work, he calls Chrift the form of the Father, defining form, if I understand him right, to be that which explains the being of a thing; or, as he elsewhere fays, that by which God is feen*. At length the absurdity of making Chrift to be the proper reafon, power, or will of God, feems to have ftruck fome of the orthodox christians; and then, having no other refource, they made the doctrine of the divinity of Christ to be a mystery, thinking by that means, to cut off all inquiry and objection. Ruffinus fays, "it is to "be believed that God is the father of his own Son our Lord, and not to be dif .. intus operatur Deus, ficuti dictum. Subflantia autem Dei imago eft, actio, filiufque eft, per quam intelligitur, et quod fit declaratur. Ad Arium, lib. 1. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 298. * Quoniam filius forma eft patris: non autem nune forma effe foris extra fubftantiam intelligitur, neque ut in nobis adjacens fubftantiæ facies, fed fubftantia quædam fubfiftens, in qua apparet et demonftratur quod occultatum et velatum eft in alio. Deus autem ut velatum quiddam eft: nemo enim videt Deum: forma igitur filius, in quo videtur Deus. Ibid. p. 311. 320. "cuffed 66 cuffed. For flaves must not dispute about "the birth of their masters*. Theophylact fays, that " Chrift is the logos of God, but neither the inward 66 logos” (meaning reafon) “ nor the ex"ternal logos" (meaning speech) "nor any thing that can be explained by any property of man, being fomething peculiar "to God +." In this ftate the doctrine of the generation of the Son now refts, equally incapable of being understood, or defended. We shall the lefs wonder at the extreme abfurdity of the above quotations from the Fathers, when we confider what wretched * Credendus eft ergo Deus effe pater unici filii fui domini noftri, non difcutiendus. Neque enim fas eft fervo de natalibus domini difputare. In Symbol, p. 172, + Λογος εσιν, εκ έργον, εδε κλισμα. διτλς δε ονλος το λόγε, ο μεν γαρ εσιν ενδιάθετος, ον και μη λεγοντες εχομεν, φημι δη την τε λέγειν δυναμιν. καὶ κοιμώμενος γαρ τις και μη λεγων, όμως έχει τον λόγον εν αύλω κειμενον, και την δυναμιν εκ απέβαλεν. ο μεν εν εσιν ενδιαθετός, ο δε προφορικός, αν και δια των χειλέων προφερομέν, την τε λέγειν δύναμιν τα ενδιαθεία, και ενίος κειμένε, εις ενέργειαν προαγονίες· διτίε τοινυν ουλος τε λόγε, εδεῖερος τελών αρμοζει επι τε υι8 τ8 θες, ετε γας προφορι κος, είτε ενδιαθείος εσιν ο λόγος τε θεε. εκεινοι μεν γαρ των φυσικῶν καὶ καθ ημας, ο δε τις παρος λογος υπερ φυσιν ων, εχ υποβαλλείαι τοις κατω τεχνολογημᾶσιν. In John, cap. I. Opera, vol. I. p. 557. G 2 meta metaphyficians both they and the Platonifts before them, and indeed all the philofophers of antiquity, were; and that the idea of a proper personification was not difficult, after it had been agreed that effence and power were the fame thing, which I have shewn to be the language of the Platonists ; and the fame occurs in fome of the christian Fathers. Thus Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Father is a fimple act or energy *" Maxentius alfo fays, that "with respect to God, who is of an impaffible and incor 66 ruptible nature, nature and will are the "fame thing." M. Victorinus fays, that power and fubftance are the fame things " in God+." * Actus vel efficacia Pater. De Trinitate, lib. 2. Opera, vol. 2. p. 386. + Hæc quæ dicis compofitæ et paffibili naturæ funt propria, impaffibili autem et incompofitæ non eft aliud naturaliter aliud voluntarie quidpiam facere, fed prorfus unum atque idipfum eft, quia ibi non aliud eft natura, aliud voluntas, fed natura voluntas eft, et voluntas natura. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 527. Simul enim et filius, et in patre, et pater in filio: una ergo potentia, hoc eft, una fubstantia exiftit, ibi enim potentia E The difference, however, between these things was perceived by Eunomius; for M. Caleca fays, that he made the divine effence and operation to be different things, and that he blamed the orthodox for confounding them*. Palamas alfo afferted, that the divine effence and operation were dif ferent things; but on this account his antagonist M. Caleca calls him a polytheist +. potentia, fubftantia: non enim aliud potentia, aliud subftantia. Idem ergo ipfum eft et patri et filio. Ad Arium, lib. 1. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 300. * Επισηναι εκ εν αυθα χρη, πως Ευνομιας διηρει μεν απο της εσιας την ενεργειαν, ως εγκλημα δε, την ταυληλα τοις ορθοδοξοις προεφερε. Combefis, vol. 2. p. 34. + Εκ τελων δηλον, ότι την ενέργειαν, ην διακρίνεσθαι της εσίας λεγεσι ταύτην καὶ θεοτητα και ακλιτον ομολογεσι. Ibid. p. 3. Ως ει τις πολλας θεοτητας παραδέξαιτο, τετον ανάγκη και πολλές θεός ομολογειν. Ibid. p. 40. The Defence of the preceding Doctrine by the Fathers. T is no wonder that this ftrange doctrine IT of the generation of the Son from the attributes of the Father fhould bring the orthodox chriftians into fome difficulties, and expose their scheme to objections; or that, in order to defend it, they should have recourse to a variety of expedients. Accordingly, it appears, by the labour which they bestowed upon this fubject, that the doctrine was, in fact, much objected to, and that, in their own opinion, it required to be well explained and defended. The first thing which they had to guard against was the diminution of the fubftance of the Father by the production of a Son from himself; and the next thing was to prevent the entire separation of the Son from the Father; for then there would have been two two Gods, which the Gnoftics, who |