BAP 
 
 S985 
 
 m 
 
 
ojo 
 
 
 ***** f *Ato* 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnciv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 '/037f 
 
 6,1 
 
r 
 
Model* PLEA 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 Baptifmal and Scripture-Notion 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRINITY. 
 
 Wherein the Schemes of the Reverend 
 Dr Bennet and Dr Clarke are compared. 
 
 To which are ^dded 
 
 TWO LETTERS. 
 
 ■-• ■ 
 
 ONE written to the Iat^Reverend Mr R. M, 
 concerning his fflainffiripttire-Arpwetit, 8cc. 
 
 The OTHER to the Author c r a Book, enti- 
 tuled, The True Scripture-Dotfrine of the Mojl 
 Holy and Undivided Trinity continued end vindica- 
 ted : Recommended firft by Robert Nelfon F% 
 and iinceby the Reverend Dr IVaterhrid. 
 
 Wherein the Reader will find obviated the Principal 
 Arguments urged by the Rev d Dr WATERLAND, 
 in his Defenfe of Some Queries, gfc. 
 
 By a Clergyman in the Country. 
 
 
 
 London, Printed by W. B. and are to be fold by J\mes 
 KmaptoNj at the Crown in St Pauls Church-yard. 17 1£. 
 

 THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 MT T>efign in the fol- 
 lowingPapers, is not 
 (o much either to 
 (how in Speculation the 
 Weaknefs of Dr Bennet's Scheme* 
 or to vindicate that of the learned 
 Author he oppofes ; as to contribute 
 my Mite towards perfuading the 
 rational and ferious Part of the 
 Chriflian World (what woud tend 
 infinitely to the Honour of God in 
 Praffife, and to the promoting of 
 true Religion without any Detriment 
 to the external Gonftitution and 
 Government of any particular 
 Church ;) that they would at length 
 confider and lay to Heart the Ad- 
 mice of the great and learned Dr 
 
 Stilling- 
 
The Preface. 
 Stillingffeet in his Irenicum, p. 
 1 1 6 — 1 1 2 " I pall f Mb join (faith 
 <£ he) the Judgment of as learned 
 " and judicious a Divine, [Mr 
 Ci John Hales ^ as moft our Nati- 
 u on has bred, in his excellent, 
 <f tho' little Trad", concerning 
 
 " Schifm:" " Confider of all 
 
 " the Liturgies that are and ever 
 <f have been ; and remove from 
 cc them zvhatever is fc&ndalous 
 " to any Tarty, and leave nothing 
 " but what all agree on ; and the 
 " 'Event f:all be, that the fublick 
 M Service and Honour of God, pall 
 
 u no Ways fvffer. Thus far 
 
 " that excellent Perfon, whole 
 
 « Words I [ Dr. Stillingfleet ] 
 
 <( have taken the Pains to transcribe, 
 
 f< becaufe of that great Wifdom, 
 
 . <c Judgment and Moderation, con- 
 
 «' tamed in them ; and the Seafona- 
 
 fl bienefs of his Council and Advice, 
 
 lQ to the prefent Pofiure of AfFans 
 
 " amonpft: us. Were we To happy, 
 
 *> bfcjt to take oft Things granted 
 
 *' unnecef- 
 
The Preface. 
 « unnecejfary by All, and fufac- 
 « ted by many, and judged uh- 
 « /*&;/«/ by yW; and to make 
 « nothing the Bonds of our Com- 
 ic munion, but what Chrift has done ; 
 ..— we might indeed be reifored 
 
 « to a true primitive Luftre. 
 
 « And certainly the primitive 
 « Church, that did not charge 
 « Men's Faith with iuch a Load of 
 « Articles, as now in thefe latter A- 
 « ges Men are charg'd with, wou'd 
 a much lefs burden Men with impo- 
 « bngdoukfulTracfices upon them 
 « as <he Ground of Church-Corn- 
 « munion. And for publick 
 
 « .ftr^ ^ <0<tftft Service, fuch 
 
 «< of all Things, certainly fhotild 
 c < be fo compofed, as to be the 
 " leaft fubjed: to any Scruple from 
 " any Peribns whatsoever. " 
 
 The tzvo Letters annexed, were 
 
 written (excepting only fome fezv 
 
 Additions) a confiderable Time 
 
 jmce, for private Vfe ; and had 
 
 not Now feen the Light, had not the 
 
 Km- 
 
The Preface. 
 
 Reverend Dr Waterland, in his 
 Book entitled, A Defenfe of fome 
 Queries, infified almoft vjhotty upon 
 the fame Arguments with the ^Au- 
 thors to whom thefe Letters are ad- 
 drcjfed ; and recommended One of 
 thofe Authors very particularly, in 
 his Defenfe, pag. 16, 30, 44, 56, 
 57, <5o, 61, 93, 12$, 134* 37?» 
 457; *W i» few Preface, pag. 4, 
 ^ * learned and yet unanfwered 
 writer.. 
 
 THE 
 

 ■ i .i 
 
 V. 
 
 T H E 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 T 
 
 HE Introduction, Page i 
 
 Chap, i . The State of the Contfoverfy be- 
 tween Dr Bennet and Dr Clarke, 5 
 
 Chap. 2. Contai ning a particular Comparifon of 
 Dr Bennet's Scheme with Dr Clarke's 1 2 
 
 Chap* 3. Containing a particular Comparifcn of Dr 
 Bennet s and Dr Clarke's Account of the In- 
 carnation. 2 j 
 
 Chap. 4. Of Reafon in the ^iiejlion about the 
 Trinity, 40 
 
 Chap. 5, Of the Scripture-Trinity , 50 
 
 Chap. 6. Of the Terms, Nature and Perfon, as 
 applied to Chrift, 5 5 
 
 Chap. 7. Of drifts being fiikRzMzn, 62 
 
 Chap. 8. Of drift's pr&exifting before his Incar- 
 nation, and Whether he was Then a mere hu- 
 man Soul of the fame Species with Us,oraPe)- 
 finoffar iSuperiour Dignity, 66 
 
 Chap. 9, Of the a6>©- or Word mentioned by St 
 John, 'whether it was a real Perfon, the Per- 
 
 fon 
 
foil of our Saviour pr&exijling before his hear* 
 nation, or whether it means only Somewhat in- 
 certum qi( id) belonging to God the Father 
 and Superadded to the Man, Jefis Chriji at the 
 time of his Conception, 7 ^ 
 
 Chap. io. Of Dr Sennet's Notion of the Qui- 
 efcence of the K'oy©- or Word, g 7 
 
 Chap. ii.O/ Chrifs State of Exaltation, ' 9 $ 
 
 Chap. 1 2. Of the Unity of God, 2 OI 
 
 Chap. 13. Of the Holy Spirif , 1 09 
 
 Chap. 14. 0/ Divine Worfhip, 1 r 3 
 
 Chap. i$. Of Subicfiptions to Articles, 119 
 
 A Letter written to the Reverend Mr. R. M. 1 27 
 
 A Letter to the Author of the True Scrpiture- 
 Dodrine, &c. I9 - 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION* 
 
 HAT which has made Chrlftiafis of 
 all Denominations, and in all Ages, 
 engage in this Contrdverfy about the 
 X> i?iity 7 is the juft Notion they have 
 of its great Moment and Importance 
 in Religion. An Error here, reaches 
 miich further, than isatfuft percei- 
 ved •, anci afrecls all the great Brandies of Chriftia'nity v 
 the Incarnation, Death, Satisfaction, and Interceflion 
 of our blefled Saviour. It influences alfo oUr religious 
 Practices • and (as Men are generally too apt to mit 
 needleflsy their private Opinions faith their moft fo- 
 lemn PrayersJ it cannot but lead Men into great 
 Danger of -corrupting (what ought always to be moft 
 plain, fmpUy and intefiegibk to all Capacities.) the War* 
 Jlrip ot God. 
 
 The Man rnio kriiertkinsSabetliamfin, tnatis, who 
 holds iv (jua v-xisdrti rs*s ho^Atna.^ that the Trinity isbut 
 37;? ee Denominations in or of One Snbfiance • will be for- 
 t*d iii Conference to hold, that in due Time the Fa« 
 
 B ibft 
 
C * ) 
 
 thtr was born, and the Father fvffefd •, that 'twas not 
 the Son or any real Psrfbn that was the Word diftinct 
 from the Father, but that the Supreme God himfelf 
 became incarnate. He muft maikcoatisfa&ion to himself, 
 and intercede with himfelf, and he himfelf become an 
 Advocate with himfelf: Which is fo abfurd, and fo in- 
 confiftent with the Scriptures, that no Wonder, this 
 Scheme has been condemne'd. Socimahifm, isbut Sabel* 
 lianifm a little refined. Inftead indeed of the Fathers 
 becoming incarnate, this allows only extraordinary Af- 
 fiftances to the Man Chrift jefus : And thus the Incar- 
 nation of the Word, and the Merit of ChrifVs Death 
 and Paifion, is extremely leflen'd, being put upon the 
 Level with the Death of any common Man •, and the 
 Perfon offered, is of no greater Dignity or Excellen- 
 cy, than a meer Man. Thofe Sabellians, who were 
 not Patripajfiajis, maintained exaBly this Notion. Ce- 
 rinthns and his Followers, were among the firft who 
 corrupted Chriftianity, by averting two diftinct ratio- 
 nal Perfons to have been in our Saviour, The one cal- 
 led Jefm, the other Chrift : That Jefus (as St. John ex- 
 preffes it J was not the Chrift, but that Chrift defcendel 
 upon Jefus, after his Baptifm ; and at laft, that Chrift 
 
 _ . withdrew again from Tefus, 
 
 Revohffe ncrutn Chriftum j j f j ^ ^ d 
 
 de Ieiu, & felum pailum eiie r • ? A\ -n 
 
 & refurrexifTe: Chrirtum au- ro f e again 5 but Chrift ^ con- 
 tem impajjibitem perfeveraffe, tinued impafiible, as being of 
 cxiftencem Spiritalem. Lent- m heavenly Nature. This 
 m ' * I,<: - 2 5* Notion, in its Conferences 
 
 dcftroys the Incarnation and Death of our Saviour and 
 Redeemer •, and is intirely unknown to the facred 
 Writings. In Ihort -, an Error in the Notion of the 
 Trinity, always affe&s very much the other great 
 Notions of Chriftianity : And whatever poffible Eva- 
 lions may be contrived to folve a particular PafTage 
 of Scripture, yet the Maintainers of fuch Error will 
 be forced upon fuch Difficulties in Confequence of their 
 
 Principles, 
 
■C 3 ) 
 
 Principles, as may convince any impartial Perfon of 
 the weak Foundation they ftand upon. 
 
 But Errors in Speculation would be of no very ill 
 Confequence, were it not tor the religious Pradich 
 that are generally founded upon them. An Error in 
 Theory, too uiually leads Men to feme Abfurdity in 
 Fratrice-, and in religious Matters, often caufes them 
 to offer up to God the Sacrifice of Fools. It Men's 
 Notions ot the Trinity arc (for Example J Sabellim, 
 they are led too naturally to pray to Names or Modes i 
 3. e. to abjlratt Terms, inftead ot Peifons, who alone 
 can be the Objects of Prayer. They give Thanks to 
 Words only, and not to an intelligent Agent, who a- 
 lone can hear us and receive the Honour we defign to 
 give him. Or elfe perhaps they confound the Object 
 Of Adoration $ thanking one Perfon for redeeming us 
 with his Blood, who never was incarnate -, and offering 
 up Prayers as to Another, which yet is the felt-fame 
 individual Being. 
 
 Thefe and fuch like Confederations are of that Im- 
 portance in Religion, that no reafonable and confide- 
 rate Man, who knows the Obligations we are under to 
 be of a Chriftian Spirit, can be difpleafed to hear thefe 
 Matters calmly treated of. Nor is there any ChriJIian 
 who will not join in declaring with the ^Reverend Dr 
 Bennet, p. 21, that We muji lay ajide our Prejudices, 
 and difentangle our Selves fro?n thofe Notions, which ws 
 have received, not from the Holy Scriptures, but from fal- 
 lible Writers. We muji have Recourfe to our Bibles, if 
 ire defire to be refolved, whether the Word or d'vmne 
 Nature of our Lord Jefus Chrift be the very God, or no t 
 We are not left dejlitute of fufcient Means for the 
 Determination of this Point* The infpired Writers 
 are exceedingly clear, and f peak very plainly concern* 
 ing it. 
 
 I confefs, I think the infpired JFrhivgs are exceed- 
 ing clear in this Gontroverfy -, but yet I do not think, 
 
 B 2 they 
 
r 4) 
 
 tiief fpeate any Thing like What this learned Au* 
 thor conceives. Which of us is in the right, the 
 impartial Reader 1 muft judge * I only defire him, 
 with Dr. Clarke, to conftder the Whole of what 
 is laid, before he pades his Judgment, which of the 
 two Schemes is mo/I fcrtytural and moft rational 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(') % 
 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The State 0/ flv Contr over [y between Dr Rennet 
 rfw^ Dr Clarke. 
 
 TH E Reverend Dr Bevnet has ftated this Mat- 
 ter in Relation to the firft Point in Controverfy, 
 in the Words following •, p. 19, Whether the Word or 
 divine Nature of the hlefed Jefm he the very God, that 
 is, the one Selfexiftent Being ? Iajfim, that he j$: And 
 you deny it h making him a diftinft Being from, and infer i*. 
 or to, the one felfexijient or very God. 
 
 But I muft be more particular in this Place, in Or» 
 der to form a Judgment of the two Schemes. 
 __ Dr Clarke s Opinion, as far as is here needful to rc» 
 cite it, teems to me to be contained in thefe Propo- 
 rtions of his. 
 
 ijr, There is onefupremeCaufe and Original of 
 Things: One Simple, uncompounded, undivided, 
 intelligent Being, [Agent] or Per fen, who is the Au- 
 thor of all Beings, and the Fountain of all Power. 
 " 2d. With this firft and fupreme Caufe or Father 
 of all Things, there has exifted, from the Begin- 
 ning, a fecond divine Perfon, which ,is his Word 
 or Son. 
 
 " %l. With the Father and the Son, there has exi£ 
 ted, from the Beginning, a third divine Perfon, 
 which is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. 
 " %th. The Father for firft Perfon) Alone, is Self- 
 exiftent, Underived, Unoriginated, Independent, 
 made of none, begotten of none, proceeding from 
 
 none. 
 
 B? " 12X\ 
 
C 6 ) 
 
 " 1 2th. The Son (or fecond Perfon) is not felf-ex- 
 
 6 iftent, but derives his Being or Efience, and all his 
 
 Attributes, from the Father, as from the fupremc 
 
 * Caufe. 
 
 '■" lhth. The[A^>©-, the] Word or Son of theFa- 
 ■ ther, fent into the World to aifume cur Flefh, and die 
 ' ior the Sins of Mankind, was not the *6>©- ivJij£t7n<, 
 f the internal Reafon or Wifdom of God, an Attri- 
 bute or Power of the Father •, but a real Perfon, 
 - the fame who from the Beginning had been the 
 6 Word, or Revealer of the Will, of the Father to 
 ■ c the World. 
 
 " igtb. The Holy Spirit, or third Perfon, is not 
 
 * felf-exiftent, but derives his Being or EfTence from 
 ' the Father (by the Son) as from the fupreme 
 f Caufe. 
 
 * 24^. The Word, God, in the NevSf Teftament, 
 1 fometimes Signifies the Perfon of the Son. 
 
 ■ ' 25th. The Reafon why the Son in the New Tefta- 
 ment is fometimes ftiled God, is not fo much upon 
 c Account of his metaphyseal Subftance, how divine 
 
 foevcr, as of his relative Attributes and divine 
 / Authority over us. 
 
 \ 3 id. The Word, God, in Scripture, never figni- 
 ' ' fies a complex Notion of more Perfons than One, 
 *■ but always means one Perfon only, vh.. either the 
 " Perfon of the Father fingly, or the Perfon of the 
 ?: Son flhgfy. 
 
 " iqth The Reafon why *he Scripture, though it 
 
 * ftiles the Father God, and alfo fliles the Son God, 
 f yet at the fame Time alwa} 7 s declares there is but 
 7 .One God •, is becaufe, in the Monarchy of the Uni- 
 
 * verfe, there is but one Authority, original in the 
 
 * Father, derivative in the Son. The Power of the 
 ! Son, being, not another Power oppoiite to that of 
 ' the Father, nor another Power coordinate with that 
 t of the Father, but itfelf the Power and Authority 
 
(7) 
 
 1 of the Father, communicated to, manifefted in 
 ' and exercifed by the Son. 
 
 " 4 2 d, The Holy Spirit, as he is fubordinate to the 
 1 Father, fo he is alfo in Scripture reprefented as 
 1 fubordinate to the Son, both by Nature and by the 
 ' Will of the Father •, excepting only that he is de- 
 ' fcribed as being the Conducler and Guide of our 
 ' Lord, during his State of Humiliation here upon 
 ' Earth. * 
 
 " 43 d. Upon thefe Grounds, abfolutely fupreme 
 " Honour is due to the Perfon of the Father iingly, 
 " as being alone the fupreme Author of all Being 
 " and Power. 
 
 " qqtb, For the fame Reafon, all Prayers and 
 *' Praiies ought primarily or ultimately to be dire&ed 
 " to the F>erfbn of the Father, as the Original and 
 " Primary Author of all Good. 
 
 " 45 tb.-~ Whatever Honour is paid to the Son 
 " who redeem'd, or to the Holy Spirit who fan&ifies 
 " us, muft always be underftood as tending finally 
 " to the Honour and Glory of the Father, b^ whMe 
 " good Pleafure the Son redeemed, and the Holy Spi- 
 ct rit fanclifies us 
 
 [Thefe three fo/?Propofitioris, if I apprehend Dr 
 Clarke rightly, are thofe, for the Sake and Support of 
 which, his whole Booh was written.] 
 
 It is not necelTary to cite any more of the Doelor's 
 Propofitions, to fliew his Opinion in what Senfe the 
 WO R D or Son, is (tiled, God, in Scripture, and 
 on what Accounts he is fubordinate to the Father. 
 
 This Scheme, ift, preferves the numerical Unity of 
 God intire, but makes the Unity of the Son and Spi- 
 rit with the Father to be only Figurative • not [tie- 
 cejfarily] an Unity of Effsnce or individual Subftance^ 
 but of Authority and Confevf. It keeps up to the 
 Scriptures, which have wriverfaUy fpoken only of this 
 Sort of Unity, whenever they fpeak of the Unity of 
 Perfc7is or intelligent Agents. 2. It gives a rational 
 
 B 4 Account 
 
C 8 ) 
 
 Account of that Exprefiion of Scripture, I and the 
 'father areev, unum, One • not In, unus, John io, 3c. 
 Indeed the Scriptures in every Place where they men- 
 tion the Unity of intelligent Agents, always (peak in 
 the very fame Term, and always call it h, unwvu 
 John ch. 17. ver. 11, 21, 22, 23. 1 Cor. 3. 8. 
 1 John 5. 7, 8. 3 i/y. This makes the Term, Perfon, 
 figniiy the fame Thing as it always does in our Lan- 
 guage, 2nd conveys to the Reader's Mind no Ideas 
 but fuch as it may have clearly enough. 4. This a- 
 voids all thofe Contradictions (real or feeming) with 
 which Jhat Opinion is charged, which makes the 
 WORD to be the very God, feif-exiftent and yet deri- 
 ved ^ the very fame individual Being or Agent, $0 
 be Father and Son. $thly. This naturally accounts 
 for the Father's being greater than the Son j for the 
 Sen's noi htcwh'g the Day of Judgment : and for all 
 thofe Texts ot Scripture, which plainly feem to im- 
 port an Inferiority and Subordination of the Son. 6. 
 This makes Way tor a very gocd Motion and very pro- 
 per one, of the Incarnation : And a Man may without 
 any Difficulty conceive, that the Aly@- or WORD, 
 an intelligent Agent, diftinct from, and fubordinate 
 to the Father., was incarnate, did partake of TUJh and 
 Blood, was made Alan, or in the Likenefs of Man, as 
 the Scriptures ever} 7 where declare. 
 
 In Oppcfition to this Scheme, Dr Bemtet has 
 offered the following cne, which he thinks more a- 
 greeable to Scripture, and confequently more jufi: 
 and true. 
 
 Chap. 12. Tirjt. " The Scriptures do teach, that the 
 u Word, or divine Nature of our Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 " is the very God. 31 
 
 C'tap. 13. idly. " The Holy Ghoir, is one and tie 
 il fane Being with the felfe;,iftvt God, or is the veiy 
 ? God." 
 
 C.iap. 14 p. 2 1 6. idly, " The Word and the Spirit 
 4C aie as really di/tinti in the fame felfexiftent Eeing, 
 
 *• 0? 
 
C 9 ) 
 
 & or very God •, as the Soul and the Body are re* 
 " ally diftind in the fame created Being, Man. 
 " f. 216. 
 
 d,ib. " The Holy Scriptures plainly diftinguifh 
 " the felfexiftent Being, or very God, both from 
 " the Word and from the Spirit, p 216 
 
 'ythly^ " There is in the divine Nature or Ef- 
 iL fence, SOMETHING diftincl: from the Word and 
 " the Spirit-, and which, together with the Word and 
 fC the Spirit, conftitutes the whole divine Nature or 
 " ElTence. ibid. 
 
 6thly. u The Word and the Spirit are GOD, that 
 " is, ellential to, and conftitutive of, the felfexiftent 
 " Being. 55 p. 217. 
 
 -jtbly. " So much of the divine Nature or Ef- 
 c fence/ as is not by any more particular Name diftin- 
 1 guifhed in Scripture from the Word and the Spirit, 
 f and which is conceiv'd by us as Prior in Order of 
 
 * Confideration to both the Word and the Spirit, is 
 
 * very properly term d tjie eternal Father of the 
 ' Word. p. 217. 
 
 Sthly. " The Word, Terfon, when applied to the 
 f Son and Holy Gheft, does not fignify a diftind 
 ' intelligent Agent from the Father. W T e can't exact- , 
 
 * ly define what a divine Perfon is p. 218. 
 
 gthly. God is incarnate by bisfecojid Per/on on- 
 " ly : Eyen as a Triangle touches a Point given, if B 
 " touches it, at the fame Time that A and C do 
 *' not touch it, notwithstanding >4'and C together 
 " with B do coeflentially conftitute the Triangle. 
 *? p. 220. 
 
 lothly. " The Word, notwithftanding the perfo- 
 " nal Union, did forbear to communicate his extraor- 
 " dinary Influences to the Man Chrift Jefus, during 
 Ul the Time of our Saviour's Miniftry. c. 9. p. 125. 
 11. '* Chrift had an human Soul, which pra?ex- 
 " ifted before his Appearance in,the Flefh, and had 
 " the Honour of perfonacing God." p. 84. 
 
 This 
 
( IO ) 
 
 This Scheme the Reverend Dr Benttet has fet up, 
 as what he thinks to be the true Scripture- Account of 
 this Matter, and by which he endeavours to account 
 for every Text of Moment which relates to this 
 Controverfy. 
 
 If we compare the two Schemes together, Dr 
 Clmles plainly accounts for feveral Things in a much 
 clearer Manner than Dr Bennett. As, if. The Word 
 Psrfon is in this latter a mere unintelligible Sound; with- 
 out any the leaft Pretenfe of Foundation in Scripture, 
 for introducing fuch a needlefs Piece ot Darknefs. The 
 Dodorfays eiprefly, we cant define exaBly what a di- 
 vine Pcrfon 75 ; Nay, the utmoft he aims at, is only 
 to fay what it is not, p. 2 1 8. idly. The Father, the 
 Word, and the Spirit, are (he fays) as really di/linci 
 as the Soul and the Body, p. 2 1 6 •, and yet, but two 
 Pages after, they are one and the Jame Being with each 
 other, p. 2 1 8. %dly. The Perfon of the Father, is ex- 
 plained no better, than by calling it SOMETHING 
 diitincl from the Word and the Spirit. $thly, That Form 
 of ExpreiTion fo commonly ufed, viz. God the Father, 
 is altogether unintelligible : A sis evident, if inftcadof 
 the Word, Father, we put the Doctor's Definition of 
 it. God the Father, i. e. God the SOMETHING di- 
 finS from the Word and the Spirit, and which with the 
 Word and Spirit confitutes the whole divine Nature. 
 Or, as ir is, p. 217, God the fo much of the divine Na- 
 ture, as is not by any more particular Nune d'ijlinguifoel 
 in Scripture from the Word and the Spirit, 8cc 
 
 The like Difficulties will occur alfo, in this learned ' 
 Author's Account of the Incarnation, if God isiw 
 carnaU by hisfecondP-rfon only; that is, God is incar- 
 nate by we cannot tell what, becaufe we cannot tell 
 v/bat the Term Per f on means in this Scheme. 2. The 
 - Word is as really diftinft from the Father, as th§ 
 Body and Soul; and the Word was incarnate, and not 
 the Father 5 and yet the Word is individually One and 
 the fame Being with the Father, from which 'tis diftind 
 
 too: 
 
C n ) 
 
 too. 3 .That the Son of God was incarnate , is an Expref- 
 iion very intelligible, upon Dr Clarke's Scheme : But 
 God incarnate is as hard as any, in Dr Bennet\. The 
 Word is God, i e. SOMETHING effential to thefelf- 
 exifient Being; Therefore Go d incarnate, is, according 
 to Dr. Bennet, only SOMETHING (eJJ'ential to the- 
 felfexijtent Being) incarnate. 'Tis very hard to ap- 
 prehend this •, or how one Perfon fhou'd be incarnate, 
 and not the other two, fince God is the moft fimple 
 Being and free from Parts. Did the fupreme Intelli- 
 gence confift of Parts, as a Triangle does 5 'twou'd be 
 very conceivable how One Jngle might touch a Point, 
 and not the other : But this being not the Cafe, 'tis 
 very difficult, I think impoflible, to apprehend this 
 Account of Dr Bennet's. 
 
 Suppoiing now each of thefe Schemes to be reconci- 
 lable with the Words of Scripture •, yet Dr Qarkes 
 is an intelligible one, whilft the other is very uncon- 
 ceivable. Dr Clarke\ has the Advantage of having 
 no manifeft Abfurdities in it, which Dr Bennet's 
 feems to labour under. In all Other Sorts of Specu- 
 lations, 'tis the conffant Method of Mankind to take 
 that for true, which is moft clear; and to abandon 
 thofe Notions which upon Examination appear to be 
 unintelligible, if a clearer Account be offered. Nay, 
 'tis upon this very Principle that Dr Bennet himfelf 
 admits the Hypothecs of the Preexiftence of our Sa- 
 viour's Soul, becaufe it folves many Difficulties which 
 'tis impojfible to give any tolerable Account of otherwife, 
 p. 70. I cannot therefore but think, that, fuppofing 
 Dr Bemiefs Account of fome PafTages of Scripture to 
 be as natural as Dr Clarke's, yet upon the whole, Dr 
 Clarke's Scheme being more intelligible than Dr Ben- 
 tiefs, it ought to be preferr'd before it. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
( « ) 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Containing a particular Comparifon of Dr Ben- 
 nett Scheme with JDr Clarke\r. 
 
 U T in Order to make a more exadt Judgment 
 
 r of this Controverfy; I fhall next repreient the 
 Solutions each of thefe learned Writers give of the 
 Difficulties nfually raifed upon this Subject j that it: 
 may appear which of them is in that refpett the 
 moft natural Scheme. 
 
 I. The Controverfy is about the Trinity. The Fir ft 
 Q'leftion therefore is, What do we mean by the Trini- 
 ty ? Dr CLirkes Anfwer, is contained in his three 
 firft Proportions: " There is one fupreme Caufe an<jL 
 
 Or jo ind of all Things; onefimple,uncompoimded, undi* 
 
 c Hided, intelligent Being j_ Agent] or Perfon, who is the 
 
 ' Author of all Being, and the Fountain of all Power : 
 
 li With this Firft and fupreme Caufe or Father of all 
 
 ; Things, there has exifted from the Beginning a Second 
 
 •' divine Perfon, which is his Word or Son : With the Fa,- 
 
 iC ther and the Son there has exifted from the Beginning a 
 
 " Third divine Perfon, which is the Spirit of the Father 
 
 cc and of the Son.''' So that, in This Author's Opinion, 
 
 there are Three divine peifom or diJlinB intelligent Agents, 
 
 of which the Son and Spirit are inferior and fubordi- 
 
 nate to the Father. ^ 
 
 Dr Bennefs Account is : There are Three Perfms, 
 Father, Word, and Spirit ; which Three Perfons, are 
 each the very God. But if we take, Perfon, and zV 
 teUigent Agent, to be fynonymous ; (as, in the Scripture- 
 Senfe, they muft needs be ; the Scripture never ufing 
 any other Word to exprefs Perfon, befidesthe mafcu- 
 line Adjective, Which always fignifies intelligent A- 
 
 gent h ) 
 
( *3 ) 
 
 gent then, he fays, the very God is Undoubtedly hut 
 one Perfon, p. 231. The only real Trinity then, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Bennet, is a Trinity of Parts of the one 
 felf-exift«nt Being each of which he calls a Perfon, 
 but denies them fingly and feparately to be intelligent 
 Agents. We fhall afterwards find this learned Author's 
 Trinity, to be in Reality but of Two Perfons only, viz. 
 the Father and the Man ihiift Jefw. But taking it 
 here as confuting of Three Persons in his own Senfe of 
 that Word, i. e. not three diftindt intelligent Jgents 5 
 it follows, that when he diredts a particular Prayer 
 to each of thefe Perfons , [as, God the Father of 
 
 Heaven-^ — God the Sen •, God the Holy 
 
 Ghoft,-— Have mercy upon w,~] he prays not to an under- 
 flandivg Being or intelligent Agent, but only to a confti- 
 tuent Part of an intelligent Agent, which it felf is wot 
 intelligent. A Practice, I doubt, not well confident 
 with Reafon or Scripture. 
 
 That which ihews that Dr. Bennet does not fuppofe 
 One of thefe Covftituents of the very God fp. 217.) to 
 be intelligent, considered as diftinct and feparate from 
 the other Two, is, that He allows the praeexilrent 
 Soul of Chrift to be a Perfon or intelligent Agent, when 
 the Word was quiefcent or did not influence him. If 
 therefore the Word be it felf an intelligent Agent, then 
 'twill follow, either that thofeTVo intelligent Agents, 
 which were diftinft. from each other, and did not influ- 
 ence one another, were but one intelligent Agent, (for 
 he fays, p. 19, thattheWord and the Man Chrift Je- 
 fus are united into ONE PERSON or elfe that the 
 Word is not an intelligent Agent or Perfon. 
 
 Now if the 7 ford be not an intelligent 4gent or Per- 
 fon properly fpeaking, how is it that the Word was 
 God? Or how were all Things made by him, as St. John 
 affures us they were ? Was the W orld made by an un- 
 intelligent constituent Part of God ? Or is it not clear, 
 Upon Dr Clarke'* Account of this Matter, agreeable to 
 the wiammow Senfe of all Chriftian Antiquity, that 
 
 God 
 
C 14 ) 
 
 God the Father made ufe of the Miniftration of 
 his Son, by whom (S I') he made the Worlds ? 
 
 II. To the Queftion, Wherein the Unity of the Tri- 
 nity (the Unity or Union of Three real diitincT; Perfons) 
 coniifts ; Dr Clarke would anfwer: Itconfifts in that 
 the' e is (Prop. 39.) but one Authority, origiiialin the 
 Father, derivative in the Son and in the Spirit ; and con- 
 fequently but One Jupr erne Agent. On the other Hand 
 Dr Bennet thinks, that the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy Spirit, are the felfexijtent or very God, and 
 confequejitly one and the fame Being, p. 215. 
 
 As there is (I think J but one Obje&ion, which is 
 fuppofed to lye here againft Dr. Clarke's Motion, viz. 
 that his Account makes in Reality Three Gods ; So, 
 in Anfwer to That, 'tisfaid, %f\ The Inferiority 
 and Subordination in the Son and in the Spirit, and 
 the derived Powers by which both the Son and Spirit 
 sir, plainly (hew that He doth not make them co-or- 
 dinate : and confequently that he preferves the nume- 
 rical Unity cf God entire. To make Three Gods (in the 
 abfnlute and proper Senfe of that Word J each of them 
 muft have equal Powers •, each of them muft be felf- 
 exiftenr, unoriginated, and independent. But where 
 Selfexiftence, Unorigination^ and Independency, are 
 diredtly aiferted not to belong to the Son and to the 
 Spirit, this Scheme can in no more Propriety be 
 calPd Tritheifm, than, becaufe Magift rates are call'd 
 Gods, and Angels are call'd God's, therefore to call 
 them fo is Polytheifm, idly. The Scriptures no where 
 declare the Father, the Son, and the Word to be one 
 Effevce, or Subftance, 01 Being, or Perf on h but every 
 where ipeak cf them as diftim Agents. The Wordwas 
 He by whom God made the World •, and the Word was 
 incarnate. Th%£phh is defcribed in the new Tefta- 
 ment, as the immediate Author and Worker of all 
 Miracles ^ as the ConhBer or ( hrift himielf-, and 
 has \ach perfo7ial Characters affixed to him, as evident- 
 ly diftinguilh hiin from the Father and the Word, 
 
 Sine© 
 
( *i ) 
 
 Since then the Scripture thus plainly reprefents them, 
 not as MO D E S of one Subftance, nor as Parts, nor 
 as All of one and the fame Power, i. e. co-ordinate Be* 
 bigs-, Dr. Clarke took certainly a very conceivable 
 and clear Method, fin which He followed the * Anti- 
 ents,) to make the Unity the only pofllble one 5 viz. 
 One fupreme God the Father, to whom the Son and Spi- 
 rit arefubordinate, and act by bis one Power and Authori- 
 ty, idly. I mull: farther obferve, the only fcriptural U- 
 nity of more Perfons than One, is a figurative One. 
 Such was what our Saviour prays for, John 17, 11, 
 Holy Father, keep thro'' thy Name thoje whom thou baft 
 given me, that they may he ONE, as we are. Nay, 1 
 John 5,7, fuppoiing That Text were genuine, (which 
 yet is proved fpurious, if it be poffible for any Paftage 
 to be proved fo,) fpeaks only of an Z7?/z'ty of Teftimcny. 
 And indeed the Word % v , imitm, inThisConftrudion, 
 when two or more Perfons or Things are faid to be Oiie, 
 is never (I believe' in any Writer whatfoever, ufed 
 otherwife than figuratively. 
 
 As thus Dr Clarke's Opinion feems agreeable to 
 Scripture and Reafon 4 'twill be hard to account for Dr 
 Bennct's 3 that the Father, Word, and Spirit, are the f elf* 
 exijlent or very God, and confequently One and the Jams 
 Being. For 
 
 1 ft, If -there be fomething in the Divine Nature, di- 
 pin8 from the Word and the Spirit, which is the eternal 
 Father of the Word, p. 2 1 7 5 and fomething diftincl: 
 in each oi the Three, which belongs not to the other 
 Two •, then it follows that God muft be a compound 
 Being, confifting of Parts : And it cannot be faid, that 
 the Word is the very God, and the Holy Gbofl h the very 
 God, ( to prove each of which, the Dr has a whole 
 
 * This Origination in the divine Paternity, has anciently been haty 
 upon as the Affertion of the Unity. Pcarfon wi the Creed, 4th Edit. 
 
 Chapter 
 
( iO 
 
 Chapter-,) but rather that Each of the Three are 
 Something conftituent of the very God. The Word can- 
 not be the very God, and the HolyGhoft the very God, 
 unlefs the Word and the Holy Ghcfl oe the very fame 
 Being But then asDr Btnnetdbfexvts, p. 215, tisevi- 
 devtlthat the 8a iptw es do notwithjiav.ding manifeffy diftin- 
 guifh the V r ord jrom the Spirit: Toe whole Courfeof the 
 jVtip Teflament is a continued Demonjiration of this. And 
 after iome Pioofs, he infers, p. 216, This clearly 
 fiews that the Word and the Spirit are as really diftindt 
 in the fame felf-exiftent Being or very God, as the 
 Soul and the Body are really aifiinft in the fame crea- 
 ted Man. If fo -, it muft be as abfurd to fay, they 
 are really diflinft from each other, »and yet Both of them 
 One and the fame Being'-., as to fay^ the Soul and 
 the Body are really diflinB from each other, and }' r et 
 they are Both of them One and th? fame Being, Man. 
 Again, idly, The Word is the wry God, and the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft is the very God-, and yet they are really difiinci. 
 lidifhiR, then they muft fome wav or other differ. If 
 they differ, how are they one and the fame Being} %dly, 
 Vithe Word and the Holy Sprit he effential to, and con- 
 Jiitutive of the Setfexijlent Being, p. 217^ then the 
 Word and the Spirit muft each have All the Properties 
 of God, or each muft have fome only peculiar to it felf * 
 which, being added to the Properties of the Other Two, 
 by uniting them, compofc One God, 
 
 If yoli fay, that Each of the Three have All the Pro- 
 perties of God • then each of the Three muft be unde- 
 rived-, Which is a Contradiction to the very Notion 
 of Father an&Son: And each of the Three muft bean 
 intelligent Agent, or Tnfon, which yet Dr Bennet will 
 not allow. If it be faid, that Each of them has only 
 its own peculiar Properties, which being all joined to- 
 gether coriftitute the very God -, then Pai t of a necefTa- 
 lily-exiftent Being will be unoriginated, and Part de- 
 rived : The moi\ f.mple Being will have fuch Attri- 
 butes, as fhcW k to be coingoimdedoi diftbiS Parts, and 
 
 fuehr 
 
up 
 
 lhchtoo as clam with and mutually deftroy each o« 
 ther. ForNecefTary Exiftence is as incunfiftent with 
 being begotten, as to have no Canfe or Exiftence and to> 
 have aCauJe One conftitu'ent Part of the very God, 
 or of the Self-exijlent Being, is the Word begotten by 
 the Father. The Term begotten, implies neceflarily 
 to receive a Being, or to be caufed to be. So then the 
 "Word received a Being from the Father by . teenera* 
 tion, and yet at the lame time hecejfaHly-exijreik, that 
 is., did not receive a Being * Which is a manifeft Con- 
 tradiction- Nay, qthly, Suppofing it poliible to re- 
 concile Dr Bennefs 1 2th and j$ib Chapters, wherein he 
 proves the Word and the Holy Ghoft to be each the 
 very God, with what he fays cb. lath that they are 
 each not the very God, but only ejfential to and con* 
 fritutive of the felf-exiftent Beings yet, if I miftake not, 
 the Word and the Spirit having, by being each the ve- 
 ry God, all the Perte6tions of God, they muft be as 
 much Three equal co-ordinate God'rf, notwithftanding 
 their Union, as if they were not fubftantially united. 
 For, That Something diftinct from the Word and the 
 Spirit, which conftitutes the Father, p. 2.16, if it has 
 all the Perfections of God in it felf, is God : And 
 the Word, and the Spirit, if each has all the Divine 
 Perfections, will each be God too : And confequently 
 the uniting or compounding thefe together, will no 
 shore make One fimple Unoriginated Bein '■•', or one 
 Intelligent Being, than the compounding or uniting 
 Three Minds, or Subftances, will make but One Mind 
 or One Subftance. 
 
 This Worthy Gentleman therefore feem's not to me to 
 have more fecured That Firft and moft Fundamental 
 Point of The Unity, nay in reality he 'has done it lefs, 
 than Dr Clark has done, if we examine accurately his 
 Opinion. Befides that the one is perfectly eafy, and 
 comprehenfible ; the other Myfteripus, and altoge- 
 ther unintelligible* 
 
 € III, A 
 
( i* ) 
 
 ^ Tit. A Third Thing very eafy upon Dr Clarke's 
 Scheme, is, What is meant by Perfon in this Difpute. 
 A Term ever fignitying, in our Language, Intelligent 
 Agent. And agreeably to this, He lays •, Wtth the 
 Fit ft there has exifted from the. Beginning a Second and 
 a Third dhhe Perfon. P, op. 2,3. 
 
 On the other Hand, the Reverend Dr Bennet fays, 
 p. 21S, that the word, Perfon, when applied to the Son, 
 and Hcly Ghojl, does nGtJignify a dijlincl intelligent Being 
 [or Ager£\ ftp ar ate from the Father. For thai* we cant 
 exactly define What a divine Perfcn is, yet we can fay 
 vhat 'tis not. What a ftrange Scheme cf Religion muft 
 That be, wherein are fo frequently 'Cbofen to be ufed 
 the Terms, Three Perfons and one God, even in Publick 
 Worihip } and yet fo Able a Man as Dr Bemet can't 
 here tell what a Peifon is ? Ef^ecially confidering that 
 That Term (in Dr ITs way) is not a Scripture-One, 
 but contrived by Men to exprefs their own Ideas ; 
 The Scripture nerer ufir.g upon this Occasion any O 
 ther' Term but the mafcu&ie Adjective alone, which aU 
 r.n and necejarily and Only fignifies an Intelligent Agent. 
 pcftor Bejniet feems to think the Term, Ferfcn y - 
 an improper one-, and is clear that the Three Perfons 
 cf the God-bead, are not three Perfons in the fame Senfe, 
 hi which Th ee Men are three Perfons, p 218. But not- 
 withftanding That, he dejiresthat the Ufe of it may he 
 continued, til better can be fubjiituted in its Room. But 
 ought not the Doctor to have defired the direct contra-* 
 ry ; fince the Term Perfon fo vecejfarily conveys into 
 the Hearers Mind a Notion fo very different from 
 Svhat He ought to conceive? Can there be a Worfe Term 
 pofilbly made ufe cf, than that which never fails to 
 raife in our Minds wrong Notions (if Dr Bennefs 
 •Scheme be right) of the Objects of 'our Worihip? 
 When a Alan is told that the Father, the Word, and the 
 Spirit , are truly and re ally diftinct, fo thai one is not the 
 other, p. 2 1 8^ and at the fame Time, that each of tbefe 
 is a Perfon j Which way is it poilible but that he mull 
 
 imagine 
 
C ip ) 
 
 imagine each of the Three to be a dift in£t intelligent 
 
 Agent, and that they are not individually One and the 
 
 fame [ Agent oi~\ Being? This Zeal for levins without 
 
 any Meaning; and the ftrong Conceit, that Matters 
 
 of the higheft Importance lie under them^ has, I'm 
 
 perfuaded, been one great Caufe of the fatal Divifions 
 
 in Chriftianity i and muft neceflarily keep them upfo 
 
 long, till Men can either define the Meaning of their 
 
 cwn Words, contrived by themielves to explain the 
 
 Meaning of Gorf s "Word; or elfecan bear to be called 
 
 back to the Ufe of plain and fcriptural and v.ndifputei 
 
 EipreiTions, which would tend much [more to the 
 
 real Glory of God and the True Union of Chrifti* 
 
 ans. 
 
 IV. Dr Clarke has given us a clear and diftinQ: Ac- 
 count of our BleiTed Saviour's Divinity-, Whereas Dr 
 fiennet has deprived us of every Text of Scripture in 
 Proof of that main Point 5 except Three, which yet up- 
 on his own Principles may with Eafe be taken from 
 him. His Three Texts are 3 John. 1,1, In the begin* 
 ving was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was God. zdly, 1 .Tim. 2,5, There is one God, 
 and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Chrift 
 Jefus. The %d is a PafTage cited by the Author of 
 the Epiftle to the Hebrews^ ch. 1. out of the 1 02 Pfalm ^ 
 tVhich is exprefly afcribed t® Jehovah there, and tq 
 our Saviour here. 
 
 As to the FirJ} of thefe, The Word was God ; This 
 Learned Author has told us, p. 61, I am perfuad- 
 ed that the Reafon why Angels arefo often calCd Elohim 
 [i. e. God,l is becaufe they fo frequently tranfa&ed Mat- 
 ters with Mankind in the Name of the very God? Why 
 then might not our Saviour becalTd God too for the 
 fame Reafon, fince he tranfafted Matters of the very 4 
 greateft Moment with Mankind in the Name of God? Is 
 it a Proof that the Word is the very God, becaufe he is 
 call'd God-, and not as good a Proof that Angels are the 
 very God, fince they too are allowed to be call'd-, God? 
 
 G 2 By 
 
By whatfoever Method you will reconcile to the Unz* 
 ty of God, Angels being called God^ by the very 
 fame in proportion, may St John be reconciled to 
 the reft of the Scriptures, in which the Unity of 
 God is aflerted. Had Dr Bennet conlidered this, I 
 am perfuaded he would not have uied fuch Exprefji- 
 om as we meet with inp. 188, 189 ^ which, asthey 
 {hew too much Confidence in his own Scheme, lb 
 they muft needs be blamed by all who differ from him. 
 The Second Pafiage, 1 Tim. 2,5, has been produ- 
 ced by the Dc&or four or five feveral Times in this ve- 
 ry Book to prove our Saviour to he a Man. 3 Tis 
 ftrange therefore 1/?, that this Text ihou'd Now be 
 brought to prove him the very God. If any thing; 
 'tis moft natural to infer, that he is not the very God, 
 becaufe he is here fo expreflycontradiftinguifhedfrom 
 him : There is one God •< and one Mediator between God and 
 Men, the Man Chrift Jefus. But idly. There is oneGod; 
 and one Mediator, the Man Chrijl Jefus. Do you ar- 
 gue hence that the Word is the very God, becaufe the 
 Word is not mentioned as fomething intermediate be- 
 twixt God and Man > But "'tis fo palpable that this 
 Text proves not the Word to be the very God, that 
 its poffible, notwithftanding this Text, that there may 
 be no Second Perfon or Word * that nothing was uni- 
 ted to the Man Chrift •, that he might be only an ex- 
 traordinary or even but an ordinary Man. i&ly. If 
 the Word, be the very God 5 and the Man Chrift Je- 
 fus, united to the Word or very God, be the Media- 
 tor between God and Men; then the Meaning is, that 
 the Word united to Chrijl was a Mediator between God 
 the Father and Men. But then if the Word be the 
 very God, one and the fame Being with thefelf-exift- 
 ent Being; there will be the fame Neceffity for a Me- 
 diator between the Word and Men ; and again, for the 
 fame reafon, between the Holy Ghoft and Men $ And 
 thus we fhould ftand in need at leaft of Three Media- 
 tors, viz. One fox each Perfon of the Trinity. 
 
 Th« 
 
( ai ) 
 
 The Third Text is ; Thou, Lord, in the Beginning haft 
 laid the Foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are 
 the Work of thy Hands: I hey flail per if), but thou 
 
 Jlmlt endure, but thou art the fame, and tby 1 pars 
 
 Jlmll not fail, Heb. I. The Argument, is this. Jehovah 
 is the incommunicable Name of the felfexiftent God. 
 The Pfalmift directs himfelf to Jehovah The Au- 
 thor of theEpiftle to the Hebrews fays, thofe Words 
 are fpoken of the Son. Thereiore the Son is Jehovah, 
 i. e. the very God. 
 
 Is this then the only Argument, which muft fupport 
 fo great a Truth as the Divinity of our Lord ; nay, that 
 is to prove him to be the very God ? How many 
 "Ways are there of anfwering this, and confequently 
 of difproving our Saviour's Divinit)^ if this be its 
 only Proof? \ft. Suppofing our Saviour to be really a 
 diftin£t Being, fubordinate to the Father, by whom He 
 (the Father j made the Worlds • the Pfalmift might fay, 
 Thou, Lord, in the Beginning baft laid &x. of the Fa- 
 ther i and the Apoftle might apply it to the Son ; 
 and Both very properly, fince the Father made it by 
 the Son. To the One it might very well be faid 
 as to the Caufe, to the Other as the Jnftrument zdly. 
 What if the Foundation of the Argument be denied, 
 that the Name Jehovah is an incommunicable Name? 
 s Tis granted that 'tis communicated to Chrift : Now 
 is not the Argument as good -, therefore the Name is 
 not incommunicable, becaufe 'tis communicated to 
 Chrift 5 as the Name is incommunicable, therefore 
 Chrift is the very God ? Our Saviour fays, that there 
 is none Good, but One, i e. God : Will it therefore 
 follow that the Term Good is an incommunicable 
 Name, and that no one can be called by that Name 
 but only God ? Tis granted that Jehovah is appro- 
 priated to the one God of Heaven in Scripture, in 
 Oppofition to the Gods of the Nations : But there 
 feems to be nothing either in the Words of Scripture, 
 or in the Reafon of the Name, (if I do not much mi- 
 
 C 3 fh&t 
 
( ™ ) 
 
 Sake xhs Reafonof it,) that at all implies it to be 
 incommunicable. In Expd, 6; 2, 3, God fpake un- 
 to Mofes, and f aid unto him, I am Jehova : And I ap~ 
 peared unto Abraham, unto Jfaac, and unto Jacob, by 
 the Name of El Shaddai ( God Almighty,) but by my 
 Name jehova was I not made known to them. And 
 Exod. 3, 15., Jehovah- — this is my Name for ever, this 
 is my Memorial unto all Generations. The Meaning of 
 thefe paflagesis} I declared to Abraham,' Gen. 17, 
 I , that I was Almighty, able to accomplifh whatever 
 I thought fit, and therefore I commanded him to walk 
 before vie-, and I promifed him the Land of Canaan, 
 aiid a numerous Seed that fnould poflefs it : But they 
 died, pot having received the Proinifes. I promifed them, 
 and they depended on my Power. But now I'll be 
 known by the Name* Jehovah, which iignifies to 
 caufe to BE what I promis'd. This is my Name 
 for ever, unto all Generations •, Ihe Performer of my 
 Yromife. Jehovah therefore doth not imply Self-ex- 
 iftence, or any Thing like it 7 as far as I have been able 
 to judge ; nor doth the Formation of the word inti- 
 mate it} but 'tis plainly, he that will caufe to exifto? 
 he. If the Reafon therefore of the Name be of any 
 Confequence, it may be very properly communicated 
 to our Saviour, though whom and for whom all Things were 
 created by the Father.' 3. The only Argument from 
 whence 'tis concluded that the Name Jehovah is incom- 
 municable, is this, that God feems to appropriate this 
 J^ame to himfeif^ This is my Name for ever, andtbi$ 
 is my Memorial unto all Ge?ierations. And Pfalm 13?, 
 13, Thy Name, Lord, endureth for Ever, and thy Me- 
 morial, Lord, throughout all Generations. And Hofea 
 J 2, 5. Even the Lord God of Hofis, the Lord is his 
 ^Memorial. But why may not this Name be commu- 
 nicated to Another without Co7ifufion? The Father 
 as Go d, and Good 7 and only Wife, and Blejfed, and 
 
 f Sjcfe Mr, j&zjfrcrth on thefe Place?, 
 
 the 
 
c 23 ; 
 
 the only Potentate , and who only bath Immortality, and 
 Thou only art Holy: And yet This occafions no Confu- 
 iion, tho' we know that Chrift too was Go d, and 
 Good, and Wife, and Holy, and Powerful, and Bleffed, 
 and Immortal. 
 
 The Name of God will frill be Jehovah* and TZ?af 
 his Memorial to all Generations, notwithstanding 
 this Communication, Nor is there any Danger of Con- 
 fufion of Perfons, fince the Circumftances of the Place, 
 will eafily determine of Whom they are fpoken \ even 
 as eaiity, as they determine when the Term God 
 is fpoken of the Firft, or of the Second Perfon ; or 
 when the Term ^70 or *yyi\@-, which fometimes 
 fignifies The Angel of the Covenant, at other times an 
 Angel, at other times a Common Meffenger, even a 
 Man -, is to be applied to the one Species of Beings, 
 or tp the other. But La fly, fuppofe it really to be 
 an incommunicable Name •, Hill the Name Jehovah may 
 be afcribed or given to Jefus Chrift, i. e. to the 
 Word, as to one fent in the Name and acting by the 
 Power of The very God: Which is the Solution that 
 Dr B. himfelf has given to feveral Texts of Scripture, 
 p. 5 1 &c. And then it will no more follow that 
 Chrift is the very God, as the Dr would infer; than 
 that the Angels who a&ed in the Name of God in the 
 Old Teftament, in whom was the Name of God, were 
 The very God. 
 
 Ytbly. Upon Dr Bennetts Scheme, viz. that the 
 Word is the very God, the Incantation is unaccounta- 
 ble, unlefs we fay The very God was incarnate, which 
 the Do&or will not grant. When therefore he comes 
 to treat of this Difficulty, he makes a Part of. God to 
 be incarnate, and alters the Terms of the Queftion -, 
 p- 22o, Why may not God, by his Word, be united to a 
 Man,, as well as the Body and the Soul are united in each 
 of US? If the Word be The very God -, then to fay that 
 God, by his Word, may be united, is in other Terms 
 to fay, that God, by the very God, may be united ; 
 
 C 4 cr 
 
C .M ) 
 
 or God, by hhGod: Which is unintelligible. "What 
 Can be the Meaning of That Particle, by Hlb Word> 
 The Word is The very God, and The very God muft 
 be the "Word, and they are Both One and the famz Be- 
 big, p 215. How then can One be incarnate B T the 
 Cther, or God by his Word, and not be Both equally 
 incarnate ? To conceive a pa> tkular Pa; t of a ieliex- 
 jjtent Being incarnate, who has r.o Farts . is a con- 
 tradictory Conception. And to conceive one and the 
 fame Beivg under dirferent Names, incarnate under 
 One Name, and not incarnate under one or two other 
 Names, is as bad. Thefe are not Difficulties ariiing 
 from pa) tial and inadequate Ideas, but they are clear 
 and diJlhiQ Conceptions -, as clear, as, if Peter and 
 Jchn be each of them Names of One and the fame 
 ■Btivg, whatever is true oi Piter, muft be true of John ; 
 and nothing can be arrirmed or denied of John, 
 which may not exactly be the fame of Feter. If the 
 7/ ord he the very God, and the Holy Qhojl be the very 
 God, ail q- e and the fame Being'; tht-n if the Tf r ord be 
 incarnate, the very God muft be incarnate •. and con- 
 iequently, the Father ana the Holy Ghcfi muft b^ 
 incarnate. 
 
 The D clor indeed, when he treats of the Incarna- 
 tion, fuppefes, not that the Word is the very God, and 
 the HoU Ghof} the very God ^ but that each of the 
 Jerfov.sof the ever bhfJedTiir'ity, are really diflirM, p ; 
 220. And then by Means of a Triangle he explains 
 the Incarnation; viz. that a Triangle touches a Point, 
 if B touches it, tbo? A and C do not touch it. But the 
 Dottor ihould have proved B to be The very Triangle, 
 and likewife the fame of A and C; as he has proved 
 each of* the Perf ns to be The very God in a fet Chap- 
 ter -, tho' now, when he has Occalion for it, he wou'd 
 make them to be butP^t.sof God, as each Angle is 
 of a Triangle. 
 
 How eafy is all this Matter in Dr Clarke's Ac- 
 count, who takes the Logos or Word to be a diftinft in- 
 
 ' ' ' " telligent 
 
( ay ) 
 
 telligent 4gent, and to be made FUJI) ? As 'tis an intelligi- 
 ble Scheme, and a very conjiflent one, and which ftridtly 
 keeps up the apparent Diftinction which the Scriptures 
 make of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and 
 wasalfo (I think ) the general Opinion of the Primi- 
 tive Fathers in the Three FbJlCentmies ; I fee no Reafon 
 why it ihould not have the Preference .before any other, 
 that has not equal Advantages. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Containing a Comparison of Dr Bennet's and 
 Dr Clarke's Account of the Incarnation. 
 
 TH £ Queftion betwixt the Reverend Dr Bemtet 
 and Dr Clarke here to be examined, is, I think, 
 juftly ftated by Dr B. p. 6$. What That intelligent Being 
 was, which voluntarily debajed or emptied it felf of a glo- 
 rious State , and condef tended to be Incarnate, and to un- 
 dergo fuel? Temporal Hardfnips, and even the Death of a 
 Malefattor, and was afterwards exalted by the fit pre me 
 God to a State of Power and Authority over all created 
 Beings ; What was That intelligent Being ? 
 
 3 Tis granted on both Sides, and indeed it muft be 
 on all Hands, that it cannot be The very God, becaufe 
 'tis impoflible for him to be exalted, or rewarded on 
 Account or Sufferings. Dr Clarke therefore accounts 
 for this i Bop. 49, 50, thus. The Son or Word at his 
 Incarnation emptied himfelf C*M'v*><nv %*v}lt) of That Glo* 
 ry which he had with God before the World was, and by 
 Virtue of which he is defcribed as havhg been in the Form 
 of God : And in this State of Humiliation, fujfei ed and 
 died for the Sins of the World. After the Accomplif}- 
 merit of which Difpenfation, He is defcribed in Scripture 
 as hwejled with diftintt Wpr(hip in his own Perfon : his 
 1 ■ •■ ' original 
 
( *6 ) 
 
 crigmal Glory and Dignity beivg at the fame Time re- 
 vealed, and his Exaltation in the Humane Nature to his 
 Mediatorial Kingdom declared: Himfelf fitting upon 
 his Father's Throne, at the Right-hand of the Majefly of 
 God $ and receiving Prayers and Thanfgivings from his 
 Church. 
 
 Dr Benncfs Scheme is^ That the Pre-exijience of human 
 Souls in general, is mere Sufpicion and Conje3uf$ 3 and 
 without any Pojibility of Proof But as for the Pre-exift- 
 ence ofChrifis human Soul in particular, — the Admifiion 
 cf it as an Hypothefis fohes Many Dijfiadties other-wife im- 
 pofible to be accounted for, -p.-jo. Chrifis Pre-exifting Soul, 
 not the WORD, was, before the Incarnation, the Sheci- 
 nah, or Habitation of the Glory of the Father or very God, 
 in which the Name of God was. - The Pre-exifting Hu- 
 man Soul ofChrifi emptied himfelf of his Glory, the 
 Glory be had with God before the VVo- t Id was y and on 
 which Account he is f aid to have been in the Form of God. 
 And in this State of Humiliation Chrifi did frffer and die 
 for the Sins of the World, p. 260. The Word or divine 
 Nature of the Son is not a different Being from God, but 
 yet was certainly wmfinpped before the Incarnation, be- 
 €aufe he was ejfentially in God, and the SAME Being with 
 the Father or Very God, who coucl not be worfinpped fepa- 
 rately from his V / ord'. ibid. The Word was not capable 
 °f my fah Exaltation, p. 261, as Dr Clarke has main-' 
 tained in his 50th Proportion. 
 
 Thefe being the refpective Accounts given by thefe 
 two learned Wr iters, of That Great Myfiery ofGodli* 
 vefs, God manifcfi in the FUJI) •, I {hall " Firjl confider 
 what Dr Sennet has occafionally objected againfl Dr 
 Clcn le^s Scheme, and Then what may be objeded a- 
 gainft the Other. 
 
 5 Tis agreed on Both Sides, that an Intelligent Agent 
 fame down from Heaven, and, after a State of Humi- 
 liation and Suffering, was exalted, and now receives 
 fsme Religious Worfbip. He that -Jhall be our Judge, is at 
 frefentour Mediator'.. For there is one Mediator between 
 
 God 
 
C 17 ) 
 
 God and Men, the M A N Chrift Jefus, 1 Tim. 2, 5?, 
 And to him that is at prefent our Mediator, and 
 pall hereafter be our Judge, we are required ( fays Dr 
 Bennet ) to give Religious adoration, p. 29. And again, 
 i). 30, It is certain therefore, that to him that wafied us 
 from our Sins in his own Blood, we are bound to give Glo- 
 ry and Dominion for ever and ever, Rev. 1.5, 6. I 
 mention this,* becaufe fome have drawn an Objecti- 
 on againft Dr Clarke's Scheme, from the Worfiip to be 
 paid to the Lamb that was fain : Which, as 'tis no Diffi- 
 culty to Dr Be?met, fo neither can it be to Any who 
 coniider what He has faid upon this Subject from ex- 
 prefs Scriptures. 
 
 Doftor Bennet objects againft the Exaltation of 
 the Word •, Firft, That all things whatfoever, were made 
 by rfo Word, John 1,3. So that the whole Creation, e~ 
 \)?n the ?noft glorious created Beings whatfoever, derive 
 their Exiftence from him. Hence "tis evident that he is by 
 Nature their Superior. And confequently That Exalta- 
 tion which, our Lord Enjoys-, could be no Exaltation to the 
 
 Word, becaufe he is neceffaiily as great in himfelf, as 
 
 That Exaltation coudmake him.— ^Tis.indeed an vmpi\art(> 
 an exceeding Exaltation, of his human Nature ; but 'tis 
 710 Exaltation at all to his Divine Nature, p. 37. 
 
 To this I reply, ijl h Dr Bennet here fuppofes, (hat 
 becaufe by the Word were all Things made, therefore 
 the Word ha&fupreme Do?ninion over all Things from 
 the Beginning. But this is contrary to the Reprefen- 
 tations of Scripture, which declare All Power to be Gi- 
 ven him in Heaven and Earth, not till after his Refur- 
 re&ion. Matt. 28, 18. Nay 'twas given him as the 
 Reward^ of his Sufferings. Becaufe he emptied himfelf, 
 Therefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a 
 Name which is above every Name, Philip. 2$ 9, 10, 1 r. 
 So again Ephefansi - 20, 21, 22, God, when he raisd 
 Chi if from the Dead, fet him at his own Right-hand in the 
 heavenly Places, far above all Principality and Power and 
 flight av.dtyomhnon and every Name that is named not 
 
 only 
 
r ^ ) 
 
 only fa this Wf rid, but alfo in that which is to come ^ and 
 bath put all things under his Feet. idly, The Scriptures 
 alu ays repreient the Son or Word, as the Inftrument 
 B T which God made the World •, and not as himfelf 
 the Supreme Lord of the Univerfe. "Were Authorities 
 to have any Weight in this Queftion, T coud produce 
 all the Fathers unanimoufly. But I wave them. The 
 Scriptures are exprefs. God created all things by Jefus 
 Cbrijl, Eph 3, 9. And 1 Cor. 8, 6 To us there is but Ons 
 God, The Father, Of whom are all Things, and we in him ; 
 and one Lord, Jefus C hrift, By whom are ail Things, ani 
 we by him. See alfo John. 1 •, 5, io. ColofT 1 ; 16, 17. 
 Heb. 1 ; 2, 8, 10, 11. Thefe Paifages, as they plain- 
 ly affert his having a Share or Office in the Creating of 
 all Things, fo not one of them in the leaft intimates 
 any Dominion or Government of the Univerfe belonging 
 to him upon That Account. Nor is there any Other 
 Text which doth fo, till after our Saviour's Refurre&i- 
 on. The Father indeed is praisd (and not the Word, 
 as Dr Eemet fays,p. 1 87,) on account of his Creating all 
 Things, Rev. 4, 11, Thou art worthy, G Lord, to re* 
 ceive Glory and Honour and Power ; for thou hafi created 
 all Tilings, and for Thy PleaJ lire (which is never faid of 
 the Son, ) they Are, and were created. But the Word is 
 never at all prais'd on Tliat Account, tho' 'tis granted 
 that all Things were made by him. But 'tis always on a 
 different Account, that Honour is given to Him, Rev, 
 5 \ o, 12, Thou art wo; thy to take the Book, -- for thou 
 vaf SLAIN; and, Worthy is the Lamb that was SLAIN, 
 to receive Power and Riches and Wifdom and Stremth, and 
 Honour, and Glory and Blejjing. Whatever therefore be 
 the Metaphyseal Nature of our BlefTed Lord, and how 
 much foever his Nature be fuperior to all his Creatures, 
 yet 'tis plain He may be capable of, and receive 'an 
 t,'^pv'4«<77<, an exceeding Exaltation, or rather an Exalta- 
 tion above every Name, as he receiv'd all Power in Hea- 
 ven and Earth, the Reward of his being flain. 7,dly, Dr 
 Brimet grants, p. 38, That the very God himfelf exercisd 
 
 this 
 
(*9 ) 
 
 this Authority [the Authority over his Creatures,] imr 
 mediately , and without the Interpojition of a Mediator, be 
 fore Chrijls Exaltation. If therefore the Word was exal- 
 ted to an Authority, which God the Father himfelf im- 
 mediately exercisd before Chrijls Exaltation-, this gives a 
 fair Account of the higheft Scripture-ExpreiTions upon 
 this Head. 
 
 3 Tis not therefore an Exaltation of The very God, or 
 of the Father, that is maintained by Dr Clarke, as Dr 
 Bennet would inlinuate^ which, 'tis granted, is abfurd, 
 nay Blafphemy, tofuppofe. But 'tis fuch an Exaltation, 
 which implies our Lords being really the better for it, and a 
 Gainer by it, his having more Honour from inferior Beings. 
 Buttherrl know not how to add, as Dr Bennet does* 
 more Suhjlantial Happinefs by his Exaltation, than the 
 Condition oj his Nature Coud invejlhim with, p. ^.Thefe 
 fecret Things belong to God : and unlefs God had re- 
 vealed them to us, we had better confine our felves to 
 the plain Declarations of Scripture, and not venture 
 to be confident beyond what is written. 
 
 A 2d. Objection is ftarted by Dr Bennet, p. 64. The 
 Law is {Hied the Wordfpoken by Angels, Heb. 2,2. and 
 is upon that Account oppofed to the Gofpel, which 
 was delivered by the Lord, vex. 3. How can this be 
 accounted for, if the Word was the Angel who ap- 
 pear 'd in the Form of God and delivered the Law ; 
 fmce it will then follow, that the Law was delivered by 
 the Lord, as Well as the Gofpel. 
 
 As This Objection affects Both the Schemes hese un- 
 der Confideration -, Dr Bennet anfwers, p. 65, that af- 
 ter our Saviour became incarnate, He |_i. e. the pre-exift- 
 ing Soul ] might very properly be diftinguijhedfrom Angels^ 
 that name being ufually given to, and underjlood of fuch 
 Spirits, as were t not embodied.--- TJje Alteration of his 
 
 f Where is there any the leaf* Hint given in Scriprure, that An- 
 $fils ue mere Spirits ,w*uhouc any thing of Body belonging to chera ? 
 
 Con- 
 
C 30 ) 
 
 Ccv.ditkn by his perfcnal Union with the Word. 
 fpecial Son • p to God, and Def.gnaticn to the Domb:ior. cf 
 the Univerfe, gave the jvfrefi Ground for that Antithef.s. 
 
 But the truer Anfwer (I think) is-, The Word, 
 tvhen he appeared in the Torvi of God, and as God, v 
 no more than the Minifter and Ar^l of God, and act- 
 ed all along as fuch, God the Father immediately (p. 
 s:c"' ciercifing Dominion over his Creatures. But 
 in theft laft D^-*. He being fo much better than the Jngels, 
 m he hath by Inheritance obtain d a more 1 - Name 
 
 than they, Heb. 1,4-, being anointed Heir of all things, 
 having All Judgment committed to him, and thus being 
 himfelf our Go vernour-. he hath ,'as fuch) delivered un- 
 to us the Law we are to follow, and by which he will 
 ip J .ge us at the laft Day. There feems to have been the 
 fame Difference in the two States, as between the Son 
 c I 1 Kin 7. when his Father is immediate and fole Go- 
 remour, making ufe of him as his Agent, or Inftrument. 
 or Embaffador, in which Cafe he can never exceed his 
 CommiiTion •, and the Same Son admitted into the 
 Throne with his Father, and made Judge and Gover- 
 nour himfelf. The Sen New delivered to us his own. 
 Law ; he a:ted now as King himfelf, and not merely as 
 A Minifter. 
 
 Dr Bemtet objects 7dly ; That the Apoflle can't be itn- 
 derftood ( though I think the Whole Chriftian World, 
 excepting the Socinians, have always fo underftood 
 him,) to mean the Word vr divine Xature of Qjrift, r 
 be affirms of our Saviour that he was \? uof?'<i S«« and F«« lk« 
 before the Incarnation; becaufe this (he fays) would 
 n the Force of the Argument, p. 7 5 .—",<=>. But the A- 
 
 i le {befajk ) would have exprefly call'd him fet& God, 
 as he doth * tlfewbm j and accordingly wou'd have 
 
 * St F**l has no vrhere applied Thac Tide to cur Lcrd, : a ray 
 C n S n flnfef. See DtCs Anftfer co Mr Sei_':n, paj* 
 
 feidy 
 
C n ) 
 
 faid, h foU vV«fx«r, who being himfelf God-, And thefi 
 be wou'd have fubjohed — bis own lofty ExpreJ/icnsm Co J. 
 1, 16, By whom ail things were made, Sec. oxfomethin* 
 elfe parallel to thefe Words. Then follow feme bard 
 Words, which I omit •, And 
 
 I reply, aft I wifh that this way of treating the 
 infpired Writers, when they do not juffc write to our 
 vitiated Taftes, were not fo much in fafhion. idly. But 
 hew does the Apoftle weaken his own drgumettt i He 
 was urging Humility from the Example of Chrift 
 who was wont to appear as God, in 'great Glory and 
 Splendor, and to perfonate Gcd-, yet did not covet 
 or eagerly and haftily affume to himfelf to be honour- 
 ed as God, which Honour he was to have in the ap- 
 pointed time-, but he willingly emptied himfelf of 
 the Glory he had, and was made in the likenefs of 
 Man, and humbled himfelf, and became obedient to 
 Death. Is not this Example, as fet us by our Saviour 
 and as preach'd to us by the Apoftle, an excellent one> 
 In what part of it, is there any Flaw? Or what obli- 
 gation was St Paul under, to exprefs himfelf here in 
 the Words Dr Bemiet would have him, when the Phrafe 
 puton &* fets forth his Whole Senle altogether as #ell ? 
 3 dly. But f fo Argument (he fays ) is fo much theJlrowger\ 
 by hew much the wore excellent the Ferfon is reprefented 
 emd the greater Dijiance there is between his proper Condi- 
 tion and theFraSice hefubmitsto-, p. 77. Then certain- 
 ly the Argument is ftronger upon Dr Clarke's Princi- 
 ples, than upon Dr Bennet\ by how much the Word 
 is more excellent than the pre-exifling Soid, and the dis- 
 tance greater between the Condition of Him by whom 
 God created all things, and One of the Things them- 
 felves which God created By him. 
 • r Dr Bennet obje&s^ qtbly. If St. Paul meant that the 
 Word wash &&» 3«S andloa. s<«, bis Argument isinconch* 
 five, and impertinent p. 79. What Influence can it have 
 upon a mere Man? Will not the Man reply, that it does 
 ftctat all a fell him, becaufe of the prodigious Diverftyof 
 
 Cir- 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 €hcumjlances> —How does it enforce any mere Atari's Hii : 
 wility anACondsfcexfan* p. So, 3 Tis the Pratiice of a dif- 
 tinft Mature, which chofe to debafe it felf before the Union 
 of the two Natures commenced. And tin the Qondefcenjion 
 and Humility of the Word alone, in which the Man hat 
 no Share , p. 8l. . 
 
 I reply, ift y "lis very hard, to fay prefently that 
 St. Paul ufes an Argument drawn from a wrong. Topick, 
 that his Argument is impertinent, and that we make 
 him ule wretched Sophijiry >, if he does not argue juft as 
 we would have him. St. PauVs Argument is -, Let this 
 Mind be in you, which was in Chrift, who, tho s he was 
 in the Form of God, yet humbled himfelf for our Sakes , 
 For which Humiliation God rewarded him. Be ye 
 therefore ready to humble yourfelves, and God 
 will reward You. Can any .Thing be more rational, 
 more ipertinent, or more conclufive? idly Cannot a 
 mere Man be moved to a Duty, by Arguments taken 
 from Other Beings befides mere Men ? When Solomon 
 encouraged Induffry from the Example of the Ant, 
 did he argue impertinently, and ufe wretched Sophijliy ? 
 Or did St. Jude argue inconclujively, from the Angeh 
 which kept not their fir ft Efiate, and from Michael the 
 ArchangeVs not bringing a railing Accufation -, to the 
 Duty of Man ? %dly. Suppofe the Circumjlances of a 
 mere Man, to be prodgioujly d verfe in other Inftances^ 
 ) r et may not the mere Man, and Chrift who was not 
 a mere Man, Both exercife a particular Virtue ? Or 
 is the Argument inconclufve and impertinent, as often as 
 it occurs in Scripture, Be ye perfeB as your Father which 
 is in Heaven is perfeBl; Be ye Holy, for I [i. e. God] am 
 Holy, Lev. ii, 44. 19, 2. 20, 7? May not a mere 
 Man urge all that Dr Bennet hasfaid from this Topick 
 againft the Humiliation of the Word, againft thefe 
 Commands likewife of Scripture? But ^thly. This Ar- 
 gument enforces every Man's Humility, as much as 
 any Argument from Example can. The Word diverted 
 himfelf from all his Glory, and underwent great Pains 
 
(33^ 
 
 for Men* he left the Glories he had enjoyed for many 
 Ages, and willingly humbled himfelf for Man : M.ert 
 therefore ought to be like-minded, to do nothing through 
 Strife orVain-glory^ but hi hwlhiefs of Mind to regard the 
 Things of others, dnd not only their own ; even as Chrift 
 regarded not himfelf only, when he emptied himfelf 
 as he did. $thly. Does Dr Bevnct imagine that Jefus 
 Chrift was not a Man on Dr Cldrh\ Scheme, as much 
 as on his own? Jefus Chrift is not denied by Dr 
 Clai ke to be a Man 5 and therefore in His Scheme 
 there will arife no Objection, but what will lie equal-' 
 ly againft a Fr&exijlhg Soul who had appeared W &t«* 
 as God, and was now incarnate, and united to the 
 Word. For 6thly t may not a mere Man, i. e. one not 
 united to the Word, Urge all That againft TJi Benwt's 
 Scheme, which He fuppofes a mere Man may urge 
 againft Dr darkens Scheme ? Nay, he can do it with 
 Advantage. For a Man united to the Word is as dif- 
 ferent in this Cafe from a mere Man, as the Addition 
 of the Word can make him. Laftly; Humility is Hu- 
 mility in every Being whatever. And the Argument 
 is very pertinent and very conchfive, from One to the 
 Other. But the Miftake feems to have arofe from 
 hence, that the fame ABion that is Humility in One, 
 cannot perhaps be practiced by another 5 or if it can, 
 it may not be an Act of Hiimility in another. Now 
 the Apoftle does not command us to leave the fame 
 Glories as our Saviour did, j. e. to etert the fame Acts 
 of Humility, but to be like-minded : Which furely 
 is in every Man's Power to be, or elfe the Apoftle 
 had enjoyned Impoffibilities. A mere Man cannot al- 
 ways have fuch a Guard over himfelf, as to be fin- 
 lefs $ and yet 'tis a good Argument to urge to mere 
 Men to abftain from Sin, to bid them follow Chrijfs 
 Steps, who did no Sin, neither was Guile found, in his 
 Mouth, 1 Pet. i\ 21, 22. 
 
 A 'yth. Objection is grounded on thofe Words of 
 the Author to the Helrews, ch. 2; 1, 2, 3, Therefore 
 
 D T»t 
 
. ( 34 ) 
 
 we ought to give the more earneft Heed to the Ttjbigs which 
 we have beard, left at any Time we JIjouU let them flip ; For 
 if the Word fvoken by Angels wasftedfaft, —how ft: all 
 we efcape if we negleft fo great Salvation, which at the 
 ftrft began to befpoken by the Lord. — The Apoftle argues 
 upon This Principle, viz. that the Perfon who delivered the 
 Gofpelwasof greater Dignity, than the Angel who de- 
 livered the Law. Now if he that delivered the Law, 
 was the Word or divine Nature of Chrift, This Principle 
 is. notorioujly falfe. 
 
 To this I reply, ift, The Perfon who delivered the 
 Gofpel, is of greater ^Dignity than .that Perfon who 
 (together with the Miniftration probably of inferiour 
 Angels alfo) delivered the Law -, juft as the fame 
 Perfon who doth an A&ion when admitted into a 
 Throne, and having the Power of Judgment commit* 
 ted uvto him, is of more Dignity than the fame Per- 
 fon when he acted merely minifterially. 2. The Apo- 
 ftle argues from our Saviour's being appointed Heir of 
 all Things, that he is now Superior to Angels, who 
 are but mimftring Spirits. They are all but Servants^ 
 whereas Chrift is now Lord over them. If the Word 
 fpoken by Angels, who are but miniftring Spirits, and on- 
 ly execute the Commands of their Matter, ftood faft ^ 
 we ought certainly to adhere very clofely r to what 
 'He, who Himfelf now is cur Lord and Matter, has 
 (aid. 
 
 In this Manner (I think) may all the Objections 
 againft Dr darkens Notion, be fairly anfwer'd. 
 
 The Opinion it felf, accounts fo naturally for that 
 Petition of our Saviour, John 17 y 5, Father, gh;i- 
 fe thou me with thine own Self, with the Glory which I 
 had with thee before this World was-. And v. 24, thou 
 hvedft me before the Foundation of the World : And, He 
 that came down from Heaven, ch. 7,, 1 v, 6, 51: And, 
 what if ye ft; all fee the Son of Man afcend up where he 
 was before, v. 62: And, Before Abraham was, I am, 
 eh. 8, 58 : It accounts, I fay, fo naturally for all 
 
 thefe 
 
C 3* ) 
 
 ihefe, and many other PaiTages ; and is clogged with 
 lio Abfurdities, or infuperable Difficulties, either 
 in relation to the Trinity, or to the Incarnation ; that 
 I cannot but think it highly probable, very agreeable 
 to the whole Tenor of Scripture, very rational, and 
 tonfequently preferable to any Other which ffonds not 
 u£on fo intelligible a Foundation. 
 
 But I muft next examine Dr Bennets Account: Who 
 folvesa great many Parages of Scripture, and a great 
 inany infuperable Difficulties in the common Schemes, 
 by his Notion of our Saviours preexiftiiig Soul. The 
 Text, on which he builds this Opinion, is chiefly, i 
 Pet: v, 1 8, Ip, 20, Cbri/i alfo hath once Jittered for Sinsi 
 the Juftfor the Unjuft, ( that he might bring us to God ,) 
 being put to Death in thcFleJI), but qukkned by the (Vow 
 er of the,) Spirit: By which /(Power) dlfo he went and 
 preached unto the Spirits in Prifon% Which foihetimes were 
 dif obedient, when once the long-fifferivg of God waited in 
 the days of Noah, while the Ark was dprepdring^ whereui 
 few, that is, Eight Souls werefaved. 
 
 The Doctor's Obfervations are, That Chrift-preached 
 in K'oah's iays-by the Affiance of the Holy Ghoft. How 
 or in what Senfe could the \Ford, which at leajl is equal to 
 the Holy Ghoft, go and peach to thofe Sinners by the Ajjift- 
 lance of the Holy Ghoft ? Chrijt\ human Soul might do it a& 
 (jods Angel, — ■ p.7 2 . 
 
 I reply, \ft. This very obfcure Text, is a ftrange 
 Foundation for fuchan important Doctrine: Nor is it 
 cafy to conceive why t this fhou'd be thought a preg- 
 nant Proof, which is expounded fo many different 
 ways by Commentators. 2dly. This Text doth not fo 
 much as aiTert our Saviour's Preexiftehce at all before 
 his Incarnation, either the "Word or human Soul, if we 
 follow the Interpretation of Many. Chrift was put to 
 Death | and afterwards quickened hy the Spirit •, By 
 which he preach'd to thofe Sinners,* who would not 
 obey nor regard Noah who was a Preacher ofRtghieovf- 
 hefs, 2 Pet. 2, 5. 'Tis not faid that Chrift preached iii 
 
 D a • M 
 
the days of Koau, . . -eached to fuch as were 
 
 af obedient in the days oj -nd were kept iv <pv\fiy.7i, in 
 
 Prifoh. Which is confirmed too, thefe Interpreters think, 
 by the next Chapter, v. 6. For this Caufe was the Gofpel 
 preached even v<k&K' to the dead. But I infill: not on 
 this. For %dly. Chrift preached to Sinners in No~ 
 ab's Time, by the Spirit. The Prxpofition \r, is u* 
 fed by St Paul as fignifying the Miniftring or Inftru- 
 mental Caufe ^ Col. i • 14, 16, kv$, thro* whom we have 
 Redemption-, and, ha, by whom all things were made. 
 The Word might therefore preach tytiriivuev by the Spi- 
 rit, in like manner as God made the World by Chrift. 
 And then the Text is plain, in aiTerting, not that 
 (thrift preach'd by the /Jftijlayice or by the Power of the 
 Spirit, ( which are Dr helmet's Comments \ ) but Chrift 
 preach'd to thofe difobedient Perfons mediately by the 
 Holy Ghoft-, the Holy Ghoft being given to Noah, 
 even as elfewhere the Holy Ghoft is called the Spirit of 
 Chrift which was in the Prophets, 1 Pet. 1, II. 
 
 There is no neceifity of confidering particularly the 
 Application of that famous Paffage in the Philippiam 
 to our Saviours preexifting Soul, becaufe 'tis all along 
 founded upon This (which is already fhewn to be a 
 miftakej that He who is {tiled the Word, coud not 
 poifibly abate himfelf, or ceafeto enjoy fully and uni" 
 iormly That Glory or Happinefs which he had before the 
 irorld was. I fhall therefore Now propofe fome Ob- 
 jections sgainft the Doctor's Scheme in general, fince 
 no One Text of Scripture particularly mentions any 
 Thing like a preexifting human Soul. And I fhall con- 
 fider That Point aftei wards in a Chapter by it felf. 
 
 Firji. Dr Bcnnet afferts that the bleffed Jefus has \ at 
 one and the fame timel Two Natures-, By which HE 
 underhand s Two Intelligent Beings united in his Perfon, 
 p. 73. Now Two intelligent Beings, ( however united) 
 are two Perfoiu, fo long as they are two Intelligent 
 Bcivpi and confequently Chrift, (confiding, according 
 to thisNotion, of two Ptrfons or intelligent Agents^ and 
 
 a 
 
C 37) 
 
 humane Body, ) can't in any fenfe be faid to be a 
 Man, C h A a Being confifting of One ratiqnal intelligent 
 Agent and a humane Body. ] The Draflerts, p. 7, 
 that Chrift is Very Man, confifling of an human Body and an 
 human Soul; Nay, p. 9, A Man of the very fame Kind, 
 cs we 'our f elves in general are. I do not well underftand 
 what the Doctor means by we ourfelves in general, or a 
 Man in general But, let thofe words fignify what he 
 pleafesj A Being which conflfts of a Soul and a Body 
 and the Word or very God, as the Dr fays, can no more 
 properly be of the fame Kind with one that conflfts of 
 Only a Soul and a Body, than a Body without a Soul, 
 or a Soul without a Body, is of the fame Kind with a 
 Soul and a Body united. The Doclor tells us, that 
 °tis ridiculous to affirm, that an human Soul joind to the 
 Body of a Lion is a Man, p. 10. An human Soul then 
 joined to the Body of a Man, is what conftitutes a Man. 
 A Being therefore which has not only an human Soul 
 joind to a Body, but the very God alfo united to an' 
 human Soul, and both together join'd to a Body, is 
 as different from one that has only a Soul and Body, 
 asan human Soul, joined to the Body of a Lion, is 
 different from a human Soul join'd to an human 
 Body. 
 
 idly. Dr Bennct grants that Two intelligent Beings 
 were united in our Saviour's Verfon, viz, the IFord and. 
 his human Soul, p. 73. He grants too, that 'tis 
 very true, that in common Speech Intelligent Being and 
 Perfon are convertible Terms, p^2?i. Now the run- 
 ning Title of his Third Chapter is, Two Natures are- 
 united in Chrift. Dr Bennet therefore muff fay, that 
 Two Verfons, as Well as Wo Natures, were united in 
 Chrift. For 'tis evident that, iff is true that Intelli- 
 gent Being arj, Perfon are convertible Terms, the One 
 may be us'd wherever the Other can. Two Pofons 
 therefore being united in Chrift ; in What Senfe is it 
 fcid, that Chrift is One by Unity of Perfon} Was not 
 the7/'Wfo dijiinft from the human Soul of Chrift, 
 
 D 3 as 
 
( ?! ) 
 
 IBs to be gufe/tf srt during our Sayiour's Miniftry, uporj 
 Dr Benneth Scheme ? Or was not The very God, as he 
 fays the Word is, a ^f«ff intelligent Agent from the 
 human Soul, when the Human Soul did ad for many 
 Years, even for Chnfts whole Life, without being 
 actuated by the Word 1 They were as dijlinft intelli- 
 gent Agents, as 'tis poifible to conceive Two to be ; 
 and the Doctor afferts them to be Jlill dijlintt and <&• 
 verfeintbemfelves, p. 163 •, And consequently Two Per- 
 form or diftinct intelligent Agents muft be in Chrift, 
 upon this Scheme j contrary to the Scripture-Repre- 
 fentatiens, which always majte him but Oyie i J er^ 
 for.. 
 
 idly. The V r ord^ that is, The very Goi 7 was united 
 to the Man Chrift, but was quiefcent, i. e. did not com- 
 ?mimcate bis extraordinary Influences, duri7ig the Miniftry 
 ofCbiiflj-p. 125, &c.Now if the VVord com municateri no 
 Influences more thai) what other Mortals, who are not Per~ 
 finally united to the Word, receive from him, (ibid. J then, 
 to what End, upon the Doctor's Scheme, was this V- 
 nion ? Whilft the Word neither did any thing, nor; 
 \xifferd any thing, how did That Union enhance the 
 Merit of our Saviour? Where is the Difference be- 
 tween an Union and no Union, if the Being qnited is 
 perfectly an unconcerned Spectator? If another Prince, 
 upon a particular Occafion, was to lend the King of 
 Great-Britain ioocoo Men, and they were favgtjm to 
 bequiefcent, and forbear to communicate their Affijlance-, 
 Where would be the Difference betwixt having arid 
 riot having them? or what would this affeft either 
 the Enemies or the Friends of the King? 
 
 qthly. What rational Account can be given of our 
 Saviour's being under the Conduct of the Ibly Gbojk 
 during his Miniftry, that is, under the Conduct of 
 the very God (for He afferts That too, in the 
 iyhole 13. Chapter,) upon Dr tout's Notion? The 
 P r ord or the very God was united to Jefus Chrift, but 
 l^as qmefcent, \. e, communicated no Influences. But 
 
 the^ 
 
C 19 ) 
 
 then tbe Holy Ghoft, who is the very Go d, one and the . 
 fame Being, He aiUfted our Saviour all along. That is : 
 One and the fame Being was united to him, and did 
 ?wt help him j and yet was not united to him, and did 
 help hitn. 
 
