Skip to main content

Full text of "Vindication of Christ's Divinity : being a defense of some queries, relating to Dr. Clarke's scheme of the H. Trinity, in answer to a Clergy-man in the country"

See other formats 


I  ALUMNI  LIBRARY,  | 

I    THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,    | 

!|  i 

X  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  J 

■^  ^  #» 

CW.s^,  DivisK-     ...      ..| 

Shelf,              Si                  • 
IV        Hook,  '    \ 


sec 


/  /•  /M 


/ 


A 

VINDICATION 

O  F 

Chris t's   Divinity: 

BEING    A 

DEFENSE 

OF    SOME 

QUERIES, 


RELATING    TO 


Dr.  CLARK  £'s 

Scheme  of  the  H.  TRiNirr, 

In  Answer  to  a 

CLERGY-MAN  in  the  COUNTRY. 


Ey  DJfNIEL   IVyJ  r  E  R  L  J  N  D^  D.D. 

Master  of  Magdalen-College  in  CAMBRIDGE, 
and  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  his  MA  JES TT. 

AO:s  ix.  f . 

The  Fourth  Edition. 

CAMBRIDGE: 

Printed  for  Corn.  Crov/n field,  Pgnter  to  the 
Univerfity:  And  are  to  be  Sold  by  James  Knapton, 
and  Robert  Knaplock,  Bookfellers  in  St.  Paul's 
Church-Yard,  LONDON.    MDCCXXI. 


THE 


PREFACE. 


HE  following  Queries  were  drawn 
tipy  a  few  Tears  ago,  at  the  Reqiiefi 
of  Friends  3  when  1  had  not  the  leaji 
apprehenjlon  of  their  ever  appearing 
in  Trinty  as  might  heguefs'dfrom  the  negligence 
of  the  Style  and  Compojiticn.  The  Occafion  of 
them  was  this,  A  Clergyman  in  the  Country y 
well  efteerrid  in  the  Neighbourhood  where  He 
lived y  had  unhappily  fallen  in  with  2)r.  Clarke'^ 
Notions  of  the  Trinity  i  and  began  to  efpoiife 
them  in  a  more  open  and  unguarded  manner  than 
the  T>o6ior  Himfelf  had  done.  This  gavefome 
tmeajinefs  to  the  Clergy  in  thofe  Tarts,  who 
could  not  but  be  deeply  concenid  to  fiyid  a  fun- 
damental Article  of  Religion  called  in  ^e ft  ion ; 
and  that  too  by  one  of  their  own  Order,  and 
whom  They  had  a  true  Concern  and  Value  for. 
It  was  pre  fumed,  that  a  fincere  and  ingenuou's 
Man  [as  He  appeared  to  be)  might,  upon  pro- 
per Application,  be  inclinable  to  alter  his  Opi- 
nion :  And  that  the  mo/l  probable  way  to 
bring  Him  to  a  Senfe  of  his  Miftake,  was  to 
put  Him  to  defend  it ,  fo  long  till  He  might 

A  2  perhaps 


The  PREFACE. 
perhaps  fee  reafon  to  believe  that  it  -juas  not 
defenfible.  With  the fe  Thoughts,  I  "ji^as  pre- 
'vailed  upon  to  draw  tip  a  few  Qticrics  {the 
fame  that  appear  now  -,  excepting  only  fome 
flight  verbal  Alterations)  and  when  I  had 
done ,  gave  them  to  a  common  Friend  to  con- 
njey  to  Him.  I  was  the  more  inclined  to  it , 
for  my  own  InftruEiion  and  Improvement ,  in 
fo  momentous  and  important  an  Article  :  Be- 
fides ,  that  I  had  long  been  of  Opinion ,  that 
no  method  could  be  ?nore  proper  for  the  train- 
ing up  ones  Mind  to  a  true  and  found  Judg- 
ment of  Things,  than  that  of  private  Confe- 
rence in  Writing 'y  exchanging  Tapers,  mak- 
ing Anfwers,  Replies,  and  Rejoinders,  till  an 
Argument  fhoidd  be  exhaufled  on  Both  Sides, 
and  a  Controverfy  at  length  brought  to  a  Toint. 
In  that  private  way  ( //  it  can  be  private  ) 
a  Man  writes  with  Eafinefs  and  freedom  i 
is  in  no  pain  about  any  innocent  Slips  or 
Mijlakes  i  is  under  little  or  no  Temptation  to 
perffl  obftinately  in  an  Error  {the  Bane  of 
all  publick  Controverfy )  but  concerned  only 
to  find  out  the  Truth,  which  on  what  fide  fo* 
ever  it  appears,  is  always  Vidory  to  every  ho- 
nefi  Mind, 

I  had  not  long  gone  on  with  my  Correfpon- 
dent ,  before  I  found  all  my  Meafures  broken, 
and  my  Hopes  intirely  fruflrated.  He  had 
fent  me,  in  Manufcript,  an  Anfwcr  to  my 
Qticrics^  which  Anfwer  I  received  and  read 
with  due  Care  ^  promisd  Him  immediately  a 
^  ^  Rcply^, 


The    PREFACE. 

Reply  s  and  foon  after  prepared  and  finijh'd 
it ,  and  convey  d  it  fafe  to  his  Hands,  Then 
it  was,  and  not  till  then,  that  He  difcovcred 
to  Ale  what  He  had  been  doing  5  fignifyingy 
by  Letter,  how  he  had  been  over  perfuaded 
to  commit  his  Anfwer,  with  my  Queries,  to 
the  Trefs  i  that  They  had  been  there  fome 
thne  y  and  could  not  now  be  recalled -,  that  I 
muft  follow  Him  thither^  if  I  intended  any 
thing  farther ;  and  muft  adapt  my  publick  De- 
fenfe  to  his  publick  Anfwer,  now  altered  and 
improved,  from  what  it  had  been  in  the  Ma- 
nufcript  which  bad  been  fent  me.  This  News 
fur  prized  Me  a  little  at  the  firfl ;  and  forry  I 
was  to  find  my  Correfpondent  fo  extremely  de- 
firous  ofinflruciing  Others,  inftead  of  taking  the 
moft  prudent  and  confiderate  Method  of  inform- 
ing  Himfelf  As  he  had  left  Me  no  Choice  ^ 
but  either  to  follow  Him  to  the  Trefs ,  or  to 
defift,  I  chofe  what  I  thought  moft  proper  at  that 
Time-,  leaving  Him  to  tnftru5i  the  Publick  as 
Hepleafed,  defigning  my  Self  to  keep  out  of  Pub- 
lick Controverfy  j  or,  at  leaft,  not  defigning  the 
Contrary.  But,  at  length,  confidering  that  Co- 
pies of  my  Defenfe  were  got  abroad  into  fever al 
Hands,  and  might  perhaps,  fome  time  or  other y 
fteal  into  the  Trefs  without  my  Knowledge ', 
and  confidering  farther  that  this  Controverfy 
now  began  to  grow  Warm,  and  that  it  became 
every  honefi  Man,  according  to  the  Meafure  of 
his  Abilities,  to  bear  his  Teftimony  in  fo  good 
a  Caufe  5  /  thought  it  beft  to  revife  my  Taper Sy 

A  3  to 


The    PREFACE. 

to  give  them  my  lafi  Handy  and  to  fend  Them 
abrczd  into  the  IVorld-^  where  They  mitft  ft  and 
or  f all  {as  I  defire  They  Jhould)  according  as 
They  are  found  to  have  more  or  lefts  Truth  or 
Wmht  in  Them. 

.  2)r.  Clarke  has  lately  pubUfhed  a  Second  Edi- 
tion oft  his  Scripture-Doctrine  :  IVherCy  I  per- 
ceive,  He  has  made  fteveral  Additions  and  AU 
terationSy  but  has  neither  retraded,  nor  defend- 
ed thofte  Tarts ,  which  Mr,  NellbnV  learned 
Friend  had  judicwufty  replied  tOy  in  his  True 
Scripture-Dodrine  continued.  /  hopCy  impar- 
tial Readers  will  take  care  to  read  one  along 
with  the  Other. 

One  thing  I  muft  obftervcy  for  [the  "Dolor's 
Honour y  that  in  his  new  Edition  He  has  leftt 
out  thefte  words  oft  his  ftormer  Introdudion. 
"  'Tis  plain  that  every  Terfton  may  reafonably 
"  agree  to  ftuchYo\:mSy  whenever  He  can  in  any 
"  Senfte  at  all  reconcile  them  with  Scripture!" 
I  hope,  none  hereaftter  will  pretend  to  make  ufte 
oft  the  T>o5tor's  Authority ,  ftor  fubfcribing  to 
Forms  which  They  believe  not  according  to  the 
true  and  proper  Senfte  oft  the  Words ,  and  the 
known  Intent  oft  the  Impolcrs  and  Compilers. 
Such  Prevarication  is  in  it  ftelft  a  bad  Thing , 
and  wouldy  in  TimCy  have  a  very  ill  Influence 
on  the  Morals  oft  a  Nation,  If  either  State- 
Oaths  on  the  One  Handy  or  Church  Subfcrip- 
tions  on  the  Other y  once  come  to  be  made  light 
ofti  and  Subtilties^^  invented  to  deftend  or  pal- 
liate ftuch  grofts  Infmcerity  j  we  may  bidftarewel 

to 


The    PREFACE. 

to  Principles ,   and  Religion  ic-///  be  little  elfi 
hilt  difgnis'd  AxhoA^m, 

The  learned  T>o^ory  in  his  Introductiony  has 
infertedy  by  'way  of  Note,  a  long  flotation  out 
of  Mr.  Nclfon'j-  Life  ofBifjop  Bull.  He  can 
hardly  be  pre  fumed  to  intend  any  Parallel  be- 
tween Bifoop  BuUV  Cafe  and  his  own :  And  yet 
Readers  may  be  aptfo  to  take  ity  fince  the  'Doctor 
has  not  guarded  againfl  ity  and  fince  other  wife 
it  will  not  be  eafy  to  make  out  the  pertinence 
of  it.  The  T)ocior  has  undoubtedly  fome  mean- 
ing in  it,  thd  I  will  7iot  pre  fume  toguefs  what. 
He  ^  obfervesy  "  That  there  is  an  exaEi  account 
*'  given  ,  what  Method  that  learned  Writer 
"  (Bifliop  Bull)  took  to  explain  the  T>ocirine 
*^  ^Juftification  (i;/^.  the  very  fame  and  only 
*-*-  Method  which  ought  to  be  taken  in  explaining 
"  all  other  T)o5lrines  whatfoever )  how  z,ea- 
"  loufy  He  was  accitfed  by  many  Syftcmatical 
"  T>ivi7ieSy  as  departing  fromtkeT)ocirine  and 
*■'  Articles  of  the  Church,  in  what  He  had 
"  done  i  how  learnedly  and  efFcdually  He  de- 
"  fended  Himfelf  againft  all  his  Advcriaries  5 
"  and  how  (wcc^kiwl  at  length  his  Explication 
"  was,  it  being  after  fome  Tears  ahnojl  univcr- 
"  fally  receive dy  This  account  is  true,  but 
defedlive  'y  and  may  want  a  Siipple7nent  for  the 
Benefit  of  common  Readers,  who  may  wijh  to 
know,  what  that  excellent  Method  of  Bifjop 
BullV  waSy  by  means  of  which  his  Explication 

f  Introdu£l.  p.  2f>  i5, 

A  4  proved 


The  P  R  E  F  A  C  E. 

proved  fo  fucccfsful,  and  came  at  length  to  be 
ahr.ojt  univerfally  received.    It  -jjas  as  foliovcs, 

1 .  In  the  firjt  place ^  his  way  was  to  examine 
carefully  inio  Scripture,  more  than  into  //j^  Na- 
ture and  Rcafon  of  the  Thing  abjlra^edly  confi- 
de fd.  He  pitched  upon  Juch  Texts  as  were 
pertinent  and  clofe  to  the  Toint  j  did  not  chiife 
Them  according  to  the  Sound  only^  but  their 
real  Senfe^  which  He  explain  d  juilly  and  natu- 
rally, without  any  wrefting  or  draining.  He 
mr/6^rneglcdcd  nor  diffemblcd  the  ut  mo  ft  force 
of  any  Texts  which  fcerud  to  make  againft  Him ; 
but  propofed  them  fairly,  and  anfwefd  them  fo- 
lidly;  •zi/V^/'^^//- ^w/ artificial  Elufions,  or  any 'isik>' 
tile  or  furprizing  Gloffes, 

2.  In  the  next  place,  hozvever  cogent  and  for- 
cible his  Reafonings  from  Scripture  appeared  to 
be^  yet  He  modeftly  declined  being  confident  of 
them,  nnlefs  He  could  fnd  them  like  wife  iup- 
portcd  by  the  general  Verdi6i  of  the  primitive 
Church  ',  for  which  He  always  exprefsd  a  moft 
religious  Regard  and  Veneration :  believing  it 
eafier  for  hirrfelf  to  err  in  interpreting  ^^r//>r//r^, 
than  fcr  the  univcrfal  Church  to  have  erred 
from  the  Beginning,  Topafs  by  many  other  In- 
ftances  of  his  fincere  a'ud  great  Regard  to  Anti- 
quity, I  fall  here  mention  one  only.  He  ^  tells 
!Z3r.  Tu'iy^  in  the  mofl  ferious  and  foleuin  man- 
ner imaginable  y  that  if  there  could  but  be  found 
any  one  "Propoftion-,  that  He  had  maintained  in 

"  Bull.  ADoIog.  contr.  Tull.  p.  7. 

all 


The  PREFACE. 

^l  his  Harmony ,  repugnant  to  the  Tio^rine 
of  the  Catholick  a7id  Primitive  Church ,  He 
ijjould  immediately  give  up  the  Cauje,  fit  down 
contentedly  under  the  reproach  of  a  Novelift, 
openly  retrad  his  Error  or  Herefy,  make  a  fo- 
lemn  Recantation  in  the  Face  of  the  Chrtjtian 
World ,  and  bind  himfelf  to  perpetual  Silence 
ever  after.  He  knew  very  well  what  He  f aid; 
being  able  to  Jhow^  by  an  Htflorical  TJedu^ion^ 
that  his  T>o5trine  had  been  the  conjlant  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Chrifl ,  ^  down  to  the 
T^ays  of  Calvin,  in  the  Sixteenth  Century, 

3 .  Befides  this^  He  demonftrated,  very  clear^- 
ly,  that  the  moft  antient  arid  valuable  Confef- 
fions  of  the  Reformed  Churches  Abroad  were 
intirely  in  his  Sentiments.  He  examind  them 
with  great  Care  and  ExaBnefsy  and  anfwer'd 
the  contrary  Tretences  largely  and  folidly, 

4.  To  complcat  all,  He  vindicated hisT>o5irine 
farther  J  from  the  concurring  Sentiments  of  our 
own  moft  early y  and  moft  judicious  Reformers: 
As  alfb  from  the  Articles,  Catechifm,  Liturgy, 
^7^^/ Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England :  And 
this  with  great  accuracy  and  flrength  of  Rea-- 

fori,  without  the  mean  Arts  ^Equivocation  or 
Sophiftry. 

5.  /  may  add,  fifthly,  that  his  manner  of 
Writing  was  the  moft  convincing,  and  moft  \xi- 
^2L^m^ imaginable:  Acute,  ftrong,  ^w^ nervous; 
learned  throughout;  and  fincac  to  a  fcrupulous 

I  Bull.  ApoJ.  contr.  Tall.  p.  5-0,^1. 

ExaBnefs, 


The   PREFACE. 

Exa6inefsy  'Ui'itbout  artificial  Colours  or  fludied 
Difguifcs,  ^uihkh  He  utterly  abhor  d.  The  good 
and  great  Man  breaths  in  every  Line :  ^  Rea- 
der, after  a  few  ^PageSy  may  be  tempted  almofl 
to  throw  off  his  Guard,  and  to  refign  Himfelf 
implicit ely  into  fofafe  Hands,  A  Man  thus 
qualified  and  acco7nplip'dj  having  true  Judg- 
ment to  take  the  riglit  Side  of  a  ^leftiony  and 
Learning,  Ability,  andi\\\.z2f\v^  to  fet  it  off  to 
the  great  eft  Advantage^  could  not  fail  of  Snc- 
cefs  'y  efpecially  confidering  that  the  moft  judi- 
cious and  learned  of  our  Clergy ,  and  Thofe  be  ft 
affected  to  the  Church  of  England  {fuch  as 
©r.  Hammond  ,  &c, )  had  been  in  the  fame 
Sentiments  before  5  and  Bifhop  Bull's  bittereft 
Adverfarieswere  moftly  Syftematical  Men  {pro- 
perly fo  called)  and  fuch  as  had  been  bred  up 
{during  the  great  R^cbdVion)  in  ^^^Predeftinarian 
and  Antinomian  Tenets ,  as  Mr.  ^  Nelfon  ob- 
ferves.  There  was  another  Circumftance  "which 
Mr.  Nelfon  alfo  takes  ^notice  of^  namely ^  his 
writing  in  Latin  :  Which  ftjowed  his  thorough 
Jtidgmeyit  of  Men  and  Things,  He  would  not 
write  to  the  Vulgar  and  Unlearned  ( which  is 
beginning  at  the  wrong  end,  and  doing  nothing 
but  to  the  Learned  and  judicious  5  knowing  it 
to  be  the  fur  eft  and  the  port  eft  way ;  and  that , 
if  the  Toint  be  gairtd  with  Them ,  the  reft 
come  in  of  Courfe  -,  if  not,  all  is  to  710  purpofe. 
This  became  a  Man,  who  had  a  Caufe  that  He 

*  Nclfon'j  L//c  of  Bull,  \c.g.  98. 

•  Nelfon^  Z-z/e  of  Bull,  fij.  94- 

could 


The   PREFACE. 

could  trufl:  to  y  and  confided  only  in  the  ftrcngth 
of  his  Reafons.  By  fiich  laudable  and  inge- 
nuous Methods y  that  excellent  Man  prevailed 
over  his  Adverfarics  5  Truth  over  Error,  Anti- 
quity over  Novelty,  the  Church  of  Chrift:  over 
Calvin  and  his  "Difciples,  If  any  Man  elfe  has 
fitch  a  Caufe  to  defend  as  Bifhop  Bull  had^  and 
is  able  to  manage  it  infuch  aMethody  by  jhow- 
ing  that  it  ftands  upon  the  fame  immoveable 
Foundatio7is  of  Scripture  and  Antiquity,  con- 
frm'd  by  the  concurring  Senfe  of  the  judicious 
part  of  Mankind i  then  He  need  not  doubt  but 
it  will  prevail  and  profper  y  in  any  Protcftant 
Country y  as  univerfally  as  the  other  did.  But 
if  fever al  of  thofe  Circumflances ,  or  the  moji 
confiderable  of  them^  be  wanting ;  or  if  Cir- 
cumflances be  contrary y  then  it  is  as  vain  to  ex- 
peR  the  like  Succefs ,  as  it  is  to  expe^  Mira- 
cles. It  mufl  not  be  forgot  y  ih  at  the  fame  good 
and  great  Prelate,  afterwards^  by  the  fame  fair 
and  honourable  Methods ^  the  fame  ftrength  of 
Reafon  and  profound  Learnings  gain'd  as  com- 
pleat  a  Vi^ory  over  the  Arians,  in  regard  to  the 
§)ueftion  about  the  Faith  of  the  Ante-Niccne 
Fathers:  ^;^^  ^/V  Determination,  in  that  par- 
ticular,  was^  and  ft  ill  is  ^  among  Men  of  the 
gr  eat  eft  Learning  and  Judgment  y  as  univerfally 
fubmitted  to  as  the  other.  His  admirable  Trea- 
tife  {by  which  He  being  dead  yet  fpeakcrh)  re- 
mains unanfwer'd  to  this  T)ay  5  and  will  abide 
Vidorious  to  the  End,     But  enough  of  this. 

I  am 


The   PREFACE. 

I  am  obliged  to  fay  fomething  in  ^efeyice  of 
wy general  Title  (A  Vindication  of  Chrift's  Di- 
vinity) bccatife^  Ifnd,  Mr.  Potter,  fince  deceas'd-, 
was  rebuked  by  an  ^Anonymous  Hand  for  fiich 
a  Title.  The  pretence  isy  that  our  Adverfaries 
do  not  difown  Chrift's  Divinity,  as  i^^^  Title  in- 
Jimiates.  But  to  what  piirpofe  is  it  for  Them 
to  contend  about  a  Name ,  when  they  give  up 
the  Thing?  It  looks  too  like  Mockery  [though 
They  are  far  from  intending  it)  and  cannot  but 
remind  us  of  Hail  King  of  the  [ews.  A^<!?  body 
ever  fpeaks  of  the  Divinity  ^Mofes,  or  ofM^- 
giftrates,  or  of  Angels ,  though  called  Gods  in 
Scripture.  IfChrift  be  God,  in  the  relative 
Senfe  only,  why  fhouldwe  (peak  of  his  Divinity, 
more  than  of  the  other  ?  The  Chriftian  Church 
has  all  along  ufed  the  word  Divinity ,  in  the 
Jlri6i  and  proper  Senfe :  If  we  muft  change  the 
Idea ,  let  us  change  the  Name  too ;  a?id  talk 
no  wore  of  Chrift's  'Divinity ^  but  of  his  Medi- 
atorfliip  only-,  or  at  moft,  Kingfliip.  This  will 
be  the  way  to  prevent  Equivocation ,  keep  tip 
propriety  of  Language^  and  ftout  out  falfe  Ideas. 
I  know  no  Divinity,  but  fuch  as  I  have  defended: 
The  other  y  falfiy  fo  called,  is  really  none.  So 
much  for  the  Title. 

In  the  Work  it  felf  I  have  endeavour  d  to 
^T^r^r^/ Sophiftry,  2?/^^^  Fallacies,  and  take  off 
Dilguifes,  in  order  to  fet  the  Controverfy  upon 
a  clear  Foot;  allowing  only  for  the  Myfteriouf- 

^  A^logy  for  Dr.  Clarke';  Trcf. 

nefs 


The   PREFACE. 

ncfs  of  the  Subjeft,  The  Gentlemen  of  the  New 
way  have  hitherto  kept  pretty  much  in  generals, 
and  avoided  coming  to  the  pinch  of  the  ^leftion. 
If  they  pie afe  to  fpeakto  the  Toint  ^  and  put 
the  Caufe  upon  a  {hort  Iffiie ,  as  may  eafily  be 
done ,  that  is  all  that  is  defifd,  I  doubt  not 
but  all  Attempts  of  that  kind  wilt  end  {as  thej 
have  ever  done)  in  the  clearing  up  of  the  Truths 
the  T>  if  appointment  of  its  Oppofers^  the  Joy  of 
good  Men^  and  the  Honour  of  our  Bleffed  Lord ; 
whofe  Divinity  has  been  the  Rock  ofOjfence  to 
the  Difputers  of  this  World ,  now  for  1 600 
Tears 'y  always  attacked  by  foine  or  other ,  iyi  eve- 
ry Age ,  and  always  Triumphant,  To  Him , 
with  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft ,  Three 
Perfons  of  the  fame  divine  Power,  Subftance, 
and  Perfedions,  be  all  Honour  and  Glory,  in 
all  Churches  of  the  Saints,  now  and  for  ever- 
more. 


THE 


THE 


CONTENTS. 

Compare  the  following  Texts. 


I  am  the  Lord^and  there 
is  none  elfe  j  There  is  no 
God  befides  me,  Ifa.^^.  f . 

Is  there  a  God  befides 
me  ?  Yea ,  there  is  no 
God,  I  know  not  any,  Ifa. 
44.  8. 

I  am  God,  and  there  is 
none  like  me,  Ifa.  46.  p. 

Before  me  there  was  no 
God  form'd,  neither  iliall 


there  be  after 
43.  10. 


me,    Ifa. 


The  Word  was  God, 
John  I.I. 

Thy  Throne,  O  God, 
Heh.  1.8. 

Chrift  came,  who  is 
over  all  God  blefTed  for 
ever,  Rom.  p.  f . 

Who  being  in  the  Form 
of  God,  Phil.  z.  6. 

Who  being  the  Bright- 
nefs  of  his  Glory,  and  the 
exprefs  Image  of  his  Per- 
fon,  Heb.  i.  3. 


Q^UERY   I. 

Wloether  all  other  Beings^  he  fides  the  one  Supreme  God^ 
he  not  excluded  by  the  ^exts  of  Ifaiah  {to  which  ma-' 
ny  more  might  be  added)  and  confequently^  'whether 
Chri/l  can  he  God  at  all^  unlefs  he  be  the  fa?ne  with 
the  Supreme  God?  p.  z. 

Q^UERY    II. 

Whether  the  'Texts  of  the  New  Tcflament  (in  the  fe- 
cond  Column)  do  not  fiow  that  He  (Chrill)  is  noi 
excluded^  and  therefore  muft  be  the  fame  God?  p.  6. 

Q^UERY    III. 

UHoether  the  Word  (God)  in  Scripture^  can  reafona^ 
bJy  be  fuppos'd  to  carry  an  ambiguous  meanings  or 

be 


The    CONTENTS. 

he  us*d  in  a  different  Scnfe^  when  applied  to  the  Fa- 
ther and  Son^  in  the  fame  Scripture^  and  even  in  the 
fame  verfe  ?  (See  John  i .  i .)  /;.  47. 

a.UERY    IV. 

Wloether^  ftippofing  the  Scripture-Notion  of  God  to  he 
no  more  than  that  of  the  Author  and  Governor  of 
the  Univerfe,  or  whatever  it  be^  the  adynitting  of 
Another  to  he  Author  and  Governor  of  the  Uni- 
verfe,  he  not  admitting  another  God  3  contrary  to 
the  texts  before  cited  from  Ifaiah  j    a}id  alfo  to  Ifa. 

41.  8. 48.  II.  where  he  declares^  He  will  not 

give  his  Glory  to  another?  ^.73. 

Q^UERY    V. 

Wloether  Dr.  ClarkeV  pretence^  that  /Z?^  Authority  of 
Father  and  Son  heingOnc^  tho'  they  are  two  diftind 
Beings^  makes  them  not  to  he  two  Gods^  As  a  King 
upon  the  Throne ,  and  his  Son  adminillring  the 
Father's  Government,  are  not  two  Kings,  he  not 
trifling  and  inconfiftent  ?  For,  if  the  King's  Son  be  not 
a  King^  he  cannot  truly  he  called  King  3  if  he  is^  then 
there  are  two  Kings.  So,  if  the  Son  he  not  God  /;/ 
the  Scripture-Notion  of  God,  he  cannot  truly  he  called 
God  J  and  then  how  is  the  Do5lor  conftfient  with  Scri- 
pture^ or  with  Himfelf  ?  But  if  the  Son  he  truly  God, 
there  are  two  Gods  upon  the  Doctor's  Hypothefis^  as 
plainly  as  that  one  and  one  are  two :  and  fo  all  the 
'Texts  0/ Ifaiah  cited  ahove^  befides  others^  ft  and  full 
and  clear  againft  the  Doctor's  Notion,    p.  7p. 

TE  XTS  ■,  proving  an  Unity  of  divine  Attri- 
butes in  Father  and  Sony  applied. 


I'd  the  one  God. 
Thou,  even  Thou  only 
knoweft  the  Hearts  of  all 


To  the  Son. 
He  knew  all  Men,  6cc. 
Joh.  z.  24.  Thou  knowell 
the 


The   CONTENTS. 


the   Children  of  Men, 
I  Kings  8.  3 p. 

I  the  Lord  fearch  the 
Heart  3  I  try  the  Reins, 
Jer.  17. 10. 

1  am  the  fir  ft,  and  I  am 
the  laft,  and  befides  me 
there  is  no  God,  Ifa.  44. 6. 

I  am  A  and  a,  the  be- 
ginning and  the  end.  Rev. 
1.8. 

King  of  Kings,  and 
Lord  of  Lords,  1  fim. 
6.  If. 

The  mighty  God,  Ifa. 
10.  II. 

Lord  over  all.  Rem. 
10.  II. 


all  Things,  John  16.  30. 
which  knowell  theHcarts 
of  all  Men,  J^ts  i .  24.  , 
I  am  he  that  (earcheth 
the  Reins  and  the  Heart, 
Rev.  z.  23. 

I  am  the  firrt,  and  I  am 
the  lall,  Rev.  i.  17. 

I  am  A  and  n,  the  be- 
ginning and  the  cn6^  Rev, 
zi.  13. 

Lord  of  Lords,  and 
KingofKmgs,  Rev.  17. 

14. ip.  16. 

The  mightyGod,7/Cp.5. 
He  is  Lora  of  all,  Jcls 
10.  35. 

Over  all  God  blclTed, 
6cc.  R.om.  p.  f . 


aUERY    VL 

Wheiher  the  fame  Char a6lerifikks ^  efpe daily  fuch  emi- 
nent ones^  can  reafonably  be  underftood  of  two  diftin6l 
Beings  \  and  of  one  Infinite  and  Independent^  the 
other  Dependent  and  Finite  ?  p.  8p. 

Q^UERY    VII. 

Whether  the  Father^ s  Omnifcience  and  Eternity  are 
not  one  and  the  fame  with  the  Son's^  being  alike  de- 
fer ib'dy  and  in  the  fame  phrafes  ?  p.  100. 

Q^UERY    VIII. 

Whether  Eternity  does  not  imply  neceffary  Exigence 
of  the  Son-y    which  is  inconftftent  with  the  Do  Bar's 
Scketne  ?  Jnd  whether  the  *  DoBor  hath  not  made. 
♦  Reply  p.  127. 

\  an 


The    CONTENTS. 

an  clufivc,  equivocating,  Jnfhjuer  to  the  Objeclmt^ 
Jince  the  Son  may  be  'a  neccnary  Emanation  from 
the  Father,  by  the  Will  and  Power  of  the  Father^ 
without  any  Contradiction?  Will  is  one  things  and 
■    Axhiuixxy  I- rm  another^  p.  iii. 

Q_UERY    IX. 

V/hether  the  di\;i?ie  Attributes^  O.mnifcicncc,  Ubi- 
quity, 6cc.  thofe  individual  Attributes  can  be  com- 
municated  ^without  the  divine  EJJence^  from  which 
they  are  infeparabk?  p.'  i6j^. 

Q^UERY    X. 

Whether^  if  they  (the  Attributes  belonging  to  the 
"S6n)"^<?  not  individually  the  fame^  they  can  be  any 
thing  more  than  faint  Rcfemblances  of  them^  differing 
from  them  as  Finite  from  Infinite  j  and  then  in  what 
Senfe^  or  with  what  Truth  can  the  Do^.or pretend  that 
^  all  divine  Powers,  except  abfolute  Supremacy  and 
Independency,  are  comnmnicated  to  the  Son  ?  And 
whether  every  Being^beftdes  the  one  Supreme  Being^mufi 
not  neceffarily  be  a  Creature  andWmiit  j  and  whether 
all  divine  Powers  can  be  communicoited to  a  Creature^ 
Infinite  FerfeUion  to  a  Finite  Being?  p.  174. 

Q^UERY    XL 

JVh ether  if  the  D 0 ctor  -means  by  divine  Powers^  Powers 
given  by  God  (in  the  fame  Sen  fe  as  Angelical  Powers 
are  divine  Powers)  only  in  a  higher  Degree  than  are 
given  to  other  Beings  \  it  be  not  equivocating^  and  faying 
nothing :  Nothing  that  can  come  up  to  the  Senfe  of  thofe 
Texts  before  cited^  \  or  to  the  fe  following?  p.  181. 

Applied 


To  the  one  God. 
Thou,  even  Thou,  art 
Lord  alone  >    Thou  hall 


To  God  the  Son. 
All  things  were  made  by 
him,  John  I.  3.    By  hun 


*  Scripture  Doar.  p.  298.         ^      t  Query  6.  p.  89. 

B  made 


The    CONTENTS. 

made  Heaven,  the  Hea-|  were  all  things  CieatcJ  ; 
ven  of  Heavens  with  alllHe  is  before  all  things, 
their  Holl,    the  Earth,  land  by  him  all  thingsCon- 


and   all   things  that   are 
therein,  ^c.  Neb.  p.  6. 

In  the  Beginning,  God 
Created  the  Heavens  and 
the  Earth,  Geri.  i .  i . 


fill,  Coloj^.  I.  1(5,  17. 

Thou,  Lord,  in  the  Be- 
ginning ,  haft  laid  the 
Foundation  of  the  Earth  5 
and  the  Heavens  are  the 
Work  of  thy  Hands,  Hel?. 
I.  10. 


CLUERY  xir. 

Whether  the  Creator  of  all  things  ijuas  not  himfelf  Un- 
created -,  and  therefore  could  not  he  cJ^  j/x,  ovlwv, 
made  out  of  nothing  ?  p.  IP4. 

CLUERY   XIIL 

iVhether  there  can  he  any  Middle  hetween  heing  made 
out  of  nothings  and  out  of  fomethlng\  that  is^  he- 
tween  heing  out  of  nothings  and  out  of  the  Fathers 
Suhftance  >  hetween  heing  eflentially  God,  and  heing 
a  Creature  ?  Whether^  confequently^  the  Son  muft 
not  he  either  eflentially  God,  or  elfe  a  Creature  ? 
p.  102. 

CLUERY   XIV. 

■Whether  Dr.  Clarke,  "who  eiery  ivhere  denies  the  Can- 
fuhjlantiality  of  the  Son  as  ahfurd  and  contradi^o- 
ry^  does  not^  of  Confequence^  affirm  the  Son  to  he  a 
Creature^  cli  »^  ovrwv ,  and  fo  fall  under  his  own 
Cenfure^  and  is  Self-condemn" d?  p.  2,12. 

CLUERY    XV. 

Mnjetherhealfomuftnot^  of  Confequence^  affirm  of  the 

Sony  that  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not,  fince 

God  muflexift  he  fore  the  Creature  >  and  therefore  is 

again  Self-condemn" d  (See  prop.  16,  Scrip.  Do6br.) 

I  And 


The   CONTENT  S. 

^ml  'whether  he  does  not  equrcocate  in  faying  ^clfe^ 
'where  that  the  fecond  Per  Jon  has  been  always  "with 
the  fir  ft  y  and  that  there  has  been  no  time,  'when 
he  was  not  fo :  Jnd  laftly^  'whether  it  be  not  a  'vain 
and  'weak  at  temp  to  pet  end  to  any  middle  'way  be- 
Pween  the  Orthodox  and  the  Ariansj  or  to  carry 
the  Son's  Di-vinity  the  leaft  higher  than  they  did^ 
'without  taking  in  the  Confubflantiality  ?  p.  214. 

divine  Worjhif  due 


'To  the  one  God. 

Thou  fhalt  have  no  o- 
ther  Gods  before  me,  Ex~ 
$d.  20.  5. 

Thou  fhalt  Worlhip 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
him  onlylTiak  thouferve, 
Matth.  4.  10. 


To  Chrift. 

They  worfliip'd  him, 
Luke  24.  2f. 

Let  all  the  Angels  of 
God  worfhip  him ,  Heb. 
1.6. 

That  all  Men  fhould 
honour  the  Son,  even  as 
they  honour  the  Father, 
John  f .  213. 


Q^UERY    XVL 

Whether  by  thefe  (of  the  firfl:  Column)  and  the  like 
Texts^  Adoration  and  PForftoip  be  not  fo  appropriated 
to  the  one  God^  as  to  belong  to  him  only?  p.  22p. 

(i.UERY    XVIL 

Whether^  not'withftanding^  Worftnp  and  Adoration  he 
not  equally  due  to  Chrift  5  and  conjequently^  'whether 
it  muft  not  follow  that  he  is  the  one  God^  and  not 
{as  the  iVrians  fuppofe)  a  diftin^t  inferior  Being  ? 
p.  25-2. 

auERY  xvin. 

Whether  Worftnp  and  Adoration^  both  from  Men  and 
*  Script.  Do£lr.  p.438. 

B  2  Angels  J 


.The  CONTENTS. 

Ajiids^  'ujas  not  due  to  him ,  loyig  he  fore  the.  Com-^ 
vicncing  of  his  Mediatorial  Kingdom,  as  he  was 
their  Creator  and  Prefcrver  {fee  Col.  i.  1(5,  17.) 
ylfid  ^whether  that  he  not  the  fame  Ttitle  to  Adoration 
which  God  the  Father  hath^  as  Author  and  Go-ver- 
nor  of  the  Uni'verfe^  upon  the  Do^ofs  own  Princi- 
ples ?  p.  2.(57. 

Q^UERY    XIX. 

jVhether  the  Doctor  hath  not  green  a  'very  partial  Ac^ 
count  c/John  f.  13.  founding  the  Honour  due  to 
the  Son^  on  this  only^  that  the  Father  hath  com- 
mitted all  Judgment  to  the  Son  5  when  the  true 
Reafon  afjign'd  hy  our  Saviour ,  and  illufirated  hy 
fen:eral  biftances^  is ,  that  the  Son  doth  the  fame 
things  that  the  Father  doth  ^  hath  the  fame  P  ower  and 
Authority  of  doing  what  he  will  \  arid  therefore  has  a 
1'itle  to  as  great  Honour^  Reaver  ence^  and  lie  gar  d^  as 
the  Father  himfelf  hath  ?  And  it  is  no  Ohjeclion  to  this^ 
that  the  Son  is  there  faid  to  do  nothing  of  himfelf, 
or  to  have  all  given  Him  hy  the  Father  -y  ftnce  it  is 
own'd  that  the  Father  is  the  Fountain  of  all^  frojn 
whom  the  Son  derives^  in  an  ineffable  manner^  his  Ef- 
fence  and P ower s^  fo  as  to  he  one  with  him.  p.  178. 

Q^UERY    XX. 

Wlo ether  the  DoBor  needed  have  cited  300  T^exts^  wide 
of  the  purpofe^  to  prove  what  no  Body  denies^  nafne- 
ly^  a  Subordination,  /;/  forne  Senfe^  of  the  Son  to 
the  Father  5  could  He  have  found  hut  one  plain  T^est 
againft  his  Eternity  or  Confubflantiality,  the  Points 
in  ^cflion?  p.  2p8. 

CLUERY   XXT. 

JVhether  he  he  not  forced  to  fupplyhis  want  of  Scripture" 
proof  by  very  fir ain^d  and  remote  Inferences^  and  very 
uncertain  Reafonings  from  the  Isfature  of  a,thingy  con- 

■    ■■feffedly. 


The    CONTENTS. 

feffcdly^  Obfcure  andabo^jeComprchenfton-j  mid  yet 
twtmore  fo  than  God's  Eternity,  Ubiquity,  Prcfci- 
encc,  or  other  Attributes^  ivhich  yet  we  are  obliged 
to  acbwivledge  for  certain  T'rutbs  ?  p .  3  o  5 . 

aU  E  R  Y    XXII. 

Whether  his  (the  Dod'or's)  whole  Performance^  when-' 
ever  Ih  differs  from  us^  be  any  thing  more  than  a  Re- 
petitiori.  of  this  AJfertion^  that  Being  and  Pei'fon  are 
the  fam?^  or  that  there  is  no  ^Aidiiwmbctween  Trithe- 
ifrn  a/d  Sab'TlliAnilm  ?  which  is removingthe Caufe 
from  Scripture  to  natural  Reafon  j  not  very  conjtflent^ 
ly  with  the  T'itle  of  his  Book.     p.  315. 

aU  E  R  Y    XXIII. 

Whether  the  Doctor's  7^'jtion  of  the  'Trinity  be  more 
clear  and  intelli<i'J:u  ^hanJhe  other? 

The  Diijlctiltyln  tioe  Conception  of  the  Trinity  is^  how 
Three  Per.'ons  can  be  One  God. 

Does  the  DoHor  deny  that  every  One  of  the  Perfons^ 
fingly^  is  God  ?  No :  Does  he  deny  that  God  is  One  ? 
No :  How  then  are  Three  One  ? 

Does  one  and  the  fame  Authority^  exercifcd  by  all ^  make 
them  one^  numerically  or  individually  one  and  the 
fame  God?  That  is  hard  to  conceive  how  three  diflin6i 
Beings.^  accordingto  the  DoUofs  Scheme^  can  be  indi- 
vidually one  God^  that  is^  three  Perfons  one  Perfon. 

Jf  therefore  one  Godneccffarily  fignifies  but  onePerfon^the 
Confequence  is  irrefiftible  >  either  that  the  Father  is 
that  one  Perfon.,  and  none  elfe^  which  is  downright  Sa- 
bcllianifm  5    or  that  the  three  Perfons  are  three  Gods. 

Thus  the  DoElor's  Scheme  is  liable  to  the  fame  Dijji- 
culties  with  the  other. 

There  is  indeed  one  eafy  way  of  coming  off  and  that  iSy 

by  faying  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are  neither  of 

themGod^  in  the  Script ure-fenfe  of  the  Word.     But 

this  is  cutting  the  Knot^  in  (lead  of  untying  it  >  and  is  in 

B  3  ^ff(^^ 


The    CONTENTS. 

effe^  to  fay^  they  are  notfet  forth  as  divine  Perfons  in 
Scripture. 

Does  the  Communication  of  divine  Powers  and  j^ttri- 
but es  from  Father^  to  Son  and  Holy- Spirit^  make  them 
one  God^  the  Divinity  of  the  two  latter  being  the  Fa- 
ther's Divinity  ?  7}t  the  fame  difficulty  recurs  :  For 
either  the  Son  andHoly-Ghoft  have  diftinB  Attributes^ 
and  a  difiin^  Divinity  of  their  ovun.^  or  they  have  not : 
If  they  have^  they  are  (upon  the  Dociofs  Principles) 
dijiincl  Gods  from  the  Father^  and  as  much  as  Finite 
from  Infinite^  Creature  from  Creator  j  and  then  how 
are  they  one  ?  if  they  have  not^  then^fince  they  have  no 
other  Divinity ^but  that  individual  Divinity  andthofe 
Attributes  which  are  infeparable  from  the  Father's 
Effence^  they  can  have  no  diflincl  EJfence  from  the  Fa- 
thers-^ and  fo  (according  to  the  Doctor)  will  be  one 
and  the  fame  Perfon^  that  is^  will  be  Names  only. 

Q^  IVhether  this  be  not  as  unintelligible  as  the  Or- 
thodox Notion  of  the  Trinity^  and  liable  to  the  like 
Difficulties :  A  communication  of  Divine  Powers 
and  Attributes^  without  the  Subftance^  being  as 
hard  to  coyicclve^  nay^  much  harder  than  a  commu- 
nication of  Both  together  ?  p.  345. 

CLU  E  R  Y    XXIV. 

frhetherG-x\.^.  8.  may  not  be  enough  to  deter  mine  the 
difputc  betwixt  us ;  fince  it  obliged  the  Dut'tor  to  con- 
fers that  Chrifi  is  ^'^  by  Nature  truly  God,  as  truly 
as  Man  is  by  Nature  truly  Man. 

He  equivocates.^  there^indeed.^  as  Ufual.  For^  he  will  have 
it  to  fgnify.^  that  Chrifi  i^  God  by  Nature.^  only  as  ha- 
vingby  tfoat  Nature  which  he  derives  from  the  Father^ 
true  Divine  Power  and  Dominion :  that  Is^  he  is  truly 
God  by  Nature^  as  having  a  Nature  difintl  from  and 
inferior toGod's.,wantl'/giihc  motl  ciTcntial  Chara^St- 
crof  God,  Seif-exi/lence.     IVhat  is  this  but  trifling 

♦  Reply  p.  81.  i  Reply  p.  92. 

with 


The    CONTENTS. 

"•jjith  Words ^  and  playing  faft  and  loofe?  p.  ^70. 

QJJ  E  R  Y    XXV. 

met  her  it  he  not  clear  from  all  the  genuine  remains  of 
Ayitiqiiity^  that  the  Catholick  Church  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  and  even  from  the  beginnings  did  believe 
the  Eternity  and  Confiibflantiality  of  the  Son ;  ifeithei- 
the  oldefi  Creeds^  as  interpreted  by  thofe  that  recite 
them  J  or  the  Tefiimonics  of  the  carliefi  JVriters^  or 
the  publick  Cenfures  pafs'd  upon  Hereticks^  or  parti- 
cular pajf  ages  of  the  Antientefi  Father s^  can  amount 
to  a  proof  of  a  thing  of  this  Nature?  p.  378. 

a,U  E  R  Y    XXVI. 

Whether  the  Do^or  did  not  equivocate  or  prevaricate 
jirangely  in  facing  ^  The  Generality  of  Writers 
before  the  Council  of  A^/Vf,  were,  in  the  whole, 
clearly  on  his  fide:  Whenitismanifefl^  they  luere^ 
in  the  general s  no  farther  on  his  fide ^  than  the  alloiv- 
ing  a  Subordination  amounts  to-,  no  farther'  than 
our  ov:n  Church  is  on  his  fide^  while  in  the  main  points 
of  difference^  the  Eternity  and  Confubftantiality, 
they  are  clearly  againfl  him  >  nat  is^  they  were  on 
his  fide ^  fo  far  as  we  acknowledge  him  to  be  right ^ 
but  no  farther,  p.  38p. 

Q^U  E  R  Y     XXVII. 

Whether  the  Learned  Do^or  may  not  reafonably  be  [up- 
pos'dto  fay^  the  Fathers  are  on  his  fide  with  the  fame 
Meaning  and  Referve  as  he  pretends  our  Church- 
Forms  to  favour  him  \  that  is^  provided  he  ?nay  in- 
terpret as  hepleafes^  and  make  them  [peak  his  Senfe^ 
however  contradictory  to  their  own :  And  whether 
the  true  Reafon  why  he  does  not  care  to  admit  the  Tefli- 
monies  of  the  Fathers  as  Proofs,  may  not  bcj  becaufc 
jChey  are  againllhim  ?  p.  412. 

*  Anfwer  to  Dr.  ffelh  p,  28. 

B  4  QUERY 


The    CONTENTS. 

(i_U  E  R  Y    XXVIII. 

Whether  it  he  at  all  probable^  tToat  the  primitive  Church 
JJwtild  mi  flake  in  fo  material  a  Point  as  this  is  3  or  that 
the  vjhole  Stream  of  Chriftian  Writers  fljould  miflake 
in  telling  us.  ijohat  the  Senfeof  the  Church  ijoas  >  and 
"whether  fuch  a  Cloud  of  TVitneffes  can  be  fit  afide 
ivithput  weakening  the  only  Proof  ive  have  of  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  and  the  Jntegrity  of  the  Sa- 
cred Texts?  p.4f6. 

Q.  U  E  R  Y    XXIX. 

Whether  private  Reafoning^  in  a  piatter  above  our  Com- 
prehenfion^  'ie '  a  fafer  Rule  to  go  by^  than  the  general 
Senfe  and  Judgment  of  the  primitive  Church  in  the 
firft'^ooYears',  or^fuppofing  it  doubtful  what  the  Senfe 
of  the  Church  was  w.ithin  that  tlme^  whether  what 
was  determined  by  a  Council  of  3  00  Bifkopsfoon  after^ 
with  thcgreat-efl  Care  and Deliberation^and has fatis- 
fied  Men  of  the'  greatefl  Senfe^  Pl^ty-i  <^T^d  Learnings 
all  over  the  Chriftian  World^  for  1400  7}ars  ftnce^ 
may  not  fatisfy  wife  and  good  Men  now  ?  p.  460. 

Q^U  E  R.  Y    XXX. 

Whether^  fuppofing  the  Cafe  doubtful^  it  be  not  a  wife 
Mans  part  to  take  the  fafer  Side ;  rather  to  think 
too  highly^  than  too  meanly  of  our  blejj'ed  Saviour ; 
rather  to  pay  a  modefl  deference  to  the  Judgment 
of  the  Ant  lent,  aud.  Modern  Churchy  than  to  lean  to 
onc"^owii  Undcrfdndihg?  p.47f. 

Q^U  E  R  Y    XXXI. 

whether  anything  lefts  than  clear  and  evident  Demon" 
''.  ftriu'ion,  cntbe  ftufeof  Ari-anifm,  ought  to  move  a  wife 
■'hndgoodAI'dn-^  againft, ft" great  Appearances  of  Truths 
on  the  fide  o/' Orthodoxy,  /;c//7 Scripture, Reaibn, 
and  Aniiquity :  and  whether'  we  ?nay  not  wait  long 
before  we  find  ftuh  Dcmonflration  ?  p.  48 1 .  A 


DEFENSE 

OF    SOME 

QUERIES 

RELATING     TO 

Dr.  CLARKEs 

Scheme  of  theH.TRiNiTY; 

In  A  N  s  w  E  R  to  a 

CLERGY-MAN  in  the  Country, 


Compare  the  following  Texts. 


/  am  the  Lord^  and 
there  is  none  elfes 
There  is  no  God  be- 
[ides  me-,  Ila.  45.   5. 

Is  there  a  God  he- 
Jides  me?  Tea-,  There 
is  no  God.,  I  know  not 
any,  Ifa.  44.  8. 

1  am  God  and  there 
is  none  like  me':,  Ifa.46.9. 
.  Before  me  there  is: as 
no  God  form'd,  neither 
Jhall  there  be  after 
me.,  Ifa.  43.  10. 


The  Word  was  Gody 
Joh.  I.  I. 

Thy  Throne^  OGody 
Heb.  i.S. 

Chrijt  came,  who  is 
over  all  God  bleffed 
for  ever,  Rom.  9.  5. 

IFho  being  in  the 
Form  of  God,  Phil.  2.  6, 
JVho  being  the 
Brightnefs  of  his  Glo- 
ry ,  and  the  exprefs 
image  of  his  Terforiy 
Hcb.  I.  3. 


.^  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  I. 

Q^  U    E    R   Y      I. 

Whether  all  other  Beings  y  be/ides  the  one 
Supreme  God,  be  not  excluded  by  the  Texts 
of  Ifaiah ,  [fo  "juhich  many  more  might  be 
added)  and  confequently  ,  'luhether  Chrijl 
can  be  God  at  ally  unlefs  He  be  the  fame 
'-juith  the  Supreme  God? 

THE  Sum  of  your  Anfwcr  tothisQuery, 
is,  that  the  Texts  Cited  from  Ifaiah,  in 
the  firfl  Column^  are  fpoken  of  one  Pcrfoii  on- 
ly>  (p-  54-)  The  Terfon  of  the  Father y  fp.  39.) 
And  therefore  all  other  TerfonSy  or  Beings 
(which  you  make  equivalent)  ho:i}  divine  Jo- 
every  are  necefarily  excluded ;  and  by  Confe- 
quence  y  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  is  as  much 
excluded  from  being  the  one  Supreme  God,  as 
from  being  the  Terfon  of  the  Father,  (p.  40.) 

You  fpcnd  fomcPages,  in  endeavouring  to 
fhow,  that  the  T  erf  on  of  the  Father  only  is 
the  Supreme  God ;  and  that  the  Pcrfon  of  the 
Son  is  not  Supreme  God.  Buc  what  does  this 
iignify,  except  it  be  to  lead  your  Reader  off 
from  the  Point  which  it  concerned  you  to  fpeak 
to  ?  Inftead  of  anfwering  the  Difficulty  propos'd, 
which  Wcis  the  Part  of  a  Refpondcnt,  you  chufe 
to  flip  it  over,  and  endeavor  to  put  Me  upon 
the  Dcfcnfive;  which  is  by  no  means  Fair. 
Your  Bufincfs  was  to  ward  off  the  Confcqucncc 
which  I  had  prcfs'd  you  with,  namely,  this : 
That   if  the  Son  be  at  all  excluded  by  thofc 

Texts 


Qu.  L        ^//^;«^  Q.UERIES.  , 

Texts  in  the  firft  Column,  He  is  altogether  ex- 
ckidcd  ;  and  is  no  God  at  all.  He  cannot,  up- 
on your  Principles,  be  the  fame  God,  becaufe 
He  is  not  the  lame  Perfon  :  He  cannot  be  ano- 
ther God,  becaufe  excluded  by  thofe  Texts.  If 
therefore  He  be  neither  the  fame  God,  nor  ano- 
ther God;  it  muft  follow  that  he  is  no  God. 
This  is  the  difficulty  which  I  apprehend  to  lie 
againft  your  Scheme;  and  which  you  have  not 
Efficiently  attended  to. 

I  fhall  therefore  charge  it  upon  you  once  again, 
and  leave  you  to  get  clear  of  it  at  Icifure. 

I  fhall  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  defign 
and  purport  of  thofe  Texts,  cited  from  Ifaiahy 
was  the  fame  with  that  of  the  firji  Command- 
ment: Namely,  to  draw  the  People  off  from 
placing  any  Truft,  Hope,  or  Reliance  in  any 
but  God,  to  direfl:  them  to  the  only  proper 
objecl  of  Worfhip,  in  oppofition  to  all  Things 
orPerfonSjbefidcstheone^Siipremc  God.  "  Nci- 
*'  ther  Baal  nor  Afitarothy  nor  any  that  arc 
"  cfteemcd  Gods  by  the  Nations,  are  (iridlly  and 
"  properly  fuch.  Neither  Princes  nor  Magiftrates, 
*'  however  called  Gods  in  a  loofe  Metaphorical 
''  Senfe,  are  ftriclly  or  properly  fuch.  No  reli- 
*^  gious  Service,  no  Worfliip,  no  Sacrifice  is  due 
^'to  any  of  them:  I  only  am  God,  in  a  jufl: 
"  Senfe  5  and  therefore  I  demand  your  Homage 
"  and  Adoration.  Now,  upon  your  Hypothefts, 
we  muft  add ;  that  even  the  Son  of  God  Him- 
fclf,  however  drji7ie  He  may  be  thought,  is 
really  no  God  at  all,  in  any  juft  and  proper  Senfe. 

He 


4  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  I. 

He  IS  no  more  than  a  nominal  God,  and  ftands 
excluded  with  the  reft:  All  Worfliip  of  Him, 
and  Reliance  upon  Him,  will  be  Idolatry  as 
niuch  as  the  Worfliipof  Angels,  or  Men,  or 
of  the  Gods  of  the  Heathen  would  be.  God  the 
FdtherHe  is  God,  and  he  only  ;  and  Him  only 
jhalt  thou  ferve.  This  I  take  to  be  a  clear  Gonfc- 
qucnce  from  your  Principles,  and  unavoidable. 

You  do,  indeed,  attempt  to  evade  it  by  fup- 
pofing  that,  when  the  Father  laith  there  is  no 
God  bejides  mey  the  meaning  only  is,  that  there 
is  no  Supreme  God  befides  me.  But  will  you 
plcafe  to  confider> 

1.  That  you  have  not  the  leaft  Ground  or 
Rcafon  for  putting  this  Senfe  upon  the  Text. 
It  is  not  faid  there  is  no  other  Supreme  God 
beftdcs  me;  but  abfolutely,  no  Other, 

2.  If  this  were  all  the  meaning,  then  Baaly 
or  yljhtarothy  or  any  of  the  Gods  of  the  Na- 
rions,  might  be  looked  upon  as  inferior  "Deities, 
snd  be  ferved  with  a  fubordinate  Worfliip,  not- 
W'ithftanding  any  thing  thefe  Texts  fay,  with- 
out any  Peril  of  Idolatry,  or  any  Breach  of  the 
firft  Commandment  *  Solomon  might  Sacrifice 
to  Afljtaroth  and  Milcom,  to  Chemojh  and 
Moloch,  provided  he  did  but  ferve  the  God  of 
Ifrael  with  Soveraign  Worfliip,  acknowledg- 
ing: Him  Supreme,  And  this  miizht  furnifli  the 
Samaritans  with  a  very  plaufible  cxcufe,  even 
from  the  Law  it  felf,  for  ferving  their  o^-jon 
Cods  \\\  Subordination  to  the  one  Supreme 
God  5  fince  God  has  not  forbidden  it. 

•  J  Kin;rs  c.   ii.  3-   YoU 


Qii.  I.        of  fof^e  QJJ  ERIE  S.  y 

.  3.  You  may  plcalc  to  coafidci*  farther,  that 
thcLX  was  never  any  great  Danger  of  cither  Je-jj 
or  Gentile  falUng  into  the  bcUcf  of  many  Sn- 
freyne  Gods  -,  or  into  the  Worfliip  of  more  than 
one  as  Supreme,  That  is  a  Notion  too  filly 
to  have  ever  prevailed  much,  even  in  the  igno- 
rant Pagan  World.  What  was  moil  to  be  guard- 
ed againfl:,  was  the  Worfliip  of  inferior  licitie.s, 
befidcs,  or  in  Subordination  to,  one  Supreme. 
It  cannot  therefore  reafonably  be  imagined  diat 
thofe  Texts  are  to  bear  only  fuch  a  renfc,  as  leaves 
room  for  the  Worfliip  of  inferior  Divinities. 

The  Sum  then  is,  that  by  the  Texts  of  the 
Old  Teftament,  it  is  not  meant  only  that  there 
is  no  other  Suprer/ie  God  5  but  abfolutcly  ?io 
Other:  And  therefore  our  blelled  Lord  mull 
cither  be  included  and  comprehended  in  the 
one  Supreme  God  of  Ifrael,  or  be  intircly  ex- 
cluded with  the  other  pretended,  or  nominal. 
Deities.  I  (hall  clofe  this  Argument  with  St. 
Aufiins  Words  to  Maximin^  the  Arian  Bifliop, 
who  recurr'd  to  the  fame  Solution  of  the  Diffi- 
culty which  you  hope  to  flielter  your  fclf  in. 

^'  *  Repeat  it  ever  fo  often,  that  the  Father 
"  is  greater^  the  Son  lefs.  We  fliall  anfwcr 
"  you  as  often,  that  the  greater  and  the  Icfs 
♦*  make  Tjuq.     And  it  is  not  faid',  77?/ grcnt(»:f 

*  Clama  quantum  vis,  Pater  cfl  Major,  Filius  Minor,  rcfpondctiir 
tibU  duo  tamen  funt  Major  &  Minor.  NqcdK^um  cd  Domluus 
i)eus'tuus  M^j/o;'l)ominusunuscrc :  'lc<\  dic'luni'cfl  Dominus  Dci;s 
tuus  Dominus  unus  efl.  Ncquc  didum  c(l,  hon  cfl  alius  ^rtuBs 
milji,  feddidtum  c/1,  noii  eft  alius  prxrcr  mc.  Aut  ergoC^outrrcre 
Patrem  8c  Filium  unum  cllc  Domir.umDcum,  ayt  apcrte  nc^^a  I^- 
Bamum  Dcum  die Chriflum.     -4;/^/y/^.l.  2.  c.cj.'^.  727. 

Lor^ 


6  y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  II. 

Lord  God  is  one  Lord:  But  the  Words  arc  : 
"  The  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord  ^-y  Nor  is  it  faid, 
"  There  is  none  other  Equal  to  me^  but  the 
"  Words  arc,  There  is  none  other  Bcfidcs  me, 
"  Either  therefore  acknowledge  that  Father  and 
"  Son  are  one  Lord  God  5  or  in  plain  Terms 
"  deny  that  Chrift  is  Lord  God  at  all.  This  is 
the  difficulty  which  I  want  to  fee  clear'd.  You 
produce  Texts  to  fhow  that  the  Father  Jingly  is 
the  Supreme  God,  and  that  Chrift  is  excluded 
from  being  the  Supreme  God :  But  I  infift  upon 
it,  that  you  mifunderftandthofe  Texts  5  becaufe 
the  Interpretation  you  give  of  them,  is  not  re- 
concileable  with  other  Texts  5  and  becaufe  it 
leads  to  fuch  Abfurdities  as  arc  too  fliocking  even 
for  your  felf  to  admit.  In  fhort ;  either  you 
prove  too  much,  or  you  prove  nothing. 

Q^  U    E   R    Y       11. 

Whether  the  Texts  of  the  New  Teft anient  {in 
.the  fecond  Column)  do  not    fhow  that  He 
(Chrift)  is  not  excluded^  and  therefore  mufl 
be  the  fame  God? 

THE  Texts  cited,  if  well  confidercd,  taking 
in  what  goes  before  or  after,  are  enough 
to  (how  that  Chrift  is  not  excluded  among  the 
nominal  GodSy  who  have  no  Claim  or  Title  to  our 
Service,  Homage,  or  Adoration.  He  is  God  be- 
fore the  World  was,  God  over  all  bleffed  for 
ever.  Maker  of  the  World,  and  worfliip'd  by  the 
Angels,  and  therefore  certainly  He  is  not  ex- 
cluded 


Qu.  II.       offome   Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  7 

eluded  among  the  w^w/WGodswhomto  wor- 
fhip  were  Idolatry.  But  fince  all  arc  excluded, 
as  hath  been  before  fhovvn,  except  the  one  Su> 
preme  God,  it  is  very  manifeft  that  he  is  the  fame 
with  the  one  Supreme  God.  Not  the  lame 
Terfon  with  the  Fathery  as  you  groundledy  ob- 
jed  to  us,  but  Another  Perfon  in  the  fame  God- 
head ;  and  therefore  the  Supreme  God  is  more 
Perfonsthan  one.  You  argue,  (p.  40.)  that  ^ 
Chrift  be  God  at  ally  it  unavoidably  follo\s:s  that 
He  cannot  be  the  fame  individual  God  iL'ith  the 
Supreme  God,  the  Father,  By  individual  God^ 
you  plainly  mean  the  fame  individual  divine 
Terfon^  which  is  only  playing  upon  a  Word, 
miftaking  our  Senfc,  and  fighting  with  your  own 
Shadow.  Who  pretends  that  the  Son  is  the 
y2?w^  y^r/Z?7^  with  the  Father  >  All  we  aUcrt  is, 
tliat  iie  is  the  fame  Supreme  God  5  that  is,  par- 
taker of  the  fame  undivided  Godhead.  It  will 
be  proper  here  briefly  to  confider  the  Texts,  by 
which  you  attempt  to  prove,  that  the  Son  is  ex- 
cluded from  being  the  one  Supreme  God :  Only- 
let  me  remind  you,  once  again,  that  you  forgot 
the  part  you  was  to  bear.  Your  Bufinefs  was 
not  to  oppofe,  bwtto refpond:  Nottoraife  Ob- 
jedions  againfl:  our  Scheme-,  but  to  anfwer 
thofe  which  were  brought  againft  your  own.  You 
obferve  *fromy^/&«8.  54.  Matth.  22.  31,  32. 
and  A5is  3.13.  that  God  the  Father  was  the 
God  of  the  JewSy  the  God  of  Abraham,  Ifaac, 
and  Jacob,  Very  right.  But  how  does  it  appear 

*  Pag.  34. 

rha 


S  ^DEFENSE.         Qu.  II. 

that  the  Son  was  not  ?  Could  you  have  brought 
ever  a  Text  to  prove,  that  God  the  Son  was  not 
God  oi  Abraha?n^  I  fane,  and  Jacob  -,  I  muft  ther\ 
have  own'd  that  you  had  argued  pertinently,  -.j 
You  next  cite  Job.  17.3.  i  Cor.  8.  6,  Eph, 
4.  6.  to  prove  that  the  Father  is  fometimes  ftiled 
the  only  true  God;  which  is  all  that  they  prove. 
But  you  have  not  fhown  that  he  is  fo  called  m 
oppofition  to  the  Son,  or  exclufive  of  Hmi.  It 
may  be  meant  in  oppofition  to  Idols  only,  as  all, 
Antiquity  has  thought  5  or  it  may  fignify  that  the 
Father  is  "^  primarihy  wot  exclufive ly,  the  only 
true  God,  as  the  firft  Perfon  of  the  blefled  Tri- 
nity, the  Root  and  Fountain  of  the  other  Two. 
You  obferve  ^  that  in  thefe  and  many  other 
Places,  the  one  God  is  the  Verfbn  of  the  Fat  her  ^ 
in  Contrad{ftin^ion  to  the  "Terfon  of  the  Soi^^ 
It  is  very  certain  that  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  is 
there  diftinguifli'd  from  the  Perfon  of  the  Son ; 
becaufe  they  are  diftindly  named :  And  you 
may  make  what  ufe  you  pleafe  of  the  Obfer- 
vation,  againft  the  Sabellians^  v/ho  make  but 
one  Perfon  of  t\yp.  But  what  other  ufe  you 
c^n  be  able  to  make  of  it,  I  fee  not;  unlefs 
you  can  prove  t\\\^  negative  Proppfition,  that 
no  fufficient  Reafon  can  be  aflign'd  for  ftiling 
the  Father  the  only  God,  without  fuppofing; 
that  the  Son  is  excluded.  Noiiatian's  Remark, 
upon  one  of  your  Texts,  7^^,  17.  3-  ^hee , 
the  only  true  Gody  and  Jefus  Chrifi  ^isjhom  thou 

♦  Vid.Tcrtull.  cont.  Prax.  c.  18.  |  Pag.  34. 

haft 


Ou.  II.       offorrje  Q.  U  E  R  I  E  S.  9 

hafi  fent)  may  dcfcrve  your  Notice.  *  He  infers 
from  the  Text,  that  Chrifl:  is  C^^,  as  well  as  the 
Father  :  If  he  did  not  mean  that  Chiifl:  was  GW, 
in  the  fame  Senfe  as  the  Father,  and  only  God  as 
as  well  as  the  Father,  it  will  be  hard  to  make 
out  the  Senfe,  or  Connexion  of  his  Inference. 
He  did  not  fee  that  peculiar  force  of  the  ex- 
clufive  Term,  [only)  which  you  infift  fo  much 
upon.  He  knew  better  5  being  well  acquainted 
with  the  Language,  arid  the  Dodlrine  of  the 
Chriftian  Church.  His  Conftrudion,  to  fpeak 
modeftly,  is  at  leaft  as  plaufible  as  yours.  If 
you  can  find  no  plainer  or  clearer  Texts  agaiiifl: 
us,  you'll  not  be  able  to  help  your  Caufe.  As 
to  I  Cor,  8.  6.  All  that  caii  be  reafonably  ga- 
thered from  it,  is,  that  the  Father  is  there  e?n' 
fhatically  (tiled  07ie  God  5  but  without  defign 
to  exclude  the  Son  from  being  God  alfo  5  as 
the  Son  is  emphatically  (tiled  one  Lord-^  but 
without  defign  to  exclude  the  Father  from  be- 
ing Lord  alfo.  -f  Reaforis  may  be  aflign  d  for  the 
Emphajis  in  both  Cafes ;  which  are  too  obvi- 
ous to  need  reciting.  One  Thing  you  may 
pleafe  to  obfcrve;    that  the   Difcourfc  there, 

*  Si  nolulfiet  fe  ctiam  Dcum  Intelligi,  cur  addidit,  Sc  quern  mififti 
jefumChriftum,  nifi  quoniambcDeiimaccipi  vo\\i\r..K6rat.Tr'm.c.z\. 

See  the  fums  Argument  illuftrateil  and  improved  by  the  great  Atha- 
nafius:  Orat.  3.p._fy8.  Vol.  i.  Edit.  Bened.  Vid...4>w^r<?/.  de  Fid. 
lib.5-.  c.  I. 

f  Si  cnim,  ut  exiflimant  Ariani,  Deus  Pa^cr  Solus cfl:  Dcus,  etid^m 
confequcntia,  Solus  erit  Dominus  Jefus  Chriflu?,  Sc  ncc  Pater  eric 
Dominus  nee  Filius  Deus.  ^C(\  aolit,  ut  non  lit,  vcl  in  Domi- 
iiationeDc'tas,  vcl  in  Deitate  Dominatio.  Unus  eft  Dominus  i>c 
unus  eft  Deus:  quia  Patris  &  Filii  Dominatio  una  Diyinitas  eft, 
Hieron,  comment,  m  EpLcf.  C.  4.  v.  y, 

C  V.4;5' 


to  ^DEFENSE  Qii.  II. 

V.  4, 5 .  is  about  Idols ^  and  nominal  Gods  and 
Lords,  which  have  no  claim  or  title  to  rehgious 
Worfliip.  Thefe  the  Father  and  Son  are  Both 
equally  diftinguiflied  from :  which  may  infinu- 
ate,  at  Icaft,  to  us ,  That  the  Texts  of  the  Old 
or  New  Teftament,  declaring  the  Unity  and  ex- 
cluding others,  do  not  exclude  the  Son,  by  '-ji'kom 
are  all  Things :  So  that  here  again  you  have  un- 
fortunately quoted  a  Faffage,  which  inftead  of 
making  for  you,  feems  rather  againft  you.  You 
have  another,  which  is  £^/>&.  4. 6.  One  God  and 
Father  of  ally  ^-iSjloo  is  above  alU  and  through  ally 
and  in  you  all  A  famous  Paflage,  which  has 
generally  been  underftood  by  the  *  Antients  of 
the  whole  Trinity.  Above  all  as  Father  through 
ally  by  the  Word,  and  in  ally  by  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
However  that  be,  this  is  certain,  that  the  Father 
may  be  reafonably  called  the  oney  or  only  God, 
without  the  leaft  Diminution  of  the  Son's  real 
Divinity :  a  fuller  Account  of  which  Matter 
you  may  pleafe  to  fee  in  Dr.  Fiddefs  Body  of 
Divinity,  Vol.  i.  p.  383.  &c.  As  to  the  re- 
maining Texts  cited  by  you,  fomb  are  meant  of 
Chrift  as  Man,  or  as  Mediator:  And  thofe 
which  certainly  refped  him  in  a  higher  Capacity, 
may  be  accounted  for  on  this  Principle,  that  we 
referve,  with  the  Antients,  a  Priority  oi  Order  to 
the  Father,  the  Firft  of  the  Blcffed  Three. 
This  may  fervc  for  a  general  Key  to  explain 

*  Irendus  l.f.c.iS.p.^  ly.  Ed.  Bencd. H'lppolytus  Contr.  Noet.c.  14. 
p.  s6.  Fabric.  Ed,  Athanajius  E p.  ad  Scrap,  p.  6T6.Marh{sVtciorln, 
B  P.Tom.  4.  p.  i^^.Hieron^m,  Tom.  4.  p.  i.p.  362.  Ed. Bened. 

the 


Qii.  II.        offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  i  r 

the  Texts  mcntion'd,  or  others  of  like  import. 
I  cannot,  in  this  place,  delccnd  to  Particulars, 
without  running  too  far  into  the  "Defenji-ce^ 
and  leading  the  Reader  off  from  what  we  began 
with.  Had  you  pleas'd  to  obferve  the  rules  of 
ftrid  method  in  diipute,  you  fliould  not  here 
have  brought  Texts  to  balance  mine ;  but 
fhould  have  refervcd  them  for  another  place. 
All  you  had  to  do,  was  to  examine  the  Texts 
I  had  fet  down  in  the  fecond  Column  5  and  to 
give  fuch  a  Senfe  of  them  as  might  comport 
with  your  own  Hypotkefis,  or  might  be  un- 
ferviceable  to  mine.  You  fhould  have  Ihown 
that  Jch.  I.I.  Heb,  i.  8.  and  Rom. 9-  5-  niay 
fairly  be  underftood  of  a  no77nnal  God  only ; 
one  that  (lands  excluded,  by  the  Texts  of  the 
firft  Column,  from  all  Pretence,  or  Title,  to 
religious  Homage  and  Adoration :  For,  as  I 
have  before  obferved,  He  muft  either  be  intire- 
ly  excluded,  or  not  at  all :  and  if  He  be  not 
excluded.  He  is  comprehended  in  the  one  Su- 
preme God,  and  is  One  with  Him :  Or,  at  lead, 
you  fliould  have  fet  before  the  Reader  your 
Interpretation  of  thofe  Texts,  and  have  fhown 
it  to  be  confident  with  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah. 
For  example,  take  Joh,  i .  i . 

"  In  the  Beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
"  the  Word  was  with  the o^v.  Supreme 
"  God,  and  the  Word  was  Another 
''  God  inferior  to  Him,  a  CREATUREofthe 
''  GreatGod:  AllThings  were  Created 
*'  by  this  Creature,  &c, 

C  2  This 


12  ^DEFENSE         Qu.  It 

This  Interpretation,  which  is  really  yours, 
as  fhall  be  fliown  in  the  Sequel,  is  what  you 
ihould  have  fairly  own'd,  and  reconciled,  if 
poffible,  with  the  Texts  of  Ifaiahy  (pur- 
pofely  defigned  to  exclude  all  inferior^  as 
well  as  co-ordinate  Gods)  and  particularly  with 
Ifaiah  43.  10.  Before  me  there  v:as  no 
God  formd,  neither  jhall  there  be  after 
]sie:  Words  very  full  and  expreflive  againft 
2XVj  Creature-Gods,  *  But,  inftead  of  this,  you 
tell  us,  God  could  not  be  i^ith  Himfelf,  as 
if  any  of  us  faid,  or  thought.  That  was  St. 
John's  meaning.  Thus  you  induftrioufly  run 
from  the  Point,  mifreprefent  our  Senfe,  and 
artfully  conceal  your  own.  In  this  flight 
manner,  you  pafs  over  the  three  firft  Texts  al- 
ready mentioned  5  but  you  think  you  have  fome 
Advantage  of  the  ^lerifl^  in  refped  of  Thil, 
2.  6.  and  Heb.  i.  3.  and  not  content  to  fay, 
that  they  come  not  up  to  the  point  5  you  are 
very  pofitive,  that  they  prove  the  direB  con- 
trary to  that  for  which  they  are  ^alledg'd-^ 
and  exprefs  your  wonder  that  they  Jhordd  be 
offefd.  Whether  you  really  wonder  at  a  Thing, 
which  no  Man  who  is  at  all  acquainted  with 
Books  and  Learning  can  wonder  at ;  or  whether 
only  you  affed  that  way  of  talking,  I  deter- 
mine not ;  but  proceed  to  confider  what  you 
have  to  offer  againft  my  Senfe  of  the  two  Texts. 

*Qui.  ergo  Hocdicit  Pater  an  Filius  ?  Si  Filius,  Ante  Me,  in- 
c]uit,  non  ejl  alius  Deus :  Si  Pater,  poft  77ic,  inquit,  non  erit.  Hie 
Priorcm,  Ille  Pofteriorcm  non  habcr.  /mbror.  de  Fid.  1.  i.  c.  8. 
p.  4J-8.     Vid.  Greg.  NylT.  contr.  Eunom.  4.  p.  5-74. 

Upon 


(^.  II.        offofKe  qU  E  R I  E  S.  15 

Upon  "P^/Z  2.6.  youprcfsnic  with  the  Au- 
thority of  Novatian-^  whom,  I  do  afilirc  you, 
I  very  much  rcfpcd,  as  I  do  all  the  prhuitivc 
Writers.  As  to  Novatian's  Interpretation  of 
Tkil.  2.  6.  it  ihall  be  confider'd  prefently  5  only, 
in  the  firil  place,  let  me  obfcrvc  to  you,  that 
as  to  the  main  of  my  Argument,  built  upon 
that  and  other  Texts,  Fle  was  certainly  on  my 
Side.  He  *  cites  Jfa.  45.  5-  ^nd  underftnnds 
it  of  God  the  Father  5  not  fo  as  to  cxxludc 
the  Son  from  being  comprehended  in  the  one 
God^  but  in  oppofition  to  falfe  Gods  only. 
He  proves  the  Divinity  of  Chrifl  from  his 
receiving  Worfhip  of  the  Chn.rch ,  and  his 
being  every  where  prefent,  f  befidcs  many 
Other  Topicks  5  and^  makes  Him  ,"  Confub- 
Jlantial\j\\\\  God  the  Father.  This  is  as  much 
as  I  mean  by  his  being  one  with  the  Supreme 
God ;  and  therefore  I  have  nothing  to  fear  from 
this  Writer,  who  agrees  fo  well  v/ith  me  in 
the  main,  and  cannot  be  brought  to  bear  Evi- 
dence againft  me,  unlefs,  at  the  lame  time,  EIc 
be  found  to  contradid  Himfeif.     This  being 

*Ego  Deus,  &  non  eft  propter  me.  Qui  per  cundcm  Prophcrnm 
j-efert:  Quoniam  iMajeftatem  mcam  nondabo  aircri,  utomncsciini 
fuisFigmcntis  Ethnicosexcludat  6c  K.'^^reticos.  C.  3. />.  70S.  ^ce 
alfo  theCiiatio-nabove  p.  9, 

f  SiHomo  tantummodo  Chriflus,  quomod(»  ndLfl:  iib'quc  invo- 
catus,  cum  h^ec  homir.is  natura  non  lit,  fed  Dei,  ut  addle  omni 
loco  poflit?  C.  14.  p.  715-. 

iJUnus  Deus  oftenditur  vcrus  &  ^ternu<;  Pater,  a  quo  folo  hxc 
vis  Divinitatis  cmilTa  ctiam  in  Filium  tiadira  8cdirc6r.iruiTum  per 
SubJlantU  Coynmumomm  ad  Patrem  revolvitur.  The  Father  h  here 
filled  emphatically  the  cue  God,  but  ftUl  comprehoui-ng,  r.ct  cxrhulh:^ 
the  Son  J  coufubllantial  with  H'un.     Ch.  3  i.p,  750. 

C  3  prcmib'd, 


14  :/^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  11, 

premised,    let  us  now  fee  what  He  fays  to  the 
Text  above  mention  d,  T^hil.  2.  6.     He  faith 
of  the  Son  (I  ufe  your  own  Words  p.  35.)  that 
iho)  He  was  in  the  Form  of  God,  yet  He  ne- 
ver compared  Himfelf  with  God  his  Father. 
You  have  tranflated  the  laft  Words  as  if  they 
had  run  thus  5   TDeo,  patri  fw.     The  Words 
are,  Nunqitam  fe  T>eo  Tatri  aiit  comparavity 
aiit  contidit.     Never  compared  Himfelf  with 
God  the  Father,    The  Reafon  follows,  Memor 
fe  effe  ex  fuo  T?atre:    Remembring  He  was 
from  his  Father-^    That  is,    that  he  was   be- 
gotteny    and  not  tinbegotten.     He    never  pre- 
tended to  an  equality  with  the  Father,   in  re- 
fped  of  his  Original-,  knowing  Himfelf  to  be 
fecond  only  in  Order,   not  the  firft  Perfon  of 
the  ever   Bleffed   Trinity.     You  may  fee   the 
like  Expreflions  in  *  Hilary  and  ^  Thabaditts  5 
who   can    neither    of    them   be    fufpedled  of 
Arianizing  in  that  Point.     You  afterwards  cite 
fome  other  Expreflions  of  Novatian^  particu- 
larly this:    'T>uo  aqtiales   inventi  duos  T)eos 
merito    reddidijfent.     Which  you  might  have 
render'd  thus :   Had  they  Both  been  equal  (in 
refped  of  Original,  Both  unbegotten)  They  had 
undoiibtedlj  been  two  Gods. 

See  the  II  whole  Paflage  as  it  lies  in  the  Au- 

*  Hilary  Tr'm.  I.  5.  c.  4.  p.  810.  Ed.  Bencd. 

•)■  ThAbad.  p.  3  04. 

Ij  Si  cnim  natus  non  fuiflct,  innatus  comparatus  cum  eo  qui 
cfTet  innatus,  sequatione  in  utroqueoftenfa,  duos  faccretinnatos,  5c 
ideo  duos  facerct  Deos.  S\  non  genitus  cffet,  collatus  cum  eo 
(qui)  genitus  non  eflct,  6c  aequales  inventi,  duos  Deos  merito  reddi- 

thor 


Qu.  II.       offome  (^U  E  R I  E  S.  15 

thor  himfelf,  and  not  mainVd  and  mutilated,  as 
you  quote  it  from  Dr.  Clarke.  There  is  no- 
thing more  in  it  than  this,  that  Father  and  Son 
are  not  two  Gods,  becaufe  They  arc  not  Both 
unoriginated:  which  is  the  common  Anfwcr 
made  by  the  Catholicks  to  the  charge  of  Trithe- 
ifrm,  not  only  before,  but  after  the  iV/V^;;^  C<?//;/- 
cil  5  as  might  be  made  appear  by  a  Cloud  of 
Witneffes,  were  it  needful.  What  you  are 
pleased  to  call  a  7710ft  Jlrong  Teftimony  agairtfl  an 
abfolute  Coeqtiality  (meaning  this  Paflage  of  AV 
vatian)  is,  if  rightly  underftood,  and  compared 
with  what  goes  before  and  after,  a  moft  ftrong 
Teftimony  of  fuch  a  Coeqtiality  as  we  contend 
for.  And  therefore  Dr.  Whitby,  having  for- 
merly cited  the  whole  Paragraph  as  a  full  and 
clear  Teftimony  of  the  Son's  real  Divinity, 
concludes  thus.  The  Author,  fays  He,  in  this 
Paflage,  "  *does,  in  the  plaineft  words  imagin- 
"  able,  declare  that  Chrift  is  God ,  equal  to 
*'  the  Father  in  every  refpeft,  excepting  only 
"  that  he  is  God  of  God.  The  Do^l:or  indeed 
has  fince  chang'd  his  Mind  5  and  now  talks  as 
confidently  the   other  way,  upon  f  this  very 

difTent  non  genitii  atque  ideo  duos  Chriflus  reddidiflct  Dcos,  ^\ 
fine  Origine  eflet,  ut  Parcr,  inventus ;  &  ipfe  principium  omnium, 
ut  Pater,  duo  faciens  principia,  duos  ofrcndiflct  nobis  confequcnrcr 
ScDeos.  C.  31.  Conf.  lldar.  deTrin.  p.  1040.  Ncque  ex  iniLiici- 
bilitate  innafcibili  coxqualem,  fed  ex  geneiationc  unigcniti  non 
difparem. 

*  Ubi  verbis  difci;tifllmis  oftendit  (Nurvnttanui)   Chriftum  cfic 
Deum,  Patri  a^qualem  paremque,  co  tantummodo  excepro,  quod 
fit  Deus  deDco.     IVh'tt.  Tract,  tie  Ver.Chr.  Dettate,  p.6j. 
\[m:itb.t  difquifitio  Modeft.  p.  164. 

C+  Paflage. 


16  :.^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qli.  II. 

PafTagc.  Whether  He  was  more  Hkely  to  fee 
clearly  then,  or  fincc ,  I  leave  to  others  to 
judge,  who  will  be  at  the  Pains  to  compare  his 
former  with  fome  of  his  latter  Writings. 

You  have  given  us  the  Sum  of  the  3  V^  Chap- 
ter of  Novatian-,  as  it  fiands  collected  by  the 
Lc.jned  T)r.  Clarke  in  his  excellent  Anfwer 
to  Mr.  Nelfon's  Friend.  You  may  next  pleafe 
to  confult  the  no  lefs  excellent  Reply,  by  Mr, 
Nelfons  Friend,  p.  170,  drc,  where  you  may 
probably  meet  with  Satisfadion. 
'    But  to  return  to  our  Text,  TLil.  2.  6.     The 

words,   ^X  *-A?7J'"^r/uiov  y]/'^'^"^'^^'^'^  uvai  'i(Ta@'.^j   yOU 

tranflate^  ii/<?didnot  affeffy  did  not  claiWy  did 
not  ajjlimcy  take  upon  Him^  or  eagerly  de- 
fire-,  to  be  Honoured  as  God,  After wardjs, 
"(p.  16)  He  never  thought  fit  to  claim  to  Him- 
Jelf  divinity,  or  more  literally y  you  fay.  He 
never  thought  the  ^Divinity  a  Thing  to  be  fo 
catch' d  at  by  Him,  as  to  equal  Himfelf  voith 
God  his  Father,  This  you  give  both  as  No- 
'vatians  Senfc,  and  as  the  true  Senfe  of  the 
Text.  And  you  endeavour  to  confirm  it  from 
the  Authorities  of  Gr otitis ^  Tillotfon,  Whitby y 
snd  Clarke  -,  wdio,  by  the  way,  are  very  diffe- 
rent from  each  other  in  their  Interpretations  of 
this  Place,  hardly  two  of  Them  agreeing  toge- 
ther. However  not  to  ftand  upon  Niceties, 
I  may  yield  to  you  your  own  Interpretation  of 
this  Paffage,  did  not  ajfe^i  to  be  Honoured  as 
God  '3  For  the  flrefs  of  the  Caufe  does  not  feem 
fo  puch  to  lie  in  the  liucrpretation  of   thofe 

Words, 


Qu.  II.       offoDte  CLU  E  R I  E  S.  17 

Words,  as  of  the  Words  foregoing,  viz,  6?  ov 
ixo^a^A  ©sa  uird^x^-j.  "  Who  being" /^  the  Voryn 
"  ^/'  G^^,  that  is,  "  triilj  God  (which  bcft 
"  anfwers  to  the  Antithefis  following,  the 
"  Form  of  a  Servant  fignifying  as  much  as 
^'  truly  Man)  and  therefore  might  juflly  have 
''  affumed  toappear  as  God,  and  to  be  always 
^'  Honbured  as  fachy  yet  did  not  do  it,  at 
^'  the  time  of  his  Incarnation  5  but  for  a  Pat- 
"  tern  of  Humility ,  chofe  rather  to  veil  His 
^^  Glories,  and,  in  appearance,  to  empty  Him- 
*'  felf  of  Them,  taking  upon  Him  human  Na- 
"  ture,  and  becoming  a  Servant  of  God  in  that 
"  Capacity,  &c.  What  is  there  in  this  Para- 
phrafe  or  Interpretation,  either  dilagreeable  to 
the  Scope  of  the  Place,  or  the  Context,  or  to 
the  fober  Sentiments  of  Cathohck  Antiquity, 
not  only  after,  but  before  the  Council  of  Nice-^ 
as  may  appear  from  the  Teftimonies  cited  in 
the  *  Margin  >  Now,  if  this  be  the  Senfc  of  it, 

*  Tertullian'i  recti  al  of  thisText,  and  Comment  upon  it,  are  tcorth 
'Remarking.  Plane  de  fubftantia  Chrifti  putant  8c  hic  Marcionitcc 
Suffragari  Apoftolumiibi,  quod  Phanrafma  Carnis  fucrit  in  Cliriflo, 
quum  dicir,  Quod  in  Effigie  D^i  conjlitutus  non  rapinam  exifiii?hivtt 
Variari  Beo,  fed  exhanfit  femctipfum  accepta  Jijpgie  [irii^  ncn  vcri- 
tatCj  ^  Jim'ditudine  Hominis^  non  in  Homine  ^  ^  Figur.xi'.zcrjwi 

ut   Homo,    non  Subftantia,    id  cd,  non  Carne Numqu id 

ereo  8c  hic  quA  in  Effigie  cum  Dei  co]locat  ?  i^tjuc  r.on  erit  Dc/.'s 
Chriji'ds  zcre,  fi  ncc  Homo  zere  fit  it  in  Effigie  Homims  Conflitutur. 
Contr.  Marc.  1.  f.  c.  20.  P.4S6.  Non  fibi  mneni  aliquid  Jcputat 
quod  ipfc  quidcm  sequalis  Deo.  8c  unum  cum  Patrc,  eft.  JDrig.  iu 
ipifi .  ad  Rem,  I.  ^.  0S5$  ^3/>  y,ivi>(rcc<;  icivrcv  ccttq  rS  i^vat  iccc  Q:y. 
Concil.  Antioch.  Labb.  Vol.  i.  p.  848.  '0.^/y.ovovjj'>;?  tS  ©ts  As'/^-, 

rtl^TTi^^iTc,     Hippolytus,  Vol  2.  p.  19.  Fabric. 

>vhich 


18  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  II. 

which  I  might  farther  confirm  by  the  Autho- 
rities of  Athanajius ,  Jerom ,  Attjlin ,  Ckrj- 
fojlomy  Theophyla6i  y  OecumcniuSy  and  others 
of  the  Antients,  befides  "^  Bifhop  Tearfon  and 
•f  Bifliop  Bull  among  the  Moderns,  why  (hould 
you  "Uionder  to  find  it  again  cited  in  the  fame 
Caufe,  being  fo  full  and  pertinent  to  the  Matter 
in  Hand  ?  Next,  we  may  proceed  to  the  other 
Text,  which  you  as  groundlefly  pretend  to  be 
direBly  contrary  to  that  for  which  it  is  alledged. 
It  is  Heb,  1 .  3 .  IVho  being  the  brightnefs  of 
his  Glory y  and  the  exprefs  Image  of  his  Terfon^ 
&c.  Here  you  are  fo  obliging  as  to  cite  only 
one  Paflage  owtoi  Euft  bins ,  againft  me,  I  would 
fay,  for  me.  EttfebiuSy  writing  againft  the  Sa- 
bellianSy  preflcs  Them  with  this  Text,  and  ar- 
gues thus  from  it.  "  The  Image,  and  that 
*'  whereof  it  is  the  Image,  cannot  Both  be  the 
"  fame  Thing  (in  the  Sabellian  Scnfe)  but  they 
"  are  tis^o  Sttbftances,  and  tui'o  Things^  and  t'wo 
**  Towers :  from  whence  He  rightly  infers,  or 
plainly  means  to  do,  that  the  Father  is  not  the 
Sony  but  that  they  are  really  diftinft.  il  What 
is  there  in  this  at  all  repugnant  to  what  the 
^lerifl  maintains  ?  The  force  of  your  Ob- 
jedion  lies,  I  fuppofe,   in  this,  that  Father  and 

*  On  the  Creed :   Article  i . 

fDef.  Fid.  N.  49.  70.  Prim.  Trad.  p.  38.  Qui  unus  locus,  fi 
redie  expcndatur,  adomnesH^Erefes  adverlus  jcfu  Chrifti  Domini 
noftri  pcrlbnam  rcpel!cndas  fufficit.  D.  F.  p.  37. 
'  I]  Conf  Ambrof.  de  Fid.  /.  1 .  c.-j.  />.  45-3.  Vides  ergo  quia  dum 
linago  dicitur,  Patrcm  fignificatefTc  cujuslmago  fit  Filiusi  quia 
nemo  potcfl  ipfc  libi  imago  iua  efTe. 

Son 


Qu.  II.       of  fame  QUERIES.  19 

Son  arc  called  (f'uo  ii(flai^  <^uo  Tf>J,yixj.rc/.^  and  c'u3 
^mdixEi^^  inconfiftcntly,  you  imagine,  wit li/;7<^/- 
^idiial  Confubftantiality. 

I  will  not  be  bound  to  vindicate  every  Ex- 
preffion  to  be  met  with  in  Eufebhts :  Bur,  al- 
lowing for  the  Time  when  it  was  wrote,  be- 
fore the  fenfe  of  thole  Words  was  fix'd  and  de- 
termin'd,  as  it  has  been  fince  ;  there  may  be 
nothing  in  all  this,  which  iignifics  more  tlian 
w^hat  the  Catholick  Church  has  always  mcdnt 
by  two  Terfons'^  and  what  all  nuiil:  affirm, 
who  believe  a  real  Trinity.  So  ^  ^P'terius 
caird  Father  and  Son  aV/ar  o^Jo,  meaning  no 
more  than  we  do  by  two  didind  Pcrlbns : 
And  Alexander  Bifliop  of  Ale x and' i a,  tlic 
firft  Champion  for  the  Catholick  Caufe  againft 
Arias  J  in  his  Letter  to  Alexander  Bifliop  of 
Conftantinople^  fcruples  not  to  call  Father  and 
Son  ^  c/^Jo  7r^7/aaT:ii  and  7<?r/^/////W/ intimates 
that  they  are  '^  du£  res,  fed  Conjunct ^  --,  and 
Methodius  ufes  ^  o%o  o'^uva/a«f,  meaning  two 
Perfons.  Thefc  or  the  like  flrong  Exprcfllons, 
occuirngin  the  Catholick  Writers,  were  only 
to  guard  the  more  carefully  againft  Sabelliur 
nifm,  the  prevailing  Herefy  of  thofe  Times. 
But  after  ^r/^;^//%  arofe,  there  was  greater  dan^ 
ger  of  the  oppofite  extreme:  And  therefore 
they  began  to  fofren  this  manner  of  Exprcrt]on, 
left  any"  fliould  be  led  to  think,  that  the  Per- 
fons   of  the  Trinity  were  fo  diftincl:  as  to  be 

^Sce  Phot.  Cod.  I  r  9.  p.  500.  *"  ApuJ  ThcoJ.  1.  i.e.  4. 

'Contr.  Prax.c.  8.  p  ,fc4..  •* Phor.  CoJ.i^f.p.  11,7. 

indcpcn- 


20  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  IL 

independent  of,  fcparate  from,  and  aliene  to 
each  other.  Thus  mftead  of  o'^uo  (pwra,  which 
might  be  innocent  before,  and  is  iifed  by  ^  Ori- 
geriy  They  chofe  rather  commonly  to  fay, 
^  (pcos-  \%  (pcoTo? :  yet  fometimes  not  fcrupling  the 
former  way  of  expreflion. ""  Rather  than  fay,  du£ 
ejjentia,  which  might  be  Uablc  to  miftakes;  They 
would  fay,  EJfentiade  EJfentia,  as  T>eus  de  T)eo. 
The  defign  of  all  which  was,  fo  to  alfert  a  real 
Diftindion,  as  not  to  teach  three  abfolute,  inde- 
pendent, or  feparate  Subftances  5  fo  to  maintain 
the  diflinElion  of  Pcrfons,  as  not  to  divide  the 
Subftance.  Three  real  Perfons  is  what  I,  what 
every  Trinitarian^  w^hat  all  found  Catholicks  af- 
fert.  Now  let  us  return  to  the  Text,  Heb.  1.3. 
Having  fhown  you  that  Enfebitiss  Comment  is 
not  pertinent  to  our  prefent  Difpute,  nor  at  all  af- 
feds  the  Caufe  thati  maintain,  w  hich,  I  affure  you, 
is  not  Sabellianipm :  Now  let  me  proceed  a  little 
farther,  to  vindicate  my  ufe  of  that  Text;  which, 
you  pretend,  is  ftrong  againft  me.  Origen  per- 
haps may  be  of  fomc  Credit  with  you  ;  and  the 
more  for  being  admired  by  the  ArianSy  and  much 
cenfur'd  by  many  of  the  Catholicks ^  but  after  his 
ow^n  Times.  ^  His  Comment,  upon  a  parallelText 
to  this,  together  with  tliis  alfo,  is  pretty  remark- 
able. *'If  He  (Chrift)  bethelmageof  the/;^!/'//?- 
"^/^,  the  Image  it  fclf  mud  hz  invifible  too.  I 
*'  will  be  bold  to  add,  that  fmcc  He  is  the  Re- 
^'  femblance  of  his  Father,  there  could  not  have 

'Comment,  in  Joh,  p.  70.       ''5'^f  AthanaL  V.i.p  f  f^  .       ""Vid. 
Cyr.AIcx.Thci'p.  1 1  o,      "^Apud  Athan.Dccrct.Syn.Nic.V.i  .^,23  3  . 

*'  been 


Qii.  II.       of  fome  QiJ  ERIE  S.  21 

"  hen  a  Time  when  he  '-jjas  not.  He  o;ocs 
on  to  argue,  that  fincc  God  is  Light,  and  Chrift 
the  'A.ira,'jycL:jixj.^  or  fliiiiing  forth  of  that  Liirht, 
quoting  this  Text,  that  They  could  never  have 
been  feparate  one  from  the  other,  but  mud  have 
been  Co-eternaL 

^  T>ionyfius  of  Alexandria ,  another  Ante- 
Nicene  Writer,  draws  the  very  fame  Inference 
from  the  fame  Text.  And  Alexander  Bifhop 
of  Alexandria,  in  his  circular  Letter  ^  extant 
in  Athanafitts,  makes  the  Hke  ufe  of  it.  The 
latter  part  of  the  Text  efpecially,  the  words, 
exprefs  Image  of  his  Terfon^  were  very  fre- 
quently and  triumphantly  urged  by  the  Catho- 
licks  againft  the  Arians  :  by  ^  Alexander  of 
Alexandria,  ^  Athanafitis,  ^  Hilary,  ^  Bafily 
s  Gregory  Nyffeny  ^  Gregory  Nazianzen,  ^  Cy- 
rily  and  Others. 

This  may  fatisfy  you  that  it  was  neither 
flrange,  nor  new,  to  alledge  this  Text  in  favor 
of  Chrift's  Divinity.  When  you  have  any  thing 
farther  to  objcd,  it  fliall  be  fairly  examin'd.  In 
the  mean  while,  let  it  ftand,  to  fupport  the  fe 
cond  Query  5  which  returns  upon  you,  and  ex- 
peds  a  fuller  Anfwer.     That  it  may  come  to 

'^'ATUV'-/o(,<rfJbO!,  dim  (puree,  elio^m,  TruvTU/;  x.cci  ccjtoc,  Uioioqi^iy,  cyrec 
ycio  uei  rS  ^i^rU,  ^"HMv  ac,  \^iv  uil  to  UTruuyxc-f^x.  Apud  Atlianaf. 
deScnt,  Dionvf.  p.  25-3. 

^  n&)5  uvofjtjoi<^  TvJ  {J(r«Jt  r»  -TToiToot^,  6  av  f^y-uv  rsXux  kui  uzx\,y)C(rfjux. 
78  7:uTc--;c,-^   Apud  Athanaf   Vol.  i.  p.  399. 

'Epift.  ad  Alexand,  Thcodor.  p.  17.  ''Orat.  i.  p.  424.  dc 

Synod,  p  745.  'DeTrin.p.  97f  .loSf.  i  if 9.  'Conrr. 

EHiiom.  p.  28,  89.         fContr.  Eunom.  p.460.         ''Orat.  36. 

'Dial.y.de  Trin. 

vou 


22  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  II. 

you  recommended  in  the  beft  Manner,  and  in 
the  bcft  Company,  I  (liall  hcrefubjoin  the  Tefti- 
monies  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  all  declar- 
ing that  the  Son  is  not  excluded  from  being  the 
one  Cody  but  is  included  and  comprehended 
therein :  that  is,  tho'  the  one  God  primarily 
denotes  the  Father,  yet  not  exckjively ,  but 
comprehends  the  Son  too.  Now,  as  often  as 
the  primitive  Writers  fpeak  of  Father  and  Son 
together,  as  the  one  God,  in  the  Singular,  they 
bear  witnefs  to  this  Truth.  See  the  Teftimonies 
of  Iren£USy  Athenagoras,  TertuHiaUy  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  and  Origen,  colledcd  in  ^  Dr. 
Fiddess  Body  of  Divinity,  to  which  may  be 
added  ^  Hippolyttis,  ""Laciantitis,  and  even 
Etifebius  Himfelf,  who  acknowledged  ^  one  God 
in  three  Terjons,  as  Socrates  informs  us. 

I  proceed  next  to  other  Teftimonies  more 
cxprefly  declaring,  that  the  Son  is  not  excluded 
from  being  the  one  Supreme  God,  by  the  fe- 
-veral  Texts  of  Scripture,  which  aft ert  the  unity  5 
but  is  always  underftood  or  implied,  as  com- 
prehended in  the  fame  one  God.  -  Iren^us  Qiys, 
"  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  declare  the  one  and 

'Vol.  I. p.  387,  d'f.       ,  ,   ,,        ,.,,.., 

^  OiKfivcfjUiCC  (rvyj<paviac>  c-vvayircck   e?  hccOiov,  i\c,    yaj^    sV'v  o  Otoq, 
c  y^i  xiXium  'rrxT'A^,   6  ^i  u7:cCKiim   t»to?,  to  ^t  <rvviT,^(^oy  elyioy  7Fviv[A>x. 

'O  0)V    TTCCTVi^   fcVi  SOCVTU^y,    h    Jfe   ViOC    ^^y.    TTUVTUV.       TO    ^i    UyiCV    TTViVf/jX    CV 

ztZg-iv.  "AAAi.'5  Ti  svu,  ©£cv  voyji(riii  f^vi  ^vvUf/jiB-u,  t^v  y,K  iivTuc,  ttxt^i, 
Koii  f'tx)  kUi  dyiM  7:-nv(J'joc':-i  Tri^iotruyjiv.  Hippol.  Contr.Noet.p.  14. 16. 
Fabric.  Edit.     '  ^       ^         *^  Lib.  4.  c.  29. 

**  '^Ev«  Qijv  ov  r^iirlv  \:z:f>-^ri(n.   Socr.  E.  H.  J.  r.  C.  23.  p.  48. 

*  Univerfx  Scripturcc unum  Sc  Solum  Deum,    ad  ex- 

cludendos  alios,  praediccnr  omnia  feci fle per  V^rbi.m  Sunn,  gvc. 
I.  2,  c.  27.  p.  i^y.  Bcncd.  Edit. 

<«  only 


Qii.  II.       of  fome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  2  j 

*'  only   God,    excluding    all   others,    to  have 
"  made  all  things  by  H  i  s  Word.     Others 
are  excluded  but  not  his  JFord,  that  is,  his  Son^ 
by  whom    he  made  all  Things,    as   Irentcus 
conftantly  underftands  it.     At  other  times,    He 
fays,     "  God  *  made  all  Things  by  Himfelfy 
"  interpreting  liimftlf,    by  His  JVord  and  by 
"  His  IVifdom ;  that  is,  His  Son  and  the  Holj 
"  Spirit.     Certainly  he  could  not  think  that 
God,  in  his  Declarations  of  the  Unity,  meant 
to  exclude  what  was  fo  near  to  Him,  as  to  be 
juftly    ( not  in  a  Sabellian  Senfe)    interpreted 
Himfelf,     Many  more  PalTagcsof  the  like  Im- 
port mkht  be  cited  from  this  primitive  and  ex- 
cellent Writer.     I  fliall  only  add  a  f  Paffage  or 
two  to  fhow,  that  He  look'd  upon  the  Son  as 
the  only  true  God,   as  well  as  the  Father,     He 
obferves,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  never  call 
any  Peribn  abfolutely   God  or  Lord,    befides 

*  Fecit  ea  per  femetipfum  :  hoc  eft  per  Verbum  8c  Sapicntiam 
fuam.  Adeftenim  ei  femper  Verbum  ^Sa^mtia,  ¥i\\\xi^  Spmtus, 
per  quos,  &  in  quibus  omnia  liberc  ^  fponte  tecit.  Lib.  4.  cap.  20. 

fV^nquam  neque  Propheta:  neque  Apoftolialium  Deum  nomi- 
naverunt,  vel  Dominum  appellaverunt,  prorter  Vmtm  &  i>olum 
D(um.  L.  V  c.8.  p.  182.  Ncquc  igitur  Doxninus,  neque  Spiritus 
Sandus,  neque  Apoftolieum  qui  non  eilbr  Deus,  definitive  &  abio- 
iute  Deum  nomin-i-lVentaliquando  nifi  cilet  Fi-r^ Deus.  L.  3.C.  6. 
NoTV  fee  rvhat  folloirs. 

Utrofque  Dei  appellatione  lignavit  Spiritus  Sceum  qui  ungitur. 
riluim,  &eum  qui  ungic  Patrem.  L.  3.  c.6.  p.  180. 

Th,s  Father  goes  on,  m  the  fame  Chapter,  to  produce  fevnal  other 
inflames  from  the  Holy  Scnpture  to  prove  that  the  Son  is  caUed 
Uefr.t:veiy  and  abfolutely)  God.  That  ,s  flatnly  hume^ntnr  as  any 
'mL  may  fee  hy  looking  into  the  Chapter.     Vid.ctiam  p.  xS3o'4' 

die 


24  ^DEFENSE        Qli.  II; 

the  only  true  God\  and  yet  prefcntly  after  takes 
notice,  that  both  Father  and  Son  arc  by  the 
fame  Scriptures  abfolntcly  fo  called.  See  the 
place  in  the  Margin :  For  though  abfolntely 
be  not  there  expreflcd,  yet  it  is  neceflarily 
implied,  and  is  undoubtedly  the  Author's  mean- 
ing. 

We  may  go  on  to  Terttilliany  who  is  fo  full 
and  clear  to  our  Purpofe,  that  nothing  can  be 
more  fo.  Out  of  many  Paffages  which  might 
be  cited,  I  fhall  here  content  my  felf  with  one 
out  of  his  Book  againft  Traxeas.  ^^  *  There 
"  is  therefore  one  God  the  Father,  and  there 
"  is  none  Other  befides  Him :  By  which  He 
"  does  not  mean  to  exclude  the  Son,  but  Ano- 
"  ther  God  Now  the  Son  is  not  Another 
"  from  the  Father.  Furthermore,  do  but  ob- 
"  ferve  the  drift  and  tendency  of  this  kind  of  ■ 
"  Expreffions,  and  you  will  find,  for  the  mod 
"  part ,    that    they   concern  only  the  Makers 

*  Igitur  uhus  Deus  Pater,  8c  alius  ablqueco  noneft:  Quodiple 
inferens,  non  Filium  ncgat,  led  AHum  Deum.  Csetei'um  Alius  a 
patrc  Filius  non  eft.  Denique,  infpice  fequentia  hujufmodi  pro- 
nuntiationum,  6c  inveniastere  ad  Idolorum  Fadtitores  atque  Cultores 
Definitionem  earumpertinerej  ut  multitudmem  falforum  Deorum 
Unio  divinitatisejfpeiiat,  habens  tamen  Filium  quanto  individuum 
Scinlcparatum  a  Patrc,  tanto  inPatrereputandum,  etfi  non  nomi- 
natum.  At  quin  Ii  nominaflet  ilium,  ieparaffet,  itadicens,  Alius 
pra:tcr  mc  non  eft,  niii  Filius  mcus.  Aliuai  enim  etiam  Filium 
tecifTct,  qucm  dc  aliis  excepiftet.  Puta  Solcm  dicerc:  Ego  Sol,  8c 
alius  prxter  mc  non  eft,  ni  radius  meus  5  nonnc  denotaUes  Vanitatem  i 
quali  non  8c  Radius  in  Solem  deputetur.  c.  18.  p.  j-io.  Compare 
IrenAus,  I.4. c.  6. p.  2  ; 4,  23 f .  Non  ergo  Alius  erat  qui  cof^nolce- 
batur,  Zl  Alius  quidicebat  mmo  cogKofcit  Patrcm,  fed  unus  ik  idem, 
omnia  lubjicientc  ei  Patre,  8c  ab  omnibus  accipicns  Teftimoniuni 
^uoniam  Vire  Homo,  8c  quoniam  r^rc  Deus.  ■ 


Qu.  II.         of  Jome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  2  > 

*'  and  Worfliippcrs  of  Idols  ;  that  tlic  divine 
"  Unity  may  exclude  the  multitude  of  falfe 
'*■  Gods,  while  it  includes  the  Son ;  who,  in 
''  as  much  as  He  is  undivided  and  infcpa- 
*'  rablc  from  the  Father,  is  to  be  undcrdood 
't  as  impHcd  in  the  Father,  tho'  He  be  not 
"  particularly  named.  Farther;  had  He  na- 
''  med  the  Son  in  this  Cafe,  it  had  been 
^^  tantamount  to  feparating  Him  from  Him- 
^'  felf :  fuppofe  He  had  faid  \  there  is  None 
"  Other  befidcs  me,  except  my  Son ;  He  would 
"  in  efFedl  have  declared  Him  to  be  Ano- 
*'  ther  ( or  aliene )  by  excepting  Him  in 
"  that  manner  out  of  Others.  Suppofe  the 
"  Sun  to  fay,  I  am  the  Sun,  and  there  is  not 
"  Another  befides  me,  except  my  o'jvn  Ray  ; 
"  would  not  you  have  marked  the  Impcrti- 
^'  ncncej  as  if  the  Ray  were  not  to  bereckon'd 
*'  to  the  Sun,  as  included  in  it?  Here  you 
fee  plainly  what  TertuHian  means;  Namely, 
that  the  Son  is  fo  much  one  with  the  Father, 
that  He  cannot  be  fuppofed  to  be  excluded 
among  Other  Deities :  He  is  not  Another,  but 
the  fame  God  with  the  Father :  and  yet  this 
He  aflcrts  in  a  difpute  againft  Traxeas,  one  of 
the  fame  Principles,  in  the  main,  with  Noetus 
and  Sabellius :  So  careful  was  He  not  to  run 
Things  into  the  oppofite  extreme.  He  takes 
care  fo  to  aflcrt  the  Son  to  be  the  fame  God 
with  the  Father,  as  notto  make  Him  the  fayne 
Terfon:  And  on  the  other  hand,  while  He 
maintains  the  Diftindion  of  Fcrfons,  He  does 

D  not 


26         y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  IL 

not  forget  to  keep  up  the  true  Catholick  Doc- 
trine of  the  Unilj  of  Snbflance, 

I  fhall  next  cite  Athenagoras:  This  learned 
and  judicious  Writer,  having  proved  at  large, 
that  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father  5  and  that 
the  Chriftians  acknowledged  no  Other  God 
yet  immediately  adds,  *  vo^fxtv  yap  ;^  'ijov  t»  Os^, 
c*  9./.  37.  as  much  as  to  fay,  we  comprehend 
and  include  the  Son  in  that  one  God  5  we  are 
always  to  be  underftood  with  this  referve,  or 
^  Salvo  to  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  5  as  does 
clearly  appear  from  what  follows  in  the  fame 
Chapter,  and  in  the  next  to  it,  where  the  Son 
is  called  ^  the  Mind  and  Word  of  the  Father, 
and  declared  to  be  ^  Uncreated^  and  « Eternal. 
And  in  ^another  place  He  very  plainly  com- 
prehends Both  in  the  one  God,  To  avoid  Pro- 
lixity, I  fhall  content  my  felf  with  s  referring 
only  to  the  Paffages  in  others  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Writers,  leaving  you  to  confult  Them 
at  your  leifure,  if  you  can  make  any  doubt  of 
fo  clear  a  Cafe.    As  to  the  Toft  Nicene  Fathers, 

■  Parallel  t(f  which  is  that  in  Athanafius,  Orat.  5.  p.  f  j-8.  N«rT<t{ 
htrut  TOO  fXjovo)  >^  ohk'oq,  AnJ again:  'Ev  r^  sv),  jC  fAov:^,  xul  tt^utu 
trvHov  votTrcci  6  i\oy^.     See  Tertull.  Contr.Prax.  c.  19. 

**  Salvo  enim  filio,  re6te  unicum  Deum  pote£  determinaflc  cujus 
eft  Filius.     TertulL  adv.  Trax.  c.i%. 

'Nas  *^  Aov©-  ^  TTocr^c,  C.  10.  p.  39, 

^  ©icv  ocyovTi^  T  Trontrtiv  rcZsi  i^  Texyrot^  xxi  T  ttx^'  ctjrov  Xoyw, 
p.  122.  Compare  p  40. 

^Clemens  Alexaudr.  p.  129,  135-,  142.  OrigenContr.  Celf.  1.  8. 
p.  506.  &  alibi.  H'-ppolytm  Co/Ur.  Noet.  p-.iiTim.  Kovat:an,c.  7,, 
Dionyjius  Romanus,  apud  ^hanaf,  Dionyjms  AUxand.  apud  Atha- 
nafinrnj  p.  2^4. 

I  Athanor 


Qii.  II.        of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  27 

Athanafius^  Bafil^  the  Gregories,  Jerom,  An- 
ftin,  Chryfijlomy  &c.  Their  Sentiments  are 
well  known,  in  the  prcfent  Point;  and  how 
they  do  not  only  rejed,  but  abhor  tlic  Prin- 
ciples which  you  are  endeavouring  to  revive. 
However  I  fliall  tranfcribc  one  Padigc  out  of 
AthanafiuSy  part  whereof  has  been  givenabove, 
which  may  ferve  as  a  Comment  upon  the  Ca- 
tholicks  which  went  before  Him,  whofe  Senti- 
ments He  was  perfedly  well  acquainted  with, 
and  had  thoroughly  imbibed. 

"  *  When  the  Prophet  fpeaking  of  the  Crea- 
"  tion,  faith.  Which  Alone  fpreadeth  out  the 
"  HeavenSy  Job  9.  8.  And  when  God  fays, 
*'  /Alone  ftretch  forth  the  Heavens ^  Ifa. 
^^  44.24.  It  is  very  manifeft  to  every  Man,  that 
"  in  Him,  who  is  faid  to  be  Aloney  the  Wordy 
"  of  that  Aloney  is  alfo  fignified,  in  whom  all 
"  Things  were  made,  and  without  whom  No- 
"  thing  was  made.  If  therefore  the  Heavens 
"  were  made  by  the  Wordy  and  yet  God  fays,  / 
"  Alone ;  and  the  Son,  by  whom  the  Heavens 
"  were  made,  is  underftood  to  have  been  with 
"  \}i\z  Alone Qto^s  for  the  fame  Reafonalfo,  if 
"  it  be  faid,  one  God,  and  /  Alone,  and  I  the 
"  Firfi^  we  are  undoubtedly  to  underftand, 
"  that  in  the  One,  Aloney  and  Firft,  is  com- 
"  prehended  the  Word,  as  EfFalgcncy,  aTrau- 
"  yaaixa.-,  is  impUed  in  Light.  At hana fills' s 
reafoning  in  this  Paffage  is  fo  like  f  Tertullians 

*  Athanaf.  Orat.  ^.  Contr.  Arian.  p.  f  >  8. 
\TertHlL  Contr.  Prax.  c.  i^. 

D  2  upon 


2S  y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  II. 

upon  the  fame  Head,  that  one  might  think  He 
had  borrowed  it  from  Him.  But,  indeed,  it  is 
fo  intirely  conformable  to  the  true  and  genuine 
Sentiments  of  the  Catholicks  before  Kim,  that 
it  may  juftly  pafs  for  the  general  Scnfe  of 
All. 

To  confirm  what  hath  been  faid,  I  fhall  ufe 
one  Argument  more,  before  I  pafs  on  to  ano- 
ther Query ;  fuch  as,  if  carefully  confidcr'd, 
may  be  fufficient  to  filence  all  farther  doubt  or 
fcruple,  with  regard  to  the  Senfe  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Writers. 

It  is  well  known,  that  they  ever  look'd  up- 
on the  Son,  as  the  God  of  the  Jews,  the  God 
of  Abrahamy  Ifaac  and  Jacob,  Many  parti- 
cular  Teftimonies  may  be  cited  in  Proof  of 
the  Fad,  which,  for  Brevity  fake,  I  pafs 
over ;  and  proceed  to  a  more  general  proof 
drawn  from  their  citing  of  Texts  out  of  the  Old 
Teftament,  in  which  the  God  of  the  Jevjs  is  cer- 
tainly fpoken  of ;  and  applying  them  to  the  Per- 
fon  of  Chrift,  the  fecond  Perfon  of  the  ever 
Blefled  Trinity. 

*  They  heard  the  Voice  of  the  Lord  God 

walking  in  the  Garden, And  the  Lord 

God  called  unto  Adam,  &c.  Gen.  3«  S,  9. 

•f  The  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  faid 
unto  hiniy  I  am  the  Almighty  God  -y  walk  be- 
fore  mcy  and  be  thou  perfe^^  Gen.  17.  i>  2. 

*  TheofhilAntloch.  p.  129.  Ed.  Ox.  TertuU.  adv.PM.v.c.  \6. 
t  Clem.  Alex.  TAclag,  1. 1 .  c.  7 .  p.  i  3  i .     Eujcb. Dcm>ijir,  E..  I.  y. 
cp, E.H.I,  i.c.i. 

^  And 


Qli.  IL         offome  QU  E  R I  E  S.  29 

*  Andtke  Lord  appeared  unto  hhn'tnthe  plains 
of  Mamrc.  The  Lord  fatdunto  Abraham,  6cc. 
Gen.  18.  I,  13. 

^  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom,  and  vpon 
Gomorrah  brimjfone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out 
of  Heaveny  Gen.  19-24. 

"^  And  Abraham flood  before  the  Lord, 

&c.  Gen.  19.  27. 

^  And  God  faid  unto  Abraham,  &c.  Gen. 
21.  12. 

*=  And  behold,  the  Lord  flood  above  it,  and 
faidy  lam  the  Lord  God  of  Abraham  thy  Father, 
and  the  God  of  Ifaac,  Gen.  28.13. 

^  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel,  '■jijhere  thou  a* 
nointedft  the  Tillar,  &cc.  Gen.  31.  13. 

g  And  God  faid  unto  Jacob,  Arife,  go  up  to 

Bethel, and  make  there  an  Altar  to  God, 

that  appear  d  unto  Thee,  &c.  Gen.  3  5  •  i  • 

^God  called  unto  him  out   of   the    midft 

of  the  Buf/y,     He  faid, /  am  the  God 

of  Abraham,    the  God  of  Ifaac,  and  the  God 

*Jnflin  Martyr,  p.  213.  Sylburg.  Ed.  Novat.  c.  16.  Ttrtull. 
Trax.  c.  16,  17.  Eufei?.  Dem.  E.  1.  ^-.c.  9.  Epfi.Syi,od.  AKttoch. 
Ldbb.^lom.  i.  p.  84^-. 

^JhJI.  AUrf  .p.  z  I  f.  IrenAus.  1. 3 .  c.  6.  p.  1 80.  Tertull.  Frax. 
e.  13,  16.     Et^feb.  E.HA.  I.  c.z.     Novat.  c.  zi,z6. 

"Jufi.  Mart.  p.  216. 

^fuJl.Mart.D;al.  p.  161.     Ed.  ]eb.  Novat.  c.  26. 

*JiiJi.  Mart.  p.  z  1 8 .     Clem.  Alex.  lUd.  1.  i .  c.  7 .  p.  i  3  X . 

^  Juji.  Mart.  218.  Clem.  Alex.  FacI.  1.  i  .  c.  7 .  p.  1^1.  Novat. 
c.z-j.  Eufeb.  Demon.  Ev.\.  f.  c.  10.  Efifl.  Synod. Antioch.  Labb, 
Tom.   I.  p.  848. 

8  JuJi.Mart.  n8.     Cyprian.  Tefi.  \.z.  c.6.  p.  35-.  Ed.  Ox. 

^Jufi.  Mart.  p.  220.  Irenms.  \.  3.  c.  6.  p.  180.  J.  4  c.  12. 
p.  241.  I.  4.  c.  5-.  p.  232.  Tertull.  Vrax.  c.  16.  Eptjf,  Synod. 
Antioch.  Labb.  Tom.  i.  p.  348.     Origen  in  Joh.  p.  3 2. 

D  3  */ 


30  ^DEFENSE        Qli.  II. 

e?/ Jacob,    6cc.    Exod.    3.4,6. 

^  And  God  faid  tmto  Mofcs,  I  am  that 
I  A  M.  The  Lord  God  of  your  Fathers^  the 
God  of  Abraham,  of  Ifaac,  and  ^  Jacob,  ap- 
pear dj  Exod.  3.  14,  15. 

^  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Ifaac,  arid 
unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God  Almighty  ^  but 
by  my  name  Jehovah,  was  I  not  known  unto 
them,  Exod.  6. 3. 

"^  I  am  the  Lord  thy  Gody  which  brought  thee 
out  of  the  Land  of  Egypt,  Exod.  20.  2. 

^  God  of  Ifrael,  Exod.  24.  i  o. 

*^  The  Lord  flrong  and  mighty ^  the  Lord 
mighty  in  battle.  The  Lord  of  Hoflsy  He  is 
the  King  of  Glory ^  Pfal.  24.  8, 10. 

^  Be  (filly  and  know  that  I  am  God.  I  will 
be  exalt edy  &c.  Pfal.  46.  10. 

g  God  is  gone  up  with  a  floout,  The  Lord 
(Jehovah)  6cc.  PfaL  47.  5- 

^  The  mighty  God,   even  the  Lord  ^    hath 

fpoken Our  God  pall  come^   and  pall  not 

keep  fdencey  &c.  Pfal.  50.  1,3. 

"  Irena-us,  ubi  ftipva.  That  is,  He  muftof  confcquence  under- 
ftandthis  of  Chrill:  as  well  as,  ^'.4, 8,  19.  {See  True Scr:pt. Do^r. 
couiau 'il,p.  15-9  160 .)  TiriuU.  adv .  Prax . c .  17. yu/i.  Mart .  Apol.  i . 
p.  123.  Ox,  EJ.  Lufib.  Cordr.  Marcell,  1. 2 .  c.  2  o,  2  i , 

^  Jufi.  M^.rt.  ^.x-j^.     Sylc'ur.Edit. 

*  Cu-m.^kxand.  P£dag.  1.  1 .  c.  7 .  p.  13  i .  Eufeb.  Ecclef,  Thecl.  138. 

«*  Eufeb.  De77Joy.JIr.  Ev.  1.  y.  c.  18. 

*J-uft.  Mart.  Dial.  Y-  '^9']  i  Cypr.adv.Jud.].  z.  c.  49.   p.  49,50. 
Oiig.  m  Mat.  p.  458.     Eufeb.i/iloc. 
■      '  Gyp-:a-n.  (td-v.Jnd.  1.  2 .  c . 6.  p.  5  5. 

8  J:,-fc    Mart.  Dial.  p.  197.     Ehfeb.  in  PfaL  2^.091. 

^ Iren.  I.  ^.  c.  6. p.  180.  Cypria?3.adv.  Jud.  1  2.  c.  28.  p.  48. 
mw't.de  Boho  Patier.t.  p.  220.  Eiiftb.  in  Pfal.  p.  209. 

Let 


Qu.  IL         of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  31 

^  Let  God  arifcy  and  let  hts  Enemies^  6cc. 
Sing  unto  God^  JingTraifeSy  &c.  Pfa.  6  8.  i.  4. 

^In  ]\Jidi2i\iisGod  knowHy  &:c.  Pfal.  76.  i. 

1 G^^  ftandeth  in  the  Congregation  of  the 
mighty:  he  judgeth  among  Gods,  Pial.  82.  i. 

^  The  Lord  reigneth Pfal.  99.1. 

^ Behold^  God  is  my  Salvation:  Iwill  trujl 
and  not  be  afraidy  for  the  Lord  Jehovah  is  my 
firengthy  &c  Ifa.  12.  2. 

*»  Behold  your  God  will  come  with  Venge- 
ance^ even  God  with  a  RecompencCy  He  will 
come  and  fave youy  Ifa.  35.4. 

p  That  ftretcheth  out  the  Heavens  like  a 
Curtainy  &c.  Ifa.  40.  22. 

^  Thus  faith  the  Lord  that  created  thecy  O 
Jacob,  and  that  formed  thee,  O  Ifrael,  Ifa.  43 .  i . 

'  Thus  faith  the  Lord,  the  King  of  Ifrael, 
and  his  redeemer  the  Lord  of  hofts-y  lam  the 
fir  ft  y  and  I  am  the  lafty  and  befides  me  there  is 
no  Gody  Ifa.  44.  6. 

^lam  the  Lord  that  maketh  all  ThingSy  that 
ftretcheth  forth  the  Heavens  alone,  that  fprea  d- 
eth  abroad  the  Earth  by  myfelf  Ifa.  44.  24- 

'Cyprian.ad.  Jud.  1.2.  c.6.  c.  28.  p.  3J'.49- 

^lYsn&us.  1.  3.C.  9.  p.  184.  1.  4.  c.  33.  p.  273. 

^Juft.Mm.  Bid.  ^.iTl>  IreriAHs,  1. '3.  c.  6.  p.  180.  Novat.  U 

Tan.  c.  ij-.     Cyprian. adv.  Jud.  ]. i.e.  6.  p.  35".  I^ufeb.  in  lot. 
"^yuji.  Martyr,  p.  224.     Iren.  I.4.  c.  33.  p.  274. 
^  IrenjLus,  1.  3.C.  10.  p.  186. 
°  Irendus,  1.  3.  c.  20.  p.  214,  Novat,  c.   12.  Epijl.  Synod.  Ant'toch. 

Labb.Tom.i.  ip.^^f.  TertulLadv.Jud.C.^,\j^.        ,       .,    ,      , 
^Hippolyt.Contr.Noet.  c.  18.  p.  19.    w»^|««  *»«   Jta^^f*"  ^  »^«''««'- 
^  Eufeb,  in loc.  ^LaB. Injl.  1. 4.  c.  9.  p.  40f  •         ^  ^^f'^:  "^  ^^f.' 

N.B.  1  cite  Eufebius,  only  as  agreeing  with  the  reft,  inhisapph- 

cationof  fuch  Texts  to  God  the  Son:  not  determining  any  thmg 

as  to  his  other  principles.  ^       , 

D  4  Stirel; 


32  ^DEFENSE.        Qii.  II. 

*  Surely  God  is  in  thee,  and  there  is  none 
elfe  s  there  is  no  God.  Verily  thou  art  a  God 
&c.  Ifa.  45.  14,  15. 

^  I  will  fave  them  by  the  Lord  their  Gody 
and  will  not  fave  them  by  BoWy  nor  by  S wordy 
Hofca    1.7. 

^The  Lord  alfo  pall  roar  out  of  Siov\,  and  tit- 
ter his  Voice ^r^;;?  J erufalem  Joel  3 . 1 6.  Amos  1.2. 

^  IV ho  is  God  like  unto  thee,  that  pardoneth 
iniquity Mic.  7.18. 

^  God  came  from  Tcman,  and  the  Holy  One 
from  mount  Ephraim- —  Habakkuk  3.3. 

y  1  am  God^  not  Man,  Hofea  1 1 .  9. 

'^  /  will  flrengthen  thein  in  the  Lordy — — 
faith  the  Lordy  Zech.  10.  12. 

^This  is  our  Gody  and  there  Jhall  none 
other  be  accounted  of  in  Comparifon  of  him^ 
Baruch  3.  3  5- 

Thefe  fcvcral  Texts,  bcfidcs   others  of  like 
.  Nature,  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  in  general, 
undcrftood  of  Chrift.      And  therefore  it  is  ex- 
ceed hig  clear,  that,  according  to  the  Dodrinc 
of  that  Time,  the  fecond  Perfon  of  the  Trinity 

'Tcrtull.  Trax.  c.  i^.Cypr:^n.  ml.  Jud.  I.  i.  c.  6.  p.  34.  Hufcb. 
Dem,  Ef.  \.^.  c.  4.  p.  124.  Lacinn.  Epito/n.  c.  44.  p.  116.  EJit.  Dav, 
/^y?.p.4G4.  Edit  Ox.EpiJl.'-^nod.Anmch.  Labb.Toiw.  i.p.S4)-. 

""Nozat.Trm.  c.  12. 

"Inmus,  I.3.C.  2o.p.  214.  1.4.  C.53.P.  273. 

*  Ircn^us,  1.  3 .  c.  2 c .  p.  2  !  4  2:  •  cdl.  Cor.tt .  Marc,  I.  4.  C.  10. 
■      */mi<£«;,  1.  5.C.20.P.  2  14.  J.  14.  c.  33.  p.  273. 

y  Cyprian.  TeJiimA.  2.  c.  6.  p.  3  f .  Eufib.  D(m.  Ev.  1.  5-.  C  22. 
p.  2  49 .  Epifi.  Syr.oJ.  Ar.tioch.  Labif.  Tom .  i .  p.  84)-. 

'  Cypri.^n.  TcjL  I  i.e.  6.  p.  ;  f .   Euf.  D^,m.  Ev.  1. ;-.  c.  2  6.  p.  2  j- 1 . 

» Cypmn.  Teji.  1.  2,  c.  6 .  p.  3  f .  Lfichint.  Efit.  p.  116.  Ed.  Da^^. 

is 


Qu.  II.         offome  dU  E  R I  E  S.  35^ 

hihcLord'y  t\\c  Lord  God-,  xhz  Almighty  God- 
the  Lord  God  of  Abraham^  ifaaCy  and  Jacob  ; 
^\\zJehovah\  the  Lord  o^  Hofts  -,  xhc  Mighty 
God',  the  Only  God ;  and  bcfidcs  whom  there 
is  no  God  ;  the  God  of  Ifrael,  &c.  All  this, 
I  fay,  Chrift  is,  according  to  the  Doclrinc  of 
thofe  early  Times :  not  exclufive  of  the  Father, 
any  more  than  the  Father  is  fuch,  exclufive  of 
the  Son ;  but  together  with  the  Father :  That 
is.  Father  and  Son  Both  are  the  one  Supreme 
God  :  Not  one  in  Terfon,  as  you  freq:icntly 
and  groundlefly  infinuate,  but  in  Stibjlancey 
To-jier  and  Terfe^ion.  I  know,  you  have 
an  Evafion,  by  which  you  hope  to  elude  the 
force  of  all  that  has  been  urged.  But  whvn  I 
have  {hown  you,  how  weak  and  infuificicnt 
your  Pretence  is;  I  hope,  I  fhall  hear  no 
more  of  it. 

*  In  another  part  of  your  Book  {p.  20.)  you 
pretend  that  Chrift  fpakc  only  in  the  Verfo/i  of 
the  Father  j  and  that  when  He  (aid,  for  in- 
ftance,  /  am  the  God  of  Bethel  (Gen.  31.  15,) 
the  meaning  is  no  more  than  this;  Jehovah 
rjjhoom  I  reprefent ,  and  in  ''j::hofe  Name  I 
fpeak,  is  the  God  of  Bethel.  Had  you  given 
it  only  as  your  own  Interpretation  of  this,  nnd 
the  like  Texts,  it  might  be  very  excufabic; 
But  having  told  us  what  you  mean  by  Ipeaking 
in  the  Terfon  of  God  the  Father,  you  after- 
wards add,  that  it  was  the  unanimous  Opinion 
of  all  Antiquity,  that  Chrift  appcar'd  and  fpakc 

»   SeealfoCldxVesScn^.  Dodtr.  p,  loi.ali^i  p.y4. 


m 


54  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  IL 

in  the  Terfon  of  God  the  Father  {p,  22.)  lea- 
ving your  Englijh  Reader  to  believe,  that  your 
novel  Explication  was  the  current  Do6lrine  of 
all  Antiquity.  The  thing  may  be  true  in  fome 
Senfe^  fuch  as  is  foreign  to  your  Purpofe  :  But 
in  your  Scfifc^  it  is  notoriouily  falfe,  as  all  that 
have  look'd  into  Antiquity  very  well  know. 
However,  for  the  Benefit  of  the  common  Rea- 
der, I  will  fliow  that  the  good  Fathers  applied 
thcfe  Texts  to  Chrift  confider'd  in  his  own 
^erfon  5  and  not  in  the  Father's  only.  This 
fhall  be  made  clear  to  a  Demonftration,  both 
from  particular  Teftimonies  of  the  fame  Fa- 
thers ;  and  from  the  general  Scope,  Drift,  and 
Defign  of  thofe  Writers,  in  quoting  the  Texts 
before  mentioned, 

"^Clement  of  Alexandria,  citing  Exod.  20.  2. 
I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  &c.  and  underftanding 
it  of  Chrift,  obferves  particularly,  that  Chrift 
faid  this  of  Himlelf,  in  his  own  Verfon. 

^  TertuUh'M, interpreting  lf,\,\%,  and  Mic, 
7.  1 8.  of  Chrifi,  makes  the  like  remark. 

\\  Irenaus,  having  cited  £';t'^^.  3.  6.  {lam 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Ifaac,  &c.) 
which   He  undcrftands   as  fpoken  by  Chrift-, 

*  n«>i«v  ovi  oruv  Xiyv,  J^]^  b"  <^.'«  ZJ-^otraTTa,  ixvrov  c^oMyu  zs-aiaec- 
yi-jyov.  iyco  Kt.'p<c5  o  ©£:$  tr>£,  o  ituyxym  en  c/a  y«?  AiyuTTia.  Clem. 
Alex.  Psed.  1.  i    c.y.  p.  131.  Edit.  Ox. 

fEx  Ipfius  Domini  pcrfona,  ^c.  Tert.Comr.MarcA.  4.  c.  10. 

Ij  Per  Hsec  utique  manifeftum  fecit  quoniam  is  qui  dc  Rubo 
locutus  eft  Moyfi,  &  Manifcftavit  s  e  efle  Dcum  Patrum,  Hie  eft 
viventium  Dcu^  Ipfe  igitur  Chriftus  cum  Patre  Vivorum  eft 

Dcus,  qui  locutus  eft  Moyfi,  qui  6c  Patribus  manifeftatus  eft.  Iren. 
1.  4.  c.  y.  p.  232.     Seel.  3.c.(J.  1.4.  c.  u. 


Qu.  II.        offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  35 

goes  on  thus.  "  From  hence  (Chrift)  made  it 
*^  plain,  that  He  who  fpakc  to  Mofes  out  of  the 
"  Bufli,  and  manifefted  Himfelf  to  be  the  C^od 
"  of  the  Fathers,  is  the  God  of  the  Living, 
And  after  a  deal  more  in  that  Chapter  to  fhow 
that  the  Father  and  Son  are  One  and  the  fame 
God,  He  concludes  to  this  efFeft.  "  Chrift 
"  Himfelf  ihcndoiiCyV/ith  the  Father,is  the  God 
"  of  the  Livingy  who  fpake  to  M^it/^j-,  and  was 
"  manifefted  to  the  Fathers. 

Novatiariy  having  obferved  that  the  Angel 
which  appeared  to  "^  Agar,  ^y^r^^'s  Maid,  was 
reprefented  in  Holy  Scripture  as  Lord  and  Gody 
after  fome  reafoning  upon  it,  fuitable  to  the  pre- 
vailing Principles  of  his  own  Times,  as  well  as 
of  the  Times  preceding,  Sums  up  the  whole 
in  this  Manner.  "  ^  Wherefore  if  the  prefent 
"  Paffage  cannot  fuit  with  the  Terfon  of  the 
"  Father,  whom  it  would  not  be  proper  to  call 
"  an  Angely  nor  to  the  Terfon  of  an  Angela 
"  which  it  would  not  be  proper  to  call  God  ; 
"  but  it  may  comport  with  the  Terfon  of 
"  Chrift  to  be  God ,  as  the  Son  of  God ; 
"  and  to  be  an  Angel  too,  as  fent  to  reveal  his 
«'  Father's  Will :  The  Hereticks  ought  to  con- 

*  See  Gtnefis  c.  1 6. 

t  Ergo  fi  hie  locus  neque  Ter[on&  Patris  congruit  ne  Angelus 
didlusfit,  neque  P^/o/z-fi  Ani^eli,  ne  Deus  pronuntiatus  lit :  Vtrfon^ 
autem  Chrifti  convenit,  ut&Deus  fit,  quia  Dei  Filiuseft,  &  An- 
gelus  fit,  quoniam  paternx  difpofitionis  Adnuntiator  eft  j  inreUigere 
debent  contra  Scripturas  fe  agere  Hceretici,  qui  Chriflum  quuni 
dicant  fe  Sc  Angelum  credere,  nolint  etiam  ilium  Dsum  pro- 
nuntiarc        ■  Novat.  c.  26.  p.  724.  ^       ^  ^      ^    ,, 

Synod.  Antioch.  Ep. 

«  fidcr 


s6  y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  II. 

"  fidcr  that  They  run  counter  to  the  Sacred 
"  Writ,  while  They  admit  that  Chrift  is  an  An- 
*'  gely  and  yet  refufe  to  acknowledge  that  He 
"  is  God  alfo.  Here,  you'll  obferve,  that,  ac- 
cording to  Novatian,  it  was  to  the  Terfon  of 
Chrift,  not  to  the  Terfon  of  God  the  Father, 
that  the  Title  of  G^^and  Lord^  in  this  or  the 
like  Inftances ,  belongd  ;  and  that  therefore 
they  are  given  to  Him  in  his  own  Ter forty  in 
his  own  right,  as  God's  Son  and  Confubftantial 
with  Him;  than  which  nothing  can  be  more 
diametrically  oppofite  to  Your's ,  or  to  Dr. 
Clarke^  Hypotkefls.  It  is  not  faid,  Gody  only 
as  having  true  dominion  and  Authority y  but,  as 
God's  Son  y  and  that  implies,  with  Novatiany 
Siibftanti£  Communioneniy  real  and  ejjential 
Divinity   *. 

I  fhall  next  fhow  you  the  fame  of  Jtifiin 
Martyr 'y  and  then  beg  your  Pardon  for  the 
Impertinence  of  infifting  fo  long  upon  what 
none,  one  might  think,  that  has  ever  fecn  the 
Antients,  could  make  the  Icaft  Qucftion  of. 
"  Permit  me,  fays  He,  to  (how  yoa  alfo  out 
"  of  the  Book  of  ExoduSy  how  the  very  fame 
*'  Pcrfon,  who  appeared  to  Abraham  and  Ja- 
"  coby  as  an  Angel,  and  God,  and  Lord,  and 
"  Man,  appear'd  to  Mofes  in  a  Flame  of  Fire 
"  out  of  the  Bu(h,  and  talked  with  Him.  A 
little  after,   He  adds  thefe  remarkable  Words. 


*  C.  3  T.  Compare  Ch.  1 1 .  Utenim  prcefcripfit  Ipfa  natura  Homt- 
nem  credcndum  cill",  qui  cxhominc  fit :  itacadem  natura  prxfcri- 
bit;  2c  Deum  crcdcudum  ciTe,  qui  ex  Deo  lit. 

"  *  You 


Qa.  II.       offome   q\J  E  R  I  E  S.  37 

"  *  Have  you  fcen,  Gentlemen,  that  the 
"  Angel ,  which  Mofes  fays  convcrs'd  with 
''  Him  in  the  Flame  of  Fire;  that  very 
"  Ferfon  being  God,  fignifies  to  Mofes  that 
"  Himfelf  is  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of 
"  Ifaac,  and  t?/' Jacob?  I  will  not  fo  far  di- 
ftruft  your  Judgment,  as  to  add  any  farther 
Comment  to  fo  plain  Words.  I  need  but 
juft  hint  to  any  who  know  Jtifin  Martyr  y 
that  He,  zs^^cW^^s Novatian^  rcfolvcs  the  'Z)/- 
'vinityoi  Chrift  into  his  '\  SonJIojp -^  mASonfloip 
into  II  Communication  of  the  fame  divine  Sua- 
fiance:  Which  I  remark  chiefly  againftDr.C/^ryi^, 
who  feems  to  admit  that  thole  Titles  bclong'd  to 
the  Terfi)n  of  Chrift ;  which  is  more  than  I  ap- 
prehend you  do.  It  were  very  eafy  to  add  par- 
ticular Paflages  to  the  fame  purpofe  from  other 
Fathers;  but  it  was,  in  a  manner,  need lefs  to 
have  mention'd  thefe.  For,  the  general  fcopc, 
drift,  and  defign  of  the  primitive  Writers,  in 
this  Cafe,  fhows  fufficiently  what  I  contend  for. 
Their  defign  was  to  prove  Chrift's  "D'rcinitj ; 
to  fhow  that  there  was  another  Terfon^  be- 
fides  the  Father,  w^ho  was  really  Lord  and 
God',  and  that  this  Ferfon  v/as  Chrifi.  This 
is  the  avowed  defign    clear    through  Jiifiins 

yoe,  ^i?^u^/}Ktteci  uvlco,  tToq  ccliToq  Qioc,  cov  <ry>f/joi,i(rif^'^  r Ho  fA/octi  fttetuTof 
sftV  6  €>io<i  A'^^»oi(At  f^  Ij-aciK  ^  \oty.uZ.   Juft.  Mart.  Dial.  p.  210. 

Compare  Apol.  r .  p.  I  2  3.  To  3  iff3/jov  c^  Sur^  ri*  Ma/o-h  iya  t:a,i 
o  ay,  oQio<;  A^^oiuyj  j^.jOfo?  Icraax.  <c  0  ^£>i\c,  \xku^,  (c  0  0ia<  T  a-aii- 
^ay  T-^,  (r,if//ccyiiK<}y  rS   ^^  ^a^^uyiviocc,  c^crivi;  ^//«»  fc"  ilvAi  aut5  ri  Xfifa 

uy^aTrim.     See  my  Anfwcr  to  Dr.  Vtloitby  p.  f?.         tp-  185.7^. 
J178.  280.  Sylb.Ed.         )j  p.  i83,37  3.Ed.Jebb. 

I  T^ialogue ; 


3  8  ^DEFENSE         Qu.  II. 

dialogue ;  and  ihe  like  may  be  faid  of  Nova- 
tian,  Terttillian^  Cyprian^  Irenaiis  and  the 
Reft  (except  Eufebms  who  fometimes  varied 
in  this  Matter)  where  they  cite  thefe  Texts, 
which  I  have  given  you  a  Lift  of. 

T  he  Argument  they  ufcd,  is  this.  There  is 
a  Perfon  frequently  ftiled  God  and  Lordj  Je- 
hovah^  Almighty^  &c.  who  convers'd  with 
Adamy  appear'd  to  the  Tatriarchsy  and  all 
along  headed  and  conduced  the  People  of  the 
Jews.  This  Perfon  could  not  be  an  Angel 
only :  fuch  high  Titles  could  never  belong  to 
any  meer  Angel.  He  could  not  be  God  the 
Father :  His  Office  was  minifterialy  He  is  called 
an  Angel,  Hzappeafd^  He  condefcended  to  take 
upon  Him  human  Shape,  and  other  refem- 
blances  * :  Thefe  Things  do  not  fuit  with  the 
frjl  Terfon  of  the  Trinity.  Well  then ;  who 
could  He  be,  but  God  the  Son  ?  Who  being 
really  God,  might,  in  his  own  right,  truly  and 
.  juftly  affume  thofe  high  Titles ;  and  yet  being 
Second  owly  in  the  ever  bleifed  Trinity,  and 
defigning,  in  his  own  due  Time,  to  take  human 
Nature  upon  Him,  might  more  fuitably  con- 
defcend  to  ad  minifterially  among  Men,  ( a 
proper  prelude  to  his  Incarnation  which  fhould 
come  after)  and  fo  might  be,  not  only  Gody 
but  an  Angel  too.     This  is  their  Argument,    as 

*  I  do  not  find,  that  //jepurefimplicity  of  the  divine  Nature  -wns 
'ezer  ttr^eJ,  in  this  Cafe,  as  a  reafon  why  it  could  not  be  the  Father : 
ncr,  that  the  human  Affeifrions  and  Aftions  afcribed  to  this  Angel, 
■were  underfiood  literally,  or  otherivife  than  by  vay  of  Figure.  Ter- 
twWhn  gives  a  very  dtjfsrent  account  of  it,  fJjQwin^  how  all  might  bt 
und(^Jiood  B-HTT^tTTi^i.     Contr.  Marc.  1.  2.  CVCtV 


Qu.  II.      offome  QV  E  R  I  E  S.  35) 

every  one  knows,   that   knows  any  thing   of 
thefe  Matters.     Now,  fuppofc  that  thcfc  good 
Fathers  had  underftood.  Gen.  31.  13-  as  you  do ; 
I  am  the  God  of  Bethel :  That  is,  my  Father, 
whom  I  reprefent ,     is  the   God  of  BetheL 
What  a  trifling  Argument  would  you  here  put  in- 
to their  Mouths  ?    ^'  Chrift  declares  that  the  Pcr- 
"  fon,  whom  He  reprefents,  is  God  and  Lord : 
"  therefore  Chriji  is  God,  &c.  Or  propofc  the 
Argument  thus,  upon  your  Hypothefis:     "The 
"  LordGod  (the Father)  called  unto  Adam.Gzvi, 
"  8.9.  God  [aid  unto  Abraham,  c^r.  Gen.  2  i.i  2J 
"  that  is,    God  the  Father  fpoke  by  his  Son ; 
"  therefore  the  Son  is  called  God,  and  is  God. 
Can  any  thing  be  more  ridiculous  ?  The  Con- 
clufion  which  Jitfttn  Martyr  draws  from  the 
whole,  and  which  He  triumphantly  urges  againfl: 
Trypho,  is  this ;   that  Chrift  is  really  Lord  and 
God.    *  ®^of  HaX«TC3U5  K^  (Bios  hi  k^  hai-    The  O- 
ther  Writers  draw  the  fame  Conclufion  from  the 
famePremifes  5  a  Conclufion  without  any  Thing 
to  fupport  it,  had  they  underftood  thcfc  Texts, 
as  you  pretend  They  did.     In  Ihort,  the  very 
Ground  and  Foundation  of  all  They  fay  upon 
this  Article,  is  built  upon  a  Suppofition  diame- 
trically oppofite  to  Your's ;  fo  little  countenance 
have  you  from  Antiquity.     Farther ,  They  all 
conclude  that  the  Perfon  declaring  Himfclf  to 
be  God  and  Lord,  &c.   could  not  be  an  Angel ; 
not  a  meer  Angel.     There  is  feme  Scnlc  la 
this  5  if  youftippofean  Angel  declaring,  in  his 

*Juft.Dial.p.i76.Ed.Jebb.  Seemy  AnfwertoDr.ff^^;i>^.p.5'i'&^- 


40  y?    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  II. 

(TJi'n  T^crfon,  that  he  is  God  and  Lord.  It  is 
blafphemous  and  abfurd  for  any  mccr  Angel  to 
make  fuch  Declaration.  But,  fuppofing  it  meant 
of  the  Perfon  of  the  Father,  why  might  not 
any  Angel  declare,\vhat  is  certainly  true,  that  the 
Father  is  God,  or  deliver  God's  Errand  in  his 
own  Words?  Had  the  Fathers  thought,  as  you 
do,  they  mufl:  have  argued  thus,  very  weakly:  It 
could  not  be  ameer  Angel  that  appeared,  or  that 
fpokc  thus  and  thus.  Why )  Becaufe  the  Perfon 
who  fent  Him,  and  who  undoubtedly  is  the  God 
of  the  Univcrfe,  is  called  God  and  Lord.  Of 
all  the  filly  Things  that  Ignorance  and  Malice 
have  combined  to  throw  upon  the  primitive  Mar- 
tyrs and  Defenders  of  the  Faith  of  Chrift,  I 
have  not  met  with  one  comparable  to  this.  I  am 
therefore  willing  to  believe,  that  you  did  not 
mean  to  charge  them  with  it  5  but  only  exprefs'd 
your  felf  darkly  and  obfcurely ;  which  yet  fhould 
not  have  been  done,  by  one  who  would  be  care- 
ful not  to  miflead,  even  an  unwary  Reader.  I 
would  here  make  one  Remark,  and  leave  it  with 
you:  And  that  is,  of  the  *  ftricl  Senfe  wherein 
the  j^nt tents  ufed  the  word  God,  as  applied  to  the 
Son,  They  argued  that  it  could  not  be  an  Angel 
that  appeared.  Why  >  becaufe  the  Perfon  appear- 
ing was  called  God.  Thus  NovatiaUj  who  fpeaks 
the  Senfe  of  all  the  reft,  ^loinodo  ergo  Deus  fi 
Angelas  fuit  5  cum  non  Jit  hoc  nomen  Angelis 

*  Other  Argmnents  of  the  firi^  Senfe  of  the  UortU  God,  cis  ufed 
by  the  Ante-Nicenc  IVriterSy  and  applied  to  the  Soriy  maybe  feen  in 
Dr.  Fiddes,  p.  374,  &c. 

unquam 


Qu.  II.        offome   Q\J  E  R I  E  S.  41 

concejjum  *  ?  But  how  then  is  He  God,  if  no 
more  than  Angela  fince  Angels  never  had  the 
privilege  of  fo  high  a  Title  ?  Novatian  allows 
(Ch.  1 5-)  that  Angels  have  been  called  Godsy 
meaning  in  the  loofe  Figurative  Senfe  :  But  here 
He  plainly  fignifies  that  the  Word,  God^  when 
applied  to  the  Son^  is  to  be  underftood  in  the 
ftrid  and  proper  Senfe :  And  thus  the  Antients 
in  general  underftood  it.  Angelsy  the  very 
higheft  order  of  Creatures,  were  not  by  them 
thought  worthy  of  the  Name  and  Title  of  God. 
It  would  have  been  highly  abfurd,  in  their 
Judgment,  to  have  given  it  them,  in  fuch  a  Senfe, 
and  in  fuch  Circumftances,  as  they  applied  it  to 
the  Son,  They  knew  nothing  of  your  Rela- 
tive Senfe  of  the  Word  :  They  knew  better. 
But  this  by  the  Way :  Let  us  return  to  our 
Subjed.  You'll  ask  me  now  perhaps,  what  did 
fome  of  the  Fathers  mean,  thofe  efpecially 
whom  you  have  quoted  in  the  Margin  (p.  22.) 
by  the  Son  of  God's  appearing,  and  f peaking 
in  the  Terfon  of  God  the  Father  ?  I  have  fliown 
you  what  they  certainly  did  not  mean  :  And  if 
I  could  not  fo  readily  account  for  the  other,  it 
is  of  lefs  Moment  5  the  Caufe  being  little  con- 
cern d  in  it.  But  I  (hall  endeavor  to  fatisfy  you 
in  this  point  alfo. 

You  have  but  two  Qiiotations,  which  arc  any 
thing  to  the  Purpofe  :  One  out  of  TheophilnSy 
Bifhop  of  Antioch  5  and  the  other  from  Ter- 
tullian.  And  they  indeed,  verbally,  may  feem 
to  countenance  your  Notion  5  tho',  in  re/Jity, 
*  Ch.  26.  E  f  ^cy 


42  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  11. 

they  meant  nothing  Hke  it.  But,  what  did 
they  mean,  one  by,  *  cynr^o-ouVcoTy  Osy,  the 
other  by,  'f  AiiEioritate  &  nomine  (Patris?) 
Let  it  be  confidered,  that  the  fccond  Pcrfon,  in 
the  Texts  above  cited,  is  not  reprefentcd  under 
his  own  perfonal  diftinguifliing  Charader,  as  a 
Son,  or  fccond  Perfon,  or  Mefliah,  or  Media- 
tor, as  he  has  been  fmce.  It  is  not  iliid,  that 
the  Son  of  the  Lord  God  called  unto  Adam  5 
but  the  Lord  Godcalledy  3ccJ|  It  is  not,  I 
I  am  the  Son  of  the  God  of  Bethel,  &c.  But 
am  the  God  of  Bethel,  5  and  fo  in  the  reft. 
Chrift  therefore,  in  thefe,  or  the  like  Texts,  is 
not  reprefentcd  under  his  own  peculiar  Cha- 
rafter  5  but  under  fuch  a  Charader  as  is  common 
to  the  Godhead,  to  the  Father  and  Him  too. 
This  Charafter,  fince  the  diftinftion  of  Perfons 
has  been  revealed  to  us,  has  been,  in  a  more 
eminent  and  peculiar  Manner,  referved  to  the 
Father.  He  is  reprefentcd  eminently  now  as 
God;  and  Chrift,  zs  Son  of  Gcd -■,  ox:  Mediator, 
or  MeJJiah,  Chrift  having  before  took  upon 
Him  that  Part,  Charader,  or  Office,  which  fuice 
that  time  has  been  referved,  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner, to  the  Father,  may  be  faid  to  have  aded 
in  the  '^Perfon  of  the  Father,  or  in  the  Najne  of 
the  Father ;  that  is,  under  the  fame  Charader 
or  Capacity ,  which  the  Father  now  chiefly 
bears  with  refped  to  Men.  This  He  might 
well  do,  being  equally  qualified  for  either.     As 

*  Thcoph.  ad  Autol.  I.i.  p.  229.  Ox.  Ed. 

t TeriuU. adv.  Marc.  1.2.  c.27.  |jGcn.  3.  9. 

