V-'^l^^l «, ^^ '1^- / V-3 ' 5 see s^ 5:1 s^ Q^ .^^ s:^. ^2- OF TUK AT PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUELAQNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA. PA. '/ez. QTo. I Case, Shelf, Book, ^ ©<^^i,- *oSirine of the Trinity^ is a Book drawn up in fuch a Method, that (I think) there are but Two ways pofiible for Any man to write a juft Anfwer to it. The Firft is, by fhowing diftindly, that He has miftaken and mif-interpre- ted AU, or at leaft the Principal lexts of Scripture, which he has cited. ^ Now This Method Dr IVaterland has wholly negleaed. And taking ic tor granted, that the Metaphyfical Hy. potbefes or Opinions of the Fathers, are the Rule of Truth; and that from A3 thofe The P R E FA C E. thofe H)fothefef ( though very dit Icienc from each oth^r ^ ) certain Cov[equences follow according to the Modern way of philofophical Reafon- ing^ (fuch as the Fathers themfehes^ thofe of the Three Firji Centuries at leaftj^ never thought of j) from hence he concludes, that the Senfe he con- tends for^ may and mnjl {though he never fhows how it poffibly Can) be put upon the Texts of Scripturt. The Other way of confuting Dr Clarke^ is by examining the Truth of All or the Principal of his Tropofitions v and (howing cither their Inconhftency with each other^ or the Infufficiency of the Grounds upon which they are builc. This Method ^Ifo^ Dr Waterland has entirely omitted; and inftead of attempting to refute Dr CVs Propo- lit ions, he has only endeavoured to fliow that the Dr has mijiaken or mif- tranjlated The PRE FACE. tranjlated fotne few particular Paffages of the Fathers. Which^ fuppofing it were true in Many more Inftances than Dr W. alleges^ would not yet at all afFeiS: the Merits of the Caufe. But as I am fully fatisfied that the greatefl part even of Thofe very Ohfer^vations^ are in Truth the Miftakes of Dr IF. himfelfj and will in due Time be di- ftinftly lliown to be fuch; fo I doubt not but Dr Clarke will always be very ready to acknowledge and to correB^ upon every opportunity^ all the real Mijiakes he fliall find himfelf to have been guilty of. In the mean time, *tis a flran^e way of refuting any Notion ; inftead of citing an Author's Trincipal Ajferti- ons in his Own Words^ to make only general References to a few incidental Sentences ; and from thence^ by ima- ginary Y^Qdudaons^ to make an Author [ay what he has not faid^ and whatever his Antagonift fanfies and fuppofes and imagine,? The P R E FA C E imagwef that he mnft fay or fhould have faid ; and thereupon to endea^ vour to fix Names of 'uery uncertain Signification^ but of certain Reproach, among carelcfs and inconfiderate Rea- ders. In thus doings Dr W. does not confute Dr Clarke^ but his Oxpn Ima^ ginations^ which he fets up ip the Dr's place , whilft he leaves almoft all the weft material TextSy and abfoluteJy every fropojition in Dr CFs Book, un- anfwered and indeed untouch'd. THE C t ) THE Modeft PLEA &c\ CONTINUED. O R, A Brief and Diftinft ANSWER to D^ Waterland's (Queries, &c. TEXTS alleged i^j l(i) am the Lord, and there isnorieelfe :, There is no God befides me. Jfa 45. 5. Is there a God befides (2) me > Yea, There is no God, I know not any, Jfa6 44. 8. / (3) am God, and there is none like me ^ Before me there was no God form'd, neither (hall there be after mQjf^6,^. D" W* to be compared. The Word was (4) God, Job. I. I. Thy Throne, O (5) God/Heb. 1.8. Chrift came, who is over all (6) God bleffed for ever, Ro7n. 9. 5. Who being in the Form (7) of God, Phil. 2. 6. Who being the Bright- nefs (8) of his Glory, and the exprefs Imige of his Perfon, Hek i. 3. B b Notes Vctes on the Texts^ (^) /. Not my i?i?i?2^, Sub fiance^ oi Effence \ hut I, my Jsify perfonally. And there is none elfe -, not only Nullmn altitd^ but, Nulhis alius, (2) Me: perfonally. i^) I, perfonally agani. (4) God; who was with GOD^ and by whom COD made all things. He was rvith the One GoJy ths Father^ OF whom are all thhigs ; and he was himfcif the One Lord^ BT whom are ail things^ i Cor. 8, (:;. • ^5) Thy Throfi::^ O God^ 7S for ever : For, z'er, 9, (Sod^ even THT Qodj hath anointed th::e, (6) See Dr Cf\ Scripture-Do^ rine^ pag. 75, zdEdit* (7) Who being in the Form ofGod^ «;c apTeiy/Liov Yiyn<^70 rb Vf) "riru ^i$, yet did not affmjie to himfelf to he [honoured] ii^jj or like luito^ God, (^ ) The Brrghtn-^js of his Fathers Glory .^ and the ex^refs Image of his Father's Perfo?i» (1 U E R Y L ^* Whether all other Behigs^ be/Ides the one Su- " prenie God, be not excluded by the Texts of ^^ li'iiah, (to which many more might be added ^ ^^ and coiifeqiisntly^ whether Chriji can he God ■ *' at a'l^ unlejs he be the fam^ with the Supreme *' God. Anfi^. T^^"^^-^ ^"^^^5 C" fe/Xe-r,"] in ThisQue- J_ x)\ is a great and plain Abufe of alt the Texts referred to. For the Texts of Ifaiah^ do all of them, '^noft exprefsly^ fpeak oi d. Perfon^ and not of a BEING as diftinguiflied from a Per^ fc'j'U rSee the Letter to the late Revere?id Mr R. ^ 5 ^ M p. 132, &cr\ By thofe Texts therefore, all other Perfofts as well as Be'mgs^ are exprefsly excluded from being what He , who there fpeaks, declares h.im{di Alone to be. From whence 'tis evident that the Texts in Ifaiab^ mud: needs be underftood of Him only^ who Alone has all PerfeElions and all Dominion ahfolutely in and of himfelf^ original^ tinderived^ and independejit on Any. To ask therefore, " whether Cbri ft CJN h " God at all ^ unlefs he he the fame with thefupre^^e *' God'^" is to ask, whether the Scripture has done rightly in (lyling him God^ when at the fame time it is on all hands confeifed, that he is not He who alone has all Perfe3ions and all DomtnioJt ahfolutely in and of himfelf^ original^ imderived^ and independent on Any '^ that is, that he is not The Firfi Caufe, The One God^ OF whom are all things^ I Cor. 8, 6 ', but that he is the Son pf That God and Father of all. QUERY IL ^'"^ Whether the Texts of the t^ew Te (lament (in the " fecond. Column) do not fjew that He (Chrift) " is not excluded^ and therefore muft be th$ '' fame Gode Anfw.'^'Y^HE New Teflament exprefsly de- X clares, that the One God^ of ivhom are all Things^ is the Father^ \ Cor. 8, 6 |> even He who alone has all PerfeSions^ and all Domi- nion ahfolutely in and of himfelf^ original^ imde- B b ;5 rived^ ( 4 ) fiveJ^ and inJependent en Any : And that ChrlfV is not This Fir ft Caufi^ This One God OF whom " fire Ml things^ but the Lord {^ov God *] BY whom are all thl.gs^ by whom the Father made all things. '' The Texts' of the New Tejlament "^ cited above by Dr. W. himfelf upon this Head, *' in the fecoud Cclumn^ *' do all of them plain- ly (hew the fame thing •, As is evident in the Notes upon them. And the abfurdity of Thofe, who underiiand the xApoftle's Words, \_To US there is but One God^ the Father^ of whom are all thin'js^~] net perfonallj^ but ef/entiallj^ as inclu- ding the Son likewife -, is learnedly and excellently expofed by th? judicious Bifhop Pearfon^ in his Account of the like Words in the firit Article of the Creed, " In vain (fays he) is That it/ /- *' Q^ar DiJIincIion applied unto the Explication of " the Creed, whereby the Father is confidered *' both perfonally and effhitially '^ perfonally^ '' as the iirft in the glorious Trinity, with " Relition and Oppofition to the Son, ef " fentiall)^ as comprehending the whole Tri- *' nky, Father, Son, and Holy Ghofl:. Foi: '-'' that the Son is ?wt here comprehended in the '• Father, is evident, not only out of the original ** or occafion, but alfo from the very Letter of *^ the Creed, which teaches us to believe in God '' the Father^ and in FFis So?u For \i the Son .*' were iiicludedin the Father^ then were the Son *' the Father of Himfelf. As therefore when I " fay, / believe in Jefits Chriji his Son^ I muft " necelfarily undcrftand the Son of that Fa- '' ther ^^ ther, whom I mentioned in the firft Article ; .*' fo when I faid, / believe in Gad the Father^ I *' muft as necellirily be underftood of the Father ^' of Him, whom I call his Son in the fecond *' ilrticle. Pearfon on the Creed ^ pag, 32. Edit. a U E R Y IIL ** Whether the Word (God) in Scripture^ can '' reafonably be fuppos^d 10 carry an ambiguous *' meanings or be us'*d in a different S^nje^ *' when applied to the Father and Son, in the " fame Scripture ^ and even in the fame Verfe f " (&^Joh. I. I.) ^«>.npHAT " the word (Gcd) in Scrips X *' ^7^''^, " is '^ ufed in a different " Senfe^ " but yet does not '*• carry an ambigu- *^ ous Meaning " , is mofl evident from This very Obfervation, that " it is applied to the Father *' ayid Son^ in the fame Scripture^ and even in the ^^ fame Verfe, " For God who was with God, evi- dently is noKthe G^itb Scrips " ture, or with himfelf^ But if the Son be truly " God, there are two Gods upon the Doclor's Hy^ ^^ ppthe/isy as plainly as that om and one are ^ Bb 4 [' two ( 8 ) ^ 9'-t%\rQ: aiidfo all the Texts ^/ Ifaiah cited a- ' ''.bove^ b^jldes other s\ ft and full and clem^ ^' .irr/iiTiJl the DoSor's Notiofu e^y/jo?. ^T^KE Argument in this Q^uery, is: 1 If a Son be not Kmg in the very pwe fenle as his Father is, he cannot tndji be fti- led King at all : If the Son of God be not God in the very S^^me Senfe as the Father is, (that is, if he has nor yi// PerfeSionsandAll Uomhiion absolutely in and of hunfelf original^ underiv'd^ and hide- fendent on Any^) he cannot h^God^i all. But the Scripture, on the contrary, exprefsly ^i/?/V gmfies him fro?n Th^God^ of whom are all things j from the GodsK^ho Alone is the original Author, Father^ and Firft Cauie of all things , and never fpeaks of him as having All Perfe&'wns and All pominion ahfolutely in and of hiwfelf original^ nnderived^ and indepe7ide7n on An}, Yet at the fame time it Truly and Juftly calls him ( what Dr, W. fays " he cannot '' in this cafe '' Truly ^' he called.^ ) God. " Indeed, if '' he were not *^ God hi the Scriptme-Noticn of Q^k,}, " [in That Notion wherein the Scripture ufes the Word God, when it fpeaks of the Son-^ ] " he could '' not Truly be called^ God. " But he is Truly calPd God ^ And yet, vathout controverfy, he is not God in That Scripture-Notion of God, where- in the Apoille defines The One God to be The Father ( or Firfl Caufe ) of whom are all things. But (faysDrIF;) '^ if the Son be truly God, f f there are Two Gods upon the Do&or's Hypothe- •"A ">>ir (9) ^^ fis^ as plahiJy as that One and One are Two. ** lanfwer. Though the Scripture calls MagJjlnLtes^ Gods, in one (enfe ^ and Angels^ Gods, in another fenle , and Chr'ifl^ God, in a third fenfe, very different from hoth the former, as being Ihat Lord ( I Cor. 8, 6, J or God (Joh. i, i, J £r vphom are all things , yet it is neverrhelefs in- fallibly true, that in the ab(olute and higheft fenfe of the word G3 ) a U E R Y VI. ^"^ Whether the fame Char aBeri flicks^ efpeciaVy ^^ fuch eminent ones^ can reafonably be imderftood ^' oftnooti/lhiB Beings •, an J of one hi finite and *' Independent^ the other Dependent and Finite ^ Anfw.fi.) JY the Charaders being the Same X and fo Emment^ be a Reafon why they cannot be underftood of Two ^ they can no more be underftood of Two diftinft PerfonSy than of Two diftincl Beings. Be- caufe, being all of them Perfonal Characters , when they are underftood of 0;/^, they are un- derftood, not of the Beings but of the Perfon^ But, (2.) They are indeed none of them the Same : Becaule Powers derived and underived^xt no more the Same^ than the Perfons are, to whom they refpeclively belong, f^.) As to the invi- dious infinuation couched under the words, finits and hifinite *, the Anfwer is plain. If by the word, infinite^ be meant infinite in ALL Perfe- ftions 5 then Dr Waterland^ by denying the Son to have All PerfeSio?is /i?2d All Domifiion abfo- littelj in a7id of bimfelf original^ underived^ and 7ndepende7it on A?iy^ either himftlf denies the Son of God to be infinite^ in the fame fenfe where- in he charges Dr Clarke with denying him to be fo 5 or elfe he muft maintain, that This Prime^ this Greatef}^ and perhaps ojjIji ijiconmnmicMe PerfeSion ( t4 ) VerfeUion of the Firfi Caufe^ is l^o Peyfe3io?i at all. a U E R Y VIL " Whether the Father's Omnifcience and Eter- ''' nity are iiot one and the fame with the Son's ^ " bebig alike defcrib\i^ and in the fame phrajes ^ ^/j/w.TT^Nowledge and Duration derived from I'V Another, however unlimited, are helther " One and the Same " with Underived : Nor can they be in All Refpecls " alike defcribed^ " and in [^AlQ the fame Phrafes. " For, to be mfome Refpeds " alike defer ibed^ aiid in [Some of] " the fame Phrafes-^ " is common to Many things with many things. This therefore is a JQuibble^ unworthy indeed of a Scholar. aU E R Y VIII. cc Whethr^ (^i') Eternity does not imply necefTarjr " Exiftence of the Son •, which is inco?ifiJlent *' with the Do&o/s Scheme .r Wifdom of the Father^ before his Generation^ {till fuppofe him to have been Generated 2nti, B«Afy^.77, BaA»j7«, cn^j/aMw, 3 -^any one's Will and Power •, though it may ^rtii be Agreeable 2Ln(i Pleafing to him. A l^eceffary Emanation from the Father^ can no more be faid to be Begotten of the Father^ to be Begotten by his Power and Will ^ than the Father can be faid to have begotten^ or given Being to himfelf or to his own Reafon or Underflanding. On the contrary, Such an Etna- Qiation^ and the Efjencefrom which it emanes^ would £^r^beas equally f elf -existent ^ as 'ris equally ne- cefjary for God to be an hitelligent Beings and to £^at all. Whatever neceffarily and efTentially be- longs to That which is felf-exiilent, is it felf Self-exiilent, as being indeed only the very fame thing apprehended under a partial confideration. *' God " (as this matter has been exprelled in the Letter to the Author of the True Scriptnre-BcBrine^ '&C. pag. 267,) " is neceliarilyOwwi/^r^y^/i^rand '^ Eternal ;, doubtlefs, not without [m\id\ lefs ^- gainjl~] " Kn own Liking and Approbation: But was " ever any Man therefore fo abfurd, as to fay that ^' he was Omniprefent and Eternal BThis Will ^ *^ He is likewife by Neceffity of Nature, Wife "and Good'^ that is^ he always neceilarily fee^ *' and C i? ) *^^ ^ni hoTvswh^tisnght, and approves whit il ^' good'^ And in all this, his fVHl is no way coH- *' cerned: But whenever he y^&s^ whenever he " Does any thing, then 'tis ?wt bj VeceJJity of ^' Nature, but by the Choice df his Will. '' The contrary Suppofition, is, in the truth of things^ making him No Jgent at all ^ Tis devefting hiiu ( as Mr Hohbs has done ) of the Prime Glory of all his Attributes. (3) But ( fays Dr {VaterlanJ ) " Will is One " thi?ig, and Arbitrary. Will another. " I anfwer. This is one of the greateft and moft unreafonable Jbufe of words, that I have ever met with in Any VVriter. For the only true difference be- tween Will and Arbitrary Will, is, that Arbitrary Will fignifies Willing a thing unreafonably^ and without any jitft Caufe. Bat to make Arbitrary H^i//fignify barely the Choice or Free A6f of the Will, and to make Will fignify mere Apl'roBation without Any Choice or AEl of the Will at all j is taking away all Senfe from words. For, at This rate, a Man's Heart may be faid to beat /^j? the Will and Power of the Man, though his Will and Power have no influence at all upon it. And the Sun may be faid, inthe/^^^/^^fenfe, torife and fet by the Will of Man, that is, with his good Liking and Approbation. And a Balance, li it could feel itkl[ NeceJ/arily turned by a Superiour Weight in One Scale, might juftly be faid to Turn itj^elf by its Will and Pozver. If this be not indeed in the higheft degree ( to ufe Dr. Water- C c land^s ( i8 ) . r . J hard to fay What is. /W^sphrafe) " elufive and efjuwocatmg^^[ hii liQr/^ frk f::)\r Wh/7t. ic CI U E R Y IX. ^^ Whether the divine Attributes^ Omnifcience, " Ubiquity, &a ?/?^/^ i7idividual Attributes^ can '^ ^(? communicated without the divine Ejjeficey *' from which they are i?j-feparable ? Anfw. ^'jNdividual Attributes ** can neither be _| communicated with nor without the Effence ^ becaufe communication of an Individual, without the Communicator^^ parting with it, is fupppfing it to be not an hidividuah^ and is cpn- fequently a contradiction in Terms.^ OPERY ( ^9 ) Q, U E R Y X. ^^ fJ^elher^ if they (the Attributes beloriging to *' the Son) be not Individually the fame ^ they ^' can he any thing more than faint Refemhlan^ '^^ ces of them, differing from them as Finite *' from Infinite , and then in what Senfe^ or ^^ with what Truth can the Doctor fretend ^^ that all divine Powers, except abfolute Su- ^^ premacy and Independency, are communis *^ catedtothe Son? And whether every Beings ** hejides the one Sufreme Being, muH not ne- "-' ceffarily he a Creature and Finite ; and ^^ whether all divine Powers can he commtmi^ ^' catedto a Creature^ Infinite Berfediion to " a Finite Being ? Jnfw. ^T^H E Queftion is not, what the At- X thbutes belonging to the Son, Can^ or Cannot be, according to Otir Fancies in Phi- lofophy ; but what the Scripture fays they Are. And the Scripture fays they are, not ^'' faint *' Kefemhlances^'* but an Exprefs Image. That fliey are not ^' hidividtially the fame'^' with the Attributes of the Father, appears evidently ia the Anjwer to the foregoing Query ; and alfo from hence, that the One are Derived^ the Other Underived\ Both of which, one and the Came '/ individmr'' cannot be. C c 2 The ( 20 ) The Anfwer to the following part of Thfe Qiiery, depends upon the Signification in which the Terms, Finite^ hifiitite^ and Creature^ are ufed. As to the Terms, finite and htfinite ^ fee above, the Anfwer to Query VI. As to the Term, Creature^ If thereby He means Whatever is ?iot Self-exiflent and JJnori- ginate, then 'tis manifeft that even Dr Water- land himfelf makes the Son [the Per/on o[ the Son^ of God to be a Creature, and mufl: needs himfelf fall under his Own Cenfure oi Arianiffn. But if the Word, Creature^ be underftood to mean That only which is made otit of Nothing, then the Anfwer depends upon Another Query, viz. whether Any Thing or Perfon can be de- rived [k 7»f ^(jicLi TK '^A]e}i\ from the Self-exiftent Subftance. If it can ; as Dr Waterland makes no doubt but it can^ and Who dares affirm it cannot ? (for, to be From Nothing, and From the Self'exifte7it Subjtance^ are Both of them equally beyond Our Conception, and Neither of them ever exprefsly mentioned in Scripure-,') Chen, 'tis evident, a Perfon who is not a Crea- ture, may yet not be " the One Supreme BeingP For None can be Supreme, but He who has All Perfetlions and all Dominion ahfoUitely m and of himfelf, original, underivedj and inde- pendent on Any, aU E R Y ( ^I ) d U E R Y XI. *^ Whether if the Do^or means hy divine Pow^ *^ ers^ Powers given hy God (in the fame Senfe *^ as Angelical Powers are divine Powers) ^' only in a higher Degree than are given to *' other Beings \ it he not equivocating and ** fayi7ig nothing : Nothing that can come up *' to the Senfe of thofe Texts hefore citedy or cc to tbefe following ? Applied To the one God* Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou iiaft made Heaven, the Heaven of Heavens , with all their Hoft, the Earth, and all things that are therein, i$c. Neh. 9. 6. In the Beginning, God created the Hea- vens and the Earth, Gen. I. I. To God the Son. All things were made by him. Job. i. ^. By him were all things Created ; He is before all things, and by him all things Confift, Co- lof. I. 16, 17. Thou, Lord, in the Beginning , haft laid the Foundation of the Earth; and the Hea- vens are the Work of thy Hands, /Zi;'^'. i. 10. Cc J Jnfw^ ( ^% ) ^^fw.^'T^U E " Div'me Towers givejp- to tbe, X Son, are not at ^11 9f '' the fame'''') kind, or '^ only in a higher TDegree'^'^ than '' J/i- *^ gelical Powery^ -^ but totally of a different^ kind. For to the .Si';/ is committed All Jti/lg- ment^ Joh. 5, 22: But to J/z^^/i is committed No degree of the Power oi^udgment at all. To^aiFirm that the Powers committed to the Son, are the very fame as His who has nothijig committed to him, but has All VerfeBions and All Dominion djoltitely in and of Himfelf^ ori- p?ial^ nnderivedj and indej^endent on Any : this is certainly '' equivocating-, and faying Nothitig ;" and alfo direchly contrary to the Senfe of all the Texts referred to. For the Powers of the Son 5 are all there fpoken of as committed to him from the Father, And when \is affirmed that all things voere made hy [or through'] Him^ and that ly [or iff} him were all things created^ and that He laid the foundation of the earthy and the like 5 the Sacred Writers in the fuHeft and moll; exprejs words declare their Meaning to be, ths^ God created all things ly [or through'] Him. Q^ U E R Y XII. ^.^ B^hether the Creator of. all Things wris not^ ^' himfeJf Uncreated; and therefore could not ^ he i^ ^H> 'oA^h tnade out of nothing^ r *3 ) Jnfw^^'T^lll^ Qiiery is moft captioujly and JL unfairly worded. For This phrafe [" The Creator of all things^^'''\ when ufed in this manner ahfolutely and by way of Eminence^ without any other difcriminative charafler an- nexed, and" without A7ty perfon mentioned be- fore, Alwaies means the Father^ (or Fmt Catife^) OF whom are all things ; and never the Sony BT l^)hom the Father made all things. But underftanding it of the Son^ as the Que- rift here with too artificial Confufednefs does- 'tis manifed indeed, that He hy whom God crea- Hd all things^ cannot be included in the all things which God created hy Him. But How and in what maimer he himfeJf derived his Be- ing from the Father, cannot be at all collefted trom hence. Taking it for granted that he was, not [sf «;c oT'7a>i/] out of Nothing, but [U t«? i a U E R y XIV. f^ Whtther Br Clarke, who every where denies the " Canf2t-!> ftaiitiality oj the Son as abfurd and " coTVCradiBory^ does not^ of Co7ifequence^ af- '^ firm the Son to be a Creature^ VE, «';t ^ov-mv^ and '^ fa fall under his ozvn cenfure^ and is Self- *' condemn d ^ Jnjb. T "JPON this Query, 'tis to be obfer- \^ ved, (ly?.) That 'tis very unjuft in Dr IV. to charge Dr CL with a " Cofife- ** qiience -^ ^^ which Dr W. indeed, according to His Own Notions in Philofophy, iimagines tO; follow from T)r C/'j- Principles *, but which, ac- cording to DrCl's Notions- in Fhilofophy, does^ not follow at all. For Uv. CL is not obliged (I think) by any jufl Confcquence from any thing he has laid down in Explication of AH i\iQ Texts in. the New Teffament, to enter into Jny niet^frloyftcrJ prypothefis concerning the Manner oi the, Sons Generation. And accord- ingly He conftantly blames-thofe, as being pre- fumdtuoufly wife above What is written, (^Script. Do&r. Part II, Prop, XUI and XIVJ who have at any Time taken npon them to afBrm (what they could not poilibly know,) that the Son'of God was j^sf »% hTzov~\ inade out of No* thing. (2.) 'lis mere captioufnefs in Dr W^ toufehere the Term^ '^ 'I'UE Confuhjlantiah- ( ^7 ) ti ^ ty, " without at all exprefling which Sort of Confubftautiality he means, though he knows the word has very difFerent Meanings. For it either denotes j/?^a/6-^ Confubftantiality • which Pr W. difclaims, becaufe 'tis introducing Two Self-exiftent Subflances : Or it fignifies ifidwt- dual ConfubftantiaHty [j^ jAx/lQ^latQv^ which Dr Clarke has indeed denied^ becaufe 'tis direct "^ Sabellianlffu^, as well as " abfurd and f contradi^ " 8oryr^'' (and yet even This, if it were granted to be poffible, would not at all || affedfe the Truth of Dr Clarke's main Propofitions.^ Or elfe l^^'^flh it means only, (which rs all than any of the Ante-Isicene Writers, or even the Council of Aice itfelf intended,) being de- rived in fome ineffable Manner [^s/trMjacn'^j^ A^^^ the &nbftance of the Father ^ which Dr Cl/irk4 has, not only not " everj where^ " but 7jy ^ Qtx'if S^zhelltm ipfe Cfap ths learned. Bp* Bull) niin» quani Filiuni lubens dixiilet Patri o.-^kotoj', fed potiu.s Tttvjoitnoi'. i. e. Ajfuredly Sabellius would never have chofen to have called the Son confubftantial wUh the Father : but vQouldrathsr have jliled them ^ of one and the famedjidivi- dual Sub fiance. andthefauie 'Thing ii not confubftantial f^ i^f^^f-y hut 0ns X^hing-iicoa^uh^mVii-Aitf} Another. Baf. Epift* r^oo. jj See the Letter to the late Reverend Mr. R. M. pag. 134, 1-355 I7p. And the L^^Z-^r ^0 ^/^^ Author of the true Scriptiire-DoBrtne Sec. fag* 212^ 220^ 223, 225, 235, 2463 274, and 318. where. r .8 J where^ deniec5 but that it may be a metaphyfical Truth. C3.) Thefe words therefore, [" Ur " Clarke every where denies the Confab ft ant ia- ^*^ Uty of the Son^ "] are a palpable and direft Calumny^ For as, in Scripture^ this Confubftan- tiality i? nowhere either affirmed or denied ^ fo T>r Clarke^ contenting himfelf without being wife above what is written, has nowhere affirm- ed any thing, but what in His Opinion holds equally true, whatever in This Refpecl the Son's metaphyfical Nature^ Effence^ or Sub fiance^ be fuppofed to be. See his Script. l)o^r. Part IIj Prop. JIJIV and IXXri. q U E R Y XV. ^ Whether he alfo (i.j vmft not^ of Confe- * ^^ qitence^ ajjirjn of the Son^ that there was a *' time when he was not, fince God mitfl exifi *^ before the Creature -^ and therefore is again ^'' Self-co,ide7nnd? (See prop. 16. 'Scrip. *^ Doclr.j And whether he does not equivo- *' cate in faj ing elfewhere that the fecond Per- ^'- fon has ("2.) been always with the firft'-y *' and that there has to^/ no time, when he ^^ tpas ?wt fo / A?id laftly^ whether it be not a '^ vain and weak attempt to pretend to any mid- *' dh way between (j,) the Orthodox and the *' Arians , or to carry the Sofi's Divi?uty the '" leaf higher than they did, without taki?ig in, ^[ the (4.^ Confiibfiantiality poJeJ a diftlncl inferior Being ^ J?ifw.'^¥^H E very Texts referred to, evi- J_ dently fnow , that the Worfjip' due to Chrirt, ought not to be confounded with Th^n due to the Father : Becaufe the Worihip given to Chrift in all thofe Texts, is in confcquence of his RefitrfeSion and Af cenfion^ Luke 24, 25 , In confequence of the Command of the Father, at his bringing in the firfl-begotten into the World, Heb, i, ^'- In confequence of the Father's faying unto our Lord at his refurre8ion^ (as St Paul in- terprets it, J.^s ig, 35 1, Heb, i, 5.) Thois art mj Son^ this day have I begotten thee ^ And in confequence of the Father's having committed All Judgment unto the Son^ Joh. 5, 9.2, at 7uhat Time foever this be fuppofcd to- have been done. Were the Worfliip paid to Chri$^ C 35 > Chrift^ the very fame as That to the Father • it would ^^ follow,'' not only '' that he is the ''One God^'' (of the Suhftance of the One God^ it fhould rather have been faid,) in op- pofition to any ''' diJlinS hifenour BEING .^* but it would follow that he is That Per/on^ That Me^ That Him^ mentioned in the'Texts* For none of the Texts ever fpeak of a Being or Siihjiance^ (as Dr Waterland very unfairly reprefents them here, and in Query the Fir (I ;) but they always and uniformly fpeak of a Perfon. As to the term, Jrians. ufed in this Q,ue- ry 5 fee belov/, the Anfwer to Query XX XL aU E R Y XVIIL *^ TVhether Worfljip and Adoration^ both from " Men and Angels^ was not due to him^ long " before the commencing of his Mediatorial *' Kingdom, as he was their Creator and *^ Preferver (See Col i. i6, 17.) A?id whe- ^^ ther that be not the fame Title to Adora- ^' tion which God the Father hath^ as Ju- '' thor and Gover?wr of the Umverfe, upoii '^ the Docfor^s own Principles ^ Anfw,\X JHenever the Mediatorial King- VV dom of Chrifl: began, and at D d 2 wh^^ ( ao ivbat time foever he was worfhipped either By Angels or by Men , it was by the Command of the Father j who, when he brought ifi the firft'hegotten into the World^ faid, (whenfoever That be fuppofed to have been,) Let all the Angels of God wbrpnp hiffj* And This Wor- (hip of Chrift, was to the Glory of God^ the Father : Whereas it cannot (1 think, without Blafphemy) be affirmed of the Father^ that He is or ever vcas wordiipped to the Glory of the Son. Th'b Father'^ Worfliip therefore is both Primary and Ultimate : And I am per- fuaded it cannot Truly be faid, that He To wicvm the Father has committed all Judgment^ has '' the SAME Title to Adoration'\\<^ the Father who committed all [judgment to Him ; Or that He hy whom Gbd created all things^ has, " as Author and Governour of the Uni- *« verfe^ the SAME Title to Adoration^ rphicb " God the Father hdth^^'' who created all things hy Him. And therefore 'tis a mea7i thing, to confound the unlearned Reader here, with the Ambiguity of the Terms '^ Creator and Preferver.'' Nor is there Jny one inftance in Scripture, of Worftiip paid to Chrift in That capacity. aUERY ( 37 ; QUERY XIX. ^^hether the Bo&or hath not given a very partial Account of Joh. 5. 23. founding the Honour due to the Son^ on this only^ that the Father hath committed ail *^ Judgment to the Son; mioen the true Reafon ajjign^d by our Saviouy^ a?id illu^ *' firaied by fever al Inflames^ is^ that the Son doth the fame thijigs that the Father doth^ hath the fame Power and Authority of doing what he will '^, and therefore has a Title to as great Honour^ Reverence^ '' a?id Regard^ as the Father himfelfhath} ** And it is no Obje&ion to this^ that the ^' Son is there faid to do nothing of him- *' felf, or to have all given Him by the Fa- ther ^ Jince it is own'd that the Father is '* the Fountain of all, fro?n whom the Son " derives^ in an ineffable manner^ his Ef '*^ fetice and Fowers^ fo as to be one with ^Anfw.'-'Y^YiE " Do&or has not given a par. X Hal Account of this Text ^ Be- caufe he has ''' founded the Honour due to the '' So7i"' upon That, upon which Alone our ^aviour himfelf has in the moft exprefs words D d 3 founded C 38 ) founded it. The " Soiis doing the fame " things that the father doth^^ (which Dr W. calls '^ the True reafon ajjigned by cur *' Saviour ^"^^ is not " the reafon ajjigned by our " Saviour^' tho' it is indeed a " true reafon'^ as being of the fame import with That which our Lord has affigned in the Text. For as the Son has Therefore all Power of Judgment, becaufe the Father has committed all Judg- ment unto him *, fo (if we will believe his own words,) he therefore does the fame things that the Father doth, becaufe the Father lo- veth the Son^ andjijeweth him all things that himfelf doth. But our Lord doth not fay, that he ''''hath the SAME Power and Aiitho- *' rity of doing what he wills ^"^ as the Father hath 5 Becaufe Power or Authority original and derived^ are not the SAME. Nor does our Lord fay, that he " has a Title to As ^'' Great Honour^ Reverence^ and Regard^ as *' the Father himfelf hath ;" but that 'tis As Much mens Duty to honour the Son, to whom the Father has committed all Judgment ^ as to honour the Father^ who has cornmitted. all Judgment unto him. Which are very dif- ferent things. And 'tis extremely pleafant in Dr W. to fay, " it is no ObjeSion to this^ *^ that the Son is there faid to do nothing of " himfelf or to have all given him by the Fa- '' iber'^fince 'tis OWNED that the father is ''the C 3P ^ ^* rl?(? Fountahi of till^ from whom the Son de- ^' rives ^ in an ineffable tvanner^ his Ejfence " afid Powers^ fo as to be One with him'" Tis very pleafaiit (I fay) to allege, that an 0?- jeSion which overturns his whole Scheme, is No ObjeSion, becaufe 'tis Owned. For let it but be conftantly and uniformly acknowledged, that the Father is really^ not in empty words ,X)nly, " the Fountain of all •," and that '' the '' Son has all Given him by the Father-^"' fo that the incommunicable Honour of the lirH Caitfe and Supreme ^Author of all things, be preferved entire: And the ''ineffable manner'' how ^.' the So a derives his Effence and Powers " from him;' and is " 0«^ with Him^' needs caufe no Difputes. (^ U E R Y XX. ^^ Whether the DoSo^ need have cited 500 " TextSy wide ofthe Pur pofe, to prove what " no Body dejiiesj namely, a Subordination, *' in fome Senfe, of the Son to the father , '^ could He have found hut one plain Text " againsi his Eternity or Confubftantiality, *^ tloe Points i?i quejiion ? D d 4 Anfw^ C 40 ) A/n^.'nr^HE ^' E^emity or Confub(lani}a- J Utf of the Son, are not in any manner " the Points in quejlion ," becaufe, of whatever Duration and of whatever Sub fiance the Son be, (which are Metaphyseal Quefti- onF,) the Truth of no one* of Dr Clarke'^ Propofitions is thereby at all affeded. The Truth of plain Scripture-Declarations, does not at all depend on the Truth or Erroneouf- nefs of any metaphyfical hypothefes made by Writers who lived in Ages after the Apoftles. The 300 Texts therefore, are by no means *^ wide of the purpofe ^" becaufe they All frove^ what they \yere brought to prove , namely, a Subordijiation^ not in mere pofition or Order of Words^ which in the Truth of things is a Co-ordination j but they prove a teal Sid'Ordination of the Son to the Father in point of Dominion and oAuthority^ and efta- blifli a real Supremacy of the Father over all ^ Which Dr Waterland^ in dired oppofition to the Firil Article of the Apoftles Creed, and ^o the whole Tenour of the New Teftament^ conftantly denies. QUERY ( 41 ) a U E R Y XXL ^': Whether he he not forCd to [uf^]yhis want " of Scripture-Proof by very f,rai?i'd an^ " remote Inferences ^ and very tincertaiu '' Reafonings frotn the Nature of a thing " confe\]tdiy Ohfaire and above Comfre- '' henfion ] a7ul yet not morefo^ than God's " Eternity, Ubiquity, Prefcience, or other " Jt tributes^ wbicbyet we me obliged to '" acknowledge for certainJmths? eAnfw. IVIC) N E of the Propofitions on i>j which Dr Clarke lays any Strefs, are drawn by mere " Reafo7ungs fro^^i "-' ihe^ incomfrebenjible Nature'' of God, tho' (1 think) they are very agreeable to'right Reafon: Neither are they drawn by any " /trained and remote Inferefices :" But tliey are either the expefs and literal declaration, or tbQ ' immediate ana obviom Refult ^ of many more than joo Texts m the New Teftament. Dr W\ Scheme, on the con- trary, is founded wholly upon a f articular explication of a fhilofophical Notion of Con- fubfiantiality^ never 'mentioned in any One Text of Scripure ^ whatever Metafhyftcal Truth it may be fuppofed to have in it.' As iC ( 4^ ) As " God'^s. Eternity^ UliqtiHy^ Frefcience^ and other Attrihutes^'* are Themfelves (not particular mens different philofophical Ex- plications of the Manner of them) the Suhjeti of our "Belief: So the 1)treitio?is actually- given in Scripture concerning the Worfhip of God and of Chrift, (not philofophical Conjeftures concerning Suhftances and £/- fe7Kes and the MetaJ^hyJtcd reafons of things,) ought to be the Gmde of our Traciice. And then there .would foon be an End of all Difputes. Q. U E R Y XXIL " JVhether hk (the DodorV; whole Perform- " ance^ whenever He differs from U6^ he " any thing more than a Repetition of this *' eAjfertion^ that Being and Perfon are *' the fame^ or that there is no Medium ^' between Tritheifm and Sabellianifm ? ^' which is removing the Caufe from Scrips ^' ture to natural Reafon ; not very con/ijt-- [^ €?2tly with the Title of bis Booh Jnfw. (43 ) (iAnfw.T~\^ Clarle^ has no where affirm- I J ed or fuppofed , '' that Being <^ a?td Perfon are the frane-,'' but th^it htel- ligent Beingj (or rather hitelU^^ent oAgent^) and Perfon, are the fame. If Two or more Intelligent oAgents Can be the fame "Beings or fubfift in the fame individual Subftance, (provided the Agents be not all of them Self-exiftent as well as the SubHance; which is manifeft Tolytheifm ;) this will no way affeft the Truth of Any of Dr ClarWs Propofitions. To infift that words ought to have Some Meanifig and Signification , is not *' removing the Catife frcfu Scripture to *' natural Reafon ," but appeahng from Enthuftafm to Scripture and Reafon in conjunciion. (iUERy a U E R Y XXIIL i^ Whether (y.) the DcSor's Notion of the *' Trinity be more cUar and intelligible than '^ the other , by faying that the Son " and i€ cc (45 ) and Hoh'SpirU are fieither of them Go J, 171 the Scripture-fefife of the Word. But thh is cutting the Knot^ injleadof un- " tying it •, and is in effeB to fay^ they " are not fet forth as divine Ferfons in *^ Scripture. ^^ Does the Communication of divine Powers ^' and Attributes from Father to Son and *^ Holy -Spirit^ make them one God, the Di- << vinity of the two latter being the Fa^ *' therms Divinity ^ Tet the fame difficulty *' recurs: For either the Son and Holy* *' Ghofi have (6.) dij/inS Attributes^ and *' a dijlinB Divinity of their own, or they *' have not : If they have^ they are (upon '' the Do8or'*s Principles) diflinS Gods " from the Father^ and as much as Finite " from Infinite^ Creature from Creator ^ ^' and then bow are they one ^ If they have *' 7iot, then^ fince they have no other Divi- " nity, but J hat i?idividual Divinity and " thofe Attributes which are infeparable " from the Father^s Efjhice^ they can have *' no diftinEi Effence from the Father'' s -^ and " fo (according to the DootorJ will be one "' and the fame Perfon^ that is^ will be ' " Names only, *' Q. Whether this be not as (7) iininte'ihgibkas " the Orthodox Notion of the Trinity^ and **^ liable to the like Difficulties : A cofnmuni- " catior^ ( 4<5 ) ^' cation of Divhie Powers and Attributes^ " without the Subflance^ being as hard to " conceive^ nay^ much harder than a com- " inumcdtioyi oj Both together ^ ^nfw. (r.) ^^ nr^HE difficulty hi the Corj. X ception of the Trinity '' is ^ " not, ^' horv three Perfons can be One^ ^^ God: '* For the Scripture no where ex - preftes the Doclrine in thofe Words , and the Difficulty of underftanding a Scripture-Do- 8r:ne^ ought not furely to lie wholly upon words 7iot . found in Scripture. (Tis very ftrangre, that a Man of Dr /'Ps Abilities, ftiould write a large Book, without fo much as knowing, or ever once being able to ex- prefs, what the True Queftion is, which he undertook to write upon.) But the only Diffi^- ctdty in the Scripture-Declarations concerning the Trinity, if it be indeed a '^Oifficnlty^ is ^ how and in what Senfe, conftjiently with eve^ ry thing that is affirmed in Scripture concern- ing the Father and Son and Holy Ghoft, it- is ftill certainlv and infiUibly true, what Sti 'Paid exprefsly affirms, that r<9 US there is hut One God^ the^ Father^ of whom are all Things '^ and one Lord^ J^P^ Chrifl^ by whom are all things^ (47) (2.) *^ One and the fame Juthorhy exercu ^^ fedbyall^ *' does not " fnakethem numeri- '' cally or individually One and the Same " God. " But the One Authoritj which makes the Government of the Univerfe to be a M?- fiarchyy being in the Father Origijial^ in the Son Derivative-^ necefTarily fuppofes Him^ in whom that Supreme Power and Domi- nion is ahfolutely Of and Fro?n Hitnfelf^ original^ imd^rived^ and independent on A- ny 5 it neceiTarily (I fay ) fuppofes Him to be, by way of Eminence, what St Saul exprefsly (tiles him. The One God^ even the lather ( or Firft Caufe, ) of whom are all things. (5.J The word, God^ being expreffive, not of bare Subftance or Beings but of a Li- vifig Agent ^ does therefore neceffarily^ in the 'Nature of hanguage^ and in Vaci through the whole Scripture^ always "^ fg'^'^fy one Per- ^' fo7i.''\ Yet neither does it '' irrefiftihly " or at all follow, " that the Father^ andiwne " elfe^ is the One Ferfon " always fignified by That Word , (becaufe in fome few Places, the fame word (ignifies alfo the One perfon of the Son.) Nor yet does it follow, that " the " Three Perfons are Three Gods -^ ''Be- caufe there is No Text of Scripture, where- in the word, God^ denotes the Perfon of the Holy Ghoji. Nor does the Sons being, C 48 ) ililed by St John mi St Paul, the God (stTid the Lord J BT whom are all things \ in any wife exclude the Father from being (till alone the One God, ' (or FirfiCaufe^) OF whom are all things. But according to Dr W^s Scheme,' the Three Perfons are really and neceflarily Three Gods. For three ^ *' Real Perfons^ '' .—^ ^ * ^^.t^'^f' CL 7 - r> ^ 7 ' J' ' J terland s Dereniew each of them an individU' p^^^ ^.^^ ^ " al intelligent A gent ^ and each of them equallv^ fupreme over All i cfre certainly Ihree Gods, Nor will three " /W " dividual intelligent Agent s^ " by ^'' fuhfi fling " in one undivided S uhflayice^ '* be " All toge* " ther.^""^ in Any refpeft, '' one undivided i?iteL *' ligent Agent^ " (as Dr W, mod abfurdly af- firiEs that they will '^) but only One undivi- ded Sub fiance,, f4.) Dr Clarke's Scheme therefore, being eaiily exprefl in the very words of Scripture^ rmd containing in it no ContradiElion to Rea- fon^ is not " liable to, the fame Difficulties " with " Dr Waterland's* For Dr M\ never fo much as once Attempts to exprefsfl;J in Scrip- ture-words^ (as a Scripture-Doclrine^k were rea- fonable to expccl, might poj/iblj have been ex- prcft -J And in hlsOivn words^ 'tis a Contra- diSlion in the very Terms, if '*^ three indivi- *' dual inteUigenl' Agents " being '' Oaj^ z//?J/- " vided C# 1 *' v'lJeJ intelligent Jgoit^ '* be i Contra- €idion. (5.) In Doftor Clarke's Scheme , it " ii " inked an eafyWay of coming off'' from all Difticultles, to fa}% not " that the " Son is not God in the Scripture-Sen f'e of the ^' word • '* but that, though he ii God in the Scripture-Senfe of .the word God (or •^ Lord) BT whom are all things^ yet he is not God in . ^ Compare Job^ the Scripture-Senfe of the viiV l'/""^ ' ^''^' word. One God^ the TFirft ' Caufe, or; Father^ OF 'whom are all things] This is '* untying the Knot, " (if it be at all a Knot,) and not ^' cutting it. " 'Tis faying, both /' in effeEl " and in exprefs words too, neither more nor lefs than what the Scripture hasfaid^ Tis '-'' fetting forth the " Divine Perfons^ " juft as the Scripture it- felf has fet them forth. (6.) From what has beeti faid in the fore- going Paragraph, 'tis very plain hotv it may be affirmed, that " the Son and Holy Ghoft Have " diJiinB Attributes and a diftinS Divinity " of their own^ " and yet the Father is ft ill Alone The One God (or Firft CaufeJ OF whom are all things. But the Dilemma here put by Dr Waterland^ irrefiftibl}^ deftrcys his Ovpn Scheme. '' Either the Son iind Holy " Ghoft have dijiin^ Attributes^ and a di- E e '' Jlin^ ^* JlinEi Divinity of their own^ or they have *' 7iot. If they have^ they are '* [not with (land- ing any Unity of SubUance] '' dilHnSi Gods "•' from the Father -^ as much fo''^ (upon DrWs Principles) '^ as " One hifintte Intelligent Agent from x\notltcr Infinite Intelligent Jgentj as One Creator from Another Creator^ as One Si4preme Lord over all from Another Supreme Lord over all j *' And then how are they '' One, *' [One ^ undivided ^ Sec Dr m j,^^,iii.,,,t Aoent So that 'tis very wonderful, Dr H^, fliould conjlantly fo mifreprefent the whole Queftion, as to lay the main Strefs of the Argument perpetually, where the Scripture has laid no Strefs at all, and upon Points which (whatever Way they be determined) do in no wife afFed the Truth of Any of Dr darkens Propofitions. For though Dr Clarke does indeed fuppofe it to be SabelUan^ and alfo impojfible in it lelf, that the Son and Holy Spirit ftiould be {individually with the Fa- ther) the Selfexifient Bein^ -, yet if it CoitlJ be proved that Perfons 7iot Self-exiflent^ could hQ generated or proceed (not only \k rn? ^ffiai ^ ^re^fy as the Council o^Nice determined,) but even in the Self-exijlent Subjlance itfelf] by the incomprehenfible Power and Willot Him who is The Alone Self-exijlent Perfon , ftili Dr darkens Propofitions would remain All of them True and Untouched. E c 2 QyERI { f^ ) Q. U E R Y XXIV. ^ Whether GaL 4. S. may not be e7iOugh t6 " determine the 'Dtjpite betwixt U6 j [tme ** it obliged the Dottor to conftfs that ^' ChriS is by Nature trrfy God, as tmly '' as Man is by Nature truly Man. *^ Hi? equivocates^ tbere^ indeed, as Ufuah " For^ he will have it to Jignify^ that " CbriB is God by Nature^ only as having *^ by that Nature which he derives from ^' the Father ^ true Divine Fower and *' Dominion: that is^ be is truly God hy *' Nature ^ as having a Nature diftinti ^' from and inferior to God^s^ waging the *' moft Eifencial Charader of God, Self-- *"^ extjie?ice. What is this but trifling with Words y and^layijigfaU andloofe? cc «/3;;/rc;.'"T^HE Sony ^' by that Nature whish _|_ ^^ be derives from the Father^ *' has True divine Power and Dominion i*"^ That is to fay, he is Truly and Really (as the Evangdi'd and the Jpo/ile ftiles him) That God or That Lord (Joh. i , i, j. and 5 Cor. 8, 6,) BY or Torough whom are all things. But yet, (not being Self-exiftent -^ BOt^eing the Father and FirB Caufe of all; Eoc-having his Perfedions abfolutely of Him- f 53 ; felf^ original, mderived^ and independent on Any \) he is not The Ode God, OF whom are all things. Whether the endeavouring to ridicule fo exprefs a Scripture-diftinftion , calling it '^ Kq^uivocating^^ and '<• Trifling ^' with Words^ and Playing fast and loofe ;" whether This, I fay, be a ^^eal according to Kjiowledge-^ and whether thefe Expreffions (if decent) might not with far greater Juftice be retorted upon Dr W's notion, of Self-exifience not being a Keal and Ejjhitial T erf e^ ion of the God, from and of whom are all things ; I leave to the Reader to judge. Q, U E R Y XXV. " Whether it he not clear from all the genuine '^ Remains of Antiquity, that the Catho* ** lick Courch before the Council of Nice, ** and even from the leginning, did believe *^ the Eternity a7td Confubftantialily of the f Son • // either the oldefi Creeds, as in'- *' terpreted ly thofe that recite them ; or ** the Teftimoiiies of the earliefl Writers^ *' or the ^ublick Cenfures paf'd u^ou He- ^^ reticks, or particular Pajjages of the '^ Antienteft Fathers , can amount to a *f Proof of a thing of this Nature ? E e 5 Anfw. C J4 ) ^Anfw. T Have already fhown, that the J[ metaphjfical queftion concerning *^ the Eternity and Confuhfiantiality of tM ^' Son^"^ no way affefts the Truth of Any of Dr ChrWs Propofitions. But here I cannot but take notice, with what an un- reafonable Prefumftion This Query is word- ed. For None ot^^the oldeji Creeds ^^ men- tion any thing of thefe Matters at all , and therefore Dr W. is forced to add, '^ as inter- *' freted by thoje that recite tbem.^'* And the moft remarkable " Cenfures fajjed ufon *^ HtreticW of old, were upon the Ehio- nites^ who taught that Chrift was a mere Man^ in whom the Supreme God dwelt : and upon Cerinthm^ who taught that the Son of God was not himfelf 7nade man^ but only united to a Manx and upon the Vdlentinians and Manichees and Catafhrygians^ from whom arofe the Doftrine of Necejfary Etna- Tiationsi and upon Sahellim and Taul of Samofata^ who taught (ra TAvlo^trtov) the no- tion of Individual Conjuhfiantiality. And among the " Fathers''^ themfelves , there was great variety of opinion concerning thefe Matters : Some fuppofing that the Son was originally [the KiyQ- h^S^idHiQ-^ the internal lieafon of the Father ^ v/hich is either ma- king him nothing but an Attrilute^ or fup- pofing him to have eternally exifted only mentally ( 5? ) mentally or ideaUy in the Father: And fb did all other things. Others fuppofed him to have really exifted in the Father from Eternity, but not to have been emitted as a ferfon or diftinH Agent ^ till the time of cre- ating the material World. Others taught him to be a Part of the Father's Subflance, as a Branch is part of a Tree; and Others, that he was co-immenfe with the Father's Subftance. All which Notions are the lefs to be wondred at, confidering how many Philofophers (according to the feveral Hypo- thefes of the times they lived in,) imagined All Sfirits^ and even Hmnane Souls ^ to be produced, not out of Nothing, but out of the Divine Subftance; From whence 'tis evident, that no mere Metaphyfical Specu- lations ought to be made the Ground of Re- ligiom Dottrines and Practices, However, One thing is clear from JU Jntipitj^ (and Dr W^. has not been able to allege any One pafTage from any Ante-Nicene Writer to the contrary ;) that They who believed the Son to have been Always with the Father, as a real Per/on ; and to have been, not aut of Nothings but out of the Father'^s Subflance -^ did All of them uniformly fo explain it, as to aflisrt with great diftinftnefs, that they believed him to have been, not Self-exifting with the Approbation of the Father^ (which B e 4 is C 5O is pr Ws notion,) but Begotten BTthe Power and BTthe Will of the Father ^ and conftant« ly obferved That diftinftion, in their Rea- fonings, and in their Worfhip. See Dr darkens Scripp-re-IDocirme^ Part IL § 17^ $^Q alfo above, the Anjwer to Query yiM. a U E R Y XXVI. f* Whether the DoHor did not equivocate or ''' ^prevaricate ftrangely in faying^ The Ge- ^' nerality of Writers before the Council ^' of Nice, were, in the whole, clearly '' on his (\Aq: when it is manifefl, they ^'' were^ in the general, no farther on his *■' Jide^ than the allowing a Subordination ^' amounts to-^ no farther than our ovon ^' Church is on h'vs fide\ while in the main *•' Points of Difference^ the Eternity and ^' Confubftantiality, they are clearly a-- '^^ gainft him ? Tloat is, they were on his ^^ fide^ fo far as we acknowledge him to he i[ rights hut no farther <. ]4^fw< Jnfw.ir'\R. Clarie did ndthev ^^ equlvo^ \^ *' cate^"^ nor " {revarkatey* but affirmed a manifeft Truth, ^'' in faying^ The *? Generality of Writers before the Council of f* Nice, werej in the Whole, clearly on his '* fide :" Becaufe they generally agree with him (as is evident from his numerous Cita- tions,) in all the Points laid down in his Propofitions. The '^ Eternity a?id Confuh^ " fiantiality^'' are neither *^ the mai^i^'^ (nor at all, the) ^'points of difference f becaufe, in what manner foever thofe points be deter- mined, his Propofitions are all neverthelefs equally true. All that the DoQ:or contends for, is, that the Supremacy of him whom the A pottle ftiles the One God and father of ally who is Above all, fhould uniformly and conftantly be fo acknowledged, according to the Scriptures, as that All WorJhiJ^ Hiould be to the Glory of God, the Father. The con- fequence of which, (as well as the plain Im- port of the numerous Texts cited to that purpofe) is, that the ** Subordination^^ of the Son, '' allowed'''* (as Dr W. confeffes) by the Primitive Writers, is not a Subordination merely nominal , confifting (according to Dr Wciterland) in mere Fofition or Order of Words, whicli ia the Truth of things is a Co-ordination ; but that it is a real Suhordi^ mtion of the Son to the Father in point of ^^^ Jutho^ (58) 'Juthorlty and Dominion over the Univerfe, This is the vmin, the true and only Point. "Which being uniformly, and confiftently ac- knowledged j Metaphyfical Subtilties about Nature and Subftance, never mentioned 'm Scripture^ need not occafion any Difputes, All ^^ equivocating and ^revaricatin^^ in this matter, (if it be commendable tq ufe fuch Expreflions,) lies in making Subordination to confift in the mere order or j^lacing of Words -^ which ^however unvaried the pofition ^nd order of the words be,^ is in reality a £erfecf Co-ordination^ Q^ U E R Y XXVIL ^ Whether the Learned Doctor may not rea-^, ^' fonahly he fufpofed to fay^ the Fatherij ** are on his fide, with the fame Meaning ** and Referve as he pretends our Chtirch- ^ Forms to favour him ; that is^ provided ^' he may interpret as he fleafes^ and make ** them Jpeak his Senfe^ however contra-^ *^ diciory to their own : And ^whether the ^' true Reafon why he does not care to ad^ ^ mit the Tefiimonies of the Fathers as ^ Proofs, may not le^ hecaufe they are ^l againft him ? 4nfW'^ iS9) oAnfw. \ \ THether Dr Clarle may not VV reafonably be ''SUPPOSED ^^ ^^f^yT ^^* And whether the true Reafpn " MAT not he^'' i§c. are Queftions proceed- ing merely from ZS^^ without Kjiowhdge'; and therefore need no Reply. Ct U E R Y XXVIII. ?* Whether it le at all prolable^ that the pri-^ *' mitive Church jbould miftake in fo mate^ *^ rial a Point as this is ; or that the whole *' Stream of Chriftian Writers Jhould mi^ ** ftake in telling m what the Senfe of the *' Church was , a7td whether fuch a Cloud '' of WitnefJ'es can le fet afide without ** weakening the only "Proof we have of the " Canon of Scripture, and the Integrity of *^ the facred Text? eAnfw^ T X THether the Antient Writers V V of the Church, were better skiird in metafhyfical Speculations, than We at this day ; and whether Determinations of Fathers and Councils are a proper and pro- bable Method of difcovering the Truth ia matters of controverfy ; are Queftions which there is no occafion here to enter upon j becaufe Paffages of the Primitive Writers in favour r op ; favour ofkVi that Dr Clarke has aflerted, are imumerally More^ and more pregnant, than pan be alleged againfl any thing he has af- ferted. But fappo/mg the greater number pf Antient Writer^ had miftaken in This or Any other Point/ yet it would not at all *' weaken the only Proof we have of the ** Cauon of Scripture^ and the Integrity of the f^ Sacred Text:'^'^ Becaufe Tefiimony is the froj^er and Onlj Evidence of a Matter of Fatt^ as that fuch and fuch Books were written by the Authors whofe Names they bear , But even ** whole Streams ofWriters^^ in mz.tttvs oi Contr over fy^ reprefenting Other mens opinions, otherwife than in the Words of the perfons themfelves, are No manner of Evidence at all. Should any nian ffor in- jftance,) without reading Dr Clarke's Books^ judge from the Accounts of Dr Waterlana and other fuch Writers, what Dr Clarke\ Aflertions were ; he would never have any manner of notion, wherein the True Strei? pf the prefent controverfy lies. aUERf 4« ( 6i ) (^ U E R Y XXIX. •* Whether private Reafoning^ in a Mat fey* ** above our Com^rehenfion^ he a fafer Rule to go hy^ than the general Senfe and Judgment ofthepimitive Church, in the firft joo Tears) or, M^^fing it doubtful *' what the Senfe of the Church was within ** that Time^ whether what was determi-- *^ ned hy a Council of 500 'Bijhop fooii *• after J with the great eft Care and Deli^ *' beration, and has fatisfied Men of the " greatefl Senfe^ Piety, and Learnings all " over the Cbriftian World, for 1400 Tears ** ftnce, may not fat is fy wife and good Men " now^ ^^yw.'TpHE Matter in Queftion, is not X a thing '^ above our Corner ehen-* ^' fion^ a metaphyfical Speculation, as Dr W. conftantly mifre^refents the State of the eafe. But the True Queftion is This only :: Whether ft were not better to reft fatisfied with what tlie Scripture has Exprefsly and Confessedly declared and commanded, than to build any T)otirines or PraSiices, wherein the tVorpip of God is immediately concerned, tipon metaphyfical Speculations not mentioned in Scripture^ and upon controverted Confe^ qutnces < ^* ) quences which depend upon the Truth or Ef-- irour of fallible Men's Phtlofophical Notions. As to " the general Senfe and Judgment of '' the VrimiUve Church in the jirft 500 *' Tears ^^^ and '* what was determined hy a •* Council of 300 Bi^jops foon after ^ '* *tis very evident, (without entring into the Queflion, how far Determinations of fathers and Cowicils are a proper and probable Method of difcovering the Truth in Matters of Con^ trover fy ;,) 'tis very evident^ I fay, to any one who has ftudied thefe Points, that (as 1 before obferved) the Paflages of the Primi- tive Writers in Favour of all that Dr Clarke has aflerted, are innumerably More^ and more pregnant, than can be alleged againH any thing he has aflerted. Nor did the Council of Nice itfelf (though that's no Fart of the true Qiieftion concerning a DoSrine of Scripture,) determine any Thing that over- throws, or is inconfiftent with, any one of Dr Clarke'^s Propofitions. Nor had That Coun- cil any Notion of the Confequences^ which? Dr W's Philofophy leads him to. QpERY (^3 ) aU E R Y XXX- ^* Whether, fuppofing the Cafe doubtful^ it he *' not a wife Man^s Part to take the fafer ** Side j rather to think too highly^ thm '* too meanly of our Bleffed Saviour ^ ra* *' ther to pay a modeft deference to the Judg- *•' went of the Antient and Modern Churchy ** than to lean to one*s own Under fi and* « ing .^ Anfw, 'Tp^ His Query may be retorted X with irrefiftible Strengths ^' Whether^ fuppofmg the Cafe doubtful^ it he *' not a wife Mans Part to take the fafet '^ Side 5 rather to think too highly^ than too " meanly^ " of God the Father Ahnighty, and to be very tender of his Supreme and in- communicable Honour : " Rather to pay a " modefi 'Deference^ " nay, a ftrift and fcrupu^ lous Regard to the exprefs Declarations and Commands of Scripture, *' than to lean to " the Additions of Any Humane and fallible Judgment whatfoever ? This is a matter, that deferves to be confidered, with the utmoft Care and Serioulnefs. But to the Query, as Dr W. has propofed it, I anfwer diredly. J^ The Jafer Side^ " unqueftionably, is to ad- here liete to exprefs Scripture^ and (as I before faid) not to build Any Do&rines or PraB/Jes^ wherein the Worfhip of God is immediately concerned, upon metaphyfical Speculations not inentioned in Scripture, and upon controver- ted Confe que rices which depend upon the Truth or Errour of fallible Mens Philofophi- cal Notions. For fas this matter has been exprefTed in the Letter to the late Reverend Mr R, M. pag. 179.) '*^ whether the Son " and Holy Ghoji be equate or not equal^ to *' the Father-^ v/hether they be the fame ^ or *' not the fame^ with the Father 5 whether ^^ they be really difiijiB Perfons^ or not really •' diJiinB Perfons^ but only Modes or *' Powers^ improperly called Perfons ^ whe- '' ther the Son be confubflantial to the Fa- *' ther, or not confubjlaritial -^ whether con^ *' f^bjiantial fignifies Individuality of Sub^ *' fiance^ or only Derivation of one Suhjiance •* from Another 5 afid which way foever innu- *' merable other fuch Queftions be determi- " ned, yet, to worfhip uniformly r^^ 0ns ^^ God^ the Father Almighty^ even our Fa- *' ther which is in Heaven^ through the In-^ *' terceflion of his only Son our Lord Jefus " Chriji^ in the Manner the Scripture direds 5 " and, with regard to the Nature of the Son '^ and Holy Spirit^ hot to be wife above what *' is written, but to confine our felves (at lead " leaft in Creeds and publick Prayers) to the *^ clear and uncontroverced Expreffwns of " Scripture concerning Them ^nd the Honour «' due unto them -^ This (I fay) i? undoubted; *^ ly upon all poffible Hypothefes, righs and *' fiifficient inPraftife, without Any Danger of ** Errour or Miftake j being what all fincere *' Chriftians might eafily and mod fafely a- *' gree in, and indeed all that they promife ** at their Baptiim : Whereas All Determma' *^ tions beyond thefe clear Truths, and All ^* publickly impofed PraBifes built upon ** fuch Determinations, Always have been, " and cannot but be. Matter of Difquiet to " the Confciences of many pious Perfo?is, and *' (unlefs Men be too carelefs and indifferent ** with Regard to Truth or Errour in Reli- *^ gion) will unavoidably in their Confe- quences be the Caufe of Difputes alfo and Contentions in th$ Church of Qod. (C Ff QUERY ( 66 ) QUERY XXXL ^^ Whether any thing lefs than clear and evU ♦* dent Demonftratiori^ on the Side of A- ^^ rianifin, ought to move a wife and '' good Man^ agalnfl fo great Appear"- " ances of Truth^ ' on the fide of Or- ^'' thodoxy, from Scripture, Reafon, " and Antiquity: Ayid whether we " may not' wait long^ before we find fuck ^' Demonftration ? eiw/tt^oTpHE Arian Opinion is, that X the Son of God was made Qttt of nothings and that there was 'a Time when He was not. Neither of thefe Things have been a fferted by Dr Clarke-^ Nor has Jie any where affirmed any thing, from v/hich either of thefe Notions can r «7 ) f^y ^^^'^' jnft Confequence^ be deduced; CAll his Propofitions being equally true and certain both from Reafon and Scripture, whatever the Suhflance^ ahd how unlimtted foever the Duration of the Son be:) And he conftantly blames thole who teach either of thefe Notions, as Men who prefumptuoufly affirm what they cannot pojjlhly know any thing of. 5fet Dr W. will needs t^ave his Reader believe, that Dr Clarke contends for thefe Opinions ; merely becaufe He fan- fies^ that from Dr Clarke'^s Notions, ( which he conftantly raifreprefents, ) fucK and fuch Confequences will follow, which E)r Clarke and Others have plainly apd frequently ftiown not to follow at alU Charging Men in this Manner with Con- fequences^ which they neither teach nor fee j is, in phtlofophkal Queftions, always U7ifair 5 in religious^ always unjuji ^ and indeed nothing elfe, but appealing from Scripture^ and Reafon to the Igno- rance and Super ftitimi of the Vulgar. I am fully perluaded I could demon- ftrate^ that J)r W'^s Principles do, by True and Neoejfary C^nfequence^ funda- mentally fubvert both All Science and All Religion; (^^ > Religion : Yet becaufe I firmly believe hi does not at prefent perceive That Confe- quence, it would be very unreafonable in me to charge Him with it. Not rendring Evil for Evilj or Railing for Railings but contrarimfe Bkffing^ i Pet. J. 9. F I N I S. ^^*^hm«;i*aft^ ADVERTISEMENT. THERE will infomeTime bepublifh- ed a Large and Particular x\nfvver to Dr Waterland's Defenfe of his Que" A True NARRATIVE OF THE CONTROVERSY Concerning the Doftrine of the Trinity^ Being a R E P L Y to Dr. BERRI MAN'S Historical Account. WHEREIN The Partiality and Mifreprefentations of that A U T H O R are fully fliown. By the A u T H o R of the R E p L Y to Dr. Waterlandh Defences, ISc Lucian quomodo Hift. Confcrib. fit. LONDON: Printed for J. Noone at the White Hart near Mr* cerS'Cha^el^ Cheapjtde. 1725. A True NARRATIVE OF THE controversy; Concerning the Dodtrine of the Trinity^ SceJ MAN that undertakes to write aS Hiflory of what kind foever, ought to relate the Matters of which it confifts with as much Ingenuity and Inapartiality, as if he himfelf was wholly indifferent to and difintereft'- ed in every Cafe and Event, or had been an uncon- cerned Spedator of the Facts and Things related : So that he ought not, either out of Fear or Favour to either Side, to fupprefs or difguife any Part of the Truth, much lefs to deliver Falfehood inftead o£ Truth, _ ( 4 ) The Bufinefs of a faithful Hiftomn is like that of a * Judge, to be on neither Side of the contending Parties, but to fum up and propofe the full Evi- dence for both fairly and imparciallyj that every Reader may judge from the Nature and Reafon of the Things themfelves, where the Right or Truth lies. Dr. Beniman has undertaken to give an hiftorkal 'Account of the Controverf^es concerning the DoEirine of the 'Trinity ; and more particularly of the (fo call'd j A-- thanajian and Arian^ or Eufehian Controverfy i and the principal Deiign of his Hiftory is to fhew that his own Notion or Explanation of the Dodrine of the Trinity is more agreeable to the Senfe of the primitive Catholick Church of the three firft Centu- ries, than that of his Adverfaries is, whom he writes againft, and whom he ftiles Avians and Heretich^ taking it for granted that his own Opinion is Or- thodox and True. The Doftor every where declares himfelf not only incUnM to, but very zealous on one Side, which (hould put a Reader upon his Guard in the receiving his Relation and Reprefentation of things, And efpecklly to take Care that he be not impos^'d upon by the Injerences and Judgment which the Do- ctor makes from particular Fads and Expreidions, in Favour of his own Opinion, and againft that of thofe whom he oppofeth : In which Refped he may perpetually obferve, that it was nottheDodor's Mind or Intention (as an Hiftorianj to place before the Reader the Evidence of both Sides with equal Truth and Advantage ; but, as a Pleader and Advocate for one Side only, not only to prefs the Teftimony » ! ■ r i I • ■ , .. - I I I II yBeictv It} fif^a J^tKcl^aa-iv* ]L«cian de confcrib.Hift. p. 365. hdiu Par. and ( 5 > ^nd Arguments on the Part he efpoufes as far and farther than in Truth or Reafon they will bear, but frequently alfo to mifreport and ftifle the Evi- dence againft the one, ^nd for the other Queftion. If the Dodor had intended no more than to fhow by an hiftorical Narration, that the latter Athanajian^ or his own Explanation of the Do- drine of the Trinity , which fuppofes Father ^ Son, and Holy Ghofi to be three fupreme independent Agents of one Nature, three diflind Perfons necef-- farily exiflent^ and equally fupreme in Authority, Power, Dominion and Worfhip, had greater Evidence from Antiquity, than the particular Arian Notion of the Son and Spirit^s being Creatures made out of nothing, and in 'Time, in which Arianifm properly confifts : Had this been all the Dodor intended, yet even in this Cafe he had not been able to Ihew that the Sentiments of the Antients were more favourable to his than to the Arian Opinion ; not tliat they agree with the latter neither, on which Account Arius was to blame to infift fo much upon his Notion, without exprefs Evidence either from Scripture^ the Dodrine of the primitive Church, or the Reafon of the Thing it felf. But then on the other hand, a faithful Hiftorian muft own, that the ancient Church not only agrees as little with the Dodor's Notion, but alfo more frequently, exprefly and unanimoufly op- pofeth and condemns that which the Doctor calls the Orthodox, i. e* his own Dodrine, than it does the Arian Tenets j and that the DoEior therefore is e- qually or more to blame for infift ing on an Expla- nation, which his Oppofers think and have fhown has not the leaf): Evidence or Proof from Scripture, Antiquity, or the Reafon of Things, but that it is even contradidory to the whole Tenor of Scripture, the firft and moft fundamental Principles both of natural and reveafd Religion, the firft Article of all the primitive Creeds, the concurrent Dodrine of the whole ( 6 ) whole nndent Catholick Churchy and the moft demon- ftrative Reafon of Things- This, norwithftanding all the DoBors Pretences to hiftorical Teftimony, is truly the Cafe of the Argu- ment betwixt his own and the Avian Notion, fuppo- fing the prefent Controverfy to be on that Foot. But tho"* the DoEior would (as Dr. Waterland before him) always infinuate, that thefe are the Parties in the Difpute concerning the Dodrine of the Trinity ; yet the Controverfy has been fo long canvafs^'d, and io fully fbated and clearM, that every intelligent Reader muft fee that this is an egregious Impofition and falfe Declaration of the Caufe , and that the Controverfy really is not betwixt thofe of his Opi- nion, and thofe who hold and infift on the particu- lar Avian Pofitions i but betvvixt thofe who with the Docior profefs the Father, Son and Spirit, to be three diftind independent fiipreme Agents, independent and co-ordinate in Nature and all PerfeElions ,* three Perfons necejfarily exifient and equally fupreme in Au-^ thority. Power, Dominion and Worjhip : And thofe who on the other Side hold that there is but one Perfon, intelligent Being or Agent, who is the one God and Father (or original fupreme Caufe) of all ; that the Father alone is the one necejfarily exiflent, in- dependent fupreme Godj alone fupreme in Nature and all P erf eBions, as being underiv'd, and having no Caufe or Original of hisExiftenceand Attributes ; and on the fame Account alone fupreme in Authority, Power, Dominion and Worfhip : That the Son and holy Spirit are diftind divine Perfons or Agents really deriv'J from the incomprehenfible Power and Will of God the Father, fibordinate to the Father in Nature and Perfedions, in Authority, Power, Dominion and Worfhip ,• that they are the Father's Angels or Mef- fengers, and miniflerially fulfil all his Will and Commands^ This ( 7 ) Tliis is the Notion of the DoBo/s Adverfaries, which he (after DoEior Waterland) very ignorantly or malicioufiy ftiles Arianifm^ only in order to have fome Pretence of oppoling it ; tho^ it is well known that they whom he oppofeth profefs not any one of the particular Tenets charg'd upon the Avians^ either that QjM '7r'o]z t]t in iJj) there was a * 'Time when the Sony 8cc. ivas not , that he was made out of nothings and It does not certainly appear rhar the Ariavs us'd the Ex- preiCon \Uu 'rs'c\i on y,K Vjj 6 tfo> Vjj -^-S^'l which is not found ei- ther in Eidfebius of Nicomedui' s Ltitpr^ or in that of '^r/'wi, or in his 'TbalLi^ cited by Athanafius ; tho' the Avhtris us'd other Ex- preflions, whence ihe Nicenes might infer and charge the for- mer upon them ; as lafx^jj) fy^ei o i|j<, ^k I'm a-A, ^elv 'y^vn^ii HK Vm, Avii Epiji. apudlLheodo.