 $thly. The Dcxftor builds his Scheme upon a Word 
 \&hemv& which doth not fignify, as he would have it, 
 to be qitiefcent, or not to communicate Affijlances-, but to 
 fubmit or acqui-fce . But of This, more in its pro- 
 per place 
 
 Laflly. I can't but obferve,that Dr Bennet, hotor great 
 foever things he fpeaks of the preesifiivg Soul of Chrin% 
 of its perfrnating God, and being in the Form of God f 
 It fM?<p» 9sb and i<m &i$ -, yet declares it impojfible, that 
 the Creation of the World JI)ould be under flood with refpeti 
 to CbriJFs human Nature ^ but that it wholly belongs to 
 the J ford, or the Sons divine Nature, p. 193, I $5, Sec. 
 Yet notwithftanding this, he interprets the Words of 
 St Paul, Col. I, 15, the Image of the invifible God, and 
 fhefrft-born of every Creature, of Chrift's pre-esifting hu- 
 man Soul, p. 1 7 1. And p. 1 50, he lays, By the Incar- 
 nation of the Word who is God, by the Union of the Word 
 to the Man Chrifl Jefus, God is become (in a Senfe) vifible, 
 the Man Chriji Jefus being the vifible Image or refem- 
 blanceofthe invifible God. Now St Paul is exprefs, 
 that by the Image of the invifible God, ver. 15, who was 
 before all things, v. 17, were all things created, and all 
 things conf/r. Nay St. Paul carries this Point farther ? 
 and afligns the Reafon of his calling our Lord the Image 
 of the invifible God, the frfi-born of every Creature-, FOR. 
 [for BECAUSE] all things were created t-y him. Either 
 therefore the human Soul created all things, or the Word. 
 The Human Soul Dr B. will not allow to have created 
 the World. It muft therefore be the Word, or (which is 
 the fame thing to the Dr ) the very God. That is.- The ve- 
 ry God is the Image of the very God, and confequently 
 pot the very God, unlefs it can be proved that a Perfon 
 and the Image of a Perfon are one and the fame Being. 
 
 P 4 Theft 
 
C 40 ) 
 
 »Thefe Difficulties feem unfurmountabie in Dr Ben- 
 ftet x s Notion, and would be own'd fo in any philofo- 
 ph pal Speculation: But when --we are difcourfing of 
 religious Matters, they are veild ever with the lpe- 
 cious Name of incompi ebenfille MJj-:ries: Which 
 therefore [viz. the conlidering the Notions and Pbra- 
 fes of fallible Men, inftead of the Wards of God, as 
 f.kficrics blindly to be fjbmmitted to,'j is .the next 
 Thing to be examined. 
 
 C II A P. IV. 
 
 Of Rerifon, in the Que/Hon about the Trinity, 
 
 DR Bemtet, after he has been explaining the Doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, comes at length to the u- 
 fual Refuge cf thole who love not to be content with 
 the Words cf Scripture $ and tells us, That this great 
 Myfiery n.vfi needs perplex Us with Difficulties, vbofe Car 
 
 parities are Jo narrow that r:e are ccvjlantly puzzled 
 
 even witbtbeje ObjeBsvbicb are rr.cjl familiar to us; How 
 fall the wifejl Man in the JrarU throughly compre- 
 hend the Nature of the Sdf-ex;ft:~nt and infinitely perfect 
 God y p. 224, 225? And p. 221, He fays to Dr 
 Carle ; Ton are fo good a Philofopber, {not to mention 
 jo:tr Skill in Divinity,) that yen cant m 'el being convin- 
 ce! cf the Re aj enable nefs cf believing -what is above our 
 Comprehenficn, or attended vitb fucb Difficulties as we 
 are ret able to clear. And again, p. 210, Since ws 
 htow fo little of the Subftance of any Thing, metbjnks 
 ve would readily believe what God himfeU has revealed 
 r ■ .crning'his own Sub fiance, though at prefent perhaps our 
 Faculties are net qualified to form any tolerable Idea of it. 
 
 Nov/ I grant 1. That whatever the Scriptures do 
 
 teach, p. 224, be it ever fo much above our Cvmpre- 
 
 benfion, is to be believed. Tis a fufRcient Demonftra- 
 
 .oi any Truth, that God hath hid it ^ nor wou'd 
 
 any 
 
c 4i ; 
 
 pny Map, who knows what he fays of does, difpute 
 what God has nevealed. Tis certainly reasonable, to 
 believe what is above our Comprehenfxon : But then, we 
 muft not miftake Co?itradi8ioKs for Myjleries, nor put 
 oft Schemes and Inventions ot our own, for Revelations 
 of God. We muft not confound Things above our 
 Comprehension, with Things which we clearly com- 
 yrehend to be impoilible ; and thus captivate Keajoit, 
 not to Revelation, but to the Follies of Men. idly. 
 'Tis granted, that we cannot comprehend the Nature of 
 the Self- exijlent and infinitely perjttl God. Yet not- 
 withstanding That, we are able to comprehend what 
 may be a Contradiction to it, as clearly as if we really 
 could comprehend it. That one Subftance cannot 
 be Three Subftances, is as clearly comprehenfible, as 
 if we had Faculties which could defcry what the 
 Nature of bubftances is. That one and the fame Be* 
 ing cannot be derived and underived, begotten and un- 
 begotten, is as clear, as that 'tis impoftible to be and 
 not to be at the fame Time. In fhort,whatever is a Con- 
 tradiction in the Nature of things, muft always be equal- 
 ly a Contradi£ton, let it be applied to a Being whofe 
 Nature w e can or cannot comprehend. For our Igno- 
 rance no more alters the Nature of a Contradi&ion, 
 than our Knowledge does. Notwithstanding therefore 
 that our Fdo/iittare fuch as are -not qualified to form any 
 tolerable Ideas of the Subjiance of God, yet they certain- 
 ly are fuch as can perceive very clearly Ideas contra* 
 difloiy to it. Natural Reafon difcovers a great ma- 
 ny Attributes and Properties of the Self-exiftent Be- 
 ing, and Revelation has confirmed the Truth of thole 
 Difcoveries. "Whatever therefore js a Contradiction to 
 any of thefe Attributes, may be as juftly determined 
 to be fo by Men, notwithstanding the Narrownefs of 
 their Capacities, as if they had'much fuperior Facul- 
 ties. 9. "Wherever a Man clearly perceives the Agree- 
 ment cr Difagreement of Ideas, 'tis unreafonable to 
 expeft that he ihould quit fucji Evidence, and refign 
 
 bis 
 
(40 
 
 hh Sewfe to what may groundlefly be call'd by fame] 
 a Matter of Faith. The Meaning of Word* muft be 
 judg'd of by Reafon, unlefs God himfelf fhould fb 
 far interpofe as to difcover their Signification, or unr 
 lefs he had made Ufe of only fuch as wou'd not have 
 admitted Variety of Interpretations. If a Word 
 therefore be plainly a?nbiguous, we muft compare othe? 
 3?afTages of Scripture, and reconcile them together in 
 the moft rational Manner we can \ as being certain 
 that an alWife God will reveal nothing that is ab- 
 fiird, or contradictory. It the Interpretation of a 
 "Word in One particular Senfe in fome Places, will 
 make the whole of Revelation eafy and intelligible 5 
 but by confining it constantly to another particular 
 Senfe, will make the whole either abfitrd or umntelligi' 
 hit * we may fafely conclude, that the "Wifdom of 
 God dejignedftxh Term in thole Places to be underftood 
 in flich a Manner as would not make Men renounce 
 their Reafon. qthly, "Whatever contradicts a clear 
 Proportion, is contrary to Reafon : And whatever by 
 the U fe of our rational Faculties we can obtain no 
 Knowledge of, or but very imperfect, That is proper- 
 ly faid to be above Reafon. How immaterial Beings 
 act upon outfBcdies, is plainly a Matter above our Rea- 
 fon. Cur Knowledge here is very imperfect, or none 
 stall. But yetwhilft we perceive no Difagreement 
 of the Ideas which~~wehave, we conclude it -not contrary 
 to Reafon that immaterial Beings fhou d acl upon 
 Matter. On the other Hand, we find an a&ual Dif? 
 agreement of Ideas in thefe Propositions t The Word 
 cmd the Holy Spirit, are one and the fame Being, p. 21 ? * 
 and yet the Iford was made Flejh, and not the Holy 
 Spirit : That is ? one and the fame Being was and was not 
 made Flefli. Here is fo evident a Difagreement of 
 Ideas which we have, that we cannot but conclude 
 this to be contrary to Reafon. In fhort, ^thly, In the 
 Queition concerning the Trinity, if any one charges 
 any particular Scheme with Contradiction, it muft 
 
 be 
 
<r 43 -> 
 
 be with Contradiction to the Ideas which he has: 
 And the Anlwer muft be, not to fay, 'tis not a Con- 
 tradition to Ideas which 'tis granted a Man has not, 
 but that fuch or fuch Ideas are not difagreeable to one 
 another. E. g. Tis afferted, that the Word and, the Ho* 
 ly Spirit are we felf-exijienp or very God, and consequent- 
 ly one and the fame Being, p. 215. This Proportion, 
 whether true or falfe I do not here enquire, is certain- 
 ly not a ContradiBory one ♦, becaufe we all conceive the 
 poflible Agreement of the Ideas, which the Terms, 
 Word, Spirit \ and One, raife in our Minds. But now 
 let us add, what Dr Bewiet has added, p. 216, That 
 the Word and the Spirit are as really diftincl: in the famt 
 felf-exijlent Being or very God, as the Soul and the Body 
 are really difymil in the fame created Being, Man: And 
 then the Contradi&ion of this Sentence to the prece- 
 ding, lies in this ^ that the Word and Spirit, One ami 
 the fame Being, are really dijiinft from each other. 
 The Contradiction is not charged upon any imperfect- 
 ly known or quite unknown Properties of God, but 
 upon what is known and perceived, viz. that one and 
 the fame Being can't bedijtinft from it felf^ Or, in o- 
 ther Words, it lies in the Difagreement of Unity and 
 Diftin&ion, 6thly. Suppofe we can't form any tolera- 
 ble Idea of the Subfiance of God -, what would be the 
 Confequence? Why, then you muft needs believe, what 
 you can f comprehend. Suppofing this too -, what then > 
 Then (it feems) there is no real Difficulty as to the Ber 
 lief of [Dr Bemtefs Notion of] the Trinity, unlefs we 
 can find outfome good Reafon to affirm that the Subftance 
 of the felf-exi/fent Being will not admit of any real Di? 
 tftinclion internal and necefary (not from, but) in itfelf. 
 The Dr's whole 1 ith Chapter is to prove,that the Word 
 is the veryGod. His 1 3 tfe Chapter is to prove, that 
 the HolyQbof is one and fie fame Being wi$h thefef-cx- 
 iftcvt God. And he begins the 14^, with declaring 
 that he has proved, jy?. the Word, idly, the Holy Spi* 
 rjt 3 are the felfexijient or very Qod, and coqfeqnently one 
 
 mil 
 
( 44) 
 
 ind the fame Being. Now whatever the Subftance of the 
 felfexiftent God be, yet a Part of a Subftance can't be 
 The Subftance, becaufe 'tis a Contradiction for a Part 
 to be the Whole : Nor can the whole Subftance be a Part 
 only of it felf, becaufe 'tis a Contradiction for the 
 Whole to be but a Part . Supposing therefore a real 
 Difrinttion in the Subftance, yet the Word can't be 
 faid to be The felf-exiftent God, nor can the Spirit be 
 faid to be fo ^ fince they are each but ejfential to and 
 conftitutive of the felf-exiflent Being, p. i i 7 -, and con' 
 fequently in Dr Sennet's Hypothefis each Part muft be 
 the Whole, and the Whole but a Part •, Which are di- 
 rect Contradictions. I do not argue from the unknown 
 Subftance of God, but from the evident Difagreement 
 of thofe Ideas which are known, viz. Part and Whole, 
 Onezn&diftintt, which neceftarily and in the Nature 
 of Things muft always differ. Laftly, What the 
 Doctor feems to depend much upon ior the Solution 
 of thefe Difficulties, is the Difference betwixt in, 
 and from, as applied to the Divine Subftance. He 
 thinks no good Reafori can be given for affirming that 
 the Subftance of the Jelf-exiftent Being will not admit of 
 any real Diftinction internal and necejfary (not from, 
 but) 'in itfelf. Now, allowing it to admit of a real 
 Diftinction in itfelf-, Whatever is really diftinS from 
 another in any Subftance, cannot be the Same with that 
 from which it is diftinB. In the Body of a Man, one 
 Part cannot be another Part •, nor is it polnble that 
 there fhou'd be in any Subftance a real Diftinftion in- 
 ternal and neceflary, and a Samenefs or Identity at the 
 fame Time of the fame Thing ; becaufe it implies 
 this Contradiction , That it is and is not. 
 
 Our Faculties then being allowed to be very narrow, 
 and our Capacities veryfmall •, yet they are certainly 
 fuch as can perceive ContradiBions. And fuch feem to 
 me to be Thefe in Dr Bennefs Notion. 
 
 Fir ft, He afTerts, p. 188 •, If there muft needs be 
 * Contradiction in the Cafe, [if in the Firft Vexfe of St 
 
 Joh 
 
( 4? ) 
 
 Johit it be'a Contradiction in Terms to fay the Word 
 is individually one and the fame Being with Him with 
 whom he was,] I would as willingly Juppofe that St. John 
 wrote a Contradiction inTerms, as that he wrote a Con- 
 tradiction to the whole Tenor of ether Scriptures by of- 
 fering a Plurality of Gods.— -But is it not abfurd to 
 fuppofe a Writer infpired, and to Write at all any Con- 
 tradiction ? Or is it not more proper to imagine ones 
 Self miftaken, than to charge fuch an Abfurdity upon 
 the Apoftle? Why is it fo impoifible to take the 
 Word 0s of, Qod, in a fubordinate Senfe in this Verfe, 
 when we actually meet with it taken in a fubordinate 
 Senfe in St Johns Gofpel, ch. ioj 34, 35 ? Or why 
 cannot it here be fo underftood, as St Paul ufes the 
 Term Kt/e*©- Lord, 1 Ccr. 8, 6, viz. as implying 
 Subordination ? Dr B. declares indeed himfelf convin- 
 ced, that no pofjible Expoftion or Senfe of the Word, God, 
 can reconcile the Contradiction between this Verfe of Si 
 John and the other Parts of the Bible, without admitting 
 that the Word is the Very God, or felfexijlent Being, p. 189. 
 But upon what, is this ftrange Conviction grounded > 
 The Term 6*3*, God, is plainly and frequently ufed in 
 Scripture, not as implying the One felfexiftent Be- 
 ing : and Dr Clarke has fhtwn, in his Scripture-Do- 
 Brine, how 'tis eafy to reconcile the Subordination of 
 the Word and Holy Spirit with the Unity of God, fo 
 as to avoid Pohtheifm on the one Hand, and Sabellia- 
 ttifm on the other. But how will Dr Beyxnet reconcile. 
 hisExpofition of this Verfe, upon his Principles, ei- 
 ther to the Unity of the felfexiftent Being, or to the 
 Exprefilon of Scripture-, which, he tells us, p. 21J, 
 manifejlly diftinguilh the Word from the Spirit-, and 
 adds, that the whole Courfe of the NewTe/lament u a con' 
 tinned Demonf ration of this j Diftinction T\ How, I fay, 
 will Dr Bennet reconcile thfs ? In the Beginning was the 
 Word, and the Word was vr&i rev few, [apud~\ with God -> 
 i. e. The Word who is manifejlly diflingitified from the 
 father and the Spirit, was one and the fame Being, from 
 
 whom 
 
. C 4* ) 
 
 ivhom he is diftinguifhed. V therefore the Word be th£ 
 fame Being with the felfexiftent God, how is he dijlingui- 
 fled from him ? or, how was he with God in greater Pro- 
 priety than it may be faid King George iswith the King of 
 G.Britabi> : Ti$ no Reply, to fay that the Wordwtts *&< -top 
 Giov with God 3 only tofoew that he was not yet ^i eiv^^ns 
 with Men, p, 190. For the Meaning of This, if it has 
 Any Mining, is This: The Word, who is the veif 
 God, is faid to have been with himfelf in the Begin* 
 lifagj only to mew that he was not yet incarnate. Which 
 is a worfe account, and more trifling, than that which 
 the Socinians give of this Text. 
 
 Secondly •, Dr. Bennet owns, p. 2 3 1 , that God is hirt 
 the Perfon, or intelligent Agent, This is the only Senfe 
 of the Word Perfon, and the only one which the Greek 
 «nd Latin Mafculine Adje&ive ( which is always ufed 
 in Scripture) can bear. Nor indeed can the Term Perfon 
 be expreffed in thofe Languages Otherwife, than by 
 a Mafculine Adjective : Perfona in Latin, and-fetVif«c 
 or i?&<m>7nv in Greek, fignifying (as Dr Clarke has ob- 
 ferved) quite other Things. This the Dr has in- 
 fifted upon in his Scripture DoSrineTR'i 9 and more 
 largeh'in his Co mment on 40 Texts, N*. 1. where he 
 has unexceptionably proved his Notion of That word, 
 notwithftanding Dr Bennet has thought fit to deny it, 
 p. 2 3 1 . But to pafs by This •, Dr Bennet grants, that 
 Sn the Senfe of Intelligent Being, God is but . one Perfon : 
 But then he adds, that in another and different Senfe , 
 the very God may he three Perfons, ( ibid. ) Now He ha- 
 ving told us, p. 218, that we cannot defiie exactly what 
 a Divine Perfon is, 'tis evident that with him, Di- 
 vine Perfon fignifies only Something in the Divine Na- 
 ture, as he calls it, p. 216, i. e. no one knows what,' 
 which is not a Perfon. And in this method 'tis to lit- 
 tle pnrpofe to argue or to urge Objections, iince (in 
 this Way ) no Proportion whatever can polnbly be 
 either true or filfe, but mufi be at tire fame time both 
 true and fife. 
 
 Thirty 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 Thirty. Dr Btmet afTerts, that God Is One intelligent 
 Agent, ^. 231. And yet, p. 216, he owns that tbs 
 Word, and the Spirit are conjlantly reprefented as diftinct: 
 Principles of ABion, i. e: as dijlinll Agents. So that 
 in reality One intelligent Agent muft be Three dijlinci 
 Agents-, Which certainly our Capacities enable us to 
 know to be a Contradi&ion. Dr B. endeavours in- 
 deed to remove this Objection by a Comparifon of 
 the Soul and Body in Man , p. 21 6, and again p. 218. 
 But however dijlinci the Soul and Body are in Alan, 
 yet they are not dtjlintl Principles of Aclion. Man is a 
 Compound -, and the Soul and the Body are dijlinci in, and 
 ("if you pleafe) coejfentialto, and necejfanly cotijlitntivi 
 ef. t Man-, p. 218. But Soul and Body are not the 
 fame Being, nor do they conftitute the fame Bekg, as 
 the Doctor afTertS} but, when united, are called by 
 one Name, Man. They are Two Beings, whereof One 
 being a P erf on or intelligent Agent, and the Other not, 
 the Two Beings are ftill but One Perfon. In God there- 
 fore, either there are Many dijlinl Principles of AclioH i 
 that is, dijlinci: real Agents or Perfons, which (if they 
 are all equal) are Many Gods, and God a Compound 
 of many Perfons ; Or elfe, the Father, the Word, and 
 the Spirit, are not dijlinci Principles of Aclion • and then 
 they are not at all Objecls to whom any Application oti 
 Pijyer can be made, but mere Modes. 
 
 Pomthly. The Dr thinks, that the Father, thelf r ord % 
 
 end the Spirit, join d [in one individual Subftance J 
 
 may ccnfitvte one and the fame viojl fxmple and uncom- 
 pounded Being, yiz.lhe very or felf exigent God, p. 219'. 
 How can a Being confiding of Three dijlinci Principles 
 .of A 'men joined together, ( p. 21 6,) be one tmcomyov.nd- 
 e£ Being? The Union of dijlinci Subjlances may conjritute 
 i %6 Being, Mai:, (ibid J i. e. may conftitute Man, a 
 irvpoitr.A of Soul and Body-, but this will not make 
 Man a Simple r.ncompoitnded Being. Wherever diftinct: 
 §>uLftancesare united or joined together, there muft ne- 
 
 eeflarily 
 
( 4».) 
 
 cefiarily be a Co?npoftion ; diftinS Subftances united awl 
 uiicompounded, being a Contradiction in Terms. Now 
 if but One of thefe diftinct Subftances be intelligent, 
 how many foever may be united, yet they will all 
 make but One Perfon. And if feveral diftinB. Principles 
 of ABion\Subftances or not Subftanees] are united, they 
 muft either, all but One, ceafe to be a Principle of 
 A&ion, and thus make Oft* Perfon, fin which Cafe 
 thofe which ceafe to beintelligent, cannot without the 
 higheft Abfurdity be addreffed to ;) or they muft all 
 continue to be ftill intelligent notwitbftanding their 
 Union, and then this Being will be neither One vioft 
 fimple and nncompounded Being, nor One Intelligent 
 Agent. 
 
 Fifthly. Dr B. favs, p. 220, God h indeed incarnate, 
 but by His fecond Per/on only. And again, by HIS Word ; 
 three Times in this Page and the next. What is the 
 Meaning of the Word, HIS? Or wh&t'is the fecond Per- 
 Jbwofa Perfon > Go d (he fays) is undoubtedly a Perfon, 
 and hit on: Perfon or intelligent Agent, p. 231. This 
 Perfon was incarnate by his fecond Perfon, i. e. by a 
 fecond Something, which is His. The Dr adds; I think 
 I can as e.f.ly conceive that God, by his Word, is perfo- 
 nally united to the Man Chrift Jefus, — as I can conceive 
 that the Soul aSs by and thro' the Body, (ibid.) i. e. God, 
 by His very God, or (omitting the Word, HIS, which 
 is unintelligible J God by the very God, or, God by 
 the very fame Being with himfelf, w as incarnate. And 
 as if this was not hard enough, 'tis added, was Perfo- 
 nally united to the Alan Chrift. If fo, then Chrift 
 muft neceftarily be two Perfcns properly, in Dr Beit- 
 wet's Scheme; For a Perfcn (viz .the Word,) and a Per- 
 fon (the Soul of the Man Chrift^ muft make two 
 Perfcns j and yet thefe Two were united into one Perfon, 
 p. 1 c. All This, the Dr fays, he can as eafily conceive, 
 ( viz. how Perfon and Perfon make but one Perfon, J as 
 he can how Soul and Body, i, e. Perfon ajidnot Perfon, 
 are but one Perfon. 
 
 n 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 If to all This it be replied, that thefe are but Dif- 
 ficulties afiling from the Narrownefs of our Capacities, 
 and from cur Ignorance of the Nature and Subjlance of 
 God ^ I would anfwer, that We ate wholly ignorant 
 of the Subftances of ^(//Beings, and yet we are never- 
 thelefs able to judge of Contradictions about them. 
 And indeed if the Reafon be good, that, becaufe we 
 are ignorant of the Subftances or internal Conftituti- 
 ons of Beings, therefore we cannot certainly know 
 what is a Contradiction about them, and what not -, 
 I do not fee but an univerfal Scepticifm muft, be em- 
 braced. We may maintain, that many diftinct Spires 
 of Grafs are one and the fame Spire of Grafs, becaufe 
 our Faculties are [o dull as not to be able to comprehend 
 the Nature or Subjlance of Grafs. Thus We cannot 
 (it feemsj confute any the nioft abfurd Explication of 
 the Trinity, becaufe we know not the Nature of God: 
 Nor can we convince any Man, who mould deny or 
 hold contradictory Opinions about the incarnation, 
 becaufe our Capacities are fo narrow ^ as not to compre- 
 hend the Nature either of the Word or of Man. The 
 Truth is : Men have long been accuftomed to abftract: 
 metaphyfical Terms in this Quefrion, which have ei- 
 ther None, or very uncertain Significations : And 
 when thefe come to be examined throughly, and ap- 
 plied in a certain definite Senfe -, then we are told 
 of Things incomprehenfible, of narrow Capacities and 
 Want of Ideas : Whereas indeed there is nothing 
 wanting, but the Application of thofe Faculties and 
 thofe Ideas which we have, to diftinguifh a Contra- 
 diction or an Abfurdity from a Thing intelligible ir> 
 it felf, however partially revealed to us. 
 
 £ CHAP. 
 
( 5° ) 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Of the Scripture-Trinity. 
 
 Try O W much fo ever Dr. Bemiet may be perfuad- 
 Jrl ed that his Sentiments are delivered in the Hoiy 
 :ur:s, and how well foeverhe may be atfured that 
 They do reatj teach his Notion-, Yet I am fo tar 
 from agreeing with him in this Point, that I think 
 it evident there is no Account in Scripture of on No- 
 tion 5 that 'tis at beft but a mere Hypothecs of his own, 
 fuppcfing it Pojjible in it felt. 
 
 The Scriphire-Trimtj is plainly the Three into 
 whom we are baptized.' The Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghcft. Each of which, are conftantly re- 
 prefented in Scripture as diftinft intelligent Agents -, 
 The Sen, and the Holy Ghoft, as (ubordmate to the 
 Fattier, jflrf by him, and executing the Fathers »n\ 
 And thus there is but One God, One Supreme, idr- 
 exiftent, underived Being, bv whom the Son was be- 
 gotten, and fiom whom the Holy Ghoft proceeded. 
 
 But thenthefelfcra are not, according toDr o^**, 
 &e Trinity. But in Out place, God, and the M** 
 Cbrijf, andtbeEftfonoftheSphhihc^Vkces, tue 
 Pother alone, is the Trbnts. In others ItiU, lne ra- 
 ther, the iMmChrift, and the Sprit\ whSchis the ba- 
 ther again. _. ., ■ , i 
 
 The Fir ft of fhefe Notions he express evidently in 
 his Comment on MM. 28, 19, Baptmiu&mtbe Name 
 Of the Father, and of the Son, m:d of tUHoly Gheji , p. 
 21 1 . It may be urjed, fays he. that if the Son ao.s tn 
 that Bace betoken the Man Chrift Jejus as I have de- 
 C he means, p. 162, where he declares 
 that the Son is not called the Son of the Tat *■**>. 
 
 account antecedent to tbe Incarnation toe bpmt ^ ! J< ac : 
 
 cording*} 
 
c h ) 
 
 cvrdingly denote a Being as really difth:8 from the verj 
 God, who mujl be meant by the Father, as the Son or Man 
 Jefus Cbrift is. To v/hich he answers: Gur Savi- 
 our's Meaning is, That Menfiould by Bdptifm be made 
 
 the Difciples of God (who isvfually filed the Father,) 
 and ofChrif and of the Spirit. 1 beyjlmuld be by Baptifni 
 made Pro] ejfors of that Religion, which is taught or made. 
 known by God, by the Mimftration of the Meillah during 
 his Abode upon Earth, and after his Afcenfoii more com- 
 pie atly revealed by the Eftufion of the Spirit. 
 
 This Notion therefore is : The Father, (i.e. God,) 
 the Maw Cbrift, and the Gifts or Graces of the Spirit, 
 is the Trinity into whom we are baptized. 
 
 But then in Other places he makes the Three to be, 
 The Father, the Man Cbrift, and the Spirit, which is the 
 Father again. In the Paifage now cited, He teils us 
 that by the Father muft be meant, The very God; and 
 bythe&w, the Man Ch rift. So likewife, p. 2^9, in- 
 Jieadof Father, fwthe Proportion he is coniidering, he ; 
 woiid read, God ; andivftead of the Word, Son, he would 
 read, Chrift or Mediator, or the Man Cbrift Jefus. So 
 that there can be no Difpute about Two Perfons of the 
 Trinity. Now his whole 13?/;. Ch. is to prove, that 
 the Holy Ghoft is not another and different Btingfrom the 
 very God himfelf. If then by the Father, be meant 
 the very God : and by the Holy Ghoft, the very God , and 
 by the Son, the Man Chrift; 'tis evident that in this 
 Trinity there is but two intelligent Beings, Agents, 
 or Perfons^ t he Ve 1 y Go d, and the Son. For Two ct~ 
 the Three being here fuppofecl to be proved by Dr 
 Bennet to be One and the fame, there can remain but 
 Two, God and the Man C.kijl. 
 
 The Third Scheme indeed feems to be more fre- 
 quent, and profefTedly Dr Bprnets Notion, Vi%. That 
 the Trivity is the Father alone. Which one wou'd think 
 at firft Sight, was far enough from the Scripture-Re- 
 prefentations of this Matter, The Paffages where 
 E 2 This 
 
C w ) 
 
 This appears, are Many -, which I fhall however tran- 
 fcribe. 
 
 P. 176, The Scripture, when it mentions God abfohie- 
 Ij and by way of Eminence, always means what you [Dr 
 Clarke 1 call the Per/on of the Father, that is, theonejelf- 
 exifent Being, whom I call, The Very God. P. 177, 
 During the TBme of bis Minifry, our Saviour himfelf de- 
 clared that his Father, viz. the God of the Jews, or the 
 one f:\fexiftent Being, is the only true God. Ibid. After 
 our Lords Afceiijion, his Difciyles eveiy where preached 
 that there is hut one' God, was. the Self-exfent Being. 
 And in Proof of this, the Doctor urges the Authority 
 of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 8, 6, lolus there is but one God, the 
 Father, of whom ante all Things and we in him; and one 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, by whom are all Things and we by him. 
 P. 178, By the FatherjoK [Dr Clarke] vieanthe felf-ex- 
 iftent Being, whom I call the very God. P. 180, Does 
 vctCbrifi fay, that his Father (viz,, the felf-exijlent Being) 
 is the only God} P. 2 1 1, Menjhonld by Baptifm be made 
 
 the Difcip'es of God, who is ufually filed the Father. 
 
 P. 2:6, The Very God is undoubtedly the Author and 
 Pi inciple of whatever is done by the Son. Tor the Man 
 Jefus Chrifi derived his Power from the Very God, who 
 is his Father ; and the very God did whatever was done 
 by the Word or Divine Nature of the Son : For by the 
 Word, God made all Things. But it does not follow from 
 thence, that the Word is a dijlintt Being from the FA- 
 THER or Very God, any more than a Mans underftand- 
 h:g by his Soil, or touching by his Body, proves that the 
 Soul or the Body is a difinB Being from the Man. Ibid. 
 'Tis granted of the Very God whom you mean by the Fa- 
 ther -, viz. that he is Atfolutely Supreme over all. I 
 fhculd tranferibe too from p. 168, 169, all thofe 
 PaiTagesof Scripture, which the Doil or fays are fpoken 
 if the Man Chrijl Jefus only, without any regard to his Di- 
 vine Nature-, in which the Very God is filled The God, 
 the Father, or The God and Father of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift. viz. 1 Cor. 1$, 24. Rom. 15, 6. 2 Cor. I, 3. 
 
 iCor* 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 2 Cor. ir, 31. Eph. 1,3. Col. 1,5. 1 Pet. J, 3. 
 Rev. 1, 6. 
 
 Now, 17? , By comparing all thefe PaiTages toge- 
 ther, tis evident that according to Dr Bennct, the 
 FATHER, the one felf-exiftent Being, the Fery Go</, 
 the God of the Jews, are fynonymous and convertible 
 Terms, iigniiying all the fame Thing. Now fuppo- 
 iing that the //'oni and HolyGhoft axe one and the fame 
 Bring, the fife xifent or very God, p. 2 1 5, is it not evident 
 that the Father alone is the Trinity. 2. In what Senfe 
 is our Modern Doxology ufed by the Dr -, Glory be to the 
 Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghoft ? 'Tis not, 
 in His Scheme, to the Trinity ; but to the Father who 
 is the Very Gcd or Trinity, and to the Man Jefm 
 Chrifi, and to the Holy Ghoft who is again The Very 
 Gcd and The Father of cur Lord Jelus Chrift. idly, 
 The Dr aflerts, p. 199, that 'tis evident that the Spi- 
 rit of God is the Selfexijient Being, whom I ca:l(&y she) 
 The Very God. Now in all the Texts and PaiTages 
 juft new cited, 'tis the Father whom theDr hascall d, 
 and chofen to call, The Very God. Therefore, accord- 
 ing to him, the Spirit is the fame with the Father-, 
 and the Father alone, the whole Trinity. And ol what 
 ufe is all This £ For did even Arms, Sabellius, Fauhis 
 Samofateims, Socinus, or any one elfe, ever deny fuch 
 a Trinity ? viz. One Being, having in him an internal 
 Word or Reafon and Spirit ; as every Man, and eve- 
 ry Intelligent Agent whatever, has likewife ? 
 
 I grant that, in other Places, the Doclor exprefies 
 himfelf femewhat otherwife. P. 235, he lays. The 
 Father, with his Word and Spirit, as three coejfential Per- 
 Jons, in my Senfe of the WordPerfon, |_i. e. in no certain 
 intelligible Senfe, p. 21 8,1 is The very God. And a- 
 gain, p. 2? 7, The Very God who is three Pevfons, vit.the 
 Father, with his Word and Spirit. But thefe Expreffl- 
 ens, when compared with others, will demoijftrate 
 that ( according to Him ) the Father alcne is the Trini- 
 ty. Foij p. 262, Fie affaresus ; If fan the Very God 
 
 E 3 is 
 
( H ) 
 
 is honoured, the Holy Spirit u honoured • even as when a 
 Man is honoured, his Spirit is honoured, which is the 
 fame Perfon with himfelf It this be true, then the Sp- 
 lit of God (the Father Almighty.) hehg as much That 
 God (and Father Almighty; whcfe Spirit he is, as the 
 Spiiit of a Man is That Man in whom it is, p. 1 99 v 
 the Spirit of God muft coniequently conftitute God an 
 intelligent Agent, as the Spirit of Man does Man; 
 And the Spirit of God muft be the fame Perfon with 
 the Father, as the Spirit of Man is thtjame Perfon with 
 the Man. If the Spirit- of A an be the fame Perfon 
 with himfelf, the Spvit of God muft be the fame Perfon 
 with himfelf : Even as the Sold and the Body conftitute 
 the fame ft he Dr fhould not ha\-e faid Being, p. 2 1 8, 
 but) Perfon, or Om only i'nteltigevt Jgent. 
 
 In purfuanceof this ftrange Scheme, which thus 
 wholly confounds the Perfons of the Trinity:, we are 
 told, p. 2 5 8, Whatever Honour is paid to the Very God, 
 is paid to the Father, Word, and Spirit, who are one 
 and the fame Being. And p. 257, Abfihtely fupreme 
 Honour is due, not to- the Father as diftir guided from the 
 Word and the Spirit, but to the Very God in whom there 
 are Three 'coejjC7itial Perfons, the Father, the Word and 
 the Spirit. 
 
 If this heiQ; Then if, When any one ufes.that 
 Prayer, Our Father which a: t in Heaven, Sec. he prays 
 (and our Saviour meft be faid to have prayed) to the 
 whole Trinity, net to the Father only. For no doubt 
 cur Saviour taught us to pray to the very God. idly, 
 Whenever the Dr in his Petitions really does difthigulji 
 the Father from the Word or Son, and' from the Holy 
 Ghoft 5 yet even in thofe Prayers He actually prays to 
 the Son and Holy Ghoft : For each of them being in- 
 dividually One and the ftyie Being, nay One and the 
 fame intelligent Agent ; in honouring One, he honours 
 all But then is it not unreafonable in him to diftin- 
 guifh where there ought to be no Diftincrion ; God 
 the Father,- Q'Qod the Son- God the Holy Ghoft > 
 
 For 
 
( yy ) 
 
 For each of them being The very God, Whatever Wo*? 
 Jlrip is paid to the Very God, is paid to all Three. 3. In 
 this Way, praying to each Perlon, is really nothing 
 more than praying to Jehovah, to Elohim, and to Ado- 
 vat, that is, to God under any three Names. But 4. 
 Does the Dr then pay Honour really to a Perfon be- 
 gotten and derived, while he is worfhipping or fpeaking 
 of God under the Chara&ers of dvnZnot underived, 
 wavnx.eJ.7W!> Almighty, the Father, and fuch like? Or 
 does he Then werfhip the Father, when he is pray- 
 ing to a Perfon confidered and denominated as begot- 
 ten or proceeding ? $thly, If each Perfon is honoired by 
 praying to The very God, i. e. to the Father ; is it not 
 Sufficient to follow only our Lord's Directions, faying, 
 Our Father which art Sec ? And are the 7/ r ord and the 
 Spirit, (for the Son it feems always figuifies the Man 
 Chrift, p. 162,) any diftinct Objetts to apply to in 
 any Manner, without being intelligent Agents-, any 
 more than the Spirit of a Man is a diftinS Objetl 
 to be applied to, diltinct from the Perfon of the 
 Man himfelj? 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Of the Terms Nature and Perfon, as applied to 
 Cbrijin 
 
 W 
 
 H E N we look into what the facred Writings 
 teach us concerning our Saviour, without the 
 Prejudices of fyftematick Writers-, All will agree, 
 that there is no Name given to Chrijl by infpired Writers-, 
 which denotes his being twoPerfons: But they always 
 fpeak of him as of a Perfon, as of one individual intel- 
 ligent Agent, who at different Times appeared in dif- 
 ferent Natures or Forms, in different iStates and Capaei-. 
 
 E 4 ties. 
 
( f* ) 
 
 ties, firft as{7oi, and afterwards as Man. He was, 
 firft er f"f?? Sw intheFormof God, andas «t^6Xoj8s2 
 j$e i4»*g« of Goi- and tfow as av^awa Man, or 
 «(/ ofifirJftancty^e^Tmv ytybpsv®- made in theLik.er.efs of Men-, 
 exntM.v iv^tii «J f aV^e,^ found in Fajlnon as a Man, by 
 being incarnate, made FleJJ), or taking Part of Fief) and 
 Blood 5 and laftly, he was exalted to the right Hand 
 of God, in Heaven, to be the Judge of Quick and 
 Dead. _ The Scripture never fpeaks of him with the 
 leaf Hint of any Div'fon of his Perfon j nor upon any 
 Cccafion considers only Pai t of him at a Time : But tells 
 us,that all Things were made by the Word, or by the Son, by 
 whom we have hedemption through his Blood, Col. I •, 13, 
 34-16. 'Tis always as of One and the fame Perfon, 
 who did iuchand fiich Things at different Times and 
 indifferent Capacities 5 at one Time, h wmH* in 
 the Form of God-, at other Times Vv o-Mna^v eiv%pajwv 9 
 in the Likenefs of Men, by taking Part of Flfi) anal 
 Blood. 
 
 Dr Benpet always fpeaks of Chrift in his hu- 
 mane, and Chrift in his Divine Nature, (of Jefus and 
 Chrijl in the Language of Cerinthus,) as Two entirely 
 different and diifindt Perfons. P. 164, By Reafcn (fays 
 JieJ of the Union of the two Natures, fame Things are af- 
 fnned oj the God, which are true of the Human Nature 
 only-, and other Things are affirmed of the Man, which 
 me true of the Divine Nature only. For Jnfance ; 'tis 
 cffirmecl of the God, that he was receiv'd up into Glo* 
 ry, 1 Tim. 3, %6 ; which evidently regards the Exalta- 
 tion of the Man, i. e. Chrifis humane Nature, as 'tis 
 call'd by the Dr, p. 35. Again ; All Things were crea- 
 ted by Ehn who is the firJI-bom from the dead. Col. 7. 
 t6, 18: This, manifejjly pohu at and belongs foCorifrs 
 human Nature -^ That, was done by the Word or Divine 
 Nature h (ibid.) Again -, There being no Name given to. 
 Chrijl,-— which denotes Both Natures united in one Per- 
 fon ; (ibid.) P. j 66 y By him were all Things Created, Sec. 
 Col. I, 13, &c ? Ton fee, the Subjetf is Qod" sSon ; and' 
 
 Chrift 
 
C 17 ) 
 
 Chrijl h undoubtedly Gods Son, as to hh humane Nak 
 ture :-«— But then He ("the Apoftle) proceeds to affirm 
 fuch Jhing&f God's Son, as manifeftly relate to bis di' 
 vine Nature. — P. 167, None of the Names or Titles gi- 
 ven in the Scriptures to our Saviour, do include or denote 
 his two Natures united in One Per/on^ Ibid. If this 
 Rule be duly objerved, many Pajfages will injlantly appear to 
 befpokcn of the Man Chrijl Jefus only, without any Re- 
 gard to the Word or divine Nature, which, if under- 
 flood of the Word or divine Nature, or of the who 7 e 
 God-Man, would really imply that the Word or Chri/l'siYi- 
 vine Nature isinferiur to the very God. Some of thePaC- 
 fages explained by the Doctor according to this Rule, 
 are, p. 168, And ye are Chrifts, and Chrijl is Gods, 1 
 Ccr. 3, 23. But to Us there is but One God, the Father, 
 of whom are all Things, and we in him ; and one Lord 
 Jefus Chrift, by whom are all Things, and we by him, I Cor. 
 %. 6« Bz.'t I would have you to know, that the Head oj 
 every Man is Chrijl, and the Head of the Woman i* the 
 Man, and the Head of Chrijl, is God, 1 Cor. 1 1 , 7 . 
 Then cometh the End, whenheftmll have delivered up the 
 Kingdom to God, even the Father : — And when alllh'wgs 
 Jlmll befubdued wto him, then ft) all the Son alfo hiinfelf be 
 fubjecl unto him that put all Things under him, that God 
 may be all in all, 1 Cor. i<>. 24, 28. For ye know the 
 Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrijl, that tho* he was rich, 
 yet for your fates he became poor, that ye through his Po- 
 verty might be rich ., 2 Cor. 8. 9. Now he' that afccnded^ 
 what is it but that he alfo defcevded into the lower Parts of 
 the Faith > He that defended, is the fame alfo that af- 
 cended up far above all Heavens, that he might fill all 
 Things, Eph. 4.} 9, 10. P. 196, the $tb Verfe (of 
 Heb. 1 J 1 ehtes to CbriJTs Humanity. 
 
 Now upon What Foundation, is all this Snperftruc- 
 ture rais'd : iince neither the Scriptures nor Primitive 
 Writers of the Church ever thus divide our Lord in- 
 to Two Perfons? They always plainly fpeak of him, 
 a§0?/£ and {he fitqe Perjon; and upon this Foot arc, 
 
 confident 
 
( sS ) 
 
 confident, and intelligible, as other Writings are, 
 without any forced Conftrudtions, or miparalleVd Tran^ 
 Jiiic?n\ which have been invented purely Qb ferve an 
 Kypotheils. In the Inftance, I Tim. 3, 16, (fuppo- 
 iing the common Reading to be the true one, of 
 which yet there is no Footfrepin Antiquity ;) God was 
 manifcj} in the FUJI), jujlifed in the Spirit, --received up 
 into Glory ; "What a ftrange Conftrudtion is it, to make 
 Part of thefe Proportions to relate to one Perfon, and 
 part to another •, without the leaft Intimation from the 
 Text 5 as Dr B. is forced to do, p. 1 64 ? Whereas 'tis 
 clear that the fame Ferfon, who had been in the Form 
 of God, was manifejl in the FUJI), and receivd up [again] 
 into Glory. 80 Col. 1, 13, &c. God hath translated 
 us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have 
 
 Redemption thro* his Bloody For by him were all Things 
 
 -</, By that One and the fame individual Perfon, 
 the SoU of God, were all Things created, and Mankind 
 were redeemed. The Apoftle 'does not fay, they were 
 created by his divine Nature or divine Perfon, or re* 
 deemd by his humane Nature or the Man ; But by 
 Him, and, In whvm, or, by whom, without any the leaft 
 Appearance of Traniltion from one Perfon or Thing 
 to another. 
 
 That which feems to have contributed chiefly tq 
 this Confufion, is the ftrange Ufe Dr Bennet makes of 
 the Term Nature-, which, with Him, generally figni- 
 fies Perfon, and very often Something he knows not 
 what. Thus by Chrififs divine Nature, Dr B. always 
 means either the Perfon of the Father, or Somewhat 
 of the PerJon of the Father ; And by his human Na- 
 ture, he always means his whole Perfon. For, the 
 Word being quiefcent during our Saviour s Minifiry. and 
 never influencing him at all during that Space, Ch. 9 -, 
 That whole Perfon, who preach'd and fuffered and died 
 for us, is what the Dr calls Chrift's human Nature • 
 teaching us, not (as the Scriptures do) that Chrift fuf- 
 fered in the FUJI), or (as the Church has ufed to exprefs 
 
 it) 
 
C 59 ) 
 
 it) that HEfufered in his Humane Nature, but that 
 his Humane NA TURE fuffered. And indeed through- 
 out his Book, he has perfectly confounded Nature and 
 Perfon. Thus p 7. The Word is exprejly called GOD; 
 therefore I join with you, in callbig the Word the Divine 
 NATURE of our Lord Jefus Chrifl; p. 1$. The 
 Word or Divine NATURE of the hie jjed Jefus, is* cal- 
 led GOD. So again p. 20, His Humane NATURE 
 was created 5 and bis Divine NATURE made the 
 World. And, p. 36. As it can the affirmed of his Hu- 
 mane NATURE, tho 3 united with the Word in one Per- 
 fon, that It made a'l Things j becaitfe, tho 3 'tis exprejly af- 
 firmed of his Divine Nature, that It made all Things, yet 
 the fame is never affirm 'd or implied of the Human Nature-, 
 evenfo it cant be affirmed of the Divine Nature, tho x 
 united with the Humane in one Perfon, that It was exalted. 
 P. 82, The Humane NATUR E was an Angel. P. 
 83, The Apofile's Argument is drawn from what ChrifFs 
 Human Nature DID ; and 'tis fuppoi ted by what his Hu- 
 mane Nature Received as the Reward, Zee P. 126, The 
 Humane NATURE ofChrifi, did not RECEIVE 
 and FEEL thofe extraordinary Influences, Sec. P. 142, 
 The Human NATURE of Chrifl did really ACT a- 
 lone, &c P- 1 5 ? , 'Twas his Human NATURE a- 
 lone that SPAKE at that time. P. 241, The Human 
 NATURE of that Perfon, which was per feci God and 
 perfeB Man; did DIE for them. P. 254, The Human 
 Nature of the Son directed all his Actions to the Glory 
 of the Father. And ibid. The Sons. Human NATURE 
 did V RAY to the Father, 
 
 Now in each of thefe Citations, in what Senfe is 
 Nature us' d> Is Nature ever call'd God? Or is not 
 PerfonaVtiy , evidently and neceffarily implied in the 
 Notion of God ? Was it Nature that created and made- 
 the World, or was it not a Perfon that did it ? Was IT 
 [Nature~] exalted, or the Perfon ? Could a Nature do 
 any thing, or receive a Reward? Could IT feel, cr a8 y 
 cifpeek, or dire ft Actions, or pray? And what does 
 
 the 
 
r 60 ) 
 
 the Dr. mean by faying [Not, that Cbrjfl 'was put to 
 Death, but] the Human NATU R E of that PER- 
 SON did die, p. 241 > 
 
 As the Abftradt inetaphyfical Term, Nature, is ufed 
 by Dr. Bttinet, throughout this Controversy, to fignify 
 utually, Perfon j and fometimes fometbhg, he knows 
 not .what . So the Term, Perfon, is applied by him in 
 as uncertain and precarious a manner, fometimes for 
 One, fometimes for Two Intelligent Agents, and fome- 
 times for fomewh at of an Intelligent dg&it, he cant de- 
 fine exacily What. Accordingly our bleifed Lord 15 
 fometimes but One Perfon, a Intelligent Agent; fome- 
 times he is allowed to be two Intelligent Agent.'. : Some- 
 times he confifts of One intelligent Agent, and fometbing 
 elie- r juftas the Writer has occafion to fpeak. .But 
 yet All agree that in Scripture he is always diftin&ly 
 fpoken of as One Per J on 
 
 In p 12, Dr. Bennet tells us, that ChrifFs EN J Y- 
 M E NT of a Human Soul gives HI M [gives V r homY] 
 a lihnefs, &c. A r.d p. 73, he cxpreily fays, there are 
 united in our Lord's Perfon, Two intelligent Beings. Is 
 not that Two per fens? Yet elfewhere he will not allow 
 the term Perfcti, to extend fo far as to One Intelligent 
 Being. Tzs tnie, fays he,;;. 231, that in common Speech, 
 Intelligent Being and Perfon, are convertible Terms -, 
 and hi this Senfe, the one fupr earn Caufe of all things, whom 
 I call the very God, is lmdoubtedly a Perfon, ami but 
 ONE Perfon. That is, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, 
 all Three make but ONE Perfon: And confequently 
 the Word is but Pent of a Perfon, or of an Intelligent 
 Agent ; tho' he had before exprefy calfd it an Intel- 
 ligent Being, p. 73. 
 
 But the Unity of Chrift's Perfon Dr. Bennet explains, 
 by faying, p. 80, The Word left his Glory, and became 
 united to The Man Chijl. And p. 227, The Word was. 
 perfonally united to the Man Chrift - y And the Man Chrifl 
 Jejhs was for fome while perfonally wiited to the Word], 
 ibid. It might here reasonably have been expected of 
 
 him, 
 
( it ) 
 
 him, that he mould at leaft have given us fbmeGqn- 
 jeelure, why the Scripture never once ufes any iucli 
 Language, never tells us that the Word was muted to 
 a Man, but that the Word was male Fief), ea-fc »>«*?», 
 that Chrift was *v o>j.<na>^a.v ttvSorj&av yivouivQ- made 
 in the Hkettefs of Men • ffyjpajt wt*&*it d< <Zi>d-pu7r@- y 
 being found infajbidn as a Man : And, "a^/>»t©- yjtrU 
 IjktbV Jefus Chrift being [not, being joined to] a Man : 
 And, He took part of Fie/I) and Blood: And the like: 
 Fxprelfions, which ftrictly imply an Unity of ferfon. 
 
 Nor is it of any Moment what Dr Bcvntt Objects, 
 that, if the Word was not quiefcent during our Saviour s 
 Miniftry, - then all theABions of Chrift ought to be imputed 
 to the God* Man, p. 129. For do not the Scriptures e- 
 very where plainly impute all the Actions of Chrift to 
 the Whole Perfm of Chrift ? do they any where divide 
 him into Two Perfons ? Or what ground is there to 
 imagine, that, when our Lord prayed, his Prayer did 
 not proceed, p. 1^9, from himfelf? from that Whole. 
 Verfon, who is rcprefented every where as One, and as 
 but One'!' The Soul and Body indeed, Two diftind Beings, 
 whereof One only is intelligent, may eafil}'- be, nay, 
 can be no more than, One Perfon: But Two intelligent 
 Beings cannot make One Perfon, unlefs one of them 
 be /wallowed up and ceafes to be diftinctly ijitelligent. 
 
 He tells us indeed, p. 148. That His Notion may be 
 illuftrated by confidering that the Soul is frequently 
 fufpended by Sleep, But this is nothing to his purpofe. 
 For fo far as the Soul is at any time (fuppofed to be) 
 fufpended, fo far the Flejh ceafes to a& or feel. And 
 the fame is true of whatever is perfonally united : If 
 it l^e fufpended, either all Action muft neceiTarily be 
 fufpended with it, or elfe there muft be Two Perfons 
 ftill, the fufpended one, and that which acts during 
 fuch fufpenfion : And this is in no Senfe Perfonal Uni- 
 on, but the Action of feparate Intelligent Agents or Iter* 
 font. 
 
 N.B. 
 
C <?*■) 
 
 &^* JV. B. As to the Con/litusnt Parts of our Lord^ 
 Perfon -, jp&tf£ thofe Conftituents were, befides Tbgt 
 Intelligence in which Perfonality itfelf confifts - ( as there 
 are, in the Perfon of a /»tfizw, jBoi/y and 6W, or Body 
 and 1S07/Z and Spirit, or rational and fenjitive and i^g-eta- 
 t&tf Soul, or whatever covjiitmnis do w£ make Xi^o Per- 
 fons, too diftinct Intelligences or Principles of Action,) 
 we (for want of knowledge in Philofophy) may well 
 be ignorant : Neither need we, or ought we to be poji- 
 tive. And for that Reafcn (as I fuppofej Dr. Clarke 
 meddled not with the ApoVanarian Speculation, which 
 is merely Philqfophical, and not at all Theological. But 
 two intelligent Beings, fas Dr. Bemiet calls them,p, 73, 
 incojifijlently with his denying the [*•&>©-] Word, to be at 
 all an intelligent Being, p. 231,) are Always evidently 
 and necefiarily Two Perfons, however United -, unlefs 
 One of the Two Intelligences be fwal lowed up, and 
 ceafes to be any longer a diftinct Intelligence. A 
 §v.iefcence of One of them, is not fufficient ; unlefs 
 that <$hiiefcence be Total and Perpetual -, which amounts 
 either to an entire Abjorption , or No Union at all. 
 
 CHAP. VII- 
 
 Of CljriJTs being filled a Man. 
 
 TH E Reverend Dr. Beiinet has in his Third Chap- 
 ter largely infilled upon this Point, That be- 
 caufe our Saviour is frequently calfd oVS?®*** and <*W 5 
 a Man, both by himfelf and the Sacred Writers, 
 therefore he was in every refpefl: of our Species, i. e. 
 his Soul was exactly of the fame kind with other 
 Men. The human Soid, fays he, is by much the principal 
 Part cf Man, and his chief CGnJlituent Part : And there- 
 fore tofuppofe a Man, (a true, perfeft, mid proper Man, 
 
 mi 
 
C <5 5 ) 
 
 aiidfuch as ojir Lord is votoriovfy defcribed and affirm?! 
 to be,) without an human Soul, is the Height of Abfurdi- 
 ty. p. 1 o. Now here I obferve 
 
 i/i. A fuperior Being, by being incarnate, ma}r Be- 
 come a Man, may (as our Church expreffesir) be made 
 Man., may take our Nature (not take or affiime a 
 Man], upon him. Suppofe any Man now living had 
 prarexifted, and That in a much fuperiour Order or 
 Rank or Beings than Ours now is •, would it follow 
 that fuch a Perlbn was not Now really a Man ? Even 
 without being really incarnate, Angels of old, appear- 
 ing to Abraham, to Lot, &c. are ufually filled «tVJ\sr, 
 Men, Gen. 19, 12. 18, 2, 16. And Daniel 9, 21, 
 ftVwf, the Man Gabriel whom I hadfeen. Either therefore 
 it muft be inferred that Gabriel, and the three Angels 
 which appeared to Abraham, and the two which ap- 
 peared to Let, were in every Refpeft of our Species-, 02 
 elfe the Argument from the common Appellation, 
 Man, is inconclufive. idly. The Scriptures always ufe 
 the following Manner oL Expreffion. He that was 
 
 Av>©- the Word, the very fame Perfon »«?£ iy i-n-n, iv 
 SiAotawv J^uttkv y?vbuzt'@--> was made ¥hj), John 1,14; 
 king made in the Likentfs of Men, Phil. 2, 7 , took 
 Part of Fief) and Blood, Heb. 2, 14. Again, Heb. 
 lo, 5;, A Body haf thou prepared ?ne. Heb. ^,7, In 
 the Days of his FUJI). Rom. 8. 5, in the Likenef of 
 
 finful Fief), Heb. 2, 17, made like unto his Brethren. 
 
 1 John 4, 2 , That jefus Chri/l is come in the Fk]h y 2 
 John 7. 1 Pet. 4, 1, Chi if hath fufcredjor us in the 
 
 FleJI). Phi]. 2, 8, cyjiuav M/fS$«f •»« *»•&/>«*©-, £eW£ 
 
 found in Fafmn as a Man, he humbled himfef and be- 
 came obedient to Death. Heb. 10, lo, thro' the Cfiei- 
 hig of the Body of Jefus Chrift. Thefe and many other 
 Places feem very firongly to ihow, that the fame Per- 
 fon who is called the Logos or Word, was mamfefi in 
 the Fief), and was made Man: 'Tis not faid, was 
 jom'd to a Man, but was found in Fafiicn as a Man, 
 and fo made like unto his Brethren, %dly. Dr Bennet 
 
 a Herts 
 
( H ) 
 
 hfllrts, p. 64? that our Saviour, before bis Incarnation, 
 might juftly be called an Angel, upon the Account of bis 
 being fent from God to Men. Now if he was juftly 
 calld an Angel, upon Account of his being Sent, tho 3 
 he was not a Spirit precifely of the fame Kind or Degree 
 frith Jngels, pag. 65 -, why may he not as juftly be 
 called a Man, when incarnate, tho' originally he be 
 not precifely of the fame Degree with Men ? 
 
 Againft this, Dr B. has objected, p. 10, 160, 161, 
 192, That Text of St. Paul, 1 Tim, 2, $, There is 
 bne God, and one Mediator between God and Man, the 
 Man Cbrift Jefus-, to prove that the Redeemer is ths 
 fame Sort of Man, as the Perfons redeemed by him, p. 
 Io. But I reply, 
 
 j/?. This very Text is a clear Refutation of this 
 learned Gentleman's Scheme. For the Addition of 
 the "Word, Man, fuppofes that he had formerly been a 
 fvperior Perfon. No one ever fays in this Conftrucli- 
 bn, fpeaking of a mere Man, The Man Peter, or the 
 Man Paul-, But 'tis very proper and emphatical, when 
 fpoken of afuperior Perfon made Man. We find in Dani- 
 el, ch. 9,21, «V«e r*£f /»*, the Man Gabriel : And juft in 
 the fame Form.'of Speech, in thisText, *fflf»;n»« %e*ro** 
 the Man Chrijl, i. e. Chrijl incarnate or made Man. 
 But idly, fuppofing the Word to be, in the way Dr 
 Bennet explains it, muted to the Man Cbrift; will the 
 God-man be the fame Sort of Man as the Perfons redeem- 
 ed by him? "Will he be y? 'Treivn, in all Things, made 
 like unto his Brethren ? I cannot but take Notice here, 
 that the Dr has twice in the fame Page interpreted 
 cuoiw&vcu, fwhich iignifies to be made like,) to BE the- 
 fame. Chrijl. fays he, p. 12, had the fame human Na- 
 ture ; And, Chrijl ought to BE of the fame Nature with 
 ourfelves. Which he deduces from that Parage in the 
 Fpiftle to the Hebrews, ch. 2, 17, It behoved him 
 (oucioSyrai) to be made like unto his Brethren. idly. The 
 Ends or Reafons of Chrift's being madeFleih, aifign'd 
 in Scripture, do not require that he fhould be himfelf 
 
 precifely 
 
( ** 5 
 
 predfely of the fame Degree with thofe Perfons he came 
 to redeem, In all things, faith the Apoftle, it behoved 
 him to he made like mito his Brethren, that he might be 
 a merciful and faithful High Prieft, in things pertaining to 
 God, to make Reconciliation for the Sins of the People. 
 For in that he himfelf hath fiijfered, being tempted, he is 
 able tofuccour them that are tempted. Chrift might cer- 
 tainly be a merciful and faithful High Pi left, might make 
 Reconciliation, and might be tempted, without being 
 predfely of the fame Degree with fyleh. He was put 
 into the State and Condition of doing all this, by be- 
 ing incarnate, and taking cur Nature upon him : 
 Nor is there fo much as pretended to be any Abfur- 
 dity in This by this worthy Perfon, but what is found- 
 ed upon his Supposition that He who is ftiled the 
 Word, is the very God, abfolutely fupream, and inca- 
 pable of any Humiliation, Incarnation, or Change 
 of State whatfcever 
 
 In another Place Dr B. has argued from Philip. 2, 
 j- Which he thinks ought to be tranfpofed, and rein- 
 dred thus: He emptied himjelf, taking the Appearance 
 of a Servant, BEING in the Likenefs of Men ; That is, 
 that he dive fled himfelf of that Glory which he enjoyed $ 
 and WHEN he was incarnate } he condefcended to app:ar 
 as a Servant, p. 67. 
 
 But here, I think, theDris guilty of a double Mi- 
 stake. For ift. yivo^vO- doth not fignify, beings as 
 he falfely renders it -, but, being made, as our Bibles 
 rightly tranflate it. For we juftly blame the Socinians, 
 for tranflating, 2*f£«>£f€7*, (Joh. 1, 14,) was, in- 
 ftead of, was made Flefh. And the Paflage, *ver. 6, 
 \yknvt avd-zami dmraktuv©- , which they allege in fa- 
 vour" of their rendring ao^? <mgky':vnv, the Word 
 WAS [inftead of Became J Fleftj -, discovers only their 
 Ignorance in Language. For the Words lyiwo <Zu$?a- 
 vr@- aW«Ap*W, do not flgnify that John the Baptift 
 WAS a Man, but that he Wdsfeht, or Became the Mef~ 
 fer.ger of God &c. 2dly. There is no Ground at all to 
 tranfpofe the Words of this Verfe, as the Dr here 
 
 F fes 
 
C 66 ) 
 
 does. For uo^n <Nak, the Form of a Servant, being- 
 opposed to iio^u fcZ the Form of God ; the Senfe is* 
 not, JfHEN be was incarnate (p. 67, 68,) he con- 
 defcended to appear as a Servant, but, by being incarnate 
 he took upon him the Form of a Servant. And the 
 Words, >y a-^Jiy^v ivfideit »* aV^fffl^©-, being found in 
 Tafbion as a Man, do not fignify, that he not only 
 fometimes atted as a Servant, p. 67, 68 ^ But the 
 Meaning is, And being in that fervile incarnate State or 
 Condition, he humbled hhnfelf Jiill further, 8cc. 
 
 Chrifl: therefore is very properly fly led J Man-, 
 and the Scriptures-Expreifions are very natural, and 
 agreeable to what uninfpired Writers ufe, when they 
 fpeak of our Saviour's Humane State. Nor, I am apt 
 to think, would this Point have been fo much mifun- 
 derftood by Dr Bennet, had not fcholaftick Jargon fil- 
 led him with Preconceptions in his interpreting the 
 Word of God. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Of Chrifl prseexifting before his Incarnation? 
 and Whether he was then a mere human Soul 
 of the fame Species with Us 9 or a Perfon of 
 far fuperior Dignity. 
 
 5^-pIS allowed by Dr Bennet, that Chrifl: upon 
 JL Earth was a Man, one Perfon, not two, (tho' he 
 perpetually fpeaks of him as of two diftinft Perfons, in- 
 coniiftently enough.) He acknowledges alfo, that 
 this very fame Perfon pr&exifted from the Beginning 
 of the World, and appeared (as the Angel or MelTen- 
 ger of God) to Adam, to Abraham and the Patriarchs, 
 to Mofes, &c. Now the Queftion here is, which 
 Opinion is moffc agreeable to Scripture, Dr Clarke's, or 
 
 Df 
 
C 67 ) 
 
 Dr Bennetts. Dr Clarke fuppofes that the Perfon thtis 
 appearing before his Incarnation, was a Divine Perfon, 
 fuperior to All, except the Father who lent him. 
 Dr Bejinet fuppofes him to have been a mere human 
 Soul, like that of other Men, without any Prehemi- 
 nence in its own Nature, and without any Union 
 with what he calls the Word, (or fomewhat, incertum 
 quid, of God the Father,) till the Time of the Incar- 
 nation. When that fame Soul, fays he, p. 84, volunta- 
 rily became incarnate, 'twas [Then] united to the Word it 
 felf And our Saviour, When he was, at his Incarna- 
 tion, united to the Word, p.. 65. And the wonderful 
 Alteration of his Condition by his perfonal Union with 
 the Word : ibid. In order therefore to judge in this 
 Point, I enquire 
 
 ijt. What real Difference is there betwixt Dr Ben- 
 net's Notion and Sociftus's ; I mean as to the Ccnje- 
 quences of either. I ask this, becaufe the Dr thinks 
 his Notion to be perfeftly free from all Pofibility of do- 
 ivg Mif chief, p. 72. How does he make Chrift Molly 
 to be any Thing beyond a mere Man % more- than Soci- 
 7M does ? Sochius fuppofed Chrift to be a mere Man 
 taken up into Heaven before his Baptifm, and thence 
 he explains the Texts of his being fent down. Dr Ben- 
 net fuppofes him a mere Man or human Soul prsexifling 
 in Heaven from the Beginning, and fent down into a Bo- 
 dy on Earth at the Fulnefs of Time. Where is the 
 real Difference between a mere Man, and a meri 
 Man? Or what Mifchief can it do, to believe that 
 he went up into Heaven before his Baptifm, (which folves 
 fome Difficulties very well, were it but real •,) more 
 than it can do to believe that his Soul pr&exijled, 
 which is but an Hypothefis too, to folve the fame 
 Difficulties? For as to its Union at the Incarnation 
 with the Word, which, according to Dr B. is but 
 fomewhat {incertum quid) belonging to God the father -, 
 did ever any Arian of the loweft Sort deny, that 
 fomewhat belonging to Gol the Father, was in That Per- 
 
 £ 2 fon 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 fori whom they flile the Logos? Or did ever any Soci- 
 raan deny that fomewhat belonging to God the Father.., 
 was in the moft intimate Manner poifible in, and 
 united with, the Mali Jefus Chrift ? 
 
 idly. Is it not too great a Diminution of the Value of 
 Chrilt's Sufferings, and of the Dignity of the Perfon 
 Jnffering, (for not a Nature, but Perfon only can fuffer ;) 
 to fay, that befoie his Incarnation, he was a Perfon 
 nothing in his Nature fnperior to other Men ? The Va- 
 lue of Sufferings, is very juftly reckoned in Proportion 
 to the Dignity of the Perfon fuffering. Now, the Word 
 being qnkfcent entirely during our Saviour's Miniftry, 'tis 
 evident that All that fuffered, was merely a human Soul , 
 and confequently all the Satisfaction that was made, was 
 no greater than what a mere Man cou'd make. The 
 ftricleft Socman would readily fubferibe to this. 
 
 %ilf. Can it with any Propriety of Speech be re- 
 prefented as an A£t of Humility and Condefcenfxon in a 
 tnde human Soul, «^ ^ma.yyu>v vyiioudcu, (pag. 68,) 
 not to be greedy of being as God, 'Phil, 2, 6. but to un- 
 dertake the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind, 
 in the Manner that Chrift's Soul is by Dr Bennet 
 fuppofed to do ? His human Soul (which is conceiv'd by 
 the Dr to be merely of the/*we Species with ours J is- here 
 faid, it feems, vmtatmt iotvtoy, (p. 70,) to empty bimfelj, 
 at his Incarnation. Now, conceiving his Station as high 
 as is poifible before, yet did he not at his Incarnation (ac- 
 cording tothelVs Scheme) become united to the Word, 
 or very God ? Was net this, rather than an Acl of Humi- 
 lity, an Act indeed of the highefi Exaltation poifible ? To 
 have the Honour now, no longer to be the Miniflerot 
 God, but to be United to him, to become the Son of God, 
 and appointed Heir of all Things? Is not this fo evi- 
 dently a Mark of Dignity, inftead of Condefcenjion -, 
 that the Dr argues from this very Topick to ihew 
 that Chrift was a Perfon greater than the Anph AT 
 his Incarnation, tho 5 he were but an human Soul her 
 fore? The Jpy'lle, fays he, p. 65 > might well oppofe 
 
 onr 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 our Saviont, when he was, At his Incarnation, united 
 ■to the Word, and become the Sen of God, and appoint- 
 ed Heir of all Things, (and thereby dignified above all- 
 created Beings -,) even to Himfelf when confidered only 
 as God's Angel, or Meffenger to Mankind.- — For fince 
 the whole ktrefs of what the Apojlle fays, lies upon the 
 Dignity of the Perfon empowered to a:l and govern, tis 
 certain that the DIGNITY conferred upon the Man Cbri/l 
 At his Incarnation, made him in that RefpeEl as diffe- 
 rent from himf elf before That DIGNITY was conferred, 
 as if Two difiincl Beings had beenfpoken of. It this be 
 the Cafe, and there was fo vaft a Difference in Point of 
 Dignity-, in wha r tolerable Propriety or Speech did 
 this praexifting Soul, wwmi \cwlfo, empty hhnfelj ? 
 
 4. Is it not an infuperable Difficulty in the Doctor's 
 Scheme, to be forced to affirm, as he does, p. 89, that 
 a mere human Sad was aqyh xJV yC\\<Ti«c n 3-*, the Fa <* 
 ginning [or Head] of the Creation 0) God, Rev. ?, 14? 
 That it was Before the Creation of the World, p. 87, 89 > 
 Nay, that it had Glory with the Father before the Jfoild 
 wascreated. p. 47,87, Jo8> Was a Creature of Colow a 
 Species in the Scale of Beings, as an human Soul, made/>£- 
 fore Angels, thofe miming Stars, who fang together and 
 J/wutedforJoy, when the Foundations of the Earth were laid, 
 Job 38, 7 ? Is it not an infuperableDifficulty, to be kn- 
 eed to affirm, (p : 102.) that the Angel of God's Prefence, 
 who always fpoke in the Name of God; who faid, 
 Alls 7, 32 1 , J am the God of thy Father's-, and of whom 
 it is laid, or rather who faid, / fend an Angel before 
 thee, to keep thee in the iVay, and to bring thee into the 
 Place which I have prepared; Beware of him, and obey 
 his Voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your 
 Tranfgrejfions, for my JsJameisin him, Exod. 23 ; 20, 
 21 ; That this Perfon (I fay) was a mere human Soul, 
 (p. 65, 84,) not yet united to the Legos or 'Word ? 
 Or is it poffible to conceive, that Michael, the great 
 Piince which Jlandetb for the Children of thy People. Dan. 
 12 } I ; and who f ought againjl the Dragon ml his sin- 
 
( 7° ) 
 
 gels, Rev. 12. 7 j who is called Jehovah, Jude 9, 
 compared with Zechariah 3-, 1, 2: was a mere hu- 
 man Soul, without any Union, as yet, to the xo>©- > 
 $thly. What a ftrange Form of Expreifion doth the 
 Author to the Hebrews, ch. 1, make ufe of, upon 
 This Scheme ? in One Verfe fpeaking of one Perfon, 
 and in the fame of Another, and then returning again, 
 to the firft, without any the leaft Hint of fuch Tran- 
 fitions? God hath in thefe laft Days fpoken unto us by his 
 Son, whom he hath appointed Heir of all Things, by whom 
 alfo he made the Worlds, ver. 2 : Is it not unaccountable 
 (i fay J that the Words, His Son whom he hath appoint" 
 edHdr of all Things, fhould be meant of the mere Man, 
 p. 1 5; %-, and that the very next Words, Ji 5 kai, by whom 
 ALSO he made the Worlds, fhould relate to quite another 
 Perfon, p. 2 16 5 without any Hint of Tranfition, and 
 directly contrary to the Senfe of the Word, K*i) 
 And that the very next Words, ver. 3, Who being 
 J (A'ra.vyar^ut r»t Jc&f, )y X A &-AM ™ f vis or (Laws dvjx, <p--- 
 ppfjiTatrclrT*,) the Brightnefs of his Glory, and the ex- 
 prefs Image of his Perfon, and upholding all Things by the 
 Word of his Tower, ihould again b§ fpoken of the 
 pnere Man Jefus Chrift, p. 17 3 ? So that the Apoftle, 
 in Expreffions which feem manifeftly all along to 
 concern one Perfon and but One, muft be underftpod 
 to fpeak of mere Man, and then of the Very God, and . 
 then of the mere Man again in one Breath, fo confufed- 
 ly, that any one who judges of the Meaning of a 
 ? Place by considering its Conftru&ion, cannot but 
 miftake I We have another Inftance of the very 
 fame Confulion, in the Dr's Interpretation of ver. 8, 
 and ytb. The Words -, Thy Throne, God, is >, or 
 (as the Hebrew and Greek will naturally bear J God 
 is [the Support of] thy Throne for ever and ever, a Scep- 
 tre of Righteoafnefs is the Sceptre of thy Kingdom 5 Thefe 
 Words are manifeftly, fays the Dr, io be under flood of 
 %he felf -exigent God, p. 31, 196: But then the very 
 Siext Words, v. 9, Thou haft loved f&ighteovfnefs and 
 
 hated 
 
C 7O 
 
 hated Iniquity j therefore God, even thy God, hath anoint- 
 ed thee, &c. thefe are meant of the mere Man, they 
 relate to Chrijl\ Humanity, p. 1516, ?2, 33, 34, 3? $ 
 and this without any the leait Hint of Transition 
 from one Subject to another. 
 
 Nor are thefe the only Places where Dr Benvet {% 
 forced to recur to thefe ftrange and groundlefs Tran- 
 sitions. He finds himfelf under a Neceffity of affirm- 
 ing that the Words, Col. 1, 15, Who is ImSv 7$ do^r* 
 fS-gK and ir r aTQ-nw>s rrdovt K7i<Fia<, the Image of the inviji- 
 hie God, the frfi-born of every Creature, are fpoken of 
 a mere human Soul. Or the Latter of theie Phrafes he 
 treats, p. 89 j Of Both together, p. 170, 171. 
 ChrifVs human Soul (it feems) is the Image of God, be- 
 caufe it did in old Times perfoliate the divine Mafefly, 
 and becaufe The MANCbriJl jfefus does now exenije 
 God's Dominion over the whole Creation. And he is the 
 Firjl-born of every Creature, becaufe his human Soul was 
 created before all other Creatures, and becaufe he is vxw 
 inflated in the aBual Foffeffwn of the Jus ftimogenitj. Yet 
 the very next Words, o-n tvdvrS for by him were all 
 things created, are to be underftood of quite another 
 Perfon, even of the J elf -exiftent God, p. 186. And 
 this again, without any the kaft Hint of Tranfition. 
 Nay, and St Paul mnjk give this too as a Reafon: 
 HE [the human Soul] was the Image of the invifble 
 Godf the Firjl-born of every Creature, on BECAUSE by 
 Qtfin or thro') him [viz. by or thro" the fupreme God] were 
 'all Things created. What a Reafon is this -, The human 
 Soul of Chrijl is the Image of God, BECAUSE God crea- 
 ted all Things ? Let any Man that has a Tafi of that Apo* 
 Jlle'sStrengtb andMajefly of Stile upon other Occafwns fudge 
 whether he could upon thisfublime Argumert write fo unlike 
 himfelf; as the Dr fays upon another Oecafion, p. 70. 
 
 6thly. Dr Bennet affirms, that The Man Chrifl J c f m 
 doth aftually exercife a-ab^* t»<t h'ovmi, the Fullnefs of 
 the Godhead, Col. 2, 9, at pvefent, in thz vwft amph 
 Marnier, as GVs Vicegerent in his Kingdom of the 
 
 F 4 Creation 1 
 
( 7* ) 
 
 Creation, p. T72. 'Tis then no more than a mere hw 
 wan Soul, that now enjoys the fuhefs of divine Domi- 
 nion 5 that at prej'ent is God's Vicegerent, the Governor 
 cf all created Beings, p. 171. Which if it be true 5 how 
 much more juft is the Socinian Hypothecs, which ne- 
 yer at all introduces a &$°s <*>*° y.»x (ti " i 'hut acknowledges 
 the Man Chrift Jefus capable of all Things, and actu- 
 ally doing all Things ? Is not That lefs irrational, 
 than to imagine, firft a Prsexifting Soul, then That 
 Soul united to Somewhat which never influenced it at 
 all during its State upon Earth ; and then laftly, this 
 Soid alone being again God's Vicegerent over the Uni- 
 verfe. 
 
 Laftly, This Learned Writer contends, pag. 70, 
 that the Words ivwm £21? vn-drxav* being in the Form 
 Pf> cr perjunatwg God, and being V* £<-*> as God, or 
 ( as we render the Phrafe) equal to God, Phil. 2, 6, 
 are meant of the mere humane pneexifting Soul, p. 68, 
 78 •, without any Union, as yet, to the *°'y@-, p. 65, 
 J84 : And profeffes himfelf amazed to think that this 
 Jixpcfnion has net been univerfally given by all the Patrons 
 of the Orthodox Dofirine'of the Trinity. And yet 'tis 
 ta6t, I believe, that it never was once given by any 
 one Man, in any Age, from the Apoftles to this Day ^ 
 Kor, I am fully perfwaded. will ever be given by 
 Any One Man after him. 
 
 Thefc Difficulties, I think, are altogether infupe- 
 rable in Dr. Bennett Scheme. But now if Chrift, be# 
 fore his Incarnation, was a Perfon of far fuperior Dig-' 
 nity, as Dr. Clarke's Opinion is ^ if he was a divine 
 Feifon, fuperior to all, except the Father who fent 
 him ; there are then no fuch unaccountable Tranfiti- 
 ons from one Perfcn to another, as Dr. B. is forced to 
 conceive, without any the leaft Hint or Ground from 
 Scripture *, nor indeed any difficulty at all in any of 
 |.hefe Texts. For, 
 
( 7 3 ) 
 
 •jjf. Why is it not as poffible, that the fame Perfon 
 who is ftiled the Angel of God's Prefence, and by whom 
 Dr. Bennet allows that the World was governed from 
 the Beginning, and Mankind redeemed in thefulnefs 
 of Time, mould be the infhumental Caufe by whom 
 God formed the World at the Mofaick Creation-, as ', 
 that the Man Jefus Chrift mould be <br«.vyA<xiJ.u. tvs 
 fofyn, ya^LX-ln? T " $ uVo7<*Vsfi>? <*V/<?„ q>i§av ra- >ua.'v}ct, the ■ 
 fplendor of God's Glory, the exprefs Image of his Perfon or 
 Subftance, and upholding all things, (or, as 9*s<»v ought 
 to be rendred in this Place, governing all things? p. 
 173.) 2dly. Why could not the fame Perfon, who is 
 allowed to be vwToloKot na<rns *7jV««$ the firjl-born of 
 'every Creature, and to have had Glory with God before the 
 World was, p. 47, 87, 108 ; be He by or through whom 
 ■&T*i ettSvasiiromes he made alfo the World? 5. Why 
 might not y-°wij &**> the Form of God, which Dr B. al- 
 lows that Chrift left at the Incarnation, include That 
 Glory or Dignity which he had with the Father be- 
 fore the World was, ("which Glory, what was it but 
 his Injlrumeritality in the Creation > ) as well as That 
 Glory which he had in the Space from the Creation to 
 the Incarnation, p. 77, 78 ? Nay, St. Paul argues ac- 
 cordingly in that Paifage to the Philipyians ; extend- 
 ing «o'?« 9e« the form of God, to every thing in which 
 Chrift had acted as God, whether it were creating the 
 World, or perfonating God afterwards. 4. When St. Paul 
 fays, E$. 1, 9, God created all things by JcfisCuift -, 
 is it not much more intelligible to underftand 
 that he did it by That Perfon, whom Dr. Bennet allows 
 to have prseexifted before his Incarnation ; nay, and 
 to have had Glory with the Father before, the World 
 was^ than that the Father created it by or through 
 himfelf or by or through himfelf dwelling in Chrift Jeffs? 
 I fay, By or Through -, For fo Yis in the Paifages cited 
 by Dv Bennet, p. 164, 166, 181. Hew it happen'd that 
 this Learned Author (not agreeably to his ufual Can- 
 four) has never once taken notice of this, which all 
 
 the 
 
( 74 ; 
 
 the Greek Fathers in all Ages have .uniformly done, 
 vi%, that h and JW exprefs the Instrumental Caufe 
 by or through whom •, 1 know not. But he has con- 
 jfontly confounded the Injlmmentd with the Primary 
 or ejficievt Caufe, in his way of ExpreiTion ^ (Seepag. 
 182,188.) Nay, his Argument abfolutely requires 
 this Ccnfufion. For he argues to this effect: : Becaufe 
 .all things were made by the Word, and all things 
 were made by the felfexiitent or Very God, Therefore 
 the Word is the one j elj exiflent Being, p. 181, &c. And 
 what is ftill lefs fuitable to his ufual Fairnefs, he fays 
 (p. 1 82,18^,) The Word created all Things : Which crea* 
 tioji of all Tkijigs, had been conjiantly attributed to the One 
 felfexifient Being in both the old and new Tejiament, and 
 was become the confiant and known CharaBer of the one 
 felfexijlevt Being: And, p. 182, T« notorious*', that the 
 CHURCH COULD NOT hit under fand St 
 John to mean, that the Wordis the one f elf exijlent Being : 
 This I fay, is fo unfuitable to the Doctor's ufual Fairr 
 nefs, that the direct: contrary to thefe AfTertions is 
 known by every Learned Man to be true: The Di- 
 ftinction of efficient and inftvumental Caufe, has perpetu^ 
 ally been made by the CHURCH ; and Biihop Bullhas 
 at large fhown, that the Church never did nor could 
 understand it as Dr. Bennet does. The Doctor produces 
 indeed (p. 187,) in favour of his Opinion, the Pat 
 fage /to;. 4. 10, it, Thou art worthy, Lord, to re" 
 ceive Glory and Honour and Power •, for thou haft created 
 allthings,andforthy Pleafure (<?t&7o SiMpae*) they are, 
 and were created. This he thinks applicable, as if it 
 were a like manner of fpeaking to that in John 1,3. 
 Whereas on the contrary, <JW tj «3-saw^« <?*, for thy own 
 Pleafure, and whatever expreilions are fynonymous 
 to this, are always applied to the Father -, and the Son 
 is never reprefented either in Scripture or Antiquity, 
 as acting for his own, but his Father's Pleafure: 
 As that large Collection of Texts and Authorities, 
 &*de by Dr. Clarke in his Notes on the 3 6th Propor- 
 tion. 
 
( IS ) 
 
 tion, plainly demonftrates. The One Text, which 
 Alon3 in the whole New Teftament has any appear- 
 ance of Similitude to Dr. Sennet's manner of fpeaking, 
 is, Heb. 1,10, Thou , Lord, in the beginning haft laid the 
 Foundation of the Earthy and the Heavens aye the Works 
 of thy Hands : But this is explained by the Apoftle him- 
 felf in fuch a manner in this very Chapter, as to re- 
 move all manner of Difficulty -, Ver. 2, ai * xj, By 
 or Through whom alfo he made the Worlds. 
 
 I cannot therefore but conclude, that That Perfon 
 who praeexifted before his Incarnation, and was then 
 •made Flejl), was not a mere human Soul, of the fame 
 Species with ours •, but a much fuperior Perfon, even 
 He whom St. John calls The Word, or MefTenger of 
 the Father, who was in the Beginning with God. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Of the Ao>©- or Word mentioned by St. John. 
 Whether it was a real Perfon, the Perfon of 
 our Saviou rpraexi fling before his Incarnation^ 
 or whether it means only fomewhat Qncertum 
 quid) belonging to God the Father, and fu~ 
 per added to the Man Jefus Cbriji at the Time 
 pf his Conception, 
 
 ( A S nothing has led Men into more Miftakes in 
 -/* their Notions of the Trinity, than wrong Ex- 
 plications of the 1 Ch. of St. John's Gofpel • fo none 
 ieem to have err'd more widely from the Point, tha^ 
 thofe who have taken the Logos or Word, not for the 
 Title or Character of a Perfon, but for Reafon or Wif- 
 dom in the Abftracl. Thefe effeSually deftroy the Tri- 
 nity, by making it only a Trinity of Names, A Tri- 
 nity 
 
r 7* ) 
 
 nity of Modes, is indeed nothing different from one 
 of Names only. And a Trinity of Somewhats, which 
 together conftitute the whole Divine Nature or Ejfence j 
 each of which Somewhats are really dijlinci, p. 216, and 
 yet each of them is The one felfexiftent Being, p. 
 184,- 197, 255 ; and yet again, each of them is only 
 conjlifiitive of the felfexiftent Being, p. 217 ; This is fo 
 far from having any foundation in Scripture, and is 
 fo wholly unintelligible, that I cannot but wonder 
 how a Man of Dr. Bennetts Abilities could fall into it. 
 For, 
 
 Fir ft. According to Dr. B. the Word was certainly 
 not iucai rate at all. nor was there any real Condefcenfion 
 hi him ; but ( as the Dr. elfewhere expreflfes himlelf, 
 p. 149, ) only a Train of falfe Appearances ; And this 
 for the plain Reafon which the Dr. himfelf ailigns, 
 ( in the very Sentence before he fays that the Word 
 was certahu) incarnate, p. 73,) viz. becaufe That Being, 
 cf which St. Paul affirms that 'twas sK.uoppH 9r« and fr* 
 S« ", and afterwards emptied and debafed itfelfby Incarna- 
 tion,— was net the Word, if the Word be the very God. 
 Now the Word being conceiv'd by him to be the very 
 God, 'tis plain that the Word did net empty or debafi 
 itfelf. Accordingly he contends, thatThat Text, Phil 
 2, 7, L*«wt» tavTw \he emptied himfelf ^\ cannot be mtde>- 
 ficod of the Word at all, p. 74-82 : Which yet, as I 
 have already (hewn, is certainly meant of the Logos 
 or Word -, and never was underftood otherwife by any 
 Chriftian Writer.but fuch as whollydenied ChrifVs Pras- 
 exiftence. New St. John faying exprefly that the Word 
 was made FleJI), (not, m human Soul was made Fkft) :, ) 
 and St. Paul afferting that Cbrijf, being rich, for our 
 fakes became poor, 1 Cor. 8, 10 •, and again, he emp- 
 tied himfelf 'of the Glory he had ^ 3 Tis plain the Word 
 muft be a real Perfon, who did, as the Scriptures affaire 
 us, fuch and fuch perfonal Actions. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
C 77 ) 
 
 Secondly, The Reafon of the very Name A$>©-,7/W, 
 is, inDr. B\ way, altogether unaccountable.- In Dr. 
 Clarke's, 'tis eafy and natural. He is ° a6>©-, becaufe 
 he does ^w; he does, as Revealer, Lawgiver, and 
 Judge, [Patris Voluntatem, Jus, Sententiam Dicere,~\ 
 declare the Will, the Laws, the Sentence of his Father. 
 
