thing that might ferve to gain the Victory. This would have been a flat contradiction to their conftant Practice and Profeflion, would have rendred their Caufe and Themfelves contemptible to all their Adyerfaries, and rais'd the Clamours, Inveâive, and Cenfure of all around them. Now where do we hear of fuch Evafions, Prevarications, and Subterfuges objected to them by their Enemies and Antagonists? Which yet on the other fuppofition could not poflibly be avoided. The truth of the matter is this. They were Men too good to offer at Quirks and lufions of this kind, and too wife thus to hazard and difcredit. their Caufe, by giving their Enemies fuch apparent Advantages. The grand olxoroula which they were not afham'd to acknowledge, was very confiftent both with Truth and Prudence. It was really nothing more (in their writings) than a strong and vigorous application to their Adverfaries in Terms and Expreflions very bold, pathetick, and ftriking, tho' perhaps not fo innp cent and accurate as they themselves would ufe when out of a Difpute. But ftill tho' they did not confine themselves in the heat of difpute to Expreflions exact and unexceptionable, they did to Truth and Confiftency. They did not Say one thing and mean the contrary, as our Author fuggefts, but fpoke agreeably always to their known and profeis'd Sentiments, only in fish words as fuited the prefent occa

fion beft, and by fuiting it beft gave room for what they neither defign'd or defir'd, mifconstruction and mifapplication. So in the cafe of Dionyfius the great Bithop of Alexandria. There were fome, it seems, at Pentapolis, a City of the upper Lybia, who preach'd and propagated induftriously the Sabellian Herefy, denying a diftinct Subfiftence and Perfonality of the Son from the Father in the Holy Trinity. To these pernicious Opinions and Doctrines Dionyfius immediately makes a zealous and vigorous oppofition, and writes an Epiftle upon this Occafion and Subject to Ammonius and Euphranor, wherein, pursuing his Argument against the Sabellians, and evincing from many paffages of the New Testament the Divine Perfonality of the Son, as Tertullian had done before him against Praxeas, he drop'd fome Expreffions which feem'd to favour the Arian Pofitions, and which therefore were quoted by them against the Catholicks with a great deal of Confidence and Triumph. In anfwer to which pretences, Athanafius confiders and defends Dionyfius's Doctrine, as purely Catholick and opposite to Arianifm. This he fhews from several Epiftles of Dionyfius himself, which he wrote on purpose to clear himself from any fuch Heretical Imputation. And as to those particular Expreffions of his, infifted on by Arians, Athanafius contends very justly for their being interpreted as spoken

T'oixovoμíav, that is, as the Controversy then on foot neceflitated him to fpeak, in order to confute and filence his Sabellian Adverfaries, but ftill within the verge of Honefly and Catholicifin. As for inftance, to fhew that the Son was a Perfon diftin&t from the Father, Dionyfius urges fome Characters of both in the New Teftament, particularly one in St. John, that the Father is there call'd the Hufbandman, and the Son the Vine, from whence he argu'd that the Son must be ånλbtuos xa? ἐσίαν τῷ Πατρὶς of a different στα from the Father. This was an Expreffion of Dionyfius which gave fome offence to the Catholicks, and umbrage and boldness to the Arians. They immediately look'd upon the Bfhop as a Patron of their έτερούσιος and ἀνόμοιος, without confidering the fcope and meaning of the word na in the Bishop's Epifle. The Bifhop's defign and aim was by this Expreffion, either to prove a diftin&t Subfiftence of the Son from the Father, tho' in one and the fame Divine Nature, or elle a different Substance in the Son, but in reference to his Human cinovoμía or Incarnation. Either of which Interpretations the Greek word na was very capable of, according to Ecclefiaftical ufe. Therefore Athanafius with very good reason difputes the claim of the Arians to Dionyfius, which was founded only on a misinterpretation of his words, and refers, them for a right

explication of the Bishop, to the oinovouía and his other Epiftles P.

