THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  | 
 Princeton,  N.  J.  ^ 
 
 CasCf 
 She1f\ 
 Bookf 
 
 Divisioi 
 
 Sectjjn  A 
 
 .^.^o^^^z.^ 
 
 'e^^>*(?e«^^'&-4>' 
 
 sec 
 
A 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 O    F 
 
 Christs  Divinity: 
 
 BEING     A 
 
 DEFENSE 
 
 OF     SOME 
 
 QUERIES, 
 
 RELATING     TO 
 
 Dr.  CLARKE'S 
 
 Scheme  of  the  H.Trinity? 
 
 I  N    A  NswER    T  O    A 
 
 CLERGYMAN  in  the  COUNTRY. 
 
 By  T)ANIEL  WATERLARTt,  D.D. 
 
 Master  of  Magdalen- College ,  in  Cambridge, 
 and  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  His  MAjESTT. 
 
 C  A  M  B  R  I  T>  G  E: 
 
 Printed  for  Corn.  Cr  ownf  i  p.  ld,  Printer  to  the 
 Vmverfiji :  And  are  to  be  Sold  by  Jaivies  Knapton, 
 and  Robert  Knaplock,  Bookfcllers  in  Sx,  Paul's 
 Church- Yard,  LONDON.    MDCCXfX. 
 
om    ni  uoy    tW^i  %^^   bsinqsi 
 
 •  ^ .  *c  -^  I 
 
 \m  h 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THE  follo'wing Queries  were  drawn ///, a 
 few  Tears  ago,  at  the  Requeft  of  Friends  % 
 when  I  had  not  the  leaf  a^prehenfion  of  their 
 ever  appearing  in  Trint,  as  might  be  guefs'd 
 jrom  the  negligence  of  the  Style  andCompofition, 
 TheOccafion  ofthcr/i  was  this,  yl  Clergyman 
 in  the  Country,  well  efeeni din  the  Neighbour- 
 hood where  He  lived,  had  unhappily  fallen 
 in  with  T)r.  Clarke's  Notions  of  the  Trinity  ; 
 and  began  to  efpoufe  them  in  a  more  open  and 
 unguarded  manner  than  the  "Doctor  Himfelf 
 had  done.  This  gave  fome  uneafinefs  to  the 
 Clergy  in  thofe  'Parts,  who  could  not  but  be 
 deeply  concerned  to  find  a  findamental  Article 
 ef  Religion  called  in  ^leftion  ;  and  that  too 
 by  one  of  their  own  Order,  and  whom  They 
 had  a  true  Concern  and  Value  for.  It  was 
 prefumed,  that  a  fincere  and  ingenuous  Man 
 
 A  ^'  {as 
 
The     P  R^&B^A  C  Er 
 
 {jis  He  appeared  to  be)  might,    upon  proper 
 Application,  be  inclinable  to  alter  his  Opt- 
 iiion :    And  that   the  mofl  probable  'way    to 
 bring  Him  to  a  Senfe  of  his  mijiake,  was  to 
 pnt  Him  to  defend  it,  fo  long  till  He  might 
 perhaps  fee  reafon  to  believe  that  it  was  not 
 defenfible.     With  the fe  Thoughts,  I  was  pre- 
 'vailed  upon  to  draw  up  a  few  Queries  ( the 
 fame  that   appear  now,  excepting  only  fome 
 fight   verbal  Alterations )    and  when    I  had 
 done^  gave  them  to  a  common  Friend  to  cone's 
 vey  to  Him.     I  was  the  more  inclined  to  it, 
 for  my  own  Inftnivfion  and  Improvement,  in 
 fo  momcTitous  and  important  an  Article :  Be- 
 fides,  that  I  had  long  been  of  Opinion,  that 
 110  method  could  be  more  proper  for  th^  train^X 
 big  tip  one's  Mind  to  a  true  and  found  Judg^A. 
 inent  of  Things,  than  that   of  private  Con^\ 
 ference   in    Writing  ;     exchanging    "Tapers  \A 
 making  Anfwers,    Replies.,    and  Rejoindersf"^ 
 till  an  Argument  fhould  be  exhatifted  on  both  \ 
 Sides,  and  a  Controverfy  at  length   brought 
 to  a  Toint.     In  that  private  way  {if  it  can  ■ 
 he  private)  a  Man  wYttes  with  Eafinefs  and 
 Freedom  \  is  in  no  pain^  about  any  innocent 
 Slips  or  Mijfaker\  is  under  little  or  no  Temp-  " 
 tation  to  perfift  obfinately  in  an  Error  {the 
 Bane  of  all  publick  Controverfy)    but   con- 
 cerned only  to  find  out  the  Truth,  which  (on<^ 
 what  Side  fo  ever  it  appears)  is  always  Vid:ory  - 
 to  evsKy,  hanejr.  M'm^..  ■  ^-■ 
 
 I  had 
 
the    t>  R  E  r  A  C  glT 
 
 i  had  not  long  gone  on  mith  my  Corrcfpon'^ 
 dent,  before  I  found  all  my  Meafures  broken) 
 and  my  Hopes  intirely  frujt rated.      He  badw 
 fent  Me,    in  Manulcripc,    an  Anivver  to   w^^ 
 Queries ;  "which  Anf-juer  1  received  and  read 
 with  ^e  Care  ;  promised  Him  immediately  a 
 Reply  ;.  and  foon  after  prepared  and  Jinifii'di^ 
 it,  a}id  convey' d  it  fizfe  to  his  Hands      Then 
 it  mds,  and  not  till  then,  that  He  di [covered 
 ta -Me  what  He  had  been  doing  %  fignifyingi'\ 
 by  Letter^  how  He  had  been  over  per  J  waded 
 to  .commit  his  Anivver,  with  my  Qijerics,  to 
 the  Trefs  \    that  They  had  been  there  Jome 
 time,  and  could  not  now  be  recalled  \  that  I 
 muft  follow  Him  thither,  if  I  intended  any 
 thing  farther  \  and  mnfi  adapt  my  pubiickDe- 
 fenle  to  his  publick  Anlwer,  now  altered  and 
 improved,  from    what    it    had  been  in    the 
 Mannfcrip'-  which   had  been    fent  me.     Tbi^ 
 News  fnrpri^ed  Me  a  little  at  the  frfl-,  and' 
 forry  I  was  to  find  7ny  Correfpondent  fo  ex-- 
 tremely  defirous  of  infrrt*Ming  Others,  infiead 
 of  taking' the.moji  prudent  and  coiifiderate  Me- 
 thod  of  iitforming  Hi^nfclf.    As  He  had  left 
 Me  no  Choice,  but  either  to  fallow  Him  to  the 
 Trefs,  or  to  defift,  I  chofe  what  I  thought  mojl 
 proper  at  that  Time ;  learuing  Him  to  iftfirii^ 
 the  Publick  as  He  pleafed,  defigning  niy  Self^ 
 hv  keep  out  t?;^  Publick  Controverfy;    or,    a^' 
 leaji^    not  defigning  the  ContraryK     But,    af 
 length,  confidering  that  Copies  of,  my  Defenll* 
 were  got  abroad   into  fever al  Hands  ^    and 
 
 A  1  .  mi^ht 
 
The     r  R  E  F  A  C  E. 
 
 might  perhaps,  fome  time  er  other,  Jleal  into 
 the  Trefs  without  my  Knowledge ;  and  con* 
 fidering  farther  that  this  Controverjy  now 
 began  to  grow  IVarm,  and  that  it  became 
 every  honeft  Man,  according  to  the  Meafure 
 of  his  Abilities,  to  bear  his  Teftimony  in  fo 
 good  a  Caufe ;  /  thought  it  beft  to  revife  my 
 Tapers,  to  give  them  my  laft  Hand,  and  to 
 fen  d7  hem  abroad  into  the  W or  Id  \  whereThey 
 miifi  Jiand  or  fall  {as  I  defire  They  Jhould^ 
 according  as  They  are  found  to  have  more  or 
 lefs  Truth  or  Weight  in  Them, 
 
 'Dr.  Clarke  has  lately  piblijh'd  a  Second 
 Edition  of  his  Scripture-Dod:rine :  Where,  I 
 perceive.  He  has  made  fever al  Additions  and 
 Alterations ,  but  has  neither  retrad:ecl,  nor 
 defended  thofe  Tarts,  which  Mr,  NelfonV 
 learned  Friend  had  judicioufy  replied  to,,  in 
 his  True  Scripture-Dod:rine  continu  d.  /  hope^ 
 m partial  Readers  will  take  care  to  read  One 
 along  with;-  the  Qibef>, 
 
 ,'.■  ■-.   '■■■'■■         ■   K^S^^.       ' 
 
 One  thing  I  mufl  obferve,  far  the  ^oflor's 
 Honour,  that  in  his  new  Edition  He  has  lefi 
 out  thefe  Words  of  his  former  Introdudioii; 
 ''  'lis  plain  that  every  Terfon  may  reafon- 
 *'  ably  agree  to  f^chVovms,  whenever  He  can 
 *'  in  any  Senfe  at  all  reconcile  them  with 
 '*  Script  lire,  I  hope^  none  hereafter  will  pre^ 
 tend  to  make  ufe  of  the  Doctor's  Aurlioriry, 
 for  i'ltbfcribing  to  Forms  which  They  believe 
 
 not 
 
The     P  R  E  F  A  e  E. 
 
 „  710 f  according  to  the  true  and  ^xo^^t  Serife  of 
 the  IVords,  and  the  known  intent  of  the  Im* 
 poftrs,  /^;/«j/ Compilers.  Such  Prevarication  ii 
 m  it  felf  a  bad  Thing,  and  '-j:jotild,  in  Time^ 
 have  a  very  til  Influence  on  the  Morals  of  a 
 Nation.  If  either  State- Oaths  on  one  Hand^ 
 Gr  Church  Subfcriptions  on  the  Other ,  once 
 come  to  be  wade  light  of-.,  and  Subtilties  be 
 invented  to  defend  or  palliate  fuch  grofs  In- 
 (locerity ;  we  may  bid  farewell  to  Principles, 
 and  Reh'gion  will  be  little  elfe  but  difgnis'd 
 Atheifm. 
 
 The  learned  T>o£ior,  in  his  Introduction^ 
 has  inferted,  by  way  of  Note,  a  long  flota- 
 tion out  of  Mr.  NelfonV  Life  of  Bifoop  Bull. 
 He  can  hardly  be  frefumed  to  intend  any 
 Parallel  between  Bijhop  Buirj*  Cafe  and  his 
 own :  And  yet  Readers  may  be  apt  fo  to 
 take  it,  fince  the  "Do^or  has  not  guarded 
 againfl  it,  and  fine  e  otherwife  it  will  not  be 
 eafy  to  make  out  the  pertinence  of  it.  The 
 T^o^or  has  undoubtedly  fome  meaning  in  it^ 
 thd*  I  will  not  pre  fume  to  guefs  what.  He 
 *  obfervesy  **  That  there  is  an  exact  account 
 *'  given,  what  Method  that  learned  IVriter 
 ''  (Bilhop  Bull)  took  to  explain  the  TioEtrine 
 **  ^/Juflincation  {viz.  the  very  fame  ^7;^  only 
 **  Method  which  ought  to  be  taken  in  explain- 
 '*  ing  all  other  Doctrines  whatfoever)  how 
 tV'nofhuA 
 
 ^'"'  A3  '*  ^ea- 
 
The     P  R^E>F  A  G  £. 
 
 ^'%ealottJly  He  was  accttfed  by  many  Syftema- 
 *^^tical  IJtvlnes,  as  departing  from  the-  T>0' 
 ^^  Brine  and  Articles  of  the  Church,  in  what 
 ^'^'''-He  had  done\  how  learnedly  and  effedually 
 **  He  defended  Himfeif  againft  all  his  Adver- 
 ^*  farics;  and  how  fiicGefsful  at  length  his  Ex* 
 *'  plication  was,  it  being  after  fome  Tears 
 '*  almoji  univerfally  received.  This  account 
 is  true,  but  defe&ive ;  and  may  want  a  Sup- 
 flement  for  the  Benefit  of  common  Readers , 
 who  7ndy  wijh  to  know,  what  that  excellent 
 Method  of  Bijhop  Bui  IV  was,  by  means  of 
 which  his  Explication  proved  fo  liiccelsfuli 
 mid  came  at  length  to  be  almoji  univerfally 
 received.    It  was  as  follows.  ^        ,    ^^^^v 
 
 1.  In  the  firfi  flace,  his  way  was  to  ex- 
 amine carefully  into  Scr\^txxxQ,  more  than  into 
 the  Nature  and  Rcafon  of  the  Thing  abfiraEi- 
 edly  confidef'd.  He  pitched  upon  fach  Texts 
 as  were  perrinenr,  and  dole  to  the  Toint\ 
 did  not  chtife  Them  according  to  the  Sound' 
 only,  but  their  real  Senfe-^  which  He  ex- 
 plain' d]\}!My  ^s/^^narurally,  without  any  wrcft^ 
 ing  or  draining.  He  neither  negled;ed  ;^^r  M^ 
 Jembled  the  utnioji  force  of  any  Texts  which 
 feem'd  to  make  agatnft  Hifn,  but  prop o fed  them 
 fairly,  and  anfwer  d  them  folidly  ;  withoui- 
 any  artificial  Elufions ,  or  any  {^lAo.  or  fur-» 
 prizing  Glojfes. 
 
 %.  In 
 
The     PREFACE. 
 
 ,  2.',^ J/;-  the  next  place,  however'  cogent  and 
 forcible  his  re afonhigs  from  Scripture  appear- 
 ed to  h,  yet  He  raodellly  declined  being  con- 
 fident of  them  ^  nnlefs  He  could  find  them  like- 
 wife  fupported  by  the  general  Verdict  of  the 
 primitive  Church;  for  which  He  always  ex- 
 prefs'd  a  moft  religious  Regard  and  Venera* 
 tion :  believing  it  eafier  for  Himfelf  to  err 
 in  interpreting  Scripture^  than  for  the  univer- 
 fal  Church  to  have  erred  from  the  Beginning, 
 To  pafs  by  many  other  Inftances  of  his  fincere 
 and  great  Regard  to  Antiquity,  /  /ball  here 
 7nention  one  only.  He  *  tells  T)r.  Tully,  /// 
 the  moft  ferious  and  foleran  manner  imagin- 
 able ,  that  if  there  could  but  be  found  any 
 one  Tropofition,  that  He  had  maintained  in 
 all  his  Harmony,  repugnant  to  the  'Do^rine 
 of  the  Carholick  and  Primitive  Church,  He 
 would  immediately  give  up  the  Caufe ,  fit 
 down  contentedly  under  the  reproach  of  a  No- 
 velift,  openly  retradt  Ins  Error  or  Hcrefy , 
 make  a  folemn  Recantation  in- the  Face  of  the 
 Chrifiian  IForld,  and  bind  Himfelf  to  per- 
 petual filence  ever  after.  He  knew  very  well 
 what  He  faid  ;  being  able  to  Jhow,  by  an 
 Hiftorical'DeduBioii.  that  Ins  iJo^frine  had 
 been  ttoe  con  ft  ant  T>oEtrine  of  the  Church  of 
 Chrift,  ]  down  to  the  T>ays  ^/Calvin,  in  the 
 S^ixteeuj-  Century. 
 
 *  Bu'l.  Apolog.  Conrr.  Tull.  p.  7. 
 t  Ball.  Apol.  Contr,  Tul!.  p.  _fo,  ji. 
 
 A  4  3-  ^^^ 
 
The     P  R^f  A  e  E. 
 
 .:x^$.-''  'B^jidcs  this.  He  demonftrated ,  very 
 Qlearly^  that  the  mofi  antient  and  vahiable 
 ContciTions  of  the  Reformed  Churches  Abroad 
 "ivere  intirely  in  his  Sentiments.  He  examin^d 
 them  zvith  great  Care  and  Exacinefs ,  and 
 anf-juer'd  the  contrary  Tretences  largely  an^ 
 folidly,  \ 
 
 %.  To  compleat  All,  He  vindicated  his  T>&- 
 Urine  farther,  from  the  concurring  Stntiments 
 of  our-  O'-Ji'n  moji  early,  and  mofi  judicions 
 .Reformers:  As  alfo  fran  //j^' Articles,  Cate- 
 chifm,  Liturgy,  and  Homilies  of  the  Church 
 of  England :  And  this  with  great  accuracy 
 4ind  firength  of  Reajon,  without  the  mean 
 Arts  <5/^ Equivocation  or  Sophiftry.  s^ 
 
 5*.  I  may  add,  fifthly y-  that  his  7nanner  of 
 Writiihg  was  the  mofi  convincing,  and  mofi 
 ingv^^nvy^  imaginable :  Acute,  ftrong,  ^;//^  ner- 
 vous; learned  throughout  \  and  fincere  to  a 
 fcru^uloMs  Exafhiejs ,  without  artificial  Co- 
 lours or  fiudied  Diiguifes,  which  He  utterly: 
 abhorr'd.  The  good  and  great  Man  breaths 
 in  every  Line :  A  Reader,  after  a  few  T  ages  ^ 
 may  be  tempted  almofi  to  throw  off'  his  Guards 
 and  to  rejign  Him/elf  implicitely  into  fo  fafe 
 Hands.  A  Man  thus  qualified  and  accom-^ 
 fliJJfd,  having  true  [judgment  to  take  th^ 
 right  Side  of  a^iefiion  ;  /?;/^  Learning,  Ability, 
 and  Inicgrity  to  Jet  it  off  to  the  great efi  Ad- 
 vantage, could  not  fail  of  Succejs\  efpecially 
 
 confider- 
 
The     PREFACE. 
 
 confiderhtg  that  the  moft  judicious  and  learn* 
 ed  of  our  Clergy,  and  Thoje  befi  affeEted  to 
 the  Church  of  England  (^Jtich  as  T)r,  Ham- 
 mond, ^c.)  had  been  in  the  fame  Sentiments 
 before-,  and  Bijl?op  Buirj*  bitterefl  Adver- 
 fdries  were  moftly  Syftemacical  Men  (^pro- 
 perly fo  called )  and  ftich  as  had  been  bred 
 up  {during  the  great  Rebellion)  /;/  the  Pre- 
 deftinarian  and  Antinomian  Tenets ,  as  Mr, 
 *  Nelion  obferves.  There  was  another  Cir- 
 cmnftance  which  Mr.  Nelfbn  alfo  takes  f  710* 
 tice  of\  namely,  his  writing  in  Latin :  JVhich 
 Jhowed  his  thorough  Judgment  of  Men  and 
 Things,  He  wotild  not  write  to  the  Vulgar 
 and  Unlearned  {which  is  beginning  at  the 
 wrong  end,,  and  doing  nothing  )  but  to  the 
 Learned  and  Judicious ;  knowing  it  to  be  the 
 jurcjt  and  the  Jhorteft  way  ;  and  that,  if  the 
 Toint  be  gained  with  Them,  the  reft  come 
 in  ofCourfe\  if  not,  all  is  to  no  purpofe.  This 
 became  a  Man,  who  had  a  Caufe  that  He 
 could  trufl:  to ;  and  confided  only  in  the  (Irength 
 of  his  Realbns.  By  fuch  laudable  and  ingenu- 
 ous Methods,  that  excellent  Man  prevailed 
 over  his  Adverlaries ;  Truth  over  Error,  Anti- 
 quity over  Novelty,  the  Church  of  Chrift 
 over  Calvin  and  his  T>ifciples.  If  any  Man 
 elfe  has  fuch  a  Caulc  to  defend  as  Bijhop 
 Bull  had,  and  is  able  to  manage  it  in  fuch  a 
 Method,   by  Jhowiug  that  it  ftands  upon  the 
 
 *  Nchon'j  Life  of  Bull,  pag.  9S. 
 ^  NelibxiV  Ltfe  of  Bull,  fag.  94. 
 
 vvn  fa?ne 
 
rK^  ^PIR3E^^  A  G  E. 
 
 fame  ifnmoveable  Fottndations  <?/" Scripture  ak^ 
 Antiquity,  confirmed  by  the  concurring  Senfe  of 
 f/^^  judicious  fart  of  Mankind-^  then  He  need 
 fiot  doubt  but  it  will  frevail  and  proffer^  in 
 any  Proreftanr  Country,  as  univerlally  as  the 
 other  did.  But  if  fever al  of  thofe  Circum- 
 flances,  or  the  niofl  confiderabic  of  them,  be 
 wanting*^  or  if  Circumftances  be  contrary^ 
 then  it  is  as  vain  to  expe^  the  like  Succefs, 
 as  it  is  to  ey>pe6i  Miracles.  It  mtift  not  be 
 forgot,  that  the  fa?ne  good  and  great  Prelate, 
 afterwards,  by  the  fame  fair  and  honaurable 
 Methods,  the  fame  Jlrength  of  Reafon  and 
 -profound  Learning ,  gain'd  as  co?npleat  a 
 Vtciory  over  the  Arians,  ///  regard  to  the 
 §luejiion  about  the  Faith  of  the  Ante-  Nicene 
 Fathers:  And  his  Determination,  in  that 
 particular,  was,  and  fill  is,  among  Men  of 
 the  great  eft  Learning  and  Judgr/ient,  as  uni-. 
 ycx^Wj  fubmitted  to  as  the  otl^er.  His  adk 
 mirable  Treat ife  {by  which  He  being  dead  yec 
 ipeaketh )  re??iains  unanfwer'd  to  this  T>ay ; 
 and  will  abide  Vidiorious  to  the  End;  But 
 enough  of  this.'-  '-  1  w  ;lioV7  ^-^.x  ^\\ 
 
 /  am  obliged  to  fay  fomething  in  T^efence 
 of  my  general  Title.  (A  Vindication  of  Chrid's 
 Divinity)  becaufe,  I  fmi,  Mr,  VottQx,  Jince  de^ 
 ceas'd,  was  rebuked'  by  an  *"  Anonymous-  Hand 
 for  fuch  a  T\t\Q.yTbe'preten(^  ir^^\tidat  ouV'.^ 
 
 Adver- 
 
The     P  R  E  F  A  CE. 
 
 \Adverf(ir'tes  do  not  difown  ChriJi^^Ty\\\r\\xy, 
 rts  the  Title  mfinuates  But  to  ^-juhat  furpoje 
 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  in- 
 tending it)  and  cannot  but  remind  its  of  Hail 
 King  of  the  Jews.  No  body  ever  fpeaks  of 
 the  Divinity  of  Mofes,  or  of  Magiftrates,  or 
 of  Angels,  though  called  Gods  ///  Scripture, 
 If  Chrifi  he  God,  /;/  the  relative  Senfe  only^ 
 why  fhould  we  fpeak  of  His  Divinity,  more 
 than  of  the  Other?  The  Chrifi  ian  Church  has 
 all  aloftg  ufed  the  word  Divinity,  in  the  firi6f 
 and  proper  Senfe :  If  we  mufi  change  the  Idea, 
 let  us  change  the  Name  too-,  and  talk  no  more 
 of  Chriffs  Divinity,  but  of  his  Mediatorlliip 
 only,  or  at  mofl,  Kingihip.  This  will  be  the 
 way  to  prevent  Equivocation ,  keep  up  pro- 
 priety of  Language ,  and  fhut  out  falfe  Ideas 
 /  know  710  Divinity,  but  fuch  as  I  have  de- 
 fended: The  other,  falfty  fo  called,  is  real!)'' 
 non.e'>    Sa  much  for  the  XuIq, 
 
 In  the  Work  it  felf  I  have  endeavor' d  to- 
 unravel  Sophiflry,  deteU  Fallacies,  and  take 
 ^^Difguifes,  in  order  to  fet  the  Controverfy 
 upon  a  clear  Foot;  allowing  only  for  the 
 Myflerioiifners  of  the  Subje^.  The  Gentle- 
 men  of  the  New  way  have  hitherto  kept 
 pretty  much  in  generals,  and  avoided  comin^r 
 to  the  pinch  of  the  ^tefion.  If  they  pleaje 
 to,  fpeak  to  the  Toint,  and  put  the  Caufe  up- 
 on 
 
The     PREFACE. 
 
 $U  0  Jhort  Ijftte,  as  may  eafily  be  donCy  that 
 is  ^U  that  is  dejir'd.  I  doubt  not  but  all 
 Attempts  of  that  kind  will  end  {as  they  have 
 fv^  done)  in  the  clearing  np  of  the  Truth, 
 th^  T> I fafp ointment  of  its  Oppofers,  the  Joy 
 ^f  good  Men,  a7td  the  Honour  of  our  Blejfed 
 t^rd;  whofe  Divinity  has  been  the  Rock  of 
 Offence  to  the  Difputers  of  this  World,  now 
 fyr  1 600  Tears ;  always  attack! d  by  fome  or- 
 i^tk^r,  in  every  Age,  and  always  Triumph  ant. 
 To  Him,  with  the  Father,  and  the  HolyGhofl, 
 Three  Perfbns  of  the  fame  divine  Power,  Sub- 
 ftance,  and  Perfections,  be  ail  Honour  and 
 Glory,   in  all  Churches   of  the   Saints*  /m^^ 
 
 siQd  far  evermore. 
 
 boO   tru  i 
 
 T  W^ 
 
 .'BTi 
 
a  o  A 
 
 THE 
 
 iitft^ 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Compare  the  following  T  e  x  r.s* 
 
 I  am  the  Lord,  and  there 
 is  none  elie .;  There  is 
 ro    God   betides  me>   Ifa. 
 
 45-   5- 
 
 Is  there  a  God  befides 
 
 me  ?  Yea ,  there  is  no 
 God,  I  know  not  ^ny^  Ifa, 
 44.  8. 
 
 I  am  God  and  there  is 
 none  like  me ;  Before  me 
 there  was  no  God  form*d, 
 neither  fhall  there  be  after 
 me,  Ifa.  4^.  9. 
 
 The  Word  Va's  Godi 
 Job,  I.   I.  ^ 
 
 Thy  Throne,  O  God* 
 Hcb,  I.  8 
 
 Chrift  came,  who  is  0« 
 ver  all  God  bleffed  for  twx% 
 Rom.  9.   5. 
 
 Who  being  in  the  Form 
 of  God  Phil.  1.  6. 
 
 Who  being  the  Bright^ 
 nefs  of  his  Glory,  and  tht 
 exprefs  Image  of  his  Per* 
 fon.     HeL  I.  3» 
 
 CLU  E  R  Y    L 
 
 Whether  ali  other  Beings,  hjldes  the  one  Supreme  Oddi  be 
 not  excluded  by  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah  (to  which  mm^ 
 more  might  he  added')  and  confequentlj<i  whether  Cfe*^ 
 can  he  God  at  ally  nnlejs  he  be  the  fame  with  th^  Sn^ 
 freme  God\    p,   2. 
 
 QUERY     ir. 
 
 tVhether  the  Texts  of  the  New  Tefiamcnt  ( in  the  fi^^A 
 Column)  do  not  fiow  that  He  (ChriftJ  is  not  eX<:kM% 
 land  therefore  mnfi  he  the  fame  God?   p,  6. 
 
 QUERY   nr. 
 
 Whether  the  Word  ( God  )  in  Scriptttre,  <;an  reafonahhf  ti 
 fpipposd  to  carry  an  ambiguous  meaning'^  or  be  m^d  m 
 
Tfte  eOJCTENTSJ 
 
 yt  d\f^^rent  Se^fcy  when  applied  to  the  Father  and  Sonj 
 !iif;  the  fame  Uripmrey  Jtnd  even  in  the  fame  verfe\   (Ses 
 Joh,  r.  .^i^/^i  47^  tO^K  Y^ 
 
 ■^rf,  bnA^«-.ER  Y     IV.    b  ^(nj  1    P163H 
 
 Whether -i   fftppojing  the  Scripture- Notion  of  God  to  he  ifo 
 more  than   that  of  the  Author  and  Governor    of  the 
 Univerle,  or  whatever  it  be,  the  admitting  of  ^notheir^^ 
 to  be  Author  and  Governor  of  the  Univtr'c,    be  not 
 admitting   another  God  j     contrary  to  the  Te^ts  befort 
 
 idited  fr^m  XWn\\  i    and  aljo  to  Ila.  42.  8. 48.  riji^i 
 
 where  he  declaresy  He  will  not  give  his  Glory  to  Ano«  r 
 
 ther?   /.  73' 
 
 a  U  E  R  Y    V.  ^^" 
 
 whether  Dr.  Clarke's  pretence^  that  the  Authority  of  Fa- 
 ther and  Son  being  One,  tho*  they  are  two  dijiin^  Beings  y""- 
 makes  them  not  to  be  two  Gods,    As  a  King  upon  the 
 Throne  and  his   Son  adniiniftring   the  Father's  Go- 
 verndient ,    are  not  two  Kings  ^    be  not  trtfling  and 
 inconfifient  \     ¥  or  y  if  the  King's  Son  be  not  a   King,  he 
 cannot  truly  be   called   King,    //  he  is,    then  there    are 
 .  two  Kings.     So,    //  the  Son  be  not  God  in  the  Scrip^^x 
 lure-N'otion  of  God,    he  cannot   truly  be  called  Gods 
 and  then  how  is  the  Doclor  conffient  with  Script urey    or 
 7vith  iiimfelf?    But  if  the  Son  be  truly  God,  there,  are 
 two    Gods  upon  the  DoEior's   HjpotheJtSy    as  plainly  as 
 that   one   and  one   are    two;    and  fo  \alL  the  Texts  of 
 Ifaiah  cited   above  y   bejides  others y  fi and  jull  and  clear 
 againft  the  Dotlors  MP,W*     P*  ^79^'-y'y.-  -"r^ 
 
 TEXTS,  proving  an  "Unity  df  divine  At- 
 tribtites  in  Father  and  Son,  applied, 
 
 ■  ,  Tq.  the  one  God^.^^  h^Ji  -•  "  ^  ^^-  *^^'^* 
 
 Thou^^e  ven  Thou..on^y  |     He  Jinew  all  Men  Sic.Ji^i 
 Jcnowcft  the   Hearts  of  all '2.  24.    Thou  i^ no \y ell  all 
 
the.  CONTENTS: 
 
 Kings  8.   39. 
 
 I  the  Lord  fearcli  the 
 Heart;  I  try  the  Reins, 
 Jer,  17.  10..  ,,      ^ 
 
 I  aai  the  firil,  and  I  am 
 thelaih  and  beiidcsme  there 
 is  no  God,  Ifa,  44.  6. 
 
 I  am  A  and  Cl^  the  be- 
 ginning and  the  Qudy  Rev. 
 u  8.  -^oi.^  : 
 
 •King  of  Kines  and  Lord 
 of  Lords    I.  T:m,   6,   15. 
 
 The  mighty  God,  /fa, 
 lb,  21.      ^^^^  o'4t- 
 
 Lord/ oven  aH,     Rom. 
 
 Thmgsyjoh,  i 6,7,0.  v^hlth 
 knowell  the  Hearts  of  all 
 Men,  u^^s  I.  24. 
 
 I  am  he  that  fearcheth 
 the  Reins  and  the  Heart, 
 Rev.  1,   5. 
 
 I  am  the  Hrft,  and  I  am. 
 the  laft,"^-?;.    I.  17. 
 
 I  am  A  and  Hi  the  begih- 
 ningand  the  envl,  Rev,  22. 
 
 Lord  of  Lords,  and  King 
 of  Kings,  Rev,  17.  14— 
 19.   16. 
 
 The  mighty  God,  If,9*6, 
 
 He  is    Lord  of  all,  ^Sis 
 JO.  7,6, 
 Over  all   God  blefled.> 
 
 5- 
 
 :\:" 
 
 •:4.i 
 
 ■A^ 
 
 *.Qt\«t!>^ 
 
 dec,  Rom,  9, 
 
 ^^^^'  Q  U  E  R  Y     VI. 
 
 TVhether  the  fame  Characieriftkks  ^    efpecially  fuch  emitient 
 
 one  Si  can  reafinably  be  Hnderftood  of  two  ciftmcl  Being  h 
 
 and  of  one  Infinite  and  Independent,  the  other  DependcK^ 
 
 and  Finite^,    p.  89.  .   . 
 
 Q_U  E  R  Y     VIL 
 
 IVheiher  the  Fathers  Omnifcience  ^»^  Eternity  are  ftiftOffe 
 and  the  fame  with  the  Sons  being  alike  defer ib*ai' and 
 in  the  fame   phrafts^.   p.  loo. 
 
 QUERY     VIIL 
 
 JThether  Etcrnky  does  not  imply  neceffary  Exlflence  of 
 the  Son  ;  which  is  inccnffent  with  the  Dolors  Scheme  ? 
 ^nd  whether  the  ^  Do^ior  lsa{h^-^oi  made  4«  elufivei 
 f.Reply.  p.  iii^i;  r^ ..  i  |  He  }o  ivikM    •:iih  -:■.. 
 
 %il»  cquivo- 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 equivocating  Anfiver  to  the  Ohje^ion^  fince  the  Son  may 
 'he   a  ricceflary  Emanation  from  the    Father,    by  the 
 Will  ^nd  Power  of  the  Father^    ivithom  any  Co^tradi^, 
 ^ion'^.    Will  is  one  things   and  Arbitrary  Will  another.^ 
 p.   III. 
 
 QUERY    IX. 
 
 Whether  the  divine  u4ttyii?utes  y  Oinnifcience,  Ubiquity, 
 &c.  thoje  tHiiividual  uittributes  can  be  commnmcatcd 
 without  the  divine  EJfencey  from  which  they  are  infepa^ 
 rabk  ?    p.  xj6^> 
 
 QUERY     X. 
 
 Whether-,  if  they  (the  Attributes  belonging  to  the  Son  J 
 be  not  individually  the  fame,  they  can  be  any  thing 
 more  than  faint  RefembUnces  of  themy  differing  from 
 them  as  I'inite  from  Infinite;  and  then  in  what  Sc^jcy 
 or  with  7vhat  Truth  can  the  DoEior  pretend  that  "^  all 
 divine  Powers,  except  abfolute  Supremacy  and  Inde- 
 pendency, are  communicated  to  the  Son^  And  whether 
 every  Beings  bejides  the  one  Supreme  Being,  mttfl  not  ne- 
 cejfarily  be  a  Creature  and  Finite;  and  ivhether  all 
 divine  Powers  can  be  communicated  to  a  Creature,  In- 
 finite  Perfedion  to  a  Finite  Bei?2g?    p.  174. 
 
 a  U  E  R  Y    XI. 
 
 Whether  if  the  jDo5ior  means  by  divine  Pcnverst  Towers  given 
 by  God  ( in  the  fame  Senfe  as  Angelical  Poivers  are  di- 
 vine Po7vers)  only  in  a  higher  JDegree  than  are  given 
 toother  Beings;  it  be  not  equivocating  and  faying  nothing: 
 Nothing  that  can  come  up  to  the  Senfe  of  thofe  Texts  be' 
 fore  citedi  f  or  to  thefe  foHowrag .?   p.  1 8 1 . 
 
 J]>plted. 
 
 To  the  one   God, 
 
 Thou,    even  Thou,   art 
 
 Lord    alone,-     Thou    haft 
 
 To  God  the  Son» 
 All  things  were  made  by 
 him^  Joh.  I.  5.     By  him 
 
 *  Script wrc  Poiflr.  p.  Ipg.  t  Qucrv  6,  p.  89, 
 
 were 
 
made  Heaveny  the  Heaven 
 of  Heavens  mth  all  their 
 Hofl,  the  Earth,  and  all 
 things  that  are  therein  &c. 
 Neh.  9.  S, 
 
 In  the  Beginning,  God 
 Created  the  H<^avcns  and 
 the  Earth,  Gen.  i.   lo 
 
 The  CONTENTS. 
 
 were  allrhings Created;  lAd 
 is  before  all  things  and  bf 
 him  all  diings  Condftj  Cf- 
 i^/.   I.    1(5.    17. 
 
 Thou,  Lord,  in  the  Be. 
 ginning,  haft  laid  the  Foun* 
 dation  of  the  Earth;  and 
 the  Heavens  are  the  Wock 
 of  thy  Hands,  Heh»  i«  i<S» 
 
 Q.U  E  R  Y     XIL 
 
 IVhether  the  Creator  of  all  Things  was  not  htmfelfVncreat^^ 
 ed;  and  therefore  emld  not  h  l^  chc  oi'itiiy,  ?9iad^ 
 9Ut  of  nothing  ?    p.  194. 
 
 aO  E  R  Y     XIIL 
 
 f0j€iher  there  can  be  any  Aliddle  between  being  made  oM 
 of  nothing<,  and  out  of  fomething  ;  that  is,  between  being 
 out  of  nothing,  and  out  of  the  Father's  Snbftance ;  he^ 
 tween  being  effentially  God,  and  being  a  Creature! 
 iPhether,  confequentlyy  the  Son  mnji  not  be  either  eflen* 
 tially  God,  or  eifi  3i  Creature^  p.  201. 
 
 QUERY     XIV. 
 
 Whether  Dr»  Clarke,  who  every  where  denies  the  Cotjjkb^ 
 
 Jiantiality  of  the  Son  as  ahfnrd  and  contradt^tory^    does 
 
 fhtt    of  Confequence -i    affrm  the  Son  to  be   a   CreatHre 
 
 i?  QOc  077&V,  ^f^d  Jo  fall  under  his  own  cenfwre,  and, 
 
 is  Self 'Condemn' d  ?   p.   212. 
 
 a  U  E  R  Y     XV. 
 
 tVhether  he  alfo  muji  not ,  of  Confequence ,  affrm  of  tht 
 Sohy  that  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not,  fince 
 God  mnfi  exi[l  before  the  Creature;  and  therefore  is 
 again  Self'Qondemn  d  {'See  prop,    \6^  ScHp^  Doflr, } 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 ^^^d'Hfhether  he  does  not  equivocate  in  f4ftftg\!f-  elfi-where 
 
 'that  the  /econd  Perfin  has  been  d\w3.ys  .with  -the  firfl ; 
 
 "^nnd  that  there  has  been  no  time,  'when  he  was  not  fo: 
 
 •j^ndMfiiy,- whether  it  he  not  a  vain  and  we ak^  attempt 
 
 to  pretend  to   any  middle  way  between  r^e   Orthodox 
 
 and  the  Arians;    or  to  carry  the  Sons  Divinity  the  leafl 
 
 higher  than  they  did,  withom  taking  m  the   Confmbflan- 
 
 Thou  ilult  have  no  o^ 
 ther  Gods  before  me,  Exod, 
 to.  5*         . 
 
 Thou  flialt  Worfhip  the 
 Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
 only  ihaltv^hou  ferv^e^  #^^ 
 
 They .  j^priliip'd  him* 
 Luk.  24.  25!.  ,. 
 
 Let  all  tiie  Angels  ofGod 
 wcriliip  hirn,.  Hcb.  i.  6. 
 
 That  all  Men  fliould  Ho- 
 nour the  Son,  even  as  they 
 honour   the^^  Father,  ^fk. 
 
 Q  U  E  R  Y    XVI 
 
 Whether  by  thefe  ('of  the  firft  Column  J  and  the  like  Tekts^ 
 
 ^'\Adoration  and  Worfljip  be  not  fi  appropriated  to  tloe  dnh" 
 
 .    Codi  as  to  beloHz  to  htm  only^.    p;  lip.    '     ^^y\-^\ 
 ^ixwy.  ,  tv:^v  *=*       .    .      -^  ■      -    ^  _  ■  '■  <noneniD 
 
 yiim^O  lid  V  Q  U  E  R^  Y  -  XVin-''^^^**^'v  ""^^^^^  ^^^ 
 
 iv^eihen  ndtwithftandifigt  Worfhip  and  MMatton  be  mi"  -e* 
 
 qually  due  to  Chrifi;   and  conjequently,  whether  it   mufi 
 
 not  follow  that  he  is  the  one  God,  and  not  ( as  the  A- 
 
 Vi'ians  fnppofe)  a  difiihW/'injerlor  Beingl'"^i  25^*-"^^^'^^ 
 
 A^av:.  ,;,v,..  ..  cLtJ  E.R  Y  .  xviitv..A  .....v;,^.; 
 
 heMr  Woffoip  and  ^dorationy  both  from  Mtn'&d:^felii 
 was  notdfie  to  him^  long  beferc  the  €oTrmc:icing  tf'his 
 
 *  Script.  Do^r,  p»  43^oj  .q 
 
 iledi^ 
 
The  CONTENTS 
 
 ■  Mediatorial  Kingdom r   as  he  -ivas  their   Creator  4nd 
 
 '  PyifefVer  (See  CoL   i.    16,   ij.)  ^nd  whether  xhdit  he 
 
 •not'  the  fame  Title  to  Adoration  which  God  the  Father 
 
 ''■'  hath,  as  Authtrr  and  G  over  not  of  the  Vmvsrfiy  u^on  the 
 
 ^DoUo/s  own  Principles  \    p.  z6j,  .,   fc^i\?jt<\  ^^ 
 
 ^t^h^Vk^;..0'i     ^^1   d  U     E     R     Y        XIX.  ^t,r\l    ^,r\r.>.l 
 
 Whether  the  DoHor  hath  not  given  a  very  partiM  yiccount 
 of  Toll.  5.  23.  founding  the  Honour  due  to  the  Sony 
 on  this  only-,  th^t  the  Father  hath  committed  all  Judg- 
 ment torthe  Son;  when  the  true  Reafon  ajfgnd  by  oun 
 Savio(tr,  and  illnftrated  hy  feveral  InflanceSy  is-,  that  the 
 Son  do/h  the  fame  things  that  the  Father  doth,  hath  th& 
 fams  Pgwer  and  Authority  of  doing  what  he  Will;    and 
 
 "  therefore  hkia  Title  to  as  great  Honour ,  Reverence,  and 
 I(es!^ardy  ar  the  Father  himfelf  hath\  And  it  is  no  Ob^ 
 
 '^^'jepion  to  this,  that  the  Son  is  there  faid  to  do  nothing 
 
 \Qi  himfelf,.  er  to  have  all  given  Him  by  the  Father; 
 fince  it  is  ownd  that  the  Father  is  the  Fquntam  of  ally 
 from  whom  the  Son  derives,  in  an  ineffable  manner,  his 
 E  fence  and  Powers,  fo  as  to  be  one  7i>ith  him,     p.  278. 
 
 H  a  ^ 
 QiV  E  KY.    XX. 
 
 l^hether  the  uoUor  need  have  cited  300  Texts,  wide  of  the 
 purpofe,  to  prove  what  no  Body  denies,  namely  a  Subor- 
 dination, in  fbme  Senfe,  of  tljc  Son  to  the  Father;  'could 
 He  have  found  but  one  plain  Text  againfl  his  Eternity 
 .  f^r  Confubflaiitiality,  the  points   in  Oueftionl     p.  2^8. 
 
 IVhether-he  be, j not  fprc'd  to  Jupply  his  want  of  Scripture- 
 proof  by   very  flraind  and  remote  Inferences,    and  very 
 uncertain  Reafonings  from  the  Nature  of  a  thing,  confef^ 
 Jedhfy   Obfcure    and   above  Cor/iprehenfion ;    and  yet   not 
 
 r,(more  fothaxi  (ji?<^'j  Eternity,  Ubiquity,  Prcfcience^ 
 or  other  Attributes,  which  yet  lue  are  chitted  to  ackl^ow- 
 Isdge for  certain  Truths^    p.  30^^.  .     .'''  '' 
 
 -:  ^2^        '  QUERY 
 
Wythir  Us  fthe  Y^otton)  :ivhol€  performarfCgi  ^heH^jver 
 Hedijfers  jYom  -usy  ke^  any  thwg  .more  than  a  Repetition 
 Qf  this  u^lfertion,  that  £eing  and  Perfon  are  the  fame^ 
 
 , ,    QT  that  there  is  no  Medium  between  Tritheifm  ar^d  Sa- 
 
 .s.'bellianifin  .<*  which  is  removing -the  ^Catifefr/)m  Scripture 
 to  natural  Reafon;    not  t^erj  Conjifientlj  with  the  Ittle  of 
 
 .    hi^i-t^ot^    p.  ja^. 
 
 Whether  the  D6l\:or5  Notion  of  the  Trinity  be  viore  <k^t. 
 ~      and  intelligible  than  the'Other^i  'h  ^w.  ^^^  u^\  ^>tA^^^"-H  ^ 
 ■  T'he  DiffcHhy  in  the  Conception  of  the  7fim^  1^  ^^u^'^hree 
 
 ■Pcrfons  can  be  One  God,  •u)^^5^':y'"*^^*?^>'•''" 
 
 ^cstheDoBor  deny  that  every  One  of  the  PerfonSt  ftngly^ 
 ii  God\   No:  Does  he  deity  that  God ts  Onef  No:  how 
 lhe'4  are  Three  O/ie 
 J)oes   one  and  the  fame  Jiuthoritj^    exercifed  hj  all,  make 
 theJ^  ofTCy    numerically  or  individually  one  and   the  fwic 
 Qod?    That  is  hard  to  conceive  how  three  dtfiincl  Beings y 
 •^cording  to  the  Do^hr's  Scheme,  .can  be  individt4aUy  one 
 God,  that  is,  three  Pcrfons.  one  Perfon, 
 Jf -therefore  one  God  necejfarlly  jignifies  bm  one  Perfon,  the  Con^ 
 feq^ence  is  irrejiftible  ■;    either  that  the  Tather  is  jhat  one. 
 ■  Perfifh  ^«^  f^^s  ^Ifi-*  v^hich  is  downTnghtiSsboXll^i^iixn  ; 
 w' that  the  three  -Pcrfons -are  three  Gods^^si'^'^  ■5«\\y4^ 
 'J0ous-the  Doctor  s  S^hem^is 4iaHe  t.9:'th^.fim^''''0ifficHlties 
 ■'   with -the  othex,  '    "'' '   ■         ' ''   -    ^■^"^•-^    ^  • 
 
 Ther^'hyindeed  one  eafy  Wity  of  coming  of,  and  that  isy 
 by  faying  that  the  Son  and  Holy- Spirit  aye  neither  of 
 them  God,  in  the  Siripture-fenfe  of  the  .Word.  But  this 
 is  cm  ting  the  Knot,  inflead  of  ptntying  it ;  and  is  in  ef' 
 feEl  to  jay,  thsy  0re^mt>^fet  Jii^rw  :aS^^^  Per  fins  in 
 ScnptHre,  ■;*>.:    '.•    .  \'   .     -^^\   x^y-s- 
 
 Dees  the  Gommunlcatwn. of  divine  Powers  and  Attributes 
 ■-  from  heather,    to  Son  a^id  Holy  Spim,    make  them   one 
 Gods    the  Divinity   of  .the  two  .latter  hi^gj.he  Father  s. 
 
 Divinity  I 
 
XherC  ON  TENTS. 
 
 pivmij  ?  Xet  the  fame  dtffkfilty  recws  r  For  Mjtr  ^he 
 Son  and  Holy^Ghofi  ^ave  dtfiia^i  Attributes,  and  a  di" 
 Jiinch  Dtvwity  .of  their  own,  or  they  have  not:  If  th^ 
 Jfrn^Cy  they^e  (npon  thfi  DoUors  Principles)  difiinci  6i}ds 
 
 J,   from  the  Father,  and  as  mmh  as  Finite  fxam  Infinite y 
 Creature  from  Creator ',    and  then  how  are  they  one\    If 
 they  have  noty  then,  Jtnce   they  have   no  other  Divinity  ^ 
 
 \.  k^  that  individual  Divinity  arid  thofe  At  tributes  oiihich 
 are  infeparable  from  jhe  Fathers  Effencey  they  can  have 
 m  difimEi  EJfence  from  the  Father's;  and  Jo  ( accord' 
 ing  to  the  Dotior)  will  be  one  and. the  fame  Perfony  that 
 is,  will  kfi  Names  only. 
 Q.  Whether  this -be  not  as  unintelligible  as  the , Orthodox  JS^o* 
 tion  of  the  Trinitjy  and  liable  to  the  like  Difficulties',  A 
 communication  of  Divme  Paivers  and  Attributesy  ivithqut 
 ■the  Subftancey  being  as  hard  to  conceive y  nay,  much  har- 
 der than  a  communta^tioit  :of  .Both  together  \  P^  343. 
 
 ^.^  au  E  R  Y  .:jcxiv. 
 
 %Wk^ther  Gal.  ,4.   8.   may  not  he  enough  to  dctermirie  the 
 f\l\s'di_§uts  betwixt  hs  ;  fince  it  obliged  the  DoBqr  to  confef 
 that   Chrifi  is  ^  by  Nature   truly  God,   as  truly  as 
 Man  is  by  Nature  truly   Man. 
 Me  equivocatesy  therey  indecdy  as  VfuaL  For,  he  will  have  it 
 to  fignifjy  that  Chrifl  is  God  by  Nature y  only  as  having 
 by  that  Nature  which  he  derives  frjom  the  Father y  true 
 Divine  Power  and  Dominion :    that  isy   he  is  truly  God 
 by  Naturey  as  having  a  Nature  diflinEi  from  and  infe- 
 rior to  GocCsy  wanting  \  the  moft  Eflcntial  Charader 
 ^u    .of  God,  Self-exiflence,     What  is  this   but  trifling  "With 
 "^      Wordsy  ^d^.flaymg  ji}fi .  ^d  .Joofe  ?    p.  3-7Q*:  < ., 
 
 aU  E  R  Y     XXV. 
 
 jVhcther  it  be  jtot  clear  from. ali the  genuine  remains  of  An- 
 ticjutty,  that  the  Catholick^  Church  before  the  Council  of 
 Nice,  and  even  jrom  the  begimiingy  did  believe  the  •£- 
 iernity  and  Copf/^bjlamality  ..of  th  ,S(m.i.  -if  other  the 
 
 n\v.i\7iVi  a  I,  pldefi 
 
fldejl  Creeds,    as   interpreted  by  thofe   that   recite  themi 
 er  the  Tejiimonies  of  the^^arlkfi  Writers]  or  the  fublick^ 
 CenJ fires  fiajs*4  upon  Hei^eti^kjy    or  part ic filar  pajjages  iff^\ 
 ■  the  yintj^nieft  JFaiUrsy.  sm  ^M^M^^  ^.  f  ^f^i^f^i  ^  ■  ^bing 
 
 JVhether  the  Do5}or  did  not  equivocate  or  prevaricate  firartge^ 
 
 kf  in  faymg  ^  The  Gener.:liry  of  Writers  before  the 
 
 . Council  ot  Nice,   were,  in  the  whole,  clearly  on  his 
 
 ^,j(3de:    when  it  is  ?nanifeji^    they  were^    in' 'the  general, 
 
 no  farther  OH  his  Jid^,  than  the  allowing  a,  Subordina-j 
 
 tion  amounts  to;  no  further  than  our  own  Church  is  on  his 
 
 fide^  while  in  the  ma,'m  points  of  diferencey  the  Eternity 
 
 and   Gonfubftantialiry ,    they  are  clearly  againfl  him\  '^ 
 
 ■    Tf^at  isy  they  were  on  his  fide^  fo  far  as  we  acknowledge 
 
 bjm  to.  he  rights  hut  no  farther,  p.   3  Sp.^s^^^w  cot  «i^wt 
 
 QUERY    XXViri^-^^^O  ^^t^WYK 
 fpjether  the  Learned  VocJor  may  not  reafonahly  he  fuppofd 
 0  fay,    the    Fathers  are  on    his  Gdc  iiith    the  fame 
 Jiieaning  and  Referve  as  he  pretends  our  Church-Forms  ^ 
 ^a  fav.Qur  him;  that  is,  provided  he  may  interpret  as  h^^^ 
 fl^afis,  and  make  than  fpeak^  his  Senje^  however  Contra^ 
 di^ory  tq  their  own :    Jind  whether  the  true  Reafon  W/y 
 be  does  not  care  to  admit  the  Tcftimonies  of  the  Fathers  as 
 l^xooky..mar  m  h^r.   ^eca-^fe  ihcy  arev  againft  hi;^? 
 
 a  u  E  ?v  Y   xxvni. 
 
 whether  it  h?  at  all  probable,  that  the  primitive  Church 
 fhould  miftake  in  fo  material  a  Point  as  this  is  i  or  that 
 the  whole  Stream  of  Chrifiian  Writers  fhould  miftake  in 
 tellhig-uswkfat  the  Sen fs  of  the  Church  was ;  and  v->he^ 
 tier  juch  a  Cloud  of  Waneffts  can  be  fet  afide  with^out 
 wcakemng  the  only  Proof  we  have  of  the  Canon  of 
 Scripture..  ^W  the  Integrity  of  the  Sacred  Text  ?  p.  4  56". 
 <  Anlwe?  tp  Dr.  V/elU  pagi  i§. 
 
 ClU  E  K  Y 
 
The  CONTENT^T 
 
 ■A-ii\.\v.c^  -^^t  >^^  Q.  U  E  R  Y     XXIX^^^-^A^T  ^W  ^% 
 
 fVhether^  private  Reafon'wgt   in  a  matter  a^ove  hWr  CbyH^ 
 
 p-ehenjiorj^  be  ^  jafer   Knle  to  go  bj^    than  the  gerierat 
 
 Senfe   and  'Judgment  of  the   primitive  Church , '   in  tht 
 
 firfi  500  Tears;  or^  fuppo/ing  it  doubt  Jul  what  the  Senfe  cf 
 
 the  Church   was  within  that  time,     whether  7vhat  wai 
 
 determind  by  a  Conned  of  ^  00  Bifljops  foon  after'-i  ^ith 
 
 \the  great  eft  Care  and  De  liber  at  ion,  and  has  fatisfied  Meji 
 
 'of  the  greatefl  Senfe,  Piety  and  Learnings    all  over  thi* 
 
 Chriflian  Worlds  fir   1400  fear's  fi^xe^   may  not  fatisff 
 
 wije  and^good^Men  nonv\    p.  ^^o.  '• 
 
 .■  QUERY  XXX.  -  ^vk.  ^  ■ 
 Whtther-i  fnppofng  the  Cafe  doubt fuU  it  bs  mt  d  'Mfi^  A^ah^i 
 ■pArt  ta  take  the  fafer  Side*,  rather  to  thinly  too  highl)\ 
 than  too  meanly  of  our  Blejfed  Saviour;  rather  to  pay 
 a  modeft  deference  to  the  Judgment  of  the  Antient  and 
 Modern  Churchy  than  to  lean  to  onii  o'um  Vnderfiand*' 
 
 tf^ether  any  thing  lefs  than  clear  and  evident  Demon ftrl^s 
 tion  5  on  the  fide  of  Arianirm ,  ought  to  move  n  "wifi 
 and  good  Man^  againfi  fo  great  Appetvi'ances  of  Truiti^ 
 on  the  fide  ^/Orthodoxy,  from  Scripture,  Reafdn* 
 And  Antiquity:  And  whether  we  may  net  wait  jQff£ 
 htfne  y;e  find  fuch  Demon ftrationf  p.  48r»c^if  ,% 
 
 .inv:.a    y  ^  j.  j  jj 
 
 A^  .   's   ^v.r^V.. .  .-^    ^^ >  V Y\vx^\id  ^d\  ^\^  ^"3iU3 
 
 ii  tS^<J?iWiUiQ  PUT'" 
 
E  R  R  A  T  A. 
 
 Lin.  Readt 
 
 Gregoriesm 
 
 p.  113.  Ox.  £<!. 
 
 Patient. 
 
 perplex. 
 CredendUs, 
 expreflly. 
 
 dele  comraa  after  Mafms. 
 
 elaborately 
 
DEFENSE 
 
 O  F     S  O  M  E 
 
 Q.  U   E    R   I    E    S 
 
 RELATING     TO 
 
 Dr.   CLARK  Es 
 Scheme  of  the  Bt.  Trinity: 
 
 IN  ANSWER  TO  A 
 
 CLERGY-MAN  in  the  Country. 
 '    Compare  the  following  Texts. 
 
 /  am  the  Lord,  and 
 
 there  is  none  elfe  ; 
 There  is  no  God  be- 
 fides  me,  Ifa.  45-.  5. 
 
 Is  there  a  God  be- 
 fides  me?  Tea,  There 
 is  no  God,  I  know  not 
 any,  \{.  44.  8. 
 
 /  am  God  and  there 
 is  none  like  me  ;  Be- 
 fore me  there  was  no 
 God  form'd ,  neither 
 /ball  there  be  after 
 4ne,  ir  46.  9. 
 
 The  Word  was  God^ 
 Job.  I.  I. 
 
 Thy  Throne y  O  God, 
 Heb.  I.  8. 
 
 Chriji  came,  who  is 
 over  all  God  blejfed 
 for  ever,   Rom.  9.  5-. 
 
 irho  being  in  the 
 Form  of  God,  Phil.  i. 6. 
 Who  being  the 
 Brightnefs  of  his  Glo- 
 ry ^  and  the  exprefs 
 Image  of  his  Terjon, 
 Heb,  I,  3. 
 
 B  Q^UERY 
 
X  y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.  I. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       I. 
 
 Whether  all  other  Beings,  be  (ides  the  one 
 Supreme  God,  be  not  excluded  by  the  Texts 
 ^y  Haiah,  {to  which  many  more  might  be 
 added)  and  confequently ,  whether  Chrifl 
 can  be  God  at  all,  tinlefs  He  be  the  fame 
 with  the  Supreme  God? 
 
 TH  E  Sum  of  your  Anfwer  ro  this  Query, 
 is,  x.\\2in  the  Texts  cited  from  Ifaiah,  in 
 the  fir f  Column,  are  fpoken  of  one  Perfoii  on- 
 ly, p.  34.  The  Terfon  of  the  Father,  p.  39. 
 And  therefore  all  other  Terfons,  or  Beings 
 (which  you  make  equivalent)  how  divine  fo- 
 ever,  are  necejfarily  excluded-^  and  by  Confe- 
 quence ,  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  fpend  (bme  Pages,  in  endeavouring  to 
 iliovv,  that  the  Terfon  of  the  Father  only  is 
 the  Supreme  God;  and  that  the  Perlbn  of  the 
 Son  is  not  Supreme  God,     But  what  does  this 
 fignify,  except  it  be  to  lead  your  Reader  off  i 
 from  the  Point  which  it  concerned  you  to  Ipeak  j 
 to?  Inftead  of  anfvvenng  the  Difficulty  proposed,  ; 
 which  v^^as  the  part  of  aRelpondent,  you  chuie  | 
 to  flip  it  over,  and  endeavor  to  put  me  upon  | 
 the  Defenfivc;    which    is  by  no   means  Fain,i 
 Your  Bufinefs  was  to  ward  offtheConfequence;! 
 which  I  had  prefs'd  you  with,  namely,  this:' 
 That  if  the  Son  be  at  all  excluded  by  thofej 
 
 Texts! 
 
Q^i;.  I.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  3 
 
 Texts  in  the  firft  Column,  He  is  altogether  ex- 
 cluded ;  and  is  no  God  at  all.  He  cannot,  up- 
 on your  Principles,  be  the  fame  God,  becaufe 
 He  is  not  the  lame  Perlbn :  He  cannot  be  ano- 
 ther God,  becaule  excluded  by  thoie  Texts.  If 
 therefore  He  be  neither  the  ftme  God,  nor  ano- 
 ther God  ;  it  mud  follow  that  He  is  no  God. 
 This  is  the  difficulty  which  I  apprehend  to  lie 
 againft  your  Scheme ;  and  which  you  have  not 
 iufficiently  attended  to. 
 
 I  lliall  therefore  charge  it  upon  you  once 
 again ,  and  leave  you  to  get  clear  of  it,  ac 
 leifure. 
 
 I  ihall  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  defign 
 and  purport  of  thole  Texts,  cited  from  Ifaiahy 
 was  the  fame  with  that  of  the  firjt  Command- 
 ment:  Namely,  to  draw  the  People  off  from 
 placing  any  Truft,  Hope,  or  Reliance  in  any 
 but  God,  to  dired;  them  to  the  only  proper 
 objedl  of  Worlhip,  in  oppofition  to  all  Things 
 orPerfbns,  befides  the  one  Supreme  God.  **Nei- 
 *'ther  Baal  nor  Ajhtaroth,  nor  any  that  are 
 *'efteemedGods  by  the  Nations,  are  flridtly  and 
 **  properly  fuch.  Neither  Princes  norMagiilrates, 
 ''however  called  Gods  in  a  loofe  Metaphorical 
 "  Senfe,  are  ftriitly  or  properly  fuch.  No  reli- 
 "gious  Service,  no  Worihip,  no  Sacrifice  is  due 
 "to  any  of  them:  I  only  am  God,  in  a  juft 
 '*  Senfe ;  And  therefore  I  demand  your  Homage 
 *'and  Adoration.  Now,  upon  your  Hypothejis, 
 we  muft  add  ;  that  even  the  Son  of  God  Him- 
 felf  however  divine  He  may  be  rhoiTght,    \s 
 
 B  %  really 
 
4  ^DEFENSE  Qju,  L 
 
 really  no  God  at  all,  in  any  juft  and  proper 
 Senfe.  He  is  no  more  than  a  nominal  God, 
 and  ftands  excluded  with  the  reft:  Ail  Worfliip 
 of  Him,  and  Reliance  upon  Hirn,  will  be  Ido- 
 latry as  much  as  the  Worihip  of  Angels,  or 
 Men,  or  of  the  Gods  of  the  Heathen  would  be. 
 God  the  Father  He  is  God,  and  He  only;  and 
 Hhn  only  fiialt  thou  ferve.  This  I  take  to  be 
 a  clear  Confequence  from  your  Principles,  and 
 unavoidable. 
 
 You  do,  indeed,  attempt  to  evade  it  by  fup- 
 pofing  that,  when  the  Father  faith  there  is  no 
 God  bejides  me,  the  meaning  only  is,  that 
 there  is  no  Supreme  God  befides  me.  But  will 
 you  pleale  to  confider. 
 
 r.  That  you  have  not  the  leaft  Ground  or 
 Realbn  for  putting  this  Senfe  upon  the  Text. 
 It  is  not  laid  there  is  no  other  Supreme  God 
 befides  me ;  but  abfolutely,  no  Other. 
 
 1.  If  this  were  all  the  meaning,  then  Baal 
 or  JijJotaroth,  or  any  of  the  Gods  of  the  Na- 
 tions, might  be  look'd  upon  zs  inferior  TieitieSy 
 and  be  ferved  with  a  fubordinate  Worfliip,  not- 
 withftanding  any  thing  thei'e  Texts  fay,  with- 
 out any  Peril  of  Idolatry,  or  any  Breach  of  thb 
 firft  Commandment.  Solomon  might  Sacrifice 
 to  Ajhtaroth,  and  Milcom  5  to  Chemojh  and 
 Moloch,  provided  He  did  but  ferve  the  God  of 
 Ifrael  with  Soveraign  Worfliip,  acknovvledg- 
 ing  Him  Supreme.  And  this  might  furnifli  the 
 Samaritans  with  a  very  plaufible  excule,  even 
 from  the  Law  it  felf,    for  ferving  their  ow7% 
 
 *  I  Kiogs  c.  1 1,  Gods 
 
Qjj.  I.  of/d^e  (QUERIES.  s 
 
 Gods  in  Subordination  to  the  one  Supreme 
 God ;  fince  God  had  not  forbidden  it. 
 
 3.  You  may  plcaic  to  confider  farther,  that 
 there  was  never  any  great  Danger  of  either  j^^ic; 
 or  Gentile  falling  into  the  Belief  of  many  Su- 
 preme Gods;  or  into  thcWorihip  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  moft  to  be  guard- 
 ed againtl,  was  theWorihip  of ////^mr  Deities, 
 befides,  or  in  Subordination  to,  one  Supreme. 
 It  cannot  therefore  reafonably  be  imagined  that 
 thofe  Texts  are  to  bear  only  fuch  a  Senfe,  as 
 leaves  room  for  the  Worlliip  of  inferior  Di- 
 vinities. 
 
 The  Sum  then  is,  that  by  the  Texts  of  the 
 Old  Teftament,  it  is  nor  meant  only  that  there 
 is  no  other  Supreme  God ;  bur  abfolutely  no 
 Other:  And  therefore  our  hlefied  Lord  mud 
 either  be  included  and  comprehended  in  the 
 one  Supreme  God  of  Ijrach  or  be  entirely  ex- 
 cluded with  the  other  pretended,  or  nominal. 
 Deities.  I  fliall  clofe  this  Argument  with  St. 
 Atijiiii%  Words  to Maximin,  x\\t  Ar^an^A^o^^ 
 who  recurr'd  to  the  fame  Solution  of  the  Diffi- 
 culty  which  you  hope  to  Shelter  your  feif  in. 
 
 ''  "  Repeat  it  ever  fo  often,  that  the  Father 
 
 *  Clama  quantum  vis.  Pater  efl:  Major,  Filius  Minor,  refpondetur 
 tibij  duo  tamen  funt  Major  Sc  Minor.  Nee  diiftum  eft  Dominus 
 Deus  tuus  Major  Dominus  unus  eft :  icdL  didum  eft  Dominus  Deus 
 tuus  Dominus  unus  eft.  Ncque  didlum  eft,  non  eft  alius  <equalis 
 inihi,  fed  didtum  eft,  non  eft  alius  praerer  me.  Aut  ergo  Conhtere 
 Patrcm  &  Filium  unum  efteDominum  Dcum,  aut  aperte  nega  Do- 
 minum  Deum  efte  Cliriftum.    Auguji,  1.  1.  c.  13.  p.  727. 
 
 B  3  is 
 
6  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  L 
 
 "  is  greater,  the  Son  lefi.  We  fliall  anfvver 
 **  you  as  often,  that  the  greater  and  the  /e/s 
 ^'  make  T'wo.  And  it  is  not  faid,  Thj  greater 
 *'  Lord  God  is  one  Lord:  But  the  Words  are : 
 *'  The  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord:  Nor  is  it 
 *'  faid.  There  is  none  other  Equal  to  me,  but 
 ''  the  Words  are,  There  is  none  other  Befides 
 '•  me.  Either  therefore  acknowledge  that  Fa- 
 **  ther  and  Son  are  one  Lord  God;  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  fliow  that  the 
 Father  fingly  is  the  Supreme  God ,  and  that 
 Chrift  is  excluded  from  being  the  Supreme  God  : 
 But  I  infifl  upon  it,  that  you  mifunderftand  thofe 
 Texts :  becanfe  the  Interpretation  you  give  of 
 them,  is  not  reconcifeable  with  other  Texts; 
 and  becaufe  it  leads  to  fuch  Abfurdities  as  are 
 too  fliocking  even  for  your  felf  to  admit.  In 
 ihort;  either  you  prove  too  much,  or  you 
 prove  nothing  ac  all. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       II. 
 
 Whether  the  Texts  of  the  New  Tejiament  {in 
 the  fecond  Column )  do  not  Jhow  that  He 
 (Chrift)  is  7iQt  excluded,  and  therefore  rrmfl 
 be  the  fame  Godl 
 
 THE  Texts  cited,  if  well  confidered,  taking 
 in  what  goes  before  or  after ;  are  enough 
 to  iliow  that  Chrift  is  not  excluded  among  the 
 
 nominal 
 
Q^L'.  II.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  7 
 
 nominal  Gods,  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 
 ^•i;^r.  Maker  of  the  World,  and  worlhip'd  by  the 
 Angels ;  and  tljcrefore  certainly  He  is  not  ex- 
 cluded among  the  nominal  Gods  whom  to  wor- 
 iliip  were  Idolatry.  But  fince  all  are  excluded, 
 as  hath  been  before  lliown,  except  the  one 
 Supreme  God,  it  is  very  manifefl:  that  He  is 
 the  fame  with  the  one  Supreme  God.  Not  the 
 jame  Terfon  with  the  Father,  as  you  ground- 
 lefly  objedt  to  us,  but  Another  Perlbn  in  the 
 fame  Godhead ;  and  therefore  the  Supreme  God 
 is  more  Perlbns  than  one.  You  argue,  p.  40. 
 that  if  Chriji  be  God  at  all,  it  unavoiddbly 
 follo'jus  that  He  cannot  be  the  fame  individual 
 God  with  the  ftipreme  God,  the  Father.  By 
 individual  God,  you  plainly  mean  the  fame  /;/- 
 dividual  divine  Terfon,  which  is  only  play- 
 ing upon  a  Word,  miflaking  our  Senie,  and 
 fighting  with  your  own  Shadow.  Who  pre» 
 tenHs  that  the  Son  is  i\\q  fam€  Terfon  with  the 
 Father?  All  we  afiert  iSi.  that  He  is  the  lame 
 Supreme  God ;  that  isi,  partaker  of  the  lame 
 undivided  Godhead  Jt  will  be  proper  here 
 briefly  ro  confidef  the  Texts^  by  which  you  at- 
 tempt to  prove,  that  the  Son  is  excluded  from 
 being  the  one  Supreme  God  :  only  let  me  re- 
 mind you,  once  again,  that  you  forget  the  part 
 you  was  to  bear.  Your  Bufmefs  was  not  to 
 oppofe^  but  to  reffond:  not  to  raife  Objed:i- 
 ons  againfl:  our  Scheme;  but  to  anfwer  thole 
 
 B  4  which 
 
8  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  II. 
 
 which  were  brought  againfl:  your  own.  You 
 obferve  *  from  John  %.  54.  Matt.  ^^.  31,  3x. 
 and  ^5is  3.  13.  that  God  the  Father  was  the 
 God  of  thej^^i^^j-,  the  God  of  Abraham,  Ifaac^ 
 and  Jacob.  Very  right.  But  how  does  it  appear 
 that  the  Son  was  not?  Could  you  have  brought 
 ever  a  Text  to  prove,  that  God  the  Son  was 
 not  God  of  Abraham,  Ifaac,  and  Jacob ;  I 
 muft  then  have  own'd  that  you  had  argued 
 pertinently. 
 
 You  next  cite,  Joh.ij.^,  i  Cor.%,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  fliown  that  He  is 
 \o  called  in  oppofition  to  the  Son,  or  exclufive 
 of  Him.  It  may  be  meant  in  oppofition  to 
 Idols  only,  as  all  Antiquity  has  thought ;  or  it 
 may  fignify  that  the  Father  is  primarily,  not 
 exclufively  ^  the  only  true  God,  as  the  firft 
 Perfon  of  the  blefled  Trinity,  the  Root  and 
 Fountain  of  the  other  Two.  You  obferve  f  that 
 in  thefe  and  many  other  Places,  the  one  God 
 is  the  Terfon  of  tbe  Father,  in  Contra- 
 diftinEtion  to  the  Perfon '  of  the  Son.  It  is 
 very  certain  that  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  is 
 there  dlflinguiih'd  from  the  Perfon  of  the  Son ; 
 becaufe  they  are  diftindHy  named  :  And  you 
 may  make  what  ufe  you  pleaie  of  the  Obfer- 
 vation,  againft  the  ^^^^^///^//j ;  who  make  but 
 one  Perfon  of  two.  But  what  other  ufe  you 
 can  be  able  to  make  of  it,  I  fee  not;  unlefs 
 you  can  prove  this  negative  Propofition,  that 
 
 *Pag.  34.  '      tPag'34«  ^^, 
 
Qy.  II.  offome  Q^UERIES.  9 
 
 no  fufficient  rcafbn  can  be  afTign'd  for  filling 
 the  Farher  the  ou/y  God,  without  luppofing, 
 that  the  Son  is  excluded.  Novatiau's  Remark 
 upon  one  of  your  Texts,  Jofj.  17.  3,  (Thee, 
 the  only  true  God  and  J  ejus  Chrifl  whom  thou 
 hajl  fent)  may  deferve  your  Notice.  *  He  ap- 
 plies the  Title  of  the  only  true  God  to  both, 
 (Ince  they  are  join'd  together  in  the  lame  Sen- 
 tence, and  eternal  Life  is  made  to  depend  upon 
 the  knowing  of  one,  as  much  as  of  the  other. 
 He  did  not  fee  tJiat  peculiar  Force  of  the  ex- 
 clufive  Term,  {only)  which  you  infift  fo  much 
 upon.  He  knew  better;  being  well  acquamted 
 with  the  Language,  and  the  Doctrine  of  the 
 Chriftian  Church.  His  Conftrudtion,  to  fpeak 
 modeftly,  is  at  leafl  as  plaufible  as  yours.  If 
 you  can  find  no  plainer  or  clearer  Texts  againft 
 us,  you'l  not  be  able  to  help  your  Caufe.  As 
 to  I  Cor.  8.  6.  All  that  can  be  reaibnably  ga- 
 thered from  it,  is,  that  the  Father  is  there  em- 
 phatically ftiled  one  God-.,  but  without  defiga 
 to  exclude  the  Son  from  being  God  alio:  as 
 the  Son  is  emphatically  ftiled  ojie  Lord\  but 
 without  defign  to  exclude  the  Father  from  be- 
 ing Lord  alio.  Realbns  may  be  allign'd  for  the 
 Emphajis  in  both  Calcs ;  which  are  too  obvi- 
 ous to  need  reciting.  One  Thing  you  may 
 pleaie   to   obferve;    that  the  Diicourie    there, 
 
 *  si  noIuifTet  (e  etiam  Deum  Intelligi,  cur  ^i^id^-.^xt,  8c  rjuem 
 mififti  Jefum  Chriflum,  nifi  quoniam  &  l3eum  accipi  voluit ".  Novat* 
 Trin.  c  24.. 
 
 See  the  fame  Argument  illujlrated  and  improved  by  the  great 
 Atlianafius:  Orat.  g.  p.  >"j8.  Vol.  i-  Edit.  B^^ned. 
 
 v.4,5'. 
 
lo  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  II 
 
 V.  4,  5*.  is  about  I^o/s,  and  nominal  Gods  and 
 Lords,  which  have  no  claim  or  title  to  religious 
 Woriliip.  Thefe  the  Father  and  Son  are  both 
 equally  didinguiflied  from :  which  may  infi- 
 nuate,  at  lead,  to  us  ;  That  the  Texts  of  the 
 Old  or  New  Tedament  declaring  the  Unity  and 
 excluding  others,  do  not  exclude  the  Son,  by 
 whom  are  all  Things:  So  that  here  again  you 
 have  unfortunately  quoted  a  Pafllige,  which  in- 
 ftead  of  making  for  you,  feems  rather  again  ft 
 you.  You  have  another,  which  is  Efh.  4.  6. 
 07ie  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all, 
 and  through  all,  and  in  you  all,  A  famous 
 Paflage,  which  has  generally  been  underftood 
 by  the  *  Antients  of  the  whole  Trinity.  Above 
 all  as  Father,  through  all,  by  the  Word,  and 
 in  all  by  the  Holy  Ghoil.  However  that  be, 
 this  is  certain,  that  the  Father  may  be  realon- 
 ably  called  the  one,  or  only,  God,  without  the 
 lead  Diminution  of  the  Son's  real  Divinity :  a 
 fuller  Account  of  which  Matter  you  may  pleafc 
 to  lee  in  Dr.  Fiddes's  Body  of  Divinity,  Vol.  i. 
 p.  383,  ^c.  As  to  the  remaining  Texts  cited 
 by  you,  lome  are  meant  of  Chriii  as  Man.  or 
 as  Mediator:  And  rhofe  which  certainly  re- 
 jpedt  him  in  a  higher  Capacity ,  may  be  ac- 
 counted for  on  this  Principle,  that  we  referve, 
 with  the  Antients,  a  Priority  of  Order  to  the 
 Father,  the  Firjt  of  the  Bleded  Three. 
 
 *  Ir^neus  1,  y.  c.  i8.  p.  5  if.  Ed.Bened.  Hippolytus  Contr.  Noet. 
 C.I 4. p.  16.  Fabric.  Ed.  Athanafius  'E.^.2i.^'Scr^}p.  Marius  Vidorin. 
 B.  P.  Torn. 4.  p.  2/8»    Hieronym.  Tom.  4..  p.  1,  p.  362.Ed.Bened. 
 
 This 
 
Qy.  II.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  ii 
 
 This  may  ferve  for  a  general  Key  to  explain 
 the  Texts  mentioned,  or  others  of  like  import. 
 I  cannot,  in  this  place,  defcend  to  Particulars, 
 without  running  too  far  into  the  'Defenfivc  ; 
 and  leading  the  Reader  od  from  what  we  began 
 with.     Had  you  pleas'd  to  obfcrve  the  rules  of 
 flrid:  method  in  difpuce,  you  iliould  not  here 
 have   brought   Texts    to    ballance  mine  :    but 
 iliould    have  refcrved  them  for  another  place. 
 All  you  had  to  do,   was  to  examine  the  Texts 
 I  had  fet  down  in  the  fecond  Column  ;  and  to 
 give  fiich   a  Senie  of  them  as  might  comport 
 with  your  own  Hypothejis,  or  might  be  un- 
 ferviceable  to  mine.     You  Ihould  have  fhown 
 that  Jch.  I.  I.  Heb.  i.  8.  and  Rom.  9.5-.  may 
 fiirly  be  underftood  of  a  nominal  Go^  only; 
 one  that  ftands  excluded,  by  the  Texts  of  the 
 firft  Column,  from  al!  Pretence,  or  Title,   to 
 religious  Homage  and  Adoration:     For,    as  I 
 have  before  oWerved,  He  mult  either  be  entire- 
 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  leaft, 
 you  ihould  have  let   before   the  Reader  your 
 Inrerpretation  of  thole  Texts,  and  have  fliown 
 it  to  be  confident  with  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah, 
 For  example,  take  Job.  1. 1. 
 
 '*  In  the  Beginning  was  the  W OKDy  and 
 '*  the  Word  was  with  the  one  Supreme 
 ' *  God,  and  the  Word  was  Another 
 *'  God  inferior  to  Him,  a  Creature  of  the 
 
 *•  Great 
 
i^  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  II. 
 
 **  Great  God:  All  Things  were  Crea  t- 
 ED  by  this  Creature,  &c. 
 
 This  Interpretation,  which  is  really  yours, 
 ss  iliall  be  fliown  in  the  Sequel,  is  what  you 
 fliould  have  fairly  own'd,  and  reconciled,  if 
 poffible ,  with  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah ,  ( pur- 
 pofely  defign'd  to  exclude  all  inferior,  as 
 well  as  co-ordinate  Gods)  and  particularly 
 with  Ifaiah  46.  9.  Before  me  there  ^-juas  710 
 God  form'd,  neither  Jhall  there  be  after 
 me:  Words  very  full  and  expreifive  againit 
 any  Creattire-Gods.  But,  inltead  of  this,  you 
 tell  us,  God  could  not  be  with  Himfelf  as 
 if  any  of  us  laid,  or  thought,  that  was  St. 
 John's  meaning.  Thus  you  indultrioufly  run 
 from  the  Point,  miireprelent  our  Senle,  and 
 artfully  conceal  your  own.  In  this  flight  man- 
 ner, you  pals  over  the  three  firfl:  Texts  already 
 rnention'd ;  but  you  think  you  have  feme  Ad- 
 vantage of  the  ^ieriji,  in  relpedl  of  Thil. 
 X.  6.  and  Heb.  i.  3.  and  not  content  to  fay, 
 that  they  come  not  up  to  the  point ;  you  are 
 very  pofitive,  that  thty  prove  the  direct  con- 
 trary to  that  for  which  they  are  aUedgd\ 
 and  exprefs  your  wonder  that  they  jhottld  be 
 offered.  Whether  you  really  wonder  at  a  fhing, 
 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- 
 mme  not;  but  proceed  to  confider  what  you 
 have  to  offer  againfl:  my  Senfe  of  the  two  Texts. 
 
 Upoa 
 
Q^u.  If.  of fome  QUERIES.  13 
 
 Upon  ThiLx.  6.  you  preft  me  with  the  Au- 
 thority of  Novatian  ;  whom,  I  do  aflure  you, 
 I  very  much  rcfpefr,  as  1  do  all  the  primitive 
 Writers.  As  to  Novatian\  Interpretation  of 
 ThiL  1,6  it  iiiall  be  confider'd  preiently  ;  on- 
 ly, in  the  firft  place,  let  me  obicrve  to  you,  that 
 as  to  the  main  or"  my  Argument,  buik  upon 
 that  and  other  Texts,  He  was  certainly  on  my 
 Side.  He  *  cites  Ifa.  45*.  5*.  and  unJerftands 
 it  of  God  the  Father;  not  fo  as  to  exclude 
 t\\Q.  Son  from  being  comprehended  in  the  one 
 God,  but  in  oppofition  to  faife  Gods  only. 
 He  proves  the  Divinity  of  Chrift  from  his 
 receiving  WorjQiip  of  the  Church ,  and  his 
 being  every  where  prefent,  f  befides  many 
 other  Topicks  ;  and  makes  Him  \  Confuh- 
 ftantial  with  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  with  me  in 
 the  main,  and  cannot  be  brought  to  bear  Evi- 
 dence againft  me,  unlets,  at  the  fame  time.  He 
 be  found   to    contradid:  Himfelf     This  being 
 
 ♦  Ego  Dens,  8c  ndn  eft  pracrcr  me.  Qui  per  eundem  Prophetani 
 refert:  Quoniam  rnajcftatein  n:eam  non  dabo  alien',  ut  ornnes  cum 
 fuis  Figrrentis  Rrhnicos  excludat  &:  Hierericcs.  C.  3.  />.  708.  See 
 filjo  lie  Citation  above  p.  9, 
 
 t  Si  Homo  tanrummodo  Chriftus,  quomodo  adeft  ubiqiie  invo- 
 catus,  rum  haec  hominis  natura  non  lit,  fed  Dei,  ut  adelFc  omni 
 loco  poflit  ?  C  14.  /).  715'. 
 
 \  Unus  Deus  oftendirur  verus  &:  seternus  Pater,  a  quo  folo  hxc 
 vis  Divinitatis  emiffa  etiam  in  Filium  tradita  &  direfta  rurfuni  per 
 Subjiant'ii  Commumomm  ad  Patrem  revolvitur.  lather  is  here 
 fiiled  emphatically  the  cne  God,  hut  fiill  comprehending,  not  exclttd- 
 ing  the  S(>n,  coufubftantial  -mth  Hm^    Ch.  31,  p.  730. 
 
 premised. 
 
14  ^DEFENSE  Q^li.  II. 
 
 premised,  lee  us  now  lee  what  He  lays  to  the 
 Text  above  mcntion'd,   TlnLi.6,  He  faith  of 
 the  Son  (I  ul'e  your  own  Words,  p.  35.)  that 
 thd  He  was  in  the  Form  of  God,  yet  He  ne- 
 ^er  compared  Himfelf  with  God  his  Father. 
 You  have  tranflared  the  ]aft  Words  as  if  they 
 had  run  thus;    ^}eo,  patri  Juo.     The  Words 
 are,  Nnnquam  fe  'Deo  '^Patri  aut  comparavit, 
 ant  contulit.     Never  compared  Himfelf  with 
 God  the  Father,    The  Reaion  follows,  Memor 
 fe  ejfe  ex  fio  Tatre :  Remembring  He  was 
 from  his  Father :    That  is,  that  He  was  be^ 
 gotten,    and  not  unbegotten.      He  never  pre- 
 tended to  an  equality  with  the  Father,  in  re- 
 fpedt  of  his  Original,  knowing  Himielf  to  be 
 fecond  only  in  Order,  not  the  frft  Peribn  of 
 the  ever  Blefled  Trinity.      You  may  lee    the 
 like  Expreilions  in  *  Hilary  and  f  Fhabadius ; 
 who    can    neither    of    them    be   faiped:ed    of 
 jirianizing  in  that  Point.    You  afterwards  cite 
 Ibme  other  Expreirions  of  Novatian,  particu- 
 larly this:    Duo  ^qtiales  invent i  duos  Deos 
 merito  reddidijfent.     Which  you  might  have 
 render'd  thus :    Had  they  both  been  equal  ( in 
 refped:  of  Original ,    both  unbegotten )    They 
 had  undoubtedly  been  two  Gods. 
 
 See  the  :j:  whole  PafTage  as  it  lies  in  the  Au- 
 
 *  H'lb.ry  Trin.  I.  3.  c  4.  p.  816.  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 f  Ph^Occd.  p.  5(94,. 
 
 •^  Si  enim  natus  non  fuifTet,  innatus  comparatus  cum  eo  qui 
 cfTet  innatus,  xcuatione  in  utroque  oftcnfa,  duos  taceret  innatos,  & 
 idco  duos  facciet  Deos.  Si  non  genitus  cflet,  collatus  cum  eo 
 (qui)  genitus  non  elTet  &  aequales  invent!,  duos  Deos  merito  reddi- 
 
 rhor 
 
Q^u.  II.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  15- 
 
 thor  himfelf,  and  not  maim'd  and  murilared  as 
 you  quote  it,  from  Dr.  Clarke,     There  is  no- 
 thing more  in  it  than  this,  that  Father  and  Son 
 are  not  two  Gods,  becaulc  They  are  not  both  un- 
 originated :  which  is  the  common  Anlwer  made 
 by  the  Cachohcks  to  the  charge  of  Tritheifm ; 
 not  only  before,  but  after  the  Nicene  Council'^ 
 as  might  be  made  appear  by  a  Cloud  of  Wit- 
 neffes,  were  it  needful.     What  you  are  picas'd 
 to  call  a  moji  Jtrong  Tejlimony  againft  an  ah- 
 Joint e  Coequal'tty  (meaning  this  PafTage  of  No- 
 *vatian)  is,  if  rightly  underftood?  and  compared 
 with  what  goes  before  and  after,  a  mod  ftrong 
 Teftimony  of  fuch  a  Coequality  as  we  contend 
 for.     And  therefore  Dr.  IFhitby,    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 
 PafTage,   "  *does  in  the  plained  words  imagin- 
 *'  able,    declare  that  Chrifl:  is  God,   equal  to 
 *'  the  Father  in  every  telped:,  excepting  only 
 *'  that  He  is  God  of  God.    The  Dodcr  indeed 
 has  fince  chang'd  his  Mind ;  and  now  talks  as 
 confidently  the  other  way,    upon  f  this  very 
 Paffage.     Whether  He  was  more  likely  to  fee 
 clearly  then  ,    or  fince ,    I  leave  to  others  to 
 
 diflent  n:;n  gcniti;  atque  ideo  duos  Chriftus  reddidifTet  Deos,  C\ 
 fine  Origine  efTcr,  ut  Pater,  inventus,  &:  ipfe  principium  omnium, 
 ut  Pater,  duo  facicns  principia,  duos  oftendiflet  nobis  confequenter 
 ^  Deos.     C.  31. 
 
 *  Ubi  verbis  difertiirimis  oftendit  (  Novratianus )  Chriftum  effe 
 Deum,  Patri  aequalem  paremque,  eo  tantummodo  excepto,  quod 
 fit  Deus  de  Deo.     IVhitb.  TraB.  de  Ver,  Chr,  Deitate,  p.  67. 
 
 t  lii>it!iy>  difqui.ntio  Modeft  f.  1CJ4, 
 
 judge 
 
i6  ^DEFENSE  Qu,  II. 
 
 judge,    who  will  be  at  the  Pains  to  compare 
 his  former  with  Ibme  of  his  latter  Writings. 
 
 You  have  given  us  the  Sum  of  the  317? 
 Chapter  of  Novatian ,  as  it  (lands  collected 
 by  the  Learned  "Dr.  Clarke  in  bis  excellent 
 Anfwer  to  Mr.  NelibnV  Friend.  You  may 
 next  pleafe  to  conlulc  the  no  lefs  excellent  Re- 
 ply, by  Mr.  NelJo7t\  Friend,  p.  170,  ^c.  where 
 you  may  probably  meet  with  Satisfaction. 
 
 But  to  return  to  our  Text,  Thil.  x.  6.  The 
 Words,  H^x^  'ApTiaffxov  Jy/icjctlo  to  tlvxj  1<wl  ©eaj,  you 
 tranfl  >re ;  He  did  not  a-ffe6t,  did  not  claim,  did 
 not  ajpiime,  take  upon  Him,  or  eagerly  de- 
 Jire,  to  he  Honoured  as  God.  Afterwards, 
 p.  36.  He  never  thought  fit  to  claim  to  Him- 
 felfDivinity,  or  more  literally,  you  fay.  He 
 never  thought  the  'Divinity  a  Thing  to  he  fo 
 catch' d  at  hy  Him,  as  to  equal  Himfelf  with 
 God  his  Father.  This  you  give  both  as  No- 
 vatian's  Senfe,  and  as  the  true  Senfe  of  the 
 Text.  And  you  endeavor  to  confirm  it  from 
 the  Authorities  of  Grotius,  Tillotjm,  Whithy, 
 and  Clarke ;  who,  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  (land  upon  Niceties," 
 I  may  yield  to  you  your  own  Interpretation  of 
 this  PafTage,  did  not  ajfeci  to  he  Honoured  as 
 God'.,  For  the  ftreis  of  the  Caufe  does  not  leem 
 
 *  I  am  perfivaded  thai:  tie  Wordi  may  very  juftly  be  tranjlated  He 
 (ltd  not  very  highly  '{/alue^  did  not  i?ifift  upon,  his  e(3uality  with  Cod, 
 6nt  condefcended,  6cc. 
 
 fo' 
 
Qu.  11.  cffo;r/e  Q^UERIES.  17 
 
 fo  much  to  lie  in  the  Inrcrpretation  of  tho(e 
 Words,  as  of  the  Words  foregoing,  vizi.  'U  df 
 /Ltop^})  0^:5  vTfapx^^'  **  Who  being  in  the  Form 
 "  of  God,  that  is,  *  truly  God  (which  beft 
 *'  anfwers  to  the  Antitbcjis  following,  the 
 *'  Form  of  a  Servant  fignifying  as  much  as 
 **  truly  Man)  and  therefore  might  juflly  have 
 *'  afTumed  to  appear  as  God,  and  to  be  always 
 **  Honoured  as  fiich ,  yet  did  not  do  it,  at 
 **  the  time  of  his  Incarnarion;  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,  S>V.  What  is  there  in  this  Para- 
 phrafe  or  Interpretation,  either  difagreeable  to 
 th^  Scope  of  the  Place,  or  the  Context,  or  to 
 the  fober  Sentiments  of  Catholick  Antiquity, 
 not  only  after,  but  before  the  Council  oi  Nics\ 
 as  may  appear  from  the  Teltimonies  cited   in 
 
 *  Tertullian'i  recital  of  this  Text,  and  Comment  upon  it,  are  worth 
 Remarking.  Plane  dc  Tubftantia  Chrifti  patant  Sc  hie  Marcionirse 
 Suffragari  Apoftolum  fibi,  quod  Ph .ntaima  Carnis  fuerit  in  Chrifto, 
 quum  dick,  Quod  tn  Effigie  Dei  conjlitutus  non  rapinam  exifinn^.vit 
 Pariari  Deo,  fed  exhaufit  femetipfum  accept  a  F.^jigie  fervi,  non  veri- 
 tate;  ^  Jimditudine  Hcmmis,  non  in  Hominej  (^  Figura  inventus 
 
 ut  Homo,   non    Subflantia,   id  elt,   non  Came. 'Numquid 
 
 ergo  8c  Hie  qua  in  Effi^ie  eum  Dei  collocat?  iEque  non  erit  I)en$ 
 Chriflus  Tjere,  fi  nee  Homo  vere  fuit  in  Ejf.gie  Hominis  Confiitutus, 
 Contr.  Marc.  1.  f .  c.  lo.  p.  486.  Non  libi  magni  aliquid  deputat 
 quod  ipfe  quidem  asqualis  Deo,  8c  unum  cum  Patre,  eft.  Orig.  in 
 Epif'  ad  Rom.  I.  f.  0£o?  foiv  KivtoTzc^  ixvrov  oCTrh  y  sTvccf  Tnx,  QiJ. 
 Concil.  Antioch.  Labb.  Vol.  i.  p.  848.       'O  {Asvoyi^';  t5  0£»  Xoy^, 
 
 ©£0^    V7n/,^^iiV     C^     0f5,      KUtiVUKiV     iU,UTOV    t(^     T^V    uh^OV    TUUTUU     ffZC^y^ 
 
 .iifATn^irv.    Hippolytus,  Vol.  2.  p.  29.    Fabric. 
 
 The  refi  of  th$  ^affage  if  e-xi^Uenily  well  worth  the  Reader*s  perufaL 
 
 e  the 
 
l8  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  If. 
 
 the  Margin?  Now,  if  this  be  the  Senfe  of  it,^ 
 which  I  might  farther  confirm  by  the  Autho- 
 rities of  Athanafitis,  Jercm,  Jlnflht^  Chry- 
 fofiom,  Theofhyla6i,  Oecumenius,  and  others 
 of  the  Antients,  befides  *  Biihop  Vearfon  and 
 fBifliop^//// among  the  Moderns,  why  fliould 
 you  wonder  to  find  it  agam  cited  in  the  lame 
 Caufe,  being  fo  full  and  pertinent  to  the  Mat- 
 ter 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  Hebr.  i.  3.  Who  being  the 
 Brtghtnefs  of  his  Glory,  and  the  exfrefs 
 Image  of  his  Terfon,  Sec.  Here  you  are  fo 
 obliging  as  to  cite  only  one  Pafiage  out  of 
 Eufebius,  againfl:  me,  I  would  fay,  for  me. 
 JEu/ebius,  writing  againfl:  the  Sabellians,  prel- 
 fts  Them  with  this  Text,  and  argues  thus  from 
 it.  "  The  Image,  and  that  whereof  it  is  the 
 "  Image,  cannot  both  be  the  fame  Thing  {m. 
 '*  the  Sabellian  Senle)  but  they  are  Pwo  Sub- 
 **  fiances,  and  two  Things,  and  two  Towers  : 
 from  whence  He  rightly  inters,  or  plainly 
 means  to  do,  that  the  Father  is  not  the  Son^ 
 but  that  they  are  really  diftind.  What  is 
 there  in  this  at  all  repugnant  to  what  the 
 '^uerifi  maintains  ?  The  force  of  your  Ob- 
 jedion  lies,  I  fiippofe,  in  this,  that  Father  and 
 
 *  On  the  Creed:  Article  1. 
 
 f  Def.  Fid.  N.  4.9.  70.  Prim.  Trad.  p.  38.  Qui  unus  locus,  /i 
 refte  expcndatur,  ad  omnes  H.rrefes  adireribs  Jeiii  Chrifti  Domirs 
 noftri  perfonam   repcllendas  fufficit.     D.  F.  p.  37, 
 
 Son 
 
Qjj.  11.  offome  (QUERIES.  19 
 
 Son  are  called  ^io  nal^^  Sio  'Tr^ffioL'^j  and  S\jo 
 S^vvd/iiei^,  inconfiiiencly,  you  imagine,  with  hidi- 
 vidual  Confubftanrialiry, 
 
 I  will  nor  be  bound  to  vindicate  every  Ex- 
 prc/Tion  ro  be  met  with  in  Eiifeblus :  Bur,  al- 
 lowing for  the  Ti'BC,  when  it  was  wrote,  be- 
 fore rhe  ienle  of  thofe  Words  was  fix*d  and  de- 
 termin'd,  as  it  has  been  {Ince ;  there  may  be 
 nothing  in  all  this,  which  fignifies  more  than 
 what  the  Catholick  Church  has  always  meant 
 by  two  Terfons\  and  what  all  mull  affirm, 
 who  believe  a  real  Trinity.  So  ^  Tierius 
 caird  Father  and  Son  hct'icl^  JJo,  meaning  no 
 more  than  we  do  by  two  diftind:  Perlons  : 
 And  Alexander  Bifliop  oi  Alexandria,  ih^ 
 firft  Champion  for  the  Catholick  Caule  againft 
 Arms,  in  his  Letter  to  Alexander  Bifliop  of 
 Conjtantinofle,  Icruples  not  to  call  Father  and 
 Son  ^  6ij:i  -TT^i^ca'^ ;  and  Tertullian  intimates 
 that  they  are  ^  du£  res,  fed  Conjunct  £ ;  and 
 Methodius  ufes  ^ib'o  ^vd/uLei^,  meaning  two  Per- 
 lons. Thefe  or  rhe  like  ilrong  Exprefiions , 
 occurring  in  the  Catholick  Writers,  were  only 
 to  guard  the  more  carefully  againft  Sabellia* 
 nifm,  the  prevailing  Herejy  of  thofe  Times, 
 But  2iit^x  ArianiTm  arofe,  there  was  Greater  dan- 
 ger  of  the  oppofite  extreme  :  And  therefore 
 they  began  to  foften  this  manner  of  Expreffion, 
 left  any  fliould  be  led  to  think,  thar  the  Per- 
 fons  of  the  Trinity  were  fo  diftind  as  to  be 
 
 a  See  Phot.  Cod.  119.   p.  300.  b  Apud  Theod.  !.  i.  c.  4; 
 
 c  Contr.  Prax.  t.  8.   p.  5-04.        d  Phot.  Cod.  23^.  p.  137- 
 
 C  X  indepeit- 
 
20  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  11. 
 
 independent  of,  feparate  from,  and  aliene  to, 
 each  other.  Thus,  inftead  of  S'vo  (pSivx^  which 
 might  be  innocent  before ,  and  is  iifed  b^^ 
 *  Origen,  They  chofe  rather  to  fay,  f  Cf^^  &/. 
 (^ooros:  rather  than  fay,  du£  ejfentia,  which 
 might  be  liable  to  miflakes;  They  would  lay, 
 Ejfentia  de  Ejfentia,  as  T>eus  de  'Deo.  The 
 defign  of  all  which  was,  fo  to  afTert  a  real  Di- 
 ftinftion,  as  not  to  teach  three  abiblute,  inde- 
 pendent, or  feparate  Subftances;  fo  to  maintain 
 the  diftiiiEitGn  of  Perlons,  as  not  to  divide  the 
 Subftance.  Three  real  Perfons  is  what  I.  what 
 every  Trinitarian,  what  all  ibund  Catholicks 
 affert.  Now  let  us  return  to  the  Text,  Heb.  i.  3^. 
 Having  fliown  you  that  Eti/ebitis's  Comment 
 is  not  pertinent  to  our  preient  Dilpute,  nor  at 
 all  afFeds  the  Caufe  that  1  maintain,  which,  I 
 afTure  you,  is  not  Sabellianifm :  Now  let  me 
 proceed  a  little  farther,  to  vindicate  my  uie  of 
 that  Text ;  which,  you  pretend,  is  ftrong  againft 
 me.  Origen  perhaps  may  be  of  Ibme  Credit 
 with  you ;  and  the  more  for  being  admired  by 
 the  Brians,  and  much  cenfur'd  by  many  of  the 
 Catholicks^  but  after  his  own  Times.  :|:  His 
 Comment,  upon  a  parallel  Text  to  this,  toge- 
 ther with  this  alfb,  is  pretty  remarkable.  "'  If 
 *'  He  (Chrift)  be  the  Image  of  the  invifible, 
 *'  the  Image  xk  felf  mufl:  be  invifible  too.  I 
 .  "  will  be  bold  to  add,  that  finceHe  is  the  Re- 
 *'  femblance  of  his  Father,  there  could  not  have 
 
 *  Comment,  in  Joli.  p.  70,  f  See  Athanaf.  V.  i.  p-j")-?. 
 
 ^  Apud  Atbanal".  Decret.  Synod.  Nic.  Vol.  1.  p.  23^. 
 
 beenr 
 
Qjj.  II.  of  fame  (QUERIES.  zi 
 
 ''  been  a  Time  when  He  was  not.  He  goes 
 on  to  argue,  that  fince  God  is  Light,  andChrift 
 the  \\7(aij')<iL<7ucL,  or  ihining  forth  of  that  Light, 
 q<.ioting  this  Text,  that  They  could  never  have 
 been  iepararc  one  from  the  other,  but  muft 
 have  been  Co-eternal. 
 
 ^  T)ionyfius  of  Alexandria,  another  Ante- 
 Nicene  Writer>  draws  the  very  fame  Inference 
 from  the  fame  Text.  And  Alexander  Biiliop 
 of  Alexandria,  in  his  circular  Letter,  ^  extant 
 in  Athanafins,  makes  the  hke  ufe  of  it.  The 
 latter  part  of  the  Text  efpecialiy,  the  words, 
 exprefs  Image  of  his  Terfon,  were  very  fre- 
 quently and  triumphantly  urg'd  by  the  Cat  ho- 
 licks  againft  the  Arians :  by  ^  Alexander  of 
 Alexandria,  ^  At  h  an  a  fins,  ^  Hilary,  ^  Bafil, 
 s  Gregory  Nyffen,  ^^  Gregory  Nazianzen,  ^  Cy- 
 ril, and  Others. 
 
 This  may  iatisfy  you  that  it  w^as  neither 
 firange,  nor  new^  to  alledge  this  Text  in  favor 
 of  Chrift's  Divinity.  When  you  have  any  thing 
 farther  to  objedJ,  it  fliall  be  fairly  examined.  la 
 the  mean  while,  let  it  (land,  to  iupport  the  Se- 
 cond QiJery ;  which  returns  upon  you,  and  ex- 
 perts a  fuller  Anfwer.    That  it  may  come  co 
 
 yu^  oca  7«  ^<i/To^,  ^yMv  on;  \<^v  ocu  to  k-rniv^tr fXiot,,  Apud  Athanaf. 
 dc  Sent.  Dionyf.  p.  2f2. 
 
 ^(Tfjbx  T»  TTttT^oq.     Apud  Athmaf.  Vol,  i.  p-  ^99. 
 
 c  Epift.  ad  Alexand.  Theodor.  p.  «7.         d  Orar.  i.  p.  4,14.    dc 
 Synod.  P'74;.  e   De  Trin.  p.  97 f.  io8f.  i  lyp,  f  Contr. 
 
 Eunom.  p.  28.  89.  g  Contr.  Eunom.  p.  460.  b  Orat.  ^6- 
 i  Dial,  f,  de  Tria. 
 
 c  3  yoa 
 
It  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  11. 
 
 you  recommended  in  the  befl:  Manner,  and  in 
 the  bed  Company,  I  Ihall  here  iubjoin  theTefli- 
 monies  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  all  declar- 
 ing that  tl;e  Son  is  not  excluded  from  being  the 
 one  God,  but  is  included  and  comprehended 
 therein :  that  is,  tho'  the  one  God  primarily 
 denotes  the  Father,  yet  not  exchijlvely,  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  theTeflimonies 
 of  Iren£us ,  Athenagoras ,  TerttiUian,  Cle- 
 ment of  Alexandria,  and  Origen,  collected  in 
 ^Dr,  Ffddes's  Body  of  Divinity,  to  which  may 
 be  added  ^  Hippolytiis ,  ^  La^antius,  and  even 
 Eufebius  Himfelf,  who  acknowledged  ^  one  God 
 in  three  Terjbns,  as  Socrates  informs  us. 
 
 1  proceed  next  to  other  Teftimonies  more 
 cxprcfly  declaring,  that  the  Son  is  not  excluded 
 from  being  the  one  Supreme  God,  by  the  fe- 
 veral  Texts  of  Scripture,  which  alTert  the  unity ; 
 but  is  always  underftood  or  implied,  as  com- 
 prehended in  the  fame  one  God.  ^Iren^us  fays 
 '*  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  declare  the  one  and 
 
 a  Vol.  I.  p.  387,  ^'C. 
 
 b  OiKovofJuicc   avfJt^cpmfxq   (rjvu.'^-rx^    Sic,  iy&,  ©sov,  «?$   yup  l^v  o  ©205, 
 o  yu^  XiXitJcoy  Trstrjjp,    0  ci\   Inruiciicov   'rjo?,  to   ok  ovvstj^ov  uy.ov    TrviUf^^,, 
 
 'O    60V  'y7Zt,T>ip    STS'l    'TTTlV'TZyv,    O     S  'm^?     ^J^     7ZZi.V7Ti)V,    TO     05    GCyiOV    TFViij/J^     CV 
 
 Tfumv.  ''AXXooc,  01  iva.  ®iov  vofMicmcj  ^»  Jlvuyjiju,,  iocv  fJUA  Ivtzjc,  tizct^i^ 
 tt^  'ijeS  Y^  dyia  TrnOfAo/^U  7n^6<myjiv,  HippoL  Contr.  Noet*  p.  Ifj  l6. 
 Fabric.  Edit.  c  Lib.  4,.  c  29. 
 
 d  "ZvcK.  Oilv  ov  Tfitnv  vzjt)^<jr<n.  Socr.  E.  H.  1. 1,  c.  23.  p.  48. 
 
 e  Univerfse  Scripturae unum  8c  Solum  Deum,   ad  ex- 
 
 cludcndos  alios,  prxdicent  omnia  fecifle  fcv  Ver6um  Suum,  &c. 
 I.  2.  c.  27.  p.  155.  Bened.  Edit. 
 
 *'  only 
 
Q^u.  II.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  23 
 
 *'  only  God,  excluding  all  Others,  to  have 
 *'  made  all  Things  by  His  Word.  Others 
 are  excluded  but  not  his //'^<'>r^,  that  is,  his  Son, 
 by  whom  He  made  all  Things ,  as  I  renins 
 conftantly  undcrrtands  it.  Ac  other  times,  He 
 fiys,  ''  God  *  made  all  Things  by  Himfelf: 
 **  interpreting  Himfelf,  by  His  IVord  and  by 
 •*  HisJVifdom\  that  is,  His  Son,  and  ih^Holy 
 "■  Spirit.  Certainly,  he  could  not  think  that 
 God,  m  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  Paflages  of  the  like  Im- 
 port might  be  cited  from  this  primitive  and  ex- 
 cellent Writer.  I  Ihail  only  add  a  f  Paflage  or 
 two  to  lliow,  that  He  look'd  upon  the  Son  as 
 the  only  trne  God,  as  well  as  the  Father.  He 
 obierves,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  never  call 
 any  Perlbn   abiblucely   God  or  Lord ,    befides 
 
 *  Fecit  ea  per  femeiip/uaK  hoc  eft  per  Verbum  8c  Sapientiam  •. 
 fuam.  Adcft  enim  ci  Temper  Verbum  ^  Sapientia,  Filius  &  Spiritus^  1 
 per  quos ,  &  in  quibus,  omnia  libere  2c  fponte  fecif.  Lib.  4.  j 
 c.  20.  p.  253. 
 
 f  Nunquam  neque  Propheta!  ncque  Apoftoli  alium  Deum  nomi- 
 navcrunr,  vel  Doniinam  app:?ll2veriint,  prc^tcr  Verum  ^  Solum 
 Deum.  L.  3.  c.8,  p.  182.  Ncque  igitur  Dominus,  neque  Splritusi 
 Sandlus  neque  Apoftoli  eum  qui  non  eftet  Dcus,  definitive  &  abfo- 
 lute  Deum  nominalfent  aliquando  nifi  eiTct  Vere  Deus.  L.  3.  c.6- 
 Norp  fee  what  follcrvs. 
 
 Urrofque  Dei  appellatione  fignavit  Spiritus  6c  eum  qui  ungitur.i 
 Tiitum^  &  eum  qui  ungit  Patrein.  L.  3.  c.  6.    p.  180. 
 
 This  Tat  her  goes  on,  in  the  fa??)e  Chapter,  to  prothice  fever  al  other 
 Inftances  from  the  Holy  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  Son  is  called 
 {definitively  and  abfolutely)  God.  That  is  plainly  his  meaning,  as  any 
 Man  may  fee  by  looking  into  the  Chapter.  I  may  add  that  He  ap- 
 plies the  Title  of  Solixs  Deus  to  ChrijL   L.  f.  c  17.  p.  3  14. 
 
 C  4  the 
 
a4  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  H 
 
 the  only  true  God\  and  yet  prcfently  after  rakes 
 norice,  that  both  Father  and  Son  are  by  the 
 fame  Scriptures  abj'dutely  'io  called.  See  the 
 places  in  the  Margin:  For  though  abfolutely 
 be  not  there  exprefs'd,  yet  it  is  necefTarily 
 implied,  and  is  undoubtedly  the  Author's  mean- 
 ing. 
 
 We  may  go  on  to  TertuUian,  who  is  lb  full 
 and  clear  to  our  Purpofe,  that  nothing  can  be 
 liiore  fo.  Out  of  many  PaiTages  which  might 
 be  cited,  T  ihall  here  content  my  lelf  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^:^^- 
 *'  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  moft 
 *'  part,    that   they  concern  only  the  Makers 
 
 *  Igitur  unus  DeuG  Pater,  &  alius  obfaue  eo  non  efl:  Quod  ipfe 
 infefens,  non  Filfum'negat,  ied  AliiinV  Deum.  Caeterum  Alius  a 
 patre  Filius  non  eft.  Dcnique,  in f pice  fequcntia  hujufmodi  pro-* 
 riuntiationum,&  invenias  fere  adldolorum  Faditores  atque  Culrores 
 Definitionem  enrum  perrinere;  ut  multitudincm  faiforum  Deorum 
 Unio  diviniratis  expcliat,  habens  ramen  Filium  quarito  individuum- 
 2c  infeparat.um  a  Fatic,  tai)to  in  Patre  reputandam,  etii  non  nomi- 
 natum.  At  quin  li  nominalVet  illiirn,  jeparnllet,  ita  dicen?,  Alius 
 praeter  me  non  efl,  niii  Filius  meus.  Alium  enim  etiam  Filium 
 fecifTet,  quern  de  aliis  excepifTet.  Puta  Sojem  dicere:  Ego  Sol,  8c 
 alius  prceter  me  non  eft,  ni  radius  meusj  nonne  denotafles  Vanitatem  j 
 quail  non  &  Radius  in  Sole  deputetur.  c.  1 8.  p.  5-10.  Compare 
 Jren&HSy  1.  4.  c.  6.  p,  134.,  i3f.  Non  ergo  Alius  tr^it  qui  cognofce- 
 batur,  8c  Alius  qui  d\cehitnemocognofcit  FatreWy  fed  unus  8c  idem, 
 omnia  iubjiciente  ei  Patre,  8c  ab  omnibus  accipiens  Teftimonium 
 quoniam  Fi?^,^  Ijoipo,  8c  quoniam  Vere  Deus.it—— 
 
 '  and 
 
Qy,  11.  of/bme  (QUERIES.  ^^ 
 
 *'  and  Worfliipers  of  Idols ;  x\\'2xTolytheifm 
 *'  may  be  rooted  out  by  a  Senle  of  the  divine 
 **  ^Onity,  which  neverthelels  includes  the  Son; 
 ''  \yho,  in  as  much  as  He  is  undivided  and  in- 
 *'  fcparabie  from  the  Father,  is  to  be  un- 
 "  derftood  as  imphed  in  the  Father,  tho'  He  be 
 *'  not  particularly  named.  Farther;  had  He 
 *'  named  the  Son  in  this  Caie,  it  had  been 
 '*  tantamount  to  Jeparating  Him  from  Him- 
 **  Iclf :  luppoie  He  had  iaid;  there  is  None 
 '*  Other  befides  me,  except  my  Son ;  He  would 
 *'  in  efTed:  hereby  have  declared  Him  to  be 
 *'  Another  {ox  aliene)  by  excepting  Him  ia 
 *'  that  manner  out  of  Others.  Suppoie  the  Sun 
 *'  to  (ay  ,  I  am  the  Sun,  and  there  is  not 
 "  Another  befides  me,  except  my  oivnRay^ 
 *'  would  not  you  have  mark'd  the  Imperti- 
 *'  nence;  as  if  the  Ray  were  not  to  be  reckoned 
 *'  to  the  Sun,  as  included  in  it?  Here  you 
 fee  plainly  what  TertuHian  means;  Namely, 
 that  the  Son  is  lb  much  one  with  the  Father^ 
 that  He  cannot  be  fuppofcd  to  be  excluded 
 among  Other  Deities:  He  is  not  Another ^  but 
 the  fame  God  with  the  Father:  and  yet  this! 
 He  afferts  in  a  dilpute  againfl:  Traxeas,  one  oil 
 the  lame  Principles,  in  the  main,  with  Noetus  . 
 and  Sabellttts :  So  careful  was  He  not  to  run 
 Things  into  the  oppofite  extreme.  He  takes ' 
 care  io  to  aflert  the  Son  to  be  the  fame  God 
 with  the  Father,  as  not  to  make  Him  xht  fam€ 
 Terfon :  And  on  the  other  hand ,  while  He\ 
 ipaintains  the  Diflinition  of  Perfons,  He  does  I 
 
 not 
 
z6  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  If. 
 
 not  forger  to  keep  up  the  true  Catholick  Do* 
 drine  of  the  ^Ouity  of  Subjlance. 
 
 1  iliall  next  cite  Athenagoras-,  This  learned 
 and  judicious  Writer,  having  proved  at  large, 
 that  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father;  and  that 
 the  Chriftians  acknowledged  no  Other  God ; 
 yet  immediately  adds,  ^  nniiiM  yip  x^  'ijlv  y  ©ey, 
 ^•9-  ^'37'  ^s  much  as  to  fay,  we  comprehend 
 and  include  the  Son  in  that  one  God  ;  we  are 
 always  to  be  underftood  with  this  referve,  or 
 ^  S^ilvo  to  the  Divinity  of  the  Son ;  as  does 
 clearly  appear  from  what  follows  in  the  lame 
 Chapter,  and  in  the  next  to  it,  where  the  Son 
 is  call'd  ^  the  Mind  and  ff^ord  of  the  Father, 
 and  declared  to  be  ^  'Uncreated,  and  ^  Eternal. 
 And  in  ^  anoth  :r  place  He  very  plainly  com- 
 prehends Both  in  the  one  God.  To  avoid  Pro- 
 lixity, I  ihall  content  my  felf  with  s  referring 
 only  to  the  Paflages  in  others  of  the  Ante- 
 ^icene  Writers,  leaving  you  to  confult  Them 
 at  your  leifure,  if  you  can  make  any  doubt  of 
 fo  clear  a  Cafe.    As  to  the  Toji-Nicene  Fathers, 
 
 a  Parallel  to  which  h  that  in  ArhanaHus,  Oraf.  3.  p.  j-yS.  NoaTTJsf 
 ti  (Tvv  rJ  yJ)Vco  y^  6  't|(9§.  A/id  again:  *£v  rco  svi,  y^  f^va,  y^  tt^ivtm 
 rjvenv  pcuTvc^  6  }\cy2^;     See  Tertull.  Contr.  Prax.  c.  I  9. 
 
 b  Salvo  eniTTi  liiio,  re£te  unicum  Deum  poteft  deierniinafle  cujus 
 efl  Filius.     Terrull.  adv.  Prax.  c.  18. 
 
 C  N5?  f(^^  Aoy^  t5   7T3cr^5.    c-  10.    p.  5.O. 
 
 d  OtJ^   a^  y.vofjjivov,  e  'Ai'ii®^. 
 
 pn^i.     Compare  p.  40. 
 
 \g  Clemens  Alexandr.  p.  129.  ijy.  142.  Origen  Contr.  Celf.  1.8. 
 p»  386.  &  alibi.  Hippolytus  Contr.  Noet.  paflim.  Novatian,  c.  3. 
 Dionyfius  Romanus,  apud  Athmdf.  Dionyfim  Alexand*  apud  Atha- 
 •'istfifim,  p.  254. 
 
 Athana- 
 
QjLL  IL  of  fof/^e  (QUERIES.  27 
 
 Athanajins,  Bafil,  the  Gregory's,  Jerom,  Au^ 
 Jlin,  Chryfojiom,  &c.  Their  Sentiments  arc 
 well  known,  in  the  preicnt  Point;  and  how 
 they  do  not  only  rejed",  but  abhor  the  Prin- 
 ciples which  you  are  endeavouring  to  revive. 
 However,  I  iliall  tranlcribe  one  Parage  out  of 
 AtbanafiHs,^2iXZ  whereof  has  been  given  above, 
 which  may  ierve  as  a  Comment  upon  the  Ca- 
 tholicks  which  went  before  Him,  whofe  Senti- 
 ments He  was  pcrfedly  well  acquainted  with, 
 and  had  thoroughly  imbibed. 
 
 "  *When  the  Prophet,  (peaking  of  theCrea- 
 **  tion,  lairh,  IVhich  Mont /pr cadet h  out  the 
 *'  Heavens,  Job.  9.  8.  And  when  God  fays, 
 *'  /  A\or\Q  Jiretch  forth  the  Heavens,  If  44. 14. 
 ''  It  is  very  manifefltoevery  Man,  that  in  Him, 
 *'  who  is  iaid  to  be  Alone,  the  IVord  of  that 
 '*  Alone,  is  alib  Signified,  in  whom  all  Things 
 **  were  made,  and  without  whom  Nothing  was 
 *'  made.  If  therefore  the  Heavens  were  made 
 "  by  the  Word,  and  yet  God  iays,  I  Alone -^ 
 *'  and  the  Son.  by  whom  the  Heavens  were 
 *'  made,  is  underllood  to  have  been  with  the 
 **  Alone  Godi\  for  the  fame  reaibn  alio,  if  it 
 **  be  faid,  one  God,  and  I  Alone,  and  I  the 
 *'  Firji,  we  are  undoubtedly  to  underftand  , 
 *'  that  in  the  One,  Alone,  and  FirJi,  is  com- 
 *'  prehended  the  Word,  as  EfFulgenc3^  i;raij- 
 •*  yoLGlJLx,  is  implied  in  Light.  Athanafius's 
 reafbning  in  this  PafTage  is  fb  hke  Tertullian's 
 upon  the  fame  Head,  that  one  might  think  He 
 
 ♦  Athanaf,  Orat.  3.  Contr.  Arian.  p.  fjS. 
 
 had 
 
28  ^/f    D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qjj.  II. 
 
 had  borrow'd  it  from  Him.  Bur,  indeed,  it  is 
 lb  entirely  conformable  to  the  true  and  genuine 
 Sentiments  of  the  CathoUcks  before  Him,  that 
 it  may  juftly  pals  for  the  general  Senfe  of 
 AIL 
 
 To  confirm  what  harh  been  faid,  I  fliall  ufe 
 one  Argument  more,  before  I  pafs  on  to  ano- 
 ther Query  ;  fuch  as,  if  carefully  confider'd, 
 may  be  fufficient  to  filence  all  farther  doubt  or 
 fcruple,  with  regard  to  the  Senfe  of  the  jinte- 
 NiceJie  Writers. 
 
 It  IS  well  known,  that  they  ever  look'd  up- 
 on the  Son,  as  the  God  of  the  Jews,  the  God 
 of  Abraham,  Ifaac  and  Jacob,  that  is,  the  one 
 Supreme  God.  Many  particular  Teftimonies 
 may  be  cited  in  Proof  of  the  Fad,  which,  for 
 Brevity  fake,  I  pafs  over;  and  proceed  to  a 
 more  general  Argument  drawn  from  their  citing 
 of  Texts  out  of  the  Old  Teftament,  in  which 
 the  one  Supreme  God  is  undoubtedly  fpoken 
 of;  and  applying  them  to  the  Peribn  of  Chrifl, 
 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.  3,8,9. 
 
 f  The  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  faid 
 unto  him,  lam  the  Almighty -God -^  walk  be- 
 fore me,  and  be  thou  perfect,  Gen.  17. 1,2. 
 
 *  Theophil.  Antioch.  p.  129.  Ed.Ox.  Teriullian,  adv.  TraX'  c.  16. 
 f  Clem.  Alex.  Fddag.  1. 1.  c.  7.  p»I3I.  Eufeb.  Demonftr.  Ev.  I.5. 
 •c.  9.  £.  H.  i.  I.  c.  2« 
 
 And 
 
Qjj.  IF.  offome  QUERIES.  19 
 
 3  ^//^  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  in  the 
 plains  ^/Mamre.  The  Lord  [aid  unto  Abra- 
 ham, &c.  Gen.  18.  I.  13. 
 
 t  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom,  and  upon 
 Gomorrah  brimflone  and  fire  from  the  Lord 
 out  of  Heaven^  Gen.  19.  ^4. 
 
 ^  And  Abraham flood  before  the  Lord, 
 
 &c.  Gen.  19.27. 
 
 ^  And  God  faid  unto  Abraham,  &c.  Gei>. 
 21.  12. 
 
 e  And  behold,  the  Lord  food  above  it,  and 
 faid,  I  am  the  Lord  God  ^/Abraham  thy  Fa* 
 ther,  andtheGodofl^2i2iC,  Gen.  18.13. 
 
 ^  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel,  where  thou 
 anoint edft  the  Tillar,  &c.  Gen.  31.13. 
 
 §  A7td  God  faid  unto  Jacob,  arife,  go  up  to 
 
 Bethel, . and  make  there  an  altar  to  God, 
 
 that  appeared  unto  Thee,  &c.  Gen.  35"- 1- 
 
 ^1  God  called  unto    him  out   of  the  midft 
 
 of  the  Bujh.      He  laid, /  am  the  God 
 
 of  Abraham,    the  God  of  Ifaac>  and  the  God 
 
 2.  Jujlint  Martyr,  p.  213.  Sylhurg.  Ed.  Novat,  c.  i6-  TeritilL 
 Trax.  c.  16,  17.  Enfeb»  Dem.  E.  J.  5-.  c  9.  Epiji.  Synod.  Antloch, 
 Labb.  Tom,  I.  p.  845". 
 
 b  Jiifl,  Mart.  ip,2\<f.  IretJiKS,  l-^c. 6.  \>.  \2o-  TerthlLfrax, 
 c.  I  3.  16.     Eufeb.  E.  H.  U  I.  c.  2.     Nor  at,  c.  21.  26. 
 
 c  Juft'  Mart,  p.  II 6. 
 
 d  yuji.  Mart.  Novat.  c  16. 
 
 e  y^ujl.  Mart.  p.  1 18.  Clem.  Alex.  Vdd*  1.  1.  c.  7.    p.  1  5  i. 
 
 f  Jiift.  Mart.  218.  Clem.  Alex.  P^d.  1.  i.e.  7.  p.  151.  Sovat, 
 c.  17.  Eufeb.  Demon.  Ev*  \.  f.  c.  10.  £/>{/?.  Synod.  Antioch.  Labb. 
 Tom.  I.    p.  848. 
 
 g  fujlin  Mart.  11 8'  Cyprian.  Tejl,  1.  2.  €.6-  p.  35-.   E^.  Ox. 
 
 h  Ji^ft*  Mart.  p.  210.  IrenAus,  1.  }.  c.  (>.  p.  180.  1.  4.  c.  i2. 
 p.  141.  1.4.  0.5-,  p.  233.  Terthli.  Prax.  c  16*  Epiji,  Syn:>J, 
 Ami9(h,  Mb,  Tom.  i.  p»  348. 
 
 */ 
 
30  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  11. 
 
 ^  Jacob,  &c.    Exod.  3.  4.  8. 
 
 ^  And  God  faid  unto  Mofes,  I  am  that 
 I  A  M.  77?^  Lord  God  of  your  Fathers,  the 
 God  of  Abraham,  of  Haac,  and  of  Jacob,  ap- 
 feafdy  Exod.  3.  14,  15. 
 
 ^  /  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Ifaac,  a7id 
 finto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God  Almighty,  but 
 by  my  name  Jehovah,  was  I  not  known  unto 
 them-,  Exod.  6.  30. 
 
 ^  /  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  brought 
 thee  out  of  the  Land  ^/ Egypt,  Exod.  10.  i. 
 
 ^  God  (9/^Iiraei,   Exod.  x^.  to, 
 
 ^  The  Lord  fir ong  and  mighty ,  the  Lord 
 mighty  in  battle.  The  Lord  of  Hofts,  He  is 
 the  King  of  Glory,  Plal.  24.  8. 10. 
 
 ^  Be  fiill,  and  know  that  I  am  God.  I  will 
 he  exalted,  &c.  Pfal.  46. 10. 
 
 s  God  is  gone  up  with  a  Jhout,  The  Lord 
 (Jehovah)  &c    Pfal.  47.  5. 
 
 ^  The  mighty  God,    even   the  Lord,    hath 
 
 fpoken Our  God/hall  come,  and  Jhall  not 
 
 keep  filence,  &c.  Plal.  50.  1,3. 
 
 a  Irenseus,  ub't  fupra.  That  is.  He  muft  of  confequence  under' 
 ftand  this  of  Chrift  as  well  as,  v.  4.8.  CSee  Trm  Script,  Docirme 
 cmtinu'd  p.  15-9,160.)  Tertull.  adv.  Prax,c.  17.  Juji.  Mart,Apol.l, 
 p.  96.  Ox,  Ed, 
 
 b  Jujl.  Martyr,   p.  278.  Sylbur.  Edit. 
 
 c  Clem,  Alexaml,  Padag.  1.  i.   c.  7.   p.  131. 
 
 d  Enfeb.   Demonftr.  Ev.  1.  f.   c.  18. 
 
 e  ^uft.  Mart,  Dial.  p.  197.  Cyprian,  adv.  Jud,  1.  2.  c  29.  p.49>i'o. 
 Ori%.  in  Matt.  p.  4:58.    Eufcb,  in  loc. 
 
 £  Cyprian,  adv.  JmU  1.  2.  c  6.  p.  51". 
 
 g  Juft,  Martyr.  Dial.  p.  1 97.    Eufib.  in  PfaL  2;.  p.  91. 
 
 h  Iren.  1.  3.  c.  6.  p.  180.  Cyprian.  adv.Jud'  1.2.  c.  28.  p.48. 
 ■— '!>.  de  Bono  Patietn*  p.  210.   Enfeb.  m  F/al.  p.  209* 
 
 Let 
 
Qu.  II.  offome  (QUERIES.  31. 
 
 ^  Let  God  arife,  and  let  his  Enemies^  &a 
 Sing  unto  God.fing  'Fraifes,  &c.  PI.  68.  1.4, 
 
 ^>  In  Judah  is  God  known,  8cc.  Pf.  '/6.  i. 
 
 ^  God  Jtandeth  in  the  Congregation  of  the 
 mighty :  he  judgeth  among  Gods,   Pj!  8x.  i. 
 
 ^  The  Lord  reigneth Pf.  99.  i. 
 
 e  Behold,  God  is  my  Salvation :  I  will  truji 
 and  not  be  afraid,  for  the  Lord ^choyzh  is  my 
 Jirength,  8cc.  Ki\.z, 
 
 ^  Behold  your  God  will  come  with  Ven- 
 geance, even  God  with  a  Recommence,  He  will 
 come  and  fave  you,  II!  3  5*.  4. 
 
 §  That  ftretcheth  out  the  Heavens  like  a 
 Curtain,  &c.  If.  40. 2x. 
 
 ^^  Thus  faith  the  Lord  that  created  thee,  O 
 Jacob,  and  that  formed  thee.  O  Ifrael,  If  43.  r. 
 
 ^  Thus  faith  the  Lord,  the  King  of  liracl, 
 and  his  redeemer  the  Lord  of  hojis ;  /  am  the 
 firf,  and  I  am  the  laft,  and  befides  me  there 
 is  no  God,  If  44. 6. 
 
 ^  I  am  the  Lord  that  maketh  all  Things, 
 that  fretcheth  forth  the  Heavens  alone,  that 
 fpreadeth  abroad  the  Earth  by  my  felfy 
 If;  44.  24. 
 
 a  Cyprian.  adv,Jud.  \.  i»  c.  6.  c.  i8-  p.  55",  49- 
 
 b  Iren^us,  1.  3.  c.  9,  p.  1B4. 
 
 c  Juji.  Mart.  Dial.  p.  177.  IrenAUs,  I.  3.  c  6.  p.  iSo.  Novat, 
 d9  Trin    c.  15.     Cyprian.  adv.Jnd.  1.  a.  c.  6.  p-  IJ-    £«/•  in  loc, 
 
 d  fujlin.  Martyr,  p.  124. 
 
 e  IrenAusy  I.  3,  c.  2.  p.  286. 
 
 f  Irenms,  1.  3.  c„  20.  p.  214.  Nov  at.  c.  11.  £/>//?.  S^/wi.  AntiocL 
 liahh.  Tom.  i.  p.  84f. 
 
 g  Htppolyt,  Contr.i^o(t»  C.  18.  p.  19.  w-jjI*?  *>«  Ktcfi^u^xv  r  ^f^weVo 
 
 h  Eufebms  in  lou  i  J^(f§tant.  InjUt^  I.4.  C9.  p.  405-. 
 
 k  EnfikiHs  in  hf. 
 
 Surely 
 
33  ^DEFENSE  Q^ii.  IL 
 
 ^  Surely  God  is  in  thee^  and  there  is  none 
 elfe\  there  is  no  God,  II' 45".  14. 
 
 ^  /  will  fave  them  by  the  Lord  their  God^ 
 and  will  not  fave  them  by  Bow,  7ior  by  Sword, 
 Hofca  i.  7. 
 
 ^  The  Lord  alfo  fhall  roar  out  ofSlon,   and 
 fitter   his  voice  from  Jerulalem,    Joel  3.  16. 
 Amos  I.  2. 
 
 ^  Who  is  a  God  like  unto  thee,  that  far- 
 doneth  iniquity Mic.  7.  18. 
 
 *^  God  came  from  Teman,  and  the  Holy  One 
 from  mount  ^.phraim.- Habakuk  3.3. 
 
 ^  I  am  God,  not  Man,  Holea  1 1 .  9 . 
 
 s  /  will  flrengthen  them  in  the  Lord,' 
 
 faith  the  Lord.  Zech.  10.  ix. 
 
 ^^  This  is  our  God,  and  there  jhall  none 
 other  be  accounted  of  in  Comparifon  of  him, 
 Baruch  3.  35*. 
 
 The(e  feveral  Texts,  befides  others  of  like 
 Nature,  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,  in  general, 
 underflood  of  Chrift.  And  therefore  it  is  ex- 
 ceeding clear,  that,  according  to  the  Dodrine 
 of  that  Time,  the  fecond  Peribn  of  the  Trinity 
 
 a  Cyprian.  ad.JucL  1-  2.  c  6.  p.  54.  Zufeb.  Bern.  Ev»  ].  5*.  c.  4. 
 p.  22 f.  La^iant.  Epltom.  c.  44.  p.  116.  EdU.  Dav»  Infiit.  p.  404. 
 Edit.  Ox..     Epift,  Synod.  Antioch.  Labb.  Tom.  I,  p.  84^. 
 
 b  Novat.  Trin.  c.  12. 
 
 c  IreuAUs,  I.3.  c.  20.  p.'  214.  1.  4.  c.  35.  p.  275. 
 
 d  Irenais^  1.  3.  c  20.  p.  214. 
 
 e  Iren&ust  !.  5.  c.  20.  p.  214,  1. 4.  c  55.  p.  173. 
 
 f  Cyprian.  Teflim.  1-2.  c.  6.  p.  3  5".  Eufeb»  Dem.  Ev,  I,  5.  c.  21. 
 p.  249.    Epiji.  Synod.  Antioch.  Labb.  Tom.  i.  p.  845-. 
 
 g  Cyprian.  Teft.  \.i.  c.6.  p.  3f.  Euf  Bern.  Ev.  1.  5.  c.  26.  p.  25-1. 
 
 Ji  Cyprian.  Tefi.  I  2.  C.6.  p.  1$,  La^mt.  £pif,  p.  116.  Ed.  Dav. 
 
 is 
 
Q^u.  IL  of  fome  (QUERIES.  3  3 
 
 is  xS\Q,Lord\  the  Lor<^  God\  the  Almighty  God\ 
 the  Lord  God  of  Abraham,  Ifaac,  and  Jacob ; 
 The  Jehovah'^  the  Lord  oiHoJls\  the  Mighty 
 God\  the  Only  God ;  and  befides  whom  there 
 is  no  God\  the  God  of  Ifrael,  &c.  All  this, 
 I  lay,  Chrift  is,  according  to  the  Dod:rine  of 
 thofe  early  Times :  not  exclufive  of  the  Father, 
 any  more  than  the  Father  is  fiich,  exclufive  of 
 the  Son ;  but  together  with  the  Father :  That 
 is,  Father  and  Son  Both  are  the  one  Supreme 
 God :  not  one  in  'Ferfon,  as  you  frequently 
 and  groundlefly  infinuate,  but  in  Subftance  ^ 
 Fovjer,  and  TerfeBion.  I  know»  you  have 
 an  Evafion,  by  which  you  hope  to  elude  the 
 force  of  all  that  has  been  urged.  But  when  I 
 have  ill  own  you  ,  how  weak  and  inlufficient 
 your  Pretence  is;  I  hope,  I  lliall  hear  no 
 more  of  it. 
 
 *  In  another  part  of  your  Book,  (/.  xo.)  you 
 pretend  that  Chrifl:  ipak.e  only  in  the  Terfon  of 
 the  Father ;  and  that  when  He  faid,  for  in- 
 ftance,  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel,  Gen.  31.  13* 
 the  meaning  is  no  more  than  this;  Jehovah 
 whom  I  refrejent,  and  in  whofe  Name  I 
 fpeak,  is  the  God  of  Bethel.  Had  you  given 
 it  only  as  your  own  Interpretation  of  this,  and 
 the  like  Texts ,  it  might  be  very  excufable  : 
 But  having  told  us  what  you  mean  by  fpeaking 
 in  the  Terfon  of  God  the  Father,  you  after- 
 wards add,  that  it  was  the  unanimous  Opinion 
 of  all  Antiquity ,  that  Chrift  appear'd  and  ipake, 
 
 *  Sq^  alfo  Clarke's  Script.  Doftr.  ^.  xo*. 
 
34  ^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qv,  IL 
 
 iu  the'Terfon  of  God  the  Father  (/.  ii.)  leaving 
 your  Engltjh  Reader  to  believe,  that  your  no- 
 vel Explication  was  the  current  Dodtrine  of 
 all  Antiquity.  The  Thing  may  be  true  in  fome 
 Senfe,  luch  as  is  foreign  to  your  Purpofe:  But 
 in  jour  Senfe,  it  is  nororiouily  felfe,  as  all  that 
 have  look'd  into  Antiquity  very  well  know. 
 However,  for  the  Benefit  of  the  common  Rea- 
 der, I  will  lliow  that  the  good  Fathers  applied 
 thele  Texts  to  Chrift  confider'd  in  his  own 
 Terfon ;  and  not  in  the  Father's  only.  This 
 fliall  be  made  clear,  to  a  Demonftration,  both 
 from,  particular  Tefiimonies  of  the  lame  Fa- 
 thers ;  and  from  the  general  Scope,  Drift,  and 
 Defign  of  thofe  Writers,  in  citing  the  Texts  be- 
 fore mentioned. 
 
 *  Clement  oi  Alexandria,  citmg  Exod.zo.  z. 
 I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  &c.  and  underftand- 
 ing  it  of  Chrift,  obierves  particularly,  thatChrifl 
 faid  this  of  Himlelf,  in  his  own  Terfon. 
 
 \lren£us,  having  cited  Exod.  3.6.  {1  am  the 
 God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  liaac,  &c.) 
 which  He  underftands  as  fpoken  by  Chriji  ; 
 ■\.  goes  on  thus.  *'  From  hence  (Chrift)  made 
 **  it  plain,  that  He  who  fpoke  to  Mofes  out 
 
 *  T\a,Xiv  ^v)  'cTut  A/y-)  2^2  rS  i^'i^  tt^^ut:^^  iocvrov  ofJtciXoy.'i  7mia))t- 
 5<o7o».  i^co  xt/g/®-  6  €)so(;  Vii,  o  llo^^a'-j  av  <r5  I-/,  yij?  AtV^^^ls.  Clem» 
 Alex.  Pxd,  1.  I.  c.  7.  p.  131.  Edit.  Ox. 
 
 t  Per  Hare  urique  roanifeftuni  fecit  quoniam  is  qui  de  Rubo 
 locutus  eft  Moyii,  &  Manifeftavit  se   efle  Deum  Patrum,  Hie  eft 
 
 viventium   Deus Ipfe  igitur  Chriftus  cum  Patrc  Vivorum  eft 
 
 Deus,  qui  locutus   eft  Moyfi,   qui    5c   Patribus   raanifeftatus  eft. 
 
 Iren.  I.4.  c.  y.  p.  232. 
 
 ,    :|:  Set  lib.  3.  c.^    lib,  4r  c.  12, 
 
 '^  of 
 
Qy.  ir.  of  fame  (QUERIES.  3^ 
 
 *'  of  the  Bufli,  and  mawkHed  Him/elf  to  be 
 *'  the  God  of  the  Fathers,  is  the  God  of  the 
 "  Livi/ig.  And  after  a  deal  more  in  that 
 Chapter  to  lliovv  that  the  Father  and  Son  are 
 One  and  the  iame  God,  He  concludes  to  this 
 effed:.  '*  Chriil  Hirafelf  therefore,  with  the 
 **  Father,  is  the  God  of  x\\t  Living,  who  Ij^akc 
 **  to  Mofes,  and  was  rnanifeftcd  to  the  Fa- 
 '*  thers. 
 
 Novatian,  having  obfcrved  that  the  Angel 
 which  appeared  to  *  Agar,  Sarah's  Maid,  was 
 reprelented  in  Holy  Scripiure  zsLord  2luA  God, 
 after  fbme  reafbning  upon  it,  fuitable  to  the  pre- 
 vailing Principles  of  his  own  Times,  as  well  as 
 of  the  Times  preceding,  Summs  up  the  whole 
 in  this  Manner.  "  f  Wherefore  if  the  prefent 
 "  Paffage  cannot  iuit  with  the  Terfon  of  the 
 *'  Father,  whom  it  would  not  be  proper  to  call 
 "  an  Angel,  nor  to  the  T^erfon  of  an  Angela 
 "  which  it  would  not  be  proper  to  cail  God; 
 "  but  it  may  comport  with  the  Terfon  of 
 *'  Chrift  both  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  Ceriefis  c.  i6. 
 
 f  Ergo  ii  hie  locus  neque  Vcrfon^  Patris  congruit  ne  Angelus 
 didlus  iit,  neque  VerfonA  Angcli,  nc  Deus  pronuntiatus  fit;  Ver[on& 
 autem  Chrifti  convenit,  ut  &  Dcus  fit,  quia  Dei  Filius  eft,  &  An- 
 gelus fit,  quoniam  paternae  difpofitionis  Adnuntiator  eft;  intcHigere 
 dcbeut  contra  Scripturas  fe  agere  Haeretici,  qui  Chriftum  quum 
 dicant  fe  8c  Angelum  credere,  nolint  etiam  iilum  Dium  pro- 
 nuntiare Novat.  c.  16.  p.  724,. 
 
 Synod.  Antioch.  Ep. 
 
 D  z  **  fider 
 
36  -.^DEFENSE  Q^u.  IL 
 
 "  fider  rhat  They  run  counter  to  the  Sacred 
 **  Writ,  while  They  admit  that  Chrift  is  ^wAn- 
 **  gel.  and  yet  retufe  to  acknowledge  that  He 
 *'  is  God  ^\\o.  Here,  you'll  obierve,  that,  ac- 
 cording to  Novatidn,  it  was  to  the  Terfon  of 
 Chrift,  not  to  the  '^Perfon  of  God  the  Father, 
 that  the  Titles  of  God  and  Lord,  in  this  or  the 
 like  Inftances,  belonged;  and  that  therefore 
 they  are  given  to  Him  in  his  own  Per/on,  in 
 his  own  right,  as  God's  Son  and  Confubftantial 
 with  Him;  than  which  nothing  can  be  more 
 diametrically  oppofice  to  Your's,  or  to  Dn 
 Clarke's  Hypothecs .  It  is  not  faid,  God,  only 
 as  having  true  T>ominmi  and  Authority,  but, 
 as  God's  Son ;  and  rhat  implies,  with  Novatian^ 
 Siihjtantta  Commiiiiionem  ,  real  and  ejfe^tt'ial 
 Divinity  *. 
 
 I  ihall  next  fliow  you  the  fame  of  Jujlin 
 Martyr  \  and  then  beg  your  Pardon  for  the 
 Impertinence  of  infifting  fo  long  upon  what 
 none,  one  might  think,  that  has  ever  feen  the 
 Anricnts,  couid  make  the  leaft  Queftion  of 
 *'  Permit  nie,  fays  He,  to  jhow  you  alfo  out 
 ' '  of  the  Book  of  Exodus,  how  the  very  Jame 
 *'  Pcribn,  who  appeared  to  Abraham  and  Ja- 
 '*  cob^  as  an  Angel,  and  God,  and  Lord,  and 
 *'  Man,  appear'd  to  Mofes  in  a  Flame  of  Fire 
 '*  out  of  the  Bufii,  and  talked  with  Him.  A 
 little  after,  He  adds  thefe  remarkable  WordSo 
 
 *  C  51.  Comfare  Ch.  11.  Ut  enim  prsefcripfit  Ipfa  natura  Homi- 
 rem  credcndum  eile,  qui  ex  Homineiit:  ita  ea<Jem  nalura  prsefcri- 
 kit,  8t  Dcum  credcndum  elfe,  qui  ex  Deo  fit. 
 
Qu.  II.  o/fome  (QUERIES.  37 
 
 **  *  You  have  fecn ,  Gentlemen,  that  the 
 **  fame  Perlbn  whom  Mo/es  calls  an  Angel, 
 *'  and  who  conversed  wirh  Him  in  the  Flame 
 *'  of  Fire;  that  very  Peribn  i^ehig  God,  figni- 
 **  fies  to  Mofes  that  Himfclf  is  the  God  of 
 **  Abraham,  and  of  Ifaac,  and  of  Jacob,  f 
 will  not  lo  tar  diftruft  your  Judgment,  as  to  add 
 any  farther  Comment  to  ib  plain  Words.  I  need 
 but  jufi:  hint  to  any  who  know  Jtiftin  Martyr, 
 that  He,  as  well  as  Novatian,  refolves  the  2)/- 
 vinity  of  Chrifl:  into  his  f  Sonjhip  ;  and  Sonjhip 
 into  ^Communication  of  the  fame  divine  Sttb- 
 fiance :  Which  I  remark  chiefly  againfl:  Tk.Clarke, 
 who  feems  to  admit  that  thoie  Titles  belong'dto 
 the  Terfon  of  Chrifl: ;  which  is  more  than  I  ap- 
 prehend you  do.  It  were  very  eafy  to  add  parti- 
 cular PalTages  to  the  fame  purpoie  from  other 
 Fathers ;  but  it  was,  in  a  manner,  needlefs  to 
 have  mention'd  theie.  For,  the  general  fcope, 
 drift,  and  defign  of  the  primitive  Writers,  in 
 this  Cafe,  fliows  iufliciently  what  I  contend  for. 
 Their  defign  was  to  prove  Chrifl's  "Divinity ; 
 to  fliow  that  there  was  another  "Terfon,  be- 
 fides  the  Father,  who  was  really  Lord  and 
 God ;  and  that  this  Perlbn  was  Chrifl.  This 
 is  the   avowed  defign    clear   through    Jtiflin's 
 
 *  *i2   uvd'^i^,    vivoiiff^Ti  ■  ■  on    ov   Xiyi  f^u(rr,q  '  Ayyi^ov,    iv  ttuq^ 
 
 (^Xoyoq  ^iiXxKivcci  uiiTU),  obr'^  xuro^  ®£oii  wv.  crr^/^cuvi  ra  f/jutrs?  on 
 «*J7i)$  iiiv  6  QzU  aQ^uuj  -^  Itncoix.  5^  Ici;6a)o.   |uft.  Mart.  Dial.  p.  zio. 
 
 Compare  Apol,  i.  To  at  itoytfj^ivov  ck  (iocTn  tm  MatjiX  iyco  iiubi  a 
 6jy,  0  &so(;  A^exkijij  t^  6  ©£o$  IookcoZ,   }C  o  ©£05  T  Trari^av   (tS,   cn^^ccvU- 
 
 t  P-  7S'  »78.  280.  Sylb.  Ed.  ^  p.  281. 
 
 D  3  ^ialogtie\ 
 
38  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  II. 
 
 'Dialogue ;  and  the  like  may  be  faid  of  No- 
 'vatian,  Terttdlian,  CyPrian,  Iren£us  and  the 
 Reft,  where  they  cice  thefe  Texts,  which  I 
 have  given  you  a  Lift  of. 
 