 From the Beginning he did declare and reveal the 
 Father's Will Dr. B. indeed decries this,p. 242 5 and 
 fays, It does not appear that the Word was from the Be- 
 ginning the Revealer 0} God's Will to the World. And 
 p. 72, he raifes a Cavil from St Peter's afTerting, that 
 Chrifi went and preached to the Spirits in Prifon in the 
 days o/Noah, by the Spirit, 1 Pet. a> 1 8,. 19, 20. From 
 Which Text he endeavours to infer, that, not the Word, 
 but a mere Humane Soul, was in Antient times the Re- 
 vealer of God's Will. But his Argument from that 
 Text, I have already anfwered above, CZ?. III. On 
 the other lide-, that the Word really was an Intelligent 
 urgent or Perfon, called by That Title on account of 
 his Revealing the Will of God from the Beginning ^ 
 appears, net only from the natural fignification of the 
 Term itfclf, but alfo from the aftual life of it in that 
 Senfe, among the moft Ancient Writers. Philo, p. 71, 
 fpeaks of him thus : e ° a6>©- a tS de« vv^dyti *mT?c 
 ken T» xoct/wk, $ •7rei<r@v'lcLl@ vZv oita y'tyovz, The Logos, 
 TheWoiAofGod, is above all the World, and the moll 
 Antient of all things that were produced. And in the 
 fame Page, he mentions rh *yy e -hov U \a-n \by®- y the 
 Angel who is the Word: And again, t*V *w*m< £ Koy*c 
 dvji, his Angels and Words : And again, fi& ft ayyi^ay 
 *j hiyup, by his Angels and Words, ibid. Lib. 2, Allego- 
 riarum. [Like to which, is that exprefllon in the firft 
 Book of Efdras, ch. 1, 24 \ The Words of the Lord, °t 
 hoyoi 7a Kvf U, rofe up againjl Ifrael.~] In his Book de 
 Somniis, p. 455, he gives to Angels in general the 
 Kame of *-h*< '■ Not, fays he, that God, who knows all 
 things before-hand, jlands in need of Any that jlwuldjlww 
 him any thing, [He is fpeaking of Angels, who t*< 
 
 t* 
 
C 78 ) 
 
 T? Ttfloc-s iTiKitevtrW T5/V iKyiyoi;, x}tw< ruv liywuv XS'-' 1 *-* 
 T*> 'Bttld frvfri»Moit carry the Commands of the Father to 
 his Children, ard the Nece$ties of the Children to the Fa- 
 ther t i but, •** Ts/f i-ziKiizpis ny.1v m/vbaje, puff trait x) 
 fd+tjwjais Koyus &««-£«<, becaafe 'tis good for is Mortals to 
 make ufe of Words (i. e. Angels) as Mediators and Arbiters: 
 In oppofition to v, hich corrupt Judaical Notion, St 
 Paul declares, that to us Chriftians there is but O NE 
 Mediator. In the fame Book, p. 463, He fays, the 
 World is God's Temple, \v « x) tt?%iiftv( c Tpv}c,yov& dw 
 tp c£&- ao>©- ? jg jpfcfcfc his frji begotten divine Word 
 is Hi J) trieft. Now Fhilo being a Writer of the fame 
 Age, tho' he is not a Rule to interpret St Jo/^m, yet 
 he fhows how in all probability, and by Analogy, 
 Chriftians would in Thofe days underftand the facred 
 Writers, when they ftiled our Saviour • >i>©- The 
 Jford.They mud: needs underftand That Term of a real 
 Terf n. Nor cou'd any one pollibly conceive otherwife, 
 who compared Md. 2, 1, in the LXX, with Gal. 4, 
 
 145 Behold, (fays the Prophet)/ fend my Angel ^ • 
 
 and the Lord whom ye feek, jball come into his own Tem- 
 ple :, and the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye defire. Ts 
 boRje receivd me, (Tays the Apoftle) as the Angel of 
 God, at Chi if ftfus. In the fame manner alfo Juftin 
 
 Ma't\:\ p. 2 5 c,.\6y:y K*.\&<?tr,z<&ei<y-n *} T*t ^ra.^ r» T2<s?\e}i 
 ourr.ixi ce?« Tt1< eV9? airii(,T})ey callbim }_ChnQT\ ffoWord, 
 Lccaufe he in ;?.^D:lcourfes (Declarations or Commands ) 
 fromthe Father to Men. I am fenftble that Jv.fin is 
 here fpeaking of the Opinion of Others: But this is 
 not cne of the Particulars wherein he differs from 
 them : As is moft evident through his whole Book, 
 and particularly from a Paffage in his Second Apology, 
 p. 6j, ** ^* <£ '^'^ *&&. T»/r toivfo yivan» yiyv.-.t- 
 «&#/ dvl v iii. -3-s* tiycuzy \oyoy £«*, — y. tutor t*to \su vyiiv 
 To/> 70? '%/.»? Kayw rop <s-a.££ £jb e.y y i?^t%.v hky\s7iv •, If 
 
 tpefay th.it the Word was in a peculiar manner begotten of 
 God, md not in the way that other things are ■ this woud 
 be but the fame thing as you your f elves teach, who call 
 
 Mer- 
 
C 19 ) 
 
 Mercury the Word which carries MeiTages/mw GoL 
 Which laft Words by the way, [roU r %»e, &c. 
 who call Mercury, &c] on which the whole Strefs lies, 
 are omitted by Bifhop Bull in citing this PafTage, 
 Sett. 2. cap. 4. § 2. Thus too Iren&us, lib. 2, c. 55, 
 1 Pater Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti, per verbum fuum, 
 4 qui eft Filius ejus, per Eum revelatur & manifefatur 
 ' omnibus, quibus revelatur : Cognofcunt enim eum hi, 
 
 ' quibus revelaverit Filius \ Angelis & Archange- 
 
 ' lis, & Poteftatibus, & Virtutibus, & omnibus Ho- 
 ' minibus : " The Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift 
 is revealed and made marafef to all to whom he is reveal' 
 edi by his Word, who is his Son. For They know him, 
 
 to whomsoever the Son reveals him, to Angels, ami 
 
 Archangels, and Principalities and Towers, and to all 
 Men. Thus likewife, to cite no more, Ath snafus, 
 
 contra gentes h *by@-, fays he, rS UvV TUtty* 'Ep- 
 
 umzvi x) "AyycKo( y The Word, wlw is the Interpreter anl 
 Angel of his Father. As therefore St. Paul, 1 Cor. 1, 24, 
 calls Chrift The Power and Wifdom of 'God 5 fa St. John 
 ftiles him The Word of God: Neither of them in the 
 abftraB, but concrete Senfe. And this likewife is the 
 meaning of that expreflion, John 1.18, ay \n rl v k'ok- 
 rrot, admitted, received INTO , the Father's Bofom* 
 as his Great b«a«/J^ or Zounfellor, If.g,6^ knowing 
 the Father's iWill fo as no one elfe does, in order to 
 reveal it, Matt. 11, 27. Dr B. indeed, p. 121, very 
 fingularly, would fain have That Text in John 1,18, 
 to be underftood of ChrinYs State after the Incarnation: 
 But it certainly means Before it : For it relates to the 
 lowers andAbilities he had to declare the Will of God, 
 which he did both before and when he was made Man. 
 And here I can't but obferve that the Words are, i« 
 hoktov, Into (not In) the Bofom of the Father. Which 
 Two though Dr B. confounds, p. 69, 86 5 yet Dr 
 Clarh has mown (againft Mr. Nelfons Friend, p. 94,) 
 that 6/? and *r cannot be fo confounded. To the In- 
 ftances by him alledged, I add : 'as fa hMmm n 4>vyj ^ » 
 
 Cm 
 
( So ) 
 
 (in »bon my Soil is veil pleafed,) is literally, On whoirt 
 •my Afeaion is placed: And, sif *y&r &r, Mark 12. 
 Jt is in the Field) literal \y means, is gone htti 
 Field. Not I believe with Dr Clarke) is one Word e- 
 verput for<« in any Language; As any Man 
 
 may lee. by trying it in his own native Language. 
 But this by the way. Now, as the Fhrafe, 'm mix-r* 
 im rra^ii. being in (or received into) the Bcfom of the 
 i . r8 •- Co like wife That other Phrafe, the 
 Son of Man which is in h oh. 2. i?, iignifies 
 
 and having commiflton to declare the Father's 
 ing aito Ai thorns and a Power oi Judging. 
 s Place, compared with Matt. 
 24, :c. certainly means and refers to (what Dr Clarke 
 feems to have milled) Him who is defcribed Dan. 7 5 
 13,14, I Jam— as one like the Son of Man c 
 
 with the Clouds of H-: t of 
 
 . — and there was given him Dominion and G 
 
 To proceed therefore. With regard particular!;' 
 this Power of Judging, and giving Sentence, and exe- 
 £•.:- Sentence, He is ftiled *•>©■ The Jf'ord, Rev. 
 1 r. 1 : . which Pa/Tage you cite, nag. 170 •?) f m 
 
 def bis Mouth, vet. 15 and 21. Out of 
 his . J , ch. 1. 
 
 ch. 2- i:. an ... 12. an n. 1. In which 
 
 laft Texts tie R .: of bis Month, is, in the LXX, * 
 ts" rcua'e- i the Word 0/ bii JUoiftfc. 
 
 If wefuppofe now our Saviour to be a real Per 
 thus --ing the Will of God, and executing 
 
 jftice upon Mankind, 'tij very natu- 
 ral and eafy to account for his Name , The *h : 
 
 altogether unintelligible upon Dr B r s 
 Scheme: And indeed the Prdexifting humane S ul 
 the nd ought to have been fo ftiled, if 
 
 Learned Author's Notion was true. 
 
 St Johns Exprellion. ch 1. t. that the 
 V.": . that he was apud, 
 
 wa9 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 was prefent with God •, {hows that the Word was" riot 
 fomethivg conjlitutive of and ejfevtial to God the fa* 
 ther, but that he was a real dijtinft Perfon. Efpe- 
 cially feeing the Apoftle repeats again this and other 
 Perfonal '. haracier's, wr. 2, 3, The fame was in the Be- 
 ginning with fwas prefent with) God-, All things were 
 made By [or Through] him.) Ver. 14. he was made Fleffii 
 cip% lyivijd. And ver. it, He came unto his own, In r& 
 ^;t*«^s; compared with Dan. 12* 1. Nor is that 
 Objection which Dr B. has ftarted, p. too, of any" 
 force-, viz. that £*i euiStt©-, Eternal Life, 1 jfafe. 1, 2, 
 is faid to have been *es* * *<&S&« [apud,] prefent with 
 the Father : For the Life there mentioned, is Chrift* 
 whom the Apcftle declares to have been with God, 
 and to have been made manifeft to us. 
 
 Fourthly. The Words, ver. 3, cfi dun vdfaiyMli't 
 fnot only 'aflidn were created, but* ly\vi}o 3 ) a ll things 
 were tranfatfed by bim all along from thi 'Beginnings ma- 
 mTeftly mow the *6>'©- to have been the fame Perfon 
 as the Angel of God's Pre fence. 
 
 To examine now the Proofs which Dr Bemtet brings 
 for his Notion-, viz. that the// "ord is fomething ejfevtial 
 to and covfiitutive of the very God] and not a realdiJIM 
 Perfon. And here, 
 
 Firft\ His great Proof from thofe Words of St. 
 Johri, ch. 1 , 1 , The Word was God, is very weak. For 
 the thing he has endeavoured to prove, is, p. 182,190, 
 that the ° ke& jpftfc whom the J^orJ was, and the 9««? 
 which is ffo Word, mean the fame Individual; which 
 even upon his own Hypothecs, it cannot do. For 
 then either, if • &*i< be the Father of Chrift the x&9>@* 
 being 9*o«, mult be the Father too • or, if • *•*$ be the 
 Father including the Word and Spirit^ the toy©- being 
 the fame Individual, miift include the Trinity too* 
 But to pafs by this. The Argument urged by this reve- 
 rend Author, to prove that the Word is the very Qod,zn& 
 not a realPerfon diftintl: from the Father, is his being 
 t*Wd 4W? Qok KoW if the Angel in the Old Tefta- 
 
C 8a ) 
 
 ment, (whom the Dr fuppofes to be the prsexifting Soul 
 of Chrift J conftantiy fpake in the name or God, or 
 perfonated God, (as he allows too,) and was (p. 6%) 
 h pow.i 9;k in the form of God , was That vijible Perfon 
 who is There conftantiy ftiled God., {and particularly 
 Zech. 3 ■, i,2, compared with Juie 9, where the fame 
 &rfon is exprefly ftiled both The Angel of the Lord, and 
 Jehovah ; ) Then why might not St. John fay of him 
 alio, in the very fame Senfe of his perfonativg God, 
 ot th$iU> that he WAS That vifible Perion who had 
 appeared in the Name, and under that Character of 
 GOD, and $>' § Tj^vToi e-yeveto £ji whom all things had 
 been tranfafted from the Beginning? Lither therefore 
 The Word may be a real Perfon, diftindt from the 
 very God with whom he was 5 or elfe the prasexifting 
 Soul of Chrift, who is call'd God in the Old Tefta- 
 ment, may, by the fame way of arguing that the Dr 
 has ufed, be proved to be the very God, 
 
 Secondly. The Text from St. Paul, 1 Tim. 2, <), There 
 is One God, and One Mediator between God and Men, the 
 Man Cbrijijefusi alledged, pd£. t 91, to prove that the 
 Word is the very God 5 is directly againft the Dr. For 
 if the Perfon mediated to, be the Perfon of the Fa- 
 ther only, (as St. John alTures us, 1 Joh. 2, 1, We have 
 an Advocate with the Father, Jefiis Chrift • ) then the 
 One God here, cannot include the Word, unlefs the 
 Word be the Father. 
 
 Thirdly. His next Text is, Heb. I, 10, Thou, Lord, 
 hi the beginning haft laid the foundations of the Earth, and 
 t the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands. But the mean- 
 ing of this, has been above coniidered already. 
 
 Thefe are the oflfyPaflages produced by Dr Bennetm 
 That Chapter,in which he attempts to prove the Wordto 
 be the very God. But becauf e he has in other Places in- 
 terfperfed Texts of Scripture, which he judges to make 
 for this purpofe 5 I fhall conlider Them too, after ha- 
 ving obferved that he no where mentions Rom. 9, 5, 
 Who is over all, God blejfedfor ever : Ngr 1 Job. 5, 20, 
 
 This 
 
c 8 ? ; 
 
 This is the true God, and eternal Life : Nor AUs 20, 28, 
 To feed the Church of God, which he hath purchafed with 
 his own Blood . Nor, laftly, That remarkable Paflage, 
 I John 5, 7, 7 here are three that bear Record in Hea* 
 ven, the Father, the Wdrd, and the Holy Ghoft, and 
 thefe three are one. I doubt not but he omitted the 
 three firft of thefe Texts, as knowing they wou'd not 
 make for his purpofe •, and the Lajl, as being fully 
 convinced that it is Spurious. 
 
 But the following Text, 1 Tim. a, 16, God was 
 manifejl in the Fief), jitjlified in the Spirit, feen of Angels i 
 ■preached ithto tJy Gentiles, believed on in the World, re- 
 ceived up into Glory • he has cited no leis than Six 
 times, p. 35, 78, 164, 165, 189, 190 •, and 'frequent- 
 ly argues from it, without ever once taking the leaf! 
 Notice, f which is not agreeable to his ufual Candor) 
 that J tis certainly corrupt : The Word 6ec<; God, being 
 not cited by any Greek Writer before the 5 th, per- 
 haps not before the 6th Century. For tho 1 it is in the 
 Text of fome Greek Fathers, yet their Comment {hews 
 it to be corrupt. The two Places cited by Dr Mills, in 
 his Appendix, in fayour of the modern Reading, are, 
 one of them out of a piece of Athanafus, acknow- 
 ledged to be fpurious : And the Other out of Juftin 
 Martyr, proves diredly the contrary to what he 
 brings it for •, mewing clearly that 6e<k was not in 
 the Text. But neither This Text being urged for 
 the prefent purpofe, I pafs to 
 
 Heb. 1, 8, "Thy Throne, OGod, is for ever and ever, 
 a Sceptre of Righteovfnefs is the Sceptre of thy Kingdom, 
 p. 196. This, the Dr thinks, relates to the Divini- 
 ty ^ of Chrift j and that, being fpoken by the Pfalmift 
 of the felfexijlent God it fhews the Son of God or the 
 *oy@- muft be the felf-exifmt God. But this PaiTage 
 being fpofcen of One, whom (in the next Verfe) God 
 even His God, had exalted :, 'tis evident that God in 
 the 8tb Verfe, can't mean the fame Perfon with God 
 in the $tb } fince'One was the God of the other. Not to 
 G 2 take 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 take Notice here, that both the Greek and Hebrew will 
 bear another Rendring, very commonly taken Notice 
 of by Interpreters , God is [the Support of] thy " 
 Throne for ever and ever, &c. Which entirely takes a- 
 w'ay the Objection. 
 
 John 20, 28, My Lord and my God', is cited by the 
 Dr, p. % T)Oj as implying that Chrift is there alTerted to 
 be the Very God. But upon his own Principles, this 
 PafTage can do him no Service. For he acknowledges 
 in the very preceding Page that xvebave no Proof ', (no, 
 not even from his Raifing himfelf to Life,) that ever 
 the Word exerted itfelf before ChriJFs Afcenfwn. Yet 
 we find St Thomas ftiles him God, even before his Af- 
 cenfion. To prevent this Difficulty ^ he Prefumes 
 p. 150, that now was the Time in which our Saviour 
 did reveal to his Apoftles his divine Nature, and the Ex- 
 cellency of hislPerfon. And indeed this is but Prefuming, 
 without offering any Colour of Reafon. For we find 
 no Footfteps of* any fiich Thing Now, more than Be- 
 fore h excepting This only, That he now declares al 
 Fewer to be given him in Heaven and in Earth -, Which 
 yet the Dr under {lands of his human Nature. What 
 Ground therefore is there for the following AfTertion, 
 p. 262, Chrijl is not called our God in Scripture upon any 
 other Account, but that of his Divine Nature the Word 
 being perfonally united to the human Nature? What 
 Ground (I fay) is there for this, if St. Thomas calFd 
 him, my God, without knowing any Thing of his divine. 
 Nature, That not being yet revealed > 
 
 There remains, I think, but one Argument more to 
 be confidered upon this Head ; viz. that if the a6>©- 
 in St John means a real Perfon, there will then be Two 
 Gods. But this deferves to be confidered diftin&ly in 
 its proper Place •, Ch. 12. 
 
 And now when I look back upon the Whole of 
 what this learned Author has faid on this Head,! 
 cannot but profefs my felf aftomihed to find him in 
 his Preface declaring himfelf Sure, that the Confub- 
 
 ftantia 
 
C *y ) 
 
 ftantial Divinity of our Lord is fo plainly taught in Scrip- 
 ture, that he woud admit any Hypothefs, provided it were 
 barely pojfible, rather than deny it: And again., p. 74, 
 That the Evidence of that Truth (viz. that the Word is 
 the very God) is fo great, that It obliges us to admit any 
 other pojfible Expoftion, than fuch a one as ailerts that 
 the Word is inferior to the very God: And p. 117, that 
 the^mrt Myjlery of the Union of the divine and human 
 Natures is fo fully revealed to us in the Floly Scriptures. 
 I fay, I cannot but be amazed at thefe Profejjlo' s, 
 when I find that throughout Dr Bennetts whole Book, 
 there is not one Word faid by him, but what entirely 
 takes away the Notion of Conjubjlantiality. What He 
 (in #75 Scheme,) calls the Divinity and divine Nature of 
 Chrift, he has founded wholly indeed upon that jingle 
 Text, John 1,1. And yet, by affirming that Chriil 
 in his praexiftent State, appeared \v y.o^ £*?, perfo- 
 rating the invifbh God j he has {hewn planly how 
 That Text of St John may very naturally be otherwiie 
 interpreted ; and in what Senfe the Evangelijl alfo, as 
 well as the old Tejl anient, might ftile him 0g s : And 
 by this Means he gives up his whole Scheme. But 
 fuppofing the Text to be underft'ood never fo much in 
 DrBennef's own Way,yet he fo interprets it, as evident- 
 ly to make the a5>©-, not 0^2*77©- confubjianfial, but 
 Txvnitn©- or (xt>vo»<n@- identical with the Father. I re- 
 fer the Reader to Bp. Bull^ or Dr Cudworth, for the 
 Meaning of o^o«<n©- -, it being beyond Difpute pro- 
 ved by them to fignify, not Identity, but Confiibfiantt- 
 alty. But Dr B. by His Scheme, has made the ao>©- 
 identical with the Father, direftly contrary to the Ni~ 
 cene Creed. Nor doth he at all make him fas that 
 Creed does) Qthf \k Qi* God of God, or* the only begot- 
 ten Son of God, or begotten of the Father before all A- 
 ges or Worlds. For tho' in Words he freely grants the 
 Truth of what our Divines n fit ally call the eternal Genera- 
 tion of the Word or divine Nature of our Lord, p. j$i • 
 yet inTiuth he denies it, by clearly taking away all 
 
 G 3 the 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 the Proofs, and by denying exprefiy our Saviour to 
 have been the Son of God before his Incarnation, and 
 by making him indeed nothing but a mere Man in 
 and by whom God the Father manifefted his Power. 
 
 I grant that this Reverend Author, p. 217, en- 
 deavours to account for the eternal Generation of the 
 Word. But he does it in filch Terms, as are altoge- 
 ther inconiiftent both with Coyifuhflantiality, and alfo 
 (as it feems to Me) with common Senfe. As for the 
 eternal Generation of the Word, fays he -, Becaufe the 
 Word fubffts eternally (becaufe necejfarily) in God, not as 
 a iiMnft Being from God, but as one and the fame Being 
 with God -, and becaufe God (or That which, bejides the 
 Word and the Spirit, is in God or efjential to God) is all 
 along reprefented fo as that the Word is his, and he is 
 Hot the Word's ; therefore we think — that — fo MUCH 
 of the divine Nature or E (fence, as is not by any more 
 pa> tiaiar N>me dijfingmjbed in Scripture from the Word 
 and the Spirit, and which is conceiva by us as Prior in Or- 
 der of Qorif deration to both the Word and the Spirit, is 
 very propei ly term d the eternal Father of the Word. 
 
 Now what is This, but to maintain that the Son is 
 IaAq& tik -koiKc, only a Part-, SO MUCH of the 
 Subflance of Godj? The very Notion of Marcelhs ; 
 Who, tS evos 3s2 to ,ulv 77 wr^a tcchu, to ^ uiov 
 Gi>c ot)v3eto'v nvot ioixv \v i&vTGo ttvoa, called SO 
 MVCH of the one God, the Father, and SO MUCH 
 the Son, as if God was a Soi t of compound Subflance : 
 Enfebius, Eccles. Theol I. j, c. 5. A Notion fo ve- 
 ry irrational in Eufebiw's Opinion, that he fcruples 
 
 not to fay, 7n>aw j&eA-ricov 6 'l*<Aai(gH «r 'ivpc 6eov 
 
 » SW^cov e/s imfi^d Ral uiov, a<5V -r wutov u/07r^- 
 
 nigx yjcinx "£o;€fc,Vwov hoTtlycw -, How much better—— 
 is even the Jew, not dividhtg the One God into Father and 
 
 Son-, Hor introducing, as did Sabellius, the fame 
 
 individual as being both Father and Son ? ibid. Indeed, 
 3 twas in Gppojition to this particular Notion, that Eu- 
 febius wrote his Books again fi Alarcellus, and thofe 
 
 about 
 
C 87 ) 
 
 about the Notion taught hy the Qhrijlian Church concern- 
 ing God. So tar was he from thinking this Di ctrine 
 agreeable to the Meaning of £<*b&i(gr confubfiantial, 
 as fettled by the Council of Nice. 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Of Dr Bennet's Notion of the Qniefcence of 
 the K6y© , or Word. 
 
 AS this Notion, in the Manner 'tis here drefs'd up, 
 feems entirely New •, 'twill be neceffary to con- 
 fider what Principles the Dr here allows or takes for 
 granted, that we may the better judge of his Per- 
 formance in ! his Point. \ft. He fuppofes the Word 
 not to be a real Perfcn, but (in :-Eufilrittis Phrafe) 
 to /uuiv 7?, Something (incertum quid J belonging to 
 God, p. 217. 2dly, He fuppofes this Word, not to be 
 united to Chrift, all the Time that our Lord appear- 
 ed as the Angel of God's Pretence under the old 
 Teftament •, but that, when his Soul voluntarily became 
 Incarnate, 'twas [then] united to the Word it f elf, the 
 Creator of the Univerfe, p. 84 •, and in p. 6?, the fame 
 Notion thrice occurs. ?,dly, He fuppofes, that from the 
 Time of our Lord's Incarnation, even to his Afcen- 
 Jion, the Word was quiefcent-, We having no Proof 
 that the Word exerted himfelf before Chrift's Afctnfon, 
 p. 149. Lafily-, he fuppofes, that after his Refurrec- 
 tion, all Fewer in Heaven and Earth was given to him 
 that rofefrom the Dead, i. e. to the iWawJefus Chrift, 
 or, as the Dr exgreffes it, to his Humane Nature only, 
 the human Nature only being refpefted in the Exalta- 
 tion, (p. 29, 28, compared together.) 
 
 Thefe Things being fuppofed, 'tis very natural 
 kereto enquire, lji. When therefore did the ao,®- 
 
 G4 ki\> 
 
( §8 ) 
 
 a£t ? 'Twas only the human Nature of (Thrift that fuf 
 fered, and that acted : The Word, notwitb {landing the 
 perfonal Umop, did forbear to communicate his ey.tr aordi- 
 )>ia'>y Influences to our Saviour, more than to other Mortal* 
 who art vet pcrfonally united to the Word, p. 125. In 
 what Senfe then is this a perfonal Union * Or is it not 
 merely a Fiction, to imagine pergonal Union without 
 any h feels of fuch an Union? idly. 'Twas the Man 
 Jefus Chi ift that fufrered, that died, that was exalted, 
 that flail be our Judge, andis at prefent cur Mediator, 
 jp. 29. To him that is at prefent our Mediator, we are 
 required to give religious Adoration: ibid. : Twas the 
 Man that received all Power in Heaven and in Earth, 
 p. 26 5 and was enabled by God to bejlow his Bleffings up- 
 on his Church, p. 2%. The Human Mature only, was 
 made tjje Vicegerent of the very God over all created Be- 
 fvgst, p. 2$. Now of what Ufe then was this Union, 
 without fo much as one Inftance of Ailing in all the 
 Affair of Redemption ? The Man Jefus- Chrift does 
 every Thing -. mediates, intercedes, will judge, is ena- 
 bled to raife the Dead, p. 114.. To what End then 
 was the Union ? Or hew comes it, that in this par- 
 ticular Inftance QcA makes Ufe of two Perfons uni- 
 ted, to accompliih that which all along is perfor- 
 formedby One only. %dly, Dr B's Notion is exa&ly 
 the fame zsCerintbus.s , except that the Latter fuppo- 
 fed the At)©- to come upon Jefus at his Baptifm, 
 the Former at his Conception , and that Cerinthus fup- 
 pofed it was femetimes, Br Bennet thinks it highly 
 probable that it was totally, quiefcent during the Minipy^ 
 p. 146-, tho' he will not poji 'lively determine whether 
 3t was only fomeihnes or always quiefcent during that 
 Space ; ibid. You find Iraneus's Account of Cerinthus, 
 1. I , c. 2 $ , I'ojl Baptifmum defcendife in enm, ( hrif 
 tum \~ — infne autem revohjfe iterim Chriflmn de left, 
 & Jefiim pafjum ejfe & refurrexijje ; Chriflum av.tem im- 
 ■paflibikm perfverajfe. Ajter his Baptifn, Chrijl defend- 
 ed upon him ,— at lafl } Chriji withdrew again, from Jefus, 
 
 and 
 
C «9 ) 
 
 and Jefus fufered and rofe again-, hut Cbrtfi retnxhtel 
 impajjible. 
 
 The only Authority, upon which Dr Bennetts No- 
 tion and Language upon this Head is built, is a Jin- 
 gle Place of Ir&neus, 1. 3, c. 2». tiyitiz ><*<? Hi'j«fo(H>&* 
 ttc?, hex. to^aoV} k, st&> KoU A.oy(GK rcc ^acr^tf' KOt» 
 
 avG^Vce) tv 73/ vixav nai UTrofwvav, k«j xe^uecS-oa 
 K*i avis"«<jrSaj Hai <xv<xAa,uj£av£c\$<*\ For «j /?£ nws 
 Man, that be might he tempted •, fo was he the Word, 
 that he might he glorified: The Word indeed acquiefcing 
 vhen he was tempted, difgraced, crucified and dying ; but 
 ajffiing the Man in conquering, &c Now fo it happens, 
 that this very Pafiage is plainly againft Dr Bemtets 
 Notion ; becaufe it fuppofes the Word not to be con- 
 fiantly nor, generally nor at all (in Dr Bennetts Senfe) 
 quiefcent, but only acquiefcing or fubmitti ng in all the 
 Humiliation- Part, and exerting itfelf continually fev t&T 
 vjKav in all the victorious Part of our Lord's Life. 
 
 The Queftion is not, in the prefent Dilpute, whether 
 Iren&ms Opinion was right or not. But fince this 
 learned Author has built fo much upon it, I will 
 tranferibe feme PafTages, from whence 'twill evident- 
 ly appear how much That Father differs from Him. 
 
 Y> hoy(&> 78 0t9,-aw*e| i-yln-m not) t-Tp^t 1 ', The Word 
 of God was made FleJI), andfrjfered: lib. I, c.4. Ab* 
 enim Chri/his tunc defcendit fn lefnm ; tieq; alius quidem Cbri- 
 ftus y alius vero lefts -, fed Verhum Dei, qui ejl SalvaW om- 
 vium, & Dominator Cceli & Terra, qui eft lefts,— qui & 
 affumfit camem, & un&us eft a Pstre Spiritu, lefus Chriftus 
 f alius eft. For Chriftjdid not then defcend ypon Jefus, nor was 
 Omft one [Perfonl *nd Jefus another •, But the Word of 
 God, who is the Saviour of all, and the Ruler of Heaven 
 and Earth, who is Jefus, who alfo took Fle(J) 1 and was a- 
 nohted with the Spirit from the father, was made Jefa 
 Chrift, 1. r. 3, c. 10. In the next Chapter, he tells 
 us that St John intending by his Gofpel to root out 'the 
 
 Here 
 
C 90 ) 
 
 Herefy of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitaw, did not preach 
 
 CI: I m fS impalhbilerr. f erfei : 
 
 in 1 ccnnr.v 
 
 ed npon jfefus. Aiid again, Sofad :fji?/j, 
 
 *-2* P a J' um y imp2lllbilem fA._ 7 :"v, Cerinthas 
 
 and his Followers, pretend 
 
 been wudaFleJb, nor to have fijfered, (Jible. 
 
 Irauau gees on : Secwuhm w 
 
 :. Verbwm Dei Caro faSum efi, 1 gizs ; 
 
 ipforum omnium perfri.U: uoiiam 
 
 is impaifibilis a£ on tor Verbuin £W : 
 
 Acccrairg to no Scheme of the E is the Word 
 
 m?cc Fkfli ;' For if any ore exanii 
 
 , he will frJ that the Word c/" Cod is introduced by 
 all of them, as without Flejb, corf impailible. And af- 
 ter v. arr.s again in the fame Chapter he cenfures them 
 gn f par art lefum a Chrijro, & impaifibilem perft verajfe 
 urn, pajjum zero lefum dicurt 5 who f par ate Jefus, 
 ■':. and fay tbat Cbrift co?rtiratcd impartible, £wi 
 Jefu> fijfered. So again, 1. 2, c. 12, TheApoftles 
 did not presch, akernm qui:.. m & re/urge* 
 
 - 'qui hnpafbilis perfeverat 
 
 Ore Cbrift who fifered and rof; again, and ar.otber 
 vbo contmntd impaffible. L. 2. c. 17, He blames 
 [ as afferted Chnft, putative pajnUj r.atiiralher 
 
 bnpafbilem exjjtenten \ to have fujft red by Imputation, 
 being naturally impa;T;bie. Book the Third, cb. the 
 1 itb, contains Abundance of Parages to this Purpofe. 
 Ex Virgine r.atum I ilium Dei, & hi 
 rem Chriftum, ipKm PropbeUi pradi ftcut 
 
 ipji dicur-t, lefwm \ fum eje qui ex Mania 
 
 Chriftum veri qui dejuper def erJit : i.e. MamfiJH) fiewing 
 that the Son of God 90s barn of a Virgin, and that tbisverj 
 Perfor. vas Chrift the Saviour, . whom the Prophets j 
 told-, and not, as the Heretich fay, tbat]zfaswashewbo 
 was born of Mary, and Chrift he vho defcer.de 1 from 
 And again: "Son ergo alterum Filium Homims 
 EvangeBrnmy nifi hunc qui ex Maria, qui & paffus 
 
( 9i ) 
 
 eft: Sedneq-, Chriftum avolantem ante "Paftionem-ab Iefu, 
 Jed hum qv\ vatus eft lefum Chriftum novil Lei Filhm, 
 6? etffldem hum pajjum refurrexifje : The Gofpel knows no 
 other Son of Man, than him who was [born ] of Mary y 
 who alfofuffered ^ Nor doth it mention Chrift withdi an inj 
 from Jefus before the Pajfion ; but it teaches us that tie 
 who was bom, even Jefus Chrift, is the Son of God ^ and 
 that this very fame [^1- erf on] having fuffered, rofe again. He 
 tells us that_thefe Things were written, John 20,2 1, pro- 
 vident Mafphemas regulas qua dividimt Downturn quantum 
 ex ipfis att'niet, ex altera & altera Subftantia dicentes eum 
 FaQum : Forefeeing the blafphemous Rides of thofe who di- 
 vide our Lord, as much as in them lies ^ faying, that he 
 wns compounded of two Subftances. And more clearly 
 ftill a little after : Chrift Jefusour Loro\,invifibilis viftbilh 
 faBus, & incomprehenf 'bilis faBas compi eh nfibilis, & im- 
 paftibilispasftUis,&V€rbmn Homo : Being invisible he was 
 made vifible, being incomprehenfible he was made com- 
 prehensible, behig impaffible he was made paffible, and be- 
 ing the Word he was made Man. Afterwards he quotes 
 St. tPaiil, and fays -, Nefcit eum quievolavit Chi ijhm ab Ifu, 
 yteq-^ eum novit Salvatoremqui fnrfum eft, quern impalfibilem 
 dicunt : He[Vau\~\ know snot That Chrift which with drew from 
 Jefus, nor did he know That Saviour who came [dewn upon 
 Jefus] from above, whom they fay to have been impaffi- 
 ble. I might cite fever al other the HkePaflages from 
 this Chapter. And indeed, thro' all his Books, Ire- 
 kaus is continually bearing hard upon thofe Hereticks, 
 Who feparatim Chriftum intelligentes tanquam impaffibilem 
 perfeverantem,& feparatim cum qui paflus eft lefum -, Wl)o 
 confdered Chrift feparately as continuing impaifible ; and 
 Jefus feparately, asfvffering, li. 4. c. 4. And he declares, 
 I. 4, c. 16, that All who knew the Lord, received 
 the Revelation ab ipfo Filio, qui in novifjimis Temporibus 
 vifibilis& paffibilis eft fatfus; from the Son himfelf who 
 in the laft Times was made vifible and paffible. 1 11 add 
 but onePaffage more from this Book, c. 41 : There 
 is but one God, who is above — every Name that is 
 named, & hufus Terbum, nattiraliter quidem invijibile, 
 
 viftbifity 
 
C 9* ) 
 
 vifbilem' palpabikm in hom'nibus faBum, & ufqiie ad 
 mortem defcendijfe ^ and his Word, which naturally in* 
 deed is invifible, but was made vifible and tangibile a- 
 mongji Men, and condescended even to Death. Laftly, 
 L. 5, c. 1 8, He tells us that he has fhewn at large, 
 ipfum Verbum Dei incarnatum fufpenfum efi fuper Lignum, 
 that the Word of God being made Fief), was hanged upon 
 the Crofs. And again • Caro faftum eft Verbum, & pe- 
 penditfuper lignum ^ The Word was made Fief), and hang" 
 ed upon the Crofs. ibid. 
 
 To thefe and many other Places in Irenaus, let me 
 add a PafTage or two from Jujiin Martyr, Dial, cum 
 Trypho.y. 331. Where, fpeaking concerning Chrift's 
 Agony, he fays-,07r&$ w^^tv gtj d ttotm^ tov icLiii tj'ov 
 fcai i.v 7cii$\oi<; ■/rdBtGiv «\m6<£? yiyovivcti (P\ M ( ua? p>t- 
 C&Xvtcu.. »} /an Klytefxiv on iK&vot;, rs Six v\o<; &>v, oik 
 avTfA.«//fcfiefo rZv yzvct/^ivov it 1 oviu.Gct-iv6fltev olmtzS : That 
 we might know that the Father wilfd his Son really to 
 undergo thefe Sujferings for us ; and that we fmtd not 
 fay , that He being the Son of God, was not actually fen- 
 fble of thofe Things which were done unto him. Again, 
 p. 336, Ihe Nations would repent when they heard K.V- 
 r-in<r9 c ' ,T T(y </'i aJfcv TrccBo'nct Koyov the Apoftles preach 
 how the Word fijf ere d. 
 
 From thefe Palfages it abundantly appears, that 
 Iren&m's Opinion, (whether true or erroneous, I do not 
 Now inquire,) was extremely different from Dr Bennetts-, 
 And that the meaning of Iren&us in the fngle Paflage 
 cited from him by the Dr, and fo much relied on, is 
 not that the Word was quiefcent, while the Man fuffered, 
 confidered as two diftinft Agents or Perfons \ but that (in 
 the fame manner of fpeaking, as, ora XzV^thTguifed 
 under the Habit of a Poor Man, it may rightly be 
 faid, that in fome Cafes the Poor Man concealed the 
 King, and, in other Cafes, the King Jlwne through the 
 Poor Man ; fpeaking ft ill not of Two Perfons, but of One 
 and the fame ; So) in fome Cafes The Word acquiefced 
 and was concealed by the Man. and in other Cafes The 
 Man was made victorious by the Word, This, any one who 
 
 reads 
 
C 9J ) 
 
 reads Iren&uss Works, will fee to be evidently his 
 Meaning: And it quite deftroys the Doctors Notion 
 of fjjhiiefcence. 
 
 And here I cannot, by the way, but propofe it as a 
 Qu&re, Whether in St Johns firft Epiftle there be not 
 many Places (about Jefus behtg the fame with Chrifi, 
 and, Jefus CbriJFs coming in the rlejl),) which ought to be 
 compared with and interpreted bv thefe ancient Wri- 
 ters? And whether the words," Jtts 26, 23, h<x.$hto$ 
 6 XC'^S- Which we render, Chrift JJjoud fvffer-, do not 
 more properly fignify, Chrifl becoming or being made 
 paffible ? But to proceed. 
 
 Does not the whole Tenor of Scripture fhew, that 
 the Perfon who prasexifted, was at his Incarnation 
 K£V6-3-ec, really humbled, acquiefced, jufonitted to fuch 
 and fuch Acts in this State of the Flefh •, and not that 
 there was fuch a ^uiefcence or Ab fence, as is inconfi- 
 ftent with perfonal Union? For, What is a perfonal 
 Union, that never once in his whole Life at all affe&s 
 the Perfon. 
 
 The Objections which Dr Bemtet has here rais'd, 
 are in reality very inconfiderable, and receive an eafy 
 Anfwer upon the Principles maintain'd by the Anti-* 
 ents. A s Firft -, If the Word (fays he) was not at all 
 
 Quiefcent during our Saviour s Miniftry, : then the Ef- 
 
 fential Wifdom and Power of the Word rnufl have been 
 imparted to, and txercis'd by and through, the Man Chrifi 
 Jefus, p. T29. I reply \ there was no Neceility that the 
 effential Wifdom of the Wordbeforejbshtcarnation,ihouM 
 be the very fame in the Man Chrift Jefus : For St 
 Vaul plainly fuppofes him, in his State of Humiliation, 
 to have devefted himfelf of the y.o%<p* fh*. So 2dly. 
 p. 140, How cou dan Angel fir engthen him, — or adtmtd- 
 Jier relief to him ? Or how coud his own indwelling Word 
 fail him? ibid. I anfwer-, The Word did not fail 
 him, but wvx&fy, fubmitted, acquiefced: And an An- 
 gel might flrengthen him who was now in that State 
 of Humiliation made a little lower than the Angels. 
 3dly, Coud the Word, who is ejfentially fvperior to 
 
 all 
 
( 94 ; 
 
 mil created Beings whatfoever, the Maker and Former of 
 alltlmigs, be Tempted ike unto us ? p. 14, 1 ?, 1 29. I 
 reply j It pleafed him thus to fulfil all Righteoufnefs, 
 being found infaflnon as a Man, and in the form of a Ser- 
 vant. 4thly , hew could the Holy Spirit, which is not 
 fupsrior to the Word, he f aid to lead and even to drive 
 the Word into the Wilder nef? p. 13^. I anfwer: In 
 That State wherein our Lord was nude a little lower 
 than the Angels, 'tis no ablurdity to'fuppofe him under 
 the Conduct and Guidance of the Holy Spirit. 5thly, 
 Was he that made all Creatures, given up by God into the 
 Hands of his own Creatures, p. 141 ? I anfwer: St 
 John allures us, the World was made by him, and the 
 World knew him not; He came unto his own, and his 
 own received him not. And, God, faith the Apqftle 
 St.Paul, Rom. 8, 32, fparednot his own Son, but delivered 
 hi?nupfor us all And indeed, Why is it harder to con- 
 ceive that God mould deliver up him by whom he ere' 
 t:d all things, than that he fhou'd give up him who, 
 according to Dr Bennetts own Scheme, did in all 
 other things ,perfonate God, and was tv (j.c°<pvi 5tS in 
 the form of God? For certainly this implies no lels a 
 Superiority, than it does to have been infimmental in 
 the creating of the World. And indeed This Conde- 
 fcenfion it was, This Willingnefs to leave fo glorious 
 & State, and to be delivered up for us all-, that St Foul 
 fo emphatically ftiles The Myfiery of Godlinefs. 6thly, If 
 the Word was not quiefcent, then is the Hifiory of our 
 Saviour s Agony (fays Dr Bemiet) a Scene of mere Gri- 
 mace and a Train of falfe Appearances, p. 143. I 
 
 reply •, 'Tis not a laudable Cuftom for Men to exprefs 
 themfelves after this manner concerning the Scripture, 
 whenever not interpreted according to their Own 
 Schemes. But, to pafs this by' it might much more 
 reafonably be fHled a Train of falfe Appearances, ac- 
 cording to Dr B\ Scheme : For here is an Union of 
 Perfons, without, any Perfonal Union : The Word 
 united for no End, and to no Ufe ; United to a 
 
 Man, 
 
C 91 ) 
 
 Man; but all the while quiefcent -, never once affifting 
 him during all his Conrli&s, but letting Angels de- 
 fcend to minifter unto him, leaving him to contend 
 with the Devil, and, by a ftrange Quiefcence, encou- 
 raging the Devil's Procedure , and inviting bim tofrejb At- 
 tempts, by perfonating,for the Space of no lefs than forty 
 Days, what in reality he neither was nor coud be, viz. a. 
 Man liable to thofe Temptations which the Devil, offered, 
 p. 1 34. Is not this as hard a Suppofition as any, e- 
 ven upon Dr. JB's Scheme ; that, the God- Man mould 
 in all Difficulties be left to his Human Nature alone, 
 to his weak part, and never be aflifted by his Jlronger 
 Part, even' when the weaker Nature was overburdened? 
 Laftly j Dr Bennet asks, How coud a Man unit id to 
 the Word, pojfcbly be in a lower Degree of Glory and 
 Happinefs than the Angels ? I reply : What is there 
 more impojjibk in this condefcenfion of a fuperiour Be- 
 ing, than in a prasexifting Souls emptying itfelf, and 
 becoming tv .ucgcpjl <^aA» in the form of a Servant, 
 who before was fo great and glorious as to appear \v 
 /uo£<p£? £f2 and hoc. 6t^>, in the form of God, ^md as God? 
 Indeed This (as I before obferved) is the true Myfter/ 
 of Godlinefs ; Great indeed and glorious ^ Which was 
 maniffied by the Flefi [of Chrift!] jvflifed by the Spirit, 
 feen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in 
 the World, received with Glory. This is that manifold 
 Wifdom of God, now made known mtto the Prijtcipalities 
 and Powers hi Heavenly Places - which before was the 
 Myftery which from the- beginning of the World had been 
 hid in God, who created all things by Jefm Chrijl, Eph. 
 
 Having thus confidered what this Learned Author 
 has fuggefted concerning the State of our Saviour's 
 Humiliation, I fhali next confider the Account he gives 
 us of his Exaltation. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
( 9 6 ) 
 
 i . — — - 
 
 CHAP. Xu 
 
 Of ChriJVs State of Exaltation. 
 
 THE different States which our BlefTed Saviour was 
 in before, during, and after his Incarnaion, have 
 frequently given Men cccafion to fpeak or him as of 
 Two different Peifons: And herein they have explain- 
 ed themfelves according to the refpe&ive Notions 
 they came prepoiTefs'd with. 
 
 The Reverend. Dr Bennet abfolutely divided Chrift 
 into Two Perfons in his State of Humiliation : And 
 he has done the fame in confidering his Exaltat'oiu 
 What has been the Confequence in each of thefe re- 
 fpefts, will appear prefently. 
 
 Fhjl, He reprefents our Saviour as highly dignified 
 by being made Flefi. The Apoflle, fays he, might well 
 oppofe our Saviour when he was at his Incarnation united 
 to the Word, and become the Son of God, amd appoint* 
 ed Heir of all things, (and thereby dignified above all ere- 
 ated*Beings,) even to himfelf when covfidered snly as God's 
 
 Angel.- Since the whole jhefs of what the Apofih 
 
 fays, lies upon the Dignity of the Perfon empowered to aft 
 and govern •, "'tis certain that the Dignity conferrd upon 
 the Man Chrifl at his Incarnation, made him in that 
 refpeEl as different from himfelf before that Dignity was 
 conferrd, as if two diftinEt Beings had been fpokn of, p. 
 6<y. And again 5 Ever fmce the Word was made Flefi, 
 the Dignity of our Saviour's Perfon ha, been greater than 
 that of any of his own Creatures, p. 144. But now the 
 Scripture-Reprefentation of this Matter, is juft the re* 
 verfe : Our Saviour was fo far from being dignified at 
 bis Incarnation, that he is reprefented as then becom-» 
 ing poor, as having left the Form of God, as having 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 emptied himfelf of the Glory and Tignhy which he had 
 bejore. Nay, the Apoftle'v Argument, Phil. 2d, is. 
 that we fhou'd have the fame Mind which was in Chrift 
 jfefus.\ And this was always reputed an excellent Ar- 
 gument for Humility, beeaufe Chrift hilm&led bimfclfi 
 Whereas it Chrift was dignified at bis' Incarnation, the 
 Argun ent from his Example muft have been to en- 
 tourage us to ftrive to exceed each other in Dignity , 
 iiot in Humility. Were a Servant to quit the Splendor 
 of a Court •, and then iv.Jiantly and inTeparably for 
 the future, to be joined to the King himfelf, who 
 was willing and refclved to confer upon him his own- 
 Kingdom 5 vvou d this be an Humiliation, or an Exal- 
 tation of fuch a Per fon ? 
 
 Secondly: He afferts, tfat The Mail [JeluS] only, was 
 capable of and did enjoy the Reward, p. 8!. And a- 
 gain : I have defiionjl rated (fays he) that the Human 
 Nature alone, was rewarded, p. 37, And p. 82, The 
 Divine Nature, (viz. of Chrift.) never was exa'i'd. But 
 here, as I have alreadv fhewn, the Scriptures never 
 Once make any fnch Divifim of h s Perfon ; nor do 
 they ever lay, that Judgment is given to Thai Pad 
 of him which is, (but to Him beeaufe Ha is) the Sen of 
 Man. 
 
 The Grand Principle, which this Learned Writer 
 had in his Thoughts, and which ltd him into al\ his 
 other Notions, was, that The V r ord is The very Gii. 
 When this Was orire eftabliihed, 'twas rightly thence! 
 fnferr'd, that The Word cant be exalted by the vimoft 
 Honour the Creatures can pay, or by the noblejl fdea th*y 
 
 can frame of him : That his Divine Nature is effen- 
 
 tially fvperior to, and cbnfequevtly not capable of, nor does 
 participate That Change of Condition, which his Exalta- 
 tion has made with refpett to his Human Nature, p. 2 9 . 
 That his Divine Nature-— was every whit as great and glo- 
 rious before the Creation, as the mojl magnificent Scripture* 
 Defcription ofCbrijfs prefentExaliationfuppofes him to be p 
 p. 37. Nay, thisSappofition will indeedjuftrfy tHofe 
 
 H * Que* 
 
& 
 
 < 9S ) 
 
 Queftions, p . 58 7/^5 rJ>£ T^ry Goi exalted thereby} Is 
 it not Blafpbemy tofvppojeh} Aul why could not the 
 very God be thereby exalted ? Even becaufe he is by Na- 
 ture Superior to the whole Creation. But then this Prin- 
 ciple ought firft to have been demarcated t, or elfe De- 
 vicvfratkns about the Humane Nature of Chrift, p. 87, 
 may be no better than mere Sophifms. In ihert, the 
 Scriptures give us a different Reprefentation of our 
 Saviour •, That he was humbled by his Incarnation, and 
 was afterwards highly exalted as the Reward of his Suf- 
 ferings. They do not tell us that Chn'ft (whom they 
 always fpeak of as One Ferfori) was as highly exalted 
 before, as after his Refurredtion •, but that, becaufe he 
 emptied hirnfelf as he did, and fuffered as he did, 
 therefore God hath given hhn a Name which is above e- 
 ve:y Name, that at the Name of Jefus every Knee Jlmdd 
 bew; — — And that every Tongue flmdd covfefs that Je- 
 fus Chriji is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father j Phil. 
 2; S IO, II. 
 
 From the Drs Principle, 'tis indeed a juft Inference, 
 that Tlye V r ord never was exalted, p. 82. But on the 
 other band the Scriptures are clear, that He by 
 whom God made all Things, He who was the 
 Initrument of his Father in the Work of Creation, 
 and was wont to appear w /uoeayii Six as God's Re- 
 prefentative ; yet had not a Kingdom and Judgment 
 and Dominion Then committed to him, that all Men 
 jhoiild honour him as they honour the Father : But after 
 his Sufferings and Death it was, that all Tower was given 
 him in Heaven and in Earth, and that this Hymn was 
 fur.g unto him, Worthy is the Lamb that was fain, to 
 receive Tower, and Riches, and Wifdom, and Honour , and 
 Glory, and Bl-JJing, Rev. 5, 1 1. 
 
 As Dr Bennet has conftantly made Chrift to be Two di- 
 frin£r Pcrfons,fo he imagines two dijiinci kinds of religious 
 Vorflnp to be given to Chrift, anfwerable to the Cir- 
 amftances of each Perfon ; The One paid him as Man 
 exalted, as appointed of God to be a Prince and Lord 
 
 of 
 
C 99 ) 
 
 Of all, and,zw this exalted Station^ our Mediator and Bi* 
 tercefjor, p. 24, and hereafter to be our Judge. This 
 Woiihip (it feems) is paid to him by the Will,' 
 Appointment and Command of Gcd 5 or, as the Dr 
 has exprefs'd it, p- 29, To him that is at piefent our 
 Mediator, ancifiall hereafter be our Judge, we are re- 
 quired to give Religious Adoration. And again •, Be- &* 
 caufe the So?i of Man hath Juthority to execute Judg* 
 tnent, Therefore he is thereby conftituted the Objetf of 
 religious Adoration, ibid. In p. 221 'tis thus: lnCovfe- 
 queitce of this Mediatorial Government, the Perfon of our 
 tie (fed Saviour (he beivg God- Man) is as truly an Objeu 
 t>f Religious Adoration, as the Perfon of an Earthly 
 Pj iiice is the ObjeS of Civil Honour. P. 69, 'tis thus: 
 •God the Father has conferr d fuch Dignity on him, that 
 he is now become Lord of the Creation, and the Objetf of 
 Religious Worjbip. The Other Worfhip (he fuppofesj 
 Is paid to him as the very God; fupreme, Original, and 
 confounded entirely with that of the Father. Chrifi is 
 to be honour d as God, becaufe the Word is The > very 
 God, and has the metaphyfical Ejfence or Subflance and 
 at Iftr aft Attributes of the Selfexiftent Being, p. 261. And 
 all the Doctor s Reafoning about Worjhip, in p. 186, 
 i 87, 188, is founded entirely upon This.- — -- 
 
 For this Latter fort of Worfhip, there is no manner of / 
 Foundation in Scripture, unlefs merely by way of in* .*—- 
 ference from hence.that Chrifi is call'd God (not &t$fj 
 frith the Article •, but purely 8eoV % a Diftinciion which 
 the Ancient Greek Fathers, have infilled on frequently^) 
 and that by or through Him all Things are declared to 
 have been created. For I muft obferve, that Rev. 64 
 lo, which this Learned Author has applied as direct- 
 ed to Chrift, p. 2 $ •, is not directed to him, but to the 
 Father as Supreme Lord. 
 
 New barely to have the Title of 6?c<r, is not the ^ C 
 Scriptural Foundation of his Worfnp. Nor is there any 
 Hint in Scripture, (p. 186, 187, 188,) that Chrift was 
 Verjlritfd on account of God's having by Him created alf. 
 
 H 2 Thing t: 
 
( IOO ) 
 
 Things: Much lefs, that he was ever worfhipped (p. 
 261; zsfelf-exiprt. Let any one examine the Texts 
 wherein Worfhip is given to Chrift 5 and he will ah 
 ways find it Given and commanded on Account of his 
 being the Lambjlain •, given, becaufe he fubmittcd him- 
 ielr in the manner he aid, and Loved us, and wafied us 
 from our Shis in his own Blood 5 but never once upon 
 account of hi- having created us. Whence ihou'd this 
 wife, unlefs it be that Cbrtfi was only the Injlrument of 
 the Father in creating us, and that 'twas not for bis 
 vwn Pleafure, but his Father's, that we were made? 
 The hat her is in Scripture often pra'ud on this Account, 
 becaufe he commanded, and all things were created. 
 The Son, by (or Through) whom were all things made 
 that were made • is never once, on this Account, Wor- 
 lhip'd throughout the New Teftament, in which is 
 revealed to us the Creation of all Things by the Word. 
 This can only be accounted for, I think, by faying 
 with the Scriptures concerning the Father •, Thou art 
 worthy, Q Lord, to receive Glory, and Honour, and Pow- 
 er h For thou hafl created all things [viz. by the Word,] 
 and for Thy Pleafure they Are, and were created 5 Rev. 
 
 Nor can I recoiled Any ObjeBion againft this, but 
 what is compnYd in thefe Words of Dr B. p. 1 87, 
 Do we ever find a Difth&ion made, even in the Scrip- 
 tures of the Nerv Tefiament, between the Two Gods, the 
 One Supreme, and the Other Subordinate •, the One Sslf- 
 exiftent, the other Derived? I anfwer: Do we ever not 
 find a Diftindtionmade between the One God, and the 
 One Lord} St. Paul, 1 Cor. 8, 6, fays 5 To Us there is 
 but one God, the Father, of whom [e| *, from whom] 
 are a' I things, and we to him; and One Lordjp/w* Cbrift, 
 by whom \j i t, thro' whom] are all things, and we by 
 him. Again, Eph. 45 4.. $, 6, One Spirit. One Lord, 
 One God and Father of All. And The Word is by St. 
 John fo manifeftly diftinguiihed from the God, n$< t 
 
C ioi ) 
 
 [apud,~] with whom, prefent with whom, he was 5 that 
 I cannot but be amazed at this Objection: Which 
 evidently has nothing at all in it, but merely the 
 Conf'ufion arifing from his Ufe of that vnfcriptural 
 ExpreJTion, Two Gods^ inftead of the Scripture-lan- 
 guage, Owe God, and One Lord -, or One God, and 
 One in whom the Name or Authority of That God is. 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Of the Unity of GOB. 
 
 THE chief Difficulty in the feveral Hypothecs 
 concerning the Trinity, has been fo to treat of 
 the Three Perfons, as to fecure the Unity of God 5 
 and fo to fecure the Unity, as not to deftroy the 
 Trinity. Now Dr Bennet underftands the Unity of 
 God to be a Perfonal Unity, p. 231 ; as Dr Claike 
 does. He acknowledges alfo This One God, to be the 
 Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, p. i£8, 169, 17^, 
 177, 178} as Dr Clarke does. The only Difference 
 betwixt them here, is, how Chrift is alfo filled (in 
 one or two places of the New Teftament,) God. Dr 
 Bennet affirms, that 'tis becaufe the Koy^- , The Word, 
 who was incarnate, was himfelf the [fame intelligent 
 Agent, the fame Perfon, p. 23 1 , as the] father : Which 
 preferves indeed the Unity of God ; but then in its 
 evident confequence, it reduces Chrift in reality to a 
 mereMan \ and both deftroys the Doctrine of the Ti inity, 
 and condemns every Praclife built upon that D<~£lrine. 
 Dr C'arke on the other hand thinks, that Chrift is 
 ftiled God and Lord, upon account of that Dignity 
 which is founded in his being inverted by the Father 
 with divine Authority in Heaven and in Earth •, 
 
 H 3 Which 
 
( 192. ) 
 
 Which is not at all inconfiftent with the Father's be- 
 ing abfohtely The One God and The One Lord. 
 
 Againft this, Dr Bennet has objected feveral Things. 
 
 Fuji, The Word, God, (he fays)conf!antly denotes the 
 Being h'ntifelf, who is called God^ and net What that Be- 
 h-7, who is called God, is indued or invejtedwitb, or what 
 pepojj'cfes or njoys h p. 178. 
 
 I reply, ifi 1 am furprizedthis learned Author did 
 not enceavcur to account for that common Form of 
 Expreilion [ Our God, the True God, the God 
 of Heaven, and the like] in all Languages, (which 
 Dr Clarke takes notice of, and which Dr. tiennet him- 
 feli has quoted, p. 176 J which takes away this Ob- 
 £j jedion entirely. I v/ill lay it before him in Dr. 
 --' Clarke's Words. i The Word 0toi, God, has in Scripture 
 c and in all Books of Morality and Religion, a Kela? 
 ' tive Signification t, and not, as in metaphyseal Booh, 
 1 an Abfolute one: As is evident from the relative 
 ' Te 1 m, which in Moral Writings may always be joined 
 1 with it. For Infiance : In the fame manner as we fay t 
 * my Father, my King, and the like •, Jo it is proper afo 
 ' to fay, my God, the God of Ifrael, \he God of the 
 ' Univerfe, and the like: Which Words are exprefjive of 
 6 Dominion and Government. But in the metaphy- 
 8 fical Way, it cannot be f aid, my infinite Subfiance, the 
 ' infinite Subfianee of Ifrael, or the like" Anfwer to the 
 A.offcmeConfiderations, p. 284. What can be the 
 ■reafon that theTerm.Go^admits of fuch Conitru&ion $ 
 and \et the Terms Infinite, Per feci, Eternal Subftance, 
 will no r > Thefe Words, 'tis certain, denote the Being 
 hmfdfwbo is calVd God, as much as this learned Au- 
 thor conceives the Term God to do : and yet no one 
 ever laid, my Infinite, or my PevfeB, or my Eternal Sub- 
 flanee, iiiftead of my God. idly. Let him try his No- 
 tion in the Terms King or Lord 5 whether they do not 
 flgnify What the Perfon is invejied with, or what he 
 pojfeffesanJ enjojs. idly. When Magi fir ate s, or Angels, 
 are filled Gods ; does it not relate to that Power and 
 
 Authority 
 
( io3 ) 
 
 Authority they are invefed with ? Or does the Term 
 GoJ,There too, denote the Belvg himfettj tho* the 
 fame Men, when they are not Magi f rates, are not 
 caird Gods $ and conf-quently the iame Perion who 
 once was a God, might, upon laying down his Office, 
 ceafe to be ftiled God> a^thly. When an Avgel fpake 
 in the Name of God in the Old Teftament, was he not 
 calFd, on That account, God> Not, furely, as denoting 
 the Being, but the Authority and Power he was conceiv a 
 to be invefted with. And what is there impoJlible, 
 or unconceivable,in its being applied in the lame man- 
 ner m the New Teftament, to him to whom All Power 
 is given hi Heaven and in Eai th ? Laftly \ If the 
 Term God always denotes the metaphyseal Being of 
 him who is calfd God, and the Scriptures declare that 
 there is but One God\ then it will follow, that all 
 they unto whom the Word of God came, and who are cal- 
 led Gods, John io, 25, muft be the One Supream felf- 
 exiltent Being. But the Doctor objects 
 
 Secondly • That though Owe Perfon be allowed to De- 
 rive from another, yet if it be a Derivation o^ all re- 
 quijite divine PerfeBions, except Self-exiftence ttfelf, which 
 is nowfuppofed not to be included, they would Both of then} 
 
 be frill equally Gods ^ even as, anting ft our fives , 
 
 a Father and his Son are equally Men, p. 1 84, 
 
 I reply, if. This whole Argument depends upon <#, 
 the Truth of what I have juft now refuted ; that the <£ 
 Term God, denotes always metaphyiically The Being, 
 the Subjlance itfelf, and not What that Being or Sub- 
 ftance is invefed with. Now one Subftance may pof- 
 fibty be derived from another, and yet not each have 
 the fame Powers. zdTy, Though, among Us, a Father 
 and Son are equally Men, yet it dees not at all follow 
 that they have equal Authority or Power, idly, A Son 
 amongft Men, does not indeed at all derive from his 
 Father: His Father is merely an Injlrument in the 
 Hands of God. But the Doctor proceeds to object, 
 idly-, That thofe Declarations of Scripture,(that there is 
 H 4 but 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 £ut pneGod,G?c.,W made tofuch Perfons,as either pro, 
 
 jejjed or at U aft aZually lived amongft tbofe who did pro? 
 
 fejsa tin amy oj Gods,tho they allowed a Subordination 
 
 Pj the One to the Other, avd that there was but One Aw 
 
 tbo? ity amcv0 them all ; p. 1 7 9 . Wherefore, whev we 
 
 are Uluin exprtj/wm direBed to Such Perfons, and in Such 
 
 Lm iwftances, that there is but One God' ; we muft under- 
 
 jiara but— One God in Number, viz. but One Being who h 
 
 God, p. j3q The Jpoftles never diftinguifh upon the 
 
 Matter they ao nctfq much as once inform us, that tho 
 
 there be o- e Supreme, yet there is another Subordinate 
 
 or Jecor.aary God, p j 84, I S 7. 
 
 The ftrengthof this Objection fas I before obferved) 
 lie? entirely in the fallacious and vnfcriptural manner 
 of expreffirjg it The Anfwcr is very plain, and ur- 
 
 g if r^ tl / ald ex P ie J } y in ! Cor - 8 t 4, ■ 6 : (which 
 tnePrhimfeJf cites, p. i 9 n) Wehtow that there is 
 none ether God but one : For tho' there be that are cah 
 lea Gads, whether in Heaven or in Earth, (as there be 
 Ocas meny and Lords many-,) yet to Us there is but One 
 God, the Father, OF whom are all things and we to 
 hm; Ana One Lord, Jefus Chrift, By whom are all 
 fhirgs, avd we by him the Heathens had many Falfe 
 Gods ldols,£ithtr not real Beings, or Beings that had 
 no Powers over Mankind; and confequently in the 
 religious fii fe, were, as St Paul tells us, Nothing. In 
 Pppofiti tothefe, V r e have, fays the Apoftle, One 
 Ood, the Father h and One Lord, Jefus drift; whom 
 he difovgmfbts from each other, by declaring the 
 Fvft to be the Perfon \\ % From whom are all 
 Tbirgs, 21 -d the Second to be Him <K S 7W whom are 
 dl [tings But idly. Becaufe the Heathens allowed a Plu- 
 rality of imaghaf) Gods or Mediators, in Subordina- 
 tion to one Supreme; is this an Argument why God, 
 V he thinks fit, ihould not really give all Power hi 
 fleaycn and Earth to his only begotten Son} The 
 Scripture exprefsly * fibres us, that he has fo ex- 
 alted his Son who fuffered for us ; and it teaches us 
 
 upn 
 
c a* ; 
 
 upon that Account to afcribe Glory and Honour and Pow- 
 er and Blefing to bimtbat fitteth upon the Throne, and 
 unto the Lamb for ever and ever . 
 
 Laftly : This Reverend Author objects, and 'tis his 
 principal Argument ; that Dr Clarke makes not at all a 
 numerical Unity of GOD, but only one Authority. Confe- 
 quently, feys he, p. 178, Tou (Dr CI.) would have us i.w- 
 derjiand the fever al Pafjages before recited, not of a numeri- 
 cal Unity of Being, but of an Unity of Authority ; that is y 
 that the Scriptures do permit us to believe that there are in 
 
 Number more Gods than one, thd there is hut one 
 
 Authoiity in them, communicated from the One to the 
 Other. Again ; The Unity afcribed to God (in Scrip* 
 ture,) is moft manifeftly not an Unity of Authority, but 
 * numerical Unity o/'Being \ pag. 178, 179. Again^ 
 
 If fuch Phrafes as thefe, There is but one God, might 
 
 fignify, in Spight of common Scvfe, there is an Unity of 
 Authority in diverfe diflinft Gods, fubordinate the 
 One to the Other -, yet the fever al Declarations before re- 
 cited, [befides me there is no God, &c.~\ do flatly — ■ 
 ctffeit a numerical Unity of God, p. 179. Again -.bow 
 was it pofjible — to teach us more clearly — the numerical . 
 Unity of God? p. 180. I reply, 
 
 j ft. I cannot here forbear lamenting the Cafe of fuch 
 as happen not to write according to the vulgarly re- 
 ceiv'd Tenets, be they what they will -, They are 
 cmtinually liable to be fo Jirangely mifreprefented. 
 For is it not The very Defgn, the Aim and Purport of 
 "Dr Clarke's Whole Booh, exprefly to maintain the AV 
 merical Unity of God ? Or is there any one Place in it, 
 where he doth not do it ? Does he not every where af- 
 fert One Monarch, as well as OneJuthority, in the Uni- 
 verfe ? Can this Learned Author then be in eamejt 
 when he infers, p. 178, Confequently 2> Clarke would 
 have us under Jland the Paffages before recited [viz. : fuch as 
 declare that there is but One God, p. 17 1,~] not of a 
 numerical Unity of Being, but of an Unity of Authori- 
 ty > Is it not highly unreafonable and abfurd to draw 
 
 fuch 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 fiich a Confequence, from his laying down this Principle, 
 that There h but One Monarchy in the Univerfe * Br 
 Sennet, in the very Page where he draws this mon- 
 ftrous Confequence, grants that when there h a Subordina- 
 tion of Governors in a Monarchy, there is but one Autho- 
 rity in them all, original in the Monarch, and derivative 
 in the inferior Magi firates: p. 178. Now 'tis no more 
 juft to infer, that, according to Dr Clarke s Notions, 
 there are more Gods than One -, than it wou'd be in this 
 ether Cafe to infer, that there are more Mnarchs than 
 U One. To alTert that the Father is abfolutely The One 
 J? God, and yet that the Son, exercifing the Fathers Au- 
 thority, may alfo rightly be ftiled God $ is not to in- 
 troduce Two Principles-, any more than faying that the 
 fupreme Magiftrate is our Governor, and the fubordi- 
 pate Magiftrate alfo our Governor, is to deftroy the 
 Monarchy of a fingle Governor. ''cio-Eiq (b<x<n,\i&> 
 *pxT»vT(Gp tvoV. itKo-(&> Si d'oTV 7nitVTaxS yvic iftei* 
 Cpepo/ti.ti'K. 8 s *- «" Tic, owrt)(iG)V c'-tio ftiRkl ts<; v.qortiiVTCLC. : 
 As- when One King reigns, and his Image is every where car- 
 ried about his Dominions, no one in his Senfes woud fay 
 _- there were two Kings. Eufeb. Hccles, TJjeol. I. 2- c 23. 
 Or, to take a more proper Argument from the fame 
 Author : He fays, a Mot (po^yj, [^ d'uo in\xs<x<n:$ 
 6tJLchcyy(ra.<;, ^vo d(>)(jyc. uartyocyoic^ nai I s /Liova^yh 
 *.»K 3£o'tht@-' inzriovic,' /uoivSziK tojvuv, M, hoi ovt®* 
 ava^x? Ral ayfcvvHT* 6tS, tS </*£ v'its e| aufS y*.y%wit- 
 jtivx 9 (Aft. %sxt a^x^« (uuovclqxicl v* Jtai fcoujiKzitx. iuiot; 
 . But you are afraid, left acknowledging two diftincl Sub- 
 licences, you ftmild introduce two Principles, and give 
 vp the divine Monarchy : Learn therefore, that there be- 
 ing One God, J elf-originated andvnderived; and the Son 
 hehg begotten of him ; there will be but One P>inciple t 
 One Monarchy and Kingdom. And prefently after ; 
 isJ'-\ Svo 3*^ wxyxM d'woii, t t«? a'vo vins<x<rtic. n* 
 
 SlvTOL' S^fe yOL% ITOTlfJLXC, oLvTOCC, tylc/JLiSoc, ^f/ 1 ' k[A.$Ca 
 
 ucve^X^ Ka ' ocywviTisc,' aMa fxixv [j.iv thv aytvwrw ttai 
 
( I0 7 ) 
 
 t-yfjilnv : Eufeb. Eccles. Theohg. I. 2. c. 7 • There U 
 wo Necejfty-, that he who acknowledges Two diftincl: Sub- 
 iiftencies 7?jo«W make Two Gods : For we do not teach 
 fhat they are to have equal Honour paid them, nor that 
 Both are felf-originated awiunderived \ but that One. 
 fs underived and felt-originated, and the Other derived 
 and has the Father for his Principle. But 
 
 2. May not all Dr Bennet's own Words, in all the 
 Places now referred to, be retorted &\<toM£{i upon 
 himleli ? He aflerts, p, 1 7 t , that it may mojl juftly be 
 affirmed of the Man thrift jefus, that in him dwelUth all 
 the Fullmfs of the Godhead. And ; the Man Chrijl Je- 
 fus, does aclnally exenife StoTviTct the Dominion of God y 
 at prefent, in the moft ample Manner, as God\ Vicege- 
 rent in his Kingdom of the Creation, p, 172. He at 
 ferts, that the Man Chrift Jefus was exacted to be a 
 Wince ; that he is made Lord, even Lord of all, that 
 is, Govemoiir of the whole Creation, p. 2;. He has all 
 Tower in Heaven and Earth commhted to him, p. 26, 29, 
 149 ^ and in Confequence of this, immediately after his 
 Exaltation, began his fph total Reign as the Vicegerent of 
 the very God, p. 26. He was enabled to beftow B3ef- 
 fings upon his Church, p. 25. And Doclor Bcnnet af- 
 ferts to him afubordinate and mediatorial Worftnp, to be 
 paid to him by the Will, Appointment and Command 
 of the Father, p. 24, 29, 69, 221. Now, is not a Pert 
 fon'who is poftt-ft of all thefe Powers, and made the Ob- 
 ject of religious Wcrfiiip 5 Is not fiich a Per ion (I fay) 
 as much what Dt Bcr.net calls a fubordinate God. as the 
 higheft poiTible fuperior Being, who has thefe Proper- 
 ties given him from the Father, can be> There is no 
 Difference in any Circumftance that I can perceive, 
 which can here make any Diftinclion. What if the 
 Man, Chrift Jefus, receivd thefe Powers feventeen hum 
 dred Years ago > Or any fuperiour Being had received) 
 them feventeen hundred Millions of Years ago, or 
 even from Eternity ? ftill, if he received dich Powers, 
 
 he 
 
( 108 ) 
 
 hz woud become w hat Dr Bennet calls zfubordinate 
 God. 
 
 But to prefsthis Argument yet farther. 'Tis faid 
 Exod. 34, 14, Thou Jlyalt worihip no other God - y For 
 the Lord, whofe Name is jt alms, is a jealous God. J^nd 
 Matt. 4, 10, TbouJI)ah wo\ flip the Lord thy God, and 
 him only Jbalt thru ferve Now, according to Dr Ben- 
 vet s Scheme, to him that is at prefent our Mediator, and 
 fiall hereafter be our Judge, that is, to the Man Chrift 
 Jefus ; we are required to give religious Adoration, p. 29 ; 
 nay, fubordinate and mediatorial Worfhip, by the Will, 
 Appointment and Command of Another ; fuch Worfhip 
 as cannot poftibly be paid to Qod •, p. 29, 69, 221. 
 Now how can thefe be reconciled ? Or will the Lord, 
 whofe Name is jealous, impart this Honour to Another > 
 If it be faid that he may, and has imparted a fubor- 
 dinate lforjlnp to Chrift Jefus, as the Scriptures evi- 
 dently fhow 5 i. e. to the Man Chrift Jefus, in Dr Ben- 
 frets Scheme ^ then here are in Reality Two Beings, the 
 Objects of religious Worfhip^ the Owe Supream, the 
 Other Subordinate, i. e. Two Gods, altogether as 
 much in Dr BemtstVas in Dr Clarke ^ Scheme. If this 
 be folved by the Supremacy of the Father, appointing 
 and commanding "Worfhip to his Son •, this Solution 
 will equally remove all Difficulties in Dr Clarke's 
 Scheme, TJe Unity afaibed to God in Holy Writ, is manl- 
 fejilyr-- a mimerical Unity of Being; a numerical Unity fas 
 Dr B. owns") of intelligent Being or Perfon : And hence 
 Worfhip to be paid, is juftly inferr'd to belong to but 
 One Perfon $ becaufe 'tis faid,H/w only fli alt thou ferve. 
 If this Inference be juft, then paying any religious 
 Worihip to the Man Chrift cannot be accounted for, 
 but either by afferting the Man Chrift to be the fame 
 individual Being with the Father, (which is abfurd -, 
 and if it were never fo poflible, yet it would avail 
 nothing, becaufe in that Cafe the Worfhip could not 
 be Mediatorial but Supreme -J or elfe it muft be by the 
 Command cf God, requiring us to worfhip his Son. 
 
 Now 
 
C IO0 ) 
 
 Mow this Latter is refolving the Unity of Gocl, info 
 an Unity of Authority, Power, Will, Confent, as mtich 
 as Dr C/a; ke has done , and confequently js liable to all 
 the very lame Objections, which this learned Writer 
 has hereftarted againft that other Scheme. 
 
 CHAP. XIIFo 
 Of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 AS the Reverend Dr Bemtet has entertained a No- 1 
 tion about the Word, inconfiftent with what 
 the Scriptures have taught us concerning him •, fo the 
 fame original Error has led him into as ftrange and 
 hard Opinions concerning the Holy Ghcft. The De- 
 fign of his 1 3th ch. is to prove, that the Holy Ghoft 
 is one and the fame Being [nay, the fame individual in- 
 telligent Agent or Perfon] with thefelf-ex'iflent God. For 
 which Notion he argues but from two Places of Scrip- 
 ture, vi%. 1 Cor. 2 -, 10, I.I, and Luke i ♦, 32, 35. 
 
 His Notion he thus expreiTes, p. 199, 262, 263 * 
 That the Spirit of God is as mvch That God whofe Spi- 
 rit he is, as the Spirit of a Man is that Man in whom 
 his: And that when God is honoured, the Holy Spirit 
 is honoured ; even as, when a Man is honoured, his 
 Spirit is honoured, which is the fame PERSON 
 with himfelf. That is to fay^ The Spirit of God the 
 Father Almighty, is as much That God the Father 
 Almighty, as the Spirit of a Man is the Man. The 
 only 7Vxthere relied oij, is, I Cor. 2 ; 10, 1 I, For the 
 Spirit fear cheth all Things, yea, the deep Things of God: 
 For, what Man knoweth the Things of a Man, favethe 
 Spirit of Man which is in him ? Fvenfo the Things cf 
 God, knoweth (is d'&c) none, hut the Spirit of God. Up- 
 on this I beg leave only to obferve, 1/, that if Dr 
 Bennett Expofition of this Text be the true one, then 
 
 the 
 
C no ) 
 
 the Holy Ghoft is not any Thing elfe but the Fa- 
 ther Almighty , and confequently we have no Trinity, 
 but a Duality at moft ^ God the Father, and his Son 
 the Man Jefus Chrift. 2. The Queftion is, whether 
 this Jingle Text be figurative, and all the other plain 
 Texts which fpeak of the Holy Ghoft as a Perfon, 
 be literal \ Or whether This only be literal, and all 
 the others figurative. 3. The plain Meaning of this 
 Text, I think, is as follows : " God has revealed to 
 " us [Apoftlesl by the Holy Ghoft, whatever relates 
 " to the Gofpel- State: For, the Spirit throughly un- 
 " derftands all the deep Myfterics of the Gofpel, 
 * c which have been kept fecret fince the World began, 
 " \_R07n. 16. 2$.] For, what Man knows the Defigns 
 " of a Man, except He himfelf tvho purpofes to bring 
 4c them about •, much lefs can any Man know with- 
 " out Revelation, the fecret Defigns of God. But 
 " the Spirit of God knoweth his Deiigns -, even That 
 cc Spirit whom we have received, — that we might know the 
 " Things that are freely given to us of God. ' 3 This I 
 think is the plain Context : And the Alteration of the 
 Phrafeology by St. Paul, evidently fhews that he did 
 not defign fuch aSenfeasDr Bennet has put upon 
 thefe Words. W T hen he fpeaks of the Spirit of Man ■ 
 he fays, the Spirit of Man to *v (kwm which is in 
 him 5 But of the Spirit of God he ufes not the fame 
 Phrafe, but calls him diredtly to -smu/xa tS 3?=? the 
 Spirit of God, and, in the next Verfe, to in tS 6eS 
 %-hich cometh or is fent forth from God. 
 
 The Other Text is handled, p. 200 — 202. And 
 the Argument thence drawn is this. ' The Angel told the 
 Virgin, — that her Sonfiouldbe call d the Son of the High- 
 eft, and the Son of God, i. e. the Son of the feifexijlent 
 
 Behtg,— hecaufe the Holy Ghoft begat him. God war 
 
 the immediate Father of the Man Chiji Jefus ; i. e. 
 he begat him not by the mediate Operation of a Being dif- 
 ferent from himfelf, (for in that Senfe he is as much your Fa- 
 ther or mine J but by his own immediate A3 « p. 201. 
 
 I 
 
( III ) 
 
 I anfwer i^, Chrift was conceived by the Half 
 Ghoft ' who is exprefly called, in this very Text of 
 St Luke, ch. i, 35, not, ffo Higbeft, but^ the Power of 
 theHigheft,) after a Manner immediately miraculous. 
 And for ffrtft Keafon Chrift was, (otherwife than any 
 Ofr^ Man J the Sow of Go*?. >4^w is ftiled the So?* 
 of God, Luke 3, 38, becaufe made in a an/- 
 racuhus Manner : Ought not Chrift much more. 
 to be fo call'd, upon Account of his miraculous 
 Conception ? But, 2. If Dr Bennetts Account were 
 true •, All thofe Texts which mention the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jefus Cbrift, rauft be under- 
 ftood concerning the Holy Gbojl 5 which yet, I believe, 
 were never once fo underftood by any Chriftian Wri- 
 ter. For in Dr Bemiet's Notion, The Holy Ghoft is 
 wot another different Being from the very God, but the ve- 
 ry God himfelf, or the felf-exiftent Beings which is the 
 Father of the Man Chrift Jefus. p. 202. 
 
 After having produced thefe Reafons, weak as they 
 are, to fupport his Hypothecs ^ Dr B. proceeds to ac- 
 count for feveral Texts, which teach that the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft is a different Being (a diftind intelligent Agent 
 or Perfon) from God. Thefe He refolves all into Me* 
 taphor and jillegory. But yet fuch is the Force of plain 
 Truth, that after he has made the H. Ghoft, the 
 Comforter, to be nothing but an Allegory, yet, iii 
 his very Explication of the Figure, he lofesthe Noti- 
 on of the Figure he is explaining 5 and fays, p. 205, 
 (where he would be thought to fpeak explicitly and It - 
 terally the plain Senfe contained under the Figure,) 
 that the Holy Spirit vouchfafes*o/W bis Influences, ac- 
 cording to the Will of the felfexiftent Being ; and the Man 
 Chrift Jefus dijpofes of the?n, as his Apoftles alfo did ^ 
 that is, the Spirit imparts his Gifts, &c. Again, p. 208, 
 The plain Tmth delivered under thofe Figures, is, that 
 vbetiGoiflouldBY HIS SPIRIT pour forth thefe ex- 
 traordinary Gifts and Graces, &c Now this is exactly 
 to fay, The plain Truth delivered under thefe Figures, is 
 
 the 
 
( it;* ) 
 
 the fame Figure JIM. For this learned Author explain* 
 the Perforial Reprefentations or Scripture (which he 
 calls an Allegory or dark ExpreiTion,) by Pcrfonal Re- 
 prefentations again. So hard is it to talk or a Perfoit 
 always as an Attribute or Mode or Quality, or as ano- 
 ther Perjon diftinct from whom he really is. The 
 plain Truth indeed w:th Dr Bennett and what he ought 
 to have fMd, confiftent with his Notions is^ That, 
 when God, even the Father,, in his own Perfon (not, by 
 his Spii it,) ftwuld pour o::t thofe 'extraordinary Gifts 8cc. 
 .Again, p. 209, He fays . irhatfocver the Spirit Jbould 
 afterwards ACT or have in Charge, wd; from Chrift : 
 Jnl therefore Chrift fays, he ft) .ill receive of mini, that is, 
 He ft) all receive Inftructions/Vo/wwe. And again ^ He 
 f)all then have that Power and Knowledge entrufted with 
 him by me. ibid. Here the Do&or keeps on the Figure, 
 in. the Explication of the Figure -, whereas (according 
 to him) the Sm&phhtly and liter illy \s,The Father fhalt 
 receive of mine, ft)ill receive InftmBions from, and be 
 be intmfted by Chrift. But this is plainly to contradict 
 the Scriptural Reprefentations of the Holy Ghoft, 
 which declare Him to befeitt by Chrift, and to ail as 
 from him, and not to fpeak of himfclf '•, But they never 
 once intimate that the Father is fent by Chrift, nor. 
 can it be true that the Father wouM wt fpeak ofb : wfelf. 
 He [the Spirit"! ft) all not fpeak of bimfelf, but what foever 
 he ft)allhear, that ft) all he fpeak, fays our Saviour : That 
 is, fays Dr B. He ft)dl fa th fully dif charge the Office of 
 God's Meffevger unto you, p. 207. If this be an Atiego- 
 ry in the Evangelift, then, to fpeak conitftently, the 
 plain Tru' h is ; God the Father Almighty (ball faithfully 
 dlfch.vge the Office of God's r [ i. e. his own] Mejfenger td 
 you. Such Expofitions are fo much more obfeure than 
 the Allegories themfelves, that one may juftly con- 
 clude the whole to be a meer Fiflion, only to cover 
 the Nakednefs of an Hypothecs. 
 
 CH.AF, 
 
( Ij 3 ) 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 Of Divine Worfhip. 
 
 AL L Speculation is of ro other Ufe, than & it di- 
 rects our Ptafiiee, and teaches us how to ASj 
 and perform our Duties. The firft Confideratioii 
 therefore, which ought to arifein every fefious Man's 
 Mind, when any Notion is ftarted • is, what Itiflii* 
 ence it will have upon Pratfice, and how far its Ef- 
 fects will reach in that Refpect. As to Speculations a* 
 bout the Tihhy, were it not for the Practices apt to a- 
 rife from them, (which, if Men could have been conten- 
 ted with the plain Commandments of God, would be 
 wholly needlefs I fee no great harm there would be 
 in one Scheme more than in another, nor what real De- 
 triment Chriftianity wou'd receive. The real Mifchief 
 arifes wholly from the Pratfkes, which Men, in Con- 
 fequence. of their refpeftive Schemes, are apt veryneed- 
 lejly to introduce ; And this only, is what makes it 
 worth the while, for every one who has Chriftianity 
 fincerely at Heart, to bear his Teftimony againft what 
 he conceives erroneous, and to plead for the true Serif 
 ture-Ttbiity* 
 
 To coniider therefore what Influence Dr fiefmefs No= 
 tion has upon PraBice^ and what Dr Clarke's has \ 
 will very much ailift us in determining the Points in 
 Queftion. 
 
 By the Law of Nature, God is to be worfhipped Oft", 
 ly, and in the fimpleft Manner •, with a ready Mind, 
 arid a pure Heart. By the firft Commandment, the fame 
 Law is confirmed in the Old Teftament ; Thoiijlmlt 
 have no other Gods but me : And oor Saviour has repealed 
 the fame in the Mp Teftament, by tellng us that thtf 
 
( tI4 ) 
 
 true iForflnppers flail worfiip the Father in Sprit andj!t 
 Truth, John 4, 23; and by enjoyning us, when we 
 pray, to lay, Our Father which art in Heaven, Sec. 
 
 But then it will be asked 5 Has our Saviour 1 added no- 
 
 thing to natural Religion in Point of Worfinp I Or is 
 
 Chriftianity, in this Refped, mere natural Religion ? I 
 
 anfwer : (Thrift has plainly commanded us in the Go- 
 
 fpel, to ash the Father in ^IS Name. Whatsoever, fays 
 
 our bit lied Saviour, ye flail ask in /JH Name, that will 
 
 I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son : If ye 
 
 flail ask any Thing in my Name, I" will do it, John 145 
 
 13, 14. And again, John 16, 23, Verily, verily, I 
 
 fay unto you, whatfoever ye flail ask the Father in My 
 
 Name, he will give it you. And, left any one mould 
 
 miftake this plain Precept, 'tis repeated in the very 
 
 next \Vords, Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my Name-, 
 
 ask, and ye flail receive, that your Joy may he full, ver. 24. 
 
 And as it is in Prayers, fowe find the fame Method 
 
 ufed in relation to Praifes. Natural Religion teaches 
 
 us to offer up the Sacrifice of Praife to God 5 to afcribe 
 
 to him the Gloiy due, as to the Lord and Father of us 
 
 all Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praifed 5 is 'the 
 
 Voice of Reafon. And thereto alfo confents Revelation. 
 
 Mofes juftly declares to the People of Ifrael, Deut. 
 
 %9i 20,21, Thou flalt fear the Lord thy God, He 
 
 is thy Praife. When our Saviour appeared on Earth, and 
 redeemed ^ us to God by his Blood, Rev. $, 9, we have 
 this additional Xnft ruction, that we muft now afcribe 
 unto God Glory in theChurch, by Cbrijl Jefus throughout 
 all Ages, Epb. 3,-21-. And the Author to the Hebrews, 
 ch. 13,15, has given us the fame Diredion, By him 
 let us effer the Sacrifice of Praife to God continually. Alfo 
 unto our Saviour himfelf, upon Account of his Re* 
 deeming us \ even xmtd him that loved us, and wafled us 
 f ro?n our Sins in hit own Blood, and hath made vs Kings 
 and Prie [Is unto God and hisFather . to Him muft alfo 
 upon this Account be afcribed Glory a7id Dominion for 
 ever and ever, Amen. 
 
 Had 
 
C ii y ) 
 
 Had this Simplicity of the divine WtoflSp been always 
 preferved, diiterent fpeculative Opinions ecu d have 
 done no Harm. All C hriftians could and won d have 
 joined together with one Heart and one Mouth to gio* 
 rify God, becaufe this Manner of Worihip is right 
 and late upon all Hypotbefes : And the Groundworks 
 of Schiiins being taken away entirely, an Uniformity 
 muft neceflarily have been obferved. But in the Fow tb 
 Century, upon the prevailing oi certain metapihyfcal 
 Opinions, the antient Forms ot Divine 7Aor//jipaniithc 
 Doxologies were by Degrees changed : Which became 
 the Caule of great Confufions. 
 
