the errours of the Arians, affirm (in the contrary extreme) the Son and Holy Spirit to be (individually with the Father) the Self-exiftent Being: Thefe, feeming in Words to magnify the Name of the Son and Holy Spirit, in reality take away their very Existence; and fo fall unawares into Sabellianifm (which is the fame with Socinianifm.)

See above, 18 and 21.

Notes on § 23.

It is fo manifeftly declared in Scripture,(faith No. vatian,) that He [viz. Chrift] is God; that moft of the hereticks, ftruck with the Greatnefs and Truth of his Divinity, and extending bis Honour even too far, have dared to fpeak of him not as of the Son, but as of God the Father God the Father bimfelf.

Ufque adeò Hunc manifeftum eft in Scripturis effe Deum tradi, ut plerique hereticorum, divinitatis ipfius magnitudine & veritate commoti, ultra modum extendentes honores ejus, aufiffent non filium, fed ipfum Deum patrem promere & pu tare. De Trin. cap. 18.

Εςω δέ τινας, ὡς ἐν πλήθει Tis&orTwv x Sexoutiev diaτις βάντων καὶ δεχομλύων δια owviar. Sia Tu Teπ'ETHαν απολίθες - σωτῆρα είναι + ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεόν τ' ἔτι γε ἡμᾶς τοιέτον, δι πειθόμενοι αὐτῷ λέγοντι, ὁ πατὴς ὁ πέμε Las μs Melwr usb. contr.. Celf. lib. 8.

And Origen: Be it fo (faith he,) that fome among us, (as in fuch amultitude of Believers there cannot but be diverfity of opinions,) are fo rafo ως το imagin our Saviour to be Himself the Supreme God over all; Yet WE do not So, who believe his own words, My Father which fent me is greater than I. And Athanafius: Was Ἤ ἐκ απεσάλη μαι από το

U 3

πα

not the Son (faith he) fent by the Father: He him. felfevery where declares [π: And He likewife promised to fend the Spirit, the Comforter, and did fend him according to his Promife. But now they who run the Three Perfons into One, de

feroy (as much as in them lies) both the Generation [of the Son,] and the Miffion of the Son and Spirit.]

1

Ἔστις 7 αὐτὸν πατέρα λέξια

you areñ줕 à év eyμa ovakov lide πράγμα πολυώνυμον 2 και μίαν υπόςασιν ὑπὸ τ διῶν προσηγοριῶν ἐκφωνεμλύτι· * τοιῖτιν ἡμεῖς ἐν τῇ μερίδι 'Ifaiav Távok. Monachis fuis, epift. 73.

And Bafil: If any one (faith he) affirms the fame, Perfon, to be the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: imagining One Being under diferent Names, and One real Subfiftence under three diftinct Denominations; we rank such a perfon among the fews. And again: Unto this very Time, in all their Letters, They fail not to a nathematize and expell out of the Churches the hated Name of Arius: But with Marcellus, who has introduced the directly contrary impiety, and profanely ta ken away the very Exiftence of the Divinity of the Only-begotten Son, and abufed the fignification ofthe word [Aoy] (interpreting it of the internal Rea

الله

Μέχρι να ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς R ἐπιςέλλεσι, γράμμασι, * μ Susavuμor "Açesov ävw xỳ xälw avadeμali Cortes x 7 Enxanἀναθεματίζοντες κὶ ἐκκλησιῶν εξορίζοντες κ διαλείπεσι· Μαρκέλλῳ ἢ πω και διάμερον ἐκείνῳ ἢ ἀσέβειαν ἐπιδειξαμέ νῳ, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἢ ὕπαρξιν τ * μονολυᾶς θεότηλΘ ἀσεβή cat, nanãs FF dóys wyσηγορίαν ἐκδεξαμῳ, ἐδεμίαν μέμψιν ἐπενεγκόντες φαίνον). Ad Athanaf. epift. 52.

Son of the Father) with This man they seem to find no fault at all.

And

And Nazianzen, fpeaking fomewhere of the fame Opinions, calls thofe men [ayav iedodoExs], over-Orthodox, who by affirming the Son and Holy Spirit to be Self-exiftent, did confequently either destroy their original Perfonality, that is, their Existence; or introduce Three co-ordinate Self-exiftent Perfons, that is, [Toaexiara Plurality of Gods.

The Learned Bifbop Bull, fpeaking of the Antient Writers before the Council of Nice: Though perhaps (faith he) they do Somewhat differ from the Divinity of the Schools; on which, Petavius lays too much stress in thefe myfteries.

And again: He [viz. Petavius] thought every thing jejune and poor, that was not exactly agreeable to the Divinity of the Schools, itSelf more truly in most things jejune and poor.

Quanquam fortafsè a Scholafticâ Theologia, (cui plus æquo in his myfteriis tribuit Petavius,) nonnihil difcrepent. Sect. 2. cap. 13, § 1.

Scilicet illi jejuna & enecta funt, quæcunque Scholafticæ Theologiæ, in plerifque vere jejunæ & enectæ, ad amuffim non exiguntur. Sect. 3, cap. 9, $8.

last

S XXIV.

The Word, God, in the New Testament, fometimes fignifies the Perfon of the Son. See the Texts, N 533-545.

The reason why the Son in the New Teftament is fometimes ftiled God, is not fo much upon Account of his metaphyfical Subftance, how Divine foever; as of his relative Attributes and divine Authority over Vs. See the Texts, No 533- -54ĥ

See beneath, § 51.

Notes on $25.

So far indeed as the Argument holds good from Authority to Substance, fo far the Inferences are juft, which in the School-divinity are drawn concerning the Subftance of the Son. But the Scripture it felf, being written as a Rule of Life; neither in This, nor in any Other matter, ever mentions any metaphyfical Notions, but only Moral Doctrines, and Natural Truths fo far as they happen to be connected with Moral.

The word, God, when spoken of the Father himfelf, is never intended in Scripture to exprefs Philofophically his abstract metaphyfical Attributes; but to raise in us a Notion of his Attributes relative to Us, bis Supreme Dominion, Authority, Power, Justice, Goodness, &c.

4

And hence (I fuppofe) it is, that the Holy Ghoft in the New Teftament is never exprefly ftiled God; because whatever be his real metaphyfical Subftance, yet, in the divine Oeconomy, he is no where reprefented as fitting upon a Throne, or exercising Supreme Dominion, or judging the World; but always as execu

ting the Will of the Father and the Son, in the Adminiftration of the Government of the Church of God; According to That of our Saviour, Job. xvi, 13, He fhall not fpeak of himself; but whatsoever be fball bear, That fall be fpeak. See below, $32.

$ XXVI.

By the Operation of the Son, the Father both made and governs the World. See the Texts, N° 545, —553, 642, 652.

Notes on S 26.

There is hardly any Doctrine, wherein all the Antient Christian Writers do fo univerfally, fo clearly, and fo diftinctly agree; as in This. And therefore I fhall mention but one or two Authors.