WaterUund An Ans^wer +d Dr. WkJ^y's # D-7 W2993 SC(L- tit. HEATER LA N'D't ANSWER T o Br.rVHITBrs Reply, Refpeding his Book Intituled DiSQJTISITIONES MoDEST^E. ^^H ofW^ ■ A OfflCALSa^ B-7 A N ANSWEm^ T O D"" Whitby s BEING A VINDICATION O F T H E CHARGE of FALLACIES, MISQ_UOTATIONS, MISCONSTRUCTIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS, ^c, Refpefting his Book Intituled DisQuisiTioNEs Modesto. lu a Letter to ©r. WHITBY. ^ By "DANIEL tVATERLANTi, DD. Master of Aiagdalen-Collegey in Cambridge, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAjE STT, Faithful are the Wounds of a Frisnd. Pro v. 27. i5. CAMBRIT>GE: Printed for Corn. Crownfield, Printer to the Vniverftty : And are to be Sold by James Knapton, Robert Knaplock, in St, Paurs Church- Yard, and William Taylor, in Paur- Mopr-Kow, LONDON. MDCCXX, C I ] SIR. 1H AVE read over your Replyy lately publiih'd* I perceive, you are much difturbed at the Free- dom I took with you, in That Part of my Defenfe which concern*d You : And tho' yon have, for feveral Years Uft paft, been ading the part of a CenfoYy and a fevere one too ("if we con- fider the Intention^ rather than the EjTeU) upon many great, good, and learned Men, Antient and Modern; yet when it comes to be your own Cafe to be ani- madverted upon ("however juftly, and upon a necef- fary Occafionj you are not able to bear it with due Temper of Mind. I am very unwilling to give you any farther Diflurbance: And, indeed, were your Replj to be read only by Men of Letters, I ihould not have a Thought of returning any Anfwer to it. But (Ince the Controverfy, about the ever BlefTed Trinity, is now fpread among all Kinds of Readers, I have judged it neceiTary, in (o momentous a Caufe, to take fo'me Notice of what you have done, for the fake of fome well-meaning Men who might other- wife happen to be impofed upon by it. You divide your Work into two Parts, Defenjive and Ojferjfive : The //>/?, to take off (To far a^ you are * able) what I had Charged you with ; The Second, to retort the Charge, and to raife Objedions from Anti- quity, chiefly, againft the Cmholkk Caufe, which I have the Honour to efpoufe. B My [i 3 ]Vly An^iver, accordingly, if it iliall be thought needful to carry it through, mud coniift of two Parts : One to lliow that you have not been able to take off what I had charged you withj the Other to make it appear that your Objedions againfl: Us are flight and trivial, not capable of doing our CauTe Harm. Tart the Fir ft. Which is to fljow that jou have not been able to take off Tvhat I had charged upon jopi. The Charge was contained under Two Heads. I. General Fallacies, running through. your whole Book, intituled Difquifitiones Adodefl<£. 1, Particular Ddcd:s, viz., Mifquotation yufiin Martjr t> and Others. With this kind of ^rave Impertinence you go on confuting Bifiiop Bull, * DJfcfUtfit. Modeft, p. 9. + Difcfftijit. Mod. p. II. :^ DtfcjHifa, Mod^ Y''^S' B 2. with- C4] Without To much as attacking Him; while the main weight and force of your Reafonings (when They really have anyj ^alls not upon any Thing which He has afTerted, but upon quite another Thing which you have been pleas*d to invent for Him. It is now Time to hear what you have to fay in Dcfer)(e of this peculiar Piece of Management. Your Excufes for it are reducible to Three Heads, ifi. That you did not know what Bifhop Bull meant, idly^ That you had interpreted numerical EJfence as all the Pre- fent Orthodox do, whofe Caufe Bifhop Bull is fup- pofed to have efpoufed. idlji That numerical Ejfence does, and mud fignify what you pretend, and no- thing elfe. Tho' I have not taken your own Words, yet, I think, 1 have here given your full Senfe; and more diftindly and clearly rhan you have done. I am next to examine your Excujesy one by one. I. You did not know what Bifhop Bull mc^nu or in what Senfe He maintain*d the Conjuhflantiality, So you pretend in your Book ^, and repeat it in your Reply f, that you are not certain Tvhether He {'the Bifhopj pleaded for a Numerical, or Specifick Vnity of Ejfence ; taking it for granted that every Numerical Unity, is fuch as you have defcrib*d ; and that there is no Medium between Numerical^ in your Senfe, and Specifickj, that is, no Medium between Sahellianifm and Tritheifm. This indeed is the •JTgSToy -NJ/eScTb^, the prime Falfehood which you fet out with, and proceed upon ; and which makes all your Difcourfcs on this Head confufed, and wide of the Point. But of This more prefently. As to Bi- fhop Bully if you had not Sagacity enough to per- ceive what He meant, you might however f^'/Zy and^ certainly have known, that He did not mean what V Modfji* Vifiuif p. 31. Praef. - Kaplp p. 7. you [? 3 yon are pleas*d to put upon Him ; becaufe He has plainly, frequently, and conftantly denied numerical Vmtjt in the Sertie of perfonal Identity, His Intent Was not to prove that the Fathers were Sabellmm (as your way of^oppofing Him every where fuppofes.j but that They were not Brians, This you could not but know, if you know any thing: And there- fore the method and way which you pitched upon, of writing againft his Book, was, to fay the leaft of ir, very unfair and difingenuous. You would have your Readers believe that you have confuted the Biihop, when in reality, after granting you all that you have been able to prove, it is not to the purpofe, is no ConfHtat'wn of wh<3t the Bifhop has afferted, but of another Propoftion which the Bifhop Himfelf had difowned, as much as you can do. The Charge therefore of ?mjiakmg the Qiie/^ion ftands good againfl: you; and, what is more, wilful miftak- ing, fince you could not be ignorant that Bifhop ^i// did not intend to afiert Numerical Vnitj in That Senfe wherein you oppofe it. This is fufficient for me in Defenfe of my Charge. But for the clearer Apprehenfion of Bifliop BhU's meaning in relation to this Matter, I will next cite you fome of his own Words. «« As concerning the Specific^>^\J mty of Pcrfons, in «' the Bleffed Trinity, fuch as is the Union of SHp- *^ pofitay or Perfons, among Things created C^or In- *^ fiance, of Three Men, Peter, PauU and John^ <« which are feparate from one another, and do not «* any way depend upon each other as to their E(- «« fence.J This the Fathers of the firfl Ages never <« dream'd of. They acknowledged a very different ** Union of the divine Perfons, fuch as there is no *« Pattern of, no Refemblance perfedly anfwering to « ir, whereby to illuftrate it, among created Beings. f< They explain the Matter thus ; That God the <5 Father [ 6 J ^^ Father is^ ss I faid> the Head md Fountain of « Divinity> from whom the Son and Holy-Ghofl ^' are derived, but (o derived as not to be divided *' from the Father's Perfon, but They are in the "' Father, and the Father in Them, Ijy a certain *' '^*S^/^^§'1^^ o** y^bai^itatia^, fo called? as I have ^« ftown at large. Defenf, Fid, JVic, Sed. 4. lib. 4. «^ Fe4avm Himfclf contends that from This 'sS^;^^^)- ^^ fVi and the Unity of the ^'^ Godhead made confident with a real Diftiniflion ^^ of Perfons. Thus far Bifhop E^ill^ in his AnCwcv to Gilhen €Im-ke^. He fpeaks much to the fame purpofc alfo in his Defenfe of the Nkene Faith f. " h^ to Nk^ ^^ m€-fkd Unity of Subftance of Father and Son ^^ (which Huctim fays was denied by Orlgen) I can •i' make it evident that Origen acknowledged That "^ Unity as tar as any of the earlier Fathers, and even ^' jkhmapm Himfelf acknowledged it : That is, "' Origen believed the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoftj "*• tho' redhj Three Perfons, yet to have no divided ^'^ or feparate Exiflence ('as Three Men havej" but to ^'^ be intimately united and conjoyned one with ano- ^ ther, and to exifl: in each other, and fas I may fo «■* fpcakj to pervade and permeate one another by ae " ineffable 'S&^;^'^§"/tcn?, v/hich the Schoolmen call «5* InhaJoitAtion : From which Inhabitatiofh Petavim af- ^^ ferts that a numevkd Unity muft ncceflarily be <^t inferif^d. Fiom this Account of Bifhop 'Bull it is evident * Bull. Vojih. M'drkJ, p. 1004. i Bd!. Bif, Fid. Nic. p. 130. thai [ 73 that He neither admitted S^ifick Unity, nor 2S/}fm^ ricai m your Senfe : And therefore ic was very arti- ficial of you to fay that you knew not which of the Two He intended, as if He mufl have meant One, when it is fo plain that He meant Neither, but ut- terly denied Both. He did indeed afTert, as you fee. Numerical Unity, but not in your Senfe, not in the Sahelltan Senfe of per final Idemity, 2, The Second Excufi you make for your imper- tinent manner of oppohng Bifhop Bull without con- tradiding Him, is, that you interpreted Nurmrkal Effence as all the prefent Orthodox do, whofe Caufe Bifhop Bull is fuppofed to efpoufe. So you tell us in the Preface to Modefl Difquifiiom ^y that you dif- pute againft the Confubflamialitj^ in no other than the Nmnerkal Senfe , as afferted by all the Orthodox^ Now, fuppofing it were certainly true ^as it is cer- tainly falfej that all, who at prefent pafs ^or Orthodoxy underflood Numerical EJfence in the fame Senfe as you oppofe it in^ yet would it not be fair towards Bi- fliop Bully to put That Senfe upon Him which He fo fully, and fo conftantly difowns and difclaims. All that you fhould have done, in this Cafe, fliould have been to have obferv'd, that Biihop BuWs Book is nothing to the purpofe of the prefent Orthodoxy who are all Sabcllians, in as much as He has only fliown that the Fathers were not Artansy has not proved that they were Sahellians. And you micht have took notice, on this occafion, how weak and inconfiftent all the Orthodox are, in receiving and ap- plauding Bifhop Bull's Book, a Book which has proved notliing which can ferve their purpofe j a « Book which is fo far from alferting SahelHanifmy 'that is. Orthodoxy fas it is called) that it rather ftands in direift Oppofition to lu Now this would have been the fair open way, as well towards the prefent « Whitby. P//^«, Mp are equivalent and reciprocal. And I, on the other hand, will fi^ppofe the contrary, and then we are jufl as we began. You have not proved, nor ever can prove that three real Perfons may not be properly called one numerical Sub- ftance. If you have all along gone upon the Sup- pofition that They cannot, you have fhown that you can miftake, that you can beg the Queflion, that you can wander from the Point in Hand, can trifle much and prove little, and That is all. The Sum then of what I have pleaded to make good my Charge of the firil: general Fallacj/y is, that you have fet out wrong, miftook the very Point in Queftion. purfued your Miftake all along, and fol- lowed your own Wandrings, infiead of oppofing Biiliop Bull: That you have no excufi for under- ftanding nH77icrical Eifence as you do, either from Bifhop Bull's Book, who never fo underftands it, or from the CathoUck^SQuk of it, Antient or Mo- dern^! which is different from your's, or from the? Propriety oi the Phrafe it felf, which may, for any C a / thing - [ lo thing you know, adnnit of another Senfe, and which you have no way of confuting but by begging the jQueftion; which is not confuting* but rather tacitely acknowledging that it is not capable of any Confu- tation. So much for the firft Article : Only here I raufl: be fo jufl to you as to obferve, that you do not always wander from the Point in Queftion. You do fometimes, indeed often, attempt to prove that the Ante-N'icene Fathers were of Thofe Principles which were afterwards called Arian. So far is per- tinent, and is diredly oppofing Bifhop Bull, But then I mufl obferve farther, that left you fliould happen, at length, to fail in your firft point of prov- ing the Fathers to have been Avians^ you referve the other point as what you can prove and can never fail of, namely, that They were not Sabelliam: And This is what the Refult of your Arguments gene- rally comes to, after you have carried Them on as far as They can go. The firft Point is what you feem moft dcfirous of proving, were it poffible to do it: But if you cannot do Thar, you are content however to prove the Latter, rather than feem to have done nothing. I fhould here conclude this Article, but that two or three incidental Things fhould be taken notice' of, which muft come in here, or no where. I bad obferved * feveral Guards which you had put in, in the general State of the Queftion, as it were with de^A^^n to fecure a handfom Retreat. You fay, all the Ame^Nicene Fathers; when the m^jiy or the generality might be fufficient. I had reafon * Defenfe, />. 401. The general ^ejllot^ is thus flated. Whether All the Ante-Nicene Fathers profefyd the very fame Do^ Brine which Wq afcribe to the Nicene Councils that is, whether all (ichmwledged the fame Numerical Ejfence of the Father to have been communicated to the Son and H/>ly-Ghofi, and that there- fore ^oth are one Gp4 in Hun^b^r ^'^^^ ^^^ Father. Whitby. ' ' to Ci3 ] to obferve this> becaufe Biftiop Bnll^ had, in a man- ner, given up La^antim : Befides, that it is not neceflary to affert that every Writer (fuppofe Cle- mens of Rome, or Barnabas) has faid enough in a fhort Epiflle, from whence it might certainly be inferr'd that their Principles were the fame with thofe of the Nicene Fathers, It is fufficient if as many as fpcak plainly either way, are on our Side; and that none of the earlier Writers contradid it, but are in the main favourable to us, and probably y if not demon- ftrably ours. Another Guard inferted was, 'which we afcribe to the Ntcene Council, inftead of, which was averted by the Nicene Cotincil, The reafon I had to take notice of This, is apparent from what hath been faid. Numerical EfTence, rather than fame Ejfence^ was another Guard: And what ufe you make o\ it is vifi- ble enough. That this EfTence, the fame Numerical E (fence (or Per fan as you underftand \x) was commu- nicated to two other Perfons, is what you demand to have proved: And you have fome pretence for Cavil at the word communicated. This I obferved before : And your Reply ■* is, that what I call a Prcr tence to quarrel at the Word Communicated, is indeed Arguments produced agaittfi it, as it isfiated by the Bi- fhop, and which I durfi not meddle with nor pretend to anjwer. The Reafon of my not anfwering your Cavils againft the ExpreiTion, was becaufe it was foreign to my purpofe, and becaufe we were inquir- ing, whether Bifhop Bull had truly and juftly repre- fented the AntientSt not whether His Dodrine ('the fame with the antient Doftrine) is liable to the Charge of Contradi6i:ion. If you are able to prove any thing » of that kind (as you are not) againfl Bifliop BhU^ n will hold equally againft the u4ntients^ and Him too; and is of diftinfl Confideration from the Point which we are now upon. However, if our Readers f Reply, ^, Jo will r 14 ] will pardon a fmali DigrefTion, I fhall here examine thofe weighty ArgumentSi which hz^oxQ^ it feemss, / durfl not meddle ivitlo* You object (Pr^f. p. 21.) that the Communica- tion of the Father's EiTence to a Perfon is inconceivable^ hecaufe the Peri on mufl be