4. He included all the three Persons in the Monad, or the one God, as I have shown elsewhere: which is making all together one God supreme, directly contrary to the notion of a natural superiority of dominion. The Reply u has some few things to say of this author; which had been long ago obviated by Bishop Bull, and are since answered in my Second Defence. I might observe too, how Dionysius particularly guards y against the notion of the Son's being created by the Father, which is the only thing that could be a foundation of natural dominion.

259. DIONYSIUS of Rome.

This excellent writer is no less full and plain against the hypothesis of natural superiority of dominion.

1. By declaring it blasphemy to suppose the Son a creature 2, understanding creature in the common sense of precarious, or temporal existence.

2. By teaching the necessary existence of God the Son, inasmuch as the Father never was, never could be without him a.

3. By including all the three Persons in the one true Godhead. Some little objections of the Reply to the genuineness of the piece are abundantly answered in my Second Defence c.

260. GREGORY of Neocæsarea.

This celebrated Father is full and express, in his fa

t Sermons, vol. ii. p. 189. Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 48.

y Ἐὰν δέ τις τῶν συκοφαντῶν ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἁπάντων ποιητὴν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ δημιουργὸν εἶπον, οἴηταί με καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγειν, ἀκουσάτω μου πρότερον πατέρα φήσαντος αὐτὸν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς προσγέγραπται. Apud Athan. p. 257.

z First Defence, vol. i. p. 101, 259.

317.

a See Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 257.

Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 109,

Sermons, vol. ii. p. 146.

b Sermons, vol. ii. p. 187. Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 110. c Vol. iii. p. 48, 317.

mous creed, against any thing created, or servient, in the Trinity; asserting one undivided glory and dominion of all the three Persons. There have been suspicions raised against the genuineness of this creed; but such as have not been thought of sufficient weight by any of the best critics, against the express testimonies of Ruffinus and Gregory Nyssen, confirmed, in some measure, by Nazianzene.

Besides what Gregory has in his creed, he has some considerable things to the same purpose in another work, written about the year 239, and which is of unquestioned authority. The titles and epithets he therein gives to the Son are, Creator and Governor of all things, really, or naturally, united to the Fathers, the most perfect living Wordh; the last expressions very like to some in his creed, and a probable argument of their having the same author.

270. ANTIOCHIAN Fathers.

The synodical epistle of these Fathers gives to God the Son such titles as belong to the one true God. But as they have nothing express upon our present question on either side, it may be sufficient to have mentioned them, and to refer to what has been said of them.

290. Methodius is express against the Son's being a creature, and for eternal generation and immutable existencek tenets utterly repugnant to such a natural infe

:

« Οὔτε οὖν κτιστὸν, ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι, &c. Τριὰς τελείᾳ, δόξῃ, καὶ ἀϊδιότητι, καὶ βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένη, μηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριομένη. Fabric. ed. p. 224. • Nazianz. Orat. xxxvii. p. 609. Orat. xl. p. 668.

§ Πάντων δημιουργῷ καὶ κυβερνήτη.

* Πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀτεχνῶς ἡνωμένος.

* Τελειότατον καὶ ζῶντα, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πρώτου νοῦ Λόγον ἔμψυχον. Bull. D. F. p. 154.

i Reply, p. 18, 20, 64, 148, 445. Bull. D. F. p. 158, 199, 263. My Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 138.

k First Defence, vol. i. p. 102, 287, 288. Answer to Dr. Whitby, vol. ii. p. 234. Bull. D. F. p. 164, 200.

riority as is pretended. What the Reply had to object is answered in another place m.

300. Theognostus is also express against the Son's being a creature, and for his consubstantiality". What the Reply has to object had been abundantly before answered by Bishop Bull.

303. As to Arnobius, little has been pleaded on either side from him. He has some strong expressions that seem to carry the supremacy very high: and he has other expressions very full for the true and essential divinity of God the Son. Bishop Bull P, and Le Nourry 9, may be consulted in respect of both the parts, and how to make them consistent.

318. Lactantius has been largely considered both in the Reply and in my Second Defence. He makes Father and Son one Gods. He makes both one substance t He describes him under the characters of the one true

God u. He supposes both to be one object of worship . He joins the Son with the Father in the same dominion, and exempts the Son from the necessity of obeying y. These tenets are perfectly repugnant to natural superiority of dominion in the Father only. Nevertheless, he has some crude expressions, scarce excusable in a catechumen of his abilities.

