The Modest plea, &c. continued : or, a brief and distinct answer to Dr. Waterland's Queries, relating to the doctrine of the Trinity

V-'^l^^l

«,

^^

'1^-

/

V-3 '

5 see

s^ 5:1 s^ Q^ .^^ s:^. ^2-

OF TUK
AT

PRINCETON, N. J.
SAMUELAQNEW,

OF PHILADELPHIA. PA.

'/ez.

QTo.

I Case,
Shelf,
Book,

^ ©<^^i,- *<i^^© S-^^Z i

Division.

Sectif

-sec

I.

^ r*\ .r ■ »-

^ai^^ ^^^^^ ^^s^^^im

^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^p^^

CONTINUED.

Or, A Brief and Diftina

ANSWER

T O

VrlFJTERLAND's

aU E R I E S, c^r.

^sm^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^mm

■■'■■■' — ^'-^"^ ' ■ ■ '■ • ■" ' ' "i • '^1- - ■ I _,^

THE

Alodejl ?LEA, &c.

CONTINUED.

O R,
A Brief and Distinct

ANSWER

T 0

BrWATERLAND's

QUERIES

Relating to the

DOCTRINE

O F T H E

TRINITY.

exctf, HvAvjhv J'i iv\6yvp]i?j i Pet. 5, 9.

LONDON,

PrhiteJ for James Knapton^ d the Crown
m St, Paul's Church- Yard, 1720.

THE

PREFACE-

DR Clarkes Scriptun-T>oSirine of
the Trinity^ is a Book drawn
up in fuch a Method, that (I think)
there are but Two ways pofiible for
Any man to write a juft Anfwer to it.

The Firft is, by fhowing diftindly,
that He has miftaken and mif-interpre-
ted AU, or at leaft the Principal lexts
of Scripture, which he has cited.

^ Now This Method Dr IVaterland
has wholly negleaed. And taking ic
tor granted, that the Metaphyfical Hy.
potbefes or Opinions of the Fathers, are
the Rule of Truth; and that from
A3 thofe

The P R E FA C E.

thofe H)fothefef ( though very dit
Icienc from each oth^r ^ ) certain
Cov[equences follow according to the
Modern way of philofophical Reafon-
ing^ (fuch as the Fathers themfehes^
thofe of the Three Firji Centuries at
leaftj^ never thought of j) from hence
he concludes, that the Senfe he con-
tends for^ may and mnjl {though he
never fhows how it poffibly Can) be
put upon the Texts of Scripturt.

The Other way of confuting Dr
Clarke^ is by examining the Truth of
All or the Principal of his Tropofitions v
and (howing cither their Inconhftency
with each other^ or the Infufficiency
of the Grounds upon which they are
builc.

This Method ^Ifo^ Dr Waterland
has entirely omitted; and inftead of
attempting to refute Dr CVs Propo-
lit ions, he has only endeavoured to
fliow that the Dr has mijiaken or mif-

tranjlated

The PRE FACE.

tranjlated fotne few particular Paffages
of the Fathers. Which^ fuppofing it
were true in Many more Inftances than
Dr W. alleges^ would not yet at all
afFeiS: the Merits of the Caufe. But
as I am fully fatisfied that the greatefl
part even of Thofe very Ohfer^vations^
are in Truth the Miftakes of Dr IF.
himfelfj and will in due Time be di-
ftinftly lliown to be fuch; fo I doubt
not but Dr Clarke will always be very
ready to acknowledge and to correB^
upon every opportunity^ all the real
Mijiakes he fliall find himfelf to have
been guilty of.

In the mean time, *tis a flran^e
way of refuting any Notion ; inftead
of citing an Author's Trincipal Ajferti-
ons in his Own Words^ to make only
general References to a few incidental
Sentences ; and from thence^ by ima-
ginary Y^Qdudaons^ to make an Author
[ay what he has not faid^ and whatever
his Antagonift fanfies and fuppofes and

imagine,?

The P R E FA C E

imagwef that he mnft fay or fhould
have faid ; and thereupon to endea^
vour to fix Names of 'uery uncertain
Signification^ but of certain Reproach,
among carelcfs and inconfiderate Rea-
ders. In thus doings Dr W. does not
confute Dr Clarke^ but his Oxpn Ima^
ginations^ which he fets up ip the
Dr's place , whilft he leaves almoft all
the weft material TextSy and abfoluteJy
every fropojition in Dr CFs Book, un-
anfwered and indeed untouch'd.

THE

C t )

THE

Modeft PLEA &c\

CONTINUED.

O R,
A Brief and Diftinft ANSWER to

D^ Waterland's (Queries, &c.

TEXTS alleged i^j

l(i) am the Lord, and
there isnorieelfe :, There
is no God befides me.
Jfa 45. 5.

Is there a God befides
(2) me > Yea, There is
no God, I know not any,
Jfa6 44. 8.

/ (3) am God, and
there is none like me ^
Before me there was no
God form'd, neither (hall
there be after mQjf^6,^.

D" W* to be compared.

The Word was (4)
God, Job. I. I.

Thy Throne, O (5)
God/Heb. 1.8.

Chrift came, who is
over all (6) God bleffed
for ever, Ro7n. 9. 5.

Who being in the Form
(7) of God, Phil. 2. 6.

Who being the Bright-
nefs (8) of his Glory,
and the exprefs Imige of
his Perfon, Hek i. 3.
B b Notes

Vctes on the Texts^

(^) /. Not my i?i?i?2^, Sub fiance^ oi Effence \ hut I, my
Jsify perfonally. And there is none elfe -, not only Nullmn
altitd^ but, Nulhis alius,

(2) Me: perfonally.

i^) I, perfonally agani.

(4) God; who was with GOD^ and by whom COD made all
things. He was rvith the One GoJy ths Father^ OF whom
are all thhigs ; and he was himfcif the One Lord^ BT
whom are ail things^ i Cor. 8, (:;.
• ^5) Thy Throfi::^ O God^ 7S for ever : For, z'er, 9, (Sod^ even
THT Qodj hath anointed th::e,

(6) See Dr Cf\ Scripture-Do^ rine^ pag. 75, zdEdit*

(7) Who being in the Form ofGod^ «;c apTeiy/Liov Yiyn<^70 rb
Vf) "riru ^i$, yet did not affmjie to himfelf to he [honoured]
ii^jj or like luito^ God,

(^ ) The Brrghtn-^js of his Fathers Glory .^ and the ex^refs
Image of his Father's Perfo?i»

(1 U E R Y L

^* Whether all other Behigs^ be/Ides the one Su-
" prenie God, be not excluded by the Texts of
^^ li'iiah, (to which many more might be added ^
^^ and coiifeqiisntly^ whether Chriji can he God

■ *' at a'l^ unlejs he be the fam^ with the Supreme
*' God.

Anfi^. T^^"^^-^ ^"^^^5 C" fe/Xe-r,"] in ThisQue-
J_ x)\ is a great and plain Abufe of alt
the Texts referred to. For the Texts of Ifaiah^
do all of them, '^noft exprefsly^ fpeak oi d. Perfon^
and not of a BEING as diftinguiflied from a Per^
fc'j'U rSee the Letter to the late Revere?id Mr R.

^ 5 ^

M p. 132, &cr\ By thofe Texts therefore, all
other Perfofts as well as Be'mgs^ are exprefsly
excluded from being what He , who there
fpeaks, declares h.im{di Alone to be. From whence
'tis evident that the Texts in Ifaiab^ mud: needs
be underftood of Him only^ who Alone has all
PerfeElions and all Dominion ahfolutely in and of
himfelf^ original^ tinderived^ and independejit on
Any. To ask therefore, " whether Cbri ft CJN h
" God at all ^ unlefs he he the fame with thefupre^^e
*' God'^" is to ask, whether the Scripture has
done rightly in (lyling him God^ when at the fame
time it is on all hands confeifed, that he is not
He who alone has all Perfe3ions and all DomtnioJt
ahfolutely in and of himfelf^ original^ imderived^
and independent on Any '^ that is, that he is not
The Firfi Caufe, The One God^ OF whom are all
things^ I Cor. 8, 6 ', but that he is the Son pf
That God and Father of all.

QUERY IL

^'"^ Whether the Texts of the t^ew Te (lament (in the
" fecond. Column) do not fjew that He (Chrift)
" is not excluded^ and therefore muft be th$
'' fame Gode

Anfw.'^'Y^HE New Teflament exprefsly de-
X clares, that the One God^ of ivhom
are all Things^ is the Father^ \ Cor. 8, 6 |> even
He who alone has all PerfeSions^ and all Domi-
nion ahfolutely in and of himfelf^ original^ imde-

B b ;5 rived^

( 4 )

fiveJ^ and inJependent en Any : And that ChrlfV
is not This Fir ft Caufi^ This One God OF whom "
fire Ml things^ but the Lord {^ov God *] BY whom
are all thl.gs^ by whom the Father made all
things. '' The Texts' of the New Tejlament "^
cited above by Dr. W. himfelf upon this Head,
*' in the fecoud Cclumn^ *' do all of them plain-
ly (hew the fame thing •, As is evident in the
Notes upon them. And the abfurdity of Thofe,
who underiiand the xApoftle's Words, \_To US
there is but One God^ the Father^ of whom are all
thin'js^~] net perfonallj^ but ef/entiallj^ as inclu-
ding the Son likewife -, is learnedly and excellently
expofed by th? judicious Bifhop Pearfon^ in his
Account of the like Words in the firit Article of
the Creed, " In vain (fays he) is That it/ /-
*' Q^ar DiJIincIion applied unto the Explication of
" the Creed, whereby the Father is confidered
*' both perfonally and effhitially '^ perfonally^
'' as the iirft in the glorious Trinity, with
" Relition and Oppofition to the Son, ef
" fentiall)^ as comprehending the whole Tri-
*' nky, Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl:. Foi:
'-'' that the Son is ?wt here comprehended in the
'• Father, is evident, not only out of the original
** or occafion, but alfo from the very Letter of
*^ the Creed, which teaches us to believe in God
'' the Father^ and in FFis So?u For \i the Son
.*' were iiicludedin the Father^ then were the Son
*' the Father of Himfelf. As therefore when I
" fay, / believe in Jefits Chriji his Son^ I muft
" necelfarily undcrftand the Son of that Fa-

'' ther

^^ ther, whom I mentioned in the firft Article ;
.*' fo when I faid, / believe in Gad the Father^ I
*' muft as necellirily be underftood of the Father
^' of Him, whom I call his Son in the fecond
*' ilrticle. Pearfon on the Creed ^ pag, 32. Edit.

a U E R Y IIL

** Whether the Word (God) in Scripture^ can
'' reafonably be fuppos^d 10 carry an ambiguous
*' meanings or be us'*d in a different S^nje^
*' when applied to the Father and Son, in the
" fame Scripture ^ and even in the fame Verfe f
" (&^Joh. I. I.)

^«>.npHAT " the word (Gcd) in Scrips
X *' ^7^''^, " is '^ ufed in a different
" Senfe^ " but yet does not '*• carry an ambigu-
*^ ous Meaning " , is mofl evident from This very
Obfervation, that " it is applied to the Father
*' ayid Son^ in the fame Scripture^ and even in the
^^ fame Verfe, " For God who was with God, evi-
dently is noKthe G^<i/whom he was with. And the
God or Lord^ (compare ^oh, i, 1, and i Cor,
8, 6,) by whom are all things, by whom the Fa-
ther made all things ^ evidently is not The Orts
God^ the Father^ OF whom are all Things. 1 he
Truth is : The Word, God^ in its abfolute and
primary Senfe, fignifies the lirfl Caufe^ even
Him who Alone has all T^rfeBions and all Domi^
tiion abfcJutelj in and of himfelf^ original^ wide-

B b 3 riv'dj,

C ^ )

fiuV, ^nJ hulependent on Any. Otherwife k
would follow, either that God was not a Being
of All Perfections ; or elfe that, to be the Firrt
and Unoriginate Caufe of all things, is 710 Per-
feclion. But now in Scripture^ the fame Word
is fometimesuled in a differejit Senfe -^ viz,, ta de-
note him who is not Himfelf the Firfl Cmfe^ but
hyvihomtht Firft Caufe produced all Things*
Dr. W. himfelf allows it, to be fometimes fo
ufed 5 and yet at the fame time, by a ftrange
contradiction, contends that it is not ufed in dip-
ferent Senfes,

Q U E R I IV.

ff Whether^ fi^lP^^^g ^^^^ Scripture-'Notion of God'.
'"^ to he no -more than that of the Author and
" Governor of the Univerfe, or -whatever it
*' be^ the admitting of Another to he Author
*^ and Governor of the Univerfe, he not ad-
^' mittiiig another God ;, contrary to the Texts
'' hefore cited from Ifaiah -^ and alfo to \hu
" 42, 8.' — ■ — ^48, II. where he declares^ He
^^ will not give his Glory to Another ?

An}w.'^f^}lE Notion which both Scripture
J_ and Reafon gives us of God^ is, not
only that He is the " Author and Goverjior of
'' the Unwerfe, " but that he .is of Himfelf by
his own original^ widerived, felf-fulfictejit^ inde-
^iit Fewer ^ the Akne Author and Governor of

C7 J)

the Unherfe, the Father for Fir ft Caufe) of
whc^m are all things^ i Cor. 8, 6 ; the Father
of All^ who rs above all, EpheC 4, 6. This " Gloty
'' he wilhwr/' he cannot, '^ give to Another', '"
nor will he permit it to be given to another. This
would be indeed '' admitting Another God. " But
to fay that the admitting Another, Throjjgb wbo?n
are all Things ^ Another, h ^'hom x\rt Father
made the Worlds ^ To fay that this is " m-jtrary
*' to the Texts before cited from ifaiah, '* is pre-
fumptuoufly affirming in dired and expreCs words,
that the Doctrine of St, John and St. Paid, is
fontrary to the Texts of Ifaiah,

(iU E R Y V.

*' Whether Dr Clarke's prete?ice, that the Autho-
*< rity of Father and Son being One, tho'' they
" are two diJlinB Beings j makes them ?wt to be
*' two Gods^ As 3 King upon the Throne, and
'^ his Son adminiftring the Father's Govern-
*' ment, are not two Kings, be iiot trifling and
^^ inconfftent .<? For, if the King's Son be not
*' a King^ he cannot truly be called King -^ if
"-' he is^ then there are two Kings. So, if the
'^ Son be not Go^ in the Scripture Notion of
*^ God, he cannot truly be called God, and
^' then how is the Do&or confijlent n>itb Scrips
" ture, or with himfelf^ But if the Son be truly
" God, there are two Gods upon the Doclor's Hy^
^^ ppthe/isy as plainly as that om and one are
^ Bb 4 [' two

( 8 )

^ 9'-t%\rQ: aiidfo all the Texts ^/ Ifaiah cited a-
' ''.bove^ b^jldes other s\ ft and full and clem^

^' .irr/iiTiJl the DoSor's Notiofu

e^y/jo?. ^T^KE Argument in this Q^uery, is:
1 If a Son be not Kmg in the very
pwe fenle as his Father is, he cannot tndji be fti-
led King at all : If the Son of God be not God in
the very S^^me Senfe as the Father is, (that is, if he
has nor yi// PerfeSionsandAll Uomhiion absolutely
in and of hunfelf original^ underiv'd^ and hide-
fendent on Any^) he cannot h^God^i all. But
the Scripture, on the contrary, exprefsly ^i/?/V
gmfies him fro?n Th^God^ of whom are all things j
from the GodsK^ho Alone is the original Author,
Father^ and Firft Cauie of all things , and never
fpeaks of him as having All Perfe&'wns and All
pominion ahfolutely in and of hiwfelf original^
nnderived^ and indepe7ide7n on An}, Yet at the
fame time it Truly and Juftly calls him ( what
Dr, W. fays " he cannot '' in this cafe '' Truly
^' he called.^ ) God. " Indeed, if '' he were not
*^ God hi the Scriptme-Noticn of Q^k,}, " [in That
Notion wherein the Scripture ufes the Word
God, when it fpeaks of the Son-^ ] " he could
'' not Truly be called^ God. " But he is Truly calPd
God ^ And yet, vathout controverfy, he is not
God in That Scripture-Notion of God, where-
in the Apoille defines The One God to be The
Father ( or Firfl Caufe ) of whom are all things.
But (faysDrIF;) '^ if the Son be truly God,
f f there are Two Gods upon the Do&or's Hypothe-

•"A

">>ir

(9)

^^ fis^ as plahiJy as that One and One are Two. **
lanfwer. Though the Scripture calls MagJjlnLtes^
Gods, in one (enfe ^ and Angels^ Gods, in another
fenle , and Chr'ifl^ God, in a third fenfe, very
different from hoth the former, as being Ihat
Lord ( I Cor. 8, 6, J or God (Joh. i, i, J
£r vphom are all things , yet it is neverrhelefs in-
fallibly true, that in the ab(olute and higheft fenfe
of the word G<?^, as Cgnifying the FirftCaufe,
.jD f whom are all things -^ as fignifying Him who
Alone has All P erf eB ions and all Daminicn abfo-
Intel) in and of himfelf original^ under ived^ amd
independent on Any ^ in T/:7/j- fenfe ("I fay J there
is fiill (as St. Paul alTures us) but One God^
even the Father^ of whom are all thiiigs , the
Otie God and Father of Jll, who is above all and
through all and in us all This is the Univerfal
Voice oi Nature and Reafon : This is the exprefs
^nd folemn Declaration of the Apoflle : And
Thisis the Anfwer cur Saviour himjelfofivt to
the very fame Objedion made to him by the
Jews^ Joh. X, 55, The Jews anfwer ed him^

Jayi.^gj-- Jhou^ being a Man^ makejl thy [elj

God. Jefus ajifwered the^n, Is it not written in
your Laiv^ I faid^ Te are Gods ,<? Jfhe called Them
Gods^ unto whom the word of God came,
and the Scripture cannot be broken ^ Say ye
of Him whom the Father hath fanSified ana
Jent into the World, Thou blafphemefl, becauft
J faid, I am the Son of Code But Dv Wa-
terland^ in His Scheme, has taken No care to
liiaintain the Unity of God in Any fenfe what-

foever;

( lo)

foever 5 having contented himfelf to affert an
Unity of Metaphyfical Subftance^ without Any
IJnity of God at all. For Two fupreme intelli-
gent Agents, Ti^o fupteme Perfans, ^ Real Per-

fons, equally fupreme

"^ " I certainly msan a?yt' in all Operation, Powefj

" 2.\Ferfon. — / add, that g,^^ Do^jinion over the

^-^ Gxch. divine ?er fonts an in- ^, . ^ ,

« drvidual Intelligent Agent. Univerfe ; howeverun-
« i<Mf as ftibHliing in One oiviaed in meraphyfical
« undivided ' Subftance, they Suhfta}ice ; are flill Two
^aremxo^^^rnThat ^^^ TwoGoAsmVtX-

^' refpsB^ hut One undivi- ^ ' ^ ^

« aW Intelligent Agent. ^;..J ioH, TwQ fupreffie CiU-

" T'/fL'S " {jirzi by affirming fes and Lords of all

Three individual Jnteiligenc jl-ji^Grs " as plainly as
Agents, to be but One undi- ^^ Pl ^ /j^ Z^,,^

vided Intelliaent Agent,] ' ^-'^^ ^^^^ ^f ^0;.. ^r^
^'' iny Tr}e7idsyand dear of IzvO. And n0U%

^« rrrhhe}fw. " Defence, of ( if fach Exprefiions

fomeQiieries&c.;;. 35«c hereof good Exam-
ple, ) might I not here
ask Dr IV, in his own Words ^ Is it not " trifling'
^" and inconfijlcnt^ " in Him who"every-where
sflertsf Two Gods^ fuprcme and really co-or-
dinate in Dominion and Power, to pretend
that he maintains the Unity of God^ merely
l)€caufe he fuppofes his Tvpo Gods to be undi-
vided in mer;fphyfical Subftance? As if mere
fnetaphjical Sub fiance^ abftract from, all con-'
lideration of Underflanding, Will, Power, and
Dominion, were the Scripture-Notion of
COD.

TFXTS

( " )

TEZTSy proving an Unity of divine Attributes
in Father and Son^ applied

lo th^ ^ne God,

Thou, even Thou on-
ly, knoweft the Hearts of
all the Children of Men,
I Kwgs 8. 39.

I,theLord,fearchthe
Heart ^ I try the Reins,
jer, ly, 10.

I am the firft, and 1
am the laft, and befides
me there is no God, Jfa.

I (4) am A and o,the
beginning and the end,
Rev. I. 8.

King of Kings, and
Lord of Lords, i Tim.

6. 15.

The mighty God, i^^i.

10. 21.

Lord over all, RoW'

10. I2«

To the Soit,

He knew (i) all Men,
d^c. Jok 2. 24. Thou
knoweft all Things,
fob. 16. 30. Which
knoweft the Hearts o£
all Men, J^s i. 24.

Iamhe(2)thatfearch-
eth the Reins and the
Heart, Rev. 2. 3.

I am the (3; firft,
ind I am the laft, Relu
I. 17.

I (4) am A and a^ the
beginning and the eiid,
Reth 2 2, 13.

Lord (5) of Lords,
and King of Kings, Rev.

17, 14. 19, 1

6.

The (6) mighty God,
Ifa. 9. 6.

He is (7) Lord of all,

A3s 10. 36.

Over all, (8) God

bleUed, 6cc. Rom. 9- 5-
Aotef

C li )

Notes on the Texts.

(i) (2) See Dr. C/'s Scripture-DoBrine^ ^c. 2d Edit?
fag, ii8j 293, and 294,

(7^) (4) Had Doctor IK cited the fe Texts entire^ the Scnfe
of them would have been evident. The words fpoken of the
FAT H E Ry areThefe, Rev. i, 8, 1 am Alpha and Ome-
^a\^ ths Beginning and the EjiJy faith the Lord, [ ill feveral
MSS yju'?/©- 0 Ste^, the Lord God^ ] vobich is^ and which was^
^nd which is to co^ne, [the perfonal and diftinguilhing cha-
jnaer of the Fi/tb^r^ ver. i ; ] t/j^ Almighty^ [ Gr, 0 ^^z/-
•5■aj«f^cm^?) the fupreme Lord over AIL ] The words fpoken
of die S O N, are Thefe, R'^v. r, w^l am Alpha andOme-
^^, the Firfl and the Laft^ [ But the Words are not found
in moft of the Greek MSS. ] Rev. i j 17, 18, dam the Firfi
^^l the Lap: ; lam He that Liveth and was Dead^ and be^
Md I am alive for ev.Tmore, Rev. 2^ 8^ Thefe things
faith the Fir ft a?id the Laft^ volrch was Dead^ and is Alive :
[Tliefc explicatory Texts Dr W. quite omits.] Rev. 3, 14,
iThs Beginning [ or ILad^ '^fX*', ] of the Creation of God,
Resr. 22; 12, i6j I am Alpha and Ofnega^ the Beginning

^ndthe End^ the Ft ft and the Lafl • . the

Rg'jt and the Offspring [ ,5 i^i^a 1^ rl yivQ- ] of Da^
'ddy and th:^ bright 'and Jnorning-Star. Comp2Lie Heb. 12,
2.5, Ih^ Author and Finifher^ [ d^-xji^v ly Te^w^TB^j ] of our
jMth.

{'y) Rev, 19; 15) 16. He treadeth theWtne-prefs of the
■fisrcen';fs and wrath [ tS ©£« t» n^fToJifaTcp©- ] of hi-
foi^hty God ; And he hath on his Vefture.^ and on his T^high
<? Nam''' written^ King of Kings and Lord of Lords,

(6) The true Senfc of the word in this place, is evident
fifoin the Context. Sec Dr C/'s Script, DoBr, pag, 336,
.2 J Edit.

(7) He is Lord of all. Both of Jews and Gentiles, :
hs appears from the Context, Ver, 34 and 35.

- (S) See Dr Ch Scnpture'Doth'i?te^ pag, 75. 2d
Eait,

QUERir

( >3 )

a U E R Y VI.

^"^ Whether the fame Char aBeri flicks^ efpeciaVy
^^ fuch eminent ones^ can reafonably be imderftood
^' oftnooti/lhiB Beings •, an J of one hi finite and
*' Independent^ the other Dependent and Finite ^

Anfw.fi.) JY the Charaders being the Same
X and fo Emment^ be a Reafon why
they cannot be underftood of Two ^ they
can no more be underftood of Two diftinft
PerfonSy than of Two diftincl Beings. Be-
caufe, being all of them Perfonal Characters ,
when they are underftood of 0;/^, they are un-
derftood, not of the Beings but of the Perfon^
But, (2.) They are indeed none of them the
Same : Becaule Powers derived and underived^xt
no more the Same^ than the Perfons are, to whom
they refpeclively belong, f^.) As to the invi-
dious infinuation couched under the words, finits
and hifinite *, the Anfwer is plain. If by the
word, infinite^ be meant infinite in ALL Perfe-
ftions 5 then Dr Waterland^ by denying the Son
to have All PerfeSio?is /i?2d All Domifiion abfo-
littelj in a7id of bimfelf original^ underived^ and
7ndepende7it on A?iy^ either himftlf denies the Son
of God to be infinite^ in the fame fenfe where-
in he charges Dr Clarke with denying him to be
fo 5 or elfe he muft maintain, that This Prime^
this Greatef}^ and perhaps ojjIji ijiconmnmicMe

PerfeSion

( t4 )

VerfeUion of the Firfi Caufe^ is l^o Peyfe3io?i
at all.

a U E R Y VIL

" Whether the Father's Omnifcience and Eter-
''' nity are iiot one and the fame with the Son's ^
" bebig alike defcrib\i^ and in the fame phrajes ^

^/j/w.TT^Nowledge and Duration derived from
I'V Another, however unlimited, are
helther " One and the Same " with Underived :
Nor can they be in All Refpecls " alike defcribed^
" and in [^AlQ the fame Phrafes. " For, to be
mfome Refpeds " alike defer ibed^ aiid in [Some
of] " the fame Phrafes-^ " is common to Many
things with many things. This therefore is a
JQuibble^ unworthy indeed of a Scholar.

aU E R Y VIII.

cc

Whethr^ (^i') Eternity does not imply necefTarjr

" Exiftence of the Son •, which is inco?ifiJlent

*' with the Do&o/s Scheme .<? And whether

" the DoBor has not made an elufive equivo-

*' eating Anfwer to the ObjeBion^ fince the Son

" may be (2) a neceflary Emanation /r^w the

" Father, <^?^^ Will and Power of the Father^

*' without any ContradiBion? Will ("3 J is one

" things /?/3^x\rbitary Will another.

A?ifrP^

( IS )

J?2jw, (i)r ENGTH of Duration, how unlimi-
JLi ttdfotVQV^eithev a parte ^ofi ov a par-
te ante^ in a perfon begotten by the Power and Will
of Him that begat, does not imply l^ecef]\iyy Ex-,
iftence. And 'tis a great Prefumpt'ion to affirm,
that, what the Scripture always expreiTes by a
'f- word denoting a?i Aci^ may as well | Berrettm^.
be exprelled by a "^ word denoting * Necejfary
not an AS. As to Antiquity • The E»^^^nation,
Doctrine of Necejfary Emanations^ fpfung from
the Notions of Vakntinus^ Ceriuthus^ Manes^
Montanus^ S\c, But in oppofition to the numer-
ous PafTages cited by Dr Clarke^ wherein the Fa-
thers exprefsly affirm the Son to be begotten by
the Power and HI// of the Father;, 'tis obfervable,
Dr IVaterlandhis not been able to produce fo much
as ONE (ingle PalTage out of any One Ante-Ni-
cene Father, wherein the Son is affirmed to have
emaned or been emitted by Necejjity of Nature*
Even They who fuppofed hin), in an unintelligi-
ble manner, to have been the internal Reafpn (>r
Wifdom of the Father^ before his Generation^
{till fuppofe him to have been Generated 2nt<?
a real perfon by the Power and Will of the Fa-
ther. And They who compared his Generation^
to the Suns fending forth his Rays of Light, or
to One Pire lighting eAfWther •, yet All of them
fuppofe, and So?ne of them exprefsly difticguifli
in this Similitude, that whereas the Sun twhs
his Light, and one Fire lights Another, by
NcceffityofNatitrSj the Ff.ther begat the Son by

his

( i6j

hh Power and Will. Ste Dr Clarke's ScripturS
Do&rine^ Part II, §* 17.

(2) " A t^ecejfarj Emanation from the Father^
" by the Will and Power of the Father ; " is an
exprefs contradidion. Becaufe Necejflty, in its
very Notion, excludes all operation of Will and
Tower ^ though it may be confiftent u^ith Appro-
bation. Whatever is^/ Necefficy of Nature^ can-
not, without the higheft Abfurdity, be faid to
be [e«\>i, B«Afy^.77, BaA»j7«, cn^j/aMw, 3 -^any one's Will
and Power •, though it may ^rtii be Agreeable 2Ln(i
Pleafing to him. A l^eceffary Emanation from
the Father^ can no more be faid to be Begotten of
the Father^ to be Begotten by his Power and Will ^
than the Father can be faid to have begotten^ or
given Being to himfelf or to his own Reafon or
Underflanding. On the contrary, Such an Etna-
Qiation^ and the Efjencefrom which it emanes^ would
£^r^beas equally f elf -existent ^ as 'ris equally ne-
cefjary for God to be an hitelligent Beings and to
£^at all. Whatever neceffarily and efTentially be-
longs to That which is felf-exiilent, is it felf
Self-exiilent, as being indeed only the very fame
thing apprehended under a partial confideration.
*' God " (as this matter has been exprelled in the
Letter to the Author of the True Scriptnre-BcBrine^
'&C. pag. 267,) " is neceliarilyOwwi/^r^y^/i^rand
'^ Eternal ;, doubtlefs, not without [m\id\ lefs ^-
gainjl~] " Kn own Liking and Approbation: But was
" ever any Man therefore fo abfurd, as to fay that
^' he was Omniprefent and Eternal BThis Will ^
*^ He is likewife by Neceffity of Nature, Wife
"and Good'^ that is^ he always neceilarily fee^

*' and

C i? )

*^^ ^ni hoTvswh^tisnght, and approves whit il
^' good'^ And in all this, his fVHl is no way coH-
*' cerned: But whenever he y^&s^ whenever he
" Does any thing, then 'tis ?wt bj VeceJJity of
^' Nature, but by the Choice df his Will. '' The
contrary Suppofition, is, in the truth of things^
making him No Jgent at all ^ Tis devefting hiiu
( as Mr Hohbs has done ) of the Prime Glory
of all his Attributes.

(3) But ( fays Dr {VaterlanJ ) " Will is One
" thi?ig, and Arbitrary. Will another. " I anfwer.
This is one of the greateft and moft unreafonable
Jbufe of words, that I have ever met with in
Any VVriter. For the only true difference be-
tween Will and Arbitrary Will, is, that Arbitrary
Will fignifies Willing a thing unreafonably^ and
without any jitft Caufe. Bat to make Arbitrary
H^i//fignify barely the Choice or Free A6f of the
Will, and to make Will fignify mere Apl'roBation
without Any Choice or AEl of the Will at all j
is taking away all Senfe from words. For, at
This rate, a Man's Heart may be faid to beat /^j?
the Will and Power of the Man, though his Will
and Power have no influence at all upon it. And
the Sun may be faid, inthe/^^^/^^fenfe, torife and
fet by the Will of Man, that is, with his good
Liking and Approbation. And a Balance, li it
could feel itkl[ NeceJ/arily turned by a Superiour
Weight in One Scale, might juftly be faid to
Turn itj^elf by its Will and Pozver. If this be not
indeed in the higheft degree ( to ufe Dr. Water-

C c land^s

( i8 )

. r . J

hard to fay What is.

/W^sphrafe) " elufive and efjuwocatmg^^[ hii

liQr/^ frk f::)\r Wh/7t. ic

CI U E R Y IX.

^^ Whether the divine Attributes^ Omnifcience,
" Ubiquity, &a ?/?^/^ i7idividual Attributes^ can
'^ ^(? communicated without the divine Ejjeficey
*' from which they are i?j-feparable ?

Anfw. ^'jNdividual Attributes ** can neither be
_| communicated with nor without the
Effence ^ becaufe communication of an Individual,
without the Communicator^^ parting with it, is
fupppfing it to be not an hidividuah^ and is cpn-
fequently a contradiction in Terms.^

OPERY

( ^9 )

Q, U E R Y X.

^^ fJ^elher^ if they (the Attributes beloriging to
*' the Son) be not Individually the fame ^ they
^' can he any thing more than faint Refemhlan^
'^^ ces of them, differing from them as Finite
*' from Infinite , and then in what Senfe^ or
^^ with what Truth can the Doctor fretend
^^ that all divine Powers, except abfolute Su-
^^ premacy and Independency, are communis
*^ catedtothe Son? And whether every Beings
** hejides the one Sufreme Being, muH not ne-
"-' ceffarily he a Creature and Finite ; and
^^ whether all divine Powers can he commtmi^
^' catedto a Creature^ Infinite Berfediion to
" a Finite Being ?

Jnfw. ^T^H E Queftion is not, what the At-
X thbutes belonging to the Son, Can^
or Cannot be, according to Otir Fancies in Phi-
lofophy ; but what the Scripture fays they Are.
And the Scripture fays they are, not ^'' faint
*' Kefemhlances^'* but an Exprefs Image. That
fliey are not ^' hidividtially the fame'^' with the
Attributes of the Father, appears evidently ia
the Anjwer to the foregoing Query ; and alfo
from hence, that the One are Derived^ the
Other Underived\ Both of which, one and the
Came '/ individmr'' cannot be.

C c 2 The

( 20 )

The Anfwer to the following part of Thfe
Qiiery, depends upon the Signification in which
the Terms, Finite^ hifiitite^ and Creature^ are
ufed.

As to the Terms, finite and htfinite ^ fee
above, the Anfwer to Query VI.

As to the Term, Creature^ If thereby He
means Whatever is ?iot Self-exiflent and JJnori-
ginate, then 'tis manifeft that even Dr Water-
land himfelf makes the Son [the Per/on o[ the
Son^ of God to be a Creature, and mufl: needs
himfelf fall under his Own Cenfure oi Arianiffn.
But if the Word, Creature^ be underftood to
mean That only which is made otit of Nothing,
then the Anfwer depends upon Another Query,
viz. whether Any Thing or Perfon can be de-
rived [k 7»f ^(jicLi TK '^A]e}i\ from the Self-exiftent
Subftance. If it can ; as Dr Waterland makes
no doubt but it can^ and Who dares affirm it
cannot ? (for, to be From Nothing, and From
the Self'exifte7it Subjtance^ are Both of them
equally beyond Our Conception, and Neither
of them ever exprefsly mentioned in Scripure-,')
Chen, 'tis evident, a Perfon who is not a Crea-
ture, may yet not be " the One Supreme BeingP
For None can be Supreme, but He who has
All Perfetlions and all Dominion ahfoUitely m
and of himfelf, original, underivedj and inde-
pendent on Any,

aU E R Y

( ^I )

d U E R Y XI.

*^ Whether if the Do^or means hy divine Pow^
*^ ers^ Powers given hy God (in the fame Senfe
*^ as Angelical Powers are divine Powers)
^' only in a higher Degree than are given to
*' other Beings \ it he not equivocating and
** fayi7ig nothing : Nothing that can come up
*' to the Senfe of thofe Texts hefore citedy or

cc

to tbefe following ?

Applied

To the one God*

Thou, even Thou,
art Lord alone; Thou
iiaft made Heaven, the
Heaven of Heavens ,
with all their Hoft, the
Earth, and all things
that are therein, i$c.
Neh. 9. 6.

In the Beginning,
God created the Hea-
vens and the Earth,
Gen. I. I.

To God the Son.

All things were made
by him. Job. i. ^. By
him were all things
Created ; He is before
all things, and by him
all things Confift, Co-
lof. I. 16, 17.

Thou, Lord, in the
Beginning , haft laid
the Foundation of the
Earth; and the Hea-
vens are the Work of
thy Hands, /Zi;'^'. i. 10.

Cc J

Jnfw^

( ^% )

^^fw.^'T^U E " Div'me Towers givejp- to tbe,
X Son, are not at ^11 9f '' the fame'''')
kind, or '^ only in a higher TDegree'^'^ than '' J/i-
*^ gelical Powery^ -^ but totally of a different^
kind. For to the .Si';/ is committed All Jti/lg-
ment^ Joh. 5, 22: But to J/z^^/i is committed
No degree of the Power oi^udgment at all.

To^aiFirm that the Powers committed to the
Son, are the very fame as His who has nothijig
committed to him, but has All VerfeBions and
All Dominion djoltitely in and of Himfelf^ ori-
p?ial^ nnderivedj and indej^endent on Any : this
is certainly '' equivocating-, and faying Nothitig ;"
and alfo direchly contrary to the Senfe of all the
Texts referred to. For the Powers of the Son 5
are all there fpoken of as committed to him from
the Father, And when \is affirmed that all
things voere made hy [or through'] Him^ and that
ly [or iff} him were all things created^ and that
He laid the foundation of the earthy and the
like 5 the Sacred Writers in the fuHeft and moll;
exprejs words declare their Meaning to be, ths^
God created all things ly [or through'] Him.

Q^ U E R Y XII.

^.^ B^hether the Creator of. all Things wris not^
^' himfeJf Uncreated; and therefore could not
^ he i^ ^H> 'oA^h tnade out of nothing^

r *3 )

Jnfw^^'T^lll^ Qiiery is moft captioujly and
JL unfairly worded. For This phrafe
[" The Creator of all things^^'''\ when ufed in
this manner ahfolutely and by way of Eminence^
without any other difcriminative charafler an-
nexed, and" without A7ty perfon mentioned be-
fore, Alwaies means the Father^ (or Fmt Catife^)
OF whom are all things ; and never the Sony BT
l^)hom the Father made all things.

But underftanding it of the Son^ as the Que-
rift here with too artificial Confufednefs does-
'tis manifed indeed, that He hy whom God crea-
Hd all things^ cannot be included in the all
things which God created hy Him. But How
and in what maimer he himfeJf derived his Be-
ing from the Father, cannot be at all collefted
trom hence. Taking it for granted that he was,
not [sf «;c oT'7a>i/] out of Nothing, but [U t«? i<TUs
T» vciJsh'] fyom the Stihfhf'ice of the Father ^ this
aftefts not in the leaft the Truth of Any One of
Dr CJarke'^s Propofitions ; For they are not
built upon any Hypothefis at all, about Meta-
phyfical Sub/lance , and He has contended only
lor adhering to Scripture in thefe matters, and
not mixing Philofo^by with Revelation, See b^-
UWy the 0f^er to Query XVIIL

Cc4 aUERY

( H )

Q^ U E R y XIII.

^^ Whether there can le any Middle between lebtg
" made out of nothings and out of (omething^
^' that ii^ between being out of nothings and
" uut cf the Father"* s Sub/lance ^ between be-
*^ i'lg circntially God, and being a Creature?.
'' Whether^ ionfequently^ the Son mujt not be
*' either effentially God, 6/r elfe a Creature ?

^nfwX TNdoubtedly there is no '^Middle^'l
\^\^ (And yet there are Many Dilem-
ma^s in Metaphyficks and Phyficks and in The-
ology too, wherein it may be very prefumptu-
ous, and perhaps fomerimes irreligious, to un-
dertake to determine abfolutely which part of
the dilemma is the Truth. 'Tis, however, un-
doubtedly certain that there is No Middle) " be*
*' tween being made out of iSothing^ and out of
^^ Something/'' But ^' being out of Nothing, and
'^^ out of the father'' s Stibfiance^^'' are Both of
them very different from being Selfexiftent.
The latter part of This Query therefore , is
merely capiom* For whereas the phrafe ,
^' bei7ig ejjentially God^' fignifies, in its natural
and proper fenfe, having All VerfeHions and
Jll Dominion abfolutely in a?id of himfelf ori-

Subfiance

( M )

Sulftance of the Father. Which as it is a Spe-
culation no where aiErmed or denied in Scrip-'
ture^ fo neither has T)r Clarke any where deni-
ed but that it may be a Metapbjfical Truth.
And none of tbofe Primitive Fathers who af-
ferted That Doftrine, did at all imagine that
it inferred Supremacy. As is evident from their
teaching at the fame time, that the Son mwi-
fired in all things, from the Beginning, to the
H^/7/ of the Father ; and that he was begotten
of the Father by the Tower a?td Will of the
Father -y and comparing him (with allowance
Always for the difference between voluntary
and necejfary Agents) to a Tieam from the Sun^
a River from a Fountain^ a 'Branch from a
Tree. They who know how Many Philofo-
phers, (according to the Hypothefes of the
Times they lived in,) fuppofed all celeftial Spi-
rits, and even Humane Souls, to have been, not
out of Nothing, but out of the Subftance of
-God ; will not wonder at Any the higheft
Expreflions of this kind, concerning the Only-
})egotten Son of God.

As to the Term, Creature, made ufe of in
This Qiiery ; See above, the eAnfwer to Que-

(iUERY

( ^^>

a U E R y XIV.

f^ Whtther Br Clarke, who every where denies the
" Canf2t-!> ftaiitiality oj the Son as abfurd and
" coTVCradiBory^ does not^ of Co7ifequence^ af-
'^ firm the Son to be a Creature^ VE, «';t ^ov-mv^ and
'^ fa fall under his ozvn cenfure^ and is Self-
*' condemn d ^

Jnjb. T "JPON this Query, 'tis to be obfer-
\^ ved, (ly?.) That 'tis very unjuft in
Dr IV. to charge Dr CL with a " Cofife-
** qiience -^ ^^ which Dr W. indeed, according to
His Own Notions in Philofophy, iimagines tO;
follow from T)r C/'j- Principles *, but which, ac-
cording to DrCl's Notions- in Fhilofophy, does^
not follow at all. For Uv. CL is not obliged
(I think) by any jufl Confcquence from any
thing he has laid down in Explication of AH
i\iQ Texts in. the New Teffament, to enter into
Jny niet^frloyftcrJ prypothefis concerning the
Manner oi the, Sons Generation. And accord-
ingly He conftantly blames-thofe, as being pre-
fumdtuoufly wife above What is written, (^Script.
Do&r. Part II, Prop, XUI and XIVJ who
have at any Time taken npon them to afBrm
(what they could not poilibly know,) that the
Son'of God was j^sf »% hTzov~\ inade out of No*
thing. (2.) 'lis mere captioufnefs in Dr W^
toufehere the Term^ '^ 'I'UE Confuhjlantiah-

( ^7 )

ti

^ ty, " without at all exprefling which Sort of
Confubftautiality he means, though he knows
the word has very difFerent Meanings. For it
either denotes j/?^a/6-^ Confubftantiality • which
Pr W. difclaims, becaufe 'tis introducing Two
Self-exiftent Subflances : Or it fignifies ifidwt-
dual ConfubftantiaHty [j^ jAx/lQ^latQv^ which Dr
Clarke has indeed denied^ becaufe 'tis direct "^
Sabellianlffu^, as well as " abfurd and f contradi^
" 8oryr^'' (and yet even This, if it were
granted to be poffible, would not at all || affedfe
the Truth of Dr Clarke's main Propofitions.^
Or elfe l^^'^flh it means only, (which rs all than
any of the Ante-Isicene Writers, or even the
Council of Aice itfelf intended,) being de-
rived in fome ineffable Manner [^s/trMjacn'^j^ A^^^
the &nbftance of the Father ^ which Dr Cl/irk4
has, not only not " everj where^ " but 7jy

^ Qtx'if S^zhelltm ipfe Cfap ths learned. Bp* Bull) niin»
quani Filiuni lubens dixiilet Patri o.-^kotoj', fed potiu.s
Tttvjoitnoi'. i. e. Ajfuredly Sabellius would never have chofen
to have called the Son confubftantial wUh the Father : but
vQouldrathsr have jliled them ^ of one and the famedjidivi-
dual Sub fiance.

andthefauie 'Thing ii not confubftantial f^ i^f^^f-y hut 0ns
X^hing-iicoa^uh^mVii-Aitf} Another. Baf. Epift* r^oo.

jj See the Letter to the late Reverend Mr. R. M. pag.
134, 1-355 I7p. And the L^^Z-^r ^0 ^/^^ Author of the true
Scriptiire-DoBrtne Sec. fag* 212^ 220^ 223, 225, 235,
2463 274, and 318.

where.

r .8 J

where^ deniec5 but that it may be a metaphyfical
Truth. C3.) Thefe words therefore, [" Ur
" Clarke every where denies the Confab ft ant ia-
^*^ Uty of the Son^ "] are a palpable and direft
Calumny^ For as, in Scripture^ this Confubftan-
tiality i? nowhere either affirmed or denied ^ fo
T>r Clarke^ contenting himfelf without being
wife above what is written, has nowhere affirm-
ed any thing, but what in His Opinion holds
equally true, whatever in This Refpecl the Son's
metaphyfical Nature^ Effence^ or Sub fiance^ be
fuppofed to be. See his Script. l)o^r. Part IIj
Prop. JIJIV and IXXri.

q U E R Y XV.

^ Whether he alfo (i.j vmft not^ of Confe-
* ^^ qitence^ ajjirjn of the Son^ that there was a
*' time when he was not, fince God mitfl exifi
*^ before the Creature -^ and therefore is again
^'' Self-co,ide7nnd? (See prop. 16. 'Scrip.
*^ Doclr.j And whether he does not equivo-
*' cate in faj ing elfewhere that the fecond Per-
^'- fon has ("2.) been always with the firft'-y
*' and that there has to^/ no time, when he
^^ tpas ?wt fo / A?id laftly^ whether it be not a
'^ vain and weak attempt to pretend to any mid-
*' dh way between (j,) the Orthodox and the
*' Arians , or to carry the Sofi's Divi?uty the
'" leaf higher than they did, without taki?ig in,
^[ the (4.^ Confiibfiantiality <?

oA^/fw. (lOT^HE Anfwer to the firfi part
1 of This Qiiery, is the fame
as That to the QLuery fore-goiog. It cannot be
juftly inferred^ from any thing Dr Llarke has
afTerted , that ^^ he mufi\ of Confequence^ ajjirm
*' of the Son^ that there was a Time when he
" was not^'* or that he was made out of No-
thing, I fay. Neither of thefe can juftly be in-
ferred \ becaufe there is nothing in Any of the
Doftor's Aflertions, but what holds equally
true, upon all fthe poffible^ Hypothefes con-
cerning either the metaphyfical Sulfiance or
Eternity of the Son. The Father who hegat^
muft, in Order of Nature, be frior to the Son
who was begotten *, and equally fo, whether he
legat him of his Own Stibftance^ or not ; whe-
ther he begat him in Time^ or from Eternity.
Likewife the Son mufi be ftihordinate to the Fa-
ther, (^and the Scripture always fpeaks of him
as being lb,j in real Order of Nature and Dig-
nity^ and not in mere fofition of words ; what-
ever be his metaphyfical Suhftance^ and in what
manner foever his perfon was generated of the
Fatiier, and how unlimited foever his paft Du-
ration be allowed to have been.

(2.) To affirm that the Son " ha^s leen AU
** ways with'' the Father : To affirm that the
Scripture, in declaring the Son^s DerivatiG?t
from the Father^ never makes mentiofi of Any
Limitation of Time; hut always fi/pl'o/es and
affirms him to have exifted with the Fat ucr from

the

(30)

ihe BegiJtJting and lefore all Worlds : To affirnl
moreover whatever elfe the Scripture any
where affirms concerning this Matter: And to
declare that They are ju/tlj to he blamed^ who
taking u^'on them to he wife alcve zvhat is writ-
ten^ and intruding into things which they have
not feen^ have pe fumed to affirm that there was
a time when the Son was not^ and that he was
made out of Nothing : This is not an " equivo-
^^ eating'' in Dr Clarke, But for Dr Waterland
to require ?nore^ and that in Matters of Rehgi-
On Men mtS' be wife (according to their own
feveral Fancies in Confequences of Philofophy
and Metaphy Ticks) beyond what is written ift
Scripture; this is plainly an unwarrantable and
iaexcufable P/eJ/impion.

(j.) Though many and various oJ)inions^
have had the name given them of ^^Ortboaox^^
and '* cArian ;" yet in This Query I fuppofe
Dr Waterland^ by the ""^ Orthodox^'* means thofe
of his own particular opinion ; and by the Jri-^
ans^ thofe who affirm that there was a time
Kj'jhen the Son was not^ and that he wias made
out of Nothing. Now ^""to pet end to a middle
" way between'''' thefe two Opinions, (betweeri
laying a Strefs, either with Dr Waterland on
the one hand, or with the eArians on the other,
upon metaphyfical Notions never mentioned at
all in Scripture;.) is not '^ a vain and weak At-
^^ icmpt^'* nor has any manner of difficulty in^
it. For 'tis only adheri?ig to what is plainly
Y eve-ale d and commanded in Scripture, in Mat-
ters

C 30

ters relating to the Worlliip of God ; and for-
bearing to build any thing, in points of prafti-^
cal religion, upon metaphyfical Confequences
and Dedudions; feeing it appears in faft, from
the Hiftory of all Ages, that, according to
mens different Notions and Hypothefes in phi-
lofophy, the Deductions fo drawn will be very
different from each other, and confequently
iriuft of neceflity always tend to perplex men iri
matters of fratiical religion.

(4.) Concerning this Term, ''THE conful-
"•' jiantiaVity ;" fee above, the Anfwer to Que--
ry XIV. And concerning the ufe of the word,
eArians *, fee below , the oAnfwer to Que-
ry XXXI.

Divine JVorfiif Me,

To the One God.

Thou fhalt have no
other Gods before (i)

me, Exod. 20.

3-

Thou {halt worfliip
theLord thy God, and
(2) him only fiialt thou
ferve, Mattb. 4. 10.

To ChriB.

They worfhipped
him, Luke 24. 25.

Let all the Angels
of God (3) worlhip
him, Hel. i. 6.

That all men fhould
honour (4) the Son,
even as they honour
theFather, jF«?/?. 5.2J.

ISlota

C 3^ )

Notes on the Textsl

(i) (2) He does not fay, his Nature, Effence^ or Suh^^
fiance ; but hiwfelfy his Perfon, Him only^ Ihalt thoii
ferve. ConfeqiienFly, either thefe Texts muft be under-
ilood of That Worfhip which is pecuHar to, and incom-
municabJe from, the Perfon of the Father ; or elfe they
will exclude the Father from all Right and Power of com-
manding Any Worfhip to be paid to the perfon of the
Son, in the capacity of a mediator, at all. See the Letter
to the late Reverend. Mr R. M, pag. 132, £fc.

(3) The whole of this Text, is : When he hringeth in the
firft'hegotten into the world^ he faithy And let all the
Angels of God xcorfljip him: worfhip him, not as Su-
preme, but by the Command of the Father. So it fol-
lows, -y^r. p, Thou haft loved righteoufnefs and hated
iniquity ; Therefore Gody even Thy God, hath afiointed
thee with the oil of gladnefs above thy felloxos.

(4) The reafon and ground of This Honour, is expref^ly
added by our Saviour in the wori^s of the Text. The
Father - — — hath committed all Judgment unto the Son ^
that all men fhould honour the Sony even as they honour
the Father.

Q^ U E R Y XVI.

Whether ly thefe (of the firft Column) and the
" like TextSy Adoration and Worpip he not fo
" affrofriated to the one God, as to belong to
" him only ?

eAnfw.^Y^H E Worfhip of God is " hj thefe
J[ and the like Texts'" in fuch exprefs
words '' appropriated to the One God'' PERSO-
NALLY;

(C

C 5? )

N ALLY ; not to his Suhfiance^ Nature], or
Efjence^ but Always to Him^ to his Perfon
only^ that it cannot but be allowed to
*' helo7ig to HIM onljP But the Worfliip
of a MediatouYy the Worfliip due to Him
to whom the Power of "Judgment is com--
mined by Another •, is what can neither
be appropriated^ nor can poffibly be paid
at ail^ to the One Supreme God, If there-
fore thefe Texts preclude All Adoration ,
befides That which is appropriated to the
One Supreme God ^ they either preclude God
from ail Ri^t of appointing any Mediatout^
at all, or at lea ft from all Right of com-
manding A}iy Adoration to be paid to the Me-
diatour, in the capacity of a Mediatour, Fot
That is an Adoration^ which cannot poffibiy,
be paid to the Ow^ Supreme God» This Que-
ry therefore might very well have been urged
by a Beift : But it comes very abfurdly from
the pen of One who profelTes to believe witli
St Paul^ that as there is One God^ (o there is
alfo One Medtatour \ and that God has com-
manded, that at the Vame of 'Jefvts every,
Knee flmdd bow^ and that every Tongue (Jjould
confefs that Jefus Chriji is Lcrd, to the Glory
of God the Father •, and that unto Him that
loved uSj and wajhed us from our Sins in
his own Bloody and hath made us Kings and
Pr'tejis unto God arid his Father^ [j$ ^^? ^

( 34 )

^7e? dv^^ BIS God and Father Q to Him
fliouid be Glory and Dominion for ever aiid

avevt

d U E R Y XVII.

*• Whether^ yiotmthflanding^ Worjljip and Ado-

^ '^ ratwn be not equally dne to thrift ^ a7id

' corifequeyitly^ whether it rnufl not follow

^' that he is the one God^ and ?iot (as the

" AmnspJ>poJeJ a diftlncl inferior Being ^

J?ifw.'^¥^H E very Texts referred to, evi-
J_ dently fnow , that the Worfjip'
due to Chrirt, ought not to be confounded
with Th^n due to the Father : Becaufe the
Worihip given to Chrift in all thofe Texts,
is in confcquence of his RefitrfeSion and Af
cenfion^ Luke 24, 25 , In confequence of the
Command of the Father, at his bringing in
the firfl-begotten into the World, Heb, i, ^'-
In confequence of the Father's faying unto
our Lord at his refurre8ion^ (as St Paul in-
terprets it, J.^s ig, 35 1, Heb, i, 5.) Thois
art mj Son^ this day have I begotten thee ^
And in confequence of the Father's having
committed All Judgment unto the Son^ Joh. 5,
9.2, at 7uhat Time foever this be fuppofcd to-
have been done. Were the Worfliip paid to

Chri$^

C 35 >

Chrift^ the very fame as That to the Father •
it would ^^ follow,'' not only '' that he is the
''One God^'' (of the Suhftance of the One
God^ it fhould rather have been faid,) in op-
pofition to any ''' diJlinS hifenour BEING .^*
but it would follow that he is That Per/on^
That Me^ That Him^ mentioned in the'Texts*
For none of the Texts ever fpeak of a Being
or Siihjiance^ (as Dr Waterland very unfairly
reprefents them here, and in Query the Fir (I ;)
but they always and uniformly fpeak of a
Perfon.

As to the term, Jrians. ufed in this Q,ue-
ry 5 fee belov/, the Anfwer to Query XX XL

aU E R Y XVIIL

*^ TVhether Worfljip and Adoration^ both from
" Men and Angels^ was not due to him^ long
" before the commencing of his Mediatorial
*' Kingdom, as he was their Creator and
*^ Preferver (See Col i. i6, 17.) A?id whe-
^^ ther that be not the fame Title to Adora-
^' tion which God the Father hath^ as Ju-
'' thor and Gover?wr of the Umverfe, upoii
'^ the Docfor^s own Principles ^

Anfw,\X JHenever the Mediatorial King-

VV dom of Chrifl: began, and at

D d 2 wh^^

( ao

ivbat time foever he was worfhipped either By
Angels or by Men , it was by the Command of
the Father j who, when he brought ifi the
firft'hegotten into the World^ faid, (whenfoever
That be fuppofed to have been,) Let all the
Angels of God wbrpnp hiffj* And This Wor-
(hip of Chrift, was to the Glory of God^ the
Father : Whereas it cannot (1 think, without
Blafphemy) be affirmed of the Father^ that
He is or ever vcas wordiipped to the Glory of
the Son. Th'b Father'^ Worfliip therefore is
both Primary and Ultimate : And I am per-
fuaded it cannot Truly be faid, that He To
wicvm the Father has committed all Judgment^
has '' the SAME Title to Adoration'\\<^ the
Father who committed all [judgment to Him ;
Or that He hy whom Gbd created all things^
has, " as Author and Governour of the Uni-
*« verfe^ the SAME Title to Adoration^ rphicb
" God the Father hdth^^'' who created all
things hy Him. And therefore 'tis a mea7i
thing, to confound the unlearned Reader
here, with the Ambiguity of the Terms
'^ Creator and Preferver.'' Nor is there Jny
one inftance in Scripture, of Worftiip paid to
Chrift in That capacity.

aUERY

( 37 ;

QUERY XIX.

^^hether the Bo&or hath not given a very

partial Account of Joh. 5. 23. founding

the Honour due to the Son^ on this only^

that the Father hath committed ail

*^ Judgment to the Son; mioen the true

Reafon ajjign^d by our Saviouy^ a?id illu^

*' firaied by fever al Inflames^ is^ that the

Son doth the fame thijigs that the Father

doth^ hath the fame Power and Authority

of doing what he will '^, and therefore has

a Title to as great Honour^ Reverence^

'' a?id Regard^ as the Father himfelfhath}

** And it is no Obje&ion to this^ that the

^' Son is there faid to do nothing of him-

*' felf, or to have all given Him by the Fa-

ther ^ Jince it is own'd that the Father is

'* the Fountain of all, fro?n whom the Son

" derives^ in an ineffable manner^ his Ef

'*^ fetice and Fowers^ fo as to be one with

^Anfw.'-'Y^YiE " Do&or has not given a par.
X Hal Account of this Text ^ Be-
caufe he has ''' founded the Honour due to the
'' So7i"' upon That, upon which Alone our
^aviour himfelf has in the moft exprefs words
D d 3 founded

C 38 )

founded it. The " Soiis doing the fame
" things that the father doth^^ (which Dr
W. calls '^ the True reafon ajjigned by cur
*' Saviour ^"^^ is not " the reafon ajjigned by our
" Saviour^' tho' it is indeed a " true reafon'^
as being of the fame import with That which
our Lord has affigned in the Text. For as
the Son has Therefore all Power of Judgment,
becaufe the Father has committed all Judg-
ment unto him *, fo (if we will believe his
own words,) he therefore does the fame things
that the Father doth, becaufe the Father lo-
veth the Son^ andjijeweth him all things that
himfelf doth. But our Lord doth not fay,
that he ''''hath the SAME Power and Aiitho-
*' rity of doing what he wills ^"^ as the Father
hath 5 Becaufe Power or Authority original
and derived^ are not the SAME. Nor does
our Lord fay, that he " has a Title to As
^'' Great Honour^ Reverence^ and Regard^ as
*' the Father himfelf hath ;" but that 'tis As
Much mens Duty to honour the Son, to
whom the Father has committed all Judgment ^
as to honour the Father^ who has cornmitted.
all Judgment unto him. Which are very dif-
ferent things. And 'tis extremely pleafant
in Dr W. to fay, " it is no ObjeSion to this^
*^ that the Son is there faid to do nothing of
" himfelf or to have all given him by the Fa-
'' iber'^fince 'tis OWNED that the father is

''the

C 3P ^

^* rl?(? Fountahi of till^ from whom the Son de-
^' rives ^ in an ineffable tvanner^ his Ejfence
" afid Powers^ fo as to be One with him'" Tis
very pleafaiit (I fay) to allege, that an 0?-
jeSion which overturns his whole Scheme, is
No ObjeSion, becaufe 'tis Owned. For let it
but be conftantly and uniformly acknowledged,
that the Father is really^ not in empty words
,X)nly, " the Fountain of all •," and that '' the
'' Son has all Given him by the Father-^"' fo that
the incommunicable Honour of the lirH
Caitfe and Supreme ^Author of all things, be
preferved entire: And the ''ineffable manner''
how ^.' the So a derives his Effence and Powers
" from him;' and is " 0«^ with Him^' needs
caufe no Difputes.

(^ U E R Y XX.

^^ Whether the DoSo^ need have cited 500

" TextSy wide ofthe Pur pofe, to prove what

" no Body dejiiesj namely, a Subordination,

*' in fome Senfe, of the Son to the father ,

'^ could He have found hut one plain Text

" againsi his Eternity or Confubftantiality,

*^ tloe Points i?i quejiion ?

D d 4 Anfw^

C 40 )

A/n^.'nr^HE ^' E^emity or Confub(lani}a-
J Utf of the Son, are not in any
manner " the Points in quejlion ," becaufe, of
whatever Duration and of whatever Sub fiance
the Son be, (which are Metaphyseal Quefti-
onF,) the Truth of no one* of Dr Clarke'^
Propofitions is thereby at all affeded. The
Truth of plain Scripture-Declarations, does
not at all depend on the Truth or Erroneouf-
nefs of any metaphyfical hypothefes made by
Writers who lived in Ages after the Apoftles.
The 300 Texts therefore, are by no means
*^ wide of the purpofe ^" becaufe they All
frove^ what they \yere brought to prove ,
namely, a Subordijiation^ not in mere pofition
or Order of Words^ which in the Truth of
things is a Co-ordination j but they prove a
teal Sid'Ordination of the Son to the Father in
point of Dominion and oAuthority^ and efta-
blifli a real Supremacy of the Father over all ^
Which Dr Waterland^ in dired oppofition to
the Firil Article of the Apoftles Creed, and
^o the whole Tenour of the New Teftament^
conftantly denies.

QUERY

( 41 )

a U E R Y XXL

^': Whether he he not forCd to [uf^]yhis want
" of Scripture-Proof by very f,rai?i'd an^
" remote Inferences ^ and very tincertaiu
'' Reafonings frotn the Nature of a thing
" confe\]tdiy Ohfaire and above Comfre-
'' henfion ] a7ul yet not morefo^ than God's
" Eternity, Ubiquity, Prefcience, or other
" Jt tributes^ wbicbyet we me obliged to
'" acknowledge for certainJmths?

eAnfw. IVIC) N E of the Propofitions on
i>j which Dr Clarke lays any
Strefs, are drawn by mere " Reafo7ungs fro^^i
"-' ihe^ incomfrebenjible Nature'' of God, tho'
(1 think) they are very agreeable to'right
Reafon: Neither are they drawn by any
" /trained and remote Inferefices :" But tliey
are either the expefs and literal declaration,
or tbQ ' immediate ana obviom Refult ^ of
many more than joo Texts m the New
Teftament. Dr W\ Scheme, on the con-
trary, is founded wholly upon a f articular
explication of a fhilofophical Notion of Con-
fubfiantiality^ never 'mentioned in any One
Text of Scripure ^ whatever Metafhyftcal
Truth it may be fuppofed to have in it.'

As

iC

( 4^ )

As " God'^s. Eternity^ UliqtiHy^ Frefcience^
and other Attrihutes^'* are Themfelves (not
particular mens different philofophical Ex-
plications of the Manner of them) the Suhjeti
of our "Belief: So the 1)treitio?is actually-
given in Scripture concerning the Worfhip
of God and of Chrift, (not philofophical
Conjeftures concerning Suhftances and £/-
fe7Kes and the MetaJ^hyJtcd reafons of things,)
ought to be the Gmde of our Traciice. And
then there .would foon be an End of all
Difputes.

Q. U E R Y XXIL

" JVhether hk (the DodorV; whole Perform-
" ance^ whenever He differs from U6^ he
" any thing more than a Repetition of this
*' eAjfertion^ that Being and Perfon are
*' the fame^ or that there is no Medium
^' between Tritheifm and Sabellianifm ?
^' which is removing the Caufe from Scrips
^' ture to natural Reafon ; not very con/ijt--
[^ €?2tly with the Title of bis Booh

Jnfw.

(43 )

(iAnfw.T~\^ Clarle^ has no where affirm-
I J ed or fuppofed , '' that Being
<^ a?td Perfon are the frane-,'' but th^it htel-
ligent Beingj (or rather hitelU^^ent oAgent^)
and Perfon, are the fame. If Two or more
Intelligent oAgents Can be the fame "Beings
or fubfift in the fame individual Subftance,
(provided the Agents be not all of them
Self-exiftent as well as the SubHance;
which is manifeft Tolytheifm ;) this will
no way affeft the Truth of Any of
Dr ClarWs Propofitions.

To infift that words ought to have
Some Meanifig and Signification , is not
*' removing the Catife frcfu Scripture to
*' natural Reafon ," but appeahng from
Enthuftafm to Scripture and Reafon in
conjunciion.

(iUERy

a U E R Y XXIIL

i^ Whether (y.) the DcSor's Notion of the
*' Trinity be more cUar and intelligible than
'^ the other <?

f' The Difficidty (i.) in the Conception of the
" Trinit)^ ts\ how Thre^ Perfons can be One
" God.

^' Does the DoEicr deny that every One of the
" Perfo?is, Jingly^ is God^ No. Does he
*^ deny that God is One <? No, How then
" (l.) are Three One.

<^* Does one and the (^2.) fajne Authority^ exer-
*^ cifed by all^ make them Ofje^ numerically
" or individually one and the fame God ^
'' That is hard to conceive^ hoxp three di-
^^ JlinS- Beings^ according to the DoBor^s
. '' Scheme^ can be ijidividually one God^ that
^^ is^ three Perfons one P erf on.

^^ If therefore one God necejfarily fignifies but
" f^.J ove Perfon^ the Confequence is irre^
"^ fijlible 5 either that the Father is that
*' one Perfon^ and none elfe^ . which is
** downright Sabeliianifm , or that the
'' three Perfons are three Gods.

*^ Thus (^.)the Do&or's Scheme is liable to
" the fame Dijjlculiies with the other.

** There is indeed (<^.) one eafy way of coming
'^cff'j and that />, by faying that the Son

" and

i€

cc

(45 )

and Hoh'SpirU are fieither of them Go J,
171 the Scripture-fefife of the Word. But
thh is cutting the Knot^ injleadof un-
" tying it •, and is in effeB to fay^ they
" are not fet forth as divine Ferfons in
*^ Scripture.
^^ Does the Communication of divine Powers
^' and Attributes from Father to Son and
*^ Holy -Spirit^ make them one God, the Di-
<< vinity of the two latter being the Fa^
*' therms Divinity ^ Tet the fame difficulty
*' recurs: For either the Son and Holy*
*' Ghofi have (6.) dij/inS Attributes^ and
*' a dijlinB Divinity of their own, or they
*' have not : If they have^ they are (upon
'' the Do8or'*s Principles) diflinS Gods
" from the Father^ and as much as Finite
" from Infinite^ Creature from Creator ^
^' and then bow are they one ^ If they have
*' 7iot, then^ fince they have no other Divi-
" nity, but J hat i?idividual Divinity and
" thofe Attributes which are infeparable
" from the Father^s Efjhice^ they can have
*' no diftinEi Effence from the Father'' s -^ and
" fo (according to the DootorJ will be one
"' and the fame Perfon^ that is^ will be '
" Names only,
*' Q. Whether this be not as (7) iininte'ihgibkas
" the Orthodox Notion of the Trinity^ and
**^ liable to the like Difficulties : A cofnmuni-

" catior^

( 4<5 )

^' cation of Divhie Powers and Attributes^
" without the Subflance^ being as hard to
" conceive^ nay^ much harder than a com-
" inumcdtioyi oj Both together ^

^nfw. (r.) ^^ nr^HE difficulty hi the Corj.
X ception of the Trinity
'' is ^ " not, ^' horv three Perfons can be One^
^^ God: '* For the Scripture no where ex -
preftes the Doclrine in thofe Words , and the
Difficulty of underftanding a Scripture-Do-
8r:ne^ ought not furely to lie wholly upon
words 7iot . found in Scripture. (Tis very
ftrangre, that a Man of Dr /'Ps Abilities,
ftiould write a large Book, without fo much
as knowing, or ever once being able to ex-
prefs, what the True Queftion is, which he
undertook to write upon.) But the only Diffi^-
ctdty in the Scripture-Declarations concerning
the Trinity, if it be indeed a '^Oifficnlty^ is ^
how and in what Senfe, conftjiently with eve^
ry thing that is affirmed in Scripture concern-
ing the Father and Son and Holy Ghoft, it-
is ftill certainlv and infiUibly true, what Sti
'Paid exprefsly affirms, that r<9 US there is
hut One God^ the^ Father^ of whom are all
Things '^ and one Lord^ J^P^ Chrifl^ by whom
are all things^

(47)

(2.) *^ One and the fame Juthorhy exercu
^^ fedbyall^ *' does not " fnakethem numeri-
'' cally or individually One and the Same
" God. " But the One Authoritj which makes
the Government of the Univerfe to be a M?-
fiarchyy being in the Father Origijial^ in the
Son Derivative-^ necefTarily fuppofes Him^
in whom that Supreme Power and Domi-
nion is ahfolutely Of and Fro?n Hitnfelf^
original^ imd^rived^ and independent on A-
ny 5 it neceiTarily (I fay ) fuppofes Him
to be, by way of Eminence, what St Saul
exprefsly (tiles him. The One God^ even
the lather ( or Firft Caufe, ) of whom
are all things.

(5.J The word, God^ being expreffive,
not of bare Subftance or Beings but of a Li-
vifig Agent ^ does therefore neceffarily^ in
the 'Nature of hanguage^ and in Vaci through
the whole Scripture^ always "^ fg'^'^fy one Per-
^' fo7i.''\ Yet neither does it '' irrefiftihly "
or at all follow, " that the Father^ andiwne
" elfe^ is the One Ferfon " always fignified
by That Word , (becaufe in fome few Places,
the fame word (ignifies alfo the One perfon of
the Son.) Nor yet does it follow, that " the
" Three Perfons are Three Gods -^ ''Be-
caufe there is No Text of Scripture, where-
in the word, God^ denotes the Perfon of
the Holy Ghoji. Nor does the Sons being,

C 48 )

ililed by St John mi St Paul, the God (stTid

the Lord J BT whom are all things \ in any

wife exclude the Father from being (till alone

the One God, ' (or FirfiCaufe^) OF whom are

all things. But according to Dr W^s Scheme,'

the Three Perfons are really and neceflarily

Three Gods. For three ^

*' Real Perfons^ '' .—^ ^ * ^^.t^'^f'

CL 7 - r> ^ 7 ' J' ' J terland s Dereniew

each of them an individU' p^^^ ^.^^ ^

" al intelligent A gent ^ and
each of them equallv^ fupreme over All i
cfre certainly Ihree Gods, Nor will three " /W
" dividual intelligent Agent s^ " by ^'' fuhfi fling
" in one undivided S uhflayice^ '* be " All toge*
" ther.^""^ in Any refpeft, '' one undivided i?iteL
*' ligent Agent^ " (as Dr W, mod abfurdly af-
firiEs that they will '^) but only One undivi-
ded Sub fiance,,

f4.) Dr Clarke's Scheme therefore, being
eaiily exprefl in the very words of Scripture^
rmd containing in it no ContradiElion to Rea-
fon^ is not " liable to, the fame Difficulties
" with " Dr Waterland's* For Dr M\ never fo
much as once Attempts to exprefsfl;J in Scrip-
ture-words^ (as a Scripture-Doclrine^k were rea-
fonable to expccl, might poj/iblj have been ex-
prcft -J And in hlsOivn words^ 'tis a Contra-
diSlion in the very Terms, if '*^ three indivi-
*' dual inteUigenl' Agents " being '' Oaj^ z//?J/-

" vided

C# 1

*' v'lJeJ intelligent Jgoit^ '* be i Contra-
€idion.

(5.) In Doftor Clarke's Scheme , it " ii
" inked an eafyWay of coming off'' from
all Difticultles, to fa}% not " that the
" Son is not God in the Scripture-Sen f'e of the
^' word • '* but that, though he ii God in
the Scripture-Senfe of .the word God (or
•^ Lord) BT whom are all
things^ yet he is not God in . ^ Compare Job^
the Scripture-Senfe of the viiV l'/""^ ' ^''^'
word. One God^ the TFirft '
Caufe, or; Father^ OF 'whom are all things]
This is '* untying the Knot, " (if it be
at all a Knot,) and not ^' cutting it. " 'Tis
faying, both /' in effeEl " and in exprefs
words too, neither more nor lefs than what
the Scripture hasfaid^ Tis '-'' fetting forth the
" Divine Perfons^ " juft as the Scripture it-
felf has fet them forth.

(6.) From what has beeti faid in the fore-
going Paragraph, 'tis very plain hotv it may be
affirmed, that " the Son and Holy Ghoft Have
" diJiinB Attributes and a diftinS Divinity
" of their own^ " and yet the Father is ft ill
Alone The One God (or Firft CaufeJ OF
whom are all things. But the Dilemma here
put by Dr Waterland^ irrefiftibl}^ deftrcys
his Ovpn Scheme. '' Either the Son iind Holy
" Ghoft have dijiin^ Attributes^ and a di-

E e '' Jlin^

^* JlinEi Divinity of their own^ or they have
*' 7iot. If they have^ they are '* [not with (land-
ing any Unity of SubUance] '' dilHnSi Gods
"•' from the Father -^ as much fo''^ (upon DrWs
Principles) '^ as " One hifintte Intelligent Agent
from x\notltcr Infinite Intelligent Jgentj as
One Creator from Another Creator^ as One
Si4preme Lord over all from Another Supreme
Lord over all j *' And then how are they
'' One, *' [One ^ undivided

^ Sec Dr m j,^^,iii.,,,t Aoent <?1 If they
350. "3^^ ^^^^ then^ Jtnce they

" ^/^i'<? 7/^? ^ffer Divinity^
'' h/^ T/:?^r individual Divinity and thofe At-
'^ tributes zvhich are infeparable^'^ not only
*' from^ the Ejje?ice, " but from the Perfon of
" the Father -^ they can have^ '* not only " 710
^[ dij}m& Ejjence, " but no diftind Perfona^
lity " from the Father'' s^ " [they cannot be
*' each of them an individual

t P^g* 350- " intelligeiit Agent, " as f
Dr W\ affirms them to-
be '^ " and fo will be one and the fame
*' Perfon, that is^ will be Names only. "
But now

(7) Dr darkens Notion, when rightly
and fairly reprefented, has in it not only no-
thing '' unifitelligible, '* but (as I before obfer-
ved; nothing '' liable to " any real " Diffi-
" culties. " For tvhat Difficulty is tfcere

( n )

iri apprehending " a Communkation of^^ all
Thofe " Divine Powers and Attributes^ '*
which the Scripture declares to be commwnca^
ted ^ without prefuming to make Any deter-
mination concerning fuch metaphyseal Uoti-*
ons of Subftance^ as the Scripture never men-
tions at all ^ and in Reasoning about which
there always has been and cannot but be, a-
mong fpeculative Men, great Variety of Opi-
nions > So that 'tis very wonderful, Dr H^,
fliould conjlantly fo mifreprefent the whole
Queftion, as to lay the main Strefs of the
Argument perpetually, where the Scripture
has laid no Strefs at all, and upon Points
which (whatever Way they be determined)
do in no wife afFed the Truth of Any of
Dr darkens Propofitions. For though Dr
Clarke does indeed fuppofe it to be SabelUan^
and alfo impojfible in it lelf, that the Son and
Holy Spirit ftiould be {individually with the Fa-
ther) the Selfexifient Bein^ -, yet if it CoitlJ
be proved that Perfons 7iot Self-exiflent^ could
hQ generated or proceed (not only \k rn? ^ffiai ^
^re^fy as the Council o^Nice determined,) but
even in the Self-exijlent Subjlance itfelf] by
the incomprehenfible Power and Willot Him
who is The Alone Self-exijlent Perfon , ftili
Dr darkens Propofitions would remain All of
them True and Untouched.

E c 2 QyERI

{ f^ )

Q. U E R Y XXIV.

^ Whether GaL 4. S. may not be e7iOugh t6
" determine the 'Dtjpite betwixt U6 j [tme
** it obliged the Dottor to conftfs that
^' ChriS is by Nature trrfy God, as tmly
'' as Man is by Nature truly Man.

*^ Hi? equivocates^ tbere^ indeed, as Ufuah
" For^ he will have it to Jignify^ that
" CbriB is God by Nature^ only as having
*^ by that Nature which he derives from
^' the Father ^ true Divine Fower and
*' Dominion: that is^ be is truly God hy
*' Nature ^ as having a Nature diftinti
^' from and inferior to God^s^ waging the
*' moft Eifencial Charader of God, Self--
*"^ extjie?ice. What is this but trifling with
Words y and^layijigfaU andloofe?

cc

«/3;;/rc;.'"T^HE Sony ^' by that Nature whish
_|_ ^^ be derives from the Father^
*' has True divine Power and Dominion i*"^
That is to fay, he is Truly and Really (as
the Evangdi'd and the Jpo/ile ftiles him)
That God or That Lord (Joh. i , i, j. and
5 Cor. 8, 6,) BY or Torough whom are all
things. But yet, (not being Self-exiftent -^
BOt^eing the Father and FirB Caufe of all;
Eoc-having his Perfedions abfolutely of Him-

f 53 ;

felf^ original, mderived^ and independent on
Any \) he is not The Ode God, OF whom are
all things. Whether the endeavouring to
ridicule fo exprefs a Scripture-diftinftion ,
calling it '^ Kq^uivocating^^ and '<• Trifling
^' with Words^ and Playing fast and loofe ;"
whether This, I fay, be a ^^eal according to
Kjiowledge-^ and whether thefe Expreffions
(if decent) might not with far greater
Juftice be retorted upon Dr W's notion, of
Self-exifience not being a Keal and Ejjhitial
T erf e^ ion of the God, from and of whom are
all things ; I leave to the Reader to judge.

Q, U E R Y XXV.

" Whether it he not clear from all the genuine
'^ Remains of Antiquity, that the Catho*
** lick Courch before the Council of Nice,
** and even from the leginning, did believe
*^ the Eternity a7td Confubftantialily of the
f Son • // either the oldefi Creeds, as in'-
*' terpreted ly thofe that recite them ; or
** the Teftimoiiies of the earliefl Writers^
*' or the ^ublick Cenfures paf'd u^ou He-
^^ reticks, or particular Pajjages of the
'^ Antienteft Fathers , can amount to a
*f Proof of a thing of this Nature ?

E e 5 Anfw.

C J4 )

^Anfw. T Have already fhown, that the
J[ metaphjfical queftion concerning
*^ the Eternity and Confuhfiantiality of tM
^' Son^"^ no way affefts the Truth of Any
of Dr ChrWs Propofitions. But here I
cannot but take notice, with what an un-
reafonable Prefumftion This Query is word-
ed. For None ot^^the oldeji Creeds ^^ men-
tion any thing of thefe Matters at all , and
therefore Dr W. is forced to add, '^ as inter-
*' freted by thoje that recite tbem.^'* And
the moft remarkable " Cenfures fajjed ufon
*^ HtreticW of old, were upon the Ehio-
nites^ who taught that Chrift was a mere
Man^ in whom the Supreme God dwelt : and
upon Cerinthm^ who taught that the Son of
God was not himfelf 7nade man^ but only
united to a Manx and upon the Vdlentinians
and Manichees and Catafhrygians^ from
whom arofe the Doftrine of Necejfary Etna-
Tiationsi and upon Sahellim and Taul of
Samofata^ who taught (ra TAvlo^trtov) the no-
tion of Individual Conjuhfiantiality. And
among the " Fathers''^ themfelves , there
was great variety of opinion concerning thefe
Matters : Some fuppofing that the Son was
originally [the KiyQ- h^S^idHiQ-^ the internal
lieafon of the Father ^ v/hich is either ma-
king him nothing but an Attrilute^ or fup-
pofing him to have eternally exifted only

mentally

( 5? )

mentally or ideaUy in the Father: And fb
did all other things. Others fuppofed him
to have really exifted in the Father from
Eternity, but not to have been emitted as a
ferfon or diftinH Agent ^ till the time of cre-
ating the material World. Others taught
him to be a Part of the Father's Subflance,
as a Branch is part of a Tree; and Others,
that he was co-immenfe with the Father's
Subftance. All which Notions are the lefs
to be wondred at, confidering how many
Philofophers (according to the feveral Hypo-
thefes of the times they lived in,) imagined
All Sfirits^ and even Hmnane Souls ^ to be
produced, not out of Nothing, but out of
the Divine Subftance; From whence 'tis
evident, that no mere Metaphyfical Specu-
lations ought to be made the Ground of Re-
ligiom Dottrines and Practices, However,
One thing is clear from JU Jntipitj^ (and
Dr W^. has not been able to allege any One
pafTage from any Ante-Nicene Writer to the
contrary ;) that They who believed the Son
to have been Always with the Father, as a
real Per/on ; and to have been, not aut of
Nothings but out of the Father'^s Subflance -^
did All of them uniformly fo explain it, as
to aflisrt with great diftinftnefs, that they
believed him to have been, not Self-exifting
with the Approbation of the Father^ (which

B e 4 is

C 5O

is pr Ws notion,) but Begotten BTthe Power
and BTthe Will of the Father ^ and conftant«
ly obferved That diftinftion, in their Rea-
fonings, and in their Worfhip. See Dr
darkens Scripp-re-IDocirme^ Part IL § 17^
$^Q alfo above, the Anjwer to Query yiM.

a U E R Y XXVI.

f* Whether the DoHor did not equivocate or
''' ^prevaricate ftrangely in faying^ The Ge-
^' nerality of Writers before the Council
^' of Nice, were, in the whole, clearly
'' on his (\Aq: when it is manifefl, they
^'' were^ in the general, no farther on his
*■' Jide^ than the allowing a Subordination
^' amounts to-^ no farther than our ovon
^' Church is on h'vs fide\ while in the main
*•' Points of Difference^ the Eternity and
^' Confubftantiality, they are clearly a--
'^^ gainft him ? Tloat is, they were on his
^^ fide^ fo far as we acknowledge him to he
i[ rights hut no farther <.

]4^fw<

Jnfw.ir'\R. Clarie did ndthev ^^ equlvo^
\^ *' cate^"^ nor " {revarkatey* but
affirmed a manifeft Truth, ^'' in faying^ The
*? Generality of Writers before the Council of
f* Nice, werej in the Whole, clearly on his
'* fide :" Becaufe they generally agree with
him (as is evident from his numerous Cita-
tions,) in all the Points laid down in his
Propofitions. The '^ Eternity a?id Confuh^
" fiantiality^'' are neither *^ the mai^i^'^ (nor
at all, the) ^'points of difference f becaufe,
in what manner foever thofe points be deter-
mined, his Propofitions are all neverthelefs
equally true. All that the DoQ:or contends
for, is, that the Supremacy of him whom
the A pottle ftiles the One God and father of
ally who is Above all, fhould uniformly and
conftantly be fo acknowledged, according to
the Scriptures, as that All WorJhiJ^ Hiould be
to the Glory of God, the Father. The con-
fequence of which, (as well as the plain Im-
port of the numerous Texts cited to that
purpofe) is, that the ** Subordination^^ of the
Son, '' allowed'''* (as Dr W. confeffes) by the
Primitive Writers, is not a Subordination
merely nominal , confifting (according to
Dr Wciterland) in mere Fofition or Order of
Words, whicli ia the Truth of things is a
Co-ordination ; but that it is a real Suhordi^
mtion of the Son to the Father in point of
^^^ Jutho^

(58)

'Juthorlty and Dominion over the Univerfe,
This is the vmin, the true and only Point.
"Which being uniformly, and confiftently ac-
knowledged j Metaphyfical Subtilties about
Nature and Subftance, never mentioned 'm
Scripture^ need not occafion any Difputes,
All ^^ equivocating and ^revaricatin^^ in this
matter, (if it be commendable tq ufe fuch
Expreflions,) lies in making Subordination to
confift in the mere order or j^lacing of Words -^
which ^however unvaried the pofition ^nd
order of the words be,^ is in reality a £erfecf
Co-ordination^

Q^ U E R Y XXVIL

^ Whether the Learned Doctor may not rea-^,
^' fonahly he fufpofed to fay^ the Fatherij
** are on his fide, with the fame Meaning
** and Referve as he pretends our Chtirch-
^ Forms to favour him ; that is^ provided
^' he may interpret as he fleafes^ and make
** them Jpeak his Senfe^ however contra-^
*^ diciory to their own : And ^whether the
^' true Reafon why he does not care to ad^
^ mit the Tefiimonies of the Fathers as
^ Proofs, may not le^ hecaufe they are
^l againft him ?

4nfW'^

iS9)

oAnfw. \ \ THether Dr Clarle may not
VV reafonably be ''SUPPOSED
^^ ^^f^yT ^^* And whether the true Reafpn
" MAT not he^'' i§c. are Queftions proceed-
ing merely from ZS^^ without Kjiowhdge';
and therefore need no Reply.

Ct U E R Y XXVIII.

?* Whether it le at all prolable^ that the pri-^
*' mitive Church jbould miftake in fo mate^
*^ rial a Point as this is ; or that the whole
*' Stream of Chriftian Writers Jhould mi^
** ftake in telling m what the Senfe of the
*' Church was , a7td whether fuch a Cloud
'' of WitnefJ'es can le fet afide without
** weakening the only "Proof we have of the
" Canon of Scripture, and the Integrity of
*^ the facred Text?

eAnfw^ T X THether the Antient Writers
V V of the Church, were better
skiird in metafhyfical Speculations, than We
at this day ; and whether Determinations of
Fathers and Councils are a proper and pro-
bable Method of difcovering the Truth ia
matters of controverfy ; are Queftions which
there is no occafion here to enter upon j
becaufe Paffages of the Primitive Writers in

favour

r op ;

favour ofkVi that Dr Clarke has aflerted, are
imumerally More^ and more pregnant, than
pan be alleged againfl any thing he has af-
ferted. But fappo/mg the greater number
pf Antient Writer^ had miftaken in This or
Any other Point/ yet it would not at all
*' weaken the only Proof we have of the
** Cauon of Scripture^ and the Integrity of the
f^ Sacred Text:'^'^ Becaufe Tefiimony is the
froj^er and Onlj Evidence of a Matter of
Fatt^ as that fuch and fuch Books were
written by the Authors whofe Names they
bear , But even ** whole Streams ofWriters^^
in mz.tttvs oi Contr over fy^ reprefenting Other
mens opinions, otherwife than in the Words
of the perfons themfelves, are No manner of
Evidence at all. Should any nian ffor in-
jftance,) without reading Dr Clarke's Books^
judge from the Accounts of Dr Waterlana
and other fuch Writers, what Dr Clarke\
Aflertions were ; he would never have any
manner of notion, wherein the True Strei?
pf the prefent controverfy lies.

aUERf

4«

( 6i )

(^ U E R Y XXIX.

•* Whether private Reafoning^ in a Mat fey*
** above our Com^rehenfion^ he a fafer Rule
to go hy^ than the general Senfe and
Judgment ofthepimitive Church, in the
firft joo Tears) or, M^^fing it doubtful
*' what the Senfe of the Church was within
** that Time^ whether what was determi--
*^ ned hy a Council of 500 'Bijhop fooii
*• after J with the great eft Care and Deli^
*' beration, and has fatisfied Men of the
" greatefl Senfe^ Piety, and Learnings all
" over the Cbriftian World, for 1400 Tears
** ftnce, may not fat is fy wife and good Men
" now^

^^yw.'TpHE Matter in Queftion, is not
X a thing '^ above our Corner ehen-*
^' fion^ a metaphyfical Speculation, as Dr
W. conftantly mifre^refents the State of the
eafe. But the True Queftion is This only ::
Whether ft were not better to reft fatisfied
with what tlie Scripture has Exprefsly and
Confessedly declared and commanded, than to
build any T)otirines or PraSiices, wherein
the tVorpip of God is immediately concerned,
tipon metaphyfical Speculations not mentioned
in Scripture^ and upon controverted Confe^

qutnces

< ^* )

quences which depend upon the Truth or Ef--
irour of fallible Men's Phtlofophical Notions.
As to " the general Senfe and Judgment of
'' the VrimiUve Church in the jirft 500
*' Tears ^^^ and '* what was determined hy a
•* Council of 300 Bi^jops foon after ^ '* *tis
very evident, (without entring into the
Queflion, how far Determinations of fathers
and Cowicils are a proper and probable Method
of difcovering the Truth in Matters of Con^
trover fy ;,) 'tis very evident^ I fay, to any
one who has ftudied thefe Points, that (as 1
before obferved) the Paflages of the Primi-
tive Writers in Favour of all that Dr Clarke
has aflerted, are innumerably More^ and more
pregnant, than can be alleged againH any
thing he has aflerted. Nor did the Council
of Nice itfelf (though that's no Fart of the
true Qiieftion concerning a DoSrine of
Scripture,) determine any Thing that over-
throws, or is inconfiftent with, any one of
Dr Clarke'^s Propofitions. Nor had That Coun-
cil any Notion of the Confequences^ which?
Dr W's Philofophy leads him to.

QpERY

(^3 )

aU E R Y XXX-

^* Whether, fuppofing the Cafe doubtful^ it he
*' not a wife Man^s Part to take the fafer
** Side j rather to think too highly^ thm
'* too meanly of our Bleffed Saviour ^ ra*
*' ther to pay a modeft deference to the Judg-
*•' went of the Antient and Modern Churchy
** than to lean to one*s own Under fi and*
« ing .^

Anfw, 'Tp^ His Query may be retorted
X with irrefiftible Strengths
^' Whether^ fuppofmg the Cafe doubtful^ it he
*' not a wife Mans Part to take the fafet
'^ Side 5 rather to think too highly^ than too
" meanly^ " of God the Father Ahnighty,
and to be very tender of his Supreme and in-
communicable Honour : " Rather to pay a
" modefi 'Deference^ " nay, a ftrift and fcrupu^
lous Regard to the exprefs Declarations and
Commands of Scripture, *' than to lean to "
the Additions of Any Humane and fallible
Judgment whatfoever ? This is a matter, that
deferves to be confidered, with the utmoft
Care and Serioulnefs. But to the Query, as
Dr W. has propofed it, I anfwer diredly.
J^ The Jafer Side^ " unqueftionably, is to ad-
here

liete to exprefs Scripture^ and (as I before faid)
not to build Any Do&rines or PraB/Jes^
wherein the Worfhip of God is immediately
concerned, upon metaphyfical Speculations not
inentioned in Scripture, and upon controver-
ted Confe que rices which depend upon the
Truth or Errour of fallible Mens Philofophi-
cal Notions. For fas this matter has been
exprefTed in the Letter to the late Reverend
Mr R, M. pag. 179.) '*^ whether the Son
" and Holy Ghoji be equate or not equal^ to
*' the Father-^ v/hether they be the fame ^ or
*' not the fame^ with the Father 5 whether
^^ they be really difiijiB Perfons^ or not really
•' diJiinB Perfons^ but only Modes or
*' Powers^ improperly called Perfons ^ whe-
'' ther the Son be confubflantial to the Fa-
*' ther, or not confubjlaritial -^ whether con^
*' f^bjiantial fignifies Individuality of Sub^
*' fiance^ or only Derivation of one Suhjiance
•* from Another 5 afid which way foever innu-
*' merable other fuch Queftions be determi-
" ned, yet, to worfhip uniformly r^^ 0ns
^^ God^ the Father Almighty^ even our Fa-
*' ther which is in Heaven^ through the In-^
*' terceflion of his only Son our Lord Jefus
" Chriji^ in the Manner the Scripture direds 5
" and, with regard to the Nature of the Son
'^ and Holy Spirit^ hot to be wife above what
*' is written, but to confine our felves (at

lead

" leaft in Creeds and publick Prayers) to the
*^ clear and uncontroverced Expreffwns of
" Scripture concerning Them ^nd the Honour
«' due unto them -^ This (I fay) i? undoubted;
*^ ly upon all poffible Hypothefes, righs and
*' fiifficient inPraftife, without Any Danger of
** Errour or Miftake j being what all fincere
*' Chriftians might eafily and mod fafely a-
*' gree in, and indeed all that they promife
** at their Baptiim : Whereas All Determma'
*^ tions beyond thefe clear Truths, and All
^* publickly impofed PraBifes built upon
** fuch Determinations, Always have been,
" and cannot but be. Matter of Difquiet to
" the Confciences of many pious Perfo?is, and
*' (unlefs Men be too carelefs and indifferent
** with Regard to Truth or Errour in Reli-
*^ gion) will unavoidably in their Confe-
quences be the Caufe of Difputes alfo and
Contentions in th$ Church of Qod.

(C

Ff QUERY

( 66 )

QUERY XXXL

^^ Whether any thing lefs than clear and evU
♦* dent Demonftratiori^ on the Side of A-
^^ rianifin, ought to move a wife and
'' good Man^ agalnfl fo great Appear"-
" ances of Truth^ ' on the fide of Or-
^'' thodoxy, from Scripture, Reafon,
" and Antiquity: Ayid whether we
" may not' wait long^ before we find fuck
^' Demonftration ?

eiw/tt^oTpHE Arian Opinion is, that
X the Son of God was made
Qttt of nothings and that there was 'a
Time when He was not. Neither of thefe
Things have been a fferted by Dr Clarke-^
Nor has Jie any where affirmed any thing,
from v/hich either of thefe Notions can

r «7 )

f^y ^^^'^' jnft Confequence^ be deduced;
CAll his Propofitions being equally true
and certain both from Reafon and
Scripture, whatever the Suhflance^ ahd
how unlimtted foever the Duration of the
Son be:) And he conftantly blames thole
who teach either of thefe Notions, as
Men who prefumptuoufly affirm what
they cannot pojjlhly know any thing of.
5fet Dr W. will needs t^ave his Reader
believe, that Dr Clarke contends for
thefe Opinions ; merely becaufe He fan-
fies^ that from Dr Clarke'^s Notions,
( which he conftantly raifreprefents, ) fucK
and fuch Confequences will follow, which
E)r Clarke and Others have plainly apd
frequently ftiown not to follow at alU
Charging Men in this Manner with Con-
fequences^ which they neither teach nor
fee j is, in phtlofophkal Queftions, always
U7ifair 5 in religious^ always unjuji ^
and indeed nothing elfe, but appealing
from Scripture^ and Reafon to the Igno-
rance and Super ftitimi of the Vulgar.
I am fully perluaded I could demon-
ftrate^ that J)r W'^s Principles do, by
True and Neoejfary C^nfequence^ funda-
mentally fubvert both All Science and All

Religion;

(^^ >

Religion : Yet becaufe I firmly believe hi
does not at prefent perceive That Confe-
quence, it would be very unreafonable
in me to charge Him with it.

Not rendring Evil for Evilj or Railing
for Railings but contrarimfe Bkffing^
i Pet. J. 9.

F I N I S.

^^*^hm«;i*aft^

ADVERTISEMENT.

THERE will infomeTime bepublifh-
ed a Large and Particular x\nfvver
to Dr Waterland's Defenfe of his Que"

A True

NARRATIVE

OF THE

CONTROVERSY

Concerning the

Doftrine of the Trinity^

Being a R E P L Y to

Dr. BERRI MAN'S

Historical Account.

WHEREIN

The Partiality and Mifreprefentations of that
A U T H O R are fully fliown.

By the A u T H o R of the R E p L Y to
Dr. Waterlandh Defences, ISc

Lucian quomodo Hift. Confcrib. fit.

LONDON:

Printed for J. Noone at the White Hart near Mr*
cerS'Cha^el^ Cheapjtde. 1725.

A True

NARRATIVE

OF THE

controversy;

Concerning the

Dodtrine of the Trinity^ SceJ

MAN that undertakes to write aS
Hiflory of what kind foever, ought
to relate the Matters of which it
confifts with as much Ingenuity and
Inapartiality, as if he himfelf was
wholly indifferent to and difintereft'-
ed in every Cafe and Event, or had been an uncon-
cerned Spedator of the Facts and Things related :
So that he ought not, either out of Fear or Favour
to either Side, to fupprefs or difguife any Part of the
Truth, much lefs to deliver Falfehood inftead o£
Truth, _

( 4 )

The Bufinefs of a faithful Hiftomn is like that of
a * Judge, to be on neither Side of the contending
Parties, but to fum up and propofe the full Evi-
dence for both fairly and imparciallyj that every
Reader may judge from the Nature and Reafon of
the Things themfelves, where the Right or Truth
lies.

Dr. Beniman has undertaken to give an hiftorkal
'Account of the Controverf^es concerning the DoEirine of the
'Trinity ; and more particularly of the (fo call'd j A--
thanajian and Arian^ or Eufehian Controverfy i and
the principal Deiign of his Hiftory is to fhew that
his own Notion or Explanation of the Dodrine of
the Trinity is more agreeable to the Senfe of the
primitive Catholick Church of the three firft Centu-
ries, than that of his Adverfaries is, whom he writes
againft, and whom he ftiles Avians and Heretich^
taking it for granted that his own Opinion is Or-
thodox and True.

The Doftor every where declares himfelf not
only incUnM to, but very zealous on one Side,
which (hould put a Reader upon his Guard in the
receiving his Relation and Reprefentation of things,
And efpecklly to take Care that he be not impos^'d
upon by the Injerences and Judgment which the Do-
ctor makes from particular Fads and Expreidions,
in Favour of his own Opinion, and againft that of
thofe whom he oppofeth : In which Refped he may
perpetually obferve, that it was nottheDodor's Mind
or Intention (as an Hiftorianj to place before the
Reader the Evidence of both Sides with equal Truth
and Advantage ; but, as a Pleader and Advocate
for one Side only, not only to prefs the Teftimony

»!■ ri I • ■ , .. - I I I II

yBeictv It} fif^a J^tKcl^aa-iv* ]L«cian de confcrib.Hift. p. 365.
hdiu Par.

and

( 5 >

^nd Arguments on the Part he efpoufes as far and
farther than in Truth or Reafon they will bear,
but frequently alfo to mifreport and ftifle the Evi-
dence againft the one, ^nd for the other Queftion.