fuffojed to have* it-, to be a Perfon, This is nothing but Cavilh'ng at a popular way of Expr effion. In flridnefs of Speech, the Per- fon of the Son is the very Thing which is derived, communicated, generated; and the Father, in com- municating his Edence, generates the Perfon of the Son. You objef): farther; That if the fame numerical Ejfence of the Father he communicated, then it is the fame numerical Effence in Both^ only exijiina in a diffc' rent Manner. To which I anfwer, if you mean by numerical Ejfencey the fame npimerical PerfoiSi it is noc communicated at all : For the Perfon of the Father only communicates^ the Perfon of the Son is commn* mcated'. And Thefe two Perfonsj or Hypofiafes con- ititute the fainc numerical Eifence ; which confequent- !y, as perfonalized in the Son, is begotten, as perfona- lised in the Father, unbegotten, that is, exifts in a different Manner. The two Perfons exifl: after a different Manner; which two Perfons conflitute dne nmurical Effence; and therefore I admit that the fame numerical Eflence does exifl: in a different Man- ner, in the two Perfons. You ob;ec5t alfo ^^ that the Ejfence of the Father is unhtgottCTi^ the Ejfence of the Son begotten-, therefore Both cannot he the fame Eijence, That Both cannot be the fame Hypofiafsy or Perfon^ is VQvy certam, for the reafon which you give. But that two Hjpoflafesy^ one unbegotten, the other begotten, msy not conf^j- tute one Subftancc, or Elfence, you have not fhown. All thefe Objections of your's turn only upon your * Syaj. p. 2i. miftaken [ 15- ] miftaken Senfe of 7iHmerkal Eflence, and amount to no more than a Petit io prmcipii; while you take for granted the Thing in Queftion, that there cannot be two real Perfons in one Subflance^ or Ejfence, I can tell you of Some, whofe Judgment you much rely on^ who mufl:, upon their Principles, allow, that the fame nHmerkal Subflance; is both greater and lefs than the fame numerical Subflance; is remote and diftanc from the fame numerical Subftance, is contained in, and contains the fame numerical Subftance (fee my Defenfe p. 19^,) They mufl like wife admit of Being and Beings in the fame nnmerical Being ; Suhflance and Suhftancey in the fame numerical Subflance : as alfo Being and Being, ^\\tr^ they cannot fsy BeingSy in the plural ; Suhfiance and Suhfta'/ice-i where they cannot fay Suhfiances; Ejfence and Fffence, where they cannot fay Ejjences. (See my Drfenfe, p. 167, 168.) Thefe Things, perhaps, may appear new and ftrange to you : But if you pleafe to confider them. They may be uleful to convince you of your fundamental miftake in confining the Phrafe of numerical Subflance to one particular Senfe of your own; and may help to fa- tisfy you that there's nothing abfurd or conrradi<5i:ory in the Suppofition, that one and the fame numerical Subflance may be botii begotten and unbegotten. You may alfo pleafe to conllder that tho' the Caiholicks (efpecially after They came to exprefs Themfelves accurately; would never^ or very feldom, fay two Subflances, two Effencsst t7Vo Spirits, t7jJ0 LiohtSy tTVO JVifdomsy or t^ro IVtlls, any more than t7i;o Gods^ or t}vo Lords i yet They never fcrupled to fay Subflance of Subflance^ Fjjlnce of Ejfence, Spirit of Spirit, Li^kt of Light, JV:fdo7n of Wtfdom, Will ofWdl, m like man- ner, as God of God, All which is to intimate that the Union is not Numerical, in the Sabellian, that \% in your Senfe: And yet it is Numerical in another; infomuch that you cannot hers ^^^:>k of Sdfla::c£y, or [16] or Ejftnces, in the plural, as you may of Things fpe* cifically united, and no more. You objed: farther^, that the fume Suhfiance canm not he fuhordinate to none in the Father^ and yet fabor" dinate in the Son or Holy-Ghofi, Yes, it may, if three Perfons can be one and the pime SHhJiance-, becaufe thefe Perfons may be fuhordinate one to another. Here, again, you fuppofe that three Perfons cannot be one Subftance. And now, is not This {lirewd arguing, thus perpetually to beg the Queftion ? You have one Turn of Wtt more, and it is againft interior Pro^ duEiion, which you pretend is fuch a folid Argument as I had the Wtt to leave unanfvered^ (Reply, p. 6i) This interior ProduWon, you fay t> is either the Pro^ du^ion of fomething or nothing. Wonderful folid I Weil, what if it be the Production of fomething i For undoubtedly we do not mean it of a Pro« dudion of nothing, that is, of no ■ Produdion. Then you fay it mud be the Produdion of fome- thing neiif, for a Produdion is always of fomething new. Solid again I that an cternd Production muft be a Production of fomething new. But you can- not conceive, it may be, how any ProduEiion fhould be eternal. And what if you cannot conceive how any thing Ihould be eternal? I cxped a proof of you that it cdnnot be. Your Supfojtng it cannot, wilf give me no Satisfadion. I have now run through your little Quirks and Subtilties upon this Head, whicii yet are not yoursy but as old almofl as the Conrroverfy ; defpifed by Men of Senfe all- along, defpifed even by your felf, thirty Years agoj when, with Honour to your felf, and to the Satisfadion and Benefit of others, you wrote in Defenfe of That Antient Faith, which now you revile and blafpheme. , * Difquifit. Mod, p. 23. Praef. f Difciuijit, Mod, p, 23. Prgef. But : 17 ] But to conclude this Article, the/ I have, In Ci- vility towards you, confidered your Arguments drawn from the Nature and Keafono^xho. Thingj yet I mud repeat my Obfervation, that we may have nothing to do with them, in our prefcnt Enquiry relating to the Antimts ; becaufe if They are of any weight? They are as much againft the Faith of the AKtienu Themfelves, as againft Bifhop BnlU who acknow- ledges no other Numericd Unity than the Antients acknowledged. Having made good my firft Charge^ I proceed to a Second. II. A fecond general Fallacy ^, was your arguing from the Expreffions of Arians ('famous for dilTem-* bling and equivocating^ to Thofe of the Ante-Nicens Writers; Men of a very different Stamp and Cha- racter, and who were not under the like Temptation of faying one Thing and meaning another. I had ob- ferved that you had recourfe to this Saho^ or FaU lac)', in order to elude the Force of fome High Ex" preffiomy (\n refped of the Son's Divinity^ v/hich you met with in the Ante-Nicens Writers. To this you reply, (p. 9') I . That it is not fairly fiigg^ficd^ that yoti do ThU when yoH find fome Expreifions run pretty high and flrong for the Divinity of Chriil : For-, in all the Places referrd to, there is no ExprejJJon of that Naturs hut in the laji. If you pieafe to look back to your Proosmhtm-, ('p. 4, 5.) you will there find that you have made ufe of the Fallacy which I charge you with, as a general Anfv/er to invalidate the Force of mod, or all Bilhop B^//*sTefl:imonie5. You obferve that the acknowledging of Chrift to be God of Gody or God before the Worlds was common-to many who v/ere utter Enemies to the Nicem Faith. You go on to prove This farther by the Author cf the 0pm lm» * .9f* my Dsfenfe, f». 403, 404 > l> perfs^iUm) [ ,8 ] perfeBum, which Author you pronounce an j4ria». You proceed to obferve from Bifhop BhU Himfelf, that the A/iam fcrupled not any of the Catholick Forms of Speech, fave only the Term ConfuhfiantmU They would fay, for Inftance, that the Son was be^ gotten out of the Father Htmfelf» and was true God ; and They rejeded with Indignation the Charge of making the Son a Creature, Now, what could be your mean- ing in thet'e Remarks, but to infinuate to your Rea- der, that let Him meet with ever To Htgh Exprefjions of the Son's Dtvimtj among the Ame-Nicene Writers ; yet unlefs They have the very word Conftibftantialy They might polfibly, or probably, mean no more than the Ariam did after by the fame or the like Expreifions .? This is the Fallacy which I com.plain'd of, and which you often occafionally recur to, both in your Book and Prefaces, to weaken the Force of Bilhop Tmli\ Authorities. Some of the Places where you do This, I referr'd to '^, in my Defenfe, which the Reader that has a mind to it may turn to; and I do not yet fee thatT h^vQ fu^gejied any thing but what is both fair and true. 2. A fecond Evafion ycu have in your Fepljf, (p, 5.J is that you fa id fometimes Artans and Semi' ariam, whereas I have reprefented you as if you had faid AriaKs only. I do not fee that This is at all Material. If either Arians or Sem-ariam ufed C^- rWc/^ ExprefTions without a C^//?o//c^Meaning,They come fo far under the fame Predicament of dijfem- hlingy and ec^uivccatif^g: And that Both were notcri- oufly guilty of fo doing, is clear from all Hiftory of thofe 7'irnes. The Scmi-anam in particular were often charged with it, both by Catholkks and Ako-^^ maam. You fay, farther, that you likewife join moftly with theai fome of the Ame-Niane Fathers. But you will never be ahle to fhow that thoie Ante^ * frif, p. 4 ap. Dy^«. McrA, p. 8,9, 40. po. 109. i $%- 1 f7' Nicem C 19 1 Nicene Fathers were of difFerent Principles from the Council of Nice : So that your jojning Them with the others was either foreign to the Point, or lup- pofing the very Thing in Queftion. 3. Yoa reply thirdly (p. 10. j thaty^n- it mufl he n very uncharitable Ccnfure to pronounce of near a Thou" fand BifJ:)ops convened at Antioch, Selcucia, Sirmium, Ariminum and e//e7i^here, that They were a pack^ of Hypocrites, and equivocating Knaves. To which I make anfwer, firft, that I know not how you will be able to mske out near your Number. If you add the Numbers of the feveral Councils, you may pro- bably reckon many of the fame Men twice or thrice over. Neither were the Men that made up thofe Councilsy all of them Arians. There were but So of the whole 400 at Ariminum-, really Ariam, So that probably 320 were impofed upon by the red:, and the Charge of equivocating lies upon the 80 only. And it is evident not only from Athanafius, but alfo from Sulpicius Severus^ and St. Jerom^ and indeed from all the HiftonanS) and all the Accounts we h-ivt of that Council, that the Arians at Ariminum carried their Point by Equivocation and Wile^ and that the Ca- tholickit moft of them, were impofed upon by double Entendre s. They went upon thofe charitable Princi- ples which you are pleas'd to recommend. They could not imagine there was fo much latent Infin- cerity and Guile, under fo many fine Words and fair Pretences from Men of their own Order. 2. I anfwer fecondly, that there may be fome dif- ference^ between charging JVlen with E^uhocatton^ and calling Them Knaves, There is a Reverend Do6tor, whom I fcruple not to Charge with E^ui" 'vacating. He fays, in a Preface ^, He has many * Up verum fatear, multa funt q'la? me i'npediunf quo minut a fententia de Vera. Chrifli Deitate rccederem, id folum con- tendo O'C. Whitby. Difqu. Mod, p. 3. Pracf, D z Things - [ 10 ] Things which hinder Him from receding from the Behei- of Chrift*s true Divmity: And it is well known what He once meant by Chnft's true Divimty, when He wrote a Tra^ ^ with that Title, in Defenfe of if^ Who would not charitably believe, from hence, that He ftiil retained the fame Faith, in the fame trm Divimty I Eut fee what He means by Chrift*s trpie Divinity (Difqu, Med, p.25. t) where He commends Jufitn Mm^tyr {or mamtaining ChrilFs true Divinity^ making This an Argument of it, that Juflins Sentiments were clearly oppofite to the Dofcrine of the Nicem Cmncd, Hence it is mianifefl, that the Dodor cqui^ wocates in the Phrafe true Divimty, The FaU I main- tain; but if from thence you*l infer that He is an equivocating Knavey remember that the Inference is your's, and not mine. 4, You reply fourthly, as from Soz.oment that when the Arians firft appear ed<, many Billiops, a confiderahls T\[iiwber of the Clergy -^ and no fmall Part of the People^ — favoured his Party; and that two Synods convened at Bithynia, and Paleftine, wrote to their Brethren to com' municate with thofe Avian*?, as being Orthodox. And here .you ask, were all thofe Holy Men and able Judges^ thofe Synods, Billiops, Clerks, and Laity <, a pack^ of Hypocritical Dijfcmbh's y and equivocating Knaves? No; I charirably believe otherwife. The ^^ynods, Bifiops, Clerks, and Laity, who received the Brians as Orthodoxy ^were not, probably, the equivocating Knaves Cas you chufe to exprefs it) but the Brians: who by fair Words, and artful ConfeffionSt appeared ^ Whitby, de vera Chrifti Deirate: TraBntm^ Ann.\6()\, t Magnam admiratfonem inihi injecit iniqua eorum fenrcntia, Cjui Juftinum M. Chridian.*? Fide; Simplicitatem, in DodJrina de Chrifti pras-exiflcnria, Veraque Beitafe, adulteraffe fufpicati funt; quo Patrum Nemo, (leg, Nemine;:^) mco quid,em judicio, vel plura yel clariora adverfns Synodi Nicsen?e placiia doGulile, facile eft P^rpoQllrare. \Vhitby. p'lf^u. Mod. p, 2 j« [ " ] to be what They were not, and fo were received as Orthodox, You will remember that the Principal of thofc Holy Men, and able J^dges^ that promoted Arims Intereft in the Synod of BithjnU^ was Etije- biHs of N'lcomedia : The fame Man that afterwards profefs'd ^ his A (Tent and Confent to ih^Ntcene Creed, as the true CathoUcl^Faikhj and excufed his not con- fenting to the Anathematizing of Arifts, upon this Foot, that He thought Arim had been much mif- prefented, and that He knew from Arim's own Let- ters, that He was not the Man that the Conncil took Him to be. Now if Eujebim, the principal Man of the Synod of Bithjniay was thus impofed upon by Ariuss fair Pretences, no doubt but He reprefented Arius's Cafe to the Synod, as favourably as He Him- k\i^ had conceiv*d of it : And then no wonder if a Man was received as Orthodox^ who was really believ*4 to be Orthodox, If you think that Eufehiusy all the while, knew that Arius was not Orthodox, in my Senfeof the Word^ Admitting That, yet He mightj for any Thing I know, reprefent Him as fuch Then, as well as He did After: If fo, the only equivocating Knave might be Etifebimoi Nicomedia; the refl might be impofed upon by his Reprefentations and Colour- ings. Holy Men and able Judges can Judge no other- wife of Fads, but as They are reported : And how could it be remedied, if Arius happen'd to get good Teflimonials, tho* Himfelf an Ill-Man \ But enough of this Matter : As to the Arian Cuftom of equi^ vocatingy and thereby impofing upon Honefl: Men, The Fad being plain, I fhall infifi: no longer upon it, only referring to a few Authors f who give % fummary Account of it. 9 * Sozom. E. H. I. 2. c. 16. p. 378. t Bull. Deh Fid. N'lc. p. 293. Cave's Life of Athanafius. Cayc. Epift. Apolog. p. 9^' Clerc. Epift. Grit. 2. p. 52, IIL A i: " ] III. A Third general Fallacy, jufl: hinted in my Defenfe^ Cp. 405.) was, your arguing againft the Fdith of the A-^tc Nicene Fathers, in refped: of Chrift*s real DivuiiC) , f rooi this Topic , that They often diftinguifh God, from Chriji, and call the Father Cod abfolutely. W^x^t agafij, you complain of Me for unfair Deal- ing, But how, or wherein am I unfair towards You? You fay {Replp p. ri,^ that jom fir ft Inftance of this Nature is from