Son 


Qu.  IL      offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  45 

Son  of  Gody  He  was  really  God  i  and  as  Son 
of  the  Almighty,  He  was  Almighty ^  in  his 
own  rights  as  *  Tertiillian  exprcUcs  it  :  And 
therefore  might  as  juftly  bear  the  Stile  and  Title 
of  Lord  Gody  God  of  Abraham,  &c.  while  He 
aded  in  that  Capacity,  as  He  did  that  of  Me- 
diatory Mejfiahy  Son  of  the  Father y  &c.  after 
He  condefcended  to  ad  in  another,  and  to  dis- 
cover his  pcrfonal  Relation. 

You  cited  thefe  Words  of  Terttdlian :  Cujus 
Au5ioritate  *t*  &  nomine  ipfe  erat  ''Dens,  qui 
'videbatUTy  T>ei  Filius.  Which  might  have  been 
rendred  thus.  "  The  Son  of  God  who  ap- 
"  peared,  He  was  God  {acting  in  his  {^he  Fa- 
"  thefs)  Name,  and  with  his  Authority.  And 
had  you  but  cited  the  next  immediate  Words, 
you  might  have  difcpvercd  the  true  meaning  of 
that  Paffage.  Sed  &  penes  noSy  Chriftns  in 
perfona  Chriftiy  quia  &  hoc  modo  710ft er  eft : 
That  is  to  fay :  But  with  us  (Chriftians)  Clirift 
is  alfo  underftood  under  the  Characler ,  or  Per- 
fon,  of  the  Meffiah :  Becaufe  He  is  ours  in  this 
Capacity  alfo :  That  is,  He  is  not  only  our 
God'y  but  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer.  And 
under  that  Charader  we  receive  Him,  as  being 
more  peculiar  to  Him,  beyond  what  He  has 
in  common  with  the  Father.  Formerly  He  was 
received  and  adored  under  the  one  common  Cha- 

*  Suo  jure  Omnipotens  qua  Filius  Omnipotcntif— -  cum  Sc 
Filius  Omnipotentis  tarn  Omnipotens  fit,  quam  Deus  Dei  Fihus. 
Trax.  c.  17.  p.  5-20, 

t  Contr.  Marc.  1.  2.  c.  27. 

E  z  racier 


44  u^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qii.  H. 

rafter  of  God^  Lord^  and  Jehovah :  not  mcerly 
as  reprefcntativc  of  God  the  Father,  or  as  in- 
vefted  with  his  Authority,  but  as  ftridly  and 
truly  Gody  Confubjlantial  with  God  the  Father  5 
according  to  the  unanimous  Opinion  of  all  the 
Anthnts,  and  *  of  Thofe  in  particular,  who 
fpeak  of  his  afting  in  the  Narne^  or  Terfon  of  the 
Father.  But  now,  having  a  new  Title  to  di- 
ftinguifli  Him  by,  we  receive  Him  in  Both  Ca- 
pacities :  as  God,  by  Nature  \  and  as  Mefliah,  or 
Mediator,  by  Office. 

The  Sum  then  of  the  Cafe  is  this :  When 
Chfift  appeared  to  the  TatriarchSy  and  clalm'd 
their  Obedience,  Homage,  and  Adoration  $  He 
did  not  do  this  under  the  Name  and  Charafter 
which  He  has  fincc  difcovered  to  be  perfonal 
and  peculiar  to  Him  5  but  under  another  5 
which  \s  His  too,  but  in  common  with  the  Fa- 
ther j  namely  that  of  Lord  God,  God  Almighty , 
&c.  and  being  fincc  difcovered  not  to  be  the 
Father  Himfelf,  but  the  iJ^;/ 5  nox.  unorigi7iatedy 
but  God  of  God,  all  that  he  did  muft  be  re- 
ferred back  to  the  Father,  the  Head  and  Foun- 
tain of  All;  whofe  Authority  He  cxcrcis'd, 
whofc  Orders  He  executed,  and  whofe  Terfon, 
CharaBer, ox  Office,  He(inrome  fenfc)  rcprcfcnt- 
cd  and  fuftained.  Thus,  under  the  -f  New  Tefta- 
mcnt  alfo,  He  referred  all  that  He  did  to  the  Au- 
thority of  the  Father,  as  the  firft  Original,  and 

*  See  TrtieScript.  Bocir.ccnumed,  p.  196. 

tVid.  Tertull.  Contr.  Prax.  c.  21.  p.  5-12.  E^o  reni  in  Fatris 
mei  mmiiif  Adeo  fempcr  Films  erat  in  Dci  &  R'  gis  8c 

Eominif  &  Omnipotcntis,  £c  AitifTimi  nomine. 

Foun- 


Qii.  II.      ^//^w^   (QUERIES.  45 

Fountain  of  all  Power,  Pre-eminence,  Dignity, 
^c.  ading  in  His  Name,  executing  his  Will,  and 
reprcfenting  his  Perfon.  ( /  and  my  Father  are 
one^  Joh.  10.30.  He  that  hathfeen  me^  hath  feen 
the  father^  joh.  14.  9.  /  can  of  my  oiim  [elf  do 
7iothmgy  *Joh.  5.30.)  And  yet  whatever  is  faid  of 
Chrift,  is  to  be  undcrftood  of  him  in  his  ovjn  Ter- 
fan ;  and  not  of  the  Father  only,  whom  He  re- 
prefented.  In  fine,  it  is  not  neceflary  that  every  one 
who  ads  in  the  Name^  or  by  the  Authority y  or  in 
the  Terfon  of  another,  ihould  nfurp  the  Stile  of 
that  other,  and  fpeak  in  the  frft  Terfon :  e.g.  A 
Viceroy y  or  an  AmbaJJador  fpeaks  in  the  King's 
Nam£,  and  by  his  Authority ^  and  reprefents  his 
'Perfon :  But  does  not  Terfonate  the  King,  in  the 
ftrifteft  Senfe ;  does  not  pretend  to  fay,  lam  the 
■King.  And  therefore  you  can  draw  no  certain 
Conclufion  from  the  two  Paflages  of  Theophilus 
and  Tertullian.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  fhown 
you  from  the  whole  drift,  Tenor,  and  Tendency, 
as  well  as  from  particular  Tedimonics  of  the 
primitive  Writings,  that  they  are  far  from  favour- 
ing your  pretences  in  this  Cafe,  but  are  a  perfed 
Contradidion  to  them.  From  what  hath  been 
faid,  thcfe  three  Things  are  very  plain  and  evident. 
I .  That  according  to  theMind  of  the  Antients, 
the  Son  was  GW,  and  fo  called  in  his  own  Terfon. 

*  Fllius  vifus  efl  femper,  &  Filiusopcratus  eft  Temper  ex  auaori- 
;tate  PatrisSc  voluntatc:  quia  Filius  nihil  a  fwietiffa  potcji  f^cere, 
pifi  liclerit  Pattern  Jactentemy  in  fenfu  fcilicct  facicntcm.  Pater 
enim  Icnfu  agit:  Filius  vero,  qui  in  Patrit  icnfu  eft,  vidons 
perficit.     Tu^hU.  adv.  Ptax.  cap.  i  j. 

E  3  3   That 


45  :^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  IL 

2.  That  he  was  God  in  his  own  Perfon,  as 
being  God's  Son, 

3.  That  He  was  Gods  Soriy  as  having  the 
divine  Stibftance  communicated  from  the  Fa- 
ther. 

Thcfe  three  Confiderations  intirely  take  off 
the  force  of  whatever  either  You  or  Dr.  Clarke 
hath  offered  to  perplex  and  puzzle  a  very  clear 
and  manifeft  Truth. 

I  have  infifted  chiefly  on  the  firft  Particular, 
as  was  proper  in  this  place;  though  I  have, 
in  pafling,  hinted  enough  of  the  two  latter 
alfo ;  efpecially  confidering  that  they  will 
often  be  glanced  at  again,  in  the  procefs  of 
our  Difpute. 

Thus,  I  hope,  I  have  fufficiently  vindicated 
the  Argument  of  this  Second  Query,  having 
fhown  from  plain  Scripture  Texts,  that  Chrift 
is  not  excluded  from  being  the  one  Supreme 
God  in  Conjundion  with  the  Father ;  and  taken 
off  your  Exceptions :  And  left  this  fhould  feem 
infufficient,  I  have  confirmed  it  farther,  from 
the  unanimous  confent  of  all  Antiquity,  before 
the  Council  of  Nice  $  which  is  what  your  felf 
appeal  to  in  the  Cafe.  This  Article  indeed  has 
hereby  been  drawn  out  into  a  difproportionate 
'Length :  But  the  Importance  of  it  is  a  fuffi- 
cient  Apology.  Were  you  able  Satisfadtorily  to 
,  anfwer  the  following  Qiieries ;  This  one,  while 
it  fiands  unanfwered,  would  be  enough  for  alL 
But  I  proceed, 

Q  U  E  R  r 


Qii.  III.       offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  47 

Q^  U    E    R    Y       III. 

JVhetker  the  Word  (God)  hi  Scripture^  can 
reafonably  be  fuppojed  to  carry  an  auibis^u- 
ous  7neanmgy  or  to  be  ttfed  in  a  ditfcixnt  Senfe^ 
when  applied  to  the  Father  and  Son,  in  the 
fame  Scripture ^  and  even  in  the  fame  Vcrfe  ? 
See  Joh.  i.  i. 

HERE  you  make  Anfwer  5  that  the  IFord 
(  God )  in  Scripture^  hath  a  relative 
Signification-,  and  is  ufed  in  a  fupreme  and  a 
fiibordinate  Senfe.  And  you  appeal  to  Exod. 
7.  I.  I  have  made  Thee  a  God  to  Tharaoh-^ 
and  to  Plal.  82.  i.  Godftandeth  in  the  Affem- 
bly  of  Gods ;  judgeth  among  Gods ;  and  you 
dcfire  that  Joh.  10.  34, 35.  may  be  compared  5 
Is  it  not  written  in  your  La-ji',  I  faid  ye  are 
Gods  ?  &c.  You  are  impatient,  I  perceive,  to 
come  to  your  Diftindlion  of  Supreme  and  Sub- 
ordmate-y  which,  you  imagine,  clears  all  Diffi- 
culties, and  you  will  not  ftay  to  confider  what 
ought  to  be  faid  firft.  The  firft  and  mod  ge- 
neral Diftinftion  of  the  Senfes  of  the  Word, 
Gody  fliould  be  into  proper  and  improper  5  after 
which  it  will  be  foon  enough  to  come  to  your 
famed  Diftindion  of  Supreme  and  Subordinate. 
Dr.  Clarke,  indeed,  would  perfuade  us,  that 
the  proper  Scripture-Notion  of  God  is  'Domi- 
nion', and  that  therefore  any  Perfon  having 
"Dominion^  is,  according  to  the  Scripture-No- 
E  4  tion, 


4S  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  III. 

tion,  trttlyy  and  properly  God.  This  fhall  be 
examined ;  but  it  will  be  convenient  here  to  fct 
down  the  Dodor's  own  Words.  "  The  Word 
*^  ©£0f,  God,  has  in  Scripture,  and  in  all  Books 
*'  of  Morality  and  Religioriy  a  relative  Signi- 
"  fication;  and  not,  as  in  metaphyjical  Books, 
"  an  abfolute  one  :  as  is  evident  from  the  re- 
"  /^^/V^  Terms,  which  in  ;;^^r^/ Writings  may 
"  always  be  joined  with  it.  For  inftance ,  In 
"  the  fame  manner  as  we  fay  my  Father,  wy 
*'  King,  and  the  like;  fo  it  is  proper  alfo  to 
^  fay,  my  God,  the  God  of  Ifrael,  the  God 
*^  of  the  Univerfe,  and  the  like :  Which  words 
"  are  expreffive  of  Dominion  and  Government. 
"  But,  in  the  metaphyfical  Way,  it  cannot  be 
"  faid  my  Infinite  Subftance,  the  Infinite  Sub- 
*^  ftance  of  Ifraely  or  the  like  *.  He  repeats 
the  Obfervation  {p.  290.)  ^  And  is  very  pofitive 
that  the  word  God-,  in  Scripture,  is  always  a 
relative  Word  of  Offce\  giving  the  fame  pret- 
ty Rcafon  for  it,  as  before.  This  fhall  be  care- 
fully confidered ;  and  the  manner  of  fpeaking 
accounted  for,  in  the  fequel. 

I  fhall  only  obferve  here,  by  the  way,  that 
the  Word,  Star,  is  a  relative  Word,  for  the 
fame  Rcafon  with  that,  which  the  Doftor  gives 
for  the  other.  For  ,  the  Star  of  your  God 
Rempbarij  (Acts  7.43)  is  a  proper  Exprclllon  : 
But,  in  the  metaphyjical  Way,  it  cannot  be 
faid,  the  luminous  Subftance  (?/\7(?//r  God  Rern," 

*  See  Dr.  ClarkcV  Rr/'/y,   p.  284. 

\  Comf are  alfo  Script.  Do^ir.  p.2p<5.  alias  2,64. 

phm. 


Qu.  III.       of  fame  dU  E  R  I  E  S.  40 

phan.     So  again  5   JVater  is  a  relative  Word  ; 
For  it  is  proper  to  lay,   the  Water  of  IJrael: 
But,  in  the  metaphyJicnlM^^iy^  it  cannot  be  laid, 
the  fluid  Subftance  of  Ifrael-^   1  he  Exprefllon 
is  *  improper.     By  parity  of  Realbn,  wc  may 
make  relative  Words,    ahiioft  as  many  as  wc 
pleafe.     But  to  proceed  :    I  maintain  that  T)o- 
Tninion  is  not  the  full  import  of  the  word  GW, 
in  Scripture  ;    that  it  is  but  a  part  of  the  Idcay 
and  a  fmall  part  too  5  and  that,    if  any  Pcrfon 
be  called  GW,  meerly  on  account  of  ^ominion^ 
He  is  called  fo  by  way  of  Figure  and  Refem- 
blnnce  only  ;    and  is  not  properly  God,  accord- 
ing to  the  Scripture-Notion  of  it.  We  may  call 
any  one,    a  King,   who  lives  free  and  indepen- 
dent, fubjeft  to  no  Man's  Will.     He  is  a  King 
fo  far,  or  in  fomc  refped  j    tho'  in  many  other 
refpefts,  nothing  like  one  ^   and  therefore   not 
properly    a   King.      If    by    the   fame  Figure 
^  of  Speech,   by  way  of   Allufion  and  Relcm- 
blance,    any  thing  be  called-  God,   becaufc  rc- 
fembling  God  in  one  or  more  Particulars ;    wc 
are  not  to   conclude,    that  it  is  properly,  and 
truly  God. 

To   enlarge    fomething  farther    upon    this 
Head  i  and  to  illuftratc  the  Cafe  by  a  few  In- 

♦  It  is  'very  obvious  to  perceive,  where  the  impropriety  cf  [uch  Ex- 
prejjions  lies.  The  word  Subftance,  according  to  the  common  ufe  of 
Language^  when  ufed  in  the  Singular  NMnber,  is  fnppyfed  to  be 
intrinfick  to  the  Thing  fpoken  of  whofe  Subjl^mce  it  is  i  and  rndeed, 
to  betheThing  it  f elf.  My  Subfl(i72ce,  ts  my  Self:  and  the  SubjUuce 
of  Ifrael,  is  Ifrael,  And  hence  it  comes  to  be  improper  to  jtin  Sub- 
francc  with  the  relative  Terms,  underflandin^  it  of  any  thing  ex- 
Ifinfickr 

ftanccs. 


5(5  :.^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  IIL 

ftances.      Part  of  the  Idea  which  goes  along 
with  the  Word  Gody  is,  that  his  Habitation  is 
fublime,  and  his  dwelling  not  with  Flejh^  Dan. 
2.  II.  Tiiis  part  of  the  Idea  is  applicable  to 
Angels  J  or  to  Saint  s^    and  therefore  they  may 
thus  far  be  reputed  Gods  -,  and   are  fomctimes 
fo  ftiled  in  Scripture,  or  Ecclefiaftical  Writings. 
Another  part  of  the  complex  Idea  of  God,  is 
giving  orders  from  Above,  and  publifhing  com- 
mands from  Heaven.    This  was,  in  fome  Senfe, 
applicable  to   Mofes ;    who  is  therefore  called 
a  God  unto  Tharoah  :    not  as  being  properly  a 
God  5  but  inftead  of  God,  in  that  Inftance,  or 
that  refembling  Circumftance.     In  the  fame  re- 
fped,    every  Prophet,    or   Apoftle^  or  even  a 
Miniflrerof  aParifh,  might  be  figuratively  call- 
ed God.     T^ominion  goes  along  with  the  Idea 
of  God,  or  is  apart  of  it,  and  therefore  Kings  ^ 
princes,  and  Magiftrates^  refembling  God  in 
that  refped,  may,  by  the  like  Figure  of  Speech, 
be  ftiled  Gods :    not  properly  }    for   then  we 
might  as  properly  fay,    God  'Davidy  God  Solo- 
fnonj  or  God  Jeroboam^    as  King  IDavidy  &c. 
but  by  way  of  Allufion,  and  in  regard  to  fome 
impcrfcd  rcfemblance  which  they  bear  to  God 
in  fome  particular  refpefts  5  and  that  is  all.     It 
belongs  to  God,  to  receive  Worfhip,  and  Sa- 
crifice, and  Homage.     Now,  becaufe  the  Hea- 
then Idols  fo  far  refembled  God,  as  to  be  made 
the  Objeds  of  Worfliip,  &c.     Therefore  they 
•alfo,  by  the  fame  Figure  of  Speech,   are  by  the 
Scripture  denominated  Godsy  x\\o   at  the  fame 

time, 


Qu.  III.       of  fame  QUERIES.  51 

time,  they  are  declared,  in  a  proper  Scnfc,  to 
be  no  Gods,  The  Belly  is  called  the  God  of 
the  Luxurious,  ThiL  3.19.  becaufe  fomcarc  as 
much  devoted  to  the  Service  of  their  Bellies^ 
as  others  are  to  the  Service  of  GW5  and  be- 
caufe their  Lulls  have  got  the  dominion  over 
them.  This  way  of  fpeaking  is,  in  like  manner, 
grounded  on  fome  imperfed  Refemblance,  and 
is  eafily  underftood.  The  Prince  of  the  Devils 
is  fuppofed,  by  mod  Interpreters,  to  be  called 
the  God  of  this  World,  2  Cor.  4.  4.  If  fo,  the 
Reafon  may  be,  either  becaufe  the  Men  of 
this  World  are  intirely  devoted  to  his  Service  5 
or  that  He  has  got  the  Power  and  Dominion 
over  Them. 

Thus  we  fee,  how  the  word  God,  according  to 
the  popular  way  of  fpeaking,  has  been  applied  to 
Angels,  or  to  Men,  or  to  Things  inanimate  and 
infenfible ;  becaufe  fome  part  of  the  Idea  be- 
longing to  God,  has  been  conceived  to  belong 
to  them  alfo.  To  argue  from  hence,  that  any 
of  them  \%  properly  God,  is  making  the  whole 
of  a  part  5  and  reafoning  fallacioufly,  a  di^o 
fecimdtim  quid,  as  the  Schools  fpeak,  ad  di- 
Bum  fimpUciter,  If  we  inquire  carefully  into 
the  Scripture-Notion  of  the  Word,  we  fhall 
find,  that  neither  T>ominion  fmgly,  nor  all  the 
other  Inftances  of  Refemblance  make  up  the 
Idea*.,  or  are  fufficient  to  denominate  any 
Thing  properly  God.  When  the  "Prince  of 
7>r^  pretended  to  be  God,  Ezek.  28.  2.  He 
thought  of  fomething  more  than  nicer  "Domi- 
-  nion 


sz  ^DEFENSE      Qa.  III. 

nion  to  make  Him  fo.  He  thought  of  Strength 
invincible,  and  Power  irrefiftible :  and  God 
was  pleas'd  to  convince  Him  of  his  Folly  and 
Vanity,  not  by  telling  Him  how  fcanty  his 
'Dominion  was,  or  how  low  his  Office  *y  but 
how  weak,  frail,  and  perifliing  his  Nature  was  5 
that  He  ^w as  Man  only,  and  not  God.  v.  2.  9. 
an^  fhould  furely  find  fo  by  the  Event.  When 
the  LycaonianSy  upon  the  fight  of  a  Miracle 
wrought  by  St.  Tanly  (Afts  14. 1 1.)  took  Him 
snd  Barnabas  for  Gods ;  They  did  not  think 
fo  much  of  Dominion^  as  of  Tower ^  and  Abi- 
lity, beyond  Human :  And  when  the  Apoftles 
anfwer'd  them,  they  did  not  tell  them  that 
their  Dominion  was  only  Human-,  or  that 
their  Office  was  not  Divine -,  but  that  they 
had  not  a  divine  Nature:  They  were  weak, 
frail,  and  feeble  Men ;  of  like  Infirmities  with 
the  reft  of  their  Species,  and  therefore  no 
Gods, 

If  we  trace  the  Scripture-Notion  of  one  that 
is  truly  and  properly  God ;  we  fliall  find  it 
made  up  of  thefe  feveral  Ideas ;  Infinite  Wifdom, 
Power  invincible,  All-fufficiency,  and  the  like. 
Thefe  are  the  Ground  and  Foundation  of  Do- 
minion y  which  is  but  a  fecondary  Notion,  a  Con- 
/equcncc  of  the  Former :  And  it  muft  be  Domi- 
nion SupremCy  and  none  elfe,  which  will  fuit 
with  the  Scripture- Notion  of  God,  It  is  not 
that  of  a  Governor,  a  Ruler,  a  T*roteBor,  a 
Z.(?r^,  or  the  like;  but  a /2>L'^r^/^;^  Ruler,  an  al- 
Wghty  Proteftor,  an  omnifcient  and  omniprefent 

Gover- 


Qu.  III.       offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.  55 

Governor :  An  eternal,  immutable,  all-fufficicnt 
Creator y  Treferver^  zxidTrotecior.  Whatever 
falls  fliort  of  this,  is  not  properly ^  in  the  Scrip- 
ture-Notion, God ;  but  is  only  called  fo  by 
way  of  Figure  5  as  has  before  been  explained. 
Now,  if  you  ask  me  why  the  relative  Terms 
may  properly  be  applied  to  the  Word  God\  the 
reafon  is  plain  5  becaufe  there  is  fomething  re- 
lative in  the  whole  Idea  of  God  5  namely,  the 
notion  of  Governor y  Trote^or,  &c.  If  you 
ask  why  they  cannot  fo  properly  be  applied  to 
the  Word,  God,  in  thzmetaphyjtcal  Senfe-^  be- 
fide  the  reafon  before  given,  there  is  another 
as  plain  5  becaufe  Metaphyjicks  take  in  only 
one/^r^of  theldea,  confider  the  iV^^/^r^  ab- 
ftradled  from  the  Relation^  leaving  the  relative 
Part  out. 

From  what  hath  been  faid,  it  may  appear 
how  ufclefs  and  infignificant  your  Diftiniftion 
is  of  a  fupreme  and  a  fiibordinate  God.  For, 
not  to  mention  that  this  muft  unavoidably 
run  you  into  Tolytbeifniy  and  bring  you  to 
aflert  more  Gods  than  one,  contrary  to  the 
whole  Tenor  of  Holy  Scripture  5  which  is 
an  *  infuperable  Objedion  to  your  Hypo- 
thefis\  I  fay,  not  to  mention  this  at  prc- 
fent,  your  Hypothejis  is  built  upon  a  falfe 
Ground,  as  if  any  thing  could  hz  properly  God, 
that  is  not  Supreme,     Supreme^    in  the  itrid 

*  See  what  Dr.   Bennct  has  very  well  nr^ed   ufon   tUs  He»d : 
Difc.  ot  theH.  Trin.  p.  178,  &c. 

Scnfe, 


54  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  IIL 

Senfe,  fuppofes  for  its  ground  all  the  eflential 
Properties  of  one  truly  and  properly  God,  as 
defcribed  in  Scripture.  Another  God  after  this, 
is  no  Gody  becaufe  Scripture  makes  but  6?;^^  3 
hefides  that  an  *  inferior  God  is  only  God  im- 
properly^  and  fo  called  by  way  of  Figure^  or 
in  fome  particular  refped :  So  that  at  length 
your  famed  Diftindion  of  a  fiipreme  and  fub- 
ordinate  God,  refolves  into  a  Gody  and  no  God, 
The  Queftion  then,  between  us,  is,  whether 
Chriftbe  God/r^/^r/r,  ot  improperly  to  called  i 
that  is,  whether  He  be  God,  or  no.  Your 
Arguments  to  prove  Him  a  fitbordinate  God  on- 
ly, I  fhall  look  upon  as  fo  many  Arguments  a- 
gainft  his  T^ivinity  j  and  as  defign'd  to  prove 
that  He  is  not  God. 

You  cite  J  oh,  10.35,36.  If  He  called  them 
Godsy  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken :  Say  ye  of  Him^ 
whom  the  Father  hath  fanBified^  and  fent 
into  the  Worlds  Thou  blafphemefly  becaufe  I 
faidy  lam  the  Son  of  God!    From  hence  you 

*  Neque  enim  proximi  crimus  opinionikis  Nationum,  qux  (i 
cjuando  coguntur  Dciim  confiteri,  tamen  &  Alios  infra  Ilium  volunt. 
Divinitas  autem  gradum  non  habct,  iitpote  unica.  Tertull.  ath. 
Hermag.  c.  7.  p.  236.  Dcus  non  erit  dicendus,  quia  nee  crcden- 
dus,  niii  Summum  magnum.  Nega  Deum,  quern  dicisdcteriorera, 
Tertull.  Contr.  Marc.  1.  i .  c.  6. 

Qui  fupcr  fe  habct  Aliqucm  Superiorem,  £c  fub  Alterius  po- 
tcftate  efl;  Hie  neque  DeiiSy  neque  Magnus  Rex  dici  poteil. 
Ircn.  1.  4.  c,  2.  p.  229. 

Unus  igitur  Omnium  Dominus  eft  Deus.  Neque  cnim  ilia  fub- 
limitas  potefl:  habere  Confortcm,  cum  Sola  omnium  teneat  po- 
teflatem.     Cyp.  h  IdoL  Van,  p.  i^.Ox.  Edit. 

endea- 


Qii.  III.       offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  ^  ^ 

endeavor  to  prove,  that  Chrift  is  God  in  the 
fubordinate  Senfe  only  j  that  is,  as  I  have  laid, 
not  properly  or  trtdy  God.  But  I  can  fee  no 
manner  of  ground  for  this  Inference  from  the 
Words  before  us.  Our  Bleflcd  Lord  had  in- 
finuated  that  He  was  really  and  truly  God  ,•  but 
had  not  aflerted  it  in  plain  and  exprefs  Terms : 
Upon  this  bare  innuendo^  the  Jews  charge  Him 
with  dired  Blafphemy :  He  to  evade  their  Ma- 
lice and  to  keep  to  the  Truth,  neither  affirms, 
nor  denies  that  He  meant  it  in  the  Senfe  which 
they  apprehended.  However,  his  Difcourfe  be- 
ing in  general  Terms,  and  not  expUcite  enough 
to  found  a  Charge  of  Blafphemy  upon,  He  ap- 
peals to  their  Law,  in  order  to  fhow,  that  it  is 
not  always  Blafphemy ^  to  make  one's  felf  Gody 
or  to  apply  the  Title  of  God,  even  to  mortal 
Men,  and  Men  inferior  to  Himfelf,  confidercd 
only  as  Man.  This  was  anfwer  fufficient  to 
Them  5  who  could  not  from  his  own  Expref- 
fions  clearly  convid  Him  of  meaning  more, 
than  that  He  was  God  in  the  improper  Senfe 
of  the  Word,  as  it  had  been  ufed,  Tfal.  82.  6. 
Neverthclefs,  He  leaves  the  point  of  his  T^ivi- 
7iity  undecided ;  *or  rather,  (till  goes  on  to  in- 
finuate,  in  Words  which  they  could  not  dire(n:- 
]y  lay  hold  on,  the  very  Thing  which  they 
charged  Him  with.  This  enraged  them  (o  much 
the  more :  and  therefore  they  again  fought  to 
take  Him,  v,  39.  But  He  efcaped out  of  their 
Hand.  This  Interpretation  may  fuffice  to  take 
off  the  force  of  your  Argument.  Vet  the 
^  Words 


56  ^DEFENSE        Qii.  IIL 

Words  may  admit  of  other  and  perhaps  better 
Interpretations,  confident  with  the  Principles 
which  I  here  maintain  *. 

You  proceed  to  cite  Heb,  i.  8,  9.  and  argue 
thus  :  He  who  being  Gody  calls  another  his 
Gody  and  is  fanctified  by  Him,  muft  needs  be 
God  in  a  fnbordinate  Senfe ;  that  is,  God  im- 
properly fo  called,  or  no  God,  To  an  old  Ob- 
jection, I  might  return  an  old  Anfwer,  in  the 
Words  of  Hilary y  or  words  to  the  fame  EfFed. 
"  •{•  This  may  fignify  only  his  Subordination,  as 
"  a  Son,  or  as  God  of  God,  without  any  Infe- 
"  riority  of  Nature.  The  Father  is  h  isGod,  as 
"  He  is  God  by  being  begotten  of  Him.  This 
Anfwer  is  direa  and  full,  upon  the  Suppofition 
that  the  Text  cited  is  meant,  of  the  divine  Na* 
ture  of  Chrift,  or  of  Chrift  in  his  higheft  Capa- 
city.  But  if  it  be  meant,  as  II  probably  it  may, 
of  his  human  Nature  only,  there  is  no  weight  in 
the  Objeftion, 

As  to  the  Son's  being  fan5tifady  I  fiiould 
hardly  have  thought  it  of  any  Importance  to 
the  Caufe,  had  it  not  been  twice  infifted  on  by 
you.  May  not  the  Father  defign,  appomt, 
confccratc  his  Son,  confidcr'd  iti  cither  Capacity, 
to  the  Office  of  Mediatory  W'ithout  fuppofing 
Him  of  a  different  and  inferior  Nature  to  Him  ? 

*See  True  Script.  BoHr.  continued,  p.  178.  Bifterficld  contr. 
Crcil.  p.  ^17.     Surcnhuf. in loc.  p.  gj'p. 

t  Ad  Nativitatcm  refer turj  cacterum  nonperimit  Naturam  >  & 
idcirco  Deus  ejus  eft,  quia  ex  eo  natus  in  Deum  eft.  Hilar,  de 
Trin   1.4.0.35-.  P.S4S. 

\\  See  Bennet.  Difccnrfe  on  the  Trin.  p,  3,  i ,  3  5 ,  &c. 

1  Or, 


Qu.  III.       offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  57 

Or,  fiippofc  the  fanciifying  may  be  meant  of 
the  human  Nature,  which  the  Father  has  fandi- 
fied,  by  uniting  it  to  the  Xoycr,  what  force  will 
there  remain  in  your  Ob)edion>  Havino;  an- 
fwcr\l.  your  Pleas  and  Pretences  for  a  fiibordi- 
nate  Gody  I  proceed  to  fhow  that  Chrift  is  not 
called  God  in  a  fttbordinatey  or  improper  Scnfc; 
but  in  the  fame  Senfe,  and  in  as  high  a  Senfe, 
as  the  Father  Himfelf  is  fo  (tiled. 

I.  Becaufe  He  is  called  the  7^^<:?i;^^,  which 
is  a  word  of  abfolute  Signification,  and  is  the 
incommunicable  Name  of  the  one  true  God. 

*  He  is,  very  probably,  called  Jehovah,  Luk. 
I.  16,  17.  manyfhallHe  (viz.  7^^;^  the  Baptift) 
turn  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  He  fliall  go 
before  Him,  The  Dodor  owns  that,  in  ftrici- 
nefs  of  Conftruttion,  the  words  {the  Lord  their 
God)  muft  be  underftood  of  ChriH.  And  there- 
fore Chrift  is  Lord  Gody  or  Jehovah  Elohimy 
which  comes  to  the  fame. 

He  is  likewife  called  the  Lord  God  of  the 
Prophets,  as  appears  from  Rev.  22.  6.  com- 
pared with  V.  16.  of  the  fame  Chapter.  This 
may  be  farther  confirmed  by  comparing  the 
Texts  following. 

*  See  this  Text  excellently  defended  and  illuflr.itcd  in  True  Scrips 
tureDoftr,  continu'd />.  152,  133,  ^c. 
See  alio  my  Sermons,  /.  203. 


o 


f 


5S 


A    DEFENSE 


Qu.  III. 


Of  old  hafl  thou  latd\ 
the  Foundation  of  the 
Earth.Viioz,  25. &c. 
Addr<rfs'd    to  the  Je- 
hovah, 

And  the  Lord  (Je- 
hovah) faid  unto  me : 
Caji  it  unto  the  Tot- 
ter-^  a  goodly  price 
that  I  "oijas  prifed  at 
of  t kern,  Zech.  1 1. 12. 

They  Jhall  look  on 
me  (Jehovah  fpeaking 
by  the  Prophet)  ^^'hom 
they  have  pierced^ 
Zech   12.  10. 

The  Voice  of  Him 
that  cricth  in  ike  JVil- 
dernefs,  prepare  ye  the 
waj  of  the  Lord  (Je- 
hovah) ir.  40. 3. 

The  Lord  faid,  I 
iL'illhave  mercy  on  the 
Hoiife  of  judah,  and 
*u:ill  fdve  them  by  the 
Lord  (Jehovah)  their 
Gody  Hof.  1.7. 


""Thou  Lordy  in  the 
beginning  haft  laid  the 
hound  at  ions  of  the 
Earthy  Heb.  1. 10. 

^  Then  was  fulfil  led y 
That  "which  was  fpo- 
keny  &c.  Matth.  27, 
9,10. 


Another  Scripture 
faithy  They  foall  look 
on  Him  (Jefus  Chrift) 
whom  they  have  pier- 
ced, Joh.  19.  37. 

*^  The  Voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  Wilder - 
nefsy  prepare  ye  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  Mar. 

I.  3. 

is  born  in  the 

City  of  David,  a  Sa- 
viour, which  is  Chrift 
the  Lordy  Luk.  2.  i  !• 


'i'^fSurenhufn  Conciliation,  in  Joe.  p. 600. 

'Surenhuf.  in  loc.  p.  280. 

*Surcnhuf.  in  Matth.  3.  3.  />.  207.  /  refer  to  this  Author,  to  ob- 
'viate  the  pretence,  that  thefe  Texts  might  bi  underjiood  only  by  veay  of 
Accommodation. 

►j.  I  have 


Qlt.  lit.       of  fome  Q\J  E  R  I  E  S.  ^^ 

I  have  produced  the  Texts  again,  in  order 
to  take  notice  of  the  very  pecuHar  way,  which 
you  have  of  evading.  It  is  your  avowed  Prin- 
ciple, that  Chrift  is  not  Jehovah  in  his  own 
Perfon,  p.  24.  and  elfewhere:  and  that  the 
^erfon  called  Jehovah  is  the  Father  onlj. 
Wliat  then  muft  be  faid  to  thefe  Texts,  which 
are  fo  very  plain  and  exprefs  to  the  contrary  i 
infomuch  that  *  Dr.  Clarke  Himfelf  owns,  that 
the  name  Jehovah  is  given  to  that  vifihle 
Perfon  (meaning  Chrift)  who  appeared  as  re- 
prefenting  the  Terfon  of  the  invifible  God? 
He  does  not  fay,  it  was  given  to  the  Perfon 
reprefented  only,  but  to  the  Perf6n  reprefent* 
ing  alfo  ;  which  you  feem  to  deny.  But  you 
confound  your  felf  with  your  f  own  Comment 
upon  Ho f.  1.7.  [Jehovah  would— ^fave  them 
by  Jehovah  their  God)  That  iSy  fay  you,  that 
Jehovah  himfelf  wotdd  fave  them,  but  not  in 
his  own  Terfon,  Well  then  ;  it  is  by  another 
Terfon,  which  Terfon  the  Text  exprefly  calls 
Jehovah, 

Upon  Zech,  12.10.  compar'd  with  J  oh.  1 9-  5  7-^ 
you  Comment  thus  (/.  26.)  The  Sufferings  of 
Chrift  might  well  be  called  the  Sufferings  of 
Jehovah,  being  pierced  in  Effigie  in  his  Sony 
who  is  the  exprefs  Ima^^e  of  his  Terfon. 
What  a  fanciful  Turn  is  here,  merely  to  elude 
the  force  of  plain  Scripture.  Say  rather,  that 
fince  Chrift  is  the  Effigies,  the  exprefs  Image 
of  the  Father^  He  might  juftly  be  called  Je- 

F  s  hovah, 


60  y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.  III. 

hovahy  which  indeed  He  is,  as  well  as  the  Fa- 
ther. I  (hall  dwell  no  longer  on  fo  clear  and 
mdifputable  a  point.  What  you  hint,  that  the 
Father  and  Son  cannot  Both  be  Jehovah^  or  as 
you  cxprefs  it,  one  individual  Being,  meaning 
one  Terfony  is  hardly  deferving  Notice  5  becaufe 
it  is  nothing  but  playing  with  the  "word  indi- 
vidual *y  and  difputing  againft no  Body:  Either 
take  the  word  in  our  Senfe  of  it,  or  pretend 
not  that  you  oppofe  us.  It  has  been  obferved 
above,  that  Antiquity  is  every  where  full  and 
exprefs  in  this  Matter  5  never  queftioning,  but 
conftantiy  afferting,  that  the  Son  is  Jehovah -^ 
and  fo  called,  in  Scripture,  in  his  own  Terfon^ 
and  in  his  own  r/^/?^,  ^s  Coeffential  Son  oi  God. 
The  next  Thing  which  I  have  to  obferve,  is, 
that  Jehovah  is  a  word  of  abfolute  Significa- 
tion. The  relative  Terms  do  not  fuit  with 
it,  as  with  the  other.  We  do  not  read  my  Je- 
hovah, or  your  Jehovah,  or  the  Jchovala  of 
-  Ifraely  as  is  pertinently  remarked  by  a  learned 
*  Gentleman;  and  the  fame  Gentleman pbferves, 
that  it  is  fometimes  render'd  by  ®eor,  or  God-, 
from  whence  we  may  juft  take  notice,  by  the 
way,  that  the  word  Osor,  or  Gody  in  Scripture, 
is  not  always,  perhaps  very  rarely,  a  meer  re* 
lative  Word.  That  Jehovah  is  a  Word  of  ^^- 
foliite  Signification,  expreffing  God,  as  He  is, 
may  be  proved,  both  from  f  Scripture  it  felf, 

♦  The  True  Script.  Doclr.of  thcTrin.  cx)ntinued,  />.  134. 
f  See  this  proved  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Confidcrations  on  Mr. 
WhiftonV  Hiftor.Fref.  p.  loi. 

4.  and 


Qli.  Iir.       offome  QU  E  R I  E  S.  6  r 

and  the  *  Authorities  of  the  bed  Ciiticks  in  this 
Cafe.  What  you  have  to  objcd  ap;ainrt  it,  (hall 
be  here  examined,  with  all  convenient  Brevity, 
f  You  make  the  Import  of  the  Name  'Jehovah 
to  be,  giving  Being  to  (i.  e.  Perforniini^)  bis 
Tromifes.  For  Reafons  bed  known  to  your 
Self,  you  flip  over  Exod,  3.  v,  14, 15.  which 
might  probably  give  us  the  mod  Light  into  the 
Matter  J  and  chufe  to  found  all  your  Rcafon- 
ings  upon  Exod.  6.  2, 3,  crc  an  obfcure  Place, 
on  which  you  have  made  almofl:  as  obfcure  a 
Comment.  The  Words  are,  I  am  the  Lord 
(Jehovah)  and  1  appeared  unto  Abraham,  ;/w/d? 
Ifaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  Name  of  God 
Almighty  (El  Shaddai)  but  by  my  Name  Je- 
hovah, was  I  not  known  unto  them. 

You  do  not,  I  prefume,  fo  underftand  this 
Text,  as  if  this  was  the  firft  Time  that  God  re- 
vealed Himfelf  by  the  Name  Jehovah.  That 
He  had  done  before,  Exod,  3.  14.  And  even 
long  before  That,  to  Abram^  Gen.  15.7.  And 
Abram  had  addrefs'd  Him,  under  that  Name, 
fooner.  Gen,  15.  2.  Nay  it  may  be  run  up  yet 
higher,  even  to  Adam  and  Eve,  Gen.  4.  i . '! 

Your  meaning  therefore,  I  fuppofe,  mud  be, 

*  See  the  Authorities  cited  in  the  fecond  Tart  of  the  ConfiJcrations 
by  the  fame  Author^  p.  2,  3.  And  rejcrr'd  to  in  True  Scripture 
Doftr.  continu'd,  />.  133, 134.  f  p.  19. 

IJ  M.  Le  Clerc  thinks  that  all  this  may  be  folved  ly  n  Prolcplis. 
Com.  in  Exod.  3.  v.  ly.  To  which  it  is  fufficieit  to  Anfver^  ti..it  it 
may  be  otherwise'-,  and  that  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Mofcs,  wlo 
was  particularly  careful  not  to  introduce  the  Name  of  Abraham  Mnd 
Sarah,  before  the  proper  Time,  JJ:ould  tiot  be  as  careful  in  refpcci  of  a 
more  venerable  Natne^  the  Name  of  God  Himfelf 

F  3  that 


6i  ^^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  Ill, 
that  God  had  given  many  Inftanccs  of  his 
^ower  before,  conformable  to  his  Name  El 
Shaddai:  But  now,  He  was  to  give  them  In- 
ftances  of  his  Veracity  and  Conjtancy  in  fer- 
forming  Tromifes^  conformable  to  jiis  Name 
Jehovah.  This,  I  think,  cither  is,  or  lliould 
be  your  Senfe  of  this  obfcure  Paflage.  That  it 
is  not  the  true  fenfe  of  the  Place,  is  next  to 
be  fliown. 

I .  It  appears  to  be  a  very  ftrain'd  and  remote 
Interpretation.  The  primary  Signification  of 
Jehovahy  is  Beings  by  your  own  Confeflion, 
^nd  as  all  know,  that  know  any  thing :  and  the 
mod  obvious  reafon  of  the  Name,  is,  that  God 
is  Being  it  felf,  neceflarily  exifting,  indepen- 
dent, immutable,  always  the  fame  5  According 
to  that  of  MaL  3.6.  I  am  the  Lord  (Jehovah) 
I  change  not.  After  this,  in  the  natural  Order, 
He  may  be  confidered  as  the  Fountain  of  Be- 
ings or  giving  Being  to  all  other  Things :  So 
that  this  feems  but  a  fecondary  Notion  of  Je- 
hovah, Yours  is  more  r^;;^^^^ftill:  \t\%  giving 
Beings  not  to  the  World,  to  Angels,  or  to 
Men  5  But  to  Words  and  Tromifes ;  that  is, 
fulfilling  Them.  And  this  metaphorical  Scnfe 
of,  giving  Beings  you  would  put  upon  us,  for 
the  proper  and  fpecial  Import  of  the  Name 
Jehovah,  exprcffing  Being,  Who  does  not  fee 
that  this  is  ftraincd  and  Far  fetched ) 

z.  The  Reafon  which  you  aflign  for  this 
Interpretation,  is  as  lame  as  the  Interpretation 
it  fclf     Ggdj   it  fccms,    was  now  comins;  to 

'  '  '    ■  ■'  ■        >/// 


Qu.  IIL        of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  63 

fulfil  the  promife  made  to  Abraham  ;  and  there- 
fore reminds  his  People  of  the  Name  "Jehovah  ; 
as  importing  one  faithful  and  punctual  to  his 
Word.  But  what  if  Jehovah  fhould  import 
one  eternal  and  immutable  God,  the  jame 
yefierday^  to  day^  and  for  every  might  not  the 
Confideration  thereof  be  very  proper  to  raife 
in  Men's  Minds  the  greateft  Confidence  and 
Afllirance  imaginable,  that  He  fliould  never  fail 
of  his  Word  ? 

2.  Befides,  what  Account  will  you  give  of 
many  other  Places  of  Scripture,  where  God  re- 
minds his  People,  that  He  is  Jehovah ;  and 
where  there  is  no  Reference  at  all,  io  promifeSy 
or  the  like  ? 

Thus,  in  this  very  Chapter,  Exod.  6.  39.  I 
am  the  Lord:  (Jehovah)  fpeak  thou  unto 
Pharaoh  King  of  Egypt  all  that  I  fay  unto 
Thee.  Again  5  Againft  all  the  Gods  of  Egypt, 
/  vuill  execute  Judgment ;  I  am  Jehovah, 
Exod.   12.    \zf None  of  you  (hall  approach  to 

any  that  is  near  of  Kin  to   Him /  dvi 

Jehovah,  Lev.  18.6.  7^;;/ M^L^r^ (Jehovah) 
that  is  my  Name,  and  my  Glory  vuill  I  not 
give  to  another ;  neither  my  praife  to  graven 
^Images,  If.  42.  8.  *  Many  more  Places  of  like 
nature  might  be  cited.  But  I  chufe  to  refer  yoa 
to  a  Concordance  for  them.  What  I  intend  from 

*  Monf.  Le  Clcrc,  ti^on  the  Vhice,  endcaxors  hy  ^irk  and  Sub- 
t'dtyto  turn  fez eral  FaJpigeSy  wherein  the  Jehovah  ts  meuion'd,  to  one 
tarticuUr  Scnfe,  m  favour  of  the  Sabelhans.  But  that  Author,  and 
his  Manner  are  well  known,  and  with  what  Byafs  he  writes.  V.t 
-very  Infiances  which  He  brings  are  enough  to  confute  lUm. 

/  F  4  them 


64  ^DEFENSE         Qu.  IIL 

them  is  this ;  that  if  your's  be  the  true  Account 
of  the  fpecial  Import  of  the  Name  Jehovah^  it 
will  be  hard  to  find  any  Senfe,  or  Pertinency 
in  thofc,  or  other  frequent  Repetitions  of  it. 
But  undcrftanding  the  Word,  as  it  has  been  ge- 
nerally underftood  by  Perfons  of  the  greatcft 
Learning  and  Judgment,  all  is  clear ^  pertinent y, 
and  conjijlent. 

But,  you  will  fay,  why  then  docs  God  fa 
particularly  take  notice,  that  bj  his  name  Je- 
hovah^ He  was  not  known  to  Abraham^  IfaaCy 
^nd  Jacob?  Exod.  6.  3.  Did  not  they  know 
Him,  and  worlhip  Him,  as  the  true,  eternal,  in- 
dependent, immutable  God,  the  Creator  of  all 
Things?  Yes,  certainly  they  did,  and  under  the 
Name  Jehovah  too ;  and  probably  underftood 
the  import  of  it.  The  moft  probable  Solution 
of  the  whole  Difficulty  is  this;  that  the  Words, 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  Texr,  ought  to  be  un- 
derftood by  way  of  Interrogation,  thus :  But  by 
my  na7ne  Jehovah,  was  I  not  alfo  kno^'jcyi  tinto 
th£7n  ?  That  great  and  venerable  Name,  which 
exprcflcs  more  than  El-Shaddai^  or  any  other 
Name,  and  which  I  havechofcn  for  my  memQ- 
rial  to  all  Generations  ? 

If  you  pleafc  to  conftilt  the  Criticks,  you 
will  find  this  interpretation  fupportcd  by  fuch 
Rcafons  as  will  bear  Examining.  It  has  been 
obfcrved  by  the  Learned,  that  fome  of  the  Greek 

Writers  read  the  Words,  ^  ro  ovcu.j.  ixny  KJof©--, 


Qii.  ILL  offome  aU  E  R I  E  S.  ^^ 
icA»iXa)cra  AuroK.  *  That  is,  wy  «^^w^,  ]diovah,  / 
fnade  known  tint 0  them  \  which  Interpretation  is 
likewifc  favour'd  by  the  Arabick  Verjion.  This, 
at  Icaft,  we  may  lay  ;  that  from  a  Paflagc  fo  ob- 
fcLire,  and  capable  of  fcveral  Conftrudions,  no 
certain  Argument  can  be  drawn,  for  the  fpccial 
import  of  the  word  Jehovah.,  in  oppofition  to 
the  bcft  Criticks  in  the  Language,  whether  kw- 
tient  or  Modern.  Now,  to  refumc  the  Thread 
of  our  Argument;  fmce  it  appears  that  Chriit  is, 
in  his  own  proper  Perfon,  called  Jehovah^  a 
Word  of  abfolute  Signification,  exprefling  the 
divine  Nature  or  Effence ;  it  mull  follow  that 
He  is  God^  ftriclly  fo  called  5  and  not  in  the  re- 
lative or  improper  Senfe,  as  is  pretended. 

This  will  appear  farther,  if  it  be  confider'd 
that  Jehovah  is  the  incommunicable  Name  of 
the  one  true  God.  This  may  be  proved  from 
^  feveral  Texts,  which  I  fhall  only  point  to  in  the 
Margin  5  referring  you  to  II  a  learned  Author, 
who  has  abundantly  made  good  the  Aflertion.  I 
may  remark  that  this  and  the  foregoing  Obferva- 
tion  ferve  to  fupport  and  confirm  each  other :  For, 
if  Jehovah  fignify  the  eternal  immutable  God, 
it  is  manifeft  that  the  Name  is  incommunicable y 
fincc  there  is  but  one  God ;  and  if  the  Name  be 
inco?nmunicable,  then  Jehovah  can  fignify  no- 
thing but  that  one  God  to  whom,  and  to  whom 
onljy  it  is  applied.     And  if  both  thefe  Parts  be 

*yuJ}.Mcirt.  reads.  To  cvofjuu  (iin  iy-la/i^ujc-x ocvrcXt,.  Dial.f.  z66. 

Jebb.vid.Gen.32.29.  comp.Pieud.Athanaf.Tom.2.p.499,fo;5,fcf. 

t  Exod.3 .  i+,  ly.  Dcut.26. 17,18.  Pr.83, 1 8. 1142.8.  Hofca I  2. 5-. 

|i  1(1  Letter  10  the  Author  of  the  HiHovy  oi  Montanifm, /.;f.  &c. 

true, 


66         :/^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  IIL 

true,  and  it  be  true  likewife,  that  this  Name  is 
applied  to  Chrift ;  the  Confequence  is  irrefiftible, 
that  Chrift  is  the  fame  one  God  5  not  the  fame 
Perfon  with  the  Father,  to  whom  alfo  the  Name 
Jehovah  is  attributed,  but  the  fame  &/^^;/r^, 
the  fame  Being,  in  a  Word,  the  fame  Jehovah  5 
thus  revealed  to  be  more  Perfons  than  one.  So 
much  for  my  firft  Argument  to  prove  that  the 
Word,  God,  when  applied  to  the  Father  and 
Son,  in  Scripture,  does  not  bear  a  double  Mean- 
ing, oxiz proper,  and  the  other  improper',  but  is 
to  be  underftood  in  one  and  the  fame  true  and 
proper  Senfe,  in  refped  of  Both. 

2.  My  fecond  Argument  for  it  fhall  be  from 
J  oh,  I.  i.purfuantto  the  Words  of  the  Query. 
In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God,  v.  i . 
All  Things  were  made  by  Him,  &c.  v.  3.  Here, 
we  find  the  San  exprefly  called  God:  and  the  on- 
ly queftion  is,  whether  in  a  proper,  or  improper 
.  Senfe.  The  Circumftanccs  of  the  place  muft 
determine  us  in  this  Enquiry.  Here  are  Three 
Marks  to  direft  us  how  to  form  a  Judgment. 
I.  The  word  ©sor,  God,  is  ufed  in  a  proper 
Scnfe  in  the  very  fame  Verfe.  2.  The  word 
was  God  in  the  Beginning,  that  is,  before  the 
Creation.  3  •  The  Work  of  Creation  is  attri- 
buted to  Him. 

1  fay,  firft,  the  word  ©so^-,  God,  is  once 
ufed,  in  :i proper  Senfe,  in  the  very  fame  -Verfe, 
I  have  before  fliown,  that  the  pretended  rela- 
tive 


Qu.  III.       offorne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  67 

five  Senfe  is  only  an  improper  and  figurative 
Scnfe  of  the  word  GW,  according  to  the  Scri- 
pture-Notion of  it ;  and  therefore,  certainly. 
That  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  it  here,  bein'^ 
appHed  to  the  Father^  who,  without  difpute, 
is  properly  God.  Befides,  that  fince  ©sc^  in  the 
Septtiagint  is  frequently  the  rendering  of  7^- 
hovahy  as  you  may  readily  fee  by  turning  to 
Trommius's  Concordance -^  and  fince  St.  John 
Himfelf  follows  that  rendering  as  you  may  ob- 
ferveby  comparing  Joh,6.\<,.  with  7/2?.  54.13. 
we  may  realonably  think  that  0  ©eor,  in  the 
Text,  is  of  the  fame  Signification  with  Jeho- 
vah:  which  is  a  farther  proof  that  it  is  to  be 
underftood  abfolutelyy  and  not  relatively,  as 
you  term  it,  or  as  I,  improperly.  If  therefore 
the  word  ©^of,  God,  be  once  ufed  by  St.  John 
in  the  JlriB  and  proper  Senfe :  How  can  wc 
imagine  that  immediately  after,  in  the  very  fame 
Verfe,  He  fhould  ufe  the  fame  Word  in  a  Senfe 
very  different  from  that  of  the  former  ?  You 
remark,  that  the  Article  is  prefixed  before 
©scs-j  in  an  ab folate  ConflruEiion,  ijohen  fipoken 
of  the  Father  5  but  omitted  "jvhen  predicated 
of  the  Aoyor.  But  if  the  want  of  the  Article  be 
fufficient  to  prove  that  Osor,  God,  when  applied 
to  the  Word,  is  of  a  different  meaning  ;  by  the 
fame  Argument  you  might  prove  that  the  lame 
word,  ©so^'5  without  an  Article,  in  no  Icls  than 
four  places  more  of  this  Chapter  (v.  6. 1 2, 1 3,1  S.) 
is  not  to  be  underftood  of  the  one  true  God, 
J  cannot  help  thinking  a  remark  Trifiingy  which 

fignifics 


gg         :/^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  III. 

iignifies  fo  little,  as  cither  to  prove  too  much, 
or  to  prove  nothing.  Could  you  fhow  that 
Oik  without  the  Article,  was  always  taken  in 
a  relative^  or  improper  Senfc,  you  would  do 
fomething.  All  that  you  attempt  to  (how,  is, 
that  0  esoj  is  no  where,  in  the  new  Teftament, 
predicated  of  the  Word^  in  an  abfohite  Con- 
ftrudion :  And  what  if  it  is  not  ?  Then  it  is 
not :  For,  that  is  all  you  can  make  of  it.  Oso? 
without  the  Article  in  many  Places,  confeffed- 
ly,  means  as  much  as  Oso?  with  the  Article  5 
which  is  enough  for  our  purpofe.  Or,  admit- 
ting that  there  is  fome  reafon  and  fignificancy 
in  it,  that  the  Son  is  not  ftiled  0  ©so?  in  an  ab- 
folute  Conftrudion,  but  that  the  Title  is  gene- 
rally referved  to  the  Father,  as  the  Title,  0  nar/i^  > 
all  that  it  fignifies,  is,  that  the  firft  Perfon 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  eminently  diftinguifh'd 
by  an  Article  5  but  not  that  the  Addition,  or 
the  Omiflion,  of  an  Article  makes  any  Altera- 
tion in  the  Senfe  of  the  word  ©sor.  You  fay, 
that  three  of  the  moft  learned  Ante-Nicene 
Greek  Fathers  injift  upon  this  Remark, 
about  the  Article.     *  Clemens  of  Alexandria^ 

*  Clem.  Ale):.  Strom.  3 .  p.  5-48.  Ex.  Ox.  Clemens  doei  not  make 
his  RemArk  on  Joh  i.  i.  nor  does  He  mention^  that  the  uirtkle  is  put 
to  dijlingtiijlj  the  'Bather's  Supereminent  dignity  of  Nature  above  the 
Son;  As  your  Reader,  orperhapsyourSelf,  might  imagine.  His  dejign  n>0s 
only  to  prove,  againft  Tatian,  that  the  True  God  (and  not  the  Devil) 
teas  the  Avithor  of  Con'^ugal  Procreation  ;  for  -which  He  cites  Geri. 
4.  2f.  obfervingy  that  ©so?  in  that  Place  has  the  Article  6  before  it: 
and  therefore  mufi  be  tmderjlood  of  the  True  God,  the  ztcmtokq^.tu^  \ 
By  the  -very  fame  Rule,  Chrijl  muft  be  True  God,  in  the  fame  Senfe, 
according  to  Clemens:.     He  is  e  ©fc?.     See  p.  72,  132,  25" i>  273. 

*  Origen 


Qu.  III.      offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  c<^ 

'1^  Origeriy  and  f  Eufebius.  But  what  do  they 
gather  from  it,  or  what  do  they  mean  by  it  > 
Do  they  mean  that  the  Son  is  not  God  in  the 
proper  Senfe  >  nothing  like  it.  Do  they  mean 
that  the  Article  can  never  be  properly  applied 
when  the  Son  is  fpoken  of,  or  that  the  Scripture 
obferves  it  as  an  invariable  Rule  ?  That  docs 
not  appear,  but  rather  the  Contrary :  For,  they 
underftood  many  Texts  of  the  Old  Teftamenr, 
where  ©for  occurs  with  the  Article,  of  Chrifl-; 
as  may  appear,  in  fome  meafure,  from  the  Texts 
before  laid  down  5  and  might  be  more  amply 
fet  forth  by  other  Evidence,  were  any  needful 
in  fo  clear  a  Cafe. 

The  Truth  of  the  whole  Matter  is,  the  Title 
of  0  ©sof,  being  underftood  in  the  fame  Senfc 
with  Au  To^sor,  was,  as  it  ought  to  be,  general- 
ly referved  to  the  Father,  as  the  diftinguifliing 
ferfond  Character  of  the  firft  Pcrfon  of  the 
Holy  Trinity.  And  this  amounts  to  no  more 
than  the  Acknowledgment  of  the  Father's  Pre- 
rogative, as  Father.  But  as  it  might  alfo  fignify 
any  Perfon  who  is  truly  and  cffentially  God,  it 
might  properly  be  applied  to  the  Son  too :  and 
it  is  fo  applied  fometimes,  tho'  not  fo  often  as 
it  is  to  the  Father.     However,    it  is  hardly 

436,  832.    and^  likewife  6  wuvtok^tv^,    277.       See  alfo  p.  148, 

€47. 

-    *  In  Joh.  p.  4(J.     Origen  means  720  more  than  that  the  Either  n 

A'Jre^s^y  God  unorig'mated ;  the  Son,  God  of  God. 

.    fEccI.  Theol.  1.  2.  c.  17.  Eufebius  vmkcs  no  farther  tife  of   tU 

Ohfervat'ion  than  to  prove,   againfi  Marcellus,    that  the  Aey2>-  is  4 

^ijimci  real  Perfon  i  and  net  the  Father  Himfelf, 

.    r  worth 


70         ^DEFENSE        Qu.  m 

worth  the  while  to  difpute  this  Point.  The 
Sum  and  Subftance  of  all  is,  that  *  the  Father 
is  abfolutely^  and  eminently  ftiled  o  ©sor,  as 
the  Fountain  of  all  5  the  Sort  ^'^o^-^  God  of  Gody 
which  is  fufficicnt  to  our  purpofe.  You  ob- 
ferve  (/).  42.)  that  the  LXXII  have  @jo?  with- 
out the  Article,  wherever  mention  is  made  of 
Godj  in  what  you  call  the  fubordinate  Serifc. 
The  Inference  I  fliould  draw  from  thence,  is, 
that  when  ©eoir  has  the  Article  prefixed,  the 
fupreme  God  is  meant  thereby.  By  this  Rule, 
if  the  concurrent  Senfe  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
Writers  be  of  any  force  or  weight  with  you, 
our  Difpute  would  be  at  an  end.  For  they  ap- 
ply innumerable  Texts,  wherein  ©co?  occurs 
with  the  Article,  to  our  Saviour  Chrift.  But  if 
you  flight  their  Authorities,  yet  I  prefume  you 
will  be  concluded  by  the  infpired  Writers,  who 
apply  fome  Texts  of  the  Old  Teftament,  which 
have  ©€of  with  the  Article,  to  our  blefled  Lord. 
Compare 

Numb,ii.Sy6,7,  I  I  Cor.  10.9. 

7/22.45.22,23.  I  -f  I^pm*  i^,  II. ^h/Li. 10. 
I  had  almoft  forgot  to  take  notice  of  one 
Pretence  more  you  have,  for  the  fubordinate 
Senfe  of  ©^oV,  in  Job.  i .  i .  You  word  it  thus^ 
{p.  41 .)  He  who  is  Gody  and  at  the  fame  time 
is  with  God  who  begat  Him^  miifl  needs  be 
God  in  a  different  meaning  5    ttnlefs  the  fame 

*  See  this  more  fully  explain' d  and  illujlratcd  in  Dr.  FiddcsV  Body 
©f  Divinity,  Vol.  i.  p.  383,  Sec.  and  397,  Sec. 
fVid.Surenhuf.  Conciliation,  p.  y  1 1. 

God 


<^u.  III.      offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  71" 

God  could  be  with  Himfclf,  ZTC  To  this  it  is 
readily  anfwcr'd,  that  being  with  God  is  the 
fame  as  being  with  the  Father  (Com p.  i  Joh. 
1.2.)  who  is  God,  and  eminently  lb  ftilcd,  as 
being  firft  in  Order  *  If  he  were  not  always 
with  Him,  and  infeparable  from  Him,  He  could 
not  be  God  in  a  proper  Senfe.  God  and  God, 
or  God  of  God,  fuppofes  two  Terfons ;  and 
therefore  there  is  no  Foundation  for  the  Ob- 
jcftion  of  the  Son's  being  with  Himfelf.  Hav- 
ing thus  endeavored  to  obviate  your  Exceptions, 
I  now  proceed  to  the  Proof  of  my  Pofition. 
The  Word  is  here  {Joh,  i.  i.)  faid  to  have 
been  God  in  the  Beginjiing^  that  is,  before  the 
Creation  \  from  whence  it  is  farther  probable 
that  He  is  God^  in  ^zftriEi  and  proper  Senfe. 
This  Circumftance  may  at  lead:  be  fufficient  to 
convince  you,  that  the  relative  Senfe,  which 
you  contend  for,  is  not  applicable.  He  could 
have  no  Relation  to  the  Creatures  before  they 
were  made  5  no  "Dominion  over  them  when 
they  were  not:  And  therefore  could  not  be 
G^^  in  the  Senfe  of  'Dominion,  or  Office.  But 
what  moft  of  all  demonftratcs  the  fVord  to  be 
here  called  God  in  the  proper  Senfe,  is,  that 
the  Creation  of  all  Things  is  afcribed  to  Him. 

*  Jijcre  is  no  tnconjijlency  in  admitting  d  Priority  of  Order,  and  yet 
denying  the  Son  to  be  God  in  a  fubordinate,  or  improper  Senfe.  There 
Toas  a  Priority  of  Order,  in  rcfpefi  of  Adam  and  Scth  :  and  yet 
Seth  rpas  not  Man  in  a  Subordinate  Senfe,  but  in  the  fame  Sc7;fe 
as  Adam  rpas.  I  ufe  not  the  Similitude,  as  if  it  would  anfwer  m 
other  reflects  y  but  it  may  frve  fo  far,  to  illuflrate  my  mearing ; 
which  is  fufficient.  See  Expofit.  Fid.  attributed  to  Juftin.  Mart. 
f.zc,^.Sylb.Ed. 

Crca- 


72  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  IIL 

Creation  is  an  iiidifputablc  Mark  of  the  one 
true  God':,  the  *  diftinguifliing  Charader  by 
which  He  was  to  be  known,  and  for  which  He 
was  to  be  reverenc  d  above  all  Gods ;  and  on 
•f*  Account  of  which,  He  claims  to  Himfelf  all 
Homage,  Worfliip,  and  Adoration.  But  of  this 
I  fhall  have  occafion  to  fay  more  hereafter,  and 
therefore  fhali  difmifs  it  for  the  prefent.  I  muft 
not  forget  to  add,  that,  befides  what  I  have  here 
urged,  by  virtue  alfo  of  what  hath  been  proved 
under  Query  the  firft,  I  may  come  at  my  Con- 
clufion.  For,  no  Queftion  can  be  made  but 
that  the  Word  is  called  G^?^,  by  St^John^  in  a 
higher  Senfe  than  any  nominal  God  can  pre- 
tend to.  And  therefore,  fince  He  is  not  ex- 
cluded with  the  nominal  Gods,  He  is  included 
and  comprehended  in  the  one  fupreme  God; 
and  confequently,  is  coeternal  and  cocffential 
with  the  Father.  Enough  hath  been  faid  in 
Vindication  of  the  Argument  contain'd  in  this 
Query :  and  fo  now  I  return  it  upon  you,  ftand^ 
ing  in  full  force  5  and  expefting  a  more  com 
pleat,  and  more  fatisfaftory  Anfwer. 

♦"Jerem.  10.  11.  t  i^ev.  4.  10,  11. 


Qu  E  R  Y 


Qu.  IV.       ofjome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S,  73 

(^  U   E    R   Y      IV. 

IVhetheTy  fuppojing  the  Scripture-Notion  of 
God  to  be  no  ?nore  than  that  of  the  Au- 
thor and  Goi:ernor  of  the  Univerfe^  or 
whatever  it  be^  the  admitting  of  A710- 
ther  to  be  Author  and  Governor  of  the 
Univcrfe,  be  not  admitting  another  God; 
contrary  to  the  Texts  before  cited  from 
Ifaiah;  and alfo  to  If.  42.  8.-48.  1 1.  'H'here 
He  declares^  He  will  not  give  his  Glory  to 
Another  ? 

YOUR  Anfwer  is  (/>.  42.)  Snppofingthe 
revealed  Senfe  of  the  Word,  God,  to 
imply  Dominion,  and  that  He  is  the  Author 
and  Governor  of  the  Univerfe,  the  admitting 
a  Second  Perfon,  diflinEl  from  the  07ie  fitprcme 
Gody  to  be  Author  and  Governor,  doth  by  no 
means  contradi^  the  Tajfages  cited  from 
Ifaiah,  or  any  Other,  or  introduce  two  Gods, 
viz.  two  fupreme  Beings,  or  Terfons.  Give 
me  leave  to  produce  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah  once 
more  $  and  to  place  others  in  an  oppolltc  Co- 
lumn to  them,  only  mutatis  tnutandt:,  putting 
Author  and  Governor  of  the  Univerfe  iiiftcad 
of  the  Word,  God-,  which,  with  you,  amounts 
to  the  fame. 


1  am 


74- 


A    DEFENSE 


Qu.  IV, 


I  am  the  Lord:,  and 
there  is  none  elfe:,  there 
is  no  AnthoM  and  Gover- 
nor of  the  Univcrfe  be- 
Jidesmej  Ifa.  45-5. 

Is  there  an  Author 
and  Governor  of  the 
Univerfe  be/ides  me  ? 
yeay  there  is  no  Au- 
thor, &c,  befidesme, 
Ifa.  44-  S. 


The  word  was  Au- 
thor and  Governor  of 
the  Univerfe,  J  oh.  i .  i . 


Chrijl  came^  who  is 
over  ally  Author  and 
Governor  of  the  Uni- 
verfe, blejfed  for  every 
Rom,  9.  5, 


I  hope"  you  fee  plainly  how  theTexts^  In 
the  two  oppofite  Columns,  confront  and  con- 
tradid  each  other  5  and  that  two  Authors  and 
Governors  of  the  Univerfey  whom  you  fup- 
pofe  two  diftinft  feparate  Beings,  are  as  plainly 
two  Gods^  as  if  it  were  faid  fo  in  Terms.  For 
indeed  there's  no  Difference  more  than  that  of 
putting  the  definition  for  the  Thing  defined. 
But  you  have  an  Evafion  after ;  That  They  are 
not  two  fiipreme  Beings.  And  what  if  They 
are  not?  Are  They  not  ftill  two  Authors  and 
Governors  of  the  Univerfe  ?  and  is  not  every 
fuch  Author  and  Governor^  by  your  own  Ac- 
count, a  God  ?  This  pretence  then  comes  too 
late.  Or  admitting  that  Supreme  muft  be  add- 
ed to  Author  and  Governor,  to  make  a  true 
Definition  of  God  5  then  Author  and  Go- 
vernor of  the  Univerfe  y  without  Supreme^ 
i>  not  fufHcient  to  denominate  a  Perion  God ; 

^  and 


Qu.  IV.        of  fame  QJJ  E  R  I  E  S.  7^ 

and  fo  you  z/;^^^// the  Second  Pcrfoii;  and  what 
you  gave  with  one  Hand,  you  take  away  with 
the  other. 

What  you    fliould   have  faid,    is,    (for  it  is 
what  you   really   mean)    that    there   are  r'X'^ 
Gods  'y    one  Supreme^   and  the  other  Subordi- 
nate:    Which  being  a  Propofition  utterly  re- 
pugnant to  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah^    and  to  the 
whole  Tenor  of  Scripture,  and  to  all  Antiquity, 
you  do  not,  I  luppofe,  care  to  fpeak  it  at  length. 
I  have   before  endeavour 'd  to   cxpole  this  no- 
tion of  t'-jvo  Gods^    one  Supreme  y    and   the 
other  Inferior  j   and  have  fhown  it  to  be  unrea- 
fonable  and  unfcriptural.     I  may  add,   that  if 
there  really  be  t-j:jo   Gods   [Snpre7}ie  and  In- 
ferior )   in  the  proper  Scriptural  Scnfe  of  the 
Word,  the  Good  Fathers  of  the  three  firft  Cen- 
turies argued  againft  the  Heathen  "Polvtheiffn 
upon  a  very  falfe  Principle,  and  died  Martyrs 
for  an  Error  5  the  Angel  in  the  Revelations  may 
feeni  to  have  impofed  upon  St.  John  with  an 
erroneous  Maxim,  Rev.  19.  10.  our  Saviour's 
Anfwer  to  the  Devil  to  have  been  defective, 
and  not  pertinent,    Luke  4.  8.  and  the  many 
Declarations  of  the  UnitVy    fcr.ttcred  through 
the  Old  Teftament,    to  be  unintelligible  and 
infignificant.     But  this  fliall  be  more  dillindly 
cxplain'd,  when  I  come  to  the  Argument  con- 
cerning Worfliip. 

Here  let  me  only  ask  you,  where  docs  thc^ 

Scripture   give    you    the    leaft    Intimation    of 

t^^'o  true    Gods  ?     Where  docs  it  furnifli  yon 

G  2  ^viLh 


76  ^DEFENSE       Qu.  IV. 

with  any  ground  for  the  Diftindion  of  a  So- 
veraign  and  an  Inferior  Deity  ?  What  Foun- 
dation can  you  find  for  adding  J///?;^;;;^  whcrc- 
cvcr  the  Scripture  fays  abfolately  there  is  but 
one  God?  You  are  apt  to  complain  of  us, 
for  adding  to  the  Text;  and  for  pretending 
to  fpeak  plainer  than  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
dilated;  why  do  you  add  here,  without  any 
Warrant  \  If  the  Sacred  Writers  intended  to 
limit  the  Scnfe  by  Supreme-,  why  could  not 
They,  in  one  place  at  lead,  among  many,  have 
faid  fo,  and  have  told  it  us  as  plainly  as  Dr. 
Clarke  and  you  do  ?  I  argue  indeed  here  ad 
Hominem  oi\\Y ;  and  let  it  have  juft  as  much 
force  with  you,  as  the  fame  way  of  Arguing, 
when  you  take  it  up  in  your  turn,  ought  to 
have  with  us.  But  farther;  what  account  can 
you  give  of  your  leaving  Room  for  inferior 
^DeitieSy  when  the  Reafon  of  the  thing,  the 
drift,  fcope  and  defign  of  the  Scripture  feems 
plainly  to  have  been  to  exclude,  not  other  Su- 
premes  only,  or  other  Independent  Deities 
(which  few  have  been  weak  enough  "to  fuppofe) 
but  other  lefer^  inferior,  and  dependent  Divi- 
nities !  Bcfidcs,  God  has  declared  that  He  ^-juill 
not  give  his  Glory  to  another-,  If.  42.  8.-48.  i  r . 
This  you  fay  has  no  diffieulty.  How  (o,  I  be- 
fcech  you  ?  It  feems  to  me  a  very  great  diffi- 
culty in  your  Scheme.  You  add,  that  his  Glory 
is  y  his  being  the  one  fupreme  independent 
Caufe  and  Original  of  all  Things  or  Beings, 
Now,   I  thought  it  was  his  peculiar  Glory  to 

be 


Qu.  IV.       of  fome  QU  E  R I  E  S.  77 

be  truly  God,  and  to  be  acknowledged  as  fuch, 
cxclufive  of  other  Gods.  This,  I  am  fare,  is 
what  the  one  God  inculcates  and  infifts  upon, 
very  particularly,  in  the  Old  Teftament.  He 
dilcovers  Himlelf  to  be  a  jealous  God,  and 
looks  upon  it  as  the  higheft  Indignity  to  have 
any  admitted  as  Partners  and  Sharers  with  Him. 
All  Afts  of  Worfliip,  all  Homage,  Service, 
Adoration,  and  Sacrihce,  He  claims,  He  chal- 
lenges as  his  due  5  and  due  to  Him  only ;  and 
that  becaufe  He  only  is  God,  Now  put  the 
Cafe  of  another  God  y  another  Author  and  Go- 
'vernor  of  the  Univerfe:  That  other  will  have 
a  Share,  and  divide,  tho'  unequally,  with  Him 
in  Glory.  Was  this  then  the  meaning  of  Ipu 
42.  8.  Iwilhwt  give  All  my  Glory  to  another  ? 
I  will  have  the  greater  Share  in  every  Thing  > 
How  confiftent  might  this  be  with  the  AA^orfhip 
of  inferior  Deities,  or  with  the  ranked:  Toly- 
theifm  ?  For  many  of  the  Pagans  themfelvcs 
paid  their  higheft  Veneration  to  the  one  fu- 
preme  God  5  only  they  defiled  his  Vv^orfliip  with 
a  multitude  of  inferior  Deities;  they  gave  not 
God  the  fole  Glory;  but  admitted  others  as 
Sharers  and  Partners  with  Him.  You  add,  that 
"uohatever  divine  Honour  is  juflly  ^^iven  to  any 
other,  redounds  ultimately  to  the  Glory  of  Him , 
Vi'ho  commanded  it  to  be  given. 

But  what  if  God,  who  bed  knows  '■Ji.'hat  re- 
dounds to  his  Glory,  has  already  and  before- 
hand cngrofs'd  all  divine  Honour  to  Himfelf, 
as  being  the  only  God,  and  the  fole  Author 

G  3  ^^'^ 


7S  .^DEFENSE        Qii.  IV. 

and  Governor  of  the  Univerfe?  Then  all 
others  arc  precluded  from  receiving  any  dtvtJie 
Honour'^  and  there's  no  more  Room  left  for 
God's  commanding  it,  than  there  is  for  his  con- 
fronting and  contradicting  Himfclf.  But  more 
of  this  hereafter,  under  the  Head  of  JVorftoip. 
I  fhall  clofe  this  Article  with  Grotkis's  Com- 
ment upon  the  Text  which  we  have  been  con- 
fidering.  The  meaning  of  it  is,  fays  He, 
*^  *  That  God  will  take  fevere  Ven2;eance  on 
"  thofe  v/ho  give  that  Name  which  belongs  to 
"  Him,  to  Bely  Nei?o,  Merodachy  and  Others, 
"  which  by  Nature  are  no  Gods. 

*  Vult  enfm  dicere,  fe  Vir.dlcaturum  fevere  in  Eos  qui  Nomen, 
quod  Ipfius  cfl,  dant  Bcio,  Neboni,  Meraducho,  Sc  Aliis  ro7c  ^\ 


QVERY 


Qii.  V,         offome  qU  E  R  I  E  S.  79 

Q^U    E    R    Y      V. 

Whether  T>r.  QX^sk^s pretence,  that  the  Au- 
thority of  Father  and  Son  being  One,  thd 
They  are  tisuo  diftinci  Beings,  makes  The?n 
not  to  be  t^-jvo  Gods,    As   a  King  upon  the 

,  Throne  and  liis  Son  adminidring  the  Father's 
Government,  are  not  two  Kings  5  be  not  tri- 
png  and  inconfijlent  ?  For,  tf  the  Kings 
Son  be  not  a  King,  He  cannot  truly  be  call- 
ed King;  //  He  is,  then  there  are  two 
Kings.  So,  if  the  Son  be  not  God,  in  the 
Scripture-Notion  of  God,  He  cannot  truly 
be  called  God  j  and  then  ho-ju  is  the  T>octor 
confifieyit  iziith  Scripture,  or  rsjith  Himfelf? 
But  if  the  Son  be  truly  God,  there  are  two 
GoAs  upon  the 'Doctors  Hypothefis,  as  plain- 
ly as  that  one  and  one  are  Two  :  And  fa 
All  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah  cited  above,  befides 
others,  fland  full  and  clear  agalnjl  the 
"Dolors  Notion, 

YO  U  truft,  it  feems,  that  upon  a  fccond 
Confideration  of  this  fifth  Qtiery,  The  Ob- 
jector himfelf  will  not  think  it  very  pertinent 
or  conclufive.  But  I  can  fee  no  Rcafon  for 
your  bemg  fo  fanguine  upon  it.  For,  as  an 
Argument  fo  plain  and  (Irong,  needs  not  fo 
much  as  a  fecond  Confideration  -,  fo  if  the 
Objeftor  were  toconfiderit  ever  fo  often,  He 
gould  not  but  think  it  to  be,  as  He  finds  it, 
G  4  ^^^^^ 


so  y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  V. 

both  very  pertinent  and  very  conclujive.  You 
add,  that  He  will  not  asky  a  fecond  Time^  whe- 
ther one  divine  Verfon  exerctfing  the  Authority 
of  another y  to  whom  He  is  fubordinate^  and  by 
'whom  He  is  fentj  proves  that  the  two  Terfons 
are  two  Gods. 

But  let  me  intreat  you,  in  a  Subjed  of  this 
Importance,    not  to  trifle  at  this  rate;  talking 
backwards  and  forwards,   faying  and  unfaying, 
affcriing  and  then  recanting,  and  contradidting 
your  felf.     What  is  Dr.  Clarke's  Intention,  4nd 
what  is  your's,  in  infifting  fo  much  on  the  re- 
lative Senfe  of  the  word  God,    but  to  find  a 
falvo  for  the  "Divinity  of  the  Son ;   that  He 
may  be  acknowledged,   confiftently  with  your 
Hypothefis,  to  be  truly ^  really y  properly  God  > 
Read  but  over  again  what  you  your  felf  have 
written  {p.  113.)  and  then  deny  this  if  you 
can.     Well  then;  if  the  Son,  a  diftinft  feparate 
Being,   be   truly  and  really  God  5    and  if  the 
Father  be  fo  too,  what  can  be  plainer  than  that 
there   arc,   upon  your  HypotheJiSy  two  Gods  ? 
But  you  fay,    one  is  Supreme^  the  other  Sub- 
ordinate.    I  underftand  it ;  Iconfiderit:    And 
do  not  you  allow  that  a  fubordinate  Being  may 
be  properly  God  ?    Do  not  you  exprefly  plead 
and   contend  for  it )   Is  it  not  ejjential  in  Dr. 
Clarke  s  Scheme,  and  Your's  too  ?  What  mean 
you  then  to  deny  that  there  are  two  Gods  ?  Can 
,  you  deny  it,  without  recanting  all  that  you  had 
faid  before,*  without  ftriking  out  q\qx^  fubordi- 
nate Being,    from  being   truly   and  properly 

God 


Qii.  V.  of  fame  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.  ^t. 

Go*Avithout  dilbwiiing  the  very  Principle  up- 
on which  you  aflcrt  the  Son  to  be  God  j    la 
fhort,  without  manifcftlycoufrontini;  and  con- 
demning your  fclf  ?  I  do  not  charge  you  with 
aflerting  two  fupreme  Gods :    But  I  do  charge 
you  with  holding  two  Gods,  one  Suprtme^  ano- 
ther Inferior ;  two  real  and  true  Gods,   accord- 
ing to  the  Scripture-Notion  of  the  Word,  God, 
as  explained  by  your  Self.      This  you  cannot 
truly  and  fincerely,    you  fhould  not  othcrwifc, 
deny :  And  therefore,  inftead  of  fliifting  it  off, 
your  Bufinefs  (liould  be  to  maintain  your  Af- 
fertion,    and  reconcile  it,    as   far  as  pofTiblc, 
to  Scripture,    Antiquity,    and  Reafon.     I  am 
fenfibk,  fomcthing  may  be  pleaded,  having  ^azw 
what  has  been  pleaded,  for  the  Notion  of  Tjuo 
Godsy  as  you  undcrHand  it.     But,   I  think,   it 
is  upon  fuch  Principles,    as  will  leave  you  no 
Pretence,  from  Scripture,   to  objed  Tritheifrn 
to  others ;    nor  any  juft  ground  for  infifting,    as 
you  generally  do,   upon  the  ftrid  Force  of  the 
excltijlnje  Terms,  in   order  to  ungod  the  Son. 
I  will  not  however  anticipate   what  you  may 
have  to  fay  farther  on   this   Head ;  nor  what 
may  be  pertinently  replied  to  it.     Let  me  fee 
firft,  how  far  you  will,  in  good  carneO:,  efpoufc 
the  Notion  of  two  Gods  :  In  the  Interim,  I  may 
fairly  leave  you  to  confider  of   it.     I  fhall  be 
content,  at  prefent,  to  follow  you  in  the  way 
that  you  are  in  ;   endeavoring  to  clear  your  felt 
of  the  charge  of  aflerting  two  Gods,    and  yet 
all  the  while,   pleading  for  a  fubordinate  God. 

To 


S2  yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  V. 

To  countenance  your  Notion,  you  proliKc, 
*  after  the  Learned  Doftor,  the  Authority  of 
Terttillian':,  the  fame  TertuUiayiy  whom  I  have 
quoted  above  "^  as  declaring  cxprcfly  againft  any 
fuch  vain  Imagination,  as  that  of  a  fitbordinate 
God  5  and  throwing  it  oft  as  a  Tagan  Dream  : 
the  fame  that  fays,  the  T)ivinity  has  no  IDe- 
grees,  being  one  only.  Will  you  bring  Him 
for  a  Voucher,  fo  diredly  againft  Himfelf  >^  True, 
He  ufes  the  Jmilitude  of  a  King  upon  a  Throne y 
and  a  Son  adf^iinifinng  his  Father  s  King- 
dom :  But  to  a  very  different  purpofe  from  what 
you  would  have  it  ferve.  The  Objeftion 
againft  more  Perfons  than  one  in  the  Godhead 
(as  Terttdlian  rcfolves  it)  was,  that  the  Au- 
thority would  not  be  one  5  that  there  would 
not  be  unicum  imperitim :  fee  the  place  in  the 
II  Margin.  The  Jmilitude  is  pertinent  to  fliow 
how  the  Authority y  or  Government^  may  be 
cne  in  the  Hands  of  Several  Perfons.     But  if 

*  Scrip,  Tiocir.  p.  5  5  ^ .  \  See  ^.  3 .  p.  5-4. 

11  Mor.a"chla777y  inquiunt,  tenemus.  Et  ita  fonum  vocaliter  ex- 
piimunt  Latini,  etiam  Opici,  ut  putes  Illos  tarn  bene  intelligere 
Monarchiam,  tjuam  cnuntiant.  Sed  Monarchiam  fonare  lludent  La- 
tini; &:  Oeconomiam  intelligere  nolunt  ctiam  Gra^ci.  At  ego,  fi 
quid  utriufqiir.  Linguse  prsecerpfi,  Monarchiam  n\hi\  aliud  fignificar^ 
fcio,  quam  Smgulan  0>  UnicH?n  Impcrhmj :  non  t^men  pra:fcribere 
2^1ffnarch'uimy  idcoquia  Unius  fit,  Eum,  cujus  fit,  aut  Filium  non 
habere,  aut  Ipfum  le  fibi  Filium  fecifile,  aut  Monarchiam  fuamnon 
per  quos  vclit  adn-.iniflrarc.  Atquin,  nullam  dico  Dct;2/«^/w;cw  ita 
unius  flii  cfic,  ut  non  etiam  per  alias  pvoximas  Pcrfonas  admi- 
niftrctur— — .  Si  vero  Sc  Filius  fuerit  ei,  cujus  Monarchia 
fit,  ncnflatim  dividicam,  6c  A/o?/^;r/^.w»encsdefincrc,  fi  particeps 
ejus  adfijmatur  6c  Filius.  Contr.  Vmx.c.  3 .  p.  5-02. 

The  Senfe  cf  this  Taffage  is  I'cry  clear:  The  Praxcans,  (I  fnppofe 
taking  aclvant(tge  of  ti^is  j  that  the  Church  had  chrays  rcjeclcd  Tria 
Principia,  and  7^ih  ^yoc[x.ii<i)  pleaded  for  the??7fchcsy  and  againfi  a. 

you 


Qii.  V.        of  fo?ne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  83 

you  ask  Tertiillian,  how  Father  and  Son  can 
be  reputed  one  Cod-^  He  tells  you  in  the 
^Chapter  before,  and  in  that  very  Paiiage 
which  the  Dodor  quotes,  that  it  is  by  Unity 
of  Stibftance  and  Original  Unity  of  A.itho- 
rityy  and  Unity  of  Godheady  are,  with  Ter- 
ttdliany  diftind  Things;  however  you  may 
pleafe  to  confound  1  hem :  God  and  his  Angels 
have,  according  to  Him,  one  Authority  i,  but 
He  does  not  therefore  fay,  that  the  Angels  are 
Gods  5  or  that,  if  They  were,  there  would  ftill 
be  but  one  God, 

^  Athenagoras  makes  ufe  of  the  fame  Simi^ 
litude  for  the  fame  purpofc  with  Tertullian-^ 
to  illuftrate  the  Unitjr  of  Authority  and  Power 
common  to  Father  and  Son ;  not  the  Unity  of 
Godhead,  It  Vs^as  the  <^  Government  divine., 
which  He  undertook,  in  fome  meafure,  to  illu- 
ftrate, by  That  Comparifon  of  a  King  and  his 
Son  (which  however  would  argue  an  Equa- 
lity of  Nature^  contrary  to  your  Tenets.) 
But  as  to  Unity  of  Godhead,  He  refolves  it  in- 
to ^  other  Principles,  the  very  fame  with   Ter- 

real  Trinity -y  fjuova^^Uv  temmus,  Tertullian  tells  them^  that  They 
mifunderjiood  yjovcc^X^cc.  (As  it  7night  Jignify  unum  principium.  He 
had  anfwered  the  Qbjeciion  before y  c.  2J  Here  He  fuys^  it  Jigntfies  only 
one  Authority  ^  and  He  JJjotos  that^  taken  in  that  Senfe,  it  was  no  jufi 
Objeciion  againfi  a  Trinity  of  Verfons.  Thus,  hansing  maintained,  fir  fly 
Unity  of  Principle,  and  afterwards  Unity  of  Authority ;  He  fufficiently 
guarded  the  Docirine  of  the  Trinity,  againfi  the  Cavils  of  Praxeas. 

*  Unus  omnia,  dum  ex  uno  omnia,  per  Subftantix  fcih'cet  Uni- 
ta tern, />.  5-01. 

FiHum  non  aHunde  deduco,  fed  de  Subflantia Patris,  c.  4.  p.  foi. 

**  Lcgat.  c.  if.p.6^.  '  iTTi^^xyiy/  Fx^tTiAf.'iCF. 

tullian*s'j 


U         ^DEFENSE  Qa.  V. 

tullian*s;  Namely,  Unity  of  Stdjlance,  and 
Original,  making  the  Holy  Ghoft  (and  the 
reafon  is  the  fame  for  the  Son)  to  be  a  Subftan.- 
tial  *  Emanation  from  the  Father,  as  Light 
from  Fire.  The  common  anfwer  to  the  Charge 
of  Tritheifm,  or  T>itheifmy  as  well  of  the  Toft- 
Niceney  as  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  was,  that 
there  is  but  one  Head,  Root,  Fountain^  Father 
of  all  s  not  in  refpeft  of  Authority  only>  but  of 
Subjiance  alfo ;  as  Terttillian  before  exprefles 
it:  Kon  aliunde  dediico,  fed  de  Stibftantia 
Tatris.  This  was  the  concurrent  Senfe  of  f  All 
in  general  $  and  into  this  chiefly  they  rcfolved 
the  Unity  of  Godhead-^  as  they  muft  needs  do, 
fince  they  believed  God  to  be  a  Word  denoting 
Stibjlance,  not  T>ominion  only ;  and  one  2)/- 
^initjy  ©ecT/ir,  was  with  Them  the  fame  Thing 
as  one  divine  Subjiance.  The  learned  Doftor, 
after  his  manner  of  Citing,  il  produces,  I  think. 
Thirteen  Vouchers,  (Ten  Antient  5  Three  Mo- 
dern) for  his  Notion  of  the  Unity.  Tertulliany 
AthenagoraSy  and  Novatian  (Three  of  Them) 
evidently  refolve  the  Unity,  as  before  obferved, 
into  Communion  of  Subjiance,  Jujiin,  Atha- 
najiusy  Hilaryy  Bajily  Tearfony  Bully  Tayne^ 
(Seven  more)  moft  of  Them,  in  the  very  Pal- 
fages  which  the  Doctor  cites ;  All  of  them,  fomc- 
wlicrc,  or  other,  are  known  to  refolve  it  into 
SonJhipyOiUviitYO^Trinciple  i  either  of  which 

TO    Tsrviu^x,  p.  96. 

f  Some  pretended  Except'iom  will  be  conjidered  in  another  Place,  Qu .  2  3 . 
Ij  Sfrt^t.  Dciir.  p-  3 3 4. 3  3f .  &^<^".  ^^''^^  p.  3 0 1 ,  Sec. 

comes 


Qu.  V.        offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  %s 

comes  to  the  fame  with  the  former.  None  of 
thefe  Authors  fo  undcrftood  the  Father  to  be 
one  God,  as  to  exclude  the  Son  from  being  (?«^ 
O^withHim,  in  Nature,  Subftance,  and  Per- 
fedion :  Nor  would  they  have  fcrupled  to  call 
Father  and  Son  together,  one  God  5  mod  of  them 
doing  it  exprefly,  all  implicitely. 

Origeriy  another  of  the  Doftor's  Authors,^ 
refolves  the  Unity  into  Communion  of  Godhead, 
in  the  ^  Paffage  cited.  ^iifA^  is  the  word  He 
ufes ;  ^  generally,  if  not  conftantly,  fignifying 
Siibflance  in  that  very  Comment  from  whence 
the  Citation  is  taken  5  agreeably  to  the  moft 
ufual  Senfe  of  ©sor,  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers ; 
and  of  T>ivmitaSy  in  Tertullian  5  and  of  ®£5r»}c 
in  other  ^  Authors. 

La£iantius,xhc  twelfth  oi  the  Number, would 
have  fpoken  fully  to  our  purpofe,  in  the  very 
^  Chapter  referred  to,  if  the  Doftor  would  have 
fuffered  Him.  He  would  have  told  us  (how- 
ever unhappy  He  may  otherwife  be  in  his 
Explications  of  That  Myftery)  that  Father 
and  Son  are  one  Subftance^  and  one  Gods  fo 
far,  at  lead,  contrary  to  what  the  learned  Do- 

•  Comm.  in  Job.  ^.  46.      ''Seeibicl,;'.  ^j*,  135, 15-4, 228,2^)2.' 
*"  Epift.  Synod.  Antioch.   Labb.  Tom.  i.  ^ag,  847.     Eufebius 
Comrn.  in  Tftilm.  p.  325,5-92.   ^  inl/a.-p.  S;/,  382,5-/ 1.     Atha- 
naf.  palTim.  Epiphan.  Hseref.  64.  c.  8. 

**  Una  utrique  mens,  unus  Spiritus,  um  Suhjlamid^^-y  fed  Illc 
quail  exubcrans  Pons  eftj  Hie  tanquam  defluens  ex  eoRirus:  Illc 
tanquam  Soli  Hie  quaH Radius^ Sole porredlus.— Ad  «/r*»«i^«« 
Terfonam  referens  intulit,  ^  Prdter  me  mn  eji  Deus;  cum  poflit 
diccre,  pr-eter  720s:  fed  Fas  non  erat  plurali  numero  Separationcm 
Tants  Ncccflitudinis  fieri,  /.  4,  c.  29.  f.  40^,404, 

4.  dor 


s^  :^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  V. 

£tor  cites  him  for.  Tiierc  remains  only  Eit- 
febinsj  whofe  Expreflions  are  bold  and  free  5 
and  fo  far  favourable  to  the  Dodor,  ns  they 
are  different  from  thofc  of  the  CathoUcks  of  his 
own  Time,  or  of  the  Times  before,  and  after. 
If  they  are  really  to  be  underftood,  fo  as  to  ex- 
clude the  Son  from  being  one  God  with  the 
Father,  they  tmgod  the  Son  5  and  contain  plain 
Arianijhu  But,  perhaps  they  may  admit  of 
fuch  a  favourable  excufe  as,  *  Gelafms  tells  us, 
Eufebius,  in  effefl:,  made  for  Himfelf,  in  refped 
of  any  uncautious  Expreflions,  which,  in  the 
warmth  of  Diipute,  or  out  of  his  great  Zeal  a- 
gainfl:  Sabellianifmy  had  dropp'd  from  Him: 
That  He  did  not  inteitd  Them  in  the  impious 
Senfe  (^^Arius)  but  had  only  been  too  carelefs 
and  negligent  in  his  ExpreJ/ions,  One  may  be 
the  more  inclined  to  believe  it,  fince  He  ad- 
mitted, at  other  Times  (as  I  have  obferved 
above)  One  God  in  three  '^Perfons :  and  elfe- 
•where  ^  fpeaks  very  Orthodoxly  of  the  Holy  un- 
divided Trinity,  illuftrating  the  Equality  of 
the  Perfons  by  a  very  handfome  Similitude. 
But  to  return  to  the  Learned  Dodor:  In  the 
!!  Clofe  of  this  Article ,  He  has  a  peculiar 
Turn,  which  fliould  be  taken  notice  of.     The 

Gelaf.  1.  2.  de  Syn.  Nic.  c.  i.  p.  1 1. 

■j-  Etx&Jv  ^  ToZrcc  (Juvj-Dcvii  Kccl  zrK,vccyiXi;y  kcc]  (io!,(nXiyM<;  r^iahc,.   v,  T? 

TU.   (TTTi^-fJl/CiTCCy      KCCl    Tobc,   MyOVC,^    Kul   TOCe,    OCiTlSitiy    O^.THA^JI^S.         Orat.     U« 

l-aud.  Conftant.  p.  yii.  Ed.  Valcf. 
U  Script.  Dodr.  p.  345?. 

Scho^ 


Qii.  V.        offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.  %y 

Scbolajlick  Writer Sy  fays  He,  in  later  Ages^ 
have  put  this  Matter  (meaning  the  Unity  of  the 
Godhead)  upon  another  Foot :  That  is,  different 
from  what  Himfclf,  and  perhaps  Etifebius  in  thofe 
Paflagcs,  had  put  it  upon.  They  have  not,  k 
feems,  put  it  upon  a  reaU  proper y  numerical  In- 
dividiialitj,  as  the  Learned  Doftor  would  have 
had  them  do.  They  do  not  make  the  Godhead 
picvcTreocrcoTT©^,  One  fingle  Hypoflajis  5  which,  in  the 
main,  is  all  one  with  the  SabelUan  Singularity. 

The  Reader  fliould  be  told^  tiiat  thofe  Scho- 
laflick  Writers  are  as  old  as  Tertnllian-,  Ire- 
n£USj  or  Athenagoras  \  which  brings  it  up  al- 
moft  to  the  middle  of  the  Second  Century.  So 
early,  at  leaft,  Father  and  Son  together  have 
been  called^  and  all  along  believed  to  be  one 
God  Let  but  the  Reader  undei:fl:and,  and  take 
along  with  Him,  what  I  have  now  obferved  > 
and  I  fliall  not  differ  with  you  about  Names. 
Scholaftick  may  ftand  for  Catholicky  as  I  per- 
ceive it  often  does  with  you  alfo,  if  you  think 
the  Catho'.ick  Faith  may,  under  that  borrowed 
Name,  be  more  fafcly,  or  more  fuccefsfully 
attacked.  The  Scbolajlick  Notion  then,  which 
has  prevailed  for  Fifteen  Centuries  at  leaft,  is 
that  Father  and  Son  arc  one  God:  Yours,  on 
the  other  Hand,  is,  that  the  Father  is  one  God, 
and  the  Son  another  God:  And  I  am  to  con- 
vince you,  if  I  can,  that  one  God,  and  ano- 
ther God,  make  two  Gods.  You  ask  me  feri- 
oully,    ^  "H'hether  Herod  the  great^  was  not 

*  Pag.  4^-. 

King 


S8  ^   D  E  F  EN  S  E         Qu.  V. 

King  of  ]\xAq:2l,  thdtheje-ji:s  (that  is,  when 
the  Jews)  had  no  King  but  Cxfar  ?  I  anfwer, 
He  was  not :  For,  Herod  the  Great  had  been 
dead  above  Thirty  Years  before ;  and  the  Jews 
had  really  no  King  but  Ca:far,  when  they  faid 
fo.  However,  if  there  had  been  one  King  un- 
der another  King,  there  would  have  been  two 
Kings,  The  fame  I  fay  for  one  God  under 
another  G^^5  they  make  two  Gods,  You  ask, 
next,  whether  there  were  more  Kings  of  Perfia 
than  one  J  thd  the  Ki7ig  of  Perfia  was  King  of 
Kings  ?  I  Ihall  not  difpute  whether.  King  of 
Kings y  was  Titular  only  to  the  Kings  of 
Verfay  or  whether  They  had  other  Kings  un- 
der Them.  I  fiiall  only  fay  thus :  Either  the 
ftippofed  Kings  of  Terfia  were  Kings  of  "Ter- 
fay  or  They  were  not :  If  They  were ;  then 
there  were  more  Kings  ^/^  Perfia  than  one:  If 
They  were  not  Kings  of  Perfia ;  They  fhould 
not  be  fo  called.  To  apply  this  to  our  prcfent 
purpofe;  either  there  are  two  Authors  and  Go- 
vernors of  the  Univerfcy  that  is,  two  Gods  y 
or  there  are  not :  If  there  are,  why  do  you  deny 
it  of  Either  ?  If  there  arc  not,  why  do  you  af- 
firm it  oV  Both? 

After  all,  pleafe  to  take  Notice,  that  I  do 
not  difpute  againft  the  notion  of  one  King  un- 
der another ;  n  petty  King  under  a  Supreme. 
There*s  no  difficulty  at  all  in  the  Conception  of 
it.  But  what  I  infift  upon,  is  this :  That  a 
great  King  and  a  little  King  make  two  Kings ; 
or  clfc  one  of  Them  is  no  King,  contrary  to 

the 


Qli.  V.        offonie  (QUERIES.  89 

the  Suppofition.  The  fame  I  lay  of  a  ftipreme 
and  a  jubGrdlnate  God,  that  They  make  Two 
Gods  ;  or  clfc,  one  of  Them  is  no  God,  con- 
trary to  the  Suppofition. 

Texts,  proving  an  Unity  of  divine  Attri- 
bates  in  Father  and  Son,  appUed 


To  the  one  God. 

Thou,  even  Thou  on- 
ly knowefi  the  Hearts 
of  all  the  Children  of 
Meny  Kings  8.  39. 


I  the  Lord  fearch 
the  Hearty  I  try  the 
Reins,  Jer.  17.  10. 

/  am  the  firfi,  and 
I  am  the  laji,  and  be- 
fides  me  there  is  no 
Gody  Ifa.  44.  6. 

I  am  A  and  n,  the 
beginning  and  the  end. 
Rev.  1.8. 

King  of  Kings,  and 
Lord  of  Lords,  i  Tim. 
6.   15. 

The  mighty  God,  If. 
10.  21. 

Lord  over  all,  Rom. 
10.  12. 


To  the  Son. 

He  knew  all  Men, 
6cc.  Joh.  2.  24.  Thou 
krioweft  all  Things , 
Joh.  1 6. 3  o  Which  know- 
eft  the  Hearts  of  all 
Men,  Ads  i.  24. 

lam  He  that  fearch- 
eth  the  Reins  and  tka 
Heart,  Rev.  2.  23. 

/  am  the  firft,  and 
I  am  the  /^,Rev.  1.17. 


I  am  A  and  n,  the 
beginning  and  the  end^ 
Rev.  22. 13. 

Lord  of  Lords,  and 
King  of  Kings,  Rev. 
17.  14.— 19.  16. 

The  mighty  God,  If. 
9.  6. 

He  is  Lord  of  all. 
Ad.  10.36.  Over  aUGod 
blejfedy  6ic.  Rom.  9.  5- 
H  Query 


90  ^DEFENSE         Qli.  VI. 

Q^  tr  E  R  Y     VI. 

JVhether  the  fame  Chara6ieri/iicksy  efpecially 
fitch  eminent  ones,  can  reafonably  be  under- 
food  of  two  diftinEi  Beings^  and  of  one  In- 
finite and  Independenty  the  other  depen- 
dent and  Finite  ? 

IN  this  fixth  Query  (for  fo  I  chufe  to  make 
it,  thinking  That  method  moft  convenient, 
on  feveral  Accounts)  are  couched  two  Argu- 
ments for  the  Son's  being  the  one  true  Gody  as 
well  as  the  Father. 

The  Firft  \'i\  That  the  CharaEteriftickSy  ap- 
plied to  the  one  true  God,  are  applied  likcwiti 
to  the  Son :  which  Confideration  alone  is  of 
great  force. 

The  Second  is :  That  the  Attributes  here  ap- 
plied to  the  Son,  are  fuch  eminent  ones,  that  we 
might  fafely  conclude  they  belong  to  no  Crea- 
turey  but  to  God  only. 

How  fliall  we  know,  who,  or  what  the  one 
God  is  5  or  what  Honour,  and  to  whom,  due  5 
but  by  fuch  Marks,  Notes,  and  diftinguifliing 
Ch^rafters  as  arc  given  us  of  Him  in  Scripture  ? 
If  thofe  are  equally  applied  to  two,  or  more 
^erfonSy  the  Honour  muft  go  along  with  the 
Attributes 'y  and  the  Attributes  infer  an  equa- 
lity of  Nature  and  Subftancc,  tofupport  Them. 
In  a  Word  5  if  divine  Attributes  belong  to  each 
Pcrfon,  each  Pcrfon  muft  be  Godj  and  if  God, 

fmce 


Qu.  VI.       offome  (^U  E  R  I  E  S.  91 

fincc  God  is  one,  the  fame  God.  This  is  the 
Sum  of  the  Argument:  Now  let  us  fee  what 
Anfwer  yoU  give  to  it. 

You  admit  that  the  Attributes,  fpccified  in 
the  Texts,  belong  to  Both :  only  you  obfcrvc 
that  all  Vo^duers  and  Attributes  are  [aid  to 
be  the  Father's  only,  becaufe  they  beloyig  to 
Him  primarily,  or  originally,  as  the  Self-ex- 
ifient  Caiife  *.  This  I  can  readily  admit,  as 
well  as  you,  provided  only,  the  word,  Caiife^ 
be  interpreted  to  a  jufl",  fober,  and  Catholick 
Senfe  (astheGr^^^t  Writers  efpecially  have  under- 
ftood  it)  and  Self-exiftent  be  interpreted,  as  it 
fliould  hz.negatively,  i.e.  Unbegotten.  You  add, 
our  Lord  Jeius  Chrift,  having  all  communicable 
divine  Tovuers  derived  to  Him^  with  His 
Beings  from  the  Father,  is  faid  to  do  the 
fame  things  which  the  Father  dothy  and  to 
be,  in  a  ftibordinate  Senfe -y  what  the  Fa- 
ther  is. 

Here  are  many  Things,  in  this  Anfwer, 
liable  to  juft  Exception.  Firft,  your  ufing  the 
word,  'Divine,  in  an  improper  Senfe.  Ange- 
lical Powers  are  fuch  as  are  peculiar  to  An- 
gels 5  and  divine  Powers  fuch  as  are  proper  to 
God  only :  But,  here  you  underdand  it,  in 
the  fame  Senfe,  as  one  might  call  any  kingly- 
Power,  or  Authority,  divine,  becaufe  derived 
from  God  5  and  fo  any  thing  that  comes  from 
God,  is  in  your  Senfe,  divine.  In  the  next 
place,  you  clog  it  farther  with  the  Term,  com- 

*  Pag.  46. 

H  z  municable^ 


92  y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.  VI. 

mimicabley  telling  us  that  all  communicable  di- 
vine Powers,  arc  derived  to  Chrift  J  cfus:  where- 
as I  contend,  that  the  Attributes  in  the  Text, 
are  ft r idly  divine  5  and  therefore  incommtini^ 
cable  to  any  Creature.  Next,  you  (peak  of  a 
fubordinate  Senfc,  in  which  thofe  Attributes 
belong  to  Chrift  5  which  is  the  fame  as  to  fay, 
(becaufe  you  mean  fo)  that  they  belong  not  at 
all  to  Him.  For,  I  fuppofe,  omnifcience^  or . 
eternity^  &c.  in  your  fubordinate  Senfe,  are 
very  different  from  the  others  and  therefore 
are  not  the  fame  Attributes.  It  were  better 
to  deny  roundly,  that  the  fame  Attributes  be- 
long to  Both  5  and  then  we  fhould  clearly  appre- 
hend each  other.  Laftly,  I  obferve  to  you, 
that  you  underftand  the  word,  fubordinate^  very 
differently  from  what  Catholick  Writers  do,  in 
this  Controverfy  ;  and  therefore,  inftead  of  it, 
fhould  rather  have  faid,  in  a  refrain' d,  limited 
Senfe ,  which  is  your  meaning,  otherwife  you 
contradid  not  me. 

Now^  then,  I  muft  ask  you,  what  ground  or 
warrant  you  have  from  Scripture,  or  right  Rea- 
fon,  for  putting  RefriEiions  and  Limitations 
upon  the  Texts  applied  to  Chrift  Jefiis^  more 
than  to  thofe  applied  to  the  one  God?  The 
Expreffions  are  equally  general ;  and,  feemingly 
at  leaft,  equally  extenfive.  You  are  io  fenfible 
that  you  can  i];ive  no  folid  Proof  of  a  reftraifid 
and  limited  Senfe,  that  you  do  not  fo  much  as 
offer  at  it ;  but  only  covertly  infinuate  your 
meaning,  under  dark  and  obfcure  Terms.     You 

fpcak 


Qa.  Vr.      offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.  95 

fpeak  of  Subordination^  and  quote  Fathers  for 
it  5  who  undcrftood  it  in  the  fober  and  ortho- 
dox Senfe :  if  you  agree  with  thofe  Fathers^ 
you  agree  with  me.  But,  do  not  ufe  their 
venerable  Names  as  a  cover  for  what  they  ne- 
ver meant,  but  would  have  greatly  abhor'd  *. 
I  allow  the  fecond  Perfon  to  be  fubordinately 
"-jvife,  good,  poisoerfiil,  &c.  That  is  not  the 
Queftion  between  us :  He  is  fapientia  de  fapi- 
entia  \  as  lumeyi  de  himine-,  and  T)eus  de  T>eo. 
What  I  contend  for  farther,  is,  that  his  Attri- 
butes ^xzfiri^ily  divine,  and  his  Perfeclions  in- 
fnite,  I  prove  it  from  hence ;  becaufe  the  At- 
tributes which  belong  to  the  one  God,  and  are 
therefore  undoubtedly  Infinitey  belong  to  Him 
alfo  j  from  whence  it  follows,  that  the  God- 
head belongs  to  Him  too ;  and  that  there  are 
more  Perfons  than  one,  in  the  one  God,  What- 
ever I  can  find,  in  your  Anfwer,  tending,  in 
the  leaft,  to  invalidate  this  reafoning,  I  fhall 
take  notice  of;  tho*  you  have  been  pleafed  to 
be  very  fparing  in  this  Article.  You  obferve 
that  the  exercife  of  thefe  Attributes  being 
finite,  they  do  not  neceffarilj  infer  an  infinite 
Subject,  I  underftand  not  what  you  mean  by 
the  exercife  of  Eternity  and  Omnifcience-, 
which  arc  two  of  thofe  Attributes  j  nor  how  it 
can  be  finite,  without  an  exprefsContradidlionj 

*  The  Tejlimonies,  which  you  have  cited  from  Dr.  Clarke,  I  take 
no  notice  ofi  becnufe  they  hiw*  been  already  confider'd  by  a  learned 
Gentleman  i  and  JJjown  to  be  foreign  to  your  ptrpofe.  True  Script. 
Do6lr.  coiKinu'd,  p.  ii, 

H  3  nor 


94  :/?  D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qa.  VL 

nor  how  either  of  them  can  be  exencifdy  what- 
ever you  mean  by  it,  but  by  an  infinite  Sub- 
jed.  As  Httle  do  I  underftand  how  infinite 
ToweVy  which,  I  prefume,  is  what  you  chiefly 
allude  to,  muft  be  finite  in  the  exercife  of  it ; 
as  if  there  could  not  be  an  Ad  of  infinite 
Power,  or  as  if  God  could  not  do  fomething 
\vhich  {hould  infinitely  exceed  any  finite  Power. 
Thefe  Things  very  much  want  explaining  5  and 
fo  I  leave  them  to  your  farther  Thoughts. 

The  cleared  ExprefTion  you  have,  under  this 
Article,  is  this :  when  Chrifi:  is  ftiled^  Lord  of 
all,  fee  it  explained,  Matth.  28.  x  8.  and  Ephcf. 
\,  22.  where  Chrift  jefus  is  faid  to  have  all 
power  given  Him.  Here,  I  think,  I  do  under- 
ftand your  meaning;  and  am  forry  to  find  that 
it  falls  fo  low.  Would  your  *  Predeceflbrs  in 
this  Controverfy,  the  Antient  Arians^  or  Eti* 
nomians,  have  ever  fcrupled  to  acknowledge 
that  our  Blefied  Saviour  was  Lord  over  alU 
long  before  his  Refurrecliony  or  even  his  In- 
carnation ?  That  He  was  Lord  of-  all  before 
his  Refiirre^ion ,  is  very  plain  from  the  Scri- 
ptures, which  carry  in  them  irrefragable  Proofs 
of  it.  By  Him  were  all  Things  created  that 
q,re  in  Heaven,  and  that  are  in  Earth,  vifir. 
ble  and  mvifible  \  whether  they  be  ThroneSy 
or  'Dominions,   or  Trincip^lities,  or  To^wexs^ 

*  Antequam  faccrt-f  Uuiverfa,  omnium  Futurorum  Deus  5c  Do- 
fninus,  Rex  &  Creator  crat  Conftitutus.  Vclunratc  &:  prxccpto 
(DlI  e*  Pcitris  fui)  Coelcftia  6c  Trrrcftria,  vilibilia  Jk  invihbilia; 
Corpora  &•  Sp:rivQs,  ex"  nuflis  exflanribiis,  lit  cAent,  fua  virtutq 
fecit.     Scrm.An.rnor.  apid  Aii^f*fi,Tom.%.  ■p.C^i. 

all 


qu.  VI.      offome  Q^U  E  R  T  E  S.  95 

a//  Things  were  created  by  Htm^  and  for  Htm ; 
and  He  is  before  all  Things^  and  by  Him  all 
Things  confifty  Col.  i.  16,17.  Thou  Lord  in 
the  beginning  haft  laid  the  Foundation  of  the 
Earth,  and  the  Heavens  are  the  works  of  thine 
Hands y  *Hcb.  i.  10. 

*  It  is  not  mthout  good  Keafon  that  roe  underjland  Heb.    i.  io« 

of  Chnft. 

1.  The  Context  it  felf  favors  it.  The  Verfe  hegim  with  kccI  (tw, 
•which  properly  refers  to  the  fame  who  was  fpoken  of  immediately  be- 
fore in  the  fccond  Ferfon,  The  o-«  preceding  a;id  a-u  following^  an- 
froir  to  each  other,     A  change  of  Terfon,  while  the  fame  wayof  fpeak- 

ing  is  parfued,  mufi  appear  unnatural. 

2 .  The  fcope  and  intent  of  the  Author  was  to  ft  forth  the  Honour  and 
Dignity  of  the  Son  above  the  Angels ,  and  no  Ctrcumfa  ice  could  be  more 
proper  than  that  of  his  Creating  the  IVorld. 

%.  If  he  had  omitted  it,  He  had  [aid  kfs  than  Himfelf  had  done 
before,  in  Verfe  the  2*^,  of  which  this  feems  to  be  Explanatory  j  and  as 
He  had  brought  Froofs  from  the  Old  Tejifimcnt  for  feveral  other  Articles, 
nothing  could  be  more  proper  or  more  pertinent,  than  to  bring  a  Proof, 
from  thence,  df  this  alfo. 

4.  Declaring  Him  to  he  Jehovah ,  and  Creator  of  the  Univerfe 
might  be  very  proper  to  fljovj  that  He  was  no  miniftring  Spirit 
but  cruy^T^v^ ;  to  fit  at  the  right  Hand  of  God,  which  immediately 
fellows, 

f.  To  introduce  a  Vajfage  here  about  God':  immutability  or  ilabili- 
ty,  mujl  appear  very  abrupt,  and  not  pertinent  i  becaufe  the  Angels 
Alfo  in  their  Order  and  Degree,  reap  the  Benefit  of  God's  (lability  and 
immutability.  And  the  ^lejlion  was  not  about  the  duration  and 
continuance,  but  about  the  fublimity  and  excellency  of  their  refpeciive 
iiatures  and  Dignities. 

6.  I  may  add,  that  this  Senfe  is  very  confonant  to  Antiquity; 
which  every  where  [peaks  of  the  Son  as  Creator,  and  in  as  high  and 
firong  Terms :  fuch  as  Thefe^  ri^virtiq,  ^y)Ujns^yoi;,  i70i;jry,<; :  ccv^eaTruv, 
ei,yiXcov,  r  Ts-ouiruy,  r  cAuv,  t»  Koa-fjj^,  and  the  like;  Tefimonies 
■  whereof  will  occur  hereafter.  Barnabas,  fpeaking  of  the  Sun  in  the. 
fjcavensj  calls  it  spvcv  x^^m  ccurcu,  meaning  Chrijl;  tho'  there's 
feme  dfpute  about  the  Reading :  of  which  fee  Grab.  Not.  in  Bull. 
p.  F.  p.  23. 

Thefe  CGnjJderations  feem  fufficiem  to  overthrow  the  Vrctences  of  a 
Ute  Writer,  Examin.  of  Dr.  Bennct  on  Tr  n.  p  40.  As  to  former 
Txceptions  to  this  Verfe,  They  are  conf'dnd  and  confuted  by  B/y'Z'i'/' Bull, 
Jiid.  Eccl.  p.  43.     See  alfo  Surenhufl  in  loc.  p.  600. 

H  4  Can 


96  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VI. 

Can  you  imagine  that  the  Son  could  be  Crea- 
tor and  Treferver  of  all  Things  from  the  Be- 
ginning 5  and  yet  not  be  Lord  over  all  till 
after  his  Rcfurredion  ?  If  this  does  not  fatisfy 
you,  return  to  Job,  i.  i.  He  was  ©sos-  before 
the  World  was,  by  your  own  Acknowledge- 
ment ^  which  being  a  word  of  Office  and  imply- 
ing T^ommioUy  He  was  certainly  Lord^  as  foon 
as  ever  there  w^as  any  Thing  for  Him  to  be 
Lord  over.  And  when  He  came  into  the 
Worlds  the  World  that  ijuas  made  by  Him^ 
( joh.  I .  I  o.)  He  came  unto  his  own,  {Job.  i .  1 1 . ) 
Surely  then,  He  was  Lord  over  all  \on^  before 
his  Refurredion. 

You  will  ask,  it  may  be,  what  then  is  the 
meaning  of  thofe  Texts  which  you  have 
quoted?  How  was  all  To'-jver  given  Him^ 
according  to  Matth,  28.18?  Or  how  were  all 
Things  xhcnpiLt  under  his  Feety  according  to 
Eph.  1.22?  Nothing  is  more  eafy  than  to 
anfwcr  you  this.  The  Ao/or,  or  JVord^  was, 
from  the  Beginning,  Lord  over  all-j  but  the 
God  incarnate,  the  ©s^'vS  pai7rf>,  or  God-Man^ 
was  not  fo,  till  after  the  Refurredion.  Then 
He  received,  in  that  Capacity,  what  He  had 
ever  enjoy 'd  in  another.  Then  did  He  receive 
that  ftill'Po'-juerj  in  Both  Natures,  which  He 
had  heretofore  poHcfs'd  in  one  only.  This  is 
very  handibmcly  rcprcfcnted  by  Hermas,  in  his 
fifth  Similitude:  Vv'hcrc  the  *  Son  of  God  is 
introduced  under  a  double  Capacity,  as  a  Son^ 

*  Sec  Eull.D.Fid.  N.  p.  38. 

I  and 


Qii.  VI.      offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S,  97 

and  as  a  Servant y  in  refped  of  his  two  Natures, 
T)ivine  and  Human. 

''*  TheFatlier  calling  his  Son  and  Heir  whom 
"  He  loved,  and  fuch  Friends  as  He  was  wont 
"  to  have  in  Council,  He  tells  Them  what 
"  Commands  He  had  laid  upon  his  Servant ; 
'^  and  moreover  what  the  Servant  had  done; 
"  And  they  immediately  congratulated  That 
"  Servant,  for  that  He  had  received  fo  full  a 

"  Teftimony  from  his  Lord. {Afterwards 

the  Father  adds)    ''  I  will  make  Him  my  Heir 

*^  together  with  my  Son. This  defign  of 

"  the  Lord,  both  his  Son  and  his  Friends  ap- 
"  proved,  namely,  that  this  Servant  fliould  be 
"  Heir  together  with  his  Son. 

It  is  much  to  the  fame  purpofe  that  Origen 
fays  to  Celfus,  "  ^  Let  thofe  our  Accufers 
"  (CJuho  objeB  to  its  our  making  a  God  of  a 
*'  mortal  Man)  know  that  {this  Jefus)  whom 
"  we  believe  to  have  been  God,  and  the  Son 
"  of  God,    from   the  beginning  ;    is  no  othev 

*  (Pater)  adhibito  Filio  quem  carum  6c  H:Ercdem  habebat,&  Ami- 
C!S  quosinConfilioadvocabat ;  indicat  eis  qusc  Servo  fuo  facicnda 
mandalfet,  qux  prxrerea  Ille  fecilTct.  At  lili  protinus  gratulati 
funt  Servo  illi,  quod  tarn  plenum  Teftimonium  Domini  aflccutus 

fuifTct volo   eum   Filio  meo  faccrc  cohaercdem  .    — 

Hoc  conlilium  Domini,  8c  Filius,  Sc  Amid  ejus  Comprobaverunr, 
ut  ficret  fcilicct  Hie  Scrvus  Cohsercs  Filio.  Herm.  Fajl.  Sim,  y. 
c.   2.  p.  104.  Cot.  Edit. 

fivui  Qiov -/.cci  iicy  Otiu,  oOroq  6  U'jToXoyo^i<,-i^  xcct  >j  ccuro(ro(PicCy  tcxl  << 
uuToxXyi^-eix.     To    oi   ^^vr,rcv    auroZ  troif/ja,  kxi  rvy  uv^^uTTivLu)  ci»  otur^ 

yutyi^cc  (pa^iv  ZTPg(rii>.r,(piyoci,  KXi  '^  c/KUva  S-worjjro^  Kt)coiva)iijx,oTX  ii\ 
©S5V  ///ilcccttojjKiWt.   Orig.  Contr.  Cclf.  1.  3.  p.  i^6,(y>c. 

"  than 


98  ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VI. 

*^  than  the  Word  it  fclf,  Truth  it  Iclf,  and 
"  Wifdom  it  fclf:  But  we  fay  farther  that  his 
"  mortal  Body,  and  the  human  Soul  that  was 
"  therein,  by  means  of  tlieir  mod  intimate 
*'  Connexion  to,  and  Union  with  the  Wordy 
"  received  the  greateft  Dignity  imaginable,  and 
*'  participating  of  his  Divinity,  were  taken  in- 
"  to  God.  It  is  difficult  to  exprefs  the  full 
force  of  this  Paffage,  in  Englijh :  But  you  may 
fee  the  Original  in  the  Margin. 

From  hence  you  may  perceive,  how  cafy  it 
is  to  account  for  our  Lord's  having  all  Toijuer 
given  Him,  after  his  Refurredion  5  given  Him 
in  refped  of  his  Human  Nature^  which  was 
never  fo  high  exalted,  nor  affumed  into  fuch 
Power  and  Privilege,  'till  that  Time  j  having 
before  been  under  a  State  of  Affliction,  and 
Humiliation.  There  is  a  notable  Fragment  of 
Hipfolyttis  which  Fabricius  has  lately  given 
us  in  the  Second  Volume  5  and  which  is  fo  full 
to  our  purpofe,  that  I  cannot  forbear  adding  it 
to  the  former.  Speaking  of  that  famous  Paf- 
fage in  the  Epiftle  to  the  Thilippians,  c.  2. 
and  particularly  upon  thefc  Words :  Wherefore 
God  alfo  hath  highly  exalted  Him^  v.  9.  He 
Comments  upon  it  thus.  "  *  He  is  faid  to  be 
''  exalted,  as  having  wanted  it  befo;C5  but  in 
''  rcrpccl  only  of  his  Humanity^  and  He  has 
''  a  ^■:wViZ given  Him  ;  as  'twere  a  Matter  of 
'^  Favor,  'which  is  above  every  Name^    as  the 

♦riippolvtus  Vol.  2.  p.  29.  Fabric  Edit.    See  a  parallel  place  in 
Oiigcn.  Coiii.  in  Job.  p.  413. 

"  Bleffed 


Qu.  VI.       offome  QUERIES.  99 

''  Blcffcd  (Apoftlc)  Taul  exprcffes  it.  But 
"  ill  Truth  and  Reality,  this  was  not  the  giv- 
"  ing  Him  any  Thing,  which  He  naturally 
*'  had  not  from  the  Beginning :  fo  far  from  it, 
"  that  we  are  rather  to  efteem  it  his  rcturnins: 
*•  to  what  He  had  in  the  Beginning  *  effentiallyy 
"  and  unalterably^  on  which  account  it  is,  that 
^'  He,  having  condefcended,  ofxovo/aixwr,  to  put 
"  on  the  humble  Garb  of  Humanttjy  faid,  Fa- 
■'  ther^  glorify  me  with  the  Glory,  which  I 
"  hady  &c.  For  he  was  ^/'Z^^^yj  inverted  with 
^^  Divine-Glory,  having  been  Coexiftent  with 
^^  his  Father  before  all  Ages,  and  before  all 
^^  Time,  and  the  Foundation  of  the  World  *f . 

I  hope  this  may  fuffice  to  convince  you, 
how  much  you  miftake;  and  how  contrary 
your  Sentiments  are  both  to  Scripture,  and  Ca- 
tholick  Antiquity,  if  you  imagine  that  the  "Koyo^ 
or  Word,  then  firft  began  to  be  Lord  over 
all,  when  that  Honour  was  conferred  on  the 
Man  Chrift  Jefus. 

j  /  may  add  a  Fajfage  of  Novatian.  Ac  fi  de  ccelo  cJefc-fndit 
Verbum  Hoc,  tanquam  Sponfus  ad  Carnem,  ut  per  Carni<;  ad- 
fumptionem  FUius  Hominis  illuc  pofTet  afcenderc,  undo  Dei  Fuiusy 
Verbum,  dcfcendcrat:  Merito,  dum  per  connexioncm  mutuam,  2c 
Caro  Verbum  Dei  gerit,  8c  FiliusDeiFragilitatem  Carnisadfumir ; 
Cum  fponfa  Carne  Confcendens  illuc  unde  fine  Carnc  dcTcenderc  r. 
recipit  jam  dariiatcm  ilU/n,  quam  dum  ante  mundl  Co  f.ltut  omni 
hahwjjs  ojienditnr^  Dens  mmfefiijjime  Com^robatur,  Novat.  c.  1 3 . 


CJ^UERY 


loo         ^DEFENSE       Qu.  VII. 

Q^U  E  R  Y     VII. 

Ji'ljether  the  Fathers  Omnifcicnce  and  Eter- 
nity are  not  one,  and  the  fame  with  the 
SonSy  being  alike  defer ibedy  and  in  the  fame 
^Fhrafes?  See  the  Texts  above, /?.  89. 

YOUR  Anfwer,  *  with  rcfpeft  to  the  Son's 
Omnifcience,  is,  that  he  hath  a  rela- 
tive Omnifcience  comfnunicated  to  Him.  from 
the  Father ;  that  He  knows  all  Things  re* 
lating  to  the  Creation  and  Government  of  the 
Univerfe ;  and  that  He  is  ignorant  of  the  T)ay 
of  Judgment, 

The  Son  then,  it  feems,  knows  all  Things^ 
excepting  that  he  is  ignorant  of  many  Things ; 
7A\(i  is  omnifcient  in  fuch  a  Senfe,  as  to  know 
infinitely  lefs,  than  one  who  is  really  omnifci- 
ent. Were  it  not  better  to  fay  plainly,  that 
He  is  not  omnifcient,  than  to  fpcak  of  a  rela- 
tive Omnifcicnce,  which  is  really  no  Omni- 
fcience-■,  unlefs  an  Angel  be  omnifcient ^  or  a 
Man  omnifcienty  becaufe  He  knows  all  Things 
which  He  knows  ?  What  Ground  do  you  find 
in  Scripture,  or  Antiquity,  for  your  Dillinclion 
of  abfolute  and  relative  Omnifcience  ?  Where 
it  is  fnid,  that  He  knows  all  Things  relating  to 
hisOjfce,  and  no  more?  Or  how  can  he  be 
fo  much  as  omnifcient,  in  this  low  Scnfc,  if 
He  knows  not,  or  knew  not,  the  precife  time 

*  Pag.  48. 

of 


Qu.  VII.     offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.  loi 

of  the  Day  of  Judgment  5  a  Thing  which,  one 
would  imagine,  (hould  belong  to  his  Office  as 
much  as  any  ?  Matth,  24.  36.  as  well  as  Mark 
13.  32.  is  plainly  meant  only  of  the  hitman 
Nature  5  and  is  to  the  fame  efFcd  with  Lnkt 
2.  52.  That  He  increasd  in  JVtfdom^  whicli 
cannot  be  literally  underftood  of  the  Aoy©* 
with  any  tolerable  confiftency,  even  upon 
the  Arian  Hypothejis  *.  You  tell  us  farther, 
that  All  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  under  ft  and 
by  thefe  two  TextSy  that  our  Lord  as  the  AcyQ'j 
or  Son  of  God^  did  not  then  know  the 
^ay  of  Judgment y  (p.  49  )  This  is  very  new 
indeed  3  if  you  have  read  the  Ante-Nicene 
Writers  5  you  muft  know  better :  if  you  have 
not ;  how  unaccountable  a  thing  is  it  to  talk 
thus  confidently  without  Book  ?  If  what  you 
fay  was  true,  we  ftiould,  without  delay,  give 
you  up  all  thefe  Writers  to  a  Man ;  and  never 
more  pretend  to  quote  any  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 

♦  A  late  Writer  acquaints  «j,  in  the  Name  of  Dr.  Clarke  wnd  ths 
Arians,  ('/  pre  fume  -without  their  leave)  "  that  the  Word  really 
*'  emptied  it  felf,  and  became  like  the  Rational  Soul  of  another  Man, 
**  which  is  limited  6y  the  Bodily  Organs  i  and  is,  in  a  manner,  dor- 
"  mant  in  Infancy  y  and  that  the  Word  may  he  deprived  of  its  for- 
•'  mer extraordinary  Abdnies...  .in  reality,  <i«/^grow/»  Wifdom, 

*'  ^  J  others  do.  This  is  makin-^  the  Aoy^,  That  great  eft  and  bejl  of 
Beings,  (upon  the  Arian  Scheme)  next  to  God  Himfclf  beco:ne  a  Chtld 
in  undsrftanding  ,•  tho*  once  voife  enough  to  Frame,  a  id  Govern  the  -whde 
Univerfe.  The  Author  calls  it,  (I  think,  very  profaneiyj  The  true 
and  great  Myftery  of  Godlincfs,  God  manihefiin  Flefh,  Oneromld 
think,  mfieadof  manifeft,  it  jlm:ild  have  been,  confin'd.  lock'd  up 
in  Flejh  i  which  is  the  Author  sown  Interpretation  of  this  Myfi:ery,fp.  t  6.) 
What  defign  He  could  have  in  all  This,  I  know  not  i  unlefs  He  coyyider'd 
what  Turn  Arianifm  took,  foon  after  its  Revival  at  the  Refonnatioi2^ 
See  Exam. of  Dr.  Bennst  on  theTrin.  p.  if,  \6. 

thcr. 


102  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  VIL 
ther,  in  favor  of  the  prefent  Orthodoxy.  But 
as  the  Point  is  of  great  Moment,  we  muft  re- 
quire fome  proof  of  it :  For,  writing  of  Hiftory 
by  Invention,  is  really  Romancing,  You 
cite  Irenaus  from  *  Dr.  Clarke^  who  could 
find  no  other :  or  elfe  we  fliould  have  heard  of 
it  from  the  firft  Hand.  And  yet  you  cry  out 
All'^  which  is  more  than  the  learned  Dodor 
pretended  to  fay  $  who  had  his  Thoughts  about 
Him  5  and  would  not  have  let  flip  any  fair  ad- 
vantage to  the  Caufe  which  He  efpoufcs. 

But  has  the  Doftor  really  proved  that  Ire- 
naus  meant  fo  ?  Perhaps  not :  And  then  yout 
Ally  which  was  but  one^  is  reduced  to  none. 
Two  Things  the  Dodor,  or  you,  fliould  have 
proved  5  firft,  That  Irenaus  underftood  thofe 
Texts  of  the  Aoys^^  or  Word,  in  that  Capacity. 
And  Secondly,  That  He  fuppofed  Him //>^r^/A 
Ignorant  of  the  Day  of  Judgment.  The  Do6lor 
knew  full  well  what  Solutions  had  been  given 
of  the  difficulty  arifing  from  this  Paflage.  Yet 
He  barely  recites  Irenatiss  Words*,  and  nei- 
ther attempts  to  prove  that  fuch  was  his  Senfe, 
nor  to  difprove  it.  You  indeed  do  obferve,  from 
fome  learned  Terfon^  that  this  Paflage  of  Ire- 
naiis  will  admit  of  no  Evajion,  For,  He  evi- 
dently [peaks  not  of  the  Son  of  Man,  but  of 
the  Son  of  God  5  even  of  That  Son  with 
whomy  as  it  follows,  in  omnibus  T^ater  com- 
miinicat.  Let  this  have  its  due  Weight :  The 
Argument  may  look  fo  far  plaufible  on  that 

*  Script.  Doflr.  p.  14^,  ^Mi  132. 

fide : 


Qu.  VII.      offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.         i  aj 

fide:  But  let  the  other  fide  be  heard  alfo,  be- 
fore we  determine.  ^Bifliop  Bull  hsiS  given 
fome  Reafons,  and  weighty  ones  too,  to  (how, 
that,  if  Iren£us  attributed  any  Ignorance  to 
Chrift,  He  did  it  in  refped  of  his  Human  Na- 
ture only.     His  Reafons  are, 

1.  Becaufc/r^w^/zx,  inthevery  fame  Chapter, 
^  afcribcs  abfolute  Omnifcience  to  the  divine 
Nature  oi  Chrift. 

2.  Becaufc  He  every  where  elfe  fpeaks  of  the 
Son,  as  of  one  perfedly  acquainted  with  the 
Nature^  and  IVill^  of  the  Father, 

3.  Becaufe  the  fame  '^Irenaus  upbraids  the 
Cnoflicks  for  their  Folly,  in  afcribing  any  De- 
gree of  Ignorance  to  their  pretended  Sophia,  or 
Wiidom.  How  then  could  He  imagine  that  the 
true  Sophia,  Wifdom  it  felf,  could  be  ignorant 
of  any  Thing  ? 

4.  Becaufe  the  fame  Irenmis  ^  ufes  an  Argu- 
ment againft  the  VakntinianSy    who  pretended 

'Def.  F.N.  ^  82.  C(?w/>.  Brev.  Animadv.  in  G.  CI.;".  io_f5. 

^  Spiritus  Saivatoris,  qui  in  co  efl,  Scr-utatur  omnia,  6c  Altitu- 
dines  Dei,  I.  i.e.  28.  ;>.  15-8. 

'  Se^  I.  2.  c.  iS.p.  140.  Iren.  Qiiomodoautem  non  vanum  eft, 
quod  etiam  '^ophiam  ejus  dicunt  in  ignorantia.  .  fuifle  ?  Hcec 

enim  aliena  funt  a  Sophia,  &:  cjntraria— —  ubi  enim  eft  Im^ 
prov'ident'td  6c  Igfioranm  utilitatis,  ibi  Sophia  non  eft.  , 

**  Iren.  I.  2.  c.  25-. />.  15-2.  Ed.  Befied.  In  quantum  minor  eft, 
ab  eo  qui  fadlus  non  eft  8c  qui  femper  idem  eft,  ille  qui  hodiq 
h£tus  eft  6c  initium  fadlur^  accepit:  in  tantum,  fecundum  fcieri' 
tiam  6c  ad  invejiiga?ulum  caufas  cmnmm,  minorem  efle  eo  qui  fe- 
cit. Non  enim  infedtus  es,  O  Homo,  neque  femper  co-exiftebas 
Deo,  iicut  propnum  ejus  Verbum :  Scd  propter  eminentem  Boni- 
tatem  ejus,  nunc  initium  Fadurse  accipiens,  fenfim  difcis  a  Verbo 
difpofitiones  Dei,  qui  Te  fecit.  The  -whole  Pajfage  is  fuller  to  the 
Toi'it, 

to 


104         ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VIL 

to  know  all  Things,  which  plainly  fuppofes  that 
Chrifl:  is  omnifcient.  The  Argument  is  This. 
You  are  not  eternal  and  uncreated^  as  the  Son 
of  God  is,  and  therefore  cannot  pretend  to  be 
omnifcienty  as  He  is. 

It  might  have  concerned  you  to  anfwer  thefe 
Reafons,  and  to  make  the  Good  Father,  at  Icaft, 
confiftcnt  with  Himfelf,  before  you  lay  claim 
to  his  Authority  for  your  fide  of  the  Qiieftion. 
However,  I  am  pcrfuaded,  that,  as  Bifliop  Bull 
is  very  right  in  determining  that  Iren£us  could 
not  mean  to  afcribe  any  degree  of  Ignorance  to 
the  Aoy©',  or  divine  Nature  of  Chrifl:  5  fo 
you  are  right  fo  far,  in  the  other  Point,  that 
Irendeus  is  to  be  underfl:ood  of  the  Aoy©^,  in 
what  He  fays.  And  now  the  Quefl:ion  will  be, 
whether  He  really  afcribcs  Ignorance  to  Him, 
or  only  feems  to  do  fo,  to  an  unattentive 
Reader. 

Iren£uss  Words,  I  conceive,  will  moil  na- 
turally bear  this  following  Interpretation,  or 
Faraphrafe.  "  *  If  any  one  inquires  on  what 
"  Account  the  Father  who  communicates    in 

*  Si  quiscxquirat  caufp.m,  propter  qunm  in  omnibus  Pater  com- 
municans  FiJio,  foius  fcire  Sc  Horam  &  Diem  a  Domino  mani- 
feftatus  efl;  ncquc  aptabilem  magis,  neque  decentiorem,  nee  fine 
pcriculo  alteram  quam  hanc  invcniar,  in  praifenti,  (quoniam  enim 
Solus  Vernx  Magifter  eft  Dominus)  ut  difcamus  per  Ipfum  fuper 
omnia  eHe  Patrem.  Etenim  Tater,  ait,  Major  me  eft.  Et  fecundum 
Agnitionem  itaquc  pr:^poiitus  cfTe  Pater  annuntiatus  eft  a  Domino 
noftro;  a^  hoc,  ut  8c  nos,  in  quantum  in  figurahujus  mundi  fu- 
mus,  perfedtam  fcientiam,  &c  tales quxftioncs  concedamus  Deo:  6c 
no  forte  quaerentcs,  e>r.  Iren.  /.  i.r.  iS.  />.  15-8,  i  jp. 
He  had  [aid  before. 

Pominus,  ipfc  FiliusDei,  ipfum  Judicii  Diem  &  Horam  con- 

"  all 


Qu.  VIL       offo7ne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         105 

*'  all  Things  with  the  Son,  {and  confcquefitly 
"  in  all  Knowledge,  arid  particularly  in  that 
*'  of  the  T)ay  of  Judgment)  is  yet  here  fet 
"  forth  as  the  only  Perfon  knowing  that  Day 
"  and  Hour  5  He  cannot,  fo  far  as  I  at  prefent 
"  apprehend,  find  any  fitter  or  more  decent, 
"  or  indeed  any  other  fafe  Anfwer  than  this, 
"  (confidering  that  our  Lord  is  a  Teacher  of 
*-^  Truth,  and miifl  mean  fomethivg  by  it)  that 
"  it  was  to  inftruft  us,  as  from  Himfelf,  that 
"  the  Father  is  above  ally  according  to  what 
"  He  fays  elfewhere,  for  the  Father  is  greater 
•'  than  /.  And  therefore  the  Father  is  declared 
"  to  have  the  Priority  and  Preference  in  refpeft 
"  of  Knowledge,  by  our  Lord  Himfelf,  for  an 
"  Example  to  us  5  that  we  alfo,  while  we  live 
"  and  converfe  here  below,  may  learn  to  refer 
*^  the  Perfeftion  of  Knowledge,  and  all  intri- 
"  cate  Queftions  to  God. 

The  defign  of  Iren£us  was  to  check  the  vain 
Prefumption,  and  Arrogance  of  the  Gnofticksy 
pretending  to  fearch  into  the  deep  Things  of 
God.  And  the  Argument  He  had  us'd  was  this ; 
that  our  Lord  Himfelf  was  pleas'd  to  refer  the 
knowledge  of  the  Day  of  Judgment  to  the  Fa- 
ther only ;  as  it  were  on  purpofe  to  Teach  us, 
that  while  we  converfe  here  below,  it  becomes 

cefllt  fcire  folum  Patrcm,  manifefle  dicens :  de  Die  autem  illo  8c 
Hora,  nemo  fcit,  ncque  Filius,  nijl  Pater  folus.  Si  igitur  fcientiam 
diei  illius,  FiJius  non  erubuit  rcferre  ad  Patrem,  fed  dixit  quod 
verum  eft  j  neque  nos  erubefcamus,  quae  funt  in  quaiftionibus 
majora  fecundum  nos,  refervare DeO;  p,  ijS, 


US 


106        y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  VII. 

us  not  to  pretend  to  hi^h  Things ;  but  to  leave 
the  deep  Things  of  God,  to  God  alone.  This 
is  his  Argument,  and  a  very  good  one  it  is. 
But  the  good  Father  apprehending  that  what 
He  had  laid  of  our  bleffed  Saviour,  might  be 
liable  to  Exception ,  and  be  mifundcrftood  5 
comes  afterwards  to  explain  his  Senfe  more  at 
large.  He  is  Icnfible  of  the  danger  of  afcribing 
any  thing  like  Ignorance  to  our  blefled  Lord, 
on  one  hand;  and  as  fenfible  of  the  danger  of 
contTcidiciing  the  Text,  on  the  other.  §luo- 
niam  enim  folus  Verax  Mdgifter  eft  'Domi- 
miSy  in  as  much  as  "ui'hat  Chrift  has  faid 
mtift  be  true 'y  in  fome  fenfe  or  other.  Thefe 
Words  may  ferve  to  give  light  to  the  reft  5 
For  the  difficulty  lay  here  :  How  can  it  be 
true  that  the  Father  communicates  in  all 
things,  and  confequcntly  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  Day  of  Judgment,  to  the  Sonj  and  yet 
our  Saviour  fay  true,  in  afcribing  that  parti- 
cular knowledge  to  the  Father  only  ?  His  an- 
fwer  is,  that  wx  are  thereby  taught  to  refer 
every  thing  to  the  Father,  as  the  Original  of 
all  Things.  To  Him  A';^^1j2.7(?^^  ought  to  be 
principally,  and  in  the  frft  place,  afcribcd : 
Our  Saviour  therefore  Himfelf  yields  to  Him 
the  preference,  as  became  Him,  efpecially 
here  on  Earth :  not  as  if  He  knew  lefs,  but 
becaufe  what  He  knew.  He  knew  by  Com- 
munication from  the  Father  5  to  whom  there- 
fore He  refers  fuch  fecrets  as  it  was  not  pro- 
per 


Qlu  VIL       of  fome  (QUERIES.         107 

per   to   reveal,     1101:    fit  for    Men   to    inquire 
alter. 

That  this  is  all  that  Iren^ns  meant,  may 
reafonably  be  thought ;  not  only  becaufe  other- 
wife  it  would  be  utterly  inconfiftent  with  many 
other  parts  of  his  Writings,  as  has  been  before 
obferved :  but  alfo,  becaufe  feveral  Exprellions 
in  this  very  Paffage,  lead  to  it.  Had  He  really 
believed  the  divine  AoyQ^^  or  IVord,  to  be 
literally  Ignorant  j  why  fliould  He  be  fo  ap- 
prehenfive  of  the  difficulty  of  thofc  Texts? 
Why  fo  concerned  about  the  fitnefs,  and  de- 
cency of  his  Interpretation;  and  that  it  might 
be  jine  periculo?  The  danger  was,  in  inter- 
preting feemingly  againft  the  Text,  to  find  a 
Salvo  for  the  Son's  Omnifciencc.  For  this  rea- 
fon.  He  does  not  ask,  why  the  Father  only 
knew  (not,  cur  Tater  foliis  fci-vit)  but  why, 
or  on  what  Account  [folus  fcire  manifeflatiis 
eft)  He  was  reprefented  as  alone  knowings 
or.  He  only  was  faidio  know.  He  does  not 
fay,  as  the  Doflor's  Tranflation  infinuates,  that 
the  Father  is  more  knowtJig  than  the  Son ;  but 
prapofitiis  only  5  which  fignifies  fet  before , 
having  the  T refer enccy  or  the  hke;  which 
may  be  conceived,  tho'  He  be  equally  know- 
ing :  and,  for  the  greater  Caution,  it  is  not 
faid  abfolutely,  prapofitm  eft :  but  pr^pofitus 
effe  annuntiattis  eft :  He  is  declared  to  have 
the  Preference :  So  that  the  Queftion,  with 
IrenauSy  is  not  why  the  Father  is  Superior 
in  knowledge  5  but  why,  fince  Father  and  Son^ 

I  2  are 


108  ^DEFENSE      Qu.  VII. 

arc  equally  knowing,  our  Saviour  makes  fuch  a 
Declaration  as  gave  the  Preference  to  the  Father. 
And  the  Realbns  which  He  ailigns;,  are  very 
much  to  the  purpofe. 

1 .  To  inftrudl  us,  that  the  Father  is  the  Foun- 
tain and  Original,  even  of  the  Son  Himfelf. 

2.  Becaufc,  in  his  then  prefent  State  of  Con - 
defcenfion,  it  became  Him  to  refer  all  to  the 
Father. 

3 .  Becaufc  it  may  be  an  ufeful  Example  of 
Humility  and  Modefty  to  us,  that  we,  much 
rather,  while  we  are  here  below,  may  not  pre- 
tend to  high  Things. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  may  appear,  that  Ire- 
nteus%  Solution  of  the  difficulty  is  the  very  fame 
with  That  which  the  *  Dodor  quotes  from  St. 
Bafil ^  who  had  learned  it  from  a  Child: 
Namely  this,  "  That  our  Lord  meant  to  afcribe 
"  to  the  Father,  the  firfl:,  (i.  e.  the  primary ^ 
**  original)  Knowledge  of  Things  Prefent,  and 
"  Future ;  and  to  declare  to  the  \¥orld,  that 
"  He  is  in  all  Things  the  firfl:  Caufe  f .  As  the 
Son  is  God  of  God^  and  Light  of  Light ;  fo 
it  is  proper  to  fay,  Omnifcience  of  077inifci- 
€7ice^  &c.  The  Attributes  being  derivative,  in 
the  fame  fenfe,  as  the  Eflcnce  is :  Which  is  St. 
Bafd'^  meaning  j  and  I  think,  Irenaus's. 

This  Defence  may  be  fairly  and  jufl:ly  made 
for  IreiiauSj  fuppofmg  that  what  he  faid,  was 
meant  of  the  Aoy©',  or  divine  Nature,  as  fuch: 

*  Scy'ipt.  TioBr.  p.  147,  148.  ahas  134,  i^f. 
t  BaiiladAmphiloch.  £/».  391.     Conf,  Gregor,  Nazianz.  Omt, 
3(5.^:^84. 

To 


Qu.  VII.      offome  QU  E  R I  E  S.         109 

To  which  Opinion  I  incline.  Ncvcrthclcfs,  I 
fhould  not  affcd  to  be  dogmatical  in  That 
Point,  fincc  learned  and  judicious  Men  have 
been  of  both  Sides  of  the  Queftion.  Tetavms 
*  obferves,  that  the  Senfe  is  ambiguous  \  and 
that  there  are  not  certain  grounds  to  determine 
us  either  way.  If  he  underftood  it  of  the  hu- 
man Nature  onlyj  then  the  difficulty  is  no- 
thing :  if  of  Both,  I  have  fho wn  how  fair  an 
Account  may  be  given  of  it.  Having  thus  got 
over  Iren^cuSy  I  have  at  once  taken  from  you 
all  your  Ante-Nicene  Writers.  You  will  ob- 
ferve,  that  the  Texts  might  be  underftood  of 
the  Ao/©',  or  divine  Nature^  as  Bafil  under- 
ftands  them,  in  the  place  above  cited  ;  and  yet 
that  They,  who  fo  underftood  them,  might  be 
far  from  thinking  that  the  Aoy©^,  or  Wordj 
was  ever  ignorant  of  any  Thing.  ^  Dr.  Clarke^ 
to  do  Him  Juftice,  is,  in  the  main,  fo  very  fair 
and  reafonable  in  his  Account  of  thofe  two 
Texts,  that  we  have  nooccafion  at  all  to  differ 
with  Him.  I  wifh,  as  you  have  in  moft  other- 
Matters,  fo  you  had  here  alfo  copied  after  Him. 
I  will  not  leave  this  Article,  without  giving 
you  a  Specimen  of  the  Senfe  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Writers,  in  regard  to  the  Son's  Omni- 
fcience;  that  you  may  have  a  better  Opinion 
of  thofe  good  and  great  Men.     We  may  begin 

*  Irenjeus,  ]ibro  SecundoCapite  29.  ambigue loquitur  j  ut  ne- 
fcias  Infcitiam  illius  Dei  Chrifto,  faltem  qua  eft  Homo,  tribuat, 
an  non  ac  poflit  ad  utramque  deflefti  fententiam. 

t  Ke^ly  to  Mr.  Nelfon'i  Fiiendy  p.  17  i. 

I  3  with 


ixo  ^DEFENSE  Qli.  VII. 
with  Ignatius,  "  ^  There  is  nothinii;  hid  from 
"  the  Lord:  But  our  very  fccret  Things  are 
"  nigh  unto  Him.  Let  us  therefore  do  all 
'^  Things,  as  having  Him  dwelHng  in  usj  that 
''  we  may  be  His  Temples,  and  He  our  God 
*'  in  us. 

I  proceed  to  Clement  of  Alexandria^  who 
fays  thus :  ''  ^  The  Son  of  God  never  goes  off 
''  from  his  Watch-Tower :  never  parted,  nc- 
"  vcr  feparatcd,  nor  moving  from  Place  to 
"  Place ;  but  is  always  every-wherc,  and  con- 
*'  tain'd  no-where,  all  Mind,  all  Light,  all 
"  Eye  of  his  Father,  beholding  all  Things, 
''  hearing  all  Things,  kno'jving  all  Things, 

^  In  another  Place.  ^'  Ignorance  [in  any  degree) 
"-  cannot  affect  God,  Him  that  was  the  Father's 

*  O'.'C^v  >My^a.vi  "^  K.'j^icv,  i^/.A^  Ksd  roi  x^vTiioc  vfjuuv  iiyhi  ccira 
sV<v.  Ignnt.  Ep.  2d  Ephef.  c.  \f.  p.  17.  Ox.  Ed.  That  ¥.uncv  is 
r?tcar,t  of  Ch-ifi,  is  vtry  highly  probable  from  the  ufe  of  the  JVorcl 
m  this  Auti:cr^  and  from  the  Cohtcxt. 