 The  Argument  rhey  iifed,  is  this.  There  is 
 a  Perlon  frequently  ftiled  God  and  Lord,  Je- 
 hovah,  Almighty,  &c.  who  convers'd  with 
 Adam ,  appeared  to  the  Tatriarcbs,  and  all 
 along  headed  and  conduced  the  People  of  the 
 Jews.  This  Pcrfon  could  not  be  an  Angel  on- 
 ly :  fuch  high  Titles  could  never  belong  to  any 
 meer  Angel.  He  could  not  be  God  the  Father : 
 His  Office  was  minijlerial.  He  is  called  an 
 Angel,  He  appeafd.  He  condcfcended  to  take 
 upon  HiiB  human  Shape,  and  other  reibm- 
 blances*:  Thefe  Things  do  not  iuit  with  the 
 firji  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  alTume  thofc  high  Titles;  and  yet  being 
 Second  only  in  the  ever  BielTed  Trinity,  and 
 defigning,  in  his  ov/n  due  Time,  to  take  human 
 Nature  upon  Him,  might  mere  fuitably  con- 
 defccnd  to  ad:  minifierially  among  Men,  (a 
 proper  prelude  to  his  Incarnation  which  lliould 
 come  after)  and  fo  might  be,  not  only  God, 
 but  an  Angel  too.     This  is  their  Argument,,  as 
 
 *  /  do  not  finch  that  the  pure  fimplicity  of  the  divine  Nature 
 roas  ever  urged,  in  this  Cafe,  as  a  reafon  why  it  could  not  be  the 
 Father:  nc",  that  the  huninn  Affe<5lions  and  Aitions  afcribed  to 
 this  Angel,  rpere  underjlood  literally,  cr  other-wife  than  by  roay  of 
 Figure.  Tcrtullian  gives  a  very  different  account  of  it,  fhovping  hoto 
 all  might  be  underflood  B-ioy^sTt^s.    Contr.  Marc»  1.  2. 
 
 every 
 
Qjj.  II.  of/ome  (QUERIES.  59 
 
 every  one  knows,  tjiac  knows  any  thing  of 
 rhefe  Matters.  Now,  luppole  that  thefe  good 
 Fathers  had  underftood,  Ge/L  31. 13.  as  you  do; 
 /  am  the  God  of  Bet  be  h  That  is,  my  Father, 
 "uuhom  I  rcprefent  y  is  the  God  of  BetheL 
 What  a  trifling  Argument  would  you  here  put 
 into  their  Mouths  ?  ' '  Chrift  declares  that  the  Per- 
 *'fbn,  whom  He  reprefents,  is  God  and  Lord  : 
 *' therefore  Cbrijl  is  God,  &c.  Or  propofe  the 
 "Argument  thus,  u^gon  yowv  Hypo thejis :  The 
 *'  Lord  God  (the  Faiher)  called  unto  Adam,  Gen. 
 "'J. 9.  God faid unto Abx2\\:xm,iSc.  Gen.21.1x. 
 **thar  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  Jujiin  Martyr  draws  from  the 
 whole,  and  which  He  triumphantly  urges  againft 
 T?ypho,  is  this ;  that  Chrift  is  really  Lord  and 
 God.  0eo5  xcLMiTcq^  X)  0eo5  e9Z  k)  eVci-j,  The  Other 
 Writers  draw  the  lame  Conclufion  from  the 
 iame  Premifes;  a  Conclufion  without  any  Thing 
 to  iapport  it,  had  they  undcrftood  thele  Texts, 
 as  you  pretend  They  did.  In  fliort,  the  very 
 Ground  and  Foundation  of  all  Tliey  fay  upon 
 this  Article,  is  built  upon  a  Suppofition  diame- 
 trically oppofite  to  Your's;  fb  little  countenance 
 have  you  from  Antiquity.  Farther,  They  all 
 conclude  that  the  Perfon  declarmg  Himlelf  to 
 be  God  and  Lord,  8cc.  could  not  be  an  Angel ; 
 not  a  meer  Angel.  There  is  fome  Senle  in 
 this;  if  you  fuppofe  an  Angel  declaring,  in  his 
 own  Ter/on,  that  He  is  God  and  Lord.     It  is 
 
 D  4  bla- 
 
40  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  II. 
 
 blafphemous  and  abfurd  for  any  meer  Angel  ro 
 make  fuch  Declaration.  But,  fuppofing  it  meant 
 of  the  Perlbn  of  the  Father,  why  might  not 
 any  Angel  declare,  what  is  certainly  true,  that 
 the  Father  is  God,  or  deliver  God's  errnnd  in 
 his  own  Words?  Had  the  Fathers  thought,  as  you 
 do,  they  mufl:  have  argued  thus,  very  weakly : 
 It  could  not  be  a  meer  Angel  that  appeared,  or 
 that  Ipoke  thus  and  thus.  Why  ?  Becaufe  the 
 Perfon  who  fent  Him,  and  who  undoubced'y  is 
 the  God  of  the  Univerfe,  is  called  Go^  and 
 Lord.  Of  aP  the  filly  Things  that  Ignorance 
 and  Malice  have  combined  to  throw  upon  the 
 primitive  Martyrs  and  Defenders  of  the  Fairh  of 
 Chriil,  I  have  not  met  with  one  comparable  to 
 this.  I  am  therefore  willing  tp  believe,  that 
 you  did  not  mean  to  charge  them  with  it ;  bud 
 -only  exprefs'd  your  felf  darkly  and  obfcurely ; 
 which  yet  iliould  not  have  been  done,  by  one 
 who  would  be  careful  not  to  miflead,  even  an 
 unwary  Reader.  I  would  here  make  one  Remark, 
 and  leave  it  with  you:  And  that  is,  of  the 
 *  ftridt  Senfe  wherein  the  Antmits  ufed  the 
 word  God,  as  applied  to  the  Son.  They  argued 
 that  it  could  not  be  an  Angel  that  appeared. 
 Why  ?  becaufe  the  Perfon  appearing  was  called 
 God.  Thus  Novatimiy  w^ho  fpeaks  the  Senfe 
 of  all  the  reft,  ^lomodo  ergo  V>t\x%  fi  Angeltis 
 ftiit ;  citm  non  fit  hoc  nornen  Angelis  unquam 
 
 *  Other  Arguments  of  the  ftricl  Senfe  of  the  Word,  God,  as  ufed 
 by  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers^  and  applied  to  the  Son,  may  bt  feen 
 ih  Dr.  Fiddes,  p.  374»  &c.  .     «;.    . 
 
 '  con- 
 
Q^u.lL  of  fome  (QUERIES.  4t 
 
 concejfum^l  But  how  jl}^^  is  He  God,  ifm 
 more  than^  Angel,  fince  Angels  never  had  tht. 
 privilege  of fo  high  a  Titled  Novatian  allows: 
 (Ch.  15.),  that  ^//^r/j-  have  been  called  Gi^i/xv 
 meaning  in  the  loolc  Figurative  Senfe;  But  here 
 He  plainly  fignifies  that  the  Word,  God, .  when 
 applied  to  the  Sony  is  to  be  underflood  in  the 
 llri(ft  and  proper  Senfe :  And  thus  the  Anticnts^ 
 in    general    undcrftood  it.     Angels^    the  vety? 
 highcfl;  order  of  Creatures,    were  not  by  them 
 thought  worthy  of  the  Name  and  Title  of  G^<j/1: 
 It  ^^  ould    have    been    highly  ablurd,    in  tbeif 
 Judgment,    to  have  given  it  them,    in  fuch  d 
 Senie,  and  in  fuch  Circumfiances,  as  they  ap-. 
 plied  it  to  xki^  Son,     They  knew  nothing  of 
 your  Relative  Senle  of  the  Word;  They  knew 
 better.    But  this  by  the  Way :  Let  us  return  to 
 our  SubjeiS.   You'll  ask  me  now  perhaps,  what 
 did  fome, of  the  Fathers  mean,  thofe  efpecially 
 whom  you  have  quoted  in  the  Margin  (/. 22.) 
 by  the  Son  of  God,  appearing,  and  fpeaking 
 in  the  Terfon  of  God  the  Father  ?  I  have  fliown 
 you  what  they  certainly  did  7iot  mean :  And  if 
 I  could  not  fo  readily  account  for  the  other,  it 
 is  of  lefs  Moment ;  the  Caufe  being  little  con- 
 cerned in  it.    But  I  fliall  endeavor  to  fatisfy  you 
 in  this  Point  alfb. 
 
 You  have  but  two  Quotations,  which  are  any 
 thing  to  the  Purpofc :  One  out  of  Thecphilus, 
 Bifhop  of  Antioch',  and  the  other  from  Ter- 
 tullian.  And  they  indeed,  verbally,  may  feem 
 to  countenance  your  Notion ;  tho\  in  reality, 
 
 *  ch,  x6.  they 
 
41  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.il. 
 
 they  meant  nothing  like  it.  But,  what  did 
 they  mean,  one  by,  *  ci  ^w^(Tce'7rc^  r5  ©^5,  the 
 other  by,  ]  AnBoritate  ^  nomine  (Patris?) 
 Let  it  be  conftdered,  that  the  fecond  Perfon,  in 
 the  Texts  above  cited,  is  not  repreiented  undei* 
 his  o\Yn  perfGJial  diftinguifning  Charadier,  as  a 
 Son,  or  fecond  Perfon,  or  Meffiah,  or  Media- 
 tor, as  He  has  been  fince.  It  is  not  laid,  that 
 the  Son  of  the  Lord  God,  called  unto  Adam ; 
 but  the  Lord  God  called,  &c  \,  It  is  not,  I 
 am  the  Son  of  the  God  of  Bethel,  &c.  But 
 I  am  the  God  of  Bethel-^  and  fo  in  the  reft. 
 Chrift  therefore,  in  thefc,  or  the  like  Texts,  is 
 not  reprefented  under  his  own  peculiar  Cha- 
 rader ;  but  under  fach  a  Charader  as  is  common 
 to  the  Godhead,  to  the  Father  and  Him  too. 
 This  Charader,  fmce  the  diftindlion  of  Pcrfons 
 has  been  revealed  to  us,  has  been,  in  a  moxt 
 eminent  and  peculiar  Manner,  refcrved  to  the 
 Father.  He  is  reprefented  eminently  now  as 
 God-,  and  Chrill,  2,%  Son  of  God  \  ot  Mediator, 
 or  Meffah,  Chrift  having  before  took  upoti 
 Him  that  Fart,  Character,  or  Office,  which  fmce 
 that  time  has  been  refcrved,  in  a  pecuHar  man- 
 ner, to  the  Father,  may  be  faid  to  have  aded 
 in  the  Te?fon  of  the  Father,  or  in  the  Name  of 
 the  Father ;  that  is,  under  the  fame  Charad-ei- 
 Or  Capacity ,  which  the  Father  now  chiefly 
 bears,  with  refjied  to  Men.  This  He  might 
 well  do,  being  equally  qualified  for  either.     As 
 
 *  Theoph.  nd  Autol.  1.  2-  p.  ii9-  ''^x.  Ed. 
 
 t  Tcrtu!!.  adv.  Marc.  1.  z.  c.  27.  ^  Gen.  5.  9. 
 
 Son 
 
Qy.  IL  of  fome  (QUERIES.  45 
 
 Sou  of  God,  He  was  really  God;  and  as  So/i 
 of  the  Almighty ,  He  was  Almighty '^  in  his 
 0W71  right,  as  *  Tertullian  exprelfes  it.  And 
 therefore  might  as  juftly  bear  the  Stile  and  Title 
 oi  Lord  God,  God  of  Abraham,  Sec.  while  He 
 adcd  in  that  Capacity,  as  He  did  that  of  Ale- 
 dial  or,  Mejfiah,  Son  of  the  Father,  &c.  after 
 He  condeicended  to  adt  in  another,  and  to  dif 
 cover  his  pcrfonal  Relation. 
 
 You  cited  thefe  Words  ofTertiiUian:  Cujus 
 Aticioritate  f  \3  nomine  ipfe  erat  T>eus^  qui 
 vldebatur,  T>el  Flllus.  Which  might  have  been 
 rendred  thus:  "-  The  Son  of  God  who  ap- 
 "  peared,  He  was  God  (aSing)  in  his  (the  Fa- 
 **  ther's)  Name,  and  with  his  Authority.  And 
 had  you  bur  cited  the  next  immediate  Words, 
 you  might  have  difcovered  the  true  meaning  of 
 that  PafTage.  Sed  ®  penes  nos,  Chrljius  in 
 perfona  Chrifii,  quia  <S  hoc  modo  nofier  eft : 
 That  is  to  iay :  But  with  us  (Chriftians)  Chrift 
 is  alio  underftood  under  the  Charadler,  or  Per- 
 ion,  oi iht  Meffiah :  Bccaule  He  is  ours  in  this 
 Capacity  alio:  That  is,  He  is  not  only  our 
 God ;  but  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer.  And 
 under  that  Charadcr  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   Omnipotentis- cum   8c 
 
 Filius  Omnipotentis   tarn  Omnipotens  fit,  quam  Deus  Dei  Filius. 
 
 If  AX,   C.   I  7.  p,  j-20. 
 
 t  Contr.  Marc.  I  %,  c.  ^7. 
 
 rader 
 
44  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  II. 
 
 radcr  of  God,  Lord.  ^nA  Jehovah :  not  meerly 
 as  reprefenrative  of  God  the  Father,  or  as  in- 
 veiled  with  his  Authority,  but  as  ftridiy  and 
 truly  G(9^,  Confiibjlantial  with  God  the  Father ; 
 according  to  the  unanimous  Opinion  of  all  the 
 Anttents,  and  *  of  rhofe  in  particular,  who  fpeak 
 of  his  ading  in  ihzNanie,  oxTerfon  of  the  Fa- 
 ther. But  now,  having  a  new  Title  to  diftin- 
 gjUifli  Him  by,  we  receive  Him  in  both  Capa- 
 cities:  as  God,  hy  Nature  \  and  asMeffiah,  or 
 Mediator,  by  Office. 
 
 The  Sum  then  of  the  Cafe  is  this ;  When 
 Chrift  appear'd  to  the  Tatriarchs,  and  claim'd 
 their  Obedience,  Homage,  and  Adoration ;  He 
 did  not  do  this  under  the  Name  and  Charadler 
 which  He  has  fince  difcovered  to  be  perfonal 
 and  peculiar  to  Him  ;  bat  under  another  ; 
 which  is  His  too,  but  in  common  with  the  Fa- 
 ther; namely,  that  o^  Lord  God, God  Almighty^ 
 8cc.  and  being  fince  difcovered  not  to  be  the 
 Father  Himfelf,  but  the  Sou ;  not  unoriginated, 
 but  God  of  God\  all  that  He  did  mull  be  re- 
 fer'd  back  to  the  Father,  the  Head  and  Foun- 
 tain of  All  ;  whofe  Authority  He  exercis'd , 
 whofe  Orders  He  executed,  and  whole  Terjon, 
 Character,  or  Office,  He  reprelenred  and  fu- 
 ftained.  Thus,  under  the  f  New  Teftament  al- 
 fo.  He  referred  all  that  He  did  to  the  Autho- 
 rity of  the  Father,  as  the  firft  Original,  and 
 Fountain  of  all  Power,  Pre-eminence,  Dignity, 
 
 *  See  Trm  Script.  Docir.  cont'mu'd,  p.  196. 
 f  Vid.  TertuU.  Contr.  Prax.  c,  21.  p.  fia. 
 
 iSc. 
 
Qjj.  If.  offome  QUERIES.  45- 
 
 &c.  adiiig  in  His  Name,  executing  His  Will, 
 and  reprelcnting  His  Pcrfon.  {I  and  my  Fa- 
 ther are  one,  Joh  10. 30.  He  that  hath  feen 
 ?ne,  hath  feen  the  Father,  Joh.  14.9.  /  can 
 of  my  o'-jun  felf  do  nothing,  Joh.  5.  30.)  And 
 yet  whatever  is  laid  of  Chrift,  is  to  be  under* 
 flood  of  Him  in  his  own  Terfon ;  and  not  of 
 the  Father  only,  whom  He  reprefented.  In 
 fine,  iz  is  not  neceflary  that  every  one  who 
 ads  ///  the  Name,  or  by  the  Authority,  or  irt 
 the  Terfon  of  another,  lliould  uiurp  the  Stile 
 of  that  other,  and  fJ3eak  of  Him  in  the  frft 
 Terfon ;  and  therefore  you  cm  draw  no  cer- 
 tain Conclufion  from  the  two  PatHiges  of  Theo- 
 fhiliis  and  TertuUlan.  On  the  contrary ,  I 
 have  fliown  you  from  the  whole  Drift,  Tenor, 
 and  Tendency,  as  well  as  from  particular  Tefti- 
 monies  of  the  primitive  Writings,  that  they 
 are  far  from  favouring  your  pretences  in  this 
 Cafe,  but  are  a  pcrfedl  Contradiction  to  it. 
 From  what  hath  been  faid,  thefe  three  Things 
 are  very  plain  and  evident, 
 
 I.  That,  according  to  the  mind  of  the  An- 
 tients.  the  Son  was  God,  and  fo  called  in  his 
 own  Terfon. 
 
 1.  That  He  was  God  in  his  own  Perlbn,  as 
 being  God's  Son. 
 
 3.  That  He  was  God's  Son,  as  having  the 
 divine  Subfance  communicated  from  the  Fa- 
 ther. 
 
 Thefe  three  Confiderations  entirely  take  ofF 
 the  force  of  whatever  either  You,  or  Dx,  Clarke 
 
 hath 
 
46  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  II. 
 
 hath  offer'd  to  plerplex  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  paffing,  hinted  enough  of  the  two  latter 
 alfo  ;  elpecialiy  confidering  that  they  wiil 
 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 
 fliown,  fromi  plain  Scripture  Texts,  that  Chrift 
 is  nor  excluded  from  being  the  one  .Supreme 
 God  in  Conjunction  with  the  Father;  and  taken 
 ofFyour  Exceptions:  And  left  this  fliould  feem 
 infufficient,  I  have  confirm'd  it  farther,  from 
 the  unanimous  confent  of  all  Antiquity,  before 
 the  Council  of  Nice ;  which  is  what  your  fetf 
 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  Satisfadorily  to 
 anfwer  the  following  Queries ;  This  one,  while 
 it  ftands  unanfvvered,  would  be  enough  for  alL 
 But  I  proceed. 
 
 Q^UERV 
 
Q^ii.  Ilf  of  pne  (QUERIES.  47 
 
 (^  u  E   R  V      III. 
 
 Whether  the  Word  (God)  /;/  Scripture,  can 
 reafonably  be  jufpojed  to  carry  an  ambigu* 
 ous  fneanhig,  or  be  u/ed  in  a  different  Senfe^ 
 when  applied  to  the  Father  and  Son,  in  the 
 fame  Scripture ,  and  even  in  the  fame 
 Verfe?  See  Joh.  r.  i. 
 
 HERE  you  make  Anfvver ;  that  the  Word 
 (God)  /';/  Scripture  hath  a  relative 
 Signification,  and  is  uled  in  a  fiipreme  and  a 
 fubordinate  Senfe.  And  you  appeal  to  Exod. 
 7.  I.  I  have  made  Thee  a  God  to  Thardoh\ 
 and  to  P(al.  8i.  i.  God  Jlandeth  in  the  Jljfem^ 
 bly  of  Gods ;  judgeth  amojig  Gods ;  and  you 
 defire  that  Joh.  ic.  34,  35-.  may  be  compared: 
 Is  it  not  i£jritten  in  your  La-w,  I  f aid  ye  are 
 Gods,  dec.  You  are  impatient,  I  perceive,  to 
 come  to  your  Diftindion  of  Supreme  and  Sub- 
 ordinate-,  which,  you  imagine,  clears  all  DiiB- 
 culties,  and  you  will  not  ftay  to  confider  w^hat 
 ought  to  be  laid  firft.  The  firft  and  mod  ge- 
 neral Diftindion  of  the  Senfes  of  the  Word, 
 God,  iliould  be  into  proper  and  improper-,  after 
 which  it  will  be  foon  enough  to  come  to  your 
 famed  DiftincSion  of  Supreme  and  Subordinate. 
 Dr.  Clarke,  indeed,  would  perfvvade  us,  that 
 the  proper  Scripture-Notion  of  God  is  "Domi- 
 nion ;  and  that  therefore  any  Perlbn  having 
 ^ominim,  is,  according  to  the  Scripture-No- 
 tion, 
 
48  //    D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.  IIL 
 
 tion,  truly,  and  froferly  God.  Thi?  Ihall  be 
 examined ;  but  it  will  be  convenient  here  to  fee 
 down  the  Dodror's  own  Words  "  The  Word 
 •'  0eo5,  God,  has  in  Scripture,  and  in  all  Books 
 *'  of  Morality  and  Religion,  a  relative  Signi- 
 *'  fication  ;  and  not,  as  in  rnetapkyfical  Books, 
 •*  an  dbfolnte  one :  as  is  evident  from  the  re- 
 *'  lat'tveTtxm^,  which  in  ;^<?r^2/ Writings  may 
 "  always  be  joined  with  it.  For  inllance:  In 
 *'  the  iame  manner  as  we  fay  my  Father,  my 
 *'  King,  and  the  like ;  fo  it  is  proper  alfo  to 
 *'  lay,  my  God,  the  God  of  I/rael,  the  God 
 **  ofthe'VniverJe,  and  the  like;  Which  words 
 •'  are  expreifive  of  Dominion  and  Government. 
 *'  But,  in  the  metaphyfical  Way,  it  cannot  be 
 *•  iaid  my  Infinite  Subftance,  the  Infinite  Sub- 
 *'  ftance  of  Ifrael,  or  the  like  *.  He  repeats 
 the  Obfervation  (/.  290.)!  And  is  very  poficive 
 that  the  word  God,  in  Scripture,  is  alv/ays  a 
 relative  Word  of  Offce ;  giving  the  fame  fret^ 
 ty  Reafon  for  it,  as  before.  This  Ihall  be  care- 
 fiilly  confidered ;  and  the  manner  of  Ipeaking 
 accounted  for,   in  the  lequel. 
 
 I  Ihall  only  obferve  here,  by  the  way,  that 
 the  Word,  Star,  is  a  relative  Word,  for  the 
 lame  Reafon  with  chat,  which  the  Dodor  gives 
 for  the  other.  For ,  the  Star  of  your  God 
 Remphan,  Ads  7.  43.  is  a  proper  Exprefiion: 
 But,  in  the  metaphyfical  Way ,  it  cannot  be 
 faid,  the  luminous  Subftance  of  your  God,  Rem- 
 
 *  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Reply,  p.  184. 
 f  Compare  ;r//o  Script.  Do6tr.  p.  2p<X. 
 
 fhail: 
 
Qu    III  of  fome  (QUERIES.  49 
 
 fhan.  So  again  ;  Water'  is  a  relative  Word ; 
 For  it  is  proper  ro  lay,  th6  Water  of  Ifrael: 
 Bur,  in  the  7netaphyfical\^ 2i)\  it  cannot  be  faid, 
 the  fluid  Subdancc  of  Ifrael  \  The  Exprcflion 
 is  \  improper.  By  parity  of  Reafon,  *we  may 
 make  relative  Words,  almoil:  as  many  as  we 
 pleafe.  But  to  proceed:  I  maintain  that  2)^-. 
 minion  is  not  the  full  Import  of  the  word  God^ 
 in  Scripture;  that  it  is  but  a  part  of  the  Idea^ 
 and  a  Imall  part  too ;  and  that,  if  any  Perlba 
 be  called  G<?^,  mcerly  on  account  oiT)ominion^ 
 He  is  called  ib  by  w^ay  of  Figure  and  Relem- 
 blance  only  ;  and  is  nox.  properly  God,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Scripture-Notion  of  it.  We  may  call 
 any  one,  a  ATi;^^,  who  lives  free  and  independent, 
 lubjed:  to  no  Man's  Will.  He  is  a  King  fo. 
 far,  or  in  ibme  refpecft;  tho'  in  many  other 
 refpecfls,  nothing  like  one ;  and  therefore  not 
 properly  a  King.  If  by  the  fame  Figure 
 of  Speech ,  by  way  of  Allufion  and  Relem- 
 blance,  any  thing  be  called  God,  bccaufe  re- 
 fembling  God  in  one  or  more  Particulars ;  we 
 are  not  to  conclude,  that  it  is  properly,  and 
 truly  God, 
 
 To    enlarge    fomething   farther    upon    this 
 Head ;  and  to  illulirate  the  Cafe  by  a  few  In- 
 
 ^  It  is  very  obvious  to  pprceive,  inhere  the  impropriety  of  fuch  Ea:- 
 preffions  lies.  The  jvord  Su'oftance,  according  to  the  common  ufe  of 
 Language^  -when  nfed  in  the  Singular  Number,  is  fuppofed  to  be 
 intrinfick  to  the  Thing  fpcken  of,  rohofe  Subflc.nce  it  is\  and  indeed^ 
 to  he  the  Thin^  it  [elf.  My  Stdjlance,  is  my  Felf :  and  the  Subflance 
 of  Ilrael,  is  IfracI.  And  hence  it  comes  to  be  improper  to  join  Sub- 
 fhnce  Tvith  the  relative  Terms,  underjlanding  it  of  an-j  thing  ex- 
 idafick. 
 
 E  •  ftances. 
 
50  ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qjj.  III. 
 
 fiances.  Parr  of  the  Ii:/ea  which  goes  along 
 with  the  Word,  Got^,  is,  that  his  Habitation  is 
 fubhme,  and  his  d'-jL^eUing  not  with  Flejb,  Dan. 
 z.  II.  This  part  of  i\\q  Idea  is  apphcable  to 
 Angels,  or  to  Saints,  and  therefore  they  may 
 thus  fitr  be  reputed  Gods ;  and  are  Ibmetimes 
 ia  dried  m  Scripture,  or  Ecclefiaftical  V/rirings.- 
 Another  part  of  the  complex  Idea  of  God,  is 
 giving  orders  from  Above,  and  publilhing  com- 
 mands from  Heaven.  This  was,  in  fbme  Scnfe, 
 apphcable  to  Mofes%  who  is  therefore  called 
 a  God  unto  Pharaoh:  not  as  being  properly  a 
 God ;  but  inftcad  of  God,  in  that  Inftance,  or 
 that  refembling  Circuraftance.  In  the  fame  re- 
 fpedl,  every  'Prophet,  or  Apoftle,  or  even  a 
 Minifter  of  a  Pariih,  might  be  j^^r^Z/w/y  call- 
 ed God.  'Dominion  goes  along  with  the  Idea 
 of  God,  or  is  a  part  of  it;  and  therefore  A'^iz/^j', 
 TrinceSy  and  Magijirates,  refembling  God  in 
 that  refpedt,  may,  by  the  like  Figure  of  Speech, 
 be  (tiled  Gods:  not  properly  \  for  then  we 
 might  as  properly  lay,  God  David,  God  Solo- 
 mon, or  God  Jeroboam,  as  King  David,  &c. 
 but  by  way  of  Allafion,  and  in  regard  to  fome 
 imperfed;  refemblance  which  they  bear  to  God 
 in  fome  particular  refpefts ;  and  that  is  all.  It 
 belongs  to  God,  to  receive  Worlhip,  and  Sa- 
 crifice, and  Homage.  Now,  becaule  the  Hea- 
 then  Idols  (o  far  reiembled  God,  as  to  be  made 
 the  Objects  of  Worlhip,  ©r.  Therefore  they 
 alio,  by  the  fame  Figure  of  Speech,  are  by  the 
 Scripture  denominated  Gods,  the'  at  the  fame 
 
 time. 
 
Qjj.  III.         offome  (QUERIES.  51 
 
 time,  they  are  declared,  in  a  proper  Senfc,  to 
 be  7/0  Goks.  The  Belly  is  called  the  God  of 
 the  Luxurious,  Thil.i.n).  becaufe  fbrae  are  as 
 much  devoted  to  the  Service  of  their  Bellies^ 
 as  others  are  to  the  Service  of  God%  arid  be- 
 caufe their  Lufts  have  got  the  dominion  over 
 them.  This  way  of  ipealdng  is,  in  like  manner, 
 grounded  on  fome  imperfedt  Rel'emblance,  and 
 is  eafily  underftood.  The  Prince  of  the  Devils 
 is  fuppofcd,  by  mod  Interpreters,  to  be  called 
 the  God  of  this  IForld,  x  Cor.  4. 4.  If  lb,  the. 
 Realbn  may  be ,  cither  becaufe  the  Men  of 
 this  World  are  entirely  devoted  to  his  Service ; 
 or  that  He  has  got  the  Power  and  Dominioa 
 over  Them, 
 
 Thus  we  (ee,  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;  becaule  fbme  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;  and  reafoning  faliacioully.  a  di^o 
 fecttndum  quid,  as  the  Schools  fpeak,  ad  di- 
 6iiim  Jimpliciter.  If  we  inquire  carefully  into 
 the  Scripture-Notion  of  the  Word,  we  fliall 
 find,  that  neither  T)o7ninion  fmgly,  nor  all  the 
 other  Inftances  of  Rcfemblance  make  up  the 
 Idea  ;  or  are  fufficicnt  to  denominate  any 
 Thing  properly  God.  When  the  Trince  of 
 Tyre  pretended  to  be  God,  Ezek.  28.  2.  He 
 thought  of  fomething  more  than  nieer  T>omi- 
 
 E  %  niofi 
 
5X  ^DEFENSE  Qjj,  IIL 
 
 nio7i  to  make  H'mi  fo.  He  thought  of  Strength 
 invincible,  and  Power  irrcfiftible :  and  God 
 was  pleas'd  to  convince  Him  of  his  Folly  and 
 Vanity,  not  by  telling  Him  how  fcanry  his 
 Tiomtnion  was,  or  how  low  his  Office-^  but 
 how  weak,  frail,  and  perifliing  his  iV^/'/zr^  was  ; 
 that  He  was  Man  only^  and  not  G*od,  v.  x.  9. 
 and  ihould  iiirely  find  lo  by  the  Event.  When 
 the  Lycaonians,  upon  the  fight  of  a  Miracle 
 wrought  by  St.  Taul,  A6ts  14.  11.  took  Him 
 and  Barnabas  for  Gods ;  They  did  not  think 
 fo  much  of  dominion,  as  of  Toiz'ery  and  Abi- 
 lity,  beyond  Human :  And  when  the  Apoltles 
 anfwer'd  them,  they  did  not  tell  them  that 
 their  "Dominion  was  -^only  Human ;  or  that 
 their  Ojfice  was  nor  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  poperly  God;  we  iliall  find  it 
 made  up  of  thefe  ieveralldeas;  Infinite  Wifdom, 
 Power  invincible,  All-fufficiency,  and  the  hke. 
 Thefe  are  the  Ground  and  Foundation  of  Do- 
 minions which  is  but  a  fecondary  Notion,  aCon- 
 fequence  of  the  Former :  And  it  muft  be  Domi- 
 nion Supreme,  and  none  elfe,  which  will  fuit 
 with  the  Scripture-Notion  of  God.  It  is  not 
 that  of  a  Governor^  a  Ruler ,  a  TroteStor^  a 
 Lord, ox  the  like;  but  a yS-L'^r^ig;;/ Ruler,  an  al- 
 mighty Protedor,  an  omnifcient  and  omnifrefent 
 
 Cover- 
 
Qjj.  Ill         of  fime  (QUERIES.  5-3 
 
 Governor.  An  eternal,  immutable,  all-fufficient 
 Creator,  Treferver,  and  TroteBor,  Whatever 
 falls  ihort  of  this,  is  Viox  properly ,  in  the  Scri- 
 pture-Norion ,  God\  but  is  only  called  fo  by 
 way  of  Figure ;  as  has  before  been  explained. 
 Now,  if  yon  ask  me  why  the  relative  Terms 
 may  properly  be  applied  to  the  Word  God^  the 
 reaibn  is  plain;  becaufe  there  is  fbmething  re- 
 lative in  the  "ujhole  Idea  of  God;  namely,  the 
 notion  of  Governor,  Trotecior,  &c.  If  you 
 ask  why  they  cannot  {o  properly  be  applied  to 
 the  Word,  God,  in  the  fnetaphyjical  Senfe  ;  be- 
 fide  the  reafon  before  given,  there  is  another 
 as  plain  ;  becaufe  Metaphyficks  take  in  only 
 part  of  the  Idea,  confider  the  Nature  ab- 
 ftraded  from  the  Relation,  leaving  the  rela- 
 tive Part  out. 
 
 From  what  hath  been  laid,  it  may  appear 
 how  ufelels  and  infignificant  your  Diftindion 
 is,  of  a  fttpreme  and  a  fiihordinate  God.  For, 
 not  to  mention  that  this  muft  unavoidably 
 run  you  into  Tolytheifm,  and  bring  you  to 
 afTert  more  Gods  than  one,  contrary  to  the 
 whole  Tenor  of  Holy  Scripture;  which  is 
 an  *  inluperable  Objecftion  to  your  Hypo- 
 the/is  ;  I  fay ,  not  to  mention  this  at  pre- 
 fent,  your  Hypothefis  is  built  upon  a  filfe 
 Ground,  as  if  any  thing  could  he  properh  God^ 
 that  is  not  Supreme,     Supreme,  m  the  itrid: 
 
 *  See  what  Dr.  Bennet   has  very   -s^ell   urged  u^on    this  Head: 
 Diic.  of  the  H.  Trin.  p.  178,  &c. 
 
 E  3  Senfe, 
 
j4  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  III. 
 
 Senfe,  fuppofcs  for  irs  ground  all  the  eflential 
 Properties  of  one  truly  and  froperly  God,  as 
 delcribed  in  Scripture.  Another  God  after  this, 
 is  no  God\  becaufe  Scripture  makes  but  one  \ 
 befide?  that  an  *  inferior  God  is  only  God  im- 
 froperlyy  and  fo  called  by  way  of  Figure,  or 
 in  fome  particular  reipedt:  So  that  at  length 
 your  famed  DiftincSion  of  a  fitpreme  and  jub- 
 ordinate  God,  refoives  into  a  God,  and  no  God, 
 The  Queftion  then,  between  us,  is,  whether 
 Chrift  be  God  j>roperly,  or  improperly  lb  call- 
 ed ;  that  is,  whether  He  be  God,  or  no.  Your 
 Arguments  to  prove  Him  a  fuhordinate  God 
 only,  1  iliall  look  upon  as  fo  many  Arguments 
 againfl:  his  T)ivinity ;  and  as  defign'd  to  prove 
 that  He  is  not  God. 
 
 You  cite  Job.  lo.  35-,  36.  If  He  called  them 
 Gods,  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and 
 Scripture  cannot  be  broken ;  Say  ye  of  Him, 
 whom  the  Father  hath  fanfiified,  and  fent 
 into  the  World,  Thou  blafphemeft,  becaufe  I 
 /aid,  1  am  the  Son  of  God?    From  hence  you 
 
 *  Neque  enim  proxinii  erimiis  opinionibus  Nationum,  o^\ix  fi 
 quandj  coguntur  Deum  confiteri,  tamen  8c  Alios  infra  lilum  volant. 
 Divinitas  autem  gradum  non  haher,  utpote  unica.  TertulL  adv^ 
 Her-mog.  c.  7.  p.  236.  Deus  non  erit  dicendus,  quia  nee  creden- 
 dus.  mil  Summum  magnum.  Ncga  Deum,  qu,em  dicis  deteriorem- 
 Tertul.  Cor.tr.  Marc  1.  1.  c.  6- 
 
 Qui  fupcr  fe  hibet  Aliquem  Superiorem,  6c  fub  Alterius  po- 
 teftatc  efl  j  Hie  neque  Deus»  neque  Magnus  Rex  dici  poteft. 
 IreN.  1.  4,  c.  z.   p.  229. 
 
 Unus  igifur  Omnium  Dominus  eft  Deus.  Neque  enim  ilia  fub- 
 limitas  poreft  habere  Confortem,  cum  Sola  omnium  teneat  po- 
 teftatem.    <>//*•  iie  Idol*  Van.  p^  14.  Ox.  Edit, 
 
 endea- 
 
Qjj,  III         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  5-5 
 
 endeavor  to  prove,  thic  Chrifl:  is  Godm  rhe 
 fubordinate  Scnle  only  ;  that  is,  as  I  have  faid, 
 i\ox.  properly  or  truly  God.  But  I  can  fee  no 
 manner  of  ground  for  this  Inference  from  the 
 Words  before  us.  Our  BlefTcd  Lord  had  in- 
 finuated  that  He  was  really  and  truly  GoA%  but 
 had  not  afferted  it  in  plain  and  6'A^r^yj- Terras : 
 Upon  this  bare  innuendo,  the  Je^uus  charge  Him 
 with  A'wQ&iBlafphemy :  He,  to  evade  their  Ma- 
 hce  and  to  keep  to  rhe  Truth,  neither  affirms, 
 nor  denies  that  He  meant  it  in  the  Senfe  which 
 thsy  appreliendcd.  However,  his  Difcourfe  be- 
 ing in  general  Terms,  and  not  expHcite  enough 
 to  found  a  charge  of  Biafphemy  upon,  He  ap- 
 peals to  their  Law,  in  order  to  Ihow,  that  it  is 
 not  z\\Yzys>Bla/pbemy,  to  make  one's  felf  God, 
 or  to  apply  the  Title  of  God,  even  to  mortal 
 Men,  and  Men  inferior  to  Himlelf,  conftdered 
 only  as  Man.  This  was  anlwer  iufficient  to 
 Them ;  who  could  not  from  his  own  Expref 
 fions  clearly  convid:  Him  of  meaning  more, 
 than  that  He  w^as  God  in  the  hnproper  Senfe 
 of  the  Word,  as  it  had  been  ulcd,  Tfal.  8z.  6. 
 Neverrhelcfs,  He  leaves  the  point  of  his  Tiivi- 
 /^/'y  undecided ;  or  rather,  ftiU  goes  on  to  wx- 
 flnuate,  in  Words  which  they  could  not  dircdt- 
 ly  lay  hold  on,  the  very  Thing  which  they 
 charged  Him  with.  This  enraged  them  fo  tnnch 
 the  more:  and  therefore  they  2.o^v.x\  fought  to 
 take  Him,  v.  39.  But  He  efcaped  out  of  their 
 Hand.  This  Interpretation  may  luffice  to  take 
 off  the  force  of  your  Argument.  Yet ,  the 
 E  4  V/oids 
 
^6  ^DEFENSE  Q^lt.  III. 
 
 Words  may  admit  of  other,  and  perhaps  better 
 Interpretations,  confident  with  the  Principles 
 which   I  here  maintain  *. 
 
 Vou  proceed  to  QitQ  Heb.i.%,^.  and  argue 
 thus:  He  who  being  God,  calls  another  his 
 God,  and  is  fanEiified  by  Him,  muji  needs  be 
 God  in  a  fiibordinate  Senfe ;  that  is ,  God 
 improperly  ib  called,  or  no  God.  To  an  old 
 Objection,  I  might  return  an  old  Anfwer,  in  the 
 words  of  Hilary,  or  words  to  the  fame  Effed:. 
 •*  fThis  may  fignify  only  his  Subordination,  as 
 *'.  a  Son,  or  as  God  of  God,  without  any  In- 
 ^'  feriority  of  Nature.  The  Father  is  his  God, 
 *'  as  He  is  God  by  being  begotten  of  Him. 
 This  An(\vcr  is  dired:  and  full,  upon  the  Sup- 
 poHrion  that  the  Text  cited  i.>  meant  of  the 
 divine  Nature  of  Chrifl: ,  or  of  Chrifl:  in  his 
 higheft  Capacity.  Bat  if  it  be  meant,  as  |  pro- 
 bably it  may,  of  his  human  Nature  only,  there 
 is  no  weight  in  the  Ob>cd:ion. 
 
 As  to  the  Son's  being  fanciified,  I  iliould 
 hardly  have  thought  it  of  any  Importance  to 
 the  Caufc,  had  it  not  been  twice  infilled  on  by 
 you.  May  not  the  Father  dcfign,  appoint » 
 confeci'ate  his  Son,  confider'd  in  either  Capacity, 
 ip  the  Office  of  Mediator,  without  liiipportng 
 Him  of  a  different  and  inferior  Nature  to  Him  ? 
 Or,  luppofe.  the  fanciifying  may  be  meant  of 
 
 *^  See  True  Script.  Doftr.  continued,  />.  178. 
 
 f  Ad  Nativitatem  referturj  caeterum  non  perimit  Naturamj  & 
 jdcirco  Deus  ejus  eft.  quia  ex  eo  natus  in  Deum  eft.  H'd.  de 
 Tr'm,  !.  4.  c.  3f.  p.  848. 
 
 ■^  Ss«  Bennet.  Difcourfe  on  the  Trin.  j&.  3i>  3  J»  Sec. 
 
 the 
 
Qjj,  III.         offime  (QUERIES.  ^7 
 
 the  human  Nature,  which  the  Father  has  fanfti- 
 fied,  by  uniting  it  to  theAoy©^;  what  force 
 will  there  remain  in  your  Objed:ion  ?  Having 
 anfwer'd  your  Pleas  and  Pretences  for  a  fu^or- 
 d'lnate  God,  I  proceed  to  Ihow  that  Chrift  is 
 not  called  God  in  a  fubordinate,  or  improper 
 Senfc  ;  but  in  the  fame  Senfe,  and  in  as  high  a 
 Senfe,  as  the  Father  Himlelf  is  lo  (liled. 
 
 I.  Becaufe  He  is  called  the  Jehovah,  which 
 is  a  word  of  abjolute  Signification,  and  is  the 
 incommunicable  Name  of  the  one  true  God. 
 
 *  He  is,  very  probably,  called  Jehovah,  Luk. 
 1. 16, 17.  many  ihall  He  (viz.  John  theBaptift) 
 turn  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  He  ihall  go 
 before  Him,  The  Dodor  owns  that,  /;/  ftriM- 
 nefs  ofConJtruifion,  the  words  {the  Lord  their 
 God)  mufl:  be  undcrftood  of  Chrift.  And  there- 
 fore Chrift  is  Lord  God,  or  Jehovah  Elohim^ 
 which  comes  to  the  lame. 
 
 He  is  likewife  called  the  Lord  God  of  the 
 Prophets,  as  appears  from  Rev.  %2.  6.  com- 
 pared with  V.16,  of  the  fame  Chapter.  This 
 may  be  firther  confirmed  by  comparing  the 
 Texts  following. 
 
 *  See   this    Text   excellently   defended    and    tllujirated    in    True 
 Scripture  Dodr.  continu'd,  />.  I32,  135,  O''^- 
 
 Of 
 
58 
 
 A    D.E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.  HI. 
 
 Of  old  haft  thou  laid 
 the  Foundation  of  the 
 Earth,  PI.'  102. 25-.  &:c. 
 Addrefs'd  to  the  7^- 
 hovah. 
 
 And  the  Lord  (  Je- 
 hovah )  faid  unto  me  : 
 Caft  it  unto  the  Tot- 
 ter ;  a  goodly  price 
 that  I  was  prtfed  at 
 of  them  ^  Zech.  r  r .  1 1. 
 
 They  /hall  look  on 
 me  (Jehovah  Ipeaking 
 by  the  Prophet)  whom 
 they  have  pierced , 
 Zech.  IX.  10. 
 
 The  Voice  of  Him 
 that  crieth  in  the  fVil- 
 dernefs.prepare ye  the 
 way  of  the  Lord  (  Je- 
 hovah) If  40,  3. 
 
 The  Lord  faid ,  I 
 will  have  mercy  on  the 
 Houfe  of  Jiidah  ,  and 
 will  fave  them  by  the 
 Lord  (Jehovah)  their 
 God,   Hori.7. 
 
 ^  Thou  Lord,  in  the 
 beginning  haft  laid  the 
 Foundations  of  the 
 Earth,  Heb.  i.io. 
 
 ^  Then  was  fulfilled^ 
 That  which  was  Jpo- 
 ken ,  &c.  Match.  27, 
 9,  10. 
 
 Another  Scripture 
 faith.  They  ftoall  look 
 on  Him  (  Jefas  Chrift) 
 whom  they  have  pier- 
 ced,  Joh.  19.37. 
 
 ^  The  Voice  of  one 
 crying  in  the  Wilder- 
 nefs,  prepare  ye  the 
 way  of  the  Lord,  Mar. 
 I.  3. 
 
 . is  born  in  the 
 
 City  of  David ,  a  Sa- 
 vior, which  is  Chrift 
 the  Lord,  Luk.  2.11. 
 
 a  See  Surenhufiii  Conciliation,  in  loc.  p.  600. 
 
 b  Surenhuf.  in  loc.  p.  280. 
 
 c  Surei.huf.  in  Matt.  3.  3.  p.  207.  I  refer  to  this  Author,  to  ob' 
 •viate  the  pre/ e  ice,  that  thefe  Texts  might  he  Hnderjloodj  only  by  way 
 of  AccommoJation. 
 
 I  have 
 
Qjj,  III.         of  fome  (QUERIES.  5-9 
 
 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 
 Perlbn,  {p.  24.)  and  elfewhcre:  and  that  the 
 'Per/on  called  Jehovah  is  the  Father  on/y. 
 What  then  inuft  be  i'aid  to  theie  Texts,  which 
 are  ib  very  plain  and  cxprels  to  the  contrary ; 
 infomuch  that  *Dr.  Clarke  Himielf  owns,  that 
 the  name  Jehovah  is  given  to  that  vifible 
 Terfon  (meaning  Chrift)  "uuho  appeared  as  re* 
 prefenting  the  "Per [on  of  the  invifible  God% 
 He  does  not  fay,  it  was  given  to  the  Perfon 
 reprefhited  only,  but  to  the  Perlbn  reprefent- 
 ing  alio ;  which  you  fcem  to  deny.  But  you 
 confound  your  ielf  with  your  f  own  Comment 
 
 upon  Hoi.  I.  7.  {Jehovah  vjould fave  them 
 
 by  Jehovah  their  God)  That  is,  lay  you,  that 
 Jehovah  himfe If  -would  fave  them,  but  not  in 
 his  own  Perfon.  Well  then  ;  it  is  by  another 
 Perfon,  which  Perfon  the  Text  exprefly  calls 
 Jehovah. 
 
 Upon2^ech.  ix.  10.  compared  with  Joh  19.37. 
 you  Comment  thus  (/.  %6.)  The  Sufferings  of 
 Chrift  might  well  be  called  the  Sufferings  of 
 Jehovah,  being  pierced  in  Effigie  in  his  Son^ 
 who  is  the  exprefs  hnage  of  his  Perfon. 
 What  a  fanciful  Turn  is  here,  meerly  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- 
 
 *  B.(ply,  p.  1^3.  t  P-  2^. 
 
 hovahy 
 
6o  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  Ill 
 
 hovah,  which  indeed  He  is,  as  well  as  the  Fa- 
 ther. I  Ihall  dwell  no  lon2;cr  on  lb  clear  and 
 indifputable  a  Point.  What  you  hint,  that  the 
 Father  and  Son  cannot  both  be  Jehovah,  or  as 
 you  exprefs  it,  one  individual  Being,  meaning 
 oiieVerfon,  is  hardly  delerving  Notice;  becaule 
 it  is  nothing  but  playing  with  the  word  indi- 
 "uidual'^  and  difputing  againft  no  Body :  cither 
 take  the  word  in  our  Senie  of  it,  or  pretend 
 not  that  you  oppoie  us,  Ic  has  been  obferved 
 above,  that  Antiquity  is  every  where  full  and 
 exprefs  in  this  Matter ;  never  queftioning,  but 
 conftantly  afTerting,  that  the  Son  is  Jehovah ; 
 and  fo  called,  in  Scripture,  in  his  own  Terfon, 
 and  in  his  own  right  ,'2c^  Co  effential  Son  of  God. 
 The  next  Thing  which  I  have  to  oblerve,  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  Jehovah  of 
 Ifrael ;  as  is  pertinently  remark'd  by  a  learned 
 *  Gentleman  ;  and  the  fame  Gentleman  obferves, 
 that  it  is  fometimes  render'd  by  ®ih,  or  God: 
 from  whence  we  may  jaft  take  notice,  by  the 
 way,  that  the  word  0<o?,  or  God,  in  Scripture, 
 is  not  always,  perhaps  very  rarely,  a  meer  re- 
 lative  Word-  That  Jehovah  is  a  Word  q^  ab- 
 folute Signification,  expre/Ting  God,  as  He  is, 
 may  be  proved,  both  from  f  Scripture  it  felf, 
 
 *  The  True  Script.  Doc^r.  of  the  Trin-  continued,  />.  134. 
 f  Sue  this  proved   in  the    Appendix   to   the   Confiderations    on 
 Mr,  Whidon'j  WJior,  Fref.  p.  101. 
 
 and 
 
Qjj.  Hi.         offome  QUERIES.  6t 
 
 and  the  *  Authoricies  of  the  bed  Criticks  in  this 
 Cafe.  V/hat  you  have  to  objcd:  againfl  it,  iliall 
 be  here  examined,  with  all  convenient  Brevity. 
 f  You  make  the  Import  of  the  Name  Jehovah 
 to  be,  giving  Being  to  (i.e.  Performing)  bis 
 ^Promifes.  For  Realons  beft  kn^^"  -^  ^o  vour 
 Self,  you  flip  over  Exod.  3.  ^^  14  j  -a  Iv  ii 
 might  probably  give  us  the  moll:  Liyht  mo  ihe 
 Matter;  and  chuie  to  found  all  your  Region- 
 ings  upon  Exod.  6.  z,^,  &c.  an  obfcurc  Place, 
 on  which  you  have  made  almofl:  as  obfcure  a 
 Comment.  The  Words  are,  1  am  the  Lord 
 (Jehovah)  and  I  appeared  unto  Abr:ih2im.  unto 
 liaac,  and  nnto  Jacob,  by  the  Name  of  God 
 Ahnighty  (El  Shaddai)  but  by  my  Name  Je* 
 hovah,  iji)as  I  not  known  unto  them. 
 
 You  do  not,  I  prelume,  fo  underftand  this 
 Text,  as  if  this  was  the  firlT:  Time  that  God  re- 
 vealed Himfelf  by  the  Name  Jehovah,  That 
 He  had  done  before,  Exod.  3.  14.  And  even 
 long  before  that,  to  Ahram,,  Gen.  15-.  7.  And 
 Abram  had  addreis'd  Him  under  that  Name, 
 fooner,  Gen.i^.z.  Nay,  it  may  be  run  up  yet 
 higher,  even  to  Adam  and  Eve,  Gen.  4.  i.\. 
 
 Your  meaning  therefore,  I  fuppoie,  muft  be, 
 
 *  S(i9  the  Authorities  cited  in  the  fecorul  IP  art  cf  the  Coniider.itions 
 by  the  farm  Author,  p.  2,  3.  And  refer' d  to  in  True  Scripture 
 Dodr.  continu'd,  p.  135,  134.  j-  p.  19. 
 
 ■^  M.  Le  Citrc  thinks  that  all  this  may  be  folved  by  a  Prolepfis, 
 Com.  in  Exod.  3.  v.  ly.  To  which  it  is  /efficient  to  An/wer,  that  it 
 tr^ay  be  othirwife ;  and  that  it  is  highly  improbable,  that  Mofes,  who 
 was  particularly  careful  not  to  introduce  the  Name  of  Abiaham  and 
 Sarah,  before  the  proper  Time,  fl)oitld  mt  be  as  careful  in  refpe^  of  4 
 more  venerable  Name,  thi  Name  of  God  Himfelf, 
 
 that 
 
6z  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  Ill 
 
 that  God  had  given  many  Inftances  of  his 
 ^o\Jirr  before,  conformable  to  his  Name  El 
 Shaddai:  But  now,  He  was  to  give  them  In- 
 ftances  of  his  Veracity  and  Conjiancy  in  per- 
 forming "Tromifes,  conformable  to  his  Name 
 Jehovah.  This,  I  think,  either  is,  or  iliould 
 be  your  vSenie  of  this  oblcure  Paflage.  That 
 it  is  nor  the  true  Senle  of  the  Place,  is  next  to 
 be  lliovvn. 
 
 I.  It  appears  to  be  a  very  ftrain'd  and  remote 
 Interpretation.  The  primary  Signification  of 
 Jehovah,  is  Being,  by  your  own  ConfefTion, 
 and  as  all  know,  that  know  any  thing :  and  the 
 moft  obvious  reafbn  of  the  Name,  is,  that  God 
 is  Being  it  fclf\  neccilarily  exifting,  indepen- 
 dent, immutable,  always  the  fame;  According 
 to  that  of  Mai  1.6.  1  am  the  L^r^  (Jehovah) 
 /  change  not.  Afcer  this,  in  the  natural  Order* 
 He  may  be  conftdered  as  the  Fountain  of  Be- 
 ing, or  giving  Being  to  all  other  Things  :  So 
 that  this  leeais  bur  a  fecondary  Notion  of  Je- 
 hovah.  Yours  is  more  remote  (till:  it  \% giving 
 Being,  nor  to  the  World,  to  Angels,  or  to 
 Men ;  But  to  Words  and  Tromi/es ;  that  is, 
 fulfilling  Them.  And  this  metaphorical  Senfe 
 of,  giving  Being,  you  would  put  upon  us,  for 
 the  profer  and  JpeCial  import  of  the  Name 
 Jehovah,  exprefiiiig  Being.  Who  does  not  fee 
 that  this  is  drained  and  Far  fetch'd? 
 
 %.  The  Rea/on  which  you  aflign  for  this 
 Interpretation,  is  as  lame  as  the  Interpretation 
 it  felf     God^   it  feems,    was   now  coming  to 
 
 fulfil 
 
C^u.  III.         of  Jbme  Q^UERIES.  63 
 
 fulfil  the  promife  made  to  Abraham ;  and  tLci  e- 
 fore  reminds  his  People  of  the  Napje  Jehovah-, 
 as  importing  one  faithful  and  puncSual  to  his 
 Word.  Bur  what  if  Jehovah  ihould  import 
 one  eternal  and  hiimiitable  God ,  the  Jkme 
 yejierday,  to  day,  and  for  ever -^  m'ghr  nor  the 
 Confideration  thereof  be  very  proper  to  raife 
 in  Men's  minds  the  greateft  Confidcn*.e  and 
 AiTurance  imnginable,  that  He  fliould  never  fail 
 of  his  Word? 
 
 3.  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,  10  promifes^ 
 or  the  like  ? 
 
 Thus,  in  this  very  Chapter,  Exod.  6.  3^.  I 
 am  the  Lord:  (Jehovah)  ffeak  thou  unto 
 Pharaoh  King  of  Egypt  all  that  I  fay  unto 
 Thee.  Again ;  Againjl  all  the  Gods  ^/^  Egypt, 
 /  VDill  execute  Judgntent ;  /  am  Jehovah , 
 Exod.  12.12.    None  of  you  fioall  a])proach  to 
 
 any  that  is  near  of  Kin  to  Him /  am 
 
 Jehovah,  Lev.  18.6.  I  am  the  Lord  {]t\\oY2i\\) 
 that  is  my  Name,  and  my  Glory  will  I  not 
 give  to  another ;  neither  7ny  f  raife  to  graven 
 Images,  If  42,  8.  *  many  more  Places  of  like 
 nature  might  be  cited.  But  I  chufe  to  refer  you 
 to  a  Concordance  for  them.  What  I  intend  from 
 
 *  Moiif.  Le  Clcrc,  upon  the  Place,  en^eavorf  by  ^li'irk  and  Sub- 
 tdty  to  turn  Jevend  Fajfages,  -wherein  ihe  [ehovah  is  mention  d,  to 
 ene  particular  Senfe,  in  favour  of  the  Sabellians.  But  that  Author, 
 and  his  Manner  are  well  hiown,  and  with  what  Byafs  he  writes. 
 The  verj  Inftanses  which  He  kings  ar$  enotigh  t§  fonfute  Him. 
 
 them 
 
64  ^DEFENSE  Qu.  HI. 
 
 them  is  this;  that  if  your's  be  the  true  Account 
 of  the  Ipecial  Import  of  the  Name  Jehovah,  it 
 will  be  hard  to  find  any  Senfe,  or  Pertinency 
 in  thole,  or  other  frequent  Repetitions  of  ir. 
 But  underftanding  the  Word,  as  it  has  been  ge- 
 nerally underftood  by  Perfons  of  the  greateft 
 Learning  and  Judgment,  ail  is  clear ,  pertinent^ 
 and  confijient. 
 
 But,  you  will  fay,  why  then  docs  God  ^o 
 particularly  take  notice,  that  by  his  name  Je- 
 hovah, He  was  not  known  to  Abraham^  I/aac^ 
 and  Jacobs  Exod.  6.  3.  did  not  they  know 
 Him,  and  worihip  Him,  as  the  true,  eternal, 
 independent,  immutable  God,  the  Creator  of 
 all  Things?  Yes,  certainly  they  did,  and  un- 
 der the  Name  Jehovah  too ;  and  probably  un- 
 derftood the  import  of  it.  The  mofl:  probable 
 Solution  of  the  whole  Difficulty  is  this;  that 
 the  V/ords,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Text, 
 ought  to  be  underftood  by  way  of  Interro- 
 gation, thus :  But  by  my  name  Jehovah,  was 
 I  not  alfo  known  unto  them  ?  That  gre^t 
 and  venerable  Name,  which  exprefles  more 
 than  El-Shaddai,  or  any  other  Name,  and 
 which  I  have  cholen  for  my  memorial  to  all 
 Generations  ? 
 
 If  you  pleafe  to  confult  the  Criticks,  you 
 will  find  this  Interpretation  fuppofted  by  fuch 
 Reafbns  as  will  bear  Examining.  It  has  been 
 obfervedby  the  Learned,  that  fome  of  the  Gr^^^ 
 Writers  read  the  Words,  ^  ri  mixiu  fxa^  Kt^gi©-, 
 iHhoDQJx.  cLxjiiii,     That  is,  fny  name,  Jehovah,  / 
 
 made 
 
Qu.  Ill         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  6^ 
 
 inade  known  unto  them ;  which  Interpretation 
 is  Hkewife  favoured  by  the  jirabkk  Verjion, 
 This,  at  lead,  we  may  iay ;  that  from  a  PaC 
 fage  fo  obfcure,  and  capable  of  icveral  Con- 
 ftrudtions,  no  certain  Argument  can  be  drawn, 
 for  the  fpccial  import  of  the  Word  Jehovah^ 
 in  oppofition  to  the  belt  Cnticks  in  the  Lan» 
 guage,  whether  Anrient  or  Modern.  Now,  to 
 refume  the  Thread  of  our  Argument;  fince  it 
 appears  that  Chrift  is,  in  his  own  proper  Per- 
 fon,  called  Jehovah,  a  Word  of  abiblute  Signi- 
 fication, expreffing  the  divine  Nature  or  Ef- 
 fence ;  it  muft  follow  that  He  is  God,  ftridly 
 lb  called ;  and  not  in  the  relative  or  improper 
 Senie,  as  is  pretended. 
 
 This  will  appear  farther,  if  \x.  be  confider'd 
 that  Jehovah  is  the  incommunicable  Name  of 
 the  one  true  God,  This  may  be  proved  from 
 *  feveral  Texts,  which  I  iliall  only  point  to  ia 
 the  Margin;  referring  you  to  fa  learned  Author, 
 who  has  abundantly  made  good  the  AiTertion. 
 I  may  remark  that  this  and  the  foregoing  Ob- 
 fervation  ferve  to  fupport  and  confirm  each 
 other  :  For ,  if  Jehovah  fignify  the  eternal 
 immutable  God,  it  is  manifcTl  that  the  Name 
 is  incommunicable,  fmce  there  is  but  one  God: 
 and  if  the  Name  be  incommttnicable,  then  Je- 
 hovah can  fignify  nothing  but  that  one  God  to 
 whom,  and  to  whom  only,  it  is  applied»     And 
 
 *  Exod.  3.  14,  15.     Deut.a(5.  17,  18.     Pfal.  83.  i8.     Ifa.  41.  8. 
 Flofea  12.  5-. 
 f  id  Letter  t$  tht  Author  p//^eHiIlory  of  MontaniTan,  ;•.  ^,  &c. 
 
 F  if 
 
66  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  III. 
 
 if  both  thefe  Parts  be  true,  and  it  be  true  like- 
 wife,  that  this  Name  is  applied  to  Chrifl: ;  the 
 Conlequence  is  irrefiflible ,  that  Chrifl:  is  the 
 fame  one  God ;  not  the  fame  Pcrfon  with  the 
 Father,  to  whom  alio  the  Name  Jehovah  is 
 attributed,  but  the  feme  Subjiance,  tho  lame 
 Being,  in  a  Word,  the  fame  Jehovah  ;  thus 
 revealed  to  be  more  Perlbns  than  one.  So 
 much  for  my  firfl:  Argument  to  prove  that 
 the  Word,  God,  when  applied  to  the  Father  and 
 Son,  in  Scripture,  does  not  bear  a  double  Mean- 
 ing, one  ^rofer,  and  the  other  improper ;  but 
 is  to  be  underftood  in  one  and  the  lame  true 
 ^nA  proper  Senle,  in  relped:  of  Both. 
 
 X.  My  fecond  Argument  for  it  ill  all  be 
 from  Joh  i.  i.  purfuant  to  the  Words  of  the 
 Query.  In  the  beginning  was  the  V/ord,  and 
 the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
 God,  V.  I.  All  Things  were  made  by  Him,  &c. 
 V.  3.  Here,  wc  find  the  Son  exprefly  called 
 God:  And  the  only  Qiieftion  is,  whether  in  a 
 proper,  cr  improper  Senle.  The  Circumfl:ances 
 of  the  place  muft  determine  us  in  this  Enquiry. 
 Here  are  Three  Marks  to  diredt  us  how  to 
 form  a  Judgment,  i.  The  word  0^05,  God, 
 is  ufed  in  a  proper  Senfe  in  the  very  fame 
 Verle.  1,  The  word  was  God  in  the  Beginning, 
 that  is,  before  the  Creation.  3 .  The  Work  of 
 Creation  is  attributed  to  Him. 
 
 I  fay,  firfl:,  the  word  0eo5j  God,  is  once 
 ufed,  in  ^proper  Senfe,  in  the  very  lameVerfe. 
 I  have  before  fliown^  chat  the  preceiided  re  la- 
 
 five 
 
Qjj.  III.         of  fame  (QUERIES.  67 
 
 live  Senfe  is  only  an  improper  and  figurative 
 Senle  of  the  word  God,  according  to  the  Scri- 
 pture-Notion of  it;    and  therefore,    certainly. 
 That  cannor  be  the  meaning  of  it  here,  being 
 apphed  to  the  Father,  who,  without  diipute, 
 \%  properly  God.    Befides,  that  fdice  <dm  in  the 
 Septuagint   is  frequently  the  rendring  of  Je- 
 hovah, as  you  may  readily  fee  by  turning  to 
 Kircher's  Concordance  ;    and    fince   St.  John 
 Himfeif  follows  that  rendring.  as  you  may  ob- 
 ferve  by  comparing,  Joh.  6. 45-.  with  Ifis^i^^ 
 we  may  realbnably  think  that  0  0gc$,   in  the 
 Text,  is  of  the  fame  Signification  with  Jeho- 
 vah :  which  is  a  farther  proof  that  it  is  to  be 
 underftood  abfoltitely,    and  not  relatively,  as 
 you  term  it,  or  as  I,  improperly.     If  therefore 
 the  word  ©eJ?,  God,  be  once  ufed  by  St.  John 
 in  the  flri^  and  proper  Senfe ;  How  can  we 
 imagine  that  immediately  after,  in  the  very  fame 
 Verle,  He  fhould  ufe  the  fame  Word  in  a  Senfe 
 very  different  from  that  of  the  former  ?   You 
 remark ,    that  the  j4rticle  is  prefixed  before 
 0^3^,  in  an  abfolute  ConJtru5fion,when  Jpoken 
 of  the  Father ;  but  omitted  when  predicated 
 of  the  Aoyoi,     But  if  the  want  of  the  Article  be 
 fufficient  to  prove  that  0eo5,  God,  when  applied 
 to  the  Word,  is  of  a  different  meaning;  by  the 
 fame  Argument  you  might  prove  that  the  fame 
 WQrd,  (dtUy  without  an  Article,  in  no  lefs  than 
 four  places  more  of  this  Chapter  (v.  6.  iz,  13.18.) 
 is  not  to  be  und^rflood  of  the  one  true  God, 
 I  cannot  help  thinking  a  remark  2>/j?i;/^,  which 
 F  ^  fignifie^ 
 
68  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  III. 
 
 fignifies  lb  little,  as  either  to  prove  too  much, 
 or  to  prove  nothing.  Could  you  fliow  that 
 0ec$  without  the  Article,  was  always  taken  in 
 a  relative,  or  mf  roper  Scnie,  you  would  do 
 Ibmething.  All  that  you  attempt  to  fliow,  is, 
 that  0  0eo5  is  no  where,  in  the  New  Teftament, 
 predicated  of  the  Word,  in  an  abfolute  Con- 
 ftrudion:  And  what  if  it  is  not?  Then,  it  is 
 not :  For,  that  is  all  you  can  make  of  it.  (dm 
 without  the  Article  in  many  Places,  confefled- 
 ly,  means  as  much  as  0ei$  with  the  Article; 
 which  is  enough  for  our  purpofe.  Or,  admit- 
 ting that  there  is  fome  reafon  and  fignificancy 
 in  it,  that  the  Son  is  not  ftiled  o  0e55  in  an  ab- 
 folute Conftrudion,  but  that  the  Title  is  gene- 
 rally referved  to  the  Father,  as  the  Title,  o  notTrip  > 
 all  that  it  fignifies,  is,  that  the  firft  Perfon 
 of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  eminently  diftinguifli'd 
 by  an  Article;  but  not  that  the  Addition,  or 
 the  OmifTion,  of  an  Article  makes  any  Altera- 
 tion in  the  Senfe  of  the  word  0eo^^  You  lay, 
 that  three  of  the  moji  learned  Ante-Nicene 
 Greek  Fathers  infijl  upon  this  Remark, 
 about  the  Article.     *  Clemens  of  Alexandi^ia, 
 
 '■'  *  Clem.  Alex.  Stron).3.  p.  f48-  Ed.  Ox.  Clemens  does  not  make 
 his  Remark  on  Joh.  i.  i.  nor  does  He  mention,  that  the  Arttclc  is  put 
 to  tliftinguifh  the  Father's  Supereminent  dignity  cf  Nature  abote  tha 
 Son;  As  your  Reader,  or  perhaps  your  Self,  might  imagine.  His  dejign  vpas 
 cnly  to  prove,  againji  Tatian,  that  the  True  God  {and  not  the  Devil) 
 Vpas  the  Author  of  Conjugal  Procreation  i  for  rohich  He  cites  Gen. 
 4.  25-.  obferving,  that  ©205  in  that  Place  has  the  Article  0  before  iti 
 and  therefore  mufl  be  unaerjlood  of  the  True  God,  the  TrnvTOK^Tuf* 
 :By  the  very  fams  Rtile,  Chrijl  wufi  be  True  God,  in  the  fame  Senfe, 
 according  to  Clenienj.     Ui  tt  »  ©«cf.     See  p.  72.  131.  2/i.  17 5 » 
 
 *  Origen, 
 
Qy,  III.         offop^e  (QUERIES.  69 
 
 *  Origen,  and  f  Eufebiits.  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  Senle  ?  nothing  hke  it.  Do  they  mean 
 that  the  Article  can  never  be  properly  applied 
 when  the  Son  '\s>  fpoken  of,  or  that  the  Scripture 
 oblerves  it  as  an  invariable  Rule?  That  does 
 not  appear,  but  rather  the  Contrary.  For, 
 they  underflood  many  Texts  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
 ment ,  where  <di\^  occurs  with  the  Article,  of 
 Chrift,  as  may  appear,  in  fome  mealure,  from 
 the  Texts  before  laid  down ;  and  might  be 
 more  amply  fet  forth  by  other  Evidence,  were 
 any  nepdful  in  fo  clear  a  Caic. 
 
 The  Truth  of  the  whole  Matter  is,  the  Title 
 of  0  <di<^,  being  underftood  in  the  fame  Senfe 
 with  Ai*Ta')-eo^,  was,  as  i':  ought  to  be,  general- 
 ly relerved  to  the  Father,  as  the  diftinguifliing 
 ^erfonal  Charader  of  the  firft  Perfon  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  alio  fignify 
 any  Perfon  who  is  truly  and  elTentiaily  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 
 
 435.  832.  and  likevoife  o  ttccvtv k^tu^^  p.  277.  /  might  alfa  refer 
 to  p.  148.  647.  831.  Bnt  the  Con/irMclion  in  thofe  places  ts  more 
 dubious. 
 
 ♦  In  Joh.  p.  46.  Orlgen  means  no  more  than  that  the  Father 
 is,  A^tb}?®^,  God  unoriginal ed  i  the  Son,  God  of  God, 
 
 f  Eccl,  Theol.  1.  2.  c.  17.  Eufebius  mskes  no  farther  ufe  of  the 
 Obfervation  thau  to  prove*  agamjl  Marcellus,  that  the  Aoy<^  is  a 
 dijiinci  real  ferfon^  and  not  the  'Bather  Himfelf 
 
 F  3  worth 
 
70  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  III. 
 
 worth  the  while  to  difpute  this  Point.  The 
 Sum  and  Subftance  of  all  is.  that  *  the  Father 
 is  abfohitely,  and  eminently  ftiled  o  ©cc$,  as 
 the  Fountain  of  all ;  the  Son  0gof,  God  of  Gody 
 which  is  fufficienc  to  our  purpole.  You  ob- 
 ftrve  (/.  4x.)  that  the  LXXII  have  ©eos  with- 
 out the  Article,  wherever  mention  is  made  of 
 God,  in  what  you  call  the  fubordinate  Senfe. 
 The  Inference  I  fliould  draw  from  thence,  is, 
 that  when  0^'^  has  the  Article  prefixed,  the 
 fupreme  God  is  meant  thereby.  By  this  Rule, 
 if  the  concurrent  Senfe  of  the  Ante-N'tcene 
 Writers  be  of  any  force  or  weight  with  you, 
 our  Difpute  would  be  at  an  end.  For  they  ap- 
 ply  innumerable  Texts,  wherein  ©e:^  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  OldTeftament,  which 
 have  ©20?  with  the  Article,  to  our  Blefled 
 Lord.     Compare 
 
 Ntimb.xi.  S->^»7' 
 Ifa.  45".  XI,  X3. 
 
 I  Cor.  lo.  9. 
 
 f  Rom.  14. 1 1.  "Phil.  X.  ro. 
 
 I  had  almofl:  forgot  to  take  notice  of  one 
 Pretence  more  you  have,  for  the  fubordinate 
 Senfe  of  ©eo^j  in  Job.i.i.  You  word  it  thus, 
 (/.41.)  He  who  is  God^  and  at  the  fame  time 
 ii  with  God  who  begat  Him,  muji  needs  be 
 God  in  a  different  meaning ;  unlefs  the  fame 
 
 =*   S^e  this  more  fully  eicpU'tn'd  And  iUtiflrated  in  Dr»  Fiddc&s  Body 
 of  Divinity,  Vol.  i.  p.  383,  &c.  and  597,  &c. 
 f  Vid.  Surenhuf.  Conciliation,  p.  ^u* 
 
 09^ 
 
Qjj.  Ill         of  fome  (QUERIES.  71 
 
 God  could  be  with  Himfelf,  ^c.  To  this  it  is 
 readily  anfwcr'd,  that  being  with  God  is  the 
 fame  as  being  with  the  Father^  (Comp.  i  Joh. 
 i.x.)  who  is  God,  ^x\^  eminently  fo  ftiled,  as 
 being  firft  in  Order  *.  If  He  were  not  always 
 with  Him,  and  inleparable  from  Him,  He  could 
 not  be  God  in  a  proper  Senfe.  God  and  God, 
 or  God  of  God,  fuppofcs  two  Terfons\  and 
 therefore  there  is  no  Foundation  for  the  Ob- 
 jedion  of  the  Son's  being  with  Himfelf.  Hav- 
 ing thus  endeavored  to  obviate  your  Exceptions, 
 I  now  proceed  in  the  Proof  of  my  Pofition. 
 The  fVordxs,  here  (in  Joh.  i.  i.)  faid  to  have 
 been  God  in  the  Beginning,  that  is,  before  the 
 Creation ;  from  whence  it  is  farther  probable 
 that  He  is  God,  in  the  Jfri^  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  ;  no  T)ominion  over  them  when 
 they  were  not :  And  therefore  could  not  be 
 God  in  the  Senfe  of  T>ominion,  or  Office.  But 
 what  moft  of  all  deraonftrates  the  Word  to  be 
 here  called  God  in  the  proper  Senfe,  is,  that 
 the  Creation  of  all  Things  is  afcribed  to  Him. 
 
 *  There  is  no  i/uonJiJle)2cy  in  admitting  a-  Priority  of  Order,  and  yet 
 denying  the  Son  to  be  God  in  a  fubordinate,  or  improper  Senfe.  There 
 WAS  a  Priority  of  Order,  in  refpe£i  of  Adam  and  Seth:  and  yet 
 Seth  was  not  Man  in  a  Subordinate  Senfe,  but  in  the  fame  Senfe 
 as  Adam  was,  I  ufe  not  the  Similitude,  as  if  it  would  anfwer  in 
 other  refpecis :  but  it  may  ferve  fo  far,  to  illuflrate  my  meaning  j 
 which  is  fufficient.  See  Expofit.  Fid.  attributed  to  Juftin.  Mart. 
 />.  2^3.  Sylb,  Ed, 
 
 F  4  Crea- 
 
71  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  III. 
 
 Creation  is  an  indiiputable  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 
 t  Account  of  which.  He  claims  to  Himfelf  all 
 Homage,  Worlliip,  and  Adoration.  But  of  this 
 I  ihali  have  occafion  to  lay  more  hereafter,  and 
 therefore  fliall  difmiis  it  for  the  prefent.  I  muft 
 not  forget  to  add,  that,  befides  what  I  have  here 
 urged,  by  virtue  alio  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  God,  by  St.  John,  in  a 
 higher  Senfe  than  any  nominal  God  can  pre- 
 tend to.  And  therefore,  fmce  He  is  not  ex- 
 cluded with  the  nominal  Gods,  He  is  included 
 and  comprehended  in  the  one  fupreme  God; 
 and  conlequently,  is  coeternal  and  coeflential 
 with  the  Father.  Enough  hath  been  faid  in 
 Vindication  of  the  Argument  contained  in  this 
 Query :  and  fo  now  I  return  it  upon  you  {land- 
 ing in  full  force ;  and  exped:ing  a  more  com- 
 pleat,  and  more  fatisfadlory  Anlwen 
 
 *  Jerem.  lo.  ii.  f  Rev-  4*  «o-  is- 
 
 Query 
 
Qjj.  IV.         offome  Q^UERIES.  73 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       IV. 
 
 JVh ether,  fufpojing  the  Scripttire-Notion  of 
 God  to  be  no  more  than  that  of  the  Au- 
 thor and  Governor  of  the  1)niverfe ,  or 
 whatever  it  be,  the  admitting  of  Ano^ 
 ther  to  be  Author  and  Governor  of  the 
 Univerfe,  be  not  admitting  another  God; 
 contrary  to  the  Texts  before  cited  from 
 Haiah;  and  alfo  to  ir42.  8.-48.  11.  where 
 He  declares^  He  will  not  give  his  Glory  to 
 Another? 
 
 YOUR  Anfvver  is  {p.  42.)  Suppofing  the 
 revealed  Senfe  of  the  Word,  God,  to 
 imply  Dominion,  and  that  He  is  the  Author 
 and  Governor  of  the  Univerfe,  the  admitting 
 ^  Second  Perfon,  diftinEi  from  the  one  fupreme 
 God.  to  he  Author  and  Governor,  doth  by  no 
 means  contradiB  the  ^ajfages  cited  from 
 Ifaiab,  or  any  Other,  or  introduce  two  Gods^ 
 viz.  two  fnpreme  Beings,  or  Terfons.  Give 
 me  leave  to  produce  the  Texts  of  Ijaiah  once 
 more ;  and  to  place  others  in  an  oppofite  Co- 
 lumn to  them,  only  mutatis  mutandis^  putting 
 Author  and  Governor  of  the  Univerfe  in- 
 flead  of  the  Word,  God\  which,  with  you, 
 amounts  to  the  fame. 
 
 I  am 
 
74 
 
 ^DEFENSE  Qy.  lY. 
 
 I  am  the  Lord,  and 
 there  is  none  elfe-, 
 there  is  no  Author  and 
 Governor  of  the  Uni- 
 v^rkbejidesme,  1^45".  5". 
 
 Is  there  an  Author 
 and  Governor  of  the 
 Univerle  befides  me  ? 
 yea,  there  is  no  Au- 
 thor, ^c.  befides  me, 
 Ifa.  44.  8. 
 
 The  IVord  was  Au- 
 thor and  Governor  of 
 the  Univerfe,  J  oh.  r.  i. 
 
 Chrift  came,  who  is 
 over  all.  Author  and 
 Governor  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe, blejfed  for  ever, 
 Rom.  9. 5-. 
 
 I  hope  you  fee  plainly  how  the  Texts,  in 
 the  two  oppofite  Columns,  confront  and  con- 
 tradicSt  each  other ;  and  that  two  Authors  and 
 Governors  of  the  Univerfe,  whom  you  fup- 
 pofe  two  diftind:  feparate  Beings,  are  as  plainly 
 two  Gods,  as  if  it  were  faid  fb  in  Terms.  For, 
 indeed,  there's  no  Difference  more  than  that  of 
 putting  the  T>efinition  for  the  Thing  defined. 
 But  you  have  an  Evafion  after ;  That  They  are 
 not  two  fupreme  Beings.  And  what  \?  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  mufi:  be  add- 
 ed to  Author  and  Governor,  to  make  a  true 
 Definition  of  God  ;  then  Author  and  Go- 
 vernor of  the  Univerfe ,  without  Supreme, 
 is  not  fufficient  to  denominate  a  Perfon  God ; 
 
 and 
 
Qy,  IV.         of  fome  (QUERIES.  yf 
 
 and  fo  you  ungod  the  Second  Perfon ;  and  what 
 you  gave  with  one  Hand,  you  take  away  with 
 the  other. 
 
 What  you  fliould  have  laid,  is,  (for  it  is 
 what  you  really  mean)  that  there  are  two 
 Gods '^  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  fuppofe,  care  to  fpeak  it  at  length. 
 I  have  before  endeavoured  to  expofe  this  no- 
 tion of  two  Gods  ;  one  Supreme,  and  the 
 oxhtr  Inferior  \  and  have  Ihown  it  to  be  unrea- 
 fonable  and  unfcriptural.  I  may  add,  that  if 
 there  really  be  two  Gods,  {Supreme  and  In- 
 ferior) in  the  proper  Scriptural  Senfe  of  the 
 Word,  the  Good  Fathers  of  the  three  firfl:  Cen- 
 turies argued  againft  the  Heathen  T^olytheifm 
 upon  a  very  falfe  Principle,  and  died  Martyrs 
 for  an  Error ;  the  Angel  in  the  Revelations  may 
 Teem  to  have  impoied  upon  St.  John  with  an 
 erroreous  Maxim,  Rev,  19.  10.  our  Savior's 
 Anivver  to  the  Devil  to  have  been  defedive, 
 and  not  pertinent,  Luk.  4.  8.  and  the  many 
 Declarations  of  the  Unity  Icattered  throiigli 
 the  Old  Teftament  to  be  unintelligible  and 
 infignificant.  But  this  fliall  be  more  di(lind:ly 
 explained,  when  I  come  to  the  Argument  con- 
 cerning Worfliip. 
 
 Here  let  me  only  ask  you,  where  does  the 
 Scripture  give  you  the  leafl  Intimation  of 
 two  true  Gods?   Where  does  it  furniili   you 
 
 with 
 
76  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.  IV. 
 
 with  any  ground  for  the  Diftindion  of  a  4^^?- 
 veraign  and  an  Inferior  Deity  ?  What  Foun- 
 dation can  you  find  for  adding  Supreme  where- 
 ever  the  Scripture  lays  abfolutely  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 
 did:ated ;  why  do  you  add  here,  without  any 
 Warrant?  If  the  Sacred  Writers  intended  to 
 limit  the  Senfe  by  Stifreme,  why  could  not 
 They,  in  one  place  at  leaft,  among  many,  have 
 laid  lb,  and  have  told  it  us  as  plainly  as  Dr. 
 Clarke  and  you  do?  I  argue  indeed  here  ad 
 Homlnem  only ;  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 
 deities,  when  the  Reafbn  of  the  thing,  the 
 drift  Icope  and  defign  of  the  Scripture  feems 
 plainly  to  have  been  to  exclude,  not  other  Sti- 
 fremes  only,  or  other  Independent  Deities 
 (which  few  have  been  weak  enough  to  fuppofe) 
 but  other  lejfer,  inferior,  and  dependent  Divi- 
 nities? Befides,  God  has  declared  that  He  will 
 not  give  his  Glory  to  another.  If  42.  8.-48. 11. 
 This  you  fay  has  no  difficulty.  How  lb,  I  be- 
 leech  you.?  It  feems  to  me  a  very  great  dif- 
 ficulty in  your  Scheme.  You  add,  that  his  Glory 
 isy  his  being  the  one  fiipreme  independent 
 Caufe  and  Original  of  all  Things  or  Beings, 
 Now,  I  thought  it  was  his  peculiar  Glory  to 
 
 be 
 
Qjj.  IV.         offome  QUERIES.  77 
 
 be  truly  God,  and  to  be  acknowledged  as  fuch, 
 exclufive  of  other  Gods.  This,  1  am  fure,  is 
 what  the  one  God  inculcates  and  infifts  upon, 
 very  particularly,  in  the  Old  Teftament.  He 
 difcovers  Himfelf  to  be  a  jealous  God ,  and 
 looks  upon  it  as  the  higheft  Indignity  to  have 
 any  admitted  as  Partners  and  Sharers  with  Hin). 
 All  A(3:s  of  Worlliip,  all  Homage,  Service, 
 Adoration,  and  Sacrifice,  He  claims,  He  chal- 
 lenges as  his  due ;  and  due  to  Him  only ;  and 
 that  becaule  He  only  is  God.  Now  put  the 
 Cafe  o{  another  God\  another  j4uthor  and  Go- 
 vernor of  the  ^niverfe:  That  other  will  have 
 a  Share,  and  divide,  tho'  unequally,  with  Him 
 in  Glory.  Was  this  then  the  meaning  of  7/2?. 
 4x.  8. 1  will  not  give  All  my  Glory  to  anotherl 
 I  will  have  zhQ greater  Share  in  every  Thing? 
 How  confident  might  this  be  with  the  Worfhip 
 of  inferior  Deities,  or  with  the  ranked  Toly- 
 theifra  ?  For  many  of  the  Pagans  themfelves 
 paid  their  higheft  Veneration  to  the  one  fu- 
 premeGod  ;  only  they  defiled  his  Worfliip  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 
 whatever  divine  Honour  is  jtijlly  given  to  any 
 other ,  redounds  ultimately  to  the  Glory  of 
 Him,    who  commanded  it  to  be  given. 
 
 But  what  if  God,  who  beft  knows  what  re- 
 dounds to  his  Glory,  has  already  and  before- 
 hand engrofs'd  all  divine  Honour  to  Himfelf, 
 as  being  the  only  God,   and  the  fole  Author 
 
 and 
 
78  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.  IV. 
 
 and  Governor  of  the  Univerfe  ?  Then  all 
 others  are  precluded  from  receiviBg  any  divine 
 Honour-^  and  there's  no  more  Room  left  for 
 God's  commanding  it,  than  there  is  for  his  con- 
 fronting and  contradid:ing  Himlelf  But  more 
 of  this  hereafter,  under  the  Head  of  IVorjhip, 
 I  Ihall  dole  this  Article  with  Grotius's  Com- 
 ment upon  the  Text  which  we  have  been  con- 
 fidering.  The  meaning  of  it  \s,  fays  He, 
 *'  *  That  God  will  take  fevere  Vengeance  on 
 *'  thole  who  give  that  Name  which  belongs  to 
 *'  Him,  to  Bel,  Nebo,  Merodach,  and  Others, 
 "  which  by  Nature  are  no  Gods, 
 
 *  Vult  enim  dicere,  fe  Vjndicaturum  fevere  in  Eos  qui  Nomen, 
 quod  Ipfius  eft,  dant  Belo^   Nebo.ni,  Meraducho,  Sc  Aliis  T^r^  ^^ 
 
 Q^UERY 
 
Qu.  V.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  7? 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       V. 
 
 Whether  T>r,  ClarkeV  pretence,  that  the  Au- 
 thority of  Father  and  Son  being  One,  tho^ 
 They  are  two  dtflin^i  Beings,  makes  Them 
 not  to  he  two  Gods ,  As  a  King  upon  the 
 Throne  and  his  Son  adminiftring  the  Father's 
 Government,  are  not  two  Kings  ;  be  not  tri- 
 fling and  inconflfient  ?  For,  if  the  King's 
 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  /;/  the 
 Scripture-Notion  of  God,  He  cannot  truly 
 be  called  God ;  and  then  how  is  the  T^o6ior 
 conflftent  with  Scripture,  or  with  Himfelfi 
 But  if  the  Son  be  truly  God,  there  are  two 
 Gods  upon  the  "Dolor's  Hypothefis,  as  plain- 
 ly as  that  one  and  one  are  Two :  And  fo 
 all  the  Texts  of  Kaiah  cited  above,  befides 
 others,  ft  and  full  and  clear  againft  the 
 "Dolor's  Notion, 
 
 YO  U  truft,  it  feems,  that  upon  a  fecond 
 Confideration  of  this  fifth  Query,  The  Ob- 
 je^or  himfelf 'u;///  not  think  it  very  pertinent 
 or  conclufive.  But  I  can  fee  no  Reafon  for 
 your  being  fo  fanguine  upon  it.  For,  as  an 
 Argument  fo  plain  and  ftrong,  needs  not  fo 
 much  as  a  fecond  Confideration  ;  fo  if  the 
 Objedor  were  to  confider  it  ever  fo  often,  He 
 could  not  but  chink  ic  to  be,  as  He  finds  ix^ 
 
 both 
 
8o  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  V 
 
 both  very  pertinent  and  very  conclufive.  You 
 add,  t\\2iX,He  "x^ill  not  ask,  a  fecond  Time,  whe- 
 ther one  divine  Terfon  exerclfing  the  Au- 
 thority of  another,  to  whom  He  is  fubordi- 
 fiate^  and  by  whom  He  is  fent,  proves  that 
 the  two  Verfons  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, 
 afierting  and  then  recanting,  and  contradicting 
 your  i^t  What  is  Dr.  Clarke^  Intention,  and 
 what  is  your's,  in  infifting  lb  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,  properly  God? 
 Read  but  over  again  what  you  your  ielf  have 
 written  {p.  113.)  and  then  deny  this  if  you 
 can.  Well  then  ;  if  the  Son,  a  diftind:  feparate 
 Being,  be  truly  and  really  God ;  and  if  the 
 Father  be  fo  too,  what  can  be  plainer  than  that 
 there  are,  upon  your  Hypothefis,  two  Gods? 
 But  you  fay,  one  is  Supreme,  the  other  Sub- 
 ordinate. I  underftand  it ;  I  confidcr  it :  And 
 do  not  you  allow  that  a  fubordlnate  Being  may 
 ht properly  God?  Do  not  you  exprefly  plead 
 and  contend  for  it?  Is  it  not  ejjentlal  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 
 laid  before ;  without  ftriking  out  every  fubor- 
 dinate  Being,  from  being  truly  and  properly 
 iltod  God  5 
 
Q^u.  V.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  8i 
 
 God,  without  difowning  the  very  Principle  up- 
 on which  you  affert  the  Son  to  be  God\  in 
 Jiiorc,  without  manifcftly  confronting  and  con- 
 demning your  iclt  ?  I  do  not  charge  you  with 
 aflerting  two  Jttprcme  Gods ;  But  I  do  charge 
 you  with  holding  two  Gods,  one  iy/z/rc.'/^^,  ano- 
 ther 7;//^^76/r ;  two  real  and  true  Gods,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Scripture- Notion  of  the  Word,  God, 
 as  explained  by  your  felf.  This  you  cannot 
 truly  and  fincerely,  you  fliould  not  otherwife, 
 deny  :  And  therefore,  inftead  of  fliifting  it  off, 
 your  Bufinefs  ihould  be  to  maintain  your  Af^ 
 lertion,  and  to  reconcile  it,  as  far  as  poflible, 
 to  Scripture,  Antiquity,  and  Reafon.  I  am' 
 fenfible,  Ibmething  may  be  pleaded,  having  feen 
 what  has  been  pleaded,  for  the  Notion  of  Two 
 Gods,  as  you  underftand  it.  But,  I  think,  it 
 is  upon  fuch  Principles,  as  will  leave  you  no 
 Pretence,  from  Scripture,  to  objed:  Trithetfm 
 to  others;  nor  any  jufl:  ground  for  infifting,  as 
 you  generally  do,  upon  the  (IricSt  Force  of  the 
 exclufive  Terms,  in  order  to  iingod  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  earned,  efpoufe 
 the  Notion  of  two  Gods:  In  the  Interim,  1  may 
 fairly  leave  you  to  confider  of  it.  I  ihall  be 
 content,  at  prefent,  to  follow  you  in  the  way 
 that  you  are  in;  endeavoring  to  clear  your  fc'lf 
 of  the  charge  of  afTerting  two  Gods,  and  yet, 
 all  the  while,  pleading  for  a  lubordinate  God. 
 
 G  To 
 
8^  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  V, 
 
 To  countenance  your  Notion  ,  you  produce  > 
 ^  after  the  Learned  Dodor,  the  Authority  of 
 TertuUtan-^  the  {■SLmcTertuUian,  whom  I  have 
 quoted  above  ^  as  declaring  exprefly  againft  any 
 fuch  vain  Imagination,  as  that  of  a  fubordlnate 
 God ;  and  throwing  it  off  as  a  Tagan  Dream : 
 The  fame  that  iays,  the  'Divinity  has  no  "De- 
 grees, being  one  only.  Will  you  bring  Him 
 tor  a  Voucher  fo  diredlly  againft  Himfelf?  True, 
 He  ules  xhtjimilitude  of  a  King  upon  aThrone^ 
 and  a  Son  adminijfring  his  Father's  King- 
 dom :  But  to  a  very  different  purpofe  from  what 
 you  would  have  it  ferve.  The  Objedion 
 againft  more  Perfbns  than  one  in  the  Godhead 
 (as  Tertullian  refolves  it )  was,  that  the  Jlu- 
 thority  would  not  be  one-^  that  there  would 
 not  be  tinicum  Imperium :  fee  the  place  in  the 
 ^  Margin.  The  f.militude  is  pertinent  to  lliow 
 how  xht  Authority ,  or  Government,  may  be 
 one  in  the  Hands  of  fever al  Perfbns.     But  if 
 
 a  Scrip.  Bocir,  p-  333.  ^  See  ^-  3.  p,  5-4. 
 
 c  Monarchtam>  inquiunt,  tenemus.  Et  ita  fonum  vocaliter  ex- 
 primunt  Latini,  etiam  Opici,  ut  putes  Ilios  tarn  bene  intelligcre 
 Monarchiam,  quam  enuntiant.  Sed  Monarchiam  fbnare  ftudent  La- 
 tini; 6c  Oeconomiam  intelligere  nolunt  etiam  Grseci.  At  Ego,  i\ 
 quid  utriufque  Linguae  praecerpfi,  Monarchiam  nihil  aliud  Tignificarc 
 ic'xo,  quam  Singulare  ^  Unicum  Imperium :  non  tamen  prxfcribere 
 Monarchiam,  ideo  quia  Unius  fit,  Eum,  cujus  fit,  aut  Filium  non 
 habere,  aut  Ipfum  fe  fibi  Filium  fecifTe,  aut  Monarchiam  fuarn  non 
 per  quos  velit  adminiftrare.  Atquin ,  nullam  dico  Dominationem 
 ita  unius  fui  t^e,  ut  non  etiam  per  alias  proximas  Perfonas  ad- 
 miniftretur— —— Si  vero  &.  Filius  fuerit  ei,  cujus  Monarchic 
 fit>  non  ftarim  dividi  earn,  &  Monarchiam  t^o.  definere,  fi  particeps 
 ejus  adfumatur  6c  Filius.     Contr.  Prax.  c.  3.  p.  5-02. 
 
 The  Senfe  of  this  Paffage  /f  very  clear:  The  Praxeans,  (I  fuppo/h 
 taking  advantage  of  this ;  that  the  Church  had  always  rejeBed  Tria 
 Principia,  and  r^u^  kv^^^^^ )  pleaded  for  ThemfeheSf  and  againji  a 
 
 you 
 
Q,u.V.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  85 
 
 you  ask  Tertullian,  how  Father  and  Son  can 
 be  reputed  one  God;  He  tells  you  in  the 
 ^  Chapter  before ,  and  in  that  very  PafTage 
 which  the  Doctor  quotes,  that  it  is  by  U/ihy 
 of  Stibjfance  and  Original.  Vnity  of  Autho- 
 rity, and  Vnity  of  Godhead,  arc,  with  Ter- 
 tuUian,  diftind:  Things;  however  you  may 
 pleafc  to  confound  Them :  God  and  his  Angels 
 have,  according  to  Him,  one  Authority ;  but 
 He  does  net  therefore  fay,  that  the  Angels  are 
 Gods\  or  that,  if  They  were,  there  would  ftill 
 be  but  one  God. 
 
 ^  Athenagoras  makes  ufe  of  the  fame  Simi- 
 litude for  the  fame  purpofe  with  Tertullian\ 
 to  illufirate  the  Unity  o'i  Authority  and  Power 
 common  to  Father  and  Sou ;  not  the  Unity  of 
 Godhead.  It  was  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  refolvcs  it 
 into  ^  other  Principles,  the  very  fame  with  Ter- 
 
 real  Trtnisy  -,  y^vx^'^ocv  tencmus*  Tcrtullian  tells  them,  that  Ihcy 
 mifur.ilerjiood  fj^va^^cc.  (As  it  might  fignify  iiniim  principiurn,  He 
 had  anfroered  the  ObjeBton  before,  c.  2.)  tiere  He  fays,  if  fgnifies 
 cniy  one  Authority i  a?id  He  Jhorcs  that,  taken  in  that  Senfe,  tt  was 
 no  jiift  ObjecTwn  eigainfi  a  Trinity  of  Terfom,  Thus,  having  matn- 
 tumd,  firfi,  Uniry  c/ Principle,  and  afterwards  Unity  of  AuThorityj 
 Hefuffictcnt'iy  guarded  the  Dcilrine  cf  the  Trinit}',  agair.fi  the  Ca-^iis 
 of  Praxcas. 
 
 a  Unus  omnia,  dum  ex  uno  omnia,  per  Subfrantiae  fcilicet  Uni- 
 tatem,  p.  ^o\. 
 
 Filium  non  aliunde  deduce,  (^d  de  Subdantia  Patris,  f.4.  p  5'oz. 
 
 b  Legat.  c.  If.  p.  63.  c  Uv^.h6-j  BucnM.cct. 
 
 4  p.  38.39.- 96, 
 
 Q  z  tulltan  s 
 
84  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.  V. 
 
 UtUian's ;    Namely,  Vnity  of  Subftance ,    and 
 Original,    making  the  Holy  Ghoft  ( and    the 
 reaion  is  the  lame  for  the  Son)  to  be  a  Subftan- 
 tial  *  Emanation  from  the  Father ,    as  Li^ht 
 from  Fire.  The  common  Anfwer  to  the  Charge 
 oilritheifm,  oxT)it:heifm,  as  well  of  the  Toji- 
 Nicene,    as  ylnte  -  Nicene  Fathers,    was,   that 
 there  is  but  one  Head,  Root,  Fountain,  Father 
 of  all ;  not  in  rcfpccl"  of  Authority  only,  but  of 
 Subjlance  alfo ;  as  Tertullian  before  exprefles 
 it :  Non   alitinde   deduco^  fed  de    Subfiantia 
 ^atris.  This  was  the  concurrent  Senfe  of  f  All 
 in  general ;  and  into  this  chiefly  they  refblvcd 
 the  Unity  oi  Godhead  \  as  they  muft  needs  do, 
 fmce  they  believed  God  to  be  a  Word  denoting 
 Subfance,    not  T>o?ninion  only  ;  and  one  2)/- 
 vinity,  Qt7-r/,?,  was  with  Them  the  fame  Thing 
 as  o;/e  divine  Siibfiance.     The  learned  Dodor, 
 after  his  manner  of  Citing,  :j:  produces,  I  thinks 
 Thirteen  Vouchers,  (Ten  Antient ;  Three  Mo- 
 dern) for  his  Notion  of  the  Unity.  Tertullian^ 
 Athenagoras,  and  Novatian  (Three  of  Them^ 
 evidently  refolve  the  Unity,  as  before  oblerved, 
 into  Co?nmiinion  of  Subflance,     Jufiin,  Atha- 
 nafitis,  Hilary,  Bafil,  Tearfon,  Bull,  "Tayne^ 
 (Seven  more)  moft  of  Them,   in  the  very  Paf- 
 iages  which  the Dodlor  cites;  All  of  them,  fonie- 
 where  or  other,    are  known  to  rcfbive  it  into 
 Sou/bij^,  orUnity  ofTrincij>le;  either  of  which 
 
 TO  rrviuy^,   p.  p,'3. 
 
 f  Some  pretended  Except 'torn  mil  be  conjidered  if  J  nnoiUr  VUce,  Qu.23. 
 ij:  Script,  Doch.  p.  334,  33)-,  Jkc. 
 
 comes 
 
Qy.  V.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  85" 
 
 comes  to  the  fame  with  the  former.  None  of 
 thefe  Authors  fo  nnderftood  the  Father  to  be 
 one  God,  as  to  exclude  the  Son  from  being  one 
 God  with  Him,  in  Nature,  Subftance,  and  Per- 
 fe<a:ion :  Nor  would  they  have  icrupled  to  call 
 Father  and  Son  together,  one  God  ;  molt  of  them 
 doing  it  exprefly,  all  implicitely. 
 
 Origen ,  another  of  the  Dodor's  Authors , 
 refblves  the  Unity  into  Communion  of  Godhead, 
 in  the  ^  PafTage  cited.  0eo77i^  is  the  word  He 
 u(es;  ^generally,  if  not  conftantly,  fignifying 
 SnbJIance  in  that  very  Comment  from  whence 
 the  Citation  is  taken ;  agreeably  to  the  mod 
 uiual  Senfe  of  0io?,  in  the  Ante- Nicene  Writers; 
 and  of  T>ivinitas,  in  Tertullian  ;  and  of  (dtorn^ 
 in  other  ^  Authors. 
 
 La6fantius,  the  twelfth  of  the  Number,  would 
 have  Ipoken  fully  to  our  purpofe,  in  the  very 
 ^  Chapter  refer'd  to,  if  the  Dodor  would  have 
 fuffered  Him.  He  would  have  told  us  (how- 
 ever unhappy  He  may  otherwife  be  in  his 
 Explications  of  That  Myitery )  that  Father 
 and  Son  are  one  Snbjiance,  and  one  God\  fo 
 far,  at  leaft,  contrary  co  what  the  learned  Do- 
 dor  cites  him  for.      There  remains  only  Eu- 
 
 a  Comm.  in  Joh.  p.i^d.        b  See  ibid.  ;>.  3  f.  133. 15-+.  22S.76i. 
 
 c  Epift.  Synod.  Antioch.  Labb.  Toin.  i.  ;=.  847=  Eufcbius 
 Comm.  in  Pfalm.  p.  ^2^.  592.  ^  in  Ifa.  p.  37/.  382.  5)"i.  Atha- 
 naf.  pairim.       Epiphan.  Hsrei,  64.  c  8. 
 
 d  Una  utrique  mens,  unus  Spiritus,  una  Subjinntia  eflj  fed  lile 
 quafi  exuberans  Pons  efl:;  Hie  tanquam  deflacns  ex  co  Rivus  :  Ille 
 tanquam  Solj  Hie  quafi  Radius  a  Sole  porreftus.  Ad  Htramque 
 Terfonam  referens  intulit,  0>  Prater  me  non  ejl  Deus;  CLrm  polTit 
 dicere,  prater  nos:  fed  Fas  non  erat  plurali  numcro  Separationcm 
 Tantse  NecelTitudiDis  fieri.   /.  4.  r.  29.  p.  403, 404.. 
 
 G  3  febius ; 
 
26  ^DEFENSE  du.  V. 
 
 febkis ,  whole  Exprefiions  are  bold  and  free; 
 and  lb  far  favourable  to  the  Dodor,  as  they 
 are  different  from  thofe  of  the  Catholicks  of  his 
 own  Time,  or  of  the  Times  before,  and  after. 
 If  they  arc  really  to  be  underftood,  fo  as  to  ex- 
 clude the  Son  from  being  one  God  with  the 
 Father,  they  tingod  the  Son ;  and  contain  plain 
 Arianifm.  But,  perhaps  they  may  admit  of 
 fuch  a  favourable  excufe  as,  *  Gelafius  tells  us, 
 Eufebhis,  in  effed",  made  for  Himfelf,  in  refped 
 of  any  uncautious  Exprefiions ,  which,  in  the 
 warmth  of  Difpute,or  out  of  his  great  Zeal  againft 
 Sabellianifm,  had  dropp'd  from  Him :  That  He 
 did  not  mtend  Them  in  the  (impious)  Se?ife  of 
 Arius;  but  had  only  been  too  carelefs  and 
 7iegHgent  in  his  ExfreJJlons.  One  may  be 
 the  more  inclined  to  believe  it,  fince  He  ad- 
 mittedj  at  other  Times  (as  I  have  obferved  a- 
 bove)  one  God  in  three  Terjbns:  and  elfe- 
 where  Ipeaks  very  Orthodoxly  of  the  Holy  un- 
 divided Trinity,  making  the  ^Trinity  (not  the 
 Father  only)  the  'A^xn,  the  Head  and  Prin- 
 ciple of  all  Things ;  and  illuftrating  the  Equa- 
 lity of  the  Perfbns  by  a  very  handfome  Simi- 
 litude. But  to  return  to  the  Learned  Dodor : 
 In  the  :j:  Clofe  of  this  Article,  He  has  a  pecuhar 
 
 *  06  f/jViV   kcctu  t>)v  oi(Tik,ii  ixs'.va  ivvoiocv,  os,XX'  £|  UTtt^ii^yn  ecTFXoT^leg, 
 Gelaf.  1.  2.  de  Syn.  Nic.  c.  i.   p.  11. 
 
 uvupx,ii    J'***    ec}iviiTii   (ptitncfjq    yipTtjfJUiv/}  ^    r??   t  ^^htZv  cl7nx,VTav    ou^eci; 
 
 ^uvUfjtjK^  skn^Tu<i  oiv  u^  Trzcvre^  •<p/C*  voydt&Siii,     Orat,  de  Laud.  Con- 
 ftant.  p.  f  1 1.  Ed.  Valef. 
 :j:  Script.  Doiftr.  p.  349. 
 
 Turn, 
 
Qjj.  V.  of/ome  (QUERIES.  87 
 
 Turn,  which  ihould  be  taken  notice  of.  The 
 Scholaftick  JVriters,  lays  He,  in  later  Ages^ 
 have  fut  this  Matter  (meaning  the  Unity  of 
 the  Godhead)  7ipon  another  Foot:  That  \s^ 
 different  from  what  Himfelf,  and  perhaps  £///^- 
 bius  in  thofe  PalTages,  had  put  it  upon.  They 
 have  not,  it  feems,  put  it  upon  a  real,  j^roper^ 
 mimerical  individuality ,  as  the  I. earned  Do- 
 ctor would  have  had  them  do.  They  do  not 
 make  the  Godhead  /^ovoTrgccra^©" ,  one  fingle 
 Hypojlajis  ;  which,  in  the  main,  is  all  one 
 with  the  Sabellian  Singularity. 
 
 The  Reader  iliould  be  told,  that  thofe  Scho- 
 lajiick  Writers  are  as  old  as  Tertullian,  Ire- 
 naus,  or  Athenagoras ;  which  brings  it  up  al- 
 moft  to  the  middle  of  the  Second  Century.  So 
 early,  at  lead,  Father  and  Son  together  have 
 been  called,  and  all  along  believed  to  be  one 
 God.  Let  but  the  Reader  underftand,  and 
 take  along  with  Him,  what  I  have  now  ob- 
 ferved ;  and  I  Ihall  not  differ  with  you  about 
 Names.  Scho  lajiick  may  ftand  for  C at  ho  lie  k^ 
 as  I  perceive  it  often  does  with  you  alfo,  if 
 you  think  the  Catholick  Faith  may,  under  that 
 borrowed  Name,  be  more  fafely,  or  more  fuc- 
 cefsfully  attacked.  The  Scholajlick  Notion 
 then,  which  has  prevailed  for  Fifteen  Cen- 
 turies at  lead,  is,  that  Father  and  Son  are  one 
 God:  Your's,  on  the  other  Hand,  is,  that  the 
 Father  is  one  God,  and  the  Son  another  God : 
 And  I  am  to  convince  you,  if  I  can,  that  one 
 God,  and  another  God,  make  two  Gods.  You 
 G  4  ask 
 
88  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.  V. 
 
 ask  me  ferioufly,  *  whether  Herod  the  great, 
 was  not  King  ^/'Tudea,  tho'  the  Jews  (that  is, 
 when  the  Jews)  had  no  King  but  Csefar  ?  I  an- 
 fwer.  He  was  not :  For,  Herod  the  Great  had  been 
 dead  above  Thirty  Years  before;  and  the  Jews 
 had  really  no  King  hut  Cxfar,  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  God\  they  make  two  Gods.  You  ask, 
 next,  whether  there  were  more  Kings  ^/Perfia 
 than  one,  tho'  the  King  /^/Perfia  was  King  of 
 Kings  ?  1  fliali  not  dilpute  whether,  King  of 
 Kings  y  was  Titular  only  to  the  Kings  of 
 ^erfia,  or  whether  They  had  other  Kings  un- 
 der Them.  I  fliall  only  fay  thus :  Either  the 
 fiifpofed  Kings  of  Terfia  were  Kings  of  Ter- 
 Jia^  or  They  were  not :  If  They  were ;  then 
 there  were  more  Kings  of  Perfia  than  one :  If 
 They  were  not  Kings  ofTerJia;  They  Ihould 
 not  be  {b  called.  To  apply  this  to  our  prefenc 
 purpofe;  either  there  are  iwo  Authors  and  Go- 
 vernors of  the  ^hiiverfe,  that  is,  two  Gods\ 
 or  there  are  not :  If  there  are,  why  do  you  deny 
 it  of  Either  ?  If  there  are  not,  why  do  you  af- 
 firm it  of  Both? 
 
 After  ail,  pleafe  to  take  Notice,  that  I  do 
 not  difpute  againft  the  notion  of  one  King  un- 
 der another  ;  a  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 
 
 *  Pag.  45. 
 
 great 
 
Qy.  VI.         offome  (QUERIES.  89 
 
 great  King  and  a  litt/e  King  make  tzi'O  Kings ; 
 or  clfe  one  of  Them  is  no  Kiiig,  contrary  to 
 the  Suppofition.  The  fame  I  lay  of  z/tifreme 
 and  a  fnbordinate  God,  that  They  make  Two 
 Gods ;  or  eh'e,  one  of  Them  is  no  God,  con- 
 trary to  the  Suppofition. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       VI. 
 
 Whether  the  fame  CharaEierifticks,  efpecially 
 fitch  eminent  ones,  can  reafonahly  be  tinder- 
 Jiood  of  two  diftinEi  Beings,  and  of  one  In- 
 finite and  Independent^  the  other  ^efen- 
 de7it  and  Finite  ? 
 
 T 
 
 EXTS,  proving 
 tributes  in  Father 
 
 To  the  one  God 
 
 ThoUy  even  Thou  on- 
 ly knoweft  the  Hearts 
 of  all  the  Children  of 
 Alen,  Kings  8.  39. 
 
 /  the  Lord  fearch 
 the  Heart ;  /  try  the 
 Reins,  Jer.  17. 10. 
 
 /  am  the  firft,  and 
 I  am  the  laft,  and  be- 
 fides  me  there  is  no 
 God,  Ifa.  44. 6. 
 
 an  Unity  of  divine  At- 
 and  Son,  appHed 
 
 To  the  Son. 
 
 He  knew  all  Men^ 
 &c.  Joh.  X.  24.  Thou 
 knowefi  all  Things , 
 ]o\\.\6,io  Which  know- 
 eft  the  Hearts  of  all 
 Men,   A6l:si.2  4. 
 
 /  am  He  that  fearch- 
 eth  the  Reins  and  the 
 Heart,  Rev.  2.3. 
 
 /  am  the  firft,  and 
 lamthelaft.  Rev. 1. 17. 
 
 1  am 
 
90 
 
 A    DEFENSE 
 
 /  am  A  and  ^2,  the 
 beginning  and  the  end, 
 Rev^.i.8. 
 
 King  of  Kings,  and 
 Lord  of  Lords,  i  Tim. 
 6.  If. 
 
 The  mighty  God,  If. 
 
 lO.  II. 
 
 Lord  over  all,  Rom. 
 
 lO.  IX. 
 
 au.  VI. 
 
 /  am  A  and  D.,  the 
 beginning  and  the  end. 
 Rev.  xa.i3. 
 
 Lord  of  Lords,  and 
 King  of  Kings,  Rev. 
 17. 14.—  19. 16. 
 
 The  mighty  God,  If 
 
 9.6. 
 
 //(?  />  Z/^r^  ^y  ally 
 Adi.\o.i6. Over  all  God 
 blejfed,  &c.  Rom.  9. 5-. 
 
 In  this  fixth  Query  (for  fb  I  chufe  to  make 
 it,  thinking  That  method  moft  convenient,  on 
 ieveral  Accounts)  are  couched  two  Arguments 
 for  the  Son's  being  the  one  true  God,  as  well 
 as  the  Father. 
 
 The  Firfl:  \s :  That  the  Char  after  ifiicks^  ap- 
 pHed  to  the  one  true  God,  are  applied  likewile 
 to  the  Son:  which  Confideration  alone  is  of 
 great  force. 
 
 The  Second  is :  That  the  Attributes  here  ap- 
 pHed  to  the  Son,  are  fiich  eininent  ones,  that 
 we  might  fafely  conclude  they  belong  to  no 
 Creature,    but  to  God  only. 
 
 How  ihall  we  know,  \A\o,  or  what  the  one 
 God  is;  or  what  Honour,  and  to  whom,  due; 
 but  by  fuch  Marks,  Notes,  and  diftinguiiliing 
 Charaders  as  are  given  us  of  Him  in  Scripture  ? 
 If  thofe  are  equally  applied  to  two,  or  more 
 Terfons,  the  Honour  muft  go  along  with  the 
 Attributes ;  and  the  Attributes  infer  an  equa- 
 lity 
 
Q^u.  VI.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  jj 
 
 licy  of  Nature  and  Subftance,  to  fupport  Them. 
 Ill  a  Word;  \i  d^xMxwz  Attributes  belong  to  each 
 Perfon,  each  Perfon  mufl:  be  God;  and  if  God, 
 fince  God  is  one,  the  iame  God.  This  is  the 
 Sum  of  the  Argument:  Now  let  us  fee  what 
 Anfwer  you  give  to  it. 
 
 You  admit  that  the  Attributes,  Ipecified  ia 
 the  Texts,  belong  to  Both  :  only  you  oWerve, 
 that  all  ^Towers  and  Attributes  are  fald  to 
 be  the  Father's  only,  becaufe  they  belong  to 
 Him  primarily,  or  originally,  as  the  Self-ex- 
 iflent  Caufe  *.  This  I  can  readily  admit,  as 
 well  as  you;  provided  only,  the  word,  Caufe,  be 
 interpreted  to  a  juft,  fober,  and  catholick  Senfe 
 (as  the  Greek  Writers  Specially  have  under- 
 flood  it)  and  Self  exifient  be  interpreted,  as 
 it  Ihould  be,  negatively.  You  add,  our  Lord 
 Jefus  Chrift,  having  all  communicable  divine 
 Towers  derived  to  Him,  with  his  Being, 
 from  the  Father,  is  faid  to  do  the  fame  things 
 which  the  Father  doth,  and  to  be,  in  a  fub- 
 ordinate  Senfe,  what  the  Father  is. 
 
 Here  are  many  Things,  in  this  Anfwer, 
 liable  to  jufl:  Exception.  Firft,  your  ufing  the 
 word ,  'Divine,  in  an  improper  Senfe.  An-^ 
 gelical  Powers  are  fuch  as  are  peculiar  to  An- 
 gels ;  and  divine  Powers  fuch  as  are  proper  to 
 God  only :  But,  here  you  underftand  them,  in 
 the  fame  Senfe,  as  one  might  call  any  kingly 
 Power,  or  Authority,  divine,  becaufe  derived 
 from  God ;  and  fo  any  thing  that  comes  from 
 God,  is,  in  your  Senle,  divine.  In  the  next 
 *  Pag.  4(?,  place, 
 
^^  ^DEFENSE  Qy.  VL 
 
 place,  you  clog  ic  farther  with  the  Terra,  com- 
 municable,  telling  us  that  all  commtmtcahle  di- 
 vine Powers,  are  derived  toChrift  Jefus:  where- 
 as I  contend,  that  the  Attributes  in  the  Text, 
 are  ftridly  divine ;  and  therefore  incommuni- 
 cable to  any  Creature.  Next,  you  fpeak  of  a 
 fuhordinate  Senfe ,  in  which  thofe  Attributes 
 •  belong  to  Chrifl: ;  which  is  the  fame  as  to  fay, 
 (becaufe  you  mean  fo)  that  they  belong  not  at 
 all  to  Him.  For,  I  iuppole,  omnifcience,  or 
 eternity,  &c.  in  your  fuhordinate  Senfe,  are 
 very  different  from  the  other ;  and  therefore 
 are  not  the  fame  Attributes.  It  were  better 
 to  deny  roundly,  that  the  fame  Attributes 
 belong  to  Both  ;  and  then  we  fliould  clearly 
 apprehend  each  other.  Laftly,  I  obferve  to 
 you,  that  you  underftand  the  word,  fuhordi- 
 nate, very  difFerenrly  from  what  Catholick  Wri- 
 ters do,  in  this  Controverfy  ;  and  therefore,  in- 
 ftead  of  it,  ihould  rather  have  faid,  in  a  re- 
 Jirain'd,  limited  Senie;  which  is  your  mean- 
 ing, otherwife  you  conrradid:  not  nie. 
 
 Now  then,  I  muft  ask  you,  what  ground  or 
 warrant  you  have  from  Scripture,  or  right  rea- 
 fbn,  for  patting  RejlriEiions  and  Limitations 
 upon  the  Texts  applied  to  Chrift  Jefus,  more 
 than  to  thofe  applied  to  the  one  Godl:  The 
 Exprefllons  are  equally  general ;  and,  feemingly 
 at  leaft,  equally  extenfive.  You  are  fo  fenfible 
 that  you  can  give  no  fohd  Proof  of  a  refrain' d 
 and  limited  Senfe,  that  you  do  not  fo  much  as 
 offer  at  it;   but  only  covertly  infmuate  your 
 
 mean- 
 
Q^u.  VI.         of  fome  QUERIES.  9^5 
 
 meaning,  under  dark  and  obfcure  Terms.  You 
 fpeak  of  Subordination,  and  quote  Fathers  for 
 it;  who  underftood  it  in  the  Ibber  and  ortho- 
 dox Sen(e :  If  you  agree  with  thofe  FatherSy 
 you  agree  with  me.  Bur,  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  Jnbordinately 
 wife,  good,  powerful,  &c.  That  is  not  the 
 Queftion  between  us  :  He  is  fapientia  de  fapi- 
 entia ;  as  lumen  de  lumine,  and  T)eus  de  'Deo, 
 What  I  contend  for  farther,  is,  that  his  Attri- 
 butes ^xc  frilly  divine,  and  hisPerfeftions  in- 
 finite.  I  prove  it  from  hence ;  becaufe  the  At- 
 tributes which  belong  to  the  one  God,  and  are 
 therefore  undoubtedly  Infinite.,  belong  to  Him 
 alfb;  from  whence  it  follows,  that  the  God- 
 head belongs  to  Him  too ;  and  that  there  are 
 more  Perfons  than  one,  in  the  07ie  God.  What* 
 ever  I  can  find,  in  your  Anfvver,  tending,  in 
 the  leaf!-,  to  invalidate  this  reaibning,  I  fliall 
 rake  notice  of ;  tho'  you  have  been  pleas'd  to 
 be  very  Sparing  in  this  Article.  You  obierve 
 that  the  exercife  of  thefe  Attributes  being 
 finite,  they  do  7tot  neceffarily  infer  an  infinite 
 Subje^.  I  underftand  not  what  you  mean  by 
 the  exercife  of  Eternity  and  Omni/cience ., 
 which  are  two  of  thoie  Attributes ;  nor  how  it 
 can  h^  finite,  without  an  exprefs Contradiction; 
 
 *  The  Teftimonies,  vphich  you  haze  cited  from  Dr.  Clarke,  I  take 
 no  notice  of;  becaufe  they  have  Seen  aheaily  cmfider' d  by  a  learned 
 fientlemarij  and  fliown  to  be  foreign  to  your  furfofe.  True  Script-. 
 Doftr>  Continued,  f .  i  r 
 
 nor 
 
94  yf    D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.  VL 
 
 nor  how  either  of  theiij  can  be  exercised,  what- 
 ever you  mean  by  it,  but  by  an  infinite  Sub- 
 jed:.  As  httle  do  I  underftand  how  infinite 
 Tcjoer^  which,  I  prefume,  is  what  you  chiefly 
 allude  to,  mud  ho.  finite  in  the  exercife  of  it; 
 as  if  there  could  nor  be  an  Adt  of  infinite 
 Power,  or  as  if  God  could  not  do  Ibmerhing 
 which  fliould  mfinitely  exceed  any  finite  Power. 
 Thefe Things  very  much  want  explaining;  and 
 fo  I  leave  them  to  your  farther  Thoughts. 
 
 The  ckareft  ExprefTion  you  have,  under  this 
 Article,  is  this:  vjhenChrift  is fiiled.  Lord  of 
 all,  fee  it  explained.  Matt. x 8.1 8.  and  Ephefi 
 I.  IX.  where  Chrift  Jelus  is  laid  to  have  all 
 fower  given  Him.  Here,  I  think,  I  do  under- 
 ftand your  meaning ;  and  am  forry  to  find  that 
 it  falls  fo  low.  .  Would  your  *  Predecefibrs  in 
 this  Controverfy,  the  Antient  Avians,  or  Eu- 
 nomians,  have  ever  icrupled  to  acknowledge 
 that  our  Blefied  Saviour  was  Lord  over  all, 
 long  before  his  Re/urre£iion,  or  even  his  In- 
 carnation ?  That  He  was  Lord  of  all  before 
 his  RefttrreBion,  is  very  plain  from  the  Scri- 
 ptures, which  carry  in  them  irrefragable  Proofs 
 of  it.  By  Him  were  all  Things  created  that 
 are  in  Heaven,  and  that  are  in  Earthy  vifi- 
 ble  and  invifible\  whether  they  be  Thrones, 
 or  "Dominions,  or  T^rincifalities,  or  T^owers , 
 
 *  Antequam  faceret  Univerfa,  omnium  Futurorum  Deus  &  Do- 
 minus,  Rex  8c  Creator  crat  Coaftitutus.  Voiuntatc  &  praecepto 
 ( Bet  ^  Fatris  fui )  Caeleftia  £c  Terreftiia,  viiibilia  &  invifibilia. 
 Corpora  &  Spiritus,  ex  nullis  exilantibus,  ut  eflent,  Tua  virtutc 
 fecit.    Serm.  Aria»or.  apud  Augult,  To?nt  8.  />.  6ii» 
 
 all 
 
C^u.  VI.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  95- 
 
 all  Things  were  created  by  Him ,  and  for 
 Him ;  and  He  is  before  all  Things^  and  by 
 Him  all  Things  conflfl^  Col.  i.  16,  17.  Thou 
 Lord  in  the  beginning  hafl  laid  the  Foiinda- 
 tion  of  the  Earth,  and  the  Heavens  are  the 
 works  of  thine  Hands,  *  Heb.  1. 10. 
 
 ♦  It  is  not  roithoHt  good  Keafon  that  wc  underfiand  Hebr.  i .  i  o. 
 ofChrifi. 
 
 1 .  The  context  it  felf  favors  it.  The  Verfe  begins  with,  koh  <rl, 
 rohich  properly  refers  to  the  fame  -who  was  fpoken  of  immediately  be- 
 fore in  the  fecond  Verjon.  The  <rS  preceding  and  <rw  following,  an- 
 fwer  to  each  other.  A  change  of  Ferfon,  while  the  fame  way  of  fpeak' 
 ing  is  purfuedi  mujl  appear  unnatural. 
 
 2.  The  fcGpe  and  intent  of  the  Author  was  to  fet  forth  the  Honour 
 and  Dignity  of  the  Son  above  the  Angels  j  and  no  Circum/iance  could 
 be  more  proper  than  that  of  his  Creating  the  World. 
 
 3.  If  He  had  omitted  it,  He  had  faid  le/s  than  Himfelf  had  done 
 before,  in  Verfe  the  2d,  of  which  this  Jeems  to  be  Explanatory  j  and  as 
 He  had  brought  Vroofs  from  the  Old  Tcjlament  for  feveral  other 
 Articles,  nothing  could  be  more  proper  or  more  pertinent,  than  to 
 bring  a  Froof  from  thence,  of  this  alfo, 
 
 4.  Declaring  Him  to  be  Jehovah,  and  Creator  of  the  Univerfe 
 might  be  very  prober  to  fl)ow  that  He  was  no  miniftring  Spirit, 
 but  ordy^^v'^-;,  to  lit  at  the  right  Hand  of  God,  whick  immediatey 
 follows, 
 
 5.  To  introduce  a  Tajfage  here  about  God's  immutability  or  la- 
 bility, mujl  appear  very  abrupt-,  and  not  pertinent;  becaufe  the  Angels 
 alfo,  in  their  Order  and  Degree,  reap  the  Benefit  of  God's  ftabiiity 
 and  immutability.  And  the  ^^ejlion  was  not  about  the  duration 
 and  continuance,  but  about  the  fublimity  a7id  excellency  of  their 
 refpeciive  Natures  and  Dignities. 
 
 6  I  may  add,  that  this  Senfe  is  very  confonant  to  Antiquity  i 
 which  every  where  [peaks  of  the  Son  as  Creator,  and  in  as  high  and 
 Jirong  Terms:  fuch  as  Thefe,  Ti^vi7}]<;,  J^/z/jspyo?,  7n)t))r><5:  otyB-pchmv, 
 ufy'iXm,  T  TTzLvTuv,  T  oXuv,  "S  vi^truja,  and  the  like;  Teftimonies 
 whereof  will  occur  hereafter.  Barnabas,  fpeaking  of  the  Sun  in  the 
 Heavens,  calls  it  ipyov  x^^Zv  uvroc^ ,  }?jea?iing  Chrift;  tho'  there's 
 fome  difpute  about  the  Reading :  of  which  fee  Grab.  Not.  in  Bull. 
 D.  F.  p.  25. 
 
 Thefe  Confiderations  feem  fufficient  to  overthrow  the  Pretences  of 
 a  late  Writer,  Examin.  of  Dr.  Bennet  on  Trin.  p.  40.  As  to  former 
 Exceptions  to  this  Verfe,  They  are  confider'd  and  confuted  by  Bifliof 
 Bull,  Jud.  Eccl.  p,  43,   See  alfo  Sivenhuf=  in  loc,  p.  600.     ^ 
 
96  ^DEFENSE  Qji.  VI 
 
 Can  you  imagine  that  the  Son  could  be  Crea- 
 tor and  Trejerver  of  all  Things  from  the  Be- 
 ginning ;  and  yet  not  be  Lord  over  all  till 
 after  his  Refurredion  ?  If  this  does  not  fatisfy 
 you,  return  to  Job.  i.  i.  He  was  0.o;  before 
 the  World  was,  by  your  own  Acknowledge- 
 ment; which  being  a  word  o^  Office  and  imply- 
 ing dominion.  He  was  certainly  Lord,  as  loon 
 as  ever  there  was  any  Thing  for  Him  to  be 
 Lord  over.  And  when  He  came  into  the 
 tVorld,  the  World  that  ^ujas  made  by  Him, 
 (Joh.  i.io.)  He  came  unto  his  own,  {J  oh, i.i\.) 
 Surely  then,  He  was  Lord  over  all  long  before 
 his  Refurredrion. 
 
 You  will  ask,  it  may  be,  what  then  is  the 
 meaning  of  thole  Texts  which  you  have 
 quoted?  How  was  all  Tower  given  Him ^ 
 according  to  Matt.  28.  18  ?  Or  how  were  all 
 Things  then  J^nt  under  His  Feet,  according  to 
 Ephef.  I.  XI?  Nothing  is  more  eafy  than  to 
 anfwer  you  this.  The  Aoyo^j  ot  Word,  was, 
 from  the  Beginning,  Lord  over  all\  but  the 
 God  incarnate,  the  0^^av3pa)7ra.',  or  God-Man^ 
 was  not  fo,  rill  after  the  Refurredtion.  Then 
 He  received,  in  that  Capacity,  what  He  had 
 ever  enjoy'd  in  another.  Then  did  He  receive 
 that  full  Tower,  in  both  Natures,  which  He 
 had  heretofore  pofiefs'd  in  one  only.  This  is 
 very  handlbmly  reprelented  by  HermaSy  in  his 
 fifth  Similitude :  where  the  *  Son  of  God  is 
 introduced  under  a  double  Capacity,  as  a  Sony 
 
 *  6>c  Bull.  D.  Fid.  N.  p.  38^ 
 
 and 
 
Qu.  VI.  cffome  Q^UERIES.  97 
 
 and  as  a  Servant,  in  relpedl  of  his  two  Natures, 
 divine  and  Human. 
 
 *'*  The  Father  calh'ng  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  fb  full  a 
 
 "  Teftimony  from  his  Lord. (^Afterguards 
 
 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  Sgu, 
 
 It  is  much  to  the  fame  purpofe  that  Origen 
 lays  to  Celfus.  '•  f  Let  thofe  our  Acculers 
 *'  {"joho  object  to  us  our  making  a  God  of  a 
 **  mortal  Man)  know,  that  (this  Jefiis)  whom 
 *'  we  believe  to  have  been  God,  and  the  Son 
 **  of  God,  from  the   beginning;   is  no  other 
 
 *  (Pater)  adhibitoFilio  quem  carum  5c  Haeredem  habebat,  &  Amf« 
 cis  quos  in  Confilio  advocabatj  indicat  eis  quce  Servo  fuo  facienda 
 mandafle!: ,  quje  praeterea  Ille  fecifTet.  At  Illi  protinus  jrratulati 
 funt  Servo  iili,  quod  tarn  plenum  Tcftimonium  Domini  alfecutiis 
 fuifTet  volo  eum    Filio    meo    facere    cohaeredem    — 
 
 Hoc  confiiium  Domini,  8c  Filius,  £c  Amici  ejus  Comprobaverunt , 
 ut  fieret  fcilicet  Hie  Servus  Cohseres  Filio^  Herm.  Vajl.  Sim,  y. 
 ex.  /),  104.,  Cot,  Edit. 
 
 "/jA^Vi  il'JOj  ©Jflc  k:  'vjo>  ©jS,  0W75?  6  uuToXo'^^  iV,  ^  v,  c(.'jro(rs(p',o(.,  y^  ^ 
 o(,-jTou,X''f^isf  To  oi  S-y>3Tci/  cciir'i  (rZtJua, ,  x.Xi  rnv  oivB-auynv^yj  ci/  eiuro^ 
 "^v^^',  Tv;  ir^5  wtstvo,  8  ^vcv   i[$i))U'jia.  ocXXcc   y^  ivaxri  Kxl  otvoCK^T^,   f « 
 
 f^iov  yji^Qic^Kiv;(j,    Orig.  Contr.  Celf.  1.  3.  p,  i  36,  crC' 
 
 H  •*  than 
 
98  ^DEFENSE  Qv.  VI. 
 
 •^  than  the  Word  it  felf,  Truth  it  felf,  and 
 "  Wifdom  it  felf:  But  we  fay  farther  that  his 
 '*  mortal  Body,  and  the  human  Soul  that  was 
 *'  therein,  by  means  of  their  moft  inrimate 
 *'  Connexion  to,  and  Union  with  the  Word, 
 "  received  the  greateft  Dignity  imaginable,  and 
 '*  participating  of  his  Divinity,  were  taken  in- 
 *'  to  God.  It  is  difficult  to  exprels  the  full 
 force  of  this  Paflage,  mEngliJh :  But  you  may 
 fee  the  Original  in  the  Margin. 
 
 From  hence  you  may  perceive,  how  eafy  it 
 is  to  account  for  our  Lord's  having  all  Tower 
 given  Him,  afrer  his  Reiiirredtion ;  given  him 
 in  relped:  of  his  Human  Nature,  which  was 
 never  Jb  high  exalted,  nor  alTumed  into  fuch 
 Power  and  Privilege,  till  that  Time;  having 
 before  been  under  a  State  of  Afflidion  ,  and 
 Humiliation.  There  is  a  notable  Fragment  of 
 Hippolytus  which  Fabricitis  has  lately  given 
 us  in  the  Second  Volume;  and  which  is  io  full 
 to  our  purpofe,  that  I  cannot  forbear  adding  it 
 to  the  former.  Speaking  of  that  famous  Paf- 
 fage  in  the  Epiftle  to  the  Thrliffians,  c.  x. 
 and  particularly  upon  thele  Words :  IV her ef ore 
 God  alfo  hath  highly  exalted  Hi?n,  v.  9.  He 
 Comments  upon  it  thus.  *  ''  He  is  faid  to  be 
 "  exalted,  as  having  wanted  it  before;  but  in 
 "  rd'ped  only  of  his  Humanity-^  and  He  has 
 "  a  Name  given  Him;  as  'twere  a  Matter  of 
 *'  Favor,  which  is  above  every  Name  as  the 
 •*  BlefTed  (Apoftle)  Taul  exprefles   it.     But 
 
 *  Hippolytus  Vol.  i.  p.  29*  Fabric.  Edit- 
 
 "  in 
 
Qy,  VL         offome  (QUERIES.  99 
 
 *'  in  Truth  and  Reality,  this  was  not  the  giv- 
 "  mg  Him  any  Thing,  which  He  naturally 
 "  had  not  from  the  Beginning ;  fo  far  from  it, 
 '*  that  we  are  rather  to  efleena  it  his  returning 
 **  to  what  He  had  in  the  Beginning  *^//?;//^/^//y, 
 '•  and  unalterably  ;  on  which  Account  it  '\%,  that 
 *'  He,  having  condefcended,  oi>a>i'o/-tix.5^,  to  put 
 **  on  the  humble  Garb  o^  Humanity,  faid.  Fa- 
 *'  ther,  glorify  me  with  the  Glory,  which  I 
 ♦"  had,  &c.  For  He  was  always  inverted  with 
 **  Divine-Glory,  having  been  Co-exiftent  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  millake  ;  and  how  contrary 
 your  Sentiments  are  both  to  Scripture,  and  Ca- 
 tholick  Antiquity,  if  you  imagine  that  the  Ao- 
 y@-,  or  Word ,  then  firfl:  began  to  be  Lord 
 over  all,  when  that  Honour  was  confer'd  on 
 the  Man  Chrift  Jefus. 
 
 J  I  may  add  a  PaJ/age  of  Novatian,  Ac  fi  de  ccslo  defcendit 
 Verbam  Hoc,  tanquam  Sponfus  ad  Carnem>  ut  per  Carnis  ad- 
 fumptionem  filias  Hominis  illuc  poflet  aicendere,  unde  Dei  Filius, 
 Verbum,  dcfcenderaf.  Merito,  dum  per  conncxionem  mutuam,  Sc 
 Caro  Verbum  Dei  gerit,  &  Filius  Dei  Fragilitatem  Carnis  adfumiti 
 Cum  fponfa  Carrie  Confceodens  illuc  unde  line  Carne  defcenderat, 
 recipit  jam  claritatem  ilUmy  quajn  dum  ante  munai  ConfiitHtionem 
 huhtiijfe  ofienditur.  Dens  manifejiijjimi  ComprobatHr.     Novae,  c.  i  3. 
 
 H  ^  Query 
 
100  ^DEFENSE         (^u.  VII. 
 
 Q^u  E  R  Y    vir. 
 
 JVhether  the  Father's  Omnifcience  and  Eter- 
 nity are  not  one  and  the  fame  iz!ith  the 
 Son's ,  being  alike  defcribed,  and  tn  the 
 fame  Thrajes?   See  the  Texts  above./.  89. 
 
 "17"  OUR  Anfvver,  *  with  refped  to  the  Son'^ 
 1  Omnifcience,  is,  that  He  hath  a  rela- 
 tive Omnifcience  communicated  to  Him  from 
 the  Father ;  that  He  knows  all  Things  re- 
 lating to  the  Creation  and  Government  ofth^ 
 Uuiverfe ;  and  that  He  is  ignorant  of  the  IDay 
 of  Judgment. 
 
 The  Son  then,  it  feems,  knows  all  Things^ 
 excepting  that  He  is  ignorant  of  many  Things; 
 and  is  omnifcient  in  inch  a  Senfe,  as  to  know 
 infinitely  left,  than  one  who  is  really  omnifci- 
 ent.  Were  it  not  better  to  fay  plainly,  that 
 He  is  not  omnifcient,  than  to  fpeak  of  a  rela- 
 tive Omnifcience,  which  is  really  no  Omni- 
 fcience %  unlefs  an  Angel  be  omnifcient,  or  a 
 Man  omnifcient^  becaufe  He  knows  all  Things 
 which  He  knows?  What  Ground  do  you  find 
 in  Scripture,  or  Antiquity,  for  your  Diftindtion 
 of  abfolute  and  relative  Omnifcience  ?  Where 
 is  it  laid,  that  He  knows  all  Things  relating  to 
 his  Office,  and  no  more  ?  Or  how  can  he  be 
 fb  much  as  omnifcient,  in  this  low  Senfe,  if 
 He  knows  not,  or  knew  not,  the  preciie  time 
 
 *  Pag.  4t. 
 
 of 
 
Qy,  VII.         offome  Q^UERIES.  loi 
 
 of  the  Day  of  Judgment;  a  Thing  which,  one 
 would  imagine,  ihould  belong  to  his  Office  as 
 much  as  any  ?  Mat^t.  x^.  36.  as  wcil  as  Alark 
 13.  32.  is  plainly  meant  only  of  the  hitman 
 Nature ;  and  is  to  the  fame  effccl  with  Luk, 
 2.  52.  That  He  increased  in  JViJdom ,  which 
 cannot  be  literally  underftood  of  the  Koy%* 
 with  any  tolerable  confiftency,  even  upon 
 the  Avian  Hypothecs  *.  You  tell  us  farther, 
 that  All  the  Ante-  Nicene  Writers  tinderfland 
 by  thefe  two  Texts,  that  our  Lord  as  the  Ao- 
 7©^,  or  Son  of  God,  did  not  then  know  the 
 Day  of  Judgment,  (p.  49.)  This  is  very  new 
 indeed  ;  If  you  have  read  the  Arite  -  Nicene 
 Writers ;  you  muft  know  better :  if  you  have 
 not;  how  unaccountable  a  thing  is  it  to  talk 
 thus  confidently  without  Book  V  If  what  you 
 fay  was  true,  we  fliould,  without  delay,  give 
 you  up  all  thefe  Writers  to  a  Man ;  and  never 
 more  pretend   to  quote  any  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
 
 *  A  late  JVriter  acquaints  us,  in  the  Name  of  Dr»  Clarke  a72d  the 
 Arians,  (  /  prefume,  roithoHt  their  leave)  "  that  the  Word  really 
 "  emptied  it  felf,  and  became  Ike  the  Rational  Soul  i)/' another  Man, 
 *'  vhich  is  limited  by  the  Bodily  Organs;  and  is,  in  a  manner,  dor- 
 "  mant  in  Infzncy  ■■,  and  that  the  Word  may  be  deprived  of  its  for- 
 
 '*  mer  extraordinary  Abilities in  reality,  and  grow  in  Wifdom, 
 
 "  as  ethers  do.  This  is  making  the  Aoy^,  That  greatefl  and  beft  of 
 Beings,  {upon  the  Arian  Scheme)  next  to  God  Him'elf,  become  a  Child 
 in  waderjlanding;  tho^  once  -wife  enough  to  Frame,  and  Govern  the  whole 
 JTniverfe.  The  Author  calls  it,  ([  think,  very  profanely)  The  true 
 and  great  Myllery  of  Godlinefs,  God  manifeft  in  Flefh.  One  would 
 think,  infiead  of  manifeft,  it  (Jjould  have  been,  confined,  lockM  up 
 in  Tlefl);  -which  is  the  Author's  own  Interpretation  of  this  Myftcry, 
 (p.  16.)  IVioat  defign  He  could  have  in  all  This,  1  know  not;  unlefs 
 He  confider'd  what  Turn  Arianifm  took,  foon  after  its  Revival  at  the 
 Reformation.     See  Exam,  of  Dr.  Bemiet  oa  the  Tria.  p.  i  j-j  16. 
 
 H  3  rher, 
 
ici  y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Q^u.  VII. 
 
 ther,  in  favour  of  the  prefent  Orthodoxy.  But 
 as  the  Point  is  of  great  Moment,  we  muft  re- 
 quire fome  Proofs  of  it:  For,  writing  of  Hiftory 
 by  Invention,  is  really  Romancing.  You 
 cite  Iren£tis  from  *  Dr.  Clarke  ^  who  could 
 find  no  other :  or  elfe  we  ihould  have  heard  of 
 it  from  the  firft  Hand.  And  yet  you  cry  out, 
 All%  which  is  more  than  the  learned  Dodior 
 pretended  to  fay  ;  w^ho  had  his  Thoughts  about 
 Him;  and  would  not  have  let  flip  any  fair  ad- 
 vantage to  the  Cauie  which  He  elpoules. 
 
 But  has  the  Doctor  really  proved  that  Ire- 
 naus  meant  fo  ?  Perhaps  not :  And  then  your 
 jill,  which  was  but  07ie,  is  reduced  to  none. 
 Two  Things  the  Dodor,  or  you,  Ihould  have 
 proved:  Firft,  That  Irenaus  underftood  thofe 
 Texts  of  the  Aoy-^>  or  Word,  in  that  Capacity. 
 And  Secondly,  That  He  liippoied  Him  literally 
 Ignorant  of  the  Day  of  Judgment.  The  Dodor 
 knew  full  well  what  Solutions  had  been  given 
 of  the  difficulty  arifing  from  this  PalTage.  Yet 
 He  barely  recites  lrenatis'%  Words;  and  nei- 
 ther attempts  to  prove  that  fuch  was  his  Senle, 
 nor  to  dilprove  ii.  You  indeed  do  obierve,  froni 
 fome  learned  Terfon,  that  this  PalTage  of  Ire- 
 n£us  will  admit  of  no  Evajion.  For,  He  evi- 
 dently Jpeaks  not  of  the  Son  of  Man,  but  of 
 the  Son  of  God  ;  even  of  That  Son  with 
 whom,  as  it  follows^  in  omnibus  F^ater  com- 
 municat.  Let  this  have  its  due  Weight :  The 
 Argument  may  |ook  fo   far  plaufible   on  that 
 
 *  Script.  Doftr.  p.  146. 
 
 fide: 
 
Qu.  VII.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  103 
 
 fide :  But  lee  the  other  fide  be  heard  too,  be- 
 fore we  determine.  ^  Bifliop  Bull  has  given 
 fbiiie  Reafons,  and  weighty  ones  too,  to  iliow, 
 that,  if  Irenans  attributed  any  ignorance  to 
 Chrill: ,  He  did  it  in  refped:  of  his  Hitman 
 Nature  only.     His  Reafons  are. 
 
 I.  Becauklre/f^ris,  in  the  very  fame  Chapter, 
 ^  afcribes  abfolure  Omnifcience  to  the  divhie 
 Nature  of  Chrift. 
 
 1.  BecaufeHe  every  where  elfe  fpeaks  of  the 
 Son,  as  of  one  perfedly  acquainted  with  the 
 Nature,  and  JVM,  of  the  Father. 
 
 3 .  Becaufe  the  fame  •=  Irenaiis  upbraids  the 
 Gnojlicks  for  their  Folly,  in  afcribing  any  De- 
 gree of  Ignorance  to  their  pretended  Sophia,  or 
 Wifdom.  How  then  could  He  imagine  that  the 
 true  Sophia,  Wifdom  it  felf,  could  be  ignorant 
 of  any  Thing  ? 
 
 4.  Becaufe  the  fame  Irenaus  ^  ules  an  Argu- 
 ment againft  the  Valentinians,  who  pretended 
 
 a  Def.  F.  N.  p,  82.  Comp,  Brev.  Animadv.  in  G.  CI.  p.  10 f 6. 
 
 b  Spirit  us  Salvatoris,  qui  in  eo  eft,  Scrutator  omnia,  £c  Altitu- 
 dines  Dei,  A  1.  c.  28.  />•  if 8. 
 
 c  ^ee  l.  2.  c.  18.  p'  140.  Iren.    Quomodo  autem  non  vanum  eft, 
 
 quod  etiam  Sophia??!  ejus  dicunt  in  ignorantia fuifte?    Hasc 
 
 enim  alicna  funt  a  Sophia,  &   contraria —  ubi  enim  eft  Impro' 
 
 videntiii  8v  Ignorantia  utilitaris,  ibi  Sophia  non  eft. 
 
 d  Iren.  l.i.  c.  if.  p.  15-2.  Ed.  Bened.  In  quantum  minor  eft. 
 ab  eo  qui  fa£lus  non  eft  8c  qui  fempcr  idem  eft,  ille  qui  hodie 
 fadtus  eft  8c  initium  fadlurx  accepit:  in  tantum,  fecundum  fcien- 
 tiam  8c  ad  invefligandum  caufas  omyiiumy  minorem  efte  eo  qui  fe- 
 cit, Non  enim  infedus  es,  O  Homo,  neque  fempcr  co-exiftebas 
 Deo,  ficut  proprium  ejus  Verbum:  Scd  propter  eminentem  Boni- 
 tatem  ejus,  nunc  initium  I'adturx  accipiens,  i'cnlim  difcis  3  Verbo 
 difpolitiones  Dei,  qui  Te  fecit.  The  whole  PaJJage  is  fnlkr  to  thf 
 ?oinr» 
 
 H  4  ro 
 
104  ^DEFENSE         Qjj,  VII. 
 
 to  know  all  Things,  which  plainly  luppofes 
 that  Chrift  is  omn'ijctent.  The  Argument  is 
 This.  You  are  not  eternal  and  uncreated,  as 
 the  Son  of  God  is ;  and  therefore  cannot  pre- 
 tend to  be  omnifclent,  as  He  \s. 
 
 It  might  have  concerned  you  to  anfwer  thefe 
 Reafbns,  and  to  make  the  good  Father,  at  leaft, 
 confident  with  Himfelf,  before  you  lay  claim 
 to  his  Authority  for  your  fide  of  the  Queftion. 
 However,  I  am  perfuaded,  that,  as  Biiliop  Bull 
 is  very  right  in  determining  that  Irenaus  could 
 not  mean  to  afcribe  any  degree  of  Ignorance  to 
 the  Koyii'i  or  divine  Nature,  of  Chrift ;  lb, 
 you  are  right  fb  far,  in  the  other  Point,  that 
 Irenaus  is  to  be  underftood  of  the  Koy^,  in^ 
 what  He  fays.  And  now  the  Queftion  will  be, 
 wheiher  He  really  afcribes  Ignorance  to  Him, 
 or  only  ieems  to  do  lb  ,  to  an  unattentive 
 Reader. 
 
 Irenaus's  Words,  I  conceive,  will  mofl  na- 
 turally bear  this  following  Interpretation ,  or 
 Paraphrale.  **  *  If  any  one  inquires  on  what 
 "  Account  the  Father   who    communicates  in 
 
 *  Si  quis  exquirat  caufam,  propter  cuam  in  omnibus  Pater  com- 
 mun'cans  Fih'o,  folus  fcire  &  Horam  &  Diem  a  Domino  mani» 
 felbtus  cfti  neque  aptabilem  magis,  nequc  decentiorem,  nee  line 
 periculo  alteram  quam  banc  inveniat,  in  prseienti,  (qiioniam  enim 
 Solus  Verax  Magifter  eft  Dominus)  ut  difcamus  per  Ipfum  fuper 
 omnia  eiTc  Patrem.  Etenim  Tater,  ait.  Major  me  ejl.  Et  fecundum 
 Agnitionem  itaque  pr^pofitus  efle  Pater  annuntiatus  eft  a  Domino 
 n^flro}  ad  hoc,  ut  8c  nos,  in  quantum  in  figura  hujus  mundi  fu- 
 iiiU3»  perfediam  icientiam,  &  tales  quaeftiones  concedamus  Deo: 
 2c  nc  forte  quserentes  ^c.  Iren^  l.i.  c  28.  /».  i$Z>  iS9' 
 He  had  /aid  before. 
 
 Dominuj,  ipfe  Filius  Dei,  ipfum  Judicii  Diem  &  Horam  con- 
 
 ''  all 
 
Q^u.  VII.        of  fo>/je  QIJEKIES.  lof 
 
 "  ^// 77?///^ J- with  the  Son,  {and  confequently 
 "  in  all  Knowledge,  and  parvkularly  in  that 
 '*  of  the  'Day  of  Judq^ment)  is  yet  here  fet 
 "  forth  as  the  only  Perlbn  knowing  that  Day 
 "•  and  Hour  ;  He  cannot,  io  tar  as  I  at  prelent 
 "apprehend,  find  any  fitter  or  more  decent, 
 "  or  indeed  any  other  lafe  Aniwer  than  this 
 ''  (confiJering  that  our  Lord  is  a  Teacher  of 
 *'  Truth,  and  miifl  mean  fomething  by  it)  that 
 **  it  was  to  inftrud:  us,  as  from  Himfelf,  that 
 "  the  Father  is  above  all,  according  to  what 
 *'  He  fays  elfewhere,/ir  the  Father  is  greater 
 *'  than  I.  And  therefore  the  Father  is  declared 
 "  to  have  the  Priority  and  Preference  in  refped: 
 '*  of  Knowledge,  by  our  Lord  Himfelf,  for  aa 
 *'  Example  to  us;  that  wc  aifo,  while  we  live 
 "  and  converie  here  below,  may  learn  to  refer 
 *'  thePerfedion  of  Knowledge,  and  all  intricate 
 "  Queftions  to  God. 
 