the Epiftle of Clemens Romanus, %?here He conftantlj feparates ('diflinguifhcs, you m-canj Jefus Chrift from That God, jvhom He ftiles the true and only God, but never once calls Him God, If this Anfwer be any thing pertinent, I fuppofe your mean- ing iSy that your Argument did not turn upon This, that Chrift was diflinguiili^d from God-, but upon thefe farther Confiderations, that Chrift is conflantly fo diftinguiHi'd by Clemensy and never once called God. You may, if you pleafe, call all thofe Con- fiderations put together, one Argument; But They appeared to mc to be diHinc^ and reveral. You ob- ferve "^ of Clemens, that He perpetually dftinguifhes Chrift from God ( Chrift um a Deo perpetuo diftwgmt,) This was one Confideration, or Prcfumption in favour of your Principles. A fecond you add immediately ■After, Deum vero ne f:r/iel nuncupat , But He never calls Chrift God. You proceed to illuftrate your firft Obfcrvation by fiich Inflances as Thefe following,- That Clemens wifhcs Grace and Peace to the Coring thiam from Almighty God, by Jefus Chrift ; That He introduces ("Ch. loth,) i\\q great Creator and Lord of the Vniverfe dillributing his BlelTings by Jefus Chrift i That Chrijl was fent of God, Ch. 41 ; and that the Apoftles had their Commifllon by Chriff from God, Ch. 43. Now to what purpofe were thef$ feveral Inflances produced,^ e^icept you ime^idcd x\}^m as fo * Difyu. Mod. f.i6» [ ^n many Arguments againft Clemem his believing Chrift to be Coniubflantial with Him whom alone He calls God, and from whom He diftinguillies Chrifi ^ But 1 inlifi: upon it, rhar there is no weight at all in this Argument. Nothing has been more common with Writers, who have fully believed the Dodrine of a Co-eternal Trinity, than this Manner of fpeaking ; efpecially when They have been thinking on another Subject, and had no occafion to fpeak of Chriji*s Divinity. And v/hat if Ci^mens, or Poljcarpy or any other Writer, in a iliort Epiftle, or Trad", has fpoke of the Father only, under the Title of God, and of the Son as Lord, or Saviour, or Hhh-PneJ} ? How often might the fame Thing be oblerved in modern Treatifes, or Sermons of very Orthodox Men ? I fee no Confequence that can be juftly drawn a- gainft our Principles, from thefe Premifes. And if Clemens called the Father the only God, or only true God, tho' That be a diflinc^ Argument from the for- mer ; yet neither does it prove any thing more than the other, as I have iliown in another Place *. But you refer me to fome ColleElions of your's, in another Book f, from Origen; who, it feems, in his Book again ft Celfpis, d/ftinq^^ifies and feparates (fo you fay p,ii.) ClortJ} from Him who is God above all; and declares, in the Name of the generality of Chridians, that Chrift is not the God above all. This is not per- tinent to the Point in Hand, having no Relation to the Fallacy I charged you with, nor belonging to the Book which I was animadverting upon. But that I may not ftand upon Niceties with you, I will give you an Anfwer to this »fiy Pretence. It is very certain that Origen never intended to deny that Chnji is God ' above all: Becaufe all Catholicks t (I might fay Here^ * Sermen 4th. f Pr3et.de S, Script. Tnterpr. p, ;?4,35. h Set the Tejiimcnist m Mills, And My Sermons p "j^l. [ M ] tkki too for the moft part) both before and after Origen\ Time, as well as Origen Himfelf, underftood Rom, p. 5. of God the Son, there failed \nxi crair- *Tm 0£o^, , or God above alU Yet there is a certain Senfe in which the Antients have denied Chrift to be the God above all j namely, when fo tinder flood as to make Chrifl the very Pcrfon of the Father^ as the Sa- beiHaiJS underflood it *, or to kt Him above the Fam ther t, or above the Creator ^ of the World, as fome other Heretkks pretended. In this latter Senfe it is that Origen denies the Son to be God above all; as He had reafon to do, beca'ufe it would have been denying His Subordination and Sonfiipy and inverting the Or- der of the Perfons, to have afferted that Chrifl was in any Senfe above the Father^ or fo God above all^ as to have the Creator ^ or Father ^ fubordinate to Him. Notv/ith (landing all This, Origen Himfelf, in the very Page before That which you refer to, afferts and maintains the Catholich^ Doctrine in full and ex- prefs Terms, the very fame Dodrine that we contend for at this Day. For, having objeded to Celfus ^^ the worfnip of manj Gods, telling Him that if He would be confifrent with his Principles, He fhould not talk of the Kingdom of God, in the Singular, but of Gods, in the Plural, He then bethinks Him- felf that the Argument might be retorted up- on Chriflians, as wor (hipping two Gods, viz,, the Father and Chrift. Here v/as the Critical Place; Here, if any where, we fhall fee of what Principles Origen v/as. Well, How does Origen get rid of the Ob- * Vid. Apod. Conf^it. 1. 6. c. 26. Pfeud Ignat. Ep. ad Tarf.. c. 5-. Ad Philip, c. 7. + Origen Contr. Ceir. p. 387. Baiil. Epia.78. p. 892. 4: Vid. Jrcn. p. loi. 1 06. Edit, BsriCd. Origen irt MatCn p. 4.76, Haec. *♦ Vid. Origen. p. 38J.. jS^?* jedionf C ^s ] jedion ? Not by faying that the Father only \s Gods in a proper Senfe: Not by faying that the Father is fupreme Gody and the Son another God under Him. No, He was wifer than to make Himfelf ridiculous to Jew and Gemile, by fuch a weak Anfwer: But He folves the Difficulty by afferting the V^iitj of Facherand Son: And> after He had guarded his Affertion from zny Sabellian Conftrudion, He triumphantly doles up all in thefe Words ; We therefore) as 1 have fho-ivn, ivorJJnp one Gody the Father and Son ^. Thus He at once cleared the Chriftian Dodrine from Polytheifm, and made good the Charge againft the Pagans. From what hath been faid it may appear, that Origen has denie^ no more than all Catholicks deny, namely, that the Father is fuhordinate to the Son: And has aflerted as much as any Cmthoilck^ contends for. We do not fay that Chrifl is That Perfon who is or- dinarily, and eminently ftiled God above all, nor that He is in any Senfe, or Refpedt, above the Creator^ or above God the Father^ being fii'^ordinate to Him; But we affert that He is efTentially one God with Him who is the Father^ and, as fach, is Goi above all: Afid this very Doflrrine is plainly Origen^s, as well as Ours. You have forced Me into this Di- greffion, by making your Objection in a wrong Place; and therefore let That be my Excufe to the Reader for it. Now I return. I have run through the Three general Fallacies which I charged you v/ith. Your feeble Endeavors to take Them off, prove ineiFedual: And They now return upon you with the greater Force. I am next to confider the particular DefeSls, But, before I proceed farther, it will here be proper to remove a Complaint of yours, which you repeat fAsy. pag. 38$. E more I 26 2 more than once : It is a Complaint of my Manage- n)cnr, and Conduct relating to your Book. " • You tell me (p» ^*) that I have not defended any of the Bifiop's Arguments, 'which you had produced and ^nfiverd; nor made any reply to thofe numtroHi Argu- mentSi 7^-hich yopi produced from the Ante-Nicene Fa- thers aqa'infl Mine and the Bifi^op^s Sentiment s,-- In another Place, you fay thus, (/>. 57-J ^^ ^^ obliged, if He would indeed defend the Bijlcp^ to invalidate and refute the AnfiVers that J have given to all his Argu- ments, and to do this entirely y and not by Culling cut t7V0 or three Infiances, and leaving all the reft: in thtir fuR flrength ; That being in all the other CaJeSy to leave the Bifiop in the Lurch, m By all- This, you feem to think, that Biiliop Bull's celebrated Performance is in fome Danger of linking in its Charader, if your Modeft Difquijltions be not particularly anfwer'd. Paragraph by Paragraph; and that I ought to have paid fo much Refpect to your Worl^ as either not to have meddled at all with ir, or to have attended you all the way through it. Nov/, as to this Matter, I will here frankly declare to vou m.y real Thoughts in the following Par- ticulars. I, In the firfl: Place, lam fo far from apprehend- insj any Danger to Bifhop Bully and his Caufe, from your Book, that 1 lliould never have given my felf t;he trouble of remarking at all upon it, had it not been f^iven out to Englijh Readers Cwho muft take fuch Things on Trufl^ tliat Biiliop BuWs famed Piece would receive an Anfwcr, fuch as iliould fatisfy All learned and unprejudiced Perfons. I knew that a Latin. Book could do no Harm, but among Thofe that could read Latin-, and fuch I thought might, for the moil: parr, be very {3i\'Q\y truftcd, having Biiliop BuWs Book to compare with yoiir's, v/hich alone is fufficient to anfwcr for it felf, with iMen of any Judgment. The [ ^-7 3 Danger was not from xUq Book it felf, but from the Reports made of- it : And it concern 'd mc to take care that EngliJJ:f Readers might not be impofcd upon; which was one principal Motive of my doing Y/hat I did. 2. I confidered farther, that this Controverfy be- ing of all others the moft nice and intricate, and in which it is the eafieft for a Writer, that has a i3:ind to ir, to confound and puzzle fuch Readers as have not been converfant in it; I fay, I confidered that it might be ufeful even to fome Latin Readers to point out the principal Flaws and Fallacies in your Performance, which when done, your vvdiole Book is in a manner anfwer'd ; or however anfwer*d as far as \s needful, to prevent any hcneft Man's being im- posed upon by ir. idljy You will give me leave to tell you, with all due Refped ('however frankly) that a Writer who begins, and proceeds as you do, has no rcafon to ex- ped an Anfwer Paragraph by Paragraph; becaufe there is a lliorter, and much better way of dealing with Authors that are not careful to write pertt- mntlj. Who, do you imagine, would be at tlie Trouble of telling you a hundred Times over, that this Argument is good againft the SabelUans, and in fuch a Senfe of nnmerical EJfence as is not to the pur- po'e ; but in Bifhop Bh'us Senfe, and in the true S^nfe, the Argument is of no weight at all? One iliort general Anfwer is fufficient in fuch a Cafe; and is in reality as long as the Objee'^ion, which is only Repetition of the fame Thing. Had you Aatcd the Oucjiion fairly, kept clofe to the Point in Hand, ar- guing pertinently at leafl:, if not folidljy all alonvg, d'\- •revf^ly oppofing That, and Th^i only, which Biiliop Bull undertook to prove; then indeed it pjight have concerned us to attend upon you all the way through,- and to have defended the Bifhop againft your Attacks. El * But Ci8 ] But when, inftead of this, you fet out upon a wrong poor, and wander wide and far from the Mark you fhould have aimed at: When inftead of attacking Biihop B^ll diredly, you encounter for the moft part a Phantom of your own, and Fight with your Sha- dow: In luch a Cafe as this, we have no need to be fohcirous about the B.fhop. Thofe formidable Pre- parations which might be otherwife apt to ftrike Ter- ror into us, are happily diverted another way : All we have now left to do, is to fland by unconcern*d, look on, and fmile. Thete are my Reafons why I hold my feir excufed from making any more parti- cular Anfwer to your Mnmerom Argument Si as you are pleafed to call Them. You m^y give Us leave to judge how far our Caufe may be. endanger*d by what you have done : And i^ We who are Friends to the Bifhop and his Caufe, are in no pain about Eirher, nor at all afraid of leaving Them in the l^urch^ You may be very eafy. Now I proceed to make good the Particuhrs of the Charge upon you. Mi/quota^ tionSy MiJconftruEiionSy AdifreprefentationSy Reviving of old and trite Obje^ions concealing the Anjwers^ &c. Thefe, I think, retch ro about twenty Particulars, which Ihall all be confldered in the fame Order as laid down in my Defenfi. I. J charged you ^ v/ith a Mifcjuotation f of Polj^ . carp's Doxology, recorded in the EpifHe of the Church of Smjrna, You left out, as I faid, the two moft material Words, cvv clIt^^ on which the Bi* j ihop's Argument chiefly depended. You acknow- \ ledge in your Reply (p. 13.) that you left thofe '\ Words our, and the reafon you give, is, becaufeT^^^ Are neither in the Edition of Bi/Jjop Ufher, nor of Co-* j telerius, from whom joti cited the Paffage, This An- | fwer, give me leave to fay, is more unkind to your * 1*^ m Defeqfe, p. 4.0(5. f Bifc^uifit. Mod. p. a*. felf E ^9 3 k\£ than the Charge I made. I had compared the different Readings of the Boxology in the two Edi- tion?, Eufebtm's and Biihop Vjher's. I confidered that if you ihould pretend to follow Bifliop Vfier and CoteleriffSy you had falfified in two places, chang- ing fiiff S into h' Sy and X^ Tcm^ji^^ into cV 'Trvey/UflLTT, which are very material Alterations. But if you Ihould pretend to copy from Eafebmsy there you had left out cw clvtZ. The latter being a Sin of Omijjion only, and more excu Table than put- ing Words into the Text, I chofe to fix the Charge there where it might fall the lighted, and feem ra- ther a Slip than any ill T>t{\^n, I had another Rea- fon why I was willing to charge it as an Omijfion out of the Text of Eufebms; and That was becaufe Bifhop Btill had followed Eufebifis*s Copy. Now if you had a mind to take another Reading from Vper and CoteleriuSi you fhould have given Notice that Bifliop Bull had made ufe of a faulty Copy, before you had triumph*d over Him i and ihould have ob- ferved that Vfier*s and Cotelerius's Reading was the true one. But not a word do you fay of This; and the Reafon of your deep Silence, in this refped, is VQvy evident. Bifhop BhWs Argument was ftrong and good, according to Eufehius's Reading : And ac- cording to Vjher*s and Cotelermss it would have been ftill flronger and fuller. Since therefore Neither of the Readings would ferve your Purpofe, you lay afide Both, and invent a new one of your own ^ : And then you might fecurely infult over the learned Pre- late, having a Text and Comment Both of your own contriving. . ♦ Tht Readings of the PaJJage, Ai' is cvttrvv oiuT^f *y TrvtufjuxTt uy^Cf^ Eufeb. E. H. 1. 