— CIcm.  Alex.  Srrcm.  ).  7.  c.  2.  p.  83  i.  See  alfo  p.  1 1  3.  6  i  i.  832. 

cifM'^h^^ii  yivcfjjiv'^  rcZ  UctTfiqc.   p.  832. 

N.B.  The  Do(flor's  Criricifms  (Script.  Dear. y. '>  16.  alias  294.) 
ppon  CA;??^.',  arc  very  flight.  I  need  only  hint,  that-srsj"  c-.o^^ro'^  is 
applied  to  the  Son,  itlcafl:  twlcefp.  148.  277.J  and7ri>A^.T>}?  once 
(p.  647.)  by  Chnens  i  nnd  that  Troroxfidru  p,  may  as"  well  fi^^nify 
cKini-tene/:},  as  cmnipotens  5  and  that  omr.i-tcnente  Vchntate  is  not 
lifiprop^r,  but  agreeable  to  Clemcm's  Philofophy.  (Seethe  notes  to 
Cl.mens,  p.  43  i.  Ed.  Ox.j  and  that  theicfore  Chrift  might  be  iup- 
pofcd  tuuurallyom/jfrient,  by  CUfnens,  notwithftandingt!-.eDo(fto''s 
pretences  :  Befides  that  thepaflagcs  rcfcrr'd  to,  if  well  confidcr'd, 
can  bear  no  other  Scnfe. 
Se^  nty  Sermons^  p.  2(5(5. 

^^  Coun- 


Qii.  VII.      offome  (QUERIES.        1 1 1 

*'  CounfcUor  before  thcFoundation  ofthc  World. 

*  Origtn  is  pretty  large  upon  the  very  Texts 
whereof  we  have  been  Ipeaking.  He  gives  fe- 
veral  Interpretations :  but  it  is  obfervable,  that 
He  ftudioufly  endeavors  to  find  fome  Solution, 
which  may  acquit  the  Aoy©^  from  the  Imputa- 
tion of  being  literally  Ignorant  of  the  Day  of 
judgment.  What  Origeits  Opinion  was  of 
Chrift's  Omnifcience^  you  may  alfo  fee  ^  elfe- 
where.  To  confirm  what  hath  been  faid,  one 
general  Remark  I  leave  with  you. 

The  Sabellian  Controverfy  began  early,  and 
laded  long  in  the  Church.  The  Difpute  was, 
whether  Father  and  Son  were  one  and  the  fame 
Hypoftajisy  or  "Terfon.  Had  the  Catholicks  in- 
terpreted thefe  two  Texts,  as  you  pretend  They 
did,  there  could  not  have  been  any  Thing 
more  decifive  againft  the  Sabellians,  Ter- 
UiUiariy  you  know,  encounter'd  them  in  a 
pretty  large  Book,  his  Book  againft  Traxeas  y 
Hippolytus  entered  the  Lifts  againft  NoetuSy 
and  his  Book  is  ftill  extant  5  Eufebiuss  famed 
Piece,  againft  Marcellus,  is  to  the  fame  pur- 
port. Several  Fragments  befides,  of  other  Au- 
thors, remain.  Pleafe  to  look  them  over  j  and 
fee  if  II  you  can  find  any  one  of  Them  combat- 

*  Horn.  30.  in  Mat. 

t  Comm.  in  Job.  p.  28.  Huet.  Ed.  He  puts  the  very  ^ie/I/on, 
n>hether  the  Son  knows  all  that  the  Father  hiows,  and  determines  in 
the  Affirmative i  bU?n'mg  thofe  who,  under  pretence  of  magnifyifig  the 
Father,  pre  fumed  to  deny  it.  The  FaJJage  is  rather  too  long  to  be  here 
infer  ted, 

(]  Tertullian  indeed  cites  the  Text,  in  pajfing-,  not  drawing  any 
fuch  Argument  J  as  I  mean^  from  it.  What  He  meant  will  be  fl}0wn 
ereafter,  under  ^uery  26'''. 

I  4  ing 


112       ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VII. 

ing  the  Sabellians  with  thcfc  Texts :  And  if  you 
cannot  5  either  be  content  to  own,  that  it  was 
a  very  ftrangc  and  unacountable  Omiffion  in 
thole  Writers,  or  elfe  that  they  had  quite  other 
Notions  of  Things,  than  you  have  hitherto 
imagined.  The  Ar'tans  you  find  afterwards, 
perpetually  almoft,  teazing  the  Catholicks  with 
thofe  Texts :  Strange  they  fhould  never  have 
been  infifted  on  againft  the  Sabellians ^  being 
fo  full  to  the  Purpofe  y  efpecially  if,  as  you 
fuppofe,  the  Ante-Kicene  Writers  were  them- 
felvcs  of  that  Perfuafion,  which  was  afterwards 
called  Ar'tan,  It  is  evident  that  the  Sabellians 
muft  have  underftood  the  Texts,  if  they  are  to 
be  taken  literally ,  of  the  Man  Chrijl  Jefus 
only.  Otherwife  there  had  been  a  manifeft  re- 
pugnancy, in  the  Words,  not  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  i,  fmce  they  fuppofed  Father  and  Son 
one  and  the  fame  Hypojiajts.  It  is  as  plain, 
that  they  muft  have  thought  that  the  Catholicks 
agreed  with  them  in  that  Expofition,  other- 
wife  they  would  have  charged  them,  not  only 
with  Tritheifm,  but  with  the  denial  of  the 
Son's  ejjential  T)ivinity.  It  docs  not  appear 
that  thofe  Texts  ever  came  into  Controverfy 
bctv/ixt  Them ;  or  were  ever  urged  by  the 
Catholicks  j  fo  that  Both  fecm  to  have  agreed 
in  the  fame  Interpretation.  So  much  for  the 
Point  of  Omnifcience. 

I  come  next  to  confidcr  what  you  have  to 
objed  to  my  Argument  for  the  Son's  Eternity , 
I  had  put  it  upon  this  5  that  it  is  dcfcribed  in 

the 


Qu.VIL  offomeQXJEKlES.  ii? 
the  fame  Phrales,  with  God  the  Father's ;  which, 
one  would  think,  fhould  be  high  enough.  You 
tell  me  that  tbe  Sons  Metaphyfical  Eternity 
is  no  where  exprejiy  revealed.  What  the  fine 
word,  Metaphyjicaly  fignifieshcrc,  I  know  not. 
If  his  Eternity  is  revealed,  it  is  enough  for  me. 
That  I  underftand  to  be  revealedf  in  thefe  two 

Texts,  Rev.  i.  17. 22.  13.    I  am  the  fir  ft ^ 

and  1  am  the  laft,  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega^ 
the  Beginning  and  the  End,  That  thefe,  and 
the  like  Phrafes  refpeft  "Duration^  appears  from 
Ifa,  43.  10.  compared  with  Ifa.\\,  6.  In  the 
latter,  the  Words  are ;  /  am  the  firft^  and  I 
am  the  laft,  and  befides  me  there  is  no  God  *. 
the  former,  exprefling  the  fame  Thought,  runs 
thus:  Before  me  was  there  no  God  formed^ 
neither  ftjall  there  be  after  me.  The  Phrafe 
of  A  and  n,  Firft  and  Laft,  is,  in  like  manner, 
explained  Rev,  i.  8.  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega^ 
the  Beginning  and  the  Ending,  faith  the  Lordy 
which  iSy  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to 
come.  The  Phrafe  then  refpeds  T^uration\ 
and  it  is  applied  to  our  blefled  Saviour,  as  hath 
been  fhown;  Rev,  1.17.— 22,  13.  Therefore 
there  was  no  God  before  Him  :  Therefore  He  is, 
in  the  ftrideft  Senfe,  Eternal,  You  fay,  the 
ObjeEior  hath  not  brought  one  Text  of  Scri- 
pture that  at  all proveth  it,  I  did  not  pro- 
duce all  the  Texts  proper  upon  that  Head :  I 
defign'd  Brevity.  Befides,  I  had  a  mind  to  re- 
move the  Caufe,  from  Criticifm  upon  Words,  to 

*  Compare  alfo  I|a.  48.  12.     See  my  Sermons,  p.  233. 

one 


114        :/f    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qii.  VII. 

one  plain  and  affcding  Argument:  viz.  That 
the  Proof  of  the  Soris  Eternity  ftands  upon  the 
fame  Foot,  in  Scripture,  with  the  Proof  of  the 
Fathers ;  and  is  exprcfs'd  in  as  ftrong  Words. 
And  for  this,  I  appeal,  as  to  the  Texts  above 
cited,  fo  ahb  to  'Prov.  8.  22,  &c.  which  you 
allow  to  be  fpokcn  of  the  MeJJias.  The  ori- 
ginal Word,  wdiich  we  tranflate,  from  Ever- 
lajling^  is  the  very  fame  with  what  we  meet 
with  in  Tfal.  90.  2.  where  alfo  we  find  a  pa- 
rallel Defcription  of  Eternity^  applied  to  the 
one  God,  See  alfo  '^Pfal.  93-  2-  I  allow  your 
Obfcrvation,  that  the  Hebrew  word  may,  and 
fomctimes  docs,  fignify  a  limited^  as  v/cU  as 
it  does,  at  other  times,  an  tmlimited  Duration. 
And  therefore  I  do  not  lay  all  the  ftrefs  of  my 
Argument  upon  the  critical  meaning  of  the 
Word  5  but  upon  That,  and  other  Circum- 
(lances  taken  together:  particularly  this  Cir- 
cumftance  5  that  the  Eternity  of  the  Father  is 
dcfcribed  in  the  fame  Manner,  and  in  the  fame 
Phrafes,  with  the  other  5  as  by  *  Comparing 
Tt^fal,  90.  2.  with  ^r^i;.  8.  22,  (i:rc,  and  Rev, 
1.8.  (fuppofing  that  Text  to  be  meant  of  the 
Father)  with  Rev.  11.  13.  may  fully  appear. 
I  do  not  argue  from  a  finglc  Phrafe,  or  the  par- 

*  Before  the  Mount.i'ws  vrcre  Tfje  Lord  poJfef>\{  mz  in  the  bc- 
Irctiglt  fcnth,  or  ever  thou  hadji  gmn'mg  of  his  roay^  bforckh  Works 
'orihcd  tke  Earth  Und  the  World:  of  old.  Ixcas  fet  up  from-  everlttji- 
I'zcii  from  ctirlafiing^  Thott  art  ing,  froin  the  beginning,  or  e-ver 
(J fid,  Pial.  90.2.  the  Earth  was  ■ .  .  Before  the 

Mountains  roere  fettled ;  before  the 
Hills,  ivas  I  brottght  jcnh,  Prov. 
S.  22,  Sec. 

ticular 


Qii.  VIT.       of  fame  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.        115 

ticular  force  of  it ;  but  from  fever al-^  and  thcfc 
equally  applied  to  Both :  as  it  were  on  purpofe 
to  intimate,  that  though  thefe  Phrafes  Jingly 
might  bear  a  limited  Senfe;  yet  confidering  that 
God  had  made  choice  of  them,  as  moft  Signi- 
ficant to  cxprefs  his  o-jun  T^nration  5  and  again 
made  choice  of  the  very  fame,  out  of  many 
others,  to  cxprefs  his  Soris  T>tiration  too,  we 
might  from  thence  be  taught  to  believe  that 
the  Son  is  Co-eternal  with  Him. 
'  You  arc  fcnfible  of  the  Objeftion  lying  a- 
gainft  you;  namely,  that  there's  no  certain 
Proof,  according  to  your  way  of  reafoning,  of 
the  Eternity  of  the  Father,  in  the  Old  Tcfta- 
ment :  and  fo  refolute  you  are  in  this  Matter, 
that,  rather  than  admit  the  Son  to  be  eternal 
too,  you  are  content  to  leave  us  in  the  Dark, 
fo  far  as  the  Old  Teftament  goes,  about  the 
other.  But,  for  a  Salvo  to  the  Father's  Eter- 
nity, you  obfcrve,  that  it  is  emphatically  ex- 
prcfs'd  in  the  New  Tefiament  (Rom.  i.  20.) 
forizjctiino  that  the  word  'AivT^fo,-  occurs  but  *  once 
more,  in  the  New  Teftament ;  and  then  fignifics 
eternal  in  a  limit edS^n^c  only,  or  a  parte  pofi^ 
as  the  Schools  fpcak.  Well  then,  for  any  thing 
I  fee  to  the  contrary,  we  muft  contentedly  go 
away,  v/ithoutany  Scripture  Proof  of  the  Eter- 
nity of  the  Father),  for  fear  it  fhould  oblige  us 
to  take  in  the  Son's  alfo.  And  this,  indeed,  is 
what  you  are  before-hand  apprehcnfive  of,  and 
prepared  for ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  you  tell 
us,   that  there  appears  no  nccejjity  at  all-,  that 

♦  Jude  V.  6.  ^^^^ 


116      :/^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.VII. 

the  Attribute  of  Eternity  Jhould  be  diJiinEily 
revealed  ^ouith  refpe6i  to  the  Father  5  ^-^hofe 
Eternity  our  reafon  infallibly  ajfures  us  of 
(p.  50.)  Infallibly  affurcs:  So  you  fay;  and,  I 
believe,  />/  my  own  wajy  I  might  be  able  to 
maintain  your  Aflfertion.  But  I  profefs  to  you, 
that  I  do  not,  at  prefent,  apprehend,  how,  up- 
on your  TrincipleSy  you  will  be  able  to  make 
any  compleat  Demonftration  of  it.  It  would 
be  ridiculous  to  talk  of  proving  from  Reafon^ 
only,  without  Revelation,  that  the  Perfon 
whom  we  call  the  Father^  the  God  of  Jews 
and  ChrifiianSy  is  the  Eternal  God.  I  will 
therefore  prcfume  that  you  mean,  by  Reafon 
Reafon  and  Revelation  Both  together  5  and  if 
you  efFcdually  prove  your  Point  from  Both,  it 
fliall  fuffice.  You  can  demonftrate  that  there 
muft  be  fome  eternal  God,  in  the  metaphyfcal 
Scnfe,  as  you  call  it,  of  thcfe  Words :  But  fmce 
the  Father,  the  God  of  Jews  and  Chriflians, 
has  not  declared,  either  that  He  is  Eternal,  or 
God,  in  xhzmetaphyJicalScnk ;  it  does  not  ap- 
pear how  He  is  at  all  concern'd  m  it.  He  has 
laid,  indeed,  that  there  is  no  God  befides  Him ; 
but  as  He  did  not  mean  it  in  the  metaphyfical 
Scnfe,  there  may  be  Another,  in  that  Senfe, 
befides  Him,  notwithftanding :  Nay,  it  is  cer- 
tain there  are  and  have  been  other  Gods ;  even 
in  the  fa:7}e  Senfe :  For  Mofes  was  a  God  wn- 
to  7 haroah',  and  Chrift  is  God-,  and  therefore 
tills  cannot  be  literally  true.  It  can  only  mean, 
that  He  is  e?nphatically  God,  in  Ibmc  rcfpcd  or 

other. 


Qu.  VII.     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         117 

other ;  perhaps  as  being  God,  of  our  Syftcm  ; 
or  God  of  the  Jews  and  ChriJiianSy  his pecu- 
Ihim.  It  is  true,  He  has  called  Himfelf  Je- 
hovah  5  which  if  it  fignified  necelTary-exiftence 
and  independence,  it  would  be  an  irrefragable 
Proof  of  his  being  the  eternal  God.  But  it 
unfortunately  happens  that  Jehovah  fignifies 
no  more  than  a  Perfon  of  Honour  and  Integrity, 
who  is  true  to  his  Word,  and  performs  his 
Tromifes  {p,  19.)  He  has  farther  declared  Him- 
felf to  be  Creator  of  the  World  :  but  this  ex- 
erctfe  of  creating,  being  finite^  does  not  ne- 
cejfarily  infer  an  infinite  Subje5fy  (p.  48.) 
Befidcs  that  this  Office  and  Character ^  relative 
to  usy  pre-fuppofes  noty  nor  is  at  all  more 
perfect  fory  the  eternal  pafl  duration  of  his 
Beingy  (See  p.  50.)  What  (hall  I  think  of 
next?  I  muft  ingenuoufly  own,  I  am  ut- 
terly non-plufs*d5  and  therefore  muft  defire 
you,  whenever  you  favor  me  with  a  Reply, 
to  make  out  your  Demonftration.  But  let  us 
proceed. 

Having  given  us  a  Reafon,  why  it  was  not 
neceffary  that  the  fuppofed  Eternity  of  the  Fa- 
ther fhould  be  revealed,  you  go  on  to  acquaint 
us,  why  it  was  not  needful  to  declare  the  fup- 
pofed Eternity  o^  the  Son.  And  here  you  give 
cither  two  Reafons,  or  one ,  I  hardly  know 
whether.  His  Office  and  Chara£lery  you  fay, 
relative  to  tiSy  does  net  prefuppofe  it.  I  know 
that  very  wife  and  judicious  Men  have  thought, 
that  it  does  prefuppofe  it.  Bifliop  Bully  for 
4-  inftance. 


lis         ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VII. 

inftancc,  has  Ipokc  admirably  well  upon  that 
Head.  But  thcPallagc  being  too  long  to  tran- 
fcribc,  I  fliall  only  refer  to  it  "^^  How  you  come 
to  take  for  granted  a  Thing  which  you  know 
nothing  of,  and  which  it  is  impofllble  either  for 
YoUj  or  any  Man  elfe  to  prove,  I  know  not. 
It  is  very  manifetl  that,  unlefs  you  have  a  full 
Idea  of  the  whole  Work  of  Redemption,  and 
can  tell  as  well  what  belongs  to  a  Redeemer, 
and  a  Judge  of  the  whole  Univerfe,  as  you  can 
what  belongs  to  a  Redor  of  a  Parifli,  you  can 
pafs  no  certain  Judgment.  No  Man  can  cer- 
tainly define  the  utmoft  of  what  was  needful 
in  the  Cafe  5  becaufe  no  Man  can  dive  into  the 
utmoft  depth  of  it.  There  may  be  more  than 
You,  or  I,  or  perhaps  Angels,  can  fee,  in  that 
myfterious  Difpenfation  5  and  therefore  it  is  the 
height  of  Prefumption  to  pronounce,  that  any 
Power,  lefs  than  Infinite,  might  be  equal  to  it.  I 
do  not  fay  that  the  Argument  forChrift's  'D/vhi- 
ty,  drawn  from  the  grcatnefs  of  the  Work  of  Re- 
demption, and  the  Honours  Confcqucnt  upon  it, 
amounts  to  a  perfed  Demonftration  :  But  this  I 
fay,  and  am  very  clear  in  what  I  fay,  that  it  is 
much  furer  arguing  for  the  Affirmative^  from 
what  we  know  5  than  for  the  Negative,  from 
what  we  know  not.  It  is  poflible  our  Proof  may 
not  be  fufficient :  But  it  is,  a  prior  i^im^^offiblc 
that  your's  fhould.  Whether  we  can  maintain  our 
Point,  may  perhaps  be  a  Qiieftion :  but  it  is  out  of 
all  Qiicftion,  that  you  cannot  maintain  your's.  '  *' 

*  jiidic.  Eccl.  p.  12. 

'  \,  Having 


Qu.  VII.       offofne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       119 

Having  anfwcr'd  this  your  firft  Rcafon,  why 
it  was  not  ncceffary  to  reveal  the  Son  s  Eter- 
nity, I  proceed  to  the  remaining  Words  5  which 
if  I  perfedly  underftood,  I  might  know  whe- 
ther they  are  a  diftinft  Reafon,  or  only  an  Ap- 
pendage to  the  former.  They  are  thefe:  Nor 
is  it  (Chrift's  Office  and  Charader)  at  all  more 
perferi  for  the  eternal  pafl  ^Duration  of  his 
Beings  (p.  50.)  I  have  been  confidering  why 
that  word,  Tafly  was  infertedj  and  what  it  can 
mean,  in  that  place.  It  feems  to  be  oppofed 
cither  to  prefent-,  or  elfe  to,  to  comey  tacitly 
miderftood.  At  firft,  I  thought  thus:  That  It 
might  be  put  in  to  prevent  our  Imagining  that 
Chrift  s  Office  might  not  be  at  all  more  perfeft 
for  the  eternal  Duration  of  his  Being,  to  come. 
But  confidering  again,  that  if  he  does  but  con- 
tinue till  the  Office  is  compleated  and  perfefted, 
it  is  all  one,  in  refpeft  of  that  Office^  whether 
his  Duration  hold  longer  or  no  ;  I  thought.  That 
could  not  be  the  meaning.  Refleding  again, 
I  conceived  that,  Tafl^  might  poffibly  have 
relation  to  the  Office  confider'd  as  prefent,  or 
commencing  at  fiich  a  Time  5  fuppofe  Six  Thou- 
fand  Years  ago  :  And  you  might  think ;  what 
could  it  fignify  to  date  his  Being  Higher  ?  If 
He  did  but  exift,  foon  enough  for  the  Office,  it 
is  fufficient*  All  the  Time  run  out  before,  is 
of  no  Confidcration  ^  having  no  Relation  to 
an  Office  which  was  to  commence  after,  and 
would  ftill  be  but  the  Self-fame  Temporal  Of- 
fice, commencing  at  fuch  a  Time.     If  I  have 

hit 


I20         y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.  VII. 

hit  your  Thought  at  length,  I  allure  you,  it  has 
coft  me  fome  Pains ;  and  I  wifli  you  would  ex- 
prefs  your  fclf  more  clearly  hereafter. 

Now  then,  let  us  apply  this  Manner  of  Rea- 
foning  to  another  Purpofe :  By  parity  of  Rea- 
fon  we  may  argue,  that  the  Office  of  God  the 
Father,  commencing  at  the  Creation  5  I  fay,  the 
Office  of  Suflaining,  Preferving,  and  Govern- 
ing the  World,  has  no  Relation  to  the  Time 
fafty  being  but  juft  what  it  is,  whether  a  lon- 
ger or  a  fliorter,  or  no  Time  at  all  be  allowed 
for  any  prior  Exiftence;  nor  is  it  at  all  more 
perfed  for  the  eternal  paft  Duration  of  his  Be- 
ing. But  does  not  this  Argument  fuppofe  that 
the  Office  is  fuch  as  may  be  difcharged  by  a 
finite  Creature,  or  one  that  began  in  Time  ? 
Certainly.  And  is  not  That  the  very  Thing  in 
Queftion  in  this,  and  in  the  other  Cafe  too  ? 
Undoubtedly.  How  then  comes  it  to  be  taken 
for  granted  ?  Bcfides  5  is  not  a  Perfon  of  un- 
limited, that  is,  eternal  Powers  and  Perfe- 
ftions,  more  capable  of  difcharging  an  Office, 
than  any  Creature  1  Well  then,  by  necefla- 
ry  Confequence,  the  paft  Duration  of  the 
Perfon  is  of  great  Moment  in  the  Cafe  j  and 
the  Office  muft  be  thought  as  much  more 
perfed  for  the  eternal  paft  T^uration  of  his 
Being,  as  God's  Pcrfedions  excel  thofe  of  his 
Creatures;  and  that  is  infinitely. 


QjJERy 


Qu.  VIII.      offome  (QUERIES.       121 

Q^  u  E  R  Y     VIII. 

Whether  Eternity  does  not  imply  ncceflary  Ex- 
iftence  of  the  Son-y  which  is  tnconfiftent 
with  the  'DoBofs  Scheme'^  And  whether 
the  *  'Dotfor  hath  not  made  an  elufive,  Equi- 
vocating Anfwer  to  the  Obje^iion,  (ince  the 
Son  may  be  a  ncceffaiy  Emanation  from  the 
Father,  by  the  Will  and  Tower  of  the  Fa- 
ther ^  without  any  Contradi^ion?  Will  is 
one  Thing,  and  Arbitrary  PFill  another. 

TO  the  former  part  of  the  Query  you 
anfwer,  that  jimple  and  abfolute  Eter- 
nity is  the  fame  with  Neceffary,  or  Self  exi- 
ftcnce;  which  is  no  where  fupposd  of  the 
Sony  by  T>r,  Clarke.  Here  are  feveral  Mi- 
ftakes :  For,  firft,  the  Idea  of  fimple  Eternity 
is  not  the  fame  with  that  of  Neceffary-ex- 
ifience.  Nor,  fecondly,  is  it  the  fame  with 
both  Necejfary-exiftence  and  Selfexiftenccy 
fuppofing  it  were  the  fame  with  the  former  5 
becaufe  thefe  two  are  not  the  fame.  The  Idea 
of  Eternity  is  neither  more  nor  lefs  than 
duration  without  beginning,  and  without 
end.  Some  have  fuppofed  it  poffible  for 
God  to  have  created  the  World  from  all  Eter- 
nity; and  they  ufe  this  Argument  for  it  5  that 
whatever  He  could  once  do,  He  could  always 
do.     I  do  not  think  there  is  much  weight  in 

*  Re/Zy,  p.  227. 

K  the 


122       ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VIII. 

the  Argument  j  but  it  is  fufficient  to  (how,  that 
the  Ideas  arc  diftind;  and  that,  tho*  Eter- 
7iity  may,  in  found  Rcafoning,  infer  or  imply 
Nee e (far y  exifienee^  as  is  intimated  in  the 
Query  5  yet  the  Ideas  are  not  the  lame  :  For  if 
they  were  5  it  would  be  Nonfenfe  to  talk  of  6?;/^ 
inferring  or  implying  the  other.  Then  for  the 
fecond  Point ;  it  is  very  manifeft  that  the  Ideas 
of  Neeejfary-exiftencey  and  Self-exiftence  (how- 
ever they  may  be  imagined  withy  or  without 
Reafon,  to  imply  each  other)  are  not  the  fame 
Ideas,  *  Artftotle-,  and  the  latter  Tlatonijls 
fuppofcd  the  World  and  all  the  inferior  Gods 
(as  Tlato  and  the  Pythagoreans^  fome  Supra- 
mimdane  Deities)  to  proceed,  by  way  of 
Emanation,  without  any  Temporary  Produ- 
dion,  from  a  Superior  Caufe :  That  is,  they 
believed  them  to  be  Necejfarjy  but  not  Self- 
exijient.  Something  like  this  has  been  con- 
ftantly  believed  by  the  Chriftian  Church,  in  re- 
fpeft  of  the  A67©':  Which  fliows,  at  leaft, 
that  the  Ideas  are  different ;  and  not  only  fo, 
but  that  in  the  Opinion  of  a  great  part  of  Man- 
kind, they  do  not  fo  much  as  infer  and  imply 
each  other;  one  may  be  conceived  without  the 
other.  However,  That  is  not  the  Point  I  infill 
on  now.  All  that  I  affirm,  at  prefent,  is,  that 
the  Ideas  arc  diftind ;  and  not  the  very  fame. 
After  you  had  laboured  to  confound  thefe 
Things  together,   you  proceed  to  argue  againfl: 

•  Sec  Cudworth.  Intcllc6l,  Syflcm.  p,  ij-g,  ^c, 

the 


Qu.  VIII.    offome  qU  E  R I  E  S.         fa, 

the  Son's  being  eternal  But  what  is  that  tq 
the  Query  ?  I  fuppofed  Dr.  Clarke  {Reply^ 
p.  227.)  to  underftand  the  word  Eternal y  as  I, 
or  any  other  Man  fhouldj  and  objeded  the 
inconfiftency  of  acknowledging  the  Eternity 
of  the  Son,  and  yet  denying  his  Necejfary- 
exiftence-^  which.  Eternity ^  I  thought,  inferred 
and  implied.  You  admit  my  reafoning  to  be  jud, 
if  the  Dodor  meant  the  fame,  by  EternaU  as 
I  do.  But  if  He  meant  by  Eternal^  Tempo- 
rary y  then  my  Argument  fails  5  as  moft  cer- 
tainly it  muft.  But  why  are  we  thus  impofed 
on  with  fo  manifed  an  abufe  of  Words  ?  What 
occafion  is  there  for  putting  the  Epithets  of 
(impky  abfolutey  or  metaphyfical  to  the  word 
Eternal^  which  every  one,  that  knows  Englijh^ 
underftands  better  without  >  Unlefs  you  fup- 
pofe  that  there  is  an  unlimited^  and  a  limited 
Eternity ;  which  is,  in  reality,  an  Eternity,  and 
no  Eternity,  You  proceed  to  difpute  againft  the 
Eternity  of  the  Son  5  which  tho'  it  be  fomething 
foreign  to  the  purport  of  the  Query,  yet  being 
pertinent  to  the  Caufe  in  hand,  I  fliall  here  eon- 
fider  it.  You  argue  that,  if  the  Son  be  Eter- 
naly  He  is  Necejfartly-exifiing'-,  which  I  aU 
low:  and  if  Neceffarily-exiftingjt[\zn Self-ex- 
ijlent ;  which  I  *  deny  :  and  you  cannot  prove, 

*  'AXAccf/^ti  7i<i,  TO  ociiy  zr^Cj  ijzsovoutv  ccyiyv^ra  ?iocfAfCuHrUy  li^otov^ 
•I  Toe,  -^v^YiCi  ui(BijTki^icc  ■zs-tTrvii^iOfXjiyoi  oire  ySkfi  to  hvy  oi/rg  to  «£»,  ooTi 
ro  t^  xiuvuv,   TXVToy  i^i  tm  uyivvyiTM.  AleX.  Ep.  apud  Theod.   1.  I, 

p.  4.  p.  17.  Comp.  Baf.  cont.  Eunom.l.  z.  p.  5-/.  Hilar.de  Synodc 
p.  1166.  This  Tvas  fa'td  in  Oppojaion  to  the  Arians,  -who  were  -willing  tg 
(gt}foitndthe  Idea  of  Eternity  and  of  Necejfary-exifiencej  -with  Selfrcxiftence, 


124       /^DEFENSE       Qa.  VIII. 

You  go  on  to  a  new  Confideration  5  which, 
pat  into  Syllogifm,  (lands  thus. 

Whatever  has  a  principium  is  not  Eternal : 
The  Son  has  a  principium^  the  Father  being 
principium  Filii ■  Therefore,  &c. 

The  middle  Term,  principiumy  is  equi'vocaly 
and  bears  two  Senfes ;  wherefore  the  Syllogifm 
confifts  of  four  Terms,  If  principium  be  un- 
derftood  in  refped  of  Time-,  the  Minor  is 
not  true :  if  it  be  taken  in  any  other  Senfe , 
the  Major  is  not  true :  So  that  Both  cannot 
be  true.  You  might,  in  the  fame  way,  argue 
that  the  Sun's  Light  is  not  coeval  with  the 
Sun  5  nor  Thought  coeval  with  the  Mindy  fup- 
pofing  the  Mind  to  think  always.  For,  in  both 
Cafes,  a/r/wa///^;;^  is  admitted  5  but  no  Priority, 
in  rcfpeft  of  Time.  You  add,  that  there  is  a 
reafonable  Senfe  in  which  the  Son  may  be  faid 
to  be  Eternal.  I  hope  there  is :  But  not  your 
Senfe  5  which  is  juft  as  reafonable^  as  to  fay  5 
an  Angel  is  eternal  ^  only  becaufe  you  deter- 
mine not  the  Time  when  He  came  into  Being. 
I  fliould  think  it  moft  reafonable^  to  ufe  Words, 
according  to  their  obvious,  and  proper  Signifi- 
cation ;  and  not  to  fix  new  Ideas  to  old  Words, 
without  any  warrant  for  it.  In  this  way  of 
going  on  with  the  abufe  of  Words,  we  fhall 
hardly  have  any  left,   full  and  exprefs  enough 

Tht  Learned  DoBor  cites  this  Tajfage,  dircSily  ugainfl  Himfelf  (ScTiipt. 
Doftr.  p.  285.  alias  ifo.)  It  was  intended,  and  is  diametrically  oppO' 
fte  to  the  Doctor's  leading  Principle,  or  rather  Fallacy y  which  runs  thro' 
his  Performance,  viz.  That  the  Son  cnnr.ot  be  firilily  and  ejfentially  God, 
Mnlefs  Htbe  Self-cxiftent,  or  unoriginatew  every  Senfe, 

to 


Qii.  VIIL    offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.        125 

to  diftinguifli  the  Catholick  Doftrine  by.  It 
was  once  fuiBcient,  before  the  rife  of  Arianifmy 
to  fay,  the  Son  is  God:  But  by  a  novel  Senfe 
put  upon  it,  the  word  {God)  was  made  Am- 
biguous. To  That  were  added  truly,  and 
really  i  to  be  more  expreflive :  But  the  *  Avians 
found  out  a  Scnfe  for  thefe  Terms  too  5  and 
could  gravely  fay,  that  the  Son  was  truly ^ 
really  God.  God  by  Nature,  one  might  think, 
is  full  and  ftrong  enough:  But  you  are  ftealing 
away  the  Senfe  of  that  Expreilion  from  us. 
We  can  add  no  more,  but  eternally  and  fub- 
ftantially  God  i  and  yet,  I  perceive,  unlefs  we 
put  in  Jimplyj  abfolutely^  metaphyficallyy  or 
the  like,  even  thefe  Words  alfo  may  lofe  their 
Force  and  Significancy.  But  to  what  purpofe 
is  all  this  ?  Might  you  not  better  fay  plainly, 
that  the  Son  is  not -E/'^m^/i  not  by  Nature  r, 
nor /n/^  God;  in  a  word,  not  God?  No,  but 
Scripture  reclaims;  and  the  whole  Catholick 
Church  reclaims;  and  ChriftianEars  would  not 
bear  it.  So  then,  it  feems,  it  is  highly  neceflary 
to  fpeak  Orthodoxly,  whatever  we  think ;  to 
(trip  the  words  of  their  Senfe,  and  to  retain  the 
Sound.     But  to  proceed. 

As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Query,  I  am  to 
cxped  no  clear  or  diftinft  Anfwer:  Becaufc 
what  is  meant  by  a  necejfary  Emanation  by 
the  Will  of  the  Father,  you  underftand  not ; 
nor  what  again  by  the  dijference  of  Will,  and 
Arbitrary  Will,  p.  52.     Had  you  but  retained 

♦SeeSocr.E.  Hift.l.i.c.  19.  p.  82.     Theod.l.i.  c.28. 

K  3  in 


12(5       y^DEFENSE       Qu.  VIIL 

in  Mind,  what  you  muft  have  obferved,  wherl 
you  read  the  AntientSy  you  could  not  have  bceil 
at  a  lofs  to  apprehend  my  meaning.  You  may 
pleafe  to  remember,  that  one  of  the  principal 
Arguments  made  ufe  of  by  the  *  Arians^  againft 
the  Catholicksy  was  this : 

^  Either  the  Father  begat  the  Son  with  his 
Confent  and  Will  5  or  againft  his  Will  and  Con* 
fent :  If  the  former y  then  that  A5i  of  the  Will 
was  antecedent  to  the  Son's  Exiftencc  5  and  there- 
jFore  He  was  not  Eternal :  T^izlatter^  waspiain^ 
ly  too  abfurd  for  any  Chriftian  to  own. 

The  CathoUcks  took  two  ways  of  anfwering 
the  T)ilemma,  One,  which  was  the  beft  and 
lafcft,  was,  by  *=  retorting  upon  the  Anans, 
the  "Dilemma,  thus :  Was  God  the  Father,  GW, 
with  J  or  againft  his  Will  ?  By  this  fhort  Que- 
ft  ion,  That  fo  famous  Objedlion  of  the  Arians^ 
was  ^effedually  filenc'd. 

But  befides  this  Anfwer,  they  had  alfo  ano^ 
thcr^     They  admitted  that  the  Generation  of 

•  See  Athanaf.  Orat.  Contr.  Arian.  2,  3,4.  Hilary,  p.  1184. 
tjicg.  Nyii"".  p.  62f.     Pctav.  deTrin.  p.  128. 

^  Interrogant  ("Ariani )  utrum  Pater  Filium  Volens  an  Nchns  gc- 
hucriti  ut  i\  refponfum  fuerit  quod  Volens  genuerit,  dicant,  prior 
cfl:  erpo  Voluntas  Patris ;  quod  autcm  Nole?is  genuerit,  quis  potefl 
di'ccre  ?  Augujl.  Cohtr.  Serm,  Arian.  I.  i .  p.  6z6.  Bened.  Ed. 

*^  Athanaf.  Orat.  3.  p.  61 1.  Ber,ed.  FA.  Greg.  Nazianz,.  Orat.  3  j". 
■p.  ydf.     Auguft.  de  Trin.  1.  15-.  c.8o.  p.  994. 

"  Viciffim  cuaefivit  ab  eo,  utrum  Deus  Pater,  Volens  an  Nolens, 
fit  Deus:  ut  ii  reiponderct,  Nolens,  lequeretur  illamiferiaquamde 
Deo  credere  magna  infania  efl,  fi  autem  diceret,  Volens,  reiponde- 
rerur  ci,  ergo  &  Ipfe  Deus  efl,  fua  Voluntate,  non  Natura.  Quid 
"'ergo  rclbbat,  nifi  ut  obmutefceret,  &  lua  intcrrogatione  obliga- 
tum  infolubili  vinculo  fcvideret.     Augujl.ibiJ. 

Air  :hh  fartlm^xpUiu'd-in  the  PoU-'Script.  ^'.4.51. 

the 


Qu.  VIIL     offo7^e  Q\J  E  R I  E  S.        127 

the  Son  was  with  the  Will  and  Confent  of  his 
Father;  in  the  fame  Scnfe  that  He  is  wife, 
good,  juft,  &c,  neceffarily,  and  yet  not  againft 
his  Will.  Some  thought  it  reafonable  to  fay, 
that  the  Father  might  eternally  will  the  Gene- 
ration of  the  Son,  and  that  He  could  not  but 
will  fo,  as  being  eternally  Good.  ^  See  Teta- 
*vius.  This  way  of  reafoning  ^  Bifliop  Btdl 
mentions,  hardly  approving  it :  And  one  would 
almoft  think  that  ""  Dr.  Clarke  was  once  in- 
clinable to  fubfcribe  to  it :  underftandins;  eter- 
naly  as  we  do.  But  He  thought  fit '^  afterwards 
to  explain  Himfelf  off,  into  another  meaning. 
There  was  another  Notion  which  « fome  of  the 
primitive  Writers  had  5  Namely,  this :  That 
fince  the  IVillo^  God  is  God  Himfelf,  as  much 
as  the  Wifdoniy  &c.  of  God,  is  God  Himfelf  5 
whatever  is  the  fruit  and  produd  of  God,  is 
the  fniit  and  proditEi  of  his  Willy  Wifdom, 
(^c,  and  fo,  the  Son,  being  the  pcrfed  Image 
of  the  Father,  is  Sttbftance  of  Subftancey  Wif- 
dom of  IVifdoniy  Will  of  Willy  as  He  is  Light 
of  Light y  and  God  of  God:  which  is  Si.  Aii- 
ftiris  Doftrine ,  in  the  ^  place  cited  in  the 
Margin. 

By  this  time,  Iprefume,  youmay  underftand 
what  I  meant  by  the  latter  part  of  the  Query. 

»  Pag.  5-91,  5-92.  'D.F.N,  p.  222. 

•^  Script. Doftr.  p.  280, c^c.  ^e^ly,  p.  113.  Vaper givm  in  to  the 
Bijhops.  "  Clarke's  Lett.  N.  8. 

'  See  the  Teftimonies  colle^ed  by  Cotclerius,  in  his  Notes  upon  the 
Recognitions  of  Clem.  p.  492.  and  by  P&tavius,  I.  6.  c  8.1.  7.  c.  12. 
See  efpecially,  Athanaf.  Orat.  3.  pag.  613.  Bened.  Ed.  Epiphan. 
Haeref.  74.  p.  895-.  ^  Dc  Trin.  1  i;-.  c.  8. 

K  4  There 


128  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qli.  VIII. 
There  is  a  fober ,  Catholick  Senfc,  in  which 
the  Son  may  be  acknowledged  to  be  by^  or 
from^  the  Will  of  the  Father,  and  yet  may  be 
a  necejTary  Emanation  ahb.  And  therefore 
Dr.  Clarke  did  not  do  well  in  oppofing  thofe 
two,  one  to  the  other  5  as  if  they  were  incon- 
fiftent :  Efpecially  confidcring  that  He  produces 
fcveral  Authorities  to  prove  the  Generation  to 
be  by  a  *  Tovjer  of  WtlU  in  oppofition  to 
NeceJJity  of  Nature^  from  Writers  who  af- 
lerted  Both  $  and  denied  only  fuch  a  fuppofed 
iieceffity  as  might  be  againft,  and  a  force  upon 
the  Father's  Will.  This  is  manifeft  of  his  Cita- 
tions from  the  f  Council  of  Sirmium,  Maritis 
ViEiorinnSj  Baflj  and  Gregory  Nyjfew^  and 
hath  been  clearly  fhown  by  his  Learned  II  An- 
tagonift.  The  Sum  of  all  is,  that  the  Genera- 
tion of  the  Son  may  be  by  NeceJJhy  of  Na- 
tiirey  without  excluding  the  Concurrence  or 
Approbation  of  the  Will.  And  therefore  Wtll^ 
(/'.  e.  confent,  approbation,  acquiefccnce)  is 
one  Thirig  5  and  Arbitrary  Willy  (that  is,  free 
Choice  of  what  might  otherwife  not  be)  is 
Anotker.  You  endeavor  to  prove,  that  the  Son 
derives  his  Being  from  the  Will  of  the  Father, 
\w  this  latter  Scnfe  5  which  is  the  fame  thing  with 
the  making  Him  a  Creature,     You  recite  fomc 

*  Script.  Do<fi:r,  p.  2.Sr,  ^c.  a.hr.y,  i.j-y     ^r, 

f  Script.  Doiflr.  p.  285-,  zS6.  alas,  lyi,  25-3. 

fj  TrucScript.l^odr.  continued,  p.  119,  ^f. 
■     N.  B.   Tin  DoHor  manifefily  pcr^erts  the  S:afe  of  the  Council   of 
Sinnium,  and  of  Flilary'j  Comment  nfon  //,  by  mifiranflatinc;  them  ; 
^/<m.:^' without  his  Will,  infLead  of  ai^ainll  his  Will.     Scq  the  Preface 
to  my  Sermons y  p.  20 

Scraps 


Qu,  VIII.    offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       up 

Scraps  of  Quotations,  as  colkfted  by  Dr. 
Clarke  and  Dr.  Whitby^  in  your  Notes  (/>.  5 1 .) 
Not  one  of  the  Citations  is  to  your  Purpofe,  or 
conies  up  to  your  Point.  For  inftance;  Igna-^ 
this  fays,  *  Clirift  is  the  Son  of  God^  accord- 
ing  to  the  Will  and  Tower  of  God,  Suppo- 
fing  this  not  to  be  meant  of  his  f  miraculous 
Conception,  and  Incarnation,  (which  the  Con- 
text  has  been  thought  to  favour,  and  which  Bi- 
fliop  Tearfon  inclined  to,  in  his  Notes)  yet  fee 
how  many  feveral  Interpretations  it  may  bear, 
befides  what  you  would  fix  upon  it. 

1.  The  Fruit  and  Off-fpnng  of  the  Will  and 
Tower  of  God:  fignifying  no  more  than  God  of 
Gody  in  the  Senfe  intimated  above,  p.  nj, 

2.  By  the  eternal  WiM  and  Power  of  God,  in 
a  Senfe  likewife  before  intimated,  and  own'd  by 
fome  of  the  Toji-Nicene  Writers. 

*  'AXyi^eoq  ovrx  cit  yiviS(;  AaQi^  kxtx  cru^tca^  lily  QtS  KXrai  B-i>\.iju,e6 
xtci  ^uvccfjijiv  0£5.— Ignat.Ep.  2d  Smyrn.  c   i.  p.  i. 

f  /  can  bf  no  means  think,  that  the  Son  is  here  called,  Itot;  QsS^ 
in  refpeci  of  his  Incarnation -^  -which  was  really  his  Nativity  Tcecroe. 
<ru.cKcc,  to  which  this  other  is  oppofed ,  a7id  v^hich  mujl  therefore  he 
iirukrflood  of  fome  ^rg^fr  Sonfliip.  The  FlTrafe  of  ycarcc  (ru.0KU,,  has 
Seen  corftantly  fo  interpreted  by  the  Antients ;  Irenjcus,  Tertullian, 
Origen,  Novatian,  the  Synod  of  Antioch  in  the  Cafe  of  Paul  of 
Samofata,  Hippolytus,  Eufebius,  Ladtantius,  all  explaining  Chrt(i*s 
being  the  Son  of  David  according  to  the  FleHi,  by  his  Birth  of  the 
bleffed  Virgin  ;  and  the  Fhrafe  Kocrk  crapjtflt  as  oppofed  to  a  prior  Son- 
Ihip,  in  his  divine  Nature  before  the  World  was  i  in  which  refpeci 
He  was  Son  of  God,  before  he  became  Son  of  Man.  That  Ignatius 
intended  the  fame  is  highly  probable,  not  to  [ay  evident,  from  his  own 
Words,  elfcwhere.  Il^)>  utmuv  tscc^  zrxre/,  h.  Magnef.  c.  6.  '/;» 
Tif  0s2,  0(5  i^iv  xurS  Aoy®-  oit^i©^.  Ibid.  C  S.  Xg/*5-5  t»  liS  OsS, 
tS  yv/oiji^ivd,  on  u^ipw,  cun  (r7:i^fjbxro<i  Aoi«/J^.  Rom.  c.  7.  Compare 
Apoflol.    Conftit,   1.8.  C.  I.      'Ev^oy.lci   QicZ  6  zrfo    ccimcov   fjuovoyivy^q^ 

3.  With 


t30      ^DEFENSE        Qu.  VIIL 

3.  With  the  Approbation,  and  Acquiefcencc 
of  God,  in  the  lame  Senfe  that  He  is  pleafed 
with,  and  acquiefccs  in,  his  own  Wifdom, 
Goodnefs,  and  other  Perfedions. 

4.  The  paflage  may  relate,  not  to  the  Son's 
Generation  in  the  higheft  Senfe;  but  to  his 
Manifejlation,  or  Coming  forth^  in  order  to 
create  the  World ;  which  is  a  kind  of  *  Fili- 
ation  mentioned  by  Jujiin  Martyr  y  Athe- 
nagoras  y  TheophiluSy  Tertttllian^  Tatian  y 
Novatian ,  and  Hippoljtus ,  and  fuppofed  as 
^Ghmtary  a  Thing,  as  the  Incarnation  after- 
wards 5  tho'  the  fame  Authors  aflerted  the  Eter- 
riity  and  Confuhflaniiality  of  the  Aoy©*,  or  di- 
vine Nature  of  Chrift;  of  which  more  here- 
aftor. 

From  thefe  four  Particulars  you  may  per- 
ceive, how  little  you  can  be  able  to  prove  from 
that  Paflage  in  Ignatius,  As  to  Jtiftin  Martyr^ 
I  have  already  hinted,  in  what  Senfe  He  made 
the  Generation  voluntary.  But  why  you  fliould 
chufe  to  do  that  good  Father  a  doable  Injury, 
firfl  in  curtailing  his  Words,  and  next  in.  mifre- 
prcfenting  his  Senfe,  you  can  bcft  Account. 
The  whole  Paflage  is  this,  litcrnlly  trandated  : 
**-|-Who,  according  to  his    {the  Father's)  good 

*  Clement  of  Alexandria  feems  to  intend  the  fame  (p.  65-4.  Ed.  Ox-. 
Comp.  p.  86.)  exprejjing  it  bytheroord  rir^iA^^m.  And  it  is  extremely 
pobdbk  that  Ignatius  had  the  very  fame  Thought.  Aoy<^  uifi®-  ovx, 
MTTo  a-iyri(,  ^rposA^irf^  ad  Magnef.  cap.  8.  "Eycc  'Ua-ovv  XfiTcv,  rov 
up',    fV6{    sr(»Tf)05     <jrf?f^'3"ovTee,    X6C«  iic,  ivct  ovTcc  ku.1  ^cJ^^CTiivJci,    Ibid. 

Op.    7.  ^  ^  ^        ,  ,  V  ,      ^  ;   ,- 

^  L-zstiffTilf   r"^,  y^ufjjvf    etiroZ.    p.  zSo.S/lb.  Jeb.  370.      Parallel  t» 

''  Plea- 


Qu.  VIII.      offome  QUERIES.      151 

*'  Plcafure,  is  God,  being  his  Son;  and  an 
"  Angel  too,  as  miniftring  to  his  Father's  Will. 
The  meaning  is  not,  as  you  reprefent  it,  that 
Chrift  is  God,  by  the  Will  of  the  Father  (the* 
even  that  might  bear  a  good  Senfe  according  to 
what  has  been  obferved  above)  but  that  it  was 
the  Father's  good  pleafurc  that  He  Ihould  not 
only  be  God,  as  He  always  was,  being  God's  Son  ; 
but  that  He  Ihould  take  upon  Him  befides,  the 
Office  of  an  Angel.  That  He  was  God  was  a 
*  fiecejfary  Thing,  as  He  was  God's  Son,  of 
the  fame  nature  with  Him  :  but  that  He  fhould 
be  Both  5  /".  e,  God  and  an  Angel  too  5  this 
was  intirely  owing  to  God's  good  Pleafure. 
However,  you  have  been  fomething  civiller  to 
this  antient  Father,  than  Dr.  IVhitby  has  been, 
in  his  modeft  "Difqtiifitions  -,  who,  to  ferve  a 
bad  Caufe,  ufes  a  worfe  Art ;  -f  cuts  the  Quo- 
tation (hort  at  tjov  aurU;  and  then  to  make  his 
own  Senfe  out  of  that  Paffagc,  inferts  {Et)  in 
his  Tranflation,  rendering  it  thus:  ^i  ex  vo- 
luntate  Ipjitis  &  TDeus  eft^  Et  Filius  s  leaving 
out,  Et  jdngelusy  to  which  the  former,  Et^  re- 

•K>hich  is  that  of  Novatian.  Perfonae  autcm  Chrffti  convenit  ut  8c 
Deusfif,  quia  Dei  Filius  j  ScAngeiusfit,  quoniam  paternae  difpofi- 
tionis  Adnuntiator  eft.     Novat.  c.  z6. 

^  *  For,  tho  He  was  God,  as  being  God's  Son ;  and  a.  Son  Ketrit  ^h- 
Anf,  according  to  Juftin,  and  other  Writers  before  mentioned j  yet  they 
did  not  think  that  he  was  God,  koltoc  /3«Aj)v.  ^ut  becaufe  He  came 
forth,  as  a  Son,  from  the  Father ;  and  was  not  produced  l\  »jc  ovrm, 
{as  all  Creatures  are)  therefore  He  was  God,  having  ever  exijled, 
before  his  Coming  fonh,  in  and  with  the  Father.  Hie  ergo  quando 
Pater  voluit,  proceflitex  Patrci  &:  Qui  in  Patre  fuit,  proceflitcx 
Patre.     Novat.  c.i6., 

t  Whitby  s  Difq.  Modeft,  p.  32. 

fcrr'd. 


ijs         y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.  VIII. 

fcrr'd.  Strange  that  any  fliould  be  fo  refolutcly 
eager  to  angod  their  Saviour,  as  not  to  permit 
the  cauic  to  have  a  fair  hearing.  It  were  pious, 
at  lead,  to  let  the  Reader  know,  what  has,  or 
what  can  be  faid  on  the  other  fide  of  the  Que- 
ftion ;  and  to  give  it  its  due  Weight  and  Force. 
This  is  reafonable  in  any  the  moft  trifling  Mat- 
ter, that  can  come  before  us?  But  certainly 
much  more  fo,  where  His  Honour  is  conccrn'd 
whom  All  Men  are  commanded  to  Honour ^ 
even  as  They  Honour  the  Father y  Joh.  5.23. 
For  my  own  part,  I  declare  once  for  all ;  I  de- 
fire  only  to  have  Things  fairly  reprefented,  as 
they  really  are  5  no  Evidence  fmother*d,  or 
ftifled,  on  cither  Side.  Let  every  Reader  fee 
plainly  what  may  be  juftlj  pleaded  here,  or 
there,  and  no  more  5  and  then  let  it  be  left  to 
his  impartial  Judgment,  after  a  full  view 
of  the  Cafe :  Mifquotations  and  Mifreprefen- 
tations  will  do  a  good  Caufe  harm  5  and  will 
not  Ions;  be  of  Service  to  a  bad  one.  But  to 
return :  The  fecond  Citation  which  you  bring 
from  Jnfiin,  you  give  fuch  an  Account  of,  as 
mull:  make  one  think,  either  that  you  never  faw 

the  Book  you  mention ;  or  elfe but  fee 

the  Paffage  in  the  *  Margin.  Your  words  are^ 
He  hath  all  thefe  Titles  [before  7nention[d,   viz. 

*  ''E;^«y  yi<f  ttuvto.  <2^(rovcfA>x'C^i^xiy  tx.  re  rS  uTrr^inTY  r»  Ts-ar^i- 
xS  ^ifXiifj^uUy  kaI  cm  rS  octto  r»  srttrpoe  S-;>.yi(r<i  ytyivvtixl^.  Dial. 
p*.  138.  |cb.  //  is  not  from  his  being  Beget  ten  of  the  Father,  that 
He  h^th  all  thefe  Titles  j  but  from  that,  and  his  Admin'ifiring  to  his 
FAth-rs  WiU.  Both  together ^  {not  either  lingly  j  ttili  accotint  for  all 
thefe  Titles, 

that 


Qii.  VIIT.     of  fame  QJJ  E  R I  E  S.         13? 

that  of  SoUy  JVifdomy  Angela  God,  Lord,  and 
Word)  from  his  being  Begotten  of  the  Father 
by  his  tVill'-i  direftly  contrary  to  the  whole 
Tenor  of  the  "Dialogue \  and  the  very  imme- 
diate Words  preceding  thofe  you  cite.  In  your 
third  Quotation,  you  are  pleas'd,  for  the  fake 
of  Englifh  Readers,  to  miftranflate  -ar^eXS^ovIa, 
produced,  inftead  of,  coming  forth,  or  proceed- 
ing. Your  next  Citation  is  from  Clement  of 
Alexandria:  In  which  I  find  no  fault  but  your 
referring  to  Strom,  5 .  inftead  of  Strom,  7.  and 
bringing  a  PalTage  not  certainly  pertinent  to  the 
Point  in  Queftion.  If  you  pleafe  to  look  into  the 
*  Author  Himfelf,  you  will  find  it,  at  leaft,  doubt- 
ful, whether  He  be  fpeaking  of  the  Generation 
of  the  Son  5  or  only  fhowing  how  He,  by  the 
Father's  good  Pleafure,  was  at  the  Head  of 
Affairs,  and  adminiftred  his  Father's  Kingdom. 
Your  next  Author  is  ^  Tertullian,  who  is  in- 
deed fpeaking  of  the  Generation,  that  is.  Ma- 
nifeftation,  ox.  Coming  forth,  of  the  Son:  And 
here  you  render  protulit,  produced,  meaning 
into  Being  y  or  into  a  State  of  E^iiflence^ 
which  is  not  Tertullian'%  Senfe,  nor  of  any  of 
the  Fathers,  who  fpeak  of  that  Matter.  Ter- 
tullian  exprefly  ||  excepts  againft  it :    So  doej; 

*  Clem.  Aiex.  Strom.  7.  p.  833.  Ox.  Ed.  '^rruvrai  r  «iya3-»>',, 

yo^  Kiy^iTiUt;,  ^yxfx/it;  ««A>):t](^    cx,iSii;(ri '.  »  yaip    o    vt*y   rSra     6><pdr}    to^ 

f  Tunc  cum  Deus  voluit,  ipfum  primum  frotulit  Sermonenv 
Jertul,  Contr.  Frax,  c.  6. 
jj  Contr.  Prax.  c.  f . 

I  *  Tatian^ 


134        ^DEFENSE     Qu.  VIIT, 

*  Tatiariy  the  next  Author  which  you  name : 
And  fo  likewife  ^  AthenagoraSy  and  <=  Hip- 
folytuSy  whom  you  have  not  named :  But  I 
chufe  to  mention  Them,  as  being  ufeful  to 
explain  the  former.  ^  Eufebius  may  reafon- 
ably  be  interpreted  by  Thofe  that  went  before 
Him  5  or  by  the  Emperor  Confiantine's  Ex- 
plication of  this  matter,  which  fliali  be  cited 
hereafter  ,•  or  by  his  own  Account  of  the  Holy 
undivided  Trinity,  before  mention'd :  If  not; 
his  Authority,  againft  the  Catholicks  before  and 
after  Him,  and  againft  Himfclf,  muft  appear  of 
Imall  Weight.  The  reft  of  your  Authorities 
I  have  already  fpoke  to;  and  you  may  per- 
ceive,  by  this  Time,  I  prefume,  that  none  of 
them  fpeak  home  to  the  purpofe  for  which 
they  were  cited.  However,  for  the  fake  of 
fuch  who,  being  little  acquainted  with  thefe 
Matters,  may  be  liable  to  be  impofed  upon  by 
a  few  fpecious  Pretences,  I  fhali  now  go  a  little 
deeper  into  the  point  before  us ;  and  endeavor  to 
fet  it  in  a  true  Light. 

The  diftinftion  of  a  «  threefold  Generation 
of  the  Son,  is  well  known  aiiiong  the  Learned, 
and  is  thus  explain'd. 

I .  The  firft,  and  moft  proper  Filiatioriy  and 
Generation  is  his  eternally  exifting  in,  and  of 

»  Tatian.  Sc£t.  7.  p.  20.  Ox.  Edit, 
*•  Legat.  Sc6l.  i  o.  p    39.  Ox.  Edit. 
'  Conrr.  Noet.  Sed:.  10.  p.  13.  Vol.  i.Ed.  Fabric. 
•**  See  True  Script.  Docir.CQ-ithtued,  p.  li^ 
«  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  XT,!.  Brev.  Animadv.  in  Gil.  Gierke,  p.  io>'4' 
Fabric.Not.  in  Hiippoi.  Vol  i.  p.  i^i. 

4  the 


Qu.  VIII.    offome  QXJ  E R I  E S.        1 3 s 

the  Father  5  The  eternal  AoyQ^^  of  the  eternal 
Mind.  In  refped  of  this,  chiefly.  He  is  the 
only  begotten^  and  a  diftinft  Perfon  from  the 
Father.  His  other  Generations  were  rather 
Condefcenfions,  firft  to  Creatures  in  general,  next 
to  Men  in  particular. 

2.  Wisfecond  Generation  w^s  his  Condefcen- 
Jion,  Manifefiation,  coming  forthy  as  it  were, 
from  the  Father  (tho'  never  feparated  or  divided 
from  Him)  to  create  the  World  :  This  was  in 
Time,  and  a  voluntary  Thing ;  and  in  this  re- 
fpeft  properly,  He  may  be  thought  to  be  -nreca- 
TOTox©'  'nracryjf  XT/Vscof :  Firjibom  of  every  Crea- 
ture 5  or  before  all  Creatures. 

3 .  His  third  Generation,  or  Filiation,  was 
when  He  condefcended  to  be  born  of  a  Virgin, 
and  to  become  Man.  Thefe  Things  I  here  fup- 
pofe  or  premife  only,  for  the  more  diftinft  Ap- 
prchenfion  of  what  is  to  follow  ;  not  expeding 
to  be  believed  farther  than  the  Proofs  can  juftify. 
We  may  now  proceed  to  fpeak  of  the  Doftrine 
of  the  Antients. 

It  is  obfervable,  that  the  Ante-Nicene  Wri- 
ters are  more  fparing,  than  Thofe  that  came  after 
in  fpeaking  of  the  Jirjl^  the  eternal  Generation : 
Sparing^  I  mean,  as  to  the  Terniy  oxiThrafe-y 
not  as  to  the  Thing  it  felf.  The  Eternity  of 
the  Word,  or  Acy©',  and  the  Diftinftion  of 
Perfons,  they  all  held  5  together  with  the  Con- 
fubftantiality,  and  Unity  of  Principle  5  which 
together  are  as  much  as  can  be  meant  by  eternal 
Generation.. 

Ire- 


i$6         yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.  VIIL 

Iren^us  is  a  *  frequent  and  conftant  Afferter 
of  the  Eterm^y  of  xhzJVord-^  h\jit  eternal  Ge- 
neration we  do  not  read  in  expreft  Terms. 
Yet  we  find  what  amounts  to  it,  by  neceffary 
Implication.  In  one  particular  place  ^  He  cen- 
fures  thofe  who  pretend  to  afcribe  any  begin- 
ning  to  the  Nativity  of  the  Word  ;  which  is, 
in  effcd,  aflerting  an  eternal  Trolation^  or  Ge- 
neration 5  for  He  makes  thefe  words  ^  equi- 
valent. 

Origeny  Commenting  upon  the  Words  of  the 
fecond  Pfalm :  Thou  art  my  Son^  this  day  have 
I  begotten  Thee  -y  Proceeds  thus :  "  ^Tliey  are 
"  fpoken  to  Him  by  God,  with  whom  it  is 
"  always  To  day :  For,  I  conceive,  there  is  no 
"  Evening  nor  Morning  with  Him ;  but  the 
"  Time  co-extended,  if  I  may  fo  fpeak,  with 
"  his  unbegotten  and  eternal  Life  is  the  To 
*'  T>ay  in  which  the  Son  is  begotten  5  there 
<^  being  no  beginning  found  of  his  Generation, 
"  any  more  than  of  the  To  T>ay,     This  is  far- 

■  Pag.  15-3.  163.  209.  25-3.  Ed.  Bened.  We  do  not  pretend  to 
Argue  merely  from  the  force  of  the  word  {emper,  or  cctl,  but  from 
That  and  other  Circumjlances .  as  vphen  Infedlus  goes  along  with  it, 
or  the  likey  p.  15-3.  ulndas  Semper  aderat  generi humano, p.  209. 
imimates  that  He  was  with  Men,  as  foon  as  any  Men  exijiedj  So, 
exiftens  femper  apud  Patrem,  intimates  hit  being  coeval  with  the 
Flit  her. 

^  Prolationis  initium  donantes,  /.  2  c.  14.^.  132. 

'   /.  2.    C.28./>.    15-8.    ^ 

icTTifia  QsS.  lyct)  S  y.^/SajMort  ^a\  TTouicc.  'AAA*  6  (rvu/TrxDiKTeiveov  tm 
tcynvy.Tu  y^  caaiM  ectiTa  C^e^v,  iv  tsruq  u^rai^  X^'^^^^f  >ifJijt^cc  J5"»y  ««- 
TiJ  a-yifJUifoy^  c^i  yj  yiymvtTcci  o  iioq.  a^f;:^??  ytvinaq  ccvrS  isruc,  i^  w- 
p*(rK5/>(»iy>j5,  i)^  i^  Tm  yijuifxq.  Com.  in  Joh.  p.  31.  Compare  with 
this,  the  Citation  from  Origen,  i»  PamphilusV  apology, 

ther 


Qii.  VIIL      offome   (QUERIES.       157 

ther  confirm'd  by  what  ^  Athanajius  quotes  from 
Him,  where  Origen  calls  it  Prefumption  ^  to  a- 
fcrihe  any  Beginning  to  the  Son  ;  and  fpeaks  of 
the  only  begotten^2iS  being  '^al'oi'ays^iih.  the  Father. 
To  Origen  I  may  fubjoin  ^  Novatian,  who 
fays,  the  Son  muft  have  always  exiftcd  in  the 
Father,  or  elfe  (which  he  takes  to  be  abfurd j 
the  Father  would  not  have  been  always  Fa- 
ther, This,  I  think,  can  bear  no  Senfe,  un- 
lefs  always  be  underflood  ftridly.  And  it  is 
very  manifeft  that  ^  Novatian  fuppofcs  the  Son 
to  have  exifted  before  that  Troceffion,  Coming 
forth,  or  Nativity y  which  He  fpeaks  of,  in 
that  Chapter.  Some  indeed  have  thought,  that 
Novatian  underftands  not  the  Word,  Semper^ 
there,  in  the  ftrid  Saife,  of  unlimited  Dura- 
tion :  Wherein,  I  humbly  conceive,  They  are 
miftaken.  I  have  tranfcribed  the  ^Paflage  into 
the  Margin,  and  fliall  proceed  to  explain  its 
meaning.  After  the  Author  had  faid,  Semper 
eft  in  ^atre.  He  immediately  adds  a  fentencc 
which  (hews  that  He  underftood.    Semper,    as 

'  De  Decret.  Synod  Nic.  p.  233.  Ed.Bened. 

**    hoc  ro>\^yi<rc<,c,  ri<i  uo^uo   dS>  hvXI  vi^   zr^ri^'>v  CCTO  ovi(^> 

**  Semper  enim  in  Patrej  ne  Pater  non  femper  Pater,  r.  31. 

*  Et  qui  in  Patrc  fuit,  proceflit  ex  Patre  :  8c  qui  in  Patre  fuit, 
quia  ex  Patre  fuit,  cum  Patre  poftmodum  fuit ,  quia  ex  Patre  pro- 
ceiTit,  f.  3  I . 

^  Hie  ergo  cum  fit  genitus  a  Patre,  Semper  eft  in  Patre.  Semper 
autem  fie  dico,  ut  non  innatum,  fed  natum  probem  j  Sed  qui  ame 
omne  Tempus  eji,  Semper  in  Patre  fuiflTe  dicendus  eft :  nee  enim 
Tempus  Illi  affignari  poteft,  qui  a77te  Tempus  eft.  Semper  enim  in 
Patre,  ne  Pater  non  Semper  fit  Pater ;  quia  &  Pater  Ilium  etiam 
praccedit,  quod  necefie  eft  prior  fit  qua  Pater  fit:  quoniam antece- 
datnecefte  eft  Eum,  qui  habet  Originem,  Il.'equiOxiginem  nefcit. 


138       y^  D  E  F  EN  S  E        Qu.  VlII. 

we  fay,  a  parte  ante.  But  withal  there  is  a 
ieeming  Rcftriclion :  Sic  dicOy  tit  non  Innattim 
fed  natnm  prohem.  There  might  be  fome 
then^  ns  well  as  7iO'ji\  who  knew  not  how  to 
diriinguifli  between  Eternity,  and  Self- 
existence.  The  SabeUians,  in  particular, 
itiight  pretend  that  the  Son,  being  Eternal,  muft 
be  the  Selfexiftent  Father  Himfelf.  It  was 
therefore  neceflary  for  the  Author  to  guard,  in 
the  manner  He  does,  againft  any  fuch  Miftake, 
or  Mifconftrudion.  So  Alexander  Bifhop  of 
Alexandria,  while  He  maintains  the  ftrid  Eter- 
nity of  the  Son,  to  guard  againft  the  invidious 
Mifconftrudion  of  the  Arians,  inferts  the  like 
Caution  *.  "  Let  no  Man,  fays  He,  miftake 
"  Eternal,  as  if  it  were  the  fame  with  Self- 
"  exijlenty  as  {fhe  Avians)  having  their  minds 
"  blinded,  are  wont  to  do.  This  may  fervci 
for  a  good  Comment  upon  Novatian,  To  pro- 
ceed :  Novatian  adds  ;  Qiii  aiite  omne  Tempus 
eft.  Semper  in  Tatre  fuijje  dicendus  eft.  Here 
He  explains.  Semper,  by,  a7ite  omne  Temptts. 
Now,  this  is  the  very  fame,  with  Him,  as  if 
He  had  laid  of  the  Son,  qtiod  non  aliquando 
caper  it',  as  may  appear  by  the  -f  Account  He 
gives  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Father  -,  explain- 

*  See  p.  I  2:j.  vid.ctiam  HiLv.-p.i  i66,i  35-4. Prutlent.Apoth.p.  172. 

I  Niii  forre  (quod  abllt)  aUqu.inclo  effecAperit,  ncc  fupcr  omnia 
fit,  fed  dum  poftahquid  cfle  atperir,  intra  (!cg.  infra^  id  iit  quod 
antclpfumfuerit,  minor  inventus  potcflate,  dum  poflerior  denota- 
tur  etiam  ipfo  Tonporc.  Novat.  c.  2.  Mark  tie  Force  of  the  ivonls, 
Etiamlpfoj  mtimating  that  rofieriority  inTnne  is  alo-^v  degree  of  Vojle- 
riority,  and  that  a  Thing  might  he  faidto  <^f  porter ior  ir;  a  higher  Sen fe 
th;ifi  thiit ;  viz.  in  Order  of  Nature,  asi^ve  taw  it. 

■V  ins 


Qu.  VIIL     offome  (QUERIES.         15^ 

ing  it  by  his  not  being  pojlerior  to  Time:  And 
his  having  no  Time  before,  is  the  very  fame, 
with  having  nothing  ^  preceding.  Wherefore, 
when  Novatian  fpeaks  afterwards  of  the  Fa- 
ther's hdn^  precedent  to  the  Son,  He  can  mean 
it  only  in  order  of  Nature^  not  in  refped  of 
duration.  And  this  I  take  to  have  been  the 
meaning  of  the  Catholick  Writers,  before  and 
after  the  rife  of  Arianifm,  by  the  Phrafes  ante 

TempUSy    "^po  alaJvoov,  "sr^o  Travroov  aicJvcov,  or    the 

like,  as  applied  to  God  the  Son.  So  ^  Hilary 
in  the  Name  of  the  generality  of  the  Chriftians 
of  his  Time,  interprets  it :  So  Alexander  of 
Alexandria,  in  his  Letter  extant  in  Theodorit^% 
the  ^Sardican  Fathers  in  their  Synodical^'^'i- 
(tie  5  and  the  ^  Catholick  Bifliops,  upon  the 
opening  of  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  Thus 
alfo  we  are  to  underftand,  "js^po  'urd'jrc^'i  r  aicJvwv, 
in  the  Conjlantinopolitan  Creed.  Thz^Arians 
indeed,  equivocating  upon  the  Words,  Timey 
and  Ages,  eluded  the  Catholick  Scnfe,  ftill  re- 
taining the  Catholick  Expreffion :  But  the 
Ante-Nicene  Catholicks  were  fuicere,  plain, 
honeft  Men  5  and  do  not  feem  to  have  made 
ufe  of  thofe  fubtile  Diftindtions,     They  under- 

'  Id  quod  fine  Origine  eft,  prascedi  a  nullo  poteft,  dum  non 
habet  Tempus.  Ibid.  Tempus  here  mcimfef.ly  jignifies  Duration, 
in  the  largejl  Senfe  i  not  Time,  in  the  rejlmind  Senfey  as  the  Ariang 
afterwards  underjiood  it. 

**  Audiunt ante  Tempor a  i  putantid  ipfum,  anteTempora,  eflequod 
Semper  e^.  Contr.  Aux.  p.  1166.  Co??ip.Tnn.\.  iz.-p.  1129. 113^. 

^  Eccl.  Hift,  1.  I.  C.4.  p.  13.  c^r. 

^  ApudTheod.  E,  H.  ].  2.  c.8.  p.8o,8i. 

*  Hilar.  Fragm.  p.  1343.  Ed.  Bened. 

fSet  Athauaf.  Vol.1, p,4i8,HiIar.  1 1 19.  Epiphan.Ha;r.74.pp  887, 

L  z  flood 


104  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  VIIL 
flood  thofe  Phrafes  as  they  would  be  com- 
monly undcrftood  by  the  People;  otherwife 
they  would  not  have  ufed  them,  without  greater 
caution  and  rcferve.  *  Sijinnius,  of  the  Novati- 
anSz^y  long  ago  obferved  (which  confirms  what 
I  have  been  mentioning)  that  the  A  nticnts  ne- 
ver would  attribute  any  Beginning  to  the  Son  of 
God,  believing  him  to  have  been  Co-eter?7alwhh 
the  Father.  The  Reader  may  obfcrvc  the  ufe 
of  thofe  Phrafes,  in  the  places  referr'd  to  in 
the  -f  Margin  5  all  of  them  admitting,  moft  of 
them  requiring,  the  Senfe  I  contend  for.  I  men- 
tion not  the  Interpolator  of  Ignatius' s  Epiftles, 
an  Arian,  probably,  of  the  fourth  Century,  or 
later.  To  return  toNovatian:  when  he  adds, 
Tempus  tin  affignari  non  pGteft :  He  does  not 
mean  only,  that  no  particular  Time  of  the  Son's 
Exiftence  is  ajjignable  5  but,  that  it  was  before 
all  Time,  as  himfelf  expounds  it,  ante  Tem- 
pus ejty  i.  e.  ftriaiy  Eternal-:,  II  which  agrees 
.  with  what  follows,  and  makes  it  Senfe :  Sem- 
per enim  in  Tatre,  ne  Tater  non  femper  Jit 
^ater.     What  can  be  more    exprcfs  for  the 

♦  Socrat.  E.  H.  \.f.  c.  lo. 

t  Ignatius  ad  Magnef,  c.6.  p.  2i.  Juftin.  Fragm.  in Grab.Spic. 
Vol.  2.  p.  199.  Melifo  in  Cav.  H.  L.  Vol.  2.  p.^^^.  Origen  in 
Pamph.  Apolog.  Hippolytus  Fragm.  Fabric.  Vol.  2.p.  29.  Concil. 
Antioch.  Contra.  Paul.  Sam.  Lab.  Tom.  i.  Dionyf.  Alexandr, 
Refp.  Contr.  Paul.  Q^  4.  Lucian.  Symb.  apud  Socr.  I.  2.  c.  10. 
Apofl:.  Conftit.  1.  8.  c.  5-.  F/</.  etiam  Siiicer,  Thefaur.  m  voce^  A^m, 

jj  Hilary 'i  -words  tfrnyferve  as  a  Comment  «^o;?  Novatian'j.  Quod 
ante  Tempus  natum  eft,  Semper  eft  natum.  Quia  id  quod  eft  ante 
jEternum  Tempus ,  hoc  Semper  eft.  Quod  autem  Semper  eft 
ratum,  non  admittit  nealiquando  non  fucrit:  quia  aliquando  non 
^iffc,  jam  non  eft  femper  cfte.  hilar.  deTrin.  p.  1127. 

4.  Eter. 


Qu.  VIII.     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         141 

Eternity  of  the  Son,  than  to  declare  that  the 
Father  was  never  without  Him  ?  He  plainly 
fuppoies  it  abllird  to  Hiy,  that  the  Father  was 
ever  no  Father,  or,  which  comes  to  the  fame, 
that  ever  the  Son  was  not.  What  follows  there- 
fore, in  that  Chapter,  of  the  Father,  pracedity 
and  antecedat  necejfe  eft,  &c.  can  only  be  un- 
derftood  of  z priority  of  Nature y  *  not  of  Time, 
or  T>iiration\  and  in  This  all  Catholicks  agreed. 
You'll  excufe  my  dwelling  fo  long  upon  Nova- 
tian :  it  was  neceffary,  to  clear  his  Senfe,  and 
to  obviate  fome  -f  fpecious  Pretences,  not  only 
againft  Novatian,  but  other  Catholick  Writers 
of  whofe  meaning  there  is  lefsdifpute.  From 
hence  may  be  underftood  in  what  Senfe  all  the 
Oriental  Bifliops  (if  the  Fad  be  true,  relying 
only  on  the  doubtful  Credit  of  ||  Arius)  might 

teach,  -nr^ouVa^j^etv  ra  ijs  t  ©sov  d^d^yjj^^.  That 
it  could  not  be  meant  in  Arius  s  Senfe,  is  fuf- 
ficiently  evident,  from  the  determination  of  the 
iV/V^??^  Fathers,  which  has  infinitely  more  weight 
in  it  than  his  fingle  Teftimony  5  and  fliews  the 
Senfe  of  the  whole  Church,  in  a  manner,  at 
that  Time.  But  enough  of  this :  I  fhall  only 
remark,  before  I  part  with  Novatian,  that  He 
is  an  Evidence  both  for  the  Firjly  and  Second 
Nativity,  or  Generation,  of  the  Son.  As  He 
fuppofes  the  Son  exifting  before  the  Troceffiony 
(which  is  the  voluntary  Nativity  He  fpeaks  of) 

*  Vid.  Origen.  apud  Pamph.  Apolog.  p.  230.  Zen.  Veron.  in 
Exod.  Serm.  9. 

t  Whitby  Modeft. Difq.  pref.  p.  29, 3 o.  Proem. p.  f.  Lib.  p.  1 66. 
II  Apud  Theodorit.  E.l.  i.  c.  f.  p.  21. 

L  3  and 


1^1       ^DEFENSE       Qa.  VIIL 

and  prc-exifting  as  a  *  Son^  He  cannot  be  un- 
derdood  othcrvvifc.  See  this  more  fully  ex- 
plain'd  in  Bifliop  Bulh.  If  any  othci'  Writers, 
who  cxprefly  held  an  eternal  Generation,  any 
where  fpeak  alfo  of  a  temporal  TrocefJJon^  or 
Nativity^  the  fame  may  be  true  of  Them  alfo. 
I  only  give  this  hint,  by  the  way,  and  pafs  on. 

^  i>ionyJiUs  of  Alexandria^  who  lived  about 
the  fame  time  with  Novatiany  afferts  the  fame 
Do£lrine  ;  viz.  That  the  Father  was  aliz'ays 
Father ;  and  never  was  without  his  Son :  which 
is  the  fame  as  to  maintain  eternal  Generation^ 
which  He  afterwards  afferts  in  Terms. 

*^  "DionyfiuSy  Bifhop  of  Rome,  Contemporary 
with  the  other,  declares  that  the  Son  is  eter- 
naly  and  that  there  never  was  a  time  when 
the  Son  was  not  ;  adding  in  Confirmation  of  it, 
that  He  is  the  Word^  the  JVifdom,  and  the 
Tower  of  God.  This,  tho'  it  be  cxprefs  for 
the  Eternity  of  the  Son,  yet  is  not  full  ioneter- 

*  Sive  dum  Virkum  eH:,  fivedum  V'trtus  eft,  five  dum  Sapientia  cd, 
fivedumiwAT  eft,  iivedumF/7:«;eft  ^  r.onexfecft,  quia  nee  innatus 
eft.  That  is,  He  is  natus,  conJJder'd  under  any  Capacity  ;  -whither  as 
Ao'v©-,  cuju'cifj^ic,  on-cCpU,  or  ^Zc,  or  hio^,  -xhtther  before  theVroccJJioriy 
or  after.  This  fecms  to  bs  the  mcft  probable  Corfiruciion  of  the  Fajfage  y 
and  mofi  Confonam  to  what  He  had  faid  before.     Comp.  Athanaf. 

Vol.    I.   p.    222.  ^      ^  "D.F.p.222. 

*  Ov  yuo  y.v  en.  o  Gio<;  Ctoo  kv  ^aryirm 5^   yu^   Jt),  Tiir^'y  ecfov(^ 

m  o  &iofj,  eir»  i-^rccidoxciica-urc. ociaviov  Trooicetrcct  kxI  (rvn^ivecvrZ, 

ro  ctTTccuyutrfJijec  ccvu^x>^.v  yxn  oce-tyiv^^      Athan.  Vol.  I.  p.  25*5 . 

*  Ri  yxp  yifcyiv  vice,  y,y  cTi  CVTC  «v.  «:«  •)  «v  ii  yt  ci  Tft*  "^UTf^yi 
if IV,  0!^  uiJrc^  <Pwi,  Jf^  «'  Ae7<^»  »f»  (Tc^m^  ^  ^uveCfJC/K;  6  X^i?-/?. 
dpud  Athanaf.  Decrct.Syn.  N.232.  E<'  toIvwj  ytfcvtv  o  vioii,  »»  en 
one  h  TCiZru.  viv  a^  x«i^5,  on  /j&fj?  r^rav  h  0  Qicc,.  ura^o)- 
Tuf^v  3  Tcuro.  Ibid.  This  and  Novatlan'j  Tejiimony,  Loth  of  the 
mrm  AgCy  may  frve  to  illuflrate  each  other ^ 

nal 


Qli.  VIII.     offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.        14; 

7ial  Generation  \    unlcfs  it  had  been  faid,  Eter- 
nal, as  a  Son,     He  might  be  fuppofed  Eternal, 
as  the  Ao7©^5  and  his  Sonjhip  commence  after- 
wards.    And  therefore  I  do  not  put  this  among 
the  clear  unexceptionable  Authorities   for  eter- 
nal Generation  5    though  hardly  any  reafonable 
doubt  can  be  made  of  it,  fincc  he  fuppofed  the 
Father,  the  Head,  Root,  Origin,  of  the  A07®'. 
*  Methodius  fpeaks  more  clofe  and  home  to 
the  Point.     For,  upon  the  Words  of  the  TfaU 
mifl :    Thou  art  my  Son,    this  day  have  I  be- 
gotten Thee;  He  comments  thus.     "  It  is  ob- 
"  fervable   that  his  being  a  Son,   is  here  in- 
*^  definitely  exprefs'd  without  any  Limitation 
"  of  Time.     For  he  faid.  Thou  art,  not  Thou 
"  bee  am' ft  my  Son;    fignifying   that   He  did 
"  not    acquire  any  new  Filiation,   nor  fhould 
"  ever  have  an  end  of  his  Exiftence,    but  that 
"  He  is  alivays  the  fame.     He  'f  goes  on  to 
fpeak  of  his  after   Filiation,  intimated  in  the 
words.   This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee-,  and 
obferves,    that  it  was  more  properly  a  Mani- 
feftation  of  Him;   confonant  to  what  He  had 
faid  before,    that  He  could  not  have  a  new  Fi- 
liation.    This  may  relate  either  to  what  I  be- 
fore called  his  Second,  or  to  his  37?/>^  Genera- 

^  Tl(*eu\r^v^iOV  yei^  or*  to  ^  vio9  avTov    ilveti  eto^i^&x;    U7r£(pycilo,     ?^ 
TOY    uvTCii    TiTv^'/iKivoti    T^  ikoB-iCicci;,   f/jyjTS  OAj  tc^cut: ufc^omci>  TiX(^  ^%'^' 

xivM,  u>,x'  ilvxiccil  T  ccuTcy.  Apud  Phot.  Cod.  237.  p.  p6o,  Comp. 
Athanaf.  Fragm.  in  P/alm  p.  75-.  Cyril. Catechef.  3.  p.  46.  Bened. 

^jYAVcii,  0  ^i>  «V<>  TT^ci^iv  oiy»oi!fS/)ov  yyc^fio-cci.     Ibid. 

L  4  tion: 


144  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  VIII. 
tion  :  The  Words  are  ambiguous,  and  capable 
of  cither  Scnfc. 

To  Methodhis  I  may  fubjoin  TamphihiSy 
who,  while  He  delivers  Origens  Senfe,  in  his 
Apology,  does  undoubtedly  fpeak  his  own  too. 
He  is  very  *  clear  and  full  for  the  eternal  Ge- 
neration, if  we  may  rely  on  the  Tranflator. 

Alexander  J  Bifhop  of  Alexandria^  ^  reckons 
it  amons:  the  Sinsularitics  of  Arius.  that  He 
would  not  own  the  Father  to  have  been  always 
foj  but  pretended  that  God  was  once  no  Fa- 
ther, and  that  the  Aoy(^  was  produced  in 
Time.  I  obferve,  that  thefe  two  Things  are 
here  join'd  together,  as  being  Explanatory  one 
of  the  other,  according  to  the  reafoning  of  that 
Age,  at  leaft.  And  if  the  fame  reafoning  held 
before,  as  may  be  probably  inferr'd  from  I!  other 
Paflagcs  of  the  Anticnts,  then  it  will  follow, 
that  as  many  as  affertcd  the  Eternity  of  the 
■^h&->  oil  Word,  which  were  all  without 
Exception,  did  implicitely  maintain  the  eter- 
nal Generation.  It  appears  to  have  been 
a  Maxim  in  the  Church  at  this  Time,-  that  is, 
about  the  Year   315,    Ten  Years  before  the 

*  Inter  Op.OiJ^-U.Bafil.^p.  877.  _^ 

+   Gux.  an  0    0?fl^    77cir/,p  -/iv.    ccXX'   y;v    on  6  Qio^^ury^p  ovk  viVy  ovk 

uily.vo  t5  &iou  My®-,  ocxX  i^  ovk  ovt&iv  ysfcviv.  Alexand.  Ep.  apud 
Socr.  E.  H.  1.  I.  C.  6.  p.  to.  'A(r£te£5-«r>??  av  <puvua"/}^  'f  i^ouk  cviuv 
-iJzjvC itrt&xiy  uvufKV}  T  7:ci,ii^(6  uu  nviCL  xccli^u,.  Alexand.  Ep.  apud 
Theod.  1.  I.  c. 4. p.  13. 

)J  The  charge  brought  aga'mfi 'D\ov\y Cms  o/"  Alexandria ;  anA  -which 
Ht  clear'd  Himfdf  (f,  was  This:  Ouk  uu  v,v  6  ©to^  tccii^'  jJ»  uil 
KV    iio^,     ccaX    6    _tt    ©£ci5    «i»    ;t*'P'5    "^^^  Xcfv.  cf^vTcc,  ■)  0  ytoc  »x  ry    TT^iy 

'Xwvfxy  v.?X  >)>  7ori  en  cCfc  «v.  Athan. Ep. dc Scntcnt.Dion.p.iy ;. 

Council 


Qu.  VIII.    offome  Q\^  E  R I  E S.        145 

Council  of  NicCy  that  the  Father  was  always 
Father.  The  fame  we  have  fcen,  about  Sixty 
Years  before,  from  what  has  been  cited  out  of 
^ionyjius  of  Alexandria,  and  Novatian.  The 
Teftimony  of  *  OrtgeUy  cited  by  Tamphilus^ 
with  others  mentioned,  carry  it  up  Thirty 
Years  higher,  to  about  the  Year  220.  Ire- 
7i£tiSy  Thirty  Years  higher,  to  about  190, 
within  lefs  than  a  Century  of  St.  John^ 
Terttillian,  betwixt  the  Two  laft  named,  feems 
to  have  underftood  this  matter  differently: 
For  He  fays  plainly,  that  '\  there  was  a  Time 
when  the  Son  was  not--,  meaning,  as  a  Son^ 
and  that  God  was  not  always  Father,  And 
this  is  agreeable  to  his  Principles,  who  al- 
ways fpeaks  of  the  Generation  as  a  voluntary 
Thing,  and  brought  about  in  Timej  as  do 
feverai  other  Writers.  From  hence  a  Quet 
tion  may  arife,  whether  there  was  any  Diffe- 
rence of  Dodrine  between  thofe  Writers,  or  a 
Difference  in  Words  only.  This  is  a  Point 
which  will  deferve  a  moft  ftrid  and  careful  In- 
quiry. 

The  Authors  who  make  the  Generation  Tem- 
porary, and  fpeak  not  exprefly  of  any  other, 
are  thefe  following :  Jujiiny  Athenagoras^  Theo- 
fhilusy    Tatiany    TertulUany    and  Hippolytus. 

*  Non  enim  Deus,  cum  prius  non  cflet  Pater,  poftea  Pater  elTc 
cxpit.  &c.  Pamphil.  ApoLp,8jj.  Comp.  Orig.tn  Joh.p.  44,45-. 

t  Pater  Deus  eft,  8c  Judex  Deus  eft,  non  tamen  ideo  Pater  6c 
Judex  fef?7per,  quia  Deus  Temper.  Nam  nee  Pater  efle  potuit  ante 
Filium,  nee  Judex  ante  delidlum.  Fuit  autem  Tempus  cum  6; 
(l^Ii^um  &  Fillus  non  tuit.  Tertnl.  Contr.Hermog.c.-^. 

Novatian 


145      yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  VIII. 

Novatian  I  mention  not  with  Them,  becaufe 
He  aflerted  Both.  Let  us  then  carefully  examine 
what  their  Doctrine  was :  And  that  it  may  be 
done  tliemore  diftinftly,  let  us  reduce  it  to  Par- 
ticulars. 

I.  They  aflerted  the  Co  eternity  of  the  Aa- 
y©*,  or  Wordy  though  not  confider'd  prccifely 
under  the  formality  of  a  Son,  This,  I  prefume, 
is  fo  clear  a  point,  that  I  need  not  burthen  my 
Margin  with  Quotations  for  it.  It  fliall  fuffice 
only  to  refer  to  the  *  Places,  if  any  fhould 
doubt  of  it.  It  was  a  Maxim  with  Them,  that 
God  was  always  Acyr^of,  never  "AXofc^-  that  is, 
never  without  his  Wordy  or  Wtfdom,  So  far 
they  agreed  perfeftly  with  the  other  Writers, 
cither  before,  or  after,  or  in  their  own  Time, 
the  Antients,  fuppofing  the  Relation  of  the 
Aof©*  to  the  Father  to  be  as  clofe  and  intimate 
as  that  of  Thought  to  a  Mind  j  and  that  this 
was  infinuated  in  the  very  Name^  rightly  con- 
cluded that  the  Father  could  not  be  "AXcf©', 
or  without  the  Aor©*,  any  more  than  an  eter- 
nal Mind  could  be  without  eternal  Thought  -f . 
Some  have  pretended  that  the  Ante-Nicene 
Writers,  who  ufed  that  kind  of  reafoning,  meant 
only  an  Attribiitey  by  the  Aof©*-  and  not  a 
realTerfon.     But  there's  no  ground  or  colour 

*  Juftin.  Martyr.  Apol,  i.  p.  122.  Ox.  Ed.  Athenag.  Legat. 
r.  10.  p.  59.  Ed.  Ox.  Theophilus  Antioch.  p.  82,  129.  Ed.  Ox. 
Tatian.p.io.22.  Ed. Ox.  Vtd.BuU.  D.F.  p.  209.  Tertull.  Contr. 
Prax.  c.  y.  p. 5-03.  c.  27.  Vid.  Bull.  D.F.  p.  24>-.  Hippol/t  Contr. 
Noet.  CIO.  p.  15.  Edit^Tahrlc. 

I  JefBulJ.D.F.p.2o6.^c  this  farther  explained  Serm.7  ,^.i^i,&c. 

for 


qu.  VIII.      offofne  QUERIES.       1 47 

for  this  Pretence,  as  fliall  be  fhewn  prefently. 
I  (hall  only  note  here,  that  the  *  later  Writers, 
who,  undoubtedly  and  confefledly,  took  the  A6- 
7©*  to  be  a  Verfon  5  a  real,  eternal  Perlbn ;  yet 
make  ulc  of  the  fame  Maxim,  and  the  very  fame 
way  of  reafoning. 

2.  They  did  not  mean  by  the  A'oyi^^  or  Wordy 
any  Attribute,  Toiler,  Virtue ,  or  Operation  of 
the  Father  5  but  a  real,  fubfifting  Perfon :  whom 
they  believed  to  have  been  always  in  and  with 
the  Father  5  and  diftind  from  Him,  before  the 
Temporary  Generation  they  fpcak  of.  If  this  be 
well  proved,  other  Matters,  as  we  fliall  fee  pre- 
fently, willbeeafily  adjufted. 

The  learned  and  judicious  "f  Bifliop  Bullhzs 
fufficiently  fliewn,  of  every  Author  fingly,  (ex- 
cept Jiiftin,  whom  he  reckons  not  with  Them) 
that  He  muft  be  underftood  to  have  believed 
the  real  and  diftind  Pcrfonality  of  the  Son; 
before  the  Temporary  Troceffion,  or  Generation 
mention'd.  His  reafonings,  upon  that  Head, 
have  not  been  anfwer'd,  and,  I  am  perfuaded, 
cannot :  So  that  I  might  very  well  fpare  my 
Self  the  labour  of  adding  any  Thing  farther. 
But  for  the  fake  of  fuch,  as  will  not  be  at  the 
Pains  to  read  or  confidcr  what  He  has  faid  at 
large  5  I  fliall  endeavour  to  throw  the  Subftance 
of  it  into  a  fmaller  Compafs,  in  the  following 

*  Alex.  Epift.Encyc.  Ath.Op.  Vol.  i.  p.  ^^c).  Athanaf.  Vol.  i. 
p.  221,  424,  5-00^619.  Et  alibi.  Greg.  Nazianz.  Orat.  35".  p.  ^74. 
Greg.  NylT.  Cat.  Orat.  c.  i.  Cyril].1.4.in  Joh.  c.  48.  Thefaur. 
p.  12.  z^.Damafc,  1.  i.  Marc.  Diadoch.  p.  iiy. 

\  Defcnf.F.  N.Scft.  3.  cj, 6,  7. 8;  9, 10. 

Parti- 


r4S         ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.  VIIL 

Particulars :  Only  premifing  this,  that  fince  all 
thefe  Authors  went,  in  the  nip.in,  upon  the  fame 
Hypothecs  $  They  arc  the  bcft  Commentators 
one  upon  another:  And  whatever  Explication 
we  meet  with,  in  any  one,  two,  or  three, 
may  reafonably  (land  for  the  Senfe  of  All,  if 
they  have  nothing  contradictory  to  it.  Now  to 
proceed. 

1 .  *  Before  the  T^roceJJion^  or  Generatioriy  of 
which  they  fpeak,  they  fuppofe  the  Father  not 
to  have  been  alone-:,  which  it  is  hard  to  make 
Senfe  of,  if  they  only  meant  that  He  was  with 
his  own  Attributes,  Powers  or  Perfedions :  As 
much  as  to  fay.  He  was  wife^  and  great,  and 
powerful  by  Himfelf-y  therefore  He  was  not  a- 
lone.  Alone,  indeed,  they  own  him  to  have 
been,  with  rcfpeft  to  any  Thing  ad  extra  \  but 
with  refped  to  what  was  in  Himfelf,  He  was 
not  alone  ;  wot  Jingle,  but  confifting  of  a  Plura- 
lity, having  the  Aoy©^  always  with  Him. 

2.  The  fame  A07©',  or  Word,  was  always 
7  with  Him ;  convers'd  with  Him  5  was,  as  it 
were,  aflifting  in  Council,   according^  to  thofe 

*  M/i^-*  'w>  0  ©so?,    1^  ov  ctuT'M  0  Xcy"^,    Theoph.  p.  130.   AwT6$ 

irV«  woaA/vT©-  y.v.  All  rvhich  Words  corrcfpond  to  the  feiJtral 
Names  of  the  Son  or  Holy  Spirit ;  >.oys«,  trocpMy  ^uyu^ic,,  /3»An, 
(toZ  Ts-ccTpqr^)  and  r?7ea7i  the  fame  Thing.  Hippolyt.  p.  13.  Contr, 
Noet.     Comp. Greg.  Nazianz.Orat.  ^f.  p.  5-74. 

Solus  autcm,  quia  nihil  extrinfecus  praeter  ilium,  cxtcrum 
ne  tunc  quidem  Solus.  Habebat  cnim  fecum,  quam  habebat 
in  femctipib,  Rationem  fuam  icilicet.     Tertull.  Contr.  Frax.  c.  ^. 

Writers  J 


Qu.  Vlir.     offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.        14^ 

Writers ;  and  therefore,  certainly,  a  diftinft  Per- 
fon.  It  would  be  very  improper  to  fay  that  God 
was  *  iriy  or  with  one  of  his  Attributes,  or  con- 
fulted  with  it :  All  fuch  Expreflions  muft  denote 
a  diftin^t  Perfonality. 

3.  The  fame  individual  Aoyor,  who  after 
the  TroceJJion^  was  undoubtedly  a  TerfoUy  is 
fuppofed  to  have  exifted  before.  ^  Novatian 
is  exprefs.  "  He  who  was  in  the  Father,  pro- 
"  ceeded  from  the  Father.  It  is  the  fame  indivi- 
dual Aoy©',  according  to  "^TheophiluSy  who  is 
!%7ravTor,  always,  both  before  and  after  his 
Proceffion,  with  the  Father  5  and  therefore,  if 
He  was  a  real  Terfon  after,  which  is  not  di- 
fputed.  He  muft  have  been  fo  before.  That 
^  very  Aoy©*,  or  Word,  which  had  been  from 
all  Eternity  ovcPjaOsI©',  oyxa^cA/a  02»5  becomes 
afterwards  wpoif o^xor.     If  therefore  he  was  ever 

uuTM  "Czsiij-wi.  Tatian.  c.  7 .  pag.  20.  "O  uh  irvyu'!r<x.^m  uura» 
Theoph.  p.  8 2 .  Tov  cvra,  ^i^%xvrc(;  ov^iuB-irov  iv  Kcc^^tcc  0f ey .  Id, 
p.  129.  A  little  after y  ToZrov  tl^s  (roiju'ca^ovj  iuvroZ  veun  ^  (p^r>)in» 
cyTU,  Ta  xlyco  U'jtoZ  ^b^.TTuvro^  6f/ji?^Zv,  Idem.  p.  129. 

Si  neceffaria  eft  Deo  materia  ad  opera  mundi,  ut  Hermogenes  exifti- 
inavit;  Habuit  Deus  materiam  longe  digniorem  Sophiam  fuam 

icilicet  Sophia  autem  Spiritus :  Uxc  lUi  Confiliar'ms  fuit.  Tert, 

Contr.  Hermog. 

*  0fo^  ^v  iv  'A^x>^-  rKV  i)  oi^X''"'^  ^^oya  ^vvxfjdtv  7Fu^H>^<pxf^.  Tat. 
p.   19.  * 

••Qui  in  Patre  fuit,  proceflltex  Patre,  p.  5  i.Zeno  Veronenns, 
cf  the  folloTvtng  Century^  expreffes  it  thus :  procedit  in  Nativitatem,  qui 
cratantequamnafceretur,  in  Patre,  Which  I  add  for  Illujlration .  Vid, 
ctiam  Pfeud.  Ambrof. de Fid. c.  z.p.  349.  Prudent.  Hymn, 1 1 .p.44» 

"  Pag.  129. 

**  ToZrov  T  >.ofov  s^'vija-s  ■!xr^<poe^Kov.  Theoph.p.  129.  <I>*$cie^6'- 
T05  yfvvZvt  ■a'poKKivTilKlia-iKuQAOVf  T  I'^ov  voZv  xurai  jj/ova  Tsr^on^ov  o^rep 
llcffuf^eylu.    Hippol.  C.  I  O.  p.  I  3.      Now^,  o(i  ■zirfo'ooct;  iv  x-oCfX/u   iatiKfu]* 

Kcu<i  ©joy.  c.  1 1,  p.  14.  C(?;7?Mre  Theoph,  p.  129,  before  cited. 

a  Ter- 


ISO         ^DEFENSE     Qu.  VIII, 

a  Per  fori,  He  mud  have  been  fo  always.  So 
again :  The  Aoy(&  that  fpake  to  the  Prophets, 
and  who  was  undoubtedly  a  Terfon,  is  the 
*very  fame  individual  Acy©',  which  was  always 
with,  the  Father  5  0  del  o-uvxaewv  owtoi.  Tertiil- 
lian,  who  diftinguiflies  betwxen  RatiOy  and 
Sern20  5  and  aflerts  the  former  to  be  Eternaly 
and  the  latter  to  be  a  Terfbn-^  yet  ^connects 
Both  in  one  5  and  makes  Them,  in  Subftance, 
the  very  fame;  the  felf-fame  Terfon  Both :  on- 
ly fuppofed  under  different  Capacities  and  dif- 
ferent Names,  before,  and  after  the  Troceffion. 
It  was  one  and  the  fame  Hypoftafis  \  once 
Ratio  (according  to  this  Writer)  and  as  fuch, 
Eternal;  afterwards  ^^r;^^,  and  as  fuch,  '^2iSon. 
The  feeming  difference  between  theanticnt  Fa- 
thers upon  this  Point  is  eafily  reconciled,  fays 
a  ^  very  worthy  and  learned  T relate  of  our 
Church.  "  One  faith,  God  was  not  Serinona- 
"  lis  a  principio,  or  his  V/ord  did  not  exifl  till 
"  the  Creation  ;  others  fay,  Chrifl  is  Aoy©^  'Ai- 
"  c/^i©^,  the  Eternal IFordyOi  '&iz¥2xhz\:.  They 
"  may  all  be  undcrflood,  in  a  found  Senfc, 
"  with  the  Help  of  this  Diflinflion.  The  fVord, 
^'  as  He  is  inivard  Speech  formed  from  the  E- 
*'  ternal  Mind,  was  for  ever  with  God  :  But  as 

»  Thcoph.p.  8r,  Zi. 

•*  In  ufii  eft  noftrorum  Sermomm  dicere  in  primordio  apud 

Deum  FuifTc,  cum  magis  R«/w;;c;;>compctatanti(]uiorem  haberi; 
quia  non  Scrmonalis  a  principio,  fed  Rationalis  Deus  etiam  ante 
principium,  &  quia  ipfe  quoquc  Svymo  Rcit'tone  confiftcns,  prio- 
rcm  earn  ut  Subftunt'mm  fuam  oftendat.  Contr.  Frax.  c.  _f.  Comp, 
Origen.  in  Joh.p.  4:5,  44.  '6'c^Bull  Scd:.  3.  c.  10. 

f  BiJJio^  of  Lidifieid  and  Coventry,  Serm,^.  13,  14. 

"  God's 


Qii.  Vlir.    offome  dU  E  R I  E  S.         1 5 1 

"  God's  Agent  to  (^\i^^\zy  zwA  found  forth  t\\Q. 
"  Wifdom  of  God  in  external  Works,  as  fuch^ 

"  He  exifted  not  till  the  Creation the  Cre- 

*'  ation  being,  as  it  were,  a  verbal  Explicatioa 
"  of  what  Reafon  had  firft  filently  thought,  dil- 
"  pofed,  and  refolved  within  it  felf. 

4.  If  there  (till  remains  any  doubt  of  this 
Matter,  there  is  a  farther  Argument  to  be  urg  d, 
which  may  be  juftly  look'd  upon  as  dear,  full, 
and  decifive  in  the  Cafe.  Had  thefe  Fathers 
believed  that  the  Acy©',  or  Word,  was  an  At- 
tribute  only,  or  T^ower^  &c.  before  the  "Fro* 
cefJiOTiy  or  Generation^  which  they  fpeak  of  ^ 
then  it  would  follow,  that  the  Son  began  firft 
to  be,  and  was  properly  a  Creature^  «$  cuV-  ov- 
TWV5  in  their  Opinion  5  and  that  Troceffion  was 
but  another  Word  for  being  created.  But  thefe 
Writers  do  exprefly  guard  againft  any  fuch  No- 
tion. *  Novatain  very  clearly  diftinguiflies  be- 
tween Troceffion  and  Creation.  AthenagoruSy 
is  ftill  more  exprefs  to  the  fame  purpofe;  -f  de- 
claring that  the  Son  was  not  then  madcy  but  had 
exifted  in  the  Father,  as  the  Aoy@^j  or  Word, 
from  all  Eternity. 

Jufiin  Martyr  is  the  firft,  and  the  moft  con- 
fiderable  of  thofe  Writers ;  and  therefore  it  will 
be  proper  to  examine  his  Sentiments  with  a 
more  particular  care  and  exaftncfs.     I  have  fe- 

*  Si  Homo  tantummodo  Chriftus,  quomodo  dicit,  E^o  ex 
Deo  froHii,  Joh.  i6.— cum  conilat,  HominemaDeo  Fdcium 
ejfe,  non  ex  Deo  VroceJJiJfe?  c.  2;. 

h  ixvr-^  T  ^oycy  «i<^'(>;4  AeytJts^  iiv,  C,  I  o.  p.  39. 

lecled 


tS2        y^DEFENSE      Qu.  VIIL 

lefted  the  mod  material  Paffages  I  could  find^ 
which  may  help  to  give  us  a  juft  Idea  of  his 
Doftrinej  and  have  placed  Them  in  diftincl 
Columns,  in  the  *  Margin.  It  would  fignify 
little  to  tranflate  Them  5  becaufe  the  Arguments 
arifing  from  them  are  proper  only  to  Scholars. 
I  have  diftinguifli'd  the  feveral  Citations  by  Fi- 
gures, for  the  more  convenient  referring  to  Them. 
1. 1  obferve,  firft,  {See  N.  i,  2.)  that  He  joins 
dyivvrOQ'^    with  ad^^af©^  and  d'iJ^i©''    oppofing 


I ,  "k'O  f^  'f>  Mft;t'V?S,  0  aiv,  i(p?i' 
i  H  TlXoCTVI   To    CV.        iKUTifiCV   ij   T 

ti^tjf/jivwv    Tu   ecu  evil  vjso)    TT^ocry,- 

fOfi  th  acJroi'— T  f/)  ctyl'jr/tlov  cc'ia'iov 
tiYCt.t   >.i[cv\x'    Tiic,  ^  yl^jvniis<i   *l   <93J- 

fA^ivac,.  Parasn.  p.  90,  9 1 .  Ox. 

2.  '  OcTot  yap  eV*  {JuiTct  T  Qsov 
h  t^xi  TTors^  TUurcc  <pu<rtv  (p&a^n^v 
i^iiVy  >Ci  tloc  Ti  ilo:,<puvnBiivxi  to 
^yi  iivUi  \ti.     yt/cvo^  -yb  o:y(.vvr,Toi  ^ 

ii<p6xpT0^    0£O5,    K^   2kj^    TOUTO  Qscq 

irt'  Dial.  p.  21.  ]ebb. 

3.  'Rya  yoef.  (pwiv,  ikfxn  0  cov. 
eivr laiui^iXXciiv  iccvrov  o.;Xc\io7i  0  a)v 
To4$  fM,  iiTiv.  Porirn.  p-  87. 

4.  "OvOf/jDi     Tu       TtXVTOJV      TTXT^i 

SsTev,  u.yl'jvy,TU  ovTt,  (7B7i'iV«v.  a  yuf 

kuTifiOV       S;ji       T    3-ifO/JOV    To    (!vOfJI/». 

TO  i)  Ucc.y^,  id  0io5,  K^  Kr*V>J5,  ^ 
K^fie^y  <c'  AiaarQT7'^  cnc  ovofA>cc]oi 
f^iv  aAA*  cy/i  T  t^jTroiiZv  t^  T  f^- 
yuv  r^oa-^yia-^^'     Apol.   2.  p.    i^. 

€>£«  j  ISTi  6  Tthiq  Of OfJUXj  TT^OV- 
'^•JpAi^"'        **'"*     Ct'JTCq     iCCVTOV     OVOfJljCC- 

^liV  ci'tih  *£«*'.      il<;  (c"   jXiovoii    VZ^xe- 

X.(^y,  Parxn.p.  87. 


f»  'lifoUTdi    tsv     iiyii(rxfd/Jot    uu 

T    -ZoOLTi^di    T   oXaV    XiXccXiJKiVKl     TM 

MuG-ii,    tS   XciXuicXyTot;  ecurca  IvToq 
ys»  T»  &icZ,  'cq  y^  uyfiXoq  )C^  'h^  - 

^OACq      Kiy.A'rjj,        OkKOCMq        iXif^OVJ 

y^  j^^  Tou  mo^yiTiKoZ  TZviZfJi/XTociy 
(c"  dl'  KoTou  Tou  Xci?-ou ,  aq  hts 
T  TTXTi^x  UTS  T  u4cy  syvucrxv 
b?   y^   Xoyeq   tc^utctoko^ 


av  §'  ©£oy,    f^  0=0?    Vzaet^^i.      A- 
pol.  I.  p.  12  2,  123. 

Compare    the    Citations    before 
given  in  p.  37. 


6.  *0  S  uibq  c^uva,  0  loovoq  Xi- 
yofo/Jcq  Kv^icoq  vicq,  0  Xcjoq  iTp» 
T    7roir,y/oCTOJV  i<^   (riv.cifjy  ^   jyjv^- 

f^Oq     OTi     Ty,V    CiP^i)V   Oi    UUTOU   TTOCV- 

Toi  iY.Tun    (^  sKctryjyKTSj   X^i^-cq   p. 

KUt)x,  to  KiK^i^  y^  XOtTfJlMtrXl  TOi 
TZUVTCC  ^i  OiitToZ  T  0«OV,  AjjfJ, 
olOfJjOC      (^      X'JTO     tSCil^CV    ccyvuqo) 

(ry)f/jcctrnxv'  ov  T^Tfov  KCCi  to  0«o5 
'X^ctrxyo^^jyua,  cvx.  Ivofiix  t^iv,  ci?i- 

XoC  TT^ikf^XTOe,  ^va-ihtyKTH  \{JIj<Pv^ 
Toq      Tvj    ipi'tril    T    ciyB-^uTTCcy  oo^a, 

Apo!.  2.  p.  14.  Ox, 

them 


Qa.  VIIL  offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.  15? 
them  to  (pO^e"^^"^  T^c^o/^©^,  c/^yif^iypfyiTOr,  and 
^XXu/jt/'/j®' :  Here  therefore,  *  df^^f^Qy-,  is  not 
confider'd  as  the  perfonal  Charader  of  the  Father, 
and  as  fignify  ing  tmbegotten ;  but  as  it  belongs  to 
the  -^  ^eior.  and  denotes  eternal,  uncreated,  im- 
mutable Exiftencc.  Either  yii/lm  muft  have  behe- 
ved  that  dyivvni'^'^  in  this  latter  Senfe,  is  appli- 
cable to  the  Son ;  or  elie  He  mud  have  iuppofed 
Him,  not  only  ^V^-rro?,  but  ^^^o^v'yj©',  c/^yi/aiaeryiTOs-, 
and  (pOae-TOf  alfo,  which  muft  appear  highly  abiurd 
to  any  one  who  has  ever  Gonfider'd  Jnftin'^ 
Writings, 

2.  I  obfervc  {See  N.  2)  that  God's  being  d.-^- 
vnnS-  and  ^rq)Oa^"©^  is  fuppofcd,  as  it  were,  the 
very  Ground  and  Foundation  of  his  being  Gcd^^ 
on  account  of  which  He  is  ©'-^^  and  without 
which,  confequently.  He  could  not  be  ©sic-  If 
therefore  the  Aoy©^  be  not,  in  this  Senfc,  aysw/il©' 
and  aq^Gao?©',  He  is  not  ©^o?,  according  to  Jtif- 
tin  Martyr:  And  yet  no  Man  is  more  exprefs 
than  Jnjiiny  every  where,  in  making  the  Son 
©sof,  and  infifting  very  much  upon  it. 

l.Jtifiin  makes  0 'j^'v  to  anfwer  to  the  Fla- 

*  I  need  but  hint  that  the  ri-'orJs  ct,y^v>Qsc,  and  oiy^vy)To^,  -urith  dou- 
ble or  fingU  V ,  hanje  bcsn  uf'd  very  pro??2!faioujiy  in  Autijors  i  and 
hardly  came  to  be  accurately  dijlinguifh'd,  till  the  Arian  Controicrfy 
gave  Qccafion  for  it.  See  Suicer'i  Therauriis,  upn  the  Ecclefajit- 
cal  ufe  of  thefe  [4'ordsi  ami  Cudworth  for  profane  Writers,  />.  ayj- 
25-4.  ayjd  MontfaucDn  admon.  in  Arlian.  Decrct.  Syn.  N.  p.  207, 
The  Son  is  properly  u-J/^jy^rcq,  as  tvcll  as  the  Father  5  fo  Ignatius ; 
fo  Irenxus  i  fo  Origcn  exprcfy  files  Hiw ;  and  Athenagoras'^  i 
•^jo{a}^joc,  is  to  the  fame  ejf'ci.  The  fimiltiude  of  the  IVord  and 
Sound  wasy  very  probably,  the  chief  Re.ifon  r^-hy  the  Title  of  u^'r/iTcq 
vpas  not  oftener  applied  to  the  Son,  -which  omifflon  howeier  is  compen- 
fated  by  ether  cr^unaknt  I.xpnffhm. 

M  tonifts 


154         ^^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E     Qn.  VIII. 

tonifts  TD  cv.  (See  N.  i.)  And  cither  of  them 
equivalent  to  dcu^v^  and  That  toysvscr:-;  /ari  ^x^^^ 
uncreated,  imniUtable,  ncccirarily-exifting.  Now 
compare  A^.  5.  and  two  more  Citations  given 
above,  p^g.  37.  and  from  thence  it  is  manifeft 
that  Jujlin  makes  the  Acy®-  to  be  0  w;,  in  his 
own  proper  Perfcn.  And  He  gives  the  reafon 
here  why,  or  on  what  Account,  He  miglit  juftly 
llile  hinifelf  ©so.-  (and  the  fame  mnft  hold  for 
6  wv)    it  is   bccaufe  He  is  ®io^-,   as  Gcd/s  Son; 

4.  J^ijtin  Alartyry  having  taken  notice  that 
the  Father  had  properly  no  Name,  (tJ^^N.  4.6.) 
as  having  nothing  antecedent  or  pre-exiftent, 
does,  immediately  after,  repeat  the  Obfervation 
of  having  no  Name,  and  applies  it  to  the  Son  j 
obfcrving  that  neither  he,  properly,  has  any 
Name,  but  only  fome  Titles  or  Appellations 
given  Him,  from  what  he  did  in  Time  -,  parti- 
cularly from  his  coming  forth  to  create  and  put 
into  benutiflil  Order  the  whole  Syftem  of  Things. 
This  fecirsto  infinuate  his  Co-eternity  with  the 
Father;  and  the  more  iOy  bccaufe y;//?;;/  ob- 
ferves,  at  the  fame  time,  that  He  is  emphati- 
cally Son  of  the  Father,  (0  .acv©^  >..?rc/i4'j©'  y.-o^xs 
vc^^)  T.nd  Co-exillent  (cn/x-i^v)  with  his  Father, 
before  riie  World  ;  tho'  begotten  or  fent  forth,  in 

*  Coni^^.xreTM.f.  564,  183,^71,  iS4.F.d.JcbK  I  add  for  lllti' 
Jtr.itioii  :!j:f:V/ordsoj  ilyxW.  'Or.io  u-j  I'i.  cc-f^'j-'ja  vmI  l^c;6:^^,ii  ytyiv- 
vaJ,  i-ovToxs-C'.vrfcc  <^:^l)u£^y,  vmI  ccyiv.ilv.  Cyril.  Alcx.  Thcfaur. />.  54. 
iJucii  to  the  lame  piu-pofcistliatof  l-htlo  before  Jujlm.  J?  reo  ce::^^^ 
.vsiy;-';^  piwj  «::,r5^:''rii'ii0«fro:.      Phil,  dc  Conf.  Lingu. 


O);, 


I'-  3'-'5- 


nmc. 


Qu,  VIII.      of/ome  Q,U  E  R  I  E  S.         155 

time,  to  create  the  Univerfe.  Thefe  Coiifidera- 
tions  convince  me  that  Jtiftiyh  as  well  as  Athe- 
nagorasy  taught  the  ftrid  Co-eternity  of  the  Son  5 
which  is  equally  true  of  all  the  other  Writers. 

Beftdes  this,  the  feveral  *  Simihtudes,  which 
thefe  Authors  ufed,  to  illutlratethe  Nature  of 
that  Troreffion ;  fuch  as  the  Sun  and  its  RaySy 
the  Fotmtain  and  its  Streams,  the  Root  and 
its  Branches,  one  Fire  lighting  another^  and 
the  like  5  manifedly  fhew,  that  They  never 
dream'd  of  the  Sons  being  created.  Then, 
the  care  they  took  left  any  one  ftiould  imagine 
there  was  any  T>ivifion  of  the  Father's  Subftance  5 
and  their  inculcating  that  He  was  prolatiis,  non 
feparatus ;  brought  forth,  but  not  feparated  fnoui 
the  Father,  demonftrate  their  meaning  to  be,  that 
here  was  no  Produdion  of  a  new  Subftance,  but 
an  Emanationy  Manifeftation,  or  TroceJJion  of 
what  was  before.  Farther,  their  declaring  that, 
tho'  He  proceeded  from  the  Father,  He  was  ftill 
in  the  Father,  (taken  together  with  the  f  Maxim, 
th^it  nothing  is  i7i  God  but  what  is  God)  fetsthe 
matter  beyond  all  rcafonable  Scruple.  In  a  word ; 
as  they  all  held  the  Confubftantiality  of  the  Son 
with  the  Father,  which  is  as  clear  as  the  Light, 

*  juftin.  M.  Dial/).  183,  373.  Jebb.  Athenagoras/>.4o,  96. 
Ox.  Ed.  Tatian.  c.  8*  p.  21,  22.  Ox.  Ed.  Tertull.  Apol.  c.  21. 
Adv.  Prax.  c.  8.  Hippolytus  Contr.  Noet.  c.  11.  p.  13.  Contr. 
Jud.  />.  4.     Fabric.  Vol.  2. 

N.  B.  Athenagoras'j  r.-^o-ds  are,  in  fir'tflncfsy  meant  of  the  Holy 
GhofL  only,  in  Both  phccs.  But  the  roafon  being  the  f.ime  for  one 
m  the  other,  they  are  equally  applicable  to  Either  i  and  it  is  thus 
mly  I  rcoiild  he  underfiood,  wherever  I  apply  cither  of  the  Fajfnges  to 
the  Son.  t  VJd.  BullD.F.  N.  p.  19S. 

M  2  ill 


156        ^DEFENSE       Qii.  VIIL 

in  their  Writings ;  they  muft  have  been  the  moft 
inconfiftent  Men  in  the  World,  had  they  thought 
that  the  Trocefjion  or  Generation  of  the  Son^ 
was  a  Creation^  or  ne^s;  Trodu^tion  of  him  i  or 
had  they  not  firmly  believed  that  He  cxifted,  the 
living  ^ind  fttbftaritialfVord,  from  all  Eternity. 

Jufiiri  Martyr  feems  to  have  fpoke  theSenfe 
of  all,  in  faying, "  That  the  Ac-/©'  co-exifted  with 
"  the  Father  before  the  Creatures  j  and  was  then 
**  begotten,  when  the  Father  at  firft  created  and 
"  put  into  beautiful  Order  the  Frame  of  Things. 
See  the  Paflage  above  *.     The  Emperor  Con^ 
ftantine  afterwards  exprcfles  the  fame  Thought 
fomething    more    fully    and    diftindly,    thus. 
"  '\  The  Son,  who  was  alivays  in  the  Father, 
"  was  begotten,  or  rather  proceeded  forth,   for 
"  the  orderly  and  ornamental  Methodizing  of 
*'  the  Creation.     I  chufe  to  follow  the  Senfc, 
rather  than  the  ftrid   Letter.     Whether  thofc 
Writers  went  upon  any  folid  Reafons,  in  aflign- 
ing  fuch  or  fuch  parts,  in  the  Work  of  Creation, 
to  Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Ghoft,  is  not  very  mate- 
rial. It  is  manifefl:,they  fuppofed  the  whole  Trini- 
ty to  be  concerned  in  it ;  and  to  Create,  as  it  were, 
in  concert.     Their  afcribing  the  orderly  adjuft- 
mcnt  and  beautifying  part  to  the  Son,  feems  to 
have   been  in  allufion  to  his  Names  of  A07©', 
and  Go(^ia^   and  (f^cuV.     In  rcfpcd  of  the  laft  of 
them,    Hippolytus  fuppofcs  the  Generation  to 

Kul    TTUnCTS    OV.    TO    ".TXr^l  Ci>V,    ITli    T«V  T   vW'    CtJTOV   yi^jVlf/ji.;U]l    ^cf-ycf^-. 

/-y';Ti!'.  Apud  Gelaf.  Acl.  Syn.  ^ac,palt.  3.  p.  j-S, 


Qu.  VIII.     offome  QU  E  R I  E  S.         157 

be  poftcrior  to  the  Creation,  upon  God's  faying. 
Let  there  be  Light,  Then  did  the  Son  pro- 
ceed  (pM?  ox  (pGOTOf .  *  TertulUan  fcems  to  have 
had  the  fame  Thought  5  and,  perhaps,  f  Origen. 
Athenagoras  likewife  fuppofes  the  Troceffion  to 
he  after  the  Creating  of  the  unformed  Mafs  of 
Things.  And  yet  nothing  is  plainer  than  that 
I!  all  thefe  Writers  believed  the  prior  Exiftence 
of  the  Son  5  and  that  Things  were  at  firft  created 
by  Him,  as  well  as  afterwards  adorned  and  regu- 
lated. In  fliort,  whatever  the  Father  is  fuppofed 
to  have  done,  was  by  his  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  5 
therefore  frequently  ftiled  Mantis  Tatris :  But 
the  AuOjvr/a,  the  T)ejigning  part,  was  thought 
moft  properly  to  be  rcfcrvcd  to  the  Father,  as  the 
firft  Perfon.  Thefe  are  Things  not  to  be  too 
curioufly  inquired  into,  or  too  rigoroufly  inter- 
preted ;  but  to  be  underftood  ^io-k^ih:'^^.  In  the 
whole,  they  have  a  very  good  meaning ;  and 
were  founded  in  the  Belief  of  a  Co-ejfential  d^wi. 
Co-eternal  Trinity. 

From  what  hath  been  faid,  I  prefume,  it  is 
evident  that  there  was  no  difference  at  all,  in 
the  main  of  the  Doftrine,  between  Thefe,  and 
the  other  Catholick  Writers  5    but  a  different 

•    ♦  Contr.Prax.  c.7,  i2«  -j-  Vid.Huet.Origenian.  p.  41- 

IJ  Ai  to  Athenagoras,  v'td.  fupra.  Tertuliian  fays:  Deum  im- 
7nutabilem  8c  informabilem  credi  necclTe  eft,  ut  ^eternunii  quod- 
canque  transfiguratur  in  aliud,  definit  efle  quod  fuerat,  Sc  mci- 
pit  ejfe  quod  non  erat.  Deus  autem  neque  definit  efie,  nequc 
aliud  potefteflej  Sermo  autem  Deus,  ^c.  Contr.  Prax.  c.  27. 
Hippolytus  hath  thefe  words,  Uxr^l  Qu/jcuho-,,  adv.  Jud.  p.  4. 
'tioq  iz-oii)<riVy    Contr.  Noet.  p.  16.     'A«  y)ep  h  sv  i'^olv  BsoTrasTTiZ  r^ 

r,icifi(«oA??.  Fabric.  Vol.  2.  />.  19.  Origen  we  have  feen  before, 

M  3  manner 


158        y^DEFENSE        Qu.  VIIL 

manner  only,  of  cxprcfling  the  fame  Things. 
The  Qiicftion  was  nor,  whether  the  Hypoftafisy 
or  Terfon,  of  the  Son  was  from  all  Eternity, 
coeval  with  the  Father,  and  confubftantial  with 
Him  i  in  That,  they  all  perfedly  agreed.  Nor 
was  there  any  difference  about  the  ^rocefflon : 
for  the  *  latter  Writers  acknowledged  it  as  well 
asThofe  before  them;  and  made  it  Temporary 
and  Voluntary^  as  Thofe  did.  But  the  Que- 
(lion  was,  whether,  the  Son's  eternal  Co-ex- 
iftence,  (I  fliould  rather  fay,  the  co-eternal  Ex- 
igence of  the  Acy©^,)  fhould  be  deenVd  Sonpip 
and  Filiation  or  no;  or  whether  the  Trocef- 
Jion  might  not  more  properly  be  fo  ftiled. 
TertuHian  (and  perhaps  Others)  was  of  Opi- 
nion that  this  latter  was  '\  perfect  a  Natruitas 
Sermonis ;  The  p  erf  eft  Nativity,  or  Birth  of 
ike  IVcrd:  who  had  been,  as  it  were,  qmefcent 
and  tmoperating  from  all  Eternity,  till  He 
came  forth  to  Create  the  World:  And  II  Hip- 
polytiis  carried  this  Notion  fo  far,  as  to  think 
the  Filidtion  not  compleated-,  'till  He  had  run 
thro' the  laft  fort  of  Sonlhip,  in  becoming  Man. 
All  this  is  true,  in  feme  Senfe,  and  when  right- 
ly explain'd.  But  other  Fathers  thinking  this 
way  of  fpcaking  liable  to  Abufe  and  Mif-con- 

*  Vid.Buil.Dcf.  F.  N.  Sc<rt.  vc  9. 

f  Contr.  Pra.Y.c.  7. 

Ij  Contr.  Noct.  C.  if.  p.  17.  O'TJ  yk^  ^(r<^pxo?  x«j  xy.3-'  ixvToD  o 
hcycc,  TiXetoi;  r,v  wwc,  v-ai  rci  Tt^.oioc,  X'oyoc,  m  /aovsj^jms-  It  is  re- 
markable, that  He  males  t' e  Son  pcrferffy  yjovo-^j-^Ay  too'  not  per- 
fn'ils  yto-;  bcfon  the  Incarnation.  Others  might  p'rhafs  reafon,  in 
like  warmer,  with  regard  to  the  z! ^liXivinc, -^  thir.kwg  Him  to  ia-ve 
heen  A-s'y:?,  or  f^^vo^r.c,  before  it,  b^t  not  uuc,. 

'  (Irudioni 


Qu.  VIII.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  159 
ftmdion  ;  and  confidcring,  probably,  that  the 
Aoy©^,  or  Word,  might  ^  properly  be  called 
Son^  m  refped  of  that  eternal  Kxiftencc  whicli 
He  ever  enjoyed  />/,  and  from  the  Father  as 
the  Head,  Root,  Fountain,  and  Caufe  of  All ; 
they  chofe  to  give  That  the  Name  of  Genera- 
tion: and  to  call  the  other  Two,  ^Condefcen- 
fionsy  Alanife fiat  mis ,  Troceeding  forth,  or 
the  like.  So  we  have  feen  it  in  MetkodiuSy 
before  cited  for  the  ete-'^nal  Generation:  And 
He,  very  probably,  had  the  notion  hom'-Ju- 
fiin  Martyr ;  who,  ni  like  manner,  interprets 
Generationy  in  the  fecondary  Senfe,  by  Mani- 
feflat'm.  And  even  ^  HiffolytuSy  as  before 
obferved,  explains  the  Troceffiony  or  Genera- 
tion of  the  Son,  a  little  after  the  Creation,  by 
Mafiifejiatwnoi  Him. 

"  Omnis  Origo  parens  cfl ;    omne  quod  r?x  Origine  profcrtiir, 
progenies  eft.  I'ertidl.contr.Pmx.c.'^.     S2el:\o\'2it.  above,  '^.  141. 
Tinci  p  isu  Kdi  6  ijAto?  7>;v  civyv/J .  E'jf.  Eccl.  Th.  ].  I.e.  12.  P-  7  3  • 

Tc'iK-vi';sc,-\jzscii)^'ivuio^Wi.v(yA-Hvii.,  £|  a  "^ sfiy.  Atlian. Orat.4-.p.6 18. 

^  It  is  obfervable  that  Jufcin  MaicjT  applies  the  -ivord  -s^^laXhu 
to  the  latter  of  them,  as  -well  as  to  the  former.  Dial.  228.  Jcbb. 

-dnd,  in  like  manner^  Clement  of  Alexandria  ufes  —^'Misov  of 
^oth,  p.  65-4.  ^;;</Hippolytus,  of  the  litter.  Contr.  Noct.c.  17. 

*"  On  the  n-onls,  Thou-  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
Thee:  He  comments  thus.  Tin  ^/jctiv  cyjr^  xiyuv  y/v5£>>!  roic^  'A-.C^^a- 
^01^,  iloTn  ii  yvatrn;  ctor^  \wiX>.i  y^nS^.  Dial.  p.  270.  Ed.  Jebb. 

yJ<rfjUM  ^o^cpiov  cfia,  c^ccrov  zrciH.  C.  lo.p.  13.    A  little  b:- fore  He  had 
faidy     Tm    S   yivocofjojv  ccpyj'r/iv  ^  a-vfjjt^Xov    id.  l^yty^rr.v  lyhjvci,  >.oycyt 

OV     AoyOV     i'Xf^iV    CV    iCC'JTCO    CioC^TOV    Ti    OJIX,    TCO    KUC'-'l^  Ci),     ^^^(^'^      OpH-Tilf 

The  words  of  Zcno  Veronenfis  r/7ay  be  aJded,  as  a  good  Com- 
fnent  tipcn  the  former.  Cujus  [Vatris)  ex  Ore,  ur  renim  nature, 
quse  non  cvnr,  fingeretur,  prodivit  Uni2;cn'tus  Filius,  Cordis  eius 
Nobilis  Inqiiilinus:  exinde  ^'/j:<^i^V  effcclus,  quia  Humanum  ge- 
nus vilitaturus  erat,  i^c. 

M  4  After 


160       ^DEFENSE        Qu.VIII. 

After  j^rius  arofc;  the  Catholicks  found  it 
highly  ncccflary  to  infift  much  on  the  eternal 
Gerieratwn.  For,  the  Arians,  taking  advan- 
tage of  it,  that  the  Temporary  Condefcenfion 
of  the  Son,  to  create  the  World,  had  been 
often  called  his  Generatioriy  were  for  looking  no 
higher;  bur  artfully  infinuatcd  that  this  was  the 
tiril:  produBion  of  Hm  \  and  that  it  was  abfurd 
to  talk  of  the  Son's  exiiling  before  He  was  be- 
gotten :  in  oppofition  to  which  pretence,  wc 
find  the  Nicene  Fathers  anathematizing  fuch 
as  fliould  fay,  that  the  *  Son  exifted  not  be- 
fore He  ^d:as  EKGOTTENj  meaning  in  the  Scnfe 
now  explain'd.  However,  the  Arians  might 
have  known  that  the  eternal  Exiftcnce  of  the 
Acf©'  Wcis  univerfally  Taught:  and  even  by 
thofcwdio  aflcrtcd  aTcmporal  Generation.  Nor 
indeed  were  they  ignorant  of  it;  but  -f  they 
contrived,  for  a  Saho^  to  maintain,  that  the 
Ao}'^5  or  JVord.y  which  was  held  to  be  Eter- 
naly    was  not  the  fame  with  the  A67©',    or 

-  IVord  begotten  j  tlie  former  being  only  the 
Father's  own  proper  IVordy  and  no  fubflantial 
Thing  :  the  latter,  a  created  Subilancc,  dired- 
]y  contrary  to  all  Anriqulty  which  has  nq- 
thing  to  countenance  any  fuch  Notion  of  a  t\zo- 

fold  Aoy©^.  Upon  this,  it  became  ncccflary  to 
ex  pi  r.  in  in  what  Scnfe  any  Temporal  Genera- 
tion had  been  aflerted  5  and  to  keep  up  the 
true  Catholick  Dodrine,   which  had  obtain'4 

^  'P.v  TToTi  'o:s  err/.  :'.r,    kcu  7:e:v  y/,vriC7,vsii  Cent  -^v. 

f  Uc  Bull.  Ucf.  F.  J-.  19S.  Athiin.Crato  i.p. /07. 

from 


Qu.  VIII.      offome  QUERIES.         1 6 1 

from  the  Beginning  5  namely,  of  the  Eternal 
Acy©*  diftind  from  the  Father;  Son  of  tlic 
Father,  as  partaking  of  the  fame  divine  Sub- 
ftance  from  all  Eternity ;  *  going  out  from  the 
Father  to  create  the  World;  and  laftly  conde- 
fcending  to  become  Man :  Soriy  in  all  thefe  re- 
fpcds,  but  primarily  and  chiefly  in  refped  of 
the  firft.  From  the  whole,  we  may  remark, 
that  an  explicite  Profefllon  of  eternal  Gene- 
ration might  have  been  difpens'd  with ;  pro- 
vided only  that  the  eternal  Exiftence  of  the 
Aoy(^^  as  a  real  fubfifting  Terfon,  in,  and  of  f 
the  Father y  (which  comes  to  the  fame  Thing) 
mjght  befecured.  This  was  the  Point ;  and  this 
was  all.  In  this,  all  found  Catholicks  agreed  ; 
and  to  difpute  it,  was  accounted  Herefy^  and 
Blafphemy.  If  any  one,  difliking  the  Name, 
or  the  Phrafe  of  eternal  Generation-,  thinks 
it  better  to  affert  an  eternal  Wordy  inftead 
of  an  eternal  Son,  (meaning  thereby  a  di- 
ftind  Perfon,  and  confubftantial  with  God, 
whofe  IVord  He  is)  and  refers  the  Generation 
to  his  firft  and  laft  Manifeftatton^  at  the 
Creation  and  Incarnation ;  there  feems  to  be 
no  farther  harm  in  it,  than  what  lies  in  the 
Words,  and  their  liablenefs  to  be  mifconftrued, 

*  Th'ii  is  well  exprejfeti  6y  the  Antiocnian  Fathers^  aga'mfi  Paul  of 
Samofataj  and  by  Clement  (t/"  Alexandria.  Tirov  Tfi^^'o^tj  c-vjj  r»y 
ttccIpI  ciH  oviy-,  c/K7ri7rXi}^(JKivcit  to  TTUT^tKcv  fi'^Xy.ftiCC,  !^po^  rviv  y.ri<nv 
rm  oXm.  Labb.ConC.  Tom.  I.p.  84f.  T^jcvsv  etyrs  Vvi^(r;ov,  v.c&i  KXr^e- 

ycix,lc6^,  x.ul  kicf,Xoyicc<^  "^  Trurfoci,  ^i  «  icul  ru,  (pccvz^oi   xMi    Tec   oc^ava  Jj" 
xoV/^a  ^i^r^fjt^iis^yyQ.  Clem.  Alex.Quis.div.  p.  pjj.  Ox 
I  Vid.  Athan.Vol.  I.p.  *Z2.  6i5>,<5z8. 

or 


I6z        yf  D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.  VIII. 

or  to  give  offence.  Here  therefore  every  Man 
is  left  to  his  own  Difcretion  and  Prudence  :  On- 
ly the  fafcr  way  fccms  to  be,  to  follow  the 
moft  general  and  moft  approved  manner  of  Ex- 
preilion,  together  with  the  ancient  Faith  5  being, 
in  all  probability,  the  furell:  means  to  preferve 
Both.  I  dcfigncdly  faid,  firft  andh{\y  not  firft  or 
laft.  For,  fuch  as  interpret  the  Generatwny  of 
the  lajl  only,  ftand,  I  think,  *  clearly  condemn- 
ed by  Scripture ;  many  places  whereof  can  never 
fairly  be  accounted  for  by  the  miraculous  Con- 
ception folely :  Befides  that  from  Barnabas^  and 
Clemens  RomamiSj  down  to  the  Councilor.  Nice^ 
all  the  Chriftian  Writers  fpcak  unanimoufly  of  a 
higher,  mxcccdQintSonpip  ;  and,  generally,  even 
found  Worjhip  upon  it. 

I  (hall  juft  obfcrve  to  you,  in  the  clofe  of 
this  Article,  that,  from  what  hath  been  faid,  you 
may  know  what  Judgment  to  make  of  an  Af- 
fertion  of  -f  Dr.  Clarke  s^  viz.  That  the  learned  ft 
of  the  moft  Orthodox  Father Sy  '•joho  afterted 
the  Eternal  Generation  of  the  Son,  did  yet 
never thelefs  afjert  it  to  be  an  A5i  of  the  Fa- 
thers eternal  Power  and  Will.  By  which  the 
Doctor  feems  to  infinuate,  that  the  good  Fathers 

*  Sane  in  ida  ex  MiriaVirc^ine  nativitate,  SuprcmaScSingularis 
1^^'iX/^  atque  excdientia  Filiarionis  Domini  noftri  adco  non  con- 
fulit,  ut  ca  ipia  Nativiras  ad  ejus  frupemiam  a-vyy.xTo'J^ccfrtv  omni- 
no  referenda  iit.  Hoc  nos  iatis  apciw  decent,  fi  modo  a 
Spiritu    SancLO    edoceri    velimus,     mulris  in   locis,     S.   literal. 

Ita  femper  credidit  m6c:  ab  ipfis  Apoftolis  Catholica 

•Chnfti  Ecclefia.  Bull.  J.  p.  5c;.     See  u'Jo  Dr.  FidJes  Vol.  i.  B.  4. 
Ch.  1. 

f  Script.  Doccr.  p.  2S0.  alias  247. 

did 


Qu.  VIII.     offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       165 

did  not  underftand  Eternal  in  the  ftrid  Senfe. 
If  the  learned  Doftor  can  fliew,  that  Thofe,  who 
maintain'd  only  the  Voluntary  and  Temporary 
Procelllon  of  the  Son,  beUeved  that  the  Aoy©* 
was  eternally  prc-exifting  in  the  Father,  by  an 
j45f  oi  his  Will ;  or  tl>at  thofe  who  exprcfly 
afferted  an  ^/^r«^/ Generation,  believed  alfo  that 
it  was  an  Arbitrary  Thing,  and  might  have 
been  otherwife,  (which  I  (uppofe  is  the  Dodor  s 
Senfe  of  an  A^iofthe  Will)  then  He  will  do 
fomcthing.  But,  as  none  of  his  Authorities  prove 
any  thing  like  it  5  it  would  have  been  a  prudent 
part,  at  leaft,  not  to  have  produced  Them  to  fo 
little  purpofe.  But  enough  of  this  Matter  :  I 
have,  I  hope,  fufficicntly  explain  d  my  Self  upon 
this  Head  5  and  have  therefore  the  more  reafon 
!to  expeft  a  difiinB  Anfwer  from  You,  when- 
ever you  think  proper  to  re-confider  this  Subjed. 


Q^UERY 


154      ^DEFENSE         Qu.  IX. 

Q^U  E  R   Y      IX. 

IVhether  the  divine  Attributes ,    Omnifciencey 
Ubiquity y  Sec.     Thofe  individual  Attributes-, 
can  be  communicated  ^-juithout  the  divine  Ef- 
fencCy  from  which  they  are  infeparable  ? 

TH  E  intent  of  this  Query  was  to  prevent 
Equivocations ;  and  to  make  the  Next 
clearer.  You  agree  with  me  that  the  individual 
^xs'mz  Attributes  cannot  be  communicated  with- 
out the  individnall^zmiQ.  in  which  they  fubfift. 
You  ■:!iddy  that  Dr.  Clarke ^  in  the  zio^^ page  of 
his  Replies^  hath  plainly  Jhewn,  that  individual 
Attributes,  divine  or  not  divine^  cannot  poffibly 
he  communicated  at  all.  Well  then  -y  we  know 
what  the  Doclor  means  by  all  divine  ^TowerSy 
m  his  Scripture  Dodrine,  (/?.  298.)  which  is  one 
point  gain'd  :  For  when  words  are  ftripp'd  of 
their  Ambiguity,  we  may  be  able  to  deal  the  bet- 
ter with  them.  As  to  the  Doctor's  Aphorifm 
laid  down  {p,  250.)  I  may  have  leave  to  doubt 
of  it ;  notwithftanding  that  it  is  fet  forth  to  us, 
with  the  utmoft  Afllirance.  It  is  notunufual  with 
the  Doctor  to  lay  down  Maxims,  in  relation 
to  thisControvcrfy,  which  Himfelf  would  not 
rulow,  at  another  Time,  or  in  another  Subjeft. 
r'or  Inftancc ;  "^  neceffary  Agents  are  no  CaufeSy 

'  *  V/mtever  proceeHi  from  any  Being,  otherwife  than  by  the  Will 
i>l  that  BriKgj  doth  not  in  Truth  proceed  from  that  Being ;  but 
j'rotn  fame  other  Caufe  or  Necctlity   nxtrinjlck    and   independent   of 

thai; 


Qu.  IX.       offome  QJJ  E  R  I  E  S.         i6> 

that  is,  they  do  not  fo  properly  Ad,  as  arc 
adcd  upon.  This  is  very  true  of  all  Jinite  nc- 
ceflary  Agents;  for,  all  their  necelliry,  or  na- 
tural Ads,  proceed  not  fo  properly  from  Them, 
as  from  God  the  Author  of  their  Natures.  But 
does  it  therefore  follow  that,  if  God  ads  by  a 
Neceffity  of  Nature,  in  fome  Inftanccs,  He 
is  therein  a£ied  upon  likewife?  Or  that  all  the 
Ads  of  the  divine  Nature  are  Voluntary ^  and 
Freely  none  natural  and  neceffary?  This 
fliould  not  be  faid  by  one  who,  €lfev:here^ 
fpeaks  fo  much  of  God's  being  infinitely  ^i/^', 
and  infinitely  good,  infinitely  happj,  &c.  by 
an  abfolute  Neceffity  of  Nature,  unlefs  He 
could  be  certain  that  knowing,  loving^  con- 
templating, and  enjoying  Himfelf,  do  not  im- 
ply perpetual  AEiing\  or  that  an  infinitely 
atli'Ve  Being  can  ever  ccafc  to  A£i,  I  (hall 
not  fcruple  to  affert,  that  by  the  fame  abfolute 
Neceffity  of  Nature  that  the  Father  exifts.  He 
cxifts  as  a  Father  5  and  Co-exifts  with  his  Co- 
effiential  Son  proceeding  from  Him.  If  you  fay 
this  fuppofes  the  Son  Selfexijieiit,  or  Un-origi- 
note-,  I  defire  it  may  not  he  faid  only,  but 
proved.  *  In  the  Interim,  I  take  leave  to 
fuppofe  that  Unbegotten  and  Begotten,  Un- 
originate  and  '^Proceeding,    are  different  Ideas. 

that  Being,     Neceflary  Agents  are  no  Caufes,  but  altvAyi  Inflrii- 

ments    only   in  the  hand  of  fome  other  Toiver.  Reply,  pag.  217.' 
Compare  p.  1 13. 

*   O'jTi  ^uo  uymYiToiy    ^n  auo  f/jovoymiX,    uX'A  f<§  l^i  rrxrv,c  ciyty- 

<y/.  TfctTflq  ysymyjfj^ivoi.  Cyril.Catcch.  lo.p.  141, Ox, 

Again 


166        y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.  IX. 

Again  (p.ziS.)  *  He  finds  fault  with  the  Au* 
tkor  of  fame  CoTifiderationSj  for  fuppofing  that 
the  Son  is  fornethlng  more  than  a  mere  Name^ 
and  yet  not  a  real  diftin^  Being:  And  upon 
this  lays  down  another  Aphorijin\  that  there 
is  no  Medium  between  a  Being,  and  not  a 
Being:  which  indeed  is  a  very  true  one,  if 
Be2?:g,  and  Being,  are  taken  in  the  fame  Senfe  ^ 
but  not  otherwifc.  For  let  me  mention  almoft 
a  parallel  Cafe.  Upon  the  Dodor's  Hypothejis^ 
that  God's  Siibfcance  is  extended  every  where  \ 
and  that  the  fame  is  the  Siibftratum  of  Space ; 
we  may  imagine  two  Subjlrata,  one  pervading 
the  Sun,  and  the  other  the  Moon,  which  are 
both  diftind,  and  diftant.  Will  you  pleafe  to 
tell  us,  whether  thefe  two  are  real  dijtinEi  Be^ 
ings,  or  no>  If  They  are,  you  may  leave  it 
to  others  to  prove  them  intelligent  Beings,  that 
is,  Terfons :  And^  perhaps,  the  very  next  con- 
fequcnce  will  make  them  two  Gods,  upon  the 
Dodor's  own  Principles  :  If  they  are  not  real 
difiinEt  Beings  -,  then  here  is  fomething  admit- 
ted bet^jjeen  a  Being,  and  not  a  Being ;  con- 
trary to  the  Dodor's  Maxim  :  unlefs  he  makes 
them  Nothing',  and  fiippofestwo  Spaces,  with- 
out any  Stibftratum  at  all ;  two  Extenjions,  with- 
out any  thing  extended. 

But  let  us  confidcr,   whether  fomething  may 
not  be  thought  on,   to  help  both  the  learned 

*  To  azciil  this  Coafeqtmice,  He  is  forced  to  pippofe  (p.  29.)  that 
rf;e  Son  is  fomething  more  than  a  mere  Name,  (trul  yet  not  d  real 
diflin<5l  Bein^;  that  is  to  fay,  that  He  is  fometimg  hetvreen  a  Be- 
ing, «/,v/ rot  a  Being.     Cl.  Reply,  p.  ziS, 

Dodor 


Qii.  IX.        offome  QJJ  E  R  I  E  S.        167 

Doctor  and  Us  out  of  thcfc  Difficulties.  The 
Truth  of  this  Matter,  fo  far  as  I  apprehend,  is, 
that  Being  may  fignify,  cither,  fimply,  what 
Exifts-^  or  what  exifts  Separately.  This  Di- 
ftindion  feems  to  be  juft,  and  neceflary  5  and 
fuch  as  you  11  the  more  readily  come  into,  ha- 
ving occafion  for  it,  as  well  as  we.  I  hope,  none 
arc  fo  weak,  as  to  deny  the  Verfons  to  exifl: 
in  reality.  The  very  School-Men  Themfelves 
never  fcruple  to  call  Them  Tres  Res^  Tres 
enteSy  or  the  like,  in  that  Senfe  5  tho'  at  the 
fame  time,  in  the  other  Senfe  of  Being-,  They 
are  all  but  one  Being,  una  fumma  res,  and  una 
res  numero  5  which  comes  much  to  the  fame 
with  Tertiillian's  tina  (indivifa)  Subftantia  in 
Tribiis  coh^rentibiis ;  (only  fetting  afide  his  par- 
ticular manner  of  Explication)  and  is  the  Senfe  of 
All  Antiquity.  Upon  the  Foot  of  this  Diftinftion, 
you  may  readily  apprehend  thofe  Words  of 
Gregory  Nazianzen^  fpoken  of  the  three  Per- 

fbns.      ZwaV  ;g  X^'^jjjj    (ftZrj.  ;^  (pails',  afaGa  k^  dfa- 

r«  v»  ;^w^'^ov1©^  rd  d.yjJi^<;a.^\  By  the  fame  Di- 
ftindion,  you  may,  probably,  underftand  a 
very  noted  Creed -^  which  feems  to  have  coft 
the  learned  Do£lor  fome  Pains  in  explain- 
ing. To  return  to  our  Inftance  of  the  Two 
Stibjirata,  I  fuppofe  the  Dodor,  or  your  felf, 
will  be  content  to  allow,  that  This  is  SubJiancCy 
and  That  Sitbjlance  -,  and  yet  not  Subftances^ 
but  one  Subftancc.     In  like  manner  alfo,   This 

**  Orat.  1 9 .  p.  2 1 X .  Parif.  Ed. 

1  is 


168         y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qii.  IX. 

is  Being,  and  That  Being ;  and  yet  not  Two 
Beings,  but  one  Being :  This  eternal,  and  That 
Eternal ;  and  yet  not  Two  Eternals,  but  One 
Eternal.  I  might  go  on  almoft  the  length  of  an 
Athanajian  Creed.  This  muft  be  your  manner 
of  Ipeaking,  if  you  come  to  Particulars;  and 
that  bccaufe  the  Subjirata  arc  fuppofed  to  have 
no  feparate  Exiftence  independent  on  each  other, 
but  to  be  united  by  fome  common  Ligaments, 
which  perhaps  you'll  call  perfonal  Attributes. 
And  why  then  fliould  you  be  fevere  upon  \]sy 
for  ufing  the  like  Language,  and  upon  better 
Reafons  ?  We  believe  the  Three  Perfons  to  have 
no  feparate  Exiftence  independent  on  each  other ; 
wefuppofe  them  more  united,  in  fome  refpeds, 
than  the  Subjirata  are  fuppos'd  in  your  Scheme ; 
bccaufe  equally  prefent  every  where :  We  ad- 
mit fome  common  Tics  or  Bands  of  Union, 
which  we  call  eJJTential  Attributes  and  Perfedi- 
ons.  Either  therefore  allow  us  Our  way  of 
fpcaking,  which  we  think  decent  and  proper  ; 
fuitable  to  the  Idea  we  have,  and  to  the  Cir- 
cumftances  of  the  Cafe;  founded  in- the  very 
Nature  and  Rcafon  of  Things :  Or  elfe,  find  out 
a  better  for  your  Own ;  that  we  may,  at  length, 
learn  from  you  how  \yc  ought  to  fpeak  in  this 
Matter. 

You  will  fay,  it  may  be,  that  the  Inftancc 
I  have  chofen,  is  not  exadly  parallel  in  every 
Circumftance.  No  5  God  forbid  it  (hould.  But 
it  agrees  fo  far  as  is  fufficient  for  my  pur- 
pofe.  1  here  is  this  manifeft  difference,  that 
»  you 


Qu.  IX.         offome  qUEKIES,       169 

you  fuppofc  the  fcvcral  Stibftrata  To  \\\2xv^ parts 
of  God  5  tho'  every  one  of  Them  infinitely  Wife, 
infinitely  Good,  infinitely  Powerful,  infinitely 
every  Thing,  but  extended.  We,  more  con- 
fidently, fuppofe  three  Perfons  equal,  in  all  re- 
fpefts  5  none  of  them  fingly  part  of  God ;  but 
every  one  perfeft  God. 

A  fecond  Difference  is,  that  you  fuppofe  all 
the  finite  Parts,  making  one  hifiyiite,  to  be  one 
Being,  one  God,  and  one  Terfon  5  by  Conti- 
milty,  I  prefume,  and  :i  perfonalXJ moi\oi  the 
"Parts.  We  fuppofe  Three  Perfons  to  be  One 
God,  by  their  infeparabtUty  and  the  ejjential 
Union  of  the  Terfons:  Which,  I  humbly  con- 
ceive, we  are  as  able  to  explain,  as  you  are  to 
explain  the  others  and  I  hope,  more  able  to 
prove  it. 

A  third  Difference  permit  me  to  mention, 
that  you  fuffer  your  Imaginations  to  wander, 
where  you  can  find  no  Footing;  we  arc  con- 
tent to  tinderftand  only,  and  that  imperfectly, 
without  imagining  at  all. 