 - To examine now Dr Clarke'** Scheme and Dr Fejr 
 ftcfsj by their rcfyctiivc Influences on l\a:nce. 
 
 If Dr Clarke's Scheme be right, it ieems to follow 
 from thence, that All M'otjhip ought to be directed to 
 the Father, to the Father tb™ Cbrijl : excepting only, 
 that fuch Worfhip may be paid to Chrift as Mediator, 
 (which Dr Bemiet alio allows,,) lor which we have ex- 
 prefs Warrant from Examples in Scripture. The Reve- 
 lation of St John, affords us feveral Injlances of this 
 Worfhip paid to Chrift. Nay we areexprefiy told, 
 what Kind, and what Degree of Worfhip t and upon 
 vhat Account 'tis to be paid to him. See Dr Clarke's 
 Jvfwer to the Author of fame Covfldcrciticiis, p. 24c. 
 There feems not indeed, in His Scheme, to be fuffici 
 ent Warrant for Prayer to the Holy Ghofi y or to the 
 Trinity: Nor do the Scriptures afford us any Examples 
 of that Worfhip. 
 
 If Dr tercet's Scheme be right, He has as ?muh 
 
 ■ Reafon fat leaft) as Dr Clarke, to dc-fire 5 and as much 
 
 ■ Obligation, to exhort and to prefs thofe in Power, 
 ' to bring back the Forms of divine Worflnp to the anti* 
 
 ent Ptimkrve Standard, and unexceptionable Manner 
 ' of directing Prayers to the Father thro' Jefus Chrift. 
 For (according to Dr Bemiet) the ' o'vo , the Vord % bs 
 5ng no Ferfon diftincf from the Father, no intelligent 
 Agent at all j and it being evident in common Senfe, 
 
 I 2 that 
 
( M ) 
 
 tiiat nothing but an intelligejit Agent can be an Ohjeft of 
 Worfhip ^ 'tis plain that, in His Way, the ko-yce is 
 no diftinct Object ot any Worfhip or Honour at all. 
 Con fee} iien tly whatever Honour is paid to Cbrift, is 
 paid either to the mere Man exalted, as our Mediator $ 
 or elfe is paid to the Father in him : To the Father, I 
 fay which is the Alone intelligent Agent, who by his 
 iVord (which is no diitinCT: intelligent Agent, but 
 SDMrjrHAToi the Father J dwells in Chrift. 
 
 Then as to the Holy Ghofi ■, He can be (according to 
 Dr Beunet) no Object or Worfhip, nor of any Honour 
 at all. For the Holy Spirit (he teaches j has no other 
 Perfonality or intelligent Agency, than as he is the Per- 
 fan of the Father himfelf under a different View and 
 Refpecr. He is either the Father, or only an Allegory. 
 In the litter Senfe, he can no more be an Object of 
 Worfhip, than a Figure of Speech can be the Object of 
 Worfhip. In the former Senfe, !tis evident He ought 
 not to be prayed to as difiinS from the Father, in parti- 
 cular Prayers addrciTtd to him as fan3ifying us, and not 
 as creating us -, or in Petitions addrelled to him as 
 procee ding from the Father and the Son : Since this is to 
 reprefent him as a difnnJ intelligent Agent from the 
 Father, who yet, according to this Scheme, is one and 
 the fame Being, nay, one and the fame Agent or Perjon 
 with the Father. 
 
 For the fame Reafon, neither istheTiivity (accord- 
 ins; to Dr Rennet's Scheme) any Object at all,either of 
 Prayer or Doxology, diftindtfrom the Father himfelf^ 
 but a total and absolute Confufion of Perfons, under 
 the Cover of the word \Verfons^\ without its Significa- 
 tion. For tho' the Doctor pretends to df\re, p. 218, 
 that the word Berfim mould beConthiv.ed, till better can 
 be fnbffhvted in hi Room ; vet 'tis evident that That 
 verv word (if Dr Benvet s Notion be true,) is the ve- 
 rv woijr word poffible •, becaufe 'tis more apt to deceive^ 
 than any other that could be ufed, Tis a word that 
 ncceffarily carries with it the Idea of Intelligent Agent, 
 
 inftead 
 
C 117 ) 
 
 infteadof That SOMETHING, which (whatever it 
 be) the Debtor is clear is not an intelligent Agent. It 
 therefore unavoidably leads the People to PraBices, 
 which (if His Notion be true) cannot but bejuftly li- 
 able to too great Sufpicion even of idolatrous Miftake ; 
 carrying Men to an Uncertainty, whether the Object of 
 their Worihip, in fome Cafes, be a Reality, or only a 
 mere abJiraB Notion or imaginary Denomination, 
 
 I do not fee, fuppofing this learned Author's Noti- 
 on to be true, how he can dejire the Continuance oi'fucb 
 Terms, as thus lead Men needleily into fo dangerous 
 a PraBice. Neither the Iford, nor the .Spirit, as luch, 
 ought at all to be adored in Dr Betmefs Scheme ^ nor 
 can the Trinity be worfhipped ('according to His No- 
 tion) with any greater Propriety, than a Man can be 
 addrelTed to, firft by fpeaking to his whole Perfon, and 
 then dividing and fubdividing him into Parts, and ad- 
 dreflingto thofe Parts diftinctly, and then joyning 
 together all the Parts by one General Term, an I ad- 
 dreiling again to That. There is, in this, fomething 
 fo very unnatural, that in Dr Bennet's Scheme, even 
 much more than in Dr Clarke's, every fincere Chrifti- 
 an ought to defire and prefs for a Remedy. 
 
 I cannot conclude this Chapter better, than with 
 fome particular Paffages out of Dr Clarkes Scripture- 
 Dotlrine; which {hew us, I think, (with all Deference 
 and Humility I am fure I fpeak it,) the only true 
 Way either of preventing Difputes of this Kind, or 
 rendring them harmlefs. 
 
 It were much to he wified, fays he, that the mojt Anth- 
 tut Forms ( of Publick Prayers ) might always be pre- 
 ferred \ And that particularly in This Part of the Liturgy, 
 Lthe Litany,] (as Care has already been taken in al- 
 mojl all other Parts of it,) for the avoiding all doubtful and 
 confufed Notions, for preventing Mifunderflandings of hard 
 Phrafes among fl the Vulgar, and for perfeft Unexceptiona- 
 blenefs of Exprejjions wherein all are to join $ That natu- 
 ral Simplicity, which (after the Example of Scripture) 
 
 I 3 Mi 
 
\ 
 
 ( 1 18 ) 
 
 w'm nfcd in the Primitive Church, (fa far as appears hi thS 
 Remains of th of e Times.) ofdiretfivg folemn pnlAick Prayers 
 uniformly to the I'erfun of the Father, in the Maine and 
 th: 0' the Mediation of theSon, by the AfTiftance and under 
 t-e Direction and Influence of the Holy Spirit, (pray- 
 ing in the Holy Ghoft, as the Apofile exprejjes it, Jude 
 20 J h ad be en cov ft antly retained; rather than that Forms 
 ccwpofedin the later and difputaceovs Ages of the Church, 
 Jlwuld have been introduced. Many of the mojl eminent of 
 the firfl Refoi mers were of that Opinion -, and the moft con* 
 f derate Perfons in all 1 hues, who have been difpofed to 
 prefer Peace and Charity in the Church of God before 0- 
 ther Corf 'derations, have in this Matter agreed with them j 
 P. 459, 460. [The Direction given by our Own 
 Church in the Office for Ordaining ofPriefis, is very 
 remarkable to this Purpofe: "That you will continually 
 " pray to Cod ibt Father, by the Mediation of our only 
 " Saviour Jehu Chi ifl } for the Heavenly /Jjjiftance of tho 
 « HolyGhoji. u ] 
 
 He then produces the Teftimony of Mr. Hales, who 
 has fhewn, 1 hat, were all publick Forms of Service fo 
 framed, a* that they admitted of no particular private 0- 
 piviens, tut contained onlyfuch Things in which allChriJii* 
 ans do agree x Schifms upon Matter of Opinion, woud 
 utmlx vmi/h'. That" if we confdered of all the Liturgies 
 that are or ever Ihvue been, and removed from them what - 
 foever is offevfvc to any; the Event woud be, that the 
 piblick Service and Honour of God woud no waysfuffer. 
 
 — That "Prayer, Corfeffion, Thankfgiving, Reading of 
 
 Scripture, and Adminif ration of Sacraments zwtfo plain- 
 eft and fimpleft manner, are matter fujficient to compofe 
 a publick Form of Service. 
 
 After this, he adds a Citation from the judicious Dr. 
 Bradford, containing a Declaration of his Opinion for 
 the greateft Simplicity andplaimiefsm Publick Forms ; and 
 p. Ttftimony of the ingenious Author of the Hifiory of 
 Motittmfm, 10 the lame Purpofe. 
 
 Laftly, 
 
c "9 ; 
 
 Laftly, I beg leave to refer my Reader to what the 
 fame Worthy Per fon hasalledged,p. 470, &c. Where 
 he has mown, I think indifputably 3 that the Beft 
 ^^ G .f f u PP ye J™g Herefies, woud have been, not to hays 
 oppofed unfcriptural ExpreJJions mth others contra) y and 
 ftfiMZ/j/.unfcriptural, but to have required Men to forbear 
 tbeUfeoffuch unlcriptural Exprejjiws, as at any time 
 gave Offence. — Had Tb ey \Thoie m Power ,] fays he, 
 
 fupprejjed the growing Schiftm, not by adding any 
 
 thing to the Rule of Scripture, but by holding their Jdvcr- 
 fariesftriilly to that Rule, — they had much better confult:! 
 the general Interejl of Chrifiianity, and in great mea- 
 
 Jure prevented thofe Animojities which haie 
 
 beenfo great a Difiononr to the Name of Cbrifllans. \a 
 Confirmation of which Opinion, the Doctor has cited 
 Eufebius, Confiantine the Great, Chillingwortb, and 
 Mr. Hales. And Dr. Bevnet, (as I before obferved,) 
 by the true and evident Confequences of his Own Opi- 
 nion, is obliged, even much more than any of Thefe, 
 earneftly to deiire the fame thing. 
 
 I 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 Of Sitbfcriptions to Articles, 
 
 Had not concern'd my felf with this^ Point, had 
 not that Reverend Gentleman, whofe Notions I 
 have been confidering, gone out of his way in a re- 
 markable Manner, to urge thisTopick to Dr. Clarke, 
 and to declare his Perfuajion that Dr CI. mil vat venture 
 to repeat his Subfcriptiojt. It he mould, he thinks it 
 wou'd befuch a Colhijion, p. 26^ and fo much Guilt 
 wou'd attend it, as he trembles to think of, / cak\ 
 (fays he to Dr. CI) but earpefiy hit, cat you to do what 
 
 I 4 lie s 
 
( 120 ) 
 
 tieshtycvr Hooter, inthemojl publuk Marnier, for pre-, 
 venting juch an Interpretation of our Liturgy, as muft, I 
 fear, necefjari.y lay waft the Confciences oj the Cotnplyers. 
 ibid. 
 
 To this I reply ; That, Whether Dr Cla>he would 
 fubfcribe again or no, I know not. But I cannot for- 
 bear asking, What is That Interpretation oj all Publick 
 Fc rir.s, which Dr. Clarke has contended for ? Is it not 
 to make the 6n ipWe Move, not only the Rule, hut 
 the. whole- and the -.only Rule of Truth in Matters oi 
 Rcligin} Introduction, p. 5. 
 
 tut the Church of England's Notions, in fome Par- 
 ticulars ftem to be dijfei ent from the Senfe which Doc- 
 tor Gai le has put upon its Words. I reply, ift. How 
 muft this be made appear ? By an Induction cf parti- 
 cular Pafiages, there are 186 Places wherein our pub- 
 lick Ferns are clearly on his Side, and 27 only which 
 feem to differ from him. Muft then the fmaller Number 
 be reconciled to the greater ? Or on the contrary, muft 
 the lejfer Number and the more modem Phrales be the 
 Standard cf Doctrine, and the Rule of interpretii g 
 the more Jvtient Phrafes and the larger Number } lily* 
 Dr B. grants, that we are to believe what our Cbitnh 
 prefffes, not bee cafe She profejfesit, but becaufe the H r - 
 \y Scriptures do teach it, p 264. And 'tis agreed en all 
 Hands, that Hum are Forms are always fublcribed to, 
 pot as a Rule cf Faith, but as humane, fallible, and, 
 ter poraiy Beciiicr.s, which every Man ought continu- 
 ally to examine upon what Foundation of Scripture 
 and Reafcn they are built. Muft not every one 
 therefore, who ;■; etends to any other Religion thanPo- 
 jery, take humane and modem Forms of Jixpreffwu, in 
 fv.ch Senfe cvAy, as is confident with what to Him ap- 
 pears tcbe iheDoSriue of Scripture ? Either it muft be 
 done Tlis Way, cr it can no V x ay be lawful for any 
 Man ever to jcyr in any publick-Forms at all. idly. 
 Suppcfe Dr Gai he, (which I am wholly irnorant 
 whether he will, or no^ ) ihould ever repeat his Sub- 
 
 fcription, 
 
 
fcription, yet he, of all Men, could leafi be charged 
 with tollvjiott, becaufe he has declared publickly his 
 Opinions upon this Matter. 4. Will Dr tiennet aver, 
 that Snbfcription implies a thorough A pprobation and 
 Acknowledgment of the Truth ot every Sentence in 
 the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies, in the Senfe of 
 the Compofers of thofe publick Forms ? Or is there 
 not allowed a great Latitude? If fuch a Strict nefs be 
 underftood,as to tie up Subfcribers to every Interpretati- 
 on of Scripture, and to every Motion in the publick 
 Forms, in the Senfe of the Coinpofers 5 and All are 
 guilty of Collufon, who fubfcribe upon another Bot- 
 tom •, I will venture to fay, that the greatejl Church' 
 men are herein equallycondtmned, with thofe who are 
 reputed the moft Heretical. If fome Latitude be al- 
 lowed ^ then I wou d fain know, it in any Point 
 there befeven Times as many PalTages for an Opinion 
 as there are againjl it, why may not a Subfcrij/tion be 
 admitted, (though I approve it not J wilhout the Im- 
 putation of Perfidionfnefs and Collufwn ? 5. 1 cannot but 
 bbferve, that Dr Ben-net has altogether as little Reafon 
 to fubfcribe the Declaration of Jjfevt and Confent, as Dr 
 Clarke, ihfflofingDrBemiet's Charge to be g-od 5 he him- 
 felf having (I think) departed much farther from what is 
 generally efteemed the Dotti hie of the Church. His Ex- 
 plication of the Calviniflical Articles into Arminianifm, 
 nay citirg at large Arminius himfelf to fliew the exatl 
 Harmony between our Chin ch and that Author, (Direflicvs 
 
 forjiudyhg, &c. p. 95 99,) is fomething furpri- 
 
 fing, in a Gentleman that is fo nice with Others in the 
 Matter of Subfcripticms. His Account of the ProceJ/ion 
 cf the Holy Ghojl, in his Comment on the Athanajim 
 Creed •, is as remote as can be, both from the Vulgar 
 and vfual Senfe, and from the evident Meaning of the 
 Compiler. Nay, he does not fcruple to charge the La- 
 tin Churches with the Interpolation of Filioq-, in the 
 Nicene, and thinks it probable that they did the fame 
 in the Athanajian Creed j Direfiiom &c, p. 66. Not- 
 
 withftanding 
 
f 122. ) 
 
 withftanding this, Br Bennet can without any Difficul- 
 ty jM^n^- the Articles, nay profefTes his Opinion 
 that by our Subscription to the Articles we profefs. 
 our Belief of ever) 7 Proportion contain d in the jail 
 4\ tides: ibid. p. i$o. In this prf/b/t Book, he is 
 eyerAy again]} the Nicene o/lmzgi^ Confubjiantia 1 , (as 
 is evident from Bp. Mf s Account of that Word j 
 and he means by z/L-tc-kai^ in the Nicene Creed, the 
 very thing which the Antients meant to condemn, 
 viz. Tai'TTOoitgh' or £oyos<nj§K He is again]} the 
 Son's being 6?o$ fen -5^, Go<? of God, begotten of the Fa- 
 ther before all Worlds -, and makes him to be nothing 
 but the Father himfelf dwelling in the Man Jems. 
 He isagainft the Son's being any Msa.su Subf fence or 
 Perfon or intelligent Agent at all, as clearly as Words 
 can exprefs it. Now notwithstanding all this, yet 
 this Gentleman, who thinks it would be Colhijion in 
 Dr Clarke to fubfcribe again, can himfelf without 
 any fcruple at all fubfcribe. So eafy a Matter is it to 
 fclame Another, and to acquit our f elves. 6- In what 
 Senfe is it, that Dr Bennet fubfcribes the Articles in 
 the Cafes before mentioned > Is it, that his Notions 
 are exactly the fame with the Notions of the Compi- 
 lers of the Articles ? Or is it, that he thinks the Arti- 
 cles are capable of Ms Senfe ? He allows fin his Direc- 
 tions, &c. p. $2,) that a Man may fubfcribe to the 
 %d Article in a Senfe very different from that in which 
 it was underjlood by the greater Part of that Convocation 
 %-hich pajfed the A tide it [elf. Nay, pleads that this 
 may be done very bonejtly'm That Cafe. May the 
 fame Liberty be taken in any other publick Form of 
 V'ouh, or not? If it may, then Where would be 
 the Fault of fubferibing in Dr Clarke's Senfe, more 
 than in Dr Bennet's ; which is notorioufly as remote 
 from the Common Notions, as any Scheme whatever ? 
 La/}ly\ and to conclude-, DrBe?met, as well as Dr 
 Clarke, has (I think) all theReafon in the World to fay 
 of Articles, what the Bp. of Bangor (p. $olh of his 
 
 Anfwer 
 
( X1 3 } 
 
 Anfwev to the Committee) fays about Mother A& of 
 
 Parliament : " Wo gives '^ wore / wcgre Proo / i °f h " 
 Concern for Religion and the Glory of God? He who 
 pleads tefamenAing Things that have not formerly 
 been fufficiently confidered ? or Be who would appear 
 to contend earneftly for the Continuance of that Burden, 
 under which many good Men, as I have underjlood, have 
 long groaned ? 
 
LETTER 
 
 Written to the late Reverend 
 Containing 
 
 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 Upon his BOOK 
 
 ENTITULEt), 
 
 A plain Scripture-Argument againtl 
 ]Dr G L' J Do&rine concerning 
 the Ever-Mejfed Trinity. 
 
 Printed in the Year MDCCXIX. 
 

 
C 1*7 ) 
 
 i*» c&i «.Xo 4tir» *&» csjr> <-,&? «-,.» t-.jy» «jr? *■<£•» «u>» 
 
 
 LETTER 
 
 Written to the late Reverend 
 
 ilf R. M. 
 
 FRO M the Irtfers you have publiflied, 
 which you acknowledge had patted be- 
 tween Tk G. and Ton in the way of 
 Private Correfpondence only •, any one 
 may eafily perceive the Dr was very 
 unwilling to enter into Controverfy with you 
 upon the Subject you propofed j judging fas I 
 fuppofe) that he had clearly enough explained 
 his Opinion concerning thofe Matters, in what 
 he had already publifhed. For which Reafon, 
 it appears he thought it fufficient (in private 
 Letters,) to point out to you very briefly, (as to 
 an intelligent and ftudious Perfon,) the Heads of 
 an Anfwer to every Part of your Objection ; and 
 that he declined (asneedlefs) the drawing out a 
 
 I 8 Reply 
 
C i«8 ) 
 
 Reply at large, after what he had before fo ful- 
 ly written. With which if you were net fath- 
 £ed j All who know his Temper, will believe 
 it was no Uneafinefs to Him to permit you to 
 enjoy your own Opinion, as He defired to do 
 His. 
 
 Your printing thofe (hort Letters of His, 
 (which ieem to have been written by him in 
 Confidence as to a private Friend,) with your 
 own large and ftudied Replies ; without gi- 
 ving him (as you plainly confefs) theleaft 
 Hint of your having any fuch Intenti6n , 
 though you had defigned for about two Tears (as 
 you declare, Pref. pag. u) to publifh your Ar- 
 gument -, is what ( I airi perfwaded) you would 
 have thought fomewhat blameable in another Per- 
 fon and in another Caufe •, as feetning to fhovtf 
 too great a Defire of catching at Little Advan- 
 taged in the Maimer of reprefenting Things, and 
 not depending wholly on the fair Strength of 
 Reafuv and Argument. 
 
 Neverthelefs, brief as thofe Letters were j V 
 faw no Reafon to doubt, upon my firft reading 
 of therrij but that, to fuch as had already ftu- 
 died the Scriptures, they would fuggeft a clear 
 and fufficient Anfwer to every Part of your 
 Objection. But perceiving Since, that Some 
 Perfons (whofe Judgment I cannot but have a 
 great Regard to, thougli I am much furprized at 
 itj are of another Opinion ^ and that they 
 feem to think there is fomeihhig New and of re- 
 al Weight in the Argument you have offered ; 
 and they have accordingly recommended your 
 Book with fome Earneftnefs, as likely to give 
 full Satisfaction in ttie Point •, I fhall endea- 
 vour to fhew you very diftin&ly, wherein 
 your Argument feems to One who has carefully 
 
 confr 
 
conjfrdered it, (and has no Prejudice againf! 
 your Perfon,) to be altogether inconcluflve. 
 
 The Argument, upon which alone you infill, 
 
 and which is indeed the Subftance of your 
 
 whole Book, you thus fumm up. Pag. i oth of 
 
 your Preface : " The Scripture- Argument which 
 
 ' follows in thefe Papers, is, that the fupreme 
 
 independent Being has declared, that there 
 
 are no other Beings, inferior or dependent, to 
 
 whom divine Titles, Attributes or Worfhip, 
 
 do or ought to belong, or to be afcribed : 
 
 " And by Confeqnence, that the Son of God 
 
 " (to whom it is confeffed that divine Titles, 
 
 " Attributes, and Worfhip, do belong,) is in- 
 
 c deed a diftinft Perfon from the Father and the 
 
 " Holy Ghoft in the fame Effence j but is not 
 
 " another Being, but of one and the fame * 
 
 [meaning muovois<n<& individual] " SubJIance with 
 
 " the Father and the Holy Ghojt. " 
 
 And again, p. 14th. of your Booh. : " My 
 " Scripture-Argument againft this [Dr C/'j] 
 " Dodtrine, is : That the One eternal Almigh- 
 " ty God, 7ratvTox,5aTrop, declares •, and the 
 " Writers infpired by Him, declare 5 that 
 u there is no other diftinft Being, befides, with, 
 u like or after Him, to whom fuch divine Pow- 
 " ers ,J [as were above mentioned^] " Attributes, 
 " or Titles belong •, or to whom fuch Divine 
 " Worfhip is at any Time to be given : And 
 " by Confequence, that the Son of God, to 
 " whom qiothc, and divine Attributes and 
 " Worfhip do belong, is not a diftinB Being 
 * c from the one eternal God -, but a diftinft Per* 
 " fon from the Father and the Holy Ghoft, 
 " in one and the fame ° [individual, fo yon 
 frequently exprefs it,'] " eternal Effence : The 
 " One eternal God being not one Perfon, but 
 K Thru 
 
( i 3 o ) 
 
 " Three Perfom" [three Perfom only, you 
 lhould fay, (according to your Motion,) not 
 Perfom^ " in one Subflance or EJfence. 
 
 And pag. lS. " There may be()oufay) in 
 c< the divine Effence, tIUus * & Jsf»; and 
 " yet not J/wi & ytf/jW. 
 
 Your Argument therefore, in Form, ftands 
 thus. 
 
 1 . God has declare! in Scripture, that there is 
 ISIo other Being, befides, with, like or after 
 Him •, to whom divine Porters, Attributes, or Ti- 
 tles belong \ or to whom divine Worflnp is at any 
 Time to be given. [And this you prove by nu- 
 merous Texts of Scripture.] 
 
 2. But, to the Son of God, divine Attributes 
 and Worfbip do belong ; even the very fame, as be- 
 long to the Father. [This, you apprehend to 
 be confeffed.] 
 
 3. Therefore (you conclude,) the Son of God, 
 is not a diftinci Being from the One fupreme 
 God. 
 
 Confequently, he mv.Jl (you think,) be a diftincl: 
 Perfon [a diftinct Verfona you mould only fay,] 
 from the Father and the Holy Ghoft, ( r<xuTT<5<n©~) 
 in one and the fame individual EJfence. 
 
 I cannot but wonder any reafonable Man 
 fhould imagine there is any thing like a Con- 
 fequence in this Argument. However, fince 
 you feem really and fincerely not to fee. where 
 the fFe&ktiefs of it lies, I will endeavour tofiovf 
 it you, by defiring you to compare your Argu- 
 
 * IrehtHs^ on the contrary expreftes the Catholick Tra 
 dition thus : Vnum eunJemq; omnium Deum PATK.S.A 
 UnJantium, & mn Alium a*q; Alium. lib. 2. cap. ulc. 
 
 IBt'W 
 
C *3 l ) 
 
 ment with the following one h Which I believe 
 you yourfelf will readily confe£, not to be con- 
 chifive ; And yet if you can (how that it hag 
 not exa&ly the fame Gonchfivenefs as yours, I {hall 
 then be fatisfied that the Dr is fully confuted 
 by you in this whole Queftion; 
 
 1. God has declared in Scripture, that there is 
 no other; abfohtely, and without any Manner of 
 Exception) No Other -, No Other in any Senfe 
 W'hatfoever; [not only Nullum Aliud, but Nul- pag. i\ 
 lus Alius,] No Other PERSON, either of the 
 fame or of any other EJfence, either in the fame 
 
 or hi any other Sub/lance, befides, with, like or 
 after Him\ to whom divine Powers, Attributes, 
 or Titles belong j or to whom divine VTorfbip is at 
 any Time to be given. [This Proportion is pro- 
 ved by every one of the fame Texts, by which 
 your firft Proportion is proved.] 
 
 2. But, to the Son of God, Dhfae Attributes f 
 and Worfiip, do belong •, even the very fame (you 
 fuppofe) as belong to the Father. 
 
 3. Therefore the Son of God, is not at all a di- 
 ftindt PERSON from the One fupreme God and 
 Father of All : [But merely another Title of the 
 Father himfelf] 
 
 TheConchfon, is the Doctrine of Socinus, and 
 of fome late Writers who (under the Covert of 
 Scholajlick Jargon) would willingly pafs for 
 Orthodox : That there is no other Trinity, but 
 a Trinity of Names ; The one God and Father! 
 of All, the one fupreme Lord and Gover- 
 nour of" the Univerfe, the one and the fame 
 individual Agent or real and living Perfon„ 
 bearing (in different Refpefts) the different 
 Perfom, the different Characters or Titles, o£ 
 Father and Son and Holy Ghofi : And confe- 
 
 K 1 
 
( i3* > 
 
 quently that Chijl, cur Mediator and Redeem 
 ef, is no other than a mere Man, in whom 
 God the Father dwells, that is, to whom the 
 Word, or Ififdom or Power of God is united, in 
 a Manner which cannot poflibly differ but in 
 Degree only, from the Wanner of God's dwel- 
 ling in a Great Prophet. For Hypojlatical Union 
 ('tis plain) there can be None, it' the Aoy(G^, 
 whom we affirm to be incarnate, be no Hypnjla- 
 jh : Unlefs you will fay, that God the Father 
 bimfelf was incarnate, and hypoflatically .united 
 to the Man Chrift Jems. 
 
 This Conclujion, ("though indeed I fhould think 
 it contrary to the fundamental Laws both of 
 Nature and Chriftianity to Hurt any Man 
 who wss truly and fiiicerely of fuch an Opini- 
 on }) yet Dr Clarke fuppofes, and Tou readily 
 join with him herein, that it is wot agreeable to 
 the Doftri?ie of Scripture. 
 
 Since therefore you Both agree in denying the 
 Conclujion •, you muft of Neceffity mow fome 
 Error in One or the Other of the two Premifes 
 or Proportions, from which That Conclujion 
 cannot but follow. 
 
 Now the Firfl of the two Proportions, Tow can- 
 not poiTibly deny ;becaufe it is theexprefs After- 
 tion of every one of thofe Texts, which youyourfdf 
 have alledged in Proof of your own firft Propo- 
 rtion. As will appear by repeating the Texts 
 themfelves, in the order you have cited 
 them. 
 
 Ifa. 44, 6. Bejidet Me, there is no God. 
 ver. 8, Is there any God, befides Me ? yea, there 
 is No God, Ihiow not any. [The Word Me, is perfo- 
 
 Ifa. 
 
C 133 ) 
 
 Iia. 45, ?. 1 am the Lord, and there U^oas 
 
 cl|e j [not, n; <^>» ^//wrf, M orArr Being onJv ; bur, MJ/w 
 rflius, No Other Per fon; No Otherwhatfoever ; No Offer zb- 
 folutely 5 either of the Same, or of any o^tr ETence ; ] 
 there ism God bejides Mg. Ver. J 8, I am the 
 Lord, and there is None elfe. ver. 22, I a;/z 
 Go*/, and there is None elfe -, [/Von <•/? ^/w.] 
 
 Ifa. 40,27. To whom then will yon liken Me 
 orjlmlllbe equal? faith thcHoly One. [The words 
 are a'l perjonal.] 
 
 Ifa. 46, 5. To whom will you liken Me, awi 
 make Me e giwZ, awd compare Me, t#af b><? p^y he 
 like} ver. 9, I am God, and there is None elie • 
 I am God 7 and there is None like Me. [rhe words 
 again are all perfonal.] 
 
 Deut. 32, 39, I, *w» I, am He-, And there is 
 no God [He does not lay, ex«y>r it be in rhe fame Ef- 
 fence ; but absolutely, there * no God] with Me. 
 
 Ifa. 43, io, /fe/ore Me there to no God 
 formed, neither fiall there he any after Me. [The 
 words are fli)l always perfonal.'] 
 
 2 Kings 19, 19, Thou art the Lord God, even 
 Thou only. [Tu Situs: Not, 1 hou and the other Per jms 
 in thy Ejjence ; but, Thou only.] 
 
 Nehem. 9,6. Thou, e ven Thou, '[personally, j 
 art Lord alone. 
 
 Pf. 83 18, Thou, jpfco/e Name alone is Jeho* 
 vah. [Perfonally again.] 
 
 Pf.86, 1 o, Thou art Great, Thou [perfonally] 
 
 art God alone, 
 
 Zech. 1 4, 9- & Mat day fiall there be one Lord, 
 [in the Original it is "FIN niiV n?h\ %s<ti afet& "«» 
 erit DomhrnVnui: Not, tfiere ihalllc one Jehowh ; mr the 
 Hebrew cannot bear That conftrufticn .- Eur, Jehovah {hull 
 be, (hall be acknowledged to be, One : Not, Vnum, one Sub- 
 fiance or Effence only ; bur, Vnm, one Perjon •,] ^»^ f»M 
 2V«we, One. 
 
 Ifa. 41,4. law the Lord, the Fir/} and mth 
 the hafts lam He: [Not, Mud, That Behg only* but, 
 J//*, Itoif iVfon ] 
 
 K 9 Ifa. 
 
( *34 ) 
 
 Jfa. 44 ? 6, I am the Firft, [Nofc Pr/'raaw, **e fr/? 
 Be/wg only j but, Prw, */;e F /r // Ferfon,'} And I df» 
 ^Laft: >^»i ^jir?« Me, [N 0C ooiy, he fides my Sub- 
 fiance or tjfence; but, be fides me, perfonaliy,] tfore ZS 
 ??o Goi. 
 
 i Kings 8, 39. Thou, even Thou omZjj, W* 
 ri? the Beai ts oj the children of Men. 
 
 Joels, 27. I am the Lord thy God; [Nor, thy 
 
 infinite and per fell Efface or Sub fiance ; but, Thy Supreme 
 Lord andGovernourfthe Objefioftby Wf>rfl)ip\]cwd$one elfe. 
 ["This and the like Texts, demonftratively prove the word 
 Gad to be a perfon.il and relative Title; fignifying, ("as Dr 
 CI. obferved,) That Supreme Intelligent Agent which go- 
 terns all things. So rhat when you ("ay, pag , 9, that " by 
 " the wcrd God., you mean the Divine Effence or Subjfavce ", 
 and not the Per/on whole EiTence or Subilancc it is. • And 
 ask, p*g. 9> " Can Dr (A. poffibly think, that a Supreme 
 f Intelligent Agent which governs the World ^ is a Definition of 
 " the Effence of Qod ? " and when you affirm, ;><?£. 29, 
 that defining God co be '* //;e Supreme Govemour of the Vni- 
 ?* wfe, is as it the World were co-eternal with Hira .• " All 
 This is to me very unintelligible Arguing, For though E* 
 very Per for., or Intelligent Agent, rnuft needs indeed have a 
 Subfiancc or Effence-, and the Sufffraitce or Effence of God> is 
 indeed necefTanly infinite and pet fell; yet ehe Word, W, in 
 Scripture, and in all moral or Theological Writings- the 
 •Vvord God, \ fay, in the religious fenfe, does not fignify That 
 ferfelt Being considered as a Subfianceot Effence, (which is- 
 the bufinefs of Me taffy fields t ) but as Tfje Lh ing Perfon Whofe 
 Thatinfiaite Effence is, and \\hogove>r.( fill thirgs by his Su- 
 preme Power. So that though He who is the God 'of tlxVni. 
 ver/e, was indeed, before the Creation of things, the fame 
 Per fell Being he now is; vec he had not then that relative 
 Character, which is the figniikaticn oi the Word God in the 
 Theological fenfe, or our God, or the God and Father of A! I. 
 juft as a King is the fame Man, or has the fame Subfiance 
 and Effence, and the fame natural Powers or Faculties of a 
 Man, whether his Subjects be fuppofed to exift or not to ex- 
 ift j But his relative Title of King, is always with regard to 
 \\\i,- Government of Subjects. And were it poffible there 
 could fubiift in One and the fame individual Subfiance or 
 iffeiice, Two (or mere) intelligent Living Ferfons or Agents, 
 equally SVP&EMEj and equally Governing the Vnherfe; 
 they would be, alrogetfccr as Truly Two (or more) Gods, 
 as if their Subjlances were diftiuZi. For the being, or not' 
 
 being 
 
( i3? ) 
 
 being, of Two or More Gods, does not depend itprn their 
 Subjtance being united or divided, but upon their Wm'mkn 
 being Supreme or not Supreme. One Supwhe Goiernour of 
 All things, \s Or.e God ; and whatever oilier ferfons exifl 
 either in the Same or in any Other Subfiance, lo Jong as 
 they have No Dominion but derived frcm Him, the Vnity 
 of Godishcute. But Od,te Supreme GovemoHtj, are Mo*? 
 Gods ; and equally lb, whether their Subflanfe be ;i«i/e^ or 
 divided, if their Psvre/ W Authority be equally Supreme.. 
 This is a very clear and diftintt Notion ; of Great Impor- 
 tance, and highly dtierving your moft fcricus Confiderati- 
 
 0.1.J 
 
 Ifai. 44, 24. I am the Lord that maketh all 
 things, that Jh etch etbf 01th the Heavers alow, and 
 fpreadeth abroad the haith by my felt. [Not, by 
 mv tjjence; but, by my per ferial, inherent, underived Port- 
 "■'} 
 
 Job 9, 8, Which Alone [Solus] fpreadeth out the 
 Heavens. 
 
 Ifai. 45 *, 6, 7. I aw *fo io;J, and there h 
 None elfe : [Not, non e/J >*/J»rf ; but, ncn e/r ^//w, no 
 other Perfon f] /y rw rk Lzgfo, &C. 
 
 Dent. 5, 24. For, &>/;<*£ GW f j ftar« in Hea- 
 ven or in Earth, that can do according to Thy 
 Works, and according to Thy Might? 
 
 Hofea 13,4. I «w f /je Loro 7 tfrji Goi •, ■ 
 
 thonfmlt have no God but Me: For there is no 
 Saviour bejide Me. [He does not fay, be fide my Ejfence 
 «T Subflance, but per jointly, none befide Me.'] 
 
 Ifai. 43, 11. I, even I, am the Lord-, and be- 
 jide Me, there is no Saviour. [The words are ftill al. 
 ways perjenal.'] 
 
 Ifai. 45, 21. There is no God elfe befide Me. 
 ver. 2 2,1 aw Goo 7 , aw J f fore is None elfe. 
 
 Deut. 32, 39. I am He, [not Z"6<tf Subflawe only, 
 bat That Perfon, That intelligent Living dgert f^ and there 
 is no God with Me. I /</7J, awi I WRtfct? Alive. 
 
 Exod. 20, 3. TJmii Jlialt have no other Gods be- 
 fore Me. [He does not fay, except they be of the fame 7n- 
 dividuai Subfiar.ce, but absolutely, thou fi>alt have no Others 
 whatsoever.] 
 
 K 4 Deut 
 
( 13* ) 
 
 ^Dcut. 6, 4, Hear, Ifrael\ the Lord our 
 God is One Lord. [According to the Original 
 "is, xtfe*®- o SiZf K,uav y Ko'et©-^ «? \rt; The lord 
 our God, even (be Lord, is One : e?<, One Perfon 1 
 
 Mark 12,29— — ? 2 - Jefus anfwered\ Ibe 
 fjjl of all the Commandments is ; hear, Ifrael, 
 ibe Lord our God is ciie Lord-, [The Lord our God, 
 even the Lord, is O.ie 5] and thou J!) alt hve the Lord 
 thy God &c. And the Sa ibe anfwered, Well, Maf- 
 tn\ thou haft [aid the Truth \ for there is One God, 
 and there is none other but He: [Nx, tin othev than 
 h'u Sit'.'fLirx? ; bur, psrfonally, no ether than He] 
 
 Ifai. 42, 8, I am the Lord; That is my Name ^ 
 avd my Gloiy r/ilt I not give to Another. [Nocoo- 
 
 Jy, not to 'another Subflante; but abfoliuely, not to any Other; 
 nor to any other Perfon ; nor to any Other \ vvharfoever.]) 
 
 Ifai. 47, 22. I am God, and there is None elfe^ 
 iJrto Me every hie e ft) all how. 
 
 Mattb. 4; 10. Thou ftmltworftnp the Lord thy 
 God, and Him only [halt thou ferve. [He does not 
 U\\ h ; 5 Befpg only, or hib SubjiancB; but his Perfon, Him 
 only, fink thou ferve.] 
 
 Theft are the Texts you cited, and in the 
 feme Order that you cited them. Now from 
 hence rnoft palpably appears the Weaknefs of 
 your Whole Argument. For your Reafoning 
 depends entirely upon your dropping the True 
 P opofthn exprtlted in every one of thefe 
 Texts, and putting Another Prcpofition in its 
 place. 
 
 God has declared (you fay) in thefe Texts, 
 that there is no Other Being, to whom His 
 Attril ires and Worfnip belong : But, to the Son 
 ff God (you think) the Attributes and Worfhip 
 of the Father do belong : Therefore (you con- 
 clude) the Son of God is not a dijlintf Being from 
 
 •the 
 
( *37 ) 
 
 the Father-, but a diftinft Perfon [a Perfona you 
 mean only] from the Father, in the fame indi- 
 vidual Effence. 
 
 ISiow, I obferve, in every One of thefe Texts, 
 God exprejly declares, not> that there is no O- 
 ther BEING only, but alfo that, abfo- 
 lutely and without Exception , there is no 0- 
 THER, no other Perfon, no Other whatsoever, 
 either in the fame or in any other Subftance, to 
 whom His Attributes and Worfhip belong : Juft 
 as St Paul fays, i Cor. 8, 6, To vs there is but 
 one God, even the Father. Coftfequently, if 
 the Attributes and Worfhip of the FATHER, 
 (which Worflnp is always perfonal,) do indeed 
 (as^you fuppofe) belong alfo to the Son of 
 God-, it follows inevitably and demonstra- 
 tively, that the Son of God can in no fenfe be 
 a diftindt Perfon from the Father, either in the 
 fame or in any other Eflence -, but that he muft 
 be merely another Name for the Father himfdf. 
 He muft be, not only of the fame Subftance. •, but 
 he muft be He himfelf r he muft be that very indi- 
 vidual Perfon, of whom it is faid in all your 
 Texts, that Him only, [not, his Sub/tance only, but 
 his Perfon only, HIM only] Jhalt thou ferve. 
 
 If therefore this Conclufon be not true •, but the 
 Son of God be indeed a true and living Perfon, 
 diftincl from the Perfon of the Father, (which, I 
 think, you and Dr Clarke do Both agree to be 
 the more natural Senfe of Scripture.) and not 
 a mere Attribute of the Father, perfonated only 
 by figurative Speech ; Then the fore-going 
 Texts, wherein the Supreme God a%d Father of 
 All declares that his Attributes and WorJInp can- 
 not be afcribed to any other Being, to any other 
 PERSON, to any other abfolutely whatfoever, 
 
 miifl 
 
C 138 ^ 
 
 muji necejjarily be underftood of SUCH Attributes 
 *nd SUCH irorfbip, as are infeparably peculiar 
 to the lerjon of the Father -, and not of #7 C # 
 Attributes and SUCH Wotf/iip, as is in the New 
 Teftainent a^Ity afcribed to the Perfon of the 
 Son, even to Chriji our Mediatour and Redee^r 
 
 To avoid a per/eff ContradiSion between 'rioA 
 Texts on the Ow hand, wherein the W^ God 
 and hither of the Umverfe declares that no other 
 Jleirg, no other Perfon, abfolutely no other in a- 
 ny Senfe whatfcever, (which in every One of 
 your own Texts exprefly decoys your Diftindi- 
 on or Being and reifon,) can have His Worfhin 
 paid to him ; and t/; / e Texts on the Other hand 
 wherein Worftipw given to Chrift 5 In order (I 
 lay) to avoid an exprefs Contradidion between 
 thefe different Texts-, there is no Poilibility but 
 either it muft be affirmed, that Chrift is no c- 
 thcr than the very Perfon of the Father manifeft- 
 ed in the Fkfh 1 or elfe a DiJlinBion muft be al- 
 lowed in the forjhip When God f ays , Thou 
 JbaJt worlhtp the Lord thy Gfid, and Him ONLT- 
 £S °?\ Savlour , caIls > vorjhipphg the FA- 
 1 HtK John 4,: 2 3,) And yet in the New Tefta- 
 ment there 7, alfo Worfhip paid to the Soil: Of 
 
 Neceffity there muft be introduced either a Con- 
 fujwn of Perform or a Diftinttion of WorJInp A 
 Ccnjujwn of ferfons, you yourfelf difallow, though 
 your Argument neceflarily infers it. A Dijlinli- 
 onoj Worfinfr the Scripture plainly eftablifhes. 
 when the fame Perfon who fays, that Himfelf 
 mdyfialt thou Serve h yet gives to another Perfon 
 Vommon and Gloiy and a Kingdom, (Dan 7 ja) 
 th^\^aUov^:on\dfervehim; that his Domhl 
 mipoMbeaneverUfting Dominion, and his Kin,- 
 domtoat which JlwuU wtbe deftoyed. Therefore 
 
 Second 
 
C »39 ) 
 
 Second Proportion, (both in your Argument, 
 and in That which tends to prove the Son oj God 
 rot to be at all a diftinft Perfon from the Father,) 
 mult needs be erroneous •, viz. that to the Son 
 of God Divine Attributes and JFoij/rip do belong, 
 even the very SAME as belovgto the Father. And 
 this Notion is indeed fo evidently erroneous, 
 that you very wifely forbear to colleS together 
 the Texts, upon which you fuppoie it to be 
 founded. Becaufe all the Texts in Scripture, 
 which mention the Powers and Attributes of the 
 Son of God, always fpeak cf them as derivative 
 from the Father, and fnbordinate to thofe of 
 the Father : That the Son, can do nothing of 
 Himfelf ; that his having Life in btmjelf, is givtn 
 him \ that all Power in Heaven and Earth, is gi- 
 ven him> &c. And in all the Texts or' Scrip- 
 ture, wherein IForJhw is given to Chrift •, it is 
 never mentioned as given to him upon Account 
 of his EJjence or Subjhnce •, (for in whatSenfe 
 either He or an Angeiis faid to have the Name or 
 Authority of Jehovah in him, has been frequent- 
 ly fhown by Dr CI. andOthers,and I fhallhaveOc- 
 cajfion to confider it piefently.) neither is it ever 
 mentioned as given him upon Account of the 
 Worlds having been created Through him : but 
 Men are Therefore to honour the Son even as they 
 honour the Father, BECAUSE He hath commit- 
 ted all Judgment unto the Son, Joh. 5, 22. And 
 at the Name of Jefts every Knee is for thisReafon 
 commanded to bow, and every Tongue to confefs 
 him to be Lord -, that thereby may be promoted 
 the Glory of God, his Father ; who exalted him, 
 and gave him a Name which h above every Name •, 
 that he fhould be, tan 3i£ as God ; that is, ho- 
 noured with divine Honour, Phil. 2. 10, it, 
 9, 6. Nor is there any one Place in the whole 
 
 New 
 
( i4o ) 
 
 New Tefiament, where- Chrift is wormipped 
 as U4<*t<Sh] the Higheft or Supreme, but as tS 
 w u4«rr»J j* & W0 / tfc#fcfc A Luke-,, 
 225 as the Mediator between il&» and "the One 
 
 '°J\j l X^rhvV that is ' 3S our Advocate 
 mth the FATHER , J h. 2, 1 , as ^ who 
 
 vajhed its from our Sins in bh own Blood, and hath 
 mads us Kings and Priefts unto God, even his P^. 
 tbev l-tzi &cp kx) imrv w». unto his God 
 and Father,] Rev. 1, 6 j as the Lamb, who was 
 therefore worthy to receive Glory, beam ft £e was 
 pin, Rev 5, 12 5 as our HighPriefi, who is fet 
 down at the Right Hand of the Throne of God 
 Heb. 8. I. and 12. 2. And the Holy Ghoft 
 who according to your Notion, ought conftanl 
 ty to be invocated 111 Co-ordination not only 
 with the Mediator, but even with the Father 
 fcimrelf; is, on the contrary, in Scripture never 
 invocated at all by any direB Prayer, nor ever re- 
 prefented as fitting on a Throne, or exercifing 
 Kega! Dominion ; but the Father is always pray- 
 ed to and thanked for, the Gift of the Holy 
 Gooft After which Pattern, the primitive 
 Church, (whole DireSion and tfWjweftill re- 
 tain in the folemn Exhoi tation in the Office for 
 ordaining of Priefts,) continually prayed TO God 
 the Father, BT the Mediation of our only Saviour 
 Jefus Chrift, FOR the heavenly Affiftance of the 
 Holy Ghoft, Sec. J 
 
 The fcattered Proofs, alleged by you in diffe- 
 rent parts of your Book, infavour of the oppo- 
 site Notion^ Iftiall briefly confider in the Or- 
 der they occur. 
 
 Pje f- Pag, ?• You mention the fix principal 
 Texts, wherein you think your Dodrine is di- 
 retfly revealed. And they are, 1 Job. <>. 7. 
 Thil 2.6, Rom. 9. 5. Job. 10.90. Tit. 2, 
 
 13. 
 
( 1*1 ) 
 
 15- and i Joh. 5.20. Every one of wnich 
 Texts, the Dr has (I think) clearly fhotvn, in hh 
 Scripture-Dotfrine and in his Anfwer to *Mr Nel- 
 fon's Friend, to be entirely befute your Purpole. 
 Which leaft your Reader ihouid remember, yon 
 barely enumerate the Texts, and wifely onill 
 to fet down the Words themfelvcs. 
 
 I Job. 5. 7. There are Three that bear Record 
 in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Hoy 
 Ghojl ^ and thefe Three are One ; And there are 
 Three that bear Ifitnefs in Earth, Sec. Upon this 
 Text; befides that the Word [tv One,~] fignifies 
 only One Tejlimony-, theDr has (hovvn at laige* 
 (in his Letter to Br Ifelh, pag. 42 ; and in his 
 Reply to Air Nelfons Friend, pag. 207-,) that the 
 whole -]th verfe, and the words fin Earth'] in t h e 
 %th verfe, have never yet been found in ANT 
 O NE Greek Mamifcript, (though Dr Mills and 
 Beza and Others,by a Miftake now well-known 
 to all Learned Men, fuppofe that they had ;) 
 nor were they ever cited in the Genuine Works 
 of Any One Greek Father •, and accordingly in 
 the firft EngliJI) Bibles alter the Reformation, 
 they were fairly printed in a different Charafter, 
 as not of the fame Authority with the reft of 
 the Text.- till at length That Diftinftion, 
 without any Authority (that I know of,) came 
 to be neglected. All This, you entirely con- 
 ceal from your Reader ; Though the Evidence 
 of what the Dr alleged to prove this Text not 
 genuine, was fuch, as No one hitherto, 
 has fb much as attempted to weaken. And 
 the Spurioufnefs of that Text, has fince 
 been more diftindtly and moft clearly fet 
 forth, in a Pamphlet entituled, A full 
 Inquiry into the Original Authority of That Text, 
 1 Joh. 5, 7. 
 
 Fhil 
 
( H* ) 
 
 Phil. 2, 6. Who being in the -Form of God, 
 thought it not Robbery to be equal with Cod. The 
 words in the Original are, [_Wko being in the Form of 
 
 God, yec did not catch at being ( honoured ) as God J As 
 
 the Dr has fhown at large in his Scripture- Do- 
 thrine, pag. 176, and in his Reply to Mr Nelfons 
 Jh'iiend, pag. 173. Yet This alfo you conceal 
 from your Reader \ as if the Errours of our Evg- 
 lijli Tranflation,fot which All Learned Men now 
 confefs the Rendring of This Text to be One,) 
 were the irfphedwordof God. 
 
 Rom. 9,5. Who is oyer all, God bU [fed for e- 
 ver. You know that the word, God, is wanting 
 here in Many of the inoft Antient Manufcripts: 
 And, if it be genuine, yet, in the conftruction 
 of the Original, 'tis very uncertain whether it 
 be not meant of God the Father: And, /if it be 
 ft Cor. 1 5. meant of ChiJI, yet ftill HE u excepted who did 
 -7* put all things under ChriJ}. As the Dr obferved in 
 
 his Scripture-Doclrine. pag. 87, and in his Re- 
 ply to Mr. Nelfons Friend, pag . 8 6 . Yet This al- 
 ' io, you conceal from your Reader. 
 
 Joh. io, 50. I and my Father are One. The 
 True Meaning of thefe Words, theDr (I think) 
 has clearly mown in his Scripture -DoBrine, pag. 
 J 00} and in his Reply to Mr Nelfons Friend, 
 pag. 146 and 5 5. Yet This alfo, you take 
 no Notice of-, but leave your Reader to be 
 deceived by the mere Sound oi the words in 
 Enplijj), without regard to the Senfe. 
 
 Tit. 2, 13. The glorious Appearing of the Great 
 God, and our Saviour Jefus ChriJ}. Thefe words, 
 7 be Great God, the Dr has mown to be fpoken 
 here, of God the father-, In his Reply to Mr Nel- 
 fons Friend, pag. 85. Yet this alfo, you depend 
 upon your Reader's not being aware of. 
 
 1 Job. <j, 20. This is the True God, andEter^ 
 nal Life. Thefe words, The True God, the Dr 
 
 has 
 
( M3 ) 
 
 has largely proved, (in his Reply to Mr Nelfim\ 
 Friend, pag. 97 J to be meant, in This place, 
 of God the Father. And the Rendring of the 
 words immediately fore-going, We are in Him 
 that is True, Through [not, even in] his Son Jefm 
 Cbrift\ is not Dr Clarke's only, and agreeable to the 
 Original; but wasfo printed in the Bi /bop's Englijb 
 Bible in Henry the VHIths time. Yet This alfo 
 you neither make any Reply to, nor take any 
 Notice of it -, but depend wholly upon ycur 
 Reader's Ignorance inthefe Matters. 
 
 Now, for God's fake, Sir, is This doing Right 
 to the unlearned part of the World ? Is This, 
 feeking after Truth in matters of Religion ? Is 
 This, Searching the Scriptures, and having a juft 
 Regard to the Authority of the infpired Writ- 
 ings? Or would it not, even in the cafe of any 
 Humane Writings that were ol any importance, 
 be very unreafonable -, to fhew an abfolute Care- 
 Ujsnefs, whether you follow a true Copy or a 
 Falfe One •, whether the Words be underflood 
 vulgarly in a right Senfe, 01 a wrong One ? 
 
 But it feems, " when the Authority of One prf r 
 " Text is denied, and a contrary Translation of 3. 
 " Another is introduced • when various Readings 
 " and Pointings are pretended in the reft -, thefe 
 " (you think,) are Artifices to Darken the Light. '' y 
 What a Misfortune then is it, that All the 
 Greek Teji anient* in the World were, not long 
 iince deftroyed ! that all Learning, and Skill in 
 Languages, has not been utterly rooted out ! 
 that there might be no other Copy in the World, 
 but our prefent Englifi Tranjlathn ! that People ■ 
 might blefs God for it, without contending about p re r pa , 
 divers Readings and Criticif?ns -, and without 4. 
 Danger of any Ray of DARKNESS breaking 
 in from Learning or Keafon or Ecclefafiical Hi- 
 
( £ 44 ) 
 
 jtoyy y to difturb the uniform Light of Ignorance, 
 and {hake the vulgar Interpretation of the Seiife 
 of any Text ! Is it not a pleafmt, ({hall I fay ?) 
 or rather, info ferious a Matter, is it not a 
 very ?nelancholy Consideration ; that enquiring 
 after the True Words and true Senfe of Scripture, 
 ihould, in a Protejtant Country and by Men of 
 a Learned Education, be called Darhting the 
 Light} You have heard of the Judge, who, 
 when a Complaint was brought before him, 
 thought the Caufe very Clear, and deiired by 
 no Means to hear any Thing on the other Side, 
 for fear of darkning the Light. And {hall that, 
 which in all other Cafes is the moll: ridicuhujly 
 abfurdy be the only Means of knowing the Truth 
 in Matters of Religion ? If this is to be our 
 Method y I befeech you, let us never more pre- 
 tend to argue againft Popery. For What Dif- 
 ference is there, between denying People the 
 life of the Scriptures, and denying them the 
 only Means of difcovering the true Senfe of them ? 
 excepting that, of the Two, it may feem the 
 greater Hardihip, to bid Men read the Scripture, 
 and at the fame Time forbid them to endeavour 
 to underftand it ? The common People cannot 
 indeed judge of Criticifm, or of the Perfor- 
 mances of Learned Men •, And therefore Learned 
 Men ought to be the more Faithful and Plain, in 
 letting them know that Texts of Dubious Au- 
 thority o» of Dubious Meaning, are indeed Du- 
 bious -, and that Opinions uncertain or hard to 
 be underftood, ought not to be impofed upon 
 Chriftians as a neceflary Part of their Religion: 
 The doing of which, hath in all Ages been one 
 of the greateft Hindrances of the propagation 
 oftheGofpel,and of the Efficacy of True Relr 
 gion upon the Hearts and Lives of Men. 
 
 tou 
 
( 145* ) 
 
 You allow it to be " trueindeed, thai the Texts p re f, p t 5 , 
 " which Dr Clarke cites, do prove that our Lord and 
 u Saviour J ejus Cbriji is in a certain fenje (well 
 " known and owned by all Chrijlians) fubordinate 
 " and inferior to the Father 5 that he has re- 
 ** ceived Authority and Power from him-, and 
 ** that be afts according to the Will of the Fa- 
 " ther-, mediates and intercedes with him on 
 " our Behalf ; and the like. But there is (you 
 *' fay) one plain Dijlinciion, iwell known amongfi 
 " Chrijtians alfo, which fliows that thefe Texts — — « 
 u make nothing for what Dr Clarke contends for. 
 " This Dijlinttion the Br has quoted from Bp Bull ^ 
 *' and it is This, ' that our Lord Chrift may Be 
 " confidered in two Refpecls, either as God, 
 " or as God-man and Mediator between God and 
 " Man. " This Diftinaion, Dr CI. did in- 
 deed quote from Bp Bull: But ypu, by drop- 
 ping more than one half of his Quotation, have 
 reprefented it to your Reader, as if Bp Bull 
 affirmed Chrift to be fubordinate. to the Father, 
 only as Ssu.v3%c6-n(&, as God-man or Mediator, 
 and not as God. 'Whereas the Bijliop exprefly af- 
 firms, not only that he is fubordinate as$sx •>$ 00 
 7r©-', as God-man or Mediator • but that as God 
 alfo, if he be confidered relatively as God of God, 
 he is fubordinate to the Father j but if confi- 
 dered abfolutely as God, that then the fame 
 Worfhip is due to Him as to the Father. Now 
 this Latter DiJlintTion, or Sub-dijlinftwu (which 
 only was to your Purpofe, and not that firfi Di- 
 ftinftion which you have cited,) Dr Clarke. 
 fhowed in his Scripture- doBrine, pag. 35:9, to 
 be altogether without foundation ; and that the 
 Paflage of Origen, upon which the learned Bi- 
 fhop principally founded this Diftinction, was 
 erroneoufly tranflated •, [See Scripture-doBrine , 
 pag, 266.I Of all which, you have (accord- 
 
 L ing 
 
Ttef. fit g. 
 S. 
 
 ( H* ) 
 
 V^n- C ? uftom ) taken no Notice. But to thi 
 piftiDflioD, asyouyourfelf underftand it, I an- 
 fwer 5 that Chnft's Svborimation to the Father 
 pot only as he is Man ,0, rA**^ or ,M- 
 «t<», but even in his b,gbejl Capacity ■ anoears 
 
 f ^ of Glory Eph \ ft % jffi^i ■ 
 Frffcr */W Zori ?*/« O^, 2 Cor. 1 , * 
 And from thofe Texts which declare that God 
 gay 'and /bt his ; only-begottenSonj fern him 
 fothe Church a ways did and does'underfhn™ 
 it? to take cur Nature uponbim, fCollcft on Chria- 
 misday;) f ta fo upon him our FUJI), fCoJI. for 
 ? th Sunda ] l» Lew Which cannot poffibly be in- 
 terpreted but of his flfcM MM'i becaufe 'tis 
 rtan feft it cannot be faid that his Humanity^ 
 i\t V* >wl:?* atUre v *° n him ' And > daftly, 
 
 l»ts, which declare that the Holy Gbofl, (who 
 
 lever was incarnate, and in whom consequent- 
 
 Did n^! V - Pi . aCe f ° r ^ our fewmentioncd 
 
 heL !/ Pe t kSj 7* ^ **»/* b ^ what be 
 T t' that ^ e calces te;-^ 0M f or us and 
 iftat, according to the Will of God 5 &c. 
 
 Ch!!S at I° U %£°.ncerning the ^^w« of 
 
 - ill; f r T f grani Vitiation doe, ad- 
 
 mrably declare the Honour of God's Laws and 
 
 m yf" al Creates, that ftand in continual Awe 
 
 er Lrv ' • - IS V /T true : Becaufe ^e great- 
 er the iW ls of the p erfon f ff B 
 
 ■gawlt bin, and the more adorable the Mani- 
 
 feftation 
 
C 147 > 
 
 feftation of his Mercy towards Sinners. But 
 then, as to the Inference you would draw from 
 hence ; that therefore the Perfon ptaking Satis- 
 faction, muft be identically equal with Him to 
 whom Satisfaction is made •, juil the Contrary is 
 true. Becaufe, to fuppofe God making Satis* 
 faction to himjelf, which can be done reputative- 
 ly only t that is, in Words only, but not in Truth ; 
 is in reality fuppofing no Satisfaction to be 
 made at all, or (as your Author expreiTes it) 'tis 
 bringing it to nothing. For, whofoever affirms 
 the Son to be individually the fame with the Fa- 
 ther who fent him -, does indeed in empty -Tfords 
 feem to magnify his. Saviour, but in Truth and 
 Reality reduces him to be nothing more than a 
 mere Man. 
 
 " It was formerly fyou fay) thought fujjicient to p , .^ 
 IC flow, that the Titles, Attnbuies^ ami Worfiiffy.',-* 
 " that belong to t God, are itiSaip* 
 
 *" ture afcribed to the Son of God." And yon 
 cite an eminent Wntcr affirming, that to each 
 of the three Per ions u the MffiHESF Titles Pref. pagi 
 " and Properties of God are in S .RIPWRE af- 12 - 
 " tributed. *\ But you did^vi ry well, not to cite 
 the Textstbemfelves of Scripture upon this Head * 
 becaufe therein the Contrary would plainly 
 have appeared/. The highejl Titles of God in 
 Scripture, arej v\\-Q-', the mofi High, or Su* 
 preme -, -raxv-ro^aTZ^, the Almighty, or, Supreme 
 over All-, ets Sth k«j, thjct^ TfistvTzav, the 
 One God and Father of ail $ lis 3eos \£ S t» Ephef.4,^ 
 ■zrocVTdf, the One God, OF whom dre all Things: iCor.8, 6. 
 (With feveral Others of the like Import, cited 
 in Dr Clarke's Scripture-doctrhie , Part II. §. 10.) 
 Which are Never applied, in any Place of 
 Scripture, either to the Son or Spirit. And 
 thofe Attributes which Are ibmetimes afcribed 
 
 L 2 to 
 
{ i43 ; 
 
 to the Son or to the Spirit, yet are afcribed to 
 
 the .Ftffkj in a Jbfgfor and wore eminent Manner 
 
 Mar. i 9 , As when cur Lord fays, There is none GOOD 
 
 "7- to* C»*, fWzi, GoJ r/;e &*&* • (fotiW Text 
 
 was read by almoft all the primitive Writers • 
 
 See Dr Clarke's Reply to Mr Nelfon's Friend 
 
 P a g. 47-) And, in the Song of the Lamb 1 
 
 Rev. i,, to Him that fat on the Throne, Thou [only art 
 
 ? Tim 6- iil ■* T And ' '*" ^ Peltate • An^ who on- 
 
 15,15. H h r,l?ll nG ' ta l^* And ' °/ **«* £«y «»i 
 
 MJtt. 24, **» AAOV'ETH no one, hut the Father only • 
 3*. and the like. And when high Attributes are 
 
 •rni t0 the Sotl > and t0 the S P irit i 'tis ma- 
 
 mk-ltly m fuch a Manner, as implies their not 
 
 bemg independent, but ife/iwi from the Father: 
 
 •Joh, fi2( j As Tfo Father hath Given to the Son, to have 
 
 Matt. 2 g. LifemHnnfelf: And, ^// /W & Given to 
 
 ,8. www Heaven and in Earth : And, Godhath Gi- 
 
 Eph. i,22. venfefo hetheHsadover allTmngs: And 7fte 
 
 Joh. 5i &» f»2 Jo «M^ f Himfeif, but what he Teeth 
 
 *9> 20. the' Father do ■ for what Things foever He doth, 
 
 tbejealfo doth the Son likewife . F 9 r the Father 
 
 loveth the ^ h and fieweth him all Toimt 
 
 Joh if, that himjelf fab : And, the Son knoweth all 
 
 !°" it m h )ec A l I fe he came f° rth f ro ™ ^d : And, 
 
 Joh. 1 $ , 77* Holy Ghoft, the Cowi/or^r, the Spirit of 
 Rorr, ? , ' proceeded and is /«*/«»! tfc Father, 
 
 • ■ andj»« htercejfion according to the mil of 
 Hcba,*, Oo 4 and works ^fir^/^ and diftributes G/rfv 
 Joh. 15, «««% ro ffc P1B / Goi . And jj^jb, wtV 
 13. &»/*//, fart what he hears- And is never repre- 
 
 iented as fitting on a Throne, or exercifine Judg- 
 1 *et. 1, «g* or »j», but always as fern down from 
 i s . /&«*» as the Gi/r and P ow and Witnefs of the 
 
 Jfakr and ofCMft. And whereas the Worflnp 
 paid to the pod and Father of All, i s always 
 tbjohte, ultimate and /irpra*. the JTrfp paid 
 m Scripture to theft*, is (on the contrary) 
 
 expre ^J 
 
C 149 ) 
 
 exprefly declared to be To the Glory of God, the Phil. 2, 
 father £ that the Father may h glorified in the \ '• 
 Son- becaufethe Father has exalted him and gi- ]oK ,4 « 
 w» 61m a iVWe which is above every Name ; and & 2 
 has commanded that alljbould honour the Son e -Joh. 5; 
 w» asiZ/^ /; ,; „ y the Father, becaufe ffo Father 22 ' 2 i- 
 bas committed all Judgment unto the Son, (that's 
 the Reafon alledged by our Saviour himfelf in 
 that very Text,) and becaufe the Son has wafi- R 
 ed us from our Sins in his own Blood, and has made '' ' 
 lis Kings and Priejts to God and his Father. And 
 to the HolyGhoft, there is no one Inftance in 
 the whole Scripture, of any dirett AB of Ado- 
 ration or Invocation ever paid at all ; As appears 
 by the Texts collected byDrCZ. in his Scrip- 
 ture-doBrine. 
 
 ci But " the Son (you fay) 7*5 alfo worftnppedp'g. 25. 
 
 ^ and immediately invocated in Unity with the Fa- 
 
 " ther, when there is 710 exprefs mention of his 
 
 u Mediation h as 1 Th. 3, u, K cw Gcd him- 
 
 ^ lelf and our Father, [even our Father.] and 
 
 our Lord Jefus Chrift, direct our Way un- 
 
 to you: And 2 Th. 7, 16, Now our Lord 
 
 ' Jefus Chnft himfelf, and God even ourFa- 
 
 " ther, comfort your Hearts. " To which 
 
 I reply h that fbefides that thefe Texts are ea- 
 fily underftood by comparing them with thole 
 before-cited }J the different Ground of Invocation 
 is exprefly fet forth in thefe very Texts themfehes 
 by the Diftindion the Apoftle therein ufes' 
 that God is the Father, and the Lord is Jefus 
 Chrift. Which is the fame Diftindion that he 
 ufes I Tim. 2,5, There is One God, and One Me- 
 diatour; And 1 Cor. 8,6, To us there is but One 
 God, the Father, of whom are all Things -, and One 
 Lord, Jefus Chrift, by whom are all Tuin^s. He 
 does not fay only, Toe Father is God ^ which 
 may alfo, in a true Senfe, be affirmed ' 
 
 L 5 of 
 
»* ») 
 
 'of the Son : But he lays, God is the Father i 
 which is the direct Contradictory to Tour Motion, 
 whofe Definition or God is, that he is (not the 
 Father of all, butj the Three Perfons. Which 
 Motion if it were right, it would follow that 
 the Apoftle might as properly have laid, to us 
 there is but Cite God, viz : the Hon ; or, To Us there 
 is but One God, viz. the Holy Ghoft ; as, to Us 
 there is but One God, viz. the Father. Which 
 latter manner of fpeaking, being the conftant 
 Language of Scripture and of the primitive 
 Writers •, and the former being never found ei- 
 ther in Scripture, or in any antient Writers ; 
 this amounts to a Demonftration that your Opi- 
 nion is erroneous, and the Comment only of la- 
 ter Ages. And the Apoftle's praying, in the 
 two Texts you cite, for Direction and Comfort 
 from God even the Father, and from our Lord 
 Jefus Chrijl ; does no more infer an identical 
 Equality betwixt them, than That other PalFage 
 (which you never care to cite,) i T/;», 5, 21, 
 I charge thee before God, mid the Lord Jefus 
 Chijl, and the el? & Angels, proves an identical 
 jEcualit) r between God and Chiji and Angels. 
 
 You add : " This Adoration \\o the Son,] 
 " 2*5 done by Angels, who have no need of his 
 " M(iution: And though they worjfnp Him who is 
 " the Lamb of God to Us, yet not as a Sacrifice 
 " jor Them, bvt as the One adorable Being to 
 " whom all Worjnp is appropriated. " And for 
 Proof of This, ycu allege three Texts -, " John 
 V 5, 2 B> Tvat all Jlwuld honour the Son, even 
 * c as they honour the Father-," And " Rev.^; 
 " 11, 2," where the Angels are repreiented 
 as vcrihipping the Lamb 5 And " Ifa. 45 -, 22, 
 **• 2?, I am God and None elfe,- — unto Me 
 " every Knee Jhall bow, viz. at the Day of 
 J* Judgment, when all Jhall Jland before the Judg- 
 
 " vient 
 
C in ; 
 
 f ttmit Seal of Chijt, " as St Paul applies That 
 Prophecy of Ifaiah, Rom. 14^ 10, ir. Now 
 of theie three Texts, the firfl proves directly 
 the contrary to what you bring it for. For 
 our Saviour does not fay, as You do, that All 
 Jfmild therefore honour the Son even as they honour 
 the Father , becaufe the Son is the One Adorable 
 Being to whom all Worflnp is appropriated 5 but he 
 fays expiefsly on the contrary, that All Jhould 
 Therefore honour the Son even as they honour the Fa- 
 ther, becaufe the Father hath committed all Judgment 
 unto the Son. Which Words being the dhecl Reafon 
 given by our Saviour himfelf in the very Sen- 
 tence whereof you cite a Part, it was by no Means 
 commendable for you to omit them, and give 
 a contrary Reafon of your own. The filond 
 Text you refer to, viz. Rev. 5-, 11, 12, you 
 did well alfo not to cite at length \ becaufe if 
 you had recited the iVords, every Reader would 
 have leen that they are direclly contrary to what 
 you cite them for. For whereas you affirm 
 that the Angels there worfhip the. Lamb " as 
 4 the One Adorable Being to whom Ail Worflnp is 
 cc appropriated, and not as a Sacrifice for them -, rt 
 the Text itfelf fays on the contrary, that they 
 worfnip him, not as the One Adorable Being to 
 whom all Worfhip is appropriated, but exprefs- 
 lv as Him that wasjlain, that was llain a Sacri- 
 fice, not indeed for T/^w/, but for Men-, for which 
 Goodnefs of God, Angels and Men jointly return 
 Thanks to God which jittcth on the Throne, and 
 to the Lamb which was Jlain. The Words are ^ I 
 heard the Voice of many Jngels f*y'w$-, Wor- 
 thy isthe Lamb that was SL AIN •, and Glo- 
 ry and Power be unto Him that fitteth upon 
 the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and 
 ever. The third. Text, cited by you out of 
 Ifaiah, [_mttQ Ale every foieefiallbow,'] is fpolcen 
 
 L 4 of 
 
C if* ) 
 
 of God the Father . an d fhall indeed le ful- 
 filled at the Day of Judgment, (according to 
 bt lauls Application,) when God fhall judge 
 the World by Jefus Chrift : And fo the word, 
 Ood id horn. 14, 11, plainly fignifies God the 
 
 *?vt% A ? Dr °^ r ^ has fhown in h is 2?«rp/y to 
 
 MrNdfons #«, pag . 166. But where the 
 
 bcnpture lays that every Knee fhall bow to Chrift 
 
 perlonally, of Things in Heaven, (that is of 
 
 Angels) and of Things in Earth, mid of flmm 
 
 muter the 'Earth (that is, of Men, quick and 
 
 pead 5 ; the K^t/cm and Ground of this Worfhip 
 
 is eiprcfly added t that God hath Given him a 
 
 Name which is above every Name, to the End that 
 
 every Tongue fiould confefihim to be Lord, to the 
 
 Oloryoj Godthe Father, Phil. 250,10 II. 
 
 *«**>% You acid further: " Whereas Br Clarke 
 
 u J£? m r to c th »k that the One God, who required 
 
 himfelf to be Only worflnpped, Matt. 4, 10, 
 
 & was ih * father only . ~ ^ cowtrarj ap^rj 
 
 <t ~ V °™ the Command given to the Angels 
 
 Heb. 1, 6, When he brought his firft-bceof 
 
 ten into the World, hefaid, let all the An- 
 
 , ( gels of God worihip him : Which Jforfiip 
 
 <c iP$ m i ¥ m ll V on hh f r fi com ™g «ao the 
 World Luke 2 j 1 3, 14. » But now, in re- 
 ality 5 befldesthat the ZorJGoi fpoken of in 
 Matt. 4 10, lsbythewholeTenourof Scrip- 
 ture, and particularly by our Saviour himfelf, 
 7 4, fI£' P lainl ) r declared to be the Father 
 vlixSn . tn ' e . Wj *t*m* Ml vorjhip the 
 VStS r '*"?¥**'*** ™ Truth, for the FA- 
 JHtK Jeelethfmh to worjhip him • GOD is a 
 
 ITS; • aV i * hey that wor fi j P HIM, nmfi worflnp 
 HIM in Sprit and in Truth -^ Beiides this (I 
 lay,) That very Text, whictiVou cite to the 
 contrary, Heb. 1, 6, evidently iWs the fame 
 Ming. For whereas God, eyen the Father of 
 
 All, 
 
i 'All, was by the Light of Nature to be worihip- 
 ped j the only-begotten is here worlhipped, on- 
 ly by COMMAND .; Every Knee of Things in 
 Heaven bowing to him, becaufe God had given 
 hint a Name above every Name. And whereas God, 
 the Father, was Always worlhipped •, The only- 
 begotten is here appointed to be worlhipped, from 
 a particular Time : [Widen he bringeth in the firji- 
 begotten into the World, he faith , let all the Angels 
 of God worfoip bi?n.~\ Which particular Time 7 
 the Apoftle in this very Chapter, in the Words 
 immediately going before, declares to be, 
 when he fat down at the right Hand of the Majef- 
 " ty on High , being made fo much better than the 
 Angels, as he hath by Inheritance obtained a more 
 excellent Name than They , iFor unto which of the 
 Angels Jaid he at any Time, thou art my Soil, This 
 Day have I begotten thee ? And the fame Apo- 
 ftle declares again the very fame Thing, Atts 
 13, 33, when he fays that the words, Thou art 
 my Son, this Day have I begotten thee, were Then 
 fulfilled, when God raifed up Jefus from the 
 Dead, and (Eph. 1, 20.) fet him at his own 
 
 right Hand in the heaveyily Places, and put 
 
 all Things under his Feet. Very abfurd therefore 
 are thofewwr Words of yours-, " Which V or- 
 " flnp, they [_the Angels] paid him upon his frfl co- 
 " ming into the World, Luke 2-, 13, 14. 
 For nothing is more evident even to the mean- 
 eft Reader, than that thofe Words, [a Multi- 
 tude of the heavenly Hofi, praifing God, and fay' 
 ing, Glory to God in the Higbejl,~) do not repre- 
 fent the Angels (as you fuppore) worihipping 
 Cbrijl who was then born, but praifing God in 
 the Prefence of the Shepherds upon Account of 
 the Birth of Chrift the Saviour. 
 
 But to return to That which I began with, 
 upon this Head. However thefe Things be, 
 
 " it 
 
Pi 
 
 ,? ' 9 " " ztipjnr Formerly thought fufcient " (you tell us ? ) 
 to allege fuch kind of Proofs as thefe. And 
 this is a very pleafant Obfervation indeed, 
 when the Queftion is about Truth and Strength 
 of Argument. Thus, the Texts which de- 
 clare God's juft Power to cajl off the Nation of 
 the^ unbelieving Jews, have Formerly (and almojl 
 rtniverfally) been thought fujfcient Proofs of 
 God's having from Eternity absolutely and uncon- 
 ditionately reprobated the greatefl Part of Man- 
 kind to eternal Damnation. Thus, St PauVs af- 
 firming that the mcked and idolatrous Gentiles, 
 were by Nature (that is, in their unconveited. 
 State,) Children of Wrath, when they walked in 
 the Lufts of the FUJI) ; has Formerly been thought 
 afujficient Proof, that All Children (meaning In- 
 fants,) are fo Born in Sin and Children of Wrath, 
 as j. fly to deserve eternal Torments. Thus, the 
 figurative Expressions of habitual Sinners being. 
 dead in Ti efpajfes and Sins, have Formerly been 
 thought fvjiiient Proofs of Men's having lite- 
 rally no more Freedom of Will, or Power to re- 
 form their Lives, than the Dead have to raife 
 themfelves to Life. And, to mention no more 
 Inftawces ; the Words of our Saviour, This is my 
 Body, have been Formerly for many Ages, 
 and ftill ar'e^ in the greatefl: Part of the World 
 that calls itielf -Chriftian, impioufly and ab- 
 furdly thought a fufcient Proof, that Bread is 
 literally the Body of Chrijl. And yet in reali- 
 ty, there is nothing in any one of thefe Texts 
 of Scripture, that would of itfelf mis-lead even 
 the moft ordinary Under ftanding :, nor any 
 Thing more than fuch natural Figures of Speech^ 
 as are continually underftood perfectly well, 
 without any Danger of miftaking, even by the 
 rncaneft Perfcns, in common Converfation. 
 
 Wh* 
 
I ( ' »5J ) 
 
 What you allege (in your Preface, pag. 11,) 
 concerning the Meaning of the Word Jeho- 
 vah •, I lhall have Occafion to coniider pre- 
 fently. 
 
 Your Booh itfelf you begin, (pag. 1,) with af- 
 firming that the Council of Nice did try the 
 Word b,LV)XGi&., mean, of one INDIVIDUAL 
 $ubjiancc. Now this clear Declaration how lit- 
 tle you were acquainted either with the Greek 
 Language or with Eccleiiaftical Hiftory, or in- 
 deed even with fuch modern Learned Writers, as 
 Bp Bull and Others •, may reafonably be fup- 
 pofed to have been One Reafon, why Dr Clnh\ 
 Anfwer to your firft Letter, was little more 
 than a civil Defiling to forbear entring into 
 Controverfy with you. And now that you 
 have printed your Letter, all reafonable Perfons 
 cannot but wonder, how a Man of your Good- 
 nets can fatisfy his Continence without know- 
 ing at all whereof he affirms. For, furely, 'tis 
 not doing right to the Unlearned, to tell them, 
 that becaufe the ambiguous F.nglifh Words, of 
 one Suljlance, arid the Latin Word?, unius Suh- 
 ftavtU, fwhich ambiguous Tranllatinn was the 
 firft Caufebf Miftake in the Latin Church,) 
 may poihbly fignify of one INDIVIDUAL 
 Siibftance^ that therefore the Greek W^ord t/ut.- 
 »«©-, which is not ambiguous, can fignify fo 
 too •, and, much more, that it can fignify fo in 
 the Nkene Creed, where the Compilers exprefs- 
 ly explain themfelves on the contrary to mean, 
 that the Son was begotten [tn tx 7nxT^>, t- - 
 T-xw fK t s yoixc; t& z;-ccTpcc~} of the Father ^that is t 
 of the Subjiance of the Father ^ thereby decla- 
 ring the Subjiance of the Father to be in their O- 
 pinion the Father bimfelf, and confequently 
 
 ft* 
 
Ut. iJ 
 
 ( IJ* ) 
 
 not individvally the Son alfo. The Arguments you I 
 were preparing to bring againft the Notion of 
 One Subftance fpecifically or in KIND, would ea- 
 sily have been very ftrong indeed, (not, to prove 
 that the Nicene Council did not fo mean, but 
 to prove that their Doclrine was Falfe,) 'if it 
 had been meant in fo ftria and proper a 
 Conftrudion, as to imply that the Son was 
 felfexifent as well as the Father : But how 
 that Notion may be underftood in a Senfe 
 not repugnant to Scripture, Dr CI. has (I 
 think) fhown in his Scripture-dottrine , pag. 
 465. However that be; what the true Signifi- 
 cation of the Word o^oistn^ i s , the fame Author 
 has largely fhown in his Reply to the Extra8 
 of the Lower Houfe of Convocation. The Paf- 
 fageof Bafd, is decifive-, Epiji. 300, a yfy au- 
 td 77 ish ioiv-nS QUjekmv, «M" t^ov 975'^ 
 Owe a»i tfo /awe Thing is not Confubftantial to 
 itfelf, but One Thing is Confubftantial to Another. 
 To which I may add a very remarkable Sen- 
 tence out of Jtbanafius's " euSfois zrisiw : [sti 
 7«£ wW/r^cc cpgova/**v, fi>s 0/ 2«p,6Mw/, Ae-yoi- 
 T£? f -u)Vo»wov 5 jcai *xo/uo*«ov, *«i ev ma 
 av«!^vn5 -ro&aiuiov :] We do not, faith he, */- 
 jfrw tfcat Owe awJ ifcg & we Uhoth Father and Son, 
 as the Sabellians do, who teach that they are One 
 individual, and not Confubftantial ; thereby taking 
 away the Son's very Being. Hence, the Learned 
 Bp Bull 5 [Certe Sabellius ipfe nunquam Filium 
 lubens dixiflet Patri o>o»«nov, fed potius -mm- 
 *™>i &ff. 2 wp . I? § 9 .j ^ r ^ f ays he, 
 babelhus would never have chofen to have fi- 
 led the Son Confubftantial with the Father 5 but 
 would rather have called them One individual- 
 ly in Subfance. There is alfo a very obfer- 
 vable PafTage of Origen, which you may do 
 
 well 
 
On) 
 
 well to take Notice of, upon K*f -rf m^it <?i\oS{*e 
 thisOccafion: Hence, fays he, wwyj>M*<™e<?-™^}»' 
 v e mayjolve the Scruple of many %?%£>£%%£ 
 pious Perjons, who, through rear nmf ^ sv j^„ ^ AJi ck<rt 
 leaft they fiould make Two Gods, JXyfjutmv, (tint a^tu^'xt 
 fall into Falfe and wicked Notions : '*>$w7* ffi hies» m& * 
 That is, either onthe one Side they ZhTlt', % H ?™V V ™* 
 deny tbeKeal Perjonality of the son T ©- TOf ' «t yT0 7 $ ^^ ^g,, 
 dijiintt fro?n the Father •, and fo, oawn'oftipw Jj aj^^W 
 jrfcife ffov [rightly] acknowledge tm* *6t»t* « tf,5, ^v- 
 *» ffibAAy, tfcy Lerroneoufly] ?^ 5 5™j; i, JL •^ i, *rf» 
 »wkc 0zm to be in reality Nothing iuyyd y ^<m.v i-n&v <& **• 
 but a mere Name : Or elfe on the Tfos,) ivrtvSiv Ktitfy, A'- 
 contrary, they [erroneously] deny Vft7tUt Ia J oh - P. 4 6 - Hu- 
 bis Divinity, while they [rightly] 
 acknowledge his real Perfonality, 
 mid that his SiMfience [£ona] is Truly and Properly See Dr 
 dijlintt from Timt of the Father. I the rather |^ e ' s 
 mention this Paffage, becaufe it appears that M^z/bn's 
 Di Clarke was guilty of a Miftalce in the Tranf- Friend, 
 lation he gives of it in his Scripture-Doftrine. i». 6$* 
 And the Learned Huetius, in his Origeniana, 
 lib. 2, Quejl. 2, § 5, quite miflook this Paf- 
 fage alfo 1 thinking that the Words pnSevTas 
 Siocvi-is t>jv ISiqtvitx nou tw ■kcia.v ucm 7rgpiy(-a- 
 &wv TuyyctvxoTtv i-dqctv tt£ -era t pot, while they ac- 
 knowledge the real Perfonality of the Son, and that his 
 Subjijlence is Truly and Properly difthtS from that of 
 the Father^ expreffed the Opinion which Origen 
 was blaming ; whereas on the contrary tis 
 certain, to any one who confiders the whole 
 Paffage caiefully, that thefe Words exprefshow 
 far Origen thought thofe Perfons were in the 
 r ght, whom at the fame Time he was finding 
 Fault with upon another Account. 
 
 " The Son of God (you fayV voluntarily W * 
 " brought himfelf into a Stats of Subordination 
 
 and 
 
( ir« ) 
 
 1 and Subjetfwn to the Father for our Sales, as 
 1 a Mediatour between God and Man. " And 
 
 f*& 7- again: " The Son of God bad voluntarily 
 
 c made hlmfdf fubjeft and fubordinate to the 
 • Father, for the carrying on this gracious Befgn." 
 rnf'P- 7- And again : The voluntary Confent and Agree- 
 ment of the Three divine Perfons Sec!" I hope, 
 and believe, you did not here fee the Confe- 
 rence of what ycu affirm. For affuredly, up- 
 on further Coufideration, you will find it to be 
 a very dangerous Affertion, and, in its neceffary 
 Ccnfequences, extremely derogatory to the Ho- 
 nour of God. That Chrift did voluntarily take 
 upon himfelf the Office of a Mediatour, that i« 
 did with perfed Delight, and Agreeablenefs to* 
 his Own Will, fulfil the Will of his Father in 
 this whole Difpenfation h is certainly a very 
 great Truth. But to fay that the Son was fub- 
 ordinate to the Father, not naturally, as being 
 Begotten of Him; but by voluntary Agreement 
 only, upon this particular Occafion^ is 
 faying that the Father might as well (if they 
 had thought fit fo to agree it) have become 
 fubordinate and fubjeii to the Sou, and have 
 been jent and been given by him to take our 
 Nature upon him, and therein to have died for 
 the Sins of the World. Conflder, I befeech you, 
 fenoufly : Is not this the dirett and immediate 
 Confluence of your Dodrine ? And if it is, 
 does it not furprize you > Or do you not feel' 
 that, in any of the primitive Age s ; this would 
 have been thought the Highefi Blafphemy? Be- 
 iides : I oluntary Agreement fuppofes Two diftinZ 
 Wtltsm thePerfons Agreeing-, and Two dijlinl 
 Wills makeTwo difincl intelligent Agents • andTwo 
 difthS intelligent Agents, if co-ordinate and equal- 
 ly Supreme, ( whatever be or be not fuppofed to be 
 
 their 
 
( MP ) 
 
 their Subftance or Subflances,) are as clearly Tvo 
 Gods, as One fupreme intelligent Agent is On* 
 God. 
 