4. C If*. ^i I jroi, i» TTvivfXjten dyiu, Whitby. Difq. Mod. p.22« ♦vk(8' it c^iiC^ ^nvf/jccTi ei^ft Ufner, Coteler. But C io ] But, you fay, the Words, as they lie in Eufe- bius thuSi ^ auT^ cm clvtS (you. mean ^' S crw etvT^) 7vam good Scnfe-, it hein^^ improper to fay by the Son he Glory to the Father ^iwh the Son, Be ic jropevy or impropery you ought to cite Paflages of Authors, as you find Them : Be fides that very wife Men, An'tient and Modern, have judged the Expref- fion very proper : And it will be thought that the Compilers of our Communion Office^ v/ho Icrupled not to /ay by whom^ a^id 7Pith whom dec. underftood \^'hat £ood Senfe is, as well as the Modefl Enquirer. \\. A fecond Mtjqmtation "^ I charged t upon you %vas of a PalTage \x\ Athenagoras j^. You was pleafed to change 'Trgo^ aurj into 'jrgo$ c.yTii', for no Rea- ibn that I could fee, but to make a weak Infinuation againfl: the Divinity of God the Son. In your Reply (p. 13.) you fay; NoivThis^ I confcfs, iscafually done, hut (you mean and) withom defign. But thefe caftial Slips have an ill Appearance, cfpecially in fo noted a place as this of ylth-enagoras. You could not for* get that this very ^go^ aCrJ, in Aihenagoras^ is what we fet a particular note and value upon, as iliov/ing that the Antients did not al^\'!ys fay li cJoth only, in v^{^tdi of the Son*s Part, or 0?i\ct in the Work of Creation, but fometimes ^rgj^ ctirS? A Phra'e which n^ay exprefs the efficient Caufe, and is nr>t liable to the fame Exceptions as the Phraf,^ SC avrS. Now, to falfify a TeRimony of this kind-, tho^ caffially, betrays however great Negligence, or 0{c\t2incy. You obferve that ah eo tanqmim Excm* pUri, ferves as well your Turn, as ad epun tanquam Exemplar, That is, if we will allov/ you your Con- iiruftian. But you cannot make the former fo eafily? * Whitby. TiAf^u. Mod. p. 62» t Defers fe p. 406. ^ Slfo? sdirqv yuo^ (^ cjV 55yr« ^-'jto h/inro. Allien, f. 58^. Ox- [ 3n or fo probably, out of «:r^J$ air^j as the latter, out oi" nr^^ cLvTovi Befides that by changing ^g?^ ctuTB into rr^GS GLurlvy you took from us one Senfe of the Words which v/e might think it proper to infifl: up- on, namely. That of an ejpcient Cmfe. Vl^os aurS, if it may be confrrucd your way, may alio be con- flrued another way, and perhaps more naturally: And therefore we take it not w^ell to be deprived of any Advantage which the Text gives us. I mufl however obferve, that whatever your defign was from thefe Words, They will not aniVer your purpofe, even tho* v/e lliould admit your Conflruflion. For no Confequence can be drawn againfl: our Principles, from the Confideration of the Son's being the Exem^ flaYy after which all Things were madei unlefs you can imagine that He was an .Exempkr to Him- felf. Iir. The third Thing [ charged you with ^, was a MifconftriiEiion f of a celebrated Paifage in Methodius ^^ The Paffage I had produced in my Defenfit to prove the eternal Generation of the Son, as Bifhop Btdl alfo had done ^^. You exprefs*d your felf feme whan obfcurely in anfv/er to the Bifhop. Only this was plain from your Words, (Fmftra Prafule rcnitente) that you intended fomething oppofite to the Bifhop, and infinuated to your Reader that this Quotation of Methodius proved the very contrary to what the Bi- fhop alledged it for. Now the Bifhop had cited it in proof of the Confy^flantidifj, and Coeternity of the Son : To which purpofes it is indeed as full and clear as any can be delired. You are pleafed however, in your Ref.y (p. 15.; to objed as follows. *• Defenfe, p. 406. f Difqulfit. Mod. p. 7^, 76. rj: Method, apud ?hot. p, gSo. See my Defenfe. p. I41, ** Bui!. Dif, Fid. N/r, p- »<^4 aco, I. That C 3i ] 1. That to fay that the Son of God wm fre-exiflent before the Ages in the Heavens^ is to fay no more than all the Arians and Seminarians have ajferted, &c. But the Force of the Biftiop's Argument and Mine did not lie in the Words, ergo cLiayccv (rho' They are not without their Weight *, however the Ariam or Semi' arians might equivocate) but in thofe other Words o^ Method HS'i that the Son wast did not become-, a Son\ That He had no new Filiation*^ that He is always the lame\ and in Methodius s guarding againft the SUjOpofition of a Temporal Generation, by his explaining it of a Temporal Manifeftation only. Why do you overlook and conceal the main Points where- in our Argument confided, and make reply only to That which neither Bifhop Bull nor I Lid any ftrels upon? But it was prudent, it may be, to pais over what could not be anfwer*d. z. You objed to us fomc other Paffages of Me-- thoditis to confront ours with. He calls the Father yos ^^ this Senfe *. 3. You objecfi-, thirdly, the following /^r^i, (for I fee not the Se^fe) « Merhiodm.s adJs that thefe Words *' might h congrmnjly iippltcd to Han (i\\Q Son) in the . •' Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earrh ; *' andThofe 0/ Solomon, The Lord created Me the Be- " ginning of his ways. Now what can sn Engli[J:> Rea- der make of thefe two Paffages, as you have reprc- fented Them and tacked Them together? From the laft of them, 1 fuppofe. He is to underlland that the Son was created^ according to Methodius, But then, what will He make of the Text out of Gemjisf Is He to undcrftand that the Son was created v/ith the Heavens and the Earth, in the Beginning \ So one might think, and you are very indifferent, I perceive, whut your EnglifJj Reader may apprehend, provided you may but feem to have fomething to fay,- and fornething that may relied: Dishonour on the Son of God. As to the PalTage in Gcnejis, Adcthoditis interprets cV ip;\^>) (which we render w the Beginning) in the Priijciplei underflanding by Principle God the Son, in whom all Things were created, according to Sr» PatsU Coloff. 1. 17. Now Cmzt^ according to Alethoditts^ all Things whatever were created m the ijsyw, i* e, in God the Son, it is plain thac He exempts Him from the Number of Creatures, As to the other Text, out of Solomcns Proverbs, you have, v/ithouc any Ground or Warrant from Aiethodin:, rendered gx-TTCTE created-, inftead of appointed^ or conflitmed. The • meaning, probably is, according to Aiethodms, that the Father appointed or conjlituted^ God the Son as the * Vid. GregoF. Naz. Orat. 3^. p. <63. Damafcen. de Fid. I I. c I*, p. 42, C 34 1 kpyv ^^"'^ Frmcipmr}?-, FoHndathn, or ^ead over all Credtures, This kind of Confcruclion of that Place of the Proverbs, appears to have been known and received in the Church, (omeTime before Methodipis ; as is plain from Dwnjfim of Rome ^, his Comment upon the Text: which was afterwards countenanced by Eujchius t, and other Catholkk^ Writers i^. Athc nagoras, much earlier than any of them, mufl have undcrflood the Text nearly in the fame Senfe. For, after He had declared exprefly agaiiilf the Son's be- ing madct or created-, aflertin^ his ProccJJion from the Father to be a kind of Siihftramm, or Suffon for the World of Creatures to fubfifl in, receiving from thence their proper Forms, Order, and Perfedion 5 He immediately cites this Text out of the Proverbs^ as confirming his vSentirrcnts ^^. To return to Ah- thodiui : He barely cites the Text to prove that Chrift was frior to the Creation, and that all Creatures had their Subfiflence in Him. Fie is not fo particular in explaining the Senfe of ex'no'g, as Dionjjius of Romcy or Et^fehim : But it is more than probable that He underflood it much in the fame Senfe. Certain it is, that your ConRrudion of Flim is intirely un- warranted; and not only fo, but contradi(ftory to the Author's known Principles elfev/here. Upon the ^yo'/ocnv jpyoti;, y^vccn oi 6i aurou roii 'uoZ. Dionyf. Rdm. apud Athanaf. p. 1^2. •f "'Ap;^j€-iv Oi T oA«yv vtts x.vqa^ ^ uvr^ -zs-tAT^oq xcA^.Tiru Cfj(ji\(^' t5 s«7jff5v ivruvO' ccvTi rc6 r.UT%'m\iv, jj Ka,Ti'TY\3t. Tj'euil- Ambrof. tie. Fid. Orth. c. 2. p.349> •'" Vid, Aiheuag c, iQ, ;>. 3S, 39, 40. who C 35 ] whole, you have not been able to anfv/er BiHiop BhU's Citations out of AUthodmi, nor to nrike good your own Pretences againil A\'. Cdve had fiid, or meant, that many, or moft of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were againft tihe Divimiy and Eternity of Chrif};. That you really intended to' indnuate as much , is confefs'd in your Repl/y where you tell me (p,i6,) that the '/iatural imfort of the Words (Dr. Cave's Words) co^^ tarns a full Confutation of the vAok Deji^n of my Book-, 7j.hich is to prove that all the Ante-Nicene Fathers maintain d the Confuhfiantiality of the Son with the Fa* ther, and the eternal Generation of the Son, I have not mifiaken then as to the Matter of Fad, th^c you really did inflmiate what I had charged. you with. That you was to blame for fo doing? will eafily be made appear as plainly as the other. Two Things I before obferved, \^, That Dr. Cave's Words ought not, without a manifefl: mcejfity^' to have been interpreted to a Senfe diredly cppofitc to his well known and often declared Sentiments. 2. That there was no fuch manifcfi Neccfftj in the Cafe before us; but rather fome probable Grounds-, even from the Paffage it felf, for interpreting Dr. Cavc'i Words otherwife than you have done. Now as to Dr. Cave\ real Sentiments^ relating to the Faith ♦ Defejife of ^cries, p. 4O7. + Whitby. Di/qiiif. Med p. 97- 4: Cave, Hijior. Liter. Vol i . p. U 2. F 2. of C 36 ] of the jinte-Nkem Writers, I appeal to the Paflagef appearing m the Mm-gtn *. You may there fee that Dr. Cave looked upon the Eternity of the Son as part of the Chriftian Faith from the very Infancy of the Church'^ that it had been conflmtly taught by the Catholkk^ Fathers,- and that none but meer Strangers to Antiquity could make any Queftion of it : That the mofl effedual way to confute Aridm, Sec. is, * jStemltatem Filii, ejufque (ruvafef/,ov r^ oip^'p ro ilvccj (qvem-i admodiim noa inlcit.e loquitur Cvrillus Alexandrinus) concurrtn- tern cum patemo principio exijlentiam, conftanter dpcuilTe Ca^ho- Jicos PaMTs, Antiquitaris Ecclefiaftica;! rudis plane lit oportec qui nefcire porcftj ncc pluribus jam probare opus eft quod" cumulate praeftiterunt Alii. Hanc Ecclcfis F'dem ab ipiis Chri^ Jlianifmi Fnmordiis tradiram, 8c perpetuo confervatam, omni quo potuerunt nifu totifque viribus oppugnarunt Ariani. Cav. Dijf. 3. ad Calc. Hiji. Lit. p. 79. Liquet, non effe efricaciorem H&refes refutandi rationem, quam ii poft allcgaram SS. Scriptural Au6loritarem, Conflantem Sc Uni- verialem vctcrum Confenfum ad Partes noftras advocenuis. Expertus eft id Theodojius Impzrator An. 3835 quando Catho- licos Epifcopos cum Arsanis, Macedonianis, Eunomianisy coa<^a Synodo, confligere velleti Suadebat potius Neclario 8c Agellio, qui Ipfnm ccnfuiucrsnt, Sifmnms, ut interrogarent H^reticos iftos r>um admitrerent illos Doftores atque Interprctes Scripturarum, qui ante Ecclefix DifTidiura floruiflent, Cav. Ep, Apolog. p. 22. Vid. etiam p. i 7. Monebo tantum, in Patrum Scriptis Dogmata Philofophica a Tidei Ayticuiis probe e/Te diftinguenda. In His, S. Literis & Catholicae Tradirioni flrifiius fe alligant, £c in Rei Summa OMNEs conveniunt: in illis majori utuntur libertate, 8c opiniones faepius adhibent qux in Philofophorum Scholis venti- Jari folebanr; quin 8c in explicandis Fidei Myfteriis quandoquc voces e Schola Platonica peritas admovent, fed ad Chriftiannm ■fenfum accorrimcdatas. Ibid. p. 48. Profiteatur (7- Ciericus) Se cum Ecclefia Catholica agnofcere, Doum £& EfTentia unum, Perfonis trinum, nempc Unitatem in Trinitate, 8c Trinitarem in unitate fe Colere ac Venerarij cre- d Ep, Apolog. p. 107. after [ 37 ] after Scripture, to appeal to the ConjUnty Vmverfal Confent of the jinticmsi with more to the fame pur^ pofe. Is this the Man whom you quote on your Side \ I may add that his ^pologetical Epiflle runs much upon this Topic, to vindicate the primitive Fathers againft fuch Afperfions as You, among Others, are too apt to throw upon Them : And there needs nothing more to fliow that He was perfedly in my Sentiments, as to that particular, and diredly op- pofite to your*s. You may fay, perhaps, that Dr, Cave was inconfiftent with Himlelf; and at different Times, upon different Occafions, aflcrted repugnant Proportions. But, with Submiffion, I think it a Piece of [uftice due to every Author, efpecially One that has bore a Charader in the learned World, to fuppofe otherwife of Him, till it can be evident- ly made appear, that He has conrradided in one Place what He hsd laid down in Another. If there be any Room left for a favourable and candid Inter- pretation it ought to be admitted. I before cbferved to you, that there was no mamjefl Nec(jjltj of mter- preting that PalTage of Dr. Gzz/f, as you do. He recounted about feven Errors of LaEiamiasy referring to others unnamed : And in Thofcy He fays many of the Antieyits concurred with Him. By in Thofe, He might polTibly mean in fome^ or other of them^ not in every Jingle particular. To make it the more pro- bable that He really meant no more, I obferved that de Divmitate flood as a diflind: Article, and might be conflrued of the Deity, La^antitis held very ab~ furd Notions of the Deity, as ^reat Errors as any could be. Could Dr. Cave take notice of many fmaller Slips, and never allude to Thofe which were » the greateft of all.^ And yet you cannot pretend to fay that Many, or indeed Any of the primitive Fa- thers concurred with LMantius in thofe Errors con* cerning the Deity, From wl^ence I juilly concluded that C 38 ] that the wards /« fiilmsj were not to be fkiiddj underftood of all zx\d fingHlar the Errors noted. To this you reply tnat Laciantias fays of God> thst H^ is the Father of all Things, luhoje Beginning eann&t he comprehended: As if Tliis were all that Laclantius had faid. Does He not plainly aflTert thac God had a Beginnmgy and that He made Himfelf^l You oblcTve farther, that This is fully explained by Himlelf 1. 2. c. 8. where He fays> God only who is got made^ is from Himfelf^ as we fie7ued in the firft "B&ok: And what if He fpeaks right here ? Docs it fallow that He has not faid what He really has faid m another Place? Befides, i^ yon pleafe to admit the fame Candor of interpreting one place by ano- ther, I can ihow you alfo where He has fpoke very Orthodoxly of God the Sonf; and can as easily acquit Him of the Charge of Hsrejj with refpecTt to God the Son, as you can acquit Him o^ the like Charge in refpeS; of God the Father. In a word. His Errors and Contradi^ions m both Points are vifi- ble enough : And give me leave to think that Dr. Cave might fee Them; and might allude to one in the Article de Divinitate, and to the other in the words> de i&terna Filii exiftentia. For> farcly, otherwife He would not have put de and de^ but would rather |}3ve exprefs*d it as one Article thus ; de Divinitati afcfsic aierna exificntia Filiiy and then have proceeded with another de, to a new Article. Upon the whole* you Crin never make good your point from this Paf- isgQ of Dr. Cave, which is not only capable of a dif- ferent Con0:ru6^ion from your*S:> but moll naturally and Kioft probably requires it. * Verum quia fieri non potcft quin id" q^ofi fit, atiqnando fjfe x ''\ €£perit ; confequcns eft ut, quando nihil ante eum fuerit, Iple ante omnia ex ieipfo fit procreatus> . Deas ipfs fi fecit, JUadant. /. I. r*. 7. p. 92. f Vi4» La<5^anr. /. 4. c. 9. You t 39 ] You would infinuate (Replp p. 30.) from another P.iiTaf,'e of Dr. Cave, where He is ipcaking of OrigeK^ that Origens fftppo/ed Errors r<;!ating to the Trmity, were not, in Dr. Gzz^^'s Judo:ment, contrary to any y^rticlc of the Church, or ^pcftolical Traditions: which again is doing That good Man a fecond Injury, in- riead of making Satisfaction for the Firih Dv»Cave .docs not hy that his fappofcd Errors relating to the T'rmty were not contrary to any Article of the Church ^y but only that many of Origen\ cenfured Opmions were nor.