In  fine,  you  have  philofophiz  d  fo  far,  in 
Thefe  high  and  deep  Matters,  that  you  really 
want  all  the  fame  favourable  Allowances,  which 
we  are  thought  to  do.  Others  may  objeft  feve- 
ral  Things  to  us,  which  would  bear  equally 
hard  upon  us  Both.  The  fimplicity  of  the  di- 
vine Nature,  for  Inftance,  is  one  of  the  ftrongeft 
and  moft  popular  Objedions :  But  the  learned 
Dodor  has  broke  thro'  it ;  and  has  contrived 
a  Solution,   a  very  good  one,  both  for  Himfelf 

N  and 


I70       y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  IX, 

and  Us*.  I  have  often  thought  no  Hands  fo  pro- 
per to  be  employed  againlt  the  Dodrine  of  the 
Bleffed  Trinity,  as  Thofe  which  arc  good  only 
at  pulling  down,  and  not  at  building  up.  If  once 
you  come  to  fettling  and  determining  Points  of 
a  myflerioiis  Nature ,  there  will  be  as  fair  a  Plea 
'iox.This  alfo  :  And  I  doubt  not  but  the  fame 
Thread  of  Reafoning,  which  firft  brought  you 
to  qucftion  it,  will,  when  carefully  purfued, 
and  as  foon  as  you  perceive  the  like  Difficul- 
ties almofl:  in  every  thing,  bring  you  to  make 
lefs  Scruple  of  it.  But  left  others  fliould  ima- 
gine, from  what  hath  been  faid,  that  They  may 
have  fonic  Advantage  over  us  5  let  me  add  thefe 
few  Confiderations  farther. 

1.  That  what  hath  been  urged,  is  not  pure- 
ly arguing  ad  Hominem  5  but  it  is  appealing  to 
what  good  Senle  and  impartial  Realbn  dictates 
equally  to  You,  or  Us  5  onfuch,  orfuchSuppo- 
fitions. 

2.  That  if  we  come  to  reafon  minutely  on 
any  other  Matter,  alike  incomprchenfible  as  This 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  we  may  foon  lofe  our  felves 
in  inextricable  Mazes. 

3.  That  if  they  pleafc  to  take  any  other  Hy- 
potbejis  of  the  Omniprefence^  They  may  meet 
with  Difficulties  there  alfo,  perhaps  not  inferior 
to  the  former. 

4.  That  if  they  chufe  to  reft  in  generals^ 
without  any  Hypothefis  at  all,  and  without  de- 
fcending  to  the  Modus^  and  Minutm  of  it: 

♦  Anjycw  to  tht  Sixth  Letter y  p.  39,40. 

4.  This 


Qu.  IX.       of  fame  (QUERIES.         171 

This  is  the  vciy  Thing  which  \vc  dcfirc,  and 
contend  for,  in  regard  to  the  Blcflcd  Trinity 
(which  ought  certainly  to  be  equally  dealt  with; 
and  then  we  may  foon  come  to  a  good  Agree- 
ment. 

By  purfuing  this  Point,  I  had  almoft  negled- 
ed  the  learned  Doctor's  Third  Aphorifm  :  That 
nothing  Individual  can  be  communicated. 
Here  is  as  great  a  Fallacy  and  Ambiguity  in 
the  Word  Individual^  as  before  in  the  Word 
Being,  I  fliall  make  this  plain  to  you.  That 
particular  Subftance,  which  is  fuppofed  to  per- 
'vadcy  and  to  be  commenfurate  to  the  Sun,  is 
an  individual  ^zmgy  in  fome  Senfe;  unlefs 
there  be  a  Medium  between  a  Being  and  not 
a  Being,  which  the  learned  Dodlor  admits  not : 
The  whole  Subftance  likewife  is  one  individual 
Being,  and  '^Perfon  too:  upon  the  Dodor's 
Hypothefis:  And  we  fay  farther,  that  three 
Perfonsmay  be  one  individual  Being;  having, 
we  think,  a  very  good  meaning  in  it.  So  here 
are  plainly  three  Senfes  of  the  word  Individual \ 
and  till  you  can  fix  a  certain  principle  of  Indi- 
viduation^ (a  Thing  much  wanted,  and  by 
which  you  might  oblige  the  learned  World)  any 
one  of  thefe  Senfes  appears  as  juft  and  reafon- 
able  as  another.  Now,  the  Doctor's  Maxim, 
rightly  underftood,  may  be  true,  in  all  thefe 
Senfes.  For,  in  refped  of  the  Firft,  what  is 
peculiar  and  prober  to  one  Part,  is  not  com- 
municated, or  common  to  other  Parts :  In  re- 
fped  of  the  Second^  what  \%  proper  to  one  Per- 

N  2  fon^ 


172       ^DEFENSE         Qu.  IX. 

foriy  is  not  common  to  other  Verfoits :  And  fo, 
in  rcfpccl  of  the  Tkird^  what  is  proper  to  one 
Ejjeiice  or  Snbjlance^  is  not  common  to  other 
Ejfcnces  or  Sab  fiances.  All  this  is  very  true  : 
but  to  what  purpofe  is  it,  or  whom  docs  the 
learned  Doctor  contradicl  ?  This  is  only  teUing 
us,  that  fo  far,  or  in  fuch  refpe^fy  as  any 
thing  is  fuppofcd  individual  or  incomfmmica- 
blcy  it  is  iuppofed  individual  or  incommimica- 
hie  'y  which  no  Body  doubts  of.  But  whether 
This,  or  That  be  communicable,  or  how  far, 
or  in  what  manner  (which  is  ail  the  difficulty) 
remains  a  Qu  eft  ion  as  much  as  ever;  and  the 
Dodor's  Maxim  will  not  help  us  at  all  in  it. 
It  may  be  the  fafeft  way,  firft  to  try  the  ftrength 
and  the  ufe  of  it  upon  the  Do6lor's  own  Hy- 
pothefis.  Let  it  be  ask'd,  whether  the  Wif- 
dom,  ^"r.  refiding  in  that  Part  which  pervades 
the  Sun  (for  it  feems  that  it  muft  be  intelli- 
gejity  and  infinitely  fo,  unlefs  one  infinite  In- 
telligent be  made  up  of  Unintelligent s^  or 
finite  Intelligent s)  I  fay,  let  it  be  ask'd,  whe- 
ther that  be  the  very  individual  Wi((io\x\  which 
refides  in  another  Part,  at  any  given  Diftance. 
I  prefumc,  to  this  Queftion,  you  muft  anfwer, 
7es :  And  then  we  are  to  obferve,  that  here  is. 
but  one /W/'L'/^^^/ infinite  Wifdom,  w^hich  is 
intirely  in  the  u:holey  and  i?itirely  in  every 
part ',  proper,  in  fome  Senfe,  to  each  fingle 
Part  (fince  it  can  have  only  fuch  Attributes  as 
inhere  in  it)  and  yet  common  to  All;  T^if 
Jifed  through  extended  Subftancc ,     yet   not 

Co- 


Qu.  X.         of fome  (QUERIES.         175 

Co-extended:  Nor  multiplied :,  bccaufe  but 
One,  If  you  admit  thus  far,  as  I  think  you 
muft,  we  fhall  have  nothing  to  apprehend,  in 
point  of  Reafon  (which  neverthelefs  is  what 
you  chiefly  truft  to)  againft  the  Do£lrinc  of 
the  Trinity.  Tiie  Co?7m2i{nication  of  EJfential 
Attributes,  which  we  fpeak  of,  is,  at  lead,  as 
Intelligible  as  what  I  have  been  mentioning; 
and  every  whit  as  confident  with  theDodors 
Maxim y  that  nothing  which  is  Individual  can 
be  Communicated,  Only  you  have  your  Senfe 
of  Individual-,  and  We  have  onrs'-y  and  you 
can  account  no  better  for  fo  many,  and  infinite- 
ly diftant  parts  making  one  Terfon^  than  Wc 
for  three  Perfons  making  one  Subfiance-,  or  one 
God.  Let  us  therefore  be  content  to  (top 
where  it  becomes  us ;  and  frankly  confefs  our 
Ignorance  of  thefe  Things.  For,  by  pretend- 
ing farther,  we  fhall  not  difcover  lefs  Ignorance 
than  before,  but  much  greater  Vanity.  I  would 
not  have  prefumed  to  difcourfe  thus  freely  of 
the  tremendous  Subftance  of  the  eternal  God 
(infinitely  furpaffing  Human  Comprchenfion) 
were  it  not,  in  a  manner,  necefTary,  in  order  to 
expofe  the  Folly,  and  the  Frefumption  of  doing 
it.  If  the  Dodrine  of  the  Bleffed  Trinity  is 
to  ftandorfall  by  this  kind  of  reafoning,  it  was 
very  proper  to  make  fome  Trial  of  it  firfl-, 
where  it  might  be  done  more  fafely,  to  fee  how 
it  would  anfwer.  You,  I  prefume,  cannot  com- 
plain  of  me,  for  treating  you  in  your  own  way  ; 
and  turning  upon  you  your  own  Artillery.     But 

N  3  to 


174       ^DEFENSE  Qu.  X. 

to  proceed  5  You  arc  pofitive  in  it,  that  the  Son 
of  God  hath  not  the  indruidual  Attributes  of 
God  the  Father  5  for  then,  fay  you,  He  muji 
be  the  Father,  On  the  contrary,  I  affirm,  that 
He  hath  the  individual  Attributes  of  God  the 
Father,  as  much  as  He  has  the  individual  Ef- 
fence  :  For,  otherwife  he  muft  be  a  Creature 
only :  And  therefore  the  Queftion  between  you 
and  me,  in  plain  Terms,  is,  whether  the  Son 
be  Gody  or  a  Creature  ? 

Q^u  E  R  Y     X. 

IfToether  if  They  (the  Attributes  belonging  to 
the  Son)  be  not  individually  the  fame^  they 
can  be  any  thing  more  than  faint  Refem- 
blances  of  them,  differing  from  them  as 
Finite  from  Infinite ;  and  then  in  what  Senfe^ 
or  "with  vi^hat  Truths  can  the  'T>o5ior  pre- 
tend that  *  all  divine  Powers,  except  abfo- 
lute  Supremacy  and  Independency,  are  com- 
municated  to  the  Son  ?  And  whether  every 
Being,  befides  the  one  fupreme  Being,  miifl 
not  necejfarily  be  a  Creature,  and  finite ;  and 
whether  all  divine  Powers  can  he  communi- 
cated to  a  Creature y  infinite  TerfeEtion  to  a 
finite  Being, 

I  Have  put  under  one  Qiiery,   what  before 
made  Two,  bccaufe  the  Subftanceof  Them 
is  nearly  the  fame  5  and  contains  but  one  Argu- 

*  ScYi^t^  Bocir.  p.  2p8. 

ment. 


Qu.  X.         offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.        175 

ment.  I  have  two  Things  upon  my  Hands  at 
once ;  firft  to  clear  and  fix  your  Senfe,  which 
is  induftrioufly  difguifcd  ;  and  next  to  confute  it. 
The  prefcnt  Qiicry  relates  chiefly  to  the  former, 
to  draw  you  out  of  general  and  ambiguous  Terms, 
that  fo  we  may  come  up  the  clofer,  and  fall  di- 
redly  to  the  point  in  Q.ieftion.  You  tell  me,  in 
anfwer  to  the  former  part,  that  the  divine  Attri- 
bates  of  the  Son  are  not  indmdu2i\\y  the  fame 
"jvith  ihofe  of  the  Father  *.  By  which  you  mean 
that  they  are  not  T>ivme :  And  fo  here  you  have 
difcovered,  that  the  Doctor  does  not  undcrftand 
divine,  as  others  do  in  this  Controverfy  j  and  as 
a  candid  and  ingenuous  Reader  might  be  apt  to 
underftand  Him.  You  add,  that  They  (the  At- 
tributes of  the  Son)  are  notwithftanding,  more 
than  faint  Refemblances ;  the  Son  being  the 
Brightnefs  of  his  Father's  Glory y  and  the  ex- 
prefs  Image  of  his  Terfon,  I  allow  that  this 
Text  does  fet  forth  a  great  deal  more  than  a 
faint  Refemblance :  But  you  have  not  (hewn 
that  your  Hypothefs  fuppofes  fo  much ;  and 
therefore  the  quoting  of  this  Text  is  only  argu- 
ing againft  your  felf.  The  Inference  we  draw 
from  this  Text,  confonant  to  all  Antiquity,  is, 
that  the  Refemblance  between  Father  and  Son 
is  compleat  and  perfedj  and  that  therefore 
They  do  not  differ  as  Finite  and  Infinite ^  fince 
that  Suppofition  would  fet  Them  at  an  Infinite 
diftance  from  any  fuch  perfeft  and  compleat  Re- 
Csmblance.     You  obferve  farther,  that  there  can 

*  Pae.  64. 

N  4  b9 


175       ^DEFENSE  Qu.  X. 

be  but  one  Intelligent  Being    (the  fame    with 
you,  2(sTerfon)  abfolutely  infinite  in  all  re fpect  Sy 
(p.  5  5 .)    which  tho'  an  Aflcrtion  of  great  Impor- 
tance, you  are  pleas'd  barely  to  lay  down,  with- 
out the  lead  tittle  of  Proof,  or  fo  much  as  pre- 
tence to  it.     Nay,  you  admit  in  your  *  Notes, 
that  there  may  be  t'wo  Infinite  Beings,  in  the 
Scnfe  of  immenfe  5  that  is,  two  Beings  omnipre- 
fent,   or  infinitely  extended.     And  why  not  as 
well  Two  Perfons  infinitely  perfeftin  all  other  re- 
fpecls,  as  well  2iS prefience  ?  For  to  ufe  your  own 
way  of  arguing,  in  that  very  Place:   \i finite 
Power,  Wifdom,  Goodncfs,  c^^r.  do  not  exclude 
Infinite  j  it  is  plain  that  infinite  Power,  Wifdom, 
Goodnefs,  &c.    of  One,  do  not  exclude  the  in- 
finite Power,  Wifdom,  Goodnefs,  S'C.  of  Ano- 
ther.    Befides  that  Two,  Infinite  in  All  refpeds, 
are  as  eafily  conceived,  as  Two,  Infinite  in  Any : 
And  therefore,   here  you  feem,  by  your  too  li- 
beral Conceffions,  to  have  unfaid  what  you  had 
faid  before  5    and  to  have  unravelled  your  own 
Objcdion.     You  are  aware  that  an  Adverfary 
may  take  Advantage  of  what  you  fay  $  and  en- 
deavour,  lamely,    to  prevent  it,    by  telling  us 
{p.  56.)  that  tho*  it  be  poffible  to  fuppofe  two 
difii?2^  immcnCc  Beings,  yet  it  is  impofllble  there 

*  One  Infinite,  in  ih^  Senfe  of  immenfe,  does  not  {by  taking 
•up  all  Space)  exclude  (nece([arily)  another  immenfe,  any  more  than 
it  excludes  any  Finite.  For  if  a  finite  Being  doth  not  exclude 
(God)  from  a  finite  Vlace,  it  is  plain  that  an  Infinite,  that  is,  an 
immenfe  Being  cannot  exclude  Him  from  Infinite,  that  is,  from 
immenfe  Tlace.  So  that  perhaps  it  is  no  fuch  abfolute  impoflibility, 
as  fo-me  haze  thught  it,  to  fuppofe  two  diftind  imvnenfe  Beings^ 
Not.  p.  5-6. 

j  fliould 


Qu.  X.         of  fame  QVEKIES.        177 

fliould  be  two  immenfc  Beings  of  the  fame  indi- 
vidual  Nature  \  for  fo.  They  muft  coincide y  ayid 
he  but  one  Terfon,  But  what  if  thofe  who  ailert 
the  fame  individual  Nature^  in  more  Pcrfons 
than  one,  underftand  the  Words  in  a  larger  Senfe 
than  you  here  take  them  in  ?  It  is  very  certain, 
they  do  not  underftand  the  Phrafe  of  the  fame 
individual  Nature^  as  You,  who  make  it  equi- 
valent to  the  fame  Terfon^  underftand  it :  For, 
they  aflert  more  Perfons  than  one  to  have  the 
fame  individual  Nature.  In  the  mean  while, 
what  a  wonderful  difcovery  is  this,  which  you 
have  laid  fuch  a  ftrefs  on  5  that  two  Terfonsc2in- 
not  be  one  Perfon,  without  coinciding  and  making 
me  "Perfon.  This  is  all  that  you  have  really  faid ; 
and  very  true  it  is ;  only  I  am  at  a  lofs  to  find  out 
the  pertinency  of  it.  To  conclude  this  Head : 
As  to  Infinite  in  the  Senfe  of  Extenfon^  (into 
Length,  Breadth  and  Heighth)  you  will  give  me 
leave  to  fufpend  my  Judgment.  I  do  not  find, 
either  that  it  is  aflerted  in  Scripture,  or  generally 
maintained  by  the  Fathers ;  but  that  it  is  liable  to 
many  Difficulties,  inpointof  Reafon,  more  than 
I  am,  at  prefent,  able  to  anfwer.  See  what  a 
*  late  thoughtful  Writer  has  faid,  and  what  f  Cud- 
worth  had  before  Colleded  on  that  Subjedi.  In 
my  Humble  Opinion,  fuch  intricate  Queftions  are 
too  high  for  Us,  and  are  what  our  Faculties  were 
not  made  for.     However  that  be.   You  and  I 

*  Impartial  Inquiry  into  the  Exigence  and  Nature  of  Gcd^    fy 
S.  C.  Part  X.  C.  1,2,3. 

t  IntdMtutl  Syji,  p,8z8.  /^  p.  834, 

need 


I7S      ^DEFENSE  Qu.  X. 

need  not  differ.  For^  if  You  can  admit  the  pof- 
fibility  oiT'oiJO  infinite  extended  Beings^  You  caa 
have  nothing  confiderable  to  objed  againfl:  the 
one  Infinity  of  Three  infinite  Perfons,  which  I 
affert,  and  without  determining  the  modus  of  it. 

You  proceed  to  obferve,  that  the  Son's  Office 
and  CharaBer  doth  not  require  infinite  Towers : 
To  which  I  (hall  only  fay,  that  it  may,  for  any 
thing  you  know  5  fo  that  this  is  only  gueffing  ia 
the  Dark.  Laft  of  all,  you  come  to  interpret  Dr. 
Clarke  5  fuppofing  him  to  mean  by  "Divine  Tow- 
erSy  *  all  divine  Powers  relating  to  the  Sons  Cha^ 
racier.  If  He  meant  fo,  He  might  eafily  have 
faid  fo :  And  yet  if  He  had.  He  had  dill  left  us 
in  uncertainties  as  much  as  ever ;  to  mufe  upon 
a  Diftindion,  which  He  has  no  Ground  for ;  and 
which,  when  admitted,  will  make  no  Man  wifer. 
You  hopey  the  ^er iff  is  fo  good  a  Thilofopher 
as  to  perceive^  {thd  He  doth  not  confider  it)  that 
abfolnte  infinite  TerfieEiions  include  and  infer  Su- 
premacy and  Independency.  And  therefore^ 
^x'henT>r.  Qhxkz  excepted  Sttpremacj  and  Inde- 
pendency,  He  plainly^  in  Reafbn  and  Confe- 
quenccy  excepted  abfohte  infinite  Towers, 

Now,  I  am  perfuaded,  that  Dr.  Clarke  would 
have  thought  it  hard  meafure  to  have  been 
charged  by  his  Adverfaries,  with  this  fo  plain 
Confequenccy  which  you  here  fo  freely  lay  upon 
Him,  Thc^cerifi  was  aware  that  the  Do6lor's 
words  might  bear  an  orthodox  Senfe  ;  namely, 
that  to  the  Son  are  communicated  all  things  be- 

*  Script,  DoBr.  p.  198. 

longing 


<Ju.  X.  offome  QUERIES.      179 

longing  to  the  Father,  excepting  only  what  is 
Terfonals  that  is,  excepting  that  He  is  not  the 
firft  in  Order  5  not  Supreme^  in  that  Senfe,  nor 
Unoriginate,  The  Dodor  well  knew  that  His 
words  might  bear  this  Conftmdion ;  and  perhaps 
would  not  have  took  it  well  of  any,  but  a  Friend, 
that  fliould  have  tied  down  a  loofe  and  general 
Expreffion  to  a  ftri^  particular  Meaning  5  and 
then  have  loaded  it  with  Coniequences  too  (hock- 
ing to  be  admitted  in  plain  and  exprefs  Terms. 
But  to  proceed :  You  feem  to  be  much  offended 
at  the  Qucrift,  for  asking,  Whether  all  divine 
To'-juers  can  be  communicated  to  a  Creature^  in- 
finite Terfe&ion  to  a  finite  Being?  This,  you 
lay,  is  an  evident  Contradiction^  which  ought  not 
to  have  been  put  hj  one  Scholar  upon  Another. 
But,  after  this  Rebuke,  you  will  pleafe  to  hearken 
to  the  reafonof  the  Cafe.  The  difficuty,  you 
know,  with  the  ^lerift,  was,  how  to  come  at 
the  Doctor's  real  Senfe,  couch'd  under  general 
and  ambiguous  Expreffions  5  that  fo  the  Contro- 
verfy  might  be  brought  to  a  Point ;  and  it  might 
be  feen  plainly  what  was  the  true  State  of  the 
Queftion  :  Which,  as  appears  now,  is  only  this  : 
whether  God  the  Son  be  a  Creature  or  no.  The 
Dodor  talk'd  of  the  Son's  having  divine  Powers, 
and  all  divine  Powers.  It  was  very  proper  to 
ask  you,  whetherHe  hereby  meant  infinite? o'^'qxs 
or  no  5  and  withal  to  (hew,  if  you  (hould  not 
anfwer  direftly,  that  He  could  not  mean  it,  con- 
fifiently  with  the  Arian  Hypothefis ;  which  He 
fcem'd,  in  other  parts  of  his  Performance,  to 

cfpoufc. 


I80         y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  X. 

efpoufe.  You  will  not  yet  fay  direftly,  that  the 
Son's  Perfeftions  are  finite^  nor  deny  them  to  be 
infinite :  So  hard  a  Thing  it  is  to  draw  you  out 
of  your  ambiguous  Terms;  or  to  make  you 
fpeak  plainly  what  you  mean.  All  you  are 
pleas'd  to  fay,  is,  that  the  Powers  or  Perfections 
of  the  Son  are  not  abfolutely  infinite :  As  if  In- 
finity were  of  two  Sorts,  abfolute  and  limited , 
or  might  be  rightly  divided  into  Infinity^  and 
not  Infinity.  Inftead  of  this,  I  could  wifti,  that 
words  may  be  ufed  in  their  true  and  proper 
meaning.  If  you  do  not  think  the  Perfedions 
of  the  Son  are  infinite^  and  yet  are  unwilling  to 
limit  them  5  let  them  be  called  indefinite^  which 
is  the  proper  word  to  exprefs  your  meaning  5 
and  then  every  Reader  may  be  able  to  under- 
ftand  us,  and  may  fee  where  we  differ.  We  are 
Both  agreed,  that  the  Doftor,  by  divine 
Powers,  did  not  mean  i«^;^/Y^  Powers.  Now  let 
us  proceed  to  the  next  Query. 


QUERl? 


Qu.  XL       offome  QUERIES.        1 8 1 

(^  U  E  R  Y     XL 

Whether  if  the  T)oBor  means  by  divine  Tower Sy 
Towers  given  by  God  {in  the  fame  Senfe  as 
AngelicatTowers  are  divine  Towers)  only  in  a 
higher  degree  than  are  given  to  other  Beings  ^ 
it  be  not  equivocating^  and  faying  nothing :  no- 
thing that  can  come  tip  to  the  Senfe  oj  thofe 
Texts  before  citedy  *  or  to  thefe  following  ? 


Applied  to  the  oneGod. 
ThoUy  evenThou^art 
Lord  alone  i  Thou  haft 
made  Heaven^  the  Hea- 
ven ofHeavens  with  all 
their  Hofty  the  Earth 
and  all  Things  that  are 
therein^  &c.  Neh.  9.  6. 
In  the  Beginnings  God 
created  the  Heavens  and 
the  Earthy  Gen  i .  i . 


To  God  the  Son. 
AUThings  were  made 
by  Him,  Joh.  1.3.  By 
Him  were  all  Things 
created  %  He  is  before  all 
Things y  and  by  Him  all 
Things  confiftj  Coloff.  i . 

1(5,17. 

ThoUy  Lordy  in  the 
Beginnings  haft  laid 
the  Foundation  of  the 
Earth  'y  and  the  Hea- 
vens are  the  Work  of  thy 
Hands y  Heb.  1. 10. 


IF  the  Do(Sor  means,  by  divine  Powers,  no 
more  than  is  intimated  in  this  Query,  Imuft 
blame  Him  firft  for  equivocating  and  playing  with 
an  ambiguous  Word  i  and  next  for  reftraining 


*  Qu.  ^.  p.  8pi 


end' 


182         ^DEFENSE        Qu.  XI. 

and  limiting  the  Powers  of  the  Son  of  God  5  not 
OTi\y  without  J  but  ^^^/;?/?  Scripture  5  and  con  fe- 
quently  for  giving  us,  not  the  Scripture  T)o^rine 
of  the  Trinity y  but  his  Oo^n.  That  there  is  no 
ground,  from  the  Texts  themfelvcs,  for  any  fuch 
Limitation  as  is  now  fuppofed,  is  tacitly  implied 
in  the  Dodor's  own  Confeflion  5  that  the  Son  is 
excluded  from  nothing  but  abfolute  Supremacy 
and  Independency :  So  naturally  does  Truth  fome* 
times  prevail,  by  its  oi2:n  native  Clearnefs  and 
Evidence y  againfl  the  ftrofigeft  and  mofl  fettled 
Prejudices,  Indeed  the  thing  is  very  clear  from  the 
Texts  themfelves  cited  above  5  cfpeciaily  when 
ftrengthened  with  Thofe  now  produced  under 
this  Query.  That  the  Son  was,  and  is  endowed 
with  creative  To'juers,  is  plain  from  thefe  Texts, 
and  others  which  might  be  added  $  and  is  con- 
firmed by  the  unanimous  Suffrage  of  Catholick 
Antiquity.  And  that  the  Title  of  Creator  is  the 
diftinguifhingCharader  of  the  one  Supreme  God, 
is  (q  clear  from  *  Scripture,  that  he  who  runs 
may  read  it.  Now  let  us  confidcr  what  you  have 
to  except,  in  order  to  elude  the  force  of  this  Ar- 
gument. 

The  Son  of  God,  you  fay,  is  manifeftly  the 
Father  s  Agent  in  the  Creation  of  the  Uni- 
verfe ;  referring  to  Ephef  3.9.  and  to  Heb.  i .  2. 
from  whence  you  infer,  that  He  is  fubordinate 
in  Nature  and  Towers  to  Him,  This  you 
have  {p,  58.)  and  in  your  Notes  {p,  5  5-)  youi 

*  Nehem.9.6.     Ifa.  40.  12,  13.  —  18,  19,  20,  21.  O'r.     lia. 
4>.f,8.  ira.4.3.1,10,  ler.  10.  10,  11,12.  ^^i'Serm,  3.p.94,e^f. 

infift 


Qu.  XL       offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.         185 

infift  much  upon  the  Diftindioii  between  c/^i  au- 
T»5  and  uV  a<;V»,  explaining  the  former  of  an 
Inftnimentaly  and  the  latter  of  an  Efficient 
Caufe  5  of  which  more  in  due  time  and  place. 
As  to  the  Son's  being  Agent  withy  or  Affijiant 
to  the  Father,  in  the  Work  of  Creation,  we 
readily  admit  it  5  and  even  contend  for  it.  The 
Father  Is  primaril'^y  and  the  Son  fecondarilyy 
or  immediately y  Author  of  the  World ;  which 
is  fo  far  from  proving  that  He  is  inferiovy  in 
Nature  or  Tower Sy  to  the  Father  5  that  it  is 
rather  a  convincing  Argument  that  He  is  equal 
in  Both.  A  Subordination  of  Order y  but  none 
of  Natttrey  is  thereby  intimated.  *  EufebiuSy 
whom  you  quote  (/>.  55.)  out  of  Dr.  Clarkey 
and  f  miftranflate  to  fcrve  your  purpofe,  docs  not 
deny  the  proper  Efficiency  of  the  Son  in  the 
Work  of  Creation.  All  he  afferts  is,  that  the 
Creation  is  primarily  and  eminently  attributed 
to  the  Father,  becaufe  of  his  AuOsvl/a,  his  Tre- 
rogativcy  Authority y  Supremacy y  as  Father,  or 
firft  Perfon  5  not  denying  the  Son's  proper  Effi- 
ciency y  but  only  (if  I  may  fo  call  it)  ||  original 

*^^^Eufeb,  contr.  Marcel.  I.  i.e. 20.  p.  84. 

f  The  learned  Dociovy  and^  after  Him,  You  conftrue,  W  ecurSj 
and  ^i  uuroZy  by  efficient,  and  miniftring  Caufe.  As  if  a  mini- 
firing  Caufe  might  not  be  efficient,  or  mufl  necejfardy  be  oppofed 
to  it. 

IJ  ^Ihis   is  excellently  illufirated  by  the  elder  Cyril.     U»\^i,  ^aPiti- 

eftTTetMoTg^wd?)  '^  airXoTiiCK.'i  t  t^uv  ^/jfjun^ytifjuxruv,  fJUytn  6  «<o$  T  vx' 
«tAA{^  ^f/^m^B-inw /ixrt^<ii'vif  itMet  ^ vtt' ccvtov.  Catech.  ll.p.  i6o. 
£d.  Bcned. 

Effici- 


184         y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qu.Xr: 

Efficiency  ;  that  is,  making  Him  the  fecond 
and  not  the  firfl  Perfon  ;  not  Father  but  Son. 
Indeed,  the  *  general  Opinion  of  the  Antients 
center'd  in  this  5  that  the  Father,  as  Supreme, 
iffued  out  Orders  for  the  Creation  of  the  Uni- 
verfe,  and  the  Son  executed  them.  And  this 
was  aflerted,  not  only  by  the  AnteNicene 
Writers,  but  f  Tofi-Nkene  too ;  and  fuch  as 
ftrenuoufly  defended  the  Catholick  Faith  againft: 
the  Arians.  I  have  before  obferved  that  the 
Antients  had  a  very  good  meaning  and  intent 
in  affigning  (as  it  were)  to  the  Three  Perfons, 
their  feveral  Parts  or  Provinces  in  the  Work  of 
Creation:  And  let  no  Man  be  offended,  if,  in 
this  way  of  confidering  it,  the  Son  be  fome- 
times  faid  JTrn^sleiv,  or  uV^^yeiv,  or  the  like  ||. 
This  need  not  be  thought  any  greater  Difparage- 
ment  to  the  Dignity  of  the  Son,  than  it  is,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  Difparagement  to  the  Dignity 
of  the  Father  to  be  reprefented  as  having  the 
Counfel  and  Alliftance  of  two  other  Perfons ; 
or  as  leaving  every  Thing  to  be  wifely  or- 
dered, regulated,  and  perfeded  by  the  -Son  and 
Holy  Spirit.  Thefe  Things  are  not  to  be  ftrift- 
ly  and  rigoroufly  interpreted  according  to  the 
Letter  ;  but  oixovo/jiixcus-,  and  ^sott^sxcov.  The  de- 
sign of  all  was:  i.  To  keep  up  a  more  lively 
Senfe  of  a  real  Diftinftion  of  Perfons.     2.  To 

*  See  Irenceus,  p.  8f.  Tertullian.  contr.  Prax.  c.  12.  Hippo- 
lyt.  contr.  Noet.  c.  1 4. 

t  >Sfe  Petavius  de  Trin.  1.  2.  c.  7.     Biill.D.  F.p.  80,  11 1. 

Ij  Vid.  Cotclerii  Not.  ad  Herm.Mandat._f.  p.  91.  S;  ad  Apoft. 
Coftfl.  1.^.  c.  20.  p.  326. 

teach 


Qu.  XL        offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         i  g  5 

teach  us  the  indivifible  Unity  and  Co  cilcntialicy 
of  all  Three,  as  of  one  *  Creator.     3 .  To  %nify 
wherein  that  Unity  confids,  or  into  w  hat  it  ul- 
timately reiblvcs,  'vi:z.  into  Unity  of  ^Prtncipley 
one  '^^XM  Head,  Root,  Fountain  of  all.    As  to 
the  Diftindion  between  c^t  aura,  and  ^'  avri^^ 
jper  qitem  and  ex  qiio^  or  the  like ;  it  can  be  of  ve- 
ry little  fervice  toyourCaufe.    The  prcpofition 
^,  with  a  genitive  after  it,  is  frequently  ufed,  as 
well  in  Scripture,  as  in  Ecclefiaftical  Writers,  to 
cxprefs  the  efficierit  Caufe,  as  much  as  -^-i  or  c^., 
or-nreof?  orany  other.  Sothatthe  Argument  draw  a 
from  the  ufe  of  the  Prepofitions  is  very  poor  and 
trifling,  as  was  longfince  obferved  by  -f  Bajfil  the 
Great,  who  very  handfomly  expofes  its  Author 
and  Inventor,  Aetius,  for  it.  Pleaie  but  to  account 
clearly  for  one  Text,  out  of  many,  {Rom.  11.36.) 
Of  Him,  and  tkrd  Him  (^''i  aJrci)  and  to  Him  arj 
allT kings  5  to  '-^'hom  be  Glory  for  ever.  If  you  un- 
derftand  this  of  the  Father;  then,  by  your  Argu- 
ment from  the  Phrafe,  c'l  a.^jrii^   you  make  Him 
alfo  no  more  than  :>ini?iftrume7italC-mk :  If  you 
underftand  it  of  morePerfons,  here'san  illuftrious 
Proof  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity.  If  it  be  pretended, 
which  is  the  !l  Do6lor*s  lad  refort,  that  although 
the  ufe  of  thofc  Prepofitions  fingly  be  not  fuffi- 
cient,  yet  when  they  are  ufed  in expre/s  Contra- 
dijliyiction  to  each  ot  her  ^  they  are  of  more  Signifi- 

*  So  Origen,  -who  makes  the  Futher  ^'-.ui^^yoc,  andihe  Son  or.- 
f^ia^yoq,  Contr.  Celf.  p.  317.  ^ef,  in  the  very  fame  Tnatifcy  iLn'ies 
that  tl^  IVorU  could,  have  more  Creators  than  one.  Mn  ^uvxf^^o'v 
"Jzsv   zroXXZ-i  ^KU>iii^ym  yifovitui,  p.  I  S.         f  ^^  Sp.Sandl,  p.  I  4y,  ^f. 

]J  See  Script.  Do6tr.  p-  90. 

O  cancy5 


r$(5  y?    D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qn.  XI. 

cancy;  I  anfwcr  (irft,  that  1  dcfire  to  know  of 
what  Significancy  they  arc  in  Rom.  11.36.  where 
they  fccm  to  be  ufcd  in  exprefs  Contra'diflinciion 
to  each  other  5  and  (ccondly,  admitting  that  they 
are  of  Sigiiijicdhcy^  they  may  fignify  only  a  real 
Diftindion  of  Perfbns,  as  *  St.  Bajil  well  ob- 
fcrves;  01  iomz priority  of  order  proper  to  the 
jirjt  Terfon :  This  is  all  the  ufc  which  any  Ca- 
tholicic  Writer  ever  pretended  to  make  of  the 
Diftindion,  However,  to  countenance  the  Di- 
flindion  between  the  Father  ^sthz  efficient,  and 
the  Son  as  the  inftrumental  Caufc,  you  are  plea- 
fed  to  fay  farther,  (/>.  56.)  'tis  remarkable  that 
{according  to  the  Smfe  of  the  foregoingT^iftinEti- 
on)  though  Chrift  is  frequently  Jliledby  the  An- 
tients  T?;^v/Ty!s-  and  Ar^iJA^s^yc^^  yet  rioirjTyi?  t  oXootf 
is  {to  the  befl  of  7ny  Remembrance)  always  con- 
fined  by  Them  to  the  Father  only. 

Had  your  Remark  been  true  and  juft,  yet  it 
would  not  be  eafy  to  fliew  that  'vi')(ym^^  or  how- 
ever o'^n/^i^eyo^'jniay  not  fignify  as  much  as  -zroryiTcV  t- 
But  your  Memory  has  much  deceived  you,  in  this 
Matter;  and  you  Ihould  be  cautious  how  you 
make  your  Readers  rely  upon  it.    Tiiofc  Words 

*  Dc  Spir.Sanvf^.  p.  148. 

t  Sec  Origcn.  Contr.  Celf.  p.  5  17.  trhcro  the  Son  is  faid  7T0i7-i(ru.t 
v  aio-fjocv^  aKil  the  Tather  to  be  zr^^aiTer.-i,  thut  is,  primarily,  or 
eminently,  ^'if/^n^fv^^'  If  ^toojt^?  fgnijiid  more  than  h.^ui^^/o^y 
Origcn  [poke  lery  unaccurately. 

Cyril   of  Aiexandria  fnppofes  God  the  tathn  to  haue  been  in  re^ 

altty  TiyQjiT/i'i  from  eierlafiing ;  ^\fj^n'fyo(;  in  Foiver  and  Intention  only. 

'  Thcfaur.afT.  4.  p.  34.     yet  Atiianaiius  makes  zioir.!]^",  to  figrujy  more. 

than  rix,viT'jc.  Orar.  contr.  Arian.  2.  p.  489.     Authors  do  not  always 

obferve  a  critical  Exacimfs  in  the  ufe  of  Ik'ords. 

.\.  (cfpecially 


Qii. XI.  offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         i%j 

(cfpccially  the  Two  hft  of  them)  fcem  to  have 
been  ufed  by  the  Antientspromilcuouny  ;  and 
to  have  been  applied  indifferently  to  Father  or 
Son,  as  They  had  occafion  to  mention  either. 
If  They  are  oft'ner  applied  to  the  Father,  it  is 
only  becaufe  He  is  ihzfijl  Terfon  5  and  is  there- 
fore/'r/>/^^r/7>' and  ^;^//;^i?;^^/7,  tiyyiirs-^  c/^il/^jy^yor, 
or  -ujoimh'  not  that  the  Son  is  not  Jlri^ly,  pro- 
perly, 2^nA  comphatly  Creator  d\(Oj  according  to 
the  fulled  fenfe  and  import  of  any,  or  of  all 
thofe  Words.  They  were  intended  to  fignify 
that  the  Son  is  the  immediate  and  efficie?it  Caufe 
of  all  Things  ,  had  *  creative  Powers ;  and  was, 
with  the  Father,  Cr^^/'^pr  of  Men,  of  Angels,  of 
the  whole  Univerfc.  A  late  ^  Writer  ispleafed 
to  exprefs  Himfelf,  upon  this  Head,  in  fuch  a 
manner  as  may  deceive  ignorant  and  unwary 
Readers.  "  I  know  not  [fays  He)  that  either 
"  ArianSy  or  any  primitive  Chriftian  Writers, 
"  ever  adventured  to  give  the  Charafter  of  great 
"  Archite^  of  the  Uiiiverfe  to  Jefus  Chrift ; 
*'  chuiing  rather,  with  the  facred  Writings,  to 
"  fay,  in  fofter  Language,  that  thro  Him  God 
"  created  All,  and  referving  the  abfolute Title  of 
*'  Creator  of  the  Univerfe  to  Another. 

If  Ho.  knows  not  x\\diclLh'm2,s,  He  might  for- 
bear to  fpeak  of  them.  What  He  fays,  even  of 
the  Sacred  Writings,  is  Mifreprefentation :  For, 
Theydo  not  conftantly  follow  that fo ft  Language, 

♦  The  Arians  themfelves  jvould  fay,  fua  virtute  fecit,  me;imng  it 
of  the  Son.     See  the  Citation  above,  p.  94. 

t  Mr.  Erulyn.  Exam,  of  Br.  Bennet,  p.  ii.fird  Edit. 

O  2  which 


18$        yi    D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  XI. 

which  He  fo  much  approves  of.     They  do  it  not, 
in  Job,  1.3,10.  Colof  1 .  1 6.  Hebr,  i .  i  o.    Nei- 
ther can  that  Conftruftion  be  afcertain'd,  in  any- 
one of  thefc  Texts,  from  any  neceffarj  force  of 
the  Prepofition  '^-     As  to  Antiquity,  which  this 
Gentleman  pretends  to,  He  may  knou:;,  hereafter, 
that  the  Charader  of "" great  Architect  of  the  U- 
niverfey  is  exprefly  given  to  Jefus  Chrifty  by  En- 
febius ;  who  was  never  fufpedled  of  carrying  Or- 
thodoxy too  high.    A  Man  muft  be  a  very  ftran- 
ger  to  the  Antients-,  who  can  make  any  Quefti- 
on  whether  They  attributed  the  Work  of  Crea- 
tion to  the  Son,  as  much  as  to  the  Father.    They 
afcribed  it  equally  to  Both  5  only  with  this  diffe- 
rence, as  before  obferved,   that,  for  the  greater 
Majeftyand  Dignity  of  the  Father  as  ihcfirftTer- 
fon.  They  fuppofed  Him  to  ^  iflue  out  Orders,  or 
to  give  his  Fiaty  for  the  Creation,  and  the  Son 
to  Execute.     From  hence  we  may  eafily  under- 
ftand  in  what  Senfe  the  Title  of  Creator  was 
'^primarily,  or  eminently  attributed  to  the  Father  5 
•  and  yet,  as  to  any  real  To'm'er  or  Efficiency,  the 
Son  is  as  truly  and  properly  Creator --,  and  is  fre- 
quently fo  ftiled,   by  the  primitive  Writers,  in 
the  ^  fuUeft  and  flrongeft  Terms.  You  may  fee 

'    OyAyoic,  T  oXuv  ^/lyuii^fya^  Ao'/^.      Eufeb.  E.  H.  1.    10.    C,  4. 

<c    d'/)[/ji-'-:^ybvT(^,     ?"  J   T^viVf.ijciT'^  T^i(povT<^   y^  ul/^oyT(^.     Iren. 
p.  285-.  Ed.  Bened. 

UcctI)^   y,^iXri<riVy  vioc,  i7:o'y,(n¥,    TtviZiXiU  i(pUvi(U(nr.      Hippol.  COntr, 

Noetj  p.  id. 

'  U:^6iTM^  (^r,ujtyj7ov.     Ori^.  contr.  Cclf.  p.  5  1 7  • 

fomc 


Qii.  XL        of  form  QU  E  R I  E  S.         i  S9 

Ibiiic  Tcftimonics,  in  the  Margin,  from  Athenar 
goras,  Tatian,  Iren£tis,  Clement  of  AlexandriUy 
nnd  Origeyi.  It  would  be  cafy  to  add  more, 
from  HippolyttiSy  Gregory  of  Neoc^fareay  No- 
n^atiaUy  and  indeed  from  the  generality  of  the 
Church  Writers  down  from  Barnabas  to  the 
Council  of  Nice,  I  muft  obferve  to  you,  that 
even  your  admired  ^  EufebinSy  (whom  you  be- 
fore quoted  in  your  favour,  miftaking  Him  very 
widely)  He  applies  the  Title  of  srcvurr,'^  ^  o\(tiVj 
(the  highcfl:  which  you  think  the  Father  Himfelf 
can  have)  to  the  Son,  no  lefs  than  thrice ;  as  Ire- 
n£ns  had  done,  thrice  alfo,  before,  in  Words  e- 
quivalent ;  zndOrigeny  probably,  once,  as  alfo 

^  iiou.  Athenag.  p.  38.  Ed.  Oxon, Obferve  7:^o<;  ccCtoZ,  as  well  as  ^luuroZ, 

AuToq  iccvrS  mv  uXujo  a/i^jiii\>y¥i<rc<.<,.      'A7.  iXuy  d^jju/ij^pyag.      Tatian. 

p.  22,26.  Ed.  Ox. 

ToZtov  fJucvoy^Wy    ToZrov  zocvtcjv  7:oi;:rua.     Iren.  p.  4,^,    Ed.Bened, 

TOUTOV    KO<rf/jiS   TtOiTtTUM 5('^    TCt   IJlcC    f?<.i)XvSoTCC,    Ibid.     Tov  T  TToif- 

Tuv  y,ii^lui ,  x^  OYiyjia^yovy  jC  t^'oiyiIuo  ,  Xcyoy  y  &ic>u,p,  j^.Tuv  ctTT^.vrwt 
Tf;tjvtT-/j?  Acy©-,  p.  igo.  Fabricator  omnium,  p.  219.  Fabricator 
Univeriorum,  p.  307.     Mundi  Fa(fi:or,p.  315^. 

'i2   Tu  TTuvTcc  }'ih(J!^iis^[\),     Clcm .  Alcxandr.  p.  7.   Edit.  Oxon. 

'ZvfljTtCCVTUv   0fOV    'iV6t   f/jCVOV  ■    O'/ifij'.^i^yoV  ViOV     CV    Tixl^Ji^    p.    IA2. 

Uoivrec  6  Xoy(^  xoiiim     .  ,  ru,  oXx  S^/jf/jm^yii     .    ..  S^  KoG-(juii  <c'  '5* 

^AiiSfaTra  ^/jfjunf^yoq,  p.  310,  'H  t  'o\m  ' A^x^^  P*  669.  'O  Ac^CS)- 
r^'jjW'ta^yios?  xl'Ti(^,  p.  6^4.    rictfyrftjr  ^/;/>i<<xf<yoo,  p.  768. 

Tcv  Acj'ov  :7"£;roi>3)c£K«*  TTccv'iU,  oTcc  0  zcii/jf  uur^  inlikXuro.  Grig, 
contr.  Celf.  p.  6^.     Comp.  Athanaf  de  Dccret.S.  N.p.  riG. 

A-/;^4i.'^yov  T  TToivruvy  kIh-Im,  xoiviTLo ^  T  zclvruv,  Origen.  apud 
Huet.  Origenian.  p.  38. 

N.  B.  ThisUJlCttationy  from  a  Catena,  is  of  lefs  Authority ;  b$it  the 
■  Citations  from  his  other  ceitdiinly  genuine  f forks,  are,inSenfe,  Equivalent. 

f  Eufcb.  in  Pfalm.  p.  125-.  de  Laud.  Confl:.  c.  14.  in  PC  p.  630. 
See  alfo  in  Pfalm.  631.  in  the  firjl  of  the  three  Places,  the  M^ords 
are  remarkably  full  and  flrong.  'O  ^/iwnsrMxoy^^,  0  jrei/jrij?  r  oA^/v, 
The  other  Two  are  equivalent  in  Senfe.  'ATrU^lay  TToiKr^St  and  6  TFot^Tnq 
fcvrm  i  where  'qXmv  is  nnderfiood, 

O  3  "^  Hippo- 


190        .^DEFENSE  Qu.  XL 

*  Hippolytus :  not  to  mention  that  all  the  Fa- 
thers by  interpreting,  Gen.  1.26.  {-aron/ia-aijjJ^av- 
Gj^^ajTTcv,  (^c.)  of  Father  and  Son  jointly,  have 
implicitely  and  confequcntialjy,  tho'not  expreily, 
laid  the  fame  thing.     To  proceed : 

You  have  an  Argument  to  prove  that  Great- 
ing  does  not  imply  infinite  Power.  For^  you 
fay,  "ucas  the  extent  of  tbofe  'Powers  then  ex- 
ercisd^  infinite^  'tis  evidtnt,  the  JVorld  miift 
be  infinite  alfo,  (p.  58.)  This,  indeed,  is  doing 
the  Bufinefs  at  once:  For,  if  this  reafoning 
be  jufl:,  the  Father  Himfelf,  as  well  as  the  Son, 
is  efFedually  excluded  from  ever  giving  any  fen- 
fible  Proof,  or  from  exerting  any  Aft,  of  infinite 
Power.  St.  T aid's  Argument  from  the  Creation, 
ioY  i\\Q,  eternal  To'uver  and  Godhead  oi  the  Cre- 
ator, is  rendredinconcluflve  :  For  it  will  be  eafy 
to  reply,  in  Contradiftionto  the  Apoftle*s  reafon- 
ing, that  the  Things  which  arc  made  are  fijiite^ 
and  therefore  cannot  prove  the  maker  of  Them 
to  be  infinite:  So  that  Atheifts  and  Unbelievers 
V\^ere  net  fo  entirely  "UJttkout  excufe,  as  the  good 
Apoftlc  imngin'd.  If  you  think  there  is  fome 
diiference  between  infi7iite  Tovjer^  and  eternal 
Tower  and  Godhead --,  and  therefore  that  the 
Apoftle's  Ai-gument  is  not  pertinent  to  the  point 
in  Hand  -,  I  fliall  be  content  if  Creating  be  al- 
lowed a  fufficient  Proof  of  the  Son's  eteryial 
Tower  and  Godhead',  fince  it  brings  me  direftly 
to  the  Point  I  aim  at :  Befides,  that  infinite  Tower 

*  Contr.Bcron.  8v  He),  p.  126.  Co?np.contT.  Noet.p.  16. 
Jhe^e'fiiiinifs  oj  thefirfiiijom.  ^i.i  t  dcubrful)  but  the  la't  is  lOt  que/Hon' J. 

will 


Qu.XT.        of  fome  Q^UE^IES.         191 

will  come  in  of  CoiuTc  afterwards,  by  ncccfTary 
Inference  and  Implication.  I  had  almoll  forgot 
to  t:.kc  notice  of  your  way  of  wording  your 
Argument,  which  looks  not  very  fair.  You  fay, 
"-LZ'as  the  extent  of  thofe  Towers  infinite }  as  if 
any  one  faid  it  was,  in  the  Senfe  wherein  you 
underftand  the  word  extent.  For  Reafons  beft 
known  to  your  felf,  you  do  not  diftinsuifli  be- 
tween  extent  of  Power  a^  intra,  in  refped  of 
l^egree-y  and  extent  of  Yo^nzx.  ad  extra,  in  re- 
fped of  the  exercife  of  it.  It  mny  require  an 
infinite  T>egree  of  Power  to  create  a  grain  of 
Sand ;  though  the  extent  of  that  outward  Ad 
reaches  no  farther  than  the  thing  created.  Now, 
you  know,  ourdifpute  is  only  about  infinite  ex- 
tent of  Power  in  the  firfl:  Senfe.  Let  us  there- 
fore put  the  Argument  into  plain  Words,  and  fee 
how  it  will  bear. 

"  Was  the  Power  cxercis'd  in  the  Creation 
"  infinite  in  ^Degree,  or  exceeding  any  finite 
*'  Power,  thenit  is  evident  that  the  JVorldmuft 
*^  be  infinite.  Make  this  our,  with  any  tolera- 
ble Senfe,  or  Connexion,  and  you  11  do  fome- 
thing.  Next  let  us  put  the  Argument  in  the  o- 
tiaer  Light. 

"  If  the  Power  cxercis'd  in  the  Creation  ex- 
"  tended  to  an  infiriite  Compafsy  or  to  an  in- 
"  finite  Number  of  Things,  then  it  is  evident 
"  that  the  World  miift  be  infinite.  Right:  If 
the  Creation  had  been  infinite  in  extent,  the 
Creation  muft  had  been  infinite  in  extent.  But 
who  is  it  that  you  are  difputing  againft?  Or 
O  4  whom 


192       ^DEFENSE  Qu.XI. 

whom  cio  you  oblige  by  thcfc  Difcovcrics )  The 
Qiicftionis,  whether  the  CVt^^/^/^?^,  that  is,  pro- 
ducing out  or  Nothing,  any  one  Jingk  Thing, 
however  fmall  in  extent,  be  not  an  Ad  proper 
to  God  only  5  exceeding  any  finite  Power  5  in- 
communicable to  any  Creature,  It  is  fufH- 
cient  for  Ton^  to  put  Us  upon  the  Proof  of 
rhe  Jffirmati'Ve:  No  confidering  Man  would 
ever  attempt  to  prove  the  Negative,  As  to  the 
Affirmative^  there  are  many  very  probable  pre- 
fumptivc  Proofs,  fuch  as  ought  to  have  great 
Weight  with  Us:  particularly.  Creation  every 
where  in  Scripture  look'd  on  as  a  divine  Aft; 
Not  fo  much  as  a  Grain  of  Sand)  or  a  Particle  of 
Matter,  Hiidto  be  created  by  an  Angel,  or  Arch- 
angel, or  any  Creature  whatever ;  Reafonable  to 
fuppofe  that  nothing  can  come  into  Being  by 
any  Power  leis  than  His,  who  is  the  Author 
and  Fountain  of  all  Being.  To  this  agrees  the 
general  Senfe  of  the  more  fober  and  thinking 
Part  of  Mankind.  This  was  the  Dodrine  of  the 
*  Ante-Nicene  Catholick  Writers,  fo  far  as  ap- 
pears, as  well  as  of  thofc  that  came  after. 
Wherefore  the  Arians^  in  afcribing  Creation  to 
a  Creature^  ''\  innovated  in  the  Faith  of  Chrift, 

*  Hoc  Dcus  ab  Homine  d.itcrf,  quoniam  Dcus  quidem  facit. 
Homo  auttm  fit :  &:  quidem  Qui  facit,  fempcr  Idem  eft.  Ircn, 
f.  140.  Ed.  Bentd. 

Nihil  cnim  in  return  Diabolus  invenitur  fecifle,  videlicet  cum 
2c  IlJ'e  Crcatura  iit  Dei,  quemadmodum  k  rcliqui  Angeli.  Iren. ^.228. 
See  alfo  Bull.  D.F. Epilog,  p.  291,292. 

tciiToiy    y.civ    O'juXvtr'^vo';,  xl!  Mu^-mo^v,  (c  BuinXi.o/ic,  Toixvrcc  (pogvaci,   jC< 
lfji,Sicy,'.:.vuy  i^ii^^ral  rvyx^vi^TS.  Athan.  Crat.  2.  P.4S9. 

copied 


Qii.  XI.         offome  aU  E  R I  E  S.         193 

copied  after  the  Gnojticks^  *  and  cxpofed  their 
Caufe.  Since  they  refolved  to  make  a  Creature 
only,  of  the  Son  of  God,  they  fliould  not  have 
allowed  Him  any  Power  of  Cr^/:^//;?^;  butfliould 
have  interpreted  all  thofe  Texts  which  fpeak  in 
favour  of  it,  as  the  Socinians  have  done  fince,  of 
a  metaphorical  Creation.  That  indeed  had  been 
novel,  and  ftrain'd  enough  5  but  accompanied 
with  lefs  Abfurdity  than  the  other.  However, 
This  ufe  we  may  make  of  what  the  Arians  fo 
generally  granted  J  Firft,  toobfcrve,  that  Scrip- 
ture and  Tradition  muft  have  appeared  to  run  ve- 
ry ftrong,  at  that  time,  for  it:  And  it  may  far- 
ther fhew,  ho\Z)  eafy  and  natural  that  Notion 
7nnjl  be  allo'juedto  be^  ''jjhich  fo  many  could  not 
forbear  expreffmg  clearly  and  dijlinBly  ;  even 
frequently  ^-jiheny  at  the  fame  time^  they  '•jjere 
about  to  affirm,  and  endeavouring  to  prove 
fomething  not  very  confflent  ^-ji'ith  it.  But  we 
fhall  have  more  of  this  Matter  in  the  following 
§iueries, 

f  See  Serra.  3.  p.  99,  &c. 


Query 


194        ^DEFENSE        Qu.  XII. 

(^  (J  E  R  Y      XII. 

Whether  the  Crentnr  ofallTh'mgs  was  not  Him- 
felf  uncreated  \   and  therefore  could  not  be  V^ 
cuTi  ovTCiiv^  made  out  of  nothing, 

THIS  and  the  four  following  Queries,  are^ 
you  fay,  all^  at  moft,  but  Arguments^ 
ad  ignorantiam,   or   Verecundiam,  (p.  59.)   ta 
put  us  upon  detenmning  ThitgSy  on  either  Jide^ 
not  clearly  revealed.     To  fay  tlie  Truth,   you 
feem  here   to   be  very  much  perplex'dj    and 
therefore  have  reafon  to  complain :    And  I  am 
not  to  exped  any  very  clear  and  diftind  An- 
fwers.     You  admit    {p.  60.)   that  the  Creator 
of  all  Things  imijl  be  Himfelf  uncreated.   W^ell 
then :  The  Son  is  Creator  of  all  Things  5  There- 
fore He  is  uncreated.     The  premifTes  are  Both 
your  own  ;  The  Conclufion  mine :    And,  one 
might  think,  it  fliould  be  yours  too.     But  you 
are,    it  feems,    very  loth  to  come  into  it;    and 
difcover  a  ftrong  Inchnation  to  elude  and  evade 
it  5   if   it  were  any  way  pofllblc  for  you  to  do 
it.     Let  us  fee   what  you  can  fay  5     If    the 
Scripturc-Scnfe   be  the    true  and  only  proper 
Senfe  of  the  word.   Creature,    {to  wit,    the 
vijible  and   invifible  Worlds  brought  into  be- 
ing by  the  Vower  of  the  Aoy^^    or  Son  of 
Cody  in  Subordination  to  the  Will  and  Tower 
of  the  Father)    then  'tis  manifeft  that   the 
Acy©*,  who  thus  created  Them,   mufl  [whatv 
ever  is  the  nature  of  his  own  TroduStion  or 

Gene- 


Qu.  XII.       offome  Q\]  E  R  I  E  S.       195 

Generation)  be,  in  this  'ujay  of  fpeaking,  uncre- 
ated. This  is  fomething  myftcrious.  It  is  how- 
ever very  plain  that  you  are  draining  hard  for 
fomc  odcly  peculiar  Senfe  of  the  word,  Creature, 
or  Created-^  which  is  to  be  called  the  Scripture- 
Sen  fe  5  and  if  this  does  not  reUeve  you,  all  is 
loft. 

You  give  us  the  Scripture  T)oEirine  of  the 
Creation-,  exprcfling  both  tht Creation  it  felf,and 
the  Terfon  by  whom  it  was  wrought:  and  That 
"whole  T>o^rine,  tho'  fet  forth  in  many  Words, 
you  call  the  Scripture-Senfe  of  that  One  Word, 
Creature,  ox  Created.  As  if  I  ihould  fay  ;  the 
Scripture- Account  of  the  Ark  is,  that  it  was  made 
by  Noah  5  therefore  the  Scripture-Senfe  of  the 
word,  Ark,  implies  the  making  of  it  by  Noah. 
Or,  the  Scripture- Account  of  the  Temple  is,  that 
it  was  built  by  Solomon ;  therefore  the  Scripture- 
Senfe  of  the  word,  Temple,  fuppofes  it  to  be 
fomething  made  by  Solomon  :  And  if  there  were 
ever  fo  many  Temples  bcfides  that  one,  yet  They 
could  not  properly  be  called  Temples,  unlefs 
built  by  Solomon.  This  is  juft  as  good  as  your 
pretence,  that  creating  does  not  fignify  fimply, 
creating  -,  but  creating  by  the  Aoy(^.  Give  me 
leave  to  ask  whether  the  Jews,  who  kept  their 
Sabbath  in  Memory  of  the  Creation,  and  un- 
doubtedly took  their  Notion  of  it  from  Scri- 
pture, underftood  the  word  conftantly  in  your 
Senfe,  as  created  by  the  Aoyi'^  \  If  they  did ; 
That  is  a  point  I  may  make  fome  ufe  of  another 
Time:  If  They  did  not$  then  the  Scripture- 
Senfe 


196      y^    DEFENSE         Qu.XII. 

Senfe  of  the  word,  Creature ,  before  the  coming 
of  the  MeJJiahy  was  fomething  different  from 
what  you  have  given  us.  I  fhall  only  add,  that 
your  pretended  Senfe  of  the  word  Creature^  or 
Created^  does  not  feeni  to  have  prevailed  fo  ear- 
ly as  St.  7<?/.72's  Time.  He  tells  us,  all  Things 
were  made  by  Him^  that  is,  by  the  Aoy©'*  and 
rjoithmit  Him^  ijoas  not  any  Thing  made  that 
Ksoas  made.  Might  He  not  better  have  faid,  in 
fliort,  all  Things  were  created^  neither  was  there 
any  thing  but  what  was  created'^  It  was  perfeftly 
needlcfs,  if  your  pretence  be  true,  to  infert,  bj 
Him-j  becaufe,  in  the  Scripture-Senfe  oi  the 
Word,  it  was  implied,  and  the  Addition  of  it 
only  renders  it  Tautology. 

You  go  on  to  fay,  it  is,  I  think,  for  this 
reafony  that  the  Scriptures  never  fay  that 
He  is  created.  IngenuouQy  confefs'd ;  and 
therefore  I  hope  you  will  not  prefunie,  either 
to  fay,  or  to  believe,  that  He  is  created.  As 
to  tiie  Reafon  you  aflign  for  it ,  it  is  mere 
Fancy  and  Fiction :  I  hope,  out  of  pure  Re- 
verence to  the  [acred  Writ,  you  will  bethink 
your  felf  of  fomc  better.  You  add,  on  the  othec 
Hand,  that  the  Scriptures  never  fay  that  He 
is  uncreated',  forgetting  what  you  had  acknow- 
ledged, in  the  fame  Page,  viz.  That  the  Creator 
of  all  Things  muft  be  Himfelf  tmcreated,  is 
an  unavoidable  confeqtience  in  Reafon:  And 
that  the  Aoy&  had  created  all  Things  you 
admit,  immediately  after,  as  delivered  in  Scri- 
pture. Wherefore,  if  Scripture,  by  unavoid- 
able 


Qu.  XII.     offome  QJJ  E  R  I  E  S.         197 

able  con fequencCy  does  fay,  that  He  is  uncreated  \ 
I  hope,  Scripture  docs  fay  it.  The  Scriptures, 
every  where,  carefully  keep  up  the  Diftinclioii 
between  Creator  and  Creature'-,  and  never  con- 
found Both  in  one.  They  tell  us  not  of  any  Crea- 
ture of  the  Father  ^^  which  is  not  a  Creature  of 
the  j^^r/s  alfo.  They  fay,  that  all  Things  '■jj ere 
made  by  Him  5  and  to  be  more  expreflive  and 
cmphatical,  'ujithout  Him  was  not  any  Thing 
made  that  was  made.  How  can  this  be  if  He 
Himfelf  was  made  ?  Si  ipfe  Fa5tus  eft,  nonper  11- 
lum  fnnt  omm:i f  aria,  fed cxtQi^x  5  faith  St.  Aiiftin. 
As  to  theSenfc  of  xhcAnte-Nicene  Writers, 
in  this  particular,  it  is  well  known  that  they  do 
implicitely  and  con fequenti ally,  almoft  every- 
where, declare  the  Son  to  be  uncreated.  You 
may  fee  fonie  *  Teftimonies  referred  to  in  the 
Margin,  where  they  do  it  alfo  dire5ily,  and  in 
exprefs  Words.  I  fcruple  not  to  put  Origen 
amongfl:  Them  :  His  Orthodoxy  has  been  ef- 
fectually defended  by  the  Incomparable  Bifliop 
Bidl,  in  the  Opinion  of  the  ableft  and  moft 
impartial  Judges.  The  learned  Doftor,  notwith- 
ftanding,  has  been  pleafcd  to  revive  the  Difpute 
about  Origens  Sentiments :  with  what  Succefi, 
fhall  be  here  examin  d,  as  briefly  as  may  be.    The 

*  Athena^oras,  Lcgat.  p.  39.  Ed.  Ox.  Ignat.  ad  Ephcf.  c.  7. 
p.  14.  Ed.  Ox.  Irenxus,  J.  2.  c.  25-.  p.  if^.  Ed.Bcncd.  Grig. 
contr.  Celf.  1.  6.  p.  287.  Dionyf.  Rom.  apud  Arhanaf.  de  Dc- 
cret.  Syn.  N.  p.  232.  Dionyiius  Alexandr.  apud  Eund.  230. 
25'?,2f7.  Theognoftus—— apud  Eund.  230.  Methodius 
apud  Phot.  p.  <?6o.  Hippolytus  {probably)  de  Theol.  &  Incarn. 
p. 228. 

Words 


IPS        ^DEFENSE         Qu.  XII. 

Words  of  Origen,  which  ^  He  lays  hold  on,  are 

thcfc.        ^  npscC'uraTcv   wdvrctiv    r  cJ^niJUii^^mJ-clrdi'j^ 

applied  to  the  Son.  Bifhop  B^ll,  like  a  skillful 
and  a  candid  Man,  who  did  not  care  to  fet  one 
ambigtious  Sentence  againft  many  plain  ones  > 
nor  to  make  an  Author  manifeftly  inconfiftent, 
without  as  manifeft  a  necefllty;  rcndred  the 
Words,  very  rightly,  Antienter  than  all  Crea- 
tures. The  Doftor  Himfelf  is  forc'd  to  ^  admit 
that  the  Words  might  bear  this  Conftrudlion  : 
And  yet  ^  afterwards  fays,  that  Origen  exprefly 
reckofid  the  Son  among  the  cJ^ri[jAii^y^[j.arci.  But 
how  exprefly  ?  This  can  never  be  proved  mere- 
ly from  the  Force  of  is-^icrQ^rcLro-j^  as  a  Super- 
lative: unlefs  ^Etifebiiis  exprejly  reckon  d  the 
Son  among  Times  and  Ages  ;  or  ^  Jnftin  Mar- 
tyr exprejly  reckoned  the  Tentatetich  among 
profane  Hiftories:  or  the  fame  ^Jufiin  ex- 
prejly reckon'd  Mofes  and  the  Prophets  among 
the  Wife -Men  of  Greece:  which  is  ridicu- 
lous. The  Superlative^  we  fee,  hath  been 
ufed  fometimes  Comparatively  -,  and  why  not 
by  Origen  ?   He  may  only  appear  to  fay,  what 

«  Script.  Doflr.  p.  1 84,  278,  282.  alias  164, 24;-,  249. 
**  Grig.  contr.Cclf.  1.5-.  p.  25-7 • 
*"  Script.  Dodr.  p.  184.  altas  16^. 

*  Script.  Dodr.  p.  282.  alias  249. 

'  n«4v705  pt;^"^  ^  zswTkv  ccU)))m  ^p£crt£;T4t%5.  DeLaud.  Conjdanf. 
C.  I.  p.  5*0  I.  Valef.  Jjf  5^  u.0T0i)v  dlmuv  l<^i  n^vTriq  )o  x^^^  zra>Toc,io 
7:p(r'^vTUTC'j.  Cyril.  Alex.  Dial.  2.de  Trin,  p.  446.  Vid.  contr. 
Jul.].  I.  p.  18.  EtTheod.ad  Grjec.  Tom.4.  p.462.p.  493. 

*  ' P^cx'^tolonLu  ttoktZv  T  i|&'3-£v  'l^oQ^av  rr^v  M,uv(riu<i  'is-og/av.  Pa- 
rcen.  c.  i2.p.  70.Ed.Oxon. 

TTixp  ifjuTy  <rc(po)v.   Paraen.  c.  35*.  P-  118.     Mwo-wj  T^unuv  fc  'EAAs»a;» 
TTDte-UTufoc.  Eufeb.  Prsep.Evang.l.  14.C.  3. 

He 


Qii.  XII.      of fome  QV ERIE  S,        199 

He  really  does  not.  There  is  certainly  a  wide 
Difference  between  ^verbally  Teeming  to  aflert, 
and  exprefly  afferting  ;  as  much  as  between  be- 
ing barely  capable  of  fuch  a  Senle,  and  being  ca- 
pable of  no  other  Senfe.  How  then  will  the 
learned  Dodor  be  able  to  make  good  his  Preten- 
fions )  He  *  alledges the  'wholeTemr  ofOn^crvs 
Opinion '-,  in  which  he  greatly  Miftakes:  For  the 
whole  Tenor  of  Origen,  efpecially  in  that  Trea- 
tife  from  whence  the  Paflage  is  taken,  is  alto- 
gether contrary;  as  the  Learned  well  know, 
and  Bifhop  Btill  hath  clearly  fhewn.  But  the 
Doftor  has  a  farther  Plea  from  a  Paflage  in 
f  AthanafiiiSy  which  He  feems  to  be  much 
pleafed  with  ^  referring  to  it,  once,  and  again, 
in  his  Scripture-'DoBrine.  The  principal  Words 
are  thefe :  Tov  k^  t"  xt/o-sw?  xu^rov,  k^  -nrda-n^  >auD- 
^cL(Ti'ji£  o\ixiiipyov.  The  Doftor  thinks  he  has  here 
difcovered  a  II  Contra-diftinSiion  between  t-  xt/- 
<Ti(}^^  (He  negleds  j'.upiov)  and  -sraVns- x^TJus-aa-sco?  c/^jj- 
jutis^fov.  We  are  to  fitppofe  -utclgh^  \cuK,7cla-t(tis  of 
larger  Extent  and  Signification  than  -nraVKir  xt/o-sw? 
\yould  have  been  :  and,  becaufe  d^nfj-m^yoy  goes  a- 
long  with  it,  we  are  to  fuppofe  that  ^T^^K^iftiixcL 
was  underftood,  by  AthanajhiSy  in  a  larger 
Senfe  than  xr/o-i? :  Laftly,  we  are  10  fuppofe  that 
Athanafms  is,  in  this  Inftance,  the  beft  Interpre- 
ter of  Origeni  tho' it  does  not  appear  from  Or/- 

*  Script.  Doflr,  p.  184.  alids  164. 

•\  T^Tcv    fjtjovov  eivxt    02ov    «A>j<'!),    T  J^  T^  xVcrz^yi;  ku£/ov,    }^  7ex<rr,i 

TTiKHvx    7ra.(ry,t;  '^vtry^c,  irUq,   o  ^  Xe/€-oZ  TTxr^f     Orat.  COntT.  Gent, 

p.  3p.  Ed.  Bcned.  |)  Script.  Do<5lr.  p.  1S4.  alias  164. 

gen's 


200  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  XII. 
geri'^  own  Writings,  that  He  knew  any  thing  of 
this  pccuUar  Scnte  of  o\\i.vi^^^xcL^  but  the  Con- 
trary. Tiie  bare  Recital  of  io  many  StippoJitionSy 
cidvanc  d  Avithout  Proof,  or  any  Shadow  of  it, 
might  fuffice  foran  Anfwer.  But  we  may  obferve, 

1.  That  if  AthanaJitiSy  being  then  a  young 
Man  and  an  Orator,  intended  only  to  vary  his 
Plirafe;  either  to  be  more  emphatical,  or  to  give 
the  better  Turn  and  Cadence  to  a  Period  (and 
this  might  be  all,  for  any  thing  that  appears  to 
the  contrary)  then  the  Dodlor's  Critktjm  falls  to 
the  Ground. 

2.  If  any  Co7itra-diJlinciio7t  was  intended,  it 
fliould  feem,  that  the  fame  muft  hold  with  re- 
fped  to  y-\j^'>c'j  and  ch^iua^yo-j :  the  Confequcncc 
whereof  is,  that  God  the  Father  is  not  Hu'ei©^ 
fo  far  and  wide  as  He  is  c'/^uiypyk.  It  will  be 
fome  Satisfaftion  to  us,  that  if  the  Son  be  o\mi^' 
yr^ij-cij  He  has  no  Lord  over  Him. 

3.  The  conA^m  u{c  of  o\j.iiir>ycaci  and  oV^?" 
70^5  in  other  Authors,  and  even  in  *  Athanafius 
Himfelf,  and  in  this  very  ^Trcatife,  is  another 
ftrong  Prcfumption  againft  the  Dodor'sCritidfm. 

*  See  Atlianaf.  Je  Decret,  Syn.  Nic.  pag.  237.  Where  He  ex- 
prejly  pleach  that  the  Father  cafwot  i>e  fiul  to  be  ^yjiov^yo^^  in  refpecl 
of  the  Son. 

f  Tec   fjiy/i  tvrx  sVjoroj-'jcr^v,  tyj    K'.itri   Trup^^  r  yPua-aflx   "Xolt^^J oyncy 

Z-^Z._fJCjCC   TlOC^^OVTiC,   0(.]iir,TO)i    XUi     ObCTiri'CtC.       '  OfJjiHV    y-*    H    TIC,    TX   ifljCt    TT^ 

T  TUTUV  o/i[jjiov^yov  KXTCt-TTu,'^./},  p.  2^6.  The  TOPOrds  oyjfJiiiov^yyif/jccTfC  arjd 
c/j/jiovr/oi>  ahfwer^  iii  the  Si)/nlittule  anU  Aaalo^y,  to  KTiG-e-t  and 
'  KTitru^TUy  going  before.  Wherefore^  I  conceive,  that,  according  to 
Atlianarius,  the  Two  former,  when  ttnji-rjlood  with  relation  to  Gody 
art  cniiivnlent  to  the  Two  latter. 

1  z.The 


Qu.  XII.      offome  Q.U  E  R  I  E  S.         201 

4.  The  Confcqucnccs  following  from  the 
Suppofition  of  fuch  a  Scnfc,  as  the  Do£lor  would 
impofc  upon  Athanafitis,  may  be  dcmonftrably 
confuted  from  the  fame  Trcatife  j  nay,  from  the 
very  iame  Page  where  that  remarkable  Paf- 
fage  is. 

For,  you  mufl:  know,  that,  if  the  Do£lor 
underftands  Him  right,  Athanafms  included  the 
Son  under  -urda-r,^  ^cosd^dcncx)^^  whereof  the  Fa- 
ther is  o\jiiypy6j:  And  fo  the  Son  m.uft  be  o\a{- 
ii^yniJ-ct'  according  to  Athanafius.  Not  only 
fo,  but  He  muft  alfo  come  under  -urdTcs  '^w^rh 
^aias'  which,  for  the  purpofe,  the  learned  Do- 
ftor  took  care  to  render  all  derivative  Be- 
ings anfwering  to  his  rendring  of  o\[x^)6^yr,ixa:, 
^  afterwards.  This  might  look  fair  and  plaufible, 
had  we  only  that  fingle  Sentence  of  Athanafiits 
to  form  a  Judgment  by :  But  it  ftands  in  a 
pretty  large  Treatifc,  wherein  we  find  that 
Athanafms  is  fo  far  from  fuppofing  the  Son  to 
be  cl^if]tJ.iii^'yr,<j.a.)  that  He  makes  Him  ^woinTn^  of  all 
the  iiivifible  lowers  $  nay  and  ^o'^y)aiye7°^  '^^  '^'^-■•'" 
Tcs-,  which,  I  think,  comes  to  as  much  as  c/^/i,ai* 
si^/of  -uidcrs  '^'^ci^i'^r  and  that  therefore  the 
learned  Doctor  may  almoft  as  reafonably  bring 
the  Father  in,  among  the  cAn/aiy^yyi.aara  of  the 
Son,  zsviceverfa.  To  conclude  3  AthanafiuSy 
within  a  few  lines  of  thatPaflage  which  the  Do- 
dor  makes  ufe  of,  exempts  the  Son,  clearly  and 
cxprefly,  from  the  Rank  of  fuch  derivative  Be- 


^  Script.  Do(5lr.  p.  4.  alus  p,  5-. 

"  Script.  Doftr.  p.  278. 

«/u;2jj.                 '  Pag.  43. 

-Pa-.ic,. 

P 

tngs, 

202  yf  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  XIII. 
ings,    as  the   Do6lor  would  place  Him  with: 

much  for  ylthanajius,  and  the  Dodor's  Criticifms 
upon  Him.  Now,  if  you  pleafe,  let  Origen  be 
Ours  again,  till  you  can  better  make  out  your 
Title  to  Him.  I  do  not  know  that  the  Dodor 
has  faid  any  thing  confiderable  to  weaken  the  E- 
vidence  of  any  other  of  the  Authors,  refcrr'd  to 
in  the  Margin.  So  we  may  leave  Them  as  They 
are  ;  and  proceed  to  another  §^iery. 

(^  U   E    R    Y       XIII. 

Whether  there  can  be  any  Middle  bet\ji'ee?i 
being  made  out  of  nothings  and  out  of  feme - 
thing  5  that  is^  bePvjeen  being  out  of  No- 
thing ,  and  out  of  the  Father's  Siibflance  5 
bet'uoeen  being  cflcntially  God,  and  being  a 
Creature;  U'Tjether,  confequently^  the  Son 
miift  not  be  either  ellentiaily  God,  or  elfe  a 
Creature  ? 

HERE,  again,  I  have  mn  two  wineries 
into  one  (being  nearly  allied  to  each 
other)  for  the  conveniency  of  Method.  Que- 
ftions  of  this  kind  you  like  not:  It  is,  you 
fay,  prefllng  you  to  determine  Things  not 
clearly  reveal d:  As  if  you  had  not  deter- 
mirid  already  upon  the  Points  in  Queftion; 
or  were  at  all  afraid  of  doing  it.  Permit  mc 
to  fay,    you  have  determined :  But  becaufe  the 

Con- 


Qu.  XIIL     of  fame  Q^tJ  E  R I  £  §.        263' 
Coiiclufion  is  too  (liocking  to  appeal*  in  broad 
Terms,  and   two  weak  to  bear;  therefore  yoU 
keep  it  under  Cover,  and  lay  Colours  upon   it, 
the    better  to   deceive  and  draw  in  an  unwary- 
Reader  :   This  is  what  I  complain  of.    Let  every 
Reader  be  apprized ,    that  the  only  Queftioa 
between  us  is,    whether  His  Creator  and  Re- 
deemer, be  a  Creature^  or  no :    and  then  the 
Caufe  will  be  brought  to  a  fliort  Iffue ;  and  it 
will  foon  be  feen  where  the   Truth   lies.     It 
is  not  that  I  defire  to  draw  you   into  danger 
of    Cenftire^     of    which    you   are    apprehen- 
five  j    I  could  not  have  a  Thought  fo  mean : 
Befides  that  I  intended,    and  defired,-  for  the 
greater  freedom  of  debate,  to  be  private:  And 
You,  perhaps,    majr  be  fo  ftill,    if  you  plcafe. 
It    concerns  every    honeft  Man  to  have  the 
Caufe  fairly  laid    open.     While  you  arc   en- 
deavouring to  expofe  the  received  Opinion,  as 
much  as  you  arc  able,  let  your  own  be  fliewa 
in  its   true   Colours^    and  then  fet  againft  itj 
that  fo  we  may  the  more  eafily  judge,  which 
has  the  Advantage  upon  the  Comparifon.  You 
are  very  fcnfible,  I  doubt  not,  that  the  Argu- 
ments againft  the  Son's  being  a  Creature^    bear 
upon  you  with  fuch  Strength,    Force,  and  full 
Light;     that    you   had  rather  have  the  pinch 
of  the  Qiieftion  concealed  from  the  Reader,  or 
dlfi^uifed   under  other  Terms.     The   Antient 
ArianSy    the    immediate  Succeflbrs  of   AniiSi 
found  it   abfolutely  neceflary    to    refine  uport 
their  Leader;  to  refine,  I  mean,   in  Language  *i 
P  %  foi 


204       y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  XIIIJ 

for  their  Faith  was  the  fame.  When  the  World 
was,  in  a  manner  their  own  5  and  when  They 
were  fo  far  from  fearing  cenfiire  themfehxs, 
that  they  employ 'd  the  fecular  Power  to  ^  plun- 
der, perfecLite,  and  deftroy  as  many  as  oppofed 
Them ;  even  then^  Thofe  Men  durft  not  fay 
direEily-,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  a  Creature, 
We  have  Creed  after  Creed  drawn  up  by  Them  ; 
and  Amiss  Fofitions  ^ exprefly  difclaimed  by 
fomeof  Them  3  though,  at  the  fame  time,  They 
meant  the  fame  Things.  And  what  was  the 
meaning  of  this  wary  Proceeding  5  this  walking 
in  difguife,  while  they  had  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  Powers  in  Being  >  The  Reafon  is  plain  : 
Their  Dodrine  was  new-,  and  ^Jhocking  to  Chri-  . 
ftian  Ears.  It  was  not  fit  to  appear  in  ^  clear 
and  plain  Words.  It  was  to  be  infinuated  only, 
in  remote  Hints,  and  dark  Innuendo  s.  People 
were  to  be  decoy'd,  and  gradually  drawn  into  a 
new  Faith,  which  if  they  had  fully  underftood, 
and  feen  what  it  led  to,  they  would  immediate- 
ly have  detefted.  See  to  this  purpofe  a  ^  Pailage 
oi Hilary  worth  remarking;  which  I  have  thrown 
into  the  Margin. 

'  5"fe  Athanaf.  Vol.  i .  p.  i  lo,  ;  17,  321,  345-,  362,  586.  Hi- 
lar, p.  1291.  Bafil.  Ep.  70,71,  282.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  20,23, 
2;-,  32. 

''  Athanaf.Vol.  i.  p.  176,275-.  Vol.  2.  p.  735-.  Socrat.1.2, 
c.  lo.Sozom.  E.Hift.  1.  3.0.5-.  Epiphan.Ha^ref.  73.  p.  845-. 

*=  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  234,  285.  Alexand.  Epift.  TJieod.  H. 
p.  26,  30. 

**  See  Athanaf.  Vol.i.  p.  28S. 

•  Hujus  quidem  ufquc  adhuc  Impietatis  Fraude  pcrficitur,  ut 
jam  fub  Antichrifti  Sacerdotibus  Chrifli  l^opidus  non  occidat,  duin 
Hoc  putant  lili  lidei  eiTe  quod  rocn  cfl.     Audiunt  Deum  Chri- 

The 


C^i.  XIII.       offoine  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       205 

The  j^rians,  or  Semi- Avians  (for  Both  come 
to  one  at  laft)  were  fo  fenfiblc  that  their  Tenets 
would  not  bear  the  Light,  that  they  were 
forc'd  to  difguife  and  conceal  them  under  Ca- 
tholick  Forms  of  Speech,  with  all  imaginable 
Art  and  Subtlety;  as  was  much  complained  of 
by  the  CathoUcks^  *  who  abhorr'd  fuch  Artifices. 
The  myftery  of  thcfc  Difguifes  has  been  already 
intimated.  Had  they  veatur'd  to  fpeak  out, 
they  could  not  have  deceived  any  great  Num- 
bers. The  greater  part  of  their  deluded  Fol- 
lowers were  blinded  and  hood-wink'd;  and 
hardly  knew  what  their  Leaders  intended,  or 
whither  they  were  driving.  Thefe  were  the 
Arts,  by  which  Arianifm  prevailed ;  and  yet 
hardly  prevailed  above  Forty  Years.  Whether 
thefe,  or  the  like  prudential  Reafons,  determine 
fome  now  to  proceed  with  the  like  Caution, 
and  to  avoid  declaring,  in  Terms,  that  the  Son 
of  ■  God  is  a  Creature  J  I  know  not.  But  this 
I  know,  that  every  careful  Reader  ought  to  be 
well  apprized  of  the  Tendency  of  your  main 
Doctrine.  It  fliould  be  told,  that  you  aflert, 
though  not  direEily  and  plainly^  yet  tacit ely 
and  confeojiientiall'j-,  that  the  Maker,  Redeemer, 

flumi  putant  cfle  quod  dicitur.  Audiunt  F/////;;?  Df/ j  putant  in 
Dei  Nativitate  ineife  Dei  Veritarem.  Audiunt  Ahte  Tcfnpor.ty 
putant  id  ipfum  Ante  Tempore,  cflc  quod  Semper  efl-.  Sanftio- 
rcs  Aures  plebis  quam  Corda  Sacerdotum.  Hilar,  p.  \z66. 
See  alfo  Sozom.  E.  H.  J.  5.  c.f. 

*  Athanaf.  p.  235-,  224,  S97.  Thcod.  E.  11.  p.  27.  Socrat. 
E.  H.  1.  2.  c.  4f.  Sozom.  E.  H.  I.4.  c.29.  Epiphan.  Hirrcf. 
73.p.  84;-.     Gregor.Nazianz.Orat.  21.  p.  387. 

f  i  and 


206       ^DEFENSE       Qii.  XIII. 

and  Judge  of  the  whole  World,  is  no  more  than 
a  Creature  'y  is  mutable,  and  corruptible  ;  de- 
pends entirely  upon  the  Favour  and  good  Plea- 
fure  of  God ;  has  a  precarious  Exiftence,  and 
dependent  Powers,  finite  and  limited  ;  and  is 
neither  fo  perfcd  in  his  Nature,  nor  fo  ex- 
alted in  Privileges ,  but  that  it  is  in  the  Fa- 
thers Power,  according  to  his  own  good  Plea- 
fure,  to  create  Another  equal,  or  even  fuperior, 
to  Him.  Thefe  are  your  Tenets,  if  youpleafc 
to  fpeak  out ;  and  thefe,  in  the  main,  are  what 
j4rmSj  being  a  plain,  open,  and  confiftent 
Man,  at  the  beginning,  very  frankly  pro- 
fefs*d.  But,  if  thefe  Pofitions  appear  fo  harfli 
and  {hocking  ,  that  you  your  Selves ,  who 
admit  Them,  do  not  care  to  own  them  in 
plain  Terms  y  it  may  be  very  excufable  in 
Other Sy  to  contradid  Them  5  and  to  affert, 
upon  fo  great  Evidences  of  Truth,  from  Scri- 
pture and  Antiquity,  that  God  the  Son  is 
infinitely  removed  from  the  Condition  of  a 
Creature-^  is  really^  truly ^  and  effentialfyy 
God, 

You  have,  perhaps,  fome  few  fpccious  Dif- 
ficulties to  urge  againft  a  Trinity  and  Unityy 
eternal  Generation,  or  the  like,  points  too 
fublime  for  Men,  or,  it  may  be.  Angels  to 
comprehend.  But  why  muft  thefe  bethought 
to  weigh  down  the  many  and  unanfwerable 
Objcftions  againft  your  own  Scheme  5  or  be 
efteem'd  fufficient  to  bear  up  againft  the  united 
Voice  of    Scripture  and  Catholick  Antiquity , 

m 


Qu.  XIIT.    of  fonie  Q\J  E  R I  E  S.        207 

no  where  affcrting  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
a  Creature':,  but  every  where  inthiiatuig,  ui- 
culcatinir,  proclaiming,  that  He  is  the  ■  Crea- 
tor, Treferver,  and  Sttftainer  of  all  Things; 
very  and  eternal  God  ?  you'll  pardon  mc 
this  Excurfion,  neceflary  to  give  the  com- 
mon Reader  a  juft  Idea  of  the  Difpute  be- 
twixt us;  and  of  the  true  State  of  the  Qltc- 
ftion.  A  Stranger  in  this  Controverfy,  fiud- 
ing  how  near  we  come  to  each  other  in  ex- 
prefjlon-,  might  be  apt  to  wonder  wherein  wc 
differ,  or  what  it  is  that  we  difpute  about;  not 
being  aware  of  the  Artifice  you  makeufeof,  in 
giving  an  UncathoUck  meaning  to  CathoUck 
ExprclTions.  We  fay,,  the  Son  is  not  Self- 
exiftentj  meaning  that  Kc  is  not  Unoriginate : 
You  do  not  only  fay  the  fame,  but  contend  for 
it ;  meaning,  not  neceffarily  exijling.  We  fay, 
not  unoriginate,  meaning  that  He  is  not  the 
Head  or  Fountain,  not  the  firfl  Terfon  of  the 
Trinity  :  You  take  up  the  very  fame  Word, 
and  zealoufly  contend  that  the  Son  is  not  un- 
originate-, underftanding  it  in  refpeft  of  Ti?^ie, 
or  T>uration.  We  fay,  the  Son  is  fubordinatey 
meaning  it  of  a  Subordination  of  Order,  as  is 
jufl,  and  proper:  Youalfo  lay  hold  of  thevv^ord 
Subordinate,  and  feem  wonderfully  pleas'd  with 
it ;  but  underftanding  by  it,  an  I?iferiority  of 
Nature,  We  fay,  that  the  Son  is  not  abfblutc- 
ly  fupreme  i\oi  independent  -,  intimating  thereby 
that  He  is  Second  in  Order  as  a  Son,  and  has 
^)0  feMratej  independent  Exiftcnce  from  the 
P  4-  Father, 


20S  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  XIIL 
Father,  being  co-e(fentially  and  coeternally  one 
with  Him:  you  alfo  take  up  the  fame  Words, 
interpret  them  to  a  lo\Z!  Senfe,  and  make  the 
Son  an  inferior  dependent  Being ;  depending 
nt  firft  on  the  Will  of  the  Father  for  his  Ex- 
iftence,  and  afterwards  for  the  continuance  of 
it.  This  is  the  way  you  chufe  to  infinuate 
your  Heterodoxy  into  weak  Readers.  In  the 
mean  \vhile,  notwithftanding  our  feeming  or 
^verbal  Agreement,  there  is  as  wide  a  Difference 
between  what  You  teach  and  We,  as  between 
finite  and  infinite^  mutable  and  immutable^  a 
dependent  Creature  and  the  eternal  God,  From 
what  hath  been  faid,  you  may  perceive  what  the 
ConceJJions  o{  CatholickSy  which  the  Dodor  of- 
ten boafts  of,  amount  to.  The  Catholicks  have 
ufed  fome  Phrafes  in  a  good  Senfey  which  art- 
ful Men  have  perverted  to  a  bad  one  :  That  is 
all  the  Cafe.     But  I  return. 

You  v%7as  to  find  a  medium  between  being 
ejjentially  Gody  and  being  a  Creature:  or  elfc 
to  declare  in  plain  Terms,  that  the  Son  is  a 
Creature.  A  medium  you  find  not,-  nor  indeed 
can  there  be  any :  And  yet,  inftead  of  frank- 
ly acknowledging  fo  plain  and  manifeft  a  Truth, 
you  are  pleas'd  to  fhift,  double,  and  wind  about, 
in  a  manner  unbecoming  a  grave  Difputant,  or 
a  fincere  and  ingenuous  Writer.  In  the  firft 
place,  you  put  on  an  Air  of  Courage,  and  give 
mc  one  Caution,  viz.  not  to  fay  or  attempt  to 
prove,  that  every  Being  that  is  derived  muft 
bcj  jar  that  reafon^    a  Creaturej   for  fear  of 

making 


Qii.  XIII.     offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.         209 

making  my  o-^n  NotioUy  which  fuppofcs  the 
Son  generated,  that  is,  derrjed^  to  favour  the 
Arians :  But,  admitting  the  Son  to  be  derived y 
as  it  may  be  underftood  in  a  Catholick  Scnfc, 
yet  what  is  that  to  your  Purpofe  ?  Docs  not 
my  Argument  turn  upon  the  Words,  out  of 
7iothmg?  Point  me  out  any  ^zm2,  fo  derive dy 
a  Being  which  now  is,  and  once  was  not ;  and 
deny  Him  to  be  a  Creature ^  if  you  can.  But 
you  go  on ;  As  to  v:hat  is  fa'td  in  tke  S^^ie- 
ries^  that  either  the  Son  of  God  nmjl  be  the 
\iLidi\\A\Ji2\  Subftance  of  the  Father ,  or  elfe  ^k  <^'>^'^- 
pvT(ji^^  'VJith  the  Arians ;  /  anfjoer^  if  both  Scri- 
pture and  Reajon  clearly  demo/ifirate  that  the 
Son  is  not  the  Individual  Subfiance  of  the  Fa- 
thcry  vuho  miifl  look  to  that  Confeqiience,  if  it 
be  one  ? 

Here,  at  a  ftrait  ( as  ufual )  the  Word  Indi- 
vidual comes  in  5  a  Word  capable  of  feveral 
Meanings ,  and  fo  neccflary  to  help  Inventi- 
on, that  you  would  often  be  at  a  lofs  what 
to  fay,  if  you  wanted  that  poor  pretence  for 
Equivocation.  It  is  evident,  that  you  all  along 
ufe  the  Word  in  a  Sabellian  Senfe,  different 
from  what  cither  the  ScheoUnen,  or  more 
antient  Catholicks  intended  by  it.  The  thing 
which  I  affertis  this  ;  that  you  muft  cither  own 
the  Son  to  be  of  the  fame  imdivided  Subn:ancc 
with  the  Father;  or  elfe  declare  him  a  Crea- 
ttire.  If  you  deny  the  former,  you  mud,  of 
Confequence,  admit  the  latter;  and  you  really 
f}o  fo.     The  confequence  T'cu  arc  to  look  to,  as 


ncccf- 


210       >^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.  XIIL 

neceflarily  flowing  from  r/^/zr  Premiflcs ;  which 
you  pretend  to  found  on  Scripture  and  Reafon, 
\i'ithout  any  ground  or  warrant  from  cither.  You 
are  refolved,  itfccms,  to  difown  ther^r/'^/>2/;'of 
the  TDisjun^ion,  {p,6\.)  fo  afraid  you  are  of 
determining  the  Son  to  be  a  Creature  «J  cJ/.  ovrwy. 
Let  us  hear  what  a  Difputant  may  have  to  plead 
againft  a  Thing  as  clear  and  evident  as  any^x/- 
om  in  Geometry. 

You  fay,  *,  The  Nicene  Fathers  thought  the 
Son  to  be  neither  the  i^cria  rS  tu-ar^or.  The  Sub- 
fiance  of  the  Father^  nor  \%  cuy,  o-jt-^-j^  but  ck  -f 
^cia£  ris  -urar^z-^  from  the  Subftance  of  the 
Father,  The  Nicene  Fathers  explain  their 
meaning,  both  in  the  Creed  it  felf,  and  in  the 
Anathemas  annexed  to  it;  determining  the  Son 
to  be  no  Creature^  nor  a  different  God  from 
the  Father  5  but  of  the  fame  //W/i;/V^^  Subftance 
with  Him,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light ,  Con- 
fiibftantial  with  Him,  and  a  diftind  Perfon  from 
HUii. 

-  Next,  you  fay,  wz  dare  not  determine  that 
Cod  -produced  all  Things,  or  any  '  Thing, 
{fir icily  and  met aphyfic ally  fp caking)  out  of 
Nothing.  Extreme  Modcfty !  That  you  dare 
not  determine  whether  God  has  properly  cre- 
ated any  Thing ;  or  whether  all  Things  were  not 
neceffarily-exijting.  Matter  it  felf  may  have 
been  co-eval  and  co- eternal  with  God  the  Fa- 
ther; Any  thing,  it  fcems,  but  his  own  beloved 
and  only-begotten  Son:  Or  elfe  why  are  youfp 

*  i'ce  Dr.  ChrkcV  Bs^'y  to  the.  Convocation,  p.  25?. 


Qii.  XIII.  offome  QUERIES.  211 
fliy,  at  other  times,  of  acknowledging  His  Eter- 
nity ?  Or  why  lb  refolute  in  difputing  againft  it  ? 
Aw  eternal  SoUy  mcthinks,  is  much  better  Senle 
than  an  eternal  Subjlancey  not  divine ^  and  a  Son 
rnade  out  of  it  5  which  is  what  you  muft  mean, 
or  mean  nothing.  But  to  proceed :  You  add. 
How  God  brings  Beings  into  real  Exifience 'iz'e 
know  noty  becaufe  we  know  not  their  E (fences. 
Therefore,  I  fuppofe,  we  know  not,  whether  He 
brings  them  into  Exiftence  at  all ;  or  whether  they 
had  a  Being  before  they  were  created.  That's  the 
Confequence  you  intend,  if  any  thing  to  thepur- 
pofe.  You  go  on  :  Or  whether  it  be  a  Contra- 
di^ion  to  predicate  Exiflence  of  them  before 
their  coming  into  that  State  which  they  now  are 
in^  and  which  we  call  their  Creation^  we  know 
not.  Very  ignorant !  Andyetyoucanbepofitivc 
in  Things,  which  you  know  a  great  deal  Icfs  of; 
prefuming  to  make  the  Generation  of  the  Son  of 
God  Temporal '-i  and  determining  it  *  a  Contra- 
didion  to  predicate  Exiflence  of  Him  before  His 
Generation.  Such  things  as  thefc  carry  their 
own  Confutation  with  them  5  and  only  fliew 
that  Truth  is  too  fcubborn  to  bend.  Let  it  be 
faid  then  plainly,  and  without  Difguife,  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  either  Confubftantial  with 
God  the  Father;  or  clfe  a  Creature,  There  is 
no  mediiimy  neither  can  there  be  any ;  confident 
with  Scripture,  and  with  the  Truth  and  Rcafon 
pf  Things.     This   being    fettled,  our  Difputc 

may 


212         yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.  XIV. 

may  be  brought  into  a  narrower  Compafs  5  and 
wc  may  hereafter  dilmifs  doubtful  and  ambigu- 
ous Terms. 

Q^UERY    XIV. 

TVhether  T^r,  Clarke,  '-jnho  every  "ovhere  denies 
the  Confiibjlantidity  of  the  Son^  as  ahfurd 
and  contradiEiory^  does  not,  of  Confequencey 
affirm  the  Son  to  be  a  Creature  ^  J  c  Jh  ©  vtw;, 
and  fo  fall  under  his  own  Cenfure^  and  is 
felf  condemned  ? 

IT  hath  been  queftioned  by  fomc,  whether 
D.  Clarke  has  really  given  into  the  Arian 
Scheme,  or  no.  From  what  he  faith,  in  fome 
places  of  his  Scripture-T>oBriney  (  particularly 
*  Prop.  14.  and  1 6. )  one  might  imagine  that  He 
flood  A^if/z^^r,  neither  determining  for,  nor  againft 
the  Catholick  Faith  in  that  Article :  But,  from 
his  declaring  ij:  exprefly  againft  the  Confubflantia' 
Uty  of  the  Son,  w^hether  Specifck  or  Individual y 
(  between  w^hich  lie  allows  no  medium )  and  from 
his  reckoning  the  Son  among  the  v\xi>ioyl^ixa.ray 
( though  he  gives  an  artificial  Glofs  to  it ;  )  as 
alfo  from  his  excluding  the  Son  out  of  the  07ie 
Godhead ;  from  thefe  Confiderations,  to  men- 
tion no  more,  it  is  exceeding  clear,  that  He  has 
dctcrmin  d  againft  the  Church,  and  declared  for 
Arianifm.     He  has,  by  neceftary  Confequence, 

♦  Script.  Do(riT.  p.  r-]G.  179. 

^  See  Script.  Dodr.  p.  465-.  Erfl  Ed, 

aflcrtcd 


Qu.  XIV.     of fome  QUEKIES.        215 

alTcrtcd  the  Son  to  be  £?  cJk  ovra^v ,  which  is  the 
very  Effcnce  and  Charaftetiftick  o^Arianifm,  By 
fo  doing>  He  is  Self-condemn'd  {See "Prop,  14,) 
uiilels  affirming  a  thing  exprefly  be  highly  blame- 
able  ;  and  affirming  the  fame  thing,  implicitely 
and  coitfeqnentially^  be  juft  and  good.  It  is  unac- 
countable to  me,  how  there  comes  to  be  fuch  a 
charm  in  Words,  that  a  Man  fhould  be  blameable 
for  faying  a  Thing  of  this  Nature,  plainly  and  di- 
redly,  which  he  may  affirm  indireftly  and 
confcqucntially,  without  any  fault  at  all.  Doth 
the  Offence  lie  only  in  Sounds  or  Syllables? 
Or  was  Arius  more  culpable  for  faying,  the 
Son  was  a  Creature^  and  from  nothing:,  than  A- 
nother  who  fays,  He  is  not  Confiihftantial  with 
the  Father,  nor  One  God  with  him,  or  the  like  5 
when  it  is  fo  very  manifcft,  and  hath  been  pro- 
ved above,  that  they  arc  only  different  Expref- 
fions  of  the  fame  Thing  ?  I  can  think  but  of  three 
Reafbns  (  I  fpeak  not  of  particular  yiez:;s,  or 
Motives )  why  any  Man  (hould  condemn  Arius 
for  declaring  the  Son  to  be  ^^  cJy.  cvrm.  Either 
becaufe  the  Propofition  is  falfe-,  or  becaufe  it  is 
ditbions  ;  or  becaufe  it  is  not,  in  exprefs  Words, 
contain  d  in  Scripture. 

If  the  Doftor  believed  it  falfe^  He  could  not, 
confiftentiy,  difown  the  Confiibfiantiality  and 
Co-eternity  5  if  He  thought  it  dubious^  He  muft 
have  obfervcd  a  Neutrality  in  this  Controverfy  5 
which  He  has  not  done :  The  Third  Reafoii 
would  bear  too  hard  upon  many  of  the  Doc- 
tor's Fifty  Five  Tropofitions.  The  Conclufion, 
*  which 


214         y?   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.  XV, 

which  I  draw  fronithcfe  PrcmiircSjpurfuant  to  the 
Q^icry  laid  down,  is,  that  the  learned  Dodlor,  in 
condemning  ArhiSy  has  implicitcly  condemn'd 
Himfelf.  It  was  as  neceflary  to  take  notice  of  this, 
as  it  is  to  take  oif  Difguifes,  and  to  prevent  a 
Reader's  being  mifled  by  fair  Pretences.  Let 
Things  appear  what  they  really  are,  without  Art 
or  Colouring;  and  then,  if  you  can  make  any 
Advantage  of 'em,  in  God's  Name,  do  fo ;  and,  if 
your  Caufe  be  juft,  it  will  thrive  the  better  for  it. 

Q^UERY   XV. 

tVh ether  he  alfo  inuft  not^  of  confequence,  affir7n 
ofthe  SoUy  that  there  was  a  Time  when  He 
was  not,  fince  God  miift  exift  before  the  Crea- 
ture i  and  therefore  is  again  Self  condemn  dy 
(See  Prop.  i6.  Script.  Doftr. )  And  whether 
He  does  not  equivocate  infayingy  *  elfewhercy 
that  the  fecondTerfon  hasbeeyi  always  with 
the  Firft  %  and  that  there  has  been  no  Time, 
when  He  was  not  fo:  And  laflljy  whether  it 
be  not  a  vain  and  weak  Attempt  to  pretend 
to  any  middle  way  between  the  Orthodox  and 
the  Arians  i  or  to  carry  the  Sons  T>ivinity  the 
leaf  higher  than  They  didy  without  taking  in 
the  Confubftantiality  ? 

I  Could  have  been  willing  to  have  had  this,  and 
other  the  like  Queries,  relating  more  to  the 
Dodor  himfelf,  than  to  the  Caufe,  drop'd.    But 

*  Scrip.  Dodlr.  p.  438.  firfl  Ed. 

fuice 


Qvi.  XV-      of  fime  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.         215 

fmccyou  have  thought  fit  to/>^/^///&  Them,  prc- 
fuming  your  fclf  able  to  defend  the  Do6tor  m 
every  Thing  j  you  have  brought  a  kind  of 
ncccirity  upon  me,  of  (hewing  how  little 
ground  you  have  for  your  Allurance  in  this 
particular;  and  that  the  Doftor  will  ftill  want 
fome  better  Advocate. 

He  condemns,  in  his  *  Scripture-^oSirine^ 
Thofe  "oi'Ioo  pretending  to  be  'UJife  above  what 
is  written,  and  intruding  into  Things  which 
they  have  not  feen,  have  prefnmed  to  affirniy 
that  there  v/as  a  time  when  the  Son  was 
NOT.  Who  would  think,  after  this,  that  He 
fhould  be  the  Man  who  (hould prefiime  to  do  it  > 
Yet  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  He  denies 
the  Eternity  of  the  Son  ;  which  is  the  very 
lame  as  to  affirm,  that  there  was  a  Time  when 
the  Son  was  not.  He  denies  it,  by  plain  Con- 
fequence,  in  fuppofing  the  Son  to  be  2$  ^J/.  ovrciiv, 
as  was  fliewn  under  the  lad  Gy^iery  \  and  be- 
fides,  He  exprcfly  fays,  in  his  %  Comments  on 
the  Athanafian  Creed  (  which  contain  what 
Himfelf  fubfcribes  to )  that  there  are  not  three 
eternal  Terfons,  It  muft  indeed  be  own'd, 
that  in  his  Paper  laid  before  the  Bifliops,  July  2. 
1 7 14,  He  profeffes  that  the  Son  was  eternally 
begotten  by  the  eternal  JVill  and  '^Power  of 
the  Father.  But,  after  a  Friend  of  his  had 
difcovercd  fome  uneafincfs  at  that  Paflage,  as 
looking  like  a  Retractation  of  his  former  Opi- 


* 


Prop.  6.  p.  279.  alias  i^6.  t  Script.  Dodlr.  p,  419. 

This  firt  h  left  put  m  his  fecond  Edition. 

niop , 


216         ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XV. 

nion,  and  as  admitting  the  Son  s  Eternity^  He 
*  took  care  to  explain  it  away,  and  to  fignify 
that,  tho'  He  had  faid  the  Son  was  eternally 
begotten,  He  did  not  mean  it  in  the  ftrid  and 
proper  Senfe.  "  My  Intention,  lays  He,  was 
''  not  to  aflert  any  thing  different  from  what 
*'  I  had  before  written  ;  but  only  to  fliew  that 
"  I  did  not  in  any  of  my  Books  teach  ( as  had 
"  by  many  been  induftrioufly  reported)  the 
*'  Do6lrine  of  Arius  (  viz,  that  the  Son  of 
"  God  was  a  Creature  made  out  of  Nothing, 
*■'-  juft  before  the  Beginning  of  the  World)  but 
"  that  He  was  begotten  £/^r;^^//y,  that  is,  with- 
"  out  any  Limitation  of  Time,  (a'%e°^^*5  "^e^ 

"  in  the  incomprehenfible  Duration  of  the  Fa- 
"  ther's  Eternity.  This  is  too  plain  to  need 
any  Comment. 

I  fliall  only  obferve  to  the  Reader,  how  the 
Doclor  fingles  out  one  particular  Point,  where^ 
in  He  differs  from  Arius -^  whereas  it  is  juftly 
queflionable  whether  that  was  Aritiss  fettled 
Opinion  or  no.  Any  one  that  will  be  at  the 
pains  to  read  over  Aries's  Letters,  extant  in 
f  Theodorit  and  \  Athanajiiis,  wall  eafily  fee, 
that  the  principal  Thing  which  (luck  with  Him, 
wasthe  ToatJ^oy,  or  cruujajViov,  the  flrid  Eter- 
7iity  or  Co-eternity  of  the  Son.  As  to  othci^ 
leficr  Matters,  He  would  eafily  have  compound- 
ed with  the  Catholicks  >  and  would  never  have 

*  Uttm,  Numb.  8.  f  E.  H.  1.  i.  c.  j. 

\  De  Synod.  Arim.  p,  729. 

fcruplcd, 


Qii.  XV.      offome  QUERIES.        217 

feruplcd,  in  the  kafl:,  to  carry  the  pohit  as 
high  as  the  Dodor  does.  He  was  content, for 
the  niofl:  part,  to  fay,  There  was  a  Time  "juhen 
the  Son  was  not,  without  defining  the  precife 
Time  of  his  Generation,  01  treat :on.  To 
make  it  the  more  clearly  appear,  that  He  was 
perfe<flly  of  the  Do£>or's  Sentiments,  in  this  par- 
ticular,  it  is  obfervablc  that  He  ufcs  nearly  the 
very  fame   Words    wliich    the  Dodor   does: 

TiravTwv  T  alfjlvw)  Words,  tho'  not  cxadiy  the 
fame,  yet  full  as  high  and  (Irong  as  Thofe  which 
the  Dodor  explains  his  own  Senfe  of  Eternity 
by.  So  that  the  Dodor  has  no  reafon  to  dif- 
claim  Ariiis  'y  or  to  endeavour  to  perfuade  the 
World  that  He  differs  from  Him  in  any  thing 
material  relating  to  this  Controverfy.  But  to 
return:  Ihe  \wo]:diS  eternal,  always,  or  the  like, 
are  plain  EngHp  Words;  and  fhould  either 
not  be  ufed,  in  this  Cafe,  at  all,  or  ufed  in  their 
true  and  proper  Senfe.  You  Apologize  for  it, 
as  far  as  the  Matter  will  bear :  But  it  would  be 
wifer,  and  better,  and  more  ingenuous,  to  give 
that  Point  up.  Let  us  hear,  however,  what  "you 
have  to  fay. 

God  could  eternally  aB,  that  is,  could  ith 
any  point  of  duration  of  his  own  Exinence 
exercife  his  eternal  Tower  and  TVill  in  pro- 
ducing Beings and  therefore  Beings  diftin£i 

*  Epift.  apudAthannf.p.  730. 

•»  Athanaf.  ibid.     Theod.c.  5-.  p.  2i„ 

!  ConfefT.  Arii.  gc  Euz.  apud  Sozom.  1.  a.  c.  t.; .  p.  jpj*. 

<^  from 


2ig        y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.  XV. 

from  the  one  fiipreme  God  may  be  [aid  to  be 
Eternal,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  reafon  about 
Eternity   (/  mean  as  it  is  a  negative  Idea) 
fo  that  we  cannot   conceive  Time  when  they 
were  notj  (p.  6i.)     What  a  number  of  Words 
are  here,  only  to  tell  us,  in  a  round  about  way, 
that  the  Son  is  not  Eternal     What  is  this  ne- 
gative Eternity,  but  no  Eternity  ?   And  why 
are  not  Angels,  or  Arch-angels  called  Eternaly 
fince  we  know  not  precifely  when  they  were 
made,  nor  in  what  Time  they  began  to  exift ; 
which  is  all  the  meaning  of  this  new  fort  of 
Eternity  \    Befides,  is  not  every  Creature  pro- 
duced in  fome  Toint  of  T^uration^  in  which 
God  exercifes  his  eternal  Tower  and  Will  up- 
on them?  Are  they  therefore  Eternal'^  As  to 
your  intimating  of  the  Son,    that  'Z£;^  cannot 
conceive  Time  when  He  was  not  5    it  is  not 
true,  upon  your  Principles.     We  can  conceive 
it  as  well  of  Him,   as  of  any  other  Creature, 
Angel,  or  Arch-angel ;  if  He  was  made  in  Time, 
that  is,   if  He  was  made  at  all.     We  can  con- 
ceive, and  muft  conceive,  that  there  were  Millions 
and  Millions  of  Ages  backwards  ^  an  Eternity, 
a  parte  antCy   before  He  came  into  Being.   I 
hope,  you  intended  not  any  Equivocation  in 
the  word.  Time :   But  if  you  did,    it  is  only 
putting  duration  in  the  room  of  it,   and  then 
all  will  be  right.     The  Arians  would  have  been 
content  to  have  had  but  one  moment  of  Time 
admitted  for  the  Father  to  be  prior,  and  to 
IVill  the  Exiftcnce  of  the  Son.    This  would 

have 


Qu.  XV.      of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         219 

have  been  enough  to  make  the  Generation  of 
the  Son  fit  ealy  upon  their  Minds.  But  the  Mil- 
fortune  was,  that  one  Moment's  Priority  of 
Time  mufl:  infer  an  infinite  Priority,  The  A- 
rians  h\v  it,  and  fubmitted  to  it:  The  Catho- 
Hcks  abhorr'd  the  Thought,  and  could  not  bear 
the  Impiety  of  making  the  Son  of  God  a  Crea- 
ture, 

You  endeavour  to  fhcw  that  Dr.  Clarke  takeg 
a  middle  way  between  the  Orthodox  and  the 
Arians  I  by  which  you  only  happen  to  (hew 
how  little  you  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Forms ^  Creeds,  and  ConfeJJions  of  the  Anticnt 
Arians.     The  firft  *  Inftance  you  give  of  the 
Dodor's  middle  Way,  is,  that  He  does  not  plain- 
ly and  diredly  fay  that  the  Son  was  created-^  He 
denies  Him  to  be  £?  (^"^y-  hrm.     But  herein.  He 
bnly  copies  after  many  of  the  Antient  Arians  5 
who,  when  accus'd  by  the  Catholicks  of  mak- 
ing the  Son  a  Creature,    rejeded  the  Charge 
with  great  Difdain  5  having  this  Rcfervc,  f  not 
a  Creature  like  other  Creatures  which  are  creat- 
ed   mediately  by   the  Aoy©^:    the  fame   Eva- 
fion,    which  you  are  pleas'd  to  adopt  for  your 
Own,  {p,  60.)  And  it  was  [!  frequent  with  the 
Arians  to  deny  the  Son  to  be  t^  oujt  hr^'i'    or 
even  to  Anathematize  thofe  that  fliould  affirni 
it.     A  fecond  Inftance  you  give,  of  the  Doctor's 

*  Pag.  60.  f  5"^<?Socrat.E.  H,  1.2,  c.  lo.  p.  75, 

Hieron.  Dial,  contr.  Lucif.  p.  300, 

Ij  See  Ariaii  Creedi  Athanaf.  p.  738.  Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  8,  19,  30, 
Sozom.  1.  3.C.  II. 

Q.  2  refilling- 


220         ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XV. 

refining  upon  the  Avians,  is  in  the  point  of  the 
Son's  Eternity,  {p.  6i.)  But  I  have  fliewn  you 
that  He  does  not  fo  much  as  go  beyond  ^m/i" 
Himfclf,  in  that  Point :  Befidcs  that  the  ^  Antient 
^d^r/^wj- condemn  dthofe  that  fliouldprefume  to 
lay,  that  thae  ^jvas  a  Time  when  the  Son  ivas  not, 
equivocating  upon  the  word,  Time.  Both  your 
Inftanccs^you  lee,  fail  you,  being  neither  of  them 
fufRcient  to  the  purpofe. 

But,  to  fet  this  Matter  in  a  fomewhat  clearer 
Light,  it  may  not  be  improper,  in  this  Place,  to 
exhibit  a  Draught  or  Rcprefentation  of  the  Arian 
Tenets  or  Principles;  by  which  it  will  appear  what 
Arianifm  really  is,  when  purfued  in  its  remoteft 
Confcquences ;  and  what  the  Difference  is  be- 
tween Thole  who  only  admit  lome  pnrt  of  it  (as 
the  Dodor  and  your  Self)  and  Thole  who  receive 
the  whole. 

^Tofitions  of  fome,  orotherofthehnzns, 

in  refpeci  of  the  Son. 
T .  Not "  Confiibftantial  with  God  the  Father. 

2.  Not  "^  Co-eternal y  however  begotten  be- 
fore all  Ages,  or  without  any  known  Limitation 
of  Time. 

3.  Of  a  diftintt  inferior  Nature,  however 
otherwife  perfectly  like  the  Father. 

*  See  Arian  Creeds.  Athanaf.  p.  738.  Socrat.  1.  2.  c,  18,  ip. 
Sozom.  I.  3.  c.  II. 

^  Arhanal'.  p.  282,  398,  728.  Sozom.  1.  i.  c.  i)-.  Theod. 
IIa;rer.  Fab.  1.  4.  ""  TUs  reas  agreed  to  unammoujly. 

TJois  I'oir.t  dli/ffited  by  the  Pfath)Tians.  Thcod.  Hieret.  Fab. 
1,4.0.4.  p.  238. 

4.  Not 


Qu.  XV.       of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         221 

4.  Not  jlri^ly  and  ejfentially  Gody  but  par- 
taking of  the  Father's  Divinity. 

5.  A  Creature  of  the  Father's^  however  un- 
like to  the  reft  of  the  Creatures,  or  fuperior  to 
Them. 

6.  *  Kot  like  the  Father  5  but  in  Nature  and 
Subftance,  like  other  Creatures. 

7.  -f  Made  in  Time  5  there  having  been  a  Time 
when  He  was  not,  made  from  Nothing. 

8. 1!  Far  inferior  to  the  Father  in  Knowledge, 
Power,  and  Perfections. 

9.  Mutable  in  his  Nature^  as  a  Creature,  tho* 
unchangeable  by  Decree. 

I  o.  'Depe?ide?it  on  the  good  Pleafure  of  the 
Father,  for  hispaft,  prcfent,  and  future  Being. 

1 1 .  Not  kno-ji'ing  the  Father  pcrfedlly,  nor 
Himfelf.  His  Knowledge  being  that  of  a  Cr<?i^- 
ture,  and  therefore  finite, 

1 2 .  Made  a  little  before  the  World  -juas 
made  5  and  for  the  iake  of  Thofe  that  fliould  be 
after  Kim. 

Thefe  are  the  Arian  Principles  brought  down 
as  low,  as  they  can  well  go.  AriuSy  the  Au- 
thor and  Founder  of  the  Sed,  feems  to  have 
gone  through  ail  thofe  Steps,  atthefirft:  And 
indeed,  all  of  them,  except  the  laft,  hang  toge- 
ther 5    and  are  but  the  neceffary  Confequenccs 

*  Thh  dented  hy  all  but  thofe  called  Anomseans, 
f  T^:;is  dented,  in  IVords,  by  many. 

I)  Fetv  bold  enough  to  mahuain  e'xprefly  thi:;,  or  any  of  the  follow- 
ing  Pfopofitians. 

0.3  of 


223       ^DEFENSE         Qu.XV. 

of  each  other.  Thofe  that  ftop'd  in  the  mid- 
way, or  fooner,  might  be  more  pious  and  mo- 
deft  ;  but  lefs  confiftent  Men.  A  little  Expe- 
rience convinc'd,  as  well  Arms  Himfclf,  as 
his  Followers,  that  thofe  Fofitions,  all  together, 
were  too  grating  upon,  and  too  fliocking  to 
every  pious  Chriftian  at  that  Time.  And  there- 
fore (without  confidering  how  one  depended 
pn  another;  or  how  a  Principle  could  be  main- 
tained, and  yet  its  plain,  necellary  Confequenccs 
difown'd)  they  immediately  went  to  work,  to 
cut  off  what  fhould  appear  moft  ofFenfive,  and 
retain  only  what  might  found  tolerably;  efpe- 
jcially  when  worded  in  ambiguous^  or  Catholick 
Terms. 

The  nine  laft  Particularswere,  for  fome  time, 
and  by  the  Avians  in  general,  waved,  dropped, 
not  infifted  on  (as  being  too  grofs  to  take) 
pr  clfe  artfully  infinuatcd  only,  under  fpeci- 
pus  and  plaufible  Expreffions.  The  frrji  They 
2II  own'd,  and  infifted  the  moft  upon  5  having 
rnany  Pretences  to  urge  againft  Confiibftanti- 
alityy  either  Name,  or  Thing.  The  fecond 
and  third  They  divided  upon,  as  to  the  way 
of  Expreflion:  fome  fpcaking  their  Minds 
plainly,  others  with  more  referve;  not  fo 
much  denying  the  Co-eternity ,  as  forbearing 
to  affirm  it.  This  was  the  method  which  the 
Arians  took  to  propagate  their  Herefy.  Wc 
need  not  wonder  if  they  were  often  forc'd 
to  make  ufc  of  CoUufions,  Equivocations,  and 
double  Entcndres.      For,   being  obhged,    for 

feat 


Qtt.  XV.      offome  QUERIES.        223 

fear  of  Offence,  to  ufe  Catholick  Words,  tho* 
without  a  CathoHck  meauing ;    and  to  maintain 
their  main  Prinjiple,  without  fceming  to  main- 
tain its  neceiTary  Confequences  5  (nay,  feeming 
to  deny  and  rejeft  them)  it  could  not  be  other- 
wife.     And  not  only  the  Catholicks  frequently 
complain  of  thofe  fmooth  Gentlemen,  but  fo  iie 
even  of  their  *  own  Party  could  not  endure  fuch 
Shuffling ;  thinking  it  became  honed  and  fin- 
cere  Men,    either  to  fpeak  out-,  or  to   fay  no- 
thing.    Of  this  kind  were  A'etiiis,  and  Euno- 
miusy   with  their  Followers,  called  Anom^ans, 
and  Exoticontii;  being  indeed  no  other,  in  re- 
fped  to  the  Son's  Divinity,  than  fuch  as  Arms 
was  at  firft  5    and  fpeaking  almoft  as  plainly  and 
bluntly  as  He  did.     After  the  Difguifes,  and 
Softenings,  and  Colourings  had  been  carried  on 
fo  long,  till  all  Men  of  Senfe  faw  plainly  that  it 
was  high  time  to  leave  oft  trifling,  and  to  come 
from  Words  to  Things  -,  and  that  there  was  no 
Medhiniy  but  either  to  fettle  into  Orthodoxy ^^  or 
to  fit  down  with  the  pure  Arians  and  Anom£anSy 
(if  they  would  determine  any  Thing,  and  be 
fincere  and  confijlent  Men)  fome  chofe  the  for- 
mer,   and  fome  the  latter,   according  as  they 
more  inclined  to  one  way,  or  the  other.     There 
is  certainly  no  Medium  betwixt  Orthodoxy  and 
Arianifm   (for  -^  Semi-Arianif?n^   if  fo  undcr- 

*  See  Epiphan.Hct^ref.  76.  p.  91  (5. 

f  Seml-Ar'tanus^  8c  Semi-Dens^  8c  Semi-Creatura,  pcrinde  mon- 
flra  8c  portcnta  funt,  qu^  Sani  8c  Pii  Oiiiiif  s  racrito  exhorrcnt. 
5«//.  D.F.  P.2S4. 

0^4  flood, 


224        >^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  XV, 

flood,  is  pcrfcd  Non-fenfc  and  Contradidion) 
there  being  no  Medium  between  God  and  Crea- 
iurey  between  Unmade  and  Made.  Men  may 
conceal  their  Sentiments,  fupprefs  Confequences, 
nnd  fpeak  tlieir  Minds  but  by  Halves  5  and  fo 
one  Arum  may  be  more  cautious,  or  more  art- 
ful than  Another:  But,  in  truth  and  reality, 
every  Man  that  difowns  the  Confiibftantialitjj 
rightly  undcrftood,  is  as  much  an  Arian-,  as  En- 
710777 ins y  or  Aetius^  or  any  of  the  Antient  Arians 
were ;  or  even  as  Arms  Himfelf,  excepting  only 
foire  few  Particulars,  which  were  not  hisftand- 
ing  and  fettled  Opinions. 

in  fine,  there  is  but  one  middle  way  to  take 
between  the  Orthodox  and  the  Arians y  and 
7  hat  is,  to  avoid  determining  on  either  fide;  to 
leave  the  point  m  medio-,  and  to  fufpend  affent 
to  cither,-  to  believe  as  much,  and  as  high,  as 
nny  of  the  Arians  did  ;  and  as  to  the  reft,  nei- 
ther to  believe,  nor  disbelieve  it.  But  this 
is  not  the  Cafe,  cither  with  the  Dodor,  or  your 
Self.  You  have  declared  againft  the  Coyifiib- 
fidntiality^  and  tlie  proper  'T>ivinity  of  Chrift, 
as  well  as  Co-eternity:  And  are  therefore  fo 
f  T  from  refining  upon,  that  you  really  come 
fliortof  many  of  the  Antient  Arians y\\\dy  to 
do  you  )ufiice,  you  are  the  more  confiftent 
with  your  lelves  for  it.  I  have  now  fuffici- 
cntly  vindicated  every  part  of  the  ^lery  -, 
having  flKv;n,  that  the  Eqtiivoeation,  in  refped 
of  the  Son's  Eternity,  is  juilly  chargeable  up- 
pn    the    Dodor  5     and   that   He  has  not  ob- 

fervcd 


Qu.  XV.       offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       225 

lervcd  a  neutrality  in  this  difpute  ^  nor  carried 
the  point  higher  than  the  antient  Avians  i  but 
has  really,  and  fully,  given  into  their  Senti- 
ments 5  and  therein  dctermin'd  againft  the  Ca- 
tholick  Church.  The  ufe  which  I  make  of 
this,  at  prefent,  is  to  obfcrve  to  the  Reader: 

I .  That  the  Doftor  has  not  invented  any  new, 
or  more  excellent  Scheme  than  was  thought  ofy 
conjidefd^  and  condemn' d^  near  1 400  Years  ago, 
by  a  very  wife,  numerous,  and  unbyafs'd  Coun- 
cil. 2.  That  He  cannot  juftlycite  any  Catho- 
lick,  Toft-Nicene  Writer,  (  nor  perhaps  Ante- 
Nicene)  as  certainly  favouring  his  mam  Doc- 
trine. 3.  That  his  Attempt  to  reconcile  the 
Nicene  and  Athanafian  Creeds  to  Artanifm^ 
formed  in  dired  Oppofirion  to  it,  is  endeavouring 
to  bring  Light  and  Darknefs,  and  the  moft  irre- 
.  concilable  Inconfiftencies  to  meet  together.  This 
for  the  prefent :  The  future  ufe  I  (hall  make 
of  it,  is  to  come  diredly  to  the  point  in  Q;ie- 
ftion:  for  when  it  is  certainly  known  what 
the  drift,  defign,  and  meaning  of  an  Author 
is,  much  Pains  may  be  fpared,  and  a  Difpute 
fhortned. 

I  hardly^  know  whether  firid  Method 
would  permit  me  to  take  notice  of  the  lat- 
ter part  of  your  Reply,  (  contained  in  Pages 
62,  63,  64. )  it  is  fo  wide  and  foreign.  You 
muft  have  had  a  great  mind  to  fay  fome- 
thing  of  eternal  Generation  :  Otherwiie  you 
would  never  have  introduced  it  in  a  place  fo 
fmproper.  The  pretence  is,  that  we  equivo- 
cate 


t26      ^DEFENSE  Qu.XV, 

rate   in  talking  of   eternal  Generation  ;   and 
therefore  it  is  proper  to   retort  it  upon  us,  in 
anfwer  to   a  charge  of   Equivocation,      But 
wherein  do  we  equivocate^    or    do  any   thing 
like  it?  Is   it  in  the  word.  Eternal?  But  we 
undoubtedly   mean  it  in  the   ftrift  and  proper 
Senfe.     Is  it  in  the  word,  Generation  ?  That  is  a 
word  of  Latitude,  capable  of  more  Senfes  than 
one.     We  uic  it  in  the  Senfe,  which  has  pre- 
vail'd  in  the  Church  1 500  Years ;  and  in  a  pro- 
per Senfe,  according  to  the  Rule  of  Terttillian^ 
Omnis  Origo  Tarens  eft.     And  where  then  is 
the  Impropriety,  or  Equivocation  in  the  word. 
Generation^  as    ufed    by  us  ?    True,  it    is  not 
the  fame  with  Human  Generation,     But  who 
will  pretend  that  Human  is  to  be  the  mea- 
fure  and  ftandard  of  all   Generation  ?    Genera- 
tion, you  fay,  implies  Begin7iing'^  and  yet  wc 
call  it  *  Eternal     Admit  that  it  did  fo ;    yet 
till  that  can  be  made  appear,  we  may  be  ve- 
ry (incerc   in    calling    it    Eternal^    intending 
no  Equivocation :  You   have  not  proved  that 
all  Generation  implies    Beginning;    and  what 
is  more,  cannot.     You  endeavour  to  'make  the 
notion  of  it  abfurd  ;  But,  unlefs  you  can  de- 
monftrate  the  abfurdity  of  it,  how   will   you 
charge  us  with  Equivocation,  which  was  the 
Point  >  All  you  have  to  fay  turns  only  upoa 

'^(icrai;  uutoVj  r^^uc,  oi'^iv  eiujo^  f/^ovj^.  (^yril.   Catcch.    M-  P*   ^45'- 

»  your 


Qii.XV.  ^//^;w^Q.UERIES.  227 
your  mifconftruction  of,  I  fhould  hy,  Eqitivo- 
tion'my  the  ^'oxd  Individual  y  which,  youmufl: 
needs  know,  we  underlland  not  in  your  Scnfe 
of  it ;  unlefs  we  are  weak  enough  to  fuppofc 
Father  and  Son  to  be  one  Terfon.  You  make 
another  Argument,  by  equivocating  in  the 
word,  Trodu&ion  j  which  if  we  ufe  at  all, 
we  always  take  care  to  explain  to  a  goodSenfcj 
and  never  once  imagine,  that  the  eternal  Ge- 
neration is  a  temporal  Produdion.  You  are 
very  unhappy,  to  equivocate  all  the  way,  while 
you  are  retorting  the  Charge  of  Equivocation ; 
befides  that,  could  you  have  retorted  it  in 
a  handfomer  manner,  it  would  not  have  been 
pertinent,  becaufe  it  comes  out  of  Place.  For, 
your  proper  part  here,  is,  not  fo  much  to 
objed  againfl:  our  Scheme,  as  to  defend  your 
own :  Pleafe  to  clear  your  own  Hypothefts 
firft  i  and  then  we  may  hear  what  you  can  fay 
againft  ours.  The  Church  of  Chrift  has  been 
in  pofleffion  of  the  prefent  prevailing  Dodrines, 
at  leaft,  for  1400  Years:  It  concerns  us,  before 
we  part  with  them,  to  fee  that  we  may  have 
fomething  better  in  their  (lead.  What  if  the 
Catholick  Dodrine  has  fome  Difficulties  ?  Has 
Arianifm  none  ?  Or  muft  we  change  the  for- 
mer for  the  latter?  No,  let  us  firft  confider 
w^hether  Arianifm  has  not  more  and  greater ; 
and  then  perhaps  we  may  fee  reafon  enough 
to  keep  as  we  are. 

It  is  an  ufual  Thing  with  many  ( Moral ifts 
|)iay   account  for  it)   when  they    meet  witj^ 

a  dif„ 


228        y^DEFENSE       Qu.  XV. 

a  difficulty  which  They  cannot  readily  anfwcr, 
immediately  to  conclude  that  the  Dodrine  is 
Falfc  5  and  to  run  dire^lly  into  the  oppofite 
Perfuafion  :  not  confidering  that  They  may 
meet  with  much  more  weighty  Objedions  there, 
than  before  5  or  that  They  may  have  reafon  fuf- 
ficient  to  maintain  and  believe  many  Tilings  in 
T?kilofophy  or  'Divinity ^  tho*  They  cannot  an- 
fwer  every  Queftion  which  may  he  ftarted,  or 
cvcryDifficulty  which  may  be  railed  againft  them. 
As  to  the  Point  we  are  upon ,  while  fome  are 
confidering  only  the  Objedions  againft  the  Do- 
drinc  of  the  Bleffed  Trinity  (  how  Three  can  be 
One--,  how  the  Son  could  be  generated ,  how 
^erfon  and  Being  can  be  different  5  and  the 
like  )  they  imagine  prcfently,  that  the  World,  in 
a  manner,  has  been  hitherto  miferably  miftakcn  5 
and  that  They  are  the  happy  Men,  who  fee 
dearly  how^  and  'uuhy.  Let  but  the  very  fame 
Men  have  patience  a  while,  and  not  imbark  in 
the  oppofite  Caufe,  till  They  are  able  to  find 
.  out  a  truer  and  a  judcr  Scheme,  and  to  clear  it 
of  all  confiderable  Difficulties ;  I  fay,  let  Them 
but  do  thus,  and  then,  I  am  pcrfuaded,  They 
will  be  much  Icfs  fanguine  in  their  purfuit  of 
Novelties.  In  the  prcfcnt  Controvcrfy,  there 
arc  three  Schemes,  which  I  may  call  Catholicky 
SabelliaUy  and  Ariaji :  One  of  the  Three 
muf^,  in  the  main,  be  true.  The  way  to  know 
which,  is,  to  weigh  and  confider  the  Difficul- 
ties attending  each  refpedivcly ;  and  to  balance 
them  one  againft  another.     The  Advocates  of 

the 


Qii.  XVI.     of  fome  QV  E  R  I  E  S.        229 

the  Two  latter  have  performed  rcafonably  well,  in 
the  offenfive  part ;  and  efpecially  againft  each 
other  :  But  have  neither  of  them  yet  been  able 
to  defend  tolerably  their  refpe^tive  Schemes; 
nor,  I  fuppofe,  ever  will  be.     But  I  proceed. 

Divine  Worfliip  due 
To  the  one  God.  To  Chrift. 


Thou  Jhalt  have  no 
other  Gods  before  mey 
Exod.  20.  3. 

Thou  Jhalt  worfhip 
the  Lord  thy  Gody  and 
Him  only  fmlt  thou 
fervey  Mat.  4.  10. 


They  worfhip*d  Hiniy 
Luke  24.  25.  Let  all 
the  Angels  of  God^duor- 
fhip  limy  Heb.  i .  6, 

That  all  Men  floould 
honour  the  Sony  even  as 
they  honour  the  Father y 
John  5.  23. 


Query     XVI. 

IVJjether  by  thefe  ( of  the  firfl:  Column )  and  the 
like  TextSy  Adoration  and  Worfloip  be  not  fo 
appropriated  to  the  one  Gody  as  to  belong  to 
Him  only? 

^T'^H  I S  is  a  very  material  Inquiry,  relating 
JL  to  the  Objed  of  Religious  Worfliip  5  than 
which  nothing  can  be  of  greater  Concernment. 
Here  therefore,  if  any  where,  we  might  expect  and 
demand  of  you  a  very  full,  clear,  and  fatisfadory 
Anfwcr.  I  fliall  examine  your  Anfwer,  in  due 
time  and  place.  But,  tirft,  it  will  be  proper  to  fliev/ 

what 


230  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  XVI. 
what  Rcafons  we  have  to  think,  that  all  Reli- 
gious Wordiip  is  appropriated  to  God  only. 
I  fliall  inquire  into  the  fenfe  of  Scripture,  in 
this  Article  j  and  next  proceed  to  the  Judg- 
ment and  Practice  of  the  Antient  Church,  the 
beft  Comment  upon  Scripture. 

Exod,  20.  V.  3.  hath  been  already  produced. 
The  Words  are,  Thoti  Jhalt  have  no  other  Gods 
before  (or  befides)  me.  Which  is  farther  explained, 
'V,  5 .  (the  reafon  being  the  fame,  both  with  refped 
to  Images  and  falfe  Gods )  Thou  Jhalt  not  bow 
down  to  Them,  norferve  Them  *.  All  Ads  of 
Religious  Worfliip  are  forbidden  to  be  offered  to 
any  other  Being,  befides  the  one  Supreme  God : 
to  Him  they  are  appropriated,  to  Him  only.  So 
^eut,  6.13.  Thou  Jhalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God, 
andJerveHim:  And  again,  ©^///^.  10.  20.  Thou 
Jhalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God-,  Him  Jhalt  thou 
ferve.  Which  is  quoted,  and  explained  by  our 
Bleffed  Lord  Himfelf,  in  thefe  Words :  Thou 
Jhalt  worjhip  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  on- 
ly Jhalt  thou  ferve,  Matth.  4.  i  o.  This  was  faid 
in  anfwer  to  Satan,  who  did  not  pretend  to 
be  Supreme,  nor  defire  to  be  acknowledged  as 
fuch.  {See  Luke  4.  6.)  all  He  required  was, 
that  a  folemn  outward  Aft  of  Adoration  and  Wor- 
(hip  fhould  be  paid  Him:  And  the  reafon  given 
for  refufing  it,  is  not  that  He  was  a  bad  Spirit ^ 
an  Enemy  to  God  5  or  that  God  had  7iot  com- 
manded that  He  fliould  be  worfliip'd  3  but  the 

*  See  alfoExod.  22.  20.— —34,  14.  Dan.  3.  28. 

reafoi^ 


Qu.  XVL     offonw  qjJ  E  R  I  E  S.       251 

reafoti  is  general,  tliat  none  are  to  be  worfliip'd, 
but  God  only.  And  that  thcfe  and  the  like 
Texts  were  intended  to  exclude  all  Beings^  bc- 
fide  the  one  Supreme  God,  from  being  wor- 
fliip'd,  cither  at  that  Time^  or  at  any  Time 
after^  appears,  not  only  from  the  Realon  of 
the  Thing,  but  from  plain  Scripture.  Before 
me  was  there  no  God  fornidy  neither  Jhalt 
there  he  after  me ^  If.  43.  10.  If  there  arife 
among  you  a  Trophet  ^  or  a  "Dreamer  of 
T>reamSy  and  giveth  Thee  a  fign  or  wonder ^ 
nnd  the  fign  or  wonder  come  to  pafs^  where- 
of He  [pake  ttnto  Thee^  fayingy  Let  us  go  after 
other  Gods  { which  thou  hajl  not  known )  mid 
let  us  ferve  Them,  Thou  fhalt  not  hearken^  &c. 
Deut.  13.  I,  2, 3.  The  Worfliip  of  the  fame 
one  God,  exclufive  of  all  others,  is  by  this  for 
ever  made  unchangeable:  Miracles  could  not 
be  fufficient  to  give  credit  to  any  one,  who 
Ihould  pretend  to  introduce  another  objed  of 
Worfliip ;  or  to  fet  up  another  God,  befide  the 
one  Supreme  God.  All  Creatures  whatever  arc 
hereby  cffedually  precluded  from  receiving  any 
religious  Homage  and  Adoration.  This  is  con- 
firm'd  by  St.  ^atil  (  Rom,  i .  2 1 ,  crc  )  who  cen- 
fures  thofe  that  knew  God^  (  that  is,  acknow- 
ledged one  Supreme  God )  and  yet  glorified 
Him  not  as  Gody  becaufe  they  ferved  the 
Creature  more  than  ( or  befidcs )  the  Creator^ 
who  is  bkffed  far  ever.  Wherein  the  Apoftlc 
plainly  intimates,  that  the  Creator  only  is  to 
be  fervedi  and  that  the  Idolatry  of  the  Hca- 

tliciis 


232       ^DEFENSE       Qu.  XVI. 

thcns  lay  in  their  worfhipping  of  the  Crea- 
ture. He  docs  not  blame  Them  for  giving 
foveraig7i^  or  abfoliite  Worfliip  to  the  Crea^ 
tiires  (They  could  hardly  be  fo  filly,  as  to 
imagine  there  could  be  more  than  one  Supreme 
God)  but  for  giving  any 'zc.'^r/^/^  at  all,  Sove- 
raign  or  Inferior,  Abfolute  or  Relative,  to  any 
Thing  but  the  Creature,  To  the  fame  purpofe. 
Gal,  4.  8.  He  condemns  thofe  v^hodidfervice 
unto  Them,  iz'hich  by  nature  were  no  Gods. 
Which  Text  1  fhall  take  care  to  explain  par- 
ticularly, in  another  Place.  All  this  is  con- 
firmed   and   illuftrated    by  the   Angel,   (  Rev. 

19.  10. 22.9.)  who  rcfufed  to  receive  fo 

much  as  the  outward  Ad  of  Adoration  5  giving 
this  Rule  and  Maxim  upon  it,  Worjhip  God: 
intimating  thereby,  that  God  only  is  to  htwor- 
Jloipd'y  that  all  Ads  of  religious  Worfliip  arc 
appropriated  to  God  only.  He  does  not  fay, 
worfliip  God  and  whom  God  fhall  appoint  to 
be  wor(hip''d\  as  if  he  had  appointed  any  be- 
fidcs  God  :  nor  worfliip  God  with  foveraign 
Worfliip;  as  if  any  inferior  fort  of  Worfliip 
was  permitted  to  be  paid  to  Creatures  5  but 
fimply ,  plainly ,  and  briefly ,  Worfhip  God. 
To  this  I  may  add,  that  the  Reafons  which  God 
infifi:s  upon  and  inculcates,  in  the  Old  Teftar 
m.ent,  why  He,  and  He  alone,  in  oppofition 
to  all  others,  is  to  be  worjhip'dy  are  fuch  as 
exclude  all  Creatures.  His  being  Jehovah^ 
*  Creator,  Suftainer,   Preferver  of  all  Things, 

*  ^Velf.  40.  ir.45'.y,  6,  7.  2  Kings  19.  I/.  Jcr.  10. 10,  ii,i2j 

having 


Qji.  XVI.     offonw  (QUERIES.        2  ^ 

having  no  God  before  Him  nor  after  Him,  and 
the  like. 

This  is  the  Scripture  Account  of  the  Objcd 
of  Worfliip  :  There  is  neither  Rule  nor  Example 
in  it,  for  the  worfliipping  any  Creature  whatever ; 
but  all  the  Texts,  relating  to  this  Matter,  arc 
full,  ftrong,  and  clear  for  the  Worfhip  of  God 
only.  Now,  whatever  Reafons  Human  Wifdom 
may  invent  for  the  worfliipping  of  Creatures, 
befides  the  Creator^  (as  Celfns  and  Torphjrie 
of  Old,  and  the  Romanijis  of  later  Times, 
have  pretended)  thofe  are  never  to  be  fet  a- 
gainft  a  clear  and  plain  Law ;  or  oppolcd  to  the 
unerring  Wifdom  of  God,  who  beft  knows  to 
whom  Worfliip  is  proper  to  be  paid,  and  to 
whom  not. 

I  fliall  not  here  argue  the  Point  from  the 
Nature  of  the  Thing  it  felf.  I  will  fuppofe 
(without  granting)  that  Creatures  may  be  wife 
enough  to  know,  ready  enough  to  hear,  and 
able  to  relieve  our  wants,  at  any  Diftance.  I 
will  fuppofe  alfo,  that  one  Creature  may  be  ap- 
pointed to  bear  Rule  and  to  have  Dominioirover 
many ;  as  fonie  have  thought  particular  Angels 
to  prefide  over  fuch  and  fuch  Kingdoms  or 
Countries.  I  will  fuppofe  likewife,  that  it  may 
feem  to  Human  Wifdom  very  fit  and  proper, 
that  fuch  Creatures  as  can  aflift,  or  have  the 
charge  of  others,  fliould  be  refpeded,  worjhifdy 
QSid  adored  by  Them.  I  will  fuppofe  alfo,  that 
we  may  be  fo  ignorant  as  not  to  perceive  any- 
great  harm,  in  thcfc  Suppofitions,  from  the  Na- 

R  ture 


234       ^DEFENSE        Qu.  XVI. 

ture  of  the  thing,  barely  and  fingly  confider'd. 
But  God's  Thoughts  are  not  our  Thoughts :  He 
has  beien  plcas'd  to  enter  an  exprefs  Caveat  and 
Prohibition  in  the  Cafe ;  and  has,  no  doubt, 
good  reafon  for  it.  Poffibly,  He  may  ap- 
prehend it  to  be  more  for  his  own  Glory,  and 
more  for  our  Good,  that  our  whole  Worfliip 
and  Service  be  paid  to  Him,  than  a  part 
only.  Poffibly,  He  may  know  (fuch  is  Hu- 
man Infirmity)  that  if  any  part,  or  kind,  or 
degree  of  Religious  Worfhip  was  permitted  to 
be  given  to  Creatures,  it  might  infenfibly 
alienate  our  Minds  from  the  Creator*,  or  eat 
out  all  our  Reverence  and  Refped  for  God.  Or, 
it  may  be,  that  while  our  Acknowledgments 
are  ordcr'd  to  be  paid  to  Him,  and  to  Him 
alone,  we  may  thereby  be  induced  to  live  more 
in  dependence  on  Him  5  become  more  imme- 
diately united  to  Him  5  and  have  the  greater 
love  and  efteem  for  Him.  He  will  not,  per- 
haps, leave  his  Favours  in  the  Hands,  or  in  the 
difpofal  of  his  Creatures,  left  we  (hould  forget 
whom  we  are  principally  obliged  to;'  or  left  we 
fhould  imagine  that  He  is  not  always  every 
where  prcfent,  to  hear  all  our  Petitions,  and  to 
anfwer  them,  according  to  his  own  good  Plea- 
lure.  Thefe,  or  a  Thoufand  better  Reafons,  in- 
finite Wifdom  may  have,  for  appropriating  all 
Ads  of  Religious  Worfliip  to  God.  It  is  fuf- 
ficient  for  us  to  know  that  He  has  done  it :  and 
of  this  Holy  Scripture  has  given  abundant  Proof, 
as  we  have  before  fecn. 

Now, 


Qu.  XVI.     offojiw  (QUERIES.         235 

Now,  I  come  to  confidcr  what  you  have  to 
except  againft  fo  clear  a  Truth.  All  is  com- 
prized in  one  fhort  Sentence ;  one  remarkable 
Diftindlion.  Abfolute  Supreme  Honour  is 
plainly  appropriated  to  the  'Per [on  of  the  Fa- 
ther only  (by  Exod.  20. 3.  Matt.^.  to.)  as  the 
abfolute  Supreme  Beings  or  the  one  God,  (p.  94.) 
From  which  I  am  to  infer,  that  relative  in- 
ferior Worfhip  may  be  paid  to  the  Creatures, 
notwithftanding  what  has  been  urged,  from  the 
whole  Tenor  of  Scripture  and  Antiquity,  to 
the  Contrary.  This  is  the  famed  'Diflinciionj 
pleaded  by  the  Heathens  of  Old,  for  Pagan  -, 
by  the  Rornayufls  of  late,  for  Popifh ;  and  by 
You,  for  Arian  Idolatry.  I  fhall  endeavour 
to  convince  you  how  little  there  is,  cither  of 
Truth,  or  Probability,  in  this  fo  celebrated  'T>i- 
ftinB'io?i  5  and  then  put  an  End  to  the  Argument 
of  this  ^lery. 

You  fet  out  unfortunately  under  a  miftake, 
as  if  We  were  inquiring  about  Refped  and 
Efteem,  when  the  Queftion  is  entirely  about 
A5is  of  Religious  Worfhip.  My  Words  were 
Worfhip  and  Adoration:  Inftead  thereof  you 
put  Honour,  an  ambiguous  Word  \  and  fo  flip 
over  the  Difficulty,  which  you  was  pinched 
with  5  and  infenfibly  lead  your  Reader  off  from 
the  Point  it  concerned  you  to  fpeak  to.  Pleafe 
to  remember  that  we  are  difputing  about  AEis 
of  Worfhip,  Religious  Worfhip.  Let  us  keep 
to  the  Terms  we  began  with  ;  left,  by  the 
changing  of  Words,  we  make  a  change  oi Ideas, 
R  2  and 


V36       ^DEFENSE       Qu.  XVI. 

and  alter  the  very  ftatc  of  the  Qacftion.  This 
being  premised,  now  I  come  direftly  to  the 
Point  in  Hand.  Your  pretence  is,  that  /////- 
watL%  abfolnte,  fupre?ne,  foveraign  Worfliip 
is  due  to  the  Father  only  5  Mediate^  relative^ 
inferior^  petty  Worfliip  may  be  paid  to  Crea- 
tures: The  outward  Ads  and  Circumftanccs 
llippofed  alike  in  Both,  fo  far  as  to  make 
Them  Religious^  not  Civil  Worlhip.  Your 
confideriiig  the  Father  as  Supreme ,  and  your 
intending  Him  the  highefl  Refped  imaginable, 
are  to  make  His  JVorjhip  become  fupjremey 
abfolute^  foveraign  Worfhip :  But  your  con- 
Jidering  another  Being  as  inferior^  dependent ^ 
and  a  Creature  only,  and  your  ^intending  Him 
no  more  than  a  proportionate  Refped,  are  to 
make  the  Worfliip  of  Him  become  inferior , 
relative^  petty  Worfliip.  Worfliip  therefore 
is  to  take  its  Quality  from  the  Efteem  and  In- 
tention of  the  Worfliipper,  and  is  to  be  fup- 
pos'd  higher  and  lower  accordingly.  This,  I 
think,  is  your  real  and  full  Meaning,  in  as 
few  and  as  plain  Words,  as  I  am  capable  of 
Exprciring  it.  In  anfwer  to  it,  I  obfervx  as 
follows. 

I .  I  can  meet  with  nothing  in  Scripture  to 
countenance  thofe  fine-fpun  Notions.  Grayer 
\vc  often  read  of  5  but  there  is  not  a  Syllable 
about  ahfolute  and  relative^  fitpreme  and  in- 
ferior Prayer.  We  are  commanded  to  pray 
Fervently  and  Incejfantly ;  but  never  Sove- 
rnignly  or  Abfolutely,   that  I  know  of.     Wc 

have 


Qii.  XVI.       of  forne  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       2^7 

have  no  Rules  left  Us  about  raifing  or  lozverifi/f 
our  Intentions^  in  proportion  to  the  dignity  of 
the  Objc5fs.  Some  Inllruclions,  to  this  purpole, 
might  have  been  highly  ufeful  5  and  it  is  very 
ftrange,  that,  in  a  Matter  of  fo  great  Impor- 
tance, no  Directions  fliould  be  given,  eitlier  in 
Scripture,  or,  at  leaft,  in  Antiquity,  how  to  re- 
gulate own  Intentions  and  Mecmings,  with  Meta- 
phyfical  Exaftnefs  5  fo  as  to  make  our  Worfliip 
cither  higJo^  higher y  or  higheft  of  all,  asoccafion 
Ihould  require. 

2.  But  a  greater  Objcdion  againft  this  Do- 
dlrine,  is,  that  the  wholeTenor  of  Scripture  runs 
counter  to  it.  This  may  be  underdood,  in  parr, 
from  what  I  have  obferved  above.  To  make  it 
yet  plainer,  I  fhall  take  into  Confideration  fuch 
Ads  and  Inftances  of  Worfhip,  as  I  find  laid 
down  in  Scripture  $  whether  under  the  old  or 
new  Difpenfation. 

Sacrifice  was  one  Inftancc  of  Worfliip  re- 
quired under  the  Law  ;  and  it  is  faid  j  He  that 
Sacrificeth  unto  any  God,  fave  unto  the  Lord 
only.  He  (hall  he  utterly  deflroyed,  Exod. 
22.20.  Now  fuppofe  any  perfon,  confidering 
with  Himfelf  that  only  abfolute  and  fovereign 
Sacrifice  was  appropriated  to  God,  by  this 
Law,  ihould  have  gone  and  facrificed  to  oxhcx: 
Gods,  and  have  been  convicted  of  it  before  the 
judges :  The  Apology  He  muft  have  made  for 
it,  I  fuppofe,  muft  have  run  thus.  "  Gentlemen, 
"  though  I  have  facrificcd  to  other  Gods,  yet,  I 
'^  hope,  you'll  obfcrve,  that  I  did  it  not  abfo-- 
R  3  ''  Intel) : 


238       ^DEFENSE       Qu.  XVI. 

