then, in the other citation oppositely placed, he clearly resolves the unity of the Godhead into unity of substance and principle. But besides this, it deserves your special notice, that while he speaks of unity of will and concord, (admitting a kind of parallel between the union of Christians, and the union of God and Christ,) he clearly signifies how infinitely more perfect the latter is; resolving it into this, that the Son is the vous Tarpòs, the living and substantial mind, or thought, of the Father. This then is the case there is an unity b of concord, and harmonious love, founded upon unity of substance: and the words, “I and my Father are one,” express both the unity itself, and the foundation of it. Paul and Apollos were one in heart and will, in such measure and degree as they were capable of: and so God and Christ are one likewise; but by an union infinitely more perfect, and upon an infinitely higher foundation. You need not be told, that xadw's often signifies, not an exact equality, but a general similitude: the remark is just; and, as it is at other times urged against us, so let me here claim the benefit of it.

I have added to the number two Post-Nicene writers, Epiphanius and the elder Cyril; which are enough to show, that the same way of reasoning against the Sabellians (which prevailed before the Nicene Council) obtained likewise afterwards. Some are apt to triumph extremely, if they can but find any the least difference between the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene writers. If there be but a text or two differently interpreted, a solemn remark is made upon it; and sometimes a trifling note of some obscure scholiast, or an imaginary difference, (having no foundation but the writer's ignorance, or negligence in

b Etiam nos quippe incomparabilem consensum voluntatis atque individuæ caritatis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti confitemur, propter quod dicimus, Hæc Trinitas unus est Deus. August. contr. Maxim. 1. ii. p. 720. Vid. etiam Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. 1. i. p. 389. Hilar. de Trin. p. 958.

c Vid. Athanas. Orat. iii. p. 572.

comparing,) is improved into an argument of change of doctrine; and Athanasianism is made the name for what has been constantly held in the Christian Church. If there be occasion to speak of the things seemingly derogatory to the honour of the Son, (his being subordinate; his referring all things to the Father, as head, root, fountain, cause; his executing the Father's will, and the like,) or of a real distinction between Father and Son, (as their being δύο ἀριθμῷ, duæ res, or one of them ἀριθμῷ ἕτερος, that is, personally distinct from the other,) then only Ante-Nicene Fathers are quoted; as if the Post-Nicene did not teach the very same doctrine: but if any thing, which seems to make more for the honour of the Son, be mentioned, (as his being uncreated, eternal, one God with the Father, Creator of all things, and the like,) this is to be represented as the doctrine of the Post-Nicene Fathers only; though nothing is more evident than that they varied not a tittle, in any material point of doctrine, from their predecessors; but only preserved, as became them, with an upright zeal, the true faith of Christ, "which was once delivered to the saints."

To return. It is needless almost to take notice of other testimonies: those in the margin are sufficient to show the true and constant sense of the Christian Church. The Doctor quotes Basil and Chrysostom, as saying Father and Son were one, xaтà dúvaμiv: and, lest the reader should understand what those Fathers meant by xaτà dúvauv, he cuts Chrysostom short; whose words immediately following (εἰ δὲ ἡ δύναμις ἡ αὐτὴ, εὕδηλον ὅτι καὶ ἡ ovaía) show that he meant by dúvaus, not the same authority, but the same inherent, essential, omnipotent power.

Athenagoras's duvάues may be rightly interpreted by Hippolytus before cited; or by Chrysostom; or by himself, in several places where he is clear for the consubstan tiality. Justin Martyr's sentiments have been explained

d Page 100.

above; and the Council of Antioch's expression (TM σμvía) is vindicated by e Hilary; who himself may be readily understood by such as remember how the primitive Fathers held the Holy Ghost to be, as it were, vinculum Trinitatis, and sometimes amor Patris et Filii; as the Son himself is also styled charitas ex charitate, by fOrigen. These things I can only hint to the intelligent reader, having already exceeded the bounds of a digression.

QUERY XXIV.

Whether Gal. iv. 8. may not be enough to determine the dispute betwixt us; since it obliged the Doctor to confess, that Christ is 8 by nature truly God, as truly as man is by nature truly man.

