I 
 
 r.    ♦ 
 
 O  ^  ^^' 
 
 C5 
 
 OF  THE 
 
 Theological    Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON,  ^N.  J. 
 
 Case,  .CP>— -V    - Divisio-  .. 
 
 Shelf,]  h  O  CL Sectic  
 
 fioo/k,  N*' — i 
 
 ^ 
 
/o  -25 
 
 •  is>*.  j!K»<'d*ipf,i^''r, 
 
?::•■•-,., 
 
u 
 
 -4»J<  *      iVi.  ■— 
 
\ 
 
 \ 
 
2^ 
 
 C4.  ^v^i»<yt^ 
 
 A 
 
 REPLY 
 
 T  O 
 
 Dr.WATER  LANDS 
 DEFENSE 
 
 O  F    H  I  S 
 
 QUERIES. 
 
 Wherein  is  contain'd, 
 
 A  Full  State  of  the  Whole  Controverfy :  And 
 every  Particular,  alleged  hy  that  Learned 
 Writer,  is  diftindly  conlidered. 
 
 By  a  Clergyman  in  the  Country, 
 
 Therefore  we  Havefbund  Difficutty,  'and  Shall  for  ever  i  till  in  This 
 Article  [of  the  Trinity]  the  Church  returns  to  her  Antient 
 Simplicity  of  Exprejfton,  Bifliop  Taylor's  Diicourfe  of  the 
 Real  Prefence,  Sed.  ii,  §  28. 
 
 For  my  own  party  I  declare  once  for  all-,  I  defere  only  to  have 
 things  fairly  reprefentedy  as  they  really  are:  No  Evidence  jtno- 
 theredy  or  flifled,  on  either  Side.  Let  every  Reader  fet  plainly, 
 what  may  be  ^uftiy  pleaded  here,  or  there,  and  no  more  •■>  and 
 Then  let  it  be  left  to  his  impartial  "Judgment ,  after  a  full  view 
 of  the  Cafe.  Mifquotation  aud  M'tfreprefentation  will  do  a 
 Good  Caufe  harm,  and  will  not  long  be  of  Service  to  a  Bad 
 one.  Dr.  r'I'''^/gr/*z;?/^'sDefenfeofhisQueries,  p.  131. 
 
 London  :   Printed   for  J  a  m  e  s   K  n  a  p  t  o  n,   at  the  Crown  in 
 St.  Paul's   Church-Yard.     Mdccxxii. 
 
'   .  ^'4^-v  • 
 
Ill 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 AVING  in  the  following  Pages 
 clearly  fhown,  that  Dr.  Water- 
 lana'^s  Notion  is  entirely  contrary 
 both  to  Reafon^  Scripture^  and 
 all  Primitive  (Antiq^iiity  ^  I  think 
 I  have  Here  juft  reafon  to  complain,  that  his 
 Manner  of  writing  is  greatly  fitted  to  deceive^ 
 by  applying  to  the  Taj]io7ts  and  Prejudices  of 
 his  Readers,  whereby  men  ?iVQ]^revented bom 
 examining  and  confidering  the  real  Strength 
 and  Weight  o^  Arguments^  and  the  Truth  and 
 Reafon  o{  Things.    Of  This  kind,  is 
 
 ij/?,  His  entitling  his  Book,  *'  A  Vindication 
 "  ofChrifi's  Divinity?'  By  which  Title,  ig. 
 morant  Perfons,  who  never  read  the  Books, 
 
 A  2  arc 
 
iv  The  P  RE  FACE. 
 
 ar^  led  to  imagine  that  the  Writers,  whom 
 Dr.  Water] and  oppofes,  are  Denier s  of  the  D/- 
 vinityofChrift^  or  not  truly  pious  and  reli- 
 gious men  :  Whereas  the  Qiieltion  is  not  in- 
 deed at  all  concerning  The  'Divinity  of  Chrift^ 
 but  concerning  the  particular  Manner  of  ex- 
 plication of  that  Doctrine:  And  the  whole  and 
 only  Defign  of  the  Authors  whom  the  Doftor 
 writes  againft,  has  been,  foberly  and  in  the 
 Fe^r  of  God,  to  colled  and  confider  what  it 
 is  that  Our  Saviour  Himfelf  and  his  oApc/lles 
 have  in  ^crif^ture  taught  us  concerning  That 
 DoHrine^  feparate  from  the  metaphyftcal  Hy- 
 fothefes    of  fallible    and    contentious    men* 
 Dr.  Waterland^  well  aware  that  This  Reply 
 would  be  made  to  him,  has  indeavoured  to 
 Pr^/.;.ii.  obviate  it  by  faying,   "  To  what  Purpofe  is  it 
 "  for  them  to  contend  about  a  NJME^  when 
 ^'  they  give  u^  the  THING  ?"    Meaning  by 
 ['^  the  thing;'']    not    The   Divinity  of 
 Chrijiy    but  his   Own  particular  tnetaphfical 
 Explication  of  it  ^  which  (as  I  have  largely 
 Ihown)  has  no  Foundation  at  all,  either  in 
 Scripture  or  Antiquity.     I  could  with  much 
 greater  Juflice  (and  yet  I  did  not  think  it  rea- 
 fonable  fo  to  do,)  have  entituled  This  Reply, 
 **  oA  Vindication  of  the  Divinity  of  God  the 
 ^'  lather  Almighty?^     And  when  Dr.  Water- 
 land  had  anfwered,   that  he    did  not  dtny 
 'The  Divinity  of  God  the  Father  Almi^hty^ 
 
 but 
 
The  PREFACE. 
 
 but  only  Our  Marnier  ofexfJaining  his  Divinity  • 
 I  could  with  All  Juftice  and  Truth  have  ask- 
 ed, "  To  what  Purpofe  is  it  for  him  to  con- 
 "  tend  ahout  a  N  AME^  when  he  gives  up 
 ''  The  THING  r  For,  the  true  Notion  of 
 the  Divinity  of  God  the  Father  Almighty^ 
 [the  Father^  of  Vi)hom  are  all  things-^  the 
 Father  of  All^  voho  is  Above  All  -^  confefled- 
 ly  implies  his  being  Supreme  in  Authority 
 afid  Dominion  over  oAlh  And  to  deny,  as 
 Dr.  Waterland  does^  his  being  ALON E 
 Supreme  in  Authority  and  T)ominion  over  all  - 
 is  to  deny  his  being  at  all  Supreme  in  Au^ 
 thority  and  Dominion  over  all :  Becaufe  the 
 Very  Ejfence  of  Supremacy  in  Authority  and 
 Dominion  over  All  ^  confifts  in  being  ALONE 
 Supreme  in  Authority  and  Dominion  over  All - 
 And  what  ferfon  foever  is  not  oAlone  Su* 
 freme^  is  not  at  all  Supreme  in  Authority  and 
 Dominion  over  All  When  Dr.  Waterland 
 Ihall  have  got  clear  of  this  one  fingle  Ar^^u- 
 ment,  his  Notion  will  ftand  upon  a  bet- 
 ter Foot  than  it  has  yet  done, 
 
 2,  His  putting,  in  the  Title-page  of  bis 
 Book,  the  following  Motto,  "  /  amjefus^ 
 *'  whom  thou  perfecutefi ;"  is  of  the  fame 
 Kind.  As  if,  not  receiving  Dr.  Waterland's 
 Notions  in  Metafhyfich^  was  Perfecuting  of 
 thrift.  Or  as  if  Any^  who  carefully  ftudy 
 A  J  the 
 
V!  The  PREFACE. 
 
 the  Scriptures,  and  fincerely  make  Ufe  of 
 all  the  Helps  God  has  given  them  to  un- 
 derftand  it  rightly,  and  embrace  whatever 
 they  find  There  exprefsly  taught,  and  what- 
 ever can  be  fliown  to  them  deduced  from 
 thence  by  any  juft  Confequence;  could  be 
 TerfccutOYs  of  Chrijl.  It  concerns  thofe  who 
 thus  alfea  to  fit  in  the  Seat  of  God^  and 
 to  equal  their  own  dif^utahle  Notions  with 
 the  exprefs  Word  of  God ;  to  confider  a 
 little  more  ferioufly,  what  Spirit  they  are 
 of. 
 
 3.  Of  the  fame  Sort,  is  his  perpetual  un- 
 righteous Ufe  of  the  term,  Arians^  and  Ari^ 
 anifm.  Which  leads  ignorant  Readers  (who 
 judge  by  Names  inftead  of  Things^')  to  ima- 
 gine that  the  perfons  he  oppofes,  are  Follow- 
 ers of  Arius  J  Though  they  ?tever  ajjert  any 
 of  the  peculiar  Tenets '  of  Arius  •  And,  by 
 Dr.  Wat€Yland\  way  of  Confequential  De- 
 dufliions,  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Nice 
 itfelf,  and  all  their  Catholick  PredecefTors, 
 may  with  Equal  Juftice  be  charged  with  Ari- 
 anifm.  For,  the  Council  of  Nice^  by  aflert- 
 ing  that  the  Son  was,  not  [^oiv^^u^  l^  Jjc  ovrm'] 
 made  or  formed  out  of  Nothings  but  [yewyiS-elj 
 €3c  Tyi$  yViW  f  'TTocrgo^]  generated  from  the  Sul-- 
 (lance  of  the  Father ^  (which  TertuUian^  Ori- 
 gen^  and  Laciantiiis^  prefumed  to  affirm  even 
 
 con- 
 
The  PREFACE.  vu 
 
 concerning  A?tgels  and  Rational  Souls  alfo ;) 
 CONFESSEDLY  did  not  mean,    either 
 that  the  Son  was  (which  is  the  firft  of  Dr.H^^- 
 terla?id\  Two   Senfes  of  the  term  *'  Individ 
 "  drnP')  the  fame  Identical  WHOLE  Sub- 
 fiance  with  the  Father,  rcLvrosa-io^^  f^ovos(Ti@^^ 
 and 'ei?  ^^sjzijca/xgi'^ij,    which  the  Doftor  ^  ex-  *p,  3^ 
 prefsly  acknowledges  to  be  precife  Sahellia- 
 7iifm  5    or  f which  is  the  Doftors  Other  (i) 
 Senfe   of  the  term   "  Individual^'')    that   he 
 was  a  Homogeneous  Undivided   P ART   of 
 that  infinite  and  Injeparalle  Suhfiance  which 
 is  the  Father's  ,  (which  is,  what   the  Doftor 
 exprefsly  condemns  in  Tertullian  i  and  yet  it 
 feems  plainly  upon  the  whole  to  be  his  Own 
 opinion,  only  with  the  addition  of  an  Eg^ua- 
 lity  of  Supreme  Authority  and  Dominion^vjhicli 
 never  once  entred  into  the  Thoughts  of  Any 
 Antient  Writer.)   But  Their  [the  Nicene  Fa- 
 thers^ Meaning,  evidently  wasj  that  as  One 
 Fire  is   lighted  from  Another^  without  Any 
 Divi/ion^  Ahfciffton^  Diminution^  or  Alteration 
 whatfoever,  either  of  the  Suhfiance  or  Heat 
 or  Splendour  or  Greatnefs  of  the  Former  ;  fo 
 
 (l)  Compare  the  following  Pajfages. 
 
 •*  The  Suhfiance  of  the  Son,  may  be  juftly  called  the  F4- 
 ?*  thers  Suhfiance,"    Defenfe,  p.  379,  380. 
 
 "  Snh^dLncc-Undivided is  all  that  any  CathoUck  means 
 
 "  by  individual  Suhfiance."    p.  463. 
 
 ^.  "  The  fame  homogeneous  Suhfiance ^  and  Infeparahility; — — 
 
 ^  Una  Summa  res,"    p.  391. 
 
 A  4  ^-^ 
 
viii  The  PREFACE. 
 
 the  Sony  by  the  ineffable  and  incomprehenli- 
 ble  Power  of  the  Father,  was  generated  from 
 the  Father  J  without  Any  Divijion^  jlftijjion^ 
 Diminution^  or  Alteration  whaifoever,  either 
 of  the  Father's  Sulftance^  or  of  his  Alone  Su- 
 freme  Authority  and  Dominion  over  All.  And 
 This  Notion  o[  Theirs -^  becaule  it  fuppofes  the 
 Son  to  be,  not  (what  Dr.  Waterland^  without 
 fo  much  as  any  one  fingle  Authority  from 
 (i)  Antiquity,  and  without  any  Conjiftency 
 ^- 379»  with  himjelfy  affirms,)  THE  Suhfiance  of 
 ^  ^'  the  father ,  but,  as  the  Council  itfelf  expref- 
 fes  it,  FROM  the  Suhfiance  of  the  Father: 
 And  becaufe  it  fuppofes  the  Generation  of  the 
 Son  CO  be  an  Att  of  the  Father^  (which  All 
 the  Antients  unanimoufly  teach^  by  afferting 
 it  to  be,  not  only  S^eAovro^  ^(tr^ogy  but  ^eAvi- 
 ^icLTh  BiXmu  and  /SsAvj,  By  the  Will  of  the 
 Father ,  and  which  Dr.  Waterlancl^  in  Other 
 words,  conftantly  denies-^  making  it  to  be  no 
 more  an  A^  of  the  Father ^  than  the  Father^s 
 own  Exiftence  is  an  A^i  of  the  Father  :) 
 And  becaufe  it  referves  inviolably  to  the 
 Father     (his   'Au^evrlctj    his   Alo?ie   Supreme 
 
 (i)  For  the  Antients  conftantly  denied  tv  ruvrtiia-iov  and  « 
 ^ssnKe^fJJiva)^  as  being  the  Eflence  of  SahelUanifm.  From  whence 
 'tis  apparent,  that,  according  to  the  Philofophy  of  thofe  times, 
 they  no  more  thought  to  'Ex.  tk^  i<rU<i  tS  Totrpo.;  to^  be  The 
 yia-icc  itfelf  oi the  Father;  than  they  thought  -m  'E|  ^xovruv^  to 
 be  The  Nothing  out  of  which  they  were  produced. 
 
The  PREFACE.  r^ 
 
 Authority  arid  Donwtion  over  Jll^  (as  both 
 the  Council  of  Nice  and  All  their  Catholick 
 PredecefTors  unanimoufly  and  conftantly  did,) 
 which  is  That  which  makes  him  to  be  in 
 the  Abfolute  Senfe  The  One  God:  There- 
 fore  This  notion  (I  fay)  Dr.  Waterland  is 
 pleafed  to  rank,  among  Other  things,  under 
 the  Head  of  Arianifm. 
 
 4^  Of  the  fame  kind,  is  his  Talk  about  M-/.'^ 
 *^.  calling  in  queftion  a  Fundamental  oArticle 
 <•  of  Religion,''''  As  if  the  Firfi  Article  of 
 the  Creed,  was  not  as  fundamental  in  Chrift's 
 Religion,  as  the  Second.  Or  as  if  an  Arti- 
 cle's being  Fundamental^  was  a  Reafon  why, 
 ilot  only  the  generality  of  Chriftians,  but 
 even  the  moft  Learned  and  Able  men, 
 fhould  by  no  means  be  fufFered  to  confider 
 or  inquire  What  this  Fundamental  Article  is. 
 Or  as  if  taking  great  pains,  ferioufly  and  in. 
 the  Fear  of  God,  with  diugent  Study  of  the 
 Scripture  and  Antiquity,  to  find  out  the  True 
 Senfe  and  Meaning  of  any  Dodrine ,  was 
 calling  in  queftion  the  Truth  of  the  Do^rine 
 itfelf.  Wonderful  it  is,  that  the  very  Fom- 
 dations  of  all  Religion  and  of  all  Truth^ 
 iliould  be  thus  turned  iiito  ridicule  by  men 
 of  Learning  ;  without  their  perceiving  at  the 
 fame  time,  what  it  is  they  are  doing. 
 
 5.  But 
 
The  PREFACE. 
 
 5:  But  the  Principal  thing  of  all,  is  his  ar- 
 tificially concealing  from  the  Reader  through- 
 Out,  from  the  Beginning  to  the  End  of  his 
 Book,  the  True  and  indeed  the  Only  material 
 Point:  in  Quefiion-^  and  amufing  him  with 
 matters  of  a  quite  different  kind.  The  Sum 
 of  the  Doftrine  laid  down  by  Thofe  whom  the 
 Doftor  undertook  to  oppofe,  v/as  This :  That, 
 •'  fVHoATEVER  he  the  meta^hftcal  Na- 
 **  ture^  Effence,  or  Subjlance^  of  the  Son^  [or 
 '*  of  the  Holy  Spirit ,]  Whatever  he  his  un- 
 *'  limited  faft  Duration ;  Whatever  Divine 
 ^'  Titles,  Greatnefs  or  Dignity^  he  afcrihed 
 *'  to  him  in  Scripture :  Still,  there  heing  con- 
 "  fijj^^b  ^^  ^^^  Monarchy  of  the  Univerfe '' 
 (according  to  the  Voice  of  Reafon^  and  the 
 Whole  Tenour  of  Scripture,  and  of  all  Anti* 
 quity^)  ^'hut  One  Authority,  original  in  the 
 "  Father,  derivative  in  the  Son  ^  therefore 
 «  THE  ONE  GOD  (ahfolutely  freaking,} 
 «<  The  One  SUPREME  God,  always  a7td 
 ^*  necejjarily  fignifies  Him,  in  whom  Jlo?ie 
 '*  the  Power  or  Authority  is  Supreme,  Origin 
 "  naly  and  Underived  3  and  on  whom  Alone, 
 <^  confequently^  All  Honour  ajtdWorJhip prima- 
 *^  rily  or  ultimately  terminates^^ 
 
 The  DoBrine,    and  the  Proof  of  it,    may 
 briefly  be  exprefled  in  the  following  Syllo- 
 
The  PREFJCE. 
 
 He  who  is  Alone  The  One  Supreme  Cover- 
 iiotir  of  the  Univerfe^  is  Jlone  The  One  Su^ 
 f  rente  God. 
 
 But  The  Father  Is  oAlone  The  One  Supreme 
 
 Governour  of  the  Univerfe. 
 
 And  This  latter  Propofition  is  Thus  prov'd. 
 
 He  who  never  aBs  in  SuljeBion  to  the  Wilt 
 ofoAny  other  Perfon^  and  every  other  Per* 
 fon  whatfoever  Always  a3s  in  SuljeBion 
 to  His  Will,  is  Jlone  The  One  Supreme 
 Governour  of  the  Univerfe^ 
 
 Bat  The  Father  never  aBs  in  Sul]eBion 
 to  the  Will  of  any  other  T  erf  on ;  And  every 
 other  Perfon  whatfoever^  always  acts  /» 
 Subjection  to  His  TVilh 
 
 Therefore  fjc. 
 
 In  oppofitlon  to  This  Do£lrine,  What  has 
 Dr.  Waterland  done  ?  Has  he  alledged  any 
 One  Text  of  Scripture  f  Has  he  alledged  any 
 One  Taj]age  of  Antiquity^  that  contradiBs 
 this  Notion  ?  Is  there  any  One  Sentence  in 
 all  his  Citations,  that  contradiBs  the  Fo' 
 ther\  having  Alone  (the  'AuS-^vrtx)    the  Su* 
 
 ^renw 
 
xii  The  PRE  FACE. 
 
 freme  Authorityy  Sovereignty^  and  Dominion 
 over  All  ?  Is  there  Any  One  of  his  Authors 
 in  the  Three  Firft  Centuries  and  lower, 
 that  does  not  in  numberlefs  Places  afcrihe 
 exprefsly  to  the  Father  ey4lone  (the  'Au5ey- 
 Tict)  phe  Supreme  Authority^  Sovereignty^  and 
 "Dominion  over  all  f  Where  then  does  the 
 Doftor  find  an  Equality  of  Supreme  Authority 
 and  Dominion^  either  in  two  Perfons,  or  in 
 three  ?  without  which  Supremacy  of  Au- 
 ^r*/.;.ii.thority  and  Dominion,  he  ^' knows  no  Di- 
 S??^'"  ^^*^^*^Ji"  none  ''  properly  God,  that  is 
 ^^  not  Supreme,  Supreme  in  the  fir iB  Senfe  j" 
 God  *^  i»  the  Same  fenfe,  and  in  as  High  a 
 *'  Senfe,  as  the  Father  IlimfelfV^  Where, 
 I  fay,  does  he  find  This  ?  Why  ;  Wor(fnp^ 
 he  finds  in  Scripture  and  in  Antiquity,  is 
 paid  to  the  Son :  And  This,  he  thinks,  Coti- 
 Sequentially  proves  his  Point.  But,  in  Scrip- 
 ture and  in  All  Antiquity,  nothing  is  more 
 clearly,  fully,  and  conftantly  taught,  than 
 that  the  Worfhip  paid  to  the  Son,  is  Afc- 
 rhiLi,u. diate  ^' To  the  Glory  of  the  Father  :^^  And 
 yet  the  Doftor  has  the  Hardinefs  roundly 
 to  affirm,  ("and  his  Whole  Scheme  depends 
 p.  247.  upon  it,)  that  '^  No  DiftinBion  of  Worpip, 
 mediate  and  ultimate,  was  ever  intimated^^ 
 In  like  manner,  he  labours  to  find  PafTages 
 in  Antient  Writers,  concerning  the  Eternity 
 and  Conjuljlantiality  of  the  Son ,    in  order 
 
 to 
 
The  PR^  FACE.  xiii 
 
 to  infer   from  thence,    that  hy    Confeqnence 
 thefe  Writers  ought   to  have    been    of  His 
 Opinion,  that   the    Father  is  not   Alone  Su^ 
 freme  in  Authority  and  Dominion   over  All. 
 Yet  nothing  can  be  more  palpably  evident, 
 than  that  None   of  thefe  Writers  underftood 
 thofe   points  in    the   fenfe      Dr.    Waterland 
 apprehends  them  :    Becaufe  They  themfelves 
 never  draw  this  Inference^  that  the  Father 
 is  not  Alone  Supreme  in  Authority  and  Do^ 
 minion  over  All ;  Nor  has  the  Dodor  been 
 able  to  find  any  One  pajjage  in    the   Writers 
 of  the   Firft   Three  Centuries   and    lower, 
 wherein   Any   of   them,    upon  This  or   any 
 other  occajion,  affert  any  fuch  thing:    And 
 they  all  of  them  conftantly,    uniformly,  and 
 in  numberlefs  Places,    (not  excepting  even 
 the    later  and   Montanift  Writings    of  Ter- 
 ttillian^    with  all  earneflnefs  exprefsly   con- 
 tend on  the    contrary,   and    reprefent  it   as 
 the  Vrime  foundation  of  true  Religion^    that 
 the    Father  is    Alone  Supreme  in   Authority 
 and   Dominion  over  All,    To  what  Purpofe 
 then  are  the  DoCtor's  Excurfions  concerning 
 the  Meta^hyfical  difficulties,  which  have  No 
 Relation  to  the  Point  in  queftion  ?  The  True 
 Queftion  is,  whether  He  who  Alone  has  the 
 Supreme  Authority^  Sovereignity^  and  Dominion 
 over  All,  original^  tmderivedy   and  altogether 
 independent  on  the  Will  of  any  other  ^erfon^ 
 
 be 
 
Jdt  The  P  RE  FACE. 
 
 be  not  Alo?ie  the  Supreme  Cover ?iour  of  the 
 Umverfe;  and  whether  He  who  Jlo^ie  is 
 the  Supreme  Govermur  of  the  Univerfe^  do- 
 ing all  things  /according  to  the  Tle^Jure  of 
 bis  owu  Will')  being  in  no  fenfe  and  in  no 
 refpeti  ever  fubjeft  to  the  Will  of  Any 
 Other  perfon,  be  not  Alone  ( abfolutely 
 fpeaking)  27?^  One  Supreme  God,  even  That 
 One  God  and  father  of  Jll,  whom  St.  Paul 
 exprefsly  declares  to  be  Above  Jllj  perfonal- 
 p/£.  iv.6.  ly  and  in  exprefs  terms  diftijiguiped  from 
 the  One  Lord  and  the  One  Spirit  mentioned 
 m  the  very  fame  fentence:  This  is  the 
 true  and  Only  Theological  Queftion.  And 
 till  Dr.  Waterland  makes  fome  Reply  to 
 This,  (better  than  what  he  has  yet  offer- 
 ed, vizn  that  The  One  God  and  father  of 
 AH,  who  is  Above  AU^  INCLUDES  That 
 One  Lord  and  One  Spirit^  whom  the  Apoftle 
 in  the  Text  does  by  Name  and  in  exprefs 
 words  DISTINGUISH  FROM  The  One. 
 God  and  Father  of  allj  who  is  Alove  all  -^J 
 his  metaphyfical  Imaginations  may  well  be 
 looked  upon  as  mere  empty  Amnfemejits. 
 
 If  the  Doctor  thinks  fit  to  write  an  An- 
 fwcr  to  This  Book ;  the  only  thing  defircd 
 of  him  is,  that  he  would  not  (as  in  his 
 former  Book)  reply  to  imaginary  Confeque?:* 
 ces  drawn  only  by  taking  his  owft  Hypo- 
 
 thefis 
 
The   T  KEF  ACE.  xv 
 
 thefis  for  granted,  or  to  what  he  fancies  his 
 Opponents/;<?/ifWfay,  ov  might  hy^  or  ^^  were  Defenfe, 
 "  to  have  ifaid  or  proved-^'''  but  that  he  would  ^'  ^'^^ 
 give  an  Anfwer  to  the  things  that  ARE 
 here  faid.  And  This,  not  by  trying  to  faften 
 Names  of  Reproach,  (which  ferve  only  to 
 terrify  the  ignorant  Vulgar  ;)  but  by  Show- 
 ing  that  the  Things  here  alledged,  are  dif- 
 agreeable  to  Keajon^  Scri^turey  and  Primitive 
 Antiquitjo 
 
 Till  he  has  done  This,   I  lay  claim  to  his 
 own  Words.     "  ///  this  Work,  I  have  en-  Pref.p,ii. 
 *^  deavoured    to    unravel    Sophiftry,    deteB 
 '''  Fallacies,  and  take  off  Difguifes,  in  order 
 «  to  fet  the    Controverfy  upon  a  clear  Foot. 
 "  77?^  T)o8or    has   hitherto  avoided  coming 
 "  to  the  Pinch   of  the  Queflioiu     If  he  plea- 
 *^  fes   to   ffeak  to    the  Point,    and  put  the 
 "  Caufe  upon  a  (Imt  IJJue,    as   may  eafily  le 
 ^^  do7ie  •  That  is  all,  that  is  defired.     I  doult 
 ^'  not  hut  all  Attempts  of  that   kind,    will 
 i'  end  (as  they  have  ever  done)  in  the  clear-- 
 ''  ing  up  of  the  Truth,    the  Difappointment  of 
 "  its  Oppofers,    the  Joy  of  Good  Men,    the 
 "  Honour  of  our  Lord-;'  and  (give  me  Leave 
 to  add)  thQ  Honour  of  both  His  and  OurG^i 
 mid  Father^  which  our  Lord  cme  to  feek. 
 
 ER- 
 
ERRATA 
 
 Pag.  Line  Read 
 
 Son  is  {confequently)  «« 
 
 A- 
 
 19' 
 
 13. 
 
 18. 
 
 14. 
 
 M- 
 
 14. 
 
 18. 
 
 18. 
 
 ^. 
 
 20. 
 
 8. 
 
 9- 
 
 26. 
 
 36. 
 
 28. 
 
 38. 
 
 13- 
 
 45:. 
 
 27. 
 
 55- 
 
 35. 
 
 57- 
 
 27. 
 
 70. 
 
 26. 
 
 74. 
 
 27. 
 
 81. 
 
 7. 
 
 8^ 
 
 30. 
 
 90. 
 
 36. 
 
 no. 
 
 16. 
 
 iir. 
 
 22. 
 
 119. 
 
 34- 
 
 130. 
 
 2. 
 
 ^35- 
 
 «//. 
 
 190. 
 
 31- 
 
 220. 
 
 27. 
 
 2,46. 
 
 3i- 
 
 2S<5. 
 
 28. 
 
 264. 
 
 2. 
 
 285. 
 
 31. 
 
 295. 
 
 3i. 
 
 319- 
 
 21. 
 
 321. 
 
 2-3- 
 
 392. 
 
 412. 
 
 28. 
 
 438. 
 
 «/r. 
 
 467. 
 
 27. 
 
 469. 
 
 ult.. 
 
 47i. 
 
 I. 
 
 495- 
 
 17- 
 
 5  "^7. 
 
 28. 
 
 The 
 
 After  the  wordsy  Phil- 2  ;  6,7,  Add  :   See  below,  p, 
 
 $o,£cc.  And  more,  on  Qu.  VI. 
 After  the  words,  dire6lly  againft  you;  Add:    Sec 
 
 below,  p  65  &c. 
 Ad  Tarlenies 
 
 Theol. 
 
 After  the  words,  through  whom  are  all  things :  Addi 
 
 See  above,  p.^and6;  and  !?elow,ffhi.  Illy  p.  iS^  ike. 
 
 %-ccf:)c  TO  [Jege  Ttx^a.  t»J 
 
 Latlantius 
 
 Toa-isruv 
 
 *'  the  i 
 
 words  cited 
 For  my 
 
 Inllead  of,  Himfelf  and  his  internal  Reafon  fubfijled 
 with  him -^  read,  h$  had  his  internal  Reafo?i  jtfelfful/ - 
 fijiing  in  him. 
 Vraxeas 
 Verbum 
 
 above  whom  there  is  no  other 
 probant,  quod 
 
 ToZ   TZCCT^o^ 
 
 the  contrary  (in  the Tenfe  you  life  thefe  Terms)  is 
 P.  117. 
 
 you  fay,  [yolens,'] 
 are  thefe  -.  "■  As  minijlnng 
 Jerom  tells 
 
 After  the  words,  to  exiji"  &c.     Add:  Which  fVords 
 are  often  cited  by  the  Learped  Bifliop  fi/#//,   but  not 
 ■  rightly  undcrftood. 
 very  ridiculous 
 
 S|    8»  OVTUV 
 
 Set  the  words,  [p.  267.]  againft  line  loth. 
 the  Guide 
 
 fame  Text 
 
 either  Sub/lan:ially  or  virtually  with  the  Father's. 
 
 affirming,  that  [f^U 
 
 SCZCCTUV. 
 
 A    RE«. 
 
REPLY 
 
 T  O 
 
 Br  WATER  LAND'S 
 
 DEFENCRe^^. 
 
 TEXTS  alledged  by  D^-  W.  to  be  compared,     p. 
 
 The  Word  was  God^ 
 Joh?i  I.  I. 
 
 ThyThrone^OGod^ 
 Heh.  1.  8. 
 
 Chrift  came,  who  is 
 over  all  God  blefled  for 
 ever,  Rom.g.  5. 
 
 Who  being  in  the 
 Formof  God,  PZ?/7.2. 
 6, 
 
 Who  being  the 
 Brightnefs  of  his  Glo- 
 ry, and  the  exprefs 
 Image  of  his  Perfon, 
 H^b.1.  3. 
 
 0,1/ ERY 
 
 I  am  the  Lord,  and 
 there  is  none  elfe  ^ 
 There  is  no  God  befides 
 me,  Ifa.  45.  5. 
 
 Js  there  a  God  be- 
 fides me  ?  Yea,  There 
 is  no  God,  I  know  not 
 any,  Ifa.  44.  8. 
 
 lam  God,  and  there 
 is  none  like  me ;  Ifa. 
 46.  9. 
 
 Before  me  there  was 
 no  God  form'd,  neither 
 fliall  there  be  after  me, 
 ■^7^.43.  10, 
 
 B 
 
Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 QjJ  E  R  Y    I. 
 
 Paj.  2.  Whether  all  other  Beings,  leftt^es  the  one  Su- 
 freme  God,  he  not  excluded  hy  the  Texts  of 
 Ifalah,  (to  which  ma?^)  more  might  he  added  \) 
 and  conjeqiiently^  whether  Curijl  can  he  God 
 at  all^  unlefs  He  he  the  fame  with  the  Su- 
 preme God  f 
 
 H  E  Anfwer  to  this  Query, 
 
 is  |>  that  the  Texts  oiJfaiah 
 
 here  alledged  by  you, and 
 
 other  Texts  of  the  like  na- 
 
 ^,  ,  ture,  do  all  of  them  7}wfl 
 
 ^^?m^M^m^  ex[rejslj^     and    uniformly 
 
 fpeak  ofa  (i)  ZV//^;/5and  {2)  not  of  a  ^'B& 
 1NG'\  as  diltinguillied  from  a  Pcrfon.  By  thofe 
 Texts  therefore,  not  only  '^All  other  BEINGS,'' 
 (as,  by  a  mean  Quibble,  you  exprefs  your  felf 
 in  this  Query,)  but  oAll  Others  whatfoever, 
 all  otiier  Beings^  all  other  Perfojis^  all  Others 
 whatfoever^  (befides  the  HE^  the  /,  the  ME^  the 
 Terfon  there  fpeaking,)  are  exfrefsly  excluded 
 from  being  what  /iE,  who  there  fpeaks,  de- 
 clares Him  felf  q/1  LONE  to  be.  From  whence 
 'tis  evident,  that  the  Texts  in  Ifaiah,  muft 
 needs  be  underftood  of  Hi?n  o^ily,  who  Alone 
 lias  Jll  Perfettions  and  All  Dominion  ahfolute- 
 
 (t)  Eufeb'mi  obfervcs  upon  the  Words  of  Ifaiahy  {beftdes  ME 
 there  is  no  Cody)  ivl(;  yxp  tV*  icd'AetZhi  yrpo-o'^-s  if  Aiyouuiv/i  py.(ri<;^. 
 that  the  Exprcliion  denotes  one  Per fm.  Which  Perjony  he  lays 
 prefently  after,,  is  the  F<i//?fr,  ^^  J[i  A/-lv^:  v^  /M»j<nrK,  e\i«.  r»  viS 
 tSto  (p.iTKcov,  fii-akin^  :iisbyhis  Soriyas  by  a  lie^refentative  arid  Me^ 
 diator.  Ecclcl.  Theol.  hb.-.  cap.  19,  8c  21. 
 
 (?-)  See,  4  Modeji  Pha,  &c.  p^  133— -— *  137, 
 
of  the  Vnity  of  God.  3 
 
 ly  In  and  Of  himfelf,  original^  underived^  and 
 independent  on  Any.  Which  Perfon  is,  in  the 
 New  Teftament^  ftiled.  The  One  God  and  Fa- 
 ther of  All ^  Eph.  iv,  6  ^  77?^  God  of  Abraham j 
 the  God  cf  our  Fathers,  who  glorified  HIS  Son 
 J^fus,  Ads  iii,  1 3.  To  ask  therefore,  ^  whe- 
 *'  ther  Chrift  CAN  le  God  at  all^  unlefs  he  he 
 ^^  the  fame  with  the  Supreme  God^^  the  fame 
 with  him  who  fpeaks  in  thefe  Texts  of  Ifaiah ; 
 is  to  ask  wheihif  the  Scripture  has  done  right 
 in  ftyh'ng  him  God  at  all,  when  at  the  fame 
 time  it  is  on  all  hands  confefled  that  he  is  not 
 That  One  God  a?td  Father  of  qAU  ;  (That  God  Eph  iv,  6; 
 of  our  Fathers^  who  glorified  HIS  Son  Jcfus  5 
 That  Supreme  God,  who  ALONE  has  oAll^^''''''^^^ 
 P erf eti ions  and  All  Dominion  abfolutel)  In  and 
 Of  himfelfy  original^  underivedj  and  indepen* 
 dent  on  Any  ^)  But  that  he  is  the  Son  of  That 
 One  God  and  i  at  her  of  all. 
 
