LEIGHTON.--Theol. Lect. XXI., _Works_, vol. iv., p. 327, Ed. 1830: "Though in the schools they distinguish the Divine attributes or excellences, and that by no means improperly, into communicable and incommunicable; yet we ought so to guard this distinction, as always to remember that those which are called communicable, when applied to God, are not only to be understood in a manner incommunicable and quite peculiar to Himself, but also, that in Him they are in reality infinitely different [in the original, _aliud omnino_, _immensum aliud_] from those virtues, or rather, in a matter where the disparity of the subjects is so very great, those shadows of virtues that go under the same name, either in men or angels." PEARSON.--_Minor Theol. Works_, vol. i., p. 13: "God in Himself is an absolute being, without any relation to creatures, for He was from eternity without any creature, and could, had He willed, be to eternity without creature. But God cannot naturally be known by us otherwise than by relation to creatures, as, for example, under the aspect of dominion, or of cause, or in some other relation."[H] BEVERIDGE.--_On the Thirty-nine Articles_, p. 16, Ed. 1846: "But seeing the properties of God do not so much denote what God is, as what we apprehend Him to be in Himself; when the properties of God are predicated one of another, one thing in God is not predicated of another, but our apprehensions of the same thing are predicated one of another." LESLIE.--_Method with the Deists_, p. 63, Ed. 1745: "What we call _faculties_ in the soul, we call _Persons_ in the Godhead; because there are personal actions attributed to each of them.... And we have no other word whereby to express it; we speak it after the manner of men; nor could we understand if we heard any of those unspeakable words which express the Divine Nature in its proper essence; therefore we must make allowances, and great ones, when we apply words of our nature to the Infinite and Eternal Being." _Ibid._, p. 64: "By the word _Person_, when applied to God (for want of a proper word whereby to express it), we must mean something infinitely different from personality among men." [H] Bishop Pearson's language is yet more explicit in another passage of the same work, which we give in the original Latin:--"Non dantur pro hoc statu nomina quae Deum significant quidditative. Patet; quia nomina sunt conceptuum. Non autem dantur in hoc statu conceptus quidditativi de Deo."--(P. 136.)