If the Dodor had intended no more than to
fhow by an hiftorical Narration, that the latter
Athanajian^ or his own Explanation of the Do-
drine of the Trinity , which fuppofes Father ^
Son, and Holy Ghofi to be three fupreme independent
Agents of one Nature, three diflind Perfons necef--
farily exiflent^ and equally fupreme in Authority, Power,
Dominion and Worfhip, had greater Evidence from
Antiquity, than the particular Arian Notion of the
Son and Spirit^s being Creatures made out of nothing,
and in 'Time, in which Arianifm properly confifts :
Had this been all the Dodor intended, yet even in
this Cafe he had not been able to Ihew that the
Sentiments of the Antients were more favourable to
his than to the Arian Opinion ; not tliat they agree
with the latter neither, on which Account Arius
was to blame to infift fo much upon his Notion,
without exprefs Evidence either from Scripture^ the
Dodrine of the primitive Church, or the Reafon of
the Thing it felf. But then on the other hand, a
faithful Hiftorian muft own, that the ancient Church
not only agrees as little with the Dodor's Notion,
but alfo more frequently, exprefly and unanimoufly op-
pofeth and condemns that which the Doctor calls the
Orthodox, i. e* his own Dodrine, than it does the
Arian Tenets j and that the DoEior therefore is e-
qually or more to blame for infift ing on an Expla-
nation, which his Oppofers think and have fhown
has not the leaf): Evidence or Proof from Scripture,
Antiquity, or the Reafon of Things, but that it is
even contradidory to the whole Tenor of Scripture,
the firft and moft fundamental Principles both of
natural and reveafd Religion, the firft Article of all
the primitive Creeds, the concurrent Dodrine of the

whole

( 6 )

whole nndent Catholick Churchy and the moft demon-
ftrative Reafon of Things-

This, norwithftanding all the DoBors Pretences to
hiftorical Teftimony, is truly the Cafe of the Argu-
ment betwixt his own and the Avian Notion, fuppo-
fing the prefent Controverfy to be on that Foot.
But tho"* the DoEior would (as Dr. Waterland before
him) always infinuate, that thefe are the Parties in
the Difpute concerning the Dodrine of the Trinity ;
yet the Controverfy has been fo long canvafs^'d, and
io fully fbated and clearM, that every intelligent
Reader muft fee that this is an egregious Impofition
and falfe Declaration of the Caufe , and that the
Controverfy really is not betwixt thofe of his Opi-
nion, and thofe who hold and infift on the particu-
lar Avian Pofitions i but betvvixt thofe who with
the Docior profefs the Father, Son and Spirit, to be
three diftind independent fiipreme Agents, independent
and co-ordinate in Nature and all PerfeElions ,* three
Perfons necejfarily exifient and equally fupreme in Au-^
thority. Power, Dominion and Worjhip : And thofe
who on the other Side hold that there is but one
Perfon, intelligent Being or Agent, who is the one
God and Father (or original fupreme Caufe) of all ;
that the Father alone is the one necejfarily exiflent, in-
dependent fupreme Godj alone fupreme in Nature
and all P erf eBions, as being underiv'd, and having no
Caufe or Original of hisExiftenceand Attributes ; and
on the fame Account alone fupreme in Authority, Power,
Dominion and Worfhip : That the Son and holy Spirit
are diftind divine Perfons or Agents really deriv'J
from the incomprehenfible Power and Will of God
the Father, fibordinate to the Father in Nature and
Perfedions, in Authority, Power, Dominion and
Worfhip ,• that they are the Father's Angels or Mef-
fengers, and miniflerially fulfil all his Will and
Commands^

This

( 7 )

Tliis is the Notion of the DoBo/s Adverfaries,
which he (after DoEior Waterland) very ignorantly
or malicioufiy ftiles Arianifm^ only in order to have
fome Pretence of oppoling it ; tho^ it is well known
that they whom he oppofeth profefs not any one of
the particular Tenets charg'd upon the Avians^ either
that QjM '7r'o]z t]t in iJj) there was a * 'Time when the
Sony 8cc. ivas not , that he was made out of nothings and

It does not certainly appear rhar the Ariavs us'd the Ex-
preiCon \Uu 'rs'c\i on y,K Vjj 6 tfo> Vjj -^-S^'l which is not found ei-
ther in Eidfebius of Nicomedui' s Ltitpr^ or in that of '^r/'wi, or in
his 'TbalLi^ cited by Athanafius ; tho' the Avhtris us'd other Ex-
preflions, whence ihe Nicenes might infer and charge the for-
mer upon them ; as lafx^jj) fy^ei o i|j<, ^k I'm a-A, ^elv 'y^vn^ii
HK Vm, Avii Epiji. apudlLheodo.^Hift. lib. i. c, 5.] ihe Son had a
Beginning of ExiJIence ; ivas not al^jj^'iys *, did not exifi before he
qvas begotten. And Athanajlus quotes AriuSy faying in his Thaliay
That the Son was [cj; yfivt^^ yzfaco^'l begotten in 'Time. But 'tis
certain that the Avians^ fuppoiing they us'd the Expreffion which
was chargM on them [Vm 'Ts-on on i)L \w 0 qo^ ^a -^'^^ were
not fo abfurd or (illy as to teach thereby that there was a
*Iime when the Son was not, in the o)d Senfe of Time as fup-
pos'd to be created ; and they cxprtfly faid on the contrary,
that he was bejoYs lime. And therefore Alexander vr ry unfairly
and falfely infers from the Charge of their faying [bl '^oji orz
iy, bJj] the. Son <iva$ not ; that they fupposM the Son to he made
in the Inlewal oi fome of thofe Ages which were all made ty
him, and that he was pofierier to Time, which was created by
him. [Alexander^ Words are ; « yd^ X^^'^'^ \iJ.'7rQKi\<^i^'^
cTe? t3 «k. Iwy n eduv'oi Ttvt S'lctg-nfj.etlii ei Toiviw ctAt79s^ to,
^clvja. ct") ctvfs yifopivcuy J'riKovQTt K^ f^A^ cucov }y yjpv'^ ^

J^ I dL^ii (A AT dy >t)i TO ^QTij h oJi TO in, \jx> <^ei<J'KiTaLty cT/ rtU.T«
\y<cv(\o' 59 'Srw? «X- d'^lQctVOV T K^ X^^^^^ ^ cuui'ct^ '/^ affj^^?^ hf'
01? To ax, Iw (TvijLTrkcfivfjoUf '7rQtyj(Tctp]cit dv]ov ^'oTi y.fi ^.POJ
?Ayeiv ; clS'ictvonTov fi " •• ' tov cutiov ^f^jo^ov TtvQ-y dvih
^iTcL'f^As-z^v \iyeiv th? gxe<V« *)^eo-«<y?' &c.] which was put-
ting a very abfurd Senfe upon the Words of the Arians, For to
be fure they fqppos'd the Son to be prior in Exiftence to all
created Time and Ages j but yet they thought that the Son had a
Beginmug of Exigence out of Nothing ; was not before he ivas begot^
$9fi '3 that the was; not always \ and that there wa^ [tho' nor created

Time

( 8 )

is like to the Creatures zvhich ivere made by him ] and
that he is unlike to the Father of whom he is begot-
ten. Thefe were the principal Particularities and
Novelties of Arius and his Adherents, which were
condemned not only at the Council of Nice^ but (as
fhall be fhown) by almoft all the Bilhops of C/;n-
ftendom, in many eminent and truly orthodox Coun-
cils afterwards ; and two of them (the Councils of
yerufalem and Aviminum) more numerous than that
of Nice ; who, as they condemn^ the Arian Por-
tions, fo they alfo laid afide or rejected as m-fcvip-
turalaud uncatholick the Particularities of the Nicene
Council, liiT^, That the Son was {\y. tm^ iaU^ of or
from the [Father's] Suhflance^ and that he was [-' /laV/o;
[ TM 'T^rctld ] confubftantial with the Father : And feveral

Time, yet] uncreated Duration txhen he had no Exijlence at all.
As this was the true Jrian Notion, fo what Arlus was blam'd
for was, not merely his teaching that the Father ey//??^/ before the
Gemrationofthe Sojit which was plainly the ancient Catholic
Doftrine, and allow'd by the Council of Nice it felf ; but it was
his peremptorily infifting in particular, that the Father's Exi-
gence was Hot only before the Son's Generation^ but (which the
Ancients had not exprefly defin'd j was before the Son or Word
had any Exifience at all in any RefpcQ: : Whereas Alexander
and the Nicene Council agreed that before his Generation he was
exiftcnt in the Father in an unbeaotteu Manner, as being the In-
iernal Word of the Father, which was the Notion of feveral of
the Ancients, Alexander kcms alfo to have made no Diftinction
betwixt ^wff and Duration^ and to have fuppos'd both to con-
fift of thofe [ctVwfg?] -Ages^ &c, -which were created by the Son,and
fo that the Son himfelf was [dei'] alivnysy as being before thofe
Agesy QPc, and on this Account charg'd the Avians, who fuppos'd
Duration vihen the Son ivas not, with making Time when he
fjtas not, tho' he created all Time. For the fame Reafon alfo
Alexander wanted a Word to exprefs the unbegotten 'ExiOiQncQ
and Duration of the Father before the Generation of the Son ;
For he allows that the Word [ctef] exifting ^/w^j'j, exprefleth
not fo high a Notion of Exiftence, as being unbegotten does ;
and was Hx from thinking the Son as Son to be eternal, in the
ftria and true philofophical Senfe of the Word as implying
pecejfary Exifience,

of

( 9 )

of them declared farther, in very ftrong and exprefs
Terms, that the Son was not neceffarily-exiftent and
fufreme God ; but that he was begotten by the Will
and Free-agency o^lhQ Father j and that he is inferior
and fubjeEl to him.

From what is thus briefly obferv'd, the Reader
will fee what is the true State of the Controverfy ia
which Dr.BerrimansJih^ory \s concerned; and that
if he had provM that the Senfe or Dodrine of the
primitive Church had not declarM for or was ex-
prefs againft Arianifm, he had really done nothing,
nor opposM his Adverfaries at all : But if he would
fay any thing to the Purpofe againfl: them, he was
to prove from Fad, and the dired Evidence oiAnti"
quity^ that it is the Doctrine of the ancient Catholic
Church that the Son and Holy Spirit are each diftind-
ly the one necejjarily-exiftent fufreme God, equal in Na-
ture and Perfedions, in Authority and Dominion
with the one God and Father of all, who is above all *,
and were equally worfhip'd as Godfufrejne. But for
this the DoElor has not been able to alledge (nor
Dr. Waterland before him) fo much as one Teftimo-
ny from any public Form of the Church, or from
the Sentiments of any private Writer , nothing of
Supremacy or Co-equality of the Son and Spirit with the
Father in any Refped is to be found in them : But
on the other hand, it has been largely prov'd, in
the Reply to Dr. Waterland'^ Defenfe^ &c. that it was
the exprefs and unanimous Dodrine of Antiquity
for more than three hundred Years, that the Fathe»
alone was the One God in exprefs Contradiilindion to
the Son and Spirit ; that the divine Unity was always
placed in his unoriginated Perfon. That the Son and
Spirit were diftind in Nature^ Effence or Suhjlance
from the Father^ and declar'd to be deriv'd or ^pio-

Eph, iv. tf,

B duc'd

Cio)

diic'd before all other Things, before all Ages, hy
his Will ,• which Produfcion by the Will of the Fa-
ther they frequently exprefsM by ftiling them Qrea--
ted and Creature : That they wtx^fubordinate, inferior
and fubjeEl to the Father in all Things ; miniflerial
and ohedieiit to all his Will and Pkajiire, and wor-
fhip^'d in Subordination to him by his Command and
A^pointmenty not on account of original fupreme
Ferfedions.

That this is the undoubted Doftrine of the pri-
mitive Catholic Church, has been clearly and fully
prov'd by a Dedu6cion of many hundred PalTages of
Antiquity, without Dr. W- — /s being able, or
this Gentleman after him, to produce fo much as
one (ingle exprefs FalTage to the contrary ; and it is
as certainly and evidently their Dodrine, as the
Senfe of any other Fads or Teffcimonies can be
known from Words and Language. And tho' the
Ancients explain'd differently feme Particulars of
their Notion i more efpecially their Opinion of the
metaphyfical Nature, the antem.undane Exiftence,
and the Manner of the Production or Generation
of the Son^ &c. in which Refpeds fo7ne feem to have
thought that the Son was begotten from an internal
'Property into a real P erf on ; feme, as a Light or Lamp
from another Light ; fome^ as the Splendor or Rays of
Light from the Sun^ or as a Branch from the Root :
Some thought him produced a little precedent to
the Creation of the World, as being himfelf the
Mrft-hom of every Creature *, and in order to be God^s
' snini fieri al Agent in the Work of Creation, h or
thro' vihom all Things were made ; fome, i>efore any in-
finite Time or Duration^ and that he ajivays exifled
with the Father.

Thefe

(1. )

Thefe were the feveral Speculations of particular
Writers,* on which Account many who are not
well vers'd in the ancient Books, and have not con-
fider'd the whole of Antiquity together, obferving
thefe different Explanations, have thought that the
Ancients difagreed and contradicted each other
in the DoEirine of the T'rimty : Whereas in Truth they
only differ'd a little in the Explanation of Things,
{which Explanation one way or other was of no
Moment, nor was thought to affed the general Do-
drine of the Church] in which Things themfelves
they were perfedly unanimous. It was ever agreed
on all hands, that of zuhatez'er metaphyfical Nature,
Effence or Subftance the Son, &c. was, ivhenfce"jer
or hozvfoever deriv'd, he was not necejfanly-exifient^
but in Oppofition to it, was exprefly faid to be de-
riv'd by the Po-wer and Will of the Father ; and
that tho' he was before the World, as all agreed^
yet that the Father did precede and fre-exift (as
fome exprefly faid) before the Nativity, the divinei
Nativity of the Son, as being the Original and Caufe
of his Exiftence : And it was, as hath been faid, their
exprefs, concurrent univerfal Dodrine that the Fa^
ther was the One God'm Contradifiinction to the Son^
\vho is not only never faid to be the One God or God
fupreme, but is frequently in exprefs Terms deny'd
to be fo ; and that the Father alone was worlhip'd
as the One God fupreme, and the Son and Spirit tvor-
fhipM in a fecondary and fuhordinate Manner, the
one as Mediator, the other as the Spirit of Prophecy i
and were conftahtly taught to be inferior and fub"
jeB to the Father. In thefe Things, in the fupreme
authoritative Power and Dominion of the Father (even
over the Son and Spirit) and in the Inferiority, Mi--
niftration and SiibjeElion of thd Son and Spirit to him,
the Ancients never differM, and exprefs 'd their Do~
drine clearly and fully both Ways ; both in 2.i{eTtmg
the Superiority and abfolute Preeminence of the Father^

(12)

and no lefs, the Inferiority and Inequality of the So7t
and Spirit. This being the Cafe, to what purpofe
is it for Dr. Berriman to fpend fo many Pages to
fhow (what none of his Adverfaries deny, and what
all of them are as zealous for as he can bej that the
Son of God is a divine Perfon and truly God^ exifl-
ing before the World, in Oppofition to fuch as de-
nyM his Divinity^ and held him to be a mere Man ?
This takes up a great Part of the DoElors Book, and
he has little more to urge till he comes near or to
the Council oiNice -, and the greateft Part of what
is related after that Council, is as little to the Pur-
pofe, being fpent in purfuing and difcufling from the
fifth to the prefent Century, the various FaBionSy
Divifions^ and mutual Perfecutions of the Athanajians
and Ariansy fo cail'd, as either were encouraged and
aflifted by the temporal Powers, in the contentious,
dark and ignorant Ages of the Church, when Chri-
flianity was over-run with Superftition, and foon
fwallow'd up in the great Apoftacy of Popery.

If the Doctor could have produced any thing in
Favour of his own Notion, or againft that of his
Adverfaries, from the Remains of the primitive
Church, his Labour would have been ufefully fpent ;
but not to be able to alledge fo much as one Inilance
direftly to his Purpofe, not one Pailage teaching the
Son^ dec, to be the one God^ God fupreme or equal to the
"Father in Authority^ Dominion^ &c. is furely, inftead
of fupporting his Cauie, plainly fliowing that it
cannof he f^.^ported.

I fhall therefore in the enfuing Papers briefly
Conflder every thing which I can pick out of the
DoElors HiHory that is any way to the Purpofe,
all which lies in the Compafs of about an hundred
Pages of his Book, and Ihow that he has not repre-
fented the Tranfad:ions and Senfe of the Church
fairly ox fully ^ either before y at or after the Council of
Nice,

The

( »? ;

The DoBor having no where producM fo much as
cne Teftimony from the numerous remaining Re-
cords of Antiquity, for the main Points in difpute,
to wit, for the fupreme, independent Divinity and
Authority of the Son and Spirit^ and their Coequa-
lity with the Father ; but being contented fafter
Dr. W.) to argue only for them by remote Infe-
rences and Dedu6lions from Expreilions averting
the Son to be God, and feeming (from the Similitudes
us'dj to imply his Confubftantiality with the Father;
and endeavouring at the fame time to evade with
fcholaftic Diftindions and quibling Pretences (^where-
in all the Strength of Dr. IV 's Books lies) the

many direct and ftrong Expreflions of the Subordina-
tion^ Inferiority and Suhjeciion of the Son and Spirit to
the Father, who is fet forth as being alone God ah^
folutely^ and the one God, ^nd fupreme ultimate Objed:
of Worihip, in all the ancient Creeds, and in all the
public Forms of the Church as recited by thofe An-
cients who have tranfmitted them to us ; after fuch
a Cloud of Witnefies for the Catholic Dodrine of
the Supremacy of the Father, and the Subordination
of the Son and Spirit, the DoBor feems to be fenfi-
ble of a Want of Evidence on his own Side, and to
be pinchM with the great Appearance of it on
the Part of his Adverfaries, fo as to fay : *' Had
*' the * ancient Liturgies been tranfmitted down en-
*^ tire, it might here have been an ufeful Labour
*^ to have made fuch Obfervations upon them, that
" the Worfhip of the Church might come in to the

*^ better Illuftration of her Dodrine. ' In this

" Cafe therefore [of the Want of the ancient Litur-
gies] the beft Evidence that can be brought is
from the fcatter'd Accounts which the Writers of
" thofe Times have left, who are the fitteft Wit-

*Page 152, 155.

V neffes

( H )

^' neiTes of the Worfhip, as well as of the I)ocl:nne
of the Church. As the Father was conftantly ac-
knowledg'^d for the Fountain of the Deity ^ and never
reprefented as aBing in Subordination to the other
Perfons , who on the contrary were always con-
(ider^d as fubordinate to him^ and fuftaining their
refpedive 0-^ces in the Work of our Redemption.
From hence it is no Wonder if the Prayers of the
Church fliould generally be addrefs'd to the Per-
fon of the Father, — thro the Merits of Chrift. — ^
We acknowledge the plain Footfteps of this Wor-
fliip to appear thro' /z// Antiquity, and the Church
has defervedly continued it to this Day. Let our
Adverfaries make the moft of this Conceffion/*
This ConcejTton, which the DoBor is forc'd to al-
low to be the Refult of the j^lain Senfe of all Anti-
quity, is not, methinks, very favourable to the No-
tion of the Son and Spirit being neceffarily-exiilent
and equally fupreme God with the Father, coordi-
nate with him in Nature and all Perfedions, which

is Dr. B 's as well as Dr. W — 's conftant Do-

d:rine.

Fnfly The Ancients (he owns) conftantly achnovj-^
ledgd the Father to he the Fountain of the Deity ; which
is a plain Declaration of his alone Supremacy, as
being alone the original firft Caufe of all things ', the
alone Fountain of all divine Power and Dignity;
[fo the Words -ur^^yn kojulQ- mean, not the Fountain
of THE Deity, as if Deity was a complex Name
of a Species, and fupposM more Perfons or Gods
exifting in it than one ; ] the alone Author and
Caufe of the Divinity, and of all the Perfedions of
the Son and Spirit. To be thus the Fountain of Dei"
ty is furely a diuine (nay, if I may fo fay, the moft
divine and fupreme) PerfeBion of God ; efpeeially
when it is further coniider'd ( which a faithful Hi-
ftorian fhould have told his Reader) that the Anci-
ents, in Confequence of their profeffing the Father

10

('5)

to be the Fountain of Deity ^ always plac'd the Unity
in the Unoriginatenefs of his '^' Perfon, as the learned
Biihop Pearfon himfelf has ownM : And therefore if
the Unity of God be itfelf a Perfe^ivn^ the Founda-
tion of this Unity the divine Paternity can be no lefs
fo. Bifhop Pearfon J Bull^ and the learned Dr. Cud-
•worth t, all admit that it carries in it a Preejninence
which belongs not to the Son, and which makes the
¥^lhtr greater than he^ in his higheil Capacity : And
in the Senfe of the ancient Church it was always
efteem'd, and the Father was always )| peculiarly a-
dord on account of it, as being the higheftincom-
municablePerfedion of God. And yet in Dr. B — -'s

Accourjt, (as alfo in DwlV "s) th\s fupreim Per-

fedion is no PerfeElion at all^ but a mere Mode of Exi-
flence, which derives no Dignity^ Power ^ Preeminence
or Authority to the Perfon, to the one God and Father
of ally ivho is above ally pollefled with it. Who would
imagine, when it was confefs'd to be the Senfe of
the ancient Catholic Church, that the Father was the
Fountain of the Deity ^ that it fhould yet be pretend-
ed to be their Senfe alfo, that the Son, &c. was
neceffarily^exiflent ^ and confequently as much the
Fountain of the Deity as the Father? But the An-
cients were not thus inconliftent ; they meant as
they fpoke, and fpoke rationally ; and not only ne-
ver taught that the Son was necejfarily-exijient, but in
exprefs Contradidion to it, confiftently profefs'd
that the Son was begotten or deriv'd by the If'lll of

* See Reply to Dr. TV — 's Defcnfe, Pair. 2; — 102, &c.
t Creed, F^g, 35. Def. F. N. Se£t. 4. c. 3. Intel. Syd.
^/rp^e 598.

li Two PalTages out of many fhall fuffice, -:;/:;:. tw [y.iu dyzv-

etiriof ?^iyo\^A^* Akx. Alex, Epifl. npud Theod. Hifl. FccJef. L'lh. t.
and 'Tertul. before him : cjuod ut ejfet nuU'ius enint ati&ons^ wulto
fuhllmlus erit ea, qucd ai ejfkt aliquem hahtilt auHoreni. Coj7t,Her-
tno^, c. 18.
V- ' the

(i6)

the Father, and that the Father was the Author,
Caufe^ Hend^ and God of the Son in his higheft Ca-
pacity : And in this Senfe it was that they under-
flood the Father to be the Fountain of Deity.

Secondly^ The DoSior owns that the Father was ne-
*uer reprefented as aEling in Subordination to the other
Perfons, zvho on the contrary were always conjtde/d ca
fuhordinate to him, dec.

Who can, after fuch a ConcefCjcn, imagine that it
was the Senfe of the Ancients (as the Doctor would
pretend it to bej that the Son and Spirit always con-
fider^d by them as fiibordinate to the Father, were
yet coordinate with him in Nature and-all PerfeElions,
and equally God fupreme ?

That the Son, &c. fhould be conftantly declared
to be the Angel or Mejfenger of the Father *, fent
by him, and acling f winifleriaEy to his IVill and
Commands in all Tilings, from the Beginning of the
World, and even in the higheft Acts of his divine
Power, in the Creation II of the World ; in all the
Appearances to the Patriarchs and Prophets before
and under the Law, reprefenting, appearing and
fpeaking in the Perfon of the Father, by his Autho-
rity ; executing his Orders, and falhlling all his
Pleafure ; and at laft fent by him into the World to
take our Nature, and faffer for our Sins, in Obedi-
ence to the Will and Appointment of God the Fa-
ther : That the Son Ihould conftantly be reprefented
as afting thus in Subordination to the Father, who
on the other hand is always reprefented as the alone

■^ MifTus attiem non fult pater, ne pater fubdirus alferi Deoy dum
mittitur, proharetur. Novat. de 'frimt. c. 22. and Hil. quis patrem
fion potiorem conftehitur — - ut eum qui miferit ah eo qui sniflus
efi ? de 'Trmt, Lib. 3. and Aagufi, propter au£t:oritatem/o/;/i patet
lion dicitur miflus.

t Reply to Dr. W — 's Defenfe, p, 1:^ — 147.

II Reply, &"€, Tag, 17—23.

\ abfolut^

abfoiiite tei-d and God of the Univerfei; ilftiifig
out Orders and Commands, and by his fupreme
l^'MUj S'i(f^o\tict] Dominion and Authority conftitu-
ting the Son and Spirit to be the * Executors o£
them : And yet that all this fhould be fo under-
ftood, as that the Son and Spirit are neverthelefs
dhfolutely and originally equal to the Father in Power j;
Authority and Dominion ; and that the Father has no
more effential or 'inherent Right 6v Authority to fejad
the Son and Spirit, than they have to fend him : and
that in the Nature of the Thing the Father might
have acled the f mini/ierialPart, and been reprefented
as fuhordinate to the Son and Spirit^ as well as they
to him. This is fuch an Explanation of the Senfe
of the Ancients, which as nothing but the moft plain
and exprefs Declarations can warrant the afcribing
it to them ,* fo if any fuch Declarations could be
made appear, they would only Ihow that the Anci**
ents were inconfiftent with themfelves, and would
quite overthrow their Teftimony in the like Cafes |
and therefore by mere In^-cntion to fix fuch a Senfe
upon them not only ivichout but againfl their evident
and unanimoufly exprefsM Sentiments to the con-
trary, is both highly injurious to them, and to the
Catholic Dodrine which they maintain. And no-
thing could ever by mere Imagination be framed
more unreafonable and abfurd in itfelf, as well as
repugnant to the univerfal Suffrage of Antiquity,
than the fictitious Notion of the Oeconomy [in which
this Gentleman follows Dr. W — ] founded on an
imaginary CompaB and Agreement of three Perfons,'
fuppos^d to be ahfolutely equal and coordinate in Na--
ture, and original Authority and Dominion ; and

* Hence all the Ancients fiile the Son and Spirit ImamsV^di
the Hands of God.

t Dr. ^.— '*fecond Def. f 177,

C i^\$l

'( x8 )

this, in order to folve all the ftrong Expreflions of
the primitive Writers concerning the Supremacy
and Superiority of the Father to the Son and Spi-
rit ; and to introduce in Oppofition to the Doctrine
of Scripture, Antiquity, and the Evidence of natural
Religion itfelf, a Trinity of diflinEi, neceffariiy-exi-
ftent, equal, independent Perfons or Agents, coordi-
nate in Nature and all PerfeElions ; which is in the
?laineft Terms to affert the Impiety of T^ritheifm.
'his is a Point of fo great Importance, and in which
the Glory of the only true God the Father, and of Je-
fus Chrifl v'hom he fent *, and our common Chriflia-
nity is fo immediately and nearly concern'd ; that
all who are zealous for the Truth of the Go/pel, and
the Do6lrine of the Church of Chrifl in the firfl and
pureft Ages, and for the eternal, immutable Ve-
rity of natural Religion itfelf ,* ought to call upon
Dr. W — for the Reafons and Evidence of fo
Ihocking a Notion laid to the Charge of the primi-
tive Church, for which he has not product the leaft
Footfteps in Antiquity^ either from the Antenicene or
Nicene Church, who both c<]^ually reclaim againft it;
and which Notion, by direct and neceffary Confe-
quence, confounds the Ufe of Language ; makes the
Expreffions of Scripture and of the ancient Books
unintelligible, and fundamentally fubverts the firft
Principles both of natural and revealed Religion.

7'hirdly, The Dodor allows that the Prayers of the
Church 'Were generally addrefs'd to the Perfon of the Fa-
ther,— thro' the Merits of Chrifl, and that the plain
Fcctfleps of this JVorfloip appear thro' all Antiquity.

On this Head indeed the Senfe of Antiquity is
fo full and flrong againil the Do6tor's Notion, that
had he declared it particularly and at large, the »S«-
pemacy of the Father, and the Subordination of th^

Sof^

(19)

Son and Spirit would have appearM beyond Difputel
The Senfe of Antiquity is compriz'd in three Par-
ticulars : ^

FiYJl, That the Father alone was ever worfliip d in
the higheft Manner as the one fupreme God, and ulti-
mate Objed of Adoration. And this they carried
fo far as to reprefentGod the Son himfelf * joining
in Adoration to the Father, and as being t devoted
to the Worjhip of God the Father.

Secondly y That the diftind Worlhip of the Son was
always paid to him, not as being the one fupreme
God, but in a fecond and fuhordinatc Senfe, as being
the only begotten God, the Word, or Son of God,
our high Prieft and Mediator to God the Father for
us : and therefore he was never invocated as the
primary and final- Objed: of Worfhip ; but even when
he was diredly invocated, [of which there are very
few Inftances in Antiquity] the Invocation was un-

dy'ivv^lov^ ^ ivcoKi^^v, K^ iJ.om' ov^cj^ 6iW, ciwviJ.v^v]©' nuiv <t^
Gs« Koy^» '• If thou v/iit, be thou initiated, and thou fhalt b^
y^ in the Chorus with Angels, praifmg the unbegotten and in-
" corruptible and only true God ; God the Word, joining with us
*' in our Hymns of Praife. ' Clem, Alex, Frotrepu p. 74> 75* See
Keply,?. 375 — 397- x , ^ « ax , » ^ -

UtTKilcu acSjiieU^. " His preexiftent only-begotten Word,

" the great high Prieft of the great God, who is betore all

^* Time and all Ages, being devoted to the WorJhlp of the Fa*

•* ther, is the firft and only Interceflor to him for the Salvatiott

" of all Men. Eufeh, de Laud. Cofiftant, p. 718, 719. Where

fee the learned Valefius's Annotation on the Word KetBeo<rta^.

acv@- ; and his Obfervation of the Corruprion of the Word

Ml^^,o(?y inftead of which the Word 'iaoti is put intothe

Text of Eufebius, by fome xealous Pretenders to Orthodoxy^

that the Son might be reprefented as equal to the Father, con-

£;ary to the Catholic Doctrine, and/as Valef^usobkives} to thd

plain Senfe of EufebiHS in that Place.

« C z 4€rftoQ4

<20)

derftood to be made to him as Mediator, that the
Prayers firft di reded to him, might be offer'd thro^
him as our Interceflbr, finally to God the Father as
the fupreme Objc<5t of them : But the general and
conftant Pradice of the Church was to offer Prayers,
&c. to God the Father, fW Chrift. And this Pra-
ctice was founded, as appears from 11 Origen^ upon
our Lord's own Diredions to pray unto the Father ^ and
not tinto himfelf* ; and to put up our Petitions to the
Father in his Name f.

/Thirdly, The Ancients always founded the Wor-
ihip of Chrift on the exprefs Appointment and good
Pkafure of the Father. Jujiin Martyr II upon the
Text, 'Thou jJoalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
Heart, fays, " He who being endued with a pious
*' Difpofxtion loves God with all his Heart and all
*^^ his Strength, will worlhip no other God : Yet he
*^ will alfo worfhip that Angel of God [Chrift, the,
*^ Angel of his Prefence] it being God's Will [or
^^ Command] that he fhould do fo/' Whence alfo
he fays*: ^^ I fhall fhow that with good Reafon
*^ we honour the Son of the true God in the fecond
1' Place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third Place/'

And Irenaus : f " That according to the good
^^ Pkafure of the invifible Father, every Knee might

•* roli i^.vol^i &c. Tsfilvp/, p. 51. See Reply above.
* Lulze 1 1. 2,
t John 16. 25.

•r QsoJ', tA'W^h? bio(TzC^i yvcoiJ,n<; v'mtL^yjx>Vi iS^'iva. aKKov ^tumet
^ih' p^ ^yfiAoy Iztivov c.v ^Jiy.mviy 0£s /^sAo/zi."^, Dial, cum Tryp.
P' 91' , .^^ ^„ •

°^<^ei^o(JLiV. Apoi. I.

Lib. I, c, lo. ^

!■' '■ . "bore

(21 )

*^ bow to Chrift Jefns, our Lord and God, and Sa-
f^ vior and King."

And Origen: \\ " We demand [of C^///^j] concern-
*^ ing thofe whom they vvorfhip as Gods, a Proof
" of the fupreme God having appointed them to be
^^ worfhipM : And if in Reply he demands the
" fame Thing of us concerning 'Jefus^ we will fhow
" him that God hath appointed him to be worfhipM :
*' T'hat all Menfiould honour the Son^ even as they honour
[^ the Father.

And Cyprian : * " God the Father commanded his
" Son to be v/orlhipM : " Which he puts upon his
being exalted by God, Phil. II. 9, lo, 11.

All thefe Inftances Ihould have been fairly pro-
duced by the Dodor in the Account of the Wor-
Ihip of the Father and Son, &c. according to the
Pradice of the primitive Church : And they demon-
Urate in the plainefl and moil affeding Manner the
Senfe of Antiquity, that the Son of God, &c. was
not the One God fupreme, equal in Power and Domi-
nion with the Father , fince it is evident they never
paid the fame or equal Worfloip to him with the Fa-
ther : which they would not have fail'd to have done
[whofe Piety and Zeal was fo eminent and fervent
for the Honour of Chrift their Savior] if they had
underftood that he was fet forth in Scripture as the
One God, or equal to the Father, or was there direded
to be worfhip'd as fuch. And this Evidence of the
Senfe of the Ancients drawn from their religious
Wor/kip, is of the greateft Moment, and ought of
all others to be moft attended to ,• and their Pradice

^S^ei^ofxiu or: "^ Sea AE'AOTAI cuJto) to rifj-ct^' r.'ct 'TTcivTi!;
Tiu.^fTi r uiv KciQcc^ T///WC-/ r "TTctlicc': Conr, Celf. lib. 8. p. 5S4.
"^ fater Deus p;-^cepitjilinm ftmm adorari, Ve hof7._^Faf,

* X certainly

( 22 )

certainly deferves to he continued in] and to be the
alone f Pradice of the Church.

The Doctor obferves further, with Refpet5l to
divine Worfhip, " That there is only one Paffage
*^ in a Piece afcrib'd to Origen^ which exprefly dif-
*^ claims II the Innjocation of the Son : But it is fo con-
*' trary to Origen himfelf in other Places, and to his
'^ own Teftimony in that very Book concerning the
*^ Practice of the Church, as well as to the whole
*^ Stream of Antiquity befides, that it muft be con-
^' eluded, either that Book is none of Origen s^ or
*^ at leaft it is one of thofe which have fufferM Cor-

cc

ruptjon.

To which I reply, Firfl,

The Piece concerning Prayer is as defervedly a-
fcrib^'d to Origen^ as any other Part of his Writings.
Pamphilus or Eufebius, who wrote an Apology for
Origen, mentions the Book of^ Prayer, amongft o-
thers of his Writings : And if we had not this ex-
prefs Teftimony, yet as f Jerome fays in another
Cafe, th Language and Stile plainly difcover the Au^
thor. So that any one who is vers'd in Origen s Wri-

t " In the firft and beft Ages [faith the learned Bp. B«J/] the
*' Churches of Chrift directed ^dl their Prayers, according to
•' the Scripture, toGodonly^ thro' the alone Mediation of Jefus
" Chrift/' Anfwer to a Qj.iery of the Eifliop cf MeauXy
Pag»2^$. And the Learned Dt.Wahy Archbifhop of C^w/er-
hury : " That we fhould pray to God only, and to him as our
** F'tber^ through Faith in Jehis Chrift.'' Comment, en tl^
** Chm-ch Catechifm^ p. 1.30,

11 P'^.?- I55>i5^-

■^ Jn tAm multis Qp tarn dhevjts Orlgems Uhrls, niifqam omnino
invenitur unus ak eo liber pyopvie dc anima confcrlptas ; ficut hahet
vel da M.xrtyrio vel de Oratione, vel refurreHione Famph. five
Eufeh, Jpol. pro Orig. Dr. Cave alfo exprcily makes that Book
a genuine Treatife oWrigen'sHitt, Liter, Part z. pag. 51.

7 AuHoYis ehquium &>p!i proprietas demovfn'at, Apol. adv,Ruf.

tings^

( 2j ;

tings, and has a critical Judgment in the Stile oi
Books, may eafily fee that this Treatife was un-
doubtedly wrote by Origen; and could Icarce poiH-
bly proceed from any other Hand.

^econdh. As to the Corruption of this Treatife, Dr.
MiUs^ who is no mean Critic, frequently cites it as
being OrigenSy without any Note of its being cor^
rupted ; and exprefly affirms concerning his Comment
taries on St. John^i Go/pel [which are more full a-

gainft Dr. -B 's Notion than any Thing in this

Piece, on which Account Dr. fV- — would pretend
them to be corrupted alfo] " that II they are wholly
*' free from Interpolation.''* And it is wdl known
that thofe Parts of Origens Works, whofe Tranfla-
tion only is extant, were not corrupted by Arians^
but by fuch orthodox Writers as Jerome and K'lffi^
mis. The fame is the Cafe with refped to the Apo^
fiolic Conftitutions^ which the Dodor ridiculoufly pre-
tends, have been transmitted to us thro* the Hands of
Arians *, without the leaft Evidence whatfoever :
Whereas on the contrary, the firft Writer that ex-
prefly mentions and quotes them in the fourth Cen-
tury is Epiphanius I and it is moft reafonable to
think that the Inftances of the Forin of Doxology m
them, which the Do6i:or very faifely affirms to a-
fcribe ^' equal Glory to the Holy Ghoft with the
*^ Father and the Son,^"* are Interpolations of fome
Athanafians ; and would never be found in a Book
tranfmitted to us by Arians, And tho' there is no
great Strefs to be laid on the Synarithmetical Form of
Doxology, giving Glory to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the Holy Ghoft i yet whoever carefully
reads and confiders thofe ancient Writings which
are full of apoftolical Piety, and the Purity of pri-

ll Ah omnl interpoUtiom liheriu TroJeg, in N. T, p, 24.
* P^^. 15^. i<^o*

mitivfe.

(i4)

hiitlve Do6lnne ; and knows withal how very few
Iiiftan ces can be alledg'd, (and how hard t Bafil
himfelf was put to it to alledge any) out of Antiqui-
ty for fuch Form of Doxology ; and that; the In-
ftances alledg'd were not the Forms of the Church, but
the Speculations of a private Writer or two at the
'riioft, agairjft numerous Inftances of the Forms thro*
"the Son, by or in the Spirit, which were the known,
uiiiverfally accuftomM Forms of the Church's Dox-
ology, as far as can be known, and which we more
particularly learn from || yuftin Martyr and * Ori-^
gen. Whoever confiders all this, will eafily be con-
vinced that the Forms in the Apoflolic Conflittitions
have been tamper'd with by fome Athanafians (thofe
known Corrupters of Books) in the fourth Century,
when the Form of Doxology became a Matter of
Difpute. And it is not at all improbable what
:[ Philo/iorgius thQ Hiftorian, and II Theodorus Mopfue-

■ t See Mr. Whifions fecond Letter concerning Doxologies,
Ta^^.jl — 30,

II OvT@- K'jLC<^if<, cuvov y^j ^'o^civ TO) rrctlei t^v o\cov S'td^^i QVoiJ.a.*
'JO? -Ta tfS" >Lj Tk 'TTV^vfJ-ct]©- T« dy'i^ di'cfTriiy.Trei' "the Miniiier ta-
*' king [the Euchariftical Bread and CupJ gives Praife and Glo-
** ry to the Father of all> through the name of the Son, and
*^ througlv the Holy Ghoft. Apol, 1. p. i6i» And again, l^t

ffd q« ejjT6 h)(Tt xe^s'y, )t) S'icJi TTVivfJ-ctlQ- 'ra ayi^* " In all
*' our Oblations we blcfs the Maker of all Things, through his
" Son Jefiis Chrift, and through the Holy Ghoft.'' Ibid, p, 162,
See Reply, Tao;. 29, 24.

* "'^.vKoyov 0 (Afjcc/y.^ror 'iiw S'o^ohoyiA^y el? J'o^oKQyia.v kaIcl-
K')yov\ci Kctjct'zrcwc'iv tVjj c'jyj/jj, vfJJ^v]cL id) S'Q^^cL(^ov]ct r r iKo-iv

" having begun Prayer with Doxology, we oi;ght alfo to end
*' with Doxology, prailing and glorifying the Father of all,
*• through Jefus Chrift, in the Holy Ghoft. To whom be
" Glory for ever. De Ovat, p. 147, See more in Replv, p.'igo
582—389.

t Hi/?. Ecdef. Vh, 3. c. 13.

II FlaviiTius primus cecin'ijfe fertnv^ Gloria patri S^ f Ho QP /pi-
ritiii fan^o, 1'befaur, Orthodox, FidcLib. 5. c, 30. See Reply p. 387'

fienus

(25)

jlenus relate, that about the jmddle of the fouYth Cett^
tury, Flavian^ afterwards Bilhop of Antioch, firll
changed the more ancient Doxologies of Glory TO
the Father, By or Through the Son, IN the Holy
Ghoft, and \xsd in the Church inftead of them, the
prefent Form, To the Father, and To the Son, and

To the Holy Ghoft. But for Dr. B to fay that

this later Form afcribes equal Glory to the Holy
Ghoft with the Father and the Son^ is a manifeft Un-
truth, and falfifying the Doxology. The Doxology
in the Form which the Dodor would have, no more
afcribes equal Glory to all the three Perfons, than
the Form oiBaptifm does ,* or than St. Vaufs Charge

to 'Timothy before God and the eleEl Angels *, makes

the Angels equal to God.

Thirdly, If the Dodor had underftood rightly the
Paffage of Origen, about which he is fo uneafy, and
tifes fo many poor Pretences to evade ; he might
have known that in it he does not difclaim all Invo-
cation of the Son, but only that fort of Invocation,
which he is there fpeaking of,* and which is the
Prayer which he elfewhere ftiles f Prayer in the
proper and emphatical Senfe, namely, that Prayer v;hich
is finally and nltimately offered to the primary and fu*
preme OhjeEl of it, 'ui'z,. the Father. And this is a-
greeable to Origens Senfe in all other Places of this
Treatife, and in his other Books, and to all Anti-*
quity. Origen does not fuppofe that Chrift is not to
be invocated at all^ but only that when invocated, he
is to be invocated as Mediator and Intercejfor, to of-
fer the Prayers of the Church, and to joiri'His owii
with them, unto the Father ,* and is to be the Medi-
iim Through v/hom our Prayers are to pafs ultimate-

^ I TLim, 5. 2 1.

'^ 'TTf^t 'TT^gcrcv/'JU Ku^ioM^tAi }'j y.a.Tay^fi]^iMi\ Lib. 5. adv.
Cclf* p,- 233,

(26)

ly to the Father : And therefore Prayer thus ofter'd
to Chrift, is not Prayer in the poper and highefl
Senfe, but he calls it Prayer [jtct\cL'/jn(riaf\ in an iin-
proper, inferior or figurative Senfe. And that this is
his true Meaning, appears from a remarkable Paf-
fage in his Book againft Celfus, which clearly recon-
ciles this Paliage with all his other Teftimonies ;
'viz,. * " We tvorfhip (fays he) the one God, and
*' his one Son and Word and Image with Supplica-
*^ tions and Prayers to the utmoft of our Power ;
*' putting up our Prayers TO the GodoftheUni-
*^ verfe, Through his only begotten Son : To whom
" we offer them firft, entreating him, as being the
*^ Propitiation for our Sins, toprefentas our High
*^ Priell: our Prayers and Sacrifices [Thankfgivings]
" and Interceffions, TO the fuprem.e God over all."
This fhows that when Origen faid, we were not to
pray to Chri/i, he meant that we were not to pray to
iiim in the fame Senfe, or in the fame Manner as
we prayed unto the Father ; that our Prayers were
not finally to centre in his Perfon as the fupreme Ob-
jed of Worihip, but were to be underflood when
offer'd to him, of praying to him as Mediator to
prefent our Petitions, and to join his own with them
Jor us, unto God the Father : And fo all Prayers
direded to Chrifl were not fo properly and emphati-
cally Invocations oihim, as of the Father through him ;
and all Prayer in the ftriB, proper and emphatical
Senfe belonged to the Father only. And this fur-

Tett

. _7? ytctla: ih c^vjjdLiQi' vy-lv hetyicii^ x^ d^icoo-i<7t <7<i,Coy.iv. rres^^ci-

^a.i h'Ti'J^ei? Yii^Mv tu i-Ttl irdi^i ^iS, ibid* lib* 8. p. 38^. See

Rep. p,s8 1—383-

Ifhet

( 27 )
ther explains another PafTage of (c) Origen^ fhowing
that in thus worfhipping the Father and Son, [i. e,
the Father through the Son] they did ftill worfhip
hut One God [i. e. the one God the Father, through
the Son.] And T)r.W—^ himfelf grants that it is
Origens Dodrine, {d) " that Prayer, in the moft
" proper Senfe, is to be nnderftood of Prayer di-

^^ reded immediately to the Father. One Part o£

*' divine Worftiip, call'd Prayer, is moft properly and
*^ emphatically Prayer, when direded to the firft Per-

" fon of the Godhead. Prayer then, properly or

*' emphatically fpeaking, is praying to the Father, to
*^ whom all Prayer primarily belongs.^' If the other
Parts of Dr. IV — ^s Doctrine were uniform and a-
greeable to this, we might foon agree in the Senfe
of Scripture and Antiquity, and joyn our good Willies
and Endeavours that the public Forms and Wor-
{hip of the Church might be rendered unexceptio-
nably conformable to the Rule of the Gofpel and the
Pradice of the primitive Church.

Having made the preceding Obfervations upon
the Dodor^'s ConceffJon, which the irrefiftable Light-
and Evidence of Antiquity forc'd from him in fa-^
vour of his Adverfaries; and in them (hown not
only that he has no dired Teftimony from £o much
as one ancient Catholic Writer for his Notion
of the fupreme Divinity of the Son, &c. and his Co-
equality with the Father ', but alfo prov'd that the
conftant Dodrine and Pradice of the Church was
plainly againft it : I proceed to examine the grand
Plea on v/hich the whole Scheme of the pretended
Orthodoxy of the modern Athanafiam is founded ;
and from which it is concluded, without any dired

/c)

"i.VdL y.v Qsof,

®V d'T^oS'iS'coy^cLfXiV'^

nr TssTSf «

?;*

v^h Ss^

irkvo[i

ir adv. Ceir.

p.

586.

(d),

Second Defenfe,

2ag,

■ 400.

t

V> z

t

i

widened

(28)

Evidence whatfoever by way of Inference and De-
dudion, only according to the Principles of their
own fchoiaftic Metaphyfics, to be the Senfe of the
ancient Church ; and this is the Pretence that it is
the primitive Catholic Dodrine that the Son and
Spirit are [ hiJ-ohtoi ] Conftihflantial with the Father,
The Ancients (fay they) exprefly teach the Confuh-
ftantiality of the Son, &c. and this confequentially
(they think) infers their Nece/fary^-Exiflence^ Supreme
Divinity, Coordination and Coequality with the Father
in Nature and all Perfeclions, This is the grand
Foundation- Principle of what is vulgarly and er-
roneoufly ftilM Orthodoxy. This is perpetually re-
cur'd to and infifted on by Dr. W — and Dr. B- —
and all the Adherents of their Opinion : If they
can but alledge the Confubflantiality, they think no-
thing elfe can be difputed with them.

I ihall therefore enter into a particular DifcufTion
of this Point , examine all the Dodor's Evidences
of a Confubflantiality j confider what Confiihflantialttyy
or what Senfe of it any Ancients held or rejeded j
and how it was received and underftood by the
Council of Nice, and foon after univerfally laid afide
or rejected by probably many of the Nicene Biihops
themfelves, and by almoft all the Bifiiops of Chri-
ftendom met together at feveral Councils. Where-
in I fhall {how that the Confubflantiality never was
the Doftrine or Profellion of the ancient Catholic
Church j that on the contrary it was openly re-
claimed againft as foon as known to be profelfedly
taught, and w^as upon mature Deliberation rejected
the firft Time that it was treated of in a public Sy-
nod : And that neither thofe Antenicenes, who are
fupposM to have held it, ever infer'd the Equality^
Necejjary-Exiftence or fupreme Divinity of the Son,
&€. from it, but taught the exprefs contrary ,* and
that the Council of Nice itfelf did not teach in Con-
fequence of it either the Necejfayy-Exiftence or Equa--

' lity

(29)

lity of the Son with the Father, but on the other
hand thought his voluntary Generation, and Inferior
rity to the Father confiftent with it.

Dr. B does not pretend to fliow that the Con-

fubftantiality was the public Profeilion of the Church,
from any Creed or public Form whatfoever : So that
let particular Men's Opinions about it be what they
would, 'tis evident it never enter'd into the Creeds or
Liturgy, ^the Forms of Faith or the Worfiip of the
Church. The primitive Creeds and Parts of the ancient
Liturgies which are extant, are numerous, but nothing
of Confubftantiality appears in any of them ; and all
of them uniformly profefs and teach Faith in God or
the one God, the Father ,• and to u^orjhip him only
Through Jefus Chrift : This is undeniable Fad';

and therefore Dr. B with the Help of all his

Friends, has no Evidence to produce but the Spe-
culations or private Opinions of particular Wri-
ters, which I Ihall now examine.

The firft Teftimony which Dr. B (e) alledges

for the Confuhflantiality is in a fpuriousBook afcrib'd
to Hermes T^rifmegifius , entitled, ( f) Pj:mander ;
which the learned (g) Cafauhon, as Dr. Cave tells
us, thinks to be the Writing of fome Platoniz^ing
Chriftian. And the Doctor has Reafon to repent of
having mentioned this Author as an Evidence for
his Notion, who tho' he ftiles the Word or Son of
God Confubjiantial, according to the Platonical Do-
d-rine, yet he fhows that the ConfubRantiality was fo
far from meaning or inferring the Equality of the

ytt^ bJj. c. I. •

(g) Cafauhonui a ymllo alio quam Ctmjiiam quodanj 'Platom-
zante fcubi ptu'ij^e, qux. VAmandeY hahet. late perfequitur, atttd
Cav, Bifi. LlU p. 30. I Vol. ^ ^

( JO )

IVoyd or Son with the Father, that (h) LaStantius tells
us that he call'd the Word^ " a /d-co/^ii God, vifible
*^ and comprehenfible, whom the Lord and Creator
" of all did make," And here it may be proper to
obferve, that as the Notion of the Confubfiantialhy
\\i.s plainly deriv'd originally as a mere Speculation^
from the Stoical or Platonkal Philofopby^ and was
from thence propagated at firil amongft the (i) Var
hntinians and Montanifts ; [as I fhall more particu-
larly prove with Refped to the latter, prefently]
fo thofe few Catholic Writers who can be alledg'd
for the Ufe of it, as Origen, his Scholar Dionyfius^
to whom may be joinM Laclaraius^ all addided to
the Platonic Philofophy, us'd it coniiflently in the
Senfe of thr^t Philofophy, without ever thinking of
an Equality, to be infer'd from it. And therefore
for Dr. B — [and Dr. IV — before hini] to pre-
tend that the Word Confuhjlantiality, ajfens an Equa^
lity oj Nature J {k) in dired Contradiction both to the
Senfe of it, according to the Principles of the anci-
ent Philofophy, whence it was borrowed, and to the
known exprefs Opinion of thofe ancient Chriftiaii
Writers who apply'd it to the Son ; fhows, that
they are carried away by the mere Sound of a Word
explained by their own fcholaftic Metaphyfics, with-^

(h) VCrbuCT!, 0%j\i^V^ hay OPOLTOV H^ Jj^'ATCV.., %V 0 K'JciO^ >^

Ts^v Tc'A'Tcjy -TrjiiiTri? in-oUyji' de vcr Sap. lib. 4. p. 564.
(i) For the Nofion of rhe Valefitinian Confuhjlantlil Enuinatlor.s
or Generations o^ JEo?7S. Sec Iren, adv. H£r. lib. i. c i. and
lib. z. c. 16, 17, 18, 19, 22,23,24. and when 'Tertu I ti an h^d
broachM Iiis Montiinifh Notion of the 5ci?; an^i 5/?i»-i^ being con-
fuhfia77fi.1l Emanations from the Father, he Pnows his Appre-
henfion that his Notion might be charg'd with introducing
the Virlentiman Scheme, Adv. Fvax. c.S. And Bp. B;/// fays,
Gnofiicos voam ijlam [fcil. ouo^fTi©-] de fu'ii cjuihtifdam /Eonibus
nfuypajfe^ fat::mur ; atque id folum teflantuY [reruns alHque fcri-
ptores c^ihoVici. Def. E N. Scwl. 2. Q^ 2.
(k}P.Tj. J52.

out

( 51 ;

one confidering, and in Oppofition to both th^ ori-
ginal Meaning of the Word icfelf, and the Senfe of
thofe Ancients, from vvhofe Ufe they alledge it in
favour of their own Opinion.

The Doctor brings a Teftimony from Eiifebius for
the Ufe of the Word [o^.n«V/©-] (/) Confubflantial a-
mongft the Ancients ', and fays, " that Eufehius af-
" fures us, he had feen this Word us^d by fome
*^ learned and eminent Bilhops and Writers amongft
*^ the Ancients, to exprefs the ONE Divinity of
*^ Father and Son." This is a very flagrant faife
Report concerning Eufehius^ who knew Antiquity
better than to affert any fuch Thing concerning the
Ancients, and is a fairer Hiflorian than thus to mif-

^eprefent them. The Paffage cited by Dr. B is

in the (m) Margin, ,• and Eufehius does not fay that
the Word Confubflantial was us'd by any Ancients
to exprefs the One Divinity of Father and Son ; but
only that in treating of the Divinity of the Father and
Son, they made ufe of the Word [htj.ozaio;'] Confubflantial,
Is this faying they us'd the VVord to exprefs the
One Divinity of Father and Son ? and can the Do-
dor juftify fuch a Corruption and Interpolation of
the Words of Eufehius, by putting in the Word One ?
which is the more grofs and more unlikely ever to
have been faid by Eufehius, becaufe whoever is at
all acquainted with his Writing, muft know that it
is not only his own conftant Dodrine, that the Fa-
ther alone is the one God, but that he infills parti-
cularly and at large, that this is the Dodrine of
the ancient Catholic Church. Further, Eufehius
had no Occafion to refer to the Ancients for any fuch

(1) P^£-. 152.

olxoHdia (Tvyyj)]<Ta.wi.viii o'/ouctrr Epift. ad C^f. apud. Socrar.
Hift.EGcier.lib. I. c. 8.

Senffi

Senfe of the Word Confuhflantial^ which was hot
then under Debate, and appears no more to have
been intended by the Nicene Council^, than by the
Ancients before them ; but only to juftify the Ap-
plication of the Word Confubfiantial to the Son at all,
in the Creed then depending ,• which Word having
never been usM before in any Form of the Churchy
and once been pihlickly rejecled^ occafionM a juft
Scruple at the Admiflion of it. I hope the Dodor
will make an Acknowledgmerit to his Reader of this
Abufe, and be more careful hereafter.

Who thofe Ancients were whom Eufebius fpeaks
of as having usM the Word Confuhftantial^ with Re-
fped to the dMne Nature of the Son, cannot cer-
tainly be known, becaufe he mentions none of ^eni
by Name ; but it is not unlikely he might mean 7^r-
tullian^ Origen^ and perhaps Dionyjius of Alexandria
alfo. However, thefe before-namM are the only
exprefs ancient Teftimonies which the Do(5tor has
further to alledge for the Conftihflantiality : and of
thefe the Opinions of the two latter are tranfmitted
to us from Athanafians^ our of Writings of the Au-
thors which are not extant. And nothing could
poffibly have happenM more unfortunate to the Do-
dor^s Caufe, than that thofe Ancients from whom
alone he has any exprefs Evidence of the CQufulftan-'
tiality of the Son with the Father ihould remarkably
of all others of the Ancients oppofe that Notion
ivhich he would fupport by it.

T'ertullian [when a Montanifl'] diredly afferts the
Conftihftantiality of the Son and Spirit; yet he is fo
far from ufing the Word to exprefs their Equality
with the Father, that he alferts, in the loweft Arian
Terms, {n) " that there was a Time when the Son

fn) Vult tempus cumfl'iHs non f*ftt^ ad Hermog, c, 3,

( ?? )

*^ was not : '* and fpeaking of the only-begotten
Word, or Son of God, he fays : " (o) That which
is unbegotten is more puijfant than that which is
begotten; and that which is unmade is moTQ poiverful
than that which is made : for that which needed
no Original of its Exiftence, will be much fiipe^
rior to that which had a Caufe of its Exiftence/'
And in that very Montanifl Book, wherein he af-
ferts the Confubflantiality of the Son and Spirit, he
not only exprefly makes the Son no more than a
fmall undivided Part of the Father's Subftance, and
derivM \_de patns voluntate, c. 27.] by the /^?// of th6
Father ; but he alfo afferts Humane Souls to be (p)
Confub/i ant I al with God, as well as the Son and Spirit.
And befides, the moft learned modern Athanafians^
particularly Petavius and Huetius have given up T^r-
tullian^ with almofl: all the reft of the Ancients, as
being full againft that Notion which they with the
Dodor call Orthodoxy,

Origen^ another Voucher for the Confubftantiality,
tvas fo far from teaching the Equality^ See. that he
is exprefly chargM by the moft zealous (q) Atha-
nafians, as giving handle to the Arian Notions ; and
making the Son and Spirit created Beings. He
taught that the Son was begotten by the Will of the
Father ; and that Angels and humane Souls were con-
fubftamial alfo ; and his remaining Writings are fo

(o) Innatum naio fortius^ QP qmd hfeBum faHo validlus • quia^
quod utejfst nullius eguit auHoriSy multo fuhUmius erit eoy quody at
€jfet^ aUquemhiibuit auBcrem. ibid, c, l8.

{^)Ex ftihjiantia ipfius Ifcil. Dei] ammat.ts,adv. Trax.c. 5.\Vhich
is very like his Exprefiion of the Confubfiaritialify o{ tht Word,
quoAexipJius Slibflantia mijfum ejiy adv. 1^ rax. c, 7. and agtefc-
able to she Nisene Expreffion of it, when they fay the Son is
[yivvr\^bii—\-tf, TY\i 2(>ici.^ 'tS Tctr^of*] begotten— of the SublUnce
cf the Father.

(Si) See Reply, p. 3^7-330v . .,

E foil

in)

full and ftrongly (r) exprefs'd againft the Dodo/s
Notion, that he may with almoft as much Reafon
pretend Arius himfelf, as Origen^ to be a Favourer
of his Opinion.

Dionyfius^ Bilhop of Alexandria^ and Origens Scho-
lar, is cited by the Dodor out oiAthanafius, for the
Confuhflantiality and Eternity of the Son : But Atha^
fiafius himfelf does not pretend that he taught the
Son was the one ftipreme God, or equal to the Father :
and had the Dodor, Hke a fair Hiftorian, given the
whole Account of the Dodrine of Dionyjius^ he would
have fhown that it was as oppofite to what he calls
Orthodoxy^ as the Opinion of his Mafter Origen is.

(s) Baftl, an unqueftionable Witnefs, tells us, that
having read his Writings, he did not like feveral
Things that were in them j that he thought him one
who laid the Seeds of the Anomaan Opinion ; and
that with Refped to the (t) Confubftantiality he was
faltering and unconftant^ fometimes holding it and
othertimes rejeBing it ; more particularly that {u)
^^ he held the Father and Son to be not only diflinEi^
*^ but different Subflances ; and that the Power and
^^ Glory of the Son was inferior to that of the Father.
*^ And befides this, he fpoke very unbecoming
*^ Words concerning the Spirit ; not allowing him.
'^ divine W^oiOiip, but deprelTing him into the
" Number of cre^^^i and mini/iring l>^atuixsf' And
(x) AthanaJtuSy in his Apology for him, owns that

{t) See Urther Remarh on Dr. fV—^s Vindication, &c>
p. 85, S6.'
(s) Epift. 41.
(t) Ibid,

adrco TDi 'TA >t]/rH 'Z^ heija^yo) (pva^i dwae/uficyi'* lbid»
(xj Be'SenUVlonyf, Scal4.

be

(35)

he did indeed life fucli kind of ExprelTions. And
(y) Photius chargeth him with making the Son a
Creature, {z,) Gennadius does the fame, and ob-
ferves with Bafil^ that the Avians deriv'd their No-
tions from him.

'Theogmftus of Alexandria, another of Origens Scho-
lars, is alfo cited by Athanafius for the (a) Confuhftan-*
tiality ; yet he alfo (whom Athanajins ftiles an elo-
quent and wonderful Man) was fo far from holding
iht Equality; th^it Photius accufeth hmoi making the
Son a {b) Creature : and the learned Dr. Ca^ve (c) re-
prefents him as maintaining after Origen, the grojfefl
Errors, making different Degrees of Dignity in the Per-^
fons of the 'Trinity, and depreffing Chrifi and the Holy
Spirit into the Rank of Creatures.

Thus it appears, that all thofe Ancients whom
the Dodor can by any fort of Evidence produce
for the Confuhflantiality of the Son, &c, were fo far
from uiing it to exprefs (as he would pretend) the
Equality of the divine Perfons, or the One Divinity
of Father and Son j that the moft learned and zea-^
lowsAthanaJians themfelves, both ancient and modern,
have carried their Cenfures of them fo far [upon
account of their exprefling fo ftrongly the Catholic
Dodrine of the alone abfolute Supremacy of the Fa-
ther, and of the Subordination and Inferiority of the
Son and Spirit to him] as to charge them with fa-
vouring and holding Arian Dodrines. And hence

(y) Cod, io6.

{7.) Lib, de Ecclef, Dogmat. c. 4,

(aj 'E/t TY\«; 7^ iretl^oi ^aicti lipv, «f Ta ocotq^ d,'z^A\)y(L<J'\x-dL-
De Becret. Syn. Nic.

(b) KTi(Ty.ct a/j^ov a.'7s-o(pcLhti' Cod, jq6,

(c) Origems vim'ium [equay:^ errores immlfcult peffimos ; infer
S. S. I'rinitatis Performs totidem Dignitatis grades affingenSy Chri-
jlumque pariter ac ffivltHm fan^um ad creatHrarMm fortem detru*.
dens* Cav. Hifi, Lit, p. 98.

E ^ two

(?6)

two Things are obfervable ; one, that the Word
Cmfubflctntial was not underftood in the Philofophy
and Senfe of the Ancients, to imply or infer an
Eqti^^iiy either of Nature^ Dignity^ or Authority : an-
other, that thofe who in the latter end of the fourth
Century and afterwards, from theUfeofit by the
Council of Nice, inferM the Supremacy and Coequa-
lity of the Son, &c. with the Father, did corrupt
the ancient original Meaning and Application of
the Word, and thereby introduced Innovations into
the Catholic Dodrine of both the Antenicene and
Nicene Church, and gave too great Occafion to the
Error of Sabellianif?n on one hand, and to the Im-
piety of T'ritheifm on the other hand ,* into which
two Hereiies the Afferters of the Athcnafian Confith-
flantiality were foon divided, as I fhall have Occa-
fion more particularly to note hereafter.

That Vv'hich deceivM the primitive Chriftian Wri-
ters who held in Speculation, upon the Principles
of the Stoical and Platonical Phylofophy, the IVord or
Son of God to ht Conf iibft ami al with the Father, was
the philofophical erroneous Notion of the Emana-
tion of Ught from the Sim, to which they compa-
red the Son of God from the Scripture-Similitude
and Reprefentation of him, as being the Brightnefs
of God's Glory (d) ; and alfo ftird the Brightnefs of
everlafling Light (e\ As they thought [^cccording to (f)
Athanajius's Reprefentation of the Opinion of "Theog-
noftns'] that the Sun continued -^^ he fame and undivided by

(d) Heh. I. 3.
Ce) mfd.-].z6.

vTriixeipiV De JDecret. Syu. Nic, And 'TheogTiofim there repre-
fents the S m as L{Jcfctlo$ clTy.Ul a Va^oiir of Wi^ter^ which is a
low Similitwde.

the

( 37 )

the Rays of Light which ijfuedfrom it; fo alfo that the Sah-
fiance of the Father (in the Generation of the Son from
it) received no Change, Divifion or Diminution. The
fame Notion plainly impost upon ( g) "TertuUian. But
had they underftood (as the Truth is) that Rays of
Light are divided Parts of the Sun, and that the Sun
is really diminiflfd by them i they would probably
have refted in the Scripture ExVreffion of the Son's
being the Brightnefs of the Father s Glory, and not
ventur'd ro have fpeculated fo far upon it, as to in-
fer his being Confubflantial to the Father, as Light is
to the Sun 5 which would confequentially imply the
Divifion and Diminution of the Subflance of God , as
we find accordingly in Fad the Notion of the Con-
ftibflamiality was charg'd with it, and thereupon re-
je&d by thofe who were lefs addicted to vain Phi-
iofophy, and more clofely adher'd to the Dodrine
of Scripture.

Cgj Nee feparatur fuhflantta^ fed extend':fir>'^ Apol,c,i\. Alfo
adv.^rax.c.^. This Similitude, founded upon fa! fe Philofo-
phy, was made ufe of (and more plau'ibly) by the old Sabellian
Gnojllcs for their Notion of the Son being only a different Ap.
pearance of the Perfon of the Father ; which they reprefented by
the 5'*f«and its Urrht ; which Light they argued was only Mf-
fui'd or extended from the Sun, but was Infep.irahls from it : and
thus in like Manner that the Word or Son of God was only a
diftinft Mnn'tjeftation, and not a different Tevfon from the Fa-
ther. This Notion Jupn Martyr [who mentions it, Dial,
p. I, 20. Edit. Far.} condemns, as making the Son nothing bat
another N^me of the Father, [J^ to tZ «AJtf ^oj^ ovoucfjt {jJjvqv
deSueiTctt'] as the Light of the Sun is only different from the
Sun'itfelf in N.-me. But the Word [or Son] he adds ; [cieiQixf^
tj^ovriWi''} is numerically r^r really) diftina from the Fa-
ther ; not as the Sun and its Light which is Part of the Sun it-
felf, bat as one Light or Lamp is diflinft from another, which
is Juflin\ Comparifon : and tho* it may feem to infer a Confub-
fiantiaUty of another iort, yet that does not appear to be Jh-
pns Meaning, but he fpeaks by way of Similitude only.

Having

( j8 )

Having fliown how few Inftances of ancient Wri-
ters can be alledgM for the Notion of the Confuh-
ftantinlity ; and in what Senfe they underftood and
nppiyM it without ever inferring a CQequality either
of Nature or Pozvers from it. It is moreover obfer-
vable, that TertuIIian is the only Writer who ex-
prefly teaches and infifts on the Confubflantiality of
the Holy Ghofl^ as well as of the Son ; the others not
diredly fpeaking of that Matter, and are cited for
the Confubftantiality of the Son only. I (hall there-
fore fas I proposM above, f. 23.) fliow briefly what
Reafon there is to think that the Dodrine of the
confuhfi ami al Divinity of the Holy Spirit was pecu-
liarly a Branch of the Tl/c^/^^^/^//? Opinion.

Firfty It is remarkable that no ancient Writer of
the three firil Centuries either before or after T'ev-
tullian ever taught that the Holy Ghoft is God or
Confuhflantial with the Father : And Secondly, 'ter-*
tullian himfelf never mentions this Opinion, but
only in the Books which he wrote after he was a
(/?) Montanifl: And Thirdly, He intimates that it
was a Part of his (i) Momanifm : And Fourthly,
The (k) Athanafians themfelves declare that the
Alontanifls agreed with them in the Doclrine of a
confuhflantial Trinity.

(h) DeVud. c.ii. Cont, Trax. c. 12, 5 r.

(i) Nos enim — maxime Paracleti ncn homtnum difcipid'i^ duos
umdem defimmus^ pairem 'CP jiVium^ & f'^^ ^''^^ <^^^^ fp'mtu
fanBo^ fecttndum rationem csconomiA [fcil. un':us fubJlantiA in tri-
hu! cohdrentihusy ^dv. Prax. c. 12.] qu^s faclt numerum„ adv.

Vrax,c, 15. Duos & ires yjMjirclitaTit a nobis pradicariy fe

"jero unius Dei cu/tores pr^e/umiinfy ibid. c. 5.

(k) '^OvToi yci<> 01 Kcijci (p^vycf; nctK^iJ.zvoi ' -T«f < Titj^o? iy

(TiA. Epiph. Ha-r. 48. Seft. i. See alfo Hccref. 50. Fhilajir.
Cat, H^ref. apud Bib. Pat. 'Tom. 4. p. 13. 1%eodoref, Haret,
Fab. ^y 2. Nicephor. Ub,/^. c. zi. Juguft. &>c. See alfo Mr.
Whifions Account of the Origin of the Sabeillan and Athanafian
Doctrines of the Trinity,

I pro-

il9 )

I proceed to a very remarkable Tranfat5lion of
primitive Hiftory relating to the ConfubRantiality of
the Son, whereby it appears that after ferious De-
liberation and Difputation in the Cafe of Paulus,
Bifhop of Samofata, it was rejeded by a Synod of
eighty Bifhops, or probably more, as being a Word
of /// Signification, and implying a Divifion of the
divine Unity.

Dr. B' — 's Account of the Matter is ; he fays,
'' Athanafius and Bafil (I) have affur'd us, not that
*' he [Paul oi Samofata] allow'd the Word [o/7.o«V/(!^]
*' Confubjlantial ; but that he difputed againft Chrift's
" Divinity, from the Impoffibility of his being con-
'' fubfiantial, having firft explained that Word in a
^^ wicked and abfurd Senfe : he took it grofly and
" corporeally, juft as thofe Things are reckon'd
" Confuhftamid, which are made out of the fame
" common preexifting Subftance, as different Pieces
"' of Money made of the fame Mafs of Metal- —
" And this feems to be the true Reafon why the
" Council oiAntioch difus'd the Word, not becaufe
" it taught an Equality of Nature, but becaufe it
" had been mifapply'd to infer a Di'uifion of Sub-
" ftance, and beginning of Exigence/'

This is both a very obfcure and partial Relation ;
infinuating as if the Council of Antioch had only
difus'd the Word Confuhftantial in the pretended
ahfuvd Senfe which Pauloi Samofata put upon it, but
might allow it in the Senfe of its implying an Equa-
lity of Nature in the Son with the Father :^ both
which are untrue. And from all the beft Evidence
of the Fad laid together, from Athanafms and Ba-
//themfelves, it appears that they rejeded the Ap-
plication of the Word Confuhflantial to the Son, in
every Senfe ; as a Word bearing an ill Meaning,

(U ^ag, 146, 147.

and

(40)

and implying a Dlvijion of the Unity of God ,* ei-
ther as dividii?g the Subftance of God into three di-
ftinEi Subflances, as Paul argued, and to whofe Rea-
foning in that Refped the Council agreed, and
thereupon rejeded the Word t or as fuppofing the
Son to be (in the Sabellian Senfe) an undivided Se-
Bion or Efflux of the perfonal individual Subflance of
God, which feems to have been Paul's own Opi-
nion, and to which poffibly he might in a fophiflkal
Manner apply the Word [o/Wo-/©-] Confubflantial ;
as well as argue againft the WoM in the other
Senfe. If this latter Obfervation is right, it re-
conciles what Hilary fays with the Account of
Athanajius and Bajil.

Hilary obferves that one Reafon alledgM at the
Council o{ Ari'minum for rejeding the Word [o/Wcr/oJ
Confubflantial^ was, " that (m) the Fathers [of the
^' Synod of Antioclo] when Paul of Samofata was de-
'^ clar'd an Heretic, did rejed the Word Confuh-
*^ ftantial: becaufe having interpreted this Word in
*' the Senfe of individual Ejfence^ he did thereby
**^ teach the Father and Son to be mefingular Perjon!^
If this was the Cafe, it was one good Reafon for
the Council of Ariminum as well as Antioch rejed-
ing the Word ; which in Fad had been fo interpre-
ted by fome Athanafians^ in the fourth Century ; and
might not (n) improbably have been before us^d in
that Senfe by Paul in the Explanation of his No-
tion, which vS'as that the (\Qyo^) (o) Word of God

(m) Quod "P aires ^ cum Pauhs Samofatenus h^reikui ■pronun-^
c'latus eji, et'iam Homopi(ion repudia'verint : qitia per banc unius ef-
feniiiZ ijunatpatlotiem, foUtarium atque unicum Jibi ejfe pattern Sp
fUum pradicabat, De Synod.

fn) Vid. ?etav. de I'rin. lib. 4. c 5. & Bulli Vef. F. Nic, p. 29.

(o) *Ei/ 6«(y cTe ctei ovla, t^v cijjth \oyov ^ to rrviufjLd ewT»f

TH QtS" nyvrruTctloyj dw* iv cfjJra r$ 05W. Epiph. Haeref. 65.

. / v/as

( 41 )

was not a real divine Perfon fnhflantlaUy exifling of
himfelfy but the imernal Reafon of the Father, fub-
fifting, not by Generation or Derivation from him^
but in hirrty as the humane Reafon does in the Mind
of Man. To this Notion Paul might apply the
Word [py.o'6(rtoi\ Conful^fiamial, meaning by klrauJoUioii
Confubftantial in the individual Senfe ; and the Fa-
thers of the Amiochian Synod might have condem-
ned the Word, thus underftood, as implying [as I
Ihall (how it was underftood to imply] a Divifion o£
the divine Subftance, after the Ma'nner oiSabellians
and ValentinianSy into diftindt Proholas^ Effluxes^ or
Emanations^ conceived as confubftantial Parts of one
Subftanee. And after the Council had declar'd
the Church's Senfe that the Word was a diilind:
fublifting Perfon, and really God before the IVorld ;
Paul might then endeavour to turn the Confubftan-*
tiality upon their Notion ,* and argue as Athanafius
reprefents him ', that if their Notion of the perfo-
nal Preexiftence of the JVord was true ,* " and (p)

Chrift was not (as he maintain^) of a Man made

a God, it would then follow that he muft be Con-
" fubftantial with the Father, and [in their Senfe

however] there muft be [a Divifion of the divine
'^ Subftanee into] three diftind Eifences, oney pri":
[^ mary Cor original) and two^ deriv^'d from it."

Thus I think Hilary s and Athanajius's Account
may be reconcilM together ; and "'tis plain from
both that the Confubflantiality was rejected ; and ad-
mitting Hilary to be under a Miftake (as fome have
thought) in fuppofing the Confubflantiality to have
been rejected in the individual or Sabellian Senfe of

iaeii'ii^. Be Synod, Awn, & Sehuc, Se^. 45. 2l>w. i. lild, &*
Ss^. 51.

f ill

(42)

it ; yet it appejirs from Athanafius himfelf, as well
as (we fhall fee) from Bafil, that the Word was
wholly rejeded by that primitive Council, as car-
rying in it the Notion of the Divifion of the Sub-
ftance of God, which was indeed a wicked and ah-
furd Senfe^ but which they thought was the natural
Senfe and Meaning of the Word, and therefore re^
jefted ir.

It does not at all appear that they were imposed
tipon by Paul with a falfe Senfe of the Word ; but
that they agreed to his Interpretation of it, as in-
ferring a Divifion of the divine Subftance. This
was their Senfe of it, and they knew of no good one
that the Word was capable of Athnnajtus does in a
Manner own as much, faying of them, that {^)
*' writing in a more plain fimple Manner concern-
*' ing the Divinity of the Son, they did not nicely
" underftand the Word Confuhflantial, but fpoke
*' their Senfe of it according to their own natural
f' Conceptions of it/'

And their natural plain Conceptions [who were
not us'd to vain philofophical Diftin^tions] were,
that the Word Ccnfuhflamial was of an ill Signification^
and imply'd a Divifion of the divine Subflance ^ and
therefore was to be rejeded.

Bafil tells us, C^) " they rejeded the Word [Con^
[^ fuhflantial~] as having no good Meaning ; for they

^q) Tlitl Tn? tS q'» ^eoltffQ- aThi^s^v ypJ.(pQvliii « }ictliyi-
'iTi^i TO ouo'dji'd eifiDicist^ ibid.

(x) ^liZctKQV TUJJ Ae£/J» [to O.Uoacrtii] CO^ "6)1 ilKTilfJ-Ol', itcLffAV
^ iK^VOt tIuj To Q^Q'na'U WCOvt^ '^cLeiTAV iVVOlciV ^Tlcl'; Ti )t^ T^V

d'Zir ewtn?y <Cr« KctJctfj.ietiSreKJ'ctv tIlu ^d'tctv 'Trct^iy^eiV to oy^oatria
tVjj 'TTCP^nyoeUu to7^ «V d J^tyi^iSn. F-pift. 300. p. 1069 And
Athannf* 01 ihv '2,A{y.o(Tcilia, actldKejiVctv^Zi k7ri(7K.o-^ot yfj.poi^i^
iH^mciLdi l^yi Vi) QiAQ-^7iQV tqv v^h 1^ Tn^jei' Ve Synodi Arim. &^

" faid

(4?)

^^ faid that being confuhflantial^ imply'd the Notion
'' of Subflance (ox Effence) and o£ thofe Things
" which are deriv'd from it ; fo that the Subftance
" (or Effence) being divided, did thereby give the
*^ Denomination of Confuhft ami alio thofe Things in-
" to ivhich it was divided!'

The Divifeon of the divine Subftance was that
which this primitive and truly orthodox Council
luftly abhor'd ; and they thought the Word Con-
fuhflantial imply'd fuch a Divifion ; they knew no
other Senfe of the Word ; for Athanaftus owns
they fpoke their natural real Sentiments of it j and
therefore they rejeded it as a Word of no good but
of a very had Meaning, And this is a dired and ma-
nifeft Evidence that the Dodrine of the Conjubfian-
tiality of the Son with the Father was not the anci-
ent Catholic Dodrine of the Church ; fmce it ap-
pears that a numerous Synod of Bifliops not only
knew nothing of any fuch Dodrine, but rejeded it
as wicked and abfurd. Had they known that it was
the Catholic DoBrine, and only rejeded it (asDr.i^.
would pretend) in the Senfe put upon it by Paul to
deceive them ; they would no doubt have explain d
in what Senfe they admitted it, as well as in what
Senfe they rejeded it ; And had they thought the
Word Confubfiamial could he apply M to the Gene-
ration of the Son before theWorld without inferring
a Divifton of the divine Subftance, tbey would pro--
bably have declar'd thir, their Opinion, as the Coun-
cil of Nice afterwards did, and not have rejeded it
wholly. But as Athanaftus obferves, they were not
acquainted with this nice Interpretation oi: the
Word ;' they took it in the plain, obvious and natu-
ral Senfe, in which Senfe they were of Opinion that it
exprefs'd a Divijloi^^oi the divine Subftance, and this
being a very abfyrd and u>i eked Senfe, as Dr. B ™~
owns, they accordingly rejeded it. And m^fed^
tho' Athanafim apologizes for the Ufe of the V^ord
" F 3 Conjubf-.

(44)

Confuhftantial by the Council of Nice, and alledges
• that they did not therein (as the Arians objeded)
contradid the Senfe of the Co\\r\c\\ o£ Antiocb ; yet,
if the Nicene Council had underflood the Word in
tliQ plain, natural and obvious Senfe, I do not fee
how it can be clear'd from interfering with it. To
be [hi/.ohiQ-~] Confuhftantial, does in true Philofophy,
and in the ftrid grammatical Senfe of the Word,
amply (as the Council of Antioch underftood it) a
Divifion of Subftance into more confuhftantial Sub-
ftances : It is the complex Notion and Name of a
Species; and whether the Subftances are in Exi-
gence adually feparate or not, or howfoever united,
it really alters nothing. And therefore the Coun-
cil of Nice profefling the Confuhftantiality, and at the
fame Time declaring againft the Divifion, fhows that
they did not underftand the Word in the plain, li-
teral and vulgar Senfe, but in a Senfe peculiar,
and not ftridly philofophical [as fhall be coniiderM
hereafter] and thus, tho* in Words, they did contra-
did the Antiochian Synod, yet in Senfe and Meaning
they did not : And there feems to be no other rea-
fonable way of reconciling the two Councils. Dr»

B ^s adding that the Council did not difufe the

ConfuhBantiality, becaufe it taught an Equality of Na-
turc, IS what I do not well underfland the Purpofe
of, unlefs he would infinuate that they held the E-
quality of Nature, notwithflanding that they rejeded
the Confuhfiantiality ; which is both abfurd and un-
true. Had they held the Equality it is no way pro-
bable they would have rejeded the Confuhfiantiality^
fince three diftinct fubfifting Perfons equal in Na^
ture, would be in Confequence confuhftantial , [tho*
on t\\t other hand, upon the Principles of ancient
Philofophy, Confuhflantiality did not infer Equality"]
and in that Cafe the Point of Divifion would fignify
nothing x for three equally fupreme united Gods is
as great an Abfurdity and Impiety, as three divi-
ded

( 45 ;

"^ed Gods ; as they would undoubtedly have thought
[as in Reafon they muft] the three divine Perfons to
be, had they believed them to be eqml in Nature^ and
to be three equaUy [upeme Perfons or Agents. There-
fore as they did not think of an Equality of Mature
being taught in the Word Conftihftantial^ and reject-,
ed it as inferring a Divi/ion of the divine Subftance,
and deftroying the Unity i fo the Letter in which
they wrote an Account of their Belief is a demon-
ftrative Evidence that they did not hold an Equality
of Nature^ or of Powers in the divine Perfons ; but
very clearly and ftrongly profefs'd the Catholic Do-
ctrine of the alone Supremacy of the one God and Fa-
ther of all 5 and of the Subordination, Miniflration^
and SuhjeEli on oithQ Son and Spirit to him.

They fay ,• *^ We (s) believe that the Son of God
■' who exifted always with the Father, did fulfil the
*^ U^ill of his Father in the Creation of the World :
*^ for he fpoke, and they ivere made^ he commanded, and
*^ they were created!* Again, '^that (t) it was he,

who fulfilled the Will of his Father in appearing
*' to the Patriarchs, fometimes declarM to be an
*^ Angela fometimes Lord, and fometimes God: but

it is Impiety to ftile the fuprejne God an Angel ; but
^' the Son is the Angel of the Father, being alfo

Zor^^and God!'

In which Words can any Thing be plainer than
the following Particulars ?

tS'i 6sof uet^Tu^iy-ziQ- tIv [jXv j/j Sjo;/ t^v oAcou dinCi^ diyU^ov
«5 ^ih 6oy, Epift. Synod. Antioch. ad Paul Samofar.

( 40

Fh'jt, The Subordination of the Son to the Auth(h>
vity and Will of the Father, cxemplifyM ia being the
Father's ininifterial Agent in the Creation of the
World J by whofe Command it was created By [or
thro^j the Son-

Secondly^ The fame Subordination^ Miniflration and
SuhjeBion of the Son to the Father, in his being the
Father's Angel^ and the Msjjenger of his Will to the
Patriarchs to \vhoni he appear' d by a Miffion from the
Father.

I'hirdly, The DiflinElion and Subordination of the
Son to the Father, even as Lor^ and Goi ; the Son
being declarM to be fo Lord, and/o God, as not to
be himfelf the fiipreme God, but the Angel of the fu-
preme God, 'vix.. the Father, whom it would be
impious to ftile an Angel ; that we may thereby know
that the Perfon flil'd lor^ and Godm Scripture, and
alfo Angely is not and cannot be the fupreme God
[whom it is impious to fuppofe to be call'd an Angef]
but the Son of God, miniftring to the Will of the
fupreme God even the Father, and therefore ftil'd
his Angel.

This was the primitive Catholic Faith of the Fa-

thcrs of the Council of Antioch, which Dr. B , as

w.Q. have feen, has reprefented very partially and
unfairly.

I iliall draw one Obfervation more by way of In-
ference from the Decifion of this Council, to (how
that the Confubflantiality was not the Dodrine of the
ancient Church.

Had the Church taught the Confubflantiality, the
Divifion of the divine Subilance thereby, being fo
obvious an Objeclion, as appears from the Senti-
ments of the Council of Antioch, would undoubtedly
have been made againft it by thofe who oppos'd the
Church's Doftrine. But no fuch Objedion having
ever been known to be made againft the primitive
receiv'd Do<fcrine of die Trinity, is a good Argu-

t I ment

(47)

hient to prove that the Conftihflantiality was not prli-^
fefsM in the ancient Church. The Learned Biihop
{u) Bull, I know, [and Dr. TV — has borrowed the
Miftake from him and others] alledges thai: the Ob-
je6cion of the Divifion of the divine Subflance was an-
ciently made againft the Catholic Doftrine of the
Trinity ; and makes life of this as an Argument
that the primitive Church held the Confubftamialityy
againft which he fuppofes the Objedion to lie. This
the learned Biihop fancies was objeded by fome
old Afferters of the SahelUan Notion, which he in-
fers from a Pafiage of Alexander^ Biihop of Alexan-
dria^ and thinks that Jtiflin Martyr intimates as

much. Dr. W fays ; " We (x) find Footfteps

*' [of the Objedion of Divijiori] as early as Jtiflin
'^ Martyr. We meet with it in Tertullian as urg'd by
'^ Praxeas, Tatian and T'heophilus both allude to it.
" Sahellius was full of it i and it was afterwards one

of the chiefeft Pretences oiArius. Now (adds

he) what Colour or Pretence could there have

" been for the Objedion, had not the Catholics

profefsM a proper Communication of the fame

Subftance ? or could it ever enter into any Man's

Head to make fo weak an Objedion to the Ca-

^' tholic Dodrine, unlefs a proper Confuhftantiality

*^ had been taught by them ? ''

This may appear plaufible as it is confident ; but
the Misfortune is, that there is not one Word of
Truth in it. The Dodor has no Evidence that any
fuch Objedion was ever made, as is here pretend-
ed. And tho' Dr. IV 's Plea has received alrea-
dy a fufEcient (y) Anfwer, yet I Ihall here add,
fomething further to put an End to that Pretence

(u) Lef K N. Sea. 2. c. 1,4.
fx) Defenfe, pag. 5S3. 384,

here-

(4S>

hereafter, and fliow that in the Paffage oiAlexamierl
on which Bifhop B71II chiefly builds his Opinion,
it is not fupposM that Sabellians and Valentiniam
made the Objedion of Divifion againft the Catholic
Doctrine, but on the contrary, that the Objedion
lay againft the SahelUan and Valentinian Notion.

The Words of Alexander are ; " We (z,) believe
^^ in one Lord Jefus Chrifl:, the only-begotten Son
*^ of God, begotten not out of nothing^ but of the exi-
'^ fling Father : not after the Manner of Bodies, by

SeEiions or divided Emanations^ according to the
*^ Opinion of Sahelliiis and Valentinus ; but after an
^^ ineffable and inexplicable Manner." Here the
natural Senfe of the latter Part of the Words is,
that the Q^'^mionoi Sahellius and Vakminus fuppos^
the Son and Spirit to be divided Effluxes, SeElions or
Emanations; and not that they had objeded this
Notion to the Church's Dodrine. That the Valen^
tinians held fuch divided Emanations is manifefl :
TertuUian (a) chargeth it upon them (and Irenaus
before \\m\) and the Bifhop owns it. Therefore
the Bifhop [nor very fairly] drops the Word Valen^
tinus in the Paffage of Alexander^ as confcious there
was no Pretence to fay the Valentinians, who were
known to teach the Dodrine of Emanations of JEons
divided from each other, had objeded this Divifion
againft the Church : and he fuppofes the Objedion
to have come from Sabellians only, and according to
his own Interpretation puts in part at leaft an ab-
furd Senfe upon Alexanders Words. The Bifhop

(t.) TltTiVOlAZU — ►^K iP^ KVeiO'/ ''li]<T^V XCiT^' T^',' tfOf 7» OsS T^/

[j.ovoyivny yzmiSi/jct^ «;t s/- tS //« ofl©-, ciAa' sy. 7^ o/jQ- 'jrct-

ccaa' dppnTcog ^ cii'iKS'iny'iTcoi' apud Theod, Hid. Ecclef. lib. i.
('a) Vaknt'mui probolas/wjj difcerrili 6c feparat ab au^ore,
adv. Prax* c. S,

( 49 )

was led into the whole Miftake for want of know-
ing that the Catholics [whether rightly or not] did
objed Bivifion of the divine Subftance to the Sabellian
Notion as well as to the Valentiniani which makes
the Senfe oi Alexander clear, and Ihows that he was
fpeaking of an Objedion againft the Vakntinian and
Sabellian Scheme, and not of one of theirs againft
the Catholic Doctrine. _ .

That this is Alexanders true Meaning [which In«'
terpreters have hitherto miflaken] is further evi-
dent from an authentic Letter of the Presbyters and
Deacons of Alexandria to Alexander himfelf, where-
in they lay before him the Faith which they had
heard him profefs, and which they had been taught
by him : In which Letter they obferve, " that (b)
" Sabellius dividing the Unity call'd [God] both Fa-
" ther and Son/' Sabellius had divided the prfonal
Unity of God, into three Perfons, contrary to the
Catholic Faith. And tho' indeed Sabellius did fup-
pofe but one real divine Perfon or fubfifting Beings
yet he fo explained his Notion of the Son and Sfirit^^
as to give Occafion to the Objedion of Bivifion o£
the divine Subftance^ repefenting the Father under the
Similitude of the Sun -, and the Son as a Ray emitted
from it, as (c) Epiphanius informs us ; and which is
the old Gnoftic Explanation mentioned by (d) yuftin ;
and a (e) learned Perfon tells us from Theodoret, that
he made the Son ^nd Spirit [jo^jM ^ A'^o}UicLi} SeStt^
ms and Effluxes from the Father y which is the very
Thing which Alexander fpeaks of.

(b) 2*|5Ua/©- rtwy.omJ'ct S'tAt^^v ^oTAToe^ a-rsr apu<J
Athanaf. de Synod. Anm. QP SeJeuc. & apudEpiphan. H<cref. 69; -

(c) mref 61. SeB> u See alfo tii^ref, 31. ad'V. Vahnim,
Pag. 168.

(d) Biali p. 5 7 2. Jeho ^

(e) Difcoiirfe in Defenfe of Dr. Ctai'lz againft Mr. Nelfen d
friend. By a Clergyman in the Country, pag. 70.

(50)

(/) Jufiin Martyr fuppofes no fuch Objedion as
Divifion of the divine Sub fiance to be made againll:
the Doftrine of the Church in his Time : He denies
that it follows from his Notion and Reprefentation
of the Generation of the Son by the Will of the
Father, which he illuftrates by a Light or Lamp being
lighted by another ; adding, that ic is without Divi^
fioUy left any Ihould objed it ; and to fhow the Dif-
ference betwixt his and the Valentinian Notion,
which infer'd Divijion.

l*ertullian was indeed liable to the Objedion of the
Divifton of the divine Subfiance j and this is a ftrong
Argument of the Truth of what I am contending
for, namely, that the Confubflantiality was not the
Dodrine of the ancient Catholic Church ,* becaufe
the Objedion was not made againft him by Praxeas,
as an Objedion againft the public Faith of the
Church ; but was made by the Catholics themfelves
againft the particular novel Notion of Tertnlliany
who had imbibed the Montanifl Opinions, and was
the firft who profefTedly taught the exprefs Con-
fubftantiality of the Son and Spirit with the Father ;
which being unknown to the Body of Chriftians be-
fore, they exclaimM againft it as (g) dividing the Uni-
ty, ^r\di introducing a Plurality of Gods, And 7'ertuliian
had no way to avoid the Charge of bringing into the
Church the exploded Valentinian Confubftantial Se-
parate Emanations, but by declaring the Son and

f f) Dial p. 37;. Jeh

(%) Simplices enim quique — qu<z major fempey CrederJt'iumpart
ejly quoniam QP ipfa regulafdel a pJuribus Deis fecttli ad unicum &
'vertitn Deum transjevt : non intelligentes uriicum quidem, fed cum
fuA o'lKoi'Qfj.icf. ejfe credenditm, expavefcunt ad o))coyoy,iAV. Nume-
rum Qp difpofitionem Irimtatisi Divifionem prafumunt umtatis.^-^
Itaque duos QP tres jfAM jaHltant a nobis pr^dicari^ Jevero Vnitts
Dei iuUores pr^efumunL Adv» Fra^, c, 3.

spirit

( 51 )

Spirit to be undivided (h) Parts of the Subflancc of
the Father, as Rays of Light (he fuppos'd) were of
the Sun ; and thereby ran very nearly into that -SVj-
heliian Notion, which he was oppoiing.

"fheophilus is wholly free from the Objedion of
Divijion^ obferving only that the Catholic Notion
of the Generation of the Son is not like the Origin
of the [xciTcTsf 9£<>~/] Sons of the heathen Gods, whom
their Poets and Mythologifts reprefented as being
deriv'd in the way of (i) humane Generation.

Laflly ; Tatian was juftly chargeable with the Ob-
jedion, who had left the Dodrine of the Church,
and run into the (k) Valentinian Notions.

Thus it appears that there is no fort of Evidence
of the Confuhflamiality being the Dodrine of the pri-
mitive Church. That the Objedion of the Z)m7?o/2
of the divine Suhflance, which might feem to imply
it, was not urg'd by Valentinians and Sahellians a-
gainft the Catholic Faith i but on the contrary, was
made againft the Valentinians and Sahellians [as Alex-^
ander and others inform us] by the Catholics them-
felves. The Gnofiic or Valentinian Confubflamiality
was always chargM with it. The Montanifl Confub-
flamiality was reclaimed againft in 'TertuUian on the
fame Account : and the great Council of Antioch
condemn'd and rejeded it for the fame Reafon,
But the Objedion was never urg'd againft the Do-
drine of the Church, till the Confuhflamiality was re-
ceiv'd by the Niceve Council.

(h") Vo\t\o aUojuatotius, ihid. c. 16,

ici [xv^oy^.(poi KiydtTi tjV; ^i^v s;c (Tmiajiai yivveofAivag- ad A a*
tolyc. lib. 2. p. 129.

(k) 'TertuUinn fays of him ; ioius fecundum Valentin um fapU»
Trafcrip. adv. Htcret. c. 52. And 'Theodovet in like Manner ; «£^*

V17A7Q TaV rk '7rKcL<Tl/.dL704 c6?0f//6tV, ^ ^Iv ^Ahiyrm li^V GU"

mm 7Ai TT^C&hiu Hxret. Fab. lib, i,

G z Having

Having brought down the Controverfy concern-
ing the Doctrine of the Trinity to the Council of
iQice j becauie the Tranfadions of that eminent Sy-
nod are lock'd upon to be of the greateft Impor-
tance, and have been thought and are flill pretend-
ed to decide riie Matter in favour of modern Atha-
nafianifrfj or Scholaftk Orthodoxy (fo call'd.) I (hall be
more particular in the Hiftory of that Council, and,
with the ftrideft Regard to Truth, fhoiv that that
Council determined nothing for the Neceffary-Exi^
ftence and Coeqiiality of the Son with the Father : and
that there is the greateft Reafon to think that the
primitive Catholic Dodrine of the akne Supremacy oi
the Father, and of the Subordination^ and Inferiority
of the Son to him, in Nature^ Authority ^ Dominion
and Worpip, was the Dodrine profefsM and taught
by the AT/ce//^ Fathers.

It is well known that the meeting of the Council
of Nice was occafionM by a Difpute betwixt Arius a
Presbyter of the Ciip.rch of Alexandria^ and his Bi-
Ihop Alexander. The Occafion, Beginning and
Manner of the Difpute is left obfcure and varioufly
related by Hiftorians.

Dr. B — fays from (/) Theodoret^ *^ that (m, ) it was
^^ Envy and Ambition [in Aritis upon Alexander" s Ad-
" vancement to the See of ^/^-x^^/^^r/ j] that brought

*' on a fatal Refolution to oppofe his Bifliop.

" And this he did in a moft weighty and important
" Article. For whilft Alexander ftedfaftly adhe/d
5' to the Catholic Dodrine, T'hat the Son is of one
' ^^ Suhfiance mth the Father, and the OhjeB of the fame
^' Worjhip ; knusivasof a contrary Opinion." He adds
prefentiy after : '^ ^Tis likely (n) he [Arius'] might

(1) Htft. Ecclef, nk I. fi s, EccJef^ lib. i, c. 15.
(m) Pag, 164.

(n) Pag, 166,

" vent

(5?)

" vent his Blafphemles at firft in private, and wait
tilJ he had gain'd a competent Number of Difciples
toefpoufe them, and at length a public Confe-
rence of Ale>:ander with his Clergy gave him the
defir'd Opportunity of publifhing his Herefy.""
This is the Sum of the Rife and Manner of the
Controverfy betv/ixt Arius and his Bifhop, which
the Dodor is pleas'd to give out of one Hiftorian
only, and to reprefent the Matter with the moft
Favour on one Side, by Additions and lujinuations
of his own without any Evidence ; fupprelTing at
the fame time the fuller and clearer Accounts of
l\\Q ot\\Qr [t\'QVi Athanafian'] Hiftorians, which place
the Matter in another View and better Light.

T'heodQrets is the moft imperfed Account of any ;
and as he is the only Hiftorian of four who writes
th^t Arius opposM his Bifliop out of Envy; fo it is
not at all agreeable to the Relation of the other
three ; and more particularly to what one of them
fays, 'viz,. That (o) Arius zvas in great Eft e em with
Alexander, and that it was after fome timie, and be-
ing urgM by fome of his Clergy, that he and Alex-
ander oppos'd each other j and in the Event indeed
fatally difagreed.

As to the Dodiox^ Pretence that Arius firft vent-
ed his Notions inpri'vate, it is a mere Fidion with-
out any Ground ; Theodoret himfelf fuppofeth that
he firft declared his Opinion openly in the Church ;
(p) which is agreeable to the Relation of the other
Hiftorians, who intimate nothing at all of his pro-
pagating his Tenets in private, and reprefent the

(o) 'A\i^etvJ^^^ h> TiiJ-vi tiyjcV ewrov* Soz. Hift.

(p) TaJjTA J fj.Qvov ov \Ky,KmicL t^id'iKei hiycovy ce\Aa xctV To7f
i:;co ffvKKoyoii xj criws/e/c/?* y^ rctV Ukia^ TrieiVOT^V Hift. Ec-
cief. lib. I. q,, j, *

firft

(14)

firft Publication of Arius\ Dodrine to have been in
as public a Manner as poflible.

The Emperor Conflantine's AccounL lays the Oc-
cafion of the Difpute and Qiiarrel to (q) Alexander's
fYOfoJtng a frivolous Quejii on among fi his Pyeshters^ and
to the imprudent Reply which Arius made to it^ and
which caus'd the Oppofition and Difcord between
them. Socrates fays the Difpir.e began upon Alex-
anders once difcourfing in the Prefence of his Pres-
byters and the reft of his Clergy (r) with move than
ordinary Warmth concerning the Trinity^ and averting
an Unity in the 'Trinity, Which Arius ^ one of his
Presbyters, thinking to favour the ^S'^^^//i^« Opinion,
out of Opppficion to the SahelJia^ Dcdrine, went
into the contrary Extreme, and vehemeniiy oppos'd
what his Bifliop had faid j and ni'ierted that the
Son, as being begotten^ had 0) ^ Beginning of Exi-
fience ; and that from thence it followM (t) that there
luas a Time 'uohen the Son was not; n.nd that in neceffary
Confequence he had his Suhfiftence out of nothing. Thefe
novel Affertions occafionM much Difpute not only
in Alexandria, but throughout all ^gypt, Libya^ and
the upper (u) Thebais, Sec. and (x) many of other
Churches, efpecially Eufebius of Nicomedia, favoured
Arius' s Opinion : Upon whichAlexander grew very 7nuch
(^y) incensed, and calling a Council of many Bifhops
together, he deposM Arius and his Adherents, and

(<|) Confian*. Lh. apud Eufeh. h Vit. Conjlant. lib. i. c. dp.

(t) ^t\o%i.'o]ies^,WiQi. Ecclc-n lib. I . c. 5.

(s) 'E/ 0 '^ctrrig kyivvna'i Toi> qV, d^X^^ JWff £«^ iX^ ^
yivmBeii, Ibid.

•^ (t) Kelt \it^ TiS7» J'nhov^ oTi Lu on «K, lui 0 i^bi' AMWi^ei TZ
\^ dvctyit^iy gf a>c m^cov%x^^ ^^^^ ThjJv^QTA<7iv' ibid. See
Atha. Orat. i. cent. Avian, p. 2O4, 295.

Cu) md,c,6,

(x) '2,\wiKctiiCcLyQv% T? 'Aj<h» /of ji 'TTokkoi ytXv y^ aKKqi, &c.
Ibid.

Cy) 'O 'AAif ciKcTf^f Tjof l^yhM l^diiFTiTcu, Ibid.

wrote

( 55 ;

wrote the Account to all the Bifiiops of other
Churches abroad.

It is necefTary to make one Obfervation on what
Dr. B — ■ ailedges from the Account of Socrates^ from
whom he tells us, that Alexander in ex flaming the
DoElrine of the Trinity y had ajferted the infep arable Uni^
ty of Subftance *. Unity of Subflance is put in Italick
Charaders, as if they were the Words oi Alexander;
and Socrates is refer^'d to for them : and yet neither
in Socrates' s Account of Alexander s preaching con-
cerning the Dodrine of the Trinity, nor in Alexan-
de/s large Epiftle general to all the Biflnops which
he recites, and to which Dr. B — reters, is there
any fuch Affertion of Alexander s as an infeparable
Unity of Subflance in Father and Son. All thai Alex^
ander there aflerts is, that the Son is not, as xh^Arians
taught, (z,) unlike in Subflance to the Father, as being
the ferfeEi Image and Brightnefs of the Father : Whence
it is reafonable to infei', that he thought the Son
was like in Subflance to the Father, which he blames
the Arians for denying^ and in explaining his No-
tion, he never goes any farther. And in his other
Letter to his Namefake of Conflantinople, he exprefly
makes the Father and Son (a) two fubjifling Natures

Cor Beings J Whence it appears that Dr. B has

not that ftrid Regard to Truth, which fo ferious
and important a Matter as he is treating of, re-
quires.

But to proceed ; Sozomens Narration is moft full
and particular, and has feveral precedent Circum-
ftances which are omitted in the other Accounts,
and fets the whole Matter in the cleareft Light. He

^'TFdjjycLtTixtt 7« TdLT^U. Socrat. Hift. Ecclef. lib. i. c. 6.

dpud. Theodoret. Hift, Ecclef, lib, i< c. 4.

relates

( 50

relates that Arius [who was the public (b) Expofitof
of Scripture in the Church of Alexandria] in his
public preaching had firft vented his Opinions; and
thas feme who heard him, [c) hl^md Alexander {6:c
allowing him to preach fuch novel Dodrines. Upon
their Complaints ^/^x^^k^^k thought it beft to have
Matters which were (as thefe feem*d to him to be)
of a {d) doubtful and difputable Nature, debated fair-
ly on both Sides : and accordingly fitting as Judge
with fome of his Clergy, he brought the contending
Paities to a Difputation. Here probably it was
that Alexander put the Queftions for them to debate,
%vhich Conflantine's Letter fpeaks of. Each Side en-
deavour'd in Difputation to get the Vidory over
the other. Arius defended what he had faid ; and
the others on the contrary maintain^, that the
Son was {e) confubflantial and coeternal with the Fa-
ther. Alexander orderM a fecond Council, but their
Heats and Oppofition continued, and they could be
brought to no Agreement. The Matter in que-
ftion ftill feeming to Alexander to be (f) doubtful and
hard to be decided, he was perplexed and wavering
in his Opinion, and fometimes of one Side, fome-
times of the other. But at laft he gave into their
Opinion, who aflerted the Confubftantiality and Coe-
ternity of the Son ; and commanded Arius to agree
with them. But when he could not prevail with
him, and many of the Biihops and Clergy who fat
with him in Council to hear the Debate, thought

(b) Theodorer. Hift. lib. i. c. 2.

(g) 'EuifxtpovTo 'Ahi^ctvS'^ov «? « cTeoi' «tVg%o/x2;'o^ Twf netT^
ifii S'Qyy.ct]©- vic>fjze'.<r^uv' Soz. Hift. Ecclef. lib. i. c. ij.

(d) 'O cOi v<^AaC«V dl^J^eivov Vt) Titl iciv diJiZtCo^cov iKATifa
(Jii^ei 'TT^Q^.vat Koyovy 8cc. Ibid.