 In  your  Defe?tce  of  this  Query,  you  proceed^*  ^*  ^\ 
 to  urge  the  Argument  thus.  ''If  the  Son  le  at 
 ^'  all  excluded  by  the  Texts  c/Ifaiah,  He  is  aU 
 ^'  together  excluded^  and  is  no  God  at  all.  He 
 '^  cannot^  (upon  Tour  Principles^)  le  the  fame 
 "  God^  lecaufe  he  is  not  the  fame  Perfo?j.   He 
 
 cannot  le  Another  Gody  lecaufe  excluded  ly 
 "  thefe  Texts.  If  therefore  He  le  neither  the 
 *'  fame  God^  ?ior  another  God  5  it  muft  follow 
 ''  that  he  is  no  God?"" 
 
 ifi.  '-''  He  cannot^"*    you   tell  me,    ^'lethep 
 •*  fame God^^  upon  Mj  Principles ;   ''  lecaufe 
 "  not  the  fame  Terfon.''  Very  right  :  Norup- 
 
 3i 
 
 B  2 
 
Of  the  V nit y  of  Cod. 
 
 on  An)>  Vrinciiks,  but  the  (i)  Saheliian.  You 
 yourjtlf^  when  you  come  to  explain  your  felf, 
 do  not  in  reality  make  him  to  be  the  jame  God^ 
 (tho' you  perpetually  ufe  That  Language  ^  but 
 only  to  be  in  his  Subftance  midiviatdfrom 
 ov  iiifeparahly  united  with^  the  God  and  Fa- 
 ther of  all  5  which  is  quite  another  Thing  from 
 being  Himfelf  The  f^ing  God. 
 
 2.  Your  6Vt:^;^^ Allegation  is  :  ''He  cannot  he 
 ''  Another  God,  hecauje  exclude dly  thefe  Texts  ^ 
 ^^  Therefore  he  is  no  God  at  all:'  But  from  What 
 is  he  '''excluded'''?  From  being  The  one  God^ 
 OFzdiom  (as  the  dvd  C?.uk')  are allThings I 
 not  from  being  the  one  Lord^  BT  ivlom  are  all 
 Things  •  or,  as  St.  JohnPiiks  him,  God  the  JVord, 
 ly  for  thro"*)  who?;/  all  thi?2gs  were  made.  He  is 
 not  excluded  therefore  from  being,  G^/-/  at  all^ 
 but  from  being  Another  God  m  That  Senfe' 
 wherein  the  Perfon.  fpeaking  in  the  Texts  of 
 Jfaiab^  declares  That  Title  to  belong  to  Him- 
 felf ALONE.  Tis  certain  the  Texts  do  not 
 fo  much  as  exclude  Mofes,  from  being  a  God 
 tmto  Pharaoh',  Magiftrates,  from  being  Gods  • 
 
 (0  Eufehius  charges  it  perpetually  upon  Marcellnsy  as  Sahel- 
 I'mr.'ifm,  to  fay  that  the  Father  2ini\  Son  are  fv  >^  txItcv,  One  and 
 the  fame  identical  Being',  ^o-iKxcci  ■lz^o^xo-h  ifv,  (or  in  Origens 
 Phrafe,  *v  1:7 cKSif^tva,  or  T«-J]oi'(r<ev,)  One  nnd  the  fame  imiivi" 
 dttal  identical  fubjifiing  Beingj  Adv.  Maicdl. /.  i.  c.  i.  p.  j. 
 ab  well  as  that  the  Son  is,  «?  k^  dv-nq  ru  S-ff,  One  and  the 
 fafne  Icrfon  -with  the  Sttpretne  ^God;  or  that  he  is  Himfelf 
 o  itt]  rrclvluv  Bs),^  the  one  Supreme  God :  For  which  Alfcrtion,  he 
 hys, Sabellius  was  excommunicated:  De  Hcclef,  Theol.  lib.  i.  c.4, 
 'Tis  the  fame  crrour  according  to  Tertullian,  to  fay  that  the  Son 
 is,  ipfeDeus  dominus  omnipotens,  Himfelf  the  Lord  God  yll^i^hty  : 
 Adv.  Prax.  c.  1.  And  with  Kovatian  'tis  fo,  to  fay  that  he  is, 
 Vrms  Deusj  The  One  God.    De  Trinit.  c,  jo,  31. 
 
 and 
 
Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  S 
 
 and  (i)  A'igels  (in  Scripture- Language,)  Gods 
 in  a  itiil  higher  Senfe.  Much  lefs  therefore 
 do  they  exclude  Jtfiis  Chrift  our  Lorcl^  (who 
 is  unfpeakably  Superior  to  Mofes^  Magiftrates, 
 or  Angels^)  from  being  God  at  all.  If  you  ob- 
 ferve  the  Stile  of  Scripture,  both  of  the  Old 
 and  New-Teftament,  as  well  as  of  All  Other 
 Writings ;  you  cannot  but  perceive  that  ex^ 
 chfive  irords  onhisSoi%  are  always  to  be 
 underftood  to  exclude  in  That  Se?ife^  in  which 
 the  Titles  there  mentioned  belong  to  the  Fer- 
 Jb^i  fjpokeu  of'^  and  not  in  any  other  Senfe. 
 Thus  there  is  not  only  ?io  other  Gody  but  7io  other 
 Lord^  no  other  6'^t'7*(5^^r,in  the  Senfe  in  which  the  ifniAi-n* 
 one  Godythe  Father  (ovFirft  Caufej  Of  whom  are 
 all  thhtgs^)  is  God  and  Lord  and  Saviour :  The 
 Idea  of  Siifreniacyj  (ftiled  by  the  Antients, 
 ^jj^vtIx^  Orightal  Authority^  and  Independency^ 
 (whether  mentioned  or  no;)  always  neceffari- 
 ly  going  along  with  the  Idea  of  the  One  Gody 
 or  One  Lord^  when  thofe  Titles  are  mentioned 
 in  an  Alfolute  conftruftion.  Yet  Chrijl  alfo  is 
 our  Saviour^  Tit.  iii,  4,  6  ;  God  our  Saviour 
 faving  us  through  Jefus  Chrijl  our  Saviour. 
 Chrijt  is  Lordd\'io\  nay,  he  is  the  one  Lordy 
 and  there  is  ?ione  belides  him  :    That  is,  evi- 
 
 (i)  Orlgen  fays,  that,  befides  the  true  Gtdy  [the  Father,] 
 there  are  many  [meaning  the  Angels,']  who  are  Gods,  y^irpyc^ 
 T«  B-iS,  by  partak'mg  of  the  Divine  NAture.  But  God  the  Word^ 
 he  fays,  is  Tif^ian^o^  roTq  Xoi7roT<i  TToif  a,v[Qv  B-£o7q,  glorified  f.'tr  4- 
 hove  all  Thofe  Gods ;  becaufe  'tis  through  His  ^iniftration  that 
 Theyd.rc  made  Partakers  of  Divinity,  Tor^Aoi^ror?  S-so^  ^hiIkovsv  eivcct 
 T«?  .9-sor»jr(^  Tov  Bsly  Xoyov'  Comment,  in  J  oh  p.  47.  Yet  even 
 Jhfe,  he  diftinguiOicth  from  *'  Nominal  Gods."  p.  48,  Defenfg^ 
 
 /).4. 
 
 B  3  dently. 
 
OftheVnity  of  God. 
 
 dently,  no  other  Lord  (i")  4*'  «,  thro*  Vi?hom 
 (as  tlie  minillring  Caufe)  are  nil  Things, 
 I  Cor.  viii,  6  ,  no  other  LorJ^  through  whom 
 we  are  redeemed  to  God.  And  this^  way  of 
 fpeaking,  'tis  manifert,  neither  exchuJtfs  a  fu- 
 ^eriorj  nor  inferior  Lord, 
 
 Nor  is  it  juft,  either  according  to  Scripture- 
 Language,  or  ftria  Propriety  of  Speech,  to 
 fay,  that  bec^ufe  another  Perfon  befides  the 
 One  Supreme  God^  is  ftil'd  God  or  Lora^  there- 
 fore That  Perfon  is  Mother  God^  or  Another 
 Lord ;  or  that  there  are  Two  Gods^  or  Two 
 Lords.  The  Reafon  is  plainly  This.  When 
 Two  Perlons  are  joined  together  in  this  man- 
 ner of  fpeaking,  they  are  alv/ays  fuppofcd  to 
 be  Equal '^  And  to  fay  Two  Lords^  necelfarily 
 fignifies,  in  the  Nature  of  Language,  Two 
 Co-ordinate  Lords^  or  Lords  in  the  fame  Senfe. 
 'Tis  remarkable  therefore,  that  the  Apoftle 
 St.  Paiil^  fpeaking  of  Chrift  in  Conjunftion 
 with  the  Father,    never   calls  him  Another 
 
 (i)  JThe  Learned  Eufeh'ms  oBferves,  that  the  ExprefTion, 
 s|  ccvtS,  or  ikr'  dvrS,  denotes  the  Suprefnc  Authoritative  Agen- 
 €y  [uv^ivTixv']  of  the  we  God  and  Vat  her  of  all.  And  that  the 
 Prepofition  ^u,,  by  or  thro\  fignifies  -n  xssrri^sUKlvj  the  winijlring 
 Caufe.  DeEcclef.  Theolog.  lib.  i.e. ^o.  Contra  Marcel,  lib.  i.e.  14. 
 Sec  below. J. i^.  philo  has  the  fame  Obfervation  hkcwife :  "En^Xitrn 
 
 Tvv  t(^iy  }C^7nv,  ''Ey.TVjcnif/jyiv  a,v^Luxcv  ^ix,  t5  ^i^'  y^  kcctu,  t^to  oiXfjtjUi.~6iv. 
 T«  ^i)7ror£  ;   oTk  6  S-««5  ''Atriov,  jj>c  ''Oeyuvov      To  H   ytvofjuivov,    Ai     o'p- 
 
 •yxvis  f/jiv,  'Xtto  e^i  ciiTin,  TrecvTu^  yinrcci Y^edl^i  fji,iv,  'T(p'  i, 
 
 TO  j.irtov, <dt'  iih,To  ffiyc6>\£ior 'Eyp)^(r«?  -/^  ''AiTicv  fjt,iv  uvtS 
 
 yKoa-f^aj  rev  B-iov,  'lC<p'  ^  ytyoviv,  . 'Ofiyuvcf  ^  Aoycv  .9-j»,  Ai    « 
 
 xxTia-Kivccc^yj.  And  he  condemns  it  as  an  Impropriety  of  Lan- 
 guage, to  fay  that  any  thing  is  made  [^lu,  rS?  .9-£»]  through  Cod; 
 and  infills,  that  it  ought  to  be  expieficd,  that  things  are  [iWo 
 tS  S-jS]  of  or  fronj  Cod,  [^5  cliiia]  as  the  Original  Caufe.  Dc 
 Cherub,  p.  119.  See  more,  belo-ju  on  §luery  id,  near  the  Be- 
 pn fling',  and  on  ^4,ry  3i^  tozvArds  the  tnd. 
 
 God, 
 
of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  7 
 
 God,  or  the  two  Perfons  Two  Gods  ;  but  pro- 
 feffeth  the  Facber  orily  to  be  by  way  of  Emi- 
 nence The  One  Goa\  and  flyles  Jefus  Chrill 
 Lord.  To  Us  there  is  hut  one  God^  [viz.]  the  i  or.viii. 
 father^  (as  in  the  Texts  of  the  Old  TelUiment\f' 
 and  one  Lord,  [viz.]  Jcfus  Cbrift,  (reveaPd  in 
 the  NeW'TeJiament.)  Yet  this  Lord  is  elfe-^ 
 where  ftyled  God,  as  being  (i)  the  Son  ofGodl 
 Concerning  which  Matter,  Tertullian  and 
 Novatian  exprefs  their  Senfe  very  clearly* 
 TtrtulUan  (2)  fays,  that  tho'  the  Scriptures 
 declare  Chrift  to  be  God,  yet  He  will  not 
 call  the  Father  and  Son  Two  Gods  or  Two 
 Lords  ;  hut  will  follow  the  Aj^ofiWs  Example  ; 
 and  if  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  to  he  f^oken 
 of  together^  he  will  call  the  Father  God^  and 
 Jefus  Chrift  Lord ,  hut  fpeah^^g  of  Chnfl  hy 
 Himfelf^  he  can  give  him  the  Title  of  Gody  as 
 theoA^oJile  does ^Kom,  ix,  5.  For^  (adds  hej 
 I  can  call  a  Beam  of  the  Sun^  the  Sun  -^  if  I 
 was  [peaking  of  it  alone.  But  in  freaking  of 
 the  Sun  and  its  Beam  together^    1  will  not  call 
 
 (i)  Novatian  fays  \  Eft  ergo  Bqhs,  fed  in  hoc  ipfum  f  «;?;>«/, 
 ut  eiret  Deus.  De  Trmit.  c.  31.  Eufebms  fays,  Chriji  is  our 
 God,  dxX  iSY,  0  7!-f)cl}T(^  3-SC5,  but  not  the  Supreme  God',  ^rpro? 
 ^i  [lege,  Trp&m  ^t^  r5  Bs^  fj!jovo'yiv/i(;  Cloq,  t^  e^jx  r^ro  Bsoq,  hut  he 
 is  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Supreme  God,  and,  upon  this  ac- 
 count, God.    Demonft.  Evangel,  p.  227. 
 
 (i)  Itaq;  Decs  omnino  non  dicam,  necDominos;  fedApo- 
 ftolum  fequar,  ut  fi  pariter  nominaiidi  fuerint  Pater  &  filius,  De* 
 urn  patrem  appcllem,  &  Jefum  Chriitum  Dominum  nominem. 
 Solum  autem  Chriitum,  potero  T>eum  dicere,  ficut  idem  Apo- 
 ftolus,  Rom.  ix, 5.  Nam  &  Radium  Solis  feorfum,  Solemsociho', 
 Solem  autem  nominans,  cujus  eft  radius,  non  Itatim  &  radium 
 Solem  appellabo.  Adv.  Prax.  <:,  13.  Pater  enim  tota  fubftantia 
 .eft,  Filius  vero  derivatio  totius  &  portio ;  ficut  ipfe  profitecur, 
 §^iia  Pater  major  me  eji.    Ibid.  0.(9. 
 
 B  4  ^  Beam 
 
<( 
 
 ^  of  the  Vnlty  of  God. 
 
 a  Beam  the  Sun.  For,  the  Father  f  fays  h^) 
 is  the  wh'Ae  Snhftance^  and  the  Son  [^This  was 
 his  Monta7iifl  Notion]  is  a  derivative  TJRT 
 of  it ;  as  be  himfelf  declares,  My  Father  is 
 greater  than  L  '  And  Novatian^  (i)  arguing 
 againft  the  Sab^llians  :  "  If  ((ays  hej  they  can 
 "  under/land  how  there  is  neverthelefs  hut  One 
 ^'  Lord,  though  Chrift  alfo  he  called  Lord  ^ 
 *'  afid  hut  One  Mafter,  though  Paul  alfo  le 
 '*'  called  lS/i.ix^t^\  and  hut  OnQ  th^t  is  Good, 
 *'  ;t/?^^^Z?  Chrift  alfo  he  [tiled  Good  :  r/^^-  may 
 "  Jj  ^Aj^  Z'^/;;/?  reafon  under  [land  alfo^  howj  not- 
 withftanding  there  is  hut  One  God,  yet 
 Chrift  Mo  may  he  [tiled  God.  God  the  Fa- 
 ther therefore  is  the  One^God,  ^''t'."  And 
 he  very  diftin£kly  and  explicitly  declares  his 
 Senfe,  that  the  Father  and  Son  for  this  Rea- 
 f.n  cannot  be  Two  Gods,  BECAUSE  the  Fa- 
 ther  Alone  is  unhegotten,  tinoriginate^  invifi* 
 lie,  &c. 
 V.  4.  Your  Argument  concerning  Baal  and  g/[/7;- 
 
 taroth,  and  the  ?agan  Deities  ,  is  what  I  hard- 
 ly know  how  to  excufe  from  ?ro\)hanenefs. 
 That  Solomon  and  the  Jews  might  as  lawfully 
 
 (i)  Si  non  putant  aliqua  ratione  offici  pofTe  ei  quod  utius  do- 
 fn'inus  eO,  per  illud  quod  eft  dom'mus  CT*  Chrijius;  neq;  ei  quod 
 unus  eji  Magi/ler,  per  illud  quod  eft  Alagijhr  cr  Paulus ;  aut  illi 
 quod  Unas  eft  Eo?iusy  per  illud  quod  bonus  lit  nuncupaius  8c 
 Chriftus'.  eadem  ratione  intelligent, offici  non  poffe  abillo,quod 
 Vnus  eft  Dsusy  ei  quod  Deus  pronunciatus  eft  ct'  Chriftus.  Eil 
 ergo  Dcus  Paler  ^  Ihws   D:ics.     And  //  the  Son,  he  fays, 
 
 was  *'  innatus,  fine  origine,  invifibilis,  incomprchenfibilis,  & 
 ♦*  quaccunque  funt  Patris;  (par  exprcftiis, —  ccquak^sinventi,--^ 
 **  merito  duorum  Deorum,  quam  ifti  contingunt,  con- 
 **  troverfiam  furcitaflct:"  if  he  was  unyegottenyun  origin  ate,  invi- 
 fible,  inccniprehenftbUyikQ.  then  being  found  Equal  to  the  lather^ 
 ^heremuft  confequently  have  bee/}  Tivo  Gods.     CAp.  30.  31. 
 
 fa-5 
 
of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  9 
 
 facrifice  to  JlUaroth  and  Milcom^  Without  and 
 Jg-'injt  God's  Command  ;  as  we  can  worfliip 
 Chrift  By  his  Command^  with  Worfliip  Medi- 
 ate to  the  Glory  of  the  father.  For  your  Ar- 
 gument here  abfolutely  fuppofes,  and  you  elfe- 
 where  diftinftly  aflert  it,  that  there  can  be  no 
 fuch  Thing  as  "  MEDIJTE''  Worfhip  atall.P.247. 
 God  (you  think)  has,  in  the  Texts  of  the 
 Old-Teftament,  precluded  himfelf  from  alt 
 Right  of  commanding  J?iy  IVorpip  to  be  paid 
 to  2i  Mediator^  in  tliQ  Capacity  of  a  Mediator : 
 Becaufe  That  is  Mediate  WorJInp  ,  a  WorJI)ip 
 terminating  ultimately  in  Another^  and  not 
 ultimately  in  the  Mediatour  to  whom  it  is 
 paid  ;  a  fVorJInp  which,  in  the  nature  of  Things, 
 cannot  pojjibly  be  paid  at  all  to  the  One  Su- 
 preme God :  For  the  One  Supreme  G(?i  cannot 
 poflibly  have  any  Thing  {i)  given  or  commit^ 
 ted  to  him  by  Another^  cannot  poffibly  be 
 (2)  fe?it  by  Another^  cannot  be  exalted  by 
 Another^  cannot  be  ho?ioured  in  order  to  the 
 Glory  ultimately  of  Another  Ferfon.  And  yet 
 in  Scripture  we  read  exprefsh\  of  an  cverlafl-  uanMU 
 ing  Dominion  GIVEN  to  the  Son  of  Man,  that  14. 
 all  Nations  fliould  SERVE  him  ,  of  Mens 
 Honouring  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Pa-  ^^h  v  22; 
 ther^  becaufe  All  Judgment  is  COMMITTED 
 
 (1)  is  y^  0  TTotTYt^  ?t»^fti  rivtc,  eiMPi-  'Trnvrc^v  <^  ocvto^  m  cc^^a  j^ 
 T>JV>5,  iCj  jiC^cc  rZv  ccyx^-o)'/,  eiKorax^  «5  }^  yj'ovoc,  otvocyofivoiTo  uv  Qioc,- 
 Eufeb.  de  Ecclef.  Theol.  lib.  i.  C]. 
 
 (2)  MIJJ'hs  autem  non  fuit  pater,  ne  pater  fubditus  alteri  deo, 
 dum  mittitur,  probaretur.  Novat.  de  Tr'mh.  c,  22.  Propter 
 Authoritatcm  folus  pater  non  ^xziWixm^fjUs.  Auguft.  Serm.  con- 
 tra Ar'ian.  c.  4.  Aijurdijfiml;  aut  a  fil'w  quem  genu'ity  aut  a  Spiritii. 
 San^o  (jui  de  illo  frocedh,  miJJ'ns  diceretur.  ^//^.  de  Tr'm.  lib'  4><^'  »^^ 
 
 unto 
 
10 
 
 OftheVnltyofGoL 
 
 phii.u,f),  untQ  j-jij^  .    ^^^]  Qf  ^very  Knee's  "Bowing  at 
 
 '  ''*     /^^d-  jSame  of  Jeffis,  becaufe  of  God's  having 
 
 highly  EXALTED  him  ^   and  every  Tongue's 
 
 confcjjing  him  to  he  Lord^  TO  the  glory  of  God 
 
 the  Father. 
 
 Thefi)  oAutients  exprefs  their  Senfe  very 
 clearly  in  this  Matter  j  founding  the  Religious 
 Hojiour  paid  by  them  to  the  Son  of  God,  ex* 
 prefsly  on  the  Will^  Good  Pleafure,  and  Co7n- 
 ma?id  of  the  Father.  They  were  not  of  Opini- 
 on therefore,  that  the  Texts  of  Ifaiah  meant, 
 that  the  Son  is  ''' included  and  comprehended 
 "  in  the  one  Supreme  God  of  Ifrael ,''  That  isy 
 
 (i )  yufttn  Martyr,  upon  the  Tcxt^T/jou  fljalt  love  the  Lord 
 thy  God  with  all  thy  Hearty  fays;    o  ^^  1%  Q>^-/ic,  tw   tuc^iictc,,  >^  £| 
 
 hd'tvx  uXXov  rifx,y,<r^  ^iov  Kccj  oly/iXov  IkHvov  uv  rifAKO-ij,  3-£»  BOT- 
 AOMEKOr.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  P.  97.  Edit.  Steph.  "  He  whoy  be- 
 **  ing  endued  with  a  pious  Difpojition,  loves  God  with  all  his 
 **  Hearty  and  all  his  Strength ;  will  wor/Jjip  no  other  God,  Yet  he 
 "  will  alfo  worJJ)ipThat  Mejfenger  of  God,  [Qhrid  the  Angel  of 
 **  his  Pre  fence ;]  it  being  God's  WILL  [or  Commdud]  that  he 
 **  fjjould  do  fo.^'  And  Iren^us  ;  Ivet  ;^p'5"f  'U<r^  ry  Kv^la^yjuv  y^ 
 S-f*,  tdj  (re-JTKfi,  1^  /Sma-tMh  Kccicc  liu)  iv^oKiuv  t^  TTccifc^rS  cccpccm,  7ruf> 
 yovv  xMfju'^^y,.  lib.  I.  c,l.  p.4y  Gr^.  "  That  every  Knee  might  bow 
 *'  to  Chriji  'Jefus  our  Lord,  and  God,  and  Saviour,  and  King,  ac- 
 *'  cording  to  the  GOOD  PLEASURE  oj  the  invifible  Father.'* 
 And  Origoi'y  >^  'Z«§^  tuv  ccXXuv  [jifjtjcofjtjivuv  »$  S-s^y]  ififjjiViciTcoe.^ 
 T^vls^  cIttqoU^iv  'Z<rg<  r»  o^oo<5^  ccvroTc,  cItto  tS  l^t  7rec<ri  6eS  td  rt- 
 fj(^§y(X.v  'Exv  ^'  ijf/jTv  olvdvzro^if'/j  ro  7rc>cpX7rXy}<rio*  'Z^  rS  'lK<rS>  ^>a»- 
 eei^ofji,iv  oTi  oi.770  B-iS  ^t^orxi  cIvtm  tv  nyjcli^cci,  'iva.  Trnvnc^  rifjt/cHa-i 
 TOV  vi)v,  )ccc&ci}i;']ifjuco(rt  vriv  ztxtt^x.  Contr.  Celf.  lib,  S.  p.  384.  "  His 
 "  demand,  faith  he,  of  Cehus,  concerning  thofe  whom  they  war- 
 *'  flj}p  as  Gods,  a  Proof  of  the  Supreme  God  having  appointed  them 
 •*  to  be  vjorjhipped :  And  if  on  the  other  hand  He  demands  the 
 *'  fame  Thing  of  Us  concerning  Jefus,  we  will  fuew  him  that  God 
 "  Hath  appointed  him  tt  be  worjhipped:  That  all  Men  {l)otild  ho- 
 *'  nourthe  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father"  And  Cyprian: 
 Pater  Deus  prcecepit  fiUum  fuum  adorari.  De  bono  Patienti^^ 
 p.  iio.  "  God  the  Father  Commanded  his  Son  to  be  wor(hipped.\ 
 Which  he  proves  from  Phil,  ii.  9, 10. 11. 
 
 ia 
 
of  the  Vnity  of  God  1 1 
 
 in  That  God  of  our  Fathers  (according  to  St.  P^- 
 tty's  Language)    who  glorified  HIS  Son  Je^ 
 fm^  Afts  ^,  13,     This  is  evidently  fuppofing 
 The  One  God  and  Father  of  All  ^  to  be  hoth  Father 
 a?id  Son.     Which,  as  abfurd,   and  as  direftlyr 
 contrary  to  Scripture  as  it  is ,  yet  ycTu  are  forced 
 inconfiftently  to  maintain  it,  as  often  as  you  af- 
 firm the  Sm  to  be  The  One  God^   even  That 
 One  God,  whom  St.  Pad  exprefsly  declares  to^cor,^.6, 
 be  The  Father,    Of  whom  are  ail  Things^   as 
 diftinguidied  from  the  One  Lord  by  whofu  are 
 all  things  •,  the  Father  of  All,    who  is  Above 
 all,  as  diftinguifhed  from  the  One  Lord,   and^/^-4'<^. 
 One  Spirit.     And  at  laft,  after  all  your  Strug- 
 gles, your  Notion  terminates  in  This ,  that  the 
 Scripture  generally  by  the  Term,    One  Godj 
 does  not  indeed  mean  One  God,    but  One  God- 
 head\  not  One  Living  God,  but  ''^una  fummap.39r. 
 *'  res,  07te  homoge?teous   Subfiance  with  infe- 
 *'  farahility  ,"  one  abftratl  God  in  general  -^semons, 
 *'  jnft  as  the  Word  Man  is  often  ufed  to  denote^' ^'^^*''^'^' 
 ^'  Alan  in  general,  — the  whole  Species.'^''    See 
 Mow,  on  Query  XXIX.     And  tho'  the  whole 
 Scripture  conftantly  fpeaks  of  God  in  the  per- 
 fonal  Expreffions,  He,  and  Him,  and  His  ^  yet 
 you  prefumptuoufly  think  thefe  Expreffions 
 are  "  inconvenient,  as  not  taking  in  all  that 
 "  We  apprehend  of  the  One  True  Godf  and 
 that  ''It  or  ''That,  The/'  or  *'  Them^'  would 
 more  proper!}',  though  7iot  with  fo  little  Of- 
 fence, exprefs  what  Tou  mean  by  the  Word 
 God.    For  though  you  pretend  to  alledge,  that 
 *'  to  fay,  T^h^Y,  or  Them,  would  appear  as  if 
 ■  •  the  Perfons  were  divided  and  fe par  ate  ;>'' 
 
 yet 
 
iz  OftheVnityofGod. 
 
 yet  this  Pretence  has  not  the  leaft  Foundation 
 in  Reafon.  For  the  Words  JX'^'  and  Them  do 
 altogether  as  properly  exprefs  midivided  Per- 
 fons,  as  divined  on^s'^  and  the  Words  H^  and 
 Him  can  no  more  poffibly  exprefs  many  /^.W/- 
 v^dedFcdonSy  than  divided  orqs. 
 
 Q^U  E  K  Y      IL 
 
 ^  ^^  Whether  the  Texts  of  the  New  Tefl anient  Qn 
 the  Second  Coltirmi)  do  not  [how  that  He 
 (Chrilt)  is  not  excluded^  and  therefore  tntifl 
 le  the  fame  Go  d'^ 
 
 Anfwf  I  ^  H  E  New  Teftament^:^/? >:^/}/)'  de- 
 X  ^^^^'^^5  t'^^t  The  One  God,  0  F 
 whom  are  all  things^  isThe  Father,  i  Cor.  8,  6, 
 tbQ  One  God  and  Father  of  aU^  who  is  above 
 JJly  Eph.  4,  6  5  even  Re  who  alone  has  All 
 Perfect iofis  and  All  Dominion  dhfolntely  In  and 
 Of  himftlf  original,  nnderived^,  a7id  indefejt^ 
 dent  on  Any  :  And  that  Chrift  is  not  This 
 Firft  Caife,  tliis  One  God  OF  whom  are  all 
 things^  but  the  One  l.ord  [or,  in  St.  John\ 
 Language,  God  the  IVord,']  BT  whom  are  all' 
 things^  by  whom  the  Father  made  all  things. 
 ^~  The  TEXTS  of  the  New  Teftament  "  cited 
 above  by ^w/r/^// upon  this  Head,  "//7  the 
 ^'  Second  Colmin^'*  do  all  of  tliem  plainly 
 Ihow  the  fame  thing.  As  will,  in  the  Sequel 
 of  this  Difcourfe,  more  fully  appear. 
 
 p.  r.c>'6.  St.  John,  in  your  Fir/i  Text,  obferves,  that 
 he  was  God  the  Word,    that  is,  the  Revealer 
 
 Joh.i.i,  of  God's  fF/// 5  that  he  was  With  God^  and 
 My  Him  were  made,  [in  St,  FatiVs  Language, 
 by  him  GOD  made  j   in  the  Language  of  the 
 
 An^ 
 
of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  j 
 
 Antlent  Fathers,  By  his  (i)  MinifiratioJi  God 
 rnade^  all  things^ 
 
 In  your  Second  Text,  St.  Paul  fays  of  him, p.  i.o'6. 
 "Thy  TbroJie,  0  God,    is  for  ever.     And  he  fuf- 
 ficiently   explains  himfelf,  by  adding,  (vvhat^^^-i*  ^^ 
 you  ought  not  to  have  omitted  ,)  ver.  9.  God^ 
 tve?i  THT  Gody  bath  anointed  thee. 
 
 Your  Third  Ttxt^  Rom.  9,  5.  admits  of  va- 
 rious Interpretations ,  which  make  it  dubious, 
 whether  it  may  not  poflibly  be  meant  of  the 
 .'Father.  See  Dr.  Clarke' j Scrip.  Docf.f^.ji^.Edit. 
 2d.  But  allowing  the  vulgar  Pointing,  and  con- 
 fequently  that  the  Words  are  fpoken  oiChrift  ^ 
 
 ftill  it  is,  not  0  &>k  0  l^l.mu^vTwv  n^o^^but   J  (Sv  tTn 
 
 rnilvrrjov  (2)  oSto?.  The  Meaning  of  which,  is 
 diftinftly explained  by  (3)  St.  Faid  himfelfiCon 
 
 F^iov  ["AoVa^  ^fi'f'VjjfTi.      AvvccfAjs(^  yovv  o  'hvccyyiXi^v^i  Ltthv,  ttuvIcc 
 
 'YtT  clvToZ  lyivi\o,~ »;^  '^TT.  dvlov  \<pyi,  dXXcc  At    civlov'  ivcc  ity/ci^ 
 
 dyxTTifj'jil'vj  Itt)  TTiV  Tuv  oXcuv  7rot}^iKy,v  rev  JTitlfo^  clv^ivnocr     Eiifeb^  de 
 
 Ecclef.  TheoL  I.  i.  c.io.  See  above,  p.6' 
 
 (2)  Upon  thefe  Words,  Hlppolytus  Can  Author  you  are  very- 
 fond  of.  tho'  of  very  dubious  Authority,)  thus  fpeaks :   'o^^ 
 
 6  h)v  Irtt  TTcivim  B-iot^  hiv  Xsyet  yu^  'area  fjuiTrz  7:01.'^^ ^(rMc,,  ■z^rccvlu,  fjttoi 
 Troc^oe^i^lcii  vTTo  TQv  7rciT^o<i'  *'  Chnft  is  God  over  All :  FOR  thus 
 **  he  hif^felffays  platnly,  ALL  Things  are  GIVEN  tne  frcm  the 
 "  lather." 
 
 (3)  Upon  this  Text  Bippolytm  fays,  si'  ovv  tw  tuvtu  -JoJvliTUKlxs 
 
 He,  iTioq  <pMy\  a)  ru  '^ix,v7W.scJT>Ta<r<mui^  at/jO,  ptJp'^'^j  w  tu  ttuvtcc  TCtc- 
 
 T^P  \j77iTv.%ii  cTctpsI  ko(.'jToZ-  contra  Noet.  §.  6.  P.  lo.  Fabric.  "  // 
 *'  therefore  all  Things  are  put  under  him.  He  being  excepted  who  did 
 **  put  all  Things  under  Him ;  He  hath  Dominion  over  all  Things, and 
 *'  theFather  over  Him :  That  in  all  things  it  may  appear  there  is  One 
 '*  God  to  vjhom  all  Things  arefubjetT:,  and  even  Chrijihimfelf;  ttn- 
 **  der  whom  the  Father  has  put  all  Things,  Himfelf  only  excepted.'* 
 Thus  alfo  Clemens:  o  vrcivTav  xypf(^[Words  of  the  fame  im- 
 port as  0  coy  iTTt  Trnvrav  S-£(^,J  ;^  ^Ats-ot  g'ly^rjjpsT^;/  rS  rev  — 7r«cv- 
 loK^Tof(^  B-iX^f/^UTi  -srxrftoii'  And  aglin  :  Tovtm  tzzItx  vTTo'nrxKTXt, 
 i^fccTiu.  kyyiXuv  tx  v^  B-iuv,  tm  x'oycj)  tu  -Trccr^i-^w,  rvtv  uyidv  oixovot^ixv 
 kvec^i^ayfXiiYf  J^*i>  tp»  \^m|w7W.    Strom,  />.  83 1,  Biz,tdif.  Ox. 
 
