 
 (j) Matt. 5.15. Rom. i. 25. & 11, 5<^. Se i^. 27. Gal. i. y. 
 Eph. 3. ai, Phil4» 20, i Tiran i» 17. & Tim. 4. i8, Jude 25. v» 
 
 ceafe. 
 
Jpq/!ok'cal Traditic-h, (^c* 3^9 
 
 ceafe, when the Scriptures exprefly affirm, that medi- 
 atorial Kingdom fliall ceafe, namely, after Death the 
 laft Enemy is conquered, i. e. after the Refurredion, 
 and the laft judgment (t) ; for the Caufe being taken 
 away, the Effeft muft ceafe. Thus much for the firft 
 Objedion of the Hereticks. What they have gain'd 
 by it, let the impartial Reader judge. 
 
 16. But our Adverfaries have yet another Argu- 
 ment in which they greatly confide. For they fay 
 that the Scriptures have exprefly decided the Queflion 
 concerning divine Worfhip due to Chrift for them ; 
 where they teach, both that Royal Authority, or 
 judicial Power, is the Foundation of the divine Wor- 
 fhip due to Chrift ; and that this Authority or Power 
 was given to him by the Father, as Man. Now 
 thefe two Points are clear from the Collation of 
 St. Johriy Chap. 5. v^ 22, 23. CFor the Father judgeth no 
 man, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men 
 (hould honour the Son, as they honour the Father~} with the 
 27th Verfe of the fame Chapter. And the Father 
 hath given him Power of exercifing Judgment becaufe 
 he is the Son of Man. To thefe two Places they add 
 a third («}, where the Apoftle exprefly teaches, that 
 God hath given to the Man Chrift, exalted to the 
 greateft height after his Death, and upon account of 
 it, a name above every name, that at the name of yefuf 
 every knee /hould bow, &c. Now that thefe Places of 
 Scripture, which fill every Page of their Writings, 
 (and which they repeat till they are hoarfe) are no- 
 thing to their purpofe, will plainly appear after an ac- 
 curate Difquifition concerning the true meaning of 
 them. 
 
 17. (i.) As for the 27th Verfe of the 5th Chapter 
 of St. John (the Interpretation whereof depends upon 
 the 2 2d and 23d Verfes of the fame Chapter) the 
 Opinions of learned Men have been various concern- 
 ing the Senfe of it. i. Chryfo/iom difapproves the 
 receivM Punftatlon of the Words, and thinks the 
 CO i Cor. 1 5. 24, gcc, C«) P^^il- a* ^i *C' 
 
 |VoL. II. A a Senfe 
 
37^ T^he Trimiti^e and 
 
 Senfe Cadmitting that Pundationj inconfiftent ; fof 
 Chrift drd not therefote receive the Power of judging, 
 becaufe he was Man; if that had been the Reafon, 
 the fame Power muft have been given to all Men. He 
 therefore bids us diftinguifh or point the Reading 
 thus : And he hath given him -power alfo to exercife judg-- 
 mem ; there make a Semicolon, and then proceed : 
 Wonder not at this, becaufe he is the Son of Man ; for the 
 hour cometh, &c. So then this is the Senfe : What I 
 have faid of the Power of giving eternal Life, and oj 
 'Judging^ don't you think incredible, becaufe you fee I am 
 a Man ; for lam alfo the Son of God, as /hall be evident to 
 you hereafter by the RefurreBion, which I will accomplifh- 
 This Pundation of Chryfoflom's has been approvM by 
 Cyril and 'TheophylaEi among the Antients, and by a ve- 
 ry learned Modern, RJunius. Nor indeed is it light- 
 ly to be rejeded ; for the Syriac Interpreter (of great 
 Authority, and with good Reafon) has diftinguifh *d 
 the Members of this Sentence after the fame manner, 
 and rendered it thus : And he hath given him the Power 
 ef exercijing 'Judgment. Wonder not at it now, becaufe he 
 is the Son of Man. 
 
 1 8. (2.) Others not changing the Pundation, think 
 our Saviour had an eye in thefe Words to that place 
 of (x) Daniel, where he prophefies that Power and 
 Government fhould be given to the Son of Man from 
 the Ancient of Days ; as if it had been faid, T'hat be^ 
 carafe he is the Son of Man foretold by Daniel, therefore 
 Dominion, and an everlafting Kingdom over the Gentiles 
 fhould be given him. So Camero has inteirpreted it, and 
 after him Gro^/wj. But the want of the diftinftive 
 Article, or the Article by way of eminence (as Eraf- 
 mus obferyes) is repugnant to this Exposition. It is 
 written oI.eCtoi cti/Qp^Ts, not o7' u/o?, &c. Now thus it 
 ought to have been written, if defign'd to point out 
 a Perfoh emphatically call'd the Son of Man. 
 