He equivocates, indeed, there, as usual. For, he will have it to signify that Christ is God by nature, only as having, by that nature which he derives from the Father, true divine power and dominion: that is, he is truly God by nature, as having a nature distinct from, and inferior to God's, wanting the most essential character of God, self-existence. What is this but trifling with words, and playing fast and loose?

h

IN answer hereto, you begin: "Will the Querist in"sist upon it, that the Son cannot be God by nature, un"less he be self-existent?" And you proceed: "I can "assure him, the learnedest, even of his own friends, are "ashamed of this: and there are few so hardy, as directly "to affirm it." But have a little patience, and I will endeavour to make you easy. Where were your thoughts? Where were your eyes? Either I am strangely mistaken, or the line, which offended you so grievously, was scored underneath; and pag. 92. of the Doctor's Reply referred to, as you find now: and my charging the Doctor with playing fast and loose, immediately after, might have been a sufficient intimation of my meaning. Whether I think

• Page 1170, 1171. Reply, p. 81.

f Pamph. Apol. p. 235. ed. Bened.

h Ibid. p. 92.

the Son self-existent or no, is not now the question. I took hold of the Doctor's expression, charged him with fast and loose, that is, saying and unsaying, contradicting himself. If self-existence be the most essential character of God, it seems to me to follow, that the Son, who by the Doctor's confession wants that character, cannot be truly and by nature God, any more than any thing can be truly and by nature man, without the essential character of man. As to my own part: I never pretended that selfexistence is an essential character of God: you might have considered that we deny it absolutely; we suppose it i negative and relative, and call it a personal character. Necessary-existence is an essential character, and belongs equally to Father and Son: if that be what you mean by self-existence, then that also belongs to both. Explain yourself, and deal not so much in ambiguous terms, which we have just reason to complain of. The Doctor knows how self-existent, by custom, sounds among common readers; and that denying the Son to be self-existent may be thought by many the same thing with denying him to be God. Had he pleased, in his translations of ayevýτos, and elsewhere, to say oftener unbegotten or underived, instead of self-existent, it would have been kind towards his readers, and perhaps as kind to himself: for it will be always thought as much beneath a grave writer to take the poor advantage of an equivocal word, as it is a disparagement to any cause to be served by it. But to proceed.

You wanted, it seems, to bring in a parcel of quotations, which you might as well have referred to only, where they k lie, and may be seen to greater advantage.

iSicut secundum substantiam aio, homo est, sic secundum substantiam nego, cum dico, non-homo est, &c. Relative autem negamus dicendo non-filius: relative igitur negamus dicendo non-genitus. Ingenitus porro, quid est nisi non-genitus?——quod autem relative pronuntiatur, non indicat substantiam. Aug. de Trin. 1. v. c. 6. Comp. Fulgent. contr. Arian. p. 52. ed. Paris.

Script. Doctr. p. 306, &c. alias 273, &c.

Whatever they are, they contradict not me; nor are they at all pertinent to the business of the Query. My design was to show, at once, the Doctor's inconsistency with Scripture and with himself: both which are intimated in the Query. It was your part to defend him, as fairly as you could. The Doctor, I observed, was obliged from Gal. iv. 8. to confess that the Son is by nature truly God. From thence I infer, that his scheme cannot stand with that text; being an express contradiction to it. You insist upon it notwithstanding, that the Son may be by nature truly God, agreeable to the text, and consistent with the Doctor's principles. This then is the sole point between us, to be here discussed.

"You have," you say, "proved, that in Scripture there "are different and subordinate acceptations of the word "God." True, you have proved that men have been called Gods; and idols Gods; the devil is also a God, (2 Cor. iv. 4.) and the belly a God. But, I think, St. Paul hath sufficiently intimated, (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.) that the Son is not to be reckoned among the nominal Gods; besides that you yourselves confess it. If he be God at all, he is a real one: and now I want to see what Scripture warrants or permits us to profess two real and true Gods. You say, the Son is God, truly, and properly, and by nature, in the Scripture-sense of the word God, (p. 110.) Then, say I, he must be the same with the one supreme God, because there is but one. If he is truly so, he is the same with the only true God; if properly so, his substance is properly divine; if by nature so, he has the same nature with the one God. Yet I very well know that you intend nothing like it: only, from the concurring language of Scripture and antiquity, you find it necessary to say as we say; and are afterwards to rack and strain invention, to find out some subtile and surprising meaning for it. What may we not do with any writings in the world at this rate, so long as words are capable of being pressed and tortured into diverse meanings? But let us go on, to see how you account for the Son's being God by nature.