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

Chap. IV. TP'ord Homooufios. 607nor d\\i)r^io'j»is the fame thing alfo with that equality, which fome of the ancient fa-^'^''^^^'thers fo much infift upon againft Arius •, namely, an equality of nature, ope'r^/'as the Son and Father are both of them alike God, that eflence of theGodhead (which is common to all the three perfons) being, as all otherefl"ences, fuppofed to be indivifible. From which equality itfelf alfo doesit appear, that they acknowledged no identity of fingular eflence, it beingabfurd to fay, that one and the felf-fame thing is equal to itfelf. Andwith this equality of eflence did fome of thefe orthodox fathers themfelvesimply, that a certain inequality of the hypoflrafes or perfons alfo, in theirmutual relation to one another, might be confiftent. As for example, St, q^^^ e ^Aufiin writing thus againfl: the Arians ; Patris, ergo & Filii, & Spiritus Arian. c. i8.Sanili, etiamfi difparcm cogitant potefiatem, naturam fallem confiteantur aqua- [P- 45 1«lem : Though they conceive the power of the Father^ Son, and Holy Ghojt, to J"*"' ^^^'•^^'^'^he unequal, yet let thein^ for all that, confefs their nature at leaft to be equal.And St. Bajil likewife ; Though the Son he in order fecond to the Father, ,. Cont. Eu.becaufe produced by him, and in dignity alfo, (forafmuch as the Father "om. [P. 79ris the caufe and principle of his being) yet is he not, for all that, fecond'^°^' {/ ;.in nature, becaufe there is one diviftity in them both. And that this was in-p ^^'^[5,,']deed the meaning, both of the Nicene fathers, and o^ Athanaftus, in theirHomooujiotes, their co-efl'entiality or confubftantiality, and co-equality of theSon with the Father, namely, their having both the fame common efl'enceof the Godhead -, or that the Son was no creature, as Arius contended, buttruly God or uncreated likewife, will appear undeniably from many paffagesin Athanafius, of which we fhall here mention only fome few. In hiscpiftle concerning the Nicene council, he tells us, how the Eufebian faftionfubfcribed the form of that council, though afterward they recanted itTrayruu t£ UTrol^axJ/^xi/lwu h-Kiyi3.'\ict:i >t, oi uTsfi hya-tbtov tbtoij toij pnu.fxt T>)J IfViaf, x) Ta OfJi.0Vllt(TU.X ri TTOin^mfxx, y.rni ru]i yivnTUJ tViu o Ts 0£ou i/o;' aAA» yevvr.jji.x >£, T»ij t? Tralcof aVi'af o >^oyoq.All the reft fubfcrihing, the Eufehianifts themfelves fubfcribed alfo to thefe verywords, which they now find fault with ; / jnean, of the effence or fubftancCyand co-efjenlial or confubjiantial, and that the Son is no creature or fa£lure, orany of the things made, but the genuine cff-fpring of the effence or fubftance ofthe Father. Afterwards he declarcth, how the Nicene council at firft intendedto have made ufe only of fcripture words and phrafcs, ao'ainfl: theArians •, rr!? o-yvo'oK j3«Ao/-