^Hift. lib. i. c, 5.] ihe Son had a Beginning of ExiJIence ; ivas not al^jj^'iys *, did not exifi before he qvas begotten. And Athanajlus quotes AriuSy faying in his Thaliay That the Son was [cj; yfivt^^ yzfaco^'l begotten in 'Time. But 'tis certain that the Avians^ fuppoiing they us'd the Expreffion which was chargM on them [Vm 'Ts-on on i)L \w qo^ ^a -^'^^ were not fo abfurd or (illy as to teach thereby that there was a *Iime when the Son was not, in the o)d Senfe of Time as fup- pos'd to be created ; and they cxprtfly faid on the contrary, that he was bejoYs lime. And therefore Alexander vr ry unfairly and falfely infers from the Charge of their faying [bl '^oji orz iy, bJj] the. Son t)i TO ^QTij h oJi TO in, \jx> <^eiefore any in- finite Time or Duration^ and that he ajivays exifled with the Father. Thefe (1. ) Thefe were the feveral Speculations of particular Writers,* on which Account many who are not well vers'd in the ancient Books, and have not con- fider'd the whole of Antiquity together, obferving thefe different Explanations, have thought that the Ancients difagreed and contradicted each other in the DoEirine of the T'rimty : Whereas in Truth they only differ'd a little in the Explanation of Things, {which Explanation one way or other was of no Moment, nor was thought to affed the general Do- drine of the Church] in which Things themfelves they were perfedly unanimous. It was ever agreed on all hands, that of zuhatez'er metaphyfical Nature, Effence or Subftance the Son, &c. was, ivhenfce"jer or hozvfoever deriv'd, he was not necejfanly-exifient^ but in Oppofition to it, was exprefly faid to be de- riv'd by the Po-wer and Will of the Father ; and that tho' he was before the World, as all agreed^ yet that the Father did precede and fre-exift (as fome exprefly faid) before the Nativity, the divinei Nativity of the Son, as being the Original and Caufe of his Exiftence : And it was, as hath been faid, their exprefs, concurrent univerfal Dodrine that the Fa^ ther was the One God'm Contradifiinction to the Son^ \vho is not only never faid to be the One God or God fupreme, but is frequently in exprefs Terms deny'd to be fo ; and that the Father alone was worlhip'd as the One God fupreme, and the Son and Spirit tvor- fhipM in a fecondary and fuhordinate Manner, the one as Mediator, the other as the Spirit of Prophecy i and were conftahtly taught to be inferior and fub" jeB to the Father. In thefe Things, in the fupreme authoritative Power and Dominion of the Father (even over the Son and Spirit) and in the Inferiority, Mi-- niftration and SiibjeElion of thd Son and Spirit to him, the Ancients never differM, and exprefs 'd their Do~ drine clearly and fully both Ways ; both in 2.i{eTtmg the Superiority and abfolute Preeminence of the Father^ (12) and no lefs, the Inferiority and Inequality of the So7t and Spirit. This being the Cafe, to what purpofe is it for Dr. Berriman to fpend fo many Pages to fhow (what none of his Adverfaries deny, and what all of them are as zealous for as he can bej that the Son of God is a divine Perfon and truly God^ exifl- ing before the World, in Oppofition to fuch as de- nyM his Divinity^ and held him to be a mere Man ? This takes up a great Part of the DoElors Book, and he has little more to urge till he comes near or to the Council oiNice -, and the greateft Part of what is related after that Council, is as little to the Pur- pofe, being fpent in purfuing and difcufling from the fifth to the prefent Century, the various FaBionSy Divifions^ and mutual Perfecutions of the Athanajians and Ariansy fo cail'd, as either were encouraged and aflifted by the temporal Powers, in the contentious, dark and ignorant Ages of the Church, when Chri- flianity was over-run with Superftition, and foon fwallow'd up in the great Apoftacy of Popery. If the Doctor could have produced any thing in Favour of his own Notion, or againft that of his Adverfaries, from the Remains of the primitive Church, his Labour would have been ufefully fpent ; but not to be able to alledge fo much as one Inilance direftly to his Purpofe, not one Pailage teaching the Son^ dec, to be the one God^ God fupreme or equal to the "Father in Authority^ Dominion^ &c. is furely, inftead of fupporting his Cauie, plainly fliowing that it cannof he f^.^ported. I fhall therefore in the enfuing Papers briefly Conflder every thing which I can pick out of the DoElors HiHory that is any way to the Purpofe, all which lies in the Compafs of about an hundred Pages of his Book, and Ihow that he has not repre- fented the Tranfad:ions and Senfe of the Church fairly ox fully ^ either before y at or after the Council of Nice, The ( »? ; The DoBor having no where producM fo much as cne Teftimony from the numerous remaining Re- cords of Antiquity, for the main Points in difpute, to wit, for the fupreme, independent Divinity and Authority of the Son and Spirit^ and their Coequa- lity with the Father ; but being contented fafter Dr. W.) to argue only for them by remote Infe- rences and Dedu6lions from Expreilions averting the Son to be God, and feeming (from the Similitudes us'dj to imply his Confubftantiality with the Father; and endeavouring at the fame time to evade with fcholaftic Diftindions and quibling Pretences (^where- in all the Strength of Dr. IV 's Books lies) the many direct and ftrong Expreflions of the Subordina- tion^ Inferiority and Suhjeciion of the Son and Spirit to the Father, who is fet forth as being alone God ah^ folutely^ and the one God, ^nd fupreme ultimate Objed: of Worihip, in all the ancient Creeds, and in all the public Forms of the Church as recited by thofe An- cients who have tranfmitted them to us ; after fuch a Cloud of Witnefies for the Catholic Dodrine of the Supremacy of the Father, and the Subordination of the Son and Spirit, the DoBor feems to be fenfi- ble of a Want of Evidence on his own Side, and to be pinchM with the great Appearance of it on the Part of his Adverfaries, fo as to fay : *' Had *' the * ancient Liturgies been tranfmitted down en- *^ tire, it might here have been an ufeful Labour *^ to have made fuch Obfervations upon them, that " the Worfhip of the Church might come in to the *^ better Illuftration of her Dodrine. ' In this " Cafe therefore [of the Want of the ancient Litur- gies] the beft Evidence that can be brought is from the fcatter'd Accounts which the Writers of " thofe Times have left, who are the fitteft Wit- *Page 152, 155. V neffes ( H ) ^' neiTes of the Worfhip, as well as of the I)ocl:nne of the Church. As the Father was conftantly ac- knowledg'^d for the Fountain of the Deity ^ and never reprefented as aBing in Subordination to the other Perfons , who on the contrary were always con- (ider^d as fubordinate to him^ and fuftaining their refpedive 0-^ces in the Work of our Redemption. From hence it is no Wonder if the Prayers of the Church fliould generally be addrefs'd to the Per- fon of the Father, — thro the Merits of Chrift. — ^ We acknowledge the plain Footfteps of this Wor- fliip to appear thro' /z// Antiquity, and the Church has defervedly continued it to this Day. Let our Adverfaries make the moft of this Conceffion/* This ConcejTton, which the DoBor is forc'd to al- low to be the Refult of the j^lain Senfe of all Anti- quity, is not, methinks, very favourable to the No- tion of the Son and Spirit being neceffarily-exiilent and equally fupreme God with the Father, coordi- nate with him in Nature and all Perfedions, which is Dr. B 's as well as Dr. W — 's conftant Do- d:rine. Fnfly The Ancients (he owns) conftantly achnovj-^ ledgd the Father to he the Fountain of the Deity ; which is a plain Declaration of his alone Supremacy, as being alone the original firft Caufe of all things ', the alone Fountain of all divine Power and Dignity; [fo the Words -ur^^yn kojulQ- mean, not the Fountain of THE Deity, as if Deity was a complex Name of a Species, and fupposM more Perfons or Gods exifting in it than one ; ] the alone Author and Caufe of the Divinity, and of all the Perfedions of the Son and Spirit. To be thus the Fountain of Dei" ty is furely a diuine (nay, if I may fo fay, the moft divine and fupreme) PerfeBion of God ; efpeeially when it is further coniider'd ( which a faithful Hi- ftorian fhould have told his Reader) that the Anci- ents, in Confequence of their profeffing the Father 10 ('5) to be the Fountain of Deity ^ always plac'd the Unity in the Unoriginatenefs of his '^' Perfon, as the learned Biihop Pearfon himfelf has ownM : And therefore if the Unity of God be itfelf a Perfe^ivn^ the Founda- tion of this Unity the divine Paternity can be no lefs fo. Bifhop Pearfon J Bull^ and the learned Dr. Cud- •worth t, all admit that it carries in it a Preejninence which belongs not to the Son, and which makes the ¥^lhtr greater than he^ in his higheil Capacity : And in the Senfe of the ancient Church it was always efteem'd, and the Father was always )| peculiarly a- dord on account of it, as being the higheftincom- municablePerfedion of God. And yet in Dr. B — -'s Accourjt, (as alfo in DwlV "s) th\s fupreim Per- fedion is no PerfeElion at all^ but a mere Mode of Exi- flence, which derives no Dignity^ Power ^ Preeminence or Authority to the Perfon, to the one God and Father of ally ivho is above ally pollefled with it. Who would imagine, when it was confefs'd to be the Senfe of the ancient Catholic Church, that the Father was the Fountain of the Deity ^ that it fhould yet be pretend- ed to be their Senfe alfo, that the Son, &c. was neceffarily^exiflent ^ and confequently as much the Fountain of the Deity as the Father? But the An- cients were not thus inconliftent ; they meant as they fpoke, and fpoke rationally ; and not only ne- ver taught that the Son was necejfarily-exijient, but in exprefs Contradidion to it, confiftently profefs'd that the Son was begotten or deriv'd by the If'lll of * See Reply to Dr. TV — 's Defcnfe, Pair. 2; — 102, &c. t Creed, F^g, 35. Def. F. N. Se£t. 4. c. 3. Intel. Syd. ^/rp^e 598. li Two PalTages out of many fhall fuffice, -:;/:;:. tw [y.iu dyzv- etiriof ?^iyo\^A^* Akx. Alex, Epifl. npud Theod. Hifl. FccJef. L'lh. t. and 'Tertul. before him : cjuod ut ejfet nuU'ius enint ati&ons^ wulto fuhllmlus erit ea, qucd ai ejfkt aliquem hahtilt auHoreni. Coj7t,Her- tno^, c. 18. V- ' the (i6) the Father, and that the Father was the Author, Caufe^ Hend^ and God of the Son in his higheft Ca- pacity : And in this Senfe it was that they under- flood the Father to be the Fountain of Deity. Secondly^ The DoSior owns that the Father was ne- *uer reprefented as aEling in Subordination to the other Perfons, zvho on the contrary were always conjtde/d ca fuhordinate to him, dec. Who can, after fuch a ConcefCjcn, imagine that it was the Senfe of the Ancients (as the Doctor would pretend it to bej that the Son and Spirit always con- fider^d by them as fiibordinate to the Father, were yet coordinate with him in Nature and-all PerfeElions, and equally God fupreme ? That the Son, &c. fhould be conftantly declared to be the Angel or Mejfenger of the Father *, fent by him, and acling f winifleriaEy to his IVill and Commands in all Tilings, from the Beginning of the World, and even in the higheft Acts of his divine Power, in the Creation II of the World ; in all the Appearances to the Patriarchs and Prophets before and under the Law, reprefenting, appearing and fpeaking in the Perfon of the Father, by his Autho- rity ; executing his Orders, and falhlling all his Pleafure ; and at laft fent by him into the World to take our Nature, and faffer for our Sins, in Obedi- ence to the Will and Appointment of God the Fa- ther : That the Son Ihould conftantly be reprefented as afting thus in Subordination to the Father, who on the other hand is always reprefented as the alone ■^ MifTus attiem non fult pater, ne pater fubdirus alferi Deoy dum mittitur, proharetur. Novat. de 'frimt. c. 22. and Hil. quis patrem fion potiorem conftehitur — - ut eum qui miferit ah eo qui sniflus efi ? de 'Trmt, Lib. 3. and Aagufi, propter au£t:oritatem/o/;/i patet lion dicitur miflus. t Reply to Dr. W — 's Defenfe, p, 1:^ — 147. II Reply, &"€, Tag, 17—23. \ abfolut^ abfoiiite tei-d and God of the Univerfei; ilftiifig out Orders and Commands, and by his fupreme l^'MUj S'i(f^o\tict] Dominion and Authority conftitu- ting the Son and Spirit to be the * Executors o£ them : And yet that all this fhould be fo under- ftood, as that the Son and Spirit are neverthelefs dhfolutely and originally equal to the Father in Power j; Authority and Dominion ; and that the Father has no more effential or 'inherent Right 6v Authority to fejad the Son and Spirit, than they have to fend him : and that in the Nature of the Thing the Father might have acled the f mini/ierialPart, and been reprefented as fuhordinate to the Son and Spirit^ as well as they to him. This is fuch an Explanation of the Senfe of the Ancients, which as nothing but the moft plain and exprefs Declarations can warrant the afcribing it to them ,* fo if any fuch Declarations could be made appear, they would only Ihow that the Anci** ents were inconfiftent with themfelves, and would quite overthrow their Teftimony in the like Cafes | and therefore by mere In^-cntion to fix fuch a Senfe upon them not only ivichout but againfl their evident and unanimoufly exprefsM Sentiments to the con- trary, is both highly injurious to them, and to the Catholic Dodrine which they maintain. And no- thing could ever by mere Imagination be framed more unreafonable and abfurd in itfelf, as well as repugnant to the univerfal Suffrage of Antiquity, than the fictitious Notion of the Oeconomy [in which this Gentleman follows Dr. W — ] founded on an imaginary CompaB and Agreement of three Perfons,' fuppos^d to be ahfolutely equal and coordinate in Na-- ture, and original Authority and Dominion ; and * Hence all the Ancients fiile the Son and Spirit ImamsV^di the Hands of God. t Dr. ^.— '*fecond Def. f 177, C i^\$l '( x8 ) this, in order to folve all the ftrong Expreflions of the primitive Writers concerning the Supremacy and Superiority of the Father to the Son and Spi- rit ; and to introduce in Oppofition to the Doctrine of Scripture, Antiquity, and the Evidence of natural Religion itfelf, a Trinity of diflinEi, neceffariiy-exi- ftent, equal, independent Perfons or Agents, coordi- nate in Nature and all PerfeElions ; which is in the ?laineft Terms to affert the Impiety of T^ritheifm. 'his is a Point of fo great Importance, and in which the Glory of the only true God the Father, and of Je- fus Chrifl v'hom he fent *, and our common Chriflia- nity is fo immediately and nearly concern'd ; that all who are zealous for the Truth of the Go/pel, and the Do6lrine of the Church of Chrifl in the firfl and pureft Ages, and for the eternal, immutable Ve- rity of natural Religion itfelf ,* ought to call upon Dr. W — for the Reafons and Evidence of fo Ihocking a Notion laid to the Charge of the primi- tive Church, for which he has not product the leaft Footfteps in Antiquity^ either from the Antenicene or Nicene Church, who both c<]^ually reclaim againft it; and which Notion, by direct and neceffary Confe- quence, confounds the Ufe of Language ; makes the Expreffions of Scripture and of the ancient Books unintelligible, and fundamentally fubverts the firft Principles both of natural and revealed Religion. 7'hirdly, The Dodor allows that the Prayers of the Church 'Were generally addrefs'd to the Perfon of the Fa- ther, — thro' the Merits of Chrifl, and that the plain Fcctfleps of this JVorfloip appear thro' all Antiquity. On this Head indeed the Senfe of Antiquity is fo full and flrong againil the Do6tor's Notion, that had he declared it particularly and at large, the »S«- pemacy of the Father, and the Subordination of th^ Sof^ (19) Son and Spirit would have appearM beyond Difputel The Senfe of Antiquity is compriz'd in three Par- ticulars : ^ FiYJl, That the Father alone was ever worfliip d in the higheft Manner as the one fupreme God, and ulti- mate Objed of Adoration. And this they carried fo far as to reprefentGod the Son himfelf * joining in Adoration to the Father, and as being t devoted to the Worjhip of God the Father. Secondly y That the diftind Worlhip of the Son was always paid to him, not as being the one fupreme God, but in a fecond and fuhordinatc Senfe, as being the only begotten God, the Word, or Son of God, our high Prieft and Mediator to God the Father for us : and therefore he was never invocated as the primary and final- Objed: of Worfhip ; but even when he was diredly invocated, [of which there are very few Inftances in Antiquity] the Invocation was un- dy'ivv^lov^ ^ ivcoKi^^v, K^ iJ.om' ov^cj^ 6iW, ciwviJ.v^v]©' nuiv 75* See Keply,?. 375 — 397- x , ^ « ax , » ^ - UtTKilcu acSjiieU^. " His preexiftent only-begotten Word, " the great high Prieft of the great God, who is betore all ^* Time and all Ages, being devoted to the WorJhlp of the Fa* •* ther, is the firft and only Interceflor to him for the Salvatiott " of all Men. Eufeh, de Laud. Cofiftant, p. 718, 719. Where fee the learned Valefius's Annotation on the Word KetBeoVi iS^'iva. aKKov ^tumet ^ih' p^ ^yfiAoy Iztivov c.v ^Jiy.mviy 0£s /^sAo/zi."^, Dial, cum Tryp. P' 91' , .^^ ^„ • °^<^ei^o(JLiV. Apoi. I. Lib. I, c, lo. ^ !■' '■ . "bore (21 ) *^ bow to Chrift Jefns, our Lord and God, and Sa- f^ vior and King." And Origen: \\ " We demand [of C^///^j] concern- *^ ing thofe whom they vvorfhip as Gods, a Proof " of the fupreme God having appointed them to be ^^ worfhipM : And if in Reply he demands the " fame Thing of us concerning 'Jefus^ we will fhow " him that God hath appointed him to be worfhipM : *' T'hat all Menfiould honour the Son^ even as they honour [^ the Father. And Cyprian : * " God the Father commanded his " Son to be v/orlhipM : " Which he puts upon his being exalted by God, Phil. II. 9, lo, 11. All thefe Inftances Ihould have been fairly pro- duced by the Dodor in the Account of the Wor- Ihip of the Father and Son, &c. according to the Pradice of the primitive Church : And they demon- Urate in the plainefl and moil affeding Manner the Senfe of Antiquity, that the Son of God, &c. was not the One God fupreme, equal in Power and Domi- nion with the Father , fince it is evident they never paid the fame or equal Worfloip to him with the Fa- ther : which they would not have fail'd to have done [whofe Piety and Zeal was fo eminent and fervent for the Honour of Chrift their Savior] if they had underftood that he was fet forth in Scripture as the One God, or equal to the Father, or was there direded to be worfhip'd as fuch. And this Evidence of the Senfe of the Ancients drawn from their religious Wor/kip, is of the greateft Moment, and ought of all others to be moft attended to ,• and their Pradice ^S^ei^ofxiu or: "^ Sea AE'AOTAI cuJto) to rifj-ct^' r.'ct 'TTcivTi!; Tiu.^fTi r uiv KciQcc^ T///WC-/ r "TTctlicc': Conr, Celf. lib. 8. p. 5S4. "^ fater Deus p;-^cepitjilinm ftmm adorari, Ve hof7._^Faf, * X certainly ( 22 ) certainly deferves to he continued in] and to be the alone f Pradice of the Church. The Doctor obferves further, with Refpet5l to divine Worfhip, " That there is only one Paffage *^ in a Piece afcrib'd to Origen^ which exprefly dif- *^ claims II the Innjocation of the Son : But it is fo con- *' trary to Origen himfelf in other Places, and to his '^ own Teftimony in that very Book concerning the *^ Practice of the Church, as well as to the whole *^ Stream of Antiquity befides, that it muft be con- ^' eluded, either that Book is none of Origen s^ or *^ at leaft it is one of thofe which have fufferM Cor- cc ruptjon. To which I reply, Firfl, The Piece concerning Prayer is as defervedly a- fcrib^'d to Origen^ as any other Part of his Writings. Pamphilus or Eufebius, who wrote an Apology for Origen, mentions the Book of^ Prayer, amongft o- thers of his Writings : And if we had not this ex- prefs Teftimony, yet as f Jerome fays in another Cafe, th Language and Stile plainly difcover the Au^ thor. So that any one who is vers'd in Origen s Wri- t " In the firft and beft Ages [faith the learned Bp. B«J/] the *' Churches of Chrift directed ^dl their Prayers, according to •' the Scripture, toGodonly^ thro' the alone Mediation of Jefus " Chrift/' Anfwer to a Qj.iery of the Eifliop cf MeauXy Pag»2^$. And the Learned Dt.Wahy Archbifhop of C^w/er- hury : " That we fhould pray to God only, and to him as our ** F'tber^ through Faith in Jehis Chrift.'' Comment, en tl^ ** Chm-ch Catechifm^ p. 1.30, 11 P'^.?- I55>i5^- ■^ Jn tAm multis Qp tarn dhevjts Orlgems Uhrls, niifqam omnino invenitur unus ak eo liber pyopvie dc anima confcrlptas ; ficut hahet vel da M.xrtyrio vel de Oratione, vel refurreHione Famph. five Eufeh, Jpol. pro Orig. Dr. Cave alfo exprcily makes that Book a genuine Treatife oWrigen'sHitt, Liter, Part z. pag. 51. 7 AuHoYis ehquium &>p!i proprietas demovfn'at, Apol. adv,Ruf. tings^ ( 2j ; tings, and has a critical Judgment in the Stile oi Books, may eafily fee that this Treatife was un- doubtedly wrote by Origen; and could Icarce poiH- bly proceed from any other Hand. ^econdh. As to the Corruption of this Treatife, Dr. MiUs^ who is no mean Critic, frequently cites it as being OrigenSy without any Note of its being cor^ rupted ; and exprefly affirms concerning his Comment taries on St. John^i Go/pel [which are more full a- gainft Dr. -B 's Notion than any Thing in this Piece, on which Account Dr. fV- — would pretend them to be corrupted alfo] " that II they are wholly *' free from Interpolation.''* And it is wdl known that thofe Parts of Origens Works, whofe Tranfla- tion only is extant, were not corrupted by Arians^ but by fuch orthodox Writers as Jerome and K'lffi^ mis. The fame is the Cafe with refped to the Apo^ fiolic Conftitutions^ which the Dodor ridiculoufly pre- tends, have been transmitted to us thro* the Hands of Arians *, without the leaft Evidence whatfoever : Whereas on the contrary, the firft Writer that ex- prefly mentions and quotes them in the fourth Cen- tury is Epiphanius I and it is moft reafonable to think that the Inftances of the Forin of Doxology m them, which the Do6i:or very faifely affirms to a- fcribe ^' equal Glory to the Holy Ghoft with the *^ Father and the Son,^"* are Interpolations of fome Athanafians ; and would never be found in a Book tranfmitted to us by Arians, And tho' there is no great Strefs to be laid on the Synarithmetical Form of Doxology, giving Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghoft i yet whoever carefully reads and confiders thofe ancient Writings which are full of apoftolical Piety, and the Purity of pri- ll Ah omnl interpoUtiom liheriu TroJeg, in N. T, p, 24. * P^^. 15^. i<^o* mitivfe. (i4) hiitlve Do6lnne ; and knows withal how very few Iiiftan ces can be alledg'd, (and how hard t Bafil himfelf was put to it to alledge any) out of Antiqui- ty for fuch Form of Doxology ; and that; the In- ftances alledg'd were not the Forms of the Church, but the Speculations of a private Writer or two at the 'riioft, agairjft numerous Inftances of the Forms thro* "the Son, by or in the Spirit, which were the known, uiiiverfally accuftomM Forms of the Church's Dox- ology, as far as can be known, and which we more particularly learn from || yuftin Martyr and * Ori-^ gen. Whoever confiders all this, will eafily be con- vinced that the Forms in the Apoflolic Conflittitions have been tamper'd with by fome Athanafians (thofe known Corrupters of Books) in the fourth Century, when the Form of Doxology became a Matter of Difpute. And it is not at all improbable what :[ Philo/iorgius thQ Hiftorian, and II Theodorus Mopfue- ■ t See Mr. Whifions fecond Letter concerning Doxologies, Ta^^.jl — 30, II OvT@- K'jLC<^if<, cuvov y^j ^'o^civ TO) rrctlei t^v o\cov S'td^^i QVoiJ.a.* 'JO? -Ta tfS" >Lj Tk 'TTV^vfJ-ct]©- T« dy'i^ di'cfTriiy.Trei' "the Miniiier ta- *' king [the Euchariftical Bread and CupJ gives Praife and Glo- ** ry to the Father of all> through the name of the Son, and *^ througlv the Holy Ghoft. Apol, 1. p. i6i» And again, l^t ffd q« ejjT6 h)(Tt xe^s'y, )t) S'icJi TTVivfJ-ctlQ- 'ra ayi^* " In all *' our Oblations we blcfs the Maker of all Things, through his " Son Jefiis Chrift, and through the Holy Ghoft.'' Ibid, p, 162, See Reply, Tao;. 29, 24. * "'^.vKoyov (Afjcc/y.^ror 'iiw S'o^ohoyiA^y el? J'o^oKQyia.v kaIcl- K')yov\ci Kctjct'zrcwc'iv tVjj c'jyj/jj, vfJJ^v]cL id) S'Q^^cL(^ov]ct r r iKo-iv " having begun Prayer with Doxology, we oi;ght alfo to end *' with Doxology, prailing and glorifying the Father of all, *• through Jefus Chrift, in the Holy Ghoft. To whom be " Glory for ever. De Ovat, p. 147, See more in Replv, p.'igo 582—389. t Hi/?. Ecdef. Vh, 3. c. 13. II FlaviiTius primus cecin'ijfe fertnv^ Gloria patri S^ f Ho QP /pi- ritiii fan^o, 1'befaur, Orthodox, FidcLib. 5. c, 30. See Reply p. 387' fienus (25) jlenus relate, that about the jmddle of the fouYth Cett^ tury, Flavian^ afterwards Bilhop of Antioch, firll changed the more ancient Doxologies of Glory TO the Father, By or Through the Son, IN the Holy Ghoft, and \xsd in the Church inftead of them, the prefent Form, To the Father, and To the Son, and To the Holy Ghoft. But for Dr. B to fay that this later Form afcribes equal Glory to the Holy Ghoft with the Father and the Son^ is a manifeft Un- truth, and falfifying the Doxology. The Doxology in the Form which the Dodor would have, no more afcribes equal Glory to all the three Perfons, than the Form oiBaptifm does ,* or than St. Vaufs Charge to 'Timothy before God and the eleEl Angels *, makes the Angels equal to God. Thirdly, If the Dodor had underftood rightly the Paffage of Origen, about which he is fo uneafy, and tifes fo many poor Pretences to evade ; he might have known that in it he does not difclaim all Invo- cation of the Son, but only that fort of Invocation, which he is there fpeaking of,* and which is the Prayer which he elfewhere ftiles f Prayer in the proper and emphatical Senfe, namely, that Prayer v;hich is finally and nltimately offered to the primary and fu* preme OhjeEl of it, 'ui'z,. the Father. And this is a- greeable to Origens Senfe in all other Places of this Treatife, and in his other Books, and to all Anti-* quity. Origen does not fuppofe that Chrift is not to be invocated at all^ but only that when invocated, he is to be invocated as Mediator and Intercejfor, to of- fer the Prayers of the Church, and to joiri'His owii with them, unto the Father ,* and is to be the Medi- iim Through v/hom our Prayers are to pafs ultimate- ^ I TLim, 5. 2 1. '^ 'TTf^t 'TT^gcrcv/'JU Ku^ioM^tAi }'j y.a.Tay^fi]^iMi\ Lib. 5. adv. Cclf* p,- 233, (26) ly to the Father : And therefore Prayer thus ofter'd to Chrift, is not Prayer in the poper and highefl Senfe, but he calls it Prayer [jtct\cL'/jn(riaf\ in an iin- proper, inferior or figurative Senfe. And that this is his true Meaning, appears from a remarkable Paf- fage in his Book againft Celfus, which clearly recon- ciles this Paliage with all his other Teftimonies ; 'viz,. * " We tvorfhip (fays he) the one God, and *' his one Son and Word and Image with Supplica- *^ tions and Prayers to the utmoft of our Power ; *' putting up our Prayers TO the GodoftheUni- *^ verfe, Through his only begotten Son : To whom " we offer them firft, entreating him, as being the *^ Propitiation for our Sins, toprefentas our High *^ Priell: our Prayers and Sacrifices [Thankfgivings] " and Interceffions, TO the fuprem.e God over all." This fhows that when Origen faid, we were not to pray to Chri/i, he meant that we were not to pray to iiim in the fame Senfe, or in the fame Manner as we prayed unto the Father ; that our Prayers were not finally to centre in his Perfon as the fupreme Ob- jed of Worihip, but were to be underflood when offer'd to him, of praying to him as Mediator to prefent our Petitions, and to join his own with them Jor us, unto God the Father : And fo all Prayers direded to Chrifl were not fo properly and emphati- cally Invocations oihim, as of the Father through him ; and all Prayer in the ftriB, proper and emphatical Senfe belonged to the Father only. And this fur- Tett . _7? ytctla: ih c^vjjdLiQi' vy-lv hetyicii^ x^ d^icoo-i<7t <7 z t i widened (28) Evidence whatfoever by way of Inference and De- dudion, only according to the Principles of their own fchoiaftic Metaphyfics, to be the Senfe of the ancient Church ; and this is the Pretence that it is the primitive Catholic Dodrine that the Son and Spirit are [ hiJ-ohtoi ] Conftihflantial with the Father, The Ancients (fay they) exprefly teach the Confuh- ftantiality of the Son, &c. and this confequentially (they think) infers their Nece/fary^-Exiflence^ Supreme Divinity, Coordination and Coequality with the Father in Nature and all Perfeclions, This is the grand Foundation- Principle of what is vulgarly and er- roneoufly ftilM Orthodoxy. This is perpetually re- cur'd to and infifted on by Dr. W — and Dr. B- — and all the Adherents of their Opinion : If they can but alledge the Confubflantiality, they think no- thing elfe can be difputed with them. I ihall therefore enter into a particular DifcufTion of this Point , examine all the Dodor's Evidences of a Confubflantiality j confider what Confiihflantialttyy or what Senfe of it any Ancients held or rejeded j and how it was received and underftood by the Council of Nice, and foon after univerfally laid afide or rejected by probably many of the Nicene Biihops themfelves, and by almoft all the Bifiiops of Chri- ftendom met together at feveral Councils. Where- in I fhall {how that the Confubflantiality never was the Doftrine or Profellion of the ancient Catholic Church j that on the contrary it was openly re- claimed againft as foon as known to be profelfedly taught, and w^as upon mature Deliberation rejected the firft Time that it was treated of in a public Sy- nod : And that neither thofe Antenicenes, who are fupposM to have held it, ever infer'd the Equality^ Necejjary-Exiftence or fupreme Divinity of the Son, &€. from it, but taught the exprefs contrary ,* and that the Council of Nice itfelf did not teach in Con- fequence of it either the Necejfayy-Exiftence or Equa-- ' lity (29) lity of the Son with the Father, but on the other hand thought his voluntary Generation, and Inferior rity to the Father confiftent with it. Dr. B does not pretend to fliow that the Con- fubftantiality was the public Profeilion of the Church, from any Creed or public Form whatfoever : So that let particular Men's Opinions about it be what they would, 'tis evident it never enter'd into the Creeds or Liturgy, ^the Forms of Faith or the Worfiip of the Church. The primitive Creeds and Parts of the ancient Liturgies which are extant, are numerous, but nothing of Confubftantiality appears in any of them ; and all of them uniformly profefs and teach Faith in God or the one God, the Father ,• and to u^orjhip him only Through Jefus Chrift : This is undeniable Fad'; and therefore Dr. B with the Help of all his Friends, has no Evidence to produce but the Spe- culations or private Opinions of particular Wri- ters, which I Ihall now examine. The firft Teftimony which Dr. B (e) alledges for the Confuhflantiality is in a fpuriousBook afcrib'd to Hermes T^rifmegifius , entitled, ( f) Pj:mander ; which the learned (g) Cafauhon, as Dr. Cave tells us, thinks to be the Writing of fome Platoniz^ing Chriftian. And the Doctor has Reafon to repent of having mentioned this Author as an Evidence for his Notion, who tho' he ftiles the Word or Son of God Confubjiantial, according to the Platonical Do- d-rine, yet he fhows that the ConfubRantiality was fo far from meaning or inferring the Equality of the ytt^ bJj. c. I. • (g) Cafauhonui a ymllo alio quam Ctmjiiam quodanj 'Platom- zante fcubi ptu'ij^e, qux. VAmandeY hahet. late perfequitur, atttd Cav, Bifi. LlU p. 30. I Vol. ^ ^ ( JO ) IVoyd or Son with the Father, that (h) LaStantius tells us that he call'd the Word^ " a /d-co/^ii God, vifible *^ and comprehenfible, whom the Lord and Creator " of all did make," And here it may be proper to obferve, that as the Notion of the Confubfiantialhy \\i.s plainly deriv'd originally as a mere Speculation^ from the Stoical or Platonkal Philofopby^ and was from thence propagated at firil amongft the (i) Var hntinians and Montanifts ; [as I fhall more particu- larly prove with Refped to the latter, prefently] fo thofe few Catholic Writers who can be alledg'd for the Ufe of it, as Origen, his Scholar Dionyfius^ to whom may be joinM Laclaraius^ all addided to the Platonic Philofophy, us'd it coniiflently in the Senfe of thr^t Philofophy, without ever thinking of an Equality, to be infer'd from it. And therefore for Dr. B — [and Dr. IV — before hini] to pre- tend that the Word Confuhjlantiality, ajfens an Equa^ lity oj Nature J {k) in dired Contradiction both to the Senfe of it, according to the Principles of the anci- ent Philofophy, whence it was borrowed, and to the known exprefs Opinion of thofe ancient Chriftiaii Writers who apply'd it to the Son ; fhows, that they are carried away by the mere Sound of a Word explained by their own fcholaftic Metaphyfics, with-^ (h) VCrbuCT!, 0%j\i^V^ hay OPOLTOV H^ Jj^'ATCV.., %V K'JciO^ >^ Ts^v Tc'A'Tcjy -TrjiiiTri? in-oUyji' de vcr Sap. lib. 4. p. 564. (i) For the Nofion of rhe Valefitinian Confuhjlantlil Enuinatlor.s or Generations o^ JEo?7S. Sec Iren, adv. H£r. lib. i. c i. and lib. z. c. 16, 17, 18, 19, 22,23,24. and when 'Tertu I ti an h^d broachM Iiis Montiinifh Notion of the 5ci?; an^i 5/?i»-i^ being con- fuhfia77fi.1l Emanations from the Father, he Pnows his Appre- henfion that his Notion might be charg'd with introducing the Virlentiman Scheme, Adv. Fvax. c.S. And Bp. B;/// fays, Gnofiicos voam ijlam [fcil. ouo^fTi©-] de fu'ii cjuihtifdam /Eonibus nfuypajfe^ fat::mur ; atque id folum teflantuY [reruns alHque fcri- ptores c^ihoVici. Def. E N. Scwl. 2. Q^ 2. (k}P.Tj. J52. out ( 51 ; one confidering, and in Oppofition to both th^ ori- ginal Meaning of the Word icfelf, and the Senfe of thofe Ancients, from vvhofe Ufe they alledge it in favour of their own Opinion. The Doctor brings a Teftimony from Eiifebius for the Ufe of the Word [o^.n«V/©-] (/) Confubflantial a- mongft the Ancients ', and fays, " that Eufehius af- " fures us, he had feen this Word us^d by fome *^ learned and eminent Bilhops and Writers amongft *^ the Ancients, to exprefs the ONE Divinity of *^ Father and Son." This is a very flagrant faife Report concerning Eufehius^ who knew Antiquity better than to affert any fuch Thing concerning the Ancients, and is a fairer Hiflorian than thus to mif- ^eprefent them. The Paffage cited by Dr. B is in the (m) Margin, ,• and Eufehius does not fay that the Word Confubflantial was us'd by any Ancients to exprefs the One Divinity of Father and Son ; but only that in treating of the Divinity of the Father and Son, they made ufe of the Word [htj.ozaio;'] Confubflantial, Is this faying they us'd the VVord to exprefs the One Divinity of Father and Son ? and can the Do- dor juftify fuch a Corruption and Interpolation of the Words of Eufehius, by putting in the Word One ? which is the more grofs and more unlikely ever to have been faid by Eufehius, becaufe whoever is at all acquainted with his Writing, muft know that it is not only his own conftant Dodrine, that the Fa- ther alone is the one God, but that he infills parti- cularly and at large, that this is the Dodrine of the ancient Catholic Church. Further, Eufehius had no Occafion to refer to the Ancients for any fuch (1) P^£-. 152. olxoHdia (Tvyyj)]ici.^ 'tS Tctr^of*] begotten— of the SublUnce cf the Father. (Si) See Reply, p. 3^7-330v . ., E foil in) full and ftrongly (r) exprefs'd againft the Dodo/s Notion, that he may with almoft as much Reafon pretend Arius himfelf, as Origen^ to be a Favourer of his Opinion. Dionyfius^ Bilhop of Alexandria^ and Origens Scho- lar, is cited by the Dodor out oiAthanafius, for the Confuhflantiality and Eternity of the Son : But Atha^ fiafius himfelf does not pretend that he taught the Son was the one ftipreme God, or equal to the Father : and had the Dodor, Hke a fair Hiftorian, given the whole Account of the Dodrine of Dionyjius^ he would have fhown that it was as oppofite to what he calls Orthodoxy^ as the Opinion of his Mafter Origen is. (s) Baftl, an unqueftionable Witnefs, tells us, that having read his Writings, he did not like feveral Things that were in them j that he thought him one who laid the Seeds of the Anomaan Opinion ; and that with Refped to the (t) Confubftantiality he was faltering and unconftant^ fometimes holding it and othertimes rejeBing it ; more particularly that {u) ^^ he held the Father and Son to be not only diflinEi^ *^ but different Subflances ; and that the Power and ^^ Glory of the Son was inferior to that of the Father. *^ And befides this, he fpoke very unbecoming *^ Words concerning the Spirit ; not allowing him. '^ divine W^oiOiip, but deprelTing him into the " Number of cre^^^i and mini/iring l>^atuixsf' And (x) AthanaJtuSy in his Apology for him, owns that {t) See Urther Remarh on Dr. fV—^s Vindication, &c> p. 85, S6.' (s) Epift. 41. (t) Ibid, adrco TDi 'TA >t]/rH 'Z^ heija^yo) (pva^i dwae/uficyi'* lbid» (xj Be'SenUVlonyf, Scal4. be (35) he did indeed life fucli kind of ExprelTions. And (y) Photius chargeth him with making the Son a Creature, {z,) Gennadius does the fame, and ob- ferves with Bafil^ that the Avians deriv'd their No- tions from him. 'Theogmftus of Alexandria, another of Origens Scho- lars, is alfo cited by Athanafius for the (a) Confuhftan-* tiality ; yet he alfo (whom Athanajins ftiles an elo- quent and wonderful Man) was fo far from holding iht Equality; th^it Photius accufeth hmoi making the Son a {b) Creature : and the learned Dr. Ca^ve (c) re- prefents him as maintaining after Origen, the grojfefl Errors, making different Degrees of Dignity in the Per-^ fons of the 'Trinity, and depreffing Chrifi and the Holy Spirit into the Rank of Creatures. Thus it appears, that all thofe Ancients whom the Dodor can by any fort of Evidence produce for the Confuhflantiality of the Son, &c, were fo far from uiing it to exprefs (as he would pretend) the Equality of the divine Perfons, or the One Divinity of Father and Son j that the moft learned and zea-^ lowsAthanaJians themfelves, both ancient and modern, have carried their Cenfures of them fo far [upon account of their exprefling fo ftrongly the Catholic Dodrine of the alone abfolute Supremacy of the Fa- ther, and of the Subordination and Inferiority of the Son and Spirit to him] as to charge them with fa- vouring and holding Arian Dodrines. And hence (y) Cod, io6. {7.) Lib, de Ecclef, Dogmat. c. 4, (aj 'E/t TY\«; 7^ iretl^oi ^aicti lipv, «f Ta ocotq^ d,'z^A\)y(L'^ Apol,c,i\. Alfo adv.^rax.c.^. This Similitude, founded upon fa! fe Philofo- phy, was made ufe of (and more plau'ibly) by the old Sabellian Gnojllcs for their Notion of the Son being only a different Ap. pearance of the Perfon of the Father ; which they reprefented by the 5'*f«and its Urrht ; which Light they argued was only Mf- fui'd or extended from the Sun, but was Infep.irahls from it : and thus in like Manner that the Word or Son of God was only a diftinft Mnn'tjeftation, and not a different Tevfon from the Fa- ther. This Notion Jupn Martyr [who mentions it, Dial, p. I, 20. Edit. Far.} condemns, as making the Son nothing bat another N^me of the Father, [J^ to tZ «AJtf ^oj^ ovoucfjt {jJjvqv deSueiTctt'] as the Light of the Sun is only different from the Sun'itfelf in N.-me. But the Word [or Son] he adds ; [cieiQixf^ tj^ovriWi''} is numerically r^r really) diftina from the Fa- ther ; not as the Sun and its Light which is Part of the Sun it- felf, bat as one Light or Lamp is diflinft from another, which is Juflin\ Comparifon : and tho* it may feem to infer a Confub- fiantiaUty of another iort, yet that does not appear to be Jh- pns Meaning, but he fpeaks by way of Similitude only. Having ( j8 ) Having fliown how few Inftances of ancient Wri- ters can be alledgM for the Notion of the Confuh- ftantinlity ; and in what Senfe they underftood and nppiyM it without ever inferring a CQequality either of Nature or Pozvers from it. It is moreover obfer- vable, that TertuIIian is the only Writer who ex- prefly teaches and infifts on the Confubflantiality of the Holy Ghofl^ as well as of the Son ; the others not diredly fpeaking of that Matter, and are cited for the Confubftantiality of the Son only. I (hall there- fore fas I proposM above, f. 23.) fliow briefly what Reafon there is to think that the Dodrine of the confuhfi ami al Divinity of the Holy Spirit was pecu- liarly a Branch of the Tl/c^/^^^/^//? Opinion. Firfty It is remarkable that no ancient Writer of the three firil Centuries either before or after T'ev- tullian ever taught that the Holy Ghoft is God or Confuhflantial with the Father : And Secondly, 'ter-* tullian himfelf never mentions this Opinion, but only in the Books which he wrote after he was a (/?) Montanifl: And Thirdly, He intimates that it was a Part of his (i) Momanifm : And Fourthly, The (k) Athanafians themfelves declare that the Alontanifls agreed with them in the Doclrine of a confuhflantial Trinity. (h) DeVud. c.ii. Cont, Trax. c. 12, 5 r. (i) Nos enim — maxime Paracleti ncn homtnum difcipid'i^ duos umdem defimmus^ pairem 'CP jiVium^ & f'^^ ^''^^ <^^^^ fp'mtu fanBo^ fecttndum rationem csconomiA [fcil. un':us fubJlantiA in tri- hu! cohdrentihusy ^dv. Prax. c. 12.] qu^s faclt numerum„ adv. Vrax,c, 15. Duos & ires yjMjirclitaTit a nobis pradicariy fe "jero unius Dei cu/tores pr^e/umiinfy ibid. c. 5. (k) '^OvToi yci<> 01 Kcijci (p^vycf; nctK^iJ.zvoi ' -T«f < Titj^o? iy (TiA. Epiph. Ha-r. 48. Seft. i. See alfo Hccref. 50. Fhilajir. Cat, H^ref. apud Bib. Pat. 'Tom. 4. p. 13. 1%eodoref, Haret, Fab. ^y 2. Nicephor. Ub,/^. c. zi. Juguft. &>c. See alfo Mr. Whifions Account of the Origin of the Sabeillan and Athanafian Doctrines of the Trinity, I pro- il9 ) I proceed to a very remarkable Tranfat5lion of primitive Hiftory relating to the ConfubRantiality of the Son, whereby it appears that after ferious De- liberation and Difputation in the Cafe of Paulus, Bifhop of Samofata, it was rejeded by a Synod of eighty Bifhops, or probably more, as being a Word of /// Signification, and implying a Divifion of the divine Unity. Dr. B' — 's Account of the Matter is ; he fays, '' Athanafius and Bafil (I) have affur'd us, not that *' he [Paul oi Samofata] allow'd the Word [o/7.o«V/(!^] *' Confubjlantial ; but that he difputed againft Chrift's " Divinity, from the Impoffibility of his being con- '' fubfiantial, having firft explained that Word in a ^^ wicked and abfurd Senfe : he took it grofly and " corporeally, juft as thofe Things are reckon'd " Confuhftamid, which are made out of the fame " common preexifting Subftance, as different Pieces "' of Money made of the fame Mafs of Metal- — " And this feems to be the true Reafon why the " Council oiAntioch difus'd the Word, not becaufe " it taught an Equality of Nature, but becaufe it " had been mifapply'd to infer a Di'uifion of Sub- " ftance, and beginning of Exigence/' This is both a very obfcure and partial Relation ; infinuating as if the Council of Antioch had only difus'd the Word Confuhftantial in the pretended ahfuvd Senfe which Pauloi Samofata put upon it, but might allow it in the Senfe of its implying an Equa- lity of Nature in the Son with the Father :^ both which are untrue. And from all the beft Evidence of the Fad laid together, from Athanafms and Ba- //themfelves, it appears that they rejeded the Ap- plication of the Word Confuhflantial to the Son, in every Senfe ; as a Word bearing an ill Meaning, (U ^ag, 146, 147. and (40) and implying a Dlvijion of the Unity of God ,* ei- ther as dividii?g the Subftance of God into three di- ftinEi Subflances, as Paul argued, and to whofe Rea- foning in that Refped the Council agreed, and thereupon rejeded the Word t or as fuppofing the Son to be (in the Sabellian Senfe) an undivided Se- Bion or Efflux of the perfonal individual Subflance of God, which feems to have been Paul's own Opi- nion, and to which poffibly he might in a fophiflkal Manner apply the Word [o/Wo-/©-] Confubflantial ; as well as argue againft the WoM in the other Senfe. If this latter Obfervation is right, it re- conciles what Hilary fays with the Account of Athanajius and Bajil. Hilary obferves that one Reafon alledgM at the Council o{ Ari'minum for rejeding the Word [o/Wcr/oJ Confubflantial^ was, " that (m) the Fathers [of the ^' Synod of Antioclo] when Paul of Samofata was de- '^ clar'd an Heretic, did rejed the Word Confuh- *^ ftantial: becaufe having interpreted this Word in *' the Senfe of individual Ejfence^ he did thereby **^ teach the Father and Son to be mefingular Perjon!^ If this was the Cafe, it was one good Reafon for the Council of Ariminum as well as Antioch rejed- ing the Word ; which in Fad had been fo interpre- ted by fome Athanafians^ in the fourth Century ; and might not (n) improbably have been before us^d in that Senfe by Paul in the Explanation of his No- tion, which vS'as that the (\Qyo^) (o) Word of God (m) Quod "P aires ^ cum Pauhs Samofatenus h^reikui ■pronun-^ c'latus eji, et'iam Homopi(ion repudia'verint : qitia per banc unius ef- feniiiZ ijunatpatlotiem, foUtarium atque unicum Jibi ejfe pattern Sp fUum pradicabat, De Synod. fn) Vid. ?etav. de I'rin. lib. 4. c 5. & Bulli Vef. F. Nic, p. 29. (o) *Ei/ 6«(y cTe ctei ovla, t^v cijjth \oyov ^ to rrviufjLd ewT»f TH QtS" nyvrruTctloyj dw* iv cfjJra r$ 05W. Epiph. Haeref. 65. . / v/as ( 41 ) was not a real divine Perfon fnhflantlaUy exifling of himfelfy but the imernal Reafon of the Father, fub- fifting, not by Generation or Derivation from him^ but in hirrty as the humane Reafon does in the Mind of Man. To this Notion Paul might apply the Word [py.o'6(rtoi\ Conful^fiamial, meaning by klrauJoUioii Confubftantial in the individual Senfe ; and the Fa- thers of the Amiochian Synod might have condem- ned the Word, thus underftood, as implying [as I Ihall (how it was underftood to imply] a Divifion o£ the divine Subftance, after the Ma'nner oiSabellians and ValentinianSy into diftindt Proholas^ Effluxes^ or Emanations^ conceived as confubftantial Parts of one Subftanee. And after the Council had declar'd the Church's Senfe that the Word was a diilind: fublifting Perfon, and really God before the IVorld ; Paul might then endeavour to turn the Confubftan-* tiality upon their Notion ,* and argue as Athanafius reprefents him ', that if their Notion of the perfo- nal Preexiftence of the JVord was true ,* " and (p) Chrift was not (as he maintain^) of a Man made a God, it would then follow that he muft be Con- " fubftantial with the Father, and [in their Senfe however] there muft be [a Divifion of the divine '^ Subftanee into] three diftind Eifences, oney pri": [^ mary Cor original) and two^ deriv^'d from it." Thus I think Hilary s and Athanajius's Account may be reconcilM together ; and "'tis plain from both that the Confubflantiality was rejected ; and ad- mitting Hilary to be under a Miftake (as fome have thought) in fuppofing the Confubflantiality to have been rejected in the individual or Sabellian Senfe of iaeii'ii^. Be Synod, Awn, & Sehuc, Se^. 45. 2l>w. i. lild, &* Ss^. 51. f ill (42) it ; yet it appejirs from Athanafius himfelf, as well as (we fhall fee) from Bafil, that the Word was wholly rejeded by that primitive Council, as car- rying in it the Notion of the Divifion of the Sub- ftance of God, which was indeed a wicked and ah- furd Senfe^ but which they thought was the natural Senfe and Meaning of the Word, and therefore re^ jefted ir. It does not at all appear that they were imposed tipon by Paul with a falfe Senfe of the Word ; but that they agreed to his Interpretation of it, as in- ferring a Divifion of the divine Subftance. This was their Senfe of it, and they knew of no good one that the Word was capable of Athnnajtus does in a Manner own as much, faying of them, that {^) *' writing in a more plain fimple Manner concern- *' ing the Divinity of the Son, they did not nicely " underftand the Word Confuhflantial, but fpoke *' their Senfe of it according to their own natural f' Conceptions of it/' And their natural plain Conceptions [who were not us'd to vain philofophical Diftin^tions] were, that the Word Ccnfuhflamial was of an ill Signification^ and imply'd a Divifion of the divine Subflance ^ and therefore was to be rejeded. Bafil tells us, C^) " they rejeded the Word [Con^ [^ fuhflantial~] as having no good Meaning ; for they ^q) Tlitl Tn? tS q'» ^eoltffQ- aThi^s^v ypJ.(pQvliii « }ictliyi- 'iTi^i TO ouo'dji'd eifiDicist^ ibid. (x) ^liZctKQV TUJJ Ae£/J» [to O.Uoacrtii] CO^ "6)1 ilKTilfJ-Ol', itcLffAV ^ iK^VOt tIuj To Q^Q'na'U WCOvt^ '^cLeiTAV iVVOlciV ^Tlcl'; Ti )t^ T^V d'Zir ewtn?y i eked Senfe, as Dr. B ™~ owns, they accordingly rejeded it. And m^fed^ tho' Athanafim apologizes for the Ufe of the V^ord " F 3 Conjubf-. (44) Confuhftantial by the Council of Nice, and alledges • that they did not therein (as the Arians objeded) contradid the Senfe of the Co\\r\c\\ o£ Antiocb ; yet, if the Nicene Council had underflood the Word in tliQ plain, natural and obvious Senfe, I do not fee how it can be clear'd from interfering with it. To be [hi/.ohiQ-~] Confuhftantial, does in true Philofophy, and in the ftrid grammatical Senfe of the Word, amply (as the Council of Antioch underftood it) a Divifion of Subftance into more confuhftantial Sub- ftances : It is the complex Notion and Name of a Species; and whether the Subftances are in Exi- gence adually feparate or not, or howfoever united, it really alters nothing. And therefore the Coun- cil of Nice profefling the Confuhftantiality, and at the fame Time declaring againft the Divifion, fhows that they did not underftand the Word in the plain, li- teral and vulgar Senfe, but in a Senfe peculiar, and not ftridly philofophical [as fhall be coniiderM hereafter] and thus, tho* in Words, they did contra- did the Antiochian Synod, yet in Senfe and Meaning they did not : And there feems to be no other rea- fonable way of reconciling the two Councils. Dr» B ^s adding that the Council did not difufe the ConfuhBantiality, becaufe it taught an Equality of Na- turc, IS what I do not well underfland the Purpofe of, unlefs he would infinuate that they held the E- quality of Nature, notwithflanding that they rejeded the Confuhfiantiality ; which is both abfurd and un- true. Had they held the Equality it is no way pro- bable they would have rejeded the Confuhfiantiality^ fince three diftinct fubfifting Perfons equal in Na^ ture, would be in Confequence confuhftantial , [tho* on t\\t other hand, upon the Principles of ancient Philofophy, Confuhflantiality did not infer Equality"] and in that Cafe the Point of Divifion would fignify nothing x for three equally fupreme united Gods is as great an Abfurdity and Impiety, as three divi- ded ( 45 ; "^ed Gods ; as they would undoubtedly have thought [as in Reafon they muft] the three divine Perfons to be, had they believed them to be eqml in Nature^ and to be three equaUy [upeme Perfons or Agents. There- fore as they did not think of an Equality of Mature being taught in the Word Conftihftantial^ and reject-, ed it as inferring a Divi/ion of the divine Subftance, and deftroying the Unity i fo the Letter in which they wrote an Account of their Belief is a demon- ftrative Evidence that they did not hold an Equality of Nature^ or of Powers in the divine Perfons ; but very clearly and ftrongly profefs'd the Catholic Do- ctrine of the alone Supremacy of the one God and Fa- ther of all 5 and of the Subordination, Miniflration^ and SuhjeEli on oithQ Son and Spirit to him. They fay ,• *^ We (s) believe that the Son of God ■' who exifted always with the Father, did fulfil the *^ U^ill of his Father in the Creation of the World : *^ for he fpoke, and they ivere made^ he commanded, and *^ they were created!* Again, '^that (t) it was he, who fulfilled the Will of his Father in appearing *' to the Patriarchs, fometimes declarM to be an *^ Angela fometimes Lord, and fometimes God: but it is Impiety to ftile the fuprejne God an Angel ; but ^' the Son is the Angel of the Father, being alfo Zor^^and God!' In which Words can any Thing be plainer than the following Particulars ? tS'i 6sof uet^Tu^iy-ziQ- tIv [jXv j/j Sjo;/ t^v oAcou dinCi^ diyU^ov «5 ^ih 6oy, Epift. Synod. Antioch. ad Paul Samofar. ( 40 Fh'jt, The Subordination of the Son to the Auth(h> vity and Will of the Father, cxemplifyM ia being the Father's ininifterial Agent in the Creation of the World J by whofe Command it was created By [or thro^j the Son- Secondly^ The fame Subordination^ Miniflration and SuhjeBion of the Son to the Father, in his being the Father's Angel^ and the Msjjenger of his Will to the Patriarchs to \vhoni he appear' d by a Miffion from the Father. I'hirdly, The DiflinElion and Subordination of the Son to the Father, even as Lor^ and Goi ; the Son being declarM to be fo Lord, and/o God, as not to be himfelf the fiipreme God, but the Angel of the fu- preme God, 'vix.. the Father, whom it would be impious to ftile an Angel ; that we may thereby know that the Perfon flil'd lor^ and Godm Scripture, and alfo Angely is not and cannot be the fupreme God [whom it is impious to fuppofe to be call'd an Angef] but the Son of God, miniftring to the Will of the fupreme God even the Father, and therefore ftil'd his Angel. This was the primitive Catholic Faith of the Fa- thcrs of the Council of Antioch, which Dr. B , as w.Q. have feen, has reprefented very partially and unfairly. I iliall draw one Obfervation more by way of In- ference from the Decifion of this Council, to (how that the Confubflantiality was not the Dodrine of the ancient Church. Had the Church taught the Confubflantiality, the Divifion of the divine Subilance thereby, being fo obvious an Objeclion, as appears from the Senti- ments of the Council of Antioch, would undoubtedly have been made againft it by thofe who oppos'd the Church's Doftrine. But no fuch Objedion having ever been known to be made againft the primitive receiv'd Do hereafter, and fliow that in the Paffage oiAlexamierl on which Bifhop B71II chiefly builds his Opinion, it is not fupposM that Sabellians and Valentiniam made the Objedion of Divifion againft the Catholic Doctrine, but on the contrary, that the Objedion lay againft the SahelUan and Valentinian Notion. The Words of Alexander are ; " We (z,) believe ^^ in one Lord Jefus Chrifl:, the only-begotten Son *^ of God, begotten not out of nothing^ but of the exi- '^ fling Father : not after the Manner of Bodies, by SeEiions or divided Emanations^ according to the *^ Opinion of Sahelliiis and Valentinus ; but after an ^^ ineffable and inexplicable Manner." Here the natural Senfe of the latter Part of the Words is, that the Q^'^mionoi Sahellius and Vakminus fuppos^ the Son and Spirit to be divided Effluxes, SeElions or Emanations; and not that they had objeded this Notion to the Church's Dodrine. That the Valen^ tinians held fuch divided Emanations is manifefl : TertuUian (a) chargeth it upon them (and Irenaus before \\m\) and the Bifhop owns it. Therefore the Bifhop [nor very fairly] drops the Word Valen^ tinus in the Paffage of Alexander^ as confcious there was no Pretence to fay the Valentinians, who were known to teach the Dodrine of Emanations of JEons divided from each other, had objeded this Divifion againft the Church : and he fuppofes the Objedion to have come from Sabellians only, and according to his own Interpretation puts in part at leaft an ab- furd Senfe upon Alexanders Words. The Bifhop (t.) TltTiVOlAZU — ►^K iP^ KVeiO'/ ''li] u See alfo tii^ref, 31. ad'V. Vahnim, Pag. 168. (d) Biali p. 5 7 2. Jeho ^ (e) Difcoiirfe in Defenfe of Dr. Ctai'lz againft Mr. Nelfen d friend. By a Clergyman in the Country, pag. 70. (50) (/) Jufiin Martyr fuppofes no fuch Objedion as Divifion of the divine Sub fiance to be made againll: the Doftrine of the Church in his Time : He denies that it follows from his Notion and Reprefentation of the Generation of the Son by the Will of the Father, which he illuftrates by a Light or Lamp being lighted by another ; adding, that ic is without Divi^ fioUy left any Ihould objed it ; and to fhow the Dif- ference betwixt his and the Valentinian Notion, which infer'd Divijion. l*ertullian was indeed liable to the Objedion of the Divifton of the divine Subfiance j and this is a ftrong Argument of the Truth of what I am contending for, namely, that the Confubflantiality was not the Dodrine of the ancient Catholic Church ,* becaufe the Objedion was not made againft him by Praxeas, as an Objedion againft the public Faith of the Church ; but was made by the Catholics themfelves againft the particular novel Notion of Tertnlliany who had imbibed the Montanifl Opinions, and was the firft who profefTedly taught the exprefs Con- fubftantiality of the Son and Spirit with the Father ; which being unknown to the Body of Chriftians be- fore, they exclaimM againft it as (g) dividing the Uni- ty, ^r\di introducing a Plurality of Gods, And 7'ertuliian had no way to avoid the Charge of bringing into the Church the exploded Valentinian Confubftantial Se- parate Emanations, but by declaring the Son and f f) Dial p. 37;. Jeh (%) Simplices enim quique — qu~/] Sons of the heathen Gods, whom their Poets and Mythologifts reprefented as being deriv'd in the way of (i) humane Generation. Laflly ; Tatian was juftly chargeable with the Ob- jedion, who had left the Dodrine of the Church, and run into the (k) Valentinian Notions. Thus it appears that there is no fort of Evidence of the Confuhflamiality being the Dodrine of the pri- mitive Church. That the Objedion of the Z)m7?o/2 of the divine Suhflance, which might feem to imply it, was not urg'd by Valentinians and Sahellians a- gainft the Catholic Faith i but on the contrary, was made againft the Valentinians and Sahellians [as Alex-^ ander and others inform us] by the Catholics them- felves. The Gnofiic or Valentinian Confubflamiality was always chargM with it. The Montanifl Confub- flamiality was reclaimed againft in 'TertuUian on the fame Account : and the great Council of Antioch condemn'd and rejeded it for the fame Reafon, But the Objedion was never urg'd againft the Do- drine of the Church, till the Confuhflamiality was re- ceiv'd by the Niceve Council. (h") Vo\t\o aUojuatotius, ihid. c. 16, ici [xv^oy^.(poi KiydtTi tjV; ^i^v s;c (Tmiajiai yivveofAivag- ad A a* tolyc. lib. 2. p. 129. (k) 'TertuUinn fays of him ; ioius fecundum Valentin um fapU» Trafcrip. adv. Htcret. c. 52. And 'Theodovet in like Manner ; «£^* V17A7Q TaV rk '7rKcL:ander with his Clergy gave him the defir'd Opportunity of publifhing his Herefy."" This is the Sum of the Rife and Manner of the Controverfy betv/ixt Arius and his Bifhop, which the Dodor is pleas'd to give out of one Hiftorian only, and to reprefent the Matter with the moft Favour on one Side, by Additions and lujinuations of his own without any Evidence ; fupprelTing at the fame time the fuller and clearer Accounts of l\\Q ot\\Qr [t\'QVi Athanafian'] Hiftorians, which place the Matter in another View and better Light. T'heodQrets is the moft imperfed Account of any ; and as he is the only Hiftorian of four who writes th^t Arius opposM his Bifliop out of Envy; fo it is not at all agreeable to the Relation of the other three ; and more particularly to what one of them fays, 'viz,. That (o) Arius zvas in great Eft e em with Alexander, and that it was after fome timie, and be- ing urgM by fome of his Clergy, that he and Alex- ander oppos'd each other j and in the Event indeed fatally difagreed. As to the Dodiox^ Pretence that Arius firft vent- ed his Notions inpri'vate, it is a mere Fidion with- out any Ground ; Theodoret himfelf fuppofeth that he firft declared his Opinion openly in the Church ; (p) which is agreeable to the Relation of the other Hiftorians, who intimate nothing at all of his pro- pagating his Tenets in private, and reprefent the (o) 'A\i^etvJ^^^ h> TiiJ-vi tiyjcV ewrov* Soz. Hift. (p) TaJjTA J fj.Qvov ov \Ky,KmicL t^id'iKei hiycovy ce\Aa xctV To7f i:;co ffvKKoyoii xj criws/e/c/?* y^ rctV Ukia^ TrieiVOT^V Hift. Ec- cief. lib. I. q,, j, * firft (14) firft Publication of Arius\ Dodrine to have been in as public a Manner as poflible. The Emperor Conflantine's AccounL lays the Oc- cafion of the Difpute and Qiiarrel to (q) Alexander's fYOfoJtng a frivolous Quejii on among fi his Pyeshters^ and to the imprudent Reply which Arius made to it^ and which caus'd the Oppofition and Difcord between them. Socrates fays the Difpir.e began upon Alex- anders once difcourfing in the Prefence of his Pres- byters and the reft of his Clergy (r) with move than ordinary Warmth concerning the Trinity^ and averting an Unity in the 'Trinity, Which Arius ^ one of his Presbyters, thinking to favour the ^S'^^^//i^« Opinion, out of Opppficion to the SahelJia^ Dcdrine, went into the contrary Extreme, and vehemeniiy oppos'd what his Bifliop had faid j and ni'ierted that the Son, as being begotten^ had 0) ^ Beginning of Exi- fience ; and that from thence it followM (t) that there luas a Time 'uohen the Son was not; n.nd that in neceffary Confequence he had his Suhfiftence out of nothing. Thefe novel Affertions occafionM much Difpute not only in Alexandria, but throughout all ^gypt, Libya^ and the upper (u) Thebais, Sec. and (x) many of other Churches, efpecially Eufebius of Nicomedia, favoured Arius' s Opinion : Upon whichAlexander grew very 7nuch (^y) incensed, and calling a Council of many Bifhops together, he deposM Arius and his Adherents, and (<|) Confian*. Lh. apud Eufeh. h Vit. Conjlant. lib. i. c. dp. (t) ^t\o%i.'o]ies^,WiQi. Ecclc-n lib. I . c. 5. (s) 'E/ '^ctrrig kyivvna'i Toi> qV, d^X^^ JWff £«^ iX^ ^ yivmBeii, Ibid. •^ (t) Kelt \it^ TiS7» J'nhov^ oTi Lu on «K, lui i^bi' AMWi^ei TZ \^ dvctyit^iy gf a>c m^cov%x^^ ^^^^ ThjJv^QTA<7iv' ibid. See Atha. Orat. i. cent. Avian, p. 2O4, 295. Cu) md,c,6, (x) '2,\wiKctiiCcLyQv% T? 'Ajfjze'.XyQvl©-' Kaerer. fab. lib. 4, c. I. (0) SoGrat. Hill. lib. 5. c, 10, Soz. lib. 7. c. 12. ( ^o ) f* that (p) the Ancients avoided afcrlbing a Begin- *^ ning of Exiftence to the Son of God." The Co- etemity was his own Inference without any dire6fc Evidence at all from Antiquity ,- and againft many exprefs Teflimonies for the contrary Opinion. Secondly, Therefore it appears not only from the fore-mention'd Hiftorians, but from Alexander's own Letters which Theodoret relates at large, that he neither direftly afferted [in his greateft Oppofition againft Arms'] the ConfuhRantiality or Coeternity of the Son : and the Coequality of Dignity, Honour or IVorJloip was fo far from being declared for by him, that it did not enter into the Difpute at all ; and there are fe- veral Paffages in Alexander s Letters plainly againft it : and the Pretence of his teaching it is certainly either a very great Error or Mifreprefentation of 'fheodoret. The beft Light in this whole Matter is to be had from the original Papers on both Sides which ftill remain, and from which we may colled what were the true Opinions both oi Alexander and the Arians, and withal what was the Catholic Do- arine of the Church at that Time. The Catholic Dodrine of the Church which Alex^ 'mder had publickly profefs'd and taught amongft his Clergy and People, we have fet forth in an au- thentic Letter extant in Athanafius and EpiphanitiSy which the Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria wrote to Alexander their Biftiop upon Occafion of the Arian Controverfy. In which they tell him : '' That " {q) the Faith which they had received from their ^^ Forefathers, and had been taught by him alfo, was yov» Ibid. ^ (q) 'H 'Tri^'ti ni^c^v ^ ly. 'T^yoym, Vjj iy ^ (Th ixiy-ctSmetuiV^ &c. apnd Athanaf. 4e Sycod. Arim. & Seleuc. 6c Epiph, Hserefo 6^, " this. €C C( (5i; ^* thlS^ We confefs one unbegotten, (r) cnly eter-^ " nal, (^w/j true God. That this God begat his only-begotten Son before the Ages of the World ; By whom alfo he made the Ages and the World. — r"That l^yhis own {s)lViUhQ gave him Subfiflence, who is the immutable and unchanq^eahle perfecl Creature *^ of God ,• but not like one of the Creatures [made *^ By him]^ —neither exifting before he was be- " gotten or created into a Son: as even you your- ^^ felf, bleffed Father, in the midft of the Church, *' and frequently in the AfTembly of the Clergy, *' have confuted and rejeded thofe who introducM " fuch Opinions. But, as we have faid, he was created by the Pf/tll of God, before Time and be- " fore the World. — So that there are three fubfi- " fting Perfons , and God who is the Caufe of all, is alone without Beginning ( or Original : ) but the Son, who was begotten of the Father before Time, and created and brought forth before the ^' Ages of the World, (t) did not exifl before he was begotten for he is not (abfolutely j eternal, or coeternal^ or unbegotten (or unmade) as the Fa- ther is ; nor coexiftent with the Father. ~ *^ Wherefore the Father exifted before the Son, as we have been taught by you, when you preachM " in the midft of the Church."*^ The whole Letter is highly worth the learned Reader's Perufal i and is not improbably that writ^ ten Form of Faith, or the Subftance of it at leaft, which (u) Sozomen fays the Favourers of Arius fent to the Bifliops of foreign Churches : and that it is a true and impartial Account of the CathoHc Dodrine (r) Movov aiS'tov fj.ovov dhn^mv* Ibid. icjiauct -ra biHTiheiov' Ibid. (l) 'Oux. hx> Tfo TO yiyy)\^hjjckC Ibid, (u) B'ljt, lib. I.r, 15, pi hi the Chureh,' and which Alexander himfelf ha4 profefs*d and taught, may be concluded from the following Confiderations. Firfiy That it clearly a- gi'ees with the profefsM Dodrine of Antiquity, of the alone Supremacy of the one God and Father of aH i of the Generation of the Son by his Will : and his being thereupon conftantly faid to be created hy God, which feems very near the Stile of the Crea- tme oj God, kit not as one of the other Creatures [created by him] fo familiar among the Avians or Ettfehians of the fourth Century, but as being int" Ptutabk and ferfeSi ; the ferfeB Creature of the perfeEl God, as (x) Eufehius calls him : and that he was pro- duced or begotten of the Father before all Worlds^ but not abfoTutety coexifient with the underivM Du- ration of God the Father, but /^ty^^r/or to him (tho* without Limitation of Timej as being deriVd froni liim. Secondly, 'Tis obfervable that this Form o£ Faith doth not diredly afErm any one of the parti- cular ^r?>;^ Tenets, which were condemn^ by (y) j4Iexander : as either that there was a Time when the Son was mt ; that he was made out of nothing, or was ifhe the Creatures which are made out of nothing ; was unlike in Suhfl-ame to the Father ; or was of a mutahle and changeable Nature y the leaft of which is expreily deny'd in it ; as alfo in the Letters both or (z.) Arius and {a) Eufehius of Nicomedia : So that in this Point Alexander has mifreprefented, or ftrainM the Opinion of the Arians beyond, and even againft what they expreily taught i and feems to have char- ged that upon them as one of their Principles, Vviiich he thought was a Confequence of what they^ (iL) TiKHov riK(^\i J^iifjLiH^ynua.' Dem. Evang. lib. 4. c. 2* (y) Socrat. Hifl. lih. i.e. 6. 