(e) 'Qf Quo^o-iQ- x5 (Tvj^dLiS'iU i^tv 0 qof r? 'Tretrei' Ibid.

v&)[\ Ibid,

(57)

^Artus was in the (g) Right, he excommuhicated both
Arius and thofe Clergy who adhered to his Dodrine ;
[and afterwards (h) depos'd them from their Mini«
flry.] But Arius was not deftitiue of Favourers; a
(i) great Part of the Laity went over to him, and to
thofe Clergy who were ejefted with him ; and they
fent Meffages to the Bifhops of every City to ac-
quaint them with their Cafe ; and delivering to
them a written Account of their Faith, defir'd
them, that if they judgM their Dodrine to be right,
they would intercede to their Bifliop Alexander for
them : or if otherwife, that they would inftrud them
better. The doing of this was no fmall Advantage
to the Arians i for it made the controverted Do-
drines to be publifh'd all abroad, and enquir'd into
amongft the Bilhops every where i and the Effed
was, fome Bifhops wrote to Alexander not to ad-
mit Arius and his Adherents to Communion, un-^
lefs they renounced their Opinions ; but others in-
treated him to admit them. But when Alexander
perceivM that a great (k) many Bifhops who were ve-
nerable for Gravity and SanBity of Life, and excelf d
in Eloquence of Speech, favoured the Arians ,* and
efpecially Eufehius, then Bifhop of NicomediUy a Man.
eminent for Learnings and of great Efteem in the
Court : He [_feU into a Paffion^ and (/) deposed Arius
and his Followers, and] wrote to the Bifhops every
where not to communicate with the Arians. Hence
both Sides grew more warm, and, as is ufual in fuch

rXyeiv%^^eoiTov^A^eioviV(tUi^ov, Ibid.

(h) Socrat. Hift. lib, I. c,6, ^heodoref. Hi ft. lih. I. r. 2.

Ci) Ta Acta »«, o\iy^ ^ol^, y.iliSivjo tjo? cwTU* Soz. ut Cv^'
pra.

(k) rTAeiVif^ dydL^^ ^iH'7r^^v)lJLetli ciyiv^i, i^ '7n^cLVo]\{\i Koy^
^ein^j (TuKKctiACAvoyiiv^i roii dy.'p^ Tov^A^etoVf See ibid.

yj Socrat Jib, i, c, 6.

'~^ ^ H Cafes,

(58)

Cole's, the Contention and Oppoficion between thenl
encreas'd. For when Eufebius and they who join'd
^ith him could not after many Entreaties prevail with
j4lexander to ufe mild and moderate Meafures ;
they thinking themfelves ill-treated^ began to refent
the Ufage, and us'd more vigorous Endeavours to
get Arius's Opinion to be cftablilh'd : and calling
together a Synod in Bithynia^ they wrote to the Bi-
fhops every where to hold Communion with the
Arians as Men of (m) Orthodox Opinions^ and to en-
deavour to prevail with Alexander to communicate
with them alfo. But when this Application had no
Effe<5i: upon Alexander , Arius fent MefTengers to
Paulinus, Bi(hop of 7)'re, and to the great Euf^hius
Pamphiius, Bifhop of Cafarea in Palefline^ and t to
Patrophilus^ Bifhop of Scythopolis ; and dejEir'd that'
he and the other Presbyters who agreed with him^'
might be permitted to hold a Congregation of thofe
People who adherM to them, as it was the Cuftom
of Presbyters in Alexandria to do. Thofe Bilhops
meeting together in a Synod with other Bifhops in
Palefline^ fubfcrib'd Arius's Petition^ exhorting them
to call together their Congregations as before, but
withal to be in fubjedion to their Bifliop Alexan*
der, and to endeavour, by continual Supplication^
to obtain Peace and Communion with him.

From the preceding hiftorical Account of the Rife
of the Controverfy betwixt Alexander and Arius, fe-
veral ufeful Obfervations naturally arife, which give
Light to the primitive Dodrine concerning the
Trinity ; and plainly fhow that the Notion of the
Meceffary^Exi/iencey Confubflantiality and Cos quality of
the Son with the Father was not the Faith of the an-
cient Catholic Church.

Ut fipra, 6c Socrat. lib. I, c. ^6

( 59 )

Firfly It appears from the foregoing Relation^
confiderM together. That Theodoret is either mifta-
ken or mifreprefents the Matter, in faying that ^^
lexander profefs'd the Son to be ef (ji) one Sul^
(lance with the Fat her y and equal in Dignity and
Honour. Socrates fays no fuch Thing, but only that
he preachM an Unity in the Trinity in fuch a Man4
ner as Arius thought to be Saheliian, which is
diredly contrary to the Notion of the Son's being
[a^oaV/oJ confuhftantiaL And Sozomens more large
and particular Account fhovvs that Alexander was fo
far from having conftantly held any fuch Opinions,
that when Arius broach a his Notions, he did not
think him at all in the wrong ; and that upon two
public Debates about the Matters, he was doubtful
and undetermined whether to fide with Arius or his
Opponents ; tho' at laft he agreed with the latter,
who difputed for the Confuhflantiality and Coeternity of
the Son. Therefore what T'heodoret fays, muft either
refped (not his original Opinion, but) his Decifion
againft Arius i or be only his own Conclufion, that
Alexander taught fuch Dodrines, from his oppofing
the Arim Tenets which were repugnant to them.
And it is not unufual for Hiftorians to reprefenc
Men as exprefly teaching and holding, siot what they
really in Terms profefs, but only what they them-
felves think is the Confequence of what Men teach or
profefs. Thus in like manner Sicinnius pretended
that the ancient Church profefs'd the [rl <riwdLiS'tQ\\
(o) Coeternity of the Son ; and was foweak as to ap-
peal to the ancient Creeds for this Do(5lrine t when
gill he had to alledge for this was no more thaa

(n) 'OyLoliyLOV Ihcyi rk ^at^U 7ov qkt ^-rhu cwtUj 2<rify .
X-^eiv -ra yzUvvtiKOTi 6sw * Hift. li b. i. c. z. T« TTciJf U tqv *{««'
hjjjai^ttv >XyQvl©-' Kaerer. fab. lib. 4, c. I.

(0) SoGrat. Hill. lib. 5. c, 10, Soz. lib. 7. c. 12.

( ^o )

f* that (p) the Ancients avoided afcrlbing a Begin-
*^ ning of Exiftence to the Son of God." The Co-
etemity was his own Inference without any dire6fc
Evidence at all from Antiquity ,- and againft many
exprefs Teflimonies for the contrary Opinion.

Secondly, Therefore it appears not only from the
fore-mention'd Hiftorians, but from Alexander's
own Letters which Theodoret relates at large, that he
neither direftly afferted [in his greateft Oppofition
againft Arms'] the ConfuhRantiality or Coeternity of the
Son : and the Coequality of Dignity, Honour or IVorJloip
was fo far from being declared for by him, that it did
not enter into the Difpute at all ; and there are fe-
veral Paffages in Alexander s Letters plainly againft
it : and the Pretence of his teaching it is certainly
either a very great Error or Mifreprefentation of
'fheodoret. The beft Light in this whole Matter is
to be had from the original Papers on both Sides
which ftill remain, and from which we may colled
what were the true Opinions both oi Alexander and
the Arians, and withal what was the Catholic Do-
arine of the Church at that Time.

The Catholic Dodrine of the Church which Alex^
'mder had publickly profefs'd and taught amongft
his Clergy and People, we have fet forth in an au-
thentic Letter extant in Athanafius and EpiphanitiSy
which the Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria wrote
to Alexander their Biftiop upon Occafion of the
Arian Controverfy. In which they tell him : '' That
" {q) the Faith which they had received from their
^^ Forefathers, and had been taught by him alfo, was

yov» Ibid. ^

(q) 'H 'Tri^'ti ni^c^v ^ ly. 'T^yoym, Vjj iy ^ (Th ixiy-ctSmetuiV^
&c. apnd Athanaf. 4e Sycod. Arim. & Seleuc. 6c Epiph,
Hserefo 6^,

" this.

€C

C(

(5i;

^* thlS^ We confefs one unbegotten, (r) cnly eter-^

" nal, (^w/j true God. That this God begat his

only-begotten Son before the Ages of the World ;
By whom alfo he made the Ages and the World.
— r"That l^yhis own {s)lViUhQ gave him Subfiflence,
who is the immutable and unchanq^eahle perfecl Creature
*^ of God ,• but not like one of the Creatures [made

*^ By him]^ —neither exifting before he was be-

" gotten or created into a Son: as even you your-

^^ felf, bleffed Father, in the midft of the Church,

*' and frequently in the AfTembly of the Clergy,

*' have confuted and rejeded thofe who introducM

" fuch Opinions. But, as we have faid, he was

created by the Pf/tll of God, before Time and be-

" fore the World. — So that there are three fubfi-

" fting Perfons , and God who is the Caufe of all,

is alone without Beginning ( or Original : ) but

the Son, who was begotten of the Father before

Time, and created and brought forth before the

^' Ages of the World, (t) did not exifl before he was

begotten for he is not (abfolutely j eternal, or

coeternal^ or unbegotten (or unmade) as the Fa-
ther is ; nor coexiftent with the Father. ~

*^ Wherefore the Father exifted before the Son, as
we have been taught by you, when you preachM
" in the midft of the Church."*^

The whole Letter is highly worth the learned
Reader's Perufal i and is not improbably that writ^
ten Form of Faith, or the Subftance of it at leaft,
which (u) Sozomen fays the Favourers of Arius fent
to the Bifliops of foreign Churches : and that it is a
true and impartial Account of the CathoHc Dodrine

(r) Movov aiS'tov fj.ovov dhn^mv* Ibid.

icjiauct -ra biHTiheiov' Ibid.

(l) 'Oux. hx> Tfo TO yiyy)\^hjjckC Ibid,
(u) B'ljt, lib. I.r, 15,

pi

hi the Chureh,' and which Alexander himfelf ha4
profefs*d and taught, may be concluded from the
following Confiderations. Firfiy That it clearly a-
gi'ees with the profefsM Dodrine of Antiquity, of
the alone Supremacy of the one God and Father of aH i
of the Generation of the Son by his Will : and his
being thereupon conftantly faid to be created hy
God, which feems very near the Stile of the Crea-
tme oj God, kit not as one of the other Creatures
[created by him] fo familiar among the Avians or
Ettfehians of the fourth Century, but as being int"
Ptutabk and ferfeSi ; the ferfeB Creature of the perfeEl
God, as (x) Eufehius calls him : and that he was pro-
duced or begotten of the Father before all Worlds^
but not abfoTutety coexifient with the underivM Du-
ration of God the Father, but /^ty^^r/or to him (tho*
without Limitation of Timej as being deriVd froni
liim. Secondly, 'Tis obfervable that this Form o£
Faith doth not diredly afErm any one of the parti-
cular ^r?>;^ Tenets, which were condemn^ by (y)
j4Iexander : as either that there was a Time when the
Son was mt ; that he was made out of nothing, or was
ifhe the Creatures which are made out of nothing ;
was unlike in Suhfl-ame to the Father ; or was of a
mutahle and changeable Nature y the leaft of which is
expreily deny'd in it ; as alfo in the Letters both or
(z.) Arius and {a) Eufehius of Nicomedia : So that in
this Point Alexander has mifreprefented, or ftrainM
the Opinion of the Arians beyond, and even againft
what they expreily taught i and feems to have char-
ged that upon them as one of their Principles,
Vviiich he thought was a Confequence of what they^

(iL) TiKHov riK(^\i J^iifjLiH^ynua.' Dem. Evang. lib. 4. c. 2*
(y) Socrat. Hifl. lih. i.e. 6. 'TheocloretJih. I. c, 4.
(i.) Apud Theodor2L Hlji. lib. i, c. *r,
fa) Ibid.c, 6.

(^J )

ilid really profefs, which is a common, but very tin-
felr Way of Adverfaries dealing with each other.

Having (hown the common Standard of the Do-^
£trine both of Alexander and Arius before any Dif-
pute or Controveffy began betwixt them i it will
not be difficult from thence, and by comparing the
origiriai Letters on both Sides, which contain the
Pofitions of both, and their mutual Charges <mi
each other, to enter into the Merits of the Caufe
which was fo warmly agitated by both Parties.

Alexander^ in his general Epiftle to all the Biihopsi"
declares what were the particular Pofitions of Anus
and his Adherents, for which he had excommunica-'
ted and depos'd them, 'uiz,- {b) " That God was boC
*' always Father ; but there was a Time when he
*^ was not Father : the Word of God was not ^
*^ ijoaysy but was made out of nothing — therefore
*^ that there was a Time when he was not. Ths£
*^ the Son is a Creature, and made : That he is
** not like to the Father in EJfence (or Subftance)
" nor the true and eflential Word of the Father*
*' ■ ■ ■ That he is of a mutable and changeable Na-
^' ture i aliene and feparate from the Subflance o£

« God, &cr

In his other Epiflle to his Namefake Bifhop o£
Conftantinople, he fums up the Charge againft the
Ariansy in three Particulars, namely i " Ftrfty Their
•** (c) faying there was a Time when the Son of God
** was not. Secondly^ That he was made out of no-
^ thing, like the reft of the Creatures. T'hhdly^ Tba5
^ he was of a w«^^^/? Nature.*'

That Arius gave Alexander a (^d) juft Handle for
thefe Charges againft him, Ihsodoret tells us appears

(h) Socrai. Hifi. Ecchf. fib. i. f. 6,

(c) IHodofeti Hifi, Ecdef, lib, I, c. 44

(6J tWdoriU Hiji. lib, i. f, 4, ^

kio

(64)

jErom ^>7«/s own Letter to Eufehius^ Bifliop oiNi-^
comedia, which he produces at large, and wherein
Arius fays ; He was ferfecuted by his BiJIoop for not a--
greeing mth him j (e) " That the Son is always as

** God is always. That the Son was coexiflem with

*' God in an unhegotten Manner. That he was al-
*^ ways begotten, and was begotten from being ^«-
* ; begotten. That God did not exift before the Son
*^ either in Conception, or any Point of Duration.
*' And that the Son is begotten out of God him-
*^ felf." In Oppofitionto which Dodrine of ^/^x-
ander, he fays, that the great Eufehius of Cafarea,
Iheodotus (oiLaodicea) Paulinus (of Tyre) and others ;
and all the Biftiops of the Eaftern Churches (three
only excepted, who held the Son to be an Emana^
tion, Emifflon, or unbegotten Property) " taught (/)
*' that God, as being unoriginated and without Be-
" ginning, exifled before the Son!' Then he declares
what was his own Dodrine, viz,, " that (g) the Son
*' is not unbegotten, nor in any Refped a Part of the
V unhegotten God, nor made out of any preexiftent
*^ Subftance : but that by the Will and Purpofe of
*^ God, he exifted before Time and Ages, perfeEl
*^ God, the only-begotten, and immutable. That he
*^ was not, before he was begotten ; had a Begin-
*l ning of Exiftence, and was made out of nothing/'

deiyiVViU Ir/f, dyivvifJoyiViU \^iv'' ar* l-nrn'oidL, ^ti cfcToMsj Ttvl
'*7r^Aye{ o Bio^ Ta q»* — l^ ojjt^ er/ rk Qsa o i\Qi* Ibid. c. 5.
See Athanaf, Or at, i. <:^;jf. /4n^w. p. 294, 295,

^iii T« q« AvdfX^a^' X. T. A. Ibid.

(g) "Or/ 0 ifo^ «^ iTiv dymiijQ-i «^5 //^^^ cty^ft^wTa a^^

Ao/&)]©-' ;9 Tf iV 74jt>i9m, &C. »;t LuT — d^'xJ.'JJ i^^ 0 qo^ — sf
«;t M<y^ ^riV Ibid. 8c Athan, Orat. i. conr. An>*n. p. 294, 295"

Ta

To which we may add further out of EufeUus
of Nicomedias Letter ; (h) *' We never hear of
"^^ two UnbegottenSy nor of one divided into two, — ^
** but one unbegotten, and one truly derived from
*^ him ; and not made out of his Subftance, nor
*' partaking in any wife of the unhegotten Nature-—^
*^ but being wholly different in Nature and Power,
*^ made in the perfeEi Likenefs of the Difpofition of
** his Nature and Power. The Beginning of whofe
" Exiftence is inexplicable and inconceivable to all
*^ created Beings. *— - Nothing is produced out of
** the Subftance of God, but all Things are made by
" his Will according to his free Purpofe/*

From the preceding Account it is evident what k
was that drove Alexander and the Avians into fuch
a warm Oppolition againft each other : namely,
their both pretending to be wife above what is wrii^
ten, and to difcufs Dodrines which were ivholly
deriv'd from Revelation, upon uncertain Principles
and Speculations of Philofophy, without any Evi*
dence from Scripture.

Alexander underftanding the Son, who is ftii'd the
Word of God, in a metaphyfical Senfe, ais being the
internal Word or Reafon of God himfelf begotten
into a Perfon, argued (againft both what he himfell
and the Ancients before him had conftantly pro^
fefsM and taught) that the Word or Son muft be ab-
folutely coexiftent and coeternal [tho* he never ufes

7fOV V'ZS-if ctJ'Of^VK? 'TTcLVTUV \t) cCKCtTAhil^TOlf 'TTi'^lTiVkct^'iV'
-=- iS^kv l^iV i)t THf «VUf dJJT«, 'J&.VTd i^l (iHhfll/.ATt UfJT^ y^"

f 0Mim-^K<feO' h'47icJt,7y^h yiv'(^y-ivd Ibid, Ce €%

t th»

(66)

the Word, (Tmetiho^, Coetemal'] with the Father ; and
that the Father or God did not precede the Exigence
of his Son or Word, no not even m Conception ; for
to think orherwife, was in his Opinion to fay, (i)
" that God was fometime without Reafon and with-
" ovxWifdomy And no doubt the internal, phy-
fical and felf-exiftent Reafon or Wifdom of God is as
eternal as his Nature : but to fuppofe the unbegotten
Word or Wifdom of God himfelf to be begotten into
a diftind fubfifting Perfon, is evidently abfurd in
itfelf j and was thought by the Avians to dinjide the
unbegotten Nature and Perfon of God into two unbe^
gotten Perfons j for they could not conceive that any
Thing which was underivedly in God, could be
truly derivd from him : and to fuppofe the Son of
God to have his Subfiftence \})Li^lzf\out of Godhim-'
felf was (they argued) making him no more than a
Sabellian DiflinEiion or Vakntinian Emanation. Hence
they reafon^d and infifted, that fince it was the un-
doubted Catholic Dodrine that the Son was truly
begotten by the Will of the Father ; he could not
be in any Senfe unbegotten : he could neither be the
unbegotten Effence or Subftance of the Father, nor
^Part of it; and it being abfurd to think that he
was product out of any preexiflent Subftance ; they
concluded, that in neceflkry Confequence [ there
being no Medium ] he was [s^ ax. %vtcov] made out ofm^
thing ; and beinj^ fo, could not be abfolutely coeter-
iial and coexijlem with the Father ; but that accord-
ing to the Dodrine of the primitive Catholic Church,
the Father, as being alone unbegotten and without Ori-
ginaly did precede and exift before the Generation of the
Son ; whence again it followM, that there was Time

{\\TlKi i'lii Koyo^ 3^ (ToptA eri 7« 6ss o tf3f, h^ TTon org
^kx% Epifi* apud Sccrat^ Bifi, Uk 1. 1. <J»

m

( ^7 )

or Duration (tho' they did not pretend to define or
limit itj when the Son did not exift.

So that the whole Controverfy between Alexan^
der and the Avians tum'd upon one fingle Point,
'viz,, how or in what Senfe the Son was faid to be (h)
begotten of the Father before all Worlds, according to
the Creeds then univerfally receivM. The Avians
infifted that this was not fo to be explained as that
the Son was [k T«<bViV7« 0s«] begotten out of the
Suhflance of God, either in the Sahellian or Valentinian
Senfe , either as being the unhegotten God himfelf in
Nature and Eflence, or a Probola, Emiffiony Part or
Property of his Perfon or Effence. That both thefe
Notions were greatly abfurd and blaffhemouSy and
therefore that the Son muft confequently be pro-
duced [sj Hit oV7<yf] out of Non^exiflence, by God, as
the true and proper Caufe of his Exiftence, and be
of a diftinEl Nature and Effence from the Father :
and that tho' he had Exiftence before all "Time or Ages,
without any conceiveable Limitation of Duration,
or Beginning of Exiftence ; yet being deriv'd by the
Will of the Father, and in no Refped unbegotten,
he was not coexifient, or his Exiftence equally in
Duration commenfurate with the unoriginated Exi-
ftence of God the Father : but the Father exifted
before the Son, and the Son did not exift at all before
he was begotten.

Alexander being fiiocFd with the Affertion of the
Son^s being made out of nothing, and there being a
T'ime when he did not exift at all; and the Pofitions
being novel, and feemingly derogatory to th& divine
Nature, and the Term of the Exiftence of the Son^

(k) Ti^9 ^cLvTKV Tcov citcovaov Ik. t» 82K TctTfo? yiyivvni/.ivov"-
Eiifeb. Symb. apud Theodoret. lib. i. c. 12. & Socrat. lib. i.
c. 8. Ik 'tS Trt-Tf of yivv^^ivTct Tfo TTcLvTcov Ti^v ^i»v«Vi> Symb»
Hierofolymat. apad Cyr. Catechef. 1 1,

I 2 mA

(68)

^nd degrading him into the Rank of the inferior
Creatures which God made by him ; in Oppoiition
(afcer the Difpute grew warm betwixt him and his
Adverfaries) infifted that the Son was, he would not
fay [}^ w aVictf tS 'TTctTfhi] begotten out of the Suhftance
of the Father y but [jh, 't« oVto? rretl^U, in. Ik t^ /xh ovToi]
(I) out of the exifiing Father^ and not out of nothing.
This he explain^ by the Son's being the internal^
(m) phyjical Word, Reafon or Wifdom of the Father,
begotten into a Son or Perfon ; and confequently as
fuch alu^ays and ftridly coexifient with God ; exifting
in him \_dyivvnTcoi] in an unbegotten Manner [if the
Arians did not in) mifreprefent Alexander'] before
he was begotten o/or/ro;^him; fo that it was high-
ly abfurd to fay that he ever^ in any Point of
Duration, did not exifl at all. As the internal IVord
or Wifdom he was abfolutely coexifient with the Fa-
ther ; but in refpe(5l of his Generation^ and being a
Son ; he fays the Word (o) always, &c. is not fo to bo
apply'd to him, as to infer that he is unbegotten ;
for that to be unbegotten is to be eternal in an high--
er Senfe than can be exprefs'd by the Word Iduy &c.
alvjays, &c. or by any other Word whatfoever. So
that the Difpute was not fo much about the Term
of the Generation of the Son, as of his metaphyfical
internal Exiftence in the Father precedent to it^

(1) 'fkeodoYeU Hifi. lik J. c. 4.

(m) ^v<jfA *?« 'TTAT^^ KoyQ- (which he charges the Arlam
with denying him to be) Socratr Hifi. lib. i. c. 6.

(n) It feems as if the /^W4!;7i did not mifreprefent ^/^r/rwAfe*',
but that he thought, (as Eufehius tells us, was the Senfe of the
Council of 2V/Ve in condemning rht Pofuion, ^(;hyzvv\)^hjjcfj^
^K Vm^ he i:;as not before he fj^as hf^gottctj) that the Son did exift
precedent to his Generatior {S'lwctuei) potentially in the Father
\J,yivvy\T6o?) in an unbegotten Manner.

(o) Mn T/? TO rtfcri T^^? UTOVO!CIV dy^VVYiT^i Kcty-CdLViTC^ » TS

^ T^lw are T& cctri, ^c. 7ajjToif iTi T^ dyivynTa' Theodoret,
lib. 1= G 4.

which

(^9)

which the Ariam wholly deny'd, and faid that pre-
cedent to his Generation he did not exifl at aU :
Which Expreffion of his Non-exiftence Alexander
could not endure to hear.

1. To the Charge of his explaining the Unity be-
twixt the Father and the Son in the SabelJian Senfe,
he fays : *' That (p) our Lord in the Words [/ and
" 7ny Father are one, John x. 30.] did not ftile himfelf
" the Father, or fignify that their two Natures in
" Subfiftence, were one j but that the Son was the
" exact Refemhiance of the Father, and the perfed
" Likenefs of him by Nature/' \Vhich is exprefs'd
in his Other Epiftle by his reprefenting the Son
as not being [ouoxV/oJ confubflantial ; but {%uQio<; }cciT
^<rUv'] of a like Sub fiance mth the Father.

2. He denies that his Notion (q^ divider the di-
vine Subftance, either by making the Son a confub-
ftantial Part or Emiffion^ as the Valentinians did ; or
an unbegotten perfonal Emanation, diftinguifh'd
only in Name and Appearance from the Father, ac-
cording to the Sabellians.

3. To the Charge of his making two Unbegottens^
he replies ; " that (r) there is but one unbegotten

Being, 'uix.. the Father." And more particular-
ly ; " that {s) the only-begotten Son is a middle Na-
'^ iure betwixt the unbegotten Father^ and the Crea-
*^ tares which God made by him out of nothing/'

TM vr^rat(7« S'vQ ^vaeii [JAcLv Vi) Cci^luui^coy' dA\^ oTi rbjiJ rrctjei-

crai/Tot oijooiojifja, ewT^i'it (pv(Tzcc<; ^//tfitfct/xef©"* apud Theodo-
ret. lib. i. c. 4.

(«]) I'heodoretj ibid,

(r) '^Ei; <iyivv\]\ov 0 Tctjiif' Ibid.

as'A (p^<Tt'i (J.ovoyzvn')^ See. ibid.

And

( 70 )

And to fhovv further that he did not think the
Son [oaoT///oO ^^^^^ ^^ Dignity and IVorjhip with the
Father, he adds, " that (r) we are to referve a pe-
culiar Veneration for the unbegotten Father, as
having no Caufe of his Exillence ; and to pay a
proper and fuitable Honour to the Son alfo, as
having a beginninglefs Generation from the Fa-
ther ' our Savior himfelf telling us. That his

Father is greater than He."
Hence it appears that the Difpute between A-
lexander and Arius which put the whole Church into
fuch a Flame and Combuftion as hath never fince
been entirely quench'd, was not about any impor-
tant Matter of Faith or Dodrine taught in Scripture^
or profefs'd by the primitive Catholic Church ; but
a mere Velitation and Contention of Words about
fpeculative Points of Philofophy ; about the meta-
physeal Nature and Exiftence of the Word or Son
of God. And it is evident to a Demonilration, as
far as Hifiory and FaSl can demonftrate any Thing;
that the great Points now iajQueftion, z'iz.. the Ne-
ceJfary-ExiJience, Coequality and Coordination of the Son
with the Father in Nature and PerfeEiions^ and his
Supremacy of Povcer, Authority, Dominion and Wor/bipy
were fo far from being the Doctrine of Antiquity, nay,
and on the contrary, were lo clearly and profeffed-
ly declar'd and determinM againft by all the Anci-
ents, that they were not in the leaft controverted
between Alexander and Arius : they entirely agreed
on thefe Heads, and in every Part of Cbriftian Faith
and Worfloip, And it is farther manifeft from the

Points

( 70

Points in which they really differ'd, namely, the
Tnetaph'jfical Nature and Exiftence of the Son ; that
the ConfubRantiality and Coeternity of the IVurd or
Son was not the profefs'd Doftrine of the Church.
Had the Confuhflantiality and Coeternity been the
Dodrine of the Church, or efteem'd a Part of the
Chriftian Faith, nay, a jundamental Part, as they

are reprefented by Dr. B and Dr. W — could

Alexander be ignorant of it? or had he himfelf
known and conftantly profefs'd them, would he
have born to hear Arius difpute and oppofe them,
[as Soz.omen aflures us he did] without finding Fault
with him for fo doing ? nay, defer fo much as ta-
king Notice of it, till fome of his own zealous
Clergy blam'd him on that Account ? And after he
had caus'd the Matters to be enquired into and
publickly debated, could he be fo dubious and un-
determind about them, as to fide fome Time with
Aritis, before he agreed with his Opponents, who
difputed for the Confuhftamiality and Coeternity ? nay,
when he had declared againft and condemned A-
rius, he is fo cautious in his Expreflions, as never
to apply to the Son either the Word [s//6«cr/oc] Con-
fuhftantial or [aiwdUioi] CoetemaL All which is un-
accountable and inconceiveable, had the Confubfi an-
tiality and Coeternity been the known Dodrine of the

Church. --,,_.,

Again, had this been the public profeis d Faith;
can we imagine that fo ,'"many Bifpop and Clergy^.
and fo- great a Part of the Laity of the Province
of Alexandria itfelf, would have, upon hearing the'
Points difcufs'd, taken Part with Arius againit his
Bifliop ? And could it have been thought [as the
Hiftorians tell us] a dubious Qiieftion, and liable to
DiJ}ute, and not before treated of, infomuch as to
tng&gQ rdlAEgypt, Libya, and the upper T'hebes^and
all^he Eaftern Provinces, alfo in Difpute and Con-
jention about it, had it been already determin d

( 72 )

(a% Dr. B — — and Dr. IV imagine, without any

Evidence vvhatfoever) by the univerfal Suffrage of
the primitive Church ? Nor laflly, is it eafily to be
thought that fo many Bifhops of other Provinces,
fam'd in the Church for Learning and exemplary
Piety ^ and wholly difinterefted and unconcern 'd in
the Controverfy and Qiiarrel enfuing it, fhould give
their public Suffrage in Synod on the Side of A-
riuSy and acknowledge his Dodtrine to be found
and orthodox^ had they known it to be repugnant to
the received Catholic Faith.

If any other Evidence was wanted to Ihow how
little the Catholic Faith of the Church was concern-
ed in the Difpute betwixt Alexander and Arius, we
have a further ample Teftimony from the Letters
which Couftantine the Emperor himfelf [who without
doubt had good Information of the Matter] wrote
to them both upon the Subjed.

The Controverfy by degrees became fo immode-
rate and hot between them, as to be changM from a
Chriftian Zeal and Love of Truth, into downright
party and Contention ; and had fo far involv'd the
whole Eaftern Church in the Qiiarrel, as to occafioti
an almofl irreconcilable Breach of Peace and Cha-
rity ; infomuch that the Heats and Animofities rai-
fed by it reached the Emperor's Court, and required
his Interpofition to reconcile the contending Parties,
and bring them to Peace and Union with each
other.

Dr. B 's Relation of this Matter is ^ * ^^ That

*^ Conftantine being then at Nico?nedia, was much
" concerned at the Account of thofe unhappy Dif--
'^ ferences, and writing both to Alexander and Arim
" upon the Subjeft, he fent Hojius the celebrated
" Bilhop of Corduha in Spain to make a more exa(5^

Vage 170, 171,

!^ Enquiry

cc

(7? )

Enquiry into the Merits of the Caufe. The
Reiult vi/hereof J eems to have been (tho* we have
not any clear Account of the Matter) that Hojjus
in Council approved the Condud: of the Patriarchy
and ratify'd the Sentence he had denounced a-
" gainft the Heretic ; at leaft that at his Return he
" fatisfy'd the Emperor of the Reafonablenefs of
" it."

This is the Dodor's Reprefentation, imperfed
and ungrounded, and more of Ro?;2^;^ce than ////^ory.
For Hojtiis was not fent to make Enquiry into the
Merits of the Caufe (which Conflantine was well in-
form'd in) nor to be at all a Judge in the Matter;
but, as Eufehius exprefly tells us, to reconcile the
Difference and (u) make Peace between them. And
as there is not the leaft Evidence either in (>;) Eu-
fehius^ Philoflorgius^ Socrates or Sozomen, in their
Account of the Matter, of Hojtus's ratifying the
Sentence which Alexander had denounced aga'in^ Arius:
fo had he pretended to any fuch Thing, hd had
aded not only without Authority, but againft the ex-
prefs Defign of the Emperor^s Letters which he
carried : which were not intended to decide any
Thing on either Side, but to command them both
to lay afide their Difpute, and to be Friends^ and
hold Communion with each other. The Truth of
the Fad: therefore is ; the Emperor equally (y)
blarnd both Alexander and Arius for quarrelling a-
bout fuch nice and fubtle Qiiefiions ; in which, if they
could not agree, they ought both to haMQheenJiknt^
and commanded them (x.) to lay afide their frivolous

(u) B^.Civ(rcu f^ohjjbjj, yir. Cor.ftant. lib. 2. c. (S^.
Cx3 ViU Conjiant, lib. 2. r. 63 — 75. Fhihjiorg. lib, i, c. 1.
So:rat. lib. I. c. 7* Soz. Ub. 1* c, id.

(y) Eiifebi& Socvat.ihid. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^-^

Hb» i» c* 16. ...

% mfsuiei

( 74)

r>ifpute, and to he Friends ivith each other. This is
Soz-ome'as Account : and Eufebius^ and Socrates from
him, further obferve, that Confiantine in his Letter
calls the Matters in difpute, (a) " QiTeilions which
" no Scripture had commanded as neceffary ; but
*' which were afrtihlefs idle Contention: — • that (p)
"they were very intricate and obfcure Points, not

** eafy to be refolv*d.~* —That they ought to ask

*' each others Pardon : • — for that their Controver-
" fy was not about a fundamental Precept (or Do-
" drine) of Scripture ; nor was any new Opinion
^^ concerning the VVorfhip of God built upon it ;
^^ but they both agreed in the fame Faith , but their
*^ Difpute was about ver^ little and trivial Matters,
*'* — — a little 'Verbal Contention about trifling Matters
*^ m ivay necejjary. That they agreed with each
^^ other, and with the whole Church in one Faith.—^
^^ That the Matter of their Difference was no Point
*^ of Religion, but a very foolifi Q^ieflionf*

Thefe were the Sentiments of the religious Em-
peror Confiantine exprefs'd in his own Letter, which
Socrates fays was (0 admirable and full oj Wifdom ,*
from whence it appears what Opinion he had of
the Controverfy which made fo much Noife in the
Church. That he was far from thinking the con-
troverted Points (concerning the Nature and Fxi^

(a) Tit? -^ TolifJJT:-'.^ ^jll^KTir:? oi^oTct^ [JAi I'oMa TiVo^ dvctyx,))
Vit. Conftant. lib. a. C. 69. Socrat. Hill. lib. i. c. 7.^

fJMS'cty.a^ AVcii)tcLitcv — KicLV S'JiiSiK {hIho"/?, &c. Eufeb. in Viu
Confl-. lib. a. c. 69, 70, 7 1, &c, ,8c Socrat. Hid. lib. i. c. 7.
(c) ©cwftctrss ^ ffo(^Ui i^iTil WiTQhn' Hill, lib. i. c. 8.

ftenc0

(70

fience of the Son which Alexander fo warmly main-
tained on one hand, and Arius as zealoudy oppos'd
on the other hand) to be a principal Doctrine of
Chriftianity, and which had been ahvays profefs'd
in the Church from the Beginning. Had he had any
fuch Thoughts he would have fpoken of them in
another Manner ; and not have efteem'd them fo
light and trivial as he reprefents them. But he
knew very well that the Difpute was about mere
fpeculativa fcholaftic Qiieflions ; a verbal Contention
about Things of no Moment in Religion, and in
which the Faith of the Church and the Worfliip of
God was no way concern^ : And tho' he was af-
terwards wrought upon to favour Alexander and
condemn Arius, and then fpoke oi Arius and his
Notion with more Severity ; yet, like a pious and
wife Prince, he endeavoured firft by his Counfel
and Advice to reconcile the Breach between them :
And when by ufing more rigid Methods, Arius and
his Adherents were brought to give over infifting
on his particular and novel Tenets; the Emperor
again (how'd his Moderation, by caufing them to
be reftor'd and admitted to Communion, without
fubfcribing the particular and equally novel Deci-
fions which were made againft him in favour of ^-^
lexanders Notion, by the Nicence Council.

All this original and authentic Evidence which is
the moil material and neceifary to fet the Contro-
verfy and the Proceedings of the Nicene Council
upon it, in the cleared Light, is wholly omitted by

Dj;, B ; and it is impoffible for any Reader to

know any thing at all rightly of the Matter, from
the Account which he gives, which is always botii
very imperfect and very partial: as if he thought
thofe who in his Opinion are not orthodox had no
Right to common Truth and Juftice. But altho'^
whether Alexander or Arius was moft in the right, is
of no Moment in the Difpute betwixt Dr. £— • and

K % bis

(70

his Adverfarles, whofe Difference is about other
Matters of the greateft Importance, and in which
the Unity ^ Supremacy and Worjhip of God is nearly
and immediately concern'd ; yet it is but fair and
equitable in one who undertakes to write Hiftory
and FaB^ to produce all the Evidence that appears
on one Side as well as on the other. And here I

defire Leave to remind Dr. B of the excellent

Words of his Friend Dr. TV , which had he

himfelf obferv'd, the Controverfy might have been
brought to a good Iffue before now. '' For (d) my
" own Part [fays he] I declare once for all ; I de-
^^ fire only to have Things fairly reprefented, as
*^ they r^^//y are : no 'Evidence fmothe/d or fti fled on
" either Side. Let every Reader fee plainly what
" may bejuflly pleaded here or there, and no more ;
" and then let it be left to his impartial Judgment,
*^ after a full View of the Cafe. MifqvMation and
" Mifreprefentation will do a good Caufe Harm, and
V will not long be of Service to a lad one."

This Declaration I have always made rhe Rule of
my own Writing, and have endeavour'd impartially
to fulfil it in the prefent Papers.

Having thus brought down in as fhort a Method
as I well could, the hiftorical Account of the Con-
troverfy concerning the Doftrine of the Trinity, to
the Council of Nice ; v/e may from the preceding
Evidence and Obfervations upon the Rife and Pro-
grefs of the Controverfy which occafion'd the meet-
ing of this Synod, eafily form a Judgment of the
Dodrine and Decifions of it. And therein it will
appear from the Teftimony of thofe who were pre-
fenty and heard all the Debates, and gave their
Suffrage againfl Aritis, that this illuflrious Affembly
of more than three hundred Bifhops, very hardly

i (6) J>t.JVatertarj^s VcknCc ef his Queries, p. 132.

and

( 77 ;

and with Difficulty admitted the Confuhflantiality ;
and far, from inferring thence the necejfary Exiflence^
Coetemity and Coequality of the Son and Spirit with
the Father, or from confeffing their Belief [as Dr.

B pretends] '^ in the Father and the Holy Spirit as

being nu77ibe/d together in the fame Divinity^ they
Ihow'd themi'elves plainly of a contrary Opinion :
and had it not been for the pertinacious and conten-
tious Condud of \:\\q Avians^ in infifting to explain the
general Words of Scripture and the CatJiolic Do-
d;rine concerning the Generation of the Son from the
Father before all iPorlds, according to their own par-
ticular (e) Opinions, and refufing to leave the
Words in the Latitude in which they had been al-
ways us'd ', it is highly probable that this eminent
Council would have agreed to have declared their
Faith conformably to the primitive CathoHc Creeds,
and in the Words of Scripture only^ without deciding/or
or again ft any particular Explanations ; and fo hap-
pily have put an end to the Difpute betwixt Alexan-
der and Arius, by obliging both to acqiiiefce in a
general Catholic Scripture 'Belief, and to impofe no-
thing more on each other ; and have publim d fuch
a Form of Dodirine as might have defervM to be
retain^ in the Chriftian Church in all fucceeding
Ages.

When the Bifhops were met together at Nice in
Bithynia, they had, before they enterM into a pub-
lic Synod, feveral (/) private Conferences together
about the Matters in Difpute betmxt Alexander and
Arius y and after a full Examination of Arius's Opi-

* Pag, i8<J.

Ce) Jthanaf, de Vecret. Syn. Nic, & Eufeh* Nic. Epifi, apud
7'heod. lib, j.c,6,

(f) Soz^Bft, lib, I. c. 17, 19,

nions

_ (7§)
nions were inclined not to give their Suffrage (g)
one way or other, either for or againfl him i but to
have left them undecided, as being mere fpeculative
Notions, and to have agreed to declare their Faith
in the catholic {h) received Forms of the Church,
without any Alteration. Thefe precedent Tranf-
adions of the Nicene Bifhops Dr. B takes no no-
tice of. They fliow too plainly that the Council at
firft were not fo fhockM with the Avian Aflertions,
as to be fill' d [as the Dcdor expreffes it * ] with Horror
and AJivnifloment^ and at once convinced of the Neceffity
there ivas to anathematiz,e fuch impious Blafphemies.
They were not fo full of Gaul ; and knowing very
well that the Church had determined nothing about
them ,* they confiderM calmly and deliberately upon
them; and tho' they did not approve them, yet neither
did they think it necefiary to anathematize them,
or to exclude them by making any Additions to
the ancient Creed ,* tho* afterwards, when they faw
the Avians fo full of Contention and Cavillings they
refolv'd to condemn their Tenets, both declaring
againfl: them in their Creed it felf, by inferting in
it fome new Exprellions for that very Purpofe; and
alfo by annexing to it Anathemas on all the parti-
cular Poiidons chargM upon them.

When the Bifhops were fummon'd to meet in
the Prefence of the Emperor, and the Matters be-
fore privately debated, were to be again difcufs^'d
publickly ; the Emperor having firft put an End to
fome Feuds and Animofities that were amongft

vret^yiycfJoUf «^ ctKeiCti ^cLdAyov I'Ts-oi^vto tcov dJJT^ '7r^TcL<TicdV'
'x^'i'ZffiT^i S'i STTi ^cL^i^. ibjj '^^(pov clyeiv \'pvK<i^7ov]o* ibid,

nrl^iv awj^Q^Kzvov' ibid, c. 1 7.
* 'Sag, 172,

thernji

( 79 )

them, and ftopM the mutual Accufations which
they had brought againft each other, and by his
Command reducM them to Amity and Peace; he
left the controverted Points to be decided by them,
earneftly exhorting them to form their Determinations
cut of the (0 Scripttires.

Dr. B owns * that " it was at firft the Inten-

*' tion of the Council to declare the catholic Faith
^^ in the M^or'ds of Scripture, and in the moft plain
" and (imple manner of Expreflion/^ And it ap-
pears from (k) Athanafius's Account, that they had
no Defi^n to have inferted into the Creed, either
the Words \\}t t?)<«VU?] of the Sulftancej (of the Fa-
ther) or [ouo'6(Tioi\ confubflantial (with the Father)
but only to have faid, " that (/) the Son is by Na-
" ture the only-begotten of God/* And he himfelf
(m) grants that in fpeaJdng concerning Chrifl it is hefi
[as the Arians infifted] to keep to the Words of Scripture^
and not to ufe unfcriptural ExprefHons : for that re^
njeal'd Truths cannot be fo zvell exprefs'd as in the Words
of Scripture : and fays, in Apology for the Council,
that the contentious Ill-behaviour of the Eufebians
forc'd the Bifliops to infert the ( unfcriptural )
Words which plainly deftroy'd their Notion. For
finding no other way to put an End to the cavilling

(i) 'Ey. Tcdv ^zoTS-VivTcji' \oysov KaCuijlzv tcov ^idalAveov jtuj
K\j(jiv' Theodoret. Hilt. lib. i.e. 7.
* ?ag. 174.

(k) Afhanaf. de Decret. Sy^od Nic. Iheodoret. Hlfl. llbi i. c. 8,
{.1) OV/ \x,T6^i^Q v\U <pv(T'it (jLQuofiVii^ Iti- ibid.

f i» ;^ c'coji)^^ {)yMV lHa"K X£«r« 5>c tmv y^.(pc^v to. iri^\ auiZ yi-
y^&.u[xiva. A^^/StS^, [xii a.y^^^'n^ I's^eiadyz^ hi^eii' vat iJ^it
(pctihjj etV )d, iycofii ccKeiCiTz^. ^ Ix. reoy y^.i^c^v (xoi^KoVi n ^
irifcov kcri to, tTh ct^^Beict^y yi'&jfitry.cijct' ctAA' w KctzouBeid, —

i/.9i(S^ TO. tUj) cl<TiCeicf.v cWTivy a^VAT^i^Qvla. ptiy.cLJa' De De-
cret. ibid, in fin*

( ^o )

Humour and Pretenfions of the Avium, who ex~
plain'd the Words of Scripture which were pro-
posed, and the Catholic Terms which had been us'd
in the ancient Creeds, fo as to agree with their
own particular Opinions ; and knowing from the
Avian Writin<:^s that they had zealoufly declar'd a-
gainft the Sony's being {n) cvafuhftiintial with the Fa-
ther, they refolv'd to do their Bufinefs at once by
putting that Word into the Creed.

The Confuhflamiality being thus inferted into the
Confeflion of Faith in Oppofition to the Arian Af-
fertion, that the Son was made out of nothings and was
unlike in Subftance to the Father i and more ftrongly
to exprefs the Council's Opinion, that He and the
Pather were one, that he was begotten oj the Father, and
was his Son by Nature, and truly God ; great Debates
immediately arofe about the Meaning of it : becaufe
the Word had never before been us''d in any pub-
lic Form of the Church ; and in its obvious, flrid
and natural Signification implyM the Divifion of the
divine Subftance into diftind fpecific Subftances,
and thereby inferM heathen Polytheifrn ; on which
Account it had been rejeded about lixty Years be-
fore by the Council of Amioch, as many there could
not but know. But after much Debate, upon ma-
ture Deliberation, the Expreffions, of the Subftance
of the Father, and confubflantial with the Father, were
by the Council interpreted and declar'd to be un-

(n) *Oujc oixov.cnQg ircdjffrAl^'i] 'Thai, Anl a-pud Athanaf. de Sy-'
pdd. Arim, &> Sehuc. vid, Epift. Aril &> En/eh. Nic. apud 'Theodoret.
Bift. lib. I. c. ^,6. & Amhrof. Si 'verum incfuit lEufeb'ius in epiftol/t}
Dei filium & irjcrertum dicimus, oixoy^iTiov cum pnfre incipimus con-
fteri, Htcc cum Ie5ia ejfet epifiola in conc'iUo Nic<cno, hoc 'verbum
in traBatu fdei pofuerunt p/ttresy cfuod 'viderunt adterfariis effe for-
midini: ut t.inqunm c-jaginaio ab ipjis H^reticis gUdioy ipforum
nefanda H^re^s caput amputarcnti Vs Fid. lib. 3. r. 7.

derflocd

(SO

tierftobci to ffieaii, the fornier ; that the Sort was (oj
hf the Father, tut fids Hot to be a Part of the Father :
the latt'er I (p) that he was not confuhflantial by £)/-
vifion of the Father's Subftance, &c, but that the
Word denoted that there ijoas no Similitude betwixt the
Son and thofe Creatures which were made by him ; but
that he was altogether like unto the Father only who begat
him. This the Council declared to be their Senfe of
the Words, and in this Senfe^ Eufebius tells lis, that
hefuhfcrib^d them. To which he adds ,* that in con-
demning the Arian AJfertion^ that the Son was not be^
fore he was begotten ; the Council thought that C^)
before the Son was afcually begotten, he was potentially
in the Father, in an un begotten Manner,

Athanafius agrees with Eufebius, that the Council
intended by the Confubftantiality to exprefs " that
** (r) the Son was the true Lihenefs of the Father
*^ who begat hirh : " and that it was in Oppofitioii
to the Arians who would not own a Likenefs of Nct-^
ture and Subflance in Father and Son. And iht
Council oiAntioch under Jcvianm like manner fays,
* that " the (s) (Nicene) Fathers underftood by the
" Word Confubflantial, that the Son was begotten
r of the Subftance of the Father s and that he was

Co) Eufeh, Ckf. Epip. a^ud, 'theod, Bfi. lib, I. *. li. 8^ Socvafc
nb, I. c. 8.

(p) Ibid. ^ -;^ , . A -r

, (q) Ufiv hz^ye.cL yzvvv\^hS)cu, J^mcti^et \w h t« 'ttat^i etfiV-
V^Tco?' ibid. .

Arim. 6c Seleiic,

"^ An, 363. ^ ^ ^ , rv, r

(S) T3 OfO/acC'78 0/->tO«(3"f» <»V^CtA«f T{\vymi 'TTA^etToi^ 'TTAr^'

y-i[> [vix. Nic] k^y,hjjeicL?^ (T)]^ctivi(T\]<; on Ijc t»<^ Ky/ct? 7« cr^"
ifci/itlf^TrLu/' Q 'T^ ^ »x,' o;'1«f* 3p«d. Socrar, lib. 3. c, 25. & Soii

( 82 )

**^ ///^^inSubftaiicetothe Father— ^in Oppofition td
!^ the Aflertion that he was made out of nothing!'

From the Nicene Council's Interpretation and
Senfe of the Word Confubflantial^it plainly appears^,
that they were far from underftanding by it or in-
ferring from it that the Son was neceffarily-exifteni
and coequal with the Father in Nature and all Perfe^
Eiiom. This was a Senfe in which the Word had
never bhce been us'd by any Chriftiah Catholic Wri-
ter in the World ; and which when taken in the
moft ftrid: literal Senfe, it was not underftdod to im-
ply upon the Principles of ancient Philofophy : and
there are befides other Circumftances which fhovv
that the Council oiNice could intend no fuch Mean-
ing by it. It was well known by the Council, that
thQ Avians maintain^ that " the (t) Son fubfifted
*^ by the ^^ of the Fathef^ and that he was not
J^ equal to him ; " as well as that he was made out of
Nothing, and did not exifl before he was begotten. Had
the Council therefore thought that thefe Aflertions
were erroneous as well as the other, they would un-
queftionably h^ve either faid in their Creed, that the
Son tvas equal to the Father, and did not fubfift by
his Will ; or at leaft have anathematiz,' d thefe with
the other Avian Opinions. But this not being done^
and the Word [o//o«V/o J Confubfiamial, never imply-
ing either Necejfary-Exiflence or Coequality^ accord-
ing to the Ufe of it amongft the Ancients ,- and the
Council explaining it in no fuch Senfe, or applying
It in Oppofition to thofe who (they knew) deny^d.
them ; ther^ is not the leaft Ground or Pretence
to think that the Council meant any fuch Thing by
it, and 'tis dmoft a Demonftration that they did

«»

^*ff/?g d€Micr«ri 'TTctj^oU' Thai. Arii apud Athanaf. de Synods
Arifil* & Seleuc, vid, §g Epift. Arii apud Theod. c» 5,

nolo

(8?)

not^ And we may with Certainty conclude that the
Council of Nice did agree with all primitive Catho-
lic Antiquity, that the Son was not necejfarily-exiftent^
but on the contrary, was begotten of the Father by
his Will ; and that he was not coordinate and coequal
with the Father in Nature and all PerfeBions,

2. *Tis evident that the Word Confubftantial was
Tiot underftood by the Nicene Council, in a ftrid, li-
teral and phyfical Senfe, in which it imply'd that
the Son was either a confubftantial Part or Emanation
of the Subftance of the, Father ,* or was a diftinc^
fyecific Subftance : in which Senfe it had been reje-
ded by the Council of Antioch^ as implying a Dm-
fion of the divine Unity, and introducing Polytheifm.
The Specific Senfe Dr. 5— thinks * to be downright
Tritbeifm. Dr. ^-— every where owns the fame s
and this being the only literal and grammatical
Senfe, if the Council did not ufe the Word in this,
Senfe (as it is allow'd they did not) they muft ufe it
with a Latitude, and in a Senfe peculiar. And
what their Senfe was, they themfelves exprefly de*
<?lar'd ; namely, that they applyM it in Oppofitioia
to the Arian Pofitions, that the Son was a Creature
made out of nothings like to the Creatures niade by hi??i,
and unlike in Nature and Subftance to the Father ;
and that they meant by it that the Son was truly be^
gotten [\}L rk 0s^] of God the Father^ and therefore truly
God ; and was not like to the Creatures which God
made by him j but was in all Things like to the Fa-
ther alone who begat him. So that the Word
[^/>cW(r/oJ Confubftantial^ was plainly underftood in
the Senfe of the Son^s being [o//to/j/cr/o?] of like Subftance
with the Father. And they feem to have pitch'd
upon the former Word rather than the latter, to be
rid of the Ariansy who they knew [as Dr. ^— t,
©bferves ^Ito be mofl anjerfe to ito

* Fag» i8o. t Pag, 17^.

(84)

^jo It appears from the Council^s Explanatiai^a
what their diftinft Notion of the Word or Son o£
God was. They took Care to declare that his Ge-
neration from the Father was not by Bivifion of
the divine Subftance ; that he was neither (in the
VaUntinian Senfe) a Fart of the Father's Subftance y
nor (in the Sabellian Senfe) the whole individual
Subftance of the Father ; that neither yet was he
Ik^^KovTcoi/'] out of nothing^ in t\\Q Avian Senfe. But
they faid that he was [kTaTctTfoj] out oj the Father,
and that before he was begotten, he was potentiafy
in the Father, in an unbegotten Manner ; clearly in-
timating their Opinion, that he was begotten from
^nintQr:T\2\ unbegotten Property^ from the internal H^ord
of the Father, into a diftint^ fubftftjng Perfon.
Whence it followM that there was no T'ime (or Du--
ration) luhen he was not ; becaufe tho^ he was not ab^.
folutely from Eternity a Son [he^yeicij by diflinH a-^
Elual andperfonal Subfiftence ; yet he was fo l^P^iwdfxti]
by potential Exiftence ; and by a pofitive imperfonal
Exiftence in the Father as his intertialWord^y.ycwnrcoP^
m an unbegotten Manner. This the Arians flatly de-
nyM, and infifted that beforeihis Generation he had no
Exiftence at all.

That the Son w^s derlvM from an internal Pro^
ferty into a real Peffon, I fhowM above to be Alex-r
anders Opinion, and it was founded upon the Scri-
pture-ExprelTions of the Sony's being ftil'd the IVord
and Wifdom of God, which he interpreted in a
metaphyseal inftead of a moral Senfe: and that this
Opinion was confirmed by the Nicene Council, wc
learn further from Athanafius himfelf.

\\ The {u) Son (fays he) is the Word and Wtfdo^n

'' -i

(80 ^

^^ pf theFathen which denotes hisunpafjtve and un^
^' divided Generation froni the Father. For the
^^ [internal] Word (or Reafon) of Men, is neither a
" Part of them, nor proceeds palTively from them :
^' fo neither does the Word of God, whom the Fa-
^ ther has decIarM to be his Son ; that we may
^•- not think he has not a diflinEi Suhjiflencey as the
^' internal Word or Reafon of Men has not ', but that
^^ as being ftilM Son^ he is thtHvingWord andfu^^

^- Jtjiing Wifdom of God. And we are to under-

'^ ftand the Word Confuhjlantial in a Manner fur-''
^^ paflingaii fenfittve Ideas/^

4. It is manifeft, from what is faid, that the
Creed of the Nicene Synod and the Anathemas an-
nexed to it, were only intended to put a Stop to the
particular Difpute betwixt Alexander and AriuSy
and to heal that Breach of the Churches Peace which
was made by it ,* and not for a general Form of
Faith or Dodrine to be usM in the Church. Eu-
fehius (x) intimates as much: and Dr. 5— fays
* that ^' the Confeflion drawn up (at Nice^ does not
*^ appear to have been either defignM by the Coun-
" cil, or any where ftri6cly us'd as the baptifmal
^' Creed , " befides which no other was us'd in the
Church.

5 . Therefore a general Obfervation naturally a-
ridng from the whole precedent Hiftory of the Ni-
cene Council is ,* that fince it plainly appears from
the Accounts of the Athanafian Hiftorians them-

'Wt9^X'^^% ^i)T/^2 0 ffk flsa, %V 1/0.1/ it) ioJJTd 0 TdLTYl^ iS'YlKCd-

civ' lhcty.ii Tcihiv rU'^^yoixitn) toutov Vi) oJoglTiv 0 tuv dvQ^co-

'TTuv dvvn^oTctlG-' ccAa'] Vt) ^covjct Koyov JUj hi(7iov ffo(picLV'

39 TO oi/.o-a(nov clyjovji'; C'^s-i^Ca.iyeiV o^eihQiJ.zv '^£<jav cU(^miv* De
Synod. ArJm. & Seleuc.

(x) 'OvH rlw (pwluj liK Tw? aVjit? ^ rretr^h ] jA^-fli-

apnd Theod. lib. i.c, 12,
* J^ag. 187, 1S8.

J t felve$;

( 86 )

ftlves, that the meeting of the Synod was occafion^d
by a mere philofophical Difpute betwixt Alexander
and Arius concerning the metaphyseal Nature and
Exiflence of the Word or Son of God i that they were
Ipeculative Points in which the Catholic Dodrine
and Faith of the Church, and the Worfhip of God,
were no way concerned i and about which nothing
had been determined one way or others that the
Generality of the N'icene Bifhops had this Opinion
of them when they met together, and after feveral
Debates upon them, thought to have decided no-
thing about them, but only to have made a public.
Confeflion of the Catholic Dodrine in the Words
of Scripture; and that when at laft they were
forcM to come to a Decifion in order to put an
End to the Contentions and Cavils of the Arians^
and determined in favour of Akxmder againft their
particular novel Notions, which they condemned,
both by putting the Word Confuhfiantial into the
Creed, and annexing to it Anathemas againft the
Politions which the Avians had infifted on ; explain-
ing at the fame time the Confuhftantiality in a mode-
rate Senfe and with a Latitude, fo as only to (ignify
by it [in Oppofition to the Avian Tenets] that the
Son is the per fed Image of the Father, and of like
Nature and Subftance with him ; without defigning
their Creed to be a general {landing Form of Faith
or Dodrine, or to be usM at all in the public Con-
feflions of the Church. From the foregoing Obfer-
vations and Evidence it is manifeft, that there is
not only no NecefEty, but that it is repugnant to.
the Intention of the Nicene Fathers, and to the End
of their Creed, to infift to impofe it upon fuch,
who not only do not profefs the Avian Pofitions, but
even think the Avians were to blame for infifting
on them ,• and who profefs every Article of the an-
cient Catholic Faith of the Church which the Coun-
cil itfelf believed and taught. And as this is a Mat-
ter

(87)

iter of great importance and highly deiferveS thg
Confideration of the fious and voife Go\rertibrs bt
the Church; fo does it much more requird :hei^
Thoughts and Care, [as thofe who muft give aA
Account of the facred Miniftry which by Chrift
Jefus is intrufted to them for the Advancement of
true Religion and Godlinefs] fince it is apparent
that fuch Confequences are drawn and infifted on
from the Nicene Confellion, as are evidently and
have been proved beyond all Difpute to be contra-
ry to the primitive Catholic Dodrine of both the
Antenicene and Nicene Church : namely, that the Soti
and Spirit are neceffarily-exifient, coordinate and coequal
with the Father in Nature and all PerfeElions^ in^«-
thority. Power, Dominion andWorJ/np; and each di-
ftindly the independent and ahfolutely fupreme God.
Which Doctrine has no Foundation in the Nicene
Creed, but is oppofite to the firft Article of that and
of all other Chriftian Creeds before it ; is diredly
repugnant to the whole Tenor of Scripture and Anti-^
^uity^ and to many exprefs PafTages of our own ex-
cellent Church,- deftroys the Unity of God by ta-
king away the real Supremacy of the Father, and thd
veal Subordination of the Son and Spirit to him, and
by the Alfertion of three necejfarily-exiflent diftin(5t
fupreme Agents ; and fo by neceffary Confequence
overthrows the firft fundamental Principles both of
natural and reveatd Religion.

It was not poifible for the wifeft or befl of Men^
when they had once made ufe of unfcriptural Ex-
preffions in Matters of revealed Religion, and feem-
ed to authorize them by a public Sandion i to fore-
fee or prevent the ill Ufes that would be made of
them, and ill Confequences that would attend them.

No fooner had the Nicene Council given their Suf-
frage for the Confuhflantialityy and inferted it into
their Creedjbut it immediately rais'd a greater Flame
in the Church than that which it was intended to

quench.

( 8§ )

^lien'ch.' ^ufetius (y) fays that it prefently excited
Tumults and Seditions in ^gjpt ; and (pO Socrates
iadds, that it rais'd a CMl War amongft the Bi-
fhops : who charg'd one another by Turns with 6'^-
hellianifm and Polytheifm,

Dr. B owns * that fome Athanafians " to carry

*^ the Matter againft Arianifm as high as pollible,
** interpreted the Word [^/xoaV/©-] confuhftantial^ in
" fuch a Senfe as feem'd to ftrip it of all Guard a-
*^ gainft Sabellianifm.'^ And " they ftrain'd it [he
'* adds in a marginal Note] beyond or befides its
5' original Belign/^ And if fome ftrain'd the Con-
fuhftantiality into a Sahellian Senfe, there were others
who flrainM it as much the other Way, into ^
tritheijiic Senfe. Such were Gregory Nyjfen^ Cyril oi
Alexandria^ Maximus, befides feveral others both of
the Greeks and Latins. Thefe [as the learned Dr.
Cudworth («) obferves] were they who principally inji-
fted upon the abfolute Coequality and independent
Coordination of the three Hypoftafes or Perfons in thi
J'rinity, as compared with one another ; becaufe as three
Men, tho' one of them were a Father, another a Son^
and the third a Nephew, yet have no effential Depend
dence one upon another ; but are naturally coequal and
fubordinate, there being only a numerical Difference
betwixt them : fo did they in like Manner conclude, that
the three Hypoftafes or Perfons of the Deity (the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl) being likewife but three In-
dividuals, under the fame ultimate Species or fpecific
Eflence of the Godhead, and differing only numerically
from one another, were abfoluteiy coequal, unfubordi-

(y) Apud Socrat, Hifi. lik i, c, l^, & de Vft. ConJIant, libo p
c» 23.

(x) Ihld. &P Soz. Hiji, nL i..c,iS,
* Pag. 193.

(89)

nate and Independent, vjere hut three independdnc

and coordinate Individuals, under the fame ultimate
Species or fpecific ElTence of the Godhead^ as Peter^
Paul and John, under the Species or common Nature

of Humanity. Again, thefe T'heologersfuppos'd the three

Perfons of their 'Trinity, to have really no other than
a fpecific Unity or Identity; and hecaufe it feems plain-
ly to follow from hence, that therefore they mufl needs he
as much three Gods as three Men are three Men ;
Thefe learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logic to
prcue, that three Men are hut ahujiuely and improperly
Jo cal/'d, three ; they heing really and truly hut one, he-
caufe there is hut one and the fame fpecific Effence or
Subftance of humane Nature in them all ; and feri-
oufly perfuaded Men to lay afide that kind of Language,
^—^^It feems plainly that this Trinity is no other than a
i^/Wo/Tritheifm, and that of Gods independent /^kJ
coordinate too. It is evident from hence, that thefe

reputed orthodox Fathers, who were not a few, were
far from thinking the three Hypoftafes of the Trinity
to have the fame flngular exiftent Effence ; they fup-
pofing them to have no otherwife, one and the fame Ef-
fence of the Godhead in them, nor to he one God, than
three individual Men have one common fpecifical
"Ei^QUce of Manhood in the?ny and are all one 'Man o But
as this Trinity came afterwards to he decry'dfbr trithei-
ftic 5 fo in the Room thereof Harted there up that other
Trinity oj Perfons numerically the fame, or having all
one and the fame fingular exiflent EfTence ,* a Do-
Brine which fee?neth not to have heen ownd hy any puh-
lic Authority in the Chriftian Churchy fave that of the
Lateran Council onty,

Thefe are the judicious ObfervatlonS of this
learned Writer, who was well versM in ecclefiaflical
Hiftory, and writes with great Ingenuity and Im-
partiality. And how exafily the Condud and con-
tentious Temper of the ancient reputed Orthodox in
the fourth and following Ages agrees with the ma-

( 96 )

dern reputed Orthodox is too plain to need to be particu-
larly remarkM. As the zealousy^^/^^^^y/^/^^ then, under
the pretended Patronage of the Nlcene Council, and
maintaining the Dodrine of the Confiibftantiality^^ a-
busM the Word, and perverted it from its original
Meaning and ancient Ufe, and from the profefled
Senfe and Dodrine of that truly orthodox Synod ;
and, as Socrates exprefleth it, held a (b) Night Skir-
mijb about it ,* fome ftraining it to the SahelliaUy and
others to thQly-itheiflic Opinion j mutually oppodng
and accufing each other ,* and yet both joyning a-
gainft thofe who kept the middle Way^ agreed with
the Nicene Doctrine, and profefs'd the Catholic
Faith of the ancient Church : So in like manner the
reputed Orthodox now, pretend the Nicem Authority
in favour of their oppoiite Schemes of Sabellianifm
and T'ritheifm, Whilft fome make the three Perfons
of the Trinity to have the fame individual numerical
Nattire^Sub/iance or EJfence, tobc all one Jingular exiftent
Being^2.\\ felf-exiftent ; and to differ only in Relation or
Mode of Exiftence ; to be only three Differences of on©
real Agent or intelligent Subftance : others, equally
reputed orthodox, make the Perfons to be diftinEi inteU
ligent Agents, to be three real Perfons diflinH in Sub-
fiance, and abfolutely fupreme, coequal and coordinate in
Nature, and all effential Perfeciions, in the ftridefl:
Senfe of Tritheifm. Thefe latter ft rain the Confub-
ftamiality to a more abfolute and rigid tritheiflic
Senfe, than the ancient Athanafeans feem to have
done j for they not only deny all Subordination of
Nature in the Perfons ; but even deny alfo all De-
pendence and Subordination, all Priority and Pofteriority
of Dignity and Authority, in Father and Son : and
refufe to aflign to the Father any natural Superiority
and Preeminence over the Son and Spirit^ on account

(b) Ny;iTO/^a'>(.'^^ ^'^^^ difetx- "^^ yivliJ-'.VAi Hift, lib. I.

'-'■ ' of

bf his being underwd^ and the original Caufe of their
Exiftence ; which Authority and Superiority the moft
zealous Athanafians^ Bafilj Gregory Naz,ianze}i, Hila-
ry, Auguftin, and others, afcrib'd unto the Father.
And efifedually to take away that Supremacy of the
one God and Father of all, ivho is above all, on which
the Scripture and the ancient Church founded the Uni^
ty ; and which was e>:prefs''d in the firit Article of all
the Catholic Creeds ; and is the firft Principle of
natural Religion itfelf ; in order wholly to take a-
way all Supremacy of the Father, and Subordination
of the Son and Spirit ; Dr. W- — has invented, in-
ftead of the natural and true Supremacy, a merely /-
Bitious (which he abfurdiy calls oecommical) Siipre^
macy of Office-, founded not in xht f elf-originated Na^
ture. Authority and ahfolute Dominion of the Father,
according to the unanimous Doctrine of all Anti-
quity ; but in a fipposM voluntary Concert and- Agree-
ment of the Son ard Spirit ; whereby they are in-
troduce as voluntarily agreeing, that God the Father
fhall ad as fupreme, and they fuflain inferior Offices
for a while; the Father fhall iffue out Orders, and
they e%ecute them -, the Father command, and they
ohey \ the Father /^?2^, and they befent: and thus an
Appearance be carried on as if the Father w^as
really and alone fupreme ; whilft yet he infifts that the
Son and Spirit are naturally asfupre7ne as the Father ;
and the Father as naturally fubordinate to them as
they to the Father ,* and, in fhort, that the Son and
Spirit are fo abfolutely coequal and coordinate with the
Father in ZV^/-«r^ and all Perfeciions ; that it was equally
poilible in Nature that the Father himfelf might have._
afled the miniflerial Part. Which Words, as they
nriufl make every Chriftians Ears to tingle (c), fo they

(c3 Dr^ Pf" — ''s fecGsd Defenfe, f. 17%

M \ ^■i^g^'it

(90

ought alfo to make them beware of that pretended
Orthodoxy y which is attended with fuch Impiety.

Thus the Word Confubfiantial^ which was us'd by
the Nicene Fathers only to exprefs the true and
proper Divinity of the Son, as being truly deriv'd
in an ineffable and incomprehenfible Manner from
the Father by his Power and Will^ and being the
exprefs and perfe^ Likenefs and Similitude of the
Nature and Perfon of the Father ; and which was
as far from being thought to denote an ahfohite E~
quality and Coordination^ as a Samenefs of Perfon^ with
the Father^ has been llrain'd to both thefe contra-

di(51:ory Senfes ; nay. Dr. W would have it fig-

rsify both aq the fame Time j and that the Son is
both individually or numerically^ and alfo fpecifically
confubftantial with the Father ; that lie has the fame
Subftance both in Kind and Number too ; thus con-
founding by fcholaflic Metaphyfics which have no Re-
lation to Reafm or common Senft^ all Language and
Science whatfoever. Yet thcfe pretended Orthodox^ fo
Qppojite to each other, as well as to the Catholic Do-
ctrine of Scripture and Antiquity concerning the Tri-
nity, have the AlTurance lo ftile at all Adventure
thofe who differ from them, by the odious Names of
Avians and Heretics^ as if confcious that all their
Strength lay in railing the Pajftom of the Ignorant
Vulgar, and in appealing bom Scripture^ Antiquity
and right Reafon^ wherein their Notions have no
Support, to the Prejudices of fuperftitious and weak-
minded Men, who are more influenced by Names
than T'hings.

But to return : The firll remarkable Difpute a
few Years after the Council oiNice about the Con-
fubfiantiality^ happenM betwixt the great Eufebius of
Csfarea, and Euftathius^ Biihop of Antioch. Eufla-
thius charg^'d Eufebius with {d) corrupting the Nicene

(d) Socrat. lib. i., c, 23, Soz^ t'lh, z, c, 18.

Do^rine^

(93)

Doftrine ] becaufe (k feems) he did not think the
[o^o«V/©-] Confuhflantiality^ was intended to denote
the formal Equality of the Son with the Father ; but
that he was a diflind real Perfon fuhordinate to the
Father : whilft on the other hand, Eufebius accus^'d
him of perverting the CQnfuhflantiality to the Sabel-^
lian Opinion, and making the Son the fame indM^
dual Subitance or Perfon with the Father; for
which Notion and other infamous Things provM
upon him*, he was (e) deposed by a Synod [of two
hundred and fifty Bifhops^ as (/) Philofiorgius tells
us] held in his own See.

MarcelluSy Bifhop of Ancyra, Athanajtus^s great
Friend, was another who corrupted the Nkene Do-
drine, by interpreting the Confuhfiantiality in the
(g) Sahellian Senfe, and thereby denying the Divi-
nity of Chrift, and making him no more than a mere
Man. For which Opinion he was deposM by a Synod
held at \ Conflantimple ; and tho' he was afterwards
reflorM by the * Athanafian Council of {h) Sardica,
and Athanafius continuM in Friendfhip with him, as
long as he (/) liv'd ; yet {k) Bafil, a zealous Atha--
nafian too, chargeth him with an impious denyino*
the Divinity of Chrift, and founding his Sahellian
Notion upon a wicked Interpretation of the Nicene
Confubflantiality,

* An. 530.

(e) Socrat, ibid, c^ 24. Sox.* ibid, r. ip.

(f) Lib. z, C.I,

(g) Socrat. Jib, I. c. 55. lib, 2,c. 20. SoZ* lib, z, c, 55.
t '^JJ' 53<5. * Jr?. 347.

(h) Socrat. lib. 2. c, 20.

(i) Montfauc. in Vit. Athanaf, c. 5, 6.

f fcil. ex Symb. Nic] ■Tre^Xictyta-a,^ ret? aVx^^ ei'Aj;^4j/£W, ^ oy.o^

b^Jii rbjJ j'W0l;/!,V KAil^i sJjl^i/^^Sr©"' Epift. 78.

I "^ Thus

( 94 )

Thus many of thofe who had fat in the Nicem
Council, could not agree about the Meaning of the
Word Confubnantial ; but fome, without Regard to
the Interpretation of the Synod itfelf, ftrain'd it to a
Senfe direftly oppofite to that which was defign'd :
^nd interpreted that Word which was intended to
^xprefs the real Divinity of Chrift, to confirm an
Opinion which diredly deftroyM it. The Heats
(parried on by thefe Means againft thofe of Catho-
lic Principles, and who would not fufFer the Nicene
Copfeflion to be thus abusM, occafion'd the Depo-
lltion of the two forementionM Bilhops ; and feem
to have been the chief Reafon of the Deprivation of
Athmajius himfelf by the Council of Tyre ; which
was fummonM from thence to* Jerufalem, for the
Dedication of a magnificent Church built there by
Conflantine,

This was the (/) largeft Council which had ever
been known in the Chriftian Church ; and being
but ten Years after that of Nice^ very probably ma-
ny of the Nicene Biihops were there. To this
Council the fame Emperor Conflantine^ who had ba-
nifh'd the Avians at the Council of Nice, for infift-
ing upon novel uncatholic Aflertions^ did now, upon
their defifting from them, and delivering ^ {m)
Confeffion of their Faith agreeable to Scripture,
and to the primitive and ISlicene Dodrine, [but
without the new Terms inferted into the Nicene

* Jn. 5^5.

(l) TcIvtIlv uiyWhjj a>v /(r//2f avvoS'ov i'ivrk^.v (TivjiZ^^^rei

[fcii. Nicenam] Eufeb. in vit» Coriftant. lib. 4. c. 47, Synodns
loDge omniam celeberrima & cnm Nicasna Synodo comparanda
fi fcufebio credimiis : quippe quse ex omnibus Romani imperii
provinciis ad dedicationem regalis Bafiiicas a principe eOet con°
gregara. Valef. nbferv. Ecclef. lib. 2 c. 2. ad fin. Hit*!. So7«
(m) Socraro l:b. i. c. 16c Soz. libe 2, c. 27.

Creed].,

(95)

Creed] recommend them to the Coiinci!, and of^
der'd them to be admitted to Communion. The
Council, with the Emperor^s Letters, receiv'd their
Creed, and gave both it and the Men themfelves
an ample Teftimony of their Approbation ,• declar'd
their Dodrine to be orthodox and apoftolical, and
them to be found and worthy Members of the
Church of Chrift, whom Envy and Party-Zeal had
till then driven out of the Church : and wrote a Sy-
nodical Epiftle to the Church o{ Alexandria, and to the
Bifhopsof all Churches, to admit them immediately
into Communion, and not to fuffer former Difputes
to break Peace and Union any longer amongft them.

This is the Subftance of theDecifion and Decree
cf this moft eminent and truly orthodox Council ,* the
Original of which, as related by (n) Athanafius him-
felf is in the Margin.

Hence It appears that the Church, and no lefs the
Emperor Conflantine, were foon fenfible of the ill
Confequences which the Infertion and Impofition of
unfcriptural Expreffions, in Matters of Faith, had
produced ; and therefore were refolv'd not to make
them any longer I'erms of Communion. And this

(n) '^Ov? tfcil. Arianos] t^U rtvA Kett^h (yjiroiteth^ (p^ovQ-
%^6t) yivi^K^ r'iii zny.Kndict'; ei^yda-aLJo* ky.dL(\v^eri ^ toT? ctfJ^^V/

luj Tctf ' OJJTCOV TV^OIMV©- OJJTO^ T« /'/' iifJJT>i ITdi^, loXj^ (piOl'Tn

Trtf fit? To7? iOLun yfJ.fj(.y.a.(Tiv 'iyfe^jpov tJjjj tcov dvS'^ooif o^QoJ^a-

^'iCtVi VjJ di'73-iyvcoiJ.iV ol TctfTS? vytnTZ i(TCiV ^ hx,Khi1(Tlei^l}ct/JJ,

kuK^Yiaict Ta 0£a* }L^ Tr^i^ei yi csAmQw^ yvoi^a^ J^ctf ret ts-

"TT^-yy-ivctj }di &/V \}toivZvy](rcLV ol a.vS'^i^y Tra.^iS'i'^^mAV ts -vW

TM^ TO(TcLUT\]<; clytct^ (TloioA', '7r^^VlJ.'o\ct\cL y^ eWTiii A7-7ffcL<TdL^
t\jJJ -Tf 0? Tfit OlKtict (AhU] (7ujjcl<peiUv T5 K^ ^^bjJllJJ^ OTt fj'.a^tS'a, TC^

hictv. Synod. Epifi. Concil, Hierofolymata apud Achanaf,
De Synod. Arim. Ss Seleuc.

would

(9«)

Wbuld hava effedually fecurM the Peace and Unity
of the Church, if all would have been contented
with the public Profeflion of the Catholic Dodrine
and no more. But this Moderation made the A-
ihanafian Party very uneafy, and they feemM to in-
lift more on the new Exprellions, than on all other
Confiderations j tho"* they were fcarce able any
Ivhere to carry their Point for thirty Years toge-
ther ^ all the numerous and eminent Councils with-
in that Time, laying afide, andrefufing to impofe,
and fometimes diredly rejeding the Confubflamia-
lity, and other Terms inferted in the Niccne Creed
as unfcriptural, ambiguous and novel^ and tending to
difturb the Peace of the Church : and yet at the
fame time they were fo far from favouring the
particular Avian Notions, that they exprefly ana-
thematizM thofe who taught them.

Dr. B would have it thought, that the Pro-
ceedings of the Church againft the reftlefs Endea-
vours of the Athanafians to get the new Nicene Terms
every where eftablifh'd, was a Difpute betwixt the
Avians and Catholics, whereas Avianifm v/as fo far
from being favoured, that it was exprefly difclaim-
ed and condemned ; and nothing was intended by
the tvuly orthodox Part, but to preferve and main-
tain the primitive and Catholic Doftrine of the
Church, and to prevent Innovations and Corrup-
tions of the ancient Faith, which the Athanafians
were endeavouring to introduce under a Pretence
of defending the Nicene Confeffion, whilft they
really corrupted the Dodrine taught in it, and
perverted the Confubflantiality therein made ufe of,,
to Purpofes quite contrary to the Defign of the Ni-
cene Council. The Dodor, to make his Reprefen-
tation of Things the more plaufible, and to raife in
his Reader^s Mind an Indignation againft that Ca«
tholic Do(5trine which he traduces under the Name
of Arianifm ; prefaceth his Relation with the trite

Story

(!)7)

Story oi Arim^s fudden Death *, calling \t-the vifihk
Hand and Interpofttion of Providence. This is a Story
of much like Nature with that which Philvflorgius
tells concerning feveral Athanafian Biflnops who met
at Nicumedia, being Part of the Arimini Council, and
were (o) fwaliovod up with an Earthquake. The Sto-
ry of Arius's Death [if it was any Thing to the
Purpofe] ftands upon the Credit of his moft invete-
rate Enemy Athana/tus, which he fays was told hini
by the Presbyter Macarius ; and which he publidi'd
above.!/') twenty Tears after the Thing is fuppos'd
to have happenM : And it is further obfervable, that
Athanafius orders Serapion (to whom and to fome
-Monks he had fent the Relation) {q) neither to take
himfslf any Copy of his Letter^ nor tofufier any Body elfe to
take one ; but orders it to be returned to him again : and
fays he had given the fame Charge to the Monks. This
is enough to render the Story fufpicious at leaft.
But fuppofipg the Fad to be true ; it is [even as re-
lated by Athanajius himfelf] an Argument not a-
'gainji but rather [tho* in Reality on neither Side]
/or the Truth of Arius's Opinions : and if it was a
judgment ^ it was for his Hypocrify and Perjury mcon-
cealing. and de;nying his real Sentiments upon Oath
too before the Emperor Conflantine.

:" Dr. B proceeds!; "It would be tedious to

^^ explain the manifold Divifions — among the ^-
" rians I the various Councils which were.holden by
*^ them ; the different Forms of Confeffion which
^^ were' drawn up, fome more openly afferting the
!^ Blafphemies of Arius^ others by no means dlf-

(o) kifi.Ecckf,nh7^/.c.io,

(p) Epift, adSoiitarior &' ad Seraph vli, MofJtfauc, tk-^it. Athi^
(;q) Eplfi. ad Serap, ,

N \ Wiming

(98)

*' claiming theni ; ^and none of theni profefllng the
" whole Faith of the Church, but leaving fome Re-
*^ ferve or Subterfuge for their Impiety'/'

Here the Doctor, in a Way fuitable to the reH
of his Hiftory, reprefents the difcontented diffent-
ing Athanafians and thofe who followed them, fe-u) in
Comparifon of thofe he ftiles at Random Avians, tb
be as it were the whole Chunh : znA charges thofe
Confeffions which were made in many eminent and
numerous Councils of truly catholic Bifhops in a
Succeffion of about thirty Years together, and Which
ivere admir'd and allow'd to be -orthodox, eVen by
the Athanajians themfelves ; to be 'ekher open AJfer-
iions of the Blafphemii^s of Arius, or tacitly cOhtain-
m<y his Notions. \Vhich Cakimny caft on fo many
learned and pious Bodies of Men is merely founded
on their not infilling on and refufing "to impofe the
Tinfcriptural ExpreiTions of xhQ Confubflantiality, '&to.
[which the Dodor c^Ws the Faith of the Chtirch^
which had been ve'ry inuch abusM both to l!he di-
fturbing the Peace and corrupting the Doctrine of
the Church t tho* yet 'tis well known that they ex-
^rQ{[y condemn d the Arian-Aflhtions ; and. taitght
nothing but what had always been the profefsM -Do-
ctrine of the primitive Chriftians before them'; and
therefore are very in juriouflyftird ^r/^;2j-. '^And it
will be fufficient to confute all that the Do(ftor has
faid within that 'Gbmpafs of Time to which <I ill tend
to confine my Goiiriderationsoh'the Controverfy of
the Trinity, briefly to fhaw what was the Do6^rine
and public Profeffioii of thofe m^ny and numerous
Synods which he calls Avian i tho' Hilary ^hmitXi
allowed feveral of them to be orthodox ; and that they
taught no other thaii the catholic Dodrine of Anti-
quity^ and which was .the general and almoft una-
nimoufly received Dodrine of tbe Church till after
the middle of the fourth Century. ^

^ .

( 99 )

It hath been already fiiown, that the great GouncU

of Jerufalem did nop thi.nJc the Confnbfiantiality to be
any Part of the Catholic Podrine. The Emperor
Conftantine w^s of the fame Opinion, and continued
to be fo as long as he liv'd. Not many Years after
his Death, a great Council met ztAmioch by the
Order of his Son Conftantius *, to celebrate the De-
dication qf the great Church there. This Council
drew up feveral ConfefTions, in which they con-
demn'd the (r) Arian Pofitions, and profefs'd their
Belief in general. Catholic and ScripUYe-Tl^^imSy lea-
ving out the Mention of the Confuhftantiality^ whicl^
they diflik'd. Thje Ad;softhis Council were of fo
great Note as to be infer ted into the Code of the
Canons of the univerfal Church. The Dodrine of
;his Council Hilary (s) allows and interprets as onho--
dox ; and our own, learned (t) Dr. Cave owns it to
be found m all Things but the Omiflion of the Con-
fuhftantiality. So that they were not only Arians
who were averfe to the Confidfiamiality, but the tru-
ly catholic and orthodox Part of the Church were
fo too, who condemned at the fame time the parti?
cular Arian Tenets, as much as the Athanajians
themfelves did.

About four Ye^rs after, another Council at C^)
Antioch t, composed ('tis probable) chiefly of the.
fame BiHiops which had made the former Synod,
publilh^d the largeft and moll explicit catholic

* Ar?. ?4I.

(r) Socrat. Hifi, Ecclef. lib. 2. c. 10, 1 8. Athanaf. de Synods
Arim. &* Seleuc,
(s ) De Synod.

(t) I?i omnibus his fidel formuUsy cetera (ut 'uidetur) f arils ^ 7^
cixoiio'ia VQcahylum nufquam reperire liceiy uifote a auo fenifus ah-
^borrehani,' Hifi. lit. Vaxtll. pag. 3. ' "'■ '
t:^^ <u) Socvat. lib, 2. f. 19, Athan^{f. de Synod.
^j^'^f ^7;. 345. ■

■^ ■''■ - - N 5^ Form

( 100 )

Form of Faith that had ever been known ; in which
they anathematize not only the Avian Aflertions,
but alfo the Errors of Paulus Samofatenus, Sahellius^
Marcelhis, Photinus and others. And they them-
lelves declare they had enlarg'd their Confeflion on
purpofeto take off all Sufpicion of their Heterodoxy y
and to convince the Weftern Church, to whom they'
fent it, of the impudent Calumnies of their Adver-
faries, [viz.. the Party of Athanafius who had mif-
reprefented them] and that all of uncorrupt Prin-
ciples might know that the Dodrine of the Eaftern
Church was Catholic and agreeable to Scripture.
This Confeffion (x) Valefiiis himfelf fays, is moft
elegant and learned, and a Catholit Explication of the
JJotlrine concerning the Holy Trinity, only that it omits
the Confuhflantiality : Which Word was left out on
purpofe to fhow that they were neither addided to
one Party or other ,* were equally averfe to all m^
•vel and erroneous Dodrines under what Name fo-
<pver 3 and profefsM nothing but the indifputable
Catholic Dodrine confirm'd, by the Teftimony of
Scripture.

* Tills Council taught and confirm'd the catholic
Dodrine of the (y) Supremacy of the Father over the
Son, and the Suhjeclicn oj the Son to him : and alfo of
the i^) voluntary Generation of the Son j condemning

, xhott

(x) Fides — «»C). Valefii jndicio, doSlidima & el^'gantifilmi,
in qua docirinam de facrofanfta Trinirarc & Dei felio, omilfi
iola'-T^. o//i5«<yia mentione, feniu fatis carholico exponunr, Apud
Cav. Hift. lit. P.?vfII. p/r^. III.

,v,^'\tK' 0 M» C^<fi{]dL^}Jiiv^ TSJTat,Tft. Socrat. lib. 2. c. 19. .

it^&i'/'iTcfA Try 6s<o, h'ii a.x,C'Ji; yzvvn(r-<^ ray .tjov, S'vQJi'piTci'jii^ xj

^m clh-A^J'.cLi ^ku^i i'Tetyii'rao-KoiMv. They explain thd^ Senle

,r^n^t|ie "Words prefcntly foHpwingj viz, <w7ok^.jqc^» jS h// h^

( loi )

thofe who deny'd it, and affirmM that the Son was
begotten necejfarily^ and not by the Will of the Fa-
ther,

This Dodrine of the voluntary Generation of the
Son, which had been the unanimous Doftrine o£
Antiquity, [tho' Athanafius bid the Avians fhow
who had {a) taught it, by which it appearM how
much he was acquainted with the antient Books]
was profefsM afterwards by the Eafterns of the^.S'^r-
dicau Council j and ( l^) Hilary gives his Suffrage
and Explication of their Doftrine, as Catholic an4
Orthodox, tho' they did rejed the Confuhflantiality.

About four Years after the Sardican Council, a
famous Synod composM both of Eaflern and Weflern
Bifhops met at Syrmium f, and deposed Photinus, Bi-
Ihop of the Place, for denying the Divinity of
Chrift, and aflerting him to be a mere Man. Hilary
commends and explains at large as Orthodox the Con-
feffion of this Council, who, as on the one hand
they condemn'd the Avian Opinions, fo on the other
hand they difapprov'd and laid afide the Confub--
ftantiality. They anathematizM feveral erroneous
Opinions ; and as they profefsM the true and proper
Divinity of the Son, fo in oppofition to a Plura-
lity of Gods, they declar'd that he was not coordi^
i^ate or equal, but ful^jeB to the Father j that he was

T^V Bioy, HVCiOV GJjtIv icUJT6^ el<^OTi?y iKii(7ltO^ dJJlOV TOi ^khofitX.

[tSsAoj/rtoy. Athanaf.] tov iaov ytfivvnaivctL huniCcoi v':s-eiKn(pcty.iv»
Socrar. ibid. & Athanaf. de Synod.

.. {viy^i^cL]ccffctv YiiMv [fcil. Ariani.] • — rrct^. rivQ- tZv dyicov
i.-i{.i(ictvTi^ <Jvy.<-uoiooi{\y.'ji<jiy — to — Bi?\.yiy.ctji. Pe Dccret. Synod*
Nic. ■ ■ '

* A/7. 947.

(b) Eos qui dlcunt — — quod neque conjtUo neque 'uoJuntai.e paikv
genuerit Jilium anathematiz^t fanSia & catholic a Ecckfia, Hilary
explains Ills own S,Gn^c of the Words, viz, qui ex fubfiantla Dei
vatus eji, etlam ex cof^Jil'o ejui ac loli/ntate nafcatur^ &c,

il An, 351. . ■ ■■■

l^egot-

begotten by voluntary Generation, and not by M-
ceffity of the Faihe/s Nature : and that the Father
alone as being the Original and Head of the Son
was the One God, and in his Perfon the divine Unity
was p refer vM.

Hilary agrees to every Part of this Dodrine as
found and catholic ; and remarkably declares his own
Opinion of the natural Subjeciion of the Son to the
Father as being alone the one God^ in the Explana-
tion of it.

" We (c) do not (fays the Council) make the Son
'^ equal to tlie Father, but fuhjecl to him/* Hilary
gives his Explanation and Senfe thus: viz.. '^herein
^^ {d) more efpecially the Son is not compa/d or
** equaled to the Father i as being fuhjeEi to him by
'^ a Suhmiffion of Obedience ~-« as being^^^^ by him ;
" as receiving every thing from him, and in all
" things obeying the Will of him that fent him/*
To which he afterwards adds ; " tiiat the Son is
^^ fubjeB to the Father by the Nativity oi his Nature o
— - Again ; " is fubjecl to him as the Original of
*' his Exiftence : " which (hows his Opinion plainly
of the natural Subjeciion of the Son to the Father in
his highefi: or divine Capacity.

(c) 'Ov aiwTct^oiJ.iv Tov qlv rep 'TctJ^h dhh \!Zu{\i]ctfijXvov rCi
'Trctli'i* Soc. Jib. 2. c.- 30. non exKquamus vel confbrmamus
[al. comparamus] filium patri fed fubjsftum inteiligim-us, De
Synod,

(d) In eo quidem maxime non com.paratnr nee coasquatur
filius patii, dum fubditus per obedientis; obfeqiielam eft ■ '^
dum mitritnr, dum accipir, dum in omnibus volantati ejus, qni
fe mifir, obfequitur. Hil. de Synod. Subjii-ftum alterum, alter!
Nati'vltate Natur£, Patrem in eo majorem effe quod pater eft-,
filium in eo minorem efie quod filius eft. -~-^ Vmi fubie^us efl ui

■ r If

< 105 )

" If any fe) one (fays the Couhcii) affens that
^^ the Son was begotten without the Pj^lJ of the Fa«
*^ ther, let him be anathema. For the Father did
^' not beget the Son by the Comfulfion of the M-
** ceffityoi his Nature without his ^/^; but he both
*' ivill'd (the Exiftence of the Son) and begat hiiH
** qf himf elf before Time y ^ud. without being P^j(^i;^ (itl
" his Generaticm/') This Hilary fliows to be hij5
own Senfe, as he had done before.

Again ; " We (f) piouOy refer Cfay thiey) alt
" Things to one moriginated Principle of the Uni*»
" Verfe ihro" the Son/' In the Explanation of which
Article, Hilary declares his own Opinion in the
following remarkable Words. " It (g) is moft im-
*^ pious to profefs the Son to be unoriginate ; for if
" ioy there will no longefr be one God-, becaufe the

«? a;c yi^iKiv kyivviXTi rlv if o^* aKK ai^ct rg ICkAj^Qm, -yy d^^vag
y^d^cL^co^^idJj^OJJTovyzvvkc-cti d'T^tS'ei^iV* Socrat* ut fup,
li quis noknte parre, natum dicat filium, anathema fit: ron
enim coaQ:us pater, vel natural! neceffitate dii^us, cum nollet^
genuit filium ; fed mox ut voluit, fine tempore & impafllbiiitec
ex fe eum genitum demonftravit. Hll. de Synod. Ne data
hEreticis occafio videretur ut Necejftfatem Deo patrl gignendi
iex fe filii afcriberent, tanquflm naturali lege eogente, invito fe
ediderit. ibid. I'he Remark of the learned ye/uit Petavius is ^
voluntas ifta quam neceffitati opponunt Sirmienfes Prsfules,
mera eft Jibertas ; ac non folum violento & coa£to contraria,
fed eiiam ei-quod ira naturae eft confentaneum, ut ex arbitrio
confilioque minime pendeat. Qi^s fuit Eufebii C£farier?Jls opinio,
6cc. de TrinitJib. 6.c. S. See Reply ^ p. 2^^—i-]6.

(^f)Socrat,ihid,

(g) Filium ifivafcihilem coftfieri impiijfimum ejl : jam enim non
erit Deus unus, quia Deum unum pradicari itatura unius inna-

fcibilis Dei exigit cum idclrco Deus unusjit^ cam pater Beusjtt^

^flius Dei heus flt^ quia innafcibilitas fola penet -unum Jtt ——*•-•
refpuit ergo innafcibilem filium prddicari fide i fanti a ^ tit per UvUni
Wnafcibilem^ Deum unum pr^dicet^ HiUibid,

f I "Doarint

( ^H )

^' 'Do6trine of the Unity of God is founded neceflk-
«** rily in the Nature of one nmriginated God. — -
:" There is therefore but one God^ feeing it. is the
*' Father that is (abfolutely) God^ and the Son is
" God oj God, becaufe there is but one umriginated

'" Per/on. The Holy Catholic Faith will notthere-

:'' fore allow the Son to be taught to be unorlginatedy
" that by holding one tinoriginated Perfon, it may
v^ thereby teach One God."

U ."Nothing can be more plain than that i//7^?7 with
'the ^Sy^Tw/^w Council- placeth the U>z/V7 of God in the
moriginated Perfon of the Father ; which is the Ca-
tholic Dodrine of all Antiquity.

I might farther obferve (if it was of any Moment)
that at another^ which was the * third Syrmian Coun-
cil, the celebrated Hojias , Biftiop of Corduha in Sfain^
who is faid to have drawn up the Nicene Confeflion,
did fubfcribe againft the {h) Confuhflantiality ; as
(/) did Pope Liheriiis f at the fourth Syrmian Synod,
a Year after. Thefe two Bifliops were thought to
be of fo great Confequence to the Athanafian Caufe,
that many Excufes and Pretences of ill Ufage are
alledg'd for what- they did. But whether the Apo-
logies made for them be true or not, it however ap-
pears that they did not think the Confuhflantiality
to be of fo great Importance as to prefer it before
their own Peace and Repofe. Liberius livM feveral
Years after this, but it does not appear that he ev^er
repented of or recanted the Subscription which he

' -^/fw. 957.

(h) Fhiloflorg. Hlff. lib. 4. c. 5. Sulpit. Hlft./ac. lib. 2.c.^6l
Spz. lib. 4. c. 6. Athan. Epiji, ad Solhar. QP Apolog, 11. HiL de
Synod.

(i) Vhilojlorg, Ibid. Soz. lib. /^. c. 15. M^anaf. Apol, II. &
tyifi, ad Solltar. Hil adCcnJiant, Hiivonym. ds Smp. Ecclef. c, ^fr

fr-' X fiiaS$

( I05 )

made both againft Athanafius and the Confubfiantia^
li'cy.

I {hall mention but one Council more, namely,
the great (y ^ew^r/i/ Council *, confifting of almoft all
the BiOopS both of the Eafiern ^nd TVeftern Church,
(J) and divided into two Bodies, one of which fat
at Arimim , in number about four hundred, the
other at Sekti-ia, in number one hundred and iixty.
This Council was call'd to put an End to the D/-
'vifions betwixt the Eaftern and Weftern Church,'
which had been occadon'd chiefly by the Party
which Athanafius had made after his Depofinon and
Banifhment ; and to unite them in one Communion,
by a commion Agreement in one Confeilion o£
Faith. To which Purpofe a Creed which had been
before composM at Syrmiu?n^ and was appro/d o£
by the Eaftern Church, was offer'd to the Council by
Valens and Urfacius^ twoBiihops of principal Note.

In the Creed which was propos a, the Word (m)
Confuhflantial was left out, as being an unfcriptural
Term, of ambiguous Signification, and which had gi-
ven great Offence j and to which the in) Eaftern
Church had a particular Averfion : and inftead
of it, the Son was declared (o) to be like unto the
Father in aU 'Things^ according to the Scriptures. This
was the very Explication which the Nicene Council
had given of their Senfe of the Confubflantiality of
the Son *. and the ^Confeffion was drawn up in fuch

(k) 'Ot)(,^iJ.ivi)ibjj (TwjoJ^oi'j Socrat. Hid. lib. 2. c 37- ^^ omni
orbe Romano, tit Valentiniani Jun. lex docer, Cav. Hift. lit.
^artU. pag. 118.

0) Soz. Hift. lib. 4. c, ii.Bc c. 22.

(tn) Philoft. Hift. lib. 4, c. to. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. iS,
Socrat. lib. 2. c. 57. Soz. lib. 4. c. 17. Hieronym. ad Lncife-
irian.^. 145. Athanaf.de Synod. Arim. ScSekuc.

(h) Soz. lib. 4. c. i^.

(o) Philoftorgd Socrat. ^oti HierOtJjtni 6ec, ibid.

O iiddifputabijf

( io6 )

indifputably Catholic ExprefTions (as (p) Jerom
owns) that that Part of the Council which was moft
zealous for the Nkene Creed, and would not have
had any other admitted, could in the end objed no-
thing to it, iince it was plainly agreeable to the
Nicene Dodrine. Only it was at lirfl: fufpeded
that the Bifhops who prefented it were Favourers
of the Avians , and therefore the Council would not
fubfcribe their Confeilion, till it appearM that no-
thing of Arianifm was meant by it, and that they
themfelves anathematized the Avian Opinions. To
this, at firft, it feems, they would not {q) confent;
whereupon the Council (r) both rejecied their Con-
feflion, and deposed them, and wrote the Emperor an
Account of it. But Vdem and Uvfacius were be-
fore-hand with the Council^s Legates ,* and poflefs'd
the Emperor in their own Favour, and againfl the
Synod ; upon which the Legates of the Weftern
Part of the Council were not admitted j and Valens
and Uifacius's Creed was approved by Conftamius,
and they were fent back to the Council with his Or-
ders to have it eftablifhM and agreed to, in order^
to effect that Peace and Umon between the Eaftern
and Weftern Church which had been fo long de-
fiv'd, and which (as Jerom fays) very much lay at
the 0) Heart both of the King and all the Good Men
of the Council. Here it is alledgM ^ that Valens and
Uvfacius y by ill Ufage and Circumvention, feduc'd

(p) De TJjl^ 72oi7jine ahjlc'iendo vsrl (ImiUs ratio py^hehatur ; quia in
fcriptttrify aiehant, non in'vemtur, Qp multoi jlmpliciores novitate
fua fcandal'izat. Pl/tcuit aitferri, Non erat Curx, Epifcopis de
Oiocahulo^ cum fenfus ejfet in tuto. Adverf. Lucifer, p. 145.

(q) Socrat. lib. 2, c. 57, Soz, lib. 4. c. 17. Theod. lib. 2,
c. 23.

(r) Socrat. & Soz. & Theodorer. ibid.

(s) Idem enim vegi & bonis omnihui cmvo: fuevat^ ut Oriens Atque
Occidens communiomsjibi liincuh neBerentHYe Adv, hudfer. p. 143.

♦ JPag, 229.

thi

( 107 )

the Deputiei whom their Adverfaries had fent to the
Emperor, to revoke all that had been done againft
them, and to communicate with them^ and to fign their
Confeffion. How this was we have no good Evidence,
nor is it of any Moment ; and it is no Wonder
that the Bifhops Vakus andUrfacius and their Friends
fhould do the beft they could ro get the Sentence
againft them revers'd, and be reftor'd to Commu-
nion. But be this as it will, it appears from 3^^row/,
who, as himfelf tells us, took his Relation from the
public AEls of the Council to which he appeals. Thac
ValenSj who wrote the Creed which had been pro-
pos'd, clearM himfelf of all 6'^///^zao;2 o{ (i) Arianifmy
and agreed with the Council in anathematizing the
Avian Dodrines, which he did with the Applaufe
of all the Synod, who were forry for having {u)fu-
fpecied him, and fubfcribM his Creed, and unani-
moufly agreed to lay afide the (x) Confubflantiality
for the future, for preferving the Peace and Unity of
the Church.

Thus this great Council (whatfoever Jealoufies
and Divifions there were amongft them at the Be-
ginning) were very unanimous in the End, andcon-
fented to and fubfcribM one Confeffion of Faith,
whereby they declar'd that they were ail of one Corn-
O 3 municn^

ft) Troffffi^ii e(l fe Jr}/»»um ticn ejfe. Qp pemtus ah eovum hlifphe-
ml'is nbhorrcre. ibid.

(u) Cum cunBi VahrJiem ad Cczlum laudihus tollerent, ^ funm
In eitm fufpicionem cum pezrjiferitla damnttverd. ibid.

(x) The Sentence of the Synod was; to a opo/^.ct t^^ yVfct?

cyJvS'ciK'-jv fc^s^s, cT/ols iJA]H cu y^a(pcu t»to ^7rze^^x^^^f h§i(Te

0et} -^ S'id'dcTK'd^i. "' As to the Term o'[ Suhfiavcey which in
*"' Simplicity was us'd by the iNkene'] Fathers, but being not
" understood by the People, gave Offence to them ; and becaufe

** alfa

(,o8)

muntoni and thus Peace and Unity being happily r^-
ftor'dto the Church, they all returnM home to their
feveral Diocefes ( y) well fleas' d with what had been
done.

