one. This is * plainly Novatian's Sense, in the Citations of the first Column; and it is very confiftent with the other, in the oppofite Column. All That Unity of Confent, Love, &c. is founded upon, and refolves into Unity of Subftance and Principle, according to this Writer.

Origen comes next. I have fet against Him a Paffage of Dionyfius of Rome, who quotes the Text in Confirmation of what He had just before faid, that we ought not by any means to undervalue the fuper-eminent Dignity of the Son, by fuppofing Him a Creature.

As to

Origen particularly, it is to be confidered, that, if He had refolved the Unity of Godhead, in that Paffage, into Unity of Confent, mentioning no other; yet no certain Argument could be drawn from thence, that He held no other; any more than from the Paffages of Novatian and Tertullian before cited. Had They been left fingle, They had been liable to the fame Charge; and yet it feems meerly accidental that They were not. Authors do not always fpeak their whole Thoughts upon a particular occafion; but are content only to fay as much as the occafion requires. Origen was guarding against the Sabellian abufe of the Text, and his Thoughts were turned to That chiefly. However, in That very place, He made fo much Use of the Text, as from thence to infer, that Father and Son are one God, and one Object of Worship; which, to any one who is • Compare a passage of Novatian cited above p. 36.

Bb 3

acquainted

acquainted with Origen's Principles in That Book, must appear to denote the divine and uncreated Nature of the Son; and confequently a fubftantial Unity betwixt Him and the Father: Befides, that this is farther intimated, in the Paffage cited, by the Words, à τaújoμa Tus doEns, and xagantñea Tйs wigures, which seem to have been added to qualify the former; and are hardly pertinent but on fome fuch Suppofition. To confirm which, please to compare Origen with Alexander Bishop of Alexandria his Comment on the fame Text, and you'l find Them very nearly the fame; which is fufficient to acquit Origen of any Sufpicion of Arianiz ing, in this point.

I come next to Hippolytus, who has but lately appear'd, and whom neither the Doctor nor You have took notice of. He argues, against the Sabellians, in the very fame way with Tertullian, Novatian, and Origen: But then, in the other Citation oppofitely placed, He clearly refolves the Unity of the Godhead into Unity of Substance and Principle. But befides this, it deferves your fpecial Notice, That while He speaks of Unity of Will, and Concord (admitting a kind of Parallel between the Union of Chriftians, and the Union of God and Chrift) He clearly fignifies how infinitely more perfect the latter is refolving it into this, that the Son is the ves argos, the Living and Substantial Mind, or Thought of the Father. This then is the Cafe: There is an Unity of Concord,

and

367 and Harmonious Love, founded upon Unity of Subftance: And the words, I and my Father are one, Exprefs both the Unity it felf, and the Foundation of it. Paul and Apollos were one in Heart and Will, in fuch Measure and Degree as They were capable of: And fo God and Christ are one likewife; but by an Union infinitely more perfect, and upon an infinitely higher Foundation. You need not be told, that xas often fignifies not an exact Equality, but a general Similitude: * The Remark is just; and, as it is at other times urged against us, fo let me here claim the Benefit of it.

I have added to the Number, Two Poft-Nicene Writers, Epiphanius and the elder Cyril; which are enough to fhow that the fame way of reasoning against the Sabellians (which prevailed before the Nicene-Council) obtain'd likewife afterwards. Some are apt to triumph extremely, if They can but find any the least Difference between the Ante-Nicene and PoftNicene Writers. If there Be but a Text or Two

differently interpreted, a folemn Remark is made upon it; and fometimes a trifling Note of fome obfcure Scholiaft, or any Imaginary Difference (having no Foundation but the Writer's Ignorance, or Negligence in comparing) is improved into an Argument of Change of Dotrine; and Athanafianifm is made the Name for what has been conftantly held in the Chriftian Church. If there be occafion to speak of the Things feemingly Derogatory to the Honour B b 4

Vid. Athanaf. Orat. 3. p. 57 2.

of

1

of the Son (his being Subordinate; his referring all Things to the Father, as Head, Root, Fountain, Caufe; his executing the Father's Will, and the like) Or of a real Diftinction between Father and Son (as their being o eμ, dua Res, or one of them, aμa "TER, that is, perfonally diftinct from the other) then only Ante-Nicene Fathers are quoted; as fame very if the Poft-Nicene did not teach the Doctrine: But if any thing, which feems to make more for the Honour of the Son, be mention'd (as His being uncreated, eternal, one God with the Father, Creator of all Things, and the like) this is to be reprefented as the Doctrine of the Poft-Nicene Fathers only; tho' nothing is more evident than that They varied not a Tittle, in any material Point of Doctrine, from their Predeceffers; but only preferved, as became Them, with an upright Zeal, the true Faith of Chrift, which was once delivered to the Saints.

To return. It is needlefs almoft, to take notice of other Teftimonies: Thofe in the Margin are fufficient to fhow the true and conftant Senfe of the Christian Church. The *Doctor quotes Bafil and Chryfoftom, as faying Father and Son were One, a devaμ: And, left the Reader fhould understand what thofe Fathers meant by κατα δύναμιν, He cuts Chry foftom short; whofe words immediately following (εἰ δὲ ἡ δύναμις ἡ αὐτὴ, εὔδηλον ὅτι καὶ ἡ οὐσία) Pag. 100.

show

fhow that He meant by dúvaus, not the fame Authority, but the fame inherent, essential, omnipotent Power.

Athenagoras's Suvάud may be rightly interpreted by Hippolytus before cited; or by Chryfoftom; or by Himself, in several Places where He is clear for the Confubftantiality. Juftin Martyr's Sentiments have been explain'd above; and the Council of Antioch's Expreffion (Ty ouμowria) is vindicated by *Hilary; who Himself may be readily understood by fuch as remember how the primitive Fathers held the Holy-Ghost to be, as it were, Vinculum Trinitatis, and fometimes Amor Patris & Filii ; as the Son Himfelf is alfo ftiled Charitas ex Charitate, by † Origen. These Things I can only hint to the intelligent Reader, having already exceeded the Bounds of a Digreffion.

QUERY XXIV.

Whether Gal. 4. 8. may not be enough to determine the difpute betwixt Us; Since it obliged the Doctor to confefs that Chrift is by Nature truly God, as truly as Man is by Nature truly Man.

He equivocates, indeed, there, as ufual. For, He will have it to fignify, that Chrift is God by Nature, only as having, by that Nature which He derives from the Fa

* Pag. 1170, 1171, Reply, p. 81.

Pamph. Apol. p. 235. Ed. Bened. ther,