not appeal to the Antients, as if we could not maintain our Ground, from Scripture and ReaJon, against all Oppofers: This has been done over and over. Athanafius, Hilary, Bafil, the two Gregories, Chryfoftom, Austin, Cyril, and Others, undertook the Caufe on the Foot of Scripture, and were eafily fuperior to all the Arians. But fince we have an Advantage, over and above Scripture Evidence, from the concurring Sentiments of Antiquity, we think it very proper to take That in alfo; and we fhall not easily fuffer it to be wrested from us.

QUERY XXIX.

Whether private Reasoning, in a matter above our Comprehenfion, be a fafer Rule to go by, than the general Senfe and Judgment of the primitive Church, in the first 300 Tears; or, fuppofing it doubtful what the Senfe of the Church was within that time, whether what was determin'd by a Council of 300 Bishops foon after, with the greateft Care and Deliberation, and bas fatisfied Men of the greatest Senfe, Piety and Learning, all over the Chriftian World, for 1400 Years fince, may not fatisfy wife and good Men now?

H

ERE you tell me, as ufual, when you have little elfe to fay, that the Council of Nice knew nothing of Individual Confub

ftantiality:

ftantiality and then you add, pleasantly, that you turn the Query against the Querift, and lay claim to the Nicene Confeffion. What? Lay claim to a Confession made in direct Oppofition to the Men of your Principles? You fay, if any Consubstantiality is to be found in that Creed, it is the Specifick, not Individual. And what if it were? Would that give you any claim to the Nicene Confeffion? Are God and his Creatures Confubftantial, of the fame rank, fort, kind, or Species? You are forc'd to have recourse to a Figurative Senfe, which Pretence I have obviated above. You are fo kind to the Querift, as to be willing to fuppofe and believe, that He is not Ignorant of the true and only Senfe of the word ououoios; meaning thereby the Specifick Senfe. In return, I'll be so just to you, as to fay, that you understand the word very right: And yet the Nicene Fathers did not teach a meerly Specifick Confubftantiality. The word soos expreffes their Senfe; but not their whole Senfe, in that Article. It expresses an Equality of Nature, and fignifies that the Son is as truly Equal in Nature to the Father, as one Man is Equal to another; or any individual Equal to another Individual of the fame Sort or Species. And this was chiefly to be infifted on against the Arians, who denied fuch Equality, making the Son a Creature. Wherefore the true Reafon, to use Dr. Cudworth's Words, only mutatis mutandis, why the Nicene Fathers laid so great a ftrefs

Hh3

ftrèfs upon the μościov, was not because this alone was fufficient to make Father and Son one God; but becaufe They could not be fo without it. *Ouoso the Son must be, or He could not be God at all, in the ftrict Sense; and yet if He was barely ouorios, like as one Human Perfon is to another, the two would be two Gods. And therefore the Nicene Fathers, not content to lay only that the Son is ὁμούσιος, infert likewife, God of God, Light of Light, Begotten, &c. and, of the Subftance of the Father; and this They are known to have declared over and over, to be without any division: All which taken together expreffes a great deal more than pocios would do alone; and are, as it were, fo many qualifying Claufes, on purpose to prevent any fuch Mifconftruction and Mifapprehenfion, as the word might otherwife be liable to. The good Fathers, like wife Men, at once maintain❜d the Equality of Nature,

Hi Tres, quia Unius Subftantia funt, Unum funt; & Summe unum fint, ubi nulla Naturarum, nulla eft diverfitas Voluntatum. Si autem Natura Unum effent, & Confenfione non effent, non Summa unum effent: Si vero Natura difpares effent, unum non effent. Hi ergo Tres, qui Unum funt propter ineftabilem Conjunctionem Deitatis, qua ineffabiliter Copulantur, Unus Deus eft. Aug. Contr. Maxim. 1. 2. p. 698,