TheDecifion of this Council (which probably was
the largeft the Church had ever known) againil
the Confuhflantiality^ is the more remarkable, becaufe
there is not the leaft Pretence to iky it was ('2:,)
Aviariy or difinclin'dto the Nicene Doftrine. The
Athanafian Hiftorians indeed in their •y^r/o?/y and
contradiclory Accounts -^f the Matter^ relate a great
deal of Artifice and Force to have been us'd to
bring the Weilerns to an Agreement with the Ea-
flerns : but as their Accounts do neither agree
with each other, nor with ^erom^ who took his Re-
lation from the fuhlic Records of the Council it-
felf, fois it very hard to fuppofe that any condde-
rable Part of fuch a Body of Prelates would be in-
duced either by Flatteries or Threats to fubfcribe
againft their Confciences to 1 Confellion of Faith
which they did not think to be catholic and agree-
able to Scripture. Nor can any thing be more un-
reafonable or un juft than to ftile this or any of the
afore-mentionM Councils^ or their Confefnons^, Avi-
an j only becaufe they laid afide or reje&d the
new nnfcriptmaneTm, Confulpftantial; tho' in all o-
ther Points they maintsn/d the Nicene Dodrine;
and exprefly condemned the Avian Opinions. By
this Pretence not only almoft all the Chriftian

** alfo it is not to be found in '^rripture, it is decreed that it
** fliall be wholly hid afide, a*id no Mention made of it for
^* the futiit':. • — Eur we aftim tiiar the Son is like ur.to the Fa-
'* ther, as the divine Scriptures exprcily teach. Aihanaf. de.
Synod, Arlm. & Seleuc

Cy) Ltcii omf2€s adprovlncias vzveritintur. Hieronym, adv. Luci-
fer, p. 145.

(2.) Hilr^ry addreffes the Council o^Aylrnlm in thefe Words,
%,iz. Ariam ncn ^jiiSy cuv ripg'tnda Homoufion ceyi(em\ni Ariani f de

Church

( 109 ;

Church after the Nicene Council for many Years to-
gether muft be accounted Avian, [which is no Com-
pliment to the Athanafian Caufe ] but even the
Council oi Nice itfelf mull have been thought ^-
rian, if they had not inferted the Confubflantiality
into their Creed, which Athanafim himfelf owns
x.\\zy had no Intention of doing \ but deiign^d to
have exprefs'd their Belief in catholic and fcrip-
tural Terms, [as was done afterwards by all the
fore-mention *d Councils] had not die Contentions
of the Avians in infifting on their uncatholic and
novel Pofitions, in a manner forc'd the Synod to
make ufe of the ExprefTion.

The Creeds drawn up by thofe ftil'd Avians [tho'
they renounc'd every Branch of Avianifrn] in the
fourth Century are fo indifputably agreeable to
Scripture and the catholic Dodrine of the ancient
Church ; that the moft zealous Athanafians have ac-
knowledge it : And the learned Bifhop Bui/ bears
this Teftimony to them, " that (a) they fay nothing
but what the Catholics have faid, only that they
^^ omit the Word Conjubfiantial :" which the Bilhop
knew very well had never been us'd in any ancient
Chriftian Creed in the World. Again ; " all (b)
^' their Confeflions of Faith profeis in a manner
^"^ to a Tittle, the fame Belief which was confirmed
in the Nicene Synod ; excepting that they omit
the Word Confulftantial." Which Ihows the un-
reafonable Prejudice of thofe who fuffering them-
felves to be deluded by mere Nantes^ without re-
garding Tubings themfelves, reproachfully ftile thofe
Avians^ who do not profefs and even blame the A-

C^) Qjf}^ '^on dicjfnt, quod CaihoUcl dixerunt, praterquam quod
unam illam Quo'^irl^^ vocem omittant ? Epilog, Vef. F, N,

(b) Fidei Confejjlones phvczque omnes eandem fidem verba

te?7us pvoftentw^ qua, in Nic^snafynodo fancita jtdevnt^ nifi quod
Jiomooi^sfi loce-Kn cmiitant. lh':d.

( no )

yian Doctrine i becaufe they think it beft to lay
afide ail iinfcriptural ExprciTions m Matters of re-
veat^ d Religion ,- and to have all Confeflions of
Chriftian Faith compos'd [agreeably to the Pradice
and Forms of the primitive Church] in the Words
of Scripture.

The CONCLUSION.

THUS I have finiih'd what I intended in Reply
to Dr. B 's hiiloricai Account of theCon-

troveriies concerning t\\t Dodrine of the Trinity ,*
and fabmit it to the learned and impartial Reader,
whether it does not plainly appear that the Dodor
has been very partial in his Relation of Things ;
has mifreported and mifreprefented the Senfe of
Antiquity^ againft the manifold exprefs Declarations
of their Opinions ; and that the Dodrine which
the Dodor pretends to fupport by the Tefl:imony
of the ancient Church, has not the leaft Evidence
or Ground from any one ancient Creed or For?n of
pporfiip, or from any one ancient Writer whatfo-
ever, who all uniformly and nnanimoiifly reclaim a-
gainft that Notion and Explanation of the Do-
drine of the Trinity, which he erroneoufly
ililes Orthodoxy : that on the contrary, it is mani-
icil that the Dodrine of the natural Supremacy
of the one God and Father of all^ ivho is alcove all, and
of the Subordination of the Son and Spirit to him,
which the Dodor falfely ftiles Ariamfm, has been
conflantly traight h^^^ the Church from the Begin-
ning for more than three hundred Years together :
whether alfo it does not appear that i\\^ Council of
ISIice in inferting the Word Confttihftantial into the
Creed made no Alteration in that Dodrine, or

deiign'd

( "I )

defignM thereby to deny the real SupremAcy and Do-
minion of God the Father over the Son and Spirit^
or to teach the Coordination^ Coequality^ or Neceffary-'
Exiftence of the Son and Spirit^ which are manifeftly
repugnant to the Dodrine of that Council, who
took care to explain the Word Confuhflantial in a
catholic Senfe agreeable to Scripture and the Pro-
feffion of the primitive Church before them ; and
fo as to difclaim equally the Errors of Sabelliamfm-
and Tritheifm. Whether it doth not further appear
that the Word Conful/fl ami al being found [not only
to be unfcripturalj but alfo] to be ambiguous^ and mip*
underftood^ and perverted and abused to a Meaning
quite contrary to the Intention and Senfe of the
Nicene Council, and made thereby the Caufe of
great Offence and Contention in the Church, was
publickly laid afide not many Years after it was firft
brought into the Church, and omitted in all the
ConfefTions of all the moft numerous and eminent
Synods both of the Eaflem and Weflern Church,
which met for about thirty Years together j in all
which ConfefTions Arianifm was difclaimM and con-
demned, and the ancient Catholic Dodrine of the
alone ahfolute Supremacy of the one God the Father^ and
the Subordination and Subjection of the Son, &c. to
him, was, as I have proved, entirely profefs'd.

I did not think it proper or to the Purpofe to pur-
fue the Dodor's hiflorical Account any further;
and what is obfervM upon it is fufficient to fliow,
that the Defign of this Narrative was neither to
favour Arianifm on the one hand, or Athanajlanifm^
fo call'd, on the other ; but to fhow from undoubt-
ed Evidence and Fad, what was the true Catholic
Dodrine of the primitive Church conformable to
Scripture, in Oppofition to both of them.

The Cry of Arianifm, and a pretended Zeal for
the Nicene Faith has been an old Party-Cant, made
life of to blind Men^s Eyes^ and hinder them from

enquiring

( "2 )

enquiring after T'rttth ; to (c) blacken thofe whom
the reputed Orthodox had a mind to mifreprefent,
and by the mere Sound of a Word to lead their un-
wary Followers to profefs Opinions almofl: as con-
trary to the Nicene Dodrine as to Arianifm itfelf.

VVhat on this Pretence has been of late Years ad-
vancM by the modern Athanafians or fcholaflic repu-
ted Orthodox^ either in Defenfe of Sahellianifm or
'tritheifm (into which two Schemes they are divided)
has been fully confiderM and confuted from the
Principles of Scripture, Reafon and Antiquity : and
what hath been by them reply'd in Vindication of
their pretended Orthodoxy, hath been fo weak and
infufficient ; fo full of Bitternefs, Invedive and Ca-
lumny ; and fo deficient in Evidence, Reafon and Ar-
gument ; and finally built upon Principles diredly
oppofite to the firft and fundamental Articles both
of natural and reveal* d Religion ; that, I queftion
not, that all truly learned and impartial Enqui-
ries after, and Lovers of Truth, are fully fatisfyM,
and have alrfeady decided the Controversy in their
own Breafts. So that, I think, no more is neceffary
to be added to what hath been faid i and truft that
God, in his own good Time, will make theEndeavour^
of all truly pious and virtuous Men effedual and
fuccefsful in promoting the Dodrine and Religion
of his Gofpel ; and to the eftablifhing Peace and
Vnityy upon the Chriftian Terms of Charity, Righte-
oufnefs and 'Truth,

(c) Inv'ifum nomen quo — — denigvajidos curaztit adverfariosfuos,
ut hac ratione odium ipjls Imperhorum comiliaret, &' credtdos lecio-
rei hocpvejudklo ■pY/.orcupfito; a libera verltatis difqnifth?ie aneref,
BttUi Apofog, adv. D, "Tallium. SeS:. i.

ERRATA.

P Age's,' line 34. vead \.<rvyf^.ipiv?'] p. 7. /. 10, r. [Lo 0 qa? ^
6{»] p. 8. /- 50. r. IcrJ^nA p, 22. /. 55. r, confcriptus j
p, 61, /. ^5. >■. laft. />. <?p. /. 31. y. III.

FINIS,

OBSERVATIONS

O N

Dr WATEKLAND's

Second DEFENSE

O F H I S

QUERIES

By the AUTHOR of the Reply to his
Firs tDefense.

OpiniortHm Comment a delet Dies-, Verkatis JHdicia confir^
mat. Cic. de Claris Orat.

L O N T> O N,

Printed for J a M e s K N a p t o N, at the CV^xt/
in St. Taiih Church-Yard. M Dcq xxiv.

T O T H E

reader:

H E Author of Thefe
Obfervations afjures
the Reader^ in the
moji Solemn manner y
that there is contained in them no
Argument, or Branch of Any
Argument; but n^hat^ iqon the
moji feriojis Conjideration and
careful Review ^^ appears to Him
to he jlriBly and perfeBly conclu-
fve. If any one fiall think ft to
A 2 7vrite

To the READER.

7r>rite in Anfwcr to them, he is
de fired to obferve the Same Me-
thod ; and not darken Arguments:
ofReafi)nand Scripture, by inter-
mixing with them Applications
to the PafTions of the Ignorant.

o B s E R-

OBSERVATIONS

O N

Dr WATERLANDs

Second Defense

O F H I S

QUERIES.

OBSERVAT. r.

Concerning fome remarkable Texts of
Scripture,

ii§|Sil isT^^^ ^ -^ ^^^^ Scrifture'DoElrme of the
Trmtty, is That which is the natn^
rd Refult oi All the Texts of Scrips
ture relating to That matter, when
compared together: And when
Sjf they are each of them paraphraied
according to That Do(flrine, the
Senft of them All ihall appear uniform and conjljlem ;

and

6 Objervations on T)r Waterland'^

and the Paraphrafe upon each of thenij (hall appear
naturally and obvioufly to exprefs the true Mean-
ing of every finglc Text. This, I think, is what
Br Clarke has clearly and diftindly done, in his
Script ure-DoEtrine of the Trinity, What Work Br
Water land would have made, had he attempted in
like manner to go through All the Texts of the New
Teflament according to His explication of the Do-
drine ; may appear to the Satisfadion of every rea-
fonable Man, from a very few Inftances taken out of
his Second Be f en fe of his Queries,

John V; 2 2, 23. The Father judge th no man;
hut hath committed all 'judgment to the Son: That
all men pould honour the Son^ even as they honour
the Father.

Here the Honour required to be paid to Chrift^
is, in our Lord's own Words, exprejly founded upon
the Father s having Committed all Judgment unto
Second Be- him. No, fays Dr Waterland: " Chrift is NOT
-^gY'*^' " worfiipped BECAVSE God Committed judgment
*' to him ', hut God committed it to him for This end
'^ andpurpoj}^ that Aden might he fenfihle of the Big-
" ?iitj and Bivinity of his Perfon^ and thereupon Ji^or^
" I^^^P ^•^'^* " Meaning by '' the Bivinity " of his
Perfon, fupreme Divinity, accompanied neceffarily
and independently with the fame ahfolute Supremacy
of Bominion and Authority^ as the Father himfelf has*
So that (according to Dr Waterland) he had the
very fame Power of Judgment, J5^/d?r^ Judgment was
committed to him ; as he had After, Or, which is the
lame thing ,• he had abfohitely, neceffarily, and inde-
pendently^

•VNJ

Second Tiefenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 7

pendently, in Himfelf, in his own Divine Capacity, Obferv.
the very fame Right to have committed unto HIM- ^'^
SELF all Judgment in his Human Capacity^ as the Fa-
ther himfelfhsA to commit it to him in Either Capacity*
Negleding therefore the Reafon upon which the
Scripture exprejly founds the Honour we are to pay
to Chrift, the Dr builds it entirely upon another /'• 4o7-
Foundation, on which the Scripture never builds it ,•
"uiz.. on This, that By Him God CREATED all things.
That By Him God Created all things ^ the Scripture
does indeed teach : But there is in No place of Scripture
Any intimation, of his being Wbrjlnpfed upon That
Account. The Reafon is, becaufe (as All Chriftian
Writers unanimoHJly agree,) the Son's part in the
Creation was merely ^ minifierial. Which (what-
ever

ViU-

f/jxn 0 vlos -m Tmvrcc i^f/^iii^ywiv- Itcc rv p viuyjo, r>}^vi rf ttxtc}

hi^i^^^j-^f^rm. i. e. V/hen the father willed that all thmgs
fwuld be formed, the Son formed them by the Appointment
of theTather: That fo the Original Abfolme Supreme Autho-
rity [That's the Signification of mJ^vtikvi i%ii<r.c<,,'] might bere-
fervedto the lather -, and at the fame time, the Son might
have Power over the things that he made : Cyrill. Hieror.
Catech. 11. " And it has been ufual (fays Dr Waterland^
** id. Def. p. 344,) with All the Chrifiian Writers, to repre-
* fent All offices as defcending from the 'Father to the Son.
** Athanafius Himfelf allows, that God the Son wrought in
" the Creation, uponthe Father's iffuing out his Fiat or Com-
** mand/or it: As alfo do feveral other Poji-Nicene Wri^
*' ters."

Concerning That Nezv and Wonderful Fi^ion of Dr
jVaterUnd, (which I know not whether it ever before en?

tred

V-ry^N^

S Obfervations on T>r. WaterlandV

Obferv. ever Dr WaterUnd may imagine,) is by no Means
!• fo high a Title (in the moral or religious Senfe,
'Viz,, confidered as a Ground of Worfliip ; ) as is
Regal and Judicial Power.

Joh. XVII. I, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18, 22, 23, 24. y^-

/«/ /(f/^ up his Eyes to Heaveriy and [aid : Father y the
hour is come ', glorify thy Sony that thy Son alfo may
glorify Thee* As Thou haft Given him power over all
fiefjj, that he fl^ould give eternal Life to as many as
'Thou haft Given him, — — / have glorified thee on
the Earth ; / have finifipcd the Work^ which Thou Ga-
veft me to do, And nowy O Fathery '' Glorify thou
'c me with thine own Self, with the Glory which I
••' had with thee before the world was. " J have ma-
nifejlcd thy Name^ unto the men which thou Gaveft

me out of the World, For I have given unto

them the Words which thou Gaveft mey and

they have believed that thoti didfi fend me, As

Thou haf fcnt AIE into the Worlds even fo have I alfo

fern Them into the World. And the Glory which

thou Gavefl: MEy I have given Them. That the

World may h}ow that Thou hafi fent me, That

thej may behold my Glory 7vhich Thou hafi Given me :

For

trcd into the Heart of j^ny Chriftian Writer, ) viz, that
T his Abfolute Supreme DiWnnion ^r>:d Authority of the God
and Father of All, arifes wholly from mere r/mtnal volun^
:ayy Concert and Agreernent', and lias no other nueJJ'ary
Ground in Nature, than fuch a bare Priority of Order, as is
no natural and neieJJ'ary Foundation of Any real Supremacy
of Dcm'mion find Authority at -^11: Concerning r/?/f, I f^JEj
fee below, Qbfervat, II. and III.

Second "Defenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 9

For thoti lovedfi me before the Foundation of the Obferv%
^^orld. ^^^

Upon thefe words, it was thus argued to Dr Water^
<' land. If the Son had (as you fay) the SAME Claim ^^^^^ ^^
" ^Wr/?/^?o/"'ror/j/>, the SAME Right to all Glory, 394,
« that the Father himfelf hath ; it could be no more
'* proper for the Son to fray to the Father to glorify
'« the Son (to glorify him either with new or with
«' ^«^/>»t glory,) than for the Father to/r^;f to the
*' Son to glorify the .Father. Nor does it at all alter
« the cafe, if you fay he prayed only /or his Humane
<' Nature. For flill the Impropriety will be the
«« fame as before : that the Son fhould ^raj to the
<' Father to give to his Humane Nature That Glo-
« ry, which the Son himfelf had the viry SAME
'^ Right to have given to it, of his own Authoritji
<« as the Father himfelf had. " The Anfwer Dr
Waterland mAcs to This, is in the following Words.
«f ro^ ^ii^ // f/?^ Son's glorifying the Father, means Second Dt^^
'' the very SAME thing vjith the Father's glorify- '^^^{'
*^ ing the Son ? TES^ the very SAME thing : How
«« can you doubt of it, when you read J oh. xvii, i. '*
And again ; ^' Ay, but fay you, could not the Son pAiQ,
*' himfelf have given it by his Own Authority ? TES :
«< But as the Father did not Difdain to recieve Glory
<« from the Son, 7vhy jl?ould the Son Refufe to recieve
f' Glory from the Father ? " By This Reafoning then,
(there being no Natural Superiority of real Autho*
ritj or Dominion ',) the Father, had it not been other-
wile agreed upon by voluntary Concert, might as
pOiTibly not have Difdained to have been incarnate^
and to have been Sent by the Son, and to Inv^p-ayed

B to

lo Obfervations en T)r W^^tLerhnd'^

Obferv. to him, and to have ufed all the fame exfreficrm
\ o£ ac!^07i>ledgem'ent of having received ^\ things by
Gift from the Son, as we find onr Lord did in
This Prayer to his Father, If any man, who (to
fay no moi'cj reads ferioufly This very Chapter, can
believe This to be the Dodrine of Chrift ; I think
it can be to no Purpofe, to iivdeavour to con-
vince him of any thing.

I Cor. VIII; 5, 6, There he Gods manj,

and Lords Aiany. But to Vs there is hut One Gody
[viz.] the Father, of whom are all things^ and we in
him ; And One Lord, [viz.] ye fas Chrifiy hy whom
are all things, and We hy Him.

This Text is fo diredly, both in Senfe and in

Terms, contradiftory to Dr Waterland's Notion ;

that 'tis very remarkable, in what Manner he has

been forced to treat it.

Second Be- j , He tells US t '' The giving the Name [One God]

> '^'Si' cc fimetimes to One [to the Father] Jingly^^is no Ar^

^' gument that the Same Name may not alfo juftly

'' helong to Both [to the Father and Son] together, '*.

No : Not the giving the Name Sometimes, but the

giving it at All times, to the F^ttlfer fingly ; and not

only the giving it at All times to the Father jmgly, but

iCor.\i\\, moreover the giving it Sometimes So to the Father

^bhr'v6 ^^"^§'7' ^^ ^^ P^'^ ^^ ^^^ exprefs Contradifiin^iion to

^^r:?.xvii, the Son mentioned in the very fame Sentence; IS

3-^. .. ^ an Argument, and more than an Argument, that the

Same Name (and in the fame Senfe) cannot jufily he^

iTim 11,5.

lon(i to Bath*

2. In

Secmd T>efenfe of his Qv e r i e s. it

2. In another Place, He Thus comments upon Obferv.
This Text. " Tes i the ^poftle tells us, that the
*' Father, of whom are all things, is the One God. '*
And again : " To ^ fiat e (lays he) the main Que-
^^ ftlon hetiveen us in Thefe Terms ; Scripture, you ptj,
^' tells us there is but One God, even the Father,
*' Tes : Scripture fliles the Father the One or Only
« God : That's ALL you SHOVLD pretend, ''
Here the Dr diredlly corrupts the Apoftle's AfTer-
tion: Not allowing him to fay, (what he exprefly
does fay, j that To VS there is One God, the Father ;
but only, on thereverfe, to give the Father the Style
or Title of the One God, Which is entirely a dijfe^
rem Proportion. For 'tis one thing, to fay that The
One God is The Father ^ of whom are all Things ; and
another thing to fay that The Father y (though not
the Father Only,) is The One God, Now 'tis evi-
dent the Apoftle in This Text, is not reciting the
CharaElers of the Father, and telling us that the Fa-
ther may be filled the One God \ but on the other
fide, he is declaring to us Who the One God is,
viz,, that 'tis The Father, of v^hom are all things;
and This in exprefs Contradiftindion too, to the
One Lordj fefiis Chrifi, By ivhom are all things,

I . The Dr therefore is forced further to afSrm,
that '< the Son is Tacitly included, though the Fa^ p, 453.
<c tljer be eminently filled The One God: " Nay,
(which is very hard indeed,) Tacitly included^
though by Name Exprefily excluded, and contradiftin^
guified by a peculiar character of his Own, in the
njery words of the Text itfelf. Again : " The Father p, 104,
f ? (fays he,) of whom are all things, is the One God

B z m

1 2 Obfervations on T>r WaterlandV

Obferv. *' in oppofition to Falfe oneSy to Nominal Gods and

I" '' Lords, not in oppojttion to God the Son : '*

^^^^^ And yet, in the very words of the Text, The One

God is oppofed, NOT ONLT to Fdfe Gods and

Lords, to Nomind Gods and Lords, but ALSO (in

exprefs Terms) to the One True and Real Lord By

[or Through'] whom arc all things. Nor can there in

This cafe polTibly be any Room for That Obferva-

^•^ * tion, that ^^ Exclufive Terms are not always to he

1 68, «<^ interpreted with Rigour • " For though General ex^

^ clujive Terms y not only Sometimes y but Always and

Necejfarilj, leave room^ for Such tacit Exceptions, as

every ('even the Afeanefi) man's common fenfe is al*

ways luppofed to know, that (of neceffity) they

cannot but be excepted even out of the moft * Vni^

verfal expreffions : (For which reafon, 'tis ridicH»

f. 16. lous in Dr Waterland to ask i Becaufe no one know^

eth the Father but the Son, does it therefore follow that

the Father Himfelf does not know the Father \ Andy

Rex-'.xix, Becaufe One had a Name written, that no man knew

ii.e'ii. l}pi,t Uc himfelf; and to Another was Given ^^-^a^

' ' new Name written, which no one k^oweth, faving He

that

* The Reafon is; becaufe All univerfal ExprefTions, even
in their utmoft Un'ruerfality, are, in the nature of language,
7ieceff:irtly and alwayt underflood to extend only to All of The
Kjnd fpohn of, and in Tlje Senfe ffoken of, whatfoever it be.
Thus 'ti^ very proper to fay, that God was Ths Only Savl^
cur of Ifrael, and tha: they had No other Saviour but God j
or th2.ty ofJm.i was The Only Saviour of Ifrael, and that they had
1^:0 other Siiviour but Joflm^t And yet no man ever was fo
£enfelefs, as to miilinderflaQd the Extent of Zither of thefe
Propolitions*

Second "Defenfe of his Qy e R i e s. x 5

that receiveth it ; does it therefore follow, that HE Obferv.
who Gave this Name, was ignorant of it Himfelp.) !•
Though, I lay, This is, in the nature of Language^ ^-^'v^J
fiecejfarily the Cafe in ^//Z/^^/wr/^/Expreffions ; yet
where-ever ^ny Particnlar Thing or Perfon is, by
jiny V articular Title or Charader, contradiftingui-
Ihed from Any Other Thing or Perfon, mentioned
at the fame time under Another -particular Title or
Charader ; 'tis infinitely abfurd There, to fuppofe
the Latter *' Tacitly included ^^ m the Former, from
which it is expresjly excluded by the contradiftingui-
fhing Charader. Which is the Cafe, in the Text
before us.

4. To hinder the Reader from feeing fo very clear
and diftin^, as well as obvious a Truth ; the Dr en-
deavours to cover him with a Thick Dufl, of Words
that have No Signification. '< Tou fuppofe I flmll p. ^^6,
«' fayy that our Lord is That One God mentioned ^"^"^^
<« I Cor. VIII, 6» Which you thinh^highly abfurd.
*' But (fays hej what if I floould plead, that That
*^ One God is a filly Expreffion, where there are not
** Two One-Gods \ and therefore floould rather
*' y^^j that our Lord is not That Perfon there ftiled
*' One God by way of Eminence, but Another Per^

<' fony who is yet One God 7mh him. To

*' Me it appears, that the Many Gods and Many
*' Lords mean the Same thing under different Names ;
*' And that St Paul, in oppoftion to having Many,
*' ajferts that All things were Of the One God, and
*• By the One Lord ; intimating their perfeEh Unity
'^ of Power, PerfeElion and Operation, fo as to be
l[ Both but One God W One Lord ^ the One Lord

<^ bemg

14 Objervations on T>r Waterland'j

^•v^

Obferv. ^' being On^ 'with the One Gody and the One God he-^

■^L . " ^^^ ^^^ '^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ Lord. " Had the Author
been unknown, it could not have been believed that
luch a Twifi of unintelligible Words, (in way of
Comment upon a Text roplain, that without Learn-
ing and vain Philofophy no man could fojjihlj have mif-
under ficod it ;) fhould have dropped from the Pen of
a Serious Writer.

I Cor. XV; 24, 27, 28. Then com0th the Endy
'when he JJmU have delivered up the Kingdom to GOD, ^-
ven the FATHER, — For HE hath put all things under
his Feet. But when he faith, all things are put under
him^ it is manifefi that HE is excepted, who Did put all
things under him. And when all things flo all he fuh-
dued unto him, then jjjall the Son alfo himfelf he Sub--
jeEl unto Him that put all things under him, that God
may he all in all.

From thefe Texts it was argued ,• that All Authority
and Dominion was Originally and Abfolutely in the
Father alone, and from Him delivered to the Son :
That the Son's Dominion was Then complete, when
all things were adually fubdued unto him, and the
Father had put all things under his Feet : And that
the Son's delivering up at the end the Kingdom un-
to the Father, and being fuhjeB unto Him that put
all things under him^ is an Acknowledgment and
Proof, that All Authority and Dominion was and is
Originally and Abfolutely in the Father alone.

In Anfwer to This, Dr Waterland mokQS the fol-
lowing Comments upon the Texts.

?? Nelfher

Second "Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. i s

■ « Neither does God's being the Head of Chrijl, Obfem
'« nor his Putting all things under him, conclude any ^^^
'' thing againfl luhat I ajfert, that Both together second De-
^' are One God SVPREME.'' That is: The^«^,^38.
Fathers putting all things under the Son, was the
:E^q&: of mere voluntary Concert and Agreement ^
not of any natural Superiority of real Authority and
Dominion in the Father : And the Son might as Pof-
ply, on the reverfe, have put all things under the
Father, and the Father himfelf have been SuhjeB un-
to Him that put all things under him, that the Son
might he all in all,

A^ain : ^' The Father is Lord of all, ABSO- /).iij.
*« LVTELT: And SO is the Son, for any thing that
'^ Appears, THOVGHthe Father put all things under
<t him i '* and though the Son be Suhje^ unto Flim
that put all things under him.

Ao-ain: «< But you faj. This Po7ver and Dominion ;,Si,
« ('of the Son) became Plenary over all things both
« in Heaven and Earth, when he had been Incarnate.
<c Plenary, did you fay? and over All things \ I think^
<^ not : Nor is even the Father's Dominion yet fo Pie-
« nary as this comes to: See i Cor. XV, 28.
Chrift « will be their Lord again [in right of Re- ^ Si.
«c demption,] in a ftill more Plenary Senfe, after the
<c day of Judgment; as 7mll ALSO God the Father,
«c What Difficulty is there in thefe plain, common
^c things I But Ifuppofe (fays he) the Force of your
^c Argument lies in the ivords, accipiens poteflatem,
« and, traditafunt, [viz.. that the Son keceived his
Power from the Father, and that ail things were
« Delivered to him by the Father.] And yet you'll

thin!

•VNi

1 6 Obfervatlons on ^r. Waterland'i'

Obferv. " thinks it no Argument aga'mfi the Father's Suprema-^
!• **^ 9^) that HE is to Receive a Kingdom^ which is
^' to be Delivered to him bj the Son ^ i Cor. xv, 24, '*
As lithe Father's Receiving the Kingdom, which the
Son at the End delivers up to him, in order to be
himfelf SabjeEl unto Him that put all things under
him ; was as much an Argument of the Sons Supre^
macj over the Father \ as the Sons Receiving all
Pov/er in Heaven and in Earth, Given him by the
Father:, is an argument of the Father's Supremacy
over the Son, Was ever any thing fo Ludicrous^ upon
fo important a Subjed ?
t. 111. Yet the fame thing He repeats again : '^ Tou go on
'^ (iays he) in [peaking of Chrift's Receiving Domi-
*^ nion ; which relates only to the 0 economy or Dif
^' penfation : According to which y God the Father
*' will Receive a Kingdom at the lafl day^ and en^
*' large his Dominion over his SuhjeEis, '* And a-

;> 381. g3in : " The Prophecy of Dmkl, ch. \\h 13, 14,"

[One like the Son of man came to' the Anti-

ent of days, and they brought him near before him ;
And there v/as GIVEN him Dominion and Glory
and a Kingdom,] " fp^^ks of a Kingdom in a Parti-
^' cular Senfe ; AS i Cor. XV, fpeaks of a King-
« dom to be RECEIVED by the FATHER. This
cc is all OecoyjomicaL *'

Do Thele Words need any RefleEiion upon
them ?

Eph. IV. ^, 5, 6, One Spirit; — — One Lord;
One God and Father of AlU 'ii^ho is Above

ally and Throt^gh alh ^nd In you all.

This

Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. tf

This Do6lrine of the Trinity delivered in thefe ObferV*
\vords by the Apoflle, is fo expresfly contradiBory *! ,
to DvWaterknd's Scheme, and fo impoflible to be ^^^^
perverted even into any u4ppearance of Confiftency
with it ; that the Dr finds himfelf here obliged even
fairly to tell us, that St Pad ought not to have
writ Thus, as he did ; ^

One Spirit y ||

^ One Lord ', ^

One God and Father of Ally who is Abov^
all, and through alU and In you alU
But that he ought to have tranfpofed his Wbrdsy
and altered his Senfe^ Thus :

One Spirit y — - "^ Which Three are the One
One Lord; — - > God^ who is Above ally and
One Father of all;) Through ally and In you alL

The Diferencey is This. In St Paul's Trinity the

One God and Father of Ally who is Above all, and

Through ally and In you all i is expreilly One Per fin

of the Three, In Dr Waterland\ Trinity, he is both

One Per fin of the Three^ and alfo at the fame time All

the Three. T>o I \\txQ mifreprefint ox aggravate? Let

him then tell us, what mean,the following words, com- h 5'9> ^^'

menting upon this Text. " He [the One God and Fa-

«^ ther of All, who is Above all, and Through all and

« In you alU] is There diflinguifJjed from the One Spi^

« rit, and the One Lord. And what if the One Lord

«« and One Spirit be There firfl diftincl:ly named? I

*c fie no Abfiurdity in AFTERl^'AP^DS mentioning and

«^ SVMMING up theTHREE Perfins in the ONE

'c GOD " {the One God and Father of Ally are

the Apoftles words,] '' mder a threefold confidera-

x8 Obftrvations on T>r Watcrland j

v-TY"^

Obferv. '^ tion of above all and through all and in all. "
J'» Offences will come, and Infidelity will be kept up
by tliem, in a negligent and debauched world : Bur
7i>hj men fliould r*i% Delight in inventing fuch Of-*
fenles, and hanging Aiillftones needlejlj about the
neck of Religion, I cannot conceive.

There is in This Text Another Particular, very
dllagreeable to Dr WaterUnd. Which is, the Apo-
ftles aicribing to God ihe Title of Father of All, or
Father of the Vmver/e. To find fault with St Panl
f(Sr choofing fuch a Pagan exprellion, was not decent :
But whenever A;^y Other Chriftian Writer ufts it, 'tk
''in compliance with the Pagan fljki " 'tis '' hecatife he
'^ is talking to a Pagan-^ to whom therefore he adapts his
^' ftyle, calling the Father hj fuch a Name as Pagans
^^ gave to their Supreme Father of Gods and Aden. "

■^■^^' For the fame reafon, when Athanafius fays:

<f There is preached One God, Who is A-

'' hove all, as Father, as Head and Fountain; Through
« all, bj the Word ; and Fn all, by the Spirit : '*

^* * the Dr contends, that 'tis " perverting the Author s
«« true Meanings '* to fuppofe him " fpcal^ng of
•^^ the Father all the way-, when the One God is hij>

^' SuhjeEi — confidered in the Jevcralperfons of

'^ Father -i Son, and Holy Ghofl. " And yet, not only
the necejfary confiruUion of This very pafTage, but
moreover Aihanajlm himfelfd^chi'i^s^ on the contrary,
in the fulleft and mofi exprefs vjords^ that he/j fpeak-
m^^'^ of the Father Ail the way. " For *' there is (fays ^

he)

* Ei^ ^73':c,o 7ra.T^,(>- i!p' iciVTM CO!/, KXTti to'Eth TnlvTav iiVeCi' ^ iv

vw v'S) ^£ (psviv'ci/jiv©-', y-v^TU. TO Aj.k Ticcvrav oi'/iKUv ^ h ra ttvso-

. ' v/ssr* ii, KcirU to 'Hv siT^XTi ^) rS Asya iv oiOTM hspyHt^

Sec mid "Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 19

he) '' One God, even THE FATHER ; WHO exifls Obferv.
*" * of himfelf, as being Above all; who manifefis I*
" himfelf in the Son, as being Through all; and '

'f who manifefis hinifelf in the Spirit, as workn2g In
«^ Alh through the Word and by the Spirit, " See
more PafTages of the fame kind, cited in Dr Clarke's
Script ure-Dodrine, p, 232, Edit, ifi, p. 202,
Edit, id,

Phil, 11; 8, 9, II ^Became [y7r>j>cc(2>-] Obe-
dient unto Death : — ^ Wherefore God alfo hath high-
ly exalted him , and \l}^%eA<^o:,T^ given him a Name
above every ISfame : - — — That every tongue fJ)ould
confefs that Jefrs Chrifi is Lord, [f^i Klccv^ to the
Glory of God the Esther,

Upon This Text it wis alleged, that whereas
the Apoille affirms, that God I'herefore highly Ex^
alted Chrifi, becaufe he had become Obedient untQ
Death , it was mofi abfurd in Dr Water I and, to in-
terpret God's highly Exalting Chrifi-, in the Same
Senfe as AiEN in their Prayers highly Exalt GOD,

To This, the Dr rephes : ^' No, but in the ^.^^.^.^ j^.r

'^ Sami Senfe as MEN in Preaching, or the liJ^, p ^^^»
^^ exalt GOD by Proclaiming and Publifinng his
" Praifes, And now, WHERE is there any the leafi
^^ Appearance of Ahfurdityl " To This Queilion,
the only proper Anlwer, I think ; is in the words
of St PatiU I Cor. xiv, 38, If any man Be ig-
norant, let him be ignorant.

It was further alleged, that T>r Waterland moii ab-

Jurdly (o interprets This Phrafe, [^x'^^^io-i^^ro'j given him

fi Name ; as if it could iignify Extolling and Jllag-

C 2. nijying

%o Obfervations on T^r Water land'j'

Obferv. nifjing in fmh a Senfe, as MEN extoll or magnify
I* GOD ; As if men could [Ai^jfio-a^] gracioHjly

^^^^^ grant any thing to God, The Anfwer which
Dr Waterland returns to This, it will be fafficient
to tranfcribe, without making any ^Remark upon it,

^. 214. «■' To^ charge me with interpreting ^xtK.^i<ru.To, hath gi-
" ven,] mofl ahfurdlj : Ifuppofe if you had had any
^' REASON to ajjign, yon would have obliged us
^' 71'ith it, I fee no Ahfurdity in interpreting Giving
^' a Name, to ^^ Giving a Name : Which is all I have
^' done. But it is very ahjurd of Totiy to imagine y
^' that God may not glorify his Son, as well as his Son
*' may glorify Him, by fpreading and extolling his
" Name over the whole Creation, "
J. 1^0. As to the Lafi part of the Text : ^' 1 might here iti-

^^ Jifitiponity lays the Dr, that the words [xyps i»<r»5
" Xp<f^5 £45 <5V|av 9-sS 5r«rp'fl$,] may be jufily rendredy The
'f Lord Jefus Chrift is, (orjefus Chrift is Lord,)
'' /AT the Glory of God the Father. Which Ren-

''*■ dring would entirely defeat your Argument, '*

My Anfwer is, (though without it the Argument
would not be at all defeated ;) that I cannot but
wonder whence it comes to pafs, that Some men of
Great Ahiltties and Great Learning, can never be made
to under ftand Grammar, For becaufe, where Two
different Phrafes happen (in any particular cafe) to
amount to the fame thing in Senfe, they may in That
cafe (not indeed be put the One for the Other, but)
^iiher of them be ufed indifferently and with equal
Propriety ; therefore in Other cafes, where they will not
amount to the fame thing in Senfe, and where they
^i^jmoi^ be ufed with equal Propriety, men will ftill

f onten(^

,y^V^^

Second T)efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. it

contend that One of them may be put for the O- Obferv,
ther. Than which, nothing can be more abfurd : As I.
muil: needs be evident to every one, who will be
pleafed to make Tryal of it in his own Mother-
Tongue. But to inftance in the word here referred to.
If I mean to affirm that a Man is In the Field, I can
with equal propriety of Speech fay either that he is
cm; uy^s or s^ ^yfcv ; becauie the Senfc in This csfe,
happens to be the fame, whether I fay that he is In
the Fieldy or that he is gone or carried Into the Field,
But if I J intend to exprefs that Grafs grows In the
Field, I cannot fay Ik ^yfov, but only cm/ u.y^S, When
Dr Waterland apprehends the Reafon of This ; Jie
will know whj he could not (though he fanfies he
might) have infifted on the Rendring of the Te.\t
here mentioned.

Rev. I, 8. I am Alfha andOmega^ the Beginning
and the Ending, faith the Lord ; which is, and 7vhich
wasy and which is to come, the Almighty,

That thefe words are fpoken of the Father, appears
from hence ; that the Term [o TcxtTw.uu.rw^^ The At-
mightv,'] is in Scripture-language Always without
exception (and from thence in All the Antient
Creeds) applied to the perfon of the Father only ;
and that the Charader, which is and which was and
which is to come, is, in the ^th Verfe of this Chaptei-;*
let down as the feculiar perfenal dijlinguiping cha-
rafler of the Father only ; and applied to Him alfo
in every other place, where it occurs : ch. IV, 8.
XI, 17. XVI, 5. How fully every thing, that
Pr JVatcrli^nd alleges to the contrary, has been before

obviated i

u^vv

2 2 Objervations on TDr WaterlandV

Obferv. obviated ; may be feen by any one who pleafes to
I' ^ compare his Second Defenfe, p. 242 &c, with the
Repljy p. 506 ^c, and Dr Clarke's ScriptHre-Do*
Hrmey ch. L § 3, Num. 414. Tor o£ Repetition
there is no End.

He makes one okIj Obfervation of moment, in the
^*^'* following words : " ^s to the Context, yon make
*^ no Reply at all ; thotigh it is certainly of very great
^f moment-, for the afcertaining the CcnflruElion, " I
anfwer : Not only the foregoing demonftrative Rea-
fons, but the Context alio fufficiently lliows the
words to be fpoken of the Father. For though the
words foregoing are fpoken of the Son, yet they
conclude a full period with the claufe. Amen, And
'tis the Method of the Apoftle in this chapter, as an
introdtdlion to the following Revelation, to repeat
feveral times the chara^ers of the diftinB Perfons
concerned therein. In the Firfi Ferfe is mentioned
God, that is, the Father, who gave the Revelation ;
and Jeftis Chrijh to whom the Revelation was given i
and the Angel who was fent to iigm^y it unto his Ser-
vant John, In the Second verfe, is mentioned the
word of Godi and the Teftimony of Jefus Chrijf,
In the Fourth and Fifth vQrihsy is a Salutation from
Him Tvhich is and which was and which is to come^
and from the feven Spirits 7vhich are before hi 5 Throne y
and from Jefus Chrift the Faithful Witnefs. In the
Eighth^ Ninths and Tenth verfes, is mentioned again
The Aiajefiy of the Father V\'ho gave the Revelation,
the Tefiimony of the Son, and the Injpiration of the
Spirit. I am Alpha and Omega-, the Beginning and
the Ending, piitk the Lor dy which is andw'hich 7vas

and

Second T>efenfe of his Qy e r i e s.' 2 3

and which is to comet 7loe almighty, I Johny — — Obierv^
for the Word of God, and for the Tefiimony of Jefm IT*
Chrifi. I was in the Spirity &c. yi^

OBSERVAT. II.

Concerning the Supreme Authority and do-
minion of God the Father,

The ^ Supreme Author it j, and original indef en *' ^'A^'-A ce-
dent ahColute Dominion^ of the God and Father of ^ ^;^>'"'«'

.... i'z,ii7ice,, as

Ally who is Above All: That Authority^ which is- diflingui-
fhe Foundation of the Whole Law of Nature; f^edtrom
which is taught and confirmed, in every Page of the ^iv.
New Tefiament ; which is profelTed and declared in
the Firft Article of every Antient Creed, in every
Chriflian Church in the World ; and which is main-
tained, as the Firfl Principle of Religion, by every
Chriflian Writer, not only in the Three Firfl: Centu-
ries, but even in the following Ages of Contention
and Ambition : This Supreme Authority and original
independent ahfolute Dominion, Dr Waterland in his
laft Book, (merely for the more confident falving
of a metaphyseal hypothefls,) has by a new and un-
heard of Fiction, without any Shadow of evidence
from any one Text of Scripture^ in dirc6l Contradi-
d:ion to the Firfl: Article of All the Antient Creeds^
without the Teftimony of any one Antient (I had
almoft faid or Modern) Writer; very prefumptu-
oufly, (and, had He himfelf been an Oppofer of the
hyporhefis he defends, he would have faid, hlafphe^
moujlj) reduced iatirely to Nothing, He

i4 Obfervations on ®r. WaterlanctV

Obferv. He has reduced it to Nothing ,• by maintaining
!!• and contending, that it con/ifts wholly in 71?^^
'^^^'^^"^ 73^*0 Particulars.

Second Be- ^fl' ^^ a Sf4premacy of Authority and Dominion^

fence,p.iOy tiot nattirah but merely oeconomicak founded upon

paffim. ^^^^ voluntary agreement and mtitual Confent,

Which is NO Supremacy of Authority and Domi",

nion at all.

idly. In a Supremacy or Priority of Order^ not

oeconomicaly but natural. Which yet he fully and

clearly explains to be a Priority in NOTHING y a Pri-

ority in mere empty 7iwrdsj and in No rejpe5i any

y^^/ Priority at all.

The ivr/? of thefe Charges I fhall prove, in the

Prefent Obfervation ; the Second, in That which

folloTi's,

Preface to ^^ ^^^ ^^^" alleged^ that He who Never aUs in Subje ^

the Reply, Elion to the Will of Any other Perfin, andEvery other Per-'

^' "• fin what fiever ALWAYS aUs in Suhje^ionto HIS Willi

(which is the Diftinguifliing Perfonal Charader of the

Father;) is Alone the One Supreme Governom of thd

IJniverfe, In reciting This Argument Twice -^ Dr

Waterland does Twice omit the word ALWATS^

in which the Strefs of the Argument lies. And

then he replies; that it ought to have been ihownj

second De. " not only that All other per fom'' [Always] " ACT

/^«^, fi8, a in SubjeClion, (for an Equal may ACT in Subjecii^

'' on to an Equals or even to an Inferiour,) hut that

'• they ARE really SuhjeB : " As if there could

be any Other Proof of Being really SubjeU:^ than

the AEling ALWAYS in Subjetiion. And he alleges,

as an Inftance, that [' Cnr Lord wafloed his Difi

« cipki

^-V'^

Second ^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s.' 25

*« cifUs Feet : '* As if his ^^;>^ yllways in Ohedi- Obferv.'

ence to the Will of his Father y was no more a Token I^*

of his being Really Sf-ibjeti to Him who pnt all

things under him; than his condefcending Once to

wap his Difciples Feet^ was in Token o^ his being

Really Subje^ to Them. Is This, arguing feriou/Ij ?

And yet he repeats it again : ^' Tou proceed (fays he) to ^■^^*

*' obferve^ that the Son Miniflred to the Father ; Ton

*« Might have ohferved farther, that he Waped his

*' Difciples Feet ? *'

" Origen (he tells us) carries the Argument up p.^f.
*^' to a Formal Equality in Greatncfs, '* And by
This he hopes the Reader will be led to imagine?
that Origen (in dired contradidion to every page
of his own Writings) meant to leave no Room for
any real Supremacy of Authority. But 'tis very
well worth the while to obferve, in what words
Origen expreffes this Formal Equality in Greatnefs*
*' The God and Father of the Vniverfe ^ hath Im^
«' parted " (is This exp reding a For?nd Equality ?) he
'' hath Imparted even {HisGreatnefs^ " fays Dr TVater^
land's tranflation. No, but) " OF his Greatnefs^ '* f^ys
Origen, « ' He hath Imparted even of His Greatnefs
'* al/by to the Only -Begotten and Firft-horn of every
** Creature, " But to proceed.

«' The Father ffays Dr Waterland) is — - — • in p.^^
" Ofice fuperiour, by Mutual Concert and Aqree--
<< ment. '* « Supremacy of Offce^ by Mutual p 20.

'' Agreement and voluntary Oeconomj, belongs to the
'« Father. " " He that Sends^ is for That very *.^. .

D reafon

26 Obfervations on T)r WaterlandV

ObHsrv, '^ reafon Greater than Him [Greater than He]^ that

I-*-* «^ is Sent ; greater -^ in ref^e^ of Office ybhntarilv

p. 170. ^' entred into," '' Hippohtus talks of the Fa-

'^ thers Commanding^ the Son Obejing ; " yet ** ne^

'^ ver f^JpeHed any thing of Snbje^ion or * Servility

" in it^ hut onhj a differ ^7U Order or Manner of

" operating^ fo far as concerns the Workj)f Creation i

'^ and a f^oluntary Condefcenjiony or Oeconomy^ as to

p 128. c( Other matters.'* '^ The Son is an Angel and

'' Mejfengery not f by Nature^ but by Office and

'' Volmnary [meaning merely Voluntary'^ Condefcen^

t'^y'}' ^^ fan," '"■ Who ever faid, that it 7vas Abfo^

" Imely or Thy fie ally Impoffiible for the Father to aU:

" as the Son did? All that is faid, is, that he

*^' could not do it Suitably, '* ^' Which is no

'' way inconfiftent with the Son's Equality of

p.ixr, « BOAdlNIONr' '' All the peculiar Ma-

^' j^fij rf ^^^ Father, lay ONLX in This, that he

/ «« WAS NOT** [that is, by mutual Concert and

Agreement, Was not~] " to be Vifible in any way at

<* all; [The Apoftle had Another Notion of this

€oL i, I f. matter, when he ftiled him The Invifible God, whom

ijim.vi, ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^g^ ^^^, CAN kQ{] '^ Becaufe he

« WAS NOT** [that is, again, by mutual Con-
cert and Agreement only. Was notl^ '< to minijier

l>.i4.^. " or to be incarnate. ** "/j meant Only of the

Son*s

* The word, StihjecJion, very properly expreffes t^ iTrr.pt-
riKiv: Mt,Servility, has in the Englifh language quite a different
Signification, and therefore is here very deceitfully added as
Synonymous to it.

f Can any man tell whaty the being '* a Mejfenger hy Na-
*' ture, '* means ?

Second T>efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. 27

^' Sons mimftring to the Father by voluntary Conde- Obferv.

*^ fien/tofty according to the Oeconomy *' [the mere If*

voluntary CompadJ *' entred into from the Crea^

*•' tion ; fo that This is far from proving the Suh^

'^ jeEiion which yon are aiming at,'* *' Mot /.lyi.

<^ SO SVlTuiBLE to the Majejiy of the Firji

«« Perfon ** [though equally pojfihle, it feems ,-]

«' to be incarnate.'* " Nor can you mal^ any p. ^^6.

'^ thing of 'Av^evTicc ** (original underived Supreme

Dominion,) *< or of Audoritas \_^uthoritj ;] than

<« the Pre-eminence of the Father as Father, his Pri»

<' oritj of Order : " Which Priority of Order, Dr

Wateriand conftantiy denies to include Any natural

Superiority or Dominion'^ Power^ or Authority at

aU. Again: " Difference of Order ^ makes no ^. ,si.

'' Difference of Power, " " 71?^ Subjetiion of

<' the Son, does not neceffarily mean any thing more, /'.4Q8.

" than That Fbluntary Oeconomy which God the Son

«« underwent -i and which would not have been PRO^

'• PER " [though very poffible^ he thinks,] " for

*' the Father himfelf to have fubmitted to, bccaufe

" not Suitable to the Order of Per fans, " ^^ Jf

« you ask^y WHY That perfon called the Son,

<* Might not have been Father \ I have nothing to

*^« y^v, but that in fiEi he is not, — As to the

*« Sons aEiing a Minifterial part. That indeed is
<f purely Oeconomical, " [founded merely upon mu-
tual Concert or Agreement;] '' and there was NO
*>< IMPOSSIBILITY in the nature of the thing,
i< but the Father Himfelf wight have done the
« fame : But it was MORE CONGREOVS *'

D 1 Do

/

2 8' Gbfervations on T>r Wiiterland>

VY^^

pbferv. Do not the Readers Ears tingle ? Did ever fuch
}}l^^ ^ Thought as This, enter before into the Heart
of Any mati that had read the New Tellament,
of Any man that had Any Notion of GOD ?
And How would Dr JVaterlmd himfelf, had not
This Hypothesis been entirely of his own invent'
tag, have loaded it v/ith All the Names of BLAS-
PHEMY! For thus the Suprefnacj, the Sufreme
Dominion and Authority of the God and Father of
all^ (the Acknowledgment of which, is the Firfi
and Great Commandment^ both in the Religion of
Nature, and in the Laiv and the Prophets, and in the
Cofpel of Chrifl ,) is at laft Nothing, but what arifes
and is entirely derived from ; nothing but what is
outing to, and entirely Dependent upon^ the mere volun-
tary Confent, Agreement, Councel and Concert of the
Son. And though the Hypothefs Itfelf fluppofing
Tliis mutual Concert and Agreement to be immHta-
hie) is not chargeable, yet Dr Waterland himf elf is
mofl: juxHily chargeable, with making the Supremacy
of God the Father Almighty to be wholly FRE-
C IPdOVS ; becaufe He, in numberlefs places of
his Second Defenp, has been pleafed to contend
with Great Warmth, that the Exiftence of the Son
muft needs be PRECARIOVSy if he was Gene-
rated hy the [immutable] Will and Power of the
Father.

After what has been cited, 'tis no Great Wonder Dr
TVaterland Ihould affirm, that " All things were '* (for
This reason) « INTRVSTED with Chrifl, BE-
«f CAVSE he, fo Great and foDivine a Perfon, was
c« t}^c moji proper to fuftain fi Great a Charge,'" His

■ Mean-

hl7'

Second T^efenfe of his Q^u e r j e s.

29

Meaning (without Anj aggravation) is, that Chrift Obferv.
was Therefore mrjifted^ilh All Power, becaufe he 1 1.
already had it All, before he ivas intrujied with it .• ^^^^^^
Or, that the Father did for This reafon give all things
to Chriji in his Humane nature, hecanfe Chrift him^
felfy in his divine nature, had the fame Power and
Right as the Father himfelf had, to have given
all things /o Himfelf or to his Oj^;^ humane nature.
Again : <' He RFCFirED This Power, " fays tlie ^ g^^
Dodor; '' BECAVSE*' -- he had it '^ hy IN-
^' HERENT Power and Right.'' Again : ^'Touask^ ;'.+i4-
*' (fays he,) Can One Per fin Commit Powers to Am-
*' ther, who^lad already in Timfe If the fame PovJer si
*' TES ; By voluntary Oeconomy, the Exercife ofPow^
^' ers Common to many^ may devolve ufon One
^* chiefly, and may Run in His Name \'' Quid eft, 11
haec Contumelia non eft /*

Nor can it hereafter be wondred, that, upon This
Do6:rine of the Antients, {viz.. that the Son opera^ vTryj^sr^v
ted in the Creation, by the Pf^ill, by the Command, ^S;'^r
by virtue of the Supreme Authority, origin^rd .Power ru ri t^cc-
and Sovereignty of the Father ;) the Dr ihould make ^^^^^0!"
the following extraordinary Remarks. " 71?^ Truth is, ru^- uv^iv,
" if the Antients are to be interpreted rigoroufly, the Fa- ^'^ ^ '•
^' ther is not properly Creator at all, but the So:4 only ,* />• 335'-
" For He/i rf/^rf/^^re-^^^j Doing ^W Executing, the

'' Father as ijfuing out Orders only. -Againy

^« the Father is reprefented as ftanding in need of the
'' Affifiance of the Son and Holy Ghofi : How will
<^ This fuit with That SuprcmQ Dignity, That Alone
?* Sclf-fufficiencjy which yon are contending for \

30 Objervations on ©r WaterlandV

Obferv. " If there is Any thing to he fufpeBed of * Cyril, it
II. « is rather his excluding the Father/ro;» being Crea-

. '' ^_ *' tor, than the Son from being efficient.

/).337. «f ^// ^^^«, / hope the Son 9//^/ efficient, and^ by
** 7£?/^r reprefentatioH'i more properly fo ^/7^« ^^^
*' Father W:7o o;?/y ^«;?t'5 out Commands, '-'^-— ^
i>- 397- " difference in Order or Manner y makes no difference
^' in the thing itfelf: Ory if there be any, the Son
** is more properly Creator than the Father ; accord-
*' ing to the Jirictnefs of the expreffion in f Origen.

* 4.08. ^' ^ '^^^^ ^^ meriting as highly of as^ as is fojji-

** hie : More, one would imagine , than merely giving
*' f?//^ Commands ^ Ti^hich is an Honour you referve
*' peculiar to the Father. " Once more ; It having
been alleged, that the Son's a5iing Miniflerially in the
Creation^ was no AU of Dori^inion ; the Dr replied,
/.408. that '' the fame Argument wotdd hold ivith refpeEl
'' to theVdXhtv alfo; His creating the World, being
'' no more an Ad of Dominion, than the Son*s cre^
'' ating it, " To which it being anlwered, that
the world was made /or the Pleafure> and by the origin
nal ahfolute Authority and Power-, and by the Command
(as the Antients frequently exprefs it j of the Father \
/.405. the Keply he now makes, is: '^ Tou will never be

able

c)f)i/jiov^yYH/jU'Tr>yj, f/jy.Ti o 'vto(i T liar' ccXXov cVii/jiov^y^d-iVTUV /3(*-

eriAjc'jf, kxxoc r lW ooutoZ, Catech- 1 1, p. 160. Ed.Bened.
f Where he (lilcsthe Father ^tpa'tzi;? ^'j^w.iswy^f, and the So!\

Second T>efenfe of his Qy e r i e s.' 31

<' able to prove y that the Son is not as Complete- Obferv.^
'« ly and Fully Great or ^ as the Father. '* ^^* .

Nor, lafilp can any one, after This, juflly won-
der that the Dr fhould ftyle the '' Supremacy " of ^. 17.
the Father, (that is, indeed, the Firfi Article of the
Creed, on which all the reft depend,) an " INCI^
«' DENTAL Point only : " Or that he fhould call
'^ Supremacy'* fwhich I believe no man tvtr mif- ^.332.
<« undercook before Himfelf,) an ^' AMBI-
«' GVOVS Term : " Or that he Ihould not be
able to underftand What we " mean^ by Supreme fAi%,
*' and Independent; '* or Why a '' delegated Power
** cannot be Equally Supreme and Independent **
with that which is Original and Vnderived: Or
that he fhould look upon '' Authority and Digni-
* ty, " as words liable to " Equivocations and p- 35"^'
" Quibbles,'* and as " Clouds** in comparifon of p^^i^-
Meraphyfical Speculations.

OBSEPvVAT. III.

Concerning what Dr Waterland calls a
Subordination of Order,

Dr Waterland having thus reduced abfblutely to
Nothings the Supreme Authority and Dominion of
God the Father Almighty; and being fenfible, that
This could not but appear very fhocking to every
Chriftian Reader; heindeavours to blind the Eyes

of

5 2 Obfervations on 2)r. WaterlandV

Obferv. of the ignorant, by fetting up (inflead of it) what
^^^* he calls a Supremacy of Order, or a Subordination of
/).45-, Order, which (he tells us^ is " Natural " and not
9^» " Oeconomical.'" This " Supremacy of Order'' he
A ' ip^ ' expreflly oppofes to Supremacy of Dominion : And tells
4jS. us, that " Difference of Order makes no Difference
h4.2f, 8c *' ''Z Power : " That " ^// ^/;^? remains peculiar to
paffim. cc fij^ Father, is a Pre-eminence or Priority of Or-
p. 96. ^' ^^y*j " aii "- Eminence of Order , " an '' inequality
P'S'\- c< o£ Order,'' ^ natural Order of Priority y " a ^''«^-
/>. 3>-8. '^ ^//r^/ Priority of Order, " an " Authority of Or-
'■^ ^^r : " And That T/?/.;, (together with the fore-
mentioned oeconomical Supremacy of Office, founded
merely upon mutual voluntary Concert and Agree-
P-V' menty) is '' Sufficient to account for AlU upon" His
<f Principles : The Son's condefcendingPart, " to mi-
nifter to, and obey, and be fcnt by the Father, " beji
p. 10. ff Suiting with the natural Order of Perfons^ which
" had been inverted by a contrary 0 economy : " And
p,i-jj, " had it been otherwife, it would have been Invert-
*' ing the Order of the Perfons ; which (he thinks)
^'^ is reafon fufficient againji it* '*

Now (I fw) This natural Priority or Supremacy
of mere Order, as oppofed thus to all natural Su-
premacy of Authority and Dominion ; is a Priority
in NOTPIING, a Priority in mere empty TVords^
and in No refpcB any real Priority at all. His oii^n
Explication of this matter, is as remarkable an In-
ftance, as can eafily be met with, of the ftrange
Effea of the Habit of ufing TFords without any
^ manner of Signification. '<■ Now (fays he) the Se-
'« cret is out : A Co-ordination /; not a Co-ordi-

« nation.

Second T^efenfe of his Q^ue Kits. 3 3

«" nation, and a Subordination is not a Subordinati- Obferv.
^' on, // it he ONLTof ORDER ; though I was fi I^I-
'' Weak as to thinks that the words Co-ordination
<^ and Subordination firicily and properly re/pe^ed
*« Order, and exprejfed an Equality or Inequality of
«« Order. — - It is ridiculous to ajferty that a Diffe- p^ i^q^
'* rence of Order does not make a Subordination, or
*' an Equality of Order a Co-ordination. '* Thefe
words (I fay) have no Poffible Signification at all.
For whofoever pleafes to confider within his own
mind, and is not content to take mere empty Words
for Things ; will find, that Order is necejfarily a RE-
LATIVE Term, ' and has No Signification any other-
wife than as it has Reference to Somewhat -^ in refpeB
of which the Order confifts. For inftance : There
is an Order oi Time^ an Order of Place or Situation^
an Order of Dignity ^ Authority-^ Dominion, or the
like ; with regard to which, one thing may be high^
er or lower^ fuperior or infcriour^ prior or poflerio''^
to another. But Order of Nothings is Nothing ;
An Order which has relation to Nothings is No-
thing ; An Order of mere Collocation of words, is an
Order of Nothing but empty Words. An Order of
Order^ are words that have No Signification at all,
Confequently, a different Order of Order ^ a Superi^
our or Inferiour Order of Order^ a *« Co-ordination
*« or Subordination of Or^fr, ** an " Equality or /»-
^' equality of Order; " is perfed Nonfenfe. A G?-
ordination or Subordination of mere Order, (without
rdmonto Time, Place y Power ^ Dominion^ Authority y
or the like :) is exactly the y^??^c manner of fpeak-
ing and thinking, as if a man fhould fay, a Co-equa-
lity or Inequality of Equality, Dr Waterland there-

E fore

54 Obfervations on ®r Waterland'^

Obferv. fore was really much Weaker than he imagineA
III. when he v/antonly declared, he '^ wat SO WEAK
j). 96. ^^ ^-^ ^^ r/?/;?;^, that the words Co-ordination md Sub-
" ordimtionjiri51-ly arid properly rejpe5ied Order, and
^' exprejfed an Equality or Inequality of Order. **
Are not things come to a fine pafs, if the Prime
Foundation of Religion, the Firfi and Great Com-
mandment, is to be ludicroufly placed on fuch a
QuickCs and as This ?

In Some Places indeed the Dr would feem to in-
finuate, very inconfiftently, that by Supremacy and
Subordination^ he meant Supremacy and Subordinati"
on^ not merely in point of Order, but in point of
being unoriginated or originated. As when he fays,
/>. 10, it ^*^ confifts in this, that the Father has his TerfeUi-
^ ' ^^ ons and Dominion from None, but the Son from
'^ the Father, " That the Father has his Authority
p.-j^, and Dominion " Primarily y'' the Son '^ Deri^
^' vatively, " And that, by a natural (a natural md
JVeceJJary, not oeconomical) Priority of Order,
|>. T77. « tfje Son is referred up to the Father as his Head,
•^ and not the Father to the Son. " But All This,
I fay, (if there be Any Conjiflency in the Dr*s
Hypothefis>) is mere empty words; and he really
means no fuch thing- For in the very fame Para-
graph with the words laft cited, he tells us ,• '' If
'' you ask^ Why that Perfon called the Son, MIGHT
*' NOT have been Father ; / have nothing to fay,
'' but that IN FACT he is not* So it is written*
*^ and fo we believe. The Father is Father ; and
« the Son is Son, '* By the Dr's Hypothefis there-
fore, there was No Impofjibility m the nature of
7'hings, but Vnoriginats might have been Originates

and

177.

Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r'i e s. 35

and originate Vnorigimte ', Vnderived might have Obferv.

httn Derived, znd Derived Vnderived; the Father HI,

might have been Begotten, and the Son Vnbegotten^ \^^^^^

And accordingly:, in the Explication of his Scheme,

he plainly fhows a Dijlike of the Notion, not only

of Temporary, hut zVCo of Eternal Generation : '^ For f-n^'

'^ which (he fays) the Scripture is not clear and full: '*

And '' the Catholicks themfelves were for fome time t'Z^7-

^^ pretty much divided about " it; But " after TirjlDef,

« Arius arofe^ they found it highly necejfary to infifl p- ^^0,161.

" much on it: " Otherwife '^ an explicit Profejji-

*^ on of Eternal Generation:^ might have been difpen-

''fed with ; " And ^' if any oncy dijliklng the Name

*' or the Phrafe of Eternal Generation^ thinl^s it bet-

<' ter to affert an Eternal Word inftead of an Eter-

<« nal SON, {meaning thereby a difiinEl Perfon, and

'' confubflantial imh God whofe Word he is,) and

« refers The Generation to hisFirfl and Second Ma-

<' nifefiation at the Creation and Fncar nation ; there

'« feems to be no farther Harm in it, than what lies

" in the words and their liablenefs to be mifconftru-

'< ed:'" And '' had it not been for fame perfons co- s.rorJr^-r

«' ming to read the Fathers with the Notion <?/ Eter- p-S"^^-

*' nal Generation in their Heads ^ they CGuld never

<f havejniflal^n fo plain a matter as This is, " that

<< the Miff on of the Son " to make and govern the

Creatures, " /x, with Thofe Writers, " (that is, with

almoft AUthe Antient Fathers.) '« his Generation,''

Indead of Eternal Generation therefore, the Dr, if he

was at liberty, had much rather fay, "• Eternal ^ Ex- p-T^^*

E z " « iftence ''^'"'''

* And for thisreafon, I fuppofe, it is, that inftead of the Nt-
cme words, Begotten of the Father, and ''FROM the Subjlanceof

*' th9

a<5 Obfervations on 2?r Water land'j

Cbferv. '' ifience of a real and living Word, a Word of

III. <f God, eternally Related to the Father : '* That is.

Having ^S'^r/? a Relation, as there would be between

T7V0 Vnbegotten, Two Vnoriginated Perfons, co-exift-

ing in the fame Subftance : Such a Relation^ as, (though

t- ^ 4- Dj- Waterland is pleafed to call it in iDords, " a relation

J;^-/? Df/. ^ J ^^ ^^^ Father as his Head ; ' ' and a '' jnhfifting In and
" O///;^ Father ; *' and is pleafed toy^j, for Forms fake,
that ic " COMES TO the SAME thing " with
eternal Generation ; yet, /« trfith,) implying no real
Derivation either of Beings Power ^ Author itp or
any other PerjeElion ; it makes the Father to be in-
deed, in Any real kn% neither Head nor Fountain
nor Father, For ^/, in cafe the Sun and its 5^^^^
had Alwajs exifted together, co-eval, immoveable,
and immutable 5* and there had Never been at all any
real motion of Emijjion of the one from the other ; it
would then have been in no fenfe any more true, that
the Beams proceeded from the Sun^ than the Sun from
the Beams ; it would have been in no Senfe true, that
the Sun vv'as even fo much as in Order of nature prior
10 the Bcamsy any more than the Beams to the Sun ;
it would have been in no Senfe true, that the exift-
ence of the Beams neceffarily prefuppofed the exift-
ence of the Sun, any more than the exiftence of the
Sun necefFariiy prefuppofed the exiftence of the Beams :
And aSi in cafe the Root and Branches of a Tree, had
Alwajs exifted together, co-eval, immoveable, ahd
immutable ; and there had Never been at all any real

Growth

'• t^^e Father i" the Dr, by a new and unheard-of ExprcHion,
affirms the Son to be *' THE Suhjlf^^me of the F^ither," Fkft

Second T>efenfe of his Qv e r i e s. 37

Growth of the one out of the other ; it would then Obferv.
have been in no Senfe any more true, that the Branches HI.
proceeded from the Root, than the Root from the **^*V***«
Branches : So, if (according to Dr TVaterland's way
of thinking) there had been only an eternal necejfary
Exiftence of the Father and the Son together, with-
out any Real Generation or Derivation of Bein^, ei-
ther in time or in eternity, of the Son from the Fa-
ther I it would then have been in no fenfe any more
true, that the Son was Begotten of The Father, and
derived his Powers and Perfedions from him, than
that the Father was Begotten of the Son, and derived
his Powers and Perfections from Him ; or that the
Father was in Am Senfe the Head or Fountain or
Father of the Sony any rnore than the Son was the
Head or Fountain or Father of the Father i But the
Tivoferfons would have been in AIL fenfe s^ and in All re-
fpe5is, (excepting Empty Names^) equally ' awS-sc/, that
is to fay. Two Supreme Gods, For ^'Two unoriginate Second Def^
«^ divine Per fins" (Di: TVater land himCclf confeffes,) ^ ^^'^*
'^ however otherwife infeparable^ would be Two Gods,
*<■ according to the Antients ;" becaufe, in That
cafe, one would not be " Of the Other, '* really Ge-
nerated from him, " and referred up to him as a
*' Head or Fountain," The foilowing words there-
fore of the Learned Bp Bull-, are ipoken to the
Readers of Dr Waterland : * ^' Tlj^y who £ontend

" that

* Qui filium proprie dici 'pofle 'AyrpS-soi/, hoc ell, afeipfo

Deum, pertinacifludiocontcndunt: Hoec fententia Carha-

lico confenfui repagnat. Def SeB. 4, caf. i. § 7.

Ipfa Synodus Nicdna decrevir, Filium effe D(um de Deo,
Qui VC16 Bms de Deo eft, dici Kon potefi a Seipf Dnis fm

rxiani-

3fS Objervations on T)r Watcrland'j

Obferv. ** that the Son can froperly be ftiledy of Himfelf
III. *< God, [or God Underived ,] their Opinion is con-

>^^s^ cc fjrarj to the Catholic!^ DoBrine. '* And again :
*^ The Council of Nice itfelf decreed^ that the Son
*^ was only God of [or from] God. Noiv he that
*^ is only God of [or from] God, cannot without
♦' a manifefl contradiElion be Jaid to be Of Himfelf

^ God, [or God Underived.] / earnefilj exhort

*' all pious and ftudious young men^ to take heed of
*' fuch a Spirit, from whence fuch things as thefi
'[ do proceed. *'

OBSERVAT. IV.

Concerning the Opinion of the Antients^
about the Sons Appearing under the
Old Teftamenty and the ImpoJJibility
and Impiety of fuppofing the Father
ever to have Appeared at all.

It was an Opinion which prevailed ^ univerfal-
ly among the Antient Chriftian Writers, fand Dr
Waterland acknowledges it to have univerfally pre-
vailed,) that in all the Appearances to the Patriarchs

. under

manifefla contradiiStione. Piam ac fludioram juventutem

ierio hortor, ut a fpiritu fibi caveat, ex quo talia pro/eda fu-
rinr. I hid. § 8.

* Primxvorum Patrum pene. Omnimn Sec, BiiUi Defenf

^^^ry-W

Second "Defenfe of his Qtr e r i e s. 3 $>

under the Old Teftament, it w^s the Son that -^- Obfenr*,
v;ays appeared, and Never the Father, The IV,
Reafons for This opinion, are; that the Per-
fon appearing, is ftiled not only God and Lordy
but fometimes alfo the Angel of the Lord : That the
Son is the (i) Mejfenger and (i) Minifier of the
Father, adlingbyhis ^i) Authority^ fpeaking in his
("4^ Name^ and (5) reprefenting his ?erfon : But that
the Father himfelf never Appeared, never was Sent,
becaufe 'twas (6) Imfojjible he fliould : And that
'twas (7) Ahfnrdy (%) Senfelefs^ and fp) Impous^ to
imagine any fuch thing ,• as being inconfiftent with
the (\o) Supreme Majefty and Authority of the

Cod

( I ) '' Ay y g A©- ^ xv^ia. VaJJirn .

(2) 'Tsj-ypyo?, 'r^5jp/r)i$, 'T7r7}fierZf, V^.fjim,

(3)Patri fuamomnem Aucioritatem acceptam refert. Bull.

A Patre accepifTe Votefiatem ad judicandum Sodomitas.

Cajus Aucioritcite 6c Nomine ipfe erat Deus. ■■ViluS clt
iemper ex Aucloritate Patris. Tertull.

{^)ln Nomine Dei, varie vifum Patriarchis. Tertull.

(6) Ua^ U9 owr©- 6(p^in rivi; 8cc. Jufiin,
Ut raerito nee defcendat, nee afcendat; quoniamipfe om-
nia 8c continet 8c implet. Novat,

■Mil oiovTi T kyivr/^ov S-vjjrtJ (poivaj ^soi^iX^ (P'jcti. 'Eufe? ^
"Whom no man Hath {ttn, nor can fee. i Tim. vi, r6.

(7) AbfurdiJJime , mifius diceretur, Auguflin.

(8) '0« r TToiyirtjv rav *Xav (c" TTcilipci — ■' "»7^'z<p^v^cif, Tnli
cfjcrSc Kctv fjuupov vSv s;i4JV 7oXf/jyi(rii h^rsTv. 'jufiin.

(9) 'A(rs/2s<;. Concil. Antioch. Vei cogitatu nefas: Bull^
M>) 9^j^<5' o»x ivxyiq. 'Eufe^,

(10) Propter Au^oritatem folus Pater non dicitur mifTus^,
AHguJiin,

40 Obfervdtions on ^r. WaterlandV

pbferv. 'God and Father of all, and what would imply his
IV. (ii) SuhjeElion to fome Superiour Perfon. The

^^ flrong Manner) in which the Antient Writers ex-
prefs thefe Reafins, Ihows very fully and clearly,
that they looked upon it as a Fundamental Principle of
Religion, that there was in the Father a Natural and
JSfecejfarj Supremacy of Authority and Dominion,
Which is diredly contradidory to Dr Waterland's
Notion : Who contends, that there is in the Father
No Natural and Necejfary Supremacy of Authority
and Dominion ; but only Such a Supremacy of Au^
thority and Dominion, as ari fes from mere voluntary
Concert and Agreement ; and Such a Natural Frio-
rity of mere Order, as implies no Difference at all of
Fower and Authority. So that (according to the

Second Bef, jy^^ there was «^ No Impoffibility in the Nature of

*' ' ' ^^ the thing, but the Father himfelf might have done
^' the Same'' things as the Son ; might have '^ aBed
'' a Minifierial Fart, '* might have been fent^ and
f, 142. the like : Only he " Was not " [that is, by mu-
tual Confent and Agreement he was not~\ to mi*
^^ nijier, or to be * Incarnate : " Whereas, with

regard

Summa Majeflate i^^ms in^igxmm. Bull.
Invifibilem, pro PlenituMne Majejiatts. TertulL
(ii) Ne Subditus alteri probaretur. llovat, Ne alterifub^
ditus fir. Id, i

Nulli Suhjeaus. Bull.

See All thcfe Paffaf^es cited at lengthy in the Refly to

BrWaterUnd's Defenfe, p. (), 18,5-9,64, 78, iz8, 132,

136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145-, 148, 149, 15-1, 15-7.

* It feems from Thefe words, that DvWliterUnd does not

fuppofe the Incarnation oi Chrifi to be at all Real, but merely

a Phantafm, pr ajfumpas Secies : This being, confejfedly,

the

Second T^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 41

tegard to any reality of Naturd and D^ejfary An- Obferv.
thoritp the Son had altogether as much Authority IV.
to have Sent the Father to take our Naiare upon him, *^'^^^*'****
as the Father had to fend his Son»

The only way therefore the Dr has here left, is to
/>^yy§^ in contending, that the Antients, by allthofe
forementioned Strong exprefifions, meant nothing more
than that it was '" PROPER for the Son to fuhmit p.f^.,
" to the Infer io^r Office '* of being Sent, " RA- ^^ '
«' THER than the Father:*' And That '« it was p.ifiy
*' not SO SVITABLE to the Majefly of the Firfi 497-
*' Perfon^ to fuhmit to take upon him any vifible Sym~
" bolsy or to be Incarnate : " becaufe of the Great*
nefs of his " Office Fblnntarily entredinto ; '* and be- p, ^.j
caufe This would have been an *^ Inverting the Or- p 128,
" der of the Per Cons. '* For, " JVho ever faid, that ^ 34'49S.
<« it was abfolutely or -phyfically Impoffible^ for the Fa-
*' ther to aSl as the Son did I ALL that is faid, is^
^«^ that he coM not do it SVITABLTy as not being
** conjifient with That Priority of Order^ 7vhich as
^' Father he is pofejfed of; -~- — That Supremacy of

<« Order, which is no way inconftfient ivith the

*' Sons Equality of '^DG7mniony'* even'' Eciua- lyj

*' litj of Supreme independent Authority, "

Now here I appeal to the Common P^eafon of all
Mankind, whether Any Serious Perfon that ever
read the Scripture, or that has Any Notion of
God, can believe ,• (or whether any One, that ever

F read

the only-way, in which there is any Natural ToJJibility for the
Father to he Incarnate, And accordingly in his explication of
That Text, Phil, ii, 7, he tells usjthat Chrift einptied himfelf
[iKivuiTiy k»75y]l " In Appearance.'* Firfl Defenfe, p'lf .

42 Obfer'vations on *Z)r Watcrland'j

Obferv. read a Page of the Antient Chriftiaii Writers;, can
IV. perfwade himfelf that They believed ,) that, what

^■^^V^ J^v Water Und reprefents under This Head, is at all
the Tmth of the Cafe. Had the Dodor's Notion
been True; it might indeed very well have been
looked upon as an ERROVR or Aliftake, for any
man to have fappofed that the Son might as Well,
and as Suitably -, and as Decently have fent the Father
to be Incarnate, as the Father could fend the Son.
But can any man believe, that fo^ many Writers
fhould have ftiled it fo emphatically Ahfiirdy Senfe-
lefs^ ImpioHs^ and Profane, to fuppofe the Fa-
ther might poffibly have aEled the Minifterial Part ;
if That Suppofition had, in Tl^^/V opinion, implyed
nothing more, than an " Inverting the Order '* or
tranfpoling the Names of Two Perfins, who differed
naturally and nccejfarily in nothing but in fuch a mere
<« Priority of Order, " as included ^' no Difference
" of Powers, " no Superiority at all of Authority and
Dominion, but what arofe merely from " mutual vo-
'' luntary Concert and Agreement ? '* Where is the
Blafphemy and IMPIETT, of fuppofing that the Se-
cond perfon might have Sent the Firfl ; if the Only
Confequence ofThatSuppoJition had been, that Then the
Firfl perfon would have been Sent by the Second?
Where is the IMPIETTmd Profanenefs, of fuppofing
that the Father might have Aiiniflred in all things
to the Son'^ if thereby had been meant nothing
more, than that of Twq perfons equally fupreme in
natural independent Dominion, equally Supreme in
abfolute Authority and Power-, the One might as well
/by mmml Voluntary Concert and Agreement) have

Aiiniflred

Second TDefenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 43 1

Miniflred in all things to the Other ^ as the Other did Obferv.
to Him ? and thatj by ^' Fbluntary Oeconomjy the Ex- IV.
" ercife of Powers common to Both, might devolve ^\^
*« upo» One chiejlj '* [as well as upon the Other,^
'^ and run in His ncime ?

Can Any reafonable man believe, that, when ^
Theofhilm faid ; '^ The Word of God, reprefenting
[ajfumingy or taking upon him^ " the Per fin of the
'< Father and Lord of All things -i came into Paradife
*' in the Per fin of GOD, and converfed with Adam i
<c _ — tljg Father of the Vniverfe SENDING him^
\* when *tis his WILL fi to do^ unto anj particular

F 2 " Place : [*

*The PafTage at length, ftands Thus. 'EoiZ; yv yjor av (p^^

Toy ^iOV Oil TtZa^ yjVi Oiiv ^pii^^^ <£' TTU^ vZv Asygf^ Ol.'JT0V iV TW^J^flS-

fiJTOC, Ifl <£" iV ToTTO) ^^ iV£^(rKi^ • -S 3 Xoy<^ U'JtSj i'l 8 TBS \

TTUVTU. TTSTroiYiici,- 'kyx.Xo(.^j(l&ivm TO 'ZSt^n^'Trov rS TTxr^i; (^

icvpji^ Tuv oXaVy avr(^ jrotpjytvrio £;'«; Tcii; •S^^c^^na'cv iv 7r^o(m7:u> t^

7r£(P'JK(i)i , OTniT UV /SaAs^ OTTOCTlip TCOV oXsJV, TT^j/jTSril UVTOV Si'<i Tlyoi

reVev, o5 'Si^U'/ivoiJ!iSv(^ y^ UKiHTcci x.cil o^roj^ 7r£^7zvf/jiv(B-' 6sr'
uvTouy Ko) ^v ToTTco ivoirrzsTxi. Ad Autolyc. p. 129, 130. "Tou
*< will reply, (fays he to Autolycus,) *' fince I have affirmed thp.t
** God cannot be comprehended in any particular Place, hovo then
** do I noiv ajfert thzt he walked in Paradife? I anfn>er : The
•' Cod and Father of ail things is immenfe, and not found m

" any particular Place:— -But his WORD, By whom he

" made all Things, he {I fay) reprefenring the Perfono/

" the Father and Lord of all Things, came into Paradife in the
« Perfono/God, and converfed rotth Adam." And preiently al-
ter, he adds, {upon John ij i: 55) " '^^<^ ^'^^'"^ therefore be-
" ing God, and the Son of God i the Father of tk' Univerfe SENDS
** him, -when 'tis his Will/o to do, unto any particular Place i
«* where -when he comes, he is both heard and feen, being fent by
I' the Father 5 and he is fomdin if^at Plaa, "

44 Obfer'vations on T>r WatcrlandV

Obferv. '^ Place : " he meant by thefe words to afSrm,
IV. that the Perfon fo fmty and fo reprefenting the Per-

^^^ fon of the Father^ was himfelf '" the God and Fa~
'' ther of all things, as ivell as That other Perfon **
which SENT him? Yet Dr Waterland will have
TheophiUs fo to mean ; if I underfland Dr Water-
f^n^- land's words. '« /^f;^ Theophilus ^^^4f (%she)
<' of the Logos' s ajfuming the Perfon of God^ he
*' means This, and Only This, that he a^ed in the
^' Charatker and Capacity of the Eternal God ; which
^^ he might very well do, being Himfelf Very God, as
*' JVC II as That Other perfon, his Father, called God
«' and Father of the Vniverfe : And it was under
*^ This very charaBer HE appeared to Adam as his
« Creator, that is, as GOD AND FATHER of

'' all things.

Can any reafonable man believe, that the Council
of Antiochy when they ^ faid '' It is Impious to
^^ fuppofe The God of the Vniverfe fhould be fly led a
^' Aieffenger ; " imagined that the Son, whom they
are There declaring to be the Angel or Mejfe-nger of
the Father, was, by a natural and neceffary Equa-'
lity of Supreme independent Authority and Dominion
over All, as Truly and in as High a Senfe, The God
of the Vniverfe ; as He whofe Aieffenger he was, and
concerning whom they declare it to be Impious to
fuppofe that The God of the Vniverfe Ihould be at
all llyled a Aieffenger I Is it pofTible, if they had ap-
prehended 71?^ Father and Son to be Both of them

equalhs

* Tov pi ^ ^icv tZv 'oXm^ k<ri^t^ ayyiAov voi/ji(rui ks6M7<^'-

Second T>efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s, 45

equallyy by neceffary and independent Supnmacy of Obferv,
iominion, The God of the Vniverfe ; that, when IV.
they were to declare the Impiety of fuppofing -
the Father could be ft y led a Meffenger^ as the Son
was y they fhould not mention him by the diftingui-
floing title of Father ^ but, ufing only a title Common
to Bothy declare it Impiom to liippofe The God of
the Vniverfe Could be ftyled a Mejfengery in the very
Same Breath wherein they were affirming that The
Cod of the Vniverfe WAS in Scripture (iykdaMef-
fenger f Did ever Any Writer, fmce the World be-
gan, exprefs himfelf fo Ahfurdiy^ as Dr Waterland is
forced to (uppofe The Council here expreffed them-
felves? The Truth therefore manifeftly is; that,
not barely upon account of the Charader of Pa-
ternity, but upon account of his Ahfolme Supremacy
of Dominion over Ally the Council thought it Impi-
ous to fuppofe the Father could be ftyled a Mef-
fenger.

To This, Dr Waterland xt^YiQS ; t\\2X Supremacy f-ijf.
^nd Paternity are the very fame thing: And that, '37^^<^3'
to lay '^ The primitive Writers never lay the Strefs
*^ of This Argument upon the Relation of Paternity,
«< but upon the Supremacy, is to fay. They do not
^* lay it upon the Paternity, hut upon the Paternity :
«« For, laying it upon the Supremacy of Order,
*' 'which he is poffeffed of as Father, and no other'
*' wifey " [which Supremacy of Order, the Dr
adds, '' is no way inconjtflent with the Sons Equality
^' of Dominion i'*^ '< is laying it upon the Pater-
^'« nity, '[ Now I pray, Oblerve., Thefe words,

r<3 3^(35

46 Objer vat ions on T)r Waterland'j

Obferv. [o 3-205 rm oXuij The God ^ of the Vniverfet (which
•^ V . are the foundation of the prefent Queftion,) are ne-
ceiTarily, in the nature of language, exprelHve of
Stipremacy of Dominion, If therefore This Sufre-
macjy (which is the Supremacy here Ipoken of by
the Council of ^ntioch,) be the fame with Pater-
nity ; then the Son (according to Dr Waterland's
Scheme, being naturally and neceffarily as Supreme in
Dominion as the Father^) will have the Charader
of Paternity as much and as truly belonging to him,
as the Father himfelf has. But if the Dr means (as
I think he does,) not that This Supremacy^ here
Ipoken of j but that Another Supremacy of his own
invention, v/hich indeed is no Supremacy at all, is
the fame with Paternity \ then his Reply is intirely
befides the purpofe.

To conclude This Obfervation. Did Tertullia^y
(who, when he wrote the Book I am now going to
cite, approached much nearer tOy though ftill very far
difiant from Dr TVaterland's Notions, than Any o-
ther Ante-Nicene Writer*, Did Tertullian^ I fay,)
believe that the Father had no other Supremacy of

Dominion^

*The Phrafe ufcd by the Council of Antioch, is, r S-gai/ -j^^y
eA*j', " The Cod of the Uniferje. '' The words of Jujim,
fpeaking upon the fam^^Subjed: of the Impofilbility of the
Father's Appearing, aiflp Tov ttcctc^u, <^ 'cc^r^isv kv^iov rav yrnvruv
«arAai«5, ;^ ccutoIj tcu ;^fi4-oy, " The Father and ineffable Lord of all
" things abfolutely, eren of Chrifi himfelf. " The words of
Eufeoius, fpeaking of the fame thing, arej Tov iTnycsivoi ^ilv.,
Tcv Gco^cci^v Kui U'/iwiiToi, %VA ';Tcc^'<iCiu-iXiccT oXuv, " The God Su-
** freme, rcho is In-uifible and Unb(;gotten, and the Abfolute
*' King of the Unnerfe^ " See the Reply to Dr IV' s Defenfe^
p. 132, IJ-7.

Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 47

Dom'miony than what arofe from mere " voluntary Obferv*

'^ Concert and Agreement ;"' and that '< x\\^ Son i aB:-

« ing aMinifleriaiPart, was purely Oeconomkal ; and

*' there was no Impojjlbility in the Nature of the things

^^ hut the Father himfelf might have done the fame : '*

Did Tertullian (I fay) believe This, when he tells usj

if even the Scripture itfelf had afSrmed it, it could

not have been believed ? His Words are : [Scilicet

hxc nee de Filio Dei credenda fiiilTe, fi fcripta non

eifent ; fortafTe non credenda de Patrc, licet fcripta.

Adv, Prax, c, i5,] « Thefe things,'' (fpeaking

of the Son's Appearing under the Old Teftament as

the Meffenger of the Father,) « could not have

" been believed concerning the Son of God, if they

^' had not been written ; Concerning the Father per-

'^ haps they could not have been believed^ even though

\' they had been -written, '*

OBSER,

4S Ohfer vat ions on ®r. Waterland>

Obfen-.
V.

OBSERVAT. V.

Concernmg the tjvordy God ; that it is a
Term exprefjing "Dominion.

GOD being the 4- Supreme Lord and Govermuf
of the Vniverfe ; and therefore it being evident, that
He who Alone has, in and of himfelf, ahfolute Su-
preme independent Tower md Dominion over AlU mufl
be Alone (in the abfolute Supreme Senfe) the One
God over all : There from hence appears, in Dr Wk*
terland's Notion, This obvious Ahfurditj ; that, there
being (^according to Him) Two real Perfons of equally
Supreme^ abfolute^ natural, independent Authority and
Dominion over All; there muft * confeqiiently be of
neceffity Two Supreme Gods, Nor does it make
Any Alteration at all in This cafe, that he fuppoles

them

4- The Great King, Matt, v, 55-.

Usc^fHicioriXi-jq T oXm. £«/e^. Ut fupra.

Dqus eft nomen Summ& Poteftatis. Luciant. de falfd relig,
lib. I.

* Si enim natus non fuiOeti ilinatus, cotnparatus cum eo
qui cflec innatus, Aquatione m utroqj oftensa duos faceret in-

natos, &: id CO duos faceret D20S. Si invifibilis fuilletj

cum invifibili collatus, pa,r exprcfTus, duos Invifibiles often-
diflet, 8c idfO dnos comprobaflet 8c Deos. Si incomprehen-
fibilis, (iSccseteraqusecunqj funtPatris: merito, dicimus, dtn
orum Deorum^ "n.!. controveriiam fufcitaflet. Novat, De
Trin, cap. 31.

Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 49

them to be t undivided and infeparable in Sfibflance, Oblerv.
For Two Sufreme Godsy are flill neverthelefs Two Sh- V .
preme Godsy Two independent -Abfolute Monarchs or
Lords over the Vniverfe, Two Supreme Gods in Per- ■? * ^i*/*
fin; how much foever they be fuppofed to be of One
Sdhfiance.

In order to evade This Confequence ; Dr Water-
land alleges, that " the word God, was never t'^^'
<' looked upon as a word of Office, or Dominion, hut
*' <?/ Nature ^W Subftance : '* that '* the Name, p.i66.
*' God, was never thought by the Antients, to denote
«' an Office or Any Relative^ CharaEler-, " [as the
word, Kingy denotes Dominion over Subjeds ;]
«' but to denote Nature and Subffance ; as the word,
^' Man, '* [without regard to the confideration of
Authority and Dominion, denotes a Nature or Spe-
cies,'^ For, '' no good reafon (X^ysh^) canbe given-. Sermons
*' why the word, God, may not be ufed in a large ^' ^'
*' indefinite Senfe, '* [with " a Confufe general
<f Perception^'' p. 142,] «^ not denoting Any part i-
'^ cular Perfon ; jufi as the word-, Man, is often ufed
*' in Scripture^ not denoting Any particular Man,
*' but Man in general^ or Man indefinitely, '* And

G accord-

" f Two Unor'ig'imte Divine Terfons, (the Dr confefies,) ^cn?- f^^oj',
** ever otherroife infeparable" [that is, however fuppofed to
be of One Subftance,] " would be Two Cods, according to the
" Ant'tents;" becaufe, in That cafe. One would not be " Op
" the Other, " really Generated from him, " nnd referred up
*' to him as n Head or 'fountain,*' And, that Dr Waterland does
not reMy (but merely in empty words) fuppofe the Son to be
at all Generated from the Father, and referred up to him as cf,
Head or Fountain j I have fhown above, Obfervat. III. af^d
ielow, Obfervat. Vl.

50 Ohfervations on T>r WaterlandV

Obferv. accordingly, when it was alleged againft him, that
V* THE SVPREME GOD could not poiTibly be ^
Mejfengery and aEl in SubjeBion to the Will of any
other Perfon ,• and that He who was the Mejfenger of
another Perfon, and aEied in SubjeEiion lo That O-
ther perfon, could not be Himlelf THE SVPREME

Second Def. GOD : In Anfwer hereto, he tells us '< This is as

t' ' ' « j^fich as to fay, that Peter, for Inftanccy could not
<^ be MAN, if SENT by MAN " No certainly :
But it is as much as to fay, that Petevy if he was
the Aieffenger of Another, and aB:ed in SubjeBion
to the Will of Another, could not be himfelf Th&
SVPREME Man or Governonry equally Supreme
in Authority with Him whofe Meffenger he was.
■p. i66, « Buty '* lays the Dr, " P0^at has Supremacy of O f-

i7-> *73' cc flee, to do with the Notion of Supi'cmQ God f God
« is a word, exprej/ing l<^3itme and SVB STANCE."
I anfwer : What has Supremacy of Office, of Autho^
rity and Dominion, to do v/ith the Notion of Sh-*
pr erne Man, of Supreme /C/»g- or Governour\ Is not
Aian, (\v\ the fame way of reafoning,) a word expref-
^m^ Nature and SVBSTANCEl Ouam ridicule!
p.i66. The Truth is. As PERSON is not a name of
^^g* abftrad: Intelligence only, but neceffarily fuppofes
4.20! SVBSTANCE ; and yet *tis the Life and Intelli-
gence in That Subflance, which makes the Perfon to
be a Perfon : So the word, GOD, is not indeed a
name of mere abftrad Dominion, but neceffarily fup-
pofes Living Subjlance ; and yet *tis Supreme and in-
dependent Dominion in That Living Subfiance, which
makes God to be GOD, to be Our God, the Sa^
pr^me God, or the God of the Vniverfe. Wherefore, as

Second T^efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 51

Two diftind Lives or Intelligences^ however fup-
pofed to inhere in One Suhflance^ would ftill be
Two Perfons and not O;^^ Perfon\ notwithftanding
the word, PERSON, necefTarily denotes Suhftance :
So, in the fame manner and for the lame Reafon,
Two living intelligent Perfons-, each having ahfolnte
Sufreme and independent Dominion, however fup-
pofed to be of One Suhftance^ muft necefTarily be
Two Gods, Two Supreme Gods or Lords of the V-
niverfe, and not One Godi notwithftanding the word,
GOD, necefTarily denotes Subflance, When there-
fore Dr Water land fays, that Many Supreme p.^^^j,
GODS in One undivided Suhfiance, " are NOT
*^ Many GODS, for That very Reafon, hecaufe
*^ their Suhftance is undivided ^'^ he might exadly
with the lame Senfe and Truth have affirmed, that
Many Supreme PERSONS in One undivided Sub-
fiance^ are NOT Many PERSONS, for That very
Reafon^ becaufe their Subflance is undivided. I lay,
thefe Two afTertions are exadly the fame, both
in Senfe and Truth ; becaufe the word, Perfon, does
juft as much and as necefTarily denote Subflance, as
the word, God, does. And when the Dr affirms
that The One Supreme God is Not One [Supreme F:rrtDcf.
God] in Perfon, but in Subflance; what is 'T^^is, ^•^^^jj?-
but affirming that The One Supreme God is Two [Su- />. 127*
preme Gods] in Perfon, though but One [Supreme
God] in Subflance f Or will he have the Hardi-
nefs to fay, that he meant by Thefe words no more
than This, that The One Supreme God is Not One
[Perfon] in Perfon, but only [One Perfon] /;?
Subflance I This plain and evident Reafoning, is

G 2, {q

5 2 Obfervations on T>r WaterlaiidV

Obferv. fo impoffible to be obfcured by any Bufi of Learned,

^' J^^gon ; that, after all, the Anfwer which the
Dodior is obliged finally to truft to, is This only :

i'-3^9- *' I^ow came Ton to be TVifer^ in This Particnlary
than All the Chnftian Churches ? " though, I verily
believe. No Chiiftian Church in the world ever
taught His Dodrine. And if they had All taught
it ; {Tertullian prefumes to add:, fpeaking of one of
Dr Waterland's principal AlTertions ; " if the *
Serif tare it [elf had taught it^ "J it could not have
been True. And^ in the place now referred to> the
Point being reduced to an exprefs contradiUion ; it

t'^^'^' cannot h^ fo, faith he, ^'VPON the PRINCIPLES
*' of the Primitive Churches : " Meaning, by the
Principles of the Primitive Churches, not the Princi-
fles of the Primitive Churches -^ but Principles whol-
ly and (ohly of his Own invention. Vpon HIS
Principles, it cannot be fo : That is to fay; Be pleaf-
ed to take for granted All his Premifes, however
eontrad'Eiory either to Themfelves, or to Reafon, or
to Scripture ; and then, to be fure, his Conclufion
will not be falfe.
^'1'''^^^ To prove that the the Name, God, ^« denotes'*
only «' Nattire and Sub fiance^ " not " Dominion"
or " any Relative Character;" the Do6lor alleges^
that God was Gody Before the Creation ; and there-
fore, if he were fb " in the fenfe of Dominion^ '* it

|. i8o. would follow that ^' he had Dominion, before he had
" it, '* I anfwer : Undoubtedly, whenever there
^as no Vniverfe^ God could not properly be ililed

' ^ ^ ' ' The

f See above, f.-^j.

^40.

Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 5 5

The God of the Vniverfe, But is it, in reality, no Obferv.
Charader of Dominion, no relative Chander; to V.
have in himfelf an efTential Power from Eternity ^^^?^
to Eternity, of froducing what Subje^s he thinks
fit, and o^ deftroying what SHbjeBs he thinks fit, and of
producing New Subjects of his Government, at Plea-
lure ? Was ever fuch Triflings in ferious mat-
ters ?

Further. That the word, God, is a name deno-
ting Dominion or Anthoritj^ appears evidently
from its being ufed in Scripture, and in the
Primitive Writers, in a great variety of fubor-
dinate Senfes : Which it could not be, if it
were not a Term expreflive of Dominion^ Authority^
and the like ; which are things in their nature ca-
pable of different Degrees, The God and Father of
All, who is Above All-, is \o ^i\ abfolutely,] GOD
in the Abfolute Supreme fen (e; (i) 'AyT^'^sc^; ha-
ving all PerfeUions and all Power and Dominion^ ab-
folutely in and of himfelf, original, underived^ and
independent on Any : And He is the (2) Fountain
of all Perfedions and Powers, that are found in A-

ny

(l) AsxTrof, oil 'Avro^i'^ o 5-soq i^i.- ttxv j ro "u)^^

To 'AvroB-i<^f fjtj£Top^^ 'f iKiivov B-iQry),<^ B-BoziroiiifASvoi/, Ori^tli.
in Joh. p. 45, Huerij.

(2)'0 '^ TTury^^y Tn^yvj B-icr/ji^ : ripeaking of the Attthority
communicated from the F/!?//:?'^^ to the Son, and from the Son
to the Angels.'] ibid, p 4.7, Note: Thefe words are very ab-
furdly under flood by Later Writers, " The Fcmtnm of THE De-
'* ity:^' As if Or/g-e» had wrote, not zanyr, -O-siT^®-, but ^»^*

54 Objervations on 'Dr Waterlaiid'^

^ror^

Cbferv. ny Other whatfoever. The Son is Gody by (5^
V. CommHnication of Divinity from the Father, and
by having (3) received from him POWER over the
Whole Creation. Angels^ C4) in a far lower and

different

(g)M?To;(;;^ Tjj'j lx:£W» B-eort)To<i B-ioTroiiSfjijivov, sb'td» p, /\,6.
'AyyiXuv ^jz^ifip^uv, ^vvu^jH (c* B-£iori)Tt. ibid. p. 2l8.

'■£^5. Juftin. Dial. p. pr. Edit. Par.

' E;(i£(v «^ Tmvrcc 'K^otrcvofy^J.ti^^ L^i^- ®scv, xypov, Wcv, Xoyov^
&:c.J'- ■!■ ■ iz tS oiTiv t2 sretr^5 S-£Aij(r£i V£y£i'v«cQ'«/. ibid.

T«v x-eCTzi /ois^-/iV 7w tKiivHy ^ 0g(3v ovret, vtoVy otvra' kch uy^i-
Aor, sx, b* hzrn^iTiiv rvj yv&>^!f ^yroy. ibid. p. I20.

IIafp^;cj36tf7zy^ S)^^ TTxr^", Kxrs^B-i}. Hippolyt. contr. No-
etum, § 6, p. 10.

O'jro<^ 0 m sVi STfiCVTzyy S-fo'^ sV** Asyg* TAP, Tratvros

f^c; "SO^Qi^BSiTiij VTri rod zrcir^(i. ibid,

0£o;TOi£nTJW ^pa5 ajyTow rou T^ccr^r^. Eufeb. Demonflr. 1. f. p. 227,

©say £<vi</ Xcc^'ovru, Z^^ too 7rxr^c,\yjiv, ibid.

Et Regis Smnmi lionoi&m, 6c D^/ nomen Acccpit, Ladanf.
lib. 4, c. 14.

Univerfas Creaturse 8c Dominus Sc Df«^ conftitutus efle re-
peritur. Nov^u. de Trin. c. if.

