tion, in every view of it, unintelligible; and so far he is certainly in the right; for error is not to be advanced either by truth, or perspicuity. In pursuance of this plan, he confounds the Consubstantialists (that is, the catholic christians) with the Sabellians, and the Sabellians with the Consubstantialists, in the following manner-" The Consubstantialists and the "Sabellians (says he) agree exactly in their opinion "of the indivisible unity of the substance of God be"tween the three Persons of the Trinity !." Which is impossible to be true: for if the Sabellians agreed so exactly in this matter with the Catholics, they must then have maintained that there were three Persons in the Trinity, between whom this indivisible union might subsist; but on the contrary, they affirmed the whole Godhead to be μια υποςασις, oι μονοπρο owtos", only ONE hypostasis or Person.

m

Again : "When the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," says he," are declared by the Athanasians to be the "same one undivided Person in reality; I own I do "not see any difference between that and the doctrine "of Sabeliius"." First, he makes the Sabellians assert three Persons in the Godhead, who never allowed more than one; then, makes the Athanasians allow

! Page 27, 28.

m See Epiph. v. 2. p. 513.

n Page 42, 43.

but one Person, who always asserted three; and then solemnly declares-that he sees no difference between their doctrines! This very precipitate gentleman ought to have reflected seriously on the notorious falsities advanced in his book, of which I could produce many more instances. If he should condescend to do this, at my earnest request, I would then recommend to him a comparison between Rev. ii. 2. and xxi. 8. being willing to hope, that those texts, when laid together and considered, may have such an influence upon his heart, as to induce him to alter his style, and favour us with a piece rather more chastised and correct, if ever he should appear again in the capacity of an author.

I cannot observe in a more proper place, that he threatens the world with a treatise, whence it will

appear, that that part of our Ecclesiastical History, "which relates to the dispute between the Arians "and Athanasians, is little better than an heap of "falsities and forgeries:" For I apprehend, that the forgeries above-mentioned will enable any reader to conceive a proper idea of an Arian turned Historian. If these are not sufficient, let him attentively peruse the author's whole book; and if that will not do, let me beseech him to consider that account the

• Page 40.

most

most excellent and learned bishop Bull has given of Christoph. Sandius's Nucleus Historiæ Ecclesiastica -copiosissima fabularum & contradictionum acces→ sione locupletatus P-and I am persuaded he will then be upon his guard against every historical tract which comes from that quarter.

I shall now remark (and in truth I am almost tired of remarking) his rashness in censuring what, it is plain, he has not properly considered. The celebrated. and learned Dr. Stebbing, in a quotation this author has made from him, says, "How three, as distinct in "point of agency, as Peter, James, and John, "should by one common principle of existence, be 66 one eternal God; this exceeds the measure of our "finite understandings to comprehend: yet it is not "therefore a contradiction; yet it is not therefore “incredible." Which observation, though common, is yet very pious, well expressed, and worthy of a Christian Divine. But, says our author, "If the "Doctor had but inserted any one noun-substantive "after the adjective three, which he, as all the Atha"nasians carefully do, has disingenuously omitted, "and without which the whole sentence is nonsense *,

P Def. Fid. Nic. Procem. § 6. See also Pages 69, 121, 229, & alibi sparsim.—The Irenicum Irenicorum is another history of the same complexion with Sandius.

* He elsewhere says of this expression that it is-nonsense artfully cloathing itself, that it may look something like sense.

She could not have avoided seeing the contradiction,

as well as pointing it out to others 4." The noun. substantive inserted by the church upon this occasion, is the word Persons: and the most free and dispassionate enquirer can perceive no contradiction in saying, that the blessed Trinity are three Persons, and one God; three and one, in different respects; three, in respect of their personality, and one in respect of their divine nature; or, as Dr. Stebbing has worded it, their common principle of existence. To say, either that they are three Persons and one Person, or, three Gods and one God, would be to suppose them three and one, in one and the same respect, and would indeed amount to a contradiction in terms; which is the very thing this author has made of it: " for (adds every one, who is not out of his senses, must see, that affirming three eternal Gods to be one "eternal God, is a contradiction." Very true: and I hope no man that is in his senses, when writing upon such a subject as this, would dare to make a contradiction where he did not find one. But I must press this point a little farther: for it is observable, that the very same omission of the noun-substantive, and where the very same sense is expressed too,

he)

66

9 P: 34, 35,

Ibid.

occurs

occurs more than once in the inspired writings, εγω και ο πατηρ ΕΝ εσμεν ; and again, Ολοι οι ΤΡΕΙΣ, EN EG, These THREE are ONE-So that this bold accusation of disingenuity, nonsense, and something worse, alledged at first against Dr. Stebbing, will, when carried forwards, be at last fixed upon Him —whose name I dare not mention upon such an occa-sion.

In order to give a proper account of the antidote, and enable the reader, as well as I can, to comprehend the force and propriety of it, it will be requisite to premise a few of the author's principles, as they are to be collected from that part of his book, which precedes what is called in the Title-page-An antidote against all that shall ever appear against the Essay on Spirit.

The author of the Defence then, declares against all the decrees of councils and doctrines of men; advises metaphysical divines to forbear their own comments; and will suffer nothing but clear and express revelation" to determine him with regard to any article of moment. And yet, in express contradiction to all this, the ingredients of his antidote, which is to preclude all future controversies, to deter

t Ibid.

" P. 4, 50, 79.

SP. 3.