was in other refpets the Image of the Invifible God, fo in respect of Greatness alfo be might preferve the I

ἣν είναι σύμμερον (ἶν ̓ ὅτως όπου μάσω) και καλύω εἰκόνα τὸ ἀορᾷ

το θεῖο μὲ καὶ τὰ μεγέθος παν elsaJav Thr einova, Ibid. 1.6.

mage of his Father; For he could not be an adequate (if I may fo call it) and juft Image of the Invifible God, if he did not reprefent him even in his Greatness also.

But the whole Three Perfons are co-equal.] Co-equal: Not in fuch a Senfe, as Three co-ordinate Independent Beings are Equal to each other, or as One and the fame Being under different Denominations is Equal to itself: For the First of thefe Senfes destroys the Unity of God; and the Second introduces a total Confufion of Perfons. But they are co-equal in such a Sense, as One or more Perfons can be equal to Another, (from whom they derive their Being,) by a plenary communication of Power, Knowledge, Dignity, and all other communicable Attributes and Perfections. See beneath, N° 7.

7.

Equal to the Father, as touching his God-head.

Equal: Not in the fame Senfe as Two coordinate Beings are Equal to each other: For then all the fame things might equally be affirmed. of Both: And the Son might be faid to be Selfexistent, as well as the Father; or to beget the

Father,

Father, as truly as the Father to beget the Son; or to fend the Father, as properly as the Father to fend the Son: All which, to affirm, are manifeft Blafphemy. But the Son is Equal to the Father, in such a Sense, as he which plenarily exercises Anothers power, and has received from him (in an ineffable manner) all communicable Perfections, is Equal to Him whose power he exercises ; in fuch a Sense, as Chrift is faid in Scripture to be To Jew [ or ioa de@] as God, or equal with God; in fuch a Senfe, as He who derives his Effence or Being from Another, can be Equal with Him from whom he derives it: In a word, the Son is Equal to the Father, in every fuch Senfe, as is confiftent with thofe fore-going Words in the Creed, The Son is of the Father.

And This, it is reasonable to fuppofe, is All that thofe Learned Men originally intended, (at leaft 'tis all that Any of their Arguments prove,) who have affirmed that the Father communicates his whole Nature or Effence to the Son. For, that the primary Attribute of his Effence, [the Tò dyevvntov, his Self-existent Nature should be communicated; is an express contradiction in Terms: But [erns] his Divine Power, Dominion, Dignity, Authority, and other Attributes, (of which alone the Scripture fpeaks,) thefe can be and are (in an ineffable and incomprehenfible manner) communicated to the Son.

Eufebius well exprefles this Notion, when (after the manner of Scripture) he defcribes the Son [œúrdgovor tãs ÉαUT Bacinéias, de ecclefiaft. Theol. lib. I, c. 11,] fitting upon the fame Throne of the Kingdom with his Father And Clemens Alexandrinus, when he ftyles him [ὁ τῶ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισω

Best,

Apprimè autem notandum eft, Clementem eodem quafi Spiritu,quo Filium Patri æqualem ftatuit, o tamen quandam & Prærogativam Patris præe Filio agnofcere,dum Patrem appellat Univerforum Dominum. Scilicet Deus Pater Sangitinas dicitur Dominus Univerforum, quia caufa eft & origo non modò creaturarum omnium,fed & ipfius Filii fui, diverfà licèt ratione. Salvâ igitur

Jeis in Protrept. ad Gentes,] equalized with the Supreme Lord of all things. Upon which paffage, the learned Bp Bull thus remarks: Tis worthy to be noted in the first place, that Clemens as it were in the fame Breath,wherein he makes the Son equal to the Father, yet acknowledges a certain Prerogative and Preeminence of the Father over the Son, when he calls the Father The Lord of all things: Namely, God the Father is peculiarly tiled The Lord of all things, becaufe He is the Canfe and Original not only of all Creatures, but also even of the Son himself, though in a different manner.-Saving therefore this Prerogative of the Father, by which he is the Father and

hâc Patris Prærogativa, quâ Pater eft & origo TvT, entis univerfi; docet Clemens Filium ipfiæqualem effe. Defenf. Sect. 4, cap. 2, § 4.

Original of all Being; Clemens teaches, that the Son is equal with him. And again: He is therefore (fays the fame learned Prelate) equal with him in all things, excepting only that he derives his Being from the Father.

Proinde ipfi per omnia, (fi id tantum demas, quòd a Patre fit,) æqualem effe. Defens Sect. 2, cap. 5, § 4.

Thus

+ Bp Taylor's glory of the di

Vindication of the

vine Attributes in

the Queftion of Original Sin, against the Pref Byterian way of understanding it.

Thus have I endeavoured to explain intelligibly this very difficult Creed: understanding feveral of the expreffions therein contained, (to ufe the Words of a † pious and t learned Prelate,) not perhaps as most men do; but I understand them as they Can be true, and as they can very fairly fignify, and as they agree with the Word of God and right ReaSon. If any One fhall here object, that probably the Sense I have now given, does not exprefs the intention of the Compiler: I answer, that it is not eafie to know certainly what was the Intention of an unknown Author, who lived in those dark Ages, the 7th or 8th Century: That, if it was never fo certainly known, yet all fincere Chriftians are bound to interpret every humane Compofition according to the Rule laid down in the 6th, the 8th, the 20th, and the 21st of the XXXIX Articles, and not according to what they may imagine was the intention of any uninspired Author: That even fome of the Articles of the Church, (as That concerning Predeftination, and That concerning Original Sin,) which are of greater humane Authority than the Compofition of any private unknown Author, are by moft men understood at this day, (the Doctrine of Scripture fo requiring,) in a Senfe which it is not very certain the Compilers originally intended: Laftly, that there is an Article even in the Apoftles Creed it felf, (viz. That of Chrifts Defcent into Hell,) which All men Now understand in a Sense whollydifferent from That which in all probability was meant by thofe who added it to the Creed in the Fourth Cen

tury,

tury, but which is more agreeable to the true meaning of thofe Texts of Scripture upon which the Article was founded.

The learned Bp Pearson, upon This Subject, thus discourseth very excellently : I obferve (faith he) that whatsoever is delivered in the Creed, we Therefore believe because it is contained in the Scriptures and confequently must SO believe it, as it is contained there. Whence All this Expofition of the Whole, is nothing else but an illustration and proof of every particular part of the Creed by fuch Scriptures as deliver the fame, according to the True Interpretation of them. Now these words, as they lie in the Creed, He defcended into Hell, [and the fame must be understood of every other unfcriptural expreffion,] are no where formally and exprefly delivered in the Scriptures; nor can we find any one place, in which the Holy Ghoft hath faid in exprefs and plain terms, that Chrift, as he died and was buried, fo he defcended into Hell. Wherefore being these words of the Creed are not formally expreffed in the Scripture, our enquiry must be in what Scriptures they are contained virtually, that is, where the Holy Ghoft doth deliver the fame doctrine, in what words foever, which is contained and to be understood in This expreffion, He defcended into

Hell.

And the Learned Dr Cudworth, upon a like occafion: As for That Creed (faith he) commonly called Athanafian, which was written a long time after by fome other hand: Since at firft it derived all its Authority, either from the Name of Athanafius to which it was entitled, or elfe because it was fuppofed to be an Epitome and Abridgment of his DoEtrine; This (as we conceive) is therefore to be interpreted according to the Tenour of that doctrine,

con