[Tis therefore too hafty in Dr WAterlmd, who Himfelf
cites this lafl: Paffage, and was not ignorant of the reft j to
affirm, (/>. 40 e^ 230,) that " yoiivpill Never fnd it fiid by the
«' Antients, thzt the Father conftituted Chriji a God, or ftp-
" pointed him to be God: " That " the Antients Never /peak of
'' Chrip being conilituted Cod:" And " Toucan No where
*' find, that he was ever conftituted God. "] -

(4) Pf! xcvii, 7. V/br(l}ip hirriy all ye Gods. LXX, ^r^-rj^

^yysAci eivrocf. Dan. ii, 47 j xi, 56, God of Gods,

0£cy, Kul rev ^jjf.'ioyvm kvrtOy x.cn roZq Tilif/j-^yjivn'; Itto Qioa
.^©E'OS T^-eca-fiyo^Uj xxi Mi'nx,ovro!.q7'if,<iB-iorv(^(i oc,vrc6. Origen.
c. Celf. lib. 7. p. 37 j-. And, Comment, in Joh. p. 47, he fay?,
that, befides the True God [the Father,"] there are Many
(meaning the Angels,) who are Cods, f^iro^^ roi S-soJ, by par-

txking

Second T>efenfe of his Q u e R i e s. 5 5

different Senfe, are In Scripture, and in the Antient Obferv^
Chiiftian Writers, ftyled Gods; upon account of V,
the Powers they are indued with, much fuperi- '•'v'^*
our to Men. MofeSy Magiftrates, and Prophets^
(5) are alfoin Scripture ftyled Gods; upon account
of the A^thority^ wherewith they were reipedively
inverted. And AIL thefe (to whom the Title is
given in a fubordinate fenfe,) are, not (as Dr Wa^
terland ftyles them) '^ Nominal *' or Falfe Gods,
but redly and truly fuch, in the Senfe wherein they
are refpedively fo ftyled in Scripture. And if
even the Lowefl of Thefe are juflly and rightly fa
ftyled, in the Senfe wherein the Scripture gives
them That Title; how much more ((>) may the
Only-begotten Son of God, to whom the Title be-
longs in an unjpeakably higher and in a quite dif"
ferent Senfe from any of the Others, juftly have
That Title given him ; and yet The One God and
Father of All, -who is Above All, be neverthelefs al-
lowed to be Alone Supreme in ahfolute independent

Autho->

taking of the Divine Nature, But God the Word, he fays, />,
rtM/fiyrepe? rol^ XoittcXc, -sroto oivrov BsoTt;, glorified far above all
Thofe Godsj becaufe 'tis through His Minifiration that They are
made Partakers of Divinity^ rc7^ Xoii^oT<i BsoTq ^mkovo*
livetf T1J5 S-goTJjre? Tov Bsov Aoyov. Yet even Thefe, he calls Tru^
lyGodsy and diftinguifhcth them from " NommaV Gods, /),4.8.

(5-) I h^veftid. Ye are Gods.

(6) Qqx autem (malum) ratio eO:, ut cum legant hoc eti-
am Moyfi nomen datum, dum dicitur, De^m te pofui Vhar^_
^ni', Chrifto negetur, qui non P^^r/T<?«/ Deus, fed univerfA Crea^
fUrA 8c Dominus Sc Deus conflitutus elTe reperitur! Novat, de
TriKi c.iy.

^i./'^VN-

5 6 Obfervattons on ©r. WaterlandV

Obferv» ^fithority and Domimon oytx 2X[\ yoh, X, 34, Is
VI. ft not 'Written in Tour Law, I faidy ye are Gods?
If he called Them Godsy unto whom the Word of God
came ; and the Scripture cannot be broken : Say ye
of Him, whom the Father hath fanciified and fent
into the worlds Thou blafphemefi\ becaufe I faid%
I am the Son of God f

OBSERVAT. VI.
Concerning the Generation of the Son.

Another Method, whereby Dr Waterland at-
tempts to deftroy the Supremacy of the One God
and Father of Ally who is Above All; is by de-
nying Any real Generation of the Sony either Tem-
poral ox Eternal,

The Council of Nice^ endeavouring to explain
fnore minutely and philofiphic ally the General Expref-
Jions of Scripture concerning the Only -begotten Son
of Gody declared their Opinion to be, that the Son
was " Begotten of the Father, that iSy from the Sub-
*^ fiance of the Father, before all Ages: God from
*' Gody * Light from Light. " The Manner, in
which [the Writers before and at the time of the
Council, explained their Notion ; is This. That,
as one Fire is lighted from another Fire, without

Any

* <i?a)c, ix. <pa]7vt; 3 [not 7^ (pZi; Ik tocT <pa7V(i{\ A Light from
A Light. This was plainly Their Meaning.

•^/^

Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 57

Any Abfciffion, Divifion, or Diminution,- the ori- Obferv,
ginal Fire lofing nothing thereby, of its own Light Vt.
or Heat : So God, the Firft and Alone iinoriginated
Rational Agent, produced from Himfelf Another
intelligent Rational Agent, a perfect Image and Re-
femblance of Himfelf; v/ithout any way altering,
abfcinding, dividing, or diminifhing any thing
from, his own effentially and unchangeably inherent
perfonal or fubftantial Perfedions. Always taking
care to exprefs this One Bifferer.ce in the Similitude,
(which Later Writers by degrees ncgleded;) that
ivhereas Light jhineth forth and is communicatedy
not by the Will of the Luminous Body, hut bj a ne-
cejfary Property of its nature; the Son of God /V,
by the"^ Power and Will and Delign of the Father ^
his Suhftantial Image,

In oppofition to This. Dr JVaterland afferts that
Thefe Phrafes, By «' Vower, " by « mil, '' by
*« Defign, '* by ^' Choice, '* by " Counfely '* and
the like ; do not fignify any real Exertion of Poiver^
any real AB or Operation of the Father, arillng from
his Will, either in Time, or from Eternity ; but ^
mere ahfilute neceffi^y of Nature, not indeed in oppo^
jitiontoy but accompanied with the Approbation of , liis
Will. Yet, very inconfiftently ; when he comes to
enter into the Detail of Particulars, he acknov/ledges
concerning every one of thefe or the like Phrafes, m
every Pajfage of every Ante-nicene Writer ; that they
exprefs merely the Tree Fbltmarj AVc of the Father^

H and

See the Reply to DiWs Defenfe, ^ lii, &c. and 2/6- — --^
276.

5 S Obfbrvations on T>r WaterlandV

Obferv, and not any necejjlty of nature at all ; nay, that
VI. they exprefs a mere Temporal j45l of the Father •
^^^i^ Pqj. f^ jje explains That Generation of the Son,
7vhich Alone Thefe Writers ever call by That name,
f'and which they fpeak of under the forementioned
Terms,) to be indeed no Generation at all; but
merely fuch a Mijjiony Manifeflation^ or Sending
forth of the Sony as that every Action of Chrift 'what^
foever, might with equal reafon be called his Gene-'
ration. But then, becaufe thefe Writers fuppofed
the Son of God ^ not to be [^roujS-jt?] Made or
Formed or Fabricated extrinfecally (as the Material
Creation was^ but Generated immediately from the
Father Himfelf\ (in confequence whereof. Their

Philofbphy taught them that he was t in the Father
^yavi^Tft/?, before he was generated from him ;) hence
the Dr infers, that This his being in the Father he-
fore he was generated from him^ is a Trior Genera-
tion, and the mofi Proper Filiation or Generation.
And yet no one Writer either before or at the time
of the Council of Nice^ ever once mentions Two
Generations of the Son before the Beginning of the
World, ever once mentions any Prior Generation^ e-
ver erne mentions any other antemundane Generation^

befides

■^ S -sro^n^iU, is'X, eoq ysvo^M/Svoi;, and the like,

■j- Usiv hifyncc yswYiB-^Jcif, cwccyjei m h tS -zsrcCT^i ccyivviiT&t^,

Conjlantin. in Bpifi. Eufeb, ad Ecclef. Cdfar, aputL Theod.

lib. I, c.iz. The PalTage at length, with critical Obfervati-

pns upon in, fee in the Reply to Dr WsDefenfe, p. 124.

' E}^uv 6 S-£o? T iavToo ?ioyov svdici^-iTov iv ro7(i i^ioi^ r^rAfiSV'-

S^ifo*?, £^vvi}(rsv uvriv Scc. Theoph. ad Autolyic. p. 2i. tIv ?^oyeif

Seand "Defenfe df his Q^u e r l e 5. 59

befides That One which they affirmed to be hy the Obferv,
Power mdWiilof the Father, Before All Ages, and VL
Before all Worlds, znd Before allTime : And Dv Wa- ^-'"V^^
terland himfelf very largely and fully explains This
his Prior Generation, (as he had before explained a-
way the other Generation,) to be in No fenfe Any
Generation at all ; but a mere co-exijlence with, not
at all any Derivation from, the Father, Thus the
Dr has totally denied All generation of the Son, qu
ther temporal or eternal I and introduced, infteadof
it. Two "Avu^yji, Two equally moriginate Perfons^
Two Supreme independent Gods. ^

The Proof of This Charge, is as follows,
I. That the Phrales, by <^ Power, '* by
'^mil,'' by «^ X)^/^;,, » by <^ a.?/r^, " by
« Comfel,'* and the hke; do not fignify any real
Exertion of Power, any real A5i: or Operation of the
Father, arifing from his Will, either in 7^«2f, or
from Eternity ; but a mere abfolme ncceffity of Natnrei
not indeed in oppojition to, but accompanied with the
approbation of his Wtll : This is what the Dr has
at large contended for, in his Eirji t)efenfe, through-
out Query VlII. And in his Second Defcnfe, he fiill
perfifts in it. << Imufi complain of it, ffays he,) as j. i^-3 ;
" a great Inflame of Vnfairnefs, — ^for you to
<' bring up This Pretence again, that the Ante-Ni«
« cene Writers did not allow the Son to exljl or to BE
'' GENERATED by Neceffty of Nature. " Again i
« Will, in the fenfe of Approbation or Acquief- ^. iSi*
^' cence, is very common with Ant lent Writers : **
[Yet not One Inftance does he allege out of Any
Chriftian Writer, before the Council of Niceq

H 2. ^^ N^f

do Obfervatmis on "Tir Wate^Iand'^

Obferv. " Nor was it thought dbfurd to fay^ that God had
VI. <« Willed thmorthmfrom all Etermtj-, and * could

^^ " not IVill othenvife, ** And whereas the Council of
Sirmimn^ ftill later than That of Nice^ anathemati-
zed any one who fhould fay that '^ the Son f
*' was begotten without the Will of the Father i
" For the Father dtd not beget the Son by a
" Phyjical Neceffity of Nature, without the Ope*
«^ ration of his Will; but he at once Willed and be*
<« gat the Son : " Rather than the Council fhall be
allowed to mean what they 4. notorioufly Did mean^
and what their Words neceffarily fignify ; a ridicu-
lous Signification lliall be invented, of the term
[«n/s«yxj} (pvTiKVi^ neceffity of Nature^ (as taken by fome
(1) L^r^r Chriftian Writers only, never by Any of
the AntientSy from certain Platonic!^ Philofophers ;)
a Signification infinitely ablurd to be applied in

TirfiDef. This place; as if it fignified *^ a Force upon the Fa*
/>. 12b. u flj^y.'^ TVtll;" an ^' outward Co aEiions Forccy

vjons.p.ii. «f or Compuljtoni " that God "^ was compelled by a

Second Dej^ ^^ ^

See and
compare, * Note: The Queftion is not here concerning Moral, but
she Reply to phyjical or Natural Necefllty.

j)r W s^ ^ Stejthe Paflage at large, with critical Notes on the Ren-

^^/■?-^>'7' ^j.;j^g ^^ i^^ j,^ ^^g; j^^piy fQ j^j. ^/>_j Defnfe, p. 2^7, 2j-8,

274.

-1- Voluntas ifra, quain Nece£^tati opponunt Sirmien/es prse-
fules, mera cli: Hyenas; ac non foliim violento Sc coaBo con-
traria, fed etiam ei quod ita Naturae eft confentaneum, ut ex
arbitrio confilioq; minime pendeat. Qua: fuit Eufebij Cdfa^
rknjis opinio, &c. Petavius De Trin. lib. 6, c.8.

(0 And even Thefe, when they fpeak of CoaBion, I think
Jbardly ufe ilie words ^ua-iy^n mu'/k-/), or ^ua-icoti icwyK-n; but
•Ayi^yx"-j lingly j as referring to fomething External^ diflin-
guiflicd from the internal ^vV<5of the Thing Ipoken of.

Second^efenfe of his Qy e r i e s.^ et

^ SHperiour Forcey md Jgainfi his Will, " And, Obferv*
to make room for this Ahfmd Ule of the Phrafe ; VI.
God th^ lather himfelf (hall (i^ vcrj hardly beal- '•'^'^VNi
lowed by Dr Waterland, to exifl by NeceJJity of Na-
ture. And (i) Self-exiflence, the mofi Real and

Pojitive

(i) " Shoto me where either Scripture or Fathers ever faiJ,
" that God the Father exijled by Neceffity of Nature, though
** they have in Other Terms ajferted the fame thing rohich
** We Now mean by necejfity of nature: "2d Defenfe, p. 25-1.
*' None of the Antients Durft have f aid, that God exifls by Ne-
" ceirity:"/>. 2^2. *' The lathers -would never fay, that hs
" exijied, er mas God, by Neceflity : p, 25-3. " " The Amlent
" Writers, I conceive, for eight Centuries, would have denied*
« or dtd deny, that God -was God by Neceflity:" />. 25-4.

(2J ** Whether, when ree fay any thing is felf-exiftent, the
" words {pi Mi) have any Pofitive Meaning: " p. 428. *' Self-
'« exifience is negative:" p. 429. *' Self-exiflence, I have novf
*' determined, I think upon plain reafons, that it is Negative
»* only:" p. 430. The manifefl: Abfurdity of this AiTertion,
hath been fully and diftinBly fhown in the following words.
in a Book entituled, A Modeft Flea, 8cc. *« Self-exifient being
** the fame as unoriginate, is ( Some think) merely a Negative
*' Charadler. But this is a great Miftake. For though the
« word, unoriginate, according to the grammatical Compofi-
*« tionof it, is negative; yet the Idea exprefled by it, is pofi-
" tive. As you will fee by the like Cafe in another Word.
« The word, infinite, according to the grammatical Compo-
*' fition of it, is merely negative; But when we fay, God is
« infinite ov immenfe, the Idea is not a bare Negative, a mere
<* negation of Bounds, but denotes the pofitive Great-
" nef of That whofe Exiftence is declared to be immenfe'
*' So endlefs with regard to Duration, though the Word in-
«' deed is negative; yctthe Thing fignifiedbyit [eternitjYis not
«' a negative, but a real and pofitive Duration. In like Man- *

'' ner, Unoriginate or Underived, though the M^ords themfelves
" are Imerely negative, yet the Thing exprefled by them is
'' not a mere Negation of being derived, but a real and pofittve

** Ground

6z Objervations on "Dt Waterland'^

v^V^

Obferv. Vofitive of Al Ideas, Ihall be declared to be a merB
VI* Negative* And the Vroof of the exiftence of a
Firft Caufe, a priori ^ (without which, no uittribute
of God can poffibly be proved at all to be proper-
ly (5) infinite^) {hall be (4) turned into Ridicule-
And the felf-exi;^ God fnall be declared to have
(5) No Internal Caufey no Ground or Reafon of
JExiftence in thi? abfolute Necejjlty of Nature ; but
to exift ahfolutelj without Any Ground or Reafon

of

•• Ground or Foundation of Exigence in the Subflance itfelf,
•' which is properly exprefled by NeceJJkry Exigence. Ac-
** cording to Ycur way of arguing. All the Attributes of
** God may as well be turned into mere Negatives; His Unity
** into not being more than Om-y His Omnifciencey into not be^
** i^g ignorant of any Thing i His Omnipotence, into not being
*• limited in Power j itisOmniprefence, into not being abfent from
** any Place : Nay, his very Zxijlencs it felf may as well be
** faid to be a mete Negation, as the NeceJJity of his exifling,
" or his Self-exijlence/' p. 2 16, 217. The Dr was referred to
This, before '■) and betakes Notice of it in his f. 218, with-
out pretending to make any the leaft Anfwer to it.

C3 j For, can the adiual infinity oximmenfity of God, be proved
at all a fofieriori alone, from the phenomena of a Tmite
World? or the Eternity of God, from phenomena merely T^«2-
forary} without taking in, a priori, the confideration of the
necejjary nature of an unoriginate or Eirfl Caufe ?

(4^ " To prove the Exifience of a Firft Caufe, a priori j has rm
" Senfe, (fays the Dr) without the Suppofition of a Caufe prior /*
" the Firft: Which yet is Non-Senfe:'^ p. 429. Thefe words
{how, that Br WaterJand does not underftand what the Mean-
ing of a Proof d priori, is.

(f ) " fVe are not to fuppofe Any Caufe '' [any " Caufe or
*' Ground'^ or Reafon *' of Exijiencey p. 429 f\ external or
" INTERNAL i but abfolutely No cmfe-^ becanfe there n n9
*' caufe prior to the Firft: *' p. 430,

Second T>efenfe of his Q u e r i e s. d j

of Exiftence : Which if it was true, it would fol^ Obferv*
low that he might likewife as well, without Am VL
Caufe or Reafbn, ceafe to exifi. And {6) the ^^'V^
wordy by which the Antient Chriftian Wri-
ters generally exprefs the Self-exiflence of the Father,
the Peculiar IncommunicMe Prerogative of being ab-

fplutely

(6) The Term hy which the Antients mofl: frequently
exprefs God's exifting by thtneceJJ?ty of hisoron nature, is (not
<p6a-n or XM7U <pt/V<v, as Dr W. alleges, />. 25-4: For, Man is
^wo-« or KdTu <pu(riv ocvB-(>6}7r<^, yet nof by necejjlty of Nature:
But the proper Term is,) tiyivi/jjr®-, Unoriginated. Which word,
though in its grammatical compofition it be indeed negative
yet the Idea expreffed by it (as I have fhown above) is of all
Others the moji pofitlve and realj denoting what' we ufually
call Self-exifience, This Term, kymn\<^, exprelTmg thus the
Trhne and Incommunicable Prerogative of the Father; Dr IVa-
Terland (p. 2^4, 25-6, 264, 268.) is very defirous, without
Any Pretenfe of Manttfcrlpts, to change it perpetually into ccyL
ysjl©-: Becaufe he thinks <aysv^1®- applicable to the 5(7», as well
as to the Father* Yet he produces No PalTage ot Any Ante-
Nicene Writer, wherein even «t><'v^1(^ is applied to the Soui
excepting one only, where the Reading is evidently Corrupt:
Compare DrWs idDcfenfe, p,ij6, with The Reply to his Firfi
Befenfe, p. 295-. And here 'tis very pleafant to obferve, hov/
he cries out (" Where are your Manufcrlpts ? ") when vpe de-
fire to amend the word ^'^vy^i<i^ in Origeny becaufe the fenfe
and connexion and Antlthejis of the Pajfage itfelf evidently re-
quires an Amendment, and the word is in no other place of
the very Large ^ Writings of the fame Author found applied
to the Son^ nor (I believe) in Any place of Any Other Ante-
Nlcene writer : At the fame time that He himfelf is, againft
the Faith of All Manufcrlpts y throwing out the word ftiyw-
viirc(i out of Many Paflages of Many Antient Authors, where
the Senfe and Connexion (as well as the frequent Ufe of the
word) neceffmly requires it ihould be retained.

64 Obfervatlcns on 2)r Waterland'j'

Obferv. folutely Vnoriginate -^ ihalL without Any Pretenfe
Vr. of Authority from Any Manufcript or various

^^^ Reading, be changed, in innumerable PalTages of
Antient Authors, into another word, which the Dr
(becaufe he Snpfofes it to be applicable,) affrms to
be applied to the Son equally with the Father : And
yet even That Other wordy (cxcQi^ting only one Jingle
PafTage of Origen^ in which the Senfe evidently
ihows the Reading to be corrupt,) he does not fo
much as once find applied to the Son in Any One
Ante-Nicene Writer. And rather than Will and
Necejjltj 111 all not be confounded together ^ with the
utmoft Abfurdity ; Will (y) ihall fignify Any thing,
how remote foever ; and Any things how remote lo-
cver, iliall fignify Will : And lo all Vfe of Lan'
guage lliall be at an end.

2. Yet, after all this monftrous Extravagancy
oi an Attempt to blend together the Two contra-
diElory Ideas of Necejjlty and Will ; the Dr very in-
confiftently, when he comes to enter into the De-
tail of Particulars, acknowledges concerning every
one of the forementioned Phrafes, \Generated by
^« Tower, " by " Willy " by '' Defign, " by
""' Choice^ " hy *' Counfel, '*] and concerning every
other the like Phrafe, in every Pajfage of every Ante*
Nicene Writer; that they exprefs merely the Free
Foltmtary AU of the Father y and not any Necejfity

of

(7) " The Will of God, is God U'mfelf: " cited with Appro--
bat ion: Firfi Bef. p. 127; and Second Def. p. 282. " The
-'' word. Will, has been ufed by Some of the Antient f, to fignify
" A1\I mtural Pomrs of God." p. 283.

Second T^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. . 65

p/ Nature at all ; nay, that they exprefs [notwith- Obfervr.
ftanding the words 7:^ ttzLvtosv uima'j^ and the like,] VI.
a mere Temporal AU of the Father,

'* JUany of the Fathers (Tays he) Jpcaf^jof No higher p- ^83.
'^ a Generation, than That [voluntary] Ante-mundane
*^ one : " viz. the Alanifefiationof the Son, in order
to create This world.

^' I admitted, that Ignatius might under fiand by iBid^
«f Generation, a voluntary ante- mundane Generation
*^ or Manifeflation ; ii^ith fever at other Fathers, "

*' Juftin Martyr ffeaks of No Generation higher ^. ^^\
*' than That Voluntary ante-mundane Generation, o-
*' therwife called Manifeflation. — — I allow that the
« Logos BECAME a SOJV {according to Juftinj
<c by Voluntary Appointment. '*

** If Chrifl were here (by Juftin) faid to be God t- ^^i**
*' by the Will of the Father, it might hear a good
" fenfe. For, fnppofing That to be the cafe, Juftin
*' ma^ mean no more, than that the Son Aded and
« Appeared as God, with confent of the Father^
*^ who appointed him fo to appear and aEl. "

'' The Procejfion MAKES him a SON, and ii ^g^

*« Voluntary. As to Chrifl being Lord of HoCts 287.

" by the Father's appointment, / have allowed it

*« above, in Juftin's fenfe, — ToPi feem to thinly

*' that I have fomewh ere denied the Higheft Gene-
•' ration fpoken of hj Juftin, to be Temporal :

*< whereas I have conflantlj allowed it, The

<5 Son proceeded (pZ<i U (p^vrv^ (Light of Light) //«
*' TIME, according to Juftin, and according to ma^
^f nj More bejidss Him^ "

I " As

66 Ohfervations on T>r WatcrlandV

Obferv. '-' Ai to the Other [viz. Ante-Nicene] Atitho^
VI. (c rities^ from Juftin Martyr, &c. I allowed Will
^"^ry^ *' to he talzen in Dr Clarke's fcnfe, "
/v. 202. " Irena^us comes not under our Inqmrj^ having
"- [aid little either of Temporal or Eternal Gene-
*^' ration, "
/".iSp. " Tatian, ivho was Juflin'j Scholar-, I allow to
'' fpeaJ^ Only of a Temporal Generation or Froceffi-
" on, in like manner as J uHin.''
f. 2po. ^' I admit the fame thing of Athenagoras, as of
'^ Juftin and Tatian ; that he fpeaks of No higher
*^ Generation,, than the Proceffon. "
i6id. " Theophilus comes under the fame Predicament

«' jmh the Three Writers before-mentioned,'*
p. 292. " Clemens of Alexandria maj be likewife allow-^
'' ed to fpeak^of the Procef/wn, And when he faySy
^' The Word fprang or arote from the Will of the
*•' Father, it is plainly intended of his being fent out
*^ to Mankind, "
/>. 292. « Hippolytus 7va5 undoubtedly in the Hj/pothefis

^' of the Temporal Generation or Proceffion, "
/. 107. <f 71?^ Father BEGAT the Son, that is. Sent or
'• fjeji^d him to the world, (which is HippolytusV
'^ Meaning -,) yvhen he willed, and as he willed, **
p.iS^. «' To the fame purpofe [viz. his fpeaking of No
"^ Generation higher than That Voluntary Ante-
*' mundane Generation^ otherwife called Manifefia-
" tion^'\ I quoted Hippolytus : Who plainly makes ci
" Manifeftation to be the Sons Generation. "
/). 2S7. ^' The Son proceeded (pu(, iy. cpuTO'-, (Light of Light)
'' in TIMEy according to .— -- Hippolytus. ".

«^ With

Second 'Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 67

^c With This Vrocejjion [in order to operate in the Obferv*
'* Creation,] Tertullian fuppofes the Sonpip \properly ^ '

** to commence. So that the hoo^os BECAME a p,ioj^,

« SON in TIME ; And was not jct a SON,

'^ //■// he came out to create, "

'' Tertullian goes upon the fame Hjpothejis, in the p.^9i.
*< mainy 7vith Thofe before -mentioned, "

Origen-j Novatian^ Methodius^ the Dr pafTes o- t-'^^^-
ver ; only referring his Reader to his Former
Defenfe. And I alfo refer him to the Replj,

*' Eufebius (dys he) I did not cite, becaufe fome ib'uL
*' ^^^{i Exceptions may be made to Him. "

*' The Son proceeded a^u-, U ipuT^^ (Light of Light) p.iSj.

^' in TIME, according to Mam, -^and perhaps

" even the Nicene Fathers. *' [Yet they exprellly
fay, ^twas 7:^ vniyTuv uiiovcrjv before all Ages.~\

After This, the Dr Aides gently into Quotati- ^^ /'•^95'»
ons from Modern Writers, who by degrees con-
founded (as they did every thing elfe) the Difference
between Necefity mdWtlL

But is it not, from the PaiTages now cited, abun-
dantly apparent, that the fame Dy TPaterlandy who pn-flDef.
had been at large contending that being generated 0}^-^''^'^^ '>
by the Will and Power of the Father might mean the t. ly.
fame thing as a necefary Emanation ; and had com-
plained of it as a great Inflame of Vnfairnefsy to pre-
tend that the Ante-Nicene Writers did not allow
the Son to exift or to BE GENERATED by ne-
ceffity of Nature ; has, after all this, fully acknow-
ledged that every one of the Phrafes in every Eafage
of ever^ Ante-Nicene Writer, wherein the Son is
^ver fpoken of as being BEGOTTEN bj the Vqu'cv

T z and

6s Obfervations on jDr WaterlandV

Obferv. and Will of the Father, denotes and expreiTes merely
VI. a Free Voluntary uiEl of the Father ^ and not any

^^*^ NeceJJjty of Nature at all ; nay^ that it expreiTes (ac-
cording to Dr IVater land's interpretation) a mere
Temporal u4cl of the Father f This Generation there-
fore (as the Dr underflands it) is indeed No Gene"
ration at all. 'Tis nothing but '' the Sons being
i». 51 • ic SENT oat oeconomicallj from the Father, firji to
'' maJ(^y and then to govern the Creatures : " 'Tis no-
thing but " a Aiiffion'y Aianifeflation'^ or Exert i-
f.^ii. ^^ on,'* It *' means no more than a Manifeftation^
^' Exertion^ or taking a Neiv Office ^ Relation &c,
<* What Change is there in all Thisy more than there
" is in God the Father upon any new AEt, Manife^
^ ' ftationy Exertion of Power &c ^ There is no Change
<^ at all in it, no not fo much as in any Jldode of
*' Exifience,'' 'Tjsno other Generation of the Son^
than in fiich a Sen^ as Every Action of Chrii^ what--
foever, is a new Generation of him. 'Tis no other
Generation of the Son, than in luch a Senfe as the
Son might as poffibly have Begotten the Father, if
the Father had been pleafed (which the Dr thinks
was not naturally impojfible) to have been Sent forth
by the Son. ' Tis no other Generation, than the
Generating of a perfoji, who, before This Genera-^
ting, was as much and as truly Generated, as he was
after. That is; *Tis in No Senfe Any Generation
at all. Was ever a ferious matter, thus ludicroufly
treated ?
^.295. Well; ^"- But, '*' fays the Dr, (though it be in-
deed no Generation at all; ftill) ^' it is Vndoubtedly
«' what Thofe [Ante-Nicene] Writers Call Genera-^

'^ Hon;

SecondT>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 69

« tion; And therefore This (fays hej h difpnting» Obferv^
" not againfl Me, but againfl Them. '* I anfwer : VL
No. NOT ONE Ante-Nicene Writer ever was fo "^^T^
abfnrdy as to call That a Generating^ by which the
Generated Perfin was no more Generated than he was
before. There are indeed figurative and metaphoricd
Senfes, wherein perfons may very elegantly be faid
to be begotten or generated into a Neiv State^ when
they are invefled with fome extraordinary New
Towers, Thus God is faid in Scripture to have Be^
gotten Vs unto a lively Hope^ by the Refurre^iion of
Chrijl from the Dead, And to Chriil: himfclf, up-
on his being raifed from the Dead, he laith, (Acts ^
xiii;, 33,) ThoH art my Son, This Day have I begotten
thee. But never was That, ftiled in ^^j fenfe a Gene-
rating or Begetting, before which the prfon generated
was Every thing he could be after it ; A Generating,
which implied in it "- No Change at all, no not fo ? B*^^
^' much as in any Mode of Exifience ; " No Change
" more, " than there is in '^ God the Father '*
himfelf, upon Every '' New AEi"' or Exertion of
his Power, What the Writers before and at the time
of the Council of Nice, call the Generation of the
Son ', always means a Real Generation, a Generation
by which the Son was s^o-i^^fv©-, by which he was re-
ally [not, ^oii5^£iV, ??^i;z^^ ov formed, as was xhQ materia
al World; but v^wi-vS-s.'?] generated from ?/?^ Father
by his Pcii^^r and JM. And J'/j/i Generation, by
which he <^ Became a Son, " and which is the O^Y- /).iS4,
Xr ante-mundane Generation Any of Thofe Wri-
ters ever call by That Name ,• is by Some of them^
^DxWateYlandktmi tothin.k by All of them,) Tup-

• ppfec}

70 Objewations on T)r WaterlandV

Obferv. pofed to ht Temporal ^ by Others Eternal^ if the

y ■*•• words I Ti^ 7TU.VTC0V octavcijv, j'l oizs-upcuv ociavcov^ t:^ '//Avuv

uiconuv^ and the hke^] fignify Eternity, But the Gene-*
ration Dr Waterland here delcribes, is in No fenfs
Any Generation at all.

3. Having Thus reduced to Nothing-, what He
calls the Temporal Generation of the aSo;?, though
the Creed of the Council of Nice exprellly fays of
That Generation, that it was (^^0 ttsLvtuv U^cojc^v) hefore
jill^ges; the Dr is in the next place to make A-
mends for this Great Liberty, by inventing
Mother Generation of the Son^ a Generati-
^ on never heard or thought of by Any Writer
hefore or at the time of the Council of Nice^ a
Generation Prior to That which Thefe Writers fup.
pofe to be Before All Ages and before all Worlds and
hefore All Time, This Prior oi the Two antemun-
dane Generations of the Sony the Dr tells us, is

T'lrjl Def his '^ mojl PROPER Filiation and Generation ; "

^''^+' and " in refpeci of which, CHIEFLY, he is the On-

*f Ij'Begotten, and a diflincl Perfon from the Fa~

*' ther, " Now, is it not very wonderful, that

SeconclDf when the Dr is Defending this affertion, and repeat-
^■3^^' /«^ with confidence, that ^' taking the Fathers COL-
'* LECTIFELT, there is Demonftrarion for That
*' Threefold DiftinBion, " of a Prior and Poflerior
ante-mundane Generation of the Son, and a Third
Generation of him in the Flefli ^ he fhould not be
able to produce Any ONE PalTage out of Any
ONE Ante-nicene Writer, in v/hich This Prior
ante-mundane Generation, this '* m.ofl PROPER
«« Filiation and Generation of the Son^ ii^ rejpe5i (f

7phich

^•v^^

Second TDefenfe of his Qveki-es. 71

« iuhich CH/EFLT he is the ONLT-BEGOTTEJV^ " Obferv.
fhould ever once be ftiled either Filiation^ or Gene- VI.
ration i or Begetting^ or hj any other equivalent term
at all ? Can any man imagine it pofTible, (if thefe
Antient Writers had ever thought of Dr Waterland's
notion,) that they who were fo conftantly follici-
toiis to avoid the imputation of alTerting Two
\jivu^x°^ or kyimrci~^ Vnoriginated Perfons, fliould
Never exprefs the Firfi and moft Proper Generation
of the Son, by Any words that in any fenie denote
any generation at all ? Can any man believe, that not
ONE of them fhould ever ONCE mention Two
Ante-mundane Generations of the Son \ Is it credi-
ble3 if Their Sentiments had been in Any degree lik^
to His^ that That which with Hin^ is the original :xn(\
Only Real Generation of the Son, fliould with Them
Never be once fo ftyled at all j and That which with
Him is in No fenfe any Generation at all, (any more
than Every Action of Chrift whatfoevery is a New
Generation of him,) fhould with Them be Always and
Only ftyled the Generation of the Son ? But the
Wonder will ceafe, when it lliall appear, that after
all This, Dr Water land Himfelf^ very inconfiftently,
makes This Generation like wife, even This " mofi
*<= PROPER Filiation and Generation of the Sony inre^
« fiecl ofivhich CHIEF LX he is the Only-Begotten ;"
even 7l?/j generation, I fay, as well as ^Z?^ O/^/^^r, Dr
Water land himfelfi in his explication of his Scheme,
makes to be in No fenfe Any Generation at all.
For, though he Calls ii (for Forms fake ^ and to a-
mufe ignorant Kt^dtrs,) Eternal Generation', yet he
defires you would by no means underftand him to

intend

72 Obfervdttons on 25r WaterlandV^

Obierv. intend Eternal Generation indeed, but a mere co-exifl^
VI. ence Tvith^ and not at all any Derivation from, the
Father. For " the Scripture (he tells us) is not clear
'' and fdly for this Eternal Generation; *' and " the
'^ Catholicks Themfelves were for fome time pretty

i> 316. " much divided about it ; and, " had it not been for
^' fome Perfons coming to read the Fathers with the
'^ notion of Eternal Generation in their Headsy they

^/284, " cotdd never have mifiaken, '* &c. For '■^ All
^*o ' «' that Any Writers ever meant by Eternal Filiati-
283. «« on^'* is [not at all any Filiation or Generations
but] '« the eternal EXISTENCE of the Son ^ the
Exijience of a Son Not generated, the Exifience of
a Son who is No Son ; the ^' Exigence of a real and
^' living Wordy a Word of God, eternally Related to
^^ the Father whofe Word he is ; " that is, having
Such a Relation, as there would be between Ttvo Vn-
begotten. Two unoriginated Perfons, co-exifling in
the fame Subftance : Such a Relation, as, (though Dr

1. 284. Water land is pleafed to call it in words, " a relati-*
*' on to the Father as his Head; '* yet in Truth) im-
plying JVo real Derivation either of Being, Power,
Authority, or any other PerfeElion ; makes the Father
to be indeed, in Any real fenfe, neither Head nor
Fountain nor Father, For (to repeat the Similitude
I before alleged : ) In like manner as, in cafe the
Sun and its Beams had Always exifted together, co-
eval, immoveable, and immutable ; and there had iV^-
ver been at all any real motion of Emijjlon of the one
from the other; it would then have been in no
fenfe any more true, that the Beams proceeded from
the Sun, than the Sun from the Beams \ And as,

ill

Second Tiefenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 73

in cafe the Root and Branches of a Tree, had Alwajs Obferv,
exifted together, co-eval, immoveable, and immuta- "^"1.
ble ; and there had Never been at all any real Groyvth ^"^v^-*
of the one out of the other ; it would then have
been in no fenfe any more true, that the Branches
froceeded from the Root^ than the Root from the
Branches: So, if (according to Dr TVaterland's
way of thinking) there had been only an eternal ne^
cejfarj EXISTENCE of the Father and the Son to-
gether, without any real Generation or Derivation of
Beingy eith er in Time or Eternity ^ of the Son from
the Father i it would then have been in no fenfe any
more true, that the Son was Begotten of the Father
and derived his Powers and Perfedions from him,
than that the Father was Begotten of the Son and
derived his Powers and Perfections from Him-y
or that the Father was in Anj Senfe the Head or
Fountain or Father of the Son, any more than the
Son was the Head or Fountain or Father of the Fa*'
ther. Dr Waterland's opinion therefore, taking a^
way wholly all real Generation of the Son, whether
Temporal ox Eternal ; amounts evidently to an A'-
fertion of Two ^uva^x^i, ccvainoi, uyUv^m,'^ ZJnorigina^
f^JPerfons. Which, in the (i) P^eafon of Things,
and by (i) his Own Confejfion, isdired Poljtheifrn.

(0 Si enim natUs non fuiflcti innatus, comparatus cum eo
qui efiet innatusy diquationemutrocii oftensa diiosfaceret /««.3-
Us, ^'ideo iluos hccr ct Deos. Novat. deTrin. cp. 31.

(2)" TVfo unor'tginne divine Peifons, hov/cver otherwife ^.207.
*' infcparaHe, would be Two Ccd^^ according to the Antients. "

K O B S E R V.

74 Ohfervations on T>r Watcrlancf^

Obferv.
VII.

OBSERVAT. VII.

Concerning iz'hat T>r Water land charges^
as making the Being of the Son Preca-
rious .

From what has been faid, it appears with what
Juflice Dr WdterUnd charges Thofe, who affert the
Son to be at all a Son by Any real Generation^ either
Temporal or Eternal y with making the Being of the
Son PRECARIOVS. And. becaufe the ^^cr^ founds

^•i7» odiousy he takes great Delight in r^/^^/^/>^ it. " Whe^
<' ther the Son of Gody he a Precarious i5^/;?^.—— J)^-

*' grade the Son of God into Precarious Exiflence. .

" Exempt him from the number of Precarious Be-

/>. 54. '' ings, Make of him a Precarious Being,

49. *' No Medium between Self-exiftence in the highefi
<' fenfe " [as if Sclf-exifience were capable of Degrees f\

i4<^- '^ and Precarious Exijience, — SubjeBion of a

" Precarious Being* No Precarious Being, .

170, a 18. '' therefore God Supreme, — — - Precarious and Be-

219. *^ pendent, -—- — Make the Son Precarious.——
'' The proper and full Notion of a Precarious Be-

220. '' ing* -Difpute 7ijhethcr a VxQQ:ir\oViS Being he

^^ SubjeB, — -- SVIT with a EinitCy dependent,

35-7. ''■ Precarious, created Being ./f MVTABLE

« and corruptible^ ^as a Precarious Exiftence,

" Precarious

Secdnd T>efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 75

'' Precarious, mutable at Vleafure, A Precari- Obferv.

<* ous Being. Mahmg him a Precarious Be^ VII.

<c ly^g^ _ ^ly^i^ Qq^ ^Ij^ g^^ -^^^ Precarious Ex- ^ '^^^""^

^' iflence. " The only Foundation of This Charge, 434! "^
is; that the aflerting the ^-0;^ to be Begotten hj the ^^^'
Po7ver and Will of the Father:, (which was the unani-
mous Dodrine of All Chriflian Writers before and
at the time of the Nicene Council j) that is, the af-
ferting the Son to be at all a Son by Anj real Gene-
ration, either Temporal or Eternal i is (according to
Dr Waterland) making the Being of the Son Freca-
rious. Whatever arifes at all from the Foiver and
^// of the Father, either in ?/»?^ or ^/^rwVv; how-
ever abfolutely Immutable That Ad: of his Power
andWillht', is (with the Dr) as Alutable and Pr^-
carious^ as the Exigence of Any Creature whatfoever.
Acknowledge Jefus Chrifl to be the Same yeflerday
and to day and for ever, Bdore All Ages, and To all
Ages, permanently and Immutably : Still if he is
not fo by a Necejfty altogether independent of the Fa^
ther himfelf that is, if he is not really as Selfexifl"
ent as the Father ; his Exigence is (in Dr Water,
land's account^ as Mutable and Precarious, as That
of the meanefl Being in the Univerfe. Let the Dr
be pleafed to try This manner of arguing, in Any
Other cafe. God, fays the Apoftle, Cannot Lie,
The Only reafon why he cannot, is becaule he Will
not. Is therefore the Veracity of God, a thing as
Mutable and Precarious, becaufe it entirely depends
upon his Will; as is the Exiftence of Any Creature
whatfoever? That the « m// " of God, in This
and the like cafes, is not (as Dr Waterland moft aJp-

K % fnrdk

76 Obfervations on 'Dr WaterlandV

Obferv. fitrdlj cites from Another Author with Approba-
V II. tion,) the fame in Signification as " ^ny Natural
/'.233; '" Poji^er of God], " is evident from hencC;, that it can-
not befaid with equal Truth, (Dx IVaterUfid himklf,
I fuppofe, will hardly fay it,) that the Onlv reafon
Ti^hj God cannot ceafe to Be^ or ceafe to be Omnipre-
fent or Omnifcient, is becaufe he Will not. Again :
Gody faith the Apoftle, ii No Ref^e^er of Ferfons.
Evidently, with regard to phjjical Powers, it is as
eafy for God to refpett Perfons^ as not to refpeEi them.
Is therefore God's being no Refpetler of Perfons, a
thing " Precarious " and " Mutable at Pleafure \
To give One Inftance more: The Supreme Domi-
nion of God the Father over all, and the Sons Mini^
flration to him, is ('according to Dr Waterland')
P-4S> founded merely on " mutual Concert and Agree-
Scpaiiiin. '' ment-i '* on *-' Mutual Agreement and Voluntary
'' Oeconomy:'' Will he therefore fay, (as in This
way of arguing he muftO that the Supreme Domini-
on of the Gad and Father of All is as '' PRECA-
/. 3^1. \' RIOUS " and as '' MVTABLE at pleafure/\
as the Exifcence of Any Creature whatfoever? Let
him hear how his Own ipords found, when applied
f lip. to his Ow/j Nation, *' Aloft evidently the '* Father's
Supremacy of Dominion, -' is no PRECARIOVS''
Supremacy: "^^ Nor is Any Creature ivhatever^ at all
'■' Precarious or Mutable, by the fame 7vay of Rea-
«' fening. A mighty Honour done to God the " Fa-
ther, '' to make"' His Supremacy '^ no more Preca-
** rious than the reft of the Creation ! Certain howe-
^' ver it is, that, upon Tour Principles, there is No
f^ Natural Nsccjfny for his " being Supreme over

All

Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 77

All. " He might either Never have " been Su- Obferv.

preme, ^' or may even ceafe to'' be Supreme, '' as Vlll.

*^ mnch as may be [aid of Any Creature ; // it floould

*' fleafe " the Father and Son '^ fo to order it. This

" is the proper and full Notion of a FRECARIOVS '*

Supremacy, a Supremacy <' having No necejfary Fonn-

«' dation of Exiflence, hut depending entirely upon the

*' Free Will and Choice of Another '* or Two Other

*' Beings, All the Subtilties imaginable^ can never bring

'' yoH off hercy any more than they can bring together

«' Both Ends of a Contraditiion, " Pag. 215^,

Z20.

OBSERVAT. VIIL

Concerning the Worfhip of God the Fat her ^
and of Chrifi,

If The One God and Father of All-, be Above All;
'tis manifeft that All TVorJJjip, All Prayer and Thanks--
giving, muft terminate In him^ muft either immedi-
ately or mediately be direded To him. And if
This be fo; then 'tis evident likewife, that All Ho-
nour or Worfljip paid to The Mediatour in Any ca-
pacity, mull: of neceffity be Mediatorial only.
' Our LORD'S Diredions in This Point, are ; PThen
ye pray, fay^ Our Father which art in Heaven, d^cc.
JLuke xi^ 2. That whatficver ye fjall ask^ of the

Father

78 Objervations on T>r Watciiand'j'

Obferv*' Father in my Name^ he may give it yon ; Joh.
VIII. XV, 16,

^^'^"^ The u4poflles Inftrudions concerning This matter,
are. By Him let us offer the Sacrifice of Praife to
God continually y Heb. xiii, 1 5 . Giving Thanks^ aU
ways for all things unto God and the Father y [un-
to God, even the Father,] in the Name of our Lord
Jefus Chrifly Eph. v, 20. Giving Thanks to God
and the Father y by Him, Col. iii, 17. That God in all
things maj he glorified through Jefus Chrifi, 1 Pet. iv^
ii. That at the Name of Jefus every ' J^ee f]?ould

bo7Vy '• to the Glory of God the Father y Phil, ii,

II. ■ Through Him we Both have an Accefs^ by one

Spirit y unto the Father, Eph. ii, 18. / bow my

knees unto the Father of ot^r Lord Jefus Chrifi, Eph. iii,

14. / thank^my God through Jefus Chrifly Rom. i,

8. We have an ADF'OCATE with the Father,

Jefus Chrifi the Righteous, 1 Joh. ii, i . Able tofav§

Them to the uttermofi, that come unto God by him ;

feeing he ever liveth to make INTERCESSION for

them, Heb. vii, 25. Upon the fe Two laft-menti-

pned Texts, the following Words of Dr Waterland

t.^-ji. 2xt 2xi Excellent Commentary: " To pray to Chrifi

^^ to pray for Vs, is Near a-l^n to the Romifi) Do.

'^ Elrine of praying to Saints and Angels.

The Woriliip paid by the Saints in Heaven and
Earthy unto Chrifi y is by the Infpired Writer thus
reprefented. Glory he unto Him that fitteth upon the
Throne, viz. the Father; and unto the Lamby viz.
Chrift, the Lamb flain from the foundation of the
World, Rev, v, 1 3 . l^nto Him that loved ^J, arJ,
wafijcd ^s from our Sins in his own Blood, and hath

ma^e

Second T>efenfe of his O u e r i e s. 79

wade us Kms and Priefls mto God and his Father Obferv,
[unto his God and Father, -^^ ^^v ^ ^^c^e)- ^-^r^^'] to .\!yZ^
Him be Glory and Dominion for ever and every
Rev. i,- 5, (5. And they fuviga new Song, fajm^

Thou art -worthy ; for Thou waji flain^ and hafi

redeemed us to God by thy Blood, Worthy is

the Lamb that was flainy ^d Rev. v; p^ 12*
And St Stephen, feeing him flanding as Interceffour
at the right hand of God, thus invokes him ," Lord
yefusy receive my Spirit; Adisvii, 5P«

The Notion and FraElife of the Primitive Churchy
Cnot to multiply Quotations akeady often referred to,)
is Thus fet forth by Origen. *' We (i) ought to
'^ fend up all Supplication and Prayer and Interceffion
«^ and Thankfgiving To the Supreme God over all,
'' Through our High-Prieft, the living Word and
«' God, who is above all Angels : Yet we may alfo
*' offer Supplications and Interceffions and Thankl^
«' giving and Prayers To the Word himfelf, if we
" can dinftinguifh between Prayer in a Proper, and
'' Prayer in a fgurative Senfe, " And What he
means by This Diftindion, he clearly expkins
in another Place: viz.. (1) «^ We v/orfhip {fay^

he)

<^ ivnvlof/fiB-ci ciUTM, (c" £^%ce^t^Vo/t^s.v, j^ zr^sa-ivl^y.fiB-oc, ^, iuv

lib. f. p. 233.

(2) 'AAA« r Ivfli S-£cv, J'y r ivcc vtlv uvr^ y^ Xo^/cv x*et 'ay^.
ya, roue, yca,Ta. rv ^jjjcctvv vifj^Tv iKss^ccu, (^ oj|f&'(r£<r* crs^'^ot/jiv ■^^■ojzc^
yci'Ti^ rw B-iM rm o?:aiv w? Iv^a^ ^^ ts, a.ov?vs»5$ «yrS* « ^:<4'-

So Obfervations on T>r WatcrlandV

Obferv. ^'^ he) the one God, and his one Son and Word
Vfll. ci. 3nd Image, with Supplications and Prayers to the

^^ ■ '^ utmoft of our Power; putting up our Prayers
*^' To the God of the Univerfe, Through his only
" begotten Son : To whom we offer them firft, de-
" firing him, as being the Propitiation for our Sins,
*' to prefent as our High-Prieft our Prayers and Sa-
^ crifices \ThmlJgivingi^ and Interceffions, To the
*' Supreme God, "

The Obfervation of the Learned Bf 'Bull upon
Thele Two PafTages of Origen^ is as follows. (3)
*' / wonder (fays he) that thefe Places of Origen,
*' fjould offend the Learned Huetius ; in ivhich Places
*' (to confefsthe Truth) I ahvajfs thought:, for my oivn
*" party that the Catholick^DoEirine concerning the Per'
*^ fon and Office of our Sa jiour^ was well explained, '*
[See the Reply to Dr Waterland's Firft Defenfe^

The TVorf]?ip therefore paid to Chrijly and to
Cod through Himy as through the u4lone Mediatoury
is not a "^ Separate Independent Worfhip of tlie Per-
fon of Chriff; ; but a Part of the Worfhip of the Fd^
ther, Bj his Commands and To his Glorj,

The

iju>Zvf Trpoorayfiyi'iv cog t^'^mpix (c' vj^'^zc, }^ Tuq B-'Jcncci iC tcIc, h-
Tiv'inr, Y,^m TM Itu zrua-i 3-£«. Adv. Celf. lib. 8. |p, 386.

(3) Miror hxcce Orlgcnts loca viro do£lo \_HHctio'\ offendi-
culo clTe, in quibus egomet (ut verum fatcar) Catholicam de
perfon-a & oincio Servatoris noflri doclrinamnon male cxpli-
c ar i fe m p er ex i fl: ima ver i m . Defenf. Scci . z, cap. 9', § . r j".

* See c?elo7s?, Oblervat. XIV. § 6.

Second T)efenfe of hi^ Q^ue r i e s." S i

The Reply Dr Wkterland makes to Thefe Two Obfem
PalTages of Origen^ wherein That Antient and Learn- /vIII.
ed Writer fo clearly [with ^' ohfcure and doubtful ^^ ^^^^
*« Meanings *' the Dr thinks^] exprefTes His Senfe
of the Opinion and Pradife of the Church in His
time ; The Reply (I fay) which Dr Waterland
makes to thefe two Paflages of Origen^ is very Re-
markable. And a capable Reader, that pleafes to
compare it carefully with the Paffages themfelves,
will find in it a Singular Dexterity. '^ What I ga- p- 4o^»
" ther (fajs the Docior) from This PaiTage, ** [the
Two Pajfageshdd Both of them been cited to him To^
gether j] <^ is, that Prayer in the moft proper Senfe,
"' is to be underftood of Prayer direded immediate-
*' ly to the Father. This has been the moft ufua!
" and common Method of Praying : Wherefore this
«^ kind of Praying has obtained generally the Name
*^ of Prayer^ and is what the word Prayer has beeri
'' ordinarily ufed to mean. Origen does not fay,
'" that the Prayers^ Supplications^ Inter ccffions, and
'^ Thanksgivings^ offered to God the Son, are noneof
'' them properly fo called > but He makes his Remark
" upon Pr^<?r only. And He does not fiy? that even
'^ Prayer, when direded to God the Son, is not pro-
'' per divine IVorpip, or that it is Another Worihip, or
'' an inferiour Woriliip : Nor can any ilich Confe--
'' quence be juftly drawa from his Words. All
*^' that we are obliged to grant, in virtue of This
'^ Paifage, is, that one part of divine ^.Vorftiip called
^' Prajer^ is moft properly and emphatically Pr^j^r,
<^ when direEied to thefirfi Perfon of the Godhead 5
-^ in as much as That Method of /»r>^7>^ has bee^

L '^ moft

^1 Obfervations on T)r Waterland'j

Obferv. '' moft cuflomary and prevailing, and has thereby
V^r. <c in a manner engrofTed the Name o£ Prayerio'it
'* felf : ]ui[ as u4ddrejfes, by being moft commionly
"' offered to a Prince, come at length, by ufe, to
^' mean Addrcjfes of That kind only ; and then Ad-
'' drejfes to 0/hers are notfo properly Addrejfes,'*

But to pafs on from ^artkaUr Authorities, to

the confideration of the General Dodiirine. What

Notion Dr WaterUnd has of the DoU:rine it felf ^ o^

\joi.\\^\, ^^j. ij^^i^jg. ^^^ Advocate 7m h the Father, who ever

2f. liveth to make Inter cejfion for Them that come unto

Jok XV, Q^^ ^ jj^^ , ^^ J q£ ^^j. jy^^^^ ^£ ^^i^y^g flje Fa-
Phil . ii, r I . ther in His Name \ and of Bowing every Knee at the

clti\\T- ■^^'^^^ ^f J^fi^^' ^^ ^^^^ ^^^7 ^f ^^"^ ^^^^ Father ;
I ?et. iv, and of Giving Than!^ ahvajs for all things unto God
Vu ;; tO and the Father-, [unto God even the Father,! in the

liph. 1!, lo. ■' L ■'J

name of our Lord Jefus Chrift ; Giving Thanks to
God and the Father by Him ; that God in all things
may he gkrified through Jeftii Chrift , And of our
Privilege, of having an Accefs to the Father Through
Him: What Notion (I ^sy) Dr Waterland has of
thcfe things, he has told us in the following Words.

/. ?"^* '^ Suppoling Chriil: to be Dirciftly worlhip-

^' ped, but/0 the Glory of the Father ; the Father being.
*•' imagined to be glorified thro* Chrift as thro* a
<- Medlnm, Now here I mud: ask, Whether the
*' Worfnip fuppofed to be paid to Chrift, h^ fupremey
" or i^7feri(,r'< You will not fiy f^preme : And if it
^' be inferior:^ it cannot be prefumed to pa's on to the
'^ fipreme O'ojc'ft, who would not be honoured but
^i affronted mi\\i>fcrior Wonliip, It muft there--

« fore

Second 'Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 83

<< fore reft in the inferior Objed, and fo cannot be Ohkrv
^^ C2^\zA?neiiiate, h\M ultimate W ox ^\^, " MIL

'^ Since all Worfhip terminates in the Objed ^ ,.,^
*^' to which it is direded, or offered ;; If the fame
'^ Ad of worfnipj offered to Chrift, terminMes
" in God the Father ; then the Cafe is plain that it
'^ terminates in Botlo, and Both are one undivided
" Objed. *'

«' Allowing that the Worfiiip of God the t- 59o-
*' Son, terminates in God the Father j ftill it
^' is manifeft, for That very Reafon, that it is
*' not an inferior Worfhip; becaufe then it could
*' not terminate in the Father, being unworthy
^^ of Him. Nor indeed can any Ad: of worfhip
^' extend to Both^ unlefs Both be one Ohjecl, as be-
*^ fore fhown. *'

'^ Either the fuppofed Infcribur Worffjip term!- 39^"
'' nates in the Son^ and then IT is Vltimate ; or
^' IT terminates in the Fathery and then IT is Su-
'f preme : Chufe which you pleafe* '*

" If the rather be but worfliipped through Chrift ; f.^o^,
" prefently you cry out, mediate worfhip; tho'
'^ it be all one ^'^-i^f worlliip, not 7^;'^. And either
*^ the Son is not woriliipped at alL in ilich a Ca'e;
'' or, if He is, the faj7ie Worlliip is then oifered
'« to Both. The nature of the Worfiiip is not:
'•• altered by the manner of Conveyance ^ any m.ore
'' than a Prefent of Gold^ made to Two Perfons,
'' becomes Sr.zy'i to one, and Gold to theothep, only
*' by being conveyed thro' one to the other. '*

L z If

§4 Obfervations on T^r WaterlandV

Obferv. If Any ferious Reader finds any Inflrudion ancj
VIII. Improvement, in Thefe Comments upon the Do-
>^^^^ dlrine of Chrift's Mediation and InterceJJion '^ 'tis
well

It had been argued, that the Worflnp of the Me-
diatour was founded originally in the Command of
Gody who gave him a Name above every Name, that
at the Name of Jeftis every knee fhould bow , But
that the Pf^orpip of the Father, was, antecedent to
Any Command, founded in the eternal Law of Na-
ttire. To this, Dr Watertand makes the following

t- 5^^' Anfwer. " Has not onr Saviour Commanded us to
<« 7Vor(hip the Father ? Is His Worpip THERE-
" FORE not Supreme \ Sure, Arguments mufi run
<• very low 7uith you, or you would not trifle at
<« this rate* " Again : God " has Commanded his
" Son to be ii^orJJj/pped : And SO has Chrifl Com-
<' manded us to worflnp his Father : What is This^
'^ to the Point of infer iour Worfhip ? " Again :

t-l^C. « Why may not the Father -^ whoy according to his
^' Good Pleafure, makes J^own Himfelf and de-
'' mands Worfl^ip to Himfelf, do the like for his Son ? **

J. 406. _4nd again : " Whenever the Mediatorial Kingdom
'^ began, the Worfljip however of Chrifl 7i^as by the
«' Command of the Father : That I allow : And SO
f 7i>as alfo the Worfljip of the Father FIRST intro-^
^^ duced by the Command of the Father ^^ **
Quid cum iflo Hbmine facias \

OBSERV,

J^-595-f

Second T>efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 85

Obferv.
IX.

OBSERVAT. IX.

Concerning T>r WaterlandV difficulty y of
tinder fianding what is meant by the
words. One God, (ire.

Another Method, by which Dr Waterland en-
deavours to deftroy the Supreme Dominion of the One
God and Father of All\ is his labouring by a Duft
of Learned Jargon, to perfwade men that the very
Terms, « One Gody " mean no bodj knows what.
In the foliticaly in the moraly in the religions fenfe of
the words, all mankind well underftand What
One God is : One unoriginate Self-fuffcient Author
md Caufe of all things, One Supreme independent
Lord and Governour of All, One Great King and
ahfolme Aionarch of the Univerfe. But in the meta-
phjjlcal fenfe, (if Dr Waterland is to be believed,)
no man hnowsy no man poiTibly Can know, What
the terms, ^' One God, '* mean. One abfolutely Su^
preme Governour, may be One God: Any number
of abfolutely Supreme GovernourSy may (according
to Him) be One God : Nay, Any number of abfor
lutely Supreme GovernourSy may be One abfolutely
Supreme Governour : For, not only the word
^^ Gody '* but the word "^ One '* likewife, fignifies
(it leems) no body k^07vs what^^

It

P.IOJ.

S6 Obfervations on T^r Waterlaiid'^'

It had been allegedy that O ne Suhflance is not
the fame ^% One God; becaufe Two equally Su-
preme, Two Independent, " Two Unoriginate di-
" vine Perfom *' (Dr Waterland himfelf allows,)
<* however otherwije Infef arable,'' (however fuppoied-
to be of ONE Sabftance,) " wouldbe TWO GODS. '*

f^y-9. Yetinan'wer to This, bethinks ^' it is fufficient to
'' y^', Ho7v do J on knowt'' that '' making One
<^ Sabflance, is not the fame thing with making One
'« God\ " That is; how do you know, that TWO
GODS in One Suhflance^ are not the fame as ONE

■f. 106. GOD ? Again : '' Vnity of Subflance (fays he_j may
^« make Two Perfons " [or u4n\ number of Per Ions,]
<' confidercd as Equallj fupreme over Ally to be but
« ONE MONARCH, " And again : " / k^ow

^ /r « not what men have to do, to difpme about Intelligent

'* Agents, and Identical LiveSy &c. As if They un"
** derflood better than God Himfelf does, '* [better
than Dr Waterland Himfelf does, is all tnat he
means,] ^' V/^'HAT One God is, "

Thus likewife ludividmlity and Samenefs, are

words (it leems) which lignify no body knows 21'hat,

FirP.Dc^. A '^ certain Principle of Individuation^ is a thing

i.i7 3- *« much wanted. " And '^ As to the Degree of

^TT-i. '' SAAIENESS-, I before intimated that it is Inex-

'^ plicable, " Concerning the Abfurdity of this

way of talking. See the Reply to Dr Ws Firfi De-

fenfe, p, 307, 308,

In like manner, Wh4^ being Independent fig?
^.418. nifies, the Dr cannot undsrfland. '\ Come out

Second T>efenfe of kh Ovekiie. s. Sj

<« vf the Clouds, and tell me what you mean hj Obfei-v*
^^ Independent. '\ ^ s/"^r^

Concerning ^' Supreme " like wife, (a terni
which no man^, I believe, before Dr Watcrlandy
ever mifunderflood ,) " Come out of the Clouds, '^'''^•
<c and tell me (Jays he) what jou mean hj Supreme. '*
Again : Wrap jour felf up in the Ambiguous Termsy /'*332-
<^ Supremacy &c, " Dominion (it feems^ may,
according to Dr Waterlandy be equally '« Supreme h^Z-
" in ** any number of perfons j though it be
cc Original here, and Derivative there ; " in One,
« primarily '* {u'pvQmQ 3 in Others, '' derivatively '* /*7^'
fupreme. Nay, it may be " The Same in " All : 3^34.
The Same Dominion, may be derivative and origi"
naU derived and under ived : Any thing may be
Any thing. The Dr had been pre/Ted with This
Abfurdity before, and had been told that derived
Powers and underived Powers could not be the fame
Powers. To which, de 'pairing to give Any tolera-
ble Anfwer Himfelfy he at laft cries out to I know
not Whom for Help. This, fays he, '' is verj con- p.n^,
*^ trary to the Sentiments of JVtfer Alsn, who have
" argued the other way, that if the Powers had been
'^ equally Underived, they had Not been the Same. '*
Very True : Two underived Powers, undoubtedly
cannot be the fame Power : But did ever any of the
Wifer men argue from thence, that therefore a derived
Power and an underived Power might be the fame
Power ? Which if it ^vere poiTible ; it v/ould fol-
low that the Supreme Power of all, the Power of Be-
getting, the Powsrof deriving Being and Powers down-

to

8 8 Obfervations on ©r WaterlandV

Obferv. to Another ferfiny would be No Power at alL To
IX, put an end, at Once, to all this Playmg with Words :

^'^'"^^'^^ In the individHalkn^Q, ndthtx two underlvedVov^^-
ers, nor two derived Powers, nor one derived and
one underived Power, can be the fame Power : But in
the fpecifical fenfe, two underived Powers Mufl ne-
cejfarily be the famcy muft be equally Sptpreme ; two
derived Powers May fojjihly be the fame, may be
equally fubordinate ; but one derived and one underi-
ved Power, can Never in any fenfe be the fame y nei-
ther equally Supreme y nor equally Subordinate,

With the term, Authorityy the cafe is alfo the

^,iyQ^ fame. ''^ Supreme Authority y (fays the Doctor,)
*' IF you mean Power and Dominion,** As if any
man, fince the world began, ever did, or ever could
mean, by Thofe terms, not Power and Dominion*
But with Dr Waterland (you muft obferve) the

|». 4.3. word Authority fometimes fignifies Dominion or Au'
thority, and fometimes it fignifies " Paternity '*
alone, without any thing of Dominion or Au-
thority : And " Aucior " (he fays) '^ is Father, '* that
is, God the Father ; meaning that he is foy without
any thing of Dominion or Authority included in That
Title of Father.

^, ijp. Again : '' The Father (fays he J has his Author i-
'^ tyfrom None ,• And jet the Son-, having the SAME
« SVPREME Authority FROM the Father, is
" O'c* " Here if, by the fame Authority, he

P „^p^ means (as he fometimes exprejjly ayr) individually

311,323. the fame-, we have an Individual communicated,

and yet the Communicator lofes it not ^ that is to

fay,-

Second Defenfe of his Q^ue r 1 e 3. % 9

fay, an Individual which is No Individual. But Obferv.'
if he means fpecifically the famcy that is, the Like ^^*
Authority ; then there are with Him Two Supreme
Authorities, Two Supreme independent Governours,
Tivo Gods : And fo, (as before,) the ?ower of com-
municating All Powers^ is it felf No Power at all

And, in general, concerning All " the PerfeElions of
cc the Father and of the Son, " they are (fays he) the ^'•^594^

*' Same in KIND-, and they are alfo the fame in 321,

«^ NVMBER, individual Attributes, -— the ^^^^

'' fame individual Wifdom^ Power, ^c " Yet nothing
can, with Any fenfe, be faid to be the fame in Kind with
itfelf: And the only Reafon why Any Things or Pro-
perties whatfoever, can be faid either to be or not ta
be the Same in Kind, is becaufe they are Not the Sam€
in Number.

After the fame manner of talking ; the Three
Perfons in the Trinity, are (with Dr Waterland)
" REAL Perfons, " each of them an ^^ individual tirfi Bef
'^^ intelligent Agent;'" undivided in Subftance, but ^'^^°'
ftill difiinEl Perfons : fo difiinEl, that, were they all
anoriginated, he himfelf "^ allows They would be ^seconJDefi
Three Gods : fo diftincl, that he thinks they have by p- ^o?
Nature a necelTary Equality of Supreme Dominion ;
an^ '\by mutual Concert and Agreement " between ^. 45-,5cao;
thjnfelves, ^' by mutttal Agreement and Voluntarj Oe-
« \onomy, " a Subordination of Dominion and Offi-
ces. Yet at the fame time, in a moft unintelligible man-
ner, and with the utmoft inconfiftency, he profeffes
them to be All but One Living Perfon, « The LIFE ^^^
((ays he) '^ is common to all the Perfons^ as the Ef-

90 Obfer vat ions on T^r WaterlandV

Obferv.^ " fence is; and it is Identical in All: " Is not This
^X« affirming the Perfonality to be but One ? Again ;
/.4j'o. ^' Three Lifes, and jet but One Life : " Is not This
flying. Three Perfons^ and yet but One Perfon ?
^.216. Again; «^ There is the fame Life in Root and Bran-^
'< ches: ** Is not This as perfedly making but One
Perfon, as if he had laid. There is the fame Life in a
^.198. mans Heart and Head? Again: " To fjow that the
^ particular Glories belonging to the Son on account of
*' His OjfceSy are diftinU from the Glories belonging
" to the Father; '* is the fame thing (he fays) as
'^ to fjovj that the f articular Glories due to the
*^ Father under This or That Confideration, (as
^' King, as Judge, as God of the Jews, as God
*' of Chriflians ;) are diftinEl from the Glories of
<' the Father^ conftdered under Another Capacity : **
What is This, but faying that the Perfons of the Fa-
ther and Son differ no other wile, than as Capacities
/• i^3' of the fame Perfon ? Again : ^^ Whj then may not
^' the fame Individual Wifdom^ Power, ^c. be in
« Three Pe rfons ? That is : Why may not Many
Perfons have the fame individual Perfonal Pro-
perties, even Thofe Properties which make the Per-
fcn to be a Perfon, and which therefore can no
more be the fame in different Perfons, than the Per-
fons themfelves which are different,, can be the fame
Perfon ? Is not This the very fame Queftion, as to
ask Why may not Many Perfons be One Perfon f
And is not This Whole Manner of talking, a perfed:
Dev aflat ion of all the Grounds and Elements of Know^
ledgCy a total Suhverfion of all the Principles of N'atU"
ral Reafon and Religion, an entir§ Change of all Lan»

Second "Defenfe of his Qy e r i e s. 91

guage into Jargony and a turning of the Hoi] Serif" Obferv.
ture into Ridicule\ ^-^•

Of a Piece with the foregoing Inftances, is the
Dr's arguing about '' Glorj or Worjhip paid to That h ^99*
<^ NATVKEy which ti Common to Father and Son,'^
Which is exadly the fame Abiurdity, as if a man
ihould fay, he paid Obedience fnot to the King
Himfelfy but) to the NATVRE of the King. He
had ht^^ told of This before ; And yet he pei-fiPcs in
it : " I fajy what I take to he Senfe andTrmh^ thai p. 392s
** Worjhip terminates in the Divine NATVRE'^ con^
*' Jidered primarily in the Father and derivatively in
*' the Son; And now all is right, " And having
been asked, whteher Any NATVRE can with any
Senfe be [aid 1 0 Know or Do any thing \ he thinks it
fufficient to reply, *' TES, why not\ And having /'•^34»
been * told, that Whenever (in common fpeech)
the Deity or divine Nature is fpoken of as an Ob-
ject of Adoration, *tis not by way of Accuracy, (^as
the Dr had abfurdly pretended,^ but on the contrary
by a mere Figurative way of i peaking, put for God
himfelfi juft as we frequently lay, ""^ the King' s Ma-
*^ yc/^7' " "^^ meaning the Majefty of the Kingt but
the Perfon of the King, the King Himfdf : His
Anfweris, that His Affrming the Contrary is, ^^ Suf- ^. 588.
" fcient againfl Our Bare Affirmation. " If the Re^^
der thinks it fo, I am willing to leave it to him.

M % Innu-

"f See the Reply to Br ll^s Firji Defen[e, p. ^^6,

92 Obfervations on ©r Waterland'^

v^v*..

Obferv.

JX. Innumerable other Inflances may be found, of his

deflroying all Ufe of Language, by making^ words
to fignify no man knows what ; any thing, or,
which is all one, nothing . Supremacy of mere Order,
and Stihordination of mere Order , that is, Superi^
ority and Inferiority^ in order (or rejpe5i) of No-
thing; has been confidered above, Obfervat, IIL
A Seconci Generation of a perfon, who, before That
generation, was as much generated as after y and
was before in every refped every thing that he could
be after i has likewife been confidered above, Ob-
fervat, FL Of the fame fort, is his approving

^.iSz, thofe Senfelefs AlTertions, that « the Will of God
^^3- (' is God Himfelf; nay, that '' Will ftgnifies ANT
Natural Powers of God: ** Nay, that being by
g Willy and being by Neceffity^ may liave fuch Senfes put
upon them, as not to be oppojite to each other in iig-
nification ; but the terms '' ^i^rpoatpsTw? '* or " non
^^ ex voluntate^ " and the terms /SyAvj, ^iXw^, xx-nl
/Ss^Avjt-, and the like, may Both of them equally denote
fhyjical Neceffity : That is, B lac k^^nd White y may, if
men pleafe, (ignify the fame thing. Not much dif^

puif, f^^^^^^ is his affeding to exprefs a ridiculous '^Jeem-
^^ ing RepHgnancyy in maintaiinng that the Same AEh
'' is Certain as being foreknown^ and Uncertain as
'^ depending on the Will of a Free Agent : " Where-
as, in truth, the depending on the Will of a Free Agent
does not imply being Vncertain^ but only Not Ne-
cejfavy; And things net at all Necejfarymrf be very
Certain^ not only to God, but very often even to
Men alfo. Nor l^fs abfurd than any of the forego-

Second T>efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. 93

jng, is his Trifling about the words, \ABy and AEiive ; Obferv.
when he asks, *' whether an infinitely AEiive Being ^ -t-^*
^« CAN ceafe to AB \ " As if God's being infi- ^^^^^
nitely A^ive^ or having infinite Power to AUy im-
plied his having No Power to forbear Acting* And
puts another equally wife queftion, " whether God's '
«' Loving Himfelf be not A^iingV that is to fay,
whether All words have not the fame fignification,
and ftand alike for An^ Thing. And gravely " be-
*' lieves, we are almofl out of our Depth here^ and '^^^•
*' might more modeflly leave the Divine Ads to
<' That Divine Being, who Alone underfiands'" whe-
ther they be AEls or no. And to fuch as Hfid-
'' fretend to be 7vife in Such HIGH things, " hede- iSc/). 327,
fires to fut a further Ouefiion : " Does God NE*
« F'ER naturally or NECESSARILT exert any
«« Power ? " That is to fay : Is there no Cafe,
wherein God exerts any Power ^ when he has No Pow^
er at all to exert \ *' Who can be VAfe enough, to ib'ul
^' know Thefe things \ **

Agreeable to all This, is his Defenfe of That
Maxim, that "^ The Subfiance of God, is God," In p-4-^9*
oppofition to This, (when fo underftood as to mean '^^'^'
Subfiance abftrad from the confideration of Intelligent
Perfonality,) it was alledged that God is neither the
Subfiance of God, nor the Attributes of God, but he is
That Intelligent Agent whofe Both the Subfiance and
Attributes are. To hinder the Reader from under-
flanding thefe Plain words, the.Dr tells him the Mean^
ing of them is, that «^ the Perfin is neither Subfiance
« nor Attribute, but Something BETWEEN Both : *'
Wk^l^J^l ^]^% ffH£ Meaning of them evidently is,

that^

f3^7-

H Obfervations on 23r Waterlaiid'^

[Obfervi that neither the SnbfiaKcey nor the jittrihutesy but
^^^,,1^^ '^OTH together, are the Intelligent Agent or P^r-

I fhall mention but One inftance more, viz,, his
Notion of a Compound Perfon. Becaufe a Suhftdncc
maybe compounded o£ Many diftinEh Subftances^ and
a Pfr/^» may alfo be compounded of J/^;nr diflin^h
Subfiances ,• therefore, he thinks, a Perfon may like-
wife be compounded of ^^^y difiin5i Perfins.
Which is exadly the fame thing as to fay, that
becaufe a Man may be compounded o^ Spirity Flep,
Blood, Bonesy and the like ; therefore a Man may
like wife be compounded of Many Mcn^ a Living
Man compounded of Many Living Men y fo that
Any number of Men may be One Man, and Any
7iu?nber of Per fins may be One Perfon. Which
gi"ofs Confufion of Ideas, is alfo the Caufe of all that
unreafonable Difcourfe, which will betaken notice
of under the N^xt Obfervation^

OBSERV,

Second T)efenfe of his Queries. 95

OBSERVAT. X.

Concerning 2)r Waterland's Arguments
drawn from his Suppofed "Difficulties
in conceiving the "Divine Omnipre-
fence.

There is no Argument in which Dr Waterland is
more infolent^ or with lefs reaforiy than in This
which follows. There are (he thinks) as Great
Difficulties in his Adverfdries notion of the Divine
Omniprefencey as there are in His notion of Manj
equally Supreme Independent Perfons conftituting One
Supreme Governour or Monarch of the Vniverfe :
Therefore (he thinks) His notion has as much-
Right to fuperfede all Difficulties in the One cafe,
as Theirs has in the Other.

Upon this Weak^ Comparifon^ he feettis to build al-
moft all his Hopes : It runs through his li^hole Per-
formance - He every where lays the Strefs upon it ;
and runs to it for Refuge, upon every Exigency.-
And yet the PZhole of the Comparifon is as entirely
impertinent y as if a man {\\o\i\d pretend, that to Hin7
there are as Great Difficulties in conceiving Immenfl-
ty or Eternity, as in conceiving Tranfuhflm-'
tiation, and that Therefore Tranfubftantiation ought
as much to be Believed in fpite of All Diffi-

cultiesj,

Obftrv;

X*

36 Obfervations on T>r WateriandV

Obferv. culties, as that there is any fuch thing as Immenjitj
X- or Eternity at all. The only Difference in This cafe
is 5 that in favour of Tranfuhflantiation there iSy
though nothing indeed in the Senfe of Scripture,
yet fime fort of Colour or u4ppearance in the Words :
Whereas Dr TVater land* s Notion, is not only con-
tradi^led in every Page of the JSTew Tefl amenta but it
"Wants moreover even fo much as any Colour in the
Words of any one Jingle undoubted Text.

The Manner however, in which he perpetually in-
culcates this Argument, is This. Upon «^ the
'' PRINCIPLE^ that the Divine Suhftance is infi-
'' nitely extended^ mi one r^ay prove that the Di'
^^ vine Beings according to , conjifis of an inft-^

p. 54. '^ »ite Number of different Subfiances, " " E-

<c i;£yj p^yf- Qj That Subflance being conjldered as Ee^

f.iiy. '^ ingy and yet all but One Being.'" ^' As

'* much as you dejign the fame Subfiance in Kind and
^' in Number, of any Two Parts of the One ex-

/>.2io. '^ tended Divine Subfiance.'* ^' If there cannot

'' be Sub fiance and Sub fiance without Subfiancesy you
<' are in a lamentable cafe^ while you fuppofe the Di-
*' vine Subfiance to be extended i For you thereby fup^
*' pofe him compounded of innumerable Subfiances :
*^ Learn hereafter to haveyourThoughts more about youy
<^ -when you are charging ContradiRions,** ^' Nor

/>. 116. *' is Our Notion more unconceivable or inexpli-
*^ cable than Yours. When you are able to explain
«*■ to MEi how the Wifdom refiding in One Part of
^' the Divine Subfiance (on jour hjpothefis of Ex-
^' tenfon) is the lame and yet not the fame with the
*^ Wifdom rejiding in A?iy Other Part i I may then b^

abU

^l^l-

Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 97

^* able to account for the degree of Samenefs See. " Obferv*

*« The degree of Samenefs is inexpllcahle ; and is no X.

*^ more to be accounted for-^ than Your fippojing- the

*' fame Wifdom to refide in innumerable infinitely di^

*' jiant Parts of the fame Subfiance. ** «« Vpon />. 310,

<* the Principle of the Divine Sub fiance heinn- extend- ^^^*

*' edi I dejtre to h^ow whether This Snbflance 7vhich

<« fills the Earthy be That One Subftance ivhich filk

« Heaven : « By Tour PRINCIPLES^ fo far ai

«' I jet perceive, This Sub fiance and That Subfiancff
*f muft be Two ftmple Sub fiances, and One complex

*' Subfiance -.^ And fo<i if we mufl have a complex

^' Deity y it may as well be with a Trinity of Di-
*« vine** [equally Supreme independent] « PerfonSy
*' as without. Clear your own Scheme Sy and y oh clear
^ Ours at the fame time, " " When we ashjyoti fr.si^;

*' the like Ouefiions about the Parts of the Divine

*• Subfiance ; — by That Time you have furnifijed

*^ out proper Anfvers to Thefe Ouefiions^ all that
**■ you have objeEied about Individual^ will drop and
*^ dwindle into Nothing,'* " Is Oux DoU:rine

*' more hard to be conceived, than That [of the
«' Omniprefence] /i ? " <« Derived andVnde-

*' rived may be the fame Subftance ; as well as Great-
^' er and Lefsy Containing and Contained^ may be the
^^ fame Subfiance : Which you are forced to allow, in
'^ your hypothefis of the extended Parts of the fame
" Subfiance, '* " When you fuppofe That Part

^' of God* s Subfiance which fills the Sun. to be indi' '

«' vidually the fame with what fills the Moon; do
<« you mean that Both are individually the fame fingky
JIJ id^nticali whole Subfiance ^ How often mufl yon

N be

98 Obfervations on T^r Watcrknd'^

Obferv. '^ hs rem'mcisd, of johy unequal Dealing in T%iscontro--

^ X. <f vzrfj ; that Argument i mufl hold againfi THE Tri-

^•"^ ** nity " [againft Dr Wat er land* s New Hypothecs 2hoviZ

the Ti^inity,] '' w^^/c^ /» <?^W G?j?x have no Force

t-l9^' ^^ "^^f^jouatalll** *^ How do you fufpofe innu-

'*■ mcrable extended Parts of Subfiance to make one
^' Numerical Spibflance ? Or will you venture to fay 3
^« that they are the fame fpecifically and no otherwife ?
<^ making Many Subfiances in Number, though the

p. 414. " fi^e in Kind ? *' " Notions you have taken

*' up about SamenefSt and fuch as you allow not in
*' Any caf>, but This; contradiciing that JlriBNoti-
*' on of Samenefs:, as often as you make an infinite
" Number of extended Parts to he the fame Sub-
. ^^ fiance,'* *' Tou had fever al Maxims about
'^ Individual) about Samenefs, about Subfiance, a--
*' bout Beingy 7vhich were to be urged as of Great
«' Force againfi THE doBrine *' [Dr Waterland*s
New Dodrine] ^' of the Trinity ; though of No
«' Force in Another SubjeB^ upon your own PRIN-'
'« CIPLES: ^This unreafbnabky and indeed

^.432. *« fMrncfid ConduEi &c. ** *' He has allowed

" in Another cafey Subfiance and Subfiance y Being
*' and Beingy to make One Subfiance y and One Be-

/ .^4'5, ^« ing, without any Compofition, ** <« If you

^^'^' <« can admit Subfiance and Subflancey nay This Suh^
" fiance and That Subflancey where there are no Sub*
" fiances ; why do you deal thus unequally with O-
^' thers i Tou mufl allow, that IJnion is enough to
**■ conjlitute Samenefs, without making either Complex
'^^ or Compound Subjlance; otherwife you make a
[' Complex or Compomd Subfiance of Cod. Since

ithere^

Second T>cfenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 99

«' therefore the fame or equal Bifftcnlties he^.r upon Obferv.
*« Bothy be fo fair and fo candid as to condemn or to ^^^xj
" acquit Both,'* '' u4re none of thofe Farts tbld,

cc fingnlar identical Subfianccs, but all One fi?igi^lar
^' identical Sub fiance \ What is the Reafon of it \ Is
<« it noty that Union mah^s Samenefs, all real
^^ Samenefs \** *' Ton 7i^ould find the Like t' 4f4 •

^^ Diffculty in exfreffmg the Parts of the Divine

'^ Subflanccy in jour hjpothejis of Extenfion :

^' In a parallel Inflance^ the ObjeBion may be as
*' flrongly retorted upon yourfelves : You admit Sub-
<« fiance and Subftance^ jvhcre ^ou think^it not proper
^^ to fay Subfiances,'' ^'' The Confequence bears ?-4^<^-

<^ as hard upon You, as it can upon Me; fince it
<' makes the Divine Beings upon your own PRIIV-
" CIFLES» a Compound of innumerable Subftances :
«« So that you cannot condemn My way of thinking
« andfpeakingy but with the Shame of Self -contra-
'« diElion and Condemning Your f elf, '[

Tiie Groundlefsnefs md Iniquity of this IVhoU Com-
parifony will appear by the following Confiderations.

jfi. 'Tis not at all a <' PRINCIPLE " with Me,
that the Divine Subftance is infinitdy Extended. A
Truth I believe it is, for This Reafon , becaufe at pre-
fent I am not able to conceive how 'tis poffible.
that God ihould be every where Prefent, without be-
ing Prefent everywhere. But if Dr Watcrland, or
any other perfon, can fhow me any better Notion of
the Divine Omniprefence^ or that This is net rhe right
one 5 *tisalloneto Me, I have kid ;^o Strefs upon
^nj particular Notion, or Explication of this Mat-

N z ter ;

100

Obfervations on T)t WaterlandV

Obferv.
X.

ter ; I have drawn no Confeqt-unce^ nor am anfwera-
ble for Any Confeqaencet from it ; I have built no-
thing upon it ; I have made No argument to relj or
depend upon it ; I have never once mentioned it in this
Whole Controverty. *Tis by mere Conjecture onlj»
that Dr Waterland has taken it to be my Opinion at
all. And, were he able to confute it, he had ftiU
gained nothing, he liad deftroyed No " Principle **
of Mine ; to whom Every Explication is alike pleafing,
that eftablifhes at all the general dodrine of the
Divine Omniprefence^ taught both by the Light of
Nature and Revelation. Had Dr Waterland pro-
ceeded in This manner : Had he propofed Hii
Explication of the Do(5irine of the Trinity, to
be confidered and compared with Other Explicati^
ons : Had he not conftantly placed the Particularities
of his o-wn Exphcation, in the room of the Princi^
fie itfelf to be explained ; and, with unchriftian
wrathfulnefs, repreiented All Thofe who rejeded
<« THE Doctrine of the Trinity** invented by Dr
Waterland^ as Reje(fters of '' THE DoBrine of the
«« Trinitv " taught by ChriJI and his ^poflles : The
controverfy, for Me, had been long fince at an End.
2. After all the odious Confequences, which Dr
Waterland^ in a popular way of writing, has indea-
voured to nx upon the Opinion of the Divine Sub"
flance being infinitely extended ; he has no where had
the Courage clearly and difl:in(S:ly to declare, that it
is not, after all. His Own Opinion, He has no where
dechred, that he himfelf believes God to be Omni-
pre feat, not fuhfi ami ally, but virtually only. He
has no whex^ declared, that h§ himfelf believes Vidv^'

Second T)efenfe of his Q^u eries. ioi

tr can fubfift without a SnbjeEi ; and that, by the ^^^^^*
Divine Omnifrefence> he means nothing more, but r/N/vj
what he elfewhere calls '' a Nominal Vbiquity^ " viz. />.4i4-
that God withotit being really and fubflantially Omni-
prefent^ (that is, withom being 0??miprefent at all,)
has Power to Ad in all places u^S IF he was really
Omniprefent. Till he has done This ,* the odious Con-
fequences (nothing relating to the prefent Controver-
fy,^ which he has gone far out of his way in hopes to
fallen upon Others^ remain equally fixt upon Himfelf,
3. Had he clearly and diflindly declared This
latter to be his Own Opinion', Still, unlefs he had
fhown that the difficulties which he fanfies to he
(or affeUs to reprefent as being) inextricable^ were
peculiar to the Other Explication, and not equally in-
extricable in his Own ; all that he has done in this
matter, has been only to indeavour to expofe to the
Scorn of Infidels the do^rine itfelfoi" the Divine Om^
mprefence-i as contradiElory and ridiculofis ; whereas,
in the Truth of things, it is one of the clearefl and
mofl^obvioHS and moft diflinEl of All our natural Ide-
as ; and has no manner of diffcnhj in it, but what
^riks "wholly and folely from the improper Applicati-
on of fantaflical Terms of Arty and the attending to
Words only inflead of Ideas of Things,

4. Were All the Confequences, which the Dr in-
deavours to charge in the moil odious manner and
with perpetual repetition. Real Confequences from A-
ny Principles of his Adverfaries, and Peculiar too to
thofe Principles ,* If ill even All This (the Reader
will be pleafed carefully to obferve) would be no-
thing to his Purpofe, in the way of Cgmparifon upon

which

I02 Obfervations on 'Dr WaterlaiidV

Ob/erv. which the prefent Argument wholly turns. For
X. the thing objeded To Him, is; that Mmj Sh-

'^'^^^"^^"^ freme Governoars ("however fuppofed to be infe-
parable) cannot be One Supreme GovernoHr^ becauie
'tis an exprefs ContradiElion in itfelf, as well as entire-
ly void of all Foundation in Scrifture, But the
thing retorted By Him^ is ThU only; that Many
Subflances cannot be One St^bftance, or that Many
Sabfiances cannot be One Per fin : Neither of which,
includes any contradi5iwny or indeed any difficulty at
all. For though, in the nature of things, One Per-
fin caa never poflibly be compounded of Many
Per fins y One Living Man can never poffibly be com-
pounded of Many Living Aien ,• yet One Subftancc
may be, and generally is, conftituted of Many Sab*
fiances ; and one Pcrfon alfo may be, and generally is»
conftituted of Many Subftances, Wherefore though,
for Other Reafins^ 'tis certain the Divine Subflance does
not confift o£ PartSy properly 3ind phyfically fpeaking^.
that is. Parts divifible, feparable, or diverlified with
Properties diftind from the univerfal Powers of the
Whole, f which is the ejfential charader of all Corporeal
Beings, and the Ground o£ Corruptibility ;J yet, fo far
as the Prefent Argument is concerned, were All the
Dodor's Confequences truly and juftly drawn,*
were it a true Dedudion, that (in our ab(}raSi 'and
metaphyfical manner of conceiving things) the divine
Sub fiance did confifl of Parts^ of Parts imaginably
infinite in Number ; yet even This, I fay, would
ftill (to the Purpofe of the Argument for which it
has been uiged by Dr V/aterland) have no difficulty
at all in it ,• 'twould infer nothing in the leaft de-
gree

Second Tiefenfe of his Queries. 103

gree ''parallel'* to the Abfurdities of the Dodor's Obierv.
Scheme ; 'twould require nothing to clear it, which at X.
the fame time could at all clear or make pjjible the Do- ^^
Dior's Notions ; *twould,imply no contradithon in itfelf%
nor to the Vnifj of God ; provided always there was
underftood to be but One Life, One Will, One Pow-
er, One Wifdom, aswell asOne Immenfity, of the
Whole ,• and not (as Dr Waterland affecls abfurdly
to fpeak,) a " Wifdom rejiding in One Fart of the
<* Divine Stibjlance^** and a " Wifdom rejiding in f.ti6^
^' Anj Other Fart, '* For, even in Finite Perfons,
every Ferceptive and every A^ive Faculty whatfo-
ever, is not one Power refiding in one fart of its
fphere of activity, and another Fower in another
part ; but One Ferceptive or One Active Faculty , of
the whole Ferfon.

5. Lajlly, 'Dt Waterland himfelf, after having ta-
ien perpetual Refuge in this Comparative Argument^
and thereby endeavoured upon Every Exigency to hide
from his Reader the Abfolme Contradidoiinefs of
his own Notion: Even He himfelf (I fay) after
All This, plainly confefTes himfelf Confcious that k
is nothing to the Purpofe. The Caie had been put
to him in the following Words. " Suppofing the v^piy-.
•' difficulties were equal (as they by no means are?*) r l^^-
<« yet there would be No confequence in your
*' Argument. The dtvine Ofnmprefence is AGREED
*' on Both fides, to be a Truth demonftrated by
" Reafon-i and affirmed in Scripture. Difficulties in
^' conceiving the Manner of fuch an ACKNOW^
<« LEDGED Truth, are in no degree any juft
ff Objedion againft the Truth it/elf Nov/ were

«« the

I04 Obfervattons on "Dr WaterlandV

Obferv. <f the thing Ton contended for, either a Propojttio^
^y i '' demoHJhnted by Reafon, or am where affirmed in
^'^^'^'^ *< Scripture \ the Cafe would then indeed be the fame.
<' But the ?rime Objedion againft Tour Notion, is,
*' that it is no where found in Serif turey nor deduced by
*' any jufl Confequenoe from Scripture ; and is more-
*' over Impoffihie to be under floods. Now Impoffibility
•' of being underfioody is a very juft Objcdion againft
*' an unproved hjpothejisy though it would not be {o
^' againft an ACKNOWLEDGED truth. To
'' what Purpofe then is it, to compare Difficulties
"^ here \ as if a difputed hypothejis would be ever the
*' Truer y ibr proving that there were as great Diffi-
" culties of conception in fome VNDISPVTED
*' Truths as in That difputed Joypothefis. " What
Anfwer does the Dodor make to This \ Why, he
f.jzS. acknowledges '^ *tis reafonably put, and deferves
*' Conjideration, '* And when it has undergone his
Confideration, what Then ? why, then " to This
*' (fays he) / anfwer ^ that our Pofitive Evidence
*< from Scripture J is very Great and FulL ** That
is ; he acknowledges his Comparative Argument to be
nothing to the Purpofe, till his Pofitive Evidence be
firft allowed. But whether his Pofitive Evidence
be really any Pofitive Evidence^ or no ; is the Whole
Point in Queftion between us. Surely, till That be
determined fome Other way, than merely by his
Own Confidence ; he can have no Right to lay
down his Conclufion^ as a Principle Granted ; to make
ufe of it as an Allowed Premife^ in order to deduce
from thence the Proof of itfelf; or to Compare it
with Acknowledged and VndifpmU Truths, in order

to

Second ^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s, i oj

to ftiperfede and over-rule all Difficulties. Well / Obfervi
but (to let him take his own way,) TVhere is This X»
*^ Great and Full Evidence from Scripture " Why, *^pf
" It hath (fays he) been Often JJjown. '* But We
infiflr, on the contrary, that Every Text in the Nev/
Tejlament has been carefully examined ; and that it
clearly appears, that innumerable of thofe Texts are
diredly contradictory to Dr Water land's Dodrincj
and that not One of thofe Texts does either in Words
or in Senfe or by uinj Confequence affirm his dodrine^
Here the matter muft finally be left to the capable
and Jincere Reader, who thinks it worth his while
to ftudy and compare the Scriptures : ?rove all things^
hold faft that which is good, I fhall here obferve on=
ly This One thing further ,• that, when the Dodor
was thus referring us back to his whole Book in ge^
neral for his *^' very great and full Evidence, '* he
thought fit however to affift our Memories by
pointing out to us One F articular -^ wherein the
Strength of this great and full evidence principally
Jay. <« Our-pojitive Evidence from Scrtpture'' (fays ib'Jl
he) '^ is very great and fully as has been Often
*^ pawn : 1 7vill here mention but One Argument of
•^ /Vj viz. that you have not been able to elude out
^' Proof of the SON's Divinity, '* [of the Son*s na-
turally equal and independent Supremacy^ he means ;]
<* without eludings at the fame time^ every Proof of
<f the FATHER'S Divinity alfo ; as I have flnwyt
« above. Is not This d very SENSIBLE^ and a
«f very affie^ing Demonfiration^ of the STKEN'GTH
« of our Scripture-Proofs I'* Had any man been
to pm words into the Mouth of an Adf erfary, he

Q couli

106 Obfervations onTir Water landV

Obfevr. could not have invented any thing more ahfurd.
^I- As will appear, by the following Obfervation,

OBSERVAT. XI.

Concerning the Scripture-Troofs of the
"Divinity of God the Father,

It having been fhown at large, by a diftind
Confideration of all the Texts ; that All the Titki
given to the Son\x\ the New Teftament, and All the
Powers afcribed to him, are perfedly well confiftent
with referving the Supremacy of Ahfolute and Inde-
pendent Dominion to the Father Alone ^ to the One
God and Father of AlU who is Above All : To This,
Dr Waterland has thought fit to make the following
f.idfC; Anfwer. '« Ton have not then been able to frovey
H7' ic fij^f the particular Perfon^ ^^//^^ the Father, is the
^' Firft Canfe of all things; or that there is not Ano-

« ther God ABOFE HIM. By loofening the

'« Proof of Chrifl's Divinity y '* [of his naturally e-
qual and independent Supremacy ^ he means ;] ''^ you
*' have loofened EV^ERT Proof of the Divinity of
« God the Father alfo ; which PERHAPS you was

*^ not aware of. — 1 do not kno7U whether you

*^ can yet prove That particular perfon^ called God the

*' Father y to be the one eternal God, Affoon as

*' you have proved the Divinity of God the Father^
*' by the SAME Arguments we will dfo prove the

« Divi-

wOTNi

Second T>efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 107

" Divinity '* [the neceflarily equal Supremacj~\ " of Obferv.
'^ God the Son, Soy chufe you whether to take in Botht XI«
*' or give up Both. For I Jee no Remedy y hut that
*< the Divinity '* [the Supreme divinity] *•' of Fa"
'^ ther and Son, muft ft and or fall TOGE-

« THER But I muft tell you farther :, that by /'•^49-

*' weakning and deftroying fo many clear and unde-
'< niable Proofs of the FATHER'S Divinity^ you
^' have not left yourfelf enough to prove Him to be
'« the Firfi Caufe, This, PERHAPS, jou was not

'' aware of; taking it for granted, that the FA-

'^ THERs Divinity would be admitted without
" Proof, It is a DARK Bufmefs ; but Difputants
« will fometimes over ftooot . Dr Clarke, I believe, be-
'' gan to be fenfible of his Err our in This rcjpect, as
" having undermined every Scripture-Proof of the

f' necejfary exiflence of God the Father, —We

'' leave you, with Shame, to make out the Father's
" necejfary Exiftence by (bme other as exprefs

*< Texts, As you had once LOS t the Proof of the p, ^^o.

^' Father's Divinity, by denying the Sons ; fo by af-
^' ferting the latter, you may again RECOf^ER the

« former : And then all will be right Tou ^ ,^5^

" have not been able to elude our Proof of the Sons
« Divinity, " [of his naturally and neceiTarily equal
and independent Supremacy^ " without eluding, at
« the fame Time, Ef^ERT Proof of the Father's Divi^
" nity alfo ; as I have (Joown above. Is not This a
« very SENSIBLE, and a very afecling Demonftra-
<« tion, of the STRENGTH of our Scripture-
^f Proofs f *'— — «f While we are bringing you plain p. ^16.
f Proofs for Chrift's Divinity,*' [meaning again

O 2, his

108 Obfervations on T>r Water] and'^

Qbferv. his naturally abfolute and independent Sftpremacy^']
X^' ^' ^S ?LA1N AS cm he brought for the Divinity

^"^"^^^ « of the FATHER, "

All This is (o incredihlj abfurd^ that, after ha-
ving read it over and over again, I could hardly
tell how to believe my own Eyes. For

\fl. What can be more abfurd, than to talk 'of
Proving the Attributes of God from Revelation;
when, in the nature of things, the very Notion of a
Revelation neceffarily Prefuppofes them, and the Scrip-
ture always y^^^y^ of them and affirms them as frefup-
fofedl Can the Veracity of God be proved from
Scripture y when the 7r//^^ of the Scripture itfelf tvi-
dently relies wholly and folely upon our prefuppofmg
the Veracity of God ? And the Same is true hkewife^
of all the Other Perfedions of the Divine Nature.
They are known demonflrubly by the Light of Nature,
And for That reafon, and That only ; all the Phrar
fess wherein any of the divine Perfedions are fet
forth in Scripture, are always and neceffarily un-
derflood to mean much more, than the Words them-
felves properly do or can exprefs .* The Words always
receiving the Strength of their Signification, not
from their o^nintrinfck^Notation^ but from the an-
tecedently known Nature of the Subje^ to which
they are applied. We read of Everlajiing Hills
in the Scripture, as well as of the Everlajiing
God. 'Tis not therefore from the word, Everlajiing,
that the Eternity of God is Proved : But the word*
sverlajiing or iternal, does for This only reafon in One
cafe^ and not in the Other ^ tx^rt^s^ proper Eternity;
p^c^iife we knov/ befonhmd that God could not

Second T)efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. xq^

have exifted at all, if he had not been (m the flrid Obferv,
metaphyfical Senfe) Eternal i neceflarily, efTentially, XI.
and independently Eternal, Again : When the Scrip- ^■OT'^^
ture faith. Before the Adounta'ms were brought forth,
or ever the Earth and the World were made 3 thou art
God from everlafiing and world without end: 'Tis
not from the Force of the wordi themfelveSy but
from the antecedent Knowledge of the Thing, that we
underftand the Pfalmift to intend by .That Phrafe a
real Eternity : For otherwife, ^gels^io exifted ^f-
fore the Mountains were brought forth, or ever the
Earth and the world were made. In like manner,
when St Paul, fpeaking of God, fays, that He Only
hath hnmortality ; 'tis evident that, not from the
mere Force of the words, (for Angels alfo have Im-
mortality,) but from the Nature of the Thing we
know that the Apoftle by This expreflion meant Ne-
cejfary and Independent Exijience. The cafe is the
fame, when God is declared in Scripture to Fill
Heaven and Earth, What is not Infinite or Im^
menfe, may fofjibly do That : But becaufe we know
beforehand that God cannot but he Immenfe, there-
fore we underftand That Phrafe to exprefs his Im-
menfity. Whoever confiders Thefe Inftances, wilj
evidently fee how Weak^^W thofe Arguments are>
which Dr Waterland builds upon the^ Same Phrafes
being fopietimes applied in Scripture to different Per^
fins. But

zdly. What I fuppofe the Dodpr more ftridly
means by the Paffages above-cited, is This : Th^t
if, from the Highefi Titles given tQ Chrift in Scrip-
Curfj Ifs cannot prove the $0N io he naturally and

fjecejfa'^

no Obfervations on T>r WaterlandV

Obferv. necejfarilj the God Supreme over ^11; then neither can
XI. We^ from the Highefl Titles given to the FATHER

^•^y^^ in Scripture:, ^^ovq Him toht naturally and necefari-
ly the God Supreme over All, fo as to have no one
Above or Superiour to him in dominion. To which
t H^> I anfwer : That " the particular perfon^ called the
^"^^ ^' Father^" does in Scripture c/^/«^ to be " the Firfi
*' Caufi of all things, " by taking upon himlelf the
Title of Father of All: And the Dr cannot " by the
*' SAME Argument prove alfo '* the Son to be the
Firfl Caufe of all things. The " particular perfon,
*' called the Father, " does hkewife in Scripture
claim to have no other '' God Above him^ ** by ta-
king upon himfelf the Title of the One God and Fa-
ther of All, 7vho is Above All ; By claiming^ to have
JVo Superiour ; to do all things according to the Coun^
felof his own Will;, to ht fent by None', to recieie
Power and Authority from None ,• to ad by No
ones Commijfion ; to fulfill No one's Will. And
the Dr cannot '' by the SAME Arguments
*' prove alfo " the Son to have no one " Above
^' Him, " For^ does He By whom God created
all things, claim as much to be " the Firfi Caufe of
*' all things, " as the God who for his own Pleafure
created all things By him \ Does He who came not to
do his Own Will, but the Will of Him that Sent him J
claim as much to have No Superiour, as He whofe Will
he came and was fent to fulfill^. Does He who ftyles
Another Pcdon His God and Father, claim as much
to have No one ^' Above him \ " as He whom he
ftyles his God and Father \ Dees He who is Honou-
red To the Glory of Another^ claim as much to be

neceffa^

Second T)efenfe of his O u e R i e s. ii i

necejfarily Supreme in Dominion over Ally as He to Obferv.
•whofe Glory he is Honoured ? XT.

I earneftly widi, ("for the fake of Truths for the '*^*V'^
Glory of (7^^, for the Honour of Chrijh and to pre-
vent the multiplying of Obfiacles which ^/z/^ Ocr^-
^(?« to the Enemies of Religion to blafpheme ;) that
men of Ability j who judge the Writings of DvTVa-
terland to be confiderable, would be at the Pains to
perufe and conjider and compare^ what he has advan-
ced upon this Great and Important Subjed,

OBSERVAT. XII.

Concerning T>r Waterland's manner of
putting his Ov/n Particular Explications
of a "Do^rine, in the place of the Do-
drill e itfelf to be explained.