'TheocloretJih. I. c, 4. (i.) Apud Theodor2L Hlji. lib. i, c. *r, fa) Ibid.c, 6. (^J ) ilid really profefs, which is a common, but very tin- felr Way of Adverfaries dealing with each other. Having (hown the common Standard of the Do-^ £trine both of Alexander and Arius before any Dif- pute or Controveffy began betwixt them i it will not be difficult from thence, and by comparing the origiriai Letters on both Sides, which contain the Pofitions of both, and their mutual Charges 7«/s own Letter to Eufehius^ Bifliop oiNi-^ comedia, which he produces at large, and wherein Arius fays ; He was ferfecuted by his BiJIoop for not a-- greeing mth him j (e) " That the Son is always as ** God is always. That the Son was coexiflem with *' God in an unhegotten Manner. That he was al- *^ ways begotten, and was begotten from being ^«- * ; begotten. That God did not exift before the Son *^ either in Conception, or any Point of Duration. *' And that the Son is begotten out of God him- *^ felf." In Oppofitionto which Dodrine of ^/^x- ander, he fays, that the great Eufehius of Cafarea, Iheodotus (oiLaodicea) Paulinus (of Tyre) and others ; and all the Biftiops of the Eaftern Churches (three only excepted, who held the Son to be an Emana^ tion, Emifflon, or unbegotten Property) " taught (/) *' that God, as being unoriginated and without Be- " ginning, exifled before the Son!' Then he declares what was his own Dodrine, viz,, " that (g) the Son *' is not unbegotten, nor in any Refped a Part of the V unhegotten God, nor made out of any preexiftent *^ Subftance : but that by the Will and Purpofe of *^ God, he exifted before Time and Ages, perfeEl *^ God, the only-begotten, and immutable. That he *^ was not, before he was begotten ; had a Begin- *l ning of Exiftence, and was made out of nothing/' deiyiVViU Ir/f, dyivvifJoyiViU \^iv'' ar* l-nrn'oidL, ^ti cfcToMsj Ttvl '*7r^Aye{ o Bio^ Ta q»* — l^ ojjt^ er/ rk Qsa o i\Qi* Ibid. c. 5. See Athanaf, Or at, i. <:^;jf. /4n^w. p. 294, 295, ^iii T« q« AvdfX^a^' X. T. A. Ibid. (g) "Or/ ifo^ «^ iTiv dymiijQ-i «^5 //^^^ cty^ft^wTa a^^ Ao/&)]©-' ;9 Tf iV 74jt>i9m, &C. »;t LuT — d^'xJ.'JJ i^^ qo^ — sf «;t M*n. p. 294, 295" Ta To which we may add further out of EufeUus of Nicomedias Letter ; (h) *' We never hear of "^^ two UnbegottenSy nor of one divided into two, — ^ ** but one unbegotten, and one truly derived from *^ him ; and not made out of his Subftance, nor *' partaking in any wife of the unhegotten Nature-—^ *^ but being wholly different in Nature and Power, *^ made in the perfeEi Likenefs of the Difpofition of ** his Nature and Power. The Beginning of whofe " Exiftence is inexplicable and inconceivable to all *^ created Beings. *— - Nothing is produced out of ** the Subftance of God, but all Things are made by " his Will according to his free Purpofe/* From the preceding Account it is evident what k was that drove Alexander and the Avians into fuch a warm Oppolition againft each other : namely, their both pretending to be wife above what is wrii^ ten, and to difcufs Dodrines which were ivholly deriv'd from Revelation, upon uncertain Principles and Speculations of Philofophy, without any Evi* dence from Scripture. Alexander underftanding the Son, who is ftii'd the Word of God, in a metaphyfical Senfe, ais being the internal Word or Reafon of God himfelf begotten into a Perfon, argued (againft both what he himfell and the Ancients before him had conftantly pro^ fefsM and taught) that the Word or Son muft be ab- folutely coexiftent and coeternal [tho* he never ufes 7fOV V'ZS-if ctJ'Of^VK? 'TTcLVTUV \t) cCKCtTAhil^TOlf 'TTi'^lTiVkct^'iV' -=- iS^kv l^iV i)t THf «VUf dJJT«, 'J&.VTd i^l (iHhfll/.ATt UfJT^ y^" f 0Mim-^K Symb» Hierofolymat. apad Cyr. Catechef. 1 1, I 2 mA (68) ^nd degrading him into the Rank of the inferior Creatures which God made by him ; in Oppoiition (afcer the Difpute grew warm betwixt him and his Adverfaries) infifted that the Son was, he would not fay [}^ w aVictf tS 'TTctTfhi] begotten out of the Suhftance of the Father y but [jh, 't« oVto? rretl^U, in. Ik t^ /xh ovToi] (I) out of the exifiing Father^ and not out of nothing. This he explain^ by the Son's being the internal^ (m) phyjical Word, Reafon or Wifdom of the Father, begotten into a Son or Perfon ; and confequently as fuch alu^ays and ftridly coexifient with God ; exifting in him \_dyivvnTcoi] in an unbegotten Manner [if the Arians did not in) mifreprefent Alexander'] before he was begotten o/or/ro;^him; fo that it was high- ly abfurd to fay that he ever^ in any Point of Duration, did not exifl at all. As the internal IVord or Wifdom he was abfolutely coexifient with the Fa- ther ; but in refpe(5l of his Generation^ and being a Son ; he fays the Word (o) always, &c. is not fo to bo apply'd to him, as to infer that he is unbegotten ; for that to be unbegotten is to be eternal in an high-- er Senfe than can be exprefs'd by the Word Iduy &c. alvjays, &c. or by any other Word whatfoever. So that the Difpute was not fo much about the Term of the Generation of the Son, as of his metaphyfical internal Exiftence in the Father precedent to it^ (1) 'fkeodoYeU Hifi. lik J. c. 4. (m) ^v;) Eu- fehius^ Philoflorgius^ Socrates or Sozomen, in their Account of the Matter, of Hojtus's ratifying the Sentence which Alexander had denounced aga'in^ Arius: fo had he pretended to any fuch Thing, hd had aded not only without Authority, but againft the ex- prefs Defign of the Emperor^s Letters which he carried : which were not intended to decide any Thing on either Side, but to command them both to lay afide their Difpute, and to be Friends^ and hold Communion with each other. The Truth of the Fad: therefore is ; the Emperor equally (y) blarnd both Alexander and Arius for quarrelling a- bout fuch nice and fubtle Qiiefiions ; in which, if they could not agree, they ought both to haMQheenJiknt^ and commanded them (x.) to lay afide their frivolous (u) B^.Civ(rcu f^ohjjbjj, yir. Cor.ftant. lib. 2. c. (S^. Cx3 ViU Conjiant, lib. 2. r. 63 — 75. Fhihjiorg. lib, i, c. 1. So:rat. lib. I. c. 7* Soz. Ub. 1* c, id. (y) Eiifebi& Socvat.ihid. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^-^ Hb» i» c* 16. ... % mfsuiei ( 74) r>ifpute, and to he Friends ivith each other. This is Soz-ome'as Account : and Eufebius^ and Socrates from him, further obferve, that Confiantine in his Letter calls the Matters in difpute, (a) " QiTeilions which " no Scripture had commanded as neceffary ; but *' which were afrtihlefs idle Contention: — • that (p) "they were very intricate and obfcure Points, not ** eafy to be refolv*d.~* —That they ought to ask *' each others Pardon : • — for that their Controver- " fy was not about a fundamental Precept (or Do- " drine) of Scripture ; nor was any new Opinion ^^ concerning the VVorfhip of God built upon it ; ^^ but they both agreed in the fame Faith , but their *^ Difpute was about ver^ little and trivial Matters, *'* — — a little 'Verbal Contention about trifling Matters *^ m ivay necejjary. That they agreed with each ^^ other, and with the whole Church in one Faith.—^ ^^ That the Matter of their Difference was no Point *^ of Religion, but a very foolifi Q^ieflionf* Thefe were the Sentiments of the religious Em- peror Confiantine exprefs'd in his own Letter, which Socrates fays was (0 admirable and full oj Wifdom ,* from whence it appears what Opinion he had of the Controverfy which made fo much Noife in the Church. That he was far from thinking the con- troverted Points (concerning the Nature and Fxi^ (a) Tit? -^ TolifJJT:-'.^ ^jll^KTir:? oi^oTct^ [JAi I'oMa TiVo^ dvctyx,)) Vit. Conftant. lib. a. C. 69. Socrat. Hill. lib. i. c. 7.^ fJMS'cty.a^ AVcii)tcLitcv — KicLV S'JiiSiK {hIho"/?, &c. Eufeb. in Viu Confl-. lib. a. c. 69, 70, 7 1, &c, ,8c Socrat. Hid. lib. i. c. 7. (c) ©cwftctrss ^ ffo(^Ui i^iTil WiTQhn' Hill, lib. i. c. 8. ftenc0 (70 fience of the Son which Alexander fo warmly main- tained on one hand, and Arius as zealoudy oppos'd on the other hand) to be a principal Doctrine of Chriftianity, and which had been ahvays profefs'd in the Church from the Beginning. Had he had any fuch Thoughts he would have fpoken of them in another Manner ; and not have efteem'd them fo light and trivial as he reprefents them. But he knew very well that the Difpute was about mere fpeculativa fcholaftic Qiieflions ; a verbal Contention about Things of no Moment in Religion, and in which the Faith of the Church and the Worfliip of God was no way concern^ : And tho' he was af- terwards wrought upon to favour Alexander and condemn Arius, and then fpoke oi Arius and his Notion with more Severity ; yet, like a pious and wife Prince, he endeavoured firft by his Counfel and Advice to reconcile the Breach between them : And when by ufing more rigid Methods, Arius and his Adherents were brought to give over infifting on his particular and novel Tenets; the Emperor again (how'd his Moderation, by caufing them to be reftor'd and admitted to Communion, without fubfcribing the particular and equally novel Deci- fions which were made againft him in favour of ^-^ lexanders Notion, by the Nicence Council. All this original and authentic Evidence which is the moil material and neceifary to fet the Contro- verfy and the Proceedings of the Nicene Council upon it, in the cleared Light, is wholly omitted by Dj;, B ; and it is impoffible for any Reader to know any thing at all rightly of the Matter, from the Account which he gives, which is always botii very imperfect and very partial: as if he thought thofe who in his Opinion are not orthodox had no Right to common Truth and Juftice. But altho'^ whether Alexander or Arius was moft in the right, is of no Moment in the Difpute betwixt Dr. £— • and K % bis (70 his Adverfarles, whofe Difference is about other Matters of the greateft Importance, and in which the Unity ^ Supremacy and Worjhip of God is nearly and immediately concern'd ; yet it is but fair and equitable in one who undertakes to write Hiftory and FaB^ to produce all the Evidence that appears on one Side as well as on the other. And here I defire Leave to remind Dr. B of the excellent Words of his Friend Dr. TV , which had he himfelf obferv'd, the Controverfy might have been brought to a good Iffue before now. '' For (d) my " own Part [fays he] I declare once for all ; I de- ^^ fire only to have Things fairly reprefented, as *^ they r^^//y are : no 'Evidence fmothe/d or fti fled on " either Side. Let every Reader fee plainly what " may bejuflly pleaded here or there, and no more ; " and then let it be left to his impartial Judgment, *^ after a full View of the Cafe. MifqvMation and " Mifreprefentation will do a good Caufe Harm, and V will not long be of Service to a lad one." This Declaration I have always made rhe Rule of my own Writing, and have endeavour'd impartially to fulfil it in the prefent Papers. Having thus brought down in as fhort a Method as I well could, the hiftorical Account of the Con- troverfy concerning the Doftrine of the Trinity, to the Council of Nice ; v/e may from the preceding Evidence and Obfervations upon the Rife and Pro- grefs of the Controverfy which occafion'd the meet- ing of this Synod, eafily form a Judgment of the Dodrine and Decifions of it. And therein it will appear from the Teftimony of thofe who were pre- fenty and heard all the Debates, and gave their Suffrage againfl Aritis, that this illuflrious Affembly of more than three hundred Bifhops, very hardly i (6) J>t.JVatertarj^s VcknCc ef his Queries, p. 132. and ( 77 ; and with Difficulty admitted the Confuhflantiality ; and far, from inferring thence the necejfary Exiflence^ Coetemity and Coequality of the Son and Spirit with the Father, or from confeffing their Belief [as Dr. B pretends] '^ in the Father and the Holy Spirit as being nu77ibe/d together in the fame Divinity^ they Ihow'd themi'elves plainly of a contrary Opinion : and had it not been for the pertinacious and conten- tious Condud of \:\\q Avians^ in infifting to explain the general Words of Scripture and the CatJiolic Do- d;rine concerning the Generation of the Son from the Father before all iPorlds, according to their own par- ticular (e) Opinions, and refufing to leave the Words in the Latitude in which they had been al- ways us'd ', it is highly probable that this eminent Council would have agreed to have declared their Faith conformably to the primitive CathoHc Creeds, and in the Words of Scripture only^ without deciding/or or again ft any particular Explanations ; and fo hap- pily have put an end to the Difpute betwixt Alexan- der and Arius, by obliging both to acqiiiefce in a general Catholic Scripture 'Belief, and to impofe no- thing more on each other ; and have publim d fuch a Form of Dodirine as might have defervM to be retain^ in the Chriftian Church in all fucceeding Ages. When the Bifhops were met together at Nice in Bithynia, they had, before they enterM into a pub- lic Synod, feveral (/) private Conferences together about the Matters in Difpute betmxt Alexander and Arius y and after a full Examination of Arius's Opi- * Pag, i8c tmv y^.(pc^v to. iri^\ auiZ yi- y^&.u[xiva. A^^/StS^, [xii a.y^^^'n^ I's^eiadyz^ hi^eii' vat iJ^it (pctihjj etV )d, iycofii ccKeiCiTz^. ^ Ix. reoy y^.i^c^v (xoi^KoVi n ^ irifcov kcri to, tTh ct^^Beict^y yi'&jfitry.cijct' ctAA' w KctzouBeid, — i/.9i(S^ TO. tUj) cl Sehuc. vid, Epift. Aril &> En/eh. Nic. apud 'Theodoret. Bift. lib. I. c. ^,6. & Amhrof. Si 'verum incfuit lEufeb'ius in epiftol/t} Dei filium & irjcrertum dicimus, oixoy^iTiov cum pnfre incipimus con- fteri, Htcc cum Ie5ia ejfet epifiola in conc'iUo NictO«(3"f» <»V^CtA«f T{\vymi 'TTA^etToi^ 'TTAr^' y-i[> [vix. Nic] k^y,hjjeicL?^ (T)]^ctivi(T\]<; on Ijc t»<^ Ky/ct? 7« cr^" ifci/itlf^TrLu/' Q 'T^ ^ »x,' o;'1«f* 3p«d. Socrar, lib. 3. c, 25. & Soii ( 82 ) **^ ///^^inSubftaiicetothe Father— ^in Oppofition td !^ the Aflertion that he was made out of nothing!' From the Nicene Council's Interpretation and Senfe of the Word Confubflantial^it plainly appears^, that they were far from underftanding by it or in- ferring from it that the Son was neceffarily-exifteni and coequal with the Father in Nature and all Perfe^ Eiiom. This was a Senfe in which the Word had never bhce been us'd by any Chriftiah Catholic Wri- ter in the World ; and which when taken in the moft ftrid: literal Senfe, it was not underftdod to im- ply upon the Principles of ancient Philofophy : and there are befides other Circumftances which fhovv that the Council oiNice could intend no fuch Mean- ing by it. It was well known by the Council, that thQ Avians maintain^ that " the (t) Son fubfifted *^ by the ^^ of the Fathef^ and that he was not J^ equal to him ; " as well as that he was made out of Nothing, and did not exifl before he was begotten. Had the Council therefore thought that thefe Aflertions were erroneous as well as the other, they would un- queftionably h^ve either faid in their Creed, that the Son tvas equal to the Father, and did not fubfift by his Will ; or at leaft have anathematiz,' d thefe with the other Avian Opinions. But this not being done^ and the Word [o//o«V/o J Confubfiamial, never imply- ing either Necejfary-Exiflence or Coequality^ accord- ing to the Ufe of it amongft the Ancients ,- and the Council explaining it in no fuch Senfe, or applying It in Oppofition to thofe who (they knew) deny^d. them ; ther^ is not the leaft Ground or Pretence to think that the Council meant any fuch Thing by it, and 'tis dmoft a Demonftration that they did «» ^*ff/?g d€Micr«ri 'TTctj^oU' Thai. Arii apud Athanaf. de Synods Arifil* & Seleuc, vid, §g Epift. Arii apud Theod. c» 5, nolo (8?) not^ And we may with Certainty conclude that the Council of Nice did agree with all primitive Catho- lic Antiquity, that the Son was not necejfarily-exiftent^ but on the contrary, was begotten of the Father by his Will ; and that he was not coordinate and coequal with the Father in Nature and all PerfeBions, 2. *Tis evident that the Word Confubftantial was Tiot underftood by the Nicene Council, in a ftrid, li- teral and phyfical Senfe, in which it imply'd that the Son was either a confubftantial Part or Emanation of the Subftance of the, Father ,* or was a diftinc^ fyecific Subftance : in which Senfe it had been reje- ded by the Council of Antioch^ as implying a Dm- fion of the divine Unity, and introducing Polytheifm. The Specific Senfe Dr. 5— thinks * to be downright Tritbeifm. Dr. ^-— every where owns the fame s and this being the only literal and grammatical Senfe, if the Council did not ufe the Word in this, Senfe (as it is allow'd they did not) they muft ufe it with a Latitude, and in a Senfe peculiar. And what their Senfe was, they themfelves exprefly de* cW(r/oJ Confubftantial^ was plainly underftood in the Senfe of the Son^s being [o//to/j/cr/o?] of like Subftance with the Father. And they feem to have pitch'd upon the former Word rather than the latter, to be rid of the Ariansy who they knew [as Dr. ^— t, ©bferves ^Ito be mofl anjerfe to ito * Fag» i8o. t Pag, 17^. (84) ^jo It appears from the Council^s Explanatiai^a what their diftinft Notion of the Word or Son o£ God was. They took Care to declare that his Ge- neration from the Father was not by Bivifion of the divine Subftance ; that he was neither (in the VaUntinian Senfe) a Fart of the Father's Subftance y nor (in the Sabellian Senfe) the whole individual Subftance of the Father ; that neither yet was he Ik^^KovTcoi/'] out of nothing^ in t\\Q Avian Senfe. But they faid that he was [kTaTctTfoj] out oj the Father, and that before he was begotten, he was potentiafy in the Father, in an unbegotten Manner ; clearly in- timating their Opinion, that he was begotten from ^nintQr:T\2\ unbegotten Property^ from the internal H^ord of the Father, into a diftint^ fubftftjng Perfon. Whence it followM that there was no T'ime (or Du-- ration) luhen he was not ; becaufe tho^ he was not ab^. folutely from Eternity a Son [he^yeicij by diflinH a-^ Elual andperfonal Subfiftence ; yet he was fo l^P^iwdfxti] by potential Exiftence ; and by a pofitive imperfonal Exiftence in the Father as his intertialWord^y.ycwnrcoP^ m an unbegotten Manner. This the Arians flatly de- nyM, and infifted that beforeihis Generation he had no Exiftence at all. That the Son w^s derlvM from an internal Pro^ ferty into a real Peffon, I fhowM above to be Alex-r anders Opinion, and it was founded upon the Scri- pture-ExprelTions of the Sony's being ftil'd the IVord and Wifdom of God, which he interpreted in a metaphyseal inftead of a moral Senfe: and that this Opinion was confirmed by the Nicene Council, wc learn further from Athanafius himfelf. \\ The {u) Son (fays he) is the Word and Wtfdo^n '' -i (80 ^ ^^ pf theFathen which denotes hisunpafjtve and un^ ^' divided Generation froni the Father. For the ^^ [internal] Word (or Reafon) of Men, is neither a " Part of them, nor proceeds palTively from them : ^' fo neither does the Word of God, whom the Fa- ^ ther has decIarM to be his Son ; that we may ^•- not think he has not a diflinEi Suhjiflencey as the ^' internal Word or Reafon of Men has not ', but that ^^ as being ftilM Son^ he is thtHvingWord andfu^^ ^- Jtjiing Wifdom of God. And we are to under- '^ ftand the Word Confuhjlantial in a Manner fur-'' ^^ paflingaii fenfittve Ideas/^ 4. It is manifeft, from what is faid, that the Creed of the Nicene Synod and the Anathemas an- nexed to it, were only intended to put a Stop to the particular Difpute betwixt Alexander and AriuSy and to heal that Breach of the Churches Peace which was made by it ,* and not for a general Form of Faith or Dodrine to be usM in the Church. Eu- fehius (x) intimates as much: and Dr. 5— fays * that ^' the Confeflion drawn up (at Nice^ does not *^ appear to have been either defignM by the Coun- " cil, or any where ftri6cly us'd as the baptifmal ^' Creed , " befides which no other was us'd in the Church. 5 . Therefore a general Obfervation naturally a- ridng from the whole precedent Hiftory of the Ni- cene Council is ,* that fince it plainly appears from the Accounts of the Athanafian Hiftorians them- 'Wt9^X'^^% ^i)T/^2 ffk flsa, %V 1/0.1/ it) ioJJTd TdLTYl^ iS'YlKCd- civ' lhcty.ii Tcihiv rU'^^yoixitn) toutov Vi) oJoglTiv tuv dvQ^co- 'TTuv dvvn^oTctlG-' ccAa'] Vt) ^covjct Koyov JUj hi(7iov ffo(picLV' 39 TO oi/.o-a(nov clyjovji'; C'^s-i^Ca.iyeiV o^eihQiJ.zv '^£(.'^^ ^'^^^ difetx- "^^ yivliJ-'.VAi Hift, lib. I. '-'■ ' of bf his being underwd^ and the original Caufe of their Exiftence ; which Authority and Superiority the moft zealous Athanafians^ Bafilj Gregory Naz,ianze}i, Hila- ry, Auguftin, and others, afcrib'd unto the Father. And efifedually to take away that Supremacy of the one God and Father of all, ivho is above all, on which the Scripture and the ancient Church founded the Uni^ ty ; and which was e>:prefs''d in the firit Article of all the Catholic Creeds ; and is the firft Principle of natural Religion itfelf ; in order wholly to take a- way all Supremacy of the Father, and Subordination of the Son and Spirit ; Dr. W- — has invented, in- ftead of the natural and true Supremacy, a merely /- Bitious (which he abfurdiy calls oecommical) Siipre^ macy of Office-, founded not in xht f elf-originated Na^ ture. Authority and ahfolute Dominion of the Father, according to the unanimous Doctrine of all Anti- quity ; but in a fipposM voluntary Concert and- Agree- ment of the Son ard Spirit ; whereby they are in- troduce as voluntarily agreeing, that God the Father fhall ad as fupreme, and they fuflain inferior Offices for a while; the Father fhall iffue out Orders, and they e%ecute them -, the Father command, and they ohey \ the Father /^?2^, and they befent: and thus an Appearance be carried on as if the Father w^as really and alone fupreme ; whilft yet he infifts that the Son and Spirit are naturally asfupre7ne as the Father ; and the Father as naturally fubordinate to them as they to the Father ,* and, in fhort, that the Son and Spirit are fo abfolutely coequal and coordinate with the Father in ZV^/-«r^ and all Perfeciions ; that it was equally poilible in Nature that the Father himfelf might have._ afled the miniflerial Part. Which Words, as they nriufl make every Chriftians Ears to tingle (c), fo they (c3 Dr^ Pf" — ''s fecGsd Defenfe, f. 17% M \ ^■i^g^'it (90 ought alfo to make them beware of that pretended Orthodoxy y which is attended with fuch Impiety. Thus the Word Confubfiantial^ which was us'd by the Nicene Fathers only to exprefs the true and proper Divinity of the Son, as being truly deriv'd in an ineffable and incomprehenfible Manner from the Father by his Power and Will^ and being the exprefs and perfe^ Likenefs and Similitude of the Nature and Perfon of the Father ; and which was as far from being thought to denote an ahfohite E~ quality and Coordination^ as a Samenefs of Perfon^ with the Father^ has been llrain'd to both thefe contra- di(51:ory Senfes ; nay. Dr. W would have it fig- rsify both aq the fame Time j and that the Son is both individually or numerically^ and alfo fpecifically confubftantial with the Father ; that lie has the fame Subftance both in Kind and Number too ; thus con- founding by fcholaflic Metaphyfics which have no Re- lation to Reafm or common Senft^ all Language and Science whatfoever. Yet thcfe pretended Orthodox^ fo Qppojite to each other, as well as to the Catholic Do- ctrine of Scripture and Antiquity concerning the Tri- nity, have the AlTurance lo ftile at all Adventure thofe who differ from them, by the odious Names of Avians and Heretics^ as if confcious that all their Strength lay in railing the Pajftom of the Ignorant Vulgar, and in appealing bom Scripture^ Antiquity and right Reafon^ wherein their Notions have no Support, to the Prejudices of fuperftitious and weak- minded Men, who are more influenced by Names than T'hings. But to return : The firll remarkable Difpute a few Years after the Council oiNice about the Con- fubfiantiality^ happenM betwixt the great Eufebius of Csfarea, and Euftathius^ Biihop of Antioch. Eufla- thius charg^'d Eufebius with {d) corrupting the Nicene (d) Socrat. lib. i., c, 23, Soz^ t'lh, z, c, 18. Do^rine^ (93) Doftrine ] becaufe (k feems) he did not think the [o^o«V/©-] Confuhflantiality^ was intended to denote the formal Equality of the Son with the Father ; but that he was a diflind real Perfon fuhordinate to the Father : whilft on the other hand, Eufebius accus^'d him of perverting the CQnfuhflantiality to the Sabel-^ lian Opinion, and making the Son the fame indM^ dual Subitance or Perfon with the Father; for which Notion and other infamous Things provM upon him*, he was (e) deposed by a Synod [of two hundred and fifty Bifhops^ as (/) Philofiorgius tells us] held in his own See. MarcelluSy Bifhop of Ancyra, Athanajtus^s great Friend, was another who corrupted the Nkene Do- drine, by interpreting the Confuhfiantiality in the (g) Sahellian Senfe, and thereby denying the Divi- nity of Chrift, and making him no more than a mere Man. For which Opinion he was deposM by a Synod held at \ Conflantimple ; and tho' he was afterwards reflorM by the * Athanafian Council of {h) Sardica, and Athanafius continuM in Friendfhip with him, as long as he (/) liv'd ; yet {k) Bafil, a zealous Atha-- nafian too, chargeth him with an impious denyino* the Divinity of Chrift, and founding his Sahellian Notion upon a wicked Interpretation of the Nicene Confubflantiality, * An. 530. (e) Socrat, ibid, c^ 24. Sox.* ibid, r. ip. (f) Lib. z, C.I, (g) Socrat. Jib, I. c. 55. lib, 2,c. 20. SoZ* lib, z, c, 55. t '^JJ' 53<5. * Jr?. 347. (h) Socrat. lib. 2. c, 20. (i) Montfauc. in Vit. Athanaf, c. 5, 6. f fcil. ex Symb. Nic] ■Tre^Xictyta-a,^ ret? aVx^^ ei'Aj;^4j/£W, ^ oy.o^ b^Jii rbjJ j'W0l;/!,V KAil^i sJjl^i/^^Sr©"' Epift. 78. I "^ Thus ( 94 ) Thus many of thofe who had fat in the Nicem Council, could not agree about the Meaning of the Word Confubnantial ; but fome, without Regard to the Interpretation of the Synod itfelf, ftrain'd it to a Senfe direftly oppofite to that which was defign'd : ^nd interpreted that Word which was intended to ^xprefs the real Divinity of Chrift, to confirm an Opinion which diredly deftroyM it. The Heats (parried on by thefe Means againft thofe of Catho- lic Principles, and who would not fufFer the Nicene Copfeflion to be thus abusM, occafion'd the Depo- lltion of the two forementionM Bilhops ; and feem to have been the chief Reafon of the Deprivation of Athmajius himfelf by the Council of Tyre ; which was fummonM from thence to* Jerufalem, for the Dedication of a magnificent Church built there by Conflantine, This was the (/) largeft Council which had ever been known in the Chriftian Church ; and being but ten Years after that of Nice^ very probably ma- ny of the Nicene Biihops were there. To this Council the fame Emperor Conflantine^ who had ba- nifh'd the Avians at the Council of Nice, for infift- ing upon novel uncatholic Aflertions^ did now, upon their defifting from them, and delivering ^ {m) Confeffion of their Faith agreeable to Scripture, and to the primitive and ISlicene Dodrine, [but without the new Terms inferted into the Nicene * Jn. 5^5. (l) TcIvtIlv uiyWhjj a>v /(r//2f avvoS'ov i'ivrk^.v (TivjiZ^^^rei [fcii. Nicenam] Eufeb. in vit» Coriftant. lib. 4. c. 47, Synodns loDge omniam celeberrima & cnm Nicasna Synodo comparanda fi fcufebio credimiis : quippe quse ex omnibus Romani imperii provinciis ad dedicationem regalis Bafiiicas a principe eOet con° gregara. Valef. nbferv. Ecclef. lib. 2 c. 2. ad fin. Hit*!. So7« (m) Socraro l:b. i. c. 16c Soz. libe 2, c. 27. Creed]., (95) Creed] recommend them to the Coiinci!, and of^ der'd them to be admitted to Communion. The Council, with the Emperor^s Letters, receiv'd their Creed, and gave both it and the Men themfelves an ample Teftimony of their Approbation ,• declar'd their Dodrine to be orthodox and apoftolical, and them to be found and worthy Members of the Church of Chrift, whom Envy and Party-Zeal had till then driven out of the Church : and wrote a Sy- nodical Epiftle to the Church o{ Alexandria, and to the Bifhopsof all Churches, to admit them immediately into Communion, and not to fuffer former Difputes to break Peace and Union any longer amongft them. This is the Subftance of theDecifion and Decree cf this moft eminent and truly orthodox Council ,* the Original of which, as related by (n) Athanafius him- felf is in the Margin. Hence It appears that the Church, and no lefs the Emperor Conflantine, were foon fenfible of the ill Confequences which the Infertion and Impofition of unfcriptural Expreffions, in Matters of Faith, had produced ; and therefore were refolv'd not to make them any longer I'erms of Communion. And this (n) '^Ov? tfcil. Arianos] t^U rtvA Kett^h (yjiroiteth^ (p^ovQ- %^6t) yivi^K^ r'iii zny.Kndict'; ei^yda-aLJo* ky.dL(\v^eri ^ toT? ctfJ^^V/ luj Tctf ' OJJTCOV TV^OIMV©- OJJTO^ T« /'/' iifJJT>i ITdi^, loXj^ (piOl'Tn Trtf fit? To7? iOLun yfJ.fj(.y.a.(Tiv 'iyfe^jpov tJjjj tcov dvS'^ooif o^QoJ^a- ^'iCtVi VjJ di'73-iyvcoiJ.iV ol TctfTS? vytnTZ i(TCiV ^ hx,Khi1(Tlei^l}ct/JJ, kuK^Yiaict Ta 0£a* }L^ Tr^i^ei yi csAmQw^ yvoi^a^ J^ctf ret ts- "TT^-yy-ivctj }di &/V \}toivZvy](rcLV ol a.vS'^i^y Tra.^iS'i'^^mAV ts -vW TM^ TO(TcLUT\]<; clytct^ (TloioA', '7r^^VlJ.'o\ct\cL y^ eWTiii A7-7ffcLz/V7 of God in the moriginated Perfon of the Father ; which is the Ca- tholic Dodrine of all Antiquity. I might farther obferve (if it was of any Moment) that at another^ which was the * third Syrmian Coun- cil, the celebrated Hojias , Biftiop of Corduha in Sfain^ who is faid to have drawn up the Nicene Confeflion, did fubfcribe againft the {h) Confuhflantiality ; as (/) did Pope Liheriiis f at the fourth Syrmian Synod, a Year after. Thefe two Bifliops were thought to be of fo great Confequence to the Athanafian Caufe, that many Excufes and Pretences of ill Ufage are alledg'd for what- they did. But whether the Apo- logies made for them be true or not, it however ap- pears that they did not think the Confuhflantiality to be of fo great Importance as to prefer it before their own Peace and Repofe. Liberius livM feveral Years after this, but it does not appear that he ev^er repented of or recanted the Subscription which he ' -^/fw. 957. (h) Fhiloflorg. Hlff. lib. 4. c. 5. Sulpit. Hlft./ac. lib. 2.c.^6l Spz. lib. 4. c. 6. Athan. Epiji, ad Solhar. QP Apolog, 11. HiL de Synod. (i) Vhilojlorg, Ibid. Soz. lib. /^. c. 15. M^anaf. Apol, II. & tyifi, ad Solltar. Hil adCcnJiant, Hiivonym. ds Smp. Ecclef. c, ^fr fr-' X fiiaS$ ( I05 ) made both againft Athanafius and the Confubfiantia^ li'cy. I {hall mention but one Council more, namely, the great (y ^ew^r/i/ Council *, confifting of almoft all the BiOopS both of the Eafiern ^nd TVeftern Church, (J) and divided into two Bodies, one of which fat at Arimim , in number about four hundred, the other at Sekti-ia, in number one hundred and iixty. This Council was call'd to put an End to the D/- 'vifions betwixt the Eaftern and Weftern Church,' which had been occadon'd chiefly by the Party which Athanafius had made after his Depofinon and Banifhment ; and to unite them in one Communion, by a commion Agreement in one Confeilion o£ Faith. To which Purpofe a Creed which had been before composM at Syrmiu?n^ and was appro/d o£ by the Eaftern Church, was offer'd to the Council by Valens and Urfacius^ twoBiihops of principal Note. In the Creed which was propos a, the Word (m) Confuhflantial was left out, as being an unfcriptural Term, of ambiguous Signification, and which had gi- ven great Offence j and to which the in) Eaftern Church had a particular Averfion : and inftead of it, the Son was declared (o) to be like unto the Father in aU 'Things^ according to the Scriptures. This was the very Explication which the Nicene Council had given of their Senfe of the Confubflantiality of the Son *. and the ^Confeffion was drawn up in fuch (k) 'Ot)(,^iJ.ivi)ibjj (TwjoJ^oi'j Socrat. Hid. lib. 2. c 37- ^^ omni orbe Romano, tit Valentiniani Jun. lex docer, Cav. Hift. lit. ^artU. pag. 118. 0) Soz. Hift. lib. 4. c, ii.Bc c. 22. (tn) Philoft. Hift. lib. 4, c. to. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. iS, Socrat. lib. 2. c. 57. Soz. lib. 4. c. 17. Hieronym. ad Lncife- irian.^. 145. Athanaf.de Synod. Arim. ScSekuc. (h) Soz. lib. 4. c. i^. (o) Philoftorgd Socrat. ^oti HierOtJjtni 6ec, ibid. O iiddifputabijf ( io6 ) indifputably Catholic ExprefTions (as (p) Jerom owns) that that Part of the Council which was moft zealous for the Nkene Creed, and would not have had any other admitted, could in the end objed no- thing to it, iince it was plainly agreeable to the Nicene Dodrine. Only it was at lirfl: fufpeded that the Bifhops who prefented it were Favourers of the Avians , and therefore the Council would not fubfcribe their Confeilion, till it appearM that no- thing of Arianifm was meant by it, and that they themfelves anathematized the Avian Opinions. To this, at firft, it feems, they would not {q) confent; whereupon the Council (r) both rejecied their Con- feflion, and deposed them, and wrote the Emperor an Account of it. But Vdem and Uvfacius were be- fore-hand with the Council^s Legates ,* and poflefs'd the Emperor in their own Favour, and againfl the Synod ; upon which the Legates of the Weftern Part of the Council were not admitted j and Valens and Uifacius's Creed was approved by Conftamius, and they were fent back to the Council with his Or- ders to have it eftablifhM and agreed to, in order^ to effect that Peace and Umon between the Eaftern and Weftern Church which had been fo long de- fiv'd, and which (as Jerom fays) very much lay at the 0) Heart both of the King and all the Good Men of the Council. Here it is alledgM ^ that Valens and Uvfacius y by ill Ufage and Circumvention, feduc'd (p) De TJjl^ 72oi7jine ahjlc'iendo vsrl (ImiUs ratio py^hehatur ; quia in fcriptttrify aiehant, non in'vemtur, Qp multoi jlmpliciores novitate fua fcandal'izat. Pl/tcuit aitferri, Non erat Curx, Epifcopis de Oiocahulo^ cum fenfus ejfet in tuto. Adverf. Lucifer, p. 145. (q) Socrat. lib. 2, c. 57, Soz, lib. 4. c. 17. Theod. lib. 2, c. 23. (r) Socrat. & Soz. & Theodorer. ibid. (s) Idem enim vegi & bonis omnihui cmvo: fuevat^ ut Oriens Atque Occidens communiomsjibi liincuh neBerentHYe Adv, hudfer. p. 143. ♦ JPag, 229. thi ( 107 ) the Deputiei whom their Adverfaries had fent to the Emperor, to revoke all that had been done againft them, and to communicate with them^ and to fign their Confeffion. How this was we have no good Evidence, nor is it of any Moment ; and it is no Wonder that the Bifhops Vakus andUrfacius and their Friends fhould do the beft they could ro get the Sentence againft them revers'd, and be reftor'd to Commu- nion. But be this as it will, it appears from 3^^row/, who, as himfelf tells us, took his Relation from the public AEls of the Council to which he appeals. Thac ValenSj who wrote the Creed which had been pro- pos'd, clearM himfelf of all 6'^///^zao;2 o{ (i) Arianifmy and agreed with the Council in anathematizing the Avian Dodrines, which he did with the Applaufe of all the Synod, who were forry for having {u)fu- fpecied him, and fubfcribM his Creed, and unani- moufly agreed to lay afide the (x) Confubflantiality for the future, for preferving the Peace and Unity of the Church. Thus this great Council (whatfoever Jealoufies and Divifions there were amongft them at the Be- ginning) were very unanimous in the End, andcon- fented to and fubfcribM one Confeffion of Faith, whereby they declar'd that they were ail of one Corn- O 3 municn^ ft) Troffffi^ii e(l fe Jr}/»»um ticn ejfe. Qp pemtus ah eovum hlifphe- ml'is nbhorrcre. ibid. (u) Cum cunBi VahrJiem ad Cczlum laudihus tollerent, ^ funm In eitm fufpicionem cum pezrjiferitla damnttverd. ibid. (x) The Sentence of the Synod was; to a opo/^.ct t^^ yVfct? cyJvS'ciK'-jv fc^s^s, cT/ols iJA]H cu y^a(pcu t»to ^7rze^^x^^^f h§i(Te 0et} -^ S'id'dcTK'd^i. "' As to the Term o'[ Suhfiavcey which in *"' Simplicity was us'd by the iNkene'] Fathers, but being not " understood by the People, gave Offence to them ; and becaufe ** alfa (,o8) muntoni and thus Peace and Unity being happily r^- ftor'dto the Church, they all returnM home to their feveral Diocefes ( y) well fleas' d with what had been done. TheDecifion of this Council (which probably was the largeft the Church had ever known) againil the Confuhflantiality^ is the more remarkable, becaufe there is not the leaft Pretence to iky it was ('2:,) Aviariy or difinclin'dto the Nicene Doftrine. The Athanafian Hiftorians indeed in their •y^r/o?/y and contradiclory Accounts -^f the Matter^ relate a great deal of Artifice and Force to have been us'd to bring the Weilerns to an Agreement with the Ea- flerns : but as their Accounts do neither agree with each other, nor with ^erom^ who took his Re- lation from the fuhlic Records of the Council it- felf, fois it very hard to fuppofe that any condde- rable Part of fuch a Body of Prelates would be in- duced either by Flatteries or Threats to fubfcribe againft their Confciences to 1 Confellion of Faith which they did not think to be catholic and agree- able to Scripture. Nor can any thing be more un- reafonable or un juft than to ftile this or any of the afore-mentionM Councils^ or their Confefnons^, Avi- an j only becaufe they laid afide or reje&d the new nnfcriptmaneTm, Confulpftantial; tho' in all o- ther Points they maintsn/d the Nicene Dodrine; and exprefly condemned the Avian Opinions. By this Pretence not only almoft all the Chriftian ** alfo it is not to be found in '^rripture, it is decreed that it ** fliall be wholly hid afide, a*id no Mention made of it for ^* the futiit':. • — Eur we aftim tiiar the Son is like ur.to the Fa- '* ther, as the divine Scriptures exprcily teach. Aihanaf. de. Synod, Arlm. & Seleuc Cy) Ltcii omf2€s adprovlncias vzveritintur. Hieronym, adv. Luci- fer, p. 145. (2.) Hilr^ry addreffes the Council o^Aylrnlm in thefe Words, %,iz. Ariam ncn ^jiiSy cuv ripg'tnda Homoufion ceyi(em\ni Ariani f de Church ( 109 ; Church after the Nicene Council for many Years to- gether muft be accounted Avian, [which is no Com- pliment to the Athanafian Caufe ] but even the Council oi Nice itfelf mull have been thought ^- rian, if they had not inferted the Confubflantiality into their Creed, which Athanafim himfelf owns x.\\zy had no Intention of doing \ but deiign^d to have exprefs'd their Belief in catholic and fcrip- tural Terms, [as was done afterwards by all the fore-mention *d Councils] had not die Contentions of the Avians in infifting on their uncatholic and novel Pofitions, in a manner forc'd the Synod to make ufe of the ExprefTion. The Creeds drawn up by thofe ftil'd Avians [tho' they renounc'd every Branch of Avianifrn] in the fourth Century are fo indifputably agreeable to Scripture and the catholic Dodrine of the ancient Church ; that the moft zealous Athanafians have ac- knowledge it : And the learned Bifhop Bui/ bears this Teftimony to them, " that (a) they fay nothing but what the Catholics have faid, only that they ^^ omit the Word Conjubfiantial :" which the Bilhop knew very well had never been us'd in any ancient Chriftian Creed in the World. Again ; " all (b) ^' their Confeflions of Faith profeis in a manner ^"^ to a Tittle, the fame Belief which was confirmed in the Nicene Synod ; excepting that they omit the Word Confulftantial." Which Ihows the un- reafonable Prejudice of thofe who fuffering them- felves to be deluded by mere Nantes^ without re- garding Tubings themfelves, reproachfully ftile thofe Avians^ who do not profefs and even blame the A- C^) Qjf}^ '^on dicjfnt, quod CaihoUcl dixerunt, praterquam quod unam illam Quo'^irl^^ vocem omittant ? Epilog, Vef. F, N, (b) Fidei Confejjlones phvczque omnes eandem fidem verba te?7us pvoftentw^ qua, in Nic^snafynodo fancita jtdevnt^ nifi quod Jiomooi^sfi loce-Kn cmiitant. lh':d. ( no ) yian Doctrine i becaufe they think it beft to lay afide ail iinfcriptural ExprciTions m Matters of re- veat^ d Religion ,- and to have all Confeflions of Chriftian Faith compos'd [agreeably to the Pradice and Forms of the primitive Church] in the Words of Scripture. The CONCLUSION. THUS I have finiih'd what I intended in Reply to Dr. B 's hiiloricai Account of theCon- troveriies concerning t\\t Dodrine of the Trinity ,* and fabmit it to the learned and impartial Reader, whether it does not plainly appear that the Dodor has been very partial in his Relation of Things ; has mifreported and mifreprefented the Senfe of Antiquity^ againft the manifold exprefs Declarations of their Opinions ; and that the Dodrine which the Dodor pretends to fupport by the Tefl:imony of the ancient Church, has not the leaft Evidence or Ground from any one ancient Creed or For?n of pporfiip, or from any one ancient Writer whatfo- ever, who all uniformly and nnanimoiifly reclaim a- gainft that Notion and Explanation of the Do- drine of the Trinity, which he erroneoufly ililes Orthodoxy : that on the contrary, it is mani- icil that the Dodrine of the natural Supremacy of the one God and Father of all^ ivho is alcove all, and of the Subordination of the Son and Spirit to him, which the Dodor falfely ftiles Ariamfm, has been conflantly traight h^^^ the Church from the Begin- ning for more than three hundred Years together : whether alfo it does not appear that i\\^ Council of ISIice in inferting the Word Confttihftantial into the Creed made no Alteration in that Dodrine, or deiign'd ( "I ) defignM thereby to deny the real SupremAcy and Do- minion of God the Father over the Son and Spirit^ or to teach the Coordination^ Coequality^ or Neceffary-' Exiftence of the Son and Spirit^ which are manifeftly repugnant to the Dodrine of that Council, who took care to explain the Word Confuhflantial in a catholic Senfe agreeable to Scripture and the Pro- feffion of the primitive Church before them ; and fo as to difclaim equally the Errors of Sabelliamfm- and Tritheifm. Whether it doth not further appear that the Word Conful/fl ami al being found [not only to be unfcripturalj but alfo] to be ambiguous^ and mip* underftood^ and perverted and abused to a Meaning quite contrary to the Intention and Senfe of the Nicene Council, and made thereby the Caufe of great Offence and Contention in the Church, was publickly laid afide not many Years after it was firft brought into the Church, and omitted in all the ConfefTions of all the moft numerous and eminent Synods both of the Eaflem and Weflern Church, which met for about thirty Years together j in all which ConfefTions Arianifm was difclaimM and con- demned, and the ancient Catholic Dodrine of the alone ahfolute Supremacy of the one God the Father^ and the Subordination and Subjection of the Son, &c. to him, was, as I have proved, entirely profefs'd. I did not think it proper or to the Purpofe to pur- fue the Dodor's hiflorical Account any further; and what is obfervM upon it is fufficient to fliow, that the Defign of this Narrative was neither to favour Arianifm on the one hand, or Athanajlanifm^ fo call'd, on the other ; but to fhow from undoubt- ed Evidence and Fad, what was the true Catholic Dodrine of the primitive Church conformable to Scripture, in Oppofition to both of them. The Cry of Arianifm, and a pretended Zeal for the Nicene Faith has been an old Party-Cant, made life of to blind Men^s Eyes^ and hinder them from enquiring ( "2 ) enquiring after T'rttth ; to (c) blacken thofe whom the reputed Orthodox had a mind to mifreprefent, and by the mere Sound of a Word to lead their un- wary Followers to profefs Opinions almofl: as con- trary to the Nicene Dodrine as to Arianifm itfelf. VVhat on this Pretence has been of late Years ad- vancM by the modern Athanafians or fcholaflic repu- ted Orthodox^ either in Defenfe of Sahellianifm or 'tritheifm (into which two Schemes they are divided) has been fully confiderM and confuted from the Principles of Scripture, Reafon and Antiquity : and what hath been by them reply'd in Vindication of their pretended Orthodoxy, hath been fo weak and infufficient ; fo full of Bitternefs, Invedive and Ca- lumny ; and fo deficient in Evidence, Reafon and Ar- gument ; and finally built upon Principles diredly oppofite to the firft and fundamental Articles both of natural and reveal* d Religion ; that, I queftion not, that all truly learned and impartial Enqui- ries after, and Lovers of Truth, are fully fatisfyM, and have alrfeady decided the Controversy in their own Breafts. So that, I think, no more is neceffary to be added to what hath been faid i and truft that God, in his own good Time, will make theEndeavour^ of all truly pious and virtuous Men effedual and fuccefsful in promoting the Dodrine and Religion of his Gofpel ; and to the eftablifhing Peace and Vnityy upon the Chriftian Terms of Charity, Righte- oufnefs and 'Truth, (c) Inv'ifum nomen quo — — denigvajidos curaztit adverfariosfuos, ut hac ratione odium ipjls Imperhorum comiliaret, &' credtdos lecio- rei hocpvejudklo ■pY/.orcupfito; a libera verltatis difqnifth?ie aneref, BttUi Apofog, adv. D, "Tallium. SeS:. i. ERRATA. P Age's,' line 34. vead \.■. laft. />. O N, Printed for J a M e s K N a p t o N, at the CV^xt/ in St. Taiih Church-Yard. M Dcq xxiv. T O T H E reader: H E Author of Thefe Obfervations afjures the Reader^ in the moji Solemn manner y that there is contained in them no Argument, or Branch of Any Argument; but n^hat^ iqon the moji feriojis Conjideration and careful Review ^^ appears to Him to he jlriBly and perfeBly conclu- fve. If any one fiall think ft to A 2 7vrite To the READER. 7r>rite in Anfwcr to them, he is de fired to obferve the Same Me- thod ; and not darken Arguments: ofReafi)nand Scripture, by inter- mixing with them Applications to the PafTions of the Ignorant. o B s E R- OBSERVATIONS O N Dr WATERLANDs Second Defense O F H I S QUERIES. OBSERVAT. r. Concerning fome remarkable Texts of Scripture, ii§|Sil isT^^^ ^ -^ ^^^^ Scrifture'DoElrme of the Trmtty, is That which is the natn^ rd Refult oi All the Texts of Scrips ture relating to That matter, when compared together: And when Sjf they are each of them paraphraied according to That Do(flrine, the Senft of them All ihall appear uniform and conjljlem ; and 6 Objervations on T)r Waterland'^ and the Paraphrafe upon each of thenij (hall appear naturally and obvioufly to exprefs the true Mean- ing of every finglc Text. This, I think, is what Br Clarke has clearly and diftindly done, in his Script ure-DoEtrine of the Trinity, What Work Br Water land would have made, had he attempted in like manner to go through All the Texts of the New Teflament according to His explication of the Do- drine ; may appear to the Satisfadion of every rea- fonable Man, from a very few Inftances taken out of his Second Be f en fe of his Queries, John V; 2 2, 23. The Father judge th no man; hut hath committed all 'judgment to the Son: That all men pould honour the Son^ even as they honour the Father. Here the Honour required to be paid to Chrift^ is, in our Lord's own Words, exprejly founded upon the Father s having Committed all Judgment unto Second Be- him. No, fays Dr Waterland: " Chrift is NOT -^gY'*^' " worfiipped BECAVSE God Committed judgment *' to him ', hut God committed it to him for This end '^ andpurpoj}^ that Aden might he fenfihle of the Big- " ?iitj and Bivinity of his Perfon^ and thereupon Ji^or^ " I^^^P ^•^'^* " Meaning by '' the Bivinity " of his Perfon, fupreme Divinity, accompanied neceffarily and independently with the fame ahfolute Supremacy of Bominion and Authority^ as the Father himfelf has* So that (according to Dr Waterland) he had the very fame Power of Judgment, J5^/d?r^ Judgment was committed to him ; as he had After, Or, which is the lame thing ,• he had abfohitely, neceffarily, and inde- pendently^ •VNJ Second Tiefenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 7 pendently, in Himfelf, in his own Divine Capacity, Obferv. the very fame Right to have committed unto HIM- ^'^ SELF all Judgment in his Human Capacity^ as the Fa- ther himfelfhsA to commit it to him in Either Capacity* Negleding therefore the Reafon upon which the Scripture exprejly founds the Honour we are to pay to Chrift, the Dr builds it entirely upon another /'• 4o7- Foundation, on which the Scripture never builds it ,• "uiz.. on This, that By Him God CREATED all things. That By Him God Created all things ^ the Scripture does indeed teach : But there is in No place of Scripture Any intimation, of his being Wbrjlnpfed upon That Account. The Reafon is, becaufe (as All Chriftian Writers unanimoHJly agree,) the Son's part in the Creation was merely ^ minifierial. Which (what- ever ViU- f/jxn vlos -m Tmvrcc i^f/^iii^ywiv- Itcc rv p viuyjo, r>}^vi rf ttxtc} hi^i^^^j-^f^rm. i. e. V/hen the father willed that all thmgs fwuld be formed, the Son formed them by the Appointment of theTather: That fo the Original Abfolme Supreme Autho- rity [That's the Signification of mJ^vtikvi i%iir. WaterlandV Obferv. ever Dr WaterUnd may imagine,) is by no Means !• fo high a Title (in the moral or religious Senfe, 'Viz,, confidered as a Ground of Worfliip ; ) as is Regal and Judicial Power. Joh. XVII. I, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18, 22, 23, 24. y^- /«/ /(f/^ up his Eyes to Heaveriy and [aid : Father y the hour is come ', glorify thy Sony that thy Son alfo may glorify Thee* As Thou haft Given him power over all fiefjj, that he fl^ould give eternal Life to as many as 'Thou haft Given him, — — / have glorified thee on the Earth ; / have finifipcd the Work^ which Thou Ga- veft me to do, And nowy O Fathery '' Glorify thou 'c me with thine own Self, with the Glory which I ••' had with thee before the world was. " J have ma- nifejlcd thy Name^ unto the men which thou Gaveft me out of the World, For I have given unto them the Words which thou Gaveft mey and they have believed that thoti didfi fend me, As Thou haf fcnt AIE into the Worlds even fo have I alfo fern Them into the World. And the Glory which thou Gavefl: MEy I have given Them. That the World may h}ow that Thou hafi fent me, That thej may behold my Glory 7vhich Thou hafi Given me : For trcd into the Heart of j^ny Chriftian Writer, ) viz, that T his Abfolute Supreme DiWnnion ^r>:d Authority of the God and Father of All, arifes wholly from mere r/mtnal volun^ :ayy Concert and Agreernent', and lias no other nueJJ'ary Ground in Nature, than fuch a bare Priority of Order, as is no natural and neieJJ'ary Foundation of Any real Supremacy of Dcm'mion find Authority at -^11: Concerning r/?/f, I f^JEj fee below, Qbfervat, II. and III. Second "Defenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 9 For thoti lovedfi me before the Foundation of the Obferv% ^^orld. ^^^ Upon thefe words, it was thus argued to Dr Water^ <' land. If the Son had (as you fay) the SAME Claim ^^^^^ ^^ " ^Wr/?/^?o/"'ror/j/>, the SAME Right to all Glory, 394, « that the Father himfelf hath ; it could be no more '* proper for the Son to fray to the Father to glorify '« the Son (to glorify him either with new or with «' ^«^/>»t glory,) than for the Father to/r^;f to the *' Son to glorify the .Father. Nor does it at all alter « the cafe, if you fay he prayed only /or his Humane <' Nature. For flill the Impropriety will be the «« fame as before : that the Son fhould ^raj to the <' Father to give to his Humane Nature That Glo- « ry, which the Son himfelf had the viry SAME '^ Right to have given to it, of his own Authoritji <« as the Father himfelf had. " The Anfwer Dr Waterland mAcs to This, is in the following Words. «f ro^ ^ii^ // f/?^ Son's glorifying the Father, means Second Dt^^ '' the very SAME thing vjith the Father's glorify- '^^^{' *^ ing the Son ? TES^ the very SAME thing : How «« can you doubt of it, when you read J oh. xvii, i. '* And again ; ^' Ay, but fay you, could not the Son pAiQ, *' himfelf have given it by his Own Authority ? TES : «< But as the Father did not Difdain to recieve Glory <« from the Son, 7vhy jl?ould the Son Refufe to recieve f' Glory from the Father ? " By This Reafoning then, (there being no Natural Superiority of real Autho* ritj or Dominion ',) the Father, had it not been other- wile agreed upon by voluntary Concert, might as pOiTibly not have Difdained to have been incarnate^ and to have been Sent by the Son, and to Inv^p-ayed B to lo Obfervations en T)r W^^tLerhnd'^ Obferv. to him, and to have ufed all the fame exfreficrm \ o£ ac!^07i>ledgem'ent of having received ^\ things by Gift from the Son, as we find onr Lord did in This Prayer to his Father, If any man, who (to fay no moi'cj reads ferioufly This very Chapter, can believe This to be the Dodrine of Chrift ; I think it can be to no Purpofe, to iivdeavour to con- vince him of any thing. I Cor. VIII; 5, 6, There he Gods manj, and Lords Aiany. But to Vs there is hut One Gody [viz.] the Father, of whom are all things^ and we in him ; And One Lord, [viz.] ye fas Chrifiy hy whom are all things, and We hy Him. This Text is fo diredly, both in Senfe and in Terms, contradiftory to Dr Waterland's Notion ; that 'tis very remarkable, in what Manner he has been forced to treat it. Second Be- j , He tells US t '' The giving the Name [One God] > '^'Si' cc fimetimes to One [to the Father] Jingly^^is no Ar^ ^' gument that the Same Name may not alfo juftly '' helong to Both [to the Father and Son] together, '*. No : Not the giving the Name Sometimes, but the giving it at All times, to the F^ttlfer fingly ; and not only the giving it at All times to the Father jmgly, but iCor.\i\\, moreover the giving it Sometimes So to the Father ^bhr'v6 ^^"^§'7' ^^ ^^ P^'^ ^^ ^^^ exprefs Contradifiin^iion to ^^r:?.xvii, the Son mentioned in the very fame Sentence; IS 3-^. .. ^ an Argument, and more than an Argument, that the Same Name (and in the fame Senfe) cannot jufily he^ iTim 11,5. lon(i to Bath* 2. In Secmd T>efenfe of his Qv e r i e s. it 2. In another Place, He Thus comments upon Obferv. This Text. " Tes i the ^poftle tells us, that the *' Father, of whom are all things, is the One God. '* And again : " To ^ fiat e (lays he) the main Que- ^^ ftlon hetiveen us in Thefe Terms ; Scripture, you ptj, ^' tells us there is but One God, even the Father, *' Tes : Scripture fliles the Father the One or Only « God : That's ALL you SHOVLD pretend, '' Here the Dr diredlly corrupts the Apoftle's AfTer- tion: Not allowing him to fay, (what he exprefly does fay, j that To VS there is One God, the Father ; but only, on thereverfe, to give the Father the Style or Title of the One God, Which is entirely a dijfe^ rem Proportion. For 'tis one thing, to fay that The One God is The Father ^ of whom are all Things ; and another thing to fay that The Father y (though not the Father Only,) is The One God, Now 'tis evi- dent the Apoftle in This Text, is not reciting the CharaElers of the Father, and telling us that the Fa- ther may be filled the One God \ but on the other fide, he is declaring to us Who the One God is, viz,, that 'tis The Father, of v^hom are all things; and This in exprefs Contradiftindion too, to the One Lordj fefiis Chrifi, By ivhom are all things, I . The Dr therefore is forced further to afSrm, that '< the Son is Tacitly included, though the Fa^ p, 453. r WaterlandV Obferv. *' in oppofition to Falfe oneSy to Nominal Gods and I" '' Lords, not in oppojttion to God the Son : '* ^^^^^ And yet, in the very words of the Text, The One God is oppofed, NOT ONLT to Fdfe Gods and Lords, to Nomind Gods and Lords, but ALSO (in exprefs Terms) to the One True and Real Lord By [or Through'] whom arc all things. Nor can there in This cafe polTibly be any Room for That Obferva- ^•^ * tion, that ^^ Exclufive Terms are not always to he 1 68, «<^ interpreted with Rigour • " For though General ex^ ^ clujive Terms y not only Sometimes y but Always and Necejfarilj, leave room^ for Such tacit Exceptions, as every ('even the Afeanefi) man's common fenfe is al* ways luppofed to know, that (of neceffity) they cannot but be excepted even out of the moft * Vni^ verfal expreffions : (For which reafon, 'tis ridicH» f. 16. lous in Dr Waterland to ask i Becaufe no one know^ eth the Father but the Son, does it therefore follow that the Father Himfelf does not know the Father \ Andy Rex-'.xix, Becaufe One had a Name written, that no man knew ii.e'ii. l}pi,t Uc himfelf; and to Another was Given ^^-^a^ ' ' new Name written, which no one k^oweth, faving He that * The Reafon is; becaufe All univerfal ExprefTions, even in their utmoft Un'ruerfality, are, in the nature of language, 7ieceff:irtly and alwayt underflood to extend only to All of The Kjnd fpohn of, and in Tlje Senfe ffoken of, whatfoever it be. Thus 'ti^ very proper to fay, that God was Ths Only Savl^ cur of Ifrael, and tha: they had No other Saviour but God j or th2.ty ofJm.i was The Only Saviour of Ifrael, and that they had 1^:0 other Siiviour but Joflm^t And yet no man ever was fo £enfelefs, as to miilinderflaQd the Extent of Zither of thefe Propolitions* Second "Defenfe of his Qy e R i e s. x 5 that receiveth it ; does it therefore follow, that HE Obferv. who Gave this Name, was ignorant of it Himfelp.) !• Though, I lay, This is, in the nature of Language^ ^-^'v^J fiecejfarily the Cafe in ^//Z/^^/wr/^/Expreffions ; yet where-ever ^ny Particnlar Thing or Perfon is, by jiny V articular Title or Charader, contradiftingui- Ihed from Any Other Thing or Perfon, mentioned at the fame time under Another -particular Title or Charader ; 'tis infinitely abfurd There, to fuppofe the Latter *' Tacitly included ^^ m the Former, from which it is expresjly excluded by the contradiftingui- fhing Charader. Which is the Cafe, in the Text before us. 4. To hinder the Reader from feeing fo very clear and diftin^, as well as obvious a Truth ; the Dr en- deavours to cover him with a Thick Dufl, of Words that have No Signification. '< Tou fuppofe I flmll p. ^^6, «' fayy that our Lord is That One God mentioned ^"^"^^ <« I Cor. VIII, 6» Which you thinh^highly abfurd. *' But (fays hej what if I floould plead, that That *^ One God is a filly Expreffion, where there are not ** Two One-Gods \ and therefore floould rather *' y^^j that our Lord is not That Perfon there ftiled *' One God by way of Eminence, but Another Per^ <' fony who is yet One God 7mh him. To *' Me it appears, that the Many Gods and Many *' Lords mean the Same thing under different Names ; *' And that St Paul, in oppoftion to having Many, *' ajferts that All things were Of the One God, and *• By the One Lord ; intimating their perfeEh Unity '^ of Power, PerfeElion and Operation, fo as to be l[ Both but One God W One Lord ^ the One Lord <^ bemg 14 Objervations on T>r Waterland'j ^•v^ Obferv. ^' being On^ 'with the One Gody and the One God he-^ ■^L . " ^^^ ^^^ '^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ Lord. " Had the Author been unknown, it could not have been believed that luch a Twifi of unintelligible Words, (in way of Comment upon a Text roplain, that without Learn- ing and vain Philofophy no man could fojjihlj have mif- under ficod it ;) fhould have dropped from the Pen of a Serious Writer. I Cor. XV; 24, 27, 28. Then com0th the Endy 'when he JJmU have delivered up the Kingdom to GOD, ^- ven the FATHER, — For HE hath put all things under his Feet. But when he faith, all things are put under him^ it is manifefi that HE is excepted, who Did put all things under him. And when all things flo all he fuh- dued unto him, then jjjall the Son alfo himfelf he Sub-- jeEl unto Him that put all things under him, that God may he all in all. From thefe Texts it was argued ,• that All Authority and Dominion was Originally and Abfolutely in the Father alone, and from Him delivered to the Son : That the Son's Dominion was Then complete, when all things were adually fubdued unto him, and the Father had put all things under his Feet : And that the Son's delivering up at the end the Kingdom un- to the Father, and being fuhjeB unto Him that put all things under him^ is an Acknowledgment and Proof, that All Authority and Dominion was and is Originally and Abfolutely in the Father alone. In Anfwer to This, Dr Waterland mokQS the fol- lowing Comments upon the Texts. ?? Nelfher Second "Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. i s ■ « Neither does God's being the Head of Chrijl, Obfem '« nor his Putting all things under him, conclude any ^^^ '' thing againfl luhat I ajfert, that Both together second De- ^' are One God SVPREME.'' That is: The^«^,^38. Fathers putting all things under the Son, was the :E^q&: of mere voluntary Concert and Agreement ^ not of any natural Superiority of real Authority and Dominion in the Father : And the Son might as Pof- ply, on the reverfe, have put all things under the Father, and the Father himfelf have been SuhjeB un- to Him that put all things under him, that the Son might he all in all, A^ain : ^' The Father is Lord of all, ABSO- /).iij. *« LVTELT: And SO is the Son, for any thing that '^ Appears, THOVGHthe Father put all things under 381. g3in : " The Prophecy of Dmkl, ch. \\h 13, 14," [One like the Son of man came to' the Anti- ent of days, and they brought him near before him ; And there v/as GIVEN him Dominion and Glory and a Kingdom,] " fp^^ks of a Kingdom in a Parti- ^' cular Senfe ; AS i Cor. XV, fpeaks of a King- « dom to be RECEIVED by the FATHER. This cc is all OecoyjomicaL *' Do Thele Words need any RefleEiion upon them ? Eph. IV. ^, 5, 6, One Spirit; — — One Lord; One God and Father of AlU 'ii^ho is Above ally and Throt^gh alh ^nd In you all. This Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. tf This Do6lrine of the Trinity delivered in thefe ObferV* \vords by the Apoflle, is fo expresfly contradiBory *! , to DvWaterknd's Scheme, and fo impoflible to be ^^^^ perverted even into any u4ppearance of Confiftency with it ; that the Dr finds himfelf here obliged even fairly to tell us, that St Pad ought not to have writ Thus, as he did ; ^ One Spirit y || ^ One Lord ', ^ One God and Father of Ally who is Abov^ all, and through alU and In you alU But that he ought to have tranfpofed his Wbrdsy and altered his Senfe^ Thus : One Spirit y — - "^ Which Three are the One One Lord; — - > God^ who is Above ally and One Father of all;) Through ally and In you alL The Diferencey is This. In St Paul's Trinity the One God and Father of Ally who is Above all, and Through ally and In you all i is expreilly One Per fin of the Three, In Dr Waterland\ Trinity, he is both One Per fin of the Three^ and alfo at the fame time All the Three. T>o I \\txQ mifreprefint ox aggravate? Let him then tell us, what mean,the following words, com- h 5'9> ^^' menting upon this Text. " He [the One God and Fa- «^ ther of All, who is Above all, and Through all and « In you alU] is There diflinguifJjed from the One Spi^ « rit, and the One Lord. And what if the One Lord «« and One Spirit be There firfl diftincl:ly named? I *c fie no Abfiurdity in AFTERl^'AP^DS mentioning and «^ SVMMING up theTHREE Perfins in the ONE 'c GOD " {the One God and Father of Ally are the Apoftles words,] '' mder a threefold confidera- x8 Obftrvations on T>r Watcrland j v-TY"^ Obferv. '^ tion of above all and through all and in all. " J'» Offences will come, and Infidelity will be kept up by tliem, in a negligent and debauched world : Bur 7i>hj men fliould r*i% Delight in inventing fuch Of-* fenles, and hanging Aiillftones needlejlj about the neck of Religion, I cannot conceive. There is in This Text Another Particular, very dllagreeable to Dr WaterUnd. Which is, the Apo- ftles aicribing to God ihe Title of Father of All, or Father of the Vmver/e. To find fault with St Panl f(Sr choofing fuch a Pagan exprellion, was not decent : But whenever A;^y Other Chriftian Writer ufts it, 'tk ''in compliance with the Pagan fljki " 'tis '' hecatife he '^ is talking to a Pagan-^ to whom therefore he adapts his ^' ftyle, calling the Father hj fuch a Name as Pagans ^^ gave to their Supreme Father of Gods and Aden. " ■^■^^' For the fame reafon, when Athanafius fays: ^' SuhjeEi — confidered in the Jevcralperfons of '^ Father -i Son, and Holy Ghofl. " And yet, not only the necejfary confiruUion of This very pafTage, but moreover Aihanajlm himfelfd^chi'i^s^ on the contrary, in the fulleft and mofi exprefs vjords^ that he/j fpeak- m^^'^ of the Father Ail the way. " For *' there is (fays ^ he) * Ei^ ^73':c,o 7ra.T^,(>- i!p' iciVTM CO!/, KXTti to'Eth TnlvTav iiVeCi' ^ iv vw v'S) ^£ (psviv'ci/jiv©-', y-v^TU. TO Aj.k Ticcvrav oi'/iKUv ^ h ra ttvso- . ' v/ssr* ii, KcirU to 'Hv siT^XTi ^) rS Asya iv oiOTM hspyHt^ Sec mid "Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 19 he) '' One God, even THE FATHER ; WHO exifls Obferv. *" * of himfelf, as being Above all; who manifefis I* " himfelf in the Son, as being Through all; and ' 'f who manifefis hinifelf in the Spirit, as workn2g In «^ Alh through the Word and by the Spirit, " See more PafTages of the fame kind, cited in Dr Clarke's Script ure-Dodrine, p, 232, Edit, ifi, p. 202, Edit, id, Phil, 11; 8, 9, II ^Became [y7r>j>cc(2>-] Obe- dient unto Death : — ^ Wherefore God alfo hath high- ly exalted him , and \l}^%eA<^o:,T^ given him a Name above every ISfame : - — — That every tongue fJ)ould confefs that Jefrs Chrifi is Lord, [f^i Klccv^ to the Glory of God the Esther, Upon This Text it wis alleged, that whereas the Apoille affirms, that God I'herefore highly Ex^ alted Chrifi, becaufe he had become Obedient untQ Death , it was mofi abfurd in Dr Water I and, to in- terpret God's highly Exalting Chrifi-, in the Same Senfe as AiEN in their Prayers highly Exalt GOD, To This, the Dr rephes : ^' No, but in the ^.^^.^.^ j^.r '^ Sami Senfe as MEN in Preaching, or the liJ^, p ^^^» ^^ exalt GOD by Proclaiming and Publifinng his " Praifes, And now, WHERE is there any the leafi ^^ Appearance of Ahfurdityl " To This Queilion, the only proper Anlwer, I think ; is in the words of St PatiU I Cor. xiv, 38, If any man Be ig- norant, let him be ignorant. It was further alleged, that T>r Waterland moii ab- Jurdly (o interprets This Phrafe, [^x'^^^io-i^^ro'j given him fi Name ; as if it could iignify Extolling and Jllag- C 2. nijying %o Obfervations on T^r Water land'j' Obferv. nifjing in fmh a Senfe, as MEN extoll or magnify I* GOD ; As if men could [Ai^jfio-a^] gracioHjly ^^^^^ grant any thing to God, The Anfwer which Dr Waterland returns to This, it will be fafficient to tranfcribe, without making any ^Remark upon it, ^. 214. «■' To^ charge me with interpreting ^xtK.^iefenfe of his Qy e r i e s.' 2 3 and which is to comet 7loe almighty, I Johny — — Obierv^ for the Word of God, and for the Tefiimony of Jefm IT* Chrifi. I was in the Spirity &c. yi^ OBSERVAT. II. Concerning the Supreme Authority and do- minion of God the Father, The ^ Supreme Author it j, and original indef en *' ^'A^'-A ce- dent ahColute Dominion^ of the God and Father of ^ ^;^>'"'«' .... i'z,ii7ice,, as Ally who is Above All: That Authority^ which is- diflingui- fhe Foundation of the Whole Law of Nature; f^edtrom which is taught and confirmed, in every Page of the ^iv. New Tefiament ; which is profelTed and declared in the Firft Article of every Antient Creed, in every Chriflian Church in the World ; and which is main- tained, as the Firfl Principle of Religion, by every Chriflian Writer, not only in the Three Firfl: Centu- ries, but even in the following Ages of Contention and Ambition : This Supreme Authority and original independent ahfolute Dominion, Dr Waterland in his laft Book, (merely for the more confident falving of a metaphyseal hypothefls,) has by a new and un- heard of Fiction, without any Shadow of evidence from any one Text of Scripture^ in dirc6l Contradi- d:ion to the Firfl: Article of All the Antient Creeds^ without the Teftimony of any one Antient (I had almoft faid or Modern) Writer; very prefumptu- oufly, (and, had He himfelf been an Oppofer of the hyporhefis he defends, he would have faid, hlafphe^ moujlj) reduced iatirely to Nothing, He i4 Obfervations on ®r. WaterlanctV Obferv. He has reduced it to Nothing ,• by maintaining !!• and contending, that it con/ifts wholly in 71?^^ '^^^'^^"^ 73^*0 Particulars. Second Be- ^fl' ^^ a Sf4premacy of Authority and Dominion^ fence,p.iOy tiot nattirah but merely oeconomicak founded upon paffim. ^^^^ voluntary agreement and mtitual Confent, Which is NO Supremacy of Authority and Domi", nion at all. idly. In a Supremacy or Priority of Order^ not oeconomicaly but natural. Which yet he fully and clearly explains to be a Priority in NOTHING y a Pri- ority in mere empty 7iwrdsj and in No rejpe5i any y^^/ Priority at all. The ivr/? of thefe Charges I fhall prove, in the Prefent Obfervation ; the Second, in That which folloTi's, Preface to ^^ ^^^ ^^^" alleged^ that He who Never aUs in Subje ^ the Reply, Elion to the Will of Any other Perfin, andEvery other Per-' ^' "• fin what fiever ALWAYS aUs in Suhje^ionto HIS Willi (which is the Diftinguifliing Perfonal Charader of the Father;) is Alone the One Supreme Governom of thd IJniverfe, In reciting This Argument Twice -^ Dr Waterland does Twice omit the word ALWATS^ in which the Strefs of the Argument lies. And then he replies; that it ought to have been ihownj second De. " not only that All other per fom'' [Always] " ACT /^«^, fi8, a in SubjeClion, (for an Equal may ACT in Subjecii^ '' on to an Equals or even to an Inferiour,) hut that '• they ARE really SuhjeB : " As if there could be any Other Proof of Being really SubjeU:^ than the AEling ALWAYS in Subjetiion. And he alleges, as an Inftance, that [' Cnr Lord wafloed his Difi « cipki ^-V'^ Second ^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s.' 25 *« cifUs Feet : '* As if his ^^;>^ yllways in Ohedi- Obferv.' ence to the Will of his Father y was no more a Token I^* of his being Really Sf-ibjeti to Him who pnt all things under him; than his condefcending Once to wap his Difciples Feet^ was in Token o^ his being Really Subje^ to Them. Is This, arguing feriou/Ij ? And yet he repeats it again : ^' Tou proceed (fays he) to ^■^^* *' obferve^ that the Son Miniflred to the Father ; Ton *« Might have ohferved farther, that he Waped his *' Difciples Feet ? *' " Origen (he tells us) carries the Argument up p.