* And what fort of Opinions Dr. Cave meant. He Hiii.feir tells us in the v.ry place referred to ^. Namely, huricate Cmftims that had been can-' *vafid only in the Schools of the Philofophers, and form Notions vf his own Invention thfiit ivcre minus commodge, not fo jufi or accurate as They fjoald he^ Now what is This to our prefcnt Purpofe/ See the Paffages of Dr. Carve before cited, fufHcicntly fhowing that He thought the DoQrine of the Trinity to be a fundamen- tal Article of the Church, and an Apoflolical Traditior.i But I am weary of attending you through fo many trifling Pretences. To conclude this Head : The jTioft that can be made out of Dr. Cave's Expref- fions here, or elfewhere, is no more than This, that fome of the Ante^Nicene Fathers, in fome Places of their Work^, exprefs*d themfelves fometimes vmpro* perly, uncautioHfjy ox it may be, now and then dan^ geroufly, in refpeft of the DoUrine of the Trinity , be- fore the meaning of Terms was adjuflcd, and iettled; and thofe Articles reduced to a more certain, and more accurate Form of Expreffion. In the Sum of the Matter, in the main Dotirine, the Ante-Nicene Fathers were agreed. This v/as T>x. Cave's real Judgment; as may be feen by his own Words before cited : And, I fuppofe, He may be allowed to be his own h'St Interpreter. He was not ciiVj in thofe Senti- * Hiftor. Lirer, Vol. i. p- 77. ments* t 40 ] ments, but z^ealoas for Them, being a true Lover and Admirer of the primitive Fathers. How would the good Man have been filled With Indignation to have found His Name, and His Authority made ufe of, to fuch purpofes as you have done ! But enough -- V. I ch.irged * you farther, as reporting hlklVt that the Titles of t5 'TrcLVTos Troiyiryis, and r oAccv i^f^iiipyo^ ('That is. Creator^ or Framer of the Uni- verfe^ were fuch as the Writers of xh^ fecond Century always diftinguifh'd the Father from the Son by. I was indeed fo tender in this Point, as not abfolutely to charge this Falfchood upon you : But I obferved that either This nuifi: have been your Meaning, or elfe you had made a very trifling Obfervation. Thofe Words of your's on which I grounded my Remark, I Inve now thrown into the Margin f, for every Latin Reader to judge of. You defend your felf (Reply, p. 16,) with thefe Words : The Words of Athcnagoras there cited are thefcy One unbegotten and eternal Maker of all Things. By which Epithets, ^c, JVo7i' of thcfi Epithets thus joi^iedj my Words are cer- tainlj true ; nor had the Do dor any right to feparate what I had thus joined* One can hardly forbear fmiling at This invented Anfwer. If what you noW pretend was really your Meaning, How came you to fay Epithets, in the Plural, rather than Epithet in the Singular? Why did you didinguiili the feveral Epithets with Comma's? .Again, why 6^'A you take * Defenfe cf ^leries, p. 409. ' •{ Ex quibus omnibus, ex Athe?7agorA Sentcntia, DeuiH illunl wnum Quern Chriftiani praedicabanr, non alium fuifle quam Deum jngenitum, ceternum> roo Truvroc, TnniTviv, t 'oXm J^jM/t^jsyo/, ommum Qpifcem^ liquet Quibus Epithctis iilius Sarculi Scripro- ves Deum Patrcm a Filio femper diftingucbanr, Deumquc Fi- lium ab Hoc omnium Opifice ex eo diftingui docuerunt, quod fit Ille per ^iem,. aut cujus Miniilerio Pater fecit oiunia^ Whitb)' Difqu. Modefi. p. 6q. fwcll C 41 ] fuch particular notice of fer Qaem^ By T^tsom^ wliicll you fay was attributed to the Son, to diftinguiili Him from Him that wa3 omnitim Upijex, Aiai^r of ail Things. Does not your Senfe iiere, and your Senfe in what went before (as I have rcprefented u) an- fwer to each other, like Two Tallies, exadly ? I defy any Man that reads your Words in the Latin^ to underftand you other wi'e. But if you will "needs have it that you intended only to fay that the Epithet of om unhegotten An^ eternal Adaker of ail Things, was peculiar to the Father, in the feccnd Cen- tfirjy you fliall have the Honour of making a llirowd Oi^fervation, when you tell me, in what Century dov/nwards to this djy> That Epithet has nor been pecfiliar to the Father as much as Then. I before kft you the Alternative, either of being found trifling in a peculiar manner, or making 2 jalfe Report; and fo I do ftill. One might think by w^hat follows in your Reply to this Article, that you had a mind to own the Report, and to vindicate it from the Charge of Falfhood. You fay, Jptfiin Adartyr made a difference between the -word 7JDi>|T>i5 ^^<^ it)i^ t rrivTU^, Afaker of all Things, according to IrenAHs, over and over, in as full and ftronc words as the Father Himfclf can be : So that your Remark, as to the Writers of the fecond Century, has no Truth in it. What you obferve of Jp^flin, is not "^ s^A -fy-y Defenfe, jd. 189. G Hriaiy [ 40 flric^ly true. He tells us "^ indeed; that Plato made a difference between vrdiyiTy^Sy and hf-uapyU-i under- ftanding by the former one that makes a thing from nothing, and by the latter one th^t jramej any thing put oCpre-exiftent Matter. Juftin takes notice of this, in order to lliow that PUto^s inferior Gods muft be corrtiptibfe^ upon Plato's own Principles : For the great God is ftiled by Plato, net 7n3J>iT>i?5 but hfjua^py^i of the other Gods, Confequently They were reade of Matter, which is corruptible, ^r\d therefore are corrfiptihle I'hemfelves. What is this to the purpofe we are upon? Or how docs it appear that Jtifim himfelf always obferved Plato's Diftindion? Befides that if He did, it is certain that Jtifim Martjr fuppofes God the Son to be -TTCivjTTi?, ox Maker o£ Man whom He calls the ^TniVfjiicty Creature of Chrift f. And there is no rea- Ibn to doubt, but that He fuppofed Him to be as truly -^TTiMTk, -4/^%?" of all other Things, according to the conflant Doctrine of the Church in that very Century, as appears from Irentgus^ Clemens of Alexan" dria^ and Others. You go on, in purfuance of your firfl Miftake, to obfervc that JVi^wpyo^ yeing of an inferior ^enfe to that of '^r>iTk T oAa?v, '> ^^ ^^ wonder that the fathers fometimes give it to the Son under one of thefe Jjtjhntlionsy where they fay with Origcn the Father is ^^cii^^ hjui^pyo^, the firfl or chief Worker,^ the Son is fo in afeccndary Senfe. This is writing juH: as if you had never fcen the Fathers. I repeat it, that Jrenms^wt^ Both thofe Titles indiifercntly to God the Son, as do other Fathers after Him; vv^hich you might have feen in my Defenfe ('p. i 89O Yet you are loth to admit even fo much as h\u\\ipyc'; to have been * jufi:. Mart. P.irxn. p« pT. Ox. CJ. t Jull. Mart. Dial. P. 187. Jeb, applied C 43 ] applied to the Son, except with a DiHindion; t^uotiug^ I would fay, m'tfqmtmg Origin to countenance your Pretences. \^ you pleafe to look again into Ortgen ^, the Word is tt^^ttjjS not ^^JrcSi ^^gnifying not that the Father is the Firji JVorker, as if there were T7i>o Workers, but that He is /?r//?;^2r//y Creator. And, what ruines all your ^int airy Speculations at once, Origerii in that very place, afl'erts the Son ^rotviflrocf (not S^ifjuspy^iii ) rh yji^/iiovi to A:Iakey not fr^me only, the World : which is as much as if He had called Him t5 x.ccr/xai or rf/ o\a)v 7rD^y^ry\s. You quote Etifchm as ililing the Father a,7rxvmif hpiiiipyoSi the Son aiTio; hun^o^. You fhould have remember'd that the fame Eufehius flilcs the Son jujyas T oAccv SS^/xiiipyog. f Had This been ap- plied to the Faihcr infiead of the Sq-^, what Specu-^ htions might we not have expected upon the Force of fjLiyaL?,iht Great Creator? You ior^^^l alio that EufebiHs fcruples not to ufe the Title of ttcij^tJis r i'Aojy, Makir of all Things, fpeaking of the t^on \ as 1 obferved in my Defenfe t- This is diredly againfl you : And if there be fome F^xpreffions in EujeblHS which We neither approve nor vindicate ,• fo there are many others that You cannot approve, or make confident with your Principles : Qiiotations therefore from Eufehr^s will f]gnify htflc on either Side. What you produce {Reply p. \%.) out of Alethodius has been lolidly anfwerM by Bifhop BhU^^,- You next cite Tailing as a true Difciple of '^u{[\n Kjartyr, faying, that Matter is produced r^i^zsi t5 'xi.imy i^fJA^py'ii from the Ma'^r of all Thinjy but ♦Origen. Contr. Celf. p. ;I7. f Eufeb. Eccl. H I. i o- c. 4- p- B^^- 4^ Defenfe of Queries, p. 189. ♦* Bull. Dif. Fid. Nic. p. 1 6f. G z the C 44 ] the Son 7vas letDTof tyiv v?dio S^ijuuspyyia-a^j Worker of this Matter. But fnre the Difciple was flrangely forgetful of his yl/^/n-'s Diftindion bctv/ecn <7to\,y\rM and hfJiiBpyU ' Otherwife, when He was talking of God*s producing Matter, He fhould have ftiled Him '7roi>iry\$, not J\f^i»pyo$, And you are as forgetful of what you had faid but the Page before: Other- wife you fhould have made the Father no more than Worker of the Matter, as v/ell as the Son ; becaufe of the word hfimpyh. See hov/ ftrangely you are bcwildred in your Obfervations, confuting and con- tradi^ling your fclf. Nothing fucceeds with you ; and I will venture to predict that nothing will, fo long as you are efpoufing the Caufe of Herejy^ in Oppofition to the Faith of the Catholkk,Ch\irc\\. VT. I charged you, fixthly, with three Mifrepre- fentations together: OnQ relating to Bajil^ the other Two to yithmajim ^. Bfifii you reprefented as de- claring ag.^.inft Unity of Ejleme, where He intended nothing but againfl: Unity of Perfon, To which you make anfwer {p, 21.) that you dived not into BaGl's htentiom^ hut cited hi% Words fairly^ viz. that the Sabellian Doclrine was corrc^ed hj the ivord Confab- flamiaU A ^x^ixy way This, to cite Authors without confjdering whether They intended any thing to the purpofe They are cited for, or no. You cited t BafiU to prove that two Things Confuhflantial make tji^a EJfences ; wheresiS Bafil meant no more than that They make two Perfons, This you call fairly citing his Words, You mean, I fuppofe, that you fairly tranfcribed his Words, at the fame Time very mf airly perverting his Senfe. As to Athanajiusy I obferved that you undcrfloo4 ^ 5ee my Defenfe, p. 409. •f pifquijfit^ Mod^ p.' 32, Prsef, what [ 4? ] what He had faid againft the ofjioiHam, as if it had been faid againft the ofxosciovy betwixt which Two, that accurate Father always carefully diflinguilli'd. To this you reply, that you cited jithanafms to confirm this Propofition, that They who fay the Ejfcnce of the Son is like, or ec^uaU to that of the Father, do by that afcrihe to Him another numerical Effence from That of the Father, I perceive, you do not yet undcrRand a Syllable of what jithanafim was fpeaking about. See his meaning explain'd in my Defenfe, pag. 409. Athanafius is fo far from fuppofing like^ and equal 10 be equivalent, or even confiftent, that He denies That Effence to be eqnaly which is only likei and He is not obferving that either an equal, or a Hk^ Effence muft be another numerical Effence, but that an Ef- fence which is only lik^ to divine, mud be an ;«- ferior Effence. It is very ftrange, that after a Key- had been given you to that Paffage in Athanafats, yoir Ihould ft ill go on, as before, to confound your Self, and your Readers. As to the other Mifiepre^ fentation of Athanaftus, whom you fuppofe an AfTer- tor of numerical Identity (which is making Him a Sahellian, according to your Senfe of Numerical') as to this Charge upon you, you are plcafed to fay- never a Word. That therefore ftands as it did. VI I. In the next place, I blamed you for repre- fenting Barnabas^ Epiflle, ci vo^-oi^, interpreting it Spurious, tho* That be not the Senfe of \^ vg^cis as it lies in Eufebius. To This you make anfwer (p, 10.) that you neither there, nor elfewhere interpret thofe Words at all. This is another Inftance wherein you appear to be more unkind to your {t\^, than I had been to you. You declare, page \^th of your Difqiiifitions, that Barnabas "^ Epiftle was by the ,4«. tienis held for Spurious, This falfe Affertion ap- peared to have fome Colour t^ fuppofing that you in- terpret C 4^ terpret h voBoi$ in Eufehms, to mean Spur ions: But without That, you have made a wifreport of the ^ntknts^ and have no Pretence at all for it. Show iTie what AntientS', or where They reckon'd Bama-^ bas's TL\>\{[k SpurioHS *. li you chufe rather to have it thought that you have told us an Untruth with« out any Colonr for it, than with any, be it fo: I was willing to put the mo/1 candid Conftrudion up- on the Thing j and I fhall do fo flill, if you will ^fve me leave. For, I obferve that arter you had hid t that Eufehim- ranked this Epi/lle cyy vL^oi$, you immediately fubjoin thefe Words , Cotele- jrius conf'ffes that He inclmes to the Opinion of Thofe who ihink^ it is not the Apoftlt's. Now, this is fo very like Commenting on the Phrafe, ci \o)QiS'i jull: going before, that hardly one Reader in a Hundred could ever fufpecfl: that you' underflood hy Oil )io^oii ^ any thing elfe but Spfirims ; that ky falfly afcrib'd to Barnabas, In a word, It feems to me very much the fame thing, whether you interpret a Pad-jge thus, or whether you lead )our Reader into fuch Interpretation: The Reader is equal- ly deceived either way. However, if you infift up- on it, that you neither /interpreted the Words at all, nor intended to lead your Reader into any fuch /«- icrpretathny I acquitfej provided only that you give us any tolerable Account of your faying that th'S Epi/lle was look'd upon as Spttrims by the Antients. VIII. The next Thing which I found fault * Ccrte quicq'jid de hac Epiftola dicant recentiores Critici, cam BarnahA noftro conftantcr afcribunt 'veteref. Nemo eerte fuity ir»t]':ir 9 t-^/w Ceftricnfis nofler, cjui hanc Epijlolam Barnabn? non trihnerttj neque in ea cjuidqus^m £ipparet, cuod earn Atdtem nm ferat. Cav. Hiftor. Litciar. Vol. 1. p. 11. -f Difqu. Mod. p. 9. with C 47 ] with *, v/as your partial Account of the antient Doxologics r. To This, you reply (p. 19.^ that you freely ml^owledge your A<:coHnt of the frhmttvi Voxo- iogies to b€ iwperfe'ciy as -wanting the Doxoloi^ies of St. Paul a?td St, Jude, nfhich are the befi Rnle and Standard of Dcxologies, What? better than %x, Johns, or St, Peter's i iiut This it is to aim at Wit. You may pleafe to remember that we were not talking of the Scripture- Doxohgicsy but of thofe which are to be met with in the Writini^s of the Fathers. You had told us in your Bifquifitiom a notorious Untruth, that the Fathers of the firfl: and fecond Century never ufed th^t Form of Doxologj^ which has been erpecially called Catholick^'y but that the ^rian Form had ob- tained among the early Fathers. This faljo Account, I foftly called a partial Account ; to be as tender oF you as polTible. It is well known that ^em, or cw in Doxologiesy is the fame as if the particle y(^ be ufed to connect the Perfons: And all fuch Forms come under the Name of Cathoiich^ as oppofed to fuch Forms as have only ^^1, or oV: Becaufe, tho' Either of thofe Forms may indifferently be ufed, and have been wkd by Catholicks boih in former and latter Times: Yet after the ^riar^s had perverted One to an ill Senfe, the Catholicks chofe for the moil part, to mGke ufe of the Other. Now of thofe called Ca* tholick^ Form?, I referred to 'Polycarp^ ^^ the Church of Srnyrnas ^^, and Clemens^ of ^kxandria ft, all * Df/cw/^ of ^ieries. p. 410. ^ ^ f Difqu. Mod. p, 23. + MjS-' cv^irsi iCj 7:vi6fx>cfTi clyi^ is ^'olu. gfc. Polycarp. Smyrn, ^ ©•!3? y'ricp;^*;)', p, 187. €)jo5 H-ccXiTrc^, Kcci €>io<; ikj- <^v iivct^, p. 367. 