1 4  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 15,  27,  But  when  be  faith ^  All  things  are  put 
 under  hi/n^  it  is  mamfefl  that  He  is  excepted^ 
 who  did  put  all  Things  under  him  -^  And,  The 
 So}i  hiffifelffljall  be  fubjsci  unto  him  that  put  all 
 Things  under  him^  that  God  may  he  all  in  all^ , 
 V.  28.  And  again,  The  Head  of  Chrifl  is  God, 
 who  gave  him  to  be  Head  over  all  Things  to  the 
 Churchy  Eph.  1,22. 
 
 Nor  can  any  thing  be  more  direftly  agai^tfl 
 you,  than  your  Fourth  Text  *,  according  to  the 
 true  Rendring  of  it.  Who  being  in  the  Form  of 
 God^  did  not  ajfmne  to  appear  as  God^  (or, 
 to  he  honourM  as  God,)  hut  emptied  Him-- 
 felf,  &c.  Fhil.  2.  6,  7. 
 f. 1,0^6.  In  like  manner  your  Lafi  Text,  Heb.  i,  5, 
 (ypho  being  the  hrightnefs  of  his  Glory ^  and  the 
 exprefs  Image  of  his  Perfon  j)  is  not  for  you^ 
 but  diredly  againfl  you. 
 
 P'  7.  In  your  Defeiife  of  this  Query?   you  repeat 
 
 the  fame  Things  again,  and  infift  that ''  Chrijl 
 "  is  God  before  the  World  was  ,  God  over  all, 
 *'  blejfed  for  ever  ^  Maker  of  the  World  \  and 
 "  worlhipp^l  by  the  Angels  :  And  therefore  cer- 
 tainlj  he  is  not  excluded  amon^  the  Nominal 
 '*  Godsy  I  anfwer :  Undoubtedly  he  is  not 
 excluded  among  the  l^ominal  or  Falfe  Gods* 
 But  the  QucfUon  is,  whether  the  Charaders 
 you  here  infift  on,  are  ever  given  him  in  Scrip- 
 ture infuch  a  manner^  as  to  imply  (what  yoa 
 
 p. 7.  contend  for)  that  he  is  himfelf  '-''The  One 
 "  Supreme  God-^''  Supreme  "  in  the  (IriS  Senfe  ,'* 
 
 ^•53,5:7.  ^^  God  in  the  fame  Senfe^   and  in  as  High  a 
 
 ''^enfe^ 
 
of  the  Vnity  of  God.  i  $ 
 
 «  Senfe,  as  the  Father  hhnfelf*  This,  (you 
 mud  remember,)  This  Queftion^  concerning 
 the  "^  Supreme  Authority  in  the  Government  of^'Av^t^'^. 
 the  Utihe-fe^  (all  other  Points  being  mere  Me- 
 taphyficksj^  is  the  True  and  Only  Theological, 
 the  True  and  Only  iW^f^nW  Point  in  queftion 
 between  us. 
 
 Your  Fir  ft  Affertion   then  is,   that  Chriffp.  r; 
 is  "  God  before  the  World  was."'    Be  it  fo  :  Yet 
 not   '^i«  the  fame  Senfe,    and  in  as  HIGH  a 
 "  Senf'e,  as  the  father  Himfelf-;'    becaufe  AU^'  '^* 
 that  the  Text,  here  referred  to,  afferts,  is  ex- 
 prefsly  This  only,   that  He  is  God  the  Wordy 
 who  was  in  the  Beginning  With  GOD^  and  by  or 
 thro^  whom  were  made  [by  whom  "^  God  raade^  '^Eph.-^.^i 
 all  things.     Which  cannot   be  truly  affirmed  ^^'^•^»''' 
 of  the  (i  j  One  Supreme  God^  and  Author  of  all. 
 
 (i)  Eufehms^    having  declar'd  at  large   the  Bo5lnne  »f  the 
 Church  J  v/hich  placed  xhtUnity  of  God  in  the  Supremacy  of  the 
 Father;  fliows  that  the  Father  and  Son  for  This  Reafon  could- 
 not  be  Two  Gods,  becaufe  they  were  neither  (icoTjyjui)  Equal 
 in  Honour y  nor  Both  of  them  unoriginated  and  unUegotten,    («4' 
 ui/j(pu  uvu^x^<i  -/^  uyivr/iTnq ;)  but  that  the  Father  was  the  Original 
 of  the  Son,  and  His  God;  and  that  thorefore  the  Church  taught 
 but  One  God,  even  the  Father,  whom  the  Son  himfelf  Honours 
 and  Glorifies  as  his  God.  After  which,  he  proceeds  to  (how  at  large 
 the  Son's  SuhjeHion  to  the  Father,  from  maay  Texts  of  Scrip-^ 
 ture,  "  But  then,  adds  he,  fince  the  Son  has  Dominion  over  all 
 **  created  Things,     that   were  made  by     him,    as  being  the  Sa» 
 "  viour,  and  Lord,  and  Framer  of  all  Things,    (for  all  Things 
 **    were  made  BT  Him,)  ^nKouJiznd^  S-jo^  v^  ^scrTreTijc  f^a-eonipf^ 
 "  (IcctriX'cU  o!.vccyo^ivotrou'j,  he  may  on  That  Account  be  called  God 
 "  and  Lord  and  Saviour  and  King.      Therefore  (He  goes  on,) 
 "  the  Church  worjlnps  and  honours  him  as  God,   becaufe  it  is  the 
 
 "  Father's  Will,  who  committed  all  Judgment  unto  him, and 
 
 *'  who  is  thus  honoured  By  him.  But  the  Son  having  Rcceivdall 
 "  thefe  Things,  and  even  the  Glory  of  his  Divinity,  from  the  Fa- 
 "  ther;  whereas  the  Father  receives  nothing  from  him;  Jhe  Fa- 
 "  ther  therefore  being  the  Original,  Fountain,  and  Root  of  all  good 
 "  Things,  is  juflly  declared  to  be  The  One  and  Only  God/'  De 
 Ecclef.  TheoL  lib.  i.  c.  7.         ""      ' 
 
 Your 
 
p.  7. 
 
 i6  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 Your  Next  Allegation,  that  Chrift  is  "  God 
 *^  over  all^^  has  been  confidcred  ahove^  P«  i?  o 
 And  theSenfe  of  thofe  Words,  (Jiom  9,  5,^ 
 has  been  fhown  from  the  Analogy  of  other 
 Texts  of  St.  Paul.  And,  I  think,  you  are  nei- 
 ther fair  to  your  Reader^  in  concealing  from 
 him  the  different  Tanflations,  the  words  of 
 That  Text  are  capable  of;,  nor  to  Me^  in  of- 
 fering the  Words  again,  without  confidering 
 the  Account  I  had  at  firil  given  of  them!  What 
 I  fliall  here  add,  is,  that  the  Doftrine  you  al- 
 ledge  This  Text  to  prove,  befides  the  Gppofi- 
 tion  of  it  to  the  whole  ISIew  Tejiament^  is  a 
 Contradiction  alfo  to  (what  you  would  be 
 thought  to  lay  a  great  S^trefs  upon,)  the 
 whole  Stream  of  (i\  oAntkjuitj.  For  not  only 
 no  Ancient  Chriftian  Writer,  even  of  thofe  who 
 applied  this  Text  to  Chrift,    (as  he?iaus^  Ter- 
 
 (1)  One  PafTageout  of  Hippolytm,  (an  Author  whom  you  fo 
 frequently  quote,)  will  plainly  (how  you  what  the  Antients 
 meant  in  thofe  Places,  where  you  think  they  applied  to  the  Son 
 x\\^  fa7ne  Hi^h  Titles  equally  with  the  Father.     OuV©-  o  av  Irrl 
 
 TUi    "czs-o    Tov  '^tu.T^'oc; -KctAoig  ilzri  TruvroK^Tofioi  pt^fitfov    Toi/'ro  »yt> 
 
 ilsriv,  czs'sp  X.CH  civrm  i/jxpTv^^ret  6  ')C[i<r'ov    f/joc^TVfOv  -y^  X^t^oq  i(pr],  Trcuf- 
 
 Cr^Vctrpa?  xc«T£fz»5^>;  pc?'i^^-  ^^  He,  VIZ.  Chr'tfiy  (layshe,)  is  (Rom. 
 **  9,  5,)  God  over  All:  FOR  thu6  he  himfelj  fa'ys  pUhily  and 
 *'  exprefsljy  ALL  things  are  GIVEN  me  from  the  lather." 
 And  again,  (erroneoufly  applying  to  Chrill:  That  Text,  Rev.  r, 
 8;)  "St,Joh?i  (fays  he)  zvell  fiiles  Chri/i  Mmtghty ;  FOR  This 
 *'  ;■;  affirming  the  fame  thing  as  Chrifl  Him felf  alfo  tefii fie s,  when 
 "  he  fays,  ALL  things  are  GIVEN  me  from  the  Father.  And  he 
 **  ruleth  over  All,  being  CONSTITUTED  Almighty  [or  Ruler 
 «'  over  all f\  iy  the  Father y  Hippolyt.  contra  Noetum,§.6,p.io. 
 Edit.  Fabrit.  Concerning  this  Lall  Phrafe,  fee  more,  beloiVf  on 
 Sju,  27,  towards  the  E?id. 
 
 tnllian^ 
 
Qii.II.    OftheVnityofCod.  i 
 
 tullian^  H/ppoljius^  Novatian^  ever  infers 
 from  it  (as  ^ou  do,)  that  Chrift  is  Toe  One 
 Supreme  God  \  buc  alfo  on  the  contrary  they 
 diftinftly  explain  their  Notion  to  be,  that  the 
 Father  only  is  pn  the  Supreme  and  oAhjolute 
 Senfe)  The  {i)  One  God ',  and  that  t\\Q  So?i 
 hath  the  Power  over  the  whole  Creation  (2) 
 given  and  committed  to  him  from  the  Father. 
 And  they  not  only  All  of  them  uniformly  and 
 largely  affert  his  (j)  Miniftration  (in  his 
 higlieft  Capacity,)  to  the  Will  of  the  Father 
 in  all  Things  *,  but  fome  of  them  reprefent  it 
 as  being  even  a  Blafphemous  and  Heretical 
 Doctrine,  to  affirm  Chrift  to  be  (4)  Himfelf 
 Tov    b7n     TrdvTwv  rSrof  9     The    Supreme     God* 
 
 Next  you  alledge,  that  Chrift  is  ^'  Maker  cfp^f, 
 ^'  the  WorW^    The  Texts^   on  which  you 
 G  build 
 
 (i)  Irtn&m  fays,  that  God  the  Father,  the  Maker  of  Heaven  and 
 Earthy  is  [as'*^  '^zoc,  'T^cMToic^ra^,  "  the  only  God  Supreme  over 
 **  all"  Ltlf.  I.  Cap.  13.  p.  79.  And  again,  that  he  is  unM4  ct* 
 folus  verui  Dem^  "  The  One  and  Only  True  God,"  Lib,  4.  c.  6(^, 
 Sec  many  more  Paflages  of  this  Nature,  cited  by  Dr.  Clarke, 
 Script.  Dodr.  Partll.  §.9. 
 
 (2)  iren&m  fays ;  Dominium  accepit  a  Patre  fuo  omnis  con- 
 ditionis,  hb.  3.  cap.  6.  ^^  The  Son  Receiv  d  from  his  Father  Domi^ 
 nion  over  the  whole  Creation."  Thus  alfo  Tertullian :  Filiuni 
 non  aliunde  deduco,  fed  defubftantiapatris;  nihil  facientem  li- 
 ne Patris  voluntate,  omnem  a  Patre  confecutum  Poteftatem. 
 adv.  Prax.  cap.  4.  «'  /  Lnow  no  other  Original  of  the  Son,  than 
 *'  from  the  Subftance  of  the  Father  \  Who  does  nothing  but  accord- 
 "  ing  to  the  Will  of  the  Father^  and  hath  Received  all  Power 
 **  from  the  Father." 
 
 ('>,)  Novat.  de  Trinit.  cap.  31.  throughout.  Many  particular 
 Palfages  of  other  Authors,  I  ihall  have  occalion  to  cite  pre- 
 fently. 
 
 (4)  The  Apojlolical  Conjlitutions^  reprefent  it  as  a  Branch  of 
 the  Gttofiic  Herefy,  to  affirm  <*wtc»  meti  t'Ijjj-Sv  r  im  7niiTmh)>9y 
 
8  Of  the  Viiity  of  God. 
 
 build  This,  I  confider  in  their  Troper  Tlaces. 
 
 The 
 
 U'j-riv  iccvTcZ  TciTifcc  h\u,^:')ric,^  "  That  'Jeftii  Chr'ift'is  HimfelfthtSu" 
 "  preme  God  over  all,  making  him  (conlequently)  to  be  his  own 
 *'  Father ;'  lib.  6.  c.  2.6.  The  Lar-cr  Epililes  of  Ignatius,  flile 
 Thofe  the  Minillcrs  of  Satan,  (as  dclhoying  the  Supreme  Divi- 
 nity of  the  Father,)  who  fay  that  Chrilt  is  o  £-t<  ynivruv  B-io^,  The 
 Supreme  God.  Ad.  Tarfens.  Se5t.  2.  Again,  He  infills  or'  »» 
 uvToc,  hty  0  ivTi  TTocvrm  ^ioc,,  that  Chrid  is  not  Him  [elf  the  Supreme 
 God,  but  the  Son  of  the  Supreme  God.  Which  he  there  proves 
 from  joh.io,  17,  *^  I  afcend  unto  my  Father,  and  your  Father^ 
 "  unto  my  God ,  and  your  God,"  Ibid.  Seci.  5.  But  becaufe 
 Thefe  Books  have  been  furpe(f^cd  of  Interpolation,  (though  I 
 know  not  upon  what  Ground,  with  regard  to  the  l^iaces  I  have 
 now  referred  to;)  the  fame  Thing  is  confirmed  by  Origen,  vfho 
 
 fays  to  Ceifm  ;  toZtov  (p^yAv  ihcfA  viov  3-iou- B-iw  3,  tfv  —  o-<P(3J^pc6  <ri/3d- 
 fjt/svy  Kccl  T  vllv  uvToZ  (y(p'o^^a.  yivirifjuivov  "csro  rou  TTccrfix;  yiyvaxrKefjfjiy 
 ' Et6/ ■^  Tivci.'i,  6)^  Oil  77Xy',6ei  'Zi^iuovTCcv,  Y.cfA  d'i^ojjijivav  olcc(pAvixy,  oiciriu/ 
 
 TT^OTCiTUOtV    '\S!:jT)TiB-l(B'Ul    T    'ZwTYi^CX,    UVXi    T    £.T»    TetfCTt    B-iOV    CCX>^     STt    '/£ 
 
 y.f/JiT^  ToiovTcv,  oi  Tra^of/jsvoi  kvro)  Xiycvri^  0  TruTtiO  0  5r£^Yot?  fjjt,  f/tii- 
 &0V  fj^a  sVf  Lib.  8.  P.  387.  "  IVe  Jay  that  this  Perfon  is  the  So» 
 **  of  God,  of  That  God  whom  tve  greatly  adore.  And  we  know 
 "  that  the  Son  is  exalted  to  great  Dignity  by  the  Father.  But 
 "  fuppofwg  there  be  fomc  in  the  Multitude  of  Believer  5,  ( among  ft 
 **  whom  there  vjill  be  different  Opinions,)  who  rafJAy  affirm  our 
 "  Saviour  to  be  himfelf  the  Supreme  God;  yet  WF.  affirm  no  fuch 
 "  Thing,  but  believe  Him  who  hath  fiid,  the  Father  that  fent 
 *'  me  is  greater  than  7."  And  the  Council  of  Antioch,  ftiling 
 Chrill  the  Meff'enger  of  the  Father,  at  the  hme.  time  that  they 
 call  him  Lord  and  God;  add,  rov  fi>iv  B-icv  tz^v  oXav  oktsSsi; ''Ayyj- 
 Aor  vof/jiu-Ai  K.eiXi7S^cii,  *'  that  it  would  be  impious  to  fay  this  of  the 
 "  Supreme  God."  Epift.  ad  Paul  Samof.  And  Eufebius,  through 
 nil  his  Books  againlt  Marcellus,  lays  it  down  for  the  conilant 
 known  Dodlrine  of  the  Church,  that  Chrift  himfelf  is  not 
 e  IttI  9mvruv  Bzc(,,  The  Supreme  God;  And  heparticularjy  affirms, 
 
 »rg  »yi  T  hTiAHvu.  rav  'oXwv  B-iov  vlov  at  ti<;  ei~63v  Ivtrifi^A  E''s»',  "  that 
 •*  He  cannot  he  a  piotu  Perfon,  who  fays  that  ths  Son  is  the  Su- 
 «  prejne  God,"  De  Ecclef  Thcol.  lib.  t.  c.  7.  And  he  adds,  that 
 Sahelliiii  was  excommunicated  as  a  Blafphemer,  for  this  very 
 Airertion.  [All  which,  by  the  way,  clearly  (hews,  that  the 
 fin'^le  PalVage  in  this  Author's  x'^ccount  of  the  P^ry^/^;;  Martyrs, 
 who  are  reprefented  invocating  Chrift,  r  sVt  -^rxirat  B-uy,  The 
 Supreme  God,  (Hill.  Ecclef.  lib.  8.)  mufl:  needs  have  been  inter- 
 polated with  the  Word  (Chrift,)  as  being  direHly  contrary  to 
 his  Whole  Writings  in  a  Point  v/hich  he  hath  particularly  and 
 largely  confideredj  Gregory  Nyfjm  alfoobferves,  that  the  Title, 
 o  «.T»  %uvTorj  S-£i5,  peculiarly  denotes  the  Perfon  of  the  Father,  ar 
 having  no  Caufn  oj  his  Subftftfnce,    Ut^  ^nc6(poexs.  iirU^>^v7ivr<Kr- 
 
 €H'JC' 
 
QiT.  II.    of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  1 9 
 
 The  Sejife^  in  which  ALL  (i)  (Antiquity  una- 
 nimoufly  underftood  This,  is,    that  he  made  ;^.  44.. 
 Things  as  minijlring  to  the  WiU^  and  "  e:}9ecU'' 
 C  2  ''ting 
 
 (i)  In  the  ApofioUcal  Confihutionst  Chrifl:  is  faid  ll^io-lxv  a««-. 
 ^iCv  7TU0J.  Toy  TT-xT^oc^,  TcZ  ^.ifjutn^yiiv,  lib.  2.  cap.  23,  "/o  receive  a, 
 "  Povjcr  of  Creating Jrom  the  Father."  Again;  that  God  created 
 all  Things  ^y  Chnji,  who  <i/^  [^  TrpoTsloiyTi]  "  (?^e;y  //?e  Cow- 
 *'  W4»^;  of  the  Father;"  lib.  5:.  cap.  7.     Again;  uyi(^  ^^  6 ^ovo~ 
 
 TTOtTg/t,    £;^    T£     ^/IfJJiy^yUv     d\oi(Pi^OV,     Kxl    TT^OVOIXV      X.XTU>iXiJ?^0'J'       lib.    8. 
 
 cap.  12.  "  Holy  alfo  is  thy  only  begotten  Son,  zvhoinallThings 
 "  minifired  to  Thee,  his  God  and  Father^  both  in  the  'various 
 *'  Creation,  and  in  the  providential  Prefervation  of  Things."  And 
 Juftin  Martyr  :  **That  divine  Perfon  [S-e'^s]  zv ho  faid  to  Moles 
 "  that  he  iva4  the  God  of  Abraham,  is  not  (o  ^oojtjj?  rm  oAw) 
 •'  The  abfolute  Maker  of  the  Univerfe,  but  That  Perfon  who  (I 
 "  have  Jhozvn)  appeared  to  Abraham  and  Jacob,  rj  t»  ;roi>jr5 
 «  Tw  oXav  '^iXi-.TH  x}z3'ij^2rav,  minifiring  to  the  Will  of  the  Alaker 
 "  of  all  Things"  Dial.  cumTryph.  P.  73.     Again:   'o  ^mv  yu» 
 
 Toiu  TO  TTom^ivor  0  S  ^/ifiim^yoti,  tLu  r'ij^  a'yit/^ii^p'yixti  clvvafA/tv  c/jc  r^j 
 vX/iq  (iM^po)^,  Kocraa-Kivoc^si  ro  yivoujivov  *' He  that  is  properly  the 
 "  Maker,  being  all-fufficient,  makes  what  he  makes,  by  his  own 
 **  Original  Power  and  Authority :  But  he  that  is  the  Framer,  ha- 
 "  ving  received  a  Power  of  Framing  things  out  of  Mateer,puts 
 *'  into  Form  that  which  is  already  made."  Jujiin  ex  Platone, 
 Cohort,  ad  Gr&c.  p.  22.     And  Iren&u^ :  Quoniam  ipfe  praecepit,  &: 
 
 creata  funt. Cui  ergo  praecepit.^  verbo  fcihcet,  qui  eft  domi- 
 
 nus  nofter  Jefus  Chriftus,  //^,  3.  c.  8./>-  212.  "  He  commanded, 
 "  and  they  were  created.  ■  Now    to  whom  did  he  give  the 
 
 "  Commandment  f  even  to  his  Word,  who  is  our  Lord  "fefus 
 "  Chrifi."  Again:  Omnia autem  filiusa^wi«//?rd»; />^m  per- 
 ficit,  ab  initio  ufq;  ad  finem.  /i^.4.  c.  14.  *^  But  the  Son,  mini- 
 "  fir^^g  to  the  Father,  performs  all  Things  from  the  Beginning 
 **  to  the  End"  Clemens  Alexandrinm  reprefents  the  Father  as 
 the  Supreme  Caufe  of  all  Things,  and  Lord  of  him  who  is  the 
 Second  Caufe;  r  viov  -^  <J[i6ricov,  ^  ob  ttu-vtu.  iysviro  kcctu  /iaXtionr 
 Tif  7rccTto<;'  Stromat.  lib.  5.  p.  598.  "  The  Son  is  the  Second  Caufe, 
 **  By  whom  all  Things  were  made  according  to  the  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 "  ther.*'  And  Tertullian :  Filiusvifus  eft  Temper,  &  fihus  ope- 
 ratus  eft  femper,  ex  autloritate  Patris  &  Voluntate,  quia  filius 
 nihil  a  femet  ipfopoteft  facere,  nifi  viderit  patrem  facientem. 
 Adv.  Prax.  c.  15.  "  The  Son  always  appeared,  and  the  Son  al' 
 **  ways  acted,  by  the  Authority  and  Will  of  the  Father  ;  becaufe 
 **  the  Son  can  d»  nothing  of  himfelf,  but  what  he  fie s  the  Father 
 
 "  do.". 
 
ao  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 ^     "  ting  the  Orders^'*   of  the  Father  ,   as  even 
 
 you 
 
 **   do.''     And  Origen  :    en  o  f^jlcv  i/^jfifLiiipy\^    r^^i    t5   'mlvT<^    vtoq 
 
 Cclf.  lib.d.p.ycfS.  *^Thc  immediate  Framer  oj  the  Ujiiverfey  h 
 •*  the  SonofGod;  but  the  FIRST  and  SUPREME  God  is  his  Fa- 
 *'  ther."  VvhichPatl-age  ijprefcnilyjifter  thus  explained;  (upon 
 the  Words,  He  commanded  arid  they  were  created:)  Tcv  fjuh  T^^iy- 
 aXfiii'i  J<,oc/ta^ycy  ihui  T  vCov  tou  hritZ  Xoyov,  kch  ac-TTi^u  ecinra^ycv  rai 
 xo<rf/jiS'  T  i)  Trxiiea,  rou  Aoya,  im  %'^c<rTiro(,^ivoci  rai  viai  ixvrcZ  'Aoyu 
 'XWA<ra.i  T  icoa-fjuov,  iivui  z-^anjt^  ^ivifiins^yoy'  ibid.  />.  317  ;  "  The  im- 
 **  mediate  Fra'/zser^  and  as  it  were  Builder  of  the  World,  is  the 
 *'  Word,  the  Son  of  God;  But  the  Father  of  the  Word,  in.  tf:at he 
 •*  commanded  the  Word  his  Sen  to  make  the  Worldy  is  the  Pri- 
 ♦*  mary  Jluthor  of  it."  See  alfo  lib.  1.  p.  6},  and  79.  Hence  he 
 obferves,  (Comm.injoh.  p.  56.)  that  though  all  Things  were 
 made,  ^m  tow  Aoyy,  By  or  Through  the  Word,  1  the  term  ^uc  de- 
 noting the  Second  ox  minifiying  Caule,  as  hehad  juft  before  ob- 
 ferved,  />.  55,;]  yet  they  zvere  n't  mdde,  v,to  toZ  >^yi£,  by  him,  as 
 the  Original  or  Firji  Caufe,  ^AA'  vyia  K^iir]ovo(;  kuI  iA>il^ov(^  Tiu^ 
 T  Acvov  Ti? /(,'  kv  otAA©^  ovr<^  TJ^Xocn^^  \  oTTUTKp;  *^  but  they  were 
 •*  made  by  one  ivho  is  more  excellent  and  greater  than  the  Word  ; 
 "  ^7jd  zvho  can  tha  be,  but  the  FaiherT  Therefore  prefently  af- 
 ter, he  argues  that  the  Father  is  properly  the  Creator;  and  the 
 Word  is,  'i  he  minifierial  Agent :  AvroZ  |  Aoy^J  ivi^yoovT'^i  iTi^<^ 
 irroiH'  .  -—  vT^T^^iTific,  rou  ^/ifjAi^eycu  yivo^i\(^  o  Xoy(^,  tcv  xo<r[jucv 
 xx\i(ncivoi(ri'-——hiriiXuTo  yotp  6   kyinr,'t(^  6io<i    ra  tt^utotck^  tzic- 
 
 cm  KT.'a-tsjc.,  Kcil  i>cTi(Q^y,(ro(,v  p.  61.    **  Another,  [VIZ.   tlie  Father,] 
 
 •*  made  all  Things,  by  the  Operation  of  the  Word ; who,  be- 
 
 "  jng  the  Minijler  of  the  Credtor,  formed  the  Wo"ld; For 
 
 **  thelJiibegotten  God  gave  his  Command  to  the  firft-born  of  every 
 **  Creature,  and  all  Things  vjcre  created."  And  the  Fathers  of 
 the  Council  of  Antioch  againft  Paul  of  Sainofata,  :   ToZtov  7r<r£t/- 
 
 eyjiv  (Ttv  ra  ttcct^/i  uu  cvici.  iK^iTTM^cJKivu-i  to  Trccr^izcv  /i^X'/jfJucc  %^«; 
 •xiw  K-UiTiv  Tm  'oXcdv  **  We  believe  that  He,  having  been  always 
 **  with  the  Father,  fulfilled  his  Father  s  Will  in  creating  the  Uni- 
 **  verfey  And  your  Hippolytu^s :  Trccrytp  ivriXP^ircci,  Acy^  ^rt- 
 Atr*— — —  0  yu^  KiXium  %xty,^,  0  -^  h7:roe,KiiUv  liuc„'n>  ^  «rvy£T»^oy  ay*- 
 tv  %vivfjjcc-   cont.  Noet.  p.  15,16;    "  The  Father  gives  Commandp 
 
 **  the  Word  performs  it, For  'tis  the  Father  who  coinmands, 
 
 **  the  Son  who  obeys,  and  the  Holy  Ghcfl  that  compleats  [the 
 **  Work  of  Creation."]  Hence  he  fays,  the  l-athermade  Things, 
 »'5  rM'Antrfy  ^^ according  to  his  oirn  Will;"  and  begat  the  Word, 
 i\yuTry  Tuv  yiv^yjtvuv^  *'  the  Worhnan  or  Builder  i  of  the  Things  that 
 "  were  made.'     Hence  Theophilt'^  lliles  the  Word,  Un^^ycv  rar 
 
 fT  uiirou  rou  iioZ  \y%yiv.;fjjtyu)i,  >2flS»  ^k  ocvloZ  ru  Tixtvroc  7r£src,V-£y> 
 ([4/  AutDl)C.  p.  %i.\    •'  the  Minifierial  Framer    of   thofe  Things, 
 
 *'  which  went  made  by  God  [the  Original  and  Supreme  Agent ;] 
 
Qu.  II.    OftheVnitjofCod. 
 
 you  yourfelf,  very  imonfijientJj,  cannot  but 
 acknowledge. 
 
 You 
 
 "  and  BY  Htm  did  God  make  all  Things."  Hence  TertulUan 
 calls  the  Word,  Miniftrum  8c  Arbitrimi  Redoris.  adv.  Hermog, 
 P.  236;  *'  The  Minider  and  Mediate  urgent  of  the  Governour  of 
 "  the  Univerfe."  And  Novatian:  Non  alium  ollendit  tunc  ad- 
 fuilfe  Deo,  ciii  priieciperentur  hcec  opera  ut  fierent;  nifi  euin 
 per  quern  fac^a  fiint  omnia,  &  fme  quo  factum  eit  nihil.  De 
 Trinit.  c.  15;  *'  He  [Mofesj  does  not  mention  any  other  Perfon 
 "  thenprefent  zv'ith  God,  to  whom  he  might  give  Commandment 
 "  for  the  making  of  thefe  Works,  but  Him  BT  (or  through)  whom 
 **  all  Things  were  7nade,  and  without  whom  nothing  tvas  made^ 
 And  Eufebius,  (upon  the  Words,  He  commanded  and  they  were 
 created:)  rav  ^£v  7tcx.ri^a  y.ou  zoir,rfiv  n's-otyofv  iuc,  xv  Truyjj'ys^^vcc  /3«- 
 o-<Aixa»  viv^y^Ti  xooa-roiTrcvTix,,  rov  j  mra)  ^^vn^iuovTU.  ^sou   Aoyov,    ^^ 
 
 youvTx:  Ecclef.  Hijl.  lib,  I.  p.  3;  "  The  Pfaimifi  introduces  the 
 **  Father  and  Maker  of  all  Things,  as  an  abfolute  Sovereign  fending 
 "  for-th  his  Imperial  Commands;  but  the  Word  of  God,  the  fame 
 "  Perfon  who  ts  preached  arnongft  us  Chrijlians,  he  introduces  as 
 "  Second  to  him,''  [i\uri^cy  uirnv,  "  the  Second  Caufe  of  all  Things," 
 as  hehad  jult  before  faid,;  '^fulfilling  the  Father's  Cojnmands." 
 ScQDemonfi.Evang.  lib.  4.  c.4.  p.  149.  and  c.  10,  p.  164.  Hence 
 he  obferves  that  the  Word  or  So7i,   iT^oq  av  roZ  z-cct^o^,  w^ra^ys? 
 
 Kv    cC'jTcu,  &>^i,     i/TticiXsvofAjivii  ToZ  yj^i^ov'^,     oiVTov  di]f/jix^YiTv,   (Dem. 
 
 Evang.  lib.  J.  c.5.  p.  Z19,)  '^  being  a  diJllnH  Perfon,  was  the 
 *'  Minifter  of  the  Father;  and  fo  made  things  at  the  Co'mmand 
 "  of  a  Superiour."  And  again  ;  (upon  thcfe  Words,  he  was  the 
 Light  that  lightens  every  Man  that  comet h  into  the  World;)  He 
 fays,  that  the  Word  "  is  not  [iTrm&ivoc  rm  'aXav  6  B-icq]  the  Su- 
 ""  preme  God  of  the  Univerfe:   For  He  is  Light  inacce^^ble;  Where- 
 
 *•  as  This  -viz.  the  Word  J  wns  in  the  World.  But  ye;  (he 
 
 *'  adds)  the  World  w.if  made  by  this  Light ;"  t«w  KOiirrov^^, 
 ^/jAaJl)  Tou  7rtx.r^c<i,  ^c6  rov  vtou  iv  xm  a-vviTxyjivit,  (De  Ecclef.  TlieoL 
 lib.  I.  c.  10,)  "  thi? Father,  who  is  Supreme,  mailing  theUmverfe^ 
 "  BT  the  Son."  Hence  he  concludes,  in  like  manner  as  Orl- 
 gen  had  done,  that  the  Father  only  is  properly  arid  firitlly  the 
 Creator :  "Troivra,^  uvroZ  lytviTo,  STrps  /*£v  ';rnToi-/\yj)r(^,  onirou  j  aloe- 
 KovyiToi>/jivii-a)ir6'  irif)ov  ^/)riiv  rov  TTOf/trviD  raiv  'c>iWv,rov  dia  rau  ^ioXoyiSf/jt- 
 v><  TO.  TTZX.'nc/.,  ixofi^TKfj'jivov  div  HTCr)^  t^ovTUv,  cyjoXoyJC-;  oivu-yy^r,,  rov 
 ^soXc/iifjijivov  vTiro  rou  Evx'y'yiM<rov,  f^n  rov  In  i  'Tzzcvtcjv  civcci  B-soy,  f//i}il\J 
 uvrov  rev  rrccn^cc,  rev  3  riim  yjovoyivvi  hioV  Ecclef.  Tlieol.  lib.  2, 
 C.  14;  <■'  All  Things  were  made  BY  (or  Through)  the  Word; 
 "  Another  being  the  [ original!  Maker,  and  He  the  Mmif&rial 
 *'  Agent.  So  that  we  mu(i  ?jeeds  look  u?ito  Another,  who  is  the 
 *'  rabfolutcl  Maker  of  the  Univerfe^  having  made  all  Things  MY 
 C  3  V.  Wff* 
 
 21 
 
\1A' 
 
 Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 You  proceed  :  Chrift  is  ^'  worfJjippeJ  ly  the 
 "  QA7igds?'^  That  is  ,  He  is  comma?ided  by  the 
 Father  to  be  wcrpi^ped  of  the  Angels.     God 
 has  highly  exalted  ^hn^  and  given  hwi  a^ame 
 alove  every  Name^  that  at  the  Name  of  Je- 
 fm  every  Kjteejhoidd  hovn^  of  Things  in  HEA- 
 VENy  and  Things  in  Earth :  Phil.  2,  lo.  Again^ 
 when  he  hringeth  in^     or,    when  he  Inhgetb 
 again  ffrom  the  Dead,  Col.  i,  18.    Rev.  i,  5. 
 JSs  13,  53.)  the  firfi  begotten  into  the  World^ 
 he  fait b^  and  let  all  the  oAngels  of  God  war- 
 (Inf  himj    Heb.  i,  6.      And  accordingly   we 
 read.  Rev.  5,  11,  12,    The  Angels  faia^  Wor- 
 thy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  Jlain^  to  receive  Ho- 
 notir  and  Glory  and  "Blejjing.     Is  This  the 
 Worfhip  of  the  One  Supreme  God  ^    of  Him 
 who,  without  any  Command  of  the  Father, 
 had  originally  all  the  fame  Right  to  all   the 
 fame  Worfliip  as  the  Father  himfelf  had  ?  And 
 will  you  from  hence  inferr,  that  there  is  "  No 
 
 "  diftinHion 
 
 "  Him  whom    Tjohn  l.  l.]    fhe  Evangelifi   fiiles  God.    Whhh 
 "  Things  being  fo;  we  cannot  but    confejs  that   He,    whom  the 
 *'  Evangelift  here  fides  God,   is  not  the  Supreme  God,   nor  tht 
 "  lather,  but  his  onl'j  begotten  Son.''     And  Bajil  himfelf  owns 
 the  **  father  to  be  7r^oKccToc(iKriKr,v  utrixv  rav  ytvoyjivuv,    the  origim 
 **  nal  Caufe  of  all  things.,  and    ^yifjunspyiKyy  rev   itov,  the   Son  the 
 *'  operating  Caufe  i'  Adding;  "  Let  no  Man  think  that  I  main- 
 **   tain  r^iic,  ilvi^i  u^^iKxq  '{^xo^ua-ti^  that  there    are  three  Original 
 **  Subf fences,"  but  that  there  are  Three  in  a  Subordination,  viz, 
 rov  ■;rpoTU(r<rcvTc&  Kvfiov,  rm  a'.:;juiii(.ycT'vrcc  Xcyci,  **  the  Lord  who  com- 
 «'   mands,  the  Word  zvho  operates,  &C."  De  Sp.  Sane.  C.  i6.  Ladly, 
 tlie  Orlhodox  Council  of  Sirmium,  :igzini\  Photinus  whodeny'd 
 the  IDivinity  of  Chrifl: ;   nrtc,  Xtym  ^-fcv  ra  ;tf t^-cy  Tr^coauyioi  viov  roZ 
 ^iou  uxa^yyifiorcc.  tw   Trocre^   tie,  fiuj  rm  'o>,m  ov]yji^yiuv  fjuvi  cf/joXoyeivf, 
 tivc/Jifjuutfo}'     Socrat.  Hifi.  Ecclef.  lib.  i.  c.  2.55  explain'd  by  Hil, 
 P.  130,  231;  "If  any  cne  who  fays  that  Chrift  is  God  exiftmg  be- 
 *'  fore  the  World,  does  not  zvithal  confifs  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 
 "  who  miniftred  to  the  lather  in  the  Creatien  of  the   Vniverfe  ; 
 ''  let  him  It  Anaihe7?ia."    Sec  more,  bcloiv,  on  6^^.  HI. 
 