AGAIN, inficad of the word οικονομικώς they us'd fometimes the words ayns and youνατικώς to expreis the fame thing. So St. Ba fila fays of the famous Gregory of Neocafaréa, that the Sabe lians in thofe Parts put wrong Conftructions and Interpretations on feveral Paffages in that great Writer, as not confidering or understanding that thofe Paffages of Gregory, were and ought to be Interpreted as fpoken, αγωνιστικῶς, that is, with reference to the Subject and Difpute in hand. So St. Fe

Ο Εν Πενταπόλει τῆς ἄνω Λιβύης, τηνικαῦτώ τοις τῶν ἐπισκόπων εφρό τησαν τα Σαβελλίδ· καὶ τοσοῦτον ἔχυσαν ταῖς ἐπινοίας ὡς ὀλίγες δεν μοιρά μέτι ἐν ταῖς Εκκλησίαις κηρύττες τὸν τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ· τοῦτο μαθών Διονύσ πέμπει και συμβουλεύει τοῖς αἰτίοις ποιύσιος τῆς κακοδοξίας ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἐπαύοντο, ἀλλὰ ἢ μᾶλλον ἀναιδέτερον ησέβουν, ανασκάφθη προς τὴν ἀναιδε αν εκείνων γράψαι τὴν τοιαύτίω ἐπιτολήν· καὶ τὰ ἀνθρωπινὰ τοῦ Σωτήρα εκ το ενα Γελίων παραθέως· ὅ ἐπειδὴ τολμηρότερον εκείνοι τὸν μὲν ἠρνοῦντος καὶ τὰ ἀνθρωπινὰ αὐτοῦ της Πατρὶ ἀνατίθεσαν, ούτως ο το δείξας, ὅτι τὸν ὁ Πατήρ, ἀλλ' ὁ φός των ὁ γινόμενα ὑπὲρ ἡμ ἄνθρωπο, πείσῃ τοὺς ἀμαθεῖς μὴ εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα φόν. Καὶ οὕτως λεπὸν κατ ̓ ὀλίγον ἐκείνους εἰς τὴν ἀληθινὴν αναγάγη θεότητα τοῦ σοῦ, ἢ τὴν γνώσιν τὴν περὶ τοῦ Πατρός. Αὐτὴ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡ ὑπόθεσις· καὶ dibe ταύτίω τὴν αἰτίαν, οὕτως ἔγραψε καὶ αὐτὸς, διὰ τοὺς θελήσαντας οὕτως αναισχύντως μεταθῆναι τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας πίν. Τί τοίνυν ὅμενος ή Αρείου αίρεσις καὶ ἡ Διονύσου διάνοια ; ἢ Διατί Διονύσιο ως Αρειος ὀνομάζεται, πολλῆς οὔσης αὐτῶν τῆς διαφορᾶς; - Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐναντία ἑαυτῷ γράφει, μη ελκότωσαν αὐτὸν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς, οὐ γὰρ ἀξιόπιτες κατὰ ταῦτα εἰ δὲ γράψας τὴν πρὸς Αμμώνιον ἐπιστολὴν ὑποσηλεύθη καὶ ἀπελογήσει το ΘΕΡΑΠΕΥΩΝ ΤΑ ΠΡΩΤΑ, ΑΠΟΛΟΓΗΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ ΤΕ ΟΥ ΜΕΤΑ ΒΕΒΛΗΤΑΙ, δηλὸν ἂν εἴη ὅτι καὶ τὰ ὑποπλευθέντα κατ' ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΝ ἔγραψεν· οὐ δεῖ δὲ τὰ κατ ̓ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΝ γραφόμενα καὶ γινόμενα, ταῦτα κακοτρόπως δίκες, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν ἕλκειν έκασον βούλησιν. Athanaf. Sentent. Dionyf.

Epift. 64.

Tom

rom fays, Aliud effe youvaines fcribere, aliud δογματικῶς. Joyμanxes. Not that either Bafil or Jerom allow'd of Falfhood and Selfcontradiction in this or any other cafe, but the whole and truth of their meaning is, that peculiar ways of Expreflion and Acting are neceffary to Dispute and Controverfy, which would not be proper for a cool and elaborate Difcourfe.

WELL, but St. Jerom is call'd in as Evidence to this fort of Fraud and Prevarication, nót only in himself but many other Holy Fathers. Origen, Methodius, Eufebius, Apollinarius, (fays St. Jerom) have writ largely against Celfus and Porphyry; Do but obferve, fays he, the manner of their arguing, and what flippery Problems they usd. They alledg'd against the Gentiles, not what they believ'd, but what they thought neceffary. Non quod fentiunt, fed quod neceffe eft dicunt. And adds, I forbear mentioning the Latin Writers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, and Hilary; left I should feem rather to accufe others than defend my felf. So then, now all is out. St. Jerom with the rest of his Christian Brethren is manifeftly autoxxtáxetros; no further room left for Plea and Apology, but Sentence and Execution muft pass upon them without benefit o' Clergy. However we'll hope at leaft for better things;

r Apolog. ad Pamm. pro Lib. adv. Jovių. ́f Chriftianity as old &c. p. 142.

perhaps