•"  ••"  '•* '  ^  whicji


to    the    P  R  E  F  A  C  E.  I|

v/hlch  it  is  much  eafier  to  carp  and  cavil  at ,  thaa
to  confute.  I  fliould  take  Notice  of  your  Words,  not
"TTQiyiSfiL^  6^  ovTC  ovTccv ^  not  made  or  formed  out  of  no,
thing.  Why  do  you  here  infert -Troai^e/?,  and  pretend
to  give  the  Senle  of  the  Council  in  a  Way  wherein
They  never  expreffed  it  ?  Is  it  not  to  infinuate,  that
the  Council  imagined  the  Son  to  be  made,  ox  formed^
only  not  out  of  nothing  \  One  may  believe  that  This
was  in  your  Head,  by  your  (lily  remarking,  prefently
after,  that  TertuUian^  Origen^  ,  and  La^-anttus,  affirmed
the  fame  Thing  of  ^ngehy  and  Sotdsy  as  the  Nicens
Fathers  did  of  the  Son.  Your  Report  of  every  one
of  them  is  utterly  falfe,  (as  fhall  be  lliewn  in  a  pro-
per Place;)  but  were  it  true,  what  is  it  to  the  Nicene
Fathers,  who  were  wifer  Men  than  to  countenance
any  fuch  dcteftable  Dodrine  \  What  T  hey  meant  by
6X,  TY^^  ovcnois  Tov  TTctTpo^,  is  Very  plam,  from  the
Creed  it  felf,  and  has  been  fully  explained  and  vindica-
ted^ from  Mifconftrudions.  Th?  Sum  of  what  They
intended  was,  that  the  Son  was  not  from  Nothing,  nor
from  any  extraneous  Subftance,  but  from  the  Subftance
^/bf  the  Father  ;  as  Light  ftreaming  out  from  Light,  but
without   Divijion,  or  AbCciffiony   or  Diminution ;    being

k  See  Ov'xgtn  fully  vindicated,  in  Thts  refpeci,  by  Huetius  Oiige-
nian.  p.  go,  9].
1  Seem'f  Defenfc,  p.  464.  Bull  D.  F.  p.  1 14.  Athanaf.  p.  224,  895-.