 The  defign  oilren^us  was  to  check  the  vain 
 Prefumption,  and  Arrogance  of  the  Gnojiicks, 
 pretending  to  learch  into  the  deep  Things  of 
 God.  And  the  Arauraent  He  had  us'd  was  this : 
 tiiat  our  Lord  Himlelf  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  Patrem,  manifcfte  dicens ;  de  Die  autem  illo  Sc 
 Hora  ne'/no  fcir,  neque  Ftlius,  mji  Pater  folus.  Si  igitur  ibientiam 
 diei  illius,  Filius  non  erubuit  rcferre  ad  Patrem,  fed  dixit  quod 
 vcrum  eftj  neque  nos  erubcfcamqs,  quse  funt  in  quaeftionibus 
 majora  iecundum  nos,  refervare  Deo,  p.  ifS. 
 
 US 
 
io6  ^DEFENSE         Q_u.  VII. 
 
 us  not  CO  pretend  to  high  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  iaid  of  our  bleftcd  Saviour,  might  be 
 liable   to    Exception ,    and    be  mifunderftood  ; 
 comes  afterwards  to  explain  his  Senfe  more  at 
 large.     He  is  fenfible  of  the  danger  of  alcribing 
 any  thing  hke  Ignorance  to  our  bleHed  Lord, 
 on  one  hand ;  and  as  fenfible  of  the  danger  of 
 contradi^ing  the  Text  on,  the  other.  ^ionia?n 
 enim  Solus  Verax  Maglfler  eft  T^ominus,  in 
 as  much  as  what Chrijt  has  fa'td muft  be  true ; 
 in  fbme  Senfe  or  other.    Dr.  Clarke  flipp'd  over 
 thele  Words  in  his  Tranflaticn  of  the  PalTage, 
 I  luppofe  by  inadvertency :  But  they  may  ferve 
 to  give  Hght  to  the  reft.     For  the  difficulty  lay 
 here:  How  can  it  be  true  that  the  Father  com- 
 municates in  all  Things,   and  confequently  m 
 the  knowledge  of  the  Day  of  Judgment,  to  the 
 Son;  and  yet  our  Saviour  lay  true,   in  a/crib- 
 ing  that  particular  knowledge  to  the  Father  on- 
 ly ?  His  anfwer  is,  that  we  are  thereby  taught 
 to  refer  every  thing  to  the  Father,  as  the  Ori- 
 ginal of  all  Things.  To  Him  Knowledge  ought 
 to  hQ  principally,  and  in  tht  firji  place,  afcrib- 
 ed:    Our  Saviour   therefore  Himielf  yields  to 
 Him  the  preference,    as  became  Him,  Speci- 
 ally here  on  Earth :  not  as  if  He  knew  lefs, 
 but  becaufe  what  He  knew.  He  knew  by  Com- 
 munication from  the  Father;  to  whom  there- 
 fore He  refers  fuch  fecrets  as  it  was  not  pro- 
 per 
 
Qjj,  VII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  107 
 
 per    to    reveal,    nor    fit   for   Men  to    enquire 
 after. 
 
 That  this  is  all  that  Irenaus  meant,  may 
 reaibnably  be  though r ;  not  only  becaufe  other- 
 wife  it  would  be  utterly  inconfiltent  with  many 
 other  parts  of  his  Writings,  as  has  been  before 
 pblerved:  but  alfo,  becauie  feveral  Exprefllons, 
 in  this  very  Paflage,  lead  to  it  Had  He  really 
 believed  the  divine  Koy%- ,  or  IVord,  to  be 
 literally  Ignorant ;  why  ihouid  He  be  lb  ap- 
 prehenfive  of  the  difficulty  of  thoie  Texts  ? 
 Why  fo  concerned  about  the  iirneis,  and  de- 
 cency of  his  Interpretation ;  and  that  it  might 
 be  fine  periculo  ?  The  danger  was,  in  inter- 
 preting fcemingly  againft  the  Text,  to  find  a 
 Salvo  for  the  Son's  Omnifcience.  For  this  rea- 
 ibn,  He  does  not  ask,  why  the  Father  only 
 knew  (not,  ctir  'Pater  foltts  Jcivtt)  but  why, 
 or  on  what  Account  (folus  Jc'ire  ?nanifejiatus: 
 eji)  He  was  refrefented  as  alone  knowing; 
 or.  He  only  was  faid  to  know.  He  does  not 
 lay,  as  the  Dodior's  Tranllation  infinuates,  that 
 the  Father  is  more  knowing  than  the  Son ;  but 
 pr£pofitus  only;  which  fignifies  fet  before ^ 
 having  the  'Preference ,  or  the  like;  which 
 may  be  conceived,  tho'  He  be  equally  know- 
 ing :  and,  for  the  greater  Caution,  it  is  not 
 faid  dbioluKtly,  frapofitus  eft '^  hwi  frapo fit  us 
 ejfe  anmmtiatus  eft :  He  is  declared  to  have 
 the  Preference :  So  that  the  Queftion ,  with 
 Irenatis ,  is  not  why  the  Father  is  Superior 
 m  knowledge ;  but  why,  fince  Father  and  Son 
 
 are 
 
io8  ^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Qjj.  VIL 
 
 arc  equally  knowing,  our  Saviour  makes  fuch  a 
 Declaration  as  gave  the  Preference  to  the  Father. 
 And  the  Realons  which  He  afTigns,  are  very 
 much  to  the  purpoie. 
 
 1.  To  inftrudl:  us,  that  the  Father  is  th€ 
 Fountain  and  Original,  even  of  the  Son  FJin> 
 felf. 
 
 2.  Becaufe,  in  his  then  oreient  State  of  Con- 
 defcenfion,  it  became  Him  to  refer  all  to  the 
 Father. 
 
 3.  Becaufe  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- 
 nattss  Solution  of  the  difficulty  is  the  very  lame 
 with  that  which  the  *  Dodor  quotes  from  St. 
 Bafil^  who  had  learned  it  from  a  Child  : 
 Namely  this,  '*  That  our  Lord  meant  to  aicribe 
 •*  to  the  Father,  the  Firft,  (i.  e.  the  frimary, 
 **  original)  Knowledge  of  Things  Preient,  and 
 *'  Future ;  and  to  declare  to  the  World,  that 
 **  He  is  in  all  Things  the  firft  Caufe.  As  the 
 Son  is  God  of  God,  and  Light  of  Light ;  io 
 it  is  proper  to  fay,  Omnifcience  of  Omnifci- 
 ence,  &c.  The  Attributes  being  derivative,  in 
 the  fame  Senfe,  as  the  EiTence  is :  Which  is  St. 
 Bajil's  meaning;  and,  I  think.  Irenaus's. 
 
 This  Defence  may  be  fairly  and  juftly  made 
 for  Irenaus,  fuppofing  that  what  he  faid,  was 
 meant  of  the  Ar/o^,  or  divine  Nature,  as  fuch : 
 
 *  Script,  BoHr.  p.  1475  148. 
 
 To 
 
Q^u.  VII.         of  fome  QUERIES.  109 
 
 To  which  Opinion  I  incline.  Neverthclefs,  I 
 fliodd  not  afFcd  to  be  dogmatical  in  That 
 Point,  fince  learned  and  judicious  Men  have 
 been  of  both  Sides  of  the  Qaeftion.  Tetavius 
 *  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  only  ;  then  the  difficulty  is  no- 
 thing: if  of  Both,  I  have  lliown  how  fair  an 
 Account  may  be  given  of  it.  Having  thus  got 
 over  Irenaus,  I  have  at  once  taken  from  you 
 all  your  Ante-Nicene  Writers.  You  will  ob- 
 ferve,  that  the  Texts  might  be  underftood  of 
 the  Ao7@"5  or  divine  Nature,  as  Ba/il  under- 
 (lands  them,  in  the  place  above  cited ;  and  yet 
 that  They,  who  fo  underftood  them,  might  be 
 far  from  thinking  that  the  Ao7@«,  or  JVord^ 
 was  ever  ignorant  of  any  Thing,  f  Dr,  Clarke^ 
 to  do  him  Juiiice,  is,  in  the  main,  fb  very  fair 
 and  reafonable  in  his  Account  of  thofe  two 
 Texts,  that  we  have  no  occafion  at  all  to  dif- 
 fer with  Him.  I  wifli,  as  you  have  in  mod 
 other  Matters,  fo  you  had  here  alio  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 
 
 *  Irenoeus,  libro  Sccunclo  Capite  19,  ambigue  loquitur j  ut  ne- 
 fcias  Infcitiam  illius  Diei  Chriito,  ialrem  qua  eft  Homo,  tribuac, 
 an  non  ac  poflit  ad  utramque  defle<Sii  fententianv, 
 
 f  Refly  to  Mr,  NelfoB^  Jriend>  p.  171 
 
 of 
 
no  yf    D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Q^li.  VIL 
 
 of  thofe  good  and  great  Men.  We  may  begin 
 with  Ignatius.  ^  '*  There  is  nothing  hid  from 
 *'  the  Lord:  But  our  very  lecret  Things  are 
 •'  nigh  unto  Him.  Let  us  therefore  do  all 
 *'  Things,  as  having  Him  dwelling  in  us;  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,  ne- 
 *'  ver  feparaced ,  nor  moving  from  Place  to 
 *'  Place;  but  is  always  every-vvhere,  and  con- 
 •'  rained  no-vvhcre:  all  Mind,  all  Light,  all 
 •'  Eye  of  his  Father ,  beholding  all  Things , 
 *'  hearing  all  Things,  knowing  all  Things, 
 
 ^In  another  Place,  *'  Ignorance  {in  any  de- 
 **  gree^  cannot  afJcCt  God,  Him  that  was  the 
 *'  Father's  Counieiior  before  the  Foundation  of 
 "  the  World. 
 
 ^  Origen  is  pretty  large  upon  the  very  Texts 
 whereof  we  have  been  Ipeaking.  He  gives  fe- 
 veral  Interpretations:  but  it  is  oblervabJe,  that 
 He   ftudiouily  endeavors    to  find   fome   Solu- 
 
 a   Ouoiv  AavS-aJv^  Tcv  Kv^iov  ^  u.X>j3C,  y.cn  toc    y.^vyfloi  yu>av   tfyvq   uvr^ 
 
 i'^u  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Ephef-  c.  if.  p.  17.  Ox.  Ed.  That  Kv^iov  is 
 meant  of  Chrifty  is  i/ery  highly  prohable  from  the  ufe  of  the  Word 
 tn  this  Author,  and  from  the  Context. 
 
 Cof/jiv(^,  erne  "^cnri^/jvoio/jo:^    »  f/ji'^Qcafuv  sk  'nxa  fj's   ttwtj",  vruyrvj  -^ 
 
 cX!^  'O(pSxXf/i0c,  TTzlvTU  o^m,  ttuvtu  uxiiuy,  iiaa^  -Traty^  —  ■  m 
 Clem-  Alex.  Strom.  I. 7.  c.2.  p.8?i«  See  alfo  p.  n;?.  611.  832. 
 
 ^isX'd  •)^vofjijivi£  r5  UxT^c,,    p.  834. 
 
 d  Horn.  30.  in  Matt, 
 
 tiod. 
 
Q^u.  VII.        offome  (QUERIES.  lit 
 
 tiou,  which  may  acquit  the  Aoy®^  from  the 
 Imputation  of  being  hterally  Ignorant  of  the 
 Day  of  Judgment.  What  Origen's  Opinion 
 was  of  Chrift's  Omni/cience,  you  may  alio  fee 
 *eliewhcre.  To  confirm  what  hath  been  laid, 
 cue,  general  Remark  I'll  leave  with  you. 
 
 The  Sabell'ian  Controverfy  began  early,  and 
 lafted  long  in  the  Church.  The  Di(pute  was, 
 whether  Father  and  Son  were  one  and  the  fame 
 Hypoftafis,  or  Terfon,  Had  the  Catholicks  in- 
 terpreted thele  two  Texts  as  you  pretend  They 
 did ,  there  could  not  have  been  any  Thing 
 more  dccifive  againft  the  Sabellians,  Ter- 
 tull'ian ,  you  know ,  encountered  them  in  a 
 pretty  large  Book,  his  Book  againft  Traxeas-^ 
 Hippolytus  entered  the  Lifts  againft  Noetus% 
 and  his  Book  is  ftill  extant;  Eufebitis's  famed 
 Piece,  againft  Marcelhis,  is  to  the  fame  pur- 
 port ;  Several  Fragments  befides,  of  other  Au- 
 thors, remain.  Pleale  to  look  Them  over ;  and 
 fee  if  I  you  can  find  any  one  of  Them  combat- 
 ing the  iy/^^^///^;/ J- with  thefe  Texts:  And  if  you 
 cannot;  either  be  content  to  own,  that  it  was 
 a  very  ftrange  and  unaccountable  Omiftion  in 
 thofe Writers;  or  eile  that  they  had  quite  other 
 Notions  of  Things,    than    you  have    hitherto 
 
 *  Con  m.  in  joh.  p.  28.  Huet.  Ed-  He  puts  the  very  ^eftion, 
 whether  the  Son  knows  all  that  the  Father  ImoveSy  and  determines  in 
 the  Affirmative j  bUmtng  thofe  who,  under  pretence  of  mp-gmfying  the 
 Tattler,  prefumed  to  o.vhy  it.  The  Pajfage  is  rather  too  long  to  be 
 here  inferted. 
 
 f  Tertullian  inideed  cites  the  Text,  in  pajjing;  not  drawing  any 
 ftich  Argument^  af  I  ima>h  from  if^  What  Hs  ?neant  mil  he  fhow/t 
 hereafter,  undir  ^ery  a^rk- 
 
 imagined. 
 
iix  A    DEFENSE         Q^ii.  Vll. 
 
 imagined.  The  Avians  you  find  afterwards, 
 perpetually  almoft,  teazing  the  Catholicks  with 
 thole  Texts:  Strange  they  fliould  never  have 
 been  infifted  on  againft  the  Sabell'tans,  being 
 {o  full  to  the  purpofe;  eipccially  if,  as  you 
 fuppofe,  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  were  them- 
 felves  of  that  Perlwafion,  which  was  afterwards 
 called  Arian.  It  is  evident  that  the  SabeUians 
 mad  have  undcrftood  the  Texts,  if  rhey  are  to 
 be  taken  literally,  of  the  Man  Chriji  Je/tis 
 only.  Otherwife  there  had  been  a  raanifell  re- 
 pugnancy, in  the  Words,  not  the  Son,  but  the 
 Father  \  fince  they  iuppoicd  Father  and  Son 
 one  and  the  fame  Hypoftajis.  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  ejfential  T>ivmity.  It  does  not  appear 
 that  thofe  Texts  ever  canne  into  Controverfy 
 betwixt  Them;  or  were  ever  urged  by  the 
 Catholicks ;  fo  that  Both  feem  to  have  agreed 
 in  the  fame  Interpretation.  So  much  for  the 
 Point  of  Omnifcience. 
 
 I  come  next  to  confider  what  you  have  to 
 objed:  to  my  Argument  for  the  Son's  Eternity. 
 I  had  put  it  upon  this ;  that  it  is  dekribed  in 
 the  fame  Phrafes,  with  God  the  Father's;  which, 
 one  would  think,  lliould  be  high  enough.  You 
 tell  me  that  the  Son's  Metaphyfical  Eternity 
 is  no  where  exprejly  revealed  What  the  fine 
 word,  Metafhyfical,  fignifies  here,  I  know  not. 
 
 If 
 
Qji    Vll        of  fome  (^UERIE^.  ii^ 
 
 If  his  Eternity  is  revealed,  it  is  enough  for  me. 
 That  I  undcrftand  to  be  revealed,  in  thefe  two 
 
 Texts,   Rev.  i.  17. xx.  13.  I  am  the  Jirji. 
 
 and  I  am  the  laji.  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega^ 
 the  Beginning  and  the  End.  That  rhefe,  and 
 the  like  Phraies  xQ^^cGt'Dnration,  appears  from 
 Ifa.  43.  10.  compared  with  Ifa,  44.  6.  In  tho 
 latter,  the  Words  are ;  /  am  the  firft,  and  I 
 am  the  iaft,  and  befides  me  there  is  no  God. 
 The  former,  exprefTmg  the  fame  Thought,  runs 
 thus :  Before  me  was  there  no  God  formed^ 
 neither  Jhall  there  be  after  me.  The  Phrafe 
 of  A  and  n,  Firft  and  Lad:,  is,  in  like  manner, 
 explained  Rev.  \.  8.  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega ^ 
 the  Beginning  and  the  Ending,  faith  the  Lord^ . 
 which  is^ '  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to 
 come.  The  Phrale  .then  refpecSts  'Duration  ; 
 and  it  is  applied  to  our  bleiTed  Saviour,  as  hath 
 been  fliovvn;  Rev.  i.  17.  — 22.  13.  Therefore 
 there  was  no  God  before  Him :  Therefore  He  \s^ 
 in  the  ftrideft  Senfe,  Eternal.  You  fay,  thei 
 ObjeEior  hath  not  brought  one  Text  of  Scrz^ 
 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,  fromCriticifm  upon  Words,  to 
 one  plain  and  afFefting  Argument :  viz.  That 
 the  Proof  the  Son^s  Eternity  ftands  upon  the 
 fame  Foot,  in  Scripture,  with  the  Proof  of  the 
 Father's  ;  and  is  exprefs'd  in  as  ftrong  Words. 
 And  for  this,  I  appeal,  as  to  the  Texts  above 
 dted,  fo  aifo  loTrov.%,  %i,  8cc.   which  you 
 
 I  allow 
 
114  ^DEFENSE         C^u.  VII. 
 
 allow  to  be  fpoken  of  the  MeJJlas,  The  ori- 
 ginal Word,  which  we  tranflare,  from  Ever* 
 idjitng,  is  the  very  fame  with  what  we  meet 
 with  in  Vfal.  90.  %.  where  alio  we  find  a  pa- 
 rallel Defcription  of  Eternity,  applied  to  the 
 one  God.  See  alfo  Tfal.  93.  2.  I  allow^  your 
 Obfervation,  that  the  Hebrew  word  may,  and 
 fometimes  does,  fignify  a  limited^  as  well  as 
 it  does,  at  other  times,  an  unlimited  T>wx2X\on. 
 And  therefore  I  do  not  lay  all  the  ftrefs  of  my 
 Argument  upon  the  critical  meaning  of  the 
 Word ;  but  upon  That ,  and  other  Circum- 
 ftances  taken  together:  particularly  this  Cir- 
 cumftance ;  that  the  Eternity  of  the  Father  is 
 deicribed  in  the  lame  Manner,  and  in  the  fame 
 Phrales,  with  the  other;  as  by  *  Comparing 
 ^faL  90.  2.  with  Trov.  8.  22,  ®r.  and  Rev, 
 I.  8,  with  i?^*!^.  22.  13.  may  fully  appear.  I 
 do  not  argue  from  a  fingle  Phrafe,  or  the  par- 
 ticular force  of  it ;  but  from  fever al ;  and  thele 
 equally  applied  to  Both  :  as  it  were  on  purpoie 
 to  intimate,  that  though  thele  Phrafes  fingly 
 might  bear  a  limited  Senle  ;  yet  confidering  that 
 God  had  made  choice  of  thera  as  mofl:  figni- 
 ficant  to  exprels  his  own  ^Duration ;  and  again 
 made  choice  of  the  very  fame,    out  of  many 
 
 *  'Before  the  Mountains  voere 
 brought  forth,  or  ever  thou  hadft 
 for  me  J  the  Earth  and  the  World: 
 even  from  everlajling ,  Thou  art 
 Gody  Pfal,  90.  2. 
 
 The  Lord  pojfe/s'd  me  in  the  he- 
 ginning  of  his  re  ay,  before  his  (Vorks 
 of  old,  1  was  fet  up  from  everlafl- 
 ifig,  from  the  beginning,   or  ev€r 
 
 the  Earth  was Before  the 
 
 Mountains  were  fettled  j  before  the 
 Hills,  was  I  iroHght  forth*  Prov. 
 8.  22,  &c 
 
 Others, 
 
Qy.  VII.         offomiT  (QUERIES.  iij 
 
 others,  to  exprcfs  his  Soft's  T)uration  too,  wc 
 might  from  thence  be  taught  to  beHeve  that 
 the  Son  is  Co-eternal  with  Him. 
 
 You  are  fenfible  of  the  Objedion  lying  a- 
 gainfl:  you ;  namely ,  that  there's  no  certain 
 Proof,  according  to  your  way  of  reafoning,  of 
 the  Eternity  of  the  Father,  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
 ment ;  And  'io  relblute  you  are  in  this  Matter, 
 that,  rather  than  admit  \\\(:,  Son  to  be  eternal 
 too,  you  are  content  to  leave  us  in  the  Dark, 
 fb  far  as  the  Old  Tejfatnent  goes,  about  the 
 other.  But,  for  a  Salvo  to  the  Father's  Eter- 
 nity,  you  obferve,  that  it  is  emphatically  ex- 
 prefs'd  in  the  Ne^jo  Tejiament  (Rom.  i.  20.) 
 forgetting  that  the  word'Ai^iO^  occurs  but  *once 
 more,  in  the  New  Teftament ;  and  then  fignifies 
 eternal  \w  a  limitedS^nk  only,  or  z  parte pofi, 
 as  the  Schools  fpeak.  Well  then,  for  any  thing 
 I  fee  to  the  contrary,  we  muft  contentedly  go 
 away,  without  any  Scripture  Proof  of  the  Eter- 
 nity of  the  Father-^  for  fear  it  fliould  oblige  us 
 to  take  in  the  Soil's  alfo.  And  this,  indeed,  is 
 what  you  are  before-hand  apprehenfive  of,  and 
 prepared  for ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  you  tell 
 us,  that  there  appears  no  necejjlty  at  all-,  that 
 the  Attribute  of  Eternity  Jhould  be  diftin5ily 
 revealed  with  refpe^i  to  the  Father;  ivhofe 
 Eternity  our  rea/on  infallibly  ajfures  us  of 
 (p.  50.)  Infallibly  afTures :  So  you  fay ;  and,  I 
 believe,  in  my  own  way,  I  might  be  able  to 
 maintain  your  Aflertion.     But  I  profels  to  you, 
 
 *  Jude  V.  6 
 
 1  %  that 
 
ij6  ^defense         Qjj.  VIL 
 
 thar  I  do  nor,  at  prefenc,  apprehend,  how,  ^z/- 
 07^  your  Principles,  you  will  be  able  ro  make 
 any  compleat  Demonftration  of  ir.  Ic  would 
 be  ridiculous  to  ralk  of  proving  from  Reafoit 
 only,  without  Revelation,  that  the  Perfbn 
 Vi^hom  we  call  the  Father,  the  God  of  Jews 
 and  Chrijlians  ,  is  the  Eternal  God.  F  will 
 therefore  prefume  that  you  mean,  by  Reafon, 
 Reafcn  and  Revelation  Both  together ;  and  if 
 you  cfTedually  prove  your  Point  from  Both,  it 
 ihall  fuffice.  You  can  demondrate  that  there 
 mufl:  be  forae  eternal  God,  in  the  metaphyjical 
 Senfe,  as  you  call  it,  of  thele  Words:  But  fince 
 the  Father,  the  God  of  Jews  and  Chrijlians^ 
 has  not  declared,  either  that  He  is  Eternal,  or 
 God,  in  the  metaphyfical  Senfe ;  it  does  not  ap- 
 pear how  H€  'i?>  at  all  concerned  in  it,  He  has 
 ftid,  indeed,  that  there  is  ;/^  G^^^^T?^)?^ /^/^ ; 
 but  as  He  did  not  mean  it  in  the  metaphyficat 
 Senfe,  there  may  be  Another,  in  that  Senfe, 
 bejides  Him,  notwithftanding ;  Nay,  it  is  cer- 
 tain there  are  and  have  been  other  Gods ;  even 
 in  the  Jame  Senle :  For  Mojes  was  a  God  un- 
 to Tharaoh^  and  Chrift  is  God-^  and  therefore 
 this  cannot  be  literally  true.  It  can  only  mean, 
 that  He  is  emj^hat ica lly  GoA,  in  feme  reiped:  or 
 other;  perhaps  as  being  God,  of  ourSyftem; 
 or  God  of  the  Jews  and  Chrijiians,  his  pecu- 
 Hum.  It  is  true,  He  has  called  Himfelf  Jeho- 
 vah ;  which  if  it  fignified  necellary  exiftence 
 and  independence,  it  would  be  an  irrefragable 
 Proof  of  his  being,  the  eternal  God.     But  it 
 
 unfor- 
 
Qy.  VII.         of  feme  (QUERIES.  117 
 
 unfortunately  happens  that  Jehovah  Signifies 
 no  more  than  a  Perlbn  of  Honour  and  Integrity, 
 who  is  true  to  his  Word,  and  pey^forms  his 
 Tromifes  (f.  19.)  He  has  farther  declared  Him- 
 felf  to  be  Creator  of  the  World :  But  this  ex- 
 ercife  of  creating,  being  finite,  does  not  ne- 
 cejfarily  infer  an  infinite  Subje6t,  (p.  48.) 
 Befides  that  this  Ojfice  and  Char a^er^  relative 
 to  its,  pre-fnppofes  not,  nor  is  at  all  more 
 ferfeEi  for,  the  eternal  fafi  "Duration  of  his 
 Being,  (See  p.  5-0.)  What  fliall  I  think  of 
 next?  I  muft  ingenuoufly  own,  I  am  ut- 
 terly non-plufs'd  ;  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 fliould  be  revealed,  you  go  on  to  acquaint 
 us,  why  it  was  not  needful  to  declare  xhQ  Jiip- 
 Pofed  Eternity  of  the  Son.  And  here  you  give 
 either  two  Reafbns,  or  one;  I  hardly  know 
 whether.  His  Ojfice  and  Character,  you  fay, 
 relative  to  us,  does  not  pre-fufpofe  it.  \  know 
 that  very  wile  and  judicious  Men  have  thought, 
 that  it  does  fre-fupfofe  it.  Bifliop  Bull,  for 
 inftancc,  has  fpoke  admirably  well  upon  that 
 Head.  Bat  the  PafTage  being  too  long  to  tran- 
 Icribe,  I  ihall  only  refer  to  it  *.  How  you  come 
 ^o  take  for  granted  a  Thing  which  you  know 
 nothing  of,  and  which  it  is  impollible  either  for 
 
 •  Judic,  Ecd.  f.  12. 
 
 I  3  you, 
 
n8  yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qjj.  VIL 
 
 You,  or  any  Man  elfe  to  prove.  I  know  nor. 
 It  is  very  manifeft  that,  unlels  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  Red:or  of  a  Parifh,  you  can 
 pafs  no  certain  Judgement.  No  Man  can  cer- 
 rainly  define  the  ucmofi:  of  what  was  needful 
 in  the  Cafe ;  becaule  no  Man  can  dive  into  the 
 utmoft  depth  of  it.  There  may  be  m.ore  then 
 You,  or  I,  or  perhaps  Angels,  can  lee,  in 
 that  myfterious  Difpenfation  j  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  for  Chrift's 
 divinity  drawn  from  the  greatnefs  of  the  Work 
 of  Redemption,  and  the  Honours  confequent 
 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  Ajfirma- 
 tive,  from  what  we  know ;  than  for  the  Ne- 
 gative, from  what  we  know  not.  It  is  pofli- 
 ble  our  Proof  may  not  be  fiiiFicient:  But  it  is, 
 a  priori,  impolfible  that  your's  Ihould.  Whe- 
 ther we  can  maintain  our  Point,  may  perhaps 
 be  a  Queftion :  but  it  is  out  of  all  Queftion, 
 that  you  cannot  maintain  your's. 
 
 Having  anfwer'd  this  your  firft  Reafon,  why 
 it  was  not  necelTary  to  reveal  the  Son's  Eter- 
 nity, I  proceed  to  the  remaining  Words;  whic^ 
 if  I  perfedly  underftood,  I  might  know  whe- 
 ther they  are  a  diftind  Reafon,  or  only  an  Ap- 
 pendage 
 
Qu.  VII.        of  forne  (QUERIES.  119 
 
 pendagc  to  the  former.  They  are  rhefe :  Nor 
 is  it  (Chrifl*s  Office  and  Charadter)  at  all  more 
 ferfe6i  for  the  eternal  pajt  ^Duration  of  his 
 Being,  ( p.  5-0.)  I  have  been  conddcring  why 
 that  word,  Vafi,  was  inferred,  and  what  it  can 
 mean,  in  that  place.  It  leems  to  be  oppoied 
 either  to  prefent,  or  elfe  to,  to  come,  tacitely 
 underflood.  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  perfcd 
 for  the  eternal  Duration  of  his  Being,  to  come. 
 But  confidering  again,  that  if  He  does  but  con- 
 tinue till  x\\^Ojfce  is  compleated  and  perfedted, 
 \i  is  all  one,  in  refped:  of  that  Ojfce,  whether 
 his  Duration  hold  longer  or  no;  I  thought,  That 
 could  not  be  the  meaning.  Reflediing  again, 
 I  conceived  that,  Tajl,  might  poffibly  have 
 relation  to  the  Office  confider'd  as  prejent,  or 
 commencing  at  fuch  a  Time  ;  fuppoie  SixThou- 
 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 
 \^  fufficient.  All  the  Time  run  out  before,  is 
 of  no  Confideration ;  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  your  Thought  at  length,  I  affiire  you,  it  has 
 cod  Me  Ibme  Fains ;  and  I  wifli  you  would  ex- 
 prefs  your  felf  more  clearly  hereafter. 
 
 Now  then,  let  us  apply  this  Manner  of  Rea- 
 foning  to  another  Purpofe :  By  parity  of  Reafon 
 
 I  4  we 
 
xio  ^DEFENSE        Qjj,  VIL 
 
 we  may  argue,  that  the  Office  of  God  the  Fa- 
 ther, commencing  at  the  Creation ;  I  fay,  the 
 Office  of  Suftaining,  Preferving,  and  Govern- 
 ing the  World,  has  no  Relation  to  the  Time 
 fafi^  being  but  juft  what  it  is,  whether  a  lon- 
 ger or  a  ihorter,  or  no  Time  at  all  be  allowed 
 for  any  prior  Exiftence ;  nor  is  it  at  all  more 
 perfed;  for  the  eternal  part  Duration  of  his  Be- 
 ing. But  does  not  this  Argument  fuppofe  that 
 the  Office  is  liich  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  ?  Befides ;  is  not  a  Perfon  of  un- 
 limited, that  is,  eternal  Powers  and  Perfedions, 
 more  capable  of  dilcbarging  an  Office,  than  any 
 Creature  ?  Well  then ,  by  neceflary  Confe- 
 quence,  the /^  Duration  of  the  Perfon  is  of 
 great  Moment  in  the  Cafe ;  and  the  Office  muft 
 be  thought  as  much  more  perfed,  for  the  eter- 
 nal paji  T>uratton  of  his  Being,  as  God's  Per- 
 fedlions  excel  thole  of  his  Creatures ;  and  that 
 Is  infinitely. 
 
 Q^UERV 
 
Q^u.VlJI.        effome  Q^UERIES.  iii 
 
 Q^  u  E  R  Y     VIIl. 
 
 Whether  Eternity  does  not  imply  nccedary 
 Exiftcnce  of  the  Son ;  "which  is  inconfiftent 
 with  the  T>o^or''s  Scheme  ?  And  whether 
 the'^'DoBor  hath  not  made  ^//elufive,  Equi- 
 vocating Anfwer  to  the  ObjeBion ,  ^nce 
 the  Son  may  be  a  neceflary  Emanation  froyn 
 the  Father,  by  the  Will  and  Tower  of  the 
 Father^  without  any  ContradiBion?  Wilf 
 is  one  Thing,  and  Arbitrary  Will  another. 
 
 TO  the  former  part  of  the  Query  you 
 anfwer,  that  fimple  and  abfolute  Eter- 
 nity is  the  fame  with  NeceiTary,  or  Self-exi- 
 ftence  ;  which  is  no  where  fnppos'd  of  the 
 Son ,  by  T)r,  Clarke.  Here  arc  leveral  Mi- 
 flakes:  For,  firft,  the  Idea  oi  fimple  Eternity 
 is  not  the  fame  with  that  of  Meceffary-ex- 
 i ftence.  Nor,  fecondly,  is  it  the  fame  with 
 both  Neceffary  -  exiftence  and  Self^  exiffence^ 
 itippofing  it  were  the  fame  with  the  former; 
 becaufe  thcfe  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  poirible  for 
 God  to  have  created  the  World  from  all  Eter- 
 nity ;  and  they  u(e  this  Argument  for  it ;  that 
 whatever  He  could  once  do,  He  could  always 
 do.     Not  that  I  think  there  is  much  weight  ia 
 
 the 
 
%i%  ^DEFENSE        (^u.VIII. 
 
 the  Argument;  but  it  is  fufficient  to  iliow,  that 
 the  I^eas  are  diftindi;  and  that,  tho'  Eter- 
 nity may,  in  found  Reafoning,  infer  or  imply 
 Neceffary-extftence ,  as  is  intimated  in  the 
 Query ;  yet  the  Ideas  are  not  the  fame :  For  if 
 they  were  ;  it  would  beNonlenfe  to  talk  of  ^;/^ 
 inferring  or  implying  the  other.  Then  for  the 
 fecond  Point ;  it  is  very  manifeft  that  the  Ideas 
 of  Necejfary-extflmice,  and  Selfexijfence  (how- 
 ever they  may  be  imagined  with,  or  without 
 Reafon,  to  imply  each  other)  are  not  the  fame 
 Ideas.  *  Arijiotle ,  and  the  later  Tlatonijis 
 liippofed  the  World  and  all  the  inferior  Gods 
 (as  Tlato  and  the  "Pythagoreans,  fome  Sufra- 
 mundane  Deities)  to  proceed,  by  way  of 
 Emanation ,  without  any  Temporary  Produ- 
 d;ion,  from  a  Superior  Caufe:  That  is,  they 
 believed  them  to  be  Necejfary,  but  not  Self- 
 exijient.  Something  like  this  has  been  con- 
 ftantly  believed  by  the  Chriftian  Church,  in  re- 
 fped  of  the  Aoy(^ :  Which  ihows,  at  lead, 
 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.  AH  that  I  affirm,  at  prcfent,  is,  that 
 the  Ideas  are  diftind ;  and  not  the  vepy  fame. 
 After  you  had  laboured  to  confound  thefe 
 Things  together,  you  proceed  to  argue  againft 
 
 *  See  Cudworth.  Intelleit.  Syftem.  />.  i^o,  ^c» 
 
 the 
 
Q^u.VIII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  113 
 
 the  Son's  being  eternal.  But  what  is  that  to 
 the  Query  ?  I  fuppofed  Dr.  Clarke  (  Reply ^ 
 p.  xi/.)  to  underfland  the  word  Eternal,  as  I, 
 or  any  other  Man  Ihould;  and  objcded  the 
 inconfiftency  of  acknowledging  the  Eternity  of 
 the  Son ,  and  yet  denying  his  Necejfary  ex- 
 tjlence\  which,  Eternity,  I  thought,  infer'd 
 and  imphed.You  admit  my  reafbning  to  be  jufl:> 
 if  the  Dodtor  meant  the  lame,  by  Eternal,  as 
 I  do.  But  if  He  meant  by  Eternal,  Tempo- 
 7ary,  then  my  Argument  fails  ;  as  moft  cer- 
 tainly it  muft.  But  why  arc  we  thus  impofed 
 on  with  fo  manifeil  an  abufe  of  Words  ?  What 
 occafton  is  there  for  putting  the  Epithets  of 
 Jimple,  abfolute,  or  metaphyfical  to  the  word 
 Eternal^  which  every  one,  that  knows  Englijhy 
 undcrftands  better  without  ?  Unlefs  you  fup- 
 poie  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;  which  tho' it  be  lomething 
 foreign  to  the  purport  of  the  Query,  yet  being 
 pertinent  to  the  Caufe  in  hand,  I  iliall  here  con- 
 fider  it.  You  argue  that,  if  the  Son  be  Eter- 
 nal, He  is  NeceJfarilyexiftiHg;  which  I  al- 
 low: and  if  Necejfarily-  exijting ,  then  Self- 
 exijient ;  which  I  *  deny :  and  you  cannot  prove. 
 
 *  Aaacc  fjjy^  71?,  TO  un^  "Srf??  \:z!^ ovoixv  ocy^vr.^Tii  ?[{Cjjjhccvi7Zc,  of^  otovj 
 «/  r'ci.  -^v^yiq  eci(B->jriis/oc  7n7rr]fi6JUjivoi-  eun  V«!p  ro  iiv,  oi>n  ro  mk,  elre 
 TO  T£^  etiavav,  tuvtvv  i^  rd  oiyivvtiTa,  Alex'.  Ep.  apud.  Theod.  1. 1. 
 c.  4.  p.  17.  This  was  faid  in  Oppofition  to  the  Arians,  who  were 
 willing  to  confound  the  Idea  of  Eternity  and  of  Necejfary- cxifiencct  with 
 Self-exiftencc     The  Learned  Do^or  cites  this  Pajjage,  dire^ly  againjl 
 
 You 
 
S14  J   DEFENSE        Q^u. VIIL 
 
 You  go  on  to  a  new  Confideration ;  which, 
 put  into  Syllogifm,  (lands  thus. 
 
 Whatever  has  a  frmctpum  is  not  Eternal : 
 The  Son  has  a  frincipum^  the  Father  being 
 frincipiiim  F'tlit Therefore,  ©r. 
 
 The  middle  Term,  frinupum,  is  equivocal, 
 and  bears  two  Senfes  ;  wherefore  the  Syllogifm 
 confifts  of  four  Terms.  \i  principium  be  un- 
 derftood  in  refped:  of  Time.,  the  Minor  is 
 not  true :  '\i  it  be  taken  in  any  orher  Senfe, 
 the  Major  is  not  true:  So  that  Both  can- 
 not be  true.  You  might,  in  the  fame  way, 
 argue  that  the  Sun's  Light  is  not  coeval  with 
 the  Sun ;  nor  Thought  coeval  with  the  Mind, 
 fiippofing  the  Mind  to  think  always.  For,  in  both 
 Cales,  a  frincipium  is  admitted;  but  no  Priority, 
 in  refped:  of  Tir/ie.  You  add,  that  there  is  a 
 reafonable  Senfe  in  which  the  Son  may  be  faid 
 to  be  Eternal.  I  hope  there  is :  But  noiyonr 
 Senfe ;  which  is  juft  as  reafonable,  as  to  lay  ; 
 an  Angel  is  eternal,  only  becaufe  you  deter- 
 mine not  the  Time  when  He  came  into  Being. 
 I  fhould  think  it  mod  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  iliall 
 hardly  have  any  left,  full  and  exprefs  enough 
 
 Hhn/elf  (Script,  Doftr.  p.  285.)  It  tvas  intended,  and  is  diametri- 
 cally oppofite  to  the  Dolors  leading  Principle ,  or  rather  'Fallacy  ^ 
 which  runs  thro'  his  Performance,  viz.  That  the  Son  cannot  be  Jiri^^ 
 ly  and  ejfentially  God,  unlefs  He  be  Self.exiftenr,  or  unoriginate  m 
 
 9very  Senfe, 
 
 to 
 
Q^u.VIII.        of  fome  QUERIES.  iiy 
 
 to  diftinguifli  the  Catholtck  Do<a:rine  by.  It 
 was  once  liifficient,  before  the  rife  oiArianifm, 
 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 \  to  be  more  expreflive:  But  x\\^^  Arians 
 found  out  a  fenfe  for  thefe  Terms  too;  and 
 could  gravely  fay ,  that  the  Son  was  truly  ^ 
 really  God.  God  by  Nature,  one  might  think, 
 is  full  and  flrong  enough :  But  you  are  flealing 
 away  the  Senfe  of  that  ExprefTion  from  us. 
 We  can  add  no  more,  but  eternally  2inA  fuh- 
 Jfant tally  God ;  and  yet,  I  perceive,  unlefs  we 
 put  in  jfimfly,  abfolutely,  metafhyfically,  or 
 the  like,  even  thefe  Words  alfo  may  lofe  theis 
 Force  and  Significancy.  But  to  what  purpofc 
 is  all  this?  Might  you  not  better  fay  plainly, 
 that  the  Son  is  not  Eternal  %  not  by  Nature  \ 
 nor  truly  God;  in  a  word,  not  God?  No,  but 
 Scripture  reclaims  ;  and  the  whole  Catholtck 
 Church  reclaims  ;  and  Chriftian  Ears  would 
 not  bear  it.  So  then,  it  feems,  it  is  highly  ue- 
 cefTary  to  ffeak  Orthodoxly ,  whatever  we 
 think \  to  ftrip  the  words  of  their  Senle,  and 
 to  retain  the  Sound.     But  to  proceed. 
 
 As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Query,  f  am  to 
 expedt  no  clear  or  diflind:  AniWer  :  Becaufc 
 what  is  meant  by  a  necejfary  Emanation  by 
 the  IVill  of  the  Father,  you  underjtand  not  r, 
 nor  what  again  by  the  difference  ofVfxW,  and 
 Arbitrary  (VilK   p.  5:2..    Had  you  but  retained 
 
 *  iit  S«cr.  E.  Hift,  I  a.  6.  i^.  p.  82,    Thc«d.  1.  i.  c.  il. 
 
116  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VIIL 
 
 in  Mind,  what  you  mud  have  obferved,  when 
 you  read  the  ^ntients ,  you  could  nor  have 
 been  at  a  lofs  to  apprehend  my  meaning. 
 You  may  pleaie  to  remember,  that  one  of  the 
 principal  Arguments  made  ufe  of  by  the 
 ^  Arians,  agajnil  the  Catholicks,  was  this : 
 
 ^  Either  the  Father  begat  the  Son  with  his 
 Confent  and  Will ;  or  againft  his  Will  and  Con- 
 fent :  If  the  former ,  then  that  A6i  of  the 
 Will  was  Antecedent  to  the  Son's  Exiftence; 
 and  therefore  He  was  not  Eternal:  The  lat- 
 ter^ was  plainly  too  abfurd  for  any  Chriftian 
 to  own. 
 
 The  Catholicks  took  two  ways  of  anfwering 
 the  T^ilemma.  One,  which  was  the  beft  and 
 fefeft,  was,  by  ^  retorting  upon  the  Arlans  ^ 
 xh^Dilemma,  thus:  Was  God  the  Father,  G^^, 
 with,  or  againft  his  Will?  By  this  fliort  Que- 
 ftion.  That  fb  famous  Objedion  of  \\\^Arians^ 
 Was  ^  effedually  filenc'd. 
 
 a  See  Athanaf.  Orat.  Contr.  Arian.  2,  5,4.  Hilary,  p.  1184. 
 Greg.  NyfT.  p.  625-.     Petav.  de  Trin.  p.  ii8. 
 
 b  Interrogant  (Ariani)  utrum  Pater  Filium  Volens  an  Nolens  ge- 
 nuerit;  ut  i\  refponfum  fucrit  quod  Volens  genuerit,  dicant,  prior 
 eft  ergo  Voluntas  Patris ;  quod  autcm  Nolens  genuerit,  quis  poteft 
 dicere?  Auguft.  Contr.  Serm.  Arian.  I.  i.  p,  6x6.  Bened.  fid. 
 
 c  Athanai'.  Orat.  5.  p.  611.  Bened  Ed.  Greg.  Nazianz.  Orat. 
 35.  p-  f6f.     Auguft.  de  Trin.  1.  1  j-.  c.  80.  p.  994. 
 
 d  VicifTim  qujeiivit  ab  eo,  utrum  Deus  Pater,  Volens  an  Nolens, 
 fit  Deus :  ut  li  refponderet.  Nolens,  fequeretur  ilia  miicria  quam  de 
 Deo  credere  magna  infania  eft;  fi  autem  diceret,  Volens,  refponde- 
 retur  ei,  ergo  6c  Ipfe  Deus  eft,  fua  Volumatey  non  Natura.  Quid 
 ergo  reftabat,  nifi  ut  obmutefccret,  &  fua  interrogatione  obliga- 
 tum  infolubili  vinculo  fc  videret.    AngHft,  ibid. 
 
 Bur 
 
(^u.VIII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  117 
 
 Bur  befides  this  Anfwcr,  they  had  alfb  ano- 
 ther. They  admirred  that  the  Generation  of 
 the  Son  was  with  the  JVill  and  Confent  of  his 
 Father;  in  the  lame  Senfe  that  He  is  wife, 
 good,  juft,  '^c.  necejfarily,  and  yet  not  againft 
 his  Will.  Some  thought  it  reaibnable  to  fay, 
 that  the  Father  might  eternally  will  the  Gene- 
 ration of  the  Son,  and  that  He  Gould  not  but 
 will  fo,  as  being  etej^nally  Good.  ^  See  Teta- 
 vius.  This  way  of  realoning  ^  Bifliop  Bnll 
 mentions,  hardly  approving  '\i :  And  one  w^ould 
 almoft  think  that  ^  Dr.  Clarke  was  once  in- 
 clinable to  fubfcribe  to  it,  underftanding  eter- 
 nal^ 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  ;  Namely ,  this :  That 
 fmce  the  Will  of  God  is  God  Himfelf,  as  much 
 as  the  IVifdom,  &c.  of  God,  is  God  Himfelf; 
 whatever  is  the  fruit  and  produd:  of  God,  is 
 the  fruit  and  product  of  his  Will,  Wifclom, 
 ®r.  and  fb,  the  Son,  being  the  perfed:  Image 
 of  the  Father,  is  Snbflance  of  Stibfiance,  W'lf 
 dom  ofWifdom,  Will  of  Will,  as  He  is  Light 
 of  Light,  and  God  of  God:  which  is  St.  An- 
 Jiin's  Dodrine,  in  the  ^  place  cited  in  the 
 Margin. 
 
 a  Pag.  fpi,  fpj,  b  D.  F.  N.  p.  212. 
 
 c  Script.  Doftr.  p. 2 80.  ^c.  Reply,  p.  113.  Taper  given  in  to  the 
 Bi/ljops.  d  Clarke's  Lett.  N.  8- 
 
 e  See  the  Teflimonies  collecied  by  CoteIerius>  in  his  Notes  upon  the 
 Recognitions  0/ C/^?».  p.  491'  and  byVctzwius,  1.6.  c.  8.  I.7.  c.  12. 
 See  efpecially,  Athaeaf.  Orat.  3.  p.  613.  Bened.  Ed.  Epiphan. 
 HaM-ef.  74.  p.  85i5*  f  De  Trin.  \,\f.  e.g. 
 
 By 
 
ii8  ^   D  E  P  E  N  S  E        Q^u  VII? 
 
 By  this  time,  I  prefume^  you  may  underftand 
 what  I  meant  by  the  latter  part  of  the  Query. 
 There  is  a  fober,  Catholick  Senie,  in  vvhieh 
 the  Son  may  be  acknowledged  to  be  by,  or 
 from,  the  fVill  of  the  Father;  and  yet  may  be 
 a  necejfary  Emanation  alfo.  And  therefore 
 Dr.  Clarke  did  not  do  well  in  oppofing  thofe 
 two,  one  to  the  other ;  as  if  they  were  incon- 
 fiftent :  Efpecially  confidering  that  He  produces 
 feveral  Authorities  to  prove  the  Generation  to 
 be  by  a  *  Tower  of  Will,  in  oppoficion  to 
 Necejfity  of  Nature,  from  Writers  who  af- 
 ferted  Both ;  and  denied  only  fuch  a  fuppo(ed 
 necefjlty  as  might  be  againft,  and  a  force  upon 
 the  Father's  Will.  This  is  manifeft  of  his  Cita- 
 tions from  xk\t  \Cotincil  of  Sirmium,  Marius^ 
 ViBorimis,  Bafil,  and  Gregory  NyJfeJt ;  and 
 hath  been  clearly  fliown  by  his  Learned  :j:  An» 
 tagonifl.  The  Sum  of  all  is,  that  the  Genera- 
 tion  of  the  Son  may  be,  by  NeceJJity  of  Na- 
 ture ^  without  excluding  the  Concurrence  or 
 Approbation  of  the  Will.  And  therefore /F/7/, 
 {i.e.  conlent,  approbation,  acquiefcence )  is 
 one  Thing  ;  and  Arbitrary  Will,  ( that  is,  free 
 Choice  of  what  might  otherwife  not  be)  is 
 Another.  You  endeavor  to  prove,  that  the  Son 
 derives  his  Being  from  the  Will  of  the  Father, 
 in  this  latter  Senle;  which  is  the  fame  thing  with 
 the  making  Him  a  Creature,     You  recite  fbmc 
 
 *  Script.  Doftr.  p.  281,  ^c. 
 t  Script.  Doftr.  p.  iS;-,  186. 
 %  True  Script.  Dodr-  continued,  p.  i  jp,  ^q.  -.       .  ^ 
 
 Saaps 
 
Q^u.VIII.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  119 
 
 Scraps  of  Quotations,  as  collcded  by  Dr, 
 Clarke  and  Dr.  Whitby,  in  your  Notes  (/.  51.) 
 Not  one  of  the  Citations  is  to  your  Purpofe,  or 
 comes  up  to  your  Point.  For  inftance ;  Igna^ 
 this  fays.  *  Chrift  is  the  Son  of  God,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Will  and  Tower  of  God,  Sup- 
 pofing  this  not  to  be  meant  of  his  f  miracu- 
 lous Conception,  and  Incarnation,  (which  the 
 Context  has  been  thought  to  favour  ,  and 
 which  Bilhop  Tearfon  inclined  to ,  in  his 
 Notes)  yet  fee  how  many  feveral  Interpreta- 
 tions it  may  beat,  befides  what  you  would  fix 
 upon  it. 
 
 I .  The  Frnit  andOjf-f^ring  of  the  Will  and 
 Tower  of  God:  fignifyir>g  no  more  than  God 
 of  God,  in  the  Senle  intimated  above,  p  117. 
 
 X.  By  the  eternal  Will  and  Power  of  God, 
 in  a  Senfe  likewife  before  intimated,  and  own'd 
 by  fome  of  the  Tofl-Nicene  Writers. 
 
 ycfj{  ^uvxuutv  ©sS. —  Ignac.   Ep.  ad  Smyrn.  c,  l.  p.  i. 
 
 f  I  can  by  no  means  think,  that  the  Son  is  here  called,  'tfo?  0«», 
 'in  refpeB  of  his  Incarnation;  which  teas  really  his  Nativity  x.m.tu. 
 (TzcpKx,  to  which  this  other  is  oppofed,  and  which  muji  therefore  be 
 underftood  of  fome  higher  Sonfhip.  The  Vhrafe  of  kcctu.  crdpKX,  has 
 been  conjlanth  fo  interpreted  hy  the  Antients\  Irenseus,  Tertullian, 
 Origen,  Novatian,  the  Synod  <?/ Antioch  in  the  Cafe  of  Paul  of 
 Samofata,  Hippolytus,  Eufebius,  Laftantius,  all  explaining  Chrijl^s 
 being  the  Son  of  David  according  ro  the  Fleih,  by  his  Birth  of  the 
 blejfed  Virgin  i  and  the  Vhrafe  kxtu,  o-uokx  as  oppofed  to  a  prior  Son- 
 ftiip,  in  his  divine  Nature  before  the  World  was-,  in  which  refpeS 
 He  wzs  Son  of  God,  before  He  became  Son  of  Man.  That  Ignatius 
 intended  the  fame  is  highly  probable,  not  to  fay  evident,  from  his  own 
 Words,  elje  where.  Uo^  uluvm  •Tnn.oj.  Thtre/,  *)v.  Magnef.  c  6.  '^tS 
 7«  @S4,  'k  e^v  etyrS  Aay^  kl'h^*  Ibid.  C.  8.  Xe/*$-y  t5  'ifS  ©«5# 
 ^»  y.toi/*iyif,  ci'  Mf  jfft>  CM  <r7ti^f<(^m  ^x^i^.  RoJH.  c,  7. 
 
 K  3.  With 
 
130  ^DEFENSE         Q.U.V1II. 
 
 3.  With  the  Approbation,  and  Acquiefcexicc 
 of  God,  in  tihe  lame  Senfe  that  He  is  pleaied 
 with,  and  acquiefces  in,  his  own  V/ildom,  Good- 
 nefs,  and  other  Perfedions. 
 
 4.  The  pafTage  may  relate,  not  to  the  Son's 
 Generation  in  the  highefr  Senle  ;  but  to  his 
 Manifeflatmh  or  Coming  forth,  in  order  to 
 create  the  World ;  which  i^  a  kind  of  *  Filia- 
 tion  mentioned  by  Jufthi  Martyr,  Athe- 
 nagoras  ,  Theo^h'tlus ,  Tertullian ,  Tatian , 
 Novatian,  and  Htpfolytus,  and  fuppofed 
 as  voluntary  a  Thing,  as  the  Incarnation  after- 
 wards; tho'  the  fame  Authors  afTerted  \\iZ  Eter- 
 nity and  Confiibftantlality  of  the  Aoy®"*  or  di- 
 vine Nature  of  Chrilt ;  of  which  more  here- 
 after. 
 
 From  thefe  four  Particulars  you  may  per- 
 ceive, how  little  you  can  be  able  to  prove  from 
 that  PafTage  in  Ignatius.  As  to  juftin  Martyr^ 
 I  have  already  hinted,  in  what  Senfe  He  made 
 the  Generation  vohmtary.  But  why  you  lliould 
 chuie  to  do  that  good  Father  a  double  Injury, 
 firft  in  curtaihng  his  Words,  and  next  in  mifre- 
 prelenting  his  Senfe ,  you  can  befl  Account. 
 The  whole  Paflage  is  this,  literally  tranflated : 
 **  f  Who,  according  to  his  {the  Father's)  good 
 
 *  Clement  <?/ Alexandria /p<?;?wj  to  intend  the  fame  (p.  6f^,  Ed. 
 Ox.)  exprefjing  it  by  the  word  <zjt9i>^h)tiv .  And  it  is  extremely  pro' 
 bable  that  Ignatius  had  the  'very  fame  Thought,  Aop^  oii^i®^  cttk. 
 uTTv  a-iyyii;  TT^iA^eov.  ad  Magnef-  cap.  8-  '^^va  'U<rSv  Xg^fsv,  7t» 
 u<p'  svd5  TTur^ii  «r^«AS-(ji'7W,  kccI  «*'$  incc  0II7K  icsci  ^u^'/iouv'^.  Ibid, 
 cap.  7. 
 
 -J.  Tom  »«7Bt  ^aMv  TTAV  (yniiva  y^  Qicv  cvtciy  't\&v  ctur^,  }^  ''Ay^iXoVt  c/k 
 "S  \}?ffi}§f7U9  T}}  ywfju^  5«t/T».     p.  280,    Sylb.  Jeb,  370.    Faraliel  t& 
 
 ««  Plea- 
 
Q^u.VIII.         of  fojne  (QUERIES.  x^x 
 
 *'  Pleafure,  is  God,  being  his  Son;  and  an 
 **  Angel  too,  as  miniftring  to  his  Father's  Will. 
 The  meaning  is  not,  as  you  represent  it,  that 
 Chrifl:  is  God,  hy  the  JVtU  of  the  Father  (tho' 
 even  that  might  bear  a  good  Senle  according  to 
 what  has  been  obferved  above)  but  that  it  was 
 the  Father's  good  plealiare  that  He  fliould  not 
 only  be  God,  as  He  always  was,  being  God's  Son  5 
 but  that  He  ihould  take  upon  Him  befiues,  the 
 Office  of  an  Angel.  That  He  was  God  was  a 
 *  necejfary  Thing,  as  He  was  God's  Son,  of 
 the  fame  nature  with  Him:  but  that  He  fliould 
 be  Bothy  i.e.  God  and  an  Angel  too;  this 
 was  entirely  owing  to  God's  good  Pleafiire. 
 However,  you  have  been  fomething  civiller  to 
 this  antienc  Father,  than  Dr.  Whitby  has  been, 
 in  his  modeft  T>iJqnifitions ;  who,  to  ferve  a 
 bad  Caufe,  ufes  a  worfe  Art ;  f  cuts  the  Quo- 
 tation fliort  at  'tjci/  a-jth;  and  then,  to  make  his 
 own  Senfe  out  of  that  Paflage,  inferts  {Et)  in 
 his  Tranflation,  rendring  it  thus:  ^li  ex  vo- 
 Imitate  Ipfius  &  T)eus  eft,  Et  Filius ;  leaving 
 out,  Et  Angelus,  to  v/hich  the  former,  Et,  re- 
 
 tohich  is  that  of  Novatian.  Perfonte  autcm  Chrifti  convenit  ut  5c 
 Deus  fit,  cjuia  Dei  Filius;  &  Angelus  fir,  quoniam  paternss  difpo- 
 fitionis  Adnunciator  eft.     Notat.  c.  16. 
 
 *  lor  J  tho  He  n>as  God,  as  being  God's  Soriy  and  a  Son  x-a-nl  /Sy- 
 A>)y,  according  to  Juftin,  and  ether  IVriters  before  mentioned',  yet  they 
 did  not  think  that  He  -was  God,  Koirat,  ^iaX^-j.  But  becaufe  He  came 
 forth,  as  a  Son.  from  the  Father  y  and  was  not  prodiud  t^  ctnc  ovrav, 
 (as  all  Creatures  are)  therefore  He  was  God,  having  ever  exified, 
 before  his  Coming  forth,  in  and  with  the  father.  Hic  ergo  quando 
 pater  voluit,  proceflit  ex  Parre:  8c  Qui  in  Patre  fait,  proceiTit  ex 
 Patre,    Novat.  c  i6. 
 
 +  l-03itbf%  Difqu,  Modeft.  p.  32. 
 
 K  %  ferr'd. 
 
I3X       ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VIIL 
 
 ferr'd.  Strange  that  any  jQiouId  be  fo  refolutely 
 eager  to  ungod  their  Saviour,  as  not  to  permit 
 rhe  caufe  to  have  a  fair  hearing.  It  were  pious, 
 at  leaft,  to  let  the  Reader  know,  what  has,  or 
 what  can  be  laid  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  lo,  where ///j*  Honour  is  concerned, 
 whom  All  Men  are  commanded  to  Honour^ 
 even  as  They  Honour  the  Father,  Joh.  5-.  23. 
 For  my  own  parr,  I  declare  once  for  all ;  I  de- 
 fire  only  to  have  Things  fairly  reprefented,  as 
 they  really  are;  no  Evidence  fmother'd,  or 
 ftifled,  on  either  Side.  Let  every  Reader  fee 
 plainly  what  may  be  jujily  pleaded  here,  or 
 there,  and  no  more ;  and  then  let  it  be  left  to 
 his  impartial  Judgement,  after  a  full  view 
 of  rhe  Cafe  :  Mifquotation  and  Mifrepre- 
 fentation  will  do  a  gooa  Caufe  harm ;  and  will 
 not  long  be  of  Service  to  a  bad  one.  But  to 
 return :  The  iecond  Citation  which  you  bring 
 from  Jiifttn,  you  give  inch  an  Account  of,  as 
 mud:  make  one  think,  either  that  you  never  law 
 
 the  Book   you  mention  ;    or  elfe- but  fee 
 
 the  Paflage  in  the  *  Margin.  Your  words  are; 
 He  hath  all  the J'eTttles  (before  mentioned,  viz. 
 
 xJ  (iiiXvifJuu%,  f(^  c^  T»  cCTTo  r5  ^ocT^^q  BsXyiTi  ^ysw^c^.  Dial. 
 p.  i8^  Jeb.  It  t!  not  from  his  being  Begotten  of  the  lather,  that 
 He  hath  all  thefe  Titles  ,•  but  from  that*  and  Ij4s  u4dmin'tjlring  to  his 
 'Bather  i  WilU  Both  together,  {not  either  fingly)  tvill  account  for  all 
 thefe  Titles. 
 
 that 
 
Q^u.VIII.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  133 
 
 that  of  Son,  Wifdom,  Angel,  God.  Lord,  and 
 JVord)  from  his  being  Begotten  of  the  Father 
 by  his  lF'tll%  diredly  contrary  to  the  whole 
 Tenor  of  the  'Dialogue ;  and  the  very  imme- 
 diate Words  preceding  thoie  you  cite.  In  your 
 third  Qiiotation,  you  are  pleased,  for  the  fake 
 of  Englijh  Readers,  to  miitranflate  'ij;^e\V^&, 
 produced,  in  ftead  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*.  inflead  of  Strom.  7.  and 
 bringing  aPaffage  not  certainly  perrinent  to  the 
 Point  in  Queftion.  If  you  pleaie  to  look  into  the 
 *AuthorHimfelf,  you  will  find  it,  at  lead,  doubt- 
 ful, whether  He  be  fpeaking  of  the  Generation 
 of  the  Son ;  or  only  fliowing  how  He,  by  the 
 Father's  good  Plealure,  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,  Mani^ 
 fejlation,  or  Coming  forth,  of  the  Son:  And 
 here  you  render  protulit,  produced,  meaning 
 into  Being ,  or  into  a  State  of  Exijience ; 
 which  is  not  TertulUan's  Senfe,  nor  of  any  of 
 the  Fathers,  who  fpeak  of  that  Matter.  Ter- 
 tullian  exprefly  \  excepts  againft  it :    So  does 
 
 *  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  7.  p.  83^.  Ox.  Edit.    *\7nLv-mv  r  uyx^avy 
 yoq    KiviiTiNi;,    ^vvccfjiji(;   ocXrjTri'B^    o(.!^Vi(ri :    »  Vfl^p    "   ^*'»  tStc   a<p^yi    toT<; 
 
 f  Tunc  cum  Deus  voluit,  ipfum  primum  protuUt  Sernionem. 
 Terttil.  Contr.  Vrax.  c.  6. 
 ^  Contr.  Prax.  c.  /. 
 
 K  3  iTa- 
 
134  ^DEFENSE        Q^u.VIIL 
 
 3  Tatian,  the  next  Author  which  you  name : 
 And    fb  likewife  ^  Athenagoras ,    and   ^  Hijp- 
 folyttis,    whom  you  have   not  named:    But  I 
 chuie    to    mention  Them ,    as   being  ufeful  to 
 explain   the   former.     ^  Etifebitis  may  reafon- 
 ably  be  interpreted  by  Thole  that  went  before 
 Him;    or   by    the  Emperor  Conjiantine's  Ex- 
 phcation  of  this  matter,  which  iliall  be  cited 
 hereafter ;  or  by  his  own  Account  of  the  Holy 
 undivided  Trinity,    before  meution'd :   If  not ; 
 his  Authority,  againft  the  Catholicks  before  and 
 after  Him,  and  againft  Himlelf,  muft  appear  of 
 fmall  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  Ipecious  Pretences,  I  iliall  now  go  a  lit- 
 tle deeper  into  the  Point  before  us ;  and  endea- 
 vor to  kt  it  in  a  true  Light. 
 
 The  Diftindtion  of  a  =  threefold  Generation 
 of  the  Son,  is  well  known  among  the  Learned, 
 and  is  thus  explain'd. 
 
 I.  The  firft,  and  moft  proper  Filiation,  and 
 Generation  is  his  eternally  exifting  in,  and  of 
 
 a  Tatian.  Seft,  7.  p.  ao.  Ox.  Edit. 
 b  Legar.  Scd:.  10.  p.  39.  Ox.  Edit. 
 c  Conrr.  Noet.  Scft.  10.  p.  13.  Vol.  2.  Ed.  Fabric 
 d  See  True  Script.  Docfr.  continued,  p.  123. 
 e  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  232,.     Brev.  Animadv.  in  Gil.  Gierke  p.  10^-4. 
 Fabric.  Nof  in  HippoK  Vol.  l.  p.  241, 
 
 the 
 
Qu.VIII.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  13^ 
 
 the  Father;  The  eternal  Aoy®",  of  the  eternal 
 Mind.  In  reiped:  of  this,  chiefly,  He  is  the 
 only  begotten,  and  a  diftind:  Peribn  from  the 
 Father.  His  other  Generations  were  rather 
 Condefcenfions,  firft  to  Creatures  in  general, 
 next  to  Men  in  particular. 
 
 X.  His y?^<?//^ Generation  was  his  Conde/cen- 
 JioUy  Manifeffathn,  coming  forth,  as  it  were, 
 from  the  Father  (tho*  never  feparared  or  divided 
 from  Him)  to  create  the  World :  This  was  in 
 Time,  and  a  voluntary  Thing ;  and  in  this  re- 
 fped  properly,  He  may  be  thought  to  be  tt^©- 
 TDTOJc©"  'Ttio-Y'i  yjlncoi  :  FirJiboTu  of  every 
 Creature ;  or  before  all  Creatures. 
 
 3.  His  third  Generation,  or  Filiation,  was 
 when  He  condefcended  to  be  born  of  a  Virgin, 
 and  to  become  Man.  Theie  Things  1  here  itip- 
 pofe  or  premife  only,  for  the  more  diftind  Ap- 
 prehenfion  of  what  is  to  follow;  not  expeding 
 CO  be  believed  farther  than  the  Proofs  can  juftify. 
 We  may  now  proceed  to  fpeak  of  the  Dodrine 
 of  the  Antients. 
 
 It  is  obfervable,  that  the  Jlnte-Nicene  Wri- 
 ters are  more  fparing,  than  Thofe  that  came  after, 
 inlpeaking  oii\\Q  firft,  the  eternal  Generation: 
 Scaring,  1  mean,  as  to  the  Term,  or  Thrafe*, 
 not  as  to  the  77:?/;;^^  it  felf  The  Eternity  of 
 the  Word,  or  Aoy©^,  and  the  Diftind:ion  of 
 Perfons,  they  all  held ;  together  with  the  Con- 
 fubftantiality,  and  Unity  of  Principle;  which 
 together  are  as  much  as  can  be  meant  by  eter- 
 nal Generation. 
 
 K  4  Ire- 
 
13^  ^DEFENSE        du.VIII. 
 
 Irenaus  is  a  ^  frequent  and  conftant  Afferter 
 of  the  Eternity  of  the  JVord\  but  eternal  Ge- 
 neration we  do  not  read  in  exprefs  Terms» 
 Yet  we  find  what  amounts  to  it,  by  neceflary 
 Imphcation.  In  one  particular  place,  ^  He  cen- 
 fures  thofe  who  pretended  to  afcribe  afiy  he- 
 ginning  to  the  Nativity  of  the  Word;  which  is, 
 in  effed:,  averting  an  eternal  'Trolation,  or  Ge^ 
 neration ;  for  He  makes  thefe  words  ^  equi- 
 valent. 
 
 Origen,  Commenting  upon  the  Words  of  the 
 fecond  Pfalm :  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have 
 J  begotten  Thee -^  Proceeds  thus:  *' ^  They  are 
 •'  fpoken  to  Him  by  God,  with  whom  it  is 
 •'  alwaysTo  day:  For,  I  conceive,  there  is  no 
 •'  Evening  nor  Morning  with  Him;    but  the 
 
 Time  co-extended,  if  I  may  lb  fpeak,  with 
 
 his  unbegotten  and  eternal  Life  is  the  To 
 "  'Day  in  which  the  wSon  is  begotten;  there 
 *'  being  no  beginning  found  of  his  Generation, 
 ^^  any  more  than  of  the  To  Day,     This  is  far- 
 
 a  Pag.  \f^,  163.  209.  25-5,  Ed.  Bened.  We  do  not  pretend  t$ 
 argue  merely  from  the  force  of  the  -word  fern  per,  or  kit,  but  from 
 That  and  other  Circumfiances :  as  when  Infe^tus  goes  along  -with  iV, 
 or  the  like,  p.  ij-g.  And  as  Semper  aderat  generi  humano,  p.  209. 
 intimates  that  He  -was  with  Men,  as  foon  as  any  Men  exijied  i  SOt 
 exiftcns  lemper  apud  Patrcm,  intimates  his  being  coeval  rpith  th» 
 father. 
 
 b  Prolationis  initium  donante?,  /.  2.  ^.  14.  p.  132, 
 
 c  /.  2.  c.  28.  p.  JfS» 
 
 d  Asy£j  sr^o<;  ccvtw  vTn  "^  ©tS,  w  otsi  in  ro  cvjfMi^oy^  one  'svt  ^ft; 
 i<r7n^cc  0i2.  sya)  ^  yyQijjoj  on  ^h  %^uf(X,'  'AAA*  o  ff§f/j-7rsc^tKTSiv<i)v  nS 
 i,y€vvy)ra    (c"    ctloidf  uvrS    ^ek/yf,     'iV    ^-n^q   tlvizo  ^   X^oVtt^,    if^ifice.     I^Jv   ecu- 
 
 ^arnsf/jivyi^,   a>q  ^H  rviq  iif/^i^aq.  Com.  in  Joh.  p.  5 1 .    Compare  with 
 this,  the  Citatiom  from  Origen,  in  Pamphilus*^  Apology* 
 
 ther 
 
 «« 
 
Q^u.VIII.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  137 
 
 ther  confirm'd  by  what  ^  Athanajius  quotes 
 from  Him,  where  Origen  calls  it  Prcfumption 
 ^  to  afcrihe  any  Beginning  to  the  Son  ;  and 
 Ipeaks  of  the  only  begotten,  as  being  <^  always 
 with  the  Father. 
 
 To  Origen  I  may  fubjoTi  ^  Novatian,  who 
 fays  the  Son  muft  have  al'^'ays  exiftcd  in  the 
 Father,  or  die  (which  He  takes  to  be  abiurd) 
 the  Father  would  not  have  been  always  Fa- 
 ther. This,  I  thi.;  can  ,r  no  Scnle,  un- 
 leis  always  b::.  undcriioo  1  ftricSlly.  And  it  is 
 very  manifeU  thir  ^  Novatian  iuppofes  the  Son 
 to  have  cx^'^i  before  that  '^Proc^jjion,  Coming 
 forth,  cr  Aativtty,  which  He  Ipeaks  of,  in 
 tha*:  C'^';  ter.  Some  indeed  have  thought,  that 
 Novatian  underftands  not  the  word,  Semper, 
 there,  in  the  ftrid:  Senfe,  of  unhmited  Dura- 
 tion :  Wherein,  I  humbly  conceive.  They  are 
 miftaken.  I  have  tranfcribed  the  ^  PalTage  into 
 the  Margin,  and  fliall  proceed  to  explain  its 
 meaning.     After  ihe  Author  had  faid.  Semper 
 
 a  De  Decret.  Synod.  Nic  p.  x^?.  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 b  '  Ivflt  T5AM/i»(r«t<;  7J5  oip^yjv   oi,}    ilvxf  'if  5   t^^tt^cv   CWX   otTV^, 
 
 C  T»  oin   avviVToq   xuTu  Aoys   jjjovoYivSii, 
 
 d  Semper  enim  in  Parre,  ne  Pater  non  femper  Pater,  r.  ;i. 
 
 e  Et  qui  in  Parre  fuic,  proceflit  ex  Patre:  &  qui  in  Patrc  fuit, 
 quia  ex  Patre  fuir,  cum  Patre  poftmodum  tuir,  quia  ex  Patrc 
 proceffit,  f»  3 1 . 
 
 f  Hie  ergo  cum  fit  gcnitus  a  Patre.  Semper  eft  in  Patre.  Semper 
 autem  fie  dico.  ut  non  innatum,  ied  natum  probem  j  Scd  qui  ante 
 omne  Tempus  eft.  Semper  in  Patre  fuilTe  dicendus  elt :  nee  enim 
 Tsmpus  llli  alTignari  potefl,  qui  ante  Tempus  eft.  Semper  enim  in 
 Patre,  ne  Pater  non  Semper  fit  Pater;  quia  &  Pater  Ilium  etiam 
 praecedit,  quod  necefle  eft  prior  Sit  qua  Pater  Sit:  quoniam  antecedat 
 nfcefle  eft  Eum,  qui  habet  Origincm,  Ille  qui  Originem  nefcit. 
 
 eft 
 
13^  A    DEFENSE        C^u.VJII. 
 
 eft  in  TatrCy  He  immediately  adds  a  Sentence 
 which  iliows  that  He  underftood,  Semper,  as 
 we  lay,  a  parte  ante.  But  withal  there  is  a 
 feeming  Refl:ri(3:ion :  Sic  dico,  tit  non  Innatum 
 fed  natum  probem.  There  might  be  fome 
 thejt,  as  well  as  now,  who  knew  not  how  to 
 diftinguiih  between  Eternity,  and  Self- 
 existence.  The  Sabellians,  in  particular, 
 might  pretend  that  the  Son,  h^mgEternal,  muft 
 be  the  Self-exijient  Father  Himielf.  It  was 
 therefore  neceflary  for  the  Author  to  guard,  in 
 the  manner  He  does,  againfl:  any  fuch  Miftake, 
 or  Mifconftrudion.  So  Alexander  Bilhop  of 
 Alexandria,  while  He  maintains  the  ftrid:  Eter- 
 nity of  the  Son,  to  guard  againfl:  the  invidious 
 Miiconftrudion  of  the  Arians,  inferts  the  like 
 Caution  *.  '*  Let  no  Man,  fays  He,  miflake 
 *'  Eternal,  as  if  it  were  the  iame  with  Self- 
 '*  exiftent,  as  {the  Ariajts)  having  their  minds 
 *'  blinded,  are  wont  to  do.  This  may  ferve 
 for  a  good  Comment  upon  Novatian.  To  pro- 
 ceed :  Novatian  adds ;  Qui  ante  omne  Tempus 
 eft,  Semper  in  Tat  re  fui[fe  dicendus  eft.  Here 
 He  explains.  Semper,  by,  ante  omne  Tempus. 
 Now,  this  is  the  very  fame,  with  Him,  as  if 
 He  had  faid  of  the  Son,  quod  non  aliquando 
 caperit ;  as  may  appear  by  the  f  Account  He 
 gives  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Father ;  explain- 
 
 *  See  p.  123. 
 
 •f  Niii  forte  (quod  abfit)  ali(\uando  effe  czperit,  nee  fuper  omnia 
 i'jt,  fcii  dum  port  aliquid  effe  caeperir,  inrra  (leg.  infra)  id  lit  quod 
 ante  Ipfum  fuerit,  minor  inventus  poteftate,  dum  pofterior  denota- 
 rur  ctiam  Ipfo  Tempore,  Novat.  c.  2.     Murk  thelorce  of  the^  words > 
 
 ing 
 
Qy.  VIIL        of  fo?ne  Q\J E R I E S.  139 
 
 ing  it  by  his  not  being  pojlerior  to  Time :  And 
 his  having  no  Time  before,  is  the  very  fame, 
 with  having  nothing  ^  pre ct: ding.  Wherefore, 
 when  Novatiau  fpeaks  afterwards  of  the  Fa- 
 ther's hoing precedent  to  the  Son,  He  can  mean 
 it  only  in  order  of  Nature,  not  in  refped;  of 
 Tiiiration.  And  this  I  take  to  have  been  the 
 meaning  of  the  Cathohck  Writers,  before  and 
 after  the  rife  of  Arianifin,  by  the  Phrales  ante 
 Tempus^  ^zs^  (LiCii'im^  ^u^  Tnxvjtay  cticamy  or  the 
 hke,  as  applied  to  God  the  Son.  So  ^Hilary. 
 in  the  Name  of  the  generaHry  of  the  Chriftians 
 of  his  Time,  interprets  it :  So  Alexander  of 
 Alexandria,  in  his  Letter  extant  in  Theodorit ; 
 the  ^  Sardican  Fathers  in  their  Synodical  Epi- 
 ftle  ;  and  the  -  Catholick  Billiops,  upon  the 
 opening  of  the  Council  oi  Artminum.  Thus 
 alio  we  are  to  underftand,  ^zij^  'Kh-m^  r  c^XUmiy 
 in  the  Conftantinopolitan  Creed.  The  ^  Arians 
 indeed,  equivocating  upon  the  Words,  Time, 
 and  Ages,  eluded  the  Cathohck  Senfe,  (till  re- 
 taining the  Catholick  Expreflions:  But  the 
 Ante-Nicene  Catliohcks  were  fincere,    plain, 
 
 Etiam  Ipfo;  intimating  that  fofteriority  in  Time  is  a  loro  degree  of 
 Fojienontyt  and  that  a  Thing  might  be  /aid  to  be  pofi'erior  in  a,  higher 
 Senfe  than  thatr  viz.  in  Order  of  Nature,  Ai  we  term  it. 
 
 a  Id  quod  Iitiq  Origine  eft,  pra^ccdi  a  nullo  poteft,  dum  non  ha- 
 bcc  TenipLis.  IbiU.  Tempus  here  mamfeftly  Jigmfies  Duration, 
 in  the  largejl  Senfe -^  not  Time,  in  the  refiraind  Senfe^  as  the  Arians 
 afterwards   underfiood  it. 
 
 b  Audiunt  ante  Tempora\  putant  id  ipfum,  atue  Tempora,  efTe 
 quod  Semper  eft.  Contr.  Aux.  p.  1266.  Comp.  Trin.  1.  11.  p.  1129. 
 
 c  Eccl.  Hift.  1.  I.  c.  4,    p-  15,  e^c. 
 
 d  Apud  Theod.  E.  H.  1.  2.  c.  8.  p.  80,  81. 
 
 c  Hilar.  Fragoi.  p.  i?43.  £d.  Bcned. 
 
 f  See  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  418.    Hilar.  1 129.     Epiphan.  Hser.  74. 
 
 pag-  887.  honeft 
 
I40  ^DEFENSE       Q^u.VIII. 
 
 honeft  Men  ;  and  do  not  feem  to  have  known 
 any  thing  of  thofe  iubtile  Diftindions.  They 
 underftood  thofe  Phrales  as  they  would  be 
 commonly  underftood  by  the  People;  other- 
 wife  they  would  not  have  ufed  them,  without 
 greater  caution  and  referve.  *  S'tfimims  long 
 ago  obferved  (which  confirms  what  I  have  been 
 mentioning)  that  the  Antients  never  would  at- 
 tribute any  Beginning  to  the  So7%  of  God,  be- 
 lieving Him  to  have  been  Co  eternal  with  the 
 Father.  The  curious  Reader  may  obferve  the 
 ufe  of  thofe  Phrafes,  in  the  places  refer'd  to  in 
 the  f  Margin;  all  of  them  admitting,  moft  of 
 them  requiring,  the  Senfe  I  contend  for.  I  men- 
 tion not  the  Interpolator  of  Ignatius'^  Epiftles, 
 an  Arian,  probably,  of  the  fourth  Century,  or 
 later.  To  return  to  Novatian :  when  He  adds, 
 Tempus  tilt  ajjignart  nonpoteft:  He  does  not 
 mean  only,  that  no  particular  Time  of  the  Son's 
 Exiftence  \%  ajjignable ;  but,  that  it  was  before 
 all  Time,  as  Himfelf  expounds  it,  ante  Tern- 
 pis  eft,  i.  e.  ftridly  Eternal \  which  agrees 
 with  what  follows,  and  makes  it  Senfe :  Sem- 
 per en'tm  in  Tatre,  ne  Tater  non  femper  Jit 
 7ater.  What  can  be  more  exprefs  for  the 
 Eternity  of  the  Son,  than  to  declare  that  the 
 Father   was  never  without  Him?    He  plainly 
 
 *  Socrat.  E.  H.  1.  f.  c.  lo. 
 
 f  Ignatius  ad  Magnef.  c.  6.  p.  2t.  Juftin.  Fragm.  in  Grab.  Spic. 
 Vol.  2.  p.  199.  Melito  in  Cav.  H.  L.  Vol.  i.  p.  3?-  Origen.  in 
 Pamph.  Apolog.  Hippolytus  Fragm.  Fabric.  Vol.2,  p.  19.  Concil. 
 Antioch.  Contr.  Paul.  Sam.  Lab.  Tom.  i.  Dionyf.  Alexandr. 
 Refp,  Contr.  Paul.  Q.  4.  Lucian.  Symb.  apud.  Socr.  1.  i.  c.  10. 
 Vtd.  etiam  S nicer.  Thefaur*  in  voce,  Aim, 
 
 fuppofes 
 
Q^u.VIII.        of  fome  QUERIES.  141 
 
 fuppofes  it  abfiird  to  fay,  that  the  Father  was 
 ever  no  Father,  or,  which  comes  to  the  lame, 
 that  ever  the  Son  was  not.  What  follows  there- 
 fore, in  that  Chapter,  of  the  Father,  pracedit^ 
 and  antecedat  necejfe  eji,  &c.  can  only  be  un- 
 derftood  of  a  priority  of  Nature,  not  of  Time, 
 or  T>urat ion  \  and  in  This  all  Catholicks  agreed. 
 You'l  excufe  my  dwelling  lb  long  upon  Nova- 
 tian :  it  was  neceflary,  to  clear  his  Senfe,  and 
 to  obviate  fome  *  fpecious  Pretences,  not  only 
 againft  Novatian,  but  other  Catholick  Writers 
 of  whofe  meaning  there  is  lefs  diipute.  From 
 hence  may  be  underftood  in  what  Senfe  all  the 
 Oriental  Biiliops  (if  the  Fa<3:  be  true,  relying 
 only  on  the  doubtful  Credit  of  f  Arius)  might 
 teach,  '7r§ou7iap;\^e<i'  t^  ^5  t  ©gov  iv(x^;^fii)j.  That 
 it  could  not  be  meant  in  Aritis\  Senfe,  is  fiif- 
 ficiently  evident  from  the  determination  of  the 
 iVif^z/^*  Fathers,  which  has  infinitely  more  weight 
 '\v\  it  than  his  fingle  Teflimony ;  and  fliows  the 
 Senfe  of  the  whole  Church,  in  a  manner,  at 
 that  Time.  But  enough  of  this  :  I  {hall  only 
 remark,  before  I  part  with  Novatian,  that  He 
 is  an  Evidence  both  for  the  Firft,  and  Second 
 Nativity,  or  Generation,  of  the  Son.  As  He 
 fuppofes  the  Son  exifting  before  the  TroceJJion^ 
 (which  is  the  voluntaryNmVity  He  fpeaks  of) 
 and  pre- exifting  as  a\  Son,  He  cannot  be  un- 
 
 *  Whitby.  Modeft  Difq.  pref.  p.  29,  30,  Proem,  p.  j*.  Lib.p.  i(J^. 
 f  Apud  Theodorit.  E.  H.  I.  i.  c.  ^.  p.  xi. 
 -\.  Sive  dum  Verbum  eft,  five  dum  Vtrtus  eft,   five  dum  Sapientia 
 eft,  five  dum  Lux  eft,  five  dum  Fihtts  eft  i  non  ex  le  eft,  quia  nee 
 
 derftood 
 
I4^  A   DEFENSE         Q^u.VIIL 
 
 derftood  otherwife.  See  this  more  fully  ex- 
 plained in  ^Biihop  Bull,  If  any  other  Writers, 
 who  exprefly  held  an  eternal  Generation,  any 
 where  Ipeak  alio  of  a  temporal  Trocejjion,  or 
 Nativity^  the  fame  may  be  true  of  Them 
 alio.  I  only  give  this  hint,  by  the  way,  and 
 pafs  on. 
 
 ^T)ionyJitis  oi  Alexandria,  who  lived  about 
 the  fame  time  with  Novatian,  aflerts  the  fame 
 Do(3:rine ;  viz,.  That  the  Father  was  always 
 Father  ;  and  never  was  without  his  Son :  which 
 is  the  fame  as  to  maintain  eternal  Generation, 
 The  fame  Do(3:rine  is  farther  confirm'd,  and 
 more  explicicely  fet  forth,  in  his  ^Epiftle  againfl 
 ^aiil  of  Samcfata ;  ^  if  it  be  his. 
 
 ^T>ionyJius,  Bifliop  oi^ Rome,  Contemporary 
 with  the  other,  declares  that  the  Son  is  eter- 
 nal, and  that  there  7iever  was  a  time  when 
 the  Son  was  not ;  adding  in  Confirmation  of  it, 
 that  He  is  the  IVord,  the  JViJdom,  and  the 
 Tower  of  God.     This,  tho'  it  be  exprefs  for 
 
 innatus  eft.  That  is.  He  is  narus,  confiderd  under  any  Capacity  i 
 'X'hether  as  AoyC^,  ^•Jmfjuic,  or  or^tii,  or  <pZr„  or  'i/oc,  rohether  before 
 the  FroceJJion,  or  c.fier.  This  feems  to  be  the  mcji  probable  Corj/irudion 
 of  the  Pajfage  5  and  mojl  Ccnfonant  to  -what  He  had  (aid  before. 
 
 a  D.  F.  p.  aii. 
 
 b  06    ^    viv  on  6  Biic,   dm,  i)v  7:a,T'^^. ^ — i    yesp  <^>),   T»7S)y 
 
 u'^t(^   av,   6  &io<;,  it-m.   l7rsnh>7rviy,(ra!h ,    Athan.  Vol.  I.  p.  l^^J. 
 
 c  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  1.  p.  85-3.  872.  864. 
 
 d  ^^eThirlhv's  Defence  of  it:  Afifw.  ro  Whifton,  part  Q,  t.48.  e^c. 
 
 e  E<  '^  •yi'-^viv  v[oc„  v)v  077  Ct^  y)v'  ecu  di  i)V  u  yi  cv  tu  tfutq^  i<^v, 
 «5  a.uiic,  (pT^c:,  y^  ii  Aoy^.  y^  (Tz(pix ,  t(^  ^eit/jii  0  XeA^i*  apud 
 Athanaf.  Dccret.  Syn.  N.  132.     E<'  Tvivw  yipviv  0  'tjoc^  w  art  orx.  k^ 
 
 Ibid.  This  and  Novatian'j  Tefiimony,  Both  of  the  fame  Age,  may 
 ferve  to  ilUtflrate  each  other- 
 
 the 
 
Q^Li.VIII.        of  fime  Q^UERIES.  143 
 
 the  Eternity  of  the  Son,  yet  is  not  full  for  eter- 
 nal Generation ;  unlefs  it  had  been  (aid,  Eter- 
 nal, as  a  Son,  He  might  be  fuppoled  Eternal, 
 as  the  i\oy(^\  and  his  Sonjhip  commence  after- 
 wards. And  therefore  I  do  not  put  this  among 
 the  clear ^  unexceptionable  Authorities  for  eter- 
 nal Generation  ;  chough  hardly  any  realonabic 
 doubt  can  be  made  of  it,  fince  He  iuppos'd  the 
 Father,  xXi^Head,  Root,  Origin  of  the  Aoy^. 
 
 *  Methodius  (peaks  more  dole  and  home  to 
 the  Point.  For,  upon  the  words  of  the  Tfal- 
 miji :  Thott  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  be- 
 gotten Thee-,  He  comments  thus.  *'  It  is  ob- 
 *'  Jervable  that  his  being  a  Son  ,  is  here  in- 
 "  definitely  expreis'd  without  any  Limitation 
 *'  of  Time.  For  He  faid,  Thou  art^  not  Tho7i 
 *'  becamfl  my  Son;  (ignifying  that  He  did 
 **  not  acquire  any  new  Filiation,  nor  iliould 
 *'  ever  have  an  end  of  his  Exigence,  but  that 
 **  He  is  always  the  fame.  He  f  goes  on  to 
 fpeak  of  his  z.iitX' Filiation ,  intimated  in  the 
 words,  This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee%  and 
 obfcrves,  that  it  was  more  properly  a  Maui- 
 feftation  of  Him ;  confonant  to  what  He  had 
 jaid  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  Third  Genera- 
 
 *  li/s€coern;^r,Tiev   'f>   on   ro  yjiv    vjov  ctuTv*  uvaj  oftog^fjo?   ciTrcP'/^vocrv,   KXt 
 
 ■*aV  ilvxj  usi  r  xCtvv,    Apud  Phor.  Cod.  257.  p.  960. 
 
 ■f-  n^ovTu  *ihi  TT^o  T  xicoveuv  tv  roV^  »^<*V(5j?,  iWaAjj^f  aOii  ru  n^T'jjf 
 ytmcTfj,  0  ^  f^j  rrto&it  xyvo4u/f*»f  yv&'gi^,     Ibid, 
 
 tion 
 
144  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VIII. 
 
 tion :  The  Words  are  ambiguous,  and  capable 
 of  either  Senfe. 
 
 To  Methodius  I  may  fubjoin  ^amphilus , 
 who»  while  He  deHvers  Oi'-igen's  Senfe,  in  his 
 Apology,  does  undoubtedly  ipeak  his  own  too. 
 He  is  very  *  clear  and  full  for  the  eternal  Ge- 
 neration, if  we  may  rely  on  the  Tranflator. 
 
 Alexander,  Biftiop  of  Alexandria,  \  reckons 
 it  among  the  Singularities  of  Arius,  that  He 
 would  not  own  the  Father  to  have  been  always 
 {o ;  but  pretended  that  God  was  once  no  Fa- 
 ther^ and  that  the  Aoy@^  was  produced  in 
 Time.  I  obferve,  that  thefe  two  Things  arc 
 here  join'd  together,  as  being  Explanatory  one 
 of  the  other,  according  to  the  realbning  of  that 
 Age,  at  leaf!:.  And  if  the  fame  reaioning  held 
 before,  as  may  be  probably  infer*d  from  ij:  other 
 PafKigcs  of  the  Antients,  then  it  will  follow 
 that  as  many  as  afTerted  the  Eternity  of  the 
 Aoy(^ ,  or  Word ,  which  were  all  without 
 Exception,  did  implicitely  maintain  the  eter- 
 nal feneration.  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.  Orig.  Ed.  Bafil.  p.  877-, 
 
 •|-    OilK    Cis]     0  ©£05    TTOCT'/if     ViV .    uXX'   W     OTS     0    ©JO?    ^CCTKf    CtFK    HV .    CSV' 
 
 ecu  M"  0  ^  ©£»  Aoy^i  ^>^^*  «|  ^  '''"'^''^  ytpvtv,  Alexand.  Ep.  apud 
 Socr.  E.  H.  1. 1,  C.  6.  p.  lO.  'Ao^^sfssT;?;  ovv  (^dviiin^e,  t^  j|  »«  ovTav 
 'Jz^^itTBuc,,  civxyKti  rov  TToun^  usi  ilvxf  Tsrccn^ec.  Alexand.  Ep.  apud 
 Theod.  1.  I.   c.  4.   p.  i  3. 
 
 :|:  The  Charge  brought  againfl  Dicnyfius  of^  Alexandria ;  and  which 
 He  clear'd  Him/elf  of,  was  This:     Ouk  otii  hv  0  ©jo?  TrxTt^p;  chc  uu 
 
 '■Jim'^%  '^A/.'nv  %9Ti'9Ti  »»  lv»  Athan. Ep.de Scntent.  Dionyf.p.zj-j. 
 
 Council 
 
Council  of  Nice,  that  the  Father  was  always 
 Father.  The  iame  we  have  iben,  about  Sixty- 
 years  before,  from  what  has  been  cited  out  of 
 T>iony flits  of  yllexandria,  and  Novatian.  The 
 Teftimony  of  *  Origen,  cited  by  'Pamfhiliis^ 
 with  others  mention'd,  carry  it  .up  Forty 
 Years  higher,  to  about  the  Year  210.  Ire- 
 nans,  above  Thirty  Years  higher,  to  about 
 173,  within  left  than  fourfcore  Years  of  St. 
 John.  TertuUian ,  betwixt  the  Two  lad 
 named,  feeras  to  have  undcrflood  this  matter 
 ditferently  :  For  He  fays  plainly,  that  f  there 
 was  a  Time,  when  the  Son  was  not\  mean- 
 ing, as  a  Son  ;  and  that  God  was  not  always 
 Father.  And  this  is  agreeable  to  his  Principles, 
 who  always  fpeaks  of  the  Generation  as  a  vo- 
 luntary Thing,  and  brought  about  in  Time ;  as 
 do  feveral  other  Writers.  From  hence  aQiieftion 
 may  arife,  whether  there  w-as  any  Difference 
 of  Dodrine  between  thofe  Writers,  or  a  Dif- 
 ference in  Words  only.  This  is  a  Point  which 
 will  deferve  a  jmoft  ftrid:  and  careful  In- 
 quiry. 
 
 The  Authors  who  make  the  Generation  71?;^- 
 porary,  and  fpeak  not  exprefly  of  any  other, 
 are  thele  following  :  Juftin,  Athenagoras  ^ 
 Theophihts,    Tatian^    TertuUian,  and  Hippo- 
 
 *  Non  enim  Deu?,  cum  prius  non  effet  Pater,  poflca  Pater  eiTc 
 cx^h,  z^c.     Pamphil,  A')cL    p.  877. 
 
 t  Pater  Deus  eflr,  &  Judex  Dcus  eflr,  non  tamen  ideo  Pater  8c 
 Judex  femper,  quia  Deus  Temper.  Nam  nee  Pater  eife  potuit  ante 
 Fjliam,  nee  Judex  ante  delidlum.-  Fuit'autem  Tern  pus  cum  tr, 
 deliftura  &;   Filiui  non  fuit.     Tertul,  C^mr-.  Hefwog.  c.  3.    . 
 
1^6  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VIIL 
 
 lytus.  Novatian  I  mention  not  with  Them, 
 becaule  He  aflerted  Both.  Let  us  then  care- 
 fully examine  what  their  Dcdrine  was:  And 
 that  it  may  be  done  the  more  diftincSly,  let  us 
 reduce  it  to  Particulars. 
 
 I.  They  aflerted  the  Co- eternity  of  the  Ao- 
 7@^,  or  Word,  tbo'  not  confider'd  prccilcly 
 under  the  formahty  of  a  Son.  This,  I  prefume, 
 is  lb  clear  a  point,  that  I  need  not  burthen  my 
 Margin  with  Qiiotations  for  it.  It  iliali  iuffice 
 only  to  refer  to  the  *  Places,  if  any  fliould 
 doubt  of  it.  *t  was  a  Maxim  with  Them,  that 
 God  was  always  Ao><iyJ$,  never  '^AAoyoj;  that  is, 
 never  without  his  Word,  or  Wifdom.  So  far 
 they  agreed  perfcd:ly  with  the  other  Writers, 
 either  before,  or  after,  or  in  their  own  Time. 
 The  Antients,  fuppofing  the  Relation  of  the 
 Aoyo?  to  the  Father  to  be  as  cloie  and  intimate 
 as  that  of  Thought  to  a  Ivlind-^  and  that  this 
 was  infuiuated  in  the  very  Name,  rightly  con- 
 cluded that  the  Father  could  not  be  ''AAoy@-, 
 or  without  the  Aoy®^->  any  more  than  an  eter- 
 nal Mind  could  be  without  eternal  Thought  f. 
 Some  have  pretended  that  the  Ante-Nkene 
 Writers,  who  ufed  that  kind  of  reafoning,  meant 
 only  2Ln  Attribute,  by  the  A 07©^;  and  not  a 
 real  ^erfon.     But  there's  no  ground  or  colour 
 
 *  Juftin.  Martyr.  Apol.  i.  p.  522.  Ok.  Ed.  Athenag.  Legar 
 c.  lo.  p.  39.  Ed.  Ox.  Thcophilus  Antioch.  p.  82.  129.  Ed.  Ox. 
 Tatian.  p.20.22.  Ed.Ox.  Vtd.  Bull.  D.F.  p.  109.  Tertull.  Contr. 
 Prax.  c.  f .  p.  5-03.  c.  27.  Vtd,  Bull.  D.  1'.  p.  24 j.  Hippolyt. 
 Contr.  Noet.  c.  10.  p.  15.  E^//>.  Ffibric, 
 
 t  See  Bull  D.  F.  p.  2C6, 
 
 for 
 
Q^u.VlII.         of  fomc  (QUERIES.  147 
 
 for  this  Pretence,  as  iliall  be  lliown  prefcntly. 
 I  iliall  only  note  here,  that  the  *  Toji-Nicene 
 Writers ,  who ,  undoubtedly  and  confefTcdly , 
 took  the  Aoy©^  to  be  a  Terjon ;  a  real,  eter- 
 nal Perfon ;  yet  make  ufe  of  the  lame  Maxim, 
 and  the  very  lame  way  of  realbning. 
 
 X.  They  did  not  mean  by  the  Aoy®^?  or 
 Word,  any  Attribute^  'Power ^  Virtue,  or 
 Oferation  of  the  Father;  but  a  real,  fubfifting 
 Perfon :  whom  they  believed  to  have  been  al- 
 ways in  and  with  the  Father,  and  diftmd:  from 
 Him,  before  the  Temporary  Generation  they 
 Jpeak  of  If  this  be  well  proved,  other  Mat- 
 ters, as  we  fliall  fee  prefently,  will  be  eafily 
 adjufted. 
 
 The  learned .  and  judicious  f  Bifliop  Bull 
 has  fufficiently  iliown,  of  every  Author  fingly, 
 (except  JujHn,  whom  He  reckons  not  with 
 Them)  that  He  muft  be  underftood  to  have 
 believed  the  real  and  diftindt  Perfonaiity  of  the 
 Son  ;  before  the  Temporary  Troceffion,  or  Ge- 
 iieration  mentioned.  His  rcafonings,  upon  that 
 Head,  have  not  been  anfwer'd,  and,  I  am  per- 
 fwaded,  cannot :  So  that  I  might  very  w^ell  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  confider  what  He  has  faid  an 
 large ;  I  fhall  endeavor  to  throw  the  Subftance 
 
 *  Athanaf.  Vol.  I.  p.  414.  5-00.  619.  Et  alib?.  Greg.  Nyd.  Cat. 
 Orat.  c.  I.  Cyril!.  1.4.  in  Joh.  c.  48.  Thefaur.  p.  12.  23.  Damafc. 
 1.  I.  Marc.  Diadoch.  p,  115-. 
 
 f  Defcnf.  F.  N.  Sea,  3.  c.  f,  6,  7^  8,  9,  10, 
 
 L  X  of 
 
148  ^DEFENSE         du.Vim 
 
 of  it  into  a  fmaller  Compafs,  in  the  following 
 Particulars:  Only  prcaiifing  this,  that  fince  all 
 thefe  Authors,  went,  in  the  main,  upon  the 
 lame  Hypothejis ;  They  arc  the  bed  Commen- 
 tators one  upon  another :  And  wliatever  Expli- 
 cation we  meet  with  in  any  one ,  two ,  or 
 three,  may  reafonably  (land  for  the  Senfe  of 
 All ;  if  they  have  nothing  Contradidory  to  it. 
 Now  to  proceed. 
 
 I.  *  Before  the  Vroceffion,  or  Generation, 
 of  which  they  fpeak,  they  fuppole  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  Perfedi- 
 ons:  As  much  as  to  fay,  He  was  ici/^*,  and 
 great,  and  powerful  by  Himfelf\  therefore  He 
 was  not  alone.  Alone,  indeed,  they  own  Him 
 to  have  been,  with  reipedl  to  any  Thing  ad 
 extra ;  but  with  refped  to  what  was  in  Him- 
 lelf,  He  was  not  alone  %  not  Jingle,  but  confid- 
 ing of  a  Tlurality,  having  the  Aoy®*  always 
 with  Him. 
 
 X.  The  fame  AoV©"*  or  Word,  was  always 
 f  with  Him ;  convers'd  with  Him  ;  was,  as  it 
 
 *  MoKo?  h  0  &io<;,  y^  ci  ccutiS  0  Xoy^.    Theoph.  p.   150.      Awtp?  ^ 
 
 ««aA£iJ](^  viVo  All  vphich  Words  correfpond  to  the  fever al  Names'  of  the 
 Son  or  Holy  Spirit;  A3yo5>  (ra(pw,  ^hmiiiKi,  fiaM,  (S'  Trui^o',)  and' 
 mean  the  fame  Thing,     Hippolyt.  p.  13.  Coiitr.   Noet- 
 
 Solus  autv-'m,  quia  nihil  extrinfecus  pia;rer  ilium,  caeterum  ne  tunc 
 quidem  Solus.  Habebat  enim  lecum,  quani  habcbat  in  iemetipfo, 
 Rationem  fuam  fcilicet.    Tertftll.  Contr.  Frax.  c.  f-  p.  <o^, 
 
 f  2-JV  couTzS  f^,  ^^J.  >^oytKVi^  Ayufj^iCJtij  ootv^  }^  6  ?iopq,  oq  i)V  ci 
 tcuT^,    usri'^ffi,     Tatian.    C.   7.    p.'  20.        'O    Uu    trvf/jTm^m    cwr^, 
 
 were 
 
Q^u.VIII.         of  fo?ne  (QUERIES.  149 
 
 were,  afTifting  in  Council,  according  to  thole 
 Writers;  and  therefore,  certainly,  a  diftindl 
 Perlbn.  It  would  be  very  improper  to  lay  that 
 God  was  ^  /;/,  or  with  one  of  his  Attributes, 
 or  confiilted  with  it:  All  luch  ExprclTions  niufl: 
 denote  a  diftind:  Perfonality. 
 
 3.  The  lame  individual  Aoy©^?  who  after 
 the  ^rocejjion  was  undoubtedly  a  Terfon,  is 
 liippofcd  to  have  exifted  before.  ^  Novatian 
 is  exprels.  "  He  who  was  in  the  Father,  pro- 
 *'  ceeded  from  the  Father.  It  is  the  fame  indivi- 
 dual Ao7@"3  according  to  "^Theophilus,  who  is 
 :xl^7:cLyrU,  always,  both  before  and  after  his 
 Proceflion,  with  the  Father ;  and  therefore,  if 
 He  w^as  a  real  Terfon  after,  which  is  not  di- 
 Iputed,  He  mufi:  have  been  lb  before.  That 
 ^  very  Aoyo^,  or  Word,  which  had  been  from 
 all  Eternity  cij^ia5e%^5  dv  xxp^u.  ©gj,  becomes 
 afterwards  -^zj^cpogijco^.  If  therefore  He  was  ever 
 
 Theoph.  p.  82.  Tcv  ovTU.  ;^7TO.VT»$  Iv^iu^tw  iv  Kotp^ioi  ©sj.  Id. 
 p.  I  ip.  A  little  after,  T«tov  si^  a-vyjtaXov ,  iuvrS  voZv  t^  (p^vr.av 
 CI/7Z6    ■  ■  rd'  Xo'^/w  aiiTcd    ^!^7:a,VTtc,  of/jiXav,   Id.   p,  I  29. 
 
 Si  necefTaria  eft  Deo  materia   ad   opera  mundi,   ut  Hermogenes 
 
 exiftimavit}  Habuir  Deus  materiam  longe  digniorem Sophiam 
 
 fuam  rcilicec.—— 'Sophia  autem  Spirirus :  Haec  Illi  Con/iliaritts 
 fuir.     Ten  Contr.  Hermog. 
 
 Tat.   p.  19.  ' 
 
 b  Qui  in  Patrefuit,  procciTit  ex  Patre,  p.  31.  Zeno  Veronenfis, 
 of  the  following  Centurjy  exprejfes  it  thus:  procedit  in  Nativitatem, 
 qui  crat  antequam  nafceretur,  in  Patre.  Which  I  add  for  Illujlration. 
 
 c  Pjg.  119, 
 
 d  Ta-ruv   tvv  Xo'-jiv  lytyvvitrs   <zst9<Poe/tK9'' •   Theoph.  p.  1 20.     0-»5  c^ 
 
 opccnf  Vzs'Ufi^ov^.    Hippol.  C   10.  p.  13«      N»5,  05    >z^-zX';   ci*   h^tu,-^ 
 
 sjiUvvn  'Tnuc,  ©sg.  c.  i  1  pag.  14,  Compare  Theoph.  pag.  129. 
 Ifefore  cited ^ 
 
 L  3  ^Tet- 
 
ijo  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VIII. 
 
 a  Terfon,  He  muft  have  been  fo  always.  So 
 again:  The  Aoy@*  that  Ipake  to  the  Prophets, 
 and  who  was  undoubtedly  a  Verfon,  is  the 
 ^  very  lame  individual  Aoyoi,  which  was  always 
 with  the  Father;  o  liii  ov/uLTra^cdv  clvt-J,  Tertul- 
 lian^  who  diftinguiihes  between  Ratio,  and 
 Sermo ;  and  aflerts  the  former  to  be  Eternal, 
 and  the  latter  to  be  a  Terfon-^  yet  ^  connects 
 Both  in  one  ;  and  makes  Them,  in  Subftance, 
 the  very  fame;  the  felf-lame 'P^r/3;/  Both  :  on- 
 ly fuppofed  under  different  Capacities  and  dif- 
 ferent Names,  before,  and  after  the  Trcceffion. 
 It  was  one  and  the  fame  Hyfojiafis-^  once 
 Ratio  (according  to  this  Writer)  and  as  fuch. 
 Eternal;  afterwards  Sermo,  and  as  fuch,  ^a  Son. 
 The  feeming  difference  between  the  antient  Fa- 
 thers upon  this  Point  is  eafily  reconciled,  fays 
 a  ^  very  worthy  and  learned  Trelate  of  our 
 *'  Church.  One  faith,  God  was  not  Sermonalis 
 *'  a  princij)io,ox.  hisfFord  did  not  exiil  till  the 
 *'  Creation;  others  fay,  Chrift  is  Aoy^^  'A'l^o^j 
 •*  the  Eternal  Word,  of  the  Father.  They 
 *'  may  all  be  underllood,  in  a  found  Senfe, 
 '-^  with  the  help  of  this  Diftindtion.  The 
 *'  Word,  as  He  is  ///le'^r^  Speech  formed  from 
 *'  the  Eternal  Mind,  was  for  ever  with  God; 
 
 a  Thecph.  p.  8i,  82. 
 
 b  In  ufu  cftnoftrorum— Sej-wo^^fw^diccre  in  primordio  apud  Deum 
 fuifTe,  cum  magis  Rationem  competat  antiquiorcm  haberij  quia  non 
 Sermonalis  a  principio,  fed  Rationalis  Deus  etiam  ante  principium, 
 8c  quia  ipfe  quoque  Sermo  Ratione  confiftens ,  priorem  earn  ut 
 Suhjlantiam  ftiam  oftendat.  Contr.  Irax.  c.  f. 
 
 c  See  Bull.  SeB.  3.  <:.  10. 
 
 d  Bi(l:o^  of  Lichfield  md  Coventry,  Serm-  p,  13,  14.. 
 
 *'    But 
 
Qu.VJir.        of  fo7ne  (QUERIES.  i^i 
 
 "  But  as  Gog's  Agent  to  difplay  and  fotmd 
 •*  forth  the  Wifciom  of  God  in  external  Works, 
 
 •*  as  fiich.  He  exifted  not  till  the  Creation 
 
 '*  the  Creation  being,  as  it  were,  a  verbal  Ex- 
 **  phcation  of  what  Reafon  had  firfl:  filcntly 
 •*   thought,  diipofed,  and  rcfolvcd  within  it  felf. 
 
 4.  If  there  ftill  remains  any  doubt  of  this 
 Matter,  there  is  a  farther  Argument  to  be  urg'd, 
 which  may  be  jiiftly  looked  upon  as  clear,  full, 
 and  dccifive  in  the  Cale.  Had  thefe  Fathers 
 believed  that  the  Aoy®-,  or  Word,  was  an  At- 
 tribute only,  or  'Tower,  See.  before  the  Tro- 
 cefjlon,  or  Generation,  which  they  fpeak  of; 
 then  it  would  follow,  that  the  Son  began  firft 
 to  be,  and  was  properly  a  Creature,  gg  ch^  oi'- 
 lav,  in  their  Opinion ;  and  that  Troceffion  was 
 but  another  word  for  beinra;  created.  But  theie 
 Writers  do  exprcfly  guard  againfl:  any  fuch  No- 
 tion. *  Novattan  very  clearly  diftinguillies  be- 
 tween Troceffion  and  Creation.  Athenagoras^ 
 is  ftill  more  exprefs  to  the  lame  purpofe;  f  de- 
 claring that  the  Son  was  not  then  made,  but 
 |iad  exifted  in  the  Father,  as  the  Aoy©^?  or 
 Word,  from  all  Eternity. 
 
 Juflin  Martyr  is  the  firft,  and  the  moft  con- 
 fidcrable  of  thoi'e  Writers;  and  therefore  it  will 
 be  proper  to  examine  his  Sentiments  with  a 
 more  particular  care  and  exadneis.     I  have  fe- 
 
 *  si  Homo  tantummodo  Chriflus,  quomodo  dicit.  Ego  ex  Deo 
 frodit,  Joh.  16. —  cum  conltat,  Hominem  a  Deo  Fiikum  ejfe. 
 non  ex    Deo  VroceJJJJfe?  c.  2;. 
 
 ifcvroj  r  Xopv  6CiiiU(i  'Aoy.-.i^'i  uv,  c.   \0.  p.  2^. 
 
 L  4  leded 
 
iS^  A   DEFENSE         Q^u.VIIL 
 
 leded  the  moft  material  PalTages  I  could  find, 
 which  may  help  to  give  us  a'  juft  Idea  of  his 
 Dodrine;  and  have  placed  Them  in  diftindt 
 Columns,  in  the  *  Margin.  It  would  fignify 
 little  to  tranflateThem;  becaufe  the  Arguments 
 arifing  from  them  are  proper  only  to  Scholars.  I 
 have  diftinguiih'd  the  feveral  Citations  by  Figures, 
 for  the  more  convenient  referring  to  Them. 
 
 I.I  oWerv.c,  firft,  {See^.  i,  2.)  chat  He  makes 
 kymy\'u><;^   equivalent  to  ^(pOsipI©-   and  kih^  ^ 
 
 0  o'i  nXuTUv,  TO   ilv.   ix-ocr-tpefi  •)   T 
 
 li^-/)!lji'J&'V  Tol    CCil    CVTl    0£S   .^S^C7l>i.eiV 
 
 yocfi  uurtv  — .  Tov  (A  kyivj-.tTov  ccfjiov 
 
 ^iva^.^  Paraen,  p.  90,  91.  Ox. 
 
 2.  '^OffTx,  yup  i<n  f<^   r   Oscv  ti 
 
 i<,-Uf  TTBTS,  TZiUTU   CP'JSIV  <p&ccarviv  s;^?!', 
 
 Pial.  p.  21.  Jebb. 
 
 3.  'Eyo'  y'cfp,    (py,(jh,    lif/jl  0  C'>y. 
 "pTi  [AiVi  iaiv.  Parxn..  p.  87,. 
 
 4.  Kjvof/jci>    TO)    7ni,v7r,'V     rrcf-rf^i 
 
 l^iTOV,    UyiVVViTU     OVn,    dnC   i?lV.    CO    ^h 
 
 Qurt^ov  'i^i  r  ^if/jivoy  to  cvc^, 
 TO  hi  ncinp,  <c*  0605,  vX  K-ntpv.,  y^ 
 Ky^io^,  y^  AicvroTi)^  Ctnc  ovo^^-.tu 
 fnv  u)^'  c/}i  T  iiJTixiiaiv  }^  T  ^layMv 
 ^(r^i^<r^c,  Apol.  2.  p.  i^.  &SM 
 VI  oitn  0  vJiKi  ovo/i^,  TT^iJTivipyjv, 
 ww7^  tAUToc,  ioivrav  ovoix/cctetv  coAt] 
 Mv  ik  5^  «5v(^  l^''ipv;<yv,  p.  8 (p. 
 
 5".    'li^aaToi    oi)^    v,y/;(jz'^yji'i^t,    ka 
 ci7n.'^X(^    KiK-Xytra^,    diy.cua<;     iXif- 
 
 '/,0V  TW       TCSCt      2^)       TOO       7r^<P'/]TlX.0U 
 Z'VW/MCcl'^,     yl    ^i      CCUTOU    ToZ    X2/«- 
 
 'fso,    o)^     orjTS    T   'TW.TincL    oon  ro» 
 ijov   iyvuoiM>   .  .1  05  iCj   Aoj5^ 
 
 \}^cipx.i.   Apoi.  I.  p.  izzjiig. 
 
 Cor?ipare    the    Citations    before 
 gixen  in  p.  37. 
 
 6.  'O.  OS  '^Q<i'.:^.ii,,/is,  0  y^voe,  A«- 
 
 £5  '  /A  ■»  \  ' 
 
 T   Tivi-^fjjciTZcv    (c    avvav ,     y^    ytne^. 
 
 TZi  SKTKTS  ^  iKOirfJjYiCc,  Xg/.fJ<5  f/jXv 
 KCATXf,  TO  %i'/,Z/'^h  '"^  H^T f/jy,0ZOI  T)i 
 TmvTZA  01  uutS  T  QiOV,  Xiy.TU^, 
 oyoj^^cc    y,u,l    ccuto   ^C^i^oy    ccyv&x^v 
 
 UVtf/jCCTlUr       'OV     T^TTDV    y,xj     TZ>    0fo<; 
 
 Tr^Tixyo^ivf/jX.  CJ57C-  ovofjuce.  i<nVyCi,^oe, 
 TT^uyuuul^  hjtrslv^yv^Tii  Xfj(j(pvT<^ 
 Tvi  (putri  r  uy^paTTu-j  KI^ia.  Apol.  2. 
 p.  14.  Ox. 
 
 oppo- 
 
i^u.VIII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  155 
 
 oppofing  it  to  0^ot/3Tc?,  yi))o(jLtK^^  i^fxi8py^TD$^  and 
 '^7izX\ufJitv(^ :  Here  therefore,  *  oLymyjl^^y  is  not 
 confider'd  as  the  perlonal  Charader  of  the  Fa- 
 ther and  as  flgnifying  imbegotten ;  bat  as  it  be- 
 longs to  the  To  .^elo',  and  denotes^Cternal,  un- 
 created, immutable  Exiftence.  Either  Jnjt'm 
 mud:  have  believed  that  kyim^lo^,  in  this  latter 
 Scnfe,  is  applicable  to  the  Son  ;  or  cllc  it  fol- 
 lows that  He  fuppofed  Him,  not  only  y<;/niTc^, 
 but  yivoiLivoii  JV^iyp'/MTf^,  and  cpSotproj  alio ,  which 
 muft  appear  highly  ablurd  to  any  one  who  has 
 ever  confider'd  Jujlip'%  Writings. 
 
 X.  I  oblerve  {See  N. 2.)  that  God's  being 
 ^yW©^  and  S(p9ctpl@^  is  fuppofed  the  very- 
 Ground  and  Foundation  of  his  being  God\  on 
 account  of  which  He  is  0ic5 ;  and  without 
 which,  confequently,  He  could  not  be  0es^. 
 If  therefore  the  A&;^>  be  ^t,  in  this  Senfe, 
 iygiT/jTc^  and  a(p8a/)TD$,  He  is  not  0ei^,  according 
 to  Juffin  Martyr :  And  yet  no  Man  is  more 
 cxpreis  than  JuJI'm,  every  where,  in  making 
 the  Son  0505;.  and  infifting  very  much  upon  it. 
 
 3.  Jujiiu  makes  0  oi/  equivalent  to  the  Pla- 
 ronifts  to  oV.  (See  N.  i.)  And  either  of  them 
 
 *  I  need  but  hint  th:xt  the  words  uyivv^'^  and  Ity.v^t'^,  with  dou- 
 kle  or  firtgle  v,  have  been  ufed  -very  pr om'ifciuyujiy  in  .Anthony  and 
 hardly  came  to  be  accurately  dijling!iijj}\l,  iid  the  Arian  Controverfy 
 gave  occajion  for  it.  See  Suiccr's  Thcfiurus,  upo7i  the  Ecclejiajlicdl 
 life  of  thefe  Words:  and  Cudworlh.  for  profane  Writer s,  p.  2^3,15*4. 
 The  Son  is  properly  «:7ii':;i'§>-,  as  -weU  as  the  Father  \  fo  Ignatius,  fo 
 Irenseus,  fo  Origen  exprefy  Jides  Hitm  and  Athenagoras';  »  y.vo- 
 f/jcv'^,  is  to  the  fame  effect.  The  fimilitiide  of  the  Word  and  Sound 
 ytras,  very  pi^Jpiblyy  the  chief  Reafon  -why  the  Title  of  oiysr^,(^  Tt<a< 
 not  oftner  allied  to  the  Son-y  -which  Qmiffon  however  is  compenfateU 
 by  other  ec^antilem  Ex^rrJJIous. 
 
 equi- 
 
1)4  -^DEFENSE        (^u.VIII. 
 
 equivalent  to  clu  (wi',  and  that  to  yivm^  f.th  '^x^^-'y 
 uncreated,  immutable,  tieceilarily-exifting.  Now 
 compare  N.  5-.  and  two  more  Citations  given 
 above,  fag.  3  7.  and  from  thence  it  is  manifeft 
 that  Jujlin  makes  the  Aoy^  to  be  0  m^  in  his 
 own  proper  Perfon.  And  He  gives  the  reafon 
 here  why,  or  on  what  Account,  He  might  juflly 
 ftile  Himlelf  0ao^  (and  the  fame  muft  hold  for 
 0  m )  it  is  bccaufc  FIc  is  ©eo^,  as  God*s  Son  ; 
 
 4.  I  obferve.  that  Jujitn  Martyr,  having 
 taken  notice  that  the  Father  had  properly  no 
 Name,  (  See  N.  4. 6.)  as  having  nothing  antece- 
 dent or  pre-exi(ient,  does,  immediately  after, 
 repeat  the  Obfervation  of  having  no  Name , 
 and  applies  it  to  the  Son ;  obferving  that  nei- 
 ther He,  properly,  has  any  Name,  bat  only 
 fbme  Titles  or  Appellations  given  Him,  from 
 what  He  did  in  Time ;  particularly  from  His 
 coming  forth  to  create  and  put  into  beautiful 
 Order  the  whole  Syftem  of  Things.  This  feems 
 to  infmuatc  his  Co- eternity  with  the  Father; 
 and  the  more  fo,  becaufe  JuJIin  obfcrves,  at 
 the  fame  time,  that  He  is  emphatically  Son  of 
 the  Father,  (0  iiqi@-  Xiyo^L&p®^  xviim  'ijo^?)  and 
 Co-exiftent  {ohic^y)  with  his  Father,  before  the 
 World;  tho'  begotten  or  fent  forth,  in  time,  to 
 create  the  Univerie.  Thefe  Confiderations  con- 
 vince me  that  Jujlin,  as  well  as  Athenagoras, 
 
 *  Compare  Dial.  p.  564.  185.  371.  184.  Ed.  Jebb.  7  add  for  lllu- 
 Jlration  thefe  Words  of  Cyril.  "'Oynf  kv  i?  kyiV/iTo  r.cci  u<p$o!.^r\s  ysy/v- 
 !>-\)y  liro  rrriinTzoi  6i<pSx(iroj.,  iCj  aiyir^-nv.  Cyril.  Alex.  Theiaur.  p.  34. 
 
 taught 
 
Ctu.VIII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  15 j 
 
 taught  the  flridl:  Co-eternity  of  the  Son  ;  which 
 is  equally  true  of  all  the  other  Writers. 
 
 Befides  this,  the  feveral  *  Similitudes,  which 
 theie  Authors  uled,  to  illuftrate  the  Nature  of 
 that  TroceJJlon ;  iuch  as  the  Sun  and  its  Rays^ 
 the  Fountain  and  its  Streams,  the  Root  and 
 its  Branches,  one  Fire  lighting  another,  and 
 the  like;  manifeftly  ihow ,  that  They  never 
 dream'd  of  the  Son's  being  created.  Then, 
 the  care  they  took  left  any  one  ihould  imagine 
 there  was  any  T^ivifion  of  the  Father's  Sub- 
 ftance  ;  and  their  inculcating  that  He  was 
 prolattis,  non  feparatus-^  brought  forth,  but 
 not  fefarated  from  the  Father ,  demonftrate 
 their  meaning  to  be,  that  here  was  no  Pro- 
 dudion  of  a  new  Subftance,  but  an  Ema- 
 nation,  Manifftationy  or  ^roceffion  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, 
 that  nothing  is  in  God  but  what  is  God)  lets 
 the  matter  beyond  all  reaibnablc  Scruple.  In 
 a  word  ;  as  they  all  held  the  Confubftantiality 
 of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  which  is  as  clear 
 as  the  Light,  in  their  Writings ;  they  muft  have 
 
 *  juftin.  M.  Dial.  p.  1S5.  373.  Jehb.  Athenagoras  p.  40.  96, 
 Ox.  Ed.  Tatiaii.  c.  8.  p.  21,  21.  Ox.  K.tl.  Tertuil.  Apol.  c.  21. 
 Adv.  Prax.  c.  8.  Hippoiytus  Contr.  ^'ocr.  c.  11.  p.  13.  Conrr. 
 Jiid.  p.  4,    Fabric.  Voi.  2. 
 
 N.  B.  Athcnagora."i'j  Tvords  are,  in  ftricinefsj  meant  of  the  Holy 
 Ghoft  only,  m  Both  places.  But  the  reajon  being  the  fame  for  one  as 
 the  other ^  they  are  equally  applicable  to  Either  i  and  it  is  thus  only 
 I  ffould  he  underJiooJ,  yo'herever  I  apply  either  of  the  Faffages  to  tht 
 Son.  t  Vid.  Bull  D.  F.  N.  p.  198- 
 
 beea 
 
156  A    DEFENSE        Q^u.VIII. 
 
 been  the  mod  inconfiftcnt  Men  in  the  World* 
 had  they  thought  that  the  ^r^r^^;^,  or  Ge- 
 neration of  the  Son,  was  a  Creation,  or  new 
 "Frodu^ion  of  Him ;  or  had  they  not  firmly 
 believed  that  He  exided ,  the  living  and  ftib^ 
 fiantial  Word,  from  all  Eternity. 
 
 Jujfin  Martjr  fcemsto  have  fpoke  theSenfe 
 of  all,  in  faying,  ''  That  the  Aoy^  co-exifled  with 
 *"*  the  Father  before  the  Creatures;  and  was  then 
 "  begotten,  when  the  Father  at  firft  created  and 
 *'  put  into  beauiifal  Order  the  Ff-ame  of  Things. 
 See  the  pafTige  above  *.  The  Emperor  Con- 
 fiantine  afterwards  exprelTes  the  lame  Thought, 
 fbmething  more  fully  and  di(lind:ly,  thus. 
 *'  t  The  Son,  who  was  always  in  the  Father, 
 *'  was  begotten,  or  x2xk\Q:x  proceeded  forth,  for 
 •'  theorderly andornamenralMcthcdizingofche 
 "  Creation.  I  chufe  to  follow  the  Senfe,  rather 
 than  the  flrid:  Letter.  Whether  thofe  Writers 
 went  upon  any  fblid  Reafons,  in  affigning  fuch 
 or  fuch  parts,  in  the  work  of  Creation,  to  Father, 
 Son,  or  Holy  Ghoft,  is  not  very  material.  Ic 
 is  manifeft,  they  fuppofed  the  whole  Trinity 
 ro  be  concern'd  in  it ;  and  to  Create,  as  it  were, 
 in  concert.  Their  afcribing  the  orderly  adjuft- 
 raent  and  beautifying  part  to  the  Son,  leems  to 
 have  been  in  alluficn  to  his  Names  of  AoV©"^ 
 and  crccpia,  and  (1)(5-r.  In  refped:  of  the  laft  of 
 them,  Hippolytus  fuppoles  the  Generation  to 
 
 Apud  GelaC  Ad  Sya,  Nic.  part.  3.  p.  58. 
 
 be 
 
Q^u.VIlI.        of  fitne  QUERIES.  157 
 
 be  pofterior  to  the  Creation,  upon  God's  iaying. 
 Let  there  be  Light,  Then  did  the  Son  pro- 
 ceed <J)i^  Cm.  (fiJTc'^.  "^TertuUian  fecms  to  have 
 had  the  lame  Thought,  and  perhaps,  f  Origcn. 
 Athenagoras  hkewi lb  fuppoies  the  ^FroceJJion 
 to  be  after  the  Creating  of  the  unformed  Mafs 
 of  Things.  And  yet  nothing  is  plainer  than 
 that  :j:  all  thefe  Writers  believed  the  prior  Ex- 
 iftence  of  the  Son ;  and  thao^  Things  were  at 
 firft  created  by  Him,  as  well  as  afterwards 
 adorned  and  regulated.  In  fliort,  whatever  the 
 Father  is  fuppofed  to  have  done,  was  by  His 
 Son  and  Holy  Spirit ;  therefore  frequently  ftiled 
 Manns  Tatris:  But  the  AuSev'T^'a,  the  2)^/^;/- 
 ing  part,  was  thought  mod  properly  to  be  re- 
 ferved  to  the  Father,  as  the /f^  Perfon.  Thefe 
 are  Things  not  to  be  too  curioufly  inquired  into, 
 or  too  rigoroufly  interpreted ;  but  to  be  under- 
 ftood  ^iOTt^t^aS'  In  the  whole,  they  have  a  very 
 good  meaning ;  and  were  founded  in  the  Belief 
 of  a  Co-ejfential  and  O^-^^r/M/ Trinity. 
 
 From  what  hath  been  laid,  I  prefume,  it  is 
 evident  that  there  was  no  difference  at  all,  in 
 the  main  of  the  Dodrine,  between  Thefe,  and 
 the    other  Catholick  Writers  ;    but  a  different 
 
 *  Contr.  Prax.  c.  jz.  f  Vid.  [luet.  Origenian.  p.  41. 
 
 :^  As  to  Athenagoras,  tiJ.  fnpra.  Tertulliany^ryj  :  Beum  immw 
 tabtlem  6c  informahilcm  credi  necelTe  eft,  ut  asternurrii  quodcanquc 
 transfiguratur  in  aliud,  delinit  efle  quod  fuerat,  £c  tnctpit  ejfe  quod  nor, 
 erat.  Deus  autem  neque  definit  efle,  neque  aliud  poteft  efle;  Sermo 
 autem  Deus,  li^c.  Contr.  Prax.  c.  17.  Hippolytus  hath  thefe  -words, 
 tluTQ^  avv«<i!<05,  adv.  Jud.  p.  4.     'As*  yx^  vjv  sv  A'|ij  ^t^>i7ru,  r^  iMe* 
 
 :ittTu^oXm,  Fabric.  Vol.  2,  p,  2$*    Origen  w*  have  fern  before. 
 
 man- 
 
ijS  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VIII. 
 
 manner  only,  of  cxprefling  the  fame  Things^ 
 The  Queftion  was  nor,  whether  the  Hypojiajis, 
 or  Terfon,  of  the  Son  was  from  all  Eternity, 
 co-eval  with  the  Father  and  coniubftantial  with 
 Him;  in  That,  rhcy  all  perfedly  agreed.  Nor 
 was  there  any  difference  about  the  'ProceJJion : 
 for  the  *  latter  Writers  acknowledged  it  as  well 
 as  Thofe  before  them ;  and  made  it  Temporary 
 and  Voluntary,  as  Thofe  did.  But  the  Que- 
 ftion was,  whether,  the  Son's  eternal  Co-ex- 
 iftence,  (I  fliould  rather  fay,  the  co-eternal  Ex- 
 iftence  of  the  Aoy@")  lliould  be  deem'd  Sonjhip 
 and  Filiation  or  no ;  or  whether  the  Procef- 
 fion  might  not  m^ore  properly  be  fo  Hi  led. 
 Tertullian  (and  perhaps  Others)  was  of  Opi- 
 nion that  this  latter  was  \  perfect  a  Nat  iv  it  as 
 Sermonise  The perfeB  Nativity,  or  Birth  of 
 the  Word:  who  had  been,  as  it  were,  quiefcent 
 and  tin-operating  from  all  Eternity,  till  He 
 came  forth  to  Create  the  JVorld:  And  \Hip' 
 folytus  carried  this  Notion  fo  far,  as  to  think 
 the  Filiation  not  compleated,  till  He  had  run 
 thro'  the  laft  fort  of  Sonihip,  in  becoming  Man. 
 AH  this  is  true,  in  Ibme  Senfe,  and  when  right- 
 ly expiain'd.  But  other  Fathers  thinking  this 
 way  of  ipeaking  liable  to  abufe  and  mif  con- 
 
 *  Vid.  Bui].  Def.  F.  N.  Scft.  3.09. 
 f  Contr.  Prax.  c  7. 
 
 :^  Contr.  Noet.  c.  15-,  p.  17.  Owtt  ^  ^o-sipxo?  j^  x«9-*  ioLvrov  i 
 A07©-  7tA«b5  i)v  'ijoq,  Kiof  Tvt  TsAfifl?  /\c^5  ei)-/  f/^voytvyi^.  It  is  remirk' 
 tihle,  that  He  makes  the  Son  perfeBly  [jovcy.w,c„  iho  not  perfeciiy  '««?, 
 before  the  Incarnation.  Others  might  perhaps  reafcn,  in  like  manner^ 
 Ts:th  regard  to  the  jr^/Asj/cn^j  thinking  Him  to  hfive  been  Aoy®-,  or 
 f/^voyivviCi  before  it^  but  m$  '*|«s. 
 
 llrudion. 
 
Q^u.VIII.        of  feme  Q^UERIES.  lyr; 
 
 ftiudion ;  and  confidering,  probably,  that  the 
 Ao7®^5  ^r  Word ,  might  ^  properly  be  called 
 Son,  in  rciped  of  that  erernal  Exigence  which 
 He  ever  enjoyed  /;/,  and  from  the  Father  as 
 the  Head,  Root,  Fountain,  and  caufe  ol  All; 
 they  choie  to  give  That  the  Name  of  Genera- 
 tion ;  and  to  call  the  other  Two,  ^  Condefcen- 
 fions,  Manifeflattons,  Proceeding  forth ,  or 
 the  like.  So  we  have  (een  it  in  Methodius^ 
 before  cited  for  the  eternal  Generation :  And 
 He,  very  probably,  had  the  notion  from  ^Ju- 
 fin  Martyr:,  who,  in  like  manner,  interprets 
 Generation,  in  the  fecondary  Seiyife,  by  Mani- 
 fefation.  And  even  ^  Hippolyttts,  as  before 
 obferved,  explains  the  Troceffion,  or  Genera- 
 tion of  the  Son,  a  little  after  the  Creation,  by 
 Manifeftation  of  Him. 
 
 a  Omnls  Or'go  parens  efti  omne  quod  ex  Originc  profertur, 
 progenies  eft.  Tertull.  Centr.  Prax.  c.  8-  See  Novat.  ahcve,  p.  141, 
 
 Ti'jva,  f/jiv  nv  -A^  6  jjAio?  mv  of^^v,  EuT.  Eccl.  Th.  1.  i.  c.  12.  p.  75, 
 
 To  £x  Tivoq  (j7Tuf>;^ov  \oq  s?iv  iKiivity  ii  ^  ^  i?iv.  Athan.  Orat.4.  p.  6tS» 
 
 b  //  is  ohfer'vable  that  Juftin  Martyr  applies  the  voDrd  Tr^tuTi^.c^  t9 
 the  latter  of  them,  as  well  as  to  the  Former.   Dial-  2.2S.  Jebb. 
 
 And^  in  like  manner ^  Clement  a/ Alexandria  ufes  yr^iX^av  of  Both, 
 p.  65-4..  ««^  Hippolytus,  of  the  latter.  Contr.  Noet.  c.   17. 
 
 c  On  the  words,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  Thee^ 
 He  comments  thus.  Tore  y.vicnv  ccor^  y^tyjov  ^vs<D^^  ttj?  'AvS-pcyjTTi?,  £|ot« 
 Yi  yyai(T2<;  aorcv  ifjjiXXi  ^viS-ecf,     Dial.  p.  270.  Ed.  Jebb, 
 
 d  T6»  idicv  vouv  xvrzS  f^va  <zff^Tf^oy  o^cctzv  iTmp^ovTK ,  TZif  /s  ^¥0m 
 f^/)u  ^fjitrf/jcti  uo^x^v  ovTu,  c^a.TT>v  -TToitT,  c.  10,  p.  1^.  A  little  before 
 He  had  /aid  Toiv  Jf  y.vof/jiva/v  up^Tiyo*  t^^  (nj/uu^a^ev  xui  l^yurlM 
 ryivvcc  >^epv,  ov  Aoj^v  iri(^u»  iv  ictv-nS  eco^Tvv  re  ovtu,  tm  y.Ti^ofJCiVM 
 H^cru^u^i^TBV  vnnsT,  TTp^-n^ccv  (p^VAV  ^Biyfof^oq,  ^  cpa(;  Ik  (puroc,  yivvav. 
 
 The  Words  of  Zcno  Veroncnfis  may  be  added,  as  a  good  Comment 
 upon  the  former.  Cujus  (Patris)  ex  Ore,  ut  rerum  natara,  quae  non 
 crat,  fingeretur,  prodivit  Unigenitus  Filius,  Cordis  ejus  Nobilis  In- 
 quilinus;  cxinde  vifibilis  eflfedus,  quia  Humanum  genus  vifitaturus 
 »rar,  ^c» 
 
 After 
 
i6o  y^'DEFENSE         Q^u.VIir. 
 
 After  Arius  arofe ;  the  Catholicks  found  it 
 highly  neceflary  to  infift  much  on  the  \ternal 
 Generation.  For,  the  Avians,  raking  advan- 
 tage ^f  it,  that  the  Temporary  Condefcenfion 
 of  the  Son,  to  create  the  World,  had  been 
 often  caUed  his  Generation,  were  for  looking  no 
 higher ;  but  artfully  infmaared  that  this  was  the 
 iix^  produEfion  of  Him  ;  an*d  that  it  was  ablurd 
 to  talk  of  the  Son*s  cxifting  before  He  vviis  be- 
 gotten: in  oppofirion  to  which  pretence,  we 
 find  the  Nicene  Fathers  anathematizing  fuch 
 as  ihould  lay,  that  the  *  Son  exifled  not  be- 
 fore He  "jvas  BEGOTTEN  ;  meaning  in  the  Senfe 
 now  explained.  However,  the  Arians  might 
 have  known  that  the  eternal  Exiftence  of  the 
 Aoy@"  was  univerfaUy  Taught;  and  even  by 
 thofe  who  afferted  a  Temporal  Generation.  Nor 
 indeed  were  they  ignorant  of  it  ;  but  f  they 
 contrived,  for  a  Salvo,  to  maintain,  that  the 
 Aoy@")  oi*  Word,  whi^was  held  to  be  Eter- 
 nal, was  not  the  faitte  with  the  Aoy®- ^  or 
 IVord  begotten;  the  former  being  only  the 
 Father's  own  proper  Word,  and  no  iubftantial 
 Thing ;  the  latter,  a  created  Subftance,  dired- 
 ly  contrary  to  all  Antiquity  which  has  no- 
 thing to  countenance  any  fuch  Notion  of  a  two- 
 fold Aoyoi.  Upon  this,  it  became  neceffary  to 
 explain  in  what  Senfe  any  Temporal  Genera- 
 tion had  been  aflerted  ;  and  to  keep  up  the 
 true  Catholick  Dodrine,    which  had  obtain'd 
 
 t  See  Bull.  Def.  F.  p.  198. 
 
 fronj 
 
Q^u.VIIL        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  \6i 
 
 from  the  Beginning;  namely,  of  the  Eternal 
 Aoy©^  diftindt  from  the  Father ;  Son  of  the 
 Father,  as  partaking  of  the  fame  divine  Sub- 
 ftancc  from  all  Eternity ;  *  going  out  from  the 
 Father  to  create  the  World ;  and  laftly  conde- 
 Icending  to  become  Man  :  Son,  in  all  thele  re- 
 fpecfts,  but  primarily  and  chielly  in  refpedi  of 
 the  firfl:.  From  the  whole,  \vc  may  remark, 
 that  an  explicite  Profelfion  of  eternal  Gene- 
 ration  might  have  been  difpens'd  with;  pro- 
 vided only  that  the  eternal  Exiftence  of  the 
 Aoy@",  as  a  real  fiibfifttng  Terfon,  in,  and  of 
 the  Father,  (which  comes  to  the  fame  Thing) 
 might  be  fecured.  This  was  the  point;  and  this 
 was  all.  In  this,  all  found  Catholicks  agreed; 
 and  to  difpute  it,  was  accounted  Herejy,  and 
 Blafphemy.  If  any  one,  ditliking  the  Name, 
 or  the  Phrale  of  eternal  Generation ,  thinks 
 it  better  to  afTert  an  eternal  Word,  inftead 
 of  an  eternal  Son,  ( meaning  thereby  a  di- 
 ftind:  Perfon ,  and  confubjlantial  with  God , 
 whole  Word  He  is)  and  refers  the  Generation 
 to  his  firfl:  and  fecond  Manifejlation ,  at  che 
 Creation  and  Incarnation-^  there  feem,s  to  be 
 no  farther  harm  in  it,  than  what  lies  in  the 
 Words,  and  their  liablenefs  to  be  mifconflirued. 
 
 *  Th'ii  is  well  exprefi'J  by  the  Anriochian  fathers,  again/l  Paul  of 
 Samofataj  and  hy  Clement  of  Alexandria.     ToS-rrv  7nrEuofx,iv  trbv  tco 
 
 T  oXiov,  Labb. Cone. Tom.  i.p.84y     Tiy.vov  xCri  'yv^.(nof,  x^  kXvi^ovc- 
 u^Vy  cocoT^    Irrt  tjvcc  ^ivirnUv    c^tuZJic  Tn'/jTrooS^ov,    utto   fjuiyuX^ii    ciKo- 
 
 "^  xi<r/«s  h^fAtiKi'^ynru^,    Clem.  AIcx.  Quis  div.  p.  ^ff,  Ox« 
 
 M  01 
 
i6i  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.VllI. 
 
 or  to  give  Offence.  Here  therefore  every  Man 
 is  left  ro  his  ownDifcretion  and  Prudence :  Om 
 ly  the  fafer  way  icems  to  be,  to  follow  the 
 moft  general  and  moft  approved  manner  of 
 Expreflion,  together  with  the  anticnt  Faith  ; 
 being,  in  all  probabihty,  the  furefl  means  to  pre- 
 ferve  Both.  1  defignedly  iaid,  firft  an^  laft,  not 
 firil:  or  laft.  For,  fuch  as  interpret  the  Gene- 
 ration, of  the  laji  only,  ftand,  I  think,  ♦clear- 
 ly condemned  by  Scripture ;  many  places  where- 
 of can  never  fairly  be  accounted  for  by  the 
 miraculous  Conception  folely :  Befides  that  from 
 Barnabas  and  Clemens  Romanus,  down  to 
 the  Council  of  Nice ,  all  the  Chriflian  Wri- 
 ters fpeak  unanimoufly  of  a  higher,  antecedent 
 Sonjhip ;  and,  generally,  even  found  Worjhif 
 upon  it. 
 
 I  ihall  juft  obferve  to  you,  in  the  clofe  of 
 this  Article,  that,  from  what  hath  been  laid,  you 
 may  know  what  Judgment  to  make  of  an  Af- 
 lertion  of  f  "Dr.Clarke's,  viz.  That  the  learned'Ji 
 of  the  moji  Orthodox  Fathers,  ivho  ajferted 
 the  eternal  Generation  of  the  Son,  did  yet 
 neverthelefs  ajfert  it  to  be  an  A^i  of  the  Fa- 
 ther's eternal  Power  and  Will.  By  which  the 
 DocStor  feems  to  infmuate,  chat  the  good  Fathers 
 
 *  Sane  in  ifta  ex  Maria  Virgine  nativitate  Suprema  £v  Singularts 
 ^p•)C^  atque  exccllentia  Filiationis  Domini  uoftri  adco  non  conliftir,. 
 ut  ea  ipfa  Nativitas  ad  ejus  ftupendam  avyy.cntLQc(.(r.v  omnino  re- 
 ferenda fit.  Hoc  nos  fatis  aperte  decent ,  fi  modo  a  Spii  itu 
 Sand:o  edoceri  velimus,  multis  in  locis,  S.  literae. Ita  Tem- 
 per credidit  inde  ab  ipfis  Apoftolis  Catholica  Chrifti  Ecclefia. 
 Bull,  J.  p.  39. 
 
 t  Script.  Dcdtr.  p.  a&o. 
 
 did 
 
Q^u.VlII.         of  fome  (QUERIES.  163 
 
 did  not  underftand  Eternal  in  the  ftridt:  Senfe. 
 If  the  learned  DotStor  can  Ihow,  that  Thofe,  who 
 maintained  only  the  Voluntary  and  Temporary 
 ProcefTion  of  the  Son,  believed  that  the  hoys, 
 was  eternally  pre-cxifting  in  the  Father,  by  an 
 A6i  of  his  Will ;  or  that  Thole  who  exprcfly 
 aiTerted  an  ^^^r;/^/ Generation,  believed  alio  that 
 it  was  an  Arbitrary  Thing,  and  might  have 
 been  otherwife,  (which  1  fuppofe  is  theDoitor's 
 Senfe  of  an  A^  of  the  IV til)  then  He  will 
 do  fomething.  Buc,  as  none  of  his  Authorities 
 prove  any  thing  like  it;  it  would  have  been  a 
 prudent  part,  at  lead,  not  to  have  produced 
 Them  to  fo  httle  purpofe.  But  enough  of  this 
 Matter :  I  have,  I  hope,  fufficiently  explained 
 my  Self  upon  this  Head;  and  have  therefore 
 the  more  realbn  to  exped:  a  diftin£i  Anfs^uer 
 from  You,  whenever  you  think  proper  to  re- 
 confider  this  Subjed:. 
 
 M  r  Q^UERY 
 
i64  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.IX. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       IX. 
 
 Whether  the  divine  Attributes,  Omnifcience\ 
 'Vbiqtiity.dcc,  Thofe  individual  Attributes^ 
 can  be  communicated  without  the  divine 
 Ejfence,from  which  they  are  in/ef  arable  ? 
 
 THE  intent  of  this  Query  was  to  prevent 
 Equivocations^  and  to  make  the  Next  clearer. 
 You  agree  with  me  that  the  individual  divine 
 Attributes  cannot  be  communicated  without  the 
 individualN2XwxQ  in  which  they  fubfift  You  add, 
 that  Dr.  Clarke,  in  the  z^othj^age  of  his  Re- 
 flies,  hathj?lainlji/hown,  that  individual  Attri-- 
 butes,  divine  or  not  divine,  cannot  pojjibly  be 
 communicated  at  all.  Well  then ;  we  know  what 
 the  Dod:or  means  by  all  divine  Towers,  m, 
 his  Scripture  Dodrine,  (/.  298.)  which  is  one 
 pcJint  gain'd:    For  when  words  are  ftripp'd  of 
 their  Ambiguity,  we  may  b€  the  better  able  to 
 deal  with  them.     As  to  the  Dodor's  Aphorifm 
 laid  down  (/.  230.)  I  may  have  leave  to  doubt 
 of  it;  notwithftanding  that  it  is  fet  forth  to  us, 
 with  the  utmoft  AfTurance.  Ir  is  not  unulual  with 
 the  Dodor  to  lay  down  Maxims,   in  relation 
 to  this  Controverly,  which  Himfelf  would  not 
 allow,  at  another  Time,  or  in  another  SubjecSt. 
 For  Inftance  ;  *  neceffary  Agents  are  no  Caufes, 
 
 *  whatever  procee^h  from  any  'Beings  otherrcife  than  by  the  Will 
 of  that  Being y  doth  not  in  Truth  proceed  from  liiat  Beings  but 
 from  form  oiber  Caufe  or  NeceiTity  extrlnfck  md   independent  of 
 
 that 
 
Qjj.JX.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  i6f 
 
 that  is,  they  do  not  fb  properly  Ad,  as  are 
 aded  upon.     This  is  very  true  of  all  finite  ne- 
 ceffary  Agents ;  for,  all  their  neceflary,  or  na- 
 tnral  A(ks,^voc^cA  not  fo  properly  from  Them, 
 as  from  God  the  Author  of  their  Natures.    But 
 does  it  therefore  follow  that,  if  God  ads  by  a 
 NeceJJity  of  Nature,    in  fome  Inftances,    He 
 is  therein  aEied  upon  likewife  ?  Or  that  all  the 
 Ads  of  the  divine  Nature  are  Voluntary,  and 
 Free  ;    none    natural    and   neceffary  ?    This 
 fhould  not  be  faid    by   one  who,    elfewhere  ^ 
 Ipeaks  fo  much  of  God's  being  infinitely  wife^ 
 and   infinitely  good,    infinitely  happy,  &c.  by 
 an  abfolute  neceffity  of  Nature  ;   unlets   He 
 could  be  certain    that   knowing,    loving,    con^ 
 templating,   and  enjoying  Himfelf,  do  not  im- 
 ply  perpetual  A[iing\    or   that   an    infinitely 
 aifive  Being  can  ever  ceafe  to  A6t.     I  lliall 
 not  fcruple  to  afferc,  that  by  the  fame  abfolute 
 neceffity  of  Nature  that  the  Father  exifts ,    He 
 exifts  as  a  Father  \  and  Co-exijis  with  his  Co- 
 ejfential  Son  proceeding  from  Him.  If  you  fay, 
 this  fuppoles  the  Son  Selfexifient,  or  "Vn-ori- 
 ginate  %  I  defir^  it  may  not  be  y2?/V  only ,  but 
 proved.      *  In    the    Interim,    I  take   leave  to 
 fiippofe  that  ^nbegotten,  and  Begotten ;    Un- 
 originate,  and  Troceeding,  are  different  Ideas. 
 
 that  Being.  NecefTary  Agents  are  no  Caufes,  hut  alvi>a)s  Inftru- 
 ments  only  in  the  hand  of  fome  other  Tower*  Reply,  pag.  ^^J, 
 Compare  p.  113. 
 