Qu.  II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ''  diflinHion  of  PVorJhlpy  (i)  Mediate  and 
 *'  Ultimate,  ever  intimaUd^''  in  Scripture  or 
 Antiquity  ? 
 
 Neither  have  you  proved  therefore,  (u^hich 
 is  your  //^.v^  Affertion^that  Chrift  is  'Hbefame 
 ['  Supreme  God "  v^ith  the  Father.    Nor  in-  p. 
 
 C  4  deed. 
 
 «A^^  iSK  Wt'  Kcci  ccvTcv  f/^vov  (r£|3«v  kui  Tt^ocKvyiiv,  Oi'lwot'  XfiTOV 
 reu  KVftia  vifjijZv,  cv  rS  TTXvwyico  Trvivfjuciri'  Apoll.  ConftitUt.  lib.  6. 
 C.  14.  '^IVe  make  known  to  you,  that  there  is  but  One  only  God 
 **  jilm'ighty,  beftdes  whom  there  is  no  other ;  and  that  you  are 
 '*  to  adore  and  worjlnp  Him  only,  through  ^efus  Chrifi  our  Lord, 
 "  in  the  Holy  Ghofi."  And  Ju/lin  Martyr:  '-'■jhereare  no  Na- 
 *'  tions  upon  Earth,"  iv  o'k;  pi^  eflik  tS  6vo^a.T(^  t5  ^uv^u^i))r<^ 
 lys<ri  luyjxX  y^  iu^xpi'fiui  tm  7Ta,r(\  y^  7TctyiTv[  ray  'oXav  ^vnjvixi,  (Dial.  P. 
 III.)  "  in  which  Prayers  and  Thankfgivings  are  not  put  up  to  the 
 *'  Father  and  Maker  of  all  Things^  through  the  Name  of  Jefus  who 
 **  was  crucifyed."  Again,  sr®-  A«t/36iy,  alviv  ;^  ^i^^ccv  rf  ttoctq^ 
 rm  oXuv  ^ioc  r»  ovofjtjccT<^"  rS  yta  >^  rS  7rvsvf/jxr(^  r»  dymy  ctvei- 
 TTi^H'  "  The  Minifler  taking  [the  Bread  and  the  Cup]  gives 
 '*  Praife  and  Glory  to  the  Father  of  all.  Through  the  Name  of 
 **  the  Son,  and  thro  the  Holy  Ghofi."  Apol.  2.  P.  l6l.  And 
 again  ;  £^<  ^rSo-t  -^  oU  T^'^OT^ifOfZ/iScc,  ivXoy^yjiv  Tov  TOiJjrviV  rav  ttuv- 
 Tuy,  eI[ioc,  r^  vli  clvr^,  'I/jrS  ptJptrS,  t^  ^ik.  Trvivf/^ocr^  rS  clyia'  Ibid, 
 P.  162;  "J/?  all  our  Oblations,  we  blefs  the  Maker  of  allThings, 
 **  thro'  his  Son  Jefus  Chrifi,  and  thro  the  Holy  Ghofi,'  And 
 Iren&m,  in  his  mod  folemn  and  memorable  Prayer-.    Ego  igi- 
 
 tur  invoco'te,  dominc  Deus  Abraham, pater  Domini  no- 
 
 ftri  Jefu  Chridi  :  ■   qui  es  folus  &  verus  deus,  fuperquem 
 
 alius  deus  non  efl,  per  dominum  noftrum  Jefum  Chri(tum,&c, 
 adv.  H&r,  lib.  3.  c.G,  P.  209 ;  *'  /  call  upon  Ihee,  O  Lord,  the 
 **=  God  of  Abraham,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi :  who 
 **  art  the  only  and  True  God,  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God', 
 "  through  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi."  And  r(?r/«//,Dicimus,&:  pa- 
 lam  dicimus,  &  vobis  torquentibus  ■  — .vociferamur;  De- 
 urn  colimus  per  Chriftum.  Ad  Scap.  Origen  lays  it  down  for 
 the  Rule  of  Prayer;  ^Uhat  we  ought  not  to  pray  to  any  of  thofe 
 *'  Things  which  were  madef  ^h  ocvtm  ro)  xf^i^Z,  ccXXct,  f/tovat 
 Tof  Bs^  rm  'oXwv  ;^  vrccTQ^y  w  iOj  civroe,  6  'Z^tk^  v,f/juv  9r^(xrtio^iTo,  w^ 
 7rf07ruf>s6if/jsB-a,  <'  I'-Jor  to  Chrifi  himfelf  [meaning  ultimately  {] 
 **  but  only  to  the  God  and  Father  of  all,  to  whom  our  Saviour 
 '/  himfelf  prayed,  as  I  obferved  before."  Adding;  "  When  hs 
 li  (cacheth  us  to  pray,  he  teachsth  hs  to  pray,  n9t  to  himfelf,  but 
 
 tU9 
 
14  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 deed,  when  you  come  to  explain  your  felf,  do 
 you  jourfelf  in  reality  (though  you  perpetu- 
 ally ufe  that  Language^  make  him  to  be  the 
 fame  Supreme  God^  but  another  Supreme  God 
 '  391'  infeparable  and  undivided  from  the  Father  in 
 Siihjiance,  Diftinft  Lives  and  zQtiVQ  Powers^ 
 u  e.  diilinfl:  Living  Agents^  however  fuppofed 
 
 infe- 
 
 **  to  the  father  J  faying^  Our  lather  which  art  in  Heaven."  Af- 
 ter which,  he  explains  himfelf more  particularly;  ^tysTXi  roivw, 
 
 Xiifiuti''— •tv^«.fiTQvri(i  ac  ol  ccyioi   cv  raXc,  %^o(riv'/^a.7c,   iccvrav    tm 
 
 S-i^',  ^ici  ;<ip4r»  'ljj(r5  ^ufiTuii  ofJuoXoy^vTic,  Uvrca-  **  I  fay  thereforCy 
 **  -we  ought  to  pray  to  God  onlyy  who  is  the  lather  of  all;  but 
 «  yet  2iot  without  our  High  Priefi  ;  The  Saints  therefore  in 
 ♦'  their  Prayers ^  give  Thanks  to  Goduhrough  "^efu^  Chrifl  ;" 
 ^zs&  iv-jc  P.  48,49.  And  for  This,  he  alledges  ^ohn  16.  24. 
 with  this  Remark,  »  ^  ^mv,  uireiTi  (A,t,  is^\  ociTHn  tov  irxri^x, 
 etTTAa)?,  ciXX  ixv  rt  ciiryaroTS  roy  TTXri^oty  tiojcrH  vfjjiv,  cv  ru  oiOfAtcCTl fiiHy 
 Ibid.  "  For  he  did  not  fay^  ask  Me;  nor  did  he  fiy  onl^y  ask 
 *'  the  lathery'  [without  any  Mediator;]  *'  buty  tfye  Jljall  ask 
 "  the  Father  any  Thing  in  my  Namey  he  will  give  it  you."  A- 
 greeably  to  this  Account,  he  elfewhere  fays,  that  **  all  Suppli- 
 *'  cationy  Prayery  InterceJJion  and  Thanhfgivingy  is  to  be  offer  dy' 
 T*   J.Tt  Tiun   6^M,   aioc  Ts    £;?»  ttocvtuv  uyytAm  u^yji^iuc,  tf/j'^o^a  Ao- 
 
 ya  id,  S-£»*    Oiv](rc ujt^cA  j  j^  «tyr»  ry  Aoya, luv  dvLvaf/ji^»  Kxroiy.aeit 
 
 ^  TFipl  TTfoa-ivx/i"^  KV^ioXiifocc,  3^  Kxrxx[f>o-ieocy  (adv.  Celf.  lib.  5,  P.  I3  :{,) 
 *'  to  the  one  Supreme  Gcdy  thro  the  High  Pricft  ivho  is  above  all 
 "  Angelsy  the  living  Iv'ord  and  Gcd:  We  way  alfo  pray  to  the 
 **  IVordhunfelfy  if  we  can  underjland  the  dijfercnce  betwixt  Pray- 
 ♦*  er  in  a  proper,  and  Prayer  in  an  improbcr  or  figurative  Senfe" 
 i.e.  between  VVoifliip  Ultimate  and  Mediate:  Which  he  ex- 
 plains at  large,  lib,  8.  /^.386.  And  ihcfcPallagesare  highly  ap- 
 proved by  the  Learned  Bp.  Bully  Defenf  Se^t,  i.  c  9.  §.  15.  And 
 Cyprian:  Alitcr  orare  quam  [Chriilus]  docuir,  non  ignoran- 
 tia  fola  ell,  fed  8c  culpa  ;  quando  ipfc  pofuerit  ik  dixerit ;  reji- 
 citis  mandaium  dei,  ut  traditionem  vcllrnm  Uatuatis:  De  Orat. 
 Dominica:  P.  139,  "  To  pray  otherwife  than  Chnji  has  taught y 
 ♦*  is  not  only  Jgiiorancey  but  a  Fault:  Si/:ce  he  hath  faid ;  ye  re- 
 ♦*  je6l  the  Comtnandinent  of  Gody  that  ye  may  eftablifl)  your  own 
 *'  Tradition^  And  Athanafius  himfelf;  fji^lvoc,  ij  0  oW*;?  S-«c?  cv 
 rei  ovof/uxTi  '\i-,(rS  /C?^'^'^  ''"»  it-'^cJ^^  '/.yjciv  ;rpo(rKta'«T«t  :  *-  The  true 
 '•  (joddlone  is  ivorlhippedy  in  the  Name  ofjeftisChrifi  our  Lord  J" 
 Orat.  1.  comr.  Arianos.  P.  3^1.9.  Sue  more,  below  on  ^^'f- 
 ry  XVII. 
 
Qa.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  ^ 
 
 infeparable  in  Suhftance^zsQ  ftill,  i?  equdlySu-^ 
 Ptt.iie  ill  AiiPjority^  as  truly  diftincl:  Supreme 
 Gods,  as  if  they  exilkd  in  different  Suhiances. 
 Two  Supreme  Gods,  undivided  in  Subifance, 
 are  ftill  Two  Individuals,  Two  Agents,  Two 
 Supreme  Gods.  Infeparablenefs  of  Suhftance 
 therefore,  without  Identicalnefs  of  Life^  will 
 not  make  Two  Jgents  be  th^  fame  God.  And 
 if  there  be  an  Identicalnefs  or  Samenefs  of 
 Life^  then  they  are  no  longer  Two  Agents^ 
 nor  can  there  be  Any  either  Equality  or  Suh- 
 ordination.  The  fame  Living  God  therefore, 
 neceffarily  fignifies  the  fame  individual  Liv2?ig 
 intellige?it  Jgent.  And  this  is  the  only  Signifi- 
 cation (as  I  think  you  your  felf  allow)  of  the 
 Word  Ferforu  The  Term  G^d  therefore,isa  PdT- 
 
 fonal  Word.  And  the  Texts  oHfaiah  exprefsly 
 and  neceffarily  prove  that  Chrift  is  th^  fame 
 Ferfon^  if  he  is  not  excluded  horn  being  what 
 the  Perfo/i  There  fpeaking  and  faying,  ^'  lam 
 *'  the  Lordy  heftdes  ME  there  is  no  God^^  de- 
 clares Hifnfelf  Alone  to  be.  Tois  I  infift  up- 
 on ;  and  unlefs  you  can  reply  to  This^  all 
 Other  Things  are  to  no  purpofe. 
 
 You  repeat  the  fame  Quibble  again  in  the 
 fame  Page,  and  ask,  "  Wtjo  pretends  that  the 
 *'  Son  is  the  fame  Perfon  with  the  Fat  her  V^-  7- 
 The  Anfwer  is :  He  who  afcrms  him  to  be 
 
 ^individually  xht  fame  Living   Supreme  God. 
 
 .  You  add  :  "All  we  ajfert,  is  ^t  hat  he  is  the  fame 
 *'  Supreme  God^  i.  e-  Partaker  of  the  fame 
 ''  undivided  godhead:'      But  this  is  not 
 
 i  being  thefame  Supreme  God,  unlefs  he  be  the 
 fame  Living  intelligent  Agent.    For  nothing 
 
 can 
 
a  tf  of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 can  be  the  SAME  with  Another,  without 
 being  every  thing  that  Tbat  Other  is.  Two 
 co-ordinate  Khigs^  having  the  fhnie  undivided 
 Supreme  Ro)alty^  and  fuppofing  them  more- 
 over infefarahly  undivided  in  Subft^nce,  would 
 not  be  ever  the  lefs  Two  I\jngs.  Your  No- 
 tion therefore,  as  far  as  I  can  apprehend,  is 
 nothing  elfe  but,  under  the  Cover  of  SabeU 
 lian  Terms,  really  Tritheifm  in  Senfe.  See 
 Mow,  on  Qu.  XXIX- 
 
 You  allow  the  Texts,  which  I  brought,  do 
 
 p^&g.  8.  indeed  prove  that  "  the  Father  is  the  God  of 
 "  the  "Jews,  the  God  of  Alraham^  &c.'*  But 
 you  add  •,  "  How  does  it  appear  that  the  Son 
 "  was  not  ?"  I  anfwer  :  *Very  plainly,  from 
 the  Texts  themfelves:  The  ApoRle  tells  us, 
 e^^i  5,  13,  that  the  God  of  Abraham^ —  the 
 God  of  our  Fathers,  hath  Glorified  HIS  SON 
 jESlfS.  Is  not  the  having  a  Sm,  a  diftin- 
 guifliing  Charafter  of  the  Pcrfon  of  the  Fa- 
 tber  ONLF?  Can  the  Son  then  of  the  God  of. 
 cAhraham^  be  himfelf  That  God  ofAlrah^m  f 
 who  glorified  HIS  'Son  ?  Or  can  the  One 
 Supreme  God  be  exalted  ov  GLORIFIED  by 
 another?  Or  is  it  not  true,  what  St.  Tatd 
 fays,  without  all  Contradilrtion  the  Lffs  is- 
 llejjed  of  the  Greater,  Heb.  7,7? 
 
 JP-  8.  You  allozfo  further,  that  ''  the    father  is 
 
 **  fometimes  fij'led  The  Only  True  God, 
 "  which  is  all  that  the  Texts  {John  17,  3. 
 "  iCor.%,6;  Ephef  4>  6  ;;  J^rove.''  But  I 
 **  have  7wt  (yon  think)  JI:own  that  he  is  fo 
 *'  called  in  oppofition  to  the  Son^  or  exchfive 
 •«  of  Himr      That  is :  The  Father,  when 
 
 ex- 
 
Qli.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  a? 
 
 exprefslj  dniin^uijljed  from  the  Son,  (as  he  is 
 in  the  moll:   exprefs  Words  in   each  of  thefe 
 Texts,)    is  ftill  .both  Father  and  Son,     But 
 you  add  ;,  '*  It  may  Jignifj^  that  the  Father  is 
 "  Frimarily^    not  'Exdujively^   The    only  true 
 "  God:'     What  thefe  Words  mean,    ''  FRU 
 ''  MARlLTtheONLrTm^God;'  I  underftand 
 not.  Can  any  one  be  Secondarily  the  ONLT 
 True  God?  When  One  Perfon  is  in  Jny  refpect 
 declared  to  be  The  Only^  &:c.    he  muft  needs 
 be  fo,  Exclujively  of  all  others  in  That  Scnfe 
 wherein  he  is  declared  to  be  The  Only^  8cc. 
 Otherwife    there  is  no  Certainty  or  Ufe   in 
 Language,     Befides :  Our  Lord.^  at  the  fame 
 Time  that  he  declared  the  Father  to  be  The 
 Only  True  God^   Joh.  i-?,  5  j    exprefsly  diftin- 
 guillaes  Himfelf  by  oAnotber  Character^   ad- 
 ding, And  j^fi^  CfJri/i  whom  Thou  haft  SENT. 
 The   Text,  paraphrafed    according    to  Tour 
 Notion,    will    be  ^     This    is    Life    Eternal^ 
 to  know  Thee^   (the  Father,  ver.  i,J  the  On* 
 1/ True  God '^  and  Jefus  Chrifi  (the  fame  On- 
 ly True  God^  whofii  thou  hafi  SFNT.     Nor 
 is  there  Here   any  Room  for  the  Diftinftion 
 of  Chrift's  divine  and  huma?ie  Nature  :    Be- 
 caufe  'tis   certain   that  The  IVord^  even  the 
 Divine  Perfon,  was  SENT;  according  to  ma- 
 ny ex£refs  Texts.     God  (i)  SENT  his  only 
 
 hegot" 
 
 (l)  'juftin  Martyr  fays,  'Avrcc  o  TroLyroK^ocrup  x^  TTKvroKTi^yii  j^  oiopoc- 
 
 T®-'  ^toq, oivTcv  rov    Ti^viTYiv  j^    ^^,tjt,ns^ylv    ray  'oXw  Trpo?  ot.^>i^ 
 
 ccTTi^^Xiv,  Epift.  ad  Diogn.     "  The  Supreme  Lord  and  Creator  of 
 
 **  all  Things ^  the  invifible  Gcdy SENT  unto  Men   no  lefs  a, 
 
 **   Perfon  than   the  Framer  of  all   Things."      And   Theophilus  ', 
 ^ioc,  isv  m  0  Aiy^,    >^  (y^  3-f»  ^f^vxft's,    97t<ir     civ     fiis?\ilen  e  Ttxrvi^ 
 
 TW 
 
z%  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 legotten  Son  into  the  World,  i  John  4,  9.  I 
 came  down  from  Heaven^  not  to  do  mine  own 
 Will,  but  the  Will  of  bim  that  SENT  me^ 
 John  6,  38.  And  the  Church  evidently  Tbm 
 Coiica     undcrftands  it.     ''•  oAlmighty  God^    who  hcift 
 
 for  6th    ''  SENT  thy  Son 10  take  upon  him  our 
 
 fZt\T  P'^fl  ••''  And,  "  Who  haft  GU'EN  us  thy  only 
 finchrij!-'''  legotten  Son,   TO    take  our  Nature  uPon 
 
 mas-Day.  cc   j^^^^^n 
 
 A2;ain  : 
 
 D 
 
 rSv  flAi*;),  %ifi,xH  uutov  «?  Tivee.  tottw,  P.  130.  "  The  Word  being 
 "  Gody  and  Son  of  God;  the  Far  her  0/  all  SENDS  him  any 
 "  tvherey  when  he  pleafeth"  And  Ongen;  iTTiixt^h  «y  -^eo?  >^o~ 
 y<^,  Kx6o  fjjlv  icclf)0(i^ToT<;elfjijciflco>,oT<i,  Adv.  Cell',  lib.  3.  p.  149,  "G^i 
 •*  the  Word  was  SENT  m  a  Fhypcian  unto  Sinners,"  Cyprian 
 m  like  manner,  fpeaking  concerning  the  Holy  Ghofi:  Si  poteft 
 apud  Hjereticos  baptizatus  Chridum  induere,  miilto  magis  po- 
 teit  fpiritum  fandum,  quern  Chrillus  mifit,  accipere:  Caeteriim 
 major  erit  mittente,  qui  milFus  eft.  tpiji.  ad  Pomp.  p.  113; 
 *'  If  hethat  is  baptiz^edamongft  Hereticks  canput  onChriJlf  much 
 *'  more  may  he  receive  the  Holy  Ghoft  whom  Chrift  SENT;  O- 
 "  therwife  he  that  is  SENT,  will  be  greater  th.in  he  that  fent 
 "  him."  And  Novatian:  MiiTum  prscterca  fe  ipfe  dicit,  ut 
 per  hanc  obedientiam  qua  venit  dominus  Chriftus  midiis,  non 
 pater,  fed  filius  probetur ;  qui  miliflet  utique,  li  pater  fuiffet :  Mif- 
 liis  autem  non  fuit  pater,  ne  Pater  fubditus  alteri  Deo,  dum 
 mittitur,  probaretur:  De  Trinit.  c  11,  *'  Moreover  our  Lord  dc- 
 **  dares  that  he  was  SENT;  that  by  this  Inftance  of  Obedience^ 
 **  which  Chriji  the  Lord  fljowedin  coining  when  he  was  fcnt,  he 
 *'  mtght  appear  to  be,  not  the  Father,  but  the  Son;  ivho  would 
 **  certainly  have  been  the  Setider,  had  he  been  the  Father  :  But 
 "  the  Father  was  not  SENT,  leji,  by  being  SENT,  he  JJjould  ap- 
 *''  pear  to  be  fubjeH  to  another  God.'\  h\\^  Eujebu;^;  T^rov  t^ 
 mcTiv  «$  y/cixriv  sA3-<^v  «:y.Srp<y;ro^,  o'm  voo'ii'JTm  'Zanvit.Ui  t^  4't»;^jiw» 
 'IxTfov,  TT^lc,  T8  f/iUi^'ivot;  uTTiTxXyjivcv,  Prxp.  Evang.  lib.  7.  c.  ri. 
 p.  31  r.  "  He  ivas  made  known  to  all  Men,  being  SENT  by  One 
 "  who  is  GREATER  than  himfelf,  as  the  Healer  of  the  Sick,  and 
 *•  Phyjician  of  Souls."    And  again;   T'o  f^  ui^i^iyyji  •^hin^irou 
 
 VFxrfoi^TTXfi^yia-h  amc  Toy  rlv  f/jly  cCTiTxA^aixi  htyc-ty,  ioivrov  ■^  etTTi^ct/.- 
 ^oit,  Kcclef.  Theol.  lib.  1.  c.  7.  *'  He  (hozved  theSupereminen- 
 **  cy  of  the  Father's  Glory,  in  faying  that  He  SEN2'  hitn,  and 
 **  that  he  himfdfwas  lent."  The  Pojl-Ni^tnss  thcmlclves  iw 
 confoimiiy  to  the  antient  Language  of  ihc  Chuich,  always  ac- 
 
 know- 
 
Qii.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  ip 
 
 x^gain:  The  Son  is  in  the  moft  exprefs 
 Worus  excluded,  i  Cor.  8,  6.  Where  the 
 Apoftle  argues,  that  whereas  the  Heathtn 
 liad,  in  their  fi:iitious  Theology,  ManjGoih 
 CDii  Majores,)  and  Many  Lords  (Heroes  orDii 
 medioxumi  ,)  on  the  contrary  We  Cbrijlians 
 have  in  our  True  Theology,  but  One  God^ 
 [not  One  God-the-Father^  in  oppofition  to  Ma- 
 nj  God'tbe-Fathers  ;  but  in  oppofition  to  Ma- 
 71)  GoJs^  we  have  One  God^  viz."]   the  Father^ 
 
 knowledged  the  Superiority  of  the  Father  is  this  Refpecft.  The 
 Council  of  Sirmtum  ;  ts  ^  a-wjrutra-ofjiji'j  -nv  viov  rai  %xr^i,  u>iA 
 v-srciilxyfjuivov  rai  z:£i^.i'  an  ^^  xctr'^^iv  ii\  coofJitcc  ocviv  /3»A«5  rS  xolpo?, 
 
 Socrat.  Hilt.  lib. i.  Hilarys  Interpretation  of  this  PafTage,  is  ; 
 Non  enim  cxcequamus  vel  comparamus  fiHum  patri,  fed  fub- 
 jecftum  incelligimus:  "  We  do  not  make  the  Son  Equal  or  com- 
 **  ^are  him  to  the  Father ^  but  underftand  him  to  be  fubje6l  to  the 
 *'  Father :  For  he  defcended  into  a  humane  Body,  by  the  Will  of 
 "  the  Father ."  And  he  paraphrafeth  it  thus;  In  eo  qui- 
 dem  maxime  non  comparatur,  nee  cosequatur  fihus  patri,  dum 
 
 fubditus  per  obedientioe  obfequelam  eft, dum  mittitur, 
 
 dum  accipit,  dum  in  omnibus  voluntati  ejus,  qui  fe  mifit,  ob- 
 
 fequitur. Deus  unus  eft ;  Sc  fubjedio  filii  docetur  &  dignitas, 
 
 • ■  ut  fit  patri  &  obfequio   fubjedlus  8c  nomine,  P.  2^4. 
 
 *'  ln\  This  Rejpe^'i  efpeciallyy  the  Son  is  not  compared  or  equal  to 
 "   the  Father;  in  that  he  is  by  entire  Obedience  fubjetl  to  him, 
 
 « that  he  is  SENT,  that  he  receives  all  from  him,    and 
 
 **  that  in  alt  Things  he  obeys  the  Will  of  him  that  SENT  him : 
 
 **  Hence  there  is  but  One  God  ;  And  both  the  SubjetUon  and  Dignity 
 
 *'  of  the  Son,  is  declared  to  us; 'he  being  in  Obedience,    as 
 
 *S  wp.ll  as  in  Name,  fubjeSl  to  the  Father.^'  Again  :  Quis  Pa- 
 trera  non  potiorem  confttebitur,  ut  ingenitum  a  genito,  ut  pa- 
 trem  a  filio,  ut  eum  qui  miferit  ab  eo  qui  miffus  eft,  ut  vo- 
 lentem  ab  ipib  qui  obediat;  ut  ipfe  nobis  tcftis  eft,  pater  major 
 me  eft  ?  De  Trinit.  lib.  3.  "  Who  will  net  acknowledge  the  Fa- 
 "  ther  to  be  GREATER;  as  He  that  is  unbegotten,  than  he 
 *'  that  If  begotten ;  cvs  a  Father,  than  a  Son ;  as  he  that  SENT, 
 "  than  he  that  is  SENT ;  as  he  that  commands,  than  he  that 
 *'  obeys?  According  as  he  himfelf  teftifies  inThat  Saying,  my 
 ^'  Father  is  GREATER  than  I."  Again;  Qui  mittit,  potefta- 
 tem  in  eo  quod  mittit,  oftendit,  lib.  8.  "  He  that  fends, 
 \'  does  thereby  Jhoiu  hn  Po'u;tr>\    [over  him  whom  he /ends.'] 
 
 OF 
 
p.  8. 
 
 30  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 OF  whom  (as  the  firft  unoriginate  and  inde- 
 pendent Caufi;)  are  all  Ttjh;gs  ,  J^ia  [we  have'] 
 One  Lord,  viz.  "Jcfus  Curijt^  fOne  Mediator^ 
 I  Tim.  2,  5, J  Kr  l^or  througb~\  whom  (as 
 the  Minifterial  Caufe)  are  ail  Things^  and 
 We  hy  (or  through)  /;//;/,  [both  Are^  and  have 
 Accefs  to  the  Father,  Ephef.  2,  18  ;,  Rom.5,2.] 
 I  wonder  you  fhould  not  here  fee,  that  if  the 
 One  Lord  is  i?icUided  in  the  One  God^  the 
 whole  Reafoning  of  the  Apoftle  is  quite  taken 
 away. 
 
 You  add  :  ''  It  is  very  certain  that  the 
 *^  Terfon  of  the  Father  is  (in  thefe  Texts, 
 ^'  John  17,  J.  I  Cor,  S,  6.  and  £p^.  4,6.;  di- 
 *'  Jting7ajl)ed  from  the  F  erf  on  of  the  Son,  he^ 
 *^  cat^'e  they  are  diftintfly  NAMED  ^  and  you 
 *^  7nay  maVe  what  TJfe  you  pleafe  of  the  Oh- 
 "  fervation,  againjl  the  SabcUians,  who  make 
 *'  hut  one  Perfon  of  Tzvo'"  I  anfwer  :  The 
 Perfons  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  are  here 
 not  only  difiintily  NAMED,  but  named  with 
 peculiar  and  diftinguijlnng  Characitrs :  The 
 Godj  OF  whom  are  all  things  ;  and  the  Lord^ 
 BT  whom  are  all  thifigs.  The  Sahellian  No- 
 tion is,  that  God  is  [ftfcc  uTroV^o"*^  rgi^z?;^^- 
 cc^woi]  One  Suhfifie?ice  d^Jling7iijJ:ed  hy  three 
 nominal  perfonal  CharaBers.  Againft  This 
 the  Primitive  Writers  argued,  that  the  Father^ 
 Son,  and  Holy  Ghoff,  were  not  only  difiincily 
 named^  but  alfo  reprefented  by  fuch  Prober 
 Real  difiinci  Characters,  as  fliowed  them  to 
 be  Real  Difiinti  Living  e^^gents.  And  they 
 cleared  themfelves  from  the  Charge  of  Tr/- 
 tbeifm^    by  maintaining  that,    of  the  Three 
 
 Perfons 
 
au.  11-    of  the  Vnity  of  Cod  3 1 
 
 Perfo?is  (what  Notion  foever  they  entertained 
 concerning  their  Subfiance^)  ONE  0.^;/y  was 
 the  f////,  the  unoYiginate^  the  oAhfoUite  Cauje 
 of  all  Things,  and  ALONE  Supreme  in  oAu- 
 thority  and  Dominion  over  All.  According 
 to  that  Obfervation  of  the  Learned  Bifliop 
 Pearfon  :  "  If  there  were  more  than  One 
 *'  which  were  from  None^  it  could  7tot  he  denied 
 *'  but  there  were  more  Gods  than  One  :  Where- 
 ^*  fore  This  Origination  in  the  Divine  Pa-- 
 *'  ternitf^  hath  JntientJy  been  looked  nfon 
 ^^  as  the  Jjfertion  of  the  VnitjP  Expof. 
 on  the  Creed,  Edition  Fourth^  Page  40. 
 Thus    (i)    Origen^    (2)     Novatian^    and 
 
 (0  Otigm  folves  the  ObjecHiion  of  Two  Gods  in  This  man- 
 ner.    Ai-A.Ticy  1^  oivioTc,    oTi   ron  u>iv  'Avr:>6i(^  6  Bsot;   iff  OioTTsp  kI 
 /    ^  /     ,«       \       \  / '       ,   ^   f/  /  /  \        '/  "^ 
 
 O    (TUTl^^  (pWiV   CV    TVl    TT^CC,   TOV    TTCCTiflOC    i'JX'^t  iVCC    yiVCO^T'/MrJl    (TS    TOV     f/jOVO» 
 
 UAr)$ivl]i  Bscr  TiS.v  ^  '^  TTcc^  ro  ' AvTv^i<^,  fJi^ilox,"^  "^  iy-uva  ^iorn- 
 T<^  ^iOTTciiiiAjivcv,  ov^  0  S-£a5,  aiAAtftf  ^ioe,  KV^iari^ov  ocv  Xv^/mv  Com- 
 ment, in  Joh.  P.  4<?,  47.  Huet.  "  Afy  Anfwer  to  Thefe  is, that 
 "  the  Self-exiflent  God  is  That  God,  [abfolutely  fo  ftiled.]  IVhere^ 
 *^  fore  our  Saviour  fays  in  his  Prayer  to  the  Tat  her.  That  They 
 *'  may  know  Thee  the  only  true  God>  But  whatever  is  God  be- 
 **  fides  tha>  felf-exijient  Perfon,  being  fo  hy  Communication  of 
 *'  His  Divinity,  is  not  God  abfolutely,  but  is  more  properly  cat- 
 **  led  a  Divine  Perfon."  Hence  he  concludes  prefcntly  after, 
 that  "  the  Word,  who  excells  all  other  Beings  which  are  ever 
 **  filed  Gods,  [meaning?^e^»_^e/5/J  hxi^ix>^fjtjiv(^  \ssro  roZ  tZvoXui 
 •'  B-ioZ,  is  excelled  in  Dig7iity  by  Him  who  is  The  Supreme  God 
 *'  over  all."  p.  49.  And  again:  ^a-fjuiv  rov  iicv  ^k  lo^vfjonpov  rvZ  7rccrpo<i, 
 «:AA*  V3TOd££f£p«v.  xcc]  Touro  xiyoyAv,  civrSTm^of/^ivoi  UTrovTiro,  ottutv.^ 
 
 6  7ri^c/.<i  fjoi  fjfjii^m  fjua  Wi.  Adv.  Celf.  Hb.8.  P.  388.  "  We  do  not 
 *'  fay  the  Son  is  more  powerful,  but  that  he  is  lefs  powerful,  than  the 
 **  Father  ;  And  this  we  fay, on  Affurance  of  the  Truth  of  his  own 
 "  Words,  My  Bather  that  SENT  mejs  GREATER  than  1." 
 
 (i)  Ideo  &  Unus  pronunciatus  ell,  dum  Parem  non  habet. 
 De  frinit.c.  4.  "  Therefore  he  [the  Father]  is  declared  to  be  the 
 "  One  God,  as  having  no  Equal."  The  Paflagc  of  Tertullian, 
 (which  has  been  often  cited  as  contrary  to  This ;)  Adv.  Prax, 
 c.  7.  Exinde  ^.vw  Parem  fibifaciens,  de  quo  procedendo  filiut  fa^ 
 ^U6  pfi;  is  moit  manifeftly  corrupt.  For  the  VVord,  faciens, 
 referring  not  to  the  Father,  but  to  the  Son,  undeniably  fliows 
 that  the  True  Reading  is,  PATREM  fibifacim,  dec. 
 
 (0  E^. 
 