'^  lutely :  I  meant  not  any  abfolute  or  fit- 
*^  prerae  Sacrifice  ( which  is  all  that  the  Law 
''  forbids)  but  relative  and  inferior  only.  I 
''  regulated  my  Intentions  with  all  imaginable 
*'  Care ;  and  my  EJieem  with  the  moft  critical 
"  Exadncfs:  I  coiifidered  the  other  Gods, 
*'  whom  I  facrificed  to,  as  inferior  only,  and 
*'  infinitely  fo  ;  referving  all  foveraign  Sacri- 
"  fice  to  the  ftipreme  God  of  //r^^/.  This, 
or  the  like  Apology,  muft,  I  prefume,  have 
brought  off  the  Criminal,  with  fome  Applaufe 
for  his  Acutcnefs,  if  your  Principles  be  true. 
Either  you  muft  allow  thisj  or  you  muft  be 
content  to  fay,  that  not  only  abfolute  fupreme 
Sacrifice  (if  there  be  any  Senfe  in  that  Phrafe) 
but  all  Sacrifice  was,  by  the  Law,  appropriate 
to  God  only. 

Another  Inftance  of  Worfhipy  is  making  of 
Vcws,  religious  Vows.  We  find  as  little  Ap- 
pearance of  your  famed  Diftindion  here,  as  in 
the  former  cafe.  We  read  nothing  oi  foveraign 
and  infrior^  abfolute  and  relative  VoyfjSj  that 
v/e  fliould  Imagine  ftipreme  Vows  to  be  appro- 
priate to  God,  inferior  permitted  to  Angels ^  or 
Idols ^  or  to  any  Creature, 

SvL'caring  is  another  Inftance  much  of  the 
fame  kind  with  the  foregoing.  Swearing,  by 
God's  Name,  is  a  plain  Thing,  and  well  under- 
ftood  :  But  if  you  tcil  us  oi  foveraign  and  in- 
ferior Swearing,  according  to  the  inward  Re- 
fped  or  Intention  you  have,  in  Proportion  to 
the  Dignity  of  the  Pcrfon  by  whole  Name  you 

Swear. 


Qii.  XVI.    offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.        239 

Swear,  it  muft  found  pcrfcdly  new  to  us.  All 
Swearing  which  comes  ihort  in  its  Rcfpcfts,  or 
falls  below  Soveraign-,  will,  I  am  afraid,  be  little 
better  than  Trofanenefs. 

Such  being  the  Cafe  in  refpeft  of  the  Ads  of 
Religious  Worfliip  already  mention'd,  I  am  now 
to  ask  you,  what  is  there  fo  peculiar  in  the 
Cafe  of  Invocation  and  Adoratioyiy  that  They 
fhould  not  be  thought  of  the  fame  kind  with 
the  other?  Why  fliould  not  abfolitte  and  rela- 
tive Prayer  and  Proftration  appear  as  abfurd, 
as  abfohte  and  relative  Sacrifice,  Vows,  Oaths, 
or  the  like  ?  They  are  Ads  and  Inflances  of 
r^//^/Wj  Worfliip,  like  the  other;  appropriated 
to  God  in  the  fame  Manner,  and  by  the  fame 
Laws,  and  upon  the  fame  Grounds  and  Rea- 
fons.  Well  then,  will  you  pleafe  to  confider, 
whether  you  have  not  begun  at  the  wrong 
end,  and  committed  an  yVs^ov  -sreoTe^ov  in  your 
way  of  thinking.  You  imagine  that  Ads  of 
religious  Worfliip  are  to  derive  their  Signi- 
fication and  Quality,  from  the  intention  and 
meaning  of  the  Worfliippers ;  whereas  the  very 
reverfe  of  it  is  the  Truth.  Their  Meaning 
and  Signification  is  fixed  and  determined  by 
God  Himfelf ;  and  therefore  we  are  never  to 
ufe  them  with  any  other  meaning,  under 
peril  of  Profanencfs  or  Idolatry.  God  has  not 
left  us  at  Liberty  to  fix  what  Senfe  we  pleafe 
upon  religious  Worfliip,  to  render  it  high 
or  low,  abfolute  or  relative,  at  Difcretion^ 
fupreme  when  offered  to  God,  and  if  to  others 

R  4  inferior-^ 


240       ^DEFENSE       Qu.  XVI. 

inferior-^  as  when  to  Angels ^  or  Saints,  or 
Images,  in  luitablc  Proportion.  No  :  Religion 
was  not  made  for  Aletaphyficd  Heads  only  j 
fuch  as  might  nicely  dillinguifli  the  feveral  De- 
grees and  Elevations  of  Refped  and  Honour 
among  many  Objeds.  The  fhort  and  plain 
way,  which  (in  pity  to  Human  Infirmity  and" 
to  prevent  Confufion)  it  has  pleafcd  God  to 
take  with  us,  is  to  make  ail  religious  Worfhip 
his  ^x'w  5  and  fo  it  \s  Joveraign  of  Courfe.  This 
I  take  to  be  the  true  Scriptural  as  well  as 
only  r^^^/2?/^^/^/?  Account  of  thcObjedof  Wor- 
Ihip.  We  need  not  concern  ourfelves  (it  is 
but  vain  to  pretend  to  it)  about  determining 
the  Senfe  and  Meaning  of  religious  Worfliip. 
God  Himfelf  has  tpok  care  of  it  5  and  it  is 
already  fixed  and  determined  to  our  Hands.  It 
nieans,  v/hethcr  we  will  or  no,  it  means,  by 
Divine  Infiitution  and  Appointment,  the  'Di- 
vinity ^  the  Supremacy^  the  Soveraignty  of 
its  Objcd.  To  mifapply  thofe  Marks  of  Dig- 
nity, thofe  appropriate  Enfigns  of  Divine  Ma- 
jcdy  5  to  compliment  any  Creature  Avith  them, 
and  thereby  to  make  common  what  God  has 
n^:[dc  proper:,  is  to  deify  the  Works  of  God's 
Elands,  and  to  fcrve  the  Creature  inftead  of 
the  Creator^  God  blefled  for  ever.  We  have 
no  GCCufion  to  talk  of  fovcraign-,  abfolutCy  ulti- 
viate-,  Prayers,  and  fuch  other  odd  Fancies  : 
'Trayer  is  an  addrefs  to  God,  and  does  not 
admit  of  thofe  novel  Didindions.  In  fliort 
rhcn,     Elcrc  is  no    room  left  for  your  diftin- 

guifhin^ 


Qu.  XVI.     offome  aU  E  R I  E  S.        241 

guifliing  between  foveraign  and  inferior  Adora- 
tion. You  mud  firft  prove,  what  you  have  hi- 
therto prefumcd  only  and  taken  for  granted,  that 
you  are  at  Uberty  to  fix  what  Meaning  and  Sig- 
nification you  pleafc  to  the  Ads  of  religions 
Worfhip;  to  make  them  high  01  /^iz;  atDifcre- 
tion.  This  you  will  find  a  very  difficult  under- 
taking. Scripture  is  before-hand  with  you  -,  and, 
to  fix  it  more,  the  concurring  Judgment  of  the 
earlieft  and  beft  Chriftian  Writers.  All  religi- 
^//i"  Worfhip  is  hereby  detcrmin'd  to  be,  what 
you  call  abfolute  and  foveraign.  Inferior  or  re- 
lative Worfhip  appears  now  to  be  Contradiction 
in  Senfe,  as  it  is  novel  in  Sound ;  like  an  infe- 
rior or  relative  God.  To  what  hath  been  faid, 
I  may  add  a  few  farther  Confiderations  from 
Scripture.  The  Apoftles  Barnabas  and  'Paiily 
when  the  *  Lycaonians  would  have  done  Sa- 
crifice unto  Them,  did  not  tell  Them  that 
Sacrifice  was  of  equivocal  Meaning ;  and  that 
They  might  proceed  in  it,  provided  only  that 
They  would  rectify  their  Intentions^  and  con- 
Jider  Them  as  Apofiles  only  5  but  They  forbad 
them  to  Sacrifice  to  Them  at  all.  The  Angely 
in  the  Revelations^  did  not  dired  St.  John  to 
confider  Him  only  as  an  Angel,  and  then  to 
go  innocently  on,  in  his  Worflnp  of  him  3  but 
He  order'd  Him  to  Worfoip  God.  Our  Blcffed 
Lord  did  not  tell  the  Devil  that  all  external 
Worfliip  was  equivocal  and  might  be  offered 
to  Angels  or  Men^  provided  the  Intention  was 

•^  Avfls  14. 

\,  regulated. 


242       ^DEFENSE        Qu.  XVI. 

regulated,  and  rciped  proportioned  --y  but  He  told 
Him  plainly  that  all  religious  Worfliip  was  ap- 
propriate to  God.  In  fine,  nothing  is  more 
evident  than  that  the  Defign,  both  of  the  Law 
and  the  Gofpel  was  to  eftabl  ifti  this  great  Truth, 
and  to  root  out  CreatureJVorJhip,  "  And  this 
''  was,  as  Dr.  CudwortPj  rightly  obfcrves,  the 
<^  grand  Reafon  why  the  Antient  Fathers  fo  zea- 
«^  loufly  o^'foio.dArianifmy  becaufe  that  Chri- 
<'  ftianity,  which  was  intended  by  God  Almigh- 
"  ty  for  a  means  to  extirpate  Pagan  Idolatry y 
<'  was  thereby  it  felf  Paganized  and  Idola- 
*^  trizedi  and  made  highly  guilty  of  that  very 
«'  thing  which  is  fo  much  condemned  in  the 
"  PaganSy  that  is,  Creaiure-Worjhip,  This 
*'  might  be  proved  by  fundry  Teftimonics  of 
*-^  AthanaJiuSy  BaJiU  Gregory  Nyffen,  Gregory 
<^  NazianzeUy  EpiphanitiSy  Chryfojiomy  Hilary ^ 
<^  Ambrofe,  Auftine^  Fauftinus-,  and  Cyril  of  A- 
"  lexandria  5  All  of  them  charging  the  ArianSy 
"  as  guilty  of  the  very  fame  Idolatry  with  the 
"  GentileSy  or  Pagans,  in  giving  religious  Wor- 
''  (hip J  even  to  the  Word  and  Son  of  God  Him- 
"  felf  ( and  confcquently  to  our  Saviour  Chrift ) 
"  as  He  was  fuppofed  by  Them  to  be  a  Crea- 
"  ture  ^. 

But,  in  anfwer,  perhaps,  to  This,  it  may  be 
faid,  by  fuch  as  run  things  off  in  a  confufed 
manner,  and  do  not  ftay  to  diftinguifh,  that 
certainly  there  is  a  wide  and  great  Difference 
between  giving  Honour  to  Heathen  Idols,  and 

*  Cudw.  IntcII.  Syft.  p.  628. 

doing 


Qii.  XVI.  of  fome  QUERIES.  243 
doing  it  to  our  Saviour  Chrift,  tho'  a  Creature 
only.  No  doubt  but  there  is  5  and  God  forbid 
that  any  Chriliian  fhould  fay,  or  think  other- 
wife.  But  that  is  not  the  point.  The  Worfhip 
even  of  Saints  and  Angels  is  much  preferable 
to  Tagan  Worfhip.  But  ftill  They  are  Both 
equally^  though  not  equally  culpable ^  Idolatry ; 
and  are  Breaches  of  the  firft  Commandment. 
Whatever  love,  rcfped,  gratitude,  &c,  may  be 
due  for  what  our  Lord  and  Saviour  has  wrought 
for  us,  if  He  be  ftill  a  Creature^  All  cannot  come 
up  to  V/orfhipy  which  is  appropriate  to  God 
alone.  Well,  but  it  may  be  farther  pleaded, 
that  here  is  God's  Command  in  the  Cafe,  which 
makes  it  widely  different  from  any  of  the  for- 
mer. Very  True,  there  is  fo;  and  we  fhall 
make  a  proper  ufe  of  that  hereafter :  But  the 
Queftion  is,  what  is  the  fundamental  Rule  of 
religions  Worfliip )  Is  it  to  ^-iaorjhip  God  only  ? 
Or  is  it  to  worfliip  God,  ajtd  whomfoever  be- 
JideSy  God  Jhall  appoint  to  be  'ui'orfljip'd?  They 
who  pretend  the  latter  muft  fliew  fome  Foun- 
dation, if  They  can,  in  Scripture,  for  ir.  Where 
is  it  intimated,  cither  in  the  Old  or  New  Tefta- 
menr,  that  Worfliip  fhould  be  paid  to  any  befides 
God  ?  Neither  the  Law  nor  the  Prophets,  nei- 
ther Chrift  nor  his  Apoftles  ever  intimated  any 
thing  like  it.  Our  Saviour  did  not  fay,  worfliip 
God,  and  who7nfoever  God  Jhall  order  to  be  wor- 
(loipd'-y  nor  did  the  Angel,  in  the  Revelations 
infuiuate  any  fuch  Thing  :  'Si'i.  'Paul  never  told 
us  oi  ferving  the  Creator,  and  whom  the  Crea- 
tor 


244         ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XVI. 

tor  flioul J  nominate  bcfidcs ;  but  Creator  only. 
The  like  may  be  oblcrved  upon  other  occafi- 
ons,  where  this  might  have  been  properly  inti- 
mated, but  is  conftantly  omitted.  Nothing  there- 
fore can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  fundamental 
Rule  for  Worfliip  is,  that  God  only  is  to  be  wor- 
(hifd.  All  Worfhip,  inconfiftent  with  this  pri- 
mary and  perpetual  Law,  muft,  of  Confequence, 
sppear  Idolatrous y  either  in  the  Practice,  or  the 
Principle :  And  it  is  thus  that  the  ArianSy  fol- 
lowing a  Scriptiire-Coynmand  y  but  not  upon 
Scripttire-TrincipleSy  and  praiflifing  a  Chrijlian 
Duty  upon  a  Vagan  Foundation  of  Creature- 
Worjhip  and  Tolytheifmy  (land  charged  with 
Idolatry. 

2.  To  confirm  us  farther  in  the  Truth  of  the 
Principles  here  afferted,  I  (hall  fubjoin  a  fecond 
Confideration,  drawn  from  the  Pradice  of  the 
primitive  Martyrs  $  who  may  be  prefumcd  to 
have  underftood  the  Principles  of  that  Religion, 
for  which  They  chearfuliy  laid  down  their  Lives. 
-  It  is  well  known,  that  They  readily  fubmittcd 
to  all  kinds  of  Torment,  and  to  Death  it  felf, 
rather  than  offer  Adoration,  Incenfe,  or  Sacri- 
fice to  the  Heathen  Deities.  Now,  if  Soveraign 
Worfhip  be  all  that  is  appropriated  to  God;  and 
if  no  Worfliip  be  Soveraign^  but  what  the  in- 
ward Intention,  and  fecret  Efteem  of  the  Wor- 
fliippcr  make  \o  \  how  thoughtlefs  w^re  They, 
to  rcfift  even  unto  Blood,  for  fear  of  committing 
i  Sin,  whi;:h  it  was  not  polTible  for  Them  to 
have  been  guilty  of?     They   could  never   have 

blunder'd 


Qu.  XVI.     offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.        245 

bliindcr'd  lb  egrcgioully,  as  to  have  confider^d 
the  Heathen  Deities  (which  They  heartily  de- 
fpifed )  as  Suprerne  Gods  j  or  to  have  intended 
them  So'Veraign  Worfliip  5  and  therefore  could 
not  have  been  guilty  of  giving  them  that  fVor- 
(hip  which  is  appropriate  to  God.  They  had  (o 
mean  and  defpicable  an  Opinion  of  the  ^Pagan 
Deities,  that  if  theQiiality  of  the  Worfliip  is  to 
be  eftimated  from  the  fccret  Efteem  and  Inten- 
tion of  the  JVorJhippery  fuch  Ads  of  Worfliip 
muft  have  dwindled  into  no  Worfliip  in  reaUty  ; 
hardly  amounting  to  fo  much  as  an  empty  cere- 
monious CompUment.  Where  then  was  the 
Harm  of  Sacrificing  to  Idols  ?  What  Law  had 
condemn'd  it,  if  your  Principles  be  true  >  The 
outward  Ad  being  equivocal^  this  could  not  be 
interpreted  Sacrifice^  fuch  as  God  had  forbid  to 
be  offer'd  to  any  but  Himfelf.  But  thofe  primi- 
tive Saints  were  unacquainted  with  your  refined 
Subtil  ties,  having  learn'd  their  Logick  from  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  plain  common  Senfe  and  Reafon  of 
Mankind.  They  knew  that  the  Signification  of 
Worfliip  and  Sacrifice  depended  not  on  their  ar- 
bitrary Efteem,  or  fecrct  Intention ;  but  had  been 
before  fix'd  and  detcrmin'd  by  God.  To  offer 
Sacrifice  to  the  Heathen  Deities,  was,  by  Con- 
ftruction  and  Implication,  declaring  Them  to  be 
immutable-,  eternal,  fnpremcy  and  ^li^ly  divine. 
They  could  not  be  guilty  of  fuch  a  folemn  Lie,  or 
commit  fuch  barefac'd  Profanenefs  and  Idolatry. 
They  would  not  prollitute  the  Marks  and  Cha- 
raders  of  Divinity  to  Thofe  who  were  by  Na- 
ture 


246  ^DEFENSE  Qii.  XVI. 
tiire  no  Gods  I,  nor  give  that  to  Idols,  which 
was  appropriated  to  God  only.  This  was  their 
manner  ofreafoning;  and  this  was  right:  For, 
indeed,  upon  the  other  HypotheJiSy  there  is  no- 
thing fo  mean  or  low,  but  what  a  Man  might 
pay  religious  Worfliip  to.  For  Inftance :  Pray 
to  Angels^  but  conjider  them  as  Angels^  with 
proportionate  Refped,  and  there  will  be  no  harm 
in  it.  Worfliip  Saints  departed,  but  intend  them 
only  fuch  refped  as  is  due  to  Saints^  and  all  is 
right.  Fall  down  before  a  Crucifix  with  hum- 
ble Proftration,  but  conjider  it  as  a  Crucifix ,  and 
intend  little  or  nothing  by  it,  and  all  is  well. 
Thefe  feem  to  me  the  unavoidable  Confequences 
of  this  famed  Diftindion,  and  thefe  are  the  ufes 
which  have  ndually  been  made  of  it,  fmce 
Men  have  learn  d  to  be  fubtiie,  inftead  of  wife  5 
iind  have  departed  from  the  fundamental  Max- 
im of  revealed  Religion,  that  God  dove  is  to 
be  worjloifd  -xith  religious  JVorfhip.  The  Sum 
of  what  hath  been  faid,  on  this  important  Ar- 
ticle, may  be  comprized  in  the  folipwing  Par- 
ticulars. 

I.  That,  under  the  Old  Teftamcnt,  all  reli- 
gious Worfliip  was  declared  to  belong  to  God 
only;  and  upon  fuch  Reafons  as  exclude  all 
Creature-J¥orpip ;  Namely,  bccaufe  He  is  God, 
Jehovahy  Eternal,  Immutable,  Creator,  Prefer- 
ver,  Suflarner,  and  Governor  of  all  Things. 

I  2.  That 


Qu.  XVI.     offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.         247 

2.  That  our  bleflcd  Lord  made  no  Alteration 
in  this  Law  5  but  explain'd  and  confirm'd  it :  His 
Apoftics,  after  Him,  inculcated  the  fame  Thing, 
long  after  our  Saviour's  Exaltation  and  Afcen- 
fion\  and  an  Angel  from  Heaven  reinforc'd  it, 
thereby  proclaiming  its  perpetual  Obligation.  No 
Diftindion  of  Worfhip,  mediate  and  tiltimatCy 
was  ever  intimated ;  nor  of  Inferior  and  Sove- 
raign :  But  all  Religious  Worfliip  fuppofcd  to 
have  one  Meaning,  one  Significancyj  one  Obje^iy 
viz.  The  divine  Nature  $  whether  fubfifting  in 
onePerfon,  or  more. 

3.  Such  being  the  Rule  and  ftandingLaw  for 
Religious  Worfhip,  none  can  have  any  right, 
title,  or  claim  to  IVorJhipy  but  in  Conformity  to 
the  fame  Rule. 

4.  If  the  Son  of  God  be  very  God,  Jehovah^ 
Creator y  Suftainer^  and  Treferver  of  all  Things  5 
then  He  both  may,  and  ought  to  be  worfliip'd, 
in  conformity  to  the  Scripture-Rule,  and  upon 
Scripture-Principles:  But  if  He  be  a  Creature 
only,  the  Worfliip  of  him  is  not  confident  with 
the  fundamental  Rule  both  of  the  Law  and  the 
Gofpel.  In  a  word;  if  the  Son  of  God  is  to 
be  worjhip'dy  He  is  not  a  Creature :  if  a  Crea- 
ture, He  is  not  to  be  worjhip'd. 

It  remains  now  only  to  inquire,  whether  the 
primitive  Church,  which  had  the  fame  Scri- 
ptures that  wc  have,  and  better  Opportunities  of 
knowing  and  underftanding  Them,  made  the 
fame  or  the  like  Conclufions  from  Them.  It  is 
an  Argument  of  no  fmall  Importance  5  and  there-^ 

fore 


24S  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  XVL 
fore  I  fliall  think  it  worth  the  while,  to  give  you 
a  brief  Summary  of  the  Sentiments  of  the  ear- 
licfl:  Chriftian  Writers ;  and  in  their  ownWords, 
that  every  impartial  Reader  may  be  able  to 
judge  for  himfelf 

Jiifiin  Martyr^  giving  account  of  the  Chriftian 
Worfliip,  fays  plainly,  "  *  We  worfliip  God  a- 
"  lone  ;  and,  None  but  God  ought  to  be  wor* 
"  fliip'd. 

^  AthenagoraSi  in  like  manner,  fpeaks  to  this 
effed  :  "  We  are  not  to  worfliip  the  World,  but 
*■'  the  Af^^^rofitj  we  worfliip  not  the  Towers 
"  of  God,  but  their  Creator  and  Governor^ 

Theophilus  fays,  "  I  will  Honour  the  King, 
*'  but  I  will  not  Worjhip  Him.  ^  I  wall  w^orfliip 
*'  God,  the  real  and  true  God :  no  one  ought 
*"  to  be  w^orfliip'd  but  God  alone. 

^  Tatian-,  to  the  fame  purpofc,  tlio'  not  ^o 
fully,  faysj  "  ThclForks  of  God,  made  for  our 
'•   fakes,  I  will  not  worfliip. 

^  Tertiillian  fays,  ''  What  we  worfliip  is  one 

*  0£ov  "p  [hivov  'X^o^y.'JvtZi^^  Apolog.  I.  C.  23.*  Tcy  Qilv  fJi^zvov 
^it  x^oa-xvvHVj  C.  2  I . 

*^  Ou  ToZrov,  uXhU  T  Ti^nrlrM  ectirou  TT^ou-KuvtfTioVf  p.  ff'  C>'j  roi<; 
A\j)iu,iA>ii<i  ("yGjoy)  ;rpo(rievr£5  B^tfccTTi'Jof/jiv,  ccXXu  rev  7:ony:/iV  ctCrauv  Ktci 
cixrroTua,   p.  5"6. 

•^  0£«  2)  "^^  ovra<i  0j<v  iCi  oiXij^fi  srf oirxteff  — — — p- wx  osAPla  i|a»' 
if*  *  I    ■  ■s::^o(rKtwei<^  ocXX  n  f/joya>  ©ff,    p.  go.  33, 

^  Aiifjuns^yUv  TKv  \:zs'  wjtS  yiyl^yifo/Jlc/j  ;^«s^v  xfjtjm  zr^otncuMiv  i 
^iXu,  p.   18.  Vid.  &.  p.  79. 

'  Quod  Colimus,  Deus  unus  eft;  qui  Totam  molem  iftam 
■  ■     .   de  nihilo  cxpicfTit.  A^cl.  c.  17. 

Prcefcribitur  mihi  ne  quern  Alium  Deum  dicam,  ■  ■  nc  quern 
alium  adorcm,  aut  quoquo  modo  vencrer,  prxtcr  unicum  Ilium 
qui  ita  mar.dar.     Scorp.  c.  4.  p.  490.  Ri^alt. 

"  God 


(^.  XVI.       of  fame  Q.U  E  R  I  E  S.        249 

''  God,  who  made  the  whole  Mafs  of  Things 
"  purely  from  Nothing.  I  am  commanded  not 
"  to  call  any  other,  God,  nor  to  atJorCy  or  in 
"  any  wife  worfiip  any  other  bcfides  that  one. 

*  Clement  of  Alexandria  has  more  to  this 
purpofe  :  "  Angels  and  Men  (lays  He)  arc  the 
"  Works  of  God's  Hands :  Let  none  of  you 
"  worfliip  the  Sun,  but  let  him  fet  his  Heart 
"  upon  the  Sim's,  Creator:  Neither  let  him 
"  deify  the  World,  but  to  the  Maker  of  the 
"■^  World  let  his  Defircs  be.  I  feck  after  God, 
"  the  Creator  of  the  World,  Him  that  lighted 
*^  up  the  Suny  and  not  after  the  Creatures  \}^ycL) 
"  which  God  hath  made.  The  Gentiles  ow<2h.t 
"  to  learn,  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  to 

worfliip  the  one  only  God,  the  neccflarily-ex- 

ifting  Almighty.  This  it  is  to  worfliip  the 
"  divine  Being  in  true  Right eoufnefs of  Praftice 
"  and  Knowledge. 

f  Iren£tis  exprcfles  Him fclf  thus :  "  You  ought 
"  to  worfliip  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to  fcrve 
^^  Him  alone,  and  to  give  no  Credit  to  Him,  who 

r<5  If/jZ'/  zr^ncuvi'ro)  ccXAy.  rhv  i^Xi-i  ztoi'/jtIm  iTriVoBs.'rcj.  fjtjy)h  tov  koc- 
fjtjov  c^/.d-eitA^iTCJ,  aXXli  t)v  koc^'^  ^/.uui^^ylv  i,7il^.']ri:(rxrcci,  p.Jj.  Ed. 
Ox.  T^ov  )co(rfj(,^  ^/jfjijiagycv,  rov  iiXia  (paHyuy^v  Qicv  iTn^nrS,  ^  rlc 
i^cc  ^  Qiv,  p.  5*9 .  Tisq  '^EXXrivcci^  Z^'^  ^Id  vof/ja,  xecl  zrPo<p;;rZy  c^- 
fjt/Xv&ujHv  ivx  f/jcvov  (Tionv  0£ci/  TOV  ovja^  ovlcc  ■HFCiv^Koocrc^Xf  p.  825*. 
To  <r'  sV*  ^[ntTK^Jw  To^iiov  2>\^  1^  oi/i<y$  ai,}(,o(,ko(ruv'^c,\^yuvTix.xiyvai' 
c-iu<i,  p.  778. 

f  Dominum  Dcum  tuuin  adorare  oportet,  &:  ipfi  foli  icrvire, 
Sc  non  credere  ei  qui  falfo  promifit  ea,  quae  non  funt  fua,  di- 
cens:  Hac  omnia  Tibt  dabo  Ji  procidens  adoraveris  me  .  —  -  ,,  . 
Ncque  enim  conditio  fub  ejus  poteftate  eft,  quandoquidem  Sc  ipfe 
unus  de  Cric^turii  ell,  p.  320.  Ed.  Bened. 

S  deceitfully 


<.c 


250        '^DEFENSE       Qu.XVI. 

"  deceitfully  promiicd  Things  which  were  not 
"  his  own,  faying  :  All  the fe  Things  will  I  give 
"  TheCy  if  Thou  ivilt  fall  down  and  ^ijuorjhip 

<'  me The  Syftem  of  Creatures  is  not  under 

"  his  Dominion,  fince  He  Himfelf  is  one  of  the 
"  Cr  eat  tires. 

*  Origen  has  a  great  deal  to  our  purpofe,  in 
his  Book  againft  Celfiis,  I  fliall  feled  a  few 
Paflages:  He  blames  the  Gentiles,  "who  from 
"  the  ftupcndous  greatnefs  of  the  Things  in  the 
"  World,  and  the  beautiful  Order  of  C>(?^/^//r^i' 
"  [(J^YiiJ.iiipynij.drm)  could  not  look  up  and  confider 
"  thatthey  ought  to  admire,  worfhip,  and  adore 
"  Him  only  that  made  Them.  In  another  place 
"  He  fays:  To  worfhip  the  Am  and  the  Crea- 
"  ttires  of  God  (©£«  c^nixini^yriixara)  is  forbidden 
"  Us,  w4io  are  taught,  not  to  ferve  the  Crea- 
"  ture  befides  the  Creator.  He  obferves  a  little 
after  that :  "  We  ought  not  to  Honour  Thofe 
*'  in  the  place  of  God,  or  of  the  Son  of  God, 
Which  I  take  notice  of  here  particularly,  that 
you  may  ice  how  clearly  Origen  diilinguiflics 
the  Son  from  the  o't^\u>iiY^\x^rcf.^i^\  as,  indeed, 
He  does  every  where.     In  another  place,  He 

y.Cii     B-CCVUi,CC(^&iV      y.OH     (TscStV    ^Oy,    f/jOViV    TOV    TUVTU   -^iTTOf/iKOTX,     p.     I  jS. 

ii_ii-__  ff-i^iiv  y  rev  yMoVy  kuI  ru  y  ©s»  a^ii[//i^'yyi^ciTic  oi/rt^  y^fjiAV 
k7tv,'/o^<^^  ^Xoua-Koi^ot^  jAjVi  X(X.\^6'Jiiv  vj)  KTivi  zrafu,  rev  KTiorxviBC^ 
pag.  37f. 

I  JJjall  add  another  Tajfige. 

^iiov  zru-^u,  Toi/  \::siohiKvwJra>  ovc^uv  ccil  t^  ^  uoiVTo^  d'?iyjHifySy  xa* 
35-aJ(r«y  <^J%Im   uvct(Pi^i»  cWfvi",  p.  367. 

obferves 


Qu.  XVI.     offomc  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         251 

obfcrvcs  that  Cliridians  arc  bred  up  to  Thoughts 
elevated  far  *  above  all  Creatures^  and  might 
very  juftly  difdain  to  worfliip  any  of  Them. 
The  like  He  remarks  of  the  Jeivs,  "that  they 
*'  were  taught  to  7  afccnd  up  to  the  uncreated 
"  zY^^//r^  of  God,  to  fix  their  Eyes  upon  Him 
"  only  5  and  on  Flim  alone  to  reft  all  their 
"  Hopes  and  Expectations. 

I  might  add  many  more  Teftimonies,  to  the 
fame  etFed,  from  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers :  But 
thefe  arc  fufficient  to  give  us  a  juft  Idea  of  their 
Principles,  in  relation  to  the  Objed  of  Worfliip. 
This  we  fliall  find  run  thro'  Them  all,  That  God 
alone  is  to  be  worfiiip'd  5  the  Creator  in  oppofi- 
tion  to  all  Creatures  whatever ;  the  roOacv  (as  Cle~ 
?nent  of  Alexandria^  and  Ortgen  fometimcs  ac- 
curately exprcfs  it)  which  alfo  TertuUian  fccms  to 
intimate,  in  the  words,  ^lod  ColimuSy  above 
cited.  The  Sum  then  of  the  Cafe  is  this :  If  the 
Son  could  be  included  as  being  uncreated,  and 
very  God ,  as  Creator,  Suj'Iahiery  Treferver  of  all 
Things,  and  one  with  the  Father ;  then  He  might 
be  w^oifliip'd  upon  their  Principles,  but  otherwifc 
could  not.  What  their  Pradice  was,  (hall  be  con- 
fider'd  in  its  proper  place.  For  the  prefent,  let 
it  be  a  Rule  and  Maxim  with  us,  fix'd,  as  far  as 

*  T^5    ^L^xyjLrx:;  f/jiyuMipvc^i  vxst^xvX'ox^Htv    ■zs-ecna.  tU  ^^:u>tii^.~ 

.      f    'AvX^tiiVilV   £^J    7HV   Ot^iiJTOVii'  &ioZ   (PuiTiV    KXKiiVCO  yj^VCi)  Oi/CSUV ,  Kicl 

rurj  clt:  U.UTOU  fjj'-isov  sA,T»'Jflf^  rrp/>(r^oxw,  p.  iSy. 

Compare  p.  160.  wkere  Origen  inji^s  upon  the  NcceJJ:t)  of  ele- 
"jat'mg  our  Thoughts  and  Devotions  above  ayid  beyond  alt  created 
Beifig,  c,  nroravv  r^^vnrcv,  m  one  place,  ^u-jtc^  y('jr,T9v  in  the  other. 
See  filfo  Clem.  Alex.  p.  809,816.  Ox.Ed. 

S  z  Scripture 


252  ^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E     Qa.  XVIL 

Scripture  and  the  concurring  Judgment  of  Anti- 
quity can  fix  it  (befides  what  niight  be  juftly  plead- 
ed from  the  Reafon  of  the  Thing)  that  no  kind 
ordegreeof  r^//^/(?//j-  Worfliip  is  due,  or  can  be 
lawfully  paid,  to  any  Creature.  The  Conclufion 
from  all  is;  if  our  Blcffed  Lord  is  a  Creatttre,  *  He 
is  not  to  be  w^orfliip'd  5  if  He  is  to  be  worfliip'd. 
He  is  not  a  Creature,     Now  \vc  may  pafs  on. 

Q^U   E    R   Y       XVII. 

Jiljether,  notijvithjiandhjg,  JVorJhlp  and  Adora- 
tion be  not  equally  due  to  Chrijl ;  and  confe- 
quentljy  ^whether  it  miifl  not  follow  that  He 
is  the  one  God^  and  not  {as  the  Arians  fup- 
pofe)  a  dijlin^  inferior  Being  ? 

YO  U  Anfwer,  that  Equality  of  divine  Ho- 
nour is  7iever  attributed  in  Scripture  to 
the  Son  with  the  Father ;  and  then,  in  proof 
of  a  Matter  of  Fad,  you  affign  a  reafon  of  your 
own  devifing ;  for  then  the  Son  would  be  ab- 
folutely  equal  with  the  Father  ,^  which  is 
contrary  to  Scripture  and  Reafon^  (p.  94.) 
But  why  do  you  not  keep  clofe  to  the  Words 
of  the  Query,  and  to  the  Point  in  Qucilion  ? 
JVorfoip  and  Adoration  arc  my  Words ;  not 
divine  Honour ^  which  is  ambiguous,  and  leads 
ns  off  from  the  Argument  in  Hand.  Suppofe 
it  had  been  faid  Sacrifice:    Would  you  anfwer 

x.r.'ar^x  <z)icv.   Ath.  Oiat.  2,  p.  49  I. 

4.  thus  > 


Qli.  XVir.     of  fame  QJJ  E  R  I  E  S.        253 

thus  ?    Equality  of  divine  Sacrifice  is  never  at- 
tributed, O'C,  Do  not  you  fee  the  Impropriety  ? 
Well,  bur,   as  it  is,    you  muft  fay,  equality  of 
divine  JVorpip  is  never  attributed,  &c.     And 
then,    pray  tell  me,    what  you  mean  by  eqiia- 
lity  or  inequality   of   JVorJhip ;    whether  you 
mean  longer  or  fhorter  Prayers,   more  or  lefs 
frequent  Addreflcs,  or  any  thing  elfe.     Be  that 
as  it  will,  IVorJhip-,   religious  Worfliip,  greater 
or  fmaller,  longer  or  fliortcr,  has  the  fame  Im- 
port and  Significancy  5    and  fpeaks  the  Perfon 
addrefs'd  to,    to   be   divine:    )w{!t  ;xs  Sacrifice y 
whether  otfer'd  once  a  Year  only  or  once  a 
Day,  or  whether  it  were  a  Lamb  or  only  two 
young  '^Pigeons^  carried  the  fame  Acknowledg- 
ment with   it  of    the  "Divinity^  Soveraignty^ 
and   Supremacy  of  the  Perfon  to  whom  it  was 
ofFer'd.     Now,    Worfhip  being,    as  hath  been 
faid,  an  Acknowledgment  of  the  true  God,  in 
oppofition   to   all  Creatures  whatever,    which 
are  by  Nature  no  Gods  5  and  being  ofFer'd  to 
the  Father,  not  for  the  recognizing  his  perfonal 
Properties,  as  He  ftands  diftinguifhed  from  the 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit^  but  his  ^/7^;f7/-/W  Perfecti- 
ons, common  to  all,  and  by  which  He  is  di- 
ftinguilh'd  from  the  Cr(?^i^//r^x;  it  is  very  mani- 
feft,    that  if  the  Son  is  to  be  worfioip'd  too. 
He  is  equally  God,    and  true  God,    with  the 
Father ;    has  all  the  fame  eflential  Excellencies 
and  Perfedions  which  the  Father  hath,  and  is 
at  as  great  a  diftance  from  the  Creatures;    in 
oppofition  to  whom,    and  as  a  mark  of  his  Su- 

S  3  perior 


-54       ^DEFENSE       Qu.XVII. 

pcrior  and  infinitely  tranfccndcnt  Excellency, 
He  is  "oi'orjhtfd.  If  then  Honour  confifts  in 
the  Acknowledgment  of  hiscricntialPerfedions, 
Equality  of  divine  Ho?ieur  is  attributed  in 
Scripture  to  the  Son  '-ji'ith  the  Father ;  becaufc 
JVorfljip  is  attributed  to  Both,  and  is  always  of 
the  fame  Import  and  Significancy,  by  God's 
own  Order  and  Appointment.  But  then  you'll 
fay,  the  Son  will  be  abfolutely  equal  with  the 
Father ;  which  you  think  inconfiftcnt  with  Scri- ' 
pture  and  Rcafon.  If  you  mean  by  abfolutely 
equal,  that  the  Son  mud  be  the  foft  Ter forty 
as  well  as  the  Father,  I  deny  your  Inference  : 
if  any  thing  elfe,  I  allow  it  to  be  true.  The 
"Son  will  be  equal  in  all  thofe  Refpefts,  for 
which  Worfhip  is  due  to  the  Father  Himfclf. 
He  will  be  equally  divine^  equally  eternal^ 
immtttabk,  'uvz/j,  po^jverful,  &c.  in  a  word, 
equally  God  and  Lord.  As  to  the  Subordi- 
nation of  Fcrfons  in  the  fame  Godhead,  That 
is  of  diftind  Confideration ;  and  we  may  never 
be  able  perfectly  to  comprehend  the  Relations  of 
the  three  Ferfons,  ad  intra,  amongft  themfclves; 
the  ineffcible  Order  and  Occonomy  of  the  ever 
bleilcd  Co-cternal  Trinity.  You  have  many 
Things  to  fay,  in  hopes  to  leffcn  the  Honour  and 
Worfhip  attributed  to  the  Son  in  Holy  Scripture. 
But  unlefs  you  cou'd  prove  that  no  Worfhip  at 
all  is  to  be  paid  Him,  you  prove  nothing.  How- 
ever, that  I  may  not  fccm  to  pafs  any  thing 
flightly  over,  I  (hall  take  the  Pains  to  examine 
your  Exceptions. 

As 


Qii.  XVII.    offo7ne  QUERIES.         255 

As  to  what  you  lay,  to  weaken  the  force  of 
'J oh.  5.  23.  the  Anfwer  to  it  will  properly  fall 
under  a  diftindl  Qiiery  j  which  is  entirely  upon  it. 
You  "^dtcThil.  2.  1 1.  Job.  14.  13  againft  the 
^erift ;  as  if  it  was  any  Qucftion  betwixt  us, 
whether  God  was  glorified tn  his  Son  5  or  whe- 
ther the  Honour  of  either  did  not  redound  to 
Both.  It'-juaSy  joufayy  theTrayerofChriftto 
glorify  his  Father,  and  the  Father  only.  But 
read  that  part  of  the  Prayer  again,  and  believe 
your  own  Eyes,  Joh.  17.  i.  Father,  the  Hour 
is  come,  Glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  alfo  may 
glorify  Thee,  How  familiar,  how  equally  con- 
cerned, as  well  for  his  oijun,  as  his  Fathers  Glory. 
So  again,  a  little  after  5  I  have  glorified  Thee  on 
the  Earth  :  I  have  finijhed  the  Work  which 
Thou  gavefl  me  to  do.  A^id  now,  O  Father, 
glorify  Thou  me  with  thine  own  felf,  with  the 
Glory  which  I  had  with  Thee,  before  the  World 
':c;^i-,Joh.  17.4?  5-  See  alfo,  Joh.  13.  31?  32. 
and  then  tell  me  whether  it  was  Chrift's  defign, 
or  defire,  that  his  Father  only  might  be  glorified. 
How  could  you  mifs  fuch  plain  Things?  You 
go  on  5  The  Father  is  the  Object,  to  which  he 
commands  us  to  direEi  our  Vrayers.  What  ? 
Will  you  difpute  whether  Chrift  is  to  be  wor- 
fliip'd,  or  invocated?  Confider,  I  befeech  you, 
y^^.5.2  3.mention'd  above  ;  Recoiled  with  your 
felf,  that  He  is  fometimes  diftindtly  and  perfo- 
TidWy-^ invocated,  Grace,  Mercy,  and^eace,  or 

*  p.  90.  I  Ads  7 .  j'p.  I  ThefT.  3 .  1 1 .  Rom.  10.  13. 

J  Cor.  I,  2. 

6  4  Grace 


256  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qli.  XVII. 
Grace  and  '^Pence^  or  Grace  only,  are  frequently, 
in  Twenty  Places  of  the  New  Teftament  %  im- 
plored of  Him,  together  with  the  Father.  He 
is  to  be  worfliip'd  and  adored,  as  well  as  the 
Father,  by  Men,  by  ^  Angels ^  by  the  ^  whole 
Creation,  Glory  and  "Dominion  for  ever  and 
e-ver  are  ^  afcribed  to  Him,  as  well  as  to  the 
Father.  This  is  the  Senfe  of  Scripture  :  I  need 
not  "dd,  it  being  a  thing  fo  well  known,  the 
Senit  ::Aio  of  the  earlieft  and  bed  Chriftian  Wri- 
ters, who  unanimoLifly  declare  for  the  Wor- 
fhip  of  Chrift  5  and  their  Pradice  was  conform- 
able thereto.  And  now,  that  you  may  fee 
how  confiftent  thofc  good  Men  were  (fuitably 
to  their  ftrid  Sincerity)  with  Scripture,  with 
Thcmfelves,  and  with  each  other;  I  fhall  ftep 
a  little  afide,  to  fliew  You  upon  w^iat  Principles 
They  might,  and  did  give  religious  Worfliip  to 
Chrift. 

We  have  heard  Jujlin  Martyr^  before,  de- 
claring that  God  alone  is  to  he  worjhipd.  Very 
true :  But  then  He  confiantly  teaches  us  that 
the  Son  is  God ;  and  therefore  might  confidently 
fay,  that  the  Son  is  to  be  ^'worfhif/dy  and,  in  the 
Name  of  the  whole  Church,  '^  we  ^worjldip  Fa- 
"  ther^  Son-,  and  the  Prophet ick  Spirit. 

'  See  CWc?'s  Script.  Dodlr.  Ch.  2.  Sea:.4. 

''  Hebr.  i.  6.  '  Rev.  5-.  8. 

**  iPer.  3.  iS.  Rev.  5-.  i  5.     6"^^  alfi  Rev.  7.  ro. 

"^  Y]^cTKti'jyi7)i<i,  A^o\.  I.  p.  94.  Apol.  2.  gj".  Ox.  Dial.  pag. 
'^91,209,231,365-.  Jcbb. 

^  EKiTvey    T(  ,    x^  rev  -Zoct^  WjtS  licv  Ix^ovrct  zrviufJijix.  Tg  ro 

:rcs(pijTiy^v  (nScfjui^cc  y^  -i^foTKuotf^.   Apol.  i.  p.  Ii. 

Atk^na- 


Qu.  XVII.     of  fame  CIUEKIES,       257 

Atheriagoras  has  before  intimated  that  nothing 
lefs  than  the  ^  Creator  of  the  World  is  to  be 
'u:orpip'd.  But  then  He  tells  us  too,  that  all 
Things  were  ^  created  by  the  Son :  and  therefore 
no  wonder  if,  giving  account,  to  the  Emperor, 
of  the  God  whom  the  Chriftians  worfhip'd,  He 
<^  joiais  the  Son  with  the  Father. 

Thecphilus  declares,  as  before  feen,  for  the 
Worfhip  of  God  only ;  and  fays,  the  King  is 
not  to  be  worfhip  d,  becaufc  He  is  not  God.  But 
then,  as  to  the  Son,  He  ^  owns  Him  to  be  God ; 
and  therefore  of  Confequerjce  muft  fuppofeWor- 
fliip  due  to  Him. 

Tatian  teaches  that  God  only  is  to  be  wor- 
fliipds  not  ^  Many  not  the  Elements,  not  the 
CreatiireSy  a^niMn^yia.  Very  good  :  But  the  Son 
who  ^rr^^^^^  Matter,  and  is'AyysXwv  c/^i^/jitspyos-, 
might  be  worfhip'd  notwithftanding. 

Terttillian  is  fo  fcrupulous,  that  He  fays,  He 
will  not  fo  much  as  call  Any  other,  God,  but 
the  God  whom  He  worfhip 'd,  and  to  whom 
alone  He  pronounces  all  Worfhip  due.  But  He 
mufl certainly  include  the  Son  in  that  only  God; 
as  every  one  knows  who  ever  looked  into  his 
Writings :  And  accordingly  He  s  admits  the  wor- 
fhip of  Him. 

demerit  of  Alexandria,  as  we  iiave  obferv'd 
above,  '^protefts  againfl:  the  Worfhip  of  Crea- 

•  See  the  Tajfage  above ^  p.  248.  ^  See  above,  p.  189. 

^  Q)iov  ccyovTi'i  70V  srcijjTHi'  Totjffi  t5  ttxvtoi;  y^  tovt^u.'^  U'jtoZ Xoyov, 
p.  122.  ''Pag.  130.  '  Pag.  17, 18,  79. 

^  See  above,  p.  189.  ^  Apo],  c.  2 1 .  Ad  Uxor.  1.  2.  c.  5. 

Adv.  Jud.  C.J,  "  Pag.  249. 

tures'y 


258      ^DEFENSE       Qu.XVIf. 

tares  ;  and  allows  no  Worfliip  but  to  the  Ma- 
ker and  Governor  of  all  Things.  But  then 
no  Man  more  ^  exprefs  than  He,  for  the  wor- 
Jhipping  of  God  the  Son.  The  Reafon  is  plain  : 
the  Son  is  ^  Maker  and  Governor  of  the  World, 
and  even  -aravTO/i^rco^,  according  to  this  excel- 
lent Writer. 

Irenaus  hkewife,  as  above  cited,  gives  his 
Tcftimony  for  the  Worfliip  of  God  only  j  and 
againft  the  Worfliip  of  any  Creature.  But  the 
lame  Iren^us  as  conftantly  fuppofes  the  Son  to 
be  truly  God,  and  one  God  with  the  Father, 
and  exprcfly  '^exempts  Him  from  the  Number 
of  Creatures ;  and  therefore  no  wonder  if  He 
admits  the  Son  to  be  ^invocatedj  as  well  as  the 
Father. 

I  fliall  obferve  the  like  of  Origen,  and  then 
have  done ;  referring  the  Reader,  for  the  reft,  to 
the  compleat  Colledion  of  Teftimonies  lately 
made  by  the  learned  ^  Mr.  Bingham,  with  very 
judicious  Reflexions  upon  them. 

Origen^  as  v/e  have  fecn  above,  declares  for 
the  Worfliip  of  the  one  God,  in  oppofition  to 
all  Creatures  J  ^AiM^^yk^.a^ra.^  every  thing  created^ 
•}^mrcv.  But  the  good  Father  had  His  Thoughts 
about  Him  :  He  clearly  diftinguiflies  the  Son 
from  the  oSiJA^^yr^ixctrct^  or  Creatures  i  and  be- 
fides,  exprefly  makes  Him  ^ dymro^^^  uncreated-, 
inmiutable,    &c.      According  to   Origenj    the 

'  Vid.  p.  311,85-1.  Ed.  Qy.  **  See  above,  p.  185^,69. 

,    *"  Vid.  p.  15-5,  243.  Ed.  Bencd. 

*•  Pag.  \66,  232.  '  Origin.  Ecd.  B.  13.  c.7. 

-  Contr.  Ccir.  p.  287, 1CJ9, 170. 

4-  Creator 


Qu.  XVII.     offome  (QUERIES.        259 

Creator  of  the  Univerfe,  and  He  only  is  to 
be  worfliip'd  %  pag.  3  6j ,  Very  well;  and  look 
but  back  to  page  308,  and  there  the  Son  is 
"^Creator  of  the  Univerfe.  So,  in  <^  another 
place,  he  tells  us,  we  are  to  worfliip  Him  only 
u:ho  made  (2\\)  tPje fe  Things  \  and  if  we  inquire 
farther  wx  fliall  find,  in  the  fame  Author,  that 
God  the  Son  ^  made allThingSy  the  very  words. 
It  is  therefore  a  very  clear  Cafe,  that  Origen 
thought  the  Son  to  have  the  fulled  Right  and 
Title  to  religions  Worfliip,  the  fame  that  the 
Father  Himfelf  had,  as  being  eternal,  immutable. 
Creator  and  Governor  of  all  Things.  And 
therefore  he  fpcaks  of  his  being  ^  worfliip'd  as 
Gody  by  the  Magi ;  and  calls  is  EJa-£^«a,  the 
very  fame  word  which  he  ufcs,  ^fpeaking  of 
the  Worfliip  due  to  the  Father.  In  ?  another 
place,  he  fpeaksof  the  worfliipping  Father  and 
Son  jointly  as  077e  God,  and  ^  elfewhere  men- 
tions the  worfliip  of  the  Son,  in  his  diftinft 
perfonnl  Capacity.  The  Sum  then  of  Origen's 
Doftrine,  as  it  lies  in  his  Book  againfl:  Celftis 
(the  moft  valuable  of  all  his  Works,  and  almofl: 

'^  2ifc«v  ^^K  f/jcvov  rev  rccurcc  7:i7:ci,mi-ru,  p.  icS. 

^  Tov  Xoyov  T^iTTciyiiCivai,  ttuvtx,  'otra.  6  ttcct]^^  uCtm  cvinlXtiTOy 
p.6g.  '^  Pag.  46.         ^  ^  Tytv£i\rcv  T' oAa-v  (^jjjiX/iypyoy 

^'JcTB'cetccVy  p.  160.  ^  Evot  »v  Ofoy,  ti)<i'i><^h^ei>Kcif^/}yrlv7eecTi^x(^ 

Tcv  iicv  ^i^ci7r(^Jc[»p.   p.  5  86. 

^  Ec/;v^ic&cy  t2  Acyu  rS  OtS,  eiwafo^a  uiircy  iua-u^^  p,  2  3S. 
Xcv  ^^cfly.ovcv  uortov  Xoycv  rcZ  Qiou  7T^o<rKiu>yi(rofo/ij  p.  229. 

N.  B.  Here  the  Trayjfiator  (as  it  is  ufual  -with  Him  to  rnif- 
nprefent  fuch  Fajfages  as  relate  to  the  Son)  renders  ^i^Kcuv  ccutov, 
.ejus  Miniftrum.  Tie  Scnfe  is,  Difpcnfer  of  them j  i.e.  Prophe- 
cies, juji  before  mention' il. 

the 


Z60        .^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.  XVIL 

the  only  one  to  be  intirely  depended  on,  as  giv- 
ing the  true  Senfeof  Origen,  or  of  the  Church 
in  his  Time)  is  contain  d  in  thefe  Particulars. 

1 .  That  God  the  Son,  if  a  Creature,  or  not 
Creator y  or  not  truly  God^  fhould  not  be  wor- 
Jhifd  at  all. 

2.  That  being  truly  God,  and  Creator ^  &c. 
He  maybe  worfliip'di  cither: Jointly  with  the 
Father,  as  one  to  Seiov^  or  diftinBljy  zsoneTer- 

Jon  of  the  Godhead. 

3 .  That  tho'  He  be  God,  and  Creator,  yet 
the  Father  is  ^o  primarily  and  eminently  as 
Father,  and  -firfl  Perfon  j  and  therefore  the  di- 
ftind  Worfliip  of  the  Son,  confidcr'd  as  a  Son, 
redounds  to  the  Father  as  the  Head  and  Foun- 
tain of  all.  Hence  it  is,  that,  as  the  Father  is 
primarily  and  emiyiently  God,  Creator,  and 
Objeft  of  Worfhip ;  fo  alfo  all  Worfhip,  is 
primarily  and  eminently  the  Father's:  And 
thus  it  is  that  I  underftand  Origen,  in  a  *  cer- 
tain place  which  has  been  often  raif-interpreted. 

4.  That  the  worfliip  of  the  Son,  confider'd 
as  a  Son,  is  not  an  inferior  Worfhip,  nor  any 
other  than  proper  divine  Worfliip  5  being  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  fame  divine  Excellen- 
cies, and  effential  Perfedions  communicated 
from  Father  to  Son  :  And  hence  it  is,  that  there 
is  fl:ill  but  one  IVorpip,    and  one   Objeii   of 

Q/,^y.rrtt^y  yl  Troatr^J^oi/ji^a.  •)  im  dtujoouijih-cc  xcctxkhchv  "f    'Sre*  z>fo- 
a-iv^c,  xv2AoX<^i9(,(;  y^  x.xroC)^f.in(riur,  p.  253. 

Vid.  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  111.     Bingham,  Origin.  Eccl.  1.  13.  c.  2. 
P-4r.  &C' 

Worfliip; 


Qu.  XVir.     offome  QJJ  E  R  I  E  S .        251 

Worfliip;  as  one  GW,  one  Creator,  6cc.  by 
reafon  of  the  moft  intimate  and  ineffable  Union 
of  the  twoPcrfons;  which  Origen  himfelf  *  en- 
deavours to  exprcfs  in  the  fuUcft  and  ftrongeft 
words  he  could  think  on. 

From  what  hath  been  faid,  we  may  know 
what  Judgment  to  make  of  the  Antient  T>oxo- 
logies.  They  ought  certainly  to  be  underftood 
according  to  the  prevailing  Dodrinc  of  the  pri- 
mitive Church.  They  were  different  in  Form, 
but  had  all  one  Meaning ;  the  fame  which  I 
have  fhewn  you  from  the  primitive  Writers. 
The  Arians  were  the  firft  who  interpreted 
fome  of  them  to  fuch  a  Senfc,  as  either  favour'd 
Creattire-Worjhip ,  or  excluded  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghofl  from  proper  divine  Worfhip.  It 
was  low  Artifice  to  value  one  fort  of  'Doxology 
above  another,  only  becaufe  more  equivocal -y 
and  to  contend  for  Antient  words,  in  oppofiti- 
on  to  the  Antient  Faith.  The  Catholicks  under- 
ftood the  fubtiky  of  thofe  Men,  and  very  eafily 
defeated  it:  Firft,  by  afterting  the  only  true  and 
juft  Senfe  of  Thofe  'Doxologies,  which  the  Arians 
had  wrefled  to  an  Heretical  Meaning  5  and  next, 
by  ufing,  chiefly,  T^oxologies  of  another  Form ; 
which  had  been  alio  of  long  ftanding  in  the 

f^  a-o<f>iuq,   Sec.   p.  382. 

The  fame  Thought  is  thus  exprefs^d  by  C)Til. 
Mi^rfi  i2k|^  TO  Tifjoacv  T  -zs-XTs^^  ve^i^etv,    iv  n  t   a)/i^iH^yyiiJ!*oe.TCitv  V 

yjiQ4^i:^u  if  z!-^ctrfciw'r}(n<i,  Cyril.  Catech.  i  i.p.  143.  Oxon. 

Church  5 


262        A    DEFENSE    Qu.  XVII. 

Church  j  and  which,  being  Icfs  equivocaly  were 
lefs  Uable  to  be  perverted.  But  the  Subjed  of 
"Doxologies  being  already  in  better  Hands,  I  fliall 
here  difmifs  it,  and  proceed. 

You  obfcrve,  that  it  'UL'as  the  conflant  pra- 
Slice  of  the  Apojtles  to  pray  and  give  thanks 
to  God,  through  Jefiis  Chrijl ,  (p.  91.) 
And  lb  it  is  the  conflant  Pradlice  of  the 
Church  at  this  Day.  What  can  you  infer  from 
thence  ?  That  the  Father  and  Son  are  not  equal, 
or  are  not  to  be  equally  honoured  ?  Nothing 
Icfs:  But,  as  the  Son  (lands  to  us  under 
the  particular  Charafter  of  Mediator,  befides 
what  He  is  in  common  with  the  Father,  our 
Prayers,  *  generally,  are  to  be  ofFer'd  rather 
through  Him,  than  to  Him  :  yet  not  forgetting 
or  omitting,  for  fear  of  Mifapprehcnfion  and 
grofs  Miftakcs,  to  oiFer  Prayers  dire£lly  to  Him, 
and  to  join  Him  with  the  Father,  in  T)oxo- 
logies',  as  the  Antient  Church  did,  and  as  our 
own,  God  be  thanked,  and  other  Churches  of 
Chriftendom  dill  continue  to  do.  You  add, 
that  whatever  Honour  is  paid  to  the  Son,  is 
commanded,  on  account  of  his  ineffable  rela- 
tion to  God,  as  the  only  begotteyi  Son,  &c.  But 
this  ineffable  Relation  is  not  that  of  a  Crea- 
ture to  his  Creator ;  but  of  a  Son  to  a  Father  5 
of  the  fame  Nature  with  Him.  This  may  be 
ililed  ineffable :  the  other  cannot,  in  any  true 
or  jufl:  Senfe.  If  the  Son  is  to  be  vuorjloip' d, 
as  you  feem  here  to  allow,    it  can  be  on  no 

*  S'fcRull, D.F.p.  i2i.Fulgent.Fr3gn:].p.(:i2  5?:633,63S,042,c^<r, 

othcc 


Qu.  XVir.     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       265 

other  Account,  but  fuch  as  is  coiififtcnt  with. 
the  Scriptures,  011  the  Account  of  his  being 
one  with  the  Father,  to  whom  Worfliip  be- 
longs j  and  to  whom  it  is  appropriated  in  op- 
pofition  to  Creatures ,  not  in  oppofition  to 
Him  who  is  of  the  fame  Nature  with,  Co-ef- 
fential  to,  and  Infeparable  from  Him.  The 
JVorpipy  you  fay,  terminates  not  in  the  Son. 
How  this  is  to  be  underftood,  and  in  what 
Senfe  admitted,  I  have  explained  above.  Stridly 
fpeaking,  no  Honour  is  paid  to  Either,  but 
what  redounds  to  the  Glory  of  Both  5  becaufc 
of  their  intimate  Union  ;  and  becaufe  Both  are 
but  one  God,  But,  you  fay,  the  Father  begat 
Him:  Very  well 5  fo  long  as  He  did  not 
create  Him,  all  is  fafe:  The  Eternity,  the 
Perfections ,  the  Glory  of  Both  are  One. 
And,  you  fay,  gave  Him  ^Dominion  over  us. 
That  is  more  than  you  can  proves  unlefs  you 
undcrftand  it  of  Chrift,  confider'd  as  God-Many 
or  Mediator. 

In  fome  Scnfc  every  thing  muft  be  referr'd 
to  the  Father  ?s  the  firft  Pcrfon,  the  Head 
and  Fountain  of  all.  But  this  docs  not  make 
two  Worfliips,  Supreme  and  'Inferior  -,  be- 
ing all  but  one  acknowledgment  of  one 
and  the  fame  eifcntial  Excellency  and  Per- 
fedion ,  confider'd  primarily  in  the  Father, 
and  derivatively  in  the  Sonj  who,  though 
perfonally  diftinguifli'd ,  are  in  Subftance  un- 
divided and  eflentially  one.  All  your  Ar- 
guments,    on   this  Head,   amount  only  to  a 

petitio 


264      ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XVII 

petitio  principiiy  taking  the  main  Thing  for 
granted ;  that  a  T^iftinEiion  of  Terfom  is  the 
fame  with  a  'Difirence  of  Nature  5  and  that  a 
Subordination  of  the  Son,  as  a  Son,  to  the  Fa- 
ther, implies  an  eflential  Difparity  andlncquaUty 
betwixt  Tliem  y  which  you  can  never  make  out. 
Inftead  of  proving  the  Son  to  be  a  Creature^ 
and  that  He  is  to  be  worfliip'd  notwithftanding 
(which  are  the  Points  you  undertake)  all  that 
you  really  prove  is,  that  the  Son  is  not  the  Fa- 
ther ^  or  firft  Perfon,  nor  confider'd  as  the  firji 
Terfon  in  our  Worfliip  of  Him  ;  which  is  very 
true,  but  very  wide  of  the  purpofe.  What 
follows  in  your  Reply,  (/>.  9i,  92,  93.)  does  not 
need  any  farther  Anfwer;  being  either  barely 
Repetition,  or  Comments  on  your  own  Miftake 
of  the  meaning  of  the  Word,  Indl'vidual ^  of 
which  enough  hath  been  faid  before.  You  are 
pleafed  {pag.  94.)  to  make  a  isjonderoi  it,  that 
I  fliould  quote  Heb,  i.  6.  in  favour  of  my  Hy- 
fothefa.  But  if  you  confider  that  the  Angels  are 
There  ordcr'd  to  worjhip  the  Son  \  and  that  That 
Text  is  a  Proof  of  the  Son's  being  Jehovah  (fee 
7fal.  97.)  and  that  Worfliip  is  appropriated  to 
God  only,  by  many  Texts  of  Scripture,  and  the 
concurring  Senfe  of  Antiquity,  as  I  have  fliewn 
above ;  there  will  be  little  farther  occafion  for 
"-juondringy  in  fo  clear  a  Cafe.  In  that  very  Chap- 
ter {Heb,  I.)  it  is  fufficiently  intimated  what  it 
was  that  made  the  Son  capable  of  receiving  Wor- 
fliip and  Adoration.  He  is  declared  to  have 
made  the  Worlds --,   to  be  the  Shining-forth  of 

his 


Qu.  XVII.    offome  QUERIES.       26>^ 
his  Fathers  Gloryy   and  the  exprefs  Image  of 
his  "Terfon  5    and  to  uphold  all  Things  by  the 
*-juord of  his  'To'wer^  (v.  2, 3.)  Strong  and  lively 
Expreflions   of   his   divine,  eternal,  uncreated 
Nature  5  fuch  as  might  give  Him  the  juftcft  claim 
to  the  Worfliip  and  Adoration  of  Men  and  An- 
gels.    In  the  dole,  you  have  a  Remark  about 
the  Error  of  Ariu^ ;  which,  you  fay,    did  7iot 
conjift  in  making   the  Son   diJlinEi  from,    and 
really    fubordinate   to   the  Father    ( for  that 
was    always   the  Chrijiian  T>o^rine)     Here 
you  come  upon  us  with  ^<?;^^r^/ Terms,    and  e- 
quivocal  Expreflions  5    leaving  the  Reader  to 
apprehend  that  the  Chriftian  Church  believed 
the  Son  to  be  a  dijlin^f,  feparate,  inferior  Be- 
ing;  in  fliort,    a  Creature,    as  Arivis  plainly, 
and  you  covertly  aflcrt :    Whereas  there  is  not 
an  Author  of  Reputation,   among  all  the  An- 
tients,  before  Ariiis,  that  taught  or  maintain'd 
any  fuch  Thing.  A  Subordination,  in  fome  Senfe, 
They  held ;  and  that  is  all ;  not  in  Ariuss  Senfe, 
not  in  Yours.     Well,  but  you  proceed  to  tell 
us,  wherein  his  Error  confided,  viz.  in  pre  fum- 
ing to  affirm,  upon  the  Principles  of  his  own 
uncertain  Vhilofophj,    and  without  warrant 
frofn  Scripture,  that  the^  Son  was  V^  »x  cvtwv, 
and  that  Ijj  -uron  on  ^k  Uj.     Arius  had  fomuch 
^hilofophy,    or   rather  common  Senfe,    as  to 
think  5    and  fo  much  Franknefs  and  Ingenuity, 
as  to  confefs,    that  there  neither  is,  nor  can  be 
any  Medium  between  God  and  Creature,     He 
was  not  fo  ridiculous  as  to  ijnnagine  that  God 

T  firft 


266       ^DEFENSE       Qu.  XVIL 

firft  made  a  Subjfance,  and  then  out  of  that 
pr e-exjft trig  created  Swh^kdincQ  made  the  Son ;  Be- 
ficjs  that,  even  this  way,  the  Son  hsd  been,  hi 
the  lad  rcfult,  s?  aV-  ovrojy :  Nor  was  He  weak  e- 
nough  to  beheve  that  any  thing,  a^ extra,  had 
been  co-eval  or  co-eternal  with  God  Himfelf.  If 
He  had,  He  need  not  have  fcmpledto  have  al- 
low'd  the  Hke  Privilege  to  the  Son  5  the  firft  and 
bed  of  all  Beings,  except  GodHimfelf,  in  his 
Opinion. 

But  fince  you  think  your  own  Tkilofophy  fo 
much  better  than  yfr////s,  will  you  be  fo  kind  as 
to  tell  us  plainly  whether  the  Son  be  of  the  fame 
divine  Sttbfiance  with  the  Father ;  or  of  fonie  ex- 
traJieous  Subftancc  which  eternally  pre-exified-^  or 
from  nothing  ?  The  firfi  you  deny  diredly,  as 
well  as  Arius 'y  and  t\\t  fecond  aUb,  by  plain 
neccflary  Confequence  :  And  why  tnen  fliould 
you  differ  upon  the  thirds  which  is  the  only  one 
left,  and  mu(l  be  true,  if  Both  the  other  be  falfe  ? 
If  Arius  was  rafh  in  affirming  this,  he  was  e- 
qually  rafliin  denying  the  Son's  Co-eter7iity  with 
the  Father,  and  again  in  denying  ViisConfiibfian- 
tiality  5  and  fo  your  ccnfure  of  him  recoils  in- 
evitably upon  your  felf.  Then,  for  the  other 
Error  of  Arias ^  in  afTerting  that  the  Son  once 
iL'as  not'^  as  having  been  produc'd,  or  createdy 
by  the  Father  5  in  your  way,  you  corredl  it  thus  "^  : 
Truc>  the  Son  was  prodncdy  brought  into  ex- 
ifiencc,  had  a  beginnings  and  was  not,  meta- 
phyfically,  eternal ^  but  yet,  for  all  that,  it  was 

♦  Pag.  /I,  63. 

ail 


Qii.  XVIIL  offome  (QUERIES.  267 
an  Error,  in  Thilofophyy  for  Arks^s  to  fny,  that 
He  once  "juas  not.  Unhappy  jlrins  I  dctcncd  by 
his yidverfarieSy^nd  traduced  by  hisownFr/^w^y, 
from  whom  he  might  reafonobly  have  cxpeclcd 
kinder  Ufage.  Let  me  intreat  you,  hereafter,  to 
be  more  confiftent :  Ei::her  va^ucand  rcfped  the 
Man,  as  the  great  Reviver  and  Reftorer  of  /r/- 
mitive  Chrijiianity  5  or  renounce  his  Principles, 
and  declare  Him  a  Hereticky  as  We  do. 

q  U   E   R    Y       XVIIL 

IVhether  Worjhip  and  Adoration^  both  from  Men 
and  Angels y  'ujas  not  due  to  Him^  long  before 
the  coynmencing  of  his  Mediatorial  Kingdom, 
as  He  ''ji'as  their  Creator  and  T^referver  i 
(fee  Col.  I.  16,  17.)  and  '■jvhether  that  be 
not  the  fame  Title  to  Adoration  ^ujhich  God 
the  Father  hath^  as  Author  and  Governor  of 
the  Univerfe,  upon  the  T>ocfofs  own  Trin- 
ciples  ? 

YOU  Anfwer,  th^t  though  the  IVorld  was 
created  by  the  Son^  yet  no  Adoratioyi 
was  due  to  Him  upon  that  Account  ^  either 
from  Angels  or  from  Men\  becaufe  it  was 
no  A6t  of  Dominion,  and  He  did  it  merely 
minifterially  ( /?.  94.)  jrfv  as  no  Adoration  is 
now  due  from  us  to  Angels^  for  the  Benefits 
they  convey  to  us ;  becaufe  they  do  it  merely 
inftrumentally.  This  is  plain  dealing ;  and 
however  I  may  diflike  the  Thing,  I  commend 
T  z  the 


z68       ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qi.  XVIIL 

the  frankncfs  of  it.     You  are  very  right,  upon 
thcfe  Principles,  in  your  parallel  from  Angels : 
Had  the  Antients  thought  the  Office  of  the  Son 
minifterial,   in  your  low  Senfe,    They  would 
have  paid  Him  no  more  refped  than  they  paid 
to  Angels-^     and  would   certainly   never  have 
worjhifd  Him.     But  I  pafs  on :  Creation,  you 
fay,   is  no  AEi  of  'Dominion  \  and  therefore  is 
not  a  fufficient  Foundation  for  Worfhip.    The 
fame  Reafon  will  hold  with  refpeft  to  the  Fa- 
ther alfo  j  for  Creating  is  one  thing,  and  Ruling 
another.     Yet  you'll  find  that  Scripture  makes 
Creation  the  Ground  and  Reafon  of  Worfhip, 
in  fo   particular  and  diftinguifhing  a  Manner, 
that  no  Perfon  whatever,  that  had  not  a  hand 
in  Creating,  has  any  right  or  title  to  Worfhip, 
upon  Scripture-Principles ;  to  which  Catholick 
Antiquity  is   intirely   confonant,    as   we  have 
obferved   above.     I  did  not  found  his  Right  of 
Worfhip  on  Creation  only,  but  Trefervation 
.too;    referring  to  Colojf.   i.  17.    By  Him  all 
Things  confifl ;   to  which  may  be  added,  Helf. 
1.3.  Upholding  all  Things  by  the  Word  of  his 
^Pcwer.     The  Titles  of  Creator ,    Vrefervery 
Snjlainer  oi  all  Things  found  very  high;  and 
cxprefs  His  fuper-eminent  Greatnefs  and  Ma- 
jcfty,  as  well  as  Our  Dependence;    and  there- 
fore may  feem   to  give  Him  a  full  Right  and 
Title  to  Religious  Worfliip  ;  efpecially  if  it  be 
confider'd,  that  they  im^\y  Dominion,  and  can- 
not  be    underftood    without  it.     Befides  that 
Creator^  as  hath  been  fliewn,  is  the  Mark,  or 

Chara- 


Qu.  XVIII.  of fome  qlJEKIF^S.  269 
Chara^eriftick  of  the  true  God  to  whom  all 
Honour  and  Worfliip  is  due.  Add  to  this,  that 
by  Job.  I.  I.  the  Son  was  ©sor  before  the  Foun- 
dation of  the  World  j  which  implies,  at  leafl-, 
T>ominlon^  upon  your  own  Principles :  And 
when  He  came  into  the  World,  *  He  came  un- 
to his  owriy  ( Joh.  i .  11.)  having  been  their  Crea- 
tory  V.  20.  and,  as  is  now  explain'd,  Governor 
from  the  firft.  Wherefore,  certainly,  He  had 
ajuft  Claim  and  Title  to  Adoration  and  Worfhip 
from  the  Foundation  of  the  World,  even  upon 
your  own  Hypothejis.  As  to  his  creating  mini- 
fierially  only,  I  have  faid  enough  to  that  Point, 
under  the  Eleventh  ^tery,  whither  I  refer  you. 
From  what  hath  been  obfeived,  it  may  ap- 
pear fufficiently,  that  the  divine  Aoy©*  was  our 
King,  and  our  God  long  before  5  that  He  had 
the  fame  Claim  and  Title  to  religious  Worfliip 
that  the  Father  Himfelf  had  5  only  not  fo  di- 
ftinftly  reveal'd;  and  that  his  Enthronization, 
after  his  Refurreftion,  was  nothing  more  than 
declaring  the  Dignity  of  HisPerfon  more  folemn- 
ly ,    and  invefting  Him  as  f  God-Man,  in  his 

*  Unus  Deus  Pater  fuper  Omnes,  8c  Unum  Vcrbum  Dei  quod 
per  omnes,  per  Quem  omnia  fafta  fant,  &:  quoniam  Hie  Man- 
dus  proprius  ipfius,  &  per  Ipfum  fa^ftus  cfl  VoJuntatc  Patris,  (jpc 
—  Mundienim  Fa6lor  vere  Vcrbum  Dei  eH:.  /rf».  p.  3if. 

Verbum  autem  Hoc  illud  eft,  Quod  in  fua  venit,  &  fui  Eum 
non  receperunt.  Mundus  enim  per  Eum  fa<flus  eft,  &  Mundus 
Eum  non  cognovit.  Novat.  c.  i  3.  p.  714. 

Si  Homo  tantummodo  Chriftus,  quomodo  Veniens  in  hunc 
Mundum  in  fua  venit,  cum  Homo  nullum  fecerit  Mundum  ? 
Novat.  p.  7  If-     Vid.  &  Hippolyt.  contr.  Nott.  c.  1 2.  p.   14.  ^     ^^ 

e-tc^Koi.  Cyril.  Alex.  Thef.  p.  150. 

T  3  whole 


270       A  DEFENSE      Qu.XVIII. 

whole  Pcrfon,  with  the  fame  Power  and  Autho- 
rity, which,  as  God,  He  always  had;  and  now 
was  to  hold  in  a  different  Capacity,  and  with  the 
Addition  of  a  new  and  fpecial  Title,  that  of  Re- 
deemcr,  *  They  therefore  who  endeavour  to 
found  the  Son's  Title  to  Worfliip,  only  upon  the 
Powers  and  Authority  of  the  Mediator ,  or  God- 
Mariy  after  the  Refurredion  (alledging  Job.  5.22. 
!Pfo7.  2.10.  Heb,  I.  6.  and  the  Ukc)  give  us  but 
a  very  lean  and  poor  Account  of  this  Matter  ^ 
neither  confident  with  Truth,  nor  indeed  with 
their  own  Hypothefis,  You  quote  VhiL  2.  6.  in 
favour  of  your  Notion  5  and  fay,  that  Chrift  was 

from  the  Beginning  in  the  form  of  God  j  yet 
He  did  7iot  ajjtime  to  Himfelf  to  be  honoured 
like  unto  God,  till  after  his  Humiliation,  But 
this  Pofition  can  never  be  made  out  from  that 
Text.  Allowing  you  your  Interpretation,  about 
affuming  to  be  hononfd,  yet  this  can  mean  on- 
ly, that  He  did  not  afiume,  during  his  Humi- 

Jiation,  without  any  reference  to  what  He  had 
done  before.  It  is  very  clear  from  J  oh.  17.  5  • 
that  our  blelled  Saviour  was  to  have  no  greater 
Glory  after  his  Exaltation  and  Afcenfion,  than 
He  had  before  the  World  was.  Glorify  me 
with  thine  own  felf  with  the  Glory,  which 
I  had  with  Thee,  before  the  World  was. 
His  Glory  had,  to  appearance,  been  under  an 
Eciipfc,    during  the  (late  of  his  Humiliation  : 


^  Clarke's   Script.  Doclr,   Prop.  4S,  fo,  5-1.     Clarke's  Reply, 
peg.  239. 


But 


Qii.  XVIII.    offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       271 

But  after  that,  He  was  to  appear  again  in  full  Lu- 
ftre  5  in  all  the  Brightnefs  and  Splendor  of  his  di- 
vine Majcfty,  as  He  had  done  ever  before. 
You  think,  that  our  IVorfhip  of  Him,  in  his 
ovjyi  dijiinti  'terfon  and  Chara5ier,  commencd 
after  his  Reftirrection  from  the  dead.  I 
might  allow  this  to  be  fo  in  Fad  5  and  yet 
maintain,  that  He  always  had  the  fame  juft 
Right  and  Title  to  religious  VVorfliip  5  which 
muft  have  had  its  effed,  had  it  been  clearly 
and  diftmdly  revealed ,  fooner.  This  is  c- 
nough  for  my  purpofe  i  in  as  much  as  I  con- 
tend only,  that  the  Worfii  pdue  to  Him  is  not 
founded  mecrly  upon  the  Power  and  Authority 
fuppofcd  to  have  been  given  Him  after  his  Re- 
furredion;  but  upon  his  perfonal  Dvymty,  and 
ejfential  Perf:dions.  He  might  have  had  the 
very  fame  right  and  claim  all  along,  that  ever 
He  had  after ;  only  it  couid  not  take  effed,  and 
be  acknovvlcdLcd,  till  it  came  to  be  clearly  re- 
vealed. Thus,  G-'>d  the  Father  had.  uudonbtedly, 
a  full  Right  and  Title  to  the  Worfhip  and  Service 
of  Men,  or  of  Angels,  from  the  firil :  But  that 
Right  conld  not  take  place  before  He  revealed 
and  m.ide  Himfelf  known  to  Them.  This,  J 
fay,  IS  fufficient  to  my  purpofe ;  and  all  that  I 
infift  upon.  Yet,  bccaufe  I  have  a  religious 
Veneration  for  every  Thing  which  was  uni- 
verfally  taught  and  believed  by  the  earliefl: 
Catholick  Writers,  efpecially  if  it  has  fomc 
Countenance  likewife  from  Scripture;  I  in- 
cline to  think  that  Worfliip,  dillind  Wor- 
T  4.  ihip, 


272^  A  DEFENSE  Qu.  XVIII. 
Ihip,  was  paid  to  the  Son,  long  before  his 
Incarnation. 

Iren£us  is  *  cxprcfs  that  the  A.oy©'  was  wor- 
fhip'd  of  old,  together  with  the  Father.  And  this 
muft  have  been  thcSenfe  of  all  thofe  Fathers,  be- 
fore the  Council  of  Nicey  who  underftood  and 
believed  that  the  Ferfon  who  appeared  to  the 
Tatriarcks,  who  prefided  over  the  Jewijb 
Church,  gave  them  the  Law,  and  all  along  headed 
and  conduced  that  People,  was  the  fecond  Per- 
fon  of  the  ever  blelTed  Trinity,  Now,  this  was 
the  general  and  unanimous  Opinion  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Writers,  as  hath  been  (hewn  at  large,  un- 
der ^ery  the  iecond.  And  it  is  obfervable,  that 
EtifebhiSy  zndAthanafmSy  (two  very  confiderable 
Men,  and  thoroughly  vers'd  in  the  Writings  of  the 
Chriftians  before  Them)  tho'  they  were  oppoftte 
as  to  Party,  and  differ'd  as  to  Opinion,  in  fome 
Points  i  yet  They  ^  intirely  agreed  in  This,  that 
the  Son  was  ijuorjhifd  by  Abraham,  Mofes,  &c. 
and  the  Je'ji^ijh  Church.  And  herein,  had  we 
no  other  Writings  left,  we  might  reafonably 
believe  that  they  fpake  the  Senfe  of  their  Pre- 
deccHbrs,  and  of  the  whole  Chriftian  Church, 
as  well  before,  as  in  their  own  Times.  You 
will  fay  perhaps,  that  the  Worfhip,  fuppofed  to 
have  been  then  paid  to  the  Son,  was  not  di~ 

*  Q.^"  if^itur  a  Proplietis  adorabatur  Deus  Vivus,  Hie  eft  Vi- 

Vorum  DcusSc  Verbum  Eju5 1.4.  c.  f.  p-232.  Ed.  Bened. 

■      See  alfo  Novatian.  c.  if.  Deum  &  Angelum  invocatum. 

t  Eufcb.  E.  H.  1.  I.  c.  i.  See  alfo  Comm.  tn  Ifa.  p.  381,  386. 
Atlianaf  Vol.  i.  p.  445,  44^. 

yid.  Fulgent,  ad  Monim^m.l.  2.  c.  5, 4,  ^c. 

Jlin£i 


Qu.  XVIII.     offome  aU  E  RI  E  S.     275 

JiinB  Worfhip.  But  it  is  fufficicnt  that  it  was 
(according  to  the  Scnfc  of  the  Chriftian  Church) 
paid  to  the  Terfon  appearing ,  the  'Per- 
fon  of  the  Son  ,  and  He  did  not  rcfufe  it ; 
which  is  the  very  Argument  that  *  Ibme  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  ufc  in  Proof  of  his 
Divinity.  The  Patriarchs  worfliip'd  that  Per- 
fon,  who  appear'd  and  communed  with  Them ; 
fuppofing  Him  to  be  the  God  of  the  Univerfc, 
to  whom  of  right  all  Worfhip  belongs.  Had 
He  not  been  what  They  took  Him  for,  He 
fhould  have  rejedted  that  Worfliip,  as  the  Angel 
in  the  Revelations^  rejeded  the  Worfliip  which 
St.  John  would  have  offered  Him.  In  a  word ; 
fince  the  Son  received  that  Worfliip,  in  \\\%own 
^erfon  (according  to,  the  Antients)  it  muft  be 
faid,  He  was  then  diftinBly  worfliip'd,  and  in 
his  own  Right,  as  being  truly  God.  How- 
ever That  be,  my  Argument  is  flill  good, 
that  the  Son  (having  hczn'mthe  Formof  Gody 
andG^^j  Creator j  Treferver,  zndSuJtainer  o^ 
all  Things,  from  the  Beginning)  had  a  Right 
to  Worfhip,  even  upon  your  Principles  (much 
more  mine)  long  before  the  commencing  of  his 

*  Novatian  may  here  /peak  the  Senfe  of  all.  On  Gen.  31.  He 
commeyjts  thus:  Si  Angelas  Dei  loquitur  hcec  ad  Jacob,  atque 
Ipfe  Angelus  infert,  dicens :  Ego  Aim  Deus  qui  vilus  fum  tibi 
in  loco  Dei:  Non  tantummodo  Hunc,  Angclum,  fed  &  Dcum 
politum,  fine  ulla  hsefitatione  confpicimus;  Quiquc  Stbt  rotum 
refert  ab  Jacob   deftinatum  ciTe,  i&c.  Nullius   Alterius  An- 

geli  potefl  hie  accipi  tanta  Audtoritas,  ut  Deum  Se  cfTc  fateatur. 
k  votum  Stbi  fadum  efle  Teftetur,  nifi  tantummodo  ChriHi 
c,  27. 


+ 


Media- 


274       ^DEFENSE      Qli.XVIIL 

Mediatorial  Kinodom :  And  therefore  his  Right 
and  Title  to  Worfliip  was  not  founded  upon 
the  lowers  then  ilippofed  to  have  been  given 
Him  :  Confcquently,  thole  Texts  which  yoa 
refer  to,  for  that  purpofe,  are  not  pertinently 
alledged ;  nor  are  they  of  ftrength  fufficicnt  to 
bear  all  that  ftrcfs  which  you  lay  upon  Them. 
This  Point  being  fettled,  I  might  allow  you  that, 
in  fomc  Senfc,  difiinci  Worfliip  commencd 
with  the  dijlinB  Title  of  Son,  or  Redeemer : 
That  is,  our  blefled  Lord  was  then  firft  wor- 
Jhif/dy  or  commanded  to  be  worfliip  d  by  us, 
under  that  diftind  Title  or  Character  5  having 
before  had  no  other  Title  or  Character  pe- 
culiar and  proper  to  Himfelf,  but  only  what 
was  *  common  to  the  Father  and  Him  too.  Tho* 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl:  are  all  iointly 
eoncern'd  in  Creatiojiy  Redemption,,  and  San- 
ciification ;  yet  it  may  feem  good  to  Infinite 
Wifdom,  for  great  Ends  and  Reafons,  to  attri- 
bute each  refpedlivcly  to  o'az  Terfon,  rather 
than  another  y  fo  that  the  Father  may  be  em- 
phatically Creator,  the  Son  Redeemer,  the 
Holy  Ghoft  Sancfifier :  And  upon  the  com- 
mencing of  thcfe  Titles  refpcOively,  the  diftinct 
Worfliip  of  each  (amongft  Men)  might  accord- 
ingly commence  alfo.  Excellent  arc  the  Words 

*  Sic  Deus  voluit  novare  Sacramentum,  ut  no-.e  U;ius  cxt- 
dcretur  per  tthum  8c  Sptritum,  ur  Coram  jam  Deus  in  Tuis 
prppriis  Komhubus  8c  Ter fonts  cognofccrc^ur,  qui  8c  rerro  per 
fdium  8c  Spiritum  prardicatus  nori  iutelligcbatur.  TirttdL  cohtr. 
Trax.  c.  3  o. 

of 


Qu.  XVIII.  offome  QUERIES.  275 
of  *  Bifliop5////to  thispurpofej  which  I  have 
thrown  into  the  Margin.  I  fhallonly  add,  that 
while  you  endeavour  to  found  Chrift's  Right  and 
Title  to  worjloip  folcly  upon  the  Powers  fup- 
pofed  to  be  given  Him  after  his  Rcfurrection, 
you  fall  much  below  the  generality  of  the  An- 
tient  Arians  (whom  yet  you  would  be  thougat 
to  exceed)  and  are  running  into  the  Socinian 
Scheme,  not  very  confidently  with  your  oijun. 
Thus  you  fecm  to  be  flucluating  and  wavering 
between  Two,  (at  the  fame  time  verbally  con- 
demning Both)  certain  in  Nothing,  but  in  oppo- 
fing  the  CatloUckXyodii\wz\  which  when  you 
have  left,  you  fcarcc  know  where  to  fiv,  or  how 
to  make  your  Principles  hang  together.  To  ex- 
plain this  a  little  farther  :  \joundx\iz  Son's  Title 
to  worfliip  upon  the  T>2gnity  of  his  Terfcn  5 
his  creative  Powers  declared  in  Job.  i.  and  elfe- 
where  i  his  beinj^Osos- from  the  Be^^innin'^;  and 


*  Profefto  adpiiranda  mihi  videtur  divinarum  Pcrfonarum  in 
Sacipf^nftiflima  Triade  oiKovof/jix,  qua  unaquxque  Pcrfona  ai/ijn- 
^  qaafi  Titulo  humanum  imprimis  genus  im;:erio  fuo  divino 
obltrimerir,  Tittdo  illi  refpondente  etiam  Mjliacia.  uniulcujufquc 
imper i  i  ^Atefc^Hlone.  J-rarem  col  i  mus  Tub  TituiO  Crtaioru  -i u  i  u s  U  ni- 
Vf  rii,  qui  &:  ab  ipfa  Mundi  Creatiohe  homini^us  inncmnit  i  FiUum 
adoranius  fub  Titulo  Redemptons  ic  Servaton,  noftri,  cuius  iticnco 
diviaa  gloria  atque  impcrium  non  nili  port  per;'.(ftum  inreirjr  hu- 
manac  KedcmptioKts  ac  Sdutu  negotium  faciitpafcfacJumi  S^:rltitm 
denique  ^^iwJif^w  vcneramur  Tub  Titulo  P^raa-ri,  ^Humio^to'n,  ac 
Sanciijicntorisnodri,  cujusadco  divina  MaTfl-sdemLun  p')/l  dcfccn- 
fum  ejus  in  Apoftolos  priniofqu'^  Chrifliaiio-  donorum  omne  me- 
lius copiofilllma  Jargitione  iiluftiifllmum,  cL'rius  oni.cr.er'it  N'- 
mirum  tum  demum  Apoftoli,  idque  ex  Chnfti  niardato,  Gni'-f's 
baptizabant  in  Flenatn  atque  adtmatam  Trndfttm  Cut  rum  O.pri- 
ano  loquar)  h.  e.  in  nomine  Patris,  Fijii,  ik:  Spiritus  Santli.  Bull. 
frim.  Trad.  p.  442. 

his 


'^16.      y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.  XVIII. 

his  prefervingy  and  upholding  all  Things  (ac- 
cording to  Coloff.  I.  16, 17.  and  Heb.  i.)  ante- 
cedently to  his  mediatorial  Kingdom :  you,  on 
the  other  Hand,  found  it  intirely  upon  the 
Powers  given  Him  after  his  Humiliation  (alledg- 
ing  fuch  *  Texts  as  thefe,  Afo^^.  28. 18.  J  oh. 
5.22,23.  "Thil  2.  10,11.  Rev,  I.  5,6.  Rev. 
5.  8,  9,  10.)  as  it  He  had  no  juft  Claim  or 
Title  to  "-juorjhip  at  all,  before  that  Time  :  For, 
tho'  you  put  in  the  equivocal  Word,  diflinEi^ 
(very  ingenioufly)  yet  your  Meaning  really  is, 
and  the  Tendency  of  your  Argument  requires 
it,  that  no  Worlhip,  difiin^  ox.  other-wife^  was 
due  to  Him,  till  He  received  thofe  full  Powers. 
This  pretence,  I  fay,  might  come  decently  and 
properly  from  a  Socinian,  or  a  Sabellian^  who 
cither  makes  Creation  Metaphorical^  or  inter- 
prets fuch  Texts  as  J  oh,  i.  i.  Col.  1. 16, 17.  and 
the  like,  of  the  Reafon  or  Wifdorn  of  the  Father, 
that  is,  the  Father,  indwelling  in  the  Man 
Chrift  Jefus.  But  in  'jou  it  muft  appear  very 
improper;  and  very  inconfiftent  with  your 
other  Principles :  Wherefore  I  muft  again  defire 
you  to  be  more  conftftent  j  and  to  keep  to  one 
conftant  Scheme.  Take  either  Arian,  SabeU 
lian,  or  Socinian,  and  abide  by  it ;  and  then 
I  may  know  what  I  have  to  do:  But  do  not 
pretend  to  hold  Two  Schemes,  at  a  time,  utter- 
ly repugnant  to  each  other. 

As  to  Scripture's  feeming,  in  fome  places,  to 
found  Chrift's  Title  to  Worfhip,  not  fo  much 

♦  See  Dr.  Clarke';  Kefy,  p.239,24p. 

Upon 


Qu.  XVIII.     of  feme  dU  E  R I  E  S.     277 

upon  what  He  is  in  Hi'mfelf    as  upon  what 
He  has  done  for  us ;  a  very  good  Reafon  may 
be  given  for  it,  if  it  be  well  confidercd  by  what 
Springs    and   Movements    moral    Agents    arc 
aduated,  and  that  we  love  even  God  Himfelf, 
with  reference  to  our  Selves,  *  becaufe  He  firfl 
loved  us.     AbflraBed  Rea[ons  o^  YAzzm,  Ho- 
nour,   and  Regard  are  unafFeding,    without  a 
mixture  of   fomething  relative  to  Us,    which 
our  Selves  have  a  near  concern  in.     The  ef 
fential  Dignity  of  Chrift's  Perfon  is  really  the 
Ground  and  Foundation  of  Honour,  and  Efteeni 
(and  confequently  of  JVorfhip^  the  higheft  Ex- 
preffion  of  Both)  which  ought  always  to  bear 
proportion  to  the  intrinfick  Excellency  of  the 
Objeft  :  But  his  Offices  relative  to  Us,  are  the 
moving  Reafons,    which  principally  afFed  our 
Wills  j  and  without  which  we  fhould  want  the 
ftrongeft  Incitement  to  pay  that  Honour  and 
Worfhip,  which  the  ejfential  Excellency  of  his 
Perfon  demands.     Scripture  has  fufficiently  ap- 
priz'd  us  of  Both,  difcoverlng  at  once  both  his 
abfolute  and  relative  Dignity ;    that  fo  we  be- 
ing inftruded  as  well  concerning  what  He  is  in 
Himfelf,  as  what  He  is  in  refped  to  Us,  might 
underftand  what  Honour  juftly  belongs  to  Him, 
and    want  no  Motive  to  pay  it  accordingly. 
Add  to  this,   that  Chrift's  Office,  relative  to  us, 
naturally  leads  us  back  to  the  antecedent  Excel- 
lency and  Perfedion  of  that  Perfon,   who  was 
able  to  do  fo  great  and  fo  aftonifliing  Things 

*  I  Joh.  4.  19. 

for 


278         ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XIX. 

for  us :  Bcfidcs  that  it  muft  appear  in  the  high- 
eft  Degree  probable,  that  no  Creature  whatever 
(luppofing  Him  to  have  fuitabie  Abilities)  could 
have  been  entrufted  with  fo  great  and  fo  en- 
dearing a  Charge  5  fuch  as  muft  inevitably  draw 
after  it  a  larger  fhare  of  our  Love,  Refped:,  and 
Efteem,  thaiifeems  confiftent  with  our  Duty  to 
God,  and  the  Rules  laid  down  in  Scripture  for 
our  Behaviour  towards  the  Creatures.  But  e- 
nough  of  this :  I  proceed. 

Q^U    E    R    Y       XIX. 

TVhether  the  'Do&or  hath  not  given  a  very 
fartialAcconntof]o\'\,  5.  23.  founding  the 
Honour  due  to  the  Son-,  on  this  only,  that 
the  Father  hath  committed  all  Judgment  to 
the  Son  j  '■joPjen  the  true  Reafon  ajjigrid  by 
our  Saviour y  and  iliuftrated  by  fever al  In- 
fiances  J  is,  that  the  Son  doth  the  fame  Things 
that  the  Father  doth-,  hath  the  fame  Toiz'er 
mid  Authority  of  doing  ijvhat  fie  "uijillj  and 
therefore  has  a  Title  to  as  great  Honour -^  Re- 
VierencCy  and  Regard^  as  the  Father  Himfelf 
hath  ?  And  it  is  no  ObjeEiion  to  this,  that 
the  Son  is  there  faid  to  do  Nothing  of  Him- 
feilf,  or  to  have  all  given  Him  by  the  Father ; 
fince  it  is  owned  that  the  Father  is  the 
Fc'tintain  ofAlffrG7n  whom  the  Son  derives y 
in  an  ineffable  manner y  his  Ejfence  andTavi'ers 
fo  as  to  b^  one  'with  Him, 

IN 


Qii.XIX.     of  fame  QXJEKIES.        279 

IN  Anfwer  to  this,  you  fay,  TAe  only  Ho- 
nour due  to  our  Saviour^  is  plainly  flip- 
pofed  by  St.  John  to  be gi'Den  Hiniy  upon  Ac- 
count of  his  being  appointed  by  the  Father 
Judge  of  the  World,  p.  96.  This  is  very  ftrange 
indeed,  What!  Was  there  no  Honour  due  to 
Him  on  Account  of  his  having  beenOsor  from 
the  Beginning  ?  None  for  his  having  created  the 
World?  Noneon  Account  of  his  being  the  (?;/^ 
begotten  Son,  which  St.  John  rcprefcnts  as  a 
Circumftance  of  exceeding  great  *  Glory  ?  Sure- 
ly thefe  were  Things  great  enough  to  demand 
our  1  ribute  of  Honour  and  Refpcd ;  and  there- 
fore St.  John  could  never  mean,  that  He  was  to 
be  honoured  only  upon  that  fingle  Account,  as 
being  conftiturcd  Judge  of  all  Men.  This 
could  never  be  the  only  reafon  why  all  Men 
fiould  honour  the  Son  even  as  They  honour 
the  Father.  What  then  did  St.  John  mean? 
Or  rather,  what  did  our  BlelTed  Lord  mean, 
whofe  Words  St.  John  recites  ?  He  meant  what 
he  has  faid,  and  whit  the  Words  literally  im- 
port 5  that  the  Father  (whofe  Honour  had  been 
fufliciently  fecured  under  the  Je'wifi  Difpcnfa- 
tion,  and  could  not  but  be  fo  under  the  Chri- 
ftian  alfo)  being  as  much  conccrn'd  for  the  Ho- 
nour of  his  Sen,  had  been  pleafed  to  commit 
all  Judgment  to  Him,  for  this  very  end  and 
purpofe,  that  Men  might  thereby  fee  and  know 
that  the  Son,  as  well  as  the  Father,  \w:{s  Judge  of 

"*   Joh.  I.  14. 

I  "  all 


280         ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XIX. 

all  the  Earth,  and  might  from  thence  be  con- 
vine  d  how  reafonable  it  was,  and  how  highly  it 
concern'd  them,  to  pay  all  the  fame  Honour  to 
the  Son,  which  many  had  hitherto  believed  to  be- 
long to  the  Father  only.  And  confidering  how 
apt  Mankind  would  be  to  leffen  the  Dignity  of 
the  Son  (whether  out  of  a  vein  of difputing,  or  be- 
caufe  He  had  condefcended  to  become  Man  like 
Themfelves)  and  confidering  alfo  that  the  many 
Notices  of  the  T)ivtnity  of  his  Perfon  might  not 
befufficient,  with  fome,  to  raife  in  Them  that 
Eftcem,  Reverence,  and  Regard  for  Him,  which 
They  ought  to  have,  for  the  more  effedually  fe- 
curing  a  Point  of  this  high  Concernment,  it  pleaf- 
ed  the  Father  to  leave  the  final  Judgment  of  the 
great  Day  in  the  Hands  of  his  Son :  Men  there- 
fore might  confider  that  this  Perfon,  whom  they 
were  too  apt  to  difregard,  was  not  only  their  Cre- 
ator-, and  Lord,  and  God,  but  their  Judge  too,  be- 
fore whofe  awful  Tribunal  they  muft  one  Day 
appear :  An  awakening  Confideration,  fuch  as 
might  not  only  convince  Them  of  his  exceeding 
Excellency  and  Super-eminent  Perfections,  but 
migh  remind  them  alfo,  how  much  it  was  their 
Intcreft,  as  well  as  Duty,  to  pay  Him  all  that  Ho- 
nour, Adoration,  and  Service,  which  the  Dignity 
and  Majcfty  of  his  Perfon  demands  *. 

Let  us  but  fuppofe  the  prcfent  Catholick  Do- 
drine  of  the  Co-equality  and  Co-eternity  of  the 
three  Perfons  to  be  true,  what  more  proper  me- 
thod can  we  imagine,  to  fecure  to  each  Perfon 

*  Vid.  Jobium  ap.  Phot,  Cod. zz 2.  p.  ^04. 

the 


Qli.  XIX.      offome  Q.U  E  R  I  E  S.        2  8 1 

the  Honour  due  unto  Him,  than  this ;  that 
every  Perfon  fhould  be  manifcfted  to  us  under 
fome  pecuUar  Title  or  Charader,  and  inforce  his 
claim  of  Homage  by  fome  remarkable  Difpenfa- 
tion,  fuch  as  might  be  apt  to  raife  in  Us  a  reli- 
gious Awe  and  Veneration  ?  This  is  the  Cafe  in 
fad  5  and  on  this  Account,  chiefly,  it  feems  to 
be  that  the  Son,  rather  than  the  Father  (whofe 
perfonal  Dignity  is  Icfs  liable  to  be  queftion'd) 
is  to  be  judge  of  all  Men,  that  fo  all  Men  may 
honour  the  Son,  x^^oJ^  n^x^^i  f  -urari^.  The 
learned  Dodor  *  pleads  that  xa^^oJs-  often  figni- 
fies  a  general  Similittide  only,  not  an  exa^ 
Equality :  Which  is  very  true ;  and  would  be 
pertinent,  if  we  built  our  Argument  on  the 
critical  Meaning  of  the  Particle.  But  what  we 
infift  on,  is,  that  our  Bleiled  Lord,  in  that 
Chapter,  draws  a  Tarallel  between  the  Father 
and Himfelfy  between  the  Fathers  Works  and 
his  own,  founding  thereupon  his  Title  to  Ho- 
nour ;  which  fufficiently  intimates  what  xaOcuV 
means,  efpecially  if  it  be  confider'd  that  this 
was  in  anfwer  to  the  Charge  of  making  Him- 
felf  t  equal  with  God,  This  is  what  I  in- 
timated in  the  Query  5  upon  the  reading  where- 
of, you  are  ftruck  with  amazement  at  fo  evi- 
dent an  inftancey  how  prejudice  blinds  the 
Mindsy  &c.  But  let  me  perfuade  you  to  for- 
bear that  way  of  talking,  which  (bcfides  that 
it  is  taking  for  granted  the  main  Thing  in  Que- 
ftion,   prefuming  that  all  the  Prejudice  lies  oa 

♦  Refly,  p.  2^0.  t  John/,  i8. 

V  one 


282        y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.XIX. 

one  fide,  and  all  the  Reafon  on  the  other)  is 
really  not   very  becoming,    in  this  Cafe,  con- 
fidering  how  many  wife,  great,  and  good  Men, 
how  many  Churches  of  the  Saints,  through  a 
long  Succeffion  of  Ages,  you  muft,  at  the  fame 
time,    charge  with  Prejudice  and  Blmdnefs  ; 
and  that  too  after  much  canvaffing  and  careful 
confidering  what  Objections  could  be  made  a- 
gainft  Them ;    to  which  you  can  add  nothing 
new,   nor  fo  much  as  reprefent   the  old  ones 
with  greater  Force  than  They  have  been  often 
before,   1 300  Years  ago.  It  might  here  be  fuffi- 
cicnr,  for  you,  modeftly  to  offer  your  Reafons : 
And  hov/ever  convincing   they  may  appear  to 
you  (yet  confidering  that  to  Men  of  equal  Senfe, 
Learning,    and  Integrity,    they  have  appeared 
much   other  wife)    to  fufpc6l  your  own  judg- 
ment; or,  at  leaft,    to  believe  that  there  may 
be  Reafons,  which  you  do  not  fee,  for  the  con- 
trary Opinion.     Well,    but  after  your  fo  great 
Afiurancc,    let  us  hear  what  you  have  to  fay. 
If  CUT  Lord  had  ptirpoftly  dejigiid^     in   the 
moji  exprefs   and  emphatical  Manner ^    to  de- 
clare his  real  Suhordinatton  and  "Dependence 
on  the  Father^    He  coidd  not  ha've  done  it 
more  fidly  and  clearly  than  He  hath  in  this 
whole  Chapter,     Yes,   fure  He  might.:  Being 
charged  with  Blafphemy^     in  making  Himfelf 
eq^iial  with  God,    He  might  have  cxprefs'd   his 
Abhorrence  of  fuch  a  Tiiought ;  and  have  told 
Them  that  He  pretended  to  be  nothing  more 
than  a  Creature  of  God'?,   fcnt  upon  God's 

Errand  j 


Qu.  XIX.     of  fame  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         2  S  3 

Errand  5  and  that  it  was  not  by  his  own  Tower 
or  Holme fs^  that  He  made  the  lame  Man  to 
walky  [(cc  Acis  ^,  12,)  Such  an  Apology  as 
this  would  have  cffcdually  took  off  all  farther 
Sufpicion,  and  might  perhaps  have  well  become 
a  Creature^  when  charg'd  with  Blafphemy,  who 
had  a  true  Refpcd  for  the  Honour  of  his  Creator. 
But,  inftcadof  this,  He  goes  on,  a  fecond  Tinie, 
to  call  Himfclf  S071  of  Gody  v.  2 5. declaring  far- 
ther, that  there  was  fo  perfed  a  Union  and  In- 
timacy between  the  Father  and  Himfclf,  that  He 
was  able  to  do  any  thing  which  the  Father  did  ; 
had  not  only  the  fame  Right  and  Authority  to 
work  on  the  Sabbath,  but  the  fame  Power  of 
giving  Life  to  whom  He  plcafed,  of  railing  the 
Dead,  and  judging  the  World ;  and  therefore 
the  fame  Right  and  Title  to  the  fame  Honour 
and  Regard :  and  that  the  Execution  of  thofe 
Powers  was  lodged  in  his  Hands  particularlvj 
left  the  World  (hould  not  be  fufficicntly  appre- 
henfive  of  his  high  Worth,  Emincncy,  and  Dig- 
nity j  or  fliould  not  honour  the  Son  even  as  they 
honour  the  Father. 

This  is  the  obvious  natural  Conftmftion  of 
the  whole  Paffage :  You  have  fome  Pretences 
againft  it,  which  have  been  examin'd  and  con- 
futed long  ago  by  Hilary^  Chyrfoftom,  CyriU 
Auflin,  and  other  venerable  Fathers  of  the 
Chriftian  Church;  fo  that  I  have  little  more 
to  do,  than  to  repeat  the  Anfwers.  TPje  Jews, 
you  fay ,  fallh  and  malicioufly  charged  Him 
with  making  Himfclf  equal  with  God.  So  faid 
V  2  the 


284         ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XIX. 

the  Arians :  But  what  ground  had  either  They, 
or  You,  for  faying  fo ;  It  does  not  appear  that 
the  Evangelifi  barely  repeated  what  the  Jews 
had  faid  :  But  He  gives  the  Reafons  why  the 
Jews  fought  to  kill  Him  i  namely,  becaufe  He 
had  broke  the  Sabbat hy  and  becaufe  He  made 
Him fe  If  equal  with  God,  So  thought  *  Hilary  5 
and  He  is  followed  therein  by  Others,  whom 
you  may  find  Mentioned  in  f  Tetavitts.  And 
this  WSocinus  himfelf  was  fo  fenfible  of,  that 
He  could  not  but  allow  that  the  Apoflle^  as  well 
as  the  Jews-,  undcrftood  that  our  Bleljcd  Lord 
had  declared  Himfelf  eqtiaho  God  5  only  He  is 
forced  to  explain  away  the  equality  to  a  Senfe 
foreign  to  the  Context. 

But  fuppofing  that  the  Apoftle  only  repeated 
what  the  Jews  had  charged  Him  with  5  how 
does  it  appear  that  the  Charge  was  falfc?  It  is 
not  to  be  denied  that  He  had  really  wrought 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  Iiad  really  called  God  his 
Father  J  and  in  a  Senfe  peculiar  5  and  why 
fliould  not  the  reft  of  the  Charge  be  as  true  as 
the  other?  the  Context  and  Reafbii  of  the 
Thing  feem  very  much  to  favour  it :   His  fay- 

*  Non  nunc,  ut  in  ceteris  fo!ct,  Jiid^orum  Sermo  ab  his  di- 
6lus  refertur.  Expofitio  potius  hare  Evangdiftce  eft,  Caufam  de- 
monftrantis  cur  Domin^im  intcificere  vellent.  HiL  Trin.  1.  7. 
p.  P^f.  t  He  Trin.  />.  lyz. 

Ij  Ex  modo  Joquendi  quo  ufus  eft  Evangelifta,  fcntiam  eum 
omninouna  cum  Judxis  ccnfuifle  Chriftum,  verbis  illis,  fc  sequa- 

lem  Deo  fecifle nccefic  fit  intelligere  Hoc  ipfum    Eum  quo- 

que  fcnfiiTe,  non  minus  quam  fcnferit  Chriftum  appellaflc  Deum 
Vatrem  fuum,  quod  ab  ipfo,  uno  £c  eodem  vcrborum  Contextu, 
proximc  di(5tum  fucrat.  Soc'm.Krfp.  ad  Vnjek,  ^-S17- 

ing, 


Qu.XIX.      of  fome  (QUERIES.       285 

ing,  my  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  1  "juork^ 
muft  imply,  cither  that  He  had  an  equal  Right 
to  do  any  thing  his  Father  did  5    or,  that  He 
was  fo  intimately  united  to  Him,  that  He  could 
not  but  ad  in  concert  with  Him :    Which  is 
farther  confirmed  by  what  follows,  v.  lo.JVhat 
things  foever  He  doth,  thefe  alfb  doth  the  Son 
like'isjife,     Befides,  that  had  this  been  only  a  ma- 
licious Suggeftion,  a  falfe  Charge  of  the  Je'JUSy 
the  Evangelifiy    very  probably,  would  have  gi- 
ven intimation  of  it,    as  wc  find  done  in  other 
Cafes  of  that  Nature,  {Joh.i.  zi.Matt.  16. 12.) 
This  is  the  Subftance  of  St.  Chryfoftom\  reafon- 
ing,  in  Anfwer  to  your  firft  Objedion ;   and  I 
am  the  more  confirmed  in  its  being   true    and 
right,  by  obferving,    as  before  faid,   that  Soci- 
mis  himfelf,  a  Man  fo  much  prejudiced  on  the 
other  fide,  could   not    help  falling  in  with  the 
fame  way  of  Thinking,    fo  far,   as  to  believe 
that  the  Apoftle  and  the  Je-jos  both  agreed  in 
the  fame  Thing,  viz,,  that  our  Lord  did,    by 
what  He  had  faid,  make  Himfelf  ecind  ^-juith 
-Gody  in  fome  Senfe,  or  other ;  fuch  as  the  Je'ujs 
thought  to  be  Blafphemy,  and  in  Confcquence 
whereof,   they  would  have  kill'd^  i.  e.  floned 
Him.     Another   Exception   you    make   from 
the  Words,   The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Him- 
felf:   The  obvious  meaning  of  which  is;    that 
being  fo  nearly  and  clofely  related  to  God,  as 
a  Son  is  to  a  Father ;  the  Jews  might  depend 
upon  it,  that  whatever  He  did,  was  both  agree- 
able to,    and  concerted  with  his  Father ;    and 
V  3.  ought 


386       ^DEFENSE        QU.XIX. 

oug;ht  to  be  received  with  the  fame  Reverence 
and  Regard,  as  if  the  Father  Himfelf  had  done 
it.  He,  as  a  Son,  being  perfectly  one  with 
his  Father,  could  do  nothing  ovoMricv  tJ  -nxaT^]^ 
againfl  his  Father ^  nothing  aXXorpicv,  nothing 
|fvov,  (as  Chryfojtom  exprefleth  it)  Both  having 
the  fame  Nature  ;  and  harmonioufly  uniting  al- 
ways in  Operation  and  Energy,  Hence  it 
was,  that,  if  one  wrought^  the  other  muft 
"work  too;  if  one  did  any  Thing,  the  other 
fliould  doltkewifei,  ii  one  qidck?2ed  whom  He 
would;,  fo  Ihould  the  other  alfo ;  and  if  one  had 
L^fe  m  Hmifelf  (or  the  Tower  of  Raifing  the 
^ead)  i^o  fhould  the  other  have  too :  And  if 
the  Father  v/as  primarily  Judge  of  the  Worlds 
in  right  of  his  Prerogative  as  Father^  the  Son 
fliould  have  it  in  the  Exercife  and  Exeratmiy 
to  manifeft  the  Equality.  Now,  here  is  no 
draining  and  forcing  of  Texts,  but  the  literalp 
obvious,  natural  Interpretation.  But  the  In- 
terpretation, which  you  give,  is  plainly  forc'd, 
iTi:.kcs  the  Context  incoherent,  and  the  whole 
Paflage  inconfiftcnt.  For,  be  pleas'd  to  obferve 
your/Senfe  of  verfe  the  19^^.  The  Son  can 
do  nothuig  but  by  Commiffion  from  the  Father : 
Why  ?  then  follows,  For  what  things  foever 
Fie  doth,  thefe  alfo  doth  the  Son  likewife. 
Does  it  follow,  bccaufc  He  can  do  nothing  of 
flimfefy  in  your  Scnfe,  that  therefore  He  can 
,do  every  thing  which  the  Father  does?  Where 
is  the  Scnfe,  or  Connexion  ?  Is  He  here  Hmit- 
ing,    and  Icllcning  his  own  Powers,   as,  upon 

your 


Qu.  XIX.      offome  QU  E  R I  E  S.         287 

your  Principles,    He  fhould  have  done  in  an- 
fwer  to  the  Charge  of  Blafphcmy  >    No  ;    but 
He  extends  them  to  the  utraoft ;  and,   inftead  of 
retracing,  goes  on  in  the  fame  (train,    and  fays 
more  than  He  had  faid  before.     To  make  good 
Senfeand  Coherence  of  the  PafiTage,  upon  your 
Scheme,  you  muft  till  up  the  Deficiency  thus. 
The  Son  can  do  nothing  but  by  Conimiflion  5 
a?id  Commiffion  He  has^  to  do  every  thing  that 
the  Father  doth :  Which,  tho'  it  founds  harfh, 
and  looks  too  familiar  for  a  Creature  to  pre- 
tend,   yet  might  make  the  Context  coherent. 
However,   fince  the  Interpretation  I  have  be- 
fore given,  is  more  natural,  and  more  obvious, 
argues  no  deficiency  in  the  Text,    makes  the 
whole  coherent,  and  has  nothing  harfli  or  dif- 
agreeing  in  it,  it  ought  to  be  prefer'd.    For,  after 
all,   it  muft  be  thought  very  odd  and  ftrange 
for  a  Creature  to  be  commiffion  d  or  empower'd 
to  do  all  Things  that  the  Creator  doth  5    and 
to  do  them   6/jto/ojs-   in  the    fame  maniier,   alfo 
I  do  not  make  any  forced  Conftruction :  for  fo 
the    20^-'   verfe ,     immediately   following,    in- 
terprets it :    for  the  Father  loveth   the  Son ; 
a?id  pe-jueth  Him  all  Things  that  Him felf  doth. 
You  endeavour  indeed  to  make  fome  Advantage 
of  this  very  Text  5    alledging  that  this  "Vo-joer 
which  the  Son  exercisd-^   was  given  Him^  not 
by  Neceflity  [which  is  no  Gift)  butbv  free  Love. 
But  why  muft  Love  imply  Freedom  ?  Doth  not 
God  love  Himfelf  ?  And  if  the  Love  of  Himfelf 
be  no  matter  of  Choice,  why  muft  the  Love  of 
V  4  his 


288        ^DEFENSE        Qu.XIX. 

his  Son,  his  other  f elf ^  be  rcprcfented  otherwife  ? 
You  are  forc'd  to  add  to  the  Text,  to  give  fome 
colour  to  your  Argument ;  and  to  call  it  free 
Love,  when  the  Text  fays  only,  that  the  Father 
loveth. 

Thus  far  I  have  endeavoured  to  clear  up  the 
Scnfe  of  St.  John^  and  to  vindicate  it  from 
your  Exceptions :  which  are  not  of  fo  great 
Weight,  that  you  need  be  amazed  at  any 
Man  s  thinking  (lightly  of  them.  Hilary  well 
obferves  that  the  drift  and  defign  of  our  Savi- 
our's Words  was  to  declare  his  Equality  of 
Nature  with  the  Father,  and  his  Sonpip,  at  the 
fame  Time.  *  No  inferior  NsLtmc  could  be 
capable  of  having  all  Things ;  nor  could  a  Son 
have  them  but  as  communicated.  So  that,  in 
the  whole,  it  is  diredly  oppofite  to  fuch  as 
cither  difown  an  Equality  of  Nature,  or  a  real 
Difdndion  5  wherefore  Hilary  concludes  trium- 
phantly, both  againft  Arians  and  Sabellians^  in 
Words  very  remarkable,  which  I  fliall  throw  in- 
to the  f  Mra'gin. 

But  you  add,  as  a  Recapitulation' of  wdiat 
you  had  faid  upon  this  Article  :  If  therefore 
to  be  freely  fent^  and  to  aei  in  the  Name  and 
by  the  Authority  of  another ^  he^  to  affume  an 

*  Omnia  habere  fola  natura  poffit  indifferensj  neque  Nativi- 
tas  alicjuid  habere  pofilr,  nili  datum  fit,  />.  928. 

f  Conclufa  fynt  omnia  adverfum  Haeretici  Furoris  Ingcnia.. 
y'duis  eft,  cjuia  ab  fe  nihil  poreft.  Dem  eft,  quia  c^uxcunquc 
Pater  facit,  8c  ipfc  Eadem  facit.  Unum  funt,  quia  exacquatur 
in  Honorc,  Eademque  facit  non  alia.  Non  eft  Pater,  quia 
jiiiflus  eft,  f  929. 

He  has  more  to  th /a?ne  ^turpofe,  p.  loij,  iiyi. 

equality 


Qu.  XIX.      of  fome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.      \%o 

equality  of  Honour  and  Regard  ^-jvith  that  other, 
by  whom  He  wasfent ;  we  muftfor  ever  defpair 
ioiinderflandtherneaningofWords.orto  be  able 
to  diftingiiijh  between  a  delegated,  anda  ftipreme 
underivedTower,  {p.  97)  To  which  I  make  an- 
fwcr  :  If  declaring  Himfclf  to  be  the  proper  Son 
of  That  Other,  which  both  the  Jews  and  the 
Apojlle  underftood  to  be  the  fame  with  making 
Himfelf  equal  with  Him :     If  his  claiming  to 
Himfeif  the  fame  Right,  Power,  and  Authority 
which  the  other  hath ;  and  afferting  that  He  is  a- 
ble  to  do  whatever  the  Other  doth  ;  and  that  the 
exercife  of  ihofe  Powers  is  left  to  Him,  for  this 
very  end  and  purpofe,  that  all  Men  may  honour 
the  One  even  as  they  honour  the  Other  :  If  this 
be  not  afluming  an  Equality  of  Honour  and  Re- 
gard with  that  Other  5  we  muft  for  ever  defpair  to 
underftand  the  meaning  of  Words,  or  to  be  able 
to  diftinguifli  between  what  is  proper  to  a  Crea- 
ture, and  what  to  the  Creator  only. 

As  to  what  you  hint  concerning  a  delegated 
Power,  it  is  not  to  your  Purpofe ;  unlefs  you 
could  prove  that  one  Perfon  cannot  be  Delegate 
to  Another,  without  being  unequal,  in  nature^ 
to  Him  ;  which  would  prove  that  one  Man 
cannot  be  "D^/^^^/-^  to  another  Man  *  ;  bcfides 
other  Abfurdities.  Ading  by  a  delegated  Power 
does  by  no  means  infer  any  Inferiority  of  Na- 
ture, but  rather  the  quite  contrary  ;  cfpecially, 
if  the  Charge  be  fuch,  as  no  inferior  Nature 
could  be  able  to  fuftain ;   or  if  the  Honour  at- 

*  See  my  An[v>ir  to  Dr.  H'^nth-j,  p.  j-^. 

I  raiding 


290      A    DEFENSE        Qu.XIX. 

tending  it,  or  confcquent  upon  it,  be  too  great 
for  an  inferior  Nature  to  receive  j  as  the  Cafe 
is  here.  However,  the  divine  Adminiftration, 
and  wonderful  ciy,cvcij,ia  of  the  Three  Perfons, 
with  their  Order  of  Acling,  is  what  we  muft  not 
prefume  perfeclly  to  underftand  ;  Nor  can  any- 
certain  Argument  be  drawn  againft  the  Thing, 
from  our  imperfeft  and  inadequate  Conceptions 
of  it. 

If  it  be  objected  that  there  is  a  Supremacy  of 
Order  lodged  in  One  more  than  in  the  Other ; 
let  that  be  rightly  underdood,  and  I  (hall  not 
gainfay  it.  The  Father,  as  Father^  is  fiu 
preme ;  and  the  Son,  as  Soity  Jubordinate.  We 
pretend  not  to  make  the  Son  the  Ftrji,  but  the 
SecondVctio'Ci  of  the  Godhead.  Whatever  in- 
equality of  Honour  fuch  a  Supre'macy  of  One, 
and  Subordination  of  the  Other  neceffarily  im- 
ply, while  the  Nature  or  EJJence  is  fuppofed 
equaly  it  may  be  admitted :  But,  I  am  not  ap. 
prized  that  they  infer  any ;  Bccaufe,  tho*  there 
arc  two  Perfons,  there  is  but  one  *  undivided 


;*  Unius  autcm  Subfl-antix,  8c  Uaius  Status,  &  Wtiis  ToteJId' 
frs,  quia  Unus  Dcus.  Tertnll.  contr.  Fmx.  c.  2.  TJn'uts  DivimiatiS 
Pater,  8c  Filius,  8c  Spiritus Sandtus. /</.  ^/e  Tud.c.zi. 

-.T.-orsrctx.^.  Athenag. leg.  c.  If,  p.64. 

Unam  8c  Eandem  Omnipotentiam  Patris  ac  Filii  efle  cognofcas  i 
/icut  Unus  atque  idem  cH  cuin  Patre  Dcus  8c  Dominus.  Orig. 
'^i  'Af^i.  1.  I.e.  2. 

Gu  ^  uXxLo  ^o'ia,v  srciTKf,  J^  'aXXl/jj  liioc,  t^e-i,  o(.XXoc  fJij^av  <^  ta* 
nbrU.  Cyrill.  Catech.  6.  p.  77.  J^J-  Ox.    '  ^ 

*X,i  Greg.  NyfT.  contr.  Eunom.  l.i.  p.i^. 

Nature^ 


Qu.  XIX.       offome  Q\]  E  R I  E  S.        291 

Nature  5  which  makes  the  Cafe  widely  different 
from  that  of  one  Man  (a  diftinct  and  feparate 
Being)  afting  under  Another. 

What  follows,  of  your  Anfwer  to  the  prefent 
Qi^cry,  is  only  ringing  Changes  upon  the  old 
Objcdion,  drawn  from  your  imaginary  Senfe  of 
mdividital  Stibflance.  And  here  you  let  your 
Thoughts  rove,  and  abound  much  in  ^Flight 
and  Fancy  5  conceiving  of  the  Trinity y  after 
the  manner  of  Bodies,  and  reafoning  from  cor- 
poreal and  fcnfiblc  Images.  A  blind  Man  would 
thus  take  his  Notion  of  Colours,  perhaps  from 
his  Hearings  or  Feeling ;  and  make  many  fan- 
ciful Demonftrations  againft  the  T>o6irine  of 
Vijion  ;  which  would  all  vanifli,  upon  the  open- 
ing of  his  Eyes.  Were  we  as  able  to  judge  of 
what  may,  or  may  not  be,  in  relation  to 
the  Modus  of  the  divine  Exiftence,  as  we  are 
to  judge  of  common  Matters,  lying  within  the 
Sphere  of  our  Capacity,  there  might  then  be 
fome  Force  in  the  Objeclions  made  againfl:  the 
Dodrine  of  the  Trinity  from  natural  Reafon : 
But  fince  many  Things,  efpecially  thofe  relating 

Totum  Pater,  Totum  polTidct  Filius :  Unius  cIT:  quod  Ambo- 
rum  cfl,  quod  unuspoflidet  Sir.gulorum  eftj  Domino  ipfo  dicentci 
Omn'ici  qudcunciHc  hn6et Pater,  mca  funt ;  quia  Pater  in  Filio,  &c 
Fiiius  manet  in  Patre.  Cui,  Ajfeclti  non  Coaaitione,  Chantate  non 
NeccjJItate,  dccore  fubjicitur,  per  Q^iem  Pater  Semper  honoratur. 
Denique  inquit :  Ego  ^  Fatcr  tmum  fumus.  Unde  non  Diwinrttha, 
fed  Keligiofn,  ut  dixi,  fubjedtione  eft  Filius  Patri  liibjcdlus  :  cum 
Originaiis  perpetuiquc  Regni  una  PofTefllo,  Co-xternitatis  Omni- 
potentixque  una  Subftantia,  una  ^-Equalitas,  una  virtus  Majeftatis 
augufta?,  unito  in  lumine  una  dignitas  rctinetur.  Zen.  Veronenf. 
fit.  a  BnllD.F.^.  z66, 

to 


292         ./^DEFENSE      Qu.  XIX- 

to  the  incomprehenfible  Nature  of  God,  may- 
be true,  tho*  we  cannot  conceive  How  5  and  it 
may  be  only  our  Ignorance,  which  occafions 
fome  appearing  Inconfiftencies  5  we  dare  not  re- 
}c(k  a  Dodrine  fo  well  fupported  by  Scripture 
and  Antiquity,  upon  fo  precarious  a  Founda- 
tion as  this.  That  Human  Under  ft  anding  is 
the  meafure  of  all  Truth :  Which  is  what  all 
Objeftions  of  that  kind,  at  length,  refolve 
into. 

This  being  premised,  let  us  next  proceed  to 
examine  your  Pretences,  that  I  may  not  feem  to 
negled  any  thing  you  have,  that  but  looks  like 
reaibning.  The  §^ery  had  intimated,  that  the 
Son  derives  his  Elfence  and  Power,  in  a  man- 
ner ineffable.  Againft  which  you  objeft  thus: 
But  is  it  not  Self-evident  that,  let  the  man- 
ner of  the  Son's  Generation  or  "Derivation  be 
ever  fo  ineffable,  if  zriyThxn^  was  generated^ 
or  derived^  it  muft  be  a  diftinft  individual 
Subftance  ?  No  5  but  we  think  it  fufficient  to 
fay,  that  it  muft  be  a  diftind  individual  P^r- 
fon.  All  the  difficulty  here  lies  in  fixing  and 
determining  the  Senic  of  the  words  individual 
Subftance.  Would  you  but  plcafe  to  define  the 
Terms,  we  fliould  foon  fee  what  we  have  to  do. 
But  you  go  on :  It  could  not  he  part  of  the 
Fathers  Subftance -^  That  is  abfurd:  and  to 
fay,  it  was  the  whole,  is  fo  flagrant  a  Con- 
tradiciion,  that  I  que  ft  ion  whether  there  can 
be  a  greater,  in  the  nature  and  reafon  of 
Things,     Can  the  fame  individual  Subftance  be 

derived^ 


Qu. XIX.      offome  qV E R  1  E  S.       29 j 

derived,  and  undcrivcd )  Or,  can  there  be  a 
Communication,  <5!«^ nothing  communicated? 
FoTy  it  is  Jttppofedy  that  the  whole  E (fence ^ 
or  Subjtancey  is  communicated  to  the  Son, 
and  yet  remains  wliole  and  uncommunicated, 
in  the  Father ;  isohich  is  evidently  to  be,  and^ 
not  to  be,  at  the  fame  Time.  This  is  your 
reafoning,  founded  only  on  your  miftake  and 
mifapprehenfion  :  By  Father  s  Subftance ,  as 
it  feems,  you  underftand  the  Father's  Hypo- 
Jiajisy  or  Terfon  5  and  are  proving,  very  ela- 
borately, that  the  Father  never  communicated 
his  own  Hypoftafis,  or  T  erf  on,  either  in  whole  y 
or  in  part.  You  fhould  firft  have  (hewn  us 
what  Body  of  Men,  or  what  *  fmglc  Man,  ever 
taught  that  Dodtrine,  which  you  take  fo  much 
Pains  to  confute.  Let  me  now  propofe  a  Dif- 
ficulty much  of  the  fame  kind,  and  nearly  in 
the  fame  Words,  to  you  5  only  to  convince 
you  that  Objedions  of  this  Nature  are  not  pe- 
culiar to  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  affecl 
other  points  likevv^ife,  whofe  Truth  or  Certainty 
you  make  no  manner  of  doubt  of.  What  I 
mean  to  inftance  in,  is  God's  omnipre fence :  That 
God,  the  {zmci77dividual  Gody  is  every  where, 
youll  readily  allow  ;  and  alfo  that  the  Subftance 
of  God,  is  God.  Now,  will  you  pleafe  to  tell 
me,  whether  that  divine  Subftance  which  fills 
Heaven )  be  the  fame  individual  Subftance  with 
That  which  filleth  all  Things.     If  it  be  not 

*  Ai  to  your  gird  upon  Tcrtullian,   in  your  Notes,  I  refer  yen  to 
Bull.  D.  F.  p. 9/.  fof  an  Anfmr. 

the 


294  y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qli.  XIX. 
the  fame  individual  Subftance  (as  by  your 
reafoning  it  cannot)  it  remains  only  that  it  be 
fpecijicaily  the  fame  5  and  then  the  Confe- 
quence  is,  that  you  make  not  one  Subftance  in 
number^  but  many-,  the  very  thing  which  you 
charge  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  with.  But 
farther,  the  divine  Subftance  is  in  Heaven  5 
that  is  witliout  Queftion :  Now,  I  ask,  whe- 
ther the  Subjiance  which  fills  Heaven,  be  part 
only  of  that  Subftance,  or  the  whole.  If 
it  be  part  only,  then  God  is  not  in  Hea- 
ven, but  a  part  of  God  only ;  and  the  Attri- 
butes belonging  to  the  whole  Subftance,  cannot 
all  be  contracted  into  any  one  party  without 
defrauding  the  other  ^^^r^j- ;  and  therefore  there 
can  be  only  part  of  infinite  Power,  part  of 
infinite  Wifdom,  part  of  infinite  Knowledge, 
and  fo  for  any  other  Attribute.  For  if  you  fay, 
that  the  whole  infinite  Wifdom,  Pov/er,  ^c, 
rcfiding  in  the  whole ^  is  common  to  every  part, 
it  is  (to  ufe  your  own  Words)  fo  flagrant  a 
Contradicliony  that  I  queftion  whether  there 
can  be  a  greater  in  the  nature  and  re'afon  of 
Things,  Can  the  fame  individual  Power,  Wif- 
dom, c^r.  be  communicated,  and  not  commu- 
nicated? Or,  can  there  be  a  Communication 
and  nothing  communicated  ?  For,  it  is  fuppofed 
that  the  whole  Wifdomy  bowery  &c.  is  com- 
municated, to  one  particular  part ;  and  yet  re- 
mains whole  and  uncommunicated  in  the  other* 
parts  5  which  is  evidently  to  be,  and  not  to  be 
at  the  fame  Time.     If  you  tell  me  that,  part 

and 


Qli.  XIX.      offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       29 ^ 

and  whole  are  not  properly  applied  to  JVifdomy 
To'jver,  &c.  I  fliall  tell  you  again,  that  They 
are  (tor  any  thing  You,  or  I  know)  2iS>properly 
applied  to  the  Attributes^  as  they  are  to  the 
Subjetis  and  belong  to  Both,  or  Neither.  And 
fuice  you  are  plcafed  to  talk  of  parts  and 
whole  of  God's  Subftance,  of  which  you  know- 
little,  give  me  leave  to  talk  in  the  fame  way, 
where  I  know  as  little.  The  learned  Dodor 
reprefents  it  as  a  great  Solecifm  to  fpcak  of  an 
"^  £//,  or  a  Mile  of  Confcioufncfs,  He  may  be 
right  in  his  Obfcrvation :  but  mz  natural  Con- 
fequence  deducible  from  it,  is,  that  Thought 
is  not  compatible  with  an  extended  Subfcd. 
For  there  is  nothing  more  unintelligiblc,or,feeni- 
ingly,  at  lead,  more  repugnant,  than  unextended 
Attributes  in  a  Subjed  extended:  And  many 
may  think  that  ^w  Ell,  or  a  Mile  of  God 
(which  is  the  Dodor's  Notion)  is  as  great  a 
Solecifm  as  the  other.  Perhaps,  after  all,  it 
would  be  bcft  for  Both  of  us  to  be  filcnt,  where 
we  have  really  nothing  to  fay  :  But  as  you  have 
begun,  I  mud  go  on  with  the  Argument,  about 
the  Omniprefence,  a  little  farther.  Well,  if  it 
cannot  be  part  only  of  the  divine  Subftancc, 
which  is  in  Heaven,  fince  God  is  There,  and 
fince  all  the  Perfedions  and  Attributes  of  the 
Deity  have  There  their  full  exercife;  let  us 
fay  that  the  whole  divine  Subftance  is  there. 
But  then  how  can  He  be  omniprelent  ?  Can  the 
fame  individual  Subftance  be  coyifind,  and  un- 
conjind?  Or  can  there  be  a  dijfujion  of  it 
.  *  c/.  Let^  p.  40.  every 


296      ^DEFENSE        Qu.  XI5C. 

every  where,  and  yet  nothing  diffufed?  For  it 
is  llippofeci  that  the  whole  ElTence  or  Subftance 
is  diffufed  all  over  the  Univerfc,  and  yet  re- 
mauis  whole  and  undiffufed  hi  Heaven.  Which> 
again,  is  evidently  to  be,  and  wot  to  be,  at  the 
fame  time, 

I  fliould  hardly  forgive  my  felf,  upon  any 
other  occafion,  fuch  trifling  in  ferious  Things. 
If  you  take  to  this  kind  of  reafoningy  (which 
is  really  not  reafoning,  but  running  riot  with 
Fancy  and  Imagination)  about  Matters  infi- 
nitely furpafling  human  Comprehenfion  5  you 
will  make  lamentable  work  of  it.  You  may  go 
on,  till  you  reafon,  in  a  manner,  God  out  of  his 
Attributes,  and  your  felf  out  of  your  Faith  5  and 
not  know  at  laft  where  to  ftop.  For,  indeed,  all 
Arguments,  of  this  kind,  are  as  Arong  f or  ^theijm^ 
as  They  are  againft  a  Trinity :  Wherefore  it  con- 
cerns you  ferioufly  to  refled,  what  you  are  doing. 
This,  and  the  like  Confidcrations,  have  made  the 
wifefl:  and  cooleft  Men  very  cautious  how  they 
lirtcn  d  to  the  rovings  of  wanton  Thought,  in 
Matters  above  Human  Comprehenfion.  The 
pretended  Contradidions,  now  revived  by  many, 
againft  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity,  are  very  old 
and  trite.  They  were  long  ago  objected  to  the 
Chriftians,  by  the  Heathen  Idolaters.  They 
almoft  turn'd  the  Heads  of  T^raxeaSy  Noetus^ 
SabelUuSy  ManichauSy  Tatd  of  Samofata  5 
not  to  mention  ArittSy  NefloritiSy  Etttyches, 
and  other  Antient  Hcreticks.  The  Catholicks 
were  fcnfible  of  them :  But  having  well  con- 

fidcrJ 


Qii.  XX.      offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       297 

fider'd  them ,  They  found  thcni  of  much  too 
(light  Moment,  to  bear  up  againfl:  the  united 
Force  of  Scripture  and  Tradition.  The  Dodrine 
of  the  Trinity,  with  all  its  feeming  Contra- 
diftions,  has  ilood  the  Teft,  not  only  of  what 
Human  Wit  could  do,  by  way  of  Difpute  ;  but 
of  all  that  Rage  and  Malice  could  contrive, 
through  a  Perfecution  almoft  as  bitter  and  Viru- 
lent, as  any  that  had  ever  been  under  Heathen 
Emperors.  This  is  to  me  an  additional  Confir- 
mation, that  the  Do6trine  wc  profcfs  is  no  fuch 
grofs  Impofition  upon  the  common  Senfe  and 
Reafon  of  Mankind,  as  is  pretended.  It  was 
neither  Force,  nor  Intereft ,  that  brought  it  in  ^ 
nor  that  hath  fince,  fo  univerfally,  upheld  it : 
And  Men  arc  not  generally  fuch  Idiots  as  to 
love  Contradictions  and  Repugnancies,  only  for 
Humor  or  Wantonnefs,  when  Truth  and  Confi- 
ftency  are  much  better,  and  may  be  had  at  as 
cafy  a  rate.  Thefe  Reflections  have  carried  me 
rather  too  far :  But  They  may  have  their  ufe 
amons;  fuch  Readers  as  knovv^  little  of  the  Hifto- 
ry  of  this  Controverfy ;  or  how  long  It  had 
been  buried  ;  till  it  pleafed  fomc  amoni:,ft  Us  to 
call  it  up  again,  and  to  drefs  it  out  with  much 
Art  2iMFmelfei,  to  take  the  Populace,  and  to 
beguile  thtEnglifh  Reader.  Many  Things  have 
fallen  under  this  S^iery,  which  properly  bclong'd 
not  to  it  But  it  was  neceflary  for  me  to  purine 
You,  what  way  focver  You  fliould  take.  You 
was  more  at  Liberty :  My  Method  is  deter- 
mined by  Your's. 

X  QjL^  E  R  Y 


2S^8       >^DEFENSE        Qu.XX. 

Q^UERY   XX. 

Whether  the  TDoEior  need  have  cited  306 
Texts  J  *  wide  of  thepurpofey  to  prove  what 
no  Body  denies^  namely^  a  Subordination, 
171  fome  Senfey  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  5 
could  He  have  found  but  one  plain  Text 
againji  His  Eternity  or  Confubftantiality^ 
the  Toints  in  ^eftion? 

YOUR  Anfwcr  to  this  is  very  fiiort,  not 
to  fay  negligent.  You  fay,  if  the  D^- 
fiors  300  Texts  prove  a  real  Stibordinationy 
and  not  in  nofine  oyily^  the  point  is  gain'd  a- 
gainfl  the  ^eriffs  Notion  of  Individual  Con- 
fubftantiality ;  unlefs  the  fame  individual  in- 
telligent Subjiance  can  be  Subordinate  to  it 
felf  and  Confubflantial  with  it  felf  Here 
you  are  again  Doubling  upon  the  word.  In- 
dividual. The  §)ueri(t  never  had  fuch  a  No- 
tion as  that  of  perfonal  Confubfiantiality^  which 
is  Ridiculous  in  the  Sound,  and  Contradi- 
aion  in  Senfe  5  and  yet  you  are  conftantly 
putting  this  upon  the  ^tertft,  and  honouring 
Him  with  your  own  Prefumptions.  Let  me 
again  (how  you,  how  unfair  and  difingenuous 
this  Method  is.  Do  not  you  fay  that  the  fame 
individual  Subjiance  is  prcfent  in  Heaven,  and, 
at  the  fame  time,  fillcth  all  Things?  That  it 
pervades  the  Sun,  and,  at  the  fame  time,  pene- 

*  Clarke's  Reply,  f.  ;, 

trates 


Qu.XX.         of fom  q^UEKlES.       299 

trates  the  Ntoon  alfo?  I  might  as  rcafonably 
argue  that  you,  by  fuch  Pofitions,  make  tlic 
fame  individual  Subftance  greater  and  lefs  than 
it  felf,  remote  and  diftant  from  it  felf,  higher 
and  lower  than  it  Jelf,  to  the  right  and  to  the 
left  of  it  felfy  containing  and  contain'd,  bound- 
ed and  unbounded,  a^c.  as  you  can  pretend  to 
draw  thofe  odd  furprizing  Confequences  upon 
the  ^lerifl.  Would  not  you  tell  me,  in  an- 
fwer,  that  I  mifinterprcted  your  Senfe  of  indi- 
vidualj  and  took  advantage  of  an  ambiguous 
Expreffion?  Let  the  fame  Anfwer  fcrvc  for  Us; 
and  you  may  hereafter  fpare  your  Readers  the 
Diverfion  of  all  that  unmanly  trifling  with  an 
equivocal  Word.  But  enough  of  this  Matter. 
I  might  have  expeded  of  you,  in  your  Reply 
to  this  Query,  one  Text  or  two  to  difprovc 
the  Son's  Eternity^  and  Confiibflantiality^  and 
to  fupply  the  Deficiency  of  the  Dodor's  Trea- 
tife :  But  fmce  you  have  not  thought  fit  to 
favour  me  with  any,  I  muft  fiill  believe  that  the 
Doctor's  300  Texts,  tho*  very  wide  of  the  pur- 
pofe,  are  all  we  are  to  expecl^  being  defign'd, 
inftead  of  real  Proof,  to  carry  fome  Show  and 
Appearance  of  it,  that  they  may  fccm  to  make 
up  in  Number,  what  they  want  in  Weight.  All 
that  the  learned  Dodor  proves  by  his  300  Texts, 
or  more,  is  only  that  the  Son  is  Subordinate  to 
the  Father :  Whether  as  a  Son,  or  as  a  Great urCy 
appears  not.  However,  the  tacit e  Conclu- 
fion  which  the  Dodor  draws  from  it,  and 
infinuates  carefully  to  his  Reader,   is,  that  the 

X  2  Son 


.^00  ^DEFENSE  Qri.  XX;1- 
Son  is  not  ftriflly  and  ejfentially  God  -,  but  a 
Creature  only.  This  Inference  we  deny  ut- 
terly 5  allcdging  that  a  Subordination  may  be, 
and  may  be  undeiftood,  between  two  Perfons, 
without  the  Suppofition  of  any  Inferiority  of 
Nature :  But  all  the  Anfwer  we  can  get  to  this 
is,  that  *  Naturey  and  Effence  are  obfcure  Meta- 
phyfaal  Notions  5  (which  is  neither  true,  nor 
to  the  purpofe,  nor  confidently  pleaded  by 
one  who  builds  fo  much  upon  Self-exiflence, 
a  MetaphyficalTcrm^  the  "^ord Equivocal,  and 
the  Notion  fufficiently  obfcure,)  And  thus,  as 
foon  as  the  learned  Doctor  comes  up  to  the 
pinch  of  the  Queftion,  not  being  willing  to  own 
the  Force  of  what  is  urged,  He  very  wifely  dif- 
fembles  it,  and  2;oes  off  in  a  mill  of  Words. 

I  cannot  but  take  notice,  upon  this  occauoiv 
of  your  charging  us  frequently,  in  an  invidious 
Manner,  with  the  ufe  we  make  of  Metaphy- 
fical  Terms.  I  know  no  reafon  you  have  for  it, 
-except  it  be  to  anticipate  the  Charge,  as  being 
confcious  to  your  felves  how  notorioufly  you 
offend  in  this  kind.  Any  Man,  that  is  acquaint- 
ed with  the  Hiftory  of  Arianifm^  knows  that 
its  main  Strength  lay  in  Logical  zwd  Met aphy - 
/?<r^/Subtihies.  The  Faith  of  the  Church  was 
at  firft,  and  might  be  ftill,  a  plain,  eafy,  fimple 
Thing;  did  not  its  Adverfaries  endeavor  to  per- 
plex and  puzzle  it  with  ''Philofophical  Niceties, 
and  minute  Inquiries  into  the  Modus  of  what 
they  cannot  comprehend.     The  firil  Chriftians 

*  Reply,  p.  17,  19,21. 

1  eafily 


Qu.  XX.        of  fame  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       301 

eafily  believed  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Gholt 
in  whofc  Name  They  wiitc baptized,  and  whom' 
They  worfiipfd,  were  equally  <^/V/>/^ ;  without 
troubling  themlelves  about  the  manner  of  ir,  or 
the  reconciling  it  with  their  Belief  in  one  GW. 
As  Men  generally  believe  that  Godi  fore- knows 
every  thing,  and  that   Man  notwithftanding  is 
^  free- Agent,  (fcarcc  one  perhaps  in  a  Thoufand 
concerning  Himfelf  how  to  reconcile  thefe  two 
Pofitions,    or  being  at  all  apprchenfivc  of  any 
difficulty  in  it)  fo,    probably,    the  plain  honcft 
Chriftians  believed  every  Pcribn  to  be  God,  and 
all  but  one  God  ;  and  troubled  not  their  Heads 
with  any  nice  Speculations  about  the  Modus  of 
it.     This  feci  US  to  have  been  the  artlefs  Sim- 
plicity of   the  primitive  Chriiiians,    till   prying 
and   pretendind^  Men  came  to flart  Difficulties, 
r.nd  raife  Scruples,  and  make  Dillurbancc ;  and 
then  it  was  neceflary  to  r'.n'd  the  Faith  of  the 
Church  againft  fuch  Cavils  and  Impertinencies 
as  began  to  threaten  it.     Thilofophy  and  Meta- 
phyjicks  were  called  in  to  its  Afllftance^    but 
not  till  Hereticks  had  fliown  the  way,    and 
made  it  in  a  manner  necedary  for  the  Cat  ho- 
licks  to  encounter  Them  with  their  own  Wea- 
pons.    Some  new  Terms,   and  particular  Ex- 
plications came  in  by  this  means  ;  that  fuch  as 
had  a  mind  to  Corrupt  or  Deftroy  the   Faith, 
might   be  defeated  in  their  Purpofes.     It  was 
needlefs  to    fay  that  Generation  was  without 
'Divifon,  while  no  Body  fufpeded  or  thought 
pf  any  Divifion  in  the  Cafe :  But  after  Here- 
'■'■  X  3  ticks 


302       ^DEFENSE         Qu.XX, 

ticks  had  invidioufly  reprefented  the  CathoHcks 
as  aflerting  a  T>ivifion,    it  was  high  time  for 
the  CathoHcks  to   rcfeiit  the  Injury,    and   to 
deny  the  Charge.     There  was  no  occafion  for 
the  mentioning  of  Three  Hypojtafes,   till  fuch 
as   "TraxeaSy   Noetus,    and  Sabellius^  had  pre- 
tended to  make,  one  Hypoftafis,  an  Article  of 
Faithj  drawing  many  \QvyNovelj  and  dangerous 
Confequences  from  their  prime  Pofition.    The 
c/jicaViov  it  felf  might  have  been  fpared,    at  leaft 
out  of  the  Creeds,   had  not  a  fraudulent  abufe 
of  good  Words  brought  Matters  to  that  pafsj 
that  the  Catholkk  Faith  was  in  danger  of  being 
loft,   even  under  Catholkk  Language.   To  re- 
turn to  our  Point :  There  would  be  no  occafion 
now  for  diftinguifhing  between  Subordination  of 
Order  and  of  Nature,    were  it  not  manifeft 
how  much  the  Catholick  Faith  may  be  endan- 
gered by  the  endeavors  of  Some,  to  flip  one  up- 
on us  for  the  other.     Such  as  know  any  thing 
oi  fair  Controverfy,  may  juftly  expeftof  you, 
that  you  fupport  your  Caufe,  not  by  repeating 
and  inculcating   the  word    Subordinate   (as  if 
there  was  a  Charm  in  Syllables,  or  Men  were 
to  be   led  away  by  Sounds)    but  by  proving, 
in  a  rational  manner,    that    all  Subordination 
implies  fuch  an  Inferiority  as  you  contend  for. 
If  this  can  be  done,  the  Dodor's   300  Texts 
(which    are    very   good  Texts,    and  have  un- 
doubtedly an   excellent  meaning)    may  appear 
alfo  to  be  pertinent  to  the  Caufe  in  Hand. 

Qjj  E  R  v 


Qu.  XXL      offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.      303 
Query    XXL 

Wljether  He  be  not  forced  to  fupply  his  ^juant 
of  Scripture-proof  by  very  ftrairid  and  remote 
Jnferences,and  very  uncertainReafbnings  from 
the  Nature  of  a  Thing,  confejfedly,  obfctire 
and  above  Comprehenfion ;  and  yet  not  morefo 
than  Gods  Eternity,  Ubiquity,  Prcfciencc, 
or  other  Attributes,  which  we  are  obliged  to 
acknowledge  for  certain  Truths  ? 

TO  the  former  part  of  the  Query,  you 
anfwer  dire[ilj  in  the  Negative.  To 
which  I  rejoin,  that  Lftill  maintain  the  Ajpr- 
wative,  and  can  readily  make  it  good.  The 
Dodor's  infinuating  from  the  3  00  Texts  (which 
ftilethe  Father  GWablblutely,  or  the  one  God) 
that  the  Son  is  not  ftriftly  and  effentially  God, 
not  one  God  with  the  Father,  is  a  ftrain'd  and 
remote  Inference  of  his  own ,  not  warranted  by- 
Scripture,  nor  countenanced  by  Catholick  Anti- 
quity 5  but  Contradictory  to  Both.  Bcfides  this, 
I  muft  obfcrve  to  you,  that  the  main  Strength 
of  the  Dodor*s  Caufe  lies,  firft,  in  his  giving 
cither  a  *  Sabelliany  or  Tritheiflick  turn  (admit- 
ting "f  no  Medium)  to  the  Catholick  Dodrine ; 
and  then  charging  it  with  Confufion  of  Terfons^ 

^See  Injlctnces,  Script.  Do(flr.  p. 99, 102, 293,  42 6, 45_f, firft  Ed, 

Reply,  p.3f,3S,5-i,5-^93»»-^- 

t  Scrip.  Do<ar.p.86,  i32,4'/>430'43i'»437*44i»447»4^i'» 
46/.  firft  Ed. 

X  4  Toly- 


304  :/^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  XXI. 
^olytheifm,  Nonfenfe-,  or  ContradiEiion,  Take 
away  That,  to  which  his  conftant  refort  is, 
whenever  He  comes  to  the  pinch  of  the  Que- 
ftion,  and  there  will  be  little  left  confiderable. 
He  Ihows  his  Reader  Tritheifniy  and  He  (hows 
Him  Sabelliamfm  (keeping  the  Catholkk  Do- 
ftrinc,  which  is  Neither,  out  of  fight)  and  then 
recommends  Arianifm  (difguifed)  to  Him,  as 
the  bcft  of  the  Three.  Now,  fmce  the  Catho- 
lkk Doctrine  has  been  generally  thought  diffe- 
rent from  any  of  the  Three,  and  more  follow- 
ed than  all  the  reft  put  together,  it  ought  to 
have  been  fairly  prefented,  in  company  with 
the  other  5  that  fo  the  Reader,  having  all  the 
Four  before  Him,  might  be  the  more  able  to 
pafs  a  right  Judgment  of  Them,  You  will  fre- 
quently find  the  learned  Dodor  combating  the 
CathGUck  Faith  under  the  Difguife  of  SabelUa- 
Tiijm,  as  if  there  was  no  Difference  betweea 
them :  Or  if  it  be  at  all  diftinguifh'd  from  Sa- 
belllanifm  ^  it  immediately  commences  Tri- 
thetjm  5  and  a  plurality  of  Co-ordinate  Perfons 
is  inevitable  with  the  learned  Dodor:  This 
is  rhe  Sum  of  his  Performance.  Scripture^  in- 
deed, is  brought  in,  and  Fathers  too,  which 
is  ftill  more  furprizing :  But  the  whole,  in  a 
manner,  is  this  one  Syllogifm, 

l'^  the  Son  be  Confubjlantial  with  God  the 
Father,  He  muft  be  eirher  individuallv  or  fpe- 
cificallj  fb :  But  the  former  is  Sabelliamfm^ 
rhe  latter  Tritheifm^  Both  abfurd :  There- 
fore, ^r.— — 

The 


Qu.  XXL  offome  dU  E  R I E  S.  30^ 
The  learned  Dodor  very  well  knows  how 
eafy  it  would  be  to  match  this  Syllogifm,  or  So- 
phifniy  with  others  of  the  like  kind,  againft  Om- 
n'tpre fence-,  Eternity^  Trefcience-,  and  even  Self- 
exiftence :  which,  in  reverence  to  the  Subject,  and 
for  prudential  Reafons,  I  forbear  j  forry  to  find 
the  Caufe  put  upon  fuch  a  way  of  reafoning,  as 
tends  to  undermine  fomething  more  than  the 
Dodtrine  of  the  Trinity.     But  I  proceed. 

