wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

Chap. IV. Homooujians^ Anti-Sahellianljls. 605thofe Nicene bifhops themfelves^ whs did underfiand heft of any the fecrets ofthe Arian faciion, and which way it Jhou'd efpecially be oppugned^ aimed atvothing elfe in thiir confeffion of faith, but only to eftablifh that eq;idlity of effeiice,dignity and eternity between them. This does the word Homooufios itfelfdeclare, it fignifying rather equality, than S INGU LA RIT 2" of ejence, aswe have before floewsd. And the like do thofe other pajfages in the fame decree ;as. That there was no time when the Son was not ; and. That be was not madeof nothing, nor of a different hypoftafis, or effence. Thus does Petavitisclearly confefs, that this lame fingularity of numerical eflence was noc ^{-ferted by the Nicene council,- nor the moft ancient fathers, but only aaequality or famenefs of generical efience ; or elfe that the Father and Sonagreedonly in one common eflence or fubftance of the Godhead, that is,,the eternal and uncreated nature.But the truth of this will more fully appear from thefe following particulars: Firft, Becaufe thefe orthodox Anti-arian fathers did all of them zealouflycondemn Sabellianifm, the doctrine whereof is no other than this,,that there was but one hypojlafts, or Angular individual eflence, of theFather, Son, and Holy Ghoft ; and confequently that they were indeed butthree fcvcral names, or notions, or modes, of one and the felf-fame thing..From whence fuch abfurditics as thefe would follow, that the Father's begettingthe Son was nothing but one name, notion, or mode of the Deity'sbegetting another ; or elfe the fime Deity, under one notion, begettingitfelf under another notion. And wh^^n again the Son, or Word, and notthe Father, is faid to have been incarnated, and to have fufi-ered death forus upon the crofs, that it was nothing but a mere logical notion or mode of"the Deity, that was incarnate and fuffered, or elfe the whole Deity under oneparticular notion or mode only. But fliould it be averred notwithltandinothatthis trinity, which we now fpeak of, was not a trinity of mere namesand notions, as that of the Sabellians, but of diftindl hypcftafes or perfonsthen muft it needs follow- (fince every Angular eflTence is an hypofiajts, according:o the lenfe of the ancient fathers) that there was not a trinity only,but a quaternity oi hypofiafes, in the Deity. Which is a thing, that none ofthofe fathers ever drcam'd ot.Again, the word Homooufios, as was before intimated by Pi?/rtwai,was neverufed by Greek writers otherwifc than to fignify the agreement of things,numerically differing from one another in fome common nature or univerfaleflTence, or their having a generical unity or identity, of which fundry inftancesmight be given. Nor indeed is it likely, that the Greek tonguefhould have any name for that, wi.ich neither is a thing in nature, nor talisivnder human conception, viz. fcveral things having one and the fime AngulartflTcnce. And accordingly St. Bajil interprets the force of this word'thus, oi\ion^{i TYi'J Tc.\jTorr,rx tk 'J7ror!x.(Ti'j3; i yi.^ a'Jrij ti' £—iv i^si/Tu ouo^cTim dw'Iri^ov Iri^if' That it plainly takes away the famenefs of hypofl:afis, that isJrl-^f'f'o^Q,offtngukr numerical effence(this being tbat^ which the ancient fathers meant fio^o^ioin^-^Itjii. Optr.j