 *  Oltn  ^uo  ecy tvv^oi,  oirs  ^0  f/^^voymtik'  iAA'  ti^  8^  Txryif  oiymt}^ 
 
 yt^vyjyjiic^.    Cyril,  Catecb.  10.  p.  141.  Ox. 
 
 M  3  Again 
 
l66  .^DEFENSE  Q^u.IX. 
 
 Again  (/.  xxS.)  *He  finds  fault  with  the  Au- 
 thor offome  Confiderattons,  for  fuppofing  that 
 the  Son  is  fomething  more  than  a  meer  Name^ 
 and  yet  not  a  real  dijlhi^  Being:  And  upon 
 this  lays  down  another  Aphorijm ;  that  there 
 IS,  no  Medium  between  a  Being,  and  not  a 
 Being:  which  indeed  is  a  very  true  one,  if 
 Being,  and  Beings  are  taken  in  the  lame  Senfe  ; 
 bqt  not  otherwiie.  For  let  me  mention  almofi: 
 a  parallel  Cafe.  Upon  the  Dodtor's  Hypothejis, 
 that  God's  Subjiance  is  extended  every  where; 
 and  that  the  i'ame  \^  the  Subjlratum  of  Space  \ 
 we  may  imagine  two  Subjlrata,  one  pervading 
 the  Sun,  and  the  other  the  Moon,  which  are 
 both  diftind',  and  dillant.  Will  you  pleafe  to 
 tell  us,  whether  thefe  two  are  real  dijlin^i  Be- 
 ings, or  no  ?  If  They  are,  you  may  leave  it 
 to  others  to  prove  them  intelligent  Beings,  that 
 is,  ^erfons:  And,  perhaps,  the  very  next  con- 
 fequence  will  make  them  two  Gods,  upon  the 
 Dodor's  own  Principles :  If  they  are  not  real 
 dijlin6i  Beings  \  then  here  is  fomething  admit- 
 ted between  a  Being,  and  not  a  Being ;  con- 
 trary to  the  Doctor's  Maxim:  unlefs  He  makes 
 i\\cvs\  Nothings  and  fiippofes  two  Spaces,  with- 
 out any  Subjiratum  at  ail;  two  Extenjlons, 
 without  any  thing  extended. 
 
 But  let  us  eonfider,  whether  fomething  may 
 not  be  thought  on,  to  help  both  the  learned 
 
 *  To  avoid  i his  Con fcquefice^  He  is  forced  to  fuppofe  (pag.  29.J  that 
 the  Son  is  fomething  more  than  a  mere  Name,  and  yet  not  a  real 
 ffiftinft  Being  i  that  is  to  fay,  that  He  is  fomething  between  a  Being, 
 >wcl  not  a  Being.    CL  Reply,  p.  223. 
 
 Dodor 
 
Qu.IX.  oj  fome  Q^UERIES.  167 
 
 Dodor  and  Us  out  of  thcle  Difficulties.  The 
 Truth  of  this  Matter,  fo  far  as  I  apprehend,  is, 
 that  Bemg  may  fignify,  either,  firaply,  what 
 Exijis'^  or  what  exifts  Separately.  This  Di- 
 ftind:ion  ktm^  to  be  juft,  and  necelTary ;  and 
 iuch  as  you'l  the  more  readily  come  into,  having 
 occafion  for  \i,  as  well  as  we.  I  hope,  none 
 are  fo  weak,  as  to  deny  the  Verfons  to  exift 
 in  reality.  The  very  School-Men  Themfelvcs 
 never  Icruple  to  call  Them  Tres  Res^  Tres 
 elites,  or  the  like,  in  that  Senfe ;  tho',  at  the 
 lame  time,  in  the  other  Senfe  o(  Bemg,  They 
 are  all  but  one  Being,  una  Jumma  res,  and  una 
 res  7'iumero\  which  comes  much  to  the  fame 
 with  Tertullian's  una  (indivifa)  Subjiantia  in 
 Tribtts  coh£rentibtis\  (onlyfetting  afide  his  par- 
 ticular manner  of  Exphcation)  and  is  the  Senfe  of 
 all  Antiquity.  Upon  the  Foot  of  thisDiftindioD, 
 you  may  readily  apprehend  thofe  Words  of 
 Gregory  Nazianzen,  fpoken  of  the  three  Per- 
 
 5  \ii  x^^'^^"^'^"^^^  '^^  ^X'^^^  *•  ^y  ^^^  fame  Di- 
 ftindion,  you  may,  probably ,  underftand  a 
 very  noted  Creed-,  which  feems  to  have  coft 
 the  learned  Doctor  lome  Pains  in  explain- 
 ing. To  return  to  our  Inftance  of  the  Two 
 Subftrata.  I  fuppofe  the  Dodor,  or  your  lelf, 
 will  be  content  to  allow%  that  This  is  Subjiance, 
 and  That  Snbjlance ;  and  yet  not  Subjiances, 
 but  one  Subftancc.     In  hke  manner  alfo,  This 
 
 ♦  Orat.  13.  p.  211.  Parif.  Ed. 
 
 M  4  is 
 
i68  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.lX. 
 
 is  Being,  and  That  Being ;  and  yet  not  Two 
 Bemgs,  but  one  Being:  This  Eternal,  and  That 
 Etemal  ;  and  yet  not  Two  Eternals,  but  One 
 Eternal.  I  might  go  on  almoll;  the  length  of 
 an  Athanafian  Creed.  This  muft  be  your 
 manner  of  Ipeaking,  if  you  come  to  Parti- 
 culars ;  and  that  becauie  the  Subjirata  are  fup- 
 pofed  to  have  no  feparate  Exiftence  independent 
 on  each  other,  but  to  be  united  by  fome  com- 
 mon Ligaments,  which  perhaps  you'l  call  per- 
 final  Attributes.  And  why  then  lliould  you  be 
 ievere  upon  Us,  for  ufing  the  like  Language,  and 
 upon  better  Reafons?  We  believe  the  Three 
 Perfons  to  have  no  feparate  Exiftence  indepen- 
 dent on  each  other;  we  fuppoie  Them  more 
 united,  in  fome  refpeds,  than  the  Subjirata  are 
 fuppos'd  in  your  Scheme;  becaufe  equally  pre- 
 fent  every  where  :  We  admit  Ibme  common 
 Ties  or  Bands  of  Union,  which  we  call  ejfen- 
 tial  Attributes  and  Perfedions.  Either  there- 
 fore allow  us  Our  way  of  Ipeaking ;  which  we 
 think  decent  and  proper ;  iuitable  to  the  Idea 
 we  have,  and  to  the  Circumftances  of  the  Cafe  ; 
 founded  in  the  very  Nature  and  Reafon  of 
 Things :  Or  elfc ,  find  out  a  better  for  your 
 Own;  that  we  may,  at  length,  learn  from  you, 
 how  we  ought  to  Ipeak  in  this  Matter. 
 
 You  will  fay,  it  may  be,  that  the  Inftance 
 I  have  cholen,  is  not  exadtly  parallel  in  every 
 Circumftance.  No  ;  God  forbid  it  fliould.  But 
 it  agrees  fo  far  as  is  fufficient  for  my  pur- 
 pofe.     There  is  this  manifeft  difference,,  that 
 
 you 
 
Q^u.lX.  offome  (QUERIES.  169 
 
 you  fuppole  the  feveral  Snbjtrata  fb  many 
 farts  of  God;  tho'  every  one  of  Them  in- 
 finitely Wife,  infinitely  Good,  infinitely  Power- 
 ful, infinitely  every  Thing,  but  extended.  We, 
 more  confiftently,  iuppofe  Three  Perlbns  equals 
 in  all  refpedis  ;  none  of  them  Jingly  part  of 
 God ;  but  every  one  perfed:  God. 
 
 A  fecond  Dinerence  is,  that  you  fuppofe  all 
 x\\t  finite  Parts,  making  one  Infinite,  to  be  one 
 Being,  one  God,  and  one  Terfon\  by  Conti- 
 fiuity,  I  preiiime,  and  a /^r/5;//^/ Union  of  the 
 Varts.  We  fuppofe  Three  Perfons  to  be  One 
 God,  by  their  hifeparahtlity  and  the  ejfential 
 Union  of  the  Terfons :  Which,  I  humbly  con- 
 ceive, we  are  as  able  to  explain,  as  you  are  to 
 explain  the  other;  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  are  con- 
 tent to  underfiand  only,  and  that  imperfedlly, 
 without  imagining  at  all. 
 
 In  fine,  you  have  philofbphiz'd  fo  far,  in 
 Thele  high  and  deep  Matters,  that  you  feem  to 
 want  all  the  fame  favourable  Allowances,  which 
 we  are  thought  to  do.  Others  may  objed:  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  ftrongefl 
 and  molT:  popular  Objections :  But  the  learned 
 Dodor  has  broke  through  it ;  and  has  contrived 
 a  Solution,  a  very  good  one,  both  for  Himfelf 
 
 and 
 
170  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.lX. 
 
 and  Us*.  I  have  often  thought  no  Hands  fb  pro- 
 per to  be  employed  againft  the  Dodrine  of  the 
 BlefTed  Trinity,  as  Thole  which  are  good  only  at 
 pulling  down,  and  not  at  building  up.  If  once 
 you  come  to  fettling  and  detcrmming  Points  of 
 a  myjierious  Nature ;  there  will  be  as  fair  a  Plea 
 for  This  alio :  And  I  doubt  not  but  the  fame 
 Thread  of  Reafoning,  which  firft  brought  you 
 to  queftion  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  lliould  ima- 
 gine, from  what  hath  been  faid,  that  They 
 may  have  fome  Advantage  over  us;  let  me  add 
 thefe  few  Confiderations  farther. 
 
 1.  That  what  hath  been  urged,  is  not  pure- 
 ly arguing  ad  Homtnem^  but  it  is  appealing  to 
 what  good  Senfe  and  impartial  Realon  didtates 
 equally  to  You,  or  Us ;  on  liich,  or  fuch  Sup- 
 pofitions. 
 
 2.  That  if  we  come  to  reafon  minutely  on 
 any  other  Matter,  alike  incomprehenfible  as 
 This  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  we  may  foon  loie 
 our  felves  in  inextricable  Mazejs. 
 
 3.  That  if  They  pleale  to  take  any  other 
 Hypothejis  of  the  Omnipre fence ,  They  may 
 meet  with  Difficulties  there  alio,  perhaps  not 
 inferior  to  the  former. 
 
 4.  That  if  They  chufe  to  reft  in  generals^ 
 without  any  Hypothejis  at  all,  and  without  de- 
 fending to  the  Modusy  and  Miniitia  of  it  ; 
 
 ♦  Aniver  to  the  Sixth  Letter,  p.  39,  40. 
 
 This 
 
Qjj.lX,  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  171 
 
 This  is  the  very  Thing  which  we  defire,  and 
 contend  for,  in  regard  to  the  BlcfTed  Trinity 
 (which  ought  certainly  to  be  equally  dealt  with) 
 and  then  \vc  inav  loon  come  to  a  2>ood  Agree- 
 iiient. 
 
 By  purfuing  this  Point,  T  had  almofl:  neglect- 
 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  ihall  make  This  plain  to  you.  That 
 particular  Subftance ,  which  is  fuppofed  to 
 pervade,  and  to  be  commenfurate  to  the  Sun, 
 is  an  individual  Being,  in  ibme  Senfe ;  unlefs 
 there  be  a  Medium  between  a  Being  and  not 
 a  Beings  which  the  learned  Dodor  admits  not: 
 The  whole  Subflance  likewile  is  one  individual 
 Being ,  and  Terfon  too ;  upon  the  Dod:or's 
 Hypothefis  :  And  we  fay  farther,  that  three 
 Perlbns  may  be  one  individual  Being;  having, 
 we  think,  a  very  good  meaning  in  it.  So  here 
 arc  plainly  three  Scnfcs  of  the  woxA  Individual-^ 
 and  rill  you  can  fix  a  certain  principle  of  Indi- 
 viduation, (a  Thing  much  wanted,  and  by 
 w^hich  you  might  oblige  the  learned  World)  any 
 one  of  thele  Scnles  appears  as  jufl:  and  reafon- 
 ablc  as  another.  Now,  the  Dodior's  Maxim, 
 riglitly  undcrilood,  may  be  true,  in  all  thele 
 Senfes.  For,  in  rcfped:  of  the  Firfl,  what  is 
 peculiar  and  proper  to  one  Part,  is  not  com- 
 municated, or  common  to  other  Pares :  In  re- 
 Ipedt  of  the  <y^r^//^,  what  \sJ>roj>er  to  onelP^r- 
 
 fon. 
 
I7X  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.lX, 
 
 fon,  is  not  common  to  other  Terfons :  And  fo, 
 in  refped:  of  the  Third,  what  \%  proper  to  one 
 Effence  or  Subftance,  is  not  common  to  other 
 E [fences  or  Siibftances,  All  this  is  very  true : 
 but  to  what  purpofe  is  it,  or  whom  does  the 
 learned  Dodor  contradid  ?  This  is  only  telling 
 us,  that  fo  far ,  or  in  fuch  refpeEi ,  as  any 
 thing  is  fuppofed  individual  or  incommunica- 
 ble^  it  is  fuppofed  individual  or  incommnnica- 
 ble\  which  no  Body  doubts  of.  But  whether 
 This,  or  That  be  communicable,  or  how  far, 
 or  in  what  manner  (which  is  all  the  difficulty) 
 remains  a  Queftion  as  much  as  ever;  and  the 
 Dodor's  Maxim  will  not  help  us  at  all  in  it. 
 It  may  be  the  (afeft  way,  firft  to  try  the  ftrength 
 and  the  ufe  of  it  upon  the  Dodor's  own  Hy- 
 pothefis.  Let  it  be  ask'd,  whether  the  Wis- 
 dom, &c.  refiding  in  that  Part  which  pervades 
 the  Sun  (for  it  leems  that  it  muft  be  intelli- 
 gent^ and  infinitely  fo ;  unlefs  one  infinite  In- 
 telligent be  made  up  of  'Vnintelligents ,  or 
 finite  Intelligeiits)  I  fay,  let  it  be  ask'd,  whe- 
 ther that  be  the  very  individual^Hdom  which 
 refides  in  another  Part,  at  any  given  Diftance. 
 I  prefumc,  to  this  Queftion,  you  muft  anfwer, 
 Tes :  And  then  we  are  to  obferve,  that  here  is 
 but  one  individual  infinite  Wifdom,  which  is 
 entirely  in  the  whole,  and  entirely  in  every 
 part ;  proper,  in  Ibme  Scnfe,  to  each  fingle 
 Part  (fince  it  can  have  only  fuch  Attributes  as 
 inhere  in  it)  and  yet  common  to  All;  T>tf 
 fifed  through  extended   Subftance,    yet   not 
 
 Co- 
 
Q^u.IX.  of  fome  QUERIES.  ijy 
 
 Co-extended :    Nor  multiplied,    bccaule   buc 
 One,     If  you   admit  thus  far,  as  I  think  you 
 mufl:,   we  ihall  have  nothing  to  apprehend,  in 
 point  of  Reafon  (which  neverthelcls  is  what 
 you  chiefly  trufi:  to)  againft  the  Dodrine  of 
 the  Trinity.     The  Communication  of  Ejfential 
 Attributes,  which  we  fpeak  of,  is,  at  lead,  as 
 Intclhgible  lis  what    I  have  been  mentioning ; 
 and  every  whit  as  confiflent  with  the  Dodor's 
 Maxim,  that  nothing  which  is  Individual  can 
 be  Communicated,    Only  You  have  j(5//r  Senle 
 of  Individual,  and  We  have  our's ;    and  You 
 can  account  no  better  for  fo  many,  and  infinite- 
 ly diftant  Parts  making  one  Terfon,  than  We 
 for  three  Perfons  making  one  Subjlance,  or  one 
 God.     Let    us    therefore  be    content   to   flop 
 where  it  becomes  us ;  and  frankly  confefs  our 
 Ignorance  of  thefe  Things.     For,  by  pretend- 
 ing farther,  we  Ihall  not  difcover  Icfs  Ignorance 
 than  before,  but  much  greater  Vanity.    I  w^ould 
 not  have  prefumed  to  difcourfe  thus  freely  of 
 the  tremendous  Subflance  of  the  eternal  God 
 (infinitely  furpailing  Human  Comprehenfion ) 
 were  it  nor,  in  a  manner,  necefTary,  in  order  to 
 cxpofe  the  Folly,  and  the  Prefumption  of  doing 
 it.     If  the  Dodrine  of  the  BlefTed  Trinity  is 
 to  flajid  or  fall  by  this  kind  of  reafoning,   it  was 
 very  proper    to    make    fome  Trial  of  it  firfl, 
 where  it  might  be  done  ruore  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  owo  Artillery.   But 
 
 to 
 
174  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.X. 
 
 to  proceed;  You  are  poficive  in  it,  that' the  Son 
 of  God  hath  not  the  individual  Attributes  of 
 God  the  Father  \  for  then,  iay  you,  He  muft 
 be  the  Father.  On  the  contrary,  I  affirm  that 
 He  hath  the  individual  Attributes  of  God  the 
 Fathe!-,  as  much  as  He  has  the  individual  Ef- 
 fence:  For,  otherwile  He  mud  be  ^Creature 
 only :  And  therefore  the  Qucftion  between  you 
 and  mc,  in  plain  Terms,  is,  whether  the  Son 
 be  God,  or  a  Creature, 
 
 Q^  u  E  R  Y     X. 
 
 Whether  if  They  (the  Attributes  belonging  to 
 the  Son)  be  not  individually  the  fame,  they 
 can  be  any  thing  more  than  faint  Refefn- 
 blances  of  them,  differing  from  them  as 
 Finite  from  Infinite  ;  and  then  in  what 
 Senfe,  or  with  what  Truth,  can  the  T)oEior 
 fretend  that  *  all  divine  Powers,  except  ab- 
 folute  Supremacy  and  Independency,  are 
 communicated  to  the  Son  ?  And  whether 
 every  Being,  be  fides  the  one  fupreme  Be- 
 ing,  muft  not  neccffarily  be  a  Creature,  and 
 finite;  and  whether  all  divine  Powers  can 
 be  communicated  to  a  Creature,  infinite 
 Teffe5tion  to  a  finite  Being  ? 
 
 I  Have  put  under  One  Query ,  what  before 
 made  Two,  becaufc  the  Subftance  of  Then! 
 IS  nearly  the  fame;  and  contains  but  one  Argu* 
 ment.     I  have  two  Things  upon  my  Hands  at 
 
 *  Script.  Boar,  p.  ipS.  ^^^^  5 
 
Q^u.X.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  17J 
 
 once;  firft  ro  clear  and  fix  your  Scnfe,  which 
 is  induftrioufly  dif^uifcd ;  and  next  ro   confute 
 it.     The  preient  Query  relates  chiefly  to  the 
 former,    to  draw  you  out  of  general  and  ambi- 
 guous Terms ,    that  fo   we  may  come  up  the 
 cloler,  and  fall  dired:Iy  to  the  point  in  Queftioru 
 You  tell  me ,    in  anfwer  to  the  former  part , 
 that  the  divine  Attributes  of  the  Son  are  not 
 individually  the  fame  ^i^ith  thofe  of  the  Fa- 
 ther  *.     By  which  you  mean  that  they  are  not 
 T)tvine :  And  {o  here  you  have  difcovercd,  that 
 the  Dodor    does  not   underftand  "Divine,    as 
 others  do  in  this  Conrroverly  ;  and  as  a  candid 
 and  ingenuous  Reader  might  be  apt  to  under- 
 ftand  Him.     You   add,    that  They  ( the  Attri- 
 butes of  the  Son)  are,  notwithfl:anding»  more 
 than  faint  Refemblances ;   the  Son  being  the 
 Brightnefs  of  his  Fathers  Glory,  and  the  ex-^ 
 frefs  Image  of  his  Terfon.     I  allow  that  this 
 Text  does  fet   forth  a  ereat  deal  more  than  a 
 faint  Refemblance :  Bur  you  have  not  fliown 
 that  your  Hyfothefis  luppofes  lb  much;    and 
 therefore  the  quoting  of  this  Text  is  only  ar- 
 guing againft  your  felf.    The  Inference  we  draw 
 from  this  Text,  confonant  ro  all  Antiquity,  is, 
 rhatr  the  Reftmiblance  between  Father  and  Son 
 is  compleat   and   perfed:;    and    that    therefore 
 They  do  not  differ  as  Finite  and  Infinite,  fince 
 that  Suppofition  would  fet  Them  at  an  Infinite 
 d^ftance    from  any  luch    perfed  and  compleac 
 Refemblance,     You  obferve  farther,  that  there 
 
 *  Pag.  ^4. 
 
 can 
 
176         ^DEFENSE  Q^u.X. 
 
 can  be  but  one  Intelligent  Being  ( the  fame, 
 with  you,  as  Terfon)  ahfolutely  infinite  in  all 
 rejpeffs,  {f-SS-)  which,  tho'  an  AlTertion  of 
 great  Importance,  you  are  pleased  barely  to  lay 
 down,  without  the  leaft  tittle  of  Proof,  or  lo 
 much  as  pretence  to  it.  Nay,  you  admit  in 
 your  *  Notes,  that  there  may  be  two  Infinite 
 Beings,  in  the  Senle  of  immenfe-^  that  is,  two 
 Beings  omniprefent ,  or  infinitely  extended. 
 And  why  not  as  well  Tw^o  Perfons  infinitely 
 perfed:  in  all  other  refpeds,  as  well  as  pre- 
 fence  ?  For  to  uie  your  own  way  of  arguing, 
 in  that  very  Place:  li  finite  Power,  Wiidom, 
 Goodnefs,  iSc.  do  not  exclude  Infinite-,  it 
 is  plain  that  infinite  Power,  Wildom,  Good- 
 neis,  ®^.  of  One,  do  nor  exclude  the  infinite 
 Power,  Wifdom,  Goodnefs,  @r.  of  Ano- 
 ther. Befides  that  Two ,  Infinite  in  All  re- 
 fpeds, are  as  eafily  conceived,  as  Two,  In- 
 finite in  Any :  And  therefore,  here  you  feem, 
 by  your  too  liberal  ConcefTions,  to  have  un- 
 faid  what  you  had  faid  before ;  and  to  have  un- 
 ravelled your  own  Objedion.  You  are  aware 
 that  an  Adverlary  may  take  advantage  of  what 
 you  fay  ;  and  endeavor,  lamely,  to  prevent  it, 
 by  telhng  us  (/.  5*6.)  that,   tho'  it  be  poffible 
 
 *  One  Infinite,  in  the  Senfe  of  imnienfe,  does  not  {by  taking  up 
 aU  Space)  exclude  {neceffarily)  an  other  Imme-nfe,  any  mare  than  it 
 excludes  ayiy  Finite.  For  if  a  finite  Being  doth  not  exclude  (God) 
 from  a  finite  Place,  it  ts  plain  that  an  Infinite,  that  is,  an  immenle. 
 Being  cannot  exclude  Htm  from  Infinite,  that  is,  from  immenfe 
 Tlace.  So  that  perhaps  it  is  no  fuch  abfolute  inipoilibility,  as  fom^ 
 have  thought  it,  to  fuppo/e  two  diflindl  ifnmenfe  Beings.  Not.  p.^d. 
 
 to 
 
Qu.X.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  17? 
 
 to  fuppofe  two  dtjim[i  immenfe  Beings,  yet  it 
 is  impofTiblc  there  iliould  be  two  immenlc  Be- 
 ings of  the  fame  individual  Nature ;  for  'io^ 
 They  mud:  coincide,  and  be  but  one  Terfon. 
 But  what  if  thole  who  aficrt  the  fayne  indivi- 
 dual Nat  tire,  in  more  Perfons  than  one,  un- 
 derftand  the  Words  in  a  larger  Scnfc  than  yoa 
 here  take  Them  in  ?  It  is  very  certain,  they  do 
 not  underftand  the  Phrafe  of  the  fame  indivi- 
 dual Nature,  as  You.  who  make  it  equiva- 
 lent to  the  fame  T^erfon,  underftand  it ;  For, 
 they  afTert  more  Perfons  than  one  to  have 
 the  fame  individual  Nature.  In  the  mean 
 while,  what  a  wonderfiil  dilcovery  is  this, 
 u^hich  you  have  laid  fuch  a  ftrefs  on ;  that 
 two  Terfons  cannot  be  one  Terfon,  with- 
 out coinciding  and  making  one  Terfon.  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  Extenfion^ 
 ( into  Length,  Breadth  and  Highth )  you  will 
 give  me  leave  to  fufpend  my  Judgment.  I  do 
 not  find,  either  that  it  is  afferted  in  Scripture,  or 
 generally  maintained  by  the  Fathers;  but  that 
 it  is  liable  to  many  Diiiiculties ,  in  point  of 
 Reafon,  more  than  I  am,  at  prefent,  able  to 
 anfwer.  See  what  a  *  late  thoughtful  Writer  has 
 faid,  and  what  |  Cudworth  had  before  Colledl" 
 
 *  Impartial  Infjulry  into  the  Exiftence  and  Nature  of  God,  by  S.  C 
 Part  2.  C.  I,  2,  5. 
 t  Jntelleciml  Sy/i.  pag.  818.  to  p.  S34* 
 
 N  €d 
 
178  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.X. 
 
 ed  on  that  Subjed:.  In  ray  Hurable  Opinion, 
 fuch  intricate  Queflions  are  too  high  for  Us; 
 and  are  what  our  Faculties  were  not  made  for. 
 However  that  be,  You  and  I  need  not  differ. 
 For,  if  You  can  admit  the  pofTibiHty  of  Tizo 
 infinite  extended  Beings,  You  can  have  no- 
 thing confiderable  to  objed:  againft  the  one  In- 
 finity  of  Three  infinite  Perfons,  which  I  aflert, 
 and  without  determining  the  modus  of  it. 
 
 You  proceed  to  obierve,  that  the  Son's  Office 
 andChara^er  doth  not  require  infinite  lowers: 
 To  which  I  fliall  only  fay,  that  it  may,  for  any 
 thing  you  know ;  fo  that  this  is  only  guefling 
 in  the  Dark.  Lafl:  of  all,  you  come  to  interpret 
 Dr.  Clarke ;  fuppofmg  Him  to  mean  by  "Di- 
 vine Towers,  *  all  divine  Powers  relating  to 
 the  Son's  CharaBer.  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  ho^e ,  the 
 ^erift  is  fo  good  a  Thilofopher  as  to  per- 
 ceive ^  ( tho'  He  doth  not  co7ifider  it )  that 
 abjolute  infinite  TerfeBions  include  and  in- 
 fer Supremacy  and  Independency.  And  there- 
 fore ^  when  T>r.  Clarke  excepted  Supremacy 
 and  Independency ,  He  plainly ,  in  Reafon 
 and  Confequence ,  excepted  abfolute  infinite 
 Towers. 
 
 *  ^cnp.  Bo^r,  p.  2518. 
 
 Now 
 
Qjj.X,  of  fome  (QUERIES,  179 
 
 Now,  I  am  perfwadcd,  ihat  Dr.  C/arke  would 
 have  thought  it  hard  mealure  to  have  bjcn 
 charged,  by  his  Adverfaries,  with  this  \o  flam 
 Confeqnence ,  which  you  here  lb  freely  lay 
 upon  Him.  The  ^leriji  was  aware  that  the 
 Dodor's  words  might  bear  an  orthodox  Senfe ; 
 namely,  that  to  the  Son  are  communicated  all 
 things  belonging  to  the  Father,  excepting  only 
 \^\\2X  v^T er final \  that  is,  excepting  that  He  is 
 not  the  firfi  in  Order ;  not  Supreme,  in  that 
 Senle,  nor  ^n-originate.  The  Doctor  well 
 knew  that  His  words  might  bear  this  Conftru- 
 d:ion ;  and  perhaps  would  not  have  took  it  well 
 of  any,  bat  a  Friend ,  that  ihould  have  tied 
 down  a  loofe  and  general  Exprelfion  to  2ijtri6{ 
 particular  Meaning ;  and  then  have  loaded  it 
 with  Confequences  too  fliocking  to  be  admitted 
 in  plain  and  exprefs  Terras.  But  to  proceed : 
 You  ieem  to  be  much  offended  at  the  Querift, 
 for  asking,  PFhether  all  divine  T^Gwers  can 
 be  communicated  to  a  Cre  attire^  in  fir  it  e  'Per- 
 fiction  to  a  finite  Beingl:  I'his,  you  fay,  is  an 
 evident  ContradiBion  ^  which  ought  not  to 
 have  been  put  bj  one  Scholar  upon  Another. 
 But,  after  this  Rebuke,  will  you  pleafe  to 
 hearken  to  the  reafon  of  the  Cafe.  The  dif- 
 ficulty ,  you  know ,  v/ith  the  ^erift,  was, 
 how  to  come  at  the  Dodor's  real  Senfe,  couched 
 under  general  and  amb^'guous  ExprefTions ;  that 
 ib  the  Controverly  might  be  brought  to  a  Point ; 
 and  it  might  be  leen  plainly  what  was  the  true 
 ftate  of  the  Queftion :  Which,  as  appears  now, 
 
 N  %  is 
 
i8o  y^DEFENSE  Qjj.X. 
 
 is  only  this :  whether  God  the  Son  be  a  Crea- 
 ture or  no.  The  Dodor  ralkM  of  the  Son's 
 having  divine  Powers,  and  all  divine  Powers. 
 It  was  very  proper  to  ask  you,  whether  He 
 hereby  meant  iftfnite  Powers  or  no ;  and 
 withal  to  fliow,  if  you  Ihould  not  aniwer  di- 
 recStly,  that  He  could  not  mean  it,  confijh 
 ently  with  the  Arian  Hypothefis,  which  He 
 Icem'd,  in  other  parts  of  his  Performance,  to 
 efpoufe.  You  will  not  yet  fay  diredrly,  that 
 the  Son's  Perfections  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 
 Perfedlions  of  the  Son  are  not  ahfioltttely  in- 
 finite: As  if  infinity  were  of  two  Sorts,  ab- 
 folute  and  limited \  or  might  be  rightly  divided 
 into  Infinity,  and  not  Infinity.  Inftead  of 
 this,  I  could  Willi ,  that  words  may  be  ufed  in 
 their  true  and  proper  meaning.  If  you  do 
 not  think  the  Perfedions  of  the  Son  are  in- 
 finite,  and  yet  are  unwilling  to  limit  them; 
 let  them  be  called  indefinite,  which  is  the  pro- 
 per word  to  exprefs  your  meaning ;  and  then 
 every  Reader  may  be  able  to  underftand  us, 
 and  may  fee  where  we  differ.  We  are  now  Both 
 agreed,  that  the  Dodor,  by  divine  Powers, 
 did  not  mean  infinite  Powers.  Now  let  us  pro- 
 ceed to  the  next  Query. 
 
 Q^UERY 
 
Qjj.  XI. 
 
 offo;77e  (QUERIES.  i8l 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       XL 
 
 Whether  if  the  "Doctor  means  by  divine  Towers^ 
 Towers  given  by  God  ( in  the  fame  Senfe 
 as  Angelical  To-juers  are  divine  Towers) 
 only  in  a  higher  degree  than  are  given  to 
 other  Beings ;  it  be  not  equivo eatings  and 
 faying  nothing :  nothing  that  can  come  up 
 to  the  Senfe  of  t ho fe  Texts  before  cited,  *  or 
 to  thefe following^ 
 
 Applied  to  the  one  God. 
 
 Thou ,  even  Thou  , 
 art  Lord  alone ;  Thou 
 haft  made  Heaven,  the 
 Heaven  of  Heavens 
 with  all  their  Hoft , 
 the  Earth  and  all 
 Things  that  are  there- 
 in, &c.  Neh.  9.  6. 
 
 In  the  Beginning, 
 God  created  the  Hea- 
 vens and  the  Earth, 
 Gen.  I.I. 
 
 To  God  the  Son. 
 
 All  Things  were 
 7nade  by  Him,  Joh.  1.3. 
 By  Him  were  all 
 Things  created  \  He  is 
 before  all  Things,  and 
 by  Him  allThings  con- 
 flft,  Colof  I.  16,  17. 
 
 Thou,  Lord,  in  the 
 Beginning ,  haft  laid 
 the  Foundation  of  the 
 Earth ;  and  the  Hea- 
 vens are  the  work  of 
 thy  Hands,  Heb.  1. 10. 
 
 IF  the  Dodor  means,  by  divine  Powers,  no 
 more  than  is  intimated  in  this  Query,  I  muft 
 blame  Him  firft  for  equivocating  and  playing 
 with  an  ambiguous  Word ;  and  next  for  retrain- 
 ing and  limiting  the  Powers  of  the  Son  of  God; 
 !Qu.6.  >.89.  N  3  not 
 
i8r  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.Xh 
 
 not  only  iz'tthoitt,  but  agatnjl  Scripture ;  and 
 coniequently  for  giving  us,  not  the  Scriptidve 
 T)o5irine  of  the  Trinity,  but  his  own.  That 
 there  is  no  ground,  from  the  Texts  themfelves, 
 for  any  fuch  Liaiitation  as  is  now  fuppofed,  is 
 tacitely  imphed  in  theDodor's  own  Confeffion ; 
 that  the  Son  is  excluded  from  nothing  but  ab- 
 folute  Supremacy  and  Independency :  So  natu- 
 rally doesTruth  fometimes prevail,  by  its  own 
 native  Clearnefs  and  Evidence,  againfl  the 
 Jtrongejf  andmoftfettledTrejudices.  Indeed,  the 
 thing  is  very  clear  from  the  Texts  themfelves 
 cited  above;  elpecially  when  ftrengthened  with 
 Thofe  now  produced  under  th;s  Qiiery.  That 
 the  Son  was,  and  is  endowed  with  creative 
 lowers,  is  plain  from  thefe  Texts,  and  others 
 which  might  be  added;  and  is  confirmed  by 
 the  unanimous  Suffrage  of  Catholick  Antiquity. 
 And  that  the  Title  oi  Creator  is  the  diftinguifli- 
 ing  Character  of  the  one  Supreme  God,  is  fb 
 clear  from  *  Scripture,  that  He  who  runs  may 
 read  it.  Now  let  us  confider  what  you  have 
 to  except,  in  order  to  elude  the  force  of  this 
 Argument. 
 
 The  Son  of  God,  you  fay,  is  manifefly  the 
 Father's  Agent  in  the  Creation  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe ; '  referring  to  Ephef  3.9.  and  to  Heb.  i .  x. 
 from  whence  you  infer,  that  He  \s  fubordinate 
 in  Nature  and  Towers  to  Him.  This  you 
 have  (/.  58.)  and  in  your  Notes  (/.  55-.)  you 
 
 *  Nehcm.  9.  6,      Ifa.  40.  ii,  13.  —  18, 19,  2o,  ai,  c^c.      Ifa. 
 41.  5*,  8.    Ifa.  43.  I.  10.    Jer.  10.  10.  II,  ij. 
 
 mfifl: 
 
Qu.Xr.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  183 
 
 infift  much  upon  the  Diilindiion  between  h!  ai- 
 rif,  and  W  aWi,  explaining  the  former  of  an 
 iiijirumentaL  and  the  latter  of  an  efficient 
 Caufe  ;  of  which  more  in  due  time  and  place. 
 As  to  the  Son's  being  Agent  'with,  or  Affijlant 
 to  the  Father,  in  the  work  of  Creation ,  we 
 readily  admit  it ;  and  even  contend  for  it.  The 
 Father  is  primarily,  and  the  Son  fecondarily^ 
 or  immediately.  Author  of  the  World ;  which 
 is  lb  far  from  proving  that  He  is  inferior,  in 
 Nature  or  Towers,  to  the  Father;  that  it  is 
 rather  a  convincing  Argument  thit  He  is  eqnal 
 m  Both.  A  Subordination  of  Order,  but  none 
 oi  Nature,  is  thereby  intimated.  *  Eufebius, 
 whom  you  quote  (/.  ss)  oxxi  o{Dv.Clarke,and 
 f  miiiranflate  to  ierve  your  purpofe,  does  not 
 deny  the  proper  Efficiency  of  the  Son  in  the 
 Work  of  Creation.  All  He  aflerts  is,  that  the 
 Creation  is  primarily  and  eminently  attributed 
 to  the  Father,  becauie  of  his  Au^-evTzx,  his  T^re- 
 rogative.  Authority,  Suprernacy,  as  Father,  or 
 firft  Perfon;  not  denying  the  %o\\s  proper  Effi- 
 ciency,  but  only  (if  I  may  fo  call  it)  :j:  original 
 
 *  Sec  Eufcrb.  Contr.  Marcel.  1.  i.  c.  20.  p.  84. 
 
 f  The  learned  Doctor^  and  after  Htm,  Tou  conjirue  \}zj'  ccutH,  and 
 ^i'  xuTod,  by  efficient,  and  rniniftnng  Caufe.  As  if  a  miniftring 
 Caufe  might  not  le  efficient ,  or  mnjl  neceffarily  be  oppofed  t§ 
 It. 
 
 4:  This  is  excellently  illuftrated  by  the  elder  CynW.  Uxr^o^  /SaAjjS-ZvTs? 
 
 Tot    TmVTlC     KX^GTCiVCC-^,     TU   y    TTZCT OQC,    VlUl^U     6    'tf5?    TK   TTUVm     U\ujma. 
 
 tf(J5  Jj  xoeAiv  f;^j)  iiniAxv  T  t'Ji'«v  i'tjujiiifiyyiUjoiTz.iv'  y^  .w-^tt  ss-ocryip 
 icTTZtJi^oTQ^u^vi  -^  otajTOTciocq  T  i'JioJ'j  oyiUiinpyrj/Mocnov,  fiii)Tf  0  'ijoq  T  \izs-' 
 fcTAa  ^f/.iispyt]fji,oi7uv  /3«<nA£yvj,  u>.Xoc  r  Itt  etyrs.    Catcch.  I  1.   p.  14.$. 
 
 Ed.  Oxoa. 
 
 N  4  Effici- 
 
184  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XI. 
 
 Efficiency ;  that  is ,  making  Him  the  fecond 
 and  not  the  firft  Perfon ;  not  Father  but  Son. 
 Indeed,  the  *  general  Opinion  of  the  Antients 
 cencer'd  in  this ;  that  the  Father,  as  Supreme, 
 ifTued  out  Orders  for  the  Creation  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe,  and  the  Son  executed  them.  And  this 
 was  aflertcd,  not  only  by  the  Ante-Nicene 
 Writers,  but  f  Toft-Nicene  too ;  and  liach  as 
 ftrenuoufly  defended  the  Cathol'ick  Faith  againft 
 the  Artms,  I  have  before  obferved  that  the 
 Antients  had  a  very  good  meaning  and  intent 
 in  affigning  (as  it  were)  to  the  Three  Perfons, 
 their  leveral  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  uTnigcTncTi' ,  or  U7r»p>«7v,  or  the  like. 
 This  need  not  be  thought  any  greater  difparage- 
 mcnt  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  Afiiftance  of  two  other  Perlbns ; 
 or  as  leaving  every  Thing  to  be  wifely  or- 
 dered, regulated,  and  perfected  by  the  Son  and 
 Holy  Spirit.  Thele  Things  are  not  to  be  ftricS:- 
 ly  and  rigoroufly  interpreted  according  to  the 
 Letter  ;  but  ojjco^'o^istcJ^,  and  SeoTrgeTr®?.  The  de- 
 fign  of  all  was :  i .  To  keep  up  a  more  lively 
 Senfe  of  a  real  Diftincftion  of  Perfons.  i.  To 
 teach  us  the  indivifible  Unity  and  Co- efTentiality 
 
 *  See  Irenaeusj  p.  85*     Tcrtullian,  Contr.  Prax.  c.  1 1.     Hippolyt. 
 Contr.  Noet.  c.  1 4. 
 
 t  ^6%  Petavius  de  Trin,  1.  z.  c.  7.     Bull.  D.  F.  p.  80.  1 1 1. 
 
 '        of 
 
Qjj.XL  offome  (QUERIES.  i^s 
 
 of  all  Three,  as  of  one  *  Creator.  3.  To  fignify 
 wherein  that  Unity  confifts,  or  into  what  it 
 ultimately  refolves,  viz.  into  ^nity  of  ^rin- 
 ciple,  one  *Ap>^>i,  Head,  Root,  Fountain  of  all. 
 As  to  the  Di(lind:ion  between  Si  qlvtS,  and  vtc* 
 oLvrSy  per  qtiem  and  ex  quo,  or  the  like;  it  can 
 be  of  very  Httle  lervice  to  your  Caule.  The 
 prepofition  :i^-,  with  a  genitive  after  it,  is 
 trequently  uled,  as  well  in  Scripture  as  in  Ec- 
 clefiaftical  Writers,  to  exprefs  the  efficient  C^M^Qy 
 as  much  as  wtto,  or  6/.,  or  n^S^^  or  any  other. 
 So  that  the  Argument  drawn  from  the  u(e  of 
 the  Prepofirions  is  very  poor  and  trifling,  as  was 
 long  fi nee  oblerved  by  f  ^^7^^  the  Great ,  who 
 very  handfomly  expoles  it's  Author  and  In- 
 ventor, Aetius,  for  it.  Pleafe  but  to  account 
 clearly  for  one  Text,  out  of  many,  (Rom, 
 II.  36.)  Of  Him,  and  through  Him  {l\  ccJtS) 
 and  to  Him  are  all  Things  ;  to  whom  be  Glory 
 for  ever.  If  you  underftand  this  of  the  Fa- 
 ther \  then,  by  your  Argument  from  thePhrafe, 
 l\  aubT^,  you  make  Him  alfo  no  more  than  an 
 injirumental  Caufe:  If  you  underftand  it  of 
 more  Perlbns,  Here's  an  illuftrious  Proof  of  a 
 Trinity  in  Unity.  If  it  be  pretended,  which 
 is  the  \  Dodor's  laft  reibrt,  that  although  the 
 ufe  of  thofc  Prcpofitions  fingly  be  not  iuffici- 
 ent,  yet  when  they  are  ufed  in  exprefs  Contra- 
 
 *  So  Origen,  who  makes  the  Father  hfJ^^ii^yh,  and  the  Son  hfj^mp" 
 vh,  Contr.  Celf,  p.  ^ly.  yet,  in  the  'very  fame  Treat ife,  denies  that 
 the  IVorld  could  have  more  Creators  than  one.  Ma  Ayet^/v^  Itiv  wbA- 
 >^m  a'fifjtjififym  ytyoiivctj,  p.  18. 
 
 t  Dc  Spir.  Sand.  p.  I4f,  (^c. 
 
 ^  See  Script.  Dodtr.  p.  90.  diffiu- 
 
i86  ^DEFENSE  Qu.XL 
 
 diftinfiion  to  each  other,  they  arc  of  more 
 Significancy ;  I  anlvver  firft,  that  I  defire  to 
 know  of  what  Significancy  they  are  in  Rom, 
 II.  36.  where  they  feem  to  be  ufed  in  exprefs 
 Contra- dtjiin^ion  to  each  other;  and  fecondly, 
 admitting  that  they  arc  oi Significancy,  they  may 
 fignify  only  a  r^'^/Diftinction  of  Perlbns,  as  St. 
 *Bafil  well  oblerves;  or  iova^  priority  of  order 
 proper  to  x.\\q  firjl  Terfon:  This  is  all  the  ufe 
 which  any  Catholick  Writer  ever  pretended  to 
 make  of  the  Diftindiion.  However,  to  coun- 
 tenance the  Diftindion  between  the  Father  as 
 the  efficient y  and  the  Son  as  the  injlrurnental 
 Caufe,  you  are  pleafed  to  fay  farther  (/.  56. ) 
 V/J"  remarkable  that  (^according  to  the  Senfe 
 of  the  foregoing  T>iftin6tion)  though  Chriji  is 
 frequently  filed  by  the  Antients  Tix^iTyi^  and 
 Ayj/xinpyhy  yet  nciy^ry.?  r  ohm  is  (to  the  beft  of 
 my  Remembrance)  always  confined  by  Them  to 
 the  Father  only  f . 
 
 Had  your  Remark  been  true  and  juft,  yet  it 
 would  not  be  eafy  to  iliow  that  'tb::^i'/t}^^,  or 
 however  hfxispyU,  may  not  fignify  as  much  as 
 'TiDivjTyi^.  But  your  Memory  has  much  deceived 
 you,  in  this  Matter;  and  you  iliould  be  cautious 
 how    you  make   your  Readers    rely  upon    it. 
 
 -*f  De  Spir.  Sancl.  p.  148. 
 
 f  See  Origen  Conrr.  Cclf.  p.  ^17.  tohe^'e  the  Son  is  [aid  -TuivAaz^ 
 T  n^a-yjm,  and  the  Father  to  be  zrear&'t,,  that  is,  primarily  or  emi- 
 nently d)^fjiji\if/o<i.  Jf  •^iiiTi^q  fignifieci  more  than  J^/Atapyo^,  Origen 
 fpoke  very  unaccurately, 
 
 Cyrill  of  Alexandria  fuppofes  God  the  Father  to  have  been  in 
 reality  ■nx^'-'^'i  from  everlajiing;  i^jU/i^pyo?  in  Power  and  Intention  only, 
 Thefaur.  aff,  4   p.  34.. 
 
 Thofe 
 
Qy.Xl.  of  fowe  QV ERIE S.  187 
 
 Thofe  Words  (efpecially  the  Two  lafl:  of  them) 
 feem  to  have  been  uibd  by  the  Antients  pro- 
 mifcuoufly  ;  and  to  have  been  appHed  indif- 
 ferently to  Father  or  Son,  as  They  had  occa- 
 fion  to  mention  either.  If  They  are  oft'ner 
 applied  to  the  Father,  it  is  only  becaufe  He  is 
 the  frj}  Terfon ;  and  is  therefore  primarily 
 and  eminently,  Tiy^nT^'^y  ^uiypyUy  or  vroiyirh ; 
 not  that  the  Son  is  not  Jfri^ly,  J^roperly,  and 
 compleatly  Creator  alio,  according  to  the  fullefl 
 fenie  and  import  of  any,  or  of  all  thofe  Words. 
 They  were  intended  to  fignify  that  the  Son 
 is  the  immediate  and  efficient  Caufe  of  all 
 Things;  had  *  creative  Powers;  and  was, 
 with  the  Father,  Creator  of  iVIcn,  of  Angels, 
 of  the  whole  Univerfe.  A  late  f  Writer  is 
 pleaied  to  exprefs  Himfelf,  upon  this  Head,  in 
 Inch  a  manner  as  may  deceive  ignorant  and  un- 
 wary Readers.  *'  I  know  nor  {fays  He)  that 
 "  either  Arians ,  or  any  primitive  Chriftian 
 *'  Writers,  ever  adventured  to  give  the  Cha- 
 *'  rad:er  of  great  ArchiteEi  of  the  Univerfe 
 *'  to  Jefus  Chrifl: ;  chuftng  rather,  with  the 
 "  facred  Writings,  to  lay,  in  fofter  Language, 
 *'  that  thro'  Him  God  created  All,  and  relerv- 
 **  ing  the  abfolute Title  oi Creator  of  the^ni- 
 *'  verfe  to  Another. 
 
 If  He  knows  not  thefe  Things,    He  might 
 forbear  to  fpeak  of  them.    What  He  iays,  even 
 
 *  The  Arians  themfehes  nould  fay,  fua  virtute  fecit,  meaning  it  of 
 she  Son.     See  the  Citation  aho've,  p,  94. 
 
 \  Mr.  Emlyn.  Exam.  <?/ Dr.  Bennec,  p.  11.  6rft  Edit. 
 
 of 
 
i88  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XI. 
 
 of  the  Sacred  Wrmugs,  is  Mtfreprefentation : 
 For,   They  do  not  conflantly  follow  that  foft 
 Language,  which  He  fo  much  approves  of  They 
 do  it  not,  in  Job.  i.  3,  ro.  Colof.  i.  16.  Hebr. 
 I.  10,   Neither  can  that  Conftrudion  be  afcer- 
 tain'd,  in  any  one  of  thefe  Texts,  from  any  ne- 
 cejfary  force  of  the  Prepofition  0^^.  As  to  An- 
 tiquity,  which  this  Gentleman  pretends  to,  He 
 may  know^    hereafter,    that   the  Charader   of 
 ^  great  Architect  of  the'Vuiverfe,  is  exprefly 
 given  to  Je/tis  Chrifl,  by  Eufebius ;  who  was 
 never  fufped:ed  of  carrying  Orthodoxy  too  high, 
 A  Man  mud  be  a  very  ftranger  to  the  Ant  tent  s^ 
 who  can  make  any  Queftion  whether  They  at- 
 tributed the  Work  of  Creation  to  the  Son,  as 
 much  as  to  the  Father.  They  afcribed  it  equally 
 to  Both;  only  with  this  difference,  as  before 
 obferved,    that,    for  the  greater   Majefty    and 
 Dignity   of  the  Father   as    the  firfi  Terfon  , 
 They  fuppofed  Him  to  ^  iffue  out  Orders,  or 
 to  give  his  Fiat,  for  the  Creation,  and  the  Son 
 to  Execute.    From  hence  we  may  eafily  under- 
 lland  in  what  Senle  the  Tide  of  Creator  was 
 "^  primarily,  or  eminently  attributed  to  the  Fa- 
 ther ;  and  yet,  as  to  any  real  Tower  or  Effici- 
 ency, the  Son  is  as  truly  and  properly  Creator  5 
 
 a  *0  y>iyt%  ruv   oXm  o'tifz/mpyb^  Aoo^5.    Eufeb.  E.  H,  1    lo.   c.  4. 
 
 hifitus^'^vvroc,,  '■^  ^i  TFvsufjijoPi^  TPi(povToc,  Ka'i  cillo^roi.  Iren«  p.  28/. 
 Ed,  Bened. 
 
 Uctry,^  yiB-i>ii)trsv,  'vfl^  iTrviYinv^  TrviVjjjX  £(pxvi^&f<rBv.  Hippol.  Contr. 
 Noer.  p.  16. 
 
 c  UffaTiiXi  hi^infyoy.  Orig.  Contr.  Celf.  p.  3 17* 
 
 and 
 
Q^u.IX.  of  fome  QUERIES.  189 
 
 and  is  frequently  fo  ftilcd ,  by  the  primitive 
 Writers,  in  the  *  fulleft  and  ftrongcft  Terms. 
 You  may  Ice  fome  Teftimonies,  in  the  Margin, 
 from  Athenagoras,  Tatian^  Irenaus,  Clement 
 oi  Alexandria,  and  Origen.  It  would  be  caiy 
 to  add  more,  from  Hipp olyt its  ^  Gregory  of 
 Neocafarea,  Novattan,  and  indeed  from  the 
 generality  of  the  Church  Writers  down  from 
 Barnabas  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  I  mud  ob- 
 ferve  to  you,  that  even  your  admired  f  Eiife" 
 bins  (whom  you  before  quoted  in  your  favour, 
 miftaking  Him  very  widely)  He  applies  the 
 Title  of  '77Bi>tTk  T  oAo)!',  (the  higheft  w^hich  you 
 think  the  Father  Himfelf  can  have)  to  the  Son, 
 
 *  n^5  ocvitv  fp  >^  ci'  ocitTta  yrtLiTu  iyivsra,  svoq  ovr^  too  TrzcTfo^ 
 jg  T»  '^o'J.     Athenag,  p.  38-  Ed.  Oxon,  Obferve  ^5  ccuraZy  as  reell 
 
 AS   tfV    cC'jToO. 
 
 Au7^5  txvTtS  Tvjv  uXluj  (Ji;M<<»p7^7K5.  'Ay  fi>.cjv  ^/utjiafyor,,  Tatiao- 
 p.  21.  26.  Edit.  Ox. 
 
 TovTtv    fjuovoyiv'^  roZrov   ttuvtuv   'roiyiryiv,     Iren.  pag.  44.  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 TouTor  H^a-fjtjii  TraivtTlul si<;  roi  t^icc  lA/jAf.9-07BS,    Ibid.     Tav   t  ttuv- 
 
 Ttov  K7i<piv,   f^  ^yifjtjiii^yov,  (f  •^mivirytv ,  Xopv  rod  QioZ,  p.  79.     Tav  u.'TnM- 
 
 Tccv  r£;t:vj'77;5  Acyos,  p.  1 90.  Fabricator  Omnium,  p.  219.  Fabricator 
 Univerrorum,  p.  307. 
 
 'SI  Tcc  7:u.vTu  dihff-^iify^rcc}.  CIcm.  Alexandr.  p.  7  Edit.  Oxon. 
 "Zvf/jTrocvTtov  0£ov   ivcx,  fj{C;'jcv    <-  o>i!J-jHifyov  't|oi/  c'y  77wrg/(.    p.    142.. 
 
 TlxiTU   9   Aoj55  'THSiH-  rx    oXoc    dvif/jiis^'y-'i  ■         .  roZ    ti^tru,^    id    tcH 
 
 'AvJpaTTii  hij/jiov^yoc,,  p.  310.  'H  r  oXm  'A^^^^t  p.  66c^.  O  Xiy(^ 
 hifjijiov^yiui  oiiTioc,   p.  6f4t     UccvTuv  di^f/jicvpy^y   p.  768. 
 
 Tov  Aoj^v  TnTiviijKivaj  tivatu,  cvx  0  -zs-xrvo  ctuTzS  cvsniXccro.  Oric^cn. 
 Contr.  Ceir.  p.  63. 
 
 Anf/fiovfiyov  T  TTuvrziV,  uti^^v^  ttviktIu'^t  7ru^Tz*v.  Origen.  apud 
 Huet.  Origenian.  p.  38. 
 
 N.  B.  This  laft  Citation,  from  a  Catena,  is  of  lefs  Authority^  but 
 the  Citations  from  his  other  certainly  genuine  Works,  are^  in  Senfe^ 
 equivalent, 
 
 t  Eufeb.  in  Pfalni.  p.  12^.  5-64.  630.  in  the  frfi  of  the  three 
 PUces,  the  Words  are  remarkably  full  and  Jirong,  'O  ^\fjt,iov^yiq  Aej?^, 
 c  -^iTiTAi  ^  oXuv.  The  other  two  are  equivalent  in  Senfe,  Iloojri,;  t 
 iAwy,  and  i  >re<j}T>}$  u9Tfivi  wkere  •Awt-  is  undetjlood. 
 
I90  ^DEFENSE  (^ii.XL 
 
 no  lefs  than  thrice ;  ^LsL'-ejtatis  had  done,  thrice 
 alfo,  before,  in  Words  equivalent ;  and  Origen, 
 probably,  once ;  as  alfo  *  Hippolytus :  not  to 
 mention  that  almoft  AH  the  Fathers  by  inter- 
 preting, G^;/.  1.16.  (-Tci'^jw/^  V  Iv'^paTfvVi  &C.)  of 
 Father  and  Son  jointly,  have  impHcitely  and 
 conlequentially,  tho'  not  cxprefly ,  faid  the 
 lame  thing.     To  proceed: 
 
 You  have  an  Argument  to  prove  that  Creat- 
 ing docs  not  imply  infinite  Power.  For,  you 
 lay,  was  the  extent  of  tho  fe  lowers,  then  ex- 
 ercis'd,  infinite,  'tis  evident,  the  World  muft 
 be  infinite  alfio,  (p-58-)  This,  indeed,  is  do- 
 ing the  Bufineis  at  once:  For,  if  this  reafoning 
 bejuft,  the  Father  Himfelf,  as  well  as  the  Son, 
 is  efFcdtually  excluded  from  ever  giving  any 
 fenfible  Proof,  or  from  exerting  any  Ad:,  of 
 infinite  Power.  St.  Taul's  Argument  from  the 
 Creation,  for  the  eternal  Tower  and  Godhead  of 
 the  Creator,  is  rendred  inconclufive :  For  it  will 
 be  eafy  to  reply,  in  Contradidion  to  the  Apo- 
 ftle's  reafoning,  that  the  Things  which  are  made 
 are  finite ;  and  therefore  cannot  prove  the 
 maker  of  Them  to  be  infinite :  So  thatAcheifts 
 and  Unbelievers  were  not  fo  entirely  without 
 excufie,  as  the  good  Apoftle  imagin'd.  If  you 
 think  there  is  fome  difference  between  infinite 
 Tower,  and  eternal  Tower  and  Godhead-^  and 
 therefore  that   the  Apoftle's  Argument   is  not 
 
 *  Contr.  Beron.  &:  Hel.  p.  ix6*   Comp.  Contr.  Noet.  p.  i6« 
 The  genuinefs  of  the  firji  is  fomeTpkat  doubtful  j  but  the  Ufi  is  not 
 qtiefton'J, 
 
 per- 
 
Q^u.Xr.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  19 1 
 
 pertinent  to  the  point  in  Hand;  I  fliall  be  con- 
 tent if  Creating  be  allowed  a  fufficienc  Proof 
 of  the  Son's  eteriial  To'isaer  and  Godhead  \ 
 fince  it  brings  me  directly  to  the  Point  I  aim 
 at:  Bcfides,  that  infinite  ToiL'er  will  come  in 
 of  Courfe  afterwards,  by  necefTary  Inference  and 
 Implication.  I  had  almoft  forgot  to  take  notice 
 of  your  way  of  wording  your  Argument,  which 
 looks  not  very  fair.  You  fay,  iji'as  the  extent 
 of  thofe  Towers  infinite ;  as  if  any  one  faid  it 
 was,  in  the  Senfe  wherein  you  underftand  the 
 word  extent.  For  Realons  beft  known  to  your 
 lelf,  you  do  not  diftinguiih  between  extent  of 
 Power  ad  intra,  in  relpcd;  of  "Degree ;  and 
 extent  of  Power  ad  extra,  in  refped:  of  the 
 exercife  of  it.  It  may  require  an  infinite  2)^- 
 gree  of  Power,  to  create  a  grain  of  Sand ;  tho' 
 the  extent  of  that  outward  Ad;  reaches  no  far- 
 ther than  the  thing  created.  Now,  you  know, 
 our  difpute  is  only  about  infinite  extent  of 
 Power  in  the  firft  Senfe.  Let  us  therefore  put 
 the  Argument  into  plain  Words,  and  fee  how 
 it  will  bear. 
 
 *'  Was  the  Power  exercis'd  in  the  Creation 
 **  infinite  in  T>egree,  or  exceeding  any  finite 
 **  Power,  then  it  is  evident  that  the  World 
 *'  muft  be  infinite.  Make  this  out,  with  any 
 tolerable  Senfe  or  Connexion,  and  youl  do 
 fomething.  Next  let  us  put  the  Argument  in 
 the  other  Light. 
 
 **  If  the  Power  exercis'd  in  the  Creation  ex- 
 **  tended  to  an  infinite  Comfafs,  or  to  an  />/- 
 
 *'  finite 
 
191  yfDEFENSE  Qu.XL 
 
 •'  Jinite  Number  of  Things,  then  if  is  evident 
 *'  that  the  World  mufl  be  infinite.  Right: 
 If  the  Creation  had  been  infinite  in  extent ^ 
 the  Creation  mud  have  been  infinite  in  ex- 
 tent. But  who  is  it  that  you  are  diiputing 
 againft  ?  Or  whom  do  you  obhge  by  theie  Dil- 
 covenes  ?  The  Queftion  is,  whether  the  Create 
 ing,  that  is,  producing  out  of  Nothing,  any  one 
 fingle  Thing,  however  fmall  in  extent,  be  not 
 an  Ad  proper  to  God  only;  exceeding  any 
 finite  Power ;  incommunicable  to  any  Creature. 
 It  is  fufficient  for  Ton,  to  put  "Vs  upon  the  proof 
 oi  x}i\Q  Ajfirmative :  No  confideringMan  would 
 ever  attempt  to  prove  the  Negative.  As  to  the 
 Affirmative,  there  are  many  very  probable  pre- 
 fumptive  Proofs,  fuch  as  ought  to  have  great 
 Weight  with  Us:  particularly,  Creation  every 
 where  in  Scripture  look'd  on  as  a  divine  Adi; 
 Not  fo  much  as  a  Grain  of  Sand,  or  a  Particle  of 
 Matter,  faid  to  be  created  by  an  Angel,  or  Arch- 
 angel, or  any  Creature  whatever ;  Reafonable  to 
 fuppofe  that  nothing  can  come  into  Being  by 
 any  Power  lefs  than  His,  w^ho  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- 
 
 *  Hoc  Ocu?  ab  Homine  diftert,  quoniam  Dcus  quidem  facir.  Ho- 
 mo autem  fit:  fie  quidem  Qui  facit,  fcmper  Idem  eft.  /rc«. />.  240, 
 'Ed.  Bened. 
 
 Nihil  enim  in  totum  Diabolus  invenitur  feciflc,  videlicet  cum  8c 
 JpfeCreatura  fit  Dei,  quemadmodum  &  reliqui  Angcli.  Iren.  p.  xi%, 
 
 Seealfo  Bull.  D.F.  Epilog,  p.  25^1,  291. 
 
 pears  5 
 
Qu,Xh  of  fome  (QUERIES.  193 
 
 pears,  as  well  as  of  Thole  that  came  after. 
 Wherefore  the  Avians^  in  aicribing  Creation  to 
 a  Creature,  innovated  in  the  Faith  of  Chrift, 
 copied  after  the  Gnoflicks,  and  expoled  their 
 Gaufe.  Since  They  reiblved  to  make  "iCreatitre 
 only,  of  the  Son  of  God,  they  ihould  not  have 
 allowed  Him  any  Power  of  Creating  ;  but 
 fhould  have  interpreted  all  thole  Texts  which 
 ipeak  in  favour  of  it,  as  the  Socinians  have  done 
 fmce,  of  a  metaphorical  Creation.  That  in- 
 deed had  been  novel,  and  (Irain'd  enough ;  but 
 accompanied  with  leis  ablurdity  than  the  other. 
 However,  This  ufe  we  may  make  of  what  the 
 Arians  fo  univerfally  granted ;  Firft,  to  obferve, 
 that  Scripture  and  Tradition  muft  have  appeared 
 to  run  very  ftrong,  at  that  time,  for  it:  And  it 
 may  farther  Ihow,  how  eafy  arid  natural  that 
 Notion  muji  be  allowed  to  be,  which  fo  many 
 could  not  forbear  exprefjlng  clearly  and  di- 
 jlin6ily ;  even  frequently  when,  at  the  fame 
 time,  ^  they  were  about  to  affirm,  and  en- 
 deavoring to  prove  fomething  not  very  con- 
 fiftent  with  it.  But  we  Ihall  have  more  of  this 
 Matter  in  the  following  ^eries. 
 
 O  Q^UERY 
 
194  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.Xll. 
 
 Q^U    E    R    Y       XII. 
 
 Whether  the  Creator  of  all  Things  'ujas  not 
 Him/elf  uncreated ;  and  therefore  could 
 not  be  e^  cht  hjavy  made  out  of  nothing, 
 
 THIS  and  the  four  following  Queries,  are\ 
 you  fay,  ally  at  mofl,  but  Arguments, 
 ad  Ignorantiam,  or  Verccundiam,  (p  5-9 )  to 
 fut  Its  upon  determiningThings\on  either  fide  ^ 
 not  clearly  revealed.  To  iay  the  Truth,  you 
 leem  here  to  be  very  much  perplex'd  ;  and 
 therefore  have  reafon  to  complain :  And  I  am 
 not  to  exped:  any  very  clear  and  diflind:  An- 
 Iwers  You  admit  (/>.  60)  that  the  Creator 
 of  allThings  fnuft  be  Him fe  If  uncreated.  Well 
 then:  The  Son  x^Creator  of  all  Things;  There- 
 fore He  is  uncreated.  The  Premiles  are  Both 
 your  own;  The  Conclufion  mine;  And,  one 
 might  think,  it  fliould  be  Your's  too.  But  you 
 are,  it  ieems,  very  loth  to  coire  into  it ;  and 
 difcover  a  llrong  Inclination  to  elude  and  evade 
 it ;  if  it  were  any  way  poffibie  for  you  to  do 
 it.  Let  us  fte  what  you  can  fay :  If  the 
 Scripture-Senfe  be  the  true  and  only  poper 
 Senfe  of  the  'ujord.  Creature ,  {to  wit ,  the 
 I'ifible  and  invifible  Worlds  brought  into  be- 
 ing by  the  Tower  of  the  Aoy®^,  or  Son  of 
 God,  in  Subordination  to  the  Will  and  Tower 
 of  the  Father )  then  His  manifeji  that  the 
 A07©-,  ''who  thus  created  Them,  muji  {what- 
 ever 
 
Q^u.XII.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.  19^ 
 
 ever  is  the  nature  of  his  own  Troduliion  or 
 Generation)  be,  in  this  way  of  fpeaking^  tin- 
 created.  This  is  fomcthing  myfterious.  It  is 
 however  very  plain  that  you  arc  draining  hard 
 for  fbnae  odd,  peculiar  Senfe  of  the  word,  Crea- 
 ture, or  Created \  which  is  to  be  called  the 
 Scripture  Senfe  \  and  if  this  does  not  relieve 
 you,  all  is  loft. 
 
 You  give  us  the  Scripture -T>o6irine  of 
 the  Creation ;  expreffing  both  the  Creation 
 it  felf,  and  the  "Per/on  by  whom  it  was 
 wrought:  and  that  whole  T>o5frine,  tho*  fet 
 forth  in  many  Words,  you  call  the  Scripture- 
 Senfe  of  that  One  Word,  Creature,  or  Created, 
 As  if  I  lliould  fay  ;  the  Scripture- Account  of  rhe 
 jirk  is,  that  it  was  made  by  Noah ;  therefore 
 the  Scripture-Senfe  of  the  word,  Ark,  impii^^s 
 the  making  of  it  by  Noah.  Or,  the  Scrip-cre- 
 Account  of  rhe  Temple  is,  that  ic  was  built  by 
 Solomon  ;  therefore  the  Scripture  Senfe  of  rhe 
 word.  Temple,  fuppoies  it  to  be  lomerhing 
 made  by  Solomon :  And  if  there  were  ever  fo 
 mmy  Temples  befides  that  one,  yet  They  could 
 not  properly  be  call'd  Temples,  unlefs  built  by 
 Solomon.  This  is  juft  as  good  as  yoar  pretence, 
 that  creating  docs  not  fignify  (imply,  creat- 
 ing ;  but  creating  by  the  Ao  y;^.  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  Ao7(^  ?  If  they  did ; 
 
 O  %  Thac 
 
ic^6  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XI. 
 
 That  is  a  point  I  may  make  Ibme  ufe  of  ano- 
 ther Time :  If  They  did  not ;  then  the  Scrl- 
 fttireSenfe  oi  x\\Q  woxd.  Great  nre,  before  the 
 coming  of  the  MeJJiah,  was  fomething  different 
 from  what  you  have  given  us.  I  ihall  only  add, 
 that  your  pretended  Senfe  of  the  word  Crea- 
 ture, or  Created^  does  not  fecm  to  have  pre- 
 vailed fo  early  as  St.  John's  Time.  He  tells 
 us,  all  Things  were  made  by  Him,  that  is,  by 
 the  Aoy©- ;  and  ^without  Him,  was  not  any 
 Thing  made  that  was  7nade.  Might  He  not 
 better  have  faid ,  in  fliort ,  all  Things  were 
 created,  neither  was  there  any  thing  but  what 
 was  created  \  It  was  perfedly  needlefs,  if  your 
 pretence  be  true,  to  infert,  by  Him ;  becaule,  in 
 the  Scripture- Sen/e  of  the  Word,  it  was  im- 
 plied, and  the  Addition  of  it  only  renders  it 
 Tautology. 
 
 You  go  on  to  fay,  it  is,  I  thinks  for  this 
 reafon,  that  the  Scriptures  never  fay  that 
 He  is  created,  Ingenuoufly  confels'd ;  and 
 therefore  I  hope  you  will  nor  preiume,  either 
 to  fay,  ox  to  believe,  xh^z  He  is  created.  As 
 to  the  reafon  you  aflign  for  it,  it  is  mecr 
 Fancy  and  Fidion:  I  hope,  out  of  pure  Re- 
 verence to  the  facred  fVrit,  you  will  bethink 
 your  felf  of  fome  better.  You  add,  on  the  other 
 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  mnfl  be  Himfelf  uncreated,  is 
 M  unavoidable  confequence  in  Reafon:   And 
 
 that 
 
qi/.XL  of  fome  (QUERIES.  197 
 
 that  the  Kly(^  had  created  all  Things  you 
 admit,  immediately  after,  as  delivered  in  Scri- 
 pture. Wherefore,  if  Scripture,  by  unavoid- 
 able Confequence ,  does  fay ,  that  He  '\%  un- 
 created'^ 1  hope,  Scripture  does  y^  it.  The 
 Scriptures,  every  where,  carefully  keep  up  the 
 Diftiniftion  between  Creator,  and  Creature  ; 
 and  never  confound  Both  in  one.  They  tell 
 us  not  of  any  Creature  of  the  Fathers,  which 
 is  not  a  Creature  of  the  Son's  alio.  They  fay, 
 that  all  Things  'oi^ere  made  by  Him  ;  and  to  be 
 more  exprefiive  and  emphatical,  without  Him 
 ■was  not  any  Thing  made  that  was  made. 
 How  can  this  be,  if  He  Hirafelf  was  made  ? 
 Si  Iffe  FaEitis  eft,  non  per  Illitm  funt  omnia 
 fa6ia,  fed  cat  era ;  faith  St.  Atiftin. 
 
 As  to  the  Senie  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers, 
 in  this  particular,  it  is  well  known  that  they  do 
 imflicitely  and  confeqnentially,  almofh  every 
 where,  declare  the  Son  to  be  uncreated.  You 
 may  fee  fome  *  Teflimonics  referred  to  in  the 
 Margin,  where  they  do  it  alfo  direEily,  and  in 
 exfrefs  Words.  1  fcruple  not  to  put  Origen 
 amongfl:  Them :  His  Orthodoxy  has  been  ef- 
 fed:ually  defended  by  the  Incomparable  Bilhop 
 BulL  in  the  Opinion  of  the  ableft  and  moll 
 impartial  Judges.  The  learned  Dodor,  notwith- 
 
 *  Athenagoras,  Legat.  p.  59.  Ed.  Ox.  Ignar.  ad  Ephef.  c.  7. 
 p.  14.  Ed.  Ox.  Irenaeus,  1.  2.  c.  ij".  p.  If3.  Ed.  BeneJ.  Origen» 
 Contr.  Celf.  1.  6.  p.  287.  Dionyf.  Rora.  apud  Ahanaf.  d^z  Decret- 
 Syn.  N.  p.  131.  Dionyfius  Alexand.  apud  Eund.  230.  x^^.  15-7. 
 Theognoftus— —  apud  Eund.  230.  Methodius  apud  Phot,  p  95-^. 
 Hippolytus  (probably)  de  Theol.  ^  Incarn.  p.  228. 
 
 O  3  (landing 
 
J98  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XII. 
 
 {landing,  has  been  pleafed  to  revive  the  Difpute 
 about  brigen's  Sennments  with  what  Succeft, 
 ihall  be  here  examm'd,  as  briefly  as  may  be.  The 
 Words  of  Origen,  which  ^He  lays  hold  on,  are 
 
 thele.    ^  CgKcrS'JTrtTov  'Tti.VTTJuV   "T^d     ^/xi^pynf^xir/v  ^ 
 
 applied  to  the  Son.  B  lliop  Bu//,  like  a  skilful 
 and  a  candid  Man,  who  did  not  care  to  let  one 
 ambiguous  Sentence  againfr  mmiy  plain  ones ; 
 nor  to  make  an  Author  manifcftly  inconfiftent, 
 without  as  manifeft  a  necefliry ;  rcndred  the 
 Words,  very  rightly,  Aniienter  than  all  Crea- 
 tures. The  Dodor  Himfelf  is  forc'd  to  ^  admit, 
 that  the  Words  might  bear  this  Conftrudion : 
 And  yet  ^  afrerw^ards  fays,  that  Origen  exprejly 
 reckoned  the  Son  among  the  h/xi3pyy](jLcL(gc.  But; 
 how  exprejly  ?  This  can  never  be  proved  meer- 
 ly  from  the  Force  of  Tr^iaQvraLlovj  as  a  Super- 
 lative :  unlefs  ^  Eufebius  exprejly  reckon'd  the 
 Son  among  Times  and  Ages ;  or  ^  Jujiin  Mar- 
 tyr exprefly  reckon'd  the  Tentateuch  among 
 profane  Hiftories ;  or  the  fame  s  Jujiin  ex- 
 prejly  reckon'd  Mofes  and  the  Trophets  among 
 the  Wife -Men  of  Greece  :  which  is  ridicu- 
 lous. The  Superlative,  we  fee,  hath  been 
 ufed  Ibmetimes  Comparatively ;    and  why  not 
 
 a  Script.  Dodr.  p.  184.  278.  a 81. 
 b  Orig.   Conrr.  Celf.   1.  j-.  p.  2^-7. 
 
 c  Script.   Dodtr.  p.  184.  d  Script.  Doftr.  p.  182. 
 
 e  UAvrv^  Xi^v^  ^  TrxvTZjy  eciavuv  T^KrZuvx.'rte,.  De  Laud.  Conftant. 
 c.  I.  p.  foi.  Valef. 
 
 Parxn.  c  12.  p.  70.  Ed.  Ox.  ,         \^ 
 
 iraf  viMv  az<pav,    Paraen.  c.  35".  p.  ll8. 
 
 by 
 
Q^u.XII.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  199 
 
 by  Origen  ?  He  may  only  appear  to  fay,  what 
 He  really  does  not.  There  is  certainly  a  wide 
 Difference  between  verbally  feeming  to  affert, 
 and  exprejly  alTercing;  as  much  as  between  being 
 barely  capable  ofilich  aSenle,  and  being  capable 
 of  no  other  Sen(e.  How  then  will  the  learned 
 Doctor  be  able  to  make  good  his  Pretenfions  ? 
 He  *  alledges  the  "-juhole  Tenor  of  Ox\gQVLS  Opi- 
 nion \  In  which  He  greatly  miftakes:  For  the 
 whole  Tenor  of  Origen,  efpecially  in  thatTrea- 
 tife  from  whence  the  Paffage  is  taken,  is  alto- 
 gether contrary;  as  the  Learned  well  know, 
 and  Billiop  Bull  hath  clearly  fliown.  But  the 
 Doc3:or  has  a  farther  plea  from  a  Paflagc"  in 
 f  Athanafius,  which  He  feems  to  be  much 
 pleafed  with ;  referring  to  it,  once,  and  again, 
 in  his  Scripture -T)oBrine.  The  principal 
 Words  are  thefe :  Tq^  y^  ^  xtkhcc?  x-vfjovy  ^  TcitjY,^ 
 '-s!jzs^<:^(j\coi  J^/^i«py:v.  The  Dodlor  thinks  He 
 has  here  difcovcred  a  :j:  Contra- diflinEiion  be- 
 tween T"  xT-iQ\m  (  He  negled:s  iojo-m)  and  ttx- 
 071?  'Oz^7^aia)5  huiHpyov  We  are  to  fuppofe 
 ^x&v,$  '\i:zin):rcl^cc^  of  larger  Extent  and  Signifi- 
 cation  than  ttxo-i^,^  ^.ti'^co^  would  have  been :  and, 
 becaufe  JV^iHpyc^  goes  along  with  ic,  we  are 
 to  fuppofe  that  Jvi^aiep>>i^st  was  underftood,  by 
 Athanafius,  in  a  larger  Sen(e  than  x-tiV?  :  Lallly, 
 we  are  to  fuppofe  that  Athanafius  is,  in  this 
 
 *  Scrip.   Dcdr-^p.  1S4. 
 
 'J57^racr5&>c  hi^m^ylv.  tic,  Jlj  av  t^v  iiroc,  eOi^'  jj  0  xoLvccyict^  y^  vTnPt' 
 rtKHvx  TTucYic,  '^nrvic,  «a7«5,  0  ^  Xe/i^u  ^recrjj'p.  Orat.  Contr".  Gent, 
 p.  3p.  Ed.  Bened.  f  Script.  Do(5lr.  p.  184. 
 
 O  4  la- 
 
^oo  ^DEFENSE  Qjj.Xh 
 
 Inftance,  the  beft  Interpreter  of  Origen^  tho- 
 it  does  not  appear  from  Orlgen'<,  own  Writings, 
 that  He  knew  any  thing  of  this  pecuhar  Senfe 
 of  (3\/x*8V>W/ua ;  but  the  Contrary.  The  bare  Re- 
 cital oi  ib  many  Stippojitions,  advanc'd  without 
 Proof,  or  any  Shadow  of  it,  might  fuffice  for  an 
 Anfwer.     Bur  we  may  oblerve. 
 
 I.  That  \i Athanajius,  being  then  a  young 
 Man  and  an  Orator,  intended  only  to  vary 
 hisPhrale;  either  to  be  more  emphatical,  or  tq 
 give  the  better  Turn  and  Cadence  to  a  Period 
 (and  this  might  be  all,  tor  any  thing  that  ap- 
 pears to  the  Contrary)  then  the  Do6tor's Cr'tti- 
 cifm  falls  to  the  Ground. 
 
 a.  If  any  Contra  d'tfitn^i ion  was  intended,  it 
 fliould  feem  that  the  fame  muft  hold,  with  re- 
 jped:  to  •JjV'^^  and  ^y\iJii\i^yb'i :  the  Confequence 
 whereof  is,  that  God  the  Father  is  not  x.ugi@« 
 fo  far  and  wide  as  He  is  ^-^yu^H^yU.  It  will  be 
 fpme  Satisfadlion  to  us,  that,  if  the  Son  be 
 S'»]}jLmpyv\(JuxT>  He  has  no  Lord  over  Him, 
 
 3.  The  conftant  ufe  oi  S-^umpyiMML  and  ^i^ui^p- 
 yo$,  in  other  Authors,  and  even  in  Athanafius 
 Himfelf,  and  in  this  very  *  Treatife,  is  ano- 
 ther flrong  Prefumption  againft  the  Dodor's 
 Criticijm. 
 
 Jj*  nx,vi^7ii  ^xvt/jcc<reii,  kxI  rk  iv  ry,  "tttiM  hi/jbiovfiyyifJi>x'^  xj4(^xA«j^i§ 
 T  rarav  h^f/jiovpyov  KU^'Tnc^iyj,  p.  46.  The  Words  h^,fjuiovfiy»y>x'^  and 
 hiwtovf,ylv  an/rper,  iiz  the  Similitude  and  Analogy,  to  x.-n<ri  and 
 xmmAmc,  going  Before.  Wherefore,  I  conceive,  that,  according  /a  Atha- 
 iTafius,  the  Ttvo  former,  -when  underfiood  with  relation  to  Qod  >  are 
 eufHivdent  to  the  Two  latter^. 
 
 4.  The 
 
Q^u.XI.  offome  (QUERIES.  201 
 
 4.  The  Confequences  following  from  the 
 Suppofition  of  liich  aScnle,  asrhcDod:or  would 
 irapofc  upon  Athanajiiis,  may  be  demonftrably 
 confuted  from  the  lameTrcatife;  nay,  from  the 
 very  fame  Page  where  that  remarkable  Paf- 
 fage  is. 
 
 For,  you  mud  know,  that,  if  rhe  Doilor 
 underftands  Him  right,  Athanaflus  included  the 
 Son  under  Tcicni  -^L^Tr^v^Vcci)?,  whereof  the  Fa* 
 ther  is  ^'yifiif-jpyU :  And  fo  the  Son  mud  be  ^y^fju' 
 ovpyi^fxx  according  to  Atbanafius.  Not  only 
 lb,  but  He  mud  alfo  come  under  itkoYi  yi^y\Ty\i 
 BTioL^',  which,  for  the  purpofe,  the  learned  Do- 
 ctor rook  care  to  render  all  ^  derivative  Be- 
 ing, anfwering  to  his  rendring  of  ^yj/bLmpynux 
 ^afterwards.  This  might  lock  fair  and  plaufible, 
 had  we  only  that  fingle  Sentence  o'i  Athanafnis 
 to  form  a  Judgment  by  :  But  it  Hands  in  a 
 pretty  large  Treatifc  ;  wherein  we  find  that 
 Atbanajlus  is  fo  far  from  fuppofing  the  Son  to 
 h,c  ^\ixiovpyAiJLx ,  that  He  makes  Him  ^  Tniy^Ti^^ 
 of  all  the  invijible  Towers  \  nay  and  ^  S'Yiixmpy:^ 
 tS  rxcurUy  which,  I  think,  comes  to  as  much 
 as  ay,/ju8pyos  Tciayi;  '\j:nn)qzl(TiCcg ;  and  that  there- 
 fore the  learned  Dodor  may  almod  as  reafbn- 
 ably  bring  the  Father  in,  among  the  i'vifxinpyn^ 
 iJuoLioL  of  the  Son,  ^^  vice  verfa.  To  conclude; 
 Athanaflus,  within  a  few  lines  of  that  PafTage 
 which  the  Dodor  makes  ufc  of,  exempts  the 
 Son,  clearly  and  exprefly,   from  the  Rank  of 
 
 a  Script.  Doftr.  p.  4.  b  Script.  Do6lr,  p.  278. 
 
 c  Pag.  43.  d  Pag.  29. 
 
 fuch 
 
xoL  ^DEFENSE        Q^lj.XIII. 
 
 fuch  derivative  Beings,  as  the  DodJor  would 
 place  Him  with :  *  'aaao$  ^gv  \<n  r  'yt\y\T^ ^  ^ 
 'jcaLGYii  r  x'naca)$.  So  much  for  Athanafius,  and 
 the  Dodor's  Criticifras  upon  Him.  Now,  if 
 you  pleafe,  let  Origcn  be  Our's  again,  till  you 
 can  better  make  out  your  Title  to  Him.  I  do 
 not  know  that  the  Docftor  has  faid  any  thing 
 conflderable  to  weaken  the  Evidence  of  any 
 other  of  the  Authors,  referred  to  in  the  Mar- 
 gin. So  we  may  leave  Them  as  They  are;  and 
 proceed  to  another  ^ery. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       XIII. 
 
 Whether  there  can  be  any  Middle  between 
 being  made  out  of  nothing,  and  out  of/ome- 
 thing ;  that  is,  between  being  out  of  No- 
 thing, and  out  of  the  Father's  Subjiance  ; 
 between  being  effentially  God,  and  being  a 
 Creature?  Whether,  confequently,  the  Son 
 muft  not  be  either  eflentially  God,  or  elfe  a 
 Creature? 
 
 HERE,  again,  I  have  run  two  ^leries 
 into  one,  being  nearly  allied  to  each 
 other,  for  the  conveniency  of  Method.  Que- 
 ftions  of  this  kind  you  like  not ;  It  is,  you 
 iay,  prefTmg  you  to  determine  Things  not 
 clearly  revealed:  As  if  you  had  not  deter- 
 mined already  upon  the  Points  in  Queftion  ; 
 or  were  at  all  afraid  of  doing  ir.  Permit  me 
 to  fay,  you  have  determin'd :  But  becaufe  the 
 *  Pag.  39.  Con- 
 
Q^u.  XIII.        of  fome  Q^U  E  R I E  S.  203 
 
 Conclufion  is  too  Ihocking  to  appear  in  broad 
 Terms,  and  too  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  Ilfue;  and  it 
 will  loon  be  leen  where  the  Truth  lies.  Ic 
 is  not  that  1  defire  to  draw  you  into  danger 
 of  Cenfure ,  of  which  you  are  apprehen- 
 five;  I  could  not  have  a  Thought  fo  mean: 
 Befides  that  I  intended,  and  dv^fired,  for  the 
 greater  freedom  of  debate,  to  be  private :  And 
 You,  perhaps,  may  be  lo  (till,  if  you  pleafe. 
 It  concerns  every  honeft  Man  to  have  the 
 Caule  fairly  laid  open.  While  you  are  en- 
 deavoring to  expofe  the  received  Opinion,  as 
 much  as  you  are  able,  let  jour  own  be  lliovvn 
 in  Its  true  Colours ,  and  then  let  againfl:  it ; 
 that  fo  we  may  the  more  eafily  judge,  which 
 has  the  Advantage  upon  the  Companion.  You 
 are  very  fcnfible,  I  doubt  nor,  that  the  Argu- 
 ments againfl:  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  Queftion  conceal'd  from  the  Reader,  or 
 diiguifed  under  other  Terms.  The  Antient 
 Ar'tans ,  the  immediate  Succeflbrs  of  Arius , 
 found  it  ablblutcly  neceflary  to  refine  upon 
 their  Leader:  to  refine,  I  mean,  in  Language  % 
 
 for 
 
ao4  ^DEFENSE         Q^l.XIL 
 
 for  their  Faith  was  the  fame.  When  the  World 
 was,  in  a  manner,  their  own  ;  and  when  They 
 were  io  far  from  fearing  cenfure  themfelves, 
 that  they  imploy'd  the  iecular  Power  to  ^  plun- 
 der, perlecure,  and  deftroy  as  many  as  oppofed 
 Them;  even  then.  Thole  Men  durft  not  fay 
 d'ire6ily,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  a  Creature. 
 We  have  Creed  after  Creed  drawn  up  by  Them  ; 
 and  Arlus'^  Pofitions  ^  exprefly  difclaim'd  by 
 Ibme  of  Them  ;  tho',  at  the  fame  time,  They 
 meant  the  fame  Things.  And  what  was  the 
 meaning  of  this  wary  Proceeding ;  this  walking 
 in  dilguife,  while  they  had  nothing  to  fear  from 
 the  Powers  in  Being?  The  Reafon  is  plain: 
 Their  Dodrine  was  new^  and  "^ /hocking  to 
 Chriftian  Ears.  It  was  not  fit  to  appear  in 
 ^  clear  and  plain  Words.  It  was  to  be  insinuated 
 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  un- 
 derftood,  and  feen  what  it  led  to,  they  would 
 immediately  have  detefled.  See  to  this  purpole 
 a  ^  Paffage  of  Hilary  worth  remarking;  which 
 I  have  thrown  into  the  Margin. 
 
 a  See  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  i  lo.  317.  521.  54*; •  361.  386..  Hilar. 
 p.1291.     Bafii.  Ep.  70,  71. 182.     Greg.  Naz.Orar.  20.13.  2;.  52. 
 
 b  Athanaf.  Vol.  i,  p.  lyG.  275-.  Vol.  2.  p.  735-.  Socrar.  1.  2. 
 c.  10.     Sozom.  E.  Hill.  I.  3.  c.  ^.     Epiphin.  Haeref.  73.  p.  845". 
 
 c  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  283,     Alexand.  Epift.     Theod.  H.  p.  26.  30, 
 
 d  See  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  i88. 
 
 e  Hajus  quidem  uf^ue  adhuclmpietatis  Fraude  perficitur,  ut  jam 
 fub  Antichrifti  Sacerdotibus  Chrifti  Topulus  nori  occidat,  dum  Hoc 
 putant   Illi  Itdei  efle  quod  ijocis  eft.    Audiunt  Benm  Chriftura  . 
 
 The 
 
Q^u.XII.  of  fome  QUERIES.  lof 
 
 The  Brians,  ox  Semt-j^rians  (for  both  come 
 to  one  at  lafl:)  were  lb  fenfible  that  their  Tenets 
 would  not  bear  the  Light,  that  they  were 
 forc'd  to  difguife  and  conceal  Them  under  Ca- 
 tholic k  Forms  of  Speech,  with  all  imaginable 
 Art  and  Subtlety ;  as  was  much  complain'd  of 
 by  the  *  Catholicks,  who  abhorr'd  fuch  Artifices. 
 The  myilery  of  thefe  Difguiles  has  been  already 
 intimated.  Had  they  ventured  to  fpeak  our, 
 rhcy  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  Reafbns,  determine 
 fome  now  to  proceed  with  the  like  Caution, 
 and  to  avoid  declaring,  in  Terms,  that  the  Son 
 of  God  is  a  Creature,  I  know  not.  But  this 
 I  know,  that  every  careful  Reader  ought  to  be 
 well  apprized  of  the  Tendency  of  your  main 
 Dodhine.  It  lliould  be  told,  that  you  aflert, 
 though  not  direEfly  ^wd^  plainly,  yet  tacitely 
 and  confequentially,  that  the  Maker,  Redeemer, 
 
 purant  elTe  quod  dicitur.  Audiunt  Filium  Deii  put-ant  in  Dei  Na- 
 tivitatc  inciTc  Dei  Veritatem.  Audiunt  yinte  Tempora,  putant  id 
 ipfuni  Ante  Tempora,  cfTc  quod  Semper  eft.  Sandiiores  Aures  plc- 
 bis  quam  Corda  Sacerdotum.  Hilar,  pag.  1166,  See  alfo  Sozom. 
 E.  H.  1.  3.  c.  f. 
 
 *  AthanaC  p.  i^f.  124,895'.  Theod.  E.  H.  p.  17.  Socrat. 
 E.  n.  1.  1.  c.  4f.  Sozom.  E.  H.  1. 4.  c.  29.  Epiphan.  Haeref.  73. 
 p.  84J.    Gregor.  Nazianx.  Orat.  11.  p.  387, 
 
 and 
 
io6  yfDEFENSE         Q^u.XIII. 
 
 and  Judge  of  the  whole  World,  is  no  more  than 
 a  Creature ;  is  mutable,  and  corruptible ;  de- 
 pends entirely  upon  the  Favour  and  good  Plea- 
 liire  of  God;  has  a  precarious  Exiftence,  and 
 dependent  Powers,  finite  and  limited;  and  is 
 neither  lb  perfed  in  his  Nature,  nor  fb  ex- 
 alted in  Privileges,  but  that  it  is  in  the  Fa- 
 ther's Power,  according  to  his  own  good  Plea- 
 fure,  to  create  Another  equal,  or  even  Superior, 
 to  Him.  Theie  are  your  Tenets,  if  you  pleafe 
 to  fpeak  out ;  and  theie,  in  the  main,  are  what 
 Arius ,  being  a  plain,  open,  and  confiftent 
 Man,  at  the  bcgmning,  very  frankly  pro- 
 fefs'd.  But,  if  theie  Po/ltions  appear  io  harlli 
 and  iliocking,  tbar  you  your  Selves,  who 
 admit  Them,  do  not  care  to  own  them  \\\ 
 flam  Terms ;  it  may  be  very  excufable  in 
 Others  to  conrradidl  Them ;  and  to  aflert, 
 upon  )lO  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  ejfentially 
 God. 
 
 You  have ,  it  may  be,  feme  few  fpecious 
 Difficulties  to  urge  agaiuft  a  Trinity  in  'Unity ^ 
 eternal  Generation,  or  the  like;  points  too 
 fublime  for  Men,  or,  it  may  be,  Angels^to 
 comprehend.  But  why  muft  thefe  be  thought 
 to  weigh  down  the  many  and  unanfwerable 
 Objeftions  againft  your  own  Scheme;  or  be 
 efteem'd  fufficient  to  bear  up  againft  the  united 
 Voice  of  Scripture  and  CathoUck  Antiquity, 
 
 no 
 
C^u.XIII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  107 
 
 no  where   afTerting  that    the   Son   of  God   is 
 a  Creature  %  but  every  where  intimating,    in- 
 culcating,   proclaiming,    that  He   is  the  Crea- 
 tor, Treferver,  and  Snftalner  of  all  Things ; 
 very    and    eternal    God.      You'l    pardon    me 
 this    Excurfion,    ncceflary    to   give   the   com- 
 mon Reader    a   juft    Idea    of  the  Dilpute  be- 
 twixt us ;  and  of  the  true  jlate  of  the  Que- 
 ftion.      A  Stranger  in  this  Controverly,    find- 
 ing how  near  we  come  to  each  other  in  ex- 
 prejjlon,  might  be  apt  to  wonder  wherein  we 
 differ,  or  what  it  is  that  we  difpure  about;  not 
 being  aware  of  the  Artifice  you  make  ufe  of,  in 
 giving   an  ^ncatholick   meaning  to  Catholick 
 Expreflions.     We  fay,    rhe    Son    is    not  Self- 
 extjlent,  meaning  that  He  is  not  unoriginate  : 
 You  do  not  only  iay  the  fame,  but  contend  for 
 it;  meaning,   not  neceffari/y-exi/img.    We  fay, 
 not  unoriginate,  meaning  that  He  is  not  the 
 Head  ox  Fountain,  not  ihcfirft  Terfbn  of  the 
 Trinity :    You  take  up  the  very  fame  Word, 
 and  zealoufly  contend  that  the  Son  is  not  un- 
 originate  \  underftanding  it  in  relped  of  Time, 
 or  'Duration.    Wc  fay,  the  Son  is  fitbordinate^ 
 meaning  it  of  a  Subordination  of  Order,  as  is 
 juft,  and  proper:  You  alfo  lay  hold  of  the  word 
 Subordinate,  and  ieem  wonderfully  pleas'd  with 
 it ;  but  underftanding  by  it,  an  Inferiority  of 
 Nature,    We  fay,  that  the  Son  is  not  abfblute- 
 ly  fupreme  nor  independent,  intimating  thereby 
 that  He  is  Second  in  Order  as  a  Son,  and  has 
 no  feparate,  independent  Exigence  from   rhe 
 
 Father, 
 
io8  ^DEFENSE         Q^u.XII. 
 
 Father^  being  co-ejfentially  and  co- eternally  out 
 with  Him :  you  alio  take  up  the  lame  Words, 
 interpret  them  to  a  low  Senlc,  and  make  the 
 Son  an  inferior  dependent  Being;  depending 
 at  firft  on  the  IVill  of  the  Father  for  his  Ex- 
 iflence,  and  afterwards  for  the  continuance  of 
 it.  This  is  the  way  you  chufe  to  infinuate 
 your  Heterodoxy  into  weak  Readers.  In  the 
 mean  while,  notwithflanding  our  feeming  or 
 verbal  Agreement,  there  is  as  wide  a  Difference 
 between  what  You  teach  and  We,  as  between 
 finite  and  infinite,  mntable  and  immutable,  a 
 dependent  Creature  and  the  eternal  God. 
 From  what  hath  been  (aid,  you  may  perceive 
 what  the  ConceJJions  of  Catholicks,  which  the 
 Dodor  often  boafts  of,  amount  to.  7  he  Ca- 
 tholicks  have  ufed  fomePhrales,  in  a  goodSenfe, 
 which  artful  Men  have  perverted  to  a  bad  one : 
 That  is  all  the  Cafe.     But  I  return. 
 
 You  was  to  find  a  medium  between  being 
 ejfentially  God,  and  being  a  Creature :  or  elle 
 to  declare,  in  plain  Terms,  that  the  Son  is  a 
 Creature,  A  medittm  you  find  not,  xior  indeed 
 can  there  be  any :  And  yet,  inftead  of  frank- 
 ly acknowledging  fo  plain  and  manifell:  a  Truth, 
 you  are  pleas'd  to  Ihifr,  double,  and  wind  about, 
 in  a  manner  unbecoming  a  grave  Difputant,  or 
 a  fmcere  and  ingenuous  Writer.  In  the  firft 
 place,  you  put  on  an  Air  of  Courage,  and  give 
 me  one  Caution,  viz.  not  to  fizy  or  attempt  to 
 prove,  that  every  Being  that  is  derived  mufi 
 be,  for  that  reafon,  a  Creature,  for  fear  of 
 
 making 
 
Q^u.XIIL        affome  (QUERIES.  209 
 
 making  my  own  Notion,  which  fuppofes  the 
 Son  generated,  that  is,  derived,  ro  fiivour  the 
 Arians :  Bur,  admitting  the  Son  ro  be  derived^ 
 as  ir  may  be  underftood  in  a  Catholick  Scnfe, 
 yer  what  is  that  to  your  Purpofe  ?  Does  not 
 my  Argument  turn  upon  the  Words,  out  of 
 nothing  ?  Point  me  out  any  Being  Jo  derived^ 
 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  what  is  faid  in  the  ^leries^ 
 that  either  the  Son  of  God  ?mij}  be  the  Indivi- 
 dual Subflance  of  the  Father^  or  elfe  i^  one 
 o/TCt)!/,  with  the  Avians ;  I  anfwer,  if  both  Scri- 
 ptnre  and  Reafon  clearly  demonjtrate  that  the 
 Son  is  not  the  Individual  Subflance  of  the  Fa- 
 ther^ who  rhufl  look  to  that  Confequence^  if 
 it  be  one? 
 
 Here,  at  a  firait  (as  ulaal)  the  word  Indivi- 
 dual  comes  in;  a  word  capable  of  ieveral 
 meanings;  and  fo  neceffary  ro  help  Inven- 
 tion, that  you  would  often  be  at  a  lofs  what 
 to  Jay,  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  either  the  School- men,  or  more 
 antient  Catholicks  intended  by  it.  The  thing 
 which  I  adert  is  this;  that  you  mufl:  either  own 
 the  Son  to  be  of  the  fame  //;^'^/^'/V^<^  Subfiance 
 with  the  Father;  or  elfe  declare  Him  a  Crea- 
 ture, If  you  deny  the  former,  you  muft,  of 
 Confequence ,  admit  the  latter  ;  ;  and  you 
 really  do  fo.     The  confequence   Tou  are  to 
 
 P  look 
 
2IO  ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XIlL 
 
 look  to,  as  neceffarily  flowing  from  your  Pre- 
 mifes;  which  you  pretend  to  tound  on  Scripture 
 and  Reafon  ,  without  any  ground  or  warrant 
 from  either.  You  are  refblved,  it  Teems,  to 
 difown  the  certainty  oi the  disjun6fion,{p.6i.) 
 fo  afraid  you  are  of  determining  the  Son  to  be 
 a  Creature,  \^  m  'o^^rcc^.  Let  us  hear  what  a 
 ^ifputant  may  have  to  plead  againltaThingas 
 clear  and  evident  as  any  Axiom  in  Geometry. 
 
 You  fay,  "^The  Nicene  Fathers  thought  the 
 Son  to  he  neither  the  y^oL  rj  Tvctr^Uy  The  Sub- 
 fiance  of  the  Father,  nor  e^  jjx,  I^tu^,  but  at. 
 Ty\^  ya-U$  t5  TccLT^^i  from  the  Subfiance  of  the 
 Father,  The  Nicene  Fathers  explain  their 
 meaning,  both  in  the  Creed  it  lelf,  and  in  the 
 Anathemas  annex'd  to  it ;  determining  the 
 Son  to  be  no  Creature,  nor  a  different  God 
 from  the  Father;  but  of  the  fame  undivided 
 Subfiance  with  Him,-  Cod  of  God,  Light  of 
 Light,  Confubftantial  with  Him,  and  a  diftind: 
 Perfon  from  Him. 
 
 Next,  you  fay,  you  dare  not  determine  that 
 Cod  produced  all  Things ,  or  any  Thing , 
 {ftri^ly  and  met a^hyfic ally  freaking  )  out  of 
 Nothing.  Extreme  Modcfly  !  That  you  dare 
 not  determine  whether  God  has  properly  creat- 
 ed any  Thing ;  or  whether  ail  Things  were  not 
 iiecejfarily-exifting.  Matter  it  felf  may  have 
 been  co-eval  and  co  eternal  with  God  the  Fa- 
 ther; Any  thing,  it  feems,  but  his  own  beloved 
 and  only-begotten  Son :  Or  elfe  why  are  you  fo 
 
 *  SiQ  D)\  Clarkc'j  Reply  to  the  Convocation,  p.  29. 
 
Q^u.XIII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  xu 
 
 illy,  at  other  times,  of  acknowledging  His  Eter- 
 nity? Or  why  lo  refolate  in  difputing  againft 
 it?  An  eternal  Son,  mcthinks,  is  much  better 
 Scnfe  than  an  eternal  Subjlance,  not  divine^ 
 and  a  Sou  made  out  of  it ;  which  is  what  you 
 muft  mean,  or  mean  nothing.  But  to  pro- 
 ceed :  You  add.  How  God  brings  Beings  into 
 real  Exijience  ijue  know  not,  becatife  we  know 
 not  their  Ejfences.  Therefore,  I  luppofe,  we 
 know  not,  whether  He  brings  them  into  Ex- 
 igence at  all;  or  whether  they  had  a  Being  be- 
 fore they  were  created:  That's  theConlequence 
 you  intend,  if  any  thing  to  the  purpofe.  You 
 go  on :  Or  whether  it  be  a  ContradiBion  to 
 predicate  Exijience  of  them  before  their  com- 
 ing into  that  State  which  they  now  are  in, 
 and  which  we  call  their  Creation,  we  know 
 not.  Very  Ignorant !  And  yet  you  can  be  pofi- 
 tive  in  Things,  which  you  know  a  great  deal 
 left  of;  preliiming  to  make  the  Generation 
 of  the  Son  of  God  Temporal \  and  determin- 
 ing it  *  a  Conrradid:ion  to  predicate  Ex- 
 ijience of  Him  before  His  Generation.  Such 
 Things  as  thele  carry  their  own  Confutation 
 with  them  ;  and  only  Ihow  that  Truth  is 
 too  ftubborn  to  bend.  Lee  it  be  faid  then 
 plainly,  and  without  difguife,  that  the  Son 
 of  God  is  either  Coifnbjiantial  with  God  the 
 Father ;  or  elle  a  Creature.  There  is  no  me- 
 dium,  neither  can  there  be  any;  confiflent 
 with  Scripture,  and  with  the  truth  and  realbo 
 of  Things.     This    being  fettled,    our  Difpute 
 
^I^  .^DEFENSE         Q^u.XIV\ 
 
 may  be  brought  into  a  narrower  Compafs ;  and 
 we  may  hereafter  difnnifs    doubrrul  and    ambi- 
 
 guous Terms. 
 
 Q^  U  E   R   Y      XIV. 
 
 Whether  T>r  Clarke  who  every  where  denies 
 the  Coil fiibft ant lal'ity  of  the  Son,  as  abfurd 
 and  contradi&orj,  does  not,  ofConfequence^ 
 affirm  the  Son  to  be  a  Creature  l^  csbc  oWi^, 
 and  Jo  fall  under  his  own  cenfure,  and  is 
 Self  condemn' d'i 
 
 IT  hath  been  queilion'd  by  fome ,  whether 
 Dr.  Clarke  has  really  given  into  the  Arian 
 Scheme,  or  no.  From  what  He  faith,  in  fome 
 places  of  his  Scripture-T^oBrine,  (particularly 
 *Prop.  14  and  16.)  one  might  imagine  that  He 
 ^oodi  Neuter \  neither  determining  for,  nor 
 againfl:  the  Catholick  Faith ,  in  that  Article : 
 Bur,  from  his  declaring  f  exprefly  againft  the 
 Confubflantiality  of  the  Son,  whether  J^^a}ffi 
 or  Individual,  (between  which  He  allows  no 
 medium^  and  from  his  reckoning  the  Son 
 among  the  h/uuiipy}iixa,Tgc^  tho'  He  gives  an  arti- 
 ficial glofs  to  it;  as  alio  from  his  excluding  the 
 Son  out  of  the  One  Godhead ;  from  thefe  Con- 
 fiderations,  to  mention  no  more,  it  is  exceed- 
 ingly clear,  that  He  has  determin'd  againft  the 
 Church ;  and  declared  for  Arianifm,  He  has, 
 by  neceflary  Confequence,  averted  the  Son  to 
 
 ♦  Script.  Dodlr.  p.  276.  179.       f  *fe  Scrjpt,  Doclr.  p.  465-. 
 
 be 
 
Q^u.XIV.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  113 
 
 be  g^  m  o^Tttv ;  which  is  the  very  EfTence  and 
 Charadteriftick  o'iArianifm.  By  io  doing,  He  is 
 Self  condemn'd  {See  Trop.  14.)  unlels  affirming 
 a  thing  exprejly  be  highly  blaraeable;  and  af- 
 firming the  larae  thing,  hnplicttely  and  confe- 
 quentially,  be  juft  and  good.  It  is  unaccount- 
 able ro  me,  how  there  comes  to  be  fuch  a  charm 
 in  Words,  that  a  Man  ihould  be  blameable  for 
 faying  a  Thing  of  this  Nature,  plainly  and  di- 
 redily ,  w^hich  He  may  affirm  indirectly  and 
 conlequentially,  without  any  fault  at  all.  Doth 
 the  Offence  lie  only  in  Sounds  or  Syllables? 
 Or  was  Arms  more  culpable  for  faying,  the  Son 
 was  a  Creature,  and  from  nothing,  than  Ano- 
 ther who  fays,  He  is  not  Conftibfanttal  with 
 the  Father,  xioxOneGod  with  Him,  or  the  like  ; 
 when  it  isfo  verymanifeft,and  hath  been  proved 
 above,  that  they  are  only  different  Expreffions 
 of  the  fame  Thing?  1  can  think  but  of  three 
 Reafons  ( I  fpeak  not  of  particular  Views , 
 or  Motives^  why  any  Man  fliould  condemn 
 Arius  for  declaring  the  Son  to  be  e^  ^x.  Inm. 
 Either  becaufe  the  Propofuion  is  falfe-^  or  be- 
 caufe  it  is  dubious-^  or  becauic  it  is  not,  in  ex- 
 frefs  Words,  contained  in  Scripture. 
 
 if  the  Doctor  believed  it  falfe.  He  could  nor, 
 confidently,  dilbwn  the  Conftibftmitiality  and 
 Co-eternity^  If  He  thought  it  dubious.  He  mufl 
 have  obferved  z  Neutrality  m  this  Conrroverfy  ; 
 which  He  has  not  done  ;  The  Third  Realbn 
 would  bear  too  hard  upon  many  of  the  Do- 
 dor's  Fifty  Five  Tropofitions,  The  Conclufion, 
 P  3  which 
 
114  ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.XV. 
 
 which  I  draw  from  thefe  Premifes,  purfuant 
 to  the  Query  laid  down,  is,  chat  the  learned 
 Doctor,  in  ccnderaning  Arius,  has  impHciteiy 
 condemn'd  Himfelf.  it  was  as  necefTary  to  take 
 notice  of  this,  as  ic  is  to  take  offDiiguifes,  and 
 to  prevent  a  Reader's  being  mided  by  fair  Pre* 
 tences.  Let  Things  appear  what  they  really 
 are,  without  Art  or  Colouring  5  and  then,  if 
 you  can  make  any  Advantage  of  'em,  in  God's 
 Name,  do  lb ;  and,  if  your  Cauie  be  juft,  it 
 will  thrive  the  better  for  it. 
 
 (^  U    E    R    Y       XV. 
 
 Whether  He  alfo  mttfr  not,    of  coufeqticnce, 
 affirm  of  the  Son,  that  there  was  a  Tune 
 when  He  was  not,  fince  God  muft  exiji  be- 
 fore the  Creature;    and  therefore  is  agaiii 
 Self- condemn'd,  (See  Prop.  16.  Script.  DocSr.) 
 And  whether  He  does    not  equivocate    in 
 faying,  *  elfewhere,    that  the  fecond  Ter- 
 fon  has  been  always  with  the  Firft -^    and 
 and  that  there  has  been  no  Time,  when  He 
 was  not  fo  :  And  Uflly^  whether  it  he  not 
 a  vain  and  weak  Attempt  to  pretend  to 
 any  middle  way  between  the  Orthodox  and 
 the  Arians ;  or  to  carry  the  Son's  T)tvimty 
 the  leaf  higher   than  They  did,    without 
 taking  in  the  Confnbftantiality  ? 
 
 I  Could  have  been  willing  to  have  had  this,  ai^i 
 other  the  like  Queries,  relating  more  to  -the 
 Dodor  Himfelf,  than  to  the  Caufe,  drop'd.  But 
 
 *  Script.  Doar.  p.  4,38.  fuice 
 
Qjj.XV.         of  fame  (QUERIES.  215- 
 
 fince  you  have  thought  fit  to  puhlijh  Them, 
 prefuming  your  icif  able  to  defend  the  Dodor 
 in  every  Thing ;  you  have  brought  a  kind  of 
 nccefiicy  upon  mc ,  of  fliowing  how  little 
 ground  you  have  for  your  AHurance  in  this 
 particular ;  and  that  the  Doctor  will  (till  want 
 ibme  better  Advocate. 
 
 He  condemns,  in  his  *  Scriptiire-T>octriney 
 Thole  who  pretending  to  be  wife  above  what 
 IS  written,  and  intruding  into  Things  which 
 they  have  not  feen,  have  prefumed  to  affirm^ 
 that  there  was  a  Time  when  the  Son  was 
 NOT.  Who  would  think,  after  this,  that  He 
 Ihould  be  the  Man  who  \[\ow\d  pr ef time  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  g^  w  oVm/, 
 as  was  111  own  under  the  lafl:  ^lery ;  and  be- 
 fides.  He  exprcfly  fays,  in  his  \  Comments  oa 
 the  Athanafian  Creed  (which  contain  what 
 Himlelf  fubfcribes  to  )  that  there  are  not  three 
 eternal  Terfons.  It  muft  indeed  be  own'd, 
 that  in  his  Paper  laid  before  theBilliops,  July^, 
 1 7 14.  He  profefics  that  the  Son  was  eternally 
 begotten  by  the  eternal  Will  and  Tower  of 
 the  Father.  But,  after  a  Friend  of  his  had 
 dilcovered  fome  uneafinefs  at  that  PafTage,  as 
 looking  like  a  Retra£lation  of  his  former  Opi- 
 
 *  Prop.  6.  p.  279. 
 
 t  Script.  Doiti,  p.  429. 
 
 P  4  aioQ» 
 
%i6         ^DEFENSE         Q^u.XV, 
 
 nion,  and  as  admitting  the  Son's  Eternity,  He 
 ^  took  care  to  explain  it  away ;  and  to  fignify 
 that,  tho'  He  had  laid  the  Son  was  eternally 
 begotten.  He  did  not  mean  it  in  the  ftrid  and 
 proper  Senie.  **  My  Intention,  fays  He,  was 
 **  riot  to  alTert  any  thing  different  from  what 
 *'  I  had  before  \yritten;  but  only  to  fliow  that 
 *'  I  did  not  in  any  of  my  Books  teach  (as  had 
 ''  by  many  been  induftrioufly  reported)  the 
 ^'  Dodrine  of  Arms  {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  Eternally,  that  is, 
 *'  without  any  Limitation  of  Time,  (x;;^goWj 
 
 '«  cciciv(i)v)  in  the  incomprehenfible  Duration  of 
 ^^  the  Father's  Eternity.  This  is  too  plain  ta 
 nee4  any  Comment. 
 
 I  Ihall  onh^  oblerve  to  the  Reader,  how  the 
 Dodor  (tngle^-  our  one  particular  Point,  where- 
 in He  diff'ers  fiom  Arius\  whereas  it  is  juftly 
 queflionab'C  whether  that  was  Aritis's  fettled 
 Op'-nion  or  no.  Any  one  that  will  be  at  the 
 pams  ro  read  over  Arius'f^  Letters,  extant  in 
 J  Theodorit  and  \  Athttnajius,  will  eafily  fee, 
 that  the  principal  Thing  which  ftuck  with  Him, 
 was  the  TO  i/iiov  or  o^v  i'^'ioi',  the  ftridt  Eter- 
 nity  or  Co  eternity  of  the  Son.  As  to  other 
 kfTcr  Matters,  He  would  eafily  have  compound^ 
 ed  with  the  Cat  ho  licks -^  and  would  never  have 
 
 *  Letters,  Numb.  8.  f  E.  H,  1.  I.  C.  j-. 
 
 ^  De  Sjnod.  Arim.  p.  7sp. 
 
 -  fcrupleds. 
 
qy.XV.         of  fome  QUERIES.  217 
 
 fcrupled,  in  the  lead,  to  carry  the  point  as 
 high  as  the  Dodor  docs.  He  was  content,  for 
 the  mofl  part,  to  fay,  There  was  aTime  when 
 the  Son  was  not,  without  defining  the  frecife 
 Time  of  his  Generation ,  or  Creation,  To 
 make  it  the  more  clearly  appear,  that  He  was 
 perfedly  of  the  Doftor's  Sentiments,  in  this  par- 
 ticular, it  is  obfervable  that  He  ufes  nearly  the 
 very  fame    Words,    which    the   Dodor  does: 
 
 'Tcd.MTu^  T^  ctlcivm)  Words,  tho'  not  exa(!lly  the 
 fame,  yet  full  as  high  and  ftrong  as  Thofe  which 
 the  DocSor  explains  his  own  Senfe  of  Eternity 
 by.  So  that  the  Dodor  has  no  reafon  to  difclaim 
 Arius ;  or  to  endeavor  to  perfwade  the  World 
 that  He  differs  from  Him,  in  any  thing  material 
 relating  to  this  Controverfy.  But  to  return: 
 The  Words  eternal,  always,  or  the  like,  are 
 plain  Englijh  Words ;  and  fhould  either  not  be 
 ufed,  in  this  cafej  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  aEi,  that  is,  could  in 
 any  point  of  duration  of  his  own  Exijience 
 exercife  his  eternal  Tower  and  Will  in  pro^ 
 ducing  Beings  "'  and  therefore  Beings  diflindi 
 
 *  Epift.  apud  Athanaf.  p.  7^0. 
 
 t  Athanaf,  ibid.     Theod.  c.  «>.  p.  2  |. 
 
 t  Conks',- An'u  &  EUk.  apud  Sozoin.  1. 1.  c.  17.  p.  3 97. 
 
 from 
 
ai8  v^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qv.XV. 
 
 from  the  one  fiipreme  God  may  be  faid  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  not,  ( 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  Eternal^ 
 fince  we  know  not  precilcly  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  ^oint  of  "Duration,  in  which 
 God  exercifes  his  eternal  Tower  and  Will  up- 
 on them  ?  Are  they  therefore  Eternal  ?  As  to 
 your  intimating  of  the  Son,  that  we  cannot 
 conceive  Time  when  He  was  not  \  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  7na,de  at  all.  We  can  con- 
 ceive, and  muft  conceive,  that  there  were  Millions 
 and  Millions  of  Ages  backwards ;  an  Eternity, 
 a  parte  ante,  before  He  came  into  Being.  I 
 hope,  you  intended  not  any  Equivocation  in 
 the  word,  lime:  But  if  you  did,  it  is  only 
 putting  Duration  in  the  room  of  \i,  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 
 Will  the  Exiftence  of  the  Son.     This  would 
 
 have 
 
Qjj.XV.         of  fbme  Q^UERIES.  219 
 
 have  been  enough  to  make  the  Generation  of 
 the  Son  fit  ealy  upon  their  Minds.  But  the 
 misfortune  was,  that  one  moment's  priority  of 
 Time  mud  infer  an  infinite  Priority,  The 
 ylrians  iaw  it,  and  lubmittcd  to  it.  The 
 Cathohcks  abhorr'd  the  Thought  j  and  could  not 
 bear  the  Impiety  of  making  the  Son  of  God 
 a  Creature. 
 
 You  endeavor  to  fhow  that  Dr.  Clarke 
 takes  a  middle  way  between  the  Orthodox  and 
 the  Arians\  by  which  you  only  happen  to 
 ihow  how  little  you  have  been  acquainted  with 
 the  Forms,  Creeds,  and  Confejjions  of  the 
 Antient  Arians,  The  firft  *  Inftance  you  give 
 of  the  Dodlor's  middle  Way,  is,  that  He  does 
 not  plainly  and  dired:ly  fay  that  the  Son  was 
 created'^  He  denies  Him  to  be  g.,^  cht  ovrov. 
 But  herein.  He  only  Copies  after  many  of  the 
 Antient  Arians\  who,  when  accus'd  by  the 
 Catholicks  of  making  the  Son  a  Creature,  re- 
 jeclied  the  charge  with  great  difdain,  having  this 
 reierve,  f  not  a  Creature  like  other  Creatures 
 which  are  created  mediately  by  the  Ao^$ :  the 
 lame  Evafion,  which  you  arc  plcas'd  to  adopt 
 tor  your  own,  (/.60. )  And  it  was  :):  frequent 
 with  the  Arians  to  deny  the  Son  co  be  gj  oi^tc 
 oynijy ;  or  cven  to  Anathe?natize  thole  that fliould 
 affirm  it.  A  fccond  Inftance  you  give,  of  the 
 Dodtor's  refining  upon  the  Arians,    is  in  the 
 
 *  Pag.  60.  t  See  Socrat.  E,  H.  1.  2.  c.  10.  p.  7}.     Hicron. 
 
 Dial.  Contr.  Lucif.  p.  300.  -^  See  Arian  Creeds,    Athanaf. 
 
 p»  738.    Socrat.  1.  2.  c.  8-  19.  50.    Sozom.  1.  3.  c.   11. 
 
 point 
 
x%o         ^DEFENSE         Qjj.XV. 
 
 point  of  the  Son's  Eternity,  {p.  6i.)  But  I 
 have  iliown  you  that  He  does  not  fb  much  as  go 
 beyond  Arius  Himftlf,  in  that  Point :  Befides 
 that  the  ^  Antient  Avians  condemn'd  thole  that 
 fliould  prefume  to  fay,  that  there  was  a  Time 
 when  the  Son  was  not,  equivocating  upon 
 the  word,  Time.  Both  your  Inftances,  you  fee, 
 fail  you ,  being  neither  of  them  fufficient  to 
 the  purpofe. 
 
 But,  to  iet  this  Matter  in  a  foniewhat  clearer 
 Light,  it  may  not  be  improper,  in  this  Place, 
 to  exhibit  a  Draught  or  Reprefentation  of  the 
 Avian  Tenets  or  Principles ;  by  which  it  will 
 appear  what  Avianifm  really  is,  when  purfued 
 in  its  remotefl:  Confequences ;  and  what  the 
 Difference  is  between  Thofe  who  only  admit 
 fbme  part  of  it  (  as  the  Dodor  and  your  Self; 
 and  Thole  who  receive  the  whole. 
 
 ^Tojitions  offome,  ov  othev  oftheAxhns, 
 in  veffeEl  of  the  Son, 
 
 I.  Not  ""Con/tibjlantial  with  God  the  Father. 
 
 X.  iVi?^dC(9-^^^r;/(^/,  however  begotten  before 
 all  Ages,  or  without  any  known  Limitation  of 
 Time. 
 
 3.  Of  a  diJfinSi  infeviov  Natuve,  however 
 otherwife  perfedtly  like  the  Father. 
 
 a  See  Arian  Creeds,  Athanaf.  p.  758.  Socrat.  1.  2.  c  18,  19. 
 Sozom.  1.  9 .  c.  1 1 . 
 
 b  Athanaf  p.  i8x.  398.  728.  Sozom.  1.  i.  c.  1$.  Theod, 
 Haeret.  lab.  1.  4.  c  This  toas  Agreed  to  itnan'imoujly* 
 
 d  ThU  Vo'mt  difpHted  by  the  Pfathyrians.  Theod.  Haeret.  Fab.  ].  4* 
 «•  4-  P*  »38-  4.   Not 
 
Qjj.XY,         of  fome  QUERIES.  2xj 
 
 4.  Not  JlriEily  and  ejfent tally  God,  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  Superior 
 to  Them. 
 
 6.  "^  Not  like  the  Father-^  but  in  Nature  and 
 Subftance,  hke  other  Creatures. 
 
 7.  ]  Made  inT'tme\  there  having  been  a  Time 
 when  He  was  not,  made  from  Nothing. 
 
 8.  \Far  inferior  to  the  Father  in  Know- 
 ledge,  Power,  and  Perfed:ions. 
 
 9.  Mutable  in  /:?/j'A^^^^r^,  as.  a  Creature,  tho* 
 unchangeable  by  Decree. 
 
 10.  'Dependent  on  the  good  Pleafure  of  the 
 Father,  for  his  paft,  prefent,  and  future  Being. 
 
 11.  Not  knowing  the  Father  perfecStiy,  nor 
 Himfelf  His  Knowledge  being  that  of  a  Crea^ 
 ture,  and  therefore  ^;//>^. 
 
 II.  Made  a  little  before  the  World  was 
 made ;  and  for  the  fake  of  Thofe  that  iliould 
 be  after  Him. 
 
 Thefe  are  the  Arian  Principles  brought  down 
 as  low,  as  they  can  well  go.  Arius,  the  Au- 
 thor and  Founder  of  the  Secft,  feems  to  have 
 gone  through  all  thofe  Steps,  at  the  firft :  And 
 indeed,  all  of  them,  except  the  laft,  hang  toge- 
 ther; and  are  but  the  neceflary  Confequences 
 
 *  TIas  denUd  by  all  but  thofe  called  Anomxans. 
 t  This  deniedy  m  Words,  by  many. 
 
 :):  Fevf  bold  enough  tg  mi^vmain  ^xpredy  thh,  or  any  of  tht  folloic- 
 mg  Fropojitions, 
 
 of 
 
221  ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XV. 
 
 of  each  other.  Thofe  that  ftop'd  in  the  mid- 
 way, or  looner,  might  be  more  picus  and  mo- 
 deft;  but  lefs  confiftent  Men  A  httle  Expe- 
 rience convinc'd,  as  well  Arius  Himielf,  as 
 his  Followers,  that  thole  Pofitions,  all  together, 
 were  too  grating  upon ,  and  too  iliocking  to 
 every  pious  Chnftian  at  that  Time.  And  there- 
 fore (without  confidering  how  one  depended 
 on  another ;  or  how  a  Principle  could  be  main- 
 tain'd,  and  yet  its  plain,  neccflary  Conlequence.s 
 diiown'd)  they  immediately  went  to  work,  to 
 cut  off  what-  ihould  appear  moft  ofFenfive, 
 and  retain  only  what  might  found  tolerably  ; 
 efpecially  when  worded  in  ambiguous,  or 
 Catholick  Terms. 
 
 The  nine  lad  Particulars  were,  for  fome  time, 
 and  by  the  Avians  in  general,  waved,  drop'd, 
 not  infilled  on  (as  being  too  grofs  to  take)  or 
 elfe  artfully  infinuated  only,  under  fpccious  and 
 plaufible  Expre/Tions.  The  firji  They  all 
 own'd ,  and  infifted  the  moft  upon ;  having 
 many  Pretences  to  urge  againft  Confuhjiauti- 
 ality,  either  Name,  or  Thing.  y.\\Q  Jecond  and 
 third  They  divided  upon,  as  to  the  way  of 
 Expreflion;  fome  fpeaking  their  Minds  plainly, 
 others  with  more  rcierve ;  not  lb  much  deny* 
 ing  the  Co-eternity,^2iS  forbearing  to  affirm  it. 
 This  was  the  method  which  the  Avians  took 
 to  propagate  their  Herefy.  We  need  not  won- 
 der if  They  were  put  hard  to  it,  and  were  often 
 forc'd  to  make  ufe  of  CoUufions,  Equivocations, 
 and  double  Entendres.     For,  being  obliged,  for 
 
 fear 
 
Q^u.XV.  of  fome  (QUERIES.  125 
 
 fear  of  Offence,  ro  ufe  Catholick  Words,  the' 
 without  a  Catholick  meaning ;  and  to  maintain 
 their  main  Principle,  without  leeming  to  main- 
 tain its  necefiary  Confequences ;  Cr^^y»  leeming 
 to  deny  and  rejed:  them)  it  could  not  be  other- 
 wife.  And  not  only  the  Catholkks  frequently 
 complain  of  thofe  fmooth  Gentlemen,  but  Ibme 
 even  of  their  *  own  Party  could  not  endure  fuch 
 Shuffling;  thinking  it  became  honeft  and  fm- 
 cere  Men,  either  to  fpeak  our,  or  to  iay  no- 
 thing. Of  this  kind  were  Aethis,  and  Euno- 
 mitis,  with  their  Followers,  called  Anomd^ans 
 and  ExoticonUi,  being  indeed  no  other,  in  re- 
 ijped  to  the  Son's  Divinity,  than  fuch  as  Aritis 
 was  at  firft ;  and  Ipeaking  almoft  as  plainly  and 
 bluntly  as  He  did.  After  the  Dilguifes  and 
 Softenings,  and  Colourings  had  been  carried 
 on  fo  long,  till  all  Men  of  Senle  faw  plainly 
 that  it  was  high  time  to  leave  off  trifling,  and 
 to  come  from  Words  to  Things;  and  that 
 there  was  no  Medhim ,  but  either  to  fettle 
 into  Orthodoxy,  or  to  fit  down  with  the 
 pure  Arians  and  Anomaans ,  (if  they  would 
 determine  any  Thing,  and  be  Jincere  and  con- 
 fijlent  Men)  fome  chofe  the  former,  and 
 fome  the  latter,  according  as  they  more  in- 
 clined to  one  way,  or  the  other.  There  is 
 certainly  no  Medium  betwixt  Orthodoxy  and 
 Arianifm  (for  \Semi'ArianiJhi,  if  lb  under- 
 
 *  See  Epiphan.  Haeref.  76.  p.  916. 
 
 t  Semi- Aria?.' us,  8c  Semi-Beusy  6c  Semi- Great  lira  perinde  monftra 
 Sc  portenta  funr>  qu«  Sani  &  Pii  Omnes  raerito  cxhorrent.    Bull, 
 
 ftood. 
 
 D.  F.  p.  2I 
 
ai4  ^   DEFENSE         Q^u.XV. 
 
 ftood,  is  perfed  Non-fenfe  and  Conrradidion) 
 there  being  no  Medium  between  God  and  Crea- 
 ture, between  Unmade  and  Made,  Men  may 
 conceal  their  Sentiments,  fupprefsGonfequenccs, 
 and  Ipeak  their  Minds  but  by  Halves ;  and  fb 
 one  Arian  may  be  more  cautious,  or  more  art- 
 ful tlian  Another:  But,  in  truth  and  reality, 
 every  Man  that  difowns  the  Confiibjiantiality , 
 rightly  underftood,  is  as  much  an  Arian,  as 
 jEunomms^  or  Aetius,  or  any  of  the  Antient 
 Arians  were ;  or  even  as  Arius  Himfelf,  ex- 
 cepting only  fome  few  Particulars,  which  were 
 nor  his  (landing  and  fettled  Opinions. 
 
 In  fine,  there  is  but  one  middle  way  to  take 
 between  the  Orthodox  and  the  Arians ,  and 
 That  is,  to  avoid  determining  on  either  fide ;  to 
 leave  the  point  in  medio,  and  to  fufpend  aflenc 
 to  either;  to  believe  as  much,  and  as  high,  as 
 any  of  the  Arians  did ;  and  as  to  the  reft,  nei- 
 ther to  beheve,  nor  disbelieve  it.  But  this 
 is  not  the  cafe,  either  with  the  Dodor,  or  your 
 Self  You  have  declared  againft  the  Confub- 
 fiantiality,  and  the  proper  'T>ivinity  of  Chrift, 
 as  w^ell  as  Co-eternity :  And  are  therefore  fb 
 far  from  refining  upon,  that  you  rcaliy  come 
 Ihort  of  many  of  the  Ancient  Arians  %  tho',  to 
 do  you  juftice,  you  are  the  more  confiftent 
 with  your  ielves  for  it.  I  have  now  fuffici- 
 ently  vindicated  every  part  of  the  ^uery  % 
 having  fhown  that  x\\^  Equivocation,  in  refped 
 of  the  Son's  Eternity,  is  juftly  chargeable  up- 
 on  the  Dodor;    and   that  He   has   not   ob- 
 
 fervcd 
 
Q^u.XV.         of  fome  QUERIES.  aty 
 
 ferved  a  neutrality  in  this  difpute ;  nor  carried 
 the  point  higher  than  the  Antient  Ar'tans ;  but 
 has  really,    and  fully  given   into   their  Senti- 
 ments; and  therein  determined  againft  the  C^- 
 tholick  Church.     The   ufe   which  I  make   of 
 this,  at  prefent,    \s  to  oblcrve  to  the  Reader: 
 I.  That  the  Dodtor  has  not  invented  any  neWt 
 or  more  excellent  Scheme  than  was  thought  of 
 confider'd,    and  condemned ,    near  1400  Years 
 ago,  by  a  very  wife,  numerous,  and  unbyafs'd 
 Council.     1.  That  He  cannot  juftly  cite  any 
 Catholick  ToJf'Nicene  Writer,    (nor   indeed 
 Ante-Nicene)  as  certainly  favouring  his  main 
 Dodtrine.    3.  That  his  attempt  to  reconcile  the 
 Nicene  and  Athanafian  Creeds  to  Arianifm^ 
 formed  in  dired:  Oppofition  to  it,  is  endeavoring^ 
 to  bring  Light  and  Darknefs^  and  the  mod  irre- 
 concilable Inconfiftencies  to  meet  together.  This 
 for  the  prefent:    The  future  ufe  I  iliall  make 
 of  it,  is  to  come  diredly  to  the  point  in  Que- 
 ftion  ;    for  when   it  is  certainly  known   what 
 the   drift   defign    and  meaning   of  an  Author 
 is,    much  Pains  may  be  Ipared,  and  a  Difpute 
 fliortned. 
 
 I  hardly  know  whether  ftrid:  method 
 would  permit  me  to  take  notice  of  the  lat- 
 ter part  of  your  Reply,  (contained  in  Pages 
 61,  63,  64.)  it  is  fo  wide  and  foreign.  You 
 mud  have  had  a  great  mind  to  fay  fome- 
 thing  of  eternal  Generation :  Otherwife  you 
 would  never  have  introduced  it  in  a  place  fo 
 improper.      The  pretence  is,    that   we    e<^ui' 
 
 Q-  vocati 
 
ii6  ^DEFENSE  Qaj.XV, 
 
 vocaie  in  talking  of  eternal  Generation ;  and 
 therefore  it  is  proper  to  retort  it  upon  o?, 
 in  aniwer  to  a  charge  of  Equivocation,  Bat 
 wherein  do  we  equivocate^  or  do  any  thing 
 like  it?  Is  it  in  the  word,  EternaU  But  we 
 undoubtedly  mean  it  in  the  Arid:  and  proper 
 Senie.  Is  it  in  the  word,  Generation  ?  That  is  a 
 word  of  Latitude,  capable  of  more  Senies  than 
 one.  We  ule  it  in  the  Senie^  which  has  pre- 
 taird  in  the  Church  1500  Years;  and  in  a  pro- 
 per Senfe,  according  to  the  Rule  o^Tertullian^ 
 Omnis  Origo  Parens  eft.  And  where  thea  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- 
 fore  and  ftandard*of  all  Generation  ?  Ge- 
 neration, you  fay,  implies  Beginnings  and 
 yet  we  call  it  *  Eternal.  Admit  that  it  did 
 ib;  yet  till  That  can  be  made  appear,  we 
 may  be  very  Jincere  in  calling  it  Eternal,  iil- 
 tending  no  Equivocation  :  You  have  not 
 proved  that  all  Generation  imphes  Beginning; 
 and  what  is  more,  cannot.  You  endeavor  to 
 make  the  notion  of  it  abibrd  :  But,  unlefs  you 
 candemonftrate  the  abfurdity  of  ir,  how  will  you 
 charge  us  with  Equivocation,  which  w^as  the 
 Point  ?  All  you  have  to  fay  turns  only  upon 
 
 M4f. 
 
 your 
 
 0  ymyttreci  tn.v'nv-i  )M^a>^  otht  «vt9?  f^'foc.  Cyril.  Catech.  ii.  p- I4f. 
 
Qjj.XV.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.  ^tj 
 
 your  mirconflrud"ion  of,  I  fliould  fay  Equivo- 
 cation in,  the  word  Individual \  which,  you 
 muft  needs  know,  we  undcrlbnd  not  in  your 
 Senfe  of  it;  unlefs  \Ve  are  weak  enough  to  fup- 
 po(e  Father  and  Son  to  be  one  Ter/on.  You 
 "tiiakc  another  Argument,  by  equivocating  in 
 the  word,  Trodu&ion ;  which  if  we  ufe  at  all, 
 we  always  rake  care  to  explain  to  a  good 
 Senfe ;  and  never  once  imagine,  that  the  eter- 
 nal Generation  is  a  temporal  Produd:ion.  You 
 are  very  unhappy,  to  equivocate  all  the  way, 
 while  you  are  retorting  the  charge  o?  Equivo- 
 cation ;  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:  againll  our  Scheme,  as  to  defend  your 
 own;  Pleale  to  clear  your  own  Hypot be/is 
 firfl: ;  and  then  we  may  hear  what  you  can  fay 
 againfl:  ours.  The  Church  of  Chrift  has  beeii 
 in  poHcnion  of  the  orefenc  prevailing  Dod'rines, 
 at  Icaft,  for  1400  Years:  It  concerns  us,  before 
 we  part  with  them,  to  fee  that  we  may  have 
 fomerhing  better  in  their  ftead.  What  if  the 
 Carholick  Dod:rine  has  fome  Difficulties?  Has 
 Arianifm  none  ?  Or  muft  we  change  the  for- 
 mer for  the  latter?  No,  let  us  firfl:  confider 
 whether  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  (Moralifls 
 taay   account  for  it)    when   they   meet   with 
 
 Q^  1  a  dif" 
 
ai8  ^DEFENSE         Qy.XV. 
 
 a  difficulty  which  They  cannot  readily  anfwer, 
 immediately  to  conclude  that  the  Dod:rine  i5 
 Falfe  ;   and  to   run  directly  into  the  oppofite 
 Periwafion  :    not  confidering    that  They  may 
 meet  with  much  more  weighty  Objedions  there, 
 than  before ;  or  that  They  may  have  reafon  fuf- 
 ficient  to  maintain  and  beheve  many  Things  io 
 Thilofopby  or  'Divinity,  tho'  They  cannot  an- 
 fwer every  Queflion  which  may  be  ftarted,  or 
 every  Difficulty  which  may  be  railed  againft  them» 
 As  to  the  Point  we  are  upon ;  while  fome  are 
 confidering  only  the  Objections  againft  the  Do- 
 dTine  of  the  BlefTed  Trinity  (how  Three  can  be 
 One ;  how  the  Son  could  be  generated*^  how 
 ^'erfon  and  Being  can  be  different;  and  the 
 like)  they  imagine  prefently,  that  the  World,  in 
 a  manner,  has  been  hitherto  miferably  miftaken  ; 
 and  that  They  are  the  happy  Men,  vi^ho  fee 
 clearly  how,  and  why.     Let  but  the  very  fame 
 Men  have  patience  a  while,  and  not  imbark  in 
 the  oppofite  Caufe,  till  They  are  able  to  find 
 cut  a  truer  and  a  juftcr  Scheme,  and   to  clear  it 
 of  all  confiderable  Difficulties ;  I  fay,  let  Them 
 but  do  thus,  and  then,  1  am  perfwaded,  They 
 will  be  much  lefs  fanguine   in  their  purfuit  of 
 Novelties.     In  the  prefcnt  Concroverfy,  there 
 are  three  Schemes,  which  I  may  call  Catholick, 
 SabelUan,    and  Arian :    One    of    the   Three 
 muft,  in  the  main,  be  true.   The  way  to  know 
 which,  is,  to  weigh  and  confider  the  Difficul- 
 lies  attending  each  refpedively ;  and  to  ballance 
 them  one  againft  another.     The  Advocates  of 
 
 the; 
 
Q^u.XVI.       of  fame  (QUERIES.  219 
 
 the  Two  latter  have  performed  rcafonably  well, 
 in  the  ojfenfive  part;  and  elpecially  againft  each 
 other :  But  have  neither  of  them  yet  been  able 
 to  defend  their  refped:ive  Schemes ;  nor ,  I 
 fuppole,  ever  will  be.     But  I  proceed. 
 
 Divine  Worfhip  due 
 
 To  the  one  God. 
 
 Thpu  /halt  have  no 
 other  Gods  before  mey 
 Exod.  10.  3. 
 
 Thou  Jhalt  'worfhip 
 the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
 Him  only  jhalt  thou 
 ferve.  Matt.  4. 10. 
 
 To  Chrift. 
 
 They  worjhip'dH'tm^ 
 Luk.  24.  >f-.  Let  all 
 the  Angels  of  God  wor- 
 flnp  Him,  Heb.  1.6. 
 
 That  all  Men  Jhould 
 honour  the  Son^  even 
 as  they  honour  the  Fa^ 
 ther,  Joh.  y.13. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    V       XVI. 
 
 Whether  by  thefe  ( of  the  firft  Column )  and 
 the  like  Texts,  Adoration  and  IVorJhip  be 
 not  fb  appropriated  to  the  one  God,  as  to 
 belong  to  Him  only  ? 
 
 THIS  is  a  very  material  Enquiry,  relating 
 to  the  objed  of  Religious  Wotftiip ;  than 
 which  nothing  can  be  of  greater  Goncernment. 
 Here  therefore,  if  any  where,  we  might  expert 
 and  demand  of  You  a  very  full,  clear,  and  latis- 
 fadory  Anfwer.  I  fliall  examine  your  Anfwer, 
 in  due  time  and  place.  But,  firft,  ic  will  be 
 Q,  3  Proper 
 
23<^  ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XVI. 
 
 proper  to  fliow  whatReafons  we  have  to  think, 
 |:hat  all  7'eitgious  Worfliip  is  appropriated  to 
 God  only.  I  Ihall  enquire  into  the  SenJe  of 
 Scripture,  in  this  Article ;  and  next  proceed  to 
 the  Judgment  and  Practice  of  the  Antient 
 Church,   the  beft  Comment  upon  Scripture. 
 
 Exod.  xo.  v.i.  hath  been  already  produced. 
 The  Words  are,  Thou  /halt  have  no  other  Gods 
 before  (or  befides)  me.  Which  is  farther  ex- 
 plain*d,  v  f.  (the  reafon  being  the  fame,  both 
 with  refped  to  Images  and  falie  Gods)  Thou 
 Jhalt  not  how  down  toThem,  nor  ferve Them*, 
 All  Acts  of  Religious  Worfliip  are  forbid- 
 den to  be  offered  to  any  other  Being,  be- 
 fides the  one  Supreme  God  ;  to  Him  they  are 
 appropriated,  to  Him  only.  •  So  Dent.  6.  13. 
 Thou  Jhalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  md  ferve 
 Him :  And  again  'Deut.  i o.  20.  Thou  fl?alt  fear 
 the  Lord  thy  God\  Him  jhalt.  thou  ferve. 
 Which  is  quoted,  and  explain'd  by  our  BlefTed 
 LordHimfelf,  in  thefe Words:  Thou  fh alt  wor^ 
 floip  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Htm  only  jhalt 
 thou  ferve ^  Matt  4  ic.  This  was  faid  in  an- 
 fwer  to  Satan,  who  did  not  pretend  to  be  Su- 
 preme, nor  defire  to  be  acknowledged  as  fuch. 
 {See  Luk.^,  6.)  All  He  required  was,  tlhat  a 
 Ibleain  omward  ASt  of  Adoration  and  Worfliip 
 fliould  te  patd  Him:  And  the  reafon  given 
 for  reffaffDg  ii^  is  not  that  He  was  a  bad  Spirit ^ 
 an  Enemy  to  God ;  or  that  God  had  not  com^ 
 manded  that  He  feodd  be  worihip'd ;  but  the 
 
 %  S^e  atfo.  Exod.  Vi.  ao.-«  21.  14.  Dan.  3.  28. 
 
 1  realoa 
 
Qu.XVI.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  Z3i 
 
 reafon  is  general,  thar  none  are  to  be  worfhip'd 
 but  God  only.  And  that  thefe  and  the  like 
 Texts  were  intended  to  exclude  all  Beings,  be- 
 fide  the  one  Supreme  God,  from  being  vvor- 
 ihip'd,  either  at  that  Time ,  or  at  any  Time 
 after,  appears,  not  only  from  the  reafon  of 
 the  Thing,  but  from  plain  Scripture.  Before 
 me  was  there  no  God  form'd,  Jteither  Jhall 
 there  be  after  me^  lia.  43.  ic.  If  there  arife 
 among  you  a  Trophet,  or  a  "Dreamer  of 
 Dreams,  and  giveth  Thee  a  fign  or  wonder^ 
 and  the  fign  or  wonder  come  to  pafs,  where- 
 of He  fp  a  ke  unto  Thee,  faying.  Let  us  go  after 
 other  Gods  {which  thou  hajt  not  known')  and 
 let  us  ferveTbera,  Thou  jh  a  It  not  hearken, Sec, 
 Deut.  13.  I,  1,  ?.  The  Worfliip  of  the  fame 
 one  Gqd,  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  effedlually  precluded  from  receiving  any 
 religious  Homage  and  Adoration.  This  is  con- 
 firm'd  by  Si.Taul  {Ro7n.  i.x\,^c.)  who  cen- 
 furcs  thole  that  knew  God,  (that  is,  acknow- 
 ledged one  Supreme  God  )  and  yet  glorified 
 Him  not  as  God,  bccaule  they  ferved  the 
 Creature  more  than  (or  befides)  the  Creator, 
 who  is  blejfed for  ever.  Wherein  the  Apolllc 
 plainly  intimates,  that  the  Creator  only  is  to 
 be  ferved'^  and  that  the  Idolatry  of  the  Hea- 
 
 Q,  4  thens 
 
a3>  ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XVL 
 
 thens   lay   in    rheir  vvorlhiping   of  the  Crea- 
 ture.     He  does   net  blame  Them  for  giving 
 fo'veraign,  or  abfolute  Worlhip  to  the  Crea- 
 tures  (They  could  hardly  be  fo  filly,    as  to 
 imagine  there  could  be  more  than  one  Supreme 
 God)   but  for  giving  any  isuorjhip  at  all,  Sove- 
 raign  or  Inferior,  Abfolute  or  Relative,  to  any 
 Thing  but  the  Creator,     To  the  fame  purpoie, 
 G^/.  4.8.  He  condemns  thole  who  did  Jervlce, 
 unto  Them,  which  by  ^^^ture  were  no  Gods, 
 Which  Text  I  Ihall  take  care  to  explain  parti- 
 cularly ,    in  another  Place.     All   this   is   con- 
 firm'd   and    illuftrated   by   the    Angel,    {Rev. 
 i^.  10.-— 12.  9.)    who  refufed   to   receive   fo 
 much  as  the  outward  Ad  of  Adoration ;  giving 
 this  Rule  and  Maxim  upon  it,    fForJhijp  God: 
 intimating  thereby,  that  God  only  is  to  be  wor- 
 Jhifd\  that  all  Ads  of  religious  Worlliip  are 
 appropriated  to  God  only.     He  does  not  fay, 
 worfliip  God  and  whom  God  Jhall  appoint  ta 
 be  worjhifd\  as  if  He  had  appointed  any  be- 
 fides  God:    nor  woriliip  God  \\Ai\i  foveraign 
 Worlhip;  as  if  any  inferior  iort  of  Woriliip 
 was   permitted  to    be  paid  to  Creatures;    but 
 fimply,    plainly,    and  briefly,    IForJhip  God. 
 To  this  I  may  add,  that  theReafons  which  God 
 infifts  upon  and  inculcates,  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
 meut,  why  He,  and  He  alone,   in  oppofition 
 to  all  others,  is  to  be  worjhifd,  are  fiich  as 
 exclude  all  Creatures.     His   being  Jehovah^ 
 ^  Creator,    Suftainer,    Preferyer  of  all  Things, 
 
 ♦^f?ira.4o.  If.4y.$,<)j7.   iKing.  19.  ij.  Jcr.io.  10,  n,  ix. 
 
 having 
 
Q^u.XVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.  X33 
 
 having  no  God  before  Him  por  after  Him,  and 
 the  hke.  f 
 
 This  is  the  Scripture  Account  of  the  Obje<3: 
 of  Worlhip:  There  is  neither  Rule  nor  Example 
 in  it,  for  the  worihiping  any  Creature  whatever  j 
 but  all  the  Texts,  relating  to  this  Matter,  are 
 full,  ftrong,  and  clear  for  the  Worfliip  of  God 
 only.  Now,  whatever  Reafons  Human  Wif^ 
 dom  may  invent  for  the  worihiping  of  Crea- 
 tures, befides  the  Creator  (as  Celfus  and  Tor- 
 fhyrte  of  Old ,  and  the  Romanijis  of  later 
 Times,  have  pretended  )  thole  are  never  to  be 
 fet  againft  a  clear  and  plain  Law  ;  or  oppofed 
 ro  the  unerring  Wifflom  of  God ,  who  bed 
 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  ro  relieve  our  wants,  at  any  Diftance.  I 
 will  fuppofe  alio,  that  one  Creature  may  be  ap- 
 pointed to  bear  Rule  and  to  have  Dominion  over 
 many ;  as  feme  have  thought  particular  Angels 
 to  prefide  over  fuch  and  liich  Kingdoms  or 
 Countries.  I  will  iuppole  Hkewife,  that  it  may 
 feem  to  Human  Wildom.  very  fit  and  proper, 
 that  fuch  Creatures  as  can  aflift,  or  have  the 
 charge  of  others, fliould  be  refpeded,  worjh'tfd^ 
 and  adored  by  Them.  I  will  luppofe  alio,  that 
 we  may  be  fo  ignorant  as  not  to  perceive  any 
 great  harm,  in  thefe  Suppofitions,  from  the  Na- 
 ture 
 
%34  ^    DEFENSE        Q^u.XVI. 
 
 tare  of  the  thing,  barely  and  fingly  confider'd. 
 But  God's  Thoughts  are  not  our  Thoughts  :  He 
 has  been  pleas'd  to  enter  an  exprels  Caveat  and 
 Prohibition  in  the  Cafe ;  and  has,  no  doubt, 
 good  reafon  for  it.  PofTibly,  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.  PofTibly,  He  may  know  (liich  is  Hu- 
 man Infirmity)  that  if  any  part,  or  kind,  or 
 degree  of  Religious  Worihip  was  permitted  to"^ 
 be  given  to  Creatures,  it  might  infenfibly 
 alianare  our  Minds  from  the  Creator  \  or  eat 
 out  all  our  Reverence  and  Relpe<3:  for  God.  Or, 
 it  may  be,  that  while  our  Acknowledgments 
 are  order'd  to  be  paid  to  Him,  and  to  Him 
 alone,  we  may  thereby  be  induced  to  live  more 
 in  dependence  on  Him;  become  more  imme- 
 diately united  to  Him ;  and  have  the  greater 
 IoY€  and  efleem  for  Him.  He  will  nor,  per- 
 haps, leave  his  Favors  in  the  hands,  or  in  the 
 dilpofal  of  his  Creatures,  left  we  fliould  forget 
 whom  we  are  principally  obliged  to;  or  left  we 
 fliould  imagine  that  He  is  nrit  always  every 
 where  preient,  to  hear  all  our  Petitions,  and  to 
 anfwer  them,  according  to  his  own  good  Plea- 
 fure.  Thefe,  or  a  thoufand  better  Reafons,  in- 
 finite Wifdom  may  have  for  appropriating  all 
 k6i%  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, 
 
Qn},XVl        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  x3f 
 
 Now,  I  come  to  confider  what  you  have  to 
 except  againft  fo  clear  a  Truth.  All  is  com- 
 prized in  one  iliort  Sentence;  one  remarkable 
 Diiftind:ion.  Abfolnte  Supreme  Honour  is 
 plainly  appropriated  to  4be  'Per fin  of  the  Fa- 
 ther only  (by  Exod.  lo.  3.  Matt.  4. 10.)  as  the 
 abfolnte  Supreme  Being,  or  the  one  God,  (p. 9  4.) 
 From  which  1  am  to  infer,  that  relative  in- 
 ferior Worihip  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  T)'tfiin6iion, 
 pleaded  by  the  Heathens  of  Old,  ioxfPagany 
 by  the  Romanifts  of  late,  for  Topijh  ;  and  by 
 You,  for  Arian  Idolatry.  I  fliall  endeavor 
 to  convince  you  how  little  there  is,  either  of 
 Truth,  or  Probability,  in  this  fo  celebrated 
 "DiftinEiion ;  and  then  put  an  End  to  the  Argu- 
 ment of  this  ^uer)>. 
 