 But " The Father, Son, and Holy Ghojl, (you psg 
 " fay,) having the SAME Right of Dominion 
 ci over the Same Subjects, are not Three Supremes y 
 " but One Supreme' 1 ' Firfl, it is without any 
 Colour from Scripture, that you affirm each of 
 the Three Perfons to have the SAME Right of 
 Dominion. For the Scripture never ftiles any 
 other, but the Father only, V-Us®* The mofi 
 \ High, and -kccvtw~pcctZ)(> the Mmighty or Supreme 
 Governour of the Univerfe ; The One God and Fa- 
 ther of All, who is above Ml -, One God, the Fa- 
 ther, of whom are AllThings-, With feveral other 
 the like Eipreffions, which you always induf- 
 trioufly avoid mentioning. The Dominion 
 which the Son hath both in Heaven and in 
 Earth, is never fpoken of but as Given him 
 from the Father. And the Holy Ghoji is never 
 reprefented in Scripture, as fitting on any 
 Throne, or exercifingany proper Dominion at 
 all ; but always as Jint or given of the Father. 
 Secondly, fuppofing it true, that each of the 
 Three Perfons had the SAME Right of Domini- 
 on i then, either the Three Perfons being Three 
 tliJIinEt Agents, (whatever were their Sdjlance.) 
 would be Three Supreme s, not One Supreme ; (and 
 v three diftincl SUPREME intelligent Agents would 
 as truly be Three Gods, in One Subftance, ?s in 
 Three Subftances -,) or elfe, they wot being 
 Three diflintl Agents at all, but enly different 
 Denominations of One and the fame Agent, Soci- 
 rianifm confequently would be the true Chri- 
 ftian Doctrine. Nor can this Argument be eva- 
 ded by that Mean Su: terfuge, of our being ig- 
 norant of the Nature of God, For whatever Pro- 
 position 
 
( i*° ) 
 
 pofition is demonftrated at all, is equally demon' 
 Jlrated to be True in all unknown as well as in all 
 known Natures. For otherwife, if any unknown 
 Truth could be contraiy to any hiown Truth, e- 
 very Proportion of Euclid might in Matbema- 
 ticks be falfe with regard to fome unknown Ef- 
 fences •, and Tranfubftantiation might be true in 
 One Nature, though not in Another •, and we 
 might be deceived in our Proof of every one of 
 the divine Attributes both natural and moral, 
 upon Account of the Incomprehenfiblenefs of 
 the Nature of God-, And fo the whole Foun- 
 dation both of all Knowledge and of all Religion, 
 would be removed at once. 
 
 t«&- 9- But to proceed : " By the Word God, (you 
 fay J " we mean the Divine EJfence or Subftance? 
 Not fo ; But we always mean Him, whofe That 
 FiTence or Subftance is. The Word King, does 
 not ijgnify the EJJence or Subftance or the King •, 
 but it Signifies the Perfon Hi?nfelf, who by hit 
 s EJfence is a Man, and by his Dominion is King. 
 Thus likewife the Word God, in the Theologi- 
 cal Senfe, the fupreme Lord and God of the Uni- 
 verse, does not flgnify the EJfence or Subftance 
 of God ; but it fignifies the Perfon bimfelf^ who 
 by^ his EJfence is in himfelf abfolutely a perfeS 
 Being, and by his Dominion, Power, and Au- 
 thority, is the God and Father of AH This 
 the Dr has mown at large, in his Commentary 
 on Matt. 19, 17, in the Reply to Mr Neljons 
 Friend, pag. 59. And there is a very remark- 
 able PafTage to This Purpofe, in the Learned 
 Mr Mede's Difcourfe ^th, on Jer. 10, If. 
 " 1, All Men (faith he) by God, do under ft and 
 w fome PERSON, or a Living and Reasonable 
 ' EJfence. 2, All Men will grant That which h 
 " God, to he the vioft excellent of Ml PER- 
 
 " SONS 
 
" SONS or Living EJfences. 3. The PerfeBions 
 1 of a Living and Reafonable k /fence, are three- 
 " fold ; in the Undemanding, in the Will, in the 
 " Faculties of Working. In the Undemanding, is 
 " Wifdoni; In the Wilt, Goodnefs j In the Facul- 
 ** tftt, Pojper. Whatfoever therefore hath a So- 
 u vereignty in thefe Three, is the mojl excellent of 
 " Living and Reafonable E/erifaj 3 . |_ tnat ^ °* 
 Perfons, as he explained himfelf above.] " All 
 " ilfoi therefore, if they want not the ordinary 
 " Ufe of Reajon, mil q/fent, that wider the 
 " Na?ne of God, they mean HIM to whom be- 
 " longs a Sovereignty or Wifdom, a Sove- 
 cc reignty of Goodnefs, a Sovereignty of Pow- 
 " er and Mie,ht. Thus far we agree and walk 
 " together. But the Error of the Nations hath 
 " been in the Application; namely, to Whom be- 
 " longed this Sovereignty ; and whether it belonged 
 " to Many, or to One Alone, 
 
 Yon proceed : " Can Br CI. pojfibly think, pag < 9. 
 fl that a fupreme intelligent Agent which go- 
 " verns the World, is a Definition of the Eflence 
 " of God ? " No certainly ; But 'tis the De- 
 finition of Him whofe that ElTence is. And 
 this is fo plain -, that you cannot exprefs your 
 own different Notion, without art Abfurdity in 
 the very Terms you ufe. " By the Word God, 
 (you fay,) Dr CI. well knows we mean the 
 " Divine Ejjence." But furely Nobody can 
 know, or fo much as imagine, £0 great an Ab- 
 furdity. For the Divine E /fence is (as you your- 
 felf exprefs it in the next Sentence) the E/fence 
 of God. Now if by the Word God, you mean 
 the Divine Ejfence-, then what (f befeech you) do 
 you mean by the Ejfencc of God * Not the Eflence 
 (it feems) of that fupreme intelligent Agent which 
 %overw the World, but the Eflence of the divine 
 
 M EJfettce. 
 
( i6i ) 
 
 Effefye. Is not this, admirable Arguin* > and : 
 very edifying to Christian Readers > But you 
 go on : tC He aBually was the fame God, before 
 ^ ever there was a World made for him to govei n ; 
 (« a *df '™&fof°r wei have been the fame divine ; 
 i( tjjence which he is, though he had never been 
 the fipreme Agent that governs the World. 5> 
 pag. 1 0. Again : tC Supremacy relating only to a World made 
 ^ by his arbitrary Agency , does net necejfarily be- 
 u long to the Effence of God, and fo cannot fo 
 much as enter into the Definition of it. " And 
 M- 29. again ; defining God to be " the Supreme Gover* 
 ^ nour of the Univerfe, h a? if the World were co- 
 . eternal with him. I Have already anfwered 
 all Ihis, above 5 and fhall here only ask you 
 this one Queftion : Is it any Part of the true 
 Definition of God, to fay that he is merciful 
 and ■good, fift and righteous? If it be, then in 
 the lame Senfe wherein that merciful and good, 
 that}uft and righteous Agent which now governs 
 the World, was merciful and good, jufi and righ- 
 teous before the World was h in the very fame 
 Senie was he fipreme likewife in Power and Do- 
 minion, "lis hard to conceive, how you could 
 really be m earnefi in bringing fuch Argu- 
 ments s Put your fincere Zeal for you know not 
 ? b fg\ makes y° u thi «k any empty Words a 
 lumcient Proof, of what you think ought to be 
 proved, whether it Can or nd. 
 *t> 9 But you allege further: " Jehovah, fgmfies 
 
 the hljence of God" Of this, your own very 
 next Words are a moft manifeft Confutation 
 ■ (: ^cGod, (you fay,) in the New Te (lament, is 
 
 ■ the Tranjlatwn of Jehovah ; R om 4 2 
 
 Alraham believed God: " That is, if your 
 
 Oblervatien was right, Abraham believed the 
 
 U6 Hw e ° f Go i- A ^n: « Devt 6, 4, One 
 
 ***6- : God } or one Jehovah 5 Which Wor d '(you fay) 
 
ec fgmfoS) not Monarchy or Dominion, butEfence 
 u or Being \ and that there is none bejides HIM, 
 " Sec. ' Here again your own Words exprefsly 
 confute themfelves. For if Jehovah flgnifies 
 HIM, of whom it is faid that there is None 
 bejides Him-, then 'tis plain that it neither flg- 
 nifies Monarchy nor Dominion nor Effence nor 
 Being, but HIM whofe That Eiience and 
 whole That Dominion is. Again : " Individual 
 " Elfence (you fay) is altogether a fcriptural Pre f p ^, 
 " Term, being the EngliJI) of Jehovah." From u. ' 
 what has been faid, 'tis evident that this is not 
 fo. The Word Jehovah, 'tis very probable, 
 does indeed, by its Etymology, allude to the 
 Self-exiftence (though it may alfo, as Mr Ahif- 
 rvorth obferves, allude as well to the Immutabi- 
 lity of God's Promifes : But we allow it to allude 
 probably to the Self-exiftence) or neceflary Ex-* 
 iftence of God-, And fo likewife does the 
 Greek, o &v. But then, as the Greek, o asv^ 
 does not fignify the felfexiftent EJfence itfelf, the 
 to "ov, or the Subflance ^ but Him [the Bsrfon} 
 whofe that ElTence is: So likewife does the 
 Hebrew, Jehovah. Wherefore, fuppofing the: 
 Son to be that Angel of the Lord, who in the 
 Old Teftament is ftyled fometimes Jehovah and 
 fometimes tjie Angel of Jehovah •, nothing can 
 peifibly follow from thence, but what muft ne- 
 ceflarily infer either too much for you, or tod 
 little. For his being ftyled Jehovah, will un- 
 avoidably prove, either that he was literally 
 and personally Jehovah himfelf; the very Per- 
 fon of the Almighty Father, whofe Kame fand 
 not the Name of an EfTence or Subftance) Je- 
 hovah is : Or elfe it will follow that he was fo 
 filled, as being the Reprefentative of the inviji* 
 ble God and Father of all, the Angel or Meffenger 
 bfihe Covenant, in whom the Name and Authd- 
 M 2 rjjyi 
 
C &4 ) 
 
 ntyvfGodw&s. Thus Judg. 2 , i, The Angel of 
 tog Lord faiu,l wade you to go up out ofJEgypt — 
 unto the Land which I fware mt o your Fathers. 
 And Zech ,2, 8, Tk flto/* of David fiall he as 
 God « lA* Angel o/fie lori. And AM. 3, 1, 
 *** Lord *>£<)*« ^ /^£, fiallfuddenly come to his 
 Jemple, even the Meffenger [or Angell of the 
 Covenant. And in the Revelation, ch. n . 1, 
 ?, even an bferiour Angel is introduced fpeak- 
 mg m the Name and Perfon of God ; The An- 
 
 gel/oof faying, I will give Power mto MY 
 
 lvo Witneffes, &c. Nay, when the Reprefen- 
 tative of God was a falfe and forbidden one, as 
 in the Iaftance of the Golden Calf h yet the Ex- 
 preflion is, To Morrow is a Feafl to the Lord 
 mnv? to Jehovah, Exod. 32, 25. 
 
 **' *' t: Jn fome Places, you declare you " do fully 
 ci heheve three Perfons REALLT difing mfied 
 
 p*g. 10. one from another : " That you " find in Scrip- 
 (i tme a REAL Difiinliion of Three : » There 
 
 M ' I;# -DirAT 1g A[u ^ U reale pofittom* [fomething 
 
 << n- ?n P ofitlve >l " that does eminently & 
 
 ^ . Jta;/; each One of the Three from the Other 
 
 lvo : And you cite, with Approbation, 
 
 ? < n T ? nincnt Writer affirming, that " theft 
 
 **f. P'i*' „ i b,ee are fpokn of with as much DiflinSion 
 
 12. from one. another in Scripture, as we life to 
 
 Jpeak of Three dijlinB Perfons. " Yet at the 
 
 Pg ' 3 * « "rf Time > you conten d for " One INDIFT- 
 
 ' r AL s *W**ce, " in Contradiction to 
 
 yourielt; and in direft Contradiction alfo to 
 
 the Cornel of Nice, who (to exprefs the Son's 
 
 * See Dr being derived from the Father as * One Lkht 
 
 %SFtl l T\ y.L 7 ?* l M ht l is tlerived from 
 
 MrVi Am }\'l L }^9 ufed th e Word oWn^ 
 fon's 'onjubfantial, in Opposition to woiw<n(G^ or 
 f»iW, Tai7i*oi^, which Signifies of Owe INDIVh 
 
t)UAL Sub/tance. And you are very parneft 
 about " individual Effhtce ,%" and ." Jinguhr Ef-Pref.pag. 
 " fence -, " of which there are no Footfteps in' 1. 
 Scripture. And your whole Argument, (as I I £/ , '" , * # 
 have largely fhown above,) if it proves any 
 Thing, proves that the Son is in no Senfe 
 (whatever the Word Per/on be underftood to 
 fignify, more than the mere relative Denomi- 
 nations of one and the fame Perfon fuftaining 
 different Titles or Characters •,) I fay, your 
 whole Argument tends to prove, that the Son 
 is in no real Senfe a dijlinft Perfon from the Fa" 
 ther. And then you approve of the School- 
 manner of fpeaking, that " the Three Perfons pag. iol 
 " are, Tres MODI fubfpndi, Three MODES of 
 " fubfifting-," and yet you " abhor fuch apag. n. 
 " Thought," as to intend Modes indeed, when 
 you fay Modes ; but you ufe the Word analogi- 
 eally, that is, without any Meaning at all : 
 Whereas Bp Bull clearly acknowledges that [res Defenf. 
 Singular is per fefubjiflens, in rebus intelleBu pra- Se &' 2 * 
 ditis idem ef quod Perfona^} an individual Thing J*J, 
 (or Being, ) fubfifiing by itfelf is, in . Things indu- 
 ed with Undet ftanding, the fame as Perfon, And 
 in Order to fupport all this ftrange Confufon, 
 ( for which there is no Manner of Ground in 
 Scripture ,) you think it fufficient to Repeat over 
 and over again- a mere Jargon of Words out of 
 the School-men •, not indeed Words, but mere 
 Sounds without any Senfe or Signification at all. 
 Such as-, " Amongft us Men, PerfonaJitas eJ}P a i- l0 - 
 " DifiinBio unius ab omnibus aliis in eadem Natu~ 
 " ra fpecifica, " [i. e. Perionality is the Di- 
 ftinction of One from all Others in the fame 
 fpecifick Nature ;] But " the three Perfons, " 
 a " Real Diftin&ion of Three in the fingihar 
 " Efience of God, (in the individual EiTcnceof 
 God, " fo you exprefs it in the fame P*ge,) are 
 
 M 3 " Iret 
 
( 166 ) 
 
 II. 
 
 l w Tre s Modifubfflendi, Three Modes of fubfift- 
 ing ^ " yet not Modes " univocally, " but 
 " analogically. " For, " Ojficmm & (Jfus Modi 
 " eft, non componere, fed diftinguere ; Sic etiam 
 " Modus fubjiftcndi in Deo non componit, fed di- 
 fi'wgwt imam Divinam Perfovam ab alia, ' 
 [ie. u The Office and Ufe or a Mode, is not to 
 * ■ compound, but to diftinguifh •, So alio a Mode 
 " of fubJfifting in God, doth not compound, 
 Ci but diftinguifhes one divine Perfon from An- 
 tf other {] " So it is, Modus eminentialis, an emi- 
 '- e nential Mode. " Again : To thefe Words of 
 the Doclor, if the Titles and Attributes were fpofon 
 of i)ne and the Same individual SubjeB, it would 
 jollcw, (the Father being that whole SubjeB,) that 
 the Son were nothing elje but the Father hiwfdf ; 
 fag, 21. the Reply you make is, " Ut Perfona diftingui- 
 " tur ab Ej)evtia,fie ProprietatesPerfonales diftin* 
 " gmmtur ab EJJentialibus, M \j. e. " As the 
 " Perfon is diitinguifhed from the Efience, 
 *' fo the perfonal Properties are diftinguilhed 
 " from the efTential Ones .* "] And upon this 
 •Diftindtion you allege, that " the Titles 
 * c and Attributes mentioned in the Texts before- 
 " cited, are efTential " [not perfonal y\ " be- 
 '* longing to the Deity or divine Ejjence, andfo to 
 *' Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi : 5S That is to 
 fay ^ the Words I, and Me, and Him, and He 
 only -, are not (you think) perfonal, but figni* 
 fy each of them the Three whole Perfonsof Fa- 
 ther and Son and Holy Ghoft. Again: 
 " Credimus ttnam eandemq; Perfonaium, licet plu- 
 ?#i» 2*? ? tc rium, injinitam Subftantiam feu FJfentiam; Pa- 
 Cl ter totam ejfentiam divinam pojidct, totam ia- 
 " men & Filitts, & Sphitus fanBus : " [i. e. 
 " We believe One and the fame infinite Sub- 
 s' fiance or Eflence of the feveralperlons ■, The 
 
 " Father 
 
C 167 ) 
 
 <c Father poiTefTes the whole divine Eflence, 
 * c and yet the Son alfo pofleffes the Whole, and 
 " the Holy Spirit the "Whole. s> ] And again : 
 " Jvjlice, Holinefs, Goodnefs, and other Attri~PZ- 34- 
 " lutes of God, are Really his Ejfence, and not 
 " diftinBfro??! it, but only in our Conception : I am 
 " Underftanding, faith God, Prov. 8, 14 •, and 
 " God is Love, 1 Joh. 4, 8 •, " (As if Salomon 
 and St John meant literaliy that Underftanding 
 or Love was a SubftaJice.) " Cave Jis n- Perfec- 
 " tiones Dei cogites e[fe Accidentia, ant difpojki- 
 11 ones quafdam ab EjjentiX ver* diftinilas, eandem 
 " acceffufm viodificantes 1 uti id obtinetin Crea- 
 M tnris, qua recipiendo AdjimBa qa&dam infefe, 
 " eo ipfo major em quaji Perfeciionis gradnm coinfe- 
 " tiimntufj dnm acquirunt quod injeipfts non pojfi- 
 " debant : " [_i e. " Take heed lcaft you ima- 
 " gine the Perfections of God. to be Accidents, 
 " or certain Depositions truly diftinc~t from 
 " the Eflence, and modifying it by their Ad- 
 " dition 5 as it is in Creatures, which, by re- 
 " ceiving certain Adjuncts in themfeives, do 
 " thereby obtain as jit were a greater Degree 
 " of Perfection, whilft they acquire what 
 " they did not poiTefs in Themfeives. 'J 
 You acted very judicioutly, in for- 
 bearing {o translate thefe Admirale School- 
 Axioms into Er.glim ^ For undoubtedly they 
 convey into any Man's Mind juft as much 
 Senfe, and are juft as intelligible, in any mP 
 knovn Language, as in any known one. But, 
 that which is more material, and worthy of 
 your more ferious Consideration, is*, whether 
 thefe dark fcholaftick Notions w. ich you are fo 
 fond of, be not more agreeable to ibme of the 
 Dcftiines or Vakntinus, than to the plain and 
 eafy Expiefljons of Scripture. Some of jthe 
 Notions of Valentimts are thus expreffed by 
 M a. TeitidHam 
 
PtoUmtw, — ^Ncminibus & 
 Numcris Movvm diftinftis in 
 Fer.ionales Subftancias, fed extra 
 Deum determinacas ; quas Va- 
 lentinuf^n iplalummi Divinica 
 
 ( i*8 ) 
 
 Tertullian : Ptolomy, faith 
 he, dijlinguijlied the Name* 
 ond Numbers of his JEons in- 
 to perfonal Snbjlances, extrin- 
 tii.utfenfus&adfeeits&motiis Jic to the Deity t which V a- 
 incJulerat.^aVr/. Valentin, §4. , pn «.- tlo r„ * ?• 1 ' ; - 
 
 ientmus Jitppojed to be in- 
 ternal within the Deity it- 
 felf, as certain Modes, Af- 
 fecliom, or Powers. A- 
 gain: Which [Firjl Piin- 
 
 \_Ard does not I:ena?is allude to 
 J bis, when he Jaitb; Unun) 
 cunderrq-, omnium Deum PA- 
 TR^hOA jaudantium, & non A- 
 Hum atq; /ilium, neq; ex diveriis 
 Piis auc virtucibus Subilanciam 
 habentem. Lib. 2. cap. 2. § ult.f] 
 
 Ec tamen quem folurn volunr, 
 dant ei lecundam in ip/'o & cum 
 ipfo I'erfonam, Ermean, quam 
 6c ( h 1 in &Sigeninluper nom - 
 nanc. § 7. 
 
 Pant Sige ; & quem pa- 
 rte Nus eft, fimillimum Farri & 
 Parem per cmnia, ibid, [dm- 
 ■Hh*m.i Nar, cftoiovri ti \<jvv 
 T%i •n^tti'dw* rfp.u hei.£km 
 Uo. 1, cap* i.J 
 
 **& 
 
 ;iple^\ though they ajfirm lim 
 to be Alone, yet they fuppofe- 
 there is in and with him 
 a fecond Per] en, which 
 they call Mind or Under- 
 Jtanding, and alfo Love, 
 and Silence. And again : 
 Siler.ce, faith he, brings 
 forth ; and the Mind which 
 She brmgeth forth, is in 
 all Things like and equal to 
 its Father, [to him that 
 emitted it or produced it out 
 of -Stlence.-} As theJe blind Notions 'of the 
 oldHetetkh, whom Jwrawfcmewhere defcribes 
 as Phantafnahabentes Holohtrid, and to whom St 
 John not improbably alludes when he fays, 1 
 Joh. 7, 2i, ; Me Children, hep yourf elves jrom h 
 dob; io (I cannot but thinkjthe 10 lefs blind No- 
 tion* 01 the wWm/SJ;c^7«o//whofeUnderftand- 
 mgs; were clouded with a dark impenetra- 
 bleMift of falfe Metaphyficks ) have been ex- 
 tremely injurious to the' Simplicity andPlabmefs 
 of the Golpel of Chrift, and one of the great 
 Hindrances toils Propagation in the World. 
 
 ^ But " We can never (you ky)argue what may be 
 •* or n ay not be in jtt h an in vmpebevfible ]Va- 
 
 ** tm 
 
( i<*9 ) 
 
 44 tun [as That of God,] any otherwife than hy 
 '* the Scripture-Revelation-" For " How knowspag. 17. 
 " he what muft needs be or what cannot be, in 
 " an Ejfence which he cannot under ft and? " AndP-^* 2I * 
 " again : Whether this be fo, or no, we muft 
 " argue from Scripture, which is defignei for our 
 •' Under Jlanding -, and not from the divine Ejfence^ 
 " confidered in itfelf which no humane Under/land- 
 " ing can fearch into. " I anfwer, Fzr/? •, This is 
 the vei y Thing the Dr contends for, and feems to 
 have been theDefign of his whole Book, to mow 
 that all Queftions of this Kind ought to be deter- 
 mined by Scripture, and not by the abfurd Meta- 
 phyficksofthe School-men. But fecondly ; The gene- 
 ral Proportion, in the Manner you exprefs anl 
 apply it, is by no Means true, that we can never 
 argue what may he or nay not he in an incompre- 
 henfible Mature or EfTence. For though in fuch 
 a Mature there may be, and certainly are, ma- 
 ny Things which we neither know nor under- 
 ftand at all*, yet it may be, and is, neverthe- 
 lcfs certainly true,-; that we are very capable of 
 knowing, that fome Things muft neceffarily be^ 
 and other Things cannot poj/wly be, even in the 
 moft incomprehenfible Mature. Properties that 
 deftroy each other, we arefure, can no more 
 belong to any unknown, that to any known Ef- 
 fence. Upon this Foundation, the fame Aw 1* 
 lutes of God, which are declared in Scripture, 
 are demonftrable alfo by right Reafon -, His 
 Jmmenfity, his Knowledge, his Juftice, his 
 Goodnejs, and the like. And if this be fo : 
 what Reafon is there, why the Incomprebenfi- 
 blenefs of the divine Ejfence mould be alleged 
 againfttheEvidence of One Attribute only, the 
 Unity of God, his perfonal Unity $ when it is 
 rot allowed to be of any Weight againft the 
 Evidence of any other perfonal Attribute, his 
 
 perfonal 
 
( I? ) 
 
 perfinal Underftanding, Knowledge , Power, Good- 
 wefs, or the like ? Thefe Attributes you love 
 fag.i\- indeed to call EJfential, rather than Perfinal: 
 But, 'tis evident, they are as truly Perfinal, 
 as EJfential • For no reafon can be' given why, I 
 to Under/land, to Know, to Will^ to Aft, are not 
 as properly perfinal Powers, as to Beget, 
 
 The Two Texts, Rev. 1,8, I am Alpha arJ 
 Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, faith the 
 Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, 
 The dlmighiy : And Rev. 11,17, Lord God 
 Almighty, which art and waft and art to come : 
 fag. 17, Thefe two Texts you cite Three feveral times, 
 ai, & 39. as clearly and undoubtedly fpoken of the Son -, 
 without taking the leaft notice of, or attemp- 
 ting to anfwer the Arguments, by which the 
 Dr proved (in his Scripture-Dotrrbie, pag. 62 
 and 66,) that they are certainly fpoken of the 
 Father only. This is not uiing your unlearned 
 Reader fairly. 
 
 fag. 25. The Texts, 1 Jh. 3 ,-, it, 1 2 } and 2 Tb. 2 *, 
 16, 17 j and Ret;. 5 -, 11, 12 j I have considered 
 above-, pag. 149, and ^51. 
 
 pag. 26. The Texts, Heb. 1,6 ;.j and Lvle 2-, 13, 14 5 
 I have alfo confidered above -, vag. 153. 
 
 p*g>l$- You cite the Text, Matt. 19, 17, There is 
 None Good, but One, that is, God: without 
 taking the leaft Notice of, or attempting to 
 anfwer, the Arguments which the Dr alleged 
 at large upon That Text, to prove that the 
 Words were all Perfinal ; in his Reply to Mr 
 Nelfins Friend^ pag. 39. : Tis a very eafy Me- 
 thod of arguing indeed, to repeat the Condu- 
 jion perpetually, and as conftantly leave the 
 
 Pre- 
 
c 171 ; 
 
 freimfes, upon which That Conclufion depends, 
 to ftiift for themfelves. 
 
 You " cannot but fear (you'fay) that Tbis, n pa£. 3$* 
 [worshipping the Father as the One Supreme 
 God, and the Son as Mediatour only,] c ' is the 
 * k Reviving the Dotlrine of D&monsf' What 
 Similitude This Doctrine has to the Heathen- 
 Dotirine of Damons, St Paul tells us plainly 
 enough, 1 Cor. 8,5, Jhcre be that are called 
 Gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth, (as there be 
 Gods many and Lords many :) But to Us there is 
 hit One God, the Father, of whom are all Things, 
 and we in Him -, and One Lord, Jefus Chrijl, by 
 whom are all Ihings, and we by him. And a- 
 
 gain : Eph. 4, 4, There is One Spirit, One 
 
 Lord, . One God and Father of all, who- is 
 
 above all and through all and in you all. And a- 
 gain, 1 Tim. 1, 5, There is One God; and One 
 Mediatour between God and Men, the Man Cbrift 
 Jejus, See Mr. Mede's Comment on the for- 
 mer of thefe Texts, in his Difcourfe on 2 Pet. 
 2, 1 •, cited in Dr Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine, 
 pag. 5. 
 
 But " you cannot but fear that we may go pig. $6~ m 
 
 " on to the iForJirip of Angels, Archangels, 
 " Thrones, Principalities, Sec according to their 
 u refpettive Characters, Powers, and Offices." For, 
 " as the Son of God receives a higher i^orflnp up-p*z* 37* 
 c; on the Account of his higher Atlions and At- 
 " tributes relative to Us, fo may Archangels and 
 " Angds receive a lower TForJIrip upon the Ac- 
 " count of their htferiour J&iorts and Atti ibutes 
 u relative to w." And " What will hinder the pd- 3 s - 
 <c Angels, when prefent in our Affemblies, from 
 " being the Object of our Worftnp, as commifjionei 
 <c Guardians, upon the Account of that Character 
 lt and Relal\m that they have tp Us, which is 
 
 " mads 
 
( 17* ) 
 
 u made the Ground of our JTorfiip ? And where 
 rt Jhall we flop r 3 You know, Thefe Queftions 
 have been Often anfwered : And therefore you 
 *** 3*< add : v " To This* it has been anfwered on behalf 
 " of Dr. Clarke, that thefe Angels and Arcbf 
 " angels are Creatures i% an. oVtgh\ " But did 
 you never hear of any Other Anfwer ? Did you 
 never hear of an Anfwer made By Dr Clarke in 
 his own Books, as well asof Anfwers made For 
 him ? Did ycu never hear, that God has * com- 
 manded, that to the One only M&diatour of His 
 Own appointment, every Knee fiouldbow, and that 
 He has exprefsly forbidden the paying of Wor- 
 fhip to Angels or any Other Mediatours, whorn 
 Men (contrary to the Command of God) fet 
 up for Themfelves, by Will-worjhip and Volun- 
 tary Humility, intruding into thofe Th'mgs which 
 they have not feen, vainly puft up by their flefilyMind - y 
 and not holding the HEAD, t§c ? I am apt to be 
 afraid, that Mens charging at any time (upon 
 their own Hypothefes) the Marnier of WorJJnp 
 exprefsly appointed in Scripture, ought rather to 
 he fulpeded as a breaking of the Fence, and a 
 
 giving 
 
 * To «T'«tU7B j£ mex t£v afoay Igaotp, ojwitbj'thj 
 <iirif*i%iit •mv. t« <Pifb<&a.t dLvrais dim ts e-x* mrt 
 3«& 7» w/<ut<S&i- 'Eav <P' M(Sip civ$u7n$i(» to ■»"<*£»:- 
 tamwov mei tk '!»«•«, eimfeiZouiV on atk 3*« HJo-mi 
 MVT& T* VfjuiStAf u& mvytf jjfjcaat itv vioy, t@,$u{ 
 7t,u£a 7iv 'utfA^y.. Origen. contr. Celf. lib. 8. That is : 
 We demand of Celfus concerning thofe [btmons and Heroes 
 winch they worfhip^ v>hnt Proof they have that the Supreme 
 Gad hath appointed them to be worshipped : And if, in Re- 
 plj, they pat to Us the fame gueftion concerning Jefus ; 
 ve can (how that God Hath appointed Him tt be worfliipped -, 
 " That all Men flnuld honour the Son, even as they honour 
 " the Father:' And Cyprian, De Bono Patientiz : Pater 
 JDeus prxcepit filium fitum adorari ; i. e. God the Father 
 hath Comma aded thxt his Son (honld be wor {tipped. 
 
C 173 ) 
 
 giving occafion for the introducing of Other 
 Errours than carelefs and ignorant Perfbns are 
 aware of. Falfe Worjbip, is either the givicg 
 That religious Honour to a Falfe God, which 
 belongs only to the Tnie God - 9 or the giving 
 That religious Honour to a Fitfitious Mediator 
 or Mediators, which is due only to the True 
 Mediator. Mediatorial religious Worftrip cannot 
 be paid to God Himfelf, neither abfolutely, 
 nor as united to any Other Being or Perfon 
 whatfoever. Either therefore Mediatorial Wbr- 
 fnp ought not to be given to Chriji at all - y or 
 the doing of it muft be grounded upon the 
 Command of Godi 
 
 But the Generation of the Son, you are fure, 
 is by " Necejfity of Nature " : And, " Genera-^ag. 36. 
 " tion is Necejfary to the Divine Ejfence, as much P^- 37* 
 " as Under/landing emd Intelleft can be ". Surely, 
 it is fomewhat too prefumptuous to be peremp- 
 tory in This ; if you confider what Reafori, 
 Scripture, and Antiquity fay concerning this 
 Matter. ' In Reofon •, if Generation was Necef- 
 fary to the Divine Eflence, there would be no 
 Limitation of the Number of Perfons fo gene- 
 rated. In Scripture^ the Begetting of the Son, 
 is always mentioned as an AB of the Father ; 
 And if it were Necejfary, an A3 it could not 
 be •, For AEtion and Necejfity are contradi&ory 
 Ideas. Whatever ABs by Neceffity, does not 
 truly AB, but is indeed only ABed upon, 
 "Whatever is Necejfary to the divine Ejfence, is no 
 AS of God, but is the Refult of that Necejfity 
 of Nature by which he Exijls. The Omnipre- 
 fence of God, the eternal Duration of his Bei?ig, 
 his Under ft anding, his Knowledge of every Thing, 
 are not ABs of God. becaufe they depend not 
 upon his Willy but arife from the fame Necejji- 
 
 tj 
 
( *?4 ) 
 
 ty as nis Exigence itfelf: But whatever is ait 
 M of God, whatever can with Truth be af- 
 firmed to be Bone by Him, muft be an Act 
 of his Will*, bccaufe'tis Will only, that con- 
 ftitutes and denominates an Agent. So that if 
 xhzinilof the Father was not concerned in 
 the Generation of the Son, it would not be a 
 true Affirmation that the Father begat the Son 
 any more than it can truly be faid that he be- 
 gat or gave Being to his own Reafon or Under- 
 Jtanding 5 But, on the contrary, the Father and 
 the Son would Both be as equally felf-exifient, 
 as us equally neceflary for God to be an intel- 
 ligent Being and to Be at all Laftly, as toAntiqui- 
 tyi the Doclor has (I" think) mown clearly in his 
 bcnptme-doBrine, pag. 280, that almoftallthe 
 antient Writers of the Church, are in this 
 Point clearly and profeiTedly againft you. 
 And yet, without taking the leaft Notice of 
 any of: tbefe Things, you write as if you had 
 never heard there had been any Controverfy 
 about this Matter, or had not fo much as read 
 the Arguments alledged in the Books you 
 write againft. J 
 
 St Aiijtins quibbling Queftion upon this 
 Bead, Utrnm Bens Pater ft Bemvolens an nolens, 
 [ whether God the Father himfelf be God with 
 or without his own Confent{\ is ftrangely be- 
 tide the Purpofe. For the Queftion is not, 
 whether the Son was begotten with the Confent 
 ot the Father; (as [the Sum rifesand fets with 
 the very good Liking and Confent of Men-, and 
 as God's Ommprefence and Eternity, which are 
 by NeceJJity of Nature, are wellpleajing to him j) 
 but whether the Son was begotten, [4x^<re, 
 M^77, vohtHtate,J by an A3 of the Father's 
 ff ill 
 
 The 
 
C*'7J) 
 
 The Text, Matt. 4, 10, Thou Jhalt mrfiipM- 3^ 
 fie Lord thy God, and HIM only Jlmlt thou*"* 2 ** 
 firix'} you refer to again, and depend upon it an 2 ^ 
 as " one of the moft unanfwerable. " And yet 
 nothing can be more evident, than that this 
 Text either proves nothing to your Purpofe, or 
 proves too much. For, either the words, Him 
 only Jhalt thou ferve, are not exclufve of the 
 Lawfulnefs of fuch fubordinate Worship, as 
 is juftly due to Chrift, [Ban. 7, 14 ; Fhil. 2 5 
 9, 10,] though 7720/ imjujily claimed by the 
 Devil : And then this Text proves nothing to 
 your Purpofe. Or elfe the Words [ him only palt 
 thou fefve,~\ are exclufve of the Lawful nefe of 
 all fubordinate Woilhipi And then the Text 
 will prove too much for your Purpofe : For then 
 it will follow, that Chrift, if Any Worfhip 
 is due to him at ail, muft be HE, muft be that 
 •very Verfon, of whom the Law fays, him only 
 Jhalt thou feive : Becaufe the exprefs Words of 
 the Text are, not, His EJfence •, not, his Sub' 
 fiance ^ not, his Being; but HIM, his Fer- 
 fon, Him only (l)alt thou ferve. 
 
 When the Devil alledged, in order to have 
 Worfhip paid him, that he had a Dominion 
 given him over all the Kingdoms of the 
 Earth \ the Senfe of our Lord's Anfwer is* 
 that he knew nothing of any fuch Dominion 
 given to Satan or any one elfe, nor had ever 
 heard of any other Command than This, Thou 
 Jhalt worfrip the Lord thy God, and Him only 
 Jhalt thou Serve. Does this at all prove, 
 that God could not give to Chrift a real 
 Dominion, and command that at his Name eve- 
 ry lfaizzftmild bow ? See above, p, 138. 
 
( 17* ) 
 
 ** 3 ? * u " Joh. 5, 18, The Jews fought to hill him, 
 hecaufe he /aid that God was his Father [■&«- 
 " Tf'pa i&ovj making Himself equal with God: 
 " Which Inference (you fay) had had no Pre- 
 " tence, if it had not been a KNOWN Thing, 
 " that the Son of God was of the fame Ef- 
 " fence, and fo equal with the Father. " It 
 was reafonable to expect, that you fhould here 
 have taken fome Notice of a large Differtation, 
 tvhich Pr CI. wrote upon this Text, in An- 
 fwer to a Suppofition (not much unlike to yours 
 in this Place) made by Mr Nelfons Friend, 
 Re l ^ viz. that the J^ws MUST have had a Notion 
 coMr mi- &c - .^ ut y cu tmn ^ (it feems) that the bare 
 jon's Repetition of an AfTertion, though never fo ab- 
 kriead, furd, is a fufficient Anfwer to all the Reafons in 
 tag. 1 32. rhe World. 
 
 I Have now gone through your Book, with- 
 out omitting any Thing I was fenfible could 
 by any reafonable Perfon be thought at all ma- 
 terial. 
 
 I fhall conclude with taking Notice of Two 
 very remarkable and important Paffages in 
 your Preface. 
 
 The One is as follows : " This Revelation 
 
 [which God has made to us in the New Tefta- 
 
 Pref ment,] " is (you fay) particularly for the Ufeof 
 
 g m *' " Man, that we might addrefs ourfelves to the God 
 
 •' and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, for the 
 
 Spirit of Revelation in the Knowledge of Him, 
 
 Eph. 1, 17. And our Creeds and Forms of 
 
 " Worfliip are compofed agreeably to this Manife- 
 
 Cm ftation of the Trinity. }Ve are to draw near 
 
 " TO the Father of our Lord Jefus Cbrifl, 
 
 " and 
 
tc 
 
 C *77 > 
 
 £ and, in Him, Our father; THROUGH the 
 1 Merits and Mediation of his only Son our Sa- 
 ' viour ; BY the Help and JJJlJtance of His 
 '* Holy Spirit which he has given vs." Nevet 
 was there a truer Reprefentation made, of the 
 Directions the Gofpel gives us in this particu- 
 lar. And had you kept uniformly to this -, I 
 dare fay, there could have been no Contro- 
 versy betwixt you and Dr Clarke. Our Savi- 
 ours Direction to his Difciples, twas •, When 
 ye pray, fay, Our FATHER. The Praftifeof 
 the Primitive Church in the Three fir ft Centuries, 
 (as appears by the ^Pajfages cited in the Doctor's 
 Scripture-Dofirine, Part II, § 44,) was to di- 
 rect their Prayers uniformly to God, the Father, 
 through his Son Jefus Chrifl. Even in the for- 
 mer Part of the fourth Century, it does not ap- 
 pear (notwithftanding the growing Difputes 
 about Speculative Matters,) that there was yet 
 any thing more put into their publickLiturgies, 
 than the general Doctrines of Chriftianity in 
 which All agreed. In the id Council of Car- 
 thage, to prevent Innovations then arifing, f 
 it was decreed, that when 
 the PrieJ} /lands at the Altar, Uccum ad Altareaflirticuij 
 
 he fioulddirea his Prayer Al- s i m * er ** p f em diri S acur 
 
 J ■ , t-> 7 a ^ Oracio. Can. 22. 
 
 ways to the rather. At 
 
 this Day, the Church in her folemn Exhortation 
 toPriefts at their Ordination, directs them to 
 pray continually TO God the Father, BT %he Me- 
 diation of our only Saviour Jefus Chrifl, FOR the 
 heavenly Ajjiflance of the Holy Ghojl. The fame 
 
 N Direct 
 
 * To which may be added that of Irenxus, lib. 4. 
 tap. 33. In Deo Omnipotente, per Jefum Chrijhm, offcrt Ec - 
 clefia * " The Church puts up her Prayers to God AN 
 [[ mighty through Jefus Chrifte 
 
( i7» ) 
 
 Dire&ion is actually obferved in much the 
 greater part of the whole Liturgy, (that is, 
 in every part where either the Compojhion or the 
 Expregom are avtievt •,) as the Dr has mown 
 in his Scripture-$k>3rine, Part III, ch. I, § 4. 
 The Learned Bp Bull, 'takes 
 Tn ommbos Catholics EccJf- Notice with great Appro- 
 
 flic Lirurgiis hodicoue u ot - ,, +-L n4 . * l- 
 
 prece; plerafo; ad ipl.m [Pa- ?? tSQB '. "** "*? * **» 
 irew] dirigimus St& f 2. c;- ^^> zw ™* we Liturgies of 
 9, § • 5. *&e Catholick Cbnrcb, MOST 
 
 of the Prayers are direSed 
 
 In his Dikourfe concerning the t0 God, the Father. And 
 
 Exijhnce and Nature of Jvgeh. again .'It is to be obferved 
 
 (%* he,) tc *W in the Cle 
 
 c , njentineLzf nr^Jo called, which is by the Leant- 
 
 ^ w om /*72 i&wi* confejfed to be very antient, 
 
 arJto contain the Order of WorJInp obferved in 
 
 the Eaf.ern Churches before the Time of Conftan- 
 
 fiine, —all the Prayers are direded to 
 
 f That is, to rhe Father j as " * . G0D > m the Name of 
 appears by the following ' his Son Jefus Cbrifl - As 
 Words, //« S W . « ^ ^ (fays he?) Gfld u 
 
 \ , " praifed, in our Liturgy. " 
 
 And you your felf plainly acknowledge the 
 lame thing, when (in the Paffage I now citedj 
 you lay, " Our Creeds and Forms of IVorflnp are" 
 [generally indeed they are, and you here una- 
 wares clearly mow that you naturally 
 thought they Jl m \d uniformly be] " empofed 
 
 \ agreeably to this Manifeftation of 'the Trinity 5 "? 
 
 W. that" we are to draw mar TO the Father 
 
 of our Lord JefusChiJT, and, in Him, Our 
 
 a Father h THROUGH the Merits and Mediati- 
 
 « °rr ?' HlS 0n]y Son our Saviour ; BY the 
 
 Help and Affiance of His Holy Spirit 
 
 which he has given us. " Had this great 
 
 Foundation been regularly kept to-, the very 
 
 &$ot gn d Spriag c f a]i Controverfies and Di- 
 
 fptite* 
 
( i?9 ) 
 
 fputes of this Kind among Chriftians. had beeit 
 entirely cut off. For whether the Son and £fa- 
 ly Gboji be equal, or not equal, to the Father * 
 whether they be the fame, or not the fame, with 
 the Father ; whether they be really dijUnci Per- 
 fons, or not really difiinB Porjons, but only Modes 
 or Powers^ improperly called Perfons -, whether 
 the Son be confubjiantial to the Father, or 7ioi 
 confubjiantial $ whether cojijnbflanthil fignifies 
 Individuality of Sub fiance, or only Derivation of 
 one Sub fiance from Another-, and which way 
 foever innumerable other fuch Queftions be de- 
 termined; yet, to worfhip uniformly the One 
 God, the Father Almighty, even our Father which 
 hin Heaven, through the Intercellionot /^ only 
 Son our Lord Jtfus Chriji, in the Manner the 
 Scripture directs -, and, with regard to the 
 Nature of the Son and Holy Spirit, not to be 
 wife above what is written, but to confine our 
 felves fat leaft in Creeds and publick Prayers) 
 to the clear and uncontroverted Exprejjions of 
 Scripture concerning Them and the Honour due 
 Unto them •, This (I fay) is undoubtedly, upon 
 all pofiible Hypothefes, right and fujjicient in 
 Praclife, without Any Danger of Errour orMi- 
 ftake ^ being what All ITncere Chriftians might 
 eaiily and moft fafely agree in* and indeed all 
 that they promife at their Baptifm : Whereas 
 All Determinations 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 Confci- 
 ences of many pious Perfons, and (unlefs Men be 
 too carelefs and indifferent with Regard to 
 Truth or Errour in Religion) Will unavoida- 
 bly in their Confequences be the Caufe of Dh 
 fputes alfo and Contentions in the Church of Goi„ 
 
- ( i8o ) 
 
 In former Ages, from the Time of the 
 Council of Nice to the Reformation ; and ge- 
 nerally alfoin the reformed Churches ; no Er- 
 rour has been accounted more odious, than 
 that of denying the Real Perfonality of the Son 
 and Holy Spirit diftinft from the Father. But 
 of late Years, many very learned and eminent 
 Men have in their Writings inclined to an 
 Opinion net much unlike that of Sabellms- that 
 £ e 7 A /><^ c and ,»*«W the Word and the 
 Holy Spirit of God, are not Real Perfons fubfift- 
 mg Mindly from the Father, but Modes only 
 ox Maimers of Gods manifeftinghimfelf, fpoken 
 ot figuratively and improperly as Perfons or 
 intelligent Agents. NWerthelefs ; however Thefe 
 differ in the Fremifes, (as it cannot be in this 
 lmpenect State, but Men will entertain diffe- 
 rent Opinions, unlefs by Authority they be c- 
 ver-ruled from having Any Opinions of their 
 own at all • which is indeed having no Reli* 
 gion at all •) yet in the Conclujion, which is of 
 more Importance as relating more immediately 
 to FraBife, they muft of Neceffity, in Confe- 
 quence of their own Dcdrine, agree with Dr 
 Clarke as to the main Iflue of this whole Quefti- 
 on. Fcr ij the Son and Holy Spirit of God be 
 Heal Perfons fubfiffing diftindly from the Fa- 
 ther, then it is evident that they muft of Ne- 
 ceffity be fubordinate to him h and if fo, 'tis 
 alio no lefs evident that whatever Honour is 
 paid to them, muft of Neceffity be as fubordi- 
 to*e K as are their Perfons or Offices refpeftively. 
 But if on the other Side, they be not Real Per- 
 Jons fubfifting diftindly from the Father, but 
 
 °u\r M ?f es ^ God ' s manifefting himfelf to 
 the \\ odd, how emnmtial foever thofe Modes 
 be -,_ then it follows of Neceffity, that the Son 
 having no real and true Perfonality any ethcr- 
 
 wife 
 
C rSr ) 
 
 wife than as being incarnate, can no otherwife 
 be an Object of Worfhip, than as a Man in 
 whom God dwells and manifefts himfelf after 
 the bigheft and moft exalted Manner: ^And the 
 Holy Gbojl, having no real Perfonality at all, as 
 not being an intelligent Agent really diftinc"t 
 from the Father ; cannot, properly, be an Ob- 
 jeft of WorJInp at all, becaufe Perfon only, (in 
 the real and not fchohjlick Senfe of the Word,) 
 is the Object of Worihip :, and Modes, Qualities 
 or Attributes, (how high , fingnlar, or eminential 
 foever,) fuch as are the Reafon and l/lfdom of 
 God $ however excellent and truly adorable, 
 yet are not capable of having diftinB applica- 
 tion made to them in the way of Honour or 
 WorJInp, as intelligent Agents. Here therefore 
 let every reafonable and lincere Perfon, efpeci- 
 ally every Learned Man, who knows what was 
 the Practife of the primitive Church •, lay his 
 Hand upon his Heart, and fay, whether this. ^ 
 be not a Matter of Importance enough to de- 
 ferve ferions Confideration •, and whether He 
 dees not think it dejirable, that in every dri- 
 ft ian Country, the Governours of the Church 
 mould, whenever it can be done in the Spirit 
 of Peace and Meeknefs, review carefully the 
 Forms of humane Compofition ufed id the fo- 
 lemn WorJInp of God 5 efpecially fuch as are 
 known to have been compofed in the moft dark 
 and ignorant Ages of the Church, between the 
 Beginning of the fourth Century and the Times ' 
 of the Reformation ; and endeavour to bring 
 them as near as pojjible to the Practife ot the pri- 
 mitive Church, and, above All, to the exprefs 
 "Words and Directions of our Saviour and his 
 Apoftles •, fo as to be altogether unexceptiona- 
 ble to all Chriftians •, which 'tis impolfible the 
 Doctrines and Decrees of later Councils can be, 
 
 N 3 without 
 
concerning 
 i he Hal) 
 T> mitjf. 
 
 C 181 ) 
 
 without an infallible Authority. I add here 
 *J:T ^^rfavenzoodmner : " I conclude, 
 pelentan- 1( W & 5 Wltn this moil: undeniable Truth -, 
 f«i*r/j ^ that it we direct all our Praifes, Prayers and 
 ^ Petitions, primarily to the #rffer, through 
 ( - ijie Merits and Mediation of the Son, and 
 ^ by the AJhftance and Guidance of the Holy 
 ^ Spun-, ^our religious Worfhip will moft 
 certainly be conformable to the Gofpel-ftyle 
 r and Prticnptions \ which, whatever Opini- 
 w on be trueft in Speculation, cannot but (in all 
 Hypothefes) be acknowledged to be fate and 
 * " /#*tf*l in PiaZife. ' 
 
 hu. 4- The P#* r remarkable PafTage I would take 
 particular Notice of in your Preface, is This : 
 Tls common People, wbofe bonis are as precious 
 | to Him that pure bafed them, as the Souls of the 
 j vicji leaped Critkh h have not Opportunity to 
 ' Jearcb into, nor Jbility to make a Judgment of 
 x the Feijoimances of Learned Mm on either 
 ■ Side ; And it u not the Will of our Father which 
 ' is in Haven, that One of thefe little onesfhouli 
 |f* through Igncrance of thefe fundamental 
 tmin, or though Errors contrary thereunto, 
 ' for V ant of this Kind of Learning, I cannot 
 1 there fere but think that He, whofe Wi litis 
 ' that the Poor Jbould have the Gofpel preached to 
 their, has given v.: Way* fuitable to their Ca- 
 pacities, to efrablifi them in the Truths thereof. ' J 
 This alio is excellently faid. But now, ihat 
 is the true btference from hence > Does'it fol- 
 low^ fas Dr Wells argues in his Book againft 
 DrGorfcfi,} that, becaufe the common People - 
 cannot make a Judgment of the critical Per- 
 formances of Learned Men. therefore they 
 are implicitly to follow each one the Senti- 
 fapits of their cwn Teachers? But the Confe- 
 rence 
 
C 183 ) 
 
 quence then is obvious and notorious, that All 
 Religions are equal, and confequently no Reli- 
 gion true at all. What therefore muft the com- 
 mon People, u who are not able to contend about 
 " divers Readings and G iticifms, n do ? Muft 
 they (as you well advife them,) " blefs God p re f. p a£ . 
 " for the good Travjlat'rm of the Scripture, which 4. 
 " they have, into a Tongue which they wider- 
 " Jland? " Undoubtedly it is their Duty Co to 
 do : But not to lay any ftrefs upon the Tran- 
 flation in fuch Parages, where, by the Ac- 
 knowledgment of learned Men, it is confef- 
 fed to be erroneous •, or where, by the Debates 
 of learned Men, it appears to be ambiguous. 
 What then muft they do, with Regard to 
 fuch Points of Controverfy . ? Muft they w an- Fre r p 
 " fwer the Pretenfe of Scripture*' by " plant^ and $* 
 " D' : JiinBions well known among Chrifrians ? " But 
 what if thofe plain DifiinBiovs, as you call 
 them, be really very obfaire ? as in this very Cafe, 
 where you yourfelf (as I have mown * above J * ^. , 4 $ 
 entirely miftake the plain Dijlhttion you fpeak 
 of, and which you intended to cite from Biihop 
 Bull. And what if a Diftinction well-known 
 among Chriftians, be yet really without any true 
 Foundation ? For well-known, is nothing more 
 than prevailing or having become cujiomary in 
 particular Times or Places \ Which many right 
 and many wrong Diftinctions have equally done. 
 What then muft the common People do ? 
 Muft they, in the laft Place, depend upon 
 " a plain Sripture- Argument (alleged by fome p> ^ ^' 
 particular Writer of Controverfy) " for the ' 
 " Truth of what they have been taught ? " But 
 what if that plain Scripture-Aigument proves 
 altogether inconclufive? as I have here mown 
 that yours really does. And why muft that 
 which Men have been taught, that is, whatever 
 
 N 4 Opinion 
 
C 184 ) 
 
 Opinion happens vulgarly to prevail in any 
 particular Time or Place, always be the Con- 
 clufion laid down, for which fuch Proofs muff, 
 be brought from Scripture as can be found $ 
 and not rather the Scripture hjelf be imparti- 
 ally fearched into, in Order to find There what 
 it is we ought to conclude to be the Truth ? 
 Thus there has been a Time, when abfohte and 
 imconditionate Election mid Reprobation was al- 
 moft univerially among Protectants the TRUTH 
 they had been taught. And plain Scripture- Argu- 
 ments were perpetually alledged in Defenfe of 
 that Truth, from Texts which generally in the 
 Tranjlation itfelf, and Always in the Original, 
 were nothing to the Purpoie. And when the 
 Doctrine was mown to be contrary to the Ef- 
 fential Attributes of God, as well as to the whole 
 Tenour and Defign of the Gofpel -, there were 
 plain Diftinclmis well-hwwn among Chrijlians to 
 prove that the Words, Jujlice ami Goodnefs, when 
 applied to God Aid. not fignify Juftice andGoodnefs 
 indeed, but No-body knows jrfcrtr,fomething eminen- 
 tial, (bmtthmgtranfcendental, fomething whereof 
 the Words fpoken conveyed no Idea. Since there- 
 fore this Way of Reafoning, neceiTarily ends ei- 
 ther in an inextricable Perplexity, cr in the RomiJI) 
 Conclufion, that Religion is nothing but what 
 Cuftom and human Authority happens to eltablifh^ 
 What then, (will it be asked of Me J is the 
 TRUE Inference whichlthink ought to be drawn 
 from that excellent Poiition of yours, [viz. 
 that fnce the common People, whofe Souls are as 
 precious to him that purchafid them, as the Souls 
 of the raoji learned kicks ; have not Opportuni- 
 ty to fearch into, yior Ability to make a Judgment 
 of the Performances of leai ned Men on either 
 Side ; and fnce 'tis not the Will of our Father 
 vhicb is ht Hsaven % that One of thefe little Ovjs 
 
 . (1>ouU 
 
r «8j ) 
 
 fipuld perip, through Ignorance of thefe fundamen- 
 tal Truths, or through Errors contrary thereunto, 
 for want of this Kind of Learning •, therefore it 
 cannot be thought hut He, whofe Will it is that the 
 Poor Jhoiild have the Gofpel preached to them, has 
 given vs Ways fuitable to their Capacities, to ejla- 
 blijh them in the Truths thereof ?J If (I Cay) it 
 be demanded, what,in my Opinion, is the true In- 
 ference that ought to be drawn, and necejfarily 
 follows, from this excellent Pofition of yours, 
 which I think to be indeed one of the great and 
 vioft fundamental Truths of Religion : I anfwer-, 
 it feems to Me to follow, that the common 
 People, according to the true Defign of the 
 Gofpel of Chrift, are to place their Religion, 
 not in adhering to the Notions of any parti- 
 cular Party of Men, or of any particular Place 
 otTi?ne ^(which unavoidably puts All Religions 
 upon the fame Level :) but in adhering to that 
 Faith, into which our Saviour commanded his 
 Difciples to be baptized ; that Faith which was 
 preached to all Nations, and has no Difficulty of 
 being underftood by Perfons of all Capacities^ 
 viz. that God has appointed a Day, wherein He 
 will judge the World in Righteoufnefs by our Lord 
 jfefus Chrift, and reward every Man according to 
 what he has done in the Flejl), whether it be good, 
 or whether it be evil : That, therefore, they 
 mufr, in continual Expectation of that great 
 Day, live foberly, right eoujly, and godly in this 
 prefent Wo)ld; loving the Lord their God {jhe 
 one fupreme Maker and Governour of the U- 
 niverfe]] with all their Hearts, and their Neigh- 
 bours as themfelves; and having AfTurance (an 
 AflTurance continually fealed to Chriftians in 
 the two Sacraments,) of the Rcmijion of paft Sins, 
 fopon true Repentance and Amendment of Life, 
 through the Interccficn of our only Saviour Je- 
 
 fix 
 
( 1S6 ) 
 
 Jus Cbrijf, and by the Afffiance and Sanfiification 
 of the good Spit it of Gdd : And that, in all 
 Matters ot Indifference, of Decency and Order, 
 in Rites and Ceremonies and the like, they muft 
 peaceably obey the Commands of their Superi- 
 ours upon Earth. This is the Summary of 
 what the Apeftles preached, as the great Truths 
 of the Gofpel, and as the Terms or Conditi- 
 ons of Salvation, in a Way fuitable to the Ca- 
 pacities even of the poorefl Men : The Grace of 
 God, faith St Paid, Tit. 2, U, (that is, the Go- 
 ipel) th.it bringeth Salvation, hath appeared to \ 
 All Men ^ teaching vs, that denyijig Ungodlinefi 
 and worldly LuJIs, wefionldlivefoberly, righteoufly, 
 and godly in this prefevt World ; looking for that 
 bleffed Hope, and the glorious appearing of the 
 great God, and our Saviour Jefus Cbrift. And 
 This everlaflivg Gofpel is fo expreft in that Form 
 of found Words, which every Chriftian at his 
 Bapttfm profefles to believe ; and in thofe Com- 
 mands, which he then undertakes to obey -, that 
 there needs No Learning, No Skill in divers Read- 
 ings and Criticifms, to underftand it. The great 
 Rule, by which Christians fhall be judged at 
 the laft Day, is as eafy to be underftood by 
 the meaneft Capacities, as by the moft Learn- 
 ed : And one of the firft Principles of Chrifti- 
 Rnity is, that as Humane Authority cannot di- 
 7?iinifi from, fo neither can it add to That Rule. 
 It is commendable for every Chriftian, fo far as 
 He has Opportunities and Capacities of doing 
 it, to gain continually more and more Know- 
 ledge, by the Study of Reafon and of Scripture: 
 And 'tis the Duty of Learned Men, to endea- 
 vour to explain Things, as far as is poflible, to 
 the Unlearned : And in indifferent Matters, 
 fiich as Rites and Ceremonies, and every 
 Thing of that Nature -, it is the Duty of every 
 
 particular 
 
c 1*7 ; 
 
 particular Church to fee that Things be done 
 decently land in Order. But in Matters Funda- 
 mental to Faith and moral Praftifc -, as the bap- 
 tifmal Creed and Commandments have always 
 been prefer ved in the univerfal Church, with- 
 out any material Variation •, fo it- could not 
 but btft ferve the Ends of the Gofpel of Chrift, 
 to keep alfo every other part of the folemn 
 Worjlnp of God; free from all fpecuhtivs Diffi- 
 culties, from Matters of Difpute and Contention, 
 from every thing that is of uncertain Meaning 
 and hard to he underjiood. Becaufe when once 
 People are taught that any Part of their Reli- 
 gion confifts in what they underjland not, in 
 what they cannot judge whether it be true or falfe, 
 whether it be rightly explained to them or erro- 
 neously $ the Confequence prefently is, that 
 their Religion becomes to them fuch as is ta- 
 ken up only by Chance or by Cujlom or by Party 
 or by Dzpeniance upon Humane Authority. Which 
 Things being of the fame Weight in all Coun- 
 tries, 'mall Ages, and in all Religions equally-, 
 The great Defign of Chrifh'anity, (which is to 
 eftablifh, not an external and political Form of 
 Godlinefs, but an invar d and ejfeciual Perfwafon 
 of the Mini and Conference) is hereby in great 
 Meafure necefTarily fruftrated. And either 
 there unavoidably arife perpetual Debates and 
 Difpntes, which (where they meet with ill Tem- 
 pers) deftroy Chriftian Peace and Charity-, or 
 elfe (which is of much vorfe Confequence to 
 Religion) there prevails an univerfal land and 
 implicit Ignorance, as (at this Day) in moft 
 Countries which call themfelves Chriftian 
 
 I have here propofed to you what I thought 
 proper, in Defenfe of that which I take to be 
 the true and antient Opinion concerning the Do- 
 ctrine 
 
C 188 ") 
 
 #ri ; Be of the Trinity ; that is, concerning 
 our Belief in the One Supreme God and Fa- 
 ther of All and in Jefus Chrift his Only Son 
 our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit of God. 
 Yet would I not for any Consideration 
 whatfoeve^ (if I had full Authority fo to do,) 
 put any Pait either of Dr Carte's or any 
 Man's Explication of this Matter, into any 
 Creed, or Prayer, fo as to offend any Perfon 
 who thought that the Dofttine and Expref- 
 f.cns cf Scripture (in which we All agreej 
 had more truly another Meaning and Ex- 
 plication i but ihould be very defirous to ac- 
 quiefce in thofe Antient Forms of found 
 Words, which were in Ufe before Controver- 
 ts of this Nature began. How far it may 
 be reafonable, or the Duty of private Per- 
 fjns, with all Modefty and SubmifTion to 
 iuggeft to the Governours of the Church 
 fuch Considerations as thefe, I will not pre- 
 fume to determine. I (hall conclude what 
 I thought fit to lay before Tou m particu- 
 lar, with the Words wherewith Dr Clarke 
 concludes one of his printed Letters. " Could 
 the Proteftant World but have Courage, 
 1 to part only with Things confefTedly 
 fpurious.;, and, in point of Pra&ife, (quod 
 <c eft omnis Controverfias Caput,) be content 
 with what is antient and unexceptionable 
 " upon All Hypothefes, (as the firft Re- 
 fc formers would ce.taiuly have done, had 
 ' Greek Learning been at that Time rejio- 
 * e red, as Latin was-,) All Debates about 
 " fpeculative Matters might either well be laid 
 " ajide, or (like other Points of Learning) be 
 " continued without any Injury to Religion or Cha- 
 * rity. The Peace and Unity of the Church, 
 
 " can 
 
C iSp ) 
 
 can be fecurei but Two IFayi: Either by that 
 of Charity, and alhwivg learned Men a 
 Liberty of examining Things •, which is 
 " the Proteftant and Chriftian Method: Or 
 " by introducing with Force an univerfal Igno- 
 rance^ which is the Method of Popery. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Tour affeftionate Friend ± 
 
 and Servant^ &c. 
 
 F I N I 
 
 S. 
 
LET 
 
 T O TH E 
 
 Author of a Book 
 
 ENTITULED 
 
 The True Scripture-Doctrine 
 
 of the mofi Holy and Undivided 
 T KIN ITT continued and 
 vindicated, &<y 
 
 Printed is> the Year M DCG XIX, 
 
C ijP3 ) 
 
 A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 Tfl the Author of a Book entituled* 
 The True Scripture- Doctrine of 
 the moft holy and undivided 
 Trinity, continued &c. 
 
 St 
 
 *9 
 
 H E Temper and Good Spirit, with 
 which both your Fir ft and Second 
 Book have been written, afford 
 great Reafon to hope, that Many 
 Others, after Tour Example, will 
 by a diligent Study of the Holy 
 Scriptures, endeavour to arrive fit a more ex2£fc 
 and perfect Underftanding, than has generally 
 been attained, of feveral important Texts, 
 which from the Times of the Fourth Century 
 (through the Prejudices arifing out of Scholaf- 
 tick and Syftematical Divinity,) have not by 
 the greater Number of Writers, either befqre or 
 fmce the Reformation, been confidered with 
 
 O fufBcient 
 
( *94 ) 
 
 fufficient Care, and impartial Attention to the 
 
 true Meaning and Intent of the facred Penmen. 
 
 The Errour, which feems to run in General 
 
 through your whole Book, is ; that yo& eolk& 
 
 the Meaning of Texts of Scripture, not; from 
 
 the Words of the Texts themfehes, but from- 1&- 
 
 pothefes framed by Writers of the Fourth arfd 
 
 Fifth Centuries (whofe Comments and Authority 
 
 in other Cafes no Man regards, any further than 
 
 their Reafom have Weight and from fchobf- 
 
 tick Notions of later Ages, to which you con- 
 
 ftantiy endeavour to accommodate the Texts as 
 
 to a Rule of Interpretation* inftead of confide- 
 
 nng what from the Texts themfehes, and from 
 
 the Scope of the Context, appears plainly to be 
 
 the Senfe and Meaning of the infpired Writers. 
 
 To proceed therefore to the Texts in Particu- 
 lar. ■ ■ 
 
 Mat. XIX, 17. There is None Good, but One 
 liic, One Perfon,] that is, God. 
 
 ^ T ^^ e ?l on ' u P° n this Text, is ; 'whether 
 the Word [i/c, One,-] does not fignify One Per- 
 Jon or Intelligent Agent. I mall not here repeat 
 the Arguments, by which Br CI. has proved 
 at large that it muff necelTarily €0 fignify: But 
 mall only briefly take Notice of what you ad- 
 vance anew in your Vindication, 
 
 The Dr affirmed [Reply to Mr Nelfon, p. 40/] 
 tnat One Being- [though the word, 1% can- 
 not poffibly be fo rendred,! " when fpoken 
 
 ot an intelligent Agent, is the very fame as 
 ... one ArM " To This, your Anfwer is, 
 
( 19* ) 
 
 [pag. % f\ that " if the intelligent Agent has 
 "' but one Subfijlence, as a Man, or Angel \ one 
 
 Being, fpoken of it, is fubje&ively the fame 
 ' with one Perfon : But where the intelligent 
 ' Agent has more Subfiftences, there One Beings 
 " fpoken of it, is fubje&r. ely the fame with 
 " the Plurality of Perfom contained in it. ■* 
 Now, to underftand how weak this Anfwer is, 
 the Reader needs only cbferve, that between 
 Being and Subfiftence there is no other Difference 
 but This, that the One is an Englifi Word, and 
 the other a Latin One. So that to fpeak of 
 one intelligent Agent or Being, having more 
 Subjiftences than one, is fuppoiing thatOtf Be- 
 ing has more Beings, or One Exijlevie more Ex : Jl- 
 ences, than One. Which, I iuppofe wants no 
 Confutation. 
 
 Thisis fo clear, that you acknowledge (pag.^,) 
 c: the Notion indeed of a Perfon, and an intelli- 
 " gent Being, m Relation to Creatures, is the 
 " fame^ becaule each fuch intelligent Being, is 
 " SUPPOSED to have but one Siibfifience : 5> 
 [Tis then but a SUPPOSITION, h feems, not 
 a Certainty, that every one individual Subfiftent 
 or Extfient, which is the Notion of Being* has 
 
 but One Subf/lence or Exigence :] " But the 
 
 " Notion of a Ferfon ( you fayj and an intelli- 
 " gent Being, in Relation to God, is not the 
 Same. 35 That is to fay \ when we fpeak of 
 God, and fpeak of Kim as an inUtyigent 
 Agent ; we muft not mean what our Words 
 Tieceffarily f&nify, if they have any Significa- 
 tion at all ^ ;but our words muft be equivalent 
 only to mere inarticulate Sounds: Thus when ' 
 you fay there is in God " a Plurality of Subfifi- 
 ' ences, : ' you do not mean Suljjflences, (becaufe 
 l \ieEngUJ!) of that Latin Word, is Beings,) but 
 you mean (as far as can be underftood from 
 
 O 2 your 
 
C ip* ) 
 
 your Words) nothing at all. How this tends to 
 the Honour of God, or to what Ufe or Purpofe 
 it is to fpeak of Him in this Manner, (which 
 the Scriptuv: is very far from doing ; never gi« 
 vingusthe.ieaft Hint or Example of fpeaking 
 concerning God in any other Manner than ac- 
 cording to the known and iifial Acceptation of 
 Words, ) I cannot poffibly conceive. 
 
 fag. 5. You repeat your Aflertion, that the word, 
 [ik One,] in this Text, " may refer to a con- 
 " feqnent bubftantive, namely to b Stoc. " But 
 this is evidently impojfible, becaufe then the 
 Text would be a Tautology, There is None 
 Good, but One God, which is God. Unlefs you 
 mean to render it thus, There is none Good, u 
 (av uc d 3foV, but the one God; as you after- 
 wards do, pag. 7 and 8. But all men who 
 understand Greek, know that the Words can- 
 not pojhbly bear that Rendring. For not, us 
 « -^cc, but us 3ecc, lignifies, The One God. 
 Juft as, not /u/>V(gH 3to?, but /uuv& 3eoc 
 fignifies, The Only God. mo'i^ 3eo?, figni '■ 
 Hes y God Alone -, and, uc Bibs, fignifies either," 
 Ow jwhich is God, or, God which is One : Not, 
 God which is One God, (for that's a mere Tauto- 
 logy -,) but, God which is One Agent or Perfon. 
 Kor did any Writer ever fay, itc av^an-^, 
 but uc ocvS £&*<&, or wctv$(!(<m©-', when He 
 meant to exprefs, One Man, or the One Man. 
 The fame Errour 3 r ou fall into again, pag. 1 3 , 
 where you abfurdly tranflate the words of 
 Origen, it uh lie ^eoj r 7tu r ry(>, but One God 
 the Father ^Asif Otigenhad faid, not, uc, 9 
 Stos, but, tic Sioc, or uc Sue -, and had not 
 meant, (as he plainly does) One, which is God t 
 tvsn the Father , but One God the Father 
 
 o*b 9 
 
( *97 ) 
 
 oily, in Opposition to any Other God the 
 Father. 
 
 The Word, ttteW, No one, (you contend,;** 5 M 
 neceflarily refers to &$#**& or *■'»£ orthe like, 9- 
 and is not fignificative of Agent oiPerfon in ge- 
 neral. But then the rendring of the Text will be, 
 No Man h Good, hit God only : Which Conie- 
 quence you own, pag. ls and defend it <vag.%) 
 by a parallel Place in our Englifh Tranilation, 
 1 Cor; 2, 11, The Things of God knoweth no 
 Man, but the Sph it of God. Which is defend- 
 ing one Errour by another. For the true rend- 
 dring is The Things of God knoweth no one, (or, 
 noPeifon,) buttheSphit of God. And the Words 
 in the {receding Verfe, TiS k^^-n^.. what Man? 
 do not prove (as you fuppofe they do) that the 
 fame word is reterred to in the following ^ but 
 the contrary. For the Apoftles Argument is by 
 Way of Oppofition 5 // even among Men, no one 
 hwws Another's Thoughts; much more the Thoughts 
 of God, can no one, no one whatfoever, Man or 
 Angel or other Ferfon whatever, be able to know, 
 imlefs God reveals them by his Spirit. But fup- 
 pofe the Word, av^e^cc, could be referred to 
 in this Place 5 can it be fo in all Others ? Can 
 it be fo in that PafTage which you cite, pag. 6, 
 Teik tioiv, There are Three that bear Record m 
 Heaven, 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 Ghoft; And there are Three (rqac) that bear 
 Witnefsin Earth, the Spirit, aid the Water, and 
 the Mood? Can the Wosd, Men, be referred 
 to inetfkr^ef thefe Sentences? In the Former, 
 (to which you give no Anjwer,) the Te<7<? 'tis 
 evident, can be nothing but three Perfons : 
 And in the latter, you are forced to contradict 
 yourfelf in exprefs Words : For whereas you 
 affirm, pag. 9, that " the mafculine Ad.jeft- 
 
 O 3 " ive, 
 
C ipS ) 
 
 " ive $bdp refpedts either &3g©ir©f or <xv^, 
 •' or feme other Word of the fame Meaning 
 " and Gender ^ the Language requiring that 
 " the Gender or Adjettivcs be determined by 
 " feme known Subftantive to which they re- 
 " fer : " in This Place '\_pag. 6] you fay di- 
 reciiy on thecontraiy, '• A Malculine Adjedt- 
 " ive placed abfolutely without any antecedent 
 " Subitantive, may fignify either Toing or Be- 
 " ivgs as, Tone ejot", There, are Three that 
 "■ /;ew;- Wjhiefi in Earth, the Spirit, and the Wa- 
 lter, and the Blood: Where iw r is a Maf- 
 " culine Adieflive - has No antecedent Sub- 
 cc ftantive ^ and yet the Three iignified are not 
 TbucTci fons" All which, as it is an Incon- 
 ffnncy with yonrfelf, fo 'tis a great Miftake in 
 Und< i (landing the CovJltitSion of the Paffage. 
 For the Three here Iignified, are not merely 
 Things or Beings, (which the mafculine Adject - 
 ii T e cannot polfibly denote,) but thev are 
 Three Tetjons, three Perfons hearing Witmfs: 
 The Water and the Blood fignifyiilg, not mate- 
 Haliy and literally Water and Blood, but figu- 
 ratively the i erf on hearing Teftimbny at the 
 Water, and the P<?r/*c7f fhedding his Blood : For 
 which Rcafon, and which Reafon only, the 
 Word Tfticisufed, and not tyc-. For though 
 the Neuter Adjective abfolute, may fometimes 
 elegantly be ufed of a Per/on, (as, Variim & 
 m:la>ili' fejnper F&mina,) becaufe every Terfon 
 is like wife a Thing or a Being •, yet, on the 
 contrary, the Majcidine Adjective abfolute, can- 
 not pofftbly be ufd^of a Thing or Ttefwgj (un- 
 If f& that T/j^ or Being either 2*9, or is represented 
 as, zPerfon $ b?caufe,every 5^'wg is not aPerfon. 
 Biit to fatisfy you further, ("if there be an> 
 Need in fo plain Cafe,) that the proper and 
 only- Signification of the ' Mfcfctiline Ad 
 
 je£tiv< 
 
( 199 ) 
 
 jective abfolute, is Perfon -, you may be pleafed 
 to confider the following Paflages .• 
 
 Ayau •yocf ovtx/v, isy /txiv tAhV-#v, ocA'ir, 
 Euripid. Helen, v. 652. fpeaking of two Per- 
 /wk, a Man and his Wife. 
 
 tooc-n-Tiiv nv' \v -rvift' v/mi^cc f/Aft\G.v nwteov. 
 Id. in Alcejl. v. $ 1 3 . 
 
 Ns'guvg ^utv vi£v, Tmvf tyovTtx. — I ver. 607. 
 
 • " ' — Hon tragus aAAa> Sixveu 
 
 Nt'^j yi^GM <Lv 3 livdV oc-mnfjui'^ ve^oV. 
 ^r. 635. 
 
 V AM' » ffU V£K£qV (XVTl ffS TB^' tK<p£§«$ 5 
 
 W. 716. 
 
 * , A-7n.KSi } K<ki fjui tW 1 ' toe 3&'4a/ vendor . 
 Xtfr. 729. 
 
 In every one of which Places, the mafculine 
 word 6 vfcK^cc the Dead Perfon, and aMjgH v;©-> 
 another young Perfon, means a Woman, Alcefth 
 the Wife ot Admetus. Of the fame Kind, 
 are the following PafTages in Plaiiim. Mil. Glo- 
 riof A3. 3. ghiis ea eft? And Epidic. Seen. 4, 
 Sjjidcum jj And again, §mcum ibat. And &*w. 
 «/t. &i jkm fa e/¥ Mulier ? And Ct^IJ. >4#. 4, 
 &?». 2 •, Hac eft : guis ? And, ghds es ? fpeak- 
 ing of a Woman. And Rud : v4# : 4, Seen, 4, 
 £jhiisquis es, qu& &c. Alfo • thofe Expreifions, 
 riwov (plKi, frequently in Homer ; and (Iliad. 
 e>, v«\ 4.55,) 7tAm>£vts ^pau <£, fpeaking of jwo 
 Goddejfes. And in Ariftophanes, fcn??ov ~v, fpeak- 
 ing of a Woman, inhistmAw0i>'£. 6Vi?w. 2. And 
 again, nai tk <ppa(ovT(GHaK.20wi, of a Woman. 
 
 As to the Latin, Perfona ♦, the Difference be- 
 tween that which is fignified by the 'Latin word 
 Terfona, and that which in Englifl) is expreffed by 
 the Word R?r/cw,and in Latin or Geek by the TkT^P 
 culhte JdjeBive only •, the Difference, I fay, isclear- 
 ly This. One and the fame Perfon cannot poffi- 
 bly be more Perfom than One •, He can be no 
 
 O 4 more 
 
C 200 ) 
 more than ^c Units: But He may at the fame 
 lime be as many Perfona as you pleafe- He 
 may be a Father, and a Son, and a Judge, and a 
 .©narwr, and a &,*>£, and a ^fo/?^,' and a 
 ^ff v an yet cont mueall the while but One 
 2nd the fame Agent 01 Perf on. Thus God, even 
 the Father of All, can be no more than one Pr- 
 Jon • he cannot poflibly be more than ~e,c Unas . 
 And yet at the fame Time, he may be and is' 
 Many/V,^ Heisthe'ow, and^heft 
 and the father, and the Maker, and the Pre* 
 Jerver, and the Goiwwojtr, and the Judge of 
 All | and yet, all the while, but one pfrfon. 
 New therefore, if the Son of God be not a% 
 ftmdt Mat 4^f, but only a different 
 
 J*"! fron > * e F ath «j « follows unavoid- 
 ably, that as a Father -and a ft^, (whcn f 
 
 ken of One and the fame Man,) though they 
 
 be two Perfow* yet are but One Perfon n\y\ 
 
 fo God and the &k of God, (if b y Wbe 
 
 meant only One and the fame fr&fttf f^rf/;. 
 
 **!* ^^ . tho »g h the 7 be two Per/on*, yet 
 will neceflanly be but One and the fame Per- 
 fin • ^h if you *ZW, (as the Reverend 
 Dr^mrhasexpreflydone,) then your Noti- 
 on evidently falls m with Sochiamfm • And if 
 ycu fan it, then you diretfly g ive U p your 
 main Aflertion, < of their being Both but one 
 endtbejame individual Agent. 
 t*l. 6: • Ton add: b &v emphatically taken, relates 
 to ©*o<.- But this alfoisvery abfurd. For 
 then the Meaning of, Side i S iv b &•, would be 
 God is the God vho L : Whereas evidently the' 
 trueRendnng of it is, God is He (or That Agent 
 orPerfon) vho (byway of Eminence) isoretijs. 
 He is both to o» The Being, and 5 & The living 
 Perfon. Which two diftincr. Manners of fpeak- 
 wg, how much foever ycu in vain labour 
 
 tq 
 
( :oi ) 
 
 to confound them, will for ever ftand an^ 
 undeniable Dtmmftration of the Erroneoufnefs or' 
 your Kotion. But of this, more perhaps hereafter. 
 
 The Arguments you allege, pag. I o, do all 
 prove This only •, that the words, [biit God ok- 
 /y,J as our Tranflators render, ii aw &, 6 SeoV, 
 in Mar. 2, 7-, are the fame in Senje, as if it 
 had been literally tranfkted, ht 0«-> that is 
 God. But they do not prove, (which is the on- 
 ly Thing that would have been to your Pur- 
 pofe,) that this Latter is not the true literal 
 (and the other only a Paraphrajiical) Tranflation. 
 
 To the Dr's Obfervation,^ that (remits 
 reads or explains thisText thus, & '^ iv £**<$»<, 
 i\utviq ev ■mcis(><x.vo r ic y There is One that is Goody 
 even the Father which is in Heaven; Juflln and 
 Clemens Alexandrinus thus, tsccr^ m<5 \v role 4- 
 ^flcv'o??, My Father which is in Heaven ; an&Origen 
 thus, -9t<k b TZCCT71 > 9 God even the Father ^ to 
 which, Novatian adds the Word, Solum, the Fa- 
 ther Only -, and you yourfelf (pag. 1 3) tran- 
 flate Origens "Words thus, God the Father Only: 
 To all this, I fay, your fhort and plain An- 
 fwer is • that the Father which is in Heaven, God 
 even the Father, and. God the Father Only , is both 
 Father and Son. [Your "Words are •, pag. 11, 
 " If the Expreflion, My Father which is in Hea- 
 " ven, fo appropriated the Term, Good, to the 
 " Perfonof tbe*FathcrJ &c." Pag. 17, " He 
 " [iren&iis] includes the Word in God, notwith- 
 cc ftanding the Addition of the Term, Father P 
 
 And pag. 19, " It appears then, that £K 
 
 " [Owe,] and ira-nig [FATHER y ~\ were * 
 
 never 
 
 5,1 The Learned Bp ^earfon was of another Wind. In vain (lays he) 
 is chat vulgtr Piftinfti.on applied unco the Explication of the Creed, 
 
 whereby 
 
( ,302 ) 
 
 " never intended to exclude the Son." 3 "} If 
 this be true, (that the Perfon of the Father, e* 
 ven the Father Ojily, includes the5o7; likewife 
 there's an End indeed, of the Queftion be- 
 tween the Dr and you-, and, in Truth, an 
 End of all other Queftions whatfoever, 
 
 2. 
 
 Mar. XN, 29. The Firft of All the Command- 
 ments, h 5 Hear, Ifrael,tbe Lord our God is One 
 Lord, [or, the Lord our God, even the Lord, 
 is One.} 
 
 The Queftion between the Drand you, 
 
 upon this Text, is-, whethes by, theLordGod, 
 
 be meant the God and Father of All, or the 
 
 whole Three Persons. 
 
 ^th to In Proof of the former Interpretation, the 
 
 Mr Nell. Dr alleged the whole Scriptures of the old and 
 
 h 4& Rew Teftament, and particularly thofe Texts 
 
 which i n exprefs words define the One God to 
 
 be the Father of All, Eph. 4, 6 -, an&the Father, 
 
 of whom are all Things, 1 Cor. 8, 6. Like to 
 
 whereby the Father is confidered both perlonally and ejfentially ; fer- 
 Jnnally/is the firft in the glorious Trinity, with Relation and Oppo- 
 sition to the Son -, ejfent'ully, as comprehending the whole Trinity, 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. Fcr that the Son is not here compre- 
 hended in the Father, is evident, noc only out of the original or occa- 
 fion, but alfo from the very Letter of the Greed, which teaches us 
 to believe in God the Father, and in His Son. For if the Son were in- 
 cluded in the Father, then were the Son the Father of Himfelf. As 
 Therefore when I fay, I beliexe in Jefus Chrift his Son, I muff necef- 
 farily u'lderftand the Son of that Father, whom I mentioned in the 
 firft Article ; fo when I faid J believe in God the Father, I muft as ne- 
 ceilarily be underftood of the Father of Him, whom I call his Son in 
 the fecond Arcicle. Pearfon on tbe Creed, fag. 32, Edit. $th. 
 
 which 
 
C 203 ) 
 
 vhich, is that Expreflion of our Saviour, Joh. 8, 
 
 5:4, ^jFa'her, of whom ye. Jay that he is your 
 
 GOD : And that of St.Perer, Adts^i 3, The God 
 of our Fathers hath glorifiedUisSon Jefus. li Jefus 
 be the Son of the God of our Fathers, 'tis plain the 
 God of our Father sis the Father of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrijt;$ In like Manner, in all thofe Texts 
 (cited in Dr Clarke's Scripture-dottrine, Part I, 
 Ch.IVpnd. Part II, § 5$,) where the Three Divine 
 'Perfons are All mentioned together , it being 
 evident that the Perfons who in one Place are 
 ftiled, {Father, Son, and holy GhoJ},~\ are the 
 fame Three that in other Places are ftiled, [God, 
 the Son of God, and the Holy Ghojl •, or, God; 
 Jefus Chrijf, and the Holy Ghojl J and confe- 
 quently that the Terms [God,'} and [the Fa- 
 ther,'] are put promifcuoufiy for each others it 
 follows clearly, even to a Demonftration, 
 that God, in Scripture- Language, is not him- 
 felf the Trinity, but the frft Per f on of the Trinity. 
 For Proof of the latter Interpretation, 
 was. that the Lord God fignifies the whole Three 
 Perfons, you allege that the Terms, " Onepag. 2u 
 tc God, or God limply, though fpoken of the 
 f * Perfon of the Father, are not fo limited to 
 u him, as to exclude the Son from being really 
 " God, s.nd fitbjraiitia'lly one with the Father. " 
 
 Now here the Reader muft obferve, that by 
 the Son's being redly God, you do not mean 
 that He has really that Dignity and divine Autho- 
 rity, upon Account of which He may juftly 
 and properly be ftiled God; (which is verycon- 
 iiftent with the Fathers being Alone ftiled, 
 by way of Eminence and Supremacy, The One 
 Clod •,) but you mean, that the Son is individu- 
 ally That One God, wh'ch the Scripture fays is 
 the Father of All And by the Son's being 
 Jhbftantially One with the Kxther, you do not mean 
 
 that 
 
C 204 ^ 
 
 that he is (as the Nicene Creed exprefles it) 
 in Tk iaitxc th vrc.Tpoc, FROM the Suhfiance 
 of the Father ; (For This will not neceflarily 
 introduce That identical t quality or Confificn you 
 contend for •,) but you mean, that he is, (ipfa 
 iscriot T& ivtx.i ^dc)That Svbj1anceitfelf,the individual 
 living Subflance of the Father himfelf even That 
 very Snbjlance which is underived and nnbegotten -, 
 That is to fay, (I think,) that He really Is 
 (though we muft not Call himj the Father. 
 
 1 hat I may not here mijlake or feem to mif 
 reprefent your Senfe, I fhall in this Place coir 
 led together the principal Paflages of your 
 vbole Book, wherein you feem moft plainly to 
 exprefs your Opinion upon this Point. 
 Hg> t$. c< The Father (you fay) is called The One 
 
 " God, to exclude any other firjl Perfon ; 
 
 " But not to exclude the Son from the Godhead." 
 [By the word Godheadhexe, and in all other the 
 like places, the Reader will obferve that you 
 ryLf mean fotherwife you would differ nothing from 
 DrQarhe) the individual Godhead of the Father. 
 And then your Aifertion is plainly This, that 
 «vhen the Scripture fays, the Father is The One 
 God, it does not at all mean that he is The One 
 God, but only that he is The One Father, or the 
 Owfirfi Perfon.] 
 t*l. 21. ct Though the Term, Father, exprefled or 
 underftood, excludes the JSon from being the 
 " Jame Perfon with the Father \ yet the Term 
 1 God or One God " [in thofe Texts where the 
 Father is fpoken of under the Title of God or 
 the One God,~] " does not exclude him [the Son"] 
 " from an Union in the Godhead." [That "is to 
 fay ; though the Scripture, when it calls the 
 Father by the Name of Father, does not mean 
 the Son ; vet when it calls the Father by the 
 Name rf God, or the OneG*d, or the One God 
 
 and 
 
C 2.0? ) 
 
 I titid Father, then it does mean both Father aid 
 Son ; the Son being included in the word God, 
 though not in the word Father, in thofe very 
 pafiages where the Father is filled God even the 
 Father. Some of your words next following, 
 exprefs this moft plainly .] 
 
 M If the Expreflion, my Father which i* 'in fag. it. 
 il Heaven, Co appropriated the Term, Good, 
 " to the Perfon of the Father, as to exclude 
 " the Son, &c. ' QHere, it feems, He whom 
 our Saviour calls, My Father, fthat is, the 
 Father of the Son,) is himielf both Father and 
 Son.] 
 
 " He [Iren&us] includes the Word [or Son] ifrfrtg. 17. 
 
 I God, notwithstanding the Addition of the 
 Term, Father?' And again: The words 
 
 ¥ &<; [One] and irctTty [FATHER] were;**. I9# 
 
 " never intended to exclude the Son? 3 [That 
 is to fay, directly ; God the Father, means, 
 both Father and Son.'] 
 