5  z  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 (ij  Euftlitis  argue.  And  theyhx'OW^xt  for 
 Proof,  many  of  the  fame  Texts  which  /  have 
 brought  againft  Tou, 
 
 (\)   Eufebius  fays ;  ou^i  ^uo  .9-£a?  c^ioir/K-n  ocZvoit^  ror   rue,   duo  'jzn- 
 ttrourn<i  TiSivrcc'  ii^i  ^^  ^uo  iiro7ii/jii(;  uvrw^    m^ofiJi^cx.,  ih  Uf/j(pu  otvccft- 
 y^ac,  y^  cc'/inrj^c;-     uXXoc  ujixv  fjfjiv  tVjj    uyivv/irov  kx)   ccvec^^ov,  ^ce,li()Xlt 
 ^i  yivyyirltJJj  kx\  oc^^/'*  tov  %oi\i^x  KSKi.iyjUijv    Ecclef.  Theol.  lib.  Z. 
 C.  7.      ^^  It  id  not  neceffary  that  he    who  fnppofes  two  di/iinH 
 **  SubfifienceSj  fjould  make  Two  Go/Is ;  For  we  dn  not  fuppofe  the 
 «   Two  to  be  E^AL  IN  HONOUR^  nor  that   they  are  'both  of 
 * '  them  unoriginate  andunbegotten  ;   but  that  the  one  is  unoriginate 
 **  and  unbegotteny  the  other  begotten  and  derived  from  the  Fa- 
 **    they  (If  his  Original"     Agnin:  a  y^p  ^uo  xyiw^roc,  ioi  Ko  uvup-^ 
 vcc,  «^2  <5V(J  »(r<«45  £|  iVortjUz/ci?  oariTrxpiluyofjijivxti  ccXXviPicci^  iWxyif  J*« 
 {i^i  ^uo  3-fa5'  lib.  2.  c.  23.     "  The  Church  does  not  introduce  two 
 «*  IJnbegotten  nor  two  Unorigi?iated  Beings,  nor  two    Sub/lances 
 «*  equal  and  Co-ordinate  to   each  other-,    and  therefore  not  two 
 **  Gods."     Again:    ^^  If  they  are  afraid  we  JJj  mid  introduce  Two 
 **  Gods;  let  them  know,    that  thougii  we  do  indeed  confefs  that 
 «  the  Son  ii  God,  yet  there  is  {abjolutely)     but    One  only  God', 
 **  even  He  who  Alone  is  unoriginated  and  unbegottcn,    who   has 
 «<  his  Divinity  peculiarly  of  Hi?nfclf,    and   is  the  Caufe  both  of 
 **  the  Son's  Being,  and  of  his  being  what  he  is :     By  whom  the 
 *'  Son  himfelfconfeff'eth  that  he  lives ;  faying  exprefsly,  I  live  by  the 
 «*   Father,    So  that  there  being  but  one  Original,  and  one  Head,  hozu 
 <i'  can  there  be  Two  Gods  ?  Is  not  He   Alone  the  One  God,    wha 
 <'  has  no  Super iour,  no  Caufe  %f  his  Exigence;  but poffeffeth,   of 
 ci  jiimfelf,   an  unoriginated  and  unbegotten  Monarchical  Power 
 «»  nnd  Divinity ;  and  co-mmunicates  to  the  Son,    of  his  Divinity 
 <"  and  Life?  Whom  he  [the  Son]  teacheth  us  to  eficem  the  On- 
 ««  ly  True  God,    and  confeffeth  to  be  Greater  than  hitnfelf,  &:c. 
 lib.  I.  c.  II.     And  in  niimberlef^  Places  he  declares  the  Father 
 only  to  be  the  One  Supreme  God.    And  TertulUan  exprefsly  found? 
 the  Monarchy  of  God  in  This     that  there  is  but  One  Original 
 cf  Power :    Se  proinde  illius  clteprincipalitcr,  a  quo  communi- 
 catur  in  Fihum;  &  dum  illius  elt,    proinde  Monarchiam  elTe: 
 ♦'   He  therefore  principally  has  the  Government,   from  zuhom  it  is 
 *'  communicated  to  the  Son:  And fo  long  as  it  is  HIS,    it  is  ftill 
 <«  4  Monarchy.     And  the  Monarchy  can  no  more  be  divided  or 
 «  dejlroyed  by  being  admin'ifired  by  the  Son,  to  zvhom  it  is  given 
 «*  i^y  the  Fasher,  and  who  does  nothing  but  by  the  Will  of  the 
 •'    Father-,  than  if  it  had  been  adminijiredby  a  Legion  of  Angels.". 
 Adv.  Pr^x.  c.  3.  4.     See  alfo  Ladantius,  lib.  4.  c.  29. 
 
 But 
 
Qii.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 But  to  proceed.  You  alledge  Novatian^  up-^- 
 on  Job.  17,  3,  "  ^fl^lyi^^g  the  Title  of  the  0;/- 
 "-'  ly  True  God^  to  Both''    (Father  and   Son,) 
 '^  Which  y     you     fay  ,      may    deferve^''    my 
 ''  ^otkeT     Here  you  are  fo  fan  as  to  pro- 
 duce the  Author's  Words \^  which  are  a  dire£t 
 Evidence  of   your  quite  mifreprefenting  his 
 Senfe,     Novatian  fays  5  fc.  24.}  ^'^"V.^y  did  our 
 Lord  add  thefe  Words^    "  oAnd  Jefm  Chrift 
 "  whom  thou  haft  SeJit^"*    unlefs  he  intended  it 
 to  he  underfiood  that  He  Hinifelfalfy  was  God? 
 Had  Novatian  faid  ^  not,  (as  he  does,)  Je  eti- 
 am  Detmij    that     "  Chrift  Himfelf  alfo  was 
 *^  God^'*  (in  oppofition  to  his  being  a  mere 
 Man^  according  to  the  Defign  of  the  whole 
 Chapter  ;>)  but,  Se  etiam  Unictim  ilium  vermii 
 Deum^  that  '^  He  himfelf  alfo   was  That  Only 
 ''  True  God  ;"  it  would  indeed  have  "  defer- 
 ^^  ved  Notice^''    But  now   on  the  contrary, 
 the  Thing  which  truly  ^'  deferves  Notice^''  is^ 
 that  youTliould  thus  alledge  an  Author  as  de- 
 claring for  you,  the  whole  ^Defign  of  whofe 
 Book  throughout,  is  moil  full  d.nd  plain  againft 
 This  very  Notion.     A   little   before,   in  the 
 22d  Chapter  He  afferts  that  the  Son  is  (1)  in- 
 ferior  in  Authority  to  the  Father^    as  being 
 fantiifyed  by  him  ^    and    that   his  being  (2) 
 fent  by  the  Father,  fhews  that  he  is  Ohedie?it 
 and  Suhjeti  to  hint.    And  in  the  24^^?  Chapter^ 
 
 (i)  Dum  ergo  accipit  SanHificationetn  a  Patre,  ^Inor  patrc 
 ell. 
 
 (2)  Mijfum  praeterea  fe  effe  dicit,  ut  per  lianc  ObedUntiam; 
 qua  venit  dominiis  Chriihis  mip^y  non  Pater  fed  lilius  probe- 
 tur.  milTus  autcm  non  fuit  palter,  ne  pater  fubdititi  Alter i 
 
 XK-r,  dum  mittitur,  probaretur. 
 
 -  D  in 
 
34  OftheVnitjofCod. 
 
 in  an  Argument  immediately  preceeding  the 
 Paflage  you  cite,  he  again  fliows  his  Senfe 
 that  the  Father  is  Greater  than  the  Son,  in 
 Confequence  of  the  Reafon  which  he  gives 
 why  the  Sori  is  Greater  than  the  (i)  Holy 
 Gho/i^  viz.  bccaufe  the  Holy  Spirit  Received 
 ofChrift  what  he  (Imdd  fa),  John  i6, 14,  tfc. 
 Since  therefore  Chrifl:  in  like  manner  fj^oke 
 nothing  of  Him/elf  but  received  from  the  Fa- 
 ther a  Commandment^  what  he  fijould  fa)\  and 
 zvhat  he  flmild  fpeaky  John  12^  4^  J  he  muft 
 by  the  fame  Argument  be  i^^fenor  in  Autho- 
 rity to  the  Father.  Laftly,  C/^.  31,  He  ex- 
 prefsly  afferts  again,  that  the  Son,  in  con- 
 fequence of  not  being  unori^inate,  is  ('^)  i^fe^ 
 rior  in  Authority  to  the  Father.  And  .argues 
 at  large  through  the  whole  Chapter,  that 
 there  would  necelTarily  be  Two  Gods^  if  the 
 Son  w^re  (3)  Equal  with  the  Father :  And 
 that  the  Fatoer^  being  (4)  alone  unoriginate^ 
 
 in- 
 
 (i)  A  Chriflo  ^<:c^/»/V  (paracletus)  qiuis  nnnciet ;  majcr  ergo 
 jam  paracleto  Chiijhis  ell ;  quoniam  ncc  paradetus  a  Chrillo 
 acciperet,  nifi  minor  Chriflo  eilet. 
 
 (1)  Simul  ut  hie  m'mor  fit. — ^-paternae  voluntatis  mtnljlrum. 
 
 (3)  u^/j'«^/^5  inventi,  duos  Decs  merito  reddidilTent ; Par 
 
 expreilus,  duos  comprohdlTet  &  Deos,  Again:  Cujus  lie  Divi- 
 nitas  traditur,  ut  non  aut  DifTonantia  aut  [in^iiualitatc  :  So  the 
 Copies:  But  the  Se?7fe  of  the  whole  Chapter  evidently  Ihovvs 
 that  the  Author  writ]  JEqualitate  divinitatis,  duos  Deos  reddi- 
 dilTe  videatur.  *'  IVhofe  Divinity  is  declared  in  fuch  a  manner^ 
 **  as  not  to  make  Two  Gods,  either  by  a  Dij"agrce7iisnt  or  Equa- 
 **  lity  of  Divinity, 
 
 (4)  Solus  Originem  nefciens,  invifibilis,  immenfus,  immor- 
 tahs,  '*2tcrnus,  UnmDeits;  cujus  neq;  magnitudini,  neq;  Maje- 
 llati;.  ncq:  Virtutiquicquam  non  dixerim  prxicrri,  fed  nee  cor?2- 
 
 parari  potdL Unus  eft  omnium  rerum  ^  principium   i<c 
 
 c*put,   idciico  «««w  Veam  aileruit;  — —  fijius  autem  nihil 
 
Q[}.  11.     Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  3  5 
 
 invifthle^  2ncomprehe?j^hle^  and  the  Head  and 
 Origi?id  of  the  Son  himfelf  who  in  all  Things 
 ohejs  his  iVillj  is  therefore  Alone  77^^  0//^ 
 Go^Jj  of  peerlefs  Majefty  and  Great?iefs,  Nor 
 is  there  any  One  Antient  Writer,  who  under- 
 ftands  this  Text  otherwife  than  /do,  or  that 
 ever  applies  this  Title,  The  Ody  true  God^  to 
 the  Son.  Origeji  (i)  direOily  argues  from  This 
 Text^  that  Chrift  is  not  The  one  Supreme  God  ^ 
 but  (S'ec^)  a  fuhordinate  divine  Perfon  -,  as  he 
 explains  himfelf  at  large.  And  he  calls 
 ''  the  Divinity  which  is  in  Chrift^  the  hnage 
 ''  of  THE  TRUE  Divinity:"  'H  Iv  dvrcp  ^lirvi^y 
 ei:tciv  ^  aA>]9)v>i5  Ocoryir(^.  Eufebim  (2}  fays, 
 that  "  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  hath  ex- 
 "  horted  us  (in  his  Prayer)  to  confefs  his 
 ^'  father  to  be  The  Only  True  Godj  and  to  wor^ 
 ^^  fhip  Him  alone P  And  again  (j)  "-^  Our 
 ^*  Lordverypioufly  calls  his  Father  The  Ody 
 *'  True  God^  appropriating  juft  Honour  to  the 
 ^'  unbegotten  Nature  9  of  which^  the  divine 
 *'  Oracles  teach  us^  He  himfelf  is  the  Image 
 ^'  a7id  Offsfpri7igr    Once  more  :    From  This 
 
 ex  arbitrio  fuo  gerit,  nee  ex  confilio  fuo  facit,  nee  a  fe  venit; 
 
 fedimperiis  patemis  omnibus  Scpraeceptis  obedit. Itadum 
 
 fe  patri  in  omnibus  obtemperantem  reddit,  quamvis  lit  ^Dem, 
 Unum  tamen  Deum  patrem  de  obedientia  fua  oltendit,  ex  quo  <k. 
 Originem  traxit.     The  whole  Chapter  is  highly  worthy  the  Lear?j^ 
 ed  Reader's  PerufaL 
 (i)  In  Joh.  P.  46,  47,  &:  218.  Huetii.^ 
 
 (1)   Avro^  0  fAiovoyiv^c,  tQ  B-iS -tov  dvrou  TTcileptx,  f^vov    ^y«c^ 
 
 B-io¥  k'MfA,  t^  fjtjovov  G-ifietv    xfjuTv  ■^cc^aKiMvsroti'.     Praep.    Evang. 
 lib.  7.  c.  15,  in  fine. 
 
 (3)  Movov  ycuv  oiXyiOtviv  Biov  frCp'o^^oe.  iva-tSaiii   ^x«A«  rev   m^ifX; 
 
 ysvvyjujx  oi  B-fioi  Aayoj  Tren^i'Jufnr     Dem.   Evang,  lib.  5.    C.  I7» 
 in  fine, 
 
 D  2  Text 
 
of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Text  (i)  Euft'liiis  argues,  that  the  Father  0;/- 
 l).,  is  The  One  God.  And  the  Nicene  Fathers 
 were  fo  careful  to  preferve  in  this  Point  the 
 Sufrer.iacy  ot  the  Father^  that  they  exprefsly 
 profefs  him  to  be  The  (2)  Of^e  GoJ,  in  the 
 fi'yfi  Article  of  their  Creed,  And  they  who, 
 Jfter  the  Council  of  Nice^  were  mofl:  zealous 
 for  A^ew  ExprefiTions  in  many  other  Inilances, 
 yet  ventured  not  to  depart  fo  far  from  the  An- 
 tient  Language  ^sio  apply  this  Title  (0  ^ov@« 
 ctAi^S-ivoV  5hoV,)  the  07tly  True  God^  to  Any  other 
 than  to  thQ  Father  of  All,  Even  when,  after 
 many  Contentions,  they  had  left  nothing 
 but  a  Shadow  of  Siifretnacy  to  the  Father^ 
 yet  they  continued  to  afcriBe  This  Title  pecu- 
 liarly and  invariably  to  Him.  (^)  oAthana- 
 fiws  frequently  charafterizeth  the  Father^  with 
 this  Title  of  The  Ouly  True  God :  Nor  does 
 he  ever,  that  I  can  find,  apply  That  Title  to 
 any  other  Perfon.  In  the  Place  you  refer  to, 
 upon  Joh.  17,  3,  there  is  nothing  to  your 
 Purpofe  on  This  Point.  Nor  does  he  Tbere^ 
 as  you  would  infmuate  to  your  Reader,  ftile 
 the  Son  Toe  Only  True  God^  thougli  he  had  a 
 proper  Occafion  fo  to  do,  ii  even  Then  That 
 
 (i)  ;a«;i^«V  (whom  Chrift  ftilcs  The  Only  True  Cod)  octxr- 
 
 S-«vi55    ,>jy    3-£0§,    0  ik  [jJ)VO^,  y^  iTi^^  iSK  W*   ^M*     tivri.     Dc  Ecclcf. 
 
 Theo  .  lib.  2.  c.  11. 
 
 (z)  '^Evcc  ^icj  7r«]i)tj  ^stvlexpc^Topoc.  And  Eiifebliis^  who  was  at 
 the  Council  of  Nice,  declares  it  over  and  over  again,  to  be 
 the  Senic  of  the  whole  Church,  that  The  Father  only  was  The 
 Line  God.     De  I'xclef.  Theol.  lib.  r.  c.  11.  faffim. 
 
 (3)  Tw^  ;rpo5  rev  tvoc  fO;  fAjovov  u,Xy)6iyov  B-ior  ytCixriA'c,  Asyw  j   re*  rcZ 
 Xfi^oZ  TTUllfct,'     Contra  GcnteS.      Again  :     Toy  Trap'  vfjuav  x^ec-xwai 
 f/nvcv,  K.  icy,[rj7rofjji)iovy  rcZrcv  fJL>ovof  tlvcci  ^itV  (»A>(^5'*^— —  r<5  j  ifv  i<^n 
 
 Lan- 
 
Qu.  II.    OftheVnitjofCod.  M 
 
 Language  had  beerx  introduced.  And  (i)B^- 
 ///  himfelf,  defcanting  upon  this  Text,  ven- 
 tures to  affirm  no  more,  than  that  Chrifl  is 
 (aA>]9{yi5  3-635  ;j  not.  The  Only  TrueQjd^  but, 
 Tnie  God^  Nay,  even  (2)  E^i^banius^  in 
 the  very  Argument  by  which  he  endeavours 
 to  fliow,  by  way  of  Infere^tce^  that  the  So?i. 
 is  dxri^ms  S-w^  True  Gody  as  well  as  the  Fa-, 
 iber  \  evidently  fnows,  in  the  manner  of  his 
 Reajbning^  that  the  Words,  r  (t/ivov  dxyi^im 
 S-eov,  in  this  Text,  jf^/?.  17,  3,  and,  0  dx-^i- 
 15?  ^io^y  in  I  Jobii^^  20-,  were,  in  His  Time, 
 univerfally  underftood  to  be  fpoken  i;/  the 
 Texts  themfelvesj  concerning  the  Father 
 Only. 
 
 You  go  on.  "  As  to  i  Cor.  g,  6  j  (To  Us 
 there  is  but  One  God,  the  Father,  Of  whom 
 are  all  Things ;  and  One  Lord,  Jefus  Chrifl:, 
 By  whom  are  all  Things  \)  ^'  All  that  can  p,  9, 
 ^*  le  reafonahly  gathered  from  it^  is  ^  that 
 '"^  the  Father  is  there  Emphatically  /Hied  One 
 ^^  Gody  hit  without  Dejign  to  exclude  the  Son 
 *''-  from  hei?2g  Godalfo:  As  the  Son  is  Efupba- 
 
 (0  Adv.  Eunom.  lib.  4.  P.  106. 
 
 (2)  nsg^  ffi  r5  TTcirfoti,   ocvTPq  o  ui))^   Xi'/ei,   Ivoc  'yivaxTKCJCi   ts    rev 
 
 ■zs^io-avy  |i//cyoy£v>i  ^tov  ccvtov  <poi.TH.uv.  'Ou  TToaari^-ilo  ^i  tm  ^Jjovoyivii 
 ^ict>  TV,  Qio<^  ' AXvi^ivoc,'  clXXcc  'Zoht  7rccloo<;  yiyocc-sfixi,  ' AXr}&ivoZ  3-£<5»- 
 fTg^  uiou  j,    oTi  M'-coyscn?    3-£oe      To    j    WAtv    Ctfef   7rxrfo<;,    crt  (pS<; 
 
 O   3-20?  •      '5J£<    ■j    UkOVj    on    KV    TO  <pZi    TO   'APliJ^lVOV.       Kxi    GfX    f/jOt   TTjy    TUV 
 
 y^x(pocv    UK^iSeiscv 'Ezri  tou  liou    ^iy(,X7^rui,    on  ^--oq  6  i/io^-  kxI 
 
 xo:v  »  (Zs^a-K'^sct  to,  ,9-£05  'AA/j^tv^?,  pcci^Uv  kxi^oXc,  izs-KrufvjofJuiv  d  toX- 
 fi>y,Terj^iv  I^Xcca-cpyifjj'^xxi    f^  f/j-^  iizsruv  rcy  viov  B-iov  clM^ivov — Ta> 
 
 fhiV    TTCCl-S/,  "">>    ^£3?  'AX/l^-iVOii'    TM  j   llZ  TO,     S-JO?'         'Av^^^TitAiJi    ~)   TM   W»» 
 
 ■TV,  (pZq  TO  clMB-tvov  t|>  ^  ttxtq^  tt  '(pa^'  Ancor.  Secl,  3,  4.  And 
 to  the  fame  Purpofe  again,  HAreJ.  6c^i  §.  3Z.  and  H&ref.  76, 
 ■Cap.  36,  §.  2, 
 
 D  §  I'tically 
 
38  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 "  tically  filled  One  Lord^    hul;  zmthout  Dejigfi 
 ''•  to  exclude  the  Father  from  being  Lord  aU 
 "  y^."     I  willi  you  had  explained  to  us  what 
 you  mean  by  the  Word  ''  EmphaticallyJ^^    Fof 
 your  Argument  required  you  to  fay,   that  the 
 Son  is  equuhy  The  One  God  alfo  ;    (i.  e.  that 
 The  One  God^  the  Father^  is  both  Father  and 
 Son :)  Or  elfe  the  Son   is  neceffarily  by  the 
 Apollle's  words  excluded  from  being  the  One 
 God^  OF  whom  are  allTtjmii\  juft   as  the 
 Father  plainly  is  (though  you  fay  he  is  noty 
 excluded  from  being  TlJe  One  Lord  (<!('  h)  BX 
 or  Through  wtjom  are  all  Thi?igs,     (i)  Origen 
 argues  from  This  Text,  that  the  Apoftle  in- 
 tended to  direO;  us  to  ^ay  our  whole^   entire^ 
 undivided  WorfJ^iJ^^    to    the    Supreme  Gcd  of 
 Gods^. through  his  Son^    God  the  VVord^  who 
 alo7u^  onngs  Men  urto  him,  &c.     And  the  Ju- 
 *  Difc.on  dicious  Mr.  ^"  Mede  infers  from    This  Text, 
 ^^'^^— >'•  that  whereas  the  Gentiles  had  a  Plurality  of 
 Superior  and  WFERIOR    [or    Mediatorial"] 
 Deities^    We    (Chriliian:)    uave    hit  one  in 
 each  Sort:  One  God,  and  One  Mediator.    Up- 
 on what  Ground  therefore  you  could  fay,  that 
 A  ic^     This  fo  plain  and  exprefs  a  Text  '*  SEEMS 
 *'  rather  againfF"*  me  '^    is  altogether  incon- 
 ceivable.    See  above,  f .  29. 
 
 The  Text,   Ephef  4,  6,   One  God  and  R/- 
 
 ther  of  all^    who  is  above  all^    and  through 
 
 all,    and  in  you  all '^"^    is,  you  fay,    ^'  a  fa-^ 
 
 ^  '^'     ''  mous  Pajfagej    which   has  ge?ie rally    been 
 
 (i)  CoiUv.  Cdf.  lib,  8.  P.  381. 
 
Qii.II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 **  iinderftood  ly  the  Jjitients^  of  the  whole 
 ^'  Trinity.'"  But  furely  a  Man  muft  have  a 
 ftrange  Opinion  of  the  Antiaiis^  who  can  think 
 that  they  underftood  the  one  God  and  father 
 of  all,  (diftinguiflied  by  the  Apoftle  ex^refsly 
 in  the  very  fame  Sentence  from  the  One  Spirit 
 and  One  Lord,)  to  be  the  whole  Trinity.  Ire- 
 nxus^  whom  you  here  cite,  does  (i)  not  un- 
 derfland  it  fo  '^  nor  any  Ancient  Writer  what- 
 foever.  Hippolyti^ys^  whom  you  cite  alfo, 
 and  Vv^ho  is  a  jfurious  or  interpolated  Writer,  is 
 hkewife  againll  you«  In  (2)  the  Place  you  refer 
 to,  he  diltinguinieth  the  three  Perfons  with 
 77?/^  Subordination ;  viz.  "  it  is  the  Father 
 ^*  who  commands^  the  Son  who  obeys ^  and  the 
 *'  Holy  Ghoji  who  compleats  (t!ie Work  of  Cre- 
 ^'  ation.")  Atha7wfitts\  own  Comment,  which 
 you  Hkewife  refer  to,  is  it  felf  againft  you  • 
 ''  There  is  preached  in  the  Chtircb  One  Godj 
 
 (i)  See  Dr.  C/V/^(?'s  Reply  to  Mt.  Nclforiy  p.  71. 
 
 (2.)  'O  ycco  KiXiuuv  TTuiy.^,  6  ^  •u^omaav  vice,,  to  <^£  (rvnli^av  «.ym 
 cf;su///«^  -•  Contr.  No'et.  P.  16.  Dr.  Mills  fays  concerning  Hippo^ 
 bjtus  ;  Quae  fub  nomine  ejus  feruntur,  fpur'ta  fere  funt,  excep- 
 to  forlan  Tradatu  de  Anti-Chrijh,  quern  pro  genuine  vendi- 
 tat  Combefifius.  Prole^,  in  Nov.  Te/i.  P.  6i.  And  the  Book 
 againft:  No'etusy  which  you  here  cite,  and  ynake  fo  frequent  life  ot" 
 afterwards;  is  plainly  nothing  but  the  latter  Part  of  his  Book 
 againft  Herefiesy  with  large  and  grofs  InterpoUtionsy  changed 
 into  an  Homily  in  later  times.  Photius  tells  us,  that  Hippol^tui: 
 wrote  a  Book  againft  31  Herefies,  and  ended  with  Noetus. 
 Vol.  I.  P.  113.  He  calls  the  whole j  a  little  Booh;  whereas  thi^ 
 One  Part  is  15  Pages  Fol.  Gr*  Lat.  m  Fahicius's  Edit.  Gelafms, 
 Vol.  I.  P.iiSi  quotes  a  large  Paffage  from  Hippclytta  agamji 
 Herefies,  which  is  in  the  Book  againft  Noetus,  very  much  m- 
 rerpolated,  Vol-  II.  P.  19, 10.  Which  fliows  how  littleThis  Au- 
 thor is  CO  be  depended  upon,  when  he  feems  to  favour  your 
 JSlotion  :  Tho'  generally,  even  as  he  nozv  Hands  corrupted,  he  is 
 plainly  enough  agalnjl  you, 
 
 D  4  "  even 
 
Jr.  10. 
 
 40  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 ^'  even  He  who  is  Above  All ^' and  Through  Ally 
 *'  a7hJ  In  All :  Above  till,  as  he  is  the  Father 
 •*  and  Original  and  Fotmtain  of  all :  Through 
 "  all,  By  bis  Word:  In  ^11^  by  his  Holy 
 ''  Spirit:' 
 
 ?.  ic.  But,  ''  'tis  certain^''  you  lay,  "  that  the  Fa- 
 
 ^'  ther  may  reafonahly  be  called  The  One  or  on- 
 ''  ly  Gody  without  the  leajl  Diminution  of  the 
 ''  Son's  REAL  Divinity:'  Undoubtedly  he 
 may  ;  But  not  fo,  if  the  Son  were  equally  Su- 
 
 ^'  53.  '^"i-preme  in  Authority,  "  Supreme  in  the  ftriB 
 "  Senfe^'  God  "  in  the  fame  Senfe,  and  in  as 
 ''  High  a  Senfe^  as  the  Father  himfelf  is  fo 
 ^'  filled,^'  As  to  the  ''  remaining  Texts ^^  you 
 fav,  '^  Some  are  7?ieant  of  Chrifl  as  Man^  or  as 
 *'  Mediator  :  And  thofe  which  certainly  refpeB 
 *'  him  in  a  higher  Capacity^  may  he  accounted 
 ^'  for  on  This  Principle^  that  we  referve^ 
 *'  tvith  the  Ancients^  a  Priority  of  Order  to  the 
 "■'  Father,  the  Firfi  of  the  hie  (fed  Three:' 
 I  anfwer  :  Your  Diftindion  of  Chrift  '^  as 
 "  Mediatour;'  from  Chri/l  AT  THIi  SAME 
 TIME  ''  in  a  higher  Capacity^'"  is  without  all 
 Foundation  in  Scripture.  The  One  Media- 
 tour  betiveeu  God  and  Men^  the  Man  Chrift  Je* 
 fus,  is  not  a  Part  of  Chrift,  but  the  jams 
 Chrift,  the  fam.e  Perfon  incarnate,  wlio  be- 
 fore his  Incarnation  appeared  in  the  Form  of 
 God.    The  Learned  Bifliop  (i)  /W/cxprefsly 
 
 (i)  Chriiium  vcio  j.\kaiat:rc',7i  clTe  inter  dcum  8c  homines 
 utrififq;  n.ii:nx  refpediu,  (qiiicqiiid  ex  Pontificiis  quidani  con- 
 tn  obganniaiit,)  vetcrcs  Catholici  Patres  cum  Sacris  Scripturis 
 :;/;p  <?;y'  docucru.-.t.  .ptffjf.  Sctf,  i.  cn^.  9,  §.  15. 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  4 1 
 
 acknowleclges,  that  *'  it  is  the  imanimons  Do- 
 *^  crrine  of  the  Antient  Catholick  Fathers^  and 
 *'  of  the  Holy  Scriptures^  (whatever  fo7rie  of 
 *'  the  Romanifls  urge  to  the  contrary  J  that 
 ''  Chrift  is  in  refpecf  of  BOTH  his  Natures^ 
 "  the  Mediatour  between  God  arid  Man,^* 
 And  for  This  Reafon  it  is,  that  Chrift  is  al- 
 ways reprefented  in  Scripture  as  an  Advocate 
 for  us  to  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  only,  i  John 
 2,  I.  To  divide  Chrift  into  Two  FerJb?iSj  one 
 pf  which  is  Mediatow\  and  the  Other  not  fo  j 
 is  the  very  Herefy  of  Cerinthns,  To  which 
 St.  John  probably  refers,  i  Joh.  2,  22,  He 
 that  de?iyeth  that  jefus  is  the  Chri/f.  And  ch,  4, 
 ver,  1,3,  Try  the  Spirits  , "^  Every  Spi- 
 rit that  cojfeffeth  ?:ot  that  Jefus  Chri/l  is  come 
 in  the  FleJI:^  (or,  as  many  Ancient  Copies 
 read  it,  every  Spirit  which  (i)  divideth  Je-- 
 fus^  is  7iot  of  God.     Iren^Ms    (2)    confutes 
 
 this 
 
 *  Pretences  to  the  Spirh,  are  not  the  Character  of  Unhelk" 
 'vers,  but  mull  needs  be  underlbod  of  fome  that/^ro/f^Y/them- 
 felves  Chrijlians, 
 
 (l)  Irenam,  lib.  y  c.  i8. 
 
 \z)  Johannes  unum  &  eundem  novit  verbum  Dei,  &:  hunc 
 efle  unigenitum,  &  hunc  incarnatum  eife  pro  lalure  hominum, 
 Jefum  Chrilhim  dominum  noftrura :  "  "^ohn  kneiv  but  one  and 
 *'  the  fame  Perfon^  vjho  zvas  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  only  be^ 
 "  gotten,  and  was  incarnate  for  Man's  Salvation,  Jefii6  Chriji 
 *'  our  Lord."  Again:  Neque  alium  quidem  Jeium,  alterum 
 autem  Chriftum  fufpicemiir  fuille,  fed  unum  &  eundem  fcire- 
 mus  effe:  **  Let  us  not  think  that  [the  Man]  Jefus  is  one  Per- 
 *'  fon,andChriJi  [the  Divine  Word]  another  Perfon;  but  know, 
 "  that  they  are  Both  one  and  the  fame  Perfon.""  Again:  Johannes 
 domini  difcipulus  praevidenshas  blafphemas  reguhis,qu3e  dividunt 
 dominum,  quantum  ex  ipfis  attinet,  ex  altera  &  altera  fubftantia 
 dicentes  eum  factum:  *'  -^ohn,  the  Difciple  of  cur  Lord,  fore  fee- 
 it  i^Z  'f^^  BMhemoHs  Do^hines  of  thofe  who,   as  7mich  as  in 
 
 !'  shem 
 
4  i  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 this  Notion  at  larc^e,  throughout  his  whole 
 Writings.  Nor  do  I  find  Any  Ancioit  Writer, 
 that  ever  aflerted  Chrift  to  be  our  Me  Ji  at  our 
 merely  as  Ma?i^  or  as  diftinguifhed  from  him- 
 lelf  in  his  Higher  Capacity.  The  Mediatour 
 was  always  efleemed  by  Them  his  divine  as 
 well  as  Humane  Characier^  the  Charafter  of 
 the  Word,  And  the  proper  Worjinp  of  him,  as 
 the  Divine  Asy®",  was  always  thought  to  be 
 (i)  Mediatorial. 
 
 But 
 
 «'  themUcSyd'iv'iih  the  Lor (1,  and  mahe  him  tohetvjo  dift'in5t  Suh- 
 **  fiflenaes,^'  [i.e.  one  Divine  and  impaffilde^  and  another  hu- 
 mane and  paffiile,  as  he  prefently  explains  it:]  Uh.  3,  c.  iS.  A- 
 gain,  he  fays,  Ncfcit  ergo  eum  qui  avolavit  Chriltum  a  Jefu , 
 neq;  novit  falvatorem  qui  luifuni  efl,  quern  Itnpaffibilem  dicunt. 
 Si  enim  alter  quidem  pa.(}us  eft,  alter  autem  impfifftbiiii  manllr ; 
 &  alter  qnidem  natus  eft,  alter  vero  in  eum  qui  natus  eft  de- 
 fcendit,  &  rurfus  reliquit  eum;  nonunus,  fed  duomonftrantur  : 
 **  Fatil  knew  noth'mg  of  That  Chrifituhich  departed  from  Jefu^f" 
 [leaving  the  Man  Jefus  to  fuffer  alone :  as  he  frequently  ex- 
 plains it;]  *'  nor  of  That  Saviour  which  is  from  above y  who^ 
 **  they  fay,  was  impaffible.  For  if  it  was  one  Per/on  that  faf- 
 **  fered,  and  Another  Perfon  that  remain  d  impajfible;  one  Per- 
 «  fon  — that  was  born,  another  that  defcended  wpon  Him  who  wa.s 
 **  hrn,  and  left  him  again  [at  his  Pailion ;]  then  there  is  not 
 **  One,  but  Two  Perfons  :"     Ibid.  P.  242. 
 