7 Juil. M. Dial. p. 364. 366. 371. 37'*J' Apol. r. p. 123. ^ juft, M Dial. p. 178. 779. C^3j Juft. Dial. p. 179. goes ' ' C 5-4 ] :goes on to prove thi^ from the Abfurdity of fuppofing that God the Father llioukj appear in that manner ;; upon which Trypho is ronvincM that He that appea/d to Abraham, and was called God nnd Lord, anu was God, was n6t the Maker of alLTh:?7gs ; not God the Father, but Another, who was alfo an AngeL Then Juftm proceeds to give farther Proot, that acne ap- peared to Mofes in the Biifn bat He only, who is called an Ar^^eU and is really God, namely ChriO: the Son of God. To thefe Tcftin^onies I fnall fub- join- one moi'e out of J aft ins firfl: Apology, which in Englifl:! runs thus. '« Now what was faid to Mo- " j^^, out of the Buili, I an:) x\\q I am, the God ^* of Abraham^ and the God of Ifaac, and the God «ic of Jacok and the God of thy Fathers, denotes that ^' They, tho* dead, are ftill in being, and are Me:'! '^' of Chrift Himfelf^. In this PafTage, Chrifi is plain- ly afFerced to be the o iou the / am^ or God of the yswsy God of Abraham^ }faac<, and Jacoh. By iouF exprefsTeftimonies oue o^'Juflirh this momentous Point is eflablilh'd,*- And the whole Tenour of this Father'^s Writings' confirms \t. The Sum then of Jriftiri's Dodrine is This. That there is no other God befides the God of the Je7Ps^ the God of Abra* kamy IfaaCy and Jacob: That God the Father is God of the JeiPh God of Abrnhamy &c. That there h Another beiides the Father, who is alfo God oi the yeojjs^ God of ylbrahamy &c. and this Other h the Logo!^, or Chrifly the proper and onl) Son of the Father^ undivided znd infeparable from Him, tho* Begotterj of Him* The Conchifion from all is, that Chriji h -cJSy^^zrZr). Juft. Dial' p. 180. * To c) ii^ijit/jsvov cV- ^cery T'J M&fiTsT, iyar sif^i &» » ®i6q "A^eeoxf/i, y^ ©S05 'la-xoiKt kva ©ic<^ 'ia.y^'o, x-Ui e ©5c»s T ^wts- ■9s%- y^C^i^i kv^iOiTTiS'.t lull. AdoL 5. p. i 2'3. Qsu ' ' ' ' God [ 5-n God, and yet not j^mther God from the Father, hvd &AA05 rl?, another Perfe^ only '^. This is 7///;>/5 true, genuine, certain Doftrine, which bem^ ^thus proved and fix'd ; all your Prttences to the contrary dropf at once. However, that I may not fceirj to i^egled: any thing you have to fay, I iliall briefly examine your Objedions, one by one. I. One is, that Jftfim oitQii fpeaks of GgJ^ gireoj iZ2t^^ Tov "TtQi-^rhJu TVf oAcey. Another God hejtdcs the Maker of all Things. But I have fhown from Jafiins own Interpretation, ('befides that in flrid Pro- priety, the Words require no more ) that the meaning is only this, that there is olA\o$ ti^, dm- thd' who is God: beiides Him whom both Sides ac- knowledged under the Title of Maker of all ThinTS ; that is, befides Him whom Chriflians call the Father. Jtifi'm then mecint only that there is another Ferfon befides the Father, who is alfo Cod. To this you except t, that the word Perfon or Hypeflajis was not known to Jpifli>2, And what if He ufes not the Word^ might He not without the Word, aflerc the Thing\ A\Aq$ Ti^ really fignifies, and is rii^ht- ly rendered a>iothcT Ferfiru But you except farther, that Jfiftin does not only fay eTgg®-^ another, but kix^ix^ er€§5 J) another in Number ; and how can Fa- ther and Son be nmr.ericallj the fame God, if they be numerically differing^ To which I anfwer that They are different Perfons, nunjericallj different: And that this was really Jfifiins Senfe, i^ manifeft from his bppofing the Word, a^iifji^ 't^^ovy amiher Thing in f Number to that which hoixci-n fjLom oLCi^f^iWu^ *5n\y diffeis mtninalljy not really t. He did not in- * See my Sermons, p. 299, 3 CO. t Difqiiif. Mod. p. 29. t VU. Juftin. Diil 0-37?, [ f6 3 tend to fay that Father and Son were npo Gods, hut only that They were more than fwo Names of the fame Thing,- as fome Hereticks taught, before SabelliHSo In this Senfe, none of the Pofl-Nicene Writers ever deny'd that the Son is ctgifi^oj eTf§o?) or grggoy -n, Another i or another Things really diftind: from the Fa- ther ^. The fame Way of (peaking you will find in the Church, as low as Damafcen f. But you fay, (Mod, D'lfqmf, p. 2p. ) that the Poji-Nicene Fathers guarded their Expre (lions by the Word Hypojiafisi which Juflin does nor. And what if the Difputes which happened after Juftin^ Time, made it necef- fary to guard (uch ExprelTions as having been ufed formerly without OfFenfe, came at length to be perverted to an ill Meaning? There is- nothing ftrange in This. \l is well obferved by the judicious and learned Dpi-Phy (peaking indeed of Theogmjlus^ but the Remark is applicable to others of the Amiemsy who may claim the like Favour of Interpretation. '' Photius-i fays He, has wrongfully accufed Theog- ^' noftm to have erred- concerning the Divinity of the '^ Son, upon the Score of a few ExprefTions that " did not agree with Thofe of his own Age ; with- <' out taking notice that tho' the Antients have fpo- «' ken diiFerently as to this Point, yet the Founda- '■^ tioD of the DoClrine was always the fame; and " that \t is an horrid Injuflice to require Them to *' fpesk as nicely, and with as much Precaution aj " Thofe that lived after the Birth and Condemnation «' of I-Ierefes, In a word, tho' y^ftin has not ufed the like Guards with the Poft-Nicme Writers, (ince He had not the like OccaGons; Yet His Senfe^ * Bafil. Ep. 300. p. I070. Athan. Orat. 4. p. 619. Contro Sabell. p. 41. Cyril, Alex. Thcfaur. p. 60. IIO. Ambr. ds Fid. \. 3. c. i;-. Greg. NylT. Cat. Orat. cap. I. f Vid, Damafcen. 1. i. c. o. lib. 3. c. ^* -^ith- [ 57 ] tvicho'Ut any fucH Guards, is plain enough tojny Man that duly weighs and confiders it. 2. You pretend from Juftin (Difqn, Aiod. p. 33.) that Chrift is not Maker of all Things, But this you can never prove out of Juftm: For, all that Juftm meant, by diftinguifhing Chriil from the Maker of all Things^ was only This, that. Chrift is not that Perfbn, ordinarily and eminently ftiled Maker of all Things'^ that is, He is not the /'^//7fr Himfelf, as feme Hereticks pretended, and as the Jews in efFe(fl taught, by applying thefe Texts to God the Father, which Jfiftin interprets of God the Son. 3. You objedt that Chrift does nothing of his own Power, This is no where faid by Jitfi'm of Chrift, confidered in his higheft Capacity. JufiiH indeed admits that both the Power and Subftance of the Son is derived from the Father. But This is a different thing from faying that Chrift did nothing by his own Power, The Father's Power is his Power, Chrift*s own Power. 4. You objed (Difqpt, Mod, p. 30. 33.) That Chrift is no more than the Chief Power (^ 7rga)T>) ^uvaini^^ after the Chief God, ^ rlv 'TCPOdT^v ©eoy. But y^jlin no v/here puts thofe Words together as you have done. He does indeed fay, that the Son is the principal Power after ('that is next in order to) the Father of all Things^', which is no more than to fay, that He is the next Perfon to the Father, as all allow. What Inference can you draw from thence againft our Principles? As to the Words ^^r%* 060^, Chief God y it is Plato's Expreftion, and, as fuch, f cited by Jtijiin, / 5. You objed: that Chrift hath all that He hath from the Father, This is true, and acknowledged hy * Juft. Mart. Apol. i. p. 65. ^- fuft. Apoli I* p, 114. 1 alJ [ y8 ] all Cathoiicks, before and after the Nicene-Comaly from Jujliyi *■ down to Damafcen f. <5. You objed that, according to Juftin (^Difqu, p. 2 3 . j Chr)li could mt be faved hut hj the Help of God, This is Ipoke of Chr'tfl^ in refpeft of his Humanity ; and brought in among the Proofs o^ Chrtfi\ being a Alan \, And it was fuitable to Chrift's humble State on Earth, for an Example and LeiTon to other Men, to x^^tY all to God. n. You objecl: that Chrifl is mamfejily dtftmgui(lj>*d from the God of Abraham. But this is manifeftly /alfe, in your Senfe of it. Chrifl: is plainly God of, ^braham-i according to JuJIin ; as hath been before ihown. You may fay, if you pleafe, that the Fa-^ thcr is dijflinguiili'd from the God of Abraham 'y which is frue, as He is diflinguifh'd from the Son^ who is God of AWaham: In like manner, I prefum.c, we may allow that the Son is diflinguilli'd from the God of AhrAhawy and leave you to make your utmofl Advantage of it. You obferve, that when the Son is djRinguifnM from the God of Abraham^, there is added, bejldes whom there is no other God. From thence you may learn, that tho* the Son be God of Abra.*, ham-, as well as the Fatkry y^t there are. rot two Gods of Abraham : The Son is not another God of Abraham^ but another Perfon only, 8. You objcfl: farther {Difcju, Mod, p. 27. 35.) that Ch rill: wculd mt fufer Himfelf to be calkd Goody but remitted that Title to the Father only ^*. You fliould hwe added, as Jt4flm does in the fame place, that Chrift was a lVor??h a^td m A4an^ the Scorn of Dill. p. 574. ainr T5 Hvcci. Da male, de Fid. Ortli. lib. i. c. lOo i V:d. jufl. Mart. Dial. p. 298. Cotnp, 303. *'' Julh Mart. Dial. p. 298. Men? lS9l Men, and the out-cafl of the People : and then the Rea- der would have lecn plainly what Ji4ftm was talk- ing about, 5). You objed that Chrift is not called God by Ju- flin, on account of his having the Father s FJJcnct com- municated to Him^ hut bccaufe of his bein^ begotten of Him before the Creation : That is, ^^ftin has not faid it in TermS) the' He has in Senfe, To be the proper Son of the Father, and to be begotten of Him \nfe» parablj^ and without Divijwny (which is Jftftins Do. drine) is the f^me Thing as to hwe the Nature or EJfence of the Father communicated to Him. This is clear from Juftins Similitudes and Illuftrations '^. For, T fuppofe, one Fire lighted of another, is of the fame Nature with that other: And thus it is, that the Nicene Fathers fuppofed the Son to be, as ic were, Li^t of Light -, intending thereby to fignify his Confuhflantiality, 10. B'Ut you objeif?-, that the Son (according to Jujiin) is God by the IVtll of the Father, This might be underftood in a good Senfe, had it been aOeited by Juftin. But the Paffjge which you build tliis upon, does not fay fo m.uch; as fliall be Hiown in another Place, and as I have before obf-^rved in my Defenfe. p. 151. 11. ButC/?^i^, you fay, is fubfervient to the Will of the Father. And what if it plcafed the fecond Perfon of the Bl.fRd Trinity to tranfad all Matters between God the Father and Mankind : Be thankful for it, and make not your felfa Judge of the divine^ and myfterious Difpenfafions. I obfcrved in rr.y Jpefcnfe^ (p. 289.J tliat one Perfon may be Delegate Ito another, wirh'^ur bcin^ of an inferior NitHre: Otherwife one M:in could not be Delegate to another. This thin Piece of Sophiflry^ you undertake to anfwer * Vid. Jufl. Dial. p. 183. ^75. 1 i (R^flj. [ 6o 3 (Reply, p'75.j in thefe Words. Of^e Jldan may h Pelegate to another i becaufe He is another Jndividuum of the fame Species^ hut different in his f articular Lfjence jrom Him ; But dares the Do5ior fay the jecond or third Perfon thus differs from the firfl\ To which I re- ply, that, from your own Conftflion, it is nani- i^^ that meerly from Delegation no Argunricnt can be drawn to Inferiority of Nature \ which was the Point I was upon, and which is fufficiently proved by that Inftance. As to the Perfons difiFering from each other, as one Man differs from another, I readily deny any fuch Difference among the divine, Perfons : And I leave you to prove at leifure, that all Delegation requires it. When you can do That? I lliall fubmit to the Charge of Sofhiflry : In the inean time, pletife to fuffer it to lie at your own Door. Having thus confider'd all, or however your moft confiderable Pretences from Jujlin Martyr, and fliown them to be weak and frivolous ; I hope I may have leave once more to fay, that your Account of this father is one continued Mifreprefentation, You have, under this Article, took a great deal of pains to weaken the Force of an Argument which I had ufed in my Defenfe, Query id, p. 28, c^^c. It would break my Method too much here, to attend you in it; to fhow how you have Mt my main Arguments and Tefti monies untouched, and have done little more than endeavoured to confront them with other Tefti- inonies; which, notwithftanding, when rightly under^ flood, are nothing at all to the purpofc. if the Reader pieafes but to con(ider and compare what I have faid< in my Defenfe; I am not apprehenfive that your Pre- tences can have much weight with Him. Hov/ever, if a proper Occafion offers, and if need be, or if I have |pot fufficiently obviated them already, I may per- [)S fake fome fjarther notice of them, either in a f€Con4 [ 6i ] ficond Part to This, or elfewhere, whenever my Adver- faries fhall favour me with a large and particular Ex- amination of the whole Piece. I fhall now proceed, in my Method, to another Article of the Charge. X. The tenth Thing which I charged you with (Defe^fe-, p. 41 1 . ) was, that in your DifqHifitto}2s (p.6i.) you took occafion from the Latw Verfion to nnifre- prefent ^thenagoras, infinuating from it that the Son is not like the Father. Here you are fo ingenuous, as to plead Guilty, and to give me leave to Triumph ; (Reply y p. 14.^ but with this Sting in it, that it is the only Argument I attempted to aKjwer, But whether That be fo or no, our Readers, I fuppofe, may be the propereft Judges ; to whom I leave it and proceed. XI. I charged you farther (Defejife^ p. 411.J with another Mifconflrudion of a PafTage in Jithenagoras^ a very famous one, and of Singular uk in this Con- troverfy. You appeared to Me to conftrue the Words 'i»? ec''.'^io<; tovy flx,i''i eC'JTvc, iv luMZm 7vr Aoyoi/ ot^ici)^ Acya^^ uf, Athenag. c, 10. p. 3S. «« out [ ^t J *« ©ut of the Father; but becaufe the Fnthcr being « Himfelf an eternal Mind had from Eternity Aoipv, ^' Reajoftj in Himfelfj iVjtfitJ^ Xoyixo^ cevy beifjg eter' «« W/j' rational "*-, The Reader muft here obferve that as you intermix Greeks v/ith your Sentences fix Times> in the fame manner, fo in five of them, the Words immediately following the Greel^ are plainly intended as the Conflrrudion, or Interpretation of it. I h^d therefore good Reafon, from parity of Circum- flance?, to tike the Words immediately following thofe Gr^^.^ Words ^^ a-^ ytvof^^vy as your Con- llruftion , or Interpretation of Them : efpecially lince you begin with the negative Particle, juft as the Greeks docs. You feem to be fo fenfible of This your felfj that when in your Reply ('p. i^,) you come to ^ive your £W/y7;i Reader a different Turn of the PafTage, you are forced to leave the Cr^^^ Words iX ^^ ycvojiBpo^ quite out : For had They appear- ed here in your Repljy as They do in your Difqtii- pions-, the Reader would have feen at once that my Ccnfure was jufl. But let us, for Argument fake, admit your Plea, that you did not intend thofe Words following Athenagoras\ Greeks as an Interpretation of it; do you confider how unaccountable a Part you have a6lcd in citing the Woids at all? They are Words which we greatly Value, and lay a Strefs up- on, as being of irrefiflible Force ag^infl: the Jirians, Ought you nor, Vvdiile you were pleading the Caufc of ^rfaK{i% from this very PnfTage, to have attempted fome Soiurion of the Difficulty arifing from thofe Words, which fo plainly flare you in the Face.