DEAUX's Connex. V. 1. p. 179. GEDDES's Effay on PLATO, p. 132, &c. JENKINS's Reafon. of Chriftian. V. 1. p. 224. TERTUL. adver. HERMOG. p. 282. CUDWORTH's Intell. Syft. ch. 4. p. 197. Ibid. 220. ARIST. Met. lib. 1. Syftem of Mahom. Theol. p. 33. SALE's Difc. prefixed to the Tranfla. of the Koran. BARROW's Expof. of Cr. p. 111, 112. AUGUS. de civ. Dei. 11. 9. WOLL. Comp. Theo. cap. 3. p. 23. See STILLINGFLEET's Orig. Sac. B. 3. ch. 3. Bp. BRAMHALL'S Controversy with HOBBES, on this subject. Mr. BRYANT's Treatife, and Dr. PRIESTLY on philofophical neceffity. Humorous Dial. between PHILAU, and TIMOTH. dedicated to Abp. SHELDON, p. 87, &c. WHISTON'S Difc. on the Hift. of the Creat. See Bp. LowTH's note at Ifai. ch. 45. v. 7. See GROTIUS, lib. 1. p. 18. de veri.

Page 30. (g) eternal effence itself] We cannot poffibly be too cautious, too referved, too general in our doctrines from the pulpit, or the prefs, refpecting the Holy Trinity, or the particular Divinity of our Saviour. Infidelity is always on the watch, and will take advantage in a moment of the leaft ambiguous, or inaccurate,or obfcure expreffion, which may fall from our lips, or our pens. Some of the Fathers themselves, and indeed of our own most able writers, fometimes fpeak unguardedly, and inconfiftently on thefe fubjects. For the fake of perfpicuity and diftinction, as it should feem, it has been faid, the Father is felf-existent, and the

Son,

Son, or Holy Ghost, neceffarily exiftent; which is in fact a diftinction without a difference. The Three Perfons, as conftituting One God, are equally selfexiftent. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft are the Deity; and every idea of originality, derivation, &c. evaporates in the confideration of a Trinity in Unity. "Though it has pleafed God to "reprefent the relation which the Second Perfon "in the Trinity bears to the First, under the analogy of that of a Son to a Father, yet we "must not think that this analogy holds in every refpect, or that every circumftance of human

paternity and filiation is applicable to the Di"vine." These are the words of a late worthy and learned writer, who expreffes himself still more happily in the following paffage. "It is impoffible "for God himself to reveal these things to fuch "kind of beings as we are, any other way than by "accommodating himself to our conceptions, and "ufing fuch terms as bear fome analogy to things "known and understood by us." "The Father, (fays another able advocate for the doctrine of the Trinity,) is first in our conception of God; and "therefore when we fpeak of the Almighty, or "the eternal God, and the reafon is the fame for "the only God, we primarily and principally "mean the Father, tacitly including the other two "Perfons. *

It is well obferved by Mr. Parkhurst, that the first, second, and third perfons in the Trinity are merely theological, not fcriptural terms. Divin. &c. of Chrift. p. 35.

But

But is the language of the author last quoted of a piece with this fentence, when he talks of felfexistence, or unoriginateness, as the peculiar mode of the existence of the First Perfon? Or is the writer first quoted perfectly confiftent with himself, when he concurs in fentiment with those whom he calls "the moft zealous defenders of the Nicene faith;" and agrees with all the antient writes, who, he tells us, "hold the Son to be in fome fenfe inferior "to the Father, and that even with regard to his "divine nature?" "The Father, fays he, is the "first Person, the Son, the second. The Father

they all reprefent as unbegotten, receiving his "being and attributes from none but himself; the "Son they teach to be God of God; begotten of "the Father, and receiving his nature, &c, from "the Father, but yet coeternal and coequal with "the Father, receiving from him from all eternity "the fame intire and undivided effence." Is not this language inaccurate, incongruous, and felf-contradictory?" Many paffages both in antient and modern writers are exceptionable on the fame grounds. To select a few. The learned Bp. Bull gives, in his own words, the following fentiment of Petavius. Nam, ut rette Petavius, non poteft Filius a Patre gigni, nifi ab eo naturam ac deitatem accipit, &c. St. Hillary, as quoted by the fame author, fays in libro de Synodis, Patri fubjectus eft Filius, ut auctori. Rufinus in his treatife on the

Creed,

Creed, calls the Father the head of the Son. Cum ipfe Filius fit omnium caput, ipfius tamen caput est Pater. And Damafcenus in his tract de fide orthodoxa has the following words ; παντα εν οσα εχει ο υιος και And-St. το πνεύμα εκ το πατρος έχει, και αυτό το είναι.

Austin, argute pro more fuo, according to Bp. Bull's remark, observes, in a discourse on a paffage in St. Matthew's gofpel, (if I mistake not,) as follows: Infinuatur nobis in Patre autoritas, in Filio nativitas, in Spiritu Sancto communitas, in tribus æqualitas. It is Bp. Bull's own remark, unicum effe in Trinitate principium, principii expers, nempe Patrem, dogma fuiffe in primava ecclefia tam fixum,ut in quadrigefimo nono Canonum, qui dicuntur Apoftolorum, damnetur quifquis baptizaverit in tres principii expertes; us TerIs avaрxxs. Under the fame article the learned Prelate obferves, that the antient Fathers, and those of the Nicene Council, and Athanafius himself never fcrupled to give the appellation or title of the one only God to the Father. Let the reader take his own words. Denique veteres Deum Patrem, eo quod principium, caufa, auctor, et fons Filii fit, unum illum et Jolum Deum appellare non funt veriti. Sic enim ipfi Patres Nicæni exordiuntur fuum fymbolum ; q. v. Et magnus Athanafius, quo nemo melius intellexit Synodi Nicana mentem, &c, concedit Patrem jure dici povov Stov, μονον θεον, ότι μόνος αγένητος, και μόνος πηγη θεοτητος, quod folus ingenitus fit, &c. Propter Patrem vivit Filius, fays St. Ambrofe, as quoted by Bishop Pearfon, quod ex Patre Filius eft; propter Patrem, quod ERUCTATUM

eft

eft verbum ex Patris corde, quod a Patre proceffit, quod ex paterno generatus eft UTERO, &c. Dr. Fiddes gives us a paffage from St. Hilary, in which that Father afferts, that "our making the Son God is "no objection against the Father's being the one "God. He is the one God, fays he, because the "only underived God." Surely Bp. Pearson himfelf, who in the main is wonderfully exact, does not speak in the moft proper terms, when he tells us, that "the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift is "originally God, as not receiving his eternal

66

66

being from any other; that therefore it neceffa

rily followeth, that Jesus Christ, who is certain"ly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting "in the Divine Nature originally of himself; and "confequently, it having been already proved, "that he is truly and properly the eternal God, "that he must be understood to have the Godhead "communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally but originally God; that in him

(Chrift) is the fame fulness of the Godhead, "more than which the Father cannot have, but

yet that in that perfect and abfolute equality "there is notwithstanding this disparity, &c. &c." To adduce only one example more; even the judicious Hooker is off his guard in the following paffage. "Seeing therefore the Father alone is origi

nally that Deity which Christ originally is not, (for Chrift is God by being of God, light

"by