From what has been faid under the foregoing
Heads, 'tis obvious to obferve^ with what Right
and Juflice Dr Waterland continually flips the Par-
ticularities of his Own Explication, into the Place of
the DoElrine itfelf to be explained, Wliofoever re-
jcdis His Particular Explications, brings « ObjeEli- p ^ij^
'^ ons (it feems) againfi THE DoEirine of the Blef-
*' fed Trinity ; " alleges '' Arguments againfi THE 3<JO.
<' Trinity;"' urges '' Maxims, as of great Force a-
^^ gainfiTHE DoUrine of the Trinity ;" and ^'points ^^x^
^ his Logick^ againfi THE Trinity,'*^ A Writer

of

112 Obfervations on ©r Wateirland'i^

Obferv. of the Church of Rome^ might exadly with the
, "XII* fame reafon fay, that whofoever oppofes Tranfab^
fiantiation^ brings Obje^ions againfl THE DoEirine
of the Blejfed Sacrament, Nay, he might fay it with
greater reafon : Becaufe Tranftibflantiation has been
expreffly received by the whole Church of Rome^
whereas Dr TVater land's Dodlrine (I verily believe)
was never generally recieved by Any Church in the
World. And Tranfubftantiation h^-sfome colour in the
bare words (though none in the Senfe) of Scripture ;
whereas Dr Waterland's Dodrine has no colour ei-
ther in the Words or in the Senfe or in Any confe-
quent DeduElion from Scripture. / alfo might lay
with the fame reafon as the Dodor, that whofoe-
ver receives not My Explication of the Dodrine,
rejeds ^« THE DoEirine of the Trinity. " And I
could fay it with much greater reafon than He; be-
caufe I can exprefs the TVhole of My Notion in the
very ivords of Scripture, \ There is One Spirit ; One
Lord ,• One God and Father of Ally who is Above
Alii] whereas the Dr cannot poffibly exprefs His
in Any words of Scripture : And, when called upon
to do it, he has only This jejiing Anfwer to make;
/>.443. " Do you imagine, that I cannot as eafily, or more
<' eafilyi find Scripture-words for mine ? But This is
'^ Trifling, " And again : ^* You blame me (fays he)
" for not expr effing " [for not being Able to exprefs]
" my Faith in ANT Script urt-pofit ion. As if
<« every thing I a^ert as matter of Faith ^ were
*' not as much Scripture-pofition^ according to MT
« way of underftanding Scripture; as Yours
*' // f<7You ScriptHTC'Fofiion^ according to TOVR

II way

^4^7.

Second ^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 113

^^ way of under ft mding Scripture, '* Undoubt- Obferv.
edly it is juft as much fo \ that is, not at <ilL XII.
For neither One man's, nor Another man's Inter- '" ^
fretation or ** /^f^j' 0/ undcrflanding of Scripture^ "
is at all a Scripture-Pofition, But the T^at/^j r/7d?.>;??-
y^/'z/fj <7;^/^, are Scripture-Pofitions ; With which »(?
mans Interpretations can, without the grcateil Pre-
fumptuoufnefsj be equalled. And This is the very
thing, I am here blaming Dr Waterland for; that
he never lays down Any Scripture-Poftion^ but ^Z-
Tvays fome Propojition of his Own inilead of it, as
being "^ THE doEirine of the Trinity " to be inter-
preted and explained.

This Method of proceeding, had been before com.
plained of to the Doftor. He had been told, that
" the Oueftion was, about a DoBrine o£ Scripture , a- j^^pfy^
*' bout the Senfe of certain Proportions laid down in ^•4^4"
*< Scripture, " That " therefore the Foundation of
*' the Queftion, the Propojition whofe Senfe and
" Meaning we argue about, ought Always to be
" a Script ure-Propofition, " And yet that, '^ through-
" out his Whole Book, whenever he fpoke of THE
« DoEirine of the Trinity, of THE J^ERT My-
« fiirj of the Trinity y of THE Thing it felf in
^« oppofition to any particular Mode of it ; when-
'f ever he fpoke of Scriptural Pofnions^ of a P/^/;^
"' Scripture-Truth, which /f^ ?/?^? believes Simply and
«« <■« ?^^ General, and AS Uid down in Scripture, '*
(he fays) *' believes ENOUGH', he never once
" mentioned Any Scriptptre-Pofition, but confrantly
«' flipt into its Place ^0?^^ O^W Proportion, v/hich
'-^ (according to his03i^« hypothefis) h^ pippofed to
p « be,

4.15-.

114 OhfernjatiGns on T)r WaterlandV

'' be, in way of Inference, equivalent. As if the
*« whole Queftion was ,• not whether^ or how far;,
" or in what fenfe, His Propnfiions rightly expref-
'' fed the Docirine of Scripture; but merely, whe~
*' ther or how far, or in what fenfe, Other mens No-
«' tions ai^reed or difagreed with HIS Propo/itions
««= confidered as a RVLE. " This was the Com-
plaint Then, And the Anfwer he makes to it Non;^
Second Def. is This : '' Well then, let IT be the SubjeEi of

/'•4-4- <c Q^y Belief that " -What ? Would not any

one now at Lift have expeded fome exprefs *S'cr//>'
ture-PoJition ? No : But, " Let it be the SubjeEi of
'' our Belief (fays the Dr,) that the Father is God, the
^' Son Gody and the Holj Ghofi God, and that THET
" ARE THE One God of the Chrifiians ; And as to the
^' manner how they are Three or One^ let no body con-
<' cern himfelf about it, *' That is to fay : Be pleafed
to lay down an Inference drawn in the words of la-
ter Writers, (our " confequential DoElrine-, " as he
himfelf ftyles it, pag, ^th of his Preface : Be pleaf-
ed to lay down this Confequential DoEirine) as the
Foundation in the Stead of the Text itfelf\ and then,
fo be fure, there can be no controveriy, in deducing
from That Text the Confequential DoEirine.

I am not now confidering, whether his Confequen*
ces be rightly deduced, or not ; but only fli owing his
Unreafonablenefs in demanding perpetually to have his
ConfequencesX-Adi down 2a\^ prefuppofedy as the Principle
itfelf from which his Confequences were to have been
deduced.

OBSERV,

Second T)efenfe of his Qy e r i e s, 115

Obferv.

xrii.
OBSEFvVAT. XIII.

Concerning T>r Watcrland's Manner of ap-
pealing from Reafon and Scripture^ to
Authority,

From what has been laid upon the fore-going
Heads, it will be eafy like wife to judge, upon
TVhat Account the Dodor ^lO frequently appeals .
£vom Reafon and Scripturey to Authority, When his
Argument is reduced to an exprejs contradiEiioni a con-
tradition to itfelfy as well as to Scripture ; then he
alleges, that the thing he contends for, muft be fo>
<' Vpon the Principles of the Primitive Churches: " f-i^J-
meaning, that it mufi be fo, Vpon his Own hypothefis.
When an Argument is work'd up to the Evidence
even of an identical Propoftion^ (which is the Ejfencc
of Demonflration ;) then, '''Tis contrary (he faysj /?.2ry.
^^ to the Sentiments of Wtfer men^ who have argued
'^ the other waj» " Again : When Two very dif-
ferent Allertions, are affirmed not to be the Same
Affertion ; then he asks, '' How do you ki^ow \ Or f.y-9'
^' how cam^ Tou to be Wifcr in Thii Particular^ than
<' all the Chriftian Churches early and late ? '* who
yet never affirmed Two fuch different Ajfcrtions to
be the fame Afertion \ and if they had affirmed it,
flill the A/Tertions would not have been the Same.
Laftly : When he is told, that 'tis great Pre-
furriptmufnefsy to call the Particularities of his Own

P 2 Ex-

T 1 6 Obfervations on IDr Waterhiidi"

Obferv. Explication, «' THE DoElrine of the Blejfed Trinity j "
XIII. then he cries out, - ' Great Prefiimption indeed \ to believe
tM. ' ' ^^^^ ^^^ Catholick Church has k£pt the True Faith ! "
Which are the very Words, and the very Argument,
wherewith the Writers of the Church of Rome per-
petually infult, and will for ever with Juftice infult
over all luch Protejlants, as, after the example of their
Adverfaries, indeavour to difcouragc all ferious In-
quiry after Truth, with the empty words of fuch
Popular Pretences,

If there be among men Any one diftinguifhing
IMark of the Spirit of Err our, 'tis This Dejtre of hi-
ding from mens Eyes the Strength and Clearnefs of
Argument, by interpoflng the Falfe Colours of pre-
tended Authority ,• and drowning the diftind Foice
of Reafon and Scripture, by the Inarticulate and
Confufed Sound oi a Multitude. This is the Alone
Ground of All Extenjtve Errours^ and the Only Sup-
port of them in All Ages and Nationi. Truth always
rejoices above all things, in being diftindly examined
without Prejudice ; and never takes pleafure in being
cloathed with Thofe Garments^ which do equally fit
and fuit every Err our. Every Serious man, who
knows any thing of the State of Religion in the
World, and confiders the Situation of Truth and Er-
rour in the different Nations of the Earth ; will al.
ways think himfelf Fallible^ whatever Numbers he
be furrounded with ', and, inflead of being flirred
lip to Wrath, will be Thankful to Any one, who
fuggeftsto him any Intimation, orreaionable Ground
'••■•■■• ■' ■ of

Second 'Defenfe of his Qu e r i e s. 117

of inquiring and re-confidering, >\'hether he mav Obferv.
not poffibly be in an Errour. A 111.

This would be the real State of the Cafe, even
though the Authority of 'Numhen were infinitely-
greater, than Dr WaterUnd himfelf has either re-
prefented, or can imagine it to be. But indeed,
the Reverfe of what he pretends, is True; even
with regard to the point of AHthorkj. For fo
far is it from being true, that Dr Waterland's
Dodrine is the Dodrine of the ^' Catholic!^
<< Church;*' that, on the contrary, the -^ firfi
Article of Every Creed in Every Chriftian Church
in the World, in Europe, Afia and Africa^ for
Many Ages ; is a Profejfed and Standing Teftimony,
Againfl; his dodrine. Nor can it at all avail him,
that he indeavours to fhift This off, by menti-
oning '« the Creeds AS INTERPRETED hy Querr
*' thofi that recite them,'' For, furely, it cannot be
doubted, but the Words univerfally and uniformly
agreed upon by all the Chriftian Churches in the
World, as what They thought the mofi proper to
convey inftrudion into the Mind of every Vn-
learned Chriflian even of the meaneft Capacity, in
the Firft and mofi Fundamental point of Reli-
gion ; ought to be lookt upon as of more Weighty
than the Private Speculations of Any Single Writers,
And yet, even with regard to Thefe alfo, I believe

it

* Tli^ivcj ii<i ivoi ©iov, ■i!rx7rf)60, 7r!A'jroK[fc($^oty Sec.
Credo in Unum Dcum, Patrem, Omnipotenrem, ^c.
Credo in Deum, Patrem, Omnipotentem, cjr.
1 believe in God, [[inOneGod,] theTather, the Almighty (or
Supeme in Dominion over All/. 8<..c.

XXV,

lis Obfcrvations on TDr Waterland'j

Cbrerv." it will be found, that not fo much as One Single Wri^
A 111. term the Firfl Three Centuries, either in commenting
•' upon the Firfi Article of the Creed, or upon any other
occafion, haspreiumedto teach ; button the contrary,
they would All have judged it the Highefl Elafphe-
my either to faj or thinks (which is the very Point
in which Dr IVaterUnd's whole Dodrine centers,)
that God the Father Almighty, even the One God and
Father of Ally who is above All^ has no Natural and
Necejfary Supremacy of Authority and Dominion at all;
has No Other Supremacy of Authority and Domi*
c», than what is founded merely in mutual Agree^
ment and Voluntary Concert ; but has, naturally and
neceffarily^ a Priority of Order only ; a Priority ^ in *
erder (or refpeEi) of — — nothing,

* See This explained at large ^hve, in Ohferv.u. Ill,

O B S E R V.

Second T>efenfe of bis Qveries. 119

Obfevr.
XIV.

OBSERVAT. XIV.

Concerning farticitlar Quotations out of
the Fathers,

Quotations from the Fathers being infinite, and
generally ending in nothing but Perfonal Contefts,
whether This or the Other Writer underflands the
Languages befl: ; which to the generality of Read-
ers can be of no great importance, and can be judged
of by Scholars only : I Ihall not therefore, at This
time, WTary my Reader with repeating a Num-
ber of Quotations ,• but iliall content my felf with
appealing, in This One Infi^nce particularly, to All
fuch as are skilled in the Languages >• whether the
numerous Paffages cited in the Repij to Br IVater^
land's Firfi Defenfey as maintaining o, natural and ne-^
cejfary Supremacy of Dominion in God the Father
Almightj^ do not really maintain Such a Supremacy ;
and whether Any of the Paffages cited to the con-
trary by Dr Waterland in his Second Defeife, do ei-
ther in words or in fenfe or by any juft confequence
deny That Supremacy, And This Point (which is
the Foundation on which All True Religion en-
tirely relies) being once fettled ; all other contro-
verted Points, will appear to be of no very con-
fiderable Confequence.

I ftiall here further, as a Specimen only, fet down
fome few very grofs miireprefentations mad« by D^

Water-

i^o Obfervations on 2)r Watcrland'j'

Obferv. Waterland in his Quotations ; and fliall not cn-

^^^^ large upon them, but barely refer to them ; that

They who have Skill in the Languages, may com-

pare them, if they fliall think it of Importance fo to do.

^•^ ''• I. Philo ^^ had a Mind to exprefs how the Lo-
^^ gos was IVecejfdrilj-exifting, but not Self-exiftent ;
'"^ So I (fays the Dr) under ft and him. " There is
nothing in the world fo remote, which he might not
juH: as well have //W^r/?W, fthat is, havcfanfted) that
Philo, in * the paiTage he refers to, " had a mind *'
to exprefs.

^ '<^4. 2. In a Paflage of Juftin, where Chrift is f fliled
The Son of the Only and Vnbegotten and Ineffable God ;
the Dr contends that the Only and Vnbegotten and
ineffable God, whofe Son Chrifl: is there affirmed to
be, includes both Father and Son, And becaufe the
"Very Terms are contradidlory, he changes the word
Vnbegotten into Vncreated, without Any Pretenfe of
Authority from Manufcripts. And in like m,anner
p.^6^, in all other places of This 2nd o^ all other Antient
2f6, Writers, he (without Any Pretenfe of Authority^
268. perpetually changes one of thefe words into the other,
even in Cafes (as in This now before us) where the
Senfe and Connexion of the Sentence necelfarily re-
quires

* "Ours uy.wn.®^ [Dr IVaterlaml reads ccyivni^^'] coq 6 Bsli

^<^ay. The Words almoft immediately preceding, are: TSj
' Aop^^uyyiXcp ^ r7p£(r/3yTOT&» Aoy>j AQPEAN s^otipsroy ''£Ai2KEN s

TTSWOtJMc/^©-, p. 5-09.

■j Tod" ^jvs ^ oi'/ivYYiTov Ktil kfov^TH 3-setl vlh.

Z-]0,

Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 1 2 i

quires there flioiild be no fuch Change. See above^ Obferv.
Obfervat, VI, The Note in pag, 63* 3^rNJ

UponKiJ Another Paflage of >//;/, he has a "y^
moft abfurd Comment, together with a Chmge of
the word Vnbegotten into Vmnade, Compare The
Replp p. 191, 293, with the Dr' s Firfi Defenfi, p.

152, and Second Defenfey p. 2(55.

3. He feveral times cites (2) aPaiTageof Iren<zus^ ;'.^r>
as ftyling the Son, ipfe Deus i though thofe words in ^^p.
That PafTage, evidently fignify C3) the Father.

He cites (4) Two PalTages of the fame Author, ^65,
as exprefling his Oivn and the Churches Notion,
when in reality he is ridiculing the Notions of the
Valentinians,

In

(2) Dei verbum 3 immo magis Ipfe Dens, ciim fit Verbum.
lib. 2. c, 13. § 8. /?. 132. Edit. MnJJueti.

{7,) For in the very fame Seftion, fpeaking of the Father,
he had faidj ^ui ft fuper omnes Deus, totus Nus Cr fotui Lo,
gos cum J:t, qtiS77:aii.rrjodu}n praUxhTJUs . And before, in § 3,
to which the word (prddiximta) refers: Pater omnimn, cum
ft Totus Ratio, c^ Terns JludiTus, <& Totus Oculus, Hic.
[Note; Vcrbutn and Logcs and Kat'^o, are in the Greek one and
the fame Word.]

C4) Necejfe efi igitur, \_f, quomcdo a fole radios, JEonas ip-
forum emtjfones hsibuijfe Dicenr,] - O' ^^^ ^^-^ ^^ ^^ f^'^-^
emljfoms, ejufdem Subtlantix cum fnt, cujus ^ ipfe i^c. lib. 2.

C.17. § 7- P- »39-

Si enim exiflens in Patre, cognofcit l.unc ineyuoef, hoc cfl, fe-
metipfam non ignoraf^ (jp c^ua ab hoc fu^it Emiffiones ^c*
§ 8. Compare c. 13, §6; Si autem non emijfum extra Pa-
trem ilium DICANT, fediniffo Patre} primo quidem fuper-

122 Obfervations on T^r WatcriandV

Obferv. la Another Paflage (5) of the fame Author, he
^^JV. ip.akes '' non alius & dins " to fignify Father and Son j

^,^g, when they are Both mod: expreflly fpoken of Chrifi^
declaring that it was One and the fame Perfon, who
Alone k^.ew^ and was Alone k^own hj, the Father.

Hl*^' Another PaflTage, in which is a very important va-

rious Reading, [cji^ii omnia fecerit Ferbo fmj~] he cites
again, without taking Notice that he had been before
informed of That Reading. Reply to his Firfi De-
fenfe, p, 103.

/.82. In Another Paflage (he tells us) This Author

'^ reprefents the Son as {6) making Himfelf the Head
«^« over the Church, and affuming That Power and
'' Authority Himfelf^"' v^hich is elfe where " repre-
^' fented as defcending from the Father, " Diredly
contradidory to the Intent of the Author j who, in
the very Paffage here cited to the contrary, is expreflly
recapitulating the things that Chrift did [fecundum
Placitum Patris'] according to '' the Good Pleafure
" of his Father, "

f' 140- 4. A Paffage of Clemens AlexandrinuSy wherein
Chrifl: is reprefented as fpeaking \p\i- r» l^l^ ^poraVi^j

in

fiimm crit etiara dicer e emijfum ejje eum. Tojl cle'mde.

0' is qui eji ab eo L^jo.<y nit intra Patr^m: fmiiiter ant em ^^
rdiquA Logi Er/iiJJiones, Jam igitur non ignorabunt fatrem,
mm intra cum fnt.

(y) Non QTgo Alius erat qui cognofcebatur, [nemo cognoP
cit Filiumj^ & Alius qui dicebat. Nemo [nil! Filiusj cognoC
cit Parrtm. //^. 4. c,6, §7, p. 254, 235-.

(6) In femetipfum principatum afllimens, 8v apponens k-
mctipfum caput Eeckfis, lib, 5, c, s6, § 6,p. io6.

Second 'Defevfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 123

in his Own Perfoni meaning that He himfelf fpaki Ob'erv.
concerning himfelf in the Firfl per Ton, in oppolition -^y •
to his hQing /poken of bj Another in the Tl^Wperibn :
This PafTage (I fayj the Dr had alleged as Signifying,
that Chrift 7^^% in his Own Perfon^ in oppofition to
his fpcaklng as the Reprefentative of the Father, And
when he was charged with This monfirom mifrepre-
fentation ; the Anfwer he gives, is this Ludicrous Que-
ftion : " What can be plainer than the Words -^ 2^^.roo p. 1^0.
'^ iTm Tv^oauT^a^ In his own perfon ' * ?

And 'tis very remarkable, that in the lame Sen-
tence, rpeaking of Chrift's being •'^ the (\) Repre-
'' fentative of the Perfon of the Father^ '•' he calls it
'^ an Opinion which no bodj at That time *' [when
Clemens wrote] " was wild enough to hold, " And
yet This has been largely proved to have been, (and
I think IS fometimes acknowledged by Dr Waterland
himlllf to have been) the Vnanimous Opinion of
all the Antient Chridian Writers. See the Reply
to Br Ws Defenfe, pag, I28«— 158 : And Dr
Clarke's Scripture-Doflrine, Part L N-^ 597 and 616,

Upon occallon of feme other PafTages of the lame
Author, he declares in a whole Page together ; that he P- ^^f-
cannot underftand ^' what is meant " by the diflin-
(51: ion, of words ufed in an ahfolute or in a linpited
conftrudion. fie can by no means apprehend any
difference of Signification in the term 0 .S^s'^s, when
ufed ahfolutelj ; and when joined with other reftri-
Bive words, which limit its (ignification, as 0 B-bU

(i) Thcophilus exprcfles it by the words, ccm}<cci/^occvco-j tj

1 24 Obfervations on T>r Watcrlandj*

•^ ^' which fometimes quite chaf^ge its fignification, as

My Tranflation of thefe words of the fame Au-
/.5'T3. thor, [y.a< ^(^'Airet ilvTryj^irm,^ thc Dr fays is ** amofl
'' jbAmeful TranJUtion : " And he himfelf tranflates
them to an entirely different Senfe. I infift, that
mj Tranflation is right : And I appeal to ^11 that
under (land the Language, whether His be not abfnrdy
and inconjtficnt with the nature of the Greek Tongue.

5. From Tertnllian the Dr twice cites the folio w-
.^97> ino- words > " That which is derived from Gody is
^^ God, ■ and Son of God, and Both One God. '*
Whereas the words of Termllian are : (2) '^ That
^' which is derived from God, is God, and Son of
^« God', the fame Per fin being both God^ and Son of
«' God. *' But herein I am obliged to exoifi the
Dodor; having mjjelf either inattentively, or
through too great a Dejire of Fairnefs, led him firfl
into ThisErrour.

But in what follows, he is altogether inexcufable.
The w^ords of Tertnllian [_SVO jure Omnipotensf]
*y.^t}^0' j^g j-jgj frequently in his "^ Firfi Defenfi cited and
tranfiated in a fenfe direflly contradiclory to the Au-
thor*s Meaning. This had been difiinBly and at
f?-5'o9- /^r^^ fhown to him, in the f i?f/?/y to That Defenfe,
t/'-^9- And yet now again, in his 4. Second Defenfi, with-
out pretending to contradid or to take the leafl: No-
tice

(±) Quod de Deo profedum efl, Deus c^ 8c Dei filius, &
Unus Ambo. \_His Meaning is noty Atnbo iiiat Uiius, 61a
Uauseft AcQbo,1

Second Defenfe of his Qu eries. 125

tice of what had been fo fully (hown him ; he bare- Obferv.
ly recites the Same Paflage, and leaves his Reader ftill ^^^*
to be impofed upon with his former falfe Reprefen-
tation. Which is 'exaftly like his citing Another
Writer as affirming Chrift to be " Creator of the p ^n,
^' World by his Own Po7very'' in (i) words which
exprefs as difiin^ly and as fully as is pofTible, that
This HIS Power is not his Owri Power, but his Fa^
thers.

Upon occafion of fome Other PafTages of TertuU
lian^ the Dodor charges me with citing " Marci- p. 100.
*^ on s Tenet for Tertullians own;'' viz,, that Rati-
onal Souls are generated from the Divine Subfiance*
Which i£ Tertullian had taught, " I ivouW (fay5
the Dr) " have given you up Tertullian for a
*' Mad man. " Yet the words of Marcion, are his
reprefentation of Tertullians Senfe, in arguing
from what Tertullian admitted. And Tertullian^
in his Reply in the lame chapter, admits it in his
(2) own words, and elfewhere (3) affirms it as
his own fenfe. See the Reply to Dr TV's Firfl De-
fenfe, p. 285 and 328.

The like Charge he brings in Another place^ ?-iS-
of my citing Marcelluss words, injflead of Eufe-

bins' s.

(l^_ Rex Sc Creator era*- conjiiiutttu \'o!untare 5<: ?\?^.

cepto P/i/m, [univerfa] ut eficnt, fuu virtute tccit.

Serm. Avian . apud Aw^ ufi'm . p.6zi.

(i) Subftantia, quam ab ipfo Deo traxit. Adv. M.ircm^
lib, 2.. c. f.

(3) A rittionali artifice non rantuni h£td s, fed etiam ex Sab-
Jlantld i^fus animatus.

126 Obfervations on 'Dr Waterlaiid'j

Obferv. bms's. One of the Two PafTages cited in the
X^V' place referred to, is indeed the words of Marcellusy
but exprefTing nothing more than what Eufeb'ms
admits. The Other fajfage cited in the fame place,
(of which the Dr takes No notice,^ expredes the
fame thing; and is Enfebius^ own Words.

^.45. 6, His rendring the (4) words of Origen,

[he '* hath imparted even his Greatnefs, '*] inftead
of [has imparted even of his Greatnefs i] has been
taken notice of above. Qbfervat, 11. pag» 25.
/.IDS', Concerning the PalTage \jvsc h s-ilv, ^i uzs-o^\^i^>cxf/jsv,
Tov TrajTTfot, Kcil rev viov, B-£(,y,77ioofMiv/] I defire thc Intelli-
gent Reader would compare the Reply to the Drs
Firfi Defenfe^ p. 83, 84, ^5 ; with his Second
Defenfc^ p. 105),
f-'i-l^y Concerning his Abufe of Another PafTage, in
402.' which the word ^y.vio- is once crept in by a corruption
of the Copies , fee above in Obfervat, Vl^the Notes on
pag. (53. Ai-\d compare the Reply to his Firfi Defenfe, p.
2 9 5 , w ith his Second Defenfe^ pag . 275,397 and 40 2 .
Another remarkable paffage of the fame Author,
cited C5J in the Margin, the Dr complains that I
o ^f ri^^r/f i in my Tranflarion ,• " the Amhor not talkc
400. *' ing of the VndiflraEi-ednefs of Oar u4jfetiionSy hut
«f the Vndivided Worfinp of Father AND Sori. '*
I appeal here to All who underftand the Language ;

whether

(yj ' Avcijiijoi'iKt J srp'.'? Tov, £7n Tfcjcr; B-iov, c u^iia^ jcfci uaiocf-
p£r&»5 Kdi oif/jici<fo>(i 'AYTO N (rBpaiv, AlA tocJ 7rpoo«3i57'o>i^ Ikh^

Second T^efenfe of his QvEKit.s, 127

whether the words of Orlgen exprefs, that the Obferv*
Whole Wor fit p is ioht^^idi undivided, to the Father XIV.
u4ND to the Son; or that the Whole Worpip is to be ^^
paid undivided^ to the Father THROVGH the Son.
See Above, Obfervat. VIII : And the Replj to the
JDrsFirftDefenfey /?. 383.

In {6) Another PafTage of the fame Author, hej
contrary to the nature of All Language, contends
that the word [^aaov] ought not to be rendred,
Another Perfon, but Another God : Becaufe '' Ori- /• ^^•
*' gen could not pretend to Jay, that the ChriJIianswor-
'* pipped no Other Per Ion bejides the Father, Tvhen^
<c immediately after, he oivns that they worpipped both
** Father and Son, " Yet Origen very largely and
diflinEily explains himfelf to mean, that they Did
worlliip the Father only ', the Worfhip of Chrift be-
ing (according to Origen) no other than the Wor-
fhip of the Perfon of the Father, conveyed By and
Through the Mediatour, See above, Obfervat.
VIII ; And the Reply to Br Wat er land' i Fir ft De^
fenfe, pag. 381 38^.

7. He very frequently, throughout his Whole /^^^^^
Book, cites Novatian as countenancing His Do- hnjfim, '
(5lrine ; though Novatian s Whole Book is, in eve-
ry Page of it, diredly contrary to That Dodrine.
And the Dr himfelf acknov/ledges, x^cvm Novatian ^•'^^^'
frequently ufes the word [Deus] in oppofition to
[^Homo,^ and not as fignifying Him who is naturally
md necejfarily Supreme in Don^inion over AIL

A

rdv i^TiTrx-

12 8 Obfervafions on T>r WatcrlandV

Obferv. A large and very remarkable PafTage of This Au-
XIV. thor, \caf, 31,] is well worth the Learned Reader's

"^^ conjidermg and comparing. In which pafTage, fays the
*/'.49?- * Dn '' thongh Novatian fieaks of the SVBjEC-
'' riON of the Son. it does not IStECESSARILT
'' mean any thing more than the VOLVNTABX Oe-
<' conomj 7vhich God the Son underwent y and which
*' ivouidnot have been PROPER for the Father him-
" felf to have fubmitted to, becaufe not SVITABLE
'' to the ORDER of the Perfons, '' To Novatian %
whole Senfe, nothing could have been more Contrary^
than This Reprefentation.

In citing the PafTage here referred to, it had been
taken notice of, that inftead of the words, inaquali-
tate Divinitatis ; the Senfe manifeftly requires, it
lliould be read either, aqtialitate Divinitatis, or in
ayEqualitate Divinitatis, This, the Dr fays, is
/).499. " ^pon fo7ne flender SufpicionSy againft the Faith of
" the Copies ; *' And '' Conje^nral Emendations
" ought never to be admitted, but upon the greatefl
'« Necejfitj, " How great the necejjitj, and how
far from /lender the Sufpicions were, will appear to
Reader who pleafes to compare what was alleged in
the Reply to the Drs Firfl Defenfe, p. 490. I can
here add^ that the words, [_aut in^qualitate divini-
tatis f\ together with the preceding \^aut,'] are want-
ing in Frobens Copy. Nor ought it, by the way,
to pafs unobferved, how ;'// the Crying out againfl

, /'•499. ConjeBural Emendations fin This, and in the lih fin-
gular cafe of an unparallelled ufe of the word
'A^'v))]©- in Origen ; 1 lov/ ///, I fayj this becomes
the Mouth of an Author, who, without any Pre-

tenfe

Second Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 129

tenle at all from Manufcripts, is defirous to change Obfcrv.
the word 'a^'wjTk^ in All the Antient Writers, in X^^-
Many Places of whofe Writings That Word is the ^^
moft fertinent ^ndjignificant that can be.

With regard to N'ovatiany I delire only this One
thing further; that the Capable Reader would be
pleafed to obferve, what a number of the ftrongefi
and mofi exprejjlve words that cohU be colleded to-
gether, are by the DoEior melted down into ihtemp- p'^97*
ty Sounds of Firfl and Second^ merely in the order (or
refpeU:) of Nothing,

8. Upon occafion of the terms jw/ovoT^V^jro? and
r^tTF^truTTo^, with regard to the Notions of Sabellius :
*' Men of Learning, " fays theDr, <' k!^ow that the /■ ^i^-
*' word, TT^a-uTTcv, has been fometimes ufed to fignify
*' only an Appearance^ or A4anifeflation^ or Charac-

<« ter : But then the ivord, 7r^o(r&>7rc9, HAS

*^ BEEN' likeivife ufed to fignify the fame 7vith hy-
" poftafis, a real Perfon, " True : But not till
much Later times, except only inHippolytus ; who
from this very things as well as by Many other Marks,
appears and is confeflfed to be an interpolated Writer-
*f Of all things, " fays Dr Waterland in the place
here referred to, *' there is nothing more contempt
<« tible among Men of Senfe, than Pedantry about
«^ Words, '\

^, In tranflating the words of Vionyfus of Pcmei
cited by Athanafus ,• the Dr renders, re ^yicv yMyj^/^<x. ^.114,
T?? Mov56p;^t'<»5, " the facred DoElrins of the Vnitj,
inftead of, the facred Doctrine of the Monarchy.

R Which

1 3 o Obfervations on T)r WaterlandV

Ohferv. Which Monarchy , or SHpremacy of Him who 'in
XIV. That very ientence is ftyled [9-£ov z^o'.rUcc TFuvro^uro^oJ^
^ God I he Father Supreme in Dominion over All ; is a
thing totally different from, and inconfiftent with,
what Dr Waterland means by " The Vnity ; *'
Though it is very confiftent with Dionyfim's notion
of the Trinity; even fuppofing there be N'o Mi^
ftake in the representing of his Senfe from Citations
only at fecond hand ; his Oivn works being loft,

lO. The words of EufehiuS, rpikt; ii 7?? kvui%ov (? k-

p. 111. ■ymrov<pua-ii>}<ii)^r-qjAr/t, are thus wondctfully rendred by
the Dodor; " the Trinity Compared of a nature
*' that had no Beginning and is Vncreated : " Whereas
'tis notorious the word ^i'cip;^o? was always appropri-
ated to the Father ; and the afferting r^iT^i aA^yj>vc,, was
always condemned even by the Tofl-Nicenes in all
times. The words, «>'«tf;t;o5 y^i a^^ev/jro? ^Jo-ts, ^o
therefore neceffarily denote the unoriginate and unde-
rived Nature of thQ Father ; And the word, ^pn^f^svuy
fignifies properly a connexion of things or perfonsj
one depending on or derived from another.

Upon another Paffage of the fame Author, the

f. ij-2. D^r contends that the words, » fjij'^v h im Tf^Tmy kxx 6
Uhvov hvncocy mean only that the Son ^' is not the Sh^
'' preme Father, '* That is to fay : EufehtHS, when
he affirmed that the Son was Not Supreme over all,
meant by thofe words to affirm that the Son Wai
Supreme over all, but not Supreme FATHER over
all.

Upon occafion of certain Critical Obfervations
of This Author, the Dr has the following Words :

^ Idif-

Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 131

«« / difiutenot -whether ^' may exprefs the Primary Obferv,
^' ejfcient Caufe ', It exprejfes as much Efficiency as usr^ XIV,
« or U : TVhich is ALL I am concerned for, '* And y,. iSi.
again in the fame Page : '* / allow that the Father is
*« Primarily Creator^ and the Son Secondarily or

** Subordinately : — KTor is it Any Argument

*' againji the Sons being Caufe ^ Creator, or God, in
*« the SAME HIGH and Full Senfe of thofe words
*' as the Father. " What an Anfwer This is to the
Argument that was alleged, the Reader will judge,
if he pleafes to compare the Reply to the Drs Firfi
Defenfiy fag, 6y 13, 19, 1S5, and 3 I5>.

yi. The words of Gregory Nyffen, [y^^n f/^^y 77,\ ;• 3'5»

the Dodor Thus tranflates; " Neither let us dif-
*' folve the immediate Connexion, BY confidering the
<« Will in the Generation. " As \^ the Author meant
to fay, that Confidering the Will of the Father in the
Generation of the Son, would be a Dijfolving of the
immediate connexion betwee n them. Whereas the evi-
dent Senfe of the words is, that the Will of the Fa-
ther IS So to be confideredin the Generation of the Son,
as not to diffolve the immediate Connexion between them*

12, The Dr's Inference from the words of Cyril, ?-33^«
(which I have cited above, Obfervat, I. pag. 7.)
is as remarkable an Inflance of the Strength of Pre-
judice, as (I think) I ever met v/ith. From a Paf-
fage wherein \jhe 'Av^ivTiK^i ilcva-UJ. the original and
fupreme Authority is expreffiy declared to be refer ved
lO xhz Father, in that the Son created things [_^xr^r.

v^-V*^

1 3 2 Obfewations on T>r WaterlandV, &c.

Obferv. /Sot^A-^^r'vrc^] at the Will and [rf t5 Tojrpo? viv^ar^ by
XIV. the Co;?^w?^W of the Father: From This very Paf-
fage (I fay) the Dodor thns infers; « If there is
*^ ^;n' thing to be fnffeUed of Cyril *tis rather his
" excludino- the Father from being Great or y than the
*« Son from being efficient* **

But I forbear to mtiltiply Inftances of This Kind*
To Unlearned Readers, This Head cannot but be
Tedious. The Learned, who fhall think it worth
their Trouble to compare the Books, will find, that of
the Dr's Quotations even out of Later Writersy there
are very Feiv PalTages ; out of the Ante Nicene Writer Sy
perhaps not One ; in which he has not either mi/repre^
fented the Senfe of the Author, or made fome incon^
fequent DeduEiion from it.

FINIS.

ER-

^S^^^99fy.^9lki^b9^^9^S^ii(^i^'[^^5i^ii(i^^

ERRATA,

Page

Line

for

read

9-

4.

« /^«^. If

land. " If

26.

37.

J/.

ult.

/. 170.
C0NGR£017S
fin

p. 107.

CONGRUOUS

fine

39-

50.

52.

34.
^3-

is, As'
thethe^

is. As

54.

12.

vloVy CiVToZ'

viav uvrov.

79'

91.

26.
14.

ivhteher

whether

128.

if.
22.

Contrary is,
to

Contrary, is
to a

«^«^^M^i^;^s^!M5pts^i^j^J5^«^f¥K^'^*?^'^

THE

THE

CONTENTS

OBSERVAT. L

Concerning feme remarkable Texts of
Scripture, Page 5«

OBSERVAT. 11.

Concerning the Supreme Authority and do-
minion of God the Father, 2 3 .

OBSERVA T. III.

Cencerning what Dr Waterland calls a
Subordination of Order, 31,

OBSER,

The C ON TENTS. 135

OBSERVAT. IV.

Concerning the Opinion of the AntientSy
about the Sons Appearing under the
Old Teftamenty and the ImpoJJlbility and
Impiety of fuppofing the Father ever to
have Appeared at all. 38.

OBSERVAT. V.

Concerning the wordy God ; that it is a
Term expreffmg ^Dominion. 4^-

OBSERVAT. VI.
Concerning the Generation of the Son. 5 <5.

OBSERVAT. VII.

Concerning what "Dr Waterland chargeSy
as making the Being of the Son Preca-
rious. 74-

OBSERVAT. VIIL

Concerning the Worfliip of God the Father y
andof Chrijl^ 77-

O B S E R-

i$S The CONTENTS.

OBSERVAT. IX.

Concerning ©r WaterlandV T^ifficulty, of
underjianding what is meant by the
words y One God. e^r. 85.

OBSERVAT. X.

Concerning T>r Waterland'j Argument^
drawn from his Suppofed difficulties
in conceiving the divine Omnipre-
fence. g^.

OBSERVAT. XI.

Concerning the Scripture-'Proofs of the
divinity of God the Father. 106.

OBSERVAT. XII.

Concerning T)r Waterkiid's manner of
putting his Own Particular ExpUcations
of a T>o5irine, in the place of the Do-
ftrine itfelf to be explained, 1 1 1

O B S E R.

The CONTENTSr

t^Z

OBSERVAT. XIIL

Concerning 2)r Waterland's Manner of ap-
pealing from Reafon and Scripture y to
Authority. 115,

OBSERVAT. XIV.

Concerning particular flotations out of
the Fathers, 119,

BOOKS

( 138 )

BOOKS Trinted for JamesKnapton,
at theCnowii in t^/^. Paurs- Church- Yard.

LFRED, an Epick Poem. By Sir Rich. Black-
more, Kt. M. D.

Artificial Clock-maker. A Treatife of Watch
and Clock Work. By W. Berhatn, M. A.
F. R. S. 3d Ed. Pr/rt IS. 6d.
Afpinwalh Prefervative againft Popery, /r. i s.
Academia; or the Humours of the Univerfi-^
lyof Oxford J 120. price 6 d.
Anacreon Teius Vest. Lyricus, Gr. er Lat. Edit. Jofua Barnes,

S. T. B. Ed. 2da. \io. Cantabr,
Siri?. Blachmores true and impartial Hiftory of the Confpira-

cyagainltK. J^///mw the Third in 1695. price. is6d.
^r'jf/;i's Treatife of Epick Poetry, 2 Vols. 120.
Boccace\No\e\sEng. Svo.
Dr. f>V«;2^/'sParaphrafe on thie Common-Prayer, id Ed. Svo.

• Rights of the Clergy of the Chriflian Church.
" Confutation of Popery.

Abridg.of the ZoW. Cafes againft the Diflenters, Svo.

Two Letters to Mr. Robinfon about Litiirgifs.

Bo'^ers French and Englijb Didionary. Svo.

Trench Grammar.

Pp. Blackall's Sermons, 2 Vols. Fol.

Dr. Bates's Works. Fol.

Bp. £«r«^/ on the XXXIX. Articles. Fol.

• • Paftoral Care.

— " 'Hifr. of the Reformation in three Vols. Fol.

■^' ■ Abridgm.of the Hift. of the Reformation, 3 Vols. 120.

Life of the Earl of Rcchefler.

£^/w/7;z'sDeicriptionof theCoail of Guinea^ withCutts, cs'c.
Bladen s C^fars Commentaries, Eng.

lieveregii hjfiit'utionmn Chronologicarum Libri duo, una cum tO'

tidem Arithmetices Chronologic^ Libellis, Svo. Ed. Tertia.
TlieKiiloryof the Reformation in the Low Countries, by Gf-

rard Brandt. Tranflated from the Original Low Dutch, in

4 Vols, folio.
Dr. C/.'?^^/;'s Sermons on feveralSubjeds. In Two Vol. Svo.
(.cWs Lati}i and Enzlijh Dictionary, 8vo.
Chilllngivcrth'iV^oxkSy Fol. The Seventh Edition. In which

are added two Letters never before printed.
RifhopC(?//;zi's Devotions, 120.
CalamysStxmons, Svo.
Colledtion of feveral Papers. Printed in the Year 17 10. Nowre-

printed together. Svo. price is. 6d.
Common- Prayer the bed Companion in the Clofet as well as

jntlieTemple. The Fifteenth Edition, prixen,
C^ve^s Lives of the Primitive Fathers. Fol. BOOKS

BOOKS printed for J. Knapton. r 3 9

B00K5 'ur///^;^^;'SAMUEL Clark E, D. D. 2?^^(7y
of 6YjamesV Weftminffccr.

Sermons at B^y/^'s Ledlures on the Being and Attributes of
God, the Obhgations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and
Certainty of the Chriftian Revelation. The Fifth Edition.

AParaphrafeon thefourEvangehfts. Two Vols 8 vo. The
Fourth Edition, price \^s.

Three Eflays, on Baptifm, Confirmation, and Repentance,
4th Ed. no. />r/V^bound i;. orii6for5-/.

Sermons on feveral Occafions.

A Collection of Papers between Mr Leibnitz, and Dr Clarhe,
relating to the Principles of Natural Philofophy and Rehgion,
8vo! price 6s.

A Letter to Mr. Dodvuel, concerning the Immortality of the
Soul, with four Defenfes, crc. The Fifth Edit. pr. 4;.

The Scripture-Doftrine of the Trinity : V/herein all the
Texts in the New Teftament relating to that Dodrine, and
the principal Pa ffnges in the Liturgy of the Church of England
are colledled, compared and explained. The Second Edition,
8vo. price 6s.

A Letter to the Reverend Dr Wells, in Anfwer to his Re-
marks, price IS. .

A Reply to the Obje-^ionsof Robert Nelfon Efq; and of an
anonymous Author againft Dr. Clarke i Scripture-Doctrine of the
Trinity, vc. 8vo. price ^s.

Jacohi Rohaulti Phyfica. Latine vertit recenfuit, &c S. Clarke,
S. T. P. Editio Gluarta, Pret. 8s.

JB^ J o H N C L A R K E, D. D. Frebondavy of Canterbury,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTL

Sermons at 'Bo^le'% Ledlures, of theCaufe and Origin of Na-
tural and Moral F>il. In Two Vol. 8vo. price '^s.

Grotius of the Truth of the Chriflian Religion, illuflrated
with Notes by Mr. LeClerc. Tranflated into Engltfl}. The Se-
cond Edition with Additions, price is. 6d.

Rohaulfs Syflem of Natural Philofophy; illuflrated with
Dr. Samuel Clarke's Notes. Taken mollly out of Sir Ifaac
Newton's Philofophy, with Additions. Done into Englijh by
John Clarke, D. D. In Two Vols. %wo. price 10 s.

S 2, Collcaioa

i4o 'BOOYiS printed for J. Knapton.

Colledion of Queries, wherein the mod material Obje(flions
alleged againft Dr. Clarke's Scripture Dodlrine of the Trini-
ty, arepropofedand anfvvered. Trice is.
Chriftian' s bell Guide. 8vo.
De cL4Uis Elements of Euclid, explained in a new but moft

eafy Method. The Sixth Edition. 8vo.
Ckeronis Oratioiies inllfum Bel^h, ^vo,

• Orationes SeleClA no.

Confejfio Pajlorun? Remonftrantium fuper ArticHlis. EcclefiA An'

glicnn^, 12,0. Pret. is. 6d.
Creech's Lucretius Lat. %vo.

X><7;/^/.'-»'/y's General Gauger ; or the Principles and Pradicesof
gaugin^^ Beer, Wme, and Malt- laid down more metho-
dically tl aii any Performance of this Kind yet extant. The
Third Edition. Price is.
Da-Spier's Voyages round the World. Three Vols. 8vo.

6th Ed. Price iSs.
Devil of a Wife, A Comedy, no. Price is.
D* Ffirade's Memoirs, Three Vols, 8vo.
Difficulties and Difcouragements which attend the Study of the

Scripture in the Way of private Judgment. Pr. 6d.
PifTuafivefrom enquiring into the Dodlrine of the Trinity: Or,
the Difficulties and Difcouragements which attend the Stu-
dy of that Do(5^rine. Price 6d.
Didionry of all Religions, ancient and modern. Whether
Jewijiy, Pagan, Chriftian ox Mahometan. The Second Editi-
on, with large Additions. Price i^s
Dr. Bavenant on the pubiick Revenues and Trade of Englandy
Two Vols. 8vo.
^'— - — — Elfay on probable Means of making People Gai-

nerson theBailanceof Trade. Svo.
*• Difcourfe on Grants and Refumptions. Svo.

^ '- — — Effays on the Ballance of Power, Peace and

War, and Univerfal Monarchy. Svo.

*— — Effays on Peace at Home and Wsr Abroad. Svo.

Ti6lionarium, Rujlicnm, ^Botanicum; Or, aDidionaryof all

Sorts of Country- Affairs, crc. Svo. price 6s.
T)u6lor HiftoricHs. Two Vols. Svo.
Eth^ad s Gazetteer : Or News^Man's Interpreter. In two Parts,

The Twelfth Edition.
■H — — — Teren ce in Engliffj. no.

" ■ Hifl. and Poetical Didionary. no-

Fngfijh Expofitor. no.
F.llis de 39 Arttctdis. no. Lat.

.funmU's Voyage round the World, containing an Account of
Capt. Damptsrs Expedition into the Sonth-Seas in l^o}i and
1704. With Mapps, Cults, er<:.
larquhar's PlayS; Two Vols, uo.

Female

1j O OK S jprinted for J. Knapton. 141

Female Inftruflor, no. Priceis.
Fortune-Hunters, a Comedy. 120. Price is.
Fair Quaker of P^^/, a Comedy. 120. Price is.
r^ywc^'s accurate Tables for Gauging. Price 6d.
Goodmaris Penitent pardoned. 8vo.

• Winter Evening Conference. 8vo.

— — Old Religion. 120.
Garrerfon's Eng. Exercifes. 120.
Gamefter, a Comedy, 110. Price is.
Godfather's Advice to his Son. Price ^d. or 100 fori/.
^Government of the Paffions. no. Priceis.
Gentleman inftrurted in the Condudl of a virtuous and happy

Life. The Eighth Edition. 8vo. Price 6s,
Gregor<^'s Nomenclatura. Lat, CT* Eng.
GloJJ'ographia Nova Anglic ana.
Grotius deVeritate Religionis Chrifiian&.

By the Right Revere'ud Father in God Benjamin Hoadly
p. D. L>orciBijJjopofSz\isb\xxY. '

The Reafonablenefs of Conformity to the Church of Eng-
land, andDefenfeof Epifcopacy. The 3d Edition. Price 6s. ■

The Original and Inftitution of Civil Government difcuffed.
8vo. Price ^s.

Eighteen Difcourfes concerning the Terms of Acceptance
with God. The Second Edition. Price '^s.

Several Trads formerly publiflied, now colleded into one
Vol. 8vo. Price 6s.

The Meafures of Submiffion to the Civil M3gi{lrate confi-
dered. The Fifth Edition. Price ^s.

A Prefervative againft the Principles and Pradices of the
Nonjurors, o'c The Fifth Edition, priceis.

The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Chrift, A Ser-
mon preach'd before the King, iV/^r. 31. 17 1 7. The Fifteenth
Edition, price A,d.

An Anfwer to the Rev. Dr. Snapes Letter, price 6d.

An Anfwer to the Reprefentation drawn up by the Com-r
mittce of Convocation. The Second Edition, price 45.

An Anfwer to a Calumny cafl: on the Biiliop, By Dr. sher^
lock, price 3^.

Axi Anfwer to Dr. Sherlock'^ Condition and Example of out'
Saviour vindicated, priceis.

An Aufwer to Dr. 5^^r/i?d''s Vindication of the Corporation
and Teft-Ac^s. price 3r 6d.

An Anfwer to Dr. H^r/s Sermon, and to the Lord BiQjop
of Oxford's Poitfcript. ./inV^ 3;. 6d.
Six Sermons cnfeveral Qccafions. Bale's

142 BOOKS printed for J. Knapton.

Haleis (of Eaton)Ti2i^s. no. price zs. 6d.

Howell's Hift. Bible with Cutrs. Three Vols. 8vo. ;

Hackes, Collecftion of Voyages. 8vo.

Button s?h\iQx. 120.

Hudibras no.

Hattons Merchant's Magazine. 4to.

Comes Commerc'ti or the Trader's Gompanion .pr. is.

H«e/'sDefcriptionof Paradife. 120.

Hiftory of Jofeph, a Poem with Cutts. price 3^.

Buygens's Celeflal Worlds difcovered, or Conjedures concern-
ing the Inhabitants, Plants, andProdudionsof the Worlds in
the Planets. The Second Edition, pricey.

Uoward^CookQxy. no.

Hiftory of England faithfully extracted from authentick Records
and approved MSS, and the molt celebrated Hiftories of this
Kingdom. With the Effigies of all the Kings and Queens.
The 5th Edition much improved, particularly by a Conti-
nuation of the Hiltory to the 8th year oi King George,
In two Vols. 8vo, pr. 12;.

Iftf^J^r's Arithmetick. 120.

Horatius in u[urn Delph. 8 vo.

Harris's Lexicon Technicum 2 Vols. Fol.

Homeri lliados Liber primus Gr. Lat. Silvani.pret. is. 6d.

Dr. y^jf^r^/'s Sermons on fe vera! Subjeds, 8 vo. pr. 5^.

Jackfons Examination of Mr. N'yes Articles of the Divine U-
nitycT-c. price \s.

' 'Grounds of Civil and Ecclefialtical Government

briefly confidered. price is.

Juvenal cum notis Farnabii.

Kettlewells Works in Two Vols. Fol.

-— — ' ' on the Sacrament. 8vo.

' ' on Obedience, 8vo.

' Five Difcourfes.

■ Life compiled from the Collections of Dr. Hicks and

Robert Nelfon Elq ; price 6s.

■ Death made comfortable. 120.

JC«;z;?^?'s Abridgment of Bp. T^^^r/^w on the Creed, 8vo.

ir^43f'sMearurer's Guide, 120. pr. is. 6d.

Laurence'sYoungSmveyofs Guide, or a new Introduction to
the whole Art of furveying Land, both by the Chain and all
Inftrumentsnowin Ufe. The Second Edition, pricey.

Lawrence's Chrii\i2in Morals. 8vo. pr. 4s. 6d,

^ ■ of Chriftian Prudence. 8vo, pr, ^s.

Lite of the Emperor Leopold. 8vo.

Z//?/^/o»'sDi6lionary. 4to.

Z^zt^/^^or/^'s Abridgment of thePhilof. Tranf. 3 Vols. 4to.

Lancafljin; WitchQSy a Comedy. 120.

LonginHsdeSubli?7JUateGr. Lat, Oxon,

Modefl

BOOKS printed for J. Knapton. 143

Modeft Plea for the Baptifmal and Scripture- Notion of the
Trinity, in two Parts, price ^s.

J\^(j//'sCGmp]eat Geographer: Or the Chorography and Topo-
graphy of all the known Parts of the Earth. Illuftrated with
Maps of every Country, ct-c. The 4th Edit, in one Vol. Fol,

MorelancVs Vade-tnecum l^o. pr. if.

Countefs of Mortons daily Exercife, 240.

MotteuxsDonffluixotte, Eng. Four Vols. 120.

Mead'sCoi\?ixud\ony andUfeof Maps and Globes. 8vo.

Mifcellanea Curio fa. ^Vols, Svo,

Medulla Hift Anglican A. %vo .

MinuctusTelixexRecenfionej J. Davifil. 81;^. Cantab.

Otways Plays, 2 Vols. 120.

Ollyjfe on the Church Catechifm. Two Vols. 8vo.

Oroonoko, a Tragedy. 120. pr, is.

Ovidij Metamorphofei in Ufum Belph,

— EpiJioU in Ufum Delph.

Pufendorfs Introduaion to the Hift. of Europe, 8vo. price 6s.

' Introdudlion to the Hift. oi Afia, Sec. 8vo. price ss,

Pezzer's Greek Antiquities. Two Vols. 8vo. price iis.

Bp. TatricliS Devout Chriftian. 120,

* Chriftian Sacrifice. 120.
" Men fa Myfiica. Svo*

■* Pfalms. 120.

* Adviceto a Friend, iio.
Help for Young Communicants, 240.

Tujfendorfdc Officio Hominis CT* Civis, Canta'
Pilionniere's Answers to Dr. Snape, Mr. Mills, &c. '
Reflexions upon Learning, wherein is (hewn the Infufflciency

thereof, in its feveral Particulars: In order to evince the

Ufefulnefs and Neccffity of Revelation. 5th Edition. By a

Gentleman. 8vo. price 4s.
i?«y7;tfo rr^'sHiftoricalCollecftions. 8 Vols. Fol.
Rit^^r^y^»'s Account of the Statues, Bas-reliefs, Drawings and

Piduresin/?^/:^, &:c. with Reraark'J. 8vo. f>rice 6s.
Reply to Dr. Waterland's Defenfeof his Queries. Wherein is

contained a full State of ihe whole Controverfy : And every

Particular alleged by that learned Writer is diilindllycorinde-

red, 8vo. price 6s.
Kofcommon and Dukes Poems, 8vo.
Salmons Sydenham's precepts. Eng. 8vo. pr, 6s.
State Tryals. Four Vols. Fol.
Surgeon's Anifiant. 8vo. price is.
Dr. Sacheverel'sRighlsof the Church,/nV^ i^.
Dr. Stanhope's St. Aujlin's Meditations. 8vo.
■ — • Thomas a Kempis of the Imitation of Chriil. 8vo,

■ The fame in 120,
§hadw€ll's?\^)SiVQ\x\Voh, 12Q.

Dr

144 BOOKS printed for ], Knapton.

Dr Whitby s Sermons on Several Occalions. Svo. price 4s. 6 ^.

— *~ Defenfe of the Bifhop of Bangor s Propofitions
in his Sermon. 8vo. price i s.

m — — Reply to Dr Water lands Obje(5lions againft Dr
Whitby's Di/quifitiones ModefiA. 8vo. price i s.

, Second Part of a Reply to DrlVater land's Objedli-

ons againft Dr Whitby's Difq. Modefl^, 8vo. price 2 s.

The Cafe of Subfcription to the XXXIX Articles confidered. Oc-
calioned by Dr JVater land's Cafe oi Arian Subfcription- /r. 6 d,

A Reply to Dr H'ijrer/^^z^'s Supplement to the Cafe of Arian
Subfcription. Being a Defenfe of the Cafe of Subfcription
to the XXXIX Articles, price 6d.

Three Letters to Dr Clarke from a Clergyman of the
Church of England: Concerning his Scripture-Dodrine
of the Trinity. With the Dodor's Replies, pubhfhed by the
Author ot the faid three Letters, price 6 d.

Reflexions on the prefent Controverfy concerning the Trini-
ty, price 6 d.

A Letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Nottingham, occafio-
nedby a late Motion made by the Arch-Deacon of London,
for the City Clergy to return their Thanks to hisLdrdfliip
for his Anfwer to Mw'WhiJlon. By a CuTate of London,
price 6d. The 2d. Edit.

An Account and Confutation of the Dodlrine of the Sabel-
Hans. 8vo. price 6 d.

The External Pence of the Church only attainable by a Zeal
for Scripture in its juft Latitude, and by a mutual Cha-
rity, not by a pretence of Uniformity of Opinions, price is.

A Letter to Dr Mangey, occafioned by his Sermon, intituled^
Plain Notions, a^'c. price 6 d.

A Second Letter to Dr Mangey. price 6d.

An Efiay on impofing and lubfcribing Articles of Religion.

By Philel. Cantabrigienfis. price r s.
The Falfe Notion of a Chriftian Priefthood, and the Pretences
to Sacerdotal Oblation, Intercefiion, Benediction and Au-
thoritative Abfolution, cj'c. examined and confuted, being
an Anfwer to Mr Laws Second Letter to the Bi(bop of
Bangor. By Philel. Cantabrig. price i s.
Three Difcourfes: One, A Defenfe of Private Judgment. The
Second, Againft the Authority of the Magistrate over Con-
fcience The Third. Some Confiderations concerning the
re-uniting ot Froteftants. By Vhilel. Cantahr. price i s.
An Account of all the Conliderable Pamphlets in the Con-
troverfy between the Bifliop of Bangor and others. With
Remarks, price 6 d.
— A Continuation of the Account of Pamphlets, (are.

price ^d.
An Account of all the confiderable Books and Pamphlets^in
the Controverfy concerning the Trinity, with Remarks.
price 6 d.

4-

A Farther

VINDICATION

O F

CHRIST'S DIVINITY:

In Answer to a Pamphlet^

ENTITULED,

Observations on Dr. Wa terlandV
Second Defense.

By T>ANIEL WAT2RLANT>, D.D.
Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty.

Magna ^Veritas & p£valebit.

L O K T> O N:

Printed for W. and J. I n n y s, at the JVeft
End of St. haul's. Mdccxxiv.

W '^^- '^^ wfe m S^ %^. mw'r ^f" W * m m^i^k m mWr Ik^

THE

CONTENTS.

T

HE Introduction,,

Page I

C H A P. I.

Falfe and injurious Charges contaiit'i in the Obfer^
vatio7is. J

CHAP, II.

Mifreports and Mifreprefentations cojmlnecL in th&
Obfervations. 32

CHAP. III.

Concervivg the Authors Flouts^ Ahifes] ieclamatorf
Exdainations, Repartees, &c. in lieu of Avfwers, 69

CHAP.

The Contents.

CHAP. IV.

Concenivg Quotations/row the Ancients,

CHAP. V.

P. 92

ji Summary View of the Judg?neiit of the Arxmits^
upon the ^{ejlion^ Whether God the Father be na-
turally RuTer and Governor over God the Son. io3

The Conchjion.

123

Tage Line

51

19

58

?

59

^5

64

iS

64

19

69

ult.

84

24

91

35

127

^4

E R R J T A:

\'cnd.

Prefummonefs

Prefumtuouf]

[ief3<

falfe

falfe.

ihows

Ihows i^

Text

Texts.

Pofition

Pofitions.

614.

814.

whatever

whenever*

iii^oi

«7?pK.

Re-

Record*

THE

Ci 3

THE

Introduction.

^INCE the Publication of my Secovi
Defeufe in the Caafe of our Bleffed
Lord's Divij^ity, I have been waiting
to fee what further Attempts we were
to have from the Anajis. I perceive
They are (till refolute in their Op-
pofition to the Faith of Ch?iJ}j blafpheming his God-^
head^ impugning his TForJIn^^ and deipifing every
kind Offer of Inftru6tion, or Exhortation, to corv*
vince or reclaim them. I have the Satisfaction how-
ever to obferve, that they daily give Ground more
and more ^ that the Defevjive Part, which they be-
gun with, is, in a manner, yielded up 5 their main
Scheme appearing fo grofs, and fo untenable, that
they themfelves are afraid, or afhamed to ow7i iu
As to the Ojfejijive, which is now all that they are
v/illing to abide by, they hold it on ftill as far as
they are able : And yet even here one may obferve^
that, as to Matter ot Argument ^ their Attacks are as
harmlefs as a Man might wifli •, only, there is a cer-
tain Fiercevefs, or Bittentefs of Spirit ftill remaining^
and which feems to increafe, as their Strength de-

B ereafes ^

CO

creafes •, and which perhaps inay grow upon them
more and more to the lafl:, as is natural and common
in fuch Cafes. But to come to the Point.

Their firfl Effort to renew the Conteft, appear'd
under the Title of Remarh, Sec. by one Fhilalethes
Cautabngieiijis , Printed for J. Avon. Having no
manner of Acquaintance, that I know of, with the
Man under that conceited Name •, and finding little
in the Piece more than tedious Repetition, and ftudied
Co7ifuJiov, I flighted it, as apprehending my felfnot
at all obliged to take Notice of it.

Waiting a while longer, there comes out another
Pamphlet, entituled, Obfervatiovs, Sec. and by ths
Author of the Reply to my Firjl Defevfe, Printed for
James Knaptov, Sec. which when. I faw, I immedi-
ately concluded, as I had fome leifure upon my
Hands, that here was a Call to me to fet Pen to
Paper once more. For, however low an Opinion I
might have of the Performance, after reading it,
yet The Author of the Reply, when he has any thing
to fay, and while our Readers are not quite weary,
may always command my more efpecial Notice.
Whether it be Dr. Clarke, or whether it be Mr.
Jaclfov, ( for tho' it be doubted which, all agree
that it lies between them,) they are both Men whom
I m.uit attend to : One, as he is the Vrincipal in the
Caufe, the other, as he is Second, and had the firft
Hand in committing my ^leries to the Prefs, en-
gaging me ever after in the Fublick Service. Let but
Hither of thofe Two Gentlemen ftand acccountable
in the Opinion of the JForld, (I mean no more) for
any Foid Play on their Side, as I by fetting my
Kame am anfwerable for any on iimie, and then I
(hall think my felf upon even Terms with them in
tliat Refped : And as to any other, I humbly con-
ceive, I have no reafon to fear their gaining any Ad-
vantage.

The

[3]

The /juthor of the Ohfervatlom begins with giving
us his Judgment of his own Performance 5 alluring
his Reader, in the moii fokinji A^anner^ that the Ob^
fervatiom contain in them no Argument^ nor Branch
of any Argument^ but what upon the moft ferious
Conlideration and careful Review, appears to Hivi
flri6lly and perfedUy conclujive. Thus far perhaps
may be true: For, I know not how Things may appear
to Him, nor how defective He may be in Judgment.
But I wilh He could have added, no Reprefenta-
tions but what, upon calm Examination, he had
found tohQ Jiricfly Jitjh^no Reports, but what he kneip
to be true ^ no Charges upon his Adverfary, but what
he believed to be honeji and upright •, no perfonal Re-
jieBiom beyond what he had clear ^ and fnffcmit
Grounds for. But I pafs on to his Book.

He has caft his Work into Fourteen Ohfervations-^
the weightieft, no doubt, that the whole Compafs
of the Controverfy could afford. I ihall conlider
what to fay to them, after I have given the Reader
fome brief Hints of the paft and prefent State of
the Difpute between us. It fhould be remembred,
tliat this Gentleman at his firft fetting out, and all
along till now, undertook to anfwer ^leries, to fa-
tisfy Objeilions, to aflbil Difficulties, to reconcile the
New Scheme to it felf J to Scripture j to Antiquity, and
to Reafon •, that fo having firfl: cleared his on?n Do-
ctrine in every part, beyond any thing that could be
done for the Faith received^ he might then with a
better Face difturb the Feace of the Church, and plead
the more earneftly (but modeftly withal) for a
thorough Change. This was what he undertook :
And had he been as able to execute^ as he was for-
ward to projeB, I profefs fmcerely, he fnould not
have wanted any Encouragement, or even Thanh o£
raine ^ fo far fhould I have been from giving him
further Moleftation. But it hath happened to him

B 2 (z^

[4]

( ^s it ordinarily mufl to every Man, who under-
takes a Bufinefs before he has feen into it ) that he
has met with many Biffcultm, more than he at firft
apprehended, and is by no means able to furmount
them.

To mention a few Particulars, out of a great
Number.

1. Ke has not been able to clear his Scheme of
the unfupportable Charge of making Ta^o Gods, one
Siipreyne^ and ancther hferior. =

2. He has not been able to get over the Difficulty
of fuppoiing God the Son, and God the rioly Ghoft
Ttpo Creatiires, b in dired Oppofition to Scripture and
Antiqmty. He has indeed avoided giving them the
Name of Creature^ which yet can contribute but lit-
tle Satisfadion to as many as plainly fee how the
Thivg is otherwife fully and repeatedly own'd undejr
other Names. ^

3. He has not been able to defend or excufe Crea-
inre'TForJInp, fo fully condemned by Scripture^ and
by the Ancient Jews and Chrijliavs^ witli one Voice. 4

4. Nor hath he been able to difprove, or elude the
Proofs brought from Scripture, and Ayitiqiiity of the
Pivive Worfhip due to Chrift. «

5. He hath not been able to Salve, or fo much as
to Colour over a notorious Flaw in his Scheme, re-
lating to the Fointdation of the Worjinp of Chrift ;
taking up Principles there which can fuit only with
the Socman Scheme, a): other times efpoufing tht^

a See my Firft and Second Defenfe. Query V.

t> Sec viy Firft Defenfe, and, Second. Quevj XI, XIL

<= See my Supplement to the Cafe, ^c, f» 19. Second Pe-

fenfc, p. S54' ^^'

A nWand Second Defenfe. QueYy XVI, XVII.
e Firft and Second Defenfe. j^ery XVI, XVIIL

[ 5 ]

Arlcin^ though it be impoirible for Both to ftand to*
gether. *'

6. He has not been able to give any tolerable Ac-
count of the Divine Titles^ Attributes^ and Honours^
being afcribed to a Creature, s

7. H,e has given no Satisfadion at all about Chrift
being Creator and Creature too^ not being able to
elude the Proofs of the former, nor to reconcile both
Parts together. '^

8. Though he fet out with pompous Pretences tr>
Antiquity^ he cannot make them good : But it is
proved upon him, nor can he elude the Proof, that
in Thirteen Inflances of Dodrine, containing the
main Branches of his Scheme, he runs diredly coun-
ter to all Catholkk Antiquity, i

9. He has not been able to vindicate Dr. Clarh^s
Quotations from the Anf;ievts : Which have been
proved, all of them, to be either mt fertiver.t^ or jwt
ptjlly quoted^ or ?wt fairly traytjlated^ or vot rightly tin-
der flood. ^

The Author of the Ke^ly having thus failed in the
rnain Bufinefs, I might reafonably decline any fur-
ther Difpute with him. He is fo fenfible of the
Lamenefs of his former Performances in the Dcfen^
Jive^ that he is now pleafed to quit that Part entirely,
and to attempt it no longer. My ^leries remain
Queries ftill -^ and the Oracle flints up in fullen Si-
lence. All that I contended for feems to be tacitly
yielded up to me 5 and I ftand in quiet, and peace-

f Firft Defenfe, p, 27J, Qpc Second Defe fe, p. 4o<J, &ro

« Firft and Second Defenfe. (Query X, XI. Ser. VI [, VIIi:

h Firft ^»^?? Second Defenfe. ^ery XII.

i Firft Defenfe, p. 39^. Second, p. 484, 6^^,

^ Firft 4;;^ Second Defenfe; ^ery XXVU.

able PoflelTion of it. What room then is there for
any further Difpute ? Yes, there is room ftill, this
Geitthinan thinks, to ad upon the Gffenjive : And
lince he has been fo unhappy as to give no Satisfadi-
on in refped of his own Scheme, he hopes however
to be even with us in fome meafure, by declaring
bimfelf ftill diflatisfied with ours. He had many
Objedions formerly which he has been pleafed to
drop one after another, in the Courfe of the Debate:
And he has fome left ftill, which he refolves to abide
by ^ though the Force even of thefe few remaining
have been already fo broken and blunted, that were
it not for the Ignorance of fome Readers, and the
convenient Ufe of Alifreprefentations y Mifreports^
Flouts^ and Scofs^ and an alluming Pojhiverwfs, m
lieu of a juft Reply, he could do nothing with
them.

For the Benefit therefore of weak Readers, who
may be moved by weak Things, and for the Sake of
Truth and Godlhiefs, and in regard to the CharaBer
of the Men I am engaged with, I proceed to examine
the Cbfervations. The Author has taken his own
Method •, and fo will I mine, as to me feems moft
proper, and moft convenient for the Reader. As his
Work is a Rhapfody of independent Thoughts, thrown
under Heads, at Difcretion : And as the Author in
the Compofition obferves very little Coherence, but
jumps from Thing to Thing, blending Matters to-
gether as it happened, or as came into his Head; I
ihall not think it neceffary to follow him all the
Way in his rambling Chafe. But fome Method I
muft have too •, and it ftiall be this, to rank his moft
material Cbfervations under feveral Heads, viz,
Falfe Charges, Mifreprefentations, Flouts and Scoffs^
&c. And thefe Heads fhail make fo many Chapters,

CHAR

[7]

CHAP. I.

Falfe and injurious Charges containd in the
Obfervations,

T. T N the Lift difal^e Charges, I fliall firft place
X one that ftands in Page i i8th, as beinga verj
remarkable one, and proper to be firft fpoken to, by-
way of Introdudion to what fliall come after. The
Words of th6 Obfervato?' are,

Not fo much as ove fivgle VYiter hi the Three frfi

Cevtvries has prefimied to teach^ hut, 07i the cojitra-

ry, they would all have judged it the Higheft Blafphemy
either to fay or thhik {which is the very PuiM in which
I)r. Waterland'5 17' W^ DocT/'/V centers ) that God tie
Father AhmgJyty, even the Ove God and Father of aJl^
who is above all, has no natural and neceffary Supremacy
of Authority and Donmiion at all 5 has 7W other Snpre-
7Jiacy of Aitthority and Dominion, than v^hat is founded
merely in rmitual Agreejyient and voluntary Concert -, hut
has^ naturally and necejfarily, a Priority of Order only.
Here is a high Charge, a Charge of B/afphemy laid
to me, and in the Name too of the Ante-nicene Fa-
thers, vvhofe Memory will be ever precious, and
whole Judgment I refpedt, and reverence. Now,
that the Reader may the better judge of this extra-
ordinary Paragraph of the ObfervatorJ muft take care
to inform him how the Cafe ftands Between him and
me in regard to the Supremacy, In the Preface to my
Second Befenfe, and again in the Book, I intimated
over and over, in as plain Words as I could fpeak,
that provided tlie Son's neceffary Exljier.ce be fecured,

that

[ 8 ]

that he be acknowledged not to exlfl; precanoitjly, or
cojitivgevdy^ but recejjanly, that his Coetenmy and
CovfiibfJa-^tiaUty be riiaintainM, his Creative Powers^
his hjimde Perfedions, his being tio Orfiture, but ove
God with the Father, and ttie like 5 that then the
Supremacy fhall be no Matter of Difpute with ine„
Any Supremacy of tlie Father that is coujijlent with
thefe certah^ plant, Cathnlick Tenets, always and
iiniverfally believed by the Churches of Chrift ^ I
lay, any Supremacy confiftent herewith, I hold, af-
lert, and maintain: Any that is twt covfijlevt, I re-
jed, remove, and deteft, with all the Chriftiaii
Churches early and late.

The Cafe then, betwixt this G-^vtleman and me,
lies thus:

^ It is agreed, I prefume, on both Sides, that God
the Son is either ftriclly equal with God the Father,
as to all effoit'ial Perfections, or that he is Ivjivitely
inferior to him, as one that does not exift veceffarily
inuft of courfe be infinitely inferior to another that
does.

The Eqvalhy of Nature, it feems, is not confijflent
\v\t\\ this Writer's Supremacy •, and he readily acknow*
ledges that it is not : But he will maintain however
the Siipre7?iacy at all Adventures ^ which is diredly
making God the Son vatiirally fubjed to tlie Father^
who is therefore his Sovereign Lord and Ruler, to
reward him if he does well, to pitniJJ) him if he does
amifs, to do with him according to his Will and
Plcafure, as with any other Creature, The Conle--
quence is, making God the Son a Creature ^ the Je^
hpvah, the true God, and God bleffedfor ever, 8cc, a
Creature, a Being that might never have exifted, and
might ceafe to exift, if God fo pleas'd. Thefe are
the plain certain Confequences of this Gentle^nans
vScheme, and fiich the Tendency of his Dodrine
about the Supremacy, He urges the Supre?jjacy to de-

ftroy

Cp3

flxoy the^ Equality : I ftand by the Equality, and in-
lift upon It, that it is confiftent with all the Suprg-
7nacy that either Scripture^ or Catholick Fathers
taught. And I have this plain Reafon to offer, with
refpedl: to the Fathers^ that while they maintained
the Svpreinmy^ they maintain'd alfo the mcejfary
Exijieiwe^ the Coeteniity, the CovfjthJIavtiality of God
the Son, and his Unity of Godhead with the Father ^
which Points once fecured, I am very ready to ad-
mit any confiftent Siiprctnacy. The Confequences
\5^hich Dr. Clarke and his Adherents draw from the
Supremacy^ I anfwer, as the Church of Chrift has
alwa3''s done from the Time fuch Confequences were
pleaded, by admitting a Supremacy of Order, which
is Natural, and a Supremacy of Office which is Oecono-
fnical. The Confequences, on the other Hand ,
which we draw againft them, 4s deftroying the
Equality ( fo manifeftly taught through the whole
Scripture, and by the Primitive Churches j they have
never anfwer'd, nor can they anfwer them : Which
they are fo fenfible of, that they do not care
to have them vmitiond, but perpetually difguife,
conceal, diftemble them, and keep them out of
Sight,

I mufl therefore, in my Turn, now tell the Ob-
jedor, that he is the Blafphemer, upon the avowed
Principles of the Ante-yiiceyie Churches ^ in making
God the Father vaturally Sovereign Lord and Ruler
over God the So7t and God the Holy Ghoji •, in redu-
cing Both the Divi7ie Perfons to the Condition
of Creatures^ or precarious Beings -, brought into
Exiftence at pleafure, and reducible to Non-exiJIeiice
again at pleafure. This is not the Dodrine of
Scripture, or Fathers, but diametrically repugnant to
Both 5 is derived from ancient HereJIes^ and is falfe,
wicked, and dpteftable.

C Tliere

[ ,o]

Ihei^ tnay be fonxe Difficulties objected to the
Chiiixlvs Way of reconciling (the Church's Way I
call it, for fuch it is, not jnhw ) the Equality and
Sv.fre7naq togtthtx: but no greater Difficulties than
what occur in aftmofl: every other Controverfy. They
that have feen into the Heart o" the Controverfy.
between Jews and ChrijHans, or between Atheip
and Tteijh, or between Papijh and frotefiavts in foine
Points, or between Calvivijh and Annimans, muft
acknowledge the fame Thing in every one of them :
Which is owing to this, that human Capacity is
fr.ite, and our Igvoravce of wider Compafs than our
JivovAedre ^ and that therefore it is much eafier to,
raife Doubts and Difficulties, than it is to folve
tmw.. But Difficulties are one Thing, and Demo7i-
Jlraiiovs another: And it very ill becomes this Gen-
tleman, when he' has fuch large Scares of his own,
and while he bends under the Weight of many hi-
fvperahle Objeclions, to grow fo exceeding flippant,
and above m^afure affiiming, upon the Strength
only of tv/o or three Stale Cavils, borrowed froin
ancient Herejies,

I Ihould take Notice of his wording the Charge,
about the ratural arid vcceffary Svpremacy of Dcmimoju
b'e gives it out that I have totally difown'd, and de-'
nied tjjat the Father has any, alTerting that he has
iiore at all I think, there is a great deal of Diffe-
rence between faying that the Father h^s ^ natural
and neceiTary Dominion over the Creatures in co7n'
771071 with the Son and Holy Ghojl, and faying, that
]]e has no natural Supremacy of Dominion at all
And this Jfrher could not be ignorant with what
Iniquity he thus worded the Thing, to leave Room
for a falfe Conftrudtion, and to {hock and aftonilh
every carelefs and ignorant Reader. However,
thus much may be faid, that, in flridlnefs, no Su-.
|::remacy of Dominion can be mtiiral and recejfaryy

'■. .. ..-,::.. ill

ill fuch a full Senfe as God's Attributes ar€ natural aiid
necelTary, eternally and conftantlf refiding in him.
All Sitpreinacy of I)o7nhnon fnppofes an ivferior, and
commences with the ExiJJevce of that Inferior ^ and is
therefore fo far, and fo much voluntary, as the Crea-
tivg of an inferior is. But upon tlie hiferior's coming
into Being, then indeed commences the Supremacy •,
which is an extrinfick Rilaion, no eilential ^a/f-
hiite : Only, thus far it may be called 7iatiiral and
riecejfary, as being neceffary ex Hypotheji, or, upon
that Svppofition, as being a Relation founded upon the
vatiiral and ywcejfary Perfeftions of the Godhead,
which fet it above the Creatures^ and make an ivfi-
5/z>^ Difparity o^ Nature between That and Them, bo
that, after all, this fuperabundant Eagernefs and
Vehemence for a natural Supremacy over God the
Son, and Ood the Hdy GhoJ}^ is only contending, in
other Words, for a Difvarity, or htfer'iorhy of Nature
in thof^ t'/vo Perfons : And this is the fole Meaning
of appointing them a Governor. The Blafphemy I
am charged with, is only the denying that they have
vaturally, any Ruler and Govenior. I venture once
and again to repeat, that they have not, nor ever
could have: And this I maintain upon the clear and
undoubted Principles of all the arx'mit and modern
Churches.

This Gentleman may call it, if he pleafes ( Words
are free) my wonderful Fi^ion, p. 7. my rer^ and
iinheard-of Ficlion , p. 2 3. entirely of mj inverting^
p. 28. my own LwerJion^ p. 46, 52, ico. If he
really thinks fo, I ihould advife him to read the
Ancients ^ or if that be too much, to read only Bi-
fhop Pearfo7t, or Bifhop Bully to inform himfelf bet-
ter: Or if he does not believe it, and yet favs it,
1 ihould intreat him to corred that evil Habit of
Romancing, that outragious Method of Reviling^ and
to karn ths due Government of his Mi?id, I liave

Viveyiie

t ^2]

hwevtei nothing, have coined no new Notion, but
have plainly and lincerely followed what the Ajici-
ejtts, with one Voice, have led me into, and the
Two excellent Modems, juft mentioned, have taught
and maintained upon the fame Bottom. Biftiop
Bvll may be confulted at large : I fhall quote one
Paflage of Biihop Pearfon, becaufe fliort : The Jford^
that is , Chrijl as God, hath the Supreme and U-
7nve?fal Domhnon of the World. ^ Which is t6
all Intents and Purpofes denyivg the Father s
Supremacy as much as I have ever done. But
what a pafs are Things come to, that the known
ftandiiig Dodlrine of all Chrijlian Churches, ancient
and modern, mufl: be treated as a Novelty, as a Fi^ion
or Invev.tion of mine. If the Reader defires a Speci-
men of the ancient Dod:rine in this Point, he may
turn to the ^wtat'wm in my Firjl Befevfe, (p. 290,
29T.J which exprefs the CatMc^ Dodtrine, and to
which all the Fathers are conformable. So much in
anfwer to the Charge of Blafphe?ny,

Whether this Gentleman can ward off that very
Charge, or prevent its returning on his own Head,
anay deferve his Confideration. The good Chrijlians
of old would have ftopp'd their Ears againft fuch
Blafphemy as his Tenets amount to. All reclaim a-
gainft it: Some dlreclly, and exprefsly, as often as
they pronounce any JwOj or the whole Three, to be
one God, or 07w Suhjlavce, of one Dovihnon, of oi:e
Fower,OT Glory 'And the rciicojffequevtially.hy maintain-
ing the Necefary exiftevce^ Confvhfiantiality, Coeter-
7iity, or other divine Attributes of the Son, Or Spirit,

I have now done with the Firft Charge 5 which I
Iiave dwelt the longer upon, becaufe it runs in a
2nanner tlirough the Book 5 and the anfwering it
here in the Entrance, will give Light to what fol-
lows. '

* Pearfon o?j the Creed, t, iji*

II. A

t >3 ]

II. A Second falfe Charge upon me, is in thefe
Words. NegleBivg therefore the Reafon iipn which the
Scripture exprefsly founds the Homvr we are to pay to
Chrijl, the DoBor hulUsJit entirely vpoyi another Foim-
datio7J, on which the Scripture never builds ity viz. ow
this, that by hivi God created all Things^ p. 7.

I fhall fay nothing here of the Abfurdity oT foun-
ding the WorJInp of Chrift in the manner this Au-
thor does, by tacking Socinianifm and Arianifm toge-
ther, though entirely repugnant to each other, as I
have obferved elfeivhere ^ : But as to the Charge
brought againft me, of founding Chrift's Worfhip
as is here faid -, I mufl: beg leave to confute it by
producing my own Words. '^ I found the Son's
*' Title to Worfhip upon the Dignity of his Ferfon,
" his creative Powers declared in John i. and elfe-
" where 5 his being :^a?, from the Beginning, and
" his preferving and upholding all Things, according
'' to Cohjj. I. 16, 17. and Hehr, i. ^

" I fay, his Honour is founded on the intrinfick
'' Excellency, and antecedent Dignity of his Perfon,
" whereof the Power of Judgment committed is on-
" ly a farther Atteftation, and a provifional Secu-
*' rity for the Payment of his due Honour^ It did
" not fnake him worthy^ but foujtd him fo : And it
" was added, that fuch his high Worth and Dignity
** might appear, &c. ^

Is this founding it entirely upon what the Author
here pretends ? As to his pleading, that his way of
founding it is Scriptural, and mine wot Scriptural ;
Both the Parts of his Pretext are abundantly confu-

te Defenfe, p. 275. Second Defenfe, p, 40^,

^ Defenfe, f. i-]6.

^ Second Defenfe, p. 415.

ted

C H ]

ted in my /r/?, znifecojid Defe}jfe, * and in a Preface
to my Sermons, o

III, Another /^//^ CW^^ is in thefe Words. P. ii.
H^re the Doctor direcily corrupts the Apojlle's Apr-
tion ♦, Ttot allow'ivg hm to fay ( what he exprefly docs fay)
that to us there is one God, the Father^ but orly on
the Reverfe, to give the Father the Stile or Title of the
me God. He grounds the Charge lipon what he finds
in my Second Defeife^ p. 194, 426. In the firft I have
thefe Words : '^ Yes, He ( the Apoftle ) tells us,
" that the Father, of whom are all things, is the ori^
*' God (N. 5.) in Oppofition to Falfe ones, to vq-
*' miml Godsy and Lords: And it is plain, that he
** meant it not in Oppofition to God the Son, be-
"^ caufe he reckons him God to its. Rom. ix. 5.

Now, where, I pray, is the Comiption of what
the Apoftle afcrts ? Or how do I refufe to allow him
to fay what he does fay? This Gentleman, it feems,
will fhow it hy this wife Remark •, ^Tis one thivg to
fay^ that the 07ie God is the Father^ of ivhovi are all
Things 5 and another thing to fay^ that the Father (^ tho^
vot the Father only ) is the one God. Now ^tis evident
the Apoftle in this Text is not reciting the CharaBers of
the Father^ and telling vs that he may be filed the ove
God 5 but — he is declaring to jis who the one God isy
viz. the Father. The Difference then between us is
only this 5 That I fuppofe the Apoftle to tell us who
is the one God, he fuppofes him to tell us who the one
God is, A notable Criticifn^ to found fuch a Charge,
of direBly corrnptirgy and dif allowing Scripture, upon!
efpecially confidenng that the Greek Words, («?
^oi 0 OTtr^'p) may bear either Conftruction (if they
4

" Firft ^;7£f Second Defenfe. jQupy xvij xvii, xyiii, xix.
o Preface to Eight Sernwvsj p. 40, &c.

be

[ '5]

be really Two Gonftrudlions) and either inay equaU
I7 fuit with the Context. For tho' the Text is not
reciting the Father's Characters, not all his Clia-
raders, yet the Defign was to point out who is the
07ie God y and he fixes that Charadter upon the Per-
fon^of the Father, as being pripiarily and emineittly^
tho' not exchijively, the one God.

I have been confidering (longer perhaps than it
deferves) where the Diflerence lies between asking
Tvho is the ove God, and asking, who the one God is :
And to me it appears fo very fmall and impercepti-
ble, that I can lay no hold of it. I have tried what
I could do in another Inftance: Let it be enquired,
rrho is the Apjile of the Gentiles ^ the Anfwer is)
Fdw/of Tarfm, &c. Well but enquire, who the A-
pjik of the Gentiles is? The Anfwer is ftill the fame,
Faid of Tarfiis, &c. Put the ^lejiions into Latin\
we are ftill never the nearer, they are plainly tanta*
mount: at leaft the Difference to me is undifcerna-
ble ^ unlefs by who in the latter Cafe be meant what i
Upon which Suppofition, the Text we are concerned
with fhould not be tranflated, To its there is but otte
God, the Father, but thus. To vs the one God is a Fa-
ther, 8cc. Perhaps this ingenious Gentleman may
be able to clear up the Matter to Satisfaction : But
fince he has not yet done it, it is plain he was too
hajly in charging me at all, but very ifijwious in run-
ning it up to fuch an extravagant Height.

IV. The DoUrine of the Trinity delivered in thefe
Jfords (Eph. IV. 9, 5;, 6.) by the Apoflle, isfo exvrefsh
contradiElory to Dr. Waterland'^ Scheme, and fo imp-i
fble to he perverted even into any Appearance of Con-^
fijievcy with It, that the DoBor finds himfelf hereoblhed
even fairly to tell m, that St. Paul ought not to hive
writ thus as he did, dec, p. 17.

a IS

[ ^n

This is a Charge fo malicious, and petulant, and
withal fo groundlefs, that I cannot well imagine
what could tranfport the Man into fuch Excefles.
For, fuppofing I had mifinterpreted St. Vaiily and
very widely too, would it amount to a Declaration
that the Apoftle ought jwt to have writ what he did
write? How hard would it be with Coiiimentators ^
if upon every MifconJhiiBion of a Text, really fuch,
they were to be thus charged with taking upon them
to be wifer than the SacreS. Penmen, and to correB
the Sfir'it of God >

After all, if the Reader pleafes to look into my
Defejtfey p he will be furprized to find how hinoceiit
the Words are, which have been wrought up into
this high Charge, In my Defetjfe, I fay, ^'' Ephef.d^,6,
*' has been generally underftood by the Ancients of
** the ^hole Trinity : Above all, as Father • through
« all, by the Word, and in all, by the Holy Ghoft. I
refer to Irejidiis, Hippolytus, Mariin VicIoriJiiis, Atha-
Tiafius , and Jerom , for that Conftruction : I con-
clude, However that he (that is, whatever becomes
of that Interpretation, be it jufl: or otherwife ) yet
the Father may he reafonahly called the one, or only
God^ without the leajl Dimijiiition of the Sons real Li-
vinity. p

In my Second Defenfe, all I pretend is, that I fee
710 Abfurdity i in the Interpretation now mentioned :
And I obferve, that we are jwt there enquiring intQ
the Senfe of the Text, hut into the Sentiments of the
Ancients upon it ^ and I exhibit their Teftimonies
at large. And to take off the pretended Abfurdity
of that ancient Interpretation, in making the one
God and Father of all include all the Three Perfons,
I obferve how Ir en dus (one of the Fathers quoted)

P Defenfej ^ lo, 2 Second Dcfonf^j p. 6d.

reckons

\

C ^7]

reckons the Son and H0I7 Ghoft to the Father, as
being his very felf in a qualified Senfe. And I
further add, that " nothing is more common than
*' for a Head of a Family, fuppofe Ahrahavi^ to be
'* under flood in a ftrider or larger Senfe, either as
*' denoting his own proper Perfon, or as denoting
*' him and all his Defcendants conlider'das contain'd
*' in him, and reckon'd to him. I fhovv farther
from the plain and exprels Teftimonies of Hippoly-
tus and TertiiUiaji, that they alfo, as well as IreuAiis^
fometimes confider'd the father in that large Senfe
before-mention'd. 1

Thefe are the FaBs \ which this Gentleman fhou'd
have confuted, inftead of bringing againft me rail-
ing Accufations. If there be any Force ( as there
is none) in the Charge^ it falls upon the Fathers ^
whofe Interpretation I defended no farther than by
fhowing it not to be ahfurd^ nor unfuitable to the
Language of the Early Times. As to my felf, I
did not fo much as condemn the conwion Interpreta-
tion, but was content to admit of it : And yet if I
had condemned it, I lliould not, I conceive, have
been therefore chargeable witli condemning St. Paul.

This Writer has a further Complaint, it feems, m
relation to the prefent Text. He is pofitive that
the Title of Father of all, is very difagreeahle «* to me :
And he infinuates, that pure Decency here reftrain'd
me from finding Fault with St, Paul, for chvjivg fuch a
Va^^n ExpreJ/ion. A 7Wf^« Suggefiion, and entirely
groiindkfs. For, neither did I give any the leaft Hiiit
of Diflike to St. Pauls Exprelllon, nor did I fi^nd fault
mth the Fathers for adapting fometimes their Stile
to Pagans, but commended them rather for doing it.

*J See my Second Defenfe> p* 6iy 98,
y Qbfervatiomy p. iS.

P in

[ i8 ]

in the Cafes by me mentioned, ^ as doing what wa§
proper. And certainly it was commevdabk in St
Fatil, and I acknowledged it to be fo % to adopt the
Fagaji Phrafe of Uvhww^t God, and to apply it in a
ChrijHan Senfe, to lead the Pagans into a Belief of the
Tnie God.

Before I leave this Article, I would take notice cf
this Gentleman's AffeBation ( to call it no worfe) of
loadhig every thing beyond meafure, in a way im-
cojnmon-^ and poivtivg and edging his Exprelhons to
fuch a Degree as to make them ridicnlous. It is not
enough, with him, to fay, as another Man would in
fuch a Cafe, that a Thxt has been mifconjirued, and
its Senfe perverted, or mifapplied •, no, that would
found fiat, and vidgar : But it is to be called corrupt-
hig thQ Apofde's AfTertion, vot allowivg hhn to write
what he did write • or, it is jinding fault with him,
or fairly telling us that he ought vot to have writ thus
as he did •, or, it is an Attempt to expofe and render
lidiailoiis the ApoJile\ Dodrine, and arguing, not
againft Dr. Clarke, but againfl: plain Scripture^ and
againft the Evargelijls and Apojiles themfelves a.
This it is to be elegant, and qmintj and to pulh the
Satyr home. I can pardon the Pedantry, and the falfe
Siihlime, in a Man of fuch a Tafte : But I delire, he
'inay ufe it fomewhere elfe -, and not where he is
laying an IndiBment, or making a Report, which re^
quires Truth, and Stricinefs,

V. The Supreme Authority and Original Independent
Alfohite Dominion of the God and Father of all, who
is above all j That Authority which is the Foundation of

3 Ste Second Defenfe, -p, 157,
« Second Defenfe, f. 197,
« Sfg B.ep}y, p 195, 1970

the whoh Law of Nature, winch is taught and covfriti'^
ed in every Page of the New Tejlament •, which is prO"
fejs'd and declared in the firji Article of every ancient
Greed, in every ChriJJian Church of the World, and
which is maintain d as the Firft Principle of Religion
by every Chriftian Writer, not only in the Three firjl
Centuries^ but even in the following Ages of ConteyttioH
and Aribition : This Supreme Authority^ &c. Dr. Wa-
terland in his Uft Book ( merely for the more confifent
falvivg of a ?netaphyjical Hypothejis) has by a new anl
unheard-of Fi^ion, without any Shadow of Evidence
from any one Text of Scripture, in direB Contradi^ion
to the firjl Article of all the ancient Creeds, without th^
Teftimony of any one ancient ( / lad almoji faid^ or
Modern) Writer, very prefumptuovjly, (and had he
hinifelf been an Oppofer of the Hypothefis he defends, he
would havefaid, blafpheinoufly) —reduced entirely tQ
iiothing, p. 2?.

Here feems to be fomething of founding Rhetorich
in this Paragraph ^ which had it been intended only
for an Exercife, or by way of Specimen, might have
been tolerable : But it was wrong to bring it in here
in a grave Debate ♦, becaufe there is not a word o£
Truth in it*

To fpeak to the Matter, all this hideous Outer/
againft an innocent Man, means only this, as hatli
been above hinted 5 that I have been willing to
think, and as willing to fay, that God the Son and
God the Holy Ghoft have naturally m Governor, are
not naturally fubjedt to any Ruler whatever. This
Gentleman is here pleafed to intimate that they are,
and is very confident of it. Let me number v^ the
many i^dlipahle Untruths he has crowded into i.tf
a Page* One about the Foundation of the Law o(
Nature: A Second, about the New Tefiament i A
Third, about every ancient Creed : A Pourth, about th^
frjl Frinci^k of Religion^ and every Chrtjiidn Writer i

D ^ Fmif

r io]

povr or five more, about Dr. Waterhnd. There is not
a Syllable o( Truth in any of the Particulars of which
he is fo pofitive. For neither does any Law of Na-
ture, nor any Text of the Keti^ TeJIaineyit, nor any
avcievt Greedy nor any C1)njliay: and Catholick Writer,
early or late, everaflert, or intimate, that God the Fa-
ther is 7:atiirally fiipreme Goi^e^ nor over his cwv Son
and Spirit ; or that they are 7fatvraUy under his Ride
or Government, And as to Dr. Jfaterlavd^ it is no
rww or unheard-of FiBion in him, to afTert one common
Dominion to all the Three Pcrfons, and to deny that
either the Son or Holy Ghoft is natvralh fubjeO: to
(that is, a Creature of) the Father. He has full
Evidence for his Perfuafion, from innumerable Texts
of Scripture, from all the ancient Creeds, as under-_
ftood by the Chriftian Churches from the Beginning
to this Day : And he has neither bhfphemoujly, nor
prefumptuoufy^ but fobcrly, righteoufly, and in the
Fear of God, ftood up in Defenle of the injured
Honour of the ever Bkjfed Trinity, grievoufly inful-
ted and outraged by the Brians of thefe Times •, who
when they have carried on their rcfolute Oppofition
as far as Argument and calm Rcafoning can go, and
are defeated in it, rather than yield to Convidion,
come at length to fuch a Degree of AIea7inefs, as to
attempt the Support of a baffled Caufe by the low
Methods' of declaiming ^ and railing,

VI. J^hen Dr. W^terhnd fays, that many fupreme
Gods in one undivided Subftance are 7iot many Gods,
for that very reafon, becaufe their Subftance is un-
divided, He jnight exaBly with the fajne Senfe ani
. Truth have affirmed, that many fupreme Perfons in one
undivided Subftance are not mariy Perfons •, for that very
reafon^ becaife their Subflance is undivided^ p. 51.

Here

[ ^' ]

Here I am charged with faying, that many fnpreme
Gods are not many Gods. Let my own Words appear
as they ftand , Second Defevfe^ p. 357.

" I alTert, you fay, ?naiiyfupreme Gods in one midi-
*' vided SubJIavce. Ridiculous . They are not many
*' Gods, for that very reafon, becaufe their Sub-
'* fiance is undivided." Is this faying, that many
Gods are vot 77iany Gods ? No, but They^ that is, the
Three Perfons, fuppofed by the Objector to be Three
Gods upon our Scheme, are not Three Gods, not
waiiy, but o?/f God only. This G^7/f/^mciw appears to
be in fome diftrefs, that, in order to form his Ob-
jection, he is forced to invent Words for me, and to
lay them before the Reader inllead of mine. He
ftems however in the fame Paragraph, to aim ob-
fcurely at an Arpnnevt which the Author of the Re-
rnarh has exprefs'd plainly, and urged handfomely
enough, ^ though with too much Boajiivg.

The Anfwer, in fhort, is this : Though the Union
of the Three Perfons (each Perfon being Svhjiance)
makes them ove Siihjlance, yet the fame Union does
not make them one Ferfon ^ becaufe Umon of Svb--
Jlance is one Thing, and Unity of Ferfon is Another :
And there is no Necellity that the fame kind of Uni-
on which is fufficient for one, muft be fufficient for
the other alfo. There is no Confequence from one
to the other, but upon this Suppojition, that Ferfon and
aBivg Stibfance are equivalent, and reciprocal : Which
the Author of the Remarks had accutenefs enough to
fee, and therefore fixes upon me, unfairly, that very
Siippofiion, If he pleafes to turn to my Definition of
Ferfon, he will find, that, though I fuppofe Ferfon to
be intelligent aBing Subjiance, yet That is not the;
jphole of the Definition, nor do I ever fuppofe the
Terms, or Phrafes reciprocal -, any more than the af.
ferting Man to be an Animal^ is fuppofing Man and

* Remarks f p. ^6.

Animal

A^ifnal to be taiitainount, or to be reciprocal Teritls*
I have taken this Occafion of repl3ang to the Re-
marks upon this Head, to let the Author fee that I do'
not negle£t his Performance for any Streyigth it bears
in it. That which I have now anfwered is, in my
Judgment, the hejl and Jirovgefi Argument in the
whole Piece : And I believe he thinks fo too.

VII. jrhen the DoBor affirms that the one fupreme
God is vot one fupreme God hi Perfoji, but in Sub-
Jlance : Jl^bat is this but affirming^ that the one fnprevie
Qo.l is two fupreme Gods in Ferfon, though but 07ie fu-
preme God in Suhjlance ? p. 51.

Let the Reader fee vnj Words upon v/hich this
weak Charge is grounded; They are in my Fuji De*
fenfe, p. 33.

* Father and Son Both are the one fupreme God ;
'' Not one in Perfon, as you frequently and ground-
*^ lefsly infmuate, but in Sub (la nee. Power, and Per-
" fedion. '' I neither faid, nor meant to fay, Not
one fupreme God in Verfon ^ but, not one in Perfon ;
The reft is of this Writer's foifting in by way of
blunder, firft to make Nonfenfe, and then to com-
ment upon it, and add more to it. In the mean
while, it is fome Satisfaction to me to obferve, that
in a Controverfy where it is not very eafy to ex-
prefs every thing with due Accuracy, the keeneft
Adverfaries have not yet found any offenjive or mi-
jujlifiable Exprelhon to lay hold on, till they have
iirft made it {b^ by Artifice and Managemeut,

VIII. Another Method whereby Dr. Waterland at-
tempts to dejlroy the Supremacy of the one Gody &c. -—
is by dejiying any real Generation of the Son, either Tem-
poral or Eternal Obfer. p. 56.^

Here are two falfe and iytjurious Charges: One of
my denying any Temporal Generation of the Son 5 the

othes

other of my denying any Etenial Generation. Every
Body that has feen my Books knows that I afTerc,
maintain, and inculcate Three Geveratiom •, the firft
Eternal, the other two Tempral : So that this Charge
of th^Ohfervatormu^ be made cut, if at all, by In-
ference, or Confequence only, and not directly ; And
therefore he ought not to have exprefs'd this Article
in fuch general Terms as he has, but ihould have
faid, corifecjuevtially, i?nplicitly, or the like, if he had
not been exceeding prone to fet every Thing forth
in the falfeji and blachji Colours.

What he advances in Support of thefetwo Charges,
betrays fuch Covfufmi of Thought, and fuch furpri-
zing Forgetfiihwfs of ancient Learning, ( for I am
unwilling to impute it all to form'd premeditated
Malice ) that I ftand amazed at it.

I. One of his firii: Blunders is, his attributing the
Words before all Ages ( ^re) -mv^uv dimcov ) to the Coun-
cil of Nice : This he repeats, p. 67, 70. Though
every body knows that thofe Words were not inferred
by XhtNiceve Council, but the Covjianthiopolitav, above
5oYears after. It is neceifary to rem^ark this, becaufe
part of the Argument depends upon it. There can be
no doubt but that the Co?(/?^?/tzwopo/zV^« Council intend-
.ed Eterval Gei^ieration : But as to the Nicejw Council,
it may be queftioned whether they did or no. Thefe
two our Writer, as his way is to confound every
Thing, has blended together, and, I fuppofe, very
igiioravtly.

The Ur^ he makes of it, is, bringing me in as
his Voucher (p, 67. ) for the Nicene Fathers profef-
fing no more than a Temporal Generation, though they
fxprefslyfay, hwa^ to Tiziyrrav aJJvco^ before all Ages, I
'do indeed offer fuch a Conjedure about the Niceva
leathers •, ^ but then I know nothing of the ^viwv
. - —

"" Second Defenfe, -p. 287. ConrpaYe Bull. D. F. §.3. C 9.

But fee alfo Lowth'i Note npn Socrat. EccL B. p 24. E^. Cant.

2 ouavay

[ 24 1

efAcovcsv which this Gentleman puts upon them •, nor
do I allow that either the Nicoie or Avtenicene Ca-
tholicks underftood that Phrafe in the limited Senfe r,

2. Another Miftake, or rather grofs Mifreport, is
what he fays of the Ifriters before, and at the Time
of the Nicene Council, that ufing the Similitude of
Light from Light, or Fire from Fire, they always tale
care to exprels this one D'ljference in the Similitude , that
whereas Light JImeth forthy arid is comminiicated mt by
the Will of the linniiwiis Body^ but by a riecej[ary Pro^
ferty of its Nature, the Son of God is, by the Power
and Will and Defign of the Father his Subftantial
Image,

I do not know that any fngle Writer ever exprefs'd
this, before Eufebiiis ^ if it may be faid of him.
If it be pretended, that they meajit it at lead ^ yet
neither can that be proved, in the ///// Exte7it of
what is here aiTerted, of any one of them. All that
is true is, that as many Avteniceiie Fathers as went
upon the Hypothejis of the Temporal Ante-mundane
Generation, fo many acknowledged fuch Genera-
tion to be by TT?'//, and Cou7fel : But none of thofe
Writers ever ufed that Si7mlitude upon which
Eiifebius made the Remark now mention'd •, vi%,
that of Light and Splendor, but that of one Lights
or one Fire o^ another, which has a very different
Meaning ^, and Application. But it is not the Ob-
fervator^s Talent to think, or write accurately.

