thers did of the Son. Your report of every one of them is utterly false, (as shall be shown in a proper place;) but were it true, what is it to the Nicene Fathers, who were wiser men than to countenance any such detestable doctrine? What they meant by ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, is very plain from the Creed itself, and has been fully explained and vindicated1 from misconstructions. The sum of what they intended was, that the Son was not from nothing, nor from any extraneous substance, but from the substance of the Father; as light streaming out from light, but without division, or abscission, or diminution; being eternally in the Father, as well as from him, and inseparably included with him. Indeed, the Arians invidiously charged them with making the Son a part of the Father's substancem, as you also are pleased to charge me. Which is to me an argument that my notion is still the same with that of the Nicene Fathers, and yours not different from that of the Arians. 3. Where do find that the Council ever supposes you the generation of the Son to be an act, in your sense of act? The Council has not a word about act, that I know of: nor, if it had, would it be at all to your purpose. The question about act will depend upon another question, 1 See my Defence, vol. i. p. 328, 329. Bull. D. F. p. 114. Athanas. p. 224, 395. Eusebius of Nicomedia may be an evidence of the meaning of ix rñs Bias, (while he is endeavouring to expose it,) by what he uses as parallel, and what as opposite to it. Parallel. 'Eğ avroũ, år' avтoũ, ŵs äv μépos avτοῦ, ἢ ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας τῆς οὐσίας. Ἔχειν τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως. Opposite. Τῆς φύσεως τῆς ἀγεννήτε μὴ μετέχων. Ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ γεγονός. Βουλήματι γενόμενος. Euseb. Nicomed. apud Theod. lib. i. cap. 6. p. 24. Some of these expressions which Eusebius uses as parallel, are put invidiously and injuriously. But still, we may see what in the main was the Catholic sense of the phrase, through the false colours whereby he hoped to expose it. m See Arius's Letter. Apud Theod. E. H. lib. i. cap. 5. And Eusebius of Nicomedia. Theod. lib. i. cap. 6. viz. Whether the Council intended an eternal or temporal generation? Upon either supposition, I can allow the generation to be an act; but not in your novel sense of act, in both cases. Suppose it eternal, then the generation was an act; but in the ancient sense of act and necessary agency as the sun was supposed to act in generating rays; fountains to act in generating streams; the mind to act in generating thoughts; trees to act in generating branches; bodies to act in generating effluvia, vapours, or perfumes; the earth to act in generating fruits; and the like. No matter whether, in strictness, these kinds of generations should be called acts: they are such as the ancients called so; and when we are interpreting the ancients, we must attend to the ancient sense of words. Necessary acts were then called acts; and therefore no wonder if eternal generation was looked upon as an eternal act. But, suppose the Council intended only temporal generation, (as some have thought, and it seems not im→ probable,) then I readily allow it to be an act, even in your sense of choice; as much as was the Son's generation of the blessed Virgin. But then I insist upon it, that the Nicene Fathers maintained the Son's eternal and necessary existence, antecedent to the generation; which is a doctrine opposite to yours, as light to darkness. 4. In the last place, where do you find one word of the Father's alone supremacy of dominion in the Nicene decrees? This is purely a fiction of your own, without the least shadow of a reason for it. Do you find the Nicene Fathers telling you of a sovereign producing to himself a subject, or of a lord and master producing a servant? Is it subject of sovereign, very subject of very sovereign; instead of God of God, very God of very God? You will see that one is of the other, not that one is above the other. If the Father be there called Almighty, (TavтoxpάTwp,) yet they understood the Son to be Almighty of Almighty, (παντοκράτωρ ἐκ παντοκράτορος ",) as well as God of God: n Παντοκράτορα ἐκ παντοκράτορος. πάντων γὰρ, ὧν ἄρχει ὁ πατὴς καὶ κρατεί, ägxes nai ngarsî naì ô viós. Athan. Expos. Fid, p. 99. all perfections common to both, only not coordinately; the Father having his perfections from none, the Son having the same perfections from him; equal in every thing, but still deriving that very equality. If this be the au evTía you speak of, the thing is true, but not pertinent; if you mean more, it may be pertinent, but it is not true; nor have you a syllable of proof for it, either in Scripture or antiquity. We have now seen how well you have acquitted yourself in the consequential way, under this article; not quite so well, I think, as before in your charge upon me as denying the Father's divinity. I must do you the justice to say, that you can sometimes manage an argument to greater advantage: or if you could not, I should have made it my resolution not to exchange a word more with you. How you came to perform so much below yourself, here in your Preface, I know not; except it be, that your passions were more deeply engaged in this part, than in the rest. To proceed. 