pofed to Mofes, who was faithful, as a fervant, over his master's houfe; now were Chrift Son of God, only as mediator, or as a fuperior creature, he could, as fuch, be faithful only, as a fervant. In short, the Scripture has declared, that "tho' he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he fuffer'd:" but it would be worfe than tautology, to fay, that tho' he was Son only, as God's righteous fervant, or the higheft of his creatures, yet he learn'd obedience. No rational man can defire plainer hints of Chrift being the Son of God, as to his divine nature: and therefore no countenance is given by our embracing the common doctrine of his eternal generation, to fupport any man in vending fuch an unfcriptural scheme, as that is, which fuppofes Chrift to be called the Son of God, on account of the divine Logos having united itself to a created Logos, or a glo rious fuperangelic Spirit.

I had fome thoughts, when I first wrote, to have confider'd Mr. Watts's detail of the fentiments of the primitive Chriftian writers, relating to the complex perfon of Chrift; but having been engaged fince, in a different branch of the Trinitarian controverfy, and confidering that Mr. Watts's account was only founded on furmises and conjectures, I have, on fecond thoughts, laid afide my defign of examining it; for I believe fuch an attempt would not anfwer the labor and pains it would require. I fhall only take this opportunity of ftating, as briefly as is poffible, the fentiments of the ancient Chriftian writers, who lived before the rife of Arianifm, as to this head.

The ancients all to a man maintain'd, that

* Heb. v. 8.

Chrift was of the fame fubftance with the Father, and was invested with the same divine perfections. This has been proved to a demonstration by the learned and accurate Bishop Bull, y who has never been fairly anfwer'd, and, I am fatisfied, never will; and I am forry that fo many, who have never taken the pains to fift the matter, have fpoke fo flightly of his admirable performance, because they find the adverfaries ftill make pretences to the fuffrage of antiquity; for if the proof from antiquity must be fet by, because oppofite fides plead it; it would follow, that Scripture it felf fhould be laid afide, becaufe all parties make pretences to patronage from it.

Tho the ancients all held the Son to be the fame God with the Father, yet they did not make him to be the fame perfon, but declared him to be a diftinct perfon from him. This may appear, in the general, from Irenaeus having made it herefy in Simon Magus, to make the Father and the Son the fame perfon, as well as from Juftin's cenfure, which he pafs'd on fuch as made the Son the Father, or reprefented him as only a divine power. The fame thing may be gather'd from the books of Tertullian against Praxeas, of Hippolytus against Noetus, and of Novatian against the Sabellians. This laft, as well as Origen, and Dennis of Alexandria, were fo warm for the Son's real perfonality, that, to maintain it, they used expreffions, which were thought

y Vid. Defenf. Fid. Nicen. Sect. iii, iv. See alfo Dr. Waterland's first and fecond vindications of Chrift's Divinity, under Queries, ii. viii.

The reader may fee the paffages of the ancients, as to these points, briefly collected in my true Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 184, 185. 194. 208, 209. 276, 277, 278. 306. 308. 318, 319.323,324. 330, 331. 334. 352.

2 See the following treatile, p. 27, 28. al. 31.

to

to verge, too much, towards a contrary extreme. Some have been thought not to have exprefs'd the doctrine of the Son's perfonality ftrong enough, as, for inftance, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria; but this furmife is entirely groundless.

a

part

As to the eternal generation of the Son of God, there is not an exact uniformity in the fentiments of the ancients; the greatest b of the writers we have remaining, have declared in favor of this, in the fulleft manner: fo that it is a great mistake, to think this is a point derived from the schoolmen.

с

Some of the ancient writers made the fonfhip of Chrift to confift in his coming forth from the Father, bearing his commiffion, to create the

a This has been proved, with great judgment, by the learned Bishop Bull. Defenf. Fid. Nic. Sect. iii. cap. 5.. 10.

b See the paffages of the ancients on this head, in the following treatife, p. 90, 91, 92. and in my true Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 181, 182, 183.

