and

honeft Temper and Difpofition; and even all Parties thought they found their Account in one Branch or other of them; tho' they all could not deny but abundance of things every-where required a Review and Reformation, in cafe what I therein.ad vanc'd about the original Sacred Books and Doctrines of our Religion could not be difprov'd. And as far as I have fince difcover'd of the Sentiments of many of all Parties of the Learned about them, they were thus: The Fourth Volume was look'd on as the ftrongest of all, and not eafily to be aufwered. The Differtation allo upon Ignatius did commonly extort a Confef fion, that the larger Epiftles, which fo plainly favour the Arians, quote or allude to the Conftitutions, were the genuine ones, if either of them could claim to be fo efteem'd. Nay, the Conftitutions of the Apoftles themselves, and my Effay upon them, whofe Evidence appear'd lyable to moft Exception, as to their being at firft a Writing or Book, and that deriv'd from the very Apoftles, and written by Clement himfelf, were yet fo well received by good Men, on account of their extraordinary Devotion and Piety; and by thofe that were fond of the old Settlements of Chriftianity, on account of their adinirable Agreement with the fame; and by thofe really acquainted with the earlieft primitive Writers, on account of that undenyable evidence thofe Writers afforded to almoft all that is contained in them: And it could not often be deny'd, but that thefe Confitutions, which, in and fince the Fourth Century, were without queftion a Book, as they are at prefent, do for the main certainly contain thofe Rules and Doctrines, and Difcipline which the fecond and third Centuries receiv'd and practic'd, as detiv'd fome way from Chrift by his Apoftles, and as from them tranfmitted to the Churches; while yet it was commonly thought there was room to doubt, whether they were written down, of put into a Book to early as I affirm they were: Although all the Learned appear'd utterly at a Lofs, when or by whom they were afterward written down; and did not of pretend to either any certain internal later Characters, or external Teftimonies to juftify fuch an Hypothefis about them. But then, about the middle of February, Four Pamphlets came out me on different Subjects. One was Mr. Mayo's, as I am in

0

against

form'd, a very good Man, and very zealous for Orthodoxy, tho' one offmail Examination or Judgment in these Matters; and who, without any true Knowledge where the Difficulty of the Controverfy lay,

would take it for granted, that I deny'd the Divinity of our Saviour, becaufe I understood it in a Senfe different from his; and fo he collected no fewer than Four or Five Hundred Texts of Scripture to confure me among the vulgar; without meddling with the depth of

the Controversy,

or with the Primitive Fathers at all:

C

Only fo impru

32 imprudent was he in his Management, that instead of barely undertaking to fhew that our Saviour was God, he pretended, even in the very Title Page, to prove that He was The most High God; which being a known Expreffion peculiar to God the Father in Scripture and Antiquity, occafion'd this fharp Reflection of a Friend of mine upon it. Mr. Mayo, faid he, " should have told us "plainly, that God the Son is God the Father, and not God the Son, and then he had spoken to fome purpose.

Befides this Pamphlet, there came out another about the same time from Cambridge, written by Mr. Thirleby, a very young Batchelor of Arts, of Jefus College, but, as I hear, revis'd by Dr. Ahton, the Learned Mafter of that College. This was call'd an Answer to my Seventeen Sufpicions concerning Athanafius. And indeed, by Producing Athanafius's own Excufes and Stories, or the Excufes and Stories of other Athanafians, who commonly had them from Athanafius himself originally, he commonly fays what can be faid upon that occafion; but without being able properly to clear him upon any really good evidence. Which is fo certainly the Cafe here, that unlets Men will believe all the improbable,abfurd,and ill-grounded Pleas, Excuses, and Apologies,which he makes for himself; even when unfupported by, and contrary to, not only the Remains of the Arian Accounts, but those of feveral of the Athanafians themfelves alfo, 'tis abfolutely impoffible to justify him and his Character to the World. So that all comes at laft to this, that if we fuppofe that Athanafus always fpeak truth, and means honeftly, he might be an honeft Man; but if not, we have no other good evidence that he was such, nay, many and fhrew'd Signs that he was otherwife. But of my Answer to this more will be faid prefently.

