comes to the fame with the former. None of these Authors fo understood the Father to be one God, as to exclude the Son from being one God with Him, in Nature, Substance, and Perfection: Nor would they have fcrupled to call Father and Son together, one God; molt of them doing it exprefly, all implicitely.

Origen, another of the Doctor's Authors, refolves the Unity into Communion of Godhead, in the a Paffage cited. ons is the word He ufes; generally, if not conftantly, fignifying Subftance in that very Comment from whence the Citation is taken; agreeably to the most ufual Senfe of eos, in the Ante-Nicene Writers and of Divinitas, in Tertullian; and of eórnS in other Authors.

Lactantius, the twelfth of the Number, would have spoken fully to our purpofe, in the very d Chapter referr'd to, if the Doctor would have fuffered Him. He would have told us (however unhappy He may otherwise be in his Explications of That Mystery) that Father and Son are one Subftance, and one God; fo far, at leaft, contrary to what the learned Do

a Comm. in Joh. p. 46. b See ibid. p. 35. 133.154.228. 262. c Epift. Synod. Antioch. Labb. Tom. 1. p. 847. Eufebius Comm. in Pfalm. p. 323. 592. É. in Ifa. p. 375. 382.551. Atha. naf. paffim. Epiphan. Hæref. 64. c. 8.

d Una utrique mens, unus Spiritus, una Subftantia eft; fed Ille quafi exuberans Fons eft; Hic tanquam defluens ex eo Rivus: Ille tanquam Sol; Hic quafi Radius à Sole porrectus.-Ad utramque Perfonam referens intulit, Prater me non eft Deus; cum poffit dicere, prater nos: fed Fas non erat plurali numero Separationem Tante Neceffitudinis fieri. 1. 4. c. 29. p. 403, 404,

ctor cites him for. There remains only Eufebius, whofe Expreffions are bold and free; and fo far favourable to the Doctor, as they are different from thofe of the Catholicks of his own Time, or of the Times before, and after. If they are really to be understood, so as to exclude the Son from being one God with the Father, they ungod the Son; and contain plain Arianifm. But, perhaps they may admit of fuch a favourable excufe as, Gelafius tells us, Eufebius, in effect, made for Himself, in respect of any uncautious Expreffions, which, in the warmth of Difpute, or out of his great Zeal against Sabellianifm, had dropp'd from Him: That He did not intend Them in the impious Senfe (of Arius ;) but had only been too careless and negligent in his Expreffions. One may be the more inclined to believe it, fince He admitted, at other Times (as I have obferved above) one God in three Perfons: and elfewhere speaks very Orthodoxly of the Holy undivided Trinity, illuftrating the Equality of the Perfons by a very handfome Similitude. But to return to the Learned Doctor: In the

Clofe of this Article, He has a pcculiar Turn, which fhould be taken notice of. The

* Οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὴν ἀσεβῆ ἐκείνη ἔννοιαν, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἀπεριέργε ἁπλότης, Gelaf. 1. 2. de Syn. Nic. c. 1. p. 11.

† Εἰκὼν δὲ ταῦτα μυσικῆς καὶ παναγίας, ε βασιλικῆς τριάδος, ἡ τὸ υπάρχει και αγενήσε φύσεως ηρτημένη, τῆς Ἡ γινητῶν ἁπάντων οὐσίας τὰ σπέρματα, και τὰς λόγους, καὶ τὰς αἰτίας, ἀπειληφε, Orat. de Laud. Conftant. p. 511. Ed. Valeh

Script. Doctr. p. 349.

Scho

Scholaftick Writers, fays He, in later Ages, have put this Matter (meaning the Unity of the Godhead) upon another Foot: That is, different from what Himfelf, and perhaps Eufebius in those Paffages, had put it upon. upon. They have not, it feems, put it upon a real, proper numerical Individuality, as the Learned Do&tor would have had them do. They do not make the Godhead μorogów, one fingle Hypoftafis; which, in the main, is all one with the Sabellian Singularity.

The Reader fhould be told, that thofe Scholaftick Writers are as old as Tertullian, Irenaus, or Athenagoras; which brings it up almost to the middle of the Second Century. So early, at least, Father and Son together have been called, and all along believed to be one God. Let but the Reader understand, and take along with Him, what I have now observed; and I fhall not differ with you about Names. Scholaftick may ftand for Catholick, as I perceive it often does with you alfo, if you think the Catholick Faith may, under that borrow'd Name, be more fafely, or more fuccessfully attacked. The Scholaftick Notion then, which has prevailed for Fifteen Centuries at least, is, that Father and Son are one God: Your's, on the other Hand, is, that the Father is one God, and the Son another God: And I am to convince you, if I can, that one God, and another God, make two Gods. You ask me feriously, *whether Herod the great, was not

* Pag. 45.

King of Judea, tho' the Jews (that is, when the Jews) had no King but Cæfar? I answer, He was not: For, Herod the Great had been dead above Thirty Years before; and the Jews had really no King but Cæfar, when they faid fo. However, if there had been one King under another King, there would have been two Kings. The fame I fay for one God under another God; they make two Gods. You ask, next, whether there were more Kings of Perfia than one, tho' the King of Perfia was King of Kings? I fhall not difpute whether, King of Kings, was Titular only to the Kings of Perfia, or whether They had other Kings under Them. I fhall only fay thus: Either the fuppofed Kings of Perfia were Kings of PerJia, or They were not: If They were; then there were more Kings of Perfia than one: If They were not Kings of Perfia; They should not be fo called. To apply this to our prefent purpose, either there are two Authors and Governors of the Universe, that is, two Gods; or there are not: If there are, why do you deny it of Either? If there are not, why do you at firm it of Both?

After all, please to take Notice, that I do not difpute against the notion of one King under another; a petty King under a Supreme. There's no difficulty at all in the Conception of it. But what I infift upon, is this: That a great King and a little King make two Kings; or clic one of Them is no King, contrary to

the

the Suppofition. The fame I fay of a fupreme and a fubordinate God, that They make Two Gods; or elfe, one of Them is no God, contrary to the Suppofition.

TEXTS, proving an Unity of divine Attributes in Father and Son, applied

To the one God.

Thou, even Thou only knowest the Hearts of all the Children of Men, Kings 8.39.

I the Lord fearch the Heart; I try the Reins, Jer. 17. 10.

I am the first, and I am the laft, and befides me there is no God, Ifa. 44. 6. I am A and beginning and the end,

Rev. 1.8.

, the

King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, 1 Tim.

6. 15.

The mighty God, If

İO. 21.

Lord over all, Rom.

10. 12.

H