 (l)  At'  sfju-^ux^a  Xoya.  Origen  contr.  Celf.  lib.  3,  p.  160  \  and 
 lib.  8,  p.  395,428.  Again:  Tov  sW  $-scv,  to  r  ivx  ma  uvrS  'C  X)- 
 "/ov  j^  eiKovoi,  Tcaq  xsstw  to  Jlfjvccrt))  ytr/jTv  iKsa-ixiq  xon  uUuxriG-i  tri.So' 
 tAJiv,  7rp')(rci''/ovri<i  tw  3-£a»  tu)»  oXuv  tss?  'tv^oi(;  old  t»  ^ovoyjyoi/^  uvTiJ, 
 cJ  TTfeirav  7rooT(PifOf/jiv  ocvtk^,  ^|<ovfT55  uwnv  IXcca-fjjcv  ovlx  tuv  tiyjy.p- 
 Ttav  yuiuv  yr^rxrccyctyiiv  a^  up^n^tcc  icxt  iu'/^oe.^  km  tuc,  ^aicct,  jcxi  7u,<i 
 ivriv^e!<;  v,u,m  tm  sVt  T.cc,(ri  .9-sf .  **  We  worflup  with  Supplications 
 *'  and  Prayers,  as  much  as  we  are  able,  the  One  God,  and  his 
 **  only  Son,  who  is  hvs  Word  and  Image ;  offering  them  up  to  the 
 **  Supreme  God  thro'  his  only  begotten  Sen,  to  whom  zve  Jirji  ad' 
 «*  drefs  our  felves,  befeeching  him,  who  is  the  Propitiation  for  our 
 '*  Sins,  to  prefent,  as  our  High-Friefi,  our  Prayers,  Offerings  and 
 "  Interccffions,  to  the  Supreme  God."  Lib.  8.  P.  38^.  A  Paf- 
 fage highly  approved  by  the  Learned  Bilhop  Bull;  Defenf.  ScrL 
 X,  c.  9,  §.  15.    (,Sec  below  on  g^/^rjf  XVII.)    Again;   AV»  '/^ 
 
Qii.  II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  zj  3 
 
 But  you  can  "  account  for  ihofe  Things  p.  lo. 
 **  which  (you  fay)  certainly  refpeB  him  in 
 *^  a  higher  Capacity  than  Media  tour  ^  upon  the 
 *'  Principle  of  refervine;  to  the  Father  a  Frio- 
 ''  rityofOKDERr  that  is:  You  can  ac^ 
 county  how  God  made  all  Things  BT  (or,  as 
 Jll  Antiquity  has  u?janimonJly  underftoad  it, 
 through  the  Miniflration  o{)  the  One  Supreme 
 God^  the  Word  •  ''How  he  SENT  the  Word, 
 the  One  Supre?ne  God^  to  be  made  Flefi^  to  do 
 his  Father'^s  Will^  and  fulfill  all  his  Co?nmands 
 upon  Earth  ,  How  He  GAVE  to  the  One  Su- 
 preme G^^  all  Power  in  Heaven  and  in  Earth, 
 COMMITIED  all  Judgment  to  him,  is 
 HIS  God,  and  hath  COMMANDEDhim 
 to  be  Worjhipped  by  Angels  and  by  Men^  me- 
 diately to  his  own  [to  the  Fathe/s']  Glory. 
 Thefe  Things,  I  fuppofe,  you  will  not  deny 
 but  they  (at  leafl:  moft  of  themj  refped:  Chrift 
 in  his  highe[l  Capacity.  And  methinks  the  Ufe 
 of  Language,  and  the  common  natural  Rea- 
 fon  of  Mankind,  cannot  but  eafily  determine, 
 
 TF^OTiVKliOV  Tea  iTTi  TTci.S'l  ijSCxI,  KOil  TT^OCi'JKTiOV  yiTa  f/jCVO^/iVH  iCUl  X^OJ-' 
 ifl/jZv,     KCCi     TTtiTz^CC    OiVToZ   KCH    TTXTifXX,    rUV     fliiiVTUV      Y-CCTU.      T     MycV     TOW 
 
 S-fow-  "  We  ought  only  to  pray  to  the  Supreme  God.  Tetvjemujl 
 "  alfo  Indeed  pray  to  the  only  begotten  V/ord  of  God,  the  firjl- 
 *'  born  of  every  Creature  \  intreating  him,  as  our  High  Priefi,  to 
 *'  ojfer  up  the  Prayers  ivhich  we  prefent  unto  Him,  to  His  God 
 "  and  our  God,  to  His  barker  and  the  lather  of  thofs  who  live 
 *'  conformably  to  the  Word  of  God."  Ibid-  P.  395.  And  No- 
 'vatian:  Si  horno  tantummodo  Chridus,  cur  ^(?;»o  in  orationi- 
 bus  Mediator  invocatur  ?  *^  If  Chrifi  is  a  mere  Man,  how  comes 
 **  a  mere  Man  to  be  pray'd  nmo  as  a  Mediator .?"  De  Trin. 
 c.  14. 
 
 whe- 
 
44  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 whether  thefe  Things  can  poffibly  be  afcribed 
 to  the  One  Supreme  God^  in  Any  Capacity  or 
 Refpeft.  It  may  well  become  you  ferioully  to 
 confider,  whether  it  is  noifafer  and  better^  to 
 underfland  Scripture-DoBrhies  according  to  the 
 natural  and  obvious  Conftruction  of  plain  and 
 clear  Expreflions  -^  than  to  endeavour,  by  fitb- 
 tile  School'Diflin^iGns^  and  mere  Metaphyftcal 
 Quibbles,  to  ^'ACCOUNT  for"  the  Difficul- 
 ties  of  an  Hypothefis  which  has  no  Founda- 
 tion at  all  in  Scripture^  and  is  altogether  unin- 
 telligible in  it  felf.  For,  What^  1  befeech  you, 
 P,io,  is  this  Mere  ''Priority  of  ORDER;'  which 
 is  to  Account  for  fo  many  plain  and  exprefs  De« 
 clarations  of  the  Subordination  of  the  Son  to 
 the  Father  ?  to  the  Father  of  All,  who  is  Above 
 till?  and  the  very  Notion  of  whofe  Deity,  and 
 of  his  Monarchy  over  theUniverfe,  confifls  in  his 
 being  Alone  Supreme  abfolutely  over  All^  Has 
 This  Supreme  Father,  OF  whom  are  all  Things ; 
 has  he,  according  to  Tou,  Any  REAL  Prio- 
 rity  i?  Is  he  Superiour  in  any  Real  Thing,  in 
 Digjjity,  Dominion,  Authority^  Perfe&ions,  or 
 Powers  .<?  You  anfwer  :  No.  Then  he  is  pri- 
 or^ only  in  Name^  in  nothing  but  in  mere  Or- 
 der  or  Pofaion  of  Words.  And  what  is  this, 
 but  a  perfect  Co-ordmat'wn  of  Perfons,  named 
 in  one  conftant  unchanged  order  of  placing 
 their  Names  .<?  Whereas,  with  regard  to  any 
 Reality  of  Authority,  the  Son  had  altogether  as 
 much  Authority  to  have  fent  the  Father  to  take 
 fiir  Nature  upon  him^    as  the  Father  had  to 
 
 fend 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  4J 
 
 fend  hh  Son.  Will  This  fatisfy  Men,  who 
 make  the-  Scriptures  the  Rule  of  their  Faith  ? 
 I  cannot  doubt,  would  you  be  perfwaded  to 
 paraphrafe  all  the  ''Texts'*  of  the  New  Te- 
 ftament  by  this  *'  general  Key^'  but  you  wou'd^-  ^^•- 
 either  your  felf  fee  the  Abfurdity  of  your  own 
 Notion,  or  let  Others  plainly  fee  why  you 
 could  ?wt    ''  defcend  to  Particulars.'^ 
 
 You  proceed  to  fet  before  your  Reader  ?^^,i  1,12; 
 in  the  following  words,  what  you  are  pleafed 
 to  fay  I  ought  to  ''  have  fairly  owtied''^  to  be 
 ntjf  Interpretation  of  J  oh.  1,1*  "  /«  the  Begin- 
 "  ning  was  the  WO  R  D,  and  the  WORD 
 ''  was  with  the  ONE  SUPREME  GOD, 
 ''  ^nd  the  WORD  ivas  ANOTHER 
 ''GOD  inferiour  to  him,  a  CREATURE 
 "  of  the  GREAT  GOD:  All  Things  were 
 ''CREATED  by  thisCREATUREr 
 How  unjuft  this  Reprefentation  is,  is  evident 
 at  firft  Sight.  My  Interpretation  of  the  Text, 
 (if  you  will  allow  me  to  raake  it  for  my 
 felf)  is  This  :  "  In  the  Be^ifini?ig  was  (i) 
 the  WORD,  and  the  V/O  RD  was  With 
 "  the  ONE   SUTREME  GOD  and  Fa- 
 
 (i)  Aoy^,  ^  iccvr^  rccrfo^  "E^fj^muc,  j§  ''Ayy£A(^,  The  Word, 
 the  Interpreter  and  Me(fe?iger  of  his  Father.  Athanaf.  colUr. 
 GenteS.   Auvccrat   di  y^  6   A0705   iio(;  etvxi,  ttcc^  to    U7rxyyi?\^eiv    tu. 
 
 /38A??  ayysA©-  m.     The  Son  may  be  ftiled  The  Word,   frotn  his 
 
 Revealing    the  Secrets  of  the  Father  : Jlnd^  eu  being  The 
 
 Word,   he  is  The  Mejfen^er  of  his  great  CounfeU  Origen.in  Joh. 
 pag.  41.  HuctJi. 
 
 <c 
 
 th^ 
 
4(5  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 "  ther  of  All ;  and  the  IVOR^D  rvas  h'wifelfa 
 *'  Divine  Perfon  Qfliled  in  Scripture  and  in 
 "  the  inoft  (i)  Ancient  Writers,  ^tU  and 
 "  3cJg{(^,  GoJ  and  LorJ^']  in  SubordinaU07i  to 
 "  the  One  Supreme  God  and  Father  of  All  -^  be- 
 "  vig  his  only  begotten  Son,  (^whatever  zvas  the 
 **  unfearcheable  Manner^/  ihat  Generation  ,] 
 '^  and  BThim  did  the  ONE  SUPREME  GOD 
 
 (i)  Trypho  fays  to  ^ufi'm  Marty-y  ^2?  'i^^c,  u;Toel\j7lxi  en  t^ 
 cc?Oi(^  ^io<i  7rec(,)6  T  7roir)Ti^v  rm  'oXuy  \  "  hozv  ca?i  you  prove  that 
 *'  ANOTHER  is  God,  befides  the  Maker  of  the  Univcrfe  ?  Dial. 
 P.  6c.  A<iain',  'ATro^st^ot  v,fjjX;i  'on  iTi^(^  ^-soq  %x^cc  T  5rc</rrv:v  ra* 
 oXuv  vTTo  r5  Tr^ocp/iTiTci  7rvit/f/jccr(^  ct>fji>oXoy>jTxi  ilvoci  ;  "  Prove  to  tne, 
 "  that  the  Prophetic  Spirit  declares  that  ANOTHER  is  God,  be- 
 "  fides  the  Maker  of  the  Univerfe  ?"  P.  67.  To  which  Judin 
 (having  fliown  "  that  God  appeared  ^  Abraham  at  the  Oak  of 
 *'  Alamrey  with  two  Angels  SENT  along  with  him  to  the  exe- 
 **  cuting  of 'judgment  onthcSodo77:ites^'  ii«r'  ccXX^ricv  ToT<i  \}zs-tp- 
 afxvioic,  ecu  fjJivovT(^  y^  iii![m  o(pB-ivr^,  'ov  ^ct/jTuii  rSy  oXuv  >^  7rx~ 
 Tifict  vo^yjsvf  ^''from  A?iother  who  always  continued  in  the  Super- 
 *'  cdefiial  Manfions,  and  never  appeared  to  any ;  Whom,  fays  he, 
 "  we  underftand  to  be  the  Maker  and  Father  oj  all  Th'mgs")  re- 
 plies, that  he  **  would  endeavour  to  convince  him  "  [from  the 
 Scriptures  before-mentioned,]  on  hi  j^  xiy-rcn  B-tot;  ^  xJp*®- 
 sTjp(^  -Lzirii)  \_lege  'zccf^oi,  uti  fupra']  r  Tror/irytv  tZv  oXeov,  b$  y^  uy/s- 
 X(^  KOCAiiTcit  ^ice,  TO  kyyixXeiv  rotc^  oc.v3-pa)iroit^  otrcc-sii^  ^aXirui  oivroi<; 
 ^yyiiXoti  o  rcov  oXuv  77oi;)\viq,  'LZS's^'ov  ccXX(^  Bso^  ^k  iTiV  Ibid.  P.  68  '. 
 **  that  befides  the  Maker  of  the  Univerfe,  above  whom  there  is 
 **  no  other  God,  yet  Another  is,  and  is  filed,  both  God  and  Lordi 
 *'  who  is  alfo  called  an  Angel,  on  account  of  his  carrying  to  Alan' 
 "  kind  whatever  Mcjfages  'tis  the  Will  of  the  Maker  of  the  Uni- 
 **  verfe  to  fend  to  them."  Hence  prefently  after,  jufin  calls 
 That   Perfon  who  appeared  unto  Abraham  and   is  ftil'd  Qod^ 
 
 iTitf^  t5  7K    T^uitrx    ^onfi(rccvTO(i  S-'S,    oipi&ujui    Xiyo),   c//,\X    »    vv^u/m' 
 
 .  V         ^  .      »         \  /  \      i\  (,'  »'       \        «        \  '  ,        ' 
 
 l^tp  'ov  'uX>J^  »x.  \<3i  S-£C5,  (^if^aXriTott  y^  TTfu^cti  kx\  ojJUiXiirxi* 
 (he  calls  him^  ''ANOTHER,  diJlinU  from  the  God  who  is 
 *'  the  Maker  of  the  Univerfe,  in  Number,  but  not  in  Turpofe;  for 
 *•  he  never  does  any  Thing,  but  what  it  is  the  WILL  of  the  Ma- 
 "  ker  of  the  IVorld,  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God,  that  h$ 
 "  Jhould  do  and  fay."'   Ibid  p.  61), 
 
Qii.  11.    Of  the  Vnhy  of  Cod  47 
 
 "  qAND  father  of  All  make  all  Thingsr 
 Tour  (i)  Senfe  of  the  fame  Paiuige  (as  it  feems 
 to  Me)  ftands  thus  :    "  /;/  the  Beghin'mg  was 
 "  tbe  IVORD,  and  the  WORD  n^as  VAth  the 
 ^'  ONE  SUPREME  GOD,    and  the  WORD 
 "  was  himfelf  the  SAME   One   Supreme  GoJ^ 
 ^'  [yet  ?iot  meaning  thereby  the  SAME  One 
 ^'  Supreme  God,  but  oAiWTHER  Supreme  God 
 '^  in  the  SAME  undivided  Subflance  •]  and  BT 
 '^  the  fame  One  Supreme  God^  did  the  One  Sis- 
 ''  preme  God  make  all  Things.''     Let  the  Rea- 
 der now  judge,  which   of^Thefe  Two  Inter- 
 pretations is  m.ore  agreable  to  the  Writings  of 
 St.  John^  and  to  the  whole  Tenour  of  Scrip- 
 ture •  and  Which  of  Us  has  the  greater  Right 
 to  charge  the  Other  with  making  Two  Gods^ 
 In  the  nature  of  Language,  I  think,  the  Words 
 lAnother']  and  [Tm,^  as  in  thefe  Expreffions 
 l^notherGod,  Another  King,  Amther  Saviour  ; 
 Two  Gods,  Two  Kings,  Two  Saviours  (]  necef- 
 farily  fignify  Two   of  Co-ordinate  Authority  j 
 whether    divided  or   undivided  in  Sub/lance^ 
 makes  no  Difference.     But  where  the  oAmho^ 
 rity   of  One  is  Subordinate  and  Derived^  in 
 
 (r)  Eufehims  Account  of  Marcelhiis  Senfe  of  this  Text,  is 
 here  ^veiy^  applicable,     "^i^i  kcct    kv^iv,  rv',    'Ev  d^^^i  Iv  o'a}- 
 
 y(^,^(r.v  tlvc,^  rZ,  'Ev  k^^^l  ?"  0.^205-  Kxl  li,  -^^  0  Xcy<^  ty  7re\  rl^ 
 Tcy,  Tfti^T^v  u,r^,  fy,x<^\  ^i\  ^v   h  ^io<,'  '' Ah,  TT^k   tS  k(rvyctpry.Ta,,L} 
 
 TT^fuXr^yarccTcc  u-^'Lr  ''  According  Xo Marcdlml  Thefe  Words. 
 c«  ^Ji  ^f' f'Zl^^'i^g  -^^i  the  Word,  mean,  In  the  Beginning  was 
 «  A  A  ^J^^''^^^  ^^^^'^'^^"^^^^ God,  rnQ^'iis,God7fa6  with  God, 
 .c  fv,"  't  ^^^^  ^^  ^°^'  ^^'  ^'^  ^^'^  ^'^'^'  Which,  befides 
 V  >r  i^^o^erency,  (fa^,  he)  is  moreover  molt  abfurd;  De 
 S'^f'f/.  Jheol.  I.  z,   (,  14, 
 
 W 
 
 hat 
 
4S  OftheVnityofCod. 
 
 what  manner  foever  the  Derivation  be  ;  there 
 the  fame  ExpreflTions  cannot  be  ufed  with 
 Any  Propiic:ty.  Of  this,  tlie  Apoftle  SuTaul 
 has  given  us  a  mofl:  pertinent  Inftance.  God 
 our  Saviour^  fays  he,  faves  us  through  J^if^ 
 Cbrifi  our  Saviour  ,  Tit.  5,4,  6.  And  yet 
 it  can  neither  truly  be  faid,  that  Goci  our 
 Saviour  there  mentioned,  is  J^^fus  Chriji 
 our  Saviour-^  nor  yet  that  we  have  Two 
 Saviours. 
 
 As  to  your  charging  me  with  making  the 
 Son  a  Creature  :  See  below  on  Query  IX,  XII, 
 and  XIII. 
 p.  12.  And  whereas  you  here  alledge  again,  that 
 "  the  Tt^cas  oflfaiah  [Before  ME  "there  was 
 "  no  Go^^iSc  r\  exclude  all'mknouVy  as  well 
 ''  as  co-ordinate  Gods :"  I  anfwer,  as  before  : 
 The  Word,  ME^  m  thefe  Texts,  does  in- 
 deed necelTarily  and  exprefsly  exclude  all  ///- 
 feriours^  all  Co-ordinates^  all  Su^eriours^  all 
 'Beings,  all  TERSONS,  all  whatfoever  ;  It 
 excludes  them,  from  IVhat  ?  From  being 
 what  HE  [the  Pcrfon  there  fpeaking]  de- 
 clares Himfelf  oAlone  to  be.  And  therefore 
 the  Texts  of  Ifaiah  do  indeed  necelTarily  de« 
 ftroy  your  Notion.  But  Hill  Mofes,  Ma- 
 giftrates,  and  Angels^  are  notwithflanding 
 in  the  fame  Scripture,  and  very  confidently 
 toOj  ftiled  ElohifUy    Qioiy  Gods,  (as  (i)  Ori- 
 
 gen 
 
 Ct)  Aiznov,  'oTi.  ynuG-KHV  fJtjiv  *V*  ^'iov,  xui  rlv  fjtfovoyiv^  ccvt^,  xcu 
 Ti<;  TiriiMjr,fXj<nv<,  VCSo  S-£y  Tv^  0EOS  ;r^o<r/)y o£>«« ,  kclI  f^iTi^otrtKi  tk^ 
 ^■ioTfir(^  clvTiy  &CC.  '*  It  is  fofftble  to  kno'cv  Gody  and  his  only 
 "  hejfitttn  Sorif  and  ihofc  (llrj  Angels)  whom  God  has  honour  d 
 
 «'  with 
 
Qri  .II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  4  9 
 
 gen  obferves  *,)    without  being  what  the  Per- 
 fon  fpeaking  in  Ifaiah^  declares  Himfelf  Alofie 
 to  be.    And  Cbrift  is  in  a  yet  higher  iSenfe,  and 
 very  far  different  from  all  thefe,  God-^  as  being 
 the  only-begotren  So?i^   and  the  oAnohited  of 
 The  One  God  and  Father  of  all  :    Heb.  1,9: 
 Eph.  4,  6  :  Joh.  10,  36.     The  Cafe  is  exaftly 
 the  fanne,  as  in  That  Other  Text  in   Ifaiab^ 
 ch.    43,    II.    Beftde   ME  there  is  no  Savi- 
 our.   Yet  St.  Paul  tells  us,    that  '^efus  Chrijl 
 alfo  is  our  Saviour :    And  at   the  fame  time 
 does  not  fuppofe  him    (Tit.  5  ,  4,  6,;    to  be 
 That  God  our  Saviour^  whom  he  declares  to 
 ^Hd  the    Holy   Ghoft   u^on  us  Through  Jefus 
 Chrifi  our  Saviour^ 
 
 "  with  the  Appellation  o/God,  and  made  thefn  Partakers  of  his 
 **  Divinity."  Adv.  Celf.  lib.  7.  P.  375.  In  like  manner  he  ar- 
 gues, Comment,  in  Joh.  p.  47,  48;  where  he  dillinguiflies  the 
 Angels,  (who  are,  he  fays.  Truly  Gods,  as  fjuirixovrsr^  .9-£»,  par- 
 taking of  God,)  from  mere  Nominal  Gods.  Again,  he  i^iys 
 that  Chrift  is  "  not  only  God  and  Son  of  God,'  but  that  "  his  hu- 
 **  mane  Nature,"  ri^s  hchvh  S-hotjjtC^  KiKOivuvw-'Oroc,  h?  B-iov  fj/jirsc- 
 fiiS/Dcivxi,  ^^  by  partaking  of  his  Divinity,  became  God.''  P.  136* 
 And  apin,   fpeaking  the  Highefl  Things    of   Chrift,  he  fays, 
 
 ra  ,9-£S,  y^  cv  TM  yjiyiSc-i  a-ai^vf  tIuj  Iikovu  r«  Tculfoc,.     *'  The  God  and 
 *'   Father  of  All,  communicated  even  of  his  Grcatnefs  too,   to  his 
 "  Only-Eegotten  and  the  Firji-born  of  every  Creature  ;  that,  be- 
 *'  ingthe  Image  of  the  Invifible  God,  he  might,  in  point  of  Great- 
 "  nefs  to0,  preferve  the  Image  of  the  Father."     Adding  immedi- 
 ately after ;  ^tcv  Ulv  iTn^-^tv,  "  He  SENT  God,  his  Son."     And  p   ^2.2 
 Ladantius  :   Primogenitum  r/it^mi  ?z^w/wi;  Appellatione  ^/^^^/'fii    ' 
 cl\,  patria  fcilicet  virtute  &:  majeftatepollentem.    The  Senfe  of 
 the  whole  PalBige  is ;  that  **  God  having,  before  the  Creation  of 
 **   the  World,   begotten  an  holy,    incorruptible   Spirit,    which    he 
 *'  called  his  Son ;  and  having  created   by  him  iyinumerable  other 
 *'  Spirits,  which  we  call  Angels  %  he  vouch fafed  to  dignify  Him^ 
 "  the  firft-begotten  only,  with  the  Appellation  of  God,   being  in- 
 **  vefled  with  hjf  Father  s  Power  and  Majefiy.",    hb.  4.  §.6. 
 
 E  Upon 
 
50  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 Upon  FhiL  2,6,  you  had  been  urged  with 
 the  following  Comment  of  (i)  Novatian  : 
 Ch'n[l  f faith  he)  THOUGH  he  was  in  the 
 For?n  of  God^  yet  did  not  r^j]t:me  to  him^ 
 f elf  to  he  equal  with  God :  [This,  the  pre- 
 ceeding  word,  Qnamvis^  necelfarily  fliows  to 
 be  Novatia7i\  meaning.^  FOR  though  he 
 knew  that  he  was  God^  as  having  God  for  his 
 Father  ^  jet  he  never  compared  himfelf  with 
 God  his  Father  *,  rememhring  that  he  was  from 
 his  Father ;  a?id  that  it  was  his  Father  who 
 gave  him  to  'Be  what  he  Was,  Wherefore 
 Both  before  and  After  his  tahng  ti^on  him  hu^ 
 mane  Flefl;^  and  alfo  after  his  RefurreHion^  he 
 alvoays  did  and  does  faj>  all  Obedience  to  his 
 iather^  From  whetice  it  appears^  that  he  ne- 
 ver thought  fit  fo  to  claim  to  himfelf  Divinity^ 
 as  to  equal  himfelf  with  God  the  Father,, 
 Nay^  on  the  contrary^  he  was  always  obedient 
 to  His  whole  Will  and  Flea/ure,  even  fo  as  to 
 be  content  to  tak  e  upon  him  the  Form  of  a 
 Serva/it,  that  is^  to  become  a  Man^ 
 
 (i)  Hie  ergo,  G}UAMVIS  eflet  in  Forma  Dei,  non  efi  rapt- 
 nam  arbitrat-^  Aqualem  fe  Deo  eJJ'e.  Quamvis  eniin  fe  ex  Deo 
 Patre  Deum  eife  mcminiiTer,  nunquam  fe  Deo  Patri  aut  com- 
 paravit  aut  contulit ;  memor  fe  eite  ex  liioPatic,&  hoc  ipfum 
 quod  cd,  habere  fe  quia  Pater  dediflet.  Indc  denique  (k  ante 
 carnis  aifumptionem,  fed  &  poll  alTumptionem  corporis,  poll 
 ipfam  prxtereii  refurret^ionem,  omnem  Patri  in  omnibus  re- 
 bus obedicntiam  prxflitit  pariter  ac  prxftat.  Ex  quo  probatur, 
 nunquam  arbitratum  ilium  e(Te  rapmam  quandam  divinitatem, 
 lit  cequaretfe Patri  Deo:  quinimo  contra, omni  ipfius  imperioSc 
 voluntati  obediens  atquc  fubjcdus,  etiam  ut  formam  fervi  fuf- 
 ciperet  contentus  fuit,  hoc  ell,  hominem  ilhim  fieri,  vc.  Dt 
 Jr'piU,  cup,  17. 
 
 In 
 
a 
 
 Qih  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  y  i 
 
 In  anfwer  to  This,  you  alledge,  that    '^  ^^^'l^'  ^^^ 
 
 to  the  main   of     your     '^  oArgtiment  tmlt\. 
 
 on  this  a?id  ether  Texts^  He  was  certainly 
 ^^  on'^'*  your  ''•  Side.  That  He  tin derf lands 
 *'  Ifai.  45,  5,  of  God  the  Father  j  not  fo  as  to 
 *^  exclude  the  Son  from  leing  comj^rehended  in 
 "  The  One  God.' — That  He  proves  the  Divi- 
 *'  nity  of  Chrift^  from  his  receiving  IVorpip  of 
 
 *^  the  Church  ; and  makes  him  Confuhjiantial 
 
 "  with  God  the  Father,  That  This  is  as  much 
 ^'  ^j'-  you  ^^mean  ly  his  being  One  with  the 
 *'  Supreme  God?'*  That  His  Inference  from  p,  i^i 
 the  Text,  Tkil.  2,  6^  is  no  more  than 
 this,  that  '^  Chriji  never  pretended  to  an  £- 
 "  quality  with  the  father  in  Ref^eB  of  his 
 ^'  Original','^'*-— — and  '^  that  there  is  nothing?,  i^^ 
 "  more  in  it  than  This^  that  the  Father  and 
 '^  Son  are  not  two  Godsjbecaufe  they  are  not  loth 
 ''  unoriginated?"* — *That  Novatian,  ''  if  right" 
 **  /)'  underjlood^  is  a  moft  firong  Teflimony  for 
 *'  fuch  a  Co-equality^  as  "  you  "  contend  for. ^"^ 
 
 That  Phil.  2,  6,   *'  may  very  juflly  he  tranf?,  iSi 
 
 "^^  lated^  He  did  not  very  highly  value^  did 
 "  not  inftfi  upon,  his  EQUALITT  with  God ; 
 "  but  condefcended^ — -  in  QAppeara?ice,  to 
 I «'  empty  Himfelf  of  his  Glories:'  Which  Pa- p.  17^ ; 
 raphrafe,  you  think,  is  "  agreeable  to  the  Sen- 
 **  timents  of  Catholick  Antiquity,  not  only  af- 
 f  **  ter,  but  before  the  Council  of  Nice." 
 
 Now,   to  This,    I   reply.     Againft  your 
 
 I ^'  main  oArgumenty''    the  point  wherein  the 
 
 ■  Ckieftion  Truly  lies,    your  Notion  of   Equal 
 
 Sul^remacy  in  Authority  ;  Againft  This,  A^^t^^- 
 
 tian  exprefsly  argues,  all  through  his  Book  ^ 
 
 %       E  2  and 
 
5  X  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 and  particularly  in  ^^.31.  At  the  End  of 
 cb.  50,  he  rcafons  at  large,  from  (i)  this 
 Text  of  Ifaiah^'y^  5,  and  others,  which  he 
 applies  to  the  father  ;,  that  He  fthe  Father) 
 Unus  eft  Deus,  "  is  The  one  God^^  And  he 
 fclves  the  Objection  drawn  by  the  Salellians 
 on  one  Hand,  and  the  Ehionites  or  Satnofa^ 
 tenians  on  the  other  :,  he  folvcs  it,  not,  as 
 p  j.^  you  fuppofe  him  to  do,  by  inchiding  and  ''  com- 
 ^'  fretjending  the  Son  in  the  oneGod^"^  i.  e.  ma- 
 king the  One  God  and  father  of  oAll  to  be 
 loth  lather  and  Son^  (which  he  clearly  faw, 
 vvouM  have  exposed  him  to  the  Sahellians  ;) 
 Nor  by  denying,  on  the, other  Hand,  that 
 Chrift  was  GoJ  at  all^  fwhich  wouM  have 
 expofed  him  to  the  Ehionites  \ J  But  he  folves 
 k  by  the  following  Medium.  ''  Js^  when  the 
 ''  ^cri^ture  faysy  there  is  hut  one  Maftery 
 *-'  even  Chrift  ;  this  does  ?iot  exclude  Paul 
 •'  from  heing  a  Mafier  :  So  Chriffs  being  at- 
 *'  dared  to  he  God^  does  not  contradict  the 
 *'  Scripture  which  fays,  there  is  hut  One  God'?"* 
 Sqq  atove^  Pag.  8-  Then  he  proceeds,  in 
 the  whole  following  Chapter  to  the  End  of 
 the  Book,  to  prove  that  ''  God  the  Father  is 
 *'  The  One  God  :'*    And  that  if  the  Son  was 
 
 (i)  Tn  C/;^/>.  3,  he  fays,  upon  This  Text  of  1  fat  ah  \  *' Ut 
 **  omncs  cum  ibis  figmcntis  L'.rhnicos  excludat  &  hAreticos.'^ 
 And  in  ch.  i8,  he  tells  us,  the  '^ hereticL-s"  were  thofe,  wha 
 taught  (in  corjfeqfdence  ot  their  confounding  the  Divinity  of 
 the"  Son  with  that  of  the  Father,)  that  the  Son  zt'/n  God  the  f 
 father  him/elf.  This,  you  ought  not  to  have  concealed,  ia 
 your  Citation  of  the  Tallage  from  Chap,  3. 
 
Qli.il    OftkVnitjofGod.  55 
 
 (0  ^S^JL  to  him  in  Self  origination,  Invi- 
 Jibilit)\  Imme^Jitj,  bnwortality,  (taking  thefe 
 Perfections  in  their  Eminent  and  Abfolute 
 Senfe,)  '*  there  woti'd  thenundouhtedly  he  Two 
 ^  GodsT  But  to  lliow  there  are  not  Two 
 Gods,  he  alledges  that  the  Son  derives  every 
 thing  from  the  Father,  and  was  "Begotten 
 by  his  Will  5  [ex  quo,  quando  ipfe  voluit^ 
 Sermo  filius  natus  ert  ;]  That  He  adls  in  eve- 
 ry Thing  by  the  Father's  Command^  which  he 
 conllantly  fulfils  5  and  that  he  {iy  Receives 
 all  his  Power  and  Dominion  from  him,  as 
 his  Head :  x\nd  that . "  the  Worpp  which  he 
 *""  receives  from  the  Church^''  even  That  Wor- 
 ^11^  sf/Kich*'' proves  his  Divinity^''  is  paid  to?.  13. 
 him  as  ("3)  Mediator^  riot  as  Supreme.  And 
 this  Author  perpetually  infirts,  that  the  Rea- 
 fon  why  we  aiKrm  there  is  but  One  God,  is ; 
 not '  becaufe  of  the  *'  Communio  Sulftanti^  " 
 between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  (for  This,  if 
 the  words  be  at  all  meant  in  the  Meta/hy- 
 ftcal  Senfe,  far  from  running  through   every 
 
 (i)  JE(iuales'm\tn\.\,  ^«(7;D^ojiTierit6  reddidifl'ent; Par 
 
 cxprelTus,    duos   comprobairet  &;  Deos .- •  Merito  Jnom 
 
 rum  Deorum  controverliam  fufciralTet.  c.  31. 
 
 (2,)  Per  quern  faela  funt  omnia,  &  fine  quo  facflum  eft 
 
 nihil;  qui  obedierit  femper  Patri,  6c  obediat;  femper  habcn- 
 tcm  rerum  omnium  poteftatem,  fed  qua  traditam^  fed  qua 
 conceJJ'am,  fed  qua  a  Patreproprio  llbi  indultam.  "  Hebyzvhom. 
 "  all  Things  were  made,  and  without  whom  nothing  was  made  i 
 
 \  **  Who    always    did,    and  does    obey  his  Father :      Having  al^ 
 *'  ways  Power  over  all  things,  but  a  Power  delivered,  a  Power 
 
 ■'*  Given,  a  Power  granted  to  him  from  his  lather.^'  cap.  2.1. 
 
 ;     (3)  Si  homo  tantummodo  Chriflus,   cur  Homo  in  orationi- 
 h\i^  Mediator  invocMux^  c  14.  Which  Words,   immediately  >/- 
 
 lowing  thofe  yon  have  here  cited,  ought  not  to  have  been  omitted 
 
 b'j  you, 
 
 E  J  Page 
 
J  \  of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 Page  of  his  Book,   as  it  could  not   but  have 
 done  uponji'^//r  Scheme,  is  mentioned  by  him   . 
 hit  07!ce  incidetitall)^  without  laying  (i)  Any   | 
 Strefs,    or   building  any  Argument  upon  it, 
 either  here  or  in  any  other  Part  of  his  Book  ^ 
 fo  that,  in  any  Other   cafe,    a  Critick  would 
 hardly  doubt  but  the  Words,  "  fer  commmiio^ 
 "  item  Subftantiaj^   had  crept  in  out  of  the 
 Margin  :)  But  the  Reafon^  I  fay,   why  we  af- 
 firm there  is  but  One  God,    is  by  this  Author, 
 conltantly  and  uniformly  through  his  whole 
 Book,  declared  and  infifted  upon  to  be  This; 
 that  there   is  but  One  Heac/^    One  Founta'm^ 
 One  Author  and  Origiiial  of  all  1  hings,    evea 
 the  Father :  Placing  the  [/>^i^7  always  (in  di- 
 rect oppoStion  to  your  Notion)  in  the  Supreme 
 TJndenved  oAuthority  cmd  Dominmi  oitbe  (2) 
 .,  J3,     father^    And  whereas  you  add,    that   "  No-^ 
 *'  vaiiarh  makhig  the  Son  confubfiajitial  with 
 '^  God  the  Father  jis  as  much  as'^''  you   ^hneati 
 ''  by  his  being  One  with  the  Sup'eme  God  ••"  the 
 
 (i)  Sec  this  more  didindly  and  largely  confidered  helow  on 
 ^ler'y  XX VII. 
 