 ip. The generality of Divines expound this Place 
 concerning the Incarnation and Exinanition of the Son,, 
 (jc) Chap. 7. V. 15, 14. ' '-^J 
 
 tnus: 
 
^ 
 
 thus: The Father hath therefore given Chrift the ju- 
 diciary Power, becaufe he vouchfafed to be made the 
 Son of Man, that is, Man, for the Saltation of 
 Men ; and tho' God took upon him Humanity, that he 
 might fave Mankind, by expoiing it to Death. 
 Wherefore he merited by this fo great an Exinanition, 
 the being made Man, and dying for Men, this ad- 
 vancement to the judiciary Power, that fo he fhould 
 be the Judge as well as the Saviour of ail Men. Ac- 
 cording to this Expofition (a very probable one) 
 Chrift defcribes his own Humiliation fpoken of, 
 Phil. 2. 7. There the Apoftle exhorts the Faithful to 
 Humblenefs of Mind, from Chrift's Example, who, 
 tho' in the Form of God, /. e. God, .and therefore, in 
 refpeft of his Nature, equal to God the Father, yec 
 did not take upon him that Equality, did not carry 
 himfelf as God, did not make a fhew of it, being 
 far from Pomp and Oflentation ; but freely let him- 
 felf down, humbled himfelf, taking upon him the 
 form of a Servant, and being made Man, &c. there- 
 fore his Father gave him a Name above every Name, 
 &c. exactly as in the Paflage of St. John it is faid. 
 That therefore the power of judging was giuen to the Son^ 
 hecaiife he zvas the Son of Man. 
 
 20. Lafty, Auftin and Bede iirterpret the Place thus;, 
 That- the Father had transferred the Power of judging 
 the quick and the dead upon the Son, becaufe he was 
 the Son of Man ; that is, as he was a Perfon proper and 
 fuitable to the Office. This Interpretation the learn- 
 ed Maldonnte (y) boldly affirms to be true ; who alfo 
 upon the 2 2d Verfe of the fame Chapter gives us the 
 fame Expoiition more at large {z.) : Now the Father is 
 faid to judge no Man, not that he doth not judge in deed ; for 
 whatfoenjer cne Perfon doth extra feipfam, as the Divines 
 define, all the Perfons do at the fame time -, but hecaufe he 
 doth not judge in the Perfon of a Judge "vijible to thoje 
 ivhom he judges, doth not talk with them^ pafs a verbal 
 Sentence upon them ; in a word, doth not judge in an external 
 laajy and judicial formj he is faid to judge no cne. For 
 (y) In locum, {z) In locum. 
 
 A a 3 thi 
 
^J2 ^he Trifmtwe and 
 
 the Son alone judgeth in this Senfe^ becaufe he atone is Man^ 
 fuch as hefjooud be Ivho judges me {a). T'herefore it is gi- 
 'ven as a Reason luhy the Father hath given all judgment to 
 the Son, becaufe he is the Son of Man. You fee how ma- 
 ny ways this Place may be expounded. Now take 
 which of the Expnfitions you pleafe, it will be of no 
 Service to the Hereticks. To coiifefs the Truth, 
 there is a little too much obfcurity and ambiguity, in 
 the Text, to make it the Foundation of any found 
 feafoning. 
 
 21. As for the Place cited out of the Epiftie to the 
 Philippians^ what the Hereticks prefume, is there af- 
 firmed, namely, That the Father gave Chrift, as mere 
 Man, a Divine Empire over Men, after his Death, is 
 falfe. The very Words of the Place teach the con- 
 trary, that is, that he who took upon him the Form 
 of a Servant, was made Man, before that, was in the 
 Form of God, and confequently equal to God (^); 
 and that he therefore obtainM the greateft Glory in 
 the Heavens, and a Name above every Name, becaufe 
 he condefcended to be made Man for the Salvation of 
 Men, and ifliew'd himfelf obedient to the Father, e- 
 ven to the Death of the Crofs. The Truth and Cer- 
 tainty of this Anfwer depends upon our Interpreta- 
 tion of the Words [^Being in the Form of God, and ta- 
 king upon him the Fvrm of a Servam?^ How true and 
 natural it is, every one will fee, who will conlider the 
 Words of Sc. Paul with Attention and Impartiality. 
 For the Apoftle plainly teaches two things in this 
 
 {a) Irenaeus, Lib. 5. Cap. 9. 
 
 (/») Dr. Clarke has labour d this Point without any notice of this 
 aciiirate Expojltio?!, and brought in our Author, as of his Mind in in- 
 ievpyeti?:g the greatejl Diffculfy of the Te/.', He r/iakes '^'«- fl^w, ov sfvxi 
 isibeov, tnoji prop:r!y to ftgmfyy To be honouv'd as God ; and fays 
 cur Lord ivillirgly condefcended to humble himfelf firfi into the Form of 
 a Sevjayit^ and then ivas exalted to 6e ?<?« 8e>'J, honour'd as Lord of 
 all things. // this he the true Interpretation j how fijall ive explain 
 thofe Texts of Script urey and thofe Parages of Antiquity ^ nvhich affevp 
 his Glory and Honour with the Father to be the fame before he came 
 d6wn frc-rn Heaven, as after ? V/hat a wonderftil Condefcenfion was 
 it in him, not to co-vet to be hojiourd as God, and what an incomprC' 
 henpls thing that he jhcidd think of it- at all^ who lyas not God ? 
 