I mufi: further add, that Origen, Theognopis^ Dio^
Tiyjius of Alexandria, and Alexander, making ufe of
the fame Similitme that Eufebim does, give no fuch
Account of it ^ And none that intended to illuftrate

y See my Firft Defenfe, p 139, &c^

* See my Second Defenfe, f. 913.

* Sfs my Second Defenfe, p 3i4»

tterml

et€rml Geveration tliereby, ever intimated that it was
hyjrUl, Befigv^ or Comfel, in Oppofition to what
is vatiiral^ or iieceffaryy in our Senfe of veceffary.

3. A Third Inftance of this Writer's great Covfii-
foil, upon the prefent Head, is his blending and con-
founding together what I had laid down diftindly
upon different Subjedts. What I fay of Fojl-mceiies
only, he underftands of Ante-vkenes too : And what
I fay of one Ante-mcene Writer, he underftands of
another *, and thus, by the Covfufion of his own Intel-
kd:, I am made to be perpetually hicojijijjevt. It
would be too tedious to repeat. All may be feeii
very dijiivcily, and with ^ve^tCoiiJipvcy, fet forth
in my Secovd Defevfc^ whither I refer the Reader
that defires to fee the Sentiments of every particular
Writer fairly confidered. ^

4. A Fourth Inftance of this Author's Confiifwft, is
his pretending that none of the Ante-mcem Writers
ever mevtion any prior Gevieratloiu ^f^y other /Ivte-mun-
darte Geveration, bejide that Temporal one before
fpoken of. It is true that many, or moft of the A?!-
te-mceve Writers were in the Hypothecs cf the Teiju
poral Generation, mentioning no other: But it i^
very falfe to fay, that none of them fpeak of any
higher. Origen, and JDiovyjliis of Alexandria, and
Methodius, and Pamphilm, and Alexander, are ex-
prefs for the eternal Generation, or Filiation ^ : And
Iren&iis, and Novatian, and Dionyjiiis of Rojne may,
very probably, be added to them. Thefe together
make Eight, and may be fet againft Ignatius, Jupn^
Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Clemens of Alcxan^
dria, Tertidlian, Hippolytus, who make an equal

^ Second D-sfenfe, ff'om p.. 280. top. 507.

c See my Firfl Defenfe, /?. 136, ^q. Second Defenfe, p

^5)2, ^Q,

E Kumber

[a6 1

Number for the other Hypothejis. And I have often
obferved, and proved, that the Difference between
thefe "Writers v/as 'verbal only, all agreeing in the
inain Doctrines, and differing only about Terms
whether This , or That fliould be called Genera-
tion. ^

5. Another Inftance of his great Covfufw-n under
this Head, is his objeding to me again, as before in
the Rcply^ my appealing to the Ancient'^ for the Un^
derftanding of JFill in the Senfe of Acqinefcence, and
Approbatiov, meaning by Ar.cients, Vofi mcem Wri-»
ters. This I did to obviate Dr. Clarke's Pretences
from fome Fojl-vkevie V/riters, fuch as Hilary, Eajil^
Marim Vichrimis, and Gregory Nyffen. And, cer-
tainly, in exponnding thefe Writers, heed muft be
given to tlieir way and manner of ufing their Phra-
fcs. And as to calling tliem Avckiits, the Author of
the Reply had done the fame twice together. «

6. This Writer difcovers liis Ignorance, or hifr-
iniiy ratlier, in calling my Interpretation of Avd-yKn
t.vir,yj>, ridJciihvs, as tahn only from fome later
Chrijlian Writers. I proved my Interpretation from
Athanajim^ Epiphanius, Hilary, and the Hiftory of the
Times in which the Sir7n7an Council was held, in
order to fix the Meaning of the Phrafe about that
Time, which is the firfl: Time we find it applied.
m this Subje6t. ^' And I fully anfvvered all this'
G^MkmciM'h Cavils, which he now repeats.

7. Another Inftance ot" his Confujion, is his fay-
ing of the Prccejmt, or temporal Generation, that

'^ Firft Pefcnfe, f. 157, &c. Second Defenfe, _^. 7^
557-

*■ See Reply, p. 255, 257. And my Second Defenfe? i^*

306. ^ .

^ (^5^ my Second Defenf§, % z^6, 304*

[ a; ]

it is no Generatiov at all ^ and that 7wt one Ailte-nirenf
Writer ever was fo abfurd, as to call that a Geneiation
by which the generated Ferfo7i was m more generated,
than he was before. As to the Fad, that the Ame^^
mceve Writers, in great Numbers, c^alled this Pro-
ceifion Generation, I proved it at large 5 nor can any
Scholar make doubt of it. And as to the poor Pre^
fence, which he here repeats, I anfwered it betore
in thefe Words: { Second Defenfe, p. 292.) " Tbo^
'^ the Logos was the fame cljentially beiore and after
^' the Generation, he was not the fame m refped ot
*• Cperatiojt, or MavifeJIaticv, and outward Oeconcmy ^
<^ which is what thofe Fathers meant. " And I par-
ticularly proved this to be their Meaning, from the
exprefs Teftimonies of Jvfin, MethodiiL^^.j^nd Hip-
polytiiszy and confirmed it by ^notations trom Zeno
Veronenjis.mary.Vhd^adius, and others. And what doe.^
it fignify'for the Ohfervator to fet his raw Conceptions,
and fond Reafonings about the Meaning of a Word,
againfl: fuch valuable Authorities ? Can any thing be
more ridiculous than to fit down and argue abou':
what an ancient Writer muft, or ir.nft not liave faid,
from pretended Reafons ex ahfurdo ? I affert it to be
FaB tliat they [aid, and meant what I report of them •,
and I have produced their Tejlijnonies : The Author
may, if he pleafes, go on with his Dream

This Writer having performed fo mditterentiy
upon one Part of the Charge, will not be found lefs
defeftive in regard to the other-, wherein he cliarges
me with denying eternal Generation, or reducing it
to mthivg. He will not, I prefume, pretend that I
either deny it or dejiroy it, as he does by pronoun-
cing all eternal Generation ahjvrd and contradiaory.
If I deny it, or deJlroy it, it is in affertmg it how-

SySecond Defeufe, f- 284, v-^^ ^_

E 2 ^^^>

[ ^M

ever at the fame time : And it mull be by exphhhig
it, if any way, that I reduce it to mthivg. If it
happens not to be fo explain'd as to fall under this
Gentleman's Iviaghation, it is, according to him,
reduced to vothivg. But before he comes to his meta-
phyjical Speculations on this Head, he gives us aTafte
of his Leanmig, in refpect of the Avtc'ients -, boldly
afferting, that they never exprefs the frjl, (or eter-
jiai) Generation of the Son, by Fillatmu or Gene-
ratio?!^ or Begetthig^ or by any other equivalent Term.
This is a notorious Untruth. For, when IrejiAiis re-*
proves feme Perfons as attributing any Beghmhig to
tlie Proladon of the Son (Frohtioms hiithim dojmyites)
he ofes a Term equivalent to Filiation^ or Generation ^.
When Origen declares there was 710 Begimiing of the
Son's Gsywratiovy he ufes the very Word », as alfo
when he fpeaks of the Only -begotten., as being always
with the Father. Dionyjius of Alexayidria expreffes
it by the v/ord auytvniy eternally generated ^ ^ which
farely is very eiprefs. When Methodim afferts that
he never became a Son, but always was fo *, what is
this, but faying tlie fame thing? And when other
Writers aflert, that tlie Father was always a Father^
tliis is at lead: averting an eternal Generation in
equivalent Terms. But this Writer's Knowledge of
Antiquity has been fufficiently fhown. Let us fee
whether he can perform any thing better in Meta-
phyjwh. He forms his Attack thus : Dr. Waterland —
dejires, yon woidd by no means nnderjland him to iyitend
eternal Generation indeed^ but a mere Coexiftence with^
and not at all any Derivation /;'o 77; the Father ^ p. 72.

^ S^e w/y Firft Defenfe, p I5(5»

* See my Firfr Defenfe, ^.196.

^ See my Firft Defenfe, p 142, Ed. 4tn*

'- Firft Defenfe, p 143*

And

C ^9 ]

And certainly Dr. TFaterhnd is very right in ms-
kmg eterml Generation to be eternal, amounting
to a Coexiftence with the Father, without which it
could not be eternal It is obfervable however, that
this Gentleman oppofes Derivation to Coexijiefice -,
tvhich fhows what kind of Derivation he intends y a
Derivation from a State of Non-exijfefwe, a Deriva-
tion commencing after the Exiilence of the Father,
and becaufe later than the Father's Eiiftence, htfi-
mtely later, as itmuftbeif ^f all later. In jQiort then, it
is a Derivation of a Creature from his Creator : This is
the eterval Generation he is contending for, in Oppofi-
lition to mire , while he is endeavouring to fliow that
mine is not Gevieration-y as his, mod certainly, is not
eterral, noi Generatioji, hut Creation. The Sum of what
he has to advance is, that Coexijhnce is incompatible
with Geveratiov'^y that an eterval Derivation is abfurd,
and contradictory. No doubt but fuch a Derivation
as he is 27nagimng ( which he explains by a real Mo-
tion of EiniJfioVj and Growth of ove out of the other)
is incompatible with CoexiJIence. But what the pri-
mitive Fathers intended, and what the Scripture in-
tended by eternal Generation, implies no fuch Alotion
of Efnijfion, no fuch Growth of one out of the other,
but an eternal Relation or Reference of one to the
other as his Head. An eterjial Relation has no diffi-
culty at all in the Conception of it. All the Diffi-
cnlty lies in the Suppofition of its not being coordi-
7iate, though the Perfons be coexillent. And when it
can be fhown that all Priority of Order mull oi
courfe imply a Priority of Duration too, then the
Objection may have fome weight in it. Till that
be done, the Notion of eterval Generation will Hand :
An eternal Logos of the eternal Mind, which is the
apteft Similitude to exprefs the Coetcniity and Head-
fhip too r^ and is the Reprefentation given of it both

by

C50]

by Scripture and Aritiquhy, I proceed to a New
Charge.

IX. Another Method by which Br, Waterland ended-
voitrs to dejlroy the Supreme Dominion, ^c. — is his
labovring, by a Biifi of learned J<^rgon^ toperfiiade Men
that the very Terms One God 7nean no body knows jphat,
p. 85. To this I anfwer, that 07ie God means one jie-
cejarily-exijling ^ all-perfeB, all-fnfficient SvbJIance, or
£ei7jg : Which Snbjiance^ Sec. confifts, ( according to
Scripture Account ) of Three Perfons, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghoft, one Jehovah, This is one God.
Let this Gentleman difprove it, when he is able.

I had faid, ^ « if Scripture makes the Three:
*' Perfons one God, either exprefsly, or by neccfTary
" Co7?fequence, I know not what Men hai^e to do to
" difpute about intelligent Agents , and identical
*' Lives, 8cc. as if they underftood better than God
*' himfelf does, what one God is, or as if Philofophy
*' were to direct what fliall, or {hall not be Tritheijm,''
Upon this our Obfervator remarks ♦, better than Dr.
Waterland himfelf does^ is all that he 7neans, I would
allow the Juftice of his Refledion, were we difpu-
ting what one God is, upon the Foot of Scripture :
For then it would amount only to this Difference,
that His Interpretation leads one way, and Aiine ano-
nother. But as the Competition is made between
Scripture and Philofophy, he may eafily perceive both
the Ivipertineyice , and Iniquity of his Reflection,
While the Point is removed from Scripture to Philo-
fophy for a Decifion of it, I infift upon it, that this is
interpretatively, and in Effecl, tliough not in Befign,
pretending to underftand the Thing better than Goi
himfelf does. But to proceed with our Writer's

Second Defenfe, f- 6y

Preten-

Pretences againfi: the Account I had before given
from the Ancicvts.

He objeds, (p. 86.) that one Suhfiance is not the
fame as 07ie God ; becaufe two equally Supreme, two Un--
0 right ate Divive Ferfom would he two Gods, by my own
Confellion : For I fay, (p. 207.) that Two Unorigi-
rate Divine Verfons, however otherwife infeparable, woidd
he Two Gods according to the Ancients, I knew very
well what I faid, tho' I perceive this Gentleman
does not apprehend it. The Ancients thought this
Reference of one Perfon to the other, as Head^ was
oneRequifite among others, to make the Subjlancs
one, being thus more clofely allied, and, as it were,
of one Stock, This made Me fay, however otherwife
hifeparahle : that is, whatever other Union may be
fuppofed, the Perfons v/ould not be perfectly infepa-
rahle, not perfedtly one Siihjlance, (according to the
Ancients ) and fo not one God, but upon the prefent
Suppofition. And now how does this Ihow that one
Siihftance and one God are not, in this Cafe, tanta-
mount ? To me it feems, that it both confirms^ and
explains it

X. The Ohfervator charges me (p, 94.) ^i^h ma-
king one compound Perfon of many difiinSl Perfons.
His Words are : He tlmiks a Ferfon may he compounded
of many diJlinB Ferfom. He refers to Page the 367th
of my Second Defenfe. If the Reader can find any
fuch thing there, or any where elfe in my Books,
let the Charge 01 falfe DoBrine lie upon me : If not,
let the Charge of Slander and Calmmy lie upon the
Accufer.

XL He charges me, p. 62. with referring to a Paf-

fage in rnodej}; Flea, without pretending to male any

the leaf Anfwer to it. This is like his other Mifre-

prts : I abundantly anfwer it, (p. 218,) by allowing

4. " ^ necejfary

, C 50

ffece/fary Exiprice to b^e poftive^ but denying it of
Self-exijlence.

From the Inftances here given ( to which more
will be added under the next Chapter ) the Reader
may perceive, that fpeaking of the Tntth, in Sim-
plicity, and Singlenefs of Heart, is none of this
Gentleman's Talent. If he hits upon any thing re-
ally t] ue, and which he might perhaps make fome
little Advantage of, he has fiich a Faculty of hwent-
hrg, and firaimvg, that he quite fpoils it in the Tel-
ling, and turns it into Roviance, One would not
exped fuch Exorbitances as thefe are from Men of
their Profelfion, and Character : But it now brings
to my mind the Fojifcript to the Reply ^-^ : And I fhall
wonder at nothing of this Kind hereafter.

Q^^r^/^:r.f^v\'*rf^'*Ty^,trr'^\/^Ts.r^^f^'^y^'^r^'^:r.^J^\''^T\*r^

CHAP. IL

Mifreports ^;2^Mifreprefentations contained in
the Obfervations.

E

Very Page of the Pamphlet is concerned in this
Charge : The whole is, in a manner, one con-
tinued Mifreprefejitation from Beginning to End,
^ut fome of the Mifreprefevtatmis have been already
Ihown in the firft Chapter, ^mon^falfe Charges-^ and
others will fall under a fubfequent Chapter. I fhall
fcle£l a convenient Number to fill up this.

I. Page IT. the Author writes thus •. The BoBor h
forced farther to afrm, that the Son is tacitly hwhded^

^ See my Second Defenfe, f, 52S*

tho'

[35]

M the Father be eminently Jliled the one God: Nay,
(which is very hard iyideed ) tacitly included, though
by Name exprefsly excluded, ajtd contradiftinguifhed
by a peculiar Chara&er of his own, in the very Words of
the Text it felf Thus he leaves the Remark, with-
out informing the Reader in what Senfe I fuppofe
the Son tacitly included. I explain it in my Second
Lefenfe, p. 46 ^

" I have before (hown what we mean by faying
" that the Son is tacitly included, though the Father
'' be eminently ftil'd the one God : Not that the
'' Word God, or the Word Father, in fuch Cafes, in-
" eludes Father and Son^ but the Word God is
" predicated of one only, at the fame Time that it
" is tacitly underftood that it may be predicated of
" Either, or Both 5 fince no Oppojition is intended a-
^' gainfl: Either, but againft Creatures, ^nd falfa
" Gods,"

This Gentleman pretends indeed that the one God
is oppofed to the one true Lord, ( in i Cor. 8. 6. ) as
well as iofalfe Gods. But this is gratis diBim •, and
he does not confider that then the Son can be no God
at all to Its, contrary to Rovi. 9. 5- befides many
other places of Scripture. I fay therefore that the
exclufive Term, in this cafe, is not to be underftood
with utmoft Rigor, but with fuch qualifying Conii-
derations, as other Scriptures manifeftly require to
be confiftent with this. I gave Inftances, in good
Number, of exclujlve Terms fo ufed, ^ which this La-
conick Gentleman confutes, firft, by calling themi
ridiculous •, and next, hy poftively afrming that, where-
ever any particular Thing or Perfvn is by any particular
Title or Character contradifinguiM from any other
Thing or Ferfon mentioned at the fame Time under ano-

n Sermon lY' Second Defenfe, p* 25, 52, 79.

f ther

[ 34 J ^_ _

ther particular Title or CharaVter^ \h ijifiiihely abfurd
tj fiippofe the latter tacitly included in the fonner,
f^cvi which it is exprefsly excluded. Now, allowing
him the whole of what he here aiTerts, all that fol-
lows is, that in Gr. 8. 6. the Son is excluded from
being God in that emir.er.t Manner, that iniorigimte
Manner as the Father is-, not from being God in the
fajjie Sevfe of the "Word, « nor from being or,e God with
him. But it will be difficult for him to prove any
thing more, than that the Father is there defcribed
under the Character of the ojie God, of whom are
all things, and the Son under the Charader of the
one Lord, by whom are all things, in Oppofiticn only
to TiCmival Gods and Lords, and not to each other.
For, fince all things are of eve, and by the ether,
they together are ove Foinitain of all Things, one
God and Lord : And thus may this Text {land with
Verfe the 4th of the fame Chapter, which declares
that there's but ore God -, and with Rr7n. ix. and 5.
which declares the Son to be ever all, God hlejfed for
ever,

II. Page the iSth of the Ohfervatiom, I am found
fault v/ith for mifunderftanding a Pailage of Atham-
fiis in his Epiftle to Serapioii, p I had faid, that the

« See my Second Defenfe, p. 53.

p Second Defenfe, ]>. 61. ^ ^ ^ y

amc^i Jia! TO ?^6yv ii' ewTOf) iiipyeii-i «7ry yd ^ hct J)d <f T^^ieUQ-

Athan. Orar. 5. p. 5(55.

-^hvhjii c/uTTi f ^s77/T©- 'TO nTYivi-^^* Athanaf. ad Scrap, i-
p. (5/7. one

r 35 ]

one God is his Suhjeci in that Paffage 5 as is mani-
feft to every one that can read, and conftrue.

My fmart Corrcdlor here ikys, And yet vet only the
vecefjary CovfirMon of this very FaJJagc^ but morevver
Athanafius b'wifelf dedares^ on the contrary^ hi the
fulleji and 7?ioJl exprefsJf'ords^ that he is fpealwg of the
Father all the way. And to prove this, he refers ms
to AthamfAiss Third Oration againft the Arians ^ a
prior Work, and which therefore could declare no-
thing about his Meaning in the Place I had to deal
with : S) far fl'oni declaring in the fulleJl, and jnojl
exprefs Words. It would have been fufficient for a
cooler Writer to have fa id, that Athar.afiis had ex-
plained his Meaning in ove Place by what he had faid
in another : and to have offer'd it as a prchahle Argu-
ment to determine a doubtful Conftruciion.

Certain it is, th^t At havajms did not, cojdd 7iOt in
full and exprefs Words declare before-hand in his
3d Oration againft the A/ iavs, that j^e i\] ou\d he fpe ah ^
hig of the Father all the way, feverai Months or Years
after, in mi Epijlle not yet written, nor perhaps thought
of. I can with better Reafjn plead, that fince the
Epifle to Serapion was written after the other, and
contained his later Thoughts, that either the fanner
Treatife fhould be interpreted by the latter^ or at
leaft that his Second Toovghts upon the Text ftruld
be preferred. However, upon a careful Review of
Both the Places, and upon confideririg the Context,
and the Argument Athanafais is upon in Both
(namely, to prove one Godhead in all the Three Per-
fons, one God in, or by, a Trinity, his exprefs Words)
I am fo far from thinking that the Paffage in his
Oration is at all againft me, that it rather confirms
my Conftrudion of the other •, allowing only a difr
ferent Pointing from what appears in the Prints,
fuch as I have here given. And I defire the
Words, tm:^ovj'ua. rh Teicl:<3-j may be attended tr,

F 2 vie

r 3^ 1

Ow God in Trhity, If ha ^h- means the Father on-
ly, then the Senfe is, ojte God the Father, in (or by)
Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi -, which is a Senfe that
this Writer will call perfedly abfurd. I fabmit this
whole Matter to the Judgment of the Learned. In
the mean while, it is evident that our Obfervatbr has
let his Pen run too faft ^ has been exceeding pojitive
in a Thing which he cannot make clear, or fo much
as probable -, and that he has exprefs'd his Fojitivenefs
in fuch a manner, and in fuch Words, as cannot be
juftified by common Rules.

I may juft note, before I leave this Article, that
this Gentleman has not fhown his Skill in Greek, by
rendring h' q-jj^t^ car, (as if it had been et^ icujr;<, or
"f icfvH) exijlijg of himfelf: Nor does he apprehend
the Force of ^ Trdvrwv, or what Athavajiiis is talking
of, in that Place. When he underftands the Maxim
of Irendiis (invijibile Filii Pater, \x 2?40 ^"^ confi-
ders how God the Son was fuppofed to be let down,
as it were, to the Creatures, wlnle the Father remain'd
in exceljis, and, as it were, witliin himfelf^ he
will then know how to conftrue That Paflage.

III. Page 19th of the Obfervatio7ts, we meet with
another Mifreprefentation, a very great one.

It was further alledged, that Dr. Waterland 7noJl ab-
fitrulyfj tJite/prets this Fhrafe (iyctel^ro) given hini
a. Name -, as if it <^ould fgnify extolling and magnifyijjg
in fuch a Seife as Men extol and magnify God ; as if
Men coidd ( p-eee/V^^ ) gracioufly grant any thing to
God. I had interpreted exalting to iignify praifwg
(in fuch a Senfe as Men exalt God ) in oppoiition to
the other Senfe of exalting, which is raifng up to a
higher Place, or Dignity. This is all the Objedor
has to ground his weak Suggeftion upon. Asto-^ei^^^,
giving, gratifying with, or the like, as it may be done
by Equals to Equals, or even by Inferiors to Superiors^
2 as

^ [ 37 ]

as well as ty Superiors to Inferiors •, where's the Infe*
rence that the Father muft be Superior to the Son, be-
caufe of his giving him a Name ? M.y Anfwer there-
fore was in thefe Words : " I fee no Abfurdity in in-
" terpreting givivg a Name, to be giving a Name. But
" it is ahfm^d to imagine that God may not glorify
" his Son, as well as his Son may glorify him •, by
" fpreading and extolling his Name over thewhole
*' Creation, q " Which this Writer tranfcribes, and
leaves as he found ^ not being able to anfwer it. Nor
indeed is there any juft Objedion againft an
Equal doing thus to an Equal : Nor does -)^el^^ inti-
mate any thing more than its being a free and vohin--
tary A6t. But it is trifling in this Cafe to ftrain the
Words ( ufed in the other Cafe ) in fuch a Seftfe as
Men exalt God ^ which were intended only in Op-
pofition to another quite different Senfe oi Exaltations
and are ftill to be underftood with allowance for the
Jf^^;'^7/t Circumftances.

IV. Page 34th, This Writer cites fome Words of
my Second Defenfe, (p. 177.) which are thefe : " If
" you ask why that Perfon called the Son might not
" have been Father, I have nothing to fay, but that
" in Fa6t he is not. So it is written, and fo we be-
" lieve : The Father is Father, and the Son is Son.
Upon which he is pleafed to remark as follows: By the
DoBors Hypothejis therefore, there was no Impoffihility
in the Nature of Things, but Unoriginate might have
been Originate, and Originate Ujioriginate -, un derived
7night have been derived, and derived iniderived ♦, the
Father might have been begotten, and the Son unhegotten.
Such is his malicious, or thoughtlefs Mifconflruction
of very plain, and very innocent Words. In the

s Second Defenf?, -p. 20.

fame

[ 3^3

fame Paragraph, from which he cited my Words, I
aflert the Priority of Order ( that is, the Originate-
nefs of one, and (jnoriginatenefs of the other) to
be mtitral^ that is, mcefjary, or iiv alterable^ and eter-
nally fo : So that one could never have been the
other ^ which is my conftant Dodrine. But if you
ask why they conU vot, which is asking a Reafon a
priori in a Cafe which admits of none, I pretend not
to it 5 being content to prove the Fad a pojleriori,
which is all that can be done. Will any Man give
me a Reaf n a priori, why there 7Jii(J} have been a
God, or why it covU 7wt have been other wife ? It is
impoffible. It is fufficient to prove a pojleriori, that
in Fa6l there is a God, and that he eoidd ViOt but be,
becaufe we find that he exifts neceffarily, and with-
out a Caufe. But we fhall have more of this in the
Sequel.

Y. Page ^ ^. Obfervat. hjlead of eternal Genera-
tion, the Doclor, if he was at liberty ^ had much rather
fay eternal Exiftence of a real and living VWd, Sec. —
And for this Reafon, Ifippofe, it is^ that ivjlead of the
Nicene Words, begotten of the Father, and from tht
Subftance of the Father, the Doclor by a vew and iin-
heard'of ExpreJ/mu ajfirjns the Son to be the Subftance
of the Father. Firji Dcfenfe, p. 979, 380.

Anfw. As to what he is here imagining of what
the Dodor had rather fay, and if he was at Liberty,
It deferves no Anfwer : My Sentiments in that Ar-
ticle are fufficiently known, and fully laid down in
my Writings. His other Remark about a new and
miheard'of Exprejion, betrays his Ignorance in Anti^
quity, or fomething worfe. Ever iince the Terms
Siibfiance and Ferfon came into this Controverfy, Fa-
ther and Son have been always believed, and pro-
fefled to be one Subftance : As high as Tertidlian,
all the Three have been called one Subjance. Uva

Sub"

[ 39 ]

SiibJIajitia in tnhus cohdrentihus. What is this but
faying, that both the Son and Holy Ghoft are the
Father's Subftance, fince all are one Siibjlavce, which
one Subftance is the Father's, as well as theirs? This
is all that ITay in the Place referred to, that the Son
might be jitfily called the Father s SubJlaMe, Both being
ore.

Yl. Tertullian prefmnes to add, fpealdvg of ojie of
Br, Waterland'^ privcipal Affertiovs^ if the Scripture
itfelj bad taught it, it could mt have been true. Ob-
ferv. p. 52. conip. p. 47. This is Mifreprefentation
both of Tertullian, and Me, The Affertion of which
Tertullian fpeaks is, that the Father was aBually incar-
rate, fnfferd. See, The Tenet of the Praxeans. And
he does not fay, it could not have been true, but
could not have been believed, and that with a perhaps
ffortajfe nan credenda de patre licet fcripta ) to fhovv
that it was rather a Rhetorical Figure oF Speech, than
to be taken ftriclly, and with utmoft Rigor; And
his chief Reafon why he faid fo much, was becaufe
fuch a Tenet could hardly^ if at all, be reconciled
with other Scriptures and their Defcription of the
Father, and the ftanding Oeconomy of the Three
Perfons therc;in revealed. How does this at all af-
fed my Affertion that, antecedent to the Oeconomy,
there was 710 hjipoj/ibility in the Nature of the Thing it
felf but the Father hivifelf 7night have done the fame that
the Son did ? This is not the Ailertion which Tertul-
lian ftrikes at ; Nor did he fay of the other, that it could
770t he true^ nor pofitively, that it could iwt be believed,
ThiCQQfalfe Reports this Gentleman has here crowded
into one fliort Sentence. And I muft remind him
of what I before told him ', ( though he is pleafed

Second Defenfe, t, 129.

to

[40]

to forget it ) that the fame TertuUian^ in the feme
Treatife, when, in the Courfe of the Difpute, he
was brought clofer up to the Pinch of the Queftion ^
had nothing to faj about the jiaUiral Impojibility
of the Suppofition : But he refolves the Cafe entirely
into this, that Scripture had warranted the AfTertion
in regard to God the Sort, and had not done fo, but
the contrary, in regard to God the Father, So little
Reafon had this Writer to appeal, tmce^ to Tertidlian
upon this Article.

VII. The Three Perfom in the Tri7nty are (with
Dr. Waterland ) real Perfons, each of them an indi-
vidml intelligent Agent, midivided in Sitbjiance, but Jlill
dijlincl Perfons : So dijlin^i, that were they all iniorigina-
ted J he himfelf allows they would be Three Gods. [Good
reafon why, when upon that Suppofition they would
be more dijlinB than they now are: But this is one
of our Author's /;;'oW - Remarks ] Tet at the fame
Time, in a moj} iinintelligthle Manner^ and with the lit-
wojl Inconfifency, he profcjfes them to be all but 07i&
living Per/on. Where do I profefs any fuch Thing ?
This hafty Gentleynan might better have ftaid a while
to prove what he pretends, inftead cf fixing upon
me a Confequenceo'i his own, and in fuch a Manner as
muft make an ignorant Reader think he had quoted
my own TFords, He brings fome Paflages of mine to
prove his Charge, which yet prove nothing like it.
If the Reader pleafes to turn to my Definition of
Perfon % he will eafily perceive that the fame Life
may be common to Three Perfons, and that identical
Life no more infers Singidarity of Perfon, than Identi-
ty of Ejfence t. When this Writer pleafes to give us

s Second Defenfe, f. 5 6 (J.

* See my Second Defenfe, ^. 94,

another

C 41 I

another Defimtmi of Perfon, or to confute nime, we
may give him a farther Hearing.

VIII. In the next Page, (p. 90.) I meet with a
Mlfreprefentation of fo odd a kind, that I could never
have fu^^eded it, and can fcarce think he was well
awake when he made it. He pitches upon a PafTage
of my Secojii Befenfe^ p. 198. which runs thus.

" You have taken a great deal of fruitlefs Pains,
** to fhow, that the particular Glories belonging to
" the Son, on account of his Offices^ are diftin£t
*^ from the Glories belonging to the Father. You
*^ might in the fame way have fhown that the par-
*' ticular Glories due to the Father under this or
*' that Confideration, are diftindt from the Glories
*' of the Father confidered under another Capacity."
Kow let us come to the Remark of this acute Gen-
tleman upon it. It is thus : JFhat is thh, butfayifig,
that the Ferfom of the Father and Son difer no other",
wife than as Capacities of the fame Perfon ^ I am con-
tent to put it off, and to refer the Reader to my
Book, which fully explains the whole Thing-, hint-
ing only, that the Writer might as well have faid
Offices, ( as Capacities) when his Hand was in^ and
that nothing is more evident than tliat, if diftindt
Offices in different Perfons are a Foundation for di-
JlinB Worfliips, then diftina: Offices in the fam&
Perfon will make as many dijliji^ Jforfiips, ^s tlier^
are Offices,

IX. One noted Mifreprcfentation mqft not be
negleded : The Author infults mightily upon it,
I jhall cite part of what he fays.

ui Coordinc^tion or Subordimtion of mere Order^ r/ith^
ovt Relation to Time, Place, Power, Dominion, Authc^
rity, or the like, is exa^ly the fame Manner of fpealdng
and thijikinS) as if a Man fJmuldfaj^^ a CGequaUt^ or In-

[42]

eqvdiity of Equality. Br. Waterland therefore rcas
really much weaker than he tjfiagijws, when he wantonly
declared. He was fo weak as to think, .that the
Words Coordimtion and Siibordhiation ftridlly and pro-
perly refpeded Order, and exprefs'd an Equality, or
Inequality of Order. »* Are not Things come to a fne
fafs, if the prime Foundation of Religion, the Firjl and
Great Commandment is to be hdicroujly placed onfuch a
Quickfand as this } p. 3?.

The Reader, I fuppofe, is pretty well acquainted
with this Gentleman's Manner, before this Time, that
I have the lefs need to take Notice of his affedting
big fwelling Words, and his running out into extra-
vagant Exclamations on very flight Occalions It is
his unhappinefs, tbat he never knows where to flop,
nor how to be moderate in any Thing. It is ludicrous
indeed, for him to pretend a Zeal for the FirJl and
great CojJimandment, while he is preaching up Two
Gods, and is a Friend to Creature-JForfiip : But that I
mention by the way only. As to the Point in Hand •,
had I made any Miftake in a very nice Part of the
Controverfy, he might have born it with Temper, as
I have many, and great ones of his, where there was
lefs Excufe for them. To come to the Bufinefs : He
will not find it eafy to confute a very plain Thing,
that Coordination and Subordination ftridly, and pro-
perly, refped Order, ( to fay nothing here what the
Order refpeds ) as much as contejnporary, or coevaU
refpefts Time or Age, collateral Place, concomitant
Company 5 or as any other Word of like nature
bears a Signification fuitable to its Etymology, and
to the Analogy of Speech.

Againfl this he objedts, that a Coordination or Sub-
ordination of mere Order is exa^ly the fame Manner of

» Second Defenfe, p $C»

fpealdrg^

[43]

fpeakhig, as a CoeqmJity or hieqvahty of Equality.
Which happens to be a Blunder. For as Coeqmlity^
and Equality are the fame, in this Cafe, the Exprelli-
on to anfwer a Coeqmlhy or IvequaUty of Equality ^
would be this^ a Coordination or Suhoriination of Co-
ordivation 5 which is not my ExprejioTi, nor any-
thing like my Serfe, What Order, abftradedly confi.
dered, may fignify, or what in this particular Cafe,
are Queftions which may come in prefently. But in
the mean while it is evident, that there is no Sole-
cifm, nor Impropriety, but Truth and Accuracy too,
in faying that Coordimtion and Suhordimtim refpedt
Order *, not Dominion, not Dignity, &c. as this Au-
thor pretends •, unlefs all Order implies Dominion^ as
it certainly does not. Order is a general Word, and
isfometimes determined to a particular Meaning by
what it is joined with : As Order of Time, Order of
Situation, Order of Dig7iity, Order of Nature, Order
of Conception, Order of Exigence, Order of Caufality,
Order of Dominion, and the like. But then Order is
alfo frequently ufed fmply, and ahfolutely, without
any thing further to determine, or fpecify its Signi-
fication ; And thus it hath been anciently,^ as well as

Gtv* Athenag. Legat. c. 10. ^ ^ x ,k »

•O iiioi 7a^« f^> J'^Tl^Q- n TTttJif, 077 «fcV* Uein" ^ *?'*'*
f^77 077 df^ )^ ouvx, Tz^, W luin mtri^i ^ 077 e/V hjK « fsp'

f ©-, c/)o77 M 5toTj« h I>ctt7ie?) A««*' ^^^d. contr. Eunom. hb. 3.
p. 272. Ed. Bened. See my Second Defenfe in relation to this
Pajfage, 358, 49^^, 508.

"£s7 77 Taf €<yj «/^> «>c &4t TTuf ^fj^v yinui r^twt^oS/JoVyti^X

cb 'TO il^ amn Ttv©- ^v hiMV a^th r Tti^tv ^ ^» hety.-

p. 232.

G 2 ia

C 44 ]

in later Times, made ufe of in our prefent Subjed.
Thus far then, I hope, it may be very excufable to
ufe the Word Order in this Subjed, Jimply and abfo-
Ititely. If any Word is to be put to it, to make the
Senfe move fpedal, I admit Order of Covceptiov^ with
Tertiillian ^ •, or Order of Exijievce, as the Son exifts
of, and froin the Father : Which may be likewife
called Order of CaufaUty, « in the old Senfe of Can-
falityrtfye^ir)^ emanative 7wceJ[ary Cauks. That I did
not ufe the Word Order without a Meaning^ may ap-
pear from the very Paflages which this Writer quotes
from me, p. 34. though he is pleafed to call them
empty Words •, as every Thing here is ejnpty with him
that carries not in it his crude Conceptions about va-
tiiral Bomhiioju His Argument to prove them
empty^ being founded on nothing but his own Shuf-
flings and Miftakes, is anfwered above, p. 37.

The Meaning however of Order in this Cafe, may
be thus intelligibly fet forth to the meaneft Capa-
city.

While we confider the Scale of Perfons from God
the Father down to Man^ or afcending from Man up
to God the Father, He is the firj} in the Scale from
whom all things defceitd : And he is the lafi^ in tlie
way of Jfcevt^ in whom ail things ter7?iivate. The
Father by the S071 and Holy Ghcfi conveys all his
BleiFmgs to his Creatures: And his Creatures in the
Holy Ghojl and by the Sov^ afcend up to the Father.

»' Principaliter determinatur iit plma Terfona^ quae ante
Filii nomen erat proponenda, quia Pater ante cognofcituri
Sc poft Patrem Filius nominatiir. Tertull. contr. Prax. c. 18.

c Nihil plane d iffert in fubftantia, quia verus Filius eft :
diftert tamen CattfaVitatis s^'^dvi ; quiaomnis potentia a Patre
in Filio eft: &: in fubftantia minor non eft Filius ; AuBorhate
tamen major eft Pater. Att^, Q^'^P' f^tr, Tejiam, afud Auguji,
Qua(1* 122.

I Such

[45]

Such is the Scale of Exiftences, fiich the Order of
Things: And this, I hope, is intelligible enough.

If it be next enquired what the Foundation of this
Order is, and why the Father^ if but equal in Nature
to the Son or Holy Ghojl, Ihall yet be at the Top of
all, and Hand Fir ft ^ we have this to fay, that Both
the Parts are true and certain -, and that the Son and
Holy Ghoft, though in Nature equal, are yet referred
jip to the Father as their Head and Source, becaufe of
him, and /row him, in a myfterious and infcrutable
Manner, they Both are. The Father is from mne^
They from the Father, ^ This is the Catholink Dodrine, d
and as old as Chriftianity it felf, fo far as we can
find in the primitive Records : All acknowledging
( conformable to Scripture ) this Order, and Refe-
rence of the Son and Holy Ghoft up to the Father, and
at the fame Time ^Sextin^ their: Cojfubftantiality^
Coeternity, Necejfary-exijience, Equality oi Nature ^ and
Unity of Godhead,

TL^'i^v, eoi fi-TTHVi Tialexicr) vi i'A§yeiA o w/oV. Clem. Alex»
Strom. 7- ^

^iiOM rextiJ^ «f ha., uamp «V itopv(pluJ nvA, r ^h ^ oKkv nr
'Tm.vronsiATn^et ^?^^y, avyvAZcthau'^^i tz )y (swctyc^t totk oUmf"
AW. Dionyf. Roman, ap. Athan. Vol. I. p. 231.

ov eCvdyiTouTtt 'd^iii* Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 32. p. 520.

dvA-MpAhajaffiq 4 Tf/ct/^©" 0 7wr/p_ '6h »V hti^v 0 'd-io\6yQ',
Theod. Abucar. ap. Petavium. Trin. 1. 4. c. 15. p. 161.

This Origination in the Divine Paternity hath anciently leen
looked upon as the Ajfertion of the Unity : And therefore the Son and
Holy Ghofi have been believed to be but one God with the Father,
lecaufe Both from the Father, who is oue, and fo the Union of
them, Pearfon on tie Creed, p. 40, See alfo my Second De-
|enf€, ^43>n7> 53-
' If

[4^]

If our Ueas of this eternal Reference of one Per-
fon up to another be no more than general^ and con-
fufe^ not full and adequate •, what wonder is it, that
we fhould find it fo in a Subjedl fo fiiblime > Is it
not the tremendous SitbJIaitce, or Ejfence of the di-
vive Being that we are here confidering ? And who
is fufficient for thefe Things ? Let any Man try the
utmoft Stretch of his Capacity, in any thing elfe
immediately pertaining to the divi7ie Siibjlance ^ and
he will foon perceive how fliort and defedive all his
Ideas are. He cannot tell us what it is, nor where-
unto we may liken or compare it : Cannot fay how it
is prefent every where, or how it a^is any where.
Every Thing belonging thereto, as Simplicity , Ivfnityy
Eternity^ Necejfary-exijhnce, ^ is all dark and myfte-
rious : We fee but through a Glafs darkly^ and cannot
fee God as he is. It may therefore become thefe
Gentlemen to be a little more modeft, and lefs pojji'
tive in thefe high Matters 5 and not to infult us, in
their Manner, as teaching a Collocation of JFords, or
an Order of empty Words ^ only becaufe we cannot
give them, what we cannot have, full and adequate
Ideas of the inyfierioiis Order and Relation of the
Bleffed Three, one among another. We might as
reafonably objed to them an Eternity of Words, or
an Omniprefence of JVords, a verbal Ubiquity, Simpli-
city, Infijiity, and the like, as often as we perceive
that they are not able to give us more than general,
cojfitfe, and inadequate Conceptions of thofe Things.

Such is our Anfwer, fuch our juft Defenfe, after
attending to every Confeqiicnce the Adverfary can ob-
jcd:, and after fufFering it, in the Way of fair De-
bate, to be run up to the utmoft Height We ac-
knowledge God'5 E[fence to be infcrutable, as did the

Su my Firit Defenfe, p 314, &c.

an-

[ 47]

ancient Catholkh in the fame Caufe, againfi: the
Eunomians -, who finding themfelves thereby pinch'd,
had no way left but to put on a bold Face, and flatly
to deny the Incompreheyiftbility of God's Effejice. ^ If
their SuccelTors at this Day are of the fame Mind,
let them fpeak out. It fhould be obferved how dif-
ferently our Adver{aries here behave, from what we
do when purfued witli Cortfeqiiences. They deny the
Necejfary-exijlejwe of God the Son. Run them down
but to the next immediate Confequence, precarious
Exiftence, and they are amazed, and confounded:
And inftead of frankly admitting the Covfequeyice^
they fall to doubling, fhifting, equivocating, in a
moft childilh Manner, to difgiiife a Difficulty which
they cannot avfwer, s Pufh them a little farther, as
making a Creature of God the Son -, and they fall to
blelfing themfelves upon it : They make the Son a
Creature ? No, not they •, God forbid. And they
will run you on whole Pages, to Ihow how many
^lirks they can invent to avoid giving him the
Name of Creature, and at the fame time to affert the
Thirjg, Carry the Confequeiwe a little lower, till
their whole Scheme begins to fhow it felf more and
more repugnant to the Temr of Scripture^ and all
Catholick Antiquity 5 and then what do thefe Gen -
tlemen do, but fhut their Eyes, and flop their Ears :
They do not underfland a Word you fay 5 they
will not be anfwerable for CoTtfequevces 5 they never
taught fuch Things, nor think them fit to be 7nen'
tioned. This is their way of Management, as of-
ten as we go about to purfue the Conjequemes
of their Scheme down as far as they can go 5 at the
fame time that we fiifFer them to exhauft all their

f See my Firft Defenfe, p. gc^
s Second Defenfe, ^219.

i 48 ]

Metaphyjich in drawing any imaginable Confequences
againft the Catholick Dodrine, and both attend to
them, and anfwer them, with all Chriftian Fairnefi,
Opennefs, and Sincerity ^. The meaneft Reader
may here fee, by this different Conduct, where
Tnith, where Integrity, where Reafon is, and where
it is not : Truth does not ufe to (hun the Light •, nor
is it any Sign of a good Caufe to want fo much Art,
and Colouring, And let it not be pretended that all
this Shuffling and Difguife is only to fcreen their
Sentiments from the popular Odium^ and themfelves
from publick Cevfiire : There may be fomething in
that I and fo far perJiaps their Conduft may appear
the more excufal^le. But there is certainly more in
it than that comes to 5 becaufe the fame Men can,
upon Occafion, difcover their low Sentiments of God
the Son very freely i ^ and it is chiefly when they
are prefs'd in Difpute, and when they fee plainly
how hard an Argument bears upon them, from ScrU
fture and Antiquity, that they have recourfe to Eva-
fon, and Difguife, and refufe to fpeak out K But to
proceed.

X. The Do&or frequently appeals from Reafon and
Scripture to Authority. When his Argument is reduced
to an exprefs Contradiilion, a ContradiBionin it f elf as
well as to Scripture, then he alledges that the Thing he
contends for mujl he fo upon the Principles of the pri-
mitive Churches, { Second Befeife, p. 127.) ineaning,
that it mvjl hefo upon his own Hypothefis. Obferva-
tions, p. 1 1 5.

^ See my Second Defenfe, ^' 355»

^ See a ColleBion of Paffages in my Supplement to the Cafe,

k See Injiances, In the Reply, /». 45, 175, 2x5, 224, 237,

31?? 3^3) 33?>343>347>4o-.

Let

[ 49 ]

Let the Reader fee my Words, upon which thk
Gentleman makes his tragical Exclamation.

" One Subftance with one Head, cannot mal^e
" Two Gods upon the Principles of the primitive
" Churches : Nor are your Meta^hyjlch ftrong enough
" to bear up againft their united Teftimonies, with
" Scripture at the Head of them." How is this ap-
pealing from Scripture to 'Authority ? So far am I
from it, that in another .Place, ^ while I commend
the Ancients for their way of folving the Unity^ as
taking the beft that human Wit could invent or refl
upon, yet I declare at the fame Time, that there is
no neceility at all for fhowing /;oir the Three are
One: It is fufficient tliat Scripture bears Teftimony to
the Fa&, that fo it is 5 we are not obliged to fay hon\
And There alfo I obviate what this Writer here pre-
tends, in his vain Confidence of hcajiivg, as it he
was able to do great Things in the way of raUiral
Reafon ^ by obferving that the Adverfary can do no-
thing in this Cafe, uniefs he be able to ihow ( which
is impolFible) that m Umty whatever can be fiijficmit
to make more Perfoiis than one^ one Being, one Suh^
ftance, one God.

XI. THjen an Arginnevt is worVd up to the EviJeixf
even of an identical Propojition ( ivhich is the EJjhice of
BemonJ}rati07i ) then^ 'tis contrary ( he fays ) to thq
Sentiments of wifer Men, who have argued the other
way. Ohfervat. p. 87, 1 1 5:.

It is very trqe that I preface my Anfvv^er to Com^
big Pretences of theirs, with the Words here recitqd '''.
I fuppofe, the great Offence is, in reminding them
that there have been Men wifer than they are. As

1 Second Defenfe, p, 65. Cor-i-pav-e Firft Pefenfe, ^. pZ-p,
^"^ Second Defenfe, f, 215. Compare -p, 252, 254.

H ta

C 50 ]

to the identical Propofition, the Demovjfration here
talked of, I fhow in the fame Place," that it is built
upon notliing but t]ie eqmvocal Meaning of Same-
vefs. Reduce it to Syllogifm, and it will be found a
Sophifjn \\nt\\fovr Tenns in it.

In Page the 87th, arguing againfl: the Suppofition
of Powers derived and underived being the fa7ne ♦,
he fays, If it were pofibk, it would follow^ that the
fiipreme Power of all^ the Power of begetting^ or deriving
Being and Powers doivn to another^ would he 710 Power at
all. That is to fay, if the efential Powers of the
Godhead be tYiefame, then tht perfonal Properties are
loft. But I humbly conceive, that as U7non of Sub-
ftance accounts for the one, the DiJiin&io7t of Perfo7ts
may account for the other: And this fnpreme Power
of deriving, &c. amounts to nothing more than a
Mode of Exifling, or a Relation of Order o.

N. B. The fupreme Power of begetting^ which the
Author here fpeaks of, means with him nothing more,
nor lefs, than the fupreme Power of creating ^ which is
plainly his Senfe of begetting^ as may appear from
what hath been obferved above, p. 29.

XII. jlgaiTi^ when two very differ eiit Affertiom are
nffrmed mt to be the fame Ajfertiov, then he ash, How-
do you know ? Or, how came you to be wifer in this
particular than all the Chriftian Churches early or
late? JFho yet vever affirined two f itch differe7tt Affer-
tions to he the fame A(jertion 5 aytd if they had affirmed
ity J/ill the AJJertioyis would mt have been the fame.
Obfervat. p. 119.

n Second Defenfe, ^.215, ii6.
<^^ See my Second Defenfe, />. 217.

Let

[ 5' 1

Let my Words appear-, p " You add, that malang
" one Suhjlance is not making 0116 God : To which it
'' is fufficientto fay, How do you know ? &c. " The
Thing here maintained is, that upon the Trinciples of
the primitive and 7nodeni Churches, if the Three
Perfons be one Subjiance, they are of Confequence
one God. The AiTertions in this Cafe are equivalent,
and tantamount. This is the plain avowed Dodtrine
of the Church ever fmce the Term Suhjlance came
in. They that impugn this Dodrine, ought flrfl: to
confute it, if they can. Sometimes indeed I exprefs
this primitive Doctrine by ore Svhjhnce with one
Head, for greater Diftindion: But one Sub ft arc e im-
plies Both, becaufe the Notion of Headjhip is taken in
with the Union of Subftance, as rendring the Union
clofer, and making the Subftance more perfectly
one, q

XIII. jrhen he is told, that Yn great Vrefumptmnefs^
to call the Particularities of his own Explication, the
Dodrine of the Bieffed Trinity •, then he cries out,
great Prefumption indeed! To believe that the Ca-
tholick Church has kept the true Faith •, which are
the very Words, and the very Argiivient wherewith the
Writers of the Church of Rome perpetually infidt, ami
will for ei;^;'with JuAicQ infult oyer all fuch ProteJIants,
as endeavour to difcoiirage all ferious Enquiry, ^c.^

This Writer, to introduce his weak Ileiiedion, is
forced to cut off Part of my Sentence, which runs

thus: Kevt the true Faith, vMelxmomims and

Arians made^ [Inpwrecl of it. This lho\\^ that I was
fpeaking of the Catholick Church juftly ^o called, oi
t\\t primitive Times, and before Popery was m Beings

p Second Defenfe, p 329
^ See abovci p* 3 1 .

H 2 which

[ ^^ 1

which Obfervation would have entirely prevented
his Sarcafvi, or have difcovered the Impertinence of
it. As to the Church of Rome, I defire no better^ no
Dther Argument againfi: her, than the fa7}ie I make
ufe of againft the Anavs, viz. Scripture interpreted
by FriiniUve and CathoUck Tradition. Down falls
Topery, and Ariainjm too, as foon as ever this Prin-
ciple is admitted. But this Author, I conceive, was
a little too liberal to Popery^ or did not know what
he was talking of, when he predimed to intimate,
that the jrriters of the Church of Rome can with Juft'ic&
infult us on that Head. I hope it was a Slip, and
he'll retract it when he comes to confider. But here
again liis Eagervefs overcame him, and carried him
too far.

XIV. It had been alledged, that he who vever aHs in
Siibjecliov, Sec. — and every other Ferfon always atis
in SubjeBlon to his IFiil ^ f.?, alone the fiiprerne Gover-
vor. In recitirg this Argu?nent twice., Dr. Waterland
does twice o?nit the Jford always, in which the Strefs of
the Argimsvt lies. Obfervat. p. 24.

In abridgivg, not recitirg, the Argument, I omitted
the Word always-^ having indeed no Sufpicion that
any ftrefs at all could be laid upon it, but thinking
rather that it had been carelefsly, or thoughtlefsly
put in by the Author. If the Strefs of the Argu-
ment lies there, the Argument is a very poor one,
being grounded only upon a Frefmjtption of a
fa[l ^that can never be proved. I allow indeed,
if God the Son antecedently to the Oeconoiny ,
and before the World was^ acted in SubjeBion to the
Father, that then the Argument will have fome
force in it : But as I very well knew that the Author
never had, never could prove any fuch Thing 5 fo I
could not fufpect him to be fo weak a Man, as to lay
thQp'efs of the Argument there. I infill upon it,
I that

[ ^3 ]

that Millions and Millions of Ages, an Eternit/, a
fane Ante^ had preceded, before ever the Son or
Holy Ghoft are introduced as ading in SiibjeBlon.
Let the Author difprove this, and he will do fome-
thing. I have read of the Glory which our Lord had
v/ith the Father beforg the irorldwas : But never heard
any thing of his T/^f7f ading in SuhjeBion to him:
Wherefore it does not appear that he always did it.

XV, There h jw ArgvMevt In which Dr. Waterland
15 jnore infolent, or with lefs reafon, than In this which
follows. There are, he thinks, as great Difficulties iyi
his Adverfarys Notion of the divine Omniprefence,
as there are in his Notion of many equally Supreme ( in
Nature ) independent Perfons, conjlitiitivg onefitpreme

Governor, or Monarch of the Univerfe, Upon

this weak Comparifon he feeins to build all his Hopes

< And yet the whole of the Comparifon is as entirely

impertinent, as if a Man fiould pretend that to him
there are as great Difficulties in conceiving Immenfity,
or Eternity, as in conceiving Tranfubftantiation, &c,
Obfervat. p. 9^.

Howjuf, how civil, how pertinent this Reprefen-
tation is, will appear, when I fliall have given the
Reader a true and faithful Account of this whole
Matter, from the Beginning, which is as follows.

In the Year 1704. Dr. Clarke, then but a young
Man, publiftied his De7nonjl ration ( as he is pleafed
to call it ) of the Being and Attributes of God : In
which Work, not content with the common Argu-
ments for the Exiftence, apoferiori, he ilrikes a Note
higher, and aims at aProof ^pnoW*, which every Man
of Senfe befides knows to be contradiBious, and impof
fible, though He was not aware of it. However, to
countenance his pretended De??i07f ration , he laid
hold of the Ideas of h7imenfty, and Eternity, as ante-
cedently forcing themfelves upon the Minds of all

Men;

[54]

Men: And his Notion of the Divine hnmenfity is?
that it is infinite Ex^avjflov^ or infinite S]^ace^ requi-
ring an infinitely expanded Suhjlratmn^ or SiihjeB: 5
which Subject is the very SubJIarice of God, fo ex-
panded. Upon this Hypothejis, there will be Sub-
liance and Subftance, This Subftance and That Sub-
ftance, and yet but one ynmierkal^ hdividnal^ idem-
cal Subftance in the whole. This Part will be one
individual identical Subftance with That Part : And a
Thoufand feveral Parts will not be fo many Suhjlan-
ces (tho' every one be SiibJIance ) but all will be one
Siihjiavce. This is Dr. Clarke s avow'd Dodrine : He
lees the Confequence, he owns it •, as may appear
from his own Words ^ in Anfwer to the Objection.
And he muft of courfe admit, that the one indivi-
dual Subftance is both one in Khid^ in regard to the
diftin6t Parts, and one in Number alfo, in regard to
the Uv'ion of thefe Parts in the whole. Upon theie
Principles does the Doctor's famed Demonftration of
the Exigence proceed ; and upon thefe does it now
ftand.

I muft next obferve, that the fame Dr. Clarh, in
the Year 171 2. was difpos'd to publilli, and did
publifti a very ill Book againft the received Faith of
the Church ^ which he entituled, The Scripture Do-
Bridie of the Trinity, He made a pompous Show of
Texts, and pretended much to Ayjtiquity alfo: But as
many as could look thro' the Surface, and penetrate
into the Work, eafily faw that the main Strength of
his Performance refted upon two or three Philofophi-

^ No Matter is one Subftance, hut a Heap of Suhjlances*
Arid that I take to be the Reafon ii'hy Matter is a SubjeH incapable
of Thought, not becaufe 'tis extended, but its Paris are difiinH
Subftances, urmniied, and i?7depende?7t on each other : Which ( /
fuppofe ) is not the Cafe of other Subjiances* Clarke 'i Anfwer t9
the 6th Letter, p. 40.

cal

[^5 3

cd Principles, by virtue whereof he v/as to turn and
wreft Scripture, and Fathers too, to fuch a Senfe as
he wifh'd for, that is, to the A/ian Hypothecs.
Among his Fhilofophical Principles, the moft confi-
derable of all, and which he ofteneft retreated to in
Diftrefs % was This •, that the Defenders of the re-
ceived Doctrine, whenever they fhould come to ex-
plain, muft inevitably fplit either upon SabelUamfm
or Trithejffn : Which Prefumption he grounded upon
this Reafcning ^ That the Three Perfons muft be ei-
ther fpecifically one ( one Subftance in Kind only,
while Three Subftances in Nmnher) which is Tri-
theifm ^ or elfe they muft be iiidividvally one Subftance,
one in Number in the ftridteft Senfe, which is plain
SabelUamfm, Which Reafoning at length refolves
into this Principle^ that Subftance and Subftavce,
however united, muft always, and inevitabl3r make
Svbftaiwes ^ and that there cannot poihbly be fuch a
Thing as one Subftance in Number and in Kind too at
the fame time.

And now it could not but be plea fa nt enough to
obferve the Dodtor and his Friends confuting the
Atheifts upon this Principle, that Subftance and Sub-
ftance miited does not make Subftances, and at the
Tame time confuting the Trinitarians upon the con-
trary Suppofition. Againft Atheifts, there miglit be
Subftance one in Kind and Number too : But againft
the Trinitarians it is downright Nonfenfe, and Con-
tradidion. Againft Atheifts, Union {hall be fuftici-
ent to make Samenefs, and mimerical Subftance ihall
be underftood with due Latitude : But againft Triin-
tarians, the Tables ftiall be turn'd ^ Union ftiall not
'make Samenefs, and no Senfe of mmierical Subftance
fliali (erve here but what fliall be the very Reverfe

« Set my Firft anA Second Defenfe. ^?>> xxii,

of

C 5^]

of the other. In a word •, the Affirmative fhall ferve
the Doctor in one Caufe, and the Negative in the
other : and the felf-fanie Principle Ihall be evidently
true there, and demonftrably falfe here, to fupport
two feveral Hypothefes.

I had obferved the Thing long ago, before I pub-
lifhed a Syllable in the Controverfy : And that I
might be the better fatisfied, difcourfed it fome
times over with Friends •, which ftill confirmed me
the more in it. Having tried the Thing every way,
and beir.g fecure of That Point, a Point upon which
the main Caufe, as 1 eafily forefaw, would at length
turn, I then proceeded to engage thofe Gentlemen ;
And as often as they have been retreating to their
Dilemma about Sabell7amf?n and Tntheijm (their
impregnable Fortrefs as they efteem'd it ) I have ob-
jected to them their Self -contradi [lion and hicoyifijfen-
cy-^^ have retorted upon them their own avowed Do-
^rine in another Caufe; have reminded them of
thtix fonne;\ (their prefent J Sentiments in that Ar-
ticle, and have fometimes pretty fmartly tax'd tlieir
notorious Prevarication, and Partiality in the Caufe
of the Trinity •, while they infift upon Principles
here as of undoubted Certainty, though they believe
7wt a Word of thera, though they really dipelieve
them in any Caufe elfe. For this I am called Info-
lent by the meek, and modeft Obfervator : And by the
judicious Author of the Re??iarks, my Condud here-
in has been cenfured as ridiculous, and vio7tJiroiis: = By
which I perceive, that the Men are ftung fomewhere
or other, and have Senfe enough to know when they

^ 5^e Firft Defenfe, i66, 1^7, i5S, 171, 299, 354.
^wif Second Defenfe, ^. 50, (^4, 210, 329, 324, 560, 419,
4.32,446, 447, 454.

a Remarks on Dr. Waterland*s Second Defenfe, ^. 38,

are

[ 57 ]

are hurt 5 but have not learn'd how to bear it. On^
tells me, that I build abnofl all my Hopes upon this
Difcovery : Another intimates, how happily for me,
my Adverfaries had adva}wed their Notion, becaufe
ctherwife I fhould have had 7wthhig at all to fay. ^ It
is a great Favour in Them to allow tliat I have/o;;z^-
thhig at lafl: ; Let us nov/ examine what They have to
faj ; I'll reduce it to Heads, ior Diftindion fake.

1. They are fometimes inclinable to d'lfown any
fuch Notion as I have charged upon them. The Ait-
thor of the Remarks, hQing a vamelefs Man, thinks he
may iafely fay, that he has nothhg to do with that No-
tio7i, one way or other. ^ And even the //-^zW whom
I am now concerned with, (ays, that 'tn hy mere
CorijeBiire only, that Dr. Waterland has taken it to be his
Opinion at all. ^ If it be Dr. Clarke that fays this,
his own j5ooL confute him: If yiwjackfon, he knows
that I am perfectly well acquainted with his real and
full Sentiments in that dueftion. However, if Dr.
Clarke's Friends meanly defert him here, and in a
Point too on which his famed Demonjlration very
much depends ^ I will endeavour to do the Doftor
Juftice fo far, and fhall not fuffer him to be run
down in a right Thing, however I may blame him,
when I find liim wrong.

2. Sometimes they complain of me as very unfaii'
to take an Advantage of an Opinion of theirs^ and
to plead it as true, at the fam.e time that I my felf
judge it to be erroneous 2indfalfe. ^ But this is grofs
Mifreprefentation. I plead nothing but what I rake
to be very true -, namely, that Subftance and SuU

t Remarhi p« 56.

'^ Remarks t p. 14.

d ObfervathnSi p. loo.

* See the Remarks, ]»» 57j S^r,

[58]

fiance in Uvion does not always make Sv.bJIar.ces •,
which is Dr. Clarke's Dodrine as well as mine •, and,
if true againft Atheijis, cannot be falfe againft the
Trivitariavs. Indeed, I do not admit, ( at leaft, I
doubt of) their Hypothefs about God's expanded Sub-
ftance : But their general Principle of Umo7i being
fufficient to make Samejiefs, and of iimted Subftance,
in things immaterial, being 07:e Siibjiavce, this I
heartily clofe in with, and make no queftion of its
Truth and Certainty,

3. They fometimes plead that, at beft, this is on-
ly Argumevtim ad homhmn f, and that it is therefore
mean to infifi: upon it. Let them then firfl: condemn
Dr. Clarke for leading me into it: And when they
hai^e done, I'll defend the Dodor, fo far, by the
concurring Verdict of the whole Chrijlian Jforld, by
the Maxims of ccminon Seife, and by the prevailing
CiiJlo77i of Speech, which never gives the Name of
SitbJIavces to any thing, but where the Subftance is
feparate^ ovfeparable. And I will farther plead, that
upon the Hypothefis of Exte7ifo7t, this Principle muft
be true; or elfe there is no fuch thing as 07ie Siibjla7we^
or 07ie Beirg, in the World g. Farther, if I had not
fuch plain and cogent Reafons for the Truth of this
Principle , yet fince I am here upon the defenfwe on-
ly, and am warding off an OhjeBmi, I have a Right
tofvppofe it true, till my Adverfarics can prove the
co7itrary. All thefe Confiderations put together, are
more than enough to anfwer the Pretence of my ar-
guing ad ho7nhie7n,

4. They add farther. That their Explication of
the Ovmprefe7ice is not exactly parallel to my Notion

^ See the Kema,YkSy p. 13.

2 See my Second Defenfe, ;». 324) 44 7*

of

[ '^9 1

cf the Trinity ^, Nor did I ever pretend that it wa<;
exa^ly parallel : I have my felf particularly ihown i
wherein, and how far the two Cafes differ. But,
for as much as Both agree in one general Principle
(which was all that I wanted, and all that I infifted
upon ) that Subftance in Umon with Subftance does
not neceflarily make SvhJIarxes, they are/o/i?;- paral-
lel : And fo long as this Principle iiands its Ground,
( which will be as long as common Senfe Ihall ftaud)
fo long will the received Doctrine of the Tr'rraty ftand
clear of the moft important, and mofl prevailing
Objedion that MetaphyJIcks could furniih : And the
boafted Pretence of no Medhun between SabeU'ianijm
and Tritheifvi, which has been in a manner, the jc/^
Support, the lafl Refuge both oi Sochiiavs. and Ariam,
is entirely routed and baffled by it. Hh-c ilia La-
crymm, Sec, that I may ufe now and then a Scrap of
Latin, as well as our Ohfervator. I pafs over feveral
Remarks of his, relating to this Article, bccaufe
now the Reader will perceive how wide they are of
the Point in Hand • and that they are only the un-
eafy Struggles of a Man faft bound^ and fettered 5
bearing it with great Regret, and very defirous, if
polFible, to conceal it -, though he fnows fo much the
more, by the laborious Pains he fpends upon it.

XVI. Tfhat Ifiippofe the Do&or 7?iore Jlri&ly means—
is this, that if, from the higheji Titles given to Chrif} in
Scripture, he cannot prove the Son to be 7iatiirally and,
TJecejfarily the God fnpreme overall-, then neither can we^
from the highejl Titles given to the Father in Scripture,
provs him to be naturally, and neceffarily the God fnpreme

^ Remarks, p. 58.

» FirftDefenfe, />. 168.

[ ^o ]

n:er all, fo a^ to have no one above orfupcrior to hhn in
Lomhlon, Obfervat. p. no.

This Reprefe7:tatmt of the Cafe is pretty fair in the
main, had but the Author in his farther Procefskept
clofe to it, and made no change in it. My Argument
was this •, ^ That Dr. Clarh and his Friends, by their
artificial Elufions of every Text brought for the Di'
vimty of God the Son, had mark'd out away for elu-
ding any Text that could be brought for the Divim-
ty of God the Father. To make this plain, let it
be premifed, ( as granted on both fides) that there
is difcoi'erable, by the Light of P».eafon, the Exiftence
of fome Eternal, Immutable, Neceflarily-exifting
God: And now the Queftion will be, how we prove
from Scriptvre that any particular Perfon there men-
tioned, is the eterval God whofe Exiftence is proved
by Reafov. We urge in Favour of God the Son, that
he is Goil^ according to Scripture, in the true and
full Meaning of the Word ^ therefore he is the eter^
ral God, and has no God above him. We urge that
he is Jehovah, which implies Necejfary-Exijlevce 5
therefore, again, he is the etenial God, who has no
God above him. We plead farther, that he is pro-
perly Creator, fince the Bcavevs are the Worh of his
Umds, Sec. therefore again he is the eterml God who
has no God above him. We farther urge, that he
is over all^ God hleffedfor ever, Rom. ix. $. And
'7PAv'roy.^,iXi>^, Amighty, or God over all, who Z5, and was,
and is to come. Rev. i. 8. ^ Which exprelHng Necejfa-
ry-exijievee, and fupreme Dominion too, proves far-
ther that he is the eterml God, &c. The fame

k See my Firft Defenfe, p, 116. Second Defcnfe, p. 245,

1 See my Defenfe, f, 451. Sermons^ p. 227, ^c. Second
Defenfe, 241, &c.

Things

Thing we prove from feveral Titles, and Attributes,
and Honours^ being all fo many Marks and Chara-
ders of the one true and eternal God. Theie Proofs of
the Son's Divinity, are at the fame time applicable to
the Father, and fo are Proofs of the etsrval Divinity
both of Father and Son. Now, to come to our Ari-
amzijtg Gentlemen : They have found out Ways and
Means, Artifices, Colours, Quibbles, Diftindions,
to elude and fruftrate them all. God is a Word of
Ofce only «" , not Suhfiaywe : Jehovah means only
one faithful to his Frcmifes " ; -rnvroK^.Tw^^ God over
ail, and the like, may bear a fubordimte Senfe^.
Every Title or Attribute affigned, may admit of a
limited Conflrudion. Well then : What remains to
prove the eterval Godhead of the Perlon of the Fa-
ther , againil: any Marciomte , or other Hereticks
that fhould affert another God fuperior to him? Here
is the Pinch of the prefent Argument. This Gen-
tleman in Anfwer, asks, Does he by whom God created
all Thijigs claim as much to be the frjl Caufe of all
Thivgs^ as he that created all Things by him ? Does he
who came mt to do his omi WilU but the Will of him
that fent him^ clai??! as much to have no Superior, as he
whoje Will he wasfent to fulfill ^ And he has more to
the fame Purpofe. To which I anfwer, That when
all the Proofs before-mention'd of the Son's having
no God above him, are fet afide, I allow that there
would remain but very weak, and flender Prefum-
ptionsof the Son's being equal to the Father, or of his
having no God above him. But fiippofe ( for Ar-
gument Sake) the Son thus proved to be inferior to

in Clarke's Reply, p no, 200, 501, Scripture Doftrine,
*. 296. Ed. I/. \

n ColUBlon of Queries y ^ 19*
e Reply y p. I55>- ,

the Father, when the Texts before-nientionM are ail
fet afide *, next fhovv, that the Eternal God, known
by the Light of Reafon, is not, or may not be ano-
ther God above them Both. What I aflert is, that
the fame Ehfions, at leaft thefa7n,e Kind of Elufions,
will ferve to fruftrate every Argument that has been,
or can be brought. Let us try the Experiment upon
thofe which this Gentleman (after the lafl: ftraining,
and racking of Invention ) has been able to produce.
He builds his main Hopes and Confidence upon
I Cor. viii. 6. To lis there is 07ie God, the Father y of
rphom are all Thivgs. To which a Marciovite may
make anfwer, that To vs may not fignify to the whole
Compafs of Beivgs •, neither is there any Necelhty of
interpreting all Thivgs in an unlimited Senfe, when it
may very well bear a limited one. And fuppofing
of whom are all things ( that is, feme things ) to be
meant of Creating ^ yet fince the Work of Creating is
allow'd not to prove the ejfential Divinity of the
Creator, here is nothing done ftill. The Words, 07ie
God, prove nothing : For God being a Word of Of
fee, it means little more than one King, or one Rtder,
And fo the whole amounts to this only, that to Us
of This Earth, This SyJIem, there is owe Ruler, who
made all Things in it. How does this prove that
our Ruler is the eternal and neceffarily-exijHng God >
The like may be fa id of E^h* iv. 6. One Ruler over
this Syftem, fupreme King over all the Earth, above
all, and through all, and in all that belong to it. The
laft Thing the Gentleman has to offer, is, That this
Ruler claims to have no other God above hifn. This
is not witliout its Weight and Force, though it has
not a tenth Part of the Force of thofe Arguments I
have above mentioned, and which this Gentleman
knows how to elude. By a little flraining ( as this
Writer knows how to jlrain 7micb upon Occa-
fion) this may be interpreted in ^ fubordinate, and

limited

[ ^3]

limhed Senfe, to fignify iSiiprevie in thefe his Domi-
nions, having no Rulers here to controul, or command
him, or, no God oithis Khid (that is, God by Office on-
ly) which does not exclude any God o^ another Kind,
the fupreme God of the Univerfe : For, it would be
h?iproper to fay j that the fupreme God has an Office p.
It is not therefore proved, that there may not be,
above him, another God ^ who is really and truly,
and in the metaphyfcal Senfe, the eterval and r.ecejfa-
rily-exiflhig God. This Gentleman adds, fpeaking
ftill of the Father, that he is fent by mve, receives
Power and Authority /ro7« 7wve, ads by w one's Coin-
mffioji, fulfills no oves Will It is true, it is not faid
that He is fent by any^ or receives Power from any
one : And this may afford a probable Prefum-
ption in Favour of his being abfolutely without any
Superior, and be as good a Proof of it, as a ^ mere
7jegative Proof can be. But as this is not faid, fo
neither is the contrary -^ or if it were, it might bear a
limited Confl:ru6tion, fo that the Demonftration at
length appears lame, and defective.

I lliould have been very forry to engage in an Ar-
gument of this Kind, but to convince fome Perfons
of the great Imprudence, as well as Impiety, of
throwing afide fo many clear, folid, and fubftantial
Proofs, which the Holy Scripture affords, of the
eternal Divinity of God the Father, and refting it at
laft upon fo weak and fo precarious a Bottom : At the
fame time introducing fuch a wanton way of elu-
ding, and fruftrating the plaineft Texts, that it looks
more like burlefquing Scripture, than commenting
upon it. I heartily befeech all well-difpos'd Per-
fons to beware of that Pride of pretended Reafo}}^
and that Levity of Spirit, which daily paves the Way
for/?;/^^%,anda Contempt of all i^^/f^ic;?; ^ which has

? See Reply, /». 220.

fpread

C^4l

Ipread vifibly, and been productive of very ill Ef-
feds, ever fince this new Sect has rifen up amongft
us.

XYIL The BoBor camwt pojjibly exprefs his ( No-
tion ) in any JFords of Scripnu'e ; And^ when called
upon to do z>, he has only this jefting Avfwer to make^
Do you imagine that I cannot as eafily, or more
eafily find Scripture Words for mine ? But this is
trifling q . And again : You blame me for not ex-
preffing my Faith in any Scriptiire-Fojition : As if
every thing I aflert as Matter of Faith were not as
much Scnptrire-PoJitzo7i, according to my way of un>

derftanding Scripture, as yours is to you, &c. —

Undoubtedly it isjiijl as much fo, that isj not at all. For
veither one Mans., nor another Mans Interpretation^ or
tpay of tinder Ji an divg Scripture., is at all a Scripture-
Pojition : But the Text themfelves only are Scripture-
Fofition, with which no Alans Interpretation can without
the greatejl Frefumptuonfnefs he equalled, Obferva-
tion, p. 11^.

The Civility 2Lni. the Seyfe of this worthy Paffage
are Both of a Piece. Why is my Anfwer called a
je/Hng An(\ver ^ I never was more ferious, nor ever
faid a Thing with better Reafon, than when I called
that Pretence trifling. If nothing will fatisfy but
expofmg his weak Reafoning at full Length, it mufl: be
done.

I. In the firft Place, what has he gain'dby giving
us the whole of his Notion ( as he calls it ) in the very
Words of Scripture ? The Words are, 07ie Spirit ^ on6

1 Second Defenfe, f. 443. ivhere I ndd. Why have you not
laid down your Doctrine in Scripture Words^ thaci might com-
pare it with the Doftor's Propojithnsy to fee how i^r they ex-
ceed, or come Hiort ?

' Second Defenfe, ^.427.

Lord'^

Lor'd ^ ove God and Father of all, who u phove aJh
Had Dr. Clarke done no more than cited thefe Words,
could any Man have ever known the whole of his Av-
tio7t, or ever fufpected him to be an Arian ^ His Pro-^
poftiovs and Replies are the Things that contain the
whole of his Notion, and not thefe Words, which do
not contain it.

2. Again, Let but a Socinian underftand thefe
Words as he pleafes, and they may as well contain
the whole of his Notion, A Sabellian will tell you the
fame. I fhall not defpair, referving to my felf my
own Conftrudlion, of maintaining my Claim alfo,
and making the lame Words contain the whole oi
my Notion. Well then, here will be four different^
or contrary Pofitions, and all of them Scripture-Pof-
tiom to their refpedive Patrons, and Abettors. What
muft we do now ? Oh, fays the Arian, but viine is
the Scriptiire-Poftion, ( for it is in the very Words of
Scripture) yours is Interpretation. Ridiculous, fays
the Socinian ^ are not my Words the vqij fame with
yours, and as good Scripture as 3rours ? I tell you,
yours is Interpretation, and mine only is the Scripture"
Pofition. Hold, I befeech you, Gentlemen, fays a 5^*
bellian,0T m-iyAthanafan,\vhy do you exclude Me ? I tell
you, the Words contain wy Notion to a Tittle, and
they are Scripture-Words \ mine therefore is the
Scripture -Pofition.

Now, if this Writer can end the Difpute anj"
other way than by fhowing whofe is \.\\q he ft Interpret
tation of the Four, and by admitting that heft Inter-
pretation for the only Scripture-Poftion •, He fhall have
the Reputation of a fhrowd Man, and the Honour of
being the Author of that Sage Maxim, that Te;its
themfelves only are Scripture-Poftions%

3. I cannot help obferving farther, what a fine
Handle he has here given for fuch as adhere to the
Letter, in any Inftance, againfl: the Seife of Scripture*

K For,

166-]

For, the Lettery in fuch a Cafe, upon this Gentle-
rnan's Principles, muft pafs for the Scriptitre-Pojition :
And the other being hiterpretation only, or drawn
out by Reafo7i and Argument, muft not be equalled
with it, under Pain and Peril of Frefmiptuoufvefs.
The ^lahrs muft thank him highly. Swear not at
all, fay they : Can there be ever a plainer Scnpture-
Pcjitmi ? Can the oppofite Party bring any Text
like it ? Can they exprefs their Notion in Scripture-
JFords, like thefe ? No : Their Notion can be reckon-
ed only as Interpretation, and muft never be fet a-
gainft a plain Scripture-Poftion.

An Anthropo'7norphite will infult over his Adver-
fary on the fame Foot. He will produce many
and plain Texts, where God is reprefented with
E)es, Ears, Face, Heart, Hands, or Feet. There are
no Texts fo plain on the other fide. The plaineft
is where it is faid, God is irnv^xa, which yet is capable
of divers Conftrudions, and every one is only Inter-
pretation, never to be equalled with Scripm-e-PoJition.

The ApoUinarians, or other Hereticks, will in-
fult. The Word was 7nade Flefi : "Was ?nade, not took
jipon him, and Flefi not Maiu They will challenge
their Adverfaries to produce any Text fo plain on
their Side, and will value themfelves, no doubt,
upon the Scripture-Pojition -, to which the Interpreta-
tz'ojz however juft, or neceftary, muft not be equalFd.

To mention one more, the very Papijis will affiime
upon it, and even in favour of Tranfnhjlantiation.
This is my Body, is a Scripture-Pofition : And except
ye eat the FUJI) of the Son of Man, and drink his Bloody
you have no Life in you. Let any Protejlant produce
a Te.\t, if pollible, as full and exprellive of his No-
tion, as thefe are of the other ♦, or elfe let him con-
fefs that his is Interpretation only, which is by no
means to be equalled with Scripture-Pofitioju

This

C ^7]

This Gentleman is pleafed to fay, that Tr«w/«i-

fmmaticn has fome colour in '"^^ ^f^^*"''^' Zt'^t
tme, tlmgb, as lie adds, vove w the Sef. But what
is the W^ till it be drawn out by Merpretattov ?
The Words, according to him, are the Scnpture-lojt.
tion- to which no Ivterpetatmi imA he equalled.

To conclude this Hea^d -, if this Writer will un-
derftand by Scriptvre-Pofimi, the Se„fe and Meamvg
of Scripture rightly iJrpreted, I Ihall readily prove
to him\hat my main Pofitions, in regard to the ...r
llelTed Trhiity, are all Scnptvre-1-Oinovs. But it he
rSanyth'ing elfe, let him firitan werthe ^«.^
ken, tht Anthropomorphnes, the ^i'""""""""'.^"'^
Paiifs, as to the'rexts ailed ged; and then we fliall
take cLre to anfwer him about bphef. iv. 6. or any
other Text he (hall pleafe to produce. ,...

He talks much of my putting my ovn Exphcatwn
of a Boarine, in the Place of the Doarm to be explain-
ed-, m^i fpends a whole Obfervatton "pon it He
certainly aims at fomething in it ; though I pro-
fS I cannot well underftand what: Nor do I think
that he himfelf <ify/i«S/> knows what it is that he
means. If he means, that I have put what I have
colleded from many Tests, or from the whole Tenor
Tscrimre, into a narrow Compafs, or into zfev>
jkrlsjlsour Church, as all Chriftian Churches have
done- I Tee no harm'in it. If he means that I fub-
fhm my omi Doarhe in the Room of the C/;«.c/;s
Doarine,^r of the 5-P'--DoS.f;., J Jeny the
Charge, and leave him to prove 1 at leifure. It h
means that I take upon me to call the received Do-
E the Doa/m 0/ t/;. Tn«it>, in pppofition to
m Doarine, whichlsnot properly the Doarine of
a Tmuvs nor true Doarine but H.r./>i I own
?he Faa; and have faid enough to juftify it. And

I See my Second Defenfe, ?; 4' 8- ^v;,

A 2

r ^s 1

tliis Gentleman will be hard put to It, to make good
his pretended Parallel between teaching this Dodrine,
and alTerting Travjuhjlantiatkn •, which is a Calumnj
that he has twice repeated, ;;. 9>, 112. and which
he has borrowed from the Fafijh, though abundantly
confuted long ago by learned and judicious Hands.^

XIX. This Gentleman reprefents me (^p. 69, 64.
and 120.) as changing the Word dyivvi}T©- into
dyivfnQ-j in innumerable Pallages of ancient Authors,
without any Pretenfe oi' Manufcnyts, nay, without
my Vretevfe of Authority for fo doing. This is great
Mifreprefejitatiov : And he is herein guilty at leaft of
frandnhiixly concealing what I do pretend, and what
Authority I had for it. Let but my Second Defe7ife
be cohfulted, ' and it will there be feen, that I had
^ood Reajov^ and fufticient Authority, even for cor-
refting the MSS in relation to that Word •, fhowing
hj zn Hijlorkal LednBioit, andCritical Reafons, what
the Reading ought to be, and what it avckntly was :
"Which is f much greater Weight than the Readings
of 'ISS (fuppi^ng them to agree, which yet is
doubtful j in an Inftance of this kind, where the Co-
pifts might fo ealily miftake, the difference being no
3110 0 t'^yn that of a flngle or d ouble Z^^?^;^. I laid
down Rules whereby ^o judge of the Readings in this
Cafe. If this Gentleman can either covfute them, oc
give better, I fhall ftand correded. In the mean
I'/hile, he has been adingan iivgeverom and intrighteons
Part, in the Rcprefevtation here given, and ought to
make Satisfadion to his Readers for it.

s See the CoUeBion of Pamphlets relating to /^ePopilh Contro^
verfy.

? Second Defenfe, ^.25$,

CHAR

1^9-]

CHAP. III.

Concerning the Author s Flouts, Abufes, decla-
matory Exclamations, ReparteeSy 6cc. in lieu
of Anfu^ers.

WE fhall meet with many Inftances of this
Kind in the Courfe of his Work: I fhall
point out feme of them in Order as they occur.

I. Page 9th and loth, To the Solutions I had given
of his great Ohje&iov, wherein he pleads for ^iiatn-
ral Superiority of Dominion over God the Son,
and to what I had urged about the Father and
Son mutually ghrifyivg each other ^ ^ he is pleafed
only to fay : If any Man who, to fay 7to more^ reais
feriovfiy this Chapter ( John xvii.) can believe this to b&
the BoBrivie of Chrijl, I think it can he to 710 ptrpofe to
endeavour to convince hivi of any thing.

He introduces thefe Words, indeed, with fome Pre-
tenfe to Reafoning ^ tho' it is really made up of no-
thing elfe butiiis own Shufflings, and Miftakes. I
have never faid that the Father might not have dif
daind to have been ijxarnate. He might, he could
not but difdain to be fo ^ becaufe it was not proper^
noi congruous for t\\Q Father ^ oiFirJl Peribn, to conde-
fcend to it. And admitting that it was pofible for
him to have been incarnate -, it does not follow that
the Father could become a Son, or the Son Father 5
their Relation to each other being natural, and mial'
terahle.

* Expoftulatio Clarificationis dandae, vicilfimq; reddendse,
nee Patri quidquam adimit, nee infirmat Filinm ; fed eandem
Divinitatis oitendit in iitroq; lirtutem. ; cum & clarificari fe
Filius a Patre oret, & clarificationem Pater non dedignetur
3 Filip, Hilar, p. 614.

I II. Page

C 70 3

II. Page the inh, he is pleafed to cite, imper-
fedlj, my Words wherein I aiifwer and obviate ^
his Pretejifes from i Cor, viii. 6. by Reafons drawn
from the Context, and very plain ones. He tells us,
inftead of replying, that the BoBor evdeavoiirs to co-
ver the Reader with a thick DuJI ofirords, that have no
Signifcatioji ^ and that it could fcarce have been lelievedy
that fvch a TwiJ} of vrmtelligible Words Jlwiild have
dropped from the Teji of aferious JFriter. I am forry
for his Slownefs of Apprehenlion : But I am perfua-
ded rather, that he iniderjhod the Twijl of Words too
Well to attempt any Avfwer.

III. To the Objedion about the Son's receiviyig
Dominion, I had fhown \ how Both Father and Son
may receive Dominion, and Increafe of Dominion ^
intimating that Domimo7i is an exterml Relation which
may accrue to any of the Divive Perfons, and is no
Argument againft their equal Perfedtion. This Gen-
tleman turns it off by Mifreprefevtatiov, (p. 16.)
to this Purpofe ^ As if the Father s receiving the Kivg-
donij Sec, was as innch an ArgU7nent of the Sons Su-
premacy over the Father^ as the Sons receivings &c.
and concludes-, Was ever any thing fo hdicroiis uponfo
important a SuhjeB: ^ Which is firft making a ridicu-
lous Blunder of his own^ and then, to Ihow ftill
greater Indecency and Levity, beginning the Lau^
himfelf. I did not plead for any Supremacy of the
Son over the Father 5 but was fhowing, that Oecono-
viical Conveyance of Dominion on one hand, or
Oeconomical Reception of Dominion on the other, is
no Bar to Equality of Nature.

" Second Defenfe, f. 455, 437.
I Second Defenfe, /». 8i, 82.

IT. To

[ 7^ ]

IV. To a Reply made by me y, about the Senfe
oF exalthig ( Vhil, ii. 9. ) which Senfe I vindicated at
large, and then asked, where now is there any Ap-
pearance of Abfurdity > To this the Author here re-
turns me a Flout ^ tho' in the Words of an Apoftle:
If any vian be igiwrajtt, let him be igvoravt. This, he
thinks, is the ojily proper Avfwer, p. 19. The next
time he is difpofed to jeft^ or Ihow his JFit, he
Ihould be advifed to chufe fome other than Scripture-
Words to do it in. I fhall endeavour however, that
He may not be igmravt hereafter, by taking
care to inform him, that when I interpret exaU
thg in fuch a Senfe as Men exalt God, in Oppofition
to another Senfe of exaltivg to an higher Place or Dig-
nity, I could not be fuppofed to mean, that the Fathe^
is inferior to Chrift, as Men are inferior to God : It
muft be great Malicioiifyiefi to iniinuate that I had
any fuch Meaning. But as Inferiors may exalt Su-
periors in the Senfe of extoUirtg, or praifr.g 5 fo un-
doubtedly may Eqvah exalt Equals in the fame Senfe
of extolling or praifivg \ and thus God the Father ex-
alted his Coequal Son.

V. Upon a Remark of mine 2, or rather
not mine, in relation to the Conftrudtion of two
Greek Words, («? cTo^d^^) this Gentleman, full of
himfelf, breaks out into TFonder^ That fome Men of
great Abilities ayid great Learning, can never be made to
imderfland Grammar ^ , Thefe Men that our Writer
fo iniults over, as not underftanding Grammar, are.

y Second Defenfe, ;>• 223*
2 Second Defenfe, p. 390.
a Phil. ii. II.
^ Obferviitions, ^. 20*

we fhould know, fjch Men as Eeza, GroUus, Sclnil^
Jfw5, and the Top Critkh\ who unanimoully alTert
that «V is often put for oi/, and Some admit it even
in this very Text. This Gentleman ispleafed to de-
ny that one is ever put for the other. I might very
juftly decline entring into that Difpute, becaufe, as
it happens, our learned Grammarian confirms the Con-
ffrudion he finds fault with in this Text, by the
very Infi:ance brought to confute it ^ which if it
does not fhow want of Grammar^ fhows want of
Thought.

His Words are ; If I mean to affirm that a Man is in the
Field, I can with equal Propriety of Speech fay either that
he is ci'dy^rp, or «< cf.y^h', becaufe the Senfe^ in this Cafe^
happens to he the fame whether I fay that he is in the Fields
or that he is gone, or carried, into the Field. Admit-
ting this to be fo, then I hope b? /.6Jco' may as well
fignify in the Glory, becaufe the Senfe, in this Cafe,
is the fame, whether Chrift be faid to be in the
Glory, or gone into t]ie Glory -, That Glory which he
had before the JForld iras^ and into which he re-entred
after his Pallion and Afcenfion, which is called en-
trivginto his Glory ^ Luke 24. 26. This is fufficient
for me, in regard to the Text I am concerned with.

As to this Author s new Rule of Grajjimar^ (which
happens to do him no Service ) I may leave it to
the Mercy of the Criticks •, who perhaps may take it
for a vain Conceit in matter of Criticif?n,as he has dif-
cover'd 7na7!y, both in Divijiity^ and Philofophy : The
fame Turn of Mind will be apt to fliow it felf
in like Inftances, in all. I know not whether
this Gentleman will be able, upon the Foot of
his vev^ Ride, to give a tolerable Account of the
Ufe of the Prepofition h? in fuch Examples as here
follow: Hi Tzv yJoh^ov. John i. 18. «'f ov i'jS'oMinv^
Matt. xii. 18. e^i ^J\ (Suppl o^i-Mv) AB. ii. ?i. «V
J'ta.To^i 'Afykhtov, Aci. vii. 53, Hi TO y^^.u Geiu xxi. 2.

He

He mufl: fuppofe, at leaft, fomething underflood (as
in his other Inftance, gone i7tto^ or carried mo) be-
yond what is exprefs'd, to make the P/epoJitmi h\
Hand with e(]ual Propriety : And fo he maft folve by
an EllipJtSj what others folve by a Change of Prepoji-
t'lons. Which at laft is changing ove Phrafe for ano-
ther Phrafe, or ufing one Forvi of Speech inllead of
another which would be clearer, and more exprelfive.
To me it feems, that the eafier, and better Ac-
count is That which our ablefl: Critich hitherto have
given ^ that one Prepofit'ion or Particle may be, and
often is, put for another: Which may be owing to fe-
veral accidental Caufes among the different Idiom%
of various Languages borrowing one from another.
To inftance in quia^ or qmmam^ for qnod^ by a GrA^
cif?n : For fince it happens that 077 may fometimes
fignify This, and fometimes That, thefe two Ren-
d rings by degrees come to be ufed one for the other.
The like might be obferved in many other Cafes
of the fame Kind : But I am not willing to weary
the Reader with Grammatical Niceties, of fmall Im«
portance to the Point in hand.

VI. To an AfFertion of mine, namely, that there
was no Impojibility, in the Nature of the Thing it
felf, that the Father Ihould be incarnate ( an AlTer-
tion which all that have profefs'd a Coequal Trinity
have ever held, and ftill hold ) only it is not ^o
fuitable or congruous to the Firjl Perfon to have
been lb : To this the Gentleman replies, Bo not the
Readers Ears tingle ^ And he goes on declaiming, for a
whole Page of Repetition. This is the Gentleman,
who in his Preface enters a Caveat againft making
Applications to the Pafions of the Ignorant ; as if he
mec?at to ingrofs the Privilege entirely to hiwfelf

L Til, la

[74]

VII. In the next Page (p, 29. ) he feem'd difpo-
fed to give fome Anfwer to an Obfervation of mine,
that by voluntary Oecoiwiny the Exercife of Powers
cojmnon to many, may devolve upon one chiefly, and
run in his Name 3. After fome fruitlefs labouring,
as we may imagine, to make fome Reply, out comes
a Scrap of Latin, from an old Co7nedy, ^lid ejl, Ji
h&c contmielia von ejl ? which, if the Reader pleafes,
he is to take for an Anfwer,

YIII. From Page 39th to 47th, This Writer goes
on declaiming about the fuppofed Abfurdity cf the
Father s appearing according to the Ancients,

Bifhop Bidl ^, and after him, I have particularly,
fully, and diftindly confidered that whole Matter,
and have anfwered every Thing that has been, or
can be brought in the way of Reafov, or Argimenty
againft the Divinity of God the Son from that To-
pick^. Yet this Writer, applying only to the Vaf-
fi'cvs of the Ignorant, and roving in generals, difpla3''s
*his Talent for eight or nine Pages together. And
among other Fathers, he is weak enough to bring
St. Aiiftln in, as Toucher for the Abfurdity of the
Father's htm^ fevt, appearing, &c. For verily, if St.
Avfin,^yo undoubtedly believed there was no vatiiral
hnpojjibiUty "^ , but only great Incongruity in the

a Second Dcfenfe, -p. 414.

^ Bull. D. F. Sect. 4. c 3. Breves Animadv. in Gilb. Cler.
f. 1044, ^r-c.

c Anfwer to Dr. Whitby, f. 73. Second Defenfe, f. 12S

^ Solm pater non legitur mifliis, qnoniam folus non habet
AuBorem a quo genitus fit, vel a quo procedat. Et ideo non
propter nature Alverfitatenh quas in Trinitate nulla eft, fed
propter ipfam AuBorltateviy folus pater non dicitur 7?i}Jfus,
Non enim fplendor, aut fervor ignem, fed ignis mittit five
iTplendorem^ five fervorem. Aitgnfi. contr, Serm, Arian. c. 4.

Tbing,

[75]

Thing, could yet ure fuch a ftrong Expreffion of it
as Abfurdijjme « , what Confequence can be drawn
from the Expreifions o^ other Fathers^ which fcarce
any of them come up to this ? But St. Aujlh was
profefTedly for the Father's Appearivg, and objects
only againft his being Seiit 5 which this Writer feems
not to know. I have remark'd upon him before in re-
lation to TerUtlUan in this very Matter, nor need I
add more. ^

IX. There is a Sentence in my Second Defenfe, p.
166. (repeated, in Senfe, p. 172, I7^; which has
happened to fall under the Difpleafure of this Gen-
tleman. My Words are :

" What has Supremacy of Office to do with the
*' Notion of Supreme God? Go^ is a Word expreifmg
" Nature and Subjlaiwe : He is fupreme God, or God
«' fupreme, that has no God of a fuperior Nature
" above him. Such is Chrijl, even while he fubmits
*' and condefcends to to ad minifterially. " To the
former Part of this PaiTage, we have the following
fmart Repartee : VHjat has Supremacy of Office, or Au-
thority avd Bomhiion to do with the Notion of fupreme
Man — Is not .Alan, ( in the fame way of reafoning ) a
Iford esprefjing Nature and Sitbfance ? ^tam ridicule !
p. 50. Now,for my part, I never heard oi fupreme Man,
Man is the Word upon which the Argument
turns ', for which reafon I have thrown out fupreme
King, or Governor^ as not pertinent. And as no Su-
prernacy of Office can make one Man more truly or

* Pater non dicitur mifliis ; non enim habet de quo fit,
ant ex quo procedat — fi voluiiTet Deus Pater per fubjeftatn
creaturam vifibiliter apparere, abfardijfime tamen aut i FilJO
quern genuit, aut a Spiritu Sanfto^qui de illo proceditj mlf"
fits diceretur. Aitgufi. de Tr'w, /. 4. r. 28, 31.

^ See my Anf'wer to Vr, Whitby, />» 75*

Second Defenfe, |>. 129, &c.

L 2 motQ

[ 7^ 1.

more properly Mav, or Man in a higher Senfe of
the Word JVIayi \ fo it feemeth to me that no Supre-
macy of O^ice can make^ God the Father more truly
God^ or God in a higher Sevfe than is God the Son.
There was no great reafon for the Gentleman's burft-
ing out into Merriment upon it, with his ^tavi ridi-
cule : But perhaps his Infirmity, as ufual, overcame
him.

X. To a well-known Plea on our Side, that God
could not be God meerly in the Senfe of Domiviovy
having been God from Everlafting, and before Do-
minion commenced, the Obfervator thus fpeaks : But
is it in reality m CharaBer of Domivioii, vo relative
CharaHer, to hcn^e hi himfelf an effential Fewer frovi
Etermty to Etervity,' ofproducirg what SithjeBs he thivh
ft^ avd of dep'oyivg what Snhje&s he thivh fit ^ avd of
f'rodiicirtg vew Siibjecls of his Govervmevt at pleafvre^
iras ever fiich trtflivg In ferioiis Matters? Truly, I
think net, if the laft Part be intended for an An-
fwer to the Firft : as any Stranger might judge, who
knows not that Both come from the fame Hand. This
Gentleman is fo taken up with Grammar^ it feems,
that he has forgotten the firft Elements of Logick 5
which will teach him that Relate and Correlate always
rife and fall together. "Where can the Relative Cha-
radter be, while as yet there is fuppofed to exift but
one Term of Relation^ 'Tis true, God can make to
himfelf new Relations by making new Creatures when
he. pleafes : But when he had as yet, for an Eternity
backwards, no relation to any Creature at all, none
being created, I humbly conceive he was under no
fach relative Character, nor had any Donmiion-^ confe-
quently could not be Go J in the Senfe of Bomiraojui

« See »?y Second Defenfe, /». 180.

This

[ 77 1

This Writer therefore might have fpared his Ridkiih
for a more proper Occafion, had the Gaiety of his
Heart permitted him tothink/£'/707//?)>of the Matter.
As to what he has farther upon the fame Queftion, it
is no more than Repetition of what I fully anfwered
long agoh. And the main of the Queftion was be-
fore given up in the Re^ly > ^ as I obferved alfo in my
Secovd Defevje K

XI. When this Writer comes to the Head of
Worfhip , ( Obfervat. viii. ) he repeats fome ftale
Pleas ufed by the Party, and ivhich hai^e all been
particularly confidered and confuted in my Defe7ifes.
As to reinforcing the Pleas with any new Matter*
or taking off the Force of the Anfwers given, he is
not folicitous about it. But here a Scoffs and' there
a Flout he flings at his Adverfary. R 78. He cites a
Sentence of ir.ine 1 in ^fcojjivg Manner, calling it an
excellent Commentary upon Two Texts, (i Johji ii.
I. Hebr. vii. 2^.) which Texts, he conceives, teach
us to pay to Chrijl, to pray in Heaven for m : In the
mean while, taking no Notice of what I had faid
to obviate folow and mean a Notion of God the Son
and to cut off the Pretence of Creatiire-jrorj/jlp, Ha-
ving gone on with Repetition as far as he thouo-ht
proper, he next vouch fa fes to take notice that I had
made ihmQ Replies : And one of themhe cojjfittes, bv
faying, that there will be found in it a Z?;^?//^;- BextL
rity, p. 81. Another, by faying, IfanyfeHousRea.
der finds any InfiniBion or l7?iprovement in it, it is well.
p. 84. A Third, by a Scrap of Latin, from the Co-

h Firft Defenfe, % 47, Qpc Second Defenfe, p. 1 80.

i Reply, ^.119.

^ Second Defenfe, p. 170, 210, 247.

,1 Second Defenfe?, ^^. 571. '

niedian.

. [ 78 ]

median, ^ild cum ijio Hofuhie facias ^ The EvgVifi of
which feems to be, that he has thought everyway to
come at fome Solution, is difappointed in all, and
knows not what to do more , except it be to fioiit and
fcojf, that whatever Reputation he and his Friends
had once gain'd, by beginning like ferioiis Men ,
(in which way I was ready to go on with them) they
may at length throw up, by ending like

XII. Page the 86th, This VYiter comes to fpeak
of Indivldvality and Savienefs-^ in which I had been be«
forehand with him, anfwering all his Pretences on
that Head ni . Inftead of replying, he goes on in his
way. Individuality and Savmwfs (fays he) are IFords^
it fee?ns, which Jigriify no body knows what: Becaufe^
forfooth, I had expofed his weak Pretences to Ihow
what vialies it, or what its Priywiple is. He refers me
to his Reply " , to convince me of the Ahfurdity of
my way of talking, I had feen, I had confidered his
Reply long ago, and expofed the Weaknefs of it '^ :
tV^hat pity is it that he is forced to leave it at lafl
helplefs, and entirely deflitute of any Reinforcement

XIII. He is farther angry with me for calling up-
on him to explain his Terms p, particularly, Siipre7ne
and Independent. As to the firft of them, he fays,
(p, 87. ) it is a Term which no Man, he believes, before
J)r. Waterland, viifunderjlood. "VV^hether I mifunder-
fiood it or no, may be a Queftion. I think, the
EngliJI) of it is higheji : And as high or low may have
refped to Variety of Thiings, to Place^ to Dignity

i« Second Defenfe, ^. 319, &c, ^32, 447,
n Reply, ^ 507, 508.
o Second Defenfe, f, 319.
p Second Defenfc> ^. 418.

^ 1 to

r 19-]

to Dofnimort, to Office^ to Order^ to Katurd, Sec. it
was but juft in Dr. Jfaterlavd to call for an Expla-
nation, that fo the Word Siiyreine might be admitted,
or rejected under proper DlJfiMons,

Independent is likewife a Word varioufly under-
ilood according to Variety of Refpecis. God the
Son, for Inftance, is dependent on tJie Father, as be*
ing of Him, and frorn Hhn, and referr'd up to him :
But he is not dependent on the Father's IFill, or 'Plea-
fiire, being neceffarily-exijling as well as the Father.
Every Perfon of the Trinity is independent of any-
thing ad extra •, but none of them are entirely inde-
pendent of each other, having a vecejjary Relation to
one another, that they mull and cannot but exift
together^ never were, never could be feparate, or
afunder. This is fufficient to juftify my calling for
an Explanation of independent. Which this Gentle-
man would not have been offended at, but that it
touches him in a tender Part : It is breaking through
his Coverts, letting the Jforld in upon him, when he
has a mind to be retired, and to lie concealed under
equivocal, and amhigimis Terms.