About the fame time came out Mr. Ibbetson, of Oriel College Oxford, his Sermon against me, intituled, The Divinity of our Bleffed Saviour prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity; preach'd be fore the Univerfity on the Epiphany Jan. 6. 17. In this Sermon he alfo makes as if I were against the Divinity of our Saviour in general, and fo proves feveral things which I don't at all deny; he fets down feveral Paffages in Antiquity, capable of making a Shew on one fide, without fetting down thofe that explam ori contradict the Senfe he gives of them; while all ftand together in my Collection, for the full Informa tion of the Reader. He quotes the Teftament of the Twelve Patriarchs for fome high Expreffions of the Son of God, never us'd by any of the antient Catholicks, without giving us any Realon for his Dependance thereon; while the Author ap pears, tho' excellent in his kind, to be fa little vers'd in the Christian Religion, that 'tis a great queftion whether he was a

Chriftia

Chriftian at all. He complains that a famous Paffage in (a) Irenaus had not been thought worth my notice which yet was twice let down in my Collection, under the firft, and under the twentieth Article; and he produces the end of fuch a Pat fage out of the Latin interpolated Works of (b) Origen as is moft directly oppofite to undoubted Teftimonies from his own Greek Works, and directly oppofite to the other antient AcCounts of his Opinions befides. He quotes feveral (c) Texts very little to his purpofe; tho' he owns the common rendsing of (Philp. II. 7. Thought it no robbery to be equal with God to require fome Alteration; and he at the end wrongfully (e) infinuates, that I am guilty of the fame wicked and unfair Practices, which I have fo frequently obferv'd and complain'd of in the Atharafians. So that in fhort, tho' much more cannot be faid for the Athanafian Caufe in the compals of a Sermon, yet do not I look on this as any great Performance at all; nor indeed as done with that Candor, Fairnets, and Impartiality, which I ever expect from others, and ever endeavor to obferve my felf in thefe important matters.

Soon after thefe, came out Mr. Knight of St. John's College Oxford, his Primitive Chriftianity Vindicated, against my Reply to his Confiderations on my Hiftorical Preface, with Dr. Lee's Advertife

ment before it.

In this Adveitilement Dr. Lee informs us, that Dr. Grabe (a) had thoughts of writing a fhort and plain Difcourfe to justify the ordina y Doxology, which gives Glory To the Holy Ghoft, againit me, for the Satisfaction of the Common People; which he look'd on as extremely wanting That (6) Dr. Grabe had long ftudied the Arian Controverty, and had come to very different Sentiments from mine upon that Enquiry: And (c) that he had Order'a by his laft Will a few Remarks which he had made on my Account of the Primitive Faith, While he formerly had it by him in Manufcri, t, fhould be publifhed, of which more proiently. But then for Dr. Lee himlelf, who wrote the Premonition to thole Confiderations, which I ever looked upon as ore confiderable and judicious Performance than the Con fiderations themfelves, he hints (d) that this matter deferves a deeper Examination; and accordingly owns, that he has neither Intimation nor Leifure to vindicate what he had offer'd on that Occafion; Lut had rather go into what I my felt am labou Laity of the Church, upon the Foundation which Chrift and his Apoing for, I mean the (e) Endeavoring by all means the Peace and

files have laid. So that whatever Dilagreement there may be between us, as to any particular Notions, I look upon Dr. Lee as an hearty Friend to my main Defign, which is the Revival of this Primitive Christianity, and one that on this and the like accounts I cannot but highly value and esteem.

Nor do I find reafon to fpeak otherwife than with respect of Mr. Knight, who is the Author of this Primitive Chriftianity Vindicated not only on account of that good Temper and Chriftian Spirit which he generally fhews; but because I look on his former Conceffions of feveral things, which many others car'd not to grant me ; and on his former, and more especially his prefent weak Oppofition and remote Inferences against me, to be in effect a Vindication of me and my Notions; and what will not a little contribute among the judicious and unbyafs'd, to the Difcovery that my Doctrines are, for the main, really unanswerable: I mean upon any other Principles, than thofe which are in themfelves precarious; and indeed rather of a metaphyfick or cabbaliftical nature, than fuch as will bear the ftrict Examination of the Learned; or fuch as depend on plain Senfe, and the direct Teftimonies of Antiquity. But to leave thefe Authors and proceed.