 (1)  Unus  Dcus  oflenditur  verus  &  scternus,  Pater,  r.  31.  Eft 
 ^rgo  Detis  Pater,"'-^ditcr7iHSyUnm  Daciy  &:c.  ibid.  Cum  tota 
 crcatura  lubdita  fibi  [a  patre  propriol  concors  patri  fuo  Deo 
 inventus,  imum^  folum  tJc  'vzrum  Deum /^^/rifw luum  approba- 
 vit.  ih'id.  Like  to  zvhich,  is  That  of  the  Learned  Bifljop  Pearfon . 
 ♦*  The  leather  is  ftilcd  One  God,  the  True  God^  the  Ow/y  True 
 •*  God,  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefns  Chrijl.  Which  as 
 ?*  it  is  moll  true,  and  fo  fit  to  be  believed,  is  alio  a  moft  Ne- 
 "  cejjary  Truth,  and  therefore  to  be  acknowledged,  for  the 
 **  avoiding  Multiplication  and  Plurality  of  Gods.  For  if  there 
 •*  were  more  than  One  which  were  from  none,  it  could  not  be 
 ^*  denied  but  there  were  more  Gods  than  One.  Wherefore 
 ^*  This  Origination  in  the  Divine  Paternity,  has  anticntly  been 
 ^*  looked  upon  as  the  Allertion  of  the  Unity,"  On  the  Creeds 
 /,  40,  Edis.  ^th. 
 
 con- 
 
Qu.  IL    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  y  J 
 
 contrary  evidently  appears*  For  you  explain 
 your  felf  (though  not  without  frequent  incon- 
 fiftency)  to  mean  that  the  Son  is,  as  well  as 
 the  Father,  "  Sufreme  ;  Suj^retne  in  the  firitt 
 "  Senfe  ,"  God  ''  /;/  the  fame  and  in  as  High  p^  ^^^  ,^^ 
 ^'  a  Senfe^  as  the  Father  himfelfP  But  No- 
 vatian  every  v/here  uniformly  and  conftantly 
 declares  the  contrary.  And  not  He  only  ; 
 but  Other  (i)  Antient  Writers  alfo,  who, 
 more  certainly  than  He,  afferted  a  Confubftafi- 
 tiality'j  yet  never  inferred  from  thence  Tas 
 you  do)  an  Equality  of  Supreme  Authority* 
 
 {i')Tertuirtan  him  felf,  them  oft  zealous  of  All  th^Antients,  is 
 fo  far  from  inferring  Equality  of  Supremacy  from  His  Notion 
 of  Confiibftantiality ;  that  he  lays,  the  Father  is  (fofa  Subfian- 
 tia)  "  the  Whole  Subflance,"  and  that  the  Son  is  (derivatio  To- 
 tius  &  Portio)  "  a.  derivative  Part  of  it,"  Adv.  Prax.  cap.  9* 
 And  again,  He  calls  the  Father  (plenitudo  Subftantiae^  ♦*  the 
 **  Fulnefs  of  the  Divine  Subjlance,"  and  the  Son  (portio)  **  a 
 "  Party  His  Words  are :  Si  PUnitudo  intcllecla  non  efi,  jnid- 
 to  magis  Portio  ;  Meaning,  that  if  the  Jews  knew  not  God  the 
 Father  J  they  were  much  more  ignorant  of  Chrift  his  So?2.  Adv, 
 Marcion.  lib.^.  c.  6.  He  alfo  makes  even  the  Soul  of  Adam  to 
 be  confiibftantial  with  God.  Adv.  Marcion.  hb.2.  cap.  5,&  9.  & 
 contr.  Prax.  c.  5.  LfiMantim  alfo  fays:  Una  utriq;  [patri  & 
 filio"!  Mens,  unus  Spiritus,  una  Subflantia  eft ;  fed  ille  [pater] 
 .quafi  exuberam  fons  ejiy  hie  [filiusj  tanquam  defluens  ex  eo  ri- 
 'vus :  ille  tanquam  fol^  hie  quail  radim  a  fole  porrecflus.  Qui 
 quoniam  fummo  patri  &  f  delis  &  can^  eft,  non  feparatur,  ficut 
 nee  rivus  a  fonte,  nee  radius  a  fole.     And  prefently  after,    he 
 
 adds :  Filius  ac  pater U7ius  Dem,  cum  &  ftlius  fit  m  Patre, 
 
 quia  Pater  diligit  iilium ;  &  Pater  in  filio,  quia  vohintati  patris 
 fideliter  paret,  nee  unquam  fliciataut  fecerit,  nifiquod/j^r^raut 
 'voluit  aut  juffit.  Be  vera  fap.  lib.  4.  §.  29.  P.  44/T,  447.  In 
 what  particular  Senfe  Latidiantim  here  ufes  the  Words,  una  Sub- 
 ftantia,  is  not  very  clear.  F'or  he  elfewhere  ftiles  Chrift,  medi- 
 am  inter  Deum  c;r  Ho?ninem  Subjiantiam  gerens,  a  middle  Sub- 
 ftance  between  God  and  Man,  ibid.  p.  388.  and  makes  Ayi^ 
 gels  to  be  from  the  Subjlance  of  God;  Epit,  cap.  ai.  Edit. 
 Havh.  ^ 
 
 E  4  You 
 
y  6  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 ^'  14.  You  proceed  :  NovatiarPs  Inference  from 
 PhiL  2, 6,  Q"  nunquam  fe  Deo  Patri  aut  com- 
 ^'  paravit  aut  contulit ;  memor  fe  efTe  ex  fuo 
 ''  Fatre :''  He  titver  co?npareJ  himfelf  with 
 God  the  Father  ^  remernlri?ig  he  was  From 
 his  Father  r\  is  This  only,  thac  Chrift  "  ;/^- 
 <4  vcfr  pretended  to  an  Equality  with  the  ^Father 
 in  Ri''f[eH  of  his  Original ^"^  and  that  ''  had 
 they  both  been  equal  [xw  refpecl  of  Original, 
 Both  unbegotten,"]  they  had  undoubtedly  been 
 
 p.  IS'      "  Two  Gods.^'     And   you  add;    "•'There  is 
 ^^  nothing  more  in  "^"^   the   PalTage  of  Novati- 
 01^  "  than  ThisP     Be  it  fo  :    Still  the  Unity 
 of  God^  according  to  .iSovatian^   relies,    not 
 upon  the  Injefarability  of  Subjtance  in  mafiy 
 'Ferfons^^iov  then  ''''Two  Unbegotten  Perfo7is^'* 
 in  one  undivided  Subftance,  would  not  have 
 been   "  Two  Gods^""    as  he  fays  they   "  tm- 
 "  doubtedly  ivould  have   been  ,")   but   it  re- 
 lies upon    the  Unoriginatenefs    of  the  fingle 
 Perfon  of  the   Father.     But  indeed  there  is 
 alfo  ''  more  in  it  than  ThisP     For  not  only 
 upon   the   Father's  being  unoriginate^      but 
 upon  his  Confquently  having    Jll  Dominion 
 and  All  Ter fed  ions  (i)  EMINENTLY 
 his  own^    does  Novatian  conftantly  declare 
 him  to  be  Abfolutely  TheO^eGod,   And  the 
 Other   Primitive  Writers    generally    in   like 
 manner  found  the  Unity  of  God  upon  his 
 
 (i)  Si  invifibilis,- fi  incomprchenfibilis,  fi(5ccxtera  quxr 
 
 aunquc  Hint  Patris;  merito  (iuorujn  Deorum     i.   ■  1  controvcril- 
 im  lufciuflct.  r.  31. 
 
 being 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  57 
 
 being  Alone  (1;  Unoriginated^  and  (2)  Co?i- 
 [equtntlj  i\.lone  of  Authority  ahfoJutely  Su- 
 preme. 
 
 From 
 
 Cl^  'fufl'in  Martyr  fays ;  M^'vC^  o(,y'm-Ar(^  kccI  'u<P^u^t<^  o  ^ioq^ 
 Kxl  :^a.  toZto  ^ioc,  ifiv  Dial.  p.  36.  *'  God  only  is  unbegotten^ 
 «'  and  immortal^'  [i.e.  He  only  hath  Immortality  ofhimfelf:^ 
 "  and  for  That  Reafon  He  Is  God,"  And  Athenagoras  :  To  ^ 
 ^  ^iio'j,  ocyivyytTov  ilvxi  Kdl  ftiiJioc*  Lcgat.  P.  ip.  ^'Jhe  divine  Be- 
 **  ing  is  unbegotten  and  Eternal"      And    TertuUian :    Quaere 
 
 c^uid  fit  Deus,  &  invenies Deiim  Summum  eile  Magnum, 
 
 in  seternitate  conllitutum,  innatum,&:c.  Adv.  Marcion,  lib.  i. 
 C  3.  "  Confider  what  God  i^,  and  you  will  find  that  he  is  the 
 *f  Great y  Supreme  Beings  eternal,  unbegotten,  &c.  And  Origen^ 
 in  his  Comment  on  John,  defines  [o  ^io{]  "  the  Supreme  God" 
 to  be  \JcvTo?i-i(^'\  *' God  abfolutely  of  himfelf,  or  felf-exijient." 
 P.  46,  o'c.  And  Novatian  and  Eufebius  infift,  throughout  their 
 Writings,  that  there  is  Therefore  but  One  God,  becaiTfe  but  One 
 who  is  unoriginated;  conitantly  defining  God,  by  the  Character 
 oi  Self-origination  ox  Jelf-exifience.  And  Arnobius;  Omnipo- 
 tens  &  primus  Deus,  folus  ingenitus,  immortalis  &  per- 
 petuus Iblus  eft.  Contr.  Gent.  lib.  z.  P.  95  :  *'  The  omnipotent 
 **  and  Supreme  God,  is  alone  unoriginated,  immortal  and  etcr- 
 «  nair 
 
 (2)  Jujiin  Martyr,  upon  thefc  Words,  The  Lord  rained  down 
 Tire  from  the  Lord  out  of  Heaven,  Gen.  19,24,  fayS;  rS  izrl  y?? 
 x'jff^a  x.ufio(;  if  IV,  a)<i  7i:u.T^  y^  ^icq-,  uiTioq  rs  uvrai  rS  ilvut,  kx]  oiwcctZj 
 KXi  y,v(iiM,  Kxl  ^i'2'  **  He  is  the  L»rd  of  That  Lord  who  appeared 
 **  upon  Earth,  as  being  his  lather  and  God,  and  the  Caufe  of 
 **  his  Exifience,  though  He  alfo  was  Mighty,  and  Lord,  and 
 •*  God:"  Dial.  P.  121.  TertuUian  fays,  Innatum  nato  fortius; 
 quia  quod  ut  effet,  nullius  cguit  aucftoris,  multo  fub- 
 limius  erit  eo,  quod  ut  eflet,  ahquem  habuit  audtorem.  Adv. 
 Hermog.c  iS.  "  That  which  is  unoriginated,  is  more  powerful  thaft- 
 ^*  that  which  is  originated ;  —  becaufe  That  which  had  no  Caufe 
 **  oj  its  Exifleme,  will  always  be  much  fuperior  to  that  whiih 
 **  had  a  Caufi  of  its  Exifience."  And  Alexander  of  Alexan- 
 dria: yxyc  Tw  p.  ciyivvyiTu  ttcctq/i  oiksTov  oc^iUf/jcc  (pvXxKTiov,  fjtjy)atvcc 
 Tow  £?/««<  oivTu  T  utriov  xiyovrccc;  **  Therefore  we  mufi  referve  t»  the 
 **  unbegotten  Father  this  pecullir  Dignity,  that  no  one  is  thg 
 Y  Caufe  of  his  Exifience.''     And  again :  To  ^  ocymviTov  ru   •kcctq). 
 
 fJLO'JOV    idlUf/jCC    TiCi^-iiVXi   OO^OCQ^OVTiC,  CCTl    OYi    KOii    CCVtQ    (pu<rKOyT(^     T»    (TCJ- 
 
 Ttiip(^,  0  TTotTup  fjtjis  fjuii^av  f/jn  Sftv  "  Referving  to  the  lather  the 
 f*  peculiar  Property  of  Self-exiflojce ',  our  Saviour  himfelf  decla- 
 f  ring,  my  Father  is  GREATER  than  1."  Epift.  ad  Alex,  apud 
 Theod.  lib.  i,  And  the  roji-nicems  thcmfelvcs  always  allowed, 
 
 that 
 
5  8  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 From  what  I  have  now  obferved  upon  the 
 Paffagc  you  refer  to  of  NovatiaUy  it  cannot 
 but  be  very  furprizing  to  the  Reader,  to  find 
 
 ^«  J5-'  you  affert,  that  "  it  is  a  moft  ftroni  Ttfli- 
 "  mony  of  SUCH  a  Coe^^alitj  as  "  you 
 *'  contend  for?"^ 
 
 F.  i6.  But  to  proceed.  Your  Interpretation  of  the 
 Word)  io-ct,  in  Phil.  2,  6,  has  no  Authority 
 older  than  the  4th  Century.  It  never  fig- 
 nifies  /'  Equality''*  in  Scripture-Language, 
 tho'  it  is  frequently  ufed  there  ,  nor  in  Any 
 Primitive  Writer  whatloever.  And  had  Chriit 
 
 that  a  Superiority  of  Honour  a>?d  Dignity  was  implyed  in  the 
 Self-originaton  of  God  the  Father.  The  Orthodox  Council  of 
 Sardica  affirms,  ^Jf-TZ)  to  ovoyjoc  tS  Trccrfoe,  f/tju^ov  gV*  ri  iiS'  I'heve- 
 *'  ry  Name  of  Father,  is  Greater  than  that  of  Son."  ^  And  the 
 Council  of  Syrr?num  :  "  //  is  indifputable"  (^u^ovoc  ilvxi  -rev  tio.- 
 Tifcc  Tijjc^  iucl  u\U  %(/A  3-j3T/)i<,  *'  that  the  lather  is  GREATER  in 
 "  HONOUR,  DIGNITT,  and  DIVINITY;  the  Son  hitnfelf  de^ 
 *^  daring,  my  Father  is  greater  than  I."  Socrat.  Hill.  Ecclef. 
 lib.  2.     And  this  is  no  more  than  what  BafU  Himfelf  owns  ; 
 
 o  hioc,  ra|«  y.  htjTif(^  r»  7i0!.r^)ic„  ori  ccsr  iKiivn'  y.xl  alioifMccn,  on 
 oi^^y)  KUi  oiiTix  rS  ilvcci  ccvrS  6  jrotrup,  kuI  crt  ^i  uv^  y  tt^ooc^  kou 
 Trpoo-^-ywy/i  Trpei;  rov  B-iov  kccI  Trccri^-  Adv.  Eunom.  lib.  3.  P.  79. 
 '*'  The  Son  is  Second  to  the  Father  in  Order,  as  being  from 
 *'  hi7n\  and  a  if 0  in  DIG  NUT,  becaufe  the  Father  is  the  (Original 
 **  and  Caitfe  of  his  Exijience,  and  becaufe  through  Him  we  have 
 "•'  Accefs  to  God  even  the  Father."     Again  :  ocym-ziTov  y  aJ^sj?  iiru^ 
 
 Trpoo-fityopsycrcti-  *'  But  the  Title  of  Unbegotten,  no  one  can  be  fo 
 **  abfurd  as  to  prefume  to  give  to  any  other,  than  to  the  Supreme 
 "  God"  ibid.  And  Greg.  Nazianz.  "  We  are  to  preferVe  to 
 "  the  Father,"  ro  t^  osp;^?^  uiiuij,u,  "  the  Dignity  of  being  the 
 '*  Original  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Spirit."  Orat.  Apo- 
 loget.  p.  354-  And  Hilary  ;  F.t  quis  patrem  non  Potiorem  confi- 
 tebitur,  ut  ingenitum  a  genito.^  CT't.  De  Trinit.  lib.  3.  '-''Who 
 *'  will  not  acknowledge  the  Father  to  be  GREATER ;  J^e  that 
 **  is  unbegotten,  than  he  that  is  begotten  ?  And  again:  "  The  Fa-: 
 •'  ther,  fays  he,  //,  autoritate  innafcibilitatis  Unus  Deus,  the 
 "  one  God  by  Reafon  of  the  Authority  of  his  unoriginateH  Na- 
 **  ture,"  Dc  Synod.  P.  236.    See  more,  Above,  p.  31, 
 
 beea 
 
j  Qu.II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  yp 
 
 been  equally  Supreme  with  the  Father,  it 
 wou'd  have  been  impofiible  for  him  not  to 
 have  ^'  very  highly  valued^^  not  to  have   "  in- 
 
 j  ^^  fiftedupon  his  Equality ^      It  would   have 
 been  equally  impojfihk  for  Him^  as  for  the  Fa- 
 ther himfelf^  to  have  cor/defcenJed  "  to  veil  his  p.  17, 
 "  Glories^  atid  in  Appearance  to   empty  himjelf 
 ^'  of  them^  taking    upon  him   humane  Vature^ 
 
 j  "  and  hec'jming  a  Servant  of  God  in  That  Ca- 
 ^*  pacity.'"*  Such  an  Interpretation  as  this^  you 
 cannot  but  be  fenfible,  would  in  the  Primitive 
 Ages  have  been  thought  highly  (i)  derogatory j 
 nay  even  (2)  Blafphemous^  to  have  been  ap- 
 plyed  to  God  the  Father.  And  confequently 
 it  muft  be  equally  fo,  to  apply  it  to  another 
 Perfon  who  is  equally  The  One  Supreme  God^  ^'  57- 
 *'  in  the  fa?ne^  and  in  as  HIGH  a  Senfe^  as 
 *'  the  Father  himfelf  Wherefore  the  Word 
 or  Son^  upon  Tour  Notion,  can  no  more  be 
 really  incarnate^  or  made  Flejh^  than  the  Father 
 himfeif.  This  you  feem  to  be  aware  of;  and 
 therefore  you  prefume  to  fay,  that  he  emptied 
 Bimfelf  ^'IN  APPEARANCE:^    That  p.  17. 
 
 S-sS  tS  ttuvtok^to'/^  £J5  ocvh):q  iicl[<^  ^na.^o(,XX<cir  Eufeb.  Hift. 
 Ecclef.  lib.  i.  P.  4.  *^  it  is  abfurd  tojuppofe  the  Unbegotten  and 
 **  immtitable  EJJ'ence  of  Gody  Supreme  over  all,  to  appear  in  a, 
 '*  hmnane   Tortn." 
 
 (1)  Ex  Do^torum  primaevorum  fententia,  Deus  Pater  a  ne- 
 mine  unquam,  n^e  per  ajj'umptas  qmdem  Species,  vifus  eft,  aut 
 "videri  poteft.  A  nullo  ille  ortus  principio,  niilli  fubjedus  eft ; 
 neq;  magis  ab  alio  milTas,  quam  ab  alio  natus,  did  poteft. 
 Bull.DeJenf.  Fid.  Nic.  Se^L  4.  i/ip.  3.  §.1.  Toy  '^  ^  B-ilv  -vart 
 ^Xm  ua-iSic,  ky-ysXov  vcfjuio-cci  x.xXutBui'    'O  ^  ''A'/yt?^<^   rS  %«,rpQCi  9 
 
 hioc,  ff 4-    Synod,  Antioch.  Epift.  ad  Paul.  Samofat. 
 
 IS  J 
 
6o  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 is  ;,  he  was  made  (ij  Fkfl)  ''IN  APPEAR- 
 AVCE'^^  w^sfe?it  and  came  down  from  Hea- 
 ven ^'  //;  Appearance ,"  &C-    Confider  whether 
 This  be  not  "  denymg  that  Jefm  Chr'ifl  is  come 
 ^.j        *'  i?i  the  Flefi,''    i  Joh.  4,  3.     Confider    how 
 ftrongly  the  FalTage  you  alledge  out  of  Ter- 
 tullian^  (no  way  pertinent  againft  Me^  who  ne- 
 ver deny'd  Chrift  to  be,  vere  Deus^  truly  GoJ^) 
 returns  upon  your  felf.     May  not  1  argue,  as 
 He  there  does,  that  if  Chrift  emptjed  himfelf 
 ''IN  APPEARANCE''  only,    in    taking 
 upon  him  the  Form  of  a  Servant ;  it  was  alfo 
 ^'  IN  (2)  APP  EARANCE'    only,    that 
 he  was  in  the  Form  of  God  ^    And  may    not 
 Tou  as  well  affirm  with  the  old  Docetdi  and 
 the  Marcionltes^    that   the  hiwiane  Flefh  was 
 ''  IN  APPEARANCE''  only,  as  that  the 
 Word  did    only    "IN   APPEARANCE'' 
 empty  himflf  in  taking   the   humane   Nature 
 upon  him  ?  St.  Paid  does  not  fay,  that  Chrift 
 "  emptied  himfelf  in   Appearance  *,"    but  that     / 
 ^txeyaxnv  gctuTov"]  be  emptied  himfdlf^  he  humbled  p 
 himfelf  [IrcL^iivcoa-iv  idivrovf\    and  became  obe-     ■ 
 Aient  unto  Deaths  even  the  Death  of  the  Crofs  ij 
 Whcr€fore  God  alfo  hath  highly  exalted  him^dlci. 
 Now  this  Exaltation  muft  alfo  be  only    ^^  hi   . 
 *'  Appearance^"  if  the  Humiliation  was  fo  ,  One-    I 
 being  the  Confequcnce  of  the  Other  :    And'   " 
 
 {\)  lren£us  fays:  Secundum  nullam  Scntentiam  Hi\:retico- 
 ium,  Verbum  Dei  caro  facUini  eft.  Adv.HAref.  lib.  3.  c.  rr. 
 *'   All  Hercticks  agree  in  this,  that  the  Word  was  not  inade  Tlcf)." 
 
 (1)  Nunquid  ergo  &  hit,  qua  in  effigie  eum  Dei  collocat  ? 
 /F.quc  non  crit  Dcus  Chriltus  zier},  i\  ncc  homo  ver'e  fuir,  in 
 cffi^ie  Hominis  cunftitutus.    Contr^  Marclon.  lib.  5,  c,  20. 
 
 thus 
 
Qu.  II.    OJ  the  Vmty  of  Cod.  6i 
 
 thus  you  may  make  the  whole  Gofpel-Difpen- 
 fation  to  be  nothing  but  Appearance  and  ti- 
 Siures  of  Speech.  How  different  a  Notion  the 
 Primitive  Fathers,  fi)  whom  you  fo  often 
 pretend  to  appeal  to,  had  of  This  Matter  ^  may 
 be  feen  in  the  FalTIiges  in  the  Margin.  Sec 
 alfo  above ^  p,  41, 
 
 (r)   ' AX'/i^ac,    lytvvy.h, uXyj^oo^  unXx/os    ccofJbec,^ —  ocX7)6<iif 
 
 y  iccci  ii  ^ojcyirei,  iq-ccv^ood/i,  x-su  U/Ti&xvs-  Ignat.  ad  Trallian.  Sefl.  9. 
 And  Juflin  Alartyr  :  ' QTtcoc,  ^a^ju^iv  on  6  TrccTyj^  T  ixvi^  iw  x,cx,i 
 CAi  Toi^roi^  7m6i<riv  u.X/t^Mc,  yiyovivoti  oi  v.^jI^  (iipaXytrxi'  kch  yy/i  A?- 
 yufjiiiv  cTi  ty.i7v(^  rS  S"2S  w»o<;  6>v,  »;&  uvriXxuiSaviro  rZv  yivofjuivav  xui 
 o-vuj&otvTuv  ccvrSi-  "  That  we  may  know  that  it  Wds  the  Will  of 
 *'  the  Father,  that  his  own  Son  floould  really  undergo  [uch  Suf' 
 "  ferings  for  our  fakes  :  and  that  we  jhould  not  fay  that  He,  be- 
 "  ing  the  Son  of  God,  did  not  feel  what  was  laid  upon  him,'' 
 Dial,  cum  Tryphon.  P.  104.  Again  :  iLnsvpivTx  ^i  ctrvrav  -zee- 
 ^MTU,  Acyoy,  *'  The  Word,  whom  they,  in  their  Preachings  decla.- 
 **  red  to  have  ftfered/'  Ibid.  p.  106.  And  the  .Apoftolical  Con-'  ^ 
 JlitHtions  ;  (rwi^^u^wi  TrechTv  t  tv^  (putrn'  U7rci6ii,  vicv  r  oiya^rnTov,  i' 
 6ioy  Xoyov  lib.  2.  G.  24.  "  He  [God  the  Father]  condefcended 
 *'  that  his  beloved  Son,  even  God  the  Word,  who  in  his  Qunin- 
 "  carnate]  Nature  was  impaj/ible,^  flrould  fuffer  for  us^  And 
 IrensiU4 :  'I/jcrot/^  0  TcaJtm  vTrl^  v.f/jciiv,  ar^  oi^vtxk;  i^iv  0  Ao'y^  y  ^^oZ- 
 Hb.  I.  P.  42.  "  Jefm  who  fujferedfo-f  us,  is  That  -very  Perfon^ 
 **  which  is  the  Word  of  God."  Again^  ¥icci  c\i^ri  0  Xoy^  'S^iou 
 c^fl  iytviro  xau  'tTTccdiv,  iv^cc^iTiTv  ibid.  p.  47 ;  *'  and  to  givs 
 **  Thanks,  becaufe  the  Word  of  God  was  made  Flefj  and  ftiffered^ 
 See  the  whole  i8rh,  19th  and  20th  Chapters  of  his  3^  Bod^,  Si 
 cnim  noil  vere  pafTus  eft,  nulla  Gratia  ei,  cum  nulla  fucrit  paf- 
 
 fio  : erimus  autem  &  fuper  Magiftrum,   dum  patimur  &: 
 
 fuilinemus,  qux  neq;  pafTus  neq;  fulHnuit  Magilkr.  P.  247^ 
 *'  IfChrift"  ('whom  the  Followers  of  Cerinthus  fuppofed  to 
 be  impajfible,  and  to  leave  the  Man  Jefus  to  fuffer  alone,)  "-^  diii 
 *'  not  really  fuffer,  no  Thanks  are  due  to  him,    who  fuffered  nc- 
 
 *'  thing  for  Us  1 And  we  fall  be  above   our  Mafier,    while 
 
 *'  we  fufjer  and  undergo  thofe  Things  which  our  Mafter  neither 
 *'  fuffered  nor  endured"  But  (adds  he,)  quoniam  folus  vere 
 magilkr  do-minus  nofter,  &  bonus  verc  filius  Dei,  &  patiens, 
 verbum  dei  patris  filius  hominis  fadus;  ludatus  eft  &  vicit.  Ibid. 
 *'  Becaufe  our  Lord  is  alone  truly  a  Mafier,  and  the  truly  good 
 *'  Son  of  God,  and  willing  to  fuffer,  (being  the  Word  of  God  the 
 **  Father,  made  the  Son  of  Man; )  he  ftrove  and  conquered."  And 
 Hippolytus;  iWo  ttwS©- ^A^sr  6  ^7rec6K'i?  B-iou  Xoy(^.  ^^The  IMPAS- 
 V  SIBLE  Word  ofGoJyfub?mtted  to  fufer,"    Contr.  Noet.  P.  16. 
 
6x  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Vovatian  upon  this  Text,  Phil.  2,  6  ,  ar- 
 gues, 7iot  only  mod  (Irongly  againft  the  Equa- 
 lity of  Supremacy^  (as  I  have  already  fliown,) 
 but  tilfo  againft  this  your  Notion  of  Chrift  j 
 "  emptyijighimftlf  hi  Appearance''^  only.  The 
 "  (i)  divine  Word  (fays  he,  ch.  17,)  deprefs'd 
 **  hirnfelf^  and  laid  afide  his  Power  for  a  while.'* 
 See  alfo  his  whole  20^/:?  Chapter^  concerning 
 this  Point. 
 A  i7»  You  produce  in  the  next  place,  a  Paflage 
 out  of  the  profeffedly  corrupted  Latin  Tranfla- 
 tion  of  Origen  upon  the  Romans ;  in  direft  (2) 
 Contradidion  to  the  whole  Tenoiir  of  all  his 
 remaining  genuine  Greek  Writings.  Which  is 
 very  unfair.  See  below ^  on  Qtie.  12.  towards 
 the  End.  Origen's  real  Senfe  on  this  Text, 
 Phil.  2,  6  5  you  may  find  in  his  Greek  (g  J 
 Comment^  ftill  extant,  ori  John-^  Where  he  fays, 
 that  the  Goodnefs  of  Chrifl  appeared  greater  and 
 tnore  divine^  a7id  truly  after  the  Image  of  His 
 Father^  when  he  humbled  himfelf  and  became 
 obedient  to  DeatK  even  the  Death  of  the  Crofs  1  j 
 yy)  ei  a.^TtctyiJio^  »7>i(rctTo  To  eivccj  icro,  ,7eaj?J  tban  it  ' 
 he  had  been  eagerly  defrous  to   appear  as  God, 
 
 (l)  Auftoritcti  divini  verhi  ad  Stifcipiendum  hominem  (onqtn- 
 efcensy  7iec  fe  fu'is  vir'ibus  exercens,  [which,  by  the  way,  explains 
 the  ExprefliOn  of  Iren&iis,  y-.o-v^ot^ovr^  §'  Aoy»  c-v  raJ  Treipx^n^ 
 »cou  TccvpoZi^y  CT'r.  lib.},  c.  ii.  /'.250.]  dejich  fe  ad  Tempus,  atq; 
 deponit.  c.i-j.  Again;  Per  Connexionem  mutuam,  (jrCarover^ 
 hum  Dei  gerii^  CT"  Jilifis  Dei  fragilitate?n  carnis  adfumit.  c.  13. 
 And  again:  Nos  enim fermonern  Dei  J'ciwus  indHtum  carnis  f ub- 
 fiantiajn.  c.  16. 
 
 Ci)  Unlefs  perhaps,  what  is  here  in  the  Latin,  **  ^qualis  Deo", 
 was  in  the  Original  only  ic-oe.  B-t^. 
 
 (3)  Dr.  Mills  fays  of  thefe  Comments,  that  they  are  ah  cm- 
 m  interpoUiionelibcr'h  Prolegom,P.24. 
 
au.  II.    Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod  6^ 
 
 and  would  not  have  become  a  Servant  for  thei 
 Salvation  of  the  World,  pag.  34,  Huet'ii. 
 
 Further  :  Theodoret  f  i)  cites  Methodhu 
 faying,  that  Martyrdom  is  fo  very  dcjireahle  a 
 Things  that  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrijl  honoured  it 
 by  his  Sufferings^  [yy^  d^^ar/iio^  r!y>ia-a,agv@^  tJ 
 gTi/cti  ^Igcl  ^lodT)^  not  being  greedy  or  fond  of  appear'- 
 ing  as  God. 
 
 The  Words  of  (2)  La^antius  aifo,  in  allu- 
 fion  to  This  Text,  are  very  remarkable.  The 
 Son  of  God  "  taught  that  there  is  but  One  God^ 
 "  and  that  He  only  ought  to  be  worjhipped.    Nor 
 
 did  he  ever  call  Himfelf  God ,  for  he  wou^d 
 *<  not  have  been  found  faithful^  if  when  he  was 
 "  fent  to  ta  ke  away  the  Many  Godp^  and  to  de- 
 ^'  dare  the  One^  he  had  introduced  any  other 
 *'  befides  the  One.  For  this  would  not  have 
 **  been  preaching  the  One  God,  nor  doino-  the 
 **  Work  of  him  that  Sent  him^  but  his  own 
 *'  Work  *,  and  would  have  been  a  feparating  of 
 ^^  himfelf  from  Him  whom  he  came  to  make 
 
 (i)  Dial.  I.  P.  37. 
 
 (1)  Docuit  quod  unus  Deus  fit,  enmque  folum  coli  oportere; 
 Nee  imquani  fe  ipfe  Deum  dixit ;  quia  non  fervalTet  iidem,  li 
 mififus  ut  Deos  tolleret,  &  unum  aifereret,  induceret  alium 
 prcEter  unum.  Hoc  erat  non  de  uno  Deo  facere  prxconium; 
 nee  ejus  qui  miferat,  fed  fuum  proprium  negotium  gercre  i  ac 
 fe  ab  eo,  quern  illuftratum  venerat,  feparare.  Proptcrea,  quia 
 tarn  fidelis  extitit,  quia  libi  nihil  prorfui  ajfumpfit,  ut  mandata 
 mittentis  impleret;  &  facerdotis  perpetui  dignitatem,  &  Regis 
 fummi  honorem,  &  Judicis  Poteflatem,  &:  Dei  Nomcn  accepit. 
 iib.  4.  c.  14.    Eufehiu^,    upon  the  Text,  fays;    •7:-aq  uvro^  Iv  c!v 
 
 TO  ihui  Ttoc  ^ia,  c<.vTv<i  av  0  ,9-£o$;  Contr.  Marcel.  lib.  i.  Cap.  i8. 
 **  How  was  He  in  the  Form  of  God,  if  in  Power  he  was  him- 
 **  felf  the  very  Supreme  God  ?  And  how  did  he  not  affume  to  hs 
 *^  as  Gody  if  hs  was  himfelf  the  Very  Supreme  God  t'\ 
 
 ^^  knowjh 
 
 cc 
 
cc 
 
 (C 
 
 cc 
 
 <J4  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 "  known.     Wherefore^  becanfe  hewasfo  faith- 
 *^  jfw/,    and  affwned    nothing    to    hhnfelf  but- 
 only  fulfilled  the  Commands  cf  him  that  fent 
 him  I,  He  was  invefled  with  the  Digfiitj  of  . 
 an  everlajling  High  Priefl^  the  Honour  of  a 
 "  Supreme  Kin^^  the  Poiver  of  a  Judge ^  and 
 '^  the  Vame  for  Title)  of  GO'Dr 
 j>.  xj;         That  the  Council  of  (i)  Antioch  alfo,  whom 
 you  here  cite,  never  intended  to  afTert  from 
 this  Text  an    Equality  of  Supremacy^   is  very 
 evident  from   their  whole  Epiftle  :  Wherein 
 they  exprefs  the  Subordination  of  the  Son,  in 
 very  ftrong  and  clear  Terms  ^  declaring,   that 
 he  was  God's  Angel  or  Mejfejiger^  and  that  he 
 fulfilled  His  father'' s  Will  in  the  Creation  of  the 
 World^   and  in  appearing  to  the   Patriarchs  : 
 Whereas  it  is  impious  to  fuppofe  that  the  God 
 of  the  Univerfe  was  ever    called  an    AngeL 
 Here  their  Argument  being  founded,  not  up- 
 on the  Father's  Patemity^  but  exprefsly  upon 
 his    being   (t  Sftlv  rSv  o\m)    the  God  of  the 
 Univerfe  ,    *tis  manifeft  it  would,    in   Their 
 Opinion,  have  been  equally  the  fame  Impiety 
 to  call  the  Son  an  o/lngel  or  Meffenger^   had 
 they  thought  Him  to   be  equally  The  One  Su^ 
 freme  God  of  the  Univerfe. 
 