 Place : 
 
Pkce: I. That our Saviour was, and fubfifted in the 
 
 Form of God, before he took upon him the Form of 
 
 a Servant. Nothing is clearer. For here the Apo- 
 
 flle obferves upon, and propofes the Example of our 
 
 Saviour's wonderful Coiidefcenfion, who, tho in the 
 
 Form of God, empty 'd, or degraded himfelf in taking 
 
 upon him the Form of a Servant. Now all Conde- 
 
 fcenfion fuppofes a more exalted State before it, from 
 
 which a Perfon defcends into a lower. 2. That Chrifi: 
 
 then took upon him the Form of a Servant, when he 
 
 was made Man. This is evident from the Words 
 
 of the Apoflle : He empty*d himfelf^ taking upon him 
 
 the Form of a Servant, being made in the Likenefs of 
 
 Men. In this the old Latin Interpreter agrees with 
 
 the Greek. Here is a continu'd Expofition, in which 
 
 the latter Member of the Sentence immediately fuc- 
 
 ceeds the former, and explains it without any Con- 
 
 jundion copulative. If you ask how-Chrift empty'd 
 
 or degraded himfelf, the Apoftle tells you, by taking 
 
 upon him the Form of a* Servant. If again you ask 
 
 how Chrift took upon him the Form of a Servant, the 
 
 Anfwer immediately follows, by being made in the 
 
 Likenefs of Men, made Man, in all things. Sin only 
 
 excepted, like unto us. Now from what has been 
 
 faid, it is clear that our Saviour fubfifted, and that in 
 
 t,he Torm of God, before he took upon him human 
 
 Nature, and therein the Form of a Servant. To make 
 
 this ftill more evident, two things are efpecially to be 
 
 obferved. i. That the Form of a Servant doth not 
 
 here fignify the fervile Condition of Man, as it is op- 
 
 pofed to the State and Condition of a free Man, on^ 
 
 that is his own Mafter, as the Hereticks contend, an4 
 
 fome Catholicks have impudently granted. For here 
 
 the Form of a Servant is manifeftly oppos'd to the 
 
 Form of God. Now all Creatures, compared to God, 
 
 have the Form of Servants, and (land oblig'd to obey 
 
 God. Hence the Apoftle, after he had faid that out 
 
 Saviour took upon him the Form of a Servant, being 
 
 made, in the likenefs cf Men, quickly adds, being 
 
 made obfdient, namely to God the Father. This the 
 
 A a 5 Apr- 
 
S74 ^heTrimitwe and 
 
 Apcftk alio fignifies in another Place (c), where, after 
 having faid that God the Father, in the Fulnefs of 
 Time, fent forth his Son made of a Woman, he im- 
 mediately adds, jnade under the Lavj .- Our Saviour 
 therefore then took upon him the Form of a Servant, 
 when he took upon him the created, that is, the hu- 
 man Nature, and in that Nature was made obedient 
 to God. 2. The Apoflle's elegant Gradation, in de- 
 fcribing the Exinanition of Chrift, is to be obferved : 
 This by the Catholick Interpretation is preferved en- 
 tire ; but by the Heretical Comment is obfcur'd, yea 
 wholly deftroy'd. Chrift, fays the Apoftle, empty'd 
 hi7nfelf^ taking upon him the Form^ of a Sew ant. This 
 might have been faid of him, if he had taken upon 
 him the Nature of Angels,* for Angels themfelves are 
 the Minifters and Servants of God. Therefore he 
 fub joins, Being made in the likenefs oj Men^ and therefore 
 a little lower than Angels (d). It follows. And being 
 found in faflfion as a Man^ he humbled himfelf being made 
 obedient, &c. He not only, tho God, took upon him 
 human Nature, but alfo greatly humbled himfelf in 
 it,^ being made in all things obedient to the Farher, 
 even to Death, and that the Death of the Crofs, a 
 painful, infamous and ignominious Death. But that 
 the Words, in which the Apoftle defcribes the State, 
 in which our Saviour was before his Exinanition, may 
 be better utiderftood, we muft repeat, what we be- 
 fore obferved, that the Form ofGod^ and Form of a Ser^ 
 rjantf or Similitude of Men, are opposM to one another. 
 As therefore Chrift was fo made in the Similitude of 
 Men, as to be a true Man ,- in like manner alfo he 
 was fo in the Form of God, as to be very God. Beiides, 
 from this Oppofition, of the Form of God, and the Form 
 cf a Servant, wc may ftrongly conclude againft the 
 Ariansy that the Nature of Chrift, in which he fub- 
 fifted as the Son of God, before his Incarnation, was 
 not a created Nature. The Son of God then only 
 took upon him the Form of a Servant, when he took 
 cpon him a created Nature, being made in the liKe- 
 (0 Gal. '4. 4, ^' id) Keb. :. 9. compavd-wlth vei\ 16. 
 
