of the truth, contended for it unto a conquest over the pernicious heresies wherewith it was opposed.

The defence of the truth from the beginning, was left in charge unto, and managed by the guides and rulers of the church in their several capacities. And by the Scripture it was that they discharged their duty, confirmed with apostolical tradition consonant thereunto. This was left in charge unto them by the great Apostle, Acts xx. 28-31. 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. 2 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 15, 23, 24. chap. iv. 1, 2, 3, 4. And wherein any of them failed in this duty, they were reproved by Christ himself, Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. Nor were private believers in their places and capacities, either unable for this duty or exempt from it, but discharged themselves faithfully therein, according unto commandment given unto them, 1 John ii. 20, 27. chap. iv. 1. 2, 3. 2 John viii. 9. All true believers, in their several stations, by mutual watchfulness, preaching or writing, according unto their calls and abilities, effectually used the outward means for the preservation and propagation of the faith of the church. And the same means are still sufficient unto the same ends, were they attended unto with con. science and diligence. The pretended defence of truth, with arts and arms of another kind, hath been the bane of religion, and lost the peace of Christians beyond recovery. And it may be observed, that whilst this way alone for the preservation of the truth was insisted on and pursued, that although innumerable heresies arose one after another, and sometimes many together, yet they never made any great progress, nor arrived unto any such consistency, as to make a stated opposition unto the truth, but the errors themselves, and their authors, were as vagrant meteors, which appeared for a little while, and vanished away. Afterwards it was not so, when other ways and means for the suppression of heresies were judged convenient and needful.

For, in process of time, when the power of the Roman empire gave countenance and protection unto Christian religion, another way was fixed on for this end, namely, the use of such assemblies of bishops and others as they called general councils, armed with a mixed power, partly civil, and partly ecclesiastical, with respect unto the authority of the emperors, and that jurisdiction in the church which began then to be first talked of. This way was begun in the Council of Nice, wherein, although there was a determination of the doctrine concerning the person of Christ then in agitation, and opposed, as unto his divine nature therein, according unto the truth, yet sundry evils and inconveniences ensued thereon. For thenceforth the faith of Christians began greatly to be resolved into the authority of men, and as much, if not more weight, to be laid on what was decreed by the fathers there assembled, than on what was clearly taught in the Scriptures. Besides, being necessitated, as they thought, to explain their conceptions of the divine nature of Christ, in words either not used in the Scripture, or whose signification unto that purpose was not determined therein, occasion was given unto endless

contentions about them. The Grecians themselves could not for a long season agree among themselves whether ècia essence, and ú-65×5 substance, were of the same signification or no, both of them denoting essence and substance; or whether they differed in their signification, or if they did, wherein that difference lay. Athanasius at first affirmed them to be the same, Orat. 5. con. Arian and Epist. ad African. Basil denied them so to be, or that they were used unto the same purpose, in the Council of Nice, Epist. 78. The like difference immediately fell out between the Grecians and Latins about hypostasis and persona. For the Latins rendered hypostasis by substantia, and persona by piwo the face. Hereof Jerom complains in his epistle to Damascus, that they required of him in the east to confess tres Hypostases, three substances, and he would only acknowledge tres Personas, three persons, Epist. 71. And Austin gives an account of the same difference, de Trinitate, lib. 5. cap. 8, 9. Athanasius endeavoured the composing of this difference, and in a good measure effected it, as Gregory of Nazianzen affirms, in his oration concerning his praise. It was done by him in a Synod at Alexandria in the first year of Julian's reign. On this occasion many contests arose, even among them, who all pleaded their adherence unto the doctrine of the Council of Nice. And as the subtile Arians made incredible advantage hereof at first, pretending that they opposed not the Deity of Christ, but only the expression of it by posetos, the same essence; so afterwards they countenanced themselves in coining words and terms to express their minds with, which utterly rejected it. Hence were their ομοιώσιος, ἑτερύσιος, ἐξ ἔκ Tv, and the like names of blasphemy, about which the contests were fierce and endless. And there were yet further evils that ensued hereon. For the curious and serpentine wits of men, finding themselves by this means set at liberty to think and discourse of those mysteries of the blessed Trinity, and the person of Christ, without much regard unto plain divine testimonies, in such ways wherein cunning and sophistry did much bear sway, began to multiply such new, curious and false notions about them, especially about the latter, as caused new disturbances, and those of large extent and long continuance. For their suppression, councils were called one on the back of another, whereon commonly new occasions of differences did arise, and most of them managed with great scandal unto Christian religion. For men began much to forego the primitive ways of opposing errors and extinguishing heresies, betaking themselves unto their interest, the number of their party, and prevalency with the present emperors. And although it so fell out, as in that at Constantinople, the first at Ephesus, and that at Chalcedon, that the truth for the substance of it did prevail, (for in many others it happened quite otherwise,) yet did they always give occasions unto new divisions, animosities, and even mutual hatreds, among the principal leaders of the Christian people. And great contests there were among some of them who pretended to believe the same truth, whether such or such a council should be received; that is plain