** SaptJius, snd GUbert Gierke thought thcmfelves obliged to fay fomediing, however v/eak and unfatisfaftory ; which was better than to attempt nothing ar all. Bur what do you, \f we are to take your o\yn laft * Wnitbj. Difqfiijtu Mo J, p. 62.', Thoughts [63 J Thoughts upon it ^ You could not but know that thefe V\iprds, in their obvious neural meaning, arc direfrly repugnant to the Conclufion which you are aiming at j you fee the very Words, you tianfcribe them, and leave them as you find them, without any Lntcfpretation, or Soluricn. Now, what is Fhis but to ihow that you was aware of the Objection, and was not abJe to anfwer it, nor (o much as wili;^^> ^o endeavour it; and yet reiolurely perfill, even ag. lufl: Convidion, to wreft and force the PafTage to ycur own Meaning ? I am perfwaded you might mcie prudently have fubmitted to the firft Charge, than have took this way^ of getting rid of it. But it is frequent with you, for. want of conhdering, to dou- ble the Fault which you hoped to excufe; and for the avoiding of one Difficulty, to run your feJf into more and greater. To conclude this Article, if you intended sn In- terpretation of Athenagort^s's Words, as f conceive you did, then you have, in the whole, mifreprefented the Author, but with fomething of Colour for it : if you did not, i^iW you have, in the whole, mifre- prefenred Him, and without any Colour for it. Ei- ther way, you have dealt unfairly with Athena* goras^ and have endeavoured to im.pofe upon your Readers. ♦ Xil. The next Thing I laid ro your Charge ^, was a ridiculous Reprefentation f of TertHlUan; as if T^r- tallian believed two Angels to be as much oncy as God the Father and God the Son are. To this you reply (p.ii.) that you fay mth'mg of 'ivhat Tertul- Jin believed: but only from thefe Words (\\\Q Son of od is called God from the Unity of Subdance, . jr God is a Spirit) you //;;>;4 it evident that Tcr- tullian conclude i hence the Vnity of the Father, a?id the * Defenfe, p. 411. t Difqu. Mod. p. i»8. [64] Sony that They are Both Spirits; which tji^ci Angels^ a?id two Demons aifo are. Is there then nr- ttiUiayj, in that very Paragraph, within a Line or two of the Words which you ground your Remark up- on, refolves the Unity of Father and Son into This, that They are de Spirits Spiritus^ de Deo Deus-i de Lum'me Lumen ; Spirit of Spirit, God of Gody Light of Light, Can This be faid of two Angels^ or two De- monsy that They are Light of Light ^^ or Spirit of Spirit I Have They any fuch Relation to, or intimate Con- junc^^ion with, each other, as is here plainly fignified of Father and Son? Well then ; What is the Refulti* You have miiunderflood 7>r//i'////?», or rather per- verted his Meaning. He does not fay that Father sncl Son are One, becaufe They are Both Spirits -^ any more than He fays they are One, becaufe They are Both Gods: nor would it be fufficient for one to be Spirit, and the other to be Spirit, or one to be 6W, and the other God, unlefs one were alio of the other, fnfeparabiy united to Him, and included in Him. Tertnllian indeed obferves that God the Father is Spirit, as He had before obferved of God the Son : * Et nos etlam Sermonh atque Rationi^ itemque Vlrtutt per quDE omnia molitum Deuni ediximus, propriam Subftantiam Spi" fitum infcribimus, cui 8c Sermo infit prsenuntianti, & Ratio ad- fie difponenti, 8c Virtus prsefit pcrficienti. , FIurc cx Deo prol Facum diJicimtis, 8c prolatiop.e gcneratum, 8c idcirco Filium Dek 8c Dcum didium ex unitate Subftantise. Nam 8c Deus Spirirus:S ^ cum radius ex fole porrigitur, portio ex fumma* led Sot 6rit in radio, quia Solis eft radius, nee fcparatur Subftantia itd extenditur. Ita de Spiriiu Spintus, 8c de Deo Deus, ut Lumen de Lttmine accenium. Tertull ApoL c« ii. j^. 202,103. Lugd. And ; [ 65 ] And This was right, that To He might come to hk Ccnclufion, that They are Spirit of Spirit ; which They could not be, unlefs Each of them were Spirit This therelbre is mention'd, not bccaufc it mak'es them Orie, but becaufe They could not be O/;^ with- out it. They mufl: be Spirit and Spins, to be Spirits of Spirit : But the latter contains more than the tbr- mer; and it is into This that TertulUdn refolves the formal Reafon of the Unity; or rather. Both Con ii- derations are included in liis Notion of Vnity of Sub- fiance. This will appear from a bare literal rendring of his Words. *' We have learned that He {God *' the Sovi) is prokted, and by his Prolat.ion gemratedy <' and upon that Score, He is fhled Son of God, and <' God, from Vnity of Subftance. For even God (the « Father) is Spirit : And when a Ray is produced " from the Sun, a Portion from the whole, the Snn *' is in the Ray, becaufe it is the Snns Raj ; and the '' Suhflance is not feparated, but extended : in like *' manner, here is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as '' Light of Light, You fee how Tcrt uHi an mzkis it neccflary to Vnity of S^bfiance^ that the Subflance be T)ot feparate : And thus Father and Son are One, not meerly becaufe Each of Them is Spirit, but becaufe Both dre undivided SubihncQy or Spirit; Spirit of Spirit, When I wrote my Defenfe, I thought a Hint might have been fufficient in Things of this Nature; little imagining I fhould ever have the Trouble of Ex- plaining fuch iMatters as thefe, which appear by their own light, upon a bare Infpedion into the Au- thor. XI 1 1. In the next Place, I charged you ^ with a Mifconilrudion of a noted Paffge in Irenaas. To This you make no Reply at all; wherefore it flands as before ; And I have, I fuppofe, your tacite Al- "^ Defenft, p. 412. K iowance C 66 1 lowance to Irlumfh here, as, in a former place, your exprejs Perm i (lion. ^X[V. I found fault ^ with your Reprefentation f Q^TertHlUani as if that Writer believed God the Son to have been, in his highefl Capacity, ignorant of the Day of Judgment. To this you make anfwer {Replp p. 22. J That jou only cite his exprefs Words ivithont any Defcant upon Them, It is very true that you make no formal Defcant upon thole very Words; but both before and afterr you are arguing, with all your might, againfl Tertullians belief of the Eternity and Confubfiamiality, I hope, it is no Alfront to fup- pofe that you had fome meaning in bringing in the Paflages about the Son'b Ignorance ; and that you would have vour Readers think them pertinent, at Icaft, to the Point in Hand. The whole delign of your Book, and what goes before and after, . m the fame SeBiony fufficiently iliow your Intention in citing thofe Paffages ; and are, interpretatively, a Defcant up- on Them. Your meaning and purport in it is fo plain, that no Pveade.r can mi (lake it : Wherefore your pretence now that you have made no defcant upon the Words, after you find that you are not able to defend your Senfe of Them, is a very poor llvafion. There were two Citations from TertulliaH about the Son's Ignorance. I had lliown that one of them plainly rdues to Chrift's Human Nature; and I might reafonably judge from thence the fame thing of the other alfo, fince Both are of the fame Author. It is not therefore llridly true that I anfwer nothings 35 you pretend, to the firfl Citation : For, by an- fwering one, I have, in effe(5]-, anfwer'd Both. Ic\ was your Bufinefs to prove that Either of the Paffages \ were to be underllood of Chrifl:, in his higheft Ca- pacity : But for want of Proof, you are content to * Defenfe, p. 414. t Dif(]uir. M©d. p. 147. injtnmts C 67 ] tvijiyiUdte it only, to your Reader; and To you leave it with Him, trufting to his Weaknefs, or Partial iry. However, inftead of asking a Proof of you, 1 gav« you a Proof of the Contrary ; demonftiating from the Context ("efpecialiy from the Words ExcUmam quod Je Deus reliquijfct, which lertullian in cxpreis Words interprets or the Human Nature) that the fuppofed Ignorance of Chrift was under flood by 'Tertullian of Chrifl:'s Humanity only. Now you iay (p. 11.) that the Words t known only to the Fa- ther, exclude the Son in all Capacities, Very well then; I had the good fortune to hit yo\iv mean- ing before , though you made no Defiant upon the Words. As to your Pretence from the Term onlj^ there '\% no Ground for it. No Man of any Judgment, that is at all acquainted with Tertullian % way and manner of Explaining \hQ Exclujtve Terms*, relating to this Subjed, would ever draw any fuch Inference from them. But you have a farther pre- tence, that all the Words preceding fpeak^ not of the Son of Man^ but of the Son of God, The Reafon is, be- caufe He was to prove that the Son of God was really diftind from the Father; and that the Father v/as not incarnatcy as the Praxeans pretended. He proves it unanfwerably from this Topic, among others ; that in regard to the Son's Ignorance of the Day of Judg" ment. Father and Son are plainly fpoken of, as of fivo Perfons ; one as knoii^'ing, the other as not know ing', tho' in a certain rcfpefl only : Wherefore the Father Himfelf was not the Perfon incarnate^ which was to be proved. In this viev/, Tertullian's Argu- yment is juft and conclufive; and the Text relating to the Son's Ignorance pertinently nlledged, tho' under- ftood of Chrift's Humanity, This I obferved be- fore, and explain'd more at large in my Dejenfe^ * Vid. Tertull. Contr. Prax. c. i.«5. i8, 19. [68] p. 4^5' 4**^' ^^* ^^^ refolve, notwithftsnding, to proceed in ycur own Way, and to make a fhow of iaying Something, tho* you find your felf already ioreclofed, and every Objedion obviated. You fay thus : From this Mijiake of Tertullian'j citing Texts re- htim only to Chrifl*s Hitman N^ture^ He jaw this Ob- jsEiion wotdd arijct that the Fathers argued^ impertinent'^ ly againfl the Sabelhans. I did indeed forefee, that there might be Tome Colour for fuch an Obje^ionj ambng Thofe that take Things upon the firfi V^tew^ without looking any farther. I propofed the Ob-^ jetiicn fiirly, and then fully anfwered it; as the Rea-< der may pleafe to fee in my Defenfi. And now, what have you to reply ? I had faid that Catholicks and Sahelliansj Both allowed that God .was incarnate, and that the main Qticftton ^that is, fo far as concerns the Incarnation^ whereof I was fpeaking) vms-, whether the Father Himfelf made one Pcrfon with Chrift's Hu^ man Nature^ or no. In anfwer hereto, you make a fhow of contradiding me without oppofing me at all, except \x\ one particular wherein you are plainly midakcn. You run off for near a Page together, telling us only trite Things v/hich every Body knows, concerning the Difpute between Catholicks and SabeL Hans, If hy pngular Fjfence, be meant the fame with Hypoft.^fiy or Pcrfon (as you under/land it) That in- A^Qd was the main Article of Difpute between Ca- tholicks and Sabellians^ whether Father and Son were one and the fame Hypoft^fs, But when the Princi- ples of each Side were brought down to the parti-, culsr Cafe of the Incarnation, then the main Point in Quedion was, v/herher the Hyfoftafa of the Father i was. Incarnate^ or no. Tke Sabelhans allowing but W one divine Hypofiafis^ and yet admitting God to be Incarnaie, were of Courfe obliqed to affert it : And the Catholicks, on the other Hand, admitting more divine Hjpofrafes thkn one, denied it. How the Ca^ C^9 ] tholicks proved their Point, I fhowed you diftlnflly ; and you have nothing of Moment to reply to it. Ojily you are pleafed to acquaint us with an Inven- tion of" your own, that the Sabellians allowed in Jejus mly Fleflj; and by the Spirit of Jejus They underfiood the Godhead of the Father. But who, before your felf, ever reckon'd it among the Sahelli^.n Tenets, that Chrift had no Human Soul.^ It is very peculiar of you to cite Tertullian in Proof of it, on account of thefc Words, dicentes Filium Carnem ejfe^ id cfi Flpminem, id eft Jefumy Patrem autem Spiritwm, id efi Deum: when Tertullian, in the very Paflage, interprets FlejJj hy Alan i znd Jefus; and interprets " «S/?;>// by divine Spirit, or God. As to the Belief of Chrifl's HimaK Soul, it was an eflablilli'd Article of Faith in Ter^ tullians Time, as appears from fcveral PafTages ^j and before Tertullian^ as is clear from Irenes f, and y//.. fiin Martyr i. How then comes it to pafs that none of the Catholicks ever took notice of this Error of the Sabellians^ their denying a FJuman SouU I mention not how the Sabellian Hypothejis muft have been very ncedlcfly and flupidly clogg'd by fuch a Tenet : For They could never have given ^ny tolerable Ac- count of the Son's praying to the Father, of his in- CYQzCm^ in Wifdom, of his being afflifled and fore troubled, and crying out in his Agonies and Suffer- ings , without the Suppofitjon of a Human SouU What/' Was it only walking FlefJj^ or animated Clayy that did all this? Or was it the Hjpoflafis of the Fa- ther, the eternal God, as fuch, that did thefe Things? You allov/ only thefcTv/o^ and not caring, it feem-, how ftipid znd fen felefs you make all the Sabellians, one of /th^fe you muft, of Courfe, father upon Them. It is true that They fuppofed the Father to luvefujfercdj 5nd * Tertull. Contr. Prix'. c. i6. 50. de Cam. Clirifti c. lo. t Iren. 1. «;. c. r. p. 292* Ed. Rencd. •^ JuAin M. Apcl. t. p. 16. Or., Thev ■ i: 70 1 They were therefore called V atrifajjians: That is, They fuppofed ^t Father to in^^v fas v/e believe of the Son) in the Human Nature. But They were never fo grols and wild in their Imaginations as to fuppofe the Godhead, as fuch, to fujfcr, to be fore troubled^ to be ' in AgonieSi to cry om^ &c. And yet it is ridiculous to apply this to Fleflj only without a Soul : Neither can it be reafonably imagined of the Sabellians, un- lefs They beheved of Men in general, that They have no fuch Thing as a Soul diftinfb from the Body. In iliorr, their retreating at length to This, that there were two Hypojiajes "^ in Chrift, a Divine and Human, in order to folve the Difficulties they were prefs*d with, fufficiently difcovers their Senti- ments. For neither could that Subterfuge do them any Service, unlefs Jefus was fuppofed a diftind P^r- fon\ nor could They be fo weak as to imagine a living Carcafsy a Body without a Soul, to be a Perfon. To conclude this Article, the Sabelliansy when They retired at length to that Salvo, taking Sanduary in two Hypofiafess underflood one of them to be God the Father, the other, the Alan Chrifi Jefm f .