In the beginning of the Month of February, the Lower House of Convocation began to enquire about the state of my Affair, and where the laft Year's Synodical Cenfure ftop'd, and why the Proceedings againft me were not carried to fome Iffue; and inclin'd to lay the blame upon the Upper House, to which that Cenfure was tranfmitted the Laft Meeting of Convocation. And they made an Application to the Upper Houfe, wherein, with Reflections on me, their hearty Defire was expreff'd to fee that Synodical Judgment which had been paft on Pofitions in my Books, publish'd to the World after the moft proper and folemn manner, and to proceed, as foon as their Lordships fhould think fit, towards convening and cenfuring me in Perfon. One of the Members exprefly difagreed to both Parts of this Defire. As to the first thing defired, he openly declared his Mind, that the Cenfure formerly paffed ought to be reconfider'd before it was publish'd: That indeed it was not fo finish'd, but that fome A&t of Convocation was yet necefiary before it could be published in proper manner: That most of the Paffages cenfur'd having been iaken out of an Hiftorical Book, and Mr. Whifton having fince printed Explications of thofe Propofitions which contain'd the Scheme of his Doctrine, and alfo what he had to offer in Support of them, it was not for the Honour of the Clergy or Convocation to piefs the folemn Publication of the Judgment as it had pass'd before: And that he was ready to offer Reafons for fome particular Alterations, if the Houfe would please to permit. As to the

fecond

าง

nd

But

fecond thing defir'd, to proceed to convene the Perfon, he declar'd that as he had formerly offer'd to give Reafons why he thought the Convocation had not Authority lo to proceed, he was ftill of the fame Mind, and ready to give his Reafons. But the House would not then hear his Reasons, nor indeed come into any more diftinct Declaration of their Opinions about my Propofitions; but leave every kthing in that ambiguous and doubtful State wherein they foundit; tho' without the Alteration of any of their common Forms, Language, or Practices. This appear'd to be the Difpofition of both Hou les; even tho' the lower Houfe yielded to the Prolocutors Notion, that in Virtue of their Parliamentary Relation, their late Prorogation or Adjournment fo far vacated what was begun and not finished the laft Year, that all was to be begun anew. Nor was that Cenfure upon fome of my Doctrines, which was then pafs'd fingly by each Houfe, and laid before the Queen, efteem'd other than imperfect and unfinish'd; as neither having been folemnly pafs'd by both Houfes together in one Body; nor figned by the particular Members: One or other of which Ways it seems are the proper Methods of paffing Legal Acts in Convocation. -ute It was about this time allo, that I understood from a Learned Friend, that upon his Examination into the History of the Council of Nice, he had obferv'd an Interpolation, which had been made in the Anathema's after the Creed of that Council: I mean of the Words xnsor, or Created; whereby the Church has been long made to believe, that this Council condemn'd that Affertion of the Arians, that our Saviour was created; whereas in reality, the whole Church was then too well apprized of the facred and original Ufe of that Woid upon that occafion, to venture upon its Condemnation; how near foever to fuch a thing they had done in their Creed, by declaring him begotten not made; and how odious foever they efteem'd the Arian Ule of it at that Time. Upon this oft valuable Discovery, I wrote to a Learned Friend about it; who Was much furprized at it: But upon a more exact Search found that not only fome few Authors omitted thofe Words; but that almoft all the Councils and original Writers in the fourth and fifth Centu→ ties did fo alfo. But of this matter I have more fully treated in my mall Paper ftiled Athanafius convicted of Forgery; to which I refer the Reader. But to proceed,

ai

the

At the very fame time that I publifhed this Paper, I did alfo write a Letter to the Lord Bishop of Chichester, the Rector of the Parish wherein I live, in order to procure Leave to return to full Communion, and to be readmitted to the Participation of the Lord's Supper; from which I had been excluded now almoft a Year, and that without any proper Legal Impediment to fuch my Admiflion. That Letter was in thefe Words;