 "Vou  fet  out  unfortunately  under  a  mtftake, 
 as  if  We  were  inquiring  about  RelpecS:  and 
 Eftcem,  when  the  Queflion  is  entirely  about 
 Afls  Ks^i  Religions  Worfliip.  My  Words  were 
 IVorjhip  and  Adoration  :  Inftcad  thereof,  you 
 put  Honour,  an  ambiguous  Word ;  and  fo  flip 
 over  t'hse  Difficulty,  which  you  was  pinch'd 
 with ;  and  iiiienftbly  lead  your  Reader  of?  from 
 the  Point,  it  concern'd  you  to  Ipcak  to.  Pleafe 
 to  remember  that  we  are  diiputmg  about  A&s 
 of  Worfliip,  Religious  Worfliip.  Let  us  keep 
 to  the  Tervjs  we  began  with;  lefl:,  by  the 
 changijig  of  Words,  we  make  a  change  oHdeas, 
 
 alter 
 
^$6  ^DEFENSE        Q^j.XVL 
 
 and  alter  the  very  ftate  of  the  Queftion.  This 
 being  premised,  now  I  come  dired:ly  to  the 
 Point  in  Hand.  Your  pretence  is,  that  nUi- 
 mate,  abfolute^  Jupremey  fovera'tgn  Worfliip 
 is  due  to  the  Father  only  ;  Mediate,  relative^ 
 inferior,  petty  Worihip  may  be  paid  to  Crea- 
 tures :  The  outward  Ads  and  Circumftances 
 fuppofed  ahke  in  Both ,  fo  far  as  to  make 
 Them  Religious,  not  Civil  Worihip.  Your 
 conjidering  the  Father  as  Supreme,  and  your 
 intending  Him  the  highefl  Relped;  imaginable, 
 are  ro  make  His  Worfl?ip  become  fupreme , 
 ab/blute,  foveraign  Worihip:  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  Worihip  of  Him  become  i^tferior, 
 relative,  petty  Worlliip.  Worfliip  therefore 
 is  to  take  its  Quality  from  the  EJteem  and  In- 
 tention of  the  Worfliipper,  and  is  to  be  fup- 
 pos'd  higher  and  lower  accordingly.  This,  I 
 thinks  is  your  real  and  full  Meaning,  in  as 
 few  and  as  plain  Words,  as  I  am  capable  of 
 Expreffing  it.  In  anfvver  to  it,  I  obferve  as 
 jfollovvs. 
 
 I.  I  can  meet  with  nothing  in  Scripture  to. 
 countenance  thole  fine-fpun  Notions.  Trayer 
 we  often  read  of;  but  there  is  not  a  Syllabic 
 about  ahfolute  and  relative,  fupreme  and  i»-i 
 ferior  Prayer.  We  are  commanded  to  pray 
 Fervently  and  Inceffantly;  but  never  Sove- 
 raignly  or  Abfolutely,   that  1  know  of.    We 
 
 have 
 
Q^u.XVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.  13^ 
 
 have  no  Rules  left  Us  about  raijing  or  lowering 
 our  Intentions,  in  proportion  to  the  dignity  of 
 x\\t  Objects.  Some  Inftrudions,  to  this  purpofe, 
 might  have  been  highly  uleful ;  and  it  is  very 
 ftrange  that,  in  a  Matter  of  fo  great  Impor- 
 tance, no  Directions  fhould  be  given,  either  in 
 Scripture,  or,  at  lead:,  in  Antiquity,  how  to 
 regulate  our  Intentions  and  Meanings,  with 
 Metaphyfical  Exadneis;  fo  as  to  make  our 
 Worlliip  either  A/^/:;,  higher,  ox  higheft  oi  2\\^ 
 as  occafion  fliould  require. 
 
 X.  But  a  greater  Objecftion  againft  this  Do- 
 ctrine, is,  that  the  whole  Tenor  of  Scripture 
 runs  Counter  to  it.  This  may  be  underftood, 
 in  part,  from  what  I  have  obierved  above.  To 
 make  it  yet  plainer,  I  fliall  take  into  Confidc- 
 ration  fuch  Ad;s  and  Inftances  of  Worfhip,  as 
 I  find  laid  down  in  Scripture ;  whether  under 
 the  old  or  new  Difpenfation. 
 
 Sacrifice  was  one  Inftance  of  Worfhip  re- 
 quired under  the  Law  ;  and  it  is  faid ;  He  that 
 Sacrificeth  unto  any  God,  fave  unto  the  Lord 
 only.  He  /hall  he  utterly  dejiroyed ,  Exod. 
 XX.  xo.  Now  fuppofe  any  Perfon,  confidering 
 with  Himfelf  that  only  ahfohite  znd  foveraign 
 Sacrifice  was  appropriated  to  God,  by  this 
 Law,  ihould  have  gone  and  facrificed  to  other 
 Gods,  and  have  been  convided  of  it  before  the 
 Judges :  The  Apology  He  muft  have  made  foe 
 it,  1  fuppofe,  muft  have  run  thus.  *'  Gentlemen, 
 **  tho*  I  have  facrificed  to  other  Gods,  yet,  I 
 ••  hope,  you  1  obferve,  that  I  did  it  not  abfo- 
 
 *'  Intely: 
 
^38  y^DEFENSE        Q^ii.XVh 
 
 *•  lutely :  I  meant  not  any  ahfolute  ox  /it- 
 **  preme  Sacrifice  (which  is  all  that  the  Law 
 *'  forbids)  but  relative  and  inferior  only,  f 
 •'  regulated  my  Intentions  with  all  imaginable 
 •*  care ;  and  my  efteem  with  the  mod  critical 
 **  Exadnefi:  I  confider'd  the  other  Gods^ 
 **  whom  J  lacrificed  to,  as  inferior  only,  and 
 *'  infinitely  ^o\  referving  all  foveraign  Sacri- 
 *'  fice  to  the  fupreme  God  of  Ifrael.  This, 
 Or  the  like  Apology  mud: ,  I  prefume ,  have 
 brought  off  the  Criminal,  with  fome  applaufe 
 for  his  Acutenefs,  if  your  Principles  be  true. 
 Either  you  mufi:  allow  this ;  or  you  muft  ht 
 content  to  fay,  that  not  only  ahfolute  fit fr erne 
 Sacrifice  (if  there  be  any  Senfe  in  that  Phra(e) 
 but  all  Sacrifice  was,  by  the  Law,  appropriate 
 to  God  only. 
 
 Another  Inftancc  of  IVorjlnp^  is  making  of 
 Vows,  religious  Vows.  We  find  as  little  Ap- 
 pearance of  your  famed  Diftindlion  here,  as  in 
 the  former  cafe.  We  read  nothing  oi  foveraign 
 ^nd  inferior ,  ahfolute  and  relative  Vows ; 
 that  we  fliould  imagine  fupreme  Vows  to  be 
 appropriate  to  God ,  inferior  permitted  to 
 Angels,  or  Idols,  or  to  any  Creature. 
 
 Swearing  is  another  Inftance  much  of  the 
 fame  kind  with  the  foregoing.  Swearing,  by 
 Gois  Name,  is  a  plain  Thing,  and  well  under- 
 llood  :  But  if  you  tell  us  of  foveraign  and  in- 
 ferior Swearing,  according  to  the  inward  Re- 
 fpe£t  or  Intention  you  have,  m  Proportion  to 
 the  Dignity  of  the  Peribu  by  whofc  Name  you 
 
 Swear, 
 
Q^u.XVI.        of  fome  Q^UERlES.  139 
 
 Swear,  it  muft  found  perfed:Iy  new  to  us.  All 
 Swearing  which  comes  fliort  in  its  Refped'S,  or 
 falls  below  Soverd'tgn^  will,  I  am  afraid,  be  lit- 
 tle better  than  Trofanefs, 
 
 Such  being  the  Cafe,  in  refpedJ  of  the  Adfs  of 
 Religious  Worillip  aheady  raention'd,  I  am  noW 
 to  ask  you,    what  is  there  fo  peculiar  in  the 
 Cale  of  Invocation  and  Adoration,  that  They 
 fhould  not  be  thought  of  the  iame  kind  With 
 the  other?  Why  Ihould  not  abfolute  and  rela- 
 ttve  Prayer   and  Proftration  appear  as  abfdfd, 
 as  abfolute  and  relative  Sacrifice,  Vows,  Oaths, 
 or  the  hke?  They  are  Ads  and  Inftanccs  Of 
 r^/i^/'^/zj-Worfhip,  like  the  other;  appropriated 
 to  God  in  the  fame  Manner,  and  by  the  lame 
 Laws,  and  upon  the  fame  Grounds  and  Rea- 
 fons.     Well  then,  will  you  pleafe  to  confider, 
 whether    you    have   not    begun    at  the  vvroiig 
 end,  and  cotnmitted  an  i^^^^  (ts^Ti^o^  in  your 
 way  of  thinking.     You  imagine  that  Adfs  of 
 religious  Worfliip  are   to    derive   their   Signi- 
 fication and  Quality,    from  the  intention  add 
 meaning  of  the  Worlhippers;  whereat  the  very 
 rcverfe   of  it   is  the  Truth.     Their  Meaning 
 and  Signification   is    fix'd   and   dercrmin'd  by 
 God  Himielf;   and  therefore  we  are  never  to 
 ufe    them    with    any   other    meaning,    under 
 peril    of  Profanels  or  idolatry.     God  has  not 
 left  us  at  Liberty  to  fix  what  Sefile  we  pleafe 
 upon    religious   Worfliip,    to    render   it   high 
 or  low ,    abfolute  or  relative,    at  Difcrction ; 
 fufreme  whea  offered  to  God,  and  if  to  others 
 
 inferior  I 
 
44©  ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XVL 
 
 inferior  \   as  when  to  Angels,    or  Saints,   or 
 Images,  in  fuirable  Proportion.     No :  Religion 
 was  not  made   for  Metaphyfical  Heads  only ; 
 fuch  as  might  nicely  diftinguifli  the  leveral  De- 
 grees and  Elevations  of  Relpedt  and  Honour 
 among   many  Objed:s.     The   iliort  and  plain 
 way,  which  (in  pity  to  Human  Infirmity  and 
 to  prevent  Gonfufion)   it  has  pleated  God  to 
 take  with  us,  is  to  make  all  religious  Worfhip 
 his  own ;  and  io  it  is  foveraign  of  Courft.  This 
 I  take  to  be  the  true  Scriptural,    as  well  as 
 only  reafonable  Account  of  theObjed:  of  Wor- 
 ihip.     We  need  not  concern  our  ftlves  (it  is 
 but  vain  to  pretend  to  it)   about  determining 
 the  Senfe  and  Meaning  of  religious  Worlliip. 
 God  Himfelf  has  took  care   of  it;   and   it  is 
 already  fix'd  and  determin'd  to  our  Hands.     It 
 means,  whether  we  will  or  no,    it  means,  by 
 Divine  Inftitution  and  Appointment,   the  2)/- 
 vinity,   the  Supremacy,    the  Soveraignty   of 
 its  Objed:.     To  milapply  thofe  Marks  of  Dig- 
 nity, thofe  appropriate  enfigns  of  divine  Ma- 
 jefty  ;  to  compliment  any  Creature  with  them, 
 and  thereby  to  make  common  what  God  ^as 
 made  proper,  is  to  deify  the  Works  of  God's 
 Hands,    and  to  ferve  the  Creature  inftead  of 
 the  Creator,  God  blefTed  for  ever.     We  have 
 no  occafion  to  talk  o^  foveraign,  abfolute,  ulti- 
 mate Prayers,   and  luch   other   odd  Fancies: 
 Grayer  is   an  addrefs  to  God,    and  does  not 
 admit   of  thofe  novel  Diftindions.      In  fliort 
 then,    Here  is  no  Room  left  for  your  diftin- 
 
 guilhing^ 
 
Q^u.XVI.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  %^\ 
 
 guilhing     ber\ve«n     fovera'ign     and    inferior 
 Adoration.     You  mull    firfl:  prove,  whar  you 
 have   hitherto    prefumed    only   and   taken   for 
 granted ,    that  you  are  at  Hberty  to  fix  what 
 Meaning  and  Signification  you  pleafe    to    the 
 Ads    of  religious   Worlhip ;   to    make    rhcm 
 high  or  low  at  Difcretion.     This  you  will  find 
 a  very  difficult  undertaking.     Scripture  is  be- 
 fore-hand with  you;  and,  to  fix  it  more,  the 
 concurring  Judgment  of  the  carliefl:   and  beft 
 Chriftian  Writers.      All  religious   Worihip    is 
 hereby  determind  to  be,  what  you  call  abfo- 
 Jute  and  foveraign.  Inferior  or  relative  Wor- 
 ihip   appears    now,    to    be   Contradiction    in 
 Senfe,  as  it  is  novel  in  Sound ;  lixke  an  inferior 
 or  relative  God.     To  what  hath   been    laid, 
 I  may  add  a  few  farther  Confiderations  from 
 Scripture.     The  Apoftles  Barnabas  and  Taul^ 
 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  red:ify  their  Intentions,  and  con- 
 Jider  Them  ^'^Apoftles  only ;  but  They  forbad 
 them  to  Sacrifice  to  Them  at  all.   The  Angel, 
 in  the  Revelations,  did  not  dired  St.  John  to 
 confider  Him  only  as  an  AngeL  and  then  to 
 go  innocently  on,  in  his  JVorjhip  of  Him;  but 
 He  order'd  Him  to  Worfhip  God.    Our  Blefled 
 Lord  did  not  tell    the  Devil  that  all  external 
 Worfliip  was  equivocal,  and  might  be  offered 
 to  Angels  or  Men,  provided  the  Intention  was 
 *  Aa.  14.  R  regulated, 
 
^4^  ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XVt 
 
 regulated,  and  rt{^tdi  proportioned ;  but  He  told 
 Him  plainly  that  all  religious  Worihip  was  ap- 
 propriate to  God.  In  fine,  nothing  is  more 
 evident  than  that  the  Def!gn ,  both  of  the 
 Law  and  the  Gofpel,  was  to  ertabliih  this  great 
 Truth,  and  to  Root  out  Creature  -  IVorJhip. 
 **  And  this  was,  as  Dr.  Cndzvorth  rightly  ob-- 
 <*  ferves,  the  grand  Realbn  why  the  Antient 
 V  Fathers  fo  zealouily  oppofed  Arianifin ;  be- 
 **  cauie  that  Chriftianity,  which  was  intended 
 "  by  God  Almighty  for  a  means  to  extirpate 
 *'  ^agan  Idolatry,  was  thereby  it  fclf  Taga- 
 *^  nized  and  Idolatriz,ed\  and  made  highly 
 **  guilty  of  that  very  thing,  which  is  fo  much 
 '*  condemn'd  in  the  Tagans,  that  is,  Creature- 
 '*  Worjhip,  This  might  be  proved  by  fundry 
 •*  Teflimonies  of  Athanafius^  Bafil,  Gregory 
 •*  Nyjfen,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  EpiphaniMs^ 
 **  Chryfojiom,  Hilary,  Ambroje ,  An  ft  in  e^ 
 ^'  Fatiftinus,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria-^  All  of 
 **  Them  charging  the  Arians,  as  guilty  of  the 
 •*  very  fame  Idolatry  with  the  Gentiles,  or 
 '*  Pagans,  in  giving  religious  Worjloip,  even 
 **  to  the  JVord  :md  Son  of  God  Himfelf  (and 
 **  confequently  to  our  Saviour  Chrift) as  He  was 
 '*  fuppofed  by  Them  to  be  bur  ^Creature  *. 
 
 But,  in  aniwer  perhaps  to  This,  it  may  be 
 faid,  by  fuch  as  run  Things  off  in  a  confuled 
 manner  and  do  not.  ftay  to  diftinguilli ,  that 
 certainly  there  is  a  wide  and  great  Difference 
 between  giving  Honour  to  Heathen  Idols,  and 
 
 ♦  Cudw.  Intell.  Syft;  p.  618. 
 
 doing 
 
Q^u.XVI.        of  fome  (QUERIES.  243 
 
 doing  it  to  our  Saviour  Chrift,  tho'  a  Creature 
 only.  No  doubt  but  there  is ;  and  God  torbid 
 that  any  Chriftian  ihould  fay,  or  think  other- 
 wife.  But  that  is  not  the  point.  The  Worfliip 
 even  of  Saints  and  Angels  is  much  preferable 
 to  Tagan  Worlhip.  But  ftill  They  are  Both 
 equally,  tho'  not  equally  culpable.  Idolatry  % 
 and  are  Breaches  of  the  firft  Commandmenc, 
 Whatever  love,  refped:,  gratitude,  ^c.  may  be 
 due  for  what  our  Lord  and  Saviour  has  wrought 
 for  us,  if  Hebe  dill  2iCreature,  All  cannot  come 
 up  to  Worjhip,  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  ftom  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 
 r^'/i^ii?^/ Woriliip?  Is  it  to  "coorjhip  God  only  1 
 Or  is  it  to  worfliip  God,  and  ijuhomfoever  be- 
 fides,  God/hall  appoint  to  be  worjhip'd^  They 
 who  pretend  the  latter,  muft  fliow  Ibme  Foun- 
 dation, if  They  can,  in  Scripture,  for  it.  Where  is 
 it  intimated,  either  in  the  Old  or  New  Teftament, 
 that  Worfl^iip  fliould  be  paid  to  any  bcffides 
 God?  Neither  the  Law  nor  the  Prophets ^ 
 neither  Chrift  nor  His  Apofties  ever  intimated 
 any  thing  like  it.  Our  Saviour  did  not  lay, 
 worfliip  God,  and  'ovhomfoever  God  Jhall  order 
 to  be  worjhip'd'^  nor  did  the  Angel,  in  the  Re- 
 velations, infinuate  atiy  (iich  Thing:  St.  Taul 
 never  told  us  of  ferying   the  Creator,   and 
 
 R  %  whom 
 
144  -/^DEFENSE        Qjj,XYh 
 
 whom  the  Creator  iliould  nominate  befides;  but 
 Creator  only.  The  like  may  be  obferved  up- 
 on other  occafions,  where  this  might  have  been 
 properly  intimated,  but  is  conftanrly  omitted. 
 Nothing  therefore  can  be  plainer  than  that  the 
 fundamental  Rule  for  Worihip  is,  that  God  on- 
 ly is  to  be  worjhifd.  AliWoriliip,  inconfiftent 
 with  this  j^rimarj  and  perpetual  Law,  muft,  of 
 Confequence,  appear  Idolatrous,  either  in  the 
 Praftice,  or  the  Principle :  And  it  is  thus  that 
 the  yirians ,  following  a  Scripture-Command 
 but  not  upon  Scripture-Trinciples ,  and  prad:i- 
 fing  a  Chrijlian  Duty  upon  a  Tagan  Founda- 
 tion of  Creature- IVorJhif  and  'Polythei/m ^ 
 (land  charged  with  Idolatry. 
 
 2.  To  confirm  us  farther  in  the  Truth  of  the 
 Principles  here  alTerted,  I  ihall  fubjoin  a  fecond 
 Confideration,  drawn  from  the  Pradice  of  the 
 primitive  Martyrs ;  who  may  be  prcfumed  to 
 have  underftood  the  Principles  of  that  Religion, 
 for  which  They  chearfully  laid  down  their  Lives, 
 It  is  well  known  that  They  readily  fubmitted 
 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 
 Woriliip  be  all  that  is  appropriated  to  God  ;  and 
 if  no  Worfliip  be  Soveraign,  but  w^hat  the  in- 
 ward Intention,  and  fecret  Efleem  of  the  Wor- 
 fliipper  make  io;  how  thoughclefs  were  They, 
 to  refill  even  unto  Blood,  for  fear  of  committing 
 a  Sin,  which  it  was  not  poflible  for  Them  to 
 have  been  guilty  of     They  could  never  have 
 
 blunder'd 
 
Q^u.XVI.       offome  Q^UERIES.  245- 
 
 blundcr'd  fb  egregioufly,  as  to  have  confiderd 
 the  Heathen  Deirics  (which  They  heart, Jy  de- 
 ipiled}  as  Supreme  Gods ;  or  to  have  intended 
 theai  Soveraign  Worihip;  and  therefore  could 
 not  have  been  guilty  of  giving  them  that  JTor- 
 jhip  which  is  appropriate  to  God.  They  had 
 fo  mean  and  defpicable  an  Opinion  of  the  'Pa- 
 gan Deities,  that  if  the  Qiiality  of  the  Woriliip 
 is  to  be  eftimatcd  from  the  iccret  EJleern  and 
 Intention  of  the  IVorJfnper,  fuch  Adts  of  Wor- 
 iliip mud:  have  dwindled  into  no  Worihip  in 
 reahty  ;  hardly  amounting  to  (b  much  as  an 
 empty  ceremonious  Compliment.  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  primitive  Saints  were  un- 
 acquainted with  your  refined  Subtilties,  having 
 learned  their  Logick  from  Scripture,  and  the 
 plain  common  Senfe  and  Reafon  of  Mankind. 
 They  knew  that  the  Signification  of  Worfliip 
 and  Sacrifice  depended  not  on  their  arbitrary 
 Efteem,  or  Iccrec  Intention;  but  had  been  be- 
 fore fix'd  and  determined  by  God.  To  offer 
 Sacrifice  to  the  Heathen  Deities,  was,  by  Con- 
 ilrudiion  and  Imphcation,  declaring  Them  to 
 be  immutable,  eternal,  fnpreme^  and  flri(3:ly 
 divine.  They  could  not  be  guilty  of  luch  a 
 ibiemn  Lie,  or  commit  fuch  barefaced  Pro- 
 fauefs  and  Idolatry.    They  would  not  profticute 
 
 R  3  th« 
 
%^6  A   DEFENSE        Q^u.XVL 
 
 the  Marks  and  Charaders  of  Divinity  to  Thofe 
 who  weie  by  Nature  no  Gods ;  nor  give  That 
 to  Jdols,  vvhicn  was  appropriated  to  God  only. 
 This  was  their  manner  of  reafoning ;  and  this 
 was  right :  For,  indeed,  upon  the  other  Hypo- 
 tbefis  ^  there  is  nothing  fo  mean  or  low,  .but 
 what  a  Man  might  pay  religious  Woriliip  to. 
 For  Inftance  :  Pray  to  Angels ,  but  confidtr 
 .them  as  Angels,  with  proportionate  Refped:, 
 and  there  will  be  no  harm  in  it.  Worfhip  Saints 
 <3eparted,  but  intend  them  only  fuch  relped:  as 
 is  due  to  Saints,  and  all  is  right.  Fall  down 
 before  a  Crucifix  with  humble  Proftration,  but 
 confider  it  as  a  Crucifix,  and  intend  little  or 
 nothing  by  it,  and  all  \^  well.  Thefe  feem  to 
 me  the  unavoidable  Conlequences  of  this  famed 
 Diftindion ;  and  thefe  are  the  ufes  which  have 
 adually  been  made  of  it,  fince  Men  have 
 learn'd  to  be  fiibtile,  inftead  of  wife ;  and  have 
 departed  from  the  fundamental  Maxim  of  re- 
 vealed Religion,  that  God  alone  is  to  be  wor- 
 fhip'd  with  religious  TV  or  (hip.  The  Sum  of 
 what  hath  been  laid,  on  this  important  Article, 
 may  be  comprized  m  the  following  Particulars. 
 
 I.  That,  under  theOldTeftament,  all  religi- 
 ous Worfliip  was  declared  to  belong  to  God 
 only ;  and  upon  fuch  Reafons  as  exclude  all 
 Creature  -  Worjhip  ;  Namely ,  becaufe  He  is 
 God)  Jehovah,  Eternal,  Immutable;  Creator, 
 Preferver,  Suftainer  and  Governor  of  all 
 Things. 
 
 %,  That 
 
Qu.XVI.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  147 
 
 2.  That  our  bleffed  Lord  made  no  Alteration 
 in  this  Law;  but  explained  and  confirm'd  it: 
 His  Apoftles,  after  Him,  inculcated  the  fattie 
 Thing,  long  after  our  Saviour's  Exaltdtto'n  and 
 Afcenfion ,  and  an  Angel  from  Heaven  rein* 
 forc'd  it,  thereby  proclaiming  its  perpetual  Obli- 
 gation. No  Diftindion  of  Woriliip,  Ptedi ate  and 
 ultimate,  was  ever  intimated;  nor  of  Inferior 
 and  Soveraign :  But  all  religious  Worfliip  fiip- 
 pofed  to  have  one  Meaning,  one  Significancy^ 
 one  0^>^,  viz.  Th^  divine  Nature  \  whether 
 lubfifting  in  one  Perfon,  or  more. 
 
 3.  Such  being  the  Rule  and  (landing  Law  for 
 religious  Woriliip,  none  can  have  any  fight, 
 title,  or  claim  to  JVorjhi^^  but  in  Conformity 
 to  the  fame  Rule. 
 
 4.  If  the  Son  of  God  be  very  God,  Jehovah^ 
 Creator^  Sujiainer,  and  Trejerver  of  all  Things; 
 then  He  borh  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  borh  of  the  Law  and  the 
 Gofpel.  In  a  word  ;  if  the  Son  of  God  is  to 
 be  "worfryifd.  He  is  not  a  Creature :  ii  a  Crea- 
 ture, He  is  not  to  be  voorjhip'd. 
 
 It  remains  now  only  to  inquire,  whether  the 
 primitive  Church,  which  had  the  lame  Scriptures 
 chat  we  have  and  better  Opportunities  of  know- 
 ing and  underftanding  Them,  made  the  fame  or 
 the  like  Conclufions  from  Them.  It  is  an  Ar- 
 gument of  no  fmall  Importance ;  and  theretore 
 
 R  4  I  fliall 
 
248  -^DEFENSE        Qjj.XYJ. 
 
 I  fliall  think  it  worth  the  while,  to  give  you  a 
 brief  Summary  of  the  Sentiments  of  the  earheft 
 Chriftian  Writers;  and  in  their  own  Words, 
 that  every  impartial  Reader  may  be  able  to 
 judge  for  Himiclf. 
 
 Jufiin  Martyr,  giving  account  of  the  Chri- 
 ftian Worlhip,  fays  plainly,  *'  ^  We  worfliip 
 "  God  alone;  and,  None  but  God  ought  tq 
 "  be  woriliip'd. 
 
 b  jithenagoras,  in  like  manner,  fpeaks  to  this 
 effed::  ''  We  are  not  to  worfliip  the  World, 
 *'  but  t\\Q  Maker  of  it;  we  worfliip  not  the 
 "  Towers  of  God,  but  their  Creator  and 
 <•  Governor, 
 
 '  1  heo_philus  fxys,  *'  I  will  Honour  the  King, 
 *'  but  I  will  not  Worjhlp  Him.  ^  I  will  wor- 
 *•  fliip  God,  the  real  and  true  God:  no  one 
 "  ought  to  be  worfliip'd  but  God  alone. 
 
 ^Tatian,  ro  the  fame  purpofe,  tho'  not  fo 
 fully,  lays ;  "  The  Works  of  God,  made  for  our 
 '*  Sakcs,  I  will  not  worfliip. 
 
 ^TertuUian  fays,  '*What  we  worfliip  is  on^ 
 
 a  0£<3V  yw/fv  lA^'i^v  <zs^,(ncvv^tJtj£v,  Apolog.  I.  C.  23.  Tov  &iov  f/S^ov 
 d\X  (Srtifnt'jvi'.'-J,  Ci   2  1.         ■■■ 
 
 b  06  Tov'nv,  oi.)iuz  nzv  Tiy^yiiTU/j  ccinZ  <iSt9<^'iJv*}Tioii,   p.  ^y.      Ou  7K5 
 
 olC'TniTluj,  p.  56. 
 
 i<^  —^  TT^oTcvviXxIl  uXX*  ii   f^vu  (diu,   p.  30,   5  J, 
 
 S-/A«y,  p.  1 3.  Vid.  &  p.  79. 
 
 •    e  Quod  Colimus,  Dcus  unus  eft>  quiTotara  molem  iflam de 
 
 nihilo  expreflit.  uipol.  c.  17.         ' 
 
 Pr:]ercribitur  mihi  ne  quern  Alium  Deum  dicam,  —  ne  quern  aliun? 
 adorem,  aut  quoquo  roodo  venerer,  prxter  unicum  Ilium  qui  ita 
 mandat.    Scorp»  c»  4.  p»  490.  Ri^nU, 
 
 "  God, 
 
Q^u.XVI.       of  fome  QUERIES.  149 
 
 *'  God,  who  made  the  whole  Mafs  of  Things 
 '*  purely  from  Nothing.  I  am  commanded  not 
 *«  to  call  any  other,  God,  nor  to  adore ^  or  ia 
 "  any  wiic  worjh'tp  any  other  befides  that 
 •'  one. 
 
 *  Clement  oi  Alexandria  has  more  to  this 
 purpole  :  ''  Angels  and  Men  (fays  He)  are  the 
 '*  Works  of  God's  Hands:  Let  none  of  you 
 '*  woriliip  the  Sun,  bur  lee  Him  fet  his  Heart 
 *'  upon  the  Sun's  Creator:  Neither  let  Him 
 *'  deify  the  World;  but  to  the  Maker  of  the 
 **  JForld  let  his  Dcfires  be.  I  feek  after  God, 
 "  the  Creator  of  the  World,  Him  that  light- 
 '*  ed  up  the  Sim,  and  not  after  the  Creatures 
 *'  (ep>a)  which  God  hath  made.  The  Gentiles 
 *'  ought  to  learn,  from  the  Law  and  the  Pro- 
 *'  phets,  to  woriliip  the  one  God,  and  Him 
 '*  only,  who  is,  in  reality.  Almighty.  This 
 "  it  is  to  worihip  the  divine  Being  in  true 
 "  Righteoufnefs  of  Pradice  and  Knowledge. 
 
 \  Irenaus  expreffes  Himlelf  thus:  "  You 
 \'  ought  to  woriliip  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to 
 *'  ferve  Him  only,    and  to  give  no  credit  to 
 
 a  "AyyiAoi  (:  'A*3-f&)9rr«  tfa<ac  T  ou,%rvXav  xorS  — — —  jW,«  T  'viMo]f 
 Tit  i^ccv  'TrpQTKVvii'n.t  uAAot  tov  vAi»  Tmajir/V  iimz3-i,TU.  /ajjJV  T  n^cy^/ 
 tV.^ifitujSTft',  uXXoi  Tzv  n^cryjis  (/\;jutjiis^.yov  i7ri(^yirr,crtcrct>^  p.  f^m  Ed.  Ox. 
 Tov  n^(rfjui(  oijfx,iov(>ycv,  tov  liAiS  <p&iTccyoyav  yjoy  iTn^iiTci,  »  roc  tpy*  i/ 
 OioZ,  p.  J- p.  T85  '£-?.A>j>'«65  ^r/i  ^ijj.  vofjca,  xm\  7rpj<priTav  (^UjAv^vhv 
 ivcc  fjovov  <rs<>€iv  Qicv  T  ovTZjq  ovTU,  7rz(.v%y,pjiTCP(X,,  p.  825.  To  y  iH 
 jf.)'7x.i6eiv  TO  .9-f4ev  2kjU,  't  ovtzj^  oiKMoaruv/j;  rpjoiv  n  y^,  yya<nu<i,  P'778' 
 
 f  Doniinurn  Dcum  tuum  adorare  oporret,  &  ipfi  ioli  iervire, 
 &  non  credere  ei  qui  fal  b  promific  ca,  quae  non  funt  fua,  dicens: 
 
 Hac  omnia.  Tibi  dabo  (i  prociJens  adoraveris  mc. — Neque  enim 
 
 conditio  fub  ejus  potcftare  eft,  quandoquidcm  &  ipfe  unus  de  Crea- 
 inris  eft,   p.  510,  Ed.  Bene  J. 
 
 '*  Him, 
 
%S0        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XVI. 
 
 •*  Him,  who  deceitfully  promifed  Things  which 
 **  were  not  his  own,  faying;  ^/l  theJeThmgs 
 •'  will  I  give  Thee,  if  Thou  wilt  fall  down 
 ••  andworjhip  w^.— The  Syftem  of  Creatures 
 **  is  not  under  his  Dominion,  fince  He  Him- 
 '*  fclf  is  one  of  the  Creatures. 
 
 *  Origen  has  a  great  deal  to  our  purpofe,  in 
 his  Book  againfl:  Celfns,  I  fliall  feled:  a  few 
 Paflages;  He  blames  ih^Gejttiles,  *'  who  from 
 •'  the  ftupendous  grearnefs  of  the  World,  and 
 **  the  beautiful  order  of  Creatures  {h^is^y^- 
 <<  fioiTav)  did  not  perceive  that  they  ought  to 
 **  admire,  worfliip,  and  adore  Him  only  that 
 •*  made  Them.  In  another  place  He  fays: 
 •*  To  worfhip  the  Sun  and  the  Creatures  of 
 *•  God  (0^5  S^^juuHpy-A/jLoi'^gt)  is  forbidden  Us, 
 •'  who  are  taught,  not  to  ferve  the  Crea- 
 *'  ture  be  fides  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  J  take  notice  of  here  particu- 
 larly, that  you  may  ice  how  clearly  Origen 
 diftinguiflies  the  Son  from  the  JV^6Ui?p7"W&  ©^5: 
 as,  indeed,  He  does  every  where.  In  another 
 place.  He  obferves  tbar  Chriftians  are  bred  up 
 
 *  O/  C/x  roC  TiiXiKum  f/jf/iB-a^  T  ov  rcJ   yJ(r[X>a)y  ^   too  ^gi.XXn'i  T 
 
 ► triZeiv  i^  T  ViXiov,   y^   rcc   S  QioZ  ^,y^,ovf''/^/c{^^   oCTrtj)  vj/mTv  UTrri- 
 
 'Jo^t^j^  dihtu-y{sf^toic,  f/jY)  Xoit^iveiv  rjj   jctjV^  Tm^ee,  T   K-nvzcvTU,  p.  57^. 
 /  /hall  add   another   Pajf:ige' 
 
 svxfiV  Wi(.<pifi^v  Q/Asiyuy    p.  367. 
 
 to 
 
Qjj.  XVf .        of  fome  Q_U  E  R I E  S.  if  i 
 
 to  Thoughts  elevated  far  *  above  all  Creatures ^ 
 land  might  very  juftly  dildain  to  worfliip  any 
 of  Them.  The  hke  He  remarks  of  the  JewSy 
 **  that  they  were  taught  to  |  afcend  up  to 
 ''  the  uncreated  Nature  of  God  ,  to  fix 
 *•  their  Eyes  upon  Him  only ;  and  on  Him 
 **  alone  to  reft  all  their  Hopes  and  Ex- 
 •'  pedations. 
 
 I  might  add  many  more  Teftimonies,  to  the 
 fame  effed ,  from  the  Ante-N'tceue  Writers : 
 But  thefe  are  fufficient  to  give  us  a  juft  Idea  of 
 their  Principles,  in  relation  to  the  Objed:  of 
 Worfliip.  This  we  lliall  find  run  thro'  Them 
 all.  That  God  alone  is  to  be  worfliip'd  ;  the 
 Creator  in  oppofition  to  all  Creatures  what- 
 ever ;  the  r\  ©iioi'  (as  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
 and  Or/g-^;/fometimes  accurately  exprefsit)  which 
 ■3\\oTertullian  leems  to  intimate,  in  the  words, 
 ^od  Col'tmus^  above  cited.  The  Sum  then  of 
 the  cafe  is  this :  If  the  Son  could  be  included 
 as  being  uncreated,  and  very  God;  z^Creator^ 
 Sujiainer,  Treferver  of  all  Things,  and  one 
 with  the  Father;  then  He  might  be  worfliip'd 
 upon  their  Principles,  but  otherwile  could  not. 
 What  their  Pradice  was,  fliall  be  confider'd,  in 
 its  proper  place.     For  the  prelent,  let  it  be  a 
 
 *  Tou-;  ^loUx&iv'^  fjttt^Xe^tiH^  \}ar£^uvx'occj»€iv  nzcvnt  to.  hiyiiouf- 
 y<y^ru,  &c.  p.  a  J 7, 
 
 j-  'AvcC'cxjvuv  iTn  Ttiv  ecysvyirDV  toZ  Quu  ^t/mv  x-uxavat  f^QVCo  ivopuv^ 
 f^  T<jf5  octt'  tc^ToZ  fj^va   i^TnaUi;  TT^hy.^^v,  p.    189. 
 
 Compare  p.  1 60.  jvhere  Ongcn  in/ijis  upon  the  Nece(fity  of  elevating 
 our  Thoughts  and  Devotions  above  and  beyond  all  created  Being. 
 t,  ■nvtri)/  ^ivj^TDt,  iu  one  place^Tnctr^i  yittyrS  in  the  .other. 
 
 Rule 
 
%f^  A    DEFENSE       C^u.XVJL 
 
 Rule  and  Maxim  with  us,  fix'd,  as  far  as  Scri- 
 pture and  the  concurring  Judgment  of  Antiquity 
 can  fix  it  (befides  what  might  be  juftly  pleaded 
 from  the  Realbn  of  the  Thing)  that  no  kind  or 
 degree  of  religtGUs  Woriliip  is  due,  or  can  be 
 lawfully  paid,  to  any  Creature.  The  Conclu- 
 fion  from  all  is ;  if  our  BlefTed  Lord  is  a  Crea- 
 ture, He  is  not  to  be  woriliipd;  if  He  is  to 
 be  woifliip'd,  He  is  not  a  Creature.  Now  we 
 may  pals  on. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       XVII. 
 
 Whether,  notwithjianding,  IVorjhip  and  Ada- 
 ration  be  not  equally  due  to  Chrift -^  and 
 confequently,  whether  it  muft  not  follow 
 that  He  is  the  one  God,  and  not  ( as  the 
 Ax'izns  fuf_pofe)  a  dijlin6i  inferior  Being  ? 
 
 YOU  Anfwer,  x\\2it  Equality  of  divine  Ho- 
 nour is  never  attributed  in  Scripture  to 
 the  Son  with  the  Father ;  and  then,  in  proof 
 of  a  Matter  of  Fad:,  you  aflign  a  realbn  of  your 
 own  devifmg;  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  dole  to  the  Words 
 of  the  Qiiery,  and  to  the  point  in  Qusftion  ? 
 Worjhip  and  Adoration  are  my  Words;  not 
 divine  Honour,  which  is  ambiguous,  and  leads 
 us  ofT  from  the  Argument  in  Hand.  Suppofe 
 it  had  been  faid  Sacrifice:  Would  you  anfwer 
 
 thus? 
 
Q^u.XVII.      of  Jbmc  (QUERIES.  15-3 
 
 thus?  Equality  oi divine  Sacrifice  is  never  at- 
 tributed, ^c.  Do  nor  you  ice  the  Impropriety  ? 
 Well,  but,  as  it  is,  you  mufl:  lay,  equality  of 
 divine  IVorjhip  is  never  attributed,  ^c.  And 
 then,  pray  tell  me,  what  you  mean  by  equa- 
 Itty  or  inequality  o^  JVorJhip  \  whether  you 
 mean  longer  or  ihorter  Prayers,  more  or  leis 
 frequent  AddrefTes,  or  any  thing  elie.  Be  that 
 as  it  will,  IVorjhip,  religious  Worfliip,  greater 
 or  fmaller,  longer  or  ihorter,  has  the  fame  Im- 
 port and  Significancy ;  and  fpeaks  the  Peribn 
 addreis'd  to,  to  be  divine:  juft  as  Sacrifice^ 
 whether  offer'd  once  a  Year  only  or  once  a 
 Day,  or  whether  it  were  a  Lamb  or  only  two 
 young  Tigeons,  carried  the  lame  Acknowledg- 
 ment with  it  of  the  divinity,  Soveraignty, 
 and  Supremacy  of  the  Perfon  to  whom  it  was 
 offered.  Now,  Worjhip  being,  as  hath  been 
 laid,  an  Acknowledgment  of  the  true  God,  in 
 oppofition  to  all  Creatures  whatever,  which 
 are  by  Nature  no  Gods;  and  being  offer'd  to 
 the  Father,  not  for  the  recognizing  h\s  perfon al 
 Properties,  as  He  (lands  dillinguilh'd  from  the 
 Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  but  his  ejfential  Perfe<3:i- 
 ons,  common  to  all,  and  by  which  He  is  di- 
 ftinguiihM  from  the  Creatures ;  it  is  very  raani- 
 feft,  that  if  the  Son  is  to  be  worjhip'd  too. 
 He  is  equally  God,  and  true  God,  with  the 
 Father ;  has  all  the  fame  elTential  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- 
 
 ^  perior 
 
ZS4  ^    DEFENSE       CLu.XVm 
 
 perior  and  infinitely  tranfcendent  Excellency, 
 He  is  ""xorjhifd.  If  then  Honour  confifts  in 
 the  Acknowledgment  of  his  eflential  Pcrfedions, 
 Equality  of  divine  Honour  is  attributed  ifi 
 Scripture  to  the  Son  with  the  Father ;  becaule 
 Worjhip  is  attributed  to  Both,  and  is  always  of 
 the  lame  Import  and  Significancy ,  by  God's 
 own  Order  and  Appointment.  But  then  you'l 
 fay,  the  Son  will  be  abfolutcly  equal  with  the 
 Father;  which  you  think  inconfiftent  with  Scri- 
 pture and  Reafon.  If  you  mean  by  abfolutely 
 equal,  that  the  Son  mud  be  the  firjl  Tcrfon^ 
 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  Refpeds ,  for 
 which  Woriliip  is  due  to  the  Father  Him- 
 felf.  He  will  be  equally  divine,  equally  eter- 
 nal, immutable,  wife,  powerful,  &c.  in  a 
 word,  equally  God  and  Lord.  As  to  \\i^  Sub- 
 ordination of  Perlbns  in  the  fame  Godhead, 
 That  is  of  diftinCt  Confideration ;  and  we  may 
 never  be  able  perteitly  to  comprehend  the  Re- 
 lations of  the  three  Perfons,  ad  intra,  amongft 
 themfelves;  the  ineiiable  Order  and  Occonomy 
 of  the  ever  bleffed  Co- eternal  Trinity.  You 
 have  many  Things  to  fay,  in  hopes  to  leiTen 
 the  Honour  and  Worlhip  attributed  to  the  Son 
 in  Holy  Scripture.  But  unlefe  you  cou'd  prove 
 that  no  Worlhip  at  all  is  to  be  paid  Him,  yod 
 prove  nothing.  However,  that  I  may  not  leem 
 to  pds  any  thing  flightly  over,  I  flilll  take  the 
 Pains  to  oc-amine  your  Exceptions; 
 
 As^ 
 
Qu.XVII.       of  fime  Q^UERIES.  i^^ 
 
 As  to  what  yon  fay,  to  weaken  the  force  of 
 Joh.S-'^l'  the  anlwer  to  it  will  properly  faH 
 under  a  diftind:  Query ;  which  is  entirely  upon 
 it.     You  *  cite  Thil.z.  ii.  Job.  14. 13.  againft 
 the  ^ler'tji ;  as  if  it  was  any  Queflion  betwixt 
 us,    whether  God   was  glorified  in  his  Son; 
 or  whether 'the  Honour  of  either  did  not  re- 
 dound to  Both.     If  was,  you  Jay,  the  Trayer 
 of  ChriJI  to  glorify  his  Father,  and  ^ he  Fa- 
 ther only.     But  re  id  that  part  of  the  Prayer 
 again,  and  believe  your  own  Eyes,  J  oh.  17.  i. 
 Father,    the  Hour  is  come.  Glorify  thy  Son, 
 that  thy  Son  alfo  may  glorify  Thee.     How  fa- 
 miliar, how  equally  concerned,  as  w^ell  for  his 
 own,  as  his  Father'^  Glory.     So  again,  a  little 
 after ;  /  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  Earth :  I 
 have  finijhed  the  Work  which  Thou  gave  ft  me 
 to  do.     And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  Thou  me 
 with  thine  own  felf  with  the  Glory  which  I 
 had  with  Thee,  before  the  World  was.  Job. 
 17.  4,  5.    See  alfo,  Joh.  13.  31,  32.  and  then 
 tell,  me  whether  it  was  Chrift's  defign,  or  de- 
 fire,    that  his  Father  only  mighr  be  glorified. 
 How  could  you  mifs  fuch  plain  Things  ?  You 
 go  on ;  The  Father  is  the  obje^,  to  which  He 
 commands  us  to  dire6i  our  Prayers.     What  ? 
 Will  you  difpuce  whether  Chrift  is  to  be  wor- 
 fliip'd,  or  invocatcd?  Confider,  I  befeech  you, 
 y^^.5.i3.mention'd  above;  Recoiled  with  your 
 lelf,  that  He  is  fbmetimes  diftindtly  and  perfonally 
 \  invocatedm  Grace,  Mercy,  and  Peace,  or  Grace 
 
 ♦p.  po,      t  A<^S7.5^.  1Thcfr3.11.  Rom.  10, 1 3.  i  Cor.  1.2. 
 
 and 
 
aj6  ^DEFENSE       Q^^u.XVIi: 
 
 and  Teace,  or  Grace  only,  are  frequently,  m 
 Twenty  Places  of  the  New  Teftamcnt  *,  im- 
 plored of  Him,  together  with  the  Father.  He 
 is  to  be  worlliip'd  and  adored,  as  well  as  the 
 Father,  by  Men,  by  ^Angels,  by  the  ^  whole 
 Creation.  Glory  and  Dominion  for  ever  and 
 ever  are  "^  alcribed  to  Him,  as  well  as  to  the 
 Father.  This  is  the  Senfe  of  Scripture :  I  need 
 not  add,  it  being  a  thing  fo  well  known,  the 
 Seofe  alfo  of  the  carlieft  and  heft  Chriflian  Wri- 
 ters, who  unanimoufly  declare  for  the  Wor- 
 ihip  of  Chrift ;  and  their  Prad:ice  was  conform- 
 able thereto.  And  now ,  that  you  may  ice 
 how  confident  rhoie  good  Men  were  (fuitably 
 to  their  ftrid:  finceriry )  wirh  Scripture,  with 
 Themfelves,  and  with  each  other ;  I  Ihall  ftep 
 a  little  afide,  to  IhowYou  upon  what  Principles 
 They  might,  and  did  give  religious  Worlliip  to 
 Chrift. 
 
 We  have  heard  Juflin  Martyr,  before,  de- 
 claring that  God  alone  is  to  be  worjhip'd.  Very 
 true:  But  then  He  conftantly  teaches  us  that 
 the  Son  is  God;  and  therefore  might  confident- 
 ly fay,  that  the  Son  is  to  be  ^  worjhifd,  and/ 
 jn  the  Name  of  the  whole  Church,  "  we  ^  wor- 
 *'  JhiJ^  Father y  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoji. 
 
 *  See  darkens  Script.  Doar.  Ch.  i.  Se£t.  4. 
 
 a  Hebr.  i.  6.  b  Rev.  5.  8. 
 
 c  1  Pet.  3.  18.  Rev.  5.13.  See  alfo  Rev. 7.  ro. 
 
 d  BpocxwnTsq,  Apol.  I.  p.  94.  Apol,  i.  3f.  Ox,  Dial.  pi^.  191, 
 209.  231.  36f.  Jebb. 
 
 e  'EKiTvov  rs,  tCj  -rov  Trzip'  uuroZ  'neii  iXB-cvju  >•  "TrviZ^ci.  tt  to  t:^ 
 ^>)TiKo»  ci'ooyjijst.   KO.;  7:^(rKvvr,Z^^/ift    ApoI-  I.    p.  1 1 . 
 
 Athena- 
 
(^u.XVII.       ef  fome  QUERIES.  %si 
 
 Athenagoras  has  before  inrimared  that  no- 
 thing Icis  than  the  ^  Creator  of  the  World  is  to 
 be  worjhifd.  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  wor- 
 iliip'd,   He  ^'  joins  the  Son  with  the  Father. 
 
 Tbeofhilus  declares,  as  before  feen,  for  the 
 Woilhip  of  God  only;  and  fays,  the  King  is 
 not  to  be  worfliip'd,  becaufe  He  is  not  God. 
 But  then,  as  to  the  Son,  He  ^  owns  Him  to  be 
 God ;  and  therefore  of  Conlequence  muft  fup- 
 pofe  Worfliip  due  to  Him. 
 
 Tatian  teaches  that  God  only  is  to  be  Wor- 
 fliip'd ;  not  ^  Man,  not  the  Elements,  not  the' 
 Creatures,  hf/.i^pyU.  Very  good  :  Bur  the  Son 
 who  ^  created  Matter,  and  is ' \yyi\m  h/xiap' 
 yoi,   might  be  worfliip'd  notwithfl:andir!g. 
 
 Tertullian  is  fo  Icrupulous,  that  He  lays,  He 
 will  not  fo  much  as  call  Any  other,  God,  but 
 the  God  whom  He  worfliip'd ,  and  to  whom 
 alone  He  pronounces  all  Worfliip  due.  Bur  He 
 mufl:  certainly  include  the  Son  in  that  only  God ; 
 as  every  one  knows  who  ever  look'd  mto  his 
 Writings :  And  accordingly  He  s  admits  the  wor- 
 fliip of  Him. 
 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,  as  w^e  have  obferv'd 
 above,  ^procefts  againft  the  Worfliip  of  Crea- 
 
 a  Sze  the  paffage  above,  p.  248.  b  See  above,  p.  iSo- 
 
 p.  12*.         d  Pag,  150.  e  Pag.  17,  18.  79.  f  See  above, 
 
 f.  189.        g  Apolog,  c.ai-    Ad  Uxor.  ).  2.  c.  6*        h  P.  249. 
 
 S  tureSi 
 
158  ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XVII. 
 
 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  ic'^r- 
 jhipiiig  of  God  the  Son.  TheRcafon  is  plain: 
 The  Son  \s^ Maker  ^nd  Governor  of  theW^orld, 
 and  even  Tiavrox^-mp,  according  to  this  excel- 
 lent Writer. 
 
 Irenaus  likewife,  as  above  cited,  gives  his 
 Teftimony  for  the  Worlhip  of  God  only;  and 
 againft  the  Worfliip  of  any  Creature.  But  the 
 fame  Irenaus  as  conftantly  fuppoics  the  Son  to 
 be  truly  God,  and  one  God  with  the  Father 
 and  exprefly  *=  exempts  Him  from  the  numbes 
 of  Creatures ;  and  therefore  no  wonder  if  He 
 admits  the  Son  to  be  ^  invocated,  as  well  as  the 
 Father. 
 
 I  fhall  obferve  the  like  of  Origen,  and  then 
 have  done;  referring  the  Reader,  for  the  reft,  to 
 the  compleat  Colledtion  of  Teftimonies  lately 
 made  by  the  learned  ^  Mr.  Bingham,  with  very 
 judicious  Reflections  upon  them. 
 
 Orlgeii,  as  we  have  feen  above,  declares  for 
 the  Worfliip  of  the  one  God,  in  oppofition  to 
 2S}LCreatures,l\iJL\\ipy'AyuxX<Xs  every  thing  created 
 ymfTO'i,  But  the  good  Father  had  His  Thoughts 
 about  Him :  He  clearly  diftinguiflies  the  Son 
 from  the  <JX^«P7"W'&3  or  Creatures  \  and  be- 
 fides,  exprefly  makes  Him  ^  iygfjjTu?,  uncreated^ 
 mmutable ,  &c.     According  to  Origen ,    the 
 
 a  Vid.  p.  311'  8fi,  Ed.  Oxon.  b  See  above,  p.  189.69* 
 
 c  Vid.  p.  15-5.  245.  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 d  Pag.  166.  25a.  e  Origin.  Eccl.  B.  13.  c.  2. 
 
 f  Centr,  Celf.  p.  a  8  7. 1^9, 170. 
 
 Crea- 
 
Q^u.XVII.       of  fonie  (QUERIES.  2^9 
 
 Creator  of  the  "Vniverfe,  and  He  only  is  to 
 be  vvorlliip'd  ^,  pag.  367.  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  woriliipHim  only 
 ivho  made  (all)  thefe  Things -y  and  if  we  inquire 
 farther  we  fhall  find,  in  the  fame  Author,  that 
 God  the  Son  ^made  all  Things,  the  very  words. 
 It  is  therefore  a  very  clear  Caie,  that  Origen 
 thought  the  Son  to  have  the  fulled  Right  and 
 Title  to  religious  Woriliip,  the  fame  that  the 
 Father  Himlelf  had,  as  being  eternal,  immurable. 
 Creator  and  Governor  of  all  Thin:*;*^.  And 
 therefore  He  fpeaks  of  his  being  ^  worih'p'd  as 
 God,  by  the^^^i;  and  calls  it  bvcrcCei-x,  the 
 very  fame  word  Vv^hich  He  ufes,  ^  fpeaking  of 
 the  Worfhip  due  to  the  Father.  In  s  another 
 place.  He  ipeaks  of  the  worfliiping  Father  and 
 Son  jointly  as  one  God,  and  ^  elfewhere  men- 
 tions the  worfhip  of  the  Son,  in  his  diftindt 
 peyfonal  Capacity.  The  Sum  then  of  Origejfs 
 Dodrine,  as  it  lies  in  his  Book  againft  Celftis 
 (the  mod  valuable  of  all  his  Works,  and  almoft 
 
 d  Toy  Aco^v  •7n9n>iyiiCAv:tj 'KrivTx,  o<rx  o  7rxr»p  ccuttS  ovsrsiku'^,    P'^3' 
 c  Pag.  46.  f  Tuv  ti\  T  T  cPiuv  ^t^yj'.a^yov  S'jffi^eiew,  p.  i6o. 
 
 fJb'-V>   p.   586. 
 
 ,j-^    h  Euy^S(£r&>    ru!    Xoyu   reu    ©joy,    ai/yafX/sva  ocurov    lacrBC^,    p.  238.' 
 tcv    ^^.}(^yoy  uurav   Ao<^v   ^  ©sow   (ZS^CKWyirDf/jSV,    p.   259. 
 
 N.  13.  Here  the  Tranjlator  (as  it  is  ufual  vpith  Him  to  mi^reprefent 
 fuch  Pajfages  as  relate  to  the  Son)  renders  2^'>(5vov  ociruy,  ejus  Mini- 
 ilrum.     The  Senfe  is:  Diipcnfer  of  themt  i.e.  Prophecies,  '.ujl  befori 
 
 S  ^  the 
 
^6o  ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XVil. 
 
 the  only  one  to  be  entirely  depended  on,asgiv- 
 ing  the  true  Senfe  oi  Origen,  or  of  the  Church 
 in  his  Time)  is  conrain'd  in  thelc  Particulars. 
 
 1.  That  God  the  Son,  if  a  Creature,  or  not 
 Creator y  or  not  truly  God,  fliould  not  be  "i^vor- 
 Jhifd  2it  all. 
 
 2.  That  being  truly  God,  and  Creator,  &c. 
 He  may  be  worihip'd  ;  either  jointly  with  the 
 Father,  as  one  to  0<io^,  or  dijiincily,  as  one  Ter\ 
 y^;^  of  the  Godhead. 
 
 3 .  That  tho'  He  be  God,  and  Creator  ;  yet 
 the  Father  is  fo  ^primarily  and  emine7itly  as 
 Father,  and  firft  Perfon  ;  and  therefore  the  di-^ 
 ftind:  Worlliip  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   eminently   God,    Creator,    and 
 
 Objed:  of  Worlhip;  fo  alfo  all  Worihip,  is, 
 primarily  and  eminently  the  Father's:  And 
 thus  it  is  that  I  underftand  Origen,  in  a  *  cer- 
 tain place  which  has  been  often  mif-inter-t 
 preted.  !\^v 
 
 4.  That  the  worlliip  of  the  Son,  confider^d 
 as  a  Son,  is  not  an  inferior  W^orihip,  nor  any 
 other  than  proper  divine  Worlliip;  being  an 
 acknowledgment  of  the  fame  divine  Excellen- 
 cies, and  ejfential  Perfedtions  communicated 
 from  Father  to  Son:  And  hence  it  is,  that  there 
 is  ftill  but    one  IVorJhi^ ,    and  07ie  ObjeEl  of 
 
 vrm 
 
Q^u.XVII.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.  i6i 
 
 Worihip;  as  one  God,  one  Creator,  &c.  by 
 rcafon  of  the  mofl:  inriiiiate  and  ineffable  Union 
 of  the  two  Pcrions;  which  Origen  Himfelf 
 *  endeavors  to  exprejs  in  the  fulleft  and  flroDg- 
 eft  Words  He  could  think  on. 
 
 From  what  hath  been  faid,  we  may  know 
 what  Judgment  co  make  of  the  Anrient  T)oxO' 
 Logics.  They  ought  certainly  to  be  underftood 
 according  to  the  prevaihng  Dod:rine  of  the  pri- 
 mitive Church.  They  were  different  in  Form, 
 but  had  all  one  Meaning;  the  fame  which  I 
 have  iliown  you  from  the  primitive  Writers. 
 The  Arians  were  the  firft  who  interpreted 
 fome  of  them  to  fuch  a  Senfe,  as  either  favor'd 
 Creature-fVor/hip,  or  excluded  the  Son  and 
 Holy-Ghoft  from  proper  divhte  Woriliip.  It 
 was  low  Artifice  to  value  one  ibrt  oi'Doxology 
 above  another,  only  becaufe  more  equivocal  \ 
 and  to  contend  iox  Anttent^ox6%,  in-oppofi- 
 tion  to  xliQ  Antienf  F^iith.  The  Catholicks  under- 
 flood  the  iubtlety  of  thofe  Men,  and  very  eafily 
 (defeated  it:  Firll,  by  afferting  the  only  true 
 and  jufl:  Scnle  of  Thofe  "Doxologies,  which  the 
 j^rians  had  wrcfled  to  an  Heretical  Meanino; ; 
 and  next,  by  ufing,  chiefly,  'Doxologies  of  ano- 
 ther Form ;  which  had  been  alio  of  long  ftand- 
 
 ^   Ayetc£o55«£  di    cTc??  rev   iTTi   TTUm  &£0¥,  o    occ^iiw;    <?   etdtcMasnrj^.    y; 
 
 >:£«*  (ni)ixc,  'kc.    p.  ;5Sz. 
 
 The  fame  Thought  is  thut  exprefi'd  by  Cyril  I. 
 -    ,M>jTg    ;^  TO   TifJt^Zi!  Tov  TTcCTi^  vo'fjiCeiv,  tv  77  T  hi/JjiovpytjfJbu-mn   "^ 
 
 ^iSi^^i^M  it  7r^oa-r.vf)jn<i.     Cyril.  Catech.  ii.  p.  143.  Oxoa. 
 
 S3  ing 
 
26x  -.^DEFENSE       du.XVII. 
 
 ing  in  the  Church ;  and  which,  being  lefs  equi- 
 vocal,  were  leis  Jiable  to  be  perverted.  But 
 the  Subjed:  oilJoxologies  being  aheady  in  bet- 
 ter Hands,  I  ihall  here  difmiis  ic,  and  proceed. 
 
 You  obfervc,  that  it  was  the  conjiant  pra- 
 Bice  of  the  Apoflles  to  pray  and  give  thanks 
 to  God,  through  Jefiis  Chrijl,  (p.  91.)  Very- 
 well  ;  and  fo  it  is  the  conftant  Pradice  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  hooour'd  ?  Nothing 
 lefs  :  But,  as  the  Son  ftands  to  us  under 
 the  particular  Character  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  Milapprehenfion  and 
 grois  Miftakes,  to  offer  Prayers  diredly  to  Him, 
 and  to  join  Him  with  the  Father  in  'Doxo- 
 logics ;  as  the  Antient  Church  did,  and  as  our 
 own,  God  be  thanked,  and  other  Churches  of 
 Chriftendora  ftill  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  begotten  Son,  8cc.  But 
 this  ineffable  P^elarion  is  not  that  of  a  Crea- 
 tare  to  his  Creator-,  but  of  a  Son  to  z  Father^ 
 of  the  fame  Nature  with  Him.  This  may  be 
 ftiled  ineffable:  the  other  cannot,  in  any  true 
 or  juft  Senie.  If  the  Son  is  to  be  worjhip'd, 
 as  you  feem  here  to  allow,  it  can  be  on  no 
 
 *  See  Bull.  D.  F.  p.m. 
 
 Other 
 
Qu.XVIL      of  fome  Q^UERIES.  263 
 
 other  Account,  bur  iuch  as  is  confiftenr  with 
 the  Scriptures ;  on  the  Account  of  his  being 
 one  with  the  Father,  to  whom  Worihip  be- 
 longs; and  to  whom  it  is  appropriated  in  op- 
 pofition  to  Creatures,  not  in  oppofition  to 
 Him  who  is  of  the  fame  Nature  with,  Co-e(- 
 iential  to,  and  Inieparable  from  Him.  The 
 Worjhlp,  you  lay,  terminates  not  hi  the  Son. 
 How  this  is  to  be  underftood,  and  in  what 
 Senfe  admitted,  I  have  explained  above.  Stridly 
 Ijpeaking,  no  Honour  is  paid  to  Either,  but 
 what  redounds  to  the  Glory  of  Both ;  becaufe 
 of  their  intimate  Union ;  and  becaufe  Both  are 
 but  one  God.  But  you  lay,  the  Father  begat 
 Him :  Very  well ;  lb  long  as  He  did  not 
 [xreate  Him,  all  is  fafe :  The  Eternity,  the 
 ^  TerfeHions ,  the  Glory  of  Both ,  are  One. 
 And^  you  lay,  gave  Him  dominion  over  us : 
 That  is  more  than  you  can  prove ;  unlels  you 
 lOinderftand  it  of  Chrift,  confider'd  as  God-Man, 
 '  or  Mediator. 
 
 In  fome  Senfe,  every  thing  mud  be  rcfer'd 
 to  the   Father   as  the   firll:   Perlbn,    the  Head 
 and  Fountain  of  all.     But  this  does  not  make 
 jitvvo  Worlliips,    Supreme   and  Inferior;    be- 
 ^^ing    all    but    one    Acknowledgment    of    one 
 and    the   lame   ellcntial    Excellency    and   Per- 
 ^(fcdtion,    confider'd  primarily    in    the    Father, 
 srand   derivatively    in  the    Son ;    who,  though 
 .Vperfonally  diftinguifli'd,    are    in  Subftance   un- 
 o  divided    and   eflentially    one.      All   your    Ar- 
 guments,   on   this  Head,    amount    only  to  a 
 i;i  S  4  petitiQ 
 
i64  ^   DEFENSE       du.XVII. 
 
 fetitio  frinc'ipn,  taking  the  main  Thing  for 
 granted ;  that  a  T>iftipMiou  of  Terfons  is  the 
 fame  with  a  'Difference  of  Nature:,  and  that  a 
 Subordination  of  the  Son,  as  a  Son,  to  the  Fa- 
 ther, imphes  an  efTentialDiiparity  and  Inequahty 
 betwixt  Them;  which  you  can  never  make  out. 
 Inftead  of  proving  the  Son  to  be  a  Creature, 
 and  that  He  is  to  be  v/orfliip'd  notwirhltanding 
 (which  are  the  Points  you  undertake)  all  that 
 you  really  prove  is,  that  the  Son  is  not  the  Fa- 
 ther ^  or  firft  Perfon,  nor  confidered  as  x\\^firji 
 Tcrfon  in  our  Worlliip  of  Him  ;  which  is  very 
 true,  but  very  wide  of  the  purpofe.  What 
 follows  in  your  Reply,(/.  91,  92,  93.)  does  not 
 need  any  farther  Anfwer ;  being  either  barely 
 Repetition ,  or  Comments  on  your  own  Mt- 
 ftake  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  Indivi- 
 dual-^ of  which  enough  hath  been  faid  before^ 
 You  are  pleafed  (/^^.  94.)  to  make  z  wonder 
 of  it,  that  I  ihould  quote  Heb.  1.6.  in  favor 
 of  my  HyJ)othefis.  But  if  you  confider  that 
 jhe  Angels  are  There  ordered  to  worfoip  the 
 Son;  and  that  Worihip  is  appropriated  to  God 
 only,  by  many  Texts  of  Scripture,  and  the 
 concurring  Senfc  of  Antiquity,  as  1  have  fhown 
 above;  there  wilt  be  little  tarther  occafion  for 
 wondring,  in  ib  clear  a  Cafe.  In  that  very 
 Chapter  {Heb.  i.)  it  is  Efficiently  intimated 
 what  it  was  that  made  the  Sou  capable  of  re- 
 ceiving Worfliip  and  Adoration.  He  is  declared 
 to  have  made  the  Worlds  \  to  be  the  Shining- 
 forth  ,of^hisFatb0fsGlorjy^  and phe  exprefk 
 -*     ■-     **"   ^''^  '  "  '^'  "  '^    '  '     '  ■  '  Imag^e^ 
 
Q^u.  XVII.       of  fame  (QUERIES.  265- 
 
 Image  of  bisVer/bit;  and  ro  uphold allThings 
 by  the  'ouord  of  his'Power,  (v.  2,3.)  Strong  and 
 lively  Exprcifions  of  his  divine,  eternal,  un- 
 created Nature;  fuch  as  might  give  Him  the 
 jufteft  claim  to  the  Worlhip  and  Adoration  of 
 Men  and  Angels.  In  the  dole,  you  have  a 
 Remark  about  the  error  oi  Arins\  which,  you 
 fay.  did  not  con/iji  in  the  making  the  Son  ^ 
 dijiincT  from ,  and  really  fubordinate  to 
 the  Father  {for  that  was  aliz'ays  the  Chri- 
 fiian  T)o^rine.)  Here  you  come  upon  us  with 
 ge7ieral  Terms,  and  equivocal  ExprefTions  ; 
 Leaving  the  Reader  to  apprehend  that  theChri- 
 ftian  Church  believed  the  Son  to  be  a  diftin^, 
 Jeparate,  inferior  Being  ;  in  fliort,  a  Creature  ; 
 as  Arius  plainly,  and  you  covertly  afTert: 
 Whereas  there  is  not  an  Author,  of  Reputa- 
 tion, among  all  the  Ancients,  before  Arius^ 
 that  taught  or  maintained  any  fuch  Thing.  A 
 Subordination,  in  fome  Senie,  They  held ;  and 
 that  is  all ;  not  in  Arius's  Senfe,  not  in  Your's. 
 Well ,  but  you  proceed  to  tell  us ,  where- 
 in his  Error  confided,  viz,,  in  pre  fuming  to 
 affirm,  nf>on  the  Trinciples  of  his  own  un- 
 certain  "Fhilofofhy ,  and  without  warrant 
 from  Scripture,  that  the  Son  was  l^  ix  G',ra>v^ 
 and  that  'h  'Tro-n  cti  i'/.  w.  Arius  had  (b  much 
 Fhilofophy,  or  rather  common  Senfe,  as  to 
 think ;  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  imagine  that  God 
 
 firft 
 
i66  -/^DEFENSE       du.XVII. 
 
 firft  made  a  Subjlance,  and  then  out  of  that 
 fre-exijlmg  created  Subftance  made  the  Son ; 
 Befides  that,  oven  this  way,  the  Son  had  been, 
 in  the  laft  refult,  g?  ^jc  oW^v:  Nor  was  He  weak 
 enough  to  believe  that  any  thing,  ad  extra^ 
 had  been  co-eval,  or  co-eternal  with  God  Him- 
 felf.  If  He  had,  He  need  not  have  fcrupled  to 
 have  allow'd  the  hke  Privilege  to  the  Son ;  the 
 firft  and  beft  of  all  Beings,  except  God  Him- 
 felf,  in  His  Opinion. 
 
 But  fince  you  think  your  own  T^hilofophy 
 lb  much  better  than  Arius's,  will  you  be  lo 
 kind  as  to  tell  us  plainly  whether  the  Son  be 
 of  the  fame  divine  Subjfance  with  the  Fa- 
 ther; or  of  fome  extraneous  Subftance  which 
 eternally  pre  exifted\  or  from  nothing.  The 
 firjt  you  deny  diredtly ,  as  well  as  Ariiis ;  and  the 
 fecond  alio,  by  plain  neceffary  Confequence:  And 
 why  then  fliould  you  differ  upon  the  third, 
 which  is  the  only  one  left,  and  muft  be  true,  if 
 Both  the  other  be  falie  ?  If  Arius  was  ralli  in 
 affirming  This,  He  was  equally  raili  in  denying 
 the  Sons  Co- eternity  with  the  Father,  and  again 
 in  denying  h\s  Conjtibjlantiality^  and  lb  your 
 cenlureof  Him  recoils  inevirably  upon  your  felf. 
 Then,  for  the  other  Error  of  Arins,  in  aflerting 
 that  the  Son  once  was  not ;  as  having  been  pro- 
 duc'd,  or  created,  by  the  Father ;  in  your  way, 
 you  corred:  it  thus  * :  True,  the  Son  was  /r(?- 
 dnc'd^  brought  into  exijience ,  had  a  begin- 
 ning, and  was  not,  metaphyfically,  eternal  \ 
 but  yet,  for  ail  chat,  it  was  an  Error,  in  Thi- 
 ♦p,  51.63.  iofophy. 
 
Q^u.XVIir.     of  fome  (QUERIES.  167 
 
 lofopby,  for  Arms  to  fay,  that  He  once  was 
 not.  Unhappy  Arius  I  dereftcd  by  his  Ad- 
 "uerfaries^  and  traduced  by  his  own  Friends^ 
 from  whom  He  might  reafonably  have  expedted 
 kinder  Ufage.  Let  me  intreat  you,  hereafter,  to 
 be  more  confiftent:  Either  vahie  and  rclpcd  the 
 Man,  as  the  great  Reviver  and  Reftorer  of /ri- 
 mittve  Cljriftianity  \  or  renounce  his  Principles, 
 aad  declare  Him  a  Heretick,  as  We  do. 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       XVIII. 
 
 Whether  Worflnp  and  Adoration^  both  from 
 Men  and  Angels ,  was  not  due  to  Him^ 
 long  before  the  comrrhencing  of  his  Mediato- 
 rial Kingdom ,  as  He  was  their  Creator 
 and  Treferver  (See  Col.  i.  16,  17.)  And 
 whether  that  be  not  the  fame  Title  to  Ado- 
 ration which  God  the  Father  hath,  as  Au- 
 thor and  Governor  of  the  ^niverfe,  upon 
 the  T)G^ofs  own  Principles  ? 
 
 YOU  anfvver,  that  tho'  the  World  was 
 created  by  the  Son,  yet  no  Adoration 
 was  due  to  Him  upon  that  Account,  either 
 from  Angels  or  from  Alen  ;  becaufe  it  was 
 no  Act  of  Dominion,  and  He  did  it  merely 
 minifterially  {p.  94. )  juft  as  no  Adoration  is 
 now  due  from  us  to  Angels,  for  the  Benefits 
 they  convey  to  us ;  becaufe  they  do  it  merely 
 inftrumi^ntally.  This  is  plain  dealing  ;  and 
 however  I  may  diflike  the  Thing,  I  commend 
 
 the 
 
%6B        ^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Q^u.  XVIII. 
 
 the  franknefs  of  ic.     You  are  very  right,  upon 
 thefe  Principles,  in  your  parallel  from  Angels; 
 Had  the  Ancients  thought  the  Office  of  the  Son 
 minifterial,  in  your  low  Senfe,    They  would 
 have  paid  Him  no  more  refpedt  than  they  paid 
 to  Angels-^   and    would    certainly    never  have 
 worjhifd  Him.    But  I  pafs  on  :   Creation,  you 
 fay,  is  no  A^  of  "Dominion ;  and  therefore  is 
 not  a  fufficient  Foundation  for  Worihip.     The 
 fame  Reafon  will  hold  with  refpedt  to  the  Fa- 
 ther alfb ;  for,  Creating  is  one  thing,  and  Ruling 
 another.     Yet  youl  find  that  Scripture  makes 
 Creation    the  ground  and  reafon  of  Worihip, 
 in  lb  particular  and    diflinguifliing  a  Manner, 
 that  no  Perfbn  whatever,  that  had  not  a  hand 
 in  Creating,   has  any  right  or  title  to  Woriliip, 
 upon  Scripture- Principles ;  to  which  Carholicl< 
 Antiquity  is   entirely  Confonant,    as  we  have 
 obferved  obove.     I  did  not  found  his  Right  of 
 Worihip  on  Creation  only,  but  Trefervation 
 too;    referring  to  CololT  i.  17.    By  Him  alt 
 Things  confift  \  to  which  may  be  added  Heb. 
 I.  3.  'Upholding  all  Things  by  the  word  of  his 
 Tower,     The  Titles  of  Creator,  Treferver, 
 Suftainer  of  all  Things  found  very  high ;  and 
 exprels  His  luper- eminent  Greatnels  and  Ma«5 
 jcfty,  as  well  as  Our  Dependence;  and  there- 
 fore may  feem  to  give  Him  a  full  Right  and 
 Title  to  Religious  Worlliip;  elpecially  if  it  be 
 confider'd,  that  they  imply  Dominion^  and  caush 
 not    be    underftood   without  it.     Befides   that 
 Creator,  as  hath  been  lliown,  is  the  Mark,  or, 
 
Q^u. XVIII.      of  fime  QUERIES.  2(J9 
 
 CharaBertfltck  of  the  true  God.  to  whom  all 
 Honour  and  Worlhip  is  due.  Add  to  this,  that 
 by  Job.  I.  I.  the  Son  was  <dioc,  before  the  Foun- 
 dation of  the  World ;  which  implies,  at  lead, 
 TiGmtnion,  upon  your  own  Principles:  And 
 when  He  came  into  the  World,  *  He  came  tin^ 
 to  his  O'-jLit,  (Joh.  I.  II.)  having  been  zhQir  Crea- 
 tor, V,  TO.  and,  as  is  now  explain'd.  Governor 
 from  the  firft.  Wherefore,  certainly.  He  had 
 a  jufl:  Claim  and  Title  to  Adoration  and  Wor- 
 fliip  from  the  Foundation  of  the  World,  even 
 upon  your  own  Hypothejis,  As  to  his  creat- 
 ing minifter tally  only,  I  have  laid  enough  to 
 that  Point,  under  the  Eleventh  ^tery,  whither 
 I  refer  you. 
 
 From  what  hath  been  obferved,  it  may  ap- 
 pear fufficiently,  that  the  divine  A&y©^  was  our 
 King,  and  our  God  long  before;  that  He  had 
 the  fame  Claim  and  Title  to  religious  Worihip 
 that  the  Father  Himfelf  had  ;  only  not  fo  di- 
 ftindtly  reveal'd ;  and  that  his  Enthronization, 
 after  his  Refurrcd:ion,  was  nothing  more  than 
 declaring  the  Dignity  of  hisPerfon  more  folemn- 
 Jy,  and  inverting  Him  as  f  God-Man,  in  his 
 
 *  Unus  Deus  Parer  fuper  Omnes,  &  Unum  verbuin  Dei  quod 
 per  omnes,  per  Quem  omnia  fa6la  funr,  &  quoniam  Hie  Mundus 
 proprius  ipfius,  8c  per  Ipfum  fadtus  eft  Volunratc  Patris,  t^i. 
 —  Mundi  enim   Faftor  vere  vcrbum  Dei  eft.    Iren.  p.  jij-. 
 
 Verbum  autem  Hoc  illud  eft,  Quod  in  fiia  venir,  &  fui  Eum  aoa 
 reccperunt.  Mundus  enim  per  Eum  fadtus  eft,  &  Mund-is  Euii 
 non  cognovit.     Hovat*  c   13.  p.  714 
 
 Si  Homo  tantummodo  Ciiriftus,  quomodo  Venicns  in  hunc  Mun-> 
 dum  in  fua  venit,  cum  Homo  nullum  feceric  Mundum?  p.yir. 
 
 t  E»'  ^t  h-^H^  XiyiruJ,  ycu.)  cm  tk'I^  p(^!C£^<ru,ec\Q>-  to  VZS-tf'z-uj  ovoj^ 
 
 ritfne^,     Cyril,  Akx.  Thef,  p.  I39.  wholc 
 
1JO  ^DEFENSE     Qu.XVIII. 
 
 whole  Perfon,  with  the  fame  Power  and  Au- 
 thority, 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  Redeemer.  *  They  therefore  who 
 endeavor  to  found  the  Son*s  Title  to  Wor- 
 fliip,  only  upon  the  Powei-s  and  Authority 
 of  the  Mediator,  or  God- Man,  after  the  Re- 
 furred:ion  (alledging  Job.  5-.  ii.  T^hiL  x.  10. 
 Heb.  1.6.  and  the  like)  give  us  but  a  very  lean 
 and  poor  Account  of  this  Matter;  neither  con- 
 /iftent  with  Truth,  nor  indeed  with  their  own 
 Hypot he/Is.  You  quote  Thil.  2.  6.  in  favour 
 of  your  Notion;  and  fay,  thatChrifl:  u^  as  from 
 the  Beginning  in  the  form  of  God\  yet  He 
 did  not  ajfttme  to  Himfelf  to  he  honoured  like 
 unto  God,  till  after  his  Humiliation.  But  this 
 Pofition  can  never  be  made  out  from  that  Text, 
 Allowing  you  your  Interpretation,  about,  af 
 fuming  to  be  honoured,  yet  this  can  men.n  on- 
 ly, that  He  did  not  affume,  during  his  Humi- 
 liation, without  any  reference  to  what  He  had 
 done  before.  It  is  very  clear  from  Joh.iy.^. 
 that  our  blefTcd  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  am 
 Eclipfe,   duting  the  ftatc  of  his  Humiliation  j 
 
 *  Clarke's    Script.   Do6lr.    Prop.  48.  5*0,  ^i.     Clarke's  Reply, 
 pag.  259. 
 
Q^u. XVIII.      of  fome  Q^UERIES.  271 
 
 But   after   that,    He   was  to  appear   again  in 
 full  Ludre;    in    all  tiie   Biightncls   and  Splen- 
 dor of  his    divine  Majcfty ,    as  He  had  done 
 ever  before.     You  think,  that  our  Worjhip  of 
 Him,  in  his  own  diflinct  Terfon  and  Chara- 
 Ber,  commenced  after  bis  Refurrecfion  from 
 the  dead.     I  might  allow  this  to  be  fo  in  Fad: ; 
 and  yet  maintain,  that  He  always  had  the  lame 
 jud:    Right    and  Title    to    religions  Worfliip: 
 which  mull:  have  had   its  effed:,    had  it  been 
 clearly   and  di(lind:ly  revealed,    fooner.     This 
 is  enough  for  my  purpole ;  in  as  much  as  I  con- 
 tend only,  that  the  Woriliip  due  to  Him  is  not 
 founded  merely  upon  the  Povrer  and  Authority 
 fuppofed  to  have  been  given  Him  after  his  Re- 
 furrecSion  -,  but  upon  his  fcr final  Dignity,  and 
 ejfential  Perfections.    He  might  have  had  the 
 very  fame  right  and  claim  all  along,    that  ever 
 He  had  after ;  only  it  could  not  take  effedt,  and 
 be  acknowledged,  till  it  came  to  be  clearly  re- 
 vealed. Thus,  God  the  Father  had,  undoubtedly, 
 a  full  Right  and  Title  to  the  Worfliip  and  Service 
 of  Men,  or  of  Angels,  from  the  firft:  But  that 
 Right  could  not  take  place  before  He  revealed 
 and  made  Himfelf  known  to  Them.     This,  I 
 fay,  is  fufficient  to  my  purpofe;  and  all  that  I 
 infift   upon.     Yqk,    becaufe  I  have  a  religious 
 Veneration  for  every  Thing   which   was  uni- 
 verfally    taught   and   believed   by    the   earlieft 
 Catholick  Writers,    efpecially  if  it   has    Ibmc 
 Countenance   likewife   from    Scripture  ;    I   in- 
 cline to   think   that   Worihip,   diftindl  Wor- 
 
 ihip, 
 
27i        ^DEfENSE       Q^u.XVm. 
 
 fliip ,    was  paid  to  the  Son,    long   before    his 
 Incarnation. 
 
 Irenatis  is  *  exprefs  that  the  AoV^^  vvas  wor- 
 ihip'd  of  old,  together  with  the  Father.  And 
 this  muil  have  been  the  Scnlc  of  all  thoie  Fa- 
 thers, bwfore  the  Council  of  Nice,  who  under- 
 flood  and  believed  that  the  Pcribn  who  ap- 
 peared to  the  Tatriarchs,  who  prefided  over 
 the  JezL'iJh  Church,  gave  them  the  Law,  and 
 all  along  headed  and  conducted  that  People,  was 
 the  fecond  Perfon  of  the  ever  blefTcd  Trinity. 
 Now,  this  was  the  general  and  unanimous  Opi- 
 nion of  the  AntC'Nicene  Writers,  as  hath  been 
 iliown  at  large,  under  ^(ery  the  fecond.  And 
 it  is  obiervable,  that  Eujebius  and  Athanafius^ 
 (two  very  confiderable  Men ,  and  thoroughly 
 vers'd  in  the  Writings  of  the  Chnflians  before 
 Thern  )  tho'  They  were  oppofite  as  to  Party, 
 and  difFer'd  as  to  Opinion,  in  fome  Points; 
 yet  They  f  entirely  agreed  in  This,  that  the 
 Son  was  ^-juor/hifd  by  Abraham,  Mofes,  &c. 
 and  the  Jcwijh  Church.  And  herein,  had  we 
 no  other  Writings  left,  we  might  reafonably 
 believe  that  They  fpake  the  Senle  of  their  Pre- 
 deceflors,  and  of  the  whole  Chriftian  Church, 
 as  well  before,  as  in  their  own  Times.  You 
 will  fay  perhaps,  that  the  Worlhip,  iuppofcd  to 
 have  been  then  paid  to  the  Son,  was  not  di- 
 
 *  Qui  igitur  a   Prophetis  adorabatur  Deus  Vivus ,   Hie  eft  Vi- 
 
 vorum  Deus  &  Verbum  Ejus 1. 4.  c.  f .  p-2;i.  Ed.  Bencd. 
 
 See  alfo  Novatian.  c.  if.  Dcum  &  Angclum  invocatum* 
 t  Eufeb.  E.  H.  1.  I.  c.  2.     See  alfo  Comm,  in  Ifa.  p.  381.  98^. 
 Athanaf.  Vol.  1.  p.  443.  44;"' 
 
 ftin£i 
 
Q^u. XVIII.       offome  QUERIES.        %t^ 
 
 jtin5i  Worlhip.  But  it  is  fufficient  that  it  was 
 (according  to  the  Scnlc  of  the  Chriftian  Church) 
 paid  to  the  Tey^fon  appearing,  the  Ter- 
 fon  of  the  Son ,  and  He  did  not  refiife  it ; 
 which  is  the  very  Argument  that  *  fome  of 
 the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  ufe  in  Proof  of  his 
 Divinity.  The  Tatriarchs  worlliip'd  chat  Per- 
 fon,  who  appeared  and  communed  with  Them ; 
 fuppofing  Him  to  be  the  God  of  the  Univcrfe, 
 to  whom  of  right  all  Worfliip  belongs.  Had 
 He  not  been  what  They  took  Him  for.  He 
 lliould  have  rejected  that  Worlhip,  as  the  f  An- 
 gel did  iV/<^;;<9^^//s  Sacrifice;  and  as  the  Angel,  in 
 the  Revelations,  rejedted  the  Worfliip  which 
 St.  John  would  have  offered  Him.  In  a  word ; 
 fince  the  Son  received  that  Worfliip,  in  his  own> 
 TPerfon  (according  to  the  Antients)  it  muft  be 
 £id,  He  was  then  diftin^ly  worfnip*d,  and  ia 
 his  own  Right,  as  being  truly  God.  How- 
 ever That  be ,  my  Argument  is  ftill  good . 
 that  the  Son  (having  been  in  the  For7?i  of  God, 
 and  God'^  Creator^  Tre fewer  and  Suftainer 
 of  all  Things,  from  the  Beginning)  had  a  Right 
 to  Worfliip,  even  upon  your  Principles  (much 
 more  mine)  long  before  the  commencing  of  his 
 
 *  Novatian  may  here  [peak  the  Senfe  of  all.  On  Gen.  ^i.  He  com* 
 menti  thus:  Si  Angclus  Dei  loquitur  Hxc  ad  Jacob,  atque  Ipfe  An- 
 gelas infcrt,  diccns;  Ego  funi  Deus  qui  vifus  fum  tibi  in  loco  Dei: 
 non  tantummodo  Hunc,  Angelum,  fed  8c  Deum  pofitum,  fine  ulla 
 hajfitatione  confpicimus;  Quique  S'lb'i  votum  refert  ab  Jacob  Az^^ 
 natum  ^^t,  ^c. — — —  Nullius  Alterius  Angcli  porelt  hie  nccipi 
 tanta  Auftoritas,  ut  Deum  Se  eHe  fateatar,  8c  votum  Slbl  fadluai 
 ciTe  Teftetur,  nifi  tantummodo  Chrifti— —  r,  27. 
 
 t  Judges   13.  16. 
 
 T  Mediih 
 
274        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XVIlI. 
 
 Mediatorial  Kingdom :  And  therefore  his  Right 
 and  Title  to  Worfliip  was  not  founded  upon 
 the  Towers  then  fuppofed  to  have  been  given 
 Him:  Confequently,    thole  Texts   which  you 
 refer  to,  for  that  purpofe,  are  nor  pertinently 
 alledged ;  nor  are  they  of  ftrcngth  iufficient  to 
 bear  all  that  ftrefs  which  you  lay  upon  Them. 
 ThisFoint  being  fettlcl,  I  might  allow  you  that, 
 in    fome  Senfe,    diflin^  Worfhip    commenc'd 
 with  the  difiivEi  Title  of  Son,  or  Redeemer: 
 That  is,  our  BlelTed  Lord  was  then  firfl:  war- 
 jhifd,  or  commanded  to  be  worfliip'd  by  us, 
 under  that  diftindt  Title  or  Charalier ;  having 
 before  had  no    other  Title  or  Chara6ier  pe- 
 culiar and  profer  to  Himielf,  but  only  what 
 was  *  common  to  the  Father  and  Him  too.  Tho' 
 Father,    Son,    and  Holy-Ghoft  are  all  jointly 
 concern'd  in  Cr^^/^i^//»  Redemption,  and  San- 
 Bification ;  yet  it  rnay  ieem  good  to  Infinite 
 Wifdom,  for  great  Ends  and  Realbns,  to  attri- 
 bute each  refpedively  to  one  Terfon,    rather 
 than  Another;  fo  that  the  Father  may  be  em- 
 fhatically  Creator,    the   Son  Redeemer,    the 
 Holy  Ghoft  SanBifier:    And  upon  the  com- 
 mencing of  thefeTitles  refpcdivcly,  the  dijiinB 
 Worfliip  of  each  (amongft  Men)  might  accord- 
 ingly commence  alfo.     Excellent  are  the  Words 
 
 *  Sic  Deus  voluit  novare  Sacramentum,  ut  nove  Unus  ere- 
 deretur  per  Vtlmm  &  Spiritum,  ut  Coram  jam  Deus  in  M^ 
 propriis  Nommihus  &  Terfonis  cognofceretur ,  qui  &  retro  pet 
 lUium  &   Spiritum  praedicatus   non  intellisebatur.   TertulL  Contr, 
 
 of 
 
Q^u. XVIII.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        175 
 
 of  *Bifliop5////  to  this  purpofe;  vvhicKthave 
 thrown  inro  the  Margin.  I  ihall  only  add  that 
 while  you  endeavor  to  found  Chrift's  Right  and 
 Title  to  'ujorjhip  iblely  upon  rhe  Powers  fup- 
 pofed  to  be  given  Him  after  his  Refurrc(3:ion, 
 you  fall  much  below  the  Antlent^/'/^^;/J•  (whom 
 yet  you  would  be  thought  to  exceed)  and  are 
 running  into  the  Svcinian  Scheme,  not  very 
 confidently  with  your  own.  Thus  you  Icera 
 to  be  fluduating  and  wavering  between  Two, 
 (  at  the  fame  time  verbally  condemning  Both  ) 
 certain  in  Nothing,  but  in  oppofing  the  Ca- 
 tholick  Doctrine ;  which  when  you  have  left, 
 you  fcarce  know  where  to  fix,  or  how  to  make 
 your  Principles  hang  together.  To  explain  this, 
 a  little  farther:  I  found  zhc  Son's  Title  to  wor- 
 lliip  upon  the  T>ignity  of  his  Terfon\  his 
 creative  Powers  declared  in  Job,  i.  and  elfe- 
 where  ;  his  being  0^05  from  the  Beginning ;  and 
 
 *  Profcc^o  admiranda  mihi  videtur  divinarum  Perfonarum  in 
 SacrofarKftifilma  Triad?  cUuvgimIoc,  qua  Unaquarque  Perfona  lUftinflo 
 quail  Titulo  humanum  imprimis  genus  imperio  fuo  divino  obftrin- 
 xerir,  Tuulo  illi  refrondente  etiam  JiJIincla  uniuscujufque  imperii 
 patefaciione,  Vatrem  Colimus  iiib  Titulo  Crearoris  hujus  Univerli, 
 qui  &  ab  ipfa  Mundi  Creatione  hominibus  innotuerify  Filium  ado- 
 ramus  Tub  Titulo  Redeotptoris  ac  Serzatoris  noftri,  cujus  idcirco 
 divina  gloria  atque  iniperium  non  nili  pofl:  peranum  in  tcrri?  hu* 
 mana?  Kedemptionis  ac  Sttlutis  negotium  fuerit  patefadum;  Spirit 
 turn  denique  S-incttim  veneramur  fub  Tttulo  Faracleti,  lllumina- 
 toris,  ac  Sanffificatoris  noftri,  cujus  adco  divina  xMajeftas  demuni 
 port  defcenfum  ejus  in  Apoftolos  primoique  Chrirtnnos  donorum 
 orane  genus  copioliflmn  largitionc  iiluftrillimum,  clarius  emicuerit. 
 Nirairurii  turn  demum  Apoftoli,  idque  ex  Chrifti  mandato,  Genres 
 baptizabant  in  Flenam  atque  adHnatam  Trinitatem  ( ur  cum  Cy- 
 friano  loquar}  h.  e.  in  nomine  Patris,  Filii,  &  Spiritus  San6ti. 
 Bull,  Frim,  Trad,  p.  42. 
 
 ^  T  ^  his 
 
176        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XVIIL 
 
 liis  preferving,  and  upholding  all  Things  (ac- 
 cording to  Colojf.x. \6,ij.  and  Heb.i^  ante- 
 cedently to  his  7nediatorial  Kingdom :  You,  on 
 the  other  Hand ,  found  it  intircly    upon    the 
 Powers  given  Him  after  hisHumihation  (alledg- 
 ing  fuch  *  Texts  as  thefe,  Matt.  28.  18.  Job. 
 5.  IX,  23.  ThiL  2.  10,  n.  P^cv.  I.  5,6.  Rev. 
 5.  8,  9,  10)  as  if  He  had  no   jud  Claim    or 
 Title  to  -worjhif  at  all,  before  that  Time:  For, 
 tho'  you  put  in  the  equivocal  Word,  dijlin^^ 
 (very  ingenioufly)  yet  your  Meaning  really  is, 
 and  the  Tendency  of  your  Argument  requires 
 it,  that  no  V/orfliip,  dijitnci  or  otho^'ii'ife,  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 
 either   makes  Creation  Metaphorical,  or  inter- 
 prets fuch  Texts  2iSjoh.  {.  r.  Col.  1. 16, 17.  and 
 the  like,  of  the  i?^^y^;/  ox  IFifdom  of  the  Father, 
 that  IS,    the  Father,    indivellmg  in  the  Man 
 Chrifl:  Jefus.     Bat  in  jiou  it  mull:  appear  very 
 improper  ;    and   very    inconfiftent    with    your 
 other  Principles :  Wherefore  I  rauft:  again  defirc 
 you  to  be  more  confiftent;  and  to  keep  to  one 
 conftant  Scheme.     Take  either  Ar'taJiy  Sahel- 
 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,  ut- 
 terly repugnant  to  each  other. 
 
 A^  10  Scripture's  feeming,  in  fbme  places,  to 
 found  Chrift's  Title  to  Woriliip,  not  fo  much 
 
 ♦  $9i  Dr.  Clarke'i  B^tfy^  p.  ijp,  249. 
 
 upon 
 
Q^u.  XVIII.       offome  (QUERIES.        177 
 
 upon  what  He  is  in  Himfelf,  as  upon  what 
 He  has  done  for  ns ;  a  very  good  Reafon  may- 
 be given  for  it,  if  it  be  well  confidered  by  what 
 Springs  and  Movements  moral  Agents  are 
 adluated,  and  that  we  love  even  God  Himfelf, 
 with  reference  to  our  Selves,  *  becaufe  He  firjt 
 loved  us.  AbjlraBed  Re  a  Jons  of  Edeem,  Ho- 
 nour, and  Regard  arc  unafFeding ,  without  a 
 mixture  of  Ibmething  relative  to  Us,  which 
 our  Selves  have  a  near  concern  in.  The  ef- 
 fential  Dignity  of  Chrift's  Perfbn  is  really  the 
 Ground  and  Foundation  of  Honour,  and  Efteem 
 (and  confequently  of  IVorjhip^  the  highcft  Ex- 
 preflion  of  Both)  which  ought  always  to  bear 
 proportion  to  the  intrinfick  Excellency  of  the 
 Objed:  But  his  Offices,  relative  to  Us,  are  the 
 moving  Reafon*^,  which  principally  afTed:  our 
 Wills ;  and  without  which  we  lliould  want  the 
 ftrongeft  Incitement  to  pay  that  Honour  and 
 Worihip,  which  the  ejfential  Excellency  of  his 
 Perlbn  demands.  Scripture  has  fufficiently  ap- 
 prized us  of  Both,  difcovering  at  once  both  his 
 abfolute,  and  relative  Dignity ;  that  To  we  be- 
 ing intruded  as  well  concerning  what  He  is  in 
 Himfelf,  as  what  He  is  in  refped  to  Us,  might 
 underftand  what  Honour  j^V//?/y  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  vv^as 
 able  to  do  fo  great  and  io  aftonilliing  Things 
 
 f  1  Joh.  4.  19, 
 
 ^'^oqn  X  3  for 
 
178        ^^DEFENSE  Q^u.XlX. 
 
 for  us :  Befides  that  it  muft  appear  in  the  high- 
 eft  Degree  probable,  that  no  Creature  whatever 
 (fuppofing  Him  to  have  ihirable  Abihties)  could 
 have  been  intrufted  with  ib  great  and  fo  en- 
 dearing a  Charge ;  fuch  as  muft  inevitably  draw 
 after  it  a  larger  iliare  of  our  Love,  Refped:, 
 and  Efteem,  than  feems  confiftent  with  our 
 Duty  to  God,  and  the  Rules  laid  down  in 
 Scripture  for  our  Behavior  towards  the  Crea- 
 tures,    But  enough  of  this :  I  proceed. 
 
 d  U    E    R    Y       XIX. 
 
 Whether  the  T>o5ior  hath  not  given  a  very 
 partial  Account  of  Joh.  5-.  23.  founding  the 
 Honour  due  to  the  Son,  on  this  only,  that 
 the  Father  hath  committed  all  Judgment  to 
 the  Son  ;  when  the  true  Reafon  ajfign'd  by 
 our  Saviour,  and  illuflrated  by  fever al 
 Inflances,  is,  that  the  Son  doth  the  fame 
 Things  that  the  Father  doth,  hath  the  fame 
 Tower  and  Authority  of  doing  what  He 
 will}  and  therefore  has  a  Title  to  as  great 
 Honour,  Reverence,  and  Regard,  as  the 
 Father  Himfelf  hath  ?  And  it  is  no  Ob- 
 jeBion  to  this,  that  the  Son  is  there  faid 
 to  do  nothing  of  Himfelf,  or  to  have  all 
 given  Him  by  the  Father-,  fince  it  is  own- 
 ed that  the  Father  is  the  Fountain  of  All^ 
 from  whom  the  Son  derives,  in  an  ineffable 
 manner,  his  Effence  and  Towers  fo  as  to 
 be  one  with  Him. 
 
 IN 
 
Qu.XIX.  of  fome  (QUERIES.        179 
 
 IN  Anfwcr  to  this,  you  fay,  The  only  Ho- 
 nour due  to  our  Saviour,  is  plainly  fup- 
 fofed  by  St.  John  to  be  given  Him,  upon  Ac* 
 count  of  bis  being  appointed  by  the  Father 
 judge  oftheJVorld,  p.  96.  This  is  very  ftrange 
 indeed :    What  ?  Was  there  no  Honour  due  to 
 Him  on  Account  of  his  having  been  0^:^  from 
 the  Beginning?  None  for  his  having  created  x\\q, 
 World  ?  None  on  Account  of  his  being  the  only 
 begotten  Son,  which  St.  John  reprelents  as  a 
 Circumftance  of  exceeding  great  *  Glory  ?  Sure- 
 ly thefe  were  Things  great  enough  to  demand 
 our  Tribute  of  Honour  andReiped:;  and  there- 
 fore St.  John  could  never  mean  that  He  was  to 
 be  honoured  only  upon  i\\:xx.  fugle  Account,  as 
 being   conftituccd   Judge   of  all  Men.     This 
 could  never  be  the  only  rcafon   why  all  Men 
 fhould  honour  the  Son  even  as  They  honour 
 the  Father,     W^har  then  did  St.  John  mean  ? 
 Or  rather,  what  did  our  Blefled  Lord  mean , 
 whofc  Words  Sz.John  recites?  He  meant  what 
 He  has  laid,  and  what  the  Words  literally  im- 
 port; that  the  Father  (whofe  Honour  had  been 
 ilifficiently  fecured  under  the  Jewijh  Dilpenfa^ 
 tion,  and  could  not  but  be  io  under  the  Chri^ 
 ftian  alio)  being  as  much  concern'd  for  the  Ho- 
 nour of  his  Son,  had  been  pleafed  to  commit 
 all  Judgment  to  Him,  for  this  very  end  and 
 purpole,  that  Men  might  thereby  (ee  and  know 
 that  the  Son,  as  well  as  the  Father,  was  Judge  of 
 
 ♦Joh.  1.14; 
 
 T  4  all 
 
aSo        ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XIX. 
 
 all  the  Earth,  and  might  from  thence  be  cou- 
 vinc'd  how  rcafonable  it  was,  and  how  highly  it 
 concern'd  them,  to  pay  all  the  lame  Honour  to 
 the  Son,  which  they  had  hitherto  believed  to 
 belong  to  the  Father  only.     And   confidering 
 how  apt  Mankind  w^ould  be  to  leflen  the  Dignity 
 of  the  Son  (whether  out  of  a  vein  of  difputing, 
 or  becaufe  He    had   condefcended    to   become 
 Man  hke  Themfelves)  and  confidering  alfo  that 
 the  many  Notices  of  the  "Divinity  of  his  Per- 
 fon  might  not  be  fufficient,  with  Ibme,  to  raife 
 in  Them  that  Efteem,  Reverence,  and  Regard 
 for  Him,  which  They  ought  to  have;  for  the 
 more  effcdually  fecuring  a  point  of  this  high 
 Concernment,  it  pleafed  the  Father  to  leave  the 
 final  Judgment  of  the  great  Day  in  the  Hands 
 of  his  Son:  Men  therefore  might  confider  that 
 this  Perfon,  whom  they  were  too  apt  to  dif- 
 regard,  was  not  only  their  Creator^  and  Lord^ 
 and  God,    but  their  Judge  too,  before  w^hofe 
 awful  Tribunal  they  muft  one  Day  appear :  An 
 awakening  Confiderationjfuch  as  might  not  only 
 convince  Them   of  his   exceeding   Excellency 
 and  Super-eminent  Perfecflions,  but  might  remind 
 them  alio,  how  much  it  was  their  Interefl:,  as 
 well   as  Duty,  to  pay  Him  all  that  Honour. 
 Adoration,  and  Service,  which  the  Dignity  and 
 Majefty  of  his  Perlbn  demands. 
 
 Let  us  but  fuppoie  the  prefent  Catholick  Do- 
 d:rine  of  the  Co-equality  and  Co-etcrnity  of  the 
 three  Perlbns    to  be  true ,    what  more  proper 
 method  can  w^e  imagine,  to  fecure  to  each  Per- 
 fon 
 
Q^u.XIX.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.        iSt 
 
 fon  the  Honour  due  unto  Him,  than  this ;  that 
 every  Perlbn  iliould  be  manifcfted  to  us  under 
 Ibme  peculiar  Title  or  Charader,  and  inforcc  his 
 claim  of  Homage  by  fome  remarkable  Difpenla- 
 tion,  fuch  as  may  be  apt  to  raile  in  Us  a  religious 
 Awe  and  Veneration  ?  This  is  the  Calc  in  tad:; 
 and  on  this  Account,    chiefly,  it  fcems  to  be 
 that  the  Son,  rather  than  the  Father  (vvhofe  per- 
 fbnal  Dignity  is  left  liable  to  be  queftiond)  is 
 to  be  Judge  of  all  Men,  that  fo  all  Men  may 
 honour  the  Son^  xa^o)^  ^uimcpi  roi'  tcclti^.    The 
 learned  Dodor  *  pleads  that  jcct^ij  often  ligni- 
 fies  a  general  Similitude  only,  not  an  €xa6{ 
 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  Blefled    Lord,    in   that 
 Chapter,  draws  2i  J^a?^allel  between  the  Father 
 and  Him/elf,  between  the  Fathers  Works  and 
 his  own,  founding  thereupon  his  Title  to  Ho- 
 nour ;  which  fufficiently  intimares  what  kclJus 
 means;  efpecially  if  it  be  confider'd  that  this 
 was  in  anfwer  to  the  Charge  of  making  Him- 
 felf  f  equal  with  God.     This  is   what    I  in- 
 timated in  the  Qtiery  ;  upon  the  reading  where- 
 of, you  are  flruck  with  amazement  at  fo  evi- 
 dent an  inflance,    how  prejudice  blinds   the 
 Minds,  &c.     But  let  me  perfwade  you  to  for- 
 bear that  way  of  talking,  which  (befidcs  that 
 it  \s  taking  for  granted  the  main  Thing  in  Qiie- 
 ftion,  preluming  that  all  the  Prejudice  lies  on 
 
 *  Re/)/^,  p.  ?^o,  t  Jch.  5,18. 
 
 one 
 
28x        ^DEFENSE  C^u.XIX. 
 
 one  jfide,  and  all  the  Reafbn  on  the  other)  is 
 really  not  very  becoming,  in  this  Cafe,  con- 
 fidering  how  many  wiie,  great,  and  good  Men, 
 how  many  Churches  of  the  Saints,  through  a 
 longSuccedion  of  Ages,  you  muft,  at  the  lame 
 time,  charge  with  prejudice  and  bl'indnefs\ 
 and  that  too  after  much  canvading  and  careful 
 confidering  what  Objcdions  could  be  made 
 againft  Them ;  to  which  you  add  nothing  new, 
 nor  fo  much  as  reprefcnt  the  old  ones  with 
 greater  Force  than  They  have  been  often  be- 
 fore, 1300  Years  ago.  It  might  here  be  fuffi- 
 cienr,  for  you,  modeftly  to  offer  yourReafons: 
 And  however  convincing  they  may  appear  to 
 you  (yet  confidering  that  to  Men  of  equal  Senfe, 
 Learning,  and  Integrity,  they  have  appeared 
 much  otherwife)  to  lulped:  your  own  Judg- 
 ment ;  or,  at  lead,  to  believe  that  there  may 
 be  Reafons,  which  you  do  not  fee,  for  the  con- 
 trary Opinion.  Well,  but  after  your  ib  great 
 AfTurance,  let  us  hear  what  you  have  to  lay. 
 If  our  Lord  had  purpofely  defign'd,  in  the 
 moft  expre/s  and  emphatical  Manner,  to  de- 
 clare his  real  Subordination  and  TDependence 
 on  the  Father,  He  could  not  have  done  it 
 more  fully  and  clearly  than  He  hath  in  this 
 whole  Chapter.  Yes,  fure  He  might  :  Being 
 charged  with  Blafphemy ,  in  making  Himfelf 
 equal  with  God,  He  might  have  exprefs'd  his 
 Abhorrence  of  fuch  a  Thought ;  and  have  told 
 Them  that  He  pretended  to  be  nothing  more 
 than   a  Creature  of  God's ,   fcnt  upon  God's 
 
 Errand ; 
 
Qy.X^X.  of  fome  QVERIES.        183 
 
 Errand;  and  that  it  was  not  by  his  O'X'^r  Tower 
 or  Ho  line fs,  that  He  made  the  lame  Man  to 
 walk,  (lee  Acf.  3.  12..)  Such  an  Apology  as 
 this  would  have  effed:ually  took  off  all  farther 
 Suipicion,  and  might  perhaps  have  well  become 
 a  Creature^  when  charged  with  Blafphemy , 
 who  had  a  true  Refpedt  for  the  Honour  of  his 
 Creator.  But,  inftead  of  this,  He  goes  on,  a  fe- 
 condTime,  to  CdWHimidi  Son  of  God, v  .z^ ,  de- 
 claring farther,  that  there  was  lb  perfed:  a  Union 
 and  Intimacy  between  the  Father  and  Himielf, 
 that  He  was  able  to  do  any  thing  which  the  Fa- 
 ther did  J  had  not  only  the  fame  Right  and  Au- 
 thority to  work  on  the  Sabbath,  but  the  fame 
 Power  of  giving  Life  to  whom  He  pleafed,  of 
 raifing  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  par- 
 ticularly, leafl:  the  World  ihould  not  be  fuffici- 
 cntly  apprehenfive  of  his  high  Worth,  Emi- 
 Dcncy,  and  Dignity  ;  or  ihould  not  honour  the 
 Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father 
 
 This  is  the  obvious  natural  Conftrudlion  of 
 the  whole  Palfage :  You  have  fome  Pretences 
 againfl:  it,  which  have  been  examin'd  and  con- 
 futed long  ago  by  Hilary,  Chryfoflom,  Cyrils 
 Auflin ,  and  orher  venerable  Fathers  of  the 
 Chriftian  Church ;  fo  that  I  have  litde  more 
 to  do,  than  to  repeat  the  Anfwers.  The  Jews, 
 you  lay,  falfely  and  malicionfly  charged  Him 
 with  making  Himfelf  equal  with  God.     So  faid 
 
 the 
 
284        ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XIX. 
 
 the  Ariaris:  But  what  ground  had  either  They, 
 or  You,  for  faying  fb  ?  It  does  not  appear  that 
 the  Evangellft  barely  repeated  what  the  Jews 
 bad  faid :  But  He  gives  the  Realbns  why  the 
 Jews  fought  to  kill  Him  ;  namely,  becaule  He 
 had  broke  the  Sabbath,  and  becaule  He  made 
 Himfelf  equal  with  God.  So  thought  *  Hilary ; 
 and  He  is  followed  therein  by  Others,  whom 
 you  may  find  mention'd  in  f  Tetavitts,  And 
 this  \  Socimis  himfelf  wms  ib  fenfible  of,  that 
 He  could  not  but  allow  that  the  Apofile,  as 
 well  as  the  Jews,  underftood  that  our  BlelTed 
 Lord  had  declared  Himklf  equal  to  God  ;  only 
 He  is  forced  to  explain  away  the  equality  to  a 
 Senle  foreign  to  the  Context. 
 
 But  fuppofing  that  the  Apoftle  only  repeated 
 what  the  Jews  had  charged  Him  with ;  how 
 does  it  appear  that  the  charge  was  falfe  ?  It  is 
 not  to  be  denied  that  He  had  really  wrought 
 on  the  Sabbath,  and  had  really  called  God  his 
 Father,  and  in  a  Senfe  peculiar ;  and  why 
 iliould  not  the  reft  of  the  Charge  be  as  true  as 
 the  other  ?  The  Context  and  Reafon  of  the 
 Thing  feem  very  much  to  favor  it :    His  fay- 
 
 *  Non  nunc,  ut  in  Ceteris  folet,  Judacorum  Sermo  ab  his  didus 
 rcfcrtur.  Expofitio  potius  hxc  Evangelifts  eft,  Caufam  demon- 
 ftrantis  cur  Dominam  interficerc  vcllent.     Hil  Trin,  1.  7.  p.pj^* 
 
 f  De  Trin.  p^  if 2. 
 
 :j:  Ex  modo  Icqucndi  quo  iiTus  eft  Evangelifta,  fentiam  eum 
 omnino  una  cum  Judaeis  cenfuilTe  Chriftum,  verbis  illis,  fe  lequa- 
 
 lem  Deo  feciflc necefTe  fit  inteliigere  Hoc  ipfiim  Earn  quoque 
 
 feniilTe,  non  minus  qiiam  fenierit  Chriftum  appellaile  Dcum  Tatretn 
 fnum,  quod  ab  ipfo,  uno  Sc  eodem  vcrborum  Contextu,  proxime 
 dicium  fucrat.    Sacin,  Refp*  ad  Vujek,  p.  5-77. 
 
 ing. 
 
Q^u.XlX.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.        28^ 
 
 iiig,  my  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  "-JL'ork^ 
 niuft  imply,  either  that  He  had  an  equal  Right 
 to  do  any  thing  his  Father  did ;  or,  that  He 
 was  lb  intimately  united  to  Him,  that  He  could 
 not  but  ad  in  concert  with  Him;    Which  is 
 farther  confirmed  by  what  follows,  v.  19.  What 
 things  foever  He  doth,  thefe  aljo  doth  the  Son 
 like'Ji'ife,  Befides,  that  had  this  been  only  a  ma- 
 licious Suggcftion,  a  falfe  Charge  of  the  Jews^ 
 the  Evangelift,  very  probably,  would  have  gi- 
 ven Intimation  of  it,  as  we  find  done  in  other 
 Cafes  of  that  Nature,  {Joh.i.'Li,  Matt,i6.ix.) 
 This  is  the  Subftance  oi  St.ChryfoJiom's  reafon- 
 ing,  in  Anlwer  to  your  firft  Objedlion ;  and  I 
 am  the  more  confirmed  in  its  being  true  and 
 right,  by  obferving,  as  before  faid,  that  Soci- 
 nus  himfelf,  a  Man  fb  much  prejudic'd  on  the 
 other  fide,  could  not  help  falling  in  with  the 
 fame  w^ay  of  Thinking,   fb  far,    as  to  believe 
 that  the  Apoftle  and  the  J^^'j*  both  agreed  in 
 the  fame  Thing,  viz,  that  our  Lord  did,  by 
 what  He  had  faid,  make  Himfelf  equal  iz'ith 
 God,  in  fome  Senfe  or  other ;  fuch  as  the  Je^uvs 
 thought  to  be  Blajphemy,  and  in  Confequencc 
 whereof,  they  would  have  killed,  i.  e.  Jioned 
 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  Je'-Ji^s  might  depend 
 upon  k,  that  whatever  He  did,  was  both  agree- 
 able to,  aad  concerted  with   his  Father;    and 
 
 ought 
 
28(5        ^DEFENSE         Q^u.XlX. 
 
 ought  to  be  received  with  the  fame  Reverence 
 and  Regard,  as  if  the  Father  Himfelf  had  done 
 it.     He,  as  a  Son,    being  perfcd:ly  one   with 
 his  Father,   could  do  nothing  o^avT^ov  T(?  7{zLTi)L^ 
 agalnft  his  Father,  nothing  aAAorexoi',  nothing 
 ^eiov,  (as  UoryJ'ijlom  exprefieth  it)  Both  having 
 the  Ume  Nature;  and  harmonioufly  uniting  al- 
 ways   in  Operation    and  Energy.     Hence   it 
 was,    that,    if  one  ^wrought,    the    other   mufl: 
 work  too ;    if  one  did  any  thing,    the    other 
 Jhould  do  like^Ji't/e^  if  one  quickned  whom  He 
 would,  fo  ihouid  the  other  alfo;  and  if  one  had 
 Life  in  himfelf  (or  the  Tower  of  raifmg  the 
 *X>ead)  lo  Ihould  the  other  have  too :   And  if 
 the  Father  was  primarily  Judge  of  the  World, 
 in  right  of  his  Prerogative  as  Father,  the  Son 
 fliould  have  it  in  the  Exercift  and  Execution, 
 to  manifeft  the  Equality.      Now,    here  is   no 
 draining  nor  forcing  of  Texts,  but  the  hteral, 
 obvious,    natural    Interpretation.      But  the  In- 
 terpretation, which  you  give,  is  plainly  forc'd. 
 makes  the  Context  incoherent,  and  the  whole 
 PafTago  inconflftent.    For,  be  pleas'd  to  oblerve 
 your  Senfe  of  vcrfe  the  19th      The  Son  can 
 do  nothing  but  by  Commifjlon  from  the  Father : 
 Why  ?  then  follows,  For  what  things  foevef^' 
 He  doth,    thefe    alfo   doth  the  Son  likewifevl^ 
 Does  it  follow,  becaufe  He  can  do  nothing  of^ 
 Himfelf  in  your  Senfe,  that  therefore  He  can\ 
 do  every  thing  which  the  Father  does  ?  Where'^-"^^ 
 is  the  Senfe,  or  Connexion  ?  Is  He  here  limit^^ 
 ing,  and  lefTening  his  own  Powers,   as,  upon 
 
 your 
 
C^u.XIX.  of  fome  (QUERIES.        187 
 
 your  Principles,  He  fliould  have  done  in  an- 
 Iwer  to  the  Charge  of  Blaiphcmy  ?  No  ;  but  He 
 extends  them  to  the  ucmoft;  and,  inftead  of 
 rerrading,  goes  on  in  the  jamc  drain,  and  fays 
 more  than  He  had  iaid  before.  To  make  good 
 Senle  and  Coherence  of  the  PafTage,  upon  your 
 Scheme,  you  mud  fill  up  the  Deficiency  thus. 
 The  Son  can  do  nothing  but  by  Commiflion; 
 and  Ccmmijjlon  He  has,  to  do  every  thing  that 
 the  Ficher  doth.  Which,  tho'  it  founds  harfh, 
 and  looks  too  famil.ar  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  harih  or  dif- 
 agreeing  it,  it  ought  to  be  prefer *d.  For,  after 
 all,  it  muft  be  thought  very  odd  and  ftrange 
 for  a  Creature  to  be  commijjioii  d  or  empowered 
 to  do  all  Things  that  the  Creator  doth ;  and 
 to  do  them  o^oi<i><,  in  the  fame  manner^  alio. 
 I  do  not  make  any  forced  Conftrudion  ;  for  lb 
 the  ioth  verfe ,  immediately  following ,  in- 
 terprets it:  for  the  Father  loveth  the  Son, 
 and  foe'weth  Him  all  Things  that  Himfelf 
 doth.  You  endeavor  indeed  to  make  Ibme  Ad- 
 vantage of  this  very  Text;  alledging  that  this 
 ^ower,  which  the  Son  exercised,  was  given 
 Him,  not  by  Neceflity  {which  is  no  Gift)  hut 
 by  free  Love.  But  why  muft  love  imply  free- 
 dom? Doth  not  God  love  Himfelf?  And  if  the 
 Love  of  Himfelf  be  no  matter  of  Choice,  why 
 
 muft 
 
288        y^DEFENSE  Q^u.XlX. 
 
 mufl:  the  Love  of  his  Son,  his  other  Self,  be 
 reprcfeared  orhervvife  ?  You  are  forc'd  to  add 
 to  the  Text,  to  give  fomc  colour  to  your  Ar- 
 gument ;  and  to  call  it  free  Love,  when  the 
 Text  fays  only,  that  the  Father  loveth. 
 
 Thus  far  I  have  endeavor'd  to  clear  up  the 
 Senfe  of  St.  John ;  and  to  vindicate  it  from 
 your  Exceptions :  which  are  nor  of  fo  great 
 Weight,  that  you  need  be  amazed  at  any 
 Man  s  thinking  flightly  of  them.  Hilary  well 
 obierves  that  the  drift  and  deHgn  of  our  Savi- 
 our's Words  was  to  declare  his  Equality  of 
 Nature  with  the  Father,  and  his  Sonjhipy  at  the 
 lame  Time.  *  No  inferior  Nature  could  be 
 capable  of  having  all  Things ;  nor  could  a  Son 
 have  them  but  as  communicated.  So  that,  in 
 Both  parts,  it  is  diredly  oppofite  to  fuch  as 
 either  difown  an  Equality  of  Nature,  or  a  real 
 Difl:in(3:ion ;  wherefore  Hilary  concludes  trium- 
 phanrly,  both  againft  Arians  and  Sabellians , 
 in  Words  very  remarkable,  which  I  Ihali  throw 
 into  the  f  Margin. 
 
 But  you  add,  as  a  Recapitulation  of  what 
 you  had  faid  upon  this  Article :  If  therefore 
 to  be  freely  fent,  and  to  a6i  in  the  Name  and 
 by  the  Authority  of  another^  be,  to  a  (fume  an 
 
 *  Omnia  habere  fola   natura  poHit  iiidifferens  j  neque  Nativltas 
 Siiquid  habere  pofTit,  nifi  datum  fit,  p.  928. 
 
 f  Conclufa  funt  omnia  adverfum  Hxretici  Furoris  Ingenia.  TiVan 
 eft,  quia  ab  fe  nihil  poteft.    Dna  eft,  quia  quaecunque  Pater  facij, 
 ^  ipie  Eadcm  facit.     Unum  funt,  quia  exa^quarur  .n  Honore,  £a- 
 denique  facit  non  aha-    Non  eft  Pater,  quia  mifTus  eft,  />.  (^^^ 
 He  hfii  nmt  to  the  [ame  ^t^rtofe^  p.  io*j.  ii^i. 
 
 equalifj 
 
Q^u.XIX,  of  fome  Q^UERIES.         x%^ 
 
 equality  of  Honour  mid  Regard  with  that 
 other,  by  whom  He  was  fent ;  we  muft  for 
 ever  dejpair  to  nnderjland  the  meaning  of 
 Words,  or  to  be  able  to  dijlingiiijh  between  a 
 delegated,  and  a  fupreme  nnderived  Tower ^ 
 (/.  97.)  To  which  I  make  anfwcr :  If  declaring 
 Himfelf  to  be  the  proper  Son  of  That  Other, 
 which  both  the  Jews  and  the  Apojlle  under- 
 flood  to  be  the  fame  with  making  Himfelf  ^^//^/ 
 with  Him :  If  his  claiming  to  Himfelf  the  iame 
 Right,  Power,  and  Authority  which  the  Other 
 hath ;  and  afferting  that  He  is  able  to  do  w^hat- 
 ever  the  Other  doth ;  and  that  the  exercife  of 
 thole  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  alTuming  an  Equality  of  Honour  and  Re- 
 gard with  That  Other ;  we  muft  for  ever  defpair 
 to  underftand  the  meaning  of  Words,  or  to  be 
 able  to  diftinguilli  between  w^hat  is  proper  to  a 
 Creature,  and  what  to  the  Creator  only. 
 
 As  to  what  you  hint  concerning  a  delegated 
 Power,  it  is  not  to  your  purpofe ;  unlets  you 
 could  prove  that  one  Perfon  cannot  be  2)^/<?g-^/^ 
 to  Another,  without  being  unequal,  in  nature, 
 to  Him  ;  which  would  prove  that  one  Man 
 cannot  be  ^Delegate  to  another  Man ;  befides 
 other  Ablurdities.  Ading  by  a  delegated  Power 
 does  by  no  means  infer  any  Inferiority  of  A^^- 
 :ure,  but  rather  the  quite  contrary  ;  cfpecially, 
 if  the  Charge  be  luch,  as  no  inferior  Nature 
 could  be  able  to  fuftain ;  or  if  the  Honour  at- 
 
 V  rending; 
 
190        ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XIX. 
 
 tending  it,  or  confequent  upon  it,  be  too  great 
 for  an  inferior  Nature  to  receive;  as  the 
 Cafe  is  here.  However,  the  divine  Admi- 
 nifrration ,  and  wonderful  oUovo/jlU  of  the 
 Three  Perfons,  with  their  Order  of  Ading,  is 
 what  we  muft  not  prefume  pcrfedly  to  under- 
 ftand;  Nor  can  any  certain  Argument  be  drawn 
 againft  the  Thing,  from  our  imperfed  and  in- 
 adequate Conceptions  of  it. 
 
 It  it  be  objcdled  that  there  is  2.  Supremacy  of 
 Order  lodged  in  One  more  than  in  the  Other; 
 let  that  be  rightly  underflood,  and  I  iliall  not 
 gainiay  it.  The  Father,  as  Father,  is  fit- 
 f  rente  \  and  the  Son,  as  Son,  fiibordinate.  We 
 pretend  not  to  make  the  Son  the  Firji,  but  the 
 Second  Perfon  of  the  Godhead.  Whatever  in- 
 equality of  Honour  fuch  a  Supremacy  of  One, 
 and  Subordination  of  the  Other  neceflarily  im- 
 ply, while  the  Nature  or  EJfence  is  fuppofed 
 equal,  it  may  be  admitted  :  But,  I  am  not  ap- 
 prized  that  they  infer  any ;  Becaufe,  tho'  there 
 are  two  Perfons,  there  is  but  one  *  undivided 
 
 *  Unius  autem  Subfl.intise,  Sc  Unias  Status,  &  XJnuu  'Boteftatis4 
 quia  unus  Deus.  TertulL  Contr.  Prax.  c.  2.  Untus  Divinitatis  Pater 
 £c  Filius  &  Spiritus  Sanclus.  LL  de  Fuel.  c.  ai. 
 
 E**  Tu  Qiol  y^  rcJ  Tiup  ccurs  Aoya  i\a  voayjivo)  ocuiiOAtj-a  wkvtk 
 •ccTOTZTuy^rcii,     Athenag.  leg.  c.  1 5.  p.  64. 
 
 Unam  8c  Eandem  Omnipotentiam  Patris  ac  Filii  efTe  cognofcas  ; 
 iicut  unus  atque  Idem  eft  cum  Patre  Deus  8c  Dominus.  Orig, 
 ^z^  'Af>x;.  1.  1.  c.  I. 
 
 Ou  vcip  oiTi^lM  ^%cw  'miTYi^j  >^  uXXl/M  'tjoq  iX,i,  eCAAci  ^Tsiv  y^  Tift 
 ttvr^v.     Cyrill.  Catcch.  6.  p.  77.  Ed.  Ox. 
 
 'O   iv   icairzS   T  TTccri^oc    \yjuv,    'Tnlazzv    -z^ixi  7"ji»  ynnTQ^zv^v  l\^r.ccv 
 
 Greg.  NyflT.  Contr.  Eunom,  /.  i.  />.  14. 
 
 Nature ; 
 
Q^u.XlX.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.        r^t 
 
 Nature;  which  makes  the  Cafe  widely  different 
 from  that  of  one  Man  (a  diflind:  znd  fej^^arate 
 Being)  ading  under  Another. 
 
 What  follows,  of  your  Anfwer  to  the  prefenC 
 Query,  is  only  ringing  Changes  upon  the  old 
 Objedlion,  drawn  from  your  imaginary  Senfe  of 
 individual  Subftance.  And  here  you  let  your 
 Thoughts  rove,  and  abound  much  in  Flight 
 and  Fancy ;  conceiving  of  the  Trinity,  after 
 the  manner  of  Bodies,  and  reafoning  from  cor- 
 poreal and  fenfible  Images.  A  blind  Man  would 
 thus  take  his  Notion  of  Colours,  perhaps  from 
 his  Hearing  or  Feeling ;  and  make  many  fan- 
 ciful Demonllrations  againfl:  the  T>o^rine  of 
 Vi/ion\  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  Exigence,  as  we  are 
 to  judge  of  common  Matters,  lying  within  the 
 Sphere  of  our  Capacity,  there  might  then  be 
 fome  force  in  the  Objections  made  againfl:  the 
 Dodrine  of  the  Trinity  from  natural  Reafon : 
 But  fmce  many  Things,  efpecially  thofe  relating 
 
 Totum  Pater,  Totum  poflTidet  Filius :  Unius  eft  quod  Amborum 
 eftj  quod  unus  pofl'idet  Singulorum  eftj  Domino  ip(e  d'ccnte: 
 Omnia  quACunque  hubet  Fater,  mea  [iint  \  quia  Pater  in  Fi;ia,  Sc 
 Filius  manet  in  Patre.  Cui,  AffeElu  non  Conditione,  Churitate  nori 
 Nece(Jitatey  decor e  lii bjicitur,  per  Quern  Pater  Semper  honoratur. 
 Denique  inquit;  Ego  (y»  Pater  unum  fumus,  Unde  non  diminutiva, 
 fed  Religiofa,  ut  dixi,  fubjedlione  eft  Filius  Patri  fubjedlus :  cum 
 Originaiis  perpetuique  Regni  una  Pofierfio,  Co-JEterniratis  Omni- 
 potentiacque  una  Subftantia,  una  iEqualitas,  una  virtus  Majeflatis 
 au^^uflje,  unite  in  luminc  una  digniras  rctinetur,  Zen.  Veronenf.  df, 
 *  B;{U.  D.  f.  p.  i66^ 
 
%^i        yfDEFENSE  Q^u.XlX. 
 
 to  the  incomprehenfible  Nature  of  God,  may 
 be  true,  tho*  we  cannot  conceive  How  ;  and  it 
 may  be  only  our  Ignorance,  which  occafions 
 fome  appearing  Inconfiftencies  ;  we  dare  nor  re- 
 jed:  a  Dodlrine  fo  well  fupported  by  Scripture 
 and  Antiquity,  upon  fo  precarious  a  Founda- 
 tion as  this ;  That  Human  ^nderjland'mg  is 
 the  meafure  of  all  Truth:  Which  is  what  all 
 Objections  of  that  kind,  at  length,  refolve 
 into. 
 
 This  being  premis'd,  let  us  next  proceed  to 
 examine  your  Pretences,  that  I  may  not  feem  to 
 negled:  any  thing  you  have,  that  but  looks  like 
 reafoning.  The  ^tery  had  intimated,  that  the 
 Son  derives  his  Eflence  and  Power,  in  a  man- 
 ner ineffable.  Againft  which  you  objed:  thus: 
 But  is  it  not  Self  evident  that,  let  the  man- 
 ner of  the  Son's  Generation  or  T)erivation  be 
 ever  fo  ineffable,  if  2iny  Thing  was  generated^ 
 or  derived,  it  mtifl  be  a  diftind:  individual 
 Subjtance  ?  No ;  but  we  think  it  fufBcient  to 
 lay,  that  it  muft  be  a  diftind  individual  Per- 
 fon.  All  the  dilBculty  here  hes  in  fixing  and 
 determining  the  Senfe  of  the  words  individual 
 Snbjiance,  Would  you  but  pleafe  to  define  the 
 Terms,  we  fhould  foon  fee  what  we  have  to  do. 
 But  you  go  on :  It  could  not  be  part  of  the 
 Father's  Subjlance%  That  is  abfurd:  And  to 
 fay,  it  was  the  whole,  is  fo  flagrant  a  Con- 
 tradition,  that  I  queftion  whether  there  can 
 be  a  greater  in  the  nature  and  reafon  of 
 Things.     Can  the  fame  individual  Subflance  be 
 
 derived, 
 
Q^u.XIX.  of  fame  Q^UERIES.        193 
 
 derived,  and  under ived  ?  Or,  can  there  be  a 
 Communication,  and  nothing  communicated  ? 
 For,  it  is  ftippofed,  that  the  whole  Ejfence^ 
 or  Subjlance,  is  communicated  to  the  Son, 
 and  yet  remains  whole  and  uncoramunicated, 
 in  the  Father ;  which  is  evidently  to  be,  and^ 
 not  to  be,  at  the  Jame  Time,  This  is  your 
 reafbning,  founded  only  on  your  miftake  and 
 mifapprehenfion :  By  Father'^  Sttbjlance ,  as 
 it  feems,  you  underftand  the  Father's  Hypo- 
 jiajls,  or  Terfon ;  and  are  proving,  very  elabo- 
 borately,  that  the  Father  never  communicated 
 his  own  Hyjf>oJlaJls,  oiTerfon,  either  in  whole j 
 or  in  part.  You  iliould  firfl:  have  iliown  us 
 what  Body  of  Men,  or  what  *  fingle  Man,  ever 
 taught  that  Doitrine,  which  you  take  fo  much 
 Pains  to  confute.  Let  me  now  propofe  a  difficulty 
 much  of  the  lame  kind,  and  nearly  in  the  fame 
 Words,  to  you  ;  only  to  convince  you  that 
 Objedions  of  this  Nature  are  not  peculiar  to 
 the  Dod:rine  of  the  Trinity,  but  affedi  other 
 points  likewife,  whofe  Truth  or  Certamty  you 
 make  no  manner  of  doubt  of  What  I  meaa 
 to  inftance  in,  is  God's  omniprefence :  Thar, 
 God,  the  fame  individual  God,  is  every  where, 
 you'l  readily  allow ;  and  alfo  that  the  Subjiance 
 of  God,  \^  God.  Now,  will  you  pleafe  to  tell 
 me,  whether  that  divine  Subjiance  which  fills 
 Heaven,  be  the  fame  individual  Subftance  with 
 That   which  filleth  all  Things.     If  it  be  not 
 
 *  Ai  to  your  gird  upon  Tertulliaiii  in  your  Notes,  I  refer  you  to 
 Bull.  D.  F.  p.  9/.  for  an  Anfroer. 
 
 V  3  the 
 
^94        ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XIX. 
 
 the  fame   individual  Subflance  (as  by  your 
 realoning  it  cannot)  it  remains  only  that  it  be 
 ffecifically  the   fame;    and    then   the  Conie- 
 quence  is,  that  you  make  not  one  Subftance  in 
 number,  but  rnany ;  the  very  thing  which  you 
 charge  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity  with.     But 
 farther,    the   divine  Subflance   is   in  Heaven ; 
 that  is  without  Queftion:    Now,  I  ask,  whe- 
 ther the  Subflance  which  fills  Heaven,  ht  part 
 only   of   that   Subflance,    or   the  whole.      If 
 it  be  fart  only,    then  God   is   not    in    Hea- 
 ven, but  a  fart  of  God  only ;  and  the  Attri- 
 butes belonging  to  the  whole  Subflance,  cannot 
 all  be  contracted  into  any  one  part^  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,  Power,    ^c. 
 refiding  in  the  whole,  is  common  to  every  parr, 
 it  is  (to  ufe  your  own  Words)  fo  flagrant  a 
 Contradi^ion,  that  I  queftion  whether  there 
 can  be  a  greater  in  the  nature  and  reafon  of 
 Things,    Can  the  iame  individual  Power,  Wif- 
 dom, Sr.    be  communicated,  and  not  commu- 
 nicated.?  Or,  can  there  be  a  Communication 
 and  nothing  communicated^  For,  it  is  fuppofed 
 that  the  whole  Wifdom,  Tower,  &c.  is  com- 
 municated, to  one  particular  part ;  and   yet  re- 
 mains whole  and  uncommunicated  in  the  other 
 parts ;  which  is  evidently  to  be,  and  not  to  be 
 ^t  the  fame  Timef  If  you  tell  me^  that  part 
 *   '   ''  and 
 
Qjj.XlX.  of  fome  (QUERIES.        2.95' 
 
 and  whole  are  nor  properly  applied  to  JVifdom^ 
 Tower,  &c.  I  iliall  tell  you  again,  that  They 
 are  (for  any  thing  You,  or  I  know)  2lS  p'O^erly 
 applied  to  the  Attributes,  as  they  are  to  the 
 Subje&- ;  and  belong  to  Both,  or  Neither.  And 
 fince  you  are  pleaTed  to  talk  of  farts  and 
 whole  of  God's  Subftance,  of  which  you  know 
 little ;  give  me  leave  to  talk  in  the  iame  way, 
 where  I  know  as  little.  The  Learned  Dodor 
 reprefents  it  as  a  great  Solectfm  to  fpeak  of  an 
 *  Ell,  or  a  Mile  of  Confcioufnefs,  He  may  be 
 right  in  his  Obfervation :  But  the  natural  Coa- 
 fequence  deducible  from  it,  is,  that  Thought 
 is  not  compatible  with  an  extended  Subjed:  : 
 For  there  is  nothing  more  unintelligible,  or,  ieem- 
 ingly  at  lead,  more  repugnant,  than  unext ended 
 Attributes  in  a  Subje<a;  extended:  And  many 
 may  think  that  an  Ell,  or  a  Mile  of  God 
 (which  is  the  Dodor's  Notion)  is  as  great  a 
 Solecijm  as  the  other.  Perhaps,  after  all,  it 
 would  be  beft  for  Both  of  us  to  be  filenr,  where 
 we  have  really  nothing  to  lay :  But  as  you  have 
 begun,  I  muft  go  on  with  the  Arguaienr,  abouc 
 the  Omnipre fence,  a  little  farther.  Well,  if  it 
 cannot  be  fart  only  of  the  divine  Subftance, 
 which  is  in  Heaven,  fince  God  is  There,  and 
 fmce  all  the  Perfections  and  Arrribures  of  the 
 Deity  have  There  their  fall  cxerciie;  let  us 
 i'ay  that  the  whole  divine  Subftance  is  there. 
 But  then  how  can  He  be  omniprefent  ?  Can  the 
 fame  individual  Subftance  be  confined,  and  //;/- 
 confine dl:  Or  can  there  be  a  d,ijfufion  of  ic 
 *  c/.  Lett.  p.  40.  V  4  every 
 
apS        ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XIX. 
 
 every  where,  and  yet  nothing  diffufedl  For  it 
 is  fuppofed  that  the  whole  Eflence  or  Subftancc 
 is  difFufed  all  over  the  Univerie,  and  yet  re- 
 mains whole  and  undiffufed  in  Heaven.  Which, 
 again,  is  evidently  to  be,  and  not  to  be,  at 
 the  fame  time. 
 
 I  iliould  hardly  forgive  my  felf,  upon  any 
 other  occafion,  luch  trifling  in  ferious  Things. 
 If  you  take  to  this  kind  of  reafoning,  (which 
 is  really  not  reafoning,  but  running  riot  with 
 Fancy  and  Imagination)  about  Matters  infi- 
 nitely furpafling  human  Comprehenfion ;  you 
 will  make  lamentable  work  of  it.  You  may  go 
 on,  till  you  rcafon,  in  a  manner,  God  out  of 
 his  Attributes,  and  your  kli  out  of  your  Faith  ; 
 and  not  know  at  laft,  where  to  flop.  For,  in- 
 deed, all  Arguments,  of  this  kind,  are  as 
 flrong  for  Atheifm ,  as  They  are  againfl  a 
 Trinity:  Wherefore  it  concerns  you  lerioufly 
 to  refled:,  what  you  are  doing.  This,  and  the 
 like  Confidcrarions  have  made  the  wifeft  and 
 cooleft  Men  very  cautious  how  they  liflen'd  to 
 the  rovings  of  wanton  Thought,  in  Matters 
 above  Human  Comprehenfion.  The  pretended 
 Contradid:ions,  now  revived  by  many,  againfl 
 the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity,  are  very  old  and 
 trite.  They  were  long  ago  objedled  to  the 
 Chriflians,  by  the  Heathen  Idolaters-  They 
 almofl  turn'd  the  Heads  of  Traxeas,  NoetuSy 
 Sabellius,  Manichaus ,  Tanl  of  Samofata  ; 
 not  to  mention  Artus,  Nejtorius,  Etttyches^ 
 ^nd  other  Antiept  Herctlcks,     The  Qatholicks 
 
 ,  w^rc 
 
Q^u.XIX.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.        197 
 
 were  fenfible  of  them ;  But  having  well  con- 
 flder'd  them,  They  found  them  of  much  too 
 flight  Moment,  to  bear  up  againft  the  united 
 Force  of  Scripture  and  Tradition.  TheDodtrinc 
 of  the  Trinity,  with  all  its  feeming  Contra- 
 dictions, has  ftood  the  Teft,  nor  only  of  what 
 Human  Wit  could  do,  by  way  of  Dilpute  ;  but 
 of  all  that  Rage  and  Malice  could  contrive, 
 through  a  Perfecution  almofl:  as  Bitter  and  Viru- 
 lent,  as  any  that  had  ever  been  under  Heathen 
 Emperors.  This  is  to  me  an  additional  Confirma- 
 tion, that  the  Dodrine  we  profels  is  no  fuch 
 grofs  Impoflcion  upon  the  common  Senfe  and 
 Reafon  of  Mankind,  as  is  pretended.  It  was 
 nefther  Force,  nor  Intereft,  that  brought  it  in ; 
 nor  that  hath  fmce,  fo  univerfally,  upheld  it : 
 And  Men  are  not  generally  fuch  Idiots  as  to 
 love  Contradictions  and  Repugnancies,  only  for 
 Humor  or  Wantonnefs,  when  Truth  andConfiil- 
 cncy  are  much  better,  and  may  be  had  at  as 
 eafy  a  rate.  Thele  Reflexions  have  carried  me 
 rather  too  far ;  But  They  may  have  their  ufe 
 among  fuch  Readers  as  know  little  of  the  Hi- 
 flory  of  this  Controverfy ;  or  how  long  It  had 
 been  buried ;  till  it  pleas'd  fome  amongft  Us  to 
 call  it  up  again,  and  to  drefs  it  out  with  much 
 Art  and  Finejfe;  to  take  the  Populace,  and 
 CO  beguile  the  Englijh  Reader.  Many  Things 
 have  fallen  under  this  ^ery,  which  properly 
 I^elong'd  not  to  it.  But  it  was  necefiary  for 
 ,Me  to  purfue  You,  what  way  iocver  You  fhould 
 rake.  You  was  more  at  Liberty  :  My  Method 
 is  deteraain'd  by  Your's.  Q^u  e  r  y 
 
298        ^DEFENSE  Qjj.XX. 
 
 Q^  U  E  R  Y     XX. 
 
 TFhether  the  "Do^or  need  have  cited  300 
 Texts,  wide  of  the  purpofe,  to  prove  what 
 no  Body  denies,  namely,  a  Subordination, 
 in  fome  Senfe,  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  ; 
 could  He  h^ve  found  hut  one  plain  Text 
 again]}  His  Eternity  or  Confubftantiality, 
 tl:ie  "Toints  in  ^iejtion  ? 
 
 YOUR  Anfwer  to  this  is  very  iliort,  not 
 to  fay  negh'gent.  You  fay,  if  the  "Do- 
 ilor's  300  Texts  prove  a  real  Subordination^ 
 and  not  in  name  only,  the  point  is  gain'd  a- 
 gainft  the  ^teriji's  Notion  of  Individual  Con- 
 fubftantiality  ;  tmlefs  the  fame  individual  in- 
 telligent Snbflance  can  be  Subordinate  to  it 
 felf  and  Confubflantial  with  it  felf  Here 
 you  are  again  DoubHng  upon  the  word,  /;/- 
 dividual.  The  ^terijl  never  had  fuch  a 
 Notion  as  that  oi  per  final  Confubftantiality^ 
 which  is  Ridiculous  in  the  Sound,  and  Contra- 
 didion  inSenfe;  and  yet  you  are  conftantly 
 putting  this  upon  the  ^teriji,  and  honouring 
 Him  with  your  own  Prefumptions.  Let  me 
 again  fliow  you,  how  unfair  and  difingenuous 
 this  Method  is.  Do  not  you  fay  that  the  fame 
 individual  Subfance  is  prefent  in  Heaven,  and, 
 at  the  fame  time,  filieth  all  Things?  That  ic 
 pervades  the  Sun,  and,  at  the  fame  time,  pene- 
 
 *  Clarke's  Reply,  p.  7. 
 
 trates 
 
Qjj.XX,  &f  fome  Q^UERIES.        199 
 
 trates  the  Moon  alfo  ?   I  might  as  rcafonably 
 argue  that  you,  by  fuch  Pofitions,    make  the 
 fame  individual  Stib fiance  greater  and  lels  than 
 it  felf,  remote  and  diftant  from  />  felf,  higher 
 and  lower  than  it  felf,  to  the  right  and  to  the 
 left  oi  it  felf,  containing  and  contained,   bound- 
 ed and  unbounded,  ^c.    as  you  can  pretend  to 
 draw  thofe   odd  furprizing  Conlequences  upon 
 the  ^ierifl.     Would  not  you  tell  me,  in  an- 
 fwer,  that  I  mifinterpreted  your  Senfe  of  indi- 
 *vidual,  and  took  advantage  of  an  ambiguous 
 ExprefTion?  Let  the  fame  Anfwer  ferve  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  Qiiery,  one  Text  or  two  to  difprove 
 the  Son's  Eternity,  and  Confubjiantiality,  and 
 to  fupply  the  Deficiency  of  the  Doctor's  Trea- 
 tife:    But  fince   you   have   not  thought  fit  to 
 favor  me  with  any,  I  muft  ftill  believe  that  the 
 Doitor's  3  CO  Texts,  tho*  very  wide  of  the  pur- 
 pofe,  are  all  we  are  to  cxped: ;  being  defign'd, 
 inftead  of  real  Proof,  to  carry  fbme  Show  and 
 Appearance  of  it,  that  they  may  feem  to  make 
 up  in  Number,  what  they  want  in  Weight.    All 
 that  the  learned  Docftor  proves  by  his  300  Texts, 
 or  more,  is  only  that  the  Son  is  Subordinate 
 to  the  Father:  Whether  as  a  Son,  or  as  a  Crea- 
 ture, appears  not.     However,  the  tacite  Con- 
 clufion  which  the  Dodor  draws  from  it,  and 
 iafinuates  carefully  to  his  Reader,  is,  that  the 
 
 Soa 
 
30©        ^DEFENSE  C^u.XX. 
 
 Son  is  not  ftridly  and  ejfentially  God ;  but  a 
 Creature  only.  This  Inference  we  deny  ut- 
 terly ;  alledging  thar  a  Subordination  may  be, 
 and  may  be  underftood,  between  two  Perfbns, 
 without  the  Suppofition  of  any  Inferiority  of 
 Nature :  But  all  the  Anfvver  we  can  get  to  this 
 is,  that  *  Nature  and  Ejfence  are  oh/cure  Me- 
 tafhyfical  Notions  (which  is  neither  true,  nor 
 to  the  purpofe,  nor  confiftently  pleaded  by 
 one  who  builds  fb  much  upon  Self-exiftence^ 
 a  Metaphyseal  Term,  the  word  Equivocal^ 
 and  the  Notion  fufficiently  obfetire.)  And  thus, 
 as  foon  as  the  learned  Dodor  comes  up  to  the 
 pinch  of  theQuefl:ion,not  being  willing  to  own 
 the  Force  of  what  is  urged,  He  very  wifely  dif 
 fembles  it,  and  goes  off  in  a  mifl:  of  Words. 
 