 nefs 
 
'Jpojiolical Tradition, f^c. 57^ 
 nefs of Man ; he was never before in the Form of a 
 Servant, but fubfifted in the Form of God. But ac- 
 cording to the Avians^ who take the Son of God for 
 a Creature, that Son of God was always, even before 
 his Incarnation, in the Form of a Servant. For every 
 Creature, even the moft excellent, as I obferved juft 
 now, compared to God, is in the Form of a Servant, 
 and is obliged to ferve and obey God. Hence it is 
 alfo plain, that the Son of God, according to his more 
 excellent Nature, in which he fubfifted before the 
 Incarnation, was equal to God his Father ; as is ma- 
 nifeftly taught by the Apoftle in the following Words. 
 Confult alfo what we have cited from the Primitive 
 ,Fathers, Hermas, Clemens Romams, and Jufiin Martyr^ 
 for the lUuftration oi this Place (e). From all^thefe 
 things it is clear, that the Socinians have appealed to 
 this PafTage of the Apoftle to no purpofe, nay to the 
 Ruin of their own Caufe. 
 
 22. But it may here be ask*d, how it can be under- 
 ftoodfrom our Hypothefis, by which the Son is God 
 of God, and Partaker of the fame Glory with God the 
 Father, that the Divine Government was delivered up 
 to him after his Paflion and Refurredion. I anfwer, 
 it may be underftood three Ways : i. After this man- 
 ner. That the Son of God, having accompliftiM th^ 
 Work of Man's Redemption upon Earth, acquired to 
 himfelf a Divine Gorernment over Men by a new and 
 real Title, and confequently Divine Honour to be 
 paid him by Men, namely, by the Title of Saviour or 
 Redeemer. Our Learned '^jachfon (_/) very well ex- 
 plains this Matter in his Commentaries upon the A*' 
 poftles Creed, thus : Go^ the Father, tho he had neven 
 created this 'vifible jVorld, had been no lefs glorious than he 
 now is. . For the Creation indeed added much to the things 
 created, yea, gave them their All, but nothing to God, wha 
 is infinite in Effence. Neverthelefs, if God had created no-* 
 thing, there had been no Foundation for the Attribute of 
 
 (e) Defence of xhc Wceno Creed, Seft. 2. Gh.?* §. i* §8 
 Ch. 3. §. 4- & Ch.4. ^. 7. 
 
 (/) Vpn the Creed ej tie Jpofiles, Lib. ii. Ch. 5. 
 
 A a 4 Creatoi', 
 
^7^ '^^ Trimitwe and 
 
 Creator, nay^ it had not been a true and real Attribute of 
 God. After the fame manner, f^PP^^fi ^^'^^ Son of God ne- 
 'ver to have defended, in order to the taking our Nature 
 upon him, he had remained no lefs glorious in Nature and 
 Perfon than he now is, yet he had not been glorify* d by, or 
 for the 'Title or Attribute of Incarnation. Or fuppofe tJye 
 fame Son of God had never humbled himfelf to Death, ha' 
 'ving taken upon him the Form of a Servant, (in this the 
 Learned Man is miftaken, that he refers the Form of 
 a Servant to the loweft degree of our Lord's Exinani- 
 tion) he had certainly remain d no lefs glorious in his Na- 
 ture, his Perfon, and his Attribute of Incarnation, than he 
 mvj is; hut yet he would not have had thofe magnificent Ti- 
 tles, by which he is cali'd OUR LORD, OUR RE- 
 DEEMER, and the Fountain of our Grace and Salva- 
 tion. All thefe Attributes are real, and therefore fuppofe a 
 real Foundation, namely, that Chriji humbled himfelf to 
 Death, and that the, Death of the Crofs. Nor are thefe 
 mly real Attributes, but aljo more honourable {both in refpeB 
 to God the Fatlj€r, who of his good pleafure gave his only- 
 begotten Son for us, and in refpeB to the Son of God, who 
 by his Exinanition was pleased to pay the Price of our Re- 
 demption) than the Attribute of Creation. Therefore the Son 
 of God alfo, not the Son of David only, was exalted after 
 Death by a nezv and real Title, namely, the Title of R E- 
 DEMPTlON and SALVATION. 
 ' 2?. This, no doubt, was what the Apoflle had a 
 mind to (ignify to us in the (g) Place juft now cited, 
 where he teaches that Chrift (who, as the Son of God, 
 before he was made Man, was in the Form of God, 
 jand equal to God the Father} was fo exalted after 
 his Death by God the Father, that now all Men are 
 of right obliged to confefs he is their Lord; namely, by 
 a new Title, as he has redeemed them with his own 
 precibtis Blood, that they fhould no longer be in their 
 own power,' but his Servants, as bought with d Price (h). 
 Now the Merit of this Title is more than once greatly 
 extolled in the Apccalypfe. ' Thiis the four living Crea- 
 