^f. *^' to a Formal Equality in Greatncfs, '* And by This he hopes the Reader will be led to imagine? that Origen (in dired contradidion to every page of his own Writings) meant to leave no Room for any real Supremacy of Authority. But 'tis very well worth the while to obferve, in what words Origen expreffes this Formal Equality in Greatnefs* *' The God and Father of the Vniverfe ^ hath Im^ «' parted " (is This exp reding a For?nd Equality ?) he '' hath Imparted even {HisGreatnefs^ " fays Dr TVater^ land's tranflation. No, but) " OF his Greatnefs^ '* f^ys Origen, « ' He hath Imparted even of His Greatnefs '* al/by to the Only -Begotten and Firft-horn of every ** Creature, " But to proceed. «' The Father ffays Dr Waterland) is — - — • in p.^^ " Ofice fuperiour, by Mutual Concert and Aqree-- << ment. '* « Supremacy of Offce^ by Mutual p 20. '' Agreement and voluntary Oeconomj, belongs to the '« Father. " " He that Sends^ is for That very *.^. . D reafon 26 Obfervations on T)r WaterlandV ObHsrv, '^ reafon Greater than Him [Greater than He]^ that I-*-* «^ is Sent ; greater -^ in ref^e^ of Office ybhntarilv p. 170. ^' entred into," '' Hippohtus talks of the Fa- '^ thers Commanding^ the Son Obejing ; " yet ** ne^ '^ ver f^JpeHed any thing of Snbje^ion or * Servility " in it^ hut onhj a differ ^7U Order or Manner of " operating^ fo far as concerns the Workj)f Creation i '^ and a f^oluntary Condefcenjiony or Oeconomy^ as to p 128. c( Other matters.'* '^ The Son is an Angel and '' Mejfengery not f by Nature^ but by Office and '' Volmnary [meaning merely Voluntary'^ Condefcen^ t'^y'}' ^^ fan," '"■ Who ever faid, that it 7vas Abfo^ " Imely or Thy fie ally Impoffiible for the Father to aU: " as the Son did? All that is faid, is, that he *^' could not do it Suitably, '* ^' Which is no '' way inconfiftent with the Son's Equality of p.ixr, « BOAdlNIONr' '' All the peculiar Ma- ^' j^fij rf ^^^ Father, lay ONLX in This, that he / «« WAS NOT** [that is, by mutual Concert and Agreement, Was not~] " to be Vifible in any way at <* all; [The Apoftle had Another Notion of this €oL i, I f. matter, when he ftiled him The Invifible God, whom ijim.vi, ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^g^ ^^^, CAN kQ{] '^ Becaufe he « WAS NOT** [that is, again, by mutual Con- cert and Agreement only. Was notl^ '< to minijier l>.i4.^. " or to be incarnate. ** "/j meant Only of the Son*s * The word, StihjecJion, very properly expreffes t^ iTrr.pt- riKiv: Mt,Servility, has in the Englifh language quite a different Signification, and therefore is here very deceitfully added as Synonymous to it. f Can any man tell whaty the being '* a Mejfenger hy Na- *' ture, '* means ? Second T>efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. 27 ^' Sons mimftring to the Father by voluntary Conde- Obferv. *^ fien/tofty according to the Oeconomy *' [the mere If* voluntary CompadJ *' entred into from the Crea^ *•' tion ; fo that This is far from proving the Suh^ '^ jeEiion which yon are aiming at,'* *' Mot /.lyi. <^ SO SVlTuiBLE to the Majejiy of the Firji «« Perfon ** [though equally pojfihle, it feems ,-] «' to be incarnate.'* " Nor can you mal^ any p. ^^6. '^ thing of 'Av^evTicc ** (original underived Supreme Dominion,) *< or of Audoritas \_^uthoritj ;] than <« the Pre-eminence of the Father as Father, his Pri» <' oritj of Order : " Which Priority of Order, Dr Wateriand conftantiy denies to include Any natural Superiority or Dominion'^ Power^ or Authority at aU. Again: " Difference of Order ^ makes no ^. ,si. '' Difference of Power, " " 71?^ Subjetiion of <' the Son, does not neceffarily mean any thing more, /'.4Q8. " than That Fbluntary Oeconomy which God the Son «« underwent -i and which would not have been PRO^ '• PER " [though very poffible^ he thinks,] " for *' the Father himfelf to have fubmitted to, bccaufe " not Suitable to the Order of Per fans, " ^^ Jf « you ask^y WHY That perfon called the Son, <* Might not have been Father \ I have nothing to *^« y^v, but that in fiEi he is not, — As to the *« Sons aEiing a Minifterial part. That indeed is < IMPOSSIBILITY in the nature of the thing, i< but the Father Himfelf wight have done the « fame : But it was MORE CONGREOVS *' D 1 Do / 2 8' Gbfervations on T>r Wiiterland> VY^^ pbferv. Do not the Readers Ears tingle ? Did ever fuch }}l^^ ^ Thought as This, enter before into the Heart of Any mati that had read the New Tellament, of Any man that had Any Notion of GOD ? And How would Dr JVaterlmd himfelf, had not This Hypothesis been entirely of his own invent' tag, have loaded it v/ith All the Names of BLAS- PHEMY ! For thus the Suprefnacj, the Sufreme Dominion and Authority of the God and Father of all^ (the Acknowledgment of which, is the Firfi and Great Commandment^ both in the Religion of Nature, and in the Laiv and the Prophets, and in the Cofpel of Chrifl ,) is at laft Nothing, but what arifes and is entirely derived from ; nothing but what is outing to, and entirely Dependent upon^ the mere volun- tary Confent, Agreement, Councel and Concert of the Son. And though the Hypothefs Itfelf fluppofing Tliis mutual Concert and Agreement to be immHta- hie) is not chargeable, yet Dr Waterland himf elf is mofl: juxHily chargeable, with making the Supremacy of God the Father Almighty to be wholly FRE- C IPdOVS ; becaufe He, in numberlefs places of his Second Defenp, has been pleafed to contend with Great Warmth, that the Exiftence of the Son muft needs be PRECARIOVSy if he was Gene- rated hy the [immutable] Will and Power of the Father. After what has been cited, 'tis no Great Wonder Dr TVaterland Ihould affirm, that " All things were '* (for This reason) « INTRVSTED with Chrifl, BE- «f CAVSE he, fo Great and foDivine a Perfon, was c« t}^c moji proper to fuftain fi Great a Charge,'" His ■ Mean- hl7' Second T^efenfe of his Q^u e r j e s. 29 Meaning (without Anj aggravation) is, that Chrift Obferv. was Therefore mrjifted^ilh All Power, becaufe he 1 1. already had it All, before he ivas intrujied with it .• ^^^^^^ Or, that the Father did for This reafon give all things to Chriji in his Humane nature, hecanfe Chrift him^ felfy in his divine nature, had the fame Power and Right as the Father himfelf had, to have given all things /o Himfelf or to his Oj^;^ humane nature. Again : <' He RFCFirED This Power, " fays tlie ^ g^^ Dodor; '' BECAVSE*' -- he had it '^ hy IN- ^' HERENT Power and Right.'' Again : ^'Touask^ ;'.+i4- *' (fays he,) Can One Per fin Commit Powers to Am- *' ther, who^lad already in Timfe If the fame PovJer si *' TES ; By voluntary Oeconomy, the Exercife ofPow^ ^' ers Common to many^ may devolve ufon One ^* chiefly, and may Run in His Name \'' Quid eft, 11 haec Contumelia non eft /* Nor can it hereafter be wondred, that, upon This Do6:rine of the Antients, {viz.. that the Son opera^ vTryj^sr^v ted in the Creation, by the Pf^ill, by the Command, ^S;'^r by virtue of the Supreme Authority, origin^rd .Power ru ri t^cc- and Sovereignty of the Father ;) the Dr ihould make ^^^^^0!" the following extraordinary Remarks. " 71?^ Truth is, ru^- uv^iv, " if the Antients are to be interpreted rigoroufly, the Fa- ^'^ ^ '• ^' ther is not properly Creator at all, but the So:4 only ,* />• 335'- " For He/i rf/^rf/^^re-^^^j Doing ^W Executing, the '' Father as ijfuing out Orders only. -Againy ^« the Father is reprefented as ftanding in need of the '' Affifiance of the Son and Holy Ghofi : How will <^ This fuit with That SuprcmQ Dignity, That Alone ?* Sclf-fufficiencjy which yon are contending for \ 30 Objervations on ©r WaterlandV Obferv. " If there is Any thing to he fufpeBed of * Cyril, it II. « is rather his excluding the Father/ro;» being Crea- . '' ^_ *' tor, than the Son from being efficient. /).337. «f ^// ^^^«, / hope the Son 9//^/ efficient, and^ by ** 7£?/^r reprefentatioH'i more properly fo ^/7^« ^^^ *' Father W:7o o;?/y ^«;?t'5 out Commands, '-'^-— ^ i>- 397- " difference in Order or Manner y makes no difference ^' in the thing itfelf: Ory if there be any, the Son ** is more properly Creator than the Father ; accord- *' ing to the Jirictnefs of the expreffion in f Origen. * 4.08. ^' ^ '^^^^ ^^ meriting as highly of as^ as is fojji- ** hie : More, one would imagine , than merely giving *' f?//^ Commands ^ Ti^hich is an Honour you referve *' peculiar to the Father. " Once more ; It having been alleged, that the Son's a5iing Miniflerially in the Creation^ was no AU of Dori^inion ; the Dr replied, /.408. that '' the fame Argument wotdd hold ivith refpeEl '' to theVdXhtv alfo; His creating the World, being '' no more an Ad of Dominion, than the Son*s cre^ '' ating it, " To which it being anlwered, that the world was made /or the Pleafure> and by the origin nal ahfolute Authority and Power-, and by the Command (as the Antients frequently exprefs it j of the Father \ /.405. the Keply he now makes, is: '^ Tou will never be able c)f)i/jiov^yYH/jU'Tr>yj, f/jy.Ti o 'vto(i T liar' ccXXov cVii/jiov^y^d-iVTUV /3(*- eriAjc'jf, kxxoc r lW ooutoZ, Catech- 1 1, p. 160. Ed.Bened. f Where he (lilcsthe Father ^tpa'tzi;? ^'j^w.iswy^f, and the So!\ Second T>efenfe of his Qy e r i e s.' 31 <' able to prove y that the Son is not as Complete- Obferv.^ '« ly and Fully Great or ^ as the Father. '* ^^* . Nor, lafilp can any one, after This, juflly won- der that the Dr fhould ftyle the '' Supremacy " of ^. 17. the Father, (that is, indeed, the Firfi Article of the Creed, on which all the reft depend,) an " INCI^ «' DENTAL Point only : " Or that he fhould call '^ Supremacy'* fwhich I believe no man tvtr mif- ^.332. <« undercook before Himfelf,) an ^' AMBI- «' GVOVS Term : " Or that he Ihould not be able to underftand What we " mean^ by Supreme fAi%, *' and Independent; '* or Why a '' delegated Power ** cannot be Equally Supreme and Independent ** with that which is Original and Vnderived: Or that he fhould look upon '' Authority and Digni- * ty, " as words liable to " Equivocations and p- 35"^' " Quibbles,'* and as " Clouds** in comparifon of p^^i^- Meraphyfical Speculations. OBSEPvVAT. III. Concerning what Dr Waterland calls a Subordination of Order, Dr Waterland having thus reduced abfblutely to Nothings the Supreme Authority and Dominion of God the Father Almighty; and being fenfible, that This could not but appear very fhocking to every Chriftian Reader; heindeavours to blind the Eyes of 5 2 Obfervations on 2)r. WaterlandV Obferv. of the ignorant, by fetting up (inflead of it) what ^^^* he calls a Supremacy of Order, or a Subordination of /).45-, Order, which (he tells us^ is " Natural " and not 9^» " Oeconomical.'" This " Supremacy of Order'' he A ' ip^ ' expreflly oppofes to Supremacy of Dominion : And tells 4jS. us, that " Difference of Order makes no Difference h4.2f, 8c *' ''Z Power : " That " ^// ^/;^? remains peculiar to paffim. cc fij^ Father, is a Pre-eminence or Priority of Or- p. 96. ^' ^^y*j " aii "- Eminence of Order , " an '' inequality P'S'\- c< o£ Order,'' ^ natural Order of Priority y " a ^''«^- />. 3>-8. '^ ^//r^/ Priority of Order, " an " Authority of Or- '■^ ^^r : " And That T/?/.;, (together with the fore- mentioned oeconomical Supremacy of Office, founded merely upon mutual voluntary Concert and Agree- P-V' menty) is '' Sufficient to account for AlU upon" His . 10, it ^*^ confifts in this, that the Father has his TerfeUi- ^ ' ^^ ons and Dominion from None, but the Son from '^ the Father, " That the Father has his Authority p.-j^, and Dominion " Primarily y'' the Son '^ Deri^ ^' vatively, " And that, by a natural (a natural md JVeceJJary, not oeconomical) Priority of Order, |>. T77. « tfje Son is referred up to the Father as his Head, •^ and not the Father to the Son. " But All This, I fay, (if there be Any Conjiflency in the Dr*s Hypothefis>) is mere empty words; and he really means no fuch thing- For in the very fame Para- graph with the words laft cited, he tells us ,• '' If '' you ask^ Why that Perfon called the Son, MIGHT *' NOT have been Father ; / have nothing to fay, '' but that IN FACT he is not* So it is written* *^ and fo we believe. The Father is Father ; and « the Son is Son, '* By the Dr's Hypothefis there- fore, there was No Impofjibility m the nature of 7'hings, but Vnoriginats might have been Originates and 177. Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r'i e s. 35 and originate Vnorigimte ', Vnderived might have Obferv. httn Derived, znd Derived Vnderived; the Father HI, might have been Begotten, and the Son Vnbegotten^ \^^^^^ And accordingly:, in the Explication of his Scheme, he plainly fhows a Dijlike of the Notion, not only of Temporary, hut zVCo of Eternal Generation : '^ For f-n^' '^ which (he fays) the Scripture is not clear and full: '* And '' the Catholicks themfelves were for fome time t'Z^7- ^^ pretty much divided about " it; But " after TirjlDef, « Arius arofe^ they found it highly necejfary to infifl p- ^^0,161. " much on it: " Otherwife '^ an explicit Profejji- *^ on of Eternal Generation:^ might have been difpen- ''fed with ; " And ^' if any oncy dijliklng the Name *' or the Phrafe of Eternal Generation^ thinl^s it bet- <' ter to affert an Eternal Word inftead of an Eter- <« nal SON, {meaning thereby a difiinEl Perfon, and '' confubflantial imh God whofe Word he is,) and « refers The Generation to hisFirfl and Second Ma- <' nifefiation at the Creation and Fncar nation ; there '« feems to be no farther Harm in it, than what lies " in the words and their liablenefs to be mifconftru- '< ed:'" And '' had it not been for fame perfons co- s.rorJr^-r «' ming to read the Fathers with the Notion efenfe of his Qv e r i e s. 37 Growth of the one out of the other ; it would then Obferv. have been in no Senfe any more true, that the Branches HI. proceeded from the Root, than the Root from the **^*V***« Branches : So, if (according to Dr TVaterland's way of thinking) there had been only an eternal necejfary Exiftence of the Father and the Son together, with- out any Real Generation or Derivation of Bein^, ei- ther in time or in eternity, of the Son from the Fa- ther I it would then have been in no fenfe any more true, that the Son was Begotten of The Father, and derived his Powers and Perfedions from him, than that the Father was Begotten of the Son, and derived his Powers and Perfections from Him ; or that the Father was in Am Senfe the Head or Fountain or Father of the Sony any rnore than the Son was the Head or Fountain or Father of the Father i But the Tivoferfons would have been in AIL fenfe s^ and in All re- fpe5is, (excepting Empty Names^) equally ' awS-sc/, that is to fay. Two Supreme Gods, For ^'Two unoriginate Second Def^ «^ divine Per fins" (Di: TVater land himCclf confeffes,) ^ ^^'^* '^ however otherwife infeparable^ would be Two Gods, *<■ according to the Antients ;" becaufe, in That cafe, one would not be " Of the Other, '* really Ge- nerated from him, " and referred up to him as a *' Head or Fountain," The foilowing words there- fore of the Learned Bp Bull-, are ipoken to the Readers of Dr Waterland : * ^' Tlj^y who £ontend " that * Qui filium proprie dici 'pofle 'AyrpS-soi/, hoc ell, afeipfo Deum, pertinacifludiocontcndunt: Hoec fententia Carha- lico confenfui repagnat. Def SeB. 4, caf. i. § 7. Ipfa Synodus Nicdna decrevir, Filium effe D(um de Deo, Qui VC16 Bms de Deo eft, dici Kon potefi a Seipf Dnis fm rxiani- 3fS Objervations on T)r Watcrland'j Obferv. ** that the Son can froperly be ftiledy of Himfelf III. *< God, [or God Underived ,] their Opinion is con- >^^s^ cc fjrarj to the Catholic!^ DoBrine. '* And again : *^ The Council of Nice itfelf decreed^ that the Son *^ was only God of [or from] God. Noiv he that *^ is only God of [or from] God, cannot without ♦' a manifefl contradiElion be Jaid to be Of Himfelf ^ God, [or God Underived.] / earnefilj exhort *' all pious and ftudious young men^ to take heed of *' fuch a Spirit, from whence fuch things as thefi '[ do proceed. *' OBSERVAT. IV. Concerning the Opinion of the Antients^ about the Sons Appearing under the Old Teftamenty and the ImpoJJibility and Impiety of fuppofing the Father ever to have Appeared at all. It was an Opinion which prevailed ^ univerfal- ly among the Antient Chriftian Writers, fand Dr Waterland acknowledges it to have univerfally pre- vailed,) that in all the Appearances to the Patriarchs . under manifefla contradiiStione. Piam ac fludioram juventutem ierio hortor, ut a fpiritu fibi caveat, ex quo talia pro/eda fu- rinr. I hid. § 8. * Primxvorum Patrum pene. Omnimn Sec, BiiUi Defenf ^^^ry-W Second "Defenfe of his Qtr e r i e s. 3 $> under the Old Teftament, it w^s the Son that -^- Obfenr*, v;ays appeared, and Never the Father, The IV, Reafons for This opinion, are; that the Per- fon appearing, is ftiled not only God and Lordy but fometimes alfo the Angel of the Lord : That the Son is the (i) Mejfenger and (i) Minifier of the Father, adlingbyhis ^i) Authority^ fpeaking in his ("4^ Name^ and (5) reprefenting his ?erfon : But that the Father himfelf never Appeared, never was Sent, becaufe 'twas (6) Imfojjible he fliould : And that 'twas (7) Ahfnrdy (%) Senfelefs^ and fp) Impous^ to imagine any fuch thing ,• as being inconfiftent with the (\o) Supreme Majefty and Authority of the Cod ( I ) '' Ay y g A©- ^ xv^ia. VaJJirn . (2) 'Tsj-ypyo?, 'r^5jp/r)i$, 'T7r7}fierZf, V^.fjim, (3)Patri fuamomnem Aucioritatem acceptam refert. Bull. A Patre accepifTe Votefiatem ad judicandum Sodomitas. Cajus Aucioritcite 6c Nomine ipfe erat Deus. ■■ViluS clt iemper ex Aucloritate Patris. Tertull. {^)ln Nomine Dei, varie vifum Patriarchis. Tertull. (6) Ua^ U9 owr©- 6(p^in rivi; 8cc. Jufiin, Ut raerito nee defcendat, nee afcendat; quoniamipfe om- nia 8c continet 8c implet. Novat, ■Mil oiovTi T kyivr/^ov S-vjjrtJ (poivaj ^soi^iX^ (P'jcti. 'Eufe? ^ "Whom no man Hath {ttn, nor can fee. i Tim. vi, r6. (7) AbfurdiJJime , mifius diceretur, Auguflin. (8) '0« r TToiyirtjv rav *Xav (c" TTcilipci — ■' "» 7^'z) 9^j^<5' o»x ivxyiq. 'Eufe^, (10) Propter Au^oritatem folus Pater non dicitur mifTus^, AHguJiin, 40 Obfervdtions on ^r. WaterlandV pbferv. 'God and Father of all, and what would imply his IV. (ii) SuhjeElion to fome Superiour Perfon. The ^^ flrong Manner) in which the Antient Writers ex- prefs thefe Reafins, Ihows very fully and clearly, that they looked upon it as a Fundamental Principle of Religion, that there was in the Father a Natural and JSfecejfarj Supremacy of Authority and Dominion, Which is diredly contradidory to Dr Waterland's Notion : Who contends, that there is in the Father No Natural and Necejfary Supremacy of Authority and Dominion ; but only Such a Supremacy of Au^ thority and Dominion, as ari fes from mere voluntary Concert and Agreement ; and Such a Natural Frio- rity of mere Order, as implies no Difference at all of Fower and Authority. So that (according to the Second Bef, jy^^ there was «^ No Impoffibility in the Nature of *' ' ' ^^ the thing, but the Father himfelf might have done ^' the Same'' things as the Son ; might have '^ aBed '' a Minifierial Fart, '* might have been fent^ and f, 142. the like : Only he " Was not " [that is, by mu- tual Confent and Agreement he was not~\ to mi* ^^ nijier, or to be * Incarnate : " Whereas, with regard Summa Majeflate i^^ms in^igxmm. Bull. Invifibilem, pro PlenituMne Majejiatts. TertulL (ii) Ne Subditus alteri probaretur. llovat, Ne alterifub^ ditus fir. Id, i Nulli Suhjeaus. Bull. See All thcfe Paffaf^es cited at lengthy in the Refly to BrWaterUnd's Defenfe, p. (), 18,5-9,64, 78, iz8, 132, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145-, 148, 149, 15-1, 15-7. * It feems from Thefe words, that DvWliterUnd does not fuppofe the Incarnation oi Chrifi to be at all Real, but merely a Phantafm, pr ajfumpas Secies : This being, confejfedly, the Second T^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 41 tegard to any reality of Naturd and D^ejfary An- Obferv. thoritp the Son had altogether as much Authority IV. to have Sent the Father to take our Naiare upon him, *^'^^^*'**** as the Father had to fend his Son» The only way therefore the Dr has here left, is to />^yy§^ in contending, that the Antients, by allthofe forementioned Strong exprefifions, meant nothing more than that it was '" PROPER for the Son to fuhmit p.f^., " to the Infer io^r Office '* of being Sent, " RA- ^^ ' «' THER than the Father:*' And That '« it was p.ifiy *' not SO SVITABLE to the Majefly of the Firfi 497- *' Perfon^ to fuhmit to take upon him any vifible Sym~ " bolsy or to be Incarnate : " becaufe of the Great* nefs of his " Office Fblnntarily entredinto ; '* and be- p, ^.j caufe This would have been an *^ Inverting the Or- p 128, " der of the Per Cons. '* For, " JVho ever faid, that ^ 34'49S. <« it was abfolutely or -phyfically Impoffible^ for the Fa- *' ther to aSl as the Son did I ALL that is faid, is^ ^«^ that he coM not do it SVITABLTy as not being ** conjifient with That Priority of Order^ 7vhich as ^' Father he is pofejfed of; -~- — That Supremacy of <« Order, which is no way inconftfient ivith the *' Sons Equality of '^DG7mniony'* even'' Eciua- lyj *' litj of Supreme independent Authority, " Now here I appeal to the Common P^eafon of all Mankind, whether Any Serious Perfon that ever read the Scripture, or that has Any Notion of God, can believe ,• (or whether any One, that ever F read the only-way, in which there is any Natural ToJJibility for the Father to he Incarnate, And accordingly in his explication of That Text, Phil, ii, 7, he tells usjthat Chrift einptied himfelf [iKivuiTiy k»75y]l " In Appearance.'* Firfl Defenfe, p'lf . 42 Obfer'vations on *Z)r Watcrland'j Obferv. read a Page of the Antient Chriftiaii Writers;, can IV. perfwade himfelf that They believed ,) that, what ^■^^V^ J^v Water Und reprefents under This Head, is at all the Tmth of the Cafe. Had the Dodor's Notion been True; it might indeed very well have been looked upon as an ERROVR or Aliftake, for any man to have fappofed that the Son might as Well, and as Suitably -, and as Decently have fent the Father to be Incarnate, as the Father could fend the Son. But can any man believe, that fo^ many Writers fhould have ftiled it fo emphatically Ahfiirdy Senfe- lefs^ ImpioHs^ and Profane, to fuppofe the Fa- ther might poffibly have aEled the Minifterial Part ; if That Suppofition had, in Tl^^/V opinion, implyed nothing more, than an " Inverting the Order '* or tranfpoling the Names of Two Perfins, who differed naturally and nccejfarily in nothing but in fuch a mere <« Priority of Order, " as included ^' no Difference " of Powers, " no Superiority at all of Authority and Dominion, but what arofe merely from " mutual vo- '' luntary Concert and Agreement ? '* Where is the Blafphemy and IMPIETT, of fuppofing that the Se- cond perfon might have Sent the Firfl ; if the Only Confequence ofThatSuppoJition had been, that Then the Firfl perfon would have been Sent by the Second? Where is the IMPIETTmd Profanenefs, of fuppofing that the Father might have Aiiniflred in all things to the Son'^ if thereby had been meant nothing more, than that of Twq perfons equally fupreme in natural independent Dominion, equally Supreme in abfolute Authority and Power-, the One might as well /by mmml Voluntary Concert and Agreement) have Aiiniflred Second TDefenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 43 1 Miniflred in all things to the Other ^ as the Other did Obferv. to Him ? and thatj by ^' Fbluntary Oeconomjy the Ex- IV. " ercife of Powers common to Both, might devolve ^\^ *« upo» One chiejlj '* [as well as upon the Other,^ '^ and run in His ncime ? Can Any reafonable man believe, that, when ^ Theofhilm faid ; '^ The Word of God, reprefenting [ajfumingy or taking upon him^ " the Per fin of the '< Father and Lord of All things -i came into Paradife *' in the Per fin of GOD, and converfed with Adam i t^ 7r£(P'JK(i)i , OTniT UV /SaAs^ OTTOCTlip TCOV oXsJV, TT^j/jTSril UVTOV Si'er : The •' Cod and Father of ail things is immenfe, and not found m " any particular Place:— -But his WORD, By whom he " made all Things, he {I fay) reprefenring the Perfono/ " the Father and Lord of all Things, came into Paradife in the « Perfono/God, and converfed rotth Adam." And preiently al- ter, he adds, {upon John ij i: 55) " '^^<^ ^'^^'"^ therefore be- " ing God, and the Son of God i the Father of tk' Univerfe SENDS ** him, -when 'tis his Will/o to do, unto any particular Place i «* where -when he comes, he is both heard and feen, being fent by I' the Father 5 and he is fomdin if^at Plaa, " 44 Obfer'vations on T>r WatcrlandV Obferv. '^ Place : " he meant by thefe words to afSrm, IV. that the Perfon fo fmty and fo reprefenting the Per- ^^^ fon of the Father^ was himfelf '" the God and Fa~ '' ther of all things, as ivell as That other Perfon ** which SENT him? Yet Dr Waterland will have TheophiUs fo to mean ; if I underfland Dr Water- f^n^- land's words. '« /^f;^ Theophilus ^^^4f (%she) <' of the Logos' s ajfuming the Perfon of God^ he *' means This, and Only This, that he a^ed in the ^' Charatker and Capacity of the Eternal God ; which ^^ he might very well do, being Himfelf Very God, as *' JVC II as That Other perfon, his Father, called God «' and Father of the Vniverfe : And it was under *^ This very charaBer HE appeared to Adam as his « Creator, that is, as GOD AND FATHER of '' all things. Can any reafonable man believe, that the Council of Antiochy when they ^ faid '' It is Impious to ^^ fuppofe The God of the Vniverfe fhould be fly led a ^' Aieffenger ; " imagined that the Son, whom they are There declaring to be the Angel or Mejfe-nger of the Father, was, by a natural and neceffary Equa-' lity of Supreme independent Authority and Dominion over All, as Truly and in as High a Senfe, The God of the Vniverfe ; as He whofe Aieffenger he was, and concerning whom they declare it to be Impious to fuppofe that The God of the Vniverfe Ihould be at all llyled a Aieffenger I Is it pofTible, if they had ap- prehended 71?^ Father and Son to be Both of them equalhs * Tov pi ^ ^icv tZv 'oXm^ kefenfe of his Q^u e r i e s, 45 equallyy by neceffary and independent Supnmacy of Obferv, iominion, The God of the Vniverfe ; that, when IV. they were to declare the Impiety of fuppofing - the Father could be ft y led a Meffenger^ as the Son was y they fhould not mention him by the diftingui- floing title of Father ^ but, ufing only a title Common to Bothy declare it Impiom to liippofe The God of the Vniverfe Could be ftyled a Mejfengery in the very Same Breath wherein they were affirming that The Cod of the Vniverfe WAS in Scripture (iykdaMef- fenger f Did ever Any Writer, fmce the World be- gan, exprefs himfelf fo Ahfurdiy^ as Dr Waterland is forced to (uppofe The Council here expreffed them- felves? The Truth therefore manifeftly is; that, not barely upon account of the Charader of Pa- ternity, but upon account of his Ahfolme Supremacy of Dominion over Ally the Council thought it Impi- ous to fuppofe the Father could be ftyled a Mef- fenger. To This, Dr Waterland xt^YiQS ; t\\2X Supremacy f-ijf. ^nd Paternity are the very fame thing: And that, '37^^<^3' to lay '^ The primitive Writers never lay the Strefs *^ of This Argument upon the Relation of Paternity, «< but upon the Supremacy, is to fay. They do not ^* lay it upon the Paternity, hut upon the Paternity : «« For, laying it upon the Supremacy of Order, *' 'which he is poffeffed of as Father, and no other' *' wifey " [which Supremacy of Order, the Dr adds, '' is no way inconjtflent with the Sons Equality ^' of Dominion i'*^ '< is laying it upon the Pater- ^'« nity, '[ Now I pray, Oblerve., Thefe words, r<3 3^(35 46 Objer vat ions on T)r Waterland'j Obferv. [o 3-205 rm oXuij The God ^ of the Vniverfet (which •^ V . are the foundation of the prefent Queftion,) are ne- ceiTarily, in the nature of language, exprelHve of Stipremacy of Dominion, If therefore This Sufre- macjy (which is the Supremacy here Ipoken of by the Council of ^ntioch,) be the fame with Pater- nity ; then the Son (according to Dr Waterland's Scheme, being naturally and neceffarily as Supreme in Dominion as the Father^) will have the Charader of Paternity as much and as truly belonging to him, as the Father himfelf has. But if the Dr means (as I think he does,) not that This Supremacy^ here Ipoken of j but that Another Supremacy of his own invention, v/hich indeed is no Supremacy at all, is the fame with Paternity \ then his Reply is intirely befides the purpofe. To conclude This Obfervation. Did Tertullia^y (who, when he wrote the Book I am now going to cite, approached much nearer tOy though ftill very far difiant from Dr TVaterland's Notions, than Any o- ther Ante-Nicene Writer*, Did Tertullian^ I fay,) believe that the Father had no other Supremacy of Dominion^ *The Phrafe ufcd by the Council of Antioch, is, r S-gai/ -j^^y eA*j', " The Cod of the Uniferje. '' The words of Jujim, fpeaking upon the fam^^Subjed: of the Impofilbility of the Father's Appearing, aiflp Tov ttcctc^u, <^ 'cc^r^isv kv^iov rav yrnvruv «arAai«5, ;^ ccutoIj tcu ;^fi4-oy, " The Father and ineffable Lord of all " things abfolutely, eren of Chrifi himfelf. " The words of Eufeoius, fpeaking of the fame thing, arej Tov iTnycsivoi ^ilv., Tcv Gco^cci^v Kui U'/iwiiToi, %VA ';Tcc^'efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 47 Dom'miony than what arofe from mere " voluntary Obferv* '^ Concert and Agreement ;"' and that '< x\\^ Son i aB:- « ing aMinifleriaiPart, was purely Oeconomkal ; and *' there was no Impojjlbility in the Nature of the things ^^ hut the Father himfelf might have done the fame : '* Did Tertullian (I fay) believe This, when he tells usj if even the Scripture itfelf had afSrmed it, it could not have been believed ? His Words are : [Scilicet hxc nee de Filio Dei credenda fiiilTe, fi fcripta non eifent ; fortafTe non credenda de Patrc, licet fcripta. Adv, Prax, c, i5,] « Thefe things,'' (fpeaking of the Son's Appearing under the Old Teftament as the Meffenger of the Father,) « could not have " been believed concerning the Son of God, if they ^' had not been written ; Concerning the Father per- '^ haps they could not have been believed^ even though \' they had been -written, '* OBSER, 4S Ohfer vat ions on ®r. Waterland> Obfen-. V. OBSERVAT. V. Concernmg the tjvordy God ; that it is a Term exprefjing "Dominion. GOD being the 4- Supreme Lord and Govermuf of the Vniverfe ; and therefore it being evident, that He who Alone has, in and of himfelf, ahfolute Su- preme independent Tower md Dominion over AlU mufl be Alone (in the abfolute Supreme Senfe) the One God over all : There from hence appears, in Dr Wk* terland's Notion, This obvious Ahfurditj ; that, there being (^according to Him) Two real Perfons of equally Supreme^ abfolute^ natural, independent Authority and Dominion over All; there muft * confeqiiently be of neceffity Two Supreme Gods, Nor does it make Any Alteration at all in This cafe, that he fuppoles them 4- The Great King, Matt, v, 55-. Usc^fHicioriXi-jq T oXm. £«/e^. Ut fupra. Dqus eft nomen Summ& Poteftatis. Luciant. de falfd relig, lib. I. * Si enim natus non fuiOeti ilinatus, cotnparatus cum eo qui cflec innatus, Aquatione m utroqj oftensa duos faceret in- natos, &: id CO duos faceret D20S. Si invifibilis fuilletj cum invifibili collatus, pa,r exprcfTus, duos Invifibiles often- diflet, 8c idfO dnos comprobaflet 8c Deos. Si incomprehen- fibilis, (iSccseteraqusecunqj funtPatris: merito, dicimus, dtn orum Deorum^ "n. !. controveriiam fufcitaflet. Novat, De Trin, cap. 31. Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 49 them to be t undivided and infeparable in Sfibflance, Oblerv. For Two Sufreme Godsy are flill neverthelefs Two Sh- V . preme Godsy Two independent -Abfolute Monarchs or Lords over the Vniverfe, Two Supreme Gods in Per- ■? * ^i*/* fin; how much foever they be fuppofed to be of One Sdhfiance. In order to evade This Confequence ; Dr Water- land alleges, that " the word God, was never t'^^' <' looked upon as a word of Office, or Dominion, hut *' r WaterlandV Obferv. accordingly, when it was alleged againft him, that V* THE SVPREME GOD could not poiTibly be ^ Mejfengery and aEl in SubjeBion to the Will of any other Perfon ,• and that He who was the Mejfenger of another Perfon, and aEied in SubjeEiion lo That O- ther perfon, could not be Himlelf THE SVPREME Second Def. GOD : In Anfwer hereto, he tells us '< This is as t' ' ' « j^fich as to fay, that Peter, for Inftanccy could not <^ be MAN, if SENT by MAN " No certainly : But it is as much as to fay, that Petevy if he was the Aieffenger of Another, and aB:ed in SubjeBion to the Will of Another, could not be himfelf Th& SVPREME Man or Governonry equally Supreme in Authority with Him whofe Meffenger he was. ■p. i66, « Buty '* lays the Dr, " P0^at has Supremacy of O f- i7-> *73' cc flee, to do with the Notion of Supi'cmQ God f God « is a word, exprej/ing l<^3itme and SVB STANCE." I anfwer : What has Supremacy of Office, of Autho^ rity and Dominion, to do v/ith the Notion of Sh-* pr erne Man, of Supreme /C/»g- or Governour\ Is not Aian, (\v\ the fame way of reafoning,) a word expref- ^m^ Nature and SVBSTANCEl Ouam ridicule! p.i66. The Truth is. As PERSON is not a name of ^^g* abftrad: Intelligence only, but neceffarily fuppofes 4.20! SVBSTANCE ; and yet *tis the Life and Intelli- gence in That Subflance, which makes the Perfon to be a Perfon : So the word, GOD, is not indeed a name of mere abftrad Dominion, but neceffarily fup- pofes Living Subjlance ; and yet *tis Supreme and in- dependent Dominion in That Living Subfiance, which makes God to be GOD, to be Our God, the Sa^ pr^me God, or the God of the Vniverfe. Wherefore, as Second T^efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 51 Two diftind Lives or Intelligences^ however fup- pofed to inhere in One Suhflance^ would ftill be Two Perfons and not O;^^ Perfon\ notwithftanding the word, PERSON, necefTarily denotes Suhftance : So, in the fame manner and for the lame Reafon, Two living intelligent Perfons-, each having ahfolnte Sufreme and independent Dominion, however fup- pofed to be of One Suhftance^ muft necefTarily be Two Gods, Two Supreme Gods or Lords of the V- niverfe, and not One Godi notwithftanding the word, GOD, necefTarily denotes Subflance, When there- fore Dr Water land fays, that Many Supreme p.^^^j, GODS in One undivided Suhfiance, " are NOT *^ Many GODS, for That very Reafon, hecaufe *^ their Suhftance is undivided ^'^ he might exadly with the lame Senfe and Truth have affirmed, that Many Supreme PERSONS in One undivided Sub- fiance^ are NOT Many PERSONS, for That very Reafon^ becaufe their Subflance is undivided. I lay, thefe Two afTertions are exadly the fame, both in Senfe and Truth ; becaufe the word, Perfon, does juft as much and as necefTarily denote Subflance, as the word, God, does. And when the Dr affirms that The One Supreme God is Not One [Supreme F:rrtDcf. God] in Perfon, but in Subflance; what is 'T^^is, ^•^^^jj?- but affirming that The One Supreme God is Two [Su- />. 127* preme Gods] in Perfon, though but One [Supreme God] in Subflance f Or will he have the Hardi- nefs to fay, that he meant by Thefe words no more than This, that The One Supreme God is Not One [Perfon] in Perfon, but only [One Perfon] /;? Subflance I This plain and evident Reafoning, is G 2, {q 5 2 Obfervations on T>r WaterlaiidV Obferv. fo impoffible to be obfcured by any Bufi of Learned, ^' J^^gon ; that, after all, the Anfwer which the Dodior is obliged finally to truft to, is This only : i'-3^9- *' I^ow came Ton to be TVifer^ in This Particnlary than All the Chnftian Churches ? " though, I verily believe. No Chiiftian Church in the world ever taught His Dodrine. And if they had All taught it ; {Tertullian prefumes to add:, fpeaking of one of Dr Waterland's principal AlTertions ; " if the * Serif tare it [elf had taught it^ "J it could not have been True. And^ in the place now referred to> the Point being reduced to an exprefs contradiUion ; it t'^^'^' cannot h^ fo, faith he, ^'VPON the PRINCIPLES *' of the Primitive Churches : " Meaning, by the Principles of the Primitive Churches, not the Princi- fles of the Primitive Churches -^ but Principles whol- ly and (ohly of his Own invention. Vpon HIS Principles, it cannot be fo : That is to fay; Be pleaf- ed to take for granted All his Premifes, however eontrad'Eiory either to Themfelves, or to Reafon, or to Scripture ; and then, to be fure, his Conclufion will not be falfe. ^'1'''^^^ To prove that the the Name, God, ^« denotes'* only «' Nattire and Sub fiance^ " not " Dominion" or " any Relative Character;" the Do6lor alleges^ that God was Gody Before the Creation ; and there- fore, if he were fb " in the fenfe of Dominion^ '* it |. i8o. would follow that ^' he had Dominion, before he had " it, '* I anfwer : Undoubtedly, whenever there ^as no Vniverfe^ God could not properly be ililed ' ^ ^ ' ' The f See above, f.-^j. ^40. Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 5 5 The God of the Vniverfe, But is it, in reality, no Obferv. Charader of Dominion, no relative Chander; to V. have in himfelf an efTential Power from Eternity ^^^?^ to Eternity, of froducing what Subje^s he thinks fit, and o^ deftroying what SHbjeBs he thinks fit, and of producing New Subjects of his Government, at Plea- lure ? Was ever fuch Triflings in ferious mat- ters ? Further. That the word, God, is a name deno- ting Dominion or Anthoritj^ appears evidently from its being ufed in Scripture, and in the Primitive Writers, in a great variety of fubor- dinate Senfes : Which it could not be, if it were not a Term expreflive of Dominion^ Authority^ and the like ; which are things in their nature ca- pable of different Degrees, The God and Father of All, who is Above All-, is \o ^i\ abfolutely,] GOD in the Abfolute Supreme fen (e; (i) 'AyT^'^sc^; ha- ving all PerfeUions and all Power and Dominion^ ab- folutely in and of himfelf, original, underived^ and independent on Any : And He is the (2) Fountain of all Perfedions and Powers, that are found in A- ny (l) AsxTrof, oil 'Avro^i'^ o 5-soq i^i.- ttxv j ro "u)^^ To 'AvroB-i<^f fjtj£Top^^ 'f iKiivov B-iQry),<^ B-BoziroiiifASvoi/, Ori^tli. in Joh. p. 45, Huerij. (2)'0 '^ TTury^^y Tn^yvj B-icr/ji^ : ripeaking of the Attthority communicated from the F/!?//:?'^^ to the Son, and from the Son to the Angels.'] ibid, p 4.7, Note: Thefe words are very ab- furdly under flood by Later Writers, " The Fcmtnm of THE De- '* ity:^' As if Or/g-e» had wrote, not zanyr, -O-siT^®-, but ^»^* 54 Objervations on 'Dr Waterlaiid'^ ^ror^ Cbferv. ny Other whatfoever. The Son is Gody by (5^ V. CommHnication of Divinity from the Father, and by having (3) received from him POWER over the Whole Creation. Angels^ C4) in a far lower and different (g)M?To;(;;^ Tjj'j lx:£W» B-eort)To^!f ^yroy. ibid. p. I20. IIafp^;cj36tf7zy^ S)^^ TTxr^", Kxrs^B-i}. Hippolyt. contr. No- etum, § 6, p. 10. O'jro<^ m sVi STfiCVTzyy S-fo'^ sV** Asyg* TAP, Tratvros f^c; "SO^Qi^BSiTiij VTri rod zrcir^(i. ibid, 0£o;TOi£nTJW ^pa5 ajyTow rou T^ccr^r^. Eufeb. Demonflr. 1. f. p. 227, ©say £. 40 e^ 230,) that " yoiivpill Never fnd it fiid by the «' Antients, thzt the Father conftituted Chriji a God, or ftp- " pointed him to be God: " That " the Antients Never /peak of '' Chrip being conilituted Cod:" And " Toucan No where *' find, that he was ever conftituted God. "] - (4) Pf! xcvii, 7. V/br(l}ip hirriy all ye Gods. LXX, ^r^-rj^ ^yysAci eivrocf. Dan. ii, 47 j xi, 56, God of Gods, 0£cy, Kul rev ^jjf.'ioyvm kvrtOy x.cn roZq Tilif/j-^yjivn'; Itto Qioa .^©E'OS T^-eca-fiyo^Uj xxi Mi'nx,ovro!.q7'if,efenfe of his Q u e R i e s. 5 5 different Senfe, are In Scripture, and in the Antient Obferv^ Chiiftian Writers, ftyled Gods; upon account of V, the Powers they are indued with, much fuperi- '•'v'^* our to Men. MofeSy Magiftrates, and Prophets^ (5) are alfoin Scripture ftyled Gods; upon account of the A^thority^ wherewith they were reipedively inverted. And AIL thefe (to whom the Title is given in a fubordinate fenfe,) are, not (as Dr Wa^ terland ftyles them) '^ Nominal *' or Falfe Gods, but redly and truly fuch, in the Senfe wherein they are refpedively fo ftyled in Scripture. And if even the Lowefl of Thefe are juflly and rightly fa ftyled, in the Senfe wherein the Scripture gives them That Title; how much more ((>) may the Only-begotten Son of God, to whom the Title be- longs in an unjpeakably higher and in a quite dif" ferent Senfe from any of the Others, juftly have That Title given him ; and yet The One God and Father of All, -who is Above All, be neverthelefs al- lowed to be Alone Supreme in ahfolute independent Autho-> taking of the Divine Nature, But God the Word, he fays, />, rtM/fiyrepe? rol^ XoittcXc, -sroto oivrov BsoTt;, glorified far above all Thofe Godsj becaufe 'tis through His Minifiration that They are made Partakers of Divinity^ rc7^ Xoii^oTefenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 57 Any Abfciffion, Divifion, or Diminution,- the ori- Obferv, ginal Fire lofing nothing thereby, of its own Light Vt. or Heat : So God, the Firft and Alone iinoriginated Rational Agent, produced from Himfelf Another intelligent Rational Agent, a perfect Image and Re- femblance of Himfelf; v/ithout any way altering, abfcinding, dividing, or diminifhing any thing from, his own effentially and unchangeably inherent perfonal or fubftantial Perfedions. Always taking care to exprefs this One Bifferer.ce in the Similitude, (which Later Writers by degrees ncgleded;) that ivhereas Light jhineth forth and is communicatedy not by the Will of the Luminous Body, hut bj a ne- cejfary Property of its nature; the Son of God /V, by the"^ Power and Will and Delign of the Father ^ his Suhftantial Image, In oppofition to This. Dr JVaterland afferts that Thefe Phrafes, By «' Vower, " by « mil, '' by *« Defign, '* by ^' Choice, '* by " Counfely '* and the like ; do not fignify any real Exertion of Poiver^ any real AB or Operation of the Father, arillng from his Will, either in Time, or from Eternity ; but ^ mere ahfilute neceffi^y of Nature, not indeed in oppo^ jitiontoy but accompanied with the Approbation of , liis Will. Yet, very inconfiftently ; when he comes to enter into the Detail of Particulars, he acknov/ledges concerning every one of thefe or the like Phrafes, m every Pajfage of every Ante-nicene Writer ; that they exprefs merely the Tree Fbltmarj AVc of the Father^ H and See the Reply to DiWs Defenfe, ^ lii, &c. and 2/6- — --^ 276. 5 S Obfbrvations on T>r WaterlandV Obferv, and not any necejjlty of nature at all ; nay, that VI. they exprefs a mere Temporal j45l of the Father • ^^^i^ Pqj. f^ jje explains That Generation of the Son, 7vhich Alone Thefe Writers ever call by That name, f'and which they fpeak of under the forementioned Terms,) to be indeed no Generation at all; but merely fuch a Mijjiony Manifeflation^ or Sending forth of the Sony as that every Action of Chrift 'what^ foever, might with equal reafon be called his Gene-' ration. But then, becaufe thefe Writers fuppofed the Son of God ^ not to be [^roujS-jt?] Made or Formed or Fabricated extrinfecally (as the Material Creation was^ but Generated immediately from the Father Himfelf\ (in confequence whereof. Their Philofbphy taught them that he was t in the Father ^yavi^Tft/?, before he was generated from him ;) hence the Dr infers, that This his being in the Father he- fore he was generated from him^ is a Trior Genera- tion, and the mofi Proper Filiation or Generation. And yet no one Writer either before or at the time of the Council of Nice^ ever once mentions Two Generations of the Son before the Beginning of the World, ever once mentions any Prior Generation^ e- ver erne mentions any other antemundane Generation^ befides ■^ S -sro^n^iU, is'X, eoq ysvo^M/Svoi;, and the like, ■j- Usiv hifyncc yswYiB-^Jcif, cwccyjei m h tS -zsrcCT^i ccyivviiT&t^, Conjlantin. in Bpifi. Eufeb, ad Ecclef. Cdfar, aputL Theod. lib. I, c.iz. The PalTage at length, with critical Obfervati- pns upon in, fee in the Reply to Dr WsDefenfe, p. 124. ' E}^uv 6 S-£o? T iavToo ?ioyov svdici^-iTov iv ro7(i i^ioi^ r^rAfiSV'- S^ifo*?, £^vvi}(rsv uvriv Scc. Theoph. ad Autolyic. p. 2i. tIv ?^oyeif Seand "Defenfe df his Q^u e r l e 5. 59 befides That One which they affirmed to be hy the Obferv, Power mdWiilof the Father, Before All Ages, and VL Before all Worlds, znd Before allTime : And Dv Wa- ^-'"V^^ terland himfelf very largely and fully explains This his Prior Generation, (as he had before explained a- way the other Generation,) to be in No fenfe Any Generation at all ; but a mere co-exijlence with, not at all any Derivation from, the Father, Thus the Dr has totally denied All generation of the Son, qu ther temporal or eternal I and introduced, infteadof it. Two "Avu^yji, Two equally moriginate Perfons^ Two Supreme independent Gods. ^ The Proof of This Charge, is as follows, I. That the Phrales, by <^ Power, '* by '^mil,'' by «^ X)^/^;,, » by <^ a.?/r^, " by « Comfel,'* and the hke; do not fignify any real Exertion of Power, any real A5i: or Operation of the Father, arifing from his Will, either in 7^«2f, or from Eternity ; but a mere abfolme ncceffity of Natnrei not indeed in oppojition to, but accompanied with the approbation of his Wtll : This is what the Dr has at large contended for, in his Eirji t)efenfe, through- out Query VlII. And in his Second Defcnfe, he fiill perfifts in it. << Imufi complain of it, ffays he,) as j. i^-3 ; " a great Inflame of Vnfairnefs, — ^for you to <' bring up This Pretence again, that the Ante-Ni« « cene Writers did not allow the Son to exljl or to BE '' GENERATED by Neceffty of Nature. " Again i « Will, in the fenfe of Approbation or Acquief- ^. iSi* ^' cence, is very common with Ant lent Writers : ** [Yet not One Inftance does he allege out of Any Chriftian Writer, before the Council of Niceq H 2. ^^ N^f do Obfervatmis on "Tir Wate^Iand'^ Obferv. " Nor was it thought dbfurd to fay^ that God had VI. <« Willed thmorthmfrom all Etermtj-, and * could ^^ " not IVill othenvife, ** And whereas the Council of Sirmimn^ ftill later than That of Nice^ anathemati- zed any one who fhould fay that '^ the Son f *' was begotten without the Will of the Father i " For the Father dtd not beget the Son by a " Phyjical Neceffity of Nature, without the Ope* «^ ration of his Will; but he at once Willed and be* <« gat the Son : " Rather than the Council fhall be allowed to mean what they 4. notorioufly Did mean^ and what their Words neceffarily fignify ; a ridicu- lous Signification lliall be invented, of the term [«n/s«yxj} (pvTiKVi^ neceffity of Nature^ (as taken by fome (1) L^r^r Chriftian Writers only, never by Any of the AntientSy from certain Platonic!^ Philofophers ;) a Signification infinitely ablurd to be applied in TirfiDef. This place; as if it fignified *^ a Force upon the Fa* />. 12b. u flj^y.'^ TVtll;" an ^' outward Co aEiions Forccy vjons.p.ii. «f or Compuljtoni " that God "^ was compelled by a Second Dej^ ^^ ^ See and compare, * Note: The Queftion is not here concerning Moral, but she Reply to phyjical or Natural Necefllty. j)r W s^ ^ Stejthe Paflage at large, with critical Notes on the Ren- ^^/■?-^>'7' ^j.;j^g ^^ i^^ j,^ ^^g; j^^piy fQ j^j. ^/>_j Defnfe, p. 2^7, 2j-8, 274. -1- Voluntas ifra, quain Nece£^tati opponunt Sirmien/es prse- fules, mera cli: Hyenas; ac non foliim violento Sc coaBo con- traria, fed etiam ei quod ita Naturae eft confentaneum, ut ex arbitrio confilioq; minime pendeat. Qua: fuit Eufebij Cdfa^ rknjis opinio, &c. Petavius De Trin. lib. 6, c.8. (0 And even Thefe, when they fpeak of CoaBion, I think Jbardly ufe ilie words ^ua-iy^n mu'/k-/), or ^ua-icoti icwyK-n; but •Ayi^yx"-j lingly j as referring to fomething External^ diflin- guiflicd from the internal ^vV<5of the Thing Ipoken of. Second^efenfe of his Qy e r i e s.^ et ^ SHperiour Forcey md Jgainfi his Will, " And, Obferv* to make room for this Ahfmd Ule of the Phrafe ; VI. God th^ lather himfelf (hall (i^ vcrj hardly beal- '•'^'^VNi lowed by Dr Waterland, to exifl by NeceJJity of Na- ture. And (i) Self-exiflence, the mofi Real and Pojitive (i) " Shoto me where either Scripture or Fathers ever faiJ, " that God the Father exijled by Neceffity of Nature, though ** they have in Other Terms ajferted the fame thing rohich ** We Now mean by necejfity of nature: "2d Defenfe, p. 25-1. *' None of the Antients Durft have f aid, that God exifls by Ne- " ceirity:"/>. 2^2. *' The lathers -would never fay, that hs " exijied, er mas God, by Neceflity : p, 25-3. " " The Amlent " Writers, I conceive, for eight Centuries, would have denied* « or dtd deny, that God -was God by Neceflity:" />. 25-4. (2J ** Whether, when ree fay any thing is felf-exiftent, the " words {pi Mi) have any Pofitive Meaning: " p. 428. *' Self- '« exifience is negative:" p. 429. *' Self-exiflence, I have novf *' determined, I think upon plain reafons, that it is Negative »* only:" p. 430. The manifefl: Abfurdity of this AiTertion, hath been fully and diftinBly fhown in the following words. in a Book entituled, A Modeft Flea, 8cc. *« Self-exifient being ** the fame as unoriginate, is ( Some think) merely a Negative *' Charadler. But this is a great Miftake. For though the « word, unoriginate, according to the grammatical Compofi- *« tionof it, is negative; yet the Idea exprefled by it, is pofi- " tive. As you will fee by the like Cafe in another Word. « The word, infinite, according to the grammatical Compo- *' fition of it, is merely negative; But when we fay, God is « infinite ov immenfe, the Idea is not a bare Negative, a mere <* negation of Bounds, but denotes the pofitive Great- " nef of That whofe Exiftence is declared to be immenfe' *' So endlefs with regard to Duration, though the Word in- «' deed is negative; yctthe Thing fignifiedbyit [eternitjYis not «' a negative, but a real and pofitive Duration. In like Man- * '' ner, Unoriginate or Underived, though the M^ords themfelves " are Imerely negative, yet the Thing exprefled by them is '' not a mere Negation of being derived, but a real and pofittve ** Ground 6z Objervations on "Dt Waterland'^ v^V^ Obferv. Vofitive of Al Ideas, Ihall be declared to be a merB VI* Negative* And the Vroof of the exiftence of a Firft Caufe, a priori ^ (without which, no uittribute of God can poffibly be proved at all to be proper- ly (5) infinite^) {hall be (4) turned into Ridicule- And the felf-exi;^ God fnall be declared to have (5) No Internal Caufey no Ground or Reafon of JExiftence in thi? abfolute Necejjlty of Nature ; but to exift ahfolutelj without Any Ground or Reafon of •• Ground or Foundation of Exigence in the Subflance itfelf, •' which is properly exprefled by NeceJJkry Exigence. Ac- ** cording to Ycur way of arguing. All the Attributes of ** God may as well be turned into mere Negatives; His Unity ** into not being more than Om-y His Omnifciencey into not be^ ** i^g ignorant of any Thing i His Omnipotence, into not being *• limited in Power j itisOmniprefence, into not being abfent from ** any Place : Nay, his very Zxijlencs it felf may as well be ** faid to be a mete Negation, as the NeceJJity of his exifling, " or his Self-exijlence/' p. 2 16, 217. The Dr was referred to This, before '■) and betakes Notice of it in his f. 218, with- out pretending to make any the leaft Anfwer to it. C3 j For, can the adiual infinity oximmenfity of God, be proved at all a fofieriori alone, from the phenomena of a Tmite World? or the Eternity of God, from phenomena merely T^«2- forary} without taking in, a priori, the confideration of the necejjary nature of an unoriginate or Eirfl Caufe ? (4^ " To prove the Exifience of a Firft Caufe, a priori j has rm " Senfe, (fays the Dr) without the Suppofition of a Caufe prior /* " the Firft: Which yet is Non-Senfe:'^ p. 429. Thefe words {how, that Br WaterJand does not underftand what the Mean- ing of a Proof d priori, is. (f ) " fVe are not to fuppofe Any Caufe '' [any " Caufe or *' Ground'^ or Reafon *' of Exijiencey p. 429 f\ external or " INTERNAL i but abfolutely No cmfe-^ becanfe there n n9 *' caufe prior to the Firft: *' p. 430, Second T>efenfe of his Q u e r i e s. d j of Exiftence : Which if it was true, it would fol^ Obferv* low that he might likewife as well, without Am VL Caufe or Reafbn, ceafe to exifi. And {6) the ^^'V^ wordy by which the Antient Chriftian Wri- ters generally exprefs the Self-exiflence of the Father, the Peculiar IncommunicMe Prerogative of being ab- fplutely (6) The Term hy which the Antients mofl: frequently exprefs God's exifting by thtneceJJ?ty of hisoron nature, is (not . 25-4: For, Man is ^wo-« or KdTu 6}7r<^, yet nof by necejjlty of Nature: But the proper Term is,) tiyivi/jjr®-, Unoriginated. Which word, though in its grammatical compofition it be indeed negative yet the Idea expreffed by it (as I have fhown above) is of all Others the moji pofitlve and realj denoting what' we ufually call Self-exifience, This Term, kymn\<^, exprelTmg thus the Trhne and Incommunicable Prerogative of the Father; Dr IVa- Terland (p. 2^4, 25-6, 264, 268.) is very defirous, without Any Pretenfe of Manttfcrlpts, to change it perpetually into ccyL ysjl©-: Becaufe he thinks <'v^1(^ is applied to the Soui excepting one only, where the Reading is evidently Corrupt: Compare DrWs idDcfenfe, p,ij6, with The Reply to his Firfi Befenfe, p. 295-. And here 'tis very pleafant to obferve, hov/ he cries out (" Where are your Manufcrlpts ? ") when vpe de- fire to amend the word ^'^vy^ir WatcrlandV Obferv. '-' Ai to the Other [viz. Ante-Nicene] Atitho^ VI. (c rities^ from Juftin Martyr, &c. I allowed Will ^"^ry^ *' to he talzen in Dr Clarke's fcnfe, " /v. 202. " Irena^us comes not under our Inqmrj^ having "- [aid little either of Temporal or Eternal Gene- *^' ration, " /".iSp. " Tatian, ivho was Juflin'j Scholar-, I allow to '' fpeaJ^ Only of a Temporal Generation or Froceffi- " on, in like manner as J uHin.'' f. 2po. ^' I admit the fame thing of Athenagoras, as of '^ Juftin and Tatian ; that he fpeaks of No higher *^ Generation,, than the Proceffon. " i6id. " Theophilus comes under the fame Predicament «' jmh the Three Writers before-mentioned,'* p. 292. " Clemens of Alexandria maj be likewife allow-^ '' ed to fpeak^of the Procef/wn, And when he faySy ^' The Word fprang or arote from the Will of the *•' Father, it is plainly intended of his being fent out *^ to Mankind, " />. 292. « Hippolytus 7va5 undoubtedly in the Hj/pothefis ^' of the Temporal Generation or Proceffion, " /. 107. by the Will and Power of the Father might mean the t. ly. fame thing as a necefary Emanation ; and had com- plained of it as a great Inflame of Vnfairnefsy to pre- tend that the Ante-Nicene Writers did not allow the Son to exift or to BE GENERATED by ne- ceffity of Nature ; has, after all this, fully acknow- ledged that every one of the Phrafes in every Eafage of ever^ Ante-Nicene Writer, wherein the Son is ^ver fpoken of as being BEGOTTEN bj the Vqu'cv T z and 6s Obfervations on jDr WaterlandV Obferv. and Will of the Father, denotes and expreiTes merely VI. a Free Voluntary uiEl of the Father ^ and not any ^^*^ NeceJJjty of Nature at all ; nay^ that it expreiTes (ac- cording to Dr IVater land's interpretation) a mere Temporal u4cl of the Father f This Generation there- fore (as the Dr underflands it) is indeed No Gene" ration at all. 'Tis nothing but '' the Sons being i». 51 • ic SENT oat oeconomicallj from the Father, firji to '' maJ(^y and then to govern the Creatures : " 'Tis no- thing but " a Aiiffion'y Aianifeflation'^ or Exert i- f.^ii. ^^ on,'* It *' means no more than a Manifeftation^ ^' Exertion^ or taking a Neiv Office ^ Relation &c, <* What Change is there in all Thisy more than there " is in God the Father upon any new AEt, Manife^ ^ ' ftationy Exertion of Power &c ^ There is no Change <^ at all in it, no not fo much as in any Jldode of *' Exifience,'' 'Tjsno other Generation of the Son^ than in fiich a Sen^ as Every Action of Chrii^ what-- foever, is a new Generation of him. 'Tis no other Generation of the Son, than in luch a Senfe as the Son might as poffibly have Begotten the Father, if the Father had been pleafed (which the Dr thinks was not naturally impojfible) to have been Sent forth by the Son. ' Tis no other Generation, than the Generating of a perfoji, who, before This Genera-^ ting, was as much and as truly Generated, as he was after. That is; *Tis in No Senfe Any Generation at all. Was ever a ferious matter, thus ludicroufly treated ? ^.295. Well; ^"- But, '*' fays the Dr, (though it be in- deed no Generation at all; ftill) ^' it is Vndoubtedly «' what Thofe [Ante-Nicene] Writers Call Genera-^ '^ Hon; SecondT>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 69 « tion; And therefore This (fays hej h difpnting» Obferv^ " not againfl Me, but againfl Them. '* I anfwer : VL No. NOT ONE Ante-Nicene Writer ever was fo "^^T^ abfnrdy as to call That a Generating^ by which the Generated Perfin was no more Generated than he was before. There are indeed figurative and metaphoricd Senfes, wherein perfons may very elegantly be faid to be begotten or generated into a Neiv State^ when they are invefled with fome extraordinary New Towers, Thus God is faid in Scripture to have Be^ gotten Vs unto a lively Hope^ by the Refurre^iion of Chrijl from the Dead, And to Chriil: himfclf, up- on his being raifed from the Dead, he laith, (Acts ^ xiii;, 33,) ThoH art my Son, This Day have I begotten thee. But never was That, ftiled in ^^j fenfe a Gene- rating or Begetting, before which the prfon generated was Every thing he could be after it ; A Generating, which implied in it "- No Change at all, no not fo ? B*^^ ^' much as in any Mode of Exifience ; " No Change " more, " than there is in '^ God the Father '* himfelf, upon Every '' New AEi"' or Exertion of his Power, What the Writers before and at the time of the Council of Nice, call the Generation of the Son ', always means a Real Generation, a Generation by which the Son was s^o-i^^fv©-, by which he was re- ally [not, ^oii5^£iV, ??^i;z^^ ov formed, as was xhQ materia al World; but v^wi-vS-s.'?] generated from ?/?^ Father by his Pcii^^r and JM. And J'/j/i Generation, by which he <^ Became a Son, " and which is the O^Y- /).iS4, Xr ante-mundane Generation Any of Thofe Wri- ters ever call by That Name ,• is by Some of them^ ^DxWateYlandktmi tothin.k by All of them,) Tup- • ppfec} 70 Objewations on T)r WaterlandV Obferv. pofed to ht Temporal ^ by Others Eternal^ if the y ■*•• words I Ti^ 7TU.VTC0V octavcijv, j'l oizs-upcuv ociavcov^ t:^ '//Avuv uiconuv^ and the hke^] fignify Eternity, But the Gene-* ration Dr Waterland here delcribes, is in No fenfs Any Generation at all. 3. Having Thus reduced to Nothing-, what He calls the Temporal Generation of the aSo;?, though the Creed of the Council of Nice exprellly fays of That Generation, that it was (^^0 ttsLvtuv U^cojc^v) hefore jill^ges; the Dr is in the next place to make A- mends for this Great Liberty, by inventing Mother Generation of the Son^ a Generati- ^ on never heard or thought of by Any Writer hefore or at the time of the Council of Nice^ a Generation Prior to That which Thefe Writers fup. pofe to be Before All Ages and before all Worlds and hefore All Time, This Prior oi the Two antemun- dane Generations of the Sony the Dr tells us, is T'lrjl Def his '^ mojl PROPER Filiation and Generation ; " ^''^+' and " in refpeci of which, CHIEFLY, he is the On- *f Ij'Begotten, and a diflincl Perfon from the Fa~ *' ther, " Now, is it not very wonderful, that SeconclDf when the Dr is Defending this affertion, and repeat- ^■3^^' /«^ with confidence, that ^' taking the Fathers COL- '* LECTIFELT, there is Demonftrarion for That *' Threefold DiftinBion, " of a Prior and Poflerior ante-mundane Generation of the Son, and a Third Generation of him in the Flefli ^ he fhould not be able to produce Any ONE PalTage out of Any ONE Ante-nicene Writer, in v/hich This Prior ante-mundane Generation, this '* m.ofl PROPER «« Filiation and Generation of the Son^ ii^ rejpe5i (f 7phich ^•v^^ Second TDefenfe of his Qveki-es. 71 « iuhich CH/EFLT he is the ONLT-BEGOTTEJV^ " Obferv. fhould ever once be ftiled either Filiation^ or Gene- VI. ration i or Begetting^ or hj any other equivalent term at all ? Can any man imagine it pofTible, (if thefe Antient Writers had ever thought of Dr Waterland's notion,) that they who were fo conftantly follici- toiis to avoid the imputation of alTerting Two \jivu^x°^ or kyimrci~^ Vnoriginated Perfons, fliould Never exprefs the Firfi and moft Proper Generation of the Son, by Any words that in any fenie denote any generation at all ? Can any man believe, that not ONE of them fhould ever ONCE mention Two Ante-mundane Generations of the Son \ Is it credi- ble3 if Their Sentiments had been in Any degree lik^ to His^ that That which with Hin^ is the original :xn(\ Only Real Generation of the Son, fliould with Them Never be once fo ftyled at all j and That which with Him is in No fenfe any Generation at all, (any more than Every Action of Chrift whatfoevery is a New Generation of him,) fhould with Them be Always and Only ftyled the Generation of the Son ? But the Wonder will ceafe, when it lliall appear, that after all This, Dr Water land Himfelf^ very inconfiftently, makes This Generation like wife, even This " mofi *<= PROPER Filiation and Generation of the Sony inre^ « fiecl ofivhich CHIEF LX he is the Only-Begotten ;" even 7l?/j generation, I fay, as well as ^Z?^ O/^/^^r, Dr Water land himfelfi in his explication of his Scheme, makes to be in No fenfe Any Generation at all. For, though he Calls ii (for Forms fake ^ and to a- mufe ignorant Kt^dtrs,) Eternal Generation', yet he defires you would by no means underftand him to intend 72 Obfervdttons on 25r WaterlandV^ Obierv. intend Eternal Generation indeed, but a mere co-exifl^ VI. ence Tvith^ and not at all any Derivation from, the Father. For " the Scripture (he tells us) is not clear '' and fdly for this Eternal Generation; *' and " the '^ Catholicks Themfelves were for fome time pretty i> 316. " much divided about it ; and, " had it not been for ^' fome Perfons coming to read the Fathers with the '^ notion of Eternal Generation in their Headsy they ^/284, " cotdd never have mifiaken, '* &c. For '■^ All ^*o ' «' that Any Writers ever meant by Eternal Filiati- 283. «« on^'* is [not at all any Filiation or Generations but] '« the eternal EXISTENCE of the Son ^ the Exijience of a Son Not generated, the Exifience of a Son who is No Son ; the ^' Exigence of a real and ^' living Wordy a Word of God, eternally Related to ^^ the Father whofe Word he is ; " that is, having Such a Relation, as there would be between Ttvo Vn- begotten. Two unoriginated Perfons, co-exifling in the fame Subftance : Such a Relation, as, (though Dr 1. 284. Water land is pleafed to call it in words, " a relati-* *' on to the Father as his Head; '* yet in Truth) im- plying JVo real Derivation either of Being, Power, Authority, or any other PerfeElion ; makes the Father to be indeed, in Any real fenfe, neither Head nor Fountain nor Father, For (to repeat the Similitude I before alleged : ) In like manner as, in cafe the Sun and its Beams had Always exifted together, co- eval, immoveable, and immutable ; and there had iV^- ver been at all any real motion of Emijjlon of the one from the other; it would then have been in no fenfe any more true, that the Beams proceeded from the Sun, than the Sun from the Beams \ And as, ill Second Tiefenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 73 in cafe the Root and Branches of a Tree, had Alwajs Obferv, exifted together, co-eval, immoveable, and immuta- "^"1. ble ; and there had Never been at all any real Groyvth ^"^v^-* of the one out of the other ; it would then have been in no fenfe any more true, that the Branches froceeded from the Root^ than the Root from the Branches: So, if (according to Dr TVaterland's way of thinking) there had been only an eternal ne^ cejfarj EXISTENCE of the Father and the Son to- gether, without any real Generation or Derivation of Beingy eith er in Time or Eternity ^ of the Son from the Father i it would then have been in no fenfe any more true, that the Son was Begotten of the Father and derived his Powers and Perfedions from him, than that the Father was Begotten of the Son and derived his Powers and Perfections from Him-y or that the Father was in Anj Senfe the Head or Fountain or Father of the Son, any more than the Son was the Head or Fountain or Father of the Fa*' ther. Dr Waterland's opinion therefore, taking a^ way wholly all real Generation of the Son, whether Temporal ox Eternal ; amounts evidently to an A'- fertion of Two ^uva^x^i, ccvainoi, uyUv^m,'^ ZJnorigina^ f^JPerfons. Which, in the (i) P^eafon of Things, and by (i) his Own Confejfion, isdired Poljtheifrn. (0 Si enim natUs non fuiflcti innatus, comparatus cum eo qui efiet innatusy diquationemutrocii oftensa diiosfaceret /««.3- Us, ^'ideo iluos hccr ct Deos. Novat. deTrin. cp. 31. (2)" TVfo unor'tginne divine Peifons, hov/cver otherwife ^.207. *' infcparaHe, would be Two Ccd^^ according to the Antients. " K O B S E R V. 74 Ohfervations on T>r Watcrlancf^ Obferv. VII. OBSERVAT. VII. Concerning iz'hat T>r Water land charges^ as making the Being of the Son Preca- rious . From what has been faid, it appears with what Juflice Dr WdterUnd charges Thofe, who affert the Son to be at all a Son by Any real Generation^ either Temporal or Eternal y with making the Being of the Son PRECARIOVS. And. becaufe the ^^cr^ founds ^•i7» odiousy he takes great Delight in r^/^^/^/>^ it. " Whe^ <' ther the Son of Gody he a Precarious i5^/;?^.—— J)^- *' grade the Son of God into Precarious Exiflence. . " Exempt him from the number of Precarious Be- />. 54. '' ings, Make of him a Precarious Being, 49. *' No Medium between Self-exiftence in the highefi <' fenfe " [as if Sclf-exifience were capable of Degrees f\ i4<^- '^ and Precarious Exijience, — SubjeBion of a " Precarious Being* No Precarious Being, . 170, a 18. '' therefore God Supreme, — — - Precarious and Be- 219. *^ pendent, -—- — Make the Son Precarious.—— '' The proper and full Notion of a Precarious Be- 220. '' ing* -Difpute 7ijhethcr a VxQQ:ir\oViS Being he ^^ SubjeB, — -- SVIT with a EinitCy dependent, 35-7. ''■ Precarious, created Being ./f MVTABLE « and corruptible^ ^as a Precarious Exiftence, " Precarious Secdnd T>efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 75 '' Precarious, mutable at Vleafure, A Precari- Obferv. <* ous Being. Mahmg him a Precarious Be^ VII. founded merely on " mutual Concert and Agree- Scpaiiiin. '' ment-i '* on *-' Mutual Agreement and Voluntary '' Oeconomy:'' Will he therefore fay, (as in This way of arguing he muftO that the Supreme Domini- on of the Gad and Father of All is as '' PRECA- /. 3^1. \' RIOUS " and as '' MVTABLE at pleafure/\ as the Exifcence of Any Creature whatfoever? Let him hear how his Own ipords found, when applied f lip. to his Ow/j Nation, *' Aloft evidently the '* Father's Supremacy of Dominion, -' is no PRECARIOVS'' Supremacy: "^^ Nor is Any Creature ivhatever^ at all '■' Precarious or Mutable, by the fame 7vay of Rea- «' fening. A mighty Honour done to God the " Fa- ther, '' to make"' His Supremacy '^ no more Preca- ** rious than the reft of the Creation ! Certain howe- ^' ver it is, that, upon Tour Principles, there is No f^ Natural Nsccjfny for his " being Supreme over All Second T>efenfe of his Qjj e r i e s. 77 All. " He might either Never have " been Su- Obferv. preme, ^' or may even ceafe to'' be Supreme, '' as Vlll. *^ mnch as may be [aid of Any Creature ; // it floould *' fleafe " the Father and Son '^ fo to order it. This " is the proper and full Notion of a FRECARIOVS '* Supremacy, a Supremacy <' having No necejfary Fonn- «' dation of Exiflence, hut depending entirely upon the *' Free Will and Choice of Another '* or Two Other *' Beings, All the Subtilties imaginable^ can never bring '' yoH off hercy any more than they can bring together «' Both Ends of a Contraditiion, " Pag. 215^, Z20. OBSERVAT. VIIL Concerning the Worfhip of God the Fat her ^ and of Chrifi, If The One God and Father of All-, be Above All; 'tis manifeft that All TVorJJjip, All Prayer and Thanks-- giving, muft terminate In him^ muft either immedi- ately or mediately be direded To him. And if This be fo; then 'tis evident likewife, that All Ho- nour or Worfljip paid to The Mediatour in Any ca- pacity, mull: of neceffity be Mediatorial only. ' Our LORD'S Diredions in This Point, are ; PThen ye pray, fay^ Our Father which art in Heaven, d^cc. JLuke xi^ 2. That whatficver ye fjall ask^ of the Father 78 Objervations on T>r Watciiand'j' Obferv*' Father in my Name^ he may give it yon ; Joh. VIII. XV, 16, ^^'^"^ The u4poflles Inftrudions concerning This matter, are. By Him let us offer the Sacrifice of Praife to God continually y Heb. xiii, 1 5 . Giving Thanks^ aU ways for all things unto God and the Father y [un- to God, even the Father,] in the Name of our Lord Jefus Chrifly Eph. v, 20. Giving Thanks to God and the Father y by Him, Col. iii, 17. That God in all things maj he glorified through Jefus Chrifi, 1 Pet. iv^ ii. That at the Name of Jefus every ' J^ee f]?ould bo7Vy '• to the Glory of God the Father y Phil, ii, II. ■ Through Him we Both have an Accefs^ by one Spirit y unto the Father, Eph. ii, 18. / bow my knees unto the Father of ot^r Lord Jefus Chrifi, Eph. iii, 14. / thank^my God through Jefus Chrifly Rom. i, 8. We have an ADF'OCATE with the Father, Jefus Chrifi the Righteous, 1 Joh. ii, i . Able tofav§ Them to the uttermofi, that come unto God by him ; feeing he ever liveth to make INTERCESSION for them, Heb. vii, 25. Upon the fe Two laft-menti- pned Texts, the following Words of Dr Waterland t.