yindicated over and over very fully and fo lidly. Tertullian explains very clearly, what he means by his corpus or Body, when attributed to God; he means his Subftance. Ipfa fubftan tia corpus rei cujufque, The Subftance of eve ry thing is its Body. Again. Omne quod eft, corpus eft fui generis. Nihil incorporale, nifi quod non eft, Every thing that exists, is a Body of Some peculiar kind. Nothing is incorporeal, but what does not exist. Si habet aliquid per quod eft, hoc erit corpus ejus, That by which any thing is or exifts, is the Body of it.

You fee in how great a Latitude Tertullian ufes the word Corpus Body, and what an innocent Senfe he gives it when applied to God. Neither is Tertullian fingular in it. Phabadius ufes the fame word with the fame kind of Latitude. Corpus enim Spiritus, fed corpus fui generis. For, fays he, a Spirit is a Body, but a Body of a peculiar kind. Nam & invifibilis & incomprehenfibilis Spiritus, nunquid tamen & inanis & vacua res Deus? God himself is a Spirit both invifible and incomprehenfible; —is he therefore an empty and infignificant Thing? Deus enim eft Spiritus, For God is a Spirit". Where he manifeftly exprefles Subftance by Corpus. Neither is this ufage

e Auguftin. Gen. ad Lit. L. 10. Hæref. Cap. 8. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 1. L. 2. cap. 1. Huet. Origen. L. 2. cap. 1. p. 30. Origen. cont. Celf. L. 6. p. 323. L. 8. p. 410. f Adv. Hermog. cap. 35. g De Carne Chrift. cap. 11. h Cont, Arianos

of

of the word peculiar to Ecclefiaftical Writers. Cicero himfelf has furnifh'd them with Authority for it, when he fays, that the Mind is not inane nefcio quid, an empty fomething he knew not what, but in quodam genere corporis, a peculiar fort of Body. Many in truth of the Antients fignified only by the word Corpus a Being or Subftance circumfcrib'd in Time, Place, and Power, and thereby diftinguifh'd from the great and fupreme God, who was infinitely remov'd from all limitation in either, that is, was according to them incorporeal in the ftricteft and highest Senfe. So that nothing can be justly concluded from the word it felf, but its meaning muft be found from its particular Application and the Tenour of the Place. 'Tis the fame with a thousand other words in Antiquity both Sacred and Profane, and the fame exactness and obfervation, the fame Critical Rules are neceffary and fufficient for a juft Interpretation in both Cafes.

OUR Author for his part is refolv'd not to understand the Senfe of Tertullian, but infifts on the Letters and Syllables of corpus, let the ufe and meaning of them be what it will, Daillé is his Oracle here as in other inftances, a Guide not always unerring on thefe occafions. He was a Man of confeffedly great a

i De Finib. L. 4. c. 14. De Uf. Patr. p. 260.

C 2

bilities

bilities, and perfectly capable of knowing and judging better, but was carried into violent extremes from Party-Oppofition and Prejudice. The Papifts (it seems) were entirely to be ftript of their usual weapons the Fathers, therefore Antiquity must be ftrain'd and tortur'd and mifrepresented to fecure the Proteftants even from imaginary Enemies.

By the fame dexterity and management he brings Hilary into the Scheme, for no other reafon but because he had faid with Tertullian, There's nothing but what is corporeal. This Paffage likewife he borrows from Mr. Daillé, with one improvement, of extending to God Almighty himself, what Daillé had more prudently confin'd to Souls. Hilary's Character in this point has been vindicated at large by the Learned Benedictines m, fhewing, as I have done before, that corporeum fignifies nothing in this place, but a Substance created and finite. And 'tis very obfervable, that it's so far from being applied to God, that 'tis expreffly attributed to the Creature in contradiftinction to the Cre

ator. Omne quod creatum eft &c. In fubftantiâ fuâ & creatione corporeum. The words crea

tum and creatione, our Author by not confulting or not confidering the Original has omit

1 Ibid. P 268.

m In Hilar. Comm. Matt. cap. 5. Præf. in Oper. Hilar. §. 9.

P 75.

ted

ted in his quotation from Hilary, where we find no more than ferv'd the prefent purpofe of deceiving the Reader, There's nothing but what is corporeal.

THERE is fomething indeed, which our Author has started in the Critical way, that may feem to overthrow my fecond general Affertion, viz. That no one Father of the three first Centuries believ'd God to be corporeal. He informs us that Melito, who was believ'd to be a Prophet, and flourished about 170, wrote a Book about the embodied God". It is very true, there is fuch a Tract of Melito recorded both by Eufebius and Jerom P; and the Title of the Piece in them is, vowμάтe DeQũ. Now this is all that my Author alledges to prove, that Melito believ'd God himself to be corporeal, in the groffeft fenfe. The Book it felf is not extant, and the Title alone is to fhew, what particular Doctrines were contain'd in it! Such Arguments as thefe I may fafely truft with the Reader, defiring him only to confider in a parallel cafe, whether if in Ages to come nothing more should be preferv'd than the Titles of those three Books, The Rights of the Chri-. ftian Church, Christianity as old as the Creation, and The Grounds and Reafons of the Chriftian Religion, the most fagacious Critick in the World

n Christianity as old &c. p. 262. Hift. Eccl. L. 4. cap. 26.

p. Catal. v. Melite.

could

could difcover from thence alone the Defign and Subftance of the Books themfelves, and the Sentiments of the Authors.

* I must own, two excellent Writers Valefut and Dr. Cave have fufpected from a frag ment of Origen's and from a Paffage of Genna dius, that Melito was not fo found in this point as he fhould be. Falefius fays, Hoc in Libra (mei dicapáry- Oe) contendebat Melito, Deum componatem effe ; idque ex variis Scripture locis camprobabat. Quem quidem Melitonis errorem merito reprehendit Origenes, in expofitione in Genefire, his verbis. Προδιαληπλέον πρότερον, που συ νίκαται τὸ κατ' εικόνα, εν σώματι η ψυχή ἴδωμεν δὲ πρότερον οἷς χρῦνται οἱ τὸ πρῶτον λέγοντες· ὧν ἔτι καὶ Μελίτων συγγράμματα καταλελοιπὼς περ το ασώματον εἶναι τὸν Θεόν. Μέλη χὰρ Θεῖ ὄνο na (ópera evcimortes &c. quæ referantur à Theodoreto in Cap. 20. Quæftionum in Genefin. Eundem Melitonis errorem obfervat Gennadius in Libro de Dogmatibus Ecclefiafticis. Nihil corporcum in Trinitate credimus, ut Melito & Tertullianus. Annot. in Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. 4. C. 26. Dr. Cave has thefe words. Inter opera Melitonis ab Eufebio recenfita habetur Liber me ChapÁTY Ors. Quid hac Voce intelligendum fit, Οραμάτε Θεδ. baud ftatim conftat. Hieronymus Grasam Eufebit vocem retinuit, incertus ut videtur quid fibi vo luit. Ruffinus vertit de Deo corpore induta, Sess sut loquererum fortaffe Tertullianus, corporato, Fa