studied confusion upon this argument; as if the word consubstantial must either be understood in his sense of "bare similitude," or else in a tritheistic or Sabellian sense. There is a middle sense, which is neither tritheism nor Sabellianism; and yet means more than a "bare similitude," viz. an equality of nature. Oμoooos does not express the whole sense of the Nicene Fathers, though they could not express it so well without it. And therefore, that it might not be interpreted of a specific consubstantiality, they added the qualifying clauses, as it were, of" God of God, Light of Light, begotten," &c. and "of the substance of the Father:" which they declared over and over again, to be " without any di"vision." So they secured the equality of nature, and the unity of the Godhead too. But of this see Dr. Waterland's First Defence, p. 461, &c. Bull, D.F.N. sect. ii. c. 1. Second Defence, p. 12. After all then, this is an old Arian artifice, revived by our author. But catholics never talk so crudely, as of dividing a substance (which they expressly teach cannot be divided) into two persons, or that the Son is a part of the substance of the Father; but that the whole divine nature which is originally in the Father, and of none, is derivatively in the Son, of, or from the Father. We pretend not to have either words or 66 "Causabatur impia illa et inquieta hominum factio [viz. Arii sectatores] To μoooo nunc Sabellianismo patrocinari; nunc, "contraria plane ratione, partitionem divinæ essentiæ statuere; "nunc denique substantiam aliquam inducere (proh nuga!) et "Patre et Filio priorem, cujus deinde Pater et Filius ex æquo "participes fierent." Bull, Def. F. Nic. p. 25. What the Nicene Fathers meant by that term, the bishop shews in the next [26.] page. ideas adequate to this great subject; but let not those however reject it upon this account, who have nothing to offer in its place, but what is evidently absurd and contradictious. The author would have us believe, [p. 29.] that Athanasius k, and the council of Antioch, under Jovian, understood the Nicene Fathers to mean by the term consubstantial, “ that "there was no similitude betwixt the Son and those "creatures which were made by him; but that he was altogether like unto the Father only who be 66 66 66 gat him." And can this be of any service to his cause? nay, does it not overthrow it? "There is "no similitude betwixt him and the creatures." Very right, there can be none, but a moral likeness before-mentioned. "But he is begotten of or from "the substance of the Father, and as to his sub"stance, like unto the Father," says the council under Jovian. Then he must have the divine substance, which is and can be but one; or else he cannot be said to be like the Father, Kar' ovcíav, as to his substance. But suppose this council of Antioch i How full of contradiction the Arian scheme is, may be seen, in one view, at the end of Mr. Welchman's Examination of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine, p. 30. * He has curtailed Athanasius's words, and thereby falsified his meaning. Athanasius never owned what this writer aims at : his declared sentiment (p. 756.) is, that μións alone does not express the consubstantiality, as understood in the Nicene Creed, but that s ovoías must be added to it, to make out the full sense. Καὶ αὐτοαληθὴς ὁμοιότης ἦν τοῦ γεννήσαντος, οὐχ ὡς ἑτεροφυής, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν, χωριζόμενός ἐστι τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ υἱὸς ἀδιαίρετος ὑπάρχει, ὥς ἐστι τὸ ἀπαύγασμα πρὸς τὸ φῶς. De Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. p. 759. edit. Bened. His citing a small part of this period, without referring to page or edition, raised a suspicion of some unfair dealing, and now it is brought to light. under Jovian meant it in this author's low sense of likeness, yet may not a 1Semiarian synod misrepresent the sense of an orthodox council, to make it seem more favourable to their own sentiments? Well, but whatever becomes of the meaning, our author has still more to offer in disparagement of the term consubstantial. It was rejected before the council of Nice by the council of Antioch, and after it by a council of the eastern and western church held at Ariminum and Seleucia. Yes, the Antiochian Fathers rejected the term, because Paul of Samosata, whose heresy they were assembled to condemn, explained it in a wicked and absurd sense TM. At the same time they held