other extreme; and tho' fome of 'em made no Serm. VI.
scruple to condemn the perfon of Eutyches,
yet withal they rejected the council of Chal-
cedon, and efpoused the cause of Diofcorus,
fo that they are all looked upon as perfons of
Eutychian principles m. At first they were
called Monophyfita, from their doctrine of
one nature only "; and Acephali, from
their being deftitute of any Head or Patri-
arch°; nay, it is faid by Nicephorus, with-
out any Bishops to prefide over them,
which is meant of them more peculiarly
who stood out against the comprehenfive
scheme of the Emperors Zeno and Anafta-
fius, who were neither for approving nor
condemning the council of Chalcedone. But
in the fixth century, as their numbers were
greatly encreased under the favour of fome
fucceeding Emperors, fo the wantonness of
their herefy took various turns, which gave
ground to various other appellations*.

Sometimes, in confideration that Chrift
fuffer'd on the cross, their doctrine of the

A

Vid. Evagr. H. E. lib. 3. Brerewood, c. 21, &c.

Niceph. Callift. H. E. 1. 18. c. 45. vid. & Suicer. in
Foce Μονοφυσίται.

Vid. Niceph. ibid. & Suicer. in voce 'AxéQxλo.

Þ Evagr. H. E. 1. 2. c. 14, 20, 22, 30. & Niceph. 1. 18.

c. 45.

4 li in duodecim fectas diffecti funt, ex quibus multa millia hærefum pullularunt. Niceph. L. 18. c. 45.

* Vid. Cave Hift. lit, in conspectu secul. 6.

SERM. III. philofophy drefs'd up under a chriftian garb, was fhewn at the fame time to be altogether groundless, and without any fupport. So that being thus far clear in our original, we may have leave now to come lower down, and obferve what turns this controversy took, as new herefies arofe, which required a new kind of oppofition.

It was near thirty years before the conclufion of the second century, that the enthufiaftick spirit of Montanus had made 172. its claim to a divine authority, and by the moft fpecious appearances of piety and great aufterity, had gain'd over many profelytes, and was grown into a good de gree of reputation. It is not to be dif puted but this enthufiaft acknowledged the one Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghoft. And indeed our adverfaries are fo far from difputing it, that some of them would fuggeft, the doctrine was derived from him, and cannot be traced to any better original. But the falfhood of that

d

a Vid. Cave, Hift. Lit. ad an. 172.

See the Hiftory of Montanifm. Art. 1, 2.

Hift. of Mont. Art. 2. §. 12. Theodorit, Hær, fab. I. 3. c. 1. Philaftr. de Hær. c. 49. Epiphan. Hær. 48. §. I. Schlichting, præfat. ad Ecclef. Evang, paftores, p. 17, &c. Sandius in Nucl. Hift. Eccl. 1. 1. p. 136. Edit. 1669. Whif ton's true origine of the Sabellian and Athanafian doctrines, P. 64, &c.

fuggeftion

fuggeftion will easily appear, when 'tis con- SERM. III. fider'd that Montanus and his followers were for a good while fuffer'd to remain in the communion of the Church, which could never have been allowed, if their doctrine in this important article had been new and inconfiftent with the catholick faith. And when at laft they were actually excluded, this made no part of the charge against them, which was founded on their breach of order and unity, and arrogant afcribing their pretended revelations to the impulfe of the Holy Ghofte. After this, they circa 198 are faid to have taken occafion, from the controversy about Eafter, to court the favour of Pope Victor, and did fo far infinuate themselves into his eftcem, as to obtain letters of communion from himf; till Praxeas, coming from Afia to Rome, gave him a different notion of the men, and prevail'd with him to revoke and cancel the countenance which he had fhewn 'ems. Praxeas, however, was not him

• Vid. Eufeb. H. E. l. 5. c. 14, 16.

The Pope's name, who granted these letters, is not in Tertullian. Mr. Dodwel, in Differt. de Rom. Pontiff. c. 15. §. 9. &c. contends that Praxeas came to Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrin, who fucceeded Victor: but his argument proves only that he broach'd his herefy under him, not that he came to Rome no fooner. Bishop Pearfon (Diff. 2. c. 9.) has more to fay for referring it to the time of Eleutherus, who was before Victor. But the more general opinion lies between them.

!

8 Tertul. adv. Praxeam, cap. I.

felf

SERM. III. philofophy drefs'd up under a chriftian garb, was fhewn at the fame time to be altogether groundless, and without any fupport. So that being thus far clear in our original, we may have leave now to come lower down, and observe what turns this controverfy took, as new herefies arofe, which required a new kind of oppofition.

It was near thirty years before the conclufion of the second century, that the enthufiaftick spirit of Montanus had made 172. its claim to a divine authority, and by the moft fpecious appearances of piety and great aufterity, had gain'd over many profelytes, and was grown into a good degree of reputation. It is not to be dif puted but this enthufiaft acknowledged the one Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghoft. And indeed our adverfaries are fo far from difputing it, that fome of them would fuggeft, the doctrine was derived from him, and cannot be traced to any better original. But the falfhood of that

a Vid. Cave, Hift. Lit. ad an. 172.

See the Hiftory of Montanifm. Art. 1, 2.

• Hift. of Mont. Art. 2. §. 12. Theodorit, Hær, fab. 1. 3. c. 2. Philaftr. de Hær. c. 49. Epiphan. Hær.48. §. 1.

Schlichting, præfat. ad Ecclef. Evang. paftores, p. 17, &c. Sandius in Nucl. Hift. Eccl. 1. 1. p. 136. Edit. 1669. Whif ton's true origine of the Sabellian and Athanafian doctrines, P. 64, &c.

fuggeftion

fuggeftion will eafily appear, when 'tis con- SERM. III. fider'd that Montanus and his followers were for a good while fuffer'd to remain in the communion of the Church, which could never have been allowed, if their doctrine in this important article had been new and inconfiftent with the catholick faith. And when at laft they were actually excluded, this made no part of the charge against them, which was founded on their breach of order and unity, and arrogant afcribing their pretended revelations to the impulfe of the Holy Ghofte. After this, they circa 198. are faid to have taken occafion, from the controversy about Eafter, to court the favour of Pope Victor, and did fo far infinuate themselves into his esteem, as to obtain letters of communion from himf; till Praxeas, coming from Afia to Rome, gave him a different notion of the men, and prevail'd with him to revoke and cancel the countenance which he had fhewn 'ems. Praxeas, however, was not him

• Vid. Eufeb. H. E. 1. 5. c. 14, 16.

The Pope's name, who granted thefe letters, is not in Tertullian. Mr. Dodwel, in Differt. de Rom. Pontiff. c. 15. §. 9, &c. contends that Praxeas came to Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrin, who fucceeded Victor: but his argument proves only that he broach'd his herefy under him, not that he came to Rome no fooner. Bishop Pearfon (Diff. 2. c. 9.) has more to fay for referring it to the time of Eleutherus, who was before Victor. But the more general opinion lies between them.

8 Tertul. adv. Praxeam, cap. In.

felf