 I  cannot  but  take  notice,  upon  this  occafion, 
 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  Arianijm,  knows  that 
 its  main  Strength  lay  in  Logical  and  Metafby- 
 fical  Subtilties.  The  Faith  of  the  Church  was 
 at  firfl,  and  might  be  ftill,  a  plain,  eafy,  fimple 
 Thing ;  did  not  its  Adverlaries  endeavor  to  per- 
 plex and  puzzle  it  with  Thilojljfhical  Niceties, 
 and  minute  Inquiries  into  the  Modus  of  what 
 they  cannot  comprehend.     The  firfl:  Chriftians 
 
 ♦  Reply,  p.  17.  19.  XI. 
 
 cafily 
 
Q^u.XX.  of  fome  QUERIES.        301 
 
 cafily  believed  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghoft^ 
 into  whom  They  were  baptized,  and  whom 
 They  worjl/ifd,  were  equally  divine ;  without 
 troubhng  themfclves  about  the  manner  of  it,  or 
 the  reconcihng  it  with  their  BeHef  in  one  God, 
 As  Men  generally  believe  that  God  fore-knovjs 
 every  thing,  and  that  Man  notwithftanding  is  a 
 free  Agent,  (fcarce  one  perhaps  in  a  Thoufand 
 concerning  Himfelf  how  to  reconcile  thefe  two 
 Pofitions,  or  being  at  all  apprehenfive  of  any 
 difficulty  in  it)  fo,  probably,  the  plain  honeft 
 Chriftians  believed  every  Perlbn  to  be  God,  and 
 all  but  one  God ;  and  troubled  not  their  Heads 
 with  any  nice  Speculations  about  the  Modus 
 of  it.  This  feems  to  have  been  the  artlefs  Sim- 
 phcity  of  the  primitive  Chriftians,  till  prying 
 and  pretending  Men  came  to  ftart  Difficulties, 
 and  raife  Scruples,  and  make  Difturbance ;  and 
 then  it  was  necefTary  to  guard  the  Faith  of  the 
 Church  againft  fuch  Cavils  and  Impertinencies 
 as  began  to  threaten  it.  Thilofofhj  and  Meta- 
 fhy/icks  were  called  in  to  it's  Affiftance ;  but 
 not  till  Heretic ks  had  fliown  the  way,  and 
 made  it  in  a  manner  neceffary  for  the  Catho* 
 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  Purpoies.  It  was 
 needlefs  to  fay  that  Generation  was  without 
 "Divijion,  while  no  Body  fufpecSted  or  thought 
 of  any  T)ivifion  in  the  Cafe :  But  after  Here^ 
 
 ticks 
 
sot        yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Qu,XX. 
 
 ticks  had  invidioufly  reprefenred  the  CathoUcks 
 as  afTcrting  a  *DiviJion,  it  was  high  time  for 
 the  Catbolicks  to  refcnt  the  Injury ,  and  to 
 deny  the  Charge.  There  was  no  occafion  for 
 the  mentioning  of  Three  Hypoftafes,  till  fuch 
 as  TraxeaSy  Noetus,  and  Sabellius,  had  pre- 
 tended to  make,  one  Hypoftafis,  an  Article  of 
 Faith  ;  drawing  many  very  Novel,  and  dangerous 
 Confcquences  from  their  prime  Pofition.  The 
 ojjLoimov  it  felf  might  have  been  fpared,  at  lead, 
 out  of  the  Creeds,  had  not  a  fraudulent  abufe 
 of  good  words  brought  Matters  to  that  pals, 
 that  the  Catholtck  Faith  was  in  danger  of  be- 
 ing loft,  even  under  Catholick  Language.  To  re- 
 turn to  our  Point :  There  would  be  no  occafion 
 now  for  diftinguifliing  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 
 of  fair  Controverfy,  may  juftly  exped:  of  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  prov- 
 ing, in  a  rational  manner,  that  all  Subordina- 
 tion implies  fuch  an  Inferiority  as  you  contend 
 for.  If  this  can  be  done,  the  DodJor^s  300^ 
 Texts  (which  are  very  good  Texts,  and  have 
 undoubtedly  an  excellent  meaning)  may  appear 
 alfo  to  be  pertinent  to  the  Gaufe  in  Hand, 
 
 QUER^ 
 
Qu.XXI.  of  fome  (QUERIES.         305 
 
 Q^  u  E  R  Y     XXL 
 
 Whether  He  be  not  forc'd  to  fupply  his  v:ant 
 of  Scripture-proof  by  z'e?y  ftraind  and  re- 
 mote Inferences,  and  very  uncertain  Rea- 
 fonings  from  the  Nature  of  a  Thing,  con- 
 fejfedly,  obfcure  and  above  Comprehenfion  ; 
 and  yet  not  7nore  fo  than  God's  Eremiry, 
 Ubiquity,  Prefcience,  or  other  Attributes^ 
 isjhich  yet  vue  are  obliged  to  acknovuledge 
 for  certain  Truths  ? 
 
 TO  the  former  part  of  the  Query,  ycu 
 anfjjer  direEily  in  the  Negative.  To 
 which  I  rejoin,  that  I  ftill  maintain  the  Ajfr- 
 mative,  and  can  readily  make  it  good.  The 
 Doctor's  infinuating  from  the  300  Texts  (which 
 ftile  the  Father  G^^abfolutely,  or  the  one  God) 
 that  the  Son  is  not  ftridly  and  ejfentially  God, 
 not  one  God  with  the  Father,  is  a  ftrain'd  and 
 remote  Inference  of  his  ovun-,  not  warranted  by 
 Scripture,  nor  countenanced  by  Cathohck  Anti- 
 quity ;  but  Contradidory  to  Both.  Befides  this, 
 I  mud  obferve  to  you,  that  the  main  Strength 
 of  the  Dodor's  Caufe  hes,  firfl:,  in  his  giving  ei- 
 ther a  *  Sabellian,  or  Tritheifiick  turn  (admit- 
 ting f  no  Mediu7n)  to  the  Catholick  Doctrine ; 
 and  then  charging  it  with  Confu/lon  of  T^erfons^ 
 
 *  See  Injlames,  Script,  Dof^r.  p.  99.  1 01.  293.  416.  45f. 
 
 Reply,  p.  35-38.5-1.53-95-  >i'- 
 iScript.Doar.p.8$.  iji,4i;'.43o.45j.437.44i.447.4f5-.4(Jj', 
 
 Toly- 
 
304        A   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.XXL 
 
 Tolytheifm,  Non-fenfe,  or  Contradi6lion,  Take 
 away  That,  to  which  his  conftant  reibrt  \^^ 
 whenever  He  comes  to  the  pinch  of  the  Que- 
 ftion,  and  there  will  be  little  left  confiderable. 
 He  lho\^'S  his  Reader  7>/V/;^//^,  and  He  fhows 
 Him  .abellianifin  (keeping  the  Catholick  Do- 
 drino,  which  is  Neither,  out  of  fight)  and  then 
 recommends  ^r/^;///;^  (difguis'd)  to  Him,  as 
 the  bell  of  the  Three.  Now,  fince  the  Catho- 
 lick Dodtrinc  has  been  generally  thought  diffe- 
 rent from  any  of  the  Three,  and  more  follow- 
 ed than  all  Hie  reft  put  together,  it  ought  to 
 have  been  fairly  preicnted,  in  company  with 
 the  other;  that  fo  the  Reader,  having  all  the' 
 Four  before  Him,  might  be  the  more  able  to 
 pais  a  right  Judgment  of  Them.  You  will  fre- 
 quently find  the  learned  Dodor  combating  the 
 Catholick  Faith  under  the  difguile  of  Sabelli- 
 antfm,  as  if  there  was  no  Difference  between 
 them:  Or  if  it  be  at  all  diftinguiflvd  from  Sa- 
 heUtanifm,  it  immediately  commences  TVi- 
 thelfm\  and  a  plurality  oi  Co-ordinate  Perfbns 
 is  inevitable  with  the  learned  Dodor:  This 
 is  the  Sum  of  his  Performance.  Scripture,  in- 
 deed, is  brought  in,  and  Fathers  too,  which 
 is  ftill  more  iiarprizing:  But  the  whole,  in  a 
 manner,  is  this  one  Syllogtfm, 
 
 If  the  Son  be  Confiibjiantial  with  God  the 
 Father,  He  muft  be  either  individtially  or  fpe- 
 cifically  (b:  But  the  former  is  Sahellianifm^ 
 the  latter  Tritheijm ,  Both  abfurd:  There- 
 fore, i§c. 
 
 The 
 
Q_u.XXI.         of  fome  Q^UERIES.        ^os 
 
 The  learned  Dodtor  very  well  knows,  how 
 eafy  it  would  be  to  march  this  Syllogtfin,  or 
 Sophi/m,  with  others,  of  the  like  kind,  a^ainft 
 Omniprefence,  Eternity,  Trcfcience,  and  even 
 Self-exijience :  which,  in  reverence  to  theSub- 
 jedt,  and  for  prudential  Reafons,  T  forbear; 
 iorry  to  find  the  Cauie  put  upon  fuch  a  way  of 
 reafbning,  as  tends  to  undermine  fomerhing 
 more  than  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity.  But 
 I  proceed. 
 
 To  give  the  better  Colour  to  his  Charge  of 
 Trithetjin ,  the  Dodor  *  every  where  takes 
 it  for  granted  (which  was  the  only  way,  when 
 it  could  not  be  proved)  that  God  the  Son 
 cannot  be  really  diftind,  and  ftridly  divine 
 too,  unlels  He  be  Coordinate,  in  all  Relpcds, 
 with  the  Father ;  which  would  be  contrary  to 
 the  Suppofition  of  his  being  a  Son,  and  fecond 
 Perfon.  Two  Co-ordinate  V^rCons,  icfeems,  They 
 ,muit  be;  or  elfe  one  of  them  muft  inevitably 
 be  a  Creature:  This  is  plainly  his  meaning, 
 however  ftudioufly  He  avoids  the  word  Crea- 
 ture ;  chufing  rather  to  infuiuate  covertly,  what 
 is  too  grofs  to  appear  in  broad  Terras.  The 
 whole,  you  fee,  terminates  in  a  Thilofophical 
 Qiieftion:  An  i  nbat  occafion  have  we  for 
 Scripture,  or  Fathers  (except  \z  be  to  amule 
 our  Readers)  if  'Pkilofopby  can  ib  eafily  end 
 the  Difpute  ?  For  it  is  very  certain  that  neither 
 Scripture  nor  Fathers  can  add  force  to,  if 
 concurring ;  nor,  if  reclaiming,  be  able  to  Hand 
 
 f  Script.  Doilr.  p.  8^- 41 5".  430.437,4^1   447.  47j'.45f. 
 
 X  againft, 
 
3o6        .^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E  Q^u.XXJ^. 
 
 againft,  clear  and  evident  Demonll ration.  But 
 ^emonjiration  is  the  thing  wanting :  As  to 
 Trefiim^ttons,  and  Co7ije^ures,  we  arc  in  no 
 Pain  about  them.  I  ihall  have  a  farther  oc- 
 cafion  to  confider  the  Charge  of  Trithelfm 
 hereafter;  and  therefore,  difmiffing  it  for  the 
 prefent,    fliall    return  to  the  Bufinefi   of  the 
 
 To  'the  latter^l^'  fef  ¥y&i^4nlf^er:^h3t 
 God's  Attributes  are  Jo  far  from  being  abov,^ 
 Comprehenfion,  that  they  are  all  frilly  de- 
 monflrable  by  Reafon.  You  was  ienfible  this 
 was  wide ;  and  therefore  very  jufily  corredted 
 it,  in  the  Words  immediately  following.  But 
 I  am  willing  to  fiifpofe  (How  could  you  make 
 any  doubt  of  it  ?  )  That  the  Author  meant y 
 that  the  Manner  of  their  Exiftence  in  the 
 divine  Nature,  is  above  Comprehenfion\  and 
 Jo  indeed  it  is.  Very  well ;  and  yet  you  h^ 
 lieve  the  reality  of  thofe  Attributes,  Why 
 then  fo  unequal  and  partial,  with  refped:  to 
 the  Trinity,  the  cafe  being  exadtly  the  fame' f 
 Why  may  not  the  Thing  be  true,  though  the 
 Manner,  or  Modus  of  it,  be  ^bove  Coi^- 
 prehenfion?  You  add,  Tho^  the  manner  of 
 the  Son's  "Derivation  is  above  Comprehenjion^ 
 yet  his  real  Subordination  is  JirOfly  demon- 
 Jirable,  p.  99.  "'^ 
 
 Tantamne  Rem  tam  negligent er  !  '*^^ 
 Here  the  Argument  was,  in  a  manner,  brdS^fit 
 to  a  Head ;  and  the  Fate  of  the  Controverly 
 depended  on  this  Article.     Here  you  had  a  fair 
 
 Oppor- 
 
tj  ,        'A  ,1  ■^  ,'7  .fT    f 
 
 Q_u.XXI.         (P/ySwf  Q_UfiRIES.        307 
 
 Opportunity  given  you  oi  laying  on  your 
 Charge  of  Conrradidions,  if  you  had  any  you 
 could  depend  on  ;  and  of  clearing  God's  Attri- 
 butes (particularly,  the  Three  mention'd)  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  either  Weight,  or  Per- 
 tinency. If  you  mean,  by  real  Subordination, 
 the  Subordination  of  a  Creature  to  God ;  or  of 
 one  Perlbn  inferior  in  Nature  to  another  of 
 a  higher,  fuperior,  or  more  perfect  Nature ; 
 jp^is  not  demonjtrable  from  Scriptttre  \  nor  can 
 it,  any  way,  be  proved:  If  you  mean  any 
 thing  elie,  it  is  not  pertinent. 
 ,  -\\You  are  lb  kind  as  to  allow  the  Manner  of 
 jhe  Sons  derivation,  or  Generation,  to  be 
 above  Comprehen/iou,  The  Eunomtans,  your 
 PredecefTors  in  this  Controverfy ,  *  thought 
 (and  They  thought  right)  that,  in  order  to  fuo- 
 port  their  Caufe.  it  would  be  neceflary  to  af- 
 firm the  Nature  of  God  to  be  Com^rehenjible, 
 or  not  above  Human  Comprehenfion  ;  and 
 therefore  it  is  that  \Thilofiorgius  cenfures  Eu- 
 febius  for  clofing  in  with  the  contrary  Opi- 
 nio^..  You  are  more  modeft;  They  more  con- 
 filtent :  For,  indeed,  this  ControveriV,  manag'd 
 upon  the  Foot  of  meer  Reafon,  terminates  at 
 length  in  that  fingle  Queftion,    whether   the 
 
 *  Epiph.  Hxrcf.  7<5.  p.  916.  Socrat.  E.  H.  1.  4.  c.  7.  p.  i-jC. 
 'i'hcodorit.  Hsrer.  Fab.  1.  4.  c.  3.  Cyjrill.  Alex.  Theiaur.  p.  260. 
 Ed.  Parif.  yyUl  c 
 
 t  Philoflorg.  lib,  I.  p.  468.   Ed.  ValeC 
 
 X  2i  Ejfence 
 
5„8        ^D^'fiNi^^J^Sjc? 
 
 EJfence  of  God  be  above  Co?n^refjei\fion,  or  no. 
 The  Catholicks  ftood  up  for  the  j^ffirmative, 
 the  wifer ,  bur  bolder  Arlans  mainrain'd  the 
 Negative:  And  this,  is  what,  if  you  undcr- 
 ftand  your  own  Principles,  and  will  be  at  the 
 Pains  ro  trace  Them  to  the  lafl  refuk,  youl 
 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  Englifli  Socinians  have 
 expreis'd  Themfelves  as  roundly,  upon  this  Head, 
 as  any  of  the  Antient  -^r/^/zj",  or  Eunomians  -, 
 declaring  the  divine  Nature  to  be  no  more  my- 
 fierloiis  than  that  of  his  Creatures.  Such  Af- 
 fertions  are  fliocking;  but  there  is  a  necefiity 
 for  them,  if  Ibme  Men  will  be  confiftent,  and 
 ingenuous  enough  to  fpcak  out.  They  would 
 not  advance  luch  bold  Paradoxes,  if  They  we;;c 
 not  forc'd  to  it. 
 
 Beftjte  I  leave  this^^/^ry,  it  will  be  proper 
 to  acquaint  our  Readers  what  we  mean  by  be- 
 lieving Myjlertes,  For  I  find  that  this  is  a 
 Matter  which  is  apt  to  give  great  Offence,  and 
 to  occafion  many  fad  and  tragical  Complaints. 
 *  Dr.  JVhitby  is  one  of  the  moft  confiderable 
 Men  that  I  have  obferved  giving  into  that  po- 
 pular way  ofReafoning,  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  Article  of 
 Faith,    which  is  not  to  be  nnderJJood:    Apd 
 
 •  Dif^uif.  Modeft.  Praef.  p,  19. 
 
 ebferves, 
 
C^u.XXL         of  fome  (QUERIES.        309 
 
 obferves,  that  no  Man  in  his  fobcr  Senfes  can 
 give  his  aflent  to  what  He  Jinde^^Jiands  not; 
 meaning,,  underftands  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  fiber,  or  otherwife,  can  do  it. 
 For ,  undoubtedly ,  where  there  is  no  Idea , 
 there  can  be  no  AfTent;  becauie  ajfenttng  to 
 nothing,  is  the  very  fame  with  not  ajfenting. 
 Thus  tar,  we  are  perfed:ly  agreed.  But  for  the 
 clearing  up  of  this  Matter,  I  iliall  endeavor  to 
 reduce  what  relates  to  it,  to  the  following 
 Particulars,  as  fo  many  diftind;  Cafes. 
 
 li  uu 
 
 •3 
 
 I.  Let  tfee^'frrfl:  Cafe  be,  where  the  Terms  of 
 a  Propoficion,  Subjed:  and  Predicate  (or  either 
 of  Them;  are  not  at  all  underftood  by  the  Per- 
 Ibn  to  whom  it  is  given.  For  inftance;  the 
 Words,  Mene  mene  Tekel  Upharjin,  carried 
 no  Idea  at  all  with  them,  till  the  Prophet  had 
 interpreted  them ;  before  which  King  Beljhaz^ 
 z,ar  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  knowa 
 ^Language,  as  a  Perfon  underftands  not.  Only, 
 ifwould  have  it  obferv'd,  that,  in  iuch  a  Cafe, 
 a  Man  neither  admits  nor  rejcd:s  the  Tropoji- 
 s   tton ;  becaufe  to  Him  it  is  no  Tropofition,  but 
 
 meerly  Sounds  or  Syllables. 
 
 ^^^'  \i..  A  fecond  Cafe  is,  when  the  Propofition  15 
 
 r  given  in  a  Language  well  underftood,    and  in 
 
 '  Words  which  ordinarily  convey  Ideas  to  the 
 
 X  3  Mind; 
 
BiQ        ji  D  L  I   E  N  S  E  Q_u.XXL. 
 
 Mind;  but  Words  fo  put  together,  in  that  In-, 
 ftance,  as  to  furnifh  us  with  no  certain  and  de- 
 terminate Meaning.    A  late  Anonymous  Writer, 
 lias   hit  upon  a  very  proper  Example  of  this 
 very  Cafe.     ^  JVoman  ought  to  have  Tower  I 
 on  her  Head,  becattfe  of  the  Angels,     The' 
 Words,  JVoman^  Tower,  Head,  Angels,    are 
 all  plain  Words,  and  carry  with  Them  obvious 
 familiar  Ideas,     And  yet  a  Man  may  have  no 
 Idea  of  what  is  alTerted  in  that  Proportion  ; 
 and  therefore    can  give  no  affent  to  it,  more 
 than  this;  that  it  is  true  in  fomeSenfe  or  other, 
 or    that  fomething  fliould  be  believed,    if  He 
 underftood   what :    which    is  not  aflenting  to 
 that  Propofition,  but  to  Another;  namely,  that^ 
 whatever  Scripture  ajferts,  is  true.  The  afore-' 
 laid  Author  oblerves,  very  flirowdly,  that  hay- 
 ing no  certain  Ideas  of  the  Terras  of  the  Tra^^ 
 fojition,  \x  is  to  Him  a  Myflery,     I  may  add^^ 
 that  the  5P^m;/^;/ry  of  his  Obfervation  is  ano- 
 ther fuch  Myjiery ;  and  the  Juftice  and  Equity 
 of  his  drawing  a  Parallel  between  This,    and 
 xkit  Myfteries  of  Chriftianity,  properly  fb  call-; 
 ed,  mud  be  a  MyJlery  to  as  many  as  cannot 
 perceive  either  the  iJ^;/^  or  the  Ingenuity  oi 
 doing  it.     But,        ''^^^ '  ,.t.,a 
 
 V  ;^.  Another  Cafe  may  be,  when  the  Teftnis 
 of  ii  Propofition  are  underftood,  but  are  fb  con- 
 nefled  or  divided,  as  to  make  a  Propofition 
 jnanifeftly  repugnant.  A  Triangle  is  a  Square. 
 A  Globe  is  not  rounds  or  phe  like.  Such  Pro- 
 pofitions  we  rejedj  pot  becaufe  we  do  not  un- 
 /  .     ■  .  derftan4 
 
clti.XXt         o/fm/ QVERIES,        btx'; 
 
 derftand  TJiem,  but  becaufe  we  do-,' and  under-' 
 ftand  Them  to  be  Falfe.  Sometimes  indeed  a 
 Contradidion  lies  conceal'd  under  the  Words  in 
 is  couched  in,  till  it  be  rciblved  into  plainer. 
 Forlnftance:  This  Propofition,  The  Exijience 
 of  a  Firjt-Caufc  is  demo njlr able,  a  priori ;  As 
 it  lies  under  thefe  Terms,  it  feems  reducible  to 
 Cafe  che  Second ;  as  being  Sound  without  Senfe. 
 But  refolve  it  into  This;  There  is  aCaufe  prior 
 to  the  Firjl\  and  then  the  *  Repugnancy  ap- 
 pears. So  again :  NeceJJlty  of  Exijience  is 
 antecedently  {in  order  of  Nature^  the  Cmife 
 or  Ground  of  that  Exijience.  Thefe  are  only 
 lo  many  Syllables.  But  put  it  thus:  A  pro- 
 perty iV^^in  order  of  Nature,  antecedent  to^ 
 aM  the  Ground  and  Caufe  of  the  SubjeEt 
 i^hich  fupports  it ;  and  the  Contradi^ion  is 
 manifeft.  Once  more :  Neceffity  abfolute  and 
 antecedent  {in  order  of  Nature)  to  the  Ex- 
 ijience of  the  Firft- Caufe,  muji  operate  every 
 lohere  alike.  This  Propofition  feems  to  fall 
 under  Cafe  the  Second.  But  let  it  be  refolved 
 into  plainer  Words ;  and  then  it  will  appear 
 that  this  is  the  proper  place  for  it.  '^  Z '^\. 
 4.  A  fourth  Cafe  is,  when  the  Terms  of  the 
 Propofition  carry  Ideas  with  them,  Jeemingly^ 
 but  not  plainly  repugnant.  For  example :  God 
 Certainly  foreknows  Events  depending  on  Ua- 
 
 *    AAA'    oval  i7ncp)ifjV[  XoLVj^cAViryJi   r]^  ^^7jJi;x7:x.M'   uvrtj   yet^  djc  'S!f?- 
 
 Cl^.  Alex,  Srrom.  p.  6p6. 
 
 *'  X  4.  certain 
 
3IX        A  D  E  F  E  N  S  E         C^u.XXI. 
 
 certain  Cau/es.     The  omniprefent  Subflance  is 
 mot  extended,     Propofuions  of  this  kind  may 
 be.    and  are  aflented   to;    becaule  there  may 
 be   a   greater  Appearance   of  Repugnancy  on 
 the   oppofite   Side   of  the  Queftion;  or,    be- 
 caule  there  is  not  reafon  fufficient  for  lufpend- 
 ing  Adent.      *:^JUKibn!h  oa  ti  ■yx\\)i^\\'^\\\\  jud 
 5.  A  fifth  Cafe' is  j'  when  a  PropofitiSn  is 
 form'd  in  general  Terms,  and  reaches  not  to 
 fninuie  Particulars.     The  pure  in  Heart  jh all 
 fee  God.     The  Phrafe  of  Jeemg  Cod,  conveys 
 Ibme  Idea^  but  getter al  only ;  not  particular, 
 precife,  or  determinate.    At  God's  right  Hand 
 are  "Plea/ures  for  evermore.  God's  right  Hand, 
 and  T^leajures,  we  have  only  general  confufe 
 Ideas  of;  yet  Ideas  \vq  liave;  and  we  alTenr 
 as  far  as  our  Ideas   reach.     Having  no  more 
 than  a  genera!  confufe  Perception,  our  Faith  in 
 fuch  Points  can  riie  no  higher,  or  reach  no  fir- 
 ^her;  nor  can  more  be  expcded  of  us. 
 '     6.  A  fixthCafe  is,  when  the  Terms  of  a  Pro- 
 pofition  convey  Ideas ^  but  Ideas  of  pure  hi- 
 tellcdi  \  ixxoki  zs,  Imagination  can  lay  no  hold 
 of.     Philolophers  have  illuftrated  this  by  the 
 Inftances  of  a  Chiliagon  and  a  Triangle,     We 
 ^mderjiand  what   is   meant  by  a  Figure  of  a 
 Thoujand  SxdQS,  as  clearly,  as  we  do  what  is 
 meant  by  one  of  Three  only :  But  we  imaging 
 one  more  diftindly  than  the  other.     This  In- 
 flance  belongs  more   properly  to  dijiin^i  and 
 ^Qnfufe  Imagination,  than  to  the  purpofe  it  is 
 brought  for.     Ideas  of  Numbers,    in  the  Ab- 
 
 ftraa, 
 
Q^u.XXI.         of /omeQlJ  ERIE  S,        313 
 
 ftrad-^  .\are  properly  I/^eas  of  pire  Intelle^i : 
 vAndlb  are,  or  iliould  be,  our  Ideas  of  our  own 
 Souls,  of  Angels,  of  God:  We  may  tinderftand 
 leveral  Things  of  them;  h\xt  Imagination  has 
 very  little  to  do  in  fuch  Matters.     However, 
 our  not  being  able  to  imagine,  provided  we  do 
 but  underftand,  is  no  hindrance  to  our  AfTenr, 
 in  Propofuions  of  this  kind. 
 ^  '    7.  The  laft  and  cafieft  Cafe  is,    when  the 
 WTerms  convey  full  and  ftrong  Ideas  to  the  ''Un- 
 der ft  anding  ^vidi  Imagination  alio.  For  inftance: 
 The  Man  Chrift  Jefiis  ate,  drank,  Jlep,  was 
 V  crucified,    died,  and  was  buried,  8cc.     Here, 
 all  is  eafy,    clear,    and   plain,   even  to  Thofc 
 .  who  love  not  to  think  upon  the  Stretch,  or  to 
 be  under  any  pain  in  Aflenting. 
 
 ni  HNow  for  the  Application  of  the  foregoing 
 
 Particulars  to  the  point  in  Hand.     Thole  At- 
 
 tides  of  Faith,    which  the  Church    has  called 
 
 Myfteries,  belong  not  to  Cafe  the  firft  or  fe- 
 
 cond,  wherein  no  AfTent  can  be  given :  Or  if 
 
 They  do.  They  are  no  Articles  of  Faith,  but 
 
 io  many  Sounds  or  Syliabies.  It  is  to  be  hoped, 
 
 ;  They   come   not   under  Cafe   the  third:  For 
 
 r  />/^//i  Contradidions  are  certainly  noMyfteries, 
 
 2  any  more  than  flain  Truths;  as  is  juftly  ob- 
 
 ^  ierved  by  the   learned  *  Dr.  Clarke.    For  the 
 
 liame  reaibn,  They  fall  not  under  Cafe  the  fe- 
 
 hm^nth,  where  every  thing  \s  iuppoled  diftind, 
 
 clear,  and  particular  as  caix  be  dcfired,     V/hat- 
 
 ever 
 
JI4        -^DEFENSE  C^u.XX^- 
 
 ever  is   plainly  reducible  to  any  of  tht  fou?^^" 
 Cafes  now  menrion'd,  is  either  no  Matter  t>f 
 Faith  ar  all,    or  no  Myftery.    '^iier^  remaitf ' 
 three  Cafes ;  where  the  Ideas  are  either  feecn- 
 ingly  repugnant i  or  luch  as  reach  not  to  TaT^^-'' 
 ticulars,  or  fuch  as  Imagination  has  no  cori-^ 
 cern  with.     AfTent  may  be  given  in  all  theftr^ 
 Cafes,  as  hath  been  already  obferved ;  and  fo?^ 
 pofTibly,  here  we  may  find  Articles  of  Fait h^"^ 
 And,  if  fbmeGenclemen  will  give  us  leave,  aftef^ 
 we  have  thus  explain'd  what  we  mean  by  tht"' 
 Term,    we   will   call  fuch  Articles  Myjteries'r^ 
 For  Example.  ^'^ 
 
 The  Belief  of  7"/6r^^  Terfons  every  one  fing-^ 
 ly  God,  and  All  together  07ie  God,  feems  to 
 fall  under  Cafe  the  fourth :  The  Ideas  are  feem- ' 
 ingly,  not  really  repugnant.    We  know  what 
 we  mean,  in  faying  every  one,  as  clearly  as  if 
 we  faid,  any  one,  is  God\  a  Perfon  having  fuch 
 and  fuch  effential  Perfedions.    We  fee  not  per- ' 
 fedly  how  this  is  reconciled  with  the  Belief  of 
 one  God,  as  we  fee  not  how  Trefcience  is  re- 
 conciled with  future  Contingents,   Yet  we  be- 
 lieve Both,    not  doubting  but  that  there  fe^'U^'^ 
 Connexion  of  the  Ideas,  tho'  our  Faculties  readP^ 
 not  up  to  \i,  ^^ 
 
 Omnifrefence,  I  think,  is  another  Myfierft 
 and  falls  chiefly  under  Cafe  \ht  fifth.  We  hav&^' 
 a  general  confufe  Idea  of  it,  and  mean  fome-^ 
 thing  by  it.  Tho;  particular  manner  how  it  is^/ 
 we  have  no  notion  of;  and  therefore  are  not^" 
 obliged  to  believe  any  pa,rticular  Modus,     Fix 
 
 upon 
 
Q^u.XXi  of  fame  QV ERIE S.        3if 
 
 upon  this  or  that,  there  arc  appearing  Repug- 
 nancies and  Inconfiftencies ;  and  fo  far,  this  is 
 reducible  to  Cafe  the  fourth,  as  well  ^^  fifth. 
 
 The  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  ano- 
 ther Myfiery,  and  comes  under  Cafe  i\\Q  fourth 
 and  fifth.  There  are  forae  feemmg,  not  real 
 Repugnancies ;  and  the  Ideas  we  have  of  ic 
 are  general  and  confufe,  not  farticnlar  nor 
 fpecial.  Such  as  our  Ideas  are,  Jiich  mufl:  our 
 Faith  be;  and  we  cannot  believe  farther  than 
 we  conceive ;  for  Believing  is  Conceiving  \  con*, 
 ftifely,  \{  Ideas  are  confufe\  generally,  \i gene* 
 ral ;  difrinEily  and  adequately^  if  diflinci  and 
 adequate. 
 
 The  Generation  of  the  Son  of  God  i5  ano- , 
 ther  Myftery.    Ideas  we  have  of  it,  and  know3 
 what  we   mean  by  it.     But  being  Spiritual^ 
 Imagination  can  lay  no  hold  of  them ;  being 
 general  and  confufe,  we  cannot  reach  to  T^ar- 
 ticulars ;  and  being  fecmingly  repugnant,  wc,^ 
 cannot  make  out  the  entire  Connexion.    Equa*' 
 lity  of  Nature  (which  is  part  of  the  Notion) 
 is  a  general  Idea,    and  well  underftood ;    Re* 
 ference  to  a  Head  or  Fountain,    is  general 
 too,    but    more  confufe,    and  befides,  figura- 
 tive ;  Eternul  Reference  very  confufe,   as  the 
 Idea  of  Eternity  necefTarily  muft  be ;  Infefa- 
 rability,  is  general,  obfcure,  negative,  and  we 
 know  but  very  imperfe(9:Iy  what  the  Union  of 
 Spiritual  Things  means,     Neverrhelefs  we  ////- 
 derftand  enough  (tho'  we  can  imagine  little) 
 10  make  it  properly  an  Affick  of  Belief;  and 
 
 no 
 
3i6        A   D  E  F  E  N  5  E  (^XXI, 
 
 DO  Man  can  reaipnably  pretend  to  rejed  it,  ^s 
 having  no  Meaning,  ox  cdLirym^pQ  Idea  at  all 
 with  it.  We  afTent  as  far  as  om  Ideas  reach, 
 for  we  can  do  no  more :  We  beheve  in  I^art, 
 what  is  revealed  in  I>art ;  our  Faith  keeping 
 paqe  with  our  Ideas,  and  ending  where  They 
 end/  .    .         -.-,'    "'"■■       ^'  '^, 
 
 The  Simplicity  of  Gd^  is  anoiKer  ^^^/Zr^, 
 of  which  we  have  Ibme,  but  a  very  imperfedt, 
 general,  and  obfcure  Idea.  It  may  fall  under 
 Cafe  iht  fifth  and  fixth.  Scripture  fays  httlc 
 of  it :  We  have  took  it  chiefly  from  Metaphy- 
 J^cksy  w^hich  are  fliort  and  defed:ive.  When 
 we  come  to  inquire,  whether  all  extenfion,"iiX 
 all  plurality,  diverfty,  Compofition  of  SuJ?- 
 Jtance  and  Accident,  and  the  hke,  be  confiftenc 
 with  it,  then  it  is  that  we  difcover  how  cori- 
 fnfe  and  inadequate  our  Ideas  are.  And  hence 
 it  is,  that,  while  all  Parties  admit  the  divine 
 Simplicity,  in  the  general,  yet  when  they  come 
 to  be  prefs'd  with  it  in  difpute,  they  often  give 
 different  accounts  of  it ;  and  eafily  fb  explain 
 and  (late  the  Notion,  as  to  make  it  fuit  with 
 their  particular  Schemes.  To  this  Head  belongs 
 that  perplexing  Quefcion  (befet  with  Difficulties 
 on  all  Sides)  whether  the  divine  Subftance  be 
 extended  or  no.  And  if  Extenfion  be  admit- 
 ted, ingenious  thoughtful  Men  will  divide  again, 
 upon  another  Queftion, whether  infinite  or  no: 
 Some  thinking  it  very  abfurd  for  any  Attribute 
 of  God,  not  to  ht  infinite  \  others  rhinking'.it 
 2io  leis  abfurd  to  admit  any  infinite  Ex^tenfion, 
 
 Nam- 
 
(^u.XXI.         of  fome  (QUERIES.        \tr 
 
 'Number,  or  the  like,  at  all.  They  that  luppofc 
 the  divine  Subftance  extended,  left  they  Ihould 
 be  obhg'd  to  conceive  it  as  z.  J^oint  only;  and 
 left  they  fliould  admit  that  any  thing  can  ati 
 ^here  tt  is  not^  are,  when  prefs'd  with  Diffi- 
 culties about  Aliquot  Tarts,  forced  to  admit 
 that  any  part  of  That  Subftance,  how  great  fo- 
 cver,  or  of  whatever  Dimenfions,  muft  be  con- 
 ceived only  as  a  point,  in  proportion  to  the 
 ^^hole:  From  whence  it  follows,  that,  unlefs 
 ^^^  World  be  infinite,  all  that  ABs  (of  that 
 .infinite  Subftance)  in  xkitJVorld,  is  but  2, point  % 
 'and  fo  the  whole  Subftance,  except  that  point, 
 either  adts  not  at  all  in  the  fVorld^^.^qx  ads 
 ^where  it  is  not.     But  to  proceed:    Cm  * 
 
 Self-exijlence  is  another  Myfterj,  of  which 
 ^we  know  little:  And  the  learned  are  hardly 
 ^agr^ied  whether  it  be  a  negative  or  pofitive 
 ^'^i'  Yet  every  body  believes  it  in  the  grols, 
 jonfufely  and  nndeterminately.  It  is  manifeft, 
 ,;on  one  hand, that  iht  firfi  Caufe  has  noCauJe-^ 
 'Ineither  it  felf  (much  lefs  any  property  of  it  ielf ) 
 ^nor  any  thing  elfe :  And  yet  it  may  feem  very 
 "wonderful  how  any  thing  iliould  exift  without  a 
 Reafon  a  priori:,  that  is,  without  a  C^///?  for  it. 
 
 To  name  no  more :  Eternity  it  Ielf  is  the 
 greateft  Myfiery  of  all.  An  Eternity  pafi,  is 
 a  Thought  which  puzzles  all  our  Philofophy ; 
 and  is  too  hard  for  the  iliarpeft  Wits  to  re- 
 concile. The  Ntmc  fians  of  the  Schools 
 (though  older  than  the  Schools)  has  been  ex- 
 ploded ;  and  yet  SucceJJion  carries  with  it  in- 
 
 fuperable 
 
3i8       yfj^Wi^WSE        W"^- 
 
 fupcrable  Difficulties." '"There  is  nctlimg  pecuf- 
 liar  ro  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity,  any  thiiig 
 near  lb  perplexing  as  Eteritity  is:  And  yet  the 
 Gentlemen,  wKo  are  for  difcarding  Alyjterie^ 
 are  forc'd  to  beh'eve  it.  I  know  no  Remedy 
 for  theie  Things,  but  an  humble  Mind ;  a  juft 
 Senfe  of  our  Ignorance  in  many  Things,  and  of 
 our  imperfed  Knowledge  in  all.  Now  to  re- 
 turn  ro  the  learned  Dr  Whitby  ^1^ 
 
 After  a  view  of  the  Premifes,  it  mighto'e 
 proper  to  ask  Him,  whether  He  diflikes  the 
 Catholick  Dodrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  as 
 perceiving  ContradiEiions  in  it.  If  this  be  the 
 Cafe,  however  concerned  I  am  for  that  Do- 
 drine  (believing  it  ro  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  at'^ 
 ways  welcome,  in  any  Caufe,  and  from  any 
 Hand,  to  all  fober  and  confiderate  Men.  Buc 
 if  this  could  be  done.  He  fliould  not  then  com- 
 plain that  He  tmderftands  not  the  Do(3:rine> 
 but  that  -He  underftands  (i.  e.  4ifii^i£ih  per^ 
 ceives)  it  to  be  Falfe.    \?^^-^  «  ''■      "^"'^ 
 
 If  He  means  that  He  has  no  Idea  at  all  q| 
 the  Myftery,  not  fo  much  as  a  general,  con- 
 fufe,  or  inadequate  Apprehenfion  of  it ;  that 
 muft  be  a  miftake :  as  may  appear  from  what, 
 hath  been  before  obferved.  Befides  that  hav;: 
 ing  once,  or  oftner,  wrote  for  it;  (tho'  He 
 has  fince  laboured  very  much  to  perplex,  puz- 
 zle, and  dilparage  it)  every  candid  Man  muft 
 
 believe- 
 
Q^u.XXI.         af  fome  Q^UERIES.        319 
 
 believe  that  He  underftood,  in  (brae  meafurc , 
 ibrmerly,  what  He  ingaged  in  the  Proof  of. 
 y  If  the  Cafe  be  that  He  does  not  throughly, 
 fully,  and  adequately  comprehend  it,  and  there- 
 fore demurs  to  it;  then  it  iliould  be  confidered, 
 that  the  refult  of  all  is  this  only ;  that  He  will 
 not  admit  ib  far  as  He  may  underftand,  unleft 
 He  may  have  the  privilege  to  underftand 
 fbmerhing  more :  Which  whether  it  be  not  too 
 familiar  from  a  Creature  towards  his  Cre^itor^ 
 and  articling  more  ftridly  with  Almighty  God 
 fhan  becomes  Us,  let  any  wife  Man  judge. 
 
 If,  laftly,  it  be  pretended  that  it  is  a  Hitman^ 
 not  2.T)ivim  Dodrrine,  which  He  is  pleafed  to 
 quarrel  with';  then  let  Him  cenfure  it  as  Hu- 
 man and  ^Onfcriptural  only;  and  not  as  un- 
 mtelltgtbie^  and  impojjlble  to  be  ajfented  to ; 
 and  then  we  may  bring  the  Caufe  to  a  fhorc 
 IfTue  by  inquiring,  whether  the  Dodrine  be 
 Scriptural,  or  no.  Let  Things  be  called  by 
 their  right  Names,  and  fet  in  their  true  and 
 proper  Light;  that  Truth  may  not  be  {mother'd, 
 nor  any  Dodrine  (efpecially  fo  Antient  and  fo 
 Important  a  Dodrine)  condemn'd,  before  we 
 know  why.  So  much  we  owe  to  the  Church 
 of  Chrift,  which  receives,  this  Faith  ;  to  the  Blef- 
 'fed  Saints  and  Martyrs,  many  Centuries  upwards, 
 Avho  lived  and  died  in  it;  to  Truth,  to  God,  and 
 To  our  Selves,  as  to  lee  that  it  be  fairly  and  im- 
 partially examined ;  that  proving  all  Things^ 
 as  we  ought  to  do,  in  Sincerity  and  Singlenefs 
 of  Heart ,  we  may,  at  length ,  be  both  wile 
 I  ^.  ,  enough 
 
320        ^DEFENSE  Q^u.XXI. 
 
 enough  to  know,  and  fuitably  di(pofed  to  hold 
 faji  that  which  is  good. 
 
 It  is  excellently  reoiark'd  by  the  ingenious 
 Mr.  Emlyn,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  *  Narra* 
 five:  '•  That  the  Holy  Scriptures  require  no 
 *'  accurate  Philoiophical  Notions  of  God*s  Eter- 
 *'  nity ,  Omniprefence  ^  and  Immenfity,  8cc. 
 •*  They  are  content  to  give  us  popular,  eafyac- 
 
 •'  counts  of  thefe  Matters They  trouble 
 
 •'  nor  Men  with  the  Niceties  of  eternal  Sue- 
 •'  cejjhns,  or  an  eternal  to  nj^y  without  Sue- 
 •'  cejjiou:,  nor  with  infinite  Spaces,  or  of  God*s 
 •'  being  prefent  in  part,  or  in  whole  \  and  the 
 
 "  like  metaphyfical  Difficulties. Our  Reli- 
 
 •'  gion  impoles  no  fuch  Difficulties  on  us,  of 
 *'  believing  with  the  underftanding,  what  we 
 *'  cannot  fb  much  as  perceive  by  it;  it  only 
 •'  requires  us  to  believe  what  it  reveals  to 
 **  us,  i.e.  to  our  Underjianding  and  Appre- 
 "  henfion. 
 
 All  this  is  very  rightly  and  judicioufly  ob- 
 ferved.  God's  Eternity  and  Omniprefence  \yc 
 have  only  general  and  confafe  Ideas  of;  Scri- 
 pture has  not  revealed  to  us  the  particular  mO' 
 dus,  or  minute  Circumftances  of  Either;  and 
 we  are  not  obliged  to  believe,  any  other- 
 wile  than  as  we  apprehend  ( /.  e.  confufely 
 and  inadequately)  nor  indeed  is  it  poffible.  The 
 fame  is  the  Cale  of  three  Perfons,  every  one 
 truly  Qody  and  ail  but  one  God;  fb  far  evident 
 from  Scripture,    and  apprehended,    in  the  ge- 
 
 •  Pag.  (5i. 
 
 neral 
 
(iu.XXI.         of  fome  Q^UERIE^.        ^\i 
 
 neral,  as  fully  and  clearly  (perhaps  more  fb)  a^ 
 Eternity ,  Omniprefence ,  or  the  like.  But 
 the  particular  modus.  How  the  Three  are  One:, 
 and  the  7ninute  Circumftances  of  their  Unioii 
 and  T>iJim6iton,  are  as  much  a  fccret  to  us, 
 as  how  God  forefees  future  Contingents ,  or 
 is  prclcnt  in  all  places  at  once.  Many  have 
 been  prying  ani  inqutfitive  into  this  Mat- 
 ter, hoping  to  lUiow  (bmething  more  parti- 
 cularly of  it,  till  they  have  come  to  doubt 
 even  of  the  Thing  it  lelf,  and  lb  have  fallen 
 into  Herejy  :  And  Catholich  have  fbmc- 
 times  exceeded,  in  this  way,  endeavoring  to 
 explain  beyond  ihtu  Ideas  \  which  is  really  no- 
 thing elfe  but  multiplying  Words.  The  No- 
 tion  is  foon  ftated,  and  lies  in  a  little  Compaft, 
 All  that  Words  are  good  for,  after,  is  only  to 
 fix  and  prefcrve  that  Notion,  which  is  not  im- 
 provable (  without  a  new  Revelation )  by  any 
 new  Idea  ;  but  may  be  obfcured  and  ftifled  iri 
 a  multitude  of  Words.  The  mod  ufeful  words, 
 for  fixing  the  Notion  of  T)ijlin^ion,  are  Ter^ 
 fon,  Hypojiajls,  Snbfiftence,  and  the  like :  For 
 the  'Divinity  of  each  Perfon,  ofioti(nc^y  kymirog^ 
 eternal,  uncreated,  immutable,  &c.  For  their 
 ^nion,  'J2e^;^(i)§>icr.^5  interior  Generation,  Trc^ 
 cejjion ,  or  the  like.  The  deffgn  of  theie 
 Terms  is  not  to  enlarge  our  Views,  or  to  lidd 
 any  thing  to  our  Stock  of  Ideas ;  but  to  iecure 
 the  plain  fundamental  Truth ,  that  Father , 
 Sou,  and  Holy  Ghojl  are  all  ftridly  divine  and 
 uncreated'^  and  yet  are  not  three  Gods,   but 
 
 Y  one 
 
31X        ^DEFENSE  Qy.XXI. 
 
 one  God.      He  that  believes  this  (Imply,  and 
 in  the  general,  as  laid  down  in  Scripture,  be- 
 lieves enough ;  and  need  never  trouble  his  Head 
 with  nice  Queftions,  whether  the  Union  of  three 
 Perfons  iliould  be    call'd  individual  or  Jpeci- 
 Jick ;  whether  Terfon  and  Being  are  reciprocal 
 Terms  ,-  whether  every  Perlbn  may  be  properly 
 faid  to  h<^Selfexijient\  ho^j^hree  Perlbns  can 
 be  ail  in  the  fame  Tlace-.^'^czhev  all  Terfe- 
 6lion  might  not  as  well  have  been  confin'd  \oone 
 ^erfon  only ;  or  whether  One  might  not  have 
 been  as  good  as  Three,  and  the  like.     Theft 
 are  difficiles  nitg^^  moftly,  verbal,  or  vain  In- 
 quiries; and  do  not  concern  r^/^/y*?^/:^  Chriftians, 
 any  farther  than  to  be  upon  their  Guard,  that 
 they  be  not  impofcd   on  by  thefe  StibtiltieSy 
 invented  to  puzzle  and  perplex  a  plain  Scri- 
 ftnre'Truth  ^    which   is   eafily  perceived  and 
 underjlood  in  the  general^    that  is,    as  far  as 
 required  to  be  believed.      Minute  Particulars 
 about  the  modus,  may  be  left  to  the  '\Difptiters 
 of  this  World,  as  a  Trial  of  their  good  Senley 
 their  Piety,  Modelly,    and  Humility.  a.^ 
 
 We  do  not  take  it  well  to  be  reproach'd,  as 
 running  too  far  into  Metaphyfical  Subtilties,  by 
 Men  whole  peculiar  Talent  it  is,  to  play  their 
 Metaphyfcks,  (that  is,  their  Trefumptions 
 about  the  Nature  of  aThing  whereof  they  know 
 little)  againft  Scripture  and  Antiquity,  the  beft 
 Guides  in  thofe  Searches.  If  the  Catholicks 
 have  fometimes  gone  farther  than  was  neceflary, 
 iu  particular  Explications,  it  iliould  be  remem- 
 bered 
 
Q^u.XXI.  of  fome  Q^UERIES.        3I3 
 
 ber'd  for  whofe  fake  They  did  ir ;  and  that  it 
 was  chiefly  with  a  view  to  latisfy  fiich  as  would 
 not  be  contented  with  the  general  Truth 
 laid  down  in  Scripture.  I  iliall  Ihow ,  by  an 
 Inftance  or  two,  how  that  Matter  is.  The 
 'sfef;^ig>]7i?  and  interior  Generation,  are  two 
 Specialities  tanghc  by  the  Catholicks ,  and 
 heavily  complained  of  by  your  Friend  *  Dr. 
 Whitby,  as  nnfcriptnral  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 
 conceived  to  hang  upon  the  other;  fo  that  your 
 quarrel  with  us  for  thele,  is  really  finding  fault 
 with  our  leading  and  fundamental  Dodrine  of 
 One  God  in  ThreeT^erfons.  But  to  fliow  you,  how 
 unequal  you  are  in  cenfuring  us  io^ttnfcriptural 
 Terms,  obferve  the  Courfe  and  Method  of  dilpute 
 which  draws  us  firft  into  it.  You  argue,  fuppofe, 
 that  the  Son  cannot  be  God,  in  the  ftrid:  Seufe, 
 without  making  Two  Gods :  We  anfwer,  that 
 Father  and  Son,  by  a  rnofl  intimate  and  in- 
 effable Union  of  SttbJIance,  Will,  Tower,  Tre* 
 fence.  Operation,  Sec.  (which  we  call  ^^^x^" 
 g'^^Ti^)  may  be  one  God.  You  argue  again,  that 
 if  the  Son  be  a  Son,  in  our  Senfe,  there  muft 
 be  a  divifion  and  fep urate  Exiftence :  We  fay. 
 No ;  alledging  that  He  may  be  a  Son  in  a  pro- 
 per Senfe,  and  in  our  Senle,  without  "Divifion 
 and  without  a  y?/^r^^^  Exiftence;  and  the  name 
 
 =*  Difqjiifit.  Modei?.-  Pracf,  ^.  xCu 
 
314        ^DEFENSE  du.XXt 
 
 for  this  is  interior  Generation.  After  we  are 
 come  thus  far,  purfning  your  vvandrings  into 
 the  Tbilofo^hy  of  the  Thing,  you  ftcp  back 
 again,  and  tell  us,  that  Scripture  fays  nothing 
 of  this  'z^ix^'^^^';,  or  interior  Generation.  Sup- 
 pofing  (not  granting)  your  Pretence  true ;  Did 
 You  let  out  upon  the  Foot  of  Scripture  ?  Does 
 Scripture  any  where  tell  you,  that  two  divine 
 Perlons  cannot  be  one  God?  Or  x\\2X  Father 
 and  Son  murt:  have  ;x/eparate  ExiJIence?  You^ 
 argue  only  from  the  Nature  and  Reafbn  of  the. 
 Thing  it  felf  of  which  you  have  no  adequate 
 Idea\  and  we  anfwer  what  is  fufficicnt,  and 
 more  than  fufficicnt  to  confute  meet  Conjedtures. 
 in  Matters  above  your  reach.  Lay  You  afidc 
 your  unfcriptttral  Objections,  and  We  fliall 
 have  no  occafion  for  unfcriptural  Anfwers. 
 
 I  lliall  juft  take  notice  of  an  artificial  Turn  of 
 Mr.  Emlyn's,  relating  to  this  Subjed ;  and  then 
 put  an  end  to  this  long,  but,  I  hope,  ufeful  Di- 
 greffion.  His  Words  are  as  follows:  *"  The 
 *'  Tride  of  Reafon,  which  hindred  {theTagan^ 
 '*  Thilofophers)  from  beheving  in  Chrift,  did 
 •*  not  lie  in  rcfufing  ro  fabmit  their  Faith  to 
 **  myjlerious  Speculations,  which  puzzled  their 
 *'  Reafon:  but,  on  the  Contrary,  it  lay  in  a 
 *'  proud  AfTedation  of  Swelling  Words  and 
 ••  Philofophick  Myfteries,  and  nor  humbling 
 *'  their  Underftandings  to  receive  a  plain  Go- 
 *'  fpel,  and  familiar  Dodrine, 
 
 The  Thought  is  ingenious,  and  might  pals  Weil ; 
 
 *"  Mxam.  of  Dr.  Bcrincr,,  ^c.  p,  j-.  IntroduB. 
 
 if 
 
Qu.XXL  of  fome  (QUERIES.         31J 
 
 if  Hiflory,  like  Metaphyjical  Arguments,  were 
 ro  be  made  merely  by  ftrengch  of  Wit.  He  forgets 
 that  the  Alyjiery  of  the  RefurreEiion  was  one  of 
 thofe//^/;/  familiar  Things,  which  the  Tr'tde 
 of  their  Reafon  refufed  to  iubmit  to.  He  con- 
 fiders  not  that  the  Jews,  and  the  earh'eft  Here- 
 ticks  (much  of  the  lame  Temper  with  the  Ta- 
 gan  Philofophers)  were  offended  at  nothing 
 more  than  at  the  Myftery  of  God  Incarnate ; 
 which  we  learn  from  Ignatius,  Jufin,  ^  Ire- 
 iiteus,  ^  Tertullian ,  and  ^  other  antient  Wri- 
 ters: And  He  need  but  look  into  Jnjiin^ 
 Tatian,  and  Origen,  to  find  that  the  Tagans^ 
 in  particular,  were  in  the  fame  Sentiments,  and 
 join'd  in  the  fame  common  Charge  againft  the 
 Chriftian  Dodtrine.  Nay,  it  may  farther  ap- 
 pear, from  other  ^  Evidences,  that  the  very 
 Myflery  of  the  Trinity,  which  is  the  Rock  of 
 Offence  to  fome  even  at  this  Time,  gave  very 
 early  Ofl^ence  to  the  Tagan  Wits;  and  was 
 much  difrelifli'd  by  Them  :  So  averfe  were  They 
 to  the  receiving  of  Myfteries :  And  the  Tride 
 oi  Reafon  wrought,  at  that  Time,  much  after 
 the  fame  manner,  as  it  does  at  this  day ;  Hu- 
 
 a  Secundum  nullam  Sentcntiam  Hasreticorum  Vcrbum  Dei  caro 
 fadlum  eft.     Iren.  \.  3.  c.  11.  p.  189. 
 
 b  Incredibile  praefumpferant  Deum  Carnem.  Tertull.  Contr, 
 Marc.  1.  3.  c.  8. 
 
 c  Alii  quoque  Haeretici  ufque  adeo  Chrifti  manifeftam  amplexa.ti 
 fant  Divinitarem,  uc  dixerint  Ilium  fuilTe  fine  Carnej  &  Totum 
 illi  fufceptum  detraxerint  Hominem,  ne  decoquerent  in  illo  Divini 
 nominis  poteftatem  fi  Humanam  illi  SocialTcnt,  ut  arbitrabanlur, 
 Nativitatem.     Novat,  c.  18. 
 
 d  Luciaa.  Philopatr.  Athan.  Orat.  3.  p.  y54. 
 
 Y  3  joaaa 
 
3i6        y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E         Q^u.XXIL 
 
 man  Nature  being  always  the  fame.     But  it  .i§ 
 now  high  time  to  proceed.  tf^ 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       XXII. 
 
 Whether  his  ( the  Dodor's )  whole  "Perform- 
 ance,  whenever  He  differs  from  us,  be 
 any  thing  more  than  a  Repetition  of  this 
 jijfertion,  that  Being  and  Perfon  are  the 
 fame,  or  that  there  is  no  Medium  between 
 Tritheiim  and  SabeUianifra  ?  Which  is  re- 
 moving the  caufe  fror/i  Scripture  to  natural 
 Reafon,  not  very  cojtfifiently  with  the  Title 
 of  his  Book, 
 
 IT  is  of  fmall  Importance  to  obferve  how  the 
 Dodlor  has  proved  fuch  Points,  as  He  and 
 We  Both  agree  in.  He  might  have  fpared  the 
 iinnecelTary  Pains  and  have  took  a  iliorter 
 way  with  us,  had  his  Caufe  been  fuch  as  could 
 be  ferved  by  clofe  Argument.  He  need  not 
 have  to!d  us  fo  often  that  the  Father  is  emi- 
 nently (tiled,  the  one  God,  or  that  the  Son 
 IS  Subordinate,  We  allow  all  That:  The 
 Confequence  which  He  drawls  from  it,  and  co- 
 vertly infinuates  to  his  Reader,  is  the  Thing 
 \vc  doubt  of  This  was  the  Point  which  iliould 
 have  been  Jabour'd,  for  the  ConvicSlion  of  wife 
 and  confidering  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  J^oint  ofT>ifference, 
 
 the 
 
Qu.XXn.        of  fome  (QUERIES.         ^7 
 
 the  pinch  of  the  ^uejfion,  there  it  \s  that  He 
 difcovers  his  want  of  Proof ,  and  how 
 little  He  has  to  depend  on,  befides  that  one 
 precarious  Principle  intimated  in  the  ^lery  ; 
 which  indeed  runs  thro*  his  whole  Performance, 
 and  is  often  fuppos'd,  but  never  prov'd. 
 
 By  this  Principle  He  ^eludes  the  Force  of  the 
 firft  Chapter  ofSt.yohu'sGofpcl ;  And  He  refers 
 to  it  again  upon  ^  ^^s  io.  28.  ^'  i  Tim.  3.16. 
 jfoh,  5-.  18.  By  the  fame  Principle,  He  evades 
 the  Force  of  ^Joh.S.^i.  ^  Job.  ix.^i.  ^  Job, 
 5*. 2 3.  And  fo  He  m.ight  have  done  with  any 
 Number  of  Texts ,  however  full  and  exprels 
 for  the  Received  Dodrine:  For,  by  the  fame 
 s  Maxim,  He  draws  over  the  Nice^te-CxeeA^ 
 and  does  not  dcfpair  of  bringing  in  the  "^  Atba- 
 nafuin  alio.  From  hence  it  is  vifible,  wherein 
 the  {lren2;th  of  his  Performance  liesj  and  what 
 it  is  that  He  chiefly  trufts  to.  It  is  not  Scri- 
 pture^ it  is  not  Antiquity,  but  a  ^bilofopbical 
 Principle;  to  which  Scripture,  Fathers,  Coun- 
 cils, Creeds,  every  Thing,  muft  yield.  And  in- 
 deed had  it  been  a  principle  of  true  zn^  found 
 Fhilofophy,  every  reafonable  Man  would  be 
 willing  to  pay  the  utmofl:  Deference  to  it:  But 
 it  appears,  at  length,  to  be  that  kind  of  vain 
 ^hilofopby,  which  is  often  intruding  where  it 
 has  nothing  to  do.  The  Subjed:  is  iiiblime  and 
 ^^bove  Comprehenfion.    We  have  no  intrinfick 
 
 a  Script.  Doflr.  p.  86.      b  Id.  p.  87.      c  li.  p.  88.  p7.    d  lA. 
 p.  99.  e  p.  101,  fp.  ijz.  gp'4<^>-  h  p.  4iS. 
 
 430.  43J-,  &c. 
 
 Y  4  Evi- 
 
jiB        ^DEFENSE         du.XXII, 
 
 Evidence,  no  Ideas  to  build  any  thing  certain- 
 ly  upon.     Extrinfick  Evidence,    'Divine  Re- 
 velation, is  here  all  m  all ;  And  the  only  pro- 
 per ufe  of  our  rational  Faculties,  is  to  inquire 
 into  the  true  and  genuine  Senib  of  it.     To  phi- 
 lojofhiz^e  here  from  the  Nature  and  Reafou 
 of  the  Thing  it  iclf,  of  which  we  know  little, 
 is  chufing  to  be  ftill  in  the  Dark,  when  we  have 
 Light  before  us ;  and  is  nor,  properly,  following 
 ouri?^^y^;/,but  owx  Conceits,  Fancies,  md  fond 
 Conjeliures.  You  are  pleafed  to  fay,  in  Defence 
 pf  the  learned  Dod:or,  that  if  He  had  done  no 
 more  than  proved  intelligent  Being  and  Per- 
 {on  to  be  the  fame,  it  fnuft  for  ever  remain 
 an  zLnanfwerable  T)iffculty,  &c.  Right,  if  He 
 \\zd  proved  wh^x:  He  has  not,  Ibmething  might 
 be  faid.     I  have  *  before  oblerved  to  you,  thac 
 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  referved,  after  your  Example, 
 in  fo  tender  a  point;  and  for  endeavoring  to 
 Ipeak  properly,  as  well  as  to  think  JnJI/y,  in 
 things  pertaining  unto  God.  AH  that  the  Doctor 
 hath  proved,  or  can  prove,  is  only  this ;  that 
 feparate  Perfons  are  fo  many  intelligent  Be- 
 ings ;  which  we  readily  admit :  But  united  Per- 
 fons, or  Perfons  having  no  feparate  ExifiencCy 
 may  be  07ie  Being,    qne  Snbflance,    one  God, 
 notwithftanding.     And  that  you  may  not  think 
 that  I  Skreen  my  iclf  under  dark  Words,  or 
 olfcure  DiftindioKS,  I  will  tell  you  frankly  th^ 
 f  Qup.  p.  j57o  mean- 
 
C^u.XXII.        €f  fome  Q^UERIES.        319 
 
 meaning  of  what  I  have  now  (aid.  It  is  lit- 
 tle more  than  this,  that  Perfbns  <b  united  as 
 to  make  one  Being,  may  be  ojie  Being.  I  fup- 
 pofe  the  jiffirmative ,  that  They  ifiay  be  fo 
 tnuted\  having  fufficient  Grounds  for  it  in  Scri- 
 pture, and  in  CathoHck  Antiquity.  It  lies  up- 
 on you,  in  this  Cafe,  to  prove  the  Negative^ 
 VIZ,,  that  no  Union,  whatever,  can  make  two 
 Perlbns  one  Being,  one  tJ  ©eTo/,  one  God:  Yoii 
 are  to  Hiow  theSuppofition  to  be  impofTible,  in 
 the  Nature  of  the  Thing:  That  is  (as  I  humbly 
 conceive)  you  are  to  prove  what  you  can  know 
 nothing  of;  and  are  to  work  up  a  Dcmonftra* 
 tion  without  Ideas,  There  the  Matter  refts, 
 and,  I  am  perfwaded,  muft  reft,  till  you  pleafe 
 to  come  out  of  Metaphyjicks ;  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  \^  our  Rule  to  go  by,  for  form- 
 ing our  Notions  of  God;  and  not  the  light  of 
 Nature,  which  is  darknefs  in  Comparifon. 
 
 You  are  ofTended  at  the  ^leriji  for  laying 
 that  the  Dod'or  admits  no  Aleditim  between 
 Tritheififi'  and  Sabellianifrn.  I  lliould  have 
 laid,  it  leems,  no  Mediu7n  for  his  Adverfaries, 
 
 yivaax-etv   uv3-f)a)?n}iq   owxtvv,   u?iXu.    tjj    uvaB-iv    i7n    raw?   aj^ss    ocv^pxg 
 ■V]viy.x,ZTK  ;(547TA.-/»irjj  dheiZ,     Jufl:.  Mart.  ParJEn.  p.  6o» 
 
 iTSwt?  ssrrwjri;  u<?ti:2ctrVT7i\  v[ju«r-:,     ibid,  p«  \  lo.   E^,  Oi;, 
 
 and 
 
330        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXII. 
 
 and  you  wonder  at  (b  palpable  a  mtjiake.  In- 
 deed, che  meaning  of  what  I  (aid  was  fb  pal- 
 pable^ that  there  was  no  occafton  for  guard; 
 while  I  liippofed  my  fclf  writing  to  a  Man  of 
 Senie.  You  have  took  it  right  io  far :  The 
 Dodor  allows  Us,  his  Adverfaries,  no  Medium, 
 But  I  had  an  Eye  to  fomeching  more,  viz,,  that 
 He  has,  by  the  fame  Principle,  left  no  Medium 
 for  Hirafelf ;  as  I  iliall  iliow  you,  in  due  Time. 
 I  am  only  to  obferve  now,  that  it  is  not  from 
 Scripture,  or  from  Catholick  Antiquity,  chat  the 
 Dodor  has  Icarn'd  this  Maxim,  of  no  Medium 
 (for  fuch  as  believe  Chrill:  to  be  ejfentially 
 God)  between  Sabellianifin  and  Tritheijm. 
 This  was  what  I  complained  of,  his  making  a 
 Pompous  Appearance  of  Scripture  and  Fathers, 
 when  the  whole  is  made  to  depend  upon  a 
 meer  philofophical  Queftion ,  which  is  to  be 
 the  Rule  and  Meaiiirc  to  try  Scripture  ^nd  Fa- 
 thers by.  Let  Scripture,  or  Fathers  appear 
 ever  fo  ftrong  and  clear  for  fuch  a  Mediu7ni 
 They  are  condemn'd  before-hand ,  either  to 
 ipeak  another  Senle,  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  Do(3:or,  inftead 
 of  favouring  us  with  any  proof  of  his  main  Po- 
 iition  which  gives  the  Law  to  the  reft,  has  only 
 often  repeated  it ;  which  \s  no  more  than  to 
 fay,  there  cannot  be  any  Medium,  in  the  Cafej 
 no,  there  cannot.  We  do  not  pretend  to  be 
 wife  cnoiigU  to  know  any  thing,  a  priori,  whe- 
 ther 
 
Q^u.XXII.        of  fowe  QVEKIES.        331 
 
 ther  there  can,  or  there  cannot ;  But,  a  pojie- 
 r'lori,  we  may  inquire  after  FaEi :  And  if  wc 
 find  by  Scripture,  rightly  undcrflood,  that  there 
 really  is  iiich  a  Medmm ;  we  Ihali  not  be  con- 
 cern'd  for  any  pretended  Strength  of  your  Ala- 
 xim  againft  it. 
 
 Our  Defence  then  againft  the  Charge  of  Trl- 
 the'ifm  will  be  as  follows.  By  comparing  Scri- 
 pture with  Scripture,  we  plainly  find  that  the 
 divme  Unity  is  not  an  Unity  of  Tcrfon :  We 
 obferve,  that  there  are  more  Pcrlbns  than  one 
 dignified  with  the  fame  high  Titles  of  Lord, 
 God,  &c.  inverted  with  the  lame  high  Powers, 
 Attributes,  and  Perfedions ;  and  intitled  to  the 
 lame  Honour,  Worfliip,  and  Adoration :  And 
 yet  the  Scripture  never  tells  us  of  two  true 
 Gods,  but  conftantjy  alTerts  that  God  is  One. 
 Wc  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  "worpifd,  and 
 the  Son  is  vuorjlnfd,  and  yet  we  find  no  Foun- 
 dation for  afi^erting  two  Obje^s  of  IVorfoip, 
 ox  Two  JVorJloips :  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  (otherwile  indeed 
 ^itheifm  is  unavoidable)  and  thus  the  Scri- 
 pture-notion of  Unity  is  of  more  Perfons  thau 
 One  in  the  iame  Godhead.     What  confirms  us 
 
 in 
 
35^         ^/DEFENSE        Qjj.XXU. 
 
 in  this  rcafoning,  is  that  our  Bleflcd  Lord  has 
 told  us,  that  He  and  the  Father  are  one;  that 
 whofbever  hath  feeu  Him.  hath  Jeen  the  Fa- 
 the?^',  that  He  is  in  the  Father,  and  the  Fa- 
 ther in  Him ;  and  very  famih'arly  fpeaking  of 
 the  Father  and  Himfelf,  He  iays,  we  will  come 
 unto  Him  (that  loveth  Chrift)  and  make  our 
 abode  with  Him.  Thefe  Things  ierve  to  illu- 
 ftrate  and  explain  each  other ;  and,  ail  together, 
 abundantly  make  good  the  Pofition  before  laid 
 down,  that  *  Father  and  Son  are  one  God,  Ac- 
 cordingly the  Prophet  f//^/^^,  as  interpreted  by 
 :j:  St.  "jfohn,  makes  them  Both  to  be  One  Holy^ 
 Holy,  Lord  of  Hojls^xh^x^m  fignifying  both  the 
 Difdndion  of  Perfons,  and  Unity  of  Godhead. 
 Thefe  Confiderations  (with  many  others  too  long 
 to  recite)  convince  us  that  there  is  a  Medium, 
 (laving  the  Son's  ejfential  Divinity)  between 
 Sabellianifm  and  Tritheifm.  We  artert  noc 
 Three  Ablblute,  Original,  Co-ordinate  Divi- 
 nities, like  the  Marcionites  ;  We  feparate  not 
 the  Perfons  from  each  other,  with  the  Arians  \ 
 we  hold  noc  a  meer  Jpecifck  Unity  (fuch  as 
 between  two  Individuals  of  any  Species,  two 
 Men,  forlnftance)  If  we  did  any  of  thefe,  there 
 might  be  fome  colour  for  the  Charge  of  Tri- 
 theifm.    But  we  acknowledge,  with  the  Scri- 
 
 *  7  have  hitherto  waved  the  Conflderation  of  the  Holy-Ghoftj  for 
 toh'tch  reit[on  alfo,  I  pafs  it  over  here,  confining  my  felf  chiefly  to  the 
 point  of  the  ^or,'s  Divinity,  -rvhich  if  fufficiently  dear  J,  the  other,  I 
 fuppofe,  may  be  admitted  -without  Scruple. 
 
 t  Ifjl.  (:h.6.  :f:  Joh.  12.  41. 
 
 Vid.  Athanaf.  p.  S77.  SS9,  Ed.  Bencd. 
 
 ptures. 
 
Q^u.XXIL        of  fime  QUERIES.        333 
 
 prures,  one  God  the  Father  with  his  Co-ejfen- 
 ^ial and  Co-eternal  Son  and  Spirit;  One  Head 
 and  Fountain  of  all;  the  three  Divine  Feribas 
 being  One  in  Nature,  One  in  Knowledge,  in 
 Prelence,  in  Operation  and  Energy  ;  never  Se- 
 parate, never  Afundcr ;  didind:  witliout  Divi- 
 fion,  united  without  Confufion.  If  this  be  77'/- 
 the'tfm,  it  is  what  Scripture  has  taught  \5s,  and 
 what  God,  who  beft  knows  his  own  Nature, 
 hath  recommended  to  Us.  But  it  is  not  7V/- 
 theifm ;  it  is  the  true  and  only  Mediu?n,  which 
 may  be  found  by  looking  in  Scripture  for  it; 
 and  which  you  ieem  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  Thofc  who  lived, 
 nearefl:  the  Apoftolical  Age,  and  beft  knew  the 
 mind  of  the  Scriptures,  They  alio  taught  the 
 fameDodJrine  which  we  teach.  There  was  fome 
 Appearance  oiTritheifin  in  it  then,  as  there  is 
 now  ;  which  is  an  Argument  to  us,  that  it  is 
 ftill  the  lame:  But  if  any  Chriftian  ferioufly 
 took  upon  Flim  to  charge  the  Dodrinc  with 
 Trltbeifin,  and  perfifted  in  it,  He  was  imme-- 
 diately  rejeded  by  the  wiler  and  foberer  Chri* 
 ftians,  as  a  Heretick. 
 
 Traxeas  about  the  Year  186,  began  openly 
 to  charge  the  Catholkks  with  Tritheifm,  Bur 
 his  Pretences  were  eafily  defpifed  by  the  Church  j 
 and  his  Arguments  anfwer'd  by  Terttillian, 
 
334        -^DEFENSE        Qu,XXlV 
 
 Not  long  after,  Noetus  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  Charadter  of  # 
 weak  and  rafli  Man  ;  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  for  it)  that  ^  They  had  no  way  of 
 folving  the  difficulty,  but  by  making  Father  and 
 Son  one  Terfon^  and,  in  Confequence,  were 
 ^atripajjians. 
 
 About  the  middle  of  the  third  Century  arofe 
 Sabellius.  He  pretended  to  be  extremely  zea- 
 lous for  the  ^7iity,  and  ^  charged  the  Catho- 
 licks  with  aflerting  Three  Gods.  He  has  been 
 thought  to  have  refined  upon  the  Noetiau 
 Scheme  (if  we  may  call  it  refining)  by  deny- 
 ing a  God  incarnate,  after  the  Example  of  the 
 earlier  Hereticks-^  by  which  He  avoided  the 
 Error  of  the  Tatripajfians.  If  lb,  He  may  be 
 look'd  upon  as  holding  nearly  the  fame  Principled 
 with  the  modern  Socinians.  This  Conjedlure' 
 is  grounded  on  a  PafTage  in  ^  Epiphanitis,  But 
 e  St.  Anfiin  underftood  the  Matter   other  wife, 
 
 a  Epiphan.  Hxr.  ^7.  p.  480.  Theod.  Haeret.  Fab,  1. 3.  c.  3j 
 
 Hippol.  Contr.  Noct.  c.  11.  p.  14. 
 
 b  Ne  videantur  duos  Deos  dicere,  neque  rurfus  negare  Salvatoris 
 Divinitatem,  unam  eandcmqiic  Subftantiam  Patris  ac  Filii  afleve- 
 rant:  Id  efb  <iuo  quidem  iiomina  fecundum  diverfitatem  Caufaruni 
 recipientem,  Uxiam  tamen  Hypoflafin  fubfiflerc,  id  eft,  Unsm  Per- 
 ioium  duobus  nominibus  fubjacenttm,  qui  latinc  PatripaiTiani  appcl* 
 lamur.     Orig.  apud  Vamph,  Apol.  p.  226.  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 c  Epiphan.  Hxref.  6».  p.  fi4. 
 
 d  Epiphan.  Synopf,  Tom.  I.  I.  2.  P.  380.  Edo  Petay.  ^ 
 
 c  Aufi.  Hjfrei;4i.  and 
 
Q.U.XXII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.         33? 
 
 and  ihtSabellians  have  be<;n  generally  reckon'd 
 with  the  T atrip ajjians,  -,  J: 
 
 Wirhin  a  few  Years  after  Sabellius,  ^Patti 
 of  Samofata  carried  on  the  fame  Charge  of 
 3  Tritbeifin,  againft  the  Catbolicks ;  and  was  a 
 warm,  injudicious  ^Afierter  of  the  ^Onity,  con- 
 fining it  to  the  Father  only,  exclufive  of  the 
 other  Peribns.  But  the  Catholkk  Bilhops,  as 
 ^Ettfebius  informs  us,  ran  together  againfl:Him» 
 as  againft  a  Wolf,  that  was  endeavoring  to  de- 
 ftroy  the  Flock  of  Chrift. 
 
 About  Fifty  Years  after  Him,  appeared  Ariiis ; 
 who,  to  avoid  ^Tritheifr/i  (as  Fie  thought)  and 
 to  preierve  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  that 
 there  might  be  one  ^  Self  exijfent  Being,  or 
 Terfon  (The  fame  Pretexts,  in  the  main,  which 
 had  been  handed  down  by  fome  ^  before  Pra- 
 xeas,  as  well  as  by  Traxeas  Himfelf,  and 
 Noetiis,  Sabellius,  and  Paul  of  Sa?nofata) 
 denied  the  "Divinity  of  the  fecond  Perfon,  on- 
 ly allowing  a  real  Pre-exiftence,  and  fo  making 
 Him  more  antient  than  the  others  before  men- 
 tion'd  did.  Such  were  the  Men,  who  former- 
 ly (joining  therein  with  s  Jews  and  Pagans^ 
 charged  x\\^  Catbolicks  with  holding  Qi  plurality 
 of  Gods :  While  the  Catbolicks  notwithftand- 
 
 a  Epift.  Synod.  Antioch.  Lab.  Tom.  i*  p.  845". 
 
 b  Thcodoret.  Hseret.  Fab.  1.  2.  c.  S.     Athiaai.  Vel.  x.  p.  94a, 
 
 c  Euleb.  Eccl.  Hid.  1.  7    027. 
 
 d  Ep.  Alexand.  apud  Theod.  E.H.  I.  i.  c.  4, 
 
 f  Vid.  Novarian.  g.  30. 
 
 g  Achan.  Vol.i.  p-f64.  Lucian.  Philopatr. 
 
 *«gr 
 
336        yf   D  E  F  EN  S  E         Qu.XXU. 
 
 ing,  retained  the  Faith;  deipifing  the  Accufa- 
 tion,  as  weak,  falfe,  and  grcnncleis;  and  de- 
 fending Themielves  upon  luch  Principles  as 
 have  been  before  mentioned.  None  were  ever 
 condemn'd  by  the  Church  as  Tritheifts,  but 
 liich  as  either  denied  xhQ^i'iiy  oiTrincifium, 
 or  made  the  Hjpojlafcs  Heterogeneous,  fcparate 
 or  aliene  from  each  other. 
 
 We  have  feen  then,  that  there  is  no  juft 
 ground  from  Scripture  or  Antiquity,  to  charge 
 our  Dodrine  with  Tritbeijm,  If  there  be  any 
 pretence  from  the  Nature  and  Reaion  of  the 
 thing  it  felf,  it  is  of  very  flight  moment.  The 
 divine  Nature  is  bed  known  from  Revelation  : 
 It  is  from  thence  we  difcover  that  God  is  not 
 fjionTt^Quxj^TTiiy  a  fmgle  Hyfojta/is,  but  that  the 
 Father  has  his  Co  effenrial  and  Co-eternal  Son 
 and  Holy-Spirit,  always  in  Him  and  with  Him. 
 We  can  have  no  right  Conception  of  the  one  God 
 (to  ufe  the  Words  of  *  Hij^folytus)  but  by  be- 
 lieving in  a  real  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghoft. 
 This  is  the  Faith  of  the  ever  blciTed  Trinity ; 
 which  Scripture  and  Fathers  hold  forth  ro  Us ; 
 and  which  is  too  ftrongly  fupported,  to  be 
 weaken'd  by  any  Wit  or  Criticilm.  As  to 
 Thofe   who  take  Trinity  and  Tritheijm   for 
 
 *^j^  Koci  u.}iM  %)ii.6(j{^U  Tn^ujztif/^iv.     Hipp.  Contr.  Noet.  p.  i6. 
 
 1  jJmll  add  his  Doxology,  becaufe  ir  has  but  lately  appeared  In  the 
 Greek,  and  fo  has  been  lefs  took  notice  of 
 
 Oit-nq  6  Oio<;  6  uvB-^uTr©^  &i   Y.t/jU'^  y-'pve'ic,,  &»  Ttoinu  X^iTcJiiv  Uoit^p, 
 
 ttyu.  iKKAri(Tici,  KOCi  vwv,   x«*   ici\,   KO'l   gt^  ro\c  fltj&viet;   rcov  otiw&v,  eciMvo 
 
 p.  lo.  Vol.  I.  Fabric. 
 
 Synony* 
 
Q^u.XXII.        of  fome  (QUERIES.        33/ 
 
 Synonymous  Terms,  They  may  go  on  to  value 
 Themlclvcs  upon  it.  They  have  Jews,  Ta- 
 gans,  and  Hereticks,  Fifteen  Hundred  Years 
 backwards,  to  countenance  Them  in  it.  It  is 
 fufficient  to  have  ihovvn,  that  wifcr  and  better 
 Men,  the  truly  Primitive  and  Catholick  Church, 
 never  thought  it  Tritheifm-y  but  condemn'd 
 Thofe  that  thought  fo. 
 
 Having  taken  off  the  Charge  from  our  Do- 
 (ferine,  I  come,  next,  to  fix  it  upon  Your's ; 
 where,  I  humbly  conceive,  it  ought  to  lie.  I 
 do  not  pretend  that  you  are  Trithetjls,  in 
 every  Senfe;  but  in  the  fame  Scnfe  that  the 
 Tagans  are  called  Tolytbeijis,  and  in  the  Scri^ 
 pture-Senfe  of  the  word,  God,  as  explained 
 and  contended  for,  by  your  Selves.  One  di- 
 vine Terfou  is,  with  you,  equivalent  to  one 
 God \  and  Two,  to  two  Gods;  and  Three,  to 
 three  Gods:  The  Cafe  is  plain;  The  Confe- 
 quence  unavoidable.  One  Supreme,  and  two 
 Inferior  Gods,  is  your  avowed  Dodrine :  And, 
 certainlyj  the  alTerting  Three  Gods  (whether  co- 
 ordinate, or  otherwiie)  is  Tricheifm-^  againft 
 x\it  firft  Commandment ,  againft  the  whole  Te- 
 nor of  Scripture,  and  the  Principles  of  the  pri- 
 mitive Church.  Ic  is,  to  me,  an  Inftance  of  the 
 ill  effects  of  vain  Thilofophy,  and  fliows  how 
 the  T>ifputer  of  this  World  may  get  the  bet- 
 ter o^thtChriftiaU',  when  Men  appear  ih  much 
 afraid  of  an  imaginary  Error  in  Metapbjficks^ 
 and,  to  avoid  it,  run  into  a  real  One,  againft 
 Scripture  and  Antiquity.     You  tell  me,  indeed, 
 
 Z  that 
 
338         ^DEFENSE         Q^u.XXii. 
 
 that  if  I  am  pofitive  in  this,  you'i  bring  both 
 "^  Ante-N'icene  and  Nkcne- Fathers  againft  mc. 
 Bur,  let  mc  advifc  You  to  read  Them  (a  fecond 
 Time)  over;  and  you'l  fee  no  Reaion  to  be 
 Sanguine  in  this  Matter.  The  Doctor  has  cited 
 fome  Paflages  from  Them,  and  made  Them 
 feemingly  Ipeak  his  Senfc ;  though,  in  the  main, 
 Dodrine,  they  are  clearly  againft  Him  as  I  have 
 obferved  f  above.  You  appeal  to  thefe  Fa- 
 thers as  Vouchers  for  you.  But  let  us  attend, 
 however,  to  what  you  iay. 
 
 The  Anttent  JVriters  of  the  Church  un- 
 aninioufy  agree,  that  nothing  but  an  ahfolute 
 Equality  and  Co-ordination  ik  God  the  Father 
 and  the  Son,  can  make  Ther/i  fji'O  Gods,  and 
 that  the  real  Subordination  of  the  Son  to  the 
 Father  ^referves   the   Church   from    Poly- 
 
 ^  The  Sen fe  of  Ante  Nicene  and  Poft-Nicene  Fathers,  in  Relation 
 to  Tr:rh<-irm,  may  be  feen  in  the  following  Tajfages. 
 
 Ronian.  apud  Athanaf.  Vol,  i.  p.  231. 
 
 'O  ^/jV)  cityjac^  Hcnx,yK>v  auo,  ovo  x.'/,rir?ii  Ss^f^'  ahinj   MoCfxi&.'v(^  y  ovv- 
 
 ffs^eiu, 7rx>AV   6    Qsosi  uysv/iTev   hvoj   Xiy>iv,    a^Xov    Si  Qiov    ysv^jrei', 
 
 Ao   u^jj    ocircc,    >.iy^    0:-S:?<;,    ^^.  r^>    7?;  cvac/.t^  ^^Oo^mi,    ijv   /3Aacr^«- 
 yw/ft;?  iiOTxyi'  cTTH  S'b  yjicc  f/j-.y  v,  'Afy/.,  h  ob  to  s|  cscJr??  yivrfi'-joh  -        •  s^; 
 
 T«5  T^ccTe^Xrm  b-ior>]Tte,  \}z^ctpyiiC7;(;.   Athan.Contr,  Sabell-  Orcg.  p.  42. 
 
 UZq  jjv  i^c/jf  fJj'.cf,  $-<577;5,  ii  Cfrx.  if?,  x«,9-'  Vf/^ot-c,  'Oujo^Tiac,  tu  UcCT^i't 
 it  yj  i^ei  Tiv'si  t2^c>.fcc(r.Vy  y^Tvi  !^jd.^o^]iy  ku-tu  t  '^  .o'/a-.Xi  ?^o'py,  stt^omj? 
 Ujiv  &v  t/i)  0ioq  6  't}05,  iTipo'ici  Oi  0  TTXTV.p,  K,  d'Ja  >(ac7K.  tstd  0i»5 
 uvuyxi)  My^y  cTnp  t<nv  U(n<^i<i,  (F  euis  y.sp",^-  [a^vov  UKov.-i  TTx.^yy.diK'zi'j. 
 
 Cyril.  Akx.  Thd'aur,  p.  7g,  t  Qa-i- 
 
 theilin 
 
C^u.XXII.        of  fome  (QUERIES,         3  39 
 
 thcifm,  {p.  IOC.)  In  the  next  Page,  You  appeal 
 to  Athanafius  for  the  Senfe  of  the  Nicene  and 
 Toji'Nicene  Fathers,  and  to  Hilary  an  J  Ba- 
 Jil,  in  order  to  clear  your  Dodtrinc  from  the 
 ChdiXgQoiTritheiJm;  httle  imaginini^  thatThefc 
 good  and  great  Men  have*condemn'd  yonr  Do- 
 ctrine, as  "Polytheifm  and  Taganifm  over  and 
 over;  as  all  know,  that  are  any  thing  con- 
 veriant  in  their  Works.  Well :  Bur  what  have 
 They  laid  to  countenance  your  Notion  ?  This 
 only:  That  ^nity  of  Trhictple  clears  the 
 Church's  Dodtrine  from  the  Charge  of  Tri- 
 the'tfm.  Not  your  Dodtrine,  not  the  Arian^ 
 Dodrine;  but  the  Catholick  Dod'rme.  For 
 fmce  Equality  oi  Nature,  and  1)nity  oiTrin^ 
 ciple  too,  are  both  requifite;  The  Catbotich 
 admitting  the  former  (as  their  Adverfaries  well 
 knew)  had  nothing  farther  needrlil  to  infift 
 upon,  in  anfwer  to  the  Charge  of  Tritheifm^ 
 but  the  latter.  Unity  of  Principle,  and  Sarae- 
 nefs  of  Nature  to2;ether  midit  make  two  Per- 
 Ions  one  God  (according  to  the  unanimous 
 Opinion  of  the  Antients)  but  not  either  of 
 them  alone. 
 
 But  now  in  relpeft  to  the  Arian  (that  is, 
 your  Dodrine)  the  pretence  of  Unity  of  Prin- 
 ciple is  perfectly  abfurd.  The  Son  is  iiip- 
 poled  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  wiii 
 
 *  Athanaf.  OiTxt.  3*  p.  ^d^,  ^C6,    Jlilar.  p.  916,    PaTJ-  Ep.  70. 
 
340        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXII. 
 
 follow,  that  Angels  or  Men,  or  even  Things 
 inanimate,  are  one  God  with  the  Father  alio. 
 Indeed,  to  do  you  juflice,  you  do  not  ib  much 
 as  pretend,    that    On'ity  of  Trinciple,  or  any 
 Thing  elie  can  make  Him  one  God  with  the 
 Father.     Which  is  enough  to  lliow,  how  very 
 Vi^idely  you  differ  from  the  Antients,    in  the 
 main  point  of  All.     They  thought  it  neceffary 
 to  afTert,  that  Father  and  Son  were  Both  one 
 God.     So  Iren£us,  Athenagoras,  Tertulitan^ 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,   Origen,  Htppolytus, 
 LaBantltis,  and  even  Enfebius  Himlelf,  after 
 Ibme  Debates  upon  it ;  as  may  appear  from  the 
 Teftimonies  *  before  refer'd  to :    And    of  the 
 ^ofl'Nicene   Catholick   Writers ,    every  body 
 knows,  that   All  to  a  Man  contended  for  it. 
 They  thought  that  the  T>ivinity  of  the  Son 
 could  not  be  otherwife  fecured,  and  Tolytheijm 
 at  the  fame  time  avoided,  than  by  afierting  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  God,  as  well  as  the  Father  ?   You  fay, 
 Yes:  How  then  is  there  but  one  God?   Your 
 Anfwer  is,  The  Father  is  fnpreme,  and  there- 
 fore He,  fingly,  is  the  one  God.  This  is  taking 
 away  what  you  gave  us  before,  and  retracting 
 what  you  aflerted  of  the  Son.     If  Supremacy 
 only  makes  a  Perfon  God,  The  Son  is  no  God, 
 upon  your  Principles :  Or,  if  He  is  God  notwich- 
 ftanding,  then  Father  and  Son  are  fuso  Gods, 
 Turn  this  over,  as  often  as  you  pleale,  you'l 
 ♦  Qu.  2.  p.  2*.  find 
 
Q^u.XXII.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.         341 
 
 find  it  impo/Tible  to  extricate  your  feif  from  ir. 
 You  can  fay  only  this;  That  you  do  not  ad- 
 mit Two  fitpreme  Gods.  That  is  very  true: 
 No  more  did  the  Tagau  Polytheifls,  nor  the 
 Idolatrous  Samaritans,  nor  Others  condemned 
 in  Scripture  for  Tolythetjm.  You  fland  pretty 
 fair  upon  the  Principles  of  Thilofophy ;  and  arc 
 not  guilty  of  any  manifeft  Error  in  Meta- 
 fhyficks,  upon  this  Article.  But  you  are  fuch 
 a  Trithetft,  as  upon  Scripture- Principles,  and 
 upon  the  Principles  of  the  Catholick  Church, 
 both  *  before  and  after  the  Nicene- Council, 
 mud  (land  condemn'd.  Your  Belief  of  the 
 Fathers  being  for  you,  in  this  particular, 
 is  pure  Fancy  and  Fidion;  owing,  I  fuppole, 
 to  your  feeing  only  fome  Pieces  of  Them  in 
 Dr.  Clarke.  You  can  find  but  very  little  among 
 Antients,  which  either  diredly  or  indiredly 
 favors  your  Notion  of  a  fuprerne  and  a  fnbor^ 
 dinate  God.  They  condemn'd  it  impltcitely, 
 in  theirDifput.es  with  the  Tagans,  all  along: 
 And  no  fooner  was  it  ftarted  in  the  Church, 
 but  the  CathoUcks  were  alarm'd  at  it ;  and  im- 
 mediately condemn^  it,  as  reviving  of  Crea- 
 ture-JVorjhip ,  and  reftoring  Gentiltfm,  and 
 Pagan  Tolytheifm.  Tw^o  Gods,  a  greater  and  a 
 lels,  a  Supreme  and  an  Inferior,  no  Scripture,  no 
 ibund  Reafon,  no  good  Catholick  ever  Taught  j 
 no  Church  would  have  endured.     A  feparate 
 
 *N.  B.  I  ilo  not  fay  that  the  Anre-Nicene/^r'/cn  vp:-u!il  have  caUed 
 the  Arian  Dt?r?n/2e  TrithciTm  J  perhaps,  Bhiyhcnry  rather.  But  They 
 reould  have  charg'd  it  toith  Pa^anifm  {fee  Tcrruilian  above,  p- J<^-) 
 ■»h:ch  comes  to  thi-famg  with  rvhat  thePoOi-KicQniS  f^id  of  it. 
 
 Z  3  God 
 
54^         ^DEFENSE         du.XXII. 
 
 God  from  the  Supreme,  an  inferior  created 
 God»  would  nor  only  have  been  look'd  upon 
 as  ^Foljtheifm  and  Contradiffion,  confider'd  in 
 it  felf ;  bar  as  Herefy  and  BlaJ^hemy,  if  under- 
 ftood  of  God  and  Chrifl:. 
 
 To  conclude  this  Head  :  If  we  underftand 
 the  word,  God,  in  the  ftri(3:  Senfe,  it  is  ridi- 
 culous to  charge  the  Ar'ian  Scheme  with  flu- 
 ra/ifyofGods.  Bur,  if  it  be  underftood  in  the 
 loofe  popular  Senic,  or  in  your  own  Senfe  of 
 it,  it  is  equally  ridiculous  to  deny  it.  Mr.  Nye^ 
 who,  you  know,  has  ftudied  this  Contrcverfy 
 much  and  long,  and  is  no  Friend  either  ro  the 
 truly  C/itho/ick  Scheme,  or. your\,  condemn- 
 ing Both  as  Trttheifm ;  is  plcaled  however  fo 
 far  to  give  the  Preference  to  the  former,  as 
 to  declare,  that  the  Avian  Herefy  is  only 
 a  more  abfitrd  and  lefs  defenfble  Tritheilin*. 
 Of  all  the  four  Schemes  which  have  been  fol- 
 Jowed,  the  Sabellian,  Catholick,  Avian,  and 
 Socinian  ;  The  SabelUan  only  .(which  intirely 
 migods  the  Son,  and  annihilates  the  Holy- 
 Ghoft)  flands  perfedly  clear  of  any  Appearance 
 of  ^olytheifm.  The  Catholick  appears  charge- 
 able, but  really  is  not  fb:  The  Arian  and  So- 
 cinian both  appear  fo,  and  are  fo;  Where- 
 fore a  Charge  of  Tritheifra  muft  come  from 
 Them,  wirh  a  very  ill  Grace.  For,  was  the 
 Charge  really  juft,  and  were  we  weak  enough 
 to  afTcrt  three  Co-ordinate  God's;  yet  even 
 that   could   not    be   more    repugnant    to    the 
 
 *  Ex'plicat.  of  the  Articki  of  Div.  Unity,  p-  91. 
 
 whole 
 
Qu.XXII.        of  fomv  Q^UERIES.         343 
 
 whole  Drift,  Scope,  and  Tenor  of  the  Sacred 
 Writ,  than  rhe  admitting  a  flitral'ity  of  Gods, 
 great  and  little,  fovcraign  and  inferior,  in- 
 finite  and  finite,  uncreated  and  created,  to 
 receive  our  AddrefTes,  and  to  be  the  Objedts  of 
 our  Love,  Faith,  Hope,  Confidence,  and  reli- 
 gious Adoration. 
 
 (^  u  E  R  Y    xxiir. 
 
 Whether  the  TD o& or' s Notion  of  theTrinity  he 
 more  clear  and  intelligible  than  the  other  ? 
 
 The  difficulty  in  the  Conception  of  the  Trinity 
 is,  how  three  "Terfons  can  be  one  God. 
 
 ^oes  the  TDoEior  deny  that  every  one  of  the 
 ^er/bns,  fingly.  is  God  ?  A^^ ;  T>oes  He 
 deny  that  God  is  one  ?  Ko :  Ho'jj  then  are 
 Three  one  ? 
 
 ^oes  one  and  the  fame  Authority,  exercised 
 by  all,  make  Them  one,  numerically  or  in- 
 dividually one  and  the  faine  Godl:  That  is 
 hard  to  conceive  ho'-jo  three  dijlin[i  Beings^ 
 according  to  the  T>o[lofs  Scheme,  can  be 
 individually  one  God,  that  is,  three  Ter- 
 fons  one  l^eyfbn. 
 
 If  therefore  one  God  necefar'ily  (ignifies  but  one 
 Terfbn,  the  Con fe queue e  is  irrefifible  ;  ei- 
 ther that  the  Father  is  that  one  Terfon,  and 
 none  elfe,  ^vi'hich  is  downright  Sabellianifm; 
 Or  that  the  three  Terfons  are  three  Gods. 
 
 Thus  the  "Dolor's  Scheme  is  liable  to  the 
 fame  difficulties  with  the  other. 
 
 Z  4  There 
 
544        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXIII. 
 
 There  is  indeed  one  eajy  'ui'ay  of  coming  off^ 
 and  that  is,  by  faying  that  the  Son  and 
 Holy- Spirit  are  neither  of  them  God,  ifi 
 the  Scri^ttire-fenfe  of  the  Word.  But  this 
 is  cutting  the  Knot,  infead  of  untying  it ; 
 and  is  in  effe^  to  fay ,  They  are  not  fet 
 forth  as  divine  Terfons  in  Scripture. 
 
 ^oes  the  Communication  of  divine  Towers 
 and  Attributes  from  Father  to  Son,  and 
 Holy  Spirit  make  Them  one  God,  the  "Di- 
 vinity of  the  two  latter  being  the  Father's 
 Divinity  ?  Tet  the  faw,e  difficulty  recurs : 
 For  either  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoji  have  di- 
 ftinci  Attributes,  and  a  diftinci  Divinity 
 of  their  own,  or  They  have  not:  If  They 
 have,  They  are  {tip on  the  Doctor's  Trin- 
 ciples^  difin6i  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  which  are  in- 
 fep arable  fro?n  the  Father's  EJfence,  They 
 can  have  no  difinB  EJfence  from  the  Fa- 
 ther's ;  and  fo  (  according  to  the  Doctor ) 
 will  be  one  and  the  fame  Terfon,  that  is, 
 will  be  Na^nes  only, 
 
 Q.  Whether  This  be  not  as  unintelligible  as 
 the  Orthodox  Notion  of  the  Trinity,  and 
 liable  to  the  like  Difficulties :  A  Communi- 
 fation  of  divine  Towers  and  Attributes, 
 without  the  Subflance^  being  as  hard  to  con- 
 ceive. 
 
Q^u.XXlII.       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        345- 
 
 cetve,  nay  much  harder,  than  a  Communi- 
 cation of  Both  together  ? 
 
 YO  U  are  pleafed  to  fay,  that  had  the  Au- 
 thor at  all  underfloodT)r£\^xk.€^ Books , 
 He  'ujould  not  have  offered  thefe  Confidera- 
 tions,  They  are  fiich  grofs  mijlakes,  (p.  105-.) 
 Ic  might  be  very  pardonable  to  miftake  the 
 Dodtor,  who  deals  much  in  general  and  am- 
 biguous Terms ;  and  I  aai  the  more  excu(able, 
 as  miftaking  on  the  tender  and  candid  Side.  I 
 muft  own  to  you,  I  was  not  aware,  that  the 
 Doctor  had  denied.  Father,  Sou,  and  Holy- 
 Ghoft,  to  be  one  God,  I  did  not  apprehend,  He 
 would  fcruple  to  call  Them  all  together  one 
 God\  becaule  That  would  be  manifeftly  ex- 
 cluding Son  and  Holy-Ghojt  from  the  one  God- 
 head\  and  then  our  diipute  about  his  meaning, 
 would  be  perfedly  at  an  end.  I  iliould  have 
 been  very  unwilling  to  make  fo  home  a  Charge, 
 as  That  upon  Him  :  But  fince  you  are  a  Friend, 
 and  declare  in  publick  that  this  is  his  meaning, 
 fo  ic  iliall  be  hereafter.  And  now,  I  will 
 not  ask  how  three  Terfons  can  he  one  God, 
 upon  the  Dodor's  Principles ;  But  Til  put  the 
 Queflion  thus :  How  can  it  be  true  (jifon  the 
 "Dotloy's  Trinciples)  that  every  Terfon  of 
 the  Trinity  is  God-,  and  true  likewife,  that 
 there  is  but  one  God^  The  Queftion  or  Dif- 
 ficulty being  thus  fairly  ftated ,  I  conceive, 
 that  my  reaioning  againft  the  other,  will,  in  the 
 C3ain,  hold  good  againft  this  too  5  only  muta- 
 tis 
 
3i6        A    DEFENSE       (^u.XXIIL 
 
 its  mutandis.  Now  then,  clear  me  up  this 
 DifTiculry  ui  the  Dodtor's  Scheme,  and  free  it 
 from  Self-Contradi[tio7i,  if  you  are  able.  I  have 
 been  iearching  dihgendy  feveral  Pages  of  your 
 Aniwcr,  to  Ice  if  I  might  find  any  thing  hke 
 a  Solution:  But  I  perceive,  at  length,  you 
 was  fo  wiie  as  to  drop  it.  You  was  to  tell 
 me  How,  notvvithftandmg  that  there  are  Three 
 divine  Terfons ;  (that  is,  Gods,  according  to 
 you)  there  is  ftill  bur  one  God.  Bur  inftead  of 
 this,  you  run  wandring  wide  and  far,  to  Ihow 
 how  Three  may  be  One,  What  ?  Three  Gods 
 one  God?  That  was  what  I  ask'd;  the  reft 
 is  not  pertinent,  but  foreign  to  the  Point. 
 Finding  lb  little  Satisfaction  from  you,  in  a 
 Point  lb  material,  in  the  very  pinch  of  the 
 Qiieftion  between  theDodor  and  Us,  I  thought 
 proper  to  have  recourfe  to  the  Doctor's  Books 
 again ;  to  fee  if  any  thing  could  be  found  there 
 to  our  prefcnt  purpofe. 
 
 I  perceived,  that  '^'Dominion  and  Authority, 
 according  to  Him,  7rjake  God  to  be  God.  Up- 
 on  this  Principle,  He  fuppoics  the  Son,  f  by 
 nature  truly  God,  having  true  divine  Tower 
 and  T>omimon :  And  He  fays,  :|:  The  word, 
 God,  in  Scripture,  is  always  a  relative  word 
 ^fOfice,  jlg7tifying  ferfonal  T>ominion.  The 
 obvious  Conciufion,  from  thefe  Premifcs,  is, 
 that  if  T)ominion  and  Authority,  luch  as  makes 
 any  Perfon  truly  God,  be  lodged  in  Three  Per- 
 
 *  Reply,  p.  301.  t  I'b.  ^  Si. 
 
 ^  lb.  p.  290.    • 
 
 fons ; 
 
Q^u. XXIII.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         347 
 
 fons  ;  Thole  Three  Pcrfbns,  upon  the  Doctor's 
 Principles,  rauft  be  three  Gods.  The  Doctor 
 being  fenfible  of  this  Difficulty  in  his  Scheme, 
 and  not  being  able  to  iblve  it,  nor  willing 
 to  profefs  three  Gods,  tries  to  difguife  and 
 elude  it.  He  asks,  *  why  rnufl  three  divine 
 Beings,  of  necefjhy,  be  cojtceived  as  three 
 Godsl:  TheAnfvver  is  very  eafy :  Becauie  three 
 divine  Beings,  is  exadly  the  lame,  m  other 
 Words,  with  three  Gods,  upon  his  Principles ; 
 and  becaufe  every  one  of  the  Three  is  fuppoied 
 to  have  perfonal  ^Dominion,  that  very  '\Domi- 
 nion  which  is  lufficient  to  make  a  Peribn  truly 
 God\  and  fuch  as  makes  God  to  be  God,  |  He 
 goes  on  to  diftinguilh  the  three  Perlbns  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  lad  is  God,  He  proceeds: 
 They  can  no  more  truly  be  faid  to  be  three 
 Gods,  than  each  of  Them,  Jingly,  can  be  truly 
 faid  to  be  the  God  and  Father  of  All,  who  is 
 above  all\  which  is  the  Afoflle's  TDeJinition 
 of  the  one  fuprerne  God.  But  this  is  not  to 
 the  Purpofe;  unlefs  no  one  can  be  God,  that  is 
 not  the  fufreme  GoA.  If  the  Dodor  laysThar, 
 He  contradid:s  Himfelf  ftrangcly  ;  having  took 
 a  great  deal  of  Pains  to  ihow  that  the  Son,  tho' 
 not  the  ftipreme  God,  is  yet  truly  God,  hav- 
 ing true  divine  T^owcr  and  '\Do?ntnion.  If  He 
 thinks  the  Apoftle's  Definition  of  God  to  be 
 better  than  his  own,  why  did  He  not  ftand  to  it? 
 
 *  Reply,  j?.  222.  t  lb.  />.  225. 
 
 And 
 
34S        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXIlI. 
 
 And  then  it  would  be  fecn  plainly,  that  his 
 meaning  is,  that  no  one  can  be  God  but  the 
 Father;  which  is  making  iliorc  work  with  the 
 Dodrine  of  the  divine  Trinity,  and  ftriking 
 out  Son  and  Holy-Ghoji  at  once.  It  is  evident 
 to  a  Demonftration ,  that  the  three  Perfons 
 are,  upon  the  Doctor's  Hypothejis,  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  nei- 
 ther the  Son,  nor  the  Holy-Ghoft  is  God. 
 The  Difficulty  then  ftill  remains  unanfwer'd; 
 how  (upon  the  Doctor's  Principles)  three  Per- 
 fons can  be  every  one,  fmgly,  God\  and  yet 
 Scripture  fay  true,  that  there  is  but  one 
 God. 
 
 And  now,  I  return  to  you  again ;  whom  I 
 left  inftrudiing  the  Reader,  very  particularly. 
 How  Three  may  be  One  ;  viz.  in  agreement 
 of  Mind,  in  their  joint  care  of  the  Church,  in 
 Tejlimony,  &c.  which  might  have  been  perti- 
 nent, had  I  been  arguing  from  the  Text,  /  and 
 my  Father  are  One-^  or  from  Joh.  5-.  7.  But 
 your  anfvvering  fo  copioufly  to  what  I  did  not 
 ask,  and  flipping  over  the  main  Difficulty, 
 Jooks  as  if  you  vvxre  more  concerned  how  to 
 keep  your  Reader  from  the  fight  of  the  Que- 
 ftion,  than  how  to  give  Him  any  reafbnable 
 Satisfadion.  The  firft  pertinent  Thing  I  meet 
 vv^ith  from  you,  is  in  Page  108.  where  you 
 charge  me  with  a  man  if  eft  Error,  for  fuppollng 
 it  Sabellianifm  to  make  the  one  God  but  me 
 
 Terfon ; 
 
Q^u. XXIII.       of  fiyiie  (QUERIES.         34? 
 
 Terfon ;    namely,    The  Pcrfbn  of  the  Father. 
 What  I  aflert  is,  that  it    is  Sabellian  to  fay, 
 that  there  is  but  One  who  is  God,  one  Terjori 
 only,  inftcad  of  one  Nature :    Or  to  fuppofe 
 the   Godhead  to  be  one  finglc  Hypojlafis^  or 
 ita)/o7r§oaro'7r@",  a  Father  without  his  Jtord  or 
 Spirit  eternally  and  efientially  fubfifting  with 
 Him,  and  from  Him.     This  is  what  I  main- 
 tain, and  what  you  will  not  be  able  to  difprove. 
 But  let  us  Ibe  how  you  go  about  it.     One  God, 
 you  fay,  is  one  Terfon   only-^    otherwife  one 
 ^erfon  could  not  be  one  God.     I  anfwer,  that 
 no  one  Perfbn  is  one  God,  exclnfively  of  the 
 other  two  Perfons.     You  add,  if  one  God  be 
 two  7e?fons  or  more,  it  is  impoffible  for  one 
 ^erfon  to  be  God.     When  we  fay  one  Peribn 
 is  God,  we  mean  that  He  is  a  divine  Hypo- 
 flafis,  T>eitatem  habe^ts,  as  the  Schools  fpeak ; 
 But  when  we  fay  God  is  three  Perfons,  we  un- 
 derhand it  of  the  divine  E  fence,  or  Subjtance  : 
 So  that  the  word  God  is  fom.etimes  taken  ejfen- 
 tially,  and  fometimes/^r,/&;/^//y,  which  makes 
 the  Difference.     You  proceed:  Tbe'Defenders 
 of  the  Sckolajiick  Notion  (you  mean  the  De- 
 fenders of  the  Trinity  in  Unity  )  profefs  the 
 Father  alone,  and  diftinEi  from  the  Son  and 
 Spirit,  is  God,  or  the  one  God.     Very  truf} ; 
 in  the/^ryS;M/ Senfe  before  raention'd,  dijiin£} 
 from,    not  excltifive  of,    the  Son  and   Holy- 
 Spirit.     In  the  fame  Scnlc,  either  of  the  other 
 Perlons  is  God,  and  the  one  God.     There  is 
 a  tirrher  Reafon,  w^hy  the  Father  \^  peculiarly 
 
 and 
 
350        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.  XXIII. 
 
 and  eminently  filled  the  one  Gad:  Not  to  ex- 
 clude the  other  Peribns;  but  to  fignify  his 
 priority  of  Order,  as  Father,  and  as  Fountain 
 of  all.  Thus  I  have  anlwer'd  your  Reaibns, 
 which  you  are  pleas'd  to  call  T>£nionfiratiQn ; 
 tho'  it  is  manifefl;  that,  all  along  in  your  rca- 
 foning,  you  take  it  for  granted,  that  God  is 
 one  Perlon  only,  and  fiippofe  the  very  Thing 
 in  Queftion.  You  next  proceed  to  confute  my 
 AfTcrtion;  that  the  making  the  one  God  but 
 one  Perlon,  \%  Sabellian.  And  you  fay  thus: 
 If  by  one  Verfon,  He  means  one  intelligent 
 j4gent.  He  makes  the  Sabellians  Catholicks  ^ 
 and  condemns  his  O'uun  Friends  for  Tritheifls. 
 I  certainly  mean  a  real  Perfon,  an  Hyfojfafis, 
 no  mode,  attribute,  or  property,  as  you  might: 
 eafily  have  perceived.  The  charge  oiTrithetfrn 
 I  have  fufficiently  anfwer'd  before ;  and  return- 
 ed it  to  its  proper  Owners.  I  lliall  only  add 
 here,  that  each  divine  Perfon  is  an  individual 
 intelligent  Agent :  But  as  fubfifting  in  one  un- 
 divided Subflance,  They  are  all  together,  in  that 
 refpedt,  but  one  undivided  intelligent  Agent : 
 And  thus  my  Friends  ftand  clear  of  Tritheifm, 
 You  obferve,  that  Sabellius  held  one  Hypo- 
 ftafis,  or  divine  Snbflance,  in  ofp-oftion  to  the 
 Church,  who profefs'd  three  Hypoflafes.  Why 
 did  you  not  add,  or  three  divine  Subftances, 
 having  rendcr'd  Hypojiafis,  divine  Siibjlance, 
 juft  before?  Is  not  the  reaibn  of  it  vifible? 
 You  would  not  lay  that  the  Sabellians  held 
 one  Subjiance ,  ai]d  the  Church  three  Sub- 
 ftances^ 
 
Q^u. XXIII.       of  fo7ne  (QUERIES.         351 
 
 Jiances  (tho*  you  do  fay  ic  in  efFcd)  bccaufe  rhe 
 Thing  is  notorioufly  falle.  But  taking  advan- 
 tage of  the  Ambiguity  oi  the  word,  Hypojiajis^ 
 fometimcs  uicd  to  fignify  Subjlance,  and  lomc- 
 times  Terjoii ,  you  con-  iivc  a  Fallacy.  The 
 Church  never  profefs'd  three  Hyfofiajcs  in  any 
 other  Senfc,  but  as  they  mean  three  'Perfons^ 
 nor  would  Sabell'tus  have  been  ceniured  for 
 holding  one  Hypojiafis  only,  had  He  meant 
 one  Subfiance.  If  you  have  a  mind  to  iee  clear- 
 ly in  what  Scnfe  the  Cdtbolicks  profels'd  either 
 three  Hyfoftafes,  or  one  only,  you  may  pleale 
 to  coniulc  *  Athanafiiis  and  f  Gregory  Naz>i* 
 anzen,  rcfer'd  to  in  the  Margin. 
 
 The  Truth  \s,  the  Church  always  profefs'd 
 one  Stibjiance ;  one  eternal,  immutable,  uncreat- 
 ed Snbftance\  and  this  they  underilood  by, 
 God.  Notwithflanding,  They  believed  the  Son, 
 and  Holy-Spirit  to  be  fubjiantially  God.  Tra- 
 xeas,  Koetiis^  Sabellius,  and  others,  not  con- 
 ceiving how  one  Subfiance  could  be  more  than 
 one  Terfon,  \  one  Hyfofiajis,  innovated  upon 
 the  Faith  of  the  Church,  and  made  one  fmgle 
 
 *  Ath-^naf.  ad  Anti'och.  p.  973. 
 
 t  Greg.  Nazian?..  Orar.  22.  p.  595.   Orat,  32,  p.  ^11. 
 4:  Ongen  exprejfei  the  SabcKian  NQtiout  lery  ai/li;ici!y  m  the  foUoTS- 
 ing  Papge  ,  ,  ,  .  ^ 
 
 *iX>M  rc^  'J^^KSift/inx,  Tvy^uvDV^cc  UfJuCPoripnc,  Ka,ru  Tiyecr,  iTTjic.di;,  » 
 Kxrci,  xjxzc^uT-.v  XiyioTs^  T^ccTtcot,  !c'  'h'jv.  Orig.  Con),  in  Joh.  p.  iS.5- 
 Ed.  Kuct. 
 
 That  IS  to  fay.  The  Sabellians  did  not  only  make  'Eathsr  und  Sion 
 cne  in  F.dcnce  {as  the  Church  did  alfc)  but  they  carri-d  it  [0  far 
 fls  to  make  Them  one  Subject,  SuppoGtutn,  *r  flypoftaas,  h»vini 
 en)'   a  nominal  not  a  real  Diftindtion. 
 
3JX        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXIII. 
 
 *^  Hyfojiajis  the  one  God,  with  three  Names.  You 
 tell  us,  with  great  Aflurance,  that  this  never 
 was,  nor  could  be  Sabellianifm,  {p,  109.  )  To 
 which  I  fliall  only  fay;  Read,  and  you  will 
 find.  You  add  farther,  that  the  one  God  is 
 one  ^  erf  on  only,  and  the  Father  that  Terfon  \ 
 And  that  this  is  the  AJfertion  of  St,Viw\,  We 
 will  fee  to  St.  Tatil  prefently ;  in  the  mean 
 while,  I  again  tell  you,  that  this  is  the  very 
 EiTence  of  Sabellianifm,  and  the  Dod:rine  of 
 *  Taul  of  Samofata  (as  hath  been  obferved  to 
 you  above)  and  for  which  He  was  condemn'd 
 by  the  Church.  Your  pretence  from  the  Apo- 
 ftle's  Words,  {To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  even 
 the  Father^  has  been  fufficiently  anfvver'd  un- 
 der the  former  Queries.  I  ihall  only  obferve 
 here,  that  the  Text  mention'd  is  much  ftronger 
 againft  the  Dodor  and  your  Self,  than  againft 
 Us.  For  how  can  You,  after  fb  ^lain  and  ex- 
 frefs  a  Text  to  the  contrary,  pretend  that  the 
 Son  alio  is  God  to  us,  really  and  truly  God, 
 and  in  the  Scripture- Senfe  of  the  word,  Godi 
 Whether,  think  you,  do  We,  who  make  Him 
 ejfentially  the  fame  God  with  that  one,  and 
 fuppofe  but  one  God  in  all,  more  flatly  con- 
 tradid:  St.  Taul ;  or  You  who  make  two  Gods, 
 and  in  the  fame  relative  Senfe,  in  which  Sr. 
 Taul'xs  fuppofedto  ufe  the  word,  G<?^.?  To  take 
 up  your  own  V/ords,  upon  this  very  occafion  ; 
 You  willy  I  trufi,  be  afhamed  when  you  con- 
 
 *  "hen  il^   il'y),   <Pmv,    a   iril  itunrv.  0j3^    h  77X,rh.     Athan,  Coiitr. 
 Apollinar.  1.  %,  p.  ^41. 
 
 fider. 
 
Q^u.  XXIII.       of  fame  (QUERIES.         35-3 
 
 fider^  that  you  plainly  falfify  St.  Paul.  He 
 fays,  there  is  but  one  God.,  even  the  Father : 
 But  You  fay,  there  are  more  Gods  than  one; 
 and  particularly,  that  the  Son  is  God  alio,  God 
 to  US.  How  come  you  off  of  this?  By  the  help 
 of  a  T^ijl'in^iion,  I  luppofe :  And  lo  can  We ; 
 by  a  T)iftin^ion  much  older,  and  much  bet- 
 ter warranted  than  Your's ;  and  therefore,  be  fb 
 kind  as  either  to  take  Ibme  part  of  the  Shame 
 with  us  ;  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  Sou 
 is  true  God,  having  true  divine  'T^ower  and 
 dominion!:  If  You  can  reconcile  two  true 
 Gods,  with  the  Dodtrine  of  that  Text;  fure. 
 We  need  nor  defpair,  nor  have  any  thing  to 
 fear  from  that  Text,  who  agree  fo  far  wirh  it 
 already  (more  than  You)  as  to  acknowledge  but 
 One  God.  Wc  can  give  a  Realbn  why  the  Son 
 was  tacitely  included,  being  fo  intimately  united 
 to  the  Father,  as  partaker  of  the  fame  divine 
 Nature :  But  that  any  Creature  iliould  not  be 
 excluded  from  being  God,  or  that  there  fliould 
 be  two  Gods,  notwithftanding  the  Text,  mufl: 
 appear  very  ftrange.  After  this-,  you  have  t\vd 
 or  three  Subtilties.  The  Father,  you  fay,  will 
 be  but  a  third  Tart.  You  might,  in  this  way, 
 revive  all  the  Impertincncies  of  Aetius,  and 
 throw  them  before  EngHjl)  Readers.     I  refer 
 
 A  .1  yoii 
 
254        yf    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Q^u.XXlIL 
 
 you  to  *  Sn.AuJl'm,  in  the  Margin,  for  an  An- 
 iwer.    Let  me  defire  you  not  to  give  lb  great  a 
 loofe  to  your  Fancy,  in  divine  Things :    You 
 leem  to  confider  every  thing  under  the  Notion 
 of  Extenfion,  and  fenfible  Images.     A  reveren- 
 tial Silence  .may  well  become  Us  in  fo  awful  a 
 SubjecSt,  in  which  Imagination  has  nothing  to 
 do,  and  of  which  our  mod  refined  and  elevated 
 Thoughts  are  infinitely  unworthy.    But  to  pro- 
 ceed :    You  add,    //  Father,  Son,  and  Holy- 
 Ghofl  are  the  only  true  God,  then  they  are 
 the  Father.     But  if  the  only  true  God,  may 
 be  fometimes  ufed  in  a  ferfonal,  fometimes  in 
 an  ejfential  Senfe,    there  is  no    force  in  this 
 Realbning.     I  might  retort  the  Argument  upon 
 You,  who,  in  your  way  of  conceiving,  apply 
 the  Phrafe  oi  one  God,  Ibmetimes  to  onQ^art, 
 fometimes  to  another,    and   Ibmetimes  to  the 
 whole,  almoft  in  the  lame  manner,  as  We  do 
 to  One,  or  to  all  the  three  Terfons :  But  I  am 
 weary  of  trifling. 
 
 You  ask  me,  wherein  the  prefent  Schola- 
 
 *  Putas  Deum  Patrem  cum  Filio  cc  Spiritu  San<9:o  unum  Deum 
 efTe  non  pofle:  Times  enim  ne  Pater  Solus  non  fit  unus  Deus,  ^^<i 
 pars  XJn'iHs  Dei  qui  conirat  ex  Tribus :  Noli  timcre,  nulla  fit  partium 
 in  Deitatis  unitare  divi{io.  In  Trinitate — cju??  Deus  eft,  fie  Pater 
 Deus  eft,  &  Filius  Deus  eft,  i^c  Spiritus  Sandlus  Deus  eft,  Sc  Simul 
 Hi  Tres  unus  Deus:  nee  hujus  Trinitatis  pars  eft  unus,  nee  major 
 pars  duo  quam  unus  eft  ibi,  nee  majus  aliquid  fuiit  omnes  quam 
 ilnguli:  (\\xh  Spirit  alts  ncn  Corpora  lis  eii.  magnitudo.  jiuguJi.Contr. 
 Maxim,  1.  2.  c.  10.  p.  697,  <^c>8. 
 
 Pater  &  Filius  8c  Spiritus  Sand  us,  &  propter  buliziduam  Deitl- 
 tcm  Unus  Deus  eft,  8c  propter  uniufcujuiquc  proprisr;ifcf:)  tres  per- 
 fonji  iunt,  8c  propter  fingulorum  2erf<:ciidne?n  r^rf^s  unius  Dei  non 
 [Mnfn     Id.  ibid,  p.  6^9. 
 
 pick- 
 
Q^u.XXIIL       of  fome  (QUERIES.        35f 
 
 ftick-Notion  dtfagrees  "-jvith  the  Sabellian?  I 
 anfvver,  in  admitting  three  real  lubfilling  Per« 
 fons.  But  fince  you  are  fo  often  charging  us 
 with  Sabellimiifm,  it  may  be  proper  to  oblerve 
 here,  how  near  akin  the  Sabellians  and  ^rian^ 
 are  to  each  other,  Both,  as  it  were,  growmg 
 of  the  fame  Stock. 
 
 I.  In  the  firft  Place,  Both  fccm  to  fuppofe 
 or  take  for  granted,  that  if  the  modus,  or  man- 
 ner,  be  unintelhgible,  the  Thing  it  lelf  is  in- 
 credible. 
 
 %.  Both  agree  iii  the  fundamental  Principle 
 oi  Herejy,  that  one  Subftance,  or  Being,  can 
 be  only  one  real  Perfon,  or  Hyfofta/is.  As 
 Nejiorius  and  Eutyches,  tho^  taking  difFerene 
 ways,  yet  proceeded  upon  the  fame  Bottom, 
 that  two  Natures  could  not  make  one  Terfon 
 inChrift:  SoSabellius  and  ^ri/zj",  before  Them, 
 tho'  differing  in  the  lad  refult,  yet  fet  out  up- 
 on the  iame  Principle ;  That  two  real  PerfonS 
 cannot  be  one  Being,  or  Subftance. 
 
 3.  In  Confequence  of  their  prime  Pofition* 
 Both  confpire  to  difcard,  in  reality,  the  Son 
 and  the  Holy-Ghoft  from  the  One  true  God- 
 head \  looking  upon  it  as  Trithelftn  to  make 
 the  Perfons  real,  and  divine  too.  One  Hypo- 
 ftafis  in  the  Godhead  is  all  that  either  of  Them 
 admits ;  both  Judaizing,  as  *  Gregory  Nyfeii 
 juftly  obferves,  in  that  refped:  And  the  Sa- 
 b?lHan^s  Tti^wfio^^  (or  God  with  three  Names) 
 
 'Aymarsr,     Gre-j,  Nv(T,  Contr.  Euncm.  p.  ^7^. 
 
 A9.   %        '  artfvvers 
 
35^        y^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Q^u.XXIlL 
 
 anfwers  to  the  Arian^  'Ay^vp/iTo^,  Self-exijlent, 
 or  Vnbegotten  God.  Thus  far  they  amicably 
 agree;  let  us  next  obferve  where  They  differ. 
 
 SuppofingThem  fix'd  and  fettled  in  their  pre- 
 liminary Principle,  it  is  manifeft  that  the  Word 
 and  Sprit  muft  either  be  Na??ies  only,  or,  if 
 real  diflind:  Perfons,  Creatures.  The  SabeU 
 Hans  were  at  liberty  to  chufe  this,  or  that; 
 But,  finding  Scripture  run  high,  and  Tradition 
 ftrong  for  ihc'Divhuty  of  the  Pf^orJ  and  Holy- 
 Spirit,  They  made  choice  of  the  former;  in- 
 terpreting Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Gboft,  as  dif- 
 ferent Names  of  one  and  the  fame  Hypoflajis, 
 or  real  Perfon.  By  this,  they  effccSlually  guard- 
 ed againfl:  the  fuppos'd  Trttheijm  of  the  Cat  ho- 
 licks,  as  well  as  againfl:  Pagan  Tolytbeifm ; 
 and,  being  wife  Men  fo  far,  i'ecured  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  Confnjion  of  Perfons  had  been 
 utterly  routed,  bafHed,  and  exploded  by  all 
 good  Catholicks,  had  really  no  Option  left; 
 but  either  to  make  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 
 Creatures,  or  give  up  their  Preliminaries. 
 Accordingly,  They  took  the  way  which  the 
 Sabellians  had  \tii  Them ;  and  were  very  un- 
 happy in  this  particular,  that,  endeavoring  to 
 avoid  one  kind  of  Tritheifm,  They  fell  into 
 Another. 
 
 The  Arian  Scheme,  beftdes  it's  failing  in  it's 
 principal  Dcfign  of  avoiding  Tolytheijm,    has 
 
 many 
 
Q^L. XXIII.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         357 
 
 many  real  and  great  Difficulties ;  being  as  well 
 too  high  for  foine  Texts,  as  too  low  for  others; 
 which  the  Catholicks,  or  Sabellians  can  much 
 better  deal  with.  Hence,  I  fuppolc,  it  was,  that 
 the  Unitarians,  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Re- 
 formation, having  modeftly  begun  with  *y^r/- 
 anifm ;  for  the  mod  part,  fettled  into  Socini' 
 anifm,  which  is  near  to  Sabellianijm:  And 
 our  Englifli  'Unitarians,  who  for  acutenefs  of 
 Wit  and  fubtilty  of  Thought  have  not  been  in- 
 ferior to  any  of  their  Brethren,  have  been  flill 
 rciining  upon  the  Socinian  Scheme  (which  had 
 ftruck  upon  T)itheifm,  in  Hke  manner  as  the 
 Arian  had  upon  Tritheijm)  and  have  brought 
 it  ftill  nearer  to  Sahellianifm.  After  all,  when 
 Men  have  run  their  Courie  from  Orthodoxy  to 
 Arianifm,  from  Arianifin  to  Socinianifm,  and 
 from  thence  to  Sabellianijm ;  if  They  will  but 
 give  themfelves  leave  to  refled:  and  look  back, 
 They  may  perhaps  perceive,  at  length,  that 
 CathoUcifin,  is  the  only  Scriptiral,  as  well  as 
 the  Antient  Scheme ;  liable  to  the  fevveft  Dif- 
 ficulries,  and  bcft  guarded  againft  Objections. 
 It  is  therefore  no  wonder  that  the  Bulk  of  Chri- 
 flians,  learned  and  unlearned,  have,  for  as  many 
 Centuries  upwards  as  we  have  any  clear  Re- 
 cords extant,  efpoufed  it.  It  is  an  eafy  matter 
 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. 
 LetThofe  who  are  difpleafed  with  xkiz  received 
 
 *  Socin.  Contr.  FTafiii.  johati.  p.  495. 
 
 A  a  3  Dodriae, 
 
3j5        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.  XXIII. 
 
 DocOrine,  fliovv  us  a  Better ;  and  make  any  other 
 confident  Scheme  (confident  with  Scripture 
 and  with  it  Self)  if  They  can.  Wife  and  good 
 Men  will  be  always  willing  to  Reform,  if  there 
 be  Caule  for  it :  But  they  will  not  be  forward 
 ro  pull  down  what  appears  to  be  founded  on  a 
 Rock,  in  order  only  to  build  upon  the  Sand. 
 It  is  fome  Satisfaction  to  the  Trinitarians  to 
 obferve,  how  long  fome  great  Wits  have  been 
 new-modelling  Chriflianity ;  and  have  not  yet 
 been  able  to  agree  in  any  one  certain  Scheme. 
 The  Arians  fall  upon  the  Sabellians,  and  the 
 SabelUans  again  upon  Them  :  One  defends  the 
 Terfonality,  and  the  other  the  T>ivinity  of 
 the  Aoy«5^»  or  Word,  and  cannot  yet  be  brought 
 to  any  Agreement.  *  Betwixt  Them,  the  Prin- 
 ciples of  the  Catholick  Church  are  fupporred, 
 and  They  condemn  each  other,  in  the  very 
 Thiogs  which  the  Church  condemns  in  Both. 
 If  1  may  give  a  Judgment  of  the  two  Schemes, 
 the  Sabellian  appears  to  be  the  nearer  of  the 
 Two,  and  mod  confident  with  it  felf:  ThtAriau 
 is  more  pious  and  moded,  tender  of  degrading 
 the  Son  of  God  too  far.  As  Men  grov/  bolder 
 and  morq  learned  in  Herefy,  They  will,  very 
 probably,  be  drawing  nearer  and  nearer  to  the 
 SabelUans.  Two  of  the  abled  and  acuted  Men 
 of  the  prefent  Unitarians  (one  Here,  the  other 
 Abroad)  are  Both  in  the  Sabellian  way :  And 
 
 *  UtcrqueKoftis  Ecckris  res  Ecclcfis  agit:  Dum  Sabellius  Dciim 
 ex  naturain  operibus  pr^dicatj  Hi  vero,  ex  Sacyamento  Fidei, 
 Pium  Dei  confitentur.    HjL  ^.  gic)^ 
 
Qu. XXIII.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        359 
 
 as  They  have  given  Proofs  of  their  Learning, 
 fo  have  they  fufficicntly  fhovvn  their  Boldnefs 
 alfo,  by  treating  fb  fabhme  and  tremendous  a 
 Sabjed:,  in  the  way  of  Scotf  and  Ridicule.  To 
 return  ;  You  are  pleafed  to  fay,  that  you  have 
 anfwer'd  for  "Dr.  Clarke' j*  Notion  not  being 
 Sabellian,  and  have  proved  that  it  is  not  Tri- 
 theiftick.  But  give  me  leave  to  fay,  that  you 
 are  deceived  in  Both:  The  Ground  \%  Sabel- 
 lian, and  the  Super-ftrudture  Tritheiftick\  and, 
 the  whole  contrived  in  fuch  a  way,  as  to  hang 
 loofcly  together. 
 
 It  is  obvious,  at  firfl:  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  tho 
 Catholick  Principle  of  a  Hitman  Soul  to  join 
 with  the  Word.  If  you  come  thus  far,  it  will  then 
 be  eaiy  to  perceive  that  the  Sabellian  Scheme 
 is  the  fimpler  and  plainer ;  befides  that  it  better 
 anfwers  the  high  Things  fpoken  of  the  Word'^ 
 in  refped  of  which  your  Scheme  is  as  much 
 too  lo'ju,  as  before  too  high.  But  then  again, 
 the  Arguments  for  the  diftind  perfonality  of 
 the  Word  and  Holy  Spirit,  bear  lb  full  and 
 ftrong,  that  there  will  appear  a  NeceiTity  for 
 taking  in  another  Catholick  Principle  j  and  That 
 will  compleacly  anlwer  all.  And  why  then 
 (hould  not  the  Catholick  Dodrine  (fo  ap- 
 parently neceflary  to  make  Scripture  confident) 
 be  admitted  ?  The  Cafe,  in  few  words,  appears; 
 to  be  only  this.  You  cannot  underftand  how 
 A  a   4  Thre^ 
 
35o       ^/f   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Q^u.  XXIII. 
 
 Three  can  h^One-,  you  fee  no  reafbn,  a  frioriy 
 why,  if  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  htCo-eval  ^^nd 
 Conjubflant'tal  They  fliould  not  be  Co-ordi- 
 nate too;  you  know  not  why  the  Father  raight 
 not  as  well  be  laid  to  be  begotten^  as  to  beget ; 
 to  be  fent,  as  x.o  fend,  or  the  like.  Very  true: 
 But  you  may  fee  a  Reafon,  a  priori,  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  Preftimptions,  to  divine  Revelation ;  content 
 to  fee  through  a  Glafs  darkly,  till  the  Time 
 come  to  know  God  more  perfed:ly,  and  to  fee 
 Him  as  He  is.  This  may  be  a  fufficient  An- 
 fwer  to  a  pious  and  humble  Mind,  in  all  Cafes 
 «)f  this  Nature;  where  the  difficulty  is  owing 
 only  to  our  impcrfed;  and  inadequate  Con- 
 ception of  Things. 
 
 \  was  obliged  to  pafs  over  fome  Remarks 
 you  had  in  your  Notes  *,  for  the  fake  of 
 Method :  But  it  will  not  be  too  late  to  confider 
 Them  here.  I  had  made  no  ufe  of  foh.  lo.  30. 
 ( /  and  my  Father  are  one )  but  you  had  a 
 mind  to  bring  it  in,  to  let  us  know  how  well 
 you  could  anlwer  it,  from  the  primitive  Wri- 
 ters. I  am  always  willing  to  defend  thole  good 
 Men,  and  to  refcue  Them  out  of  the  Hands  of 
 Thofe,  who  either  knowingly,  or  ignorantly 
 abufe  Them.  You  begin  thus,  Triumphantly  : 
 The  T)e fenders  of  the  Scholaftick  Explication 
 of  the  Trinity  in  Vnity^    tho'  They  pretend 
 
 *   P2g,    10  5c 
 
 much 
 
Q^u. XXIIL       of  fome  CLUERIES.         ^6\ 
 
 much  that  the  moft  Antietit  Writers  of  the 
 Church  are  on  their  fide ,  yet,  in  expreffJng 
 their  Notion  of  the  ^nity  in  the  divine  Per- 
 fons.Thcy  do  not  only  leave  Scripture  and Rea- 
 fon,  but  plainly  rnn  againft  the  whole  Stream 
 of  Antiquity  alfo.  The  Text  on  iz'hich  they  fo 
 much  rely  (Joh.  10.30.)  is  underfiood  by  Ter- 
 tullian  Himfelf  of  the  Unity  of  Love,  and 
 Confent,  a7id  Power,  You  go  on  to  cite  Ter- 
 tullian,  and  others,  from  Dr.  Clarke.  But, 
 Writers  in  a  Caufe,  are  very  often  known  to 
 reprefent  Things  by  halves.  You  ihall  fee, 
 prefently,  what  little  Reafon  you  have  to  talk 
 of  the  whole  Stream  of  Antiquity,  The  Text, 
 which  you  fpeak  of,  has  all  along  been  made 
 ule  of  by  ihcCathoHcks,m  twoReipeds;  firft, 
 m  Proof  of  our  Lord's  r<f^/ Divinity,  againft  as 
 many  as  denied  it ;  and  fecondly,  in  Proof  of 
 his  real  Diftindion  from  the  Father,  againft 
 the  Noetians  or  Sabellians.  There  w^as  very 
 little  occafion  ro  infift  much  upon  Unity 
 of  Subfiance,  with  thofe  w^ho  had  carried 
 Unity  of  Subftance  fo  high,  as  to  make  one 
 Hypofiafis.  It  might  be  iufficienr,  m  difpute 
 with  thole  Men,  ro  oblerve  that  That  Text 
 did  by  no  means  prove  an  Identity  of  Per- 
 fon,  unlefs  Paul  and  Ap>ollos  were  one  Per- 
 son, which  is  abfurd.  Whatever  the  Text 
 might  otherwifc  prove,  it  certainly  did  nor 
 prove ,  what  the  Sabelltans  pretended ,  an 
 Unity  of  Perfon.  This  the  Poft-Nicene  Fa- 
 thers frequently  obfcrve,  againft  the  Sabellians 
 
 (as 
 
36t        A   DEFENSE       (^u.  XXIII. 
 
 (as  the  Ante-Nicene  had  doae  before)  though, 
 at  the  fame  time.  That  Text  might  be  of  good 
 ufe  againfl:  the^r/^;/j-;  as  it  had  been  all  along 
 againft  the  Impugners  of  Chrift's  "Divinity, 
 For  your  clearer  Apprehenfion  of  this  Matter, 
 I  iliali  fet  down,  *  in  Two  diftind:  Columns, 
 the  Sentiments  of  the  primitive  Writers,  on  this 
 
 *  Agalnf  Im^Hgners  of  Chrifi's 
 Divinity. 
 
 Tertullian. 
 
 Qui  Tres  Unum  funt,  non 
 Unus,  quomodo  didlum  eft,  Ero 
 ^  Fater  Unum  fumus.  Ad  Sub- 
 ftantix  Unitatem,  non  ad  Hu- 
 meri Singularitatem.  Adv,  Frax. 
 c.  IS. 
 
 N  O  V  A  T  I  A  N. 
 
 Quod  fi,  cum  nullius  Hominis 
 Haec  vox  e/Te  polTet,  Ego  ^  Pa- 
 ter unum  fumus,  banc  vocem  de 
 Confcientia   Diviniiatis    Chriftus 
 
 Solus  edicit merito  Deus  eft 
 
 Chrfftus.  c.  15. 
 
 Si  Homo  tantummodo   Chri- 
 ftus,  quid  eft  quod  dicit,  Ego  ^ 
 Tater   unum  fumus.    Si    non   & 
 Deus   eft,    &  Filius,  qui  idcirco 
 unum  poteft  dici,  dum  ex  Ipfo  j 
 eft.   &   dum  Filius  ejus   eft,  6c  | 
 dum  ex  ipfo   nafcitur,    &  dum  : 
 ex  Ipfo  proceffiiTe  reperitur,  per  ! 
 guod  &  Deus  eft.  f.  23. 
 
 O  R  I  G  E  N. 
 
 i  '  '^         S  >  ~  ,>  J, 
 
 AS;fTi«!/  Oi  K.  r^rti'f,  TtSTO,    071   UTTCB 
 
 Againji  Sabellians, 
 
 Tertullian. 
 Unum  dicit  Neutrali  verbo» 
 quod  non  pertinet  ad  Singularita- 
 tem fed  an  uniiatefn,  ad  Conjun- 
 dtionem ,  ad  dikdionem  Patris, 
 qui  Filium  diligit,  &  ad  obfequium 
 Filii,  qui  Voluntati  Parris  obfequi- 
 tur.  Unum  fumus,  dicens,  quos 
 ae^uat  &  jungit.  Ailv.Frax.c.ii* 
 
 NoVATI  AN. 
 
 Quia  dixit  unum,  intelligant 
 Hxretici  quia  non  dixerit  unus* 
 Unum  enim  neutralitcr  pofitum 
 Societatis  Concordiam,  non  Uni- 
 tatem Perfons  fbnat merito 
 
 unum  fit  Pater  &  Filius  per  con- 
 cordiam, 8c  per  amorem,  &  per 
 
 diledrionem Novit  banc  con- 
 
 cordix  Unitatem  8c  Apoftolus 
 Faulus  cum  Perfonarum  diftin- 
 <^tione-  •' ,^i  plan  tat  (Q*  qui 
 rigat  unum  fum,  Quis  autem  non 
 intelligat  alterum  efte  Apollo,  al-. 
 terum  Faulum,  non  eundem  at- 
 que  ipfum  Apollo  pariter  £c  Fau- 
 
 lum%    C.   2  2. 
 
 O  R  I  G  E'N, 
 sV  K-u,sy-^'  syx  C6V  urns  v/X'^i  y^,  frficiyf^xisc^h  clt  rvi  6f{s/ai!X,y^  avtx^-' 
 
Q^u.  XXIII.       of  fome  Q.UER1ES.        ^6% 
 
 0£oy.  ___  'ivcc  ovv  Qsev  otq  )y7rshdCi)y.u,. 
 fM>iv,  T  TTccrc^   ^   T  'ifcy  ^spccTivo- 
 
 [jjiv.   Contr.  Celf.  1.8.  p.  386. 
 DiONYsius  Rom. 
 
 O'JTt    (pif'))  TTD'HT^    K6J>itjiv   TO   U^.U 
 
 [pec  f^  li  \}sTipcuX?iOv  ujiyi^^  r5 
 '"'giy  — — iva^xj  ^  TM  Qsd  r 
 «A«v  T  Aisj^K,  iya  yup,  (pyjci,  x.ui 
 7rci7/,i)  h  iG-f/iiv.  Ap.  Athan.  p.23i. 
 
 HiPPOLYTUS. 
 O'j  QUO  0s»5  A/yw,  ciXX'  u)e,   (^ac, 
 
 ftjj  UKTiycc   oiTTo    iiMa,    0uvx,ijji<;  yxp 
 fjuix    i}  c/a   ra   7r6iym)(;,    to    as   ttocv 
 7fcc7/,f,i^  oil  S'u'iciUjtq  Xoy(^.  c.  I  I. 
 Alexander.  Alex. 
 'Lyu  >^  0  TTtcr^f  iv  sir/^jv.  o^tp  ^/i- 
 
 ViV   6   «yg/{e^,8   TTXTT^iC  iXVTOV  CiVX'^- 
 
 ^ivav.  iai  toc,  r^i  "^jsjvfua-^  euo  <P'j- 
 iTHc,  fjc/iecy  £iv:ij  (rsi(p7)vi^uv.  oiXh'  oTi 
 rv,y  ?rx7£/iKiiv  ifju<pic<yiu,v  UK^cZr, 
 7r^(Pvx.i  oz^j^^v  0  'v^'oq  is*  crxToo'^^  T 
 xs47«    •mx.vTZji,    ofAoiaryjTcc    xutou    Ik 
 
 is"    '7Tf6>'T1>TU7rii      SJiTVr©^    y^CCOBCKTVjp, 
 
 Theod.  E.  H.  1,  i,  c.  4.  p.  if. 
 
 F.  P  I  P  H  A  N  T  U  S . 
 Kee*  .37^<;  tuth^  fpiv  7ii<;vouji^ov- 
 TXq  oc.>i?.c-Q^oj  i'ivx;   Tcv   'ijoy  ^  ttcC- 
 
 rooq Xiyi,    ^yO>    (C"    O    TTXTA^    iV 
 
 i(riMi9  ;^  TO  iiVXf  Oi,   jJUlli  iVO- 
 
 T7J7J  S-fOTTjr:;,  y^  cj  UjIu,  yva,'^^  fC 
 h'v^y.i,  p,  4S8.  Hscr.jV. 
 
 Cyril.  Hieros. 
 
 hv  j^.  ro  X0C7W  T))!*  ^ia-n;Tcc 
 ecj^iufjucc  iTni^n  (z)io(i  Qiov  lyjvv/jjTy, 
 Ei»  J^.  ra  KocTcc  tIuj  /Sxi^Asiocv  — 
 sy  ^(A  TO  fjij-/<ii^>jj,cc*  ituxj  ^a(p&>- 
 rM.y  »}  2il^fzi<r.v.  — '^£y\2^    to  iMi 
 
 >^  uXXoc  xcCT^l^'  (MiX  yj  V  TTuvruv 
 
 9^f^iovp^^,  p,  )<j^j  i^j,  o>;.  Ed. 
 
 te.7rsLuyx.ar fjjoL  t??  ^'|>)5j  j{^w  ;^«c» 
 fiU.icTKoof'  Tti?  vjjsfKirTa'?  t5  ©ik) 
 iCJfcCKi'.'Oj    cv    aJrJ     «;tj    jt';(^'»<    rou 
 
 0«y,  r  Ote>.     Coiitr.  CclC  1.  8. 
 
 P^^ 
 
 ,Si;. 
 
 Hi  PPOLYTUS. 
 
 0:;% 
 
 ji  itmv  071  tyai  x^  0  rarjjp  -tw 
 J»u.<,  iAA'  ti*  ta-fJtjiv.  TO  yep  io-fjui* 
 chc   i(p'  svo<;   As^TTSC;,    iAA'  jVj   <JVa 
 
 cf,it7cX^  \yu,  eo<nv  h,  ygf.Sa}';  ity^sTi  iv  — 
 —  Ti  TT^o^  TccZ7C(.  i^a^  Atynv  oi 
 l\Q7i7iccvoi ;  ^n  'Tvavnc,  \v  crufjuce.  Iii9 
 y.cCTX  Tdv  ^r.ccvt  jj  tvj  hvufXii  H&A 
 Tvj  2!^.B-i(ri  T^   of/jo(Pfoviui;  sv    j^va^ 
 
 f/jijuj    T  CCurov  O'^  Ta^'TTOV  6  T^uXc,-— 
 
 a)jvutA,^,  2>l^S-i<ri'  sii  yup  v^^  5r»- 
 Tfos  0  »r«r$,    Contr.  Noct.  c.  7. 
 
 022'   I  1. 
 
 E  P  I  P  H  A  N  I  U  iJ. 
 
 np«5    C-£   r»?   VOUji'CoV^XC,   XU7VD   tU^ 
 
 T  TSrsc-A^A  ^  T  otj/Try  tlvcij'vjov  2^'*  t9 
 
 Asy^,  vrBi/;i77)'  cciiTH^  ivcc  ur.v  h  ya,- 
 J-6J5  £ya)  X,  try  Ev  s<ryj£v^  ivx  KOiTUi- 
 cf^vv/j  Noi]rsv  y.xi  T^y  ocvt^  ^"Akv, 
 TTci^u^ayav  iii;  to  f/ji(rzv  tIuj  to* 
 fXj»Jr,To,)i  iiuT,y.  Uac  yup  iicivvsCTTi 
 UiT^a^  xxi  'lucivr/)c,  xxi  ol  Kccji^iii 
 sivcci  IV  irc,  KXTK  (njyxXci':pk)U i  0,4,08; 
 
 Cyrtl.  Hierosol. 
 
 UUK   iiTTl   iyOl   KXi  0  TTXTY.p    iV  Utbi, 
 
 ci^*  ty*  ***  o  7TX7Vtp  IV  itryjz*t  Ivx. 
 yjim  U7TX^e^i£/.ei)(mfji>iy,  f/jy,7c  cry^aAo.- 
 <p-/i9  \97:«^Q/if«,c,  Ifyxff-a^uiijx.  p.  r4a. 
 
 Head; 
 
354        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXlII. 
 
 Head ;  that:  you  may  perceive  how  They  de- 
 fended fuch  an  'Vnity  as  we  maintain,  at  the 
 ftme  Time  that  they  ftrenuoufly  oppofcd  the 
 Sabeliians.  I  fiiall  make  particular  Remarks 
 upon  the  Authors,  fingly,  as  I  pafs  along ;  and 
 afterwards  throw  in  lome  general  Obfervations. 
 
 To  begin  withT<?r//////^;/;  You  will  obferve, 
 that  He  interprets  the  Text  exjprejiy  of  HJitity 
 of  Stibjlance,  in  one  Citation :  And  He  is  to 
 be  fo  underftood  in  the  other,  had  you  but 
 thought  how  to  conftrue  ^nitatem,  as  you 
 iliould  have  done.  I  fuppole,  Unity  of  Love^ 
 Qonfent,  and  Tower  may  very  well  follow, 
 after  fo  good  a  Foundation  laid  for  Vi.  Ter- 
 ttiUian  elfewhere  intimates  the  firid:  and  in- 
 violable Harmony  of  the  three  Perfons,  refolv- 
 ing  it  into  Unity  of  Subjtance  *. 
 
