second century, the prevailing part of the leaders in the church, in opposition to the Sabellian doctrine, adopted the word hypostasis to express the doctrine of the Trinity by, which was not till then used in that doctrine: and to appear as far contrary to Sabellianism as possible, they made it to signify substance, which is the direct opposite to that opinion they wanted to destroy. But the difficulty which this arbitrary definition involved the cause in soon appeared, from the necessity of guarding against the other extreme: for the term substance led immediately into the notion of three Beings or Gods. In the heat of opposition, a general council was called, where it was determined, that the term substance, as applied to the Trinity, should not signify a distinct being, or separate substance, but something more than a name; that is, something real or substantial, which afterwards was called subsistence. This was still defining without authority from revelation: but the Latin church, not satisfied with the word hypostasis being applied to the Trinity, brought in the word persona or person, which continues to this day, though as little countenanced from scripture, in this application of it, as the other. The word

* 1f the word person is applied to the Trinity in that sense which it is understood, and applied to finite beings, among whom it always implies a distinct understanding and will, as well as a distinct individual being, and as the persons are multiplied, so are the distinct beings: to assert three persons in Deity in this sense, and yet but one GOD, would be a gross contradiction. Arians take the advantage of this difficulty in the use of the word person, against the orthodox; and the method they take to extricate themselves, only involves them in more difficulties, being liable to the same, and other exceptions. They say, that the divine essence subsists in a different manner in each of the three persons, which is the foundation of their distinct personality or thus, the different manner that each person possesses the divine essence, the one as a Father, the other as a Son, and a third as Holy Ghost, is the foundation of their distinct personality. This certainly implies a difference of personal glory, and can never be

indeed is in our translation of Heb. i. 3. no doubt in conformity to several hundred years custom before. But that hypostasis, the word from which person is taken, has no relation to that subject; and that person is not a proper translation of it, I shall shew when we come to consider that text.

Only allow me to observe here, that the word person, is not applied to any of the divine three in any place of scripture: but for as much as the properties of real being and existence is attributed to each of them, the ancients no doubt thought they might safely use the word hypostasis with the above limitation, and the moderns the word subsistence, which they reckon the import of it so limited and the sum of all that can be said for the use of the word person is, that real personal properties, powers, attributes, and works, are af firmed of each of them, and nothing said that is inconsistent with personality. Though all this should be granted economically; yet it will by no means favor the use that is commonly made of the term; nor make it necessary that it should be used at all, since it is not so used in revelation. hath revealed terms sufficient to express all he designed we should know of him: but if others wil add to these the inventions of men, we must leave them to take their own way.

God

And observe further, that such terms as have been sanctified by men,-received upon their authority, and held sacred in religion, (though only the product of unguarded zeal, and opposition among parties, in which every one adopted such terms as seemed most contrary to the opinions

maintained, but at the expence of the proper Deity of both the Son and Holy Ghost.

they would have condemned) have been of ill consequence, both to such as have believed them, and those who have zealously opposed them. By the former, these terms have been received implicitly, without knowing how they were applicable to the subject; and yet so zealously defended, as often to issue in persecuting to death such as would not follow them in the dark. On the other hand, many of those who opposed the use of those terms, from the wrong application of them, have carried their opposition too far, not distinguishing betwixt the truth as made known in revelation, and as clothed with dark and unmeaning phrases by men. Consequently, the truth being abused by the one, have occasioned the denial of it by the other. To this cause, I refer all the opposition which has been made to the proper divinity of Jesus Christ by those called Arians, and others, which took its rise upon the first application of such terms to the doctrine of the Trinity. Had they restricted their opposition to such innovations, it had been laudable; but the history of one thousand four hundred years shews the case to be otherwise.

Those who have been called the orthodox, have also occasioned endless controversies concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ, by not properly distinguishing betwixt what is said of him in scripture, with relation to his inferior economical character, and the proofs which support his proper Deity. Having accustomed themselves to confound these, Arius, and his followers, took the advantage of their applying the terms which belonged to the official economical character of Christ to the proof of his Deity; and from these, as premises, very justly concluded the arguments of the orthodox weak; and the consequence they drew was, that Jesus Christ was not properly Gop.

The orthodox, instead of mending the fault in their own hypothesis, invented a generation, or begetting of his divine person from all eternity, which rather strengthened than answered the objections of the Arians, since that filiation plainly implied the derivation of his person. For though the generation or begetting be carried into eternity, (which is without authority from scripture) the terms themselves still prove it to have had a beginning.

The premises the Arians build upon are granted by the orthodox: here both are mistaken. The former are right in their conclusion from such premises; but inconsistent with scripture by the mistake in the choice of their premises. The latter. are right in maintaining the proper Deity of Christ; but inconsistent with themselves in the manner they pretend to support their cause. The error of both lies, in not attending to the distinction betwixt what relates to the inferior economical character of Christ, and the passages from which his Deity may be more directly proved. The Arians commonly argue from the former, and thence conclude his inferior Deity to the supreme GoD, which their premises will very well bear; and which the orthodox might, and should grant without any danger to the truth, while there are other incontestible evidences of his proper Deity, which is not liable to the exceptions commonly brought against it. All the advantage the Arians have gained, is from the orthodox pretending to prove their cause from arguments which have not the least relation to it: and the Deity of the Spirit has been denied and opposed from the same principles. Such are the woeful effects of the ancients, adding their own inventions to religion, and imposing them on the consciences of others!

SECTION IV.

THE next thing to be considered, is the passages of scripture generally brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son of God, and that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are natural, necessary, and internal characters of Deity.

Here the advocates for this doctrine are strangely divided in their sentiments. There are some texts applied as clear proofs of it, which others of them say have not the least relation to the subject. Yea, some of them are so self-denied, as plainly to contradict themselves in different parts of their own works." A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand."-As there is no need to say much about such texts as themselves doubt of,I shall endeavor to make it evident, that such as are generally sustained proofs of that doctrine, are nothing to the purpose; but rather favor that economical sense, which the scriptures represent these terms in.

The first that should claim our attention is that in the second psalm: but as I have fairly demonstrated, that it refers to Christ's economical sonship in page 187, I shall only desire the reader to read what is there said over again.

I must here notice, how strangely a learned critic has tortured a passage in the hundred and tenth psalm, to make it favor the cause of eternal generation. The text says, "From (or of) the womb of the (early) morning, thou hast (to thee, or thou shalt have, marg.) the due of thy youth." But he makes it read," Of mine own essence before the early morning, or before the world was, thou hadst the due of thy youth, or birth; as noting his