 " He [Novation] joyns the Term Father, p z 
 " with God and Only God. " But he "■ {hows by * 
 
 II this Addition, that the Term Only is ap- 
 ' plied to the Father, not as He is God } but 
 
 " a she is Father. So that the One or Only 
 
 " God, the Father, " \Umis Dens, Pater ^ not, 
 as you point it wrong both in the Latin and 
 Englifh, Units Bens Pater, One God the Father,] 
 " imports no more, than the God who is alone 
 " Father, exclufive of any other Fathers." 
 [That is, again : "When Novation (and St Paul) 
 affirm, that the Father is the One God, they do 
 not at all mean that He is the One God, but on- 
 ly that he is the one Father. They do not (it 
 feems) mean that he is, by way of Eminence, 
 the One God -, though St Paul explains himfelt 
 -by adding the "Words, who is Above all -, and No- 
 vation by adding and continually infilling upon 
 
 the 
 
C ao6 ) 
 
 the words, underived and u?ioriginated; which 
 Words he everywhere ufes, as plainly expref- 
 five, not of mere Paternity, (as you wifh your 
 Reader would underftand them, pag. 24,) but 
 of Abfolutenejs and Supremacy in Power and Au- 
 thority."} 
 
 When Epiphanius applies the "Words, (6 |io«(§HJ 
 
 fag 37. aAi^vos i^tos, The Only True God,) " tothcKz- 
 ct tfor, as he is Father 5 this dees not exclude 
 " the Son from being One with the Father, asi 
 "• he is Trite God, but from being One with him 
 " as He is Father : Which muft ever be done." 
 f That is to fay, again : When Epiphanius (and 
 our Saviour Himfelf, Joh. 17, 3,) affirm that 
 the Father is the Only Tine God, they do not at all 
 mean that He is iby way of Eminence.) the, 
 Only True God, but only that he is the Only True 
 Father.} 
 
 In 1 Th. i ■ 9, 10, Chrift is ftiled the Sm 
 of the Living mid True God. The Living and Trm 
 God, (you acknowledge,) Signifies, in thai 
 
 fag. 38. Place, the Father: He " is the Son ef tht 
 " Living and True God the Father. And yet 
 " it cannot be granted (you fay,) that the Fathei 
 u is contradiftinguifhed from the Son as Lil 
 11 ving a:d True God, but as Father \\ which i; 
 '• implied, though not exprefed. 3 ' fThat is t« 
 fay : Though the Fremifes muft needs be al 
 lowed to be undeniable, yet the Conclufon can 
 not, muft not by any Means be grantee 1 
 Though the Apoftle does indeed exprefsly ai' 
 firm, that Chrift is the Son of the Living an, 
 True God, yet he does net, he muft not mean 
 that he is the Son of fhe Living and True God 
 as is exprcjfed ^ but only the Sow of the Father 
 as is implied.} 
 
 fig. 39. " One and Only, joined with God, is no pet 
 " fond Character of the Father, and therefor 
 
 " do; 
 
( io7 ) 
 
 c does not exclude the Son. One and Only, 
 1 joined with Father ; is indeed a perfonal Cha- 
 * racier, and excludes any other Father, and 
 14 by Confequence the So?; from being the Fa- 
 1 ther. But This is a different Expreiuon irom 
 " the One anil Only God, which excludes fiom 
 • the Divinity, and camiot affect the Son who 
 " is God" [That is ; when St Paul fays, 
 There is One God and Father of All, he dees not 
 mean, there is One GOD and Father of All, 
 but only, There is One FATHER, and Father 
 of all.] 
 
 " That the True Go£> [the Only True God, are ,- 
 jthe Words of the Text referred to ? ] " is ali- 
 
 r tie primarily attributed to the Father, 
 
 " has been already granted. And that the 
 " Term Father contradiftinguifhes the Perfon 
 " of whom the Words are fpoken, from the 
 " Perfon of the Son', is equally True. But 
 " that the Only True GoJisufed in Contradi- 
 " ftin&ion to the Son, is what the Sentiments 
 " of the Antients concerning the- Term Only, 
 
 " fuffer me not to believe." f That is, 
 
 again -, you are forced to grant, in exprefs 
 Words, Both the Premifes-, and yet, with- 
 out any Hefitation, you gravely deny the 
 ConchJio7t. 
 
 " When Trenails fays, Who [the Father] art pag. 49* 
 " the Only and the True Gvd -, he adds, Above * 
 ' whom there is no Other God. Shewing {you fix) 
 " that all pretended fuperiour Deities, not the 
 ** Son who is Subordinate to the Father, were 
 " excluded from the only God. ' 
 
 Again: your" Anfwcr (you fay) is." UOnly^ 54- 
 fin Places where the Father is ftiled the Only 
 True God, and the Only Lord God, and the lilce,] 
 " relates to the Term Father, the Term Fa- 
 " ther isfo appropriated thereby to the 'Fvfi 
 
( 208 ) 
 
 ** Pafon, as to exclude the Son from being the 
 " Father. But if ir [the Word, Only,'} re- 
 " ] ate to the Term God or True God, it is at 
 " tributed to the Subject in fuch Manner as 
 '* vet to exclude the Son from being the One True 
 " God, but Idols only," [That is, as before $ 
 "When our Lord and his Apoftles affirm that the 
 Father is the only true God, they do not at all 
 mean that he is (by way of Eminence J The 
 only True God, hut only that He is the only True 
 Father.} 
 fag. 55. « Again- The Father is not contradiftingui- 
 " fhed from the Son, by the Character of thelz- 
 " ting and True God, but by that of Father • For* 
 " this is the full Meaning of the Citation out 
 " of thefirft Epiftleto the Theffalonians, ch. t, 
 c6 ver. 9, Te turned to God from Idols, tofervethe 
 " Living and True God, the Father*, and to wait 
 " c for his Sovfrom Heaven. Where the Living and 
 " True God isufedin Opposition to Idols only,* 
 Ct and not in Contradiftin&ion to the Son. — - 
 <c And the Term Father implied, . is in Oppo- 
 " fition to and exclusive of the Son." [That 
 h ; ChrinYs being the Sow of the Living and Tme 
 God, does not il^nify his being the Son of 'the 
 Living and True God, as is exprejfed-, but only 
 of the Father, as is under/food.} 
 
 Ns- 64. " I do not know who — : fays, that the 
 
 " One God the Father, as He is the Perfon of the 
 tc Father, is the Son : But to fay that the One 
 *' God, who is the Father in the firfl Subilftence 
 " of the Godhead, is the Son in thefecond Sub- 
 " iiftence •, is, • I think, not contrary to Scrip- 
 11 ture nor Tradition." [To the beft of my 
 Apprehenflon, thefe words have no other 
 poilible Meaning but This -, that the One (joi 
 the Fither, when he is (tiled the Perfon of the 
 
 Father^ 
 
father, is not the Son-, but when Kte is filled 
 the Son, then he ij the Son.~} 
 
 " The fame exiftent Subjlance with itsfu'bftan- pa$, $>$, 
 " ftial Attributes, as It is confidered in thefiji 
 1 Perfon, or Perfon of the father, is calied 
 imderived ; as /if is confidered in the feconi 
 :£ Perfon, or Perfon of the -So?/, to whom it is 
 r communicated from the Father, is called de- 
 11 i ived." fThat a new Perfondlity may he hi* 
 gotten ov produced ('tis well they did not fa/ 
 created) in the unbegotten Subjlance, is what the 
 Schoolmen have fancied they could apprehend $ 
 But that the Subjlance itfelf, that the imderived, 
 the unbegotten Subjlance of the Father, fhould it- 
 felf become or be called a Subjlance dei ived or 
 begotten, W T hat is This but affirming the Father 
 himfelf, when he is confidered as Father, to be 
 called unbegotten, and when he is confidered as 
 Son, then to be called derived or begotten f\ 
 
 " There is a mixt Oppofition in the Terms, P*& 12$. 
 " One God, the Father : The Term Father im- 
 " plied, is oppoft d to the Term Son ^ and the 
 " One God, to falfe Gods only." [That is to 
 lay, plainly •■> One God, the Father, is Both 
 Father and Son.~} 
 
 " The Divine Suhjlance, as it is perfonalized p*g 197, 
 " in the Father without Derivation, is called 
 " Self-exijient : But as it is perfonalized in the 
 " Son by Derivation from the Father, or, as 
 u it pafles from the Father into a fecond Sub* 
 fiftence, is called begotten •, it receiving dif- 
 " ferent Denominations in different Refpe&s." 
 And elfewhere : " Begotten of the Father (you p*g. fa 
 
 fky,) " exprefTes neither the Subjlance of 
 
 " the Perfon, nor any fubjlantial Attribute." 
 [That is, again : The fame individual Sub- 
 fiance, is both Self-exijlent and not Selfexifent, 
 Unbegotten and begotten. And whereas the Creed 
 
 P of 
 
( 110 ) 
 
 I he Council c f Nice, fuppofesthe Son to be, w 
 
 I s - c •- $$K begotten or derived FROM 
 
 the S.i Jlance of the Father ; you affirm dire&ly on 
 
 f] 6 contrary, that He is (not,/rowthe'Subftance 
 
 of ■ he Father, but that he is) the very individual Sub- 
 
 fiance i \f (the unbegotten S.ibfiance) oftbeFatber.~\ 
 
 f«£. M9- " Novatian convinces the frfi fort of Here- 
 
 " ticks, that the Son is God ^ by arguing from 
 
 " the extravagant Notion, which the feconcl 
 
 " [Sort of Hereticks] had conceived or him 
 
 " in making Him the Father." fDo you think 
 
 thcfe Hereticks Novatian fpeaks of, did in 
 
 Words affirm the Son to be the Father • or that 
 
 their Doelrine was fuch, from which He that 
 
 oppofed them deduced that Confequence, and 
 
 charged them with it ? Whether the very fame 
 
 Confequence does not as clearly and neceffarily 
 
 follow from your Doclrine, as 'tis poffibleto 
 
 do from Any ; the Reader will judge.] 
 
 But to return to your particular Obfervati- 
 ons, under the prefent Head. 
 
 pg. 23. " Novatian [when He ftiles the Father the 
 " One God] fhuts out (you fay) any other firjt 
 
 6t Perfon, but not a Second Perfon •, as 
 
 <£ appears from the Citation out of ch. 31/" 
 His Chapter 31, is That wherein hefo empha- 
 tically repeats the Words, Unm Deus, Pater $ 
 The One God, the Father. Which Words you 
 would fain have your Reader underftand, as 
 fignifving One God-the- Father in oppofition to 
 anv Other God-the-Father ^ whereas the whole 
 Defign of Novation's Book from the beginning 
 to the End, is to ihow this very thing, that, 
 though the S-m may properly be ftiled God, 
 upon account of his derived divine Authority •, 
 yet the Father Alone is The One Qoa\ by way 
 
 of 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 of Eminence, Supremacy, ard abfohte undaivea 
 Power and Dominion. A Reader that perufts 
 his whole Book, will be affonilhed to find him 
 tited to any other purpofe. In the fame 3 ijt 
 Chapter, is that fingle incidental Paflage, which 
 you fo often cite and infill: up. n, as if it was 
 the main Hinge upon which Novations whole 
 Argument turned, viz. Per Subftantia coyfc 
 munionem. " He held (you fay, pag. 13.) that 
 " the Subftance of the Father was communi- 
 cated to the Son.' Again pag, 15, you cite 
 the fame Words, " By a Communion of Sub- 
 fiance" Again, pag. 34, 55, 56, and \o\ i 
 you cite and infift upon the fame Words. A- 
 gain pag. 31, " Novation (you fay) held the 
 *' Subftantial Unity of both Perfons * And a- 
 gain, pag. j 73, fpeaking of Novation, you refer 
 to the fame PafTage, when 3rou lay down " the 
 " Communication of the Subftance of the Father to 
 " the Son* as part of Novation's Opinion. Now 
 whether Novation in this fingle PafTage, by the 
 Words [per Subftanti& communionem~\ meant (as 
 you do) Metaphyftcal Subftance, or no •, a Read- 
 er, who carefully confiders the whole PafTage, 
 Will find very much Reafonto doubt. (At leaft 
 'tis plain he did not mean it, as you do, in the 
 identical Senfe.) But if he did mean it in fome 
 metaphyseal Senfe, yet tis evident he men- 
 tions it only incidentally, and does not lay Any 
 (though your Reader is to think he lays All the) 
 Strefs of his Argument upon it. His whole 
 Book is fpent in demonftrating at large, that 
 the Father is for This Reafon (by Way of Emi- 
 nence and Supremacy) the One and Onh God, 
 becaufe though the Son by Participation of the 
 Fathers divine.* Authority may alio rightly be 
 ftiled God, yet the Father alone, Ibeing underived 
 and imbegotten, has All Power and Dominion abfo- 
 
 P 2 htelj 
 
( aia ) _ 
 
 htely and originally in Himfelf Alone •, and what- 
 ever Power or Authority is in Any Other what- 
 soever, is merely by Derivation from and in * 
 Subordination to Him as Supreme over All. The 
 whole Defign of his Book, is to (how, that I 
 the true Ajfertion of the t Unity of God, confifts \ 
 in theAilerting of the Monarchy or Supremacy, j 
 and the original, under ived, independent Domini' 
 on a^d Authority of the Father-, not in a me- 
 taphyseal Notion of the identical Confubjiantiali- 
 ty of more Perfons. Which Notion (however true 
 it be fuppofedj is of no Strefs in the Queftion 
 concerning the Unity of God. For Two Perfons, 
 two intelligent Subfiftences, if their Domini- 
 on be Equal and Supreme, are manifeftly and 
 really Two Gods, whatever metaphylical Unity 
 
 * Quamvis enim fe ex DeoPatre Deum efie memintffer, nunquam 
 
 fe Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit ; Ex quo probatui 
 
 nunquam aibitMtum ilium rapinam quandam Divinitatem, utaequareh 
 fe Patri Deo : Though he [ChrifTJ tyiew that he wai God, as having 
 God for his Father , yet he never compared himjelf with God his Father 
 
 — — From whence it appears, that he never thought fit fe to claim 
 
 to himfelf Divinity, as to equal himfelf with God the Father. Novae; 
 ch. 17. 
 
 •f Hence He [jhe Father] is ftyled One God, the true God, the 
 Only true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrilr. Which 
 as it is moft true, and fo fit to be believed, is alfo a meft neceffan' 
 Truth, and therefore to be acknowledged, for the avoiding Mui 
 implication and Plurality of Gods. For if there were more thaw 
 One which were from None, it could Hot be denied but ther^f 
 were wore Gods than One. Wherefore this Origination in the Dij[ 
 vine Paternity, has Antiently been lookt upon as the Affertif c 
 the UNITY. Pen Jon on the Creed, pag. 40, Edit. 4th. [7; th' 
 Words immediately following, <* and THEREFORE the So. and 
 9 Holy Ghoft have been believed to be but One God with th • 
 " Father, becaufe Both from the Father, who is One, and j\ 
 " the Union of them *') what that learned Writer mean thy tha 
 Word, THEREFORE, 1 fubmit to the judicious Reader.'} 
 
( "3 ) 
 
 be fuppoied of their Subftance : And, on the 
 other fide, That Perfon, whofe Dominion and 
 Authority is ^.love Supreme, Abfolute and In- 
 dependent -, and no Other has any Power, but 
 derived from Him •, whatever Communication 
 of metaphyseal Subftance there may or may 
 not be (by His incomprehenfible Power) to 
 Other Perfbns, or whatever other diJlinB Liven 
 or Living Agentshe may by his Power have pro- 
 duced (if poflible) even in bis own individual Sub- 
 fiance-, yet evidently He Alone will be The 
 moft High, The One God of the Univerfe. Ac- 
 cordingly, in Novatians whole Argument, and 
 in the Truth of things, the more clearly the Su- 
 pmnacy of the Father is eftablifhed, the more 
 clearly is the Unity of God confequently efta- 
 blifhed $ the one always depending upon the 
 other. On the contrary, in Tour Argument, 
 the more the Supremacy of the Father is de* 
 firoyed, the more is the Unity of God eftablifhed : 
 Tou meaning always, only a figurative and com- 
 pound Unity -, but He, a real and literal, ajimple 
 and yerfonal Unity. 
 
 Upon that paftage of Eufebius -, Though the Son p ag , 24. 
 is by Us acknowledged to be God, yet, its ch ylvorrn 
 
 v>' T (5P, there is but One God only, even He who is 
 alone without original and unbegotten, &c. CSo you 
 ought to have cited the words, being one con- 
 tinued Sentence.] Upon this PaiTage, your 01> 
 fervation is, that Eufebius " fixes the exclusive 
 " Term, One only, upon his {the Fathers] be- 
 " ing underived and unbegotten, not upon his be- 
 " ing God. But the dheft contrary is true. For 
 in thefe very Words, he not only fixes the ex- 
 clufive Term, One Only, to the words, un deri- 
 ved and imbegotten , but expresjly gives That as a 
 
 P 3 Reafon, 
 
( ftl 4 ) 
 
 ^^^.^^togit likewife to the word 
 <fod. his Argument j Si the Father, being A- 
 
 lone mbegotten, 6I5 «„ yii0 , T0 fAr ^ 3trf ^ 
 
 55 'fr i 1S (P ^ andb 7 way of #mm 
 m«. 2 4. < , ablo] ^ te ftF«JWQ but Owe Goi W ?y 
 
 » r/fw ^T-M^ EW<«*D calls him 
 « l l be * ather J ^e Owe ami 0»(y GoJ, as He is 
 w the PrmiA the Fountain, and JRoot of all 
 u V ? ' That is, he denies any other W, »^ 
 ^ 4rnm* and *«»*** QmoriginateH Catife \xfideg 
 <t the father h but does not deny any other 
 <r perfon to be God, that is fecond, derived and 
 
 - begcttw.— Hilary alio makes the Father to 
 
 • c be the Ow<? wJ Ow/ji Goi, becaufe he is iwfo- 
 
 > £^o/ 5 that is, the God who is alone unbe- 
 
 ti gotten, there .being but One unbegotten J 
 
 a f 0r w f r „ there an > r other unbegotten intel- 
 tc W u jjU Principle, befldes the FatW of Jefus 
 
 - Chnft; the Father's being unbeaten, would 
 t not prove him to be the Only God. So that 
 
 - the term, One cr Qn:y, does not exclude 
 
 v any other perlon from being God, but from 
 
 being innate 5 or unoriginate. All This, is 
 ciearly granting the whole Queftion. Nor have 
 you any other poflible way of evading it, but 
 by that mconffiefti fubterfuge, of faying that 
 the Ore or Only God, does not ilgnify by way 
 »to » r \™ m ™?*te One m Only God, but that it 
 «& n jfos only Its One or Only * jFVry? Divine 
 Perlon. 
 
 j«. 2d. « Well then •, what is it that mews God the 
 i -atnc-r [.when he is Riled, T^ One or 0>/7> 
 
 -OodJ to be abfolutely Supreme,* Self-exi- 
 
 ■ ftent and Independent ? Not the Term, One 
 or Only ; bat the Term, Father." If f . the 
 
 fnrttiQwmA&Or, are become indeed 'verV 
 
 jnlignincant words. 
 
a 
 
 But * Self-exijlence and Independency, are notr:^ 
 
 ' (2tfce?m)Sui>Jiai!tiaJch'Ardcit'isoi the Godhead 
 of the Father. — They are negative chara- 
 cters, and can by no means relate to the 
 Subjlance of the Godhead, which is real and 
 " pojitive." This is a very important Truth or 
 Errour, and you repeat it very often. Pag. J 6* 
 
 Unbegotten, ~~ is no pojitive or S;d<Jtantial 
 
 Attribute of the Godhead. 3> Pag, 91, " £«-■ 
 tc derived and Unbegotten, is a Character ot the 
 " FirJiPerfon in the Godhead •, It is wot eftn- 
 <c tiof, becaufeit is negative, and docs not ex- 
 44 prefs either his Bttbfiance or any of his $ȣ,- 
 u Jtantial Attributes. " P^. 92, tC Sclf-or^ina* 
 " taf is of the fame Importance with unJenvsd, 
 " being a Term in its Meaning Negative.*-- — — 
 <c Begotten — is a Character atci effential, — , 
 " becaufe it exprefles neither the Subfiance ot 
 <k theperfon, nor any Subftav.tial Attribute. 
 ?ag.<x," EffentialTenm, by which the#«- 
 " tial Charafier of a thing is known, are fucji 
 " asexprefsthe Sub fiance and fuhfiar.tial Attn- 
 " butesof a thing-, But tMonginaiei is A%t° 
 " tiw, {hewing not what the Subjects accord- 
 " ing to its Subfiance or fubfiantial Attributes, 
 " but what it is not, according to the Manner 
 u of having its Subfiftence. " Pag. .94*/ ^*" 
 " derived, the fame in Meaning with SeJfiti 
 " the compounded word Self-ex ijlence, can be no 
 <c part of the firft ejfentiat character of God, 
 il being a Pure Negation of having That Exi- 
 ftence from any other. The learned Dr 
 therefore ihould not fay, that Stf-exifteni 
 or underivedly exijlent is the firft ejfential 
 character of God y becaufe felf, or underi- 
 vedly, is no part of That effential chara- 
 cter, " Pag. 1 1 0, " They £Self- Exigence and 
 
 P 4 " /««& 
 
C *** ) 
 
 Independency} are Negative, and not effentiat ot 
 " Jiibjtaritial chsrafteta" Pag. 20 r, " Self-ex- 
 
 ijtence, — is no Subjlantial Character, that 
 
 '* makes a difference in the Godhead." And 
 Pag. 211, " Underived and Unbegotten are Afcga- 
 fzz?e Characters, and derived and begotten are 
 " pojitive Characters, neither of them affecting 
 the Sjtbftavce of the Perfons, but relating to 
 ' the Manner of their having their Subfift- 
 u ence." This (I fay j is a vety important Af- 
 fertion : You repeat it frequently ^ and very 
 much is built upon it. But furely never was 
 Argument built upon a weaker Foundation . 
 For, what is it that is felf-exiftent ? Is it not the 
 Subjlance of the Father ? Is not That Subftance 
 eJJ'entially felf-exiftent ? And if the Subftance of 
 God be ejfentially felf-exiftent, is not S'lfexifietice 
 confequently both an ejfential and a fubfiantial 
 Character ? That which deceived 37-011 in this 
 Matter, ft cms to be This ; that Self-exifient be- 
 ing the £me as unoriginate , is (you think) 
 merely a Negative Character, But this is a 
 great Mifiake. For though the word, imori- 
 ginate, according to the grammatical Compofi- 
 tiun of it, is negative $ yet the Idea exprelTed 
 by it, is pojitive. As you will fee by the like 
 Cafe in another Word. The word , infinite, 
 according to the grammatical Composition of it, 
 is merely negative •, But when we fay, God is 
 infinite or immenfe, the Idea is not a bare Nega- 
 tive, a mere ngation of Bounds , but denotes 
 the pojitive Greatnefs of That whofe Exiftence 
 is declared to be immenje. So endUfs with re- 
 gard to Duration, though the Word indeed is 
 negative 5 yet the Thing figr.ified by it [eterni- 
 ty] is 1 not a negative, but a real and pofitive Du- 
 ration. In like Manner, Unoriginate or Uv&e* 
 
 rived 
 

 rived, though the Words themf elves are mere!/ 
 negative, yet the Thing expreiied by them is not 
 a mere Negation of being derived, but a real 
 and pofitive Ground or Foundation of Exiftence 
 in the Subftance itfelf, which is properly ex- 
 preiTed by Necejfary Exijlence. According to 
 Jbarway of arguing, All the Attributes ot God 
 may as well be turned into mere Negatives 5 His 
 Unity, into not being more than One \ His Om- 
 nij'cience, into not being ignorant of any Thing 5 
 His Omnipotence , into not being limited in 
 Power ^ His Omniprefence, into not being abfent 
 from any Flace : Kay , his very Exijlence it 
 felf may as well be faid to be a mere Negation, 
 as the Necejfit)' of his exijiing, or his Self exig- 
 ence. Self exijlence therefore is, (contrary to your 
 Pofition,) a Subjlantial C haradter j becaufe 'tis 
 truly and really a pojitive Character of the Sub' 
 fiance of God. Tis alfo an ejfential Character ; 
 becaufe 'tis That by which the Divine Subftance 
 is what it is, and is diftinguimed from all other 
 Subfrances. Laftly, 'tis the piimary effential 
 Character of God-, becaufe 'tis That from 
 which all the reft of the divine Attributes 
 are deduced as from their Root. And thus 
 your whole Scheme demonjlrably falls to the 
 Ground. 
 
 There is moreover in what you fay upon 
 this Head, cne remarkable incide?ital Contradic- 
 tion. The Reafon you all along give, why im- 
 originated is no fubjlantial Character, is becaufe 
 (you think) 'tis merely . Negative : Yet, pag. 
 1 1 1, you fay that derived and begotten are Po- 
 fitive Characters, and yet that neither of them 
 affcer the Subftance. Thus (it feemsj neither 
 Negative nor Pojitive Characters affect the Sub~ 
 (lance itfelf, but affect only the Manner offub- 
 
(2X8) 
 
 Ming. As if any thing really fubfijled, that was 
 not a Subjtance h or the Difference of Sub/lances 
 could confift in any thing elfe, than i n their 
 Manner or Subiiiting. 
 
 3> 
 
 Mar. XII, 32. There hone God y and there h 
 none other but He. 
 
 »AWn U, ??i thi! Texf ' "' Ae- 
 ther the Words One God, mean the one fupreme 
 
 Father and Governour of the Univerfe . even 
 the God and Father of our Lord Jefm Chrifi- 
 or a Complex of more Per fom in one individual 
 EJience. In Favour of tbe firmer Senfeof the 
 Reply to Words, the Dr alleged that the fame Words 
 «, m every Text of Sai^re where they are 
 found, as well as according to the natural 
 benje of Mankind, are always ufed in * 
 That Signification. In favour of the o- 
 ther Expoiltion of this Text, you do not 
 lhow that there is either in the Text itfelf 
 or in the Context, or in any other Text] 
 where the words [One God'] are found, any- 
 thing that leads to that Interpretation you 
 contend for : But having entertained an Br 
 pothefis, that the Unity of God is not, accord- 
 ing to the natural Senfe of the Words and the 
 Dilates of common Reafon, a real, proper, and 
 perfonal Unity, but a figurative Unity of 
 morePerfonsin one individual Subftance; you 
 
 "One God, and Father of All, Eph; 4, 6. Om God, the 
 Father, of whom are all Thugs, 1 Cor. 8. 6. 
 
 are 
 

 C n8 ) 
 
 afe confequevtly to faften, as well as you can, 
 u pon the 1 fords of every Text, the Senfe of that 
 Hypothecs. Here therefore comes in the great 
 Queftion concerning the Unity of God -, what it J "C4 
 is and wherein itconfifts. Dr CI. fuppofesit con- 
 fiftsin This ; (and herein the ingenious Dr Ben- 
 nut agrees entirely with him -,) that there is 
 One Intelligent and Living Perfon, * One Su- 
 preme Lord, Father, and 
 
 Governour of the Univerfe, * Uiri>* \n ?p<c sth, w*t{- 
 who Alone has all Power in & ** v ™& 79 &<-* i !i- c " e< L 
 
 ",. %, c i ,- i >ec the Patiage cued cue or 
 
 Himielf, and from whom Bp . Pearfon ab ° 0VCj ?agt 202 . 
 All Power that is in any o» 
 ther, is derived. This (I think) is the Dictate 
 of natural Reafon •, This (I think,) the Scrip- 
 ture always means, when it {peaks of one God, 
 One rj«v7wgffT&e [Supreme Governour of All,3 
 One "y^is©- CMoft High $] And this(T think) 
 is well exprefTed by thofe t 
 
 Antient Writers, who, fti- t Ruanms fu & [cbriflas] 
 ling Chrift God, yet declare Deus ' u " um , . cam 5 n r ? e T *- 
 
 i to „.i r< .i si • tremdeObedienna fuaoftendir, 
 
 that the Father Jlone is cx . quo & originem iruit' 
 
 ftill neverthelefs j_by Way Navatfan. de Trimt. cap. 31. 
 of Eminence and Suprema- . Non enim ^'" adiminr, 
 
 cy] 77;e One God, becaufe S™d ^ Dm eft quia & Fw 
 
 /t ^1 1. Aiiri • hus Deus tic Ob d upws 
 
 He Alone has All Power on- D eus, quia ex Je Deus. HHau 
 ginally {in Himfelf 5 and de Trimt. I. 4. 
 the Dominion, upon Ac- 
 count of which Chrift is ftyled God, is derived 
 from Him [the Father,] and dependent upon 
 Him. On the contrary, Tour Notion of the 
 Unity of God, (which you perpetually infift 
 on, and lay the whole Strefs of your Caufe 
 upon it, both in This Sedion and every where 
 through your whole Book,) is This , that, it is 
 only an Union of More \ Supreme'] Perfons in One 
 Individual Sub/lance. Which is indeed an Unity 
 <*f metaphyseal Subjiance, but not f an Unity of 
 
 God. 
 
Cr«l. For many Perforn, many Intelligent Suh* 
 fftenees, many Intelligent Agents., (if they be 
 Supreme and Equal in Dominion,) aremaniteftly 
 fo many £?0*fo, ffo many nav-rM^a-n^s,) whate- 
 ver Union there be, or be not, of their meta- 
 p byfical Subitance or Subftances : As you your- 
 lelf clearly acknowledge, pag. 79 and 80 -, 
 where, by affirming that the heathens did not 
 look upon their Gods to be Gods in Subftance y 
 mor to have received from the Father the Divine 
 Subftance like the Son and Holy Ghoft •, you plain- 
 ly confefs, that if. they had received from Him 
 the Divine Subftance, even the One individual Di- 
 vine Subftance ^ they would confequently have 
 feeen, not God, but Gods, in That Subftance. 
 And again, pag. 173, When you affirm .Nova- 
 tions meaning to be, that the Divinity of the Son 
 is t might in fitch Terms, as not to introduce two di- 
 JfinB independent Deities by nuking the Son in all 
 Refpefis equal to the Father ; you plainly acknow- 
 ledge, that if the Son was in all Refpetts equal to 
 the Father, [in the fame individual Subftance • For, 
 Thh you fuppofe, though erroneoufly, to have 
 been Part of Novations Opinion {] they would 
 confequently have been two diftinB independent 
 Deities; Mot, two diftinB independent Subftance s y 
 but,, two diftinB independent Gods in One Subftance. 
 The true Queftion is, whether God be e : Not 
 only whether he be metayhyftcaMy, One Subftance, 
 but whether he be alfo literally and perfonally fas 
 in the t Creed,) One God, One Lord, One n« »tc- 
 t>(>yiz.>(> Ruler over All. Many Gods in one indivi- 
 dual Subftance, will not be (in the religious 
 Senfe) One God, though they be fin the meta- 
 phyfical Senfe) One Subftance. 'Tis a great Ar- 
 
 f See a remirkable Patfage cited out of B_> Pea r fon above, pag. 202 j 
 and ano.hcr, $*g* 212. 
 
 £ument 
 
C **i ) 
 
 gument againft the Truth of your Notion ♦ 
 that the Knowledge which all Men have of the 
 One God, by natural Reafon, gives them a quite 
 different Idea. Tis a great Argument againft 
 the Truth of your Motion •, that where you per- 
 petually lay the Strefs of All, there the Scripture 
 is always wholly filent 5 never fo much as men- 
 tioning the Subjla7ice of God at all, (unlefs per- 
 haps in fome remote and i 
 uncertain Allufions, as in the t For the Nime, J &m, (ai 
 
 Name Jehovah,) but always l r hc L " rned Mf ^T'lf" 
 . -„. J 1 • n j lerves J may as well refer to the 
 
 infilling on his tower ^ and i mmut ability^ Gods Pnwfcs. 
 tmiverfal Supreme Dominion, as of his Subflance. 
 as that which makes Him, 
 who is in Himfelf (in the metaphyseal Senfe) the 
 Self-exijlent Being, to be (in the religious Sen&J 
 Our God and the God of the Univerfe. 'Tis, laft- 
 ly, a great Argument againft the Truth of your 
 Notion 5 that whereas thofe Antient Authors 
 who firft talked of metaphyseal Subftance, 
 fuppoled the Son and Holy 
 
 Spirit to be || Parts of the fl Radius ex Sole, frutacrx 
 Subflance of the Father h and Arbore, Rivus ex Flumioe. 
 the Creed of the Council Tertullian. 
 of Rice fuppofes the Son 
 to be, iko* sciac, begotten or derived FROM 
 the Suhjlance of the Father ; you (in a quite dif- 
 ferent Scholaftick Scheme) make the Son and 
 Holy Spirit to be, ipfa isoix tv ttk-tpJc, the very 
 Subftance itfelf, the Whole unbegotten imderived 
 Subjlance of the Father himfelf. And This you 
 fometimes explain in fuch a Manner, as if you 
 meant that the Three Perfons, (not indeed Per- 
 fons but PerJon& only,) were merely nominal-, viz. 
 that God, when called by One Name, is One 
 Perfon, and, when called by another Name, is 
 another Perfon 5 (As where you fay that " The ba &' 6 $ K 
 l[ One God % who is the Father in ihefirjl Subfift- 
 
 " ence 
 
Cau ) 
 
 " ence of the Godhead, is the Son in the JeconA 
 pag.6*. " Subfiftencej" And that " He is through All 
 " as He is the Word, and in All as He is r/;e iSpz- 
 ^. 9S . "' tit ? And that " the fame exiftent Subftance 
 " with its fubftantial Attributes, as It is confi- 
 " dered in the firft Perfon , or Perfon of the 
 " father, is called imderived- y as It is conftde- 
 " red in the fecond Perfon, or Perfon 01 the 
 " Sor,, to whom It is communicated trom the 
 " Father, is called derived, 3J ) At other Times 
 you explain your Notion in fuch a Manner, as 
 8 . if you meant that the Three Subftflencies fubiift- 
 "ing in One individual Subftance. [though what 
 Diiterence there is between Subftance and Subftft' 
 ence, no Mortal can tell ; fubftare and fubfxftere 
 both alike fignifying umswoc, from whence 
 vjvsounq is derived Q were yet really diftinci A- 
 gevts or Intelligencies. (As when ycu fay that 
 fag. 187-" Every Divine Perfon is an individual intel- 
 
 " ligent Being, though they are not 
 
 " Three Beings feparate and divided from each 
 
 fag. i^8. u Other 5 But each Perfon by himfelf is 
 
 " in oneRefpecl: an individual intelligent Be- 
 " ing, and in another Refpect All three to* 
 " gether are but one individual Being : 3> 
 feg. 1 c 9. And that the •' One undivided Divine Sub- 
 " ftance is Intelligent and Agent in the Three 
 " Divine* Perfons. 55 ) Now in which foever 
 of thefe Ways your Notion be underftood, it 
 is in no wife defenfible. For if you mean that 
 the Three Subfiftences are not three real intelli- 
 gent Agents fubfifting diftin&ly in the One 
 Subftance, but (as you exprefs yourfelf, pag, 
 1 89 J " One Intelligent AGENT " then your 
 Doctrine is precisely the Herefy of Sabellius, 
 which confifted in alTertin^ /j.ixv v^€cmv t<?<- 
 7reoTW7n)v, One individual Subftance or Subjiftence, 
 having Three perfonal Dawminations or Appear* 
 
 ancest 
 
C 413 ) 
 
 ances-, That is indeed, One Perfon only, ha- 
 ving Three Perfon& or Perfonal Char afters: 
 Which is alio the Notion of the Reverend Dr 
 Bewiet. But if you mean that the Three Sub- 
 flfrences Are three real intelligent Agents fub- 
 lifting diftinflly in the One Subftance -, then 
 they are either Agents equally Supreme, or elfe of 
 Subordinate Tower and Dominion. If they be of 
 Subordinate Power and Dominion \ then He who 
 is Alone Supreme, and from whom the Others 
 derive both their Life and whatever Power and. 
 Dignity they have, will be Alone (abfolutely 
 and properly fpeaking) The One God, will be 
 Alone QlotvTOneaTOe] Abfolute Rider over Jtt, 
 will be Alone ty r^.is& the mojl High, notwith- 
 ftanding Any fuppofed Communication of me- 
 taphyseal Subftance: For, both the Antient 
 Philofophers, who thought all Spirits to be 
 £d /tuftsin oj too St <&] of the Divine Subftance-, and 
 thole Cbrijtian Philofophers, fuch as Tertullian 
 and his Followers, who taught that the Son and 
 Holy Spirit were Parts of the Divine Subftance, 
 (iuft as a Branch is Part of the Subftance of a 
 Tree, or a Sun-Beam part of the Subftance oj the 
 Sun \) were yet neverthelefs very far from in- 
 troducing that identical Equality you contend 
 for, or from deftroying the Monaichyof the Fa- 
 ther, whom they ftill conftantly affirmed to be 
 the One God: (Which being fo, it appears that 
 in the true Queftion about the Unity of God, 
 your Notion concerning individual Unity of me- 
 taphyseal Subftance, is not of that Strefs and Im- 
 portance which you feem to make it .) On fhfc 
 ether Side, if the Three intelligent Subfifbn- 
 cies, which you fuppofe in One individual Sub- 
 ftance, be of Equal Supreme Power and Dominion-, 
 then your Notion will amount to perfect Trithe- 
 ifm, notwithftanding any Union in ?netaphyftcal 
 
 Subftance* 
 
( "4 ) 
 
 Subjlajtce. For, that which makes God to b< 
 God 5 that which makes Him who is in Him- 
 felf (in the metaphyseal Senfe) a PerfeS Benign tc 
 be (in the religious Senfe) the God and Lord oj 
 the Univerfe, is Supremacy of Dominion ; And 
 that which malces him to be One God only, is 
 his being Alone Supreme or 7n>cvTon.eaT&)e. Three 
 Supremes, would neceflarily be Three Gods -, 
 and equally fo, whether in One Subftance or in 
 more. As I have already fhown above. 
 
 pat. 27- " The Learned Dr (you fay) would not be 
 
 " thought to exclude the Son from being God in 
 
 any other Refpeft, then from being He who alone 
 
 " derives his Being and Godhead from no Caufe : 
 
 " and endeavours to givean Account of 
 
 p.ig. i*. u the Divinity of the Son without touching I 
 " upon his Subftance, when He fays that the 
 u Son is really and truly God by deriving real and 
 " true Divinity from the ineffable Power of Him, 
 *' who alone has an unoriginated feeing and God- 
 
 " head : But what this Divinity is, is 
 
 " hard to conceive -, neither does the Dr tell 
 " us." Again : " The Dr indeed acknow- 
 t*l- 38» *' ledges that the Son is really and truly God, by de- 
 " riving real and true Divinity from the Power of 
 u the Father ; But what this Divinity is, or 
 " whether it be founded upon a Communicati- 
 " on of the Subftance of the Father to the Son, 
 " the Dr tells us not." The fame Thing you 
 repeat again, pag. 192 and 193; and again, 
 pag. 203. 
 
 What the Divinity of the Son of God is, I 
 think Dr Clarke has clearly and fufTjciently 
 fhown in his Scripture-doBrine by thofe PaiTages 
 of Scripture, which declare that, before his In- 
 carnation, he was The Word-, that he was in the 
 t h. f t Begwnhig with God, [not tv t<£ 3*6?, in God, 
 
 as 
 
is hoy®* l&aSirty his internal Re af on -, but 
 •&%& tov 3tov } With God, as One Perlon is pre* 
 fent with Another;] and that He himfelr was 
 3*0*, God, or a divine Perfon : That he bad Glory , . 
 jrfr^ Go d, before the World was : That he was in phii. 2" !,' 
 */.><? Fom of God -, The Bright7tefs of his Glory, and^o. \\ 6 
 the exprefs Image of hisPerfon ; the -\ bnage of thecal 1 15. 
 Invifxble God, the fir -It-born of every Creature-, The 
 Beginning [or Head, 'A^j of the Creation o/ Re M»M« 
 Goi ; He 2ty whom God created all Things. And Eph* j, ?,, 
 that, after his Incarnation and Refurre&ion, 
 All Power was given unto Him in Heaven and irt^ m 2 g 
 Earth -, and a Name which is above every Name •, \s. 
 that at the Name of Jefm every Knee Jhonli bow, Phil* 2, 4\ 
 of th'mgs in- Heaven, and things in Earth, and 
 things under the Earth ; and that eveiy Tongus ■ 
 flwuld confefs that Jefus Chrijl is Lord, to the Glo- 
 ry of God, the Father. 
 
 This is the Account the Dr has given us from 
 Scripture, of the Divinity of the Son of God-, and 
 'tis (I think) a very clear and intelligible Ac 
 count. But All This is of no Weight with you, 
 in comparifon of a metaphyseal Notion concern- 
 ing an identical Unity of Subftancc : Of which, 
 the Scripture fpeaketh not a Word -, And which 
 (whatever metaphyfeal or philofophical Truth it 
 may have) is ot no Ufe (as I have before 
 Ihown) in eftablifhing the Unity of God in 
 the Religious Senfe of the Qieftion, which de- 
 pends wholly upon Abfolute Supremacy of Ga- 
 vernment or Dominion. 
 
 f 'H iv ati/T« StiflK, fays Grigen, iiicap rHe ttMStyis Stonm?, 
 the Divinity tf Chrift, is the Image of the true Divinity, viz. ot the 
 Father. Orig. in Job. pag. 22$. 
 
 Q. ** Tertullian 
 
( "<5 ) 
 
 **' 29 ' « "J% tullia » (y™ fa) makes the Father and 
 the Son to be of One undivided Subftance, 
 like the Sun and its Ray." But this [his fup- 
 pofmgtheSon to be Part of the Father's Sub- 
 ftance,! is a very different thing, from your 
 making the Sow to be the whole undented Sub- 
 fiance of the Father, As you do, pag. 9$ , and 
 indeed every where through your whole Book. 
 
 >^.3i. ■; I?" 3 ^/ " -Mwrtam and Manafus held the 
 iubftantial Unity of Both Perfons ." But 
 Novation (as I before obferved) mentions [com- 
 mumonem Subftanti&~] only once incidentally, and 
 even 7 here it does not at all appear that he 
 meant it in the metaphyfwal Senfe : (At leaft 'tis 
 plain to Any considerate Reader, that he did 
 not mean it in the identical Senfe.-; But the 
 whole and uniform Defign of his Book from the 
 Beginning to the End, is to mow, that though 
 the Son alfo is rightly ftiled God y by Virtue of 
 communicated Tower and Dignity -, yet the Father 
 Alone is, and is always filled, upon Account 
 or his bupreme Dominion and original mderhed 
 independent Power and Authority, (by way of F- 
 minence and Abfohtely /peaking,) The One and 
 Only hod of the Univerfe. 
 
 ?"£. 32. I4 !V?Jm general way {you fay) of including 
 
 ■ the Son m the One God, may be the Reafon 
 
 cc Z - 7 u Com P l} ers of the Simian form of 
 
 <£ £ ait . h > anathematize thofe who fay that the 
 
 ^ boms excluded from the Godhead by the fol- 
 
 lowing Fxprcflion, I am the frft and I am the 
 
 ^ to/, and bejides Me there is no God, Ifa, 44, 6 ; 
 
 £ which they declare to be fpoken to the Ex- 
 
 ^ clvfton of 'Idols and Falfe Gods, and not of the 
 
 oon ; though they receded from the Nicene 
 
 " Standard 
 
( 21? ) 
 
 '* Standard in leaving out the Term c/uuiinov ** 
 [confubflantial.l Now thefe Words of yours* 
 t_" anathematizing thofe who fay that the Son 
 " is excluded from the Godhead by the Expref- 
 " lion, / am the Firfl &c j^J lead your Read- 
 er to think, that the Council or Sirmhtm were 
 of Opinion that the Words, / am the Firjl &c* 
 include both Father and Son. Than which, no- 
 thing can be more diametrically oppofite (as all 
 Learned Men know) to the Senfe of That Coun- 
 cil -, or indeed to the True Meaning of their 
 Words in this very Place ; as would have ap* 
 geared, if you had fet down a direB TrdnJlatio7t 
 of their Words* as you ought to have done* 
 The Words are, tint to, 'hy& 3*o$ st^t©-, 
 
 StZv ligw/Atvov, W avai£e'<r« 7*? jttovo^vS? vr^a 
 vfi OLi&vteV 3tS is/ai'n^ inKoLjA.fodiv0 9 <kv<x.3i* 
 /jloc ten, " If thefe Words, I am the Firft, and 
 " I am the Laft, and befides Me there is no 
 " God, which are fpoken in Oppoftion to Idols 
 " andfalfe Gods, be by any One vomer food, after 
 w the Jewifh Manner , to infer a Denial of Hint 
 " who is God the Only-begotten before the Worlds $ 
 " let him be Anathema." The Meaning of 
 which, evidently is ; not, that the words, f 
 am the Firft^ and I am the Lafl, and befides Mi 
 there is no God, fignify both Father and Son, 
 (direttly contrary to the whole Doctrine of 
 the Council of Sirmhtm -J but that thefe, and 
 all other the like ExprelHons of Scripture, be- 
 ing fpoken ( by Way of Eminence and Supre* 
 macy) of God the Father only, are not inconfift- 
 ent ('as the Jews alledged them to be ) with 
 acknowledging the Son to be God the Qnly-be- 
 gotten before the Worlds. 
 
 Q 2 Origin 
 
( *»8 ) 
 
 fag. 3$. " Ortgev (you allege) held the Son to be the 
 u Immortal God, the Word, &c " But Origens 
 "Words, tt3' aS^a-rov 3-fov hoyov, do not fignify 
 what you have cxprelTed -, but, The immortal 
 GodtheTFord -, Which is a very different No- 
 tion. 
 j>4£. 35. The fame Author (you add) held the Son to 
 be <x;ja.'i wm :, which word you tranflate, not 
 made. But the Word ay^i'nT©^, isnowhere elfe 
 contr r<?//.ufed concerning the Son : And the Senfe of the 
 lib. 6, whole Paffage fhows fo evidently, to an at- 
 ■pag. 287 tentive Reader, the word to be there corrupt ; 
 that Selenius the Tranflator renders it ab &temo 
 gemtum, as if he had read it &.&^{yvj/m^ 5 And 
 'tis moft probable, the true Reading is •ytv- 
 
 Joh. XVII, 3. That they might know Thee, the 
 Duly true God j and Jefus Chi ift, whom thou haft 
 fait. \jtj tv u-rdz&'Kotc, 'iHctv y^isov, And Him 
 whom Thou haftfetit, even J ejus Chrift!] 
 
 Common Senfe mews, (and there is no Pof- 
 fibility of underftanding it otherwife,) that 
 He whom our Saviour, in the former Part of 
 this Sentence, ftiles THEE the only True God ^ 
 is the fame Perfon, of whom he fays in -the 
 latter Part of the fame Sentence, THOU haft 
 fevt Jefus Chrift ; and whom immediately be- 
 fore and after, (ver. 1 and 5,) He expresfty 
 calls by the Name of Father. If therefore He, 
 who Jent his Son into the World, and whom our 
 Lord calls his Father, be indeed Ttie Father 
 Qvly± audit cannot with any Truth or Pro- 
 priety 
 
( **9 ) 
 
 priety be affirmed, that the Three Perfons, 
 (the Father, the Son, and the Holy GhoftJ 
 are He whom our Lord calls Father, and of 
 whom he faith THOU hafifent Jefus Chriji ; it 
 follows neceffariry, that neither by thefe other 
 words, THEE the Only True God, does our 
 Lord mean the Three Perfons, but the Father 
 Only. 
 
 All you have to objeft againfl This, is a C >l- Wc- 97**- 
 ledtion of what feems to Me the ftrangeft Gm- 
 fujion'm the World. Your Words upon this Sub- 
 ject, I have already cited at large, (pag. 204- &c» 
 above 5) whither I refer the Reader. The Sum 
 of them, is plainly this. Though the Father 
 is indeed here expresfly ftiled, the Oriy True 
 God-, yet the Word Only, muft by no Means 
 be underftood to be connected with the Words 
 T)iie God, but with the Term Father therein in- 
 cluded : So that our Saviour muft not befup- 
 pofed to mean (by Way ot Eminence and Supre- 
 macy) the only True God, by thofe. words The 
 cnly True God; but he muft be fuppofed to mean 
 enly, that the Father is the Only True Father. 
 
 Concerning Novatian, * Hilary, Amhrofe, Ba~ 
 %il } Sec. enough has been already fpoken, 
 
 * The Paflage which you cite, pag. 2$, out of Hilary ; [Ecclffar 
 fides folum verum Deum Patrem confeffa, confitctur & Chrifkm ; The 
 Belief of the Church, which mal>es Confeffion that the Father is the On* 
 iy True God, triages Confejjion of Chrifx alfo (\ docs notfignify, chat 
 Chrift is included in the Profelfion the Creed makes concerning the 
 On'y True God, the Father ; but that Chrift is profefied in the fame 
 Creed, to be the Son of that One True God the Father. 
 
 Nyffen,^ referring to this Text, fays ; m§ i fttv 7% Ttmrfh,' Svnyt* 
 fita-KHv eivTov, n divvibs Kb £a», Concerning the FArHE^theScripture 
 fays, that to l^now him is eternal Life, contr. Eunom. Orat. io. 
 
 Q.3 - To 
 
}<tg. 41* 
 
 H&c eft vita sterna, ut cpgr.ofr 
 txnt Tefolum <fy verum Deum, & 
 quern mipfti Jfefum Chr ilium. 
 Cam ergo ex ipfms Chrirti prae- 
 dicatione & contertatione PA- 
 TER ante cognofcendus fir, qui 
 mifit ; tunc deindc Chrifhs, qui 
 TOiiTus eft. ^ 
 
 ( 1JO ) 
 
 To the ^alleging, that All the miten 
 hi the Three Fbft Centuries under food this Text as 
 He does h your Anfwer is: " When he mall 
 be pleafed to produce thefe Writers, it will 
 then be Time to confider them." Two of 
 them, ^ he did produce h Origen, and Novatian. 
 Wvatians whole Book, is founded upon his in- 
 terpreting This and the like Texts juft as the 
 Dr does. 0rige* 9 He cited in his Scripture- 
 doZum upon this Text, N' $ h And again, 
 I art If, §39. How Irenws underftood this 
 Text, appears from the PaiTages (efpecial'y 
 the Lafi,) cited out of Him by the Dr in 
 his Stripture-doar'me, Part II, § 9 j and in his 
 Keply to Mr Nelfon, pag. 13. Cyprian, in his 
 lid Epifile, cites and interprets this Text 
 thus : This is Life eternal, that 
 they may know Thee ike Only 
 True God, and Jefus Chrijl^ 
 whom thou haft fent : This 
 (fays he) Chrijl him} elf declares 
 andte fifes, that the FATHER 
 who fent him, mitft foj} be 
 known-, and then Chrifi, who 
 was fent. Which words of his 
 are the more remarkable, be* 
 caufe they are followed in 
 the lame Page by thefe no 
 lefsobfervableones: By what 
 Authority (Taid he) does That 
 Perfon expetfto oltainRemiffon 
 of his Sins in Baptifm, who de- 
 nies God the Creator, the FA- 
 THE R of Chrijl 5 whenChrifl 
 received etien That very Autho- 
 rity by which we are baptized, 
 and alfo his own Salification, 
 
 from 
 
 ^ Q^a ailrcm potdhte confequt 
 in Baptifmo remiffionem pecca- 
 toram potefi, negans Deum 
 Creatorem PATRFM Chrifti j 
 quando ipfam poteftatem qui 
 bapnzamur, & Sanftiflcationem, 
 ab eodem PATRE Chrifi- 
 11s acceperit; quem majorem 
 dixent ; a quo, cJarificari pe- 
 tierit; cujus Volunraccm, ufq.- 
 ad I obfequium bibendi calicis & 
 Jubeunds raorriy, imp'everit > 
 
C *3i ) 
 
 from the fame FATHER j whom, he declared to he 
 Greater than Himfelf; of whom, be prayed to be 
 glorified •, and whofe Will he obeyed, even wtto 
 the drinking of that Cup, and the undergoing of 
 Death. This is the Senfe of Cyprian. Nor do 
 you attempt to allege any one Author in the 
 three firft Centuries, that underftood this Text 
 in the Manner you contend for \ except Novati- 
 on only 5 who, of all Others, is the moft ex- 
 presfly againft you ; and whofe Whole Book is 
 written profeffedlyagsimR. your Notions. 
 
 You " add one Paflage out of an Author who pa£. 4«. 
 " would not eafily be fufpe&ed to have called 
 " Chrift the Only True God ; viz : Eufebius of 
 " C&farea ; who, in his Panegyrick upon Con- 
 " ftantine, ch. 15, having given this as a fe- 
 " cond Reafon why Chrift role from the Dead, 
 " namely that he might manifeft his Godhead, 
 " adds j for fnce?nen had Deified Men who were 
 " detained of Death, calling them Gods and He" 
 
 " roes, Chrift taught them to confefs, ud- 
 
 11 vov tStdv iv SzxMOLTCa 3sov kKmSm kvoli, that 
 " He only of All who died was True God, 
 ft who was crowned with the Rewards of Victory 
 " over Death : Calling the Word, who quicken- 
 * c ed his Body, The only T» ue God, in Oppofl- 
 " tion to Men who were Deifyed alter Death, 
 " but detained of it. " Now, (not to take 
 Notice that the very Manner of ExprefTion, 
 (ao^ov 7V-rov tv SvevocTO) 3?ov xKy$v, He only, of 
 all who died, was true God, is extremely different 
 from, ton fuivov khvi3i»cv Gttv, THE Only True 
 God, which two Forms of fpeaking you jum- 
 ble and confound together •,) nothing is more 
 wonderful than your citing this PafTage at all 
 as being for you ; than which, even at firft 
 Sight, nothing can in the whole Senfe and De- 
 
 Q. 4 %n 
 
( *3 2 ) 
 
 fign of it poffibly be more dire&ly againft you. 
 As indeed every thing in Evfebims Writings 
 is. 
 
 To the Dr's Obfervation, that the Learned 
 Bp Pearfon and the Learned. Bp Bull, expresjly 
 acknowledge thefe voids, the Only True God, 
 
 to be meant of the Father only, by way of 
 
 Supreme Eminence, in Contradift'mflion to the Son ; 
 tag. 43. y° 11 anfwer: " It appears indeed to have been 
 " the Opinion of thefe learned Prelates, that 
 " it Was uied in Contradiftinclionto the Son : 
 " But the Authorities they produce for the 
 " Confirmation ot their Opinion, are ()onfay) 
 " very Few ', and argue no more than that 
 " the Son is excluded from the Perfon of the 
 l * Father, but not from a Communion of Sub- 
 " Jiance and Godhead." The Authorities on 
 which their Opinion in this particular is ground- 
 ed, are* clear and undeniable Reafon; every 
 Text of Scripture } where the One God is mention 
 ned 5 every Ante-Nkene Father, that cites any 
 of thefe Texts at all * and Many even of the 
 Later Fathers, who cculd not prefently intro- 
 duce a new Interpretation of the Texts, though 
 they had introduced in their 'own V r ritings a 
 New manner of expreiling Things. But thefe 
 Authorities " argue no more (yon fay,) than 
 " that the Sen is excluded from the Perfon of 
 <f the Father." One would think, there was 
 no great Need of Authorities, to prove that 
 the Son is not the Perfon of the Father : But 
 That which thefe Authorities prove, is, that 
 iince The Only Trite God, and The One God 7 
 are, in the alleged Texts, expresfly predicated 
 of the Perfon of the Father -, and the Perfon of 
 the Father, does not include the Son 5 there- 
 fore the Son is not, in thofe Texts> included in 
 
 the 
 
( 23? ) 
 
 the Phrafes, The 0?ily True God, and The Ons 
 God. Which is fo certain, that Bp Pearfon 
 acknowledges it not only to be frue, but to 
 be a Nect-JJ'aiy Truth for the avoiding a Plura- 
 lity of Gcds, and that Herein Avtiently was 
 lookt upon to confift the Ajjertion of the Unity 
 or God : See Two ?noJi remai liable (■ off ages to this 
 Purpofe, cited out of That Learned Writer, above, 
 pag. 2C2 and 212. As to what you add aboJt 
 Communion of Sub fiance, or (as you exprefs it, 
 jwg. 38,) Communication of Subjlance -, and are 
 perpetually repeating it through your whole 
 Book •, I have Ihown above, pag. 223, that 
 (whatever metaphyseal Truth there be, or be 
 not, in That Motion,) it is entirely befide 
 the Quefta'on concerning the Unity of God in 
 the religious Jb'enfe. 
 
 Upon the two Texts cited upon this Occasion 
 by Bp Pearfon and Bp Bull, (1 Cor. 8, 6, To Us 
 there is but one God, the Father ; and Eph. 4, 6, 
 One God and Father of All •,) what you have to 
 offer, is an exprefs Contradiction even in Terms. 
 For, having cited that Text, 1 Tim. 2, 5, 
 There is One God, and one MedUtour between 
 God and Men \ you fay, pag. 45, " the Terms 
 " One God, are in Oppofition to fdols or falfe 
 <c Gods; and the Term FATHER, either ex- 
 " prelTed or implied, IS IN OPPOSITION TO 
 <f THE SON.' But upon the two other 
 Texts, 1 Cor. 8. 6 ; and Eph. 4, 6 •, wherein 
 the Term Father, is not only implied, but 
 exprefed; you fay, pag. 44, that " the FA~ 
 " THER is the One God in Oppofition to the 
 " many Gods fo called, and NOT IN OP- 
 11 POSITION TO THE SON." Which is a 
 moft exprefs Contradiction both to yourfelf, 
 and to the Apoftle. 
 
 Er 
 
( 234 ) 
 
 Br Claris reprefented the Opinion of Ire- 
 itais thus : that God the Father is True God 
 or Lord, hecaufe he Originally rttleth over All -, 
 and that the Son alfo is True God or Lord, hecaufe 
 he has Truly and Really Received from his Father 
 Divine Power and Dominion over the whole 
 
 f4g. 4 5, Creation. This, you fay, " is not a juft Repre- 
 " fentation of the Reafoning of Iren&us, be- 
 " caufe the Dr puts in, Originally, which T- 
 M renms mentions not. " That is ; The 
 Do&or's Words are not (neither are they 
 fet down as being) a Tranjlation from Ire- 
 vats 5 But a juft Reprefentation of his Ssvfe y 
 I think they plainly are. Iren&m's Words 
 are ^ [Qui dominatur omnium, Deum Pa- 
 ttern^ & Filium ejus, qui dominium ACCE- 
 PIT a Patre fuo omnis Conditionis : God the 
 Father, who ruleth oxter All; and his Son who 
 RECEIFED from his Father Dombiion over the 
 whole Creation.^ Is not This a diredt and ei- 
 prefs Antithefis between Original Dominion and 
 Received Dominion ; though the word, Original, 
 is not there -, the Senfe of it being as fully 
 and clearly fet forth by the Abfolute Expref- 
 iion ? 
 
 But you add, fecondly, that the Dr's Words 
 are wot a juft Reprefentation of the Reafeningoflre- 
 
 Nff 47 mm, becaufe " there is nothing faid" hereby 
 ' Irensm, " of the Son as God, but as Lord;' ana 
 
 t*t- 4 8 - that " as for his Godhead, he gives no other 
 " Proof of That in this Chapter, than that He 
 " is abfolutely called God? Now This, I am 
 very lure, is a real Mifreprefentation of be- 
 toots. For within a very few Lines after his 
 declaring the Son to be called Lord, upon Ac- 
 count of his having received Dominion from 
 the Father ; he explains This Dominion to be, 
 
 not 
 
( a 35 ) 
 
 not only That which he received after his 
 Refurre&ion, but That alfo which he Recei- 
 ved t before his Incarnation -, 
 
 and upon Account of which, + A Parre Met fflt poteftatem 
 he exprebfly declares it to be, ad judicandum Sodcmitas prop- 
 that he is in Scripture ftiled ter iniquitatem eorum. Similiter 
 God. Direaiv contrary to J u * c j , ' ud « **' S^^fSJ 
 
 . i J re tn/SLternum\ <unxit te DE- 
 
 what you here affirm. ^ D£ ^ s ,„„,, utrofq; enim 
 
 DEI appellationefignificavit Spi* 
 r irus, & eum qui ungicnr Filium, & eum qui ungic, id € ft, Pacrcm.' 
 Itf. 3. c. 6. 
 
 " Jehovah (you fay) fignifies a neceffarily f a g> 4*« 
 exifiivg Snbjlance" Not fo : But 'tis the Name 
 of Him, of The PERSON, whofe That Sub- 
 fiance is -, as you yourfelf elfewhere acknow- Mfr 47« 
 ledge. If therefore the Sow be any where fti- 
 led Jehovah ; it follows of Neceifity, . either 
 that the Son is (not the Subjiance only, but) the 
 Verfon of the Father ; or, that he is ftiled Je- 
 hovah, only as being the Reprefevtative of the 
 Father; or elfe, that there are in the fame Sub- 
 ftance Two Jehovah's ; directly contrary to the 
 Words of the Text, Lent. 6, 4, '"inK fWT 
 
 ip- 7fo LorJ owr God, even the Lord [Jehovah]] 
 h One, CUnus, not Unum J 
 
 You infift upon it, that the word, Only, pag. $u 
 ' does not always exclude every Thing elfe, 
 " but the Subjedt to which it is united." That is 
 to fay •, that Words are of no ufe to exprefs the 
 Senfe of the Speaker or Writer. But you give In- 
 ftances. Origen, calls Chrift the Only Lord. Cypri- 
 an fays of Chrift, that He Only can pardon Sins. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, calls Chrift the Only Judge. 
 In which and the like Expreflions, no one (you 
 think) will fay that the father was intended 
 
 to 
 
c ** 6 i 
 
 to he excluded. But 'tis very certain the Fa- 
 ther is excluded in all Expreffions of this kind. 
 That is to fay : Chrift, in thefe Manners of 
 fpeaking, is affirmed to be Lord, and Judge, 
 and Forgiver of Sins *, in a Senfe, which does 
 not and cannot belong to the Father. For, 
 confider, I befeech you : When the Scripture 
 iaith, that the Son of Man bath Power upon 
 Ecath to forgive Sins ; and that the Father hath 
 Committed all Judgment to the Son-, and that He 
 hath Appointed a day, in which He will judge the 
 World By him^ and that God has made him 
 both Lord and Chrift ; and Origen (ays, in the 
 Place here referred to by you, that our Only 
 Lord is the Son of God •, and St Paul declares, 
 
 that To US there is but One Lord^ Jefus, 
 
 Chrif, by Cor thro?:glf\ whom are all Things \ 
 is it not plain, that the fame Things cannot 
 be faid of the Either in the fame Manner as 
 they are of Chrift ? and that the Father is as 
 cle2rly and neceiTarily excluded from being; the 
 i car. f One lot OiVXrj Lord, BT [or THROUGH} 
 & * whom are all Things -, as the Son is of Necefftty 
 excluded from being the One God, the Father, 
 OF whom are all Things } 
 
 But that which follows, is the moft wonder- 
 ful of all. When you are preiTed, that tis the 
 Father expresily and by Name, Job. 17, I, 
 whom our Saviour calls, ver. 3, Thee the Only 
 fj&. 54. True God; Your " Anfwer (yon fay) is-, That 
 " if, Only, relate to the Term Father, the Term 
 " Father is fo appropriated thereby to the Firji 
 " Perfon, as to exclude the Son, as well as eve- 
 : " ry Thing elfe, from being the Father: But 
 " if it [the word, Only J relate to the Term 
 " God or True God, it is attributed totheSub- 
 " ject in fuch a Manner, as not to exclude the 
 
 " Son 
 
( *}7 ) 
 
 ct Son from the One True God, but Idols only" 
 That is, dire&ly and in plain Terms had our 
 Saviour ftiled his Father the Only True Father, 
 he had fpoken well •, But in fhling him the 
 Only Trite God, you conceive, he did not fay 
 what was right. 
 
 To (how what Sort of Things you expecl 
 your Reader fhould be influenced by, where 
 Reafons fail *, you allege, that u Nazianzens ^g. $S\ 
 
 " Reafoning was a Traditional Manner of 
 
 " arguing upon the Text." And concerning 
 Ambrose's Argument ; " Be this Reafon (you 
 * c fay) never f o weak, it cannot take off from 
 " the Authority of an Explication, which has 
 " fo much appearance of being Traditional?' 
 • Tradition, it feems; nay, an Appearance of 
 Tradition, (and a very fmall Appearance in- 
 deed it is •,) is fufficient, by its Authority, 
 to make amends for the Weahiefs of a Rea- 
 fon. 
 
 The PafTages wherein you think the word* 
 • £*fr, is ufed concerning the Son, the Reader 
 will find anfwered already in a Pamphlet entitu- 
 led, Three Letters to Dr Clarke &c. pag, 1 9. Out 
 of the Scripture, you allege no new Inftances, 
 but what you find in the Old Tejtament only, 
 " as interpreted by the Antients-/' that is to 
 fay, PafTages fpoken of God hy the Prophets, pag. 6q. 
 and applied to Chriji by the Fathers : Which 
 prove nothing more, than God's manifesting 
 himfelf to Mankind byChriJl; or that Go d, 
 even the invifihle Father, appeared and fpake, 
 not in his own Perfon, but by His Son, who is 
 ftiled (Zcch. 12, 8,) uTrt 1 ?** 1»7Q flirt* 
 God, the Angel of the Lord As to the Places ' 
 
 cited 
 
m 
 
 62. 
 
 ( *3 8 ) 
 
 cited by you from other Anient Writers, the/ 
 are all clearly anfwered by what has been 'be- 
 fore remarked in the Pamphlet now-mentioned. 
 I fhall here obferve only, that upon That Paf- 
 iage of IrenAus, 6 dto$ av xv$%z>Tr(&> iytvnv, 
 the Dt denied the Words $16$ to be put 
 abfDlutely, not (as yon make him to fay J be- 
 becaitfe they refer to Chrift, (which would indeed 
 have been a beggiDg of the Queftion \) but, 
 becaufe they in the ConftruBion of the Sentence 
 do fo refer to Chrift, (who had been at large 
 defcribed in the Words going before,) that they 
 are plainly the fame as if the Author had 
 faid, si &i 3i6c, iySnrt xSzco-&<&>. And 
 »*>. 61. • w bereas you contend that 3to< koy&, is as 
 abfehtte an Exprejfion, as if the additional 
 Term ' c\ /;- had not been annexed ^ the con- 
 trary appears plainly from the Place you your* 
 felf cite out of Jujliv, where he thus explains 
 
 It. " -S-tCC a-773 TX TXTf.C TJLV !&£■ ^VVJ}^&(C, 
 
 God Begotten of the Father of the Univerfe. And 
 what the Notion of the Antient Church was 
 concerning this Matter, is ftill more fully fet 
 forth in the following PalTage of Origen. When 
 the JpoftU (fays he) affirm, 
 that to Us there is but One 
 God, the Father, of whom 
 are all Things-, and One 
 Lord, Jefus Chrift, by 
 whom are all Things j be 
 vfet the word, Us, concent" 
 ivg Himfelf and All thofs 
 vrho afcend to [who religi- 
 on fly approach] the Supreme 
 G:d of Gods, and Supreme 
 Lcrd of Lords. N"ow to af- 
 cend to the Supreme God, is 
 to pay him our Whole, Entire. 
 Undivided 
 
 ? Ttt Toi-.-ra.' 7> 'K/mP > (yen \p' 
 l&vri, K) zaf-vf Tzttv aiveiCiCn- 
 
 %i StaV, x) Tfif Ttv jtj ron 
 juifiiv ?fj KUfhr 'AfttCtCax* 
 Ji -9fji Ttv s-tj -£n $t •■ ■ 
 
 Vf'.TZy TZ< iHHVV 'jit. ra ©H- 
 
 OT AOr^T *} s-e-iaf «;> to 
 I»cr? £?a;fBM»';8. 7*,- fcc. C0/!f. 
 c<# tit. 8. 
 
( a 39 ) 
 
 Undivided Worjbip, through his Son (God the 
 Word and Wisdom manifefling itfelf in jfefis y ) 
 who alone bringt unto Him [unto the Supreme 
 God J thofe Men who &c. 
 
 Thefe Words of Origen, are a dire<3: Para? 
 phrafe upon the Text which follows * viz. 
 
 I Cor. VIII -, 4, 5, 6. We hiow that an 
 Idol is Nothing in the World, mid that there it 
 None other God but One : [jsi'&s Gidc twg©-', 
 \i fA.ii &c, None Other, but One, is God.3 
 
 Though there be that are called Gods 
 
 many, and Lords Many, to Us there is 
 
 but One God, viz. the Father -, of whom are All 
 Things, and We in Him, Q'ic auTtv, To Him, 
 To his Glory Q and One Lord, viz. Jefus 
 Chrifl, by whom [or, Through whomj *r* 
 all Things, and We by him. 
 
 I Thefe Words are fo plain and exprefs, and 
 free from All Ambiguity, that (I am perfua- 
 ded) no Man who reads them without a Com- 
 ment can poflibly miftake them. 
 
 The Difference between Dr Clarke and You 
 in your Manner of underftanding them, is 
 this. According to the Dr, the Words, 
 One God, even the father, flgnify the Father 
 only. Tou contend, that the lame Words 
 [One God, even the Father^ include both Fa- 
 ther and Son. 
 
 The Manner in which you explain your No- 
 tion, is This. You c< donot know the Perfon 
 " who in this prefent Controverfy fays, that }*t- *+> 
 " The One God the Father, as he is the Per- 
 
 " foil 
 
( Ho ) 
 
 ** fon of the Father, is the Son : But to fay* 
 " that the One God, vho is the Father in the 
 M firft Siil fftence of the Godhead, is the Son 
 M in the fccond Suhfiftence ^ is, I think, nof 
 " contrary to Scripture nor Tradition.'- The 
 Senfeof theie Words, is fomewhat beyond my 
 Uoderftanding; nor can I concei ve.how the fame 
 Individual car, be faidto fubjiff twice at a time, 
 thcugh it may have as many Names given it as 
 yen pleafe. But, if I apprehend ycur Mean- 
 ing at all, it amounts to This: that the Fa- 
 ther is indeed the Son, but not as he is Father. 
 Than which, nothing can be more plainly 
 contrary to the Words of St Pan 1 in the Text 
 F fere us. Nor indeed can any Reafon poflibly 
 be given, why it might net as properly be 
 laid, that the Father and Son and Holy Ghoft 
 are the One Lord Jefv.s Chrift, or that the Father 
 and Son and Holy Ghoft are the One Ho J y Spirit of 
 God; as that the Father and Sm and Holy Ghoft, 
 or that tie Father ari*the Son, are The One God 
 the Father cj vhom are allThirgr. 
 
 Reafat therefore, and the plain Words mil 
 Sevfe of Scripture, leaving } r ou here fo palpably 5 
 ) T ou have nothing to recur to, but Tradition , 
 to fupport vour Explication of this Text. And 
 even of T. is, (tor the PalTages referred to 
 of Irerzus, you do not pretend have any 
 Relation to Tins Text, but to Eph. 4, 6, under 
 which they ihall beconlidered in their proper 
 Place;) even of this Tradition, I fay, you can 
 find no Fcotfteps fooner (which is a Thing 
 highly worth the Readers particular Notice,) 
 thau the very End of the FourtJ} or Beginning 
 of the Fifth Century. 
 
 The frfi PalTage you cite, is out of Cbryfof- 
 
 torn .' Which I (hall fet down in the Words 
 
 p 5$ °f voar ovvn Tranflation. l< Chryfoftom (y"ou 
 
 tell 
 
( M? ) 
 
 " tell us) fays, that the Holy Ghojl is 
 " QhereJ omitted, and the Son not mentioned 
 " by the Name God, that the Apoftle might 
 " not be thought to teach a Plurality of Gods. 
 " The Words [of ChryfoflonQ are thefe: // 
 " therefore He [St Paul] did not dare to call the 
 " Son God together with the Father, that be might 
 " not be thought to /peak of Two Gods ; why dofi 
 " thou wonder that be did not make mention of 
 " the Spirit ? For he was then labouring to con* 
 <; vince them [the Corinthians'] that we were not 
 " Polytheifts. 
 
 The only Anfwer I mail give to this remark- 
 able Citation of youTs, (hall be to direct you to 
 a parallel place of the fame Author, where he 
 gives much the fame Account of the ABs of 
 the Apoftles, as he does here of St Paul's Epiftle. 
 In the Introduction to his Comment upon the 
 Atfs he thus exprefles him- x ~ * « « ,„ 
 
 felf: The Apoftles, though ^^ ^^j^sf- 
 
 theyfpeak much of Chrijl [in hvnQ- dvri «/f».^« ' 
 
 this Book of the Ads,'} yet n« f f\£v 'UJ£i*i, hi &$\ «• 
 fay very little about his Divi- »?«' ***** ««»»™ *. •gl 
 
 nity. -For how could it be, < «^ ^ ^ Jc|@ . j #J -^ ^ taA „ 
 
 £wt tfo 3^*, n ^ , ° beard it dvr* U 'tor*to©- 'dad- 
 read and inculcated to them w-ntln &il< is-fr durit ?m t 
 every Day in the Law, The *j V»^it©-, .** «% ^ 
 Lord thy God, even the ^^ ynmfi chryfoji. in Alt* 
 Lord, is One, and there is t *p. u 
 none other but He* — -— 
 fcon; coirfi it be, if they had been told that Cbrift 
 was bimfelf God, and Equal to bit Father h but 
 Tbeymitfi, of All Others, [that is, more than 
 aven the Gentiles,! have flown off from the Ap^ 
 files, and broken away from them? # 
 
 St Cbryfofloms Notion fit feems) of this Do- 
 ftrine, was not taught in the Ads and Epiftles, 
 (and by the fame Argument, much lefs in the 
 v ■ J K Gofpels) 
 
( *42 ) 
 
 Gofpeh,) but was made known by Tradition af- 
 terwards, when the World could bear it. 
 
 What you yonrj elf offer upon another Occajion, 
 is (as to the Reaibningj nearly of the lame 
 
 tag* i 4 o. kind. " The Son (you fay) was comprehended 
 " in the One Lord God, while the Church 
 " was trained up in the Oeconomy of the Unity, 
 " and the Memory of Polytbeifm was wearing 
 " out of their Minds. But when the Seafon 
 " was come, that the Church could be * intruji- 
 " el with the great Myftery of the divine Na- 
 " ture, the Doctrine of the Trinity*, and was 
 " capable of receiving it and being founded 
 " upon it, without incurring the Danger of di- 
 " viding the Unity -, the Son, who was now in- 
 " carnate or become Mai:, was generally fpo- 
 " ken of in relation to the Nature which he 
 " badnewty affukied; and the Father, whofe 
 " Si'.premacy in 0? 'der and whofe Paternal Di&ni- 
 <; ty by no Means iubmitted him to any iuch 
 " Alliance, was'fpeken of in Terms relating 
 u to his Gc'head. 
 
 t v . 66. The other Authority you cite out of Chryfof- 
 tom, is as follows: v^^«7te? «h, ef<i>$« &c. 
 " As the Father is not excluded from being Lord ," 
 (oJ@^ i)oq ^ tut?®-, in the fame Maimer as the 
 Son is Lord,) " becavfe the Son is called the one 
 " Lord j fo neither is the Son excluded from be- 
 ing God," (c?cc, '6^rC 5s 6< -ncLTV%, in the Janie 
 Manner as the Father is God,) " becaufe the Fa* 
 " ibex is called The One God." Juft the con- 
 
 * Though, in your Comment on Job. ?, 18, in your Former Boot;, 
 fag. so, you lay, the Jews in our Saviours time " OAVSThaxe had 
 "■ a. Katun that there was a certain Perfon fo clojely united to the Great 
 
 « God,— that the great God was his Proper Father y and that on this 
 
 ** Aecwtit he was EquJ mtb the Father; See. 
 
 trary 
 
( 343 ) 
 
 trary whereto, is evidently True : that, as the 
 Father is in this Text certainly excluded from 
 being The One Lord, Jejus Chrift, BT [or 
 through^ whom are all Th'mgs; fo, by Parity of 
 Reafon, the Son is of Neceility excluded from 
 being the one God, the Father, OF whom are all 
 Things. 
 
 <5. 
 
 Acts V; 3, 4. To lie to the Holy GhoJ}.—- • 
 Thou haft 7Wt lied unto Mev, but unto God. 
 
 The plain Meaning of this Text, is 5 that 
 tying to Men infpired with the Holy Ghoft, 
 was in Effect: the fame Thing as Lying to God 
 himfelf, who gave to thofe l'erfons the Gift of 
 the Holy Ghoft : As Dr Clarke has explained 
 it at large in his Scripture-do8ri?ie, and in his 
 Reply to Mr NelJ on, pag. 73. Ton, on the con- 
 trary, without any Colour of Reafon that I. 
 can perceive, and directly contrary to all Ana- 
 logy of Scripture *, contend that the word God, 
 here fignifies the Holy Ghoft • and that, Lying 
 to the Holy Ghoft, means, Lying to God " as p/y£ ^ 
 " HE himfelt it the Holy Ghoft. ° To con- ' 
 fute this Interpretation •, it is fujjicient to 
 Ihow, that there is nothing in the Circum* 
 fiances of this Text peculiarly, to oblige us 
 to underftand the word God in this one Paifage 
 in a new Senfe, wherein it is never pretended 
 to be taken in any other Text of the whole 
 Bible. However, the Dr obferved alfo fur- 
 ther, that, not only no Ante-Nkcne Writer 
 ever interpreted this Text as you do -, (which 
 (hows hew very late your Traditionary hteipre-pag.fayj, 
 tation began j) but even Athanafus himfelf in 
 R 2 the 
 
C *44 ) 
 
 the moll exprefs Words, which the Dr cited at 
 length, explained this Text exactly as Dr Clarke 
 T a f- $9. did. In Oppofition to which, you allege another 
 Paflage out of afpurious Latin piece falfely af- 
 cribed to the fame Author. Which is ufing 
 your Reader not kindly. 
 
 The Dr took Notice moreover, that, if the 
 word, God, placed abfohtely as in this Text, 
 could fignify the Holy Ghoft ; it would follow 
 that the Holy Ghoft, being the Holy Spirit of 
 God, might be faid to be the Holy Spirit of Him- 
 felf. In Anfwer to This, you annex to the 
 P a &- 7 1 ' word God a very confufed Notion. 4< The 
 
 " HolySphit f you fay,) maybe »the Ho- 
 
 " ly Spirit of — — God the Father, or of 
 
 " God the Sov, or of Both together : 
 
 " Or, put the Cafe it were granted 
 
 16 that, in this Expreilion, [the Holy Spirit of 
 " God,1 the Word Go d ftands for the Trinity-, 
 " yet there would be no more Abfurdity in 
 " faying, the Holy Spirit of the Trinity, though 
 " the Spirit be a Part of the Trinity -, than in 
 • " faying, the Spirit of a Man, which is yet a 
 " Part of the Man. ' But furely you will not 
 ftavd to it, that the Holy Spirit of God, is PJRT 
 of God-, and that God is a Being compounded of 
 different Perfais, as Man is compounded of Soul 
 and Body ■. and that, confequently, when we 
 fay, Our Father, we pray to Part of God. The 
 Apoftle, in the very next Verfe to that where- 
 in he mentions both the Spirit of a Man and 
 the Spirit of God, (i Cor. 2, u-,J plainly 
 fhcvveth the Difference, by ftyling it 7rwv- 
 k a to tic tS -9tS, the Sphit which is [which is 
 fent forth or given] from God. And oar Savi- 
 our himfelf does the fame, when he ftiles it 
 (Joh. \- )y 26,) to nnvaa ttq^cc tx mt.T^ 
 
 fcV.7TC§tUtTa/, 
 
( a 4f ) 
 
 'nintiviTOLi, the Spirit which proceedeth [which 
 is fent forth] from the Father. 
 
 7- 
 
 Gal. IV, 8. Te did Service tmto'Tbem, which 
 by Nature are no Gods. 
 
 The Dr has fhown at large in his Reply to pg, 76, 
 Mr Nelfon, by comparing the feveral other 
 Places of Scripture wherein the fame word is 
 ufed, that $6«$ does not here fignify Nature in 
 the metaphyseal, but in the vulgar and political 
 Senfe. The Defign of the Apoftle, is to 
 charge thofe whom he here writes againft, not, 
 with doing Service to Gods which were not the 
 Self-exiftent Unoriginate Independent Deity ; (for 
 This they were not fo much as pretended to be 
 but he charges them with doing Service to 
 Gods, which in Reality were no Gods •, which 
 (if they had any Being at all, yet, to be fure,) 
 had not That Nature, which their Worfhippers 
 afcribed to them -, had none of That real 
 Power\, Dominion and Authority, which the 
 "VVorlhip paid to them fuppofed them to have. 
 The word, Gods, in This and in feveral c- 
 ther Texts of Scripture, is ufed in the fame 
 Senfe, as the Word Lords is ufed in 1 Cor. 8, 
 5. Chrijlians acknowledged One True God, One 
 fiavTCK.<?ocr7;'(>, abfolutely over All, (even the Fa' 
 ther, of whom are all Things -,) and One True 
 Lord, (even Jefus Chriji, by or through whom 
 are all Things.) Others, (fome in one way, 
 fome in another,) acknowledged Many that 
 were Called Gods, without having that Su- 
 preme underived Divinity which conftitutes 
 the True Notion of God, abfolutely fpeaking -, 
 
 R 5 and 
 
C %\6 ) 
 
 and 4£»gi that were called Lords, (or, in a 
 
 iubordinate Senfe, Gods,) without having any 
 of that derived Authority, Power and Domi- 
 nion, which constitutes the True Notion of 
 Lord. And their paying Worfhip to fuchjfa- 
 thious Gods or Lords, either as Supreme or Sub- 
 ordinate, was a Falfe Wory.ip. Thus the wor- 
 flipping cf Jr.ge'.s, (who are no Lords, having 
 j:h, s,ai- no Power of Judgment committed unto them •,) is 
 condemned 2s Wtil-worjhip, and fcjbly Pride, 
 and an intruding into Things which Men have not 
 Col 2 \^ifeen, and a not holding the Head; that is, 'tis (in 
 '?» '*' it's Degree^ 1 a departing from our only true 
 Head and Lord ; as well as the worshipping 
 of D&mcr.s and Idols. 
 
 ■ Againft this Explication of the TeJi. before 
 us. jroa offtr no New \rguments-, but only 
 repeat thcfe, which I think the Dr has al- 
 ready fully obviated in his Reply, I fhall here 
 obferveonly, that whereas in Thisplace fas well 
 as conftantiy elfewhere) you make the metapby 
 8tc "" fi?al SvMj.rce of God, and not his Supreme una- 
 rigbtate Dominion, the principal Ground of All 
 Worfhip 5 it is to be noted, that fince the 
 word o 3i , or Jehovah, does not fignify the Sub- 
 Jhnce of God, but HIM [the Perfon] whofe 
 that Sid fiance is; it follows unavoidably, if 
 the Worfhip paid to Ch:ifi be not given him up- 
 on Account cf his received Dominion from the Fa- 
 ther, but upon Account of his being himfelf ion 
 or Jehovah, as your Argument ever fuppofes ; 
 it follows (1 fay) of Necelftty, that there will 
 be in the Divine Subftance More than One s #■ 
 or Jehovah -, (Which is contrary to Scripture.) 
 For, to fay that the Son is the km? ; ea or the 
 fame Jehovah, the fame HE (if I may fo fpeak) 
 « ith the Father, not reprefentatlvely, but literal- 
 ly and individually ; is to fay expresdy, that he 
 
 is 
 
( *47 ) 
 
 s, not the fame Sub/lame, but the fame Perfon 
 with the Father ; that is indeed, that he is wo 
 Per/bw at all. 
 
 Had *S"t P<H/Z underftocd the Motion you con- 
 tend for, he could not have faid, to'/s ^ tpu~ 
 c& 2oi ©EOJS, them which by Nature are no Gods y 
 but, to?s «u»» <$ti(rei x<n geh, them which by Na- 
 ture are not GOD. For, to fay, (not, f/;at they 
 are -not GOD, but) that they are not Gods, for 
 This Reafon, becaufe they are not the One 
 Self-exiftent Subftance ; (becaufe they have not 
 received The Divine Subftance, fo you expreis 
 yourfelf, pag. 79 ^) is faying, that if they 
 were the One felf-exiftent Subftance, (if theyhad 
 received the Divine Subftance J they would be fo 
 many Gods -, (Gods in Subftance, Gods in Subftance 
 or Nature, fo you exprefs yourfelf pag. 80 and 
 79.) Which deferves your ferious Conlideration. 
 
 The Sentence you cite out of Clemens Alexan- p.ig. 78: 
 drinus 1 is a very remarkable 
 
 One : Idolatry, is the divi- '£/JJuAoA.<*T?f/«t ix to hie 
 ding of God, from One into «*r t«* ttdm** «*mwi*»;' <$» 
 Many. The Inference to be s ** > 
 made from it, is ; that 
 we ought y^/Z to be careful above All things, 
 to maintain the True Unity of God, which is 
 the great Foundation of all Religion both na- 
 tural and revealed. Wherein This Unity of God 
 conlifts, I have indeavoured to fhow above, 
 pag. 218, &c. 
 
 The words of the Roman Governour, f^*™ p<*g 80. 
 TZW vaToc cpiW ,JH<sil with Thofe who are Gods 
 by Nature, fpeaking or the Roman Gods ; do 
 not exprefs your Notion ot the word £0?^] 
 Nature, but directly the contrary. For the Ro- 
 
 R 4. ?7M?7S 
 
C m8 ) 
 
 mans did not look upon Their Gods, to be Self' 
 exijtent and Supreme, 
 
 Heb. III^ 2, 3, 4, ?, 6. #7™ [viz. Chrift] 
 jr<z$ Faithful to Him that appointed him, as alfo 
 Mofes was Faithful in all his Houfe. 
 
 For this Perfon [.viz. Chrift] was counted wor- 
 thy of more Glory than Mofes, inafmucb as He 
 who hath huilded the Houfe, hath more Honour 
 than the Houfe. 
 
 For every Houfe is huilded by fome one -, but He 
 that built All things, is GOD. 
 
 And Mofes verily was Faithful in all his Houfe , 
 as a Servant -, 
 
 But Oniji, as a Son over his own Houfe , 
 Sec. 
 
 The true Meaning of thefe Words, the Dr 
 fuppofed to be This. Mofes was Faithful as a 
 Sei vant, in another Mans Houfe •, Chrift, as a 
 Son in his own Houfe, of his own building -, And 
 the Supreme Houfiolder [the Paterfamilias] or 
 Father over All, is GOD. Thus 1 Cor. u, 3, 
 The Head of every Man, is Chrift ; and th& 
 Head of the "Woman, is the Man -, and the 
 Headoj Chrift, is GOD. . And ver. 12, but 
 All Things, of GOT). 
 tag 8 Againft This Explication of the Text, you 
 have nothing at all to allege. Only you wijt) 
 your Reader would underftand the word GOD 
 in this Place to fignify Chrijl. Which if it 
 did j what then would become of the whole 
 Gradation of the Apoftle's Argument } and who 
 is it, that Chrifi was^ Faithful to as a Son 9 and 
 Mofes as a Ssrvant ? 
 