ly, whether the church should resolve its faith into their authority. The strifes of this nature about the first Ephesian council, and that at Chalcedon; not to mention them wherein the Arians prevailed, take up a good part of the ecclesiastical story of those days. And it cannot be denied but that some of the principal persons and assemblies who adhered unto the truth, did, in the heat of opposition unto the heresies of other men, fall into unjustifiable excess themselves.

We may take an instance hereof with respect to the Nestorian heresy, condemned in the first Ephesian council, and afterwards in that at Chalcedon. Cyrillus of Alexandria, a man learned and vehement, designed by all means to be unto it what his predecessor Athanasius had been to the Arian: but he fell into such excesses in his undertakings, as gave great occasion unto farther tumults; for it is evident that he distinguisheth not between irósaris and pois, and therefore affirms that the divine Word and humanity had μíav pov one nature only. So he doth plainly in Epist. ad Successum; they are ignorant, saith he, ὅτι κατ' ἀλήθειαν εςι μία φύσις τῷ λόγῳ αεσαρκωμήνη. "That according to truth one nature of the Word was incarnate." Hence Eutyches, the Archimandrite, took occasion to run into a contrary extreme, being a no less fierce enemy to Nestorius than Cyrillus was. For to oppose him, who divided the person of Christ into two, he confounded his natures into one; his delirant folly being confirmed by that goodly assembly, the second at Ephesus. Besides, it is confessed that Cyrillus, through the vehemency of his spirit, hatred unto Nestorius, and following the conduct of his own mind in nice and subtile expressions of the great mystery of the person of Christ, did utter many things exceeding the bounds of sobriety prescribed unto us by the apostle, Rom. xii. 3. if not those of truth itself. Hence it is come to pass, that many learned men begin to think and write that Cyrillus was in the wrong, and Nestorius by his means condemned undeservedly. However, it is certain to me that the doctrine condemned at Ephesus and Chalcedon as the doctrine of Nestorius, was destructive of the true person of Christ; and that Cyril, though he missed it in sundry expressions, yet aimed at the declaration and confirmation of the truth; as he was long since vindicated by Theorianus, Dialog. con. Armenios.

However, such was the watchful care of Christ over the church as unto the preservation of the sacred fundamental truth, concerning his divine person, and the union of his natures therein, retaining their distinct properties and operations, that, notwithstanding all the faction and disorder that were in those primitive councils, and scandalous contests of many of the members of them; notwithstanding the determination contrary unto it in great and numerous councils, the faith of it was preserved entire in the hearts of all that truly believed, and triumphed over the gates of hell.

I have mentioned these few things which belong unto the promise and predictions of our blessed Saviour, Matth. xvi. 18. the place insisted on, to shew that the church, without any disadvantage to the truth, may be pre

served without such general assemblies, which in the following ages proved the most pernicious engines for the corruption of the faith, worship and manners of it. Yea, from the beginning they were so far from being the only way of preserving truth, that it was almost constantly prejudiced by the addition of their authority unto the confirmation of it. Nor was there any one of them wherein the mystery of iniquity did not work unto the laying of some rubbish in the foundation of that fatal apostacy which afterwards openly ensued.

The Lord Christ himself hath taken it upon him to build his church on this rock of his person, by true faith of it and in it. He sends his holy Spirit to bear testimony unto him, in all the blessed effects of his power and grace. He continueth his word with the faithful ministry of it, to reveal, declare, make known, and vindicate this sacred truth, unto the conviction of gainsayers. He keeps up that faith in him, that love unto him, in the hearts of all his elect, as shall not be prevailed against. Wherefore, although the oppositions unto this sacred truth, this fundamental article of the church and Christian religion, concerning his divine person, its constitution and use, as the human nature conjoined substantially unto it, and subsisteth in it, are in this last age increased; although they are managed under so great a variety of forms, as that they are not reduceable unto any heads of order, although they are promoted with more subtilty and specious pretences than in former ages; yet if we are not wanting unto our duty, with the aids of grace proposed unto us, we shall finally triumph in this cause, and transmit this sacred truth inviolate unto them that succeed us in the possession of it.