 (^) Ver. II, (Jo) Cmpave i Cor. 6. Vevfethelafi, /tnd 7, 
 
 ver, z%, 23. tv'ith i Pet. i. ip. hutefpedaUy Rom. 14. 8,9. ' 
 
 • ■■ ■*'" ' " ■ twres, 
 
Jpojiolical Tradition, &c. 377 
 tures, and the twenty-four Elders, fing this new Song 
 to the Lamb of God (/) : "Thou an •worthy to receive the 
 Book, and to open the Seals thereof , for thou ivafi /lain, and 
 haft redeemed us to God by thy Blood, out of every 'Tribe ^ and 
 ^Language, and People^ and Nation. Then fing the Choir 
 of Angels : (k) Worthy is the Lamb that was /lain, to 
 receive Power ^ and Riches, and IVifdcm, and Strength, and 
 Honour, and Glory, and Bleffing, This Divine Honour 
 is given po the Son of God in right of Redemption, 
 as that is given to God the Father in right of Creation^ 
 which we find in another Place (I) : Worthy art thou, O 
 Lord, to receive Glory, and Honour, and Power ; for thou 
 hafl made all things, and j or thy pleafure they are and were 
 created. God the Father is glorify 'd for the Work of 
 the Creation, not as tho the Son, (jn) by whom he made 
 all things, was not alfo to be glorify 'd upon the fame 
 account j but as the Father is the Fountain of the 
 Deity, from whom the Son had both his Nature, and 
 all his Divine Operations. God the Son is glorify 'd 
 for the Work of Man*s Redemption, not as tho God 
 the Father was not alfo to be glorify 'd for the fame 
 Caufe (for he, of his infinite Compafiion to Mankind, 
 fent (n) his Son into the World for our Salvation) but 
 becaufe the Son alone took upon him Human Nature, 
 and in that Nature was made obedient even to Death, 
 therefore the Work of Man's Redemption is, as ic 
 were, appropriated to the Son. 
 
 24. Now from this, that the Son by his Humilia- 
 tion has a jufl Title, and a moft equitable Right to a 
 divine Authority over, and Honour from Men (to ob- 
 ferve this by the way) we have this ftrong Argument 
 for his Divinity : Whofoever has a juft Title to divine 
 Authority over Men, and divine Honours from them, 
 muft be God ; but the Son has a juft Title to divine 
 Authority over Men, &c. Therefore the Son muft be 
 God. The Hereticks acknowledge the Minor, nor 
 need we thank them for it, fince it is very clearly 
 prov'd from the Scriptures juft now cited, which in- 
 
 (i) Ch. 5. ver. 9. (fc) Ver. 12. (/) Ch. 4. verfe the lad. 
 (m) John 1. 5. Col, 1. 16, ' (w) John 3. 16. 
 
 form 
 
37^ The ^ri?mtwe and 
 
 form us, that divine Authority, and divine Honours, 
 are as well due to God the Son, as Redeemer, as to 
 God the Father as Creator. For the Major, no fober 
 Man can doubt of it. For it is certain, and confefs'd 
 by our Adverfaries, that no Creature can ftriftly me- 
 rit that eternal Glory and Happinefs, which holy Men 
 fhali partake of in the other World. How much 
 more, abfurd (houM I fay, or rather (hocking, is it to 
 fay, that a mere Man can merit divine Honours, and 
 even acquire to himfeit' the Throne of God ? Suppofe, 
 as Socinus doth, that Chrift is only mere Man, how 
 can you find fuch Merit in his Obedience ? When he 
 was Man, he appearM as a common Man, he under- 
 went Death, and that, as God would have it, cl>e 
 Death of the Crofs. Now what did Chrift, more 
 than Peter the Apoftle of Chrift ? (if we may give Cre- 
 dit to Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.) Could he then, as Man 
 merit the Crown of the Saints by all his Sufferings .^ 
 No. What the (o) Apoftle fays, is certainly true of all 
 the Sufferings of Men ; I reckon the Sufferings of thif 
 prefent ti?ne, not worthy to he co?npar*d to the Glory luhkh 
 fl>all be reveaPd to tis. How much lefs, if he was only 
 meer Man, could Chrift by his Paflion merit divine 
 Honours ? On the other hand, if, as the Apoftle doth, 
 you conceive the Son of God to have exifted firft in 
 the form of God, and confcquently in refped of his 
 Nature to have been equal to God ; then to have 
 taken upon him the form of a Servant, and to have 
 been made Man ; laftly, in this Nature to have obey'd 
 God the Father to Death, even the Death of the 
 Crofs; we (hall immediately perceive his infinite Con- 
 defcenfion, and of confequence, his infinite Merit. 
 This by way of DigrclTion. This then is the firft and 
 chief reafon why, as it were, a new divine Authority 
 is in Scripture given to the Son of God, partaker of 
 the divine Nature and Honour with God the Father, 
 after his Death i namely, becaufe after he had ac- 
 complifhM the Work of our Redemption, he acquired 
 this Authority by a new Title (p). 
 (p"^ Rom. S. iS. (i) See J>ef, N. Cr. SeS-fi.. cap. 3. ^. 15. 
 