the same doctrine with the Nicene Fathers ". In the other councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, (one for the western, and the other for the eastern church,) the incomparably greater number of bishops were catholic, but were imposed on, by fair words and specious pretences, to drop the term, thinking the faith might be secure without it. They soon found their own mistake, and the fraud of the adversary; they asked pardon of their brethren for the one, they loudly complained of the other; "they went about every where protesting by the body of Christ, and all that is sacred in "the church, that they suspected no evil in their "creed; they thought the sense had agreed with "the words, and that men had not meant one thing 66 1 Bull. Def. F. Nic. sect. ii. p. 28. Cave's Historia Literaria, vol. i. p. 155. Berriman's Historical Account, p. 241. m Berriman's Historical Account, p. 147, &c. Waterland's First Defence, p. 465. n Dr. Waterland's Second Defence, p. 144. and First Defence, p. 465. 66 "in their hearts, and uttered another with their lips," &c. But though this affair has been set in a just light a hundred times over, and this very author exposed for mentioning it P; still he goes on to quote it in defence of a cause, upon which it can reflect nothing but disgrace and infamy. The concessions of such known friends to the catholic faith, as Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Hilary of Poictiers, cannot surely hurt it. The Fathers perhaps might not always express themselves with perfect accuracy or sufficient caution:-or it is an easy thing to quote detached and unconnected sentences out of any writer, which may appear to contradict his avowed doctrine. However, in this case, we want not these apologies; for, after all, what do these Fathers say? Alexander's notions are adjusted in Dr. Waterland's Second Defence, and the whole passage there given us both in Greek and English: in the latter it runs thus: "These in"ventors of idle tales (the Arians) pretend, that we, "who reject their impious and unscriptural blasphemy against Christ, as being from nothing, as"sert two unbegotten Beings: alleging very ignorantly, that one of these two we must of necessity "hold; either that he (Christ) is from nothing, or "that there must be two unbegotten Beings. Unthinking men! not to consider the great distance "there is between the unbegotten Father, and the things created by him out of nothing, (as well ra 66 66 66 66 • St. Jerom apud Bingham, book VI. chap. iii. sect. 10. where may be seen an account of the whole transaction: or in Dr. Waterland's First Defence, p. 468. or in the Importance, &c. p. 330. or in Berriman, p. 228, &c. P First Defence, p. 469. "tional as irrational,) betwixt which two, comes in "the intermediate only begotten nature, of God the 66 Word, by whom the Father made all things out of "nothing." What advantage now can this passage give our author, that he should triumph so much with it, p. 33, and again p. 77.? What does Alexander mean more by his middle nature, than the orthodox do now by their second Person? who, as they contend, is not of himself, but begotten. A writer who asserts the coeternity of the Son, and inseparability with the Father, his necessary existence and natural divinity, can hold no middle nature in our author's low sense of the word, or in any sense which the catholic side need be afraid of". Pass we on to Athanasius, who [p. 35.] is introduced saying, that "in the creation "of the world, the Son acted in obedience to the "will and commands of God the Father; and that "he, the Son, being the sender of the Holy Ghost, "was greater than he." And what catholic writer will not say the same now? Only they will take this obedience of the Son in a sound, not servile sense; which we must undoubtedly exclude from the Persons of the Trinity. The Son's fulfilling the Father's will in this great work of creation is a good argument for his being strictly and properly God ; for who else was equal to the mighty task, or able 4 Second Defence, p. 48. Ibid. First Defence, p. 144. Farther Defence, p. 123. This notion amongst the ancients was grounded chiefly upon two passages in the Psalms, [Psalm xxxiii. 9. cxlviii. 5.] and the first chapter of Genesis. Dr. Waterland's Sermons, p. 72. "Nihil creatum aut serviens in Trinitate credamus." Gennadius, quoted by our author, p. 128. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν T Tpiádi. De Greg. Symb. |