 Novatian  is  your  next  Author:  You  may 
 pleafe  to  obferve,  how  abfurd  He  thinks  it 
 would  have  been  for  any  meer  Man  to  have 
 iaid,  I  and  ray  Father  are  one.  And  why  fo? 
 Might  not  there  be  Unity  of  IVill,  Confent, 
 Authority,  between  God  and  Man  ?  Undoubt- 
 edly there  might.  Well  then,  Novatian  did 
 conceive  the  Text  to  fpeak  of  Unity  of  Love, 
 &c.  h\M  Equality  oi  Nature  prefup^ofed:  For 
 even  Taul  and  Apollos  were  not  of  a  different 
 Nature;  one  v/as  as  truly  Man,  as  the  other: 
 And  fo,  if  Chrift  was  truly  God,  as  well  as  the 
 Father,  He  might  fay,  /  and  my  Father  are 
 
 *  Tarn  conforiibus  Subftantis  Patiis.    Contr,  Vrax-  c.  3. 
 
 one. 
 
Q^u. XXIII.       of  fome  QUEPvIES.         36f 
 
 one.  This  is  plainly  Novatian*s  Senfe,  in  the 
 Citations  of  the  firft  Column ;  and  it  is  very 
 confiftenc  with  the  other,  in  the  oppofite  Co- 
 lumn. All  That  Unity  ofCoiifent,  Love,  &c. 
 is  founded  upon,  and  refblves  into  "Vnity  of 
 Subjlance  and  Principle ,  according  to  this 
 Writer. 
 
 Origen  comes  next.  I  have  ftt  againfl:  Him 
 a  PafTage  of  TD'tonyfius  of  Rome,  who  quotes 
 the  Text  in  Confirmation  of  what  He  had  juft 
 before  faid,  that  we  ought  not  by  any  means 
 to  undervalue  the  iuper-cminent  Dignity  of  the 
 Son,  by  fuppofing  Him  a  Creattty-e,  As  to 
 Or'^gen  particularly,  it  is  to  be  confidered,  that, 
 if  He  had  refolved  the  Unity  of  Godhead,  in 
 that  PafTage,  into  Unity  of  Confenty  mention- 
 ing no  other ;  yet  no  certain  Argument  could 
 be  drawn  from  thence,  that  He  held  no  other ; 
 any  more  than  from  the  Paflages  of  Novatiait 
 and  TerttiUtan  before  cited.  Had  They  been 
 hkfiigle,  They  had  been  liable  to  the  fame 
 Charge ;  and  yet  it  feems  meerly  accidental  that 
 They  were  nor.  Authors  do  not  always  fpeak 
 their  whole  Thoughts  upon  a  particular  occa- 
 fion ;  but  are  content  only  to  lay  as  much  as 
 the  occafion  requires.  Origen  was  guarding 
 againfl:  the  Sabelltan  abufe  of  the  Text,  and 
 his  Thoughts  were  turned  to  That  chiefly. 
 However,  in  That  very  place,  He  made  \o 
 much  Ufe  of  the  Text,  as  from  thence  to  infer, 
 that  Father  and  Son  are  one  God,  and  one  Ob^ 
 jcSi  ofWorltip;  which,  to  any  one  who   is 
 
 acquainted 
 
366        ^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       C^u.XXIIL 
 
 acquainted  with  Origen's  Principles  in  That 
 Book,  mud  appear  to  denote  the  divine  and 
 uncreated  Nature  of  the  Son  ;  and  confequent- 
 ly  a  fiibftantial  Unity  betwixt  Him  and  the 
 Father :  Befides,  that  this  is  farther  intimated, 
 in  the  PafTage  cited,  by  the  Words,  i'jrau^^o-^ct 
 T>J$  S'o^yjij  and  p^stgctJcTJigoc  rns  ^xja^T^oiod^^  which 
 feem  to  have  been  added  to  quahfy  the  former ; 
 and  are  hardly  pertinent  but  on  fome  fuch  Sup- 
 pofition.  To  confirm  which,  pleafe  to  compare 
 Origen  with  Alexander  Bifhop  oi  Alexandria 
 his  Comment  on  the  fame  Text,  and  you'l  find 
 Them  very  nearly  the  fame ;  which  is  fufficient 
 to  acquit  Origen  of  any  Sufpicion  of  Arianiz,^ 
 ing^  in  this  Point. 
 
 1  come  next  to  Hipfolytus,  who  has  but 
 lately  appeared,  and  whom  neither  the  Doctor 
 nor  You  have  took  notice  of  He  argues,  againft 
 thtSahellians,  in  the  very  fame  way  with7>r^ 
 tulliany  Novatian,  and  Origen:  But  then,  in 
 the  other  Citation  oppofitely  placed,  He  clear- 
 ly refoives  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead  into 
 Unity  of  Subftance  and  Principle,  But  befides 
 this,  it  deferves  your  fpecial  Notice,  That  while 
 He  fpeaks  of  Unity  of  Will,  and  Concord  (ad- 
 mitting a  kind  of  Parallel  between  the  Union 
 of  Chriftians,  and  the  Union  of  God  andChrift) 
 He  clearly  fignifies  how  infinitely  more  perfedl 
 the  latter  is;  refolving  it  into  this,  that  the 
 Son  is  the  m^  *7ro£.r^9?,  the  Living  and  Subflantial 
 Mind,  or  Thought  of  the  Father.  This  then 
 is  the  Cafe ;    There  is  an  Unity  of  Concord, 
 
 and 
 
Q_u.XXIlL       of  fime  (QUERIES.        367 
 
 and  Harmonious  Love,  founded  upon  Unity  of 
 Subftance :  And  the  words,  /  and  my  Father 
 are  one^  Exprefs  both  the  Unity  it  ielf,  and 
 the  Foundation  of  it.  Taul  and  ApolLos  were 
 one  in  Heart  and  Will,  in  fuch  Meafurc  and 
 Degree  as  They  were  capable  o'i\  And  To  God 
 and  Chrift  are  one  hkewifc ;  but  by  an  Union 
 infinitely  more  perfed:,  and  upon  an  infinitely 
 higher  Foundation.  You  need  not  be  told,  that 
 5ca')-(i)$  often  fignifies  not  an  exa^  Equality  ^ 
 but  a  general  Sitnilitnde :  The  Remark  is  juft ; 
 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  Toft-Ni- 
 cene  Writers,  Ej^ifhanius  and  the  elder  Cyril^ 
 which  are  enough  to  iliow  that  the  iame  way 
 of  reafbning  againft  the  Sabeliians  (which  pre- 
 vailed before  ^q Nicene-Council)  obtained  like- 
 wife  afterwards.  Some  are  apt  to  triumph  ex- 
 tremely, if  They  can  but  find  any  the  leaft 
 Difference  between  the  Ante-Nicene  and  Tojl- 
 Nicene  Writers.  If  there  be  but  a  Text  or  Two 
 difi^erently  interpreted,  a  fblemn  Remark  is 
 made  upon  it ;  and  fometimes  a  trifling  Note  of 
 fome  obfcure  Scholtaji,  or  any  Imaginary  Dif- 
 ference (having  no  Foundation  but  the  JVritcf^ 
 Ignorance,  or  Negligence  in  comparing)  is  im- 
 proved into  an  Argument  of  Change  of  T>o- 
 Brine ;  and  Athanafianifm  is  made  the  Name 
 for  what  has  been  conftantly  held  in  the  Chri- 
 ftian  Church.  If  there  be  occafion  to  fpeak  of 
 the  Things  feemingly  Derogatory  to  the  Honour 
 
 of 
 
368        ^DEFENSE        du.  XXIII. 
 
 of  the  Son  (his  being  Subordinate ;  his  refer- 
 ring all  Things  to  the  Father,  as  Head,  Root^ 
 Fountain,  Caufe\  his  executing  the  Father's 
 Will,  and  the  hke)  Or  of  a  real  Diftindiion 
 between  Father  and  Son  (as  their  being  hha  kejh- 
 fico.  du£  Res,  or  one  of  them,  ae/6^^ 'gTt^@-, 
 that  is,  perjonally  diftind:  from  the  other) 
 then  only  Ante  Nicene  Fathers  are  quoted  ;  as 
 if  the  Toji  Nicene  did  not  teach  the  very  fame 
 Doctrine :  But  if  any  thing,  which  feems  to 
 make  more  for  theFIonour  of  the  Son,  be  men- 
 tioned (as  His  being  uncreated,  eternal,  one 
 Goa  with  rhe  Father,  Creator  of  all  Things, 
 and  the  Yik^)  this  is  to  be  reprefenred  as  the 
 Dodrine  oi iht Toft- Nicene  Fathers  only;  tho* 
 nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  They  varied 
 not  a  Tittle,  in  any  material  Point  of  Dodrine, 
 from  their  Predeceflors ;  but  only  preferved,  as 
 became  Them,  with  an  upright  Zeal,  the  true 
 Faith  of  Chrift,  i^hich  was  once  delivered  to 
 the  Saints. 
 
 To  return.  It  is  needlels  almoft,  to  take  no- 
 tice of  other  Teftimonies  :  Thole  in  the  Mar- 
 gin are  fufficienc  to  ihovv  the  true  and  con- 
 ftant  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church.  The 
 *  Dodor  quotes  Bafil  and  Chryfoftom,  as  fay- 
 ing Father  and  Son  were  One,  xciri  JuW^wa':  And, 
 left  the  Reader  fhould  underftand  what  thole 
 Fathers  meant  by  jtccra  Swc^^ija^  Ke  curs  Chry- 
 foftom iliort ;  whofe  words  immediately  follow- 
 ing  (ei  J'g  y\   iijvy.fJii$  y\  ctuT>?,  ivS)\\ov   Sti   x!,   jj  dvaioi^ 
 
 *  Pag.  107 
 
 fllOW 
 
Q^u.XXm.       of  fome  Q^UERIES.         3^9 
 
 iliow  that  He  meant  by  ^victijug^  not  the  lame 
 Authority,  but  the  fame  inherent,  eflential, 
 omnipotent  Power. 
 
 Athenagoras's  S\))faL(jL{  may  be  rightly  inter- 
 preted by  Hippolytus  before  cited ;  or  by  Chry- 
 foftom ;  or  by  Himfelf,  in  feveral  Places  where 
 He  is  clear  for  the  Confiibflantiality .  Jnjiin 
 Martyrs  Sentiments  have  been  explained  a- 
 bove;  and  the  Council  oi  Antioch's  ExprefHon 
 (  TM  (ruiJL(pm[cL  )  is  vindicated  by  *  Hilary ;  who 
 Himfelf  may  be  readily  underftood  by  Inch  as 
 remember  how  the  primitive  Fathers  held  the 
 Ho!y-Ghoft  to  be^  as  it  were,  VinciUtim  Tri- 
 nitatis,  and  fometimes  Amor  Tatris  ®  Filii ; 
 as  the  Son  Himfelf  is  alfo  ftiled  Charitas  e:>$ 
 Charitate,  by  f  Origen,  Thefe  Things  I  can 
 only  hint  to  the  intelligent  Reader,  having  al- 
 ready exceeded  the  Bounds  of  a  Digreffion. 
 
 *  Pag.  I  !7o,  1 17  I, 
 
 t  Pamph.  Apol.  p.  235-,  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 B  b  Query 
 
370        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXlV. 
 
 Q^  U  E  R  Y     XXIV. 
 
 Whether  Gal.  4.  8.  may  not  be  enough  to  de- 
 termine the  difftite  betisj'ixt  T^j*;  Jlnce  it 
 obliged  the  T>o5ior  to  confefs  that  Chrijl 
 is  *by  Nature  truly  God,  as  truly  as  Man  is 
 by  Nature  truly  Man. 
 
 He  equivocates,  indeed,  there,  as  nfual,  For^ 
 He  IjdHI  have  it  to  fignify,  that  Chrijl  is 
 God  by  Nature,  only  as  having,  by  that 
 Nature  'which  He  derives  from  the  Fa- 
 ther, true  divine  ^ovuer  and  T>ominion : 
 That  is.  He  is  truly  God  by  Nature,  as 
 having  a  Nature  dijiinB  from,  and  in- 
 ferior  to  Gods,  wanting  \  the  mod  efTential 
 Character  of  God,  Selfexiftence.  IVhat  is 
 this  but  trifling  'with  IFords,  and  flaying 
 fafl  and  loofe  ? 
 
 IN  Anfwer  hereto ,  you  begin  :  fVill  the 
 ^uerift  infifi  uPon  it,  that  the  Son  cannot 
 be  God  by  Nature,  unlefs  He  be  Self  ex- 
 iflent  ?  And  you  proceed  :  /  can  ajfure  Him 
 the  learnedeft,  even  of  his  own  Friends,  are 
 ajhamed  of  this ;  and  there  are  few  fo  hardy, 
 as  dire&ly  to  affirm  it.  But,  have  a  little  Pa- 
 tience, and  ril  endeavor  to  make  you  eafy. 
 Where  were  your  Thoughts?  Where  were  your 
 Eyes?  Either  lam  ftrangely  miftaken,  or  the 
 Line,  which  ofteaded  you  lb  grievoufly,  was 
 
 •  Reply,  p.  Si^  t  Reply,  p*  92- 
 
 fcored 
 
Q^u.XXIV.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        371 
 
 [cored  underneath  ;  and  pag.  px.  of  the  DoiStor's 
 Reply  referred  to,  as  you  find  now ;  And  my 
 charging  the  Dodtor  with  flaying  fafi  and 
 looje,  iinmcdiateiy  after,  might  have  been  a 
 fufficient  Intimation  of  my  meaning.  Whether 
 I  think  the  Son  Selfexijlent  or  no,  is  not  now 
 the  Qaeftion.  I  took  hold  of  the  Dodlor's  Ex- 
 prefTion,  charg'd  Him  withfa/f  and  loo fe,  that 
 is,  faying  and  unfaying,  contradidling  Himfelf. 
 liSelf-exifience  be  the  mofi  effential Character 
 of  God,  it  feems  to  me  to  follow,  that  the  Son; 
 who  by  the  Dodor's  Confeffion  wants  that 
 CharaBer,  cannot  be  truly  and  by  Nature  God, 
 any  more  than  any  thing  can  be  truly  and  by 
 Nature  Man,  without  the  ejfential  ChariEter 
 of  Man.  As  to  my  own  part;  I  never  pretend 
 that  Self-exijience  is  an  effential  CharacSer  of 
 God :  You  might  have  confider'd  that  we  deny 
 it  abfolutely ;  we  fuppofe  it  merely  negative^ 
 and  call  it  a  perfonal  Charad:er.  Neceffary- 
 exijience  is  an  ejfential  Character,  and  belongs 
 equally  to  Father  and  Son :  If  Thar  be  what 
 you  mean  hy  Self  exijlejice,  then  That  alio  be- 
 longs to  Both.  Explain  your  felf,  and  deal  not  fo 
 much  In  ambiguous  Terms,  which  we  have  jufl 
 Reafbn  to  complain  of  The  Do<2:or  knows 
 how  Selfexijtent,  by  Cuftom,  founds  among 
 con.rxiion  Readers;  and  that  denying  the  Son 
 to  be  Selfexijientj  may  be  thought  by  many 
 the  fame  Thing  with  denying  Him  to  be  God, 
 Had  He  plcafed,  in  his  Tranflations  of  kymviTo?^ 
 and  elic-whcre,  to  fay  ofrner,  unbegotten  or  nn- 
 B  b  ^  derived; 
 
37^        A    DEFENSE        Q^u.XXIV. 
 
 derived,  inftead  oi  Selfexijient^  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  Word,  as  it  is 
 a  difparagement  to  any  Cauie  to  be  lerved  by  it. 
 But  to  proceed. 
 
 You  wanted,  it  feeras,  to  bring  in  a  parcel 
 of  Quotations,  which  you'  might  as  well  have 
 referred  to  only,  where  They  *  lie^  and  may 
 be  feen  to  greater  Advantage.  Whatever  They 
 are,  They  contradidt  not  me ;  nor  are  They  at 
 all  pertinent  to  the  Bufmefs  of  the  Query.  My 
 defign  was  to  iliow,  at  once,  the  Dod:or*s  In- 
 confiftency  with  Scripture,  and  with  Himfelf; 
 Both  which  are  intimated  in  the  Query.  It  was 
 your  part  to  defend  Him,  as  fairly  as  you  could. 
 The  Dodor,  I  obferved,  was  obliged  from  GaL 
 4.  8.  to  confefi  that  the  Son  is  by  Nature  truly 
 God,  From  thence  I  infer,  that  His  Scheme 
 cannot  (land  with  that  Text ;  being  an  exprefs 
 Contradidion  to  it.  You  infift  upon  it  not- 
 withftanding,  that  the  Son  may  be  by  Nature 
 truly  God,  agreeable  to  the  Text,  and  con- 
 fident with  the  Dodtor's  Principles.  This  then 
 is  the  fole  Point  between  us,  to  be  here  dif- 
 cufs'd. 
 
 You  have^  you  fay,  proved,  that  in  Scri- 
 pture there  are  different  and  fubordinate  Ac- 
 vcptations  of  the  word,  God.  True,  you  have 
 proved  that  Men  have  been  called  Gods ;  and 
 
 ^^  Script.  Do^r»  P<  jo$,  8{e. 
 
 Idols 
 
Q^u.XXIV.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         373 
 
 Idols  Gods ;  the  'Devil  \s  alfb  a  God,  ( i  Co}\ 
 4.  4.)  and  the  Belly  a  God.     Bur,  I  think,  St. 
 'Taul  hath  fufficicntly  inrimatcd,  (1  Cor.  8.  f,^.) 
 that  the  Son  is  not  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
 Nominal  Gods ;  bcfidcs  that  you  your  Selves 
 confefs  it.     If  He  be  God  at  all,  He  is  a  real 
 one:  And  now  I  want  to  fee  what  Scripture 
 Warrants,  or  permits  us  to  profefs  Two  real 
 and  true  Gods,     You  fay,  the   Son   is  God, 
 trttly,  and  properly,  and  by  Nature,  in  the 
 Scripture  Senfe  of  the  word,  God.   (/.no.) 
 Then  fay  I,  He  mud  be  the  iame  with  the  one 
 fttpreme  God,  becaufe  there  is  but  One.     If  He 
 is  truly  fb.  He  is  the  fame  with  the  only  true 
 God\  \i properly  fb,  his  Subftance  is  properly 
 divine ;  if  hy  Nature  fb,  He  has  the  lame  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  necefTary  to  fay  as  we  fay : 
 And  are  afterwards  to  rack  and  ftrain  Invention, 
 to  find  out  fome  fubtile  and  furprizing  Meaning 
 for  it.  What  may  we  not  do  with  any  Writings 
 in  the  World  at  this  Rate,  fb  long  as  Words 
 are  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  divine  Tower    and  Dominion   be 
 derived  and  exercised  partially,  temporarily, 
 or  in  certain  Emergencies  only,    it  snakes  the 
 Terfms  to  be,  and  to  be  Jiiled  Gods ;  7iot  by 
 Nature,  but  by  Grace,     Your  Notion  of  Do- 
 B  b   3  minion. 
 
374        ^DEFENSE        C^u.XXlV. 
 
 minion  making  God  to  be  God,  has  been  fuffi- 
 ciencly  expoied  in  the  former  Parts.  I  need 
 only  ask  here,  what  was  God  before  the  Crea- 
 tures were  made  ?  Or  did  He  then  begin  to  be 
 Qod,  by  Nature,  when  He  created  the  Uni- 
 verlej  and  began  to  have  ^Dominion  over  it  ? 
 But  to  proceed  ;  Give  mc  leave  to  obferve  here, 
 that  the  Son  is  God,  not  by  Nature,  but  by 
 Grace,  in  Confequence  of  your  own  Principles. 
 Being  a  Creature,  and  finite.  He  can  exercife 
 the  divine  Power  and  Dominion  no  otherwife 
 x}i\Vi\  partially  \  and  fince  He  did  not  exercife 
 the  divine  Power  and  Dominion  to  the  utmoft, 
 before  his  Refurrcdlion,  He  exercis'd  it  only  in 
 certain  Emergencies  \  and  fince  the  Exercife 
 began  then,  and  is  to  end  after  the  Day  of 
 Judgment,  it  is  barely  Temporary :  And  fo,  by 
 your  own  Characters,  you  make  Him  God, 
 by  Grace,  hke  Angels,  Magiftrates,  and  Tro- 
 fhets ;  Only  his  T>Gminion  is  larger,  and  for  a 
 longer  period  of  Time :  This  is  your  God  by 
 Nature.  But  you  are  very  excu(able  for  not 
 doing  what  is  ridiculous,  at  firft  fight,  even 
 fo  much  as  to  pretend  to.  For  how  fliould  the 
 Son  be  God  by  Nature,  upon  your  Principles, 
 when  the  Father  Himfelf,  whatever  his  Meta- 
 fhyfical  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  pleaied  to  make  no  Creatures; 
 and  may  ceafe  to  be  God,  in  the  Scripture- 
 
 f  Script,  Do6lr.  p.  14 J.  296.     Reply,  p.  ^ol 
 
Q^u.XXIV.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         37^ 
 
 Senje  of  the  word,  whenever  He  will;  by  let- 
 ting all  Things  drop  into  their  primitive  No- 
 thing. Now  iinlels  Nature  and  Oj]ice  fignify 
 the  lame,  it  is  not  cafy  to  conceive,  upon  the 
 Doctor's  Principles,  how  any  Perion  can  be 
 God,  by  Nature^  at  all.  You  fay,  if  the  di- 
 viJie  Toiz'ers  and  T>ominion  be  derived  to^ 
 and  cxercifcd  by  a  Nature,  Terfon,  or  intelli^ 
 gent  Subfance,  Universally  (which  is  im- 
 pofTible  to  fuppole  in  a  finite  Creature)  Per- 
 .AiANENTLY  ( which  Is  Contrary  to  your  own 
 Suppofition  of  a  Kingdom  which  is  to  have  an 
 end)  Unalterably,  (tho'  an  Alteration  is 
 preiumed  in  refped:  of  the  Son,  and  might  be 
 iuppofed  even  in  refped:  of  the  Father  Himfelf) 
 If  thefe  Things  be  fo  ;  that  is,  if  Conrradidlions 
 be  true,  what  then  ?  Then  fuch  a  Being,  or 
 'Terfon,  is  God  by  Nature,  &c.  And  this 
 you  give  us  as  the  true  tneaning  of  Gal.^.  8. 
 But,  I  hope,  we  fliall  have  more  refpcd:  for 
 an  infpired  Apoftle  than  to  Father  any  fuch 
 meaning  upon  Him.  For  the  true  Senfe  and 
 Import  of  it,  I  refer  you  to  the  *  Learned  Gen-, 
 rleraan,  who  has  fo  well  defended  this  Text 
 againft  Dr.  Clarke.  You  add ,  Had  not  the 
 Scriptures  this  Senfe  of  the  "i^wd,  God,  They 
 could  not  be  intelligible  or  reconcilable (p.us .} 
 But  are  you  well  affured  that  you  undcrftand 
 whatever  is  intelligible  or  reconcilable  ?  The 
 Metafhyfical  ^Definition,  you  lay,  cannot  be 
 th^  only  Scrifttire-Se77fe  cf  the  Term,  God. 
 
 *  True  Script.  Doflr.  continued, ./».  -^ ;,  ^^r, 
 
 B  b   4  Yoii 
 
376        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXIV. 
 
 You  allow  then  that  it  may  be  the  Trincifal^ 
 tho'  nor  the  only  Scripture- Senfe ;  which  I  am 
 glad  to  hear  from  you.  The  Learned  Dodlor 
 will  not  admit  the  Metaphyfical  Senfe  to  be 
 *  ever  the  Scr if  ttire- Senfe  oi  the  Term,  God. 
 The  Metaphyfical  Senfe,  He  exprefly  fays,  is 
 never  intended  \  but  the  confiant  ufage  of 
 Scripiire  is  different.  The  Word,  God,  in 
 Scripture,  is  Always  a  relative  Word  of 
 Office:  Which  tho'  the  Dodor  has  no  Proof 
 of,  or  Ground  for,  yet  He  knew  why  He  faid 
 it ;  and  had  very  good  prudential  Reafons  for 
 it.  For,  if  the  Metaphyfical  Senle  be  ever  in- 
 tended, when  the  word,  God,  is  fpoken  of  the 
 Father,  no  good  Reafon  can  be  afllgn'd  why  it 
 iliould  not  be  {o  always,  when  fpoken  of  the 
 fame  Perfon:  And  if  this  be  the  current  and 
 moft  ufual  Senfe  of  the  word,  God,  in  Scripture, 
 we  fliall  have  a  fair  handle  to  prove  that  it  was 
 intended  in  the  fame  Senfe,  when  fpoken,  in 
 fiich  and  fuch  Circumftances,  of  the  Son :  Or, 
 at  leafl,  the  Dodor  will  have  Httle  or  no  Pre- 
 tence left,  upon  his  Principles,  for  faying  that 
 the  Son  is  truly,  ^i^x^.  properly,  God.  You  ob- 
 ferve,  that  the  Metaphyfical  Definition  of  one 
 Selfexiflent,  underived,  independent,  fiipreme 
 Being  would  exclude  the  Son,  who  is  derived. 
 This  is  the  Sum  of  your  Argument,  and  clearer 
 than  you  have  put  it.  But  1  mufl  obfervc  to 
 you,  that  this  Tiefinition,  or  fomething  like  it, 
 iiath  long   pafTed  current   with  Men  who  be- 
 
 *  Script.  Doftr.  />,  296.     Reply,  />,  1 19.  ipo: 
 
 lieved 
 
Q^u.XXIV.       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        377 
 
 lieved  a  Trinity  of  divine  Verfons,  and  were 
 never  apprehenfivc  of  any  fuch  Coniequcnce  as 
 you  would  draw  from  it.  Ic  is  properly  a  De- 
 finition of  the  To  SeTov,  the  divine  Nature,  ab- 
 ftraEting  from  the  Confideration  of  the  dijlin- 
 Bion  of  Perfbns,  which  is  the  ufual  method  that 
 x\it Schoolmen, zwA  others  have  taken;  and  there 
 the  ^ oxdsfelf  exijient ,  under ived,  independent^ 
 are  not  confidered  as  perfonal  Characters,  but 
 ejfejttial,  Neceffarily-exijling,  uncreated,  im- 
 mutable, alljiijficienty  are  what  They  mean,  in 
 that  definition:  Othervvife  it  is  a  Definition  of 
 the  Peribn  of  the  Father  only,  fingly  confider'd. 
 But  if  inftead  of  Metaphyficks  (which  rauft  al- 
 ways be  content  to  (land  correded  by  Gofpel 
 Revelation)  we  chufe  to  take  our  Definition  of 
 God  from  Scrij?ture :  Then  that  of  *  Ale- 
 lanffon,  which  I  have  put  into  the  Margin, 
 will  be  more  full  and  compleat. 
 
 *  Deus  eft  EfTenria  Sfiirirnalis,  intelligens,  vernx,  bona,  pura, 
 ju(la,  mifericors,  liberrima,  imnneurx  potentine,  &  l^apientiar,  Pater 
 sff.crnus  qui  Filium  Imaginem  fuam  ab  aeterno  genuit,  &  Filius 
 Imago  Patri?  Co-n:rerna,  8c  Spiritus  San(flus  proccdens  a  Patre  & 
 }'i]io.     Melanci.   Loc.  Theolog.  de  Deo, 
 
 Q^UtR  Y 
 
i?8       ^DEFENSE         Q^u.XXV. 
 
 Q.U   E   R   V      XXV. 
 
 Whether  it  be  not  clear  from  all  the  genuine 
 Remains  of  Antiquity^  that  the  Cathoiick 
 Church,  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and 
 even  from  the  Beginnings  did  believe  the 
 Eternity  and  Confubfantiality  of  the  Son ; 
 if  either  the  oldejl  Creeds,  as  interpreted 
 by  thofe  that  recite  Them  ;  or  the  Tejli- 
 monies  of  the  earliejl  Writers,  or  the  pub- 
 lick  Cenfures  pafs'd  upon  Hereticks ,  or 
 particular  Tajfages  of  the  Antientefi  Fa- 
 thers, can  amount  to  a  proof  of  a  Thing  of 
 this  Nature  ? 
 
 YOU  tell  me,  in  Anfwcr,  that  it  is  not 
 clear  that  the  Ante-Nicene  Church  pro- 
 fefs'd  the  Notion  of  Individual  ConfubJIan- 
 tiality :  That  theObjeEior  cannot  produce  one 
 fingle  Tajfage  in  all  Cathoiick  Jl?ite-Nicene 
 Antiquity,  which  proves  an  Individual  or 
 NuiMERicAL  Confubflantiality ,  in  the  three 
 divine  Terfons.  This  Anfvver  is  fcarce  be- 
 coming the  Gravity  of  a  Man,  or  the  Sincerity 
 of  a  Chriftian,  in  lb  ferious  and  weighty  an  Ar- 
 gument. Did  I  fpcak  of  Individual  Confub- 
 Hantiahty ;  or,  if  I  had,  could  I  mean  it  in  your 
 Senfe?  I  ask,  whether  the  Fathers  believed 
 the  Three  Perfons  to  be  one  Subftance ;  and  do- 
 affirm  that  They  did,  univerfally.  You  An- 
 fvver, that  They  did  not  aflerc  the  Three  Per- 
 
 ibas 
 
Q^u.XXV.        of  fome  (QUERIES.        379 
 
 fons  to  be  one  Terfon ;  which  is  the  conftant 
 Senle  you  make  oi  Individual.  And  here,  you 
 would  make  a  fliow  as  if  the  ObjeEior  had 
 been  miftakcn,  and  as  if  you  contradid:ed  Him; 
 when  all  rcfolves  into  a  trifling  Equivocation, 
 and  you  really  contradid  Him  not  at  all. 
 That  pefent  Scholaflick  Notion,  as  you  call 
 it,  of  three  Perfons  being  one  Terjon,  Hji- 
 j^ojiajis,  or  Stifpofitnm,  is  no  where  ^rejent^ 
 that  I  know  of,  amongft  any  that  own  a  TrU 
 nity ;  neither  is  it  the  Scholaflick  Notion ;  as 
 any  Man  may  fee,  that  will  but  look  into 
 the  Schoolmen,  and  read  with  any  Judgment. 
 Individual  has  been  own'd,  but  never  in  your 
 Senfe ;  and  Nwnerical  too,  but  in  a  Senfe  very 
 different  from  what  you  pretend  to  oppofe  it 
 in :  And  therefore,  to  be  plain  with  you  ;  this 
 way  of  proceeding,  in  an  important  Contro- 
 veriy,  is  neither /^/r  towards  your  Adverlarics, 
 nor  Jincere  towards  the  Readers ;  but,  at  beft, 
 is  only  fclemn  Trifling.  You  know,  or  you 
 know  little  in  this  Controverfy,  that  ail  the 
 Fathers  almofl:  to  a  Mauj  either  exprefiy  or 
 implicitely,  aflcrtcd  the  Confubflantiality  of 
 the  Son  with  the  Father.  Call  it  Individual, 
 or  call  it  S^ecifick  ;  that  is  not  now  the  Que- 
 ftion.  They  unanimoufly  maintained  that  the 
 Son  was  not  of  any  created,  or  mutable  Sub- 
 liance,  but  ftridtly  \Divine\  and  \o  clofely 
 and  nearly  aUied  to  the  Father's  Perfon  (lu 
 a  myfterious  way  above  Comprehenfion)  that 
 che  Subflance  of  the  Sod  aiight  be  juftly  called 
 
 the 
 
38o        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXV. 
 
 the  Father's  Subftance,  Both  being  One.  And 
 this  is  all  that  ever  any  fober  Catholick  meant 
 by  Individual,  or  Numerically  as  I  have  often 
 pbferved. 
 
 Is  not  this  fufflcient  to  urge  againfl:  Dr. 
 Clarke  and  You,  who  make  the  Son  of  an  in- 
 ferior Subftance,  differing  entirely  in  kind  from 
 the  Father's;  in  iliort,  d.  Creature,  tho'  you 
 care  not  to  fpeak  it  in  broad  Terms  ?  This  is 
 what  you  have  not  lb  much  as  one  Catho- 
 tick  Toft  Nicene,  or  Ante-Nicene  Writer  to 
 countenance  you  plainly  in.  The  main  of  your 
 Dodrine,  the  very  Points  wherein  your  Scheme 
 is  contained,  and  on  which  it  turns,  and  which 
 diftinguifh  you  from  the  prefent  Orthodox, 
 fland  condemn'd  by  all  Antiquity.  Do  you 
 imagine,  ail  This  is  to  be  turn'd  off,  only  by 
 equivocating  upon  the  word,  Numerical^  or 
 by  throwing  out  the  Term  Scholaftick,  to  make 
 \yeak  Perfbns  believe,  that  we  have  borrowed 
 our  Dodrine  from  the  School-men  only  ?  No : 
 We  know,  and  you  may  know,  if  you  pleafe 
 to  examine,  that,  as  to  the  main  pf  ourDocSbrine 
 of  the  Blcfled  Trinity,  we  have  the  Univerftl 
 Church,  as  high  as  any  Records  reach,  con- 
 curring wfth  us.  To  Them  we  appeal ,  as 
 well  as  to  the  Scriptures  >  that,  together  with 
 Scripture,  we  may  be  the  more  fecure  that  wq 
 follow  the  true  Interpretation.  I  need  not  go 
 on  to  prove  that  the  primitive  Writers  afferted 
 the  Confuhftantiality ,  becaufe  you  have  not- 
 denied  ic  ii>  ^he  Senfe  i  intended ;  aM  indeed- 
 
 could 
 
Q^u.XXV.        of  fime  QUERIES,        381 
 
 could  not.  Your  flipping  a  Woi-d  upon  us^ 
 and  Hiding  off  to  another  Point,  may  be  taken 
 for  a  Confc/Tion  and  Acknowledgement,  that 
 the  ^tcry  was  juft;  and  lliould  have  been  an- 
 fwer'd  in  the  Affirmative ,  could  your  Caufe 
 have  fubfifted,  atter  lo  large  and  frank  a  Confef- 
 fion.  As  to  Creeds,  you  iay,  7iOfie  of  theThre^ 
 frfl  Centuries  exfrefs  the  ^lerijfs  Notion : 
 meaning  your  ow^n  Notion  of  Individual,  which 
 is  not  ^Q^ierijt's,  What  follows  (/.  118.)  is 
 (till  purluing  the  lame  miftake.  Since  you  hivg 
 told  us,  that  there  is  no  proof  of  Individual 
 Confubftantiality  (that  is,  oi perfonal  Identity^ 
 as  you  underftand  it,  and  in  which  Senfe  nd 
 Body  oppofes  you)  it  vi^ould  have  been  fair  and 
 ingenuous  to  have  own'd  that-  the  Fathers  did 
 unanimoufly  hold  a  Conjubjiantiality ,  in  fom^ 
 Senfe  or  other.  If  not  Numerical,  or  Individ 
 dual,  in  the  (Iridteft  Senfe,  was  it^  think  you^ 
 Specifick  ?  Yet,  if  fo^  it  will  follow  that  all 
 the  Fathers  were  diredly  oppofite  to  rheDodof 
 and  you ;  and  condemn'd  your  Notion  of  thd 
 Son's  being  Inferior  in  Kind,  Nature,  Sub^ 
 fiance,  &c.  Specifick  Unity  implies  Equality 
 of  Nature ;  as  two  Men,  fpecifically  one  with 
 each  other,  are  in  Nature  equal ;  and  fo,  any 
 other  tw^o  Things  of  the  fame  fi)rt  and  kind. 
 This  Notion,  if  it  were  all  that  the  Fathers 
 held,  You  might  charge  with  TV/VZ?^//?/^;  And^ 
 at  the  fame  Time,  you  mufl:  give  Them  all  up, 
 as  no  way  favourable  to  your  Hj^othejis,  But 
 the  Fathers  conftantJy   rook   care  to   ilgnify 
 
 that 
 
38i        A   DEFENSE         Q^u.XXV. 
 
 that  they  did  not  mean  that  the  Terfons  were 
 fpectfically  one,  hke  three  Human  Perlons  hav- 
 ing a  feparate  Exiftence  independent  of  each 
 other:  Nor  would  They  allow  Three  Stms ^ 
 which  would  be  fpecifically  one,  to  be  a  pro- 
 per or  fuitable  llluftration ;  but  the  Rays  of  the 
 iame  Sun,  the  Streams  of  the  lame  Fountain, 
 and  the  like;  all  to  intimate  a  much  cloier  Tie, 
 a  more  fiibjlanttal  Union  than  Specifick  a- 
 mounts  to.  The  Terfons,  the  Hyp  oft  afes,  were 
 Three ;  and  yet  una  Sitbftantia,  as  TertuUtan 
 exprcfles  it,  in  all. 
 
 You  would  perfwade  us  (finding  I  fup- 
 pofe  that  either  Jpectfick  or  individual  Con- 
 lubllantiality  would  be  equally  againft  you)  I 
 fay,  you  would  perfwade  us,  that  it  was  forae 
 Oratorical  and  Figurative  Conlubftantiality , 
 which  the  Fathers  meant.  This  I  apprehend 
 from  what  you  drop  in  Page  iir,  where  you 
 exprefly  apply  this  new  Solution  to  the  diffi- 
 culty arifing  from  'O/^oJo-i©-  in  the  Nicene- 
 Creed.  I  will  not  fufFer  the  Engliflo  Reader 
 to  go  away  with  this  groundiefs  Notion,  inftead 
 of  a  jufl:  Anfwer.  Such  as  know  any  thing  of 
 Antiquity,  do  not  want  to  have  fuch  Pretences 
 confuted :  Such  as  do  not,  may  pleafe  to  take 
 along  with  Them  thefe  foUovving  Confidera- 
 Cions. 
 
 I.  The  Doctrine  oi x\\zConfubftantiatlty  ap- 
 pears to  have  been  a  conftant  fettled  Thing ;  a 
 fort  of  ruled  Cale,  running  thro'  all  in  general. 
 Strange,  that  They  fhould  all  PJjetoricate  in  a 
 
 Mat^ 
 
Q^u.XXV.        of  fome  Q^UERIES,        383 
 
 Matter  of  Faith,  of  fb  great  Weight  and  Impor'- 
 tance ;  and  that  we  fliould  not  meet  with  fo 
 much  as  one  grave  fobcr  Writer,  to  ftrip  the 
 Matter  of  all  Flouriili  and  Varnilli,  and  to  tell 
 us  the  naked  Truth. 
 
 z.  It  is  to  be  oblerved  that  the  Notion  docs 
 not  occur  only  in  popular  Harangues,  but  in 
 dry  Debates,  chiefly  in  Controverfy  with  He- 
 rd icks  ;  where  it  concerned  the  Catbolicks  to 
 fpeak  accurately  and  properly,  and  to  deliver 
 their  Sentiments  very  diftindly. 
 
 3.  This  is  farther  confirnVd  from  the  Ob- 
 jections made  by  Hereticks  to  the  Catholtck 
 Dodrine;  There  were  Two  (landing  Objedions 
 made  by  Hereticks  to  the  Catholtck  Dod:rine : 
 One  was,  that  it  inferred  a  "Divijion  of  the  Fa- 
 ther's Subftance :  The  other  that  it  was  Tri- 
 thetfin.  We  find  footfteps  of  the  former,  as 
 early  as  ^  Jtiftin  Martyr.  We  meet  with  it 
 in  ^  Terttillian,  as  urged  by  Traxeas.  ^  Tatian 
 and  ^  Theophilus  Both  allude  to  it.  ^  Sabcll'ins 
 was  full  of  it ;  and  it  was  afterwards,  one  of 
 the  chiefeft  Pretences  of  Arins ;  as  may  ap- 
 pear from  his  own  Letters,  befides  many  ^ other 
 Evidences.  Now,  what  colour  or  pretence 
 could  there  have  been  for  the  Objedion,  had 
 not  the  Catholicks  profefs'd  a  proper  Commu- 
 nication of  the  fame  Subftance .?  Need  wc  be 
 
 a  Dial.  p.  i S3.  373.  Jcb.     £ee  Bull  D.  F.  p.  66,67.  and  p.  33. 
 b  Contr.  Prax.  c  8.  c  Tat.  p.  21.  Ed.  Worth, 
 
 d  Theoph,  1.  2.  p.  12 p. 
 
 e  A]exan<i.  apud  Theod.  E.  H.  1.  J,  c.4,  p,  17.  Athanaf.  p.  941. 
 f  ^fe^il!  D.  F.  N.  p.  33. 
 
 told 
 
a84       ^DEFENSE         Q^u.XXV. 
 
 rold  that  Angels  and  Archangels,  or  any  created 
 Beings  were  derived  from  God  without  any 
 AbJclJJlon  from,  or  "Diviflon  of,  his  Stibjlance  ? 
 Or  could  it  ever  enter  into  any  Man's  Head  to 
 make  fo  weak  an  Objedion  to  the  Catholick 
 Docftrin-e,  unlefs  a  proper  Confitbjiantiality  had 
 been  taught  by  Them  ?  Yet  this  was  the  prin- 
 cipal, the  (landing  pretence  for,  and  fupport 
 of  Herefy  for  near  200  Years  together. 
 
 The  other  woLsTrithei/tn-^  objected  all  along 
 by  the  Sabellians,  and  afterwards  (tho'  more 
 Ijparingly)  by  the  Arians,  What  kind  of  7>/- 
 theifm  the  Sabellians  meant  (Tritheifm  in  the 
 highefl:  and  ftridteft  Senfe)  appears,  not  only 
 from  the  former  Objedion  about  the  divifion 
 of  the  Father's  Subftance,  but  alio,  from  the 
 way  they  took  to  folve  the  difficulty:  Namely^ 
 by  making  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghoft  one 
 and  the  fame  Hyfojiafls,  as  well  as  one  Sub- 
 fiance-^  and  their  thinking  it  not  beneath  the 
 Father  Himfelf  to  have  lubmitted  to  TaJJlon. 
 This  makes  it  extremely  probable  that  the 
 Church,  at  that  Time,  behev'd  the  three  Peribns 
 to  be  Confubjtajitial  in  a  proper,  not  Figura- 
 tive, Senie ;  in  Confequence  whereof,  it  was 
 pretended  that  there  would  be  three  Gods ;  in 
 like  manner  as  three  Human  Perfons  of  the  iamQ 
 fpecifick  Nature,  are  three  Men. 
 
 4.  What  puts  this  farther  beyond  all  reafon- 
 able  doubt,  is  the  method  which  the  Catho" 
 licks  took  to  anfwer  the  Two  fore-mention'd 
 Objcdions.     As   to  That  about  T>ivifion   of 
 
 Sub^ 
 
Q^u.XXV.        of  fome  QUERIES.        38^ 
 
 Suhjtance\  They  never  tell  i\\tHereticks,i\\2Z 
 there  was  no  manner  of  Ground  or  Colour  for 
 the  Objedion:  They  never  fay.  that  the  fame 
 difficulty  would  lie  againfl:  God's  creating  An- 
 gels,   or  Archangels,    or  any  other  Creature  i 
 as  They   might,    and  iliould   have  done,    had 
 They  been  of  Dr.  Clarke's  Principles,    or   of 
 Your's.     No  :  *  They  only  deny  any  TDiviJiou 
 or  Diminution  of  the  Father's  Subftance,  and 
 illuftratc,  as  well  as  They  are  able,  lb  fublime 
 a  myftery,  by  one  Light  kindling,  as  it  were, 
 from  Another ;  by  the  Sun  and  it's  Rays  ;  by 
 Fountain  and  Streams \    Stock  and  Branch: 
 All  Inftances  of  the  fame  fpecifick  Nature,  and 
 f  anfwering  in  fomeCircumftances,  tho'defedivel 
 in  others.     One  would  not  defire  a  fuller  and 
 clearer  Teftimony,  that  thofe,  or  the  like  Simi- 
 litudes were  intended  to  fignify  the  fame  with 
 a  proper  Confubftantiality ,  than  we  meet  with 
 in  T>ionyfius  of  Alexandria  \, 
 
 Then,  for  their  Anfwers  to  the  charge  of 
 Tritheifm,  as  underftood  by  the  Sabellians  ^ 
 how  ealy  would  it  liave  been  for  Them  to 
 have  told  the  Objedors,  that  They  did  not 
 take  the  word  God  in  the  ftrid  Scnfe;  that 
 Mofes  and  other  mortal  Men  had  been  called 
 Gods;   that  They  believed  the  Son  to  be  no 
 
 *  Juft.  M.  Dial.  p.  185.  ^7:?.  Tat.  p.  21,  ii.  Athenag:.  p.  40. 95. 
 Origen.  Pamph.  Apol.  TertuH,  Apoi.  c.  21.  adv.  Prax-  c.  8* 
 Theognoft.  apud  Athanaf.  Vol.  i.  p.  ijo.  Hippolyc.  Con:r.  Noer* 
 c.  II.  p.  13.     Dionyf.  Aiexand.  Refp.  ad  Qua:ii. /. 
 
 t  Sfe  Bull.  D,  F.  p.  I  to. 
 
 ±  Apud  Athmaf.  de  Sentent.  Dionyf.  Tom.  i,  p.  275".  25-6. 
 
 C  c  more 
 
386       ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXV. 
 
 more  than  a  Creature,  tho'  the  mofl  pcrfedt  of 
 all  Creatures ;  and  that  the  Sabellians  did  Them 
 a  very  great   and   manifeft  Injury,   to  imagine 
 otherwife  of  Them.      This  would,    this    mud 
 have  been  their  Anfvver  to  the  charge  of  Tri- 
 iheifm  as  qnderflood  by  the  Objedors;    had 
 They  not  otherwife  learned  Chrijt.     Inftead 
 of  this.    They  appear  to  be  very   fenfible    of 
 the  ju{i  Weight  and  Importance  of  the  Obje- 
 ction.    They  mud  fccure  the  T>ivmity  of  the 
 Son,  and  yet  prefcrve  the  Unity  too.     They 
 have  recourfe  to  Uuity  of  Subjlance  (even  a- 
 gainftThofe  who  made  one  Stibftance  to  fignify 
 one  Hy^oflafls)  as  Tertullian  frequently  does, 
 in  his  diJpute  with  Traxeas:    And  notwith- 
 ipianding  that  the  Sabellians  had,  if  I  may  fo 
 ip.eak,  carried  the  Son's  T)ivinity  too  high,  in 
 foniuch  as  to  make  Him  the  very  fame  Hypo- 
 Jiajis  with  the  Father ;  yet  the  utmoft  that  the 
 Catholicks  could  be  brought  to  fay,  in  "Degra- 
 dation of  Him,  was  only  this ;  that  He  was 
 fiibordinate  as  a  Son ;  equal  in  every  refped:, 
 bur,  as  2^  Son  can  be  equal  to  2l  Father  -,  inferior 
 in  point  of  Original  (the  Father  being  Head 
 and  Fountain  of  all)  but  ftill  of  the  fame  Na- 
 ture, Power,  Subftance,  and  Perfections  ;  liib- 
 fifting  in,  and  from  the  Father,  infeparably  and 
 conftantly,  always  and  every  where ;  and  there- 
 fore one  God  with  Him.     And  if  any  Perfon, 
 tho'  in  the  warmth  of  Dilpute,  did  but  happen 
 to  drop  any  doubtful  ExpreiTions,  tending  any 
 w^ay  to  klTen  the  Dignity  of  the  Son,  or  was 
 
 but 
 
Q^u.XXV.        of  form  Q^UERIES.         387 
 
 but  fufpcdcd  to  do  ib ;  the  Alarm  was  fbon 
 taken,  and  it  awaken'd  the  Jealouiy  of  the  Cd- 
 tbollcks\  who  could  not  bear  any  Appearance 
 of  it.  This  was  remarkably  ieen,  in  the  fa- 
 mous Cafe  of  TDionyfins,  Biihop  oi Alexandria^ 
 Sixty  Years  before  the  riie  oi  Arms,  and  is  re- 
 corded by  Athanajiiis  in  his  Works, 
 
 5*.  To  this  we  may  add,  that  while  the  Sa- 
 bellian  Controverfy  was  on  Foot  (which  was 
 at  Icaft  ICO  Years,  and  could  never  have  laded 
 fo  long,  had  the  Catholicks  been  of  any  other 
 Principles,  than  Thofc  which  I  here  maintain) 
 
 I  fay,  while  this  was  on  Foot,  how  eafy  would 
 
 II  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'^  ?  The  Father  is  eternal,  but  the  Soa 
 not  ^o ;  the  Father  is  omnifcient,  bur  the  Son 
 Ignorant  of  the  Day  of  Judgment ;  the  Father 
 is  oranipotent,  bur  the  Pov/ers  of  the  Son  finite 
 and  hmited;  in  a  word,  the  Father  is  Cr^^j:^^r,  but 
 the  Son  a  Creature  \  and  therefore  They  cannot 
 be  One  and  the  fame  Hypofiafis,  or  St^-p^^fi^'^'^" 
 This  Argument  had  been  irrefragable,  and  could 
 not  have  failed  of  being  urged  and  prefs'd  Home, 
 by  Men  of  fuch  acute  Parts,  as  TertuUian^ 
 Origen,  HiPpolytus,  and  Others,  had  it  becri 
 confiftcnt  wirh  Catholick  Principles ;  or  had 
 They  not  believed,  that  the  Son  was  CGnJiib- 
 ftantial,  in  the  proper  Senfe,  enjoying  all  the 
 ^//>;//^/^/ Perfections  of  the  Father,  in  coramoil 
 with  Him.  C  c  i  x.  Ic 
 
388        ^DEFENSE         Qjj.XXV, 
 
 6.  It  would  be  endlefs  almofl:  to  proceed  in 
 this  Argument :  The  reft  I  fliall  throw  into  a 
 narrow  Compafs,  and  only  give  Hints  for  your 
 Icifure  Thoughts  to  inquire  into.  The  ilridl 
 Senfe  which  theAntients  had  of  the  word  God, 
 as  fignifying  Sttbftance,  and  applying  it  to  the 
 Son,  in  the  lame  Senie;  their  admitting  but  one 
 Subftance  to  be  ftricSly  Divine,  and  their  utter 
 Abhorrence  of  any  inferior  Deities;  their  ap- 
 propriating Worlliip  to  the  one  true  God,  and 
 vvorlhiping  the  Son  notwithftanding;  their  un- 
 animous Behef  of  the  Son's  being  eternal,  nn^ 
 created,  omnipotent,  and  of  his  being  Creator, 
 Preferver,  and  Suftainer  of  the  Univerfe :  Any 
 one  of  thefe,  fmgly  almoft,  would  be  fufficient 
 for  the  proof  of  z  prefer  Omfttbft ajitialtty ,  as 
 afferted  by  thQ^nte-Nicene  CathoHck Writers: 
 But  all  together,  and  taken  with  the  other  Par- 
 ticulars before  mention'd,  They  make  io  full, 
 fo  clear,  lb  ample  a  Demonftration  of  a  Matter 
 of  Fad:,  that  a  Man  muft  be  of  a  very  peculiar 
 Conftitution,  who,  after  having  well  confidered 
 the  Evidences,  can  make  the  leaft  doubt  or 
 fcruple  of  it.  And  this  I  hope  may  be  fuffi- 
 cient in  anfwer  to  your  Pretence  of  an  Orato- 
 rical or  Figurative  Confubflanriality  ;  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  f  roper,  not  figurative,  Conlub- 
 itantiality,  w^hich  the  Ante-NiceriR  Fathers  in- 
 violably 
 
Q^u.XXVI.       of  fo7ne  (QUERIES.         389 
 
 violably  maintain'd ;    This  is  all  I  am  concern'd 
 for.  As  to  the  Qncflion,  whether  it  ihali  be  call- 
 ed Speclfick,  or  Numerical,  I  am  in  no  pain  a- 
 boLit  it.    Neither  of  the  Names  exaftly  fuits  it; 
 nor  perhaps  any  other  we  can  think  on.     It  is 
 fuch  a  Conjiihjiantiality  as  prefcrves  thcUuity, 
 without  deftroying    the    dijltnci  Terfonality  -^ 
 fuch  as  neither  Sabellians  nor  Arians  w^ould 
 come  into,  but  the  Catholicks  maintain'd,  with 
 equal  Vigour,  againlT:  Both.    It  is  a  Medium  to 
 preferve  ihcTriority  of  the  Father,  and  withal 
 the  T>'ivinity,  the  ejfential  Divinity,    of  Sou 
 2ini  Holy-Ghoji :   In  a  word;    it  is  i:he  fober, 
 middle  way,  between  the  Extravagancies  of  Both 
 Extremes, 
 
 Q^  U    E    R    Y       XXVI. 
 
 Whether  the  T)ofior  did  not  equivocate  or 
 prevaricate  firangely ,  in  Jaying,  *  The 
 Generality  of  Writers  before  the  Council  of 
 Nice,  were,  in  the  whole,  clearly  ci;  his 
 Side:  When  it  is  manifejl.  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  points  of  dijfe- 
 rence ,  The  Eternity  and  Consubstan- 
 TiALiTY,  They  are  clearly  againji  Him  ? 
 That  is,  They  were  on  his  Side,  Jo  far  as 
 
 t  ^nfrp,  to  Dr.  Wells,  pag.  i3. 
 
 C  c  5  "^^ 
 
390        ^DEFENSE        CLu.XXVf. 
 
 we  acknoisjledge  Him  to  be  right,  but  na 
 farther, 
 
 IN  Defence  of  the  Dodor,  you  appeal  to  his 
 very  numeroits,  and,  as  you  {di^, plain  Quo- 
 tations from  the  antient  Authors.     And  this, 
 you  promife  before-hand,  will  be  made  further 
 evident  to  all  learned  and  unprejudiced  Per- 
 Ibns,  as  loon  as  Dr.  14^  hit  by  s  Obfervations  on 
 Bijhop  Bull's  Defenf.  Fid.  Nic.  appear  in  the 
 World,     As  to  the  Doctor's  pretended  plain 
 Quotations,    from  the  ancient  Authors,  They 
 have  not  plainly,  nor  at  all  determined  againft 
 the  Co- eternity  and  Confubftantiality  of  the 
 Son ,    the   Toints   in   ^lejtion  ;     and   there- 
 fore can  do  the  Dodor  no  Service :  Bur,  on 
 the   contrary j    the  Ante-Nicene  Writers,    in 
 general,    have  determin'd  plainly  againft  Him, 
 as  to  the  main  of  his  Dodrine,    wherein  He 
 differs  from  us.     In  afTerting  which,  I  fay  no 
 more    than    the    great   Athanafius    told    the 
 Arians  long  ago,  and  ic  is  Fad,   that  all  the 
 Writers  before  Them,  of  any  Repute  or  Judg- 
 ment, were  diredly  againft  Them.  *'  *  We  give 
 **  you  Demonftration,  fays  He,  that  our  Do- 
 ''  drine  has  been  handed  down  to  us  from  Fa- 
 •*  thers  to  Fathers.     But  You,  Ye  Revivers  of 
 ''  Judaifm   and  Difciples   of  Caiphas,    what 
 *'  Writers  can  you  bring  to  Father  your  Tenets? 
 *'  Not  a  Man  can  you  name,  of  any  repute  for 
 '*  Senfe  or  Judgment.  All  to  a  Man  are  againft 
 
 *  Athanaf.  dc  Decret.  Syn.  Nic.  p.  23 3[, 
 
 "'  '  ■  you 
 
Qu.XXVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         391 
 
 yon,  ^c.  To  the  fame  purpbfe  fpeaks  St.  An- 
 jiin,  in  a  ftudied  Difcourfe,  which  may  be  lUp- 
 pofed  to  contain  his  cooled  and  1110ft  ierioUs 
 Tnoiights.  *'  *  All  the  Carholick  Interpreters 
 **  of  the  Old  or  New  Teftament.  that  1  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  fame  Subftahce, 
 "  make  up  the  Unity  divine.  Here  yoii 
 may  obferve  the  Summ  of  the  f  Catholick 
 Dodrine.  The  fame  Homogeneous  Subjlance  ; 
 and  In fepar ability.  The  firft  makes  each  Hy- 
 poftafis,  res  divina ;  the  laft  makes  all  to  be 
 una  Stibftantia,  una  Summa  res,  one  nndi- 
 vided,  or  individual,  or  numerical  Subftance ; 
 one  God.  This  is  the  Antient  Catholick  Do- 
 drine ;  and,  I  think,  of  the  Schools  too ;  tho' 
 the  School-men  have  perplexed  it  with  innumer- 
 able Subtilties.    Hilary  exprefles  it  briefly  thus, 
 
 *  Omnes>  quos  Icgcre  potui,  qui  ante  me  Scripferunt  de  Trini- 
 tate,  qu32  eft  Deus,  divinorum  librorum  Veterum  &  Novorum  Ca- 
 thoiici  Tra6latores  hoc  inrcndcvunt  fccundum'  Scriptui'as  d"6cere, 
 quod  Pater,  h.  Filius,  &:  Spiritas  San<fius,  Un'ms  ejufiiemque  Sub- 
 fiantU  infeparabili  sequalitate  divinam  inlinuent  Unitarem,  ^ug, 
 Trin.  1.  i.  c.  3.  p«  7f3. 
 
 f  7  Jliall  aiht  another  Tajfage  of  St.  Auftin,  to  explain  his  Senfi 
 more  clearly. 
 
 Trinitas  proper  Trinitatem  Perforiarurn,  5c  Unus  Deus  propter 
 infeparabilem  Divinitatcm,  (icut  Unus  Omnipofens  propter  hifepara^ 
 mletn  Omnipotcntiam.  Ita  ut  etiam  cum  de  fingulis  quaeritur. 
 unufquifque  eorum  £c  DeusOmnipoten?  cflc  rcfpondcaturj  cum  vcro 
 de  omnibus  firauh  non  Trcs  Dii,  vel  Trcs  Omnipotentcs,  (td  unus 
 Deus  Omnipotcns:  Tama  inert  in  Tribus  inrepsrabilis  Unitas,  qux 
 fic  ie  Voluit  prxdicari,    ^luguf*  ds  d'nit-  Dei  1.  1 1.  c  24-. 
 
 C  c   4  Natur.'f 
 
39^        ^DEFENSE        Qji.  XXVI. 
 
 Nature  indiffimilis  atque  infeparabilis  Anitas. 
 This,  I  lay,  is  the  Dodtrine;  Confute  it,  if  you 
 pleafe,  or  if  you  can :  In  the  mean  while  how- 
 ever, let  us  honeftly  own  the  Fad:.  But  to 
 proceed. 
 
 There  were  many  Writings  extant  in  the 
 Times  of  Athanafms  and  Atifiin,  which  have 
 not  come  down  to  us ;  and  therefore  their 
 Teftimonies,  in  the  Cafe,  are  of  the  greater  force, 
 I  might  mention  other  Catholicks,  about  that 
 time,  who  appealed  to  Antiquity,  with  all  the 
 AfTurance  and  Freedom  Imaginable.  But  the 
 moft  remarkable  Inftance  to  our  purpofe  is,  that 
 when  in  the  Time  of  Theodojitis,  the  Avians 
 were  prefs'd  by  the  Catholicks  in  difpute,  and 
 fairly  challeng'd  to  refer  the  matter  in  Conrro- 
 verfy  to  the  concurring  Judgment  of  the  Wri- 
 ters before  Them,  and  to  put  it  upon  thatlflue; 
 the  Avians  declined  it,  and  durfl:  not  abide  the 
 Trial.  See  the  Story,  at  large,  in  *  Socrates 
 and  f  Soz,omen.  So  dull  were  the  Catholicks 
 at  that  Time,  nay.  To  unthinking  were  the 
 Avians  too,  xh^tThej  could  not  perceive,  what 
 is  now  fo  c/eav  to  the  Dodor ;  that  the  gene- 
 rality  ofJVvitevs,  before  the  Council  ofN'icQ, 
 were  on  the  Avian  fide ;  But  one  Party  was 
 confident,  and  the  other  fdpeded,  at  leaft,  that 
 the  contvavy  was  true. 
 
 But  I  need  not  take  this  indlve6i  way  of 
 confuting  the  Dodor's  Aflertion ;  tho'  it  affords 
 us  a  very  ftrong  Prefumprion,  and  is  of  much 
 
 *  Lib.j-.  c.  io#  t  Lib.  7.  c.  12. 
 
 greater 
 
Q^u.XXVL       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        393 
 
 greater  Weight  and  Authority  than  the  finglc 
 Judgment  of  any  of  the  Moderns :  Many  of 
 the  Ante-Nicene  Writings,  by  the  good  Pro- 
 vidence of  God,  are  yet  extant,  and  can  (peak 
 for  Themfelves ;  Befides  that  the  incomparable 
 Biiliop  Bull  has  unanfvverably  defended  Them, 
 and  vindicated  Them  from  all  fuch  Exceptions 
 as  appeared  to  have  any  Shadow  of  Truth  or 
 Probability  in  Them.  To  fhow  you  how  ht- 
 tle  Reafon  the  Dodor,  or  your  Self,  hath  to 
 boaft  of  the  Ante-NiceneWnz^vs,  as  favourable 
 to  your  Caufe,  I  Ihali  here  fct  down  feveral 
 Pofirions  in  which  the  DocStor  and  You  run 
 manifeftly  counter  to  the  whole  Stream  of 
 Antiquity. 
 
 I .  That  the  Soft  is  not  Confubfiantial  with 
 Cod  the  Father.  You  are  diredly  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 
 Teflimonies  colleded  by  Bifliop  Bull,  and  from 
 what  additional  Obfcrvations  I  have  made  un- 
 der the  laft  Query. 
 
 X.  That  the  Son  is  not  Co- eternal  with  the 
 Father.  Conlubftantialiry  implies  Co-eternity : 
 Befides  that  the  afore-mention'd  learned  Prelate, 
 has  given  us  numerous  dired:  Teftimcnies  for 
 it  from  the -.^///^-xV/V^;/^  Fathers,  above  Twenty 
 of  Them;  not  one  of  any  Note  plainly  contra- 
 didtins  Them.  Thefe  two  main  Points  beinc^ 
 determin'd  againft  you,  the  reft  are  of  Icfs  mo- 
 ment.    Yet   I  cannot  find  chat  the  Antients 
 
 agreed 
 
J94        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXVI. 
 
 agrc^  with  you  in  your  other  inferior  Pofiti- 
 ons,  which  you  bring  in  as  underprops  to 
 your  Scheme. 
 
 3.  That,  God,  is  a  relative  Word,  Seos  and 
 5ioT7i5  fig^^fyi^'g  ^^ot  Siibfiance  hit  "Dominion, 
 and  Authority.  This  is  diredly  *  contrary  to 
 all  Catholick  Antiquity,  a  very  few  Inftances 
 excepted. 
 
 4.  That  God  the  Father  only  was  God  of 
 jibraham,  Ifaac,  and  Jacob.     This  Pofition  f 
 have  ihown  to  be  contrary  to  the  Sentiments 
 of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers. 
 
 5-,  That  the  Titles  of  one,  only,  8cc.  are  ex- 
 dtiflve  of  the  Son.  This  alfb  I  have  iliown, 
 in  thefe  Papers,  to  be  diredly  contrary  to  the 
 Judgment  of  the  Antients. 
 
 6.  That  the  Son  had  not  diflinEt  worjhip 
 faid  Him  till  after  his  Refurrecfion.  This, 
 in  the  Senfe  wherein  you  underftand  it,  is  not 
 true ;  nor  agreeable  to  the  Sentiments  of  the 
 Antient  Church. 
 
 *  See  Fiddes,  Vol.  if.  p.  57^,  <&c.,  and  tohsit  I  have obferv  d  aboxie^ 
 p.  8;'.  Nothing  more  common  than  ^iomc,  for  divine  Nature  {as  ocv- 
 ^^uTfiiTi^  alfo  for  the  Human)  in  Ecchjiafiical  Mr  iters.  I  J^jall  point 
 /{?  a  fev>  Infiances  only   out  of  many. 
 
 Melito  apud  Cav.  Hid.  Lir.   VoK  2.  p.  5;.         Grabe  Spicileg. 
 Vol.  2.  p.  24.5'.     Kippolyt.  Vol.  i.  p.  226.  Vol.  2.  p.  24,     Origen 
 ContF.  Cclf.  p.  342.404.     Cy/ill.  Hieroibl.    Gatech.   11.    p.  142. 
 Cyril.  Alexo  Thcfaur.  p.  232.  Dial.  i.   de  Trin.  p.  40J.     Damafc- 
 de  Orth.  Fid.  I.  3.  c.  11. 
 
 N,  B.  There  is^  in  Jirictnefsy  fome  difference  betr^en  ro  B-iToy^  and 
 $-?0Ti5?  {tho'  They  are  often  ufed  for  each  other)  (uch  nearly  as  be- 
 tiHe^i  Concrete,  and  Abftraft ;  but  fiill  S-sctjjs  refers  to  Nature  and 
 SubftarKC  (as  0i«;  alfo  generally  does)  not  Dominion.  Abftra<5i: 
 Names  of  Subflances  are  not  very  cotnmon  indeed^  (  See  Lock  H.  V. 
 I  J.  c.  Br)  bt:t  hire-  tker^  was  n  neceffty  for  if. 
 
 7.  7hat 
 
Q^u.XXVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         39 jT 
 
 7.  That  Father  and  So7i  {or  any  tv:o  Ver- 
 fons)  ought  not  to  be  called  one  God.  I  have 
 refcrr'd  to  the  ^;//t'-A^/V^//^  Writers,  who  fo  call- 
 ed Them,  more  than  once.  Some  of  the  Tcfti- 
 monies  may  be  fcen  at  large  in  Dr.  Fiddes. 
 
 8 .  That  the  Title  of  God,  in  Scripture,  in  an 
 abfiltUe  ConJiruBion,  alisjoys  fignifies  the  Fa- 
 ther.  Biredly  contrary  to  the  Scream  of  Anti- 
 quity ;  as  may  appear,  befides  other  Arguments^ 
 from  their  Application  of  Scripture  Texts,  of 
 the  Old  Teftament,  in  which  God  is  Ipokcn  of 
 abfolutely,  to  the  Son. 
 
 9.  That  an  Inferior  God  may  be  admitted 
 befides  the  Supreme,  and  JForJhip  paid  to 
 Both.  Nothing  can  ftrike  more  at  the  very 
 Fundamentals  of  Religion  than  this  Pofition,  in 
 the  Judgment  of  the  Antients  in  general. 
 
 10.  That  the  Son  is  not  efficient  Caufe  of 
 the1)ni'verfe,  and  of  all  created  Beings.  This 
 I  take  to  be  contrary  to  all  the  Antients.  Sec 
 the  Teftimonies  above  *. 
 
 11.  That  the SonHimfelfis  made  or  created. 
 This  neither  You  nor  the  Dodlor  admit  in 
 Terms ;  but  in  reality,  and  in  other  'Ujords, 
 you  Both  do;  as  hath  been  ihown.  This  Po- 
 rtion is  flatly  contrary  to  the  Dodrine  of  the 
 Antients.  The  Teflimonies  have  been  referr'd 
 to  above.  There  are  other  Particulars,  which 
 I  may  at  prefent  forget,  or  which  may  lefs  dc- 
 ferve  notice.  Theie  are  enough  to  Ihow  that 
 the  Doctor's  Pretences  to  the  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
 thers, are  groundlefs^ 
 
 *Qu!!.  What 
 
396        ^DEFENSE       C^u.XXVI. 
 
 What  then  has  the  Dodor  to  plead  for  Him- 
 felf,  and  for  his  lo  great  AfTurance  in  this  Par- 
 ticular? Firfl:,  That  ih^  Ante-Nicejie  (as  did 
 a!(b  the  7oJi-Nicene)  Fathers  allowed  a  Subor- 
 dination'^ which  is  very  true,  but  not  at  all 
 pertinent;  nor  can  any  Confequence  be  cer- 
 tainly drawn  from  it,  in  favour  of  the  Doctor's 
 HypotheJis\  which  Pie  himiclf  feems  to  be 
 aware  of.  as  I  have  remarked  above  *.  Another 
 Thing  is,  that  the  Ante-Ricene  Writers,  fome 
 of  Them,  fpoke  of  a  Temporal  Generation  by 
 the  Will  of  the  Father,  which  1  have  account- 
 ed for  in  my  former  Pages.  And  a  third  Thing 
 is,  that  the  generality  of  the  Antients,  when 
 They  fpeak  of  God  abfolutely,  ordinarily  mean 
 the  Father,  and  They  diftinguilli  His  Perfon 
 by  fome  eminent  Titles,  and  peculiar  Appella- 
 tions :  which  may  be  eafily  accounted  for. 
 
 Can  thefe  Three  Confiderations,  or  if  there 
 be  more  fuch,  be  ground  fufficient  for  the  Do- 
 ctor to  lay,  that  the  generality  of  the  Ante- 
 Nicene  Writers  are  clearly  on  his  fide,  w^hen 
 They  exprefly  contradid:  Him  in  fo  many  Par- 
 ticulars as  I  have  mention'd ;  feveral  of  Them 
 e[fentials  of  IWs  Hy pot  he/Is?  The  mofl:  that 
 in  Truth  can,  or  in  Jaftice  ought  to  be  faid,  is, 
 that,  in  fome  Particulars,  They  feem  to  favour 
 Him ;  but  could  not  really  mean  it ;  unlefs 
 They  notorioufly  contradided  Themfclves. 
 The  very  utmoft  which  the  mod  fanguine  Man 
 of  your  fide  ihould  hope  for,  is,  that  the  Fa- 
 thers may  be  found  Contradidory  to  one  ano- 
 ♦  Pag,  303.  ther, 
 
Q^u.XXVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        397 
 
 ther,  or  to  Themfelves,  in  order  to  null  their 
 Evidence.  If  They  arc  confiftcnr,  They  are 
 our's  certainly.  And  this  Difference  there  is 
 plainly  between  us,  and  you :  That,  as  to  your 
 Principles,  the  Fathers  are  cxprefs,  clear,  and 
 full  againft  Them  ;  no  poflibiliry  of  reconciling 
 Them  together:  As  to  our's.  They  are  no 
 where  diredly  and  exprefly  againft  us;  If  They 
 arc  at  all  againft  us,  it  is  only  indireBly,  and 
 muft  be  made  out  by  Inference,  T)edu6iioj7^ 
 and  remote  Confequences,  neither  clear,  nor 
 certain.  They  may  be  reconciled  to  our  Trin- 
 cities,  to  Themfelves,  and  to  one  Another : 
 But,  as  to  any  confiftent  Agreement  with  your's, 
 ic  is  utterly  imprafticable. 
 
 Now,  fuppofing  the  Dodor  ever  fo  ftrongly 
 to  believe  that  the  Ante-Nkene  Writers,  in 
 general,  held  Principles  which  neceflarily  in- 
 fer and  imply  his  Conclufion;  yet  we  infift 
 upon  it,  that  They  ought  not  to  be  judged 
 of  from  any  oMcure  Confequences  which  the 
 Dodlor  draws  for  Them ,  ao;ainft  what  Thev 
 drew  for  Themfelves.  If  we  once  take  the  Li- 
 berty of  denominating,  fbrting,  or  ranking  of 
 Men  with  any  fide,  not  according  to  what  them- 
 felves profefs'd,  but  accordti>g  to  what  fome  ima- 
 gine, in  Reafon  and  good  Confeqnence,  They 
 ought  to  have  profefs'd,  we  may  call  Trot ef  ants, 
 Tapifts\  Arminians ,  Calvhiifls\  Orthodox, 
 Hereticks\  and  what  not.  There  are  fome  com- 
 mon Principles  which  all  Mankind  agree  in ; 
 and    the  fcveral   Differences   and   Diftindions 
 
 amcngft 
 
398        ^DEFENSE       Qu.XXYL 
 
 aniongfl:  them  arife  only  from  their  drawing 
 Conlequences  differently ;  and  it  is  this  that 
 gives  Them  their  particular  and  fpecial  Dcno* 
 mination.  Now  fince  it  is  evident  and  vifible, 
 as  the  Light,  that  the  ^nte-Nicene  Writers  did 
 not  own  the  Confequences  which  the  Dodor 
 makes  for  them,  but  exprefly  and  clearly  re- 
 jeded  them ;  conftantly  affirming  the  Eternity 
 and  Conftibjtantiality  of  the  Son  (the  very 
 points  of  Difl^erence  between  Us  and  the  Dodor) 
 it  is  plain  and  obvious  to  common  Senle,  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  confident, 
 is  not  now  the  Qiieftion)  and  as  clearly  againft 
 Him.  It  is  to  no  purpofe  to  plead,  in  this 
 Cale,  that  Tremifes  only  are  of  any  Weight, 
 and  that  Concltifions  always  (land  for  nothing. 
 This  may  be  allowed  in  Argumcfitation  \  but 
 not  in  determining  on  what  fide  any  Perfon,  or 
 any  Body  of  Men  were  in  this  particular  Quc- 
 ftion ;  whether  luch  Concltifions  follow  front 
 fuch  Tremifes.  In  this,  the  Ante-Nicene  Wri- 
 ters were  directly,  and  plainly^  Anti-Arian  ; 
 and  therefore  it  is  a  great  Abuie  of  Language, 
 and  as  great  an  Injury  to  Them  and  to  the 
 Truth,  for  the  Dod:or  to  fay  that  They  were, 
 in  the  "isjldole,  clearly  on  his  fide. 
 
 But  you  had  promifed  the  Vv'orld  great  Mat- 
 ters from  a  Book  of  Dr.  fVhithys,  which  has 
 fince  fecn  the  Light ;  and  1  am  therefore  obliged 
 to  fay  ibmething  to  it,  tho'  othcrwifc  I  tiould 
 
 much 
 
Q,u.XXVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         39;^ 
 
 much  rather  wave  ir ;  bccaufe  it  is  wrote  only 
 to  Scholars,  with  whom  it  can  do  no  harm  \ 
 and  becaufe,  I  beheve.  you  arc  icnfibic,  before 
 this  Time,  how  uncaucious  a  Thing  it  is  to  pro- 
 mile  in  the  Dark ;  and  to  be  Sponfor  for  ano* 
 ther's  Performance,  ^o  long  before-hand.  Dr. 
 Whitby  is  one  that  has  done  good  Service  to 
 the  Church,  and  to  the  learned  World;  and 
 one  would  be  willing  to  throw  a  Veil  over  his 
 late  mifcondu(5t  in  this  Controverfy,  did  not 
 the  imprudent  Triumphs  of  others  oblige  us 
 to  take  fome  notice  of  ir.  But  let  us  come  to 
 the  Point:  I  lliall  fliow  you,  in  Ibme  fliorc 
 Strictures  upon  the  Performance,  how  little  you 
 are  to  hope  for  from  it;  and  how  far  it  comes 
 ihort  of  Expedation.  I'll  divide  what  I  have 
 to  fay  into  two  Kinds  of  01>lervations> 
 
 I.  Upon  general  Fallacies,  running  thro'  the 
 whole  Book, 
 
 z.  Upon  particular  Defeds,  Mifquotations, 
 Mifconflrudlions,  Mifreprefentations,  ^c. 
 
 His  principal,  and  moll  general  Fallacy,  is  his 
 making  Ejfeuce  :kndiTer/on  to  fignify  the  lame. 
 One  individual  01 7iU7nericalYJSzxiZZ,  He  every 
 where  interprets  to  a  Sabelliait  Senle;  under- 
 Handing  by  it  one  individual  Hypoflafis,  or 
 real  Perfon.  And  this  ridiculous  Senle  Hs  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 
 
 *  Prxf.  p.  3*, 
 
 Council 
 
40O        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXVL 
 
 Council  of  Nice:  For  He  ^  charges  Athanafius 
 Hiraielf  with  it ;  who  has  been  generally  look'd 
 upon  as  the  Standard  of  Orthodoxy,  in  this  Ar- 
 ticle. The  Charge  is  weak,  and  groundlefs, 
 and  more  efpecially  in  regard  to  Biihop  Bull\ 
 who  is  ^  known  to  have  declared  Himfelfagainft 
 it,  as  frequently,  as  ftrongly ,  and  as  fully ;  as 
 it  was  pofTible  for  a  Man  to  do.  The  learned 
 Examiner,  tho'  ^  He  leems  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  firfl:  fight, 
 obfcrve  the  peculiar  Extravagance  of  the  un- 
 dertaking, to  confute  Billiop  Btill^  only  by 
 lliowing  that  the  Billiop  has  not  proved  what 
 He  never  intended  to  prove,  nor  fo  much  as 
 believed,  but  rejcd:ed  as  heartily  as  the  learned 
 Examiner  Himfelf  can  do.  However,  fince 
 this  was,  in  a  manner,  neceflary,  that  the 
 learned  Examiner  xx\\^\x.  appear  at  leaft  to  have 
 {bmething  to  fay,  all  due  Allowances  are  to  be 
 made  for  it.     Let  us  now  oblerve  how  in  the 
 
 a  Prapf.  p   ?i« 
 
 b  /  P'^ull  here  only  ate  one  Vaffags  of  B'ljlyop  Bull,  [peaking  of 
 Sandiusi  vohofe  fieps  Dr.  Whitby   has  too  clofely  folloroed, 
 
 Au6lor  llle,  ubique  in  Libro  fuo  illud  pro  certo  &  rato  habet 
 Homoujianorum,  quos  vocat,  6c  Sabellianorum  de  Filio  Dei  Sen- 
 tentiam  prorius  eandcm  elle.  Quo  nihil  a  vero  rcmotius  eftj 
 Siquidem  fupra  cl.ire  oflendimus ,  Ncminem  Dei  Filium  Patri 
 jitm>ir,ov  polTe  dicere,  niii  abfurdc  admodum  Sc  improprie,  qui  cum 
 Siibellio  fentiat     D.  F.  N.  p.  148. 
 
 See  al/o  D.  F.  p.  i;o.     Animadv.  in  Gilb.  Clarke,  p.  IC04. 
 
 c  See  Modeft.  Oifqiiifit.  p.  IO7.  where  He  charges  Lifiop  Bull 
 withholding  a  Specifick  Unity ^  and  Vrxi.  ?•;?*• 
 
 d  Prxf.  p*  31' 
 
 Entrance 
 
Q^u.XXVI.       of  fome  Q^UEPvIES,         401 
 
 Entrance,  He    is   plcafcd   to  (late  the  general 
 Queftion. 
 
 **  *  Whether  All  the  Ante-Nkcne  Fathers 
 •'  profefs'd  the  very  fame  Dodrine  which  IV c 
 *•  afcribe  to  the iV/V^^;/^ Council;  That  is,  whe- 
 **  ther  All  acknowledged  the  fame  Numerical 
 "  Edence  of  the  Father  to  have  been  com- 
 '*  ;;^/////Vt2/^^^  to  the  Son  and  Holy-GIioft,  and 
 *'  that  therefore  Both  are  one  God  in  Number 
 **  with  the  Father. 
 
 See  how  many  Guards  He  has  put  in  ;  as  in 
 were  Conlcious  of  what  He  had  taken  in  hand, 
 and  fearing  left  otherwife  there  fliould  not  be 
 left  Him  ftrength  fufficient  to  fecure  a  hand- 
 fome  Retreat.  He  does  not  fay,  the  Genera- 
 lity of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  but  All\  lb 
 that  if  there  happens  to  be  but  one  Exception, 
 He  may  dill  be  iafe  and  fecure.  Nexr,  He  does 
 not  fay  the  Dc(3:rine  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
 but  which /^i?  afcribe  to  that  Council :  New, 
 who  can  tell  w^hat  We  He  means?  Perhaps 
 Himfelf  and  Two  or  Three  more.  Then  again, 
 fame  Ejfence  will  not  fcrve,  but  it  muft  be  the 
 fame  7iiimerical  Effence :  And  this  He  intcr-^ 
 prets,  every  w^here  throughout  his  Book,  in  a 
 Sabellian  Senfe.  So  here  the  State  of  the 
 ^teftion  is  intirely  changed;  And  unlefs  the 
 Biiliop  has  proved  (which  God  forbid)  that  All 
 
 ♦  Utrum  Patres  Omnes  Anie-Nicsni  Eandem  Quam  Concilio 
 N/ri»(7»TRiBuiMus  fcnrentiani  amplexi  funt  j  hoc  efl:,  utrum  omncs 
 Ea:.dem  Numero  Patris  Ellentiam  Filio  £c  Spiritui  Sanclo  fuifTs 
 CoMMUNiCATAM,  coquc  nominc  utrumque  cum  Patre  Unnm  Na- 
 roero   Deum  e(Tc  at^aoveruni:  ?  Proem,  p.  2- 
 
 D  d  .the 
 
401        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXVI. 
 
 the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  were  Hereticks  and 
 fomerhmg  worfe,  profefling  what  Themlelves 
 condemn'd  asHerely,He  has  not,  it  fecms,done 
 enough  to  iatisfy  the  learned  Examiner.  Not 
 Content  with  this.  He  demands  farther  to  have 
 it  proved  that  this  fame  tmmerkal  Eflence, 
 that  is  (according  to  Him)  Terfon,  was  com^ 
 mun'icated  to  Two  other  '^Perfons :  And  He 
 has  fome  pretence  for  cavil  at  the  word 
 *  Communicated.  Yet,  as  if  all  this  were  not 
 lufficicnt,  it  mull  be  alfo  by  interior  Tro- 
 duEiion  ;  as  He  obferves  a  little  after  in  pag.  i. 
 and  He  has  fome  Turns  of  Wit  upon  the 
 word  f  TroduBion.  Was  this  the  way  to 
 anfwer  fuch  a  Writer  as  Biiliop  Bull,  a  wife, 
 grave,  learned,  judicious  Author,  and  One  that 
 was  above  Trifling? 
 
 In  ihort,  the  plain  Quedion  between  Bilhopi 
 Bull  and  the  Arians  is  only  this :  Whethert 
 iht  Ante  Nicene  Fathers,  in  general,  believed^ 
 the  Son  to  be  of  an  eternal,  uncreated,  im- 
 mutable,  and  ftridly  divine  Subftance,  or  no  ? 
 Biihop  Bull  maintain'd  the  ^affirmative ,  and 
 has  unanfwerably  proved  \x.,  in  the  opinion  of 
 moft  Men  of  true  Learning  and  Judgment,  whe-^ 
 ther  Here,  or  Abroad.  This  is  what  the  learned 
 Examiner  fnould  neither  have  concealed,  nor 
 difguis'd;  but  have  frankly  and  honeftly  con- 
 feis'd,  as  He  did  [^formerly.  If,  notvvithllanding* 
 
 *  Prasf.   pag.  ai.  t  ^^^^i-  P-  ig' 
 
 t  Opus  aggrcdior  quod  Bullus  nollras,  Pictate  Summa  8c  Ddctrina 
 Vir  fit^^d.U'.^'j,    stque  in   Anritjuitatis  roiius  Scriptis   \'v.'riatur<mus, 
 
 tho 
 
Q^u.XXVI.       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        403 
 
 the  learned  Prelate  has  not  proved  that  the 
 Fathers  held  a  numerical  tflence,  in  the  Ex- 
 aminer's  Senie  (iuch  as  He  thinks  neceflary  to 
 prclervc  the  Unity)  the  Bifhop  fliould  not  be 
 reprciented  as  failing  in  the  Proof  of  what  He 
 intended;  but  ihouid  be  given  up  for  a  7  i- 
 theiji,  and  the  Catholkk  Church  with  Him, 
 whofe  Advocate  He  is,  and  with  Vv^hora  He 
 ftands  or  falls.  This  would  have  been  the  f-'jr 
 and  ingenuous  way  ;  unlei's  the  learned  Exami- 
 ner would  have  undertaken  to  prove  that  the 
 Fathers  before  the  Nicene  Council  were  of 
 y^r/^;/ Principles,  which  He  durft  not  do.  What 
 does  it  fignify  to  fliovv  that  They  were  not  Sa- 
 belliansl  Did  Billiop  Bull,  or  does  any  Mdn 
 of  Senle  pretend  They  were  ? 
 
 You  may  judge  of  the  Performance,  from 
 his  dating  the  Q^iedion  lb  flranecly;  and  his 
 fetting  out  witii  Iuch  diffidence,  as  if  He 
 thought  the  Caufe  delperate.  V/hen  you  come 
 to  the  Book  it  fe!f,  you'l  find  Two  1  hirus  of 
 itj  in  effecl:,  little  more  than  retreating  to  the 
 Sabellian  Senfe  of  Numerical  and  Individual, 
 which  is  only  fo  much  Impertinence.  This  is 
 the  principal ,  and  the  moft  general  Fallacy 
 which  He  truits  to ;  and  is,  in  a  manner,  the 
 Turn  of  the  whole  Book. 
 
 He  has  another  general  Fallacy,  which  He 
 ferves  Himfelf  of  fomctimes,    and  it    is   this, 
 
 opere  Are  perenn'tori,  ad  Dociorum  Invidiam,  &  No-jctorutn  Cordoliuw. 
 lummo  judicio  6c  induftria  peregit.  Whitby.  Trudat,  de  vera  Chrif. 
 Deit-  pag.  59. 
 
 D  d   t  This 
 
404        J '^  "W'VW^^S'I?     1:lti;XXVI. 
 
 When  He  finds  fome  Expreflions  run  pretty 
 high  and  ftrong  for  the  Divinity  ofChrift,  *He 
 fays  the  Avians  ufed  the  fame,  or  the  hke  Ex- 
 prefTions.     There  is  very  Httle  Force  or  Weight 
 in  the  Argument ;  For  it  amounts  only  to  this. 
 The  \Artafis,  perfcd:  Maftcrs  of  Diflimulation 
 and   notorioufly   accuftom'd   to    equivocating, 
 u(ed  fuch  or  itich  Exprcfilons,    meaning  httle 
 by  them ;  therefore  the  Ante-Nicene  V/riters, 
 Men  of  a  very  different  Stamp  and  Charader, 
 meant  no  more  by  thofe  Exprefiions.     But,  be- 
 . fides  this,    it  is  well  known  that  iY.t\Artans, 
 at  firft,  did  not  ufe  thofe  high  Expreflions  of 
 the  Son,  but  came  into  them  by  Degrees?  as 
 J^They  found  their  Dodrine  too  lliocking  to  be 
 ;endured  in  broad  Terms;  and  as  They  perceived 
 die  necefTity  of  ufing  Catbolick  Language.    We 
 can  eafily  iliow,    how,    and   when,  and   why 
 the  Ar'tans  were  obliged  to  Jpeak  higher  than 
 They  thought.   But  it  can  never  be  ill  own  that 
 the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  were  under  any  fuch 
 Temptation;   or   that  They  affecfled  to  (peak 
 
 *  Pra;f".  p. 4. 29.  Lib.  p.  8,9. 40.  90. 109.  if^.  i$7.  «wi  e//^?i'^<'?'<^o 
 
 t  Scilicet  Tencbrioncs  illi  paraii  erant  quanilibet  Fidei  Confefllo- 
 ncm  fuo  fuffragio  con^p'^obare,  qusc  modo  vocem  ofAsacna  iion  ha- 
 heret:  etiamfi  quoque  in  ca  ponertntur  verba  alia  quae  apud  San6s 
 <bmncs  idem  proruis  iigniflcarcnr,    B/il'D.Y.  p.  zSy.  • 
 
 :^  Arianos  JefLim  Chrifium  Deum  de  Deo,  lia7iC7i  tie  him'me,  vi- 
 iam  ex  lita,  ante  omnin  Stasia  ex  Deo  Fane  ger.itum  dixiffe,  Eii- 
 febio  adhuc  in  vivis  agenrc,  me  legilfe  non  memini :  utcunquc  po- 
 ilea,  ad  declinandarti  Invidiam  in  Publicis  Formulis  has  voces  frau- 
 dulentcr  ufurparenr,  ^c,     Cav.  Epiji.  Apologet.  p.  6f. 
 
 Qui  Artes  Eufebii,  rcliquorumque  Art^n^oruTTi  Vocum  Ambigui^ 
 i&te  perpotuo  abutentium,  non  oifaciet  hac.  in  rci  ei  quid  aliud 
 i^ptcra  non  video,  pr.^t^r  nr^fsim.    C't"--.  tpJl,CHt.  2'^  P-jti* 
 
Qu.XXVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        40^ 
 
 otherwife    than    They  really  meant,    or  than 
 They  would    be  generally  underftood.    They 
 were  plain,  open  Men;  unacquainted  with  thoic 
 Principles  of  Latitude,  and  (ludied  Refinements 
 which  came  in  afterwards.     I  may  ufe  alraofl: 
 a  parallel  Inftance,  from  what  has  been  lately 
 iecn  among  our  Selves.     From  the  Year  1711. 
 jirians  have  been  taught  to  fubfcribc  the  A7- 
 cene   and  Athanafian  Creeds.     But  our   good 
 Fore- fathers  would  have  thought  it  horrid  Pre- 
 varication to  do  it ;  They  were  not  fo  fubtilc 
 and  rcfin'd :    And  therefore,  tho'  Subfcri^tioit 
 is  now  no  certain  Argument  of  Men's  Senti- 
 ments, it  was  formerly  ;  when  Men  were  other- 
 wile  inftrudled,    and  loved  Chriftian   Plainnels 
 ^and  Simplicity.     This   may  ferve   for  a  brief 
 f^^general  Anfwer  to    the   learned   Examiner's 
 -iiecond  general  Fallacy. 
 
 There  is  a  third  general  Salvo,  which  occurs 
 
 pretcy  often  ;  that  ih^Ante-Nicene  Writers  di- 
 
 llinguifli  God  from  Chrift  (that  is,  the  Father 
 
 from  the  Son)    and  call  the  Father  God  ab- 
 
 fblutely :  Now,  fince  the  ^Toft-Nicene  Writers 
 
 v\do  lb  too,  and  flnce  no  Body  fcruples  it,  even 
 
 ^°^at  this  Day;  I  need  not  give  my  lelf  the  Trou- 
 
 --ble  of  any  more  particular  Anlwer.     Thus  far 
 
 for  the  general  Fallacies,  running  through  his 
 
 . jj Performance  :  After  which,  it  may  be  needleis 
 
 to  take  notice  of  any  particular  Mifmanage- 
 
 ment;  But,  for  a  Specimen,  you  lliall  have  a 
 
 few  Inftances  of  his  Mifquctations,  Mifconftru- 
 
 ^ions,  Mifreprcfentations,  Reviving  of  old  and 
 
 D  d   3  trite 
 
4o6        yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Q^u.XXVI. 
 
 trice  Objections  concealing  the  Anfwers,  and 
 |:he  like. 
 
 To  begin  with  Mifquotations :  Pag.  ii.  He 
 cites  part  of  Tolycarfs  TDoxology,  recorded  xxx 
 the  Epiftle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  There 
 He  ^  leaves  out  the  Two  mofl  material  words, 
 (<Tyv  cL'jrJ*)  on  which  the  Argument  chiefly  de- 
 pended, and  then  infults  over  the  learned 
 "prelate. 
 
 Pag,  6-1,  Citing  a  Paflage  from  ^  Athenago^ 
 ras.  He  changes  ^z^s  aOrS,  into  <zs^<;  clxjtovj 
 without  giving  any  notice  of  it,  or  reafon  for 
 it ;  only  to  make  a  weak  Infinuation  againft  the 
 divinity  of  God  the  Son. 
 
 Pag.  75",  76,  He  has  a  Citation  from  Me- 
 thodius,  part  of  which  you  may  fee  above 
 (/>.  143.)  the  remainder  I  have  here  ki  down, 
 in  the  ^  Margin.  Afrcr  giving  a  Conftrudion 
 diametrically  cppofite  to  the  Intent  and  Letter 
 of  the  Author,  He  breaks  out  into  this  Expref- 
 ilcn;  d  See  how  He  (Methodius)  manifejily 
 <acknowledges  the  Son  to  have  been  made,  and 
 before  begotten  (that  is  all  the  Senfe  that  I  can 
 make  of  what  He  fays)  in  Jpight  of  the  Bijhop. 
 He  might  have  faid,  in  fpight  of  Grammar  and 
 
 .  a  Hf  reads  it  oi    s  tmi  ci  xvvSf/j'Ju  clyla  eiyt,^  injfead  of  Ji'  i   cti 
 (jTov  «r,'rj    cv  Try'c^/L^'li   cly^a  oo^cc.     Vid.  Eufeb.   1. 4.    C.  If. 
 
 ,  b  Upoi;    wrS  'yo  y^  ^i    (/.uroZ    -TizcyTU  gymrs.    Alhenag.  Leg.  p.  38. 
 Ox.  Ed, 
 
 C  To    (^  lya)  ori/ji^o>    ytysuv^fcei,  «rs,    otj  <zct9oviti  k^j   eet9  ^  ctiavaVf 
 
 'kyvcif^ov  yycj^ffz/tj.     Ap.  Phot.  p.  960. 
 
 d  En  quartj  clare  agnofcit  Filiuni  yipvivoj  &:  rzsf^yipnvccf  fadlum 
 6c  praegenitum  efife,  fruf^ra  prsefuk  rcnitentCo  Modefi.  Dify.  p.  76, 
 
 com- 
 
Qu.XXVI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.         407 
 
 common  Senfe:  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than 
 that  PafTage  of  Methodius  for  the  eternal  Ge- 
 neration of  the  Son ;  which  He  does  not  only 
 affert,  but  guards  it  againft  the  Objedlion  from 
 that  Text  {This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee) 
 explaining  it,  not  of  any  Tempotal  Generation 
 (for  He  allows  no  fuch  Thing)  but  of  a  Tem- 
 poral Alanifejiatmi. 
 
 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  PafTage  from  Him, 
 which ,  as  reprelented ,  feems  to  fay ,  thac 
 many  of  the  earliefl:  Fathers  were  againft 
 Chrift's  Divinity.  He  had  done  this  once  be- 
 fore in  his  *  Preface,  io  that  one  may  lee 
 He  is  pleafed  w^ith  the  Difcovery.  I  have 
 given  the  Paflage  at  large  in  the  |  Margin,  in- 
 cluding that  part  in  Hooks  which  our  learned 
 Examiner  has  left  out.  The  whole  turns  up- 
 on  this ;  whether  Dr.  Cave  by,  in  quibus^  in- 
 tended the  iame  as,  /;/  quibus  Jingulis,  in  eve7y 
 one  of  the  foregoing  Particulars,  or  rather  in 
 
 ♦  Prxf.  p.  28. 
 
 t  Nrvos,  qui  in  vScriptis  cjiis  ('Laflantii)  notantur,  de  Drj'mltate, 
 dc  jererna  Filii  exiftentia  [de  Animarum  pras-exiftentia  &  Futuro 
 poll  hinc  vitam  ftatu,  de  Fine  Socculi  Sc  Mille  Aiinorum  Imperio, 
 de  Adventu  Elis  Multos  ad  Dei  cukum  converfuroj  aliifquc  capi- 
 tibus,  de  quibus  oblcurc,  incaute,  quandoque  criam  periculofe 
 locutus  fit,  excufabunt,  apud  candidos  rerum  sftimatores,  Saeculi 
 quo  vixit  circa  iftas  res  itnperitia,  dogmata  ipfa  rauio  ablbafti- 
 dra,  Qcc  dum  a  Theologis  dilucide  explicara  iiec  Synodorum  de- 
 cretis  definita ,  8c  in  qutbus  ' O •/^o-^y^'^H^  habuit  complures  prxce- 
 demium  Sxculorun?  Patres.    Cav.  Hiji,  Liter.  Vol.  I.  p.  1 1  2. 
 
 D  d    4  many 
 
4o8        ^DEFENSE        Q^u.XXVf. 
 
 many,   or  7noft  of  theiti.     It  is  impoffible  to 
 prove  that  He  meant  it  ftricSly  of  every  one ; 
 and   therefore   no    certain   Argument   can    be 
 drawn  from  this  PaiTage:  But  I  will  give  you  a 
 Reafon  or  two,  why  I  think  Dr.  Cave  did  nor, 
 or  could  not  fo  mean  it.     You'l  obferve,  that 
 4e  '^Divimtate,  (lands  by  it  lelf,  as  a  diftin<3: 
 Article;  and,  very  probably,  is  to  be  conftru'd 
 of  the  'Deity :  La^iantius  \s>  *  known  to  have 
 bad  very  abfurd  Notions  of  the  Deity,  fuppo- 
 fingGod  to  have  had  2l  Beginning,  and  to  have 
 made  Him/elf.     Dr.  Cave  could   never  mean 
 that  LaBantius   had    'Oyac'vP;^(pou$    Complures , 
 many  of  his  mind,  in  this  Article:    And  there- 
 fore could  not  intend,    in  qnihtis,  ftridily,  of 
 every  Particular,  but  of  the  whole,  and  in  the 
 general.     Then,  as  to  Dr.  C^x^e-'s  Judgment  of 
 the  Senfe  of  the  Fathers,  in  relped:  to  the  Di- 
 vinity ^^of:  the  Son,  and  his  eternal   Ex illence, 
 it  is  To  f  well  known,  and  fo  ofcen  appears  in 
 his  Writings,  that  He  fliould  not  be  prefumed 
 to  contradi(S  his  declared  and  repeated  Senti- 
 fgnents,  without  a  manifeft  necefiiry.     ¥/here- 
 
 7>^--*Xa#nt.  Inftitut.  \  f.  c  7.  .     __  . 
 
 ■f  San6i:i  Parres  Carholicse  Fidei  NicEenorumqueDogmatum  Tefles 
 funt  inconcufT.,  Vjndices  acerrimi'i  qui  Fidem  ab  Apoftolis  tradi- 
 tam,  a  Majonbus  acceptam,  ad  nos  ufque  propagarunr,  acccptam 
 Vita,  Voce,  etiam  Sanguine  fuo  confiriDarunt,  invictifque  Argu^ 
 mentis  contra  omnia  Haercticorum  moliniina  fartam  teiftam  con- 
 fervarunti  quique  nullis  Sophifmatibus  fledi  qucunt,  ut  in  Urn- 
 variorum  cauiam  Teftimonium  dicant.  Hinc  illae  Lachrymae,  Hsec 
 Fundi  calaniitas.  Adcc  ut  de  Antiquitate  Ecclefiaftica  dici  pote(|, 
 quod  de  ka.'ione  alicubi.  habet  Malmsburienfis  Philoibphus  i  uBi- 
 carique  R^tio   Homini  repugnatj  Hqipiaan,  jpfi  Rationi  repugna- 
 
 fore 
 
C^u.XXVL       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        409 
 
 fore  DvJVhitby  does  a  great  Injury  to  the  Me- 
 mory of  that  good  Man,  by  taking  an  Advan- 
 lage  of  an  ambiguous  Exprefiion.  To  pro- 
 i:ced. 
 
 ,     Pag.  60.  He  tells  us,  that  the  Titles  of?  -mv- 
 STdi  TTDtj^TJi^,  and  T  oXoiv  hjxiypyU  (that  is,  Creator 
 :&nd  Framer  of  the  Univerfe)  were  (uch  as  the 
 Writers  of  that  Age  (the  Second  Century)  al- 
 ways diftinguiih'd  the  Father  from  the  Son  by. 
 \i  He  means  that  the  Son  had  not  then  thcie 
 gor  the  like  Titles  given  Him,  it  is  a  notori- 
 ^ous  Untruth  (as  you  may  lee  by  the  Quorari- 
 ons  *  above  from  Irenaus  and  Clemens  Alex  an- 
 driniis)  If  He  means  only,  that  Thofe  and  the 
 iJike  Titles  were   eminently   and  ernphatically 
 e?given  to  the  Father,  That  indeed  is  very  true 
 ^^  of  the  Second  Century;  and  as  true  of  all  the 
 Centuries  following,  down  to  this  prefent,  as 
 appears  by  our  Creeds ;  which,  I  fuppofe,  is  no 
 great  Difcovery. 
 
 In  his  Preface,  (P.  n  )  He  mifreprefents^^^^ 
 
 fil  as  declaring  againft  Unity  oi  E [fence,  where 
 
 the  good  Father  intended  nothing  but  againlt 
 
 Unity  of  Terfon.  In  the  lame  Page,  He  brings 
 
 jjn  \ylthanajius,    and  interprets  what  He  iaid 
 
 -I' againft  the  o^oiyjiov,  as  if  it  had  been  meant  of  the 
 
 ir 
 
 -      *  Qu.  9.  p.  189. 
 
 t  Vid.  Athanaf.  Tom.  i.  p.  767.  Compare  Tom.  i.  p.  ;r. 
 
 Athanafius  dijUnguiJh'd  very  particular:^,  more  than  Hilary  and 
 foim  other  'Bathers  clui>  hettveen  the  ht/joka-.ai  and  the  o^.ac^oy.  He 
 thought  that  to  fay  the  Sen  was  only  like  God,  was  as  much  as  dcny- 
 mj^  Htm  to  he  God :  As  if  we  jJjould  fay  a  thing  is  only  like  Silver, 
 therefore  not  Silver  j  or  only  l;lie'  Goldy  therefore  not  Gold.  This 
 was  bU  Senfi  tf  the  Mattsr. 
 
4io        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXVI. 
 
 J/to8(Tfov,  betwixt  which,  that  accqrate  Father  al- 
 ways carefully  diflinguifli'd.  A  little  lower, 
 He  reprefents  Athanafiiis  as  maintaining  mime- 
 rical  Identity;  which  (in  the  Senfe  of  the 
 learned  Examiner)  is  making  Him  a  Sabellian, 
 Thus,  it  feems,  He  is  to  confute  Biftiop  Bull, 
 only  by  puzzling  and  confounding  iuch  Things^ 
 ^s  that  incomparable  Prelate  had  made  plain 
 gnd  clear. 
 
 Pag.  9.  He  reprefents  Barnabas^  Epiflle, 
 c^  yo^oi?,  which  He  interprets  iy^//r/^//j"  (/.  19.^ 
 ncgledling  and  concealing  in  what  Senfe  *  Eti- 
 febitis  had  reckoned  it  ci  Fo3-oi$;  and  what  had 
 been  faid  by  very  |  learned  Men  in  defence 
 pf  it. 
 
 Pag.  13.  He  gives  a  partial  Account  of  the 
 Antient  T>oxologtes,      No  one    that   has  feen 
 St.  BafiK  the  eighth  Book  of  the  Clementine 
 Conftitutions,  Tolycarfs  Doxology,    and  the 
 Church  of  SmyTna's,  befides  Clement  of  j4le- 
 xandrids,  and  Hi-pfolytus's,  can  make  any  rea- 
 fonable  doubt,  whether  to  or  with,  were  not- 
 appiied   in  T)oxologies   to   the  So7t  or  Holy-^ 
 Ghc^,  as  well  as  by,  through,  or  in,  by  the 
 ^arlieft  Ante-Nicene  Writers.     To  pretend  A- 
 thanajian  Forgeries  in  anfwer  to  all,    is  only 
 giving  up  the  point,    with  the  ridiculous  Cir-, 
 cumftance  of  appearing  to  maintain  it.  >mil 
 
 His  Account  of  Jujlin  Martyr  is  one  con- 
 tinued Mifreprefentation,as  rnay  appear  in  fome 
 
 ♦  Sot  Cave  Hiftor.  Literar.  Vol.  I.  p.  ii. 
 
 t  Pearfon  Yindic.  p,  276.  282.   Bull  D.F.  p.  i;*.   Fr.Trad.  p.  5. 
 
 Me^- 
 
Qy.XXYh       of  fome  (QUERIES.        411 
 
 Mcalurc,  by  comparing  it  with  what  hath  been 
 obfervcd  in  thefe  Papers. 
 
 Pag.  61.  He  takes  occafion  from  the  Lat'tiz 
 Verfion  to  mifreprefent  Athenagoras,  and  to 
 infinuarc  that  the  Son  is  not  like  rhc  Father, 
 If  the  Greek  words  be  rendered,  as  They  fignify-, 
 InfeEii,  &  Fa£iu  the  Equivocation  upon  Ge- 
 mttts,  and  therewith  the  Argument  is  Joft. 
 
 Pag.  62.  He  undertakes  another  PafTage  in 
 Athenagoras,  a  very  famous  one,  and  of  fin- 
 gular  uie  in  this  Controverfy  ;  plainly  fliowing 
 the  true  and  genuine  Senfe  of  inch  Fathers,  as 
 fpoke  of  a  Temporal  Generation,  and  being  of 
 equal  Force  both  zg^iXxA  Sabellians  OindArians^ 
 as  the  *  learned  Prelate  has  judicioufly  and  ad- 
 mirably demonftrated  againft  Tetavius,  San- 
 ditis,  and  Others.  Sand'tus,  being  fenfible  of 
 its  Weight  and  Force,  thought  it  the  wiiefl:  way 
 to  fay,  that  the  place  was  corrupt ;  and  being 
 a  Man  of  Wit,  He  invented  fbmething  of  a  Co- 
 Jour  for  it.  Gtlbe'rt  Gierke  afterwards,  thought 
 of  a  more  plaufible  Solution  of  the  difficulty; 
 but  the  learned  |  Bifliop  had  too  much  Acu- 
 mtft  to  let  it  pafs.  Laft  of  all  comes  Dr.  Whitby 
 with  a  new  Device,  which,  I  fuppofc,  \^  in- 
 rirely  his  own.  You  fee  the  Paflage  in  the 
 X  Margin.  The  words  iix  ^'^  yivcjuevov,  He  con- 
 ftrues  thus :  Nof  as  eternally  generated,  as  if 
 
 *  Bull.  Def.  F.  N.  p.  204.  icf. 
 
 t  Sec  Bull.  Animadv.  in  Gilo.  CI.  Op.  Port-,  p.  lofz.  lO'^^. 
 
 Atherl.  Leg.  c  ID.  p.  38. 
 
 He 
 
4i>       ^iDr  j:;JFr£.N  S  E       Qjj.XXVI. 
 
 H^  had  re^^d  y^m^tiiof  ^  fupplying  otiliV  by 
 Imagination.  The  Senfe  and  Meaning  of  the 
 WQ^^t%^'y^volJt^yov,  fignifying  made,  or  created,  is 
 fo  fix'd  and  certain  in  this  Author,  that  no 
 doubt  or  Icruplc  can  be  reafonably  made  of  it. 
 And  that  He  intended  to  fignify  the  Son's  tm- 
 mutable^  eternal,  necejfar^  Exiftence,  in  this 
 PafTage,  is  fb  raanifeft,  that  a  Man  muft  be  of 
 a  pecuHar  Complexion  that  can  fo  much  as 
 queftion  it ;  efpecially  confidering  the  other 
 high  Things  faid  of  the  Son,  by  this  Author, 
 in  other  Places;  fome  of  which  have  been 
 above  cited.  I  mention  nor  how  the  learned 
 E^xar/piuer  endeavors  to  elude  Them ;  putting 
 ^ff  one  with  a  jeft  {p.  60.)  pretending  an /;/- 
 percolation  for  another  {p.6i.)  and  for  fear 
 all  iliould  not  fufBce,  retreating  at  length  to  his 
 Qtiibble  upon  the  word.  Numerical. 
 
 Pag,  ic8.  He  makes  a  ridiculous  Reprefen- 
 fation  of  TertuWrnn,  as  if  that  Writer  believed 
 two  Angels  to  be  as  much  One,  as  God  the 
 Father  and  God  the  Son  are.  I  ihall  only 
 I  tranfcribe  the  Paifage,  and  truft  it  with  the 
 intelligent  Reader.  c:5V/o4 
 
 7  '^£vfl&  02oy  ai7«  •»;•  t5^  3'  TtcMrrx,  ^rviyjilc/j.  ctdjvviMSV  ^  WoiO^oVy 
 eirt  TO  ov  y  yrnsntf,  aX^a  tb  y^yi  ov  •■  -  -  p.  21,  Ta  ov  o4s<,  "jivien^i  -n 
 <^^  \%'i'i'    VI  71    Tc  yivoiOfio^,  yjtv  ov   ^i   cjoinvn*  p.  67*      O"  <poci   ov- 
 
 t  £t  nos  etiam  Serinoni  atqne  Rationi,  itemquc  Virtuti,  per 
 quae  orr.nia  inolitum  Deuni  edi.vimus,  propriam  Subftantiam 
 Spiruum  infcribimus  j  cui  8r  Sermo  infit  praenuntianti,  &  KAtio 
 at^lic  QifpoQcnti,  &  Virtus  peificienti.  Hunc  ex  Deo  prolatum  di- 
 dficimiis.  i^  prolationc  j^eneratam,  6c  idcirco  Filium  l^ei  6c  Deuin 
 ^i<5Vua7,  9X  Vmafe.  Su^JiantU.    Nam-  gi  D^hs  SfmtHs.  .         -Ita  de 
 
 '    '     '"''^"  '       "'■    Pag. 
 
Qu, XXVL      i/ fome  Q^U E R I E S.        4f J 
 
 Y    Pagviio.  113.  You  findHim  tamperihg  With 
 
 'Iremeus,  Firft,  infinnaring  as  if  that  excellent 
 
 fe?  Writer  had  fuppoled  the  Son  was  ottr  Lord 
 
 and  God,    according  to  the  good  'Flcafnrc  of 
 
 the  invijible  Father-^  but  admitting  the  more 
 
 probable  Conftruftion  to  be,  that   every  kH^i 
 
 ^might  bow,  according  to  the  good  Tleafnre  of 
 
 "^the  invifible  Father. 
 
 2'     It  is  well  known  that  Irenaus  ^  alloWs  n6 
 
 iCreattire,  nothing  that  had  a  Beginning,  to  be  juft^ 
 
 Jy  called  G^^;  ^  looks  upon  the  Notion  of  an  in- 
 
 rferiorGod,2LS  a  Contradiction  ;  does  not  "^  admit 
 
 tthat  any  Creature  can  create:  And  yet  He  makes 
 
 -the  Son  ^  truly  God,  ^  Co- eternal,  and  s  Cofh 
 
 fubjiantial  ( tho*  He  ufes  not  the  very  word  ) 
 
 iwith  God  the  Father;  Creator  of  Men,  of  Art- 
 
 e  gels,  of  all  Things.     Teftimonies  of  the    lafi 
 
 particular  are  fo  many  and  fo  clear  (fbme  of 
 
 which  have  been  cited  above)  that  I  need  not 
 
 here  refer  to  them.  In  Contradidlion  to  all  this^ 
 
 Dr,  IVh'tthy  would  perfwade  us  (from  two  of 
 
 three  Parages  which  fay  no  liich  thing)  that 
 
 Iren£us  relblved  all  the  Dignity  of  the  Sort 
 
 into   the   Powers   given    Him   after    his    Re- 
 
 furredioii.     I  may,    upon  this  Occafion,    take 
 
 notice   of  another  ^  Writer  j    who   has   lately 
 
 Spiritit  Spiritus  &  de  Deo  Deus,  ut  Lumeyi  de  Luimn^  acccnfup.i: 
 TertulL  ApoU  c.  21.  p.  201.  Ed.  Havcrcamp.  Lugd. 
 
 a  Irensus,  1«  i.  c.  10.  p.48.  Ed.  Bened. 
 
 b  Iren?su?,  lib.  3.  c.8.  p.  183.  Ed.Bened.     c  LiB.4.  c.  i.  p.  ii$f. 
 
 d  Lib,  4.  c.  i^i,  p.  288.  e  Lib.  3.   c.  6-  p.  180.    Lib.  4; 
 
 C.  (5.  p.  1 3  5".  f  Lib.  2.  c.  I  3 .  p.  1 3  2 .  Lib.  t .  c.  2 j.  p.  1 5- j, 
 
 g  Lib. 3.  c.  2!.  p.  21 7     Lib.  1.  c.  ay.  p.  15-3. 
 
 h  E»*r»lyci,  kxam  ofJOr,  JBennet,  p.  ^8.  firji  Ejit. 
 
 ;mifr^- 
 
414        A    DEFENSE        Q^u.XXVI. 
 
 rpifreprefented  Irenteus.  He  imagines  that  the 
 good  Father  fuppofcd  the  Aoy®-,  or  Word,  as 
 iuch,  pajjible.  The  Paflages,  which  He  builds 
 this  Fidtion  upon,  you  have  in  the  *  Margin, 
 according;  to  the  lafl:  Edition.  The  moft  that 
 you  can  eipy  in  them  is,  that  the  l^^^y^i  fuffered 
 in  the  Flelli :  One  of  the  Quotations  does  not 
 certainly  lay  fo  much,  but  might  bear  another 
 Conltrudion.  It  might  as  realbnably  be  pre- 
 tended  that  the  Aayo??  ^s  fuch,  was  Vifible,  and 
 Comprehcnfible,  and  changed  into  2i  frail  Man ^ 
 as  that  He  \v2i'^  fajjible :  See  the  Margin.  All 
 that  Irenaus  mtended  to  prove  againO  the  He- 
 retic ks,  was,  that  the  Ao7@-  was  conflantly 
 united  to  the  Man  Chrift  Jefus,  and  did  not  de- 
 fert  the  Human  Nature  in  the  TaJJion,  it  be- 
 ing t  neccflary  that  the  fuffering  Redcemei- 
 fliould  be  both  God  and  Man:  This  x^  all 
 the  Cafe.  But  to  proceed  with  the  learned 
 Examiner. 
 
 Pag.  147.  He  reprefentsTVr^/////^;/,  as  making 
 
 ♦  Solus  vere  MagSfter  Dominus  noilcrj  &  bonus  vere  Fil-us 
 Dei,  &  patiens,  verbum  Dei  Patris  Filius  Hominis  fa<5tiis.  /n«. 
 \,  3.   c.  18.    p.  211. 
 
 'O  Aoy^  ?  ©j5  ff2«p|  lytviTt,  yj^j  iTncJsv,   1.  I.  c.  lo.  p.  _f o. 
 Compare  the  following  Places, 
 
 Verbum,  Un'genitus  qui  Temper  humano  generi  adeft,  &  con- 
 fparfus  fuo  Plafmati,  fecundum  placirum  Patris  &  Caro  facias,  Ipie 
 cH:  Jefuj  Chriftus  Dominus  nofter,  qui  pafllis  eft,  p,  106. 
 
 "■Q?  K^  ov  t'>i  oiuryj  cnxpti,  C4;  ^    ^  \'7nx.^iv  iXiutrsTzcf.  p,  207. 
 
 Invifibilis  vifibilis  fadrus,  &  incomprehenJibilis  factus  compre* 
 henfibi!is,.&  impanibilis  paflibilis,  8c  Verbum  Homo.  p.  io6. 
 
 t  See  Irenxus,  1.  3.  c.  18.  p.  z  1 1.  Sec  alfo  the  famous  F^jf^ge 
 about  Quiefccnce,  p.  2 1  3.  Which  pUitJy  fuppofes  all  that  was  fujfer^ 
 ing  and  lors>  to  belong  to  the  Man  cdy,  all  that  was  high  and  great  to 
 the  Ao'vC^,  or  JDivme  Nattir?» 
 
Qjj.XXVl       offome  QUERIES.        41^ 
 
 the  Son,  in  his  higheft  Capacity,  Ignorant  of 
 the  "Day  of  Judgment.  Let  the  Reader  fee 
 the  *  whole  PafTage,  and  compare  it  with  ano- 
 ther, four  Chapters  lower;  and  from  thenc^ 
 judge  of  TertulLiau\  meaning.  No  rcafonable 
 doubt  can  be  made,  but  that  Tcrttillian  undef- 
 ftood  the  Son's  being  Ignorant,  &c.  in  reipe6t 
 only  of  his  Humanity,  as  well  as  He  undef- 
 ftood  the  other  Things,  mentioned  together  with 
 it  in  the  fame  Paragraph,  Such  as  confider  hoW 
 highly  Tertullian,  ellewhere  fpeaks  of  the  Son* 
 making  Him  one  undivided  Subftance  with  th^ 
 Father,  can  make  no  queftion  of  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  Catbo- 
 licks  fo  often  urge  the  Texts  relating  to  Chrift*^ 
 Human  Nature  onlyj  againft  the  isabelliansl 
 For  it  may  feem  that,  if  They  thereby  proved 
 Two  Hypoffafes,  They  proved  only  a  T)ivtn^ 
 and  a  Human  Hypofiafis ;  and  there  might  ftill 
 be  but  one  Hypofiafis  in  the  Godhead,  as  the 
 Sabellians  pretended  ?  But  it  is  to  be  confider*d> 
 that  Both  Cdtholicks  and  Sabellians  were  agreed 
 
 *  Ignorans  Sc  Ipfe  Diem  8c  Ko^am  Ukimam,  Soli  Patri  notamj 
 difponens  Regnum  Difcipulis,  quomodo  Sc  fibi  difpolitum  dicit  % 
 Patrei  habens  Potcftatem  Legiones  Angelorum  poftulandi  ad  auxi- 
 lium  a  Patre  H  veller,  Exclamam  qttod  fe  Bens  reli^uijj'et,  in  Patri? 
 manibus  Spiritum  ponens.    Tertull,  Adv.  Vrax,  c.  26.  p.fi6. 
 
 Habes  ipium  LxcUmantein  in  Pallione,  Dshs  Meusy  Dens  Me-as,  lit 
 
 quid  me  deieliquifti? —  Sed  Hasc  Vox  Cnrnis  &c  Animx,  id  eft> 
 
 Homini":*  non  Sermonis,  ncc  Spirims,  id  eft,  non  Dei,  proptcres 
 emilTa  di,  uc  impaflibilem  Deum  oftenderer,  qui  fic  Fiiium  dere- 
 liqiiit,  dum  Hominem  ejuf  tr^diait  ia  raortco^  TsrHilL  adv, 
 ^r^.x,  c,  i<y*  p.  <;  18, 
 
 m 
 
4i6        ^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Q^uXXVI. 
 
 in  one  Point,  that  God  was  incarnate,  the  di- 
 vine   Nature   perfonally   united    to    the   Man 
 Chrift  J^fr-s :  And  the  main  Qaeftion  between 
 Them  was,  whether  the  Father  Himfelf  made 
 one  Perfon  with  Chrift's  Human  Nature,  or  NOo 
 If  the   Catholicks  could  prove  the  Negative 
 (as  They  could  eafily  do)  then  the  Sabellians 
 mud,  of  Courfe,  and  upon  their  own  Principles#V 
 acknowledge   another    divine   Hypoftajis ^    be-^ 
 fides    the    Father.      The   Catholicks   therefore 
 urged  all  the  Texts,  wherever  Chrift  fpeaks  of 
 Himfcif  as  a  diftin^  VQxfon  from  the  Father; 
 tho'  mmy   jf  thele  Texts  are  meant  of  Him, 
 in  his  Human  Capacity  oniy.   Had  our  Saviour 
 Chriji  fpoke  of  the  Koy%*,  or  IVord,  m  the 
 fame  manner  as  He  does  of  the  Father :  Had 
 He  prayed  to  the  Aiy©-,  or  Word,  complain'd 
 of  being  forfaken  by  Him ;  or  had  He  faid,  I 
 know  not  the  Day  of  Judgment,  but  He,  the 
 Aoy^^i  oxJVord,  does;  it  could  never  have  been 
 prelumed,  that  the  /  and  He,    the  Aoyo^  and 
 Chrift,  made  one  Terfon.     It  appearing  there- 
 fore, from  that  manner  of  Exprefiion,  that  the 
 Father  was  not  ferfonally   united   with  the 
 Human  Nature  of  Chrift;    this  was  fufficient 
 againft  the  Sabellians,   who  allowed  that  the 
 Man    Chrift  Jefus  was  perlbnally  united  with 
 God:  And  if  it  could  not  be  with  the  Father, 
 it  muft  of  Confequcnce  be  with  another  divine 
 Hypoftafis.^diftin^  and  real  Son  of  the  Father. 
 Thus   you  fee   the  Force   and  Significancy  of 
 rhofe  Tc.'s:rs  (and  of  all  Texts  which  intimated 
 
 a  plaiq 
 
Q^u.XXVI.       of  fome  CLUERIES.         417 
 
 a  plain  ferfonal  Diftincition  between  the  Fa- 
 ther ^XiAChrijl)  agSLinii  the  Sai>el/ians.  They 
 fliowed  that  the  Peribn  fpeaking  was  not 
 the  Father,  And  yet  the  Peribn  who  ioake, 
 havmg  (as  boch  Sides  allowed)  a  T>ijme 
 and  Human  Nature,  might  fpeak  of  HiraJelf 
 in  different  Relpedls;  in  this,  or  in  that  Ca- 
 pacity. Thus,  in  regard  to  the  Sen's  Igno- 
 rance of  the  ^ay  of  Judgment,  it  is  mnnifeft 
 that  the  Father  and  Son  are  there  fpokcn  of, 
 as  of  Two  Perfons ;  and  One  as  kno'-jjing,  the 
 Other  as  not  kno'duing,  tho'  only  in  a  certain 
 reiped:  One  Ignorant  in  fuch  a  Capacity,  the 
 Oiher  not  Ignoranr  in  any  Capacity  at  all, 
 as  having  never  taken  Human  Nature,  and 
 therewith  Human  Ignorance,  into  a  perfonal 
 Union  with  Himfclf.  Thus  far  to  clear  this 
 Point,  and  to  acquit  my  fclf  of  a  *  promife 
 made  you  fome  time  ago. 
 
 I  iliall  proceed  a  liitle  farther  in  remarking 
 on  your  Friend's  Performance.  It  is  frequent 
 with  Him  to  bring  up  old  Objedions,  neglect- 
 ing and  concealing  the  Bifliop's  Anfwers.  I 
 fliall  give  a  fev/  Inftances  only;  that  I  may 
 not  be  Tedious. 
 
 Pag.  17.  He  pretends  that  the  Bifliop  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  jhas 
 
 *  Qu.  7.  p.  III.   See  Athanafiiis  farther  upon  the  Thing  vheraf 
 J  have  6een  /peaking.  Vol.  i.  p.  16 1^ 
 i  Bull.  D,  F,  Sea.  4.  c.  4. 
 
 E  e  fhownf 
 
4i8        ^^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXVD 
 
 lliown  it)  and  T>x,lVhitby  allows  as  much  in, 
 the  very  next  Page ;  and  has  nothing  to  retread 
 to  but  the  miferable  Evafion  about  IndividiiAl.W 
 Pag.  84.  He  refers  to  Bafil,  as  an  Evidence 
 that  Gregory  Thatimaturgus  beheved  the  Son 
 to  be  a  Creature,     This  He  again  repeats  in 
 the  next  Page;  and  again  in  his  Preface,  p.  iq> 
 Yet  the  Fad:  is  evidently  falie  ;  Bajil  Himfelf 
 a  full  Witnefs  on  the  contrary  fide ;  and  this 
 Bilhop  Bull  had  ^  given  notice  of,  and  made 
 clear  to  aDemonftrarion.  When  a  Writer  drains 
 fo  hard,  to  put  a  falfe  Senle  upon  Another^ 
 there's   no  uncharitablenefs  in  beheving,    th^ 
 He  gives  us  at  lead  his  O'wn  true  meaning.       - 
 Pag.  87.  He  revives  an  old  Objedion,  which 
 the  learned  Prelate  had  ingenuoufly  ^  fet  forth 
 in  its  full  Force;  and  given  it  as  full  an  Anfwef. 
 Your  Friend  is  here  plealed  to  fpeak  with  great 
 contempt  of  the  Biiliop's  Anfwer;  for  no  other 
 reafon,  that  I  can  lee,  but  becaufe  He  was  not 
 able  to  confute  it.     Being  however  refolved  to 
 iay  fomething,  He  ftoutly  denies  a  plain  Mat- 
 ter of  Fad:.     oUovofzUy  lays  He,  is  never  ufed 
 by  the  Fathers,  in  the  Biiliop's  Senfe.     Pleafe 
 to  turn  to   the  places  noted  in  the  ^Margin, 
 and  judge  whether  the  Bilhop,  or  He,  be  the 
 
 a  Bull.  Def  F.  N.  p.  15- j-,  \f6,  lyj. 
 
 b  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  267. 
 
 c  Tertullian  adv.  Pra>:.  c.  i,  ?;.  CIcm.  Alcxandr.  p.  iSgi'  pf/. 
 Tatian  c.  8.  Ed.  Ox.      Hippolytus  Contr.  Noet.  p.  12.  15. 
 
 Valefius  had  obferved  the  Thing  long  ago,  aiid  rs>iihout  any  View 
 H  Cmttovirfy. 
 
 Vetus  omnis  ChriftianorOm  Theolog^ia  Deo  quidem  Patri  Mo- 
 
 mort 
 
Qjj.XXVL       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        419 
 
 more  faithful  and  accurate  in  this  Matter,  If 
 any  thing  farther  be  wanting  in  Defence  of  Bi- 
 iliop  Btill^  in  this  Article,  let  Him  Ipeak  for 
 Mimfelf,  in  another  ^  Work,  in  anfvver  to  Gil- 
 bert Gierke ;  who,  it  leems,  was  much  ofFend- 
 cd  at  the  olxjovofjiUy  grieved,  as  He  weJl  might, 
 to  fee  His  mod  pompous  and  plaufible  Pre- 
 tences entirely  baffled  by  it.  I  iliould  weary 
 my  Reader,  and  my  Self  too,  if  I  went  on  re- 
 marking every  Place,  where  old  Obje(5lions  are 
 brought  up  ;  and  either  none,  or  very  flight 
 notice  taken  of  the  Anfwers:  If  you  have  a 
 mind  to  compare,  you  may  note  lome  Pa?,es 
 referred  to  in  *  the  Margin.  I  lliall  proceed  no 
 farther,  in  this  tedious  and  difagreeable  Employ- 
 •1. 
 
 fiarchiam  attribuit^FiIio  vero  8c  Spiritui  Santfto  ei^dvofjitiecv,  id  eft, 
 Adminiftrationem  rSc  Difpenrationcm,     Valef.  Not,  ad  Eu/e6,  p.f,6i 
 See  alfo  p.  90.  25*5 . 
 3^.d  Bull.  Pofth.  Works,  p.  io4f,  104(3,  1047,  ^-c. 
 
 *  Modeft' D^fiuifii:. . Bull's  Def.  F. 
 
 Pag.    27.     ,  Pag.  25-8.  1 20.  70. 
 
 29.  ■      -  ■  66, 
 
 30.  ■      "''■■  l6f. 
 
 4c.  '  6g,  Judic. 
 
 SO.  217- 
 
 6r,  '     ■ •  205-. 
 
 69.  — — —  '     ■  1 1  9. 
 
 ^4.  1^51,162,15?. 
 
 77.  ■ '  i6f  — 80.  III.  125. 
 
 82.  '     . iiS. 
 
 9f.  ■  — 16S.  202.  264. 
 
 96.  ■  ■  169. 
 
 107.      205. 
 
 I09.     4^- 
 
 120.       i .          . 77. 
 
 I22.     .     .         77»  7S. 
 
 141.     ,-.^ .         261. 
 
 t69.     ■'  •         29?. 
 
 E  e  X  ^  menr  5 
 
410        A   DEFENSE       du.XXVl. 
 
 ment ;  except  it  be  to  obferve  to  you,  one  pe- 
 culiar piece  of  Management,  which  I  leave  you 
 ro  refled:  on.  The  learned  Examiner  labours, 
 for  *  two  Pages  together,  to  Ihow  that  Clemens 
 of  Rome  was  far  from  fpeaking,  or  thinking  fo 
 highly  of  our  Bleflcd  Lord,  as  St.  Tatil  did. 
 A  little  after,  (Pag.  19.)  He  propofes  Clemens 
 to  us  as  a  very  good  Interpreter  of  Scripture ; 
 and  commends  Him  highly,  for  laying  Chrifti- 
 anity  before  Us  in  its  naked  Simplicity.  What 
 can  we  think  of  this?  The  beft  Conflrudion  F 
 can  make  of  it  is,  that  He  intended  in  p.  14,15-^ 
 not  St.  Tatil  Hirafelf,  but  St.  Taiil  as  now 
 generally  underdood :  And  fo  He  was  to  in* 
 fmuate  fomething,  which  was  not  fit  to  be  ex- 
 prefs'd.  But  a  Man  of  Art  would  have  con- 
 dudJed  better ;  would  not  have  difcover'd  Him- 
 felf  fo  foon,  but  have  trufted  more  to  the  Saga- 
 city of  his  Reader.  This  m.anncr  of  proceed- 
 ing, in  an  important  Caufc,  is  what  1  cannot 
 account  for.  It  feems  to  me,  that,  if  there  be 
 not  Reafons  of  Ccnicience  obliging  a  good  Man 
 to  fpeak  out,  there  are  ahvays  Reafons  of  Pru- 
 dence which  Hiould  make  a  "wife  Man  hold  his 
 Tongue. 
 
 You  may  perceive,  by  this  Time,  that  Bi* 
 fliop  Bull's  Book  is  like  to  ftand,  till  fome- 
 thing much  more  confiderable  appears  againfl:  it. 
 
 *  p.  14,15-.  Aliter  plane  D  FanUs  lorjuirur:— « Argumento 
 
 potius  efi  Clementem  dc  Chrifto  aiirer  pbne  quam  Faulum  ihnfATc 
 — magnam  fufpicioneci  injicit,  eadcm  CUmc?nem  cum  Faulo 
 
 Several 
 
Qy.XXVL       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        411 
 
 Several  atremprs  of  this  kind  have  been  made 
 before ;  bat  to  as  little  purpofe :  And  if  there 
 be  ever  fb  many  more,  by  ever  {o  good  Hands, 
 I'll  venture  to  lay,  They  will  lucceed  no  better. 
 The  Book  will  Hand  as  long  as  clear  Senfc, 
 found  Reafoning,  and  true  Learning  have  any 
 Friends  left.  The  main  Subftance  of  it  is  not 
 to  be  confiited  ;  any  more  than  you  can  extia- 
 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>ivinity  of  our  Bleffed  Lord,  againft  the 
 Infuks  of  Jews,  Pagans,  and  Hereticks ^ 
 They  (till  maintain  in  their  Works :  And  their 
 Works  will  be  held  m  great  Efteem,  and  Ve- 
 neration ;  while  every  weak  attempt  to  blafl: 
 their  Credit,  will  meet  with  what  it  juflly  de- 
 ferves ;  I  was  going  to  fay  what,  but  it  may 
 iound  fevere :  I  proceed  to  another  Qtiery. 
 
 E  e   3  Q^u  E  R  Y 
 
42-i       ^tf  E  F.E  N  S  E      Q^u.XXVlI. 
 ^a^mom  an  q  ^,  ^  XX\^^^  (^'"  ™^ 
 
 Whether  the  learned  T^oEior  way  not  reafon- 
 ably  be  fu^^ofed  to  fay,  the  Fathers  are  on 
 his  fide,  with  the  fame  meaning  and  re- 
 ferve  as  He  pretends  our  Church  Forms  to 
 favour  Him ;  that  is,  povided  He  may  in- 
 terpret as  He  pleafes,  and  make  them  jpeak 
 his  Senfe,  however  Contradi^ory  to  their 
 own  :  And  whether  the  true  Reafon  why 
 He  does  not  care  to  admit  the  Tejfimonies 
 of  the  Fathers  as  Proofs,  may  not  be,  be- 
 caufe  They  are  againft  Him? 
 
 IN  Anfwer  to  this,  You  tell  me,  that  it  con- 
 tains only  an  invidious  Siiggeflion ;  not  any 
 Argument.  The  Suggeftion,  I  do  afTure  you, 
 is  juft,  and  argumentative  too ;  and  was  kind- 
 ly  intended  towards  you ;  that  you  might  not 
 take  Things  implicirely  and  upon  Truft  from 
 others,  but  might  examine  them  firft  your  Self; 
 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  ^le- 
 vies  publick,  you  might,  with  a  better  Grace, 
 have  told  mc  of  it.  But  as  I  had  not  the  liberty 
 of  reviHng  my  Papers,  nor  fo  much  as  any  pre- 
 viou$  Apprehenfion  of  your  Defign  (preluming 
 all  along  the  very  contrary,  as  I  reafbnably 
 might)  thefe  Things  confidered,  I  hope  the  in- 
 vidious  Part  youl  take  to  your  felf ;  the  Ar- 
 gument 
 
Q^u. XXVII.      of  fome  (QUERIES.        413 
 
 gumeiit  (for  an  Jlrgtimeiit  it  is,  in  \is^  kind) 
 you  may  leave  to  me.  It  is  of  fbme  moment 
 to  us,  not  only  to  have  the  primitive  Writers 
 on  our  fide  (as  \vc  plainly  have)  but  to  have 
 them  thought  fo  too.  The  learned  Dodtor  has 
 made  fome  Pretences  that  way;  and  they  are 
 of  Weight  with  luch  Readers,  as  are  not  duly 
 apprehenfive  of  the  Dodor's  uncommon  man- 
 ner of  fetting  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  lels 
 Force  with  confidering  Men:  Firft,  Becaufe 
 He  lays  claim  to  our  Church's  Forms -^  which 
 every  common  Reader  may  fee,  are  diredly 
 againft  Him ;  And  Secondly.  Becaufe,  notwith- 
 ^ftanding  his  appeal  to  Antiquity,  He  is  wifer 
 Jchan  to  put  the  Matter  upon  that  KTue.  He 
 ^:Cndeavors  to  lefTen  the  Efteem  of  the  Antienrs, 
 all  the  while  that  He  prefumes  They  are  on  his 
 fide:  A  fure  Mark  that  He  fufpedsThem;  and 
 M  fecuring  a  Retreat  when  They  fail  Him;  as 
 they  certainly  will,  whenever  ftridly  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  Ipeak  always  con- 
 temptibly of  the  Antients,  and  endeavor  to  the 
 qtmoft  to  abufe  and  expofe  Them,  can  reafon- 
 ably  be  prciiimed  to  have  a  greater  Inrereft  in 
 Them,  than  They  who  Ipeak  honourably  and 
 handfomly  of  Them ;  w^ho  defend  their  Chara- 
 E  e   4  der. 
 
414        ^DEFENSE      Q^u.XXVII. 
 
 iter,  and  have,  as  it  were,  an  affecftionare 
 Tendernefs  and  C6ncerd  for  Them.  Thus 
 much  for  the  fecond  Reafon  intimated  in  the 
 ^lery.  As  to  the  firfl:  Reafon  fuggeftcd,  the 
 Import  of  it  is  this.  If  the  learned  Dodor  can 
 efpy  Ariamjm  in  our  Liturgy  or  Articles, 
 where  it  certainly  is  not ;  He  may  as  reafen- 
 ably  be  fuppofed  to  miftake  as  much,  among 
 the  Fathers.  He  kt^,  in  our  Liturgy,  the 
 Do(3:nne  of  one  God  the  Father,  incltijive  of 
 San  and  Holy  Ghofl:;  but  does  nor  fee  one 
 GoA  exclujive  of  ^oih',  which  is  his  Dodrine. 
 He  finds  a  Subordhidtioti  of  Order  taught  in 
 our  pubhck  Forms ;  but  does  not  find  any  Sub- 
 ordination or  Inferiority  of  Nature  ;  which 
 is  his  Principle.  And  yet,  upon  thefe  flight 
 Grounds,  He  fcruples  not  to  fay,  that  the 
 "^  main  Branches  of  his  own  Dodrine  are  ex- 
 prcjly  affirmed  in  our  Liturgy  j  meaning,  by  a 
 tacite  Confeqtience  of  his  own  making.  And 
 fince  this  Confequentialy  that  is.  Imaginary 
 Countenance  is  all  that  He  can  claim  from  our 
 Liturgy ;  and  all  that  He  really  means,  when 
 He  fays  the  Church's  Forms  are  on  his  fide ; 
 pofTibly  He  may  mean  no  more,  when  He 
 Ipeaks  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 
 efpecially,  had  declared  againft  the  Co-eternity 
 and  Confubjiantiality  of  the  Son,  the  Points 
 in  Queflion.     But  I  humbly  conceive,  He  in- 
 
 «  Script.  Doar.  p.  379. 
 
 tended 
 
Q^u.XXVII.     of  fome  Q^UERIES.        41? 
 
 tended  no  more  than  this,  that  the  Ante-Ni- 
 cene  Writers  have  declared  fomething,  which, 
 He  really  believes,  docs  by  Conjequence  de*' 
 ftroy  the  ConfubftantiaHty,  See.  though,  at  the} 
 fame  time,  thofe  Writers  admitted  no  fuch  CoJt- 
 fequence\  hwx.  exprejly,  and  r^;//?^///"/)/ difown- 
 ed  M.  This  is  all  that  He  can  mean,  with  rc- 
 fped:  to  our  Liturgy ;  and  therefore,  probably, 
 nil  He  does  mean^  in  refped:  of  the  other ;  or 
 however,  certain  I  am,  that  it  is  all  Hq  /l?otild 
 mean.  Now  you  fee  the  full  of  my  Argument. 
 If  it  look  invidious,  I  cannot  help  it ;  I  am 
 perfvvaded  it  is  juft;  and  I  think  it  of  as  ranch 
 Importance  to  our  Readers  to  have  the  Matter 
 fairly  ftated,  as  it  is  that  Truth  may  not  be' 
 fmother'd;  nor  any  flrcfs  laid  upon  theDodor's 
 Citations)  beyond  what  They  do  really  bear. 
 The  learned  Dodor  owns,  as  to  Tofi-Nicene 
 Fathers,  that  They  are,  in  the  whole,  againft 
 Him.  And  He  lliould  have  own'd  as  much  of 
 the  generality,  at  leaft,  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers  too,  and  then  He  has  no  claim  to 
 any  thing  but  Couceffions ;  of  which  He  endea- 
 vors to  make  the  utmoft  Advantage,  three  ways. 
 Firfl,  by  making  more  Conceffions  than  there 
 really  are:  Secondly,  by  reprefenting  thoic 
 Qoncefjions  in  ft)  promifcuous  and  confufcd  a 
 Light,  that  a  common  Reader  cannot  readily 
 diftinguilh  when,  or  where  the  Dodor  intend- 
 ed the  full  and  inrire  meaning  of  an  Author, 
 or  a  CoficeJJioH  only  :  Thirdly,  by  flipping  his 
 own  Conclufion  upon  thofe  Conceffions,  as  if 
 
 They 
 
4x6        A    D  E  F,^  N  S  E      du.XXVIf. 
 
 They  were .  the  fame  Thing ;  tho'  there  really 
 is  no  Connexion  betvyeen  Them,  no  jull  Con- 
 iequence  from  one  to  the  other.  I  would  not 
 be  knowingly  guilty  of  charging  the  Dod:or 
 falfely,  in  thefe,  or  in  any  other  Particulars,  for 
 ^y  Confideration ;  and  therefore  it  may  be 
 cxpeded  of  me,  that  I  explain  my  felf  more 
 at  large ;  which  accordingly  I  iliall  do,  in  the 
 Order  and  Method  which  I  have  already  \^\^ 
 down,  ^H 
 
 ^.i  I.  The  learned  Dodor  has  taken  feveral  Paf- 
 fages  for  Conceffions,  which  are  really  none ; 
 \i]M  only  as  He  has  given  Them  fuch  a  parti- 
 cular Air  and  Afpedj  either  by  prefacing 
 Tb^,  and  holding  out  a  falfe  Light  to  the 
 Reader;  or  by  commenting  upon  Them;  or  by 
 ill4ranjlating  of  Them.  I  ihall  proceed  to 
 Particulars ;  and  you  muft  not  take  it  amifi,  ,if 
 we  call  upon  you  to  return  us  back  what  you 
 bave  unfairly  WTefted  from  us.  ^ 
 
 ScripUire-'\Do^rine,  Pag.  3.  TheDodor  pro- 
 duces a  Paflage  of  Athanafius,  part  of  which, 
 Jo  far  as  concerns  us,  you  lee  in  the  *  Margin  5, 
 with  ib  much  farther  as  is  necefTary  to  clear  the 
 Senfc  of  the  Author.  The  Doctor's  Verfion 
 runs  thus:  '*  For  He  {the  Father)  is  the  one 
 i'  God,  and  the  only  Qne,  and  the  Firft.   And 
 
 *  E^  yu.f  0S6$  ^  ^4»(^  y^  TT^coTVi^  l<^v'  one  sf?  uvxif^itr.v  S'i  ^  *if5 
 ?,kyi7ZCi'  i-'j-A  V-yoiro.  i?i  yap  ^  aurs^  cv  t&?  i/i,  :C  z-^oorci,  tCj  f/^va,  a>^ 
 ra  'Bi-os  (c"  Morei  ^  Uputh  tC,  MgyS*^   Xoy(^,  :<1   (to^m,   yl   eCTmoyna-Uja, 
 
 3-c{p}7iq,  oX(^  y^  !^^-iV>?5  6/y  ©:s5.     Athanaf.  3.  Orat.  Contr,  Arian. 
 p.  5J-6.  Ed,  Bened. 
 
 '  **  yec 
 
Q^u.XXVn.     offopteQlJERlES,       4157- 
 
 ^•^'yec  thefe  Things  do  not  deflroy  the  T^ivi- 
 *'  nity  of  the  Son.  This  rendring  is  flat  and 
 low,  and  neither  anfwers  the  intent^  nor  Let- 
 ter  of  the  Author.  Ouv.  iU  oLvcLi^io-i'/y  literally, 
 is-,  not  to  exclude  the  Son:  plainly  meaning; 
 not  to  exclude  Hin^  from  being  the  one  God, 
 and  the  only  One,  and  the  F'trft,  together  with 
 the  Father.  And  fo  Athanajius  interprets  Him- 
 felf,  in  the  Words  immediately  following :  For 
 'He  ( the  Son )  alfo  is  Trg^^r©-,  the  Firjl,  the 
 llillnefs  of  the  Godhead  of  Him  who  is  the 
 Firjl,  and  only  God.  Youl  obferve  that  the 
 Dodlor  renders  a.7Cxijyx(j(jLcLy  as  if  it  had  been 
 k7i:cLvy<x.(Tix(jL  ry\^  ^?;y\i »  Brightnefs  of  Glory  : 
 Which  is  again  concealing  and  (ti fling  the  Senfe 
 of  the  Author.  Athanafius  intended  to  fignify 
 the  Son's  ijftiing  ox  fir  earning  forth,  as  it  were, 
 from  the  Father's  Subftance,  as  Light  from  the 
 Sun;  which  meaning  is  loft  and  funk  in  the 
 Dodor's  Tranflation.  You  fee  then  that  this 
 Paflage,  when  rightly  underftood,  is  intircly 
 againft  the  Dodor;  and  therefore  ought  not  to 
 be  reckoned  amongft  Conceffions. 
 
 Let  us  go  on  to  another,  in  the  very  fame 
 Page  (the  Pafllige  you  have  in  the  *  Margin  ) 
 The  Dodor  renders  it  thus:  *'  The  true  God, 
 ^*  who  \s  moft  ftridly  and  abfolutely  fuch,  even 
 '*  the  Father  of  Chrill  Here  the  Englijh 
 Reader  niuft  needs  think  that,  if  the  Father  be 
 moft  ftridly.    He   is   more  ftridly    God  than 
 
 Contrt  Gent,  p.  o. 
 
 ■    ^  -  Chria 
 
4i8        ^DEFENSE      Q^u.  XXVII. 
 
 Chrift  is:  Efpccially  when  nothing  appears  in  the 
 PafTage  to  compare  the  Father  with,  but  Chrift. 
 Under  this  view,  indeed,  the  PafTagc  cited  is  a 
 very  great  ConceJJion :  But,  in  the  Greeks  there 
 is  woConceJJion  at  all.  The  jufl  and  literal  ren- 
 dring  of  the  PafTage  is  this :  The  true  God  who 
 in  reality  is  fuch,  namely,  the  Father  ofChriJt. 
 You  mud  know,  that  Athanafiiis  is  here  ex- 
 horting the  Gentiles  to  turn  from  their  dumb 
 Idols,  to  lerve  the  hving  God.  In  oppofition 
 to  what  He  calls  *  ax  oi''&,  Things  which  have 
 no  real  01  but  precarious  Exiftence,  or  f  ix, 
 ovTa  TOictSm,  TT^/V/^j- which  were  noi  /itch  as  the 
 Heathens  imagined,  i.e. not  divine.  He  advifes 
 Them  to  come  over  to  the  Father  of  Chriji ; 
 whofe  property  it  is  to  exifi  in  reality,  and  who 
 is  truly  andy?W^/yGod.  This  is  no  more  than 
 ylthanafius  would  have  faid  of  the  Son ;  and  \  in- 
 deed has  laid,  in  that  very  Treatife;  and  there- 
 fore you  may  pleaie  to  ftrike  this  Paflage  alio 
 out  of  the  Number  of  Conceffions. 
 
 The  learned  DocSor  goes  on,  in  the  fame 
 way  (pag.  4.)  And  in  another  PaiTage,  inftead 
 of  far  above  all  created  Being  (which  the 
 Greek  Vv^ords  fignify,  and  which  is  the  certain 
 meaning  of  the  Author)  He  chufes  to  fay  far 
 above  all  derivative  Being ;  infmuating  to  his 
 Reader  as  if  the  Son  were  to  be  included  un- 
 der  derivative   Being ;    than  which    nothing 
 
 *   Via.  Arhanaf.  ibid.  p.  7,  8.       t  Athanaf.  p.  27. 
 
 f(^  is    (Tvvjervii,   u>iX' \i',    ^    fAc^voyiV'A^  0sa?— — — —  fit)-;  oi^^o<i  rZ  kouj- 
 
 -AlhaiK  Contr.  Qeat,  p,  40.  QaQ 
 
CLu. XXVII.     of  fome  QUERIES.        419 
 
 can  be  farther  from  the  Senfe  of  the  Au- 
 thor, in  that  very  Page;  as  I  have  obierved 
 *  before,  on  another  occafion.  All  the  Concef- 
 fan  that  is  there,  lies  only  in  the  Dodlor's 
 Tranjlation,  and  the  Turn  He  gives  to  ix.  in  the 
 Sequel:  Athanafins  hinilclf  has  granted  nothing 
 that  can  do  you  any  Service;  at  leaft,  not  in 
 that  Paflage,  and  therefore  let  that  ahb  return 
 
 ro  us  again. 
 