CHAP. III. This person of Christ, which is the foundation whereon the church is built, whereunto all sorts of oppositions are endeavoured and designed, is the most ineffable effect of divine goodness and wisdom, whereof we treat in the next place. But herein when I speak of the constitution of the person of Christ, I intend not his person absolutely as he is the eternal Son of God. He was truly, really, completely a divine person from eternity, which is included in the notion of his being the Son, and so distinct from the Father, which is his complete personality. His being so was not a voluntary contrivance or effect of divine wisdom and goodness; his eternal generation being a necessary internal act of the divine nature in the person of the Father.

Of the eternal generation of the divine person of the Son, the sober writers of the ancient church did constantly affirm that it was firmly to be believed, but as unto the manner of it not to be inquired into. Scrutator majestatis absorbetur a gloria, "the searcher into divine majesty is swallowed up by his glory," was their rule. And the curious disputes of Alexander and Arius about it, gave occasion unto that many-headed monster of the Arian heresy which afterwards ensued. For when once men of subtile heads and unsanctified hearts gave up themselves to inquire into things infinitely above their understanding and capacity, being

vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds, they fell into endless divisions among themselves, agreeing only in an opposition unto the truth. But those who contented themselves to be wise unto sobriety, repressed this impious boldness. To this purpose speaks Lactantius, lib. 4. de vera sapient. Quomodo igitur procreavit? Nec sciri a quoquam possunt nec narrari opera divina; sed tamen sacræ literæ docent illum Dei filium, Dei esse sermonem. "How therefore did the Father beget the Son? These divine works can be known of none, declared by none. But the holy writings teach wherein it is determined that he is the Son of God, that he is the Word of God." And Ambrose de fide ad Gratianum. Quæro abste, quando aut quomodo putes filium esse generaturum? mihi enim impossibile est scire generationis secretum. Mens deficit, vox sṛlet, nonmea tantum sed et angelorum, supra potestates, supra angelos, supra cherubim, supra sensum, supra omnem sensum. Tu quoque manum ori admove; scrutari non licet superna mysteria. Licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit; illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quærere metus est. Nam si Paulus ea quæ audivit, raptus in tertium cœlum, ineffabilia dicit, quomodo nos exprimere possumus paternæ generationis arcanum, quod nec sentire potuimus nec audire? Quid te ista questionum tormenta delectant? "I inquire of you when and how the Son was begotten? Impossible it is to me to know the mystery of this generation. My mind faileth, my voice is silent, and not only mine, but of the angels; it is above principalities, above angels, above the cherubims, above the seraphims, above all understanding. Lay thy hand on thy mouth; it is not lawful to search into these heavenly mysteries. It is lawful to know that he was born; it is not lawful to determine how he was born: that it is not lawful for me to deny ; this I am afraid to inquire into. For if Paul, when he was taken into the third heaven, affirms that the things which he heard could not be uttered; how can we express the mystery of the divine generation, which we can neither apprehend nor hear. Why do such tormenting questions delight thee?"

Ephraim Syrus wrote a book to this purpose, against them who would search out the nature of the Son of God. Among many other things to the same purpose are his words, cap. 2. Infælix profecto, miser, atque impudentissimus est, qui scrutari cupit opificem suum. Millia millium, et centis millies millena millia angelorum et archangelorum, cum horrore glorificant, et trementes adorant ; et homines lutei, pleni peccatis, de divinitate intrepide disserunt? Non illorum exhorescit corpus, non contremescit animus; sed securi et garruli, de Christo Dei filio, qui pro me indigno peccatore passus est, deque ipsius utraque generatione loquuntur; nec saltem quod in luce cæcutiunt, sentiunt. "He is unhappy, miserable, and most impudent, who desires to examine or search out his Maker. Thousands of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of millions of angels and archangels, do glorify him with dread, and adore him with trembling; and shall dirty men, full of sins, dispute