4. A fourth head of complaint is, that I have "talked "about calling in question a fundamental article of religion." I have so; and, I pray, where is the offence of so doing? Your first reason against it lies in these words; 66 as if the first article of the Creed was not as fundamen"tal as the second." But who are they that set the first and second articles at variance with each other, when for fourteen centuries, and more, they have agreed most amicably together? Do not be surprised, when I tell you, that you are the men that impugn the first article, by impugning the second. I have learned from the first article, that God is a Father: which, in the sense of the Christian Church, and according to the intention of the compilers of the Creeds, supposes him to have a Son P; a coeternal, • See my Sermons, p. 198. Bull. Judic. Eccl. p. 36, &c. Stillingfleet, Trin. cap. ix. p. 229. • Πατέρα τὸν θεὸν ὀνομάσαμεν, ἵνα ἅμα τῷ νοεῖν πατέρα, νοήσωμεν καὶ τὸν υἱόν, υἱ yùg xai xargòs ovdiv isı μetažù tãv övτwv. Cyril. Hieros. p. 114. Bened. Ecelesiæ coequal, and coessential Son, of the same nature with him. And I readily submit the case to the pious and considerate reader to judge of, whether I, who, among the other perfections and glories of the Father, reckon this for one, that he has always had with him so great and so divine a Son 9, equal to himself; or you, who, out of the abundance of your metaphysics, contrive to rob him of that superlative glory, show the greater zeal and concern for the honour of God the Father. The Pagans, I know, thought it very much for the honour of their supreme God, to have other Gods under him. This they looked upon as an article of grandeur, and the very top of magnificence. But Christians never talked at this rate: they thought it most for the honour of the supreme Father to have a Son, equal to him in nature, and one God with him. You go on to another exception: "As if an article's be66 ing fundamental, was a reason why-even the most "learned and able men should by no means be suffered "to consider or inquire what this fundamental article is.” You have very little reason to use this kind of talk with me; because, when I first entered into conference with you, my whole design and desire was, to have the thing amicably debated betwixt us, and with equal freedom on both sides, in a private way, without troubling the press. And though the article I am defending be a fundamental one, yet it was never such to me, till I had well examined Ecclesiæ fides solum verum Deum Patrem confessa, confitetur et Christum. Hilar. p. 1006. Bened. Patrem cum audis, Filii intellige Patrem, qui filius supradicta sit imago substantiæ. Ruffin. Symb. p. 540. • Δόξα υἱοῦ ἐκ τιμῆς πατρὸς αὐτοῦ· καὶ πάλιν υἱοῦ δοξαζομένου, μεγάλως τιμᾶται ¿ TOU TOCOÚTY TATǹg åyadoũ. Cyril. Hieros. p. 87. Bened. Σέβομέν γε τὸν πατέρα, θαυμάζοντες αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱὸν, λόγον, καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ ἀλή θειαν, καὶ δικαιοσύνην, καὶ πάντα ἅπερ εἶναι μεμαθήκαμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν γενηθέντα ἀπὸ τοῦ τοιούτε πατρός. Orig. contr. Cels. p. 387. Honor Filii dignitas sit Paterna; et gloriosus auctor sit, ex quo is, qui tali gloria sit dignus, extiterit. Hilar. p. 832. Onatus apud Stob. Eccl. Phys. cap. 3. Plotinus Enn. ii. lib. ix. cap. 9. p. 207. it: nor do I expect it should be such to you, without the like method. However, there is a great deal of difference between settling one's own private faith, and undertaking to publish and propagate the same among others. While a man pretends no farther than to judge for himself, he ought to rest unmolested, to enjoy the freedom of his own private sentiments, wherein others are not concerned. But when he endeavours to draw disciples after him, the case is altered; and it then becomes the common concern of all that have truth at heart, and more especially of those who are the appointed guardians of the Christian faith, to be upon the watch against seducers, and to interpose their seasonable offices to prevent the growth of any dangerous error. There must be some public restraints to hinder conceited men from venting crudities; as well as a just and due regard to the interests of truth, if any man, with sobriety and modesty, has any new thing to offer. Where to fix the true medium between liberty and restraint is not my business here to inquire: I think, our governors in Church and State have already fixed it, beyond all reasonable exception. But to return. Let those learned and able men you speak of consider and examine, that they may find out the truth; and when they have done, defend it. But if the result of their inquiries is the embracing and propagating of errors; be they ever so learned or able, they must be rebuked and reproved for it. What if a learned Jew or a deist, after examining and considering, thinks it right and just to reject, and openly to vilify the Christian revelation? May he not therefore be told that his labours have been ill laid out, and that his infidelity is a very great, a very unpardonable crime? And if another, after inquiry, sets himself publicly to oppose any momentous article of the Christian faith; it is the duty and the business of those that know better, and of those that are in authority, to stand up for the true religion, and to use all proper means for its preservation. What would have become of the |