Subftance; They never tell the Hereticks, that there was no manner of Ground or Colour for the Objection: They never fay, that the fame difficulty would lie against God's creating Angels, or Archangels, or any other Creature; as They might, and fhould have done, had They been of Dr. Clarke's Principles, or of Your's. No: *They only deny any Divifion or Diminution of the Father's Substance, and illustrate, as well as They are able, so fublime a mystery, by one Light kindling, as it were, from Another; by the Sun and it's Rays; by Fountain and Streams; Stock and Branch: All Instances of the fame Specifick Nature, and tanfwering in fome Circumstances, tho' defective in others. One would not defire a fuller and clearer Testimony, that thofe, or the like Similitudes were intended to fignify the fame with a proper Confubftantiality, than we meet with in Dionyfius of Alexandria ‡.

Then, for their Anfwers to the charge of Tritheifm, as understood by the Sabellians, how easy would it have been for Them to have told the Objectors, that They did not take the word God in the ftrict Sense; that Mofes and other mortal Men had been called Gods; that They believed the Son to be no

Juft. M. Dial. p. 183.373. Tat. p. 21, 22. Athenag. p. 40.96. Origen. Pamph. Apol. Tertull. Apol. c. 21. adv. Prax. c. 8. Theognoft. apud Athanaf. Vol. 1. p. 230. Hippolyt. Contr. Noet. ș. 11. p. 13. Dionyf. Alexand. Refp. ad Quæft. 5.

See Bull. D. F. p. 120.

Apud Athanaf de Sentent. Dionyf. Tom. 1. p. 255, 256.

more

Qu.XXV. more than a Creature, tho' the most perfect of all Creatures; and that the Sabellians did Them a very great and manifeft Injury, to imagine otherwife of Them. This would, this must have been their Anfwer to the charge of Tritheism as understood by the Objectors; had They not otherwife learned Chrift. Inftead of this, They appear to be very fenfible of the just Weight and Importance of the Objection. They muft fecure the Divinity of the Son, and yet preserve the Unity too. They have recourse to Unity of Subftance (even against Those who made one Subftance to fignify one Hypoftafis) as Tertullian frequently does, in his dispute with Praxeas: And notwithftanding that the Sabellians had, if I may fo fpeak, carried the Son's Divinity too high, in fomuch as to make Him the very fame Hypofafis with the Father; yet the utmost that the Catholicks could be brought to fay, in Degradation of Him, was only this; that He was fubordinate as a Son; equal in every respect, but as a Son can be equal to a Father; inferior in point of Original (the Father being Head and Fountain of all) but ftill of the fame Nature, Power, Subftance, and Perfections; fubfifting in, and from the Father, infeparably and conftantly, always and every where; and therefore one God with Him. And if And if any Perfon, tho' in the warmth of Difpute, did but happen to drop any doubtful Expreffions, tending any way to leffen the Dignity of the Son, or was

bur

but fufpected to do fo; the Alarm was foon taken, and it awaken'd the Jealousy of the Catholicks; who could not bear any Appearance of it. This was remarkably feen, in the famous Cafe of Dionyfius, Bishop of Alexandria, Sixty Years before the rife of Arius, and is recorded by Athanafius in his Works.

5. To this we may add, that while the Sa. bellian Controverfy was on Foot (which was at least 100 Years, and could never have lafted fo long, had the Catholicks been of any other Principles, than Those which I here maintain) I fay, while this was on Foot, how easy would it have been for the Catholicks to have pinch'd Them close, and to have prefs'd Them with variety of Arguments, more than They did, had They been of your Principles, or of Dr. Clarke's? The Father is eternal, but the Son not fo; the Father is omniscient, but the Son Ignorant of the Day of Judgment; the Father is omnipotent, but the Powers of the Son finite and limited; in a word, the Father is Creator, but the Son a Creature; and therefore They cannot be One and the fame Hypoftafis, or Suppofitum. This Argument had been irrefragable, and could not have failed of being urged and prefs'd Home, by Men of fuch acute Parts, as Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, and Others, had it been confiftent with Catholick Principles; or had They not believed, that the Son was Confubftantial, in the proper Senfe, enjoying all the effential Perfections of the Father, in common with Him.

2. It

6. It would be endless almost to proceed in this Argument: The rest I fhall throw into a narrow Compass, and only give Hints for your leifure Thoughts to inquire into. The ftrict Senfe which the Antients had of the word God, as fignifying Substance, and applying it to the Son, in the fame Senfe; their admitting but one Substance to be strictly Divine, and their utter Abhorrence of any inferior Deities; their appropriating Worship to the one true God, and worfhipping the Son notwithstanding; their unanimous Belief of the Son's being eternal, uncreated, omnipotent, and of his being Creator, Preferver, and Sustainer of the Universe: Any one of thefe, fingly almoft, would be fufficient for the proof of a proper Confubftantiality, as afferted by the Ante-Nicene Catholick Writers: But all together, and taken with the other Particulars before mention'd, They make so full, fo clear, fo ample a Demonftration of a Matter of Fact, that a Man must be of a very peculiar Constitution, who, after having well confidered the Evidences, can make the leaft doubt of fcruple of it. And this I hope may be fufficient in answer to your Pretence of an Oraterical or Figurative Confubftantiality; a Pretence, which you lay down with an unusual Diffidence; and without fo much as one Reafon, or Authority, to fupport it.

It being evident, from what hath been faid, that it was a proper, not figurative, ConfubRantiality, which the Ante-Nicene Fathers in

violably

violably maintain'd; This is all I am concern'd for. As to the question, whether it shall be called Specifick, or Numerical, I am in no pain àbout it. Neither of the Names exactly suits it; nor perhaps any other we can think on. It is fuch a Confubftantiality as preferves the Unity, without destroying the diftinct Perfonality; fuch as neither Sabellians nor Arians would come into, but the Catholicks maintain'd, with equal Vigour, against Both. It is a Medium to preferve the Priority of the Father, and withal the Divinity, the effential Divinity, of Son and Holy-Ghoft: In a word; it is the fober, middle way, way, between the Extravagancies of Both Extremes.

QUERY XXVI.

Whether the Doctor did not equivocate or prevaricate ftrangely, in saying. * The Generality of Writers before the Council of Nice, were, in the whole, clearly on his Side: When it is manifeft, They were, in the general, no farther on his Side, than the allowing a Subordination amounts to; no farther than our own Church is on his Side, while in the main points of difference, The ETERNITY and CONSUBSTANTIALITY, They are clearly against Him? That is, They were on his Side, fo far as

* Answer to Dr. Wells, pag. 28.

we