 The 
 
C «49 ) 
 
 ThePafTage you cite out pf Philo, is a very p*g. 8i- 
 good One: a 60 yk? &c Tfore are Two Temples 
 of God ; One, is Thh World-, in which the Di" 
 vine Word, thefrfl-begottenofGod, is Higb~PrieJl< 
 But This, and the Other Sentences you cite out 
 of the fame Author, are clearly agahifi your 
 whole Notion : As you yourfelf plainly con- p ag% g 2 ; 
 fefs, when you fay VhiWs Words are " lb like 
 " theApoftle's Style in this Epiftle, that they 
 r may very well be ufed as a Comment on the 
 " Place, making fome Allowance for their dif- 
 " ferent Notions of the Dignity of the JFord, 
 f whom yet they Both call ^to$ God, 
 
 2 Pet. I, 1. The Righteoufnefs of God, aid 
 our Saviour Jefus Chrifi. 
 
 JThe^ words in the Original^ are v Stoa/oo-ui'n 
 t§ 3t2 vtfjLOA', it) owtm^ Iho 9 X^is5. Which, 
 from the Pofition of the word m<u^ v , you think 
 ought to be rendred, not, the Righteoufnefs of 
 God, and our Saviour Jefus Chrifi ; but, the 
 Righteoufnefs oj our God, and Saviour Jefus Chrifl. 
 But the more exacl: Rendring than either of 
 thefe, is, The Righteoufnefs of our God, and of 
 our Saviour Jefus Chrifi ; the word vu&v being 
 repeated octtc' th koiv'x. And indeed in feveral 
 Editions it is exprejfed; Six vifxciv, &, own^©-' 
 v/ntov 'imo"»xp^- h And is accordingly rendred 
 in fome old Tranflations, and, after Them, 
 by Beza, [juftitiam Dei noftri, 8c fervatoris 
 noftri Jefu Chrifti,] the Righteoufnefs of our 
 Cod, and of our Saviour Jefus Chrifi. 
 
 However, upon the whole, I acknowledge 
 (asDt Clarke has done,) that the words, as to 
 
 their 
 
( 2JO ) 
 
 their grammatical ConflrtiBwn, are ambiguous $ 
 and that therefore from the bare words themfelvesl 
 no Proof can be drawn on either Side, whether 
 the Term God in this place means the father 
 or Chrifl -, but this Queftion muft be determi- 
 1 ned from the Tenour and Analogy of O- ! 
 ther Places of Scripture. 
 RepJj to The Doctor's Reafons for understanding it of 
 Mr Mlfon the Father, were: hirft, becaufe the word, God, 
 *• 8 *" throughout the New Teftament, generally Signi- 
 fies the Father, and therefore moft probably does 
 fo in This Place likewife. And Secondly, becaufe 
 in the very next Verje, the fame words are re- 
 peated in fuch a Conftruction, as determines 
 the Senfe neceffarily without^Any Ambiguity ; 
 
 The Knowledge of God, and of Jefus our Lord- 
 To thefe Reafons you give no Anfwer, but 
 " leave them to the Reader" And fo alfo 
 do I. 
 
 }*£ 8 3. That Other Text, Tit. ii, t^. The glonoin 
 
 appearing of the Great God, [ox, the appearing of 
 the G'ory of the Great God^] and our Saviour 
 Jefus Chrifl •, having been incidentally mentio- 
 ned under This Head, as being in grammati- 
 cal Conftrudtion like to the Text fore-going -, 
 came thence to be considered in This place. 
 
 That, in this Text, the words, The Great 
 God, Signify the Father-, the Dr has mown 
 at large in his Reply, (N° 9, pag, 8?,) from 
 the whole Analogy of Scripture : This Title, 
 The Great God, being, in the Old Teftament, the 
 Character of the Father 5 and in the New Tef- 
 tament never applied to Chrifl, but to the Fa- 
 ther only, Rev. T9, 17, if the Words (the 
 Great God) be at all the True Reading in That 
 paflage. 
 
 In 
 
In your Anfwer you allege, that Or^»z in 
 one place ufes the Phrafe o (Ayccq 3ms Ufrs 
 Grart God] in fuch a manner, as may feejn to 
 carry with it fo?ne Ambiguity. But whoever Contr. 
 conliders the whole PaiTage, will find that d ^i- Cei l- ?& 
 yac 3tc's rfo Great God, is the fame whom in 7 " ; "^* 
 the next Sentence he calls d t£v oA&v 3 c o<; 77;e * 4 
 Qod of the Univerfe •, which is a Phrafe never 
 ufed by Origen nor by Any Antient Writer con- 
 cerning the Son, but the Father only. Lata 
 Writers in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, with 
 whofe Comments yon love to amufe your 'Read- 
 er, are of no manner of Authority, where they 
 have not Re aj on on their side: Nothing being 
 more uncertain than the Pretenfes of Tradition, 
 in contentious and unlearned Times 
 
 You allege further, that" the Term t-sn^a'-^ .87. 
 " v&k Appearing, feems to be appropriated in 
 " Scripture either *) the Appearance of the 
 " Son in Flelh at his flrft Coming, or to his 
 " Appearance in a Body of Glory at his fecond 
 " Coming." Which is very True, and very 
 'confident with our underftanding The Great 
 God in this Text to fignify the Father. For 
 the Text does not fay, that the Great God [the 
 Father, ~] fball himfelf appear, perfonally ^ 
 (That's impoflible}) But his Glory ifiall ap- 
 pear. The words which we render the glorious. 
 Appearing, are, 'f^Kpavoa 7 vis 6 ''6$vc, the Ap- 
 pearing of the Glory of the Great God, that is, 
 the Glo)y of his Father in which the Son of Man 
 fiallcome, Matt. 16, 27. 
 
 But your main Argument is, that the Grer.tP^- s 4- 
 God even in the OldTeflament, means, at the 
 fame time Both Father and Son. Which is evi- 
 dently impoflible. For ftnee the words, 'The 
 Great God, fin like manner as The Great King, 
 and all other the like Character?, A are necefiari- 
 
C 2f 2. ^ 
 
 ly and manifeftljr exprefiive, not of an Ah- 
 frail Subftance, but a Living Per/on, 'tis plain 
 this Title cannot at one and the fame Time 
 denote Two Perfms, whatever Union or Unity 
 of Subftance be Jiippofed between them ; unlefs 
 Gne Living Perfon can be Two Living Perfons,' 
 which is a direct contradiction •, or One Living 
 Perfon can be Another Living Perfon, which can- 
 not poifibly be individually, but only reprefenta- 
 tively. Whenever therefore That which is 
 fpoken of the Father in one place, is in ano- 
 ther applied to the Son-, iince fuch application, 
 if underftood literally, makes the Son to be, not 
 the Subftance of the Father, but the fame Living 
 ■Agent, even the very Perfon of the Father •, 'tis 
 plain it cannot pojfibly be underftood otherwife, 
 than that the invijible Father atts by his Son, who 
 is (Zecb, 12, 8 j) God the Angel of the Lord. 
 
 7 
 
 Concerning the Texts, Rom. 9, %, who is over 
 
 all God blejfed for ever •, and I Tim. 3, 16, God. 
 
 vas manifefted in the Flejh ; (Both which Texts, 
 
 you mention only incidentally ;) the Dr has 
 
 Ihown in his Scripture-doctrine, N° 539 and 540, 
 
 that, fuppofing the Reading and the Rendring 
 
 of Both of them to be right, yet they do not 
 
 affect the Queftion between you. I (ball here 
 
 remark only, that Dr Milk 
 
 E Pa tribus Catholtcis, quibus expresfly acknowledges con- 
 
 ,d oper* dacum, uc Divinieatem cern j ng the htter f them 
 
 conquificis adftrucrcnt ; an?e that n ? ne of the Writers in 
 annum Chrifti $80, nemo, quod the Time of the Arian Con- 
 quidem fciam, lextum hunc in troverfy, ever alleged That 
 medium produxic Gregwius T>Yt hf>W the> Ypar <>ftn 
 Nyffems primus orn ium &c. ww^ ,f r J e 
 
 O&iU. in Locum. Whether the Comments or 
 
 Later Writers prove (as you 
 
 p . conceive they do) that the 
 
 *H> »*• word " 3?o< ^ W; tawn and nfei" in the 
 
 Reading of the Text " before the Beginning of 
 
 " the 
 
( 153 ) 
 
 f the Sixth Century " may be confidered, 
 |when thofe particular Comments are produ- 
 
 10. 
 
 Matt. XIX, 17. There is None Good, but 
 One, [uc, One Perfon,] that is God. 
 
 This Text has been already confidered at 
 large, N* 1. And all your unintelligible Ar- 
 guing under this Head, about Self-exiflencebeing 
 a Negative, and not efjential or fubjlavtial Cha- 
 racter ; I have anfwered above, pag. 14 and 
 1 9 &c. 
 
 I I. 
 
 ■ 
 
 Rom. XI, 36. Of #£»/, and through Html 
 and to Him are all Tilings. 
 
 ' If the word, Him, in each part of this Sen- 
 tence, does not mean the fame Perfon ; all Ufe 
 of Language is at an End, and Any Words 
 may with Equal Propriety be underftood to 
 mean Any Thing, 
 
 The incredible Confufion you here introduce, 
 iby indeavouring to ihow that the word Him p *£' %?l 
 refers to God, ver, 33, and that God there fig- ' 
 nifies Three Perfons ; is what I (hall not de- 
 fcribe, but defire the Reader to confider it care- 
 fully by Himfelf. 
 
 .The He here mentioned, is the God of the 
 Jews and Gentiles, fpoken of through this 
 whole Chapter -, even He, whom the fame Apo- 
 ftle elfewhere calls, The One God and Father of 
 
 All 
 
C *?4 ) 
 
 All. 'And the plain Meaning of the words 
 (as Dr Clarke paraphrafed them in his Reply,) is 
 This : From him all things derive their Being, by 
 him all things are prefer ved and governed, to kii '. 
 Glory all things Jhali terminate. 
 
 Ug- 9- "The Spirit (you fay) is as efTentially One J 
 4 with God, as the Spirit of a Man is One f 
 " with the Man." If by the word, God, you [ 
 here mean the Father 5 then your AfTertion is, 
 that the Spirit of the Father is as much the Fa- ' e 
 ther himfelf, as the Spirit of a Man is the Man 
 himfelf. But if by the word, God, you mean 
 the Ttin'ity, as before in pag. 72 ; then your Aft ? 
 fertion is, that the fy/nf 0/ Goi is Rni of God, [ 
 as the Spirit of a Man is (in your own Expreffr (l 
 on,_ pag. 72,) Part 0/ rk Mrtw. Neither of 
 which Notions, are the Doctrine of Scripture jf 
 or do at all follow from thofe words of the \ 
 Apoftle, to which you allude, 1 Cor. 2 j io,r 
 II, The Spirit fearches all things, yea, the deep j 
 things of God •, For what Man hwweth the things 
 of a Man, fave the Spirit of Man which is in 
 him ? even fo the things of God knoweth no Man, 
 hut the Spirit of God •, to -vy-vojx tt> m th S?? y 
 ver. 12, the Spirit which is [fent forth or given,] 
 from God. 
 
 pg> 99> The Authorities (you fayj for interpreting 
 the Text before us in the manner you do, are 
 Bajil, Marius Victorinus, Amhrofe, and Aiiftin -, 
 Authors, in the latter end of the Fourth, and 
 in the Fifth Centuries ; Which (hows that your 
 Tradition here, began extremely late. Surely, 
 when the words of the Apoftle, [of him, and 
 through him, and to him are all things ; to him 
 be Glory for ever, Amen are fo plainly, both 
 in common Senfe, and in the Judgment of all 
 
 Antienter 
 
 
C ay* ) 
 
 Antienter Writers, fpoken concerning one and 
 the fame Perfon •, it requires much better Au- 
 thority than you have alleged, to perfwade 
 any reafonable Man, that, Of HIM, means 
 One Perfon ; and, Through HIM, another * and, 
 To HIM, a third ; and, To HIM [>yT»] be 
 Glory, all Three together. Which though Au- 
 ftin (you fay) " does not directly affirm to be p a£t Ior . 
 ,*' theSenfeof the words, yet he plainly fnp- 
 " pofes it MAT be fo. Which you think (it 
 Teems ) is a fufficient Proof of Any thing. 
 
 You having, in your former Book, pag. 28, 
 paraphrafed the words of this Text Thus, 
 C" of him, as HE is Father •, through him, as 
 
 " HE is Sojtz, to him,- as HE is the II Ay 
 
 " GhoJ}/' ] The Dr obferved, that This 
 was plainly introducing a Conlufion of Perfons, 
 and affirming that All things were through the 
 Father as HE is the Son, Sec, To this you re- 
 ply, that your words do not " infer any fuch pag. 102; 
 " Meaning. For though all things are through 
 " the Lord God, as HE is the Son and Word, 
 <c becaufe the Lord God is a common Name to 
 " Father and Sen-, yet all things are not 
 " through the Father, as HE is the Word, be- 
 " caufe Father is not a common Name to the 
 " Father and the Word -, the Jerm Father, ex- 
 M preffing a fmgle and individual Perfon * 
 " the Terms Lord God, a common Nature. 3 * 
 ' But now This, is introducing (if poifible) a 
 ; greater Confufion than the Other. For "tis 
 making the word HE, (which expreffes a fingle 
 and individual Perfon, as neceffarily as the 
 Term Father does,) to denote what ybu call a 
 Common Nature, which includes many Per- 
 fons : That is, 'tis directly affirming One Per- 
 .fen to be Many Perfons. 
 
 Befldes : 
 
 I. ' 
 
( i,6 ) 
 
 Befides ; 'Tis worth taking Notice of here 
 hy the way, that it the Term Lord God was, as 
 it is not, c ' a common Name to Father and 
 " Son •/' yet ail that followed from hence, 
 would be, that it might indifferently, accord- 
 cording to the Circumftances of the Text, be 
 underftood of Either of them ; not, that it 
 could fignify Both together ^ which is a direct 
 Confufionot Perfons. 
 
 Over and above all which, (as Confufion is 
 very prolifick of Confufion,) you are in this 
 place guilty of Another direct Contradiction 
 to yourfelh For whereas you fay here, that 
 " the Term Father expreifes a Jingle and indivi- 
 " dual Per foil ■" in other places you fay, that 
 
 fat. 19. the words " lis [One} and wr?*? \_Father} 
 " were never intended to exclude the Son" 
 that the Title " God, notwithftanding the 
 
 pag. 17* " Addition of the Term Father" [that is to 
 fay, the Title God the Father,'} includes the 
 
 P*i. »»«Son: Nay, that even " the Expremon, My 
 " Father which is in Heaven" does not fo appro- 
 priate to the Perfon of the Father, as to ex- 
 clude the Son. 
 
 p«g- 103. You perfift in affirming, thattheword eic, in 
 the New Teftament, fignifies indifferently to 
 or h. But none, of the Inftances you allege, 
 prove any fuch thing. '£;<; h ivStitamii u -Iv^d 
 /ur, fignifies fin the gram?natical Conftruction,) 
 himVponwho?n?ny Jjfeclion is placed; And b"t<$ 
 tw bty^ov & , is, he that is gone Into the field. It 
 may be added, £>t' ea; rov jl6Kw tS 7j?<,tcoc, 
 is, he that is received or admitted into the Bo' 
 fom of the Father, Upon the whole indeed, the 
 Senfe is the fame, as iv & iv<P i c7c*ua, and oev 
 nrj (kyw, and &v iv tzS KcK-xce. But affect- 
 ing perplext Ideas, and labouring to confound 
 
 the 
 
( *?7 ) 
 
 the Signification of words •, has never any Ten- 
 dency to right and true Underftanding, nor to 
 Any Good, 
 
 it. 
 
 Eph. IV, 6. One God and Father of All ; who 
 is above All, and through All, and in you All. 
 
 Never were words more clear, more full, 
 iriore dijlintt, mow free from Ambiguity, and 
 more impojjible to be mifunderfiood ^ than thefe be- 
 fore us. Yet even This, it feems, is not to 
 be underftood of the One God and Father of AH+ 
 but of the Three Perfons, The Gradation, by p. t g. io$. 
 which you arrive at This Senfe of the words •, is 
 very remarkable. The v4po/?fc, having mentioned , , 
 
 one Body, One Spirit,, One Hope of your Calling, 
 One Lord, One Faith, One Baptifm *, adds 
 very elegantly, as the Head and Top of 
 All, One God and Father of All, who h above 
 All) and through All, and in you AIL Some of 
 the Antient Fathers ,- (whofe words the Dr 
 cited and confidered at large in his Reply, N J 
 $, m-lUl^s) after ha- 
 ving acknowledged (as how HicDeus, efi Pater Domini 
 
 could they do otherwife?) « ™ Jf' fu S h f ifti J-^ dc JIS 
 \ «. tu- r\ - r> J J v PauIus Apoftolus dixie, v/i«j 
 that This One God and Fa- Deuf Patcr ^ quifuper omnes , & 
 
 their of All, who is above All, p er 'omnia,* fa in omnibus nobis* 
 
 and through AH, and in us Iren. lib. 2. c. 2. 
 
 Alh, is the Father of our 
 
 Lord Jeius Chrift-, add afterwards, of their 
 
 Own, by way of Comment, that this One God 
 
 and Father of All, is above All actually in his 
 
 own Verfon, is through All BY his Word, is in 
 
 All BY his Spirit: Which Comment, though 
 
 it has nothing in it abfurd or unreafonable, yet 
 
 is nothing to the Senfe of the Apoftles words. 
 
 However^ upon/This, Tou build one improvement }*g. $\. 
 
 S further : 
 
>rf£- 1C5 
 
 C ms ) 
 
 further: " If (fa j<wj He is through All By 
 
 " his Word,- he is through all things As 
 
 " ft* 75 the Word. And if he is in All By 
 
 " his Spirit, he is in All As he is the Spirit/' 
 And now it is become a complete Abfurdity. 
 
 What follows, is (if pofliblej ftill more 
 grofs. " Jerom (you fay.) no lefs than Iren&us, 
 " held an Unity of Su'bftancc or Nature in the 
 " Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. WHENCE" 
 [that is, from Jeromes holding an Unity of Sub- 
 fiance] " it APPEARS that the Suftantial 
 V Union of the Spirit and Word with the Fa- 
 ther, SEEMS to be taught' [in this Text] 
 
 by, who is above all, and through all, and in 
 u you all." Did not the World know you to 
 be a ferious Writer, it would be impoffible not 
 to look upon This as a ridiculing both of Scrip- 
 ture and Reafon. 
 
 I 
 
 3' 
 
 Tit. ii. 13. The glorious Appearing of the Great 
 God, Tor, the Appearing of the Glory of the 
 Great God J and our Saviour Jefus Chriji. 
 
 This Text has been treated of above, inN* 9. 
 
 14. 
 
 6 1, Job. V, 20. V r e know that the Son of God 
 is come, and has given us anUnderJrandnig, that 
 we may knew Him that isTrue, {jro'v othtiS.vcv 3f V 
 the True God h fo it is in many MSS {] And wl 
 Are in H m that is True, [in That True God,] 
 
 even 
 
C if 9 ) 
 
 even in his Son [_iv in? v\<Z aix*?, by or through 
 his Son] Jefus Chrift. This is the True God, 
 and Eternal Life : [This is the True God, and 
 -the 7f~ay that leads to him ; This is, having 
 the Father and the Son, 2 Joh. 9.]] 
 
 The Dr having very largely explained pag. $$.■ 
 this Text in his Reply, and ihoivn that The 
 True God here neceftarily iignifies The Fa- 
 ther •, I will not repeat his Proofs, but refer 
 the Reader thither. I (hall only make fome 
 brief Obfervations, upon what you have now 
 advanced. 
 
 Upon the general Defign of this whole Epi- 
 ftle, you exprefs yourfelf in the following 
 manner. " Though the Perfon of the Father is t^' Ic ^ 
 " the -ultimate End of allWorfiip^ as being the 
 " Firji in the Godhead ; yet This does not 
 " hinder but that the main Defign of St Johis 
 " Epiftle may be, as it appears to be, to fhow 
 " the Reader that Je fits Chrift is the Son of God, 
 " that he is the only Means of approaching the 
 " Father, that he is Eternal Life himfelf, and 
 " True God-, * And all 
 
 " This, without exalting * The Parenthefis you here 
 " him into the Perfon of p *J ( u ' b * h * * *£ 
 
 ,, A P 1? 1 " fubjiantially One with the 
 
 I the Father, to whom «V*fcrtt \ whac there i s 
 
 " the Title or Character no mention of in This E- 
 
 " of True God does prima- piffle. 
 
 4C rily belong." This is in 
 
 a manner, granting all that the Dr contended 
 
 for -, and would in its natural Confequence, 
 
 lead you to the True Undemanding of This 
 
 and moft of the other Texts before us. 
 
 As to the Reading of thofe words, that we 
 may know the True God-, you obferve out oiP A &* I0 7* 
 Pr Mills, that only 10 MSS have the word 
 
 S 2 . God, 
 
 
( ifo ) 
 
 God, and 20 want it. But you forgot to takeltfo^ 
 tice, thatbefides the 10 fpecified byDr Mills, it 
 is fo read likewife in the Comylutenjian Edition, 
 trdin thebeft F<rtzV t iwManufcripts. And ihevulgar 
 Latin alfo has it 5 And very many of the Antient 
 Greek and Latin Fathers. And the very Ssnfe it- 
 felf ,'if you attentively confider the whole, fuffici- 
 cntly determines This to be the True Reading. 
 For if the Son of God is come, and has given us an 
 
 Under (landing that we may knew • \ Whom 
 
 would the Apoftle fay that Chrift has taught 
 lis to know, but the Father in the pft place ? 
 #*!• 107. " But further, ( you fay>) if the Dr's 
 " Reading be true, it may be asked, what 
 " Occafion is there for this Repetition, This is 
 u the True God •, when 'tis faid twice before in 
 " the fame Verfe that he is the True God, ac- 
 " cording to the Dr's Rendring, which runs 
 " thus ; The Son of God is come, and has given 
 " m an Under jlandhig, that we may \mw the Tn\t 
 u God -, and we are in that T ue G d, by [oz 
 " through'} hisSonJefus Chrift; This is the True 
 * God, &c" I anfwer : The laft words are a 
 brief Recapitulation of the Whole that went 
 before. And yet it is not fo, as you reprefent 5 
 that the words, the True God, are twice before 
 in the fame Verfe. For the word, God, is 
 not repeated the fecond Time, but only under- 
 ftood : That we may know the True God ; And 
 we Are in him that is True, [iv W u.\vidtv& r in 
 That True one, That True God, 1 through his 
 Son Jefm Chrift : This is the Trui Goi, and eter* 
 ' Yial Life. 
 
 ft* 108. Tou proceed: " As for the Dr's Tranflation, 
 cc by his Son Jefvs Chrift, 1 believe he cannot 
 " produce one Antient Writer of the Church ' 
 *' on his Side. Athanafw, Bajil, Ambrofe, Hi' 
 
 " lary 
 
( *6* ) 
 
 '' l ar y-> 'Jerom, and Cyril, give us No Occajion to 
 n think that they underderftood it otherwife 
 4 than explicatory of the preceding Sentence, 
 " in Him that is True. 93 The Iranilation, 
 Through his Son Jefus Chrijl, is not the Dr's ; 
 but was fo printed long fince, in the Bifhop's 
 Bible in Henry the 8ths Time. As to the Fathers 
 you mention : Their barely giving no Occajion 
 to think the/ under flood it otherwife than you 
 do} is a ftrong Argument againjl you. For 
 had they read and underjlood the Text, as you 
 do ■ they would, in thofe days of Contention, 
 not only have given no occajion to think [they 
 underfiood it otherwife, but would have .been 
 large enough in their Explications of it accord" 
 ing to that Senfe. But the Truth is -, Moft of 
 the Writers of that Age, read the Text thus: 
 That we may know the True God, [in * Bajil 'tis, * r *«'r» 
 The only True God^] and that we may be in his E* ni > m < 
 True Son Jefus Chrijl 5 This is the True God, Zee. lib% 4> 
 Which Reading, is altogether inconfiftent with 
 your Senfe ot the Place -, Though fome of thofe 
 Later Fathers would indeed gladly have thofe 
 laft words, This is the True God, underfiood of 
 Chrijl. 
 
 But, whatever thofe Later Writers did, 'tis 
 certain (as Dr Clarke obferved,) that None of 
 the Writers in the Firjl Three Centuries allege 
 thefe words, This is the True God, as fpoken of 
 Chrijl. To this, you reply •, that thisObfer- 
 vation " would indeed have had fome Weight, p a{ . llu 
 ** if the Dr could have produced any One of 
 " thofe Writers, who had alleged the jvords 
 '' as fpoken of the Father." I anfwer : They 
 are in Comfe underftood of the Father, when 
 no other Explication is fuggefted •, there being 
 no need of alleging and explaining Texts particu- 
 larly, in Proof of the Father being the True God. 
 
 S 3 But 
 
( 2.6* ) 
 
 But had Any of thefe Writers (who were very 
 careful m collecting Texts to prove the Di- 
 vinity oj Chrifi, though not in a way agreeable 
 to Jour NoticnJ underftood thefe words to 
 have betnfpokenof Chrifi h they could not 
 • have failed to have alleged This among other 
 Texts brought together for that Purpofe 5 Which 
 t*t 1 1 1 yet None of them ever did. Ton add : tc Nay, 
 u 2 * has p ot been m 7 Fortune to meet with 
 . One Writer of Antiquity, who explains the 
 Text, who has not underftood it of the Sow." 
 I anfwer : By Writers of Antiquity, you mean 
 here only fome Late Writers of the Fourth and 
 Fifth Centuries ; whofe Authority in this Cafe 
 is nothing •, and whofe manner of underftand- 
 mg the Text, is (as I have mown above) incon- 
 iittent even with their own Reading of the' words. 
 
 But you obferve further, that the Writers of 
 Pi. icp. the New Tcftament, and particularly St John, 
 ^ never ufe this Sort of Phrafe, in the Father 
 " By the Son, but in the Father and in the Son. 
 I anfwer : It makes no Difference as to the 
 Senfe, if, even in This Text, inftead of By 
 or Through, you render the words, In his Son 
 Jefus Chnft. For the Phrafes; we are in the 
 True God, through his Son Jefus Chrifi ; or, we 
 are in the True God, and In his Son Jefus Chrifi 
 or we are in the True God, even In (that is, by 
 cur being in) his Son jefus Chrifi -, are all of 
 them exadly the fame in Senfe, andmuft all of 
 them ecjuallybeof Neceffitv underftood con- 
 cerning Two Perfons 5 unlefs, by leaving out 
 the word 5*ov in the former part of the Sen- 
 tence, you leave God quite out of the whole 
 Text 5 and fuppofe St John affirming, that 
 our Saviour came not to preach his Father at 
 Sail, but Himfelf only. Which, I am fure, is 
 
 contrary 
 
C t*3 ) 
 
 contrary, not only to St Johns conftant Style, 
 but to the whole Scriptures. 
 
 The Dr had faid, that Iren&us very juftly 
 ftyles Chrift True God, and Truly God 5 mean- 
 ing thereby, not, felf-exiftent underived Di- 
 vinity, &c. Upon This, you ask -, tw And, I p.*g. i°. 
 " pray, in what part ot my Writings does the 
 " Dr find, that Self-exlflence, Sec. are parts 
 Ci of the Notion of the True God, as applied 
 " to the Son?' I anfwer: In page 95, you 
 have thefe words ^ " The fame exiftent Sub- 
 " ftance, with its fubftantial Attributes, as It 
 " is confidered in the Father, is called undeii- 
 u ved ; as It is considered in the Son, to whom 
 " It is communicated froni the Father, is cal- 
 " led derived." And again, jug. 19?, " The 
 C£ Divine Subftance, as it is perfonalized in the 
 " Father without Derivation, is called Self ex- 
 " ijlent ; bat as It is perfonalized in the Son 
 " by Derivation from the Father, or as It paf- 
 " fesfrom the Father into a fecond Subfiflence, 
 " is called begotten; It receiving different De- 
 " nominations in different Rcfpeds" Now 
 from thefe words of yours, I thus argue. IT 
 the Subftance of the Son, be itfelf the indivi- 
 dual felf-exiftent Subftance of the Father, (as 
 you affirm in diretf Contradiction to the Council 
 of Nice, who teach in their Creed, that the 
 Son is, not the idx tS ttdltpoc, the Sub Jim 
 of the Father, but 'em tmc w/«? t$ -wvTfor, 
 FROM the Subftance of the Father ;) then you 
 unavoidably affirm the Son to be as S if- 'xifient 
 as the Father ; unlefsyou will acknowledge the 
 Son to be no Subfiflence at all, but a mere Quali- 
 ty or AffiBion ot the Father's Subftance. For, 
 when, to avoid this Difficulty, you fay the 
 Self-exiflent Subftance is called Derived or Begot- 
 
 S 4 ten j 
 
c *6 4 ; 
 
 i?r. j you affirm only a Contradiction in Term*; 
 :rh is alxrming nothing at all. And when 
 yen fiv Selj-exijiijxe is a mere Negation, and 
 no Jvbjuntial Qben aaer -, This alfo is the bigbeft 
 Aljv:, dhy, as I have fhown above, pag. 2 1 6. 
 
 ?/# 1 » : , As to the Giticifm concerning theUfe of the 
 
 i 1 ■• Phrafe Stc'c 5£i , and the placing of the Article 
 < a;ter it •, Kothing is more plain, ban that 
 the wcrCs 2tcc £~; «, refer, rot necejfjrily to 
 the word placed, neit in polition before them, but 
 A'.rrays to the Perlbn principally fpoken of ; to 
 the Ptrfcn v. ho is the Frb:ipal SubjeS of the 
 Sentence immediately fore-going. Which, in 
 the Text beloic us, the Dr has abundantly 
 ihcv.n to heThs father, 
 
 p i. 11:. What ycu alledge about Eternal Life be- 
 irg tk a joint Predicate with the True God, 
 " of the Pronoun 7bts$ n and about the 
 t: Perplexity and Violence of the Dr's Inter- 
 <; pre: at ion : " This will be fufficientlr an- 
 f. ered by a b^re Recital of the Text , that 
 £ e Reader may judge whether the Senfe of it 
 te perplext or not. *o.^.tv 2t cti e w'04 7* -3f» 
 
 i } Hai £t$bv.iv mxTv Sixvotcc, hot y>coG\kG:[j>vi 
 ■t a/.:, 5 vci ^'-tc , .3 luii iaftAv iv raF ol}.v.3\\&^ iv 
 7»f lie*) tux h'G% y^iscc" stcV '6hv <kK-/s>*c<; 
 c- ' c . • :<i y ^ ; : Jf r e hiow that the Son 
 
 cj (Set is come, ar.l bath<.ivcn man Underjlandivg, 
 
 I • fan \be True God 3 and we are In 
 
 Ibai 1 [tbeTue God,) by [or, by cur 
 
 hehtgirijhis Scv Jefus thrift. This is tleTriic 
 Gcd, and eternal Life : ;_This is the Father, 2nd 
 t he St n. 7 his is the T) ue God, even the Fat I a ^ 
 
 ; This the //'•*> that leads to him, even J?,us 
 , who it ?/?.' P^, the Tmth, and the Lift\~] 
 
 What 
 
What you add, about Uoh not fignifying }*i> *»3« 
 the W or (In^ of Idols -, is mere Trifling. 
 
 »1. 
 
 JUDE 4- Denying the only Lord God [rh uuow 
 Mgtzqthv 3eov, -God the Only Supreme Gover- 
 nour J and our J^ord Jefm Chrijt. 
 
 Again ft the Reafons whiah Dr Clai \e here al- *f& J* , 
 leged, to prove that the Only Lord God muft o£l"l ■ o 
 neceihty mean Gorf tec rawer •, you have no- 
 thing to object. 
 
 Your whole Difcourfe under This Head, is 
 concerning an incidental Queftion, whether the 
 Son was begotten by the Will or not by the Will of 
 the Father. To prove that the Son was begotten 
 by}the Will oi the Father \ befides the plain Reafon 
 of the Thing itfelf, the Dr alleged theclearand ex- 
 prefs Teftimonies of Jujiin Martyr, Origen, No- 
 vatian, Eufebius, the Council of Sirmium, Manns 
 Vitfoi inus,Bafl,Gregory Nyjfen, and indeed almoft 
 All Antient Writers, excepting only Athanafms. 
 
 To This, you make Two Anfwers. The/>*g. i»{« 
 One is •, that . the Ante-Niccne Writers general- 
 " ly, if not Always, mean no other Genera- 
 " tion by that which is voluntary, than the Co- 
 " ming forth or Manifeftation of the Son be- 
 " fore jthe Worlds, in order to create them : 
 " Whence it is probable, fome following Wri- 
 " ters transferred the Style in a different Senfe 
 " to the eternal Generation.'" But now, this 
 whole Motion, concerning what you call " the . 
 
 « Double Subfiftence of the Son," (the firft and p * g ' 3>l 
 " fecorJ SubJIflence of the Son," his §rf and fe- 
 
 coni 
 
t a S- 115, 
 
 C 166 ) 
 
 cond Generation , Both of them before the 
 Worlds-,) is a mereFi&ion, without any Ground 
 at all 5 arifing merely from a confufed Notion 
 of Theophilus and fome Others, (who blended to- 
 gether literal and figurative Expreflions,) as if 
 the Son of God was the Acry^ ti'SiivStT©-', the 
 internal Reafon or Wifdom of the. Farher,produced 
 afterwards (or becoming tj^o^cpivJ.c) into a real 
 Perfcn. A Notion, no lefs unknown to Jufiin 
 Ma\ rvr, Origen,Novatian, Eufebius, the Council of 
 Sjrmium^nd other Antient Writers ^than Abfnrd 
 in itfelf, and without All Foundation of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 The Other Anfwer therefore you make, to 
 what Reafon and fo many Antient Authors teach 
 concerning the Son's being begotten by the Will 
 of the Father \ and which you moft infift on j 
 is This : That, being begotten by theWitl of the 
 &c. J,J ' Father, means only being begotten not without 
 the Approbation of the Father. But This is the 
 very loweft kind of trifling with Words. For, 
 what Similitude is there between any things 
 being done by the Will of a Perfon, and being 
 done by Necefflty not without his Liking and Ap- 
 probation ? The Rifing and Setting of the Sun, 
 and the Returns of Rain and fruitful Seafons, 
 are (with Regard to all Humane Power) necef- 
 fary : Yet they come to pafs not without our 
 Great good-liking and Approbation. Do you 
 think therefore that any Man ever was fo ab- 
 furd, as (for this Reafon) to fay that the Sun 
 rifes and fets by the Will of Men ? Yet this is 
 exactly the very fame Cafe. If the Son was 
 begotten by abfolute Necejfity of Nature, merely 
 not without the Approbation of the Father •, it 
 would be no more true to fay that the Father be- 
 gat the Son, than to fav that Men caufe the 
 Sun to rife or the Rain to {all Nothing is more 
 
 won- 
 
C *6 7 ) 
 
 wonderful, than that Men of Any Underftand- 
 ing Ihould fuffer themfelves, (ihall I fay >) 
 fhould take tains with themfelves to be impo- 
 sed upon with fuch mere Jmbig uities of words. 
 God is neceffarily Ommprefent and Eternal ; 
 doubtlefs wot without his own Liking and Ap- 
 probation : But was ever any Man therefore 
 fo abfurd, as to fay that he was Omnipre- 
 fent and Eternal by his Will} He is likewiie by 
 Neceifity of Mature, Wife and Good -, that is, 
 he always neceffarily fees and knows what is 
 right , and approves what is good ; And in all 
 This, his Will is no way concerned : But 
 whenever he A&s, whenever he Does any thing, 
 then 'tis not by Necejfity of Nature , but by the 
 Choice of his Will. To Be, by NeceJ/ity of Na- 
 ture i is very intelligible : But to All, or to 
 Bo any thing by NeceJJity of Nature -, is a 
 Contradiction in Terms. For ABion, in the 
 very Notion of the thing itfelf, (as the Dr 
 has clearly fhown) ejfentially implies a Pow- 
 er of the Will ; And All Necefjary A- 
 GENTS, (as we improperly call them in vul- 
 gar Speech,) are in Truth and Reality Wholly 
 PASSIVE. Was the Generation of the Son no 
 more an Aft of the Fathers Will, than his be- 
 ing hhnfelf Wife or Knowing, is an Aci of his 
 Will -, it could with no more Truth or Senfe be 
 affirmed, that the Father begat the Son, than 
 that he begat his own Reafon, Knowledge^ or Un- 
 der jtandhg : But They would Both be as equally 
 Self-exiftent, as 'tis equally neceiTary for God 
 to be a Rational or Intelligent Being, and to 
 Exift at all. And confequefttly there would 
 in Nature have been no more Ground of Autho- 
 rity in the Father to fend the Son, than in the 
 Son to have fent the Father. But it is a fhame to 
 
 infill 
 
( 1(58 } 
 
 infift loiger, upon fo plain and felf-evident an 
 Argument. 
 
 I fhall conclude this Head therefore, with 
 only taking Notice of one remarkable Expref- 
 fion, wherein you clearly convid yourfelf. 
 
 &Z- l, 9- " The Paffa § e '' E cited ^V Dr lr ''^ e in nis 
 Scripture-DoBrine, pag. 285,] fc4 out of the Sir- 
 
 '" mium Creed, was {yon fay) to condemn Thofe, 
 " who faid that the Father was neceiTitated A- 
 " GAINST or WITHOUT his Will, to beget 
 " a Son-, And therefore heir main Aim, as it 
 *' appears to Me, was to ftiow that the Gene- 
 " ration of the Son was not in fuch a Strife ne- 
 " cefTary, as to exclude the Will of the Father ; 
 " or to ih w, that Nature and If ill did Both 
 ** concur, in the Production of the Son." Now 
 thefe Ambiguous words, Againft or Without bis 
 Will, being capable of Two Senfes 5 in which 
 foever of thofe Senfes they be underftood, your 
 Aflertion falls to the ground. For if (which is 
 the 'Truth of the Cafefi the Council condemned 
 thofe who taught that the Son was by Neceflity 
 of Nature generated WITHOUT, though not 
 AGAINST, the Will of the Father 3 then 
 your whole Diftindtion is vain •, and the Coun- 
 cil expresfly condemned pur Notion ^ becaufe 
 All Neceility is always without, though not al- 
 ways ctgainfi, the Will of the Perfon neceiTita- 
 ted. But if (which feems here to be your Mean- 
 ing) the Council, you think, condemned Thofe 
 Only, who taught that the Son was generated 
 Againft, as well as Without, the Will of the 
 Father* then you fuppofe the Council to have 
 condemned That only, which no Man ever was fo 
 ridiculous as to affert. For who was ever fo ab- 
 furd as to affirm, that What is nee effary in the 
 Nature of God, is Againjl (as well as not By) 
 *p*g. n^.hisWill? If Hilary therefore (as* you tell us) 
 
 in 
 
in his Comment on the place, and fome Later] 
 Writers, undeiftood This only to be the Mean- ' 
 ing of That Great and Learned Council, whole 
 Authority they dare not oppofe ; What fol- 
 lows from hence ? Does it follow that the Coun- 
 cil was fo abfurd as to condemn, what no 
 Man ever was or could be fo foolifh as to af- 
 fert ? or will it not rather follow, that Thefe 
 Writers Comments upon the words of the Coun- 
 cil, were, like yours, contrary to the Text 
 
 16. 
 
 Matt. VI, p. Our Father, which art in Hea- 
 ven. 
 
 Thefe words are fo plain, that you are alha- 
 med to fet down the very Text itfelf but only ^. lay. 
 refer to it. And you are afhamed to fay any 
 thing at all upon it, in your own words ; but 
 only refer to an abfurd Expreffion, or two, of 
 Tertullian. 
 
 It is enough to fay upon this Head -, that 
 the only ^iieftion here, is, whether, when we 
 fay, Our Father, we mean The Father or the 
 Three Perfons -, and whether our Saviour, 
 when he faid, Holy Father, meant to direcl: 
 his Prayer to The Fatner, or to The Father 
 and Himfelf and the Holy Spirit. Li this be 
 a Queftion that needs any Arguing upon ; un- 
 doubtedly it can be to no Purpofe to argue a- 
 bout any thing. 
 
 1-7. 
 
( 3 7° ) 
 
 »7- 
 
 I Tim. II, 5:. There is One God -, and One 
 Me diatom between God and Men, the ManCbriJt 
 Refits. 
 
 Reply to Upon this Text the Dr ohferved , that 
 Mr AW/ »,the Title One God, muft here of Neceflity lig- 
 t i'5« nify The Father only-, becaufe it is put direftly, 
 as the Perfon mediated to, in exprefs Contradi- 
 ftinction to (not Idols, but) the Perfon media- 
 ting to him -, Which Mediatour, is * the whole 
 Perfon of the Son Incarnate or made Alan. The 
 words, One God, are put as a Defcription, not 
 of the Div'me Nature, but of the Relative Per- 
 Jon, to whom the One Mediatour makes Inter- 
 cefHon. For, to Whom is the Mediation 
 made? Is it not to the Father only ? t Job. 2, 
 1, We have an Advocate, [not, with the Divine 
 Nature ; not, with the Divine Suhfiance • not, 
 with the Three Perfons, The Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghoji : For then Chrift, who medi- 
 ates as God-man, would mediate to Hhnfelf, 
 which is Abfurd : But, faith the Apoftle,] we 
 have an Advocate with the FATHER, jefus Chrift 
 the Righteous. 
 
 This is fo clear and, beyond all poifibility of 
 
 evafion, demon frative -, that you are forced- to 
 
 h&. *2'\ acknowledge in the following full words : " Here 
 
 1 * Not, the Manhood or Humane Nature of Cbrifl ; but, the 
 Perfon made Man, the CMan Chriji Jefus ; the fame, of whom 
 St John lays, that ca'f£ iyiviTv he was made Fle(J) ; and St 
 Paul, chat he was ty o^ou'vati dt^famiv ytv'opw®' made in the 
 
 "the 
 
C 27* ) 
 
 " the Term Father is implied, as if the Apo- 
 " file had faid , There is One God The Father -, 
 " So that the Meaning is This, There is One 
 " Mediatour between God the Father and Men? 
 This, I think, is plainly acknowledging that the 
 Title, One God, fignifles in this place The Father 
 Only. And yet, tor all that, in the very next 
 Words, you hope your Reader will, in fome 
 dark and confufed way or other, underftand the 
 Son to be included alfo. It happens very un- 
 fortunately, that your own words upon this Oc- 
 cafion, without any Addition or Alteration, 
 make a complete Syllogifm, the Conclufion 
 whereof is the contradictory Proportion to that 
 which follows from the Premifes. In the Text 
 b efore us, 
 
 " God the Father, (you fay,) is called/^." *2<. 
 <f THE One God/' 
 
 " The Son is excluded from God the Fa- M- t23 ' 
 « ther.' 3 
 
 Tet, " The Son CANNOT be excluded fromW 128. 
 THE One God." 
 
 The words are all your own words 5 and each 
 Propofition, and every word of each Proportion, 
 is here taken in the fame Senfe, as in the places 
 where they ftand refpe&ively in your own 
 Book. 
 
 Again:" ft is granted (you fay,) that Godp<*S< 127. 
 " the father is the Perfon mediated to: That 
 " God the Son, or, the If HOLE Perjon of the 
 " Son incarnate, is the Perfon mediating to him : 
 Cl That God the Father mediated to, is diftingui- 
 *' fhed from God the Son mediating to him : And 
 " TET it cannot be granted, that the Term Owe 
 " was ever united with the Term God, in Op- 
 " pofition to the Son ." That is, again: You ac- 
 knowledge the unavoidable Truth of the Pre- 
 mifes \ and yet you cannot, you viv.fi not grant the 
 
 Cox* 
 
( a 7* ) 
 
 Q>iichJion. But I wonder you mould have for- 
 got, there is no need of granting it. For when 
 disowned that the Premifes cannot be denied; 
 the ConclufwK, whether you grant it or no, will 
 follow oi itftlf. 
 
 iS. 
 
 ReV. XXII, 9. fTorfbip God; 
 
 This Text, you Now Wholly pafs over in Si- 
 lence : And therefore I refer the Reader to what 
 lias been faid upon it by the Dr* 
 
 Luke I * 16, 17. Many Jlmll He [John "the 
 Baptift] turn to the Lord their God ; and be fiall 
 go before Him, Sec. 
 
 How the Term, Lord God, may well be un- 
 derftood in this place to fignify the Father •, as 
 it notorioufly does in every other Text of the 
 whole Bible J Or, if it be here understood of 
 the Son, (which there is no fufficient ground to 
 fuppofe yet how it may, even in That Senfe, 
 be underftood without any of the Co7tfuJion you 
 introduce ^ the Dr has (I thinlcj very clearly 
 Ihown in his Reply. 
 
 Whereas your Notion b , that the words 
 Lord God in Scrjpture-hngunge fignify a com- 
 mon Nature or Subfta?ice comprehending more Per- 
 
 forts 
 
C **? ) 
 
 font than One-, The Dr alleged, that in all RipfyH 
 propriety of Language, in the common and na- Mr ^ J/ M 
 tural Apprehenfion of all Mankind, and in the p * n,t 
 conftant Ufage of Scripture, this Title Lord 
 God, ('in like manner as King, Father, and the 
 like,) is a PERSONAL Character-, exprefling, 
 not abJtraS and metaphyseal Qualities, but ler* 
 fonal and Relative Perfections, namely Dominion 
 and Government over the World. To This, you 
 Thus anfwer. "If I underftand the Dr right, p 4£i t ^ 
 he makes Perfonal and Relative Perfections 
 to be the fame -, and therefore a Perfonal Charon 
 ■ " 8er exprefling them, vmji be a Relative Cba- 
 ratfer : And Lord God being a perfonal Cha- 
 racter, mufl be a Relative Character : In an- 
 
 ' fwerto which, I fay that the Term 
 
 ' Jehovah is not of a relative, but abfolute Sig- 
 nification-, that Jehovah is fometimes ren- p a g. 1 34* 
 
 " dred by Stds God, and then God is a Name 
 
 " of Being or Effence-, that Jehovah is a pag. 135* 
 
 " Name exprefling the Divine Subflance -, a 
 " Name, in common to the Son with the Fa- 
 
 u ther, expreJIiveof One God 5 the Son be- *<*• T 47- 
 
 " ing himfelf b &>, as he is confubjtantial with 
 " the Father." Now, in All this, there is the 
 greateft Confufon of Notions, that can be. For 
 whereas the Dr affirmed the Title Lord God, 
 to be both perfonal and relative -, you fuppofe 
 him to argue, that 'tis for That only Reafon per- 
 fonal, becanfe 'tis relative. And from thence 
 you conclude, that if Any Title of God be not 
 relative, but abfolute •, (as Jehovah, for Inftance, 
 or &v -J fuch Title will confequently not be 
 perfonal neither, but exprefiive of abnracl Sub- 
 fiance or Effence. In every Part of which Suppo- 
 fition and of the Reafohing upon it, you are alto- 
 gether in an Errour. For the Dr did not af all 
 affirm or fuppofe, that the Title Lotd God 
 
 t wax 
 
( *74 ) 
 
 was therefore perfonal becauj? 'twas relative *, 
 but affirmed that it was Both pei final and tela-' 
 tivc , p erf oval, as it exprefTed a Living Perfon, 
 rot an abflra& Subjlance , and relative, as it ex- 
 pre fled Lomimon over Creatures or Servants. But 
 if This, or any other Title, was rot relative, 
 bat abfbltfte h it might ftill neverthelefs be per- • 
 for.al ror all that. The Title Jehovah, or o av 3 
 whether it be not in Scripture relative rather i 
 than abfohte, may well be queftioned , becaufe t 
 the words, I am that I am, (to which the Name t 
 Jehovah feemsto owe its Etymology,) may as 
 well have reference to the Immutability of \ 
 God's Pi omifis, as to the Immutability of his; 
 Ffertce. But fuppciing the word Jehovah, or t 
 c 2bv, to have undoubted reference to the Im- j 
 mutability of hisEflence -, yet ftill it will noti 
 be the Name of the EJfence itfelf, but of the Per- 
 fon whofe that immutable EfTence is , and con- \ 
 fequently it will ftill necefiarily be a Perfonal 
 Title. Which demonfratkely overthrows your 
 whole Notion. For if Jehovah, or o #*, be 
 not the Name of a Nature or Sub/lance, but the 
 Name of #/itf [of the Perfon] whofe that 
 Nature or Subftance is 5 and if That He, be 
 God the Father, (as it muft needs be, if the 
 Father was at all the God of the Jevs •,) and if 
 the word He; cannot fignify more Perfons than 
 One, at cne and the fame time : It follows ne- 
 ^cefTarily and evidently, that to affirm the Son 
 j to be Jehovah or o &, (any otherwife than as 
 i being the Repefentative oi the invifible Father,) 
 is affirming either that He is the Father himfelf, 
 or elfe that there is more than One Jehovah or 
 • & . Ncr docs the luppofing him to be con- 
 fubjlantial, make any difference at all in This 
 Cafe. For he who is confubftantial with Je- 
 hovah, is not confequently the Jehovah w^th 
 
 whom 
 
c *n ) 
 
 Whom he is confubftantial : But, if lie ii 
 ftyled Jehovah at all, he is either fo ftyled 
 upon Account of his being His Representative ? 
 or elfe All that can follow from the Suppofiti- 
 pn of ConfibJlantiaJity, is, that there will be 
 Two Jehovah's Qwo 61 omc] in One Subjimce. 
 Mcft erroneous therefore is your Aifertion, that 
 " the Son is himfelf o <&?, as being confubjlan- 
 " tial with the Father/' For, beiug conjub/lanti- 
 al with Him who is o <&;, will no more make 
 him to be himfelf b & •, than being confubftanti- 
 al with the Father, will make him to be him" 
 felf the Father. ■ Our Readers, not we ourfelves, 
 mull judge ofThisReafoning : But, to the beft 
 of my Apprehenfion, it is PerjeS Demonftration. 
 
 After what has been faid upon this Head, the 
 Reader will, without any of that Confufion 
 you introduce, eaiily underftand the true Mean* 
 ing of the Texts cited by you, pag. 138, 13^ 
 141, 142 and 146 j wherein you imagine (and 
 indeed do but imagine) that the §on is ftyled 
 Lord God. Moji of them are interpreted by 
 you after a myjlical or imaginary Manner, 
 which you call (pag. 136, 137, 128,) a Tra~ 
 ditional Explication ^ that is, an Explication 
 founded, not upon any Reafon in the Texts 
 themfelves, but upon the Application made 
 of them fometimes by fome or the Fathers : 
 According to which way of Interpretation, 
 Any thing may be brought to prove Any 
 thing. Others oi them, fas Pf. 102, 25, Of 
 old hfljl thou laid the Foundation of the Earth, 
 &c-) though in the Old Tejiament plainly 
 fpoken of the Father, are yet in the New 
 with great Propriety applied to the Son •, s be- 
 caufe By for Through) Him, did God eve* 
 ate all things, Eph. ? 7 9*, Heb,- I, 2. And 
 
 T 2 • the 
 
( 
 
 * The Text ("which you cite, 
 fag. 1 46 J Zech. 12, io, 
 Jfefy yW/ look upon Me w/jom 
 f Ac; have pierced ; though ic 
 may eafily be underftood ac- 
 cording to the Analogy of the 
 reft j yet ought particularly to 
 have this Remark made upon 
 jr, that, being twice cited 
 Thus by St John, (Job. 19, 
 
 37 » and %&>- *> 7i) '*? 
 (hall lool^ on MM whom they 
 pierced; and, in the Text it- 
 felf of Zechaiy, being immedi- 
 ately followed by the words, 
 and they /hall mourn for HIM ; 
 'tis probable that even There 
 alfo, the True Reading is, 
 they (hall look on HJQA whom 
 they have pierced j the Diffe- 
 rence in the Hebrew, being on- 
 ly an Apex or Point of a Let- 
 ter. 
 
 176 ) 
 
 the * reft, are eafily under- 
 flood according to the A- 
 nalogy of thofe more full 
 and plain ExprefTions •, 
 Judg. 2, 1, Jn Angel [The 
 
 Angel] of the Lord i 
 
 faid, I made you to go up out 
 of Egypt — unto the land which 
 I fware unto your fathers: 
 And Rev. 11 $ 1, 3, The 
 
 Angel pod, faying,— 
 
 I will give Power unto MY 
 two Witneps : And Ails 7 ^ 
 30, 32, There appeared to 
 
 Mofes in the Wildevnefs *■* 
 
 an Angel of the Lord in a 
 Flame of Fire, fay- 
 ing, I am the God of thy Fa* 
 thers, the God of Abraham, 
 the God of IfaaCj and the 
 God of Jacob . 
 
 f.*fr H 
 
 To avoid the Force of this laft-mentioned 
 Text, where the Angel of the Lord expresfly fti- 
 ling himfelf The God of Abraham, gives fo eafy 
 an Explication of all the parallel Texts, where- 
 in the Angel of Gods Prefence alTumes, or fpeaks 
 Sn, the Name or Perfon and} Authority of the Fa- 
 ther • To avoid (I fay) the Force of this fo 
 plain a Text, you give your Reader three or 
 , four Pages of the utmoji Confufion. " Firft, 
 (you fay) if the Angel," here fpoken of, 
 be the vifible Glory manifcfted to Mofes, then 
 •* the Lord may be the Word actuating that Glo- 
 " ry i and the Voice of the Lord, the Voice 
 <{ of the Word who calls himfelf TheVod of 
 tl Abraham, and confequently fpeaks in his 
 " Own Name : For Angel, as it iignifies one 
 
 4 * that 
 
 
( *77 ) 
 
 c that is SENT, can ttever fignify the Word, 
 *' but the vijiblc Glory .* Or " Secondly-, if the 
 
 i Angel be the Word itfelf, as he is the opera- m. 14$; 
 
 c tag Power of the Fathering perfonal Subfift- 
 ence ; then indeed Jehovah or the Lord, is 
 " the Father -, and the Voice of the Lord may 
 " be the Voice of the Father fpeaking through 
 " the Son in his own Name -, YET fo, as not 
 " to exclude the Son fwho fpeaks in the Name 
 " of the Father) from fpeaking AT THE 
 " SAME TIME in his own Name, Perfon, 
 " and Authority, derived from the Father." Or p agt ,,5, 
 " thirdly, though it be granted that lorifigni- 
 V fies the Father in the firft ExprefTion, the An- 
 " & e l °f the Lord, ver. 30 -, yet does it not 
 " certainly follow that it fignifies the Father in 
 *' thefecond, the Voice 0} the Lord, ver. 31 ; 
 i( becaufe the Term Lord fignifies the Son as 
 " well as the Father. ' If this be explaining the 
 Text, I cannot but think it does certaijdy fol- 
 low, that the Text might as well go unexplain- 
 ed. 
 
 The Heretich (you fay) mentioned by No-pag, j 4 g, 
 vatian, " affirmed Him [Chrijf] to be God the 
 *' Father himfelf." Undoubtedly they never 
 were fuch Idiots, as to AFFIRM any fuch 
 Thing : But That Conference, though they 
 themfelves perhaps faw it not, followed necef- 
 farily from their Dotfrine : And fo it does like- 
 wife from Tours. 
 
 T 3 20 « 
 
( *7» ) 
 
 iO. 
 
 Joh. I, If. In the Beginning was the Word, 
 and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
 God. 
 
 Upon this Text, you have only the follow* 
 
 fag 14?. ing words : ''" The Doctor, under this Number, 
 
 ■ makes only a ihort and general Reflexion, 
 
 " which does not require an Anfwer. 
 
 Here therefore, where one would naturally 
 
 have expected the mojl, you having nothing to 
 
 object againft the Doctor's Expofition. I mall 
 
 refer the Reader to what has been faid by Him 
 
 fiepht' in his Scripture- Dofiriyie and Reply-, and only 
 
 Mr iW/o»* a «icl the following brief Obfervations. 
 
 T*g- > 26 » 
 
 and 177, . 
 
 i; 8. 1. Concerning the Senfe of the Term, Ao* 
 
 yffi , The Word. 
 
 'Tis obiervable that, Kdy(&, may well fig- 
 
 fie , as Beza renders it, 
 
 ••MM u -is fo printed in Sermo ille, * That Word. 
 
 the Verfion of Beta's Terta- Which Verfion if we allow, 
 
 mer.r into Eklijb, in queen £// ( as > t is no way unreafona- 
 
 ^k^'sTirpe. ble .j 'tis then evident it 
 
 can't mean Reafin or the 
 ?»<?' >■<£;- 3*9 £v5icv5tT©-, but muft needs refer to 
 Something paiticidarly known at That Time 
 emong Chriftians by that Name. Of which 
 there feems to be a plain Intimation given. 
 Rev- 19, I?, And his Name is called^ d Aoy(3h t5 
 £?*, Tie WORD of God. 
 
 Philo ufes the. fame Term, Ady(§H, after the 
 following manner. Pjg. 9?, 6 hoy®- <fi\ 7$ 
 3ta UTngxva 7nxVTos '6^r tx jutatix. ^ 7rptO"6uTa- 
 
 t©- i2v oca ylyns, The Word 0/ Goi i$ 
 
 above 
 
(*7P ) 
 
 above the whole World, and the mofl htient of 
 all things that were produced. And upon that 
 Text, (Gen. 48, \ 6, the Jngel which redeemed 
 me from all evil, blefs the Lais ;) itv <f K i xy^thov 9 
 fays he, o's v>i Aoy(§H, The Jngel, who is the 
 Word. And, rh<; ajyeAsc k, hoy z$ <x.ot£, his 
 Angels, or Words, [viz. Meifengers.] Again, 
 pag. 586, he gives Angels in general the Name 
 of h6y>>, Words or Mefjengers of God. [[Com- 
 pare f Efdras, 1, 24, The Words of the Lord 
 rofe up again/} Ifrael ] And pag. 597, The world, 
 faith he, is the Te??iple of God, y fie xa< a^ - 
 e-i/<;o vrP6)7^«v@- au7§ SSffr hty& 9 in which 
 His firji-begotten Divine Word is High-Priefl. 
 Thefe Notions of This eminent Jewijh Writer, 
 (who lived in the fame Age, and wrote before 
 the publishing of St Johjis Gofpel •,) though 
 they are by no means the Rule of interpreting 
 St John's Senfe ; yet, by Analogy ami Propo} li- 
 on, they cannot but afford great Light towards 
 our Underftanding with what Regards, and in 
 what View, the Chriftians of That Age would 
 naturally apprehend our Saviour to have been 
 by St John ftyled, kdy(fr, The Word. Efpe- 
 cially when compared with that Expieflion of 
 the Prophet, Mai. 3, I, The Lord whom yt ' feek, 
 even fj oiyt/ihQ-- rv.c, m<P^kmQ the Mefffogerqf 
 the Covenant ; and that of St Fad, Gal 4, 14, 
 Te received me as an Angel of God, [as the Angel ] 
 of God,] even asChriJ} Jefus, 
 
 In Jujliv, Maityr, we find This Account of 
 Chrjft's being ftiled Koy<&, the Word, idyb , 
 fcTTftc/^ k«j Tkc, ©Sjbi?* t5 -rm-Tfoc 0."'.' xr. , ; 
 to% oLvfyGjinK; : * He is filed the Wora becaufe 
 
 * Note : Though $ujhn is in chis fyfiagp giving a - "c of che 
 Opinion of Others trGm whom he differed ; yec chis is not one of the 
 parPkuUrs wherein he differed from chem. 
 
 T 4 he 
 
]he brings \qi declares] t/?c Commands of bit father 
 { imto Men j (Dialog, cum Tryph. pag. 3 58 J 
 Again, Ei Si n.ai i^iM-*- y<.y\\v* 3rxi aiTO i* 
 ets K-.yo/MAV Kcycv 3sS, hgivcv 7«to '{ga u/juv T 
 to?$ tov E^ativ Aoyov tov «N^p 3fcS tfjx/eAT.fca-' 
 Ai-ysrov, (Apol. 2. pag. 67 9 »* fay that He 
 [Chriff] ww hi a peculiar manner begotten of God, 
 and Jiyle him the Word of God -, this ought not to 
 feem f range to you QGentilesJ who feign your 
 Mercury to be the Word and Meffenger of God. 
 
 Irev&us explains himfelf thus. [Pater Do- 
 tnini ncftri Jefu Chrifti, per VERBUM fuum, 
 qui eft Filius ejus, per eum revelatur & mani- 
 feftatur omnibus, quibus revelatur. Cognofcunt 
 
 enim eum hi, quibus revelaverit Filius •, 
 
 Angelis & Archangelis & Poteftatibus & Virtu* 
 tibus & Hominibus, Lib. 2, cap. 55, in fine ~\ 
 The Father of our Lord Jeju. Chnji, manifep 
 and reveals himfelf to All, whom he is at -all reveal- 
 ed to, by his WORD which is his Son. For They 
 know the Father, to whomfoever the Son wij reveal 
 
 him : to Angels, Archangels, and Powers, 
 
 aud Dominions, and Men. 
 
 Athanafus ufes the like Expreflion in the fol- 
 lowing manner : Ao'-y©- th t<xvT§ -nvrr%k 
 
 \E$uim\)$ kou v A)fyt>©-, The WORD, the- 
 
 Interpreter and Meffenger of his Father. [Atha- 
 naf. contra Gentes.l 
 
 Tis reafonable therefore to fuppofe, that as 
 StPatd, when he ftyles Chrift Qi Cor. i, 24,) 
 the Power of God and the Wifdom of God, does 
 not mean to affirm him to be literally thofe At- 
 
 f Note : The Learned Bifhop Bull (5e#. 2, cap. 4, § ,) cites this 
 Pafiage as tar as the Word C^uv, buc omits to allege the following 
 \V0rd5, To/f T«y 'FftuJV hiyot r'ov **& && dyyiKvK-.v \iywi, ia 
 which the wbile Sttefs ot tuc Sentence lies. 
 
 tributes 
 
r *«i ) 
 
 tribute! of the Father, but to be the Perfon ly 
 whom in a particular manner were manirefted 
 the lower and Wifdovi of God -, fo St 3^/;?*, 
 when he ftyles him The Word, does not mean to 
 affirm him to be liter ally the abfraS Word, but 
 the Perfon by whom the Will of God is declared. 
 
 2. Concerning the Senfe of the following 
 Exprefiion, 1L0 Arv©-- ftv 7rgo$ tov 3tor, And the 
 Word was With God ; 
 
 : Tis obfervable that the Evangelift does not 
 fa)' - , wv ev to ,3*68, was IN God', as he muft 
 have done, if he had fpoken of the K6y(^ 
 tv5i«3tT@-, the internal Reafon or Wifdom of 
 God; but, Hi' n^oc tov 3*o , erat -*4pi/i ^hot, 
 was WITH God • after the fame manner of Ex- 
 prefllon, as one Perfon is always faid to be pre- 
 sent with Another. 
 
 The Repetition of the fame thing, in the 
 fame manner of Expreffion, in the fecond Verfe 5 
 feems alfo to determine the Meaning to be, 
 concerning a Real Perfon. cu r(Gp hv iv dtzyy *%$$ 
 tw i^€cv, He [or the fame'} was in the Beginning 
 with God. 
 
 The Expreflions which follow, are All like- 
 wife neceflarily perfonal. 'Ets 7 a iSla nA3f , He 
 came unto his Own. And, K.a« ^cfy©^ arx^ \y\- 
 Htt 9 The Word was made Fief), Sec. 
 
 3. Concerning the Latter part of the Verfe, 
 it, hihs hv Ao>(G^, And the Word was God: 
 
 'Tis obfervable, that the Term $to< , God, 
 is a Term that exprefles, not EJfence, Nature, 
 Subfiance, or any other Abftraft -, but neceflarily 
 denotes, Perfon. A perfon, maybeftiled ^tcs, 
 God : But the Reafon, or Wifdom, or Nature, or 
 EJfence, or Subftatice of God, can no more be 
 faid to be «9fcoc, C?ci-, than the abftraft Rea- 
 fon 
 
( 2»Z ) 
 
 Jon or Wifdom or Nature or EJfence or Subjlame 
 of a Maw, can be faid to be scv3pg>7t(G^, the 
 Man. This, and all other the like Titles, ne- 
 ceflarily carry with them the Notion of Perfo- 
 xality If therefore the Term 3*k, God, means 
 here (as o Sdc does in the former part of the 
 Verfe) Him whom the Word was with - y 'tis 
 dire&ly affirming the Word to be the Perfon of 
 the Father. Which fince all Men acknowledge 
 is impoffible to be the Evangelifts Meaning ; 
 it follows of Neceility, that this Phrafe, the 
 Wot a was God, muft denote the Perfon who is 
 here ftiled Tue Word, to be fas Origen upon the 
 place exprefles itj {xi-myy) t'^q -r* AvroSix 3e- 
 t r> '&, ^eo7roi5< evoi', God by Communication of 
 Divinity from Him who is [originally, or] of 
 Himfelf, GOD. 
 
 The whole may be illuftrated by comparing 
 the following Texts together. 
 
 Mai 3, T , My MeiTenger, the Lord 
 
 whom yefeek 
 Zech. 12, 8. God, the Angel of the Lord. 
 
 Gen. 48 5 1 J, 16. God, the Angel which 
 
 redeemed me from all Evil. 
 Exod. 23, 21, Wj'Narne is in him. 
 
 4, t 6, He (liall be to Thee infteadof a Mouth. 
 foh. 1, I. TfteWord, [Aoy©-, <& iaurk mrpsc 
 'Epwtvius >tj "Ayyih®-, The Imc rpreter *nd Meffeng- 
 er ef his Father •, So Athmafius paraphrafes this 
 Place.] W as God ; \Jv (noceri) was chat vifible 
 Perfon, who in the old Teftament is fo frequently ftiled 
 God : The Defcription of whom in the Third 
 verfe, is, Uct'vrA JV ttw& iytnrc, All things were 
 made, or created, Through Him ; and All things were 
 from the Beginning tranfatled between God and the 
 Creature, through Him : And ver. n, He came unto 
 his Own, and his Own, (o't <J>o/, his Own peculiar 
 People the Jews, to whom he had appeared from the 
 Beginning, %v {io{(p» dsa, as the vifible Reprefenta- 
 tive of the lnvifible God, ) received him not] 
 
 Phil 
 
C 183 ) 
 
 H??'/, 2, 6. Ghrift Jefus, jp&o ^fwg in the Form 
 
 of God, &c. 
 Gal. 4, 14, 2V received me as an Angel [the 
 
 Angel] ojf God 3 even as Chiift Jefus. 
 
 21. 
 
 Acts XX, 28. To feed fa Church of God, 
 which He hath purchafed with his own Blood, 
 
 Upon This Text the Dr obferved, that the 
 Beft and moft Antient Copies read it, and the 
 mod Antient Fathers cite it, The Church of the Hep!y U 
 LORD. Which at once removes all Appear- ^Ne'fm, 
 ance of Difficulty. But if the word, God> be ? * ,2 ^' 
 the true Reading : yet how this Text may ne- 
 verthelefs be well understood, without any of 
 That Confvfion which you indeavour to intro- 
 duce, the Doctor has at large mown in his Com- 
 ment upon the Place, both in his Scripture Do' 
 Urine and in his Reply to Mr Nelfon. And what 
 he has there offered to this Purpofe, you have 
 given no Anfwer to. 
 
 Your whole Difcourfe under This Head, is pag 
 fpent in indeavouring to mow, (upon an inci- - 
 dental Citation of the flrrt part of the third 
 Chapter of St Johns fir ft Epiftle,) that the wo*d^ 
 God, Signifies not only, in fome places th' Fa- 
 ther, and in other places the Sn, but alio in 
 fome places Both Father and Son Together. Than 
 which, nothing can be more abfurd. For rhe 
 Term God, (as much as Lord, or Father, or 
 KingJ always, and in all Languages, neceffa- 
 rily including and carrying along with it the 
 Idea of Perfov.ality, can no morepoffibly iigni- 
 fy Two Feijbtts at ore and the fame time, than One 
 
 Ferfon 
 
C 184 ^ 
 
 Perfon can be Two Perfons. Nor is there any one 
 Text in the whole Scripture, where there is any 
 Colour for fo underftanding it. 
 
 In your Former Book (pag. <>?,) you had 
 ufed thefe words ; u St John comprehends the 
 *■ Father and Son under the Name God, as will 
 appear trom Joh. j, i, The Word was With 
 ** God, and the Word was God : And therefore 
 <c may be fuppofed to ufe the fame Name fome- 
 " times for the Father, and fometimes for the 
 * Son, or for Both together , which is Always 
 " to be determined by the Circumftances of the 
 " Context." Now, fince St Johns diftinttly 
 fly ling the Father, \j StbO God, in one part of 
 the Sentence •, and his ftyling the Son, C^ eo ^3 
 God, in the other part of the Sentence ; could 
 be no manner of Reajon for fuppofing it polfible, 
 that the jingle word, God, could at Once fignify 
 Both Father and Son , the Dodor (I think) had 
 good ground irom your manner of reafoning to 
 infer, that you fuppofed the word God in that 
 Firft Verfe of St Johns Gofpel, (as you fome- 
 times expresfly contend that even this very Ti- 
 tle God the Father, itfelf does,) included both 
 t t Father and Son. However, fince you complain 
 15, 19.* of This as a Mifreprefentation of your Senfe, 
 and declare that you did not mean to under- 
 ftand it fo in That Verfe • it muft be acknowledged 
 that you ought not to be charged with underftand- 
 ing it fo in That Verfe. But ftill you perfift in 
 maintaining the fame Abfuvdity with Regard to 
 Other Texts ^ in None of which there either 
 are or can be any Circnmjlances of the Context, 
 to determine the word God to fignify at one and 
 the farm time Two perfons. I lay before the 
 Reader, your own Explication of your own 
 ,. j ., Senfe. Your ct Meaning (you fay) is plain-, 
 " that, As the Name God repeated, iignifies 
 
 " the 
 
( *8y ) 
 
 M the Father in Owe place, and the Son in the C* 
 
 " ther h So it may be fuppofed, that the fame Name 
 
 <c does fometimes fignify ^of/> Father and Son to- 
 
 " gether without a Repetition ; which may each 
 
 " of them be feparately referred to in the Con- 
 
 " text following. — -Thus " in thofe Words, 
 
 *' now are we the Sons of God" ^The whole TextP^. ij£» 
 
 is, i Job* 5.5 1,2, Behold, what manner of Love 
 
 the FATHER hath beflowed upon us, that we 
 
 fmild be called the Sons of GOD ; Beloved, 
 
 fiow are we The Sons of GGD {] in Thefe words, 
 " the Term God, (you fay) fignifies the Father 
 
 " and the Son : But in the following Sen- 
 
 " tence, when He flail appear, the Pronoun i& 
 " refers to God, not as it ftands for the Father 
 " and the Son together, but as it ftands for the 
 
 " Son. But let the IVsParaphrafe ftand, 
 
 " when the Father and the Son flail appear in the 
 " Perfon of the Son ; I muft own I can fee no 
 
 " Abfurdity in it. There can be no Ab* 
 
 " furdity in faying, that the Father and Son are 
 " manifefted or appear in the Perfon of the Son -**£' ,5 ^« 
 " becaufe as the Father does appear in the Per- 
 " fon of the Son, and the Son appears in his 
 " own Perton, fo may Neither of them ap- 
 " pear in his own Perfon, but in the Perfon 
 " of the Holy GhcfV' And then to confirm 
 all this, you cite a paffageout of Didymus, who^. , 5 f. 
 upon the fame words, when He Jball appear, we 
 flail be like him. thus comments, " We flail be 
 *" like the Father and the Son, by partaldiig of the 
 " T> hity^ Thus again : When St Paul fays, 
 Rom. 14, 3, God hath received him •, and, ch. 
 J<y, 7, Chrifl alfo has received us to the Glory of 
 God; " the Term God (yout Z/wj) fignifies tbepag. aos. 
 " Father and the Son in the former paflage, and 
 " the Father only in the latter. 5 ' If fuch Indul- 
 gence of Imagination as this, is to be allowed in- 
 
 ftead 
 
C a8tf ) 
 
 ftead of Reafoning ; I am fure there can be nd 
 Ufe either of Speech or Writing, nor can words 
 ever have any certain and determinate Signifi- 
 cation. What the plain and true Meaning of 
 the feveral places of Scripture here referred to, 
 is ; the Dr has (I think) clearly mown in his 
 Scriptu.e-Dotfiine, N° 538 j and in his Reply to 
 Mi Nelfon, N° 29, pag. 167 ^ to which I refer 
 the Reader. 
 
 Joh. I, 3. All things were made by him. CGr< 
 «/V ccviv, through him.} 
 
 The Senfeof this Text is clearly exprefled* 
 Eph. 3, 9, God created all things by jfefus Chriji^ 
 and Heb. 1, 2, By whom alfo He made the Worlds. 
 And in This Explication, All Antient Writers 
 unanimoufly agree. Here therefore you have 
 rothing at all to objecl:. And yet no words can 
 be more clearly decifive, than thefe Texts are, 
 againft that Confufon which you indeavour to 
 introduce in the Notion of God, when you 
 would take away all real Diftin&ion between 
 God who created all things, and Him by [or 
 through^whcm God created all things. I (hall here 
 obferve only, that whereas the Antient Greek 
 Fathers perpetually ftile the Son -n-xyliTc, and 
 JV/ju.^yoV, but the Father generally ttdiu'o^ <j-$T 
 oA&v • it is as great a Deceit upon an Englifh 
 Reader to confound together thefe Terms t in 
 
 f This you have done particularly /><*£. 168, in your retiring a 
 Paffige ouc of Itea£us - f and the fame is frequently done by Ochers. 
 
 the 
 
C 287 ) 
 
 the tranflating of Quotations, (which is too fre- 
 quent a Pra&ife ot modern Writers 5) as it is 
 to take Advantage of the Ambiguity of theEng- 
 lifh word [By J to confound together the Moti- 
 on of an Efficient and of a Minifirir.g Caufe^ 
 which in the Greek are very diftinSly expref- 
 fed. 
 
 a* 
 
 Joh. V, iS.Butfaidalfo that God was his Fa- 
 ther, [VctTf cot \$iov, his own Father,'] making himr 
 felf Equal with God. 
 
 The plain and only Meaning of the Jews in 
 this "place, is to accufe our Saviour, as if his 
 calling God his Father, [d -nocniie n*, ver. I7> 
 My Father worketh hithei to, and I vork^ was 
 an afiuming to himfelf, that God whom they 
 lookt upon to be the common Father of them All* 
 was in a higher and particular manner zrccriQcc 
 tStov 9 [they are the words, not of Chrift himfelf, 
 but of the Jews that accufe d him,'] HIS Father 
 peculiarly •, and as if his joyning together and 
 comparing his Own works t°f Mercy, in healing 
 a Man on the Sabbath-day, ~] with his Father* 
 works in one and the fame Sentence, was a Sort 
 of afluming to himfelf a Power and Authority 
 like that of God : which, by way of Aggrava- 
 tion and Calumny, they reprefent as a making him- 
 felf in fome Senfe Equal with God. That this is 
 the true Meaning of the Text, Dr Clarke has 
 ihown at large in his Reply, N° 23, pag. 13? s 
 and N° 2?, pag. 147. To which, and to what 
 the ingenious Dr Bennet has faid upon this 
 Head, I refer the Reader. 
 
 In 
 
( i8S ) 
 
 In your firft Br>oh, you took a great deal of 
 pains in a dark and myftical way to perfuade 
 your Reader, that the Jews meant All This in 
 a ftri£t and metaphyseal Senfe : In Anfwer to 
 Which, Dr CI. gave a diftinft Explication of the 
 whole Difcourfe here recorded between our Savi- 
 our and the Jews ^ and from the whole Context, 
 and particularly from the Anfwer our Lord 
 gives in the following Verfes to this Calumny 
 of the Jews, has (I think) fet in a full and 
 clear Light the Senfe of the Text before us. In 
 your fecond Book, inftead of confidering the 
 Context, and fhowing that the Doctor's Expli- 
 cation of our Lord's whole Difcourfe with the 
 Jews, was not right 5 you only infijl upon it, that 
 the Jews in our Saviour s Days, to be fitrt, had 
 the fame metaphyseal Notions that you Now have : 
 M* i*9« And, " Let the Reader (you fay) compare this 
 " with the Dr's Explanation, and fee which of 
 " the two comes up neareft to the Letter of 
 *' Scripture and the Senfe of Antiquity, 
 
 I agree with you, that there needs nothing 
 more to be faid upon this Head, but only to 
 defirethe Reader to compare carefully the Two 
 Explications, and judge which is the Truth. 
 
 I fhallhere obferve only by the way, that 
 whereas you affirm, fuppopig the Jews to have 
 fpoken according to your Notions in this matter, 
 )ag. 162. " there is no Evidence they made a Mijlake • " 
 our Saviour's whole Anfwer to them in the follow- 
 ing Verfes of this Chapter, is a full Evidence, 
 that, if they bad fo meant, they had been in a 
 Mijlake. And Jujlin Martyrs whole Dialogue 
 with Trypbo the Jew, is a Great Evidence in An* 
 tiquity, that they did not fo mean. 
 
 All 
 
( *8p ) 
 
 All the tallages you cite out of Philo the pig- t's 
 Jew, are diredtly againft you. Your own Ob-^ c - 
 iervation upon them, and the Argument you ^ 
 
 build on them, is very remarkable: 4; Can it 
 ' be thought that Philo was the only Jew among prg. u$ i 
 1 the Learned, that had a right Underftanding 1*7. 
 I of the Mind of Mofes ? or that retained 
 " the Tradition, about our Saviours time, that 
 " the World Was created by the Word < f God? 
 cc It muft indeed be owned, that Philo fays 
 " nothing ot the Eijualiiy of the Son, &c." Your 
 Reafomng therefore is plainly This. Philo and 
 the Learned Jews in our Saviours time had a 
 right Underftanding of the Scriptures concerning 
 the Word or Son of God, the MeJJiah that was 
 to come. But thefe Learned Jews knew nothing 
 of the Son's being Equal to his Father. Yet This 
 you bring as an Argument to confirm what was 
 the Defign of your whole Difcourfe upon This 
 Head, viz: That the Jews in the Text before 
 Us rightly inferred from our Saviour's calling God 
 his Father , that he thereby made himfelf Equal 
 with God. Never was Any Argument more ^* 
 extraordinary. 
 
 What you offer from Novatidn, is no lefs 
 Singular. This Author (you fay) " denies anWfr'7* 
 *' Equality between the Father and the Sen in 
 " the following refped : That is, The Sou is 
 " not equal to the Father, on account of his 
 
 being Innate [Uhoriginated f] For if he were, 
 ■ there would be Two Independent Principles, 
 " and by confequence Two Gods. That he is 
 " net equal to the Eather, on account of his 
 " being the Father; For then there would be 
 " Two Fathers, and by confequence Two Gods, 
 u That he is not invijible or incompreherfible as 
 U " th« 
 
( *90 ) 
 
 " the Father, or any thing of That which is 
 " proper to the Father -, For then there rauft 
 " have been Two hwifibles and Incompnhenfibles, 
 
 " and Two Gods. But This does not infer 
 
 pgg. 171. " that he MAT not be equal to the Father in 
 " the Divine Nature, fo far ash is communicable 
 " to the Son -, or that This Author, who held 
 " him unequal in the foregoing Refpedts, 
 " MIGHT not believe and affirm him to be 
 " Equal in Others.'' Now, not to take notice' , 
 of the extraordinarinefs of the consequence in 1 
 general ; 'tis iufficient here to obferve, that 
 your alledging even what This Author MIGHT 
 believe and affirm, is founded upon a fingle 
 Paflage, wherein common Senfe evidently fhows 
 that the word iv&qualitate is nothing but an Er- 
 rour of the Tranfcriber for &qua\itate or in JE- 
 qualitate. If the Reader pleafes to confider 
 the whole pajfage, as the Dr has cited it at 
 large in his Reply, pag. 137,138} he will find 
 that the Author's Senfe neceffarily and palpably 
 requires this Emendation. 
 
 2 4- 
 
 Joh.|VIII, 58. Before Abraham was, lam. 
 
 Reply to Your Comment upon This Text, appearing 
 
 Mr Nelfon altogether unintelligible •, the Doctor only tran- 
 
 p. 141. fcribed the Sum of it, referring it to his Reader : 
 
 And Ton have Now neither objected any thing 
 
 againft His Explication, nor offered any thing 
 
 towards making more intelligible your own. 
 
 *$. 
 
( api ) 
 
 ay and 16. 
 
 Joh. X, 3*. I and my Father are One. 
 
 And 
 Joh.X, 33. That Thou, being a Man, makefl 
 thy [elf God. 
 
 Upon Thefe Texts you difcourfe, as 
 if our Saviour's faying, land my Father are One, 
 was the t Ground or Reafon of the Jews charg- 
 ing him with making himfelf God But This is 
 by no means the Cafe. For in thefe words, I 
 and my Father are One, (a very eafy and ufual 
 Figure in the Jewifh Language, Jthere is nothing 
 furprizing or difficult to underftand, any more 
 than in our Lord's faying concerning his Dif- 
 ci$\es(Joh. 17, 22,) That they may he One, even 
 as We are One 5 or in St Paul's faying concerning 
 himfelf and Apollos, (1 Cor. ?, 8,) He that 
 plantcth, andhe that watereth, are One. But the 
 Tews Charge againft our Saviour, of making 
 himfelf God, or of ajjwning to himfelf a Power 
 and Authority like that of God, was grounded 
 upon his ftyling God( in a peculiar and eminent 
 manner) HI$ Father, and thereby claiming to 
 himfelf the Title of Son of God. This appears 
 evidently from our Saviour's Reply to their Ac- 
 cufation, aer. i6,Sayye,—tbouj?lafphemeft, becaufe 
 If aid, I am the SON of God * J And from the 
 parallel place, ch. 5, 1 8, but J aid alfo. that God 
 was his FATHER, making himfelf equal with God. 
 Which Phrafes, of making himfelf Equal with 
 
 f " They charge Chrift (you fay) with calling himfelf God, abfo 
 " Iurely ; becaufe he affirmed himfelf co be One with the Father. \ 
 Page 70, of yiur former Bvl>. 
 
 U 2 God, 
 
F£.i-i4< 
 
 ( »$* ) 
 
 Cod, and making himfelf God, are by his Ac- 
 cnfers plainly uied only as aggravating expref- 
 fions of Calumny againfl: him. The whole 
 of theie Difcourfes of our Saviour with the 
 Jews, the Dr has very largely and diftintfly 
 explained in his Reply : To which, together with 
 what the Reverend Dr Bennet has faid upon the 
 fame Texts, I refer the Reader. 
 
 It is here very remarkable-, that whereas 
 you yourfelf, and All Writers who (contrary to 
 the Council ,of Nic,) contend for the No- 
 tion of Individual Subflance, generally lay a 
 very great ftrefs upon this Text before us, / 
 and my father are One -, yet, when thefe words 
 themfelves come to be particularly and diftintt- 
 ly confidered, you are forced to acknowledge 
 that the Opinion you plead for, cannot be 
 proved from This Text, until it be Rrftfuppofed 
 that it hath been before proved fome other way, 
 
 pj£. J 7o. « JF thofe Arguments (you fay) proved ; 
 
 11 it follows that there is no reafon to exclude fuch 
 " an Unity of Subftance out of the meaning 
 " of the words, I and my Father are One: Efpe- 
 " cially fince fuch a Senfe is not contradiBory 
 " to the Context, but rather confirmed by it." 
 
 h 1 &- l ~9- Again: " The Interpretation which infers no 
 " more from the following words, I and my 
 " Father are One, than an Unity in Power-, 
 ce MIGHT PROBABLY be true; did it not 
 
 fag* r/p. " appear frcm Scripture, &c". And again : 
 " That, when the Jews charged Chrift with 
 " making himfelf. God, they meant no more 
 " than that he a/fumed to himfelf the Power and 
 
 "Authority of 'God, MIGHT alfo 
 
 " I ROB ABLY be true-, were it not already 
 " proved that the Jews had a Notiou, &c. 
 
 Thus 
 
( 293 ) 
 
 Thus the thing to be proved is firfl: taken for 
 granted •, and that it mvfl needs be in this Text, 
 merely becaufeitis/wppo/fitohavebeen already 
 deduced from fome other Texts: And, inftead, 
 of thofe other Texts, we are fent to Fathers, 
 and myftical Interpretations: And at laft the p ag . i~ 7 . 
 Scripture-pat t of your Argument, terminates 
 wholly in Chrift's having the Name Jehovah 
 given him in the Old Teftament. Which, if 
 it be True, is yet (as I have abundantly mown 
 already) nothing t© your Purpofe. For Jeho-^ I? ^ 
 vah being notorioufiy Always the Name or 
 Title of a Living Ferfcv, not of an abftraft Sub- 
 Jianee • 'tis moft evident, if it be given to the 
 Son, it muft of neceffity fignify either that 
 the Son is himfelf the Living Ferfon of the Fa- 
 ther, or elfe that he is fo fryled as being the 
 Reprefevtative of the Father, or elfe that there 
 are Two Jehovah 1 s in That One and the fame 
 Subftance. None of which, are of any Ad- 
 vantage to your Opinion. 
 
 2-7- 
 Joh. XII, 4T. Thefe things [all Ifaias, when 
 he Jaw bis Glory, and /pake of him. 
 