This is very full to our purpose; and, by the way, may show, how far St. Auftin was from Sabellianifm, which fome have weakly pretended to charge Him with. But there are many Paffages in this Piece againft Maximin, one of his very lateft Pieces, full against Sabellianifm, as well as against Arianifm. I may just remark, that there is a deal of difference between Unius Subftantia, and Una Subftantia. Two Men are Unius ejufdemque Subftantia, not una SubAtantia. But the three Persons are not only unius Subftantiæ, but una Subftantia, The modern Senfe of Consubstantial rakes in Both.

which oμios expreffes, and the Unity of the Godhead too. Guarding equally against Ari. anifm, and Tritheifm, They took all prudent care to preferve the Co-equality of the two Perfons, without dividing the Subftance, which was what They intended. The learned Doctor * reprefents this Matter fomewhat crudely. He observes upon the Words in the Nicene Creed (féla ἐκ τῶ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τετέσιν ἐκ ὃ ἐσίας τε πα· Tpos) that the Son was not Himfelf that individual Subftance, from which He was begotten. This He has fo worded, that individual Subftance, with Him, can only fignify individual Hypoftafis, or Perfon: And it is very true, that the Son is not that Perfon, from whom, or, of whom, He proceeded: But the Subftance might be undivided, notwithstanding; which is all that any Catholick means by individual Subftance. But their meaning, He says, was; He was produced, not from any other Subftance (as Man was formed from the Duft of the Earth) but after an ineffable manner, from the Subftance of the Father only. Here He leaves out the principal Thing, which the Arians afferted, and which the Catholicks guarded against, viz. Not from Nothing, not icone övtwr. If therefore the Son, according to the Nicene Fathers, was not from any other Substance, befides the Father's, nor from nothing; it is very plain that (unless They supposed a Division of Substance, which They abfolutely reject) They fuppofed the Son to be of the * Reply, p. 35. Hh 4 fame

fame undivided, or individual Substance with the Father. As to the Suppofition of his being produced from any other Subftance (as Adam was form'd from the Duft of the Earth) there was very little occafion to guard against it: The Notion is, in it felf, too filly for any Man to own. The Arians themselves (against whom the Creed was contriv'd) never pretended it, but exprefly difown'd it: Their noted Tenet was, that the Son was the first Thing made. The Nicene Fathers defign'd, chiefly, to guard against the Suppofition of the Son's being from nothing, which was what the Arians infifted upon; They and the Catholicks equally believing it ridiculous to imagine any Substance to have been firft made; and then the Son to have been made out of it. Wherefore, I humbly conceive, the true Reasons why the Nicene Fathers were fo very particular in the Words, τετέσιν ἐκ τῆς ἐσίας τε πατρὸς, were, † firft, to fignify that They understood Generation in a proper, and not figurative Sense; as the Arians did: And fecondly withal to ‡ fecure the divine Unity. For, if the Son were, ab extra, and independent of the Father; the Alliance, the

• Memorant Filium Dei neque ex aliqua fubjacente materia genitum effe, quia per eum creata, omnia fint. Hilar. p. 832.

+ Vid. Bull Def. F. N. p. 114, 115. Ei di in T 0 in póroç, ὡς φὸς γνήσιος λεχθείη ἂν εἰκότως ἢ ἐκ τῆς ἐσίας το Θεό ψός. Ath. p. 118. + Εξ αὐτῷ ἀληθῶς γεγέννης Θεὸς ἐκ Θεό, Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ἐκ Θεῖ ἀλη. θινοῦ; οὐκ ἔξωθεν ὢν, ἀλλὰ ἐκ τ' αὐτοῦ ἐσίας. Epiphan. p. 610.

Οὐχ ὡς ἀρχὴ ἑτέρα καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὑφεςώς, εδ' ἔξωθεν ταύτης γεγονώς, ἵνα μὴ τῇ ἑτερότητα, διαρχία γίνεται. Athanaf. Orat. 4. p. 617. Oidiaries o 'yes. & jap for invende. Orat. 3. p. 553.

Rela