It has been thought, I abufed Mr. Watts when I faid, p. 16. al. 18. he infinuated, the notion of the eternal generation and proceffion of the Son and the Spirit, was derived from the popifh fchoolmen; but whether I have or no, will best appear from his own words, "the common explication of the eternal generation of the Son, and eternal proceffion of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, authorized in the Latin churches, was derived down to us thro' the popish schoolmen, tho' 'tis now become a part of the establish'd or orthodox faith, in most of the proteftant churches.Their account of the generation and proceffion, that is, of the manner of the derivation of the Word and Spirit from the Father, feems to me, at prefent, to be a fet of words, of which I can attain no ideas, invented by subtil and metaphyfical schoolmen." Differt. P. II. p. 156, 157. Here Mr. Watts makes the generation and proceffion, to be fynonymous to what he calls the manner of the derivation of the Word and Spirit from the Father, fo plainly, that there is no pretence for a charge of doing him injuftice. If he owns elsewhere, p. 75. that feveral ancients fpoke of the eternal generation of the Son, I can only fay, I am forry he is inconfiftent with himself.

e 2

world:

world: they argued, that d he who could fill up this commiffion, muft be God; and this may very well account for their speaking of the Son, under the highest characters, at the fame time, that they confider'd him, as acting, fome way, in a minifterial capacity.

From hence it appears, that there is no neceffity, in order to folve what fome call the jarring expreffions of the ancients, to fuppofe, they might have a confused notion, without understanding it, of a complex Logos, or of a fuper-angelic Spirit being united to the divine Word, and fupplying in Chrift, the place of a human foul. There is not the leaft ground to conclude, e they ever dreamed of fuch an hypothefis. They very often argued that Chrift must have a true human body, and a rational foul, but the generality of them never fuppo fed, this foul to be the firft of creatures, for time and rank: nay it cannot be proved, that any

of the ancients held the foul of Chrift to be

See my true Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p 183.

Mr. Watts (Diff. P.II. p. 104.) quoted Mr. Baxter, as faying that Juftin, Tatian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Dionyfius, &c. held, that Chrift had a fuperangelic Spirit, united to his divine nature, before his incarnation. As this is falfe in fact, I concluded from hence, (p. 93. al. 90.) that Mr. Baxter was an incompetent judge of the matter, and express'd my wonder, that if the matter had been fo plain, no body should ever have stumbled upon it. Now what I cenfured in Mr. Baxter was, his faying, that the ancients held this fcheme, but I never faid the scheme itself had never been embraced, for I long ago knew that Dr. More, Bishop Fowler, Bishop Gaftrel and Mr. Fleming, believed it. As to the learned and modeft writer of the fecond letter to the author of the hiftory of Montanism, tho' he has a favourable opinion of this hypothefis, yet he never faid the ancients generally embraced it, only he has quoted Origen, in favour of the pre-existence of Chrift's human foul, and he thinks a paffage of Hermas may be interpreted this way. See P. 43----46.

pre

pre-exiftent, except, perhaps, Hermas, and certainly Origen. The hypothefis of a fuper-angelic Spirit, fupplying in Chrift, the place of a human foul, was the figment of Arius and his followers; and the worthy confeffors, who opposed them, did it by fhewing, that what they call'd a created Word, was in reality no creature, but the true God, one with the Father in nature, however diftinct from him in perfon. They never fuppofed that in Chrift there was at created Word, begot in a way different from other creatures, which was to him inftead of an human foul, but they held that Chrift, as man, had a true body and a rational foul, and that the Word, who affumed into union with himself the human nature, was above the rank of Angels, or of Archangels, being, indeed, the true and fupreme God, who brought them, and all other things into being.

The ante-nicene writers, have used expreffions, fometimes, which ftate f the union of the two natures, the divine and the human, in the perfon

* Εἰς ἰατρός έσιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γενετὸς καὶ ἀγένητο, εν σαρκὶ γενόμενα Θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ καὶ cu Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεῖ· πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθὴς, Ιησές Χρισός, ὁ κύρια v. Ignat. Epift. ad Ephef. cap. 7. p. 14. Ed. Oxon.

Διὰ λογ8 Θεξ σαρκοποιηθείς Ιησές Χριςός σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ ἅιμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔχει. Juftin. Apol. I. p. 128, 129. Ed. Oxon. p. 96. Ed. Thirlby.

Chriftus Jefus, Dei filius, propter eminentiffimam erga figmen tum fuum dilectionem eam quae effet in virgine generationem fuftinuit, ipfe per fe hominem adunans Deo, & paffus fub Pontio Pilato, & refurgens, & in claritate receptus, in gloria venturus falvator eorum qui falvantur, & judex eorum qui judicantur, & mittens in ignem aeternum transfiguratores veritatis, & contemptores Patris fui & adventus ejus. Irenaeus. Lib. III. c. 4. P. 178. Ed. Benedict. Ηνωσεν δυν ἐσ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπο τῷ Θεῷ, ὅνκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μεταχεῖν ἢ ἀφθαρσίας. Idem, ibid.

ἢ ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ

cap. 18. p. 211.

of