 Pag.  89.  The  Dodor  cites  a  PafTage  of  Ett* 
 febius'y  which.  He  fays,  exjprejfes  the  ttnant- 
 mous  Senfe  of  the  Catholick  Church :  And  it 
 may  be  true,  as  it  lies  in  Enfebius.  But,  as  it 
 is  reprefented  in  the  Dodor's  Tranflarion,  ex- 
 cluding the  Son  from  any  proper  Efficiency 
 in  the  Work  of  Creation,  it  is  diametrically  op* 
 pofite  to  the  iinanimons  Senfe  of  the  Antients, 
 and  to  Enfebius  too;  as  hath  been  Ihown 
 above  f , 
 
 Pag.  IOC,  loi.  The  learned  Doftor  has  two 
 Citations  from  Chryfoftom  and  Bafh^  who  in- 
 terpret the  Text,  of  Toijuer,  as  the  Dodor  ah'b 
 does  of  Tower,  Bur  if  the  Doctor  means  one 
 thing  by  Toiz'er,  and  They  another,  and  the 
 Ideas  be  intirely  different ;  their  Interpretation 
 and  his  muft  be  as  different  as  the  Ideas  are : 
 And  it  is  not  fair  to  quote  them  as  agreeing  in 
 the  Thing,  when  They  agree  only  in  zh^Name, 
 I  have  -^  before  took  notice  hov/  the  Dod:or 
 dealt  with  Chryfoftom^  in  order  to  conceal  the 
 good  Father's  true  meaning.     I  Ihall  here  ob- 
 
 *  Qu,  II,   p.  2©i,      t  Qu-^J»  PiiSj.        tQu.13.  p.  ?68. 
 
 ierve. 
 
4xq.        4   D  E  F  E  N  S  E      Clu.XXVir> 
 
 ierve,  how  He  perverts  ^^T^/'sSenle,  by  a  fmall 
 and  fcemingly  flight  Turn  in  his  TranflatioD; 
 *  Bafirs  Words  are  io-a  kcl]  tolvtoZ  xcl"^  S^Jva^.tiiv^- 
 That  is,  Equal,  and  the  very  fame ^  in  refpeB 
 of  To%)er.  The  Dod:or  drops  equals  which 
 would  have  difcovercd  Ba/il's  meaning ;  and 
 renders  it.  One  and  the  fame  in  ^Fower.  And 
 thus  BafrsWovds,  which  are  utterly  repugnant 
 to  the  Dodor's  Hypothefis,  are  improved  into 
 a  ConceJJJon  in  favor  of  it.  >  ^^A^ 
 
 Pag.  I  ox.  He  gives  us  a  low  and  lame  Con- 
 ftrudion  of  a  noble  Paflage  in  f  Irenatis,  The 
 Words,  jcct'gi  To  SeVx.oi'  >9  eVJo^oi',  He  renders,  in 
 a  divine  and  glorious  Manner :  The  true  ren- 
 dring  is,  ^n  his  divine  and  glorious  Choral er : 
 Namely,  that  which  He  had  as  God,  and  Son 
 of  God.  Iremeus,  in  that  Chapter,  is  repre- 
 fenting  the  Son  as  adiing  at  different  Times,  in 
 a  different  Charader  or  Capacity.  When  He 
 appeared  to  the  'Patriarchs,  then  He  aded  in 
 his  higheft  Capacity,  in  his  divine  Charader. 
 What  that  Character  is,   X  Irenaus  explains* 
 
 *  Set^i'?  ro  'iV,  U^n  toZ  itm  kcci  tuvt^  kxtu  ouyccf/jiv  vm^uXufJi/m 
 Quvm.     Bail]-  Contr.  Eun-  I.  i.  p.  ;f. 
 
 -}-  Kett  Aurbi;  S\  6  >,cy(^  toZ  ©sou  TvTq  fjj\v  7V^  Ma>v<r^cjt;  zcCTQ/Xf' 
 y(^ccii)  KHroc  TO   B-s'tkov   y^^  'iyh^cv   ct)^'.?^ei'   toT'-,    ei  iv    r^  vo/Zjo),    /s^t:- 
 
 Ky)V TK^iv   clTTiVif/jiv,    [j^jiru.  oi  rtivra ''AvS-ffc^rC^  pj^<j/ty.(^,    gCC. 
 
 Iren.  1.  ;.  c.  ii.  p.  ipi.  '' 
 
 •^'O  T  UTZtz'^TZov  7i%,viTfi<i  A(3y(^,  0  KxB-i;^S/.(^  ix}  vav  Xi^^'^^iy^t  ^ 
 vvviz^v  rci  7to(.vrr>i,     Iren.  p.  19*3 • 
 
 'Axd  rtZ  TTXTOf)^  Yy^i/joviyjfif   ex,vrS ycci  \vh^>?v  ycvexv. 
 
 IJlam  quse  eft  a  Patre,  principalem,  &  efficabileiii,  &  gloriofam 
 gencrationem  ejus  enarrat,  diccns  (ic,  In  principiv  erat  Verbum,  ^ 
 Verbum  erat  apud  Deum,  o?  Dm  us  erai  Verbunh  Et-  om?iia  per  ipfuin 
 facia  fun t-  (^  Jine  ipfo  fa^um  efj  nihil,     Iren,  p.  19 1. 
 
 a  lit- 
 
t^u.XXVlL      of  Jome  (QUERIES,        43 1 
 
 a  little  above,  in  the  fame  Chapter :'/'!(:'  is, '  a^ 
 He  is  the  IFordy  the  Framer  (  or  Maker )  o'f 
 all  Things,  who  Jitteth  upon  the  Chernbims, 
 and  containeth  all  Things,  who  is  the  Son  of 
 God,  and  God.  This  ihows  what  is  meant  by 
 the  x\  ^iUlv  19  ivSi^o?^  and,  at  the  lame  timt^ 
 fnovvs  that,  according  to  Irenaus,  tka^'hiyt^l 
 who  is  God,  then  adted  in  his  own  propef 
 Character,  and  not  in  the  Terfon  of  the  Fa^ 
 ther  only  ;  which  the  Dodor  would  infer  froril 
 this  Paffage.  ^yi  -^^  '• 
 
 Pag.  115-.  He  cites  a  place  of  Jujfin  Marty r\ 
 where  He  renders  the  Words,  which  you  fee 
 in  the  *  Margin,  thus.     "  It  was  not  God  the 
 ''  Creator  of  the  Univcrfe,  which  then  faid  Xx^ 
 *'  Mofes,  that  He  was  the  God  o^  Abraham^ 
 V*  and  the  God  oi  Ifaac,  and  the  God  oi  Jacob, 
 An  uncautious  Reader  might  imagine  from  this 
 Paflage,  put  into  this  View,    that  the  Son  is 
 not  God  abfolutely,  nor  Creator  of  the  Uni-^ 
 verfe,    according   to  Jnjiin,     But   the   mean^ 
 ing  is,    that  That   divine  Perfon,    who  called 
 Himfelf  God,    and  was  God,    was   not   the 
 Perfon  of  the  Father  (whofe  ordinary  Chara^ 
 ..der  is  that  of  Maker  of  all  Things)  but  ano- 
 "ther  divine  Perfon,  viz..  God  the  Son.     The 
 unlearned  Reader  fliould  be  told,  that  what  is 
 here  faid  by  Jujiin,  was  in  difpute  with  2ijeii\ 
 who  would  not  acknowledge  more  divine  Per- 
 
 o 
 
 ''Aefxl:ix,t  fC  ©ts>  'Ii/wfltJt,    ^  ©je/  'J*>c<tfc.     fnf^in.  Mart,  Dial.  180. 
 Jebb, 
 
 fons 
 
43^        ^DEFENSE      Q^u.XXVID 
 
 fons  than  One.  It  was  Jrtfim's  Bufinefs  to 
 fliow,  that  there  was  a  divine  Perfcn,  one 
 who  was  God  oi  Abraham^  Ifaac,  and  Jacol/^. 
 and  was  not  the  Father ;  and  therefore  there 
 were  two  divine  Perions.  The  learned  Dodor, 
 upon  his  Principles,  could  not,  in  that  way, 
 have  confuted  the  Jew ;  lb  far  as  I  apprehend 
 of  Jfijim's  Argument :  For  the  Jew  might  re-^ 
 ply  that  it  was  an  Angel  Ipeaking  in  the  '^Per^ 
 fori  of  God '^  and  that  therefore  the  Father  on- 
 ly was  God  notwithftanding.  But  Jujiiu  in^ 
 fifls  upon  it;  that  there  was  another  Perfon, 
 befidcs  the  Father,  who  was  really  God  of 
 Abraha77t,  &c.  If  this  is  to  be  taken  for  a 
 Concefjlon^  it  may  be  eafily  feen  on  what  Side 
 it  is. 
 
 Pag.  ii6.  The  Dodor  does  not  do  Juftice  to 
 Hilary.  loliead  of  r^//^<^  Lord  and  God,  which 
 is  diminutive,  it  ihould  have  been,  declared 
 to  be  Lord  and  God :  But  this  may  appear 
 flight.  Such  another  flight  inaccuracy  appears 
 in  his  afFeding  to  tranllate  God  bis  Father  ^ 
 inflead  oi  God  the  Father  (p.  104. 179.)  which 
 however  fliows  roo  much  leaning  to  a  Caufe; 
 and  helps  to  convey  a  falie  Idea  to  the  Englijk 
 Readers. 
 
 Pag.  25' r.  He  has  a  long  Citation  from  iVi?- 
 vatian  ;  in  which  all  proceeds  fo  fair  and  plau- 
 fible,  that  a  Reader,  already  poflcls'd  with  the 
 Docior's  Scheme,  and  carrying  it  in  his  Head, 
 may  think  that  every  Thing  falls  in  naturally 
 with  it.     But,  at  length,  the  Dodor  comes  to* 
 
 *  Ibmc' 
 
Qu.XXVII.       of  feme  QUERIES.        ^^i 
 
 *  forac  croft  Words,  .lod  fcch  as,  if  lufftred  id 
 appear,  would  have  made  the  Reader  coniirae  ail 
 backwards,  and  have  given  quire  another  Lighrra 
 all  that  goes  before  or  after.  Here  He  (lops  ihoic. 
 breaks  off  in  the  middle  of  a  Sentence,  pafTes 
 over  the  ofTenfive  Words,  draws  a  Line,  skips 
 to  the  ne^;t  Sentence,  and  goes  gravely  on  to 
 amufe  his  Reader.  A  Writer  is  not  to  be  blamed; 
 in  feme  Cafes,  for  takmg  what  is  to  his  pur- 
 pofe,  and  omitting  the  reft :  Bur,  as  the  Caft 
 is  here,  the  bed  and,  indeed,  only  Light  to  di^ 
 red:  the  Reader  to  the  true  meaning  of  what  is 
 cited,  is  left  our.  The  word  divinity,  for 
 inftance  (which  occurrs  twice  in  that  PafTage) 
 an  Englijh  Reader  will  be  apt  to  take  in  the 
 Dodor's  Senfe ;  and  indeed  can  hardly  do  other- 
 wife  :  But  had  the  whole  appeared,  He  could 
 not  but  fee  how  much  the  Dodor  is  raiilakerl 
 I  mud  obferve  to  you,  that  (/.  336,  337.)  th5^ 
 Dodor  deals  with  Novatian,  and  this  tzry 
 PafTage,  almofl:  in  the  fame  manner ,  again  : 
 Excepting  that  growing  a  little  bolder.  He  takes 
 more  freedom  in  his  Tranflation.  Mind  the 
 Words  in  (/.3  3  7-)  By  the  Son  in  \acbiO'Lvledg- 
 ment  rcturn'd;    and  compare,  per  Stibflantm 
 
 ,  *  Unu?  Dcus  oftenditur  Verus  Sc  iEternus  Patcr,  a  quo  Soio  W^tt 
 vis  Divinitatis  emifla,  etiam  in  Fd'unn  tradita  ^  d'lnB.fi  rurfum  per 
 Suhjl.wth  Commumcn^m  ad  Vatrcm  revchitur.  Deas  qu'dem  often-^ 
 ditur  Filius  cui  Divinitas  tradita  &  porrcda  conrpicitur,  6n  tanked 
 niti'lominus  unas  Dens  Pater  probatur.     Novat.  c,  51, 
 
 ,  f  The  Latin  is,  reciproco  rieatu  ilH  majei1.?s  irquc.dlvin'tis  z-A 
 Patrem  tji;i  dedcrat  earn  rurfum  ab  illo  ipfo  Filio  miiTa  revcrtirur 
 k  retb'i-quetiir.     Hid,  031. 
 
 F  f  Cum- 
 
434       ^DEFENSE        Ql.XXVIL 
 
 Commnnionem,  a  little  before.  Novatian.  in  this 
 place,  had  no  thought  oi Acknowiedg^nents,  nor 
 any  thing  like  it:  But  was  intent  upon  quite  anc^ 
 ther  Thing ;  explaining  and  illuftrating,  as  well 
 as  He  was  able,  the  Union  and  Communion  of 
 Subfiduce  in  Father  and  Son;  and  Ihowing  how 
 all  recurs  to  one  Head  and  Fountain  ;  On  which 
 account  the  Father  might  be  reafonably  ftiled 
 the  one  God,  in  as  much  as  the  Son  is  fo  in-, 
 timately  one  with  Him,  as  to  be  reckoned,  ii\ 
 a  manner,  to  Him,  and  not  another  God  froni 
 Him.  It  is  all  but  one  T^'tvmity,  or  divine- 
 Sub  fiance,  of  the  Father  in  Both. 
 
 Pag.  X54.  We  may  obferve  another  Turn,  byi 
 Way  of  Tranflation.  The  *  Greek  you  may  fee 
 in  the  Margin,  which  the  Dodor  renders  thus: 
 *'  That  Jcliis  Chriil,  our  Lord  and  God  incar- 
 •'  nare,  is  not  the  Father,  nor,  as  the  Sabel-, 
 '*  Hans  would  have  it  (that  fame  Perfon  who- 
 *'  is  (tiled)  the  only  God  ;  This  the  Holy  Scri« 
 *'  ptures  every  where  Teftify.  The  literal  and 
 plain  Tranflation  is  thus :  That  Jefits  Chrijl^ 
 our  Lord  and  God  incarnate^  is  not  the  Fa- 
 ther, nor  {in  the  Sabellian  Senfe)  the  only 
 God,  the  Holy  Scriptures  every  where  Tejlify. 
 This  meaning,  you  ice,  is  clear,  plain,  and  ealy, 
 without  the  Dodor's  Embarafments  ;  and  is 
 nndoubtedly  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Author.  But 
 iuch  a  hint  as  this  might  have  made  an  unlucky 
 
 €irK  Wiv,  «<^',  6}<i  ciKZivoi  (^tuiv^  0  jn^vQ-  ©j(j;,  of'Twr^^  UjU^tv^hZ&ip  td 
 ^i.c/j\  yg^'.^^,     Athaa,  Gonrn  Sabell,  p.  47' 
 
 difco- 
 
Vl  r  >^, 
 
 Qu.XXVir.       6fjbnih  Q^U  E  R I E  S.        43  ^ 
 
 difcovcry  to  the  Reader ;  Namely,  ttVat  a  Man 
 may  believe  the  Son  to  be  the  only  God,  with- 
 out being  a  Sabelilan. 
 
 In  the  fame  Page,  The  Doftor  has  another 
 Qiioration  from  Athanajiiis  (if  that  Trcanlc 
 be  his)  which,  had  He  gone  on  but  a  few  Words 
 farther,  would  have  appeared  Contradictory  to 
 ro    the    purpole,    for  which    it    was    brought* 
 
 *  There  is  but  one  God,  becaufe  one  Father; 
 
 but  the  Son  alfo  is  God,  having  a  famencls 
 
 with  the  Father,  as  a  Son  ;  not  that  He  is 
 
 *  the  Father  Himfelf;  but  in  Nature  united  with 
 '  the  Father ;  two  indeed  in  Number,  but  one 
 
 *  intire  Eflence.  This  is  the  whole  Sentence 
 literally  tranflated ;  and  the  Senfe  of  it  is  clear. 
 The  cutting  it  into  halves,  only  to  reprefenc 
 one  part  under  another  View,  is  nor  giving 
 the  Senle  of  a  Writer,  but  making  one  for 
 Him. 
 
 P.  t^iy.  The  Do6tcr  cites  another  Paflage 
 from  Atkanafius  '^  and  by  the  Turn  He  gives  \x.^ 
 ftifles  the  true  Senlc  of  the  Author.  **  \  The 
 •*  word  has  no  ether  fort  of  Divinity,  but  that 
 *'  which  He  derives  from  the  only  God,  as 
 '*  being  begotten  of  Him. 
 
 Tif  ^6a-i'  duo  f/jiv  u^iSy^d^  t^icc  oi  cvra  euaiix  riXiiec.  Alhan.  Concr, 
 Sabell.  p.  41. 
 
 ■f-   M;«y  oi-^'/ji'J  oidbcujsi',    tvv   77   i'ijfjuiiip'yov   Xoycv  (piicrfcuiiy  i^  tTip'oi 
 
 Arh;n.  Conrr    Arian,  Orat,  5.  p.  cd4.  Ed.  Bcncd, 
 
 F  f  ^  The 
 
4J6       ^  D  E  F%  WS  ^       Qy.XXVH. 
 
 ^The  true  Conltrucnoii  is  This;^-    ^^   ^  ^^ 
 '^*  The  Word  has  no  other  kiiicJ  of  T>lvin1ty, 
 ^^  bur  that  of  the  only  God;  becaufe  He  is  be- 
 "^^  gotten  of  Him.     The  plain  meaning  is,  that 
 the  Godhead  of  Father  and  Son  is  all  one :  Di- 
 redly  contrary  to  what  the  Dodor  cites  the 
 PafTage  for.     After  I  had  wrote  this,  I  found 
 that  the  DocStor  Himfclf  (/.  317)  had  tranflatcd 
 the.  Sentence  in  the   very  lame  Words  that  I 
 have  done;  excepting  his  putting  ^^ri^'^^  (in- 
 ftead  of  begotten)  which  might  convey  a  low 
 Idea  to  his  Reader.     But,    not    content    with 
 that,  for  fear  a  fagacious  Reader  ihould  chance 
 to  difcover  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Author?  Kc 
 injerts  a  Note  upon,  T^ivinity  \  interpreting  it 
 (^divine  To^ver)  in  Contradidlion  to  the  Au- 
 thor's  known  ordinary  Senib  of  ^^cojiisy  as  well 
 as  to  the  Context,     v'f-r,  '        -  -   i-^"-^  rr- 
 
 Pag.  25-6.  He  cites  *  tzr^^^^ry  Naztanzen, 
 and  tranfiates  Him  thus:  **  There  is  but  one 
 "  God;  the  Son  and  the  H.  Ghoft  being  referrd 
 ••  to  the  one  Caufe.  But  then  He  adds  a  Note, 
 which  confounds  all:  Namely,  filys  He,  as  be- 
 ing divine  T^erfons  by  '•ji;ho?n  the  one  God,  or 
 one  Can fe  and  Original  of  all  Things,  made 
 and  governs  the  Word.  Right;  if  V/e  are  to 
 teach  the  Fathers  how  to  fpeak:  But  what  faid 
 Gregory  Nazlanzenl  It  is  this:  *'  We  may, 
 "  as  j conceive,  preierve  {jtheDo^lrine  of)  one 
 
 XBirTK   TO  h   y^  TUVTJ  1^  9^g(37>jrt§>-,  ■ivoi    ouTZc'^    cvoyjscazi),    ftiv/iUtei  tt  yji^ 
 ,48A5)y^^.,  k:  tIv)  v  i'Ary.i  Tuvr^r/^,    Greg.  Nas.  Orar.  29.  p.  490* 
 
(^u.XXVII.       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        437 
 
 •*  God,  by  referring  both  the  Son  and  H.  Ghoft 
 
 **  to  o;ic  Caufc,  wirhoiit  Corapofitio?^^  or,  Con- 
 
 '*.  fufion  ;  and  by  afTcrting  (as  I  may  Tay)  one 
 
 J^*l^and  the  fame  Movcmcnr,  and  Will  of  the 
 
 .*/^  Godhead,  together  with  Saiiienefs  of  ElTencc. 
 
 ftfere  is  ndtr,k  Syllabic  about  the  one  God's  go- 
 
 rVerning  the  World  by  his  Son  and  his  Spirit ; 
 
 rwhich,  the'  a  true  Notion,   is  not  iufficicnr  to 
 
 ^account  for  the  ^Unity ;  nor  is  it  Gregory's  Ac- 
 
 CAutit  of  it,  as  the  Reader  mud  liave  imapincd 
 
 rrom  the  Dodior's  Comment. 
 
 r     Pag.  323.   The    learned  Dodof   by   wrong 
 
 "Tointing,  and  Miftranflating,  perverts  a  PafTage 
 of  J^ijiin  Martyr.     But  I  have  cxplain'd  and 
 .vindicated  the  true  Senfe  of  it  *  elfcwhere. 
 ^  .  Pag.  315-.  He  produces  an  excellent  PafTage 
 
 r|of  Iren^usy  and  tranflatcs  it  juftly.  But  fear- 
 ing it  might  found  too  high,  He  fubjoins  a  leden- 
 ing  Note,  to  draw  off  the  Reader's  Thoughts. 
 
 ^  *'  This  Paflage  (lays  He)  is  parallel  to  Thofe 
 
 , .  ^wherein   He  calls    the  Son    and    Spirit  the 
 
 /y*'|iands  of  the  Father,  namely,  executing  his 
 
 *'  Will  as  perfeEily,  as  a  Man's  own  Hands 
 
 ^"  perform  the  Will  of  the  Man.    But  why  may 
 
 yir  nor  be  rather  parallel  to  thole  Paflagcs 
 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  ovsu 
 Ojf-fpring,  and  his  own  Figure,  and  all  the 
 'Angels  are  faid  to  ferve  and  do  obeyjafice  to 
 
 ^'Them.     Does  not  rhis  found  fomething  higher 
 
 •  Qu,  8.  p.  i%u 
 
 F  f    3  than 
 
438        ^DEFENSE      du.  XXVII. 
 
 than  executing  the  Father's //^//A  however /^r- 
 fe^lyl  Or,  than  the  low  Metaphor  about  a 
 MaUy  and  his  Handsy  as  the  Dodlor  repreftnts 
 it  ?  True,  Irenaus,  and  many  other  of  the  Fa- 
 thers, ufe  that  Expreffion,  which  They  took' 
 from  Scripture;  but  They  underflood  a  great 
 deal  more  by  it;  The  fame  as  by  *<rbW^^,  or 
 'Virtus,  the  mighty  Tower  of  God,  and  God 
 Himfelf 
 
 In  the  fame  Page,  He  cites  another  excellent 
 Paflage  of  \  Iren^us ;  and  lam  glad  to  have 
 this  Opportunity  of  fetcing  before  the  Reader, 
 in  Its  true  Light,  (b  illuftrious  a  Teftimony  of 
 a  Co- eternal  and  Co-ejfential  Trinity.  The 
 /i/<?r^/ Tranfiarion  of  the  Greek  may  run  thus; 
 *•  Man  being  created  2iX\^  fajh'toii d ,  is  made 
 "  afrcr  x^i,t  image  and  Likeneis  of  the  tmcreat" 
 ''  ed  God:  The  Father  defignmg  and  giving 
 '•  out  Orders  >  the  Son  executing  and  creating; 
 *v  the  Holy  Ghoft  fupplying  Nutriment  and 
 '*  Incrraie.  Here  you'l  obierve,  that  the  joint 
 Operations  of  the  three  divine  Perlbns,  con- 
 curring in  the  Creation  of  Man,  are  fet  forth 
 in  fucb  a  Manner,  as  to  intimate  both  the  di- 
 ftind  Pcrfonality,  and  Unity  of  Eflence.  That 
 lren£tis  fuppofed  the  three  Perfons  to  be  the 
 one  kyim\TO';  (dioiy  or  eternal  God,  here  ipoken 
 
 *  Vid.  Tertull.  Coutr.  Hermog.  c.  4.f.  Eufeb.  in  Pfalm.  p. 
 701,722.  A'hana/i  p.  214.  880-  £d.  Bencd.  Hicrcn.  Tom.  4. 
 p.  49.  Ed.  Bencd. 
 
 ecyl'yVi'.ris  y.virK^.  ©iS*  Js*  ^/jiv  'ztxt^o^  iuhx.ivi(^  y^   KtXi6oy\^^  y  oi  *t(». 
 Ircn.  !ib.4.  c.  38.  p.  285.  pf^ 
 
Qjj.XXVlI.       of  fome  Q^U-ERIES.         439 
 
 of,   may  appear  ;     i.  From  his  introducing  the 
 
 three    Pcrfbns    immediately    after,    as    Expla<^'^ 
 
 natory    of    it.      x.    From  ^  his    iinderflanding 
 
 Gen.  z6.  i.  of  Father,  Son,   and  Holy  Ghoft, 
 
 Let  U  s  make,    and  alio,    afier  Our  hnage^ 
 
 ^o    that  the  Image    of  any  one  is   the  Image 
 
 of    all.       3.    From   h^en anus's    other    known 
 
 Principles;    his   afTerting   the    Son    to    be    /;/- 
 
 fetttis,  or  iyeyyiiTo?;    {uncreated)    and   fuppo- 
 
 fing  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  to  be  the  ^  Self 
 
 of  the  Father ;  and  fpeaking  of  Father  and  Son 
 
 together,  as  one  God.     4.  From  fevcral  Hints, 
 
 in  the  fame  Chapter,  all  confirming  this  Senfe. 
 
 One  Charad:er  of  the  iygvvrjTo?,  there  given,  is 
 
 TgAe^o^:    The  fame  Character  is,    in  the    fame 
 
 Chapter,    ^  applied  to    the   Son ,    in  the  fame 
 
 Senle.     All  Things,  but  the  iyewj^ro^,  are  faid 
 
 to  be  /;/  ^  Snbjeciion :    among  which  Things , 
 
 Irenaus  can  never  be  fappofed  to  include  the 
 
 Son  and  Holy  Spirit.    And  farther,  every  thing 
 
 that  is  not,  cLym-^Tz^,  comes  iliort  of  Perfedlion, 
 
 according  to  '^Iren^us  ^  who,  at  the  fame  time, 
 
 aflerts  the  Perfed:ion  of  the  Son,  as  before  faid, 
 
 Thefe  Things  confider'd,  the  meaning  of  Ire- 
 
 n£us,  in  this  Paflage,  appears  to  be,  that  the 
 
 a  Manus  Dei  ad  quas  pater  loquens,  dicir,  Faciamus  Hominem 
 ad  Imnginem  (^  Simditudmem  Nostram.     Iren.  1.  5.  c.i.  p.  19  V 
 
 Idem  ipfe  qui  ab  initio  pblmavic  Adam,  cum  quo  &  loquebatur 
 Pater  :  Faciamus  Hominem  fccHmlum  hna^lmm  ^  Si  mill  t  ml in  em 
 Nostram.  Ij-.  c.  15-.   p.B«i. 
 
 b  Lib.  2.  c.  ^o.  p-   163. 
 
 C  'Tio^  Toy   Ofsy   -AXiKic,    uv.    pt  284. 
 
 t  Kje^'o   i/t  f/jv^  iTiJ  oiyin  vijTzi,   xetrst  tSto  ^  ^^i^^j  k.  n/.£/».   p'  18:^, 
 
 F  f  4  '  thrqc 
 
^g,        J  V  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qy.XXVIL 
 thi'e^^'-^rvine  Perfons  are   one  eternal,    or  mi- 
 qX^(^^M  God,  as  alio  one  Creator.     How  theti 
 ,^ixie  the  Doxftor  to  cite  iuch  a  PafTage,  which 
 threatens   nothing   but  Ruine  and  DeftruSion 
 to  his  Principles?  TheCaie  is  this:  The  learn- 
 ed Dodor,  by  a  flrange  over- fight,  read  v  At©g5x 
 ^nftead  of  5  ^tV  nargj^,  tho'  Both  the  Greek  and 
 :the  old  hatm  agree  in  this  lad  Reading.    This 
 Alteration,  in  the  Text,  ipoils  all  the  Elegance, 
 4nd  alters  the  whole  Turn  of  the  Sentence  :  Be- 
 sides this,    the  Dodor  tranflates  cLyivvyirs,    un- 
 begotten.  inftead  oi  unmade  \  not  obferving  the 
 :Mnt%thcjis,  between  y\w/^Th<^" k)Pf^(i>7:(^<^^  and  iyey- 
 p(X^,  .e)gy  1   nor  attending  to,    Infecii  T)ei,  in 
 yih^^^^old-  Tranflation;   which   might   have   fee 
 |iiiiQ  light.     Thus  far   I  have  gone   on   with 
 ibrne  of  the  Dodor's  Quotations ;  but  give  me 
 jeaY.etP  flep   hajck.fpr.a  few  more,    wlueh  I 
 ■h^VQ  averIook'Ar>Mfio7q  ^  xH  '* 
 
 ,:  p.  308.  The  learned  Dodor  produces  a  Paf- 
 fage  of  '^^  Bajil,  which  He  renders  thus;  very 
 fiirpri2;ingly.  *'  We  affirm  that  according  to 
 *'  the  natural  Order  of  Caufes  ^nd  Effects,  the 
 \^y'  Father  muft  have  the  pre  eminence  before 
 \'--  the  Son,  Whoever  heard  before,  from  any 
 ■  Catbolick,  that  the  Son  was  an  Effect  of  the 
 Father?  Could \^^y?/  lay  this?  If  the  Dodor 
 would  but  have  fuffer'd  the  very  next  immediate 
 WoiQS,  Vi^hich  malve  part  of  the  Sentence,  to 
 
 *     tifJUli<i    OS,     iCO(.TZi     fJiiiV      Til/)     T£l)V     OClTlUV     TPpi      7U      i^      C6t/T6)V      f^ifTlVy 
 
 apjpear. 
 
Qu.XXVIL       of  fome  Q^UERIES.        441 
 
 appear.  They  would  have  undeceived  hisPvCadcr, 
 The  hteral  Conftrudion  of  the  whole  Sentence 
 is  this:  *'  We  do  indeed  allow,  that,  in  rcipcdt 
 f'  of  the  natural  Order  of  {Emanative)  Caufes 
 -/  and  Things  ifluing  from  them,  the  Father  is 
 ^V  Trior  in  Order  to  the  Son  :  But  as  to  any 
 iV  Difference  in  Nature,  or  Triority  of  Time, 
 *'  we  allow  no  fuch  Thing.  Bnfil  had  juft  be- 
 fore *  explained  what  He  meant  by  the  Fa- 
 ther's being  Trior  in  order  of  Caiifality  ^ 
 by  the  Inftance  of  Fire,  and  Light  dreaming 
 from  it.  jiOo 
 
 Pag.  317.  The  Dodor  has  another  Citatioa 
 Siom\Bafil,  which  He  renders  thus :   '-There- 
 it)'  fore  our  Lord  faith,  all  mine  are  thine,  as 
 A'  referring  to  the  Father,  the  original  Caufe  of 
 of*  all  Things:    And  thine  are  rdine\  as  figni- 
 P'  fying  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 
 thine,    in  as  much  as   the  Original  of  the 
 Creatures  is  referred  up  to  the  Father :  And 
 • '  thine  are  mine,  in  as  much  as  the  Power  of 
 ■  '*  Creating  defcends  from  Him,    to  the  Son. 
 That  is,    with   his  Ejfence,  as  Ba/il  explains 
 
 :^,Cryi  Tvj  y^aiu  <Pua»  Uf(^Xi£B-iei.  avfJttQeiivov,  a^  rS  vrv^l  T*5{  to  ^a<i  itI 
 TO  f|  x'jTcZ.     Ibid.  p»  30. 
 
 f  Aik  r^ro  (p>}(r.v  6  xt/^t(^,  its  f/y$&  'Tmifttt.  <m.  e^tv,  ux;,  Itt    auizv  r<^ 
 
 r  e&l-nx^  roZ  hy-^t^^Tv  KxJyiKtscT^^.  BaliL  dc  Sp.  San^ft.  c.  8.  p.  16 1. 
 it  feems  from  -tohat  folloros,  that  ciurJ,  rather  than  ««3t?,  is  the 
 Readtng,  '  \ 
 
 (4 
 
44^        A    DEFENSE      Qjj.XXVIt' 
 
 it  a  little  after.     The  Dod:or,    I  prefume,  did 
 nor  care  that   his  Reader  iliould  know,    hoW 
 clearly  Bajil   diflinguillics  the  Son    from    the 
 ( A);ai«py>),ua^)  Creatures  \    and  not  only  fo;'' 
 but  fuppofes  the  Creatures  of  the  Father  to  be 
 Creatures  of  the  Son  likcwiic.    I  may  jufi:  take 
 notice,  how  particularly  fond  the  learned  Doctor - 
 is  of  the  Phrafe,  was  produced  {^See  p.  175.  x/??" 
 281.291  )  which  He  ufes  frequently,  without 
 any  warrant  from  the  Authors  He  tranflates ; 
 and  for  no  other  reafon,  that  I  can  lee,  but  be- 
 cauft  it  is  apt  to  convey  a  low  Idea  (the  Idea 
 of  a  Creature,    tho'  the  Dod-or  does  not  hk^- 
 the  7iame)  to  the  Englijh  Reader.  -^f 
 
 I  Ihall  proceed  no  farther  in  this  Article,  hav- 
 ing given  Inftances  enough  to  fliow  that  fbme 
 Abatements  and  Allowances  iliould  be  made  us, 
 for  inch.  ConceJJIo7?s,  as  are  really  no  Cbncel- 
 fions  in  the  Authors  Themfelvcs.  Upon  the  ^ 
 whole,  one  might  really  wonder  that  the 
 learned  Dod:or,  who  had  lb  wide  a  Field  of 
 Antiquity  to  range  in,  and  vv^as  only  to 
 pick  out  fuch  PalTages,  as  running  in  general 
 Terms,  or  taken  feparately,  might  be  made 
 to,  appear  under  fuch  a  View  as  He  intended,  . 
 iliould  produce  no  more;  but  be  forc'd  even 
 to  wreft  and  torture  leveral  of  rhofe  He  had 
 found,  by  prefacing,  commenting,  and  tranl^ 
 lating,  to  accommodate  Them  at  length  hardly, 
 and  after  great  Reludance,  to  his  Purpole. 
 You  will  fay,  perhaps,  that  theDodtor  lets  light 
 by  the  Fathers,  and  lays  no  ftrqfs  upon  Them  ; 
 
 ^         Ifliali 
 
Q^u. XXVII.      of  fome  (QUERIES.        443 
 
 I  iliall  believe  you,  when  He  fairly  gives  tliem 
 up.  At  preicnt,  it  muft  be  thought  that  They 
 are  efteemM  of  fome  Moment,  when  a  Book  is 
 ftuffed  with  Quotations  out  of  Them,  and  lb 
 much  pains  taken  to  make  Them  any  way  fer* 
 viceable.  One  that  lets  fo  great  a  value  upon 
 the  mecr  appearance  z.vid  Jhadow  of  Antiquity^ 
 can  hardly  be  fuppofed  to  flight  the  Thing  it 
 felf:  If  the  learned  Dodtor  is  lb  well  contented 
 with  ConceJJions  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  hisSchcme» 
 as  They  do  into  Ours  ? 
 
 II.  Bat  fuppofing  all  the  Dod:or*s  Quotations 
 from  the  Toji-Nicene,  or  Ante-Nicene  Writers 
 had  been  at  leail:  real  and  full  Conceffio7is ;  yet 
 there  is  Ibmcthing  fo  peculiar  in  this  new  way 
 of  quoting  ConceJJions,  without  taking  notice 
 of  what  ihould  come  in  to  explain,  or  ballance 
 Them,  that  we  have  realbn  to  except  againft 
 it,  as  not  a  fair  way  of  dealing. 
 
 1 .  Becaufe,  though  the  learned  Dodor  does  give 
 notice  in  his  Preface,  that  we  are  not  to  take 
 the  Opinion  of  the  Authors,  in  the  whole,  from 
 thole  Quotations;  yet  many  may  happen  to 
 read  the  Book  without  confidering,  or  remem- 
 bring  a  iliort  hint  in  the  Preface;  and  lb  may 
 lay  a  greater  ftreft  upon  thole  Authorities  than 
 the  Dodor  intended. 
 
 2.  Becaufe  the  Dodor  no  where  (in  Scripture- 
 2?^^r/V/^)  gives  any  Marks  of  Diftindion  for  an 
 
 ordinary 
 
44if  4  A  J^  ^  J^(^  E  QuXXVll 
 ordinary  Reader  to  uaderftand,  where  He  in- 
 tended a  Coiice£lon  only,  of  an  Author,  an(J 
 ^^yherc  his  intirs  Opui\)n ;  where  He  agreed 
 )yith  the  Dod:or  'm,^part  only,  and  where  in 
 the  "-johole,  Inftead  of  this.  He  rarely  lets  his 
 ^nglijl)  Reader  fee  jnore  of  any  PafTage,  thari 
 may  appear  to  comport  with,  and  favour  bi,s 
 o\^^wHypotheJis\  either  ftriking  our  what  might 
 have  diicover'd  it  to  be  a  ConceJJion  in  part,  oj: 
 difguifing  it  in  his  Tranflation,  cr  explaining  it 
 away,  by  his  prefacing  ir,  or  commenting  up- 
 on it.  Befides,  fmce  Authors  have  very  feldom, 
 if  ever,  been  cited  in  this  manner  (by  Men  of 
 Chara6ler)  in  favour  of  fuch  Principles  as  They 
 really  dilbwn'd  and  rejedied  in  the  main ;  Rea- 
 ders will  be  apt  to  carry  that  Prefumprion  and 
 Prejudice  along  with  Them ;  and  a  iliort  Ad- 
 vertifement  in  the  Preface,  will  no^t^^^ij:||Eciegt 
 to  prevent  Vi.  :[     ,-,;r> ' /  /  .'l\ 
 
 3.  Another  reafbn  againft  this  Method  is,  that 
 it  gives  a  Handle  to  many  to  boaft  of  the  nu- 
 merous  Colledions  of  Dr.  Clarke  againft  the 
 Received  DoGtxmc.  See  (  befides  others )  the 
 T^iffwafive  from  inquiring  into  the  T)o6irme 
 of  the  Trinity  (p,  28.)  where  this  very  ufe.is 
 made  of  ir.  By  this  means,  Truth  is  darken'd, 
 Evidences  perplex'd,  and  the  common  Readers 
 rather  puzzled  and  confounded,  than  ^fet  into 
 the  true  State  of  the  Fad;  fo  far  as  relates  to, 
 rhe  Judgment  of  the  Antietits. 
 
 4.  Ii  iUould  be  confider'd  that  the  monal 
 Obliquity  and  Turpitude  of  milcjuoting  or  rnjf^. 
 
 repreftnting 
 
(Id.X^^Vff.      ^ybrite  t^U  E  R I  E'S.        44; 
 
 rcprcfenring  Authors,  confifts  in  this :    That  it 
 is  a  means  to  deceive  the  Simple,  to  fitrprizc 
 the  Unwary  and  Unlearned  (who  muft,  or  will 
 Receive  Things  upon  Truft)    it  is  taking  Ad- 
 "vantagc  of  the  bhndSidc  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  lee  but  this  very  Me- 
 thod of  the  Dodor's  (rho'  He  has  endeavor'd 
 to  IcfTen  the  Scandal  of  it)  is  big  with  all  this 
 Mifchief.     He  has  indeed  given    notice  ;    and 
 wife  Men  and  Scholars  vi^ould  have  been  lecure 
 *hiough  'Without  it :  Others  will  not  be  fb,  with 
 It:  And  therefore  He  is  (till  to  take  Advantage 
 ^oi  the  Ignorance  of  one,  the  Partiality  of  ano- 
 *|her,  the  Forgetfulnefs  of  a  third,  the  Credulity, 
 'Simplicity,  Haft,  and  Inadvertency  of  as  many 
 as  come  unprepared  and  unfurnifli'd  to  the  read- 
 ing his  Citations.     The  Thing  it  felf,  vou  may 
 perceive,  is  equally  mifchievous,  however  gilded 
 over  with  fpecious  Pretences.    And  there's  no 
 more  in  it  than  this:  Mijr  eprefent  at  ion  pra- 
 xis'd,  and  at  the  fame  timiC,  ieemingly  defend- 
 ed, and  (tho'  the  learned  Doctor  docs  not  per- 
 ceive ir)  it  is  really  nothing  elle  but  contriving 
 a  way  how  to  reconcile  (if  poilible)    a  good 
 Na?ne,  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 
 Romaiiijl^  for  inftance,  might,  in  this  u'ay,  un- 
 dertake .t©  defend  ibme  of  the  Romiffo  Tenets. 
 
446        ^DEFENSE      Qu.XKYM: 
 
 Ic  would  be  cafy  for  Him  to  make  a  numeroui 
 Colic(3:ion  of  Teftimonies  from  ihc  Fathers  \. 
 and  as  much  to  the  purpole,  as  the  Doctor's 
 CoHedtion  is/  Two  Inconveniencies  He  might 
 forefee;  one  to  his  own  CbaraEier,  upon  dif- 
 covery;  the  other  to  his  Caufe,  becaufe  His 
 own  Citations  might  be  turn'd  againft  Him.  To 
 obviate  the  former.  He  might  declare  before- 
 hand, that  "  He  did  not  cite  places  out  of  thefc 
 "  Authors  fo  much  to  ihow  what  was  theOpi- 
 **  nion  of  the  Writers  thcmfelves,  as  to  fliow 
 **  how  naturally  Truth  fometimcs  prevails  by 
 *'  its  own  native  Clearnefs:  And  to  obviate 
 the  latter.  He  might  iay,  He  alledged  the  Tejii- 
 monies  not  as  Troofs,  but  2iSllluJtrations  only. 
 Thus  the  Writer  might  feem  to  come  off  pretty 
 handfomly:  But,  in  the  mean  while,  the  un- 
 learned and  unthinking  might  be  led  afide  by 
 the  fair  ihow  of  Authorities ;  and  all  the  Re- 
 medy left  for  them  is,  Si  Topilus  vtilt  decipi, 
 decipiatur.  Thefe  are  my  prefent  Sentiments 
 of  the  Nature  and  Tendencv  of  this  new  and 
 extraordinary  Method  of  Citing  ;  which,  how- 
 ever, I  Ihall  be  very  glad  to  alter,  if  I  fee  any 
 pood  Reafon  for  it.  To  me  it  feems  that  it 
 ought  never  to  be  pradtis'd,  tho'  to  ferve  the 
 beft  Canfe  m  the  World. 
 
 III.  After  all.ImuiT:  obferve  to  you,  fuppofing 
 the  Method  to  have  been  ever  lo  fair,  and  the 
 Concefjlons  both  many  and  real,  the  Dodor  has 
 ftill  failed  in  his  main  point,  of  m.aking  out  the 
 hnportance  of  thofe  ConceJjiQns^  to  the  Caule  in 
 
 Hand. 
 
Q^u.XXVIL     of  fume  QUERIES,        447 
 
 Hand.  There  the  Strefs  fliould  have  been  laid: 
 We  did  not  want  to  know  what  ConceJ/ioiis  the 
 Fathers,  in  general^  had  made ;  being  ready  at  any 
 Time  to  make  the  lame  Concefjionsi  But  fiiow  us 
 the  Connexion  between  thelc  Conce£ions,  and  the 
 Dod-or's  Conclufion.  This  is  the  Point  which 
 ftould  have  been  laboured;  and  which  required 
 all  the  Learning  and  Acutenefs  which  theDodx)t 
 is  Mafter  of.  As  thus:  The  Fathers  afTcrted 
 the/Vy?  Terfon  only  to  be  tmbegotten,  or  tin- 
 originate  \  therefore  They  muft  ofConfequence 
 make  the  Soa  no  more  than  an  inferior  God^ 
 or  no  God.  The  Fathers  fuppofed  the  Son  fiih^ 
 ordinate,  as  a  Son  ;  therefore  They  mufl:  by  ne* 
 ceflary  Ccnfequence,dcny  hx^Confubflantiality 
 and  Co- eternity.  This  was  the  Conclufion 
 which  the  Dod:or  w^as  to  draw  out  of  thole 
 Premifes;  and  Ihow  to  be  juft  and  true.  Bur, 
 inilead  of  this.  He  drops  the  principal  Thing ; 
 repeats  indeed  the  Conceffwns,  fuch  as  They 
 are,  over  and  over;  and,  by  a  multitude  of 
 Words  (not  to  fliow"  any  certain  Connexion^ 
 but  only  a  verbal  Refemblance)  He  at  length 
 flips  his  Conclufion  into  their  Places.  There  is 
 really  nothing  more,  in  this  Management,  than 
 interpreting  ///  what  the  good  Fathers  meant 
 Well'^  giving  a  low  Senfe  to  Words  andPhrafe^ 
 which  They  mtended  in  a  high  one ;  and  put- 
 ting an  Arian  Conll:rud:ion  upon  Catholick  Ex- 
 preffious.  This  \^  all  that  the  learned  Dodlor 
 hath  really  done  by  the  help  of  thole  Concef 
 fions.     In  the  fame  way,  a.  Man  may  quote  all 
 
 the 
 
44?        ifDEFENSE       Qu.XXVII. 
 
 the  CcnceJJions  of  the  Fathers  about  a  proper 
 •Sacrifice,  in  favor  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mafs: 
 Or  their  ConceJfio7is  about  a  real  Prejence,  in 
 favor  o'i  2i  fiibfiantialTre fence  of  Chnft'sBody 
 and  Blood  in  the  Eucharijt,  Only,  if  He  would 
 do  it  artfully  and  plaufibly,  He  iliould  take 
 care  to  reft  in  generals  \  and  fupply  what  is 
 farther  wanting,  by  Intimations,  and  Innuendos. 
 This  feems  to  have  been  the  very  Method 
 which  the  learned  Dodor  has  taken  to  grace, 
 and  let  off  many  of  his  Tropofitions  ^  the 
 9.  II,  li.  17.  34,  35"'  3<^.  39.  43'  S?r.  The 
 Concejfions  there  cited  come  not  up  to  the^ 
 points  in  difpure  betwixt  Us,  being  moftly  fiich 
 general  Things  as  may  be  admitted  on  either 
 Side ;  and  luch  as  would  not  have  been  fuiped- 
 cd  to  favor  the  Dodor's  Caule,  in  Ofpofition 
 to  Us,  but  by  appearing  in  the  Dodor's  Book, 
 To  make  them  iuit  the  better,  the  Dodor  has 
 form'd  his  Tro^ofitions,  for  the  moft  part,  \\\ 
 general,  or  ambiguous  Terms ;  content  to  Icat- 
 rer  Intimations  of  his  Meaning  here,  and  there, 
 as  He  law  proper ;  and  to  truft  the  reft  to  the 
 Sagacity,  ihould  1  fay,  or  Weaknefs  of  his  Rea- 
 ders. And  now,  what  is  the  relult  of  this  Me- 
 thod of  Citing,  or  what  does  it  really  prove  ? 
 I  will  tell  you  frankly  and  plainly.  Firft,  It 
 proves  that  general  Expreffions  are  capable  of 
 being  put  into  diiferent  Views,  and  may  be 
 made  to  look  this  way,  or  that  (taken  iepa- 
 rately)  by  Men  of  Wit.  Secondly,  It  proves 
 that  when  pertinent  Authorities  cannot  be  had. 
 
 Writer^ 
 
Ctu.XXVII.       of  fime  Q^UBR-fES.        ^^^ 
 
 Writers  in  a  Caufe  will  be  content  with  Any, 
 This  is  All.  Having  Icen  what  the  learned  Do- 
 ctor's Evidence  from  Antiquity  amounts  to ;  I 
 ihall  next  attend  to  what  You  have  to  (ay  in 
 defence  of  Him. 
 
 You  pcrfifl:  in  it,  that  the  Ante-Nicehe  Fa- 
 thers and  Councils agree  with  the  T)o^or 
 
 in  every  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  tuhere^ 
 in  He  diCagrees  with  the  School-Notions,  By 
 School  Notions  (a  Term  of  Art)  I  am  to  un- 
 derftand  i\\(tCatholick  prevailing  Notions  of  the 
 Blefled  Trinity.  And  will  you  pretend  to  (ay, 
 chat  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 
 God,  an  inferior  God  befides  Him.  This  is 
 the  Do6i:or'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  poffible  that  the 
 Ante-Nicene  Writers  (who  underftood  all  the 
 Texts  to  be  confident  with  the  Son's  Confub" 
 flantiality  and  Co-eternity  which  the  Dodor 
 cites  in  Oppofition  to  Both)  iliould  interpret 
 the  Texts  as  He  does .?  It  is  too  great  ^n  Af- 
 front to  common  Senfe,  to  pretend  ic,     But  the 
 
 G  %  Way 
 
4JO        A    DEFENSE        Qu.XXVJi, 
 
 way  is  this:  When  the  Dodtor  produces  the 
 Texts,  He  exprefles  but  part  of  his  Sentiments; 
 and  in  fuch  general  Words,  as  Catholicks  and 
 Avians  may  Both  agree  in :  And  lb  far  He  and 
 his  Authorities  go  on  together.  Afterwards  He 
 comes  out  of  ^^//^r/^/j-,  bringing  the  Words  down 
 to  a  particular  referved  meaning,  before  con- 
 cealed (and  w^hich  ihtAnticnts  would  have  re- 
 jed:ed  with  Abhorrence)  and  ftill  He  appeals 
 to  the  Antients,  as  agreeing  with  Him  in  his 
 Interpretations,  Thus,  for  Inftance ;  in  inter- 
 preting the  Texts  which  fpeak  of  the  Father 
 as  the  one  Gcd,  He  finds  iorae  of  the  Antients 
 fay,  the  Father  is  Au'-iii^o^^  the  Son  Second  on- 
 ly, or  Subordinate,  God  of  God.  Very  well: 
 So  fays  the  Dodor  too :  And  now,  who  can 
 make  any  doubt  whether  the  Antients  agreed 
 with  Him  in  his  Interpretations  ?  But  obiervc 
 the  Sequel :  When  the  learned  Dodor  comes  to 
 explain  his  own  Meaning  of  Autd^^o?,  and  Sub" 
 ordinate,  it  appears,  from  many  broad  Hints 
 fcatter'd  here  and  there,  to  be  this;  that  the 
 Father  only  is  necejfarily  Exijting  and  ftridly 
 divine  \  The  Son  another  Being,  inferior  in 
 kind  (or  what  comes  to  the  fame,  a  Creature) 
 dirediy  contrary  to  all  the  Antients.  Thu^ 
 you  fee,  while  the  Dodtor  keeps  in  gene- 
 rals, and  (peaks  his  mind  but  by  Halves,  Hef 
 and  the  Antients  may  agree  together ;  as  He 
 and  We  alfo  do :  But  as  loon  as  ever  He  comes 
 to  Particulars,  and  difcovers  his  real  and  full 
 Sentiraeots,  there  the  Antients  defert  Him  ;  as 
 
 well 
 
Qu.XXVft;'      of  fbme  Q^UfeRIEl?.         4|r* 
 
 well  as  He?,  Us.     But  befides  this  general  An- 
 jRver,  give  mc  leave  to  obferve  that,  as  to  fc- 
 veral  parricuiar  Texts,  The  Dotlor  has  no  fea- 
 fon  to  pretend  that*  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers 
 10  general,  Vv^ere  on  his  Sidcj  Rev,  1.8.  is  one 
 of  the  Dodor's  Texts ,    which    He   interpret^ 
 of  the  Father ;  and  infills  much  upon  it,  tha:t 
 the  Antients  applied  the  Title  of  ^cf.f^ioK^Ttupj 
 the  Ahmghty,    to  the  Father  only.     And  ycc 
 nothing    more    certain    than    that    That    very 
 Text   was  underftood ,    by    the  Ante  -  Nicene 
 Writers,  in  general,  of  God  the  Son :    Catho^ 
 licks  and  Hereticks  Both  agreed  in  it.     The 
 Text  was  urged  againfl  the  Catholicks,  in  the 
 Sabellidn  Controverfy;    and   was   as  plaufible 
 ^'  Text  as  any  in  the  New  Teftament,  on  the 
 Snbellian  fide:  Yet  the  Catholtcks  admitted  that 
 it  was  to  be  underftood  of  God  the  Son ;  arid 
 readily  allowed,  in  Confequence  of  that  Text, 
 that  the  Son  was  0  Tuxy^'^^rcop-,  the  Almighty ^ 
 as  well  as  the  Father.    See  *  Tertullian,  Hip- 
 polyttis,    and,    probably,    Origcn,    agreeing   in 
 this:    The  Dodtor  has  not  pretended   to    cite 
 any  Ante- Nicene  Waiter,    who  underftood  the 
 Text  otherwife;  tho'  He  makes  a  ihow  of  hav- 
 ing the  Antients  in  general  on  his  fide,  in  this 
 Very  Particular,    {Script.  T>ocir,  ^.6^.)  with- 
 out proving  any  thing  more  than  that  the  Fa- 
 ^/&)?r '\\'as  ordinarily  or  emphatically   ftiled    0 
 
 ^kmkpiruop'i  which  is  true,  but  not  pertinent ; 
 
 ■\«^ 
 
 .^-    *  Tertuli.  Contr.  JPrax.  c  17.     Hippblyr.Contr-  Not^.  c.  6.  p-  lo- 
 T)rig, 'Ap;i>  I.  I.  c.  2.     Athan.  p.;rf4,.  6S4.767.Ed.  Benci. 
 
 G  g   ^  Mpr 
 
4Jt         y/   D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qo.XXVII. 
 
 nor  is  it  givin2  us  the  Sentiments  of  the  An- 
 tients,  with  regard  to  this  Text ;  But  his ^'ze'^^, 
 Joh.\i.^\.  is  another  noted  Text,  which  the 
 Dodor  endeavors  {^Scrlp.  T)o^ir.  p.  loi.)  to 
 interpret  in  favour  of  his  own  Hypothefis  \  and 
 makes  a  fliow  of  Authorities,  as  countenancing 
 Him  in  it.     But  none  of  his  Authorities  come 
 up  to  his  Point:  So  far  from  it,  that  They  are 
 all  againil:  Him ;  as  I  have  fufficiently  proved 
 under  ^z^;;;)' the  Second,  and  elfevvhere.     The 
 like  may  be  obferved  of  the  Authorkies  which 
 He  produces  (p.  114, 115".)  to  confirm  his  In- 
 terpretation of  Act,  7.  30,  31,31.  And  1  have, 
 above,  Ihown  you  as  much  oi  Job.  10.  30.  and 
 other  the   like  Texts;  where  you  pretend  to 
 have  fome  Countenance  from  the  Antients,  for 
 your  Interpretation.  Infliort;  there  is  not  a  Text 
 which  the  Dodtor  can  pretend  to  urge  in  favor 
 of  his  main  Dcitrine,  and  againft  Ours;  and  a,t 
 the  lame   time  fiiow  that  the  Antients    agree 
 with  Him.     As  foon  as  ever  you  interpret  any 
 Text  diredly  againU  the  Divinity  of  Chrift,  as 
 underftood  by  Us  in  the  ftrid  Senfe,  you  go 
 off  intirely  from  the  A7iti€nts,'2iVid  go  on  by 
 your  Selves.     But  enough  of  this. 
 
 In  anfwer  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Query, 
 you  obferve  tliac  the  Reafou  why  the  Dodor 
 doth  not  admit  theTeffimonies' of  the  F^/'Z^mr, 
 as  T roofs,  is  not  hecaufe  They  are  againft 
 Him-^  but  hecanfe,  thd"  They  are  clearly  for 
 Him,  yet,  in  Matters  of  Faith,  H-e-  alloijus  of 
 no  other  Troof  than  thd  infaUible'Tefimony 
 xf  the  Word  of  God.  '    • 0ne 
 
Q^u.XXV^IL      of  Jorne  (QUERIES.         4^3 
 
 '  One  might  be  willing  to  believe  this  to  have 
 beenthereaibn/why  He  ''sjould  not  admit  Them 
 2isT^roofs,  if  there  were  not  another  very  plain 
 one,  why  He  could  not -^  could  not  without  in- 
 evitable Ruine  and  Dcflrudion  to  his  whole //>'- 
 J^othejis.  An  Adverlary  need  not  defire  any 
 fairer  Advantage  of  the  learned  Dodor,  than 
 to  have  the  Iflue  of  the  Caufe  put  upon  the 
 Doilor's  Citations ;  taking  in  no  more  than  is 
 abfolutely  neceflary  to  clear  the  Senfe  of  the 
 Authors,  in  thofe  very  PaiTages.  But  waving 
 tliis,  let  me  ask  you  farther,  why  the  Tefli- 
 monies  of  Fathers  may  not  be  admitted  as 
 Troofs,  Inferior  or  Collateral  Proofs  ?  If  I  can 
 know  from  Church-Writers,  and  from  Scrl- 
 ■pture  too,  what  v^^as  believed  by  the  Church 
 (in  fundry  Articles)  from  the  Beginning ;  I  have 
 then  two  Proofs  of  the  lame  Thing,  tho'  not 
 Both  equally  Strong,  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,  as  to  Fa5t  \  and 
 not  barely  an  Illujtration  of  a  T>ogma,  or  Do- 
 (3:rine.  Are  we  able  to  frove  what  were  the 
 Opinions  of  feveral  Scdts  of  Thilojophers  from 
 the  Books  which  are  extant ;  and  may  we  not 
 alfo  prove  what  was  the  Faith  of  Chriflians,  \\\ 
 the  fame  way,  from  the  Books  which  They 
 have  left  us  ?  You  add.  The  Authority  of  the 
 Fathers,  could  it  be  proved  to  be  unanimous 
 againji  T)r,  Clarke,  ought  not  to  determine 
 anj  Article  of  Faith.  No  ;  gut  it  is  a  ftrong 
 G  g    3  pr^' 
 
494        ^   DEFENSE      Q^u  XXVlI. 
 
 prefutnptive  Proof,  that  his  Interj>retation  of 
 S\cripttire  is  not  the  true  one:  A  Proof  fo  con- 
 iiderable,  that  I  know  not  whether  any  thing 
 leis  than  dear  and  evident  Demonftration  ought 
 to  over-rule  it.  For,  you  mud  remember  that 
 Dr.  Clarke,  or  any  Moderns,  as  well  as  the 
 Ant  lent  s,  ost  fallible  Men;  and  have  only 
 the  lame  Human  Reafon  to  work  with,  which 
 others  had  Sixteen  Hundred  Years  ago,  in  an 
 Age  of  Miracles,  and  near  to  the  Days  of  In-s 
 ipiration.  Moderns,  at  fo  great  a  diftance  off, 
 may,  at  leaft,  as  eafily  miftake,  in  interpreting 
 Scripture,  as  you  fuppole  the  Antient  and  Unt<| 
 verlal  Church  to  have  done,  in  a  momentous 
 Article  of  Faith.  Well  then ;  fiippofing  that 
 we  had  been  for  {bme  Time  debating  this  very 
 Point  of  the  BlefTed  Trinity,  on  the  Foot  of 
 Scripture :  Mens  Wits  are  fo  various,  that  ft- 
 veral  interpretations  may  be  invented  of  the 
 fame  Texts;  And  perhaps  none  of  them  fo  ma- 
 nifeftly  abfurd,  but  that  They  poffibly  may  be 
 true;  nor  fo  manifeffly  right,  but  that  They 
 pofiibly  may  be  wrong.  What  can  we  do  bet- 
 ter, '\n  fuch  a  Caie,  than  appeal  to  thofe  \vho 
 lived  neareft  the  Times  of  the  infpired  Writers  ?- 
 Their  Judgment,  their  Dccifions,  and  confe- 
 quent  Practice,  are  at  length  the  fafeft  Rule  to 
 go  by ;  at  leafl:  till  you  can  fliovy  us  a  better. 
 Scripture^  youl  fay,  is  iht  Rule -^  and  fo  fay  L 
 You  bring  your  Scripture- Proofs;  and  I  pro- 
 duce Mine.  You  have  your  Solutions  of  luch 
 Difficulties  as  I  prefs  you  with :  I  have  Solu- 
 tions 
 
Qu.XXVlI.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        45 j 
 
 tions  too,    and    fuch,    to    be  furc,    as  I  think 
 Sounder,  Better,  and  Jufter  than  Your's:  You 
 think  the  very  contrary.     Thus  far,  ft  is  com- 
 bating Text  with  Text,  Criticifm  with  Criticifm, 
 Reafon  with  Reaibn ;  and  each  fide  will  think 
 his  own  Superior.     Now,  fuppofe  I  can  farther 
 produce  a  Cloud  of  Witneffes.a  numerous  Com- 
 pany of  primitive  Saints  and  Martyrs,  confirm- 
 ing my  Interpretation,  concurring  in  my  Senti- 
 ments,   and  corroborating  my  Reafons:     And 
 fuppofe  I  find  alio  that  Thole,  who  took  your 
 Side  of  the  Queftion,  were  condemned  by  the 
 generality  as  Hereticks,  and  Corf^iiptors  of  the 
 Faith  of    Chrift;    this  will  add   fuch  Weight, 
 Strength,    and  Force  to  my  Pretenfions,    that 
 impartial  Men  will  loon  perceive,  which  is  the 
 mod  probable,  which  the  fafer  fide,  and  which 
 it  behoves  them  to  cleave  to.    This  is  fo  agree- 
 able to  the  common  Senfe  and  Reaibn  of  Man- 
 kind; and  the  Advantage  of  having  Antiquity 
 of  one's  fide  is  fb  apparent,  that  TU  venture  to. 
 iay,  none  ever  talk'd  againft  it,  who  did  not 
 falpeCt ,    at  leaft ,    that  Antiquity  was  againft 
 Them:    And   this  I  take  to  be  one  of  your 
 greatcft  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. 
 
 G  g    4  Q_u  E  R  Y 
 
456        ^.DEFENSE      Qy.XXyilL 
 
 Q^  U  E  R  V     XXVIII, 
 
 Whether  it  he  at  all  probable,  that  the  fri- 
 m'ltive Church  Jhould  mijlake  in  fo  material 
 a  7oint  as  this  is;  or  that  the  'whole 
 Stream  of  Chrijtian  Writers  jhould  miftake 
 in  telling  its  what  the  Scnfe  of  the  Church 
 was ;  and  whether  fnch  a  Cloud  of  Wit- 
 neffes  can  be  fet  ajide  without  weakening 
 the  only  Troof  we  have  of  tloe  Canon  of 
 SiQxx'fX.mQ,  and  the  Integrity  of  the  Sacred 
 
 '      Text'i 
 
 IN  Anfvver  hereto,  you  admit  that  the  Tefti- 
 monyofthe  whole  Stream  of  Antiquity  is 
 Jufficient  to  determine,  in  fa£i,  what  Faith 
 the  Church  hath  always  profefs'd  and  declared 
 
 An  her  publick  Forms,  I  am  content  to  put 
 the  Matter  upon  this  Iflue ;  and  let  the  Point 
 be  decided  from  their  ProfeiTions  in  Baptifm, 
 Creeds,  Doxologies,  Hymns,  which  were  pub- 
 lick  Forms ;  and  from  pubHck  Cenfures  pafs'd 
 upon  Hereticks,  which  are  as  clear  Evidence, 
 as  the  other,  of  the  Church's  Faith  at  that  Time. 
 Only  I  would  not  exclude  Collateral  Proofs ; 
 fuch   as   the   declared  Sentiments  of  Eminent 
 
 '  Church  Writers,  the  Interpretations  of  Creeds, 
 left  us  by  rhofe  that  recite  Them;  (fuch  as 
 Thofe  of  irenaus,  Tertullian,  and  Others)  and 
 Ecclefiadical  Hiftory,  telling  us,  what  the  Tra- 
 dition of  the  Church  was,  down  to  fuch  a  Time. 
 
 '  From 
 
Qu.XXVIII.      of  fome  (QUERIES.        4^7 
 
 From  rhefe  put  together,  wc  liave  very  clear 
 and  fall  Proof  that  the  Catholick  Church  did 
 all  along  profefs  a  Trinity  of  Confubftantial, 
 Co- eternal  Pcrfons,  in  Unity  of  Nature,   Snb- 
 ftance  and  Godhead.     This,  the  Incomparable 
 Biihop  Bull  has  fufficiently  iliown,   in  his  2)^- 
 fenfio  Fidei  Ntcena,  Judicium  Eccleji£,  and 
 frimitiva  Traditio.    Biihop  Stillingflcet  pur- 
 fued  the  lame  Argument,  with  Variety  of  Learn- 
 ing, in  his  Vindication  of  the  T>o[trine  of  the 
 Trinity ,  Chap,  the  ^th,    which  He  concludes 
 in  thefe  Words  :    **  Taking  the  Senfe  of  thofe 
 ''  Articles,  as  the  Chriftian  Church  underftood 
 '*  them  from  the  Apoftles  Times,  then  we  have 
 *•  as  full  and  clear  Evidence  of  this  Dodrine, 
 *'  as  we  have  that  ive  received  the  Scriptures 
 *'  from  them..    Dr.  Clarke''^  and  V>xJVhitby\ 
 Pretences,    to  the  contrary,    have  been  fuffici- 
 ently anfwer'd ;  partly  by  the  learned  Gentle- 
 man, who  wrote  the  True  Scripture  T>oEfrine 
 Continued,  and  partly  by  thele  Sheets.     You 
 have  little  to  objed:,  but  that  the  Fathers  did 
 not  aflert  an  individual  Confubftantiality,  in 
 your  Senfe ;    which  is  true :  And  is  no  more 
 than  telling    me,    that  They  were   not   mad; 
 when  I  contend  that  They  were  fobcr. 
 
 But  you  add ;  the  Qucftion  is,  whether,  ftp- 
 pofing  the  Fathers  had  unanimoufly  declared 
 for  our  Notion,  whether  {in  a  ^icJtio7i  not  of 
 FaEf,  like  that  concerning  the  Canon  of  Scri- 
 pture,  hut  of  Judgment  and  Reafoning)  fuch 
 a  Teftimony  would  prove  that  thofe  Scri- 
 ptures 
 
45?        A   DEFENSE      Qt.XXVIII. 
 
 ftures  reveal  it  \  or  whether  fitch  an  Inter- 
 pretation of  Scripture  —  would  be  as  in f alii- 
 hie  as  Scripture  it  f elf.  But  this  is  no  Qiie^ 
 ftion  ac  all  between  us.  What  we  prerend  is, 
 that  we  have  as  good  Proof  of  the  ^o&rine  of 
 the  Church,  as  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 
 Whether  the  Church,  after  the  Apoftles,  was  as 
 infaUible  as  the  Apoftles  thenifelves,  is  quite 
 another  Queftion.  We  think  it  very  unhkdy 
 that  the  ApoJioUck  Churches  iliould  not  know 
 the  mind  of  the  Apoftles  ;  or  iliould  fuddenly 
 vary  from  it,  in  any  Matter  of  Moment.  We 
 look  upon  it  as  highly  improbable  that  the  Faith 
 of  thofc  Churches  fliould  fo  fbon  run  counter 
 to  any  thing  in  Scripture ;  fince  They  had  the 
 beft  opportunities  of  knowing  what  Scripture 
 meant;  were  niade  up  of  wile  and  good  Men, 
 Men  who  \j^ould  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  fafeji  Com- 
 ment upon  Scripture;  and  to  have  much  more 
 Weight  in  it,  than  there  generally  is  in  Wit  and 
 Criticifm ;  and  therefore  riot  to  be  rejeded, 
 where  the  Words  of  Scripture  will,  with  any 
 propriety ,  bear  that  Interpretation.  This  is 
 iufficient  for  us  to  fay,  or  pretend.  We  have 
 as  plaufible  Arguments,  to  fpcak  modeftly,  from 
 Scripture,  as  you  can  pretend  to  have :  Nay, 
 we  think  your  Notions  utterly  irreconcilable 
 with  Scripture,  according  to  the  natural,  obvi- 
 ous, grammatical  Conftrudion  of  Words.    And 
 
 bcfides 
 
Ql.XXVIII.     of  fome  QUERIES.        459 
 
 befides  all  this,  wc  have,  what  you  want,  the 
 concurring  Senie  of  the  Anticnts  plainly  for  us„ 
 The  Quellion  then  is  not,  whether  Scripture 
 and  Fathers  be  equally  inflilhble:  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  Hcrcticks, 
 or  Catholicks,  as  They  have  been  diflinguilli'd, 
 have  been  the  bed  Interpreters  of  difputed 
 Texts;  and  whether  we  are  now  to  clofe  in 
 with  the  former,  or  the  latter.  You  would 
 infinuate  that  you  have  Scripture,  and  we 
 Fathers  only :  But  we  infift  upon  it,  that  we 
 have  Both\  as  for  many  other  Reafons,  fo  alio 
 for  this,  becaufe  Both ,  very  probably,  went 
 together :  And  as  you  certainly  want  one ;  ib 
 it  is  extremely  probable  that  you  have  neither ; 
 for  this  very  Reafbn,  among  many  others,  be- 
 caufe you  have  not  Both,  This  Argument  is 
 of  Force  and  Weight;  and  will  hardly  yield  to 
 any  thing  fliort  of  ^emonjfration ;  much  lefs 
 will  it  yield  to  (uch  fort  of  Reafonings  as  you 
 are  obliged  to  make  ulc  of,  wanting  better,  to 
 fupport  your  7tovel  Opinions. 
 
 The  Sum  of  the  Wxhole  Matter  is  this.  The 
 ananimous  Senfe  of  the  Antients,  upon  any 
 Controverfial  Point,  is  of  great  Moment  and 
 Importance  towards  fixing  the  Senfe  of  Scri- 
 pture, and  preventing  its  being  ill-ufed  by  de- 
 iulcorious  Wits,  who  love  to  wander  out  of  the 
 commoa  way ;  and  can  never  want  fbme  co- 
 lour for  any  Opinion  almoft  whatever.     We  do 
 
 not 
 
46o        ^    D  E  F  1  N  S  E       Q^u.XXlX. 
 
 nor  appeal  to  the  ^ntienfi,'zsif\vccou\dh6t 
 maintain  our  Ground,  from  Scripture  and  Rea-, 
 fin,  againft  all  Oppofers :  This  has'  been  done 
 over  and  over.  Athdnafius^  Hilary,  Bajil,  the 
 two  Gregories,  Chryfojiom,  Aujlm,  Cyril,  and' 
 Others,  undertook  the  Caulc  on  the  Foot  of 
 Scripture;  and  were  cafily  fupcrior  to  all  the' 
 Arians,  Bur  fincc  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  iliall 
 not  eafily  fuffer  it  to  be  wrefted  from"  us. 
 
 Q^U    E    R    Y       XXIX. 
 
 Whether  private  Re afoning,  in  a  matter  above 
 our  Comprehenjion,  be  a  fafer  Rule  to  go 
 by,  than  the  general  Senfe  and  Judgment 
 of  the  primitive  Church,  in  the  firjl  300 
 Tears  %  or,  fnppojlng  it  doubtful  vuhat  the 
 Senfe  of  the  Church  vi'as  within  that  time^ 
 whether  what  was  determined  by  a  Council 
 of  '^oo  Bijloops  foon  after,  with  the  great- 
 eft  Care  and  ^deliberation,  and  has  fatisfied 
 Men  of  the  great ef  Senfe,  Tiety  and 
 Learning,  alt  over  the  Chriftian  IVorld, 
 for  1 40c  Tears  fine  e,  may  not  fit  is fy  wife 
 and  good  Men  now? 
 
 HERE  you  tell  me,  as  ufual,   when  you 
 have  little  elfe  to  fay,  that  the  Council 
 of  Nice  knew  nothing'  of  Individual  Cou^uh' 
 
 ftantiality : 
 
Q^u.XXIX.       of  feme  Q^UER!ES,        ^fiV 
 
 ftancialiry:  And  then  you  add.  pleafantlyvthat 
 you  tarn  the  ^uery  againjl  the  ^teriji,  and 
 lay  claim  to   the  Nicene  Confefjion.     What? 
 Lay  ciaim  to  a  Confefjion  made  in  dired:  Oppo^ 
 fition  to  the  Men  of  your  Principles?  You  i'ay, 
 if  any  Conlubflantiahty  is  to  be  found  in  that 
 Creed,  it  is  the  Sfecifick,  not  Individual.  And 
 what  if  it  were  ?    Would  that  give  you  any 
 claim  to  the  Nicene  Confefjion  ?    Are  God  and 
 his  Creatures  Confnbfiantial,  of  the  fame  rank, 
 fort,  kind,  or  Species?  You  are  forc'd  to  have 
 recourle    to    a  Figurative  Senfe,    which  Pre- 
 tence I  have  obviated  above.    You  are  fo  kind 
 to  the  ^ueriJJ,  as  to  be  v:illing  to  fup^ofe  and 
 believe,  that  He  is  not  Ignora7it  of  the  true 
 and  only  Senfe  of  the  vuord  cpizBT.c^ ;  meaning 
 thereby  the  Sfecifick  Senfe.     In  return,   Til  be 
 fo  jud  to  you,  as  to  fay,    that  you  underiland 
 the  word  very  right :    And  yet  the  Nicene  Fa- 
 thers did  not  teach  a  rneerly  Specifick  Confub- 
 flantiality.     The  word  cuobt.o^  exprefTes  their 
 Senfe ;  but  not  their  v:hole  Senfe,  in  that  Ar- 
 tide.     It  exprefTes  an  Equality  of  Nature,  and 
 flgnifies  that  the  Son  is  as  truly  Equal  in  Na- 
 ture to  the  Father,    as  one  ?vTan  is  Equal  to 
 another ;  or  any  individual  Equal  to  another  In- 
 dividual of  the  lame  Sort  or  Species.    And  this 
 was  chiefly  to  be  infifted  on  againfl:  ihtArians^ 
 who  denied  fuch  Equality,  making  the  Son  a 
 Creature,     Wherefore  the  true  Reafon,  to  ufc 
 Dr.  Cudvi'Grth's  Words,  only  mutandis  mutan- 
 dis, why  the  Nicene  Fathers  laid  io  great  a 
 
 ftrefs 
 
4^^        ^^    D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Q^u.XXlX. 
 
 ftrefs  upon  the  ofiobcmv  ^  was  not  becaiife  this 
 alone  was  fufficient  to  make  Father  and  Son  one 
 God;  but  becaufe  They  could  not  be  fo  ^with- 
 out  it,  *  'O/^08(7i@-  the  Son  muft  be,  or  He 
 could  not  be  God  at  ail,  in  the  (Irid:  Senle ; 
 and  yet  if  He  was  barely  o^o8o-io^,  like  as  one 
 Human  Perfon  is  to  another,  the  t'-jijo  would  be 
 two  Gods.  And  therefore  'the  Nicene  Fathers^\ 
 not  content  to  lay  only  that  the  Son  is  o/jtota-iof^ 
 infcrc  likevvile,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Be- 
 gotten, &cc.  and,  oftheSiibftance  oft  he  Father  % 
 and  this  They  are  known  to  have  declared  over 
 and  over,  to  be  without  any  divifion :  All 
 which  taken  together  exprelTes  a  great  deal 
 more  than'cjttaytnos  would  do  alone;  and  are,  as 
 it  were,  fb  many  quahfying  Claufes,  on  purpoie 
 to  prevent  any  fuch  Mifconftrudrion  and  Mii- 
 apprehenfion,  as  the  word  might  otherwife  be 
 liable  to.  The  good  Fathers,  like  wife  Menv 
 at  once  maintained  the  Equality  of  Nature^ 
 
 *  Hi  Tres,  quia  XJmus  SubfiantU  funt,  Unum  funtj  6c  Stamne 
 umim  Tunt,  iibi  nulla  Narurarum,  nulla  eft  diverfiras  Voluntatum* 
 Si  aiitern  Natwa  Unum  eflTent,  &  Confenfione  non  efTent,  non 
 Summi  unum  elTeni;:  Si  vero  Natar^z  difpares  efTent,  unum  non 
 efTent.  Hi  ergo  Tres,  qui  Unum  funt  propter  inefFabilem  Con- 
 jundionem  Deitatis,  qua  ineffabiliter  Copuhntur,  Unus  Dens  ef^. 
 Aug,  Contr.  Maxim.  1.  2.  p.  698. 
 
 This  is  -very  full  to  our  purpofe)  and y  by  the  rp.:-:y,  may  JJyovo,  hott' 
 far  St.  Auftin  tvjis  from  Sabellianifm  ,  ivhich  fome  huve  weakly  pre- 
 tended to  charge  Htm  roith.  But  there  are  many  Pajfages  in  this 
 Piece  againfl  Maximin,  one  of  his  lery  latefi  Fteces,  full  againfi  Sa- 
 bi'llianil'm,  as  wdl  as  agamft  ArianiTiJi.  /  may  jafl  remi^rk,  that, 
 there  is  a  deal  of  difference  beiroeen  Unius  Subftantix,  and  Una  Sub- 
 ftintia.  Two  Men  are  Unius  ejurdemque  Subftantis,  not  una  Sub- 
 llantia.  But  the  three  Verfons  are  ?>(??  o>^/j  unius  Subdantise,  bnt  una 
 Subftaatijo    The  modern  Senfe  cf  Confubfhntial  take^  in  Both. 
 
 whiclt 
 
Q^u.XXIX.       of  fome  QUERIES.        463 
 
 which  l^QXism  exprcflcs,  nnd  the  ^n'lty  of  the 
 Godhead  too.  Guarding  equally  againfl:  Art- 
 anifm,  and  Trithetfm,  They  took  all  prudent  care 
 to  prelerve  i\\t  Co -equality  of  the  iwo'Pcrfons, 
 without  dividhigih^ SubJ{a7ice,\Y\\\c\\  was  what 
 They  intended.  The  learned  Dodor  *reprerents 
 this  Matter  Ibmewhat  crudely.  He  obferves 
 upon  the  Words  in  the  K'lccne  Creed  (y^mfie^lx, 
 
 T§^$ )  that  the  Son  was  not  Himfclf  that  i/idi- 
 vidua/  Snbjlance^  fronn  which  He  was  begotten. 
 This  He  has  lb  worded,  that  individual  Sub- 
 Jlance  with  Him  can  only  fignify  individual 
 Hyfoftajis,  or  Terfon:  And  it  is  very  true, 
 that  the  Son  is  not  that  Terfon,  from  whom, 
 or,  of  whom,  He  proceeded  :  But  the  Subjiance 
 might  be  undivided,  notwithftanding ;  which 
 is  all  that  any  Catholick  means  by  individual 
 Subjiance,  But  their  meaning.  He  lays, 
 Vi'as ;  He  was  produced  not  from  any  other 
 Subjiance  {as  Man  was  formed  from  the  T>uji 
 of  the  Earth)  but,  after  an  inejfable  manner^ 
 from  the  Subjiance  of  the  Father  only.  Here 
 He  leaves  out  the  principal  Thing,  which  the 
 Arians  alTerted,  and  which  the  Catholicks 
 guarded  againfl,  viz,.  Not  from  Nothing,  not 
 g^  chi  o^mv.  If  therefore  the  Son,  according 
 to  xh^Nicene  Fathers,  was  not  from  any  othei 
 Subftancc,  befides  the  Father's,  nor  from  no- 
 thing ;  it  is  very  plain  that  (unlefsThey  fuppofed 
 ^"Divijion  of  Subftanre,  which  They  abfolutely 
 
 *  Replr,  p.  IS- 
 
 reje(5l-) 
 
4^4        ^DEFENSE       Q^u.XXlX. 
 
 rejed)  They  fuppofed  the  Son  to  be  of  the 
 fame  midiv'tded,   or  individual  Subftance  with 
 the  Father.    As  to  the  Suppofition  of  his  being 
 produced  from  any  other  Subftance  (as  Adam 
 was  form'd  from  the  Duft  of  the  Earth)  there 
 was  very  little  occafion  to  guard  againft  it :  The 
 Notion  is,  in  it  felf,  too  filly  for  any  Man  to 
 own.     The  Avians  themfelves  (againft  whom 
 the  Creed  was  contriv'd)  never  pretended  it, 
 but  *  cxpreily  difown'd  it :  Their  noted  Tenet 
 was,  that  the  Son  was  the  firfi  Thing  made. 
 The  Nicene  Fathers  defign'd  chiefly,  to  guard 
 againft  the  Suppofition  of  the  Son's  hcrngfrom 
 nothing,    which  was  what  the  Avians  infifted 
 upon ;   They  and  the  Cathbhcks  equally   be- 
 lieving it  ridiculous  to  imagine  any  Subftance 
 to  have  been  firft  made ;  and  then  the  Son  to 
 have  been  made  out  of  it.     Wherefore,  I  hum- 
 bly conceive,  the  true  Reafons  why  theiVi^^;^^' 
 Fathers  were  fo  very  particular  in  the  Words, 
 rari^pj  Ix  T>i5  io{oi$  ri  Tcar^Uy  were,  f  firft,  to 
 fignify  that  They  underftood  Genevation  in  i 
 proper,  yi\^  not  jigurative  S^nk  -,  as  the  Avia/is 
 did:  And  fecondiy  withal  to  :[:fecure  the  divine 
 Unity.     For,  if  the  Son  were,  ab  extra,  and 
 independent  of  the  Fathev ;  the  Alliance^  the 
 
 *  Memorant  Filium  Dei  neque  ex  aliqua  fubjacente  materia  genl- 
 tum  efic,  quia  per  enm  creata  on;nia  fmt.     RiUr,  p.  Sji* 
 t  Vid.  Bull  Def.  F.  N.  p.  114.,  1 15-. 
 
 $2vcv  i  abi.  i^oj^v  c-}v,  oi>iX>y^  Ik  t^  uCtcu  icr.x^.    Epiphan.  p.6(o. 
 
 Oo^'  cee,   a,[,)^vi  ivioo'y  )cx^'    tcwTcv    iK^SfZv/?,    b^'   \\ofji\'  7Kuni<i  y^'^v^i, 
 I'iA  fij-A  ry  Wioo^rriT.,  hxf/Jee,  yivi^-TZf^;.     Athanaf.  Orat.  4.  p.  617., 
 
 Ouiti  cc/^.'^  <s>io<;  0  'ijil,   &  p<*(J  ffr^f^v   sWa^.C'-j;.     Orat.  2.  p.  ff^- 
 
 Jida- 
 
QU.XXIX.        of  fome  Q^UERIES.        ^^ 
 
 Relation,  theVnity  of  the  Perfoiis,  in  the  fam^ 
 Godhead,  had  (upon  their  Principles)  been  lofti 
 and  T)'tthe'tjm  unavoidable. 
 
 This  may  be  enough  to  fatisfy  ybu,  that,  What- 
 ever the  word  ojLtoBJi©-  may  Commonly  fighify^ 
 yet  the  Nicene  Fathers  meant  a  great  deal 
 more  than  a  Sfecifick  Unity ;  if  not  by  that 
 word,  fingly  confider'd,  yet  by  that  taken  toge- 
 ther with  the  reft,  which  were  put  in  to  explaiu 
 it.  The  word  may  indifferently  (erve  to  ex- 
 prefsr  an  Equality  of  Nature,  whether  the  Hy- 
 pojlafes  be  undivided,  or  whether  They  have 
 a  feparafe  Exijience.  It  was  therefore  pro- 
 perly enough  applied,  in  the  Creed :  And  care 
 was  taken  that  both  Generation,  ^nd  Confub- 
 flantiality ,  iliould  be  underftood  in  a  Senfe 
 fuitable  to  Things  divine],  that  is,  taking  from 
 the  Idea  all  that  is  low,  mean,  and  imperfedr  % 
 and  applying  only  fo  much  as  might  comport 
 with  the  Majefty,  Dignity,  and  Perfedions  of 
 the  adorable  and  incomprehenfible  Trinity. 
 
 You  fcem  to  be  apprehenfive,  that  you  muftj 
 at  length,  be  obliged  to  give  up  the  Nicent 
 Creed,  as  utterly  inconfiftent  with  your  Prin- 
 ples ;  as  indeed  \t  is.  And  therefore,  in  x\\t 
 next  place,  you  endeavour  to  leiTcn  the  Credit 
 of  it ;  aliedging,  that  the  Council  of  Antioch 
 before^  and  the  Council  (p/'Ariminum,  and  other 
 Councils,  after  {fome  of  Them  ^mnth  a  greater 
 Number  of  Bijhops  than  met  at  Nice)  deter- 
 rniji'd  againji  the  o/xoticn®^.  The  Objedioii 
 drawn  from  the  Dererminatiod  of  the  Council 
 ^  H  h  ©f 
 
466>       A  D  E  FiEiNS  E        Qy.XXIX/ 
 
 of  Antioch ,    about    Sixty   Years    before   the 
 Council  of  Nice y  you  find  largely  anfwer'd  by 
 *Billiop  BtilL     They  condemn'd  the  word,  as- 
 it  had  been  mifunderftood  and  miiapplied   by 
 Tatil  of  Samofata-^    but    cflabhlh'd  the   very 
 f-ime  Dodrine  with  the  Nicene  Fathers,  I  may 
 anfwer  you  briefly,  upon  your  ow^n  Principles;*; 
 You  lay,  Taul  of  Samofata  was  condemn'd  for 
 holding  oiJLOiicn©*,    in  the  Senle  of  individual 
 Conlubftantiahty  (/.  ii8.)  which,  if  it  be  true, 
 was  reafon  good  enough  for  condemning  Him; 
 as  you   underftand  Individual,    that  is,    in  a 
 Sabellian  Senfe.    The  Remark  of  Hilary,  whp 
 goes  upon  the  lauie  Suppofition  which  you  do, 
 may  here  be  pertinently  f  cited;  and  may  ferve 
 as  a  fufficient  Anfwer.      It  is  oblervable   that 
 Hilary  makes  the  Number  of  Bifliops  in  the 
 Antiochian  Council  no  iliore  than  80 ;  Atha- 
 najius,   but  70 ;  Eufebitis,  an  indefinite  Num-  > 
 bcr,  very  many.    It  does  not  appear  that  They  t 
 were  near  fb  confiderable  as  the  famous  Coun-^;; 
 cil  of  Nice  of  318  Bilhops. 
 
 You  next  mention  the  Council  oiAriminum\ 
 and  give  a  hint  of  other  Councils.  It  would 
 have  been  but  fair  to  have  told  us  what  other 
 Comtcils  yon  meant,  which  had,  as  you  fay, 
 ■di  greater  Number  of  Bifliops  than  met  at  Nice. 
 
 *  Def.  F.  N.  p.  1%  er.    See  alfe  Mr.Hlmlhy.  Anf^,  to  Whi(lQ|iij 
 p.  1 03.     Defence,  p.  ^6. 
 
 t  Male  inrdligitur  Homoufion  :  quid  ad  me  bene  intclligentem  ?  . 
 iVJale  Homoullon   Samofatenus  Confeflus  eft:    Sed  nunquid  Melius 
 Ar'n  ncgaverunt?  Oftoginta  EpiTcopi  olim  refpuerunr  j  (cd  Treccnti 
 li  di'cen)  octo  n'^per  rcceperunt.    Hilar,  de  ^nod^  p.  uoo. 
 
 You 
 
Qu.XXIXP      offomd  Q^UERIES.        j^ 
 
 You  know,  I  prcfume,^^^  at  leaft  might  know, 
 that  you  cannot  name  Oik,  befides  the  Conn- 
 til  oi  Arimtnum\  whfeh  I  ihall  fpeak  to  pre- 
 Icnrly.  ^  300 jh  .  yi  - 
 
 In  your  Appendix  Tp'.  t5'4.)  You  fay  the  De- 
 termination of  the  Cotmcil  of  Nke,  for  the 
 0^08010?,  was  rejed:ed  by  a  greater  Council  thait. 
 that  of  Nice,  met  at  Jerufalem.  But  in  thcle 
 few  Words,  you  have  two  Miftakes ;  or  at  Icaft* 
 you  have  faid  what  you  cannot  prove,  *  Eufe- 
 &im's  Words,  which  you  refer  to,  may  mean 
 no  more  than  this,  that  the  Cotmcil  of  Jeru- 
 falem was  the  greateft  He  had  known,  fince 
 the  Famous  one  oi  Nice,  Your  other  miflake 
 is,  that  They  rejected  the  T>e termination  of 
 the  Council  of  Nice,  ®f .  How  doth  this  ap- 
 pear? Did  They  fay  a  word  againfl:  it?  Or  did 
 They  make  any  Declaration  againfl:  either  the 
 Council  of  Nice,  or  the  'Opioiaio^  ?  Not  a  Syl^ 
 lable.  But  f  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  :j:  true  Catholick 
 
 *  De  Vita  Conllant.  1.  4.  c.  470  p.  41-4.    See  Valcfius'/  Kotis^* 
 
 \  See  the  Hiftory  in  Socrat.  1.  I.  c.  33.  Sozom.  I.  2.  c.  27; 
 Athanaf.  p«  734. 
 
 i  Arius  fvpore  to  the  Emperor,  calling  God  t»  Witm/s,  that  Hi 
 Relieved  in  Father,  Son,  ami  Holy  Ghojl,  as  the  whole  Catholick 
 'Chufch  taught.  Which  the  Emperor  could  take  in  no  other  Senfe, 
 iut  as  it  had  been  lately  deter  mini  hy  the  Catholick  Nicenc  Fa- 
 ^hers.     See  Soxorti.  I,  i.  C-  27. 
 
 Ai^J  this  may  farther  appear  by  the  Emperor'^  putting  Arius  fr 
 thi  Teji  aftervPArds,  to  fee  whether  He  really  acknotfkdged  the  Ni- 
 ccne  faith  r,r  no,    5"^?  Socrat.  1. 1.  c.  38. 
 
 H  h   %  Faith, 
 
468        A   D  E  F  E  N.S  E        Qy.XXIX. 
 
 Faith,    as  eftablilli'd   at  the  Council  of  iV/V^ ; 
 and  partly  upon  Ar'tus's  ^  own  ConfeJJion   of 
 Faith,  which  was  fo  plaufibly  worded,  that  it 
 might  eafily  pafs  for  Orthodox,  tho'ir  wanted 
 the  w^ord  ofjLo^a\(^.     Now,   is  it  not  very  unac- 
 countable in  you   to   call  this   Rejeding   the 
 Determination  for  the  o^oaoi©^,   when  it  vva$: 
 only  receiving  a  Man,  iiippofed  by  the  Em- 
 peror, and  perhaps  by  many  of  the  Council,  to 
 have  repented  of  his  Herejy,  and  to  have  em- 
 braced every  Thing  that  the  Nicene  Council 
 had  determiti'd;  the  very  Senfe  and  Meaning 
 of '0^08(7105  it  felf,  tho'  not  the  Word. 
 ^  Pals  we  on  now^  to  the  Council  of  Arifni-^ 
 Ttum,  in  the  Yeat  359.  when  ih^  Avians  had 
 the  fecular  Power  on  their  fide,  and  made  ufe 
 of  it,  with  all  imaginable  Severity.    The  whole 
 Number  of  Bifliops   in  Council  arc  computed 
 at  about  ^400,  and  "^not  above  Eighty  of  Then! 
 Arians,     <^  All  the  Catholicks,  at  firft,  declared 
 their    unanimous   Adherence    to    the   Nicene 
 Creed;  and  protefted  againfl  any  new  Form  of 
 Faith      All  manner  of  Artifices,    Frauds,    and 
 Menaces  were  contrived   to  bring  Them  and 
 the  Arians  to  fomething.  like  an  Agreement. 
 Yet  the  utmoft  They  could  do,  was  only  to 
 bring;  the  Cat  ho  licks  to  fubfcribe  a  ^  ConfeJJion  ^ 
 
 a  Extat.mScMsom.  I.  1.  G.  17.  -  '''-     iiVnul 
 
 b  Sulpic.  Sev.  p.  267.     Athanaf.  p.  720.  /Maxiitlin  /^.Ayisitir 
 inakes  the  Tphole  Number  35c*     Auguft.  Coliat.  Tom.  8.  p.  650. 
 
 c  Sulpic.  Sever,  p.  269.  d  Hilar.  Fragm.  p.  1341. 
 
 -e  Quae  Catholicam    difciplinam,,  perfi4iia,4^;en|€j   ipqugretufo 
 Sulpic  p,  i7i.  •     :.v..:    ^      ^-  ;*i^ 
 
 artfollj 
 
(^^^^TiP       of  ^f^  ^  EfkfE  S.        469 
 
 artfully  wordej  in  general  Terms.  And  no, 
 fooner  did  the  Catholick  Fathers,  after  their  Re- 
 turn Home,  perceive  how  They  had  been  im- 
 pofed  upon  by  ambiguous  Terms,  and  over- 
 reach'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  ci- 
 ther in  the  original  Authors,  Atbanajias,  Sul- 
 f  ictus  Severus^  Hilary,  Socrates,  So-zomen^ 
 Theodorit,  and  Jerom ;  or  with  lels  Trouble, 
 and  in  left  Compafs,  in  Cave's  Life  oi  Atha- 
 najius,  or  laftly  in  Montfaucon's.  When  you 
 have  well  confider'd  the  Arts  and  Pradlices  of 
 i^t  Arians,  much  the  fmaller  Number,  in  that 
 Council,  you  may  perhaps  fee  reafon  to  be 
 afliamed  of  having  mention'd  it,  but  no  reafon 
 for  oppofing  \i  to  the  celebrated  Nicene  Cotm- 
 cil.  While  the  Council  oi  Arimimtm  was  free, 
 and  left  to  give  their  real  Opinions;  the  Arians 
 were  condemn'd  by  a  great  Majority,  and 
 tfeeir  Principals  depofed.  Even,  at  laft,  you 
 have  no  Reafon  to  boaft  of  their  unanimous 
 Agreement  to  a  new  Faith.  It  was  2i  verbal. 
 Agreement  only,  to  Expreffions  feemingly  Ca- 
 tholtck:  And  probably,  the  Majority  departed 
 with  the  fame  high  value  and  opinion  of  the 
 Nicene  Faith ,  which  They  brought  with 
 Them.     Four  Years  after  the  Synod  oi  Arirni- 
 
 ♦  Vid.  Ep.  Liber  apud  Socr.  i.  4.  p.  18  J.    Hieron.  Contr.  Lucit. 
 Dial,  Sulpic,  Sever.  '    '^ 
 
 Hh   3  num^ 
 
470        JS   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qy-XXlX;. 
 
 num,  *  Athanafms  reckons  up  particularly  the 
 Churches  which  ftill  embraced  the  iNT/V^/^^  Faith. 
 Thofe  of  SpaiUy   Brit  am,    Gaul,    all  Italy  ^ 
 %>almatia,  'Dacia,  Myfia,  Macedonia^  Greece^ 
 Africa,  Sardinia,  Cyprus,  Crete,  Tamfhylia^ 
 Lycia,  Ifauria,  Egypt,  Libya,  ^ontiis.  Cap- 
 fadocia,    and  the  Churches  of  the  Eaft ;    ex- 
 cepting a  few  that  followed  Arius,     He  calls 
 them  the  whole  World,  and  all  the  Churches 
 throughout  the  World.     He  declares  that   He 
 knows,  it ,   and  has  their  Letters  by  Him  to 
 prove  it.     And  it   is  worth  reciting  what  ac- 
 count the  Bifliops  of  Egypt  and  Libya,    and 
 among  Them  Athanafius,  give  of  the  extent 
 ^f  the  Nicene  Faith,  about  Ten  Years  after  the 
 time  that    you  pretend   there    was  a  general 
 Council  againft  it.     Writing  to  the  Bifliops  in 
 Africa,  They  begin  thus:  "  fit  is  the  greateft 
 '*  Satisfadion  to  us  to  have  ieen  w^hat  T>ama- 
 "■'  fiis  our  Fellovv-Minifter,  and  Bifliop  of  the 
 "-^  great  City  of  Rome,  and  fuch  a  Number  of 
 ''  Bifliops  in  Council  with  Him,  befides  other 
 
 *  Athanaf.  Ep.  ad  Jovian,  pag.  781.  Theod,  E,  H.  1.  4.  c.go 
 S€9  Liberius'i  Letters  An.  367.  apud  Socrat^  1,4,  c.  12.  Damialus^i 
 %.eit.  So^om.  1.6.  o  2?.  •    '  -^    >/n  J 
 
 Hoc  eft  illud  Homouficriy  cjuod  in  Concilio  NJcxno  adverfus  Haere- 
 licos  Arianos,  a  Catholicis  Patribus,  Veritatis  Audtoriratc,  Sc  Au- 
 dioritatis  Vcritate  firmatum  eft:  quod  poftea  in  Concilio  Arhninenji 
 (propter  novit:uem  verbi,  minus  quana  potuit  intellectam,  quod 
 tan-icn  Fides  AJitiqua  repcrcrat).  miiltis  Vnucorum  Vrauclc  dcceptis, 
 Hsretica  Impictas  Tub  Hseretico  Imperatore  labefacftarc  tentavit. 
 Scd   poft    non   longum    Tempus,   Liberrate   Fidei   Catholicae  prX' 
 
 valentc, Homoufion  Catbolicae  Fidei  Sanitate  lon^e  lateque  de- 
 
 fenfum  eft.    Auguft.  Tom,  S.  p.  704,  ' 
 
 -^  Apud  A.tiianai.^  p.  8pi.  .  '^n 
 
 Synods 
 
Qu.XXIX.        of  fome  (QUERIES.        471 
 
 •'  Synods  in  Gaul  and  Italyy   hath  wrote  in 
 *•  Defence  of  the  true  Orthodox  Faith:  That 
 **  Faith,  which  Chrift  deHvered,  and  the  Apo- 
 *'  ftles  taught,    and  our  Fathers  aflemblcd  at 
 **  Nice,  from  out  of  the  whole  Chriftian  World, 
 *'  handed  down  to  us.  So  intenfe  was  their  Zeal 
 ^'  at  that  Time,  in  regard  to  the  Avian  ^a* 
 '*  refy;  that  They  who  had  fallen  into  it,  might 
 **  be  reclaimed  ;  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 
 **  conftnted:    And  at  this  very  Time,    many 
 *•  Councils  have  confirmed   and  publiili'd   the 
 3'  fame :  By  means  of  which  all  They  of  T)dl' 
 ^  matia,    T)ardania ,    Macedonia^    Epirus ^ 
 f^*  Greece,  Crete,  and  the  other  Iflands,  Sicily^ 
 i^'  Cyprus  and  Tamphylia^  Lycia,  Ifaiiria,  all 
 -•*  Egypt,    the  two  Libyas,    and  the  moft  of 
 '^^  Arabia  have  acknowledged  it.     They  go  oa 
 to  let  forth  the  great  Refped:  and  Veneration 
 due  to  the  Decifions  of  the  Nicene  Council  j 
 and  iliovv  how  far  \z  was  preferable,  in  every 
 refped,  to  all  the  Arian  Synods  5  and  particu- 
 larly to  the  pretended  general  Council  of  Art- 
 milium,  which  fome  prefomed,  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  Romanticky    which   may    have 
 happened  to  efcape  your  Notice  or  Obfervation. 
 H  h   4  I  muft 
 
0^      ~4  P  E  F, E  N  S  E       QyXXrX. 
 
 I  muft  tak^  leave  to  tell  you,  there  never  was 
 ^  Sypod  on  your  fide,  fo  free;  fo  large,  fo,  in 
 (every  refpecS:,  unexceptionable  as  tha  C^i^^r/V 
 of  JSlice  yN^s,     Nay  farther;  that  whatever Op- 
 
 {>o{ition  was  made  to  it,  was  carried  on  with 
 ach  Wiles,  Crafts,  Subtilties,  and  refined  Ar- 
 tifices, as  every  HoneflMan  fliould  be  afliamed 
 of;  And  farther,  that,  notwichftanding  all  They 
 could  do,  the  Artans  were  not  able  long  to 
 t^aintain  their  Ground  ,  but  the  Men  who 
 fiiftaia'd  the  Shock,  and  kept  up  the  Credit  of 
 the  Nicene  Creed,  were  not  only  the  moft  nu- 
 pierous,  but  appear  to  have  been  as  wife,  as 
 judicious,  and  as  pious  Men,  as  ever  the  Church 
 %^as  adoraed  with,    fince   the   Times  qi  the 
 
 Apoftles.  Y  b'?v.ni:H  o^siiuol  tti*t^^ 
 
 I  do  not  pretend  that  there  is  Demonflration 
 in  tliis^  kind  of  B-eafoniog,  in  favor  of  any  Caufe. 
 put  ft  will  have  its  Weight  with  cool  and  cpn- 
 fideifirjgMen;  Who  refleding,  that  Religion  is 
 fiOt  AThing  to  be  coined,  and  recoin'd  every 
 li/foBth  i^  that  it  has  been  thought  on  long  and 
 WcJI,  ^nd  by  Pcrfons  blefs'd  with  as  good  a  Share 
 '^CJf  Upderdanding,  and  as  great  Sincerity  as  any 
 gre,^  or  have  been ;  and  that  the  generality  of 
 the  wifert  and  raoft  excellent  Men,  have. hi- 
 therto gone  on  in  fuch  a  way,  and  that  too 
 after  a  ftrid:  and  levere  Examination,  being, well 
 apprized  of  the  Objedions  niade  againft  it;  I 
 fay,  who,  reflecSting  thus,  will  be  very  cautious 
 of  Contradicting  what  icems  to  have,  been  fo 
 ^ell,  and  fo  deliberately  fettledj   and  will  be 
 
 rather 
 
Qu.XXiX.       of  fome  (QUERIES.        471 
 
 t  rather  willing  to  fufped  their  own  Judgment, 
 i  and  modeftly  decline  whit  looks  like  leaning 
 '^  too  much  to  their  own  Underflandings.  How- 
 •^ets^fuch  Confideiarions  may  be  of  ufe  to 
 Thofe  who,  not  having  Leiiure,  Inclination,  or 
 Patience  to  examine  throughly  into  this  Con- 
 ^troverfy  (as  perhaps  few  have)  mult  be  con- 
 rent  to  judge  as  They  can:  And  fince  They 
 find  the  fame  Scriptures  fo  very  differently  in- 
 terpreted by  the  contending  Parties,  till  They 
 can  Themielves  enter  into  the  very  Heart  of 
 the  Controverfy,  how  can  They  do  better  than 
 "clofe  in  with  Thofe,  who  have  been  in  Podcl- 
 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  Chriilian  Church,  to  fupport 
 and  defend  it?  This  I  mention  as  the  fafefl: 
 way;  and  fuch  as  will  be  taken  by  modeft, 
 humble,  and  difcrcer  Men;  being  what  They 
 can  bed  anfwer  to  God,  and  their  own  Con- 
 fciences,  even  tho',  at  length,  it  ihould  prove 
 Erroneous;  which  yet  has  not  hitherto,  nor  ever 
 will  be,  I  am  perfwaded,  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  Cat  ho  lick,  or 
 Orthodox-^  let  Then)  look  to  it,  and  be  it  at  their 
 own  Peril.  They  muft  believe  that  the  Antient 
 'Hereticks  were  the  Soundeft  Chriftians;  that 
 the  firfi;  general  Council   which  met  from  ail 
 
 Pajts 
 
474        ^"  D  E  F  E  N  S  E       Qu.XXiX. 
 
 Parts  of  Chrijlendom,  and  having  no  byafs,  fo 
 far  as  appears,  to  determine  Them  this  way,  or 
 that,  either  did  not  know  what  was  the  Faith 
 of  their  relped:ive  Churches,  and  what  had  been 
 handed  down  to  them  by  their  PredecelTors,  or 
 elfe  wilfully  and  unanimoufly  agreed  to  corrupt 
 it ;  and  that  too  in  a  very  material  Article,  in 
 which  the  fumm  of  rheChriftian  Religion  is  con- 
 tained ;  and  in  which  the  Nature  and  Objed:  of 
 our  Worlliip  is  very  nearly  concern'd.  They 
 mufl:  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 ;  and  fo  continue,  even  to  this  Day ;  fome 
 few  private  Men  only,  here  and  there,  ili owing 
 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;  fomething  that  carries  the  Force  and  Evi- 
 dence o?T>emonflration  with  it,  They  are  firft 
 very  unreafonable  in  caUingusto  attend  to  what 
 fo  little  delerves  it ;  and  next  very  inexcufable 
 in  their  Attempts  to  draw  others  into  thdr  J>re* 
 carious  Sentiments,  and  to  raife  Doubts  and 
 Perplexities  in  the  Minds  of  fimple  well-mean- 
 iljpg  Men.     But  I  pafs  on  to. 
 
 QjJ  E  R  Y 
 
Qy.XXX.  of  for^e  QIJ ERIE S.        47 J 
 
 Q^  U  E   R  Y      XXX. 
 
 Whether,  fitppofing  the  Cafe  doubtfttl,  it  be 
 not  a  wife  Man's  jmrt  to  take  the  fafer 
 Side ;  rather  to  think  too  highly,  than  too 
 meanly  of  our  Bleffed  Saviour ;  rather  to 
 pay  a  modeft  deference  to  the  Judgment  of 
 the  Antient  and  Modern  Church,  than  to 
 sjfean  to  one's  own  %)nderjianding'i 
 
 c  ^- 
 
 J 
 
 UPON  the  Queftion,  whether  it  be  not 
 iafer  and  better  (fuppofing  the  Cafe  doubt- 
 ful) to  think  too  highly,  rather  than  too  mean^ 
 ly  of  our  Blefled  Saviour ;  you  anfwer,  quejii^ 
 onlefs  it  is;    which  one  might  think  a  very 
 fair  and  ingenuous  ConfefTion ;   and  you  need 
 pot  have  added  a  word  more.     You  go  on  to 
 fay,  that  this  is  our  mof  flaufible  Tretence ; 
 in  which,  I  think,  you  do  it  a  deal  too  much 
 Honour.     I  did  but  juft  hint  it;    and  left    ic 
 iliculd  not  be  of  force  fufficient,  immediately 
 flrengthen'd    it    with    another    Confideration , 
 which  I  am  perfwaded  will  bear,  if  this  fliould 
 1^V^X   ai^d   the  rather,    becaufe   you  have  not 
 thought  fit  (b  much  as  to  take  notice  of  it.     I 
 rnuft  however  follow   you,    upon  the  former 
 Point,  ih^x  flauflble  Plea,  and  which  is  fo  juftV 
 that  you  fecm  your  ftlf  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 
 
 ever 
 
ever  al ledge.     If  it  prbve  no  weaker,  I  Ihall 
 be  farisfied.    Let  us  hear  what  you  have  to  fay.l 
 Your  Argument  is  this;    Sifice  Revelation  'i/^. 
 the  only  rule  in  the  Cafe,  if  we  go  beyond,  or  ^ 
 jfwe  fall  Jhort,  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  adjafled.     To 
 the  Argument  I  anfwer:  That  you  equivocate 
 in  the  word  Equally,  and  make  a  Sophiftical 
 ^yllogifm  with  four  Terms;  ^^//^^//y  culpable, 
 fignifies,  either  that  one  is  culpable  as  well  as 
 the  other,  or  that  one  is  culpable  ^^j  ;i^//rZ;  as 
 the  other ;  equally  a  Fault,  or  an  equal  Faulto 
 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  goT 
 beyond  it  is  certainly  culpable,  as  well  as  it  is  ' 
 to  fall  fliort  of  it;  and  yet  not  culpable  (aC:^ 
 leaft  not  in  this  Inftance)  in  the  lame  Degree.  j| 
 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  ?  1 
 This  I  aflert  to  be  the  Cafe  here :    And  I  wilj.- 
 give  you  my  Reafons  for  it.     Our  BlefTcd  Lord  .^ 
 hath  done  great  and  wonderful  Things  for  us.  .^ 
 If  our  Refped:,  Duty,  and  Gratitude  happen^  V 
 through  our  Ignorance  and  exceffive  Zeal,  la  q 
 rife  too  high  ;   this  is  the  overflowing  of  our  ^.^ 
 good-natured  Qualities,  and  may  feem  a  pitiable  J 
 Failing.     But,  on  the  other  Hand,  if  we  hap- 
 ^"^'"^  pen 
 
Q^u.XXX.        offime  QUERIES.        477, 
 
 pen  to  fall  Ihort  in  our  Regards,  there  is  not, 
 only  Ingrititude,  but  Blajphemy  in  ic.  It  is 
 degrading,  and  dethroning  our  Maker,  Preier- 
 yer,  King,  and  Judge;  and  bringing  Him  down 
 to  a  level  with  his  Creatures.  ,. 
 
 Befides ;  we  have  many  exprcis  Cautions  gi-t 
 ven  us  in  Scripture,  not  to  be  wanting  in  our 
 Refpeds  and  Services  towards  God  the  Son; 
 but  have  no  particular  Cautions  againft  Honour- 
 ing Him  too  much.     We  know  that  we  ought 
 to  Honour  Him,  even  as  we  Honour  the  Fa- 
 ther-^ which,  if  it  be  an  ambiguous  Expreffion, 
 w^e  are  very  excufable  in  taking  it  in  the  beftSenfe, 
 and  interpreting  on  the  fide  of  the  Precept,  We 
 know  that  by  diilionouring  the  Son,  we  do,  ac  . 
 the  fame  Time,  diflionour  the  Father:  But  w#y 
 are  no  where  told,  that  the  Father  will  refcnt. 
 it  as  a  diflionour  done  to  Himlelf,  if  we  fliould^ 
 chance,  out  of  our  fcrupulous  Regards  to  the- 
 Father  and  Son   Both,    to  pay  the  Son  hiotje?^^ 
 Honour  than  ftridly  belongs  to  Him.  On  thclc,:' 
 and  the  like  Confiderations  (efpecially  when  we; 
 have  fo  many,    and   fb  great  Appearances   of; 
 Truth,    and   fuch  a  Cloud   of  Authorities   x^, 
 countenance  us  in  it)  the  Error,  if  it  be  onej  - 
 feems  to  be  an  Error  on  the  right  Hand.     Now  > 
 you  fliall  be  heard  again.     Can  any  Man  think 
 to  pleaje  the  Son  of  God,  by  giving  that  to 
 Him,  which  He  never  claim  d  or  could  claim*^ 
 Pofitive  enough.     But  will    you  pleafc  to  re-  - 
 member   that    the   Query  Ju^fojes   the   Cafe 
 doubtful  (which  was  abundantly  civil  to  you)  : 
 
 dQubt-- 
 
47B        ^DEFENSE         Qu.XXXD 
 
 doubtful  whtihti  the  Son  of  God  has  claim'4 
 it,  or  no ;  and  the  whole  Argument  runs  upon"^, 
 that  Suppofition.     This  therefore  difcovers  ei-  ^ 
 ther  feme  want  of  Acumen,  or  great  Marks  of  ^ 
 Halle.      You  add:    It  can  be  no  T>etraBion^ 
 from  the  ^Dignity  of  any  Terfon  {how  great 
 foever  that  T>igmty  be)  to  forbear  profejfng  ^ 
 Him  to  be  that  which  He  really  is  not.'  '^^ 
 perceive,  your  Thoughts  are  dill  abfent;  and 
 you  do  not  refled:,  that  you  are  begging  the 
 Queftion,  inftead  of  anfwering  to  the  Point  in 
 Hand.     You  are  to  fuppofe  it,  if  you  pleafe^^'^ 
 doubtful,    who,    or  what,    the  Perfon  is.     Irf" 
 fuch  a  Cafe,  it  may  be  better  to  give  Him  what 
 He  does  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  othert' 
 You  go  on:  It  may  well  become  ferious  and- 
 fincere  Chrijtians   to   confider  whether  it  is  ^ 
 not  pojfible    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   dijhonotlr"'^ 
 the  Father  that  Jent  Him,  &c.     I  am  wear;f  1^ 
 of  tranfcribing.     Confider,  on  the  other  Hand,- 
 whether  it  be   not  more  than  foffible ,    thati'i 
 while  others  adventuring  to  be  wife  beyond^' 
 what  is  written  (teaching  us  to  profefs  threW 
 Gods,    making   the  Creator   of  the  World  \^ 
 Creature,  inventing  new  unfcripural  Diftin^J^ 
 (ttions  of  a  fiip\mc  and  ^fubordinateW or*'' 
 
 iliipr 
 
Qa;XXXo       of  fome  QUERIES.        479. 
 
 fliip,  with  many  other  Things  equally  nnfcri- 
 ftural  and  unwarrantable)  They  vainly  think 
 to  bring  down  Myjieries  to  the  level  of  their 
 low  Underftandings,  and  to  fearch  the  deep 
 Things  of  God \  They  may  not  diihonour  both 
 Father  and  Son,  and  run  into  Herefy,  Blafphe- 
 my,  and  what  not,  and  Sap  the  very  Founda- 
 tions of  the  Chriftian  Religion.  You  proceed  : 
 It  may  become  Them  to  confider  what  They 
 will  anfwer  at  the  great  Day,  jhould  God 
 charge  Them  with  not  obferving  that  T>ecla^ 
 ration  of  His,  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  beCr^^^- 
 tures ;  and  whom  Himfelf  had  given  his  Glory 
 to,  by  commanding  all  Men  to  be  baptized  in 
 their  Names,  equally  with  his  own ;  and  order- 
 ing particularly,  that  all  Men  jhould  Honour  tho 
 Son,  even  as  They  Honour  the  Father,  If  They 
 happened  to  carry  their  Refpedt  too  high ;  ye£ 
 it  was  towards  thole  only,  whom  the  Father 
 principally  delighteth  to  Honour ;  and  towards 
 whom  an  ingenuous,  grateful,  and  well-difpoftd 
 Mind  can  hardly  ever  think  He  can  pay  too 
 much.  Upon  thele  and  the  like  Confiderations 
 They  may  humbly  hope  for  Pity  and  Pardon  for 
 a  Miftake ;  fuch  an  one  as  the  humbleft,  mod 
 devout,  and  moft  confcientious  Men  might  be 
 the  apteft  to  fall  into. 
 
 But 
 
4?o        y^   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qji.XXX. 
 
 But  whar  mull  an  Avian  have  to  fay,  at  that 
 great  T>ay,  if  it  appears  that  He  has  been  ut- 
 tering Blajphemies  againft:  the  Son  of  God, 
 and  reviling  his  Redeemer  ( the  generality  of 
 fober  Christians  looking  on ,  all  the  while , 
 with  Horror;  iliock'd  at  the  Impiety;  and 
 openly  declaring  and  protefting  againft  it) 
 and  for  no  other  Realbns,  in  the  laft  Re- 
 fult ,  but  becaule  He  thought  Generattoit 
 implied  'Divijion^  and  necejjary  Generation 
 implied  outward  Co-aBion ;  and  He  could  not 
 underftand  whether  the  Unity  fliould  be  called 
 Sfecifick  or  Individual  -,  nor  how  there  came 
 to  be  three  Perfons ;  nor  why  One  might  not 
 have  been  as  good  as  Three ;  nor  why  the  Fa- 
 ther ilaould  be  faid  to  beget  the  Son,  rather 
 than  vice  verfa ;  and  the  like  ?  Is  this  kind  of 
 reafoning  fuitable  to,  or  becoming  Chriftia7is, 
 who  have  their  Bible  to  look  into;  which  alone 
 can  give  any  Satisfadion  in  thefe  Matters  ?  To 
 go  upon  our  own  Fancies  and  Conjed:ures,  in 
 a  Thing  of  this  Nature,  is  only  betraying  too 
 little  Reverence  for  the  tremendous  and  un^ 
 fearchable  Nature  of  God,  and  too  high  an 
 Opinion  of  oux  own  Selves.  You  have  a  far- 
 ther Pretence,  built  upon  your  miftaken  No- 
 tion of  individual  \  which  I  need  not  take 
 notice  of,  having  al;ready  almoft  lurfdted  the 
 Reader  with  it 
 
 Q^UERt 
 
QIJ.XXXI.        of  fome  (QUERIES.        481 
 
 (^  U  E  R  Y     XXXI. 
 
 Whether  any  thing  lefs.than  clear  and  evi» 
 dent  Demonftracion,  on  the  fide  <9/Ananifm, 
 onght  to  move  a  iz'ife  and  good  Alan,  againjl 
 fo  great  Ap^^earances  of  Truth,  on  the  fide 
 (?/ Orthodoxy,  from  Scripture,  Reafon,  and 
 Antiquity :  And  whether  we  may  not  wait 
 long  before  we  find  fuchY^^moix^izxXoMl 
 
 IN  your  Anfvver  to  this,  I  am  rebuked,  firft* 
 for  giving  the  Name  of  Orthodoxy ,  to  a 
 Scholajiick  Notion :  And  fecondly,  for  calling 
 your  Dodtrine  Arianifm.  As  to  the  firft,  I 
 Hand  fo  far  correded,  as  to  beg  the  privi- 
 lege of  ufmg  the  word  Orthodoxy,  for  the 
 Received  T>o6irine.  You  are  pleafed  to  call 
 it  a  Scholajiick  Notion.  How  far  it  is  Scho- 
 lajiick, I  do  not  certainly  know  ;  But  lure  I  am 
 that  it  is  Primitive  and  Catholic k :  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  Dodtrinc  being  juftly  call'd  Art- 
 aril  fin,  I  hope,  without  Offence,  I  may  lay,  I 
 have  made  it  plain  to  a  Dcmonftration  (except- 
 ing only  that,  in  fome  Particulars,  you  fall  be- 
 low Arianifm^  and  I  fliould  advife  you  here- 
 after, for  your  own  lake,  to  difpute  fo  clear  a 
 Point  no  farther.  But  let  us  go  on.  You  add; 
 If  it  he  im£o£itple,  by  the  Rule  of  SvrijftUre 
 
 I  i  dnd 
 
48^        A  D  E^  F  E  N  S  E        Qy.XXX^ 
 
 and  Reafin,  and  the  Senje  of  the  moj}  arit}enf 
 fVr iters,    and  Councils  of  the  Ctmrch,    thif 
 the  Scholaftick  Notion  Jhotild  be  true ;  and  tf 
 there  be  no  Isltd^wxxx  bet'uvixt  (the  ScholaflicK 
 Notion)  ^7/^  the  Notion  of  ^r.Chtkt  (rharis 
 Arianiim)  then  it  i:;itl  be  demonf  rated  tP^f 
 (Arianirm)    is   the   true  T>of!rine  of  JeffP 
 Chriji  and  his  Apofles,  as  revealed  in  Scrii 
 fttrre,  and  the  true  Sen fe  of  Scripture  infer-' 
 ^retedby  right  Reafon,  and  as  miderfoGd^bJ' 
 the  bejt  and  moft  ant  tent  Chtiftian  Writer^l 
 This    is   your   i>emonftration ;    only    I    have' 
 thrown  in  a  word  or  two,  by  Way  of  Paretic 
 tbefis; .  to  rnakd  it  the  clearer  to  the  Read^fv 
 The  fumm  of  it  is  this ;  if  the  Scholdflick  No^l 
 tion  (by  w^hich  you  mean  Sabellianijm')  be  not' 
 true  f  and  if  there  be  no  Medium  between  Sd- 
 hellianijm' and  Arianifm ;   tha^^'Ariahi/m  ^'^ 
 the  True: Dodrine,  ©r.   That  is,    '^^'^  fifpofing^ 
 h^  proving,  and  \i  begging  the  '^leflionht  the; 
 fame   thing  with  determining  it;    then  Ibme- 
 thing  will  be  demonf  rated,  which  is  not  de- 
 mofijirated.     You  do  well  to  refer  us  to  yout^ 
 Appendix  for  proof,  and  to  fliift  it  off  as  fair 
 as  poffible.     i^etnonjlrations  are  good  Things, 
 but  fomctimes  very  hard  to  come  at;  as  youl 
 find,  in  the  prelent  Inftance.     You  may  take  as 
 much  time  longer,  as  you  think  proper,  to  con-i 
 fider  of  it.     Give  me  a  "Uemonftration,  juftly^^^ 
 Jo  called;  a  chain  of  clear  Reafbniug,  begihnihg^^ 
 from  fome   plain    and  undoubted  Axiom,    and^ 
 regularly  defccnding  by   necelTary  Dedudioijis? 
 
qt,,c]ofp  Connexion  of  Ideas ,  till  you  come 
 ^  ypm  G?^cljtfion.  Till  yon  can  do  this,  it 
 \j{iJl  be  but  Jabour  loft,  to  endeavor  to  iliake 
 ti\cjie6;ei^ed  T><i^riue  of.thc  ever  bleffed  Tri- 
 nity^ iFor,,  imkfs  you  can  give  us  Ibraething 
 really  Solid  and  Subftantial,  in  an  Article  of  fo 
 great  Importance,  the  Reaicns  which  we 
 h4ve,  on  our  fide  of  the  Queftion,  are  Co 
 imny,  fb  plain,  and  fo  forcible ,  that  they 
 muft,  and  will,  and  ought  to  fway  the  Minds  of 
 mpdeft .  reafonable ,  and  confcientious  Men  | 
 W-hile  the  Church  ftands,  or  the  World  lafts. 
 Any  Man  that  duly  confiders  what  we  have  to 
 plead  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  what  from  the 
 cpiicurring  Judgment  and  Pradice  of  the  Primi- 
 tj^^e  and  Catholick  Church ;  and  reflcds  farther 
 upon  the  natural  Tenderneis  which  every  piou5j 
 aid  grateful  Mind  muft  have  for  the  Honour  of 
 Ws  Blefled  Lord  and  Saviour,  the  Dread  and> 
 Horror  of  Bl'afphemy*  and  how  lliocking  ^^ 
 Thing  it  muft  appear  to.  begin  now  to  abridge 
 Him  of  that  Refped,  Service,  and  fupreme 
 Adoration,  which  has  been  fo  long,  and  fo  uni- 
 V(?Flally  paid  Him,  and  by  the  bleffed  Saints 
 md  Martyrs  now  crown'd  in  Heaven ;  I  fay, 
 ajvy.Man^hat  duly  confiders  this,  will  eafily 
 p.cr^eive  how  impoffible  it  is  for  Ariamfm  ever 
 to;  prevail  generally  among  Chriftians,  except 
 i^ be  upon  one  or  other  cl-  thefe  Suppofitions*. 
 Either  that  the  Age  becomes  {o  very  Ignordnt 
 ox  Corrupt,  that  They  know  nor,  or  care  not, 
 what  They  do ;  or  that  fome  new  Light  fpring 
 
 I  \     2  up. 
 
484        ^-15  E^ F^  f  N  S  E        QuXXXV 
 
 up  ©ti  the  fide  oi  Arianijm,  fon^  hidden  re* 
 ferve  of  extraordinary  Evidences,  ftich   as,  iw 
 1400  Years  Time,    the  Wir  of  Man  has  nor 
 been  able  to  dilcover.     As  to  the  latter,  nei- 
 ther  your  felf,    nor   yet   the   learned  Dodtor 
 has  been  picafed  to  favour  us  with  any  fuch 
 Difcovery :  As  to  the  former,  I  have  too  good 
 an  opinion  of  you  to  fufpect,  that  you  can  ei- 
 ther hope,  or  wiili  for  it.     You  will  havef-a^ 
 mind  to  try  what  you  can  do :  And  lb  give  mo' 
 leave  to  repreient  to  you  a  iliort  Summary  of 
 what  we  are  to  expedt  of  you.  -3 
 
 ioi^i  You  are  to  prove,  either  that  the  Son  Js' 
 not  Creator ;  or  that  there  are  two  Crcatorr; 
 iand  one  of  Them  a  Cr^^/^//r^. 
 
 2.  You  are  to  lliow,  either  that  the  Son  i^ 
 not?  to  be  worjh'ip'd  at  all;  or  that  there  are 
 two  ObjeEis  oilVorjh'tp,  and  one  of  Them^^a 
 Creature.  "^^ 
 
 3.  You  arc  to  prove,  cither  that  the  Son  is 
 nox.God\  or  that  there  arc  two  Gods,  and  one 
 of  Them  a  Cr^^/'/^r^.  ^  rjiiJii  oj  iuiD^jc^a 
 
 4.  You  are  to  ill ow,  that  yom  Hypthefi}  'ii 
 high  enough  to  take  in  all  the  high  Titles  and 
 Attributes  afcribed  to  the  Son  in  Holy  Scripture  5 
 Andj  at  the  lame  time  low  enough  to  account 
 for  his  mcreafing  in  iV'tJdom,  not  knowing  the 
 ^ay  of  Judgment,  His  being  exceeding  for- 
 row  fill,  trouble  dy  crying  ont  in  his  Agonies^ 
 and  the  like.  You  are  to  make  all  to  meet  iif 
 the  one  Aoyo^  or  Word-^  or  elfe  to  mend  your 
 Scheme  by  borrowing  from  oiir^--  ^ 
 
 5.1 
 
Qy.XXXI.        ofjbmg  dUERIEjS.        48^ 
 
 5.  I  muft  add ;  that,  whatever  you  undertake, 
 you  are  either  to  prove  ix.  with  fuch  Strength, 
 Force,  and .  Eyrdcuce,  as  may  be  iufficient  to 
 bear  up  againft  the  Stream  of  Antiquity,  full 
 and  llrong  againft  you;  or  el(e  to  fliow  that 
 Autiquity  has  been  much  raifunderfloodiri^adjs 
 not  full  and  ftrong  againft  you.  /^_  vfivn  >y> 
 •  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  mealtire  thrown  ofF,  and  the  Caule 
 open'd.  Now  proceed,  as  you  think  proper: 
 Only  difpute  fair;  drop  ambiguous  Terms  or 
 define  Them ;  put  not  -grofs  Things  upon  us ; 
 contemn  every  Thing  but  Truth  in  the  fearcli 
 after  Truth ;  and  keep  clofe  to  the  Queftioa : 
 Aud  then  it  will  foon  be  feen,  whether  v^r/- 
 anifm,  or  Catholicijhi,  is  the  Scripture -'Dor 
 Sirine  of  the  Trinity, 
 
 ?^  There  remain  two  only  ^/^^t/Vj*,  which  I 
 have  any  concern  in;  and  I  hardly  think  ic 
 needful  to  take  farther  notice  of  them,  the 
 Subftance  of  them  being  contained  in  the  for- 
 mer: Befides  that  this  T)efetife  being  drawn 
 out  into  a  length  beyond  what  I  expedted,  I 
 am  willing:  to  come  to  a  Conclufion.  You'I 
 excufe  me  for  not  returning  a  particular  Anfwer 
 to  your  Queries,  having  obviated  all  that  is  of 
 weight  in  Them,  \viX}i\\^T>efenfe  of  my  own. 
 Befides,  you  have  now  had  Ibmc  Years  to  con- 
 fider  this  Subject,  and  may  probably  fee  reafon 
 to  alter  Ibme Things;  to  contrad  your ^eries 
 
 I  i    3  into 
 
into  a  fliorter  Compafs,  and  tp  put  them  clofer 
 and  flrongcr:  Tlio'  that  part,.  I  tnink,  fliould 
 come,  after  you  have  made  a  2)^/f///^  of  your 
 own  Principles:  Othervvife,  you  knoWi-  if.Js 
 nothing  but  finding  Faults,  without  propofihg 
 any  way  to  mendTherp;  which  is  only  a  w.ojck 
 of  Fancy,  and  is  both  fruidefs,  and  endlefe. 
 My  defiga  chiqfly  was  to  be  upon:  the  0^;!^- 
 Jive:  The  "Defenjive  V2LXt,  on  our  fide,  jhas 
 been  handled  over  and  over,  in  Books  ,  wtsU 
 known,  and  eafy  to  be  had.  What  was.  moll 
 wanting  was,  to  point  out  the  particular, De- 
 feds  pt  Dr.  C/-{2r^^'s  Scheme,  which  was  thought 
 to  contain  ibmething  new ;  ^arid  w,a^  cettaialy 
 fet  forth  in  a  very  ^6"cc;  Method.     ^  :;   -. 
 
 ,      In  Conplufion,  give  v^Q  leave  ta.tell  yon,  that 
 I  hav^  ,ei^^c^y,  jnip  this  Catife  (after  a  compe- 
 tent weighitig  of  vvhat  I,  could.ime^^^\with^.  oq. 
 either /icle)  under  a^fail  CoAvjdion  both,. of  the 
 Truth  ^nd.Jaiportaj;ice  of  it-^and^  witjb  a  Rcfo- 
 ,  lution  Qoy  .G^^'s^  Au5fl-^cp).  to.  jtH^intaui  it ; 
 till.I/ce.Reafon  (which.  1  defpair  ofj.  to  alter 
 .my  Judgment  of  it.  ^  Make  you  the  bed  you 
 .  <;an  of  your  fide  of, the  Qiacftion,  ip  '2i  rational 
 .znd  fair  manner^.  .^  Truch  is  what.  I  .fincerc^y 
 '.aim  ar^    whether  it  be   on  your  Side,   ot  on 
 ^.mine.     But  I  may  be  allowed  to  fpeak.with  the 
 ^greater. Confidence  in  this  Caulc,  fincC; thc.Con- 
 ^trpverfy  is  iiot.^^-KK,    but  has -teen  exhaufted 
 ^  long  ago  ;  and  all  had  been  done  on  your  Side, 
 ^  that  the  Wit  of  Man  could  do,  loi^gbefore  cU 
 -ther  Yjou^.or  I^r.,.^^^r||^_.,appcar'd  in  it.     .Yoit 
 Y"         '^'  ^^'^'\    i-I      "^  '"      '        'may. 
 
'^j^^y^^/iVyoit'^^liaihy  traverfe  over  aaaih^  Jrri. 
 
 ■ftt&e,    yihii-quity ,    and  Reafon.      As"  'to    the 
 
 flflt;  all  the  'texts  you  can  pretend  to/bring 
 
 ^igiinfl:  us,^haye  been  weighed  and  confiJci'd; 
 
 %dd  vve  have  Solutions  ready  for  them';  while 
 
 '  Yoi  W   yet  to   feek  how  to  give  a  roferable 
 
 Account  cf  Teveral   Texts;    thofe,  efpecraliy, 
 
 '^hich  declare  the  U?iity  of  God,  and  proclaim 
 
 the  Son  to  be  God,  Creator,  and  an  Obje[i  of 
 
 fVorJhlp  and  Adoration,     If  you  proceed   to 
 
 Fathers,  They  Hand  pointed  againft  you ;  and 
 
 YOU  are  certain  to  expofe  your  Caufe,,  as  ofrca 
 
 •^ij^  yoti  hope  for  any  Relief  or  Succour  from 
 
 ^hem.    If  laftly  (which  you  think  your  llrorfg- 
 
 eft  Hold)  you  retire  to  Thilofophy  ^LudMeta- 
 
 '2^yjicks,  I  humbly  conceive,  you  \ViIi  ftill  be 
 
 'dblelte  do'^bthing.     It  will  be  orify  YaRiflg  to 
 
 '■^onjedttire,  after  you  fail  of  P^**?^/ ;  and  giv- 
 
 'Ing  the  World  yomPFiJhes,  when  They  looked 
 
 for  ^emonjiratmts.      I   do    not  exped:   you 
 
 '  ihould  believe  one  Word  of  what  I  have  now 
 
 -faid ;  neither  fay  I  \i  to  difcourage  any  rational 
 
 inquiries;  let  Truth  have  its  utmofl  Trial,  that 
 
 "^it  may  afterwards  Shine  out  with  greater  Luftre : 
 
 ^Only  let  not  your  ^6*^/ out-run  your  Troofs. 
 
 ^f  your  Arguments   have  Weight  fufficicnt  to 
 
 ^'carry  the  Point  with  Men  of  Senfe,  let  us  have 
 
 ''Them    m    their   full    Strength;    all   realonaWc 
 
 ^Men  wfll  thank  you  for  Them.     But  if,  tailing 
 
 »;ifei  Vroof,  you  fliould  condefcend  (which  yet  I 
 
 ^^am  perfwaded  you  will  not)  to  Wile  and  Stra- 
 
 'tagem,  to  Colours  and  Dilguiles,    to  Mifrepre- 
 
 '  1^4  icncation 
 
a^88        yf   D  E  F  E  N  S  E        Qy.XXXI. 
 
 fentation  and  Sophiftry,  in  hopes  to  work  your 
 w^y  among  the  unlearned  and  unthinking  Part 
 of  the  World ;  Then  let  me  aflure  you  before- 
 hand, that  That  Method  will  not  do.  Every 
 Man,  that  has  a  Spark  of  generous  Fire  Iclt, 
 will  rife  up  againft  fuch  Pradices ;  and  be  filled 
 with  Difdain  to  fee  Parts  and  Learaing  fo  pro- 
 ftituted,  and  Readers  fo  ufed. 
 
 I  A  yi  /  am.  Sir,  jotir 
 
 priend  and  S^rvanp. 
 
 *    'brrfw  ^^gi.1  T 
 
 jiiSfiJuiiQraA 
 
 v^aiflT  yn£  '  * 
 
 P  O  ST. 
 
'^D'dlnn  bnf 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 X  Have  jufl:  run  over  the  Second  Edition  of 
 J|^  Dr.  Clarke's  Scripture -T>oEiy^ine \  where 
 I  obfervc,  that  moft  of  the  Paflagcs  which  I 
 have  animadverted  upon,  ftand  as  They  did, 
 without  any  Corredion  or  Amendment. 
 Where  the  Dodlor  has  attempted  any  Thing, 
 which  may  feem  to  weaken  the  Force  of 
 what  I  have  offer'd  abov^,  I  ihall  here  take 
 notice  of  it.  I  had  noted  (as  the  learnecl 
 Mr.  Welchman  had  done  before  me)  the  Do- 
 <3:or's  unfair  manner  of  fupprefTing  fome  Words 
 of  Chryfofloftiy  which  were  necefTary  to  let  the 
 Reader  into  the  Author's  true  meaning.  The 
 Podlor  here  endeavors  *  to  bring  Himfelf  ofT, 
 by  laying,  that  the  Words  left  out  arc  Chry-. 
 Joftom's  o'-jiii  Inference,  and  nat  the  Expli- 
 cation of  the  Words  of  the  Text.  But  the 
 Truth  is  ;  Qhrjfojlom'^  Inference  iliows  plainly 
 
 Pag.  9^c 
 
 what 
 
490         T  O  S  T  S  CWl'Pt. 
 
 what  his  Explication  of  the  Text  was;  which 
 Explication  reprefented  fcpararely  without  that 
 Inference,  by  the  Help  of  theDod:or  prefacing 
 ir^'was  made  to  appear  in  another  Light,  and 
 to  Ipeak  another  Senfe  than  what  the  Author 
 intended,  Otie  in  Tower  (xctm  <Juva^uv)  is  th^ 
 fame,  with  Chryfoftom,  as  equal  in  Power  or 
 AbiHty,  and  ejfentially  fo.  He  could  never 
 have  imagined,  that  otie  in  Tower  fliould  fignify 
 no  more  than  the  Dodor  pretends.  One  having 
 infinite  and  the  other  only  finite  Power,  could 
 not,  according  to  Chryfojiom ,  be  properly 
 ftid  to  ht  ontrv^^'^  SmcL^)i^  in  Tower.  His 
 Jnterpretation  then,  being  not  only  difTerent 
 •but  contrary  to  the  Dodor's,  fliould  not  have 
 been  reprelented  in  ftich  a  Manner  (by  fup- 
 preiTmg  a-  part  of  it)  as  to  be  made  to  appear 
 to  countenatige  a  NotioQ,  which  it  cleatly  con- 
 ,tr^i<f^s.'- '  "  -^  •     • 
 
 The  learned  Do(3:6t  **  hlis  put  in  ^n  Expfa- 
 mrory 'Tar enthefis  to  his  Tranflati^ti^^f  a  Paf^ 
 fage  df  lten£us:  I  have  took  notice  f  above, 
 thrat  the  Dodtor  had  not  done  Juftice  to  7r^- 
 n^iis;  in  that  PafTage:  And  I  am  glad  to  find 
 that  the  Dodor  Hunfelf  is  now  fenfible  of  \i, 
 He  has  tioe  yet  come  up  to  the  full  Senfb  of 
 the  Author  ;  as  you  may  perceive,* By; torn- 
 paring  whaft  He  hath  faid  with  what  I  have 
 remarky  above.  Bat  He  has  faid  as  much  aS 
 couhi  l>e  expedted   of  Him:    The  wifer  way 
 
 "^  would 
 
woujd  have  been,  td:hftve  ftruck  the  Quotation 
 our  of  ^is..Book. 
 
 Pag.  248.  Tlie  learned  DodJor  Criticizes  a 
 PafTage  of  Sz.AuJiin-^  which  lam  obliged  to 
 take  notice  of,  having  made  uie  of  that  PafTage 
 in  thefe  Sheets:  *  I  will  give  you  the  Dodrors 
 -own  Words,  that  you  may  be  the  better  able  to 
 i^udge  of  the  Matter.  After  He  had  cited  fe^ 
 ^eral  PafTages  out  of  Jnftin  Martyr,  where, 
 ^probably,  the  good  Father,  was  fpcalung  of  the 
 Temporary  ^z^i^fAeviTi^,  or  ManifefiatioJi ,  or 
 Gent  rat  mi  of  God  the  Son,  He  proceeds  thus. 
 **  Note:  In  all  thcfe  PafTages,  the  words  a.a&^ 
 3*.^?yAa,  and  iS^AiJ,  and3€A/;H>and  JW^<|,  fignify 
 ,';*., evidently,  not  ^W^;v/^,  but  voluntate \  woX 
 3*/nj,the  mciQ  Afp^robation,  but  the  v^^f^icf  rli^ 
 *ao¥^iUr.  And  therefore  S^.  Aufrin  is  yQxy  m> 
 *-'  fatr,  when  He  confounds  theie  t''j:jo  ITiings, 
 /r'^rAnd  asks  {ntrum  Tater  Jit  T>eus,  Volens 
 *'  an  Nolens)  \whQX.\i^x  the  Father  Hhnfe If  be 
 '^'jGod,  "With  or. 'without  his  oivn  PVill^  The 
 *V  Anfwer  is  clear:  He  is  God  (T^c?/^;//)  with 
 **  the  Approbation  of^his  Will ;  but  not  volun- 
 S\  f4te^-itiot  ;(j\  iSaAW,  not  jSwAf^  5cAi(r^5  and 
 -\*.  ^\jvxpL\,  not  by  an  A^  of  his  Will,  but  by 
 ^'rrNeceJ/ity  of  Nature.  Thus  far  the  learned 
 1^0,<9:cr;  who  has  made  fuch  tlrange  and  m> 
 accountable  Mifreprefentarion ,  that  a  FrieJid 
 would  hardly  know  what  kind  excufe  to 
 make    for    Him.       I    pafs    by    his   grols  Mif- 
 
 *  Pag.  11$,  ■     ^ 
 
49%,         TOSTSCRITT. 
 
 confl:rud:ion   of  Jufi in  Martyr,    and  his  In-1 
 fmuation   (grounded   upon  it)   that   the   Soui' 
 became  Gody  by  an  A^f  of  the  Father's  IVilLs 
 Admitting   it    were    fo  ;    how    is    St.  Aufiit$^ 
 concerned  in    this  Matter,    and  how  comes  iiii 
 the  Doctor's  Therefore^  where  there  is  no  man/; 
 ner  of  Connexion?  Was  St.  Aujiin  CommtnU^ 
 ing  upon  JuJlmMartyrl  I  dare  almoft  be  pofi*.\ 
 tive  that  the  Dodor's  Thought  was  this :  That. 
 St.  Aufihiy  having  admitted  that  the  Son  was 
 God  by  an  A^  of  the  Father's  Will,  and  being 
 prefs'd  with  the  difficulty  arifing  from  that  Sup- 
 pofition,  had  no  way  of  coming  off,    but  byl 
 asking,    whether  the  Father  Himfelf  was  noti 
 God  by  his  own  PFill.    If  this  was  not  the  Do-^ 
 cftor's  Thought,  it  is  at  lead  what  his  Readers^i 
 very  probably ,    will  have ,  upon  the  reading 
 the  Doctor's  Note.  But  to  clear  up  this  Matter,- 
 ril  tell  you  the  whole  Cafe.    The  Arians,  for- 
 merly, as  well  as  now,  being  very  defirous  ta 
 make  a  Creature  of  God  the  Son,    fet  their 
 Wits  to  work  to  find  Arguments  for  it.     They 
 had  a  great  mind  to  bring  the  Catholic ks  to 
 admit  that  the  Son  was  firft  produced,  or  gene- 
 rated,   by  an  Al^   of  the    Father's  Will  (in 
 the  Senfe  of  free  Choice^  and  the  Confequence 
 They  intended    from   it,    was,    that   the   Son 
 was  a  Creature.     The  Catholicks  would  notJ 
 admit   their  Tojiulatum  without  Proof;    and) 
 fo  the  Arians  attempted  to  prove  it  thus,  by  a 
 "Dilemma.     Tlie  Father  begat  his  Son,  either 
 Rolens,  or  Volhis^-^  cigai^^^^s^^)^^^  f^l^/'m^h, 
 
^O  S  T  S>  C  R  I  T  r.         49^ 
 
 his  Will:  It  could  not  be  agninjl  his  Will,  th^t 
 isabfurd;  therefore  it  muft  be  with  his  f Fill ; 
 therefore  that  y^^  of  the  Will  was  precedent 
 Vb  the  Son's  Exiftence,  and  the  Father /r/<?r  tS 
 the  Son.     Here  the  Dodor  may  fee,  who  the 
 Men   were  that   firft  confounded  two  diftindt 
 Things,  mere  A^p^robation,  and  an  AEl  of  the 
 JVill:  Not  the  acute  St.  Atijlin,  not  the  C^- 
 tbolkks ;  but  the  Avians.     To  proceed  :    The^ 
 ^Catholtcks,  particularly  Athanafins,  Gregory 
 Naz,ianz>en,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  St.  An- 
 fiin  (Men  of  excellent  Senle,  and  who  knew 
 how  to  talk  pertinently )  eafily  contrived   tOli 
 baffle  their  Advcrfaries   with  their  own  Wea- 
 pons. Tell  us,  fay  They  to  the  Avians,  whether- 
 the  Father  be  God,  Nolens,  or  Volens ;  againjl 
 his  Will,  or  with  his  Will.     This  quite  con- 
 founded the  Men,    and   their  T)ilemrna\   arid 
 They  had  not  a  word   to  lay  more.     For,  if 
 They  had  faid  Nolens,  againjt  his  Will\  that 
 Wasmanifeftly  abfurd:  If  They  had  {d\^Volenil^ 
 with  his  Will\  then,  by  their  own  Argument, 
 They  made  the  Father  ^rior  to  Himfelf     The 
 Dodor  perhaps  might  have  help'd  Them  out. 
 Let  us  fee  then :  The  Anfwer,  He  iays,  is  cleats 
 But  what  is  clear  ?  Does  He  imagine  there  was 
 any  difficulty  in   anfwering  St.  Attjiin's  Que^ 
 ftion,    taken    by    it   felf.?    This   required   no 
 Oedipus \   Any  Man  might  readily  anfwer  it: 
 But  the  difficulty  was  for  an  Arian  to  make 
 
 \*  Athanaf.  Orat.  5.  p.  6i9»  61 1.  Gregory  Nazianz.  Orat.  jf. 
 P*  S^S->  S^^'  Cyrill.  Alcxandr.  Thefaur.  p.  §9,  5-2.  Auguft. 
 T©m.  8.  p.  62t»  ^5>4.  Ed.  Eencd.  ^n 
 
494       'P  '^ '  ^  ^  'm:''n''^w  T. 
 
 an  Anfvvcr,  which  fliould.ndt  recbirupbh  Hira-^ 
 felf.     Let  us  take  the  Dodor's  Anfwer,  and  ob- 
 ierve  whether  it  could  be  of  u(e.     The  Father,  ■ 
 fays  He,  is  Gad  with  the  Approbation  of  hu^ 
 Will  (Volens)  not  by  an  A£i  of  his  fFi!^ 
 Very  good:  But  if  an  Arian  formerly  had  thus^ 
 aniwer'd  Si.  Aujfin,    it  would  have  made  the, 
 good  Father   imile.     For,    He  would  imme-'^ 
 dvately  have  replied:    Well  then;    fo   the  Fa-^ 
 thcr  had  his  Son  (Volens)  by  the  Approbation^; 
 of  his  JVill,  and  not  by  an  A^  of  his  IVilh- 
 And  now   what  becomes  of  your  ^ilemma^' 
 and  your  Nolens  Volens  ?    What   could  thc- 
 Arian  have  pretended  farther,  except  it  were7 
 to  perftfl:  in  it,  that  the  Son  was  God  by  an 
 Am  of  the/F/7/?  To  which  it  would  be  readily 
 anfwer 'd,  that  this  was  begging  the  Queflion ;. 
 and  fo  the  whole  mufl:  have  ended.     Judge  you 
 now,    whether  the  Dodor  or  St.  Atiflin  had, 
 the  greater  Acumen  in  this  Matter ;  and  which 
 of  them  is  mofl:  apt  to  be  very  unfair^  and  to 
 confound  diflind:  Things, 
 
 F    I    N.  I    S. 
 
f'/ 
 
4