The Term Authority was anQther equivocal Word,
which I was willing to diJIinguiJJ) upon <3. This Writer
being extremely defirous of finding a Goverjwr for
God the Son, and God the Holy Ghoft, fays 5 As if
any Man, Jince the jrorld began, ever did, or ever could
7Jtean, by thofe Terms, vot Power and Dominion, It were
eafy to quote a Multitude of W^riters, Ancient and
Modern, that ufe the Word Authority, without refe-
rence to Dominion 5 and who when they afcribe it to
the Father, as his Peculiar, never mean to exprefs
any the leaft Dominion over the other Two Ferfons by
it. I content my felf here with Two only, Both

^ Second Defenfe, ^. 43» 179.

quoted

[ So ]

quoted in my Secojid Deferfe r, namely, St. An fin
and Bifhop Tearfon. It would be endlefs to inftrudt
this Gentleman in all the nfeful Things which he
wants to hww. He does not know, that as early as
the Days of St. Aiijliv^ the very BifihiBion which I
infift upon, as to the equivocal Senfe of Authority in
this Cafe, was taken notice of, and pleaded againft
one of his Arian PredeceiTors, Maximin « : So little
is he acquainted with what Men oi Letters have been
doing y/wce the World began,

' Upon this Occafion, he drops a Maxim, as he
takes it to be, that vcthhig cayi he the fame in Kind
ayid hi Niiviher too. The Author of the Remarks is
full of the fame thing ^ I have already hinted, how
contradictory this pretended Maxwi is to Dr. Clarke's
known and avow'd Principles in another Caufe. To
anfwer now more diredly, and to cut off their main
Argument at once •, I obferve, that tho' in finite
Things, efpecially Things corporeal^ thole that are
one hubftance in Kind, are more than one Sub-
ftance in Number 5 yet the Keafon is not, becaufe
the}'' are ojie in Kind, but becaufe tliey are really fe-^
parate, or feparable from each other : And fo it hap-
pens, that while they are one Subftance in Kind, they
are not one in Number, But where the Subftance is
neither feparate nor feparable, ( as in the Divine Per^
fbns) there Unity of Kind and Number are confiftent,
and meet in one : And thus the Unity is both fpeci-
fck.m-id individual, without any the leafl: Repugnancy,
or Appearance of it. ^

*' Second Defenfe, -p. 178, 555. See other Tefilmonies in Peta-
viiis. de Trill. 1. v. c. 5. §. xi, xii, xiii. 1. ii. c. z. §. ix. W
in Bull D. F. Sect. iv. c. i._f. 254.
- s Augiiftin cont. Maxim. 1. iii. c. 5, 14.

' Remarks, />. 25.

a See^my Second Defenfe, ^.321, 5P4-

• ^ XIT. Pag?

[8i ]

XIV. Page the 9^3, we meet with feveral little
Efforts to fay fomething, but with a very ill Spint,
and (bowing more of the Author'^ Spleen, than his
Abilities. Uefcofs at the Advice given him, not to
pretend to be wife in the deep Things of God. He is
pofitivethat an infjiitely aliive Being ca4i, if he pleafes,
tutixdjceafeto aB; that God's Zori7;^himfelf, however
it may be the prime Mover in all the divine Aas,is no-
AB at all 5 and that God never vatiirally, or iiecejfary
ly exerts any Power-, for this wifeReafon, becaufe in
fuch a Cafe, he caji have no Power to exert : That is,
becaufe the Jfillis the Original (with this Writer)
of all exerting of Power, which was the Point in
^lejion. He has left feveral very material Things
I urged upon this Head, perfedly untouched: ^ But
feems to be affronted that any Man (hould qiiepon
whatever he has been ];)leafed to affirm •, or fhould not
take his DiBates for DemonJIrations.

XY. There is a Place which I have pafs'd over in
p. 62. but deferves to be mentioned under this Chap-
ter. I happened to find fault with Dr. Clarke, for
pretending to prove the Exiftence of a Firft Caufe,
a priori ^ : Which has no Seiife without fuppofing a
Caufe pWor to the Firji, which is flat Contradiclion,
This plain Reafoning is called turning the pretended
Proof into Ridicule ', though, in my Notion, reafoning
is one thing, and ridiculing another. However, the
Gentleman being grievoufly offended, refolves to re-
venge himfelf in a Note. Repeating feme W^ords of
mine, out of the Place I have referred to in my Second
Defenfe, he enters a Remark : Thefe Words jbow that

a See my Second Defenfe, p ^16, 327
^ Second Defenfe, ^. 429

M Vr^

[ 8a 1

jDr. Waterland does mt tmderjl^vd what the Memthig
of a Trocf a priori h, I lliould be glad to receive
Information on this Head from our great DiBator in
Science : And if he iivderjlands the Thing fo well,
the Reader might have expected foine Explication of
it at his Hands, that it might be feen where Dr.
JFaterlavd's Miftake lay. Till this be done, I will
prefume to think,that what I faid was perfectly right ^
and that neither Dr. Clarke nor his Friends can return
any Reply, more than Ahiifes to it. Dr. Cudworth
was one that had travelled in the Argument as far as
any Man, and had as good an Inclination to prove
the ExiJIeiwe a priori, as Dr. Clarke could have. But
he was a wife Man, and faw clearly how that Matter
ftood. Let us hear what he fays, after many Years
Thought and Meditation. Speaking of what he had
done in his la ft Chapter, he has thefe Words : Jf'e
therein aJfo ds7novfirate the ahfoliite ImpojjibiUty of all
Atheifpij and the aciml Exijlence of a God : V e fay
demon jtrate ; 7iot a priori, which is impoifible, and
contradidti' ius, but by receffary hfererxe from Frinci-
^les altogether intdeviaUe. ^ I do not want Dr Cwi-
worth's, or any Man's Authority for a Maxim of com-
mon Senfe,and as plain as that Two andTwo are Four :
But the plainer it is, fo much the greater wonder that
Men of Parts and Abilities could not fee it, or are
yet ignorant of it.

The moft knowing Men hitherto have been con-
tented with the Proofs a poferiori, as being fufficient,
and the ojdy ones that are fo. And they have rightly
3udg€d,that to pretend more, is betraying great Igno-
rance of Things, and is expofing the cleareft and beft
Caufe in the World to thelnfults b( Atheifm and Inf de-
lity, Thefe Gentlemen endeavour to blind thisMatter hy
fubftituting Groujid, and Reafon, in the room o^ Caufe.

© Cudworth IntelieO:* Sy^» Preface, .

■^ V^"^ ■■'■ ut

[83]

Let them fay plainly what they ttiean ty this Canfe,
Gromd, or Reafov, or whatever elfe they plea fe to
call it. They will at length find the Words either
to have m Senfe, or to contain that abfurd Sevfe of a
Caufe prior to the frjl. Is this Gromd, Reajov, &c.
the Subftance itfelf ? The Confequence then is, tloat
the Subftance is the Caufe or Ground of zt felj. Is it
any Attribnte or Attributes of that Subftance? i he
Confequence then is, that Attributes are the Caufe, or
Gromul of the Siibjea, ot Subjlavce. Let them turn
it which way they will, the Abfurd ty Ml recurs,
till they pleafe to allow, (what is both Setfje, and
Truth ) that the Firft Caufe is abfolutely ttncaujed 5
and that it is Nonfenfe to talk of any Gm«i or
Caufe of that Subftance, which is it felf the Gromd
and Caufe of all Things. But it is pleaded (p. 63.J
that if God may exijl abfolutely withont any Ground or
Reafon ( that is, Caufe) of Exijience, ttwoidd joUov>
that he might likemfe as well without any Caufe or Kea-
Son ceafe to exijf. Which is as much as to fay, that
unlefs there be a Caufe prJor to the yfr/, which exifts
i,ecelJarily,it will follow that the firfCaife doesnot ex^
ift veceffarily, but may ceafe to be. What is this, but
making the Notion of a frft Caufe repugnant, and
contradiaory to it felf; or in Ihort, dei^mg any
fuchthingasa/;-/C<«(A? I think it fufficient o
fay, that it is the Property ol the fir Jl^ar^Je to
eiift wcejfarily: He muft, and cannot but «ift
from Eternity, to Eternity, litxtfte^ice be confi-
der'd as an Attribute of that firJl Caufe, tlie iola
Ground, Reafon, or tlubjdl oiith ft Subfiance it
felf fo eiiftingj which is therefore the Sup-
port of That and of every other Attribute. All
pretended Grounds, Reafons, Canfes, Sec m this Gale
can refolve into nothing but the at\ual Exiftence of
fnch a Being. Prove firft i pojieriori, that it is Fa£t
that he does exiftj and the necejfary manner ot his

M 2 exj.ft«

[ S4l

exifting is proved at the fame time. It is Nonfenfe
to run up higher for an antecedent Ground, Reafon,
or Caufe, after we are come to the Top, and can go
no higher 5 unlefs this "Writer is difpofed to go on ad
tnfinmm, and never to come at a frft Caufe at all.
But he has been fo ufed, it feems, to talk in this way
upon other Subjects, that he thinks it Jlrange^ he may
not do it here too; andthat he may not talk of an an-
tecedent Reafon for what has not any thing an-
tecedent, as well as for what has. Such is his great
Proficiency in Metaphyjich.

I fhould have been willing to have pafs'd over the
Do6tor's Mifcondu6t in this Argument, had it not
accidentally fallen in with our prefent Subjedl. The
Caufe of The'ijm, and his good Intentions, and, I be-
lieve, very honefi Endeavours in it, might have
been his Frote^ion. But fince this Matter has at
length been brought in, and admits of no jufi: De-
fenfe ; it is good to acquaint this Gentleman, that
it will not be carried through, either by confident
dilating, or by throwing out Abiifes. But I proceed.

XVI. Page the 9ifl, This Gentleman, fpeaking
of me, fays as follows. Having been toldy that what-
ever the Deity ^ or Divine Nature [75 ^«o;/] isfpohn
of as an OhjeEt of Adoration, 'tis twt by way of Accu-
racy {as the DoBcr had abfurdly pretended) but on the
contrary by a mere jignrative way of fpeaking, put for
God himfelfjuj} as we frequently fay the King's Majefty,
9wt mearting the Majefy of the King, hut the King him-
felf; his Anfwer is, that his affirming the contrary is
fufficient agaiiift our bare Affirmation. If the Rea-
der thinks itfo, I am willing to leave it to him.

That this Writer is offended, one may perceive.
I Ihall endeavour to fet the Matter however in a clear
Light. In my Defenfe ^ I have thefe Words :

^ Defenfe, ^.251.

2 God

[85]

" God alone is to be worfliipped, the Creator in
" Oppofition to all Creatures whatever, the tb ^noy,
" as Clemens of Alexandria e, and Origen ^ fometimes
" accurately exprefs it : Which alfo Tertiillian s feems
" to intimate in the Words, quod colimus, above ci-
" ted.

The Author of the Reply having a Fancy, that
W^orfhip cannot be properly faid to be paid to the
divine , or any Nature^ but to Per/on only, was
pleafed to put in his Anfwer ^ to what I had faid, in
the Words he has iince repeated. To a bare Affirma-
tion of his, and pofitively laid down, only to ferve
an Hypothefs, I firft returned a Counter- Ajfirmatiov^
(Difputants, as I thought, being always upon a
Level in fuch Cafes, and never obliged to take each
others JFord for Proof) but prefently fubjoined
i fome Remarks, and References, about the S^nfe of
•7D ^^oy in Greek Writers, and particularly in Clemens^
and Origcfi : From which I had reafon to conclude,
that TD ^£ioy properly fignii^es the div'ive Nature, or
Siihjlance^ or God confidered fubftantially as res d'l-
vina, and not according to perfonal Charadters, Adts,
or Offices. That this was the Senfe oi Clemens^ when
he fpeaks of the iz ^^or, as the Objedt of jrorj/np^
might appear plainly from the Places I referred to ;
particularly from thofe I have again noted ^ in my
Margin. And the reafon why both Clemens and Ori-
gen chofe that Expreilion rather than 3^oV, was to be

* S^y)(ruijHV TO -^Mo'. Clem. Alex. p. 778. Ox. Ed.
f ^iCn TV '^eiov, 6cc. Orig. contr. Celf. p. 367.
^AvABauvny ^ r d-^riT.? 7^ 3t» (^Jm'y KAKmof ^V^ hofAV*
Orig. ibid. p. 189.

« Quod colimus Deus uniis eft, &c. TertulU ApL c 17.

h Reply, -j). 356.

i Second Defenfe, -p. 3SS, 389»

k Cicm. Alex, p 50, 8 3 5.

more

[ 85 3

more emphatical and expreffive againfl: Pagan Wor-
fliip offer 'd to Things of a frail and corruptible i\"^-
Hire, to created Beings. I think, it was paying great
Refpedl: to this Gentleman'^ bare Affirmation^ to
trace the Senfe of tv de^oy fo far as I did in Oppofi-
tion to it •, as may appear by my References. And
though I threw in a Parenthefis, favivg to ?nyfelf the
juft Claims of every Difputant, he need not have
been offended at it, as if it were intended as an Af-
front to his fiiperlor Learning or Judgment, to fet
mhie againft it : I had no fuch Thought in it. But
however raifed and extraordinary his Abilities may
be, and however high an Opiinon he conceives his
Readers Ihould have of them, he ought neverthelefs to
have taken fome A^otice of what I had pleaded ; if
not as a Criticky yet as an honeft Man : And I can-
not but think it too ajfiming ftill, to expecl that his
bare Dilates Ihall have more weight than Another's
Reafons.

XVII. To an Obfervatlon of mine out of TertitU
lian, that God the Son is an Angel, and Meffevger^
not by Nature but by Office ^ , he returns me this
Anfwer : Can any Man tell what the heirg a Mejfevger
by Nature means "^ ? No : But he may know what an
Angel by Nature means, which was the Word I de-
figned the Diftindion for, and to vzhich alone it re-f
ferr'd ^ as my Argunient, and the flotation at the
Bottom, fufihciently fhow'd : And all the Fault was
in not throwing the Word Mejjerger into Brackets.
The Reafon of bringing it in, appears from what
went before. This is low carping : But no doubt
the Author intended a fmart Repartee, He has fuch

J Second Defenfe, f. 128*
» Obfervacions, ^. 25.

ano-

[ 8; ]

another Piece of Smartnefs in the fame Page, rela-
ting to the Word Servility ^ which he charges me with
adding deceitfully ^ as Synouymous to SiibjeBioji ^ ^ be-
caufe of the quite different Senfe of that Word in the
E^igUfi Lavgmge. Whatever Senfe it be that he fpeaks
of, as to the ErigUJI^, I am fure no body but himfelf
can miilake my Serje of it, in the Place where I ufed
it, nor think the Word improper. But this Gentle-
man feenis to be fo elated upon his Skill in Language^
that he can fcarce allow others to underftand their
Mother-Tongue,

XYIII. He has fome higemovs Thoughts, anij
/mart Sayings, p. 40. v/hich muft not be omitted„
They are bellowed upon a Paflageof mine o , where
I iky, that the Father was not to be vifible, fo much
as per affuviptas Species, by viJihJe Symbols, becaufe he
was not to minijler^ or be ivcarvate. The Remark
hereupon is : Itfeemsfrom thefe Words, that Br. W'a-
terland does jwt juppofe the Ivcarvation of Chrjjl to he at
all real, hut meerly a Phantafm, per afumptas Species :
This being covfeffedly the ojtly way in which there was any
iiatural Poilibility for the Father to he incarnate.
Ayd accordingly in his Explication of that Text. ( Phil,
ii. 7.) He tells us that Chriji ejjtptied himfelf in Appea-
rance,

I pafTed over this uncommon Turn of his, when I
met with it in the Reply?. I faw,he was ftrangelj^ lofi
,and bewildred -, and I was willing to give him time
to recover, and recollect. But by his repeating it
here, he appears to be very fond of it: And
Jthis, iio doubt, is one of the Arguments which

« See my Second Defenfe, ^. 107*
,♦ Second Defenfe, -p, 1420
^ Jleply, ^. 59, 181,

[S8]

( as he tells us in his Preface ) upon the mojl careful
Reviewy he believes to be JiriBly and perfeBly corxlii-
fve, I am afhamed to anfwer fuch Impertinencies ;
But fometimes it muft be done. His Jir J} Miftake is,
underftanding per ajfiimptas f pedes ^ of a Vhantafm:
But this was to make way for what was to come af*-
ter, and to anfwer to Appearance, His Second is, in
pretending that this was the ovly way that it was na-
turally poilible for the Father to be incarnate. For
neither would this way have amounted to any Jw-
carmt'ion at all, being only Frdlitdiiim Incarna-
tionis^ as it was anciently called : Nor is a real Incar-
nation 7tatiirally lefs polfible than that was. His
Third is, in not diftinguiihing between the taking up
vifble Symbols for a while to appear by, and being per-
fo7iaUy united to the Human Nature^ which is Incarna-
tion. His Fourth is fo grofs^ ( not to perceive the
Difference between veiling the Glories of the God-
heady and having no real Manhood ) that I can hard-
ly fuppofe his Thoughts were at home when he
wrote it. But the Word Appearance feems to have
ftruck his Imagination at once, and to have made him
jump immediately, without any Premifes, into a
marvelous Conclujion.

XIX. Page the 74th, &c. He undertakes to fhow,
that, upon his Hypothefis, the Exifience of God the
Son is not precarious. I could fcarce have believed,
till I faw the Reply^ that any Man of tolerable Parts,
or Difcretion,would have engaged in fo filly an Argu-
ment. But there is a Neceliity for it, it feems : And
this is the Second Time, tliat he has refolved to fhut
liis Eyes againft common Senfe ? , in this very Ar-
ticle.

See my Second Defenfe, *. 2,19.

"U^e are to obferve, that he denies the 7iecefary Ex-
Jlevce of God the Son 5 which is directly making his
Exiftence contingent, which is another Word for p-e-
carious^ and is proper to a Creature,

This Gentleman endeavours, p. 75, with a Daft of

Words, to obfcure this plain State of the Queflion.
At laft, he comes a little clofer to the Point, and be-
gins the Debate. God, fays the ApoJIle, cannot lie :
The only Reafon why he cannot, is hecaufe he will not,
[Notetlnen, that the only Reafon why God does
not, or cannot reduce God the Son to nothing, is be-
caufe he will not.~] Is therefore the Veracity of^ God a
thing as mutable and precarious, hecaufe it entirely de-
pends upon his JfilU as is the Exijlence of any Creature
whatever^ But this Gentleman fhould have Ihowa
that God was as much bound up by his own Attri-
butes to give the Son Exijlence, and to continue
him in it, as he is bound never to lie, to make
the Cafe parallel : And upon this Sappofition, God
could no more want his Son one Moment from all
Eternity, than he could be ever one Moment capable
of Ifmg : Which is making the Son as rwcejjarily-
exijHvg, by necefary Will ( which this Gentleman
would call no If ill) as God's Attribute of Veracity is
neceiTary and immutable. God's moral Attributes
are founded in the natural Perfedions, and are iuv
deed no other than natural, and necejjary Perfeclions
of the Deity, which he can no more ceafe to have,
than he can ceafe to be. And even the Reclitiide of his
7Viirisvatiiral,nece jfary, ^nd unalterable : And theHeafon
why he never wills amifs, is becaufe he cannot. But not
to run farther into this Point, which is perfedtly re-
7note and foreign, and brought in only for a Blind -,
what becomes of the Diftindion between the neceffa-
ry Exiftence proper to the Diviyie Being, and thep-^-
carious Exiftence proper to Creatures^ If God may be
cbliged by any of his Tmral Attributes of Jfifdom^

X^ Good-

[ PO ]

Goodvefs, Veracity, &c, to preferve the Son in his
Being , fo may he like wife to preferve Avgels, or
Men, or any other Creature : And is this a Reafon
againfl: calling their Exiftence precarious ? If it be,
then there may be Creatures^ many befides God the
Son, whofe Exiftence is not precarious : And thus the
Diftindion between jwcefjaryy and precarious Exiftence
is loft. The Meaning of precarious Exiftence is,
mt veceffary^ of what might either never have heev^
or may ceafe to be, if God pleafes. Let this Gen-
tleman either affirm this of God the Son, or de-
ny it of any Creature whatever.

This Writer, who is ufed to wife Qiieftions, asks
me, w^hether the Supreme Bomlnlon of God the Fa-
ther ( that which I found in vohvtary Oeconomy )
be precarious f Undoubtedly every voluntary OSiCQ
ma)^ ceafe to be, is not vecejjary^ but depending
on Pleafure, and is therefore fo far precarious.
And even as to jiatural Dominion , God might chufe
whether he would make any Creatures ^ he may
ehule whether he will covtlmie any: That is, he
may chufe whether he will exercife ^ny fhch Domhimt
at all 5 for all &ichDonmno7! fuppofes the Exiftence of
Creatures^ over which only fach Doinlmon is. Supre-
macy therefore of Dominion, is as precarious as the
Exiftence of the Creature : And if that be not preca-
rious^ I know not what is fo. But, I think, I am
over-abundantly civil to this Writer to debate a
Maxim of ccmvioyi Senfe with him. The Sum is,
thatThat Exiftence v/hich is not necef[ary, is contingent ^^
and contingent is precarious, or depending on Fleafure,
in oppcfition to what is naturally immutable, and
cannot hit be : Such is the Exiftence of God the Son
with this Writer : Therefore his Exiftence is precari-
ous in tiie farne Seiife, tho' perhaps not in the fame
Degree, that the Exiftence of any Creature whatever
is called precarious, Q. E,*D,

XX. Page

XX. Page 9 2d, this Gentleman tells me of affe^-
hg to exprefs a ridiculous fee?mvg Repugvarwy in rnain-
tainivg, that the fame AB is certain as hehig for ehtown,
uncertain, as depending on the Will of a free Agent. ^
I fhould be glad to fee the Difficulty dextroufly hit
off by this <jc«t^ Writer, to make us fome amends
for his Failures in other Things. He does it, he
thinks, in two Words •, that what depends on the
Will of a free Agent may be certain, though not ne-
teffary. But to me it feems that the Difficulty ftands
3uft where it did : For how is that certain^ which is not
Tteceffary, which may, or may not he •, which is all the
Meaning of not necejfary, and which feems to amount
to the fame with not certain ^^in the prefent Cafe. And
how is t\\?itfxedy or certain, which is ytt floating and
hanging in Sufpence, either may, or may not he ? Pof-
iibly, fome Solution may be found for thefe and the
like Difficulties : But I am afraid, not by this Gtw-
tleman, who does not appear hitherto to have gone
to the Bottom of the Subje6t, or to have Patience,
or Coohefs of Temper, requifite to go through with
it.

a See my Second Defenfe, />. 425.

N 2 CHAP.

I 9^1

CHAP. IV.

Concerning Qu.ot2Li[ons from the Ancients.

TH E 14th Ohfervation is fpent upon tliis Sub-
ject : And I Ihall think it worth the while to
beftow a Chapter upon tlie fame •, that as we have
feen this Gentleman's Penetration in Matters of Ar-
gument, we may now alfo fee his Diligence, and
Accurac}?-^ in Matters of Learv.hig. I have had fre-
quent Occafion, in both my Deferifes, to take notice of
his fuperficial Acquaintance with the aiidejit Fathers.
I. Sometimes he has endeavoured to -put fpurioiis^
or Vv'orthlefs Pieces upon us, as being of confi-
derable Value and Authority. The Apojlolical
OvJiiUiiiom ^, Tgmtins's larger Epiftles c, the A-
rian Councils of Sirmhm ^, FhiUppopGlis ^, and Aji-
tiich f , ( inftead of the Catholicl and approved Sy-
nods ) and the Tenets of Semi-ariam for thofe of
Epiphaiihis g. See the Inftances of this kind up and
down in the Reply ^\ The doing this, unlefs it be

t See my Second Defenfcy ^. 2S0, 281, 51S.
c See my Second Defenfe, p. 280, 281.
d See my Second Defenfe, -^, i()jy 318.
« See Second Defenfe, j&. 299, 518.
f See Second Defenfe, ;>. 500, 318.
e See Second Defenfe, ^. 417,

1^ Reply to Dv. Waterland, ^c.p> 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29,
58, 6i> ^55? -^-^> -74> -?5> ^7^> -^9j 4^4> 4^o.

done

\

[93 ]

done ignoramly, is much the fame HoneRy in the
way of Writing, as the putting off bad Wares,, or
damaged Goods, at the Price of good ones, in the
way of Tradhig,

1. Sometimes he has exprefs'd Wonder and Amaze-
ment at me, as if I had been teaching fome mw and
firavge Thing, orfomething merely Scholajfick, when
I have been only following the concurring Judgment
of the ancient Fathers '\

3. Sometimes you will find him reprefenting a
Dodrine as unanimoufly taught by all the Ancients^
when they wQneall diredtly againft it, 0Y7Wve clearly
for it. ^

4. Falfe Hiftory, and Mi/reports of the Fathers
have been very ordinary, and common with him. 1

5. Mifreprefe7itatio7is of the Fathers, as to their
real Senfe, and Meaning, have been numberlefs:
The greateft part of my Labour has been all the
way to lay them open, and confute them.

6. Mifqiiotatlom, or deceitful Tranflations, I have
often had Occafion to obferve, and corred-. m

Now, this Gentleman being very defirous, as it
feems, to make Reprifals upon me, undertakes to
furnilh out a whole Section of grofs Mifreprefevtatlom
made by me in my ^lotatmts. He gives them for

i See my Firft Defenfe, p. 21, 87, 38c, 471, 481. Second
Defenfe, p. 49, 212.

k See thefe Fallacies noted' Firft Defenfe, />. 54, 10 1,
358, 3f^i, 593, 449. Second Defenfe, p. 295, 346, 425)
482, 484.

1 See the fame deteBed: Firft Defenfe, ^. 93, iSd", 198, 16%
582, 398, 449, 452, 4*55, 457. Second Defenfe, p, 9^11'
58, 73, 100, 130, .141, 145, 150,153,208, 213, 243^ 5J18,
335, 455, 45c, 47(^, 477.

ni See w;' Firft Defenfe, p. 130, 132, 183, 198, 425, &>c
489. Second Defenfe, p. 8c, 120, 13^, 2S7, 290, :;i8, ::.-/

a Sp^

CP4]

a Specimen only, as he fays, and calls them fome few 5
being willing the Reader fhould think he had
been very tender, and compaj/ionate. The Rea-
der perhaps may really think fo, when he finds what
the Sum Total of this worthy Charge oT grofs Mif-
reprefey-tatiom amounts to ; Nothing but an Account
of Tome very fair and jiifl Reprefentations fet in a
bad Light, mifreported under /^//^ Colours, and cal-
led by a wrong Name. I hope, every intelligent
Reader will apprehend the Difference between ma-
king a Charge, and proving one- between ^falfe Re-
port and a true one 5 between an unrighteous Calumny^
and ^jiifi Cenfiire, I am willing to put the Iflue en-
tirely upon the Juftice and Merits of the Cafe, upon
the Evlderxe produced here, or there, to juftify the
Charges refpeclively. Let but the Reader compare
my Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Quotations ", with
what this Writer would lay to me: And then the
Difference betwixt the one and the other will be
throughly underftood. Now to come to Particulars :
They are 1 2 in Number*^ which were they all Faults^
it were eafy to feledl Hundreds greater out of their
Pieces. But I confined my felf, in my Colledion, to
fuch only as betrayed manifeft Partiality, and Deceit^
or great want of Care, and Exa6tnefs.

T. In the firft place, he finds fault with my way
of iirJerfiandivg a PafTage of Wilo, and gives me
his own Judgment againft it: Which I have
as much Regard for, as h^ has for mine. The
very PafTage which he cites from Vhilo, to confute my
Conftrudtion, confirms it: As it fhows that the Logos
was betwixt the 75 y-yo/uSiJov and h Tmn^, and was there-
fore neither. And if he is not reckon'd with the
ri >4j'c,4*'^, he is of courfe Ayb^]©-.

n Firft Defenfe, 426, dfcj Second DtknTcj 488, fi^c.

2. The

[95]

II. TheSecond^is my reading AyiiMlQ- in two Places
of jfiijiin, where he chufes to read dyivwlQ-. His
Reafons, it reems,are good to Hhn, and mine to Me,
which is the whole Matter. I vindicated my Read-
hig againft his Exceptions in mj Second Defevfe^
p. 164, 265 : And he has nothing to add hj way of
Reinforcement. A mighty Bufinefs to found a
Charge of grofs Mifreprefentation upon: He muft
have been hard put to it, to ftrain fo much for
one.

III. A Third Article ot my grofs Mifreprefe7j'
tatiojis begins with a vew Invention of his cwv ^
a very forced Interpretation of a Pailage in Irev.dim'' j
which Interpretation was never, I believe, thought
on by any Man before himfelf, and refts only in
Strength of Imagination. For, what if the Father
be called \oy^ in that Chapter as well as the Son^
could IrenAm be there talking of tlie Emijion, or Ge-
7ieratinv of t\\Q Father ^ If this Gentleman will but
pleafe to look forwards, as far as Page 157, and 158,
and view the whole Procefs of the Argument, he
will fee what Lev^m meant b)^ the Logos, namely,
the Oviy 'begotten o£ the FsLthtv, the fame thsitljaiah
fpeaks of. Chap. liii. v. 8.

This Writer alfo tells me of citing two Paffages
of Irendius, as containing the Church's Notion, vv^heii
he is ridiculing the Notions of the Valev.thuans : As
if a Man might not be ridiculing the Notion of the
Valentimans, and at the fame time diCcover his omi.
Had the Author undertaken to vindicate this his j!ev\

^ Qiii Generationem prolativi Hominum Verhi transfe-
riint in Dei seternum Verhumy & Prolationis initium donantes
& Genefim, quemadmodum &z fuo verbo. Et in quo di (la-
bit Lei Verbumj imo magis i]jfe Deui^ cum fit Verhnmj a verbo
Kominum, ii eandem habuerit Ordinationem & Eniiirioneni
Generationis ] Ire/i. p. 132. ed. MafT.

4 snd

i9n

and extraordimry Conftrudion, I fhould have taken
care to confider it at large : But as he has only given
a few dark and obfcure Hints of what he would have,
I think it fufficient to refer the Reader to my Second
Befevfe p, and to Irevms himfelf q, and to his learned
Editor^ who has particularly confider'd his Author s
Meaning ^

A farther Complaint againfl: me, is for falfely in-
teT]}ixtmg^No7t alius t^ alius ^ in Treu^us^ oi^ Father and
So7i ^ which is fo trifling and groundlefs, that nothing
can be more fo. He has invented another imaginary
Conftruction, peculiar to himfelf, which he endea-
vours to help out, by fupplying fomething in Ire-
oidits's Text, which the good Father never thought on,
and which the whole Context ftrongly reclaims a-
gainfl. See my Secovd Befev.fe t, where I cite the
PafTage, with another parallel Place of TertuUian. In
this way of charging me with grofs Mifreprefentmonsy
the Author may be copious enough ^ for Invention is
fruitful.

As to the FoMrth place, all the Fault is, that I
follow the common Reading (cum verbo fuo, Iren.
p. i8^.)tho'there is one MS. which leaves out cujn : A
MS. fcarce above 400 Years old,and of nogreat Authori-
ty^. The Manufcript is the Arujidelj in the Library of
the Royal Society: I have feen it, and find the
Reading to be as Dr, G/abe reprefented. But that

p Second Defenfe, -p. 66 i-jo,
^^ Iren. ^. 132, 139. Ed. Mafl*.
^ Mi^ffnet. diiTcrr. proev. -p. 128.

s Non ergo alius erat qui cognofccbatur, & alius qui dice-
bat ; vemo cogmfcit pafremy fed uiius & idem, omnia fub-
jiciente ci patre, QPc. Iren. p. 234, MaiT. praev. diiT. p. 131.

f Second Defenfe, p. 6S.

" See Mailuet. pr^f. p. 8.

the

l97l

the Reading is without doubt the truer Reading, as the.
l^^/?/y pretends % againfl: the Faith of all the other
MSS, about Ten in Number, feveral of them much
oldery and moft of them more faithful in the whole,
will not be taken for granted upon a bare Affirma-
tion.

A Fifth place of Iren&us by me cited b, I am
willing to leave with the Reader : Who may pleafe
to confider, whether what this Writer objeds be of
any Force againft what I faid 5 iince I did not pre-
tend that the Son did any thing contrary tOy or with^^
Out the Father's good Vleafure,

IV.This Gentleman proceeds to Clemens^ Alexandria
mis^ and charges me with mifreprefenting him. I
vindicated my Senfe of that Pallage at large before ^
and obviated every Pretence to the contrary : Nor
has this Writer fo much as attempted to reply to what
I there urged-, except calling a thing monjlrous be the
fame with confuting it. His repeating here his for-
mer Opinion about Chrift being reprefentative only
(which has been fo abundantly anfwer'd and baffled
in Both my Defenfes \ beyond any juft Reply) only
fliovvs to what a Degree of Hardinefs a Man may
arrive to by long oppoling the Truth.

There is another Place of Clemens d, as to which
he infp upon his Conftrudion , and I alfo upon
mine « •, tho' it is fufficient for me, if mine may be

a Reply, p. 105,.

fe Second Defenfe, p. 82.

« Second Defenfe p. 140.

* Firft Defenfe, p. 34, &»c. Second Def. p» 1^5, 8Pr.

^ "^OuT ^'z <p^ntn TtdT a!v TKnVy 0 Travrai, t/^ i>r' 'i<mf u\thYi^
jtc?f, c/f«ufiT8f 3 -mi cI^aAfiTw^ Tuyns^vKOinv hmtVHWii 77j/jf.

fm^i^S rd Tb dya^^ >^ TrnvTHK^vs^^ ^Knf^n mTsU* Clem.
Alex. Strom. 7. c t. p. 852.

* Second Defenfe, p* 513.

O true^

C pS ]

true; he fhould prove on the other hand that his
mtjl^ He appeals to all that underftand Greek, So
do I, and to the Context likewife. Bilhop BidU Le
J^onrry, and the Learned Editor of Clemens ( who, I
believe, underftood Greek) had declared before-
hand for my Conftrudion. Let this Gentleman pro-
duce his better Vouchers, if he has any, to fup-
port his Pretences about the Nature of the Greek
Tovgiie : Which he may fometimes happen to miftake,
and pretty widely too, as appears by his Verfwns,
Fis Trayijlatiov^ as he calls it, of this very Place of
Cle7ne7iSy is no Tranjlatiojiy but a loofe Faraphrafe f ^
and fuch a one, that no Man could ever imagine
from it what the Greek Words are. Whether I am
right or no, he is moft certainly wrong in taking the
Liberty he has, offoijling in Words, and altering the
Turn of the Expreifion, to help out his Conftrudtion.
But befides thar, the Conftruction it felf appears
to me fomewiiat/o;r^i^ and unnatural, as referring i^
imhiqtL to the Negative going before, and to the j^>y/
Member of the Seiitenre, rather than the fecond •,
when in the preceding Sentence, of like Kind, the
ilnrd Part hangs upon the fecond. The moft natural
Conftrudion therefore feems to be this •, JFho is Lord
of all, etiam maxime ferviens \ &c. even vohen
Tnoji fubfervient, &c. that is, even in his loweft
Condefcenfion, becoming incarnate, which Clemens
had been fpeaking of. In the very next Page, re-
fuming the AiTertion of the Son's being Lord of all,
he again qualifies it, in like manner, by referring
all up to the Supreme Father.

V. We now come to TertuHian: Where he taxes me
with a MifconJlrttBion ; owning however that he had
gone before me in the fame, I muft acknowledge I
look'd upon the Conftrudion of that Place as donhi-

f Reply, p' 511. Comfare my Second Def. p. 515.
"^ As to ihe like ConJlYuaion of fj^Ki^ In Clemens, fee ^* I $8,
^50, 45^, 443> ^-03 759> ^-i, ful

[ 99 1

ftil^ at leaft «, for which Reafon I had never cited it
in my fn^Defenfe, or elfewhere, to prove Fatlier and
Son om God. But finding at length, that foine
learned Men fo underftood the Place, and obferving
that the Rejily alfo came into it, I thought I might
then fafely ufe it. If it be a Miftake, (as probably
it may ) it Ihould not however have come under the
Head of grofs Mifre^refevtatiom.

He next charges me with a great Neglect, as omit-
ting to take notice of what the Reyly had objedled to
my Conflrudion of a Place in Tertnlllan, tho' I again
quote the Place. It is unreafcnable in the Man to
eiped particular Notice of every thing that he has
any where occafionallydropt, when he has flipp'd over
many and more material Things of mine : But I ha\^
accuftomed him fo much to it, that now he inliftsupoii
it. After all, his Conflrudion of, fiiojjire, s in Ter-
tullian h, which he makes to be the fame vjith^ fevfn
fbiprnprio, is fo extravagant, that it might be fafel/
left with any Man that knows Tertnlliafi, or knows
Lativ. What could Tertnllian fay lefs than that God
the Son was God Omnipotent in hisomi Right, when he
fo often proclaims him to be of the fame Snbjlavce with
the Father? It is not faid merely /tio yV^ omnipotens,
hut fiio jure Deus ommpotejis : And as the Meaning of
fitojure is well known to all that know Latiji 5 fo ars
Tertidlians Principles well known to as many as
know him^ and that he makes the Son God in the
fame Sevfe as the Father is, as partaking of the fam^
Divine Snbjlance. TertiiUian therefore could not mean^

I Reply, f, 509- . . ^ ' ^

h Omnia, mquit, parris mea fint, cur non & nomina?
Cum ergo le2;is T>eum otnnipetentem^ & Ahijjimunh & Beufft
'Vivtufum, & Re^em Ifraelis, & Qui eji ; vide ne per haec Filius
etiam demonftretur ; ftto jure Deus omnipotens, ^aa Sermo
Dei omniposentisi Qp^^ TertHJl. adv* Prax. c. 1 7.

[ TOO 3

as this Gentle man fays, that the Son is God Al-
mighty, hi a Sevfe proper to him, or vpov a Ground
peculiar to himfelf-^ fince Tertiillians Principles plain-
ly make Father and Son God in the fame Sevfe, and
upon the fame Gromid, as being of the fame Divine
SitbJIance. But this he might mean, and this he did
mean, that the Son is Almighty God difUnUly, and in
his own proper Perfon, and Right •, and not confider'd
as the Perfon of the Father, which Praxeas pretended.
This Gentleman however, by endeavouring to find
out feme Mifinterpretations of 7nine, does nothing elfe
but difcover more and more of his own.

He is in the fame Page, (p. 12$. J cavilling at a
very innocent Tranflation of an Arian Paffage in
my Book ^^ 5 where I render /i/tt virtnte, by his own Power.
He will have it, that it does not mean the Son's ow7i
Power, but his Father^s, becaufe fuppofed to be given
him : Which is nothing but equivocating upon the
Word own. The Meaning undoubtedly is, that the
Son created all Things by his own natural, inherent
Power 5 though fuppofed to be given him, with his
Nature, by the Father. And this is all I meant in
my Verfion of the Words : It is obfervable however,
that this Gentleman never 3^et came up fo high in
his Dodrine, as the ancient Arians did. They fup-
pofed Chrift invefted with creative Powers by the Fa-
ther ^ which is a great deal more than making him
meerly an hifinmient in the Work of Creation,

As to Tertnllians Meaning in fome Paffages which
this Author produced to prove that Souls were coifuh-
jlavtial with God 1, (according to that Writer) as much
as the Son was fuppofed to be by the Nicehe Coun-
cil, it was fo mean, and fo unworthy a Suggeftion,

^ Second Defenfe, ^. 411.

i Sse Reply, p 55, 225, 328. Preface, p 6.

that

[ 101 ]

that I thought it proper to vindicate ^ TertuUmi, as
falfelj charged in that Matter. It was of fome mo-
ment that TertiilUan had utterly denied it of Avgeh-^
or even Archavgeh, and of the higheft Order. This
the Objector takes no notice of. Tertidllan denies
that the Sovl comes up iifqiie ad vim dlvhntatis^ and
explains himfelf inoffenlively on that Head : as I
obferved. Nay, he argues through the whole Chap-
ter againft Marckns Tenet, of the Soul being fvb-
Jiajitia Creatoris, the Subftance of (or cojijjihjfantial
with) its Creator, Yet this Writer here goes on
with the fame ridiculous Charge, founding it upon
"Words that exprefs nothing of it. What the Words
mean, I intimated at large in the Place referred to" :
And this Gentleman makes no Reply to it. Why he
did not, is beft known to himfelf.

VI. We come next to Origev, whom it feems I
have greatly injured in rendring, fj.iTiAi^ -^ Uvta ^
7^< fjutytKc-iorAQ--, hath imparted even his Greatvefs o, in-
ftead of has i7?ip art ed even of his Greatvefs. p But I a in
fure he has injured Orjgen a great deal more by fup-
prelling the remaining Part of the Sentence, which
Ihows what Origen meant, vi%. that the Son is com-
Tnevfiirate with the Father in Greatvefs. This was not
imparting fome fmall pittance of his Greatnefs,
but equal Greatvefs, or his whole Greatnefs: And this
Gentleman might have confidered that fAi-mJ'i^f^i
commonly governs a Genitive Cafe ^ which is fuffici-

»n Second Defenfe, p. loo. Compare Pamelii Paradox.
TertuUian. ?7. 5.

n Second Defenfe, p. 119. vld, Tertull. contr. Marc.
L. 2. c. 9.

o Second Defenfe, p. 45»

V Obfervations, |?. 25, 12^*

ent

[ IO>2 ]

ent to take off the Force of his CnUcifm: Though I
inuil: own, I fee but little difference in the two Waj'-s
of fpeaking, nor that either of them may not be ad-
mitted •, provided only that the whole Senfe of Origen
in that Paflage be taken along with it.

As to another Place of Origen, this Writer defires
that my Defeufe q, and his Reply ^ may be compared ^
which I delire alfo.

The fame I fay as to a Third Place ^ of Origen,

As to a Fourth Place in Origen, this Writer is
pleafed to ftand corrected in refped of his Travjlation
of it, which I found fault with t. As to his further
Endeavours to defeat the Meaning of that Place, I
am willing to truft them with the Reader, after he
has feen the PalTage it felf, and what I have faid
upon it.

Another PafTage of Origen I fhall likewife truft
with the Reader, if he pleafes but to look into my
Secovd Defevfe ^ . This Writer here, (p. 127. ) talks
of my Conftrudion being contrary to the Nature of
all Language 5 as if the Nature of Language never
admitted any AdjeBive to ftand alone, the Suhjtantive
being fufificientl}'' intimated from the Context. But
this is his forward v/ay of talking: And he feems to
think he has a right to be believed upon his IFord.

y II; This Article concerns Novatian. I have fully
exprefs'd my felf, as to this Author, in many Places

q Second Defenfe, p. 6^, 109. Reply to Dr. Whlthy^

p, 24.

r Reply, > 83, 84* 85-

s Co?7;f ire Reply, p. 25)5. 4;?^ Obfervations, p. 63. with mj
Second Defenfe, p.i-i6y 402.

f Second Defenfe, p. 397, 39S,

« Second Defenfe, pc 6^^

of

C 103 ]

of my Deferifes, which the Reader that thinks it
of Importance, may pleafe to confult. I forbear
any farther Difpute about the Rea'divg of a certain
Paflage, till the Learned Mr. V'ekJmans new Edition
of that Author appears, which may probably give
us fome farther Light into it.

VIIL The Eighth Article, inftead of proving any
Mifreprefevtation upon me, only revives the Memory
of a great one of his orpn ^ 5 which difcovered his fmall
Acquaintance with the Ancients. As to this Writer's
Exceptions to Hippolytiis, I have fufficiently obviated
them elfewhere : ^ And one would think that Tertid-
lians Ufe of the Word Verfom^ in the fame Senfe with
Hippolytiis^s 'TTfoazo'Tov^ might have fcreen'd the lat-
ter from this Author's Cenfure in that particu-
lar. But fuppofing I had lefs to plead for my fay-
ing that the SabelUajt Singularity confifted in ma-
king the Godhead uovo7r(?j<fz^'7r^^ and that I had ex-
prefs'd it in a Phrafe that came not into \Jk till the
4th Century 5 can there be a greater Mark of Fedav-
try, than for a Man to take me up, and cavil at the
bare Exprejjion, and to charge me with an Cv-
truth upon it ? How would it look, to charge BajU^
and Chryfojlom, and Theodoret, as reporting a thing
votorionjly initrve, when they reprefent SahclUm as
making the Godhead ei' rrr^'o^Trov, juft as I do > Would
not the Man be taken for a Jejier, or a very igno>
rant Man, in doing it, as cavilling only at a Mode
of Exprejjion^ But I proceed.

IX. The Author here cenfures me for rendring ,t^-
v&f'xjdi by Unhy^ rather than Mor.archy, in a Palfage

» See my Second Defenfe, f. 212,
> Second Defenfe, p. lo^j 243.

Z of

[ I04 ]

of Pope Diofiyjius «. M]^ Reafons for fo doing, I con-
ceive, were fuch as theft: i. That the fame Diovyjiits
had exprefled the fame thing a little higher by the
Word (xovdM^ which fignifies Uyiity : And he feems to
have chofen (juhvo^xkh after, only to vary the Phrafe.
2. Becaufe in the Words immediately preceding, he
is fpeaking of the Union of Father and Son •, by
which he folves the Difficulty objedred, and not by
throwing the Omnefs of Godhead upon the Father
alone, exclulive of the other Perfons. 5. Becaufe
n^/ctf, Trivity, is the Word oppofed to .«^f£tf;^ja^ in the
fame Sentence 5 Blonyjim Ihowing that there muft be
a Trhnty^ and withal an Unity (fay I) preferved.
Thefe Reafons made me prefer the Word Unity. When
this Author has better for the Word Monarchy^ and
in his Senfe, ^ I Ihall be ready to accept it, inftead of
the other,

X. Here I am charged with mif-tranflating a Word
InEvfebiiis^ h^-nnxivn, which I render cow_pa(J7^^ ^ that
is, conftitiited 5 which, it feems , is wonderfully done.
But the Wonder mcLY ceafe, if it be coiifidered, i. That
in the fame Place the Equality is mentioned as be-
longing to tlie Ternary Number, here conlidered as a
Figure of the Trinity, 2. That the t^xa^ is there
alfo made the one 6«f;^i, Source of all Things. 9. That
the whole tua^ is faid to be h^r,'.fj.'ivi\ compa&ed, as I
render it. For, had the Meaning been that Two

«- Second Defenfe, p. 114.

^ It is to he )2otedy that /uoyapy^ct-, in this SuhjeB, fometimes Jtg-
nifiesy not Monarchy, but Unify of Headfhip, or Principle^
Source, or Fountain, as in Athanafius.

jweieoi >9 /uavetfx^ '^.» Athan. Orat, 4. init,
'* Second Defenfe, ^» nj,

Perfons

Perfons were dependent on ojie, the Epithet
would not have been applied to the whole Trinity,
4. There's a plain Oppofition between the r^df
and the -r^y -pfj-my. Whether thefe Reafons may con-
convince our Writer or no, I know not : If he plea-
fes, he may go on woidrivg at very ylahi Tilings, to
fliow his want of RefieBon. He will have it that
tifwiiivii there lignifies a Convexioji of Things, one
depending ojt or derived frovi another. He has not
thought fit to give us any Trayijlation of the Place,
according to his own Sevfe of it : But all he fays, in
favour of it, is only Mifreport of the Ufe of the
Word AvafX^-) ^s I fhall ihow hereafter.

The Second PaiTage » of Enfebius I leave to the
Reader -, this Gentleman having no way of eluding
my Senfe of it, but by mifreprefenting it, after his
Manner.

XI. The next relates to Gregory Nyjfen^, where
this Writer has nothing to iliow but Chicane. I
tranflate fome Words that may be feen in the Place
referred to, thus : JSYither let vs dijfolve the ivnnedlate
Comiexioj^hy conjide/mg theWill in the Generation. Upon
which my acute Cenfor thus remarks : As if the
Author meant to fay, that, confidering the Will of the
Father in the Generation of the Son, would be a dijfolvirg
of the immediate Connexion. 'No, neither the Author,
nor I meant to fay it : The Words immediately fore^
going Ihow that we did not -, nor does my Tranjla-
tion iipply any fuch Thing. But the Meaning is^
that die Notion of JHII was not to be carried fo far,
as to deftroy that neceilary Connexion.

XII. As to the Paflage of Cyril, and my hference,
as he calls it, from it ( which is not my Inference^

» Second Defenfe, -p. 152.

> See my Second Defenfe, ;?. 303, 304.

P bnt

but an InGerence which is mentioned as having fome
Colour, and at the fame time confitted by the late
lea-vued BenediBiveEditov.as I obferved^:) This Writer
might as well have let it alone ^ unlefs he had known
more of it. Had not that Learned Editor given us
rnuch better Arguments againft that Liferevce than
the Ohj'ervator has, it would be more confiderable
than he imagines. The Reader, that dellres to know
more of this Matter, may confult the learned Toutee's
Diflertation fi , be /ore referred to 5 and which this
Writer has fraudulently concealed from the Reader,
in order to make way for his Charge upon me.

My Words are thefe : "It there is any thing to be
*' fufpeded of Cyrils it is rather his excluding the
*' Father from being Creator^ than the Son from be-
*' ing efficievt : But the late learned BenediBhe Edi-
*' tor has fuihciently clearM up CyriVs Orthodoxy on
" that Head, Now, after I had fo plainly declared
againft the Ivferevce, is it not very unaccountable
in this Gentleman to charge me with it, and in the
mamwr he does ? The DoEors Iviferevce^ fays he, from
the Words of Cyril, h as 7 emarkahle an Irfance of the
Strength of Trejiidke^ as (I thivk) I ever 7net mth^
p. 1 3 1. 1 may much more reafonably fay, that this Re-
prefentation is as remarkable an Inftance of the
Strength of Malice^ as t ever met with. See my
Secovd Befevfe, p. 3? 5, 337, 417. where I take no-
tice of the Father being reprefented as iflumg out
OrJ^n for creating, and the Son as creathig-.^hich.
is CynVs Notion alfo, and which affords fome Colour
for the hfereyice before- mention'd , but Colour only,

« Second Defenfe, -p. 53^,

^ Differ tat. $ 4e Po£lrin. Cyrilli. p. 139, 6'r,

[ '^7 1

and not Ground fufficient for it, as I before inti^
mated, acquitting Cyril oi it.

I have now run through the whole Charge of very
grofs Mifreprefevtatiojis, of which the foregoing In-
ftances are the Specmeji, all that this Gentleman
could find. No body doubts of his Inclination to
have pick'd out the very worft that my Books could
any where afford ; and Thefe are they. I thank him
for them. I could not, I think, have defired a
fuller Teftimony, from an Adverfary, than this is,
of my Fidelity in the Matter of ^iotatio7is ^ I might
almoft fay, Care, and ExaBvefs beyond what I had
expeded. For though I had taken the beft care I
could, in reviling every Thing of that kind, and
again comparing it with the Books themfelves, as my
Papers went through the Frefs, and was certain not
to be wilfully guilty of any Miftake ^ yet I knew not
whatanaMeCWtfc/vi might pollibly difcover after me,
in a Work that had not long time to lie by, nor had
pafs'd through the Hands of my judicious and learn-
ed Friends. But perhaps our Ohfervator has been
TiegUgent in examining, or is not very acute : And fo
I fhall not affiime upon it.

One thing, I hope, will be obferved, that though
this Writer has found no grofs Mifreprefev.tations of
mine, he has made feveral of hisoi^??; wl.ich may
now be added to the reft above-mention'd, under my
Secrmd Chapter. And to his former Mifreprts of the
Ancients, may be added another great one which
he has in p. 130. 'Tis votoriom, fays he, that the-
JfWd <iyafxB- rvas always appropriated to the Father^
The contrary is notorious to all that know Antiqui-
ty. ^'Avcifx©- is very often applied to God tlie Son,
by the Fojl-^ncejie Fathers ^, of the fam.e Century

* Epiphanius paflim. Gregoy. Nazlanz. Orar. p. 421, 5^2,
^30. Greg. Nyff. cojitr. Eiinom. 1, i. p. nS.

P 2 with

C ^08]

with Enfehhis^ tho' fome Years later 5 and more than
once direBly by the Aritemanes alfo f. As to iiiAireB
Application of it to him, in refped cf his Genera-
tion 01 Exifience^ as being Ava^iy©-^ or ctict^ vy^, nothing
more common g: Enfebhis himfelf is an Evidence for
it ^. But why will this pofitive Gentleman make
Reports of Antiquity, till he knows more of it?

CHAP. V.

^ Summary View of the Judgment of the
Ancients, upon the ^lefiion, \Vhether God
the Father be naturally Ruler and Governor
over God the Son.

SINCE the Author of the Obfervations has been
pleafed to reduce the Controverfy to this fingle
^lejHoji i , and to boaft highly of the AvcieVits as
holding the Aflrmative , charging the Negative
as being an unheard-of FiBiov, and Invention of

ATmoyJjj^ r\'-' c'vtw:', ^ vi'ow Clem. Alex. p. 829.

Alex, a^ud Athanaf. '^^ol I. f. 254.

g Clem. Alex. p. 832. Ahxand, Alex, apud 7heod. 1. i. c.4.
p. 19. Cyrill. Bievof, Catech. XI. c 13. p. 155. Athanaf.
Vol. I. p. <)<), 525.

fa Eufeb. in Pfalm. -p, 1 5.

I The main thing he lays to my Charge^ is the denyhig the alone
natural Vommon^ p. 8, 9> 15, 24, 27, 52, 40, 44, 46, 89, 118,
119.

mme.

[ lop ]

mine, with repeated Lifidts, and fuch a Degree of
groundlefs Ajjuravce^ as is fcarce to be paralleFd : I
fay, fince he has indulged himfelf in thefe peculiar
Strains, it may not be improper to lay before the
Reader, a Summary View of the aywient Dodtrine
upon that Head. I fhall content my felf with Refe-
revces, for the mofl part, to my own Books ^ point-
ing out to the Reader fuch material ^uotatiom, rela-
ting to this Queftion, as lie fcattered in feveral Parts,
under feveral Heads, in the Courfe of our Debate.
I Ihall follow the Chronological Order of the Fa-
thers, Ihowing all the way for what Reafons I judge
that every one refpedively was in the fame Perfua-
fion that I defend, and not in the contrary Hypo*
thejis,

u^. D. Il6. I G N A T I U S.

Igmtim did not believe that the Father is mUirallj
Governor over the Son, but the contrary : Becaufe
he acknowledged the CovfubJianUallty k, and Coeterm-
ty * , and Neceffary-exijieywe ^ of God the Son. Any
Supremacy of the Father confident with thefe Doctrines
of the Soyi, may be readily admitted. But the Ad-
verfary has not been able to produce any Teftimony
from him to prove the jmUiral Dominion of the Fa-
ther over the Son. What he has pleaded may be feen
in the Reply ", and a Confutation of it in my Second
JDefevfe ^.

* See Bull. Tfef. E N. p. 40.

1 See Bull D. F. p. 174, &c.

m See my Second Defenfe, p, 254, &c.

» Reply, p. 16 1 i 294.

• Second Defenfe, p 254, Qpc 281, 284. "

2 I may

[ no]

I may juft take notice of an incidental Remark
which this Writer drops (p. 63. ) to invalidate fome
of my Teftimonies for the Son's Neceffary-exifteyice,
He fays, that ^uV«, or v^ <pvcnv does not exprefs Ne-
ceffary-exifience ^ for Man is ^yV«, or k? ^o'otv ctf-S-^a^©-,
Admitting this, yet ^yVw ^V can never be applied to
any thing but what exifts vecejfanly : And it may
always be certainly determined from the Context^ or
Circumftances, or from the Author's ufual Phrafeology^
what (puV«, or xj^ eucnv lignifies in any ancient Writer :
And this Gentleman will not be able to fhow that I
have mifconftrued the Phrafe fo much as in a fvgle
Teftimony. Suppofe, for inftance, Natura bonus^
snay be fometimes applicable to a Mayi^ or an An-
gel 5 yet it may at other times fignify I\ecejfary-ex'
iftevce ih plainly, that no one can doubt' of it :
Particularly in Tertidliav, in this Sentence : Bomis
yiattira Deusfohs : ^ii evi?Ji quod efl Jive initio hahet^
ran injiitiitione hahet illud, fed 7tatvra, &c. Tertull
adv. Marc. 1. 2. c, 6.

146. Justin Martyr.

Jtijlin Martyr did not believe that the Father is m-
turally Ruler or Governor over the Son.

1. Becaufe he declares that God the Son is not ^7/0-
ther God p befides the Father 5 at the fame time ac-
knowledging the Son to be God, ^ ^ •

2. Becaufe he allerts the Son's Covfiihjfavtiality q.

3. Becaufe he gives to God the Son fuch high and
great Titles as Scripture appropriates to the one true
God of Ifrael ^

p See my Anfwer to Lr. Whitby, ]>. 49, Sec. Second Def.

«i See Bull V.F. p. 65, &c.

' See my Second Defenfe, > ijc^

4. Be-

[ III ]

4. Becaure he teaches the Neceffary-exijlence of God
the Son \

5. Becaufe he declares for the WorJInp of God the
Son, yet admitting no Worlhip as due to any but to
God alone t.

Any Supremacy of the Father y co7iJi(fevt with thefe
Doftrines of the S077, may be admitted. But the
Adverfary has not produced any Teftimony that may
not be fairly accounted for upon the Foot 0^ volnvtary
Oeconomy, or mtiiral Priority of Order The prin-
cipal Pretences from this Father's Writings may be
feen in the Reply ^ , and the Anfwers in my Second,
Defevfe ^. Let this Gentleman difprove the Particu-
lars here aflerted , or if not, let him admt them,
and then we need not difpute farther.

170. L U C I A N.

Luciatf, or fome other contemporary Pagan Writer,
bears Teftimony to the Faith of the Chriftians iii
his Time, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft : Which
means there 07ie Godfnpremei in the whole Three.
This Do6trine is not confiftent with any mtitral Do-
minion of God the Father over God the Son : But is
rather a full and clear Teftimony for one com?non
Dominion of all the Three Perfbns.

s Second Defenfe, f, 16^,

' M) Sermons, ^. 299. Defenfe, f 24S, ^^6, Second
pefenfe, ;>. 71, 3S6.

w Reply, ^. 129, &c. 263, &c. 295, 575.

'f Second Defenfe, f 150, &c. \6\, 264, 285, &:c. 585,
594, 6cc. Compare Nourii Apparat. ad Bibl. Max. p. 405, &c.
Vol, I.

y See my Sermons, f 503. Second Defenfe, p, 72.

277, A T H E,

[ "2 ]

177. Athenagoras.

Athemgoras could not believe any vaUiral Rule
QVer God the Son :

1. Becaufe he aflerts his Covfithjlantlality '^,

2. Becaufe he aflerts his Coeteniity^,

-3. Becaufe he makes Father and Son 07ie God^,

4. Becaufe he maintains the Son's Necejfary-ex-
ijlence c.

5. Becaufe he is exprefs for the common Bomhnon
of Both d.

Nothing can be pleaded on the contrary, but what
is eafily reconciled by admitting a Temporal ProceC-
lion, Generation, or Manifeflation of the Son, and
a Priority of Order in the Father. The Pretences
of the Reply e are all anfwered in my Second Defenfe f.

i8t. Theophilus,

For the ConfuhfiantlaVity, and Coetermty maintain'd
by this Writer, Bifhop Bull may be confulted. Be-
fides which, he gives Chrift the Title of )we^©- 0 b^h^^
God abfolutely fo called s : And he drops fome Inti-
mations, by a Similitude which he makes ufe of,
that Father and Son are one God, and have ojie Do-

* See Bull. P. K p. 71. Nonrrii Appar. Vol. i. p 487.

» See Bull D. F. p. 203. Nourii Appar. Vol. i. p 485.

*» See my Sermons, f. 301. Second Defenfe, p 72.

c Second Defenfe, p 266,

^ Second Defenfe, ^.77.

« Reply, p 57, 105, &c. 299.

f Second Defenfe, p 72, 6cc. 2(^7. &c. ^90, 387.

« Second Defenfe, p, 135.

minlou

[ "5 3

fnivmt h. Objedlions of the Re^Iy ^ have been confi-
dered and anfwered ^.

187. I R E N iE I^ S.

Irev&vs could never believe that the Father is ;:a^
tnrally Governor over the Son.

1. Becaufe he afcribes to God the Son Titles and
Attributes peculiar to the God of Ifrael ^ , God Su->
preme.

2. Becaufe he aflerts his CojifuhJlantiaVityy Cceter-
yjity^ and A^ece/]aryexijle7ice^.

3. Becaufe he makes Father and Son ove God ".

4. Becaufe he exprefsly excludes any ivferior God,
and clearly intimates that God the Son has no God
above him o.

There is nothing on the contrary to be pleaded
from this Author, but what may be fairly, and
eafily reconciled upon the Foot of the Oeco7w??iy, and
the natural Order of the Perfons ♦, as hath been par-
ticularly fhown p in Anfwer to the Reply %

h Second Defenfe, p. 158.

» Reply, p. 114, 14a, 270.

^ Second Defenfe, p. 1571 ^90) ^^'

^ Second Defenfe, p* 15^.

'" Second Defenfe, ^ 2dS, &c.

ti Sermons, p. 303. Second Defenfe, p' 66, 78, Scd

« See Firft Defenfe, p. 54 Second Defenfe, p, 86,

P Second Defenfe, p. 60, 66, 78, &c. 1351, 235, &c. 26S,
271, 292, 388.

<i Replyj p' 10, 17, 19, 23, 41, 60, 61, 61, 93, Q^c^ 140?
239) a83> ^9h S19» 393» 4i7) 484? 49<5> 5^7-

X$2. CLE

192. Clemens of Alexavdna.

This ancient Writer could never have a Thought
of fvLjeciivg God the Son to the natural Rule and Go-
vernance of God the Father. For,

1. He afferts the veceffary Exijievce ^ of the Son,
which is an infuperable Bar and Obftacle to any
fuch Siihje[iio7t.

2. He makes him to be the Jehovah, the Almighty
God s of the Jews^ who had no God above him..

9. He even equalizes ^ x\\q Son, that is ^ proclaims
him equal to the Father.

4. He gives him the Titles 0 ^l- «, and ^jrsiTo^c^^y'TWf %
Titles exprelllve of Dominion fuperne^ and fuch as
the Ohfervator would tranfiate fvpreme God, and /«-
l);'e7?je Ruler, whenever fpoken of the Father.

5. He m.akes Father and Son ove God of the whole
Uviverfe ^ : Which certainly expreifes Equality and
Union of Domimoji.

6. Laftly, He addrelTes to Both together as ove
Lord c; which does not look like addreiimg to a So-
vereigyi aud his natural SnhjeB^ but to one God and
"Loidfnpreme, The Author of the Reply iliowed his
good Wiilics and Endeavours ^ to ebide the Teftimo-
nies : But failed in the Performance ^.

^ Second Defenfe, p. 271.

s Second Defenfe, p. 140.

f Second Defenfe, p- 90.

" Second Defenfe, p. 184.

a Second Defenfe, 1S5, 513.

^ Second Defenfe, p, 6t, 89. Sermons, p, 305.

c Second Defenfe, p. 89.

^ Reply, p. 80, &c. 140, 190, 227, 377.

c 5fe Second Defenfe, p, 89, 1097, 14c, 292.

200. T E R'

[ 115 ]

200. Tertullian,

Terudlian could nex^er think that the Father is va-
tiiralh the Son's Ruler, or Governor.

J. He admits the vecejjary Exijhiice of the S071 ^.

2. He makes Both to be 07:e Siihjlance, and oris
God g.

9. He rejects with Indignation the Notion of an
ivferior God ^ .

4. He diredlv and exprefsly afTerts the one Power,
and Dignity of Botli * . The Objedions made by
the Reply ^ are anfvvered at large ^ ,

225:. HiPPOLYTUS.

This ancient V/riter could not fuppofe God the
Son to be naturally under the Rule of God the Fa-
ther.

1. Becaufe he makes them Both 07je God "^, and
confequently one Col fiipre-me,

2. He aflerts the Covfuhjiantiality " , and nece£ary
ExiJIeyice o of God the Son.

f Second Defenfe, p, 274.

g Sermons, p, ^06. Second Def. p. 97, 6-]. Compare p, 14T.
^ Firft Defenfe, p. 54. Second Def. p. 204.
i Second Def. p. 100, 204. Bull. D. F. ^. 161. Statu ah
ahero div=rfunt non ejjey idem valet atque illud ipji non ejfe fubdi"
turn., fed par ^ ^qttaJe. Bull. Ibid,
k Reply, p. 55, III, 16.
1 Second Defenfe, p, 97, to 105, 141.
m See my Sermons, p. 307. Second Defenfe, p, 107, 142,
Pirtt Defenfe, p. 22.
n Firft Defenfe, p. ^66.
« Secoxid Defenfej p, 39.

Q. 2 3. Kc

[ I<^ 1

3. He joins all the Three Perfons equall}^ in his
Doxology p , which can by no means be fuitable to a
Sovereign and his Siihje&s.

The Objedions made by the Reply q have been
eafily folved r upon the Foot of the Qeconomy^ and
Piftindion of Order.

249. O R I G E N.

Orlgei% in his certainly genuine Works, no way
favours the Notion of the^o?^ htiw^natiirally fubject
to the Father.

J. He alTerts Father and Son to be ove God \

2. He makes but one Object of Worfhip ^ of
Both.

3. He maintains the Son's mceffary ExiJIence'^ .

4. He is very exprefs for the Coexifience^ Costernhyy
a:id Cojifnhflantiality of God the Son ^.

^. He afferts, that the Son is coynmevf urate to the
Father, equal in Greatvefs ^ .

Any poiiible Suprefnacy of the Father confijlejtt
with thefe plain and avowed Doftrines, will not be
fcrupled. The Reply "^ hasboafted much of Origen the

P See Second Defenfe, f. 275. Sermons, p. 244.. and Hip-
poIy:ns. Vol. 2. p. iS. Fabric.

"i Reply, p. 13, 16, 20, 39, 61, ^5, 91, 117^ &c. 509.

r Second Defenfe, p. 37, &c. 61, 105, &c. 292, &c.

s See my Sermons, p. 309. Aafwer to Dr. JVhithy, p. 24..
Second Defenfe, p. 6S, 109.

^ Firft Defenfe, p. 259. Second Defenfe, p. 59^.

" Second Defenfe, p. 275.

a Firft Defenfe p. 20. Sermons, 242, 243, 244. Eeg aJfa
Bifiop Bull.

t Second Defenfe, p. 45.

^ Reply, 4, 5, 10, 18, 20, 23, 2S, 31, 42, 49, 5<^, ^9, 70*
14,85,187,219,242, 272, 295, 319, 327, 375, 380, &c.
442,446, &c,

othe\-

[ "7]

Other way, and produced Counter-Evidences-, but
fuch as are either not to be compared with ours for
Gemthmiefs and Certaivty^ or fuch as may be recon-
ciled d with the Dodrine here mentioned, by al-
lowing a Superiority of Office and Order. Let him
either difprove thefe Particulars, or reconcile them
with his Notion of the alove Supremacy,

25'o. Cyprian.

Cyprian has nothing in Favour of the pretended
vatiiral Dominion over God the Son j but the con-
trary.

1. As including all the Three Perfons iu the one
God ^

2. As applying to God the Son the appropriate Ti-
tles of the one true God ^.

The few Things which the Author of the Reply s
ihad to offer, are anfwered in my Second DefenjeK

25^7. NoVATIAN.

Novatlan looks more favourably to the Notion of
a natural Superiority of Dominion, than any Writer
before him. But as he has feveral Tenets ivconjijtent
with fuch a Notion, fo what he has that feenis moft
to favour it, does not neceffarily require an^ fuch
Senfe, but may very well bear a candid Conftru-
dtion.

^ Second Defenfe, p 45, iii, 2 7 5, &c. 294, 347, 6cc,
388, 398, &c.

' See my Sermons, ^.311,

f Second Defenfe, p, 143. Bull. D, E p 131.

« Reply, p. 10, 24, 28, 145.

* Second Pefenfc, 143, 404.

I. He

C ^'8]

1. He maintains EqmVity, and U7nty of Svhjlance «.

2. He allerts the Etennty ^ of God the Son -5 and,
as it feems, eten:al Generation ^ .

5. He applies fuch Texts to Chrift, as are inten-
ded of the Jehovah J and one true God of Ifrael "\

Thefe Tenets are by no means confiftent with a
ratitral Superiority of Dominion over God the Son;
Neither does Novatiav aflert any Subjeciion but what
may reafonably be underftood of the Oecommy, as I
have obferved ". The Pretences of the Reply are all
diiiindly confidered in my Second Defenfe. And
though the Obfervator « has fince charged me as be-
ing too ha fly, in faying, that the Ancients never
fpeak of Chrift as a conjiitvted God, becaufe of 2l
PalTage of Novatian, where the Phrafe is Deits confii-
ttitits 5 yet he thought proper to corxeal from the
Reader what I had faid p to obviate his Conftrudtiou
cf tliat very Place.

259. Dion Ysius of Alexandria,

Dionyjiv.s of Alexayidna could not be in the Hyfo^,
thefs of vatjiral Rule over God the Son.

I. Becaufe he aflerted the Coeternity of God the
Son, in very full and expreis Words q, and his eter-

i^aU begivvirglefs ^ Generation.

i Sesmy Firft Defenfe, ^. 15, 56, 3^4, 493. Second De-
feiife, p, 124, J46, 500.

^ Firft Defenfe, ^ iS7» B'c.

1 Firft Defenfe, f, 141.

» Second Defenfe, p. 145, 57*

J' Second Defenfe ;>. 57> 14^«

* Obfervaticns, f. 54.

p Second Defenfe, _f. 231.

^ 5ee wj Sermons, !>. 24<^= ^ ,/ , , >/ .w,

et^-i^los^ ©^?fiu4,<4oi' ^(/J^- DionyC ap. Athan. VoL i* p. 254,

^5'- 2. Be-

[ "9l

2. Becanfe he was as exprefs for the CovfiihJlctnUalU
ty, Name, and Things.

5. Becaufe he taught the necejfary Exifieyice of the
Son, reprefenting it as veceffaryiox: the Son to ccexijj'^
as for the Father to exift 5 as may be feen at large in
Athamjius. Beficlesthat in other Words t, he has alfo
exprefs'd the fame Thing.

4. He included all the Three Perfons in tl^e Momi^
or the one God, as I have Ihown elfev/here ^ : Which
is making all together one God fuprevie, directly con-
trary to the Notion of a jiatvral Superiority of Domi-
7nu7u The Refiy ^ has fome few things to ^dj of this
Author-, which had been long ago obviated by Bi-
fhop BiilU and are fince anfwered in my Second De-
fenfe ^, I might obferve too, how Diov.yjlus particu-
larly guards c againft the Notion of the Son's being
created by the Father, which is the only thing that
could be a Foundation of naUiral Dominion.

25:9. D I o N Y s I ir s of Rofjie.

This excellent Writer is no lefs full and plain a-
gainfl the Hypothecs of jiatiiral Superiority of Do-
minion.

' Vld, ap. Athanaf. Vol. i. p. 255, 230.

^ cwtdV ifJv sov 041 78 Tmrfji' Apud Athan. p. 254.
M Sermens, p. 5 14. Second Defenfe, |>. 46.
* Reply, p. 11, 391.
*> Second Defenfe, p. 46, 34^.

^Qv 7m.Ticgi tpn^aVT'O' cuJiiVi Iv a )^ Q i{Qi ti;^cr}i'yiy.7^cu» Ibid.
p. 257. "

4 .1 By

[ T20 ]

1. By declaring it Blafphemy to fuppofe the Soil a
Creature ^ , uiiderftanding Creature in the common
Senfe of precarious, or teviporal Exiftence.

2. By teaching the vecejfary Exijletwe of God the
Son, in as much as the Father never was, never couli
be without him « .

9. By including all the Three Perfons in the ojje
true Godhead ^, Some little Objedions of the Reply
to the Gemihwriefs of the Piece, are abundantly an*
fwered in my Second Defeiife z,

260. Gregory of Neoanfarea,

This celebrated Father is full and exprefs, in his
famous Creed, againftany thing created, ovfervievtin
in the Trhiity ^ ; afTerting one undivided Glory and
Domhimi of all the Three Perfons. There have been
Sufpiciom raifedagainft theGenuinenefs of this Creed ;
but fuch as have not been thought of fufficient Weight
by any of the beft Criticks, againft the exprefs Te-
ftimonies oiRuffimis^ and Gregory Nyjfen, confirmed,
in fome meafure, by Na'x.lanzen '\

Befides what Gregory has in his Creed, he has fome
confiderable Things to the fame purpofe in another
Work, written about the Year 239, and which is of
vrquejiioned Authority. The Titles and Epithets he

^ Firft Defenfe, f, 142, iC<^. Second Defenfe, p. 113,

342.

^ See Second Defenfe, -p. 11^. Sermons, f. 244.

f Sermons, -p. 311. Second Defenfe, p. 114.

s Second Defenfe, p. 4^, 342.

^ "Ol/T5 "iv KVr^Vy M i^^ov iv T? Te/*=0, &c. Te/fltV t^xh*,

^^ii. Fabric, ed. p. 224.

» Naiianx. Orat 57. j>. 60^, Orat, 40. p- 6(53.

therein

[ '^^ ]

therein gives to the Son, are, Creator and Goverjior of
all Things k, reaJly, or naturally, united to the Father ^,
the mofi: ]^erfeB living Word m . the laft ExprelFions
very like to fome in his Creed, and a probable Argu-
meat of their having the fame Author.

270. Antiochian Fathers.

The Synodical Epiftle of thefe Fathers gives to
God the Son fuch Titles as belong to the one true God.
But as they have nothing exprefs upon our prefent
Queftion on either Ude, it may be fufficient to have
mentioned them, and to refer « to what has been faid
of them.

293. Methodius is exprefs againd the Son's being i
Creature, and for eternal Generation, and immutabk
Exiftence « •. Tenets utterly repugnant to fuch a jia-
tural Inferiority as is pretended, What the Reply p
had to object, is anfvvered in another place <i.

;oo. Theognojlm is alfo exprefs againft 'the Son's
being a Creature, and for his Confubjiantiality ^ What
the Reply ' has to objed:, had been abundantly before
anfvVered by Bilhop B21IL

Bull. D. F. ^. 1 54.

n Reply, /J. iB, 20, 1^4, 148,445. Bull D. F. f 158, 199,
253. M.y Second Defenil', -p, 144.

^ Firft Defenfe, j. 143, 40^. Anfwer to Dr. Whicby, p 3 1.
Bull. D. F. p, 164, 20c.

p Reply, ^.290,334.

^ Second Defenfe, p, 294. Bull D. F. p. \66>

^ See Bull. P. F. p. 195.

? Reply, f. 333.

R go^ As

[ 122 ]

309. As to Anwhhis, little has been pleaded <m
either fide from him. He has fome ftrong Exprefli-
ons that feem to carry the Supremacy very high :
And he has other Expreilions very full for the trve^
and efTential Divinity of God the Son. Bifhop
Bull % and Le Konrry ", may be confultcd in refped:
cf Both the Parts, and how to make them covfijlent.

3 1 8. LaBaVitiiia has been largely confidered both in
the Reply ^, and in my Secovd Defeiife. He makes Fa-
ther and Son 07ie God ^. He makes Both ove Svh-
JIavce c . He defcribes him under the Characters of
the one true God ^, He fuppofes Both to be ove Ob-
jeB: of Worlhip ^. He joins the Son with the Father
in the fame Do?mv207i, and exempts the Son from the
Kecejjity of obeying f. Thefe Tenets are perfedly
repugnant to natural Superiority of Domivio7i in the
Father only. Neverthelefs, he has fome crude Ex-
preffions, fcarce excufable in a Catechv.meyi of his Abi-
lities.

322. Alexander of Alexandria,

This venerable Patriarch, Defender of the Catho-
^lick Faith againil his Prefbyter ^n'l/^, fhows in his
Two Letters, the Church's Do61:rine in his Time.

t Bnll. Tf. F. p. 169.

* Nourii Apparat. Vol. 2. ^. 950.

* Reply, ^. 49, 55, 6^y 86, Sec. 119, sSSr
h Second Defenfe, p. 115, 6cc.

c Second Defenfe, p. 116, 117.

* Second Defenfe, p. 145.

* Second Defenfe, -p. 404.
^ Second Defenfe, f 121.

2 He

He could not be a Friend to any mtiird Subjeaion
of God the Son. For,

1. He ailerts his Coetermty^ and Lifepar ability with
the Father.

2. He maintains his mcejfary Exljlence,

3. His vaUtral Divinity, or Godhead^ of and from
the Father.

4. His high or fupreme Godhead. Proofs of thefe
Particulars may be feen in my Seco-nd Defevfez-^
where alfo Objections are anfwered, fuch as had been
offer'd in the Reply h. Hitherto we have not found
one Man fall and exprefs for the vatiiral Government,
ormtiiral Subjedion among the Perfons of the facred
Trinity. Several have been here cited, who were
e:iprefsly againft it : And the reft implicitly condemn it t,
while none either dire&ly, or fo much as covfequenti-
ally maintain it. But now I take leave to name a
Man who did maintain it, and in pretty plain and
broad Terms.

323. A R I u s.

Arhis^ with his Confederates, in a Letter to Alex-
avder, delivers it for Dodrine i , that God the Fa-
ther niles over God the Son, as being his God, and

8 Second Defenfe, p. 48. Sermons, p. 244. FirftDefenfe,
$' 144-

i> Reply,f 57, 73, 291, 555>45i»49S.

* "^fX^ ^ «"^» *^'f ^°^ «^'^» ^ "^ (^ ^'^* -^P' Athan.
de Synod. Vol, 2. p. 730.

Phicbadius loell expreffes the Arian Voclrlne of natural Sah-
jeBion, at the fame time dijiinguijljing it from the Catholick DoBrine
#f Filial Minijivation.

Subjeftum Patri Filium, non Patris & Filii nomine, ut
^anfta & Catholica dicit Ecclefia, fed creatiirae conditione,
profitemini. Phcebad, jB. P. P, Tom. 5. p, 503.

R 2 having

[ 104 ]

having cxifted before him. Here may Dr. Clarhy
and his Followers fee the firft Lines of their Do-
ctrine •, whicfe was afterwards fill' d up, and com-
pleated by Aethis, and Eummhs.

Thefe were the Authors and Founders of that va-
tvral Supremacy of Dominion over God the Son, That
7iatii?-al Siihj'?8:ion and Servitude of two of the divine
Perfons, which thefe Gentlemen are fo eagerly con-
tending for •, and which, with as groiivdlefsj and f/iame'
lefs a Confidence as I ever knew, they prefume
to father upon the facred Scriptures, upon the ancient
Creeds, and upon the venerable BoBors of the Church •,
againft plain FaB^ againft the fuUeft and cleareft
Evidence to the contrary. I iliall proceed a little
lower to Ihow what Reception this Arian Conceit
met with.

I fhall fay nothing of Enfehiiis of C^farea^ of this
Time, a doubtful Man, and of whom it is difficult to
determine in the whole k.

340. Athanasius.

' Atlavaf.iis^ about this Time, began to write in
the Caufe againft Arius. His Expofition of Faith is
of uncertain Date: And fo I may place it any where
from the time he entered the Lift againft the Ariavs,
His Dodrine is well known from his many Works.
I Ihall cite but one fliort Sentence of his, fpeaking
of God the Son. He is Ruler Supreme , of Ruler
Supreme : For rvhatfoever thirgs the Father bears Rule
and BomiriiGn cver^ over the fame does the Son alfo ndc
and govern K

^ See ms Second Defenfe, *. 148 to 161,

'np y^ K^ci^riii ap^ei )^ y.^.th ^ o t/'y''- Athao. Expof. Fid.
Vol/i. ;. 99- ^

348. C Y-

[ 125 ] '

348. Cyril of Jemfalem.

The Elder Cyril was always look'd upon as a very
moderate Man, and not fo vehement againft the Ari-
am as many others. Yet let us hear how exprefsly
and fally he condemns the Doctrine of natural Sub-
jection in the Trhnty^ "^ owning none other but volmu
tary, audchofen,

^ All th'ivgs^ fays he, are Servants of his ( of the
Father ) But his ovly Son, aid his own Holy Sprit are,
exempt from the all Things : And all thefe Servants do, by
the one Son, in the Holy Ghoft, ferve the Mapr, o In
another place, the fame Cyril lays, The Father has not
one Glory, and the Son another, hut one and the fame. So
little Countenance had the alone Supremacy of Do-
minion, or natural SubjeBion of two divine Perfons at
that Time.

958. H I L A R Y.

Hilary's Doftrine on this Head, is, that the Sub-
jection of the Son, is vohmtary, and not by Conjiraint p ^

iVcc 'S!}^ccu^k(rei )y (ptho^c^yicL 7rei<Sr?' Cyrill. Cat. xv. n. 30. p. 24.0,

ffii ivG^ t'/w Of cl}i^ '^y^'yxiTJ i'ahdtH tcJ J^cojot^* CyrilL

o 'Oc -^ l>oduj c/i'r^ 57tt7>p, i^ A>^\w vioi ix^i ^^^ l^dM y^
r (UjtIuj. Catech. 6. p. 87.

p Subjeftio Filii naturae Pietas, fiibjeOrio autem cxteroriim
creationis infirmitas. Hilar, de Synod, p. 11^5.

that

that is to fa/, it is oeconovilcal, not mtitrah qln
another place, he directly denies that either the Son
is Servant to the Fatlier, or the Father Lord over him,
fave only in refped of the hwarvation of God the
Son : where he exprefsly again denies any mtvrd
Subjection of God the Son as fuch.

360. ZenoVerovejiJis^s Doctrine, to the fame Purpofe,
may be itQii in my Firji Befejtfe ^

970. BaJirsBlib, no lefs full and exprefs againfl
the pretended natural Dominion on one Hand, and
Subjeclio7i on the other, is fhown in my Second Be-
fevje K

37^. Gregory Nazianzens Teftimony, I Ihall
throw into the Margin ^ : The fame will be a Confir-
mation of the Creed of Thaumatiirgus.

980. Gregory ISJyffens Do6trine may be feen in my
J)efe}ifes u, very full to the Purpofe.

*s SeYVUi enim non erat, cum eiTet fecundum Spiritum
Deus Dei Filius. Et fecundum commune judicium, ubi non
eft Servusy neq; Viominus eft. Deus quidem & Pater nativi-
tatis eft unigeniti Dei : fed ad id, quod Sevvus eft, non pof-
fumus non nifi tunc ei Domlnum deputare cum Servus eft :
quia fi cum ante per natuvam non erat Servusy & poftea fe-
cundum naturam efte quod non erat coepit; non aha domina"
ttts caufa intelligenda eft, quam quae exftitit /^m^^^/j ; tunc
habens ex naturss difpenfarione 'Dom'wumy cum praebuit ex
hominis aftnmptione ^q- fevvum. Hilar, de Trin. /. xi. p. 1090.

» Firft Defenfe, f. 290. BulL D. F. f. 166.

« Second Defenfe, p. 21, 358, 508.

&V "^i ^ puKp^ <2?j^.-d?y ^opo^cd',' l(piK0(jipn7i\'' Orat. 5 7. p. 60^.

^ (To^Kv 771/©- h''c.y>'jTQr» Orat. 40. p. (^6(5".
»^ Firft Defenfe, p.. 290. Second Def. p. 21.

982, I

[ 127 J

382. I conclude with Amhrofe % having thug
brought the Dodrine low enough down. No doubt
can be made of the CathoUch, all the way following
to this very Time.

Thefe, after Scripture, are my Authors for that
very Dodrine which the Ohfervatrr every where,
without the leafl: Scruple, charges upon me as my
F'lBiov^ and hivevtiov. Such is his great Regard to
Truth, to Decejwy, and to common Jujike : Such his
Refped to tlie EvgliJI) Readers in impofing upon them
any the groiTeft, and moft palpable Ahiifes, Let him,
when he is difpos'd, or when he is able, produce his
Vouchers from CathoUck Antiquity, for the mtural
Subjedion of God the Son, or the natural Superiority
of the Father'5 Domhiion over him. He may give
Proof of a Superiority of Order ( which I difpute
not ) or of Offce which I readily admit : But as to
there being any vatural Rule, or natural Subjedion
among the divine Perfons, or within the Trinity it
felf, none of the Ancients affirm it •, all either di-
redly, or indiredly, reclaim againfi: it. He may
run up his Dodrine to Emwviius^ and fo on to Arius^
where it began. He, I believe, isthefirft Man upon Re-
that ever allowed the Pre-exijiejice and Perfonality of
the Logos, and yet made God the Son, as fuch, natu-
rally fubjed to the Dominion of the Father •, appoint-
ing him a Governor, Another God above him : Which
was really Arius's Senie, and is the plain Senfe
likewife of his Succeffors at this Day,

a- Non funt enim duo Domini, ubi Domlnatus umts efl ; quia
Pater in Filio, & Filius in Patre, 6w ideo Dmims unns,
Amhrof, de Sp. S. L. 3. c, 15. p 6^6,

The

[ 128]

The Conclusion.

'W Have nothing now to do, but to take my leave
J[ of thefe Gentlemen for this Time. If they are
difpofed to proceed in the way they have now taken,
it will be no great Trouble to me (while God grants
me Life and Health ) to do my felf JujHce^ as often
as I fee rteedfiil 5 and to fupport, with God's Ailillance,
the Caitfe I have undertaken, as well againft Caliim-
yjies now, as againft Arguments before. But I think,
Unce the ^jrgufnent is in a Manner brought to an End,
it is time for thefe Gentlemen to put an End to the
Debate too ^ left after expoflng the jreakvefs of their
Catife, they may meet with a move feujible Mortifica-
tion, by going on to the utmoft to expofe their omi.
They have done enough for Ananifin ^ and more
a great deal than the beft Caufe in the World ( tho'
theirs is a very bad one) could ever require.They have
omitted nothing likely to convince, nothing that
could be any way ferviceable to deceive their Rea-
ders. They have ranfack'd the Soci7mn Stores for
the eluding, and fruftrating the CathoUck Interpre-
tation of Uripttire-Texts, They have gone on to
Fathers: And whatever they could do there, by
wrejHng, and jlraimng, by mavglivg^ by mijinterpre-
tivg, by falfe rendrivg^ and the like, they have done
their utmoft to make them all Arians. And, left that
fhould not be fuihxient, they have attempted the
fame Thing upon the ancient Creeds^ and even
upon modern Confeiilons , upon the very Articles and
Liturgy of the Church of England, To compleat all,
having once found out the Secret of fetching in
what and whom they pleafed, they have proceeded

farther

[ 129 ]

ftrther to drag me in with the reft ^ into the very
Do61rine that I had been largely cojifntivg.

They have fpared no Pains, or Art, to difgnife
and colour over their wretched Tenets, and to give
them the beft Face and Glofs that they could pollibly
bear. They will not call the Son a Creature-, nay,
it was fome time before they would fay plainly,
that lie is not veceffarily-exiflivg, till the Courfe of
the Debate, and foine prefllng Straits almoft forced
it from them 5 and that, not till after fome of the
plainer and fimpler Men of the Party had lirft
blabb'd it out. At laft, they would^ feem not
fo much to be writing agahijl the Divinity of God
the Son, as /or the Honour of God the F-at^/.^/-. They
do not care to fay, they are pleading for the ratiird
Subjection and Servitude of the Son, but it is for the
mtiiral Dominion of the Father over him : And they
do not commonly chufe fo much as to fayThat,in plain
and broadTerms -, but they hint it,and mince it,under
theWords alove Supremacy of the Father sDomiviov. And
for fear thatThat (hould be taken hold on, and wreil-
ed from them, in due Courfe of Argument, they clap
in Authority with Dopi'mo7i ^ that they may have
fomething at lead that looks Orthodox^ fomething
that may bear a Colour upon the Foot of Antiquity^
as admitting of a double Meaning. And they have this
fartherYiew in covfoundivgcii'ixm^ things together, to
make a Show as if we admitted no Kind of Autho-
rity as peculiar to the Father when we deny his alove
Dominion ^ or that if we ajfert one, we muft of
courfe, and at the fame time, aflert Both. To
carry on the Difguife ftill farther, they reprefent
their Adveriaries as teaching that the Father has
710 mtiiral Supremacy of Authority and Dominion at

» See Reply, p 11^. Second Defenfe, ^. i<»7-

[ I30 ]

nil', without taking care to add, (what they ought
to add) over the Son and Holy Ghoji^ to undeceive
the Reader •, who is not perhaps aware what Sub-
jeBmi they are contriving for two of the Divine Per-
fons, while they put on a Face of commendable Zeal
for the Homiir of the Firft. Such is their excefllve
Care not to JImck their young, timerous Difciples ;
not to make them wife at once, but by degrees, after
leading them about in their Simplicity for a Time^
with their Eyes half open.

Befides giving a fair Glofi and Outfide to their ow7t
Scheme, they have next ftudioufly endeavoured to
expofe, and blacken the Faith received. It is Sabellia-
vifm, it is Tritheifm, it is Scholafiick Jargon, it is
Metaphyfcal Revery, Novfenfe^ Abfvrdity, Corjtradi-
820??, and what not : Contrary to Scripture, contrary
to all th€ Ancients, nay, contrary even to Moderns
alfo: And, to make it look as little and contemptible
as poliible, in the Eyes of all Men, it is at length
3"iothing more than Dr. lfaterland\ own Novel f i-
Bion and Invention,

Now, I appeal to all ferious and thinking Men,
whether any thing can be done, that thefe Men have
not done, in favour of their beloved Arianif^n ^ and
whether tliey may not now fairly be excufed, if they
lliould defiil, and proceed no farther. A great deal
lefs than this, though in ever fo good a Caufe, might
have been fufficient: And had they fung their
Liberavi Aniviam fome Twelvemonths backwards,
I know not whether any truly good and con-
fcientioiis Arian could have thought them De-
fcrters, or have condemned them for it. Let the
Caufe be ever fo right, or juft, yet who hath required it
at their Hands that they fhould purfue it to fuch
hideous Lengths ? Their Defign, fuppofe, is to pro-
mote Truth, and Godlinefs : Let it then be in God's
own Way, and by Truth, and Truth only. There

can

C i3« ]

can be no necefTity of deceivhg^ of hetrayhig, of he^
guilivg any Man even into Trvthj ( though this is not
Truth) bj Difgnifes, by Mif-reprts, by making
things appear what they jr^ ?;of , or not fuffering them
to appear what they really ^;'^. This is going out of
the Way, wide and far, and defending Tnith ( were
it really Truth ) by making fearful Inroads upon
SmpUcity and godly Sincerity , ui')on moral HoneJIy
and Probity.

In Conclufion, I muft be fo juft to my felf as to
fay, that confidering how I was at firft forced, in a
manner, into publick Controverfy, and what kind of
a Controverfy tliis is, and how often ^ and how a7:ci-
Mly before decided by the Churches of Chriji 5 I was
civil enough in engaging the Men fo equally as I did,
and upon fo fair Terms. I expeded, I defired no-
thing, but that they would make the beft ufe
they could of their own Underjlandings^ from which
we were promifed great Things. I invited them to
the utmoft Freedom, in difcuffing every Point within
the Compafs of the Queftion 5 only not to exceed the
Rules of juft and regular Debate ^ : That every
Brancli of the Caufe might have a new Hearing ^ and
be re-examind with all pofTible Stridnefs and Seve-
rity. In a word, all I required was, to difpiite fair^
to drop ambiguous Terms, or defne them, to contemn
every thing but Truth in the Search after Truth, and
to hep clofe to the ^ejiion ; at the fame time binding
my felf up to a careful and conftant Obfervance of
the fame Rules.

When their Reply appeared, I prefently faw how
far thofe Gentlemen were gone off from jufi Debate 5
and how little Inclination they had to difpute fairly^
or regularly. To prejudice the Readers, they began

^ See my Firft Defenfe, f 485» &Co

S 2 with

C t30

with Qjarges, and Complahits -^ all tnflh% mo^falfe 5
and fome fuch as they themfelves could fcarce be
weak enough to believe c. I need not fay what
followed. When I found how the Cafe flood,
I reminded them of their Mifconduct, fome-
times raifed my Style, and treated them with
fome Sharpnefs ( though with lefs than they had me,
with much lefs reafon, ) to let them know that I ww-
derjlood what they were doing, and that if I could
not be cojifiitedy I would not be covtemved. As They
had taken the Liberty of chargivg me very often, and
very uvfairly, with things that they could not prove ;
I made the lefs Scruple of charging Theyn with what
I coM prove. And this, I hope, the impartial Reader
will upon Examination find, that all t\\Q Seventy on
my fide lies in the Truth of the \hmgs proved upon
them 5 while theirs^ on the other, lies moftly in hiven-
tmi, and ^/^i/yTrt? Words, which, for want of Evidence
to fupport them, muft of Courfe return upon their
own Heads. They appear, in their laft Pieces efpeci-
ally, to be no great Friends to Ceremony: So that
I have reafon to believe, they will exped; the left in
return. I had hitherto been fo tender of Mr. Jackfajt^
as never to 7mme him ^ though his own Friends had
done it at full length : particularly the Author of
the Catalogue, Sec. and Dr. Jfhhby twice ^, promifing
the World fomething very confiderable from the^
accurate Fen of Mr. Jackfon. Accuracy is a thing which
I fliall not complain of, but Ihall ever receive,
^ven from an Adverfary, with the utmoft Reverence
and Refpc6t. I wifh this Gentleman had fliowa
fomething of it ^ if not in his Account of Scripture,
ox Fathers ( which his Hjpothejis perhaps would not
permit ) yet in his Reports, and Reprefentations^ at

c See my Second Defenfe, />. 1 6.

•» \Vhitby's Second Part of his B,eply, p 74, 12,2.

leafi^

[ '33 ]

leafi, of my Worcls, and my Senfe -, which might have
been expeded from a Man of Probity. Whether his
Writing without a Name, has been his principal
Encouragement to take the Liberties he has, I will
not be pofitive : But it is highly probable 5 becaufe
comition Prudevce, generally, is a fufficient Bar againft
it, ^in Men that have any CharaBer to lofe, any Repii-
tatio7i to be refponfible for it. The juft and proper
Views, or Reafons, for a Writer's concealing his
Name, are, to relieve his Modejly, or to fcreen himfelf
from publick Cevfiire -, to be frank and oyen in De-
bate, and to difcufs every Point of Importance (tho'
againft the received Opinions ) with all due Freedom,
and Striclvefs, like a Lover of Truth. Had the Gentle-
men, I am concerned with, gone upon thefe Viem, or
made ufe of their Concealment for thefe or the like lau-
dable Purpofes, I fhould ha vebeen perfedly well fatisfi-
ed. But while they continue their Difgttifes as before,
and regard nothing lefs than fra7ik, fair, and open De-
bate •, while the main Ufe they make of their Con-
cealment, is only to be lefs folicitous about what
they think, or write •, pelting us from their Coverts
v/ith All [reports, and flandering in Alafqiierade : When
this is the Cafe, it concerns a Man in his own De-
fenfe to intimate to thefe Gentlemen, that they are
not fo entirely under Cover as they may imagine ;
but that it is their Prudence ftill to be a little itjore
upon their Guard, and to write with more Decevcj
hereafter, at leaft, for their own Credit, and Repvta-
tiov.

After alljfanyreafonable Man isdifpoiedtoexamine
this Queftion, or any Part of it, with Freedom and
Plainnefs, with Sincerity and Strictnefs, attend iiig
to the Argvmevt, and reprefenting every thing
in a fair and true Light, without Mifrepcrt, or
Jvfidt ; fuch a Perfon, though vamekfs, would have
a juftTitle to all tejider, mid candid, and even rejpelfnl
4 Treat-

[ 134]

Treatment, from an Adverfary 5 and, I am very fure,
would never find any other than fuch from me.
I fliall ever think it a much greater Difgrace to be
outdone in Civility^ than in Matter of Argument.
The Firft cannot happen bat through a Man's own
jpmdt : The other may 5 and when it does, there is
no real Difcredit in yielding to the Truth once made
clear. Both fides, if they are good Men, are vlBori-
oils in fuch a Cafe •, becaufe Both attain the only
Thing that they aim'd at, and Both fhare the Prize.

FINIS.

BOOKS TrintedforW. and]. Innys.

I. Tj^IGHT Sermons preach'd at the Cathedral Church o£
JL_/ St. Tauly in Defenfe of the Divinity of our Lord Je-

fu3Chrift;upon the Encouragement given by t[\Q Lady Aloyer^

and at the Appointment of the LordBifhop oi London, The ad

Edit. Svo. 1720.

2. A Sermon preach'd before the Sons of the Clergy, at

their Anniverfary Meeting in the Cathedral Church of St.

TauU 'Decern. 14. 1721. Svo.

9. The Cafe of Avian Subfcription confider'd ; and the fe-

veral Pleas and Excufes for it particularly examined and

confuted. The 2d Edition, Svo. 1721.

4. A^ Supplement to the Cafe of Avian Subfcription confi-
<ler'd, inAnfwer to a late Pamphlet, intituled. The Cafe of
Subfcription to the 59 Articles confider'd. Svo. 1722.

5. A Vindication of Chrift's Divinity: Being a Defenfe
of fome Queries relating to Dr. Clarice's Scheme of the Holy
Trinity ; in Anfwer to a Clergyman in the Country. The
4th Edition. Svo. 1721.

6. An Anfwer to Dr. TVhith/s Reply, refpefting his BooIc>
intituled, Blfquijitiines Modefia. Svo. 1720.

7. A Second Vindication of Chrift's Divinity, or a Second
Defenfe of fome Queries relating to Dr. Clarke's Scheme of
the Holy Trinity, in Anfwer to the Country Clergyman's
Reply. Wherein the Learned Do£tor's Scheme, as it now
ftands, after the lateft Corredion, Alteration, and Expla-
nation, is diftinftly and fully confider'd. Svo. 1725.

8. A Sermon preach'd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paulf
before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, the Alder-
men, and Citizens oi London ^ on Wednefday^ the 29th of Af/ry,
1723. Being the Anniverfary Day of Thankfgiving for the
Reftoration, 4.to.

9. A Familiar Difcourfe upon the Doftrine of the Holy
Trinity, and the ufe and Importance of it, in a Sermon
preach'd upon Trinity Sundayy at the Pariih-Church of St.
Aujiiny in London. Svo. 1725.

10. Religious Education of Children, recommended in a
Sermon preach'd in the Parifh Church of St. Sepulchre^ June
the 6th, 1723. being Thtrfday in Whitfon-Weeh Svo. 1723.

II. A

BOOKS "Printed for W. and ], I n n y 5.

1 1. A Critical Hiftory of the Athanafian Creed, repre-
fenting the Opinions of Ancients and Moderns concerning
it : With an Account of the Maniifcripts, Verfions and Com-
ments, and fuch other Particulars as are of Moment for the
determining the Age, and Author, and Value of it, and the
Time of its Reception in the Chriftian Churches. 4to. 1724*

All thefe by the Reverend Dr. Waterlajtd,

12. An Addrefs to Parents, fhewing them the Obligations
they are under to take care of the Chriftian Education of
their Children, and laying before them the principal Points
in which they ought to inftruft them. By Jofe^h Hooky Vi-
C^Y o£ Haxey. Svo. 1724.

13. Principles of Deifm truly reprefented and fet in a
clear Light, in two Dialogues between a Sceptick and a Deifi.
The firft concerning the Chriftian Revelation. The fecond
concerning NaturalReligion. The fecond Edit. Svo. 1722.

14. An Anfwer to fome late Papers, entitled, The Inde-
pendent Whig; fo far as they relate to the Church of E;?^-
iand as by Law eftablifh'd ; in which her Doftrines, Creeds,
Liturgy and Eftablifhment, her Clergy with their Rights
Divine and Human, are modeftly defended, and their Au-
thor's new Notions prov'd to be not only abfurd and ridicu-
lous, but alfo direftly oppofite to thofe very Texts of God's
Word, on which he pretends to found them. By Francis
Sftirey A. M. ReQ:or of Exfordy and Vicar of Cutcomhe and
ZuxhoroiUy Sonieyfet.

15. A Farewel-Sermon preach'd to the Inhabitants of the
United Pariilies of Chriji's Church, and St. Leonard's Fojler-
Laney on Sunday y Jo-n, 12. 172|.. By John Rogersy D. D.
their late Lefliurer. Svo. 1724.

16. Remarks upon a late Book, intituled, The Fable of
the Bees, or private Vices publick Benefits. In a Letter to
the Author. To which is added, A Poftfcript, containing
an Obfervation or two upon Mr. Bi^tyle. By Vfilliam La-iuy
A. M. Svo. 1724.

17. Decency and Order in publick Woriliip, recommend-
ed in Three Difcourfes preach'd in the Cathedral Church of
Hereford. By TJjomas Bijfe, D. D. Chancellor of the faid
Church. Svo. 1723.

18. Reflexions upon Reafon by Thlleletitherus EriUnnkus.
The fecond Edition. Svo. 1722.

19. A Sermon preach'd at the Anniverfary Meeting of the
Sons of the Clergy at St. PauVs Cathedral, on the 15th of
December y 1722. ^By F amulet St. Johny D. D. ReGor of X^xlden
in ^^ordjlme.