we acknowledge Him to be right, but no farther.

IN

N Defence of the Doctor, you appeal to his very numerous, and, as you fay, plain Quotations from the antient Authors. And this, you promife before-hand, will be made further evident to all learned and unprejudic'd Perfons, as foon as Dr. Whitby's Obfervations on Bishop Bull's Defenf. Fid. Nic. appear in the World. As to the Doctor's pretended plain Quotations, from the antient Authors, They have not plainly, nor at all determin'd against the Co-eternity and Confubftantiality of the Son, the Points in Question; and therefore can do the Doctor no Service: But, on the contrary, the Ante-Nicene Writers, in general, have determin'd plainly against Him, as to the main of his Doctrine, wherein He differs from us. In afferting which, I fay no more than the great Athanafius told the Arians long ago, and it is Fact, that all the Writers before Them, of any Repute or Judgment, were directly against Them. .. *We give

46

66

you Demonstration, fays He, that our DoArine has been handed down to us from Fa"thers to Fathers. But You, Ye Revivers of Judaifm and Difciples of Caiphas, what "Writers can you bring to Father your Tenets? "Not a Man can you name, of any repute for "Senfe or Judgment. All to a Man are against Athanaf. de Decret. Syn. Nic. p. 233.

you,

66

66

you, &c. To the fame purpose fpeaks St Au ftin, in a ftudied Difcourfe, which may be fuppofed to contain his coolest and most serious Thoughts. * All the Catholick Interpreters "of the Old or New Teftament, that I could read, who have wrote before me on the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach, "conformable to Scripture, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost do, by the infeparable Equality of one and the fame Substance, "make up the Unity divine. Here you may obferve the Summ of the † Catholick Doctrine. The fame Homogeneous Subftance; and Infeparability. The firft makes each Hypostasis, res divina; the laft makes all to be una Subftantia, una Summa res, one undivided, or individual, or numerical Substance; one God. This is the Antient Catholick Doctrine; and, I think, of the Schools too; tho' the School men have perplex'd it with innumerable Subtilties. Hilary expreffes it briefly thus.

* Omnes, quos legere potui, qui ante me Scripferunt de Trinitate, quæ eft Deus, divinorum librorum Veterum & Novorum Catholici Tractatores hoc intenderunt fecundum Scripturas docere, quod Pater, & Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus, Unius ejufdemque Subftantia infeparabili æqualitate divinam infinuent Unitatem. Aug. Trin. 1. 1. c. 3. p. 753.

+ I shall add another Paffage of St. Austin, to explain his Senfe more clearly.

Trinitas proper Trinitatem Perfonarum, & Unus Deus propter infeparabilem Divinitatem, ficut Unus Omnipotens propter infeparabilem Omnipotentiam. Ita ut etiam cum de fingulis quæritur, unufquifque eorum & Deus & Omnipotens effe refpondeatur; cum vero de omnibus fimul, non Tres Dii, vel Tres Omnipotentes, fed unus Deus Omnipotens: Tanta ineft in Tribus infeparabilis Unitas, quæ fic fe Voluit prædicari. Auguft. in Civit. Dei, 1, 11. c. 24.

Nature

Natura indiffimilis atque infeparabilis Unitas This, I fay, is the Doctrine; Confute it, if you please, or if you can: In the mean while however, let us honestly own the Fact. But to proceed.

There were many Writings extant in the Times of Athanafius and Austin, which have not come down to us; and therefore their Testimonies, in the Cafe, are of the greater force. I might mention other Catholicks, about that time, who appealed to Antiquity, with all the Affurance and Freedom Imaginable. But the most remarkable Inftance to our purpose is, that when in the Time of Theodofius, the Arians were prefs'd by the Catholicks in dispute, and fairly challeng'd to refer the matter in Controverly to the concurring Judgment of the Writers before Them, and to put it upon that Issue; the Arians declined it, and durst not abide the Trial. See the Story, at large, in *Socrates and † Sozomen. So dull were the Catholicks at that Time, nay, fo unthinking were the Arians too, that They could not perceive, what is now fo clear to the Doctor; that the gene. rality of Writers, before the Council of Nice, were on the Arian fide: But one Party was confident, and the other fufpected, at least, that the contrary was true.

t

But I need not take this indirect way of confuting the Doctor's Affertion; tho' it affords us a very strong Prefumption, and is of much

Lib. 5. c. 10.

+ Lib. 7. c. 12.

greater

greater Weight and Authority than the single Judgment of any of the Moderns: Many of the Ante-Nicene Writings, by the good Providence of God, are yet extant, and can speak for Themselves; Befides that the incomparable Bishop Bull has unanswerably defended Them, and vindicated Them from all fuch Exceptions as appeared to have any Shadow of Truth or Probability in Them. To fhow you how little Reason the Doctor, or your Self, hath to boast of the Ante-Nicene Writers, as favourable to your Cause, I fhall here fet down several Pofitions in which the Doctor and You run manifeftly counter to the whole Stream of Antiquity.

1. That the Son is not Consubstantial with God the Father. You are directly oppofite to all Antiquity in This your leading Pofition, on which the Reft hang, and on which the Controversy turns. This is very clear from the Testimonies collected by Bishop Bull, and from what additional Observations I have made under the last Query.

2. That the Son is not Co-eternal with the Father. Confubftantiality implies Co-eternity: Befides that the afore-mention'd learned Prelate, has given us numerous direct Teftimonies for it from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, above Twenty of Them; not one of any Note plainly contradicting Them. These two main Points being determin'd against you, the rest are of lefs moment. Yet I cannot find that the Antients

agreed with you in your other inferior Pofitions, which you bring in as under-props to your Scheme.

3. That, God, is a relative Word, Dies and Deóns fignifying not Substance but Dominion, and Authority. This is directly *contrary to all Catholick Antiquity, a very few Instances excepted.

4. That God the Father only was God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. This Pofition I have shown to be contrary to the Sentiments of the Ante Nicene Writers.

5. That the Titles of one, only, &c. are exclufive of the Son. This alfo I have shown, in these Papers, to be directly contrary to the Judgment of the Antients.

6. That the Son had not diftinct worship paid Him till after his Refurrection. This, in the Senfe wherein you understand it, is not true; nor agreeable to the Sentiments of the Antient Church.

See Fiddes, Vol. 1. p. 375, &c. and what I have obferv'd above, p. 85. Nothing more common than Jeong for divine Nature (as Denims alfo for the Human) in Ecclefiaftical Writers. I shall point to a few Inftances only out of many.

Melito apud Cav. Hift. Lit. Vol. 2. p. 33. Grabe Spicileg. Vol. 2. p. 245. Hippolyt. Vol. 1. p. 226. Vol. 2. p. 24. Origen Contr. Celf. p. 342. 404. Cyrill. Hierofol, Catech. 11. p. 142. Cyril. Alex. Thefaur. p. 232. Dial. 1. de Trin. p. 405. Damafc. de Orth. Fid. 1. 3. c. FT.

N. B. There is, in firictness, fome difference between To Ister, and Deons (tho' the latter is often used for the former) fuch nearly as between Concrete, and Abftra&; but fill Fróns refers to Nature and Subftance (as sòs also generally does) not Dominion. Abftra& Names of Substances are not very common indeed, (See Lock, H. U. 1. 3. c. 8.)but here there was a neceffity for it.

7. That