• which was afterwards the Do6lrine of Paul of Samofata, and of Photinust who thus refined upon the Sabellian Herefy, But I have been rather too long in confut- ing a Pretence, which has nothing to countenance it iT\ HiHory ; be fides that it is plainly repugnant to good Senfe. XV. The next Thing I charged you v/ith t, was your pretending, falfly, that Bp Bull had not iliown that the Fathers of the fecond Century refolved the Vnity into the fame Principle with the Ntcene Fa4 thers, I obfervcd that the Bifliop had fhown itA * Vii. Tertull. Contr. Prax. c. 27. Camp. Athanaf. Contr. SabelU Gregal. p. ^tp. Ed. Bened. + See this expnjly ajferted in Athanafius, Tom, i. p. 39. befon f^fertU tQ, ^ Defer^fe, p. 117. referring C 71 ] referring you to the Place where ^. You now faV in your Reply (p. 24J That which the Bifiop has dene in that SeUion is fully anfivered and refntedy d. 197, jng, I have turned to thofe Pages, in your Difynijitiomy and can fee nothing like it^ except it be your Fancy, or FiEiio;ty that the Ante-Nicsne Fathers, when They fpeak of the Loios as exifting in the Father before his coming forth, mean it of an Attribute only, and nothing real. This groundlefs Surmife is at large confuted by BilTiop Bull t: And give me leave alio X.O refer you to what I have obferved t> on that Head. What you add, relating to Clemens Romanus, is only ^atis diBuntj and w?.nts to be proved. XVf. I blamed you *^ farther for referring ff to Bafily as an Evidence that Gregory Thaumaturgus be- lieved God the Son to be a Creature, You tell me, in your Reply ('p. 24. J that you fay nothing of his {Gregorys) Faith. Pleafe to look back to your Mo- defi Difqtiijitions^znd revife your own former Thoughts, which run thus. " L^^^ly^ it is to be noted ^thac *' neither Gregory Ihaumaturgusy who, as St. Bafil " witnefTeth, deprej[ed Chrifi into the Rank^-of Crea^ « /«r^; fin Creaturarum cenfum dc^rQ{^it) nov Dionyfius '« of Alexandria^ who, as the fame (BaJIl) witnefTeth, " denied the Confubflantialityt could have thought ^' rightly (reBe fentire potuip) of the proper Eter- " nity of Chrifi:. Is this faying nothing of Gregorfs Faith ? Tho* He deprejfed the Son into the Rank^ of Creatures, as you tell us He did ; and tho' He could not thinks (i, e. believe) rightly of ChrilFs proper Eter^ nity, as you alfo fay; yet you have faid nothing of regory% Faith, Ridiculous: you have faid ir, and P Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. Seft. 4. c 4. f Bull. Def. Fid. Sed. 5. cap. 5-, 6. 7, 8,9, 19, rf: Defen^e> p. 148. &c. Ser?7}9ns, p, 244. ** Befenfe, p. 418. -ft Mod. Difa^ii, p. 84. quoted [ 72- ] .itjuoted Bajtl for it; notwithftanding, that Billiop 7?//// had demqnftrared the contrary even from Bajil Him- fclf ; as I before obferv^d, and you do not gainfay. And now, to life your own Words, relating to this Article, Let the Reader judge where the Falpood lies. Your repeating fome Things from Petavms and ////£■- t'msy upon this Occafion, fignifies little. Bifhop Bull had con/idered, and anfwerM what thofe two great Men had faid : And you come up again with the ^ame baffled Objedions ; though you are fo fenfible that They have been fully anfwer'd, that you have not a Word to reply, but are forced tacitely to allow that Gregorfs Faith was right; however He happen'd to drop fome fufpedcd Words, which, were made an ill \\k of. XVII. I rctcni [ n ] pretend it : But if the Logoi appeared in a certain iVlanner and Form, and the Father never appeared in any Manner or Foroi; the Logos is not the Father: which was the Thing to be proved. 2. You obje6^, that certainly the divine Nature of Chrifi "ivas in Heaven that thoje ^ntients -who lool^d upon it as impious to afcribe to the Father fuch Thiyigs at they made no fcrtiple of applying to the Son^ mufl have thought there was fome difference between the Father andSon^ in thofi Refpecis, 1 anfwer, that They thought of no more Difference than This, that one was a Father, and the other a Son', and that one was to be incarnate, and the other not. It would have beeri impious to afcribe to the Perfon of the Father, whac was proper to the Perfon of the Son; not only be- caufe the Father was never to be fent^ nor to aft a mini/serial Part, any more than He was to be In- carnate; but alfo becaufe the Tendency of fuch Pre- tences was to make Father and Son one Hypoftajis, or Perfon, and v/as in reality to deny that the:e was any Son at all. Your Citations from TertulUan and J^^fiin Martyr are not pertinent, unlefs you fuppofed your felf to be arguing againft SabelUans, Having done / * Habes Filium \n Terris, habes Patrem in Caslis : non eft fc- ^paratio if!:!, fed Difpojitio divina. Cocrcrum fcias Deum eriim intra AbyObs e(Te, 5c ubiqiie confiftere, fed vi & potcftsre; Fi- hum quoque ut individaum cum ipfo ubique. Tamen in ipfa eUc'iayjU Pater voluit Filium in Terris habcri, fc vcro in Cslii. TitrtrftL ftdv, trax. cap. 2. h with ' [ 74 ] with your Dijfcrtation-, let us next come to Dif^fiif* ModeJL p. 87. There, I muft oblerve, you have hardly one word to the purpoie. All that you prove, is, that Father and Son are not one Numerical Ef-^ femcy in your Senfe ; that \s^ They are not one Nu* mertcal Perfony which is readily allowed: As alfo that They have not one Numerical Will, Power, &c*, in your Senfe, tho* They have in Another. Volun" tas de Voluntatey Potential de Potentia is tlie C'Atholick^ Dodrine, as much as Suhftamia de Suipft^wtia, or Dens de Deo. In fliort, if you would do any thing towards confuting Bifliop B^!/, you fhould anfwer the Authorities which He brought, to prove that thofc very Ante-N'icem Writers {'v/ho argued that it could not be the Father that appeared^ and defcendedy and was found in a place ) acknowledged, notwithftand- ing, that the Son was, in his own Nature, invijihle, and omniprefem as well as the Father; and that the fame Writers (Tome of them| exprefly interpreted thofe y^ppeararjcesy 8cc. of the oi'jwi'o^ict, Oecommjy or Difpenfatiorjy which it pleafed God the Son to run through; tranfac5^ing all Matters between God the Father, and the World of Creatures. As to the oix/:9o^ici} and what Bilhop Bull intends by it, the Reader may fee in his Vefenfe of the Nicene-Faitht /p. 10.) What you mean by denying it is very hard to corjedure, unlefs you have fome weak Evafion ( Reply t p. 26 J in the Word v, Beginmng from the fall of u4dam: For you fay, and feem to lay fom.e Strefs upon ir, that // began from the Beginmng of the Crea^ tion. Does Biil"io[) Bull deny That? See his own Words, in the Margin ■^. Bur, it feems, you arl to conftrue Bifhop BulCs faying, that it was as /jigdv^ * Deus f'aier, quemadmotiiim per Filiiim fuum mundum pri- mitus concjidir crenvirque; ita p^r eundem Fjiium fe deinceps SRiindo psrefecir. BulL Dif, F. N, p. iQ, as / C 15 ] AS the Fall of Adam^ ('in Oppofitlon to fiich as fup- pofed it to commence ac the lni^.Ynationy and no ioonerj as if He had faid it began from the Fall of Adam : And This you are to do, only to find (ome Pretence for contradifiing Billiop BulU and divert- ing the Reader from the Point in Hand. I referred you ( Defenfe^ p. 418.) to Authors ^, Antient and Modern, who afferted the oly^ovo/xlcL in Bifhop B////'s Senfe. To which you have nothing of any moment to oppofe; only you difcover a great DifTatisfadion that Billiop Bfill had fo well guarded his Point, and vindicated his Doftrine, that all your mod pompous and plauGble Pretences fall before Him. XVIII. I charged you f with fetting Clemem of Romei and St. Pauli at Variance ; and yet giving the Pi-efcrence to Clemem^ as laymg Chriftiamj before us in its naked Simplicity, To this Article you are plesfed to fay n:ver a Word. XIX. I took notice alfo, in another placet, of your Sophiflical way of reafoning againft the Belief of Aiyfteries, or Matters above Comprehenfion. I called upon you (p, 318,^19.) to explain your Meaning, and to let us know diftinftly, what there is in the Doftrine of the ever Blefled Trinity, to give you fuch OfFenfe, and to raife your Zeal againfl: it; whether it be that the Doflrine is, in your Judgment, Contradi^ory to Reafon, or only above Re.tjbn\ or that it is unfcrtptural only, and no more: But to This alfo you vouchfafe no Reply. XX. I charged you farther (p, 151.) with ufing a bad Art, to ferve a bad Caufe : which was the fe- ereft Thing I had faid of you, and which you had ♦ TertuU. Contr. Prax. c. 2, ;. Clem. Alex. p. 8;i. pj-f. Fd. Ox. Titian, c. 8- Ed. Ox. Hippol. Contr. Noet. p. 12,1$. Fabric. Valef. Not. in Eufeb. p. 5, »''>• 9c. if 3. f Befenfe, p. 4 20. 4: Defenfe, p. 30S. L z civen C 76 ] given me jun: occafion for; as I fliowcd plainly in J the place refcriM to. In Apology for your felf 1 {Repljy p. 56".^ you cite a Paffage of my Defe^fe^ fp.453.) where I fay, «'« A Writer is not to be *' blamed, in Tome Cafes, for taking what is to his *^ purpofe, and omitting the reft. To which give me ksiVQ to anfwer in my own Words, as they fol- low in the fame Page; " But, as the Cafe is here, ^' the bed:, and indeed only light to dire(5l the Rca- «' der to the true meaning of what is cited, is. left out. You lay, your ^efigfi bam only to prove from the Wcrch of Juflin, that Chrift 7vas God, Jta'&^ ^ahtio cLvr'i , according to the Will of his Father, Ti^hat Reafon ^ould joti have to add that He was alfo fl'tled an Angel \ JBur, do you not yet perceive that tlie Qucftion is, whether Chrift be faid to be God ^' ,^'d\yiv ctvrUy according to the Wtll of the Father^ in that Place of Jiifltny or no? The Words, literally rendred, run thus : " Who according to his (tJie Father*sJ Will, *' is both God, being his Son, and an Angel as mi- ^' niftring to his Father *s Will. The meaning of the Paftage is nor, as you reprefent it, that Chrift is God, hy the Wdl of the Father (tho' even That might bear a good Senfc) but that it pleafed God that his Son, who was Cod already, as God's Sony fhould be an Angel alfo. That He v/as Gody was a necelTary Thin^5 but that He fliould be Bothy was not To. This 1 took to be the true Senfe of the Paffage. Fofj J^ijlin gives the Reafon why He v/as Gody it v/as becaufe He was God's Son, He refolves his Di* ^,ov £%!• T^' usr?j^;jTi(v T^ yvil^j/ji^ auToC, Dial, p, ,:?7Q. v._ Compare the IVords qf NoVatian. Perfonse autem Chrifti convenit, ut 6c Deus fit, quia Dei Filius3 & Angelus fir, quoniam paternae Dilpoiuionis Adnun- Jiiator cit^ Novau c. 260 ; C 77 ] %-imty into SonJJjip here, as indeed every where ; ztA 6oKjhip into Communication of Stihfflance» as I have ob- ferved above. Now, let us confider what you had done v/ith this PafTage. The X^r/V? Verfion runs thus : Qui juxta Vbluntatem ejus, c^ Deus , 345. 0f. jSS. M any [ 8i ] any Injury done Him by the Biihop, or that He ever thought fit to vindicate Himfelf, or his great Oracle PetaviHs; to whofe Judgnncnt (as He Himfelf la- ments) He had once dearly paid too great a De* ference \ It may fuffice, for the prefent, to have left thefe few general Hints; by means of which an Intelligent Reader, without farther AfTiftance from Me, may readily difcover the Fallacy of your Reafonings, and anfwer the moft plaufible Obje(5tions you have to m^Q againfl the received DoClrine of the BlefTed Trinity. If any thing more particular be neceflary hereafter, I lliall ("with God's Afliftance) endeavor to do Juflice to the Caule which I have taken in Hand; and, as opportunity ferves, lliall proceed in dete(5i:ing Sophiflry, laying open Difguifes, expo- ling Mifreports, Mifquotations, Mifconftrudions, or any other Engines of Deceit, as long as there appears to Me any probable Danger from thence arifing to Honed: Well-meaning .Men, lefs acquainted with this momentous Controverfy. In the Interim, I am with all due Refped, SIR, Tour mofi Humble Servant, * Vid. Huetii Comment, de Rebus ad ilium pertinent, f>. 70.. «=- ^ ' ' ' ./ » ' ■■' ERRATA. Pag. II. line 17. for or read anJ. p. 43. 111. for «577K>72ii? read olTrdvTZtiv, BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by Corn, C R o w N F 1 E L D, at Cambridge. A Vindication of Chvift's Divinity : Being a Lhfenje of fome Of^erieS) relating to Dr, Clarke*^ Scheme of the Holy Trinity^ in anfwer to a Clergy- Man in the Comtry. The Third Editiony Odavo J720. Eight Sermons Preach' d at the Cathedral Church of St, Paul, in Defenfe of the Divinity of our Lord Jefm Chriji I upon the Encouragement given by the Lady Moyer, and at the Appointment of the Lord Bipop of London. With a Preface containing Remarks upon Tw9 Ute Pamphlets : One Intituled, Modejl pleay &c» Con^ iinuedt &c. The other y Vnity of God not inconfiflent with the Divinity of Chrifiy Sic, Both by Daniel Waterland, D, D, Mafter of Magdalen College in Cambridge, ^nd Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY. The Se^ cond Edition, Oflavo 1720. Twenty two Sermons on feveral Suhje5lsy By Dr, Creyghton, Canon- Refdentiary of Wells, Ute Greek FrofeJJor of Cambridge. Odavo 1720. Remarks fipon a late Dtfcourfe of Free^Thinking : In a Letter to F. H, D. D, by Phiieleutherus Lipiienfis. In Two Parts, The Fifth Edition, C. [ulii Csefaris quge exftant Omnia. Ex Reccn- fione Joannis Davifii , cum ejufdem Animadverfioni- hus ac Noris Pec. Ciaconii, Fr. Hotomanm, [oan» Brantii, Dionyf. Voffii & aliorum. Acceflere Meta- phrafis GrsBca Librorum vii. De Bdlo Gallico, nee non Indices necefTarii. Quarto ijq6. M. Minucii Felicis Octavius, ex irera Recenfione Joannis Davifiit cum ejufdem Animadverfionibus, ac Nvotis Integris Def. Heraldi & Nic. Rigaltii, nee non Seleclis aliorum. Accedit Commodianus, ^vi Cy* prianici Scripior, cum Obfervationibus antchac Edi- ris aliifque nonnulli'^, quK jam primum prodeunr. 3V1. Tullii M. Tullii Ciceroni? de Natura Devorum libri Trcs.' Cum notis intcgris Paulli Manucii, Petri Vidorii , Joachimi Camerarii, Dionyf. Lambini, & Fulv. Urfini. Recenfuit, fuirque Animadverfionibus Illuftravit ac Emaculavit Joannes Davifius, L, L. D. Coll. Regin. Cantab. Magifter, ^ Canonicus Elienfis. Accedunt Emendationes CI. Joamis JValkeri, A. M. Coll. Trin. Socii. 171 8. La(51:antii Firmiani Epitome Divinarum Inftitutio- num ad Pentadium Fratrem. Earn ex vetuftiffimo MSto Taurinenfi nuper editam recenfuit, & fuis ani^ madverfionibus illuftravit, ac emendavit Joannes Da^ vifmsy Juris & Theologix Dodor C. R. C. M. C, E. O^avo 1718. u Suidse Lexicon, Graece & Latlne. Textum Grse- cum cum Manufcriptis Codicibus collatum a quam- plurimis mendis purgavir, Notifque perpetuis illu- ftravit : Verfionem Latinam ^milii Porti innumeris in locis correxit^ Indicefque Audorum & Rerum adjecit Ludolphpis Kufterus^ ProfefTor humaniorum iiterarum in Gymnafio Regio Berolinenfi. 3. Vol. Folio, I J 10. C. Crifpi Sallullii quse extant; cum Notis Intc- gris Glareani, Rivii, Ciacconii, Grureri, Carrionis, Manutii, Putfchii, Doufse ; Sciedis Caftilionei, C. & A. Popmae, Palmerii, Urfini, j. Fr. Gronovii, Vido- rii, d^c, Accedunt Julius Exfuperantius, Porcius La- tro:' & Fragmenta Hiftoricorum Vetr. cum Notis A. Popmae. Recenfuit, Notas perpetuas, & Indices ad« ]tc\tJofcphHsWaJfe^ Co)L Regin. apud Cantab. Socius; 5: NobilifT. Marchioni de Kent a Sacris Domefticis. Praemittitur Salluftii Vita, Audorc V. CI. Joannes Clerko. Quarto, 1710. V , Q. Horatius Flaccus ad nuperam Richardi Bentlcn ^ Editionem accurate exprefTus. Notas addidit Thomas Bcntleim, A. B. Collegii S. Trinitatis apud Cant^bri-^ jjienfes Alumnus. Ociavo> 171$. V