^-ji. 2xt 2xi Excellent Commentary: " To pray to Chrifi ^^ to pray for Vs, is Near a-l^n to the Romifi) Do. '^ Elrine of praying to Saints and Angels. The Woriliip paid by the Saints in Heaven and Earthy unto Chrifi y is by the Infpired Writer thus reprefented. Glory he unto Him that fitteth upon the Throne, viz. the Father; and unto the Lamby viz. Chrift, the Lamb flain from the foundation of the World, Rev, v, 1 3 . l^nto Him that loved ^J, arJ, wafijcd ^s from our Sins in his own Blood, and hath ma^e Second T>efenfe of his O u e r i e s. 79 wade us Kms and Priefls mto God and his Father Obferv, [unto his God and Father, -^^ ^^v ^ ^^c^e)- ^-^r^^'] to .\!yZ^ Him be Glory and Dominion for ever and every Rev. i,- 5, (5. And they fuviga new Song, fajm^ Thou art -worthy ; for Thou waji flain^ and hafi redeemed us to God by thy Blood, Worthy is the Lamb that was flainy ^d Rev. v; p^ 12* And St Stephen, feeing him flanding as Interceffour at the right hand of God, thus invokes him ," Lord yefusy receive my Spirit; Adisvii, 5P« The Notion and FraElife of the Primitive Churchy Cnot to multiply Quotations akeady often referred to,) is Thus fet forth by Origen. *' We (i) ought to '^ fend up all Supplication and Prayer and Interceffion «^ and Thankfgiving To the Supreme God over all, '' Through our High-Prieft, the living Word and «' God, who is above all Angels : Yet we may alfo *' offer Supplications and Interceffions and Thankl^ «' giving and Prayers To the Word himfelf, if we " can dinftinguifh between Prayer in a Proper, and '' Prayer in a fgurative Senfe, " And What he means by This Diftindion, he clearly expkins in another Place: viz.. (1) «^ We v/orfhip {fay^ he) <^ ivnvlof/fiB-ci ciUTM, (c" £^%ce^t^Vo/t^s.v, j^ zr^sa-ivl^y.fiB-oc, ^, iuv lib. f. p. 233. (2) 'AAA« r Ivfli S-£cv, J'y r ivcc vtlv uvr^ y^ Xo^/cv x*et 'ay^. ya, roue, yca,Ta. rv ^jjjcctvv vifj^Tv iKss^ccu, (^ oj|f&'(r£r WatcrlandV Obferv. ^'^ he) the one God, and his one Son and Word Vfll. ci. 3nd Image, with Supplications and Prayers to the ^^ ■ '^ utmoft of our Power; putting up our Prayers *^' To the God of the Univerfe, Through his only " begotten Son : To whom we offer them firft, de- " firing him, as being the Propitiation for our Sins, *' to prefent as our High-Prieft our Prayers and Sa- ^ crifices \ThmlJgivingi^ and Interceffions, To the *' Supreme God, " The Obfervation of the Learned Bf 'Bull upon Thele Two PafTages of Origen^ is as follows. (3) *' / wonder (fays he) that thefe Places of Origen, *' fjould offend the Learned Huetius ; in ivhich Places *' (to confefsthe Truth) I ahvajfs thought:, for my oivn *" party that the Catholick^DoEirine concerning the Per' *^ fon and Office of our Sa jiour^ was well explained, '* [See the Reply to Dr Waterland's Firft Defenfe^ The TVorf]?ip therefore paid to Chrijly and to Cod through Himy as through the u4lone Mediatoury is not a "^ Separate Independent Worfhip of tlie Per- fon of Chriff; ; but a Part of the Worfhip of the Fd^ ther, Bj his Commands and To his Glorj, The iju>Zvf Trpoorayfiyi'iv cog t^'^mpix (c' vj^'^zc, }^ Tuq B-'Jcncci iC tcIc, h- Tiv'inr, Y,^m TM Itu zrua-i 3-£«. Adv. Celf. lib. 8. |p, 386. (3) Miror hxcce Orlgcnts loca viro do£lo \_HHctio'\ offendi- culo clTe, in quibus egomet (ut verum fatcar) Catholicam de perfon-a & oincio Servatoris noflri doclrinamnon male cxpli- c ar i fe m p er ex i fl: ima ver i m . Defenf. Scci . z, cap. 9', § . r j". * See c?elo7s?, Oblervat. XIV. § 6. Second T)efenfe of hi^ Q^ue r i e s." S i The Reply Dr Wkterland makes to Thefe Two Obfem PalTages of Origen^ wherein That Antient and Learn- /vIII. ed Writer fo clearly [with ^' ohfcure and doubtful ^^ ^^^^ *« Meanings *' the Dr thinks^] exprefTes His Senfe of the Opinion and Pradife of the Church in His time ; The Reply (I fay) which Dr Waterland makes to thefe two Paflages of Origen^ is very Re- markable. And a capable Reader, that pleafes to compare it carefully with the Paffages themfelves, will find in it a Singular Dexterity. '^ What I ga- p- 4o^» " ther (fajs the Docior) from This PaiTage, ** [the Two Pajfageshdd Both of them been cited to him To^ gether j] <^ is, that Prayer in the moft proper Senfe, "' is to be underftood of Prayer direded immediate- *' ly to the Father. This has been the moft ufua! " and common Method of Praying : Wherefore this «^ kind of Praying has obtained generally the Name *^ of Prayer^ and is what the word Prayer has beeri '' ordinarily ufed to mean. Origen does not fay, '" that the Prayers^ Supplications^ Inter ccffions, and '^ Thanksgivings^ offered to God the Son, are noneof '' them properly fo called > but He makes his Remark " upon Pr^^7>^ has bee^ L '^ moft ^1 Obfervations on T)r Waterland'j Obferv. '' moft cuflomary and prevailing, and has thereby V^r. fcrior Wonliip, It muft there-- « fore Second 'Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 83 << fore reft in the inferior Objed, and fo cannot be Ohkrv ^^ C2^\zA?neiiiate, h\M ultimate W ox ^\^, " MIL '^ Since all Worfhip terminates in the Objed ^ ,.,^ *^' to which it is direded, or offered ;; If the fame '^ Ad of worfnipj offered to Chrift, terminMes " in God the Father ; then the Cafe is plain that it '^ terminates in Botlo, and Both are one undivided " Objed. *' «' Allowing that the Worfiiip of God the t- 59o- *' Son, terminates in God the Father j ftill it ^' is manifeft, for That very Reafon, that it is *' not an inferior Worfhip; becaufe then it could *' not terminate in the Father, being unworthy ^^ of Him. Nor indeed can any Ad: of worfhip ^' extend to Both^ unlefs Both be one Ohjecl, as be- *^ fore fhown. *' '^ Either the fuppofed Infcribur Worffjip term!- 39^" '' nates in the Son^ and then IT is Vltimate ; or ^' IT terminates in the Fathery and then IT is Su- 'f preme : Chufe which you pleafe* '* " If the rather be but worfliipped through Chrift ; f.^o^, " prefently you cry out, mediate worfhip; tho' '^ it be all one ^'^-i^f worlliip, not 7^;'^. And either *^ the Son is not woriliipped at alL in ilich a Ca'e; '' or, if He is, the faj7ie Worlliip is then oifered '« to Both. The nature of the Worfiiip is not: '•• altered by the manner of Conveyance ^ any m.ore '' than a Prefent of Gold^ made to Two Perfons, '' becomes Sr.zy'i to one, and Gold to theothep, only *' by being conveyed thro' one to the other. '* L z If §4 Obfervations on T^r WaterlandV Obferv. If Any ferious Reader finds any Inflrudion ancj VIII. Improvement, in Thefe Comments upon the Do- >^^^^ dlrine of Chrift's Mediation and InterceJJion '^ 'tis well It had been argued, that the Worflnp of the Me- diatour was founded originally in the Command of Gody who gave him a Name above every Name, that at the Name of Jeftis every knee fhould bow , But that the Pf^orpip of the Father, was, antecedent to Any Command, founded in the eternal Law of Na- ttire. To this, Dr Watertand makes the following t- 5^^' Anfwer. " Has not onr Saviour Commanded us to <« 7Vor(hip the Father ? Is His Worpip THERE- " FORE not Supreme \ Sure, Arguments mufi run <• very low 7uith you, or you would not trifle at <« this rate* " Again : God " has Commanded his " Son to be ii^orJJj/pped : And SO has Chrifl Com- <' manded us to worflnp his Father : What is This^ '^ to the Point of infer iour Worfhip ? " Again : t-l^C. « Why may not the Father -^ whoy according to his ^' Good Pleafure, makes J^own Himfelf and de- '' mands Worfl^ip to Himfelf, do the like for his Son ? ** J. 406. _4nd again : " Whenever the Mediatorial Kingdom '^ began, the Worfljip however of Chrifl 7i^as by the «' Command of the Father : That I allow : And SO f 7i>as alfo the Worfljip of the Father FIRST intro-^ ^^ duced by the Command of the Father ^^ ** Quid cum iflo Hbmine facias \ OBSERV, J^-595-f Second T>efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 85 Obferv. IX. OBSERVAT. IX. Concerning T>r WaterlandV difficulty y of tinder fianding what is meant by the words. One God, (ire. Another Method, by which Dr Waterland en- deavours to deftroy the Supreme Dominion of the One God and Father of All\ is his labouring by a Duft of Learned Jargon, to perfwade men that the very Terms, « One Gody " mean no bodj knows what. In the foliticaly in the moraly in the religions fenfe of the words, all mankind well underftand What One God is : One unoriginate Self-fuffcient Author md Caufe of all things, One Supreme independent Lord and Governour of All, One Great King and ahfolme Aionarch of the Univerfe. But in the meta- phjjlcal fenfe, (if Dr Waterland is to be believed,) no man hnowsy no man poiTibly Can know, What the terms, ^' One God, '* mean. One abfolutely Su^ preme Governour, may be One God: Any number of abfolutely Supreme GovernourSy may (according to Him) be One God : Nay, Any number of abfor lutely Supreme GovernourSy may be One abfolutely Supreme Governour : For, not only the word ^^ Gody '* but the word "^ One '* likewife, fignifies (it leems) no body k^07vs what^^ It P.IOJ. S6 Obfervations on T^r Waterlaiid'^' It had been allegedy that O ne Suhflance is not the fame ^% One God; becaufe Two equally Su- preme, Two Independent, " Two Unoriginate di- " vine Perfom *' (Dr Waterland himfelf allows,) <* however otherwije Infef arable,'' (however fuppoied- to be of ONE Sabftance,) " wouldbe TWO GODS. '* f^y-9. Yetinan'wer to This, bethinks ^' it is fufficient to '' y^', Ho7v do J on knowt'' that '' making One <^ Sabflance, is not the fame thing with making One '« God\ " That is; how do you know, that TWO GODS in One Suhflance^ are not the fame as ONE ■f. 106. GOD ? Again : '' Vnity of Subflance (fays he_j may ^« make Two Perfons " [or u4n\ number of Per Ions,] <' confidercd as Equallj fupreme over Ally to be but « ONE MONARCH, " And again : " / k^ow ^ /r « not what men have to do, to difpme about Intelligent '* Agents, and Identical LiveSy &c. As if They un" ** derflood better than God Himfelf does, '* [better than Dr Waterland Himfelf does, is all tnat he means,] ^' V/^'HAT One God is, " Thus likewife ludividmlity and Samenefs, are words (it leems) which lignify no body knows 21'hat, FirP.Dc^. A '^ certain Principle of Individuation^ is a thing i.i7 3- *« much wanted. " And '^ As to the Degree of ^TT-i. '' SAAIENESS-, I before intimated that it is Inex- '^ plicable, " Concerning the Abfurdity of this way of talking. See the Reply to Dr Ws Firfi De- fenfe, p, 307, 308, In like manner, Wh4^ being Independent fig? ^.418. nifies, the Dr cannot undsrfland. '\ Come out Second T>efenfe of kh Ovekiie. s. Sj <« vf the Clouds, and tell me what you mean hj Obfei-v* ^^ Independent. '\ ^ s/"^r^ Concerning ^' Supreme " like wife, (a terni which no man^, I believe, before Dr Watcrlandy ever mifunderflood ,) " Come out of the Clouds, '^'''^• efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. 93 jng, is his Trifling about the words, \ABy and AEiive ; Obferv. when he asks, *' whether an infinitely AEiive Being ^ -t-^* ^« CAN ceafe to AB \ " As if God's being infi- ^^^^^ nitely A^ive^ or having infinite Power to AUy im- plied his having No Power to forbear Acting* And puts another equally wife queftion, " whether God's ' «' Loving Himfelf be not A^iingV that is to fay, whether All words have not the fame fignification, and ftand alike for An^ Thing. And gravely " be- *' lieves, we are almofl out of our Depth here^ and '^^^• *' might more modeflly leave the Divine Ads to <' That Divine Being, who Alone underfiands'" whe- ther they be AEls or no. And to fuch as Hfid- '' fretend to be 7vife in Such HIGH things, " hede- iSc/). 327, fires to fut a further Ouefiion : " Does God NE* « F'ER naturally or NECESSARILT exert any «« Power ? " That is to fay : Is there no Cafe, wherein God exerts any Power ^ when he has No Pow^ er at all to exert \ *' Who can be VAfe enough, to ib'ul ^' know Thefe things \ ** Agreeable to all This, is his Defenfe of That Maxim, that "^ The Subfiance of God, is God," In p-4-^9* oppofition to This, (when fo underftood as to mean '^^'^' Subfiance abftrad from the confideration of Intelligent Perfonality,) it was alledged that God is neither the Subfiance of God, nor the Attributes of God, but he is That Intelligent Agent whofe Both the Subfiance and Attributes are. To hinder the Reader from under- flanding thefe Plain words, the.Dr tells him the Mean^ ing of them is, that «^ the Perfin is neither Subfiance « nor Attribute, but Something BETWEEN Both : *' Wk^l^J^l ^]^% ffH£ Meaning of them evidently is, that^ f3^7- H Obfervations on 23r Waterlaiid'^ [Obfervi that neither the SnbfiaKcey nor the jittrihutesy but ^^^,,1^^ '^OTH together, are the Intelligent Agent or P^r- I fhall mention but One inftance more, viz,, his Notion of a Compound Perfon. Becaufe a Suhftdncc maybe compounded o£ Many diftinEh Subftances^ and a Pfr/^» may alfo be compounded of J/^;nr diflin^h Subfiances ,• therefore, he thinks, a Perfon may like- wife be compounded of ^^^y difiin5i Perfins. Which is exadly the fame thing as to fay, that becaufe a Man may be compounded o^ Spirity Flep, Blood, Bonesy and the like ; therefore a Man may like wife be compounded of Many Mcn^ a Living Man compounded of Many Living Men y fo that Any number of Men may be One Man, and Any 7iu?nber of Per fins may be One Perfon. Which gi"ofs Confufion of Ideas, is alfo the Caufe of all that unreafonable Difcourfe, which will betaken notice of under the N^xt Obfervation^ OBSERV, Second T)efenfe of his Queries. 95 OBSERVAT. X. Concerning 2)r Waterland's Arguments drawn from his Suppofed "Difficulties in conceiving the "Divine Omnipre- fence. There is no Argument in which Dr Waterland is more infolent^ or with lefs reaforiy than in This which follows. There are (he thinks) as Great Difficulties in his Adverfdries notion of the Divine Omniprefencey as there are in His notion of Manj equally Supreme Independent Perfons conftituting One Supreme Governour or Monarch of the Vniverfe : Therefore (he thinks) His notion has as much- Right to fuperfede all Difficulties in the One cafe, as Theirs has in the Other. Upon this Weak^ Comparifon^ he feettis to build al- moft all his Hopes : It runs through his li^hole Per- formance - He every where lays the Strefs upon it ; and runs to it for Refuge, upon every Exigency.- And yet the PZhole of the Comparifon is as entirely impertinent y as if a man {\\o\i\d pretend, that to Hin7 there are as Great Difficulties in conceiving Immenfl- ty or Eternity, as in conceiving Tranfuhflm-' tiation, and that Therefore Tranfubftantiation ought as much to be Believed in fpite of All Diffi- cultiesj, Obftrv; X* 36 Obfervations on T>r WateriandV Obferv. culties, as that there is any fuch thing as Immenjitj X- or Eternity at all. The only Difference in This cafe is 5 that in favour of Tranfuhflantiation there iSy though nothing indeed in the Senfe of Scripture, yet fime fort of Colour or u4ppearance in the Words : Whereas Dr TVater land* s Notion, is not only con- tradi^led in every Page of the JSTew Tefl amenta but it "Wants moreover even fo much as any Colour in the Words of any one Jingle undoubted Text. The Manner however, in which he perpetually in- culcates this Argument, is This. Upon «^ the '' PRINCIPLE^ that the Divine Suhftance is infi- '' nitely extended^ m i one r^ay prove that the Di' ^^ vine Beings according to , conjifis of an inft-^ p. 54. '^ »ite Number of different Subfiances, " " E- .2io. '^ tended Divine Subfiance.'* ^' If there cannot '' be Sub fiance and Sub fiance without Subfiancesy you <' are in a lamentable cafe^ while you fuppofe the Di- *' vine Subfiance to be extended i For you thereby fup^ *' pofe him compounded of innumerable Subfiances : *^ Learn hereafter to haveyourThoughts more about youy <^ -when you are charging ContradiRions,** ^' Nor />. 116. *' is Our Notion more unconceivable or inexpli- *^ cable than Yours. When you are able to explain «*■ to MEi how the Wifdom refiding in One Part of ^' the Divine Subfiance (on jour hjpothefis of Ex- ^' tenfon) is the lame and yet not the fame with the *^ Wifdom rejiding in A?iy Other Part i I may then b^ abU ^l^l- Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 97 ^* able to account for the degree of Samenefs See. " Obferv* *« The degree of Samenefs is inexpllcahle ; and is no X. *^ more to be accounted for-^ than Your fippojing- the *' fame Wifdom to refide in innumerable infinitely di^ *' jiant Parts of the fame Subfiance. ** «« Vpon />. 310, <* the Principle of the Divine Sub fiance heinn- extend- ^^^* *' edi I dejtre to h^ow whether This Snbflance 7vhich <« fills the Earthy be That One Subftance ivhich filk « Heaven : « By Tour PRINCIPLES^ fo far ai «' I jet perceive, This Sub fiance and That Subfiancff *f muft be Two ftmple Sub fiances, and One complex *' Subfiance -.^ And fo, but This; contradiciing that JlriBNoti- *' on of Samenefs:, as often as you make an infinite " Number of extended Parts to he the fame Sub- . ^^ fiance,'* *' Tou had fever al Maxims about '^ Individual) about Samenefs, about Subfiance, a-- *' bout Beingy 7vhich were to be urged as of Great «' Force againfi THE doBrine *' [Dr Waterland*s New Dodrine] ^' of the Trinity ; though of No «' Force in Another SubjeB^ upon your own PRIN-' '« CIPLES: ^This unreafbnabky and indeed ^.432. *« fMrncfid ConduEi &c. ** *' He has allowed " in Another cafey Subfiance and Subfiance y Being *' and Beingy to make One Subfiance y and One Be- / .^4'5, ^« ing, without any Compofition, ** <« If you ^^'^' <« can admit Subfiance and Subflancey nay This Suh^ " fiance and That Subflancey where there are no Sub* " fiances ; why do you deal thus unequally with O- ^' thers i Tou mufl allow, that IJnion is enough to **■ conjlitute Samenefs, without making either Complex '^^ or Compound Subjlance; otherwife you make a [' Complex or Compomd Subfiance of Cod. Since ithere^ Second T>cfenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 99 «' therefore the fame or equal Bifftcnlties he^.r upon Obferv. *« Bothy be fo fair and fo candid as to condemn or to ^^^xj " acquit Both,'* '' u4re none of thofe Farts tbld, cc fingnlar identical Subfianccs, but all One fi?igi^lar ^' identical Sub fiance \ What is the Reafon of it \ Is <« it noty that Union mah^s Samenefs, all real ^^ Samenefs \** *' Ton 7i^ould find the Like t' 4f4 • ^^ Diffculty in exfreffmg the Parts of the Divine '^ Subflanccy in jour hjpothejis of Extenfion : ^' In a parallel Inflance^ the ObjeBion may be as *' flrongly retorted upon yourfelves : You admit Sub- <« fiance and Subftance^ jvhcre ^ou think^it not proper ^^ to fay Subfiances,'' ^'' The Confequence bears ?-4^<^- <^ as hard upon You, as it can upon Me; fince it <' makes the Divine Beings upon your own PRIIV- " CIFLES» a Compound of innumerable Subftances : «« So that you cannot condemn My way of thinking « andfpeakingy but with the Shame of Self -contra- '« diElion and Condemning Your f elf, '[ Tiie Groundlefsnefs md Iniquity of this IVhoU Com- parifony will appear by the following Confiderations. jfi. 'Tis not at all a <' PRINCIPLE " with Me, that the Divine Subftance is infinitdy Extended. A Truth I believe it is, for This Reafon , becaufe at pre- fent I am not able to conceive how 'tis poffible. that God ihould be every where Prefent, without be- ing Prefent everywhere. But if Dr Watcrland, or any other perfon, can fhow me any better Notion of the Divine Omniprefence^ or that This is net rhe right one 5 *tisalloneto Me, I have kid ;^o Strefs upon ^nj particular Notion, or Explication of this Mat- N z ter ; 100 Obfervations on T)t WaterlandV Obferv. X. ter ; I have drawn no Confeqt-unce^ nor am anfwera- ble for Any Confeqaencet from it ; I have built no- thing upon it ; I have made No argument to relj or depend upon it ; I have never once mentioned it in this Whole Controverty. *Tis by mere Conjecture onlj» that Dr Waterland has taken it to be my Opinion at all. And, were he able to confute it, he had ftiU gained nothing, he liad deftroyed No " Principle ** of Mine ; to whom Every Explication is alike pleafing, that eftablifhes at all the general dodrine of the Divine Omniprefence^ taught both by the Light of Nature and Revelation. Had Dr Waterland pro- ceeded in This manner : Had he propofed Hii Explication of the Do(5irine of the Trinity, to be confidered and compared with Other Explicati^ ons : Had he not conftantly placed the Particularities of his o-wn Exphcation, in the room of the Princi^ fie itfelf to be explained ; and, with unchriftian wrathfulnefs, repreiented All Thofe who rejeded <« THE Doctrine of the Trinity** invented by Dr Waterland^ as Reje(fters of '' THE DoBrine of the «« Trinitv " taught by ChriJI and his ^poflles : The controverfy, for Me, had been long fince at an End. 2. After all the odious Confequences, which Dr Waterland^ in a popular way of writing, has indea- voured to nx upon the Opinion of the Divine Sub" flance being infinitely extended ; he has no where had the Courage clearly and difl:in(S:ly to declare, that it is not, after all. His Own Opinion, He has no where dechred, that he himfelf believes God to be Omni- pre feat, not fuhfi ami ally, but virtually only. He has no whex^ declared, that h§ himfelf believes Vidv^' Second T)efenfe of his Q^u eries. ioi tr can fubfift without a SnbjeEi ; and that, by the ^^^^^* Divine Omnifrefence> he means nothing more, but r/N/vj what he elfewhere calls '' a Nominal Vbiquity^ " viz. />.4i4- that God withotit being really and fubflantially Omni- prefent^ (that is, withom being 0??miprefent at all,) has Power to Ad in all places u^S IF he was really Omniprefent. Till he has done This ,* the odious Con- fequences (nothing relating to the prefent Controver- fy,^ which he has gone far out of his way in hopes to fallen upon Others^ remain equally fixt upon Himfelf, 3. Had he clearly and diflindly declared This latter to be his Own Opinion', Still, unlefs he had fhown that the difficulties which he fanfies to he (or affeUs to reprefent as being) inextricable^ were peculiar to the Other Explication, and not equally in- extricable in his Own ; all that he has done in this matter, has been only to indeavour to expofe to the Scorn of Infidels the do^rine itfelfoi" the Divine Om^ mprefence-i as contradiElory and ridiculofis ; whereas, in the Truth of things, it is one of the clearefl and mofl^obvioHS and moft diflinEl of All our natural Ide- as ; and has no manner of diffcnhj in it, but what ^riks "wholly and folely from the improper Applicati- on of fantaflical Terms of Arty and the attending to Words only inflead of Ideas of Things, 4. Were All the Confequences, which the Dr in- deavours to charge in the moil odious manner and with perpetual repetition. Real Confequences from A- ny Principles of his Adverfaries, and Peculiar too to thofe Principles ,* If ill even All This (the Reader will be pleafed carefully to obferve) would be no- thing to his Purpofe, in the way of Cgmparifon upon which I02 Obfervations on 'Dr WaterlaiidV Ob/erv. which the prefent Argument wholly turns. For X. the thing objeded To Him, is; that Mmj Sh- '^'^^^"^^"^ freme Governoars ("however fuppofed to be infe- parable) cannot be One Supreme GovernoHr^ becauie 'tis an exprefs ContradiElion in itfelf, as well as entire- ly void of all Foundation in Scrifture, But the thing retorted By Him^ is ThU only; that Many Subflances cannot be One St^bftance, or that Many Sabfiances cannot be One Per fin : Neither of which, includes any contradi5iwny or indeed any difficulty at all. For though, in the nature of things, One Per- fin caa never poflibly be compounded of Many Per fins y One Living Man can never poffibly be com- pounded of Many Living Aien ,• yet One Subftancc may be, and generally is, conftituted of Many Sab* fiances ; and one Pcrfon alfo may be, and generally is» conftituted of Many Subftances, Wherefore though, for Other Reafins^ 'tis certain the Divine Subflance does not confift o£ PartSy properly 3ind phyfically fpeaking^. that is. Parts divifible, feparable, or diverlified with Properties diftind from the univerfal Powers of the Whole, f which is the ejfential charader of all Corporeal Beings, and the Ground o£ Corruptibility ;J yet, fo far as the Prefent Argument is concerned, were All the Dodor's Confequences truly and juftly drawn,* were it a true Dedudion, that (in our ab(}raSi 'and metaphyfical manner of conceiving things) the divine Sub fiance did confifl of Parts^ of Parts imaginably infinite in Number ; yet even This, I fay, would ftill (to the Purpofe of the Argument for which it has been uiged by Dr V/aterland) have no difficulty at all in it ,• 'twould infer nothing in the leaft de- gree Second Tiefenfe of his Queries. 103 gree ''parallel'* to the Abfurdities of the Dodor's Obierv. Scheme ; 'twould require nothing to clear it, which at X. the fame time could at all clear or make pjjible the Do- ^^ Dior's Notions ; *twould,imply no contradithon in itfelf% nor to the Vnifj of God ; provided always there was underftood to be but One Life, One Will, One Pow- er, One Wifdom, aswell asOne Immenfity, of the Whole ,• and not (as Dr Waterland affecls abfurdly to fpeak,) a " Wifdom rejiding in One Fart of the <* Divine Stibjlance^** and a " Wifdom rejiding in f.ti6^ ^' Anj Other Fart, '* For, even in Finite Perfons, every Ferceptive and every A^ive Faculty whatfo- ever, is not one Power refiding in one fart of its fphere of activity, and another Fower in another part ; but One Ferceptive or One Active Faculty , of the whole Ferfon. 5. Lajlly, 'Dt Waterland himfelf, after having ta- ien perpetual Refuge in this Comparative Argument^ and thereby endeavoured upon Every Exigency to hide from his Reader the Abfolme Contradidoiinefs of his own Notion: Even He himfelf (I fay) after All This, plainly confefTes himfelf Confcious that k is nothing to the Purpofe. The Caie had been put to him in the following Words. " Suppofing the v^piy-. •' difficulties were equal (as they by no means are?*) r l^^- <« yet there would be No confequence in your *' Argument. The dtvine Ofnmprefence is AGREED *' on Both fides, to be a Truth demonftrated by " Reafon-i and affirmed in Scripture. Difficulties in ^' conceiving the Manner of fuch an ACKNOW^ <« LEDGED Truth, are in no degree any juft ff Objedion againft the Truth it/elf Nov/ were «« the I04 Obfervattons on "Dr WaterlandV Obferv. efenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 107 " Divinity '* [the neceflarily equal Supremacj~\ " of Obferv. '^ God the Son, Soy chufe you whether to take in Botht XI« *' or give up Both. For I Jee no Remedy y hut that *< the Divinity '* [the Supreme divinity] *•' of Fa" '^ ther and Son, muft ft and or fall TOGE- « THER But I muft tell you farther :, that by /'•^49- *' weakning and deftroying fo many clear and unde- '< niable Proofs of the FATHER'S Divinity^ you ^' have not left yourfelf enough to prove Him to be '« the Firfi Caufe, This, PERHAPS, jou was not '' aware of; taking it for granted, that the FA- '^ THERs Divinity would be admitted without " Proof, It is a DARK Bufmefs ; but Difputants « will fometimes over ftooot . Dr Clarke, I believe, be- '' gan to be fenfible of his Err our in This rcjpect, as " having undermined every Scripture-Proof of the f' necejfary exiflence of God the Father, —We '' leave you, with Shame, to make out the Father's " necejfary Exiftence by (bme other as exprefs *< Texts, As you had once LOS t the Proof of the p, ^^o. ^' Father's Divinity, by denying the Sons ; fo by af- ^' ferting the latter, you may again RECOf^ER the « former : And then all will be right Tou ^ ,^5^ " have not been able to elude our Proof of the Sons « Divinity, " [of his naturally and neceiTarily equal and independent Supremacy^ " without eluding, at « the fame Time, Ef^ERT Proof of the Father's Divi^ " nity alfo ; as I have (Joown above. Is not This a « very SENSIBLE, and a very afecling Demonftra- <« tion, of the STRENGTH of our Scripture- ^f Proofs f *'— — «f While we are bringing you plain p. ^16. f Proofs for Chrift's Divinity,*' [meaning again O 2, his 108 Obfervations on T>r Water] and'^ Qbferv. his naturally abfolute and independent Sftpremacy^'] X^' ^' ^S ?LA1N AS cm he brought for the Divinity ^"^"^^^ « of the FATHER, " All This is (o incredihlj abfurd^ that, after ha- ving read it over and over again, I could hardly tell how to believe my own Eyes. For \fl. What can be more abfurd, than to talk 'of Proving the Attributes of God from Revelation; when, in the nature of things, the very Notion of a Revelation neceffarily Prefuppofes them, and the Scrip- ture always y^^^y^ of them and affirms them as frefup- fofedl Can the Veracity of God be proved from Scripture y when the 7r//^^ of the Scripture itfelf tvi- dently relies wholly and folely upon our prefuppofmg the Veracity of God ? And the Same is true hkewife^ of all the Other Perfedions of the Divine Nature. They are known demonflrubly by the Light of Nature, And for That reafon, and That only ; all the Phrar fess wherein any of the divine Perfedions are fet forth in Scripture, are always and neceffarily un- derflood to mean much more, than the Words them- felves properly do or can exprefs .* The Words always receiving the Strength of their Signification, not from their o^nintrinfck^Notation^ but from the an- tecedently known Nature of the Subje^ to which they are applied. We read of Everlajiing Hills in the Scripture, as well as of the Everlajiing God. 'Tis not therefore from the word, Everlajiing, that the Eternity of God is Proved : But the word* sverlajiing or iternal, does for This only reafon in One cafe^ and not in the Other ^ tx^rt^s^ proper Eternity; p^c^iife we knov/ befonhmd that God could not Second T)efenfe of his Qy e r i e s. xq^ have exifted at all, if he had not been (m the flrid Obferv, metaphyfical Senfe) Eternal i neceflarily, efTentially, XI. and independently Eternal, Again : When the Scrip- ^■OT'^^ ture faith. Before the Adounta'ms were brought forth, or ever the Earth and the World were made 3 thou art God from everlafiing and world without end: 'Tis not from the Force of the wordi themfelveSy but from the antecedent Knowledge of the Thing, that we underftand the Pfalmift to intend by .That Phrafe a real Eternity : For otherwife, ^gels^io exifted ^f- fore the Mountains were brought forth, or ever the Earth and the world were made. In like manner, when St Paul, fpeaking of God, fays, that He Only hath hnmortality ; 'tis evident that, not from the mere Force of the words, (for Angels alfo have Im- mortality,) but from the Nature of the Thing we know that the Apoftle by This expreflion meant Ne- cejfary and Independent Exijience. The cafe is the fame, when God is declared in Scripture to Fill Heaven and Earth, What is not Infinite or Im^ menfe, may fofjibly do That : But becaufe we know beforehand that God cannot but he Immenfe, there- fore we underftand That Phrafe to exprefs his Im- menfity. Whoever confiders Thefe Inftances, wilj evidently fee how Weak^^W thofe Arguments are> which Dr Waterland builds upon the^ Same Phrafes being fopietimes applied in Scripture to different Per^ fins. But zdly. What I fuppofe the Dodpr more ftridly means by the Paffages above-cited, is This : Th^t if, from the Highefi Titles given tQ Chrift in Scrip- Curfj Ifs cannot prove the $0N io he naturally and fjecejfa'^ no Obfervations on T>r WaterlandV Obferv. necejfarilj the God Supreme over ^11; then neither can XI. We^ from the Highefl Titles given to the FATHER ^•^y^^ in Scripture:, ^^ovq Him toht naturally and necefari- ly the God Supreme over All, fo as to have no one Above or Superiour to him in dominion. To which t H^> I anfwer : That " the particular perfon^ called the ^"^^ ^' Father^" does in Scripture c/^/«^ to be " the Firfi *' Caufi of all things, " by taking upon himlelf the Title of Father of All: And the Dr cannot " by the *' SAME Argument prove alfo '* the Son to be the Firfl Caufe of all things. The " particular perfon, *' called the Father, " does hkewife in Scripture claim to have no other '' God Above him^ ** by ta- king upon himfelf the Title of the One God and Fa- ther of All, 7vho is Above All ; By claiming^ to have JVo Superiour ; to do all things according to the Coun^ felof his own Will;, to ht fent by None', to recieie Power and Authority from None ,• to ad by No ones Commijfion ; to fulfill No one's Will. And the Dr cannot '' by the SAME Arguments *' prove alfo " the Son to have no one " Above ^' Him, " For^ does He By whom God created all things, claim as much to be " the Firfi Caufe of *' all things, " as the God who for his own Pleafure created all things By him \ Does He who came not to do his Own Will, but the Will of Him that Sent him J claim as much to have No Superiour, as He whofe Will he came and was fent to fulfill^. Does He who ftyles Another Pcdon His God and Father, claim as much to have No one ^' Above him \ " as He whom he ftyles his God and Father \ Dees He who is Honou- red To the Glory of Another^ claim as much to be neceffa^ Second T)efenfe of his O u e R i e s. ii i necejfarily Supreme in Dominion over Ally as He to Obferv. •whofe Glory he is Honoured ? XT. I earneftly widi, ("for the fake of Truths for the '*^*V'^ Glory of (7^^, for the Honour of Chrijh and to pre- vent the multiplying of Obfiacles which ^/z/^ Ocr^- ^(?« to the Enemies of Religion to blafpheme ;) that men of Ability j who judge the Writings of DvTVa- terland to be confiderable, would be at the Pains to perufe and conjider and compare^ what he has advan- ced upon this Great and Important Subjed, OBSERVAT. XII. Concerning T>r Waterland's manner of putting his Ov/n Particular Explications of a "Do^rine, in the place of the Do- drill e itfelf to be explained. From what has been faid under the foregoing Heads, 'tis obvious to obferve^ with what Right and Juflice Dr Waterland continually flips the Par- ticularities of his Own Explication, into the Place of the DoElrine itfelf to be explained, Wliofoever re- jcdis His Particular Explications, brings « ObjeEli- p ^ij^ '^ ons (it feems) againfi THE DoEirine of the Blef- *' fed Trinity ; " alleges '' Arguments againfi THE 3.443. " Do you imagine, that I cannot as eafily, or more <' eafilyi find Scripture-words for mine ? But This is '^ Trifling, " And again : ^* You blame me (fays he) " for not expr effing " [for not being Able to exprefs] " my Faith in ANT Script urt-pofit ion. As if <« every thing I a^ert as matter of Faith ^ were *' not as much Scripture-pofition^ according to MT « way of underftanding Scripture; as Yours *' // f<7You ScriptHTC'Fofiion^ according to TOVR II way ^4^7. Second ^efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 113 ^^ way of under ft mding Scripture, '* Undoubt- Obferv. edly it is juft as much fo \ that is, not at ;??- y^/'z/fj <7;^/^, are Scripture-Pofitions ; With which »(? mans Interpretations can, without the grcateil Pre- fumptuoufnefsj be equalled. And This is the very thing, I am here blaming Dr Waterland for; that he never lays down Any Scripture-Poftion^ but ^Z- Tvays fome Propojition of his Own inilead of it, as being "^ THE doEirine of the Trinity " to be inter- preted and explained. This Method of proceeding, had been before com. plained of to the Doftor. He had been told, that " the Oueftion was, about a DoBrine o£ Scripture , a- j^^pfy^ *' bout the Senfe of certain Proportions laid down in ^•4^4" *< Scripture, " That " therefore the Foundation of *' the Queftion, the Propojition whofe Senfe and " Meaning we argue about, ought Always to be " a Script ure-Propofition, " And yet that, '^ through- " out his Whole Book, whenever he fpoke of THE « DoEirine of the Trinity, of THE J^ERT My- « fiirj of the Trinity y of THE Thing it felf in ^« oppofition to any particular Mode of it ; when- 'f ever he fpoke of Scriptural Pofnions^ of a P/^/;^ "' Scripture-Truth, which /f^ ?/?^? believes Simply and «« <■« ?^^ General, and AS Uid down in Scripture, '* (he fays) *' believes ENOUGH', he never once " mentioned Any Scriptptre-Pofition, but confrantly «' flipt into its Place ^0?^^ O^W Proportion, v/hich '-^ (according to his03i^« hypothefis) h^ pippofed to p « be, 4.15-. 114 OhfernjatiGns on T)r WaterlandV '' be, in way of Inference, equivalent. As if the *« whole Queftion was ,• not whether^ or how far;, " or in what fenfe, His Propnfiions rightly expref- '' fed the Docirine of Scripture; but merely, whe~ *' ther or how far, or in what fenfe, Other mens No- «' tions ai^reed or difagreed with HIS Propo/itions ««= confidered as a RVLE. " This was the Com- plaint Then, And the Anfwer he makes to it Non;^ Second Def. is This : '' Well then, let IT be the SubjeEi of /'•4-4- ' ture-PoJition ? No : But, " Let it be the SubjeEi of '' our Belief (fays the Dr,) that the Father is God, the ^' Son Gody and the Holj Ghofi God, and that THET " ARE THE One God of the Chrifiians ; And as to the ^' manner how they are Three or One^ let no body con- <' cern himfelf about it, *' That is to fay : Be pleafed to lay down an Inference drawn in the words of la- ter Writers, (our " confequential DoElrine-, " as he himfelf ftyles it, pag, ^th of his Preface : Be pleaf- ed to lay down this Confequential DoEirine) as the Foundation in the Stead of the Text itfelf\ and then, fo be fure, there can be no controveriy, in deducing from That Text the Confequential DoEirine. I am not now confidering, whether his Confequen* ces be rightly deduced, or not ; but only fli owing his Unreafonablenefs in demanding perpetually to have his ConfequencesX-Adi down 2a\^ prefuppofedy as the Principle itfelf from which his Confequences were to have been deduced. OBSERV, Second T)efenfe of his Qy e r i e s, 115 Obferv. xrii. OBSEFvVAT. XIII. Concerning T>r Watcrland's Manner of ap- pealing from Reafon and Scripture^ to Authority, From what has been laid upon the fore-going Heads, it will be eafy like wife to judge, upon TVhat Account the Dodor ^lO frequently appeals . £vom Reafon and Scripturey to Authority, When his Argument is reduced to an exprejs contradiEiioni a con- tradition to itfelfy as well as to Scripture ; then he alleges, that the thing he contends for, muft be fo> <' Vpon the Principles of the Primitive Churches: " f-i^J- meaning, that it mufi be fo, Vpon his Own hypothefis. When an Argument is work'd up to the Evidence even of an identical Propoftion^ (which is the Ejfencc of Demonflration ;) then, '''Tis contrary (he faysj /?.2ry. ^^ to the Sentiments of Wtfer men^ who have argued '^ the other waj» " Again : When Two very dif- ferent Allertions, are affirmed not to be the Same Affertion ; then he asks, '' How do you ki^ow \ Or f.y-9' ^' how cam^ Tou to be Wifcr in Thii Particular^ than <' all the Chriftian Churches early and late ? '* who yet never affirmed Two fuch different Ajfcrtions to be the fame Afertion \ and if they had affirmed it, flill the A/Tertions would not have been the Same. Laftly : When he is told, that 'tis great Pre- furriptmufnefsy to call the Particularities of his Own P 2 Ex- T 1 6 Obfervations on IDr Waterhiidi" Obferv. Explication, «' THE DoElrine of the Blejfed Trinity j " XIII. then he cries out, - ' Great Prefiimption indeed \ to believe tM. ' ' ^^^^ ^^^ Catholick Church has k£pt the True Faith ! " Which are the very Words, and the very Argument, wherewith the Writers of the Church of Rome per- petually infult, and will for ever with Juftice infult over all luch Protejlants, as, after the example of their Adverfaries, indeavour to difcouragc all ferious In- quiry after Truth, with the empty words of fuch Popular Pretences, If there be among men Any one diftinguifhing IMark of the Spirit of Err our, 'tis This Dejtre of hi- ding from mens Eyes the Strength and Clearnefs of Argument, by interpoflng the Falfe Colours of pre- tended Authority ,• and drowning the diftind Foice of Reafon and Scripture, by the Inarticulate and Confufed Sound oi a Multitude. This is the Alone Ground of All Extenjtve Errours^ and the Only Sup- port of them in All Ages and Nationi. Truth always rejoices above all things, in being diftindly examined without Prejudice ; and never takes pleafure in being cloathed with Thofe Garments^ which do equally fit and fuit every Err our. Every Serious man, who knows any thing of the State of Religion in the World, and confiders the Situation of Truth and Er- rour in the different Nations of the Earth ; will al. ways think himfelf Fallible^ whatever Numbers he be furrounded with ', and, inflead of being flirred lip to Wrath, will be Thankful to Any one, who fuggeftsto him any Intimation, orreaionable Ground '••■•■■• ■' ■ of Second 'Defenfe of his Qu e r i e s. 117 of inquiring and re-confidering, >\'hether he mav Obferv. not poffibly be in an Errour. A 111. This would be the real State of the Cafe, even though the Authority of 'Numhen were infinitely- greater, than Dr WaterUnd himfelf has either re- prefented, or can imagine it to be. But indeed, the Reverfe of what he pretends, is True; even with regard to the point of AHthorkj. For fo far is it from being true, that Dr Waterland's Dodrine is the Dodrine of the ^' Catholic!^ << Church;*' that, on the contrary, the -^ firfi Article of Every Creed in Every Chriftian Church in the World, in Europe, Afia and Africa^ for Many Ages ; is a Profejfed and Standing Teftimony, Againfl; his dodrine. Nor can it at all avail him, that he indeavours to fhift This off, by menti- oning '« the Creeds AS INTERPRETED hy Querr *' thofi that recite them,'' For, furely, it cannot be doubted, but the Words univerfally and uniformly agreed upon by all the Chriftian Churches in the World, as what They thought the mofi proper to convey inftrudion into the Mind of every Vn- learned Chriflian even of the meaneft Capacity, in the Firft and mofi Fundamental point of Reli- gion ; ought to be lookt upon as of more Weighty than the Private Speculations of Any Single Writers, And yet, even with regard to Thefe alfo, I believe it * Tli^ivcj iiefenfe of bis Qveries. 119 Obfevr. XIV. OBSERVAT. XIV. Concerning farticitlar Quotations out of the Fathers, Quotations from the Fathers being infinite, and generally ending in nothing but Perfonal Contefts, whether This or the Other Writer underflands the Languages befl: ; which to the generality of Read- ers can be of no great importance, and can be judged of by Scholars only : I Ihall not therefore, at This time, WTary my Reader with repeating a Num- ber of Quotations ,• but iliall content my felf with appealing, in This One Infi^nce particularly, to All fuch as are skilled in the Languages >• whether the numerous Paffages cited in the Repij to Br IVater^ land's Firfi Defenfey as maintaining o, natural and ne-^ cejfary Supremacy of Dominion in God the Father Almightj^ do not really maintain Such a Supremacy ; and whether Any of the Paffages cited to the con- trary by Dr Waterland in his Second Defeife, do ei- ther in words or in fenfe or by any juft confequence deny That Supremacy, And This Point (which is the Foundation on which All True Religion en- tirely relies) being once fettled ; all other contro- verted Points, will appear to be of no very con- fiderable Confequence. I ftiall here further, as a Specimen only, fet down fome few very grofs miireprefentations mad« by D^ Water- i^o Obfervations on 2)r Watcrland'j' Obferv. Waterland in his Quotations ; and fliall not cn- ^^^^ large upon them, but barely refer to them ; that They who have Skill in the Languages, may com- pare them, if they fliall think it of Importance fo to do. ^•^ ''• I. Philo ^^ had a Mind to exprefs how the Lo- ^^ gos was IVecejfdrilj-exifting, but not Self-exiftent ; '"^ So I (fays the Dr) under ft and him. " There is nothing in the world fo remote, which he might not juH: as well have //W^r/?W, fthat is, havcfanfted) that Philo, in * the paiTage he refers to, " had a mind *' to exprefs. ^ '<^4. 2. In a Paflage of Juftin, where Chrift is f fliled The Son of the Only and Vnbegotten and Ineffable God ; the Dr contends that the Only and Vnbegotten and ineffable God, whofe Son Chrifl: is there affirmed to be, includes both Father and Son, And becaufe the "Very Terms are contradidlory, he changes the word Vnbegotten into Vncreated, without Any Pretenfe of Authority from Manufcripts. And in like m,anner p.^6^, in all other places of This 2nd o^ all other Antient 2f6, Writers, he (without Any Pretenfe of Authority^ 268. perpetually changes one of thefe words into the other, even in Cafes (as in This now before us) where the Senfe and Connexion of the Sentence necelfarily re- quires * "Ours uy.wn.®^ [Dr IVaterlaml reads ccyivni^^'] coq 6 Bsli ^<^ay. The Words almoft immediately preceding, are: TSj ' Aop^^uyyiXcp ^ r7p£(r/3yTOT&» Aoy>j AQPEAN s^otipsroy ''£Ai2KEN s TTSWOtJMc/^©-, p. 5-09. ■j Tod" ^jvs ^ oi'/ivYYiTov Ktil kfov^TH 3-setl vlh. Z-]0, Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 1 2 i quires there flioiild be no fuch Change. See above^ Obferv. Obfervat, VI, The Note in pag, 63* 3^rNJ UponKiJ Another Paflage of >//;/, he has a "y^ moft abfurd Comment, together with a Chmge of the word Vnbegotten into Vmnade, Compare The Replp p. 191, 293, with the Dr' s Firfi Defenfi, p. 152, and Second Defenfey p. 2(55. 3. He feveral times cites (2) aPaiTageof Iren as ftyling the Son, ipfe Deus i though thofe words in ^^p. That PafTage, evidently fignify C3) the Father. He cites (4) Two PalTages of the fame Author, ^65, as exprefling his Oivn and the Churches Notion, when in reality he is ridiculing the Notions of the Valentinians, In (2) Dei verbum 3 immo magis Ipfe Dens, ciim fit Verbum. lib. 2. c, 13. § 8. /?. 132. Edit. MnJJueti. {7,) For in the very fame Seftion, fpeaking of the Father, he had faidj ^ui ft fuper omnes Deus, totus Nus Cr fotui Lo, gos cum J:t, qtiS77:aii.rrjodu}n praUxhTJUs . And before, in § 3, to which the word (prddiximta) refers: Pater omnimn, cum ft Totus Ratio, c^ Terns JludiTus, <& Totus Oculus, Hic. [Note; Vcrbutn and Logcs and Kat'^o, are in the Greek one and the fame Word.] C4) Necejfe efi igitur, \_f, quomcdo a fole radios, JEonas ip- forum emtjfones hsibuijfe Dicenr,] - O' ^^^ ^^-^ ^^ ^^ f^'^-^ emljfoms, ejufdem Subtlantix cum fnt, cujus ^ ipfe i^c. lib. 2. C.17. § 7- P- »39- Si enim exiflens in Patre, cognofcit l.unc ineyuoef, hoc cfl, fe- metipfam non ignoraf^ (jp c^ua ab hoc fu^it Emiffiones ^c* § 8. Compare c. 13, §6; Si autem non emijfum extra Pa- trem ilium DICANT, fediniffo Patre} primo quidem fuper- 122 Obfervations on T^r WatcriandV Obferv. la Another Paflage (5) of the fame Author, he ^^JV. ip.akes '' non alius & dins " to fignify Father and Son j ^,^g, when they are Both mod: expreflly fpoken of Chrifi^ declaring that it was One and the fame Perfon, who Alone k^.ew^ and was Alone k^own hj, the Father. Hl*^' Another PaflTage, in which is a very important va- rious Reading, [cji^ii omnia fecerit Ferbo fmj~] he cites again, without taking Notice that he had been before informed of That Reading. Reply to his Firfi De- fenfe, p, 103. /.82. In Another Paflage (he tells us) This Author '^ reprefents the Son as {6) making Himfelf the Head «^« over the Church, and affuming That Power and '' Authority Himfelf^"' v^hich is elfe where " repre- ^' fented as defcending from the Father, " Diredly contradidory to the Intent of the Author j who, in the very Paffage here cited to the contrary, is expreflly recapitulating the things that Chrift did [fecundum Placitum Patris'] according to '' the Good Pleafure " of his Father, " f' 140- 4. A Paffage of Clemens AlexandrinuSy wherein Chrifl: is reprefented as fpeaking \p\i- r» l^l^ ^poraVi^j in fiimm crit etiara dicer e emijfum ejje eum. Tojl cle'mde. 0' is qui eji ab eo L^jo.r Watcrlandj* •^ ^' which fometimes quite chaf^ge its fignification, as My Tranflation of thefe words of the fame Au- /.5'T3. thor, [y.a< ^(^'Airet ilvTryj^irm,^ thc Dr fays is ** amofl '' jbAmeful TranJUtion : " And he himfelf tranflates them to an entirely different Senfe. I infift, that mj Tranflation is right : And I appeal to ^11 that under (land the Language, whether His be not abfnrdy and inconjtficnt with the nature of the Greek Tongue. 5. From Tertnllian the Dr twice cites the folio w- .^97> ino- words > " That which is derived from Gody is ^^ God, ■ and Son of God, and Both One God. '* Whereas the words of Termllian are : (2) '^ That ^' which is derived from God, is God, and Son of ^« God', the fame Per fin being both God^ and Son of «' God. *' But herein I am obliged to exoifi the Dodor; having mjjelf either inattentively, or through too great a Dejire of Fairnefs, led him firfl into ThisErrour. But in what follows, he is altogether inexcufable. The w^ords of Tertnllian [_SVO jure Omnipotensf] *y.^t}^0' j^g j-jgj frequently in his "^ Firfi Defenfi cited and tranfiated in a fenfe direflly contradiclory to the Au- thor*s Meaning. This had been difiinBly and at f?-5'o9- /^r^^ fhown to him, in the f i?f/?/y to That Defenfe, t/'-^9- And yet now again, in his 4. Second Defenfi, with- out pretending to contradid or to take the leafl: No- tice (±) Quod de Deo profedum efl, Deus c^ 8c Dei filius, & Unus Ambo. \_His Meaning is noty Atnbo iiiat Uiius, 61a Uauseft AcQbo,1 Second Defenfe of his Qu eries. 125 tice of what had been fo fully (hown him ; he bare- Obferv. ly recites the Same Paflage, and leaves his Reader ftill ^^^* to be impofed upon with his former falfe Reprefen- tation. Which is 'exaftly like his citing Another Writer as affirming Chrift to be " Creator of the p ^n, ^' World by his Own Po7very'' in (i) words which exprefs as difiin^ly and as fully as is pofTible, that This HIS Power is not his Owri Power, but his Fa^ thers. Upon occafion of fome Other PafTages of TertuU lian^ the Dodor charges me with citing " Marci- p. 100. *^ on s Tenet for Tertullians own;'' viz,, that Rati- onal Souls are generated from the Divine Subfiance* Which i£ Tertullian had taught, " I ivouW (fay5 the Dr) " have given you up Tertullian for a *' Mad man. " Yet the words of Marcion, are his reprefentation of Tertullians Senfe, in arguing from what Tertullian admitted. And Tertullian^ in his Reply in the lame chapter, admits it in his (2) own words, and elfewhere (3) affirms it as his own fenfe. See the Reply to Dr TV's Firfl De- fenfe, p. 285 and 328. The like Charge he brings in Another place^ ?-iS- of my citing Marcelluss words, injflead of Eufe- bins' s. (l^_ Rex Sc Creator era*- conjiiiutttu \'o!untare 5<: ?\?^. cepto P/i/m, [univerfa] ut eficnt, fuu virtute tccit. Serm. Avian . apud Aw^ ufi'm . p.6zi. (i) Subftantia, quam ab ipfo Deo traxit. Adv. M.ircm^ lib, 2.. c. f. (3) A rittionali artifice non rantuni h£td s, fed etiam ex Sab- Jlantld i^fus animatus. 126 Obfervations on 'Dr Waterlaiid'j Obferv. bms's. One of the Two PafTages cited in the X^V' place referred to, is indeed the words of Marcellusy but exprefTing nothing more than what Eufeb'ms admits. The Other fajfage cited in the fame place, (of which the Dr takes No notice,^ expredes the fame thing; and is Enfebius^ own Words. ^.45. 6, His rendring the (4) words of Origen, [he '* hath imparted even his Greatnefs, '*] inftead of [has imparted even of his Greatnefs i] has been taken notice of above. Qbfervat, 11. pag» 25. /.IDS', Concerning the PalTage \jvsc h s-ilv, ^i uzs-o^\^i^>cxf/jsv, Tov TrajTTfot, Kcil rev viov, B-£(,y,77ioofMiv/] I defire thc Intelli- gent Reader would compare the Reply to the Drs Firfi Defenfe^ p. 83, 84, ^5 ; with his Second Defenfc^ p. 105), f-'i-l^y Concerning his Abufe of Another PafTage, in 402.' which the word ^y.vio- is once crept in by a corruption of the Copies , fee above in Obfervat, Vl^the Notes on pag. (53. Ai-\d compare the Reply to his Firfi Defenfe, p. 2 9 5 , w ith his Second Defenfe^ pag . 275,397 and 40 2 . Another remarkable paffage of the fame Author, cited C5J in the Margin, the Dr complains that I o ^f ri^^r/f i in my Tranflarion ,• " the Amhor not talkc 400. *' ing of the VndiflraEi-ednefs of Oar u4jfetiionSy hut «f the Vndivided Worfinp of Father AND Sori. '* I appeal here to All who underftand the Language ; whether (yj ' Avcijiijoi'iKt J srp'.'? Tov, £7n Tfcjcr; B-iov, c u^iia^ jcfci uaiocf- p£r&»5 Kdi oif/jici(i 'AYTO N (rBpaiv, AlA tocJ 7rpoo«3i57'o>i^ Ikh^ Second T^efenfe of his QvEKit.s, 127 whether the words of Orlgen exprefs, that the Obferv* Whole Wor fit p is ioht^^idi undivided, to the Father XIV. u4ND to the Son; or that the Whole Worpip is to be ^^ paid undivided^ to the Father THROVGH the Son. See Above, Obfervat. VIII : And the Replj to the JDrsFirftDefenfey /?. 383. In {6) Another PafTage of the fame Author, hej contrary to the nature of All Language, contends that the word [^aaov] ought not to be rendred, Another Perfon, but Another God : Becaufe '' Ori- /• ^^• *' gen could not pretend to Jay, that the ChriJIianswor- '* pipped no Other Per Ion bejides the Father, Tvhen^ r WatcrlandV Obferv. A large and very remarkable PafTage of This Au- XIV. thor, \caf, 31,] is well worth the Learned Reader's "^^ conjidermg and comparing. In which pafTage, fays the */'.49?- * Dn '' thongh Novatian fieaks of the SVBjEC- '' riON of the Son. it does not IStECESSARILT '' mean any thing more than the VOLVNTABX Oe- <' conomj 7vhich God the Son underwent y and which *' ivouidnot have been PROPER for the Father him- " felf to have fubmitted to, becaufe not SVITABLE '' to the ORDER of the Perfons, '' To Novatian % whole Senfe, nothing could have been more Contrary^ than This Reprefentation. In citing the PafTage here referred to, it had been taken notice of, that inftead of the words, inaquali- tate Divinitatis ; the Senfe manifeftly requires, it lliould be read either, aqtialitate Divinitatis, or in ayEqualitate Divinitatis, This, the Dr fays, is /).499. " ^pon fo7ne flender SufpicionSy againft the Faith of " the Copies ; *' And '' Conje^nral Emendations " ought never to be admitted, but upon the greatefl '« Necejfitj, " How great the necejjitj, and how far from /lender the Sufpicions were, will appear to Reader who pleafes to compare what was alleged in the Reply to the Drs Firfl Defenfe, p. 490. I can here add^ that the words, [_aut in^qualitate divini- tatis f\ together with the preceding \^aut,'] are want- ing in Frobens Copy. Nor ought it, by the way, to pafs unobferved, how ;'// the Crying out againfl , /'•499. ConjeBural Emendations fin This, and in the lih fin- gular cafe of an unparallelled ufe of the word 'A^'v))]©- in Origen ; 1 lov/ ///, I fayj this becomes the Mouth of an Author, who, without any Pre- tenfe Second Defenfe of his Q^u e r i e s. 129 tenle at all from Manufcripts, is defirous to change Obfcrv. the word 'a^'wjTk^ in All the Antient Writers, in X^^- Many Places of whofe Writings That Word is the ^^ moft fertinent ^ndjignificant that can be. With regard to N'ovatiany I delire only this One thing further; that the Capable Reader would be pleafed to obferve, what a number of the ftrongefi and mofi exprejjlve words that cohU be colleded to- gether, are by the DoEior melted down into ihtemp- p'^97* ty Sounds of Firfl and Second^ merely in the order (or refpeU:) of Nothing, 8. Upon occafion of the terms jw/ovoT^V^jro? and r^tTF^truTTo^, with regard to the Notions of Sabellius : *' Men of Learning, " fays theDr, <' k!^ow that the /■ ^i^- *' word, TT^a-uTTcv, has been fometimes ufed to fignify *' only an Appearance^ or A4anifeflation^ or Charac- <« ter : But then the ivord, 7r^o(r&>7rc9, HAS *^ BEEN' likeivife ufed to fignify the fame 7vith hy- " poftafis, a real Perfon, " True : But not till much Later times, except only inHippolytus ; who from this very things as well as by Many other Marks, appears and is confeflfed to be an interpolated Writer- *f Of all things, " fays Dr Waterland in the place here referred to, *' there is nothing more contempt <« tible among Men of Senfe, than Pedantry about «^ Words, '\ ^, In tranflating the words of Vionyfus of Pcmei cited by Athanafus ,• the Dr renders, re ^yicv yMyj^/^}vc,, was always condemned even by the Tofl-Nicenes in all times. The words, «>'«tf;t;o5 y^i a^^ev/jro? ^Jo-ts, ^o therefore neceffarily denote the unoriginate and unde- rived Nature of thQ Father ; And the word, ^pn^f^svuy fignifies properly a connexion of things or perfonsj one depending on or derived from another. Upon another Paffage of the fame Author, the f. ij-2. D^r contends that the words, » fjij'^v h im Tf^Tmy kxx 6 Uhvov hvncocy mean only that the Son ^' is not the Sh^ '' preme Father, '* That is to fay : EufehtHS, when he affirmed that the Son was Not Supreme over all, meant by thofe words to affirm that the Son Wai Supreme over all, but not Supreme FATHER over all. Upon occafion of certain Critical Obfervations of This Author, the Dr has the following Words : ^ Idif- Second T>efenfe of his Q^ue r i e s. 131 «« / difiutenot -whether ^' may exprefs the Primary Obferv, ^' ejfcient Caufe ', It exprejfes as much Efficiency as usr^ XIV, « or U : TVhich is ALL I am concerned for, '* And y,. iSi. again in the fame Page : '* / allow that the Father is *« Primarily Creator^ and the Son Secondarily or ** Subordinately : — KTor is it Any Argument *' againji the Sons being Caufe ^ Creator, or God, in *« the SAME HIGH and Full Senfe of thofe words *' as the Father. " What an Anfwer This is to the Argument that was alleged, the Reader will judge, if he pleafes to compare the Reply to the Drs Firfi Defenfiy fag, 6y 13, 19, 1S5, and 3 I5>. yi. The words of Gregory Nyffen, [y^^n f/^^y 77,\ ;• 3'5» the Dodor Thus tranflates; " Neither let us dif- *' folve the immediate Connexion, BY confidering the <« Will in the Generation. " As \^ the Author meant to fay, that Confidering the Will of the Father in the Generation of the Son, would be a Dijfolving of the immediate connexion betwee n them. Whereas the evi- dent Senfe of the words is, that the Will of the Fa- ther IS So to be confideredin the Generation of the Son, as not to diffolve the immediate Connexion between them* 12, The Dr's Inference from the words of Cyril, ?-33^« (which I have cited above, Obfervat, I. pag. 7.) is as remarkable an Inflance of the Strength of Pre- judice, as (I think) I ever met v/ith. From a Paf- fage wherein \jhe 'Av^ivTiK^i ilcva-UJ. the original and fupreme Authority is expreffiy declared to be refer ved lO xhz Father, in that the Son created things [_^xr^r. v^-V*^ 1 3 2 Obfewations on T>r WaterlandV, &c. Obferv. /Sot^A-^^r'vrc^] at the Will and [rf t5 Tojrpo? viv^ar^ by XIV. the Co;?^w?^W of the Father: From This very Paf- fage (I fay) the Dodor thns infers; « If there is *^ ^;n' thing to be fnffeUed of Cyril *tis rather his " excludino- the Father from being Great or y than the *« Son from being efficient* ** But I forbear to mtiltiply Inftances of This Kind* To Unlearned Readers, This Head cannot but be Tedious. The Learned, who fhall think it worth their Trouble to compare the Books, will find, that of the Dr's Quotations even out of Later Writersy there are very Feiv PalTages ; out of the Ante Nicene Writer Sy perhaps not One ; in which he has not either mi/repre^ fented the Senfe of the Author, or made fome incon^ fequent DeduEiion from it. FINIS. ER- ^S^^^99fy.^9lki^b9^^9^S^ii(^i^'[^^5i^ii(i^^ ERRATA, Page Line for read 9- 4. « /^«^. If land. " If 26. 37. J/. ult. /. 170. C0NGR£017S fin p. 107. CONGRUOUS fine 39- 50. 52. 34. ^3- is, As' thethe^ is. As 54. 12. vloVy CiVToZ' viav uvrov. 79' 91. 26. 14. ivhteher whether 128. if. 22. Contrary is, to Contrary, is to a «^«^^M^i^;^s^!M5pts^i^j^J5^«^f¥K^'^*?^'^ THE THE CONTENTS OBSERVAT. L Concerning feme remarkable Texts of Scripture, Page 5« OBSERVAT. 11. Concerning the Supreme Authority and do- minion of God the Father, 2 3 . OBSERVA T. III. Cencerning what Dr Waterland calls a Subordination of Order, 31, OBSER, The C ON TENTS. 135 OBSERVAT. IV. Concerning the Opinion of the AntientSy about the Sons Appearing under the Old Teftamenty and the ImpoJJlbility and Impiety of fuppofing the Father ever to have Appeared at all. 38. OBSERVAT. V. Concerning the wordy God ; that it is a Term expreffmg ^Dominion. 4^- OBSERVAT. VI. Concerning the Generation of the Son. 5 <5. OBSERVAT. VII. Concerning what "Dr Waterland chargeSy as making the Being of the Son Preca- rious. 74- OBSERVAT. VIIL Concerning the Worfliip of God the Father y andof Chrijl^ 77- O B S E R- i$S The CONTENTS. OBSERVAT. IX. Concerning ©r WaterlandV T^ifficulty, of underjianding what is meant by the words y One God. e^r. 85. OBSERVAT. X. Concerning T>r Waterland'j Argument^ drawn from his Suppofed difficulties in conceiving the divine Omnipre- fence. g^. OBSERVAT. XI. Concerning the Scripture-'Proofs of the divinity of God the Father. 106. OBSERVAT. XII. Concerning T)r Waterkiid's manner of putting his Own Particular ExpUcations of a T>o5irine, in the place of the Do- ftrine itfelf to be explained, 1 1 1 O B S E R. The CONTENTSr t^Z OBSERVAT. XIIL Concerning 2)r Waterland's Manner of ap- pealing from Reafon and Scripture y to Authority. 115, OBSERVAT. XIV. Concerning particular flotations out of the Fathers, 119, BOOKS ( 138 ) BOOKS Trinted for JamesKnapton, at theCnowii in t^/^. Paurs- Church- Yard. LFRED, an Epick Poem. By Sir Rich. Black- more, Kt. M. D. Artificial Clock-maker. A Treatife of Watch and Clock Work. By W. Berhatn, M. A. F. R. S. 3d Ed. Pr/rt IS. 6d. Afpinwalh Prefervative againft Popery, /r. i s. Academia; or the Humours of the Univerfi-^ lyof Oxford J 120. price 6 d. Anacreon Teius Vest. Lyricus, Gr. er Lat. Edit. Jofua Barnes, S. T. B. Ed. 2da. \io. Cantabr, Siri?. Blachmores true and impartial Hiftory of the Confpira- cyagainltK. J^///mw the Third in 1695. price. is6d. ^r'jf/;i's Treatife of Epick Poetry, 2 Vols. 120. Boccace\No\e\sEng. Svo. Dr. f>V«;2^/'sParaphrafe on thie Common-Prayer, id Ed. Svo. • Rights of the Clergy of the Chriflian Church. " Confutation of Popery. Abridg.of the ZoW. Cafes againft the Diflenters, Svo. Two Letters to Mr. Robinfon about Litiirgifs. Bo'^ers French and Englijb Didionary. Svo. Trench Grammar. Pp. Blackall's Sermons, 2 Vols. Fol. Dr. Bates's Works. Fol. Bp. £«r«^/ on the XXXIX. Articles. Fol. • • Paftoral Care. — " 'Hifr. of the Reformation in three Vols. Fol. ■^ ' ■ Abridgm.of the Hift. of the Reformation, 3 Vols. 120. Life of the Earl of Rcchefler. £^/w/7;z'sDeicriptionof theCoail of Guinea^ withCutts, cs'c. Bladen s C^fars Commentaries, Eng. lieveregii hjfiit'utionmn Chronologicarum Libri duo, una cum tO' tidem Arithmetices Chronologic^ Libellis, Svo. Ed. Tertia. TlieKiiloryof the Reformation in the Low Countries, by Gf- rard Brandt. Tranflated from the Original Low Dutch, in 4 Vols, folio. Dr. C/.'?^^/;'s Sermons on feveralSubjeds. In Two Vol. Svo. (.cWs Lati}i and Enzlijh Dictionary, 8vo. Chilllngivcrth'iV^oxkSy Fol. The Seventh Edition. In which are added two Letters never before printed. RifhopC(?//;zi's Devotions, 120. CalamysStxmons, Svo. Colledtion of feveral Papers. Printed in the Year 17 10. Nowre- printed together. Svo. price is. 6d. Common- Prayer the bed Companion in the Clofet as well as jntlieTemple. The Fifteenth Edition, prixen, C^ve^s Lives of the Primitive Fathers. Fol. BOOKS BOOKS printed for J. Knapton. r 3 9 B00K5 'ur///^;^^;'SAMUEL Clark E, D. D. 2?^^(7y of 6YjamesV Weftminffccr. Sermons at B^y/^'s Ledlures on the Being and Attributes of God, the Obhgations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Chriftian Revelation. The Fifth Edition. AParaphrafeon thefourEvangehfts. Two Vols 8 vo. The Fourth Edition, price \^s. Three Eflays, on Baptifm, Confirmation, and Repentance, 4th Ed. no. />r/V^bound i;. orii6for5-/. Sermons on feveral Occafions. A Collection of Papers between Mr Leibnitz, and Dr Clarhe, relating to the Principles of Natural Philofophy and Rehgion, 8vo! price 6s. A Letter to Mr. Dodvuel, concerning the Immortality of the Soul, with four Defenfes, crc. The Fifth Edit. pr. 4;. The Scripture-Doftrine of the Trinity : V/herein all the Texts in the New Teftament relating to that Dodrine, and the principal Pa ffnges in the Liturgy of the Church of England are colledled, compared and explained. The Second Edition, 8vo. price 6s. A Letter to the Reverend Dr Wells, in Anfwer to his Re- marks, price IS. . A Reply to the Obje-^ionsof Robert Nelfon Efq; and of an anonymous Author againft Dr. Clarke i Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, vc. 8vo. price ^s. Jacohi Rohaulti Phyfica. Latine vertit recenfuit, &c S. Clarke, S. T. P. Editio Gluarta, Pret. 8s. JB^ J o H N C L A R K E, D. D. Frebondavy of Canterbury, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTL Sermons at 'Bo^le'% Ledlures, of theCaufe and Origin of Na- tural and Moral F>il. In Two Vol. 8vo. price '^s. Grotius of the Truth of the Chriflian Religion, illuflrated with Notes by Mr. LeClerc. Tranflated into Engltfl}. The Se- cond Edition with Additions, price is. 6d. Rohaulfs Syflem of Natural Philofophy; illuflrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke's Notes. Taken mollly out of Sir Ifaac Newton's Philofophy, with Additions. Done into Englijh by John Clarke, D. D. In Two Vols. %wo. price 10 s. S 2, Collcaioa i4o 'BOOYiS printed for J. Knapton. Colledion of Queries, wherein the mod material Obje(flions alleged againft Dr. Clarke's Scripture Dodlrine of the Trini- ty, arepropofedand anfvvered. Trice is. Chriftian' s bell Guide. 8vo. De cL4Uis Elements of Euclid, explained in a new but moft eafy Method. The Sixth Edition. 8vo. Ckeronis Oratioiies inllfum Bel^h, ^vo, • Orationes SeleClA no. Confejfio Pajlorun? Remonftrantium fuper ArticHlis. EcclefiA An' glicnn^, 12,0. Pret. is. 6d. Creech's Lucretius Lat. %vo. X><7;/^/.'-»'/y's General Gauger ; or the Principles and Pradicesof gaugin^^ Beer, Wme, and Malt- laid down more metho- dically tl aii any Performance of this Kind yet extant. The Third Edition. Price is. Da-Spier's Voyages round the World. Three Vols. 8vo. 6th Ed. Price iSs. Devil of a Wife, A Comedy, no. Price is. D* Ffirade's Memoirs, Three Vols, 8vo. Difficulties and Difcouragements which attend the Study of the Scripture in the Way of private Judgment. Pr. 6d. PifTuafivefrom enquiring into the Dodlrine of the Trinity: Or, the Difficulties and Difcouragements which attend the Stu- dy of that Do(5^rine. Price 6d. Didionry of all Religions, ancient and modern. Whether Jewijiy, Pagan, Chriftian ox Mahometan. The Second Editi- on, with large Additions. Price i^s Dr. Bavenant on the pubiick Revenues and Trade of Englandy Two Vols. 8vo. ^'— - — — Elfay on probable Means of making People Gai- nerson theBailanceof Trade. Svo. *• Difcourfe on Grants and Refumptions. Svo. ^ '- — — Effays on the Ballance of Power, Peace and War, and Univerfal Monarchy. Svo. *— — Effays on Peace at Home and Wsr Abroad. Svo. Ti6lionarium, Rujlicnm, ^Botanicum; Or, aDidionaryof all Sorts of Country- Affairs, crc. Svo. price 6s. T)u6lor HiftoricHs. Two Vols. Svo. Eth^ad s Gazetteer : Or News^Man's Interpreter. In two Parts, The Twelfth Edition. ■H — — — Teren ce in Engliffj. no. " ■ Hifl. and Poetical Didionary. no- Fngfijh Expofitor. no. F.llis de 39 Arttctdis. no. Lat. .funmU's Voyage round the World, containing an Account of Capt. Damptsrs Expedition into the Sonth-Seas in l^o}i and 1704. With Mapps, Cults, er<:. larquhar's PlayS; Two Vols, uo. Female 1j O OK S jprinted for J. Knapton. 