 That This Text has reference to the Sixth 
 Chapter of Ifaiah, is agreed on all hands. In 
 That Chapter, there appears to Ifaiah, in a 
 Vifion, a Reprefentation of God, (that is, of 
 the t Father.) fitting on a Throne of Glory, 
 
 f This you yourfelf ackiiowledge, inconfiftendy enough with vour- 
 felf, fug. 185 •, " In Jfaiab the Sixch, (you fay,) it is a Rcprcfenta- 
 " rion of rhe Father • as appears bv comparing vet: 3, with hev. 4, 
 *' 8, which belongs to the Father .'* 
 
 U 3 and 
 
( *94 ) 
 
 and the Hoft of Heaven {landing about him. 
 In which Vifion, God reveals to Ifatab the 
 Coming of Chrift. By This Revelation there- 
 fore, Ifaiah faw, that is, for ej aw, the Glory of 
 thrift : Juft as Abraham eamefily dejired to fee 
 fyyockKiaovLTo hoc \d >, Joh. 8, 56,] CbriJFs 
 day, and he faw it, [that is, forefaw it,U and 
 was glad. Inftead of this plain Account of 
 the Text 5 you would fain have your Reader 
 fuppofe, that the Perfon there reprefented (Ifa t ! 
 6, 1,) as fitting upon the Throne, (and whom you 
 yowfelfi as I now obferved, acknewledge to be 
 the Father, according to the meaning of the 
 Prophet^ yet J is Both Father and Son, that is, 
 Two Perfons : Which is a direct Contradi&ion. 
 You contend, I fay, (not, as the Antient Fa- 
 thers generally do, that the vifible or Reprefen- 
 ting Perfon, is the Son •, but) that the Perfon 
 Reprefented, is Both Father and Son. 'Tis not 
 reafonable the Reader ihould believe you can 
 be guilty of fo grofs an Abiurdity, till he fees 
 ycur own Words. " 'Tis certain (you fay,) 
 fag. 184. « t hat t he Qi or y U p on t he Throne", \_thefe 
 words, by the way, are a grofs Corruption of the 
 Text -, For the Text doesnot fpeak of a Glory, hut 
 exprejly of a Perfon ^ ver. 1 ,1 faw the "Lord fitting 
 
 upon a Throne, even the King, the Lord of 
 
 Hofis, ver. 5 . Ibis Perfon therefore, whom you 
 corruptly, and merely for the fake of introducing 
 corfufion, call a Glory, fitting upon the Throne -,] 
 " was (you tell us) a vifible Reprefentation of 
 " Both Perfons, of the Father and of the Son-" 
 For further explication of which, you add 7 
 that 'tis a Reprefentation fometimes of the Fa- 
 ther, fomtimes of the Son, and fometimes of 
 ■pag. i£$. Both together, ift, " Sometimes of the Fa- 
 " ther, diftinft from the Reprefentation given 
 i" of the Son ^ as Rev. 4, 3 $ and 5, 1 ; where 
 1 " the 
 
C «-9% ) 
 
 " the Glory upon the Throne" [here alfo the 
 Text mentions no Glory, but plainly a Perfon 
 fitting upon the Throne, and holding a Book in 
 his right hand,~\ '* reprefents the Father, as 
 " diftinguifhed from the Lamb or reprefenta- 
 " tion of the Son upon the fame Throne, ver. 
 6 *. 5> [not upon the Throne, but (landing in the 
 miijl, before Him that fat on the Throne^ 
 
 " And the like may be faid of Dan. 7 5 
 
 " 9 , 135 and Aas ls ^: 3 frdly,) " Some-P- 1 *- lS *« 
 " times the Glory was a Representation of the 
 " Son, who is allowed by All Antiquity 
 
 " to be manifefted in the Glory fitting upon 
 " the Throne : " f Never did Any Antient Wri- 
 ter under jland Him that fat on the Throne, to he 
 a Reprefentation of the Son ; but they frequently 
 apprehended him to be the Son Reprefenting the 
 Father. ~] Yet This you repeat again, pag, 195, 
 " The Divine Glory fitting upon the Throne, 
 " is generally allowed to be the Manifejlation of 
 " the S071" (idly,)" In the Text before us,;**. 185. 
 " or in Ifai. 6, it is a Reprefentation of the 
 r< Father, (as appears by comparing ver. 3, 
 '* with Rev. 4, 8, which belongs to the far 
 " ther-,) and of the Son, Joh. 12,41. That is •, 
 " when there is no other appearance of a 
 " divine Perfon, befides the Glory" [befides 
 the Perfon, you ought to fay, according to All 
 the Texts,! " fitting upon the Throne ; this is 
 " a Reprefentation of Father and Son together.'' 
 I believe, iince the Days the Scriptures were 
 writ, there never was any thing advanced more 
 dire&ly contrary to the Texts, or more Abfurd in 
 itfelf. 
 
 " The Notion of Perfon (j&u Jay) in relati- /vrf. i8*« 
 " tion to the Creature, is taken from Ohfervati- 
 " on and feniible Experience •, The Notion of 
 
 U 4 Perfon 
 
( *9 6 >) 
 
 'f Feifcn in Relation to God, is taken from 
 " Rttielation.* This one Sentence, evidently 
 fhoyirs the Erroneoufnefs of your whole Scheme. 
 For there is nowhere in Scripture any the leaft 
 Intimation of God's being (pokenof as a Per- 
 fcv, in any other than in the viigar and commot\ 
 Senfe, iuppofcd to be in courie underftood by 
 all Mankind. Thus in this yery Chapter, I- 
 fa'iah 6 -, I, $ 7 The Lord fitting upon a Throne, 
 
 - even the KING, the Lord of Hojls. tour 
 
 Notion of Ferfon, is not a Revelation, bu£ 
 the D< chine ot' Late and Scbolaftick Writers of 
 Metaphyiicks. 
 
 y^. 187. li Divine Revelatim (yon add) and the gene- 
 " ral Senfe of the Cbnrcb founded thereupon 
 " ircm the very Beginning, is to be appealed 
 " to for the Meaning of the word Perfon, when 
 " fpoken oi God. I fay then, that according 
 " to Scripture, and the general Senfe of the 
 " Church founded thereupon from the very Be- 
 " ginning, cjfc/ 3 Here you exprefs your whole 
 Notion, in two cr three Pages of the moil 
 perfed Jargon. In which a careful Read-: 
 er cannot" fail to cbferve, how you infenflbly 
 Hide hem the plain Doctrine of Scripture, 
 down into the fineix and moft inextricable Cob- 
 webs, fpim (as the excellent Arch-Bifhop 'fillot- 
 fen expreifts it) by the Schoolmen cut of their 
 own Brains. For your conftant Rule is, to un- 
 derhand Texts of Scripture, not as the Senfe 
 of the place requires, but as explained by the 
 fathers-, and thofe Explications, as interpreted 
 hy Later Writers-, and thofe Interpretations, as 
 finally fitted up by the Schoolmen; till at laft 
 there remains 1:0 more Similitude between the 
 Text and the Comment, than between Light anfl 
 Dm hifs. 
 
 The 
 
(• *91 ) 
 
 The Dr cited here a large PafTage out of f ^ 
 Jujiin Mai tyr •, the Senfe of which PafTage you^ p> , 5S> 
 acknowledge to be this, " that the Son is 
 
 41 not a mere Power of the Father, but that 
 
 " he is a /??<*/ P/?j/o« diftincl: from the Father 5 ' 
 To which you anfwer, that you" own him to be**&- ts 9> 
 t£ a dijlinB Per f 071 from the Father" But no fen- ,9 °' 
 fible Reader can mifs obferving, that Juflin 
 Mai tyr by a dijlbift Per f on, means a real Perfon \ 
 but you, only a nominal Perfcn. And 'tis piea- 
 fant to remark how, a little after, 3?^ tell us 
 that fome Other words of Jvjlin, (by the Help ?*&■ 1 97* 
 of two or three abfurd Confequences which 
 you draw/or him,,) " RATHEii fhew that He 
 
 " believed the Son to be one Being with 
 
 " the Father f and that " the Son with the/"** »?8. 
 " Father MUST be the One necefuy Being. " 
 And that " St Cyprian may REASOAABLT be '*** 
 " SUPPOSED to have believed them to have 
 " been One Being." And that Jheophilus andM* '9$» 
 Jrenaus '* fhew indeed that the Son was not 
 " the fame Perfon with the Father:, but do 
 " not DENT, nay RATHER their Writings 
 
 " f ll PP°f e tbzt ne was ® ne B ei71 g with him " 
 Are not thefe excellent Foundations, to build fo 
 material a Do&rine upon > 
 
 Upon the Doctor's affirming that God is, 
 not only (to c) individually one Being, but alfo 
 (d &) individually one intelligent Agent or Perfon -, 
 you iw/J? upon it, that the Term " b <& v re- ' 
 " lates not to Perfon, but to 3?®- :" And from 
 hence ycu draw Confequences at large, in a 
 manner very well worth the curious Readers 
 careful Perufal. But the Foundation of your 
 
 AlTcrtion, is, in the very Nature of Language,^ Ig8 ] 
 necefiarily abfurd. For 3to'« cannot be refer- 
 
 }*£■ 102, 
 
 red 
 
t*i. 191. 
 
 f 298 ) 
 
 red to, in Cafes where it has not been bef ore-men- 
 dotted •, as often happens in places where the 
 Jerni &) occurs. And in fuch Conftru&ions 
 as This, 3eo'< 'Qnv &f 9 'tis as abfurd and un- 
 grammatical a Tautology to fuppofe iLv re- 
 iersto^eoc; as in that other Expreflion, d/etc 
 ccyoc$oc 9 h (j.k e'c, Sibs, to fuppofe »</*&§ and 
 its referring to 3to^, and confequently to rend- 
 er it thus, There is ?w God good, but One God, 
 which is GOD. 
 
 " Jufiin Martyr (you add) fays, that the Son 
 " fpake thefe words to Mofes, ty& efyu &V.* 1 
 Tis true that Jufiin Martyr does lay fo. But 
 'tis alfo as true, that through his whole Book he 
 largely and induftrioufly labours to lhow, that 
 he fpake thofe words in the Per/on of the Fa- 
 ther, or as the Rsprefcntative of the invifible Fa- 
 ther, and not in his own {Per fan --, Direcny con- 
 trary to what you affirm, pag. 198. 
 
 tug. 192, You complain again, that " the Dr does not 
 & 193, & " explain" what he means by the Son's " having 
 203. " true Div'viity and Dominion commimicatedto him 
 
 " from the Father, To this, an Anfwer has 
 
 been given above, pag, 224. 
 
 28. 
 
 A&sVII j 30, 31, 52. There appeared to him 
 -an Angel of the Lord in a Flame of Fire in 
 
 the Bitjl). And the Voice of the Lord came 
 
 vvto him, faying, I am the God of thy Fathers, 
 the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, 
 and the God of Jacob, 
 
 The 
 
( 299 ) 
 
 The Perfon here fpeaking to Mofes, muft of 
 Mecellity be either God, the Father, himfelf ^ 
 or, the Son Sot, an ordinary Angel, ifl, That 
 the Father himfelf never appeared or /pake, is 
 agreed on all Hands : Bim, no Man hath feen at 
 any Time ; Te hdye neither heari). his Voice, at any 
 time, nor Jeenhis Shape •, Joh. 1, 18, and 5, 
 37 : And, "tis hnpious to imagine (fays the t Sy- 
 nod of Antioch) Wat the God of the Univerfe j ac< f *[. 
 fioidd be called an Angel. 2. If it was an ordi~ tc & at 
 nary Angel, that fpake to Mofes •, then 'tis un- length in 
 deniable evident, that he could not fay, Zd77* DrC,arkc ' s 
 the God of thy Fathers, any ether wile than ^^ifon 
 as (peaking in the Name or Perfon of God,p lt t ^* 
 wh r fe Meflcnger he was. 3. If it was the Son 
 that fpake ; ftill 'tis very apparent from his 
 being here ftiled the Angel of the Lord, that he 
 did not fpeak of Himfelf, but in the Name and 
 as the Reprefentative of tab Father, when he 
 faid, I am the God of thy Fathers, the God of 
 Abraham, &c. For who the God of the Fathers 
 is, we are expresfly told by St Peter, ABs 3, 1 3, 
 The God of Abraham and of Ifaac and of Jacob, t, 
 the God of our Fathers, has glorified HIS Son Je~ 
 fus. Here the Apoftle in direct words affirms, 
 that The God of our Fathers is He who glorified 
 HIS Son Jefus. If therefore He who glorified HIS 
 Son Jefus, be the Father, and not both Father 
 and Son ; it follows demonftratively, that the 
 God of our Fathers is not the Father and Son 
 together, (as you, in direct Contradiction to 
 the Text, affirm, pag, 202 •,) but the Father 
 
 ojily. 
 
 " The Authorities (you fay) cited by the Dr, pH ^ 
 " {hewed indeed that the Son appeared and acr- 
 " ed in the Perfon and Name of the Father \ but 
 
 "did 
 
( loo ^ 
 
 " did not deny that he aded in his own Nam* 
 iC and Per fon alfo 9 ' I think, this is a plain Con- 
 tradiction. Your own explication of it in the 
 larger PalTages which I have cited above, pag. 
 276, and which I defirethe Reader to confult ; 
 make it (if poflible) more plainly fuch. 
 
 fag. 200. You acknowledge, that to fay one perfon was 
 Sent by another, is " to make him a different 
 " and fubordinate Perfon, that could be fent 
 
 " by him. But how this affects 35 your 
 
 " Inference, that the Son with the Father is'tbe 
 11 necejfary Being it f elf, ' you cannot telC I 
 doubt not but the Reader can tell ^ And there- 
 fore I leave it to him. 
 
 />,.". 5oi. To your repeated Aflertion, that " the 
 c Name Jehovah is ?given to the Father and 
 
 fag. 2o2. L ' the Son-," and that " Jehovah is the Fa- 
 " ther and Son Tog&ier ; " I have given a di- 
 ftinct Anfwer above, pag. 235 and 274. 
 
 p4g. ;cr. You ask \ " if Father and Son be the One 
 c< and only God, why fliould the Dr, contrary to 
 u Scripture, call the Father the One and only 
 " true God, in ContradiftincHon to the Son}' 9 
 The Anfwer is given by St Paid, 1 Cor. 8, 6, 
 '- To Us there is but One God, the Father," in 
 exprefs Contradiftin&ion to, " One Lord, Je- 
 " Jus Chrijl 5" And again, Eph. 4, 6, " One 
 '■' God and Father of all," in exprefs Contradi- 
 " frinc~tion to, " One Lord and One Spirit-" 
 And by our Saviour himfelf, Joh. 17, 3, that 
 " they might know Thee the Only True God," in 
 exprefs Contradiftin&ion to, " Jefus Chrift 
 c ' whom thou haft fent^ 'Tis fomewhat too 
 much, to take it for granted, that thefe plain 
 Texts are contrary to Scripture. 
 
 To 
 
( jo* ) 
 
 To conclude this Head. The Reader can na 
 way better underftand the Senfe of the Text 
 before us, than by comparing together the fol- 
 lowing PafTages of Scripture. 
 
 Ads 7 -, 30, 31, 32. There appeared tobim 
 — an Angel of the Lord in a Flame of Fire 
 
 in the BuJJ). And the voice of the Lord came 
 
 tmto him, faying, I am the God of thy Fathers, 
 the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and 
 the God of Jacob. 
 
 Gen. 16 -, io, 13. The Angelof the Lord fail 
 unto her, I will multiply 8cc. -—And fie cal- 
 led the Name of the Lord that f pake imto her, Ihou 
 Godfeejl me. 
 
 Gen. 48 5 1$, 16. Ihe God which fed me all 
 my Life long unto this Day, The Angel which re- 
 deemed me from all evil, blefs the Lads. 
 
 Exod. 23-, 20, 21. Behold, I fend an Angel 
 
 before thee : He will not pardon your Tt anf' 
 
 greffions, for my Name is in Him. 
 
 Judg. 2, I. An Angel of the Lord, faid; 
 
 I made you to go up out of Egypt, \ unto the 
 
 Land which Ifware unto your Fathers. 
 
 Judg. 1 3-, 21, 71. He was an Angel of the 
 Lord: And Mancah faid, we JI)all furely die, be- 
 caufe we havefeen God. 
 
 Ecclef 5, 6. Neither fay thou before the An- 
 gel, that it was an Err our, 
 
 Ifai. 63, 9. The Angel of his Prefence faved 
 them. 
 
 Hofea 12; 3, 4. He had Power with God, 
 yea, he had Power over the Angel, and pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Zech. 3,1, 2. Standing before the Angel 
 
 of the Lord, And the Lord faid unto Satan, 
 
 the LORD rebuke thee, Satan. [Compare, 
 
 Jude 
 
( 5 02 ) 
 
 jfude 9. Alfo Rev. 12, 7 j and ZXi«. 10, 21 * 
 and 12, ij 
 
 Zech. ' 2, 8. Shall be as God, as the Angel of 
 the Lord. 
 
 Mai. 3, I. Ny Mefftnger, the Lord tfhont 
 
 yefeek, - • even the Mrjjhiger of the Covenant. 
 
 If. 9, 6. Wonderful, Counfellor, The Mighty 
 God. [According to the LXX, and as cited 
 by all the Antients, uiydAvs f&sAMs'A^tM^ 
 Tfo -4wjp/ 0/ £is Gre at Connfel.'] 
 
 Rom. XIV; 9,10,11, 12. That He [Chnftl 
 might be the Lord both of the Dead and Living. 
 
 - We Jhall all ft and before the Judgment-feat 
 
 of Chrift. For it is written • As I live, faith the 
 Lord, every Knee ft: all bow to me, and every Tongue, 
 0) all confefs to God. 
 
 Since God hath appointed and ordained Chrift 
 to judge the World, Acis 17, 31 -, and 10,42 ; 
 mid Job 5, 22-, and Rom. 2, J 6 ; one would 
 think there fhould be no great Difficulty in ap- 
 prehending, how giving an Account to Chrift \ 
 by whom God judges the world, is confequently 
 giving an Account to God, who judges the World 
 by rhrift. 
 
 Againft This, you have nothing to allege. 
 Only you wifh your Reader would rather in a 
 confvfed Manner underftand God and Chrift to 
 mean in this Text one and the fame Perfoft ; 
 though, for Forms fake, you will not call them 
 one Per f on, but owe Being. 
 
 In youvfirft Book, you cited upon this Head 
 a paflage out of Iven&us : Which the Doctor, in 
 
 hi J 
 
( 3°J ) 
 
 his Reply, tranfcribed and obferved to be, not 
 
 for yon, but direftly againfi you. And Now youptfr 204.' 
 
 think it appears very Jirange, he mould not tell 
 
 you wherein the Contrariety confifts. The words 
 
 of Iren&us are : That every 
 
 Knee might bow to Chrijl *h& %exrt? ^h 5 "* w) weiV 
 
 Jefus, our Lord, and God, ^ % *}*&*$*? $ C *' 
 and Saviour and .King ac- T ^ * do ^ 7Vj m£¥ y4 „ 
 cording to tbeCrUUD PLtA- i&V-^ & c « llb > i>~ ca P' l0 - 
 SURE of the invifible Father. 
 
 Thefe words you Thus (and indeed very rightly) /><*£• 204* 
 underftand •, that [every Knee might bow, accord" 
 ing to the Good Pleafure of the invifible Father, 
 to Chrift yefus, our Lord and God and Saviour 
 and King ' Whereas (you fancy) the Do&or in- 
 terpreted the paflage, as if Imuuts had faid, 
 that the Son was Lord and God and Saviour and 
 King, according to the good Pleafure of the invifi- 
 ble Father. Had he fo interpreted it, the Senfe 
 would Drill have been exactly the fame But, 
 I think, he did not fo interpret it, but barely 
 placed the EngliJI) words in the very fame Lati- 
 tude of Conftrudion with the Greek ones. The 
 evident Contrariety of Iren&us's words to your 
 potion, lies in This : that He affirms it to be 
 upon Account of the good Pleafure of the inviji- 
 ble Father, that every Knee bows to Chrift Jefus, 
 as our Lord and God and Saviour and King ; where- 
 as your Notion (of the Father and Son being 
 one Individual,) fuppofes this Homage due to 
 Chrift altogether independent on the Fathers 
 Good Pleafure, being as much due to him antece* 
 dent to any Signification of the Father's WUlor Co?n- 
 viand, as it is due to the Father himfelf. 
 
 3©. 
 
( 2°4 ) 
 
 30. 
 
 Heb. XIII, 8. JefusChriJf, the fame Teprday, 
 
 and to Day,, and for ever. 
 
 The whole Sentence runs thus : Whofe Faith 
 follow, [viz. that of the Apoftles who firft in- 
 ftrudted you,] confdering the End of their Con- 
 vet fatten: JtfusQhnf, the fame Tefer day, and to 
 Day, and for ever : Be not carried about with di- 
 vers andfrange DoBrines. That is: Adhere fted- 
 faftly to the Faith of the Apoftles, and be not 
 perplext with Doctrines brought in by other 
 Teachers arifing after them : For Jefus Chrift is 
 the fame Saviour, and his Gofpel the fame Go- 
 fpel, to Them at firft, and to Tou now, and to 
 All Generations that are to come hereafter. 
 t<t£ 208, Againft This, you have nothing to offer -, but 
 209 and a Supposition, that this Epiftle pojfibly was writ- 
 2I °- ten in Hebrew -, and a Suppoftion that, in That 
 Hebrew, (inftead of, d airro^ The Same,) the 
 Author might pojfbly have writ, sin He\ and a 
 Suppoftion that, if the Author did ufe that 
 word He, he might pojfibly intend to have it un- 
 derstood in the dark and cabbaliflical Senfe, as 
 intimating the Immutability of the divine Na- 
 ture. Pojfibly you may think it f range in This 
 place, (as you did under the laji Head about the 
 paiTage of Iren&us,) that it mould not be told 
 you if herein thefe Suppofitions fail of being 
 convictive. But I think this may well be 
 afted with theReader. 
 
 3i- 
 
C 307 ) 
 
 Mark XIN, 32. But of that Day mid Hour 
 hioweth no Man ; no, not the Avgeh which are in 
 Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father j [but 
 my Father only, Matt. 24, 36.] 
 
 Upon this Text you have nothing to offer *, 
 And therefore I refer the Reader to what the 
 Do&or has faid in his Reply. ***' x 1 U 
 
 3 1. 
 ]oh. XIV, 28. My Father is Greater than 1. 
 
 Againfi: the Do&or's Interpretation of this 
 Text alfo, you have nothing to allege : And 
 therefore I refer the Reader to the Books above- 
 mentioned. 
 
 You only repeat, by the way, that " wide- fag. itt. 
 " rived and imbegotten are Negative Characters, 
 " and derived and begotten are pojitive Charad:- 
 " ers •, Neither of them affecting the Subflance 
 14 of the Perfons." Which Anertion how ab- 
 furd it is, I have diffindtly fhown above, pag t 
 216, &c. 
 
 n- 
 
 Phil. II-, 6, 7,-^-1 1. Who being hi the Form 
 of God, thought it not Robbery to be equal with 
 God -, [Who, though he was in the Form of 
 God, yet did not take upon him to be equal 
 with God*, or, was not greedy of being ho«: 
 
 X Hoursdi 
 
■ ( 3 o5 ; 
 
 ncured as God •, or, did not look upon that 
 Honour as a Prize to be eagerly held faft and 
 not parted with Q But made himfelfof no Re- ', 
 pntation, \jiidv<i.a*, devefted himfelf oi the Glo- ■ 
 ry he before pofieft Q and took upon him the 
 farm of a Savant, and was made hi the hikenefs 
 of Men, [took upon him the Form of a Ser- 
 vant, being made in the Likenefs of Men:"] 
 
 and humble dhhnf elf & c , Wherefore Godal- 
 
 fo hath highly exalted him, ami given him a Name 
 MJ) is above every Name ^ &c. 
 
 Againft the Dr's Tranflation and Explica- 
 tion of this Text alfo, this very remarkable Text ; 
 you have not a Syllable to offer. And there- 
 fore I refer the Reader to what he has at large 
 alleged in his Saipture-Dotfrin; upon thisHead -, 
 and in his Reply to Mr Nelfon upon the fame 
 Head', pag, jdi and alio pag. 138 and 
 140 of the laid Reply: As alio to what 
 Dr Bewirt has laid at large upon this 
 Text. 
 
 I fhall here further obferve only by the way, 
 that in That paftage of lertullian againft Prax- 
 eas, chap. 7 •, cited by Bp Pull, Setf. 2, c. 7, 
 § 4, [Exinde emu PAREM fbi facievs, de quo 
 procedendo Film faBvs ejl • J a careful Reader 
 will find that xhtSenfeoi the whole paifage ne- 
 celTarily requires it to be read, not PAREM, 
 but PATREM. For Tertullian could not there 
 mean to fay, that the Word, or Son, made God to 
 he equal to him, which is neither Senfe, nor 
 to Tcrtullians Pmpofe • but that the Word, be- 
 ing fiyled (among ether Titles there mentio- 
 ned) primogevitus the firftVbegotten, thereby 
 caufed God to have the Denomination of Father, 
 ixcxn whom he proceeded as a San. 
 
( 3©7 ) 
 
 9 Tis alfo plainly in Alluflon to this very Text, 
 that LaBantius (as cited and tranilated by Dr CI. 
 in hisiScripture-DoBrbie,) expreiTes himfelf in the 
 following uncommon Manner. s&rijt 9 fays 
 he, was Faithful to God -, For he taught that there 
 is but One God, and that He only is to be worflnp- 
 ped. Nor did he ever call 'Himfelf God ^ becaufe 
 be had not been Faithful, if, 
 being fent to take away the l?ia* 
 tiy Gods, and to declare the 
 One, he had introduced any 
 Other befides the One. For 
 this would have been, not 
 preaching the One God, nor 
 doing the Work of Him that 
 fcnt hhn, but hh Own work ; 
 and Jo he would have feparated 
 himfelf from Him, whom he 
 came to Declare. Now be- 
 caufe he was fo Faithful, and 
 ajfumed nothing to Himfelf, 
 but only performed the Com- 
 mands of Him that fent him % 
 therefore he w&s invtfed with 
 the Dignity of an .everlajling 
 High-Priefl, the Honour of a 
 Supreme King, and the Na??is 
 Lor Title] of GOD. 
 
 Tile veio exhibuit Deo fi- 
 dew ; docuic enirii quod unui 
 D;us fir, eumq; folum co!i 
 oportere; nee unquam fe ipfe 
 Deum dixie, quia non fervaflec 
 fid em, fi mitfus uc Deos tollerec 
 & Unum afTcreret, induceret 
 Aiium prater Unum. Hocerat, 
 non de Uno Deo facere prseco- 
 nium ; nee ejus qui miferat, 
 fed fuum proprium negotium 
 gererc ; ac fe ab eo, quern il- 
 luftratum venerat, feparare. 
 Propcerca, quia cam fidelis ex- 
 ticic, quia fibi nihil prorfus 
 affumpfit, uc mandaca Mitten- 
 cis irnplerec ; & Sacerdotis per- 
 pecui Dignitatem, & Regi? 
 fummi honorem, & DE/nomeri 
 accepic. LaZUnt. lib. 4. iafl 
 14. 
 
 J 4- 
 
 Col. T, t$. Who is the Image of the itwiJibU 
 God, the frji-born of every Creature . 
 
 In your Commentary upon this Text, there 
 is nothing relating to . the Senfe of the 
 Text itfelfj but only an Account of a myfiical 
 and fanciful Interpretation of that paffage of 
 
 ■Mi the 
 
( 3*8 ) 
 
 the Pfalmifr, My Heart is inditing a good 
 Matter ; and an unintelligible Difcourfe 
 about the Notion of fome Antient "Wri- 
 ters (condemned by the Council of Sirmium,) 
 that the Son is Ao%©- evSiaSeT©-' and -kzoqc- 
 £<ko?, th e Internal Re aj on or Wifdom of the Father, 
 produced in Time into a perfonal Suhfftence. Con- 
 
 jtfr Ae//™° cernin § wtncn Notion, the Dr obferved, that 
 ? , 77 : Both parts of it could not be literally true. For 
 if the Term [A<fy©- The Word] fignifies literally 
 the internal Reafon or Wifdom of God, then it 
 cannot poflibly be a Ferfon literally and in rea- 
 lity, but is only figuratively fpoken of As a Per- 
 fon : And, on the contrary, if it fignifies lite- 
 rally a Real divine Ferfon by whom the Father 
 manifefts himfelf to his Creatures ; then 
 it can only figuratively, and not literally and 
 in metaphyfical reality, be Ailed the Wifdom 
 or Reajon of the Father. So that, to confound 
 inconfiftently thefe two Notions Together -, ma- 
 king That which is literal, to be at the fame 
 time figurative 5 and That which is only figurative, 
 to be at the fame time literal alfo ; is a mani- 
 M* 221. feft Abfurdity. To this, you anfwer: " As 
 <c for confounding that which is literal with the 
 iC figurative, and the figurative with the literal ; 
 " if it fhould prove true, it does not affedt Me, 
 " who gave only a ihort Extract out of the 
 " Writings of thofe Fathers, to (how that they 
 " held the Perfonal exiftence of the Son with 
 " the Father from all Eternity." But this is 
 a very frank Confeflion indeed. For 'tis with 
 Much Approbation that you cite and enlarge up- 
 on the Notion of thefe Writers, fo expresfly 
 condemned by the Council of Sirmium. And 
 t*£ 2I 7 if theyfuppofed (as you contend they did) that 
 and 221. ^ Q^y^ i\$i6$ir(Q-) Internal Reafon of the 
 Father^ was eternally a PERSON, though 
 
 not 
 
( 3°9 ) 
 
 not (ttqoqoqikoc) Produced till the "World was to 
 be created ♦, this is plainly, in the higheft De- 
 gree, making that Confufion of literal and figu- 
 rative Expreffions, which the Dr took Notice 
 of. 
 
 And you frill more direttly fhow your Ap- 
 probation of this Confufion, in what follows. 
 For whereas fome Writers had argued that it 
 was an Impoflibility in Nature for the Father to 
 exift without the Son, becaufe fo he would be 
 f«Ao>©^ and Kffocp©-] without Reafon or V r if- 
 dom : Inftead of acknowledging the Weaknefs 
 of this Argument, you indeavour to vindicate 
 it by a Defenfe yet more abfurd : '.' As for what pag. 223. 
 " is meant (you fay,) when it is faid that the 
 " Father, confidered diftin&ly without the Son, 
 would be xKoyQ-^" [without his Reafon or Wif 
 dom j3 " it is not that the Attribute of Reafon 
 " or Rational Power would be feparated from 
 " the Father, but the Begotten Logos or lfifdom 
 only. That is, you fuppofe the Force of the Ar- 
 gument to be this only } that if the Father was 
 confidered without the Son, he would then be 
 confidered without the Son. 
 
 35- 
 
 Matt. IV, T. Then was jfefus led up of the 
 Spirit ijito the JFildernefs 
 
 This Text, you Now omit wholly. 
 
 X 3 36. 
 
( 3 1 o 3 
 
 Luke IV, 18. T/>e Spirit of the Lord is upon 
 pie, becaufe be hath anointed mc to preach the Go- 
 /pel to the Poor. 
 
 Upon this Text alfo, you have nothing to 
 allege, 
 
 . 37- 
 
 Ads XXVIII. 2?, 26, 27. Well fpake the 
 Holy Ghcft by Ifaiah the Prophet unto our Fa- 
 thers, faying, Go unto this People, and Jay &c. 
 « and IJhould heal them. 
 
 That which, you would infer from This Text, 
 t*l 22 7> is; thai the Lord, (not the Glory, as you con- 
 *"nd 252! fafedly affett to call it •, but the Lord, the Br- 
 /071; whom Ifaiah faw' fitting upon a Throne, 
 (7/ar. 6,1,) was the Holy Ghofl as well as the 
 Father. Nothing can be more evidently con- 
 trary to the whole Tenour of Scripture, or more 
 contradictory in itfelf 5 than that the Appear- 
 ance of a Man, (fo 37-011 exprefs it, pag. 228, 
 from the parallel place, Ezek. i, 26 J lhould re- 
 prefent at one and the fame time More Perfons 
 than One. The plain Meaning of the Text, 
 is • that Ifaiah, by the Infpiration of the Holy 
 Ghcjl, faw, in a Villon, a Reprcfentation of 
 God, fitting upon his Throne, an dfpeaking un- 
 to him. And becaufe 'twas by the Infpiration 
 of the Holy G'oojl, that Ifaiah faw this Repre- 
 fentation of God, fpeaking to him and fending 
 him unto the Children of Ifr2el ; therefore the 
 .Apoftle in the Text before us, very properly 
 fays, that the Holy Ghofl fpake BT Ifaiah the Pro- 
 phet 
 
C 3" ) 
 
 phetimto cur Fathers. This clearly takes away- 
 all the Coniufionycu introduce, a brut Gjas 
 fpeaking, and ihe Spirit fpcakivg, and the Father 
 fpeaking exchifive or inch five oj the Sph it j and 
 much more to the fame Purpoie, which the Plead- 
 er may confider at his Leifure, jfag 2 27— 2 ; 5. 
 
 As to the Signification of the word '.fLiom^ ^ 2? J' 
 which you fnppofe to be equivalent to wevroi:- 1 "' z * ' 
 cr& or />tovo^«ri(G) , and to exprefs Individuality of 
 Subfiance ; the contrary has frequently been very 
 clearly fliown by many Learned Writer?, and 
 particularly by Bp Bdi'iu his Defafo Fidei Ni~ 
 cena, Seel. IT, cap. 1. The paiTages you cite, 
 wherein the Phrafes, TaiTim r i'\\c s<oias,and 
 tVc auTM? i<ff)^c^ and tcx-vtotvc t^ <pi.ff^>s 7 are 
 ufed ; are all bejides your Purpofe : Becaufe the 
 word TKtTOTt^ fignifies equally a geverical, as 
 well as an individual Samenefs. Wherefore 
 though the word Toanoso^© , which is in its 
 Etymology ambiguous, (if good Authors had 
 not chofen to confine the Ule of it to the fame 
 Senfewith w<&' (<? ,) might, as well as W 
 <*^©-', have fignifed a Covp&pajihalrty riot indi- 
 vidual 1 yet, on the other fide, the word old - 
 <ri(G) , which is not ambiguous, cannot, like 
 tocvtox<J'(G)-, exprefs an individual Confubflantiali- 
 ty. ISIor is your alleging the words hujD^r^oi 
 and ofs.or aTQioi, any whit more to your Pur- 
 pofe : For as thofe words fignify Perfons who 
 fpring from the fame individual Father or /Mother, 
 not, who ai e the?nfelves the fame Individual •, fo 
 o/co^o-ioi liktwife fignifies them who fpring [in 
 rv,c diVTvc i<nm<] from the fame individual Sub- 
 fiance, not, who axe themfelvei the fame Indivi- 
 dual. 
 
 X 4 After 
 
( 3** ) 
 
 &!«! ^ Afte r r ^ his ' for ^elve or fourteen Pages toge- 
 ther, fc .lows a . Collection of Citations, all out 
 
 SL*v S nt ? S ln the f° urth ^ fifth Centuries : 
 Which therefore need no Anfwer. Only face 
 you have quoted One PafTage out of the Coun- 
 terfeit Author of the $nefi. & Refponf ad Or- 
 thodoxos h I flial], to fhow you how inconfiftent 
 a Writer he is, re f er you to Another paflage of 
 
 Tl2* I *d< M,*r& *£- §j* & m C% s ty *■ ^d 
 
 pTM, U r£v Mo vtoreimop J: lled \ "compounded, fee- 
 
 ocMtsaieou voxixivav, Tmr^ot \i* nig he is compounded of Two 
 
 y» x, i?«, £hU n**<»™ /</>- perfons confiibfiantial the F a - 
 
 5«wi *£•»/ j £«*/*. 1^9. J° w °7 a particular Subjlance 
 
 [or EiTence,] the Holy Spirit t 
 His Anfwer to this ^ueftion, the Reader may 
 
 confult at his Leifure. 
 
 38. 
 
 Joh. Ill, 5. Except a Man be born -of 
 
 the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of 
 God. 
 
 t -. < ^7 the word Gai here, you defire your 
 * «' 25 *' Reader to underftand the #<% Ghofi h and con- 
 fequently, by the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom 
 of the Hol]GhoJl : A Phrafe that has no paral- 
 lel in Scripture, nor (I think) in Any Chrifti- 
 an Writer. W T hether our Saviour really meant 
 in this place, the Kingdom of the Holy Ghoft, or 
 the Kingdom of his Father 3 I leave the Reader 
 to judge from the Analogy of Faith. 
 
 39 
 
( 3*3) 
 
 39- 
 
 Mat. XII, 31* The Blafphemy againjl the Holy 
 Ghoji, frail not he forgiven unto Men. 
 
 The Bbfphemy aga'wji the Holy Ghojl, fignifies 
 in this place, (as appears from the Context, and 
 from the parallel PafTages in the other Evange- 
 lifts,) a contemptuous reviling and rejeBing of the 
 laft and higheft means of Conviction, even the 
 greatejl Miracles which our Saviour worked #y 
 the Spirit of God, Matt. 12, 28; with the Finger 
 of God, Luke t 1, 20. But, this Text having 
 been largely treated of by the Dr, both in 
 his Scripture- Do&rhie and in his Reply to Mr Nel- 
 /ow, p. 189-, and joh having Now offered nothing 
 more, than what you had in Effect alleged be- 
 fore in your firft Book -, Ifhall add nothing tto 
 what the Dr has faid, but leave it to the Read- 
 er to consider and judge of what has been al- 
 leged concerning this matter on Both fides. 
 
 2 Cor. Ill -, 1 4,- 1 6, 1 7 iWTficb Veil i 5 done away 
 
 in Chriji. When it [the Heart of the 
 
 Children of Ifrael] Jhall turn to the Lord (thall 
 be converted to ChriftJ the Veil Jhall he taken 
 away. Now the Lord is that Spirit -, and where 
 the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty : &c. 
 
 The plain Meaning of this Text, is ; that 
 the Veil of Darknefs and Obfcurity, which was 
 in the Types and Figures of the Mofaick Law, 
 being now done away in Chrifi ; confequently 
 the Jews, when they turn to the Lor d, or are 
 converted by Faith in Chriji, have that Veil ta- 
 ken away, which before hindredthem (ver. 1 3) 
 
 that 
 
C 3 1 * ) 
 
 that they could not pdfajHy look to the End of 
 that which is aboli(1)ed. This Veil, I fay, is ta- 
 
 «r. 16. ken away from the Jews, upon their turning to 
 the Lord, or being converted by Faith in Chrijt ; 
 
 *f. n becaufethe Lord [viz.* On/?] is that Spirit, the 
 Spirit fpolcen of through this whole Chapter, 
 the Spirit and End of the Law, in Opposition 
 
 ver. 6. to t h e j ea( ^ Letter. He, (by the Manifjlation of 
 the Truth, ch. 4, 2 •, by the Light of his glori- 
 ous Gofpel, ch. 4, 4 ^ by the Clear Light of the 
 Knowledge of the Glory of God, ch. 4, 6 ♦, by his 
 t Gift and Miflion of the Holy Ghoft, the Spi- 
 rit of the Living God, with which he writes up- 
 on cur He aits, and not in Tables of Stone, ch. 3, 
 3 :) is the Author of all the glorious things 
 mentioned in this Chapter -, is the Author of the 
 \er 9. Miniflration of Righteoufnefs or Jujlif cation, 
 ver. fc. the Miniflraticn of the Spirit, the Miniflration 
 
 ver.6 and of Lif and true Liberty. For where the Spirit 
 
 17. of the Lord is, there is Liberty 5 Liberty from 
 
 the Bondage and Rigour, Liberty from the Ob- 
 fcurity and Perplexity of the Law : So that now 
 
 tier. 18. we all with open Face, beholding as in a Glafs the 
 Glory of the Lord, Sec. 
 
 The further particulars of this Chapter, are 
 at large paraphrafed and explained in the Dr's 
 
 pag 192. Reply to Mr Nelfon, which the Reader may be 
 pleafed to confider, and compare with your Ex- 
 plications of the fame Texts. 
 
 * So Athanaftus fyou acknowledge, pig. 276,") underftood this 
 Phrufe, in form of his Wricing* 5 though in ethers he interprets ic 
 ertierwife; And all the other Write s whom you cite for a different 
 Interpretation, are fti!I later thin He. 
 
 f Thus the Learned Vt Whitby, in his Commentary on ver. 1?, cn- 
 deFftands Chrift to be ihere frvJed k>J$i@- Trj^AWT©-, J he lord [_or 
 ] of the Spirit, 
 
 41. 
 
( 3** > 
 
 41, 
 
 Matt. XXV.III, 19, Baptizmg them in the 
 Name of the Father ', and of the Son, and of" the 
 Holy GJjoJI. 
 
 The Doctor has mown in his Scripture' do- 
 Brine, and in his Reply to Mr Nelfon, p. 204, 
 that the true Paraphrafe and Explication of 
 this Text, is the Ar&ievt Baptifmal Creed. And 
 the Reverend Dr Bennet agrees with him in his 
 Interpretation of this Text. Whether you have 
 offered any better Interpretation, let the 
 Reader judge. 
 
 42. 
 
 1 Joh. V ; 7, 8. For there are Three that hear 
 Record, [in Heaven j the Father, the Word, 
 and the Holy Ghoft ^ and thefe Three are One: 
 And there are Three that bear Witnefs in 
 Earth J the Spirit, and the Water , and the Blood $ 
 end thefe Tbi ee agree in One. 
 
 If the words here inchfed were genuine, yet 
 the Phrafe & &<rt (are One,) could not be proved 
 to mean any more in this place, than Agreeing 
 in One and the fame Tefiimony. But that there is 
 noReafon to efleem the words genuine, has been 
 abundantly fhown in Dr Clarkes Letter to Dr 
 Ti^ells, pag. 43 ; and in his Reply to Mr Nelfon, 
 pag. 207 ; and ftill more particularly in 
 
 Mr E s ■ ftill Inquiry into the Crighial 
 
 Authority of ihatT^t, l'Joh.V, 7. 'In which 
 you will find it fully and clearly fhown, that All 
 
 the 
 
c us > 
 
 the Greek Manufcripts ever yet found in the 
 World, agree in wanting thefe words \ that All 
 antient Verfions in all Languages, omit them 
 .likewife -, that no Greek Father in any Age, 
 either cites or refers to them -, that no Antient 
 Latin Father cites them -, that the fingle Paf- 
 fages of Tertullian and Cyprian, which have 
 vulgarly been fuppofed to refer to thefe Words, 
 do not really refer to them ; that particularly 
 Facundus is an Evidence that Cyprian did not re- 
 fer to thefe words, and even Fulgenlius himfelf 
 does not fay that he did: Laftly, that the 
 Learned Br Mills's Conjecture, how thefe words 
 might poflibly drop out of the Text, is plain- 
 ly an impojjible Suppofition •, but that 'tis ealy 
 to conceive how out of the Margin they might 
 creep in. Here alfo you will find a clear and 
 diftindt Anfwer to that Objec/acn of yours, 
 that in feven of Stephens Manufcripts nothing 
 mote than the words i-> vw agaifiS [In Hea- 
 ven) are wanting ; which Obje&ion is founded 
 merely upon an Errqitr 0} the Prefs in Stephens's 
 Edition ^ no Manufcript being any where 
 found, that wants thofe words Only. From 
 whence it notorioufly appears, that Be%as pre- 
 tending to have obferved feven Manufcripts 
 wanting thofe words Only, was nothing elfe 
 but his being deceived by that Errour of the 
 Prefs in Stephens. 
 
 What you allege about the Reafonablenefs 
 39;. of believing that Erafmus believed there was a 
 Manufcript in Great Britain, which nobody ki 
 Great-Britain ever faw •, and the Paflages you 
 cite out of a pretended Manufcript Work of Qri- 
 gen 5 are not woith taking Notice of. 
 
 297 
 
 Upon 
 
• ( 3'7 ) 
 
 Upon the Whole -, nothing can be more na- 
 finable, than that, feeing thefe words were 
 printed in a different Cbarafier in the frjl Editi- 
 ons of our Englifh Bibles, when the Evidence 
 for the words wasfuppofed to be much greater 
 than it now appears, and the Evidence agamft 
 them was not known to be near fo ftrong as 
 'tis Now found to be •, they mould at leafl: be 
 pill printed in a different CbaraSer. 
 
 Ver. 5. Who is He that overcometh the Worlds 
 but He that believeth that Je fits is the Son of God? 
 This is he that came (that was declared and ma- 
 nifested to be the Son of God) by Water and 
 
 Blood; And 'tis the Spirit that bearetb 
 
 Witness, because the Spirit is Truth, For there 
 are three that bear Record, C ,n Heavr en; the Father, the 
 
 Word, and the Holy Ghoft;and thefe Three^are One : And there are 
 Three that bear witnefs in Earth,]] the Spirit, and the Water y 
 
 mid the Blood 3 and thefe Three agree in One. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Tour affectionate Friend 
 and Servant, &c. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
( Ji8 ) 
 POST SCRIPT. 
 
 THE Sum of tins whole Controverfy, may brie fly 
 be comprised in the following Argument- 
 
 The wifeft Gentiles were by Nature, and the 
 Jews by the Law, taught to believe in One 
 God. By which, Both of them always meant 
 One Supreme Perfon or Intelligent Agent, the Ma- 
 ker and Governour of all Things. 
 
 Our tidvmiir and his Apojlles taught, that Je- 
 fits Chrift was the Son of that One God, whom 
 both Jews and Gentiles already acknowledged. 
 
 When therefore Chrijl was hbnjelf alfo more- 
 over (tiled God -, In what Senfe was This proba- 
 bly underftood, by thole among whom he was 
 firft fo ftyled > . 
 
 Would they not naturally underftand it in 
 the Subordinate Senfe-, in which Senfe, both 
 cZrn 1 ?^ and S±fc are very frequently ufed in 
 Scripture and in All other Writings ? 
 
 Or could they underftand it to fignify, that 
 he was individually the fame God with Him whofe 
 Son he is ? when even They who moft earneftly a f- 
 firm him to be the fame God, do not indeed mean 
 that he is (in that literal and proper Senfe) the 
 fame Goc% [the fame Supreme Perfon or Agent {] but 
 ♦only that he is of the fame individual Subjlance ; 
 Which is neither agreeable to the Council of 
 Nice, fwho taught him to be i'-ioism®- 1 , not /uc- 
 voxji®- 1 ir$ ttkT'M,) nor proved from Scripture. 
 And, if it was ^ yet, being of the fame indi- 
 vidual Subjlance, (if thereby Was not meant be- 
 ing the fame Supreme Perfon,) would not a- 
 mount to being individually the fame God? 
 but either Another God [or Supreme Perfon'] in 
 the fame individual Subjlance, if his Perfonality 
 
 but 
 
C 3 X P ) 
 
 and Dlfintl Life is by Necejfity of Nature: or 
 elfe, if his Terfonality and diJlhiB Life was deri- 
 ved to him by the Will of the Father •, though in 
 the fame individual Subjiance * then He [hisPer- 
 fon] is as really fubordinate to and dependent on 
 the Father, as if it were not in the fame indi- 
 vidual Subftance. For the Notion of GOD, ab- 
 folutely fpeaking, includes that his Life, as well 
 as his Subjiance, is underived, 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA 
 
 Pag. I'm. read 
 I. 14. need'efsfy 
 
 8. 3. Indeed the Scriptures in every 
 
 place, where Many are (tiled, h, 
 
 iUnum •, do fpeak figuratively. And 
 
 on the reverfe, in every place where 
 
 they mention an Unity ot ituellu; m 
 
 Agent?, (except Gal. ?, z9, < 
 
 All Chriftians art by a ftill higher 
 
 Figure (tiled, «/>', One myjikal Pa* 
 
 fan, which is the Church or Spoufeof 
 
 Chrifl ;) they always fpeak in the 
 
 very fame Term, 
 
 30. 29. Iotc Stw, ("\n the Form of God, and 
 
 equal toGc'd,^) 
 33. 18. is. 
 $6, 20. Buc Dr Bei.net always 
 
 62. 8. We (icr want 
 
 8p. 17. conftandy, nor generally, nor 
 37. lib. 3, c 10. 
 
 91. 30. eum qui partus eft 
 
 p5. 4. Incarnation, 
 
 io3. 29. the Worfhip 
 
 136. 2. -ihn mmun^mn* 
 
 207. 27. Concluding] 
 
 22s. 17. Lord, to 
 
 238. 7. dele, be 
 
 263. 6. />.*£. tio. J 
 
 264. »4. w^«/, 
 
 270. a/r. Likcnefs of Meo. 
 279. 31. Ao>©- 
 
 304- alt, crufted. 
 
Advertifement. 
 
 AN Examination of Mr Nye's Explication of 
 the Articles of the. Divine Unity, the Trinity 
 and Incarnation. Wherein is briefly mown, 
 The Infufficiency of that Explication both from 
 Scripture and Reafon •, with a Vindication of 
 Dr Clarke's Scripture-Doclrine and Replies, from 
 the Charge of Tritheifm. By John Jackfon, Rec- 
 tor of Rojjington in the County of Tork. 
 
 Three Letters to Dr Clarke, from a Clergy- 
 man of the Church of England-, concern- 
 ing his Scripture- Dolirine of the Trinity. With 
 the Doctor's Replies. Publijhed by the Author of 
 the J aid Three Letters, price 6 </. 
 
 A Collection of Queries. Wherein the moft 
 material Objections from Scripture, Reafon, and 
 Antiquity, which have as yet been alleged a- 
 gainft Dr Clarke's Scripture-DoSrine of the Tri- 
 nity, and the Defenfes of it, are propofed and 
 anfwered. With an Appendix: In which are 
 offered to the Confideratibn of the Learned, 
 forae Queries from Scripture, Reafon, and Anti- 
 quity, concerning the vulgar fcholajlick Explica* 
 tion of the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incar- 
 nation. By a Clergyman in the Country. 
 
 The Grounds of Civil and Ecclefiaftical Go- 
 vernment briefly confider'd. By John Jackfon, 
 Rector of Rojington in TorkJInre. 
 
BOOKS printed, and Sold by James Knapton, 
 at the Crown in St. PaulVChurch-yard. 
 
 Written by the Reverend Dr. CLARKE, Reftor of 
 St. James's, Weftminfter. 
 
 Difcourfe concerning the Being; and Attributes of 
 God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the 
 Trurh and Certainty of the Chriftian Revelation, in 
 Anfwer to Mr. H-Obes, &c. and other Demers of 
 Natural and Reve.'-led Retigion. Being Sixteen Ser-» 
 mon' preached ac Mr. BojU'i Lectures, in theYcrais 1704. 
 and 1705. The Fifth Edition. To which are added 
 feveral Letters to Dr. Ct/rke, relating to the tirft Vol. 
 with the Dr's Anfwers, 8v», Price 6 >. 
 I^S^^^^^^^J A Paraphraf'e on the four Evangelift% with Criti- 
 * * ' ' cal Notes on the more difficult Paffages, very ufcful 
 
 f Pa Te In 2 Vols ivo Price 12 J. The Third Edition. 
 
 Three Praftical Ellays onjaptifm, Confirmat.on and Repentance. Th« 
 Thi.d Edition. Price bound .•<» 1 16 for $ L 
 Six Sermons on feveral Odc«6ns. Price 1 $ 
 
 A Collection of Papers between Mr. Leitmtiz. and Dr. darke, relating to the 
 Principles of Natural Phi iofophy and Religion. Prices s. 
 
 A Letter to Mr. Dedwell, concerning the Immortality of the Soul, with four 
 Defenfes &c The Fifth Edition. Price 4 », 
 
 The SrriDtu'rc Doctrine of the Trinity : Where.n every Text in the Ne w Te- 
 ftamenSn^otttDoarine, is ifaBj confidered , and the D.vimry of 
 our BielTed Sav,our according to the Scriptures, proved and explained. The 
 
 8eC A 0n L d etS C to n the Reverend Dr. Welb t in Anfwer ro his Remarks, &e. Price 
 
 1 A Reply to the Ohjcftions of Robert Nelfm, Efqj and of an Anonymous Au- 
 thor, againft Dr. Clarke's Scnprure-DoSnne ot the Tjrimj, %vo,Pr, ; e 4. ,. 
 
 Jacob. Rohaulti Phyfica. Lac.ne vertit Recenfu.t & Annotation-bus ex Ulu- 
 ftriffimi ifaci Nm'oni Philotophia Maximam rartem hauftis, AmpLhcavit 3c 
 Ornavit, S. Clarke, S. T. P. Editie 8*arta. Pret 8 s. 
 
 The Truth of the Chripan Kelson in Six Bocks by iStege Gretiuu Corre.^r-d 
 »nd illufttated with Notes by Mr. Le Clerc. To which is added a Seventh B,k 
 ccncern.ng this Spefiin, What Cbrifttan Church roe ought t.fem cur [elves te ; by 
 the {aid Mr Le tier*. Done into Englifh by Jthn Clarke, D. D. and UfepUin in 
 Oidmiry to His Majtfty. The Settled Edi uen with ^iddmmt. 
 
8 BOOKS printed for, and 
 
 By the Right Reverend the Lord Bifiop of Bangor. 
 
 TH F. Reafonablenefs of Conformity to the Church of England. To which 
 is added the brief Defence of Epifcopal Ordination. The Tmri Edition 
 Price 6 s. 
 The Ongmal and Inftitution of Civil Government difcufTed. To which is ad- 
 ded a large Anfwer to Dr. F- Atterbury's Oiarge of Rebellion. The Second Edition 
 Price j s. 
 
 Eighteen Difcourfes concerning the Terms of Acceptance with God. Vie Se- 
 tond Edition. Price 5 s, 
 
 Seye.a! Traits formerly published : Now collefted into one Volume. To 
 Which are added Six Sermons never before publilhed, Svo Price 6 s. 
 
 The Meafieres of Submiffim to the CiviJ Magistrate confidefd. The Fifth Edi- 
 tion. Price 5 S. 
 
 I A Prefenrative againft the Principles and Practices of the Nonjurors, both 
 in Church and State or an Appeal to rile Confciences and Common Senfe of the 
 Christian Laity. The Fitch Edition. Price is. 
 
 The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Chrift : A Sermon preached be- 
 fore th; K-ng, March 3 1, 1717- The Fifteenth Edition. Price 4 d. 
 
 An Anfwer to the Reverend Dr. Snap's Letter to the Bilhop of Bangor. Ths 
 Thirteenth Edition. Price 6 d. & 
 
 An Aniwcr to the Representation drawn up by the Committee of the Lower 
 Houfe ot Convocation, concerning Several dangerous Pofitions and Doctrines 
 contained in the Bifliop or Bangor' & Preservative and Sermon. The Second Edi- 
 Jion. p r ,ce 4 s. 
 
 An Anfwer to a Calumny caft upon the Bifhop of Banger, by the Reverend Dr. 
 
 2TS5* ™ he a C<m f* on i ^ Boo*, entitled, A Vindication of the Corporation 
 ana lejt Acts, &< • P' ice 3 d. * 
 
 An Anfwer to a Late Book written by the Reverend Dr. Sherlock entituled 
 Tnet.nduion ana Example oj our Biejjcd Sav.onr vindicated Price is CItuJca » 
 
 The Common Rights of Subjects, defended: And the Nature 'of the Sacra. 
 ™»<*lTeft, confider'd. In Anfwer to the Dean of OM^ "▼»££ 5 
 the Corpora; lonand Teji Acts. Price is. 6 d. «**u»«wn of 
 
 A Sermon preached the 5th of A'ov. 1715.' 
 
 A Sermon preachi d ihe as th cf May 1716, 
 
 A Sermon prca hed on St .David's Day March 1 t7 i 6 
 
 A Sermon preach'd at the Funeral of Mrs. Eltz. Hwland, May the ,ft, i 7 „. 
 
 — - — — ^ — — A- — ., 
 
 By the Reverend Dr. Wells, ReZo r of Coteslach in 
 Leicefterfhire. 
 
 Controversial Treatifes dgainfi the Dtfentcrs The <:; v l, pj- • 
 An Exposition on dJaLh CarSm. PrteY*"™' ^ *'' ** 6 ^ 
 
 ticnonhYc^^iitrrfm^t"^^'^" 2 » * Mentioned Expofi- 
 
 W.th Annotations, and the Ori»ina? o ' C«! ^/'^ «/ iW paraphrafaf, 
 be, Manner, The Engll S'rJ^^T^&S^T *» 
 
 A Trcitiic concerning rt>« Harmony of the four rw 1 Ur, g |na ', ©•*. 
 
 **k reprefe^ »*« ^-T^J^I^SSr^tn 
 ai rebate; to the o;der of Time & c Price 2 s 6d y r °^'"» fo * ar *ouh 
 
 ifeftl for rhe under(l,„,l „„ of X uT c " ''"=,"*'' *»'/"««., ve,y 
 
 Th; 
 
Sold by James Knapton. 5 
 
 The Toung Gentleman's Cottrfe of Hathtmat'uks : Containing ftich Elements as 
 are moft ufeful and eafy to be known, in ^Arithmetics, Geometry, Trigonometry, 
 Mechanhks, Opticks, ^Jlronomy, Chronology and Dulling, in 3 Vols, &vo, Price 
 lis. 
 
 Harmonia Grammatical! s, or a View of the Agreement between the Latin, 
 and Greek Tongues, as to the declining of Wonts, &c. Price 1 s. 6 d. 
 
 A Letter to a Friend concerning the great Sin of taking Goas Name in vain'. 
 Price 1 d. or 1 00 for 6 s. 
 
 Vnworthinefs no Excufe for not coming to the Sacrament, Trice I d. or 100 
 for 6 t. 
 
 Of Children's Capacity to receive Religious Infractions, and of the manner how 
 to give them fucn Infractions ; together with Prayers adapted to the Ufe and 
 Capacities of Children. Price 1 d. or 100 for 6 s. 
 
 A Difcourfe concerning the Great and Ind:foenfable Duty of a Decent and 
 Reverent Bch.iviour in Churt h. Price 3 d. or 100 for 1 /. 
 
 The Great and Indifpenfable Duty to contribute liberally to the Rebuilding, 
 Building, Repairing, Beautifying and ^Adorning of Churches. Iking a Difcourfe 
 ferufed and approved of by the late moft Pious R'.berl Xelfon, Edj; the Second 
 Edition. 
 
 ; A Difcourfe, ihewing that the Marriages of fuch as are near of Kin, are finful 
 under the Gofpel, as well a s they v. ete under the Law. To winch is added the 
 Table of Marriage, &c. Price 3 d. 
 
 By the Revere?td Dr. Bennet, Rector of St. Giles's 
 Cripplegate. 
 
 AN Anfwer to the Dffinter's Pleas for Separation ; wherein the Subftance 
 of thofe Book--, is digefted in;o one fhorc and plain Difcourfe. The Fifth; 
 Edition. Price 4 s. 
 
 A Confutation of Popery in three Parts, $w. The Fourth Edition. Price 4 s. 
 
 A Difcourfe of Schifm. The Third Edition, %vo. 
 
 A Confutation of 2luakerifm. Ths Second Edition, $vo. Price 4. s. 
 
 A brief Hiftory of the Joint Ufe of pre-compofed i'ct Forms of Prayer.' 
 The Second Edition, 8vo. ' 
 
 A D.fcourfe of 'joint Prayer. The Second Edition. 
 
 A Paraphrafe with Annotation.* on the Hook of Common-Prayer, v. herein the 
 Text is explain'd, Objections are anfwered, and Advice is h imbly offered both to 
 the Clergy and Laity, for promoting true Devotion in the Ufe of it. The Second 
 Edition, Svo. Price 4 s. 
 
 Two Letters to Mr. Robinfon, occafioned by his Review of the Gafe of Litur- 
 gies, and their Imprfithn. 
 
 The Rights of the Clergy of the Chrifran Church ; or a Difcourfe fhewing that 
 dd has given and appropriated to the Clergy, Authority to Ordain, Baptise, 
 Preach, Prefidt in Church Prayer, and confederate the Lord's- Supper, and the pre- 
 tended Divine Right of the Laity to eleft, &c. is difproved, 8va. Pric* s ;. 
 
 Directions for Studying a Body of Divinity, 8vo. The Second Edition. 
 
 Dr. Davenam's Difcourfes on the Publicly Revenues, and on the Trade of Eng~ 
 land, 8vc 
 
 His Difcourfes on the Publick, Revenues, and on the Trade of England ; which 
 more immediately treat of the Foreign Traffiik of this Kmgdem. 
 
 An Effay upon the probable Methods of making Pet-pie Gainers in the Ballanc* 
 of Trade. The Second Edition. 
 
 A Difcourle upon Grants and Refumptions. The Third Edition. 
 
 His Effajs upon 1. The Balhnce of Pewer. 2. The making War, Peact and 
 \Alliances. 3. Univerfal Monarchy. 
 
 His Effay t upon Peace at home, and War abroad. The Stand Edition. 
 
 £«ptajj 
 
4 BOOKS printed for, and 
 
 Captain William Dampier's Voyages round the World, defcribing particular!/ 
 the Ijl'-mus of ^America, the Coafts and Iflands in the Weft-Indies, and in the 
 S'uti-SOL feveral Iflands in the Ejjl-Intiies, New Holland, the Cape of Good- 
 Hcpe, &c. Their Inhabitants, Manners, Cuftoms, Trade, Soil, &c. Illuftrated 
 with fcveral Map) and Draughts : Aifo divers Beaft:, Birds, Fifhes, and Plant;, 
 not found in- this Part of the World, curioufly lpgiaven on Copper-Plates. The 
 Sixth Edition, in th'ee Vols, Sffl. Price 18 s. 
 
 A New Voyage andDefcnption of the Tfthmus of America, giving an Account 
 of the ^iuthoi's Abode there. The Form and Make of the Country, the Coafts, 
 Hills, Rivers, &c. Siil, Weather, &C Treet, Fruit, Beafis, Birds, Fifh, &c. The 
 Indian Inhabitants, their Feature-, Complexion, Manners, Cuftorcs, &c. With 
 rema;kat>!e Occurrences in the Seu;h-Sea, and eifew here. To which are added 
 the Saturjl Hifiorj of thofe Parts. By a Fellow of the Royal Society, And 
 jD.;v j's Expedition to the Gold Mines. Tue Second Edition, Illuftrated wi.h feve- 
 ja! C ' ppcr-Piaies. By Lionel Wafer, the Secv.d Edition, %vo. Price 4 s, 
 
 A Voyige round the World, contain ng an Account of Capta'n Dampier's Ex- 
 pedition into the South-Seas in the Years 1703. and 1704. Together with a, 
 Vayage to Erf-India, £<c. With feveial Maps, Draughts, Fig ins of Plants and 
 Aa'ifcals. By W- Funnel, Mate to Captain Dumpier, %v>. Pr.ce $ s. 
 
 An IntroduAion to the H:jhry of the Kirgdoms and States of ^Ajia, ^Africa and 
 ^America, both Ancient and Modern. Accoiding to the Method of Samuel P«/- 
 fendtrf, Counfellor of State to the 1 te Ring of Svceden, 8vo. Price 6 :. 
 
 A New and Accurate Defcripticn of the Craft of Guinea. Illuftrated with 
 feveral Cuts, &:. Written originally in Dutch by W. B [man, and now faith- 
 fully dene into' Englifli, i~.o. Price 6 s. 
 
 The Artificial Clock-ir.aker. A Treatife of Wat h and Clock Work. By W. 
 D-.rhjm. M. A. and F. K S. The Thi'd Edition. Pri,e 1 s. 6 d. 
 
 Several D fcourfes on Practical Subjefls, be.r.g Ninety one Sermens by the 
 Reverend and Learned Renjamin Wahkcete, D. D. fbrretime MmiCer of St. Lau- 
 rence Jewry, London, to v* hxh is added the Di's Prayer ufed before Sermon. 
 Examin'd and Correded by his own Note- ; and publiflied by John Jefferj. D. D. 
 Arch D.a on of Norwich. In four Vol;, 8i/o. The Second Edition 
 
 Sixteen Sermons, on feveral Important and Praciicai Subjects. By Johnjef- 
 feri, DO Areh-Dea;on of Xotwich, %vo. Price 5 s. 
 
 Th? Hiftory of J-ffl-, a Poem, in fix Books. With Cuts proper to each Book. 
 Bv W. R'fe, ReQor of £ Ctandcn in Surrei. 
 
 The H'ftery of England, faithfully extracted from .Authentic^ Records and ap- 
 prove! Manufcripts, and th= moft celebrated Hijlcries of this Kingdom. With 
 the Effigies of all the Kings and Queens of England, f orn the Norman Race to 
 the 1. relent Time, curioufly engraved on Copper Piates ftom Original Medals and 
 pictures The f urth Edition, much improved: particularly by a Continuation 
 of this H'fiory from the famous Battle of Blenheim, to the Death of the late Q. 
 lAnnt In tv o Vol:, St 0. Price 1 z s. 
 
 Mr. W' *- ;e 's Arithmctick, containing a Plain and Familiar Method for At- 
 ta ning the Know ledge and Practice of dmntm ^Arithmetics, The Thirteenth 
 Etitim, bw. Price's 3. 
 
 The Elements of t^clid explained in a Kerv but moft Eafj Method : Together 
 with the Ufe of every Proportion through ali the Parts of the Mjihcmaticks. 
 VKutten in Frer.ch by the Famous MonhCur de dales, now made English. The 
 fifth Edition. 
 
 An Inftitution of Fluxions; containing the FirftPiincipIes, the Operations, with 
 fome of the Uies and Applications of that adnuravle Method: accord, ng to the 
 Schen.e prefixed to his Tiacl of Quadratures, by the Incomparable Sir Ifaae 
 J\ns.&n. By Humphry Ditton. 
 
 The Voji.g Surveitr's Guide, or a new Introduction to the vohole ^Art tf Sur- 
 veying Land, both by the Chain, and all Inftruments now in ufe. By E. Lan- 
 rence Surveyor. Tile Second Edition. Price 3 s. 
 
 Tiie Gene, a! Gauger : Or the Principles and Practices ofGtuging Beer, Wine, 
 and Malt. The whole laid down more Methodically than any Performance of 
 this Na:urc yet iscant. By W: J«'*n JDoughartji The Injrd Edition, Frtce 2 ;. 
 
 Praxjf 
 
Sold by James Knapton. 5 
 
 Praxis Meiica, or the Practice of Phyfic^, or Dr. Sydenham's Pfocejfus Intrgri* 
 Tiariflated out of Latin into EigUJb, with large ^Annotations, ^Animadverfions and 
 Pratlical Obfervations on the fame. The Third Edition. By W. Salmon, M.D. 
 
 Eight Chirurgical Treatifes, by Richard Wfeman, Serjeanc Chirurgeon to K. 
 Charles II. In two Vols, 8vo. The Fifth Edition. 
 
 The Surgeon's Afliftant. In which is plainly difcovered the true Origin of 
 moft Difeafes. Treating particularly of the Plague, French Pox. Leprofie, &c» 
 of the Biting of Mad Dogs, and other Venomous Creatures : Alio a compleat 
 Treatife of Cancers and Gangrenes. Their moft eafie and fpeedy Method of 
 Cure, with divers approved Receipts. By John Browne, fworn Surgeon in Or- 
 dinary to his late Majefty K. William III. and late Senior Surgeon of St. Tuomas's 
 Hofpital. 
 
 An Apology for Dr. Clarke. Containing an Account of the Late Proceedings 
 in Convicaihon upon his Writings concerning the Trinity. Be ng a Collection of 
 feveral Original Papers, fomc of which never before publifhed. Price 6 d. 
 
 Three Letters to Dr. ClarLe from a Clergyman of the Church of England, con- 
 cerning his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity. With the Dr's Replies. Pub- 
 liflied by the Author of the faid three Letters. Price 6 d. 
 
 Dr. SherUcl^s Practical Difcourfe concerning Death, in 8v«. The Fifteenth 
 Edition. Price 3 s. 6 d. 
 
 The fame in 1 20. Price 1 s. 6 d. 
 
 His Practical Difcourfe concerning a Future J idgment. The Eighth Edition, Svel 
 Price j s. 
 
 His Diftourfe concerning the Divine Providence. The Fifth Edition. Price j s. 
 
 His Difcourfe concerning the Happinefs of Good Men, and the Punifliment of 
 the Wicked in the next World. Containing the Proofs of the Immortality of 
 the Soul, and Immortal Life, The Thrd Edition. Price 5 s. 
 
 His Sermons upon feveral Occasions, in 2 Vols, 8vo, The Third Edition. Pr.10 s. 
 
 His Prelervative againft Popery, in 12c Price 1 s. 
 
 The Rules and Exercifes of Holy Living, and of Holy Dying. By Jer. Taylor, 
 D D. The Twenty Third Edition. Price 6 s. 
 
 The Golden Grove ; a Choice Manual, containing what is to be believed, pra - 
 Ctifed, and delired or prayed for. By Jer. Taylor, D. D. The Twenty Fifth Edi- 
 tion. Price 1 s. 
 
 Christian Morals and Chrijlian Prudence. In tv/o Parts. Wherein i; (hewn 
 the peculiar W/fdom and Beauty of the Chriftian Religion, in it's general Delign 
 of promoting thofe two excellent Ends fo perfective of Human Nature, Purity 
 and Peace. By John Laurence, M. A. Rector of Telvertoft in Nor th ampton- (h ire, 8v». 
 Price 5 s. 
 
 The Acceptable Sacrifice : Being a full Collection of Scripture-Devotions, taking 
 in the whole Book of Pfalms, throughout all the Parts of it. Every Verfe of 
 that Book being feverally drawn up, and placed under the diftinct and proper 
 Head of Devotion to which it belongs : Together with other the moll Devo- 
 tional Portions of the Old and New Teftament, digefted after the (ame manner, 
 and adapted to the Uies of Chriftian Piety. In two Part;. Wjth above 400 
 Prayers, Thankfgivings, and Meditations, newly compofed, fuited and fub- 
 joined to the Matter contained under each Head and Title refpectively. By 
 W. Tilly, D. D. Rector of tilbury and Goddington in Oxfordshire, and Chapiain 
 to the Right Honourable the Earl of ^Abingdon. 
 
 A Dictionary of all Religions, Ancient and Modern, whether Jewish, Pagan t 
 Chriftian, or Mahometan, 8 vo. Price 4 s. 
 
 The Chriftian's beft Guide, or the Religious Man's Companion, in three Parts 
 1. Containing the Hiftory of our Saviour'^ Birth, Life, Sufferings, Death, and 
 Refurre&ion. 2. An Account of the Proceedings, &c. of the Apoftles and 
 Primitive Chriftians- 3 The Doikrines, Precepts, and Prohibitions, delivered 
 by Chrift and his Apoftles 5 all coilecied out of the New Teftament, and digeft- 
 ed under proper Heads in Words of Scripture : Ufeful to inform the Under- 
 ftanding, and govern the Life, 8t">. Price 4 s. 
 
 ^ The Construction of Maps and Globes. In Two Parts. 1. Contains the va- 
 rious [Ways of projecting Maps, exhibited in 1 j different Methods, with their 
 
 Ufti. 
 
6 BOOKS printed for, and 
 
 »f making divers Sorts of Globes, both as to the Geometrical 
 
 and Mechanics! Work- Uluftrated with iS Copperplates With an appendix 
 
 wherein the prefent State of Geography is considered, being an Inquiry into 
 
 rooks of Geography and Travel, Zv*. Price 6 s. 
 
 The Work of William Chil!i*gworth, M A. of the Univerfity of OxfortL 
 
 Seventh Edition. In this Edition are added two Letters written by th-; 
 
 Author, never before print d- 
 
 "The Common- Prayer-Book the beft Companion in the Houfe and Clofet, a; 
 in the Temple : Or a Collection of Prayers out of the Litur»y of the 
 i -'and, moft needful both for the whole Family together," and for 
 
 every fingle Perfon a-part by himfelf- With a particular Office for the Sacra- 
 ment. Tile F'-rteenth Edition. Price i s. 
 
 The Word ef God the Beit Guide to all Perfons, at all Time-, and in all 
 pla-es : Or a Collection or" Scripture-Text?, plainly ihewin» fuch Things a; are 
 Neceffary for every Chriftian's Knowledge and Practice. By the Author of the 
 Common Pi ay er-Book the Beft Companion. The Third Edition, with Additions. 
 Price i :. o ■ 
 
 Monfieur Btjf»'s Treatife of the Epick Poem : Containing many Curious Re- 
 flections very Ufeful and Necefl'ary for the right Underftanding and Judging 
 cf the Excellences of timer and Vir'gi. Made Englijh fi om the trench , with* 
 Preface on rhe fame S ibjecr, by W. J. To which are added, an EfTay upon 
 Satyr, by Monlieur L'^icier ■. and a Treitife upon Paftorals, by M. f»»Mw/.'r. 
 The Seccnd Edition- Int.'. o Vols, n*. 
 
 Colonel Bladen's TranfkniMi of Julius Ctfar's Commentaries. The Third Edir 
 ti n improved. 
 
 p B*r»u*s Abridgment of his Hiftory of the Reformation. In three 
 Vols, 12 . 
 Dictionarium Ruftfcum, Urbanicum & Botanicum : Or, a Dictionary of Huf- 
 , Gardening, Trade, Commerce, and all Sorts of Country-Affairs. The 
 Seccnd Edition. 
 
 A Summary cf all the Religious Huefes in England and Wales, with their Titles 
 
 and Valuations at the Time of their D. Ablution. And a Calculation of what 
 
 they might be wo th at this Day. Together with an Appendix concerning the 
 
 ' Religious Orders that prevailed in this Kingdom. Price 2 s. 
 
 Poems by the Earl of Rffcommon. To which is added an ElVay on Poetry, 
 
 . , now Duke of Buckingham. Together with Poems by 
 
 Mr. Rid r'- Dutf. 
 
 A Corr.pieat Collection of State Trials, Proceedings upon Impeachment, &c. 
 tor ti;. ni orher Crimes and Mifdemeanours, from the Reign of K. 
 
 Hc.y IV. to the Death ot the late Q ^4nne. In four Volumes- Pol. 
 
 A C ■! e cion ot Queries. Wherein the moft Material Objections from Scrip- 
 ture, Reafon, and Antiquity, which have as yet been alledged againft Dr. 
 fj'v's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Defenfes of it, are propoied, 
 and anlv crtd. Price 2 '■ 
 
 A Vindicai on of Chrift's Divinity: Being a Defenfe of fome Queries, re- 
 s Scheme of the Hoiy Trinity, in Aniwer to a Clergyman in 
 c tintry. By Daniel Waterland, D. D- Matter of Magdalen- College, in Cam- 
 :ni Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majtfty. Price 6 s. 
 A Modeft f.ea tor the Baptilmal and Scripture-Notion of the Trinity. 
 Wherein the Schemes of Dr. Bennet and Dr. Clarke are compared. To which. 
 _cd Two Letters, cne written to the late Reverend Mr. R. M. concern- 
 ing his plain Scnpture-Argumenr, &c. The other to the Author of a Book, 
 cl, The it hi Scripture-Vidrme of the m;Jl Holy and undivided Trini:j con- 
 tinued and vindiatcd. Recommended firft by Robert Nelfin, Efq; and fince by 
 the Reverend Dr.ff^trerLnd. \vh.rein are obviated the principal Arguments 
 urged by the Reverend O:. Wa-.erland, in his Defenle of lome Queries, cc. 
 By a Clergyman in the Country. Price 4 s. 
 
 An Introdut-tion 10 the Hiftory of England, by Sir William Temple, Bar. 
 Price 3 s 6 •-- 
 
 1 j/.tj, the fecond Part. In four EiTays. x. Upon Ancient and Modern 
 -,g. 2. Upon the Garden; of tL^icurns. .3. Upon Heroick Vutu«. 
 ja Eoepy. By Sj Wjllitm Tcm : U t Qjx, The Fourth Edition. -Ad- 
 
Sold ly James Knap-ton." j 
 
 r Jtbdifm's Travels, t zo. Glofipaphia K»v* ^Anglican*: 
 
 ^X ^ffinwM's Prefervative againft Cordon's Geograph. Grammar.' 
 
 Gaftrel's Chriftian InftituWa. 
 
 Geegraphia C'u/Jica. 
 
 Gregorys NorrUhd.it fa ■fa. 
 
 Garreifon's Englifl, Exerrifes. 
 Gamefter, a Comedy. p r ; rc j t ; 
 Godfather's Advice to his Son.' Prhi 
 
 3 <*> or iao for t I. 
 Governm. or the Paffion.;, /Y 1 1, 
 ffOvoill't Htftor. Bible, 3 Vols, Wt," 
 
 Hack's Voyage-, 8t/p, 
 fia-arkjns's Clavrs Gmmtrcii, 
 Hammond's Gatethifoj, 
 Baton's Pfalms. 
 Hudibras, tit. 
 
 Hanen's Merchant': Magas^ne; 
 Hut's Defcripr. of Parad.te ' 
 
 y £ 2 "vvs 0n the Chriftian Re Kgi<"tf 
 Kfttltmll'i Worfcs, 2 Vols, ft/, ■ 
 ^ • - - On the Sacrament. 
 
 - - * Evil of Profulenefs. 
 
 Death made Comfortable. 
 
 Ktnntt 3 Roman Antiquities. 
 King on the Creed. 
 
 K^Som y \ 0fth2PHlElc - Ch ^ 
 [Eftrange's Jofphus, 3 Vols, 8w. 
 
 Lmmj's Sermons. 
 Lock of Undemanding, a Vols, W 
 Lepange s v£j...p t 2 Vol , gw. 
 L<<f on the Sacrament. 
 Littleton's Dictionary, 4/^. 
 Life of the Emperor Leopold. 
 
 - - - Of K. James II. 
 Lancalhire Witches, a Comedy 
 Love make; a Man, a Comedy. 
 ftf^ttndrell's Travels. 
 
 Moret ana's Vade Me cum. 
 Milton's Paradift Loft and Regained,' 
 Marram's Mafter-piece. 
 Counters of Morton's daily Exercife, 
 J\j£lfin's Feftivals. ' 
 
 - - - On the Sacrament. 
 Nichols on the Common-Prayeri 
 Kelfins Juftice. 
 Nonrjt's Homilies. 
 A'srrjj's Mtfcellanies. 
 QXfird Grammar. 
 
 Oxford Spelling Book." 
 Ollyftc on the church Catechifrn: 
 Ova's Epiftles, Engli/h. 
 Ovia's Art of Love, Englifl, i 2 o. 
 Otway's Plays, 2 Vols, «». 
 Ova's Metamorph. Englijh, 2 Vols, J2« 
 *jJOners Greek Antiquities, 2 Vols. 
 
 P>'« on ihe Epifties and Aits- 
 
 - • - On the Pentateuch. 
 Prideaux's Connex. of the O. &N.TeftJ 
 
 Frier's Poerrj. 
 
 Popery. PWre 1 j. 
 lAcademia, or the Humours of the Uni- 
 
 verfiry of Oxford, in Burlelque 
 
 Verfe. Price 6 d. 
 tJJ Arrow's Woiks, 1 Vols, Vol. 
 ;P Bl-ackall's Sermons, 8 Vols. 
 'Bragge on the Parables, 2 Vols. 
 Bacon's Eflays. 
 
 Bvrkjt on the New Teftament, 
 Bvffbe's Art of Poetry. 
 Bond's Guide to Eternity. 
 B r own's Chriftian Morals. 
 Blackpa'l on the Clajfics. 
 Blackmore's Prince Arthur. 
 Bentley's Remarks on Free-thinking.' 
 Beyer's French Dictionary. 
 
 - • - French Grammar* . 
 Botxace's Novels. 
 Bifliop Burnet's Paftoral Care. 
 
 His Life of E. of Rochejlcr* 
 
 f*Ofini's Devotions. 
 
 ^ Colled, or Receip. in Cookery, e>r, 
 
 Chara&erifticks, 3 Vols. 
 
 Covcley's Works, 3 Vols. 
 
 Colt's Dictionary. 
 
 Calamfs Sermons, Zvo. 
 
 Collection of Voyages and Travels, 
 
 2 Vois, 4.r». 
 Collection of Papers printed in the 
 
 Year 1710, now reprinted. Prue 
 
 is. 6d. 
 Cave's Primitive Chrfftianity, 
 £)Ryden's Virgil, 3 Vols. 
 
 - - - Miscellanies, 6 Vols,' 
 *• - - Fables, Svo. 
 ... Juvenal, 1 2.0. 
 
 - • - Plays, 6 Vols, 1 29. 
 Drelincourt on Death. 
 Derham's Sermons, 2 Vols. 
 Drexelius on Eternity. 
 Devil of a Wife, a Comedy. Trice t i. 
 JP Chard' s Hi ft. of England, 3 Vols, Fol'. 
 
 - - - Ecclef Hift. 2 Vols, 8w. 
 Echard's Gazetteer, 2 Parts, 1 20. 
 • - ' Hift. and Poet. Dictionary, 120. 
 Jj'EjIrade's Memoirs- a Vols. 
 Echard's Terence, Englifli. 
 ~pVllet's Medicina Gymnaflica. 
 
 - - - Pharmacopeia extempcrantal 
 Fe.male Inftructor. 
 Fdton on the Claflicks. 
 Farqithar's Plays, 2 Vols, 120. 
 Fre^ier's Voyage to the South Sea. 
 Fortune Hunters, a Comedy, Price 1 s. 
 Fair Quaker of Deal, 3. Comedy. 
 
 Pi ice is. 
 Q,Entieman inftru<3ed. 
 
 Geodman s Penitent pardon \i, 
 
 - - : Winter Evening Cor.fcixne* 
 
s 
 
 BOOKS printed for, Sec. 
 
 ptiffendorft Introd. to the Hift. oT Europe. 
 
 pantheon. 
 
 Plurality of Worlds. 
 
 Pearfin on the Creed. 
 
 Patricks Devout Chriftian.- 
 
 ... Chi lftian Sacrifice. 
 
 ... Pfalms. 
 
 . - - Advice to a Friend. 
 
 - . - Help to Young Communicants. 
 
 - . - Ma» fa Myflica. 
 Plutarch's Lives, $ Vols, ta». 
 PHlonniere's 3 Replies to Dr. Snape, Sec. 
 syi) tries' s Emblems. 
 ^o«iMi/s Difpenfatory. 
 
 ... Phyfical Dictionary. 
 
 nEeves's Apologies, 2 Vols, Svf. 
 **■ Rochester's Poems, I2e. 
 JRorc's S*llnft English. 
 ■Rows Plays, 120. 
 
 Q Harp's Sermons, 4 Vols.' 
 ,J Steel's Chriftian Hero. 
 Svttt's Works, 2 Vols, Fol. 
 Spectators, 8 Vols. 
 South's Sermons, 6 Vok. 
 Smalridge's Sermons. 
 Scarron's Works. 
 Shakefpear's Plays, 8 Vote 
 Shadvoell's Plays, I2«. 
 Stanhope's St. ^Augufiin. 
 
 - . - Kempis, %vo. and I2». 
 Sy^ej's 4. Letters to Dr. Sherlock} 
 Seneca's Morals. 
 
 Short View of the Chriftian Religion. 
 JV/ce 3 rf, or 1 00 for 1 I. 
 
 "JTrJemachus, Engltfh. 
 
 "* Tatlers, 4 Vols. 
 
 Tillot fin's Sermons, 3 Vols, F»/. 
 
 Sir W. Temple's Work-. 
 
 Toppi""'s 4 Serm. on feveral Occafions. 
 • WHitgift'l Life, Fol. 
 
 " Week's Preparation. 
 
 IVinchejler Manual. 
 
 WV/fc's Devotions. 
 
 Wilkj™ of Natural Religion; 
 
 ... Of Prayer and Preaching. 
 
 Wake's Sermons. 
 
 ... On the Church Catechifra. 
 
 m - - Genuine Epiftles. 
 
 Whitby on the N- Teftam. 2 Vols, Fol. 
 
 Waller's Foems, 120. 
 
 Dr. Whitby's Defence of the Prop, con- 
 tained in the B. of Bangor's Sermon. 
 
 ' yfU'ifiotelh Ethica Gr. & hat. Oxon. 
 j/7 - - - De ^Arte Poetica, Gr. Lat. 
 lAvanturcs de Telematjue, Fr. 
 '^£( c l,jnis & Demofihenis Orationes, Gr. 
 
 Lit. 0xm - 
 S Cbr}P'fl omi de Sacerdatio, per Hughes. 
 
 r' ft r n ' s Nov. Tefi. Lat. 
 / r rr Taficr'tm Remonjirantium f"p*T 
 Ziriie Hlii - Ecdefu ^ingltcan*. 
 
 Cicero de Oratore Delph. Oxon^ 
 
 • - - De Claris Oratoribus &c. Oxoxi 
 
 • ~ - De Officii;, per Tooly, Oxon. 
 Cicero de Oratore, per Pearce, Cantab. 
 De Natttra Deorum, per Davis , Cant\ 
 
 - - - De Finibas, ire. per T, Bent ley 
 Curcellai Ethica, 
 
 dfarii Comment. Notts Variorum. 
 
 Cxfaris Commentaria Delph. 
 
 D'tonyfms de fitti Orbis Gr. Lat. Oxon. 
 
 Ellis de 39 ^Articulis Ecclefi/e ^inglicanxl 
 
 Euclid Commandini, Oxon. 
 
 Grotius de Veritate Religionis Chrijliana, 
 
 - - - De Jure Belli & Pacts, 
 Horatius in ufum Delphini. 
 Horatius, T. Bentleii Cantab, 8vo. 
 Horace de Dacier, 10 Vols, i2». 
 Kiel's Introduflio ad Veram Phyjicam. 
 
 - - - Introdutlio ad ^Ajlronomiam. 
 Lenfden's Compendium Novi TeftamentV. 
 Li/.cius Florus Delphini. 
 
 L-vii H'ft.Clerici, 10 Vols, ^Amfl. 
 Livii Hift. 6 Vols 8vt>, Oxon. 
 Leufideni Tejlament. N. Gr. & Lit. .Amftl 
 Longinus de Sublimit ate Gr. & Lat. Oxon, 
 Minucius Felix ex Recenfione, J Davifij. 
 Milnes SeSlionum Conicarum. 
 Mttfarum ^inglicanarum ^Analetla, 3 Volt, 
 Miil'i Tejiamentum Nsvnm Grscum. 
 Oeuvrei de Moliere, 4 Vols, Fr. 
 Nevotoni Principia Phtlofophia Mathemat\ 
 Ovidii Opera, 3 Vols, 240. 
 Ov'idij Metamorphofes Delph. 
 
 - - - EpiftoU Delph. 
 
 - - - De Trifiibus Delph. 
 Puffendorfde Jure Natura & Gentium, i^to] 
 . - -De Officio Hominis & Civil. izo.Cant. 
 Ray's Syopfes ^Avium & Pificium. 
 Sanderfin de Qbligatione ConfiientU, &cl 
 Scbrevdii Lexicon. 
 
 Sallujtius ex Recenfione, J iVaJJe. 
 Strotbir's Pharmacopeia Practica. 
 Sallufiim Delph. 
 Sji>enhami Procejj'us Integri in Morbis fert 
 
 omnibus curandis. 
 Sympfis Communium Locorum, 120. 
 Statins notis Variorum. 
 Thecphraflus Gr.<£r Lat. per Needham, Cantl 
 Praiiptifrum Theolog,C,ipitnrn Enchiridion 
 
 didaCticum ^Auirore, T. T-tllro. 
 Tejiamentum Novum Grecum, Cantab. 
 Trommii Concordantia, 2 Vols, Fol. 
 Trap's Preleftiones Poetiw, 3 Vols. 8VO 
 Terentius Delph. 
 Terence de Dacier, 3 Vol. 
 Tacaueti Elements Geometric, &c. Edit, d 
 
 Guil. Whifton. 
 Varenii Geographia Generali', 2vo. Cant. 
 Welchman de 39 ^Arti cults Ecclef, ^Ang. 
 Virgilius in ufum Delph, 
 VirgUius, 240. 
 Xtr.oph'an Gr. & Lat. ivo. 
 
'W 
 
 Am .J I. 
 
 
 
13 
 
 //>/ 
 
 U7 
 
 ■ 
 
 w. ' 
 
\ 
 
 n$