To  give  the  better  Colour  to  his  Charge 
of  Tritheifm,  the  Dodor  *  every  where  takes 
it  for  granted  (which  was  the  only  way,  when 
it  could  not  be  proved)  that  God  the  Sou 
cannot  be  really  diftind,  and  ftri6Uy  drcine 
too,  unlefs  He  be  Co-ordinate^  in  all  Rcfpeds, 
with  the  Father ;  which  would  be  contrary  to 
the  Suppofition  of  his  being  a  Son^  and  fecond 
Perfon,  Two  Co-ordinate  Pcrfons,  it  feems,They 
mud  be  5  or  elfe  one  of  them  muft  inevitably 
be  a  Creature:  This  is  plainly  his  meaning, 
however  ftudioufly  He  avoids  the  word  Crea- 
ture 5  chufing  rather  to  infinuatc  covertly,  what 
is  too  grofs  to  appear  in  broad  Terms.  The 
whole,  you  fee,  germinates  in  a  ^Fhilofbphical 
Qucftion:  And  what  occafion  have  we  for 
Scripture,  or  Fathers  (except  it  be  to  amufe 
our  Readers)  if  Thilofophy  can  (o  eafily  end 
theDifpute?  For  it  is  very  certain  that  neither 
Scripture  nor  Fathers  can  add  force  to,  if  con- 
curring 5    nor,    if  reclaiming,    be  able  to  (land 

*  Script.    Do<flr.  p.  86,  415-,  430, 437.441,  447,  4T>"'  4^r- 
firft  Ed.  . 

aiianilr, 


$o6       ^DEFENSE        Qu.XXI. 

againft,  clear  and  evident  Demonftration.  But 
^emonjiration  is  the  thing  wanting:  As  to 
VreftimptionSy  and  Conjectures,  we  are  in  no 
Pain  about  them,  I  fhall  have  a  farther  oc- 
cafion  to  confider  the  Charge  of  Tritheifm 
hereafter;  and  therefore,  difmifling  it  for  the 
prcfent,    ftall  return    to   the  Bufinefs  of  thq 

To  the  latter  part  of  it  you  anfwer,  that 
Ga<fs  Attributes  are  fo  far  from  being  above 
Comprehenfiony  that  they  are  all  firiEtly  de- 
monfirable  by  Reafon,  You  was  fenfible  this 
was  wide  ^  and  therefore  very  juftly  correded 
it,  m  the  Words  immediately  following.  But 
lamwiUingto  fuppofe  (How  could  you  make 
any  doubt  of  it  ? )  that  the  Author  meant j 
that  the  Manner  of  their  Exiftence  in  the 
divine  Naturey  is  above  Comprehenfion\  and  fo 
indeed  it  is.  Very  well  \  and  yet  you  be- 
lieve the  realitj  of  thofe  Attributes.  Why 
then  fb  unequal  and  partial,  with  refped  to 
the  Trinity,  the  Cafe  being  exadly  the  fame  > 
why  may  not  the  Thing  be  true,  though  the 
Manner,  or  Modus  of  it,  be  above  Com- 
prchcnfion  ?  You  add.  Though  the  manner  of 
the  Sons  "Derivation  is  above  Comprehenjion^ 
ret  his  real  Subordination  is  firiEily  demonjlra- 
hky  p.  99. 

Tantamne  Rem  tarn  negligent er  ? 
Here  the  Argument  was,  in  a  manner,  brought 
to  a  Head ;    and  the  Fate  of  the  Controverfy 
depended  on  this  Article.     Here  you  had  a  fair 

Oppor- 


Qli.  XXI.       offome  QUERIES.      307 

Opportunity  given  you  of  laying  on  your 
Charge  of  Contradiftion,  if  you  had  any  you 
could  depend  on  5  and  of  clearing  God's  Attri- 
butes (particularly,  the  Three  mentioned)  from 
being  liable  to  the  fame,  or  the  like  Charge. 
But,  inftead  of  this,  you  walk  calmly  off  with 
one  Sentence;  in  which,  to  be  plain  with  you, 
it  will  be  hard  to  find  cither  Weight,  or  Per- 
tinency. If  you  mean,  by  real  Subordinatioriy 
the  Subordination  of  a  Creature  to  God  j  or  of 
pne  Perfon  inferior  in  Nature  to  another  of  a 
higher  J  fuperior,  or  more  perfect  Nature  -,  it  is 
not  demonftrable  fro?n  Scripture  -y  nor  can  it  any 
way  be  proved :  If  you  mean  any  Thing  clfc, 
it  is  not  pertinent. 

You  are  fo  kind  as  to  allow  the  Mariner  of 
the  Son's  ^Derivation,  or  Generation,  to  be 
above  Compreheyifioru  The  Eunomians,  your 
Predeccffors  in  this  Controvcrfy,  *  thought 
(and  They  thought  right)  that,  in  order  to 
fqpport  their  Caufc,  it  would  be  ncccflary  to 
affirm  the  Nature  of  God  to  hzComprehenfibley 
or  not  above  Human  Comprchcnfion  5  and 
therefore  it  is  that  f  Thtloftorgius  ca-iCuncs  Eufe- 
bins  for  clofing  in  with  the  contrary  Opini- 
on. You  are  more  modcfl:  5  They  more  con(i- 
ftent :  For,  indeed,  this  Controvcrfy,  manag'd 
upon  the  Foot  of  nicer  Rcafon,  terminates  at 
length  in  that    fingle   Qiieftion,    Whether  the 

*  Epiph.  Hiercf.  76.  p.916.  Socrat.E.H.  I.4.C.7.P.  176, 
Theodorit.  H;^rcr.  Fab.  1.  4.  c  5.  Cyril.  Alex.  Thcfaur.  p.  2<$os 
Ed.    Parif.     Chryibftom.  Horn.  17,  Tom.  i.  p.  307. 

I  Phiioflorg.Ub.  i.p.468.  Ed.  Valef. 

Effcncc 


308       ^f   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qu.  XXI, 

E (fence  of  God  be  above  Comprehenjiony  or  no. 
The  Catholicks  flood  up  for  the  Affirmative  ; 
the  wifer,  but  bolder,  Arians  maintained  the 
Negative:  And  this  is  what,  if  you  under- 
ftand  your  own  Principles,  and  will  be  at  the 
Pains  to  trace  Them  to  the  laft  refult,  youll 
be  obliged  to  take  Shelter  in,  or  to  give  up 
your  Caufe,  fo  far  as  concerns  all  Arguments 
drawn  from  the  Nature  and  Reafon  of  the 
Thing.  Some  of  our  Englifh  SocinianSy  have 
exprefs'd  Themfelves  as  roundly,  upon  this 
Head,  as  any  of  the  Antient  Arians,  oiEuno- 
mians  5  declaring  the  divine  Nature  to  be  no 
more  myfterions  than  that  of  his  Creatures. 
Such  AlTlrtions  are  fliockini^;  but  there  is  a 
neceflity  for  them,  if  fome  Men  will  be  confi- 
ftcnt,  and  ingenuous  enough  to  fpeak  out. 
They  would  not  advance  fuch  bold  Paradoxes, 
if  They  were  not  forc'd  to  it. 

Before  I  leave  this  Sluery,  it  will  be  proper 
to  acquaint  our  Readers  what  we  mean  by  be- 
lieving Mj ft  erics.  For  I  find  that  this  is  a 
Matter  which  is  apt  to  give  great  Offence,  and 
to  occafion  many  fad  and  tragical  Complaints. 
*  Dr.  Wkitby  is  one  of  the  moft  confiderablc 
Men  that  I  have  obfervcd  giving  into  that  po- 
pular way  of  Reafoning,  which  had  been  for- 
merly left  (as  it  ought  to  be  ftill)  to  Writers 
of  a  lower  Clafs.  He  is  very  much  difturbed 
that  any  thing  fliould  be  propofed  as  an  Arti- 
(le  of  Faithy  which  is  not  to  be  underJfGod'.  And 

^       *  Difquif .  Modefl.  Prscf.  p.  ip. 

obferves. 


Qii.  XXL       offome  Q^U  ERIE  S.     joi 

obfcrves,  that  no  Man  in  his  fober  Senfcs  can 
give  his  affent  to  what  He  under  ft  ands  not  t 
meaning,  under/lands  not  at  all.  He  is  certain- 
ly very  right,  I  do  not  fay  pertinent,  in  the 
Remark  :  And  I  may  venture  to  add,  that  no 
Man,  whether  fobery  or  otherwife,  can  do  it. 
For,  undoubtedly,  where  there  is  no  Idea^ 
there  can  be  no  Aflent:  becaufc  ajfenting  to 
nothings  is  the  very  fame  with  not  ajfenting. 
Thus  far,  we  are  perfedly  agreed.  But  for  the 
clearing  up  of  this  Matter,  I  fhall  endeavor  to 
reduce  what  relates  to  it,  to  the  following 
Particulars,  as  fo  many  diftind  Cafes. 

r.  Let  the  firft  Cafe  be,  where  the  Terms  of 
a  Propofition,  Subjc£l  and  Predicate  (or  either 
of  Them)  are  not  at  all  undcrftood  by  the  Per- 
fon  to  whom  it  is  given.  For  inftanccj  the 
Words,  JMene  rmiie  Tekel  Upharjin^  carried  no 
Idea  at  all  with  them,  till  the  Prophet  had 
interpreted  them  ;  before  which  King  Bdjloaz- 
zar  could  give  no  Aflent  to  them.  The  fame 
is  the  cafe  of  any  Propofition  given  in  an  un- 
known Language,  or  in  fuch  Words,  of  a  known 
Language,  as  a  Pcrfon  undcrftands  not.  Only, 
I  would  have  it  cbfcrv'd,  that,  in  fuch  a  Cafe, 
a  Man  neither  admits  nor  rcjccls  the  Tropoji- 
tion  5  becaufe  to  Him  it  is  no  Tropojitmi,  but 
meerly  Sounds  or  Syllables. 

2.  A  fecond  Cafe  is,  when  the  Propofition 
is  given  in  a  Language  well  underftood,  and  in 
Words  which  ordinarily  convey  Ideas  to  the 

Minds 


i  16         ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXt 

Mind  5  but  Words  fo  put  together,  in  that  In- 
ftance,  as  to  furnifh  us  with  no  certain  de- 
terminate Meaning.  A  late  Anonymous  Wri- 
ter has  hit  upon  a  very  proper  Example  of 
this  very  Cafe,  ji  Woman  ought  to  have  Tower 
on  her  Heady  becaiife  of  the  Angels,  The 
Words,  Womany  Toouery  Heady  Angelsy  are 
all  plain  Words,  and  carry  with  Them  obvious 
familiar  Ideas,  And  yet  a  Man  may  have  no 
Idea  of  what  is  afTerted  in  that  Propofition; 
and  therefore  can  give  no  affent  to  it,  more 
than  this ;  that  it  is  true  in  fome  Senfe  or  other, 
or  that  fomething  fhould  be  believed,  -if  ^He 
underftood  what:  which  is  not  affenting  to 
that  Propofition,  but  to  Another  5  namely,  that 
"whatever  Scripture  aJfertSy  is  true.  The  afore- 
faid  Author  obferves,  very  fhrewdly,  that  hav- 
ing no  certain  Ideas  of  the  Terms  of  the  Tro- 
pojitiony  it  is  to  Him  a  Myjtery,  I  may  add, 
that  the  Tertinency  of  his  Obfervation  is  ano- 
ther fuch  Myftery }  and  the  Juftice  and  Equity 
of  his  drawing  a  Parallel  between  This,  and 
the  Myjleries  of  Chrijlianityy  properly  fo  cal- 
led, muft  be  a  Myftery  to  as  many  as  cannot 
perceive  cither  the  Senfe  or  the  Ingenuity  of 
doing  it.     But, 

3 .  Another  Cafe  may  be,  when  the  Terms  of 
a  Propofition  are  underftood,  but  are  fo  con- 
nefted  or  divided,  as  to  make  a  Propofition 
manifcftly  repugnant.  A  Triangle  is  a  Square^ 
A  Globe  is  not  roundy  or  the  like.  Such  Pro- 
pofitions  we  reject  5  not  bccaufc  we  do  not  un- 
I  derftand 


Qu.  XXI.     offome  Q.U  E  R I  E  S.        Ui 

dcrftand  Them,  but  becaufc  we  doj  and  under- 
ftand  Them  to  be  Falfe.  Sometimes  indeed  a 
Contradiaion  Ues  conceard  under  the  Word^  it 
is  couch'd  in,  'till  it  be  refolved  into  plainer. 
For  Inftance :  This  Propofition,  The  Exiftence 
of  a  Firfl-Caufe  is demonfirable^  a  Priori:  As 
it  Ues  under  thcfc  Terms,  it  feems  reducible  to 
Cafe  the  Second;  as  being  Sound  without 
Senfe.  But  refolve  it  into  This  ;  There  is  a 
Caufe  prior  to  the  Firft ;  and  then  the  *  Re- 
pugnancy appears.  So  again:  NeceJJity  of 
Exiftence  is  antecedently  ( in  order  of  Na- 
ture) the  Catfe  or  Ground  of  that  Exiftence. 
Thefe  are  only  fo  many  Syllables.  But  put  it 
thus :  A  Troperty  is,  in  order  of  Nature^  an- 
tecedent tOy  and  the  Ground  and  Catfe  of  the 
Subject  "which  fiipports  it ;  and  the  Contradicfion 
is  manifeft.  Once  more:  Neceftlty  abfolute 
and  antecedent  [in  order  of  Nature)  to  the  Exi- 
ftence of  the  Firft  Caufe  muft  operate  every 
where  alike.  This  Propofition  feems  to  fall 
under  Cafe  the  Second.  But  let  it  be  refolved 
into  plainer  Words  j  and  then  it  will  appear 
that  this  is  the  proper  place  for  it. 

4.  A  fourth  Cafe  is,  when  the  Terms  of  the 
Propr^fition  carry  Ideas  with  them,  feerninghy 
but  not  plainly  repugnant.  For  example  :  God 
Czrx ciWiXy  foreknows  Events  depending  ^«  Un- 
certain Carfes.     The  omniprefent  Siibftance  is 

CIqux,  Aicx.Scrom.  p,  6^6, 

not 


31^         ^DEFENSE     QuXXL 

not  extended.  Propofitions  of  this  kind  may 
be,  and  are  affented  to ;  becaufe  there  may  be 
a  greater  Appearance  of  Repugnancy  on  the 
oppofite  Side  of  the  Queftionj  or,  becaufe 
there  is  not  reafon  fufficient  for  fufpending 
Affent. 

5.  A  fifth  Cafe  is,  when  a  Propofition  is 
formed  in  general  Terms,  and  reaches  not  to 
minute  Particulars.  The  pure  in  Heart  Jhall 
fee  God.  The  Phrafe  of  feeing  Gody  conveys 
fome  Ideay  but  general  only  5  not  particular,- 
precife,  or  determinate.  At  Gods  right  Hand 
are  Tleafures  for  evermore.  God's  right  Handi 
and  TleafureSy  we  have  only  general  confufe 
Ideas  oi:  yet  Ideas  we  have;  and  we  affent 
as  far  as  our  Ideas  reach.  Having  no  more 
than  a  general  confufe  Perception,  our  Faith 
in  fuch  Points  can  rife  no  higher,  or  reach  no 
farther  5  nor  can  more  be  expeded  of  us. 

6.  A  fixth  Cafe  is,  when  the  Terms  of  a 
Propofition  convey  Ideas,  but  Ideas  oi pure  In- 
telkci ;  fuch  as  Imagination  can  lay  no  hold 
of.  Philofophcrs  have  illuftrated  this*  by  the 
Inftance  of  a  Chiliagon  and  a  Triangle.  Wc 
underftand  what  is  meant  by  a  Figure  of  a 
Thoufand  Sides,  as  clearly,  as  we  do  what  is 
meant  by  one  of  Three  only :  But  we  imagine 
one  more  diftindly  than  the  other.  This  In- 
ftance belongs  more  properly  to  diflinEi  and 
conftfe  Imagination,  than  to  the  purpofe  it  is 
brought  for.  Ideas  of  Numbers,  in  the  Ab- 
ftrad,    are  properly  Ideas  of  pure  IntelleEt: 

And 


Qu.  XXI.      of  fame  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.        313 

And  fo  arc,  or  fliould  be,  our  I^eas  of  ourown 
Souls,  of  Angelsy  of  God:  Wc  may  under fiand 
fcvcral  Things  of  them ,  but  Imagination  has 
very  little  to  do  in  fuch  Matters.  However, 
our  iK>t  being  able  to  imagine^  provided  we  do 
but  tinderjland,  is  no  hindrance  to  our  Aflcnt, 
in  Propofitions  of  this  kind. 

7,  The  lall  and  caficft  Cafe  is,  when  the 
Terms  convey  full  and  flrong  Ideas  to  the  Un- 
d-r (landing  and  Imagination  al-fo.  For  inftance  : 
The  Man  Chrift  Jefus  ate^  drank,  flcptj  was 
crucified y  died,  and  was  buried,  &c.  Here,  all 
is  cafy,  clear,  and  plain,  even  to  Thofe  who 
love  not  to  think  upon  the  Stretch,  or  to  be 
under  any  pain  in  Allcnting. 

Now  for  the  Application  of  the  foregoing 
Particulars  to  the  point  in  Hand.  Thofe  Ar- 
ticles of  Faith,  which  the  Church  has  called 
MyfterieSy  belong  not  to  Cafe  the  frji  or  fe- 
cond,  wherein  no  Aflent  can  be  given :  Or  if 
They  do.  They  are  no  Articles  of  Faith,  but 
fo  many  Sounds  or  Syllables.  It  is  to  be  hoped. 
They  come  not  under  Cafe  the  third:  For 
plain  Contradictions  are  certainly  no  MyflerieSy 
any  more  than  plain  Truths  5  as  is  jullly  ob- 
ferved  by  the  learned  *  Dr.  Clarke.  For  the 
fame  reafon,  They  fall  not  under  Cafe  the  fe- 
venth,  where  every  thing  is  fuppofed  diftincl, 
clear,  and  particular  as  can  bedciucd.  What- 
ever  is  plainly  reducible   to  any  of    the  four 

*  Rcplv,  p.  58. 

■        V  Cafes 


314        ^DEFENSE       Qli.XXI. 

Cafes  now  mentioned,  is  either  no  Matter  of 
Faith  at  all,  or  no  Myftery,  There  remain 
three  Cafes ;  where  the  Ideas  are  either  feem- 
ingly  repugnant,  or  fuch  as  reach  not  to  T^ ar- 
ticular Sy  or  fuch  as  Imagination  has  no  con- 
cern with.  AfTcnt  may  be  given  in  all  thefe 
Cafes,  as  hath  been  already  obfervcd  5  and  fo, 
poflibly,  here  we  may  find  Articles  of  Faith : 
And,  if  fome  Gentlemen  will  give  us  leave, 
alter  we  have  thus  explained  what  we  mean  by 
the  Term,  we  will  call  fuch  Articles  Myfteries. 
For  Example. 

The  Belief  of  Three  Terfons  every  one  fing- 
ly  Gody  and  All  together  one  God,  feems  to 
fall  under  Cafe  the  fourth :  The  Ideas  zitfeem- 
ingljy  not  really,  repugnant.  We  know  what 
we  mean,  in  laying  every  one,  as  clearly  as  if 
we  faid,  anyone,  is  God-,  a  Perfon  having  fuch 
and  fuch  eff^entialYzxi^Cdons,  We  fee  not  per- 
fectly how  this  is  reconciled  with  the  Belief  of 
one  God,  as  we  fee  not  how  Trefcience  is  re- 
conciled with  futttre  Contingents,  Yet  we  be- 
lieve Both,  not  doubting  but  that  there  is  a 
Connexion  of  the  Ideas,  tho'  our  Faculties  reach 
not  up  to  it. 

Omnipre  fence,  I  think,  is  another  My  fiery, 
and  falls  chiefly  under  Cafe  the  fifth.  We  have 
a  general  confufc  Idea  of  it,  and  mean  fome- 
thing  by  it.  'ThQ  particular  manner  how  it  is, 
Ave  have  no  Notion  of;  and  therefore  are  not 
obliged  to  believe  any  particular  Modus.  Fix 
upon  this  or  that,  there  are  appearing  Repug- 
nancies 


Qu.  XXL     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.         ^  5 

nancies  and  Inconfiflcncicsj    and  fo  far,  this  is 
reducible  to  Cafe  the  fourth^  as  well  as  fifth. 

The  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  ano- 
ther Myflerj,  and  comes  under  Cafe  the  fourth 
and  fifth.  There  are  fome  feem'mg,  not  real 
Repugnancies;  and  the  Ideas  we  have  of  it 
are  general  and  confufe,  not  particular  nor 
fpecial.  Such  as  our  Ideas  are,  fuch  mufl:  our 
Faith  be  j  and  we  cannot  believe  farther  than 
we  conceive,  for  Believing  is  Conceiving ;  con- 
ftifely,  if  Ideas  are  confnfely ;  generally,  if  ^^7^^^- 
r^/j  diftin^ily  and  adequately ,  if  difiinEi  and 
adequate. 

The  Generation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  ano- 
ther My  fiery.     Ideas  we  have  of  it,  and  know 
what   we   mean    by  it.      But  being  Spiritual 
Imagination  can  lay  no  hold  of  them ;  being 
general  and  confufe,   we  cannot  reach  to  !P<^r- 
ticulars  ;    and  being  fcemingly  repugnant,    we 
cannot  make  out  the  intire  Connexion.     Equa- 
lity of  Nature  (which  is  part  of  the  Notion) 
is  a  geyieral  Idea,    and  well  undcrftood ;     Re- 
ference   to    a    Head  or  Fountain,    is  general 
too,    but    more   confufe,    and  bcfides,  figura- 
tive;  Eternal  Reference  very  confufcy  as  the 
Idea  of  Eternity  neceffarily  mud:  be ;  Infepa- 
rabilttyy  is  general,  obfcure,  negative,    and  we 
know  but  very  impcrfeully   whar  the  Union  of 
Spiritual  Things  means.     Ncverthelefs  wc  un- 
derfiand  enough    (tho'  we  can  imagine   little) 
to  make  it  properly  an  Article  of  Belief;    and 
no  Man  can  rcafonably  pretend  to  rcjed  it,  as 
Y  2  havinc: 


3  16         -^DEFENSE      a^-XXI. 

having  no  Meaning,  or  carrying  no  Idea  at  all 
with  it.  We  affent  as  far  as  our  Ideas  reach,  for 
we  can  do  no  more  :  We  believe  in  party  what 
is  revealed  in  part  j  our  Faith  keeping  pace 
with  our  Ideasy  and  ending  where  They  end. 

The  Simplicity  of  God  is  another  Myjlery^ 
of  which  we  havefome,  but  a  very  imperfcd, 
general,  and  obfcure  Idea,  It  may  fall  under 
Caje  the  fifth  and  fixth.  Scripture  fays  little  of 
it :  We  have  took  it  chiefly  from  Metaphy- 
Jicksy  which  are  fhort  and  defedive.  When 
we  come  to  inquire,  whether  all  extevfipriy  or 
all  plurality y  diverfitjy  Compofition  of  Sitb- 
fiance  and  Accident y  and  the  like,  be  confiflcnt 
with  it,  then  it  is  that  we  difcover  how  con- 
fiufe  and  inadequate  our  Ideas  are.  And  hence 
it  is,  that  while  all  Parties  admit  the  divine 
Simplicity y  in  the  general,  yet  when  they  come 
to  be  prefs'd  with  it  in  Difpute,  they  often  give 
different  accounts  of  it ;  and  eafily  fo  explain 
and  (late  the  Notion,  as  to  miake  it  fait  with 
their  particular  Schemes.  To  this  Head  belongs 
that  perplexing  Quellion  (befetwith  Difficulties 
on  all  Sides)  whether  the  divine  Subftance  be 
extended  or  no.  And  if  Extenfion  be  admit- 
ted, in:^cnlous  thoughtful  Men  will  divide  again, 
upon  another  Qiicftion,  whether  infi.nite  or  no  ; 
Some  thinking  it  very  ablurd  for  any  Attribute 
of  God,  not  to  be  infinite  j  Others  thinking  it 
no  Icfs  abfurd  to  admit  any  infi7iite  Extenfion, 
Number y  or  the  like,  at  all.  They  thatfuppofe 
the  divine  Subftance  extended^  lell  they  fliould 

be 


Qu.XXr.      of  fame  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.        317 

be  oblig'd  to  conceive  it  as  a  point  only;  and 
left  they  fliould  admit  that  any  thing  can  act 
where  it  is  not,  arc,  wlicn  prcfs'd  with  Diffi- 
culties about  Aliquot  Tarts,  forced  to  adniit 
that  any  part  of  That  Subftance,  how  great 
foever,  or  of  whatever  Dimenfions,  muft  be 
conceived  only  as  d.  point,  in  proportion  to  the 
whole:  From  whence  it  follows,  that,  unlcfs 
the  World  be  infinite y  all  that  a^s  (of  that  in- 
finite Subftancc)  in  the  Worlds  is  but  a  point  i 
and  fo  the  whole  Sub  fiance,  except  that  pointy 
either  arts  not  at  all  in  tlu:  IVorld,  or  acls  where 
it  is  not.      'Jut  to  proceed. 

S^l^ txi'ience  is  another  Myjlcry,  of  which 
\vekri<^'  little:  And  the  learned  are  hardly 
agreed  wiKther  it  be ^ntgative  01  pofitrce  Idea. 
Yet  every  body  believes  it  in  the  grofs,  con- 
fiifedly  and  undeter  niy/ately.  It  is  manifeft,  on 
one  hand,  that  the  ;?>//  Caufe  has  no  Caitfe, 
neither  it  felf  (much  ieis  any  property  of  it  felf ) 
nor  any  thing  elfe :  And  yet  it  may  fee  n  very 
wonderful  how  any  thing  fhoald  exift  without  a 
Rcaibn  a  priori  5  that  is,  without  a  Caufe  tor  it  *. 

To  name  no  more :  Eternity  it  felf  is  the 
greateft  M)fiery  of  all.  An  Eternity  pa(l,  is 
a  Thought  which  puzzles  all  our  Philofophy  5 
and  is  too  hard  for  the  fliarpcft  Wits  to  re- 
concile. The  Nunc  dans  of  the  Schools 
(though  older  than  the  Srhools)  has  been  ex- 
ploded 5   and   yet  Succefjlm  carries  with  it  in- 

T7,c^^f/j-^,Ti  z!-x'^  sripa  TO  iJvcn  t'^acrxv.  Chryf.  Horn.  if.  Tom.  i .  p.  29S. 

Y  3  fuperablc 


318        A  DEFENSE        Qu.XXL 

fuperable  Difficulties.  There  is  nothing  pecu- 
liar to  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity,  any  Thing 
near  fo  perplexing  as  'Eternity  is :  And  yet  the 
Gentlemen,  who  are  for  difcarding  Myfteries^ 
are  forced  to  believe  it.  I  know  no  Remedy 
for  thefe  Things,  but  an  humble  Mind  5  a  juft 
Senfe  of  our  Ignorance  in  many  Things,  and  of 
ourimpcrfcdt  Knowledge  in  all.  Now  to  re- 
turn to  the  learned  Dr.  IVhitby. 

After  a  view  of  the  Premifes,  it  might  be 
proper  to  ask  Him,  whether  He  diflikes  the 
Catholick  Doftrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  as 
perrercing  ContradiBtons  in  it.  If  this  be  the 
Cafe,  however  conccrn'd  I  am  for  that  Do- 
drine (believing  it  to  be  true)  I  will  venture  to 
fay,  it  would  be  an  acceptable  Piece  of  Service, 
if  He  could  any  way  help  others  to  perceive 
them  too.  Truth,  certain  Truth,  will  be  al- 
ways welcome,  in  any  Caufe,  and  from  any 
Hand,  to  all  fobcr  and  confiderate  Men.  But 
if  this  fliould  be  done,  He  fliould  not  then  com- 
plain that  He  tinder  ft  ands  not  the  Doftrine, 
but  that  He  underjlands  (i.  e.  difiintflj'  per- 
ceives) it  to  be  Falfe, 

If  He  means  that  He  has  no  Idea  at  all  of 
the  Myjlery^  not  fo  much  as  a  getieral^  ccn- 
ftife^  or  inadequate  Apprehcnfion  of  it ;  That 
niuft  be  a  miftake  :  as  may  appear  from  what 
hath  been  before  obfcrvcd.  Befidcs  that  hav- 
ing once,  or  oftncr,  wrote  for  it  \  (rho'  He 
has  fince  laboured  very  much  to  perplex,  puz- 
zle,   and  difparage  it)  every  candid  Man  muft 

believe 


Qu.  XXL      offome  QUERIES.         3 1 9 

believe  that  He  underftood,  in  fome  mcafurc, 
formerly,  what  He  engaged  in  the  Proof  of. 

If  the  Cafe  be,  that  He  does  not  throughly, 
fully,  and  adequately  comprehend  it,  and  there- 
fore demurs  to  it ;  then  it  fhould  be  confidcred, 
that  the  refult  of  all  is  this  only ;  that  He  will 
not  admit  fo  far  as  He  may  underftand,  unlefs 
He  may  have  the  privilege  to  underftand  fome- 
thing  more :  Which  whether  it  be  not  too  fami- 
liar from  a  Creature  towards  his  Creator^  and 
articling  more  ftridly  with  Almighty  God  than 
becomes  Us,  let  any  wife  Man  judge. 

If,  laftly,  it  be  pretended  that  it  is  a  Human^ 
not  a  TDivhie  Doctrine,  which  He  is  pleafed 
to  quarrel  with;  let  Him  cenfure  it  as  Hu- 
man and  Unfcripttiral  only;  and  not  as  un- 
intelligible,  and  impojjihle  to  be  afjented  to : 
And  then  we  may  bring  the  Caufe  to  a  fliort 
Iffue,  by  inquiring  whether  the  Dodrine  be 
Scriptural,  or  no.  Let  Things  be  called  by 
their  right  Names,  and  fct  in  their  true  and 
proper  Light  -,  that  Truth  may  not  be  fmothcr'd, 
nor  any  Doclrine  fefpecially  fo  Anticnt  and  fo 
Important  a  Dodrine)  condemn'd,  before  we 
know  why.  So  much  we  owe  to  the  Church  of 
Chrift,  which  receives  this  Faith  ;  tothcBlclfcd 
Saints  and  Martyrs,  many  Centuries  upwards, 
who  lived  and  died  in  it;  to  Truth,  to  God,  and 
to  our  Selves,  as  to  fee  that  it  be  tairly  and  im- 
partially examin'd  -,  that  proving  all  ThingSy 
as  we  ought  to  do,  in  Sincerity  and  Singlcnefs 
of    Heart,   we  may,  at  length,    be  both  wife 

Y  4  cnouiih 


320  [/^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qii.  XXI. 
enough  to  know,  and  fuitably  difpofcd  to  hold 
faji  that  "which  is  good. 

It  is  excellently  rcniark'd  by  the  ingenious 
Mr.  E?jiljn,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  *  Narra- 
tive :  "  Thnt  the  Holy  Scriptures  require  no 
"  accurate  Philofophical  Notions  of  God's  E- 
^'  ternity,  Omnifrefence^  and  Immen(ity^  &c. 
"  They  are  content  to  give  us  popular ,  ea(y 
^^  accounts  of  thefe  Matters— —  They  trouble 
"  not  Men  with  the  Niceties  of  eternal  Siic- 
"  ceJJJons^  or  an  eternal  to  vuv,  without  Sue- 
"  cejjion-^  no"^  \jith.  infinite  Spaces,  or  of  God's 
^'  being  prefent  in  part,  or  in  ^ji'hole ;  and  the 
"  like  rnetaphyfical  Difficulties. — -Our  Rcli- 
"  gion  impofes  no  fuch  Difficulties  on  us,  of 
"  believing  v/ith  the  Undcrftandinp;,  what  we 
*'  cannot  lb  much  as  perceive  by  ir  ^  it  only 
^'  requires  us  to  believe  what  it  reveals  to 
"  us,  /.  e.  to  our  Underfianding  and  Appre- 
^'  henf.on. 

All  this  is  very  rightly  and  judicioufly  ob- 
fervcd.  God's  Eternity  and  Om7iipre fence  v/c 
have  only  general  and  confufc  Ideas  of  5  Scrip- 
ture has  not  revealed  to  us  the  particular  77W- 
diis,  or  minute  Circumdanccs  of  Either ;  and 
we  are  not  obliged  to  believe,  any  other- 
wife  than  as  we  apprehend  ii.  e.  confufely 
and  inadequately)  nor  indeed  is  it  polTiblc. 
The  fame  is  the  Cafe  of  three  Perfons,  every 
one  truly  God,  and  all  but  ^;;'6^  G^^^-  To  far  evi- 
dent from  Scripture,  and  apprehended,  in  the  gc- 

ncral, 


Qu.  XXI.      of  fome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       321 

ncral,  as  fully  and  clearly  (perhaps  more  fo) 
as  Eternity,  Omniprefence,  or  the  like.  But 
the  particular  modtis.  How  the  Three  are  Onej 
and  the  minute  Circumftanccs  of  their  Union 
and  "Diftinffion  ,  are  as  much  a  fecrct  to  us, 
as  how  God  forefecs  future  Contingents,  or 
is  prefent  in  all  places  at  once,  ^lany  have 
been  prying  and  inquifitive  into  this  Mat- 
ter, hoping  to  know  fomething  more  parti- 
cularly of  it,  till  they  have  come  to  doubt 
even  of  the  Thing  it  felf,  and  fo  have  fallen 
into  Herefy:  And  Cathoticks  have  fome- 
times  exceeded  in  this  way,  endeavoring  to 
explain  beyond  their  Ideas  j  which  is  really  no- 
thing clfe  but  multiplying  Words.  The  A^^- 
tion  is  foon  fl:;.ted,  and  lies  in  a  little  Compafs. 
All  that  Words  are  good  for,  after,  is  only  to 
fix  and  preferve  that  Hot  ion,  which  is  not  im- 
proveable  (without  a  new  Revelation)  by  any 
new  Idea  5  but  may  be  obfcured  and  ftifled  in 
a  multitude  of  Words.  The  mofl:  ufefal  words, 
for  fixing  the  Notion  of  Diftincfion,  are  Ter- 
fon,  Hypoftafis,  Subfiftence,  and  the  like:  For 
the  T>ivi?2fty  of  each  Perlbn,  o.aosVfc?  ^'ysvnrcr, 
eternal,  uncreated,  immutable,  &:c.  For  their 
Union-,  -uri^iy^csjfr.jiC',  interior  Generation,  ^Pro- 
ve//ton,  or  the  like.  The  defign  of  thefe 
Terms  is  not  to  enlarge  our  Views,  or  to  add 
any  thing  to  our  Stock  of  Ideas ;  but  to  fe- 
cure  the  plain  fundamental  Truth,  that  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  arc  all  (Iridly  divine  and 
uncreated',    and  yet  are  not  three  Gods,    but 

one 


322  ^DEFENSE  Qii.XXL 
one  God.  He  that  believes  this  fimply,  and 
in  the  general,  as  laid  down  in  Scripture,  be- 
lieves enough  5  and  need  never  trouble  his  Head 
with  nice  Qucftions,  whether  the  Union  of  three 
Perfons  fhould  be  called  individual  or  fpeci- 
fick  5  whether  'Perfon  and  Being  are  reciprocal 
Terms  j  whether  every  Perfon  may  be  properly 
faid  to  be  Self-exifient  5  how  three  Perfons  can 
be  all  in  the  fame  Place  5  whether  all  Perfe^i- 
on  misiht  not  as  well  have  been  confined  to  one 
P^  erf  on  only  y  or  whether  One  might  not  have 
been  as  good  as  Three^  and  the  like.  Thefe 
are  difficile s  ntig£y  moftly  verbal,  or  vain  In- 
quiries j  and  do  not  concern  common  Chriftians, 
any  farther  than  to  be  upon  their  Guard,  that 
they  be  not  impofed  on  by  thefe  Siibtilties, 
invented  to  puzzle  and  perplex  a  plain  Scrip- 
ture Truth,  which  is  eafiiy  perceived  and  un- 
derflood  in  the  general,  that  is,  as  far  as  re- 
quired to  be  believed.  Minute  Particulars  a- 
bout  the  modus,  may  be  left  to  the  PDifputers 
of  this  World,  as  a  Trial  of  their  good  Senfc, 
their  Piety,  Modcfty,  and  Humility. 

We  do  not  take  it  well  to  be  rcproaclVd,  as 
running  too  far  into  Metaphyfical  Subtiltics,  by 
Men  whofe  peculiar  Talent  it  is,  to  play  their 
Metaphyficks,  (that  is,  their  Prefumptions  a- 
bout  the  Nature  of  a  Thing  whereof  they  know 
little)  againft  Scripture  and  Antiquity,  the  bed 
Guides  in  thofe  Searches.  If  the  Catkolicks 
have  fometimes  gone  farther  than  was  neccfiary, 
in  particular  Explications,   it  Oiould  be  rcmcm- 

befd 


Qii.XXI.  offomeQSIEKlES,  325 
ber'd  for  whofe  fake  They  did  it  ;  and  that  it 
was  chiefly  with  a  view  to  fatisfy  fuch  as  would 
not  be  contented  with  the  general  Truth 
laid  down  in  Scripture.  I  fliall  fhow,  by  an 
Infl:ance  or  two,  how  that  Matter  is.  The 
'usi^iy^^^r^'j],^^  and  Interior  Generation^  are  two 
Specialities  taught  by  the  CathoUcks,  and 
heavily  complain'd  of  by  your  Friend  *  Dr. 
Whitby,  as  unfcriptttral  Definitions.  Now, 
thefe  are  but  Appendages  to  our  Prime  (and  as 
we  think  Scriptural)  Pofitions,  and  we  are  no 
farther  concern'd  for  Them,  than  as  they  are 
concciv'd  to  hang  upon  the  other ;  fo  that  your 
quarrel  with  us  for  thefe,  is  really  finding  fault 
with  our  leading  and  fundamental  Doclrine  of 
One  God  in  Three  ^erfons.  But  to  fliow  you,  how 
unequal  you  are  in  cenfuring  us  for  unfcriptural 
Terms,  obfcrve  the  Courfe  and  Method  of  Di- 
fpute  which  draws  us  fit'ft  into  them.  You  argue, 
fuppofc,  that  the  Son  cannot  be  God,  in  the  ilricl 
Scnfe,  without  making  Tivo  Gods :  We  anfwcr, 
that  Father  and  Son,  by  a  moft  intimate  and  in- 
effable Union  of  Subflance,  Willy  Tcji'er,  Tre- 
fence.  Operation,  &c.  (which  we  call  -^^^^x'^- 
er,:r{b)  may  be  one  God.  You  argue  again,  that 
if  the  Son  be  a  Son,  in  our  Scnfe,  there  muft 
be  a  drcijion  and  fe par  ate  Exiftcnce  :  We  fay. 
No;  allcdglng  that  Ha  may  be  a  Son  in  a  /r^- 
/'^r  Scnfe,  and  in  our  Scnfe,  without  'Diuijion 
and  without  a  feparate  Exiftcnce  5  and  the  name 

*  Difquifit.  Modeil.  Prxf.;.  i(5. 

for 


324         ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XXI, 

for  this  is  Interior  Generation.  After  we  are 
come  thus  far,  purfuing  your  wandrings  into 
the  Thilofopky  of  the  Thing;  you  dcp  back 
again,  and  tells  us,  that  Scripture  fays  nothing 
of  this'rars^;;^-wpy:jK,  or  interior  Generation.  Sup- 
posing (not  granting)  your  Pretence  true  5  Did 
You  fet  out  upon  the  Foot  of  Scripture?  Does 
Scripture  any  where  tell  you,  that  two  divine 
Perlons  cannot  be  one  God  ?  Or  that  Father 
and  Son  muft  have  a  feparate  Exifience  ?  You 
argue  only  from  the  Nature  and  Reafon  of  the 
Thing  it  felf,  of  which  you  have  no  adequate 
Idea-y  and  we  anfwer  what  is  fufficient,  and 
more  than  fufficient  to  confute  mere  Conjeftures 
in  Matters  above  your  reach.  Lay  You  afide 
your//;^/^f/'^/'//r^/Obje£i:ions,  and  We  fhall  have 
no  occafion  for  unfcriptiiral  Anfwcrs. 

1  fh:Jl  juft  take  notice  of  an  artificial  Turn  of 
Mr.  jE/^Z/^-Zs,  relating  to  this  Subjed;  and  then 
put  an  end  to  this  long,  but,  Thope;ufeful  Di- 
greilion.  His  Words  are  as  follow  :  "^  "  The 
"  ^r/^^^/ i?(f^/2>/^,  which  hindrcd  (fheTagan 
**  Thilofophers)  from  believing  in  Chrid,  did 
"  not  lie  in  rcfufing  to  fubmit  their  Faith  to 
'-  wyfterioiis  Speculations,  which  puzzled  their 
"  Reafon:  But,  on  the  Contrary,  it  lay  in  a 
*'  proud  AfFcdation  of  Swelling  Words  and 
"  Philofophick  Myfteries,  and  not  humbling 
"  their  Underftandings  to  receive  a  plain  Go- 
" ,  fpel,  and  familiar  Doclrinc. 

The  Thought  is  ingenious,   and  might  pafs 

*  Exam,  of  Dr,  Bennet,  c^r.  p.  f .  Introditci, 

well  y 


Qii.  XXI.       offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.        325 

well  5  \f  Hijiory,  Y\k<:AIetaphyficalArgurnc?itSy 
were  to  be  made  merely  by  ftrength  of  Wit.  He 
forgers  that  the  Myftery  of  the  RefnrreEiion  was 
one  of  thofe  plain  familiar  Things,  which  the 
'^Fride  of  their  Reafbn  refufcd  to  fubmit  to.  He 
confiders  not  that  the  Jews^  and  the  carliefl:  He- 
reticks  (much  of  the  fame  Temper  with  the  Ta- 
gan  Philofophcrs)  were  offended  at  nothing 
more  than  at  the  Myflery  of  God  incarnate ; 
which  we  learn  from  IgnatinSy  Juflin^  ^  Ire- 
7i£USy  ^Tertulliany  and  ""  other  anticnt  Wri- 
ters: And  he  need  but  look  into  Jiifliny 
TatiaUy  and  Origen^  to  find  that  the  TaganSy 
in  particular,  were  in  the  fame  Sentiments,  and 
join'd  in  the  fame  common  Charge  againfi:  the 
Chriftian  Doctrine.  Nay,  it  may  farther  ap- 
pear, from  other  ^  Evidences,  that  the  very 
Mjfierj  of  the  Trinity^  which  is  the  Rock  of 
Offence  to  fome  even  at  this  Time,  gave  very 
early  Offence  to  the  Tagan  Wits;  and  was 
much  difrelifh'd  by  Them :  So  averfe  were  They 
to  the  receiving  of  Myfleries :  And  the  Fride 
of  Reafon  wrought,  at  that  Time,  much  after 
the  fame  manner,  as  it  docs  at  this  day ;    Hu- 

■  Secundum  nullam  Scntentiam  HoErcticcrum  Verbum  Dei 
caro  facftum  eft.  Iren.  ].  3.  c.  11.  p.  189. 

^  Incredibile  prsrumplerant  Deum  Carnem.  Tcrtnll.  Contr. 
Marc.  ].  5.  c.  8. 

•^  Alii  quoquc  Harretici  ufquc  adco  Chrifti  inanircflara  amplcx- 
ati  funt  Diviniratcm,  ut  dixcrint  Ilium  fuillc  fine  C.irnc5  &  To- 
tum  illi  iuiceptum  derraxcrint  Hominera,  nc  decoqucrint  in  illo 
Divini  nominis  poteftatem  fi  Humanam  illi  Sociaflcnr,  ut  arbi- 
trabantur,  Nativiiatcm.     A^o^vr/.  c.  18. 

^  Lucian.  Philopatr.  Athan.  Orat.  p.y64, 

man 


326        y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.  XXII. 

man  Nature  being  always  the  fame.     But  it  is 
now  high  time  to  proceed. 

(^  U   E    R  Y      XXII. 

Whether  his  (the  Doftor's)  'whole  Performance^ 
whene'ver  He  dijfers  from  uSy  be  any  thing 
more  than  a  Repetition  of  this  Ajfertion,  That 
Being  and  Pcrfon  are  the  fame,  or  that  there 
is  no  Medium  between  Tritheifm  and  Sabel- 
lianifm  ?  TVhich  is  removing  the  Caufe  from 
Scripture  to  natural  Reajon^  not  very  conji- 
flently  with  the  Title  of  his  Book. 

IT  is  of  fmall  Importance  to  obferve  how 
the  Do£lor  has  proved  fuch  Points,  as  He 
and  We  Both  agree  in.  He  might  have  fpared 
the  unncceffary  Pains  and  have  took  a  fhortcr 
way  with  us,  had  his  Caufe  been  fuch  as  could 
be  fervcd  by  clofe  Argument.  He  need  not 
have  told  us  fo  often  that  the  Father  is  emi- 
mntly  ftilcd  the  one  God,  or  that  the  Son 
is  Subordinate,  We  allow  all  That :  The  Con- 
fequcnce  which  He  draws  from  it,  and  co- 
vertly infmuatcs  to  his  Reader,  is  the  Thing 
we  doubt  of  This  was  the  Point  which  fliould 
have  been  labour'd,  for  the  Convidlion  of  wife 
r;nd  confidcring  Men.  He  has  a  deal  to  fay  in 
Defence  of  what  no  Body  oppofes  ^  and  may 
there  triumph  fecurely  without  an  Adverfary : 
But  when  He  comes  to  the  '^Point  o^'DifferencCy 
the  Ti77ch  o(  the  ^leJUon^  there  it  is  that  He 
I  dif- 


Qii.  XXII.     of  fame  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       327 

discovers  his  want  of  Proof,  and  how  Httlc  he 
has  to  depend  on,  bcfides  that  one  precarious 
Principle  intimated  in  the  ^fery^  which  in- 
deed runs  thro'  his  whole  Performance,  and  is 
often  fiippos'd^  but  never  provd. 

By  this  Principle  He  ^  eludes  the  Force  of  the 
firft  Chapter  of  St.  y^/?w's  Gofpel :  And  He  re- 
fers to  it  again  upon  ^  AEis  20.28.^1  Tim.  3.16. 
John  5.18.  By  the  fame  Principle,  He  evades 
the  Force  of  '^  Job,  8. 5  8.  ""Job.  12.41.  ^  Job. 
5.23.  And  fo  He  might  have  done  with  any 
Number  of  Texts,  however  full  and  exprefs 
for  the  Received  Do6lrine :  For,  by  the  fame 
g  Maxim,  He  draws  over  the  Nicene-Ci'ccdy 
and  docs  not  defpair  of  bringing  in  the  ''  yltba- 
nafian  alfo.  From  hence  it  is  vifible,  wherein 
the  ftrcngth  of  his  Performance  lies;  and  what 
it  is  that  He  chiefly  trufts  to.  It  is  not  Scrip- 
tare,  it  is  not  Antiquity,  but  a  Tbtlofophical 
Principle ;  to  which  Scripture,  Fathers,  Coun- 
cils, Creeds,  every  Thing  mufl:  yield.  And  in- 
deed had  it  been  a  Principle  of  true  and  found 
Philofophy,  every  reafonablc  Man  would  be 
willing  to  pny  the  utmofi:  Deference  to  it :  But 
it  appears,  at  length,  to  be  that  kind  of  vain 
Thilofopby,  which  is  often  intruding  where  it 
has  nothing  to  do.  The  Subjecl  is  fublime  and 
above  Comprehcnfion.  We  have  no  intrinfick 
Evidence,  no  Ideas  to  build  any  thing  certain- 

"  Script.Doa:r.p.S6.  "IJ.  p.Sj.  ^Id.p.8S,97.  Md. 
p. 99.  *"p.  10?..  'p.  132.  fp46j.  "^  p.  42S,p.43o, 
43;'>  &<^-  firft  Ed. 


328      ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XXII. 

ly  upon.  Extrinfick  Evidence,  T>ivine  Reve- 
lation, is  here  all  in  all ;  And  the  only  pro- 
per ule  of  our  rational  Faculties,  is  to  inquire 
into  the  true  and  genuine  Scnfe  of  it.  Tophi- 
lofophize  here  from  the  Nature  and  Reafon 
of  the  Thing  it  felf,  of  which  we  know  little, 
is  chufing  to  be  ftill  in  the  Dark,  when  we  have 
Light  before  us  5  and  is  not,  properly,  follow- 
ing our  ReafoUy  but  our  Conceits^  Fancies^  and 
fond  Conjethires,  You  are  pleafed  to  fay,  in 
Defence  of  the  learned  Doctor,  that  if  He  had 
done  no  7nGre  than  proved  intelligent  Being  and 
Perfon  to  be  the  fame,  it  miifl  for  ever  rewain 
an  tmafwerable  T^ijficulty ,  &c.  Right,  if  He 
had  proved  what  He  has  not,  fomething  might 
be  faid.  I  have  *  before  obferved  to  you,  that 
the  word,  Being,  bears  two  Senfes ;  and  that 
you  your  Selves  will  not  call  any  thing  a  Be- 
ing, but  a  feparate  Being.  Excufe  the  Trini- 
tarians for  being  refervcd,  after  your  Example, 
in  fo  tender  a  point  5  and  for  endeavoring 
to  {'^z:i\<  properly,  as  well  as  to  think yV////y,  in 
tilings  pertaining  unto  God.  All  that- the  Do- 
dor  hath  proved,  or  can  prove,  is  only  this ; 
that  feparate  Pcribns  are  fo  many  intelligent  Be- 
ings-, which  we  readily  admit:  "But  united  Vq^- 
fons,  or  Perfons  having  no  feparate  Exijlence, 
may  be  one  Beijig,  one  Subfiancey  one  God, 
notwithdanding.  And  that  you  may  not  think 
that  I  skrccn  my  felf  under  dark  Words,  or 
obfcure  Diflindlions,  I  will  tell  you  frankly  the 

*  Qu.  9.  p.  iC-;, 

mean- 


Qu.  XXII.     offome  (QUERIES.       329 

meaning  of  what  I  have  now  laid.  It  is  lit- 
tle more  than  this,  that  Pcrfons  lb  united  as 
to  make  one  Beings  may  be  07Je  Being.  I  lup- 
pole  the  Ajjirmative-,  that  They  may  be  fo  uni- 
ted s  having  fufficicnt  Grounds  for  it  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  in  Catholick  Antiquity.  It  lies  up- 
on you,  in  this  Gale,  to  prove  the  Negativey 
njiz>.  that  no  Union,  whatever,  can  make  two 
PcvCons  one  Being,  oneroSeiov^  one  God:  You 
arc  to  fhow  the  Suppofition  to  be  impofTible,  in 
the  Nature  of  the  Thinii; :  That  is  (as  I  humbly 
conceive)  you  are  to  prove  what  you  can  know 
nothing  ofj  and  arc  to  work  up  a  Demonftra- 
tion  without  Ideas.  There  the  Matter  rcfts, 
and,  I  am  pcrfuaded,  mud  reft,  till  you  pleafc 
to  come  out  of  Aletaphyficksy  and  to  put  the 
Caufe  upon  the  Foot  of  Scripture  and  Anti- 
quity,  the  only  Lights  in  this  Matter.  Strange 
that,  at  this  Time  of  Day,  Any  need  to  be  told 
(what  *  Unbelievers  only  doubted  of  formerly) 
that  Scripture  is  our  Rule  to  go  by,  for  form- 
ing our  Notions  of  God;  and  not  the  light  of 
Nature,  which  is  darkncls  in  Compariibn. 

You  are  offended  at  the  ^ler'ifl  for  faying, 
that  the  Dodor  admits  no  Medium  between 
Tritheifrn  and  Sabellianifin.  I  fhould  have 
faid,  it  feems,   no  Medium  for  his  Adverfaries, 

*  "Ovn  'p  cpuc-e^,  e'jti  (Cv^atTTir^  cwcCx,  lira  ^lyccXu.  y^  S-t7* 
yivci)<rx,iii/  uy^Pu^Toic,  obtxrlv,  osAA^  rvj  oivA>B'iv  £T<  toj^  xyt^r,  uv^^u^ 
r/iViyMZToc  KxliX^iic-vj  ^u^ui.  Juft.  Mart,  Pararn.  p.  60. 

b-iiX^  sTTtrrvciXti  hh^a-KovTuv  w/x/S:,     IbiJ.    p.    1 19.     Ed.  0;>.      Conf. 
Hippolvt.  coiitr.  Noct.  c.  p. 

Z  and 


330        -^DEFENSE      Qu.  XXII. 

and  you  wonder  at  fo  palpable  a  mijlake.  In- 
deed, the  meaning  of  what  I  faid  was  fo  pal- 
pable, that  there  was  no  occafion  for  guard y 
while  I  fuppofed  my  felf  writing  to  a  Man  of 
Senfe.  You  have  took  it  right  fo  far:  The 
Dodor  allows  Us,  his  Adverfaries,  no  Medium. 
But  I  had  an  Eye  to  fomething  more,  viz,  that 
He  has,  by  the  fame  Principle,  left  no  Medium 
for  Himfclf ;  as  I  fhall  fliow  you,  in  due  Time. 
I  am  only  to  obferve  now,  that  it  is  not  from 
Scripture,  or  from  Cat  ho  lick  Antiquity,  that  the 
Dodor  has  learned  this  Maxim,  of  no  Medium 
(for  fuch  as  believe  Chrift  to  be  effentially 
God)  between  Sabellianifm  and  Tritheifm. 
This  was  what  I  complain'd  of,  his  making  a 
Pompous  Appearance  of  Scripture  and  Fathers, 
when  the  whole  is  made  to  depend  upon  a 
nicer  philofopkical  QLieftion,  which  is  to  be 
the  Rule  and  Meafureto  try  Scripture  and  Fa- 
thers by.  Let  Scripture,  or  Fathers  appear 
ever  fo  ftrong  and  clear  for  fuch  a  Mediumy 
They  are  condemn'd  before-hand,  cither  to 
(peak  another  Senfe,  or  to  be  of  no  Weight  or 
Authority.  If  this  be  the  Cafe  (as  you  feem 
to  admit)  you  ought  to  go  upon  very  fure 
Grounds.  And  yet  the  learned  Do6lor,  inftead 
oF  favouring  us  with  any  proof  of  his  main  Po- 
firion,  which  gives  the  Law  to  the  reft,  has  only 
often  repeated  it  5  which  is  no  more  than  to 
fay,  there  cannot  be  any  Medium,  in  the  Cafe  ; 
no,  there  cannot.  We  do  not  pretend  to  be 
wile  enough  to  know  any  thing,  a  priori,  whe- 
1  thcr 


Qu.  XXII.      offome  (QUERIES.       331 

thcr  there  can,  or  there  cannot ;  But,  apojlerioriy 
we  may  inquire  after  Fafi  :  And  if  we  find  by 
Scripture,  rightly  underftood,  that  there  really 
is  fuch  a  Mcdhtm ;  we  fliall  not  be  concern'd  for 
any  pretended  Strength  of  your  Maxim  againft  it. 
Our  Defence  then  againft  the  Charge  of  Tri- 
theifm  will  be  as  follows.  By  comparing  Scrip- 
ture with  Scripture,  we  plainly  find  that  the 
divine  Unity  is  not  an  Unity  of  Terfon :  We 
obferve,  that  there  are  more  Perfons  than  one 
dignified  with  the  fame  high  Titles  of  Lord, 
Cody  &c.  inverted  with  the  fame  high  Powers, 
Attributes,  and  Perfcdions ;  andintitled  to  the 
fame  Honour,  Worfliip,  and  Adoration :  And 
yet  the  Scripture  never  tells  us  of  two  true 
Gods  i  but  conftantly  alTcrts  that  God  is  One. 
We  take  notice,  that  the  Father  is  Jehovah,  and 
Son  is  Jehovah,  and  yet  the  Lord  Jehovah  is 
One  Lord ;  The  Father  creates,  and  the  Son 
creates,  and  yet  we  have  no  Warrant  to  fay 
Two  Creators  ;  The  Father  is  worjhipfd,  and 
the  Son  is  \z'or(Joipp'd,  and  yet  we  find  no  Foun- 
dation for  averting  tvi'o  Objects  of  JVorjhipy 
or  Two  Worjhips:  In  a  word,  the  Father  is 
God,  and  the  Son  is  God,  and  yet  we  are  no 
where  taught  to  call  Them  Two  Gods.  The 
obvious  Conclufion,  from  thefe  Premifes,  is, 
that  They  are  Both  one  God  (otherwife  indeed 
T)itheifrn  is  unavoidable)  and  thus  the  Scrip- 
ture-notion of  Unity  is  of  more  Perfons  than 
One  in  the  fame  Godhead.  What  confirms  us  in 
this  rcafoning,  is,  that  our  Blcflcd  Lord  has  told 

Z  a  us, 


332       ^DEFENSE      Qii.  XXII. 

us,  that  He  and  the  Father  are  one  5  that  who- 
foever  hath  feen  Him,  hath  feen  the  Father  5 
that  He  is  in  the  Father y  and  the  Father  in  Him  5 
and  very  famiUarly  fpeaking  of  the  Father  and 
Himfelf,  He  fays,  ^la^e  will  come  tint 0  Htm  {\\\7it 
loveth  Chrift)  and  make  our  abode  with  Him, 
St.  Taul  in  his  Epiftles  asks  for  the  fame  Grace-, 
Mercjy  and  Teace  from  the  Father  and  Son  5 
And  alfo  prays  that  They  may  dire^  his  Way^ 
I  Theff.i.  1 1 .  Thefe  Things  ferve  to  illuftrate  and 
explain  each  other  5  and,  all  together,  abundant- 
ly make  good  the  Pofition  before  laid  down,  that 
*  Father  and  Son  are  one  God.  Accordingly  the 
Prophet  *f  Ifaiahy  as  may  be  inferred  from  II  St. 
Jokny  makes  them  Both  to  be  One  Holy,  Hohy 
Lord  of  Hoftsy  therein  fignifying  both  the  Di- 
ftindion  of  Perfons,  and  Unity  of  Godhead. 
Thefe  Confiderations(with  many  others  too  long 
to  recite)  convince  us  that  there  is  a  Mediimiy 
(faving  the  Son's  effential  Divinity)  between  Sa- 
hellianijm  and  Tritheifm.  We  aflert  not  Three 
Abfolure,  Original,  Co-ordinate  Divinities,  like 
the  Marcionites  -,  We  feparate  not  the  Perfons 
from  each  other,  with  the  ^r/^^^j";  we  hold  not 
a  fpecifick  Unity ;  (fuchas  between  two  Indivi- 
duals of  any  Species,  two  Men,  for  Inftance.)  If 

*  I  have  hitherto  waied  the  ConJ; deration  of  the  Koly  Ghofti  for 
vhkh  reafon  alfj,  I  pafs  it  over  here,  mifining  my  felf  chiefiy  to  the 
point  of  the  Sen's  Divinity,  ivhich  if  fuffictently  chard,  thu  other,  I 
fuppofe,  may  be  admitted  nithout  Scruple. 

t  Ifai.  Ch.  6.  Ij  Joh.  12.41. 

Vid.Athanaf  p.  108,877,889.  Ed.  Bcned.  Balil.  contr.  Eunom. 
/.  f .  p.  lis-  Hieion.  in  Ifa.  6,  2c  Epifl.  ad  Damaf.  de  eod.  Epiph. 
Ancorat.  p.  ij".  $1. 

WC 


Qii.XXri.      of  fome  (QUERIES.       33  5 

\vc  did  any  of  thcic,  there  might  be  fome  colour 
for  the  Charge  of  Tritheifm.  But  we  acknow- 
ledge, with  the  Scriptures,  one  God  the  Father 
with  his  Co-effential  and  Co-eternal  Son  and 
Spirit;  one  Head  and  Fountain  of  all,  the  three 
Divine  Pcrfons  being  One  in  Nature,  One  in 
Knowledge,  in  Prefence,in  Operation  and  Ener- 
gy ;  never  Separate,  never  Afunder;  diftindt 
without  Divifion,  united  without  Confufion.  If 
this  be  Tr  it  loci  fin,  it  is  what  the  Scripture  has 
taught  Us,  and  what  God,  who  bed  knows  his 
own  Nature,  hath  recommended  to  Us.  But 
it  is  not  Tritheifm ;  it  is  the  true  and  only  Ale- 
dium^  which  may  be  found  by  looking  in  Scrip- 
ture for  it;  and  which  you  feem  to  have  loft 
by  following  a  falfe  Light,  and  wandring  too 
far  in  fanciful  Speculations. 

To  confirm  us  ftill  more  in  this,  we  perceive, 
upon  due  Inquiry,  that  Thofe  who  lived  neareft 
the  Apoftolical  Age,  and  beft  knew  the  mind  of 
the  Scriptures,  They  al fo  taught  the  fame  Do- 
drine  whicih  we  teach.  There  was  fome  Appear- 
ance of  Tritheifm  in  it  then,  as  there  is  now ; 
which  is  an  Argument  to  us,  that  it  is  ftill  the  fame : 
But  if  any  Chriftian  ferioufly  took  upon  Him  to 
charge  the  Dodrine  with  Tritheifviy  and  perfift- 
cd  in  it,  He  was  immediately  reieded  by  the 
wifer  and  foberer  Chriftians,  as  a  Heretick. 

Traxeas  about  the  Year  1S6,  began  openly 
to  charge  the  Catholicks  with  Tritheifm.  But 
hisPretences  were  eailly  dcfpifcd  by  the  Church ; 
and  his  Arguments  anfwer'd  by  Terttdlian. 

Z  3  Not 


334       ^DEFENSE       Qu.XXIL 

Not  long  after,  Noetiis  revived  the  Charge, 
and  his  ^  Plea  was  that  God  is  One,  and  that 
there  could  not  be  a  plurality  in  the  Godhead  : 
But  He  went  away  with  the  Charader  of  a 
weak  and  rafh  Man  5  and  was  condemn'd  by 
the  Chriftian  Church.  At  the  fame  Time,  the 
Noetians  had  fo  high  an  Opinion  of  the  Di- 
vinity of  Chrift  (Scripture  and  Tradition  run- 
ning ftrong  fcr  it)  that  ^They  had  no  way  of 
folving  the  difficulty,  but  by  making  Father  and 
Son  one  Terfon,  and,  in  Confequence,  were 
Tatripajjians, 

About  the  middle  of  the  third  Century  arofe 
SabeUius.  He  pretended  to  be  extremely  zea- 
lous for  the  Unity,  and  ^  charged  the  Catho- 
licks  with  aflerting  Three  Gods,  He  has  been 
thought  to  have  refined  upon  the  Noetian 
Scheme  (if  we  may  call  it  refining)  by  deny- 
ing a  God  i'dcarnate^  after  the  Example  of  the 
earlier  Hereticks  5  by  which  He  avoided  the  Er- 
ror of  the  TatripaJJians.  If  fo.  He  may  be  look'd 
upon  as  holding  nearly  the  fame  Principles 
with  the  modern  Socinians,  This  Conjedure 
is  grounded  on  a  PafTage  in  ^  Epiphanitis,  But 
^Sr.  Aiiftin  undcrftood  the  Matter  otherwife, 

"  Epiplian.  Hxr.  5-7.  p. 480.  Theod,  Haeret.  Fab.  1.  3.  c.  3. 
Hippol.  Contr.  Noer.  c.  i  i.  p.  14. 

"  Ne  vidcantur  duos  Decs  diccre,  neque  rurfus  negare  Salvatoris 
Divinirarem,  unam  candemque  Subflantiam  Patris  ac  Filii  afleve- 
rant :  Id  efl  duo  quidem  nomina  fecundum  diverfitatem  Caufa- 
rum  rccipicntem,  Unam  tamen  Hypoflafin  fubfiftere,  id  efl,  Unam 
Perfonam  duobus  nominibus  fubjacentem,  qui  latine  PatripalTiani 
appellant ur.     Crig.  cpid  Tamph.  Apcl.  p.  226.  Ed.Bencd. 

'  Epiphan,  Hajref.  62.  p.  5- 14. 

**  Epiphan.Synopf.To.m.i.l.2.p.398.Tom.  2.p.  146.  Ed.  Petav. 

'  A.j^r.  HaTci:4i.  '  '  and 


Qu.  XXir.     offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       n  s 

and  the  SabelUans  have  been  generally  reckon'd 
with  the  TatripaJJians. 

Within  a  few  Years  after  Sabellius,  Tanloi 
Samofata  carried  on  the  fame  Charge  of  ^  27/- 
theifm^  (or  rather  T>nheifm)  againll  the  Catho- 
licks  'y  and  was  a  warm,  injudicious  ^  Aflcrtcrof 
the  t/;^//Vr,  confining  it  to  the  Father  only,  exclu- 
five  of  the  other  Perfons.  But  the  CathoUck 
Bifhops,  as  ^£'///2'^///j' informs  us,  ran  together 
againft  Him,  as  agninfl:  a  Wolf,  that  was  endea- 
vouring to  deftroy  the  Flock  of  Chrift. 

About  Fifty  Years  after  Him,  appeared  Arius ; 
who,  to  avoid  '^  Tritheifm  (as  He  thought)  and 
topreferve  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  that 
there  might  be  one  ^  Self-exiftent  Beings  or 
Terfon  (The  fame  Pretexts,  in  the  main,  which 
had  been  handed  down  by  fome  ^before  Tra- 
xeas,  as  well  as  by  Traxeas  Himfelf ,  and 
Noetus,  Sabellhis,  and  Taul  of  Samofata) 
denied  the  T>vvintty  of  the  fecond  Perfon,  only- 
allowing  a  real  Pre-exiftence,  and  fo  making 
Him  more  antient  than  the  others  before  men- 
tioned did.  Such  were  the  Men,  who  former- 
ly (joining  therein  with  ^Jc^js  and  Pagans) 
charged  the  Catholicks  with  holding  a  plurality 
of  Gods;  While  the  Catholicks  notwithftand- 


»  EpiH:.  Synod.  Antioch.  Lab.  Tom.  i.  p.  S^f. 

*"  Theodoret.  Hi^rer.  Fab.  1.  2.  c.  8.     Athanaf.  Vol.  2.  p.  942, 

'  Eufeb.  Ecc!.  Hift.  J.7.C.  27. 

**  Ep.  Alexand.  apud  Thccd.E.  H.I.  i.e.  4.  Ambr.dc  Fid.  1. 1  .c.  i. 

*  ■■  Ey  r<3  ccytvvirrovy  ilc,  ccytwYiT^, 

^  Vid.Novatian.  c.  30. 

«  Athan.Vol.  i.p.  j-64.  Lucian.Philopatr.  p.  770,774, 

Z  4  ing, 


556  A  DEFENSE  Qu.XXII. 
ing,  retained  the  Faith ;  dcfpifing  the  Accu- 
fation,  as  weak,  falic,  and  groundlefs:  and 
defending  Themfelves  upon  fuch  Principles  as 
have  been  before  mention'd.  None  were  ever 
condemned  by  the  Church  as  Tritheifts,  but 
fuch  as  either  denied  the  Umty  of  Trincipiumy 
or  made  the  Hypoftafes  Heterogeneous,  feparate, 
or  aliene  from  eacli  otiier. 

We  have  feen  then,  that  there  is  no  juft 
ground  from  Scripture  or  Antiquity,  to  charge 
curDoflrine  with  Tritheifm.  If  there  beany 
pretence  from  the  Nature  and  Reafon  of  the 
thing  it  felf,  it  is  of  very  flight  moment.  The 
divine  Nature  is  beft  known  from  Revelation : 
It  is  from  thence  we  difcover  that  God  is  not 
povoTC-^crwTT©',  a  fingle  Hypofiajis,  but  that  the 
Father  has  his  Co-eiTential  and  Co-eternal  Son. 
and  Holy  Spirit,  always  in  Him  and  with  Him. 
Wc  can  have  no  other  right  Conception  of  the 
one  God  {to  ukthcWovdsof  "^  Hippoljtus)  but 
by  believing  in  a  real  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghoft.  This  is  the  Faith  of  the  ever  blefTcd 
Trinity  i  which  Scripture  and  Fathers  hold  forth 
to  Us ;  and  which  is  too  ftrongly  fupportcd,  to 
be  weaken'd  by  any  Wit  or  Criticifm.  As  to 
Thofe  v>^ho    take  Trinity   and  Tritkeifm  for 

*  'AAAa;?  t£  ivoe.  €>io*  vofjj-.a-on  f/uyt  dvvetfjjtB-ec,  iocv  f/jyt  ovr&x;  UzIqa,  >^ 
liA'y  y^  ciyia  zovt'jyjcx^U  zriTVj(r&' fSju^      Hippol.  CoDtr.  Noet.  p.  l6. 

I  /hall  add  his  Doxology,  becaufe  it  has  but  lately  appiar'd  in  the 
Greek ,  a)ul  fo  kai  been  lefi  took  notice  of. 

TluTY^,   of!ny  i)  ^o^u  y^  to  k^t(^  oif/ijU  Fletrpj    K)    dylu   zyviuf/jccn,    iu 

J>f  10.  Vol.  2.  Fabric, 

Synony. 


Qu.  XXII.  of  form  (QUERIES.  337 
Synonymous  Terms,  They  may  goon  to  value 
I'hemfelvcs  upon  it.  T/icy  have  y^-oC.'.r,  Ta~ 
gans,  and  Hcreticks^  Fifteen  Hundred  Years 
backwards,  to  countenance  Them  in  it.  It  is 
fufficient  to  have  fliown,  that  vvifer  and  better 
Men,  the  truly  Trimtive  and  Catholick  Church, 
never  thought  it  Trtthe'ifm^  but  condemn'd 
Thofc  that  thought  fo. 

Having  taken  off  the  Charge  from  our  Do- 
ftrine,  I  come,  next,  to  fix  it  upon  Your's; 
where,  I  humbly  conceive,  it  ought  to  lie.  I 
do  not  pretend  that  you  arc  Tritheifls,  m 
every  Senfe  5  but  in  the  fame  Senfc  that  the 
Tagans  ^x:c(:2X\c6,Tohtheifisy  and  intheScrip- 
ture-Senfe  of  the  Word,  God,  as  explain'd 
and  contended  for  by  your  Selves.  One  di- 
njine  Terfon  is,  with  you,  equivalent  to  one 
God\  and  Two,  to  two  Gods  5  and  Three,  to 
three  Gods :  The  Cafe  is  plain ;  The  Confe- 
quence  unavoidable.  One  SttpronCy  and  two 
Inferior  Gods,  is  your  avowed  Dodrine  :  And, 
certainly,  the  aflerting Three  Gods  (v/hether  r^- 
ordinatej  or  otherwife)  is  Tr'ttheifm\  againft 
the  fir(l  Commandment^  againft  the  whole  Te- 
nor of  Scripture,  and  the  Principles  of  the  Pri- 
mitive Church.  It  is, tome,  aninftanceof  the 
ill  EfFeds  of  njdin  Thilofopby,  and  fliows  how 
the  T>ifpnter  of  this  JVorld  may  get  the  bet- 
ter of  the  Chriflian  \  when  Men  appear  fo  much 
afraid  of  an  imaginary  Error  in  MetaphyfickSy 
and,  to  avoid  it,  run  into  a  real  One,  againft 
Scripture  and  Antiquity.     You  tell  me,  indeed, 

that 


33S       y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.XXII. 

that  if  I  am  pofitive  in  this,  youll  bring  both 
*  Ante-Nicene  and  Nicene  Fathers  againft  me. 
But,  let  me  advife  You  to  read  Them  (afecond 
Time)  over;  and  you'll  fee  no  Reafon  to  be 
Sanguine  in  this  Matter.  The  Doftor  has  cited 
fome  Paffages  from  Them,  and  made  Them 
feemingly  fpeakhis  Senfe;  though,  in  the  main 
Doftrine,  they  are  clearly  againft  Him,  as  I 
have  obferved  -^  above.  You  appeal  to  thefe 
Fathers  as  Vouchers  for  you.  But  let  us  at- 
tend, however,  to  what  you  fay. 

The  Antient  Writers  of  the  Church  una- 
fiimoujly  agree^  that  nothing  but  an  abfolute 
Equality  and  Co-ordination  in  God  the  Father 
and  the  Sony  can  make  Them  two  Gods  5  and 
that  the  real  Subordination  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father   preferves    the    Church    from    Poly- 

*  The  Senfe  of  Ante-Nicene  ^«</Poft-Nicene  Fathers^  in  Relation 
to  Tritheifm,  may  be  feen  in  the  following  Pajfages. 

*£|?5  ^'  ecu  iiKOTbx;  Xiyoifjui  y^  zs-^))q  ^^}^i^ivTcc<i  y^  xcclXTi^vovlcc<;  >^ 
eCvui^Hvlxq  TO  u-ifJt/vor»ro»  }cif^vyfji/cc  t^  c)njcXi](rici(i  y  ©£5,  rviv  f/jovot^^iocv  J*5 

— -ot  r^iC<i  ©£»5  T^oTtov  rno!,  Ky;^ur]i£(riv ,  vie,  r^iXc,  \zJT}fU(reiq  |fv«$  ocaM- 
Xm  ■srocvru.Troctri  Kt^nifia-fd/jccq  2^i^uvrut;y  rviv  clyUv  ^ovoc^x,  Dionyf. 
Roman,  apud  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  251. 

rse»flt.i  zruXiv  6  Qiov  ciyivyjTov  mxi  xiym,  uXXov    -^    0£ov  ytvnrov^ 

^uo  iCf  ciuroq  Myu  0s«<;,  J^Jrf,'  rtca  t^  euTiccq  SiJ^poDxv,  kv  (iXx(r<Pn- 
f/tu^  iKrmyii'  o^a  j  fjtjicc  y,  >^  Ap;^i>>,  iv  -^  to  tt,  fltyno?  yivvr.yjcc  '  '  •  s^ 
^•£05,  TfXiixq  pi  civ  n«rg/t  rp  r9-£CT>j)<^  voufd^viq,  TiXau^  ■^  x^  ov  uiai 
TYi",  -zs-ccJQAyJy.q  ^ioTV)T(^  t'3r«p;^s^o-J55.  Athan.  Contr.  Sabell.  Greg.  p. 
42.  Comp.  Bafil.  Horn.  27.  Contr.  Sabell.  p.  604,605-. 

Uo)^  av  iV«ci  fJtjiX  ^-ioTijq,  it  ctrx.  i^i,  y.u^'  ifjucc^  'OfjtjOii(nuc,  TMTJxie^, 
St  'ji'i^ii  Ttvci  2^7X(riv,   -i^Toi  Oisi(po^xv  KUrxTT  i<noic,  X'tyov^  iTi^f)'ioc, 

f^     CC»     U/)      ©to?      O     t;<(35,       iTip^To^    y     O    ZrUTy^f,     (^  OUO    KUTOC    T^TO    &iiiC, 

ie.yuyK.7t  xlyiiv  oTTif  i^iv  eCTi^i^,  yi^  ov^i  (JUi^^Q^  [a-jvov  ukok^  ■SiO.^xd'sKrcv. 
'Of/jo^Ti'^    ufci    TaJ    TIcicIqa    0   iioc/    o'.T(J   '■/-'    to    iv    ^toTi^i     CaB-i^a-iJ. 

Cyril.  Alex.  ThcCiur.  p.  78.  t  Qi'- r- 

thcifm. 


Qu.  XXII.      offonte  QUERIES.       339 

theifm,  (/.  100.)  In  the  next  Page,  You  appeal 
to  Athanajitis  for  the  Senfe  of  the  Nicene  and 
Tojt-Nicene  Fathers^  and  to  Hilary  and  Ba- 
fily  in  order  to  clear  your  Dodrine  from  the 
Charge  of  Tritheifm  ,  little  imagining  that 
thefe  good  and  great  Men  have  *  condemn'd 
your  Dodrine,  as  Tolytheifm  and  "Paganifmy 
over  and  over  5  as  all  know,  that  are  any  thing 
converfantin  their  Works.  Well :  But  what  have 
They  faid  to  countenance  your  Notion  ?  This 
only  :  That  U7iity  of  Principle  clears  the 
Church's  Dodrine  from  the  Charge  of  7r/- 
theifm.  Not  your  Doftrinc,  not  the  Arian 
Doftrine ;  but  the  Catholick  Dodrine.  For 
fince  Equality  of  Nature^  and  Unity  of  Trin- 
ciple  too,  are  both  rcquifite  ;  The  Catholicks 
admitting  the  former  (as  their  Adverfaries  well 
knew)  had  nothing  farther  needful  to  infift 
upon,  in  anfwer  to  the  Charge  of  Tritheifniy 
but  the  latter.  Unity  of  Principle,  and  Same- 
nefs  of  Nature  together  might  make  two  Pcr- 
fons  one  God  (according  to  the  unanimous 
Opinion  of  the  Antients)  but  not  either  of 
them  alone. 

But  now  in  refpeft  to  the  Arian  (that  is, 
your  Doftrinc)  the  pretence  of  Unity  of  Prin- 
ciple is  pcrfcdly  abfurd.  The  Son  is  fup- 
pofed  a  Creature  of  the  Father  s  :  If  his  be- 
ing of,  or  from,  the  Father,  in  this  Senfe, 
makes  Him  one  God  with  the  Father,  it  will 
follow,  that  Angelsy  or  Alen,  or  even  Things 

*  Atlianaf.  Orat.  5.  p.  ^6^,^66.     Hilar,  p.  916.     BafiJ.  Ep. 
70.  pag.S^j.    Horn.  27.  p.  601,  6cc,  jl^_ 


540      yf  D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qii.  XXII. 

inanimate,  arc  one  God  with  the  Father  alfo. 
Indeed,  to  do  you  juftice,  you  do  not  fo  much 
as  pretend,  that  Unity  of  Tr'mciple^  or  any 
Thing  clfe  can  make  Him  one  God  with  the 
Father.  Which  is  enough  to  fliow,  how  very 
widely  you  differ  from  the  Antients,  in  the 
main  Point  of  All.  They  thought  it  neceffary 
to  affert,  that  Father  and  Son  were  Both  one 
God.  So  Iren^us^  Athenagoras,  Terttdliany 
Clement  of  Alexandria^  Origen,  HippolytuSy 
LacfantiuSy  and  even  Eufebms  Himfelf,  after 
fome  Debates  upon  it :  as  may  appear  from  the 
Teftimonies  *  before  referr'd  to  :  And  of  the 
Vojl-Nicene  Catholick  Writers,  in  general,  every 
body  knows  how  They  contended  for  it.  They 
thought  that  the  "Divinity  of  the  Son  could 
not  be  otherwife  fecured,  and  Tolytheifm  at 
the  fame  time  avoided,  than  by  afferting  Fa- 
ther and  Son  to  be  one  God--,  and  They  thought 
right.  But  what  do  you  do?  Or  how  can  you 
contrive  to  clear  your  Scheme  ?  We  ask  if  the 
Son  be  Gody  as  well  as  the  Father  >  You  fay. 
Yes :  How  then  is  there  but  one  God?  Your 
Anfwer  is,  The  Father  is  fupreme,  and  there- 
fore He,  Jingly,  is  the  one  God.  This  is  taking 
away  what  you  gave  us  before,  and  retracing 
what  you  afferted  of  the  Son.  If  Supremacy 
only  makes  a  Per  Ion  Gody  The  Son  is  no  God, 
upon  your  Principles :  Or,  if  He  is  G^^notwith- 
ftanding,  then  Father  and  Son  are  two  Gods. 
Turn  this   over,  as  often  as  you  pleafe,  you'll 

^  find 


Qu.  XXII.  of  fome  (QUERIES,  u  i 
find  it  impoflible  to  extricate  your  fclf  from  it. 
You  can  lay  only  this ;  That  you  do  not  admit 
T^y^o  fufreme  Ciods.  This  is  very  true  :  No  more 
did  the  "Pagan  Polytheifts,  nor  the  Idolatrous  Sa- 
maritans j  nor  Others  condemn'd  in  Scripture  for 
^olytheifm.  You  (land  pretty  fair  upon  the  Prin- 
ciples of  Thilofophy ;  and  are  not  guilty  of  any 
manifeft  Error  in  Metaphyjicks,  upon  this  Article. 
But  you  are  fuch  a  Tritheiji,  as,  upon  Scripture- 
Principles,  and  upon  the  Principles  of  the  Catho- 
lick  Church,  both  *  before  and  after  the  Nicene- 
Coiincilj  muft  (land  condemn'd.  Your  belief  of 
the  Fathers  being  for  you,  in  this  particular,  is 
pureFancy  and  Fidionj  owing,I  fuppofe,  to  your 
feeing  only  fome  Pieces  of  Them  in  Dr.  Clarke. 
You  can  find  but  very  little  among  the  Ancients, 
which  either  diredly  or  indirectly  favors  your  No- 
tion of  a  fupre?ne  and  zfubordinate  God.  They 
condemn'd  it  implicit ely^  in  their  Difputes  with 
the  TaganSy  all  along:  And  no  fooner  was  it  dart- 
ed in  the  Church,  but  the  Catholicks^cio,  alarm'd 
at  it ;  and  immediately  condemn'd  it  as  reviving 
o^Creature-WorjJoip,  and  reftoring  GentiHfm,  and 
Pagan  Tolytheifm,  Two  Gods,  a  greater  and  a 
lefs,  a  Supreme  and  an  Inferior,  no  Scripture,  no 
found  Reafon,  no  good  Catholick  ever  Taught ; 
no  Church  would  have  endured,  k  feparate  God 
from  the  Supreme,  :!in inferior  created  God,  would 
not  only  have  been  look'd  upon  as  Tolytheifm  and 

*N.  B.  I  do  not  fay  tkit  the  An\:t-W\ccnQlVritersncoaldha-je called 
the  Arian  Dochme  Tritheifm  i  peihaps,  Blafphcmy  r.rr^fr.  But  they 
TvouLl  have  charged  it  with  Paganilm  (  fceTcnuWi^naSo-je,  p.^^.) 
Tvhich  comei  to  the  fame  with  vfhM  the  Poft-Nicene  fiidof  it. 

Contra- 


342         A   DEFENSE     Qu.XXII. 

Contradi£iion,  confidcf  d  in  it  felf ;  but  as  Herefy 
and  Blafpbemy^  if  undcrftood  of  God  and  Chrift. 
To  conclude  this  Head:  If  we  underftand 
the  word,  God,  in  the  ftrid  Senfe,  it  is  ridi- 
culous to  charge  the  Arian  Scheme  with  plu- 
rality of  Gods.  But,  if  it  be  underftood  in  the 
loofe  popular  Senfe,  or  in  your  own  Scnfe  of 
it,  it  is  equally  ridiculous  to  deny  it.  Mr.  Nje^ 
who,  you  know,  has  ftudied  this  Controverfy 
much  and  long,  and  is  no  Friend  either  to  the 
truly  Catholick  Scheme,  ot  yotifSy  condemn- 
ing Both  as  Tritheifms  is  pleafed  however  fo 
far  to  give  the  Preference  to  the  former,  as 
to  declare,  that  the  Arian  Herefy  is  only  a 
more  abfiirdy  and  lefs  defenjible  Tritheifm  *. 
Of  all  the  four  Schemes  which  have  been  fol- 
lowed, the  Sabellian-,  Catholick^  Arian,  and 
Socinian  5  the  Sabellian  only  ,  which  intirely 
ttngods  the  Son  (That  is,  by  denying  Him  any 
diltind  divine  perfonality,  and  admitting  only  a 
human  perfonality,  viz.  of  the  Man  Chrift)  and 
annihilates  the  Holj-Ghofl,  ftands .  perfeftly 
clear  of  any  Appearance  of  Tolytheifm.  The 
Catholick  appears  chargeable,  but  really  is  not 
fo :  The  Arian  and  Socinian  both  appear 
fo,  and  are  fo ;  Wherefore  a  Charge  of 
Tritheifm  muft  come  from  Them,  with  a 
very  ill  Grace.  For,  was  the  Charge  really 
Juft,  and  were  we  weak  enough  to  affert 
three  Co-ordinate  Gods  5  yet  even  that  could 
not  be   more  repugnant   to  the  whole  Drift, 

♦  Explicate  of  the  Articles  of  Div.  Unity,  p  91. 

Scope, 


Qii.  XXIII.    of  fome  QUERIES.       h5 

Scope,  and  Tenor  of  the  Sacred  Writ,  than 
the  admitting  2ipltiraUty  of  Gods,  great  and 
little^  foveraign  and  inferior,  infinite  and 
finite,  uncreated  and  created,  to  receive  our 
Addreffcs,  and  to  be  the  Objeds  of  our  Love, 
Faith,  Hope,  Confidence,  and  religious  Ado- 
ration. 

(iUERY    XXIIL 

Wloether  the  T>ocfofs  Notion  of  the  Trinity  he 
more  clear  and  intelligible  than  the  other  ? 

The  difficulty  in  the  Conception  of  the  Trinity  is, 
how  three  Terfons  can  be  one  God, 

*T>oes  the  T)ofior  deny  that  every  one  of  the 
Terfons,  fingly,  is  God?  No:  TDoes  He 
deny  that  God  is  one  ?  No :  How  then  are 
Three  one  ? 

^oes  one  and  the  fame  Authority,  exercised 
by  all,  make  Them  one,  numerically  or  in- 
dividually one  and  the  fame  God  ?  That  is 
hard  to  conceive  hoiv  three  diflin5i  Beings, 
according  to  the  T)o&ofs  Scheme,  can  be 
individually  one  God,  that  is,  three  Terfons 
one  Terfon. 

If  therefore  one  God  necefjarily  fignifies  but  one 
Terfon  the  Confequence  is  irrefiftible  ;  either 
that  the  Father  is  that  one  Terfon,  and  none 
elfe^  which  is  downright  Sabellianifm  5  Or 
that  the  three  Terfons  are  three  Gods. 

Thus  the  T)o^ofs  Scheme  is  liable  to  the  fame 
difficulties  with  the  other. 

There 


344       ^DEFENSE     Qu.XXIL 

There  is  indeed  one  eajyzvay  of  coming  off,  and 
that  iSy  by  faying  that  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit  are  neither  of  them  God,  in  the  Scrip- 
turefenfe  of  the  Word,  But  this  is  cutting 
the  Knot:,  inflead  of  untying  it  j  and  is  in 
ejfeEi  to  fay,  They  arenotfet  forth  as  divine 
^er fans  in  Scripture, 

^oes  the  Commtmication  of  divine  To'jvers 
and  Attributes  from  Father  to  Son:,  and 
Holy  Spirit y  make  Them  one  God,  the  'Divi- 
nity of  the  t'joo  latter  being  the  Father  s 
Divinity  ?  Tet  the  fame  difpctdty  recurs : 
For  either  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghojt  have  di- 
ftinEi  Attributes,  and  a  diflinct  Divinity 
of  their  own,  or  They  have  not :  If  They 
have.  They  are  [upon  the  Dolors  Prin- 
ciple) diftm5i  Gods  from  the  Father,  and 
as  much  as  Finite  from  Infinite,  Creature 
from  Creator ;  and  then  how  are  They  one  ? 
If  They  have  not,  then,  fince  They  have 
no  other  Divinity,  but  that  individual  Di- 
vinity, and  thofe  Attributes  vchich  are  in- 
feparable  from  the  Father  s  Efferice,  They 
can  have  no  diftinci EJJence  from  the  Father's-, 
and  fo  {according  to  the  Doctor)  will  be  one 
and  the  fame  Terfon,  that  is  will  be  Names 
only, 

Q.  Whether  This  be  not  as  unintelligible  as 
the  Orthodox  Notion  of  the  Trinity,  and 
liable  to  the  like  Difficulties:  A  Communi- 
cation of  divine  Towers  and  Attributes, 
without  the  Snbftance,  beiiig  as  hard  to  con- 

ceive. 


Qu.  XXIIL  of  fo7ne  (QUERIES.  345 
ceive^  7iay  much  harder  than  a  Cornynnnication 
of  Both  together  ? 

YOU  are  plcafcdto  fay,  \h:ithad  the  Au- 
thor at  allnnderjiood"T>r-  Q\2xkzs  Books^ 
He  "-jDonld  net  have  offered  thcfc  Confidcra- 
tions,  They  are  fuch  grofs  Mijiakes^  (p.  105 .) 
It  might  be  very  pardonable  to  miftake  the 
Do6i-or,  who  deals  much  in  general  and  am- 
biguous Terms  5  and  I  am  the  more  excufible, 
as  mifl:akin<j!;  on  the  tender  and  candid  Side.  I 
muft  own  to  you,  I  was  not  then  aware,  that 
the  Doctor  had  denied,  Father y  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghofiy  to  be  one  God.  I  did  not  apprehend,  He 
would  fcruple  to  call  Them  all  together  one 
God'^  becaufe  That  would  be  manifcftly  ex- 
cluding Son  and  Holy-Ghoji  from  the  one  God- 
head-,  and  then  our  Difpute  about  his  meaning, 
would  be  perfectly  at  an  end.  I  fliould  have 
been  very  unwilling  to  make  lb  home  a  Charge, 
asThat  upon  Him:  But  fince  you  are  a  Friend, 
and  declare  in  publick  that  this  is  his  meaning, 
lb  it  fhall  be  hereafter.  And  now,  I  will 
not  ask  ho'ji;  three  Terfons  can  be  one  Gody 
upon  the  Dodor's  Principles:  But  III  put  the 
QiTcftion  thus :  Hoou  can  it  be  true  {upon  the 
"Dolors  Principles)  that  every  Terfon  of 
the  Trinity  is  God-^  and  true  likevi)ifey  that 
there  is  but  one  God?  The  Qi^icdion  or  Dif- 
ficulty being  thus  fairly  ftated,  I  conceive, 
that  my  reafoning  againft  the  other,  will,  in  the 
main,  hold  good  againft  this  too;  only   rnuta- 

A  a  tis 


346        ^DEFENSE     Qu.XXIIL 

tis  mutandis.      Now  then,   clear   me  up  this 
Difficulty  in  the  Doclor's  Scheme,  and  fuee  it 
i\:o\\\Self-Coritradi^ionj  if  you  are  able.    I  have 
been  fearching  diligently  fcveral  Pages  of    your 
Anfwer,  to  lee  if  I  might  find  any  thing  like 
a  Solution :    but   I  perceive    at    length ,    you 
was  fo  wife  as  to   drop  it.     You  was  to  tell 
mc  How,  notwithftanding  that  there  are  Three 
di'V'me  Terfons'y    (that  is,    Gods^   according  to 
you)  there  is  ftill  but  one  God.     But  inftead  of 
this,  you  run  wandring  wide  and  far,   to  fliow 
Jiow  Three  may  be  One,     What  ?  Three  Gods 
one  God  ?    That  was   what  I  ask'd  j  the   reft 
is    not   pertinent,    but    foreign  to  the  Point. 
Finding  ib  little  Satisfaction  from  you,    in   a 
Point  fo  material,    in  the  very  pinch  of    the 
Queftion  between  the  Dodor  and  Us,  T  thought 
proper  to  have  recourfe  to  the  Doctor's  Books 
again ;  to  fee  if  any  thing  could  be  found  there 
to  our  prefent  purpofe. 

I  perceived,  that  "^  "Dcmlnl on  and  Authority y 
according  to  Him,  fnake  God  to  be  God.  Up- 
on this  Principle,  He  fuppofes  the  Son,  ^  by 
7iatitre  truly  Gody  having  true  divine  Tovuer 
and  ^omi?iion :  And  He  fays,  I!  The  v:;ord, 
Gcdy  in  Scripture:,  is  alvaays  a  relative  word  of 
Office^  /i^nif];ing  perfonal  dominion.  The 
obvious  Conclufion,  from  thefe  Premifes,  is, 
that  if  ^Domi7iion  and  Authority^  fuchasmakc 
any  Perfon  truly  God,  be  lodged  in  Tiiree  Per- 

*  Reply,  ;.  301.  t  Ib.  /'.Si. 

IJ  J^.  ;.  190". 

fens; 


Qu.  XXIII.     offoine  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       3  47 

ions  5  Thofc  Three  Pcrfons,  upon  the  Doftor's 
Principles,  mud  be  three  Gods.     Tiic  DoLlor 
being  icnfiblc  of  this  Dilliculry  in  his  Scheme, 
and    not   being  able  to  Iblvc  it,    nor    willing 
to  profefs  three  Gods,    tries  to   difguife   and 
elude    it.     He  asks,  "^  iz'hy  mujl  three  d'rcnie 
Be'mgSy    of  ncccffity ,   be  conceived  as   three 
Gods  ?  The  Anlwer  is  very  eafy :  Becaufe  three 
divine  Beings,  or  '^Perfons,  is  exadlly  the  lame, 
in  other  Words,  \j\i\\three  Gods,  upon  his  Prin- 
ciples 5    and   becaufe  every  one  of  the  Three  is 
fuppofed  to  hz\c per fonalT^ominion,    that  very 
dominion  which  is  (ufficient  to  make  a  Perfon 
truly  God',   and  fuch  as  makes  God  to  be  God, 
*}*  He  goes  onto  diftinguifli  the  three  Pcrfons  by 
the  Names  of  God,  Lord,  and  Holy  Spirit -,  as 
if  He  had  forgot,  or  had  no  mind  to  own,  that 
either  of  the  two  laft  is  God.     He  proceeds: 
They    can  no   more    truly  be  faid^to  be  three 
Gods,  than  each  of  Them,  fingly-,  can  be  truly 
[aid  to  be  the  God  and  Father  of  All,  -vjho  is 
above  all-,   "sjhich  is  the  Apoflle's  T>efinitio7iof 
the  one  fuprcme  God.     But  this  is  not  to  the 
Parpofej    unlefs  no  one  can  be  God,    that   is 
not  x\\zfupre7ne  God.     If  the  Doctor  lays  That, 
He  contradids  Himfelf  ilrangcly  -,  having  took 
a  great  deal  of  Pains  to  fhow  that  the  Son,    tho' 
not  the  fupreme  God,  is  yet  truly  God,  having 
true  divine  Poiver and T)o7ninion.    I f  He  thinks 
the   Apoftle's   Definition    of    God  to  be  bet- 
ter than  his  own,  why  did  He  not  Hand  to  it? 

*  Reply,  ;.  222,  t  lb./',  223. 

A  3  -  And 


348      y^DEFENSE      a^.  XXIII. 

And  then  it  would  be  fccn  plainly,  that  his 
meaning  is,  that  no  one  can  be  God  but  the 
Father-^  which  is  making  fhort  work  with  the 
Dodlrine  of  the  divine  Trinity,  and  flriking 
out  Son  and  Holy-Ghofl  at  once.  It  is  evident 
to  a  Dcnionftrntion,  that  the  three  Perfons 
arc,  upon  the  Doctor's  Hypothefis,  as  really 
and  truly  three  Gods,  as  that  every  one,  fingly, 
is  God:  and  therefore,  either  let  Him  fay 
plainly,  that  there  are  three  Gods;  or  that 
neither  the  Son,  nor  the  Holy-Ghoft  is  God. 
The  Difficulty  then  ftill  remains  unanfwer'd  -, 
how  (upon  the  Dodor's  Principles)  three  Per- 
fons can  be  every  one,  fingly,  God':,  and  yet 
Scripture  fay  true,  that  there  is  but  one 
God. 

And  now,  I  return  to  you  again ;  whom  I 
left  intruding  the  Reader,  very  particularly. 
How  Three  may  be  One ;  viz.  in  agreement  of 
Mind,  in  their  joint  care  of  the  Church,  in 
Tefiimony^  &:c.  which  might  have  been  perti- 
nent, had  I  been  arguing  from  the  Text,  /  and 
my  Father  are  One  5  or  from  i  J  oh.  5.7.  But 
your  anfwering  fo  copioufly  to  what  I  did  not 
ask,  and  flipping  over  the  main  Difficulty, 
looks  as  if  you  were  more  concern'd  how  to 
keep  your  Reader  from  the  fight  of  the  Quc- 
flion,  than  how  to  give  Him  any  reafonable 
Satisfaction.  The  firft  pertinent  Thing  I  meet 
with  from  you,  is  in  Page  108,  where  you 
charge  me  with  a  7nanifeft  Error,  for  fuppcfing 
it   Sak'llianifm  to  make  the  one  God  but  one 

I  Terfon  i 


Qu. XXIII.  of  fome  QJU ERIE  S.  349 
^Ferfon-y  namely.  The  Perfon  of  the  Father. 
What  I  affert  is,  that  it  is  Sabellianifin  to  fay, 
that  there  is  but  One  who  is  God,  one  Terfon 
only,  inftead  of  one  Nature :  Or  to  fuppofc 
the  Godhead  to  be  but  one  finglc //y/?^/^//>  5  or 
/ucpoTF-^ja-a)x(3^,  a  Father  without  his  ilibftantial 
Word  ox.  J)^/W/- eternally  and  effentially  fubfitling 
with  Him,  and  from  Him.  This  is  what  I 
maintain,  and  what  you  will  not  be  able  to  dif- 
prove.  But  let  us  fee  how  you  go  about  it.  One 
Godj  you  fay,  is  one  Ferfoyi  only  j  other^^tfe  one 
Terfon  conldnot  be  one  God.  I  anfvvcr,  that  no 
one  Perfon  is  one  God,  exclufively  of  the  other 
twoPerfons.  You  add,  if  one  Godbet'UDO  Ter- 
fans  or  frwre,  it  is  impoffible  for  one  Terfon  to  be 
God.  When  we  fay  one  Perfon  is  God^  we  mean 
that  He  is  a  divine  Hypoftafis,  T>eitatemhabenSy 
as  the  Schools  fpeak :  But  when  we  fay  God  is 
three  Perfons,  we  underftand  it  of  the  divine  Ef 
fence,  or  Siibftance :  So  that  the  word  God  is 
fometimes  taken  ejjentially^  and  fometimes  per- 
fonally,  which  makes  the  Difference.  You  pro- 
ceed :  The  T>efendas  of  the  Scholaflick  Notion 
(you  mean  the  Defenders  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity) 
profefs  the  Father  alone,  and  diffinfi  from  the 
Son  and  Spirit  J  is  God,  or  the  one  God.  Very  true : 
in  the perfonal  ScnCc  before  mentioned,  diflin^ 
from,  not  exclnfive  of,  the  Son  and  Holy- 
Spirit.  In  the  fameSenfe,  either  of  the  other 
Perfons  is  God,  and  the  one  God.  There  is 
a  farther  Reafon,  why  the  Father  is  peculiarly 
and  eminently  filled  the  one  God:  Not  to  ex- 
A  a  3  elude 


^50       ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XXIII. 

elude  the  other  Pcribns;  but  to  fignify  his 
priority  of  Order,  as  Father,  and  as  Fountain 
of  alL  Thus  I  havc^niVer'd  your  Rcafons, 
which  you  are  plcas'd  to  call  T>emonfirationi 
tho'  it  is  manifclf  that,  all  along  in  your  rca- 
ibning,  you  take  it  for  granted,  that  Gcd  is 
one  Pcrfon  only,  and  liippofe  the  very  Thing 
in  Qiicfiion.  You  next  proceed  to  confute  my 
Allcrtion;  that  the  making  the  one  God  but 
one  Fcrfon,  is  Sabellian,  And  you  fay  thus: 
If  by  one  Terfon^  He  means  one  intelligent 
Agent,  He  makes  the  Sabellians  Catholieks, 
and  condemns  kis  oiz-n  Friends  for  Tritheids. 
I  certainly  mean  a  red  Perfon,  an  Hypojlajis^  no 
Mode,  Attribute,  or  '^Property,  as  you  might 
cafily  have  perceived.  The  charge  of  Tritkeifm 
I  have  fufficiently  anfwcr'd  before;  and  return- 
ed it  to  its  proper  Owners.  I  fliall  only  add 
here,  that  each  divine  Perfon  is  an  individual 
intelligent  Agent:  But  as  fubfilling  in  one  un- 
divided Subftance,  They  are  all  together,  in  that 
refpccl,  but  one  undivided  intelligent  Agent  *5 
And  thus  my  Friends  ftand  clear  of  Tritkeifm, 
You  obfcrve,  that  Sabcllius  held  one  Hypo- 
flafis,  or  divine  Siibflance,  in  oppofition  to  the 
Church,  'Hijo  profefsd  three  Hypoftafes.  Why 
did  you  not  add,  or  three  divine  Subftances, 
having  rcnder'd  Hypoftafis,  divine  Stihftance^ 
lufl:  before?  is  not  the  rcafon  of  it  vifible  ? 
You  would  not  fay  that  the  Sabellians  held 
one   Sub  fiance,    and   the   Church    three  Sub- 

*  Sjc  Pr<:facc  to  my  Sermon?,  p-S^- 

fiance?^ 


Qli.  XXIII.     of  fame  QUERIES.       351 

fiances,  (tho'  you  fay  it  in  cfFcd)  bccaufc  the 
Thing  is  notorioLifly  falfc.  But  taking  advan- 
tage of  the  Ambiguity  of  the  word,  Hypoftafis, 
fometimes  ufed  to  fignify  Subftance,  and  fomc- 
timcs  Terfon  ,  you  contrive  a  Fallacy.  The 
Church  never  profcfs'd  three  Hypofiafes  in  any 
other  Senfc,  but  as  they  mean  three  Terfons  5 
nor  would  Sabellhis  liave  been  cenfur'd  for 
holding  one //)y^/9/?^/Zf  only,  had  He  meant  one 
Sttbfiance,  If  you  have  a  mind  to  fee  clearly 
in  what  Senfe  the  Catholiclis  profcfs'd  either 
three  Hypofiafes,  or  one  only,  you  may  pleafe 
to  confult  "^Athanafims,  and  ^  Gregory  Nazian- 
zeyi,  refcr'd  to  in  the  Margin. 

The  Truth  is,  the  Church  always  profefs'd 
one  Subftance  5  one  eternal,  immutable,  uncrea- 
ted Subftance-,  and  this  they  underftood  by, 
God.  Notwithftanding,  They  believed  the  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit  to  be  fiibftantially  God.  Tra- 
xeasy  Noetus,  Sabellhis,  and  others,  not  con- 
ceiving how  one  Subftance  could  be  more  than 
one  Terfon,  II  one  Hypoftafiis,  innovated  upon 
the  Faith  of  the  Church,  and  made  one  fuigle 

*  Athanaf.ad  Antioch.  p.  973. 

t  Greg.  Nazianz.  Orat.  22,  p.  395.  Graf.  32,  p.  j-ir. 
IJ   Origen  exprcjfes  the  Sabcllian  Notion  lery  MJi'mhly  hi  the  fclloiS' 
wg  Tajfage.^ 

uXXx    >dj    ^ssrvKeii/jivi),     rvl^xvcvhi;    QCfjij<Po;i^><(^    koCiu.     nvui;  imvoUq,    x 

xccrlc  'Jzxz)' TccTiv  Xtyi^M  zrxri^x  (^  liov.  Orig.  Com.  ill  Joh.  p. 1 86. 
Ed.  Huet. 

That  is  to  fay.  The  SiheWhns  iiid  mt  only  make  Father  a7jd  Son  one 
in  ElTence  ( as  the  Church  did  alfo)  but  they  carried  it  Co  far  as  to  make 
Them  one  ^xi^]^Q^,  Suppofitum,  or  Hypoftafis,  /;rt^w^o«/y  a  nominal, 
not  a  real  Diftindlion. 

A  a  4  HjpO' 


3  52        ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXIIL 

Hypo[lafist\\^oneGody  with  three  Names.  You 
tcil  us,  with  great  Affurancc,  that  this  never 
"ijuas^  nor  could  be  Sabellianifm,  ip,  109.)  To 
which  I  {hall  only  fay ;  Read,  and  you  will 
find.  You  add  farther,  that  t/oe  one  God  is 
one  Trrfon  only,  and  the  Father  that  Terfon ; 
And  that  this  isthe  AJfertion  of  St,  Paul.  We 
will  fee  to  St.  Taul  prefently;  in  the  mean 
while,  I  again  tell  you,  that  this  is  the  very 
Eflencc  of  Sabelltanif'm,  and  the  Doftrine  of 
*  ^Paul  of  Samofata  (as  hath  been  obferved  to 
you  above)  and  for  which  He  was  condemn'd 
bv  the  Church.  Your  pretence  from  the  Apo- 
flic's  Words,  (21?  us  there  is  but  one  God^  even 
the  Father)  has  been  fufficicntly  anfwer'd  un- 
der the  former  Qiieries.  I  fhall  only  obferve 
here,  that  the  Text  mcntion'd  is  much  ftronger 
againpL  the  Doclor  and  your  Self,  than  againft 
Us.  For  how  can  You,  after  fo  flain  and  ex- 
frefs  a  Text  to  the  contrary,  pretend  that  the 
Son  alfo  is  God  to  ns^  really  and  truly  God, 
and  in  the  Scripture-Senfc  of  the  word,  God? 
Whether,  think  you,  do  We,  who  make  Him 
effentlally  the  fame  God  with  that  one,  and 
fuppofc  but  one  God  in  all,  more  flatly  con- 
tradicl  St.  f^///;  or  You  who  make  two  Gods^ 
and  in  the  fame  relative  Senfe,  in  which  St. 
'Paul  is  fuppofcd  to  ufe  the  v/ord,  God?  To  take 
up  your  own  Words,  upon  this  very  occalion ; 
You  v:illy    I  trujl,  be  ajhamed  ^jv hen  you  con- 

*     ha.  %le,  f.jj,  (prt(r\v^   o  i-Ti  ztccvrcc  ©5^5   q    tzcct:^,^.      Athan.  Contr. 

Apoliiiiar.  J.  2.  p. 9 42. 

fider^ 


Qti.  XXIII.    offome  aU  E  R I  E  S.       355 

Jider^  that  you  plainly  faljify  St.  Paul.  He 
fays,  there  is  but  one  Gody  even  the  Father  : 
But  You  fay,  there  are  more  Gods  than  one ; 
and  particularly,  that  the  Son  is  God  alfo,  God 
to  us.  How  come  you  off  of  this  ?  By  the  help 
of  a  T^tftinElion^  I  fuppofe  :  And  fo  can  We  ^ 
by  a  'DiJlinEiton  much  older,  and  much  bet- 
ter warranted  than  Your'sj  and  therefore,  be  fo 
kind  as  either  to  take  fome  part  of  the  Shame 
with  us  5  or  elfe  to  acquit  Both.  You  proceed 
to  acquaint  us,  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true 
God"^.  Very  good:  And  do  not  the  Dodor 
and  You  tell  us,  notwithftanding,  that  the  Son 
is  true  Gody  having  true  divine  Tower  and 
dominion  ?  If  you  can  reconcile  two  true 
Godsy  with  the  Dodrine  of  that  Text  5  fure. 
We  need  not  dcfpair,  nor  have  any  thing  to 
fear  from  that  Text,  who  af:^ree  fo  far  with  it 
already  (more  than  You)  as  to  acknowledge  but 
One  God.  V/e  can  give  a  Reafon  why  the  Son 
wastacitely  included,  being  fo  intimately  united 
to  the  Father,  as  partaker  of  the  fame  divine 
Nature :  But  that  any  Creature  fhould  not  be 
excluded  from  being  God,  or  that  there  fliould 
be  two  Gods,  notwithftanding  the  Text,  muft 
appear  very  (Irange.  After  this,  you  have  two 
or  three  Subtilties.  The  Father,  you  fay,  will 
be  but  a  third  part.  You  might,  in  this  way, 
revive  all  the  Impertinencies  of  A'etius,  and 
throw  them  before  Englijh  Readers.     I  refer 

*  Pag.  no, 

you 


354      ^DEFENSE     Qu.XXIII. 

you  to  *  St.  Anjlin  in  the  Margin,  for  an  An- 
1  wcr.  Let  mc  dcfire  you  not  to  give  fo  great  a 
loofe  to  your  Fancy,  in  divine  Things :  You 
Icem  to  confidcr  everything  under  the  Notion 
of  Extenfion,  and  fenfible  Images.  A  reveren- 
tial Silence  may  well  become  Us  in  fo  awful  a 
Subjed,  in  which  Imagination  has  nothing  to 
do,  and  of  which  our  moft  refined  and  elevated 
Thoughts  are  infinitely  unworthy.  But  to  pro- 
ceed :  You  add,  If  Father  ^Son^  and  Holy -Ghoft 
are  the  only  true  God,  then  they  are  the  Father, 
But  if  the  only  true  God,  may  be  fometimcs 
ufed  in  a  perfonal,  fometimcs  in  an  effential 
Scnfe,  there  is  no  force  in  this  Reafoning. 
I  might  retort  the  Argument  upon  You,  who, 
in  your  Vv'ay  of  conceiving  God  by  extended 
Parts,  apply  the  Phrafe  of  one  God,  fome- 
timcs to  one  Tart,  fometimcs  to  another,  and 
fometimcs  to  the  ijuhole,  almoft  in  the  ^  fame 
manner,  as  We  do  to  One,  or  to  all  the  three 
Terfons :  But  I  am  weary  of  trifling. 

*  Putas  Deum  Patrem  cum  Filio  8c  Spiritu  San6i:o  unum  Deum 
efle  non  pofle;  Times  cnim  ne  Pater  Solus  non  fit  unus  Dcus,  kdpars 
Vultis  Dei  c]ui  con  flat  ex  Tiibus ;  Noli  timcre,  nulla  fit  partium  in  Dei- 
tatisunitatedivifio.  InTrinitate — quseDeuseft,  &  Pater  Deus eft, 
&  FiliusDeuscd:,  8c  SpiritusSan<^usDeusen:,  Simul  Hi  trcs  unus 
Deus :  ncc  hujus  Trinitatis  pars  eft  unus,  ncc  major  pars  duo  quam 
anus  eft  ibi,  ncc  majus  aliquid  funtomnes  quam  finguli :  c[\i\2i Spirit h- 
alis  non  Corporalis  eft  magnitudo.  uiug,  Comr.  AUxim.  1.  2.  c.  lo. 
p  697, 69S. 

Pater  8c  Filius  8c  Spiritus  Snn6lus,  8c  ^vo-^tcx indiiiduam  Deltatcm 
ITmti  Deus  eft,  propter  uu\u(cu]\i{c^mc proprictatcm  ^vqs perfona.  funt,  Sc 
propter  fingu!orumZVr/i't7w;fwP^;/eiunius  Dei  WW /}i«/. Id. ibid. p.6  99. 
CoKf,  Auguft.dc  Trin.  p.  849.  Fulgent. Refponf.  Contr.Arian.  in  fine. 

f  £.  G.  God  exiftsy  God  is  in  Heaven  above,  God  is  on  Earth  be- 
h-pf.  The  vorj  God  here,  (upon  the  Doctor's  hlypothdis  rf  inJiTiite  eX' 
/en fan)  has  three  fever al  Ideas  annex' d to  it. 


Qii.  XXIII.     offo7m  aU  E  R I E  S.       355 

You  ask  me,  wherein  the  prefent  Schola- 
JJick  Notmi  difagrees  "-joith  z"/:^^  SabcUian  ?  I 
anfwer,  in  admitting  three  real  fubfifting  Pcr- 
fons.  But  fince  you  are  fo  often  charging  us 
with  Sabellianifm,  it  may  be  proper  to  obfcrvc 
here,  how  near  akin  the  SabeUiaiis  and  Arians 
are  to  each  other  ;  Both,  as  it  were,  growing 
of  the  fame  Stock. 

1.  In  the  firft Place,  Bothfeem  to  fuppofe  or 
take  for  granted,  that  if  the  rnodiis^  or  manner^ 
be  unintcUigible,  the  Thing  it  felf  is  incredible. 

2.  Both  agree  in  the  fundamental  Principle 
of  Herefjy  that  one  Subftancc,  or  Being,  can 
be  only  one  real  Perfon,  or  Hypoftajis,  As 
Nejlorius  and  EutycheSy  tho'  taking  different 
ways,  yet  proceeded  upon  the  fame  Bottom, 
that  two  Natures  could  not  make  one  "Perfon  in 
Chrift:  So  Sabellius  and  Arms,  before  Them, 
tho'  differing  in  the  laft  refult,  yet  fet  out  up- 
on the  fame  Principle  5  That  two  real  Perfons 
cannot  be  one  Being  or  Subflance, 

3.  In  Confequencc  of  their  prime  Pofition, 
Both  confpire  to  difcard,  in  realityy  the  Son 
and  the  Holy-Ghoft  from  the  One  true  God- 
heads looking  upon  it  as  Tritheifm  to  make 
the  Perfons  real,  and  divine  too.  One  Hjpo- 
Jiajis  in  the  G(?^/j^^^/is  allthat  either  of  Them 

admits ;  Both  Judaizing,  as  *  Gregory  NyJJen 
juftly  obferves,  in  that  refped :  And  the  Sa- 
iellians  T^cJvjju©',    (or  God  with  three  Names) 

"Ay-imtTcy,     Gjeg.  NylT.  ContT.  Eunom.  p.  6j6. 

anfwers 


356        ^DEFENSE    Qu.  XXIIL 

anfwcrs  to  the  yirians  'Ayi'mr©^-,  Self-exiftenty 
or  Unbegotten  God.  Thus  far  they  amicably 
agree  ;  let  us  next  obferve  where  They  differ. 

Suppofing  Them  fix'd  and  fettled  in  the  pre- 
liminary Principle,  it  is  manifeft  that  the  Word 
and  Spirit  muft  either  be  Names  only,  or,  if 
real  diftind  Pcrfons,  Creatures,  The  Sabel- 
lians  were  at  liberty  to  chufe  this,  or  that: 
But,  finding  Scripture  run  high,  and  Tradition 
ftrong  for  the  'Divinity  of  the  JVord2iW^  Holy- 
Spirit,  They  made  choice  of  the  former  5  in- 
terpreting F/2!^^^r,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghoft^  as  dif- 
ferent Names  of  one  and  the  fame  Hypoftajis^ 
or  real  Pcrfon.  By  this,  they  effedually  guard- 
ed againfl:  the  fuppofed  Tritheifrn  of  the  Ca- 
tholicks,  as  well  as  againft  Pagan  T^olytheifm ; 
and,  being  wife  Men  fo  far,  fecured  the  Point 
which  They  aim'd  at.  The  Arians,  who  came 
after  (and  who,  as  I  before  faid,  fet  out  upon 
the  fame  preliminary  Principles)  finding  that 
the  Sabellian  Confufion  of  Perfons  had  been 
utterly  routed,  baffled,  and  exploded  by  all 
good  Catholicks,  had  really  no  Option  left; 
but  either  to  make  the  Son  and  Holy-Spirit 
Creatures,  or  to  give  up  their  ^Prelmmaries, 
Accordingly ,  They  took  the  way  which  the 
Sabellians  had  left  Them  ^  and  were  very  un- 
happy in  this  particular,  that,  endeavoring  to 
avoid  one  kind  of  Tritheifwy  They  fell  into 
Another. 

1  ho  Jrian  Scheme,  befides  its  failing  in  its 
principal  Dcfii^n  of  avoiding   Toljtheifm,    has 

many 


Qu.  XXIII.     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      557 

many  real  and  great  Difficulties;  being  as  well 
too  high  for  fome  Texts,  as  too  low  for  others  ^ 
wliich  the  Catholicksy  or  Sabellians  can  much 
better  deal  with.  Hence,  I  fuppofe,  it  was,  that 
the  Unitarians,  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Re- 
formation, having  modeftiy  begun  with  *  Aria- 
nifm^  for  the  moft  part,  fettled  into  Socinia- 
mfin--,  which  is  near  to  Sabellianifm :  And  our 
Engliih  Unitarians,  who  for  acutenefs  of  Wit 
and  fubtilty  of  Thought  have  not  been  infe- 
rior to  any  of  their  Brethren,  have  been  ftill 
refining  upon  the  Socinian  Scheme  (which  had 
(truck  upon  l^itheifm,  in  like  manner  as  the 
Arian  had  upon  Tritheifm)  and  have  brought 
it  ftill  nearer  to  Sabellianifm.  After  all,  when 
Men  have  run  their  Courfe  from  Orthodoxy  to 
Arianifm^  from  Arianifm  to  Socinianifm,  and 
from  thence  to  Sabellianifm  -,  if  They  will  but 
give  themfelves  leave  to  refled  and  look  back, 
Tiiey  may  peiiiaps  perceive,  at  length,  that 
Catholicifm^  is  the  only  Scriptural^  as  well  as 
the  Antient  Scheme  5  liable  to  the  feweft  Dif- 
ficulties, and  beft  guarded  againft  Objed:ions. 
It  is  therefore  no  wonder  that  the  Bulk  of  Chri- 
ftians,  learned  and  unlearned,  have,  for  as  many- 
Centuries  upward  as  we  have  any  clear  Re- 
cords extant,  efpoufed  it.  It  is  an  eafy  mat- 
ter for  Men  of  Wit  and  Fancy  to  find  fault  with 
Any  Thing :  But  it  requires  Thought  and  Judg- 
ment to  fettle  Things  upon  their  true  Bottom. 
Let  Thofc  who  are  difpleafed  with  the  received 

f  Socin.  Contr.Erafm.  Johan.  p.  49<5. 

Dodrine^ 


35S       y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qli.  XXIII, 

Dodrinc,  fliow  us  a  Better;  and  make  any  other 
confillent  Scheme  ( confilknt  with  Scripture 
and  with  it  Self)  if  They  can.  Wife  and  good 
Men  will  be  always  willing  to  Reform,  if  there 
be  Caufe  for  it :  But  they  will  not  be  forward 
to  pull  down  what  appears  to  be  founded  on  a 
Rock,  in  order  only  to  build  upon  the  Sand. 
It  is  fome  Satisfadion  to  the  Trinitarians  to 
obierve,  how  long  fome  great  Wits  have  been 
new-modelling  Chriftianity  5  and  have  not  yet 
been  able  to  agree  in  any  one  certain  Scheme. 
The  Arians  fall  upon  the  Sabellians,  and  the 
Sabellians  again  upon  Them :  One  defends  the 
Terfonalityy  and  the  other  the  "Divinity  of  the 
Ao>'©-5  or  ffori^y  and  cannot  yet  be  brought 
to  any  Agreement.  *  Betwixt  Them,  the  Prin- 
ciples of  the  Catholick  Church  are  fupportcd, 
and  They  condemn  each  other,  in  the  very 
Things  which  the  Church  condemns  in  Both, 
If  I  may  give  a  Judgment  of  the  two  Schemes, 
the  Sabellian  appears  to  be  the  neater  of  the 
Two,  and  mod  confillent  with  it  felf :  ^\\zArian 
is  more  pious  and  modcft,  tender  of  degrading 
the  Son  of  God  too  far.  As  Men  2;row  bolder 
and  more  learned  in  Herefy^  They  will,  very 
probably,  be  drawing  nearer  and  nearer  to  the 
Sabellians.  Two  of  the  ableft  and  acuteft  Men 
of  tile  later  Unitarians  (one  Here,  the  other 
Abroad)  have  prefer'd  the  J^s^^iV/i/?/ way  :  And 

•  Urcrquc  Iloftis  Ecclcfioe  rcr,  Ecclefio:  agit:  Dum  SaMlius 
Deum  ex  natura  in  opcribus  prccdicat;  Mi  vcro/  cx  SaC.amcntQ 
Fidci,  Filium  Dei  confitentur.     Mil.  p.  9 19. 

4  SS 


Qii.XXIII.     of  fame  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       559 

as  They  have  given  Proofs  of  their  Learning, 
fo  have  they  fufficiently  fhown  their  Boldnefs 
alfo,  by  treating  fo  fublime  and  tremendous  a 
Subjed,  in  the  way  of  Scoff  and  Ridicule.  To 
return :  You  arc  pleafed  to  fay,  that  you  have 
anfwefd  for  ®r.  ClarkcV  Notion  not  being 
Sabellian,  and  have  provd  that  it  is  not  Tri- 
theiftick.  But  give  me  leave  to  fay,  that  you 
are  deceived  in  Both:  The  Ground  is  Sabel- 
liarij  and  the  Superftrudure  Tritheijiick-^  and, 
the  whole  contrived  in  fuch  a  way,  as  to  hang 
ioofely  together. 

It  is  obvious,  at  firft  fight,  that  the  true  Arian 
or  Semi- Arian  Scheme  (which  you  would  be 
thought  to  come  up  to  at  leaft)  can  never 
tolerably  fupport  it  felf,  without  taking  in  the 
Catholick  Principle  of  a  Human  Soul  to  join 
with  the  Word.  If  you  come  thus  far,  it  will 
then  be  cafy  to  perceive  that  the  Sabellian 
Scheme  is  the  fimpler  and  plainer  j  befides  that 
it  better  anfwers  the  high  Things  fpoken  of  the 
Word'^  in  refpeft  of  which  your  Scheme  is  as 
much  too  lo'-^y  as  before  too  high.  But  then  a- 
gain,  the  Arguments  for  the  diftind  perfonalitj 
of  the  IVord  and  Holy  Spirit,  bear  fo  full  and 
ftrong,  that  there  will  appear  a  Neceflity  for 
taking  in  another  Catholick  Principle  j  and  That 
.will  compleatly  anfwer  all.  And  why  then 
fhould  not  the  Catholick  Dodrine  (fo  ap- 
parently nccelfary  to  make  Scripture  confiftent) 
be  admitted  ?  The  Cafe,  in  few  words,  appears 
to  be  only  this.     You  cannot  undcrftand  how 

Three 


360      ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXIIT. 

Three  c^inho:  One ':,  you  fee  noreafon,  a  priori^ 
why,  if  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  be  Co-eval  and 
ConfubfiantiaU  They  fliould  not  be  Co-ordi- 
vate  too ;  you  kno^ju  not  why  the  Father  might 
not  as  well  be  faid  to  be  begotten^  as  to  beget  5 
to  be  fent,  as  to  fendy  or  the  like.  Very  true : 
But  you  may  /?raReafon,  zprioriy  why  Crea- 
tures, of  yefterday,  may  not  be  able  to  fearch 
the  deep  Things  of  God:  You  may  know  how 
well  it  becomes  Them  to  fubmit  their  Fancies, 
or  Prcfumptions,  to  divine  Revelation  j  content 
to  fee  through  a  Glafs  darkly^  till  the  Time 
come  to  know  God  more  perfedly,  and  to  fee 
Him  as  He  is.  This  may  be  a  fufficient  An- 
fwer  to  a  pious  and  humble  Mind,  in  all  Cafes 
of  this  Nature ;  where  the  difficulty  is  owing 
only  to  our  imperfe£l  and  inadequate  Concep- 
tion of  Things. 

I  was  obliged  to  pafs  over  fome  Remarks 
you  had  in  your  Notes*,  for  the  fake  of  Me- 
thod :  But  it  will  not  be  too  late  to  confider 
Them  here.  I  had  made  no  ufe  oi^Joh.  10. 30. 
(/  and  my  Father  are  07ie)  but  you  had  a 
mind  to  bring  it  in,  to  let  us  know  how  well 
you  could  anfwcr  it,  from  the  primitive  Wri- 
ters, I  am  always  willing  to  defend  thofe  good 
Men,  and  to  rcfcuc  them  out  of  the  Hands  of 
Thofc,  who  cither  knowingly,  or  ignorantly 
abufeThem.  You  begin  thus,  Triumphantly: 
The  T)e fenders  of  the  Scholaftick  Explication 
of  the  Trinity  in  Unity^    thd   They  pretend 


*  Pag.  106. 


much 


Qii.  XXIII.    of  form  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      i6i 

much  that  the  moft  Antient  Writers  of  the 
Church  are  on  their  fide^  yety  in  exprej/ing 
their  Notion  of  the  Unity  in  the  divine  'Per- 
fonsy  They  do  not  only  leave  Scripture  and  Rea- 
fony  but  plainly  run  againjl  the  whole  Stream 
of  Antiquity  alfo.  The  Text  on  which  thev  fo 
much  rely  (Joh.  lo.  30.)  is  underftood  by  Ter- 
tullian  Himfelf  of  the  Unity  of  LovCy  md 
Confent^  and  l:^0\ver.  You  go  on  to  cite  Ter- 
tulliayiy  and  others,  from  Dr.  Clarke,  But, 
Writers  in  a  Caufe,  are  very  often  known  to 
reprefent  Things  by  halves.  You  fhall  fee , 
prefently,  what  little  Reafon  you  have  to  talk 
of  the  '-juhole  Stream  ofAniiqttity.  The  Text, 
which  you  fpeak  of,  has  all  along  been  made 
ufe  of  by  the  Catholicks,  in  twoRefpecls ;  firft, 
in  Proof  of  our  Lord's  real  Divinity,  againft  as 
many  as  denied  it ;  and  fecondly,  in  Proof  of 
his  real  Diftinclion  from  the  Father,  againft 
the  Noetians  or  Sabellians,  There  was  very 
little  occafion  to  infift  much  upon  Unity 
of  Subftance  y  with  thofe  who  had  carried 
Unity  of  Subftance  fo  high,  as  to  make  but  one 
Hypoftajis,  It  might  be  fufficient,  in  difpute 
with  thole  Men,  to  obferve  that  That  Text 
did  by  no  means  prove  an  Identity  of  Ter- 
fony  unlefs  "Taul  and  Apollos  were  one  Per- 
fon,  which  is  abfurd.  Whatever  the  Text 
might  othcrwife  prove,  it  certainly  did  not 
prove,  what  the  Sabellians  pretended,  an 
Unity  of  Terfon,  This  the  Toft-Nicene  Fa- 
thers frequently  obferve,  againft  the  Sabellians 

B  b  (as 


362        /^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXIII. 

(as  the  Ante-Nicene  had  done  before)  though 
at  the  fame  time,  That  Text  might  be  of  good 
ufe  againft  the  Avians ;  as  it  had  been  all  along 
againft  the  Impngners  of  Chrift's  ^Divinity. 
For  your  clearer  Apprehenfion  of  this  Matter, 
I  fliall  fct  down,  *  in  Two  diftinft  Columns, 
the  Sentiments  of  the  primitive  Writers,  on  this 


♦  jiga'mfl  Impugners    of  Chriji's 
Divinity, 

Tertullian. 
Nunquam  feparatus  a  Patre 
.aut  alius  a  Patre,  quiac^oSc  Fa- 
itr  unum  famus,  adv.  Prax.  c.  8. 
Qui  TresUnum  funt,  non  Unus, 
quomodo  dictum  ell,  "Ego  ^  Pa- 
ter JJnum  fumus.  Ad  Subftantiae 
Unitatcm,  non  ad  numeri  Sin- 
gularitatem.  Ailv,  Frax.  c.  i^. 

NOVATIAN. 

Quod  fi,  cum  nullius  Hominis 
Ha:c  vox  efCe  pofTct,  Ego  ^  Ta- 
ter  unum  [iimus^  Jianc  vocem  de 
Confcientia  Divinitatis  Chriftus 
Soius  cdicir—  merito  Deus 
eft  Chriftus,  r.  15. 

Si  Homo  tantummodo  Chri- 
ftus,  quid  eft  quod  dicit,  Ego  ^ 
Fater  ur,u)7t  fumus.  Si  non  Sc 
Deus  eft,  £c  Filius,  qui  idcirco 
unum  poteft  dici,  dum  ex  Ipfo 
eft,  £v  dum  Filius  ejus  eft,  8c 
.dum  ex  ipfo  nafcitur,  &  dum 
ex  ipfo  proceflllle  reperitur,  per 
quod  £c  Dens  eft.  r.  25. 


O  R 1  c  F.  K. 

AiKifJ   ^   (C'   TS-p^CyTHTO,    OTl   H'^TtC 
ViUCf.Ki    0  Kt?,tro<i  TO,   'Efo>   )^  6    T«l)«p 

m  ie-f^  , ,    HI      ,  JK    uv  utlu  i^^S;  ^ 


uigainji  Sabellians. 

Tertullian. 

Unum  dicit  neutrali  verbo, 
quod  non  pertinet  ad  Singulari- 
tatem  fed  ad  l/nitatem,  ad  Con- 
jundlionem,  ad  Dileftionem  Pa- 
rris,  qui  Filium^  ^iligit,  &  ad 
obfequium  Filii ,  "qui  voluntati 
Patris  obfequitur.  Unum  fumus, 
dicens,  quos  aequat  &  juagit, 
adv.  Frax.  c.zi. 

NOVATIAN. 

Quia  dixit  unum,  fntelUgant 
Hsrretici  quia  non  dixerit  unus. 
Unum  enim  neutraliter  politura 
Societatis  Concordiam,  non  U- 
nitatem  Perfon^  fonat—  merf- 
to  unum  fit  Pater  6c  Filius  per 
concordiam,  8c  per  amorem,  & 
per  dilecftlonem  m^m  Novit  hanc 
concordi^E  Unitatem  8c  Apofto- 
lus  Faulus  cum  Pcrfbnarum  di- 
ftinftione  — «  ^ii  plantat  ^  qui 
rigat  unupt  funt.  Quis  autem 
non  intelligat  altcrum  eflc  Apollo, 
alterum  Faulum ,  non  eundem 
atque  ipfum  Apollo  paritcr  5c 
PauUifn,  c.  2z. 

O  R  I  c  E  K. 

Toy  srolspa,  '^  uXyj^ucce,  tc.  T  tnov 

T)fjV    U^i'fiucCV,     t,V\OC  aoo    TV.    VS!7Tr«W 


Qu.  XXIII.    offome  Q.U  E  R  I  E  S.       3  <;  j" 


«A.  Conrr.Cdi'.l.  S.  p.  386. 
D I  ON  Ys  I  us  Rom. 
QltTi    (  -/i^'^ )    7rci*icr<i   xuXoiif   to 
ec^^iuubcc  y^  ro  ijsr'f-iecAXoy  fji^iytS^ 
»    Ki'fd  ■!  •■Jvo'cu^   ^    T«  Gem    t 

cAwy  T  A070V,    £'/&)  yep,   <P/j(r<,     x^ 

zrxrti^  iviTfBfj.  Ap.  Athan.p.i32. 

HiPrOLYTUS. 
Ou  Olio  0<»?  Xlyu,  ccXX'  co<;  ^u^ 
C/n  (puToc^  vi  oxi  iatk/e  c/k  sr^jy??,  Ij 
eo<i  uktTvcc  ^^ttb^  kAi»,  otxv  Ufjuic,  f^ 
fjtjicc  If  C/X  3*  zrxvTo^,  TO  i)  zrSv  sr«- 
T>)^,  s|  8  ^M>'c<.uji<i  xdy(^-.  C.  I  I . 
Alexander  Alex, 

ri"  0  xt<'g^©-,  ii  zrcili^ec  iuvTcv  civa- 
jo^a^an.  jiOi  Tdc,  rvj  -jj^TBf-oso'jt  oty© 
^ua-iiq  fjjUv    uvea    frx<pr,vi^o)v.    ocXX' 

'oTi  TViV  ZTXIqAkIu)  if/j<Pi^ilCCV  Ci,KQ^Za<i 
■SS-itP'JKi   (TCil^HV    0   1/40?    S''  Z5-«/^5,    TJJV 

y.ATU  TS'civlx  oUjOioTijlcc  wjts  ci<  ^£/- 
trf<y5  ^(//&i^«^t^(^,  }cxl  u^cccuX- 
'*.«x./05   sjjcajy  ^  TTXi^';  Tvi^^uyuy,  x.xt 

Thcod.  E.  H.  ].  I .  c.  4.  p.  i  y. 

Epiphanius. 

Kxi  5r^5  TisTnq  tc  r»^  vcfJUK^e*' 
T«5  uXXoT^iov  ilyvA  T  iiov  3*  2r«- 
Tcqc:  ,>.iyn,   iyu  (c"  o  zrxiyip  h 


tV^.i.  ■  r.i.;^^  ro  Sii'ai  cv  fjjiocivo- 
TTiTi  B-ioTyii(^y  y.VA  cv  f/ji^  yyuf/jv 
xxk  cf'ufjxyjii.  p.  4S8.HxT._f7. 

Cyril.  Hiergs. 

r.y  JAJ  A  ro  kxtu  t^.v  ^ioTriTU  u^iu- 
fJtjcc  sV'itfli  0£o§  Oicv  tyl'jr^a-iv.  '^£v 
t^g.T0  KXTec  Try  e«(rM£(Ot:*i  i^i  kV 
3^  ro  yj7)0iu/iuv  ii^ui  ^ijA^uviXy  y, 
^^a.TXC-if.  ■  ■■  ■'^E>  ^*  Tj  ^){  ftWi 
tifAAct  Pifir»  i^yjiiif'y^iU^XTx  Kui  ocX- 

XCC    7:cCr^CC,-     f/jiX      '^   Y     ^OCtTCU))     o^- 

fjjwyiic.  p.  142,  143.  O.x.  Ed. 


(PUViCC,    Kxi    TVjTXVlOTr.U    is'   /SaXyiyjCC- 

r(^.    ax^  T    iufXKorx  T  itG)>  (ovtoo 
UTruvyua-fjtjX  t^  ^o|);?,    xctt    x^pxx.-' 

XsWi    cV  Xurca  cyjt  liy.ivi  ij"   0£5,     T" 

^ui.  Contr.  Ceir.l.  8.  p.  386* 


HippoLytus. 
Ow»  s/tt^v  on  iyu  KXi  o  Trxk^  ii 
Ufjui,  ciXX'   £y  icrfS^.    to  yx^  i<rfd/i 
CVX    i<p'   ivo^   ^iy\),    xXX'   {ttI  a'ua 

TTpoCUTTX  iOH^EV,  OhjU  XUJIV  S  UiiXVmmma 
^m^T-^V   OCZfCV     KV     idUKU^   fllOly     10U»» 

xuToTi;  Ivx  axriv  m,  kuBox^  v.fJi'U<i  iv— 
.— .rt'  TTpo?  txZtx  i;^8(r*  Xtyuv  ol 
Hovilix'joi  i  fjuvi  7r<x.y%q  h  (rcot/jX  ifiv 
KXTX  r«»  is<rtxv,  jj  tv,  oujjufiin  kxi  ti| 
^^.S^(rn  T^  i. [jjoCp^c'j^x^  iv  yivcfjijiGx  j 
7"  «t)roki  c*)  t^^tToh  0  '7:xitwmm  u^tO- 
Xcywif  «<V«*  c*  raJ  7r«rf<  ^vuMf^u, 

Contr.  Noet.  c.  7.  p.  ii» 


it5  y^  y»?   ;ro6/po5  6  ;r«i<;« 


Epiphakius.  ^ 

ITfOi;  ^  ra5  vcfJL,i^o)iTX<i  xvtov  ilvxt' 

TOV  TfATifX  K.  T  X'JTCV  SlVXi  llCV  2^  TO 
iift/iKi'JXl,    Sya/   KXi    6   T^'XTYiP    iV  icr/jjiv^ 

Xifny  7roir,Tov  xoTiiq  iyx  ci/criy  tv  kx~ 
3- 6/5  ly'a  Kxl  cru  tv  i(rfd/j,  Ivx  kxtxi- 

^UViJ     NoyjTOV    KXi    T'ti')    XUTM    o/oXlui  , 

TTxpxyxyay  £«5  to  fXiiTov  tv.v  T  ^06- 
B-r,Tcov  tyeL'civ.  Hat,  ^  viOiu/xro  Ils- 
Tpo5  KXi  'luuyvt)<i,  xxi  ol  Kxds^Kt;  uveH 
tv  ac  KXTX  <ruvxXoi(pui)'i  p.  4S8. 

Cyril.  Hierosol. 

Oux.  uTTnyaiicXi  ozxtvi^  i¥  sifAi, 

xXX'  iyco  KXi  6  TTXrv.s  iy  io-f/jSVyivx  fju*i' 

Ti  XT^xXX'iTpiucruuiiy ,  fX/iiTi  (rvvxXci- 

^y'vic^x^tixc,  i^~x(pu}JA$x,  p.  142. 


Bb 


Head 


56+      ^DEFENSE      a^.  XXIII. 

Head;  that  you  may  perceive  how  They  de- 
fended fuch  an  Unity  as  we  mauitain,  at  the 
lame  Time  that  they  ftrcnuoufly  oppofed  the 
Sdbellians.  1  fliall  make  particular  Remarks  up- 
on the  Authors,  fingly,  as  I  pafs  along;  and  af- 
terwards throvv^  in  fome  general  Obfervations. 

To  begin  with  TertuUian :  You  will  obfervc, 
that  He  interprets  the  Text  exprejly  of  Unity 
of  Snbftancey  in  one  Citation:  And  He  is  to 
be  fo  underftood  in  the  other,  had  you  but 
thought  liow  to  conftrue  Unit  at  em  ^  as  you 
fhould  have  done.  I  fuppofe,  Unit'j  of  Love^ 
Confenty  znd  7* ozji'er  may  very  well  follow, 
after  fo  good  a  Foundation  laid  for  it.  Tertul- 
lian  elfewhere  *  intimates  the  flrid  and  inviolable 
Harmony  of  the  three  Pcrfons,  refolving  it  into 
Unity  of  Snbftance. 

Novatian  is  your  next  Author:  You  may 
pi  cafe  to  obferve,  how  abfurd  He  thinks  it 
would  have  been  for  any  mere  Man  to  have 
faJd,  I  and  my  Father  are  one.  And  whyfo? 
Might  not  there  be  Unity  of  IVilf-,  Confenty 
Authority,  between  God  and  Man  ?  Undoubt- 
edly there  might.  Well  then  ;  Novatian  did 
conceive  the  Text  to  fpeak  of  Unity  of  Lovey 
&:c  hwx.  Equality  o^  Nature  pre fuppofed:  For 
even  'Paul  and  Apollos  were  not  of  a  different 
Mature;  one  \v:\s  vs  truly  Alan,  as  the  other: 
And  ioy  if  Chrifl:  was  truly  God,  as  well  as  the 
I-'arhcr,    He  might  fay,    /  and  my  Father  are 

*  T.un  coafurtibusSubnantfuePatris.     Comr,?rax,  c.  3. 

one. 


Qli.  XXriI.    of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       365 

one.  This  is  *  plainly  Novatians  Senfc,  in  the 
Citations  of  the  tirft  Column ;  and  it  is  very  con- 
fident with  the  other,  in  the  oppofite  Colunin. 
All  That  Unity  of  Confenty  Love,  6:c.  is  found- 
ed upon,  and  refolvcs^into  Unity  of  Subftancc 
and  'Principle,  according  to  this  Writer. 

OrigenQO\r\Qs  next.  I  have  fet  againO:  Him  a 
Padage  of  'Dionyfius  of  Rome,  who  quotes  the 
Text  in  Confirmation  of  what  He  had  juft  before 
faid,  that  we  ought  not  by  any  means  to  under- 
value the  fuper-emincnt  Dignity  of  the  Son,  by 
fuppofing  Him  a  Creature.  As  to  Origen  particu- 
larly, it  is  to  be  confider'd,  that,  if  He  hadrefol- 
ved  the  Unity  of  Godhead,  in  that  PaiTage,  into 
Unity  o^Co?i/e7it,  mentioning  no  other;  yet  no 
certain  Argument  could  be  drawn  from  thence, 
that  He  held  no  other ;  any  more  than  from  the 
Paflages  of  Nov  at  i  an  :indTertu!/ian  before  cited. 
Had  They  been  left /ingle,  They  had  been  liable 
to  the  fame  Charge;  and  yet  it  feems  merely  ac- 
cidental that  They  were  not.  A  uthors  do  not  al- 
ways fpcak  their  whole  Thoughts  upon  a  particu- 
lar occafion ;  but  arc  content  only  to  fay  as  much 
as  the  occafion  requires.  Origen  was  guarding 
againft  the  Sabellian  abufe  of  the  Text,  and  his 
Thoughts  were  turned  to  That  chiefly.  However, 
in  That  very  place.  He  made  fo  much  Ufeof  the 
Text,  as  from  thence  to  infer,  that  Father  and  Son 
are  one  God,  and  one  Obje^  of  Worfhip  -,  which, 
to  any  one  who  is  acquainted  withOr/><?;^'sPrinci- 
plcs  inThatBook,mufl:appear  to  denote  ihcdi-jine 

*  Conjpare  a  Tajfage  of  Novatian,  cited  above^  P-S^* 

B  b  3  and 


166       ^DEFENSE      Qu.XXIII. 

and  uncreated  Nature  of  the  Son ;  and  confc- 
qucntly  a  fnbfiantial  Unity  betwixt  Him  and  the 
Father:  Bcfides,  that  this  is  farther  intimated,  in 
thePaflagc  cited,by  theWords,  diroLya.cixa.  -f  d^o^r^y 
and  ^af^yiTYipj.  ^\om7cl<Ti(t}9^  which  feem  to  have 
been  added  to  qualify  the  former  5  and  are  hardly 
pertinent  but  on  fome  fuch  Suppofition.  To  con- 
firm which,  pleafe  to  compare  Origen  with  Alex- 
nnder  Bifhop  oi  Alexandria  his  Comment  on  the 
fame  Text,  and  you'll  find  Them  very  nearly  the 
fame ;  which  is  fufficient  to  acquit  Origen  of  any 
Sufpicion  of  Arianizing-,  in  this  Point. 

I  come  next  to  Hippolytus,  who  has  but  lately 
appear'd,  and  whom  neither  the  Dodor  nor  You 
have  took  notice  of  He  argues  againft  the  Sabelli- 
(ins,  in  the  very  fame  way  with  Terfullian,  Nova- 
t'lan,  and  Origen:  But  then,  in  the  other  Citation 
oppofirely  plac'd,  He  clearly  refolvesthe  Unity  of 
the  Godhead  intoUnity  of  SubJIance  ^ndTrinci- 
fie.  But  befides  this,  it  deferves  your  fpecial  No- 
tice, That  while  He  fpeaks  of  Unity  oiJVtll-,  and 
Concord  (admitting  a  kind  of  Parallel  between  the 
Union  of  Chriilians,  and  the  Union  of  God  and 
Chrift)  He  clearly  fignifies  hov\^  infinitely  more 
perfect  the  latter  is  5  refolving  it  into  this,  that  the 
Son  is  the  v«V  -nraTpor,  the  Living  and  Subfiantial 
Mind,  or  Thought  of  the  Father.  This  then 
is  the  C'alc:  There  is  an  Unity  *  of  Concord, 

♦  rtiam  nosquippc  incomrarnbilcm  ConlcnfLini  voluntatis  atqiie 
imlivitlucc  Cariuiti.s  Parr  is  i  Filii  5:  Spiritus  Sancri  confiLcmur, 
propter  cjuoii  diciinus,  Hixrc  Trinitas  unu.'cflDcus.  Augufi.conty. 
Maxim.  1.  2.  p.  720. 

Vid.  ctiam  Greg.  Nvfl'Contr.  Eunom.I.  i.  p-jS*?.  Hilar,  dc 
Trin.  p.  p/S. 

and 


Qu.  XXIII.     offome  QUERIES.       367 

and  Harmonious  Love,  founded  upon  Unity  of 
Subftance  :  And  the  words,  /  and  my  Father 
are  oney  Exprefs  both  the  Unity  it  fclf,  and 
the  Foundation  of  it.  Taul  and  Apollos  were 
one  in  Heart  and  Will,  in  fuch  Mcafure  and 
Degree  as  They  were  capable  of :  And  fo  God 
and  Chrift  are  one  likewife;  but  by  an  Union 
infinitely  more  perfed,  and  upon  an  infinitely 
higher  Foundation.  You  need  not  be  told,  that 
jta^wV  often  fignifies  not  an  exaEi  Equality-, 
hmi general  Similitude  :  *  The  Remark  is  juftj 
and,  as  it  is  at  other  times  urged  againft  us,  fo 
let  me  here  claim  the  Benefit  of  it. 

I  have  added  to  the  Number,  Two  ^oft-Ni- 
cene  Writers,  Epiphanius  and  the  elder  Cyril  i 
which  are  enough  to  fliew  that  the  fame  way 
of  reafoning  againft  the  Sabellians  (which  pre- 
vailed before  the  Nicene-Council)  obtaind  likc- 
wi(e  afterwards.  Some  are  apt  to  triumph  ex- 
tremely, if  They  can  but  find  any  the  Icaft 
Difference  between  the  Ante-Nicene  and  "Tojl- 
Ntcene  Writers.  If  there  be  but  a  Text  or  Two 
differently  interpreted,  a  folemn  Remark  is 
made  upon  it  5  and  fometimes  a  trifling  Note  of 
fome  obfcure  Scholiafiy  or  an  Imaginary  Dif- 
ference (having  no  Foundation  but  the  JVritefs 
Ignorance,  or  Negligence  in  comparing)  is  im- 
proved into  an  Argument  of  Change  of  "Do- 
ctrine'-, and  Athanafianifm  is  made  the  Name 
for  what  has  been  conftantly  held  in  the  Chri- 
fiian  Church.     If  there  be  occafion  to  fpeak  of 

*  Vid.  Athanaf.  Orat.  3.  p.fji. 

B  b  4.  the 


368        y^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E     Qu.  XXIII. 

the  Things  fcemingly  Derogatory  to  the  Honour 
of  the  Son  (his  h^w^z^  Subordinate'^  his  refer- 
ring all  Things  to  the  Father,  as  Head,  Root^ 
Fount  am, Can fe-,  his  executing  the  Father's  Will, 
and  the  like)  or  of  a  real  Diftindion  betweet^ 
Father  2nd  Son  (as  their  being  o^'uc  d^^ij.^^  du£ 
Res,  or  oneof  thein,  a^^/aajtrfp©',  that  iSyper- 
finally  diftinct  from  the  other)  then  only  Ante- 
Kicene  Fathers  are  quoted  5  as  lUhtTofi-Nicene 
did  not  teach  the  very  fame  Dodrine:  But  if  a- 
ny  thing,  which  feemsto  make  more  for  the  Ho- 
nour of  the  Son,  be  mentioned  (as  His  being  ttn- 
created,  eternal,  one  God  with  the  Father,  Crea- 
/^r  of  ail  Things,  and  the  like)  this  is  to  be  re- 
prefentcd  as  the  Dodrine  of  the  Tojl-Nicene  Fa- 
thers only  5  tho'  nothing  is  more  evident  than 
that  They  varied  not  a  Tittle,  in  any  material 
Point  of  Dodrine,  from  their  Predeceffors  5  but 
only  prefervcd,  as  became  Them,  with  an  up- 
right Zeal,  the  true  Faith  of  Chrift,  which  '■^'as 
cnce  deliver  d to  the  Saints, 

To  return.  It  is  needlcfs  almofl,  to  take  no- 
tice of  other  Teflimonies :  Thofeln  the  Mar- 
gin are  lufficicnt  to  fiiew  the  true  and  con- 
ilaut  ScLfe  of  the  Chriftian  Ciiurch.  The 
*  Dodor  quotes  Bafd  and  Chryfoflom,  as  lay- 
ing Father  and  Son  were  One,  xara  J^wia^iv :  And, 
]c([  the  Reader  flioiild  underftand  what  thofe 
Fathers  meant  by  y.cLrdcujjctfM-j,  He  cuts  Chry- 
Joflorn  fhort;  whofe  words  immediately  follow- 
ing id  J  >?  cwjaiJLi^  h  cwTf,^  iijc'O.o'J  on  y^  n  yV/a) 
*  Pag.  100. 

fliew 


Qii.  XXIV.    offome  aU  E  R I  E  S.      3  69 

fhew  that  He  meant  by  cJ'^jvay.is^  not  the  fame 
Authority y  but  the  lame  inherent,  effential,  om- 
nipotent Power. 

Athenagoras's  (^iwd(xi  may  be  rightly  inter- 
preted by  Hippolytus  before  cited  ;  or  by  Chry- 
foflom ;  or  by  Himfelf,  in  feveral  Places  where 
He  is  clear  for  the  Confubflantiality,  Jujiin 
Martyr's  Sentiments  have  been  explained  a- 
bove  i  and  the  Council  of  Antioch'%  Exprellion 
(t)j cruju(pcov/a)  is  vindicated  by  ^Hilary-,  who 
Himfelf  may  be  readily  underftood  by  fuch  as 
remember  how  the  primitive  Fathers  held  the 
Holy  Ghoft  to  be,  as  it  were,  Vinctilum  Tri- 
nitatis,  and  fometimes  Amor  T^atrts  &  Filii  i 
as  the  Son  Himfelf  is  alfo  ftiled  Charitas  ex 
Charitate^  by  -f*  Origen,  Thefe  Things  I  can 
only  hint  to  the  intelligent  Reader,  having  al- 
ready exceeded  the  Bounds  of  a  Digrcflion. 

(^  U   E    R    Y       XXIV. 

IVhether  Gal.  4.  8.  may  not  be  enough  to  deter- 
mine the  difpitte  betwixt  Us\  fince  it  obi  ved 
the  Tractor  to  confefsthat  Chrifi  is  I!  by  Na- 
ture truly  God,  as  truly  as  Man  is  by  Nature 
truly  Man. 

He  equivocates,  indeed,  there,  as  ufuaL  For, 
He  will  have  it  to  ftgnify  that  Chriji  is 
God  by  Nature,  only  as  having,  by  that 
Nature    which  He  derives  from  the  Fa- 

*  Pag.  1 170,  1 17  I.  t  Pamph.  Apol.  p.  2  3_j'.  Ed  Bcned. 

1)  Reply,  p.  81. 

ther^ 


370      yf    DEFENSE     Qu.XXIV. 

ther^  true  divine  ^ower  and  dominion : 
That  isy  He  is  truly  God  by  Nature^  as 
having  a  Nature  diftinEi  from,  and  inferior 
to  God'Sy  vjanting  *  the  moft  eflential  Cha- 
ra£lcr  of  God,  Self-exijlence,  What  is  this 
hut  trijiing  "isjith  IVordSy  and  playing  f aft  and 
loofe  ? 