141 Female Inftruflor, no. Priceis. Fortune-Hunters, a Comedy. 120. Price is. Fair Quaker of P^^/, a Comedy. 120. Price is. r^ywc^'s accurate Tables for Gauging. Price 6d. Goodmaris Penitent pardoned. 8vo. • Winter Evening Conference. 8vo. — — Old Religion. 120. Garrerfon's Eng. Exercifes. 120. Gamefter, a Comedy, 110. Price is. Godfather's Advice to his Son. Price ^d. or 100 fori/. ^Government of the Paffions. no. Priceis. Gentleman inftrurted in the Condudl of a virtuous and happy Life. The Eighth Edition. 8vo. Price 6s, Gregor<^'s Nomenclatura. Lat, CT* Eng. GloJJ'ographia Nova Anglic ana. Grotius deVeritate Religionis Chrifiian&. By the Right Revere'ud Father in God Benjamin Hoadly p. D. L>orciBijJjopofSz\isb\xxY. ' The Reafonablenefs of Conformity to the Church of Eng- land, andDefenfeof Epifcopacy. The 3d Edition. Price 6s. ■ The Original and Inftitution of Civil Government difcuffed. 8vo. Price ^s. Eighteen Difcourfes concerning the Terms of Acceptance with God. The Second Edition. Price '^s. Several Trads formerly publiflied, now colleded into one Vol. 8vo. Price 6s. The Meafures of Submiffion to the Civil M3gi{lrate confi- dered. The Fifth Edition. Price ^s. A Prefervative againft the Principles and Pradices of the Nonjurors, o'c The Fifth Edition, priceis. The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Chrift, A Ser- mon preach'd before the King, iV/^r. 31. 17 1 7. The Fifteenth Edition, price A,d. An Anfwer to the Rev. Dr. Snapes Letter, price 6d. An Anfwer to the Reprefentation drawn up by the Com-r mittce of Convocation. The Second Edition, price 45. An Anfwer to a Calumny cafl: on the Biiliop, By Dr. sher^ lock, price 3^. Axi Anfwer to Dr. Sherlock'^ Condition and Example of out' Saviour vindicated, priceis. An Aufwer to Dr. 5^^r/i?d''s Vindication of the Corporation and Teft-Ac^s. price 3r 6d. An Anfwer to Dr. H^r/s Sermon, and to the Lord BiQjop of Oxford's Poitfcript. ./inV^ 3;. 6d. Six Sermons cnfeveral Qccafions. Bale's 142 BOOKS printed for J. Knapton. Haleis (of Eaton)Ti2i^s. no. price zs. 6d. Howell's Hift. Bible with Cutrs. Three Vols. 8vo. ; Hackes, Collecftion of Voyages. 8vo. Button s?h\iQx. 120. Hudibras no. Hattons Merchant's Magazine. 4to. Comes Commerc'ti or the Trader's Gompanion .pr. is. H«e/'sDefcriptionof Paradife. 120. Hiftory of Jofeph, a Poem with Cutts. price 3^. Buygens's Celeflal Worlds difcovered, or Conjedures concern- ing the Inhabitants, Plants, andProdudionsof the Worlds in the Planets. The Second Edition, pricey. Uoward^CookQxy. no. Hiftory of England faithfully extracted from authentick Records and approved MSS, and the molt celebrated Hiftories of this Kingdom. With the Effigies of all the Kings and Queens. The 5th Edition much improved, particularly by a Conti- nuation of the Hiltory to the 8th year oi King George, In two Vols. 8vo, pr. 12;. Iftf^J^r's Arithmetick. 120. Horatius in u[urn Delph. 8 vo. Harris's Lexicon Technicum 2 Vols. Fol. Homeri lliados Liber primus Gr. Lat. Silvani.pret. is. 6d. Dr. y^jf^r^/'s Sermons on fe vera! Subjeds, 8 vo. pr. 5^. Jackfons Examination of Mr. N'yes Articles of the Divine U- nitycT-c. price \s. ' 'Grounds of Civil and Ecclefialtical Government briefly confidered. price is. Juvenal cum notis Farnabii. Kettlewells Works in Two Vols. Fol. -— — ' ' on the Sacrament. 8vo. ' ' on Obedience, 8vo. ' Five Difcourfes. ■ Life compiled from the Collections of Dr. Hicks and Robert Nelfon Elq ; price 6s. ■ Death made comfortable. 120. JC«;z;?^?'s Abridgment of Bp. T^^^r/^w on the Creed, 8vo. ir^43f'sMearurer's Guide, 120. pr. is. 6d. Laurence'sYoungSmveyofs Guide, or a new Introduction to the whole Art of furveying Land, both by the Chain and all Inftrumentsnowin Ufe. The Second Edition, pricey. Lawrence's Chrii\i2in Morals. 8vo. pr. 4s. 6d, ^ ■ of Chriftian Prudence. 8vo, pr, ^s. Lite of the Emperor Leopold. 8vo. Z//?/^/o»'sDi6lionary. 4to. Z^zt^/^^or/^'s Abridgment of thePhilof. Tranf. 3 Vols. 4to. Lancafljin; WitchQSy a Comedy. 120. LonginHsdeSubli?7JUateGr. Lat, Oxon, Modefl BOOKS printed for J. Knapton. 143 Modeft Plea for the Baptifmal and Scripture- Notion of the Trinity, in two Parts, price ^s. J\^(j//'sCGmp]eat Geographer: Or the Chorography and Topo- graphy of all the known Parts of the Earth. Illuftrated with Maps of every Country, ct-c. The 4th Edit, in one Vol. Fol, MorelancVs Vade-tnecum l^o. pr. if. Countefs of Mortons daily Exercife, 240. MotteuxsDonffluixotte, Eng. Four Vols. 120. Mead'sCoi\?ixud\ony andUfeof Maps and Globes. 8vo. Mifcellanea Curio fa. ^Vols, Svo, Medulla Hift Anglican A. %vo . MinuctusTelixexRecenfionej J. Davifil. 81;^. Cantab. Otways Plays, 2 Vols. 120. Ollyjfe on the Church Catechifm. Two Vols. 8vo. Oroonoko, a Tragedy. 120. pr, is. Ovidij Metamorphofei in Ufum Belph, — EpiJioU in Ufum Delph. Pufendorfs Introduaion to the Hift. of Europe, 8vo. price 6s. ' Introdudlion to the Hift. oi Afia, Sec. 8vo. price ss, Pezzer's Greek Antiquities. Two Vols. 8vo. price iis. Bp. TatricliS Devout Chriftian. 120, * Chriftian Sacrifice. 120. " Men fa Myfiica. Svo* ■* Pfalms. 120. * Adviceto a Friend, iio. Help for Young Communicants, 240. Tujfendorfdc Officio Hominis CT* Civis, Canta' Pilionniere's Answers to Dr. Snape, Mr. Mills, &c. ' Reflexions upon Learning, wherein is (hewn the Infufflciency thereof, in its feveral Particulars: In order to evince the Ufefulnefs and Neccffity of Revelation. 5th Edition. By a Gentleman. 8vo. price 4s. i?«y7;tfo rr^'sHiftoricalCollecftions. 8 Vols. Fol. Rit^^r^y^»'s Account of the Statues, Bas-reliefs, Drawings and Piduresin/?^/:^, &:c. with Reraark'J. 8vo. f>rice 6s. Reply to Dr. Waterland's Defenfeof his Queries. Wherein is contained a full State of ihe whole Controverfy : And every Particular alleged by that learned Writer is diilindllycorinde- red, 8vo. price 6s. Kofcommon and Dukes Poems, 8vo. Salmons Sydenham's precepts. Eng. 8vo. pr, 6s. State Tryals. Four Vols. Fol. Surgeon's Anifiant. 8vo. price is. Dr. Sacheverel'sRighlsof the Church,/nV^ i^. Dr. Stanhope's St. Aujlin's Meditations. 8vo. ■ — • Thomas a Kempis of the Imitation of Chriil. 8vo, ■ The fame in 120, §hadw€ll's?\^)SiVQ\x\Voh, 12Q. Dr 144 BOOKS printed for ], Knapton. Dr Whitby s Sermons on Several Occalions. Svo. price 4s. 6 ^. — *~ Defenfe of the Bifhop of Bangor s Propofitions in his Sermon. 8vo. price i s. m — — Reply to Dr Water lands Obje(5lions againft Dr Whitby's Di/quifitiones ModefiA. 8vo. price i s. , Second Part of a Reply to DrlVater land's Objedli- ons againft Dr Whitby's Difq. Modefl^, 8vo. price 2 s. The Cafe of Subfcription to the XXXIX Articles confidered. Oc- calioned by Dr JVater land's Cafe oi Arian Subfcription- /r. 6 d, A Reply to Dr H'ijrer/^^z^'s Supplement to the Cafe of Arian Subfcription. Being a Defenfe of the Cafe of Subfcription to the XXXIX Articles, price 6d. Three Letters to Dr Clarke from a Clergyman of the Church of England: Concerning his Scripture-Dodrine of the Trinity. With the Dodor's Replies, pubhfhed by the Author ot the faid three Letters, price 6 d. Reflexions on the prefent Controverfy concerning the Trini- ty, price 6 d. A Letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Nottingham, occafio- nedby a late Motion made by the Arch-Deacon of London, for the City Clergy to return their Thanks to hisLdrdfliip for his Anfwer to Mw'WhiJlon. By a CuTate of London, price 6d. The 2d. Edit. An Account and Confutation of the Dodlrine of the Sabel- Hans. 8vo. price 6 d. The External Pence of the Church only attainable by a Zeal for Scripture in its juft Latitude, and by a mutual Cha- rity, not by a pretence of Uniformity of Opinions, price is. A Letter to Dr Mangey, occafioned by his Sermon, intituled^ Plain Notions, a^'c. price 6 d. A Second Letter to Dr Mangey. price 6d. An Efiay on impofing and lubfcribing Articles of Religion. By Philel. Cantabrigienfis. price r s. The Falfe Notion of a Chriftian Priefthood, and the Pretences to Sacerdotal Oblation, Intercefiion, Benediction and Au- thoritative Abfolution, cj'c. examined and confuted, being an Anfwer to Mr Laws Second Letter to the Bi(bop of Bangor. By Philel. Cantabrig. price i s. Three Difcourfes: One, A Defenfe of Private Judgment. The Second, Againft the Authority of the Magistrate over Con- fcience The Third. Some Confiderations concerning the re-uniting ot Froteftants. By Vhilel. Cantahr. price i s. An Account of all the Conliderable Pamphlets in the Con- troverfy between the Bifliop of Bangor and others. With Remarks, price 6 d. — A Continuation of the Account of Pamphlets, (are. price ^d. An Account of all the confiderable Books and Pamphlets^in the Controverfy concerning the Trinity, with Remarks. price 6 d. 4- A Farther VINDICATION O F CHRIST'S DIVINITY: In Answer to a Pamphlet^ ENTITULED, Observations on Dr. Wa terlandV Second Defense. By T>ANIEL WAT2RLANT>, D.D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty. Magna ^Veritas & p£valebit. L O K T> O N: Printed for W. and J. I n n y s, at the JVeft End of St. haul's. Mdccxxiv. W '^^- '^^ wfe m S^ %^. mw'r ^f" W * m m^i^k m mWr Ik^ THE CONTENTS. T HE Introduction,, Page I C H A P. I. Falfe and injurious Charges contaiit'i in the Obfer^ vatio7is. J CHAP, II. Mifreports and Mifreprefentations cojmlnecL in th& Obfervations. 32 CHAP. III. Concervivg the Authors Flouts^ Ahifes] ieclamatorf Exdainations, Repartees, &c. in lieu of Avfwers, 69 CHAP. The Contents. CHAP. IV. Concenivg Quotations/row the Ancients, CHAP. V. P. 92 ji Summary View of the Judg?neiit of the Arxmits^ upon the ^{ejlion^ Whether God the Father be na- turally RuTer and Governor over God the Son. io3 The Conchjion. 123 Tage Line 51 19 58 ? 59 ^5 64 iS 64 19 69 ult. 84 24 91 35 127 ^4 E R R J T A: \'cnd. Prefummonefs Prefumtuouf] [ief3< falfe falfe. ihows Ihows i^ Text Texts. Pofition Pofitions. 614. 814. whatever whenever* iii^oi «7?pK. Re- Record* THE Ci 3 THE Introduction. ^INCE the Publication of my Secovi Defeufe in the Caafe of our Bleffed Lord's Divij^ity, I have been waiting to fee what further Attempts we were to have from the Anajis. I perceive They are (till refolute in their Op- pofition to the Faith of Ch?iJ}j blafpheming his God-^ head^ impugning his TForJIn^^ and deipifing every kind Offer of Inftru6tion, or Exhortation, to corv* vince or reclaim them. I have the Satisfaction how- ever to obferve, that they daily give Ground more and more ^ that the Defevjive Part, which they be- gun with, is, in a manner, yielded up 5 their main Scheme appearing fo grofs, and fo untenable, that they themfelves are afraid, or afhamed to ow7i iu As to the Ojfejijive, which is now all that they are v/illing to abide by, they hold it on ftill as far as they are able : And yet even here one may obferve^ that, as to Matter ot Argument ^ their Attacks are as harmlefs as a Man might wifli •, only, there is a cer- tain Fiercevefs, or Bittentefs of Spirit ftill remaining^ and which feems to increafe, as their Strength de- B ereafes ^ CO creafes •, and which perhaps inay grow upon them more and more to the lafl:, as is natural and common in fuch Cafes. But to come to the Point. Their firfl Effort to renew the Conteft, appear'd under the Title of Remarh, Sec. by one Fhilalethes Cautabngieiijis , Printed for J. Avon. Having no manner of Acquaintance, that I know of, with the Man under that conceited Name •, and finding little in the Piece more than tedious Repetition, and ftudied Co7ifuJiov, I flighted it, as apprehending my felfnot at all obliged to take Notice of it. Waiting a while longer, there comes out another Pamphlet, entituled, Obfervatiovs, Sec. and by ths Author of the Reply to my Firjl Defevfe, Printed for James Knaptov, Sec. which when. I faw, I immedi- ately concluded, as I had fome leifure upon my Hands, that here was a Call to me to fet Pen to Paper once more. For, however low an Opinion I might have of the Performance, after reading it, yet The Author of the Reply, when he has any thing to fay, and while our Readers are not quite weary, may always command my more efpecial Notice. Whether it be Dr. Clarke, or whether it be Mr. Jaclfov, ( for tho' it be doubted which, all agree that it lies between them,) they are both Men whom I m.uit attend to : One, as he is the Vrincipal in the Caufe, the other, as he is Second, and had the firft Hand in committing my ^leries to the Prefs, en- gaging me ever after in the Fublick Service. Let but Hither of thofe Two Gentlemen ftand acccountable in the Opinion of the JForld, (I mean no more) for any Foid Play on their Side, as I by fetting my Kame am anfwerable for any on iimie, and then I (hall think my felf upon even Terms with them in tliat Refped : And as to any other, I humbly con- ceive, I have no reafon to fear their gaining any Ad- vantage. The [3] The /juthor of the Ohfervatlom begins with giving us his Judgment of his own Performance 5 alluring his Reader, in the moii fokinji A^anner^ that the Ob^ fervatiom contain in them no Argument^ nor Branch of any Argument^ but what upon the moft ferious Conlideration and careful Review, appears to Hivi flri6lly and perfedUy conclujive. Thus far perhaps may be true: For, I know not how Things may appear to Him, nor how defective He may be in Judgment. But I wilh He could have added, no Reprefenta- tions but what, upon calm Examination, he had found tohQ Jiricfly Jitjh^no Reports, but what he kneip to be true ^ no Charges upon his Adverfary, but what he believed to be honeji and upright •, no perfonal Re- jieBiom beyond what he had clear ^ and fnffcmit Grounds for. But I pafs on to his Book. He has caft his Work into Fourteen Ohfervations-^ the weightieft, no doubt, that the whole Compafs of the Controverfy could afford. I ihall conlider what to fay to them, after I have given the Reader fome brief Hints of the paft and prefent State of the Difpute between us. It fhould be remembred, tliat this Gentleman at his firft fetting out, and all along till now, undertook to anfwer ^leries, to fa- tisfy Objeilions, to aflbil Difficulties, to reconcile the New Scheme to it felf J to Scripture j to Antiquity, and to Reafon •, that fo having firfl: cleared his on?n Do- ctrine in every part, beyond any thing that could be done for the Faith received^ he might then with a better Face difturb the Feace of the Church, and plead the more earneftly (but modeftly withal) for a thorough Change. This was what he undertook : And had he been as able to execute^ as he was for- ward to projeB, I profefs fmcerely, he fnould not have wanted any Encouragement, or even Thanh o£ raine ^ fo far fhould I have been from giving him further Moleftation. But it hath happened to him B 2 (z^ [4] ( ^s it ordinarily mufl to every Man, who under- takes a Bufinefs before he has feen into it ) that he has met with many Biffcultm, more than he at firft apprehended, and is by no means able to furmount them. To mention a few Particulars, out of a great Number. 1. Ke has not been able to clear his Scheme of the unfupportable Charge of making Ta^o Gods, one Siipreyne^ and ancther hferior. = 2. He has not been able to get over the Difficulty of fuppoiing God the Son, and God the rioly Ghoft Ttpo Creatiires, b in dired Oppofition to Scripture and Antiqmty. He has indeed avoided giving them the Name of Creature^ which yet can contribute but lit- tle Satisfadion to as many as plainly fee how the Thivg is otherwife fully and repeatedly own'd undejr other Names. ^ 3. He has not been able to defend or excufe Crea- inre'TForJInp, fo fully condemned by Scripture^ and by the Ancient Jews and Chrijliavs^ witli one Voice. 4 4. Nor hath he been able to difprove, or elude the Proofs brought from Scripture, and Ayitiqiiity of the Pivive Worfhip due to Chrift. « 5. He hath not been able to Salve, or fo much as to Colour over a notorious Flaw in his Scheme, re- lating to the Fointdation of the Worjinp of Chrift ; taking up Principles there which can fuit only with the Socman Scheme, a): other times efpoufing tht^ a See my Firft and Second Defenfe. Query V. t> Sec viy Firft Defenfe, and, Second. Quevj XI, XIL <= See my Supplement to the Cafe, ^c, f» 19. Second Pe- fenfc, p. S54' ^^' A nWand Second Defenfe. QueYy XVI, XVII. e Firft and Second Defenfe. j^ery XVI, XVIIL [ 5 ] Arlcin^ though it be impoirible for Both to ftand to* gether. *' 6. He has not been able to give any tolerable Ac- count of the Divine Titles^ Attributes^ and Honours^ being afcribed to a Creature, s 7. H,e has given no Satisfadion at all about Chrift being Creator and Creature too^ not being able to elude the Proofs of the former, nor to reconcile both Parts together. '^ 8. Though he fet out with pompous Pretences tr> Antiquity^ he cannot make them good : But it is proved upon him, nor can he elude the Proof, that in Thirteen Inflances of Dodrine, containing the main Branches of his Scheme, he runs diredly coun- ter to all Catholkk Antiquity, i 9. He has not been able to vindicate Dr. Clarh^s Quotations from the Anf;ievts : Which have been proved, all of them, to be either mt fertiver.t^ or jwt ptjlly quoted^ or ?wt fairly traytjlated^ or vot rightly tin- der flood. ^ The Author of the Ke^ly having thus failed in the rnain Bufinefs, I might reafonably decline any fur- ther Difpute with him. He is fo fenfible of the Lamenefs of his former Performances in the Dcfen^ Jive^ that he is now pleafed to quit that Part entirely, and to attempt it no longer. My ^leries remain Queries ftill -^ and the Oracle flints up in fullen Si- lence. All that I contended for feems to be tacitly yielded up to me 5 and I ftand in quiet, and peace- f Firft Defenfe, p, 27J, Qpc Second Defe fe, p. 4o^ Difparity o^ Nature between That and Them, bo that, after all, this fuperabundant Eagernefs and Vehemence for a natural Supremacy over God the Son, and Ood the Hdy GhoJ}^ is only contending, in other Words, for a Difvarity, or htfer'iorhy of Nature in thof^ t'/vo Perfons : And this is the fole Meaning of appointing them a Governor. The Blafphemy I am charged with, is only the denying that they have vaturally, any Ruler and Govenior. I venture once and again to repeat, that they have not, nor ever could have: And this I maintain upon the clear and undoubted Principles of all the arx'mit and modern Churches. This Gentleman may call it, if he pleafes ( Words are free) my wonderful Fi^ion, p. 7. my rer^ and iinheard-of Ficlion , p. 2 3. entirely of mj inverting^ p. 28. my own LwerJion^ p. 46, 52, ico. If he really thinks fo, I ihould advife him to read the Ancients ^ or if that be too much, to read only Bi- fhop Pearfo7t, or Bifhop Bully to inform himfelf bet- ter: Or if he does not believe it, and yet favs it, 1 ihould intreat him to corred that evil Habit of Romancing, that outragious Method of Reviling^ and to karn ths due Government of his Mi?id, I liave Viveyiie t ^2] hwevtei nothing, have coined no new Notion, but have plainly and lincerely followed what the Ajici- ejtts, with one Voice, have led me into, and the Two excellent Modems, juft mentioned, have taught and maintained upon the fame Bottom. Biftiop Bvll may be confulted at large : I fhall quote one Paflage of Biihop Pearfon, becaufe fliort : The Jford^ that is , Chrijl as God, hath the Supreme and U- 7nve?fal Domhnon of the World. ^ Which is t6 all Intents and Purpofes denyivg the Father s Supremacy as much as I have ever done. But what a pafs are Things come to, that the known ftandiiig Dodlrine of all Chrijlian Churches, ancient and modern, mufl: be treated as a Novelty, as a Fi^ion or Invev.tion of mine. If the Reader defires a Speci- men of the ancient Dod:rine in this Point, he may turn to the ^wtat'wm in my Firjl Befevfe, (p. 290, 29T.J which exprefs the CatMc^ Dodtrine, and to which all the Fathers are conformable. So much in anfwer to the Charge of Blafphe?ny, Whether this Gentleman can ward off that very Charge, or prevent its returning on his own Head, anay deferve his Confideration. The good Chrijlians of old would have ftopp'd their Ears againft fuch Blafphemy as his Tenets amount to. All reclaim a- gainft it: Some dlreclly, and exprefsly, as often as they pronounce any JwOj or the whole Three, to be one God, or 07w Suhjlavce, of one Dovihnon, of oi:e Fower,OT Glory 'And the rciicojffequevtially.hy maintain- ing the Necefary exiftevce^ Confvhfiantiality, Coeter- 7iity, or other divine Attributes of the Son, Or Spirit, I have now done with the Firft Charge 5 which I Iiave dwelt the longer upon, becaufe it runs in a 2nanner tlirough the Book 5 and the anfwering it here in the Entrance, will give Light to what fol- lows. ' * Pearfon o?j the Creed, t, iji* II. A t >3 ] II. A Second falfe Charge upon me, is in thefe Words. NegleBivg therefore the Reafon iipn which the Scripture exprefsly founds the Homvr we are to pay to Chrijl, the DoBor hulUsJit entirely vpoyi another Foim- datio7J, on which the Scripture never builds ity viz. ow this, that by hivi God created all Things^ p. 7. I fhall fay nothing here of the Abfurdity oT foun- ding the WorJInp of Chrift in the manner this Au- thor does, by tacking Socinianifm and Arianifm toge- ther, though entirely repugnant to each other, as I have obferved elfeivhere ^ : But as to the Charge brought againft me, of founding Chrift's Worfhip as is here faid -, I mufl: beg leave to confute it by producing my own Words. '^ I found the Son's *' Title to Worfhip upon the Dignity of his Ferfon, " his creative Powers declared in John i. and elfe- " where 5 his being :^a?, from the Beginning, and " his preferving and upholding all Things, according '' to Cohjj. I. 16, 17. and Hehr, i. ^ " I fay, his Honour is founded on the intrinfick '' Excellency, and antecedent Dignity of his Perfon, " whereof the Power of Judgment committed is on- " ly a farther Atteftation, and a provifional Secu- *' rity for the Payment of his due Honour^ It did " not fnake him worthy^ but foujtd him fo : And it " was added, that fuch his high Worth and Dignity ** might appear, &c. ^ Is this founding it entirely upon what the Author here pretends ? As to his pleading, that his way of founding it is Scriptural, and mine wot Scriptural ; Both the Parts of his Pretext are abundantly confu- te Defenfe, p. 275. Second Defenfe, p, 40^, ^ Defenfe, f. i-]6. ^ Second Defenfe, p. 415. ted C H ] ted in my /r/?, znifecojid Defe}jfe, * and in a Preface to my Sermons, o III, Another /^//^ CW^^ is in thefe Words. P. ii. H^re the Doctor direcily corrupts the Apojlle's Apr- tion ♦, Ttot allow'ivg hm to fay ( what he exprefly docs fay) that to us there is one God, the Father^ but orly on the Reverfe, to give the Father the Stile or Title of the me God. He grounds the Charge lipon what he finds in my Second Defeife^ p. 194, 426. In the firft I have thefe Words : '^ Yes, He ( the Apoftle ) tells us, " that the Father, of whom are all things, is the ori^ *' God (N. 5.) in Oppofition to Falfe ones, to vq- *' miml Godsy and Lords: And it is plain, that he ** meant it not in Oppofition to God the Son, be- "^ caufe he reckons him God to its. Rom. ix. 5. Now, where, I pray, is the Comiption of what the Apoftle afcrts ? Or how do I refufe to allow him to fay what he does fay? This Gentleman, it feems, will fhow it hy this wife Remark •, ^Tis one thivg to fay^ that the 07ie God is the Father^ of ivhovi are all Things 5 and another thing to fay^ that the Father (^ tho^ vot the Father only ) is the one God. Now ^tis evident the Apoftle in this Text is not reciting the CharaBers of the Father^ and telling vs that he may be filed the ove God 5 but — he is declaring to jis who the one God isy viz. the Father. The Difference then between us is only this 5 That I fuppofe the Apoftle to tell us who is the one God, he fuppofes him to tell us who the one God is, A notable Criticifn^ to found fuch a Charge, of direBly corrnptirgy and dif allowing Scripture, upon! efpecially confidenng that the Greek Words, («? ^oi OTtr^'p) may bear either Conftruction (if they 4 " Firft ^;7£f Second Defenfe. jQupy xvij xvii, xyiii, xix. o Preface to Eight Sernwvsj p. 40, &c. be [ '5] be really Two Gonftrudlions) and either inay equaU I7 fuit with the Context. For tho' the Text is not reciting the Father's Characters, not all his Clia- raders, yet the Defign was to point out who is the 07ie God y and he fixes that Charadter upon the Per- fon^of the Father, as being pripiarily and emineittly^ tho' not exchijively, the one God. I have been confidering (longer perhaps than it deferves) where the Diflerence lies between asking Tvho is the ove God, and asking, who the one God is : And to me it appears fo very fmall and impercepti- ble, that I can lay no hold of it. I have tried what I could do in another Inftance: Let it be enquired, rrho is the Apjile of the Gentiles ^ the Anfwer is) Fdw/of Tarfm, &c. Well but enquire, who the A- pjik of the Gentiles is? The Anfwer is ftill the fame, Faid of Tarfiis, &c. Put the ^lejiions into Latin\ we are ftill never the nearer, they are plainly tanta* mount: at leaft the Difference to me is undifcerna- ble ^ unlefs by who in the latter Cafe be meant what i Upon which Suppofition, the Text we are concerned with fhould not be tranflated, To its there is but otte God, the Father, but thus. To vs the one God is a Fa- ther, 8cc. Perhaps this ingenious Gentleman may be able to clear up the Matter to Satisfaction : But fince he has not yet done it, it is plain he was too hajly in charging me at all, but very ifijwious in run- ning it up to fuch an extravagant Height. IV. The DoUrine of the Trinity delivered in thefe Jfords (Eph. IV. 9, 5;, 6.) by the Apoflle, isfo exvrefsh contradiElory to Dr. Waterland'^ Scheme, and fo imp-i fble to he perverted even into any Appearance of Con-^ fijievcy with It, that the DoBor finds himfelf hereoblhed even fairly to tell m, that St. Paul ought not to hive writ thus as he did, dec, p. 17. a IS [ ^n This is a Charge fo malicious, and petulant, and withal fo groundlefs, that I cannot well imagine what could tranfport the Man into fuch Excefles. For, fuppofing I had mifinterpreted St. Vaiily and very widely too, would it amount to a Declaration that the Apoftle ought jwt to have writ what he did write? How hard would it be with Coiiimentators ^ if upon every MifconJhiiBion of a Text, really fuch, they were to be thus charged with taking upon them to be wifer than the SacreS. Penmen, and to correB the Sfir'it of God > After all, if the Reader pleafes to look into my Defejtfey p he will be furprized to find how hinoceiit the Words are, which have been wrought up into this high Charge, In my Defetjfe, I fay, ^'' Ephef.d^,6, *' has been generally underftood by the Ancients of ** the ^hole Trinity : Above all, as Father • through « all, by the Word, and in all, by the Holy Ghoft. I refer to Irejidiis, Hippolytus, Mariin VicIoriJiiis, Atha- Tiafius , and Jerom , for that Conftruction : I con- clude, However that he (that is, whatever becomes of that Interpretation, be it jufl: or otherwife ) yet the Father may he reafonahly called the one, or only God^ without the leajl Dimijiiition of the Sons real Li- vinity. p In my Second Defenfe, all I pretend is, that I fee 710 Abfurdity i in the Interpretation now mentioned : And I obferve, that we are jwt there enquiring intQ the Senfe of the Text, hut into the Sentiments of the Ancients upon it ^ and I exhibit their Teftimonies at large. And to take off the pretended Abfurdity of that ancient Interpretation, in making the one God and Father of all include all the Three Perfons, I obferve how Ir en dus (one of the Fathers quoted) P Defenfej ^ lo, 2 Second Dcfonf^j p. 6d. reckons \ C ^7] reckons the Son and H0I7 Ghoft to the Father, as being his very felf in a qualified Senfe. And I further add, that " nothing is more common than *' for a Head of a Family, fuppofe Ahrahavi^ to be '* under flood in a ftrider or larger Senfe, either as *' denoting his own proper Perfon, or as denoting *' him and all his Defcendants conlider'das contain'd *' in him, and reckon'd to him. I fhovv farther from the plain and exprels Teftimonies of Hippoly- tus and TertiiUiaji, that they alfo, as well as IreuAiis^ fometimes confider'd the father in that large Senfe before-mention'd. 1 Thefe are the FaBs \ which this Gentleman fhou'd have confuted, inftead of bringing againft me rail- ing Accufations. If there be any Force ( as there is none) in the Charge^ it falls upon the Fathers ^ whofe Interpretation I defended no farther than by fhowing it not to be ahfurd^ nor unfuitable to the Language of the Early Times. As to my felf, I did not fo much as condemn the conwion Interpreta- tion, but was content to admit of it : And yet if I had condemned it, I lliould not, I conceive, have been therefore chargeable witli condemning St. Paul. This Writer has a further Complaint, it feems, m relation to the prefent Text. He is pofitive that the Title of Father of all, is very difagreeahle «* to me : And he infinuates, that pure Decency here reftrain'd me from finding Fault with St, Paul, for chvjivg fuch a Va^^n ExpreJ/ion. A 7Wf^« Suggefiion, and entirely groiindkfs. For, neither did I give any the leaft Hiiit of Diflike to St. Pauls Exprelllon, nor did I fi^nd fault mth the Fathers for adapting fometimes their Stile to Pagans, but commended them rather for doing it. *J See my Second Defenfe> p* 6iy 98, y Qbfervatiomy p. iS. P in [ i8 ] in the Cafes by me mentioned, ^ as doing what wa§ proper. And certainly it was commevdabk in St Fatil, and I acknowledged it to be fo % to adopt the Fagaji Phrafe of Uvhww^t God, and to apply it in a ChrijHan Senfe, to lead the Pagans into a Belief of the Tnie God. Before I leave this Article, I would take notice cf this Gentleman's AffeBation ( to call it no worfe) of loadhig every thing beyond meafure, in a way im- cojnmon-^ and poivtivg and edging his Exprelhons to fuch a Degree as to make them ridicnlous. It is not enough, with him, to fay, as another Man would in fuch a Cafe, that a Thxt has been mifconjirued, and its Senfe perverted, or mifapplied •, no, that would found fiat, and vidgar : But it is to be called corrupt- hig thQ Apofde's AfTertion, vot allowivg hhn to write what he did write • or, it is jinding fault with him, or fairly telling us that he ought vot to have writ thus as he did •, or, it is an Attempt to expofe and render lidiailoiis the ApoJile\ Dodrine, and arguing, not againft Dr. Clarke, but againfl: plain Scripture^ and againft the Evargelijls and Apojiles themfelves a. This it is to be elegant, and qmintj and to pulh the Satyr home. I can pardon the Pedantry, and the falfe Siihlime, in a Man of fuch a Tafte : But I delire, he 'inay ufe it fomewhere elfe -, and not where he is laying an IndiBment, or making a Report, which re^ quires Truth, and Stricinefs, V. The Supreme Authority and Original Independent Alfohite Dominion of the God and Father of all, who is above all j That Authority which is the Foundation of 3 Ste Second Defenfe, -p, 157, « Second Defenfe, f. 197, « Sfg B.ep}y, p 195, 1970 the whoh Law of Nature, winch is taught and covfriti'^ ed in every Page of the New Tejlament •, which is prO" fejs'd and declared in the firji Article of every ancient Greed, in every ChriJJian Church of the World, and which is maintain d as the Firft Principle of Religion by every Chriftian Writer, not only in the Three firjl Centuries^ but even in the following Ages of ConteyttioH and Aribition : This Supreme Authority^ &c. Dr. Wa- terland in his Uft Book ( merely for the more confifent falvivg of a ?netaphyjical Hypothejis) has by a new anl unheard-of Fi^ion, without any Shadow of Evidence from any one Text of Scripture, in direB Contradi^ion to the firjl Article of all the ancient Creeds, without th^ Teftimony of any one ancient ( / lad almoji faid^ or Modern) Writer, very prefumptuovjly, (and had he hinifelf been an Oppofer of the Hypothefis he defends, he would havefaid, blafpheinoufly) —reduced entirely tQ iiothing, p. 2?. Here feems to be fomething of founding Rhetorich in this Paragraph ^ which had it been intended only for an Exercife, or by way of Specimen, might have been tolerable : But it was wrong to bring it in here in a grave Debate ♦, becaufe there is not a word o£ Truth in it* To fpeak to the Matter, all this hideous Outer/ againft an innocent Man, means only this, as hatli been above hinted 5 that I have been willing to think, and as willing to fay, that God the Son and God the Holy Ghoft have naturally m Governor, are not naturally fubjedt to any Ruler whatever. This Gentleman is here pleafed to intimate that they are, and is very confident of it. Let me number v^ the many i^dlipahle Untruths he has crowded into i.tf a Page* One about the Foundation of the Law o( Nature: A Second, about the New Tefiament i A Third, about every ancient Creed : A Pourth, about th^ frjl Frinci^k of Religion^ and every Chrtjiidn Writer i D ^ Fmif r io] povr or five more, about Dr. Waterhnd. There is not a Syllable o( Truth in any of the Particulars of which he is fo pofitive. For neither does any Law of Na- ture, nor any Text of the Keti^ TeJIaineyit, nor any avcievt Greedy nor any C1)njliay: and Catholick Writer, early or late, everaflert, or intimate, that God the Fa- ther is 7:atiirally fiipreme Goi^e^ nor over his cwv Son and Spirit ; or that they are 7fatvraUy under his Ride or Government, And as to Dr. Jfaterlavd^ it is no rww or unheard-of FiBion in him, to afTert one common Dominion to all the Three Pcrfons, and to deny that either the Son or Holy Ghoft is natvralh fubjeO: to (that is, a Creature of) the Father. He has full Evidence for his Perfuafion, from innumerable Texts of Scripture, from all the ancient Creeds, as under-_ ftood by the Chriftian Churches from the Beginning to this Day : And he has neither bhfphemoujly, nor prefumptuoufy^ but fobcrly, righteoufly, and in the Fear of God, ftood up in Defenle of the injured Honour of the ever Bkjfed Trinity, grievoufly inful- ted and outraged by the Brians of thefe Times •, who when they have carried on their rcfolute Oppofition as far as Argument and calm Rcafoning can go, and are defeated in it, rather than yield to Convidion, come at length to fuch a Degree of AIea7inefs, as to attempt the Support of a baffled Caufe by the low Methods' of declaiming ^ and railing, VI. J^hen Dr. W^terhnd fays, that many fupreme Gods in one undivided Subftance are 7iot many Gods, for that very reafon, becaufe their Subftance is un- divided, He jnight exaBly with the fajne Senfe ani . Truth have affirmed, that many fupreme Perfons in one undivided Subftance are not mariy Perfons •, for that very reafon^ becaife their Subflance is undivided^ p. 51. Here [ ^' ] Here I am charged with faying, that many fnpreme Gods are not many Gods. Let my own Words appear as they ftand , Second Defevfe^ p. 357. " I alTert, you fay, ?naiiyfupreme Gods in one midi- *' vided SubJIavce. Ridiculous . They are not many *' Gods, for that very reafon, becaufe their Sub- '* fiance is undivided." Is this faying, that many Gods are vot 77iany Gods ? No, but They^ that is, the Three Perfons, fuppofed by the Objector to be Three Gods upon our Scheme, are not Three Gods, not waiiy, but o?/f God only. This G^7/f/^mciw appears to be in fome diftrefs, that, in order to form his Ob- jection, he is forced to invent Words for me, and to lay them before the Reader inllead of mine. He ftems however in the fame Paragraph, to aim ob- fcurely at an Arpnnevt which the Author of the Re- rnarh has exprefs'd plainly, and urged handfomely enough, ^ though with too much Boajiivg. The Anfwer, in fhort, is this : Though the Union of the Three Perfons (each Perfon being Svhjiance) makes them ove Siihjlance, yet the fame Union does not make them one Ferfon ^ becaufe Umon of Svb-- Jlance is one Thing, and Unity of Ferfon is Another : And there is no Necellity that the fame kind of Uni- on which is fufficient for one, muft be fufficient for the other alfo. There is no Confequence from one to the other, but upon this Suppojition, that Ferfon and aBivg Stibfance are equivalent, and reciprocal : Which the Author of the Remarks had accutenefs enough to fee, and therefore fixes upon me, unfairly, that very Siippofiion, If he pleafes to turn to my Definition of Ferfon, he will find, that, though I fuppofe Ferfon to be intelligent aBing Subjiance, yet That is not the; jphole of the Definition, nor do I ever fuppofe the Terms, or Phrafes reciprocal -, any more than the af. ferting Man to be an Animal^ is fuppofing Man and * Remarks f p. ^6. Animal A^ifnal to be taiitainount, or to be reciprocal Teritls* I have taken this Occafion of repl3ang to the Re- marks upon this Head, to let the Author fee that I do' not negle£t his Performance for any Streyigth it bears in it. That which I have now anfwered is, in my Judgment, the hejl and Jirovgefi Argument in the whole Piece : And I believe he thinks fo too. VII. jrhen the DoBor affirms that the one fupreme God is vot one fupreme God hi Perfoji, but in Sub- Jlance : Jl^bat is this but affirming^ that the one fnprevie Qo.l is two fupreme Gods in Ferfon, though but 07ie fu- preme God in Suhjlance ? p. 51. Let the Reader fee vnj Words upon v/hich this weak Charge is grounded; They are in my Fuji De* fenfe, p. 33. * Father and Son Both are the one fupreme God ; '' Not one in Perfon, as you frequently and ground- *^ lefsly infmuate, but in Sub (la nee. Power, and Per- " fedion. '' I neither faid, nor meant to fay, Not one fupreme God in Verfon ^ but, not one in Perfon ; The reft is of this Writer's foifting in by way of blunder, firft to make Nonfenfe, and then to com- ment upon it, and add more to it. In the mean while, it is fome Satisfaction to me to obferve, that in a Controverfy where it is not very eafy to ex- prefs every thing with due Accuracy, the keeneft Adverfaries have not yet found any offenjive or mi- jujlifiable Exprelhon to lay hold on, till they have iirft made it {b^ by Artifice and Managemeut, VIII. Another Method whereby Dr. Waterland at- tempts to dejlroy the Supremacy of the one Gody &c. -— is by dejiying any real Generation of the Son, either Tem- poral or Eternal Obfer. p. 56.^ Here are two falfe and iytjurious Charges: One of my denying any Temporal Generation of the Son 5 the othes other of my denying any Etenial Generation. Every Body that has feen my Books knows that I afTerc, maintain, and inculcate Three Geveratiom •, the firft Eternal, the other two Tempral : So that this Charge of th^Ohfervatormu^ be made cut, if at all, by In- ference, or Confequence only, and not directly ; And therefore he ought not to have exprefs'd this Article in fuch general Terms as he has, but ihould have faid, corifecjuevtially, i?nplicitly, or the like, if he had not been exceeding prone to fet every Thing forth in the falfeji and blachji Colours. What he advances in Support of thefetwo Charges, betrays fuch Covfufmi of Thought, and fuch furpri- zing Forgetfiihwfs of ancient Learning, ( for I am unwilling to impute it all to form'd premeditated Malice ) that I ftand amazed at it. I. One of his firii: Blunders is, his attributing the Words before all Ages ( ^re) -mv^uv dimcov ) to the Coun- cil of Nice : This he repeats, p. 67, 70. Though every body knows that thofe Words were not inferred by XhtNiceve Council, but the Covjianthiopolitav, above 5oYears after. It is neceifary to rem^ark this, becaufe part of the Argument depends upon it. There can be no doubt but that the Co?(/?^?/tzwopo/zV^« Council intend- .ed Eterval Gei^ieration : But as to the Nicejw Council, it may be queftioned whether they did or no. Thefe two our Writer, as his way is to confound every Thing, has blended together, and, I fuppofe, very igiioravtly. The Ur^ he makes of it, is, bringing me in as his Voucher (p, 67. ) for the Nicene Fathers profef- fing no more than a Temporal Generation, though they fxprefslyfay, hwa^ to Tiziyrrav aJJvco^ before all Ages, I 'do indeed offer fuch a Conjedure about the Niceva leathers •, ^ but then I know nothing of the ^viwv . - — "" Second Defenfe, -p. 287. ConrpaYe Bull. D. F. §.3. C 9. But fee alfo Lowth'i Note npn Socrat. EccL B. p 24. E^. Cant. 2 ouavay [ 24 1 efAcovcsv which this Gentleman puts upon them •, nor do I allow that either the Nicoie or Avtenicene Ca- tholicks underftood that Phrafe in the limited Senfe r, 2. Another Miftake, or rather grofs Mifreport, is what he fays of the Ifriters before, and at the Time of the Nicene Council, that ufing the Similitude of Light from Light, or Fire from Fire, they always tale care to exprels this one D'ljference in the Similitude , that whereas Light JImeth forthy arid is comminiicated mt by the Will of the linniiwiis Body^ but by a riecej[ary Pro^ ferty of its Nature, the Son of God is, by the Power and Will and Defign of the Father his Subftantial Image, I do not know that any fngle Writer ever exprefs'd this, before Eufebiiis ^ if it may be faid of him. If it be pretended, that they meajit it at lead ^ yet neither can that be proved, in the ///// Exte7it of what is here aiTerted, of any one of them. All that is true is, that as many Avteniceiie Fathers as went upon the Hypothejis of the Temporal Ante-mundane Generation, fo many acknowledged fuch Genera- tion to be by TT?'//, and Cou7fel : But none of thofe Writers ever ufed that Si7mlitude upon which Eiifebius made the Remark now mention'd •, vi%, that of Light and Splendor, but that of one Lights or one Fire o^ another, which has a very different Meaning ^, and Application. But it is not the Ob- fervator^s Talent to think, or write accurately. I mufi: further add, that Origen, Theognopis^ Dio^ Tiyjius of Alexandria, and Alexander, making ufe of the fame Similitme that Eufebim does, give no fuch Account of it ^ And none that intended to illuftrate y See my Firft Defenfe, p 139, &c^ * See my Second Defenfe, f. 913. * Sfs my Second Defenfe, p 3i4» tterml et€rml Geveration tliereby, ever intimated that it was hyjrUl, Befigv^ or Comfel, in Oppofition to what is vatiiral^ or iieceffaryy in our Senfe of veceffary. 3. A Third Inftance of this Writer's great Covfii- foil, upon the prefent Head, is his blending and con- founding together what I had laid down diftindly upon different Subjedts. What I fay of Fojl-mceiies only, he underftands of Ante-vkenes too : And what I fay of one Ante-mcene Writer, he underftands of another *, and thus, by the Covfufion of his own Intel- kd:, I am made to be perpetually hicojijijjevt. It would be too tedious to repeat. All may be feeii very dijiivcily, and with ^ve^tCoiiJipvcy, fet forth in my Secovd Defevfc^ whither I refer the Reader that defires to fee the Sentiments of every particular Writer fairly confidered. ^ 4. A Fourth Inftance of this Author's Confiifwft, is his pretending that none of the Ante-mcem Writers ever mevtion any prior Gevieratloiu ^f^y other /Ivte-mun- darte Geveration, bejide that Temporal one before fpoken of. It is true that many, or moft of the A?!- te-mceve Writers were in the Hypothecs cf the Teiju poral Generation, mentioning no other: But it i^ very falfe to fay, that none of them fpeak of any higher. Origen, and JDiovyjliis of Alexandria, and Methodius, and Pamphilm, and Alexander, are ex- prefs for the eternal Generation, or Filiation ^ : And Iren&iis, and Novatian, and Dionyjiiis of Rojne may, very probably, be added to them. Thefe together make Eight, and may be fet againft Ignatius, Jupn^ Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Clemens of Alcxan^ dria, Tertidlian, Hippolytus, who make an equal ^ Second D-sfenfe, ff'om p.. 280. top. 507. c See my Firfl Defenfe, /?. 136, ^q. Second Defenfe, p ^5)2, ^Q, E Kumber [a6 1 Number for the other Hypothejis. And I have often obferved, and proved, that the Difference between thefe "Writers v/as 'verbal only, all agreeing in the inain Doctrines, and differing only about Terms whether This , or That fliould be called Genera- tion. ^ 5. Another Inftance of his great Covfufw-n under this Head, is his objeding to me again, as before in the Rcply^ my appealing to the Ancient'^ for the Un^ derftanding of JFill in the Senfe of Acqinefcence, and Approbatiov, meaning by Ar.cients, Vofi mcem Wri-» ters. This I did to obviate Dr. Clarke's Pretences from fome Fojl-vkevie V/riters, fuch as Hilary, Eajil^ Marim Vichrimis, and Gregory Nyffen. And, cer- tainly, in exponnding thefe Writers, heed muft be given to tlieir way and manner of ufing their Phra- fcs. And as to calling tliem Avckiits, the Author of the Reply had done the fame twice together. « 6. This Writer difcovers liis Ignorance, or hifr- iniiy ratlier, in calling my Interpretation of Avd-yKn t.vir,yj>, ridJciihvs, as tahn only from fome later Chrijlian Writers. I proved my Interpretation from Athanajim^ Epiphanius, Hilary, and the Hiftory of the Times in which the Sir7n7an Council was held, in order to fix the Meaning of the Phrafe about that Time, which is the firfl: Time we find it applied. m this Subje6t. ^' And I fully anfvvered all this' G^MkmciM'h Cavils, which he now repeats. 7. Another Inftance ot" his Confujion, is his fay- ing of the Prccejmt, or temporal Generation, that '^ Firft Pefcnfe, f. 157, &c. Second Defenfe, _^. 7^ 557- *■ See Reply, p. 255, 257. And my Second Defenfe? i^* 306. ^ . ^ (^5^ my Second Defenf§, % z^6, 304* [ a; ] it is no Generatiov at all ^ and that 7wt one Ailte-nirenf Writer ever was fo abfurd, as to call that a Geneiation by which the generated Ferfo7i was m more generated, than he was before. As to the Fad, that the Ame^^ mceve Writers, in great Numbers, c^alled this Pro- ceifion Generation, I proved it at large 5 nor can any Scholar make doubt of it. And as to the poor Pre^ fence, which he here repeats, I anfwered it betore in thefe Words: { Second Defenfe, p. 292.) " Tbo^ '^ the Logos was the fame cljentially beiore and after ^' the Generation, he was not the fame m refped ot *• Cperatiojt, or MavifeJIaticv, and outward Oeconcmy ^ <^ which is what thofe Fathers meant. " And I par- ticularly proved this to be their Meaning, from the exprefs Teftimonies of Jvfin, MethodiiL^^.j^nd Hip- polytiiszy and confirmed it by ^notations trom Zeno Veronenjis.mary.Vhd^adius, and others. And what doe.^ it fignify'for the Ohfervator to fet his raw Conceptions, and fond Reafonings about the Meaning of a Word, againfl: fuch valuable Authorities ? Can any thing be more ridiculous than to fit down and argue abou': what an ancient Writer muft, or ir.nft not liave faid, from pretended Reafons ex ahfurdo ? I affert it to be FaB tliat they [aid, and meant what I report of them •, and I have produced their Tejlijnonies : The Author may, if he pleafes, go on with his Dream This Writer having performed fo mditterentiy upon one Part of the Charge, will not be found lefs defeftive in regard to the other-, wherein he cliarges me with denying eternal Generation, or reducing it to mthivg. He will not, I prefume, pretend that I either deny it or dejiroy it, as he does by pronoun- cing all eternal Generation ahjvrd and contradiaory. If I deny it, or deJlroy it, it is in affertmg it how- SySecond Defeufe, f- 284, v-^^ ^_ E 2 ^^^> [ ^M ever at the fame time : And it mull be by exphhhig it, if any way, that I reduce it to mthivg. If it happens not to be fo explain'd as to fall under this Gentleman's Iviaghation, it is, according to him, reduced to vothivg. But before he comes to his meta- phyjical Speculations on this Head, he gives us aTafte of his Leanmig, in refpect of the Avtc'ients -, boldly afferting, that they never exprefs the frjl, (or eter- jiai) Generation of the Son, by Fillatmu or Gene- ratio?!^ or Begetthig^ or by any other equivalent Term. This is a notorious Untruth. For, when IrejiAiis re-* proves feme Perfons as attributing any Beghmhig to tlie Proladon of the Son (Frohtioms hiithim dojmyites) he ofes a Term equivalent to Filiation^ or Generation ^. When Origen declares there was 710 Begimiing of the Son's Gsywratiovy he ufes the very Word », as alfo when he fpeaks of the Only -begotten., as being always with the Father. Dionyjius of Alexayidria expreffes it by the v/ord auytvniy eternally generated ^ ^ which farely is very eiprefs. When Methodim afferts that he never became a Son, but always was fo *, what is this, but faying tlie fame thing? And when other Writers aflert, that tlie Father was always a Father^ tliis is at lead: averting an eternal Generation in equivalent Terms. But this Writer's Knowledge of Antiquity has been fufficiently fhown. Let us fee whether he can perform any thing better in Meta- phyjwh. He forms his Attack thus : Dr. Waterland — dejires, yon woidd by no means nnderjland him to iyitend eternal Generation indeed^ but a mere Coexiftence with^ and not at all any Derivation /;'o 77; the Father ^ p. 72. ^ S^e w/y Firft Defenfe, p I5(5» * See my Firfr Defenfe, ^.196. ^ See my Firft Defenfe, p 142, Ed. 4tn* '- Firft Defenfe, p 143* And C ^9 ] And certainly Dr. TFaterhnd is very right in ms- kmg eterml Generation to be eternal, amounting to a Coexiftence with the Father, without which it could not be eternal It is obfervable however, that this Gentleman oppofes Derivation to Coexijiefice -, tvhich fhows what kind of Derivation he intends y a Derivation from a State of Non-exijfefwe, a Deriva- tion commencing after the Exiilence of the Father, and becaufe later than the Father's Eiiftence, htfi- mtely later, as itmuftbeif ^f all later. In jQiort then, it is a Derivation of a Creature from his Creator : This is the eterval Generation he is contending for, in Oppofi- lition to mire , while he is endeavouring to fliow that mine is not Gevieration-y as his, mod certainly, is not eterral, noi Generatioji, hut Creation. The Sum of what he has to advance is, that Coexijhnce is incompatible with Geveratiov'^y that an eterval Derivation is abfurd, and contradictory. No doubt but fuch a Derivation as he is 27nagimng ( which he explains by a real Mo- tion of EiniJfioVj and Growth of ove out of the other) is incompatible with CoexiJIence. But what the pri- mitive Fathers intended, and what the Scripture in- tended by eternal Generation, implies no fuch Alotion of Efnijfion, no fuch Growth of one out of the other, but an eternal Relation or Reference of one to the other as his Head. An eterjial Relation has no diffi- culty at all in the Conception of it. All the Diffi- cnlty lies in the Suppofition of its not being coordi- 7iate, though the Perfons be coexillent. And when it can be fhown that all Priority of Order mull oi courfe imply a Priority of Duration too, then the Objection may have fome weight in it. Till that be done, the Notion of eterval Generation will Hand : An eternal Logos of the eternal Mind, which is the apteft Similitude to exprefs the Coetcniity and Head- fhip too r^ and is the Reprefentation given of it both by C50] by Scripture and Aritiquhy, I proceed to a New Charge. IX. Another Method by which Br, Waterland ended- voitrs to dejlroy the Supreme Dominion, ^c. — is his labovring, by a Biifi of learned J<^rgon^ toperfiiade Men that the very Terms One God 7nean no body knows jphat, p. 85. To this I anfwer, that 07ie God means one jie- cejarily-exijling ^ all-perfeB, all-fnfficient SvbJIance, or £ei7jg : Which Snbjiance^ Sec. confifts, ( according to Scripture Account ) of Three Perfons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, one Jehovah, This is one God. Let this Gentleman difprove it, when he is able. I had faid, ^ « if Scripture makes the Three: *' Perfons one God, either exprefsly, or by neccfTary " Co7?fequence, I know not what Men hai^e to do to " difpute about intelligent Agents , and identical *' Lives, 8cc. as if they underftood better than God *' himfelf does, what one God is, or as if Philofophy *' were to direct what fliall, or {hall not be Tritheijm,'' Upon this our Obfervator remarks ♦, better than Dr. Waterland himfelf does^ is all that he 7neans, I would allow the Juftice of his Refledion, were we difpu- ting what one God is, upon the Foot of Scripture : For then it would amount only to this Difference, that His Interpretation leads one way, and Aiine ano- nother. But as the Competition is made between Scripture and Philofophy, he may eafily perceive both the Ivipertineyice , and Iniquity of his Reflection, While the Point is removed from Scripture to Philo- fophy for a Decifion of it, I infift upon it, that this is interpretatively, and in Effecl, tliough not in Befign, pretending to underftand the Thing better than Goi himfelf does. But to proceed with our Writer's Second Defenfe, f- 6y Preten- Pretences againfi: the Account I had before given from the Ancicvts. He objeds, (p. 86.) that one Suhfiance is not the fame as 07ie God ; becaufe two equally Supreme, two Un-- right ate Divive Ferfom would he two Gods, by my own Confellion : For I fay, (p. 207.) that Two Unorigi- rate Divine Verfons, however otherwife infeparable, woidd he Two Gods according to the Ancients, I knew very well what I faid, tho' I perceive this Gentleman does not apprehend it. The Ancients thought this Reference of one Perfon to the other, as Head^ was oneRequifite among others, to make the Subjlancs one, being thus more clofely allied, and, as it were, of one Stock, This made Me fay, however otherwife hifeparahle : that is, whatever other Union may be fuppofed, the Perfons v/ould not be perfectly infepa- rahle, not perfedtly one Siihjlance, (according to the Ancients ) and fo not one God, but upon the prefent Suppofition. And now how does this Ihow that one Siihftance and one God are not, in this Cafe, tanta- mount ? To me it feems, that it both confirms^ and explains it X. The Ohfervator charges me (p, 94.) ^i^h ma- king one compound Perfon of many difiinSl Perfons. His Words are : He tlmiks a Ferfon may he compounded of many diJlinB Ferfom. He refers to Page the 367th of my Second Defenfe. If the Reader can find any fuch thing there, or any where elfe in my Books, let the Charge 01 falfe DoBrine lie upon me : If not, let the Charge of Slander and Calmmy lie upon the Accufer. XL He charges me, p. 62. with referring to a Paf- fage in rnodej}; Flea, without pretending to male any the leaf Anfwer to it. This is like his other Mifre- prts : I abundantly anfwer it, (p. 218,) by allowing 4. " ^ necejfary , C 50 ffece/fary Exiprice to b^e poftive^ but denying it of Self-exijlence. From the Inftances here given ( to which more will be added under the next Chapter ) the Reader may perceive, that fpeaking of the Tntth, in Sim- plicity, and Singlenefs of Heart, is none of this Gentleman's Talent. If he hits upon any thing re- ally t] ue, and which he might perhaps make fome little Advantage of, he has fiich a Faculty of hwent- hrg, and firaimvg, that he quite fpoils it in the Tel- ling, and turns it into Roviance, One would not exped fuch Exorbitances as thefe are from Men of their Profelfion, and Character : But it now brings to my mind the Fojifcript to the Reply ^-^ : And I fhall wonder at nothing of this Kind hereafter. Q^^r^/^:r.f^v\'*rf^'*Ty^,trr'^\/^Ts.r^^f^'^y^'^r^'^:r.^J^\''^T\*r^ CHAP. IL Mifreports ^;2^Mifreprefentations contained in the Obfervations. E Very Page of the Pamphlet is concerned in this Charge : The whole is, in a manner, one con- tinued Mifreprefejitation from Beginning to End, ^ut fome of the Mifreprefevtatmis have been already Ihown in the firft Chapter, ^mon^falfe Charges-^ and others will fall under a fubfequent Chapter. I fhall fcle£l a convenient Number to fill up this. I. Page IT. the Author writes thus •. The BoBor h forced farther to afrm, that the Son is tacitly hwhded^ ^ See my Second Defenfe, f, 52S* tho' [35] M the Father be eminently Jliled the one God: Nay, (which is very hard iyideed ) tacitly included, though by Name exprefsly excluded, ajtd contradiftinguifhed by a peculiar Chara&er of his own, in the very Words of the Text it felf Thus he leaves the Remark, with- out informing the Reader in what Senfe I fuppofe the Son tacitly included. I explain it in my Second Lefenfe, p. 46 ^ " I have before (hown what we mean by faying " that the Son is tacitly included, though the Father '' be eminently ftil'd the one God : Not that the '' Word God, or the Word Father, in fuch Cafes, in- " eludes Father and Son^ but the Word God is " predicated of one only, at the fame Time that it " is tacitly underftood that it may be predicated of " Either, or Both 5 fince no Oppojition is intended a- ^' gainfl: Either, but againft Creatures, ^nd falfa " Gods," This Gentleman pretends indeed that the one God is oppofed to the one true Lord, ( in i Cor. 8. 6. ) as well as iofalfe Gods. But this is gratis diBim •, and he does not confider that then the Son can be no God at all to Its, contrary to Rovi. 9. 5- befides many other places of Scripture. I fay therefore that the exclufive Term, in this cafe, is not to be underftood with utmoft Rigor, but with fuch qualifying Conii- derations, as other Scriptures manifeftly require to be confiftent with this. I gave Inftances, in good Number, of exclujlve Terms fo ufed, ^ which this La- conick Gentleman confutes, firft, by calling themi ridiculous •, and next, hy poftively afrming that, where- ever any particular Thing or Perfvn is by any particular Title or Character contradifinguiM from any other Thing or Ferfon mentioned at the fame Time under ano- n Sermon lY' Second Defenfe, p* 25, 52, 79. f ther [ 34 J ^_ _ ther particular Title or CharaVter^ \h ijifiiihely abfurd tj fiippofe the latter tacitly included in the fonner, f^cvi which it is exprefsly excluded. Now, allowing him the whole of what he here aiTerts, all that fol- lows is, that in Gr. 8. 6. the Son is excluded from being God in that emir.er.t Manner, that iniorigimte Manner as the Father is-, not from being God in the fajjie Sevfe of the "Word, « nor from being or,e God with him. But it will be difficult for him to prove any thing more, than that the Father is there defcribed under the Character of the ojie God, of whom are all things, and the Son under the Charader of the one Lord, by whom are all things, in Oppofiticn only to TiCmival Gods and Lords, and not to each other. For, fince all things are of eve, and by the ether, they together are ove Foinitain of all Things, one God and Lord : And thus may this Text {land with Verfe the 4th of the fame Chapter, which declares that there's but ore God -, and with Rr7n. ix. and 5. which declares the Son to be ever all, God hlejfed for ever, II. Page the iSth of the Ohfervatiom, I am found fault v/ith for mifunderftanding a Pailage of Atham- fiis in his Epiftle to Serapioii, p I had faid, that the « See my Second Defenfe, p. 53. p Second Defenfe, ]>. 61. ^ ^ ^ y amc^i Jia! TO ?^6yv ii' ewTOf) iiipyeii-i «7ry yd ^ hct J)d J'^Tl^Q- n TTttJif, 077 «fcV* Uein" ^ *?'*'* f^77 077 df^ )^ ouvx, Tz^, W luin mtri^i ^ 077 e/V hjK « fsp' f ©-, c/)o77 M 5toTj« h I>ctt7ie?) A««*' ^^^d. contr. Eunom. hb. 3. p. 272. Ed. Bened. See my Second Defenfe in relation to this Pajfage, 358, 49^^, 508. "£s7 77 Taf € «>c &4t TTuf ^fj^v yinui r^twt^oS/JoVyti^X cb 'TO il^ amn Ttv©- ^v hiMV a^th r Tti^tv ^ ^» hety.- p. 232. G 2 ia C 44 ] in later Times, made ufe of in our prefent Subjed. Thus far then, I hope, it may be very excufable to ufe the Word Order in this Subjed, Jimply and abfo- Ititely. If any Word is to be put to it, to make the Senfe move fpedal, I admit Order of Covceptiov^ with Tertiillian ^ •, or Order of Exijievce, as the Son exifts of, and froin the Father : Which may be likewife called Order of CaufaUty, « in the old Senfe of Can- falityrtfye^ir)^ emanative 7wceJ[ary Cauks. That I did not ufe the Word Order without a Meaning^ may ap- pear from the very Paflages which this Writer quotes from me, p. 34. though he is pleafed to call them empty Words •, as every Thing here is ejnpty with him that carries not in it his crude Conceptions about va- tiiral Bomhiioju His Argument to prove them empty^ being founded on nothing but his own Shuf- flings and Miftakes, is anfwered above, p. 37. The Meaning however of Order in this Cafe, may be thus intelligibly fet forth to the meaneft Capa- city. While we confider the Scale of Perfons from God the Father down to Man^ or afcending from Man up to God the Father, He is the firj} in the Scale from whom all things defceitd : And he is the lafi^ in tlie way of Jfcevt^ in whom ail things ter7?iivate. The Father by the S071 and Holy Ghcfi conveys all his BleiFmgs to his Creatures: And his Creatures in the Holy Ghojl and by the Sov^ afcend up to the Father. »' Principaliter determinatur iit plma Terfona^ quae ante Filii nomen erat proponenda, quia Pater ante cognofcituri Sc poft Patrem Filius nominatiir. Tertull. contr. Prax. c. 18. c Nihil plane d iffert in fubftantia, quia verus Filius eft : diftert tamen CattfaVitatis s^'^dvi ; quiaomnis potentia a Patre in Filio eft: &: in fubftantia minor non eft Filius ; AuBorhate tamen major eft Pater. Att^, Q^'^P' f^tr, Tejiam, afud Auguji, Qua(1* 122. I Such [45] Such is the Scale of Exiftences, fiich the Order of Things: And this, I hope, is intelligible enough. If it be next enquired what the Foundation of this Order is, and why the Father^ if but equal in Nature to the Son or Holy Ghojl, Ihall yet be at the Top of all, and Hand Fir ft ^ we have this to fay, that Both the Parts are true and certain -, and that the Son and Holy Ghoft, though in Nature equal, are yet referred jip to the Father as their Head and Source, becaufe of him, and /row him, in a myfterious and infcrutable Manner, they Both are. The Father is from mne^ They from the Father, ^ This is the Catholink Dodrine, d and as old as Chriftianity it felf, fo far as we can find in the primitive Records : All acknowledging ( conformable to Scripture ) this Order, and Refe- rence of the Son and Holy Ghoft up to the Father, and at the fame Time ^Sextin^ their: Cojfubftantiality^ Coeternity, Necejfary-exijience, Equality oi Nature ^ and Unity of Godhead, TL^'i^v, eoi fi-TTHVi Tialexicr) vi i'A§yeiA o w/oV. Clem. Alex» Strom. 7- ^ ^iiOM rextiJ^ «f ha., uamp «V itopv(pluJ nvA, r ^h ^ oKkv nr 'Tm.vronsiATn^et ^?^^y, avyvAZcthau'^^i tz )y (swctyc^t totk oUmf" AW. Dionyf. Roman, ap. Athan. Vol. I. p. 231. ov eCvdyiTouTtt 'd^iii* Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 32. p. 520. dvA-MpAhajaffiq 4 Tf/ct/^©" 7wr/p_ '6h »V hti^v 'd-io\6yQ', Theod. Abucar. ap. Petavium. Trin. 1. 4. c. 15. p. 161. This Origination in the Divine Paternity hath anciently leen looked upon as the Ajfertion of the Unity : And therefore the Son and Holy Ghofi have been believed to be but one God with the Father, lecaufe Both from the Father, who is oue, and fo the Union of them, Pearfon on tie Creed, p. 40, See alfo my Second De- |enf€, ^43>n7> 53- ' If [4^] If our Ueas of this eternal Reference of one Per- fon up to another be no more than general^ and con- fufe^ not full and adequate •, what wonder is it, that we fhould find it fo in a Subjedl fo fiiblime > Is it not the tremendous SitbJIaitce, or Ejfence of the di- vive Being that we are here confidering ? And who is fufficient for thefe Things ? Let any Man try the utmoft Stretch of his Capacity, in any thing elfe immediately pertaining to the divi7ie Siibjlance ^ and he will foon perceive how fliort and defedive all his Ideas are. He cannot tell us what it is, nor where- unto we may liken or compare it : Cannot fay how it is prefent every where, or how it a^is any where. Every Thing belonging thereto, as Simplicity , Ivfnityy Eternity^ Necejfary-exijhnce, ^ is all dark and myfte- rious : We fee but through a Glafs darkly^ and cannot fee God as he is. It may therefore become thefe Gentlemen to be a little more modeft, and lefs pojji' tive in thefe high Matters 5 and not to infult us, in their Manner, as teaching a Collocation of JFords, or an Order of empty Words ^ only becaufe we cannot give them, what we cannot have, full and adequate Ideas of the inyfierioiis Order and Relation of the Bleffed Three, one among another. We might as reafonably objed to them an Eternity of Words, or an Omniprefence of JVords, a verbal Ubiquity, Simpli- city, Infijiity, and the like, as often as we perceive that they are not able to give us more than general, cojfitfe, and inadequate Conceptions of thofe Things. Such is our Anfwer, fuch our juft Defenfe, after attending to every Confeqiicnce the Adverfary can ob- jcd:, and after fufFering it, in the Way of fair De- bate, to be run up to the utmoft Height We ac- knowledge God'5 E[fence to be infcrutable, as did the Su my Firit Defenfe, p 314, &c. an- [ 47] ancient Catholkh in the fame Caufe, againfi: the Eunomians -, who finding themfelves thereby pinch'd, had no way left but to put on a bold Face, and flatly to deny the Incompreheyiftbility of God's Effejice. ^ If their SuccelTors at this Day are of the fame Mind, let them fpeak out. It fhould be obferved how dif- ferently our Adver{aries here behave, from what we do when purfued witli Cortfeqiiences. They deny the Necejfary-exijlejwe of God the Son. Run them down but to the next immediate Confequence, precarious Exiftence, and they are amazed, and confounded: And inftead of frankly admitting the Covfequeyice^ they fall to doubling, fhifting, equivocating, in a moft childilh Manner, to difgiiife a Difficulty which they cannot avfwer, s Pufh them a little farther, as making a Creature of God the Son -, and they fall to blelfing themfelves upon it : They make the Son a Creature ? No, not they •, God forbid. And they will run you on whole Pages, to Ihow how many ^lirks they can invent to avoid giving him the Name of Creature, and at the fame time to affert the Thirjg, Carry the Confequeiwe a little lower, till their whole Scheme begins to fhow it felf more and more repugnant to the Temr of Scripture^ and all Catholick Antiquity 5 and then what do thefe Gen - tlemen do, but fhut their Eyes, and flop their Ears : They do not underfland a Word you fay 5 they will not be anfwerable for CoTtfequevces 5 they never taught fuch Things, nor think them fit to be 7nen' tioned. This is their way of Management, as of- ten as we go about to purfue the Conjequemes of their Scheme down as far as they can go 5 at the fame time that we fiifFer them to exhauft all their f See my Firft Defenfe, p. gc^ s Second Defenfe, ^219. i 48 ] Metaphyjich in drawing any imaginable Confequences againft the Catholick Dodrine, and both attend to them, and anfwer them, with all Chriftian Fairnefi, Opennefs, and Sincerity ^. The meaneft Reader may here fee, by this different Conduct, where Tnith, where Integrity, where Reafon is, and where it is not : Truth does not ufe to (hun the Light •, nor is it any Sign of a good Caufe to want fo much Art, and Colouring, And let it not be pretended that all this Shuffling and Difguife is only to fcreen their Sentiments from the popular Odium^ and themfelves from publick Cevfiire : There may be fomething in that I and fo far perJiaps their Conduft may appear the more excufal^le. But there is certainly more in it than that comes to 5 becaufe the fame Men can, upon Occafion, difcover their low Sentiments of God the Son very freely i ^ and it is chiefly when they are prefs'd in Difpute, and when they fee plainly how hard an Argument bears upon them, from ScrU fture and Antiquity, that they have recourfe to Eva- fon, and Difguife, and refufe to fpeak out K But to proceed. X. The Do&or frequently appeals from Reafon and Scripture to Authority. When his Argument is reduced to an exprefs Contradiilion, a ContradiBionin it f elf as well as to Scripture, then he alledges that the Thing he contends for mujl he fo upon the Principles of the pri- mitive Churches, { Second Befeife, p. 127.) ineaning, that it mvjl hefo upon his own Hypothefis. Obferva- tions, p. 1 1 5. ^ See my Second Defenfe, ^' 355» ^ See a ColleBion of Paffages in my Supplement to the Cafe, k See Injiances, In the Reply, /». 45, 175, 2x5, 224, 237, 31?? 3^3) 33?