Jpoftolical Tradition, &C' 379 
 
 25. (2.) It may alfo be underftood of that new and 
 illuftrious Manifeftation of the Glory and divine Ma- 
 jefty of God the Son, made all the World over after 
 his Refurreftion and Afcenfion into Heaven. Whilfl: 
 the Son was upon Earth, he was found in fafhion as a 
 Man, a mere Man, made no appearance of any thing 
 more, except that in his Miracles fome glimpfe of 
 the divine Majefty fhew'd themfelves through the 
 Veil of the human Flelh. But after his Afcenfion 
 into Heaven, the Glory of the Son was wonderfully 
 reveal'd, by the Holy Spirit pour'd out upon the A- 
 poftles by him, by the ftupendous Miracles wrought 
 in his Name, by his Gofpel preach'd every where, the 
 Believers being baptized, not only in the Name of the 
 Father, but alfo of the Son and Holy Spirit. This 
 Manifeftation of the Son's divine Majefty was the 
 more illuftrious, becaufe, not only whilft he conversed 
 among Men in human Flefti, but alfo in the Ages be- 
 fore that, his Divinity was either but obfcurely known, 
 or wholly unknown. T'ertulUan fpeaks very well of 
 this Matter (q)- It pleased God Jo to renew the Covenant, 
 as that he fhould after a new manner he believd one through 
 the Son and Holy Sprit ; that he/hculd be o'penly knoxvn in 
 his proper Nafnes, who in times pajl was not under/iood to 
 he preach'd in the Son and Spirit. Well then is that faid 
 to be .a new divine Authority given to the Son after 
 his Refurredion, becaufe before that time his divine 
 Majefty and Authority was fcarce known unto Men, 
 (tho' as the Word of God, by whom all things were 
 made, he together with the Father exercis a divine 
 Authority over Men before the Creation.) 
 
 26. IfV I'm not greatly miftaken, this is what the 
 divine Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews (r) means: 
 God, who in diver fe manners hath in time pa ft jpoken to 
 the Fathers by the Prophets y hath in thefe lafi Days jpoken to 
 us by his Son, who?n he hath made Heir of all things, by 
 whom alfo he made the World : who being the Splendor cj 
 his Glory, and the exprefs Image of his Ejfence, and govern- 
 ing all things by his powerful Word, having purify' d our 
 
 (?) Pag- 5 »8. (»-) Chap. I, V. I, &P, 
 
 Sins 
 
^Bo The Vr 17/11 1 we and 
 
 Sins by himfelf, is fat doivn en the right hand of the Ma- 
 je/iy on high. In thefe Vv^ords the Holy Writer clearly 
 expreffes both a new Manifeftation, and a new Title 
 of the Son's divine Authority ; a new Maniteftatioo, 
 •ver. 2. where he fhews, that the Son now at length, 
 in thefe laft days, had manifefted himfelf in the 
 Flefh, and after having accomplifh'd the Redemp- 
 tion of Mankind in that Flefh, was by the pro- 
 mulg'd Decree of his Father made Heir and Lord 
 of all things j but yet that his Authority did not then 
 take its beginning : fince that it is he^ by whom 
 God made the World j and (as it follows) with 
 v/ horn God the Father hath from the Creation admi- 
 nifter'd and difposM all things. Thus Ignatius fays of 
 the Son of God (0 •• IVho was with the Father before 
 j4ges^ and appeared at the end. So after him ^ujiin 
 fpeaks : He who was from the beginnings but appear' d of 
 late. And, He who always was, but to-day is efieem*d 
 the Son, And again : Saying that then he was born to 
 Mm, when he was about to be reveal' d. The divine Au- 
 thor declares his new Tide, ver. 3, Vv'here he teaches 
 that the Son of God, tho' he was the Splendor of his 
 Glorj', and the exprefs Image of his Father's Eflence, 
 and adminiftred all things by his mod powerful 
 Word ', yet made an expiation for our Sins, having 
 taken upon him our Flefh, died for us in it, and after 
 he had perfected the Expiation, afcended the Throne 
 of the divine Majefty on high, as having by the moft 
 juft Title, a right to that Seat. Great is the Empha- 
 fis of thofe Words, By himfelf made Expiation^ ike. 
 For by them is fignified, that the Son of God, the 
 Splendor of his Father's Glor}', &c. did not conftitute 
 another Minifter of this Expiation, but took our Na- 
 ture into the Unity of his divine Perfon, and in 
 that Flefh ofFer'd himfelf a Sacrifice for Sins. By the 
 fame Emphafis, God, or the Lord, is in another place 
 faid to have purchased the Church by his own Blood (t); 
 where the moft antient Alexandrian Copy, has it in a 
 form yet more emphatical, as tho' we fhould fay, pur- 
 (0 P. A. vol.2, p. 18. (0 A£ls2o. 28. 
 