IN  Anfwer  hereto,  you  begin :  Will  the 
S^ierift  injift  tipon  it,  that  the  Son  cannot 
be  God  by  Nature ,  unlefs  He  be  Self-ex- 
iftent  ?  And  you  proceed :  /  can  ajjiire  Him^ 
the  learnedefty  even  of  his  own  Friends^  are 
ajhamedof  this :  and  there  are  few  fo  hardy ^ 
as  direEily  to  affirm  it.  Bat,  have  a  little  Pa- 
tience, and  III  endeavour  to  make  you  eafy. 
Where  were  your  Thoughts )  Where  were  your 
Eyes  ?  Either  I  am  ftrangely  miftaken,  or  the 
Line,  which  offended  you  fo  grievoufly,  was 
fcored  underneath ;  and  pag.  9  2^  of  the  Do£lor*s 
Jieply  referred  to,  as  you  find  now :  And  my 
charging  the  Doftor  with  playing  faft  and 
loofe^  immediately  after,  might  have  been  a 
fufficicnt  Intimation  of  my  meaning.  Whether 
I  think  the  Son  Self-exiftent  or  no,  is  not  now 
the  Queftion.  I  took  hold  of  the  Dodor's  Ex- 
prcffion,  charg'd  Him  with  faft  and  loofe,  that 
is,  faying  and  unfaying,  contradifting  Himfelf. 
If  Sdf-exiflence  be  the  moft  ejfential  CharaEier 
of  God,  it  fcemstometo  follow,  that  the  Son^ 
V  ho  by  the  Doftor's  Confeflion  wants  that  Cha- 

•  Reply,  p.  Q2. 

ra&evy 


Qii.  XXIV.     offome  QUERIES.       571 

ratter,  cannot  be  truly  and  by  Nature  God,  any 
more  than  any  thing  can  be  truly  and  by  Na- 
^//r^Man,  without  the  effential Character  of  Man. 
As  to  my  own  part :  I  never  pretended  that  Self- 
exiftence  is  an  effential  Charader  of  God :  Yon 
might  have  confider'd  that  we  deny  it  abiolutely ; 
we  ilippofe  it  *  negative  and  relative,  and  call  it 
a  perfonal  Character.  NeceJJary-exiftence  is  an 
effentialC\\d.i7i€ttTy  and  belongs  equally  to  Fa- 
iher  and  Son:  If  That  be  what  you  mean  by 
Self-exijlence,  then  That  alfo  belongs  to  Both. 
Explain  your  felf,  and  deal  not  fo  much  in  am- 
bigitons  Terms,  which  we  have  juft  Reafon  to 
complain  of.  The  Doctor  knows  how  Self-ex- 
iflenty  by  Cuftom,  founds  among  common  Rea- 
ders ;  and  that  denying  the  Son  to  be  Self-ex- 
ifienty  may  be  thought  by  many  the  fame  Thing 
with  denying  Him  to  be  God.  Had  He  pieafed, 
in  his  Tranflations  of  dy^^m.-r'^^  and  elfewhere, 
to  fay  oftner  unbegotten  or  iinderived,  inftead  of 
Self  exijienty  it  would  have  been  kind  towards 
his  Readers,  and  perhaps  as  kind  to  Himfelf; 
For  it  will  be  always  thought  as  much  beneath  a 
grave  Writer  to  take  the  poor  Advantage  of  an 
equivocal^ ox^y  as  it  is  a  difparagement  to  any 
Caufetobe  fervedby  it.  But  to  proceed. 
You  wanted,  itfeems,  to  bring  in  a  parcel 

*  Sicut—  fecundum  Subflanthm  aio,  Homo  eft,  fie  fecundum 
Subfiaytttam  nego,  cum  dico,  non-homo  eft,  Sec.  Relative  autem  nega- 
musdicendo  mn-filius :  relative  igitur  neeamus  dicendo  ^iO«-^w/>«/. 
IngenitHs  porro,    quid  eft  nifi  mn-gemtus  I )  quod  autem  rf/«//x/« 

prcnunriatur,  non  indicat  Subjiant'um.     Aug.  dc  Trin.  1,  ^.  c  6. 
Comf.  Fulgent.  Contr.  Arian.  p.  /i.  Ed,  Parif. 

of 


372        yf  D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.  XXIV. 

of  Qiiotations,  which  you  might  as  well  have 
rcferr'd  to  only,  where  They  *  lie,  and  may 
be  fccn  to  greater  Advantage.  Whatever  they 
are,  They  contradid  not  me ;  nor  are  They  at 
all  pertinent  to  the  Bufijiefs  of  the  Query.  My 
Defign  was  to  fhev/,  at  once,  the  Dodor's  In- 
confiflency  with  Scripture,  and  with  Himfelf : 
Both  which  are  intimated  in  the  Query.  It  was 
your  part  to  defend  Him,  as  fairly  as  you  could. 
T  he  Dodor,  I  obferved,  was  obliged  from  Gal. 
4.  8.  'o  confefs  that  the  Son  is  bj  Nature  truly 
Cjod,  From  thence  I  infer,  that  His  Scheme 
cnnnot  ftand  with  that  Text  5  being  an  exprefs 
Conrradidion  to  it.  You  infift  upon  it  notwith- 
(laiid'ng,  that  the  Son  may  be  ^7  Nature  truly 
C  '\  agreeable  to  the  Text,  and  confident  with 
the  Oodor's  Principles.  This  then  is  the  fole 
Point  between  us,  to  be  here  difcufs'd. 

You  bavey  you  fay,  proved^  that  in  Scri- 
pture tkere  are  different  and  fubordinate  Ac- 
ceptations of  the '-jjord-,  God.  True,  you  have 
proved  that  Men  have  been  called  Gods-^  and 
Idols  Gods\  the  T>evil  is  alfo  a  God,  (2  Cor, 
4.  4- )  and  the  Belly  a  God.  But,  I  think,  St. 
^Whath  fufficiently  intimated,  (i  Cor.  8.  5,  6.) 
that  the  Son  is  not  to  be  reckon'd  among  the 
Nominal  Gods ;  befides  that  you  your  Selves 
confefs  it.  If  He  be  God  at  all,  He  is  a  real 
owQ  :  And  now  I  want  to  fee,  what  Scripture 
warrants,  or  permits  us  to  profefs  Tv/o  real 
and  true  Gods.      You  fay,     the  Son  is  God, 

•  Scripr.  Dodlr.  p.  3:06,  Sec.  alias  273,  2ic. 

'  trulj^ 


Qii.  XXIV.     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      375 

trulyy  and  properly^  and  by  Natur.y  in  the 
Scripture  Senfe  of  the  Word,  Gody  {p.  1 10.) 
Then,  fay  I,  He  mud  be  the  fame  with  the  one 
(iipreme  God,  becaufe  there  is  but  One,  If  He 
is  truly  fo,  He  is  the  fame  with  the  on!y  true 
God  5  if  properly  fo,  his  Subftance  is  properly 
divine ;  if  by  Nature  fo,  He  has  the  fame  Na- 
ture with  the  one  God.  Yet  I  very  well  know 
that  you  intend  nothing  like  it :  Only,  from 
the  concurring  Language  of  Scripture  and  Anti- 
quity, you  find  it  neceffary  to  fay  as  we  fay : 
And  are  afterwards  to  rack  and  drain  Invention, 
to  find  out  fomc  fubtile  and  furprizing  Meaning 
for  it.  What  may  we  not  do  with  any  Writings 
in  the  World  at  this  Rate,  fo  long  as  Words 
arc  capable  of  being  prefs'd  and  tortured  into 
diverfe  Meanings  ?  But  let  us  go  on,  to  fee  how 
you  account  for  the  Son's  being  God  by  Na- 
ture, If  dhine  Tower  and  ^Dominion  be 
derived  and  exercisd  partially^  temporarily^ 
or  in  certain  Emergencies  only,  it  makes  the 
Tcrfons  to  bcy  and  to  be  ftiled  Gods  -y  not  by 
Nature,  but  by  Grace.  Your  Notion  of  T>o- 
minion  making  God  to  be  God,  has  been  fuffi- 
cicntly  cxpofed  in  the  former  Parts.  I  need 
only  ask  here,  what  was  God  before  the  Crea- 
tures were  made  ?  Or  did  He  then  commence 
God^  by  Nature,  when  He  created  the  Uni- 
verfe,  and  began  tQ  have  T^ominion  over  it? 
the  Dodor  appears  to  be  in  the  utmoft  per- 
plexity, how  to  account  for  the  Son's  being 
called  God,  Joh.  1. 1.  He  is  forced  to  quit  his 

Notion 


J74      ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qii.  XXIV. 

Notion  of  ^Dominion,  *  Sometimes  it  is  becaufc 
He  was  ill  ^o^^n  Oiis  after  the  Creation,  and 
'\  fomctimcs  becauie  He  was  "[Partaker  oi divine 
^Power  and  Glory  (He  knew  not  liow  to  fay 
dominion)  before  the  Creation  :  And  fometimcs 

I!  lJ.irc^YJ  -f  a-jrc^'m  S^gornr©'.      So  that   nOW    WC 

have  the  Dodor's  own  Authority  for  contra- 
diding  Him,  if  He  tells  us  again,  that  the 
Word,  Gody  is  always  a  Wotd  of  Office.  When 
He  was  confidering  the  Son  as  God  before  the 
Creation,  He  fllould  have  Thought  a  little  far- 
ther, that  the  Father  was  then  alfo  Gody  and 
fhould  have  told  us,  in  what  Senfe  He  was  fo. 
But  to  proceed ;  Give  me  leave  to  obferve  here, 
that  the  Son  is  God,  not  iy  Nature,  but  by 
Grace,  in  Confequence  of  your  own  Principles. 
Being  a  Creature,  and  finite.  He  can  exercile 
t\\Q:  divine  Power  and  Dominion  no  otherwife 
■  thm  partially }  and  fmce  He  did  not  exercifc 
the  divine  Power  and  Dominion  to  the  Utmoft, 
before  his  Refurredion,  He  cxercis'd  it  only  in 
certain  Emergencies  -,  and  fince  the  Exercife 
began  tiien,  and  is  to  end  after  the  Day  of 
Judgment,  it  is  barely  Temporary:  And  fo,  by 
your  own  Chara^ers,  you  make  Him  God, 
by  Grace,  like  Angels,  Magifirates,  and  "Pro- 
phetS',  Only  his  IDofninion  is  larger,  and  for  a 
longer  period  of  Time :  This  is  your  God  by 
Nature,  But  you  arc  very  cxcufable  for  not 
doing  what  it  is  ridiculous,    at  firft  fight,    even 

*  Script.  Dodtr.  p.  7  ^  T//.  2^  f  Script.  Dodr.  p.  240. 

£^'  1^'  il  Script.  Dodr.  p. ;  j. 

I  fo 


QU.XXI V.    offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       375 

fo  much  as  to  pretend  to.     For  how  fliould  the 
Son  be  God  by  Naturey  upon  your  Principles, 
when  the  Father  Himfelf,  whatever  his  Meta- 
fhyjical  Nature  may  be  (which  the  *  Dodor 
allows  not  to  come  into  Confideration)  is  God 
by  Office  only ;   might  not  have  been  God  at 
all,   if  He  had  pleafed  to  make  no  Creatures ; 
and  may  ceafe  to  be  Gody   in  the  Scripture- 
Senfe  of  the  word,  whenever  He  will,  by  let- 
ting all  Things  drop  into  their  primitive  No- 
thing.    Now  unlefs  Nature  and  Office  fignify 
the  fame,  it  is  not  eafy  to  conceive,  upon  the 
Doftor  s  Principles,    how  any  Perfon  can  be 
Gody  by  Nature,  at  all.     You  fay,    if  the  di- 
'vine  ^Powers   and  dominion  be  derived  to^ 
and  exercised  by  a  Nature^  Perfony  or  intelli- 
gent SubftancCy   Universally,    (which  is  im- 
poflible  to  fuppofe  in  a  finite  Creature)   Per- 
manently,   (which  is  contrary  to  your  own 
Suppofition  of  a  Kingdom  which  is  to  have  an 
end)    Unalterably,   (tho'  an  Alteration  is 
prefumed  in  refpeft  of  the  Son,   and  might  be 
fuppofed  even  in  refpeft  of  the  Father  Himfelf  5) 
If  thefe  Things  be  lb;  that  is,  if  Contradidtions 
be  true,  what  then  ?    Then  fuch  a  Being,   or 
Perfon,  is   God  by  Naturey   &c.     And  this 
you  give  us  as  the  true  meaning  of  Gal.  4.  i. 
But,   I  hope,    we  Ihali  have  more  rcfpecl  for 
an  infpir'd  Apoftle  than    to  Father  any  fuch 
meaning  upon  Him.     For  the  true  Senfe  and 

♦  Script,  Dcxflr. p.  243, 29(>,  alias  no,  263.    Reply,  p.  301. 

Import 


376      ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXIV 

Import  of  it,  I  refer  you  to  the  *  Learned  Gen- 
tleman, who  has  fo  well  defended  this  Text  a- 
gainft  Dr.  Clarke.  You  add.  Had  not  the  Scri^ 
ftiires  this  Scnje  of  the  -ouord,  God,  They  could 
not  be  intelligible  or  reconcileable  (p.  1 1 3  •)  But  are 
you  well  afluredthat  youunderftand  whatever  is 
intelligible  or  reconcileable  ?  The  Metaphyjical 
^efinitiony  you  fay,  cannot  be  the  only  Scripture- 
Senfe  of  the  Term,  God.  You  allow  then  that  it 
may  be  the  Trincipal,t\\o*  not  the  Only  Scripture- 
Senfe  5  which  I  am  glad  to  hear  from  you.  The 
Learned  Doftor  will  not  admit  the  Metaphyfical 
Senfe  to  be  \  ever  the  Scripture -Senfe  of  the 
Term,  God.  The  MetaphyficalSzr\(Q,  He  expref- 
ly  fays,  is  never  intended ;  but  the  confiant  ufage 
of  Scripture  is  different.  The  Word,  God,  in 
Scripture,  is  Always^  relative  Wordof  Ojfice : 
AVhich  though  the  Dodor  has  no  Proof  of,  nor 
Ground  for,  nor  is  Himfelf  well  fatisfied  in  j  yet 
He  knew  why  He  faid  it,  having  very  good  prtt- 
dential  Reafons  for  it.  For,  if  the  Metaphyfical 
Scnfc  be  ever  intended,  when  the  word,  God,  is 
fpokcn  of  the  Father,  no  good  Reafon  can  be  af- 
flgn'd  why  it  fliould  not  be  lb  always,  when  fpo- 
kcn  of  the  lame  Pcrfon :  And  if  this  be  the  current 
and  mofl:  ufual  Senfe  of  the  word  God,  in  Scri- 
pture, we  fliall  have  a  fair  handle  to  prove  that  it 
wns  intended  in  the  lame  Senfe,  when  fpoken,  in 
fuch  andfuchCircumftanccs,  oftheSon  :  Or,  at 
leall,  the  Doctor  will  have  little  or  no  Pretence 

f  True  Script.  Dodtr.  continucJ,  />.  73,  e^f. 
\   Sciip.  Dottr. /.i^^.     Repiv,  z^.  1  i9,25>Oc 

left. 


Qu.  XXIV.    offome  (QUERIES.       377 

left,  upon  his  Principles,  for  faying  that  the  Son 
h  truly ^  zwA proper lyy  God.  You  obfcrvc,  that 
the  MetaphYjicalV)c^mi\on  of  one  Self-ex tftenty 
miderived,  independent ,  ftipretJie^cm^,  would 
exclude  the  Son,  who  \s  derived.  This  is  the  Sum 
of  your  Argument,  and  clearer  than  you  have  put 
it.  l3ut  I  mud  obferve  to  you,  that  this  'Dejinitioji^ 
or  fomething  Uke  it,  hath  long  palTed  current 
with  Men  who  believed  a  Trinity  of  divine 
TerfonSy  and  were  never  apprehenfivc  of  any 
fuch  Confequence  as  you  would  draw  from  it* 
It  is  properly  a  Definition  of  the  to  0«cv,  the 
divine  Nature,  abfiraBing  from  the  Confidera- 
tion  of  the  difiin^ionoi  Perfons,  which  is  the 
ufual  Method  that  the  School-men,  and  others 
have  taken  5  and  There  the  ^o^As  felf-exiftenty 
nnderivedy  independent,  are  not  confidered  as 
perfonaly  but  effentid  Chara£lers.  Neceffarily- 
exiftingy  nncreatedy  immutable^  aU-fttjJicienty  are 
what  They  mean,  in  that  definition  :  Other- 
wife  it  is  a  Definition  of  the  Perfon  of  the  Father 
only,  fingly  confider'd.  But  if  inftead  of  Meta- 
phyficks  (which  muft  ahvays  be  content  to  (land 
correfted  by  Gofpel  Revelation)  we  chufe  to 
take  our  Definition  of  God  from  Scripture: 
Then  that  of  *  Melan^hon,  which  I  have  put  in- 
to the  Margin,  will  be  more  full  and  compleat. 

*  Deus  efl:  EfTentia  Spiritualls,  intelligens,  vcrax,  bona,  pura, 
jufta,  mifericors.  Uberrima,  immenfe  potentix,  5c  fapicntise. 
Pater  seternus  qui  Filium  Imaginera  fuam  ab  ceterno  genuit,  &  Filiu3 
Imago  Patris  Co-aeterna,  &  Spiritus  Saadus  procedens  a  Parre  5c 
Filio.  Melftnci.  LocTheolo^.  deDeo. 

C  c  Query 


37S      ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XXV. 
(^  U  E  R  Y     XXV. 

IVhether  it  he  not  clear  from  all  the  genuine 
Remains  of  Antiquity-,  that  the  Catholick 
Church  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and 
even  from  the  Beginnings  did  believe  the 
Eternity  and  Confubftantiality  of  the  Son  5 
if  either  the  oldejl  Creeds^  as  interpreted 
by  thofe  that  recite  Them ;  or  the  Tefiu 
monies  of  the  earlieft  Writers^  or  the  pub- 
lick  Cenfures  pafs'd  upon  Hereticksy  or  par- 
ticular  Tajfages  of  the  Antientefi  F other s^ 
can  amount  to  a  proof  of  a  Thing  of  this 
Nature  ? 

^\T O U  tell  me.  In  anfwer,  that  it  is  not 
\  clear  that  the  Ante-Nicene  Church  pro* 
fejsd  the  Notion  of  Individual  Confubjlan- 
tiality:  That  the  Obje£ior  cannot  produce  one 
Jingle  Tajfage  in  all  Catholick  Ante-Nicene  An- 
tiqtiitjy  iL'hich proves  an  Individual  or 
Numerical  Confubftantialityy  in  the  three 
divine  Terfons.  This  Anfwer  is  fcarce  becom- 
ing the  Gravity  of  a  Man,  or  the  Sincerity  of 
a  Chriftian,  in  fo  ferious  and  weighty  an  Ar- 
gument. Did  I  fpeak  of  Individual  Confub- 
ftantiality ;  or,  if  I  had,  could  I  mean  it  in  your 
Scnfc?  task,  whether  the  F^/-^^rj  believed  the 
Three  Pcrfons  to  be  one  Snbftance  ^  and  do 
affirm  that  Tlicy  did,  tmiverfally.  You  an- 
fwer,  that  They  did  not  affcrt  the  Three  Per- 

fons 


Qu.  XXV.       offome  QUERIES.      379 
fons  to  be  one  Terfbn ;    which  is  the  conftant 
Scnfe  you  make  oi  IndividuaL     And  here,  you 
would  make  a  (how  as  if  the  ObjeUtor  had  been 
miftaken,    and  as  if    you  contradided   Him  : 
when  all  refolvcs  into  a  trifling  Equivocation, 
and  you  really  contradict  Him  not  at  all.     That 
prefent  Scholajtick  Notion,  as  you  call  it,    of 
three  Pcrfons  being  one    Terfon^    Hypojiajisj 
or  Stippojitum  •,    is  no  \j\\ctt  prefent j    that  I 
know  of,     amongft  any  that  own  a  Trinity: 
Neither  is  it  the  Scholafiick  Notion ;    as  any 
Man  may  fee,     that  will  but  look  into   the 
School-men,  and  read  with  any  Judgment.  In- 
dividual has  been  generally  own'd,  but  not  in 
your  Senfe,  and  Numerical  too,  butinaSenfe 
very  different  from  what  you  pretend  to  oppofe 
it  in:    And  therefore,    to  be  plain    with  you; 
this  way  of  proceeding,  in  an  important  Con- 
troverfy,    is  neither   fair  towards  your  Adver- 
faries,  nor  Jincere  towards  the  Readers ;  but,  at 
beft,  is  only  folemn  Trifling.     You  know,    or 
you  know  little  in  this  Controverfy,  that  all  the 
Fathers,    almoft  to  a  Man,    either  exprefly  or 
implicitcly,    aflcrtcd  the  Confubftantiality   of 
the  Son  with  the  Father.     Call  it  Individualy 
or  call  it  Specif  ck ;  that  is  not  now  the  Que- 
ftion.     They  unanimoufly  maintaind  that  the 
Son  was  not  of  any  created,    or  mutable  Sub- 
ftance,    but  flridly  "Divine-^     and   fo    clofely 
and  nearly  allied  to   the  Father's  Perfon    In 
a  myftcrijus  way  .ibovc  Comprchenfion)    that 
the  Subftance  of  the  Son  might  be  juftly  ciKoi 
C  c  2  the 


jso       y^DEFENSE      Qu.XXV. 

the  Fathers  Subftancc,  Both  being  One.  And 
this  is  all  that  ever  any  fober  CathoUck  meant 
by  Individual,  or  Numerical h  as  I  have  often 
obfervcd. 

Is  not   this    fufficicnt   to  urge  againft   Dr. 
Clarke  and  You,  who  make  the  Son  of  an  z^^- 
y^rar  Subftancc,  differing  intirely  in  ^m^from 
the   Father's  j   in  fhort,    a  Creature^   tho'  you 
care  net  to  fpcak  it  in  broad  Terms  ?   This  is 
what  you  have  not  fo  much  as  one  Catho- 
Uck Tofi'Nicene,    or  Ante-Nicene  Writer  to 
countenance  you  plainly  in.  The  main  of  your 
Doclrine,  the  very  Points  wherein  your  Scheme 
is  contained,  and  on  which  it  turns,  and  which 
diftinguifli  you   from  the    prefent  Orthodox, 
Hand  condemn'd    by  all  Antiquity,     Do  you 
imagine,  all  This  is  to  be  turn  d  off,  only  by 
equivocating  upon  the  word,    Numerical':,    or 
by  throwing  out  the  Term  Scholaftick-,  to  make 
weak  Perlons  believe,  that  we  have  borrowed 
our  Dodrine  from  the  School-men  only  ?  No : 
We  know,  and  you  may  know,  if  you  pleafe 
toexamin,  that,  as  to  the  main  of  our  Dodrine 
of  the  Blcffcd  Trinity,  we  have  the  Univerfal 
Church,     as   high  as  any  Records  reach,  con- 
curring with  us.     To  Them  we   appeal ,    as 
well  as  to  the  Scriptures,  that,    together  with 
Scripture,  we  may  be  the  more  fecure  that  we 
follow  the  true  Interpretation.     I  need  not  go 
on  to  prove  that  the  primitive  Writers  affcrtcd 
the    Conftihjlantiality,    becaufe  you   have  not 
denied  it  in  the  Senfc  I  intended  i    and  indeed 
I  could 


Qu.  XXV.     offome  (QUERIES.       381 

could  not.  Your  dipping  a  Word  upon  us , 
and  Aiding  off  to  another  Point,  may  betaken 
for  a  Confellion  and  Ackno\vlcd<z;ment,  that 
the  Qtiery  was  jufl: ;  and  fliould  have  been  an- 
fwered  in  the  Aijirymtivey  could  yourCaufc 
have  fubfiftcd,  after  fo  lar^ie  and  frank  a  Conixf- 
fion.  As  to  Crc:d<y  you  lay,  rione  of  the  Three 
firftCenturies  expnfs  the^iertjt's Notion:  mean- 
ing your  owii  Nonon  of  hidividitaly  which  is 
not  the  ^7.:'^'/?'s.  What  follows  (/?.  118.)  is 
ftill  purfuing  the  fame  Mirtake.  Since  you  have 
told  us,  that  there  is  no  Proof  of  Individual 
Confiihftaraiality  {th^x  is,  oi  pcrfonal  Identity, 
as  you  underlimd  it,  and  in  which  Senfe  no 
Body  oppofcs  you)  it  would  have  been  lair  and 
ingenuous  to  have  own'd  that  the  Fathers  did 
unanimoufly  ho.i  a  Confithfiantial/ty^  in  fome 
Senfe  or  other.  If  not  Nu'fnertcal,  or  Indivi- 
dual  in  the  (Iriftcft  Senfe,  was  ir,  think  you, 
Specifick?  Yet,  if  io,  it  will  follow  that  all 
the  Firlicrs  were  direclly  op.^ofice  to  the  Doclor 
and  You  ;  nnd  eondeiim'd  your  Notion  of  the 
Son's  being  Inferior  \\\  Kindy  Nature,  Sub- 
fiance,  &c.  Specifick  Unity  implies  Equality 
of  Nature  5  as  two  Men,  fpecirically  one  with 
each  other,  are  in  Nature  equal  5  and  fo,  any 
other  two  Things  of  the  fame  fort  and  kind. 
This  Notion,  if  it  were  what  the  Fathers 
held,  You  might  charge  with  Tr/Y/^^//?//:  And, 
at  the  fame  Time,  You  muftgive  Them  all  up, 
as  no  way  favourable  to  your  Hypothefis.  But 
the  Fathers  conftantly  took  care  to  fignify 
C  c  3  that 


382       y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.XXV. 

that  they  did  not  mean  that  the  Terfons  were 
fpecifically  one,  like  three  Human  Perfons  hav- 
ing a  feparate  Exiftencc  independent  of  each 
other :  Nor  would  They  allow  Three  Suns, 
which  would  be  fpecifically  one,  to  be  a  pro- 
per or  fuitable  iJluftration ;  but  the  Rays  of  the 
lame  Sun,  the  Streams  of  the  fame  Fountain, 
and  the  like ;  all  to  intimate  a  much  clofer  Tie, 
a  more  fubftantial  Union  than  Specifick  a- 
mounts  to.  The  Terfons,  the  HypoJlafeSy  were 
Three;  and  yet  una  Subftantia^  as  Tertullian 
cxpreffes  it,  in  all. 

You  would  perfuade  us  (finding  I  fup- 
pofe  that  either  fpecifick  or  individual  Con- 
fubftantiality  would  be  equally  againft  you)  I 
fay,  you  would  perfuade  us,  that  it  was  fome 
Oratorical  and  Figurative  Confubftantiality, 
which  the  Fathers  meant.  This  I  apprehend 
from  what  you  drop  in  Page  121,  where  you 
cxprcfly  apply  this  new  Solution  to  the  diffi- 
culty arifing  from  'OacaVios-  in  the  Nicene- 
Creed.  I  will  not  fufFcr  the  Englijh  Reader 
to  go  away  with  this  groundlefs  Notion,  inftead 
of  a  jud  Anfwcr.  Such  as  know  any  thing  of 
Antiquity,  do  not  want  to  have  fuch  Pretences 
confuted  :  Such  as  do  not,  may  pleafc  to  take 
along  with  Them  thcfe  following  Confidera- 
iions. 

I .  The  Doftrine  of  the  Confubftantiality  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a  conftant  fettled  Thing  5  a 
fort  of  ruled  Cafe,  running  thro'  all  in  general. 
Strange,  that  They  ^iqw'A  ^\\  Rhetoricate  \x\  a 

Mac- 


Q11.XXV.     of /owe  QUERIES.      585 

Matter  of  Faith,  of  fo  great  Weight  and  Impor- 
tance; and  that  wc  fhould  not  meet  with  fo 
much  as  one  grave  fobcr  Writer,  to  ftrip  the 
Matter  of  all  Fiourifh  and  Varnifh,  and  to  tell 
us  the  naked  Truth. 

2.  It  is  to  be  obferved  that  the  Notion  docs 
not  occur  only  in  popular  Harangues,  but  in 
dry  Debates;  chiefly  in  Controverfy  with  He- 
reticksy  where  it  concerned  the  Catholicks  to 
fpeak  accurately  and  properly,  and  to  deliver 
their  Sentiments  very  diftinftly. 

3.  This  is  farther  confirmed  from  the  Ob- 
jeftions  made  by  Hereticks  to  the  Catholick 
Doftrine.  There  were  Two  (landing  Obj  cclions 
made  by  Hereticks  to  the  Catholick  Doctrine : 
One  was,  that  it  inferred  a  T>iviJion  of  the  Fa- 
ther's Subftance :  The  other  that  it  was  Tri- 
theifm.  We  find  Footfteps  of  the  former,  as 
early  as  ^  Jttftin  Martyr,  We  meet  with  it  in 
^TertulliaUy  as  urged  by  Traxeas,  ""Tatian 
and  ^  Theophilus  Both  allude  to  it.  ^  Sabellms 
was  full  of  it ;  and  it  was  afterwards,  one  of 
the  chiefeft  Pretences  of  Arius-y  as  may  ap- 
pear from  his  own  Letters,  befidcs  many  ^othci 
Evidences.  Now,  what  Colour  or  Preteiice 
could  there  have  been  for  the  Objection,  had 
not  the  Catholicks  profcfs'd  a  proper  Commu- 
nication of  the  fame  Subftance?   Need  wc  be 

■  Dial. p.  185,  57;.  Jeb.     See  Bull  D.F.  p.  65,  67.  .md  p.  53. 

*  Contr.  Prax.  c.  8.  '  Tat.  p.  2  i .  Ed.  Worth. 
••  Theoph.  1.  2.  p.  129. 

•  Alexand.apud  Theod. E.H.I,  i.e. 4.  p.  17.  Athanaf  p.p^z, 
\^i%  BullD.F.N.  p.  33. 

C  C  4  ^old 


384       ^DEFENSE      Q11.XXV. 

told  that  Angels  and  Archangels,  orany'created 
Beings  were  derived  from  God  without  any 
^bfcijfjion  from,  or  T>iviJion  of,  his  Subflance  ? 
Or  could  it  ever  enter  into  any  Man's  Head  to 
rnake  fo  weak  an  Objection  to  the  Catholick 
Dodrine,  unlefs  a  proper  Conftibftantiality  had 
been  taught  by  Them  ?  Yet  this  was  the  prin- 
ppal,  the  (landing  Pretence  for,  and  Support 
of,  Hcrcfy  for  near  200  Years  together. 

The  other  was  Tritbeifm ;  ebjefted  all  along  . 
by  the  Sabellians,  and  afterwards  (tho'  more 
fparingly)  by  the  Arians.  What  kind  of  Tri- 
thetftn  the  Sabellians  meant  i^rithelfm  in  the 
highcfl  and  ftrideft  Scnfe)  appears,  not  only 
from  the  former  Objcftion  about  the  divifion 
of  the  Father's  Subftancc,  but  alfo,  from  the 
way  they  took  to  folve  the  Difficulty :  Namely, 
by  making  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghoft  one 
and  the  fame  Hypoftafis,  as  well  as  one  Sub- 
JIa?ice  ',  and  their  thinking  it  not  beneath  the 
Father  Himfelf  to  have  fubmitted  to  Taffion. 
This  makes  it  extremely  probable  that  the 
Church,  at  that  Time,  believ'd  the  three  Perfons 
to  be  Confubfiaiitial'm  a  proper,  not  Figurative^ 
Scnfe  ;  in  Confcquencc  vv/ hereof,  it  was  pretend- 
ed that  there  would  be  three  Gods ,  in  like 
inanner  as  three  Human  Perfons,  of  the  fame 
fpecijick  Nature,  arc  three  Men. 

4.  What  puts  thi3  farther  beyond  all  reafon- 
ablc  doubt,  is  the  Method  which  the  Cdtho- 
Ijcks  took  to  anfwer  the  Two  fore- mentioned 
Objcclions.     As  to  That  r>bQUt  divifion    of 

Sub' 


Qii.  XXV.     offome  QV  E  R I  E  S.       3  s  5 

Subjtance :  They  never  tell  the  Heretichy  that 
there  was  no  manner  of  Ground  or  Colour  for 
the  Objeftion :  They  never  fay,  that  the  fame 
difficulty  would  lie  againft  God's  creating  An- 
gels, or  Archangel'.,  or  any  other  Creature; 
as  They  might,  and  fliould  have  done,  had 
They  been  of  Dr.  Clarke's  Principles,  or  of 
Your's.  No  :  *  They  only  deny  any  "Divijion 
or  T)iminiition  of  the  Father's  Subftance,  and 
illuftrate,  as  well  as  They  are  able,  fo  fublime 
a  Myftery,  by  one  Light  kindled,  as  it  were, 
from  Another-^  by  the  Sun  and  its  Rays-^  by 
Fount ain  and  Streams ;  Stock  and  Branch  : 
All  Inftances  of  the  fame  fpecifick  Nature,  and 
^anfwering  in  fome  Circumftances,  tho'  defe- 
aive  in  others.  One  would  not  defire  a  fuller 
and  clearer  Teftimony,  that  thofe,  or  the  like 
Similitudes  were  intended  to  fignify  the  fame 
with  a  proper  Confubjtantiality,  than  we  meet 
with  in  'Dionyflns  of  Alexandria  \. 

Then,  for  their  Anfwers  to  the  Charge  of 
Tritheifm  y  as  undcrftood  by  the  Sobelltans  y 
how  eafy  it  would  have  been  for  Them  to 
have  told  the  Objedors,  that  They  did  not 
take  the  word  God  in  the  ftricl  Scnfe;  that 
Mofes  and  other  mortal  Men  had  been  called 
Gods  5    that  They  believed  the  Son  to  be  no 

*  Jufl.  M.  Dial.  p.  183,^75.  Tat. p.  21,22.  Athenng.  p.  40,  9^. 
Origen.  Panipli.  Apol.  Tertull.  Apol.  c.  2  i.adv.Prax.c.S.Theognofl. 
apud  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  230.  Hippolyt.  Contr.  Noet.  c.  i  i.  p.  i  5. 
Dionyf.  Alexand.  Rcfp.ad  Quaefl:.  5-.  Conf.  Prud.  Apotheof.  p.  172. 

t  6-^^Bull.  D.  F.p.  120. 

)J  Apud  Athanaf.  deSentcnt.  Dionyf.  Toxii.  i . p.  2  j-y,  2j6. 

more 


386       y?  D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.XXV. 

more  than  a  Great urcy  iho'  the  moft  perfed  of 
all  Creatures ;  and  that  the  Sabellians  did  Them 
a  very  great  and  manifeft  Injury,   to  huaginc 
otherwife  of  Them.     This  would,   this  muft 
have  been  their  Anfwer  to  the  Charge  of  Tri- 
theifm  as  underftood  by   the  Objeftors ;    had 
They  not  otherwife  learned  Chrift.     Inftead 
of    this,    They  appear   to  be  very  fenfible  of 
the  juft  Weight  and  Importance  of  the  Obje- 
aion.     They  muft  fecure  the  T>ivinity  of  the 
Son,  and  yet  prcferve  the  Unity  too.     They 
have  recourfe  to  Unity  of   Subftance  (even  a- 
gainft  Thofe  who  made  one  Subjlance  to  fignify 
one  Hypoftajis)   as  Tertidlian  frequently  does, 
in  his  Difpute  with  Traxeas :  And  Notwith- 
ftanding  that  the  Sabellians  had,    if  I  may  fo 
fpeak,  carried  the  Son's  divinity  too  high,  in- 
fomuch  as  to  make  Him  the  very  fame  Hypo- 
ftafis  with  the  Father  5  yet  the  utmoft  that  the 
Catholicks  could  be  brought  to  fay,  in  IDegra- 
Nation  of  Him,   was  only  this  $   that  He  was 
fnbordinate   as  a  Son--,  equal  in  every  refped, 
but  as  a  Son  can  be  equal  to  a  Father  y  inferior, 
in  point  of  Original  (the  Father  being  Head 
and  Fountain  of  all)  but  ftill  of  the  fame  Na- 
ture, Power,  Subftance  and  Perfections  5    fub- 
fifling  in,  and  from  the  Father,  infeparably  and 
conftantly,  always  and  every  where  5  and  there- 
fore one  God  with  Him.     And  if  any  Perfon, 
iho'  in  the  Warmth  of  Difpute,  did  but  happen 
to  drop  any  doubtful  ExpreiTions,  tending  any 
way  to  leflcn  the  Dignity  of  the  Son,  or  was 

but 


Qu.  XXV.      offome  QV  ER I  E  S.       3  87 

but  fufpefted  to  do  fo ;  the  Alarm  was  foon 
taken,  and  it  awaken'd  the  jealoufy  of  the  Ca- 
tholicks :  who  could  not  bear  any  Appearance 
of  it.  This  was  remarkably  icen,  in  the  fa- 
mous Cafe  of  TDionyfiuSy  Bifliop  of  Alexandriay 
Sixty  Years  before  the  rife  of  ArhiSy  and  is  re- 
corded by  Athanafnis  in  his  Works. 

5.  To  this  we  may  add,  that  while  the  Sa- 
hellian  Controverfy  was  on  Foot  (which  was 
at  lead  100  Years,  and  could  never  havelafted 
io  long,  had  the  Catholicks  been  of  any  other 
Principles,  than  Thofe  which  I  here  maintain) 
I  fay,  while  this  was  on  Foot,  how  eafy  would 
it  have  been  for  the  Catholicks  to  have  pinch'd 
Them  clofe,  and  to  have  prefs'd  Them  with 
variety  of  Arguments,  _  more  than  They  did, 
had  They  been  of  your  Principles,  or  of  Dr. 
Clarke's )  The  Father  is  eternaly  but  the  Son 
not  fo ;  the  Father  is  omnifcient^  but  the  Son 
Ignorant  of  the  Day  of  Judgment;  the  Father 
is  omnipotent^  but  the  Powers  of  the  Son  finite 
and  limited ;  in  a  word,  the  Father  i.  Creator,  but 
the  Son  a  Creature ;  and  the^'cfore  They  cannot 
be  One  and  the  fame  Hypoftcfis,  or  Suppofitmn. 
This  Argument  had  been  irrelragabU,  nnd  could 
not  have  failed  of  being  urged  and  pi  ciVd  Home, 
by  Men  of  fuch  acute  Parts,  as  TertiiUmn,  Oria^eny 
Hippolytiis,  and  Others,  had  it  been  confiftent 
with  CathoUck  Principles ;  or  had  They  not  be- 
lieved, that  the  Son\j2isCo?ifubftantial-,  in  the 
proper  Senfe,  enjo}  ing  all  the  ejferitial  Perfecli- 
ons  of  the  Father,  in  common  with  Him. 

6.  It 


388         y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E     Qu.XXV. 

6.  It  would  be  endlcfs  almofi:  to  proceed  in 
this  Argument:  The  red:  I  Ihall  throw  into  a 
narrower  Compafs,  and  only  give  Hints  for  your 
leilure  Thoughts  to  inquire  into.  The  ftrid 
Senfe  which  the  Antienrs  had  of  the  word  Gody 
as  fignif;;ing  Subftance^  and  applying  it  to  the 
Son,  in  the  iame Senfe;  their  admitting  but  one 
SubQance  to  be  ftridly  Divine,  and  their  utter 
Abhorrence  of  any  inferior  Deities  5  their  ap- 
propriating Worlhip  to  the  one  true  God,  and 
woifhipping  the  Son  notwuhftanding ;  their 
unanimous  Behef  of  the  Son's  being  eternaly 
wicreated,  omnipotent ^  and  of  his  being  Creator, 
Preierver,  and  Suftainer  of  the  Univcrfe  :  Any- 
one of  thefe,  fingly  almoft,  would  be  fufEcient 
for  the  Proof  of  a  proper  Confubftdntiality^  as 
aflcrtcd  by  the  Ante-Ntcene  CathoUck  Writers : 
But  all  together,  and  taken  with  the  other  Par- 
ticulars before  mentioned.  They  make  fo  full, 
fo  clear,  fo  ample  a  Demonftration  of  a  Matter 
of  Fa6l,  that  a  Man  muft  be  of  a  very  peculiar 
Conftitution,  who,  after  having  well  confidcr- 
cd  the  Evidences,  can  make  the  leaft  doubt  or 
fcruple  of  it.  And  this  I  hope  may  be  fuffi- 
cicnt  in  anfwer  to  your  Pretence  of  an  Orato- 
rical or  Figurative  Confubftantiality  5  a  Pre- 
tence, which  you  lay  down  with  an  unufual 
Diffidence ;  and  without  fo  much  as  one  Rea- 
fon,  or  Authority,  to  fupport  it. 

It  being  evident,  from  what  hath  been  faid, 
that  it  was  a  proper,  not  pgurative^  Confub- 
(^antiality,  which  the  Ante- Nice ne  Fathers  in- 
violably 


Qu.  XXVI.    offome  qV  E  R I  E  S.      3  ^9 

violably  maintaiiVd :  This  is  all  I  am  concern'd 
for.  As  to  the  qucftion,  whether  it  ihall  be  cal- 
led Specifcky  or  Numerical,  I  am  in  no  pain 
about  it.  Neither  of  the  Names  exadly  fuits  it  ^ 
nor  perhaps  any  other  we  can  think  on.  It  is 
fuch  a  ConfitbjlanttaUty  as  preferves  the  Unity y 
without  dcftroying  the  diflin^  ^erfonality^ 
fuch  as  neither  Sabellians  nor  Arians  would 
come  into,  but  the  Catholicks  maintain'd,  with 
equal  Vigour,  againft  Both.  It  is  a  Medium  to 
prefcrve  the  yr/<?r//7  of  the  Father,  and  withal 
the  T>ivinity,  the  ejfential  Divinity,  of  Son 
and  Holy  Ghoft :  In  a  word ;  it  is  the  fober, 
middle  way ,  between  the  Extravagancies  of 
Both  Extremes. 

Q^UERY   XXVI. 

Whether  the  T^oBor  did  not  equivocate  or 
prevaricate  ftrangely ,  in  faying,  *  The 
Generality  of  Writers  before  the  Council 
of  Nice,  were,  in  the  whole,  clearly  on  his 
Side :  When  it  is  manifeft.  They  "were,  in 
the  general,  no  farther  on  his  Side,  than 
the  allowing  a  Subordination  amounts  to ; 
no  farther  than  our  own  Church  is  on  his 
Side,  while  in  the  main  Toints  of  T^ijfe- 
rence ,  the  Eternity  and  Consubstak- 
TiALiTY,  They  are  clearly  againft  Him  ? 
That  is,  They  were  on  his  Side,  fo  far  as 

*  Aofveer  to  Vr.  Wells,  ^fig,  28. 

we 


390      ^DEFENSE      Qu.XXVI. 

'u:e  ackiiowledge  Him  to  be  right y    but  no 
farther. 

IN  Defence  of  the  Doftor,  you  appeal  to  his 
very  mimeroiis-,  and,  as  you  fay,  flain  Quo- 
tations from  the  antient  Authors.  And  this, 
you  promife  before-hand,  will  be  made  further 
evident  to  all  learned  and  tmprej tidied  Per- 
fons,  as  foon  as  Dr.  JVhitbfs  Obfervations  on 
Bifhop  Bull's  Defenf.  Fid.  Nic.  appear  in  the 
World.  As  to  the  Dodor  s  pretended  plain 
Qiiotations,  from  the  antient  Authors,  They 
have  not  plainly  ^  nor  at  all  determined  againft 
the  Co-eternity  and  Confubftantiality  of  the 
Son,  the  Joints  in  ^eftton  i  and  there- 
fore can  do  the  Dodor  no  Service  :  But,  on 
the  contrary,  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  in 
general,  have  determined  plainly  againft  Him, 
as  to  the  main  of  his  Dodrine,  wherein  He 
differs  from  us.  In  allcrting  which,  I  fay  no 
more  than  the  great  Athanajius  told  the 
Arians  long  ago,  and  it  is  Fad,  that  all  the 
Writers  before  Them,  of  any  Repute  or  Judg- 
ment, were  diredlv  agrainft  Them.  *'  *  We 
"  give  you  Dcmonftration,  fays  He,  that  our 
*'  Dodrhie  has  been  handed  down  to  us  from 
"  Fathers  to  Fathers.  But  You,  Ye  Revivers 
"  of  Jiidaifm  and  Difciples  of  CaiphaSj  what 
"  Writers  can  you  bring  to  Father  your  Tenets  ? 
*^  Not  a  Man  can  you  name,  of  any  repute  for 
"  Scnfc  or  Judgment.     All  to  a  Man  are  againft 

*  Athanaf.  deDecrct  Syn.  Nic.  p.  233. 

[[  you. 


QU.XXVI.  offome  QUERIES.  39r 
"  you,  &c.  To  the  fame  purpofe  fpeaks  St.  Att- 
ftin^  in  a  ftudied  Difcourfe,  which  may  be  fup- 
pofed  to  contain  his  cooiefl:  and  moft  ferious 
Thoughts.  "  *  All  the  Catholick  Interpreters 
"  of  the  Old  or  New  Teftament,  that  I  could 
*^  read,  who  have  wrote  before  me  on  the 
"  Trinity,  which  is  God,  intended  to  teach, 
"  conformable  to  Scripture,  that  Father,  Son, 
"  and  Holy-Ghoft  do,  by  the  infeparable 
"  Equality  of  one  and  the  Same  Subftance, 
*^  make  up  the  Unity  divine.  Here  you 
may  obferve  the  Summ  of  the  f  Catholick 
Doftrine.  The  fame  Homogeneous  Subflance ; 
and  Infepar ability.  The  firft  makes  each  Hy- 
poftafis,  res  divina ;  the  laft  makes  all  to  be 
una  Subjiantia,  una  Summa  reSy  one  undi- 
'videdy  or  individualy  or  numerical  Subftance ; 
one  God.  This  is  the  Antient  Catholick  Do- 
ftrine;  and,  I  think,  oi  xkz  Schools  too  y  tho' 
the  School-men  have  perplex'd  it  with  innumera- 
ble Subtilties.     Hilary  expreffes  it  briefly  thus. 

*  Omnes,  quos  legere  potui,  qui  ante  me  fcripferunt  de  Trf- 
nitate,  quceeft  Dcus,  divinorum  librorum  Veterum  8c  Novorum 
Catholici  TracStatores  hoc  intendenint  fecundum  Scripturas  doce- 
re,  quod  Pater,  &  Filius,  8c  Spiritus  Sandus,  Unun  ejufdemqut 
SubJlantiA  inieparabili  aequalitate  divinam  infinuent  Unitatem. 
jiug,  Trin,  I.  i.  c.  5 .  p.  7^ 3 . 

t  Ijhdladd  another  tajfage  of  ^/.  Auflin,  to  explain  his  Smfe  more 
clearly, 

Trinitas  propter  Trinitatem  Perfbnarum ,  8c  Unus  Deus  propter  ir^ 
fepara6ilem  Dmnitatem,  ficut  Unus  Omnipotens  propter /«/t>/)^r/?^/- 
/w?  Omnipotentiam.  Itautetiamcum  de(ingulisqua;ritur,unufquir- 
queeorum  8cDeus2c  Omnipotens  eflerefpondeaturi  cum  verode 
omnibus  fimul,  non  Tres  Dii,  vel  Tres  Omnipotentes,  {ed  unus  Deus 
Omnipotens:  Tanta  ineftinTribusinfeparabilisUnitas,  quxiic  fe 
Voluitpraedicari,    Aiigujl.  in  Ctvit.  DeiA»  1 1.  c.  24. 

Nature 


392     ^DEFENSE     Qa.  XXVl 

iVrf^//r^  indilliniilis,  atqiie  infcparabilis  Unit  as. 
This,  1  fay,  is  the  Doctrine  ;  Confute  it,  if  yoa 
pleafe,  or  if  you  can  :  In  the  mean  while  how- 
ever, let  us  honeftly  own  the  Fadl.  But  to 
proceed. 

There  were  many  Writings  extant  in  the 
Times  of  Athanajins  and  Aiijlin,  which  have 
not  come  down  to  us ;  and  therefore  their  Te- 
fiimonies,  in  the  Cafe,  are  of  the  greater  Force. 
I  might  mention  other  Catholicks^  about  that 
time,  who  appealed  to  Antiquity,  with  all  the 
Aflurance  and  Freedom  imaginable.  But  the 
mod  remarkable  Inftance  to  our  purpofe  is,  that 
when  in  the  Time  of  TheodoJiuSy  the  Arians 
were  prefs'd  by  the  Catholicks  in  Difpute,  and 
fairly  challenged  to  refer  the  Matter  in  Contro- 
verfy  to  the  concurring  Judgment  of  the  Wri- 
ters before  Them,  and  to  put  it  upon  that  IfTue  5 
the  Arians  declined  it,  and  durft  not  abide  the 
Trial.  See  the  Story  at  large,  in  *  Socrates 
zw^'\Soz,onmu  So  dull  were  the  Catholicks 
at  that  Time,  nay,  fo  unthinking  were  the 
Arians  too,  that  They  could  not  perceive,  what 
is  now  fo  clear  to  the  Doclor ;  that  the  gene* 
rality  of  Writers ^  before  the  Council  of  Nice, 
were  on  the  Arian  fide  :  But  one  Party  was 
confident,  and  the  other  fufpedled,  at  lead, 
that  the  contrary  was  true. 

But  I  need  not  take  this  tndireti  way  of 
confuting  the  Dodor's  Affcition;  tho'  it  affords 
Ui  a  very  (Irong  Prcfumption,  and  is  of  much 

*  Lib.  J.  c.  10.  I  Lib.  /.c.  i2» 

grcatec 


QiT.  XXVL  of  feme  QUERIES.  393 
greater  Weight  and  Authority  than  the  fingic 
Judgment  of  any  of  the  Moderns:  Many  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Writings,  by  the  good  Pro- 
vidence of  God,  are  yet  extant,  and  can  fpeak 
for  Themfelves ;  Bcfides  that  the  incomparable 
Bifliop  Bull  has  unanfvverably  defended  Them, 
and  vindicated  Them  from  all  fuch  Exceptions 
as  appeared  to  have  any  Shadow  pf  Truth  or 
Probability  in  Them.  To  fhow  you  how  lit- 
tle Reafon  the  Do£lor,  or  your  Self,  hath  to 
boaft  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  as  favourable 
to  your  Caufe,  I  fliall  here  fet  down  feveral 
Pofitions,  in  which  the  Doctor  and  You  run 
manifcftly  counter  to  the  whole  Stream  of 
Antiquity; 

1.  That  the  Son  is  not  ConfubftantiaUjiith 
God  the  Father,  You  are  dire£lly  oppofite  to 
all  Antiquity  in  This  your  leading  Pofition,  on 
which  the  reft  hang,  and  on  which  the  Con- 
troverfy  turns.  This  is  very  clear  from  the 
Teftimonies  colle£led  by  Bifhop  Bully  and  from 
what  additional  Obfervations  I  have  made  un- 
der the  laft  Qiiery. 

2.  That  the  Son  is  not  Co-eternal  '-juith  the 
Father,  Confubftantiality  \vi\y^\\z^Co-eternity : 
Befides  that  the  aforc-mention'd  learned  Prelate 
has  given  us  numerous  dired  Teftimonies  for 
it  from  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  above  Twenty 
of  them  ;  not  one  of  any  Note  plainly  contra- 
didling  Them.  Thefe  two  main  Points  being 
determin'd  againft  you,  the  reft  are  of  lefs  Mo- 
ment.    Yet  "l  cannot  find  that  the  Antients 

D  d  agreed 


^9+      ^DEFENSE     (ii.XXVL 

agreed  with  you  in  your  other  inferior  Pofiti- 
ons,  which  you  bring  in  as  underprops  to 
your  Scheme. 

3 .  Thaty  God,  is  a  relative  Wordy  ^so?  and 
^ihrtiz  Jignifying  not  Sttbftance  kit  'T>ominiony 
and  Authority,  This  is  direftly  *  contrary  to 
all  CathoHck' Antiquity,  a  very  few  Inftances 
excepted. 

4.  That  God  the  Father  only  was  God  of 
Abraham,  Ifaac,  and  Jacob,  This  Pofition  I 
have  fhown  to  be  contrary  to  the  Sentiments 
of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers. 

5 .  That  the  Titles  of  one,  only^  &c.  are  exclu- 
(tve  of  the  Son.  This  alfo  I  have  ftiown,  in 
thefe  Papers,  to  be  diredly  contrary  to  the 
Judgment  of  the  Antients. 

6.  That  the  Son  had  not  diflinB  worfhip 
paid  Him  till  after  his  RefnrreElion,  This, 
in  the  Senfe  wherein  you  underftand  it,  is  not 
true ;  nor  agreeable  to  the  Sentiments  of  the 
Antient  Church. 

*  5'fgFiddes,  Vol.  i.  p.  57f-  i^-c,  and  what  I  have  obferv'd  above, 
p.  8)-.  Nothing  more  cominon  than  Bsorr,!^  for  divine  Nature  (as 
uvB-^uTToT'/jc,  a l/o  for- the  Humeri)  in  EccleJiaflicaL  Writers.  I  Jljall  pint 
to  a  few  In/lances  only  out  of  many. 

McIitoapudCav.  Hift.  Lit.  Vol.  2. p.  53.  Grabe  Spicileg.  Vol.z. 
p.  24f.  Hippolyt.  Vol.  i.  p. 226.  Vol.  2. p.  24.  Origcn  Contr. 
Olf.  p.  342,404.  Cyril.  Hierofol.Catech.  11.  p.  142.  Cyril.  Alex. 
Tlicfaur.  p.  2  5  2 .  Dial.  1 .  de Trin.  p.  40;-.  Damafc.  de  Orth.  Fid.  I.  3 . 
c.  I  1. 

N.  B.  Ti'^ere  is ,  inJlriBnefsy  fotne  dijference  beirceen  ro  S-woc,  and  B-^orm 
(tho'  the  Ut (ens  oftenufed  for  the  former)  fuch  nearly  as  between  Con- 
Crete,  arul  Ablkad;  but  fill  Bidrij-  refers  to  NcLture  and  Subftance 
(as  (r^ux,  alfo  generally  does)  ;;o/ Dominion.  Abftradi  Names  of  Sub- 
(fances  are  not  very  coynmon  indeed.  (6'efiLock.  H.U.I.  3.0.8.^  bm 
here  thtri  wvii  a  nccejpy  for  it. 

4.  7.  That 


Qu.  XXVI.      offome  (QUERIES.       595 

7.  TPjat  Father  arid  Son  {or  anyt'-jjo  'Perfons) 
ought  not  to  be  called  one  God,  I  have  referred 
to  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  who  fo  called 
Them,  more  than  once.  Some  of  the  Teftimo- 
nies  may  be  feen  at  large  in  Dr.  Fiddes. 

8 .  That  the  Title  of  Gody  m  Script tire^  in  an 
ab folate  Conftrtttiion,  always  fignifies  the  Fa- 
ther, Diredly  contrary  to  the  Stream  of  Anti- 
quity ^  as  may  appear,  bcfidcs  other  Arguments, 
from  their  Application  of  Scripture  Texts,  of 
the  Old  Teftament,  in  which  God  is  fpokcn  of 
abfolutely,  to  the  Son. 

9.  That  an  hiferior  God  may  be  admitted  be- 
fides  the  Supreme,  and  Worjhip  paid  to  Both. 
Nothing  can  ftrike  more  at  the  very  Funda- 
mentals of  Religion  than  this  Pofition,  in  the 
Judgment  of  the  Anticntsin  general. 

I  o.  That  the  Son  is  not  efficient  Canje  of  the 
Univerfe^  and  of  all  created  Beings.  This  I 
take  to  be  contrary  to  all  the  Antients.  See 
the  Teftimonies  above  *. 

1 1 .  That  the  Son  Flimfelf  is  made  or  created. 
This  neither  you  nor  the  Doclor  admit  in 
Terms  -,  but  in  reality-,  and  in  other  wordsy 
you  Both  do ;  as  hath  been  fliown.  This  Pc- 
fition  is  flatly  contrary  to  the  Dodrine  of  the 
Antients.  The  Teftimonics  have  been  referred 
•to  above.  There  are  other  Particulars,  which 
I  may  at  prefent  forget,  or  which  may  lefs  de- 
ferve  notice.  Thefe  are  enough  to  fliow  that 
the  Dodor's  Pretences  to  the  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
thers, are  groundlcfs. 
^Qu.ii.  Dd2  What 


396       ^DEFENSE     Qa.XXVI. 

What  then  has  the  Do£lor  to  plead  for  Him- 
fclf,  and  for  his  fo  great  Affurancc  in  this  Particu- 
Inr  ?  Fiid,  That  the  Aiite-Nicene  (as  did  alfo  the 
Toff-Nicene)  Fathers  ^\\o\.'z^  2^  Subordination  y 
which  is  very  true,  butnot  at  all  pertinent  j  nor 
can  any  Confcquence  be  certainly  drawn  from  it, 
in  favour  of  the  Dodor's  Hypothejis -^  which  He 
himfclf  fcems  to  be  aware  of,  as  1  have  remark'd 
above  *.  Another  Thing  is,  that  the  Ante-Nt- 
cene  Writers,  fome  of  Them,  fpoke  of  a  Tempo- 
ral  Generation  by  the  IVtlloi  the  Father 5  which 
I  have  accounted  for  in  my  former  Pages.  And 
a  third  Thing  is,  that  the  generality  of  the  An- 
tie?7ts^vjhcn  They  fpeakof  God  abfolutely,  ordi- 
narily mean  the  Father,  and  They  diftinguifh  His 
Perfon  by  fome  eminent  Titles,  and  peculiar  Ap- 
pellations ;  which  may  be  cafily  accounted  for. 

Can  thcfc  Three  Confidcrations,  or  if  there 
be  more  fuch,  be  ground  fufRcient  for  the  Do- 
dor  to  fay,  that  the  generality  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Writers  are  clearly  on  his  fide,  when 
They  cxprcfly  contradict  Him  in  fo  many  Par- 
ticulars as  I  have  mention'd  ;  feveral  of  Them 
Ejjentials  of  His  Hypothefis  ?  The  moft  that 
in  Truth  can,  or  in  jufticc  ought  to  be  faid,  is 
that,  in  fome  Particulars,  They  feem  to  fa- 
vour Flim ;  but  could  not  r^^//)/ mean  it ;  unlefs 
They  notorioufly  contradicted  Themfelves. 
The  very  utmoft  which  the  moft  fanguine  Man 
of  your  fide  fliould  hope  for,  is,  that  the  Fa- 
thers may  be  found  Contradictory  to  one  ano- 

ther. 


Qu.  XXVI.     offome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       397 

ther,  or  to  Thcmfclvcs,  in  order  to  null  their 
Evidence.  If  They  arc  confident,  They  arc 
cufs  certainly.  And  this  Difference  there  is 
plainly  between  us,  and  you  :  That,  as  to  your 
Principles,  the  Fathers  are  exprcfs,  clear,  and 
full  againftThcm  j  no  Poffibility  of  reconciling 
Thcni  together  :  As  to  our's,  They  are  no 
where  diredly  and  cxprclly  againftus.  If  They 
are  at  all  againfl:  us,  it  is  only  indirecfly^  and 
mufl  be  made  out  by  Inference,  T>ediiEiiony 
and  remote  Confequcnces,  neither  clear,  nor 
certain.  They  may  be  reconciled  to  our  Vrin- 
ciples,  to  Themfehes,  and  to  one  Another : 
But  as  to  any  confident  Agreement  with  y our's, 
it  is  utterly  impradlicable. 

Now  fuppofing  the  Doftor  ever  fo  ftrongly 
to  believe  that  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  in 
general,  held  Principles  which  neceffarily  in- 
fer and  imply  his  Conclufion  j  yet  we  infilt 
upon  it,  that  They  ought  not  to  be  judged  of 
from  any  obfcure,  difputable  Confequences  which 
the  Dodtor  draws  for  Them,  againfl  what  They 
drew  for  Themfelves.  If  we  once  take  the  Liber- 
ty of  denominating,  forting,  or  ranking  of  Men 
with  any  fide,  not  according  to  what  Themfelves, 
perhaps  rightly,  profefs'd,  but  according  to  what 
iomcmagme,  in  Reafon  and  good  Confequencc, 
They  ought  to  have  profefs'd,  we  may  call  ^ro- 
teftants,  Tapifts--,  Arminians,  Calvinifts'^  Ortho- 
doXy  Hereticks ;  and  whatnot.  There  are fomc 
common  Principles  Vv^hich  all  Mankind  agree 
in  5  and  the  feveral  Differences  and  Diftindions 
D  d  5  amongft 


398      ^DEFENSE      Qii.XXVI 

amongft  them  arife  only  from  their  drawing 
Confcqucnces  differently ;  and  it  is  this  that 
gives  Them  their  particular  and  fpecial  Deno- 
mination. Now  fince  it  is  evident  and  vifible, 
as  the  Light,  that  the  Antc-Ntcene  Writers  did 
not  own  the  Confequences  which  the  Dodor 
makes  for  them,  but  exprefly  and  clearly  re- 
jected them;  conftantly  affirming  the  Eternity 
and  CortfiibfiajJtiaHty  of  the  Son,  (the  very 
Points  of  Difference  between  Us  and  the  Dodor) 
it  is  plain  and  obvious  to  common  Senfe,  that 
the  Dodor  has  no  juft  Claim  or  Title  to  Them, 
but  that  We  have:  They  were,  in  the  main  Points, 
clearly  on  our  fide  (confident,  or  not  confiftent, 
is  not  now  the  Qiieftion)  and  as  clearly  againft 
Him.  It  is  to  no  purpcfe  to  plead,  in  this 
Cafe,  that  Treintfes  only  are  of  any  Weight, 
and  that  Concluftons  alwavs  ftand  for  nothing;. 
This  may  be  allowed  in  Argumentation'-,  but 
not  in  determining  on  v%^hat  fide  any  Perfon,  or 
any  Body  of  Men  were  in  this  particular  Que- 
ilion ;  whether  fuch  Conclujions  follow  from 
{y^ii'^Premifes,  In  this,  xhzAnte-Nicene'SSIxX' 
tcrs  were  dire^l)\  zwdiplainly y  Anti-Arian-^  and 
therefore  it  is  a  great  Abufe  of  Language, 
and  as  great  an  Injury  to  Them  and  to  the 
Truth,  for  the  Dodor  to  fay  that  They  were,, 
in  the  'u:kole,  clearly  on  his  fide. 

But  you  had  promifed  the  World  great  Mat- 
ters from  a  Book  of  Dr.  V/hitby%,  which  has 
fmce  fcen  the  Light  5  and  lam  therefore  obliged 
to  fay  Ibmcihing  to  it,  tho'  othcrwifc  I  (liould 

much 


Qu.  XXVI.    offome  Q.U  E  R  I  E  S.       3  99 

much  rather  wave  it ;  becaufc  it  is  wrote  only 
to  Scholar Sy  with  whom  it  can  do  no  harm  i 
and  becaufc,  I  believe,  youare  fcnfiblc,  before 
this  Time,  how  uncautious  a  Thing  it  is  to  pro- 
mife  in  the  Dark  ;  and  to  be  Sponfor  for  ano- 
ther's Performance,  fo  long  beforehand.  Dr. 
Whitby  is  a  Perfon  that  has  done  good  Service  to 
the  Ciiurch,  and  to  the  learned  World  5  and 
one  would  be  willing  to  throw  a  Veil  over  his 
late  mifcondud  in  this  Controverfy,  did  not 
the  imprudent  Triumphs  of  others  oblige  us 
to  take  fome  notice  of  it.  But  let  us  come  to 
the  Point :  I  fhall  fhow  you,  in  fome  fhort 
Stridures  upon  the  Performance,  how  little  you 
are  to  hope  for  from  it  5  and  how  far  it  comes 
fhort  of  Expedation.  I'll  divide  what  I  have 
to  fay  into  two  Kinds  of  Obfervations. 

1 .  Upon  general  Fallacies,  running  thro'  the 
whole  Book. 

2.  Upon  particular  Defeds,  Mifquotations, 
Mifconftruftions,  Mifreprefentations,  <irc. 

His  principal,  and  moft  general  Fallacy,  is  his 
making  Ejjence  and  Terfon  to  fignify  the  fame. 
One  individual  OT  numerical^&x\cQy  He  every 
where  interprets  to  a  Sabellian  Senfe ;  under- 
ftanding  by  it  one  individual  Hypoftafisy  or 
real  Perfon.  And  this  ridiculous  Senfe  He  fixes 
upon  *  All  that  now  pafs  for  Orthodox ;  and, 
I  think  too,  upon  the  generality  of  Thofe  who 
have  been  reputed  Catholicks  down  from  the 

♦  Prxh  p.  32, 

P  d  4  Council 


4CO      ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXVI. 

Council  of  Nice :  For  He  ^  charges  Athanafius 
Himfelf  with  it  3  who  has  been  generally  looked 
upon  as  the  Standard  of  Orthodoxy,  in  this 
Article.  The  Charge  is  weak,  and  groundlefs, 
and  more  efpeciaily  in  regard  to  Bifhop  Bull-^ 
who  is  ^  known  to  have  declar'd  Himfelf  againft 
it,  as  frequently,  as  ftrongly,  and  as  fully,  as 
it  was  pollible  for  a  Man  to  do.  The  learned 
'Examiner,  tho'  *^  He  feems  to  have  known 
this,  is  forced  to  ^  pretend  Ignorance,  to  give  ' 
the  better  Colour  to  what  He  was  going  about. 
For,  otherwife,  who  would  not,  at  firft  fight, 
obferve  the  peculiar  Extravagancy  of  the  Un- 
dertaking, to  confute  Bifhop  BtilU  only  by 
Ihowing  that  the  Bifhop  has  not  proved  what 
He  never  intended  to  prove,  nor  fo  much  as 
believed,  but  rejeded  as  heartily  as  the  learned 
Examiner  Himfelf  can  do.  However,  fince 
this  was,  in  a  manner,  neceffary,  that  the  learn- 
ed Examiner  might  appear  at  leaft  to  have 
fomcthing  to  fay,  all  due  Allowances  are  to  be 
made  for  it.     Let  us  now  obferve  how,  in  the 

'  Pracf.  p-5i. 

"  /  (l^a'd  here  only  cite  am  Tajfageof  B'tJIwp  BuHj  fpe^^king  of  Sandius  5 
Ti-ho/e  Sitps  Dr,  Whitby  has  too  cloftly  folloxo'd. 

Audlor  il!c,  ubiquc  in  Libro  iuo  illud  pro  certo  &  rato  habet 
Homcufartorum,  quos  vocat,  &  Sabellianorum  de  Filio  Dei  Sen- 
tcntiim  prorlus  eandcm  efle.  Quo  nihil  a  vero  remotius  eftj 
Siquidcm  fupra  dare  oftendimus,  Nemincm  Dei  Fllium  Patri 
ifjucHTicy  pofTe  dicere,  nili  abfurde  admodum  8cimproprie,quicuni 
S,i6ell.o  {nn'm.     D.F.N,  p.  148. 

6('e^lfo  D.  F.p.  i:jo.  Animadv.  in Gilb.  Gierke,  p.  1004. 

'  See  Modcft.  Difquifit.  p.  107.  where  he  charges  Bt/hop  Bull 
vith  hohimg  a  Spcciftck  Unity  j  and  Prje£  p.  3  i . 

*•  Prarf.p,  31. 

Entrance, 


QU.XXVI.     offome  Q^UER  I  E  S.      401 

Entrance,   He  is  pleafed  to  ftate  the   general 
Qucftion. 

"  *  Whether  All  t\\z  Ante-NiceneY2.\\\c\% 
"  profefs'd  the  very  fame  Dotlrine  which  JVe 
"  afcribe  to  the  Nicene  Council ;  That  is,  whe- 
"  ther  all  acknowledged  the  fame  Numerical 
^^  EiTence  of  the  Father  to  have  been  commimi- 
*'  cated  to  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  and  that 
"  therefore  Both  are  one  God  in  Number  with 
"  the  Father. 

See  how  many  Guards  He  has  put  in  5  as  it 
were  Confcious  of  what  He  had  taken  in  hand, 
and  fearing  left  otherwife  there  fhould  not  be 
left  Him  ftrength  fufficient  to  fccure  a  hand- 
fome  Retreat.  He  does  not  fay,  the  Genera- 
lity of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  but  ^//;  fo 
that  if  there  happens  to  be  but  one  Exception, 
He  may  ftill  be  fafe  and  fecure.  Next,  He  does 
not  fay  the  Doclrine  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
but  which  We  afcribe  to  that  Council :  Now, 
who  can  tell  what  JVe  He  means  ?  Perhaps 
Himfelf  and  Two  or  Three  more.  Then  again, 
fame  EJfence  will  not  ferve,  but  it  muft  be  the 
fame  numerical  Eflence  :  And  this  He  inter- 
prets, every  where  throughout  his  Book,  in  a 
SabelUan  Senfe.  So  here  the  State  of  the 
Queftion  is  intirely  changed :  And  unlefs  the 
Bifliop  has  proved  (which  God  forbid)  that  All 

*  Utrum Patres  Omnes  Ante-N'icm't  Eandem Quam  Concilio Nic^- 
no  Tribuimus  fententiam  amplexi  funt:  hoc  eft,  utrum  omnes 
Eandem  Numero  Patris  EfTentiam  Filio  £c  Spiritui  Sando  fuifTe 
GoiviMUNicATAM,  coquc  Hominc  utrumquccum  Patic  C/'/?«W3  A"/^w^- 
ro  JDff/??;eire  agnoverunt?  Proem.})-!, 

the 


402      ^DEFENSE      QuXXVI. 

the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  were  Hereticks  and 
fomething  worfe,  profeffing  what  Themfelves 
condemn  d  as  Hercly,  He  has  not,  it  feems,  done 
enough  to  fatisfy  the  learned  Examiner,  Not 
content  with  this,  He  demands  farther  to  have 
it  proved  that  this  lame  numerical  Effence, 
that  is  (according  to  Him)  Terfon,  was  com- 
mmiicatedy  to  Two  other  Terfonss  And  He 
has  fome  pretence  for  cavil  at  the  word 
*  Communicated.  Yet,  as  if  all  this  were  not 
fufficient,  it  muft  be  alfo  by  iyiterior  Tro- 
dud  ion -y  as  He  obfervcs  a  little  after  in  pag.  2. 
and  He  has  fome  Turns  of  Wit  upon  the 
word  f  Troduciion,  Was  this  the  way  to  an- 
fwer  fuch  a  Writer  as  Bifhop  Bull:,  a  wife, 
grave,  learned,  judicious  Author,  and  One  that 
was  above  Trifling  \ 

In  fliort,  the  plain  Queftion  between  Bifliop 
Bull  and  the  Arians  is  only  this:  Whether 
the  Ante-Nice7ie  Fathers,  in  general,  believed 
the  Son  to  be  of  an  eternal^  uncreated^  immu- 
table^ and  ftridly  divine  Subftance,  or  no.^ 
Bifliop  Bidl  maintained  the  Affirmative,  and 
has  unanfwerably  prov'd  it,  in  the  Opinion  of 
mod  Men  of  true  Learning  and  Judgment,  whe- 
ther Here  or  Abroad.  This  is  what  the  learned 
Examiner  fliould  neither  have  concealed,  nor 
difguis'd ;  but  have  frankly  and  honeftly  con- 
fefs'd,  as  He  did  ^!  formerly.  If,  notwithftanding, 

*  Pratf.  pag.ii.  f  Prsehp.2;. 

II  Opu'-,  a;^grediorquodBiiIlusnoftras,  PietateSumma  gcDoiftrina 
Vir  prscditu";,  arnue  m  Anticjuitatis  totius  Scriptis  Vcrfatiflimus, 

the 


Qu.  XXVI.     offome  QUERIES.     405 

the  learned  Trelate  has  not  proved  that  the 
Fathers  held  a  numerical  EjGTencc,  in  the  Exa- 
winefs  Senfe  (fuch  as  He  thinks  neceffary  to 
prefcrve  the  Unity)  the  Bifhop  fhould  not  be 
reprefented  as  faiUng  in  the  Proof  of  what  He 
intended  5  but  {hould  be  given  up  for  a  Tri- 
theifty  and  the  Catholick  Church  with  Him, 
whofe  Advocate  He  is,  and  with  whom  He 
(lands  or  falls.  This  would  have  been  the  fair 
and  ingenuous  way  ;  unlefs  the  learned  Exami- 
ner would  have  undertaken  to  prove  that  the 
Fathers  before  the  Nicene  Council  were  of  Ari- 
an  Principles,  which  He  durft  not  do.  What 
does  it  fignify  to  fhow  that  They  were  not  Sa- 
beUians  ?  Did  Bifhop  Bully  or  docs  any  Man 
of  Senfe,  pretend  They  were  ? 

You  may  judge  of  the  Performance,  ifrom 
his  ftating  the  Queftion  fo  ftrangely  5  and  his 
fetting  out  with  fuch  diffidence,  as  if  He 
thought  the  Caufe  defperate.  When  you  come 
to  the  Book  it  felf,  you'll  find  Two  Thirds  of 
it,  in  effeft,  little  more  than  retreating  to  the 
Sahellian  Senfe  of  Numerical  and  Individual^ 
which  is  only  fo  much  Impertinence.  This 
is  the  principal,  and  the  mod  general  Fallacy 
which  He  trufts  to ;  and  is,  in  a  manner,  the 
Turn  of  the  whole  Book. 

He  has  another  general  Fallacy^  which  He 
fervcs  Himfelf   of   fometimes,    and  it  is  this. 


o^sn  An  perenniori,  ad  Dociorum  Invidiam,  &  Novatorum  Coriloll- 
um,  furomo  judicio  Sc  induflria  percgit.  Utitby.Tracint,  de  vera, 
Chr'tf.  Deit.  pag.fp- 

When 


404  ^DEFENSE  Qa.XXVL 
When  He  finds  fome  Exprcflions  run  pretty 
high  and  ftrong  for  the  Divinity  of  Chrift,  *  He 
fays  the  Avians  ufed  the  fame,  or  the  Hke  Ex- 
prcflions. There  is  very  little  Force  or  Weight 
in  the  Argument  :  For  it  amounts  only  to  this. 
The  f  Avians,  perfed  Mafl:ers  of  Diflimulation, 
and  notorioufly  accuftom'd  to  equivocating, 
ufed  fuch  or  fuch  Exprefl^ions,  meaning  little 
by  them  5  therefore  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers, 
Men  of  a  very  different  Stamp  and  Charafter, 
meant  no  more  by  thofe  Expreflions.  But,  be- 
fides  this,  it  is  well  known  that  the  II  ArianSy 
at  firft,  did  not  ufe  thofe  high  Expreflions  of 
the  Son,  but  cam.e  into  them  by  Degrees,  as 
They  found  their  Doftrine  too  fliocking  to  be 
endured  in  broad  Terms;  and  as  they  perceiv'd 
theNeccflltyof  ufing  C^r^^//Vy^  Language.  We 
can  eafily  fliow,  how,  and  when,  and  why 
the  Avians  were  obliged  to  fpeak  higher  than 
They  thought.  But  it  can  never  be  fhown  that 
the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  were  under  any  fuch 
Temptation;    or   that  they  affefted  to  fpeak 

"*  Prcef.  p.  4,  29. Lib. p.  8,  9,40,  ^Oyi  og,i  f^,J ^j . anJel/ewhere, 

t  Scilicet  Tcnebrioties  ifti  parati  crant  quamlibet  Fidei  Confeflio- 
nem  fuo  fuffragio  comprobare,  quae  modo  vocem  cfjtjoac-lis  non  ha- 
beret :  etiamfi  quoque  in  ca  ponerentur  verba  alia  quae  apud  Sanos 
omncs  idem  prorfus  llgnificarent.     Bull.  D.F.  p.  zSf. 

I]  Arianos  JefumChrifturn  Dt'«?w^^  Deo,  lumen  de  Iwn'mey  njitam 
tx  vita,  ante  omnia  Ssicuh  ex  Deo  Patregenitum  dixiiTe,  Eufebio  adhiic 
in  vivis  agente,  melcgiiTe  nonmemini:  utcunquc  poftea,  ad  decli- 
nandam  Invidiam  inPublicis  Formulishas  voces  fraud ulenter  ufurpa- 
rcnt,  (^c.  Cav.  Epijl.  ylpologet.  p.  6f. 

Qui  Artcs  Eufebii,  reliquorumque  Arianorum  Vocum  Ambigui- 
tate  pcrpctuo  abutentiam,  non  olfaciet  hac  in  rej  ei  quid  aliud  op- 
tcm  non  video,  prxter  nafum.  CUr.Epift.  Crit,  2.  p.  Ji. 

1  Other- 


Qli. XXVI.    of  fbme  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      405 

otherwife  than  They  really  meant,  or  than 
They  would  be  generally  underftood.  They 
were  plaui  open  Men  5  unacquainted  with  thole 
Principles  of  Latitude,  and  ftudy'd  Refinements, 
which  came  in  afterwards.  I  may  ufe  almoft 
a  parallel  Inflance  from  what  has  been  lately 
feen  among  our  Selves.  From  the  Year  1 7 1 2, 
Arians  have  been  taught  to  fubfcribe  the  Ni- 
cene  and  Athanaftan  Creeds.  But  our  good 
Fore-fathers  would  have  thought  it  horrid  Pre- 
varication to  do  it  5  They  were  not  fo  fubtile 
and  rcfin'd:  And  therefore,  tho*  Subfcription 
is  now  no  certain  Argument  of  Men's  Senti- 
ments, it  was  formerly :  when  Men  were  other- 
wife  inftruded,  and  loved  Chriftian  Plainnefs 
and  Simplicity.  This  may  fcrve  for  a  brief 
general  Anfwer  to  the  learned  Examiners  fe- 
conA general  Fallacy. 

There  is  a  third ^mfr^/^y^/i/'^,  which  occurs 
pretty  often  5  that  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  di- 
ftinguifli  God  from  Chrift,  (that  is,  the  Father 
from  the  Son)  and  call  the  Father  God  ab- 
folutely  :  Now,  fuice  the  Tojl-Nicene  Writers 
do  fo  too,  and  fince  no  Body  fcruplcs  it,  even 
at  this  Day  5  I  need  not  give  my  felf  the  Trou- 
ble of  any  more  particular  Anfwer.  Thus  far 
for  the  general  Fallacies,  running  through  his 
Perfomiance :  After  which,  it  may  be  needlefs 
to  take  notice  of  any  particular  Mifmanage- 
ment;  But,  for  a  Specimen,  you  fliall  have  a 
few  Inftances  of  his  Milquotntions,  Mifconftru- 
ftions,  Mifreprefentations,  Reviving  of  old  and 

trite 


406        ^DEFENSE    Qu.XXVl. 

trite  Objedions,  concealing  the  Anfwers,  and 
the  like. 

To  begin  \j\t\\Mifquotations:  Pag.  22.  He 
cites  part  of  T oly carp's^ ox ology-,  recorded  in 
the  Epiftie  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna.  There 
He  ^  leaves  out  tiic  Two  nioft  material  Words, 
((7UV  ajTw)  on  which  the  Argument  chiefly  de- 
pended, and  then  infults  over  the  learned  Tre- 
late. 

Png.  6z.  Citing  a  Paflage  from  ^  Athenago- 
ras ,  He  changes  -^^^^  durisj  into  srfto^  auVov, 
without  giving  any  notice  of  it,  or  reafon  for 
it ;  only  to  make  a  weak  Infinuation  againft 
the  T>ivinity  of  God  the  Son. 

Pag.  75,  76.  He  has  a  Citation  from  Me- 
tkodmsy  part  cf  which  you  may  fee  above 
{p.  143.)  the  remainder  I  have  here  fet  down 
in  the  '^Margin.  After  giving  a  Conftrudion 
diametrically  oppofite  to  the  Intent  and  Z/^^Z-^r 
of  the  Author,  He  breaks  out  into  this  Expref- 
fion;  '^  See  how  He  (Methodius)  manifefily 
acknowledges  the  Sofi  to  have  been^  made,  and 
before  begotten  (that  is  all  the  Senfe  that  I  can 
make  of  what  He  fays)  in  fpight  of  the  Bijhop. 
He  might  havefaid,  in  fpight  of  Grammar  and 

*  Ht  reach  it  at  «  iroi  ov  zrviofjtjccTi  ccyica  ^o%x.  infiead  of  oi  ts 
coi  Tuv  ecuTM  c'y  7:iivyj!X.Ti  dyi'jo  ^o^ja,      Vid.  Eufeb.  I.  4.  C.  If. 

n^05  «jry  ^  (c"  ^i  ctvri  ZTMTK  iyivsTo.  Athena».  Leg;,  p.  58. 
Ox.  Ed. 

'  To  •-)  tyo)  T*ttjijif>ov  "/iyivvyiKci.  cs,  on  cs^ovrtx.  v,^/j  «?£?  ^  uiavuv, 
Atyw,  cvVoK  KpK-or?,  fobA^^pjv  (^  r5  Ko<rfj!ja>  yi'morxi,  6  J«  sV*  rs-fo^iv 
«i7»a»^V*V>^'3^o-««.      Ap.    Phot.  p.  960. 

En  quam  clarc  agnofcit  Filium  yeyevsv^i  Sc-zr^Vsyavwsitfadlum 
?c  prxf^cnicam  clTc,  fruftra  prsefule  renitente.  A/W.^?.  D{/^.p.  7^- 

com- 


QU.XXVI.    offome  Q\J E R  I  E  S.      407 

common  Senfe :  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than 
that  Paffage  of  Methodius  for  the  eternal  Ge- 
neration of  the  Son;  which  he  docs  not  only 
affert,  but  guards  it  againft  the  Objedion  from 
that  Text  (77?/j  da'j  have  I  begotten  thee)  ex- 
plaining it,  not  of  any  Temporal  Generation 
(for  He  allows  no  fuch  Thing)  but  of  a  Tem- 
poral Manifejlation. 

Pag.  97'  You  may  fee  how  He  deals  with 
a  modern  Author,  the  learned  Dr.  Cave,  He 
firft  applauds  his  great  knowledge  of  Eccle- 
fiaftical  Antiquity  (in  which  He  is  extremely 
right)  and  then  cites  a  Paffage  from  Him, 
which,  as  reprefented,  feems  to  fay,  that 
many  of  the  carlieft  Fathers  were  againft 
Chrift's  Divinity.  He  had  done  this  once  be- 
fore in  his  *  Preface,  fo  that  one  may  fee 
He  is  pleafed  with  the  Difcovery.  I  have  gi- 
ven the  Paffage  at  large  in  the  •\  Margin,  in- 
cluding that  part  in  Hooks  which  our  learned 
Examiner  has  left  out.  The  whole  turns  up- 
on thisi  whether  Dr.  Cave  by,  in  quibttSy  in- 
tended the  fame  as,  in  qtiibus  JinguliSy  in  every 
one  of  the  foregoing  Particulars,   or  rather  in 

*  Prxh  p.  28. 

f  Naevos,  quiinScriptfsejus  (Ladlantii^  not2Xit\ir y de  Blvlnitate^ 
de  seterna  Filii  exiftentia  [de  Animarum  prze-exiflcntia  &:  Futuro 
poft  hanc  vitam  ftatu,  de  Fine  Sacculi  &:  Mille  Annorum  Imperio, 
de  adventu  Eliae  Multos  ad  Dei  cultum  converfuro]  aliifque  capiti- 
bus,  de  quibus  obfcure,  incaute,  quandoque  etiam  periculofe  locu- 
•tusfit,  excufabunt,  apud  candidos  rerum  aeftimatores,  Sxculi  quo 
vixit  circa  iftas  res  imperitia,  dogmata  ipla  pauIo  abllraftiora,  nee 
dum  a  Theologis  dilucide  explicata  nee  Synodorum  decretis  defini- 
ta,  &  in  quiirus  '0[/,o^y,<pii^  habuit  complures  praecedentium  Saccu- 
lorum  Patres .  Cav.  H'tft.  Liter,  Vol.  i .  p.  1 1  z. 

manyy 


408        ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXVI. 

rnan'j-,  or  nwjl  of  them.  It  is  impoflible  to 
prove  that  He  meant  it  ftridly  of  every  one  5 
and  therefore  no  certain  Argument  can  be 
drawn  from  this  Paflage  :  But  I  will  give  you  a 
Reafon  or  two,  why  1  think  Dr.  Cave  did  not, 
or  could  not  fo  mean  it.  You'll  obferve,  that 
de  Tiivinitatey  ftands  by  it  felf,  as  a  diftind 
Article;  and  very  probably,  is  to  be  conftru'd 
of  the  "Deity  :  Laciantius  is  "^  known  to  have 
had  very  abfurd  Notions  of  the  "Deity y  fuppon 
fing  God  to  have  had  a  Beginnings  and  to  have 
7nade  Himfelf.  Dr.  Cave  could  never  mean 
that  LaEiantiiis  had  'Olxc'\■^\<^o^Jz  Comphtres  ^ 
wany  of  his  Mind,  in  this  Article :  And  there- 
fore could  not  intend,  in  quibuSy  ftriftly,  of 
every  Particular,  but  of  the  Whole  and  in  the 
General.  Then,  as  to  Dr.  Caves  Judgment  of 
the  Senfe  of  the  Fathers,  in  refped  to  the  Di- 
vinity of  the  Son,  and  his  Eternal  Exiftence,  it 
is  fo  *f  well  known,  and  fo  often  appears  in  his 
Writings,  that  He  fhould  not  be  prefumed  to 
contradid  his  declared  and  repeated  Sentiments? 
without  a  manifcft  Neceffitv.     Wherefore  Dr. 


*  La^ant.  Inflirut.  1.  i.  C.7. 

f  Sancfti  Patres  Catholicae  Fidei  Nicsenorumque  Dogmatum  Te- 
ftcs  funt  inconcufll,  Vindices  accirrmi  ,-  qui  Fidem  ab  Apoftolis 
traditam,  a  Majonbus  acceptam,  ad  nos  ufque  propagarunt,  accep- 
tam  Vita,  Voce,  ctiam  Sanguine  fuo  confirmarunt,  inviftifquc 
Argumcntis  contra  omnia  Hjereticor-um  molimina  (artam  tediarn 
confcrvnrunt  i  quique  niillis  Sophifmatibus  fledli  queunt,  ut  in 
T/rjitarior/on  caulam  Tcftimonium  dicant.  Hinc  illse  Lachryma?- 
Ha-c  Fundi  calamita';.  Adto  ut  de Antiquitate Ecclefiafticadici  poteft, 
quod  dc  Ratione  alicubi  habct  Malmsburienfis  Philolbphus  ;  ubicun- 
quc  Ratio  Homini  rcpugnat,  Hominem  ipfi  Katloni  repugnaturum. 
(^av.  L^iji.  A^oloict,  p.  17, 


QU.XXVI.     offorne  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.       409 

Whitby  docs  a  great  injiir}^  to  the  Memory  of 
that  good  Man,  by  taking  an  Advantage  of  an 
ambiguous  ExprefTion.     To  proceed. 

Pag.  60.  He  tells  us,  that  the  Titles  of  ra 
-sravTOf  ztTODiTnV,  and  r^xi'j  o\(i}v  d^YiiJAH^yo^  (that  is, 
Creator  and  Framer  o'^  xhc  Univcrfc)  weiefuch 
as  the  Writers  of  that  Age  (the  Second  Century) 
always  diftinguifli'd  the  Father  from  the  Son  by. 
If  He  means  that  the  Son  had  not  then  thole 
or  the  like  Titles  given  Him ,  it  is  a  notori- 
ous Untruth  (as  you  may  fee  by  the  Quotati- 
ons *  above, from  Irenaus,  and  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus)  If  He  means  only,  that  Thofe  and  the 
like  Titles  were  eminently  and  emphatically 
given  to  the  Father,  That  indeed  is  very  true 
of  the  iS'^r^?/^^  Century;  and  as  true  of  all  the 
Centtiries  following,  down  to  this  prefent,  as 
appears  by  our  Creeds  3  which,  I  iuppofe,  is  no 
great  Difcovery. 

In  his  Preface,  (P.  32.)  He  mifrcprcfents  £/^- 
y?/as  declaring  againfl:  Unity  of  EffencCy  where 
the  good  Father  intended  nothing  but  againfl: 
Unity  of  Terfon.  In  the  fame  Page,  He  brings 
in  -^  Athanafais^  and  interprets  \vh?.t  He  faid 
againft  the  o.acacnov,  as  if  it  had  been  meant  of  the 
oaciJo-iovj  betwixt  vvhich,  that  accurate  Father  al- 

*  Qu.  II.  p.  188. 

t  Vid.  Athanaf.  Tom.  i.  p.  767.  CompareTam..  a.  p.  51. 

Athanafius  dijltngiujljpd  'very  particularly,  more  than  Hilary  ani 
fome  other  Fathers  did,  between  the  otooiso-iav  and  the  cfAifA-^cicv.  He 
thought  that  to  fay  the  Son  tv as  only  \\kcGod,  was  as  much  («jden)'irg 
H\m  to  be  God  :  As  if  tve  f?outd  fay  aToing  is  only  Wkc  Silvery  there- 
fore not  Silver;  or  only  like  Gold,  therefore  not  Gold.  This  was  his 
Scrfe  of  the  Matter, 

E  c  ways 


4IO       ^DEFENSE     Qu.  XXVI. 

ways  carefully  diftinguiflicd.  A  little  lower.  He 
represents  Athnnafins  as  maintaining  numerical 
Identity  5  which  (in  the  Scnfe  of  the  learned  Ex- 
aminer) is  making  him  a  Sabellmn.  Thus,  it 
feems,  He  is  to  confute  Bifliop  5////,  only  by  puz- 
zling and  confounding  fuch  Things,  as  that  in- 
comparable Prelate  had  made  plain  and  clear. 

Pag.    9.    He  reprefcnts  Barnabas^   Epiftle, 
cyvo^^otf,  which  he  interprets  Spurious^  (p.  19,) 
ncgleding  and  concealing  in  w^iat  Senfe  "^  Eufe-' 
bins  had  reckon'd  it  in  ov  vo^oi?'   and  what  had 
been  faid  by  very  ^  learned  Men  in  Defence  of  it. 

Pag.  2  3 .  He  gives  a  partial  Account  of  the 
Antient  T>oxologies.  No  one  that  has  fecn  Sr. 
Bafil,  the  eighth  Book  of  the  Clementine  Confti- 
ttitions,  Tolycarfs  Doxology,  and  the  Church 
o^ Sfnyrnds,  befides  Clement  oi Alexandrian^ 
and  Hippolyttissy  can  make  any  reafonable 
Doubt,  whether  to  or  ^witky  were  not  apph 'd  in 
^oxologies  to  the  Son  or  Holy  Ghoft,  as  well 
as  ^7,  through,  o\:  in,  hy  x\\<zz2it\\^{iAnte-Nicene 
Writers.  To  pretend  Athanajian  Forgeries  in 
Anfwer  to  all,  is  only  giving  up  the  Point,  with 
the  ridiculous  Circumftance  of  appearing  to 
maintain  it. 

His  Account  of  Jiiftin  Martyr  is  oneconti- 
nu  d  Mili'cprefentation,  as  may  appear  in  fome 
Meafure,  by  comparing  it  with  what  hath  been 
obferved  in  thefe  Papers  I!. 

*  See  CavcHiftor.  Litcrar.  Vol.  i.  p.  ii. 
t  Pcarfon.Vindic.  p.  276,  zSi.BulI.  D.F.p.  i)-.  Pr.  Trad  p.  ^ 
1)  v'^cc  my  Anfwer  to  Dr.  IVhitfy,  p.  49.  &c.  where  Jujiin  M. 
k  vinJicatcd,  at  large. 

Pag. 


qu.  XXVI.     offorne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.       411 

Pag.  6 1 .  He  takes  occafioii  from  the  Latin 
Vcrfion  to  mifreprefent  Athenagoras^  and  to 
infmuate  that  the  Son  is  not  like  the  Father.  If 
the  Greek  words  be  rendet'd,  as  They  fr;nify. 
Infect,  cr  Fatti,  the  Equivocation  upon  Gent- 
tus^  and  therewith  the  Argument  is  loft. 

Pag.  62.  He  undertakes  another  Pafl'age  in 
AthenagoraSj  a  very  famous  one,  and  of  fm^ 
gular  ufe  in  this  Controverfv;  plainly  fliowing 
the  true  and  genuine  Senfc  of  fuch  Fathers,  as 
fpoke  of  a  Temporal  Generation,  and  being  of 
equal  Force  both  againft  Sabellians  and  ArianSy 
as  the  *  learned  Prelate  has  judicioufly  and  ad- 
mirably demonftrated  againfl:  Tetavius,  San- 
dnis^  and  Others.  Sandhis^  being  fcnfible  of 
its  Weight  and  Force,  thought  it  the  wifeft  way 
to  fay,  that  the  place  was  corrupt ;  and  being 
a  Man  of  Wit,  He  invented  fomething  of  a  Co- 
lour for  it.  Gilbert  Gierke^  afterwards,  thought 
of  a  more  plaufible  Solution  of  the  difficulty: 
but  the  learned  f  Bifhop  had  too  much  A.ah 
men  to  let  it  pafs.  Laft  of  all  comes  Dr.  JVhitby 
with  a  new  Device,  which,  I  fuppofe,  is  in- 
tirely  his  own.  You  fee  the  Pallage  in  the 
II  Margin.  The  words  »;:^  cJrysvVy^ov,  He  con- 
ftrues  thus :  Not  as  eternally  generated,  as  if 
He  had  read  7?vvci);i^>ov,  fupplying  aio'/ojs-  by 
Imagination.     The  Senfc  and  Meaning  of  the 

*  Eul!.  Dcf.  F-N./).  20+,  lof. 

+  5'e^Bijl!.  Aiiimadv.  inGilb.  CI.  Op  Poft.p.  105-2,  i of  ^. 

fiv.     Athen.  Leg,  c.  i  o.  p.  38. 

E  c  :i  word. 


4t2      ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E      QU.XXVI. 

word  *  yivofj^cvj  fignifying  rna^/e,  or  created,  is 
fo  fix'd  and  certain  in  this  Author,  that  no 
doubt  or  fcruplc  can  be  rcafonably  made  of  it. 
-And  that  He  intended  to  fignify  the  Son's  ot- 
mutablcy  eternal,  nccejjary  Exiftence,  in  this 
Paflage,  is  fo  manifeft,  that  a  Man  muft  be  of 
a  peculiar  Complexion  that  can  fo  much  as 
qucftion  itj  efpecially  confidering  the  other 
high  Things  faid  of  the  Son,  by  this  Author, 
in  other  Places  i  fome  of  which  have  been 
above  cited.  I  mention  not  how  the  learned 
Examiner  endeavors  to  elude  Them ;  putting 
off  one  with  a  Jeft  {p.  60.)  pretending  an  In- 
terpolation for  another  (/>.  61.)  and  for  fear 
all  fhould  not  fuffice,  retreating  at  length  to 
his  Qiiibble  upon  the  word  NuniericaL 

P.  1 08.  He  makes  a  ridiculous  Reprefentation 
of  Tertullian,  as  if  that  Writer  believed  two  An- 
gels to  be  as  much  O;?^,  as  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son  are.  I  fliall  only  f  tranfcribe  the 
Paflage,  and  truft  it  with  the  intelligent  Reader. 

Pag.  1 1  o,  1 1 3 .  You  find  Him  tampering  with 
Irenaus ;    Firft,  infmuating  as  if  that  excellent 

*  E;'«  ©!cy  «y«  r  r^h  ^  -z^-uvicc,  zs-ciYiTyy,  autcv  fjuly  »  ^'jofBjJ'iv^ 
crt  rr  tv  »  '^i.srciij  a.}Xu.  to  |U/>)  6U  i.  p.  21.  To  ov  oiw,  y£«(r*v  rg 
cnc  s^^oif  i)  r>.i.  TO  VJvc^^^uov  ^i)i  cv  Jg  jsfsl't^Tcrs.  p.  67.  Ou  ^u<rei  c'neov 
u:;Xk  y2vrfB/,uy.  p.  68. 

t  Et  nos  ctiam  Sermoni  afque  Rationi,  itemque  Virtuti,  per 
qvix  omnia  moiituni  Deum  cdiximus,  propriam  Siibftantiam  Spi- 
ntam  infcribiniusi  cui  &  Sermo  inlit  prosnuntiantu  &  Rat'to  adiit 
tlifponciui,  &  r/Vrwpcificicnti.  Hunc  ex  Deoprolatum  didicimus, 
&  prolarioficgcncratum,  &  idcJrcoFilium  Dei  &  Deum  didlum,  ex 

Vii'.tatc  Subjiar.t'u.     Nam  Ik  DensSpiritn: h:i  de  Spirifu  Spiritus 

&  de  Deo  Dens f  ut  Li^mende  Lnnjiuc  3.ccQn(nm.  TenidL^pol.  c.  21. 
p.  202.  Ed.  IJavcjcanip.  Lugd. 

2  Writer 


Qp.  XXVI.     offome  Q^U  ER  I  E  S.       41  ? 

^  Writer  had  fuppofcd  tlie  So7i  was  our  Lord 
and  Gody  accordmg  to  the  good  Tleaptre  of 
the  invijihle  Father  5  but  admitting  the  more 
probable  ConftriiLlioii  to  be,  that  every  Knee 
migK't  bo-jv,  according  to  the  good  Tie afure  of 
the  iiivifible  Father. 

It  is  well  known  that  Iren^us  ^allows  no 
Creature,  nothing  that  had  a  Beginning,  to  be 
JLiftly  called  Gods  "  looks  upon  the  Notion  of  an 
inferior  Gody  as  a  Contradidion ;  does  not  '^ad- 
mit that  any  Creature  cm  create :  And  yet  He 
makes  the  Son  ^ truly  God,  ^  Co-eternaU  and 
^Confubftantial  (tho'  He  ufes  not  the  very 
word)  with  God  the  Father;  Creator  of  Men, 
of  Angels,  of  all  Things.  Tcftimoniesof  the 
laft  particular  are  fo  many  and  fo  clear  (fome  of 
which  have  been  cited  above)  that  I  need  not 
here  refer  to  them.  In  Contradiction  to  all  this. 
Dr.  Whitby  would  pcrfuade  us  (from  two  or 
three  Paflages  which  fay  no  fuch  thing)  that 
Iren£us  refolved  all  the  Dignity  of  the  Son 
into  the  Powers  given  Him  after  his  Re- 
furre£lion  \  I  may,  upon  this  Occafion,  take 
notice  of  another  ^  Writer,    who  has  lately 

'  Irenpeus,  lib.  i.e.  io.p.48.  Ed.Bened. 

**  Iren.Iib.  3.  c,8.p.  183.  Ed.Bened.         "^  Lib.  4. c.  2.  p.  229. 

**  Lib.  4.  c.  4 1,  p.  288.  *  Lib.  3. c.  6.  p.  180.  Lib.4. 

c.  6. p.  235-.  '^Lib.  2.C.  1 3. p.  132.  Lib.  i.e.  25-.  p.  15-3. 

*Lib.  3.C. 21 .  p.  217.  Lib.  2.c.  13  .p.  132.  L.  i.e.  25-.  p.  15-3. 

^  Ircnxiis's  ge?7uine  Principles  may  6efcen  m  O'je  fmt Sentence.  Parer 
■  ■  verbum  fuum  vifibilc  cffccicomni  fieri  Carni,  incarnatum  Sc 
ipfum,  ut  in  omnibus  manitcftus  fieret  Rexeorumetcnim  ca  quae 
judicantur,  oportebar  videre  Judicem,  &  Scive  Hunc  a  (]uo  Judi- 
cantur.     hen.  I.  ^.c.  ^.  p.iS^, 

'  EmWn.  Exam. of  Dr.  Eennct..  p.  18.  frj7  Edit. 

E  e  3  mifre- 


414  ^DEFENSE  Qii.  XXVI. 
mifrcprefcntcd  Irenaus.  He  Imagines  that  the 
good  Father  llippoicd  the  Aoy^^  or  Word,  as 
llich,  pafjible.  The  Paflages,  which  He  builds 
tliis  Ficlion  upon,  you  have  in  the  *  Margin, 
according  to  the  laft  Edition.  The  moft  that 
you  can  cfpy  in  them  is,  that  the  A07©'  fujfered 
in  the  Flcfli :  One  of  the  Quotations  does  not 
certainly  lay  fo  much,  but  might  bear  another 
Condrudion.  It  might  as  reafonably  be  pre- 
tended that  the  Aoy©',  as  fuch,  v.':}.sVifibley  and 
Coynprehenfibky  and  changed  into  a  frail  Man, 
as  that  He  \j2iS pajjible :  Seethe  Margin.  All 
that /r^;^^//^  intended  to  prove  againft  the  He- 
reticks,  was,  that  the  Aoy©^  was  conftantly 
united  to  the  Man  Chrift  Jefus,  and  did  not  de- 
fcrt  the  Human  Nature  in  the  ^ajjton,  it  be- 
ing ^  neccffary  that  the  fuffering  Redeemer 
fliould  be  both  God  and  Man :  This  is  all 
the  Cafe*  But  to  proceed  with  the  learned 
Examiner, 

Pag.  147.  He  reprefentsZ<?r//////W;^,  as  making 

*  Solus  vcre  Magiftcr  Dominus  nofterj  &: bonus  vere  Filius  Dei,  8c 
paticns,  vcrbumDeiPatris  Filius Hominis  fa6lus./m;.1.3.c.  iS.p.zi  i. 
'O  Aoy©-  y  ©sS  (T^cl  lytviTOy    ^  %7rcc^iv.  1.  i.  c.  I  o.  p.  _f  o. 

Ccmpare  the  followkg  Places. 
Vcrbum,  Unigcnitus  qui  fcmper  huniano  gencri  adefc,  Sc  con- 
fparfus  i'uo  Plafmati,  fccundum  placitum  Panis  &  Caro  fat^us,  Ip- 
ie  cftJclusChriflusDominus  noftcr,  quipafTusefl,  />.  206. 

O?  K.  cv  TV  uury,  trxpiu,   ov'^    JCj  'l^tui'^iiv  IXiua-iToci,   p.   20J.    Conf. 

Hippolyt.  eontr.  Noct.  c.  15-.' 

Invilibilis  vifibilis  facflus,  &  incomprchcnfibilis  faclus  comprehen- 
fjbilis,  6cimpairibili^pafilbilis,  &  Vcrbum  Homo.  p.io6. 

t  ^eelrcna^us,  I.  ^.c.  iS.p.  211.  See  alfo  the  famous  Tajfage  about 
Qu  iefccnce,  /'.  2  1 3 .  Which  plainly  fuppofcs  all  that  xvas  fuffering  and 
hw  to  belong  to  the  Manow/y,  xll  that  was  high  and  great  to  the  Aoy©-, 
0    Divine  Nature. 

the 


Qti.  XXVI.      offome  (QUERIES.     415 

the  Son,  in  his  highcfl:  Capacity,  Ignorant  of 
the  'Day  of  Judgment,  Let  the  Reader  fee 
the  *  whole  Paffage,  and  compare  it  with  ano- 
ther, four  Chapters  lower;  and  from  thence 
judge  of  Tertullians  Meaning.  No  reafonablc 
doubt  can  be  made,  but  that  TertiilUan  under- 
ftood  the  Son's  being  Ignorant,  &c.  in  refped 
only  of  his  Humanity,  2iS  well  as  He  under- 
(lood  the  other  Thin^^s,  mentioned  t02;ether  with 
it  in  the  fame  Paragraph.  Such  as  confider  how 
\v\^\\yTertnirianj  clfe where,  fpeaksof  the  Son, 
as  being  of  one  undivided  Subftancc  with  the 
Father,  can  makenoqucftionof  it. 

Here  it  will  be  proper  to  obviate  a  difficulty 
which  may  naturally  upon  the  firft  Thoughts, 
arife  in  one's  Mind.  Why  fliould  the  Catho- 
licks  fo  often  urge  the  Texts  relating  to  Chrift's 
Human  Nature  only,  againft  the  Sabellians? 
For  it  may  feem  that,  if  They  thereby  proved 
Two  HypoftafeSy  They  proved  only  a  'T>ivine 
and  a  Human  Hyp  oft  a fis  \  and  there  might  fiill 
be  but  one  Hypoffafis  in  the  Godhead,  as  the 
Sabellians  pretended.  But  it  is  to  be  confider'd, 
that  Both  Catholicks  and  Sabellians  were  agreed 

*  Ignorans  <&  Ipfe  Diem  <:y>  Hornmllltma?n,  Soli Tatri not ajn ^  dil- 
poncns  Regnum  Dilcipulis,quomodo  &  iibi  diipofitum  dicira  T^^trc, 
habcns  Poteftatem  Legiones  Anc^clorum  po('I:ulandi  ad  nuxiliiim  a  Pa- 
tre  fi  veilc-t,  Exclamans  quod  fe  Dtus  reliquiijet,  in  Patris  inanibus 
Spiritum  ponens.     Tertuil.  adv.  Trax.  c.  26.  p.  f  1 6. 

Habes  ipfum  Exclamantcm  in  PalTionc,  Drui  Meu.<,  Dcus  Mens,  lit 

quid  me  dcreliquifti  ? Scd  Hare  Vox  C3rnis&  Animae  ,  id  elh 

Homini?,  non  Sermonisy  ncc  Spiriiusy  id  el\,  non  />/,  propterta 
emifla  efl,  ur  impafl'ibilem  Dcum  oftendcrer,  qui  iic  Fiiium  derc- 
liquic,  dum  Homiiicm  ejus  tra.lidit  in  ir.ortcm.  TertulL  Adv.  Prax. 
c.  30.  p.  5-18. 

E  e  4  ill 


416      ^DEFENSE      Qu.XXVI. 

in  one  Point,  that  God  was  incarnate,  the  di- 
line  Nature  pcrfonally  united  to  the  Man 
Ckrift  Jcfus  :  And  the  main  Qiiefticn  between 
Them  was,  whether  the  Father  Himfelf  made 
one  Perfon  with  Chrift's  Human  Nature, or  No. 
If  the  Cdtholicks  could  prove  x\\z  Negative 
(as  They  could  eafily  do)  then  the  Sabellians 
mud,  ot  Courfc,  and  upon  their  own  Principles, 
acknowledge  another  divine  Hypoftafis,  be- 
fidcs  the  Father.  The  Catholicks  therefore 
urged  all  the  Texts,  where-evcrChrift  fpcaksof 
Himfelf  as  a  <^//?/7?t?  Perfon  from  the  Father; 
tho'  many  of  thefe  Texts  are  meant  of  Him, 
in  his  Human  Capacity  only.  Had  our  Saviour 
Ckrili  fpoke  of  the  Acy'^^  or  fp^ord,  in  the 
f^me  manner  as  He  does  of  the  Father:  Had 
He  pray'd  to  the  A67©',  or  fVord,  complain'd 
of  being  forfaken  by  Him  5  or  had  He  faid,  I 
know  not  the  Day  of  Judgment,  but  He,  the 
Ao/S^,  or  Wordy  does ;  it  could  never  have  been 
prcfumcd,  that  the  /and  He,  the  Acy©-  and 
Chrifi,  made  one  Terfon*  It  appearing  there- 
fore, from  that  manner  of  Expreffion,  that  the 
Father  was  not  perfonally  united  with  the 
Human  Nature  of  Chrift ;  this  was  fufficient 
againft  the  Sabellians  ^  who  allowed  that  the 
Man  Chrift  jcfus  was  pcrfonally  united  with 
God:  And  if  it  could  not  be  with  the  Father^ 
it  muft  of  Cor.fcquence  be  with  another  divine 
Hypojlajisy  a  diftintl  and  realSon  of  the  Father. 
Thus  you  fee  the  Force  and  Significancy  of 
thofc  Texts  (and  of  ail  Texts  which  intimated 

a  plain 


Qu. XXVL     offome  (QUERIES.      417 

a  plain  perfonal  Diftindioii  between  the  Fa- 
ther and  Chrift)  againft  the  Sahellians.  They 
fliowed  that  the  Perlon  Ipeaking  was  not 
the  Father.  And  yet  the  Perlon  who  fpakc, 
having  ( as  both  Sides  allowed )  a  "Divine 
and  Human  Nature,  might  fpcak  of  Himfelf 
in  different  Re fpedls  5  in  this,  or  in  that  Ca- 
pacity. Thus,  in  regard  to  the  Son's  Igno- 
rance of  the  T)ay  of  Judgment,  it  is  manifeft 
that  the  Father  and  Sen  are  there  fpoken  of, 
as  of  Two  Perfons ;  and  One  as  kncwing,  the 
Other  as  not  knowing,  tho'  only  in  a  certain 
refped :  One  Ignorant  in  fuch  a  Capacity,  the 
Other  not  Ignorant  in  any  Capacity,  at  all, 
as  having  never  taken  Human  Nature,  and 
therewith  Human  Ignorance,  into  a  perfonal 
Union  with  Himfelf.  Thus  far  to  clear  this 
Point,  and  to  acquit  my  felf  of  a  *  promife 
made  you  fome  time  ago. 

I  fliall  proceed  a  little  farther  in  remarking 
on  your  Friend's  Performance.  It  is  frequent 
with  Him  to  bring  up  old  Objeftions,  neglect- 
ing and  concealing  the  Bifhop's  Anfwers.  I 
(hall  give  a  few  Inftances  only  5  that  I  may 
not  be  Tedious. 

Pag.  17.  He  pretends  that  the  Bifhop  has 
not  fliown,  that  the  Fathers  of  the  Second  Cen- 
tury refolved  the  Unity  into  the  fame  Principle 
with  the  Nicene  Fathers.     Yet  the  Bifliop  f  has 

*  Qu.  7.  p.  1 1 1.  5*^^  Athanafius  farther ,   upen  the  Jhin^  whereof  / 
have  been  fpeak'mg.  Vol.  i.p.  261. 
t  Bull.  D.F.  Sea.4..  c,  4. 

fliown 


418      ^DEFENSE      QllXXVL 

iliown  it,  and  Dr.  Whitby  allows  as  much  in  the 
very  next  Page ;  and  has  nothing  to  retreat  to  but 
the  milcrablc  Evafion  about  hidividiial, 

Pag.  84.  He  refers  to  Bajil  zs  an  Evidence 
that  Gregory  Thaumatttrgus  believed  the  Son 
to  be  a  Creature.  This  He  again  repeats  in 
the  next  Page  5  and  again  in  his  Preface,  p.  i  o. 
Yet  the  Fa6l  is  evidently  falfc  s  Bafil  Himfelf 
a  full  Witnefs  on  the  contrary  fide ;  and  this 
Bifliop  Bull  had  *  given  notice  of,  and  made 
clear  to  a  Demonftration.  When  a  Writer  drains 
fo  hard,  to  put  a  falfe  Scnfe  upon  Another; 
there's  no  uncharitablenefs  in  believing,  that 
He  gives  us  at  lead  his  own  true  meaning. 

Pag.  87.  He  revives  an  old  Objedlion,  which 
the  learned  Prelate  had  ingenuoufly  -f  fet  forth 
in  its  full  Force  5  and  given  it  as  full  an  Anfwer. 
Your  Friend  is  here  pleafed  to  fpeak  with  great 
contempt  of  the  Brfliop's  Anfwer  5  for  no  other 
reafon,  that  I  can  fee,  but  becaufe  He  was  not 
able  to  confute  it.  Being  however  refolv'd  to 
fay  fomething,  He  ftoutly  denies  a  plain  Mat- 
ter of  Fad.  Olxovo/x/a,  fays  He,  is  never  ufed 
by  the  Fathers,  in  the  Bifhop's  Senfe.  Pleafc 
to  turn  to  the  places  noted  in  the  !1  Margin, 
and  judge  whether  the  Bifliop,  or  He,  be  the 

*  Bull.  Dcf. F.N.  p.  lyy,  15-6, 15-7. 

t  RuII.D.  F.  p.  267. 

I)  Tcrtullian  adv.  Prax.  c.  i,  -i^.  CIcm.  Alexnndr.  p.S^ijpff. 
Tatian  c.  8.  Ed.  Ox'.IIippoIytusContr.  Noe:.  p.  ii,  15-. 

Valclius  had  obfcrvedthe  Thing  long  ago,  and  vo'ithotit  any  View  to 
Controverfy. 

Vctus  omnis  Chriftianorum  Thcologia  Deo  quidem  Patri  Mo- 

morc 


Qd.XXVI.  of fome  (QUERIES.  419 
rnore  faithful  and  accurate  in  this  Matter.  If 
any  thing  farther  be  wanting  in  Defence  of  Bi- 
fliop  B'dlly  in  this  Article,  let  Him  fpeak  for 
Himfelf,  in  another  *  Work,  in  anfwer  to  Gil- 
bert Clerke ;  who,  it  feems,  was  much  oflfcnd- 
cd  at  the  OlKovo/x/a,  grieved,  as  He  well  might, 
to  fee  His  moft  pompous  and  plaufible  Pre- 
tences intirely  baffled  by  it.  I  fhould  weary 
my  Reader,  and  my  Self  too,  if  I  went  on  re- 
marking every  Place,  where  old  Objedions  are 
brought  up  j  and  either  none,  or  very  flight 
notice  taken  of  the  Anfwers  :  If  you  have  a 
mind  to  compare,  you  may  note  fome  Pages 
referred  to  in  f  the  Margin.  I  fliall  proceed  no 
farther,  in  this  tedious  and  difagreeable  Employ- 

narchiam  attribuit,  Filio  vero  &  Spiritu  San(3:o  oiKovofjulccv,  id  efl:, 
.Adminiflrationem&Diipenfationem.     Valef.  Not.  adEufeb.^. ^^6, 
See  alfo  p.  90.  25-5. 

*  Bull.  Pofth.  Works, /).  104.5-,  1046,  1047,  ^c, 
t  Modeft. Difquifit.  '^   ...  ^  ^  ^ 

Pag.  27. 


nicnr 


420     ^DEFENSE      Qu.  XXVI, 

mcnt ;  except  it  be  to  obfcrve  to  you  one  pe- 
culiar piece  of  Management,  which  I  leave  you 
to  refied  on.  The  learned  Examiner  labours, 
for  *  two  Pages  together,  to  fliow  x}cl2X.  Clemens 
of  Rome  was  far  from  i'peaking,  or  thinking  fo 
highly  of  our  Blcfled  Lord,  as  St.  Taul  did.  A 
little  after,  '\  He  propofes  Clemens  to  us  as  a  very 
good  Interpreter  of  Scripture ;  and  commends 
Him  highly,  for  laying  Chriftianity  before  Us 
in  its  naked  Simplicity.  What  can  We  think 
of  this  ?  The  bcft  Conftrudion  I  can  make  of 
it  is,  that  He  intended  in  p.  14,  15,  not  St. 
yWHimfelf,  but  St.  T ml  h^s  now  generally 
underftood  :  And  fo  He  was  to  infinuate  fome- 
thing,  which  was  not  fit  to  be  exprefs'd.  But 
a  Man  of  Art  would  have  conduced  better; 
would  not  have  difcover'd  Himfelf  fofoon,  but 
have  truftcd  more  to  the  Sagacity  of  his  Reader. 
This  manner  of  proceeding,  in  an  important 
Caufe,  is  what  I  cannot  account  for.  It  feems  to 
me,  that  if  there  be  not  Reafons  of  Confciencc 
obliging  a  goo<^  Mzn  to  fpeak  out,  there  are  al- 
ways Reafons  of  Prudence  which  fhould  make 
a  '-ci7/2'  Man  hold  his  Tongue. 

You  may  perceive,  by  this  Time,  that  Bi- 
fliop  Brill's  Book  is  like  to  ftand,  till  fome- 
thing  much  more  confiderable  appears  againft  it. 

*  Alitcr  plane  D.pW«j  loquitur: Argurnento  potiuseft 

CUmemem  dcChiifto  alitcr  plane  quam  Faulum  fenfifTc xnag- 

rnm  fufpirioncm  injirir,  cadem  Clementem  cumFaulo  minirae  do- 
fuiffc.      M'l-j^th.difcj.T^.  14,,  15-. 

t  Solus  Clemens  Chriftianns  Fidei  Simplicitatem  pras  oculis 
Le<aoris  ponit.     H'hitb.  Difq.  p.  1 9. 

Several 


Qu.XXVI.  of  fame  QUEKIES.  421 
Several  attempts  of  this  kind  have  been  made 
before;  but  to  as  little  purpofe:  And  if  there 
be  ever  fo  many  more,  by  ever  fo  good  Hands, 
ru  venture  to  fay,  They  will  fucceed  no  better. 
The  Book  will  ftand  as  long  as  clear  Senfe, 
found  Reafoning,  and  true  Learning  have  any 
Friends  left.  The  main  Subftance  of  it  is  not 
to  be  confuted  5  any  more  than  you  can  extin- 
guifli  Truth,  or  put  out  the  Light  of  the  Sun. 
the  Fathers  have  been  tried  and  are  found 
faithful:  What  They  defended  while  living. 
The  T>ivimty  of  our  Bleffed  Lord,  againft  the 
Infults  of  Jews  y  TaganSy  and  Hereticksy 
They  ftill  maintain  in  their  Works :  And  their 
Works  will  be  held  in  great  Efteem,  and  Vene- 
ration; while  every  weak  Attempt  to  blaft 
their  Credit,  will  meet  with  what  it  juftly  de- 

ferves I  was  going  to  fay  what,  but  it  may 

found  fevere :  I  proceed  to  another  Query. 


QjCJERT 


423      ^DEFENSE     Qii.XXVIL 
Query     XXVII. 

JVJjether  the  learned  T>o6for  may  not  reafon- 
ably  be  fuppofed  to  fay^  the  Fathers  are  on 
his  fide,  "-jutth  the  fame  meaning  and  re- 
fernje  as  He  pretends  our  Church  Forms  to 
favour  Him  5  that  is,  provided  He  may  in- 
terpret as  HepleafeSy  and  make  them  [peak 
his  Senfe,  however  Contradictory  to  their 
own :  And  whether  the  true  Reafon  why 
He  does  not  care  to  admit  the  Tefiimonies  of 
the  Fathers  as  Proofs,  may  not  be,  becaup 
They  are  againft  Him  > 

IN  Anfwer  to  this,  You  tell  me,  that  it  con- 
tains only  an  invidious  Suggcfkion-^  not  any 
Argument.  The  Suggeftion,  I  do  afiure  you, 
is  juft,  and  argumentative  too  j  and  was  kindly 
intended  towards  you  5  that  you  might  not 
take  Things  implicitely  and  upon  TruTl  from 
others,  but  might  examine  them  firft  your  Self  s 
and  then  pafs  a  Judgment  of  them.  As  to  the 
invidious  Appearance  of  it ;  had  I  ever  intend- 
ed, or  in  the  leaft  thought  of  making  the  Cille- 
ries publick,  you  might,  with  a  better  Grace, 
have  told  me  of  it.  But  as  I  had  not  the  liberty 
of  revifing  my  Papers,  nor  fo  much  as  any  pre- 
vious Apprchenfion  of  your  Defign  (prefuming 
all  along  the  very  contrary,  as  I  rcafonably 
might)  thcfc  Things  confidcr'd,  I  hope  the/«- 
vidious  Part  you'll  take  to  your  fclf  5  the  Ar- 
gument 


Qu.  XXVIL     of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.    42  5 

gtiment  (for  an  Argument  it  is,  in  its  kind) 
you  may  leave  to  me.  It  is  of  fome  Moment 
to  us,  not  only  to  have  the  Primitive  Writers 
on  our  fide,  (as  we  plainly  have)  but  to  have 
them  thought  fo  too.  The  learned  Dodorhas 
made  fome  Pretences  that  way  ;  and  they  arc 
of  Weight  with  fuch  Readers,  as  arc  not  duly 
apprchcnfive  of  the  Dodor's  uncommon  man- 
ner of  fctting  Things  off,  with  great  Advantage 
to  his  Caufe,  and  as  great  Detriment  to  Truth. 
Two  Reafons  are  intimated,  in  the  Query,  why 
his  claim  to  Antiquity  ought  to  have  the  lefs 
Force  with  confidering  Men :  Fiuft,  Becaufc 
He  lays  claim  to  our  Chmc\\s  Forms  i  which 
every  common  Reader  may  fee,  are  direcllya- 
gainftHim;  And  Secondly,  Becaufe,  notwitli- 
(landing  his  appeal  to  Antiquity,  He  is  wifer 
than  to  put  the  Matter  upon  that  Iffue.  He 
endeavors  to  leilen  the  Efteem  of  the  Antients, 
all  the  while  that  He  prefumes  They  are  on  his 
fide,  (a  lure  Mark  that  He  fufpeds  Them)  and 
is  fecuring  a  Retreat  when  They  fail  Him;  a$ 
they  certainly  will,  whenever  firicily  inquired 
into.  I  would  leave  it  with  any  difcerning 
Man  (  who  cannot  examine  farther  into  the 
Merits  of  the  Caufe)  to  judge,  whether  it  be 
at  all  likely  that  thofe  who  fpeak  always  con- 
temptibly of  the  Antients ,  and  endeavor  to 
the  utmoft  to  abufe  and  expofe  Them,  can  reafon- 
^bly  be  pre  fumed  to  have  a  greater  Intereft  in 
Them,  than  They  who  fpeak  honourably  and 
handfomely  of  Them  5  who  defend  their  Chara- 
*  dcr. 


424      ^DEFENSE     Qii.  XXVIL 

der,  and  have,  as  it  were,  an  affedionate 
Tenderncis  and  Concern  for  Them.  Thus 
niuch  for  the  lecond  Reafon  intimated  in  the 
^tery.  As  to  the  firft  Reafon  fuggefted,  the 
Import  of  it  is  this.  If  the  learned  Dodor  can 
cfpy  Arianifm  in  our  Liturgy  ,  or  Articles  , 
where  it  certainly  is  nor;  He  may  reafon- 
ably  be  fuppofed  to  miftake  as  much,  among 
the  Fathers.  He  fees,  in  our  Liturgy,  the 
Dodrine  of  one  God  the  Father,  tnclujive  of 
Son  and  Holy  Ghoft ;  but  does  not  fee  one 
God  exclufiveoi  Both  j  which  is  hisDoftrine. 
He  finds  a  Subordination  of  Order  taught  in 
our  publick  Forms  5  but  does  not  find  any  Sub- 
ordination or  Inferiority  of  Mature'^  which 
is  his  Principle.  And  yet,  upon  thefe  flight 
Grounds,  He  fcruples  not  to  fay,  that  the 
*  main  Branches  of  his  own  Doctrine  are  ex- 
frefly  ajfirnid  in  our  Liturgy  ;  meaning,  by  a 
tacite  Confeqiience  of  his  own  making.  And 
fmce  this  Confequentialy  that  is,  Imaginary y 
Countenance  is  ail  that  He  can  claim  from  our 
Liturgy,  and  all  that  He  really  means,  when 
He  fays  the  Church's  Forms  are  on  his  fide ; 
poflibly  He  may  mean  no  more ,  when  He 
fpcaks  of  the  Fathers.  The  Generality  of  Rea- 
ders, it  may  be,  underftand  Him,  as  if  He  had 
intended  to  fay,  that  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers 
cfpccially,  had  declared  againft  the  Co-eternity 
and  Confubftantiality  of  the  Son,  the  Points 
in  Qiic(iion:  But  I  humbly  conceive,  He  in- 

♦  Script.  Doar.  p.  ii^.firJlEd. 

tended 


Qu.  XXVII.  offome  QUERIES.  425 
tended  no  more  than  this,  that  the  Ante-Ni- 
cene  Writers  have  declared  fomething,  which. 
He  really  believes,  does  by  Confeqttence  de- 
ftroy  the  Conftibftantiality,  &c.  though,  at  the 
fame  time,  thofe  Writers  admitted  no  fuch  Con- 
feqtience ;  but  exprejiy,  and  conftantly  difowti- 
ed  it.  This  is  all  that  He  can  meauy  with  re- 
fped  to  our  Liturgy ;  and  therefore,  probably, 
all  He  does  fnean,  in  refpect  of  the  other  5  or 
however,  certain  I  am,  that  it  is  zWHcJhould 
mean.  Now  you  fee  the  full  of  my  Argument* 
If  it  look  invidious^  I  cannot  help  it  5  I  ant 
perfuaded  it  is  juft;  and  I  think  it  of  as  much 
Importance  to  our  Readers  to  have  the  Mattef 
fairly  ftated,  as  it  is  that  Truth  may  not  be 
fmother'd  ;  nor  any  ftrefs  laid  upon  the  Doftor'5 
Citations,  beyond  what  They  do  really  bear. 
The  learned  Doftor  owns,  as  to  Tofi-Nicene 
Fathers,  that  They  are,  in  the  whole,  againfi: 
Him.  And  He  fliould  have  own'd  as  much  of 
the  generality,  at  leaft,  of  the  Ante-Ntcene 
Fathers  too ;  and  then  He  has  no  claim  td 
any  thing  but  ConceJJions  ;  of  which  He  endca- 
vors  to  make  the  utmoft  Advantage,  threc^^ysi 
Firft,  by  making  more  ConceJJions  than  there 
really  are:  Secondly,  by  reprelcnting  thofe 
ConceJJions  in  fo  promifcuous  and  confufed  a 
Light,  that  a  common  Reader  cannot  readily 
diftinguifh  when,  oir  where  the  Dodor  intend- 
cd  the  full  and  intire  meaning  of  an  Author;^ 
or  a  ConceJJion  only :  Thirdly,  by  flipping  his 
own  Conciufion  upon  thofe  ConceJJions^  as  i^ 
F  i  :.h:- i 


426     ^DEFENSE      Qn.  XXVII. 

They  were  the  fame  Thing ;  tho'  there  really 
is  no  Connexion  between  Them,  no  juft  Con- 
fequence  from  one  to  the  other.  I  would  not 
be  knowingly  guilty  of  charging  the  Dodor 
falfely,  in  thefe,  or  in  any  other  Particulars,  for 
any  Confideration  5  and  therefore  it  may  be 
cxpeftcd  of  me,  that  I  explain  my  felf  more 
at  larger  which  accordingly  I  fhall  do,  in  the 
Order  and  Method  which  I  have  already  laid 
down. 

I.  The  learned  Doftor  has  taken  feveral  Paf- 
fages  for  ConceJJlons^  which  are  really  none  : 
but  only  as  He  has  given  Them  fuch  a  parti- 
cular Air  and  Afpeft ;  either  by  prefacing 
Them,  and  holding  out  a  falfe  Light  to  the 
Reader;  or  by  commenting  upon  Them  i  or  by 
///  tranjlating  of  Them.  I  fhall  proceed  to 
Particulars ;  and  you  muft  not  take  it  amifs,  if 
we  call  upoi^  you  to  return  us  back  what  you 
have  unfairly  wrefted  from  us. 

Scripture  TioBrinCy  Pag.  3 .  The  Dodor  pro- 
duces a  Paflage  of  Athanajhis-,  part  of  which, 
fo  far  as  concerns  us,  you  fee  in  the  *  Margin  ; 
withfo  much  farther  as  is  neceffary  to  clear  the 
Scnfe  of  the  Author.  The  Dodor  s  Verfion 
runs  thus :  "  For  He  if  he  Father)  is  the  one 
^[  God,  and  the  only  One,  and  the  Firft.  And 

tS  'Eiici  ^  Mova  <z'  Ufara  y^  /w»«3k©-  ^oy(^^  fC,  <ro(pioc,   tC,  uTu.uyua-f^ee' 

Trs  «)'>.©-  y^  :3-A«f j>?  uy  Qeo<; .    Athanaf.  2 .  Orat.  Contr.  Arian.  p.  f^6. 
E<1.  Bcned. 

*  ''  yet 


Qu.  XXVil.     offome  QUERIES.     427 

"  yet  thefe  Things  do  not  dcflroy  the  T>ivi- 
"  nity  of  the  Soni'  This  rcndring  is  flat  and 
low  5  and  neither  anfwcrs  the /;2ff??f,  x\o\:  Let- 
ter of  the  Author.  OJ/.  ei^  ava/pscrr;,  literally, 
is,  not  to  exclude  the  Son:  plainly  meaning 
not  to  exclude  Him  from  being  the  one  Gody 
and  the  only  One^  and  the  Firfl,  together  with 
the  Father.  And  fo  Atkanajius  interprets  Him- 
felf  in  the  Words  immcdiatejy  following :  For 
He  [the  Son)  alfo  is  •sreciV®',  the  Firft,  the 
fullncfs  of  the  Godhead  of  Him  who  is  the 
Firft,  and  only  God.  You'll  oblerve  that  the 
Doctor  renders  dira^jycLaixa.^  as  if  it  had  been 
dirauyckGixcL  tJi?  c/^cgy;r,  Brightmfs  of  Glory: 
Which  is  again  concealing  and  ftifling  the  Senfe 
of  the  Author.  Athanafius  intended  to  fignify 
the  Son's  tffuing  or  flreaming  forth,  as  it  were* 
from  the  Father's  Subftancc,  as  Light  from  the 
Sun;  which  meaning  is  loft  and  funk  in  the 
Dolor's  Tranflation.  You  fee  then  that  this 
Paflage,  when  rightly  underftood,  is  intirely 
againft  the  Do^lor;  and  therefore  ought  not  to 
be  reckon'd  amongft  ConceJJions. 

Let  us  go  on  to  another,  in  the  very  fame  page* 
alias  p.  4*^^.  (the  Paflage  you  have  in  the  *  Mar- 
gin.) The  Dodor  renders  it  thus :  ''  The  true 
"  God,  who  is  moft  flridly  and  abfolutcly  fuch, 
"  even  the  Father  of  Chrift."  Here  the  Englifb 
Reader  muft  needs  think  that,  if  the  Father  be 
mofl  ftriaiy.     He  is  7nore   ilridly   God  than 

*  Tov  «i>.5;3-<vjv   yi^tvruc  tiro,  ©fsv,  r\i  r2  Xe^f}  zrxTi^cc,    Athan. 
Contr.  Gcntp.  o- 

F  f  ;  Chrift 


42S      ^DEFENSE     Qu.XXVIL 

Chrift  is :  Efpccially  when  nothing  appears  in  the 
Paflagc  to  compare  the  Father  with,  but  Chrift. 
Under  this  view,  indeed,  the  Paflage  cited  is  a 
very  great  ConceJJion  :  Bur,  in  the  Greeks  there 
is  no  ConceJJion  at  all.  The  juft  and  literal  izxv- 
dring  of  the  Paflage  is  this :  Tke  true  God,  who 
in  reality  is  fiichy  namely^  the  Father  of  Chrijt, 
You  mud  know,  that  Athanajius  is  here  exhort- 
ing the  Gentiles  to  turn  from  their  dumb  Idols, 
to  ferve  the  living  God.  In  oppofition  to  what 
He  calls  *  oux  hra^  Things  which  have  no  real 
or  but/>r^f^r/^;/i-Exiftence,  and  ^  cvy.ovra'Toic<^ray 
Thi?2gs  which  were  not  Jiich  as  the  Heathens 
imagined,  i.  e.  not  divine.  He  advifes  Them  to 
come  ovQitoth^  Father  of  Chrijl:,  whofe  pro- 
perty it  is  to  exift  in  reality,  and  who  is  trtdy 
2in&Jlri51ly  God.  This  is  no  more  than  At h ana- 
yf//j'wouldhavefaidofthe  Sons  and II  indeed  has 
faid,  (in  other  words)  in  that  very  Treatife ;  and 
therefore  you  may  pleafe  to  ftrike  this  Paflage 
alfo  out  of  the  Number  of  ConceJJlons, 

The  learned  Doftor  goes  on,  in  the  fame 
way  (pag.  4.)  And  in  another  Paflage,  inftead 
of  far  above  all  created  Being ;  (which  the 
Greek  Words  fignify,  and  which  is  the  r^r//^/» 
meaning  of  the  Author)  He  chufes  to  fay  far 
above  all  derivative  Being  5  infinuating  to  his 
Reader  as  if  the  Son  were  to  be  included  un- 
der  derivative    Being:,   than    which  nothing 

^  Vid.  Athanaf  ibid.  p.  7,  S.  f  Athanaf.  p.  27. 

Athan.Cont.  Gent,  p.40. 


Qu.  XXVII.  offof^eCXUEKlES.  429 
can  be  farther  from  the  Scnfe  of  the  Author,  in 
that  very  Page  ;  as  I  have  obfcrved  *  before, 
on  another  Occafion.  All  the  Concef]Jo7i  that  is 
there,  Ues  only  inthe  Doclor's  Tranjlatioriy  and 
the  Turn  He  gives  to  it  in  the  Sequel :  Atha- 
najiiis  himfelf  has  granted  nothing  that  can  do 
you  any  Service;  at  lead,  not  in  that  PaiTage, 
and  therefore  let  that  alfo  return  to  us  again. 

Pag.  89.  {alias  79.)  The  Dodlor  cites  a  Paflagc 
oi  Etifebius,  which,  He  fays,  ex  proves  the  una- 
nimous  Senfe  of  the  Catholick  Church :  And 
it  may  be  true,  as  it  lies  in  Eitfebius.  Bur,  as 
it  is  reprefented  in  the  Dodor's  Tranflation,  ex- 
cluding the  Son  from  any  proper  Efficiency  in 
the  Work  of  Creation,  it  is  diametrically  oppofitc 
to  the  unanimous  Senfe  of  the  Antients,  and  to 
Eufehius  too  ;  as  hath  been  fliown  above  "f . 

iPag.  1 00, 1  o  I .  [alias  92.)  The  learned  Dodor 
has  two  Citations  from  Chryfoftom  and  Bajili, 
who  interpret  the  Texts,  of  ^ower,  as  the  Doc- 
tor alfo  does  of  Tower.  But  if  the  Dodor  means 
one  thing  by  To-jner,  and  They  another,  and  the 
Ideas  be  intirely  different  j  their  interpretation 
and  his  muft  be  as  different  ns  the  Ideas  are  : 
And  it  is  not  fair  to  quote  them  as  agreeing  in 
the  Thing,  when  they  agree  only  in  the  Name.  I 
have  II  before  took  notice  how  the  Dodor  dealt 
with  Chryfoftom^  in  order  to  concc.il  the  good 
Father's  true  meaning.  I  fli.iUhereobferve,  how 
He  perverts  Bafih  Senfe,  by  a  fmall  and  leem- 

*  Qu.  ix.p.  201.        tQii.  I  r.  p.  103.         iiOii- -3- P-?,^S. 

F  f  3  ingly 


430       .4    DEFENSE    Qu.XXVII. 

ingly  flight  Turn  in  his  Tranflation.     *  Bajil's 

Words  arc  iVy  JC,  Taury   y.ard  JiiyajUr;.      That   is. 

Equal  and  the  very  fame^  in  refpeEi  of  Tower, 
The  Dodor  drops  equal,  which  would  have  dif- 
covered  Bafits  meaning ;  and  renders  it,  One  and 
the  fame  hrFower.  And  thus5^/'sWords,which 
are  utterly  repugnant  to  the  Dodiox^s  Hypothejisy 
are  improved  into  a  ConceJJion  in  favor  of  it. 

Pag.  1 02.  {alias  9^-)  He  gives  us  a  low  and 
lame  Conftruclion  of  a  noble  Paflage  in  ^  Iren£' 
tts.  The  Words,  xara  r'o  ^sVxov  ;<J, svc/^o^ov  He  ren- 
ders, in  a  divine  and  glorious  Manner :  The 
true  rend  ring  is,  in  kis  divine  and  glorious  Cha- 
raBer :  Namely,  that  w^hich  He  had  as  God, 
and  Son  of  God.  Irenaus,m  that  Chapter,  is 
rcprefentingthe  Son  as  ading  at  different  Times, 
in  a  different  Charadcr  or  Capacity.  When  He 
appeared  to  the  Tatriarchs^  then  He  adled  in 
his  highefl:  Capacity,  in  his  divine  Charader. 
What  that  Character  is,  (!  Iren£us  explains, 
a  little  above,  in  the  fame  Chapter :  It  is,  as 
He  is  thzJVord,  the  Framer  (or  Maker)  of  aU 

Bafil.  Contr.  Eun.  1. 1 .  p.  35-. 

xccroc  TO  B^tix-ov  x.eci  ivd'o'^^cv  afjuiXH'  roT(;,  ~f  ov  tm  vc^W  f'f-p^r'-^V .  „i 
Tuiiv  uTTivifS/j,  yy.TiC,  j  TXUTC6  "Av&()t>j7^'^  yivc(hf/^,  .&C.  Iren.  1.  3, 
c.  1 1. p.  191. 

IJ  'O  r  dyiaiTm  Ti^virn^  Xoy(^,  6  KC.,9-«/4f^  ^^^  t^^  X£p»oi/!A,  ^ 
trvvt^ojv  rot,  zrccvrcc  :  Ircn.  p.  190. 

'Atto  r5  -sscc^cii  v.yif/joviKy.v  uurtm  ■ ,    „  ku,1  \vh^oy  yivixv, 
Illam  qua;  eft  a  Patre,  Principalem,  Sc  efficabilem,  &  gloriofam 
gcncrationcmcjusenarrat,  dicens  iic.  In  prmcipio  erat  Verbum,    ^ 
Vtrbnm  erat  apud  Deivn^  (y  Deus  crnt  Verhum,    Et  omnm  per  ipfum 
facUfur.ty   &  fne  ip[o  factum  eji  mh'iL     Iren  .p.  191. 

Things^ 


Qa.XX VII.    offorne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      431 

Things y  who  fitteth  upon  the  Cherubims,  and 
containeth  all  Things^  who  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  God.  This  fhows  what  is  meant  by  the 
TO  ^eVkov  ;c,  Wo^ov,  and  at  the  fame  tmic,  (hows 
that,  according  to  IrenauSy  the  Aoy^-,  who  is  GW, 
then  aded  in  his  own  proper  Charadcr,  and 
not  in  the  ^Perfbn  of  the  Father  only,  which 
the  Dodor  would  infer  from  this  Paflage. 
For  it  muft  be  obferved  that  the  Son  was  ®sof 
{Joh.  I.I.)  before  the  Time  that  He  is  fuppofed 
by  the  Dodor  to  have  afted  cy  /ac^(p^  ©sa,  as 
God's  reprefentative :  and  it  is  of  that  Antece- 
dent Charafter  Irenaus  fpeaks,  as  is  plain  from 
ills  referring  to  Joh.  i .  i . 

Pag.  115.  {alias  106.)  He  cites  a  place  of  Ju- 
ftin  Martyr y  where  He  renders  the  Words,  which 
you  fee  in  the  *  Margin,  thus.  "  It  was  not  God 
"the  Creator  of  the  Univerfe,  which  then  faid 
"  to  Mofes,  that  He  was  the  God  of  Abraham^ 
"  andtheGodofi/^^G  and  the  God  of  7^^^^. 
An  uncautious  Reader  might  imagine  from  this 
Paffage,  put  into  this  View,  that  the  Son  is  not 
God  abfolutely,  nor  Creator  of  the  Univerfe, 
according  tojufiin.  But  the  meaning  is,  that 
That  divine  Perfon,  who  called  Himfelf  God, 
and  was  God,  was  not  the  Perfon  of  the  Father 
(whofe  ordinary  Charader  is  that  of  Maker  of 
all  Things)  but  another  divine  Perfon,  viz>.  God 
the  Son.     The  unlearned  Reader  fliould  be  told. 


*  Oux  o  wor^Tn^  T  'oXm  t^ui  Qic^  6  rS  Mcoarii"  tiTi^m  ccvrov  ilvm 
Qiov  'A^^xhfjtj,  Kxl  0501*  'lu-ciUK,  Kxi  Qiov  'IxKuo.  Juftiii.  M^rt.  Dial. 
180.  jebb, 

F  f  4  that 


43i      ^DEFENSE    Qu.XXVII, 

that  what  is  here  faid  by  JuJUriy  was  in  Difpute 
with  a  Je'UJ,  who  would  not  acknowledge  more 
divine  Pcrfons  than  One.  It  was  Jufiin's  Bufi- 
nefs  to  fhow,  that  there  was  a  divine  Pcrfon, 
one  who  w^as  God  of  Abrahaniy  Ifaac,  and  Ja- 
coby  and  was  not  the  Father ;  and  therefore  there 
were  two  divine  Perfons.  The  learned  Do6tor, 
upon  his  Principles,  could  not,  inthat  way,  have 
confuted  the  Jew  5  fo  far  as  I  apprehend  of  Ju- 
Jlins  Argument :  For  the  Jew  might  reply  that 
it  was  an  Angel  fpeaking  intheTerfonof  God  ^ 
and  that  therefore  the  Father  only  was  God 
notwithftanding.  But  Juftin  infifts  uponit,  that 
there  was  another  Perfon,  befides  the  Fatlier, 
who  was  really  God  of  Abraham^  &c.  If  this 
is  to  be  taken  for  a  ConceffioUy  it  may  be  eafily 
fcen  on  what  Side  it  is. 

Pag.  116.  [alias  108.)  The  Do6lor  does  not 
Juftice  to  Hilary.  Inftead  of  called  Lord  and 
'God,  which  is  diminutive,  it  fliould  have  been, 
declared  to  be  Lord  and  God  :  But  this  may  ap- 
jpear  flight.  Such  another  flight  inaccuracy  ap- 
pears in  his  affcding  to  tranflate  God  his  Father^ 
infleadof  GodtheFather  (p.  104, 179  )  which 
however  fliows  too  much  leaning  to  a  Caufe;  and 
helps  to  convey  a  falfe  Idea  to  the£?;?^/(/^Readers. 

Pag.  251.  [alias  218.)  He  has  a  long  Citation 
from  Novatian-y  in  which  all  proceeds  fo  fair 
and  plnufiblc;  that  a  Reader,  already  poffefs'd 
with  the  Doftor's  Scheme,  and  carrying  it  in  his 
Head,  may  think  that  every  Thing  falls  in  natu- 
rally with  it.  But,  at  length,  the  Doftor  comes  to 

*fomc 


Qii.  XXVII.  ^//^;^^Q.UERIES.  433 
*  fome  crofs  Words,  andfuchas,  iffufFered  to 
appear,  would  have  made  the  Reader  conftrue  all 
backwards,  and  have  given  quite  another  Light 
to  all  that  goes  before  or  after.  Here  He  ftops 
fhort,  breaks  off  in  the  middle  of  a  Sentence, 
paflcs  over  the  ofFenfive  Words,  draws  a  Line, 
skips  to  the  next  Sentence,  and  goes  gravely  on 
to  amufe  his  Reader.  A  Writer  is  not  to  be 
blamed,  in  fome  Cafes,  for  taking  what  is  to  his 
Purpofe,  and  omitting  the  reft  :  But,  as  the  Cafe 
is  here,  the  beft  and,  indeed,  only  Light  to  di- 
red  the  Reader  to  the  true  meaning  of  what 
is  cited,  is  left  out.  The  word  'Divinity^  for 
inftance  (which  occurs  twice  in  that  Paffage) 
an  Englijh  Reader  will  be  apt  to  take  in  the 
Dolor's  Senfe ;  and  indeed  can  hardly  do  other- 
wife  :  But  had  the  whole  appeared,  He  could 
not  but  fee  how  much  the  Do6lor  is  miftaken. 
I  muft  obferveto  you,  that  {p.  396,  337.)  the 
Dodor  deals  with  Novatian,  and  this  very 
Paffage,  almoft  in  the  fame  manner,  again : 
Excepting  that  growing  a  little  bolder,  He  takes 
more  freedom  in  his  Tranflation,  Mind  the 
Words  {p.  3  3  7-)  By  the  Son  inf  acknowledg- 
ment return'di  and  compare,  per  Siibjianti^ 
Commtmionemy  a  little  before.  Novatian,  in  this 

*  UnusDeus  oftenditur  Verus  8c /Eternus  Pater,  n  quo  Solo  Hsec 

•yisDivinitatisemifTa,  etiam  in  Filium  tradita  ^  direcla  rurfum  per 

SubJlantiACommmionem  nd Patrem  rezolvitur.     Dcus  quidem  oftcn- 

ditur  Filius  cui  Divinitas  tradita  8c  porre6la  confpicitur,  Sctamcn 

jiihilominus  unus  Deus  Pater  probarur.     Novat.  c.  3  i . 

f  The  Latin  is,  reaproco  meatu  ilia  majeflas  atquc  divinitas  ad  Pa- 
tremqui  dederateam  rurfum  abilloipfo  Filio  mifia  rcvcrtitur  &: 
|etorquetur.     Ibid,  c,  3  i . 

place, 


43  3       ^DEFENSE     Qu.XXVII. 

place,  had  no  thought  of  Acktivdvledgments^  nor 
any  thing  like  it  :  But  was  intent  upon  quite 
another  Thing  i  explaining  and  illuftrating, 
as  well  as  He  was  able,  the  Union  and  Commu- 
nion of  Subjlance  in  Father  and  Son  5  and  fhow- 
ins;  how  all  recurs  to  one  Head  and  Fountain : 
On  which  account  the  Father  might  be  reafona- 
bly  ftiled  the  one  God,  in  as  much  as  the  Son 
is  lb  intimately  one  with  Him,  as  to  be  reckoned, 
in  a  manner,  to  Him,  and  not  another  God 
from  Him.  It  is  all  but  one  T)ivmityt  or  di- 
vine Subftancey  of  the  Father  in  Both. 

Fag.  254.  We  may  obferve  another  Turn,  by 
way  of  Tranflation.  The  *  Greek  you  may  fee 
in  the  Margin,  which  the  Dodor  renders  thus : 
"  That  lefus  Chrift,  our  Lord  and  God  incar- 
*'  nate,  is  not  the  Father,  nor,  as  the  Sabel- 
"  Hans  would  have  it,  that  fame  Perfon  who 
"  is  (tiled  the  only  God  5  This  the  Holy  Scrip - 
*'  tures  every  where  Teftify.  The  literal  and 
plain  Tranflation  is  thus :  That  Jefus  Chrjfiy 
mir  Lord  and  God  incarnate ^  is  not  the  Fa- 
ther^ nor  {in  the  Sabellian  Senfe)  the  only 
God,  the  Holy  Scriptures  every  where  Teftify, 
This  meaning,  you  fee,  is  clear,  plain,  and  eafy, 
without  the  Doctor's  Embarafsments ;  and  is 
undoubtedly  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Author.  But 
fuch  a  hint  as  this  might  have  made  an  unlucky 
difcovery  to  the  Reader ;  Namely,  that  a  Man 

*  '  Or*  ^  0  ira.{;YM^i\r,  Ky^*©^  %x\  ©jc?  •/i^a))  'IforS?  Xg^ro$  o  Uxmo  erne 
yfcc<pKi.    Athan.  Coiur.  Sabell.  p.^j. 

may 


QU.XXVII.  of  fomeClU  EKIES.  43  s 
may  believe  the  Son  to  be  the  only  Cody  with- 
out being  a  Sabellian. 

In  the  fame  Page,  The  Doctor  has  another 
Quotation  from  Athanafius  (if  that  Trcatife  be 
his)  which,  had  He  gone  on  but  a  few  Words 
farther,  would  have  appeared  Contradi£lory 
to  the  purpofe  for  which  it  was  brought. 
"  *  There  is  but  one  God,  becaufe  one  Father ; 
"  but  the  Son  alfo  is  God,  having  a  Samcnefs 
"  with  the  Father,  as  a  Son ;  not  that  He  is  the 
"  Father  Himfelf,  butm  Nature  united  with  the 
"  Father ;  two  indeed  in  Number,  but  one  in- 
"  tire  Effence.  This  is  the  whole  Sentence  Ute- 
rally  tranflated ;  and  the  Senfc  of  it  is  clear.  The 
cutting  it  into  halves,  only  to  reprefent  one 
part  under  another  View,  is  not  giving  the 
Senfe  of  a  Writer,  but  making  one  foY  Him. 

Pag.  255.  {alias  212.)  The  Doctor  cites  ano- 
ther Paflage  from  Athanajius'y  and  by  the  Turn 
He  gives  it,  ftifles  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Author, 
^^  f  The  word  has  no  other  fort  of  Divinity, 
"  but  that  which  He  derives  from  the  only  God, 
"  as  being  begotten  of  Him. 

The  true  Conftrudlion  is  This : 
"  The  Word  has  no  other  kind  of  Divinity,  but 
"  that  of  the  only  God ;  becaufe  He  is  bcgot- 
"  ten  of  Him.     The  plain  meaning  is,  that  the 

*  Ei5  ©J05,  on  KXi  rreil^  al<i'  Otot;  ^  xon  Uo^,  ruvrcrnTO,  ix^*i  ^5 

i»*o?  srpci;  zs-cc^iifix'  Ctnc  uurhc^  m  6  zrockn,  ccXX'  vivu^iv®^  zr^oc,  rov  zroili^oc 
TV}  (pua-w  ouo  "fA  ccei^^^,  fjt/icc  ^  «(rat  ouc-icc  nXaoi.  Athan.  Contr. 
Sabell.  p.  41. 

Tivx  r^oTTov  iXiiv  S-ioTJjIc^,    Jj  Tov  ^  fjucvn  ©£«,  ^|rf'  TO  i^  wjtS  rTii^y- 

Kiycct.     Athan.  Contr.  Arian.  Orat.  3 .  p.  5-64.  Ed.  Bencd. 

God- 


4^6      :.^DEFENSE      Qu.XXVir. 

Godhead  o^  Father  and  Son  is  all  one :  Dired- 
ly  contrary  to  what  the  Dodor  cites  the  Paflage 
for.  After  I  had  wrote  this,  I  found  that  the 
Dodtor  Himfelf  [p.  317.  alias  1%$.)  had  tranf- 
lated  the  Sentence  in  the  very  fame  Words  that 
I  have  done  ;  excepting  his  putting  derived  (in- 
ftead  of  begotten)  which  might  convey  a  low 
Idea  to  his  Reader.  But,  not  content  with 
that,  for  fear  a  fagacious  Reader  fliould  chance 
to  difcover  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Author,  He 
inferts  a  Note  upon  T>ivinity  s  interpreting  it 
{divine  Tower)  in  Contradidion  to  the  Au- 
thor's known  ordinary  Senfe  of  ^somr,  as  well 
as  to  the  Context. 