>343>347>4o-. Let [ 49 ] Let the Reader fee my Words, upon which thk Gentleman makes his tragical Exclamation. " One Subftance with one Head, cannot mal^e " Two Gods upon the Principles of the primitive " Churches : Nor are your Meta^hyjlch ftrong enough " to bear up againft their united Teftimonies, with " Scripture at the Head of them." How is this ap- pealing from Scripture to 'Authority ? So far am I from it, that in another .Place, ^ while I commend the Ancients for their way of folving the Unity^ as taking the beft that human Wit could invent or refl upon, yet I declare at the fame Time, that there is no neceility at all for fhowing /;oir the Three are One: It is fufficient tliat Scripture bears Teftimony to the Fa&, that fo it is 5 we are not obliged to fay hon\ And There alfo I obviate what this Writer here pre- tends, in his vain Confidence of hcajiivg, as it he was able to do great Things in the way of raUiral Reafon ^ by obferving that the Adverfary can do no- thing in this Cafe, uniefs he be able to ihow ( which is impolFible) that m Umty whatever can be fiijficmit to make more Perfoiis than one^ one Being, one Suh^ ftance, one God. XI. THjen an Arginnevt is worVd up to the EviJeixf even of an identical Propojition ( ivhich is the EJjhice of BemonJ}rati07i ) then^ 'tis contrary ( he fays ) to thq Sentiments of wifer Men, who have argued the other way. Ohfervat. p. 87, 1 1 5:. It is very trqe that I preface my Anfvv^er to Com^ big Pretences of theirs, with the Words here recitqd '''. I fuppofe, the great Offence is, in reminding them that there have been Men wifer than they are. As 1 Second Defenfe, p, 65. Cor-i-pav-e Firft Pefenfe, ^. pZ-p, ^"^ Second Defenfe, f, 215. Compare -p, 252, 254. H ta C 50 ] to the identical Propofition, the Demovjfration here talked of, I fhow in the fame Place," that it is built upon notliing but t]ie eqmvocal Meaning of Same- vefs. Reduce it to Syllogifm, and it will be found a Sophifjn \\nt\\fovr Tenns in it. In Page the 87th, arguing againfl: the Suppofition of Powers derived and underived being the fa7ne ♦, he fays, If it were pofibk, it would follow^ that the fiipreme Power of all^ the Power of begetting^ or deriving Being and Powers doivn to another^ would he 710 Power at all. That is to fay, if the efential Powers of the Godhead be tYiefame, then tht perfonal Properties are loft. But I humbly conceive, that as U7non of Sub- ftance accounts for the one, the DiJiin&io7t of Perfo7ts may account for the other: And this fnpreme Power of deriving, &c. amounts to nothing more than a Mode of Exifling, or a Relation of Order o. N. B. The fupreme Power of begetting^ which the Author here fpeaks of, means with him nothing more, nor lefs, than the fupreme Power of creating ^ which is plainly his Senfe of begetting^ as may appear from what hath been obferved above, p. 29. XII. jlgaiTi^ when two very differ eiit Affertiom are nffrmed mt to be the fame Ajfertiov, then he ash, How- do you know ? Or, how came you to be wifer in this particular than all the Chriftian Churches early or late? JFho yet vever affirined two f itch differe7tt Affer- tions to he the fame A(jertion 5 aytd if they had affirmed ity J/ill the AJJertioyis would mt have been the fame. Obfervat. p. 119. n Second Defenfe, ^.215, ii6. <^^ See my Second Defenfe, />. 217. Let [ 5' 1 Let my Words appear-, p " You add, that malang " one Suhjlance is not making 0116 God : To which it '' is fufficientto fay, How do you know ? &c. " The Thing here maintained is, that upon the Trinciples of the primitive and 7nodeni Churches, if the Three Perfons be one Subjiance, they are of Confequence one God. The AiTertions in this Cafe are equivalent, and tantamount. This is the plain avowed Dodtrine of the Church ever fmce the Term Suhjlance came in. They that impugn this Dodrine, ought flrfl: to confute it, if they can. Sometimes indeed I exprefs this primitive Doctrine by ore Svhjhnce with one Head, for greater Diftindion: But one Sub ft arc e im- plies Both, becaufe the Notion of Headjhip is taken in with the Union of Subftance, as rendring the Union clofer, and making the Subftance more perfectly one, q XIII. jrhen he is told, that Yn great Vrefumptmnefs^ to call the Particularities of his own Explication, the Dodrine of the Bieffed Trinity •, then he cries out, great Prefumption indeed! To believe that the Ca- tholick Church has kept the true Faith •, which are the very Words, and the very Argiivient wherewith the Writers of the Church of Rome perpetually infidt, ami will for ei;^;'with JuAicQ infult oyer all fuch ProteJIants, as endeavour to difcoiirage all ferious Enquiry, ^c.^ This Writer, to introduce his weak Ileiiedion, is forced to cut off Part of my Sentence, which runs thus: Kevt the true Faith, vMelxmomims and Arians made^ [Inpwrecl of it. This lho\\^ that I was fpeaking of the Catholick Church juftly ^o called, oi t\\t primitive Times, and before Popery was m Beings p Second Defenfe, p 329 ^ See abovci p* 3 1 . H 2 which [ ^^ 1 which Obfervation would have entirely prevented his Sarcafvi, or have difcovered the Impertinence of it. As to the Church of Rome, I defire no better^ no Dther Argument againfi: her, than the fa7}ie I make ufe of againft the Anavs, viz. Scripture interpreted by FriiniUve and CathoUck Tradition. Down falls Topery, and Ariainjm too, as foon as ever this Prin- ciple is admitted. But this Author, I conceive, was a little too liberal to Popery^ or did not know what he was talking of, when he predimed to intimate, that the jrriters of the Church of Rome can with Juft'ic& infult us on that Head. I hope it was a Slip, and he'll retract it when he comes to confider. But here again liis Eagervefs overcame him, and carried him too far. XIV. It had been alledged, that he who vever aHs in Siibjecliov, Sec. — and every other Ferfon always atis in SubjeBlon to his IFiil ^ f.?, alone the fiiprerne Gover- vor. In recitirg this Argu?nent twice., Dr. Waterland does twice o?nit the Jford always, in which the Strefs of the Argimsvt lies. Obfervat. p. 24. In abridgivg, not recitirg, the Argument, I omitted the Word always-^ having indeed no Sufpicion that any ftrefs at all could be laid upon it, but thinking rather that it had been carelefsly, or thoughtlefsly put in by the Author. If the Strefs of the Argu- ment lies there, the Argument is a very poor one, being grounded only upon a Frefmjtption of a fa[l ^that can never be proved. I allow indeed, if God the Son antecedently to the Oeconoiny , and before the World was^ acted in SubjeBion to the Father, that then the Argument will have fome force in it : But as I very well knew that the Author never had, never could prove any fuch Thing 5 fo I could not fufpect him to be fo weak a Man, as to lay thQp'efs of the Argument there. I infill upon it, I that [ ^3 ] that Millions and Millions of Ages, an Eternit/, a fane Ante^ had preceded, before ever the Son or Holy Ghoft are introduced as ading in SiibjeBlon. Let the Author difprove this, and he will do fome- thing. I have read of the Glory which our Lord had v/ith the Father beforg the irorldwas : But never heard any thing of his T/^f7f ading in SuhjeBion to him: Wherefore it does not appear that he always did it. XV, There h jw ArgvMevt In which Dr. Waterland 15 jnore infolent, or with lefs reafon, than In this which follows. There are, he thinks, as great Difficulties iyi his Adverfarys Notion of the divine Omniprefence, as there are in his Notion of many equally Supreme ( in Nature ) independent Perfons, conjlitiitivg onefitpreme Governor, or Monarch of the Univerfe, Upon this weak Comparifon he feeins to build all his Hopes < And yet the whole of the Comparifon is as entirely impertinent, as if a Man fiould pretend that to him there are as great Difficulties in conceiving Immenfity, or Eternity, as in conceiving Tranfubftantiation, &c, Obfervat. p. 9^. Howjuf, how civil, how pertinent this Reprefen- tation is, will appear, when I fliall have given the Reader a true and faithful Account of this whole Matter, from the Beginning, which is as follows. In the Year 1704. Dr. Clarke, then but a young Man, publiftied his De7nonjl ration ( as he is pleafed to call it ) of the Being and Attributes of God : In which Work, not content with the common Argu- ments for the Exiftence, apoferiori, he ilrikes a Note higher, and aims at aProof ^pnoW*, which every Man of Senfe befides knows to be contradiBious, and impof fible, though He was not aware of it. However, to countenance his pretended De??i07f ration , he laid hold of the Ideas of h7imenfty, and Eternity, as ante- cedently forcing themfelves upon the Minds of all Men; [54] Men: And his Notion of the Divine hnmenfity is? that it is infinite Ex^avjflov^ or infinite S]^ace^ requi- ring an infinitely expanded Suhjlratmn^ or SiihjeB: 5 which Subject is the very SubJIarice of God, fo ex- panded. Upon this Hypothejis, there will be Sub- liance and Subftance, This Subftance and That Sub- ftance, and yet but one ynmierkal^ hdividnal^ idem- cal Subftance in the whole. This Part will be one individual identical Subftance with That Part : And a Thoufand feveral Parts will not be fo many Suhjlan- ces (tho' every one be SiibJIance ) but all will be one Siihjiavce. This is Dr. Clarke s avow'd Dodrine : He lees the Confequence, he owns it •, as may appear from his own Words ^ in Anfwer to the Objection. And he muft of courfe admit, that the one indivi- dual Subftance is both one in Khid^ in regard to the diftin6t Parts, and one in Number alfo, in regard to the Uv'ion of thefe Parts in the whole. Upon theie Principles does the Doctor's famed Demonftration of the Exigence proceed ; and upon thefe does it now ftand. I muft next obferve, that the fame Dr. Clarh, in the Year 171 2. was difpos'd to publilli, and did publifti a very ill Book againft the received Faith of the Church ^ which he entituled, The Scripture Do- Bridie of the Trinity, He made a pompous Show of Texts, and pretended much to Ayjtiquity alfo: But as many as could look thro' the Surface, and penetrate into the Work, eafily faw that the main Strength of his Performance refted upon two or three Philofophi- ^ No Matter is one Subftance, hut a Heap of Suhjlances* Arid that I take to be the Reafon ii'hy Matter is a SubjeH incapable of Thought, not becaufe 'tis extended, but its Paris are difiinH Subftances, urmniied, and i?7depende?7t on each other : Which ( / fuppofe ) is not the Cafe of other Subjiances* Clarke 'i Anfwer t9 the 6th Letter, p. 40. cal [^5 3 cd Principles, by virtue whereof he v/as to turn and wreft Scripture, and Fathers too, to fuch a Senfe as he wifh'd for, that is, to the A/ian Hypothecs. Among his Fhilofophical Principles, the moft confi- derable of all, and which he ofteneft retreated to in Diftrefs % was This •, that the Defenders of the re- ceived Doctrine, whenever they fhould come to ex- plain, muft inevitably fplit either upon SabelUamfm or Trithejffn : Which Prefumption he grounded upon this Reafcning ^ That the Three Perfons muft be ei- ther fpecifically one ( one Subftance in Kind only, while Three Subftances in Nmnher) which is Tri- theifm ^ or elfe they muft be iiidividvally one Subftance, one in Number in the ftridteft Senfe, which is plain SabelUamfm, Which Reafoning at length refolves into this Principle^ that Subftance and Subftavce, however united, muft always, and inevitabl3r make Svbftaiwes ^ and that there cannot poihbly be fuch a Thing as one Subftance in Number and in Kind too at the fame time. And now it could not but be plea fa nt enough to obferve the Dodtor and his Friends confuting the Atheifts upon this Principle, that Subftance and Sub- ftance miited does not make Subftances, and at the Tame time confuting the Trinitarians upon the con- trary Suppofition. Againft Atheifts, there miglit be Subftance one in Kind and Number too : But againft the Trinitarians it is downright Nonfenfe, and Con- tradidion. Againft Atheifts, Union {hall be fuftici- ent to make Samenefs, and mimerical Subftance ihall be underftood with due Latitude : But againft Triin- tarians, the Tables ftiall be turn'd ^ Union ftiall not 'make Samenefs, and no Senfe of mmierical Subftance fliali (erve here but what fliall be the very Reverfe « Set my Firft anA Second Defenfe. ^?>> xxii, of C 5^] of the other. In a word •, the Affirmative fhall ferve the Doctor in one Caufe, and the Negative in the other : and the felf-fanie Principle Ihall be evidently true there, and demonftrably falfe here, to fupport two feveral Hypothefes. I had obferved the Thing long ago, before I pub- lifhed a Syllable in the Controverfy : And that I might be the better fatisfied, difcourfed it fome times over with Friends •, which ftill confirmed me the more in it. Having tried the Thing every way, and beir.g fecure of That Point, a Point upon which the main Caufe, as 1 eafily forefaw, would at length turn, I then proceeded to engage thofe Gentlemen ; And as often as they have been retreating to their Dilemma about Sabell7amf?n and Tntheijm (their impregnable Fortrefs as they efteem'd it ) I have ob- jected to them their Self -contradi [lion and hicoyifijfen- cy-^^ have retorted upon them their own avowed Do- ^rine in another Caufe; have reminded them of thtix fonne;\ (their prefent J Sentiments in that Ar- ticle, and have fometimes pretty fmartly tax'd tlieir notorious Prevarication, and Partiality in the Caufe of the Trinity •, while they infift upon Principles here as of undoubted Certainty, though they believe 7wt a Word of thera, though they really dipelieve them in any Caufe elfe. For this I am called Info- lent by the meek, and modeft Obfervator : And by the judicious Author of the Re??iarks, my Condud here- in has been cenfured as ridiculous, and vio7tJiroiis: = By which I perceive, that the Men are ftung fomewhere or other, and have Senfe enough to know when they ^ 5^e Firft Defenfe, i66, 1^7, i5S, 171, 299, 354. ^wif Second Defenfe, ^. 50, (^4, 210, 329, 324, 560, 419, 4.32,446, 447, 454. a Remarks on Dr. Waterland*s Second Defenfe, ^. 38, are [ 57 ] are hurt 5 but have not learn'd how to bear it. On^ tells me, that I build abnofl all my Hopes upon this Difcovery : Another intimates, how happily for me, my Adverfaries had adva}wed their Notion, becaufe ctherwife I fhould have had 7wthhig at all to fay. ^ It is a great Favour in Them to allow tliat I have/o;;z^- thhig at lafl: ; Let us nov/ examine what They have to faj ; I'll reduce it to Heads, ior Diftindion fake. 1. They are fometimes inclinable to d'lfown any fuch Notion as I have charged upon them. The Ait- thor of the Remarks, hQing a vamelefs Man, thinks he may iafely fay, that he has nothhg to do with that No- tio7i, one way or other. ^ And even the //-^zW whom I am now concerned with, (ays, that 'tn hy mere CorijeBiire only, that Dr. Waterland has taken it to be his Opinion at all. ^ If it be Dr. Clarke that fays this, his own j5ooL confute him: If yiwjackfon, he knows that I am perfectly well acquainted with his real and full Sentiments in that dueftion. However, if Dr. Clarke's Friends meanly defert him here, and in a Point too on which his famed Demonjlration very much depends ^ I will endeavour to do the Doftor Juftice fo far, and fhall not fuffer him to be run down in a right Thing, however I may blame him, when I find liim wrong. 2. Sometimes they complain of me as very unfaii' to take an Advantage of an Opinion of theirs^ and to plead it as true, at the fam.e time that I my felf judge it to be erroneous 2indfalfe. ^ But this is grofs Mifreprefentation. I plead nothing but what I rake to be very true -, namely, that Subftance and SuU t Remarhi p« 56. '^ Remarks t p. 14. d ObfervathnSi p. loo. * See the Remarks, ]»» 57j S^r, [58] fiance in Uvion does not always make Sv.bJIar.ces •, which is Dr. Clarke's Dodrine as well as mine •, and, if true againft Atheijis, cannot be falfe againft the Trivitariavs. Indeed, I do not admit, ( at leaft, I doubt of) their Hypothefs about God's expanded Sub- ftance : But their general Principle of Umo7i being fufficient to make Samejiefs, and of iimted Subftance, in things immaterial, being 07:e Siibjiavce, this I heartily clofe in with, and make no queftion of its Truth and Certainty, 3. They fometimes plead that, at beft, this is on- ly Argumevtim ad homhmn f, and that it is therefore mean to infifi: upon it. Let them then firfl: condemn Dr. Clarke for leading me into it: And when they hai^e done, I'll defend the Dodor, fo far, by the concurring Verdict of the whole Chrijlian Jforld, by the Maxims of ccminon Seife, and by the prevailing CiiJlo77i of Speech, which never gives the Name of SitbJIavces to any thing, but where the Subftance is feparate^ ovfeparable. And I will farther plead, that upon the Hypothefis of Exte7ifo7t, this Principle muft be true; or elfe there is no fuch thing as 07ie Siibjla7we^ or 07ie Beirg, in the World g. Farther, if I had not fuch plain and cogent Reafons for the Truth of this Principle , yet fince I am here upon the defenfwe on- ly, and am warding off an OhjeBmi, I have a Right tofvppofe it true, till my Adverfarics can prove the co7itrary. All thefe Confiderations put together, are more than enough to anfwer the Pretence of my ar- guing ad ho7nhie7n, 4. They add farther. That their Explication of the Ovmprefe7ice is not exactly parallel to my Notion ^ See the Kema,YkSy p. 13. 2 See my Second Defenfe, ;». 324) 44 7* of [ '^9 1 cf the Trinity ^, Nor did I ever pretend that it wa<; exa^ly parallel : I have my felf particularly ihown i wherein, and how far the two Cafes differ. But, for as much as Both agree in one general Principle (which was all that I wanted, and all that I infifted upon ) that Subftance in Umon with Subftance does not neceflarily make SvhJIarxes, they are/o/i?;- paral- lel : And fo long as this Principle iiands its Ground, ( which will be as long as common Senfe Ihall ftaud) fo long will the received Doctrine of the Tr'rraty ftand clear of the moft important, and mofl prevailing Objedion that MetaphyJIcks could furniih : And the boafted Pretence of no Medhun between SabeU'ianijm and Tritheifvi, which has been in a manner, the jc/^ Support, the lafl Refuge both oi Sochiiavs. and Ariam, is entirely routed and baffled by it. Hh-c ilia La- crymm, Sec, that I may ufe now and then a Scrap of Latin, as well as our Ohfervator. I pafs over feveral Remarks of his, relating to this Article, bccaufe now the Reader will perceive how wide they are of the Point in Hand • and that they are only the un- eafy Struggles of a Man faft bound^ and fettered 5 bearing it with great Regret, and very defirous, if polFible, to conceal it -, though he fnows fo much the more, by the laborious Pains he fpends upon it. XVI. Tfhat Ifiippofe the Do&or 7?iore Jlri&ly means— is this, that if, from the higheji Titles given to Chrif} in Scripture, he cannot prove the Son to be 7iatiirally and, TJecejfarily the God fnpreme overall-, then neither can we^ from the highejl Titles given to the Father in Scripture, provs him to be naturally, and neceffarily the God fnpreme ^ Remarks, p. 58. » FirftDefenfe, />. 168. [ ^o ] n:er all, fo a^ to have no one above orfupcrior to hhn in Lomhlon, Obfervat. p. no. This Reprefe7:tatmt of the Cafe is pretty fair in the main, had but the Author in his farther Procefskept clofe to it, and made no change in it. My Argument was this •, ^ That Dr. Clarh and his Friends, by their artificial Elufions of every Text brought for the Di' vimty of God the Son, had mark'd out away for elu- ding any Text that could be brought for the Divim- ty of God the Father. To make this plain, let it be premifed, ( as granted on both fides) that there is difcoi'erable, by the Light of P».eafon, the Exiftence of fome Eternal, Immutable, Neceflarily-exifting God: And now the Queftion will be, how we prove from Scriptvre that any particular Perfon there men- tioned, is the eterval God whofe Exiftence is proved by Reafov. We urge in Favour of God the Son, that he is Goil^ according to Scripture, in the true and full Meaning of the Word ^ therefore he is the eter^ ral God, and has no God above him. We urge that he is Jehovah, which implies Necejfary-Exijlevce 5 therefore, again, he is the etenial God, who has no God above him. We plead farther, that he is pro- perly Creator, fince the Bcavevs are the Worh of his Umds, Sec. therefore again he is the eterml God who has no God above him. We farther urge, that he is over all^ God hleffedfor ever, Rom. ix. $. And '7PAv'roy.^,iXi>^, Amighty, or God over all, who Z5, and was, and is to come. Rev. i. 8. ^ Which exprelHng Necejfa- ry-exijievee, and fupreme Dominion too, proves far- ther that he is the eterml God, &c. The fame k See my Firft Defenfe, p, 116. Second Defcnfe, p. 245, 1 See my Defenfe, f, 451. Sermons^ p. 227, ^c. Second Defenfe, 241, &c. Things Thing we prove from feveral Titles, and Attributes, and Honours^ being all fo many Marks and Chara- ders of the one true and eternal God. Theie Proofs of the Son's Divinity, are at the fame time applicable to the Father, and fo are Proofs of the etsrval Divinity both of Father and Son. Now, to come to our Ari- amzijtg Gentlemen : They have found out Ways and Means, Artifices, Colours, Quibbles, Diftindions, to elude and fruftrate them all. God is a Word of Ofce only «" , not Suhfiaywe : Jehovah means only one faithful to his Frcmifes " ; -rnvroK^.Tw^^ God over ail, and the like, may bear a fubordimte Senfe^. Every Title or Attribute affigned, may admit of a limited Conflrudion. Well then : What remains to prove the eterval Godhead of the Perlon of the Fa- ther , againil: any Marciomte , or other Hereticks that fhould affert another God fuperior to him? Here is the Pinch of the prefent Argument. This Gen- tleman in Anfwer, asks, Does he by whom God created all Thijigs claim as much to be the frjl Caufe of all Thivgs^ as he that created all Things by him ? Does he who came mt to do his omi WilU but the Will of him that fent him^ clai??! as much to have no Superior, as he whoje Will he wasfent to fulfill ^ And he has more to the fame Purpofe. To which I anfwer, That when all the Proofs before-mention'd of the Son's having no God above him, are fet afide, I allow that there would remain but very weak, and flender Prefum- ptionsof the Son's being equal to the Father, or of his having no God above him. But fiippofe ( for Ar- gument Sake) the Son thus proved to be inferior to in Clarke's Reply, p no, 200, 501, Scripture Doftrine, *. 296. Ed. I/. \ n ColUBlon of Queries y ^ 19* e Reply y p. I55>- , the Father, when the Texts before-nientionM are ail fet afide *, next fhovv, that the Eternal God, known by the Light of Reafon, is not, or may not be ano- ther God above them Both. What I aflert is, that the fame Ehfions, at leaft thefa7n,e Kind of Elufions, will ferve to fruftrate every Argument that has been, or can be brought. Let us try the Experiment upon thofe which this Gentleman (after the lafl: ftraining, and racking of Invention ) has been able to produce. He builds his main Hopes and Confidence upon I Cor. viii. 6. To lis there is 07ie God, the Father y of rphom are all Thivgs. To which a Marciovite may make anfwer, that To vs may not fignify to the whole Compafs of Beivgs •, neither is there any Necelhty of interpreting all Thivgs in an unlimited Senfe, when it may very well bear a limited one. And fuppofing of whom are all things ( that is, feme things ) to be meant of Creating ^ yet fince the Work of Creating is allow'd not to prove the ejfential Divinity of the Creator, here is nothing done ftill. The Words, 07ie God, prove nothing : For God being a Word of Of fee, it means little more than one King, or one Rtder, And fo the whole amounts to this only, that to Us of This Earth, This SyJIem, there is owe Ruler, who made all Things in it. How does this prove that our Ruler is the eternal and neceffarily-exijHng God > The like may be fa id of E^h* iv. 6. One Ruler over this Syftem, fupreme King over all the Earth, above all, and through all, and in all that belong to it. The laft Thing the Gentleman has to offer, is, That this Ruler claims to have no other God above hifn. This is not witliout its Weight and Force, though it has not a tenth Part of the Force of thofe Arguments I have above mentioned, and which this Gentleman knows how to elude. By a little flraining ( as this Writer knows how to jlrain 7micb upon Occa- fion) this may be interpreted in ^ fubordinate, and limited [ ^3] limhed Senfe, to fignify iSiiprevie in thefe his Domi- nions, having no Rulers here to controul, or command him, or, no God oithis Khid (that is, God by Office on- ly) which does not exclude any God o^ another Kind, the fupreme God of the Univerfe : For, it would be h?iproper to fay j that the fupreme God has an Office p. It is not therefore proved, that there may not be, above him, another God ^ who is really and truly, and in the metaphyfcal Senfe, the eterval and r.ecejfa- rily-exiflhig God. This Gentleman adds, fpeaking ftill of the Father, that he is fent by mve, receives Power and Authority /ro7« 7wve, ads by w one's Coin- mffioji, fulfills no oves Will It is true, it is not faid that He is fent by any^ or receives Power from any one : And this may afford a probable Prefum- ption in Favour of his being abfolutely without any Superior, and be as good a Proof of it, as a ^ mere 7jegative Proof can be. But as this is not faid, fo neither is the contrary -^ or if it were, it might bear a limited Confl:ru6tion, fo that the Demonftration at length appears lame, and defective. I lliould have been very forry to engage in an Ar- gument of this Kind, but to convince fome Perfons of the great Imprudence, as well as Impiety, of throwing afide fo many clear, folid, and fubftantial Proofs, which the Holy Scripture affords, of the eternal Divinity of God the Father, and refting it at laft upon fo weak and fo precarious a Bottom : At the fame time introducing fuch a wanton way of elu- ding, and fruftrating the plaineft Texts, that it looks more like burlefquing Scripture, than commenting upon it. I heartily befeech all well-difpos'd Per- fons to beware of that Pride of pretended Reafo}}^ and that Levity of Spirit, which daily paves the Way for/?;/^^%,anda Contempt of all i^^/f^ic;?; ^ which has ? See Reply, /». 220. fpread C^4l Ipread vifibly, and been productive of very ill Ef- feds, ever fince this new Sect has rifen up amongft us. XYIL The BoBor camwt pojjibly exprefs his ( No- tion ) in any JFords of Scripnu'e ; And^ when called upon to do z>, he has only this jefting Avfwer to make^ Do you imagine that I cannot as eafily, or more eafily find Scripture Words for mine ? But this is trifling q . And again : You blame me for not ex- preffing my Faith in any Scriptiire-Fojition : As if every thing I aflert as Matter of Faith were not as much Scnptrire-PoJitzo7i, according to my way of un> derftanding Scripture, as yours is to you, &c. — Undoubtedly it isjiijl as much fo, that isj not at all. For veither one Mans., nor another Mans Interpretation^ or tpay of tinder Ji an divg Scripture., is at all a Scripture- Pojition : But the Text themfelves only are Scripture- Fofition, with which no Alans Interpretation can without the greatejl Frefumptuonfnefs he equalled, Obferva- tion, p. 11^. The Civility 2Lni. the Seyfe of this worthy Paffage are Both of a Piece. Why is my Anfwer called a je/Hng An(\ver ^ I never was more ferious, nor ever faid a Thing with better Reafon, than when I called that Pretence trifling. If nothing will fatisfy but expofmg his weak Reafoning at full Length, it mufl: be done. I. In the firft Place, what has he gain'dby giving us the whole of his Notion ( as he calls it ) in the very Words of Scripture ? The Words are, 07ie Spirit ^ on6 1 Second Defenfe, f. 443. ivhere I ndd. Why have you not laid down your Doctrine in Scripture Words^ thaci might com- pare it with the Doftor's Propojithnsy to fee how i^r they ex- ceed, or come Hiort ? ' Second Defenfe, ^.427. Lord'^ Lor'd ^ ove God and Father of all, who u phove aJh Had Dr. Clarke done no more than cited thefe Words, could any Man have ever known the whole of his Av- tio7t, or ever fufpected him to be an Arian ^ His Pro-^ poftiovs and Replies are the Things that contain the whole of his Notion, and not thefe Words, which do not contain it. 2. Again, Let but a Socinian underftand thefe Words as he pleafes, and they may as well contain the whole of his Notion, A Sabellian will tell you the fame. I fhall not defpair, referving to my felf my own Conftrudlion, of maintaining my Claim alfo, and making the lame Words contain the whole oi my Notion. Well then, here will be four different^ or contrary Pofitions, and all of them Scripture-Pof- tiom to their refpedive Patrons, and Abettors. What muft we do now ? Oh, fays the Arian, but viine is the Scriptiire-Poftion, ( for it is in the very Words of Scripture) yours is Interpretation. Ridiculous, fays the Socinian ^ are not my Words the vqij fame with yours, and as good Scripture as 3rours ? I tell you, yours is Interpretation, and mine only is the Scripture" Pofition. Hold, I befeech you, Gentlemen, fays a 5^* bellian,0T m-iyAthanafan,\vhy do you exclude Me ? I tell you, the Words contain wy Notion to a Tittle, and they are Scripture-Words \ mine therefore is the Scripture -Pofition. Now, if this Writer can end the Difpute anj" other way than by fhowing whofe is \.\\q he ft Interpret tation of the Four, and by admitting that heft Inter- pretation for the only Scripture-Poftion •, He fhall have the Reputation of a fhrowd Man, and the Honour of being the Author of that Sage Maxim, that Te;its themfelves only are Scripture-Poftions% 3. I cannot help obferving farther, what a fine Handle he has here given for fuch as adhere to the Letter, in any Inftance, againfl: the Seife of Scripture* K For, 166-] For, the Lettery in fuch a Cafe, upon this Gentle- rnan's Principles, muft pafs for the Scriptitre-Pojition : And the other being hiterpretation only, or drawn out by Reafo7i and Argument, muft not be equalled with it, under Pain and Peril of Frefmiptuoufvefs. The ^lahrs muft thank him highly. Swear not at all, fay they : Can there be ever a plainer Scnpture- Pcjitmi ? Can the oppofite Party bring any Text like it ? Can they exprefs their Notion in Scripture- JFords, like thefe ? No : Their Notion can be reckon- ed only as Interpretation, and muft never be fet a- gainft a plain Scripture-Poftion. An Anthropo'7norphite will infult over his Adver- fary on the fame Foot. He will produce many and plain Texts, where God is reprefented with E)es, Ears, Face, Heart, Hands, or Feet. There are no Texts fo plain on the other fide. The plaineft is where it is faid, God is irnv^xa, which yet is capable of divers Conftrudions, and every one is only Inter- pretation, never to be equalled with Scripm-e-PoJition. The ApoUinarians, or other Hereticks, will in- fult. The Word was 7nade Flefi : "Was ?nade, not took jipon him, and Flefi not Maiu They will challenge their Adverfaries to produce any Text fo plain on their Side, and will value themfelves, no doubt, upon the Scripture-Pojition -, to which the Interpreta- tz'ojz however juft, or neceftary, muft not be equalFd. To mention one more, the very Papijis will affiime upon it, and even in favour of Tranfnhjlantiation. This is my Body, is a Scripture-Pofition : And except ye eat the FUJI) of the Son of Man, and drink his Bloody you have no Life in you. Let any Protejlant produce a Te.\t, if pollible, as full and exprellive of his No- tion, as thefe are of the other ♦, or elfe let him con- fefs that his is Interpretation only, which is by no means to be equalled with Scripture-Pofitioju This C ^7] This Gentleman is pleafed to fay, that Tr«w/«i- fmmaticn has fome colour in '"^^ ^f^^*"''^' Zt'^t tme, tlmgb, as lie adds, vove w the Sef. But what is the W^ till it be drawn out by Merpretattov ? The Words, according to him, are the Scnpture-lojt. tion- to which no Ivterpetatmi imA he equalled. To conclude this Hea^d -, if this Writer will un- derftand by Scriptvre-Pofimi, the Se„fe and Meamvg of Scripture rightly iJrpreted, I Ihall readily prove to him\hat my main Pofitions, in regard to the ...r llelTed Trhiity, are all Scnptvre-1-Oinovs. But it he rSanyth'ing elfe, let him firitan werthe ^«.^ ken, tht Anthropomorphnes, the ^i'""""""""'.^"'^ Paiifs, as to the'rexts ailed ged; and then we fliall take cLre to anfwer him about bphef. iv. 6. or any other Text he (hall pleafe to produce. ,... He talks much of my putting my ovn Exphcatwn of a Boarine, in the Place of the Doarm to be explain- ed -, m^i fpends a whole Obfervatton "pon it He certainly aims at fomething in it ; though I pro- fS I cannot well underftand what: Nor do I think that he himfelf knows what it is that he means. If he means, that I have put what I have colleded from many Tests, or from the whole Tenor Tscrimre, into a narrow Compafs, or into zfev> jkrlsjlsour Church, as all Chriftian Churches have done- I Tee no harm'in it. If he means that I fub- fhm my omi Doarhe in the Room of the C/;«.c/;s Doarine,^r of the 5-P'--DoS.f;., J Jeny the Charge, and leave him to prove 1 at leifure. It h means that I take upon me to call the received Do- E the Doa/m 0/ t/;. Tn«it>, in pppofition to m Doarine, whichlsnot properly the Doarine of a Tmuvs nor true Doarine but H.r./>i I own ?he Faa; and have faid enough to juftify it. And I See my Second Defenfe, ?; 4' 8- ^v;, A 2 r ^s 1 tliis Gentleman will be hard put to It, to make good his pretended Parallel between teaching this Dodrine, and alTerting Travjuhjlantiatkn •, which is a Calumnj that he has twice repeated, ;;. 9>, 112. and which he has borrowed from the Fafijh, though abundantly confuted long ago by learned and judicious Hands.^ XIX. This Gentleman reprefents me (^p. 69, 64. and 120.) as changing the Word dyivvi}T©- into dyivfnQ-j in innumerable Pallages of ancient Authors, without any Pretenfe oi' Manufcnyts, nay, without my Vretevfe of Authority for fo doing. This is great Mifreprefejitatiov : And he is herein guilty at leaft of frandnhiixly concealing what I do pretend, and what Authority I had for it. Let but my Second Defe7ife be cohfulted, ' and it will there be feen, that I had ^ood Reajov^ and fufticient Authority, even for cor- refting the MSS in relation to that Word •, fhowing hj zn Hijlorkal LednBioit, andCritical Reafons, what the Reading ought to be, and what it avckntly was : "Which is f much greater Weight than the Readings of 'ISS (fuppi^ng them to agree, which yet is doubtful j in an Inftance of this kind, where the Co- pifts might fo ealily miftake, the difference being no 3110 t'^yn that of a flngle or d ouble Z^^?^;^. I laid down Rules whereby ^o judge of the Readings in this Cafe. If this Gentleman can either covfute them, oc give better, I fhall ftand correded. In the mean I'/hile, he has been adingan iivgeverom and intrighteons Part, in the Rcprefevtation here given, and ought to make Satisfadion to his Readers for it. s See the CoUeBion of Pamphlets relating to /^ePopilh Contro^ verfy. ? Second Defenfe, ^.25$, CHAR 1^9-] CHAP. III. Concerning the Author s Flouts, Abufes, decla- matory Exclamations, ReparteeSy 6cc. in lieu of Anfu^ers. WE fhall meet with many Inftances of this Kind in the Courfe of his Work: I fhall point out feme of them in Order as they occur. I. Page 9th and loth, To the Solutions I had given of his great Ohje&iov, wherein he pleads for ^iiatn- ral Superiority of Dominion over God the Son, and to what I had urged about the Father and Son mutually ghrifyivg each other ^ ^ he is pleafed only to fay : If any Man who, to fay 7to more^ reais feriovfiy this Chapter ( John xvii.) can believe this to b& the BoBrivie of Chrijl, I think it can he to 710 ptrpofe to endeavour to convince hivi of any thing. He introduces thefe Words, indeed, with fome Pre- tenfe to Reafoning ^ tho' it is really made up of no- thing elfe butiiis own Shufflings, and Miftakes. I have never faid that the Father might not have dif daind to have been ijxarnate. He might, he could not but difdain to be fo ^ becaufe it was not proper^ noi congruous for t\\Q Father ^ oiFirJl Peribn, to conde- fcend to it. And admitting that it was pofible for him to have been incarnate -, it does not follow that the Father could become a Son, or the Son Father 5 their Relation to each other being natural, and mial' terahle. * Expoftulatio Clarificationis dandae, vicilfimq; reddendse, nee Patri quidquam adimit, nee infirmat Filinm ; fed eandem Divinitatis oitendit in iitroq; lirtutem. ; cum & clarificari fe Filius a Patre oret, & clarificationem Pater non dedignetur 3 Filip, Hilar, p. 614. I II. Page C 70 3 II. Page the inh, he is pleafed to cite, imper- fedlj, my Words wherein I aiifwer and obviate ^ his Pretejifes from i Cor, viii. 6. by Reafons drawn from the Context, and very plain ones. He tells us, inftead of replying, that the BoBor evdeavoiirs to co- ver the Reader with a thick DuJI ofirords, that have no Signifcatioji ^ and that it could fcarce have been lelievedy that fvch a TwiJ} of vrmtelligible Words Jlwiild have dropped from the Teji of aferious JFriter. I am forry for his Slownefs of Apprehenlion : But I am perfua- ded rather, that he iniderjhod the Twijl of Words too Well to attempt any Avfwer. III. To the Objedion about the Son's receiviyig Dominion, I had fhown \ how Both Father and Son may receive Dominion, and Increafe of Dominion ^ intimating that Domimo7i is an exterml Relation which may accrue to any of the Divive Perfons, and is no Argument againft their equal Perfedtion. This Gen- tleman turns it off by Mifreprefevtatiov, (p. 16.) to this Purpofe ^ As if the Father s receiving the Kivg- donij Sec, was as innch an ArgU7nent of the Sons Su- premacy over the Father^ as the Sons receivings &c. and concludes-, Was ever any thing fo hdicroiis uponfo important a SuhjeB: ^ Which is firft making a ridicu- lous Blunder of his own^ and then, to Ihow ftill greater Indecency and Levity, beginning the Lau^ himfelf. I did not plead for any Supremacy of the Son over the Father 5 but was fhowing, that Oecono- viical Conveyance of Dominion on one hand, or Oeconomical Reception of Dominion on the other, is no Bar to Equality of Nature. " Second Defenfe, f. 455, 437. I Second Defenfe, /». 8i, 82. IT. To [ 7^ ] IV. To a Reply made by me y, about the Senfe oF exalthig ( Vhil, ii. 9. ) which Senfe I vindicated at large, and then asked, where now is there any Ap- pearance of Abfurdity > To this the Author here re- turns me a Flout ^ tho' in the Words of an Apoftle: If any vian be igiwrajtt, let him be igvoravt. This, he thinks, is the ojily proper Avfwer, p. 19. The next time he is difpofed to jeft^ or Ihow his JFit, he Ihould be advifed to chufe fome other than Scripture- Words to do it in. I fhall endeavour however, that He may not be igmravt hereafter, by taking care to inform him, that when I interpret exaU thg in fuch a Senfe as Men exalt God, in Oppofition to another Senfe of exaltivg to an higher Place or Dig- nity, I could not be fuppofed to mean, that the Fathe^ is inferior to Chrift, as Men are inferior to God : It muft be great Malicioiifyiefi to iniinuate that I had any fuch Meaning. But as Inferiors may exalt Su- periors in the Senfe of extoUirtg, or praifr.g 5 fo un- doubtedly may Eqvah exalt Equals in the fame Senfe of extolling or praifivg \ and thus God the Father ex- alted his Coequal Son. V. Upon a Remark of mine 2, or rather not mine, in relation to the Conftrudtion of two Greek Words, («? cTo^d^^) this Gentleman, full of himfelf, breaks out into TFonder^ That fome Men of great Abilities ayid great Learning, can never be made to imderfland Grammar ^ , Thefe Men that our Writer fo iniults over, as not underftanding Grammar, are. y Second Defenfe, ;>• 223* 2 Second Defenfe, p. 390. a Phil. ii. II. ^ Obferviitions, ^. 20* we fhould know, fjch Men as Eeza, GroUus, Sclnil^ Jfw5, and the Top Critkh\ who unanimoully alTert that «V is often put for oi/, and Some admit it even in this very Text. This Gentleman ispleafed to de- ny that one is ever put for the other. I might very juftly decline entring into that Difpute, becaufe, as it happens, our learned Grammarian confirms the Con- ffrudion he finds fault with in this Text, by the very Infi:ance brought to confute it ^ which if it does not fhow want of Grammar^ fhows want of Thought. His Words are ; If I mean to affirm that a Man is in the Field, I can with equal Propriety of Speech fay either that he is ci'dy^rp, or «< cf.y^h', becaufe the Senfe^ in this Cafe^ happens to he the fame whether I fay that he is in the Fields or that he is gone, or carried, into the Field. Admit- ting this to be fo, then I hope b? /.6Jco' may as well fignify in the Glory, becaufe the Senfe, in this Cafe, is the fame, whether Chrift be faid to be in the Glory, or gone into t]ie Glory -, That Glory which he had before the JForld iras^ and into which he re-entred after his Pallion and Afcenfion, which is called en- trivginto his Glory ^ Luke 24. 26. This is fufficient for me, in regard to the Text I am concerned with. As to this Author s new Rule of Grajjimar^ (which happens to do him no Service ) I may leave it to the Mercy of the Criticks •, who perhaps may take it for a vain Conceit in matter of Criticif?n,as he has dif- cover'd 7na7!y, both in Divijiity^ and Philofophy : The fame Turn of Mind will be apt to fliow it felf in like Inftances, in all. I know not whether this Gentleman will be able, upon the Foot of his vev^ Ride, to give a tolerable Account of the Ufe of the Prepofition h? in fuch Examples as here follow: Hi Tzv yJoh^ov. John i. 18. «'f ov i'jS'oMinv^ Matt. xii. 18. e^i ^J\ (Suppl o^i-Mv) AB. ii. ?i. «V J'ta.To^i 'Afykhtov, Aci. vii. 53, Hi TO y^^.u Geiu xxi. 2. He He mufl: fuppofe, at leaft, fomething underflood (as in his other Inftance, gone i7tto^ or carried mo) be- yond what is exprefs'd, to make the P/epoJitmi h\ Hand with e(]ual Propriety : And fo he maft folve by an EllipJtSj what others folve by a Change of Prepoji- t'lons. Which at laft is changing ove Phrafe for ano- ther Phrafe, or ufing one Forvi of Speech inllead of another which would be clearer, and more exprelfive. To me it feems, that the eafier, and better Ac- count is That which our ablefl: Critich hitherto have given ^ that one Prepofit'ion or Particle may be, and often is, put for another: Which may be owing to fe- veral accidental Caufes among the different Idiom% of various Languages borrowing one from another. To inftance in quia^ or qmmam^ for qnod^ by a GrA^ cif?n : For fince it happens that 077 may fometimes fignify This, and fometimes That, thefe two Ren- d rings by degrees come to be ufed one for the other. The like might be obferved in many other Cafes of the fame Kind : But I am not willing to weary the Reader with Grammatical Niceties, of fmall Im« portance to the Point in hand. VI. To an AfFertion of mine, namely, that there was no Impojibility, in the Nature of the Thing it felf, that the Father Ihould be incarnate ( an AlTer- tion which all that have profefs'd a Coequal Trinity have ever held, and ftill hold ) only it is not ^o fuitable or congruous to the Firjl Perfon to have been lb : To this the Gentleman replies, Bo not the Readers Ears tingle ^ And he goes on declaiming, for a whole Page of Repetition. This is the Gentleman, who in his Preface enters a Caveat againft making Applications to the Pafions of the Ignorant ; as if he mec?at to ingrofs the Privilege entirely to hiwfelf L Til, la [74] VII. In the next Page (p, 29. ) he feem'd difpo- fed to give fome Anfwer to an Obfervation of mine, that by voluntary Oecoiwiny the Exercife of Powers cojmnon to many, may devolve upon one chiefly, and run in his Name 3. After fome fruitlefs labouring, as we may imagine, to make fome Reply, out comes a Scrap of Latin, from an old Co7nedy, ^lid ejl, Ji h&c contmielia von ejl ? which, if the Reader pleafes, he is to take for an Anfwer, YIII. From Page 39th to 47th, This Writer goes on declaiming about the fuppofed Abfurdity cf the Father s appearing according to the Ancients, Bifhop Bidl ^, and after him, I have particularly, fully, and diftindly confidered that whole Matter, and have anfwered every Thing that has been, or can be brought in the way of Reafov, or Argimenty againft the Divinity of God the Son from that To- pick^. Yet this Writer, applying only to the Vaf- fi'cvs of the Ignorant, and roving in generals, difpla3''s *his Talent for eight or nine Pages together. And among other Fathers, he is weak enough to bring St. Aiiftln in, as Toucher for the Abfurdity of the Father's htm^ fevt, appearing, &c. For verily, if St. Avfin,^yo undoubtedly believed there was no vatiiral hnpojjibiUty "^ , but only great Incongruity in the a Second Dcfenfe, -p. 414. ^ Bull. D. F. Sect. 4. c 3. Breves Animadv. in Gilb. Cler. f. 1044, ^r-c. c Anfwer to Dr. Whitby, f. 73. Second Defenfe, f. 12S ^ Solm pater non legitur mifliis, qnoniam folus non habet AuBorem a quo genitus fit, vel a quo procedat. Et ideo non propter nature Alverfitatenh quas in Trinitate nulla eft, fed propter ipfam AuBorltateviy folus pater non dicitur 7?i}Jfus, Non enim fplendor, aut fervor ignem, fed ignis mittit five iTplendorem^ five fervorem. Aitgnfi. contr, Serm, Arian. c. 4. Tbing, [75] Thing, could yet ure fuch a ftrong Expreffion of it as Abfurdijjme « , what Confequence can be drawn from the Expreifions o^ other Fathers^ which fcarce any of them come up to this ? But St. Aujlh was profefTedly for the Father's Appearivg, and objects only againft his being Seiit 5 which this Writer feems not to know. I have remark'd upon him before in re- lation to TerUtlUan in this very Matter, nor need I add more. ^ IX. There is a Sentence in my Second Defenfe, p. 166. (repeated, in Senfe, p. 172, I7^; which has happened to fall under the Difpleafure of this Gen- tleman. My Words are : " What has Supremacy of Office to do with the *' Notion of Supreme God? Go^ is a Word expreifmg " Nature and Subjlaiwe : He is fupreme God, or God «' fupreme, that has no God of a fuperior Nature " above him. Such is Chrijl, even while he fubmits *' and condefcends to to ad minifterially. " To the former Part of this PaiTage, we have the following fmart Repartee : VHjat has Supremacy of Office, or Au- thority avd Bomhiion to do with the Notion of fupreme Man — Is not .Alan, ( in the fame way of reafoning ) a Iford esprefjing Nature and Sitbfance ? ^tam ridicule ! p. 50. Now,for my part, I never heard oi fupreme Man, Man is the Word upon which the Argument turns ', for which reafon I have thrown out fupreme King, or Governor^ as not pertinent. And as no Su- prernacy of Office can make one Man more truly or * Pater non dicitur mifliis ; non enim habet de quo fit, ant ex quo procedat — fi voluiiTet Deus Pater per fubjeftatn creaturam vifibiliter apparere, abfardijfime tamen aut i FilJO quern genuit, aut a Spiritu Sanfto^qui de illo proceditj mlf" fits diceretur. Aitgufi. de Tr'w, /. 4. r. 28, 31. ^ See my Anf'wer to Vr, Whitby, />» 75* Second Defenfe, |>. 129, &c. L 2 motQ [ 7^ 1. more properly Mav, or Man in a higher Senfe of the Word JVIayi \ fo it feemeth to me that no Supre- macy of O^ice can make^ God the Father more truly God^ or God in a higher Sevfe than is God the Son. There was no great reafon for the Gentleman's burft- ing out into Merriment upon it, with his ^tavi ridi- cule : But perhaps his Infirmity, as ufual, overcame him. X. To a well-known Plea on our Side, that God could not be God meerly in the Senfe of Domiviovy having been God from Everlafting, and before Do- minion commenced, the Obfervator thus fpeaks : But is it in reality m CharaBer of Domivioii, vo relative CharaHer, to hcn^e hi himfelf an effential Fewer frovi Etermty to Etervity,' ofproducirg what SithjeBs he thivh ft^ avd of dep'oyivg what Snhje&s he thivh fit ^ avd of f'rodiicirtg vew Siibjecls of his Govervmevt at pleafvre^ iras ever fiich trtflivg In ferioiis Matters? Truly, I think net, if the laft Part be intended for an An- fwer to the Firft : as any Stranger might judge, who knows not that Both come from the fame Hand. This Gentleman is fo taken up with Grammar^ it feems, that he has forgotten the firft Elements of Logick 5 which will teach him that Relate and Correlate always rife and fall together. "Where can the Relative Cha- radter be, while as yet there is fuppofed to exift but one Term of Relation^ 'Tis true, God can make to himfelf new Relations by making new Creatures when he. pleafes : But when he had as yet, for an Eternity backwards, no relation to any Creature at all, none being created, I humbly conceive he was under no fach relative Character, nor had any Donmiion-^ confe- quently could not be Go J in the Senfe of Bomiraojui « See »?y Second Defenfe, /». 180. This [ 77 1 This Writer therefore might have fpared his Ridkiih for a more proper Occafion, had the Gaiety of his Heart permitted him tothink/£'/707//?)>of the Matter. As to what he has farther upon the fame Queftion, it is no more than Repetition of what I fully anfwered long agoh. And the main of the Queftion was be- fore given up in the Re^ly > ^ as I obferved alfo in my Secovd Defevje K XI. When this Writer comes to the Head of Worfhip , ( Obfervat. viii. ) he repeats fome ftale Pleas ufed by the Party, and ivhich hai^e all been particularly confidered and confuted in my Defe7ifes. As to reinforcing the Pleas with any new Matter* or taking off the Force of the Anfwers given, he is not folicitous about it. But here a Scoffs and' there a Flout he flings at his Adverfary. R 78. He cites a Sentence of ir.ine 1 in ^fcojjivg Manner, calling it an excellent Commentary upon Two Texts, (i Johji ii. I. Hebr. vii. 2^.) which Texts, he conceives, teach us to pay to Chrijl, to pray in Heaven for m : In the mean while, taking no Notice of what I had faid to obviate folow and mean a Notion of God the Son and to cut off the Pretence of Creatiire-jrorj/jlp, Ha- ving gone on with Repetition as far as he thouo-ht proper, he next vouch fa fes to take notice that I had made ihmQ Replies : And one of themhe cojjfittes, bv faying, that there will be found in it a Z?;^?//^;- BextL rity, p. 81. Another, by faying, IfanyfeHousRea. der finds any InfiniBion or l7?iprovement in it, it is well. p. 84. A Third, by a Scrap of Latin, from the Co- h Firft Defenfe, % 47, Qpc Second Defenfe, p. 1 80. i Reply, ^.119. ^ Second Defenfe, p. 170, 210, 247. ,1 Second Defenfe?, ^^. 571. ' niedian. . [ 78 ] median, ^ild cum ijio Hofuhie facias ^ The EvgVifi of which feems to be, that he has thought everyway to come at fome Solution, is difappointed in all, and knows not what to do more , except it be to fioiit and fcojf, that whatever Reputation he and his Friends had once gain'd, by beginning like ferioiis Men , (in which way I was ready to go on with them) they may at length throw up, by ending like XII. Page the 86th, This VYiter comes to fpeak of Indivldvality and Savienefs-^ in which I had been be« forehand with him, anfwering all his Pretences on that Head ni . Inftead of replying, he goes on in his way. Individuality and Savmwfs (fays he) are IFords^ it fee?ns, which Jigriify no body knows what: Becaufe^ forfooth, I had expofed his weak Pretences to Ihow what vialies it, or what its Priywiple is. He refers me to his Reply " , to convince me of the Ahfurdity of my way of talking, I had feen, I had confidered his Reply long ago, and expofed the Weaknefs of it '^ : tV^hat pity is it that he is forced to leave it at lafl helplefs, and entirely deflitute of any Reinforcement XIII. He is farther angry with me for calling up- on him to explain his Terms p, particularly, Siipre7ne and Independent. As to the firft of them, he fays, (p, 87. ) it is a Term which no Man, he believes, before J)r. Waterland, viifunderjlood. "VV^hether I mifunder- fiood it or no, may be a Queftion. I think, the EngliJI) of it is higheji : And as high or low may have refped to Variety of Thiings, to Place^ to Dignity i« Second Defenfe, ^. 319, &c, ^32, 447, n Reply, ^ 507, 508. o Second Defenfe, f, 319. p Second Defenfc> ^. 418. ^ 1 to r 19-] to Dofnimort, to Office^ to Order^ to Katurd, Sec. it was but juft in Dr. Jfaterlavd to call for an Expla- nation, that fo the Word Siiyreine might be admitted, or rejected under proper DlJfiMons, Independent is likewife a Word varioufly under- ilood according to Variety of Refpecis. God the Son, for Inftance, is dependent on tJie Father, as be* ing of Him, and frorn Hhn, and referr'd up to him : But he is not dependent on the Father's IFill, or 'Plea- fiire, being neceffarily-exijling as well as the Father. Every Perfon of the Trinity is independent of any- thing ad extra •, but none of them are entirely inde- pendent of each other, having a vecejjary Relation to one another, that they mull and cannot but exift together^ never were, never could be feparate, or afunder. This is fufficient to juftify my calling for an Explanation of independent. Which this Gentle- man would not have been offended at, but that it touches him in a tender Part : It is breaking through his Coverts, letting the Jforld in upon him, when he has a mind to be retired, and to lie concealed under equivocal, and amhigimis Terms. The Term Authority was anQther equivocal Word, which I was willing to diJIinguiJJ) upon <3. This Writer being extremely defirous of finding a Goverjwr for God the Son, and God the Holy Ghoft, fays 5 As if any Man, Jince the jrorld began, ever did, or ever could 7Jtean, by thofe Terms, vot Power and Dominion, It were eafy to quote a Multitude of W^riters, Ancient and Modern, that ufe the Word Authority, without refe- rence to Dominion 5 and who when they afcribe it to the Father, as his Peculiar, never mean to exprefs any the leaft Dominion over the other Two Ferfons by it. I content my felf here with Two only, Both ^ Second Defenfe, ^. 43» 179. quoted [ So ] quoted in my Secojid Deferfe r, namely, St. An fin and Bifhop Tearfon. It would be endlefs to inftrudt this Gentleman in all the nfeful Things which he wants to hww. He does not know, that as early as the Days of St. Aiijliv^ the very BifihiBion which I infift upon, as to the equivocal Senfe of Authority in this Cafe, was taken notice of, and pleaded againft one of his Arian PredeceiTors, Maximin « : So little is he acquainted with what Men oi Letters have been doing y/wce the World began, ' Upon this Occafion, he drops a Maxim, as he takes it to be, that vcthhig cayi he the fame in Kind ayid hi Niiviher too. The Author of the Remarks is full of the fame thing ^ I have already hinted, how contradictory this pretended Maxwi is to Dr. Clarke's known and avow'd Principles in another Caufe. To anfwer now more diredly, and to cut off their main Argument at once •, I obferve, that tho' in finite Things, efpecially Things corporeal^ thole that are one hubftance in Kind, are more than one Sub- ftance in Number 5 yet the Keafon is not, becaufe the}'' are ojie in Kind, but becaufe tliey are really fe-^ parate, or feparable from each other : And fo it hap- pens, that while they are one Subftance in Kind, they are not one in Number, But where the Subftance is neither feparate nor feparable, ( as in the Divine Per^ fbns) there Unity of Kind and Number are confiftent, and meet in one : And thus the Unity is both fpeci- fck.m-id individual, without any the leafl: Repugnancy, or Appearance of it. ^ *' Second Defenfe, -p. 178, 555. See other Tefilmonies in Peta- viiis. de Trill. 1. v. c. 5. §. xi, xii, xiii. 1. ii. c. z. §. ix. W in Bull D. F. Sect. iv. c. i._f. 254. - s Augiiftin cont. Maxim. 1. iii. c. 5, 14. ' Remarks, />. 25. a See^my Second Defenfe, ^.321, 5P4- • ^ XIT. Pag? [8i ] XIV. Page the 9^3, we meet with feveral little Efforts to fay fomething, but with a very ill Spint, and (bowing more of the Author'^ Spleen, than his Abilities. Uefcofs at the Advice given him, not to pretend to be wife in the deep Things of God. He is pofitivethat an infjiitely aliive Being ca4i, if he pleafes, tutixdjceafeto aB; that God's Zori7;^himfelf, however it may be the prime Mover in all the divine Aas,is no- AB at all 5 and that God never vatiirally, or iiecejfary ly exerts any Power-, for this wifeReafon, becaufe in fuch a Cafe, he caji have no Power to exert : That is, becaufe the Jfillis the Original (with this Writer) of all exerting of Power, which was the Point in ^lejion. He has left feveral very material Things I urged upon this Head, perfedly untouched: ^ But feems to be affronted that any Man (hould qiiepon whatever he has been ];)leafed to affirm •, or fhould not take his DiBates for DemonJIrations. XY. There is a Place which I have pafs'd over in p. 62. but deferves to be mentioned under this Chap- ter. I happened to find fault with Dr. Clarke, for pretending to prove the Exiftence of a Firft Caufe, a priori ^ : Which has no Seiife without fuppofing a Caufe pWor to the Firji, which is flat Contradiclion, This plain Reafoning is called turning the pretended Proof into Ridicule ', though, in my Notion, reafoning is one thing, and ridiculing another. However, the Gentleman being grievoufly offended, refolves to re- venge himfelf in a Note. Repeating feme W^ords of mine, out of the Place I have referred to in my Second Defenfe, he enters a Remark : Thefe Words jbow that a See my Second Defenfe, p ^16, 327 ^ Second Defenfe, ^. 429 M Vr^ [ 8a 1 jDr. Waterland does mt tmderjl^vd what the Memthig of a Trocf a priori h, I lliould be glad to receive Information on this Head from our great DiBator in Science : And if he iivderjlands the Thing fo well, the Reader might have expected foine Explication of it at his Hands, that it might be feen where Dr. JFaterlavd's Miftake lay. Till this be done, I will prefume to think,that what I faid was perfectly right ^ and that neither Dr. Clarke nor his Friends can return any Reply, more than Ahiifes to it. Dr. Cudworth was one that had travelled in the Argument as far as any Man, and had as good an Inclination to prove the ExiJIeiwe a priori, as Dr. Clarke could have. But he was a wife Man, and faw clearly how that Matter ftood. Let us hear what he fays, after many Years Thought and Meditation. Speaking of what he had done in his la ft Chapter, he has thefe Words : Jf'e therein aJfo ds7novfirate the ahfoliite ImpojjibiUty of all Atheifpij and the aciml Exijlence of a God : V e fay demon jtrate ; 7iot a priori, which is impoifible, and contradidti' ius, but by receffary hfererxe from Frinci- ^les altogether intdeviaUe. ^ I do not want Dr Cwi- worth's, or any Man's Authority for a Maxim of com- mon Senfe,and as plain as that Two andTwo are Four : But the plainer it is, fo much the greater wonder that Men of Parts and Abilities could not fee it, or are yet ignorant of it. The moft knowing Men hitherto have been con- tented with the Proofs a poferiori, as being fufficient, and the ojdy ones that are fo. And they have rightly 3udg€d,that to pretend more, is betraying great Igno- rance of Things, and is expofing the cleareft and beft Caufe in the World to thelnfults b( Atheifm and Inf de- lity, Thefe Gentlemen endeavour to blind thisMatter hy fubftituting Groujid, and Reafon, in the room o^ Caufe. © Cudworth IntelieO:* Sy^» Preface, . ■^ V^"^ ■■'■ ut [83] Let them fay plainly what they ttiean ty this Canfe, Gromd, or Reafov, or whatever elfe they plea fe to call it. They will at length find the Words either to have m Senfe, or to contain that abfurd Sevfe of a Caufe prior to the frjl. Is this Gromd, Reajov, &c. the Subftance itfelf ? The Confequence then is, tloat the Subftance is the Caufe or Ground of zt felj. Is it any Attribnte or Attributes of that Subftance? i he Confequence then is, that Attributes are the Caufe, or Gromul of the Siibjea, ot Subjlavce. Let them turn it which way they will, the Abfurd ty Ml recurs, till they pleafe to allow, (what is both Setfje, and Truth ) that the Firft Caufe is abfolutely ttncaujed 5 and that it is Nonfenfe to talk of any Gm«i or Caufe of that Subftance, which is it felf the Gromd and Caufe of all Things. But it is pleaded (p. 63.J that if God may exijl abfolutely withont any Ground or Reafon ( that is, Caufe) of Exijience, ttwoidd joUov> that he might likemfe as well without any Caufe or Kea- Son ceafe to exijf. Which is as much as to fay, that unlefs there be a Caufe prJor to the yfr/, which exifts i,ecelJarily,it will follow that the firfCaife doesnot ex^ ift veceffarily, but may ceafe to be. What is this, but making the Notion of a frft Caufe repugnant, and contradiaory to it felf; or in Ihort, dei^mg any fuchthingasa/;-/C<«(A? I think it fufficient o fay, that it is the Property ol the fir Jl^ar^Je to eiift wcejfarily: He muft, and cannot but «ift from Eternity, to Eternity, litxtfte^ice be confi- der'd as an Attribute of that firJl Caufe, tlie iola Ground, Reafon, or tlubjdl oiith ft Subfiance it felf fo eiiftingj which is therefore the Sup- port of That and of every other Attribute. All pretended Grounds, Reafons, Canfes, Sec m this Gale can refolve into nothing but the at\ual Exiftence of fnch a Being. Prove firft i pojieriori, that it is Fa£t that he does exiftj and the necejfary manner ot his M 2 exj.ft« [ S4l exifting is proved at the fame time. It is Nonfenfe to run up higher for an antecedent Ground, Reafon, or Caufe, after we are come to the Top, and can go no higher 5 unlefs this "Writer is difpofed to go on ad tnfinmm, and never to come at a frft Caufe at all. But he has been fo ufed, it feems, to talk in this way upon other Subjects, that he thinks it Jlrange^ he may not do it here too; andthat he may not talk of an an- tecedent Reafon for what has not any thing an- tecedent, as well as for what has. Such is his great Proficiency in Metaphyjich. I fhould have been willing to have pafs'd over the Do6tor's Mifcondu6t in this Argument, had it not accidentally fallen in with our prefent Subjedl. The Caufe of The'ijm, and his good Intentions, and, I be- lieve, very honefi Endeavours in it, might have been his Frote^ion. But fince this Matter has at length been brought in, and admits of no jufi: De- fenfe ; it is good to acquaint this Gentleman, that it will not be carried through, either by confident dilating, or by throwing out Abiifes. But I proceed. XVI. Page the 9ifl, This Gentleman, fpeaking of me, fays as follows. Having been toldy that what- ever the Deity ^ or Divine Nature [75 ^«o;/] isfpohn of as an OhjeEt of Adoration, 'tis twt by way of Accu- racy {as the DoBcr had abfurdly pretended) but on the contrary by a mere jignrative way of fpeaking, put for God himfelfjuj} as we frequently fay the King's Majefty, 9wt mearting the Majefy of the King, hut the King him- felf; his Anfwer is, that his affirming the contrary is fufficient agaiiift our bare Affirmation. If the Rea- der thinks itfo, I am willing to leave it to him. That this Writer is offended, one may perceive. I Ihall endeavour to fet the Matter however in a clear Light. In my Defenfe ^ I have thefe Words : ^ Defenfe, ^.251. 2 God [85] " God alone is to be worfliipped, the Creator in " Oppofition to all Creatures whatever, the tb ^noy, " as Clemens of Alexandria e, and Origen ^ fometimes " accurately exprefs it : Which alfo Tertiillian s feems " to intimate in the Words, quod colimus, above ci- " ted. The Author of the Reply having a Fancy, that W^orfhip cannot be properly faid to be paid to the divine , or any Nature^ but to Per/on only, was pleafed to put in his Anfwer ^ to what I had faid, in the Words he has iince repeated. To a bare Affirma- tion of his, and pofitively laid down, only to ferve an Hypothefs, I firft returned a Counter- Ajfirmatiov^ (Difputants, as I thought, being always upon a Level in fuch Cafes, and never obliged to take each others JFord for Proof) but prefently fubjoined i fome Remarks, and References, about the S^nfe of •7D ^^oy in Greek Writers, and particularly in Clemens^ and Origcfi : From which I had reafon to conclude, that TD ^£ioy properly fignii^es the div'ive Nature, or Siihjlance^ or God confidered fubftantially as res d'l- vina, and not according to perfonal Charadters, Adts, or Offices. That this was the Senfe oi Clemens^ when he fpeaks of the iz ^^or, as the Objedt of jrorj/np^ might appear plainly from the Places I referred to ; particularly from thofe I have again noted ^ in my Margin. And the reafon why both Clemens and Ori- gen chofe that Expreilion rather than 3^oV, was to be * S^y)(ruijHV TO -^Mo'. Clem. Alex. p. 778. Ox. Ed. f ^iCn TV '^eiov, 6cc. Orig. contr. Celf. p. 367. ^AvABauvny ^ r d-^riT.? 7^ 3t» (^Jm'y KAKmof ^V^ hofAV* Orig. ibid. p. 189. « Quod colimus Deus uniis eft, &c. TertulU ApL c 17. h Reply, -j). 356. i Second Defenfe, -p. 3SS, 389» k Cicm. Alex, p 50, 8 3 5. more [ 85 3 more emphatical and expreffive againfl: Pagan Wor- fliip offer 'd to Things of a frail and corruptible i\"^- Hire, to created Beings. I think, it was paying great Refpedl: to this Gentleman'^ bare Affirmation^ to trace the Senfe of tv de^oy fo far as I did in Oppofi- tion to it •, as may appear by my References. And though I threw in a Parenthefis, favivg to ?nyfelf the juft Claims of every Difputant, he need not have been offended at it, as if it were intended as an Af- front to his fiiperlor Learning or Judgment, to fet mhie againft it : I had no fuch Thought in it. But however raifed and extraordinary his Abilities may be, and however high an Opiinon he conceives his Readers Ihould have of them, he ought neverthelefs to have taken fome A^otice of what I had pleaded ; if not as a Criticky yet as an honeft Man : And I can- not but think it too ajfiming ftill, to expecl that his bare Dilates Ihall have more weight than Another's Reafons. XVII. To an Obfervatlon of mine out of TertitU lian, that God the Son is an Angel, and Meffevger^ not by Nature but by Office ^ , he returns me this Anfwer : Can any Man tell what the heirg a Mejfevger by Nature means "^ ? No : But he may know what an Angel by Nature means, which was the Word I de- figned the Diftindion for, and to vzhich alone it re-f ferr'd ^ as my Argunient, and the flotation at the Bottom, fufihciently fhow'd : And all the Fault was in not throwing the Word Mejjerger into Brackets. The Reafon of bringing it in, appears from what went before. This is low carping : But no doubt the Author intended a fmart Repartee, He has fuch J Second Defenfe, f. 128* » Obfervacions, ^. 25. ano- [ 8; ] another Piece of Smartnefs in the fame Page, rela- ting to the Word Servility ^ which he charges me with adding deceitfully ^ as Synouymous to SiibjeBioji ^ ^ be- caufe of the quite different Senfe of that Word in the E^igUfi Lavgmge. Whatever Senfe it be that he fpeaks of, as to the ErigUJI^, I am fure no body but himfelf can miilake my Serje of it, in the Place where I ufed it, nor think the Word improper. But this Gentle- man feenis to be fo elated upon his Skill in Language^ that he can fcarce allow others to underftand their Mother-Tongue, XYIII. He has fome higemovs Thoughts, anij /mart Sayings, p. 40. v/hich muft not be omitted„ They are bellowed upon a Paflageof mine o , where I iky, that the Father was not to be vifible, fo much as per affuviptas Species, by viJihJe Symbols, becaufe he was not to minijler^ or be ivcarvate. The Remark hereupon is : Itfeemsfrom thefe Words, that Br. W'a- terland does jwt juppofe the Ivcarvation of Chrjjl to he at all real, hut meerly a Phantafm, per afumptas Species : This being covfeffedly the ojtly way in which there was any iiatural Poilibility for the Father to he incarnate. Ayd accordingly in his Explication of that Text. ( Phil, ii. 7.) He tells us that Chriji ejjtptied himfelf in Appea- rance, I pafTed over this uncommon Turn of his, when I met with it in the Reply?. I faw,he was ftrangelj^ lofi ,and bewildred -, and I was willing to give him time to recover, and recollect. But by his repeating it here, he appears to be very fond of it: And Jthis, iio doubt, is one of the Arguments which « See my Second Defenfe, ^. 107* ,♦ Second Defenfe, -p, 1420 ^ Jleply, ^. 59, 181, [S8] ( as he tells us in his Preface ) upon the mojl careful Reviewy he believes to be JiriBly and perfeBly corxlii- fve, I am afhamed to anfwer fuch Impertinencies ; But fometimes it muft be done. His Jir J} Miftake is, underftanding per ajfiimptas f pedes ^ of a Vhantafm: But this was to make way for what was to come af*- ter, and to anfwer to Appearance, His Second is, in pretending that this was the ovly way that it was na- turally poilible for the Father to be incarnate. For neither would this way have amounted to any Jw- carmt'ion at all, being only Frdlitdiiim Incarna- tionis^ as it was anciently called : Nor is a real Incar- nation 7tatiirally lefs polfible than that was. His Third is, in not diftinguiihing between the taking up vifble Symbols for a while to appear by, and being per- fo7iaUy united to the Human Nature^ which is Incarna- tion. His Fourth is fo grofs^ ( not to perceive the Difference between veiling the Glories of the God- heady and having no real Manhood ) that I can hard- ly fuppofe his Thoughts were at home when he wrote it. But the Word Appearance feems to have ftruck his Imagination at once, and to have made him jump immediately, without any Premifes, into a marvelous Conclujion. XIX. Page the 74th, &c. He undertakes to fhow, that, upon his Hypothefis, the Exifience of God the Son is not precarious. I could fcarce have believed, till I faw the Reply^ that any Man of tolerable Parts, or Difcretion,would have engaged in fo filly an Argu- ment. But there is a Neceliity for it, it feems : And this is the Second Time, tliat he has refolved to fhut liis Eyes againft common Senfe ? , in this very Ar- ticle. See my Second Defenfe, *. 