322. ALEXANDER of Alexandria.

This venerable Patriarch, defender of the Catholic faith against his Presbyter Arius, shows in his two letters the Church's doctrine in his time. He could not be a friend to any natural subjection of God the Son. For,

1 Reply, p. 290, 334.

m Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 275. Bull. D. F. p. 166.

1. He asserts his coeternity, and inseparability with the Father.

2. He maintains his necessary existence.

3. His natural divinity, or Godhead, of and from the Father.

4. His high or supreme Godhead. Proofs of these particulars may be seen in my Second Defence z; where also objections are answered, such as had been offered in the Reply a. Hitherto we have not found one man full and express for the natural government, or natural subjection among the Persons of the sacred Trinity. Several have been here cited, who were expressly against it: and the rest implicitly condemn it; while none, either directly or so much as consequentially, maintain it. But now I take leave to name a man who did maintain it, and in pretty plain and broad terms.

323. ARIUS.

Arius, with his confederates, in a letter to Alexander, delivers it for doctrine, that God the Father rules over God the Son, as being his God, and having existed before him. Here may Dr. Clarke and his followers see the first lines of their doctrine; which was afterwards filled up and completed by Etius and Eunomius.

These were the authors and founders of that natural supremacy of dominion over God the Son, that natural subjection and servitude of two of the divine Persons, which these gentlemen are so eagerly contending for; and which, with as groundless and shameless a confidence as I ever knew, they presume to father upon the sacred

* Vol. iii. p. 50. Sermons, vol. ii. p. 146. First Defence, vol. i. p. 103. Reply, p. 57, 73, 291, 355, 451, 498.

2.

b"

Αρχει γὰρ αὐτοῦ, ὡς Θεὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὤν. Ap. Athan. de Synod vol. ii. p. 730.

Phœbadius well expresses the Arian doctrine of natural subjection, at the same time distinguishing it from the Catholic doctrine of filial ministration. Subjectum Patri Filium, non Patris et Filii nomine, ut Sancta et Catholica dicit Ecclesia, sed creaturæ conditione, profitemini. Phabad. B. P. P tom. v. p. 303.

Scriptures, upon the ancient creeds, and upon the venerable Doctors of the Church; against plain fact, against the fullest and clearest evidence to the contrary. I shall proceed a little lower, to show what reception this Arian conceit met with.

I shall say nothing of Eusebius of Cæsarea, of this time, a doubtful man, and of whom it is difficult to determine in the whole c.

340. ATHANASIUS.

Athanasius, about this time, began to write in the cause against Arius. His Exposition of Faith is of uncertain date and so I may place it any where from the time he entered the list against the Arians. His doctrine is well known from his many works. I shall cite but one short sentence of his, speaking of God the Son. He is "Ruler supreme, of Ruler supreme: for whatsoever "things the Father bears rule and dominion over, over "the same does the Son also rule and govern d."

348. CYRIL of Jerusalem.

The elder Cyril was always looked upon as a very moderate man, and not so vehement against the Arians as many others. Yet let us hear how expressly and fully he condemns the doctrine of natural subjection in the Trinity, owning none other but voluntary and chosen.

с

"All things," says he, "are servants of his," (of the Father); "but his only Son and his own holy Spirit are

exempt from the all things: and all these servants do, "by the one Son, in the Holy Ghost, serve the Master."

d

See my Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 142 to 155.

Παντοκράτορα ἐκ παντοκράτορος· πάντων γὰρ ὧν ἄρχει ὁ πατὴρ καὶ κρατεῖ, ἄρxu nai ngarsî naì i viós. Athan. Expos. Fid. vol. i. p. 99.

• Οὐκ ἀναγκαστὴν ὑπακοὴν ἔχων, ἀλλ ̓ αὐτοπροαίρετον εὐπείθειαν· οὐ γὰρ δοῦλός ἐστι, ἵνα ἀνάγκῃ ὑποταγῇ· ἀλλὰ υἱός ἐστιν, ἵνα προαιρέσει καὶ φιλοστοργίᾳ πεισθῇ. Cyrill. Cat. xv. n. 30. p. 240.

* Τὰ σύμπαντα μὲν δοῦλα αὐτοῦ· εἷς δὲ αὐτοῦ μόνος υἱὸς, καὶ ἓν τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ἐκτὸς τούτων πάντων, καὶ τὰ σύμπαντα δοῦλα, διὰ τὸ ἑνὸς υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι δουλεύει τῷ δεσπότῃ. Ibid. Cat. viii. p. 123.