P.  2  5  (5.  {alias  223)  He  cites  *  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzeny  and  tranflates  Him  thus :  "  There  is 
'*  but  one  God  j  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghoft 
"  being  referr'd  to  the  one  Caufe.  But  then  he 
adds  a  Note,  which  confounds  all :  Namely,  fays 
He,  as  being  divine  Terfons  by  whom  the  one 
Gody  or  one  Caufe  and  Original  of  all  Things ^ 
made  and  governs  the  World,  Right ;  if  We 
are  to  teach  the  Fathers  how  to  fpcak :  But 
what  faid  Gregory  Nazianzen  ?  It  is  this :  '^  We 
"  may,  as  I  conceive,  preferve  {the  T>oBrine 
"  of)  one  God,  by  referring  both  the  Son  and 
*'  Holy  Ghoft  to  one  Caufe,  without  Compo- 
"  fition,  or  Confufion  5    and  by  afferting  (as  I 

•  T»}*o«To  &  Uy,  an;  olfji^oe,  Aey©",  il<i'fi(S>ioqy  ti\iv  ocl'riov  KCcl  viS  k»1 
^ni>fi,x\(^  ocvu(pi^ofO/j&'y-  »  (tvvt,  B-i/^uy^  audi  (rvyccX(-i(Po[/jiycov  )c«»  kxtoc 
TO  tn  X064  TxvTo  T  S)-ior^(^,  Ivx  o'oruc,  ayof/joccrei),  KiVYjUioc  re  xxl  /3»Pi>j^t>t»«. 

*.xi  tI(a  'f  iso-ia^,  TxvTDTVTx.    Gicg.    Naz.  Orat.  29.  p.  490.  Ed. 
Parif. 

■^  may 


QU.XXVII.  offomeQjCEKlES.  43^ 
*'  may  fay)  one  and  the  fame  Movement,  and 
"  Will  of  the  Godhead  together  with  the  Same- 
"  nefs  of  Eflence.  Here  is  not  a  Syllable  about 
the  one  God's  governing  the  World  by  his  Son 
and  his  Spirit;  which,  tho' a  true  Notion,  is  not 
fufficient  to  account  for  the  Unity ;  nor  is  it 
Gregory's  Account  of  it,  as  the  Reader  muft 
have  imagin'd  from  the  Dodor's  Comment. 

P.  323.  {alias  292.)  The  learned  Dodor  by 
wrong  Pointing,  and  Miftranflating,  perverts  a 
Paffage  of  Juflin  Martyr,  But  I  have  explained 
and  vindicated  the  true  Senfe  of  it  "^  elfewhere. 

P.  325.  {alias  293.)  He  produces  an  excellent 
Paflagc  of  Irenatis  y  and  tranflates  it  juftiy. 
But  fearing  it  may  be  found  too  high.  He  fub- 
joins  a  Icflcning  Note,  to  draw  off  the  Reader's 
Thoughts.  "  This  Paffage  (fays  He)  is  parallel 
''  to  Thofe  wherein  He  calls  the  Son  and  Spirit 
"  the  Hands  of  the  Father,  namely,  executing 
'^  his  I  nil  as  perfectly  y  as  a  Man's  own  Hands 
"  perform  the  Will  of  the  Man.  But  why  may 
it  not  be  rather  parallel  to  thofe  Paffages 
wherein  the  Author  fays,  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit  are  (in  a  qualified  Senfe)  the  very  Self 
of  the  Father  ?  They  are  here  called  his  own 
Off-fpri7ig,  and  his  own  Figure ;  and  all  the 
Angels  are  faid  to  ferve  and  do  obeyfance  to 
Them.  Does  not  this  found  fomething  higher 
than  executing  the  Father's  /^//,  however  per- 
feBly  ?  Or,  than  the  low  Metaphor  about  a 
Man,  and  his  Hands,  as  the  Doftor  rcprefents 

*  Qu.S.p.  131. 

it? 


45  s      ^DEFENSE     Qii.XXVII. 

it  ?  True,  Iren^uSy  and  many  other  of  the  Fa- 
thersy  uied  that  Expreffion,  which  They  took 
from  Scripture ;  but  they  underftood  a  great 
deal  more  by  it ;  The  fame  as  by  *  J^uva/jtir,  or 
n)irtuSy  the  mighty  To'wer  of  God,  and  God 
Himfelf. 

In  the  fame  Page,  He  cites  another  excellent 
Paffage  of  f  Iren£us  5  and  I  am  glad  to  have 
this  Opportunity  of  fetting  before  the  Reader, 
in  its  true  Light,  (o  illuftrious  a  Teftimony  of 
a  Co-eternal  and  Co-ejfential  Trinity.  The 
literal  Tranflation  of  the  Greek  may  run  thus : 
^'  Man  being  created  and  fajhtonedy  is  made 
"  after  the  Image  and  Likenefs  of  the  uncrea- 
"  ted  God :  The  Father  defigning  and  giving 
"  out  Orders  5  the  Son  executing  and  creating ; 
"  the  Holy  Ghoft  fupplying  Nutriment  and 
"  Increafe."  Here  you'll  obferve,  that  the  joint 
Operations  of  the  three  divine  Perfons,  con- 
curring in  the  Creation  of  Man,  are  fet  forth 
in  fuch  a  Manner,  as  to  intimate  both  the  di- 
ftinft  PerfonaUty,  and  Unity  of  Effence.  That 
Iremeiis  fuppofed  the  three  Perfons  to  be  the 
one  aytvviol©'  ©so?,  or  eternal  Gody  here  fpoken 
of,  may  appear ;  i .  From  his  introducing  the 
three  Perfons  immediately  after,  as  Explanatory 

*  Vid.  TertuU.  Contr.  Hermog,  c.  4f,Eufeb.in  Pfalm.  p.  701, 
722.  Athamf.p.  ii4,8So.  Ed.  Bened.Hieron.  Tom.4.  p.  49.  Ed. 
Bcncd.  Bafil.  Contr.  Eunom.  1.  5',  p.  1 1 1 . 

Ircn.  1. 4.C.  38.  p.  z8f. 

of 


Qii.  XXVII.  of  fome  QUERIES.  439 
of  ic  *.  2.  From  ^  his  undcrftanding.  Gen.  i .  26. 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  Let  U  s 
7nake,  and  alfo,  after  Our  Image,  fo  that  the 
Image  of  any  one  is  the  Image  of  all.  3.  From 
Irenaiiss  other  known  Principles ;  his  aflert- 
ing  the  Son  to  be  infeBiis,  or  dyim^rQ^ ;  ( fuj. 
created)  and  fuppofing  the  Son  and  Holy  GhoU, 
to  be  the  "  Self  of  the  Father  5  and  fpeaking  of 
Father  and  Son  together,  as  one  God.  4.  From 
feveral  Hints  in  the  fame  Chapter,  all  confirm- 
ing this  Senfc.  One  Charader  of  the  ay^vvr.r©', 
there  given,  is  rsXei©^ :  The  fame  Charadcr  is, 
in  the  fame  Chapter,  ^  applied  to  the  Son,  in 
the  fame  Senfe.  All  Things,  but  the  ay* vv^it©* 
are  faid  to  be  in  ^  Subje^ion :  among  which 
Things,  Irenaus  can  never  be  fuppofcd  to  in- 
clude the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.  And  farther, 
every  thing  that  is  not,  aytw^T©',  comes  fliort 
of  Perfcdion,  according  to  ^  Iren£us%  who,  at 
the  fame  time,  alTerts  the  Perfeftion  of  the  Son, 
iis  before  faid.  Thefe  Things  confider'd,  the 
meaning  of  Irenatis,  in  this  Paflage,  appears  to 
be,  that  the  three  divine  Perfons  are  one  eternal, 
or  uncreated  God,  as  alfo  one  Creator,  How 
then  came  the  Dodtor  to  cite  fuch  a  Paffagc, 

•  Compare  a  Vajfnge  of  Hippol)tus  cited  above,  p.  zi. 

''  M&nus  Dei  ad  t^uos  pater  Joquens,  dicit,  Faciamus  Hommem 
del  Imagmcm^  Simditudomn  Nostram.  Iren.  J._j-.  c.  i.  p.  293. 

Idem  ipfe  qui  initio  plafmavit  Adam,  cum  quo  8c  Joquetatur 
Pater :  Faciamus  Hommem  fecundum  Imagmem  ^  SmtUtudimM 
NosTRA\?,  1.)-.  c.  i^-.p.  giz.  Vid.  £c  1.4.  c.  10.  p.  2/3. 

•^  Lib   2.  c.  30.  p.  163. 

**  'r<o?  TOW  0£o£i   TiXiio^uy.  p.    284. 

•  Tu  d^  Ae<7rj)f  tocvTcc  iv  Crorxyvi  wfvu  5^  ©Ect;.      p.   zSf. 

which 


440       ^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.  XXVtl 

which  threatens  nothing  but  Ruine  and  Deftru- 
£lion  to  his  Principles  ?  The  Cafe  is  this :  The 
learned  Dodor,  by  a  ftrange  over-fight,  read 
Ts  ixh  068,  inftead  of  t»  m^^  Ual^^j  tho'  both  the 
Greek  and  the  old  Latin  agree  in  this  laft  Read- 
ing. This  Alteration,  in  the  Texty  fpoils  all 
the  Elegance,  and  alters  the  whole  Turn  of  the 
Sentence  :  Befides  this,  the  Doftor  tranflates 
dyivvrira,  tmbegotterty  inftead  of  unmade  ,•  not 
obferving  the  Antithejisy  between  yswyjrof  "Av- 
:&-pa)7r©'5  and  dyin-kT^  ©£8,  nor  attending  to,  In- 
feBi  T>ei,  in  the  old  Tranflation  j  which  might 
have  fet  Him  right.  Thus  far  I  have  gone  on 
with  fome  of  the  Doftors  Quotations  5  but  give 
me  leave  to  ftep  back  for  a  few  more>  which  I 
have  overlooked. 

P.  308*  [alias  276.)  The  learned  Do£tor  pro-^ 
duces  a  Paffage  of  *  Bajtly  which  He  renders 
thus  5  very  furprizingly.  "  We  affirm  that  ac- 
"  cording  to  the  natural  Order  of  Caufes  and 
'^  EjfeEiSy  the  Father  muft  have  the  pre-emi- 
"  nence  before  the  Son.  Whoever  heard  be-* 
fore  from  any  Catholicky  that  the  Son  was  an 
EjfeEi  of  the  Father  >  Could  Bafil  fay  this  >  If 
the  DoQor  would  but  have  fuffered  the  very 
next  immediate  Words,  which  make  part  of  the 
Sentence  to  appear,  They  would  have  unde- 
ceived his  Reader.  The  literal  Conftruftion  of 
the  whole  Sentence  is  this:  "We  do  indeed  allow 

♦  'H/u/tr^  Jt,  vjttroL  fMv  T»iv  raijf  eurwv  vr^q  rec  j|  avTZf  %Kr»,  ^^' 

Ti,  »Jtx«Tot  TKt  ru  ;cp°»'«^«^w«  Baiil*  Contr,  Eun.  1. 1.  p-  3 1. 

"  that 


Qu.  XXVII.  offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.      44f 

"  that,  in  rcfpcd  of  the  natural  Order  of 
"  [Emanative)  Caufes  and  Things  ifluing  from 
"  them,  the  Father  is  Trior  in  Order  to  the 
*•  Son  :  But  as  to  any  Difference  in  Naturey  or 
*^  Priority  of  Time,  we  allow  no  fuch  Thing. 
Ba/il h:id  juft  before  *  explain  d  what  He  meant 
by  the  Father's  being  Trior  in  order  of  Can- 
Ja/ity,  by  the  Inftance  of  Firey  and  Light 
flreaming  from  it. 

Pag.  3 17.  [alias  285.)  The  Doclor  has  ano- 
ther Citation  from  *f  Bajily  which  He  renders 
thus :  "  Therefore  our  Lord  faith,  all  mine  are 
^^  thiney  as  referring  to  the  Father,  the  original 
"  Caufe  of  all  Things :  And  thine  are  mine  \ 
"  as  fignifying  that  from  the  Father  was  derived 
*^  to  Him  the  Power  of  producing  Things.  The 
"  true  Rendring  is  thus,  very  near  the  Letter. 
"  Therefore  our  Lord  faith,  all  mine  are 
"  thiney  in  as  much  as  the  Original  of  the 
"  Creatures  is  referr'd  up  to  the  Father  :  And 
"  thine  are  mirWy  in  as  much  as  the  Power  of 
"  Creating  defcends  from  Him,  to  the  Son* 
That  is,  with  his  Efjencey  as  Bafil  explains 
it  a  little  after.  The  Dodor,  I  prefume,  did 
not  care  that  his  Reader  fhould  know,  how 
clearly  Bajil  diftinguiflies  the  Son  from  the 

*  ''Eft  Ti  Tctflfw?  iT^^f  bK  Ik  r^  TToiif  v.fjum  ^itnat;  irvyiTcif^jfyoy, 
ciX>i  cfjT\\  Tvi  ft-xrli  (P'jtriv  oCKoXa^tct.  (rvfju^ccTvoVy  co^  ru  Trv^i  -t^5  to 
(pco",  sV*   TO  s'l  uuri.      Ibid.  p.  30, 

■j-  Aid,  toZt'q  (Pijtriv  6  »yg><®-,  rot  ifJUoi  XuvTcC  (Toe  i^lVj  eJ<;  £.T  uu- 
Toy  TvJ?  cc^X.^<i  r  ^r]f/tjHi^yvfJi^ocTm  avayo|t</£v>j5,  »«6t  Toc  (Toc  i[/^cc,  a)<;  c/jtii-* 

B-iv  otuToZ  -^  uhUi  ToZ  ^/}{Atni^/i'iv  xa3->3Jfc»(r>3$.  Bafil.  de  Sp.  San^t* 
c.  8.  p.  161.  It  feems  from  Tvhat  follows t  that  x'h'?,  rather  thatt 
*tt?r»?,  is  the  Reading, 


442      yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E    Qu.XXVII. 

(Ay;/xi8p7yi/jta1cc)  Creatures  ;  and  not  only  fo^ 
but  fuppofes  the  Creatures  of  the  Father  to  be 
Creatures  of  the  Son  likcwife.  The  Dodor  in- 
tended fomcthing  by  all  ThingSy  in  one  place, 
and  Things  only,  in  the  other.  But  Bajil  is 
unconccrn'd  in  it. 

I  mud  juft  take  notice,  how  particularly  fond 
the  learned  Dodor  is  of  the  Phrafe,  was  produced 
{See'p.  275,  277,  281,  291.)  which  He  ufes  fre- 
quently, without  any  warrant  from  the  Authors 
He  tranflates  j  and  for  no  other  reafon,  that  I 
can  fee,  but  becaufe  it  is  apt  to  convey  a  low 
Idea  ( the  Idea  of  a  Creature,  tho'  the  Doftor 
does  not  like  the  name)  to  thcEngliJh  Reader. 

I  fhall  proceed  no  farther  in  this  Article,  hav- 
ing given  Inftances  enough  to  fhow  that  fome 
Abatements  and  Allowances  fliould  be  made  us, 
for  fuch  CcnceJJions  as  are  really  no  Concef- 
flons  in  the  Authors  Themfelves.  Upon  the 
whole,  one  might  really  wonder  that  the 
learned  Dodor,  who  had  fo  wide  a  Field  of 
Antiquity  to  range  in,  and  was  only  to 
pick  out  fuch  Paffages  as,  running  in  general 
Terms,  or  taken  feparately,  might  be  made 
to  appear  under  fuch  a  View  as  He  intended, 
fliould  produce  no  more  ;  but  be  forced  even 
to  wreft  and  torture  feveral  of  thofe  He  had 
found,  by  prefacing,  commenting,  and  tranf- 
lating,  to  accommodate  Them  at  length  hardly, 
and  after  great  Reludance,  to  his  Purpofe. 
You  will  fay,  perhaps,  that  the  Doftor  fets  light 
by  the  Fathers,  and  lays  no  ftrefs  upon  Them  ^ 

I  fliall 


Qu. XXVII.     offome  QUERIES.     44^ 

I  Ihall  believe  you,  when  He  fairly  gives  them 
up.  At  prelent,  it  mufl:  be  thought  that  They 
are  efteeai'd  of  fouie  Moment,  when  a  Book  is 
ftuifed  with  Quotations  out  of  Them,  and  fo 
much  pains  taken  to  make  Them  any  way  fer- 
viceablc.  One  that  fets  fo  great  a  Value  upon 
the  mere  appearajice  .\i\di  jhado'uU  of  Antiquity, 
can  hardly  be  fuppofcd  to  flight  the  Thing  it 
felf  :  If  the  learned  Dodor  is  fo  well  contented 
with  CoyiceJJlons  only,  fnatch'd,  in  a  manner, 
and  extorted  from  the  Anttents  -,  how  would 
He  have  rejoyced  to  have  found  Them  come 
heartily,  readily,  and  throughly  into  his  Scheme, 
as  They  do  into  Ours  ? 

II.  But  fuppofing  all  the  Dodor's  Quotations 
from  the  Tofi-Nicene,  or  Ante-NiceneWntCiS 
had  been  at  lead  real  and  full  Concefjions ;  yet 
there  is  fomething  fo  peculiar  in  this  new  way 
of  quoting  ConceJJionSy  without  taking  notice 
of  what  (hould  come  in  to  explain,  or  balance 
Them,  that  we  have  rcafon  to  except  againft 
it,  as  not  a  fair  way  of  dealing. 

I.  Bccaufc,  tho'  the  learned  Dodor  does  give 
notice  in  his  Preface,  that  we  are  not  to  take 
the  Opinion  of  the  Authors,  in  the  whole,  from 
thofe  .Qiiotations :  yet  Many  may  happen  to 
read  the  Book  without  confidering,  or  remen> 
bring  a  fhort  hint  in  the  Preface  5  and  fo  may 
lay  a  greater  ftrefs  upon  thofe  Authorities  than 
theDoiflor  intended. 

I .  Becaufe  the  Dodor  no  where  (in  Scripture- 

T)o^r'me)  gives  any  Marks  of  Diftinftion  for  aii 

G  g  2  ordinary 


444     y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E     Qu.  XXVII. 
ordinary  Reader  to  underftand,  where  He  in- 
tended  a   ConceJJion    only  of  an  Author,  and 
where    his   intire  Opinion  j    where  He  agreed 
with  the  Dodor  in  part  only,  and  where  in 
the  whole.     Inftead  of  this.  He  rarely  lets   his 
Englijh  Reader  fee  more  of  any  Paffagc,  than 
may  appear  to  comport  with,    and  favour  his 
own  HypGtheJis'^  either  ftriking  out  what  might 
have  dilcover'd  it  to  be  a  ConceJJion  in  part,  or 
difguifing  it  in  his  Tranflation,  or  explaining  it 
away,    by  his  prefacing  it,  or  commenting  up- 
on it.     Befides,  fince  Authors  have  very  feldom, 
if  ever,  been  cited  in  this  manner  (by  Men  of 
Charader)  in  favour  of  fuch  Principles  as  They 
really  difown'd  and  rejeded  in  the  main  5  Rea- 
ders will  be  apt  to  carry  that  Prefumption  and 
Prejudice  along  with  Them ;    and  a  fhort  Ad- 
vertifement  in  the  Preface,  will  not  be  fufficient 
to  prevent  it. 

3.  Another  reafon  againft  this  Method  is,  that 
it  gives  a  Handle  to  Many  to  boaft  of  the  nu- 
merous Colledions  of  Dr.  Clarke , againft  the 
Received  Dodrine.  See  (befides  others)  the 
^ijjuajive  from  inquiring  into  the  ^o&rine 
of  the  Trinity  (p.  28.)  where  this  very  ufc  is 
made  of  it.  By  this  means.  Truth  is  darken  d. 
Evidences  perplex'd,  and  the  common  Readers 
rather  puzzled  and  confounded,  than  let  into  the 
true  State  of  the  Fad ;  fo  far  as  relates  to  the 
Judgment  of  the  Antients. 

4.  It  fhould  be   confider'd  that  the   moral 
Obliquity  and  Turpitude  of  mifquoting  or  mif- 

repre- 


Qu.XXVIL    offome  Q^U  ER I  E  S.      44  5 

reprcfcnting  Authors,    confifts  in  this:    That  it 
is  a  means  to  deceive  the  Simple,   to  furprizc 
the  Unwary  and  Unlearned  (whomuft,  or  will 
receive  Things  upon  Truft)  it    is  taking    Ad- 
vantage of  the  blind  Side  of  Human  Nature,  lay- 
ing a  Snare  for  fuch  Readers  (perhaps  Ninety- 
nine  in  a  Hundred)  as  read  not  with  due  Care 
and  Thought.     I  do  not  fee  but  this  very  Me- 
thod of  the  Doctor's  (tho'  He  has  endcavour'd 
to  leiTcn  the  Scandal  of  it)  is  big  with  all  this 
Mifchief.     He  has  indeed  given  Notice ;    and 
wife  Men  and  Scholars  would  have  been  fecurc 
enough  'Ui'ithottt  it :  Others  will  not  be  fo,  with 
it :  And  therefore  He  is  ftill  to  take  Advantage 
of  the  Ignorance  of  one,  the  Partiality  of  ano- 
ther, theForgetfulnefsofathird,  the  Credulity, 
Simplicity,  Hade,  and  Inadvertency  of  as  many 
as  come  unprepared  and  unfurniflVd  to  the  read- 
ing his  Citations.     The  Thing  it  felf,  you  may 
perceive,  is  equally  mifchievous,  however  gilded 
over  with  fpecious  Pretences.     And  there's  no 
more  in  it  than  this :  Mifreprefentation  praEiisdy 
and  at  the  fame  time,  feemingly  defended ^  and 
(tho'  the  learned  Doftor  does  not  perceive  it)  it 
is  really  nothing  elfe  but  contriving  a  way  how 
to  reconcile  (if  poffible)  a  goodNamCy  and  an 
///  Thing  together. 

5.  It  might  be  of  ill  Example,  fliould  this 
method  of  citing  Authors  (never  before  ufed  by 
good  and  great  Men)  grow  into  Vogue.  A 
Romanijly  for  inftance,  might,  in  this  vv^ay,  un- 
dertake to  defend  fome  of  the  Romijh  Tenets. 
G  -  3  Ir 


44<5      A  DEFENSE     Qu.XXVII, 

It  would  be  cafy  for  Him  to  make  a  numerous 
Colledioii  of  Teftimonics  from  the  Fathers  } 
and  as  much  to  the  purpofe  as  the  Dodor's 
Collcdlion  is.  Two  Inconveniences  He  might 
forcfee  5  one  to  his  own  Character^  upon  dif- 
covery,  the  other  to  his  Canje^  becaufe  His 
own  Citations  might  be  tura'd  againfl:  Him.  To 
obviate  the  former,  He  might  declare  before- 
hand, that  "  He  did  not  cite  places  out  of  thefe 
*^  Authors  fo  much  to  fliow"  what  was  the  Opi- 
*^  nion  of  the  Writers  themfelves,  as  to  fhow 
'^  how  naturally  Truth  fometimes  prevails  by 
*'  its  own  native  Clcarnefs :  And  to  obviate 
the  latter,  He  might  fay,  He  alledgcd  the  Tefti- 
monies  not  as  Troofs^  but  as  llhiftrations  only. 
Thus  the  Writer  might  feem  to  come  off  pretty 
handfomely  :  But,  in  the  mean  while-,  the  un- 
learned and  unthinking  might  be  led  afide  by 
the  fair  fliow  of  Authorities  ^  and  all  the  Re- 
medy left  for  them  is.  Si  Toptdus  vtilt  decipu 
decipiatur,  Thefe  are  my  prefent  Sentiments 
of  the  Nature  and  Tendency  of  this  new  and 
extraordinary  Method  of  Citing  ^  which,  how- 
ever, I  fhall  be  very  glad  to  alter,  if  I  fee  any 
good  Reafon  for  it.  To  me  it  feems  that  it  ought 
never  to  bepradlis'd,  tho'  to  fervethebeft  Caufe 
in  the  World. 

III.  After  all,  I  muft  obferve  to  you,  fuppofing 
the  Method  to  have  been  ever  fo  fair,  and  the 
Concejjions  both  many  and  real,  the  Dodor  has 
ftill  failed  in  his  main  point,  of  making  out  the 
Importance  of  thofe  Coiiceffioris^  to  the  Caufe  in 

Hand. 


Qu.XXVII.     offomeQ^UF^KlES.     447 
Hand.     There  the  Strefs  fliould  have  been  laid  : 
We  did  not  want  to  know  what  ConceJJions  the 
Fathers,  in  general,  had  made ;  being  ready  at  any 
Time  to  make  the  fame  ConceJJions :  But  (ho  w  us 
the  Connexion  between  thefe  ConceJJions^  and  the 
Dodor's  Conclujion,     This  is  the  Point  which 
(liould  have  been  labour'd  ;   and  which  required 
all  the  Learning  and  Acutenefs  which  the  Dodlor 
is  Mafter  of.     As  thus  :    The  Fathers  afferted 
the  Jirjl  Terfon  only   to  be  begotten,  or  un- 
originate ;  therefore  They  muft  of  Confequence 
niake  the  Son  no  more  than  an  inferior  Gody 
or  no  God.  The  Fathers  fuppofed  the  Son  Jiib- 
ordinate,  as  a  Son;  therefore  They  muft,  by  ne- 
cefiary  Confequence,  deny  his  Confubjiantiality 
and    Co- eternity.      This    was    the    Conclnjwn 
which  the  Doftor  was  to  draw  out  of   thofe 
Premifesj  and  fliow  to  be  juft  and  true.     But, 
mftead  of  this,    He  drops  the  principal  Thing: 
repeats   indeed  the  ConceJJionSy    fuch  as  They 
are,    over  and  over;    and  by   a  multitude  of 
Words   (not  to  fliow  any  certain  Connexiony^ 
but  only  a  verbal  Refemhlance)  He  at  length 
flips  his  Conclujion  into  their  Places.     There  is 
really  nothing  more,  in  this  Management,  than 
interpreting  ///  what  the  good   Fathers  meant 
JVell'y  giving  a  lozjv  Senfe  to  Words  and  Phrafcs 
which  They  intended  in  a  high  one ;  and  put- 
ting an  Arian  Conftrudion  upon  Catholick  Ex- 
preffions.     This  is  all  that  the  learned  Doctor 
hath  really  done  by  the  Help  of  thofe  Concef- 
fions.     In  the  fame  way  a  Man  may  quote  all 

G  g  4  the 


448      A   DEFENSE     Qu.XXVIL 

the  ConceJJions  of  the  Fathers  about  a  f  roper 
Sacrifice^  in  favour  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mafs  : 
Or  their  ConcejJlons  about  a  real  TrejencCy  in 
favour  of  '^[tibfl  ant  ialT  re  fence  of  Chrift's  Body 
and  Blood  in  the  Ettcharifi,  Only,  if  He  would 
do  it  artfully  and  plaufibly,  He  fliould  take 
care  to  reft  in  generals  5  and  fupply  what  is 
farther  wanting,  by  Intimations  and  Inmiendos. 
This  fcems  to  have  been  the  very  Method 
which  the  learned  Doftor  has  taken  to  grace, 
and  fet  off  many  of  his  Tropofitions  5  the 
9.  3  1,  12,  17,  34>  3  5,  3<5,  39,  43 v  C^^-  The 
ConceJJions  there  cited  come  not  up  to  the 
Points  in  difpute  betwixt  Us,  being  moftly  luch 
general  T\im<gs>  as  may  be  admitted  on  either. 
Sides  and  fuch  as  would  not  have  been  fufpeft- 
ed  to  favour  the  Dodor's  Caufe,  in  Oppofition 
to  Us,  but  by  appearing  in  the  Dodor's  Book. 
To  make  them  fuit  the  better,  the  Dodor  has 
fornVd  his  Tropofitions^  for  the  moft  part,  in 
general^  or  ambiguous  Terms  5  content  to  fcat- 
ter  Intimations  of  his  Meaning  here,  and  there, 
as  He  faw  proper ;  and  to  truft  the  reft  to  the 
Sagacity,  fhould  I  lay,  or  Weaknefs  of  his  Rea- 
der>.  And  now,  what  is  the  refult  of  the  Me- 
thod of  Citing,  or  what  does  it  really  prove ) 
I  will  tell  you  frankly  and  plainly.  Firft,  It 
proves  that  general  ExprclTions  are  capable  of 
being  }'Ut  into  different  Views,  and  may  be 
made  to  look  this  way,  or  that  (taken  fepa- 
rately)  by  Men  of  Wit.  Secondly,  It  proves 
that  when  pertinent  Authorities  cannot  be  had, 

Writers 


Qu.  XXVII.    of  fame  dU  E  R I  E  S.    449 

Writers  in  a  Caufe  will  be  content  with  Any : 
This  is  all.  Having  fccn  what  the  learned  Do- 
ftor's  Evidence  from  Antiquity  amounts  to  5  I 
fhall  next  attend  to  what  You  have  to  fay  in 
defence  of  Him. 

You  perfift  in  it,  that  the  Ante-N'tcene  Fa- 
thers and  Councils agree  with  the  T>oEior 

i7i  every  Interpretation  of  Scripture^  where- 
in He  dlfagrees  with  the  School-Notions,  By 
School-Notions  (a  Term  of  Art)  I  am  to  un- 
derftand  the  Catholick  prevailing  Notions  of  the 
Bleffed  Trinity.  And  will  you  pretend  to  fay 
that  the  Ante- Nicene  Writers  agree  with  the 
Dodor  in  every  Text  ?  How  ftrangely  you  de- 
ceive your  felf  ?  Do  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers 
interpret  the  firft  of  St.  John,  fo  as  to  make 
the  Father  one  God  fupreme ;  the  Word  another 
Gody  an  inferior  God  befidcs  Him?  This  is 
the  Dodor's  real  and  intended  Interpretation  of 
it ;  and  your's  too,  however  carefully  you  dif- 
guife  it.  Did  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  inter- 
pret the  Dodor's  300  Texts,  or  any  one  of 
Them,  fo  as  to  exclude  the  Son  from  being  one 
God  with  the  Father?  No  certainly:  They 
declare  the  contrary,  and  proclaim  Father  and 
Son  to  be  one  God,  Is  it  poflible  that  the 
Ante-Nicene  Writers  ( who  underftood  all  the 
Texts  to  be  confident  with  the  Son's  Confiib- 
Jlantialitv  and  Co-eternity^  which  the  Dodor 
cites  in  Oppofition  to  Both)  fliould  interpret 
the  Texts  as  He  does  ?  It  is  too  great  an  Af- 
front to  common  Senfc^  to  pretend  it.  But  the 

way 


45  o       ^DEFENSE     Qii.XXVII. 

way  is  this :  When  the  Dodor  produces  the 
Texts,  He  exprefles  but  part  of  his  Sentiments; 
and  in  fuch  general  Words,  as  Catholicks  and 
At  tans  may  Both  agree  in  :  And  fo  far  He  and 
his  Autliorities  go  on  together.  Afterwards  He 
comes  out  oi generals ^  bringing  the  Words  down 
to  a  particular  refervcd  meaning,  before  con- 
ceal'd  (and  which  the  Anttents  would  have  re- 
ceded with  abhorrence)  and  ftill  He  appeals 
to  the  Antients,  as  agreeing  with  Him  in  his 
Interpretations,  Thus,  forlnftancc;  in  inter- 
preting the  Texts  which  fpeak  of  the  Father 
as  the  one  God,  He  finds  fome  of  the  Antients 
fay,  the  Father  is  Autoes©',  the  Son  Second  on- 
ly,  or  Snbordinatey  God  of  God.  Very  well  ; 
So  fays  the  Doctor  too  :  And  now,  who  can 
make  any  doubt  whether  the  Antients  agreed 
with  Him  in  his  Interpretations  ?  But  obferve 
the  Sequel,  When  the  learned  Dodor  comes  to 
explain  his  own  Meaning  of  AJro-S^s©^,  and  Sub- 
ordinate, it  appears  from  many  broad  Hints 
fcattcr'd  here  and  there,  to  be  this^  that  the 
Father  only  is  neceffarily  Exifting  andftridly 
"Divine ;  the  Son  another  Being,  inferior  in 
kind  (or  what  comes  to  the  fame,  a  Creature) 
diredly  contrary  to  all  the  Antients.  Thus 
you  fee,  while  the  Dodor  keeps  in  gene- 
rals, and  fpenks  his  mind  but  by  Halves,  He 
and  the  Antients  may  agree  together ;  as  He 
and  We  alio  do  :  But  as  foon  as  ever  He  comes 
to  Pnrriculars,  and  difcovers  his  real  and  full 
Sentiments,  there  tkc  Antients  dcfcrt  Him ;    as 

well 


Qii.XXVIL    of fome  QUE  KIES,      451 

well  as  He  Us.  But  bcfidcs  this  general  Aii- 
fwcr,  give  me  leave  to  obferve  that,  as  to  fc- 
veral  particular  Texts,  the  Dodor  has  no  rea- 
fon  to  pretend  that  the  Ante-Nicerie  Writers, 
in  general,  were  on  his  Side.  Rev.  1.8.  is  one 
of  the  Do£lor'3  Texts  ,  which  He  interprets 
of  the  Father  5  and  infifts  much  upon  it,  that 
the  Antients  applied  the  Title  of  •arav'IoK^o^Tajp, 
the  Almighty,  to  the  Father  only.  And  yet 
nothing  more  certain  than  that  That  very- 
Text  was  underflood,  by  the  Ante-Nicene 
Writers,  in  general,  of  God  the  Son :  Catho- 
licks  and  Hereticks  Both  agreed  in  it.  The 
Text  was  urged  againft  the  CatholickSy  in  the 
Sabellian  Controverfy^  and  was  as  plaufible 
a  Text  as  any  in  the  New  Teftament,  on  the 
Sabellian  fide :  Yet  thcCatholicks  admitted  that 
it  was  to  be  underflood  of  God  the  Son ;  and 
readily  allowed  in  Confequence  of  that  Text 
that  the  Son  was  0  wavlcy.^Tcx)^^  the  Almighty,  as 
well  as  the  Father.  See  *  Tertiillian,  Hippolytus^ 
and,  probably,  Origen,  agreeing  in  this:  The 
Doftor  has  not  pretended  to  cite  any  Ante-Ni- 
cene,ox  ^nj  Antient  Writer,  who  underflood  the 
Text  otherwife;  tho'  He  makes  a  fliow  of  hav- 
ing the  y^;2/-/>;^/-j-  in  general  on  his  fide,  in  this 
very  particular,    {Script,  T)o^r,  p.  63.)   with- 

-^ Tert. Contr.  Prax.  c.  1 7.  Hippol.  Conrr,  Noet.  c.  6.  p.  10.  Orig. 
'Aox,.  1.  I.  c.  2.  Vid.  8c  Athan.p.)-f4,  684,762.  Ed.  Bcned.  Greg. 
Naz.Orat.  35*.  p.  5-73.  Andreas  Cxiar:  in  loc.  Hicron.  in  Zcch.c.  2. 
p.  1718.  Epiph.  Vol.  I .  p.  488.  That  the  Son  is  zruvroK^.ccrc-.'^  might  be 
fiown  from  other  Tt'.yts.  Pi".  1^.  10.  If.  6.  j-.  Zech.2.8.  5'e?  Eufcb.Ocm. 
ev.  /.  6.  c.  16.  Juft.  iMart.  Dial.  />.  107.  Jcb.  Hicron.  Vol.  3.  p.  _>-  1 9, 
1718,  Ed.Bened.  Sccmy Sermons,  p.  izSjt^'f. 

out 


45  2      y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.XXVII. 

out  proving  any  thing  more  than  that  the  Father 
was  ordinarily  or.  emphatically  (tiled  Qw-avro%^' 
Ta^e^  which  is  true,  but  not  pertinent  5  nor  is  it 
giving  us  the  Sentiments  of  the  yf^^f/V/^/'i-,  with 
regard  to  this  Text  j  but  his  own.  J  oh.  12.41.  is 
another  noted  Text,  which  the  Dodor  endeavors 
{Script.  "DoBr,  p.  102.)  to  interpret  in  favour  of 
his  own  Hypothefis  5  and  makes  a  fliow  of  Autho- 
rities as  countenancing  Him  in  it.  But  none  of 
his  Authorities  come  up  to  tliis  Point :  So  far  from 
it,  that  They  are  all  againft  Him  j  as  I  have  fuffi- 
ciently  proved  under  ^ery  the  Second,  and  elfe- 
where.  The  like  may  be  obferved  of  the  Autho- 
rities which  He  produces  (p.  1 14,  1 1 5.)  to  con- 
firm his  Interpretation  of  yf{f?.  7.  30,  3 1,32.  And 
I  have,  above,  fliown  you  as  much  oijoh.  10.  30. 
and  other  the  like  Texts  5  where  you  pretend  to 
have  fome  Countenance  from  the  Antients,  for 
your  Interpretation.  Infhort,  there  isnot  a  Text 
which  the  Dodor  can  pretend  to  urge  in  favour 
of  his  ;?;^/;?  Dodrine,  and  againft  Ours;  and  at 
the  fame  time  fhow  that  the  Antients  agree 
with  Him.  As  foon  as  ever  you  interpret  any 
Text  diredly  againft  the  Divinity  of  Chrift,  as 
underftood  by  Us  in  the  ftrid  Senfe,  you  go 
off  intircly  from  the  Antients y  and  go  on  by 
your  Selves.     But  enough  of  this. 

In  anfwer  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Qtiery, 
you  obfcrve  that  the  Realbn  why  the  Dodor 
doth  not  admit  the  Teftimonies  of  the  Fathers 
as  VroofSy  is  not  becaufe  They  are  againft 
Him  5   but  bccaufcy    tho  They  are  clearly    for 

Him:, 


Qu.XXVIL    ^/>;;;^Q.UERIES.      45  5 
Him,  yet-,  hi  Matters  of  Faith,  He  allows  of 
710  other  Troof  than  the  infallible  Teflimony  of 
the  Word  of  God. 

One  might  be  willing  to  believe  this  to  have 
been  the  reafon,  why  Wzwoiddnot  admit  Them 
2.%T  roofs,  if  there  were  not  another  very  plain 
one,  why  Wq  could  not -,   could  not  without  in- 
evitable   Ruin    and  Deflrudion  to  his  whole 
Hypothefs,     An  Adverfary  need  not  defire  any 
fairer  Advantage  of  the  learned  Dodor,  than 
to  have  the  Iffue  of  the  Caufe  put  upon  the 
Dodtor's  Citations  $  taking  in  no  more  than  is 
abfolutely  neceflary  to  clear  the  Senfe  of  the 
Authors,    in  thofe  very  Paffages.     But  waving 
this,    let  me  ask  you  farther,    why  the  Tefti- 
monies  of    Fathers    may   not   be  admitted  as 
"Proofs,  Inferior  or  Collateral  Proofs  ?  If  I  can 
know  from  Church-Writers,    and  from  Scrip- 
ture too,    what  was  believed  by  the  Church 
(in  fundry  Articles)  from  the  Beginning  j  I  have 
then  two  Proofs  of  the  fame  Thing,    tho*  not 
Both    equally  ftrong,    or    equally   Authentick. 
The  Proof  from   Church -Writers  is  an  addi- 
tional, inferior  Proof;    but  ftill  a  Troof  it  is, 
probable  at  leaft,  of  fomething,  astoF^^;  and 
not  barely  an  Illuftration  of  a  "^Dogma,  or  Do- 
drine.     Are  we  able  to  prove  what  were  the 
Opinions  of  feveral  Sefts  of  Thilofophers  from 
the  Books  which  are  extant;    and  may  we  not 
alfo  prove  what  was  the  Faith  of  Chriftians,  in 
the  fame  way ,    from  the  Books  which  They 
have  left  us  ?   You  add,   The  Authority  of  the 
^  FatherSy 


454      ^DEFENSE      Qu.XXVIL 

Fathers y  could  it  be  proved  to  be  unanimous 
againft  'Dr.  Clarke ,  ought  not  to  determine 
any  Article  of  Faith.  No  5  But  it  is  a  ftrong 
prefumptive  Proof,  that  his  Interpretation  of 
Scripture  is  not  the  true  one  :  A  Proof  fo  con- 
fiderable,  that  I  know  not  whether  any  thing 
lefs  than  clear  and  evident  Demonftration  ought 
to  over-rule  it.  For,  you  muft  remember  that 
Dr.  Clarke^  or  any  Moderns^  as  well  as  the 
AntientSy  are  fallible  Men;  and  have  only 
the  fame  Human  Reafon  to  work  with,  which 
others  had  Sixteen  Hundred  Years  ago,  in  an 
Age  of  Miracles,  and  near  to  the  Days  of  In- 
fpiration.  Moderns,  at  fo  great  a  diftance  off, 
may,  at  lead,  as  eafily  miftake,  in  interpreting 
Scripture,  as  you  fuppofe  the  Antient  and  Uni- 
verfal  Church  to  have  done,  in  a  momentous 
Article  of  Faith.  Well  then ;  fuppofing  that 
we  had  been  for  fome  Time  debating  this  very 
Point  of  the  BlefTed  Trinity,  on  the  Foot  of 
Scripture  :  Mens  Wits  are  fo  various,  that  fe- 
veral  Interpretations  may  be  invented  of  the 
fame  Texts  5  and  perhaps  none  of  them  fo  ma- 
nifeftly  abfurd,  but  that  They  poflibly  may  be 
true  'y  nor  fo  manifeftly  right,  but  that  They 
poflibly  may  be  wrong.  What  can  we  do  bet- 
ter, in  fuch  a  Cafe,  than  to  appeal  tothofe  who 
lived  neareft  the  Times  of  the  infpircd  Writers  > 
Their  Judgment,  their  Dccifions,  and  confe- 
qucnt  Practice,  are  at  length  the  fafeft  Rule  to 
go  by ;  at  lead  till  you  can  fliow  us  a  better. 
Scripture,  you'll  fay,  is  the  Rule  ;  and  fo  fay  L 

*  You 


QU.XXVII.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  455 
You  bring  Your  Scripture  Proofs ;  and  I  pro- 
duce Mine.  You  have  your  Solutions  of  fuch 
Dilficultics  as  I  prefs  you  with  5  I  have  Solu- 
tions too,  and  fuch,  as  I  think  Sounder,  bet- 
ter, and  Juftcrthan  Your's;  You  think  the  very 
contrary.  Thus  far,  it  is  combating  Text  with 
Text,  Criticifni  with  Criticifm,  Reafon  with 
Reafon  5  and  each  fide  will  think  his  own  Supe- 
rior. Now,  fuppofe  I  can  farther  produce  a 
Cloud  of  Witneffes,  a  numerous  Company  of 
primitive  Saints  and  Martyrs,  confirming  my  In- 
terpretation, concurring  in  nvy  Sentiments,  and 
corroborating  my  Reafons :  And  fuppofe  1  find 
alfo  that  Thofc,  who  took  your  Side  of  the  Que- 
ftion,  were  condemn'd  by  the  generality  as  He- 
reticksy  and  Corrupters  oi  the  Faith  of  Chrift ; 
this  will  add  fuch  Weight,  Strength,  and  Force 
to  my  Pretenfions,  that  impartial  Men  will  foon 
perceive,  which  is  the  moft  probable,  which  the 
fafer  fide,  and  which  it  behoves  them  to  cleave  ta. 
This  is  fo  agreeable  to  the  common  Senfe  and 
Reafon  of  Mankind ;  and  the  Advantage  of  hav- 
ing Antiquity  of  one's  fide  is  fo  apparent,  that  I'll 
venture  to  fay,  none  ever  talk'd  againft  it,  who- 
did  not  fufped,  at  leafl:,  that  Antiquity  was  a- 
gainfl:  Them  :  And  this  I  take  to  be  one  of  your 
greateft  Misfortunes  in  this  Controverfy ;  that 
you  are  fenfible  how  much  it  would  weaken 
your  Caufe  to  give  up  the  Fathers ;  and  yet, 
you  are  certain,  in  the  refult,  to  weaken  it  as 
much,  by  pretending  to  keep  Them. 

Qy  E  R  y 


456      ^DEFENSE    QU.XXVIIL 
(^  U  E  R  Y     XXVIIL 

IVhether  it  be  at  all  probable ,  that  the  pri- 
mitive Church  fljould  miftake  in  fo  material 
a  Toint  as  this  is  i  or  that  the  whole 
Stream  of  Chriflian  Writers  Jhould  miftake 
in  telling  us  what  the  Senfe  of  the  Church 
was  i  and  whether  fuch  a  Cloud  of  Wit- 
neffes  can  he  fet  afide  without  weakening 
the  only  Vroof  we  have  of  the  Canon  of 
Scripture,  and  the  Integrity  of  the  Sacred 
Text? 

IN  Anfwer  hereto,  you  admit  that  ^^^  !r<?/?/- 
mony  of  the  whole  Stream  of  Antiquity  is 
Jufficient  to  determine,  in  fa^ ,  what  Faith 
the  Church  hath  always  profefsd  and  declafd 
in  her  publick  Forms.  I  am  content  to  put 
the  Matter  upon  this  Iffue ;  and  let  the  Point 
be  decided  from  their  Profeflions  in  Baptifm, 
Creeds,  Doxologies,  Hymns,  which  were  pub- 
lick  Forms ;  and  from  publick  Cenfures  pafs'd 
upon  Hereticksy  which  arc  as  clear  Evidence, 
as  the  other,  of  the  Church's  Faith  at  that  Time. 
Only  I  would  not  exclude  Collateral  Proofs  5 
fuch  as  the  declared  Sentiments  of  Eminent 
Church -Writers,  the  Interpretations  of  Creeds, 
left  us  by  thofe  that  recite  Them^  (fuch  as 
T\io{coi  Iren£us^  Tertulliany  and  Others)  and 
Ecclcfiaftical  Hiftory,  telling  us,  what  the  Tra- 
dition of  the  Church  was,  down  to  fuch  a  Time. 

From 


Qu.  XXVII.  offome  Q^U  E  R I  E  S.      457, 

From  thcfc  put  together,    \vc  have  very  deaf 
and  full  Proof  that  the  CathoUck  Church  did 
all  along  profefs  a  Truiity  of  Confabjiantiat^ 
Co-eternal  Pcrfons,   in  Unity  of  Nature,  Sub-» 
ftance,  and  Godhead.     This,  the  Incomparable 
Bidiop  Bull  has  fufficicntly  fliewn  in  his  T>e- 
fenfio  Fidei  Nicen£y   Judicium  Ecclefi^^    and 
primitiva  Traditio.    Bifliop  Stillingfleet  purfued 
the  fame  Argument,    with  Variety  of  Learn- 
ing, in  his  Vindication  of  the  'Do^rine  of  the 
Trinity,  Chapter  the  9^N  which  He  concludes 
in  thefe  Words :    "  Taking  the  Senfe  of  thofe 
*^'  Articles,   as  the  Chriftian  Church  underftood 
"  them  from  the  Apoftlcs  Times,   then  we  have 
''^  as  full  and  clear  Evidence  of  this  Doclrine, 
^^  as  we  have  that  "uje  received  the  Scriptures 
"  from  them.     Dr.  Clarke  %  and  Dr.  IVhitbyS 
Pretences,  to  the  contrary,,    have  been  fufRci- 
ently   anfwer'd ;   partly  by  the  learned  Gentle-^ 
man    who   'wr:otc  i\\c  True  Script ure-T>o^rine 
continued,   and  partly  by  thefe  Sheets.     You 
have  little  to  object,  but  that  the  Fathers  did 
not  affert  an    individual  Confubftantiality,    in 
your  Senfe;    which  is  true:  And  is  no  more 
than  telling   me,     that  They  were  not  mad  5 
when  I  contend  that  They  were  fobcr. 

But  you  add ;  the  Qucftion  is,  whcthei',  fup- 
pofing  the  Fathers  had  unanimoufly  declared 
for  our  Notion,  whether  {in  a  ^leftion  not  of 
Fa5i,  like  that  concerning  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture,  but  of  Judgment  and  Reafoning)  fuch 
a  Tefiimo7iy  ^-jvould  prove  that  thofe  Scrip- 
H  h  tureS 


458      ^DEFENSE    Qii.XXVII. 

tures  reveal  it  -,  or  -whether  fuch  an  Interpre- 
tation of  Scripture '■jvould  be  as  infalli- 

hie  as  Scripture  it  felf.  But  this  is  no  Qiic- 
ftion  at  all  between  us.  What  we  pretend  is, 
that  we  have  as  good  Proof  of  the  T>oEirine  of 
the  Church  as  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture, 
Whether  the  Church,  after  the  Jpoflles,  was  as 
infallible  as  the  Apofiles  themfelves,  is  quite 
another  Qiieftion.  We  think  it  very  unlikely 
that  the  ApoJioUck  Churches  fliould  not  know 
the  mind  of  the  Apoflles ;  or  fhould  fuddenly 
vary  from  it,  in  any  matter  of  Moment.  We 
look  upon  it  as  highly  improbable  that  the  Faith 
of  thole  Churches  fhould  fo  foon  run  counter 
to  any  thing  in  Scripture ;  fuice  They  had  the 
bcft  opportunities  of  knowing  what  Scripture 
meant;  were  made  up  of  wife  and  good  Men, 
Men  who  would  fooner  die  than  commit  any 
Error  in  that  kind,  wilfully.  Upon  this,  we 
believe  the  concurring  judgment  of  Antiquity 
to  be,  tho'  not  infallible^  yet  the  fafefl  Com- 
ment upon  Scripture  5  and  to  have,  much  m^ore 
Weight  in  it,  than  there  generally  is  in  Wit  and 
Criticifm  ;  and  therefore  not  to  be  rejeded, 
where  the  Words  of  Scripture  will,  with  any 
propriety,  bear  that  Interpretation.  This  is 
fuflkient  for  us  to  fay,  or  pretend.  We  have 
nsplaufiblc  Arguments,  to  fpeak  modcftly,  from 
Scripture,  as  you  can  pretend  to  have:  Nay, 
wc  think  your  Notions  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  Scripture,  according  to  the  natural,  obvi- 
ous, grammatical  Conftrudion  of  Words.    And 

bcfidcs 


Qii. XXVII.     offome  (QUERIES.     459 

bcfidcs  all  this,  we  have,  what  you  want,  the 
concurring  Scnfe  of  the  Antient s  ^\:im\^  for  us. 
The  Qiieftion  then  is  not,  whether  ScrtpUtre 
and  Fathers  be  equally  infallible  :  All  the  Fa- 
thers together  are  not  fo  valuable,  or  fo  cre- 
dible, as  any  one  infpired  Writer.  But  it  is 
plainly  this :  Whether  the  Antient  Herettcks^ 
or  Catholicks,  as  They  have  been  diftinguifh'd, 
have  been  the  bert  Interpreters  of  difputed 
Texts;  and  whether  we  are  now  to  clofe  in 
with  tke  former,  or  the  latter.  You  would 
infinuate  that  you  have  Scripture^  and  we 
Fathers  only :  But  we  infift  upon  it,  that  we 
have  Both  y  as  for  many  other  Reafons,  fo  alfo 
for  this,  becaufe  Bothy  very  probably,  went 
together :  And  as  you  certainly  want  one ;  fo 
it  is  extremely  probable  that  you  have  neither ; 
for  this  very  Reafon,  among  many  others,  be- 
caufe you  have  not  Both,  This  Argument  is 
of  Force  and  Weight ;  and  will  hardly  yield  to 
any  thing  fhort  of  "Demonflration ;  much  lels 
will  it  yield  to  fuch  fort  of  Reafonings  as  you 
are  obliged  to  make  ufe  of,  wanting  better,  to 
fupport  your  ;^^^'^/ Opinions. 

The  Sum  of  the  whole  Matter  is  this.  The 
unanimous  Senfe  of  the  Antients,  upon  any 
Controverfial  Point,  is  of  great  Moment  and 
Importance  towards  fixing  the  Senfe  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  preventing  its  being  ill-ufed  by  de- 
fultorious  Wits,  who  love  to  wander  out  of  the 
common  way ;  and  can  never  want  fome  co- 
lour for  any  Opinion  almoft  whatever.  We  do 
H  h  2  not 


460       ^DEFENSE      Qu.XXIX. 

not  appeal  to  the  Antients^  as  if  we  could  not 
maintain  our  Ground,  from  Scripture  and  Rea- 
fon,  againll  all  Oppofcrs :  This  has  been  done 
over  and  over.  Athaiiafius-,  Hilary y  BafiU  the 
two  GregorieSy  Chryfojiomy  Auftiny  Cyril ^  and 
Others,  undertook  the  Caufe  on  the  Foot  of 
Scripture,  and  were  cafily  fuperior  to  all  the 
Ariayis,  But  fince  we  have  an  Advantage,  over 
and  above  Scripture  Evidence,  from  the  con- 
curring Sentiments  of  Antiquity,  we  think  it 
very  proper  to  take  That  in  alfo  %  and  we  fhall 
not  eafily  fuffer  it  to  be  wrefted  from  us. 

Q^U   E   R    Y      XXIX. 

Whether  private  Reafoningy  in  a  matter  above 
our  Comprehenjioriy  be  a  fafer  Rule  to  go 
bjy  than  the  general  Senfe  and  Judgment  of 
the  primitive  Churchy  in  the  firft  3  00  Tears  5 
ory  fuppojtng  it  doubtful  what  the  Senfe  of 
the  Church  was  within  that  TimCy  whether 
what  was  determined  by  a  Council  of  zoo 
Bifhops  foon  aftery  with  the  greatefi 
Care  and  deliberation  y  and  has  fatisfyd 
Men  of  the  greatefi  Senfe y  Tietjy  and  Learn- 
ingy  all  over  the  Chrifiian  Worldy  for  1400 
Tears  finccy  may  not  fatisfy  wife  and  good 
Men  now  ? 

TTERE  you  tell  me,  as  ufual,  when  you 
X  JL  l^^ve  little  elfe  to  fay,  that  the  Council 
of  Nice  knew  nothing  of  Individual  Confub- 

ftantiality : 


Qu.XXIX,     offome  dU  E  R I  E  S.      461 

flantiality  :  and  then  you  add,  pleafantly,  that 
you  turn  the  §lnery  againft  the  ^lerijh,  and 
lay  claim  to  the  Nicene  Confefjion.  What  ? 
Lay  claim  to  a  ConfeJJion  made  in  dircd  Oppofi- 
tion  to  the  Men  of  your  Principles  ?  You  fay, 
if  any  ConfubftantiaHty  is  to  be  found  in  that 
Creed,  it  \%x\\z  Specifick,  ViotlndividnaL  And 
what  if  it  were?  Would  that  give  you  any 
claim  to  the  Nicene  ConfeJJion  ?  Are  God  and 
his  Creatures  ConfuhJiantiaX  of  the  fame  rank, 
fort,  kind,  or  Species  ?  You  are  forc'd  to  have 
recourfe  to  a  Figurative  Scnfc,  which  Pre- 
tence I  have  obviated  above.  You  are  fo  kind 
to  the  Sluerijt,  as  to  be  ijvilling  to  fuppofe  and 
believe^  that  He  is  not  Ignora?it  of  the  true 
and  only  Senfe  of  the  word  6/ao»(ji(3^-  meaning 
thereby  the  Specijick  Senfe.  In  return,  I'll  be 
fo  juft  to  you,  as  to  fay,  that  you  undcrdand 
the  word  very  right :  And  yet  the  Nicole  Fa- 
thers did  not  teach  a  merely  Specifick  Confiib- 
Jlantiality,  The  word  h[xo^<j\(^  expreifes  their 
Senfe  $  but  not  their  whole  Senfe,  in  that  Ar- 
ticle. It  expreiTes  an  Equality  of  Nature,  and 
fignifies  that  the  Son  is  as  truly  Equal  in  Na- 
ture to  the  Father,  as  one  Man  is  Equal  to 
another,  or  any  Individual  Equal  to  another  In- 
dividual of  the  fame  Sort  or  Species.  And  this 
was  chiefly  to  be  infilkd  on  againfl:  the  Arians, 
who  denied  fuch  Equality,  makiniz;  ihcSon:^ 
Creature.  Wherefore  the  true  Rcaibn,  to  ufc 
Dr.  CudoDorth's  Words,  only  mutatis  mutan- 
disy  why  the  Nicene  Fathers  laid  fo  great  a 
H  h  3  fti'cfs 


462       y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu.XXIX. 

ftrcfs  upon  the  o/jtobViov,  was  not  bccaufe  this 
alone  was  fufficicnt  to  make  Father  and  Son  one 
Gody  but  bccaufe  T\\cy  could  not  be  fo  with- 
out it.  *  ci/.cjcri;^  the  Son  niuft  be,  or  He 
could  not  be  God  at  all,  in  the  ftrid  Senfe  j 
and  yet  if  He  was  barely  o/acja-ii^',  like  as  one 
Human  Peribn  is  to  another,  the  two  would  be 
two  Gods.  And  therefore  the  Nicene  Fathers^ 
not  content  to  fay  only  that  the  Son  is  o/Wcrj©', 
infert  likcwife,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Be- 
gotten, &c.  and,  of  the  Subftance  of  the  Father  5 
and  this  They  are  known  to  have  declared  over 
and  over,  to  be  without  any  divifion:  All 
which  taken  together  expreffcs  a  great  deal 
more  than  ciJ-o^criQ-  would  do  alone  -,  and  are,  as 
it  were,  fo  many  qualifying  Claufes,  on  purpofe 
to  prevent  any  fuch  Mifconftrudion  and  Mif- 
npprchcnfion,  as  the  word  might  other  wife  be 
liable  to.  The  good  Fathers,  like  wife  Men, 
at  once    maintain'd  the  Equality  of  Nature ^ 

*  Hi  Tres,  quia  Unius  Suhjimtts,  fiinf-,  Untim  funt  j  &;  Stimmt 
unum  funt,  ubi  nulla  Naturarum,  nul'aeftdiverfitas  Voluntatum. 
Si  autem  Katura  Vuum  client,  &:  Confeiifione  non  cflcnt,  non 
Stanme  unura  elTent:  Si  vcro  Naturci  difpares  elTent,  unum  non 
cflcnt.  Hi  ergo  Tres,  qui  Unum  funt  propter  ineffabilem  Con- 
junftioncm  Deitatis,  qua  inelfabiliter  Copulantur,  Unus  Deus  eft. 
uiu^.  Contr.  Maxim.  1.  2.  /».  698. 

TLis  ts  tery  full  to  our  purpofe  5  a?jjy  by  the  TJ'^y,  ma'j  fijoro  hoto 
far  St.  Auftin  xi,^ as  from  SabelJianifm  j  which  forne  have  roeakly  pre- 
tended  to  charge  Htm  with.  But  there  are  many  Vaffnges  m  this 
Piece  again(i  Maximin,  one  of  kis  -very  lateji  Pieces^  full  againft  Sa- 
bcllianifm,  as  yvell  as  againfi  Arianifm.  /  772ay  juji  remark,  that 
there  is  a  deal  of  difference  betv:een  Unius  Subflantix,  and  una 
Subftantia.  Trco  Men  arc  Unius  cjufdemque  Subdantioc,  not  una 
Subftantin.  But  the  three  Pcrfons  are  not  ordy  unius Subftantice,  but 
una  Subftancia.  The  modern  Senfe  of  Confubftantial  takes  in 
Both. 

I  which 


Qu.XXIX.      offo?ne  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      46$ 

which  oiJ.o3Jt^  cxprcffcs,  and  the  U?i/ty  of  the 
Godhead  too.  Guarding  equally  agauift  ^r;- 
anifm,  and  Trilbeifm,  They  took  all  prudent  care 
to  preferve  the  Co-eqtiality  of  the  two  '^PerfonSy 
\jvt\\o\x\:  dividing  t\\z  Subfta7ice^  which  was  what 
They  intended.  The  learned  Do^lor  *reprefents 
this  Matter  fomewhat  crudely.  He  obferves 
upon  the  word  in  the  Nicene  Creed  (ytw/iOcvIa 

T^f)  that  the  Son  was  not  Himfelf  that  indi- 
vidual Stthfiance,  from  which  He  was  begotten. 
This  He  has  fo  worded,    that  individual  Sub- 
fiance,  with  Him,  can  only  fignify  individual 
Hypofiafis,    or   Terfon:    And  it  is  very  true, 
that  the  Son  is  not  that  Terfon,  from  whom, 
or,  of  whom,  He  proceeded:  ^wt  x\\Q.SubJla72ce 
might  be  undivided,  notwithftanding;    which 
is  all  that  any  Catholick  means  by  individual 
Subfiance.      But    their    tneaning.     He  fays, 
was  i  He  was  produced,   not    f'rorn  any  other 
Subfiance  [as  Man  was  formed  from  the  'Dufl 
of  the  Earth)    but  after  ayi  ineffable  manner, 
from  the  Subfiance  of  the  Father  only.     Here 
He  leaves  out  the  principal  Thing,  which  the 
Arians    afferted,     and   which  the   Catholicks 
guarded  againft,  vi^^.  Not  from  Nothing,  not 
«yf  ou)iovT(i)-j.     If  therefore  the  Son,  according 
to  the  Nicene  Fathers,  was  not  from  any  other 
Subftance,  befides  the  Fathers,    nor  from  no- 
thing ;  it  is  very  plain  that  (unlefs  They  fuppofcd 
d  "Divifion  of  Subftancc,  which  They  abfolutcly 

*  Reply,  p.  35-. 

H  h  4  reject) 


464-       -/^DEFENSE     Qu.XXIX: 

rejed)  They  fuppofcd  theSontobeofthefamc 
'imdtvidedy  or  /WmW^/^/ Subftance  with  the  Fa- 
ther. As  tp  the  Suppofition  of  his  being  produced 
from  any  other  Subftance  (as  Adam  was  torm'd 
from  the  Duft  of  the  Earth)  there  was  very  Httle 
occafion  to  guard  againft  it :  The  Notion  is,  in  it 
felf,  too  filiy  for  any  Man  to  own.  The  Arians 
themfelves  (againft  whom  the  Creed  was  contriv- 
ed) never  pretended  it,  but  *  exprefly  difown'd  it : 
Their  noted  Tenet  was,  that  the  Son  was  the/V/? 
Thing  made.  The  Nicene  Fathers  defign'd, 
chiefly,  to  guard  againfl:  the  Suppofition  of  the 
Son's  being  from  nothings  which  was  what  the 
^rmns  inMcd  upon;  They  and  the  Catholicks 
equally  beheving  it  ridiculous  to  imagine  any 
Stibftance  to  have  been  firft  made ;  and  then  the 
Son  to  have  been  made  out  of  it.  Wherefore  I 
burpbly  conceive,  the  true  Reafons  why  the  Ni- 
cene Fathers  were  fo  very  particular  in  the  Words, 
^yrfytv  ha  ri\^  ^j'iul^  rS  -nrar^^^  were,  "f  firft,  tO 
Hgnify  that  They  undcrftood  Generation  in  a 
proper y  and  not  figurative  Senfe ,  as  the  Arians 
did:  And  fccondly  withal  to  II  fecurethe  divine 
Unity.  For,  if  the  Son  were  ab  extra,  and 
independent  of  the  Father ,   the  Alliance:,  the 

*  Memorant  Filium  Dei  neque  ex  aliqua  fubjacente  materia  ge- 
uitumcffe,  quia  per  eumcrcata  omnia  fint.  H/V^^A-.  p.  832. 

f  Vid.BulI.  Def.  F.  N,  p.  1 14,  1 15-.     E^'c^s  Ijc  rSG^Sir^jw^svos,  ^5 

yuic,  yvy,a-toe, — Xi^^eivi  uv  iUdruc,  r^  h  rr,<;  icrUr,  rS  0f8  itd^.  Ath,  p.  Z  28. 

S-iyy  ;  CBTC  e|&,9-iv  av,  aAAflt  j'x  '^  uur^  ia-icc-j.  Epiphan.  p.  6io. 

0(J;^  aXyOt^Kvi  iri^KX^'  ixurov  l^t^l)^,,  iii^'  t^i-j^^iv  recuTTi^ysyoveuii/iyci, 
fi^Yi  TJ1  fTi^orrrn,  ^uf>x.ix  yiv^Tui.  Atlianaf.  Orat.  4.  p.  617. 
OwJi  «AAO0wjo  lioc,  i  ^iltu^i'j  tTnyoy^-j,  Orat.  3. p.  j/^ 

Rela- 


Qu.XXIX.      of  fome  Q^UE  R  I  K  S.      465 

Relation^  the  C/;^/^/ of  the  Pcrfons,  in  the  fame 
Godhead,  had  (upon  their  Principles)  been  lort  j 
and  \Dithtifm  unavoidable. 

This  may  be  enough  to  fatisfy  you,  that  what- 
ever the  word  tixoii<ji&  may  commonly  fignify, 
yet  the  Nicer/e  Fathers  meant  a  great  deal 
more  than  a  Spectfick  Unity ;  if  not  by  that 
word,  fingly  confider'd,  yet  by  that  taken  toge- 
ther with  the  reft,  which  were  put  in  to  explain 
it.  The  Word  may  indifferently  ferve  to  ex- 
prefs  an  Equality  of  Nature,  whether  the  Hy- 
fojlafes  be  widivided,  or  whether  They  have 
a  feparate  Exijlence,  It  was  therefore  pro- 
perly enough  applied,  in  the  Creed  :  And  care 
was  taken  that  both  Generation:,  and  Confnhjtan- 
tiality,  fhould  be  underftood  in  a  Senfe  fuitablc 
to  Things  divine  \  that  is,  taking  from  the  Idea 
all  that  is  low,  mean,  and  impcrfed  5  and  apply- 
ing only  fo  much  as  might  comport  with  the 
Majefty,  Dignity,  and  Perfedions  of  the  adora- 
ble and  incomprehenfible  Trinity. 

You  feem  to  be  apprehenfive,  that  you  muft, 
at  length,  be  obliged  to  give  up  the  Nicene  Creed, 
as  utterly  inconfiftent  with  your  Principles  5  as 
indeed  it  is.  And  therefore,  in  the  next  place, 
you  endeavour  to  Icden  the  Credit  of  it  j  alledg- 
ing  that  the  Council  of  Antioch  before,  and  tie 
Council  ^f  Ariminum,  and  other  Councils,  after 
{ fome  of  Them  'ujith  a  greater  Number  of  Bi- 
Jhops  than  met  at  Nice)  determind  againjt  the 
^cfXQii(7i(^.  The  Objection  drawia  from  the  De- 
termination of  the  Council  of  ^uintioch,  about 

Sixty 


466  ^DEFENSE  Qu.XXIX. 
Sixty  Years  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  you 
find  largely  anfwerd  by  *  Bifliop  Btill.  They 
condemn'd  the  word,  as  it  had  been  mifunder- 
ftood  and  mifapplied  by  Tatil  of  Samofata\  but 
eftablifh'd  the  very  fame  Doctrine  with  the  Ni- 
cene  Fathers,  I  may  anfwer  you  briefly,  upon 
your  own  Principles.  You  fay,  Taid  of  Samofa- 
ta  was  condemn'd  for  holding  o/^oao-i'^,  in  the 
Senfeof  /W/*i;/^//^/Confubll:antiality  {p.  ii8.) 
which,  if  it  be  true,  was  reafon  good  enough  for 
condemning  Him  ;  as  you  underftand  Individu- 
al, that  is,  in  a  Sabellian  Senfe.  The  Remark 
oi  HtUry,  who  goes  upon  the  fame  Suppofition 
which  you  do,  may  here  be  pertinently  *f  cited  ; 
and  may  fcrve  as  a  fufficient  Anfwer.  It  is  obferv- 
ablc  that  Hilary  makes  the  Number  of  Bifhops 
in  the  Antiochian  Council  no  more  than  80 ; 
Athanafius,  but  70  5  Etifebiiis,  an  indefinite 
Number ;  very  many.  It  does  not  appear  that 
They  were  near  fo  confiderable  as  the  famous 
Council  o^Nice  of  3 1 8  Bifhops. 

You  next  mention  the  Council  of  A riminum-, 
and  give  a  hint  of  other  Councils,  It  would  have 
been  but  fair  to  have  told  us  what  other  Councils 
you  meant,  which  had,  as  you  fay,  z^((reater  Num- 
ber of  Bifliops  than  met  at  Nice,  You  know,  I 
prefume,  or  at  leaft  might  know,  that  you  cannot 

*  Dcf.  F.  N.p.  29,  O'C.SsealfoMr.  Thirlby.  Anfivcr  /<?Whiilon, 
p-  10;.  Defence,  p.  ^6. 

t  Male  intelli^itur  Homoufion  :  quid  ad  me  bene  intelli^cntem  ? 
MalcHomoufionSamofatenus  ConfcfTus  efl:  Sc(}i  nunquid  Melius 
>\rii  negaverunt?  OdiogintaEpifcopiolim  rcfpuerunt ;  fed  Trecenti 
6c  decern  oilo  nuper receperunt.  HiUr.  de  S/ood.  p.  1 200. 

name 


Qu.  XXIX.    offome  QUERIES.      467 

name  One,  bcfides  the  Council  of  Ariminum  5 
which  I  fliall  fpeak  to  prclcntly. 

\nyom  Appendix  {p,  154.)  You  fay  the  De- 
termination of  the  Council  of  Nice,  for  the 
hixo4(ji©'^  W2S  vqcttcd  by  ^  greater  Council  than 
that  of  N^cCy  met  at  Jerufiilem,  But  in  thefe 
few  Words,  you  have  two  Miftakes  5  or  at  Icafl-, 
you  have  faid  what  you  cannot  prove.  *  Eitje- 
biuss  Words,  which  you  refer  to,  may  mean 
no  more  than  this,  that  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
falem  was  the  greateft  He  had  known,  fince 
the  Famous  one  of  Nice,  Your  other  Miftake 
is,  that  They  rejetied  the  T>etermination  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  &c.  How  doth  this  ap- 
pear \  Did  They  fay  a  word  againft  it  ?  Or  did 
They  Make  any  Declaration  againft  either  the 
Council  of  Nice^  or  the  6/.tcyo-rcv  >  Not  a  Sylla- 
ble. But  ^  They  received  Arius  to  Commu- 
nion ,  partly  upon  the  good  Emperor's  Recom- 
mendation, who  believed  Him  to  have  recanted, 
and  to  have  come  in  to  the  II  true  Catholick 
Faith,  as  eftablifli'd  at  the  Council  of  Nice -^ 
and  partly    upon  /Irius's  ^  own  ConfeJJion  of 

*  De  Vita  Conftant.  1. 4.  c.  47.  p.  45-4.  See  ValefiusV  Notes. 

\  Seethe  Hijiory'm  Socrat.  1.  i.  c.  33,  Sozom.  1.  i.e.  27.  Atha- 
r.af.  p.7  34- 

I)  Arius  fvcore  to  the  Emperor,  calling  God  to  M^itnefs,  that  He 
believed  tn  Father  ^  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoji,  as  the  v/UoicCMhoMck  Church 
t.tught,  vohich  the  Emperor  could  take  in  no  other  Senfcy  but  as  it  had 
been  lately  deter7ntn\l  by  the  Catholick  Nicene  Fathers.  See  Sozom. 
1.  2.C.  27. 

^)id  this  may  farther  appear  by  the  EniTpcror's  putting  Arius  to  the 
Tefl  aftej'-ivards,  to  fee  whether  He  really  a chmv lodged  the  Nicene  Faith 
or  no.     5V^  Socrat.  I.  I.e.  3 S,     Cow/).  Phot.  Cod.  2j6.  p.  141 3. 

I  Extat.  in  Sozom.  1.  2.  c.  27. 

Faithj 


468        ^DEFENSE     Qii.XXIX. 

Faithy  which  was  fo  plaufibly  worded,  that  it 
might  Q^{\\y  ^zk  ioic  Orthodox,  tho'  it  wanted 
the  word  oiJ.oiiji^'.  Now,  is  it  not  very  unac- 
countable in  you  to  call  this  Rejeding  the 
Determination  for  the  'O/^oaViov,  when  it  was 
only  receiving  a  Man,  fuppofed  by  the  Em- 
jperor,  and  perhaps  by  many  of  the  Council, 
to  have  repented  of  his  Herefy,  and  to  have 
embraced  every  Thing  that  'the  Nicene  Council 
had  determin'd  5  the  very  Senfe  and  Meaning 
of  'O/aos  j{®'  it  felf,  tho'  not  the  Word, 

Pafs  we  on  now  to  the  Council  oiAriminnniy 
in  the  Year  3  5  9>  when  the  Arians  \\2.di  the 
fecular  Power  on  their  fide,  and  made  ufe  of  it 
with  all  imaginable  Severity.  The  whole  Num- 
ber of  Bifliops  in  Council  are  computed  at 
about  ^  400,  and  ^  not  above  Eighty  of  Them 
Arians.  ""  All  the  Catholicks,  at  firft,  declared 
their  unanimous  Adherence  to  the  Nicene 
Creed  5  and  protefted  againft  any  new  Form  of 
Faith.  All  manner  of  Artifices,  Frauds,  and 
Menaces  were  contrived  to  bring  Them  and 
the  Avians  to  fomething  like  an  Agreement. 
Yet  the  utmoft  They  could  do,  was  only  to 
bring  the  Catholicks  to  fubfcribe  a  ^  ConfeJJioyi 
artfully  worded  in  general  Terms.  And  no 
fooncr  (X\diX^zCathoiick  Fathers,  after  their  Re- 

•  Sulpic.  Sev.  p.  267.  Athnnnf.  p.  720,749.  Maximinr^^  Arian 
mxkes  the  whole  Number  ^30.  Augufl.  Collar.  Tom.  8.  p.  6_fo. 

•"  Sulpic.  Sever,  p.  169.  *^  Hilar.  Fragm.  p.  1541. 

**  Qux  Cjtholicam  dilciplinam,  perfidialatente,  loquercrur.  Sulpic. 
p.  175.  Sonabanr  verba  Pietatcra,  &  inter  tanta  Mclla  prreconii, 
nemo  vcncnum  infcrtum  putabat.  Hicron.  Cohtr^Ltififir. 

turn 


Qu.  XXIX.  offome  QU  E  R I  E  S.  469 
turn  Home,  perceive  how  They  had  been  im- 
pofcd  upon  by  ambiguous  Terms,  and  over- 
rcach'd  by  Craft  and  Subtilty  ;  but  They  *  con- 
fefs'd  their  Error,  and  repented  of  it  with  Tears. 
The  Hiftory  of  the  Council  at  large  is  too  tedi- 
ous for  me  to  recite  Here  :  It  may  be  feen  ei- 
ther in  the  original  Autliors,  Athanafiiis^  Sul- 
p'tcius  Severus,  Hilarjy  Socratesy  Sozomeriy 
Theodority  and  Jerom ;  or  with  lefs  Trouble, 
and  in  lefs  Compafs,  in  Caz'es  Life  of  Atha- 
nafiiiSy  or  laftly  in  Montfaucons,  When  you 
have  well  conlider'd  the  Arts  and  Praclices  of 
the  Ariansy  much  the  fmaller  Number,  in  that 
Council,  you  may  perhaps  fee  rcafon  to  be  a- 
fliamed  of  having  mentioned  it,  but  no  reafon 
for  oppofing  it  to  the  celebrated  Nicene  Coun- 
ciL  While  the  Council  oi  Arminiim  was  free, 
and  left  to  give  their  real  Opinions  5  i\\z  Avians 
were  condemn'd  by  a  great  Majority,  and  their 
'Principals  depofed.  Even,  at  laft,  you  have  no 
Reafon  to  boaft  of  their  unanimous  Agreement 
to  a  new  Faith.  It  was  a  i;^r^/^/ Agreement  only, 
to  Expreflions  feemingly  Catholick :  And  proba- 
bly, the  Majority  I!  departed  with  the  fame  high 
value  and  opinion  of  the  Nicene  Faiths  which 
They  brought  with  Them.  Four  Years  after  the 
Synod  of  Ariminiimy  '\  Athanafins  reckons  up 

*  Vid.  Ep.  Liber  apud  Socr.  I.4.  p.  1S3.  Hicron.Contr.Lucif. 
Dial.  Sulpic.  Sever. 

)j  Vid.  Ambrof.  Ep.  Chnp.  i.  p.  S62. 

t  Athanaf.Ep.  ad  Jovian,  pag.  781.  Theod.E.  H.  1.  4.C.  3.  ^-^fi 
Liberius'i  Letters  An.  366. apud  Socrat.  1.  4.  c.  12.  Damaius'^j  Lett. 
Sozom.  I.  6.  c.  23. 

Hoc  t^  iJlud  liomottforii  quod  in  Concilio  Nicseno  adverfus  Iloerc- 

parti- 


470      >^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Qu-  XXIX. 

particularly  the  Churches  which  ftill  embraced 
the  Nicene  Faith.  Thofe  of  Spain,  Britairiy 
Gaul,  all  Italy,  'Dalmatia,  T>aciay  Myfia,  Ma- 
cedonia, Greece,  Africa,  Sardinia,  Cyprus,  CretCy 
Tamphylia,  Lycia,  Ifauria,  Egypt,  Libya,  Ton- 
tits,  Cappadocia,  and  the  Churches  of  the  Eaft ; 
excepting  a  few  that  followed  Arius.  He  calls 
them  the  "whole  World,  and  all  the  Churches 
throughout  the  World.  He  declares  that  He 
kno^ws  it,  and  has  their  Letters  by  Him  to 
prove  it.  And  it  is  worth  reciting  what  ac- 
count the  Bifhops  of  Egypt  and  Lybia,  and 
among  Them  Atbanajiiis,  give  of  the  extent 
of  the  Nicene  Faith,  about  Ten  Years  after  the 
time  that  you  pretend  there  was  a  general 
Council  againft  it.  Writing  to  the  Bifhops  in 
Africa,  They  begin  thus :  "  f  It  is  the  greateft 
"  Satisfadion  to  us  to  have  feen  what  T>ama- 
"  ft^s  our  Fellow-Miniftcr,  and  Bifliop  of  the 
"  great  City  of  Rome,  and  fuch  a  Number  of 
*^  Bifliops  in  Council  with  Him,  befides  other 
"  Synods  in  Gaul  and  Italy,  have  wrote  in 
"  Defence  of  the  true  Orthodox  Faith :  That 
"  Faith  which  Chrift  delivered,  and  the  Apo- 
"  ftlcs  taught,    and  our  Fathers  affembled  at 

ticos  Arianos,  a  Catholicis  Patribus,  Veritatis  Audloritate,  &  Au'- 

ftoritaiis  Ven'tate  firmatum  eft:  quod  podesL  in  Concilio  ^ritninen/i 
Cproptcr  novitatcmvcrbi,  minus quam  potuitintelledlam,  quod  ta- 
men  Fides  Antiqua  rcpcrerat)  mnltis  FaucorumFraaJedcccpus,  Hx- 
rctica  Impietas  fub  lIa;rctico  Impcratorelabel-hftaretentavir.  Sed 
poftnonlonojumTempus,  Libcrtate  Fidci  Catholicce  pnxrvalente,— • 
Homoulioii  Cutliolica;  Fidei  Sanitate  m^e  lateque  dcfenfum  eft.  uiu- 
gujl.  Tom. 8.  p.  704. 
t  Apud  Athaiiaf.  p.  891. 

['  Nice, 


Qii.  XXIX.  of  fame  (QUERIES.  47 1 
^'  Nicey  from  out  of  the  whole  Chriftian  World, 
"  handed  down  to  us.  So  intenfc  was  their  Zeal 
*'  at  that  Time,  in  regard  to  the  Arian  Hercfy ; 
"  that  They  who  had  falhi  into  it,  might 
"  be  reclaim'd ;  and  that  the  Heads  or  Authors 
"  of  it  might  have  a  Mark  fet  upon  Them. 
"  To  this  Determination  ( of  the  Nicene  Fa- 
*^  thers)  formerly  the  *  whole  Chriftian  World 
*'  confented :  And  at  this  very  Time,  many 
"  Councils  have  confirm'd  and  publiflVd  the 
"  fame :  By  means  of  which  all  They  of  T>al' 
"  matt  a  y  T>ardaniay  Macedonia  ^  Epirus  ^ 
^'  Greece,  Crete,  and  the  other  Iflands,  Siciljy 
"  Cyprus  and  Ta?nphyliay  Lycia,  Ifaiiria,  all 
"  Egypt,  the  two  Libyas,  and  the  moft  of 
"  Arabia  have  acknow^ledged  it.  They  go  on 
to  fet  forth  the  great  Refpect  and  Veneration 
due  to  the  Decifions  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
and  fliow  how  far  it  w^is  preferable,  in  every 
refpect,  to  all  the  Arian  Synods  -,  and  particu- 
larly to  the  pretended  general  Council  of  Ari- 
mintmt^  which  fome  prcfumed,  at  that  Time 
of  Day,  to  fet  againft  it.  The  whole  would  be 
well  worth  the  Reader's  perufal,  and  thither  I 
refer  you,  for  a  more  particular  Anfwer;  that 
you  may  learn  hereafter,  not  to  call  every 
Thing   hugely  Romantick,    which  may   have 

*  To  the  fume  purpofe  fays  Marius  Vidtorinus,  fpeakmg  of  the 

Conditum  juxta  Vetcnim  Fidem  (nam  8c  ante  traftatum^  8c 
multi  Orbis  Epifcopi,  rrcccntiquindccim  in  civitatc  AVf^^,  'Viam 
per  Totum Orbem  dccrcnm  Fidem  mittentes,  Epifcoporum  .V'iliia 
in  eadem  habuerunt,  vei  illius  Temporis,  vel  Tequentium  Anno:  um . 
/f  3.  Contr.Armn. 

hap- 


472  ^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu.  XXIX. 
happcn'd  to  efcape  your  Notice  or  Oblcrvation. 
I  niLift  take  leave  to  tell  you,  there  never  was 
a  Synod  cxn  your  fide,  lb  free,  fo  large,  fo-,  in 
every  refped,  unexceptionable  as  the  Council  of 
Nice  was.  Nay  farther;  that  whatever  Oppofi- 
tion  was  made  to  it,  was  carried  on  with  fuch 
Wiles,  Crafts,  Subtilties,  and  refined  Artifices,  as 
every  Honed  Man  would  be  afhamed  of:  And 
firthcr  y  that,  notwithftanding  all  They  could 
do,  the  Arians  were  not  able  long  to  maintain 
their  Ground ,  but  the  Men  who  fuftain'd  the 
Shock,  and  kept  up  the  Credit  of  the  Nicene 
Creed,  were  not  only  the  mod  numerous,  but 
appear  to  have  been  as  wife,  as  judicious,  and 
as  pious  Men,  as  ever  the  Church  was  adorned 
with,  fincc  the  Times  of  the  Apoftles. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  there  is  Demonftration 
hi  this  kind  of  Reafoning,  in  favour  of  any  Caufe. 
But  it  will  have  its  Weight  with  cool  and  con- 
fiderin^  Men :  Who  refledins;  that  Reli2,ion  is 
not  a  Thing  to  be  coin  d,  and  recoin'd,  every 
Month;  that  it  has  been  thought  on  fo  long  and 
well,  and  by  Perfonsblefs'dwithasgdodaShare 
of  Underftanding,  and  as  great  Sincerity,  as  ajiy 
are,  or  have  been ;  and  that  the  generality  of 
the  wifeft  and  mod  excellent  Men  have  hi- 
therto gone  on  in  fuch  a  way,  and  that  too 
afccra  drid  and  fevere  Examination,  being  well 
apprized  of  the  Objedions  made  againd'^it;  I 
iciy,  who,  refieding  thus,  will  be  very  cautious 
of  Contradiding  what  feems  to  have  been  fo 
well,  and  fo  deliberately  fettled  i  and  will  be 
*  rather 


QU.XXIX.    of  fame  QUERIES.       475 

rather  willing  to  fufpcd  their  own  Judgment, 
and  modeftly  decline  what  looks  like  leanino* 
too  much  to  their  own  Underftandings.  How- 
ever, fuch  Confiderations   may  be  of   ufe   to 
Thofe  who,  not  having  Leifure,  Inclination,  or 
Patience  to  examine  throughly  into  this  Con- 
troverfy    (as  perhaps  few  ha\x)    muft  be  con- 
tent to  judge  as  They  can  :    And  fince  They 
find  the  fame  Scriptures  fo  very  differently  in- 
terpreted by  the  contending  Parties,  till  They 
can  Themfelvcs  enter  into  the  very  Heart  of 
the  Controverfy,  how  can  They  do  better  thaa 
clofe  in  with  Thofe,  who  have  been  in  Poflef. 
fion  of  this  Faith  for  fo  many  Centuries,  and 
have  had,  in  a  manner,    in  every  Age,    for  at 
leaft  Fourteen  Hundred  Years,    I  will  venture 
to  fay,  Sixteen,  the  moft  eminent  Lights  and 
Ornaments  of  the  Chriftian  Church,  to  fupport 
and  defend  it?   This  I   mention  as  the  fafeft 
way  5    and  fuch   as  will  be  taken  by  modeft, 
humble,   and  difcreet  Men ;  being  what  They 
can  beft  anfwer  to  God  and  their  own  Con- 
fciences,  even  tho',  at  length,   it  fhould  prove 
Erroneous;    which  yet  has  not  hitherto,   nor 
ever  will  be,  I  am  perfuadcd,  made  appear.    As 
for  Thofe  who  chufe  to  go  out  of  the  common 
Road,    and  to  run  Counter  to  all  that  has  hi- 
therto been   called  and  reputed  Catholicky    or 
Orthodox ;    let  Them  look  to  it,    and  be  it  at 
their  own  Peril.   They  muft  believe  that  the  An- 
tient  Hereticks  were  the  Soundeft   Chriftians ; 
that  the  firft  General  Council  which  met  from  all 

I  i  Farts 


42S      A   DEFENSE       Qu.XXIX. 

Parts  of  Chriftendonij  and  having  mo  byafs,  fo 
far  as  appears,  to  determine  Them  this  way  or 
that,  either  did  not  know  what  was  the  Faith 
of  their  refpedive  Churches,  and  what  had  been 
handed  down  to  them  by  their  Predeceffors,  or 
elfe  wilfully  and  unanimoufly  agreed  to  corrupt 
it ;  and  that  too  in  a  very  material  Article,  in 
which  the  fum  of  the  Chriftian  Religion  is  con- 
tained; and  in  which  the  Nature  and  Objed  of 
our  Worfhip  is  very  nearly  concerned.  They 
muft  believe  farther  that  the  Churches,  in  ge^ 
neral,  throughout  the  Chriftian  World,  through 
every  Age  (and  even  fince  the  Reformation,  up- 
on which  Matters  were  ftridly  look'd  into,  and 
carefully  re-examin'd)  have  fallen  into  the  fame 
Error  J  and  fo  continue,  even  to  this  Day  5  fome 
few  private  Men  only,  here  and  there,  fliowing 
their  diflike  of  it.  Now,  They  who  pretend 
this ,  muft  bring  fome  very  ftrong  Proofs  to 
make  good  their  Pretences.  If  They  have  not 
fomething  very  Weighty  and  Momentous  to 
urge  5  fomething  that  carries  the  Force  and  Evi- 
dence of  T^emonftration  with  it.  They  are  firft 
very  unreafonable  in  calling  us  to  attend  to 
what  fo  little  deferves  it ;  and  next  very  inex^ 
cufable  in  their  Attempts  to  draw  others  into 
their  precarious  Sentiments,  and  to  raife  Doubts 
and  Perplexities  in  the  Minds  of  fimple  well- 
meaning  Men.     But  I  pafs  on  to 


Q^UERY 


Qu.XXX.      of fome(lU  ERIE  S.      475 

(^  U   E    R    Y      XXX. 

Whether^  fuppojing  the  Cafe  doubtful,  it  be 
not  a  wife  Mans  part  to  take  the  fafer 
Side ;  rather  to  thmk  too  highly,  than  too 
tneanly  of  our  Blejfed  Saviour  5  rather  to 
pay  a  modejl  deference  to  the  Judgment  of 
the  Antient  and  Modern  Churchy  than  to 
lean  to  ones  own  Under fianding ? 

UPON  the  QLieftion,  whether  it  be  not 
lafcr  and  better  (fuppofi ng  the  Cafe  doubt- 
ful) to  think  too  highly,  rather  than  too  mean- 
ly of  our  BleiTed  Saviour  5  you  anfwer,  quefti- 
onlefs  it  is\  which  one  might  think  a  very 
fair  and  ingenuous  Confcffion ;  and  you  need 
not  have  added  a  word  more.  You  go  on  to 
fay,  that  this  is  our  moft  plaufible  Tretence% 
in  which,  I  think,  you  do  it  a  deal  too  much 
Honour.  I  did  but  juft  hint  it  5  and  left  it 
fhould  not  be  of  force  fufficient,  immediately 
ftrengthen  d  it  with  another  Confideration , 
which  I  am  perfuaded  will  bear,  if  this  fliould 
not;  and  the  rather,  bccauie  you  have  not 
thought  fit  fo  much  as  to  take  notice  of  it.  I 
muft  however  follow  you,  upon  the  former 
Point,  that  plaufible  Plea,  and  which  is  fo  juft, 
that  you  fcem  your  fclf  to  give  into  it.  Yet, 
I  know  not  how,  by  fome  peculiar  turn  of 
Thought,  you  at  length  come  to  fay,  that  it 
proves  as  weak  and  falfe  as  any  other  they 
I  i  z  ever 


476         ^DEFENSE     Qu.XXX. 

ever  alledge.  If  it  prove  no  weaker y  I  fhall 
be  fatisficd.  Let  us  hear  what  you  have  to  fay. 
Your  Argument  is  this :  Since  Revelation  is 
the  only  rule  in  the  Cafe^  if  we  go  beyond^  or 
if  we  fall  port,  are  we  not  equally  culpable  ? 
I  am  very  glad  to  hear  from  you,  that  Reve- 
lation is  the  only  rule  in  the  Cafe :  Abide  by 
That,  and  Matters  may  eafily  be  adjufted.  To 
the  Argument  I  anfwer :  That  you  equivocate 
in  the  word  Equally,  and  make  a  Sophiflical 
Syllogifm  with  four  Terms.  Equally  culpable, 
jfignifies,  either  that  one  is  culpable  as  well  as 
the  other,  or  that  one  is  culpable  as  much  as 
the  other  5  equally  a  Fault,  or  an  equal  Fault. 
Our  difpute  is  about  the  latter,  and  yet  all 
that  you  really  prove  is  only  the  former.  Re- 
velation undoubtedly  is  the  Rule,  and  to  go 
beyond  it  is  certainly  culpable,  as  well  as  it  is 
to  fall  fliort  of  it  ^  and  yet  not  culpable  (at 
leaft  not  in  this  Inftance)  in  the  fame  Degree. 
Is  there  no  fuch  Thing  as  an  Error  on  the  right 
Hand  (as  we  fay)  or  a  Fault  on  the  right  Side  ? 
Of  two  Extremes,  may  it  not  often  happen, 
that  one  is  more  dangerous  than  the  other? 
This  I  ailert  to  be  the  Cafe  here :  And  I  will 
give  you  my  Rcafons  for  it.  Our  Blefled  Lord 
hath  done  great  and  wonderful  Things  for  us. 
If  our  Rcfpc^V,  Duty,  and  Gratitude  happen, 
through  our  Ignorance  and  cxcellive  Zeal,  to 
rife  too  high ;  this  is  the  overflowing  of  our 
good-natur'd  Qiialitics,  and  may  icem  a  pitiable 
Failing.  But,  on  the  other  Hand,  if  we  hap- 
pen 


QU.XXX.      of  fome  Q^U  E  R  I  E  S.      477 

pen  to  fall  fliort  in  our  Regards,  there  is  not 
only  Ingratitude,  but  Elafphemj  in  it.  It  is 
degrading,  and  dethroning  our  Nlaker,  Prefer- 
ver.  King,  and  Judge ;  and  bringing  Him  down 
to  a  level  with  his  Creatures. 

Befides;  we  have  many  exprefs  Cautions  gi- 
ven us  in  Scripture,  not  to  be  wanting  in  our 
Refpeds  and  Services  towards  God  the  Son  5 
but  have  no  particular  Cautions  againft  Honour- 
ing Him  too  much.  We  know  that  we  ought 
to  Honour  Him^  even  as  ijue  Honour  the  Fa- 
ther -,  which,  if  it  be  an  ambiguous  Exprcflion 
we  are  very  excufable  in  taking  it  in  the  bcft 
Senfe,  and  interpreting  on  the  fide  of  the  Pre- 
cept. We  know  that  by  di (honouring  the  Son, 
we  do,  at  the  fame  Time,  difhonour  the  Father : 
But  we  are  no  where  told,  that  the  Father  will 
refent  it  as  a  difhonour  done  to  Himfelf,  if  we 
fiiould  chance,  out  of  our  fcrupulous  P^^cgards  to 
the  Father  and  Son  Both,  to  pay  the  Son  more 
Honour  than  ftriaiy  belongs  to  Him.  Onthefe, 
and  the  like  Confiderations  (cfpccially  when 
we  have  fo  many,  and  fo  great  Appearances 
of  Truth,  and  fuch  a  Cloud  of  Authorities  to 
countenance  us  in  it)  the  Error,  if  it  be  one, 
feems  to  be  an  Error  on  the  right  Hand.  Now 
you  (hall  be  heard  again.  Can  any  Man  think 
to  pleafe  the  Son  of  God^  by  giving  that  to 
Him,  "izihich  He  never  claim' d  or  could  claim? 
Pofitive  enough.  But  will  you  pleafe  to  re- 
member that  the  Query  fuppofes  the  Cafe 
doubtful  (which  was  abundantly  civil  to  you) 
I  i  J  doubt' 


47S         ^DEFENSE      Qu.XXX. 

doubtful  whether  the  Son  of  God  has  claim  d 
it  J  or  no  3  and  the  whole  Argument  runs  upon 
that  Suppofition.     This  therefore  difcovers  ei- 
ther fome  want  of  Acumen,  or  great  Marks  of 
Hafte.      You    add  :    It  can  be  no  'DetraEiiori 
from  the   T>ignitj  of  any  Terfon  {how  great 
foever  that  ^Dignity  be)    to  forbear  profejfmg 
Him  to    be  that  '■j^hich  He  really  is  not.     I 
perceive,  your  Thoughts  are  ftill  abfent,    and. 
you  do  not  reflect,    that  you  are  begging  the 
Qucftion,    inftead  of  anfwcring  to  the  Point  in 
Hand.     You   are   to   ftippofe  it,  if  you  pleafe, 
dotibtftilj    who,    or  what,     the  Pcrfon  is.     In 
fuch  a  Cafe,  it  may  be  better  to  give  Him  what 
He  docs  not  require,   than  to  defraud  Him  of 
what  He  does :    It  is  fafer  and  more  prudent 
to  run  the  Risk  of  one,    than  of   the  other. 
You  go  on  :    It  may  well  become  ferions  and 
fincere  Chrifiians  to   conjider,    whether  it   is 
not    poffMe  that  while,     adventuring    to  be 
wife  beyond    what  is  written,    they   vainly 
think    to  advance  the  Honour  of  the  Son  of 
God,  above  what  He  has  given  them  Ground 
for   in  the  Revelation.    They  may  dijhonour 
the  Father  that  fent  Him,  &c.     I  am  weary 
of  tranfcribing.     Confidcr,  on  the  other  Hand, 
whether   it   be   not  more  than   poffiblc,    that, 
while  others  adventuring   to   be  wife  beyond 
what   is  written  (teaching  us  to  protcfs  three 
Gods,    making  the  Creator  of   the   World  a 
Creature,    ii:ivcnting   new  unfcriptural  Diftin- 
dions  of  a  fiprcme   and  a  fubordinate  Wox- 

i  (hip, 


Qti.  XXX.  offome  (QUERIES.  479 
fhip,  with  many  other  Things  equally  unfcrip- 
tural  and  unwarrantable)  They  vainly  think 
to  bring  down  Myfteries  to  the  level  of  their 
low  Underftandings,  and  to  fearch  the  deep 
Things  of  God\  They  may  not  diflionour  both 
Father  and  Son,  and  run  into  Herefy,  Blalphc- 
my,  and  what  not ;  and  Sap  the  very  Founda- 
tions of  the  Chriftian  Religion.  You  proceed  : 
It  may  become  Them  to  conftder  "jihat  They 
will  anfzver  at  the  great  Day,  Jhoiild  God 
charge  Them  with  not  obferving  that  'Decla- 
ration of  HiSy  I  will  not  give  my  Glory  to 
another.  They  may  humbly  make  Anfwer, 
that  They  underftood  that  His  Glory  was  not 
to  be  given  to  Creatures ;  and  therefore  They 
had  given  it  to  none  but  his  own  Son,  and  his 
H.  Spirit,  whom  They  believed  not  to  be  Crea- 
tures,  nor  other  Gods  J  and  whom  Himfelf  had 
given  his  Glory  to,  by  commanding  all  Men  to 
be  baptized  in  their  Names,  equally  with  his 
own  5  and  ordering  particularly,  that  all  Men 
Jhould  Honour  the  Son,  even  as  They  Honour 
the  Father,  If  They  happen'd  to  carry  their 
Refped  too  high  5  yet  it  was  towards  thole 
only,  whom  the  Father  principally  deiighteth  to 
Honour;  and  towards  Vvhom  an  ingenuous, 
grateful,  and  well-difpofed  Mind  can  hardly  ever 
think  He  can  pay  too  much.  Upon  thefe  and 
the  like  Confiderations  They  may  humbly  hope 
for  Pity  and  Pardon  for  a  Miftakc;  fuch  an  one 
as  the  humbled,  moft  devote,  and  moH:  confci- 
e'ntious  Men  might  be  the  aptcft  to  fall  into. 

I  i  4  But 


480         y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E     Qu.XXX. 

But  what  muft  an  Arian  have  to  fay,  at  that 
great  T^ay^    if  it  appears  that  He  has  been  ut- 
tering Blafphemies    againft   the  Son  of  God, 
nnd  reviling  his  Redeemer    (the  generality  of 
fober  Chriftians  looking  on,  all  the  while,  with 
Horror  5  fhock'd   at  the  Impiety ;   and   openly 
declaring  and  protefting  againft  it)  and  for  no 
other  Reafons,  in  the  laft  Refult,    but  becaufc 
He  thought  Generation  implied  TDivifioriy    and 
7iecejfary  Generation  implied  outward  Coactioriy 
and  He  could  not  underftand  whether  the  Unity 
fhould  be  called  Spectficky  or  Individual ,    nor 
how  there  came  to  be  three  Perfons ;  nor  v:hj 
One  might  not  have  been  as  good  as  Three ; 
nor  why  the  Father  fhould  be  faid  to  beget  the 
Son,  rather  than  vice  verfa  5  and  the  like  \   Is 
this  kind  of  reafoning  fuitable  to,  or  becoming 
Chriftians,  who  have  their  Bible  to  look  into ; 
which  alone  can  give  any  Satisfadign 'iajthefe 
Matters  \    To  go  upon  our  own  Fancies^  and 
Conjectures,  in  a  Thing  of  this  l^nd;.  rs  cflily 
betraying  too  little  Reverence  for  the  tremen- 
dous and  unfcarchable  Nature  of  God,  and  too 
high  an  Opinion  of  our  own  Selves.     You  havq 
ti  farther  Pretence,  built  upon  your  miftnken  No- 
tion   of  individual,    which    I  need  not  take 
notice  of;    having  already  almoft  flirfeitcd  the 
Reader  with  it, 


Q^UER  Y 


QaXXXL    of  fame  aXJEKlF^S,        481 
Query     XXXL 

PFhether  any  thing  lefs  than  clear  and  evi- 
dent Demonftration,  on  the  fide  of  Ariaiiifm, 
ought  to  move  a  wife  and  good  Man,  againfl 
fo  great  Appearances  of  Truth  on  the  fide 
of  Orthodoxy,  from  Scripture,  Reafon,  and 
Antiquity  :  And  whether  we  may  not  wait 
long  before  we  find  fuch  Dcmonftration  > 

IN  your  Anfwcrtothis,  I  am  rebuked,  firft, 
for  giving  the  Name  of  Orthodoxy y  to  a 
^cholafiick  Notion :  And  fecondly,  for  calling 
your  Dodlrine  Arianifm,  As  to  the  firft,  I 
ftand  fo  far  correded,  as  to  beg  the  privi- 
lege of  ufmg  the  word.  Orthodoxy,  for  the 
Received  Tio^rine.  You  are  pleafed  to  call 
it  a  Scholafiick  Notion.  How  far  it  is  Scho- 
laflick,  I  do  not  certainly  know  5  but  fure  I  am 
that  it  is  Primitive  and  Catholick:  And  I  do 
not  know  that  the  School-men  were  Hereticks 
in  this  Article.  If  They  were ;  So  far,  you  may 
depend  upon  it,  our  Notion  is  not  ScholafticL 
As  to  your  Dodrine  bemg  juftly  call'd  Ari- 
anifm, I  hope,  without  OtFence,  I  may  fay,  I 
have  made  it  plain  to  a  Dcmonftration  (except- 
ing only  that,  in  fome  Particulars,  you  fall  be- 
low Arianifm)  and  I  fliould  advifc  you  here- 
after, for  your  own  fake,  to  difpute  {o  clear  a 
Point  no  farther.  But  let  us  go  on.  You  add  : 
Jf  it  be  impoffible^  by  the  Rule  of  Scripture 

and 


454       ^  D  E  F  EN  S  E     Qii.XXXI. 

and  Reaforiy  and  the  Senfe  of  the  moft  ant  tent 
JVriters,  and  Councils  of  the  Churchy  that 
the  Scholaftick  Notion  Jhould  be  true -y  and  if 
there  be  no  Medium  betwixt  (the  Scholaftick 
Notion)  and  the  Notion  of  T>r.  Clarke  (that  is 
Arianifm)  then  it  will  be  demonfirated  that 
(Arianifm)  is  the  true  T)oEirine  of  Jefiis 
Chriji  and  his  ApoflleSy  as  revealed  in  Scri- 
pture ^  and  the  true  Senfe  of  Scripture  inter- 
preted  by  right  Reajon^  and  as  under  flood  by 
the  bcft  and  mofi  antient  Chrifiian  Writers. 
This  is  your  'Demonftratiom,  only  I  have 
thrown  in  a  word  or  two,  by  way  of  Paren- 
thefis,  to  make  it  the  clearer  to  the  Reader. 
The  fumm  of  it  is  this  5  if  the  Scholaftick  No- 
tion (by  which  you  mean  Sabellianifm)  be  not 
true ;  and  if  there  be  no  Medium  between  Sa- 
bellianifm and  Arianifm-^  then  Arianifm  \% 
the  true  Dodrine,  o-'C,  That  is,  if  pdppojing 
be  proving^  and  if  begging  the  §lueftion  be  the 
.fame  thing  with  determining  it  5  then  fome- 
thing  will  be  demonftratedy  which  is. not  de- 
monftrated.  You  do  well  to  refer  us  to  your 
Appendix  for  proof,  and  to  fliift  it  off  as  far 
as  poilible.  ^emonfhations  are  good  Things, 
but  fomctimcs  very  hard  to  come  at  5  as  youll 
find  in  the  prefcnt  inftancc.  You  may  take  as 
much  time  longer,  as  you  think  proper,  to  con- 
sider of  it.  Give  me  a  "Demonftration^  juftly 
fo  called  ;  a  chain  of  clear  Rcafoning,  beginning 
from  (omc  plain  and  undoubted  Axiom,  and 
regularly  dcfccnding   by  ncceffary  Dedudions, 

or 


Qu.XXXL    of  fomeClUERlES.       485 

or  clofe  Connexion  of  I^Jeas^  till  you  come 
at  your  Conclufion,  Till  you  can  do  this,  it 
will  be  but  labour  loft,  to  endeavour  to  fliakc 
the  Recei'Ved'DoEtrine  of  the  ever  bleflcd  Tri- 
nity, For,  unlc(s  you  can  give  us  fomething 
really  Solid  and  Subftantial,  in  an  Article  of  fo 
great  Importance ,  the  Reafons  which  we 
have,  on  our  fide  of  the  Qiieftion,  are  fo 
many,  fo  plain ,  and  fo  forcible  ,  that  they 
niuft,  and  will,  and  ought  to  fway  the  Minds  of 
modcft ,  reafonable  ,  and  confcientious  Men  3 
while  the  Church  ftands,  or  the  World  lafts. 
Any  Man  that  duly  confiders  what  we  have  to 
plead  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  what  from  the 
concurring  ludgment  and  Praclice  of  the  Primi- 
tive and  Catholick  Church  \  and  reflccls  farther 
upon  the  natural  Tcndernefs  which  every  pious 
and  grateful  Mind  muft  have  for  the  Honour  of 
his  Blefled  Lord  and  Saviour,  the  Dread  and 
Horror  of  Blafphemy,  and  how  fhocking  a 
Thing  it  muft  appear  to  begin  now  to  abridge 
Him  of  that  Rcfpedl,  Service,  and  fupreme 
Adoration,  which  has  been  fo  long,  and  fo  uni- 
vcrfally  paid  Him,  and  by  the  blefled  Saints 
and  Martyrs  now  crown  d  in  Heaven ;  I  fiy, 
any  Man  that  duly  confiders  this,  will  cafily 
perceive  how  impoftible  it  is  for  Arianifyn 
ever  to  prevail  generally,  except  it  be  upon 
one  or  other  of  thefe  Suppofitions :  Either 
that  the  Age  becomes  fo  very  Ignorant  or 
Corrtipty  that  They  know  not,  or  care  not, 
what  They  do  ;  or  that  fome  nev/  Light  fpring 

up, 


484        A  DEFENSE     Qu.XXXI. 

up,  on  the  fide  of  Ariantfm,  fome  hidden  re- 
fervc  of  Extraordinary  Evidences,  fuch  as,  in 
1400  Years  Time,  the  Wit  of  Man  has  not 
been  able  to  difcover.  As  to  the  latter,  nei- 
ther your  felf,  nor  yet  the  learned  Dodor 
has  been  pleafed  to  favour  us  with  any  fuch 
Diicovery :  As  to  the  former,  I  have  too  good 
an  opinion  of  you  to  fufpeft,  that  you  can  ei- 
ther hope,  or  wifli  for  it.  You  will  have  a 
mind  to  try  what  you  can  do  :  And  fo  give  me 
leave  to  reprefent  to  you  a  fliort  Summary  of 
V'hat  we  arc  to  expeft  of  you. 

1 .  You  are  to  prove,  either  that  the  Son  is 
not  Creator ;  or  that  there  arc  two  Creators^ 
and  one  of  Them  a  Creature. 

2.  You  are  to  fliow,  either  that  the  Son  is 
noc  to  be  vjorjhifd  at  all ;  or  that  there  are 
t'uo  Objelis  of  JVorJhi^y  and  one  of  Them  a 
Creature. 

3 .  You  are  to  prove,  either  that  the  Son  is 
not  God'^  or  that  there  are  two  Godsy  and  one 
of  Them  a  Creature. 

4.  You  are  to  fhow,  that  your  Hypothejis  is 
high  enough  to  take  in  all  the  high  Titles  and  At- 
tributes afcribed  to  the  Son  in  Holy  Scripture  5 
And,  at  the  fame  time,  low  enough  to  account 
for  his  increafing  in  IVifdom,  not  knowing  the 
T)ay  of  Judgment,  His  iDcing  exceeding  forrow- 
July  trouble dy  crying  out  in  his  Agonies ^  and  the 
like.  You  arc  to  make  all  to  meet  in  the  one 
Aoy^,  or  fFord'y  or  elfe  to  mend  your  Scheme 
by  borrowing  from  ours. 

I  5-  I. 


Qu.XXXI.  of  fome  QUE  KIES.  '  485 
5.  I  muft  add ;  that,  whatever  you  undertake, 
you  are  either  to  prove  it  with  fuch  Strength, 
Force,  and  Evidence,  as  may  be  fufficient  to 
bear  up  againft  the  Stream  of  Antiquity,  full 
and  (trong  againft  you ;  or  elfe  to  fhow  that 
Antiquity  has  been  much  mifunderftood,  and  is 
not  full  and  ftrong  againft  you. 

Now  you  fee,  what  you  have  to  do;  and 
our  Readers,  perhaps,  may  underftand  what 
we  are  talking  about,  the  Duft  being,  I  hope, 
in  fome  meafure  thrown  off,  and  the  Caufe 
open'd.  Now  proceed,  as  you  think  proper : 
Only  difpute  fair ;  drop  ambiguous  Terms,  or 
define  Them  5  put  not  grofs  Things  upon  us ; 
contemn  every  Thing  but  Truth  in  the  fcarch 
after  Truth ;  and  keep  clofe  to  the  Qucftion  : 
And  then  it  will  foon  be  feen,  whether  y^r/- 
anifmy  or  Catholicifm,  is  the  Scripture-ID o- 
Urine  of  the  Trinity. 

There  remain  only  two  ^erieSy  which  I 
have  any  concern  in;  and  I  hardly  think  it 
needful  to  take  farther  notice  of  them,  the 
Subftance  of  them  being  contained  in  the  for- 
mer: Befides  that  this  TDefenfe  being  drawn 
out  into  a  length  beyond  what  I  expefted,  I 
am  willing  to  come  to  a  Conclufion.  You'll 
excufe  me  for  not  returning  a  particular  Anfwer 
to  your  Queries,  having  obviated  all  that  is  of 
weight  in  Them,  in  this  "Defenfe  of  my  own. 
Befides,  you  have  now  had  fome  Years  to  con- 
fider  this  Subjed,  and  may  probably  fee  reafon 
to  alter  fome  Things ;  tocontradt  your  juries 

into 


485       ^DEFENSE      QU.XXXI, 

into  a  fhortcr  Compafs,  and  to  put  them  clofer 
and  ftronger ,  Tho'  that  part,  1  think,  fliould 
come,  after  you  have  made  a  'T>efenfe  of  your 
own  Principles :  Otherwife,  you  know,  it  is 
nothing  but  finding  faults,  without  propofing 
any  way  to  mend  Them ;  which  is  only  a  work 
of  Fancy,  and  is  both  fruitlefs,  and  endlefs. 
My  defign  chiefly  was  to  be  upon  the  Offen- 
Jive :  The  T>efenfive  Part,  on  our  fide,  has 
been  handled  over  and  over,  in  Books  well 
known,  and  eafy  to  be  had.  What  was  moft 
wanting  was,  to  point  out  the  particular  De- 
fcds  of  Dr.  Clarke's  Scheme,  which  was  thought 
to  contain  fomething  new  y  and  was  certainly 
fct  forth  in  a  very  new  Method. 

In  Conclufion,  give  me  leave  to  tell  you,  that 
I  have  entered  into  this  Caufe  (after  a  compe- 
tent weighing  what  I  could  meet  with,  oa 
cither  fide)  under  a  full  Convidion  both  of  the 
Truth  and  Importance  of  it ;  and  with  a  Refo- 
lution  (by  God's  Afliftance)  to  maintain  it; 
till  I  fee  Reafon  (which  I  defpair  of)  to  alter 
my  Judgment  of  it.  Make  you  the  beft  you 
can  of  your  fide  of  the  Queftion,  in  a  rational 
and  fair  manner.  Truth  is  what  I  fincerely 
aim  at,  whether  it  be  on  your  fide ,  or  on 
mine.  But  I  may  be  allowed  to  fpcak  with  the 
greater  Confidence  in  this  Caufe,  fince  the  Con- 
trovcriy  is  not  new,  but  has  been  exhaufl:ed 
long  ago  ',  and  all  had  been  done  on  your  Side, 
tliar  the  Wit  of  Man  could  do,  long  before  ei- 
ther You,   or  Dr.  Clarke  appeared  in  it.     You 

may. 


Q11.XXXI.    of  fame  QUERIES.       4S7 

may,  if  you  pleafe,  travcrfe  over  again  Scri- 
pture ^  Antiquity  y  and  Reafon,  As  to  the 
firft  5  all  the  Texts  you  can  pretend  to  bring 
againft  us,  have  been  wcigh'd  and  coniidcr'd ; 
and  we  have  Solutions  ready  for  them ;  while 
you  are  yet  to  feck  how  to  give  a  tolerable 
Account  of  feveral  Texts ;  thofe ,  elpccially, 
which  declare  the  Unity  of  God,  and  proclaim 
the  Son  to  be  Gody  Creator,  and  Object  of 
Worjhip  and  Adoration,  If  you  proceed  to 
Fathers,  They  (land  pointed  againft  you  ;  and 
you  are  certain  to  expofe  your  Caufe,  as  often 
as  you  hope  for  any  Relief  or  Succour  from 
Them.  If  laftly  (which  you  think  your  ftrong- 
eft  Hold)  you  retire  to  Thilofophy  and  Meta- 
phyficksy  I  humbly  conceive,  you  will  ftill  be 
able  to  do  nothing.  It  will  be  only  falling  to 
ConjeBiirey  after  you  fail  of  Troof,  and  giv- 
ing the  World  your  WijloeSy  when  They  look'd 
for  T^emonjlrations.  I  do  not  cxped  you 
fhould  believe  one  Word  of  what  I  have  now 
faid  ;  neither  fay  I  it  to  difcourage  any  rational 
Inquiries ;  let  Truth  have  its  utmoft  Trial,  that 
it  may  afterwards  Shine  out  with  greater  Luftre  : 
Only  let  not  your  Zeal  out-run  your  'Proofs. 
If  your  Arguments  have  Weight  fufficicnt  to 
carry  the  Point  with  Men  of  Scnfe,  let  us  have 
Them  in  their  full  Strength ;  all  reafonable 
Men  will  thank  you  for  Them.  But  if,  failing 
in  Troofy  you  Ihould  condcfcend  (which  yet  I 
am  perfuadedyou  will  not)  to  Wile  and  Stra- 
tagem, to  Colours  and  Difguifcs,  to  Mifrcprc- 

fcntation 


4S8    ^  D  E  F  E  N  S  E,  d^'^.  Qu.XXXI. 

fcntation  and  Sophiftry,  in  hopes  to  work  your 
way  througli  the  unlearned  and  unthinking  Part 
of  the  World  5  Then  let  me  affure  you  before- 
hand, that  That  Method  will  not  do.  Every 
Man,  that  has  a  Spark  of  generous  Fire  left, 
will  rife  up  againfl:  fuch  Pradices  ;  and  be  filled 
with  Difdain  to  fee  Parts  and  Learning  fo  pro- 
ftituted,  and  Readers  fo  ufed. 


I  am  Sir,  yaur 
Friend  and  Servant. 


POST- 


4?! 


POSTSCRIPT. 

To  the  Firft  EDITION. 

I  Have  juft  run  over  the  Second  Edition  of 
Dr.  Clarke's  Script iire-T> ocirine  \    where 
1  obferve,    that  mod  of  the  Paflages,  which  I 
have  anhnadvcrtcd  upon,     (land  as  They  did, 
without     any     Corredion    or     Amendment. 
Where  the  Doftor  has  attempted  any  Thing, 
which  may   feem   to  weaken   the  Force    of 
what  I  have  offer'd  above,    I  fliall  here  take 
notice  of  it.       I  had  noted    (as  the  learned 
Mr.  Welchman  had  done  before  me)  the  Do* 
ftor's  unfair  manner  of  fupprelling  fome  Words 
of  Chryfoftom,  which  were  neccflary  to  let  the 
Reader  into  the  Author's  true  meaning.    The 
Dodor  here  endeavors  *  to  bring  Himfcif  off, 
by  faying,    that  the  Words  left  out  are  Chry- 
fofioms   o^jvn  hiferencey    and  7wt  the  Expli- 
cation of  the  Words  of  the  Text      But  the 
Truth  is  5   Chryfojloms  Inference  fhows  plainly 


♦  Pag.  92. 

K  k 


what 


4*o      TosrscRi'pr. 

what  his  Explication  of  the  Text  was  5  which 
Explication  reprefented  feparately  without  that 
Inferencey  by  the  Help  of  the  Dodor  prefacing 
it,  was  made  to  appear  in  another  Light,  and 
to  fpeak  another  Scnfe  than  what  the  Author 
intended.  One  in  Tower  [k^  c^uva[j.iv)  is  the 
fame,  with  Chryfoftomy  as  eq^iial  in  Power  or 
AbiUty,  and  ejfentially  fo.  He  could  never 
have  imagined,  that  one  in  Tower  fliould  fignify 
no  more  than  the  Doftor  pretends.  One  having 
infinite  and  the  other  only  finite  Power,  could 
not,  according  to  Chryfofiomy  be  properly 
faid  to  be  one,  v^  c'uya/jiiv,  in  Tower,  His 
Interpretation  then,  being  not  only  different 
but  contrary  to  the  Doctor's,  fhould  not  have 
been  reprefented  in  fuch  a  Manner  (by  fup- 
prcfling  a  part  of  it)  as  to  be  made  to  appear 
to  countenance  a  Notion  which  it  clearly  con- 
trad  ids. 

The  learned  Dodor  *  has  put  in  an  Expla- 
natory Tarenthefis  to  his  Tranflation  of  a 
Pafiage  of  Ire?i£us.  I  have  took  notice  ^  a- 
bovc  that  He  had  not  done  ]uftice  to  Ire- 
nfcus,  in  that  Paffage :  And  I  am  glad  to  find 
that  the  Dodor  Himfelf  is  now  fcnfible  of  it. 
He  has  not  yet  come  up  to  the  full  Senfc  of 
the  Author  5  as  you  may  perceive,  by  com- 
paring v/hat  He  hath  faid  with  what  I  have 
remark'd  above.  But  He  has  faid  as  much  as 
cojld  be  expeded  of  Him :-    The  wifer  way 

*  P-^i?'  94.  I  Pag,  450. 

would 


"POSTSCRITT.  491 
would  have  been,  to  have  ftruck  the  Quotation 
out  of  his  Book. 

Pag.  248.  The  learned  Dodor  Criticizes  a 
Paliage  of  St.  Auftin',  which  I  am  oblia;cd  to 
take  notice  of,  having  made  ufe  of  that  Palfagc 
in  thefe  Sheets  * :  I  will  give  you  the  Do- 
dor's  ov/n  Words,  that  you  may  be  the  better  able 
to  judge  of  the  Matter.  After  He  had  cited 
feveral  Pad  ages  out  of  Jujlin  Martyr^  where, 
probably ,  Jujlin  was  fpeaking  of  the  Tem- 
porary -nr^EXsuTi-r,  or  Manifejlation^  or  Ge- 
neration of  God  the  Son,  He  proceeds  thus. 
*'  Note:  In  all  thefe  Paflages,  the  words  v^ 
"  /BsXviV,  and  /B^Xn ,  and  ^eX/iVcj,  and  c/uva/^c!:,  fignity 
"  evidently,  not  %;olente,  but  voluntate  >  not 
"  the  mere  Approbation^  but  the  A^  of  the 
"  Will.  And  therefore  St.  Aujlin  is  very  nn- 
"  fair,  when  He  confounds  thefe  t^^v  Things, 
"  and  asks  {utrum  Tater  fit  T>euSy  Volens 
"  an  Nolens)  whether  the  Father  Himfelf  be 
^'  God,  with  or  without  his  own  J  Fill?  The 
"  Anfwer  is  clear :  He  is  God  [Volens)  with 
"  the  Approbation  of  his  Will;  but  not  volun- 
"  tate,  not  y(^  jSbXyiv,  not  3«>^^^  ^^-Xn'^^,  and 
"  c^uvdiJLi^  not  bv  an  A^  of  his  Will,  but  by 
"  Neceffity  of  Nature,  Thus  far  the  learned 
Doaor.  "This  is  ftrange  Mifrcprefcntation.  I 
pafs  by  his  Mifconftrudion  of  Jujlin  Martyr^ 
and  his  Infinuation  (grounded  upon  it)  that 
the  Son  became  GW,  by  an  Act  of  the  Father's 

»  Pa?.  126. 

K  k  z  Jrdi, 


492       TOSTSCRITT. 

IVtlL     Admitting  it  were  fo ;  how  is  St.  Auftin 
conccnVd   in  this  Matter,    and  how  comes  in 
the  Doclor's  Therefore^  where  there  is  no  man- 
ner of  Connexion  ?  Was  St.  Aujlin  Comment- 
ing upon    Jiifiin    Martyr^     The    Dodor's 
Thought  fcems  to  have  been  this:    That  St. 
Aiiftiny  having  admitted  that  the  Son  was  God 
by  an  AB  of   the  Fathers  Willy   and  being 
prefs  d  with  the  difficulty  arifing  from  that  Sup- 
pofition,   had  no  way  of  coming  oflf,   but  by 
asking,  whether  the  Father  Himfelf  was  not 
Godhy  his  own  IVill,     If  this  was  not  the  Do- 
dors  Thought,    it  is  at  lead:  what  his  Readers, 
very  probably,    will   have,     upon  the  reading 
the  Dodor's  Note.    But  to  clear  up  this  Matter, 
ril  tell  you  the  whole  Cafe.     The  ArimSy  for- 
merly, as  well  as  now,    being  very  defirous  to 
make  a  Creatttre  of  God  the  Son,    fet  their 
Wits  to  work  to  find  Arguments  for  it.     They 
had  a  great  mind  to  bring  the  CathoUcks  to 
admit  that  tlie  Son  was  firft  produced,  or  gene- 
rated,   by  an  AB  of   the   Father's   JVill  (in 
the  Senfe  of  free  Ckoice)  and  the  Confequence 
They  intended  from   it,    was,    that  the  Son 
was  a  Creature,     The  CathoUcks  would  not 
admit  their  Tofliilattim  without  Proof;    and 
fo  the  Avians  attempted  to  prove  it  thus,  by  a 
T^lleamia,     The  Father  begat  his  Son,   either 
NolenSy    or  Volens  -,  againfl  his  Will,  or  with 
,  his  Will:  It  could  not  be /^^^/>//?  his  Will,  that 
is  abfurd ;  therefore  it  muft  be  with  his  Will', 
therefore  that  Aci  of  the  Will  was  precedent 
I  to 


"POSTSCRITT,       493 

to  the  Son's  Exiftence,  and  the  Father  prior  to 
the  Son.     Here  the  Doftor  may  fee,  who  the 

Men  were  that  firfl:  confounded  two  diftind 
Things,  mere  Approbation,  and  an  Act  of  the 
iVdl:  Not  the  acute  St.  Auftiyi,  not  the  Ca- 
tholicks':,  hmxhz  Arians,  To  proceed  :  The 
"^  Catholicksj  ^^x{\zu\:it\y  Athanajitis  ^  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  St.  Au- 
Jlin  (Men  of  excellent  Senfe,  and  who  knew 
how  to  talk  perthiently)  eafiiy  contrived  to 
baffle  their  Adverfaries  with  their  own  Wea- 
pons. Tell  us,  fay  They  to  the  Arians,  whether 
the  Father  be  GW,  Nolens,  or  Volens ;  againfl 
his  Will,  or  with  his  Will.  This  quite  con- 
founded the  Men,  and  their  'Dilemma  \  and 
They  had  not  a  word  to  fiy  more.  For,  if 
They  had  faid  Nolens,  againfl  his  IFill-,  that 
was  manifeftly  abfurd  :  If  They  had  faid  VolenSy 
isjith  his  Willi,  then,  by  their  own  Argument, 
They  made  the  Father /^mr  to  Himfelf  The 
Dodor  perhaps  might  have  help'd  Them  out. 
Let  us  fee  then :  The  Anfwer,  He  fays,  is  clear. 
But  what  is  clear  ?  Does  He  imagine  there  was 
any  difficulty  in  anfwering  St.  Aufliiis  Que- 
ftion ,  taken  by  it  felf?  This  required  no 
Oedipus-,  Any  Man  might  readily  anfwer  it: 
But  the  difficulty  was  for  an  Ariaii  to  make 
an  Anfwer,  which  fliould  not  recoil  upon  Him- 
felf    Let  us  take  the  Doctor's  Anfwer,  and  ob- 

*  Athanaf. Graf.  ^.  p. 610,611.  Gregory  Nazianz.  Orat.  ^f. 
p.  5-65-,  5-66.  Cyri].  Alexandr.  Thefaur.  p.  5-0,  yz.  Auguft. 
Tom.8.  p.  616,994.  Ed.Bcncd. 

Kk  3  fcrvc 


494       TOSTSCRI'PT. 

ferve  whether  it  could  be  of  ufc.  T^e  Father^ 
favf  He,  is  God  iz:ith  the  Approbation  of  his 
Will  ( Volens )  not  by  an  Act  of  his  Will. 
But  if  an  Arian  formerly  had  thus  anfwer'd  St. 
A'^fiin,  it  would  have  made  the  good  Fath^ 
fmile.  For,  He  would  immediately  have  re- 
plied :  Vv^ell  then :  fo  the  Father  had  his  Son 
(Volens)  <iLith  the  Approbation  of  his  Willy 
2x\di  not  by  an^c^of  hhlFill:  And  now  what 
becomes  of  your  T>ilemma,  and  your  Nolens 
Volens  ?  What  could  the  Arian  have  pretend- 
ed farther,  except  it  were  to  perfifl:  in  it,  that 
the  Son  >■  'as  God  by  an  A5i  of  the  Will  ?  To 
which  it  would  be  readily  anfwer'd,  that  this 
Was  begging  the  Queftion :  and  fo  the  whole 
mud  have  ended.  Judge  you  now,  whether 
the  Dodor  or  St.  Auflifi  had  the  greater  Acu- 
men in  this  Mattel?  5  and  which  of  them  is  moft 
apt  to  be  'very  unfair^    and  to  confound  diftinft 


liiuizs. 

0 

ERR  A  TA. 

Pag. 

Line 

for 

read 

ii 

3^ 

^«/. 

^i!S 

24. 

24 

Tactitorcs 

Faclttatorei. 

S8 

?3 

fs 

ejfe 

i)'i 

l'- 

iiyj'} 

ux'^v 

i6\ 

31 

ToifJij^rUjiVOV 

znyj-7r,:ut:'Voy 

198 

3f 

tXktjOJv 

iXA^VUV 

434 

3^ 

itc-i'-. 

iwi<i 

43^ 

3° 

a-wr^B-if/yiyav 

(T'JVTiB'if/jiyXV 

TEXTS 


TEXTS  o/SCRIPTURE 

Illuftrated  and  Eplained. 


Exodus. 

Chap.     Fer.  Pag- 

VI.         ^,"6i,^c. 

Isaiah. 


XLTIT.  10. 

XLIV.  S 

XLV.  f 

XLVI.  9 

XLVIII.  II. 


7^ 


St.  Matthew. 
XXVIII.     1 8. •  P4 

St.]  OH  N. 


I. 

V. 

IT 

xvu. 


I. 66 

ip. 2.8f 

25. -^79 

30. 160 


1  C  O  R. 
VIII.  6.    S 


Gal. 

IV.         8. 
Ephes. 


I. 

IV. 


21. 
6. 


370 


P4 
8 


Philip. 

r   16 
II.  6-   \,jo 

Hebr. 


I. 


8. 
K  k  4 


5. —  18,20 

8,V f<5 

10.  Pf 

THE 


THE 


INDEX 

Of  Principal  Matters. 


^  A  ^o^^tio"  fi^  Worfhip. 

JiX,     Ante-Nicene  Writers,    include  the  Son  in 

the  One  God.  Page  iz 

ad?nit  no  inferior  God.  f4 

difown  Creature- Worship.  248 

Arians  conceal  their  Heretical  Tenets  under  Catholick 

Terms.  izf^iof 

are  afraid  to  exprefs  their  Notions  c\t^x\y.  203 

■ ~  have  more  Difficulties  to  get  over  than  the 

Cutholicks.  1685171,176,217,3^5 

the  Portions  of  fome  or  other  of  them  in  ; 


fpecl  of  the  Son.  220 

*-  the  Methods  they  made  ufe  of  to  propagate 

their  llerefy.  222 

hoiv  far  they  agree  with^  or  differ  from^  the 


Sabdlians.  ^        3^5* 

mifieprefent  the  Catholick  Do6lrine.  303 

heir  Notions  of  the  Trinity  not  more  intelligi- 


ble/i?^/^//;^  C^/ZW/Vi^.  34f 

Siippofing  the  Cafe  doubtful^  not  on  fo  late  a 


SideastheCatholicks.  47  f 

What  is  requifite  to  defend  their  Scheme.    48 


Ariminum  (the  Council  of)  vainly  oppofed  to  the  Ccun- 
'  cil  of  Nice.  '    468 

Article  6  before  ©ao?,  the  Addition  or  O  miff  on  of  it 
makes  no  Alteration  in  the  Sen(e  of  the  Word,         67 

St,  Ath'^n^ifms  cited  and  explained.  •     ipp 

Attri- 


rije     INDEX. 

Attributes  applied  to  the  Son^  fuchascan  belong  to  nn 
Creature.  Pag.   po 

ftri^lly  Divine  and  Infinite,  P  j 

St.  Aullin  vindicated.  491 

Author  and  Governor  of  the  Univerfc,  Whofoever  is 

fo^  is^  in  the  Arian  Notion^  allowed  to  be  God.     7  j 

B. 

Being,  The  Word  bears  two  Senfes.  1 67,  j  18 
How  diftinguiJJfd  from  Perfon,  when  appli- 
ed to  the  Trinity.  2  iS 
JVhether  there  can  be  any  Medium   between 


a  Being  and^ox.'x  Being.  166 

Bull  (Bp.)  His  Method  of  managing  Controverfy 

Pr.  IV.  8cc. 
The  Sum  of  the  Queflion  between  him  and  the 

Arians.  40^ 

Characlerifticks  0/  the  true  God  applied  to  the  Son.  po 
Christ  under  flood  by  the  Ancients  to  be  meant  i}t> 
thofe  Texts  which  undoubtedly  [peak  of  the  one  Su- 
preme God.  *28 
■              fpake  to  the  Jews  in  his  own  Perfon,   when 
he  ajfum'd  the  Titles  of  the  Supreme  God.  3  j 
Caird  God  in  Scripture  in  as  high  a  Senfe  as 


the  Father  Himfelf.  fj 

caird  Jehovah  in  his  own  Perfon.  f p 

prov'd  to  be  God  from  his  being  the  Object  of 


Religious  Worflnp.  zf^ 

prov'd  to  be  God  by  Nature.  ^jz 


Clemens  of  Alexandra  cited  and  vindicated.  1 10 

Co-eternity  of  the  Logos  with  the  Father  aj/ertcd  by 

the  Antients.  145 

Confubftantiahtyc//^^  Son  with  the  F-Athcr.^  how  e^ 

luded  by  the  Arians,  and  how  ajfcrtedby  the  Antients. 

578 

Creation., 


The    INDEX. 

Creation, /Z'^  Scrip  are  Meaning  of  the  Word.  Pag.  ip4 
Creation  of  the  Univerfe,  attributed  to  the  Son  as 

much  as  to  the  Father.  i8i 

■  implies  an  infinite  Power.  ipo 

Creature,  the  Son  ajferted  to  be  uncreated  impUcitely 

and  confequentially  by  the  Holy  Scripures.  i  ^6 

■'  "The  fame  affirmed  direSily  by  many  of  the  An- 

tients.  Ip7 

"Tloat  he  was  created,  mt  affrm'dor  fuppos'd 


by  Origen.  ibid. 

No  Medi  urn  between  being  a  Creature  and  be- 


ing efTentially  God.  2oS 

D. 

Divine  Attributes  and  Powers  attributed  to  the  Son, 
by  Dr,Q\^vkt  z;^^;^  equivocating  Senfe.  ijy 

Divinity,  How  abfurdly  afcrib'^d  to  Chrift  by  the 
Arians.  Pr.  xi 

Dominion,  not  the  full  import  of  the  Word  God.  48,f  i 

Doxologies  of  the  Ancient  Church,  what  'Judgment 
to  be  made  of  them,  16 1 


Mr.  Emlyn  noted  pf,  loi,  187?  3^4?  4^  5- 

Eternity,  a  difin^HdeafromNeccfTury'Exiilcncc.i  1 1 

How  abus'd  when  attributed  to  the  Son  by  Dr. 

Clarke.  ^i^ 

Eternity  of  the  Son,  defer  ibed  in  Scripture  by  the  fame 
Phrafes  as  that  of  the  Father.  115 

Ayid  therefore  the  Scripture  Proof  of  the  Fa- 

therV  Eternity  given  up  by  the  Arians  to  avoid  that  of 
the  Son's.  nf 

IFhetherthe  Son's  Eternity  be  mcc^^yy  to  his. 


Office  and  Chara6fer.  117 

;w/>/?>j?/7^*S'o;^/^^^nece{rarily-Exiilent.  123 


Eufcbius  cited,  and  explained,        1 8, 22, 85, 1 8  3 , 1 8p 

Fathers, 


The     INDEX. 

F. 

Fathers,  Several  Points  inftanc'd  in  which  they  are 
againft  the  Avians.  Pag.  jp? 

—  How  cited  and  ynade  ufe  of  by  Dr.  Clarke.       41  r 

fFbat  ufe  to  be  made  of  them  in  Contr  over  fie  s.  4f  5 

Hhe  Advantage  of  a  Caufe  that  has  them  on  jt's 

Side.  4r6 

G. 

Generation  of  the  Son,  a  threefold  one  ajferted  by  the 
Ancients^  and  how  difiingui/lfd.  1 34 

'  They  who  ajfert  //:;i?Gcncration  ofthel^o^os.,  or  his 
Filiation  to  have  been  temporary  j  yet  affert  his  Exill- 
ence  to  have  been  co-eternal  with  the  FathcrV.    1 45* 

—  How  far  an  explicit  Profcflion  of  the  Son's  etcr- 
nal  Generation  may  be  difpens'd  with.  \6l 

God,  TVhat  the  I Vord  implies.  yo 

Not  merely  Ychtive.  47 

deJwtesSubWance^  ^///^^«£^/ Dominion  only.      84 

. Hi  Nature  or  EfTence  denied  Z'^z/j^Eunomians 

and  frme  of  the  Arians  to  be  above  Human  Compre- 
henjion.  307 

H. 

Hypoftafis,  In  what  Senfe  the  ancient  CathoUcks  pro- 
fefs'd  three  Hypoftafes  or  one  only.  3  5- 1 

I. 

Jehovah,  Chrifi  fo  calVd  in  his  own  Perfon.         fr> 

J^hat  the  JVord  ftgnifies.  6z 

■  T'he  incom/nunicable  Name  of  the  one  true  God.  6  f 
Ignatius  cited  and  explained.  119 

Individual,  whether  any  thing  individual  can  be  com- 

municated.  1 7  r 

Iren^us,  whether  he  can  be  under  flood  to  afcribe  Igno- 

ranee  to  the  Son.  102 

]\idgmtnt  committed  to  the  Son^  not  the  fole  Foundation 

of  his  Honour.  279 

Jultin  Martyr  explain' d.  131,  \^z 

y  Meta- 


The    INDEX. 

M. 

Mctaphyficks,  the  Catholkks  im'ongfully  charged  with 

the  Ahufe  of  the?n,  Pag.  300,  325 

Mylteries,  what  meant  by  believing  them,  308 

N. 

NccefTary  Agency  no  Abfurdity.  1(^4 

Ncceffary  Exigence,  a  diftinbl  Idea  from  Self-Exifl- 

cviCQ^  and  from  Yjttxmty.  izz 

■         An  EJfential  Character  of  God .  371 

Nominal  God,  Chnji  not  excluded  fromWov{hip  a- 

mong  the  Nominal  Gods.  7 

Novatian,  on  the  Catholic k  Side.  i } 

^''--' His  Ex  plication  of  Philip  ii.  6.  14 

— His  Belief  of  Chrifi's  Eternity,  1 3  7 

O. 

'O^  (The' Article)  before  Bih  makes  no  Alteration  in  ihs 

Senfeof  the  fFord.  ^7 

Omnifcicncc  of  the  Son,  as  infinite  as  the  Fathefs.  1 00 

afferted  by  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  1 09 

'O.uobVi©',  What  the  Word  exprejfes.  45p 

One  God         "^  not  afcribed  to  the  Father^  in  oppojiti^ 
or  f     on  to^nor  exclufi'ue  of^the  Son^either 

Only  true  God  r"     in  the  Scripture^  or  by  the  Ancients, 
J  8,12 

Origen'i  Orthodoxy  ajfextedand vindicated,    i  ^7,  if o, 

2f8 

P 

Vox^owaniYitixvg^ho'Wthey  differ^  'when  applied  to  the 
Trinity.  318 

Pcrfonality  of  the  Son^  whilfi  in  and  with  the  Father^ 
and  before  his  temporary  Generation^  ajferted  by  the 
Ancients.  147 

Priority  of  the  Father';  Order,  does  not  imply  that  the 

Son 


The    INDEX. 

Son  is  a  fubordinace  God .  Pag.  7 1 


Sabcllianifin,  How  far  it  agrees  vjith^  and  differs  from 
Arianifm.  ^^^ 


T'be  Medium  between  that  and  Trithcifm, 


->  •> 


Self-Exiftcnce,  a  difith^  Idea  /;'(?;«  Neccfliiry- Ex lil- 
ence,  and  from  ^zcrmty.  iii 

^  Perfonal,  not  an  EfTcntial  Chara^ler  of  God.  yj  i 

Semi- Arianifm  perfe^  Nonfenfe  and  ContradiBiou.ii^ 

Subordination/;^  Order,  does  not  imply  an  Inferiority 

of  Nature.  2p8 

Subordinate  God,  7'he Abfurdity  of  callingChrifi fo. 

He  being  not  fubordinate  in  Nature  or  Power, 
but  only  in  Order.  18  j 

Subftance,  not  join* d  w///:'  relative  Terms,  'wben  un-^ 
der flood  of  any  thing  extrinfick.  49 

One  Divine  Subfcance,  and  not  three ^  profefsd  by 

the  ancient Catholicks.  Jfi 

Supreme  God,  Chrifi  fo^  or  not  God  at  all.  4 

Supremacy  in  Order  confiflent  ivitb  Equality  of  Na- 
ture, zpo 
T. 

Time,  The  Word  ufed  by  Dr.  Clarke  and  the  Arians 
in  an  eqiiivo eating  Senfe.  1 1  j* 

Trinity  m  Unity,  How  far  the  N'ot ion  of  it  is  capa- 
ble of  Explanation.  J  21 

The  Modus  of  it  not  to  be  too  curioujly  enquired 

into.  ibid. 

Tritheiftn,  The  Charge  of  it  removed  from  the  Catho- 
licks. 304^331 
fix'd  upon  /.^^  A r i ans .  5^7 

The  Medium  between  that  and  Sabcllianifm .  351 

The  Senfe  of  the  antient  Fathers  in  relation  to  it. 

Two 


Tfoe    INDEX. 

Two  Gods,   lHoe  Confequence  of  the  Arian  Schema. 

Pag.  80 
U. 

Unity  of  Godhead,  not  to  be  inferred  from  Unity  of 
Authority.  7P 

Cant  be  ajfertedbut  upon  an  Equality  of  Nature, 

and  Unity  of  Principle.  3  ^p 

Unity  of  Fat  her  and  Son,  in  'what  Senfe  defended  by  the 
Antients.  x6i 

W. 

Whitby  (Dr.)  An  Inflance  of  his  unfair  Dealing  in 
his  Authorities.  151 

—  Short  Strictures  upon  his  Modeft  Difquifitions, 

3PP 

His  Notion  of  Myfieries  expos' d^  6cc.  308 

Will,  and  Arbitrary  W  ill  difiinU  things,  118 

■  How  the  Son  maybe  faid  to  have  been  begotten 
with  the  Will  of  the  Father.  1 26,  49 1 

Worfhip  (Religious)  appropriated  to  the  Supreme  God 
only,  in  Scripture.  119 

No  Diftin^ionin  Scripture  between  abfolute  and 
m^QYiox  IVorflnp.  235^ 

— —  T^he  fame  prov'd  from  the  Practice  of  the  Primi- 
tive Martyrs.  244 

And  from  the  Dotlrine  oftheknti^xxi  Church  247 

■  That  Religious  TVorfinp  is  due  to  Chiiik^  prov'd 

ffOrn  Scripture.  ifz 

—  Upon  what  Principles  given  hifn  by  the  Primitive 
Chriftians.  %--■'  if  6 

How  the  irorfoippaidto  the  Son  terminates  in  the 
Father.  z6z 

Due  to  him  as  CYcator  and  PvcCcyvcy  of  the  Uni- 
vcrfe^  ajid  before  the  Commencingof  hi$  Mediatori- 
al Kingdom.  Z87 

FINIS. 


BOOKS  Printed  for,    and  Sold  by  C  o  r- 
neliusCrownfield,  z\. Cambridge. 

CJuIii  Cxfaris  qux  cxftant  Omnia.  Ex  Ktccn^ioxizjoamu  TDa- 
.  vijii,  cam  ejufdcm  Animadverlionibus  ac  Notis  Pet.  Cucconii, 
Fr.  Hotomanni,  Joan.  Brantii,  Dionyf.  VolTii  &  aliorum.  Accd- 
fere  Metaphralis  Graeca  Librorum  vii.  De  BelloGallico,  ncc  noa 
Indices  necefl'arii.     Quarto  1706. 

M.  Minucii  Felicis  Oftavius,  ex  iterata  Reccnfionc  Joatmit  IM- 
vifiiy  cum  cjufdem  Animadverlionibus,  ac  Notis  Intcgris  Del'.  Hc- 
raldi  8c  Nic.  Rigaltii,  necnon  Seledis  aliorum.  Acccdit  Commo- 
dianus,  ^vi  Cyprianici  Scriptor,  cum  Obicrvationibus  antchac  Edi- 
tis,  aliifque  nonnullis,  quse  jam  primum  prodcunt.  Oci»ve^  1712. 

M.  TuUii  Ciccronis  de  Natura  Deorum  libri  Tres,  Cum  notis  in- 
tcgris Pauli  Manucii,  Petri  Vi(5torii,  JoachimiCaraerarii,DionyC 
Lambini,  ScFulv.Urrmi.  Recenfuit,  liiifque  Animadverlionibus  IJ- 
luftravitac  ^m:!iCu\vf\tyoanms  Davijiusy  L.  L.D.  ColLRegin.Cantab. 
Magiftcr,  &  Canonicus  Elienlis.  Accedunt  Emendationes  Ci.yoMmts 
U'dkeri.  h.U.CoW.Tnn.  SocVi.     Ociazo,  1718. 

La6lantii  Firmiani  Epitome  Divinarum  Inllirutionum  ad  Pcntadf- 
um  Fratrcm.  Eam  ei:  vetuftillimo  MS'**  Taurinenli  nuper  cditam 
recenfuit,  &c  fuis  animadverlionibus  illuflravit,  ac  emcndavit 
Joannes  Davi/iusy  Juris  &;  Theologije  Dodor,  C.  R.  C.  M.  C.  E. 
OBavoy   17  iS. 

Suidx  Lexicon,  Gracce  8c  Latine.  Texrum  Gnccum  cum  xManu- 
fcriptis  Codicibus  coilatum  a  quamplunmis  mendis  purgav.'t,  Notif- 
queperpetuis  illuftravit:  Vcrlionem  Latinam  itmilii  Porti  innumcris 
in  locis  correxit  ■-,  Indicefque  Aucftorum  &:  Rerum  adjecit  Ludd^fjut 
Kuflerus,  Profclfor  humaniorum  literarum  in  Gymnafio  Regio  Bc- 
r-olinenfi.     5  Vol.  Folio,  1710. 

C.  Crifpi  Sal'uftii  quce  extant  j  cum  Notis  Inte^ris  Glareani,  Ri- 
vii,Ciacconii,Gruteri,  Carrionis.Manutii,  Putfchii.Doufxj  Selcdiis 
CaftilioneijC.&A.  Popmx,  Palmcni,  Urlini,  J.Fr.Gronovii.Vidoni, 
tkc  Accedunt  Julius  Exfuperantius,  Porcius  Latro :  8c  Fragmcnta 
Hilloricorum  Vctt.  cum  Notis  A.  Popm^  Recenfuit.  Noras  pcr- 
petuas,  8c  Indices  adjecit  Jofephus  IVaJfe  Coil.  Rcgin.  apud  Cantab. 
Sociusi  8c  NobiliiT.  Marchioni  de  Kent  a  Sacris  Domellicis.  Prz- 
mittirur  Salluftii  Vira,  Audorc  V.  Cl.yoxnncClcr'tco.Qn^x^o,  1 7  i o. 
Emendationes  in  Menandri  8c  Philemoais  Reliquias,  ex  nupcra 
l^ixnoxxefoMmtsChrici:  Ubi  multa  Grotii  8c  aliorum,  plurima  vc- 
ro  Clerici  errata  calliganuir.  Audiorc  PhtleUuthero  Ltj)/ieti/i.  ScriptJC 
AnnoMDccx.  Acccdit  Epiftola  Critica  R/r/r;?r«//i  lief'tla  de  Joanne 
Maleh  Antiocheno  j  Scripta  Anno mdcxcii.  Editio  Altera  Emcnda- 
tior.     OBavo,    1713. 

Q^Horatius  Flaccus  cd  nuperam  RicharJi  B'nilct't  Editioncm  accu- 
rate exprelTus.  Notas  Zi\i}i\C\\\.Thomas  Bcmlcttis,  A.  B.  Collegu  S.Tri- 
pitatis apud  Cantabrigienfcs  Aluuinus.    Ociavo ,  1-13. 


Oi6(ppii-ii  XxfxKTtifBi;  U^tice;.  Theophra/ii  Charadleres  EthicL 
Grarce  5c  Latinc.  Cum  Nods  ac  Emendationibus  Jiaaci  Cafauboni 
ScAliorum.  Accedunt  Jacobi  Duporti  Prxleftiones  jam  primum 
Editse.  Grxca.  cum  vctuftiffimis  MSS.  collata  recenfuit,  &  Notas 
adjecit  Tet.  Needham,  S.  T.  P.  Coll.  Div.  Johan.  Cantab.  Socius. 
Oclavo,  1 7  I  3 . 

Beinardi  VareniiGeographiaGeneralis,  in  qua affedtiones  genera- 
cs  Teliuris  explicantur.  Adje6ia  eft  Appendix,  prxcipua  Recentio- 
irum  inver.taad  Geographiam  fpecflantia  continens,  A  Jncobojurmy 
A.  M.  Collcgii  S.  Trinitatis  Socio,  6c  Scholas  Pubiicae  Novocaftrenfis 
Archididafcalo.     Oclazo,   17 12. 

M.  T.  CiceronisdeFinibus  Bonorum  Sc  Malorum  Libri  Quinque. 
Ex  Paradoxon  Liber  Unus.  Emendavit,  Notifque  Illuftravit  r^i?w^^ 
Bentley,  A.  M. Trin.  Coll.  Cantab  Socius.    O^azo,  1 7 1 8. 

V.  Ci.  Andreas  Tacquet,  Soc.  Jefu  Sacerdotis  &:  Mathefeos  Pro- 
feflbris  Elementa  Geometriae  Planse  ac  Solidx  ;  ex  Archimcde  Theo- 
remata,  Accedunt  Corallaria  non  pauca  illuftrandis  Elementis  accom- 
inodata,  8c  Varies  propofitionum  plurimarum  Ufus  continentia. 
Summa  curaemendata,  2c  XL.  Schematibus  novis  seri  inciiis  illu- 
ftrata.  A  Gulielmo  WhiJloUy  A.  M.  Editio  Tertia,  Audlioj*  Sc  emen- 
datior.     O^avo,   1720,  fub  Proelo. 

Publii  Virgilii  Maronis  Bucolica,  Georgica,  5c  iEnefs.    Ad  opti- 
morum  Exempliarumfidemreccnfita.  Editio  Altera.   12"'*'.  1702. 
Remarks  upon  a  late  Difcourfe  of  Free-Thinking :  In  a  Letter  to  F.  H. 
D.  D.  ByPhileleutlierusLipfienfis.     The  tfth  Edition,     Two  Farts » 
O(3:avo,  1716. 

A  Sermon  uponFopery:  Frec.ch'd  before  the  Univerfity  of  Cambridge ^ 
Nov.  5"'''  1715".  i?y  Richard  Bcntley,  D,D,  Mafier  of  Trinity  College^ 
andChapktn  to  Hii  Majefty.     Ocia^jo. 

The  Folly  and  Unreafonablenefs  ofAtheifm  Demonjirated,  In  Eight  Ser- 
mons at  Mr.  BoyleV  Le^ure,  in  the  firfi  Tear^  1692.  To  which  is  added 
d  Sermon  preach' d  at  the  'Public-Commencement  at  Cambridge  Jnly  j, 
t6c)6,  jBy  Richard  Ecntley,  B.  D.  Majier  ofTrmity  College  in  Cam- 
bridge.    The  Ffth  Edition  Corrected.     Oclavo,   1 7  1 9 . 

cljufiinn  Morals^  by  Sir  Thomas  Brown,  of  Norwich,  M.B.  and 
Author  of  Religio  Medici.  FubliJJoed  from  the  Original  and  correSi 
Manufcript  of  the  Author  j  by  John  JefFery,  D.  D.  Archdeacon  of  Nor- 
wich,   I2'"*'.  17  16. 

A  Sermon  preach\l  before  the  Univerjity  of  Camhvidg;^c,  on  Wcdnefday 
the  I "  o/Auguft,  1 7  I  6.  Being  the  Anntverfary  of  His  Majefty'^  Hap- 
py Accefjion  to  the  Throne.  By  Theod.  Waterland,  M.  A.  Fellow  of  Mag- 
Jalen  College.     Odtavo,  1 7  i  5. 

A  Sermon  Breach' d  before  the  King,  at  King's  Cclhge  Chapel  in  Cam- 
■  bridge,  on  Sunday  Odlober  the  6'^  171 7.  By  Richard  Laughton,  D.  D. 
and  Felloe  of  Clare-Hall.  Bubliful  by  His  'MzjcHy' s  fpectal  Command. 
T^je  Second  Edition.     Odtavo,  17  17. 

A  Sermon  Breach' d  in  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Ely  at  the  AJJiz.es  he- 
for  the  Ife of  Ely,  Apr.  16.1718.  By] ohn  Whitfield,  D. D.  Fello 
of  Trinity  College  in  Cambridge.  FubliJjed  at  the  F^c^ueft  of  the  Gran 
jury  andothcr  Gentlemen.     Oclavo,  1718. 


i*w^»»