 chas*d 
 
Jpoftoikal Tkaditioi^, (j-c* 381 
 
 chas*d it by Blood, and that his own proper Blood. 
 The ftrefs of our Interpretation lies upon thefe Words, 
 By whom he made the Worlds^ which we have elfewhere 
 clearly and ac (u) large fhe'wn^ mufl: need be under- 
 ftood of the Creation of the World properly fo call'd. 
 This fuppos'd, it is clear from this place, that the 
 Son of God was before all Ages with God the Father, 
 and exifled in the Paternal Nature and Glory ; then 
 that the Univerfe was made by Him, and afterwards 
 by his moft powerful Authority and Command, go- 
 verned and directed ; neverthelefs that the divine Au- 
 thority of the Son lay hid, as it were, till the laft 
 times of the Gofpel, and was at length revealM, when 
 the Son took upon him human Nature, humbled him- 
 felf to Death for the Salvation of Mankind, and thus, 
 as it were, by a new and juft Title acquired divine 
 Authority over Men. 
 
 27, The Oeconomy of the Divine Perfons in the. 
 moft Holy Trinity, is to me indeed wonderful ; that 
 Oeconomy, by which every diftin(ft Perfon holds Man- 
 kind obliged to his Divine Authority,, by a diftind 
 Title, with which Title the diftinft Revelation of 
 every Perfon's Authority correfponds. We worfhip 
 the Father under the Title of Creator of the Uni- 
 verfe, v^ ho was alfo known to Men from the Creation 
 of the World : We worfhip the Son under the Title 
 of our Saviour and Redeemer, whofe Divine Glory 
 and Authority therefore was not revealed, till he had 
 accomplifhed the Affair of Man's Salvation and Re- 
 demption upon Earth. Laftly, we worfhip the Holy 
 Spirit under the Title of Paraclete, our Inlightner and 
 Sanflifier, whofe Divine Majefty did then appear 
 more plain after his Defcent upon the Apoftles and 
 firft Chriftians, exceeding illuflrious by the moft plen- 
 tiful Effufions of all forts of Gifts. Then at laft the 
 Apoftles, and that by their Lord's Command, bap- 
 tized the Nations into the full and united Trinity, 
 (as St. Cj-prian fpeaks) i. e. in the Name of the Father ^ 
 Son, and Holy Ghofl. This is what T'ertulmn intends, 
 (m) yndgmsnt of the Cath. Chtinhy Cap. 5. Sewt. 8. 
 
 whea 
 
382 'The Trimitwe and 
 
 when giving the reafon, why Chrift did not baptize 
 himfelf, he fays : Into luhom Jhould he baptiz^e I Into 
 Repentance ? What bujinefs then had his Forerunner ?^ 
 Into the Remifjion of Sins^ which he gave by a Word ? Into 
 himfelf J whom he veiled with Humility ? Into the Holy 
 Spirit^ who was not yet defended from the Father ? After 
 this Revelation, by which the Divine Nature is known 
 in its diftind: Perfons, all thofe, to whom it is made, 
 are in Right bound, and by Divine Precept obh'ged 
 to pay the fame Divine Worfhip and Honour to the 
 Son, which they pay to the Father; tho before it was 
 fufEcient for all the Pious among God's People to 
 worfhip and adore One God the Father of all things^ 
 without that diftinft Acknowledgment of Perfons. 
 Hence thofe Sayings, that under the Gofpel it is re- 
 quired, that all Men honour the Son, as they honour the 
 Father; and he that denieth the Son^hath not the Father (x). 
 28. We now come to the third way, or manner, by 
 which the Son of God, God of God the Father be- 
 fore Ages, acquired, as it were,' a new Divine Autho- 
 rity. The Son of God, having taken upon him hu- 
 man Nature, and in that humbled himfelf, being obe- 
 dient to the Father, even to the Death of the Crofs, 
 was truly and properly exalted after his Refurreftion, 
 and advanced to the right hand of the Father. Now 
 whatfoever was added to the human Nature either by 
 his Humiliation or Exaltation, is with good reafon in 
 Scripture attributed to the Son of God, upon account 
 of the nice and unfpeakable Communion of the Hu- 
 man Nature with the Divine Perfcn of the Son of 
 God, as Origen exprelles the hypofiatical Union. So 
 he who was in the Form of God, and equal to God, was 
 'madei obedient to the Death of the Crofs : He who is 
 the Splendor of the Father's Glory, by whofe moft 
 powerful Command and Authority all things are ad- 
 minifter'd, made an Expiation for Sins by himfelf: 
 He, who was the Prince of Life, is faid to Cy) be kiU'd, 
 and the Lord of Glory to (2^) be crucify* d. So, on the 
 