2,19. "U^e are to obferve, that he denies the 7iecefary Ex- Jlevce of God the Son 5 which is directly making his Exiftence contingent, which is another Word for p-e- carious^ and is proper to a Creature, This Gentleman endeavours, p. 75, with a Daft of Words, to obfcure this plain State of the Queflion. At laft, he comes a little clofer to the Point, and be- gins the Debate. God, fays the ApoJIle, cannot lie : The only Reafon why he cannot, is hecaufe he will not, [Notetlnen, that the only Reafon why God does not, or cannot reduce God the Son to nothing, is be- caufe he will not.~] Is therefore the Veracity of^ God a thing as mutable and precarious, hecaufe it entirely de- pends upon his JfilU as is the Exijlence of any Creature whatever^ But this Gentleman fhould have Ihowa that God was as much bound up by his own Attri- butes to give the Son Exijlence, and to continue him in it, as he is bound never to lie, to make the Cafe parallel : And upon this Sappofition, God could no more want his Son one Moment from all Eternity, than he could be ever one Moment capable of Ifmg : Which is making the Son as rwcejjarily- exijHvg, by necefary Will ( which this Gentleman would call no If ill) as God's Attribute of Veracity is neceiTary and immutable. God's moral Attributes are founded in the natural Perfedions, and are iuv deed no other than natural, and necejjary Perfeclions of the Deity, which he can no more ceafe to have, than he can ceafe to be. And even the Reclitiide of his 7Viirisvatiiral,nece jfary, ^nd unalterable : And theHeafon why he never wills amifs, is becaufe he cannot. But not to run farther into this Point, which is perfedtly re- 7note and foreign, and brought in only for a Blind -, what becomes of the Diftindion between the neceffa- ry Exiftence proper to the Diviyie Being, and thep-^- carious Exiftence proper to Creatures^ If God may be cbliged by any of his Tmral Attributes of Jfifdom^ X^ Good- [ PO ] Goodvefs, Veracity, &c, to preferve the Son in his Being , fo may he like wife to preferve Avgels, or Men, or any other Creature : And is this a Reafon againfl: calling their Exiftence precarious ? If it be, then there may be Creatures^ many befides God the Son, whofe Exiftence is not precarious : And thus the Diftindion between jwcefjaryy and precarious Exiftence is loft. The Meaning of precarious Exiftence is, mt veceffary^ of what might either never have heev^ or may ceafe to be, if God pleafes. Let this Gen- tleman either affirm this of God the Son, or de- ny it of any Creature whatever. This Writer, who is ufed to wife Qiieftions, asks me, w^hether the Supreme Bomlnlon of God the Fa- ther ( that which I found in vohvtary Oeconomy ) be precarious f Undoubtedly every voluntary OSiCQ ma)^ ceafe to be, is not vecejjary^ but depending on Pleafure, and is therefore fo far precarious. And even as to jiatural Dominion , God might chufe whether he would make any Creatures ^ he may ehule whether he will covtlmie any: That is, he may chufe whether he will exercife ^ny fhch Domhimt at all 5 for all &ichDonmno7! fuppofes the Exiftence of Creatures^ over which only fach Doinlmon is. Supre- macy therefore of Dominion, is as precarious as the Exiftence of the Creature : And if that be not preca- rious^ I know not what is fo. But, I think, I am over-abundantly civil to this Writer to debate a Maxim of ccmvioyi Senfe with him. The Sum is, thatThat Exiftence v/hich is not necef[ary, is contingent ^^ and contingent is precarious, or depending on Fleafure, in oppcfition to what is naturally immutable, and cannot hit be : Such is the Exiftence of God the Son with this Writer : Therefore his Exiftence is precari- ous in tiie farne Seiife, tho' perhaps not in the fame Degree, that the Exiftence of any Creature whatever is called precarious, Q. E,*D, XX. Page XX. Page 9 2d, this Gentleman tells me of affe^- hg to exprefs a ridiculous fee?mvg Repugvarwy in rnain- tainivg, that the fame AB is certain as hehig for ehtown, uncertain, as depending on the Will of a free Agent. ^ I fhould be glad to fee the Difficulty dextroufly hit off by this . 425. N 2 CHAP. I 9^1 CHAP. IV. Concerning Qu.ot2Li[ons from the Ancients. TH E 14th Ohfervation is fpent upon tliis Sub- ject : And I Ihall think it worth the while to beftow a Chapter upon tlie fame •, that as we have feen this Gentleman's Penetration in Matters of Ar- gument, we may now alfo fee his Diligence, and Accurac}?-^ in Matters of Learv.hig. I have had fre- quent Occafion, in both my Deferifes, to take notice of his fuperficial Acquaintance with the aiidejit Fathers. I. Sometimes he has endeavoured to -put fpurioiis^ or Vv'orthlefs Pieces upon us, as being of confi- derable Value and Authority. The Apojlolical OvJiiUiiiom ^, Tgmtins's larger Epiftles c, the A- rian Councils of Sirmhm ^, FhiUppopGlis ^, and Aji- tiich f , ( inftead of the Catholicl and approved Sy- nods ) and the Tenets of Semi-ariam for thofe of Epiphaiihis g. See the Inftances of this kind up and down in the Reply ^\ The doing this, unlefs it be t See my Second Defenfcy ^. 2S0, 281, 51S. c See my Second Defenfe, p. 280, 281. d See my Second Defenfe, -^, i()jy 318. « See Second Defenfe, j&. 299, 518. f See Second Defenfe, ;>. 500, 318. e See Second Defenfe, ^. 417, 1^ Reply to Dv. Waterland, ^c.p> 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29, 58, 6i> ^55? -^-^> -74> -?5> ^7^> -^9j 4^4> 4^o. done \ [93 ] done ignoramly, is much the fame HoneRy in the way of Writing, as the putting off bad Wares,, or damaged Goods, at the Price of good ones, in the way of Tradhig, 1. Sometimes he has exprefs'd Wonder and Amaze- ment at me, as if I had been teaching fome mw and firavge Thing, orfomething merely Scholajfick, when I have been only following the concurring Judgment of the ancient Fathers '\ 3. Sometimes you will find him reprefenting a Dodrine as unanimoufly taught by all the Ancients^ when they wQneall diredtly againft it, 0Y7Wve clearly for it. ^ 4. Falfe Hiftory, and Mi/reports of the Fathers have been very ordinary, and common with him. 1 5. Mifreprefe7itatio7is of the Fathers, as to their real Senfe, and Meaning, have been numberlefs: The greateft part of my Labour has been all the way to lay them open, and confute them. 6. Mifqiiotatlom, or deceitful Tranflations, I have often had Occafion to obferve, and corred-. m Now, this Gentleman being very defirous, as it feems, to make Reprifals upon me, undertakes to furnilh out a whole Section of grofs Mifreprefevtatlom made by me in my ^lotatmts. He gives them for i See my Firft Defenfe, p. 21, 87, 38c, 471, 481. Second Defenfe, p. 49, 212. k See thefe Fallacies noted' Firft Defenfe, />. 54, 10 1, 358, 3f^i, 593, 449. Second Defenfe, p. 295, 346, 425) 482, 484. 1 See the fame deteBed: Firft Defenfe, ^. 93, iSd", 198, 16% 582, 398, 449, 452, 4*55, 457. Second Defenfe, p, 9^11' 58, 73, 100, 130, .141, 145, 150,153,208, 213, 243^ 5J18, 335, 455, 45c, 47(^, 477. ni See w;' Firft Defenfe, p. 130, 132, 183, 198, 425, &>c 489. Second Defenfe, p. 8c, 120, 13^, 2S7, 290, :;i8, ::.-/ a Sp^ CP4] a Specimen only, as he fays, and calls them fome few 5 being willing the Reader fhould think he had been very tender, and compaj/ionate. The Rea- der perhaps may really think fo, when he finds what the Sum Total of this worthy Charge oT grofs Mif- reprefey-tatiom amounts to ; Nothing but an Account of Tome very fair and jiifl Reprefentations fet in a bad Light, mifreported under /^//^ Colours, and cal- led by a wrong Name. I hope, every intelligent Reader will apprehend the Difference between ma- king a Charge, and proving one- between ^falfe Re- port and a true one 5 between an unrighteous Calumny^ and ^jiifi Cenfiire, I am willing to put the Iflue en- tirely upon the Juftice and Merits of the Cafe, upon the Evlderxe produced here, or there, to juftify the Charges refpeclively. Let but the Reader compare my Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Quotations ", with what this Writer would lay to me: And then the Difference betwixt the one and the other will be throughly underftood. Now to come to Particulars : They are 1 2 in Number*^ which were they all Faults^ it were eafy to feledl Hundreds greater out of their Pieces. But I confined my felf, in my Colledion, to fuch only as betrayed manifeft Partiality, and Deceit^ or great want of Care, and Exa6tnefs. T. In the firft place, he finds fault with my way of iirJerfiandivg a PafTage of Wilo, and gives me his own Judgment againft it: Which I have as much Regard for, as h^ has for mine. The very PafTage which he cites from Vhilo, to confute my Conftrudtion, confirms it: As it fhows that the Logos was betwixt the 75 y-yo/uSiJov and h Tmn^, and was there- fore neither. And if he is not reckon'd with the ri >4j'c,4*'^, he is of courfe Ayb^]©-. n Firft Defenfe, 426, dfcj Second DtknTcj 488, fi^c. 2. The [95] II. TheSecond^is my reading AyiiMlQ- in two Places of jfiijiin, where he chufes to read dyivwlQ-. His Reafons, it reems,are good to Hhn, and mine to Me, which is the whole Matter. I vindicated my Read- hig againft his Exceptions in mj Second Defevfe^ p. 164, 265 : And he has nothing to add hj way of Reinforcement. A mighty Bufinefs to found a Charge of grofs Mifreprefentation upon: He muft have been hard put to it, to ftrain fo much for one. III. A Third Article ot my grofs Mifreprefe7j' tatiojis begins with a vew Invention of his cwv ^ a very forced Interpretation of a Pailage in Irev.dim'' j which Interpretation was never, I believe, thought on by any Man before himfelf, and refts only in Strength of Imagination. For, what if the Father be called \oy^ in that Chapter as well as the Son^ could IrenAm be there talking of tlie Emijion, or Ge- 7ieratinv of t\\Q Father ^ If this Gentleman will but pleafe to look forwards, as far as Page 157, and 158, and view the whole Procefs of the Argument, he will fee what Lev^m meant b)^ the Logos, namely, the Oviy 'begotten o£ the FsLthtv, the fame thsitljaiah fpeaks of. Chap. liii. v. 8. This Writer alfo tells me of citing two Paffages of Irendius, as containing the Church's Notion, vv^heii he is ridiculing the Notions of the Valev.thuans : As if a Man might not be ridiculing the Notion of the Valentimans, and at the fame time diCcover his omi. Had the Author undertaken to vindicate this his j!ev\ ^ Qiii Generationem prolativi Hominum Verhi transfe- riint in Dei seternum Verhumy & Prolationis initium donantes & Genefim, quemadmodum &z fuo verbo. Et in quo di (la- bit Lei Verbumj imo magis i]jfe Deui^ cum fit Verhnmj a verbo Kominum, ii eandem habuerit Ordinationem & Eniiirioneni Generationis ] Ire/i. p. 132. ed. MafT. 4 snd i9n and extraordimry Conftrudion, I fhould have taken care to confider it at large : But as he has only given a few dark and obfcure Hints of what he would have, I think it fufficient to refer the Reader to my Second Befevfe p, and to Irevms himfelf q, and to his learned Editor^ who has particularly confider'd his Author s Meaning ^ A farther Complaint againfl: me, is for falfely in- teT]}ixtmg^No7t alius t^ alius ^ in Treu^us^ oi^ Father and So7i ^ which is fo trifling and groundlefs, that nothing can be more fo. He has invented another imaginary Conftruction, peculiar to himfelf, which he endea- vours to help out, by fupplying fomething in Ire- oidits's Text, which the good Father never thought on, and which the whole Context ftrongly reclaims a- gainfl. See my Secovd Befev.fe t, where I cite the PafTage, with another parallel Place of TertuUian. In this way of charging me with grofs Mifreprefentmonsy the Author may be copious enough ^ for Invention is fruitful. As to the FoMrth place, all the Fault is, that I follow the common Reading (cum verbo fuo, Iren. p. i8^.)tho'there is one MS. which leaves out cujn : A MS. fcarce above 400 Years old,and of nogreat Authori- ty^. The Manufcript is the Arujidelj in the Library of the Royal Society: I have feen it, and find the Reading to be as Dr, G/abe reprefented. But that p Second Defenfe, -p. 66 i-jo, ^^ Iren. ^. 132, 139. Ed. Mafl*. ^ Mi^ffnet. diiTcrr. proev. -p. 128. s Non ergo alius erat qui cognofccbatur, & alius qui dice- bat ; vemo cogmfcit pafremy fed uiius & idem, omnia fub- jiciente ci patre, QPc. Iren. p. 234, MaiT. praev. diiT. p. 131. f Second Defenfe, p. 6S. " See Mailuet. pr^f. p. 8. the l97l the Reading is without doubt the truer Reading, as the. l^^/?/y pretends % againfl: the Faith of all the other MSS, about Ten in Number, feveral of them much oldery and moft of them more faithful in the whole, will not be taken for granted upon a bare Affirma- tion. A Fifth place of Iren&us by me cited b, I am willing to leave with the Reader : Who may pleafe to confider, whether what this Writer objeds be of any Force againft what I faid 5 iince I did not pre- tend that the Son did any thing contrary tOy or with^^ Out the Father's good Vleafure, IV.This Gentleman proceeds to Clemens^ Alexandria mis^ and charges me with mifreprefenting him. I vindicated my Senfe of that Pallage at large before ^ and obviated every Pretence to the contrary : Nor has this Writer fo much as attempted to reply to what I there urged-, except calling a thing monjlrous be the fame with confuting it. His repeating here his for- mer Opinion about Chrift being reprefentative only (which has been fo abundantly anfwer'd and baffled in Both my Defenfes \ beyond any juft Reply) only fliovvs to what a Degree of Hardinefs a Man may arrive to by long oppoling the Truth. There is another Place of Clemens d, as to which he infp upon his Conftrudion , and I alfo upon mine « •, tho' it is fufficient for me, if mine may be a Reply, p. 105,. fe Second Defenfe, p. 82. « Second Defenfe p. 140. * Firft Defenfe, p. 34, &»c. Second Def. p» 1^5, 8Pr. ^ "^OuT ^'z r' 'i^ TrnvTHK^vs^^ ^Knf^n mTsU* Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. c t. p. 852. * Second Defenfe, p* 513. O true^ C pS ] true; he fhould prove on the other hand that his mtjl^ He appeals to all that underftand Greek, So do I, and to the Context likewife. Bilhop BidU Le J^onrry, and the Learned Editor of Clemens ( who, I believe, underftood Greek) had declared before- hand for my Conftrudion. Let this Gentleman pro- duce his better Vouchers, if he has any, to fup- port his Pretences about the Nature of the Greek Tovgiie : Which he may fometimes happen to miftake, and pretty widely too, as appears by his Verfwns, Fis Trayijlatiov^ as he calls it, of this very Place of Cle7ne7iSy is no Tranjlatiojiy but a loofe Faraphrafe f ^ and fuch a one, that no Man could ever imagine from it what the Greek Words are. Whether I am right or no, he is moft certainly wrong in taking the Liberty he has, offoijling in Words, and altering the Turn of the Expreifion, to help out his Conftrudtion. But befides thar, the Conftruction it felf appears to me fomewiiat/o;r^i^ and unnatural, as referring i^ imhiqtL to the Negative going before, and to the j^>y/ Member of the Seiitenre, rather than the fecond •, when in the preceding Sentence, of like Kind, the ilnrd Part hangs upon the fecond. The moft natural Conftrudion therefore feems to be this •, JFho is Lord of all, etiam maxime ferviens \ &c. even vohen Tnoji fubfervient, &c. that is, even in his loweft Condefcenfion, becoming incarnate, which Clemens had been fpeaking of. In the very next Page, re- fuming the AiTertion of the Son's being Lord of all, he again qualifies it, in like manner, by referring all up to the Supreme Father. V. We now come to TertuHian: Where he taxes me with a MifconJlrttBion ; owning however that he had gone before me in the fame, I muft acknowledge I look'd upon the Conftrudion of that Place as donhi- f Reply, p' 511. Comfare my Second Def. p. 515. "^ As to ihe like ConJlYuaion of fj^Ki^ In Clemens, fee ^* I $8, ^50, 45^, 443> ^-03 759> ^-i, ful [ 99 1 ftil^ at leaft «, for which Reafon I had never cited it in my fn^Defenfe, or elfewhere, to prove Fatlier and Son om God. But finding at length, that foine learned Men fo underftood the Place, and obferving that the Rejily alfo came into it, I thought I might then fafely ufe it. If it be a Miftake, (as probably it may ) it Ihould not however have come under the Head of grofs Mifre^refevtatiom. He next charges me with a great Neglect, as omit- ting to take notice of what the Reyly had objedled to my Conflrudion of a Place in Tertnlllan, tho' I again quote the Place. It is unreafcnable in the Man to eiped particular Notice of every thing that he has any where occafionallydropt, when he has flipp'd over many and more material Things of mine : But I ha\^ accuftomed him fo much to it, that now he inliftsupoii it. After all, his Conflrudion of, fiiojjire, s in Ter- tullian h, which he makes to be the fame vjith^ fevfn fbiprnprio, is fo extravagant, that it might be fafel/ left with any Man that knows Tertnlliafi, or knows Lativ. What could Tertnllian fay lefs than that God the Son was God Omnipotent in hisomi Right, when he fo often proclaims him to be of the fame Snbjlavce with the Father? It is not faid merely /tio yV^ omnipotens, hut fiio jure Deus ommpotejis : And as the Meaning of fitojure is well known to all that know Latiji 5 fo ars Tertidlians Principles well known to as many as know him^ and that he makes the Son God in the fame Sevfe as the Father is, as partaking of the fam^ Divine Snbjlance. TertiiUian therefore could not mean^ I Reply, f, 509- . . ^ ' ^ h Omnia, mquit, parris mea fint, cur non & nomina? Cum ergo le2;is T>eum otnnipetentem^ & Ahijjimunh & Beufft 'Vivtufum, & Re^em Ifraelis, & Qui eji ; vide ne per haec Filius etiam demonftretur ; ftto jure Deus omnipotens, ^aa Sermo Dei omniposentisi Qp^^ TertHJl. adv* Prax. c. 1 7. [ TOO 3 as this Gentle man fays, that the Son is God Al- mighty, hi a Sevfe proper to him, or vpov a Ground peculiar to himfelf-^ fince Tertiillians Principles plain- ly make Father and Son God in the fame Sevfe, and upon the fame Gromid, as being of the fame Divine SitbJIance. But this he might mean, and this he did mean, that the Son is Almighty God difUnUly, and in his own proper Perfon, and Right •, and not confider'd as the Perfon of the Father, which Praxeas pretended. This Gentleman however, by endeavouring to find out feme Mifinterpretations of 7nine, does nothing elfe but difcover more and more of his own. He is in the fame Page, (p. 12$. J cavilling at a very innocent Tranflation of an Arian Paffage in my Book ^^ 5 where I render /i/tt virtnte, by his own Power. He will have it, that it does not mean the Son's ow7i Power, but his Father^s, becaufe fuppofed to be given him : Which is nothing but equivocating upon the Word own. The Meaning undoubtedly is, that the Son created all Things by his own natural, inherent Power 5 though fuppofed to be given him, with his Nature, by the Father. And this is all I meant in my Verfion of the Words : It is obfervable however, that this Gentleman never 3^et came up fo high in his Dodrine, as the ancient Arians did. They fup- pofed Chrift invefted with creative Powers by the Fa- ther ^ which is a great deal more than making him meerly an hifinmient in the Work of Creation, As to Tertnllians Meaning in fome Paffages which this Author produced to prove that Souls were coifuh- jlavtial with God 1, (according to that Writer) as much as the Son was fuppofed to be by the Nicehe Coun- cil, it was fo mean, and fo unworthy a Suggeftion, ^ Second Defenfe, ^. 411. i Sse Reply, p 55, 225, 328. Preface, p 6. that [ 101 ] that I thought it proper to vindicate ^ TertuUmi, as falfelj charged in that Matter. It was of fome mo- ment that TertiilUan had utterly denied it of Avgeh-^ or even Archavgeh, and of the higheft Order. This the Objector takes no notice of. Tertidllan denies that the Sovl comes up iifqiie ad vim dlvhntatis^ and explains himfelf inoffenlively on that Head : as I obferved. Nay, he argues through the whole Chap- ter againft Marckns Tenet, of the Soul being fvb- Jiajitia Creatoris, the Subftance of (or cojijjihjfantial with) its Creator, Yet this Writer here goes on with the fame ridiculous Charge, founding it upon "Words that exprefs nothing of it. What the Words mean, I intimated at large in the Place referred to" : And this Gentleman makes no Reply to it. Why he did not, is beft known to himfelf. VI. We come next to Origev, whom it feems I have greatly injured in rendring, fj.iTiAi^ -^ Uvta ^ 7^< fjutytKc-iorAQ--, hath imparted even his Greatvefs o, in- ftead of has i7?ip art ed even of his Greatvefs. p But I a in fure he has injured Orjgen a great deal more by fup- prelling the remaining Part of the Sentence, which Ihows what Origen meant, vi%. that the Son is com- Tnevfiirate with the Father in Greatvefs. This was not imparting fome fmall pittance of his Greatnefs, but equal Greatvefs, or his whole Greatnefs: And this Gentleman might have confidered that fAi-mJ'i^f^i commonly governs a Genitive Cafe ^ which is fuffici- »n Second Defenfe, p. loo. Compare Pamelii Paradox. TertuUian. ?7. 5. n Second Defenfe, p. 119. vld, Tertull. contr. Marc. L. 2. c. 9. o Second Defenfe, p. 45» V Obfervations, |?. 25, 12^* ent [ IO>2 ] ent to take off the Force of his CnUcifm: Though I inuil: own, I fee but little difference in the two Waj'-s of fpeaking, nor that either of them may not be ad- mitted •, provided only that the whole Senfe of Origen in that Paflage be taken along with it. As to another Place of Origen, this Writer defires that my Defeufe q, and his Reply ^ may be compared ^ which I delire alfo. The fame I fay as to a Third Place ^ of Origen, As to a Fourth Place in Origen, this Writer is pleafed to ftand corrected in refped of his Travjlation of it, which I found fault with t. As to his further Endeavours to defeat the Meaning of that Place, I am willing to truft them with the Reader, after he has feen the PalTage it felf, and what I have faid upon it. Another PafTage of Origen I fhall likewife truft with the Reader, if he pleafes but to look into my Secovd Defevfe ^ . This Writer here, (p. 127. ) talks of my Conftrudion being contrary to the Nature of all Language 5 as if the Nature of Language never admitted any AdjeBive to ftand alone, the Suhjtantive being fufificientl}'' intimated from the Context. But this is his forward v/ay of talking: And he feems to think he has a right to be believed upon his IFord. y II; This Article concerns Novatian. I have fully exprefs'd my felf, as to this Author, in many Places q Second Defenfe, p. 6^, 109. Reply to Dr. Whlthy^ p, 24. r Reply, > 83, 84* 85- s Co?7;f ire Reply, p. 25)5. 4;?^ Obfervations, p. 63. with mj Second Defenfe, p.i-i6y 402. f Second Defenfe, p. 397, 39S, « Second Defenfe, pc 6^^ of C 103 ] of my Deferifes, which the Reader that thinks it of Importance, may pleafe to confult. I forbear any farther Difpute about the Rea'divg of a certain Paflage, till the Learned Mr. V'ekJmans new Edition of that Author appears, which may probably give us fome farther Light into it. VIIL The Eighth Article, inftead of proving any Mifreprefevtation upon me, only revives the Memory of a great one of his orpn ^ 5 which difcovered his fmall Acquaintance with the Ancients. As to this Writer's Exceptions to Hippolytiis, I have fufficiently obviated them elfewhere : ^ And one would think that Tertid- lians Ufe of the Word Verfom^ in the fame Senfe with Hippolytiis^s 'TTfoazo'Tov^ might have fcreen'd the lat- ter from this Author's Cenfure in that particu- lar. But fuppofing I had lefs to plead for my fay- ing that the SabelUajt Singularity confifted in ma- king the Godhead uovo7r(?j Would not the Man be taken for a Jejier, or a very igno> rant Man, in doing it, as cavilling only at a Mode of Exprejjion^ But I proceed. IX. The Author here cenfures me for rendring ,t^- v&f'xjdi by Unhy^ rather than Mor.archy, in a Palfage » See my Second Defenfe, f. 212, > Second Defenfe, p. lo^j 243. Z of [ I04 ] of Pope Diofiyjius «. M]^ Reafons for fo doing, I con- ceive, were fuch as theft: i. That the fame Diovyjiits had exprefled the fame thing a little higher by the Word (xovdM^ which fignifies Uyiity : And he feems to have chofen (juhvo^xkh after, only to vary the Phrafe. 2. Becaufe in the Words immediately preceding, he is fpeaking of the Union of Father and Son •, by which he folves the Difficulty objedred, and not by throwing the Omnefs of Godhead upon the Father alone, exclulive of the other Perfons. 5. Becaufe n^/ctf, Trivity, is the Word oppofed to .«^f£tf;^ja^ in the fame Sentence 5 Blonyjim Ihowing that there muft be a Trhnty^ and withal an Unity (fay I) preferved. Thefe Reafons made me prefer the Word Unity. When this Author has better for the Word Monarchy^ and in his Senfe, ^ I Ihall be ready to accept it, inftead of the other, X. Here I am charged with mif-tranflating a Word InEvfebiiis^ h^-nnxivn, which I render cow_pa(J7^^ ^ that is, conftitiited 5 which, it feems , is wonderfully done. But the Wonder mcLY ceafe, if it be coiifidered, i. That in the fame Place the Equality is mentioned as be- longing to tlie Ternary Number, here conlidered as a Figure of the Trinity, 2. That the t^xa^ is there alfo made the one 6«f;^i, Source of all Things. 9. That the whole tua^ is faid to be h^r,'.fj.'ivi\ compa&ed, as I render it. For, had the Meaning been that Two «- Second Defenfe, p. 114. ^ It is to he )2otedy that /uoyapy^ct-, in this SuhjeB, fometimes Jtg- nifiesy not Monarchy, but Unify of Headfhip, or Principle^ Source, or Fountain, as in Athanafius. jweieoi >9 /uavetfx^ '^.» Athan. Orat, 4. init, '* Second Defenfe, ^» nj, Perfons Perfons were dependent on ojie, the Epithet would not have been applied to the whole Trinity, 4. There's a plain Oppofition between the r^df and the -r^y -pfj-my. Whether thefe Reafons may con- convince our Writer or no, I know not : If he plea- fes, he may go on woidrivg at very ylahi Tilings, to fliow his want of RefieBon. He will have it that tifwiiivii there lignifies a Convexioji of Things, one depending ojt or derived frovi another. He has not thought fit to give us any Trayijlation of the Place, according to his own Sevfe of it : But all he fays, in favour of it, is only Mifreport of the Ufe of the Word AvafX^-) ^s I fhall ihow hereafter. The Second PaiTage » of Enfebius I leave to the Reader -, this Gentleman having no way of eluding my Senfe of it, but by mifreprefenting it, after his Manner. XI. The next relates to Gregory Nyjfen^, where this Writer has nothing to iliow but Chicane. I tranflate fome Words that may be feen in the Place referred to, thus : JSYither let vs dijfolve the ivnnedlate Comiexioj^hy conjide/mg theWill in the Generation. Upon which my acute Cenfor thus remarks : As if the Author meant to fay, that, confidering the Will of the Father in the Generation of the Son, would be a dijfolvirg of the immediate Connexion. 'No, neither the Author, nor I meant to fay it : The Words immediately fore^ going Ihow that we did not -, nor does my Tranjla- tion iipply any fuch Thing. But the Meaning is^ that die Notion of JHII was not to be carried fo far, as to deftroy that neceilary Connexion. XII. As to the Paflage of Cyril, and my hference, as he calls it, from it ( which is not my Inference^ » Second Defenfe, -p. 152. > See my Second Defenfe, ;?. 303, 304. P bnt but an InGerence which is mentioned as having fome Colour, and at the fame time confitted by the late lea-vued BenediBiveEditov.as I obferved^:) This Writer might as well have let it alone ^ unlefs he had known more of it. Had not that Learned Editor given us rnuch better Arguments againft that Liferevce than the Ohj'ervator has, it would be more confiderable than he imagines. The Reader, that dellres to know more of this Matter, may confult the learned Toutee's Diflertation fi , be /ore referred to 5 and which this Writer has fraudulently concealed from the Reader, in order to make way for his Charge upon me. My Words are thefe : "It there is any thing to be *' fufpeded of Cyrils it is rather his excluding the *' Father from being Creator^ than the Son from be- *' ing efficievt : But the late learned BenediBhe Edi- *' tor has fuihciently clearM up CyriVs Orthodoxy on " that Head, Now, after I had fo plainly declared againft the Ivferevce, is it not very unaccountable in this Gentleman to charge me with it, and in the mamwr he does ? The DoEors Iviferevce^ fays he, from the Words of Cyril, h as 7 emarkahle an Irfance of the Strength of Trejiidke^ as (I thivk) I ever 7net mth^ p. 1 3 1. 1 may much more reafonably fay, that this Re- prefentation is as remarkable an Inftance of the Strength of Malice^ as t ever met with. See my Secovd Befevfe, p. 3? 5, 337, 417. where I take no- tice of the Father being reprefented as iflumg out OrJ^n for creating, and the Son as creathig-.^hich. is CynVs Notion alfo, and which affords fome Colour for the hfereyice before- mention'd , but Colour only, « Second Defenfe, -p. 53^, ^ Differ tat. $ 4e Po£lrin. Cyrilli. p. 139, 6'r, [ '^7 1 and not Ground fufficient for it, as I before inti^ mated, acquitting Cyril oi it. I have now run through the whole Charge of very grofs Mifreprefevtatiojis, of which the foregoing In- ftances are the Specmeji, all that this Gentleman could find. No body doubts of his Inclination to have pick'd out the very worft that my Books could any where afford ; and Thefe are they. I thank him for them. I could not, I think, have defired a fuller Teftimony, from an Adverfary, than this is, of my Fidelity in the Matter of ^iotatio7is ^ I might almoft fay, Care, and ExaBvefs beyond what I had expeded. For though I had taken the beft care I could, in reviling every Thing of that kind, and again comparing it with the Books themfelves, as my Papers went through the Frefs, and was certain not to be wilfully guilty of any Miftake ^ yet I knew not whatanaMeCWtfc/vi might pollibly difcover after me, in a Work that had not long time to lie by, nor had pafs'd through the Hands of my judicious and learn- ed Friends. But perhaps our Ohfervator has been TiegUgent in examining, or is not very acute : And fo I fhall not affiime upon it. One thing, I hope, will be obferved, that though this Writer has found no grofs Mifreprefev.tations of mine, he has made feveral of hisoi^??; wl.ich may now be added to the reft above-mention'd, under my Secrmd Chapter. And to his former Mifreprts of the Ancients, may be added another great one which he has in p. 130. 'Tis votoriom, fays he, that the- JfWd 15, 24, 27, 52, 40, 44, 46, 89, 118, 119. mme. [ lop ] mine, with repeated Lifidts, and fuch a Degree of groundlefs Ajjuravce^ as is fcarce to be paralleFd : I fay, fince he has indulged himfelf in thefe peculiar Strains, it may not be improper to lay before the Reader, a Summary View of the aywient Dodtrine upon that Head. I fhall content my felf with Refe- revces, for the mofl part, to my own Books ^ point- ing out to the Reader fuch material ^uotatiom, rela- ting to this Queftion, as lie fcattered in feveral Parts, under feveral Heads, in the Courfe of our Debate. I Ihall follow the Chronological Order of the Fa- thers, Ihowing all the way for what Reafons I judge that every one refpedively was in the fame Perfua- fion that I defend, and not in the contrary Hypo* thejis, u^. D. Il6. I G N A T I U S. Igmtim did not believe that the Father is mUirallj Governor over the Son, but the contrary : Becaufe he acknowledged the CovfubJianUallty k, and Coeterm- ty * , and Neceffary-exijieywe ^ of God the Son. Any Supremacy of the Father confident with thefe Doctrines of the Soyi, may be readily admitted. But the Ad- verfary has not been able to produce any Teftimony from him to prove the jmUiral Dominion of the Fa- ther over the Son. What he has pleaded may be feen in the Reply ", and a Confutation of it in my Second JDefevfe ^. * See Bull. Tfef. E N. p. 40. 1 See Bull D. F. p. 174, &c. m See my Second Defenfe, p, 254, &c. » Reply, p. 16 1 i 294. • Second Defenfe, p 254, Qpc 281, 284. " 2 I may [ no] I may juft take notice of an incidental Remark which this Writer drops (p. 63. ) to invalidate fome of my Teftimonies for the Son's Neceffary-exifteyice, He fays, that ^uV«, or v^ . 49, Sec. Second Def. «i See Bull V.F. p. 65, &c. ' See my Second Defenfe, > ijc^ 4. Be- [ III ] 4. Becaure he teaches the Neceffary-exijlence of God the Son \ 5. Becaufe he declares for the WorJInp of God the Son, yet admitting no Worlhip as due to any but to God alone t. Any Supremacy of the Father y co7iJi(fevt with thefe Doftrines of the S077, may be admitted. But the Adverfary has not produced any Teftimony that may not be fairly accounted for upon the Foot 0^ volnvtary Oeconomy, or mtiiral Priority of Order The prin- cipal Pretences from this Father's Writings may be feen in the Reply ^ , and the Anfwers in my Second, Defevfe ^. Let this Gentleman difprove the Particu- lars here aflerted , or if not, let him admt them, and then we need not difpute farther. 170. L U C I A N. Luciatf, or fome other contemporary Pagan Writer, bears Teftimony to the Faith of the Chriftians iii his Time, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft : Which means there 07ie Godfnpremei in the whole Three. This Do6trine is not confiftent with any mtitral Do- minion of God the Father over God the Son : But is rather a full and clear Teftimony for one com?non Dominion of all the Three Perfbns. s Second Defenfe, f, 16^, ' M) Sermons, ^. 299. Defenfe, f 24S, ^^6, Second pefenfe, ;>. 71, 3S6. w Reply, ^. 129, &c. 263, &c. 295, 575. 'f Second Defenfe, f 150, &c. \6\, 264, 285, &:c. 585, 594, 6cc. Compare Nourii Apparat. ad Bibl. Max. p. 405, &c. Vol, I. y See my Sermons, f 503. Second Defenfe, p, 72. 277, A T H E, [ "2 ] 177. Athenagoras. Athemgoras could not believe any vaUiral Rule QVer God the Son : 1. Becaufe he aflerts his Covfithjlantlality '^, 2. Becaufe he aflerts his Coeteniity^, -3. Becaufe he makes Father and Son 07ie God^, 4. Becaufe he maintains the Son's Necejfary-ex- ijlence c. 5. Becaufe he is exprefs for the common Bomhnon of Both d. Nothing can be pleaded on the contrary, but what is eafily reconciled by admitting a Temporal ProceC- lion, Generation, or Manifeflation of the Son, and a Priority of Order in the Father. The Pretences of the Reply e are all anfwered in my Second Defenfe f. i8t. Theophilus, For the ConfuhfiantlaVity, and Coetermty maintain'd by this Writer, Bifhop Bull may be confulted. Be- fides which, he gives Chrift the Title of )we^©- b^h^^ God abfolutely fo called s : And he drops fome Inti- mations, by a Similitude which he makes ufe of, that Father and Son are one God, and have ojie Do- * See Bull. P. K p. 71. Nonrrii Appar. Vol. i. p 487. » See Bull D. F. p. 203. Nourii Appar. Vol. i. p 485. *» See my Sermons, f. 301. Second Defenfe, p 72. c Second Defenfe, p 266, ^ Second Defenfe, ^.77. « Reply, p 57, 105, &c. 299. f Second Defenfe, p 72, 6cc. 2(^7. &c. ^90, 387. « Second Defenfe, p, 135. minlou [ "5 3 fnivmt h. Objedlions of the Re^Iy ^ have been confi- dered and anfwered ^. 187. I R E N iE I^ S. Irev&vs could never believe that the Father is ;:a^ tnrally Governor over the Son. 1. Becaufe he afcribes to God the Son Titles and Attributes peculiar to the God of Ifrael ^ , God Su-> preme. 2. Becaufe he aflerts his CojifuhJlantiaVityy Cceter- yjity^ and A^ece/]aryexijle7ice^. 3. Becaufe he makes Father and Son ove God ". 4. Becaufe he exprefsly excludes any ivferior God, and clearly intimates that God the Son has no God above him o. There is nothing on the contrary to be pleaded from this Author, but what may be fairly, and eafily reconciled upon the Foot of the Oeco7w??iy, and the natural Order of the Perfons ♦, as hath been par- ticularly fhown p in Anfwer to the Reply % h Second Defenfe, p. 158. » Reply, p. 114, 14a, 270. ^ Second Defenfe, p. 1571 ^90) ^^' ^ Second Defenfe, p* 15^. '" Second Defenfe, ^ 2dS, &c. ti Sermons, p. 303. Second Defenfe, p' 66, 78, Scd « See Firft Defenfe, p. 54 Second Defenfe, p, 86, P Second Defenfe, p. 60, 66, 78, &c. 1351, 235, &c. 26S, 271, 292, 388. ^9h S19» 393» 4i7) 484? 49<5> 5^7- X$2. CLE 192. Clemens of Alexavdna. This ancient Writer could never have a Thought of fvLjeciivg God the Son to the natural Rule and Go- vernance of God the Father. For, 1. He afferts the veceffary Exijievce ^ of the Son, which is an infuperable Bar and Obftacle to any fuch Siihje[iio7t. 2. He makes him to be the Jehovah, the Almighty God s of the Jews^ who had no God above him.. 9. He even equalizes ^ x\\q Son, that is ^ proclaims him equal to the Father. 4. He gives him the Titles ^l- «, and ^jrsiTo^c^^y'TWf % Titles exprelllve of Dominion fuperne^ and fuch as the Ohfervator would tranfiate fvpreme God, and /«- l);'e7?je Ruler, whenever fpoken of the Father. 5. He m.akes Father and Son ove God of the whole Uviverfe ^ : Which certainly expreifes Equality and Union of Domimoji. 6. Laftly, He addrelTes to Both together as ove Lord c; which does not look like addreiimg to a So- vereigyi aud his natural SnhjeB^ but to one God and "Loidfnpreme, The Author of the Reply iliowed his good Wiilics and Endeavours ^ to ebide the Teftimo- nies : But failed in the Performance ^. ^ Second Defenfe, p. 271. s Second Defenfe, p. 140. f Second Defenfe, p- 90. " Second Defenfe, p. 184. a Second Defenfe, 1S5, 513. ^ Second Defenfe, p, 6t, 89. Sermons, p, 305. c Second Defenfe, p. 89. ^ Reply, p. 80, &c. 140, 190, 227, 377. c 5fe Second Defenfe, p, 89, 1097, 14c, 292. 200. T E R' [ 115 ] 200. Tertullian, Terudlian could nex^er think that the Father is va- tiiralh the Son's Ruler, or Governor. J. He admits the vecejjary Exijhiice of the S071 ^. 2. He makes Both to be 07:e Siihjlance, and oris God g. 9. He rejects with Indignation the Notion of an ivferior God ^ . 4. He diredlv and exprefsly afTerts the one Power, and Dignity of Botli * . The Objedions made by the Reply ^ are anfvvered at large ^ , 225:. HiPPOLYTUS. This ancient V/riter could not fuppofe God the Son to be naturally under the Rule of God the Fa- ther. 1. Becaufe he makes them Both 07je God "^, and confequently one Col fiipre-me, 2. He aflerts the Covfuhjiantiality " , and nece£ary ExiJIeyice o of God the Son. f Second Defenfe, p, 274. g Sermons, p, ^06. Second Def. p. 97, 6-]. Compare p, 14T. ^ Firft Defenfe, p. 54. Second Def. p. 204. i Second Def. p. 100, 204. Bull. D. F. ^. 161. Statu ah ahero div=rfunt non ejjey idem valet atque illud ipji non ejfe fubdi" turn., fed par ^ ^qttaJe. Bull. Ibid, k Reply, p. 55, III, 16. 1 Second Defenfe, p, 97, to 105, 141. m See my Sermons, p. 307. Second Defenfe, p, 107, 142, Pirtt Defenfe, p. 22. n Firft Defenfe, p. ^66. « Secoxid Defenfej p, 39. Q. 2 3. Kc [ I<^ 1 3. He joins all the Three Perfons equall}^ in his Doxology p , which can by no means be fuitable to a Sovereign and his Siihje&s. The Objedions made by the Reply q have been eafily folved r upon the Foot of the Qeconomy^ and Piftindion of Order. 249. O R I G E N. Orlgei% in his certainly genuine Works, no way favours the Notion of the^o?^ htiw^natiirally fubject to the Father. J. He alTerts Father and Son to be ove God \ 2. He makes but one Object of Worfhip ^ of Both. 3. He maintains the Son's mceffary ExiJIence'^ . 4. He is very exprefs for the Coexifience^ Costernhyy a:id Cojifnhflantiality of God the Son ^. ^. He afferts, that the Son is coynmevf urate to the Father, equal in Greatvefs ^ . Any poiiible Suprefnacy of the Father confijlejtt with thefe plain and avowed Doftrines, will not be fcrupled. The Reply "^ hasboafted much of Origen the P See Second Defenfe, f. 275. Sermons, p. 244.. and Hip- poIy:ns. Vol. 2. p. iS. Fabric. "i Reply, p. 13, 16, 20, 39, 61, ^5, 91, 117^ &c. 509. r Second Defenfe, p. 37, &c. 61, 105, &c. 292, &c. s See my Sermons, p. 309. Aafwer to Dr. JVhithy, p. 24.. Second Defenfe, p. 6S, 109. ^ Firft Defenfe, p. 259. Second Defenfe, p. 59^. " Second Defenfe, p. 275. a Firft Defenfe p. 20. Sermons, 242, 243, 244. Eeg aJfa Bifiop Bull. t Second Defenfe, p. 45. ^ Reply, 4, 5, 10, 18, 20, 23, 2S, 31, 42, 49, 5<^, ^9, 70* 14,85,187,219,242, 272, 295, 319, 327, 375, 380, &c. 442,446, &c, othe\- [ "7] Other way, and produced Counter-Evidences-, but fuch as are either not to be compared with ours for Gemthmiefs and Certaivty^ or fuch as may be recon- ciled d with the Dodrine here mentioned, by al- lowing a Superiority of Office and Order. Let him either difprove thefe Particulars, or reconcile them with his Notion of the alove Supremacy, 25'o. Cyprian. Cyprian has nothing in Favour of the pretended vatiiral Dominion over God the Son j but the con- trary. 1. As including all the Three Perfons iu the one God ^ 2. As applying to God the Son the appropriate Ti- tles of the one true God ^. The few Things which the Author of the Reply s ihad to offer, are anfwered in my Second DefenjeK 25^7. NoVATIAN. Novatlan looks more favourably to the Notion of a natural Superiority of Dominion, than any Writer before him. But as he has feveral Tenets ivconjijtent with fuch a Notion, fo what he has that feenis moft to favour it, does not neceffarily require an^ fuch Senfe, but may very well bear a candid Conftru- dtion. ^ Second Defenfe, p 45, iii, 2 7 5, &c. 294, 347, 6cc, 388, 398, &c. ' See my Sermons, ^.311, f Second Defenfe, p, 143. Bull. D, E p 131. « Reply, p. 10, 24, 28, 145. * Second Pefenfc, 143, 404. I. He C ^'8] 1. He maintains EqmVity, and U7nty of Svhjlance «. 2. He allerts the Etennty ^ of God the Son -5 and, as it feems, eten:al Generation ^ . 5. He applies fuch Texts to Chrift, as are inten- ded of the Jehovah J and one true God of Ifrael "\ Thefe Tenets are by no means confiftent with a ratitral Superiority of Dominion over God the Son; Neither does Novatiav aflert any Subjeciion but what may reafonably be underftood of the Oecommy, as I have obferved ". The Pretences of the Reply are all diiiindly confidered in my Second Defenfe. And though the Obfervator « has fince charged me as be- ing too ha fly, in faying, that the Ancients never fpeak of Chrift as a conjiitvted God, becaufe of 2l PalTage of Novatian, where the Phrafe is Deits confii- ttitits 5 yet he thought proper to corxeal from the Reader what I had faid p to obviate his Conftrudtiou cf tliat very Place. 259. Dion Ysius of Alexandria, Dionyjiv.s of Alexayidna could not be in the Hyfo^, thefs of vatjiral Rule over God the Son. I. Becaufe he aflerted the Coeternity of God the Son, in very full and expreis Words q, and his eter- i^aU begivvirglefs ^ Generation. i Sesmy Firft Defenfe, ^. 15, 56, 3^4, 493. Second De- feiife, p, 124, J46, 500. ^ Firft Defenfe, ^ iS7» B'c. 1 Firft Defenfe, f, 141. » Second Defenfe, p. 145, 57* J' Second Defenfe ;>. 57> 14^« * Obfervaticns, f. 54. p Second Defenfe, _f. 231. ^ 5ee wj Sermons, !>. 24<^= ^ ,/ , , >/ .w, et^-i^los^ ©^?fiu4,<4oi' ^(/J^- DionyC ap. Athan. VoL i* p. 254, ^5'- 2. Be- [ "9l 2. Becanfe he was as exprefs for the CovfiihJlctnUalU ty, Name, and Things. 5. Becaufe he taught the necejfary Exifieyice of the Son, reprefenting it as veceffaryiox: the Son to ccexijj'^ as for the Father to exift 5 as may be feen at large in Athamjius. Beficlesthat in other Words t, he has alfo exprefs'd the fame Thing. 4. He included all the Three Perfons in tl^e Momi^ or the one God, as I have Ihown elfev/here ^ : Which is making all together one God fuprevie, directly con- trary to the Notion of a jiatvral Superiority of Domi- 7nu7u The Refiy ^ has fome few things to ^dj of this Author-, which had been long ago obviated by Bi- fhop BiilU and are fince anfwered in my Second De- fenfe ^, I might obferve too, how Diov.yjlus particu- larly guards c againft the Notion of the Son's being created by the Father, which is the only thing that could be a Foundation of naUiral Dominion. 25:9. D I o N Y s I ir s of Rofjie. This excellent Writer is no lefs full and plain a- gainfl the Hypothecs of jiatiiral Superiority of Do- minion. ' Vld, ap. Athanaf. Vol. i. p. 255, 230. ^ cwtdV ifJv sov 041 78 Tmrfji' Apud Athan. p. 254. M Sermens, p. 5 14. Second Defenfe, |>. 46. * Reply, p. 11, 391. *> Second Defenfe, p. 46, 34^. ^Qv 7m.Ticgi tpn^aVT'O' cuJiiVi Iv a )^ Q i{Qi ti;^cr}i'yiy.7^cu» Ibid. p. 257. " 4 .1 By [ T20 ] 1. By declaring it Blafphemy to fuppofe the Soil a Creature ^ , uiiderftanding Creature in the common Senfe of precarious, or teviporal Exiftence. 2. By teaching the vecejfary Exijletwe of God the Son, in as much as the Father never was, never couli be without him « . 9. By including all the Three Perfons in the ojje true Godhead ^, Some little Objedions of the Reply to the Gemihwriefs of the Piece, are abundantly an* fwered in my Second Defeiife z, 260. Gregory of Neoanfarea, This celebrated Father is full and exprefs, in his famous Creed, againftany thing created, ovfervievtin in the Trhiity ^ ; afTerting one undivided Glory and Domhimi of all the Three Perfons. There have been Sufpiciom raifedagainft theGenuinenefs of this Creed ; but fuch as have not been thought of fufficient Weight by any of the beft Criticks, againft the exprefs Te- ftimonies oiRuffimis^ and Gregory Nyjfen, confirmed, in fome meafure, by Na'x.lanzen '\ Befides what Gregory has in his Creed, he has fome confiderable Things to the fame purpofe in another Work, written about the Year 239, and which is of vrquejiioned Authority. The Titles and Epithets he ^ Firft Defenfe, f, 142, iC<^. Second Defenfe, p. 113, 342. ^ See Second Defenfe, -p. 11^. Sermons, f. 244. f Sermons, -p. 311. Second Defenfe, p. 114. s Second Defenfe, p. 4^, 342. ^ "Ol/T5 "iv KVr^Vy M i^^ov iv T? Te/*=0, &c. Te/fltV t^xh*, ^^ii. Fabric, ed. p. 224. » Naiianx. Orat 57. j>. 60^, Orat, 40. p- 6(53. therein [ '^^ ] therein gives to the Son, are, Creator and Goverjior of all Things k, reaJly, or naturally, united to the Father ^, the mofi: ]^erfeB living Word m . the laft ExprelFions very like to fome in his Creed, and a probable Argu- meat of their having the fame Author. 270. Antiochian Fathers. The Synodical Epiftle of thefe Fathers gives to God the Son fuch Titles as belong to the one true God. But as they have nothing exprefs upon our prefent Queftion on either Ude, it may be fufficient to have mentioned them, and to refer « to what has been faid of them. 293. Methodius is exprefs againd the Son's being i Creature, and for eternal Generation, and immutabk Exiftence « •. Tenets utterly repugnant to fuch a jia- tural Inferiority as is pretended, What the Reply p had to object, is anfvvered in another place ^ See Bull. P. F. p. 195. ? Reply, f. 333. R go^ As [ 122 ] 309. As to Anwhhis, little has been pleaded Reply,f 57, 73, 291, 555>45i»49S. * "^fX^ ^ «"^» *^'f ^°^ «^'^» ^ "^ (^ ^'^* -^P' Athan. de Synod. Vol, 2. p. 730. Phicbadius loell expreffes the Arian Voclrlne of natural Sah- jeBion, at the fame time dijiinguijljing it from the Catholick DoBrine #f Filial Minijivation. Subjeftum Patri Filium, non Patris & Filii nomine, ut ^anfta & Catholica dicit Ecclefia, fed creatiirae conditione, profitemini. Phcebad, jB. P. P, Tom. 5. p, 503. R 2 having [ 104 ] having cxifted before him. Here may Dr. Clarhy and his Followers fee the firft Lines of their Do- ctrine •, whicfe was afterwards fill' d up, and com- pleated by Aethis, and Eummhs. Thefe were the Authors and Founders of that va- tvral Supremacy of Dominion over God the Son, That 7iatii?-al Siihj'?8:ion and Servitude of two of the divine Perfons, which thefe Gentlemen are fo eagerly con- tending for •, and which, with as groiivdlefsj and f/iame' lefs a Confidence as I ever knew, they prefume to father upon the facred Scriptures, upon the ancient Creeds, and upon the venerable BoBors of the Church •, againft plain FaB^ againft the fuUeft and cleareft Evidence to the contrary. I iliall proceed a little lower to Ihow what Reception this Arian Conceit met with. I fhall fay nothing of Enfehiiis of C^farea^ of this Time, a doubtful Man, and of whom it is difficult to determine in the whole k. 340. Athanasius. ' Atlavaf.iis^ about this Time, began to write in the Caufe againft Arius. His Expofition of Faith is of uncertain Date: And fo I may place it any where from the time he entered the Lift againft the Ariavs, His Dodrine is well known from his many Works. I Ihall cite but one fliort Sentence of his, fpeaking of God the Son. He is Ruler Supreme , of Ruler Supreme : For rvhatfoever thirgs the Father bears Rule and BomiriiGn cver^ over the fame does the Son alfo ndc and govern K ^ See ms Second Defenfe, *. 148 to 161, 'np y^ K^ci^riii ap^ei )^ y.^.th ^ o t/'y''- Athao. Expof. Fid. Vol/i. ;. 99- ^ 348. C Y- [ 125 ] ' 348. Cyril of Jemfalem. The Elder Cyril was always look'd upon as a very moderate Man, and not fo vehement againft the Ari- am as many others. Yet let us hear how exprefsly and fally he condemns the Doctrine of natural Sub- jection in the Trhnty^ "^ owning none other but volmu tary, audchofen, ^ All th'ivgs^ fays he, are Servants of his ( of the Father ) But his ovly Son, aid his own Holy Sprit are, exempt from the all Things : And all thefe Servants do, by the one Son, in the Holy Ghoft, ferve the Mapr, o In another place, the fame Cyril lays, The Father has not one Glory, and the Son another, hut one and the fame. So little Countenance had the alone Supremacy of Do- minion, or natural SubjeBion of two divine Perfons at that Time. 958. H I L A R Y. Hilary's Doftrine on this Head, is, that the Sub- jection of the Son, is vohmtary, and not by Conjiraint p ^ iVcc 'S!}^ccu^k(rei )y (ptho^c^yicL 7reioduj c/i'r^ 57tt7>p, i^ A>^\w vioi ix^i ^^^ l^dM y^ r (UjtIuj. Catech. 6. p. 87. p Subjeftio Filii naturae Pietas, fiibjeOrio autem cxteroriim creationis infirmitas. Hilar, de Synod, p. 11^5. that that is to fa/, it is oeconovilcal, not mtitrah qln another place, he directly denies that either the Son is Servant to the Fatlier, or the Father Lord over him, fave only in refped of the hwarvation of God the Son : where he exprefsly again denies any mtvrd Subjection of God the Son as fuch. 360. ZenoVerovejiJis^s Doctrine, to the fame Purpofe, may be itQii in my Firji Befejtfe ^ 970. BaJirsBlib, no lefs full and exprefs againfl the pretended natural Dominion on one Hand, and Subjeclio7i on the other, is fhown in my Second Be- fevje K 37^. Gregory Nazianzens Teftimony, I Ihall throw into the Margin ^ : The fame will be a Confir- mation of the Creed of Thaumatiirgus. 980. Gregory ISJyffens Do6trine may be feen in my J)efe}ifes u, very full to the Purpofe. *s SeYVUi enim non erat, cum eiTet fecundum Spiritum Deus Dei Filius. Et fecundum commune judicium, ubi non eft Servusy neq; Viominus eft. Deus quidem & Pater nativi- tatis eft unigeniti Dei : fed ad id, quod Sevvus eft, non pof- fumus non nifi tunc ei Domlnum deputare cum Servus eft : quia fi cum ante per natuvam non erat Servusy & poftea fe- cundum naturam efte quod non erat coepit; non aha domina" ttts caufa intelligenda eft, quam quae exftitit /^m^^^/j ; tunc habens ex naturss difpenfarione 'Dom'wumy cum praebuit ex hominis aftnmptione ^q- fevvum. Hilar, de Trin. /. xi. p. 1090. » Firft Defenfe, f. 290. BulL D. F. f. 166. « Second Defenfe, p. 21, 358, 508. &V "^i ^ puKp^ <2?j^.-d?y ^opo^cd',' l(piK0(jipn7i\'' Orat. 5 7. p. 60^. ^ (To^Kv 771/©- h''c.y>'jTQr» Orat. 40. p. (^6(5". »^ Firft Defenfe, p.. 290. Second Def. p. 21. 982, I [ 127 J 382. I conclude with Amhrofe % having thug brought the Dodrine low enough down. No doubt can be made of the CathoUch, all the way following to this very Time. Thefe, after Scripture, are my Authors for that very Dodrine which the Ohfervatrr every where, without the leafl: Scruple, charges upon me as my F'lBiov^ and hivevtiov. Such is his great Regard to Truth, to Decejwy, and to common Jujike : Such his Refped to tlie EvgliJI) Readers in impofing upon them any the groiTeft, and moft palpable Ahiifes, Let him, when he is difpos'd, or when he is able, produce his Vouchers from CathoUck Antiquity, for the mtural Subjedion of God the Son, or the natural Superiority of the Father'5 Domhiion over him. He may give Proof of a Superiority of Order ( which I difpute not ) or of Offce which I readily admit : But as to there being any vatural Rule, or natural Subjedion among the divine Perfons, or within the Trinity it felf, none of the Ancients affirm it •, all either di- redly, or indiredly, reclaim againfi: it. He may run up his Dodrine to Emwviius^ and fo on to Arius^ where it began. He, I believe, isthefirft Man upon Re- that ever allowed the Pre-exijiejice and Perfonality of the Logos, and yet made God the Son, as fuch, natu- rally fubjed to the Dominion of the Father •, appoint- ing him a Governor, Another God above him : Which was really Arius's Senie, and is the plain Senfe likewife of his Succeffors at this Day, a- Non funt enim duo Domini, ubi Domlnatus umts efl ; quia Pater in Filio, & Filius in Patre, 6w ideo Dmims unns, Amhrof, de Sp. S. L. 3. c, 15. p 6^6, The [ 128] The Conclusion. 'W Have nothing now to do, but to take my leave J[ of thefe Gentlemen for this Time. If they are difpofed to proceed in the way they have now taken, it will be no great Trouble to me (while God grants me Life and Health ) to do my felf JujHce^ as often as I fee rteedfiil 5 and to fupport, with God's Ailillance, the Caitfe I have undertaken, as well againft Caliim- yjies now, as againft Arguments before. But I think, Unce the ^jrgufnent is in a Manner brought to an End, it is time for thefe Gentlemen to put an End to the Debate too ^ left after expoflng the jreakvefs of their Catife, they may meet with a move feujible Mortifica- tion, by going on to the utmoft to expofe their omi. They have done enough for Ananifin ^ and more a great deal than the beft Caufe in the World ( tho' theirs is a very bad one) could ever require.They have omitted nothing likely to convince, nothing that could be any way ferviceable to deceive their Rea- ders. They have ranfack'd the Soci7mn Stores for the eluding, and fruftrating the CathoUck Interpre- tation of Uripttire-Texts, They have gone on to Fathers: And whatever they could do there, by wrejHng, and jlraimng, by mavglivg^ by mijinterpre- tivg, by falfe rendrivg^ and the like, they have done their utmoft to make them all Arians. And, left that fhould not be fuihxient, they have attempted the fame Thing upon the ancient Creeds^ and even upon modern Confeiilons , upon the very Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England, To compleat all, having once found out the Secret of fetching in what and whom they pleafed, they have proceeded farther [ 129 ] ftrther to drag me in with the reft ^ into the very Do61rine that I had been largely cojifntivg. They have fpared no Pains, or Art, to difgnife and colour over their wretched Tenets, and to give them the beft Face and Glofs that they could pollibly bear. They will not call the Son a Creature-, nay, it was fome time before they would fay plainly, that lie is not veceffarily-exiflivg, till the Courfe of the Debate, and foine prefllng Straits almoft forced it from them 5 and that, not till after fome of the plainer and fimpler Men of the Party had lirft blabb'd it out. At laft, they would^ feem not fo much to be writing agahijl the Divinity of God the Son, as /or the Honour of God the F-at^/.^/-. They do not care to fay, they are pleading for the ratiird Subjection and Servitude of the Son, but it is for the mtiiral Dominion of the Father over him : And they do not commonly chufe fo much as to fayThat,in plain and broadTerms -, but they hint it,and mince it,under theWords alove Supremacy of the Father sDomiviov. And for fear thatThat (hould be taken hold on, and wreil- ed from them, in due Courfe of Argument, they clap in Authority with Dopi'mo7i ^ that they may have fomething at lead that looks Orthodox^ fomething that may bear a Colour upon the Foot of Antiquity^ as admitting of a double Meaning. And they have this fartherYiew in covfoundivgcii'ixm^ things together, to make a Show as if we admitted no Kind of Autho- rity as peculiar to the Father when we deny his alove Dominion ^ or that if we ajfert one, we muft of courfe, and at the fame time, aflert Both. To carry on the Difguife ftill farther, they reprefent their Adveriaries as teaching that the Father has 710 mtiiral Supremacy of Authority and Dominion at » See Reply, p 11^. Second Defenfe, ^. i<»7- [ I30 ] nil', without taking care to add, (what they ought to add) over the Son and Holy Ghoji^ to undeceive the Reader •, who is not perhaps aware what Sub- jeBmi they are contriving for two of the Divine Per- fons, while they put on a Face of commendable Zeal for the Homiir of the Firft. Such is their excefllve Care not to JImck their young, timerous Difciples ; not to make them wife at once, but by degrees, after leading them about in their Simplicity for a Time^ with their Eyes half open. Befides giving a fair Glofi and Outfide to their ow7t Scheme, they have next ftudioufly endeavoured to expofe, and blacken the Faith received. It is Sabellia- vifm, it is Tritheifm, it is Scholafiick Jargon, it is Metaphyfcal Revery, Novfenfe^ Abfvrdity, Corjtradi- 820??, and what not : Contrary to Scripture, contrary to all th€ Ancients, nay, contrary even to Moderns alfo: And, to make it look as little and contemptible as poliible, in the Eyes of all Men, it is at length 3"iothing more than Dr. lfaterland\ own Novel f i- Bion and Invention, Now, I appeal to all ferious and thinking Men, whether any thing can be done, that thefe Men have not done, in favour of their beloved Arianif^n ^ and whether tliey may not now fairly be excufed, if they lliould defiil, and proceed no farther. A great deal lefs than this, though in ever fo good a Caufe, might have been fufficient: And had they fung their Liberavi Aniviam fome Twelvemonths backwards, I know not whether any truly good and con- fcientioiis Arian could have thought them De- fcrters, or have condemned them for it. Let the Caufe be ever fo right, or juft, yet who hath required it at their Hands that they fhould purfue it to fuch hideous Lengths ? Their Defign, fuppofe, is to pro- mote Truth, and Godlinefs : Let it then be in God's own Way, and by Truth, and Truth only. There can C i3« ] can be no necefTity of deceivhg^ of hetrayhig, of he^ guilivg any Man even into Trvthj ( though this is not Truth) bj Difgnifes, by Mif-reprts, by making things appear what they jr^ ?;of , or not fuffering them to appear what they really ^;'^. This is going out of the Way, wide and far, and defending Tnith ( were it really Truth ) by making fearful Inroads upon SmpUcity and godly Sincerity , ui')on moral HoneJIy and Probity. In Conclufion, I muft be fo juft to my felf as to fay, that confidering how I was at firft forced, in a manner, into publick Controverfy, and what kind of a Controverfy tliis is, and how often ^ and how a7:ci- Mly before decided by the Churches of Chriji 5 I was civil enough in engaging the Men fo equally as I did, and upon fo fair Terms. I expeded, I defired no- thing, but that they would make the beft ufe they could of their own Underjlandings^ from which we were promifed great Things. I invited them to the utmoft Freedom, in difcuffing every Point within the Compafs of the Queftion 5 only not to exceed the Rules of juft and regular Debate ^ : That every Brancli of the Caufe might have a new Hearing ^ and be re-examind with all pofTible Stridnefs and Seve- rity. In a word, all I required was, to difpiite fair^ to drop ambiguous Terms, or defne them, to contemn every thing but Truth in the Search after Truth, and to hep clofe to the ^ejiion ; at the fame time binding my felf up to a careful and conftant Obfervance of the fame Rules. When their Reply appeared, I prefently faw how far thofe Gentlemen were gone off from jufi Debate 5 and how little Inclination they had to difpute fairly^ or regularly. To prejudice the Readers, they began ^ See my Firft Defenfe, f 485» &Co S 2 with C t30 with Qjarges, and Complahits -^ all tnflh% mo^falfe 5 and fome fuch as they themfelves could fcarce be weak enough to believe c. I need not fay what followed. When I found how the Cafe flood, I reminded them of their Mifconduct, fome- times raifed my Style, and treated them with fome Sharpnefs ( though with lefs than they had me, with much lefs reafon, ) to let them know that I ww- derjlood what they were doing, and that if I could not be cojifiitedy I would not be covtemved. As They had taken the Liberty of chargivg me very often, and very uvfairly, with things that they could not prove ; I made the lefs Scruple of charging Theyn with what I coM prove. And this, I hope, the impartial Reader will upon Examination find, that all t\\Q Seventy on my fide lies in the Truth of the \hmgs proved upon them 5 while theirs^ on the other, lies moftly in hiven- tmi, and ^/^i/yTrt? Words, which, for want of Evidence to fupport them, muft of Courfe return upon their own Heads. They appear, in their laft Pieces efpeci- ally, to be no great Friends to Ceremony: So that I have reafon to believe, they will exped; the left in return. I had hitherto been fo tender of Mr. Jackfajt^ as never to 7mme him ^ though his own Friends had done it at full length : particularly the Author of the Catalogue, Sec. and Dr. Jfhhby twice ^, promifing the World fomething very confiderable from the^ accurate Fen of Mr. Jackfon. Accuracy is a thing which I fliall not complain of, but Ihall ever receive, ^ven from an Adverfary, with the utmoft Reverence and Refpc6t. I wifh this Gentleman had fliowa fomething of it ^ if not in his Account of Scripture, ox Fathers ( which his Hjpothejis perhaps would not permit ) yet in his Reports, and Reprefentations^ at c See my Second Defenfe, />. 1 6. •» \Vhitby's Second Part of his B,eply, p 74, 12,2. leafi^ [ '33 ] leafi, of my Worcls, and my Senfe -, which might have been expeded from a Man of Probity. Whether his Writing without a Name, has been his principal Encouragement to take the Liberties he has, I will not be pofitive : But it is highly probable 5 becaufe comition Prudevce, generally, is a fufficient Bar againft it, ^in Men that have any CharaBer to lofe, any Repii- tatio7i to be refponfible for it. The juft and proper Views, or Reafons, for a Writer's concealing his Name, are, to relieve his Modejly, or to fcreen himfelf from publick Cevfiire -, to be frank and oyen in De- bate, and to difcufs every Point of Importance (tho' againft the received Opinions ) with all due Freedom, and Striclvefs, like a Lover of Truth. Had the Gentle- men, I am concerned with, gone upon thefe Viem, or made ufe of their Concealment for thefe or the like lau- dable Purpofes, I fhould ha vebeen perfedly well fatisfi- ed. But while they continue their Difgttifes as before, and regard nothing lefs than fra7ik, fair, and open De- bate •, while the main Ufe they make of their Con- cealment, is only to be lefs folicitous about what they think, or write •, pelting us from their Coverts v/ith All [reports, and flandering in Alafqiierade : When this is the Cafe, it concerns a Man in his own De- fenfe to intimate to thefe Gentlemen, that they are not fo entirely under Cover as they may imagine ; but that it is their Prudence ftill to be a little itjore upon their Guard, and to write with more Decevcj hereafter, at leaft, for their own Credit, and Repvta- tiov. After alljfanyreafonable Man isdifpoiedtoexamine this Queftion, or any Part of it, with Freedom and Plainnefs, with Sincerity and Strictnefs, attend iiig to the Argvmevt, and reprefenting every thing in a fair and true Light, without Mifrepcrt, or Jvfidt ; fuch a Perfon, though vamekfs, would have a juftTitle to all tejider, mid candid, and even rejpelfnl 4 Treat- [ 134] Treatment, from an Adverfary 5 and, I am very fure, would never find any other than fuch from me. I fliall ever think it a much greater Difgrace to be outdone in Civility^ than in Matter of Argument. The Firft cannot happen bat through a Man's own jpmdt : The other may 5 and when it does, there is no real Difcredit in yielding to the Truth once made clear. Both fides, if they are good Men, are vlBori- oils in fuch a Cafe •, becaufe Both attain the only Thing that they aim'd at, and Both fhare the Prize. FINIS. BOOKS TrintedforW. and]. Innys. I. Tj^IGHT Sermons preach'd at the Cathedral Church o£ JL_/ St. Tauly in Defenfe of the Divinity of our Lord Je- fu3Chrift;upon the Encouragement given by t[\Q Lady Aloyer^ and at the Appointment of the LordBifhop oi London, The ad Edit. Svo. 1720. 2. A Sermon preach'd before the Sons of the Clergy, at their Anniverfary Meeting in the Cathedral Church of St. TauU 'Decern. 14. 1721. Svo. 9. The Cafe of Avian Subfcription confider'd ; and the fe- veral Pleas and Excufes for it particularly examined and confuted. The 2d Edition, Svo. 1721. 4. A^ Supplement to the Cafe of Avian Subfcription confi- intituled, Blfquijitiines Modefia. Svo. 1720. 7. A Second Vindication of Chrift's Divinity, or a Second Defenfe of fome Queries relating to Dr. Clarke's Scheme of the Holy Trinity, in Anfwer to the Country Clergyman's Reply. Wherein the Learned Do£tor's Scheme, as it now ftands, after the lateft Corredion, Alteration, and Expla- nation, is diftinftly and fully confider'd. Svo. 1725. 8. A Sermon preach'd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paulf before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, the Alder- men, and Citizens oi London ^ on Wednefday^ the 29th of Af/ry, 1723. Being the Anniverfary Day of Thankfgiving for the Reftoration, 4.to. 9. A Familiar Difcourfe upon the Doftrine of the Holy Trinity, and the ufe and Importance of it, in a Sermon preach'd upon Trinity Sundayy at the Pariih-Church of St. Aujiiny in London. Svo. 1725. 10. Religious Education of Children, recommended in a Sermon preach'd in the Parifh Church of St. Sepulchre^ June the 6th, 1723. being Thtrfday in Whitfon-Weeh Svo. 1723. II. A BOOKS "Printed for W. and ], I n n y 5. 1 1. A Critical Hiftory of the Athanafian Creed, repre- fenting the Opinions of Ancients and Moderns concerning it : With an Account of the Maniifcripts, Verfions and Com- ments, and fuch other Particulars as are of Moment for the determining the Age, and Author, and Value of it, and the Time of its Reception in the Chriftian Churches. 4to. 1724* All thefe by the Reverend Dr. Waterlajtd, 12. An Addrefs to Parents, fhewing them the Obligations they are under to take care of the Chriftian Education of their Children, and laying before them the principal Points in which they ought to inftruft them. By Jofe^h Hooky Vi- C^Y o£ Haxey. Svo. 1724. 13. Principles of Deifm truly reprefented and fet in a clear Light, in two Dialogues between a Sceptick and a Deifi. The firft concerning the Chriftian Revelation. The fecond concerning NaturalReligion. The fecond Edit. Svo. 1722. 14. An Anfwer to fome late Papers, entitled, The Inde- pendent Whig; fo far as they relate to the Church of E;?^- iand as by Law eftablifh'd ; in which her Doftrines, Creeds, Liturgy and Eftablifhment, her Clergy with their Rights Divine and Human, are modeftly defended, and their Au- thor's new Notions prov'd to be not only abfurd and ridicu- lous, but alfo direftly oppofite to thofe very Texts of God's Word, on which he pretends to found them. By Francis Sftirey A. M. ReQ:or of Exfordy and Vicar of Cutcomhe and ZuxhoroiUy Sonieyfet. 15. A Farewel-Sermon preach'd to the Inhabitants of the United Pariilies of Chriji's Church, and St. Leonard's Fojler- Laney on Sunday y Jo-n, 12. 172|.. By John Rogersy D. D. their late Lefliurer. Svo. 1724. 16. Remarks upon a late Book, intituled, The Fable of the Bees, or private Vices publick Benefits. In a Letter to the Author. To which is added, A Poftfcript, containing an Obfervation or two upon Mr. Bi^tyle. By Vfilliam La-iuy A. M. Svo. 1724. 17. Decency and Order in publick Woriliip, recommend- ed in Three Difcourfes preach'd in the Cathedral Church of Hereford. By TJjomas Bijfe, D. D. Chancellor of the faid Church. Svo. 1723. 18. Reflexions upon Reafon by Thlleletitherus EriUnnkus. The fecond Edition. Svo. 1722. 19. A Sermon preach'd at the Anniverfary Meeting of the Sons of the Clergy at St. PauVs Cathedral, on the 15th of December y 1722. ^By F amulet St. Johny D. D. ReGor of X^xlden in ^^ordjlme.