 ' (x) John 5. 25. I John a, 15,, {y) Afls 5. 15. 
 {^ I Cor. 2, 8. 
 
 otheir 
 
other hand, God [the Son] is faid to be received up into 
 Glory {a)y namely, in that Fiefh in which he was ma- 
 nifefted. To this Head alfo n3ay be refer'd the Words 
 of our Lord's Prayer, which he put up when he was 
 about to die (b) : I have glorify d thee upon Earthy I have 
 finifh^d the Work thou gavefl me to do ; and now. Father, 
 glorify me with the Glory J had with thee before the World 
 was. He defires that the Glory, which his Divine 
 Nature always had with the Father before the World 
 was made, may now be given to his Human Nature, 
 not only by railing it from the Dead, and exalting it to 
 Heaven i but alfo by placing it at the right hand of 
 God, where the Divine Nature always was. In vain 
 do the Hereticks endeavour to elude the Force of 
 this Place by interpreting it of the divine Predeftina- 
 tion, as their Predeceflfors did formerly (c) i for they 
 can't confirm this Interpretation by any fuitable Texts 
 of Holy Scripture. What they pretend, that the (,d) A- 
 pofile fpeaks after the fame manner, where he fays of 
 the Believers, that Grace was given to them before Ages, 
 is a very great Miftake. Let us read the entire Paf- 
 fage : Of him that fav'd us, and caWd us with an holy 
 Calling; not according to our Works ^ but his own Purpofe 
 and Grace given to us in Jefus Chriji before Ages. How 
 great a difference is there between this Place, and that 
 before us. For, 1. The Apoftle doth not abfolutely fay, 
 according to the Grace given^ but, according to the Purpofe 
 and Grace given. Now thefe words are either fpoken 
 figuratively, the Purpofe and Grace being put for the 
 graciousPurpofe (as (e) afterwards. Life and Incorruptibility 
 are put for the incorruptible Life) or they are to be ta- 
 ken in this plain Senfe i. According to the Grace, which 
 God purposed, or decreed to give us in Chrift before Ages. 
 Again, Chrift does not fay, the Glory which thou gaveft 
 me before the World was made, but, which J had. No 
 Man can avoid feeing the difference between thefe. For 
 it may be faid, that Grace is then given by God, with 
 fegard to the Certainty of his Purpofe, by which he 
 
 (a) I Tim. 5. 16. {b) John 17.4, 5. (r) Novatian de Tri- 
 lUitate. {d) a Tim. i. 9. (e) Ver. 10. 
 
 de- 
 
584 ^he Tri7niti'veli^kvnTio^y ^C' \ 
 decreed that the Faithful (hould have that Grace in 
 Chrift, in After- Ages, tho neither that Grace, nor 
 thofe Perfons, were then in adual being, who fhould 
 have what was given them. Now the word ZhaveJi is 
 pofTelHve, and denotes the prefent Ad and Fruition, 
 (as the {f) Bifhop of Ely has well obferv'd upon this 
 Place.) Laftly, it is thus in the Words of Chrift, the 
 Glory which I had with thee^ namely, when I exifted 
 along with thee. Nor is it to be doubted that thefe 
 Words of Chrift, T'he Glory which I had with thee be- 
 fore the World was made^ have the fame Senfe with the 
 Saying of St. 'John in the beginning of the Gofpel, 
 that the Word was in the beginning with Gody i. e. the Fa- 
 ther. Befides, we have fhewn in C^) another place, how 
 the human Nature of Chrift, exalted in the Heavens, 
 is partaker of the divine Glory and Honour. 
 
 25?. Thus much concerning the Adoration of Jefus 
 Chrift, and the Argument drawn from it by Jujiin 
 and other Fathers to prove his Divinity. From all 
 that has been faid, I think it is now very plain, that 
 the Religion of the beft Men, which made them afraid 
 of giving divine Worfhip to a mere Man, was not (as 
 ZuickeVy that infolent Defpifer of the Fathers imagin'd) 
 Vain, Puerile, and Superftitious j but fupported by 
 the beft and ftrongeft Reafons, which they, and their 
 Accomplices, the Worfhippers of Man, may much 
 eafier contemn than refute. 
 
 To the only God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be given 
 Adoration and Bleffing for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 (/) A^ainji the Racovian Catechlfm, Seft. 23. 
 {g) Vef. N. Cr. Sea. 2. Cap. 3. & 1 5. 
 
 F J N I S.