 (r)     T»rev    •Xi'^-iuofUi))  —  •  ix.zri-srXv)^s>iKSrxi    to     xcct^iko*    (i>sM-^ 
 
 l^fcc  <zst3^  tIjj  KTio-m  ray  oXuv  Alluding  to  Pfalm  1 48,  5,  He  com* 
 manded  and  they  vjet-e  created.     Again  :    'EjctAjj^^^   tIui    ■jru.T^Hjftt 
 
 ^aXViV,    ToXc,   TTXT^let^^XK^    (PxiV£rXf    TTOTE    ja   6)<;    Xy^iX^,   TCOTi  Ol  tiC,   KO^iO^, 
 
 TTOTt    h   ?ytcc,   jji/x^rv^ifyjiv©^-       '^"^P  'r  ^*^'  '"*'''  ^'^^''  ^'J'^I^U  ^vA- 
 Xov  vofMi(rxk  KxXiixJl'    0  -^  uyfiX^  ^  TTxrf.i,  b^o(^  ifiv,   mvtv^  Kvfn(^  >^ 
 
 Nor 
 
Qiull.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  6y 
 
 Nor  was  even  xhQ  [furious  Hi^folytus^  (ano-^-  n- 
 ther  of  your  prefent  Teftinionles,)  at  all  in 
 your  Sentiments   concerning  the   Equality  af 
 Supremacy  \  But  on  the  contrary  he  alTerts  tho 
 (i)  Supremacy   of  the  Father  Jlone  in  thefe 
 exprefi  words  upon  i  Cor.  15,  26  ,  ^' If  there* 
 "  fore^  fays  he,^//  Things  are  ^ut  under  Chrift^ 
 *'  excepting  Him  who  did  ^ut  all  Things  under 
 ''  him  5  /^/?f  ;^  if<?  rules  over  allj    hut  the  Fa-- 
 '^  ther  over  Him  ;  that  in  all  reffeHs  there 
 ^'  may  he  One  God^   to  whom  all  Things  are 
 *^  fuhje^  together  with  Chrifi  himfelf^to  whom 
 ^'  the  Father  made  every  Thing  fubjeH  except 
 '^  Himfelf:  For  this  is  what  Chrijl  declares 
 *•  in  the  Gofpel^    confejjing  the  Father  to  he 
 **  His  God  ^  /  afcend  unto  my  Father  and  to 
 "-^  your  Father^  and  to  my  God a7td your  God-, 
 «  John  20,  17."    So  that  you  have  not  the 
 leaft  Appearance  of  any  One  Antient  Chrifti- 
 an  Writer  being  of  Tour  Sentiments  in  This 
 Point.    But  you  are  at   laft  reduced  to  de- 
 pend upon  7nere  Modern  Authorities ;   as  ap- 
 pears in  your  remaining  Citations,  J^ag.  18. 
 See  more  helow^  on  Qu,  VI; 
 
 The  Text,    Heh.  i,  3,  (being  the  bright- p. i%&i^ 
 nefs  of  his  Glory^    and  the    exfrefs  Image  of 
 his  Perfon^)  you   alledged   as  a  Proof  that 
 
 (i)  E/  »»  7W  'Tmvrct  hzrcrnrUKrcti  civru  iKrvq  s  "J^yoTU^ctvT^,  Tinf' 
 
 TUV   K^0l,7£l,  UVTOU   j  o    XCCTyi^^   iVCC    OV    TTUTiV    tl^  B'iOt;    <P«VVf,     U    TU    TTUyTet 
 
 (^Very  like  to  thefe,  are 'the  Words  of  Novatian:  Subjedlis  ei 
 quafi  filio  omnibus  rebus  a  patre,  ipfe  cum  his  qua  (lege,  quse) 
 iUi  fubjeda  funt,  patri  fuo  fubjicitur.   T>e  Trin.  c  31.]  ToZto  ^ 
 
 X^i^Dc,  %<p-/t,  uc,  <M/   t5  ivccyfi?ilaf,  xci)  irttTS^cc  I'^o?   K»l  ^iev  i^fJuo?^oyyifriY. 
 
 C&ntr.  No'a,  f.  10. 
 
 F  the 
 
66  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 the  Son  is  The  One  S^qyreme  God.  Now,  he- 
 fides  the  whole  Tenour  of  the  Apoftles  Rea- 
 foning  in  This  Chapter,  (God  has  fpoken  to 
 7's  BY  his  So?r^  whom  he  hath  Appointed  Heir 
 of  all  tUngS'^  BY  vc'horn  aljo  he  made  the 
 JVorl  ds -J  2ind,  God^  eveii  i:\iX  God^  hath  an- 
 ointed thee-^)  3.nd  hefides  the  Reafon  of  the 
 Thing  it  felf,  that  the  Image  or  Refrefentative 
 of  the  0?ie  Supreme  God^  cannot  be  himfelf  T/?^f 
 One  Supreme  Godj  whofe  Image  or  Repefen- 
 tative  he  is :  Befides  This,  I  fay,  the  Autho- 
 rity of  Eufehim  (i)  had  been  urged  againft 
 you,  who  fays  ^  *'  The  Imager  and  That  of 
 "  which  it  is  the  Imag^e^canmever  he  underfiood 
 *'  to  he  One  and  the  feme  Thing-^  hut  they  are 
 "  Two  Beings,  and  Two  Things,  and  Two 
 "  Towers:'  Again;  "After  the  Father," /^t^'-f 
 {2)  he^  ''  we  are  taught  to  honour  Chrift  al- 
 ''  fo  as  God,  upon  account  of  God    [the  Fa- 
 
 ther's'] 
 
 fctirxi'  u,'AX)i  JVo  p!  istrio'A,  kccI  ^uo  TT^uyfAiUrcc,  kuI  ^lio  ^wUf/jHc,.  Con* 
 ira  Marcel,  p.  1^. 
 
 (1)   Aio  oy),  f/jiTzi  T  Trurspot,   rtfjuuv  kcu  uvtov  ax;  9-£cv    £<?.Ja:;^fl>;^jf!', 
 oisCTcv  c/j  ccvTui  KccroiKcvyrcc  Bsov.     'Q.c,  r^o  uv  Tiwrihu'i  /3«(r<A<(S/5   iUuv^ 
 
 ^lU.TiXii'--^^  on  %-^Zt(^  jcotj  «A-/jfii?,   X.CH  6  tis-t    -f    iikovQ^  Ttrvsrc<fj[Ajiv(^' 
 
 K!/A  Tiijjuixiiv^')  fc'TiW  o^'j^TU.  yun  o  fjL>oycyivv,<i  uioq,  lUuv  cov  u^v^  TcS 
 ^iov  Toy  cccfUTi^,  Hy^raic,,  ^2ijcf,  rov  »  <^Ef«  of/joiutriv,  Six&y  t£  uvviyopiV' 
 Txi  rev  ccoeocT^i  3-iov,  ^-ioTToisTTCCi  rs  rs:~o<;  clvrcv  roZ  ttcctcoc,'  ^^ 
 
 x-cn  <P'j(rei  ^la  cf/jotj  xmi  [Ajcvcyivyio  vict^  aiv  Tfy;jtiv«. IlAi;!'    u'  kxI 
 
 «/  J-iToi  elvxycfivacri  Xcyoi,  015  KUt  ruor-.^q  fjiiiru  toji  cc>.>.^:v  Trccaoi  row 
 CTXTfi^q  iiliOiVjivA)^  <£trc?c:-'yop'%5  tiXyi<Porc&  ts,  clXX'  ix  i^iox-rirev  clinic 
 fV/jxoTft-  0  (A,  '^  c.o0(riv,    0  -^   XxfjtiSocvii'  'liffi   xvg^'iy^  kxI   hoc  'ExHyor 
 
Qii.  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  6j 
 
 ^'  thers']  dwelling  in  him.  For  as  thclmage 
 "  of  the  King  is  honoured,  with  RefpeQ:  to 
 *'  Him  whofe  Imprefs  and  Similitude  it  bears*, 
 ^'  and  yet,  though  the  InMge  is  honoured  as 
 "  well  as  the  King  Himfelf,  there  is  ftill  but 
 *^  One  Perfon  honoured,  and  not  Two ,  (for 
 ^'  there  are  not  Two  Kjngs^  one  who  is  the 
 ^'  prime  and  true  K/;^/^,  and  another  appearing 
 ''  in  the  Image -^  but  in  Both  there  is  one  on- 
 "  ly  underftood,  and  ftil'd  and  honoured  as 
 '*  KJ^ig  :)  So  in  like  manner  the  only  begotten 
 *'  Son^  who  alone  is  the  Image  oftbe  invifihle 
 ^'  God^  is  juftly,  upon  Account  of  Him  whofe 
 "  Similitude  he  bears,  both  called  the  Image 
 *'  of  the  Invifihle  God,  and  hath  Divinity  real- 
 ^*  ly  derived  to  him  from  the  Father.  ■ 
 
 *'  Wherefore  he  is  by  Nature  both  God,  and 
 
 ^^  alfo  the   only  begotten  Son. — .  Never- 
 
 *'  thelefs,  though  he  is  honour'd  as  being 
 *^  by  Nature  the  only  begotten  Son,  and 
 ^^  Our  God  ^  yet  he  is  not  the  Supreme 
 *^  God,  but  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Sti- 
 *<  p-eme  God,  and,  on  That  Account,  God, 
 
 ^*  And  becaufe  he  is  the  exprefe  Image  of 
 
 *<  the  Father,  he  is  juftly  ftiPd  God  m  Scrip- 
 *^  ture  ^,  being  dignified  with  This,  as  with 
 ^«  Other  Titles,  by  the  Father ,  but  ftill 
 *^  Receivi?2g  it,    and    not  having    it    origi-^ 
 
 U'yivvKTu<;  ovr<^,  2^  j  rw  lioZ  cot;  a,v  at    ifro-ssTrpa  Kvil  tiKt^^^  sTridiU" 
 
 I  (kjbO.W.    Demonft.  Evang.  lib.  5.  c.  4,         ' 
 
 F  9  "nally 
 
/.    3 
 
 68  OftheVn'ttyof  God. 
 
 "'  nally  of  himfelf.  For  the  One  Ghes^  and 
 "  the  Other  Receives.  So  that  HE  properly 
 "  and  ftriaiy  is  The  One  G^d,  and  the  Only 
 "  One^  who  is  both  by  Nature  God^  and  re- 
 *'  ceived  not  his  Divinity  from  any  Other : 
 *'  But  the  Son  is  honoured  in  the  Second 
 '*  Place,  as  having  received  his  "Divinity 
 ^*  from  the  Father,  as  being  the  Image  of 
 *'  God  ;  So  that,  as  in  the  foregoing  Compa- 
 ^*  rifon,  there  is  but  One  Divinity  confidered 
 **  in  Both;  and  but  OneGod^  even  He  who  is 
 **  of  Him/elf  God  by  unoriginated  and  unbe- 
 *'  gotten  Divinity,  and  reprefented  by  his  Son 
 **  as  by  a  Mirroir  and  ImdgeP 
 
 With  regard  to  the  former  of  thefe  Two 
 Paffages,  you  "  will  ?iot^''  you  fay,  *^  Z^^  lound 
 **"  ^(?  vindicate  every  Ex^reJJion  in  Eufebius : 
 "  But  allowing  for  the  Time  when  it  was 
 "  wrote^  before  the  Se?tfe  of  thofe  Words 
 *'  [JdicLh  ^^yfJLdur^  and  ^uvctp*^]  was  fixt^ 
 *^  there  may  be  7Mhing  in  all  This^"*  that 
 means  any  thing  '^  more  than  We  do  by  Two 
 **  dijiin3  ?er{onsP  Be  it  fo  :  Confequently, 
 by  Txw  difiinH  Perfons^  you  muft  mean  as 
 much  as  They  did  by  ^'oo  saUh  ^^  Tr^y^aroc? 
 <5uo  SuvdiJiu^,  But  then  you^  by  addiiig  what 
 ^p  "  Eufebius^    Fierim^  oAlexander^    Methodim^ 
 
 *'  Origen^''  and  ^//  the  0^i(?^r  Antient  Wri- 
 ters, conftantly  difclaimed,  viz.  an  Equality 
 ef  Supreme  (Authority  in  the  Two  Perfons ; 
 by  This,  I  fay,  you  neceffarily  make,  what 
 They  never  did,  Two  Supreme  Gods^  howfoe- 
 ver  infejJaraUe  or  undivided  as  to  their  Sub- 
 fiance^ 
 
 You 
 
Qu-IL    OftheVnitjofCod.  ^9 
 
 You  next  endeavour  to  vindicate  your  3enfe  ^'  ^'^^ 
 of  Heb.  1,3,    by  a  Paflage  of  Origen  cited 
 in  eAthanaJius.      A  little   before  (P.  17.)  to 
 help  your  Explication  of  Thili^p.  2,6,  you  ci- 
 ted Origen  from  the  profeffedly  corrupt  Latin 
 Tranflation  of  Rnffirm^  \    who,   you  know, 
 declared   (i)    that   he  took   the  Liberty  of 
 cafting  out  or  altering  whatever  he  thought 
 in  Origenh  Works  was  not  agreeable  to  the 
 Opinions  of  Ruffins  own  Times.     And  Now 
 you  retreat  to  Athanajim  for  Origeiis  Senfe  up- 
 on Another  Text ;   who  lived  above  an  hun- 
 dred Years  after   Origen^s  Death  :    Notwith- 
 ftanding  that  fo  many  oWrigen^s  own  genuine 
 Writings  remain  at  this  Day.     But,    to  pafs 
 this  over  :  The  Paflage,  as  it  now  ftands  ci- 
 ted in  oAthanafim^  is  nothing  to  your  Purpofe 
 againft  ME.    'Tis  cited  by  Athanajim,  only 
 to  fhow  that  Origen  thought  the  Son  to  be  fo 
 the  Brightnefs  of  the  Father^s  Glory^  as  that 
 there  was  (2)  no  Time  when  He  was  not. 
 But  it  does  7iot  jbow  that  Origen  thought^  (and 
 there  are  innumerable  Paflages  in  his  Works 
 ftill  extant,  which  (l)ow  that  he  Aidnot  think,) 
 that  the  Son  was  therefore  Himfelf  Tije  One 
 Supreme  God  as  well  as  the  Father,   or  of 
 equally  Supreme  Authority :  Which  is  the  Point 
 In  Queftion.    *'  Chrift^  fays  (  ^)  he,  is  called 
 
 (i)  See  helow^  on§luery  XII. 
 
 (2)  And  the  fame  Author  argues  fometimes  from  the  Mifi-' 
 hutes  of  God,  thac  there  never  could  be  a.  Time  when  QoA 
 had  no  Creatures  to  rule  over,    pe  Princip.  lih.  i.  <r.  z, 
 
 f^^v  n  <ro(pU'  T»T«  -c^i^i^H  r5  HvcM  <pu<i  w^Ajj^^yoV  CJommcntan  Job .  P.70, 
 
 F  3  l[if^ 
 
70  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 ^^  in  Scrij^tme  The  True  Light,  But:  as  Gody 
 *'  the  Father  of  Him  who  is  Truth,  is  the 
 '"-  Superiour  and  Greater  Truth  •,  and  the  Fa- 
 
 V  ther  <5/\Vifdom,  is  Superiour  and  moreEx- 
 *'  cellent  than  He  that  is  Wifdom :,  fo  does  He 
 *'  likewife  exceJl  Him  in  leing  the  True  Lights 
 Again:  He  prefumes  to  fay-,  (i)  ^'  The 
 ^'  Son  who  excells  all  Things  that  are  pro- 
 "  duced,  is  himfelf  as  much  or  more  ex- 
 "  celled  by    the   Father,   than    He    himfelf 
 
 ^  ''  exeells  ail  other  Things. — -Yet  he  who,  as 
 "  being  the  living  Word  and  Wifdom,  excells 
 "  fuch  and  fo  great  Beings,  [^Thrones,  Do- 
 "  minions,  Angels,]  in  E&fice,  Dignity,  Pow- 
 
 V  erand  Divinity,  is  not  in  any  Refpeft  to 
 ^^  be  compared  to  the  Father.  For  he  is  the 
 ''  Image  of  his  Goodnefs,  Qnot  allowing  him- 
 "  felf  to  be  called  The  proper,  abfolute  and 
 f  per  fed  Goodnefs  *,]  and  he  is  the  Bright* 
 *'  nefs^  not  of  God  himfelf,  but  of  his  Glorj^ 
 *^  and  of  his  eternal  Light;  and  he  is  the 
 ^*  Effluence^  not  of  the  Father,  but  of  his 
 *^  Ifowery  &c"     And  the  Learned  (2)  Hue- 
 
 roar^TQV  'v\  y^  ttaicv  octto  ^  %rcirpoq,   'oGra  v^s^ips^J^  ccvroc,  rav  Xoi-izrMv'- — • 
 ^AA'  'of//6>(;  rm   rco-^TUv   iCj    •ry;>iy.iiTOJv,    fB-pcvav,   Kvcioliirc'jv,    ci,y[i>.coy,~\ 
 
 i^i  Aay®-'  >tcc«  a-cCpicc,')  is  (TvyKS^iviTcci  Kocr    ioiv  tm  TrccrQ^'  hkcov  'f>  t^i 
 •f  oiyxdorm^  kvTov,   [^w  sfiyxwv  tIuj,  ' Ay afio^,  Trpca-yjyc^/ccv  r-AV  kv- 
 
 (i7:»o>.\r/ciu'yjc(,y  i  ^  ^-sS,  ccXXot  't  oih'^c,  ccvtoZ  %ix,\   g  oCi^i^   (pwjv^  ocvrS, 
 
 '  jcccl  ccTjjtjiii  a  ToZ  7»xrfo(iy  di>j\z  '^  ^uvufAjtuc  Uvrou'     Comment,  in 
 Jok  p.  218. 
 
 (1)  Quanto  radiis  ex  immenfo  lucis  fuae  penu  emifTis  nobi- 
 lior  eft  Sol  ipfe,  &  dignitate  iuperior ;  tanto  nobiliorem  efle  ac 
 fupcriorem  filio  p.itrem  cenfuit  Ori^enes,  Or  taenia?},  lib,  2. 
 P'  34' 
 
 tiii'S 
 
 Mat,  ir,, 
 17. 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  71 
 
 tm  obferves  Origerh  Notion  to  have  been, 
 that  ''  as  much  as  the  Sun  itfdf  is  more 
 ''  glorious  and  excellent  than  the  Rays 
 *'  which  it  fends  forth  from  the  immenfe 
 ''  Sourfe  of  its  Light  ^  fo  much  is  the  Father 
 "  more  excellent^  and  Su^eriour  to  the  Son." 
 You  your  felf  obferve,  that  Driven  ''w^'J'p.  ^o. 
 ^'  inucb  cenfu/d  ly  many  of  the  CathoJkks ; 
 ^'^  lift  Jfter  his  own  Times.''''  Which  is  very 
 True.  And  for  That  Reafon,  becaufe  he 
 "  Was  much  cenfured  Afcer  his  own  Times^'^ 
 you  ought  not  to  have  contended  that  he  was 
 himfelf  of  the  fame  Opinions  with  Thofe  who 
 cenfured  him.  And  becaufe  he  ''  was  cen^ 
 **  fuYcd  "But  after  his  own  Times  ",  you  ought 
 to  have  obferved  that  there  had  been  fome 
 Change  in  Mens  Notions  concerning  Thefe 
 Matters. 
 
 Dionjfms  of  Alexandria^  Origeih  Scholar, 
 whom  you  produce  a!fo  at  Second  hand 
 out  of  Athanajim^  as  favouring  your  Senfe  of  P.  ir.- 
 the  Text,  Heh.  1,35  is  as  full  and  direct 
 againft/<?//r  Notion,  as  his  Mafter.  Jthana- 
 Jii/A  cites  him  to  fliov/  that  he  thought  the  Son 
 of  God  to  be  eternal^  as  being  the  Bright?tefs 
 of  the  eternal  Light*  Taking  it  for  granted, 
 that  this  Citation  was  from  2.  gentii?ie  Piece  ^ 
 ftiil  Dionyjiii.5  is  as  far  as  pofTible,  from  draw- 
 ing thQ  fame  Inference  which  you  deduce  from 
 the  Text;  vi^.  that  the  Son  is  therefore 
 himfelf  7^^  One  Supreme  God^  or  equal  in 
 Supremacy  to  the  Father.  Very  much  on 
 the  contrary,  Bafil^  whofe  Authority  you 
 canuQC    l^jfped;,      "  finds  very    great  Fault 
 
 F  4  ^''(Owith 
 
7  a  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 '^  (i)  with  his  Writings  upon  this  Point,  and 
 "  takes  him  to  be  the  firft  who  laid  the 
 '^  Foundation  of  the  Anom^an  [or  loweft 
 "  Ana7r\  Dodrine.— That  he  not  only  taught 
 "  a  Difference  of  Perfons^  but  of  Suhftance 
 "  alfo ;  and  diminifhed  the  Power^  and  Glory 
 *'  of  the  Son.  That  on  this  Account  he  err'd 
 ''  more  and  more  from  the  trueDodlrine. — • 
 *'  And,  befides  all  this,  that  he  fpoke  moft 
 *<  indecently  concerning  the  Holy  Gbojl^  ex- 
 •'  eluding  him  from  the  Deity  which  we  wor- 
 *'  fhip,  and  efteeming  him  to  be  of  a  created 
 *'  and  mhiifierial  Nature."  (2)  Photiws  al- 
 fo teftifies,  that  ''  he  aflertqd  the  Son  of  God 
 "  to  be  a  Creature  and  made^  and  that  he 
 *'  was  not  his  proper  Son  by  Nature,  but 
 "  aliene  to  the  Father  in  Ej]encer  This  is 
 what  you  ought  not  to  have  concealed  from 
 your  Reader, 
 p.  2i.  You  alledge  One  Antenicene  Writer  more, 
 for  your  Ufe  of  this  Text ,  viz.  Alexander 
 Bi^io^  oi  Alexaiidria^  thePerfonwho  excom- 
 municated Arm^  and  occafioned  the  Meeting 
 
 .-2trs<PpyAA«^iv>5<;  £60-£(3««?,  t^  kutcx.  rev  ccvofjjoiov  Mywy  isro^  is-tv,  'o(rai 
 '/i  «!:«/£?;  IfTfAjiVf  0  TrfairC^  oiv^paizs-oKi  lu  (Tzri^f/zccrx  7rccf<x.^a}r'———^v 
 iTifoT-^lcc  /i'^vcv  v£jv  •usn)fsi(r£jyi'  -nhrcih  dXXd   kxi  (>u<nu,%  ^x(pca^Vy    xal 
 
 fc  dvTov  KAxAv  airitijiiv^ui,  rvic,  3  o^&oTy)r(^  rou  Xoya  ^iccu/xprilv' — 
 
 <lsS<i   i)     TtVTDl^,  'ZSC*    TcZ     TTVfJl-ljXi^    xCp^Ki    (pOJva<,    Wl^Ci    ^CS/T»(r«5    TaJ 
 
 TTviufjuxTi,  r  iZf^a-KVMii^i'ine,  dv-n  ^ioryi\(^  ihe/.^cov,  kxI  koctu  ttz  tw 
 jt7t5-v|  )t«4  As*r»p7<i>  <pva-iKrtwxfi&fjucor      Epift-  41. 
 
 (1)    Uclvf/jX    KXi    yiVATT'V       tlvXi    TOV    ViVV   TcZ  B-lOV,    fJtjKTi    k    (pu(rit  l^OVy 
 
 dxXcc  iivry  xxT  cva-ixv  « vet*  row  ttxi^o^'  And  Gennadius ;  Nihil 
 Creatum  aut  Serviens  in  Trinitaie  credamus,  ut  vult  Dionyfu;^ 
 Fw^  Aril.     X>e  iL<clef,  Dogmata  c,  4, 
 
 of 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  7 
 
 of  the  Council  of  l^ice.  One  might  here  ex- 
 ped,  that  if  Any  Ante-nicene  Writer  cou'd  be 
 brought  to  countenance  your  Notion,  furely 
 This  Bifliop  muft  be  the  Man.  And  yet  no- 
 thing lefs  appears  from  all  that  remains  of  his 
 Writings.  You  cite  him  out  of  Athanafms^ 
 declaring  that  the  Son,  "  as  being  the  perfeS^ 
 V  Image  and Br'jghtnefs  of  the  Father^  is  ?iot 
 ''  [d)/oiMoi(^  TV)  iiaicc"]  of  ail  aliefie  or  unlike  Sub^ 
 ''  fiance  to  the  Father,^'  But  what  is  This  to 
 the  Purpofe  ?  You  might  have  alledged  even 
 Arius  hinifelf  declaring  the  Son  to  be 
 Qop{8o-t@-]  of  a  like  Suhftance  to  the  Father. 
 JllexanJer's  large  Epidle,  now  extant  in 
 Theodoret^  {hows  that  he  afferted  no  more 
 than  a  perfeB  Likenefs  of  the  Son  to  the  Fa- 
 ther: Not  an  Equality  oi  Suprermcy^  Donmii^ 
 o?i,  or  necejfary  exiftence  ^  but  fuch  a  Likenefs 
 as  can  be  of  that  which  is  Begotten^  to  that 
 which  is  Unbegotten.     He  (1)  obferves,  upon 
 
 I        ..,...,        .  '^^ 
 
 .^ioiVTtykvccy^^t'juv,  ovo^i  rue,  rj  'Jsnifua-ii   ^60  (P'JasK^,  fj(,Uv  tlvxt  7ot<pm- 
 ^w-  ci>iX'   oTi  tUi  z-cclpiK/^v  if/j<pii>iic<,v  ccK^i/iafc  '^i(pvKi   o-ok^hv   h  vice,  rou 
 
 TTxI^ot;,  KXTza  ttkvtb:  oyjoicri^lx  ccvrcZ  c^  (putrit'^  '^TnujoUzpcuuiv^^' . 
 
 ^/,a.-Ap\v  ky  sl'y)  f/^iju^u  Trarp)^  (iyimrcv,  xcci^ruy  yCUc^i^im  l^"  cLvtoZ  l^ 
 ovK  ovTtuv,  Xoyi.Km  T£  y,(x\  dXoyur  av  [JUi(r7ituis(rcc  (ptitric,  fjuovoyivy^q,  JV' 
 Y^  TU  oXaJ^  oux.  ovruv  izrointrsif  6  7r£\Y,p  reZ  ^lou  Xoyn,  k  j|   dvlou  tov 
 
 ovt(^  TTxlpli;  yjym^xi'—^ uxav^yxp  i^iv  clTn^Kfi/^afjoivij   kxi   xttx- 
 
 ^XKxx.\<^  roZ  TTxlpoq-  Tuivrav  ^  tfvxi  efltTv  tIm  ukovx  rrXiipyj,  ^'  £v  tf 
 f/jH^oJv  ii^(pif>ux,^  cl'^Aoy,  uj,xvT^^  yxihvjiM  Uvp^'^-.o  7zx\^p  y^a,  ?\ty&>v, 
 :  fijuCfi-'v  fAin  iin-  Koii  KXTu  roZro  kxI  to  xh  ilvxi  rlv  vtlv  cic  toZ  7rxTpo<;7ri<riU6'. 
 \fi*iv  xTrtcuyxfTf^x  yxp  iV<  t^  Jv'|..^,  k«.]  x^pxK-r^  p  -^^  TrxrpiKY.^  ■\sm^a-ia<;. 
 ;ij  AAAflS  f/jy,  r^  '^if'^h  ^i°<i^  V^ovoixv  xyimrov  Xxfjj/ZxviTU'—j^ri  yxp-n 
 |.j  W,  Ji-TiTQ  clilj  isTi  TO  Tzpl  xiavav^  txvtcv  Ut  ra  xym^ra-  xXX'  oui^l" 
 oTiow  xv6peozyajyJivvotx  hoyjxrozroiwxi  a-Tra^ua-ii,  ^tjMT  to  xymnrw 
 — -— --ouxowv  tZ  p.  dyimrca  ^xrpi  ouuov  x^fcofjux  <pv?MKTioy^  f/^Tjkm 
 ToZ  £(V«*  UvTU  rev  Ik^Tiov  xiyovTxc,'  ^  rf  S't  'viZ  Try  xpfjue^arxv  Ttyjy>^ 
 >^n^moh  nv  kmfx^v  dvr^  t^x^  tqZ  tjxt^oc,  yiyy>}g-ty  U?X7i$iyrx<;, 
 ''     '  f^^h 
 
 t 
 
74  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 the  words  (/  and  my  Father  are  one^  Joh.  lo, 
 50  :,J  "  that  our  Lord  did  not  hereby  intend 
 ''  to  declare,  that  he  himfelf  was  the  Father, 
 ^'  nor  that  their  two  diflinB  Suhjifiemies  were 
 *'  one  and  the  fame  Subfiftetice  ^  but  that  the 
 *'  Son  has  derived  from  the  Father,  and  pre-^ 
 *'  ferves  in  all  refpeds,  a  perfect  Likenefs  and 
 
 *'  Similitude  of  Nature  to  the  Father." 
 
 *^  That  he  is  neither  unhegotten^  [as  the  Pa- 
 "  tker^"]  x\ox  made  out  of  Nothings  [as  all  other 
 *'  rational  and  irrational  Beings  were,^  but  a 
 *'  middle  Nature  betwixt  both  ,  by  which  the 
 *'  Father  of  God-the-Word  made  all  Things 
 '^  out  of  Nothing,    the   \yord    himfelf  being 
 
 *'  begotten   of    the    Father. That, 
 
 *'  being  the  exprefs  and  iinvnriable  Image  of 
 *'  the  Father,  he,  as  fuch,  mud  bear  a  perfcd 
 ''  Similitude  in  all  Things  to  the  Original  \yi%^ 
 *'  to  the  Father,]  (i)  who  is  Greater^  as  our 
 *•'  Lord  himfelf  has  taught  us,  faying,  ^/y  f^- 
 *'  ther  is  Greater  than  L  And  on  this  Ac- 
 "  count  v/e  believe  the  Son,  who  is  the 
 *'  Brightnefs  of  the  Father's  Glory^  and  the 
 ^'  exprefs  Image  of  his  Perfon^  to  have  been 
 ^^  always  begotten  of  the  Father.  But  let  not 
 "  any  one  take  the  Term  rdvi^ajs^  to  imply 
 
 vy,  y-cci  TO  cSTf?  dimuv,  Xiyovncy  jV  cIvtoZ.  tv^v  f/jiv  roi  ^lorY^rcx.  civrcZ  fjuvt 
 ^ccfximijtjivoi^  u.XXct  tIj  tl){()Vi  xai  tm  ^x^.UKry.^i  tco  Trurfcq  cljs-y}x.fi^3u- 
 f/jiviiv  ifjjipifiiixv  y.c'.TU  Tiuvrcf.  ccvo(,Tihvrtc;  to  j  ciyiVv/iTcv  tm  ^«rg^ 
 //^vcv  idio^i/jx  TTcc^UvXi    co\x^cvTiCy    UTi   (Jt)    KXi    ccvTou    <Psi(rx.ovr<^  roZ 
 
 truTKo®-,  6  TTXT'^f  f/jii  fji,ii<^uv  f/ja  t^-t-  Alexand.  Epill.  apud  Theodo- 
 1-et.  Ecclef.  Hill  lib.  i.  c.  4. 
 
 (i)  Tl]c  Cir^rMbcnis  hei"c  i:iiperfe(5l:    Bat  the  Scnf;:  of  the 
 5Vhole,  is  evident. 
 
 that 
 
 I 
 
Qii.IL     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  75 
 
 "  that  he  is  unhegotten  :  For  no  Words  whatlb- 
 *'  ever,  (neither  Always^  nor  ]lefoYe  all  Ages^ 
 ''  by  which  the  Duration  of  his  Exigence  can 
 ^y  be  exprefs'd,  or  any  Other  Words  which 
 '^  can  be  thought  on,  amount  to  the  fame  as, 
 
 ^'  Unhegotten, Wherefore     the    peculiar 
 
 *^  Dignity  of  having  no  Caufe  of  his  Exift- 
 "  ence,  muft  be  referved  to  the  wibegotten 
 "  Father :  And  due  Honour  is  to  be  given  to 
 *'  the  Son,  in  acknowledging  his  Generation 
 ''  from  the  Father  to  be  without  Beginning 
 ''  of  Time:  Honouring  him,  as  I  faid  before, 
 *'  and  afcribing  to  him  in  a  pious  fenfe  Thofe 
 *'  Characters,  He  was  always^  and  before  all 
 *'  Ages.  Not  diminifhing  from  his  Divinity, 
 *'.''  but  declaring  that  he  is  the  exprefs  Image 
 ''  zndiperfeS  Similitude  of  the  Father;  Yet 
 '^  referving  to  the  Father  only^  the  peculiar 
 ^'  Dignity  of  being  Unhegotten ;  x^greeably  to 
 *^  our  Saviour's  own  Words,  my  Father  is 
 *'  Greater  than  /."  Here  is,  in  all  This,  no- 
 thing agreeable  to  Tour  Notion.  And  the 
 Reader  may  well  be  furprized,  to  find  you 
 alledging  fo  miany  Ancient  Writers,  in  fupporc 
 of  a  Notion  direftly  oppofite  to  the  Senfe  of 
 their  Whole  Writings. 
 
 You  add  a  Number  of  Poft-Nicene  Winters  ^p.  21 
 Which  as  they  are  intended  only  to  make  a 
 Show,  and  to  amufe  an  ignorant  Reader,  you 
 will  not  expeft  I  fliould  take  any  Notice  of 
 them. 
 
 But 
 
p.  12. 
 
 76  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 p.  21.  But   "  the  Ante-Kicene  Writers^  you  fay,  ali 
 
 *'  declare  that  the  Son  is  not  excluded  from  be- 
 "  ing  The  One  God,  but  is  included  a?td  cont- 
 ^^  prehended  therein  :'^  So  that  ^' though  The 
 "  One  God  BKI M A RILT denotes  the   Fa^ 
 
 •P- 53,57-  "  tJoer^yef  the  Son  is  equally  "  Supreme^  Su- 
 '*  preme  in  the  Jlri&  Senfe  •,"  God  ''  in  the ; 
 '*  y^w^  Se?ife^  and  in  as  HIG  H  a  Senfe^  as 
 ^'  the  Father  hi?nfelf,''  And  "  as  often  as  the 
 ^^  Primitive  Writers  [peak  of  Father  a?id  Son 
 "  together^  as  the  one  God^  in  the  Singular  ^ 
 *'  they  bear  Witnefs  to  this  Truths  How 
 great  a  Miftake  This  is,  will  appear  by  exa- 
 mining the  Particulars.      ' 
 
 The  firji  that  feems  to  fpeak  in  the  manner 
 you  reprefent,  is  (i)  Tertullian  ;  who,  in  his 
 (2)  Apology,  fays  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
 God  of  [01  Jrom]  God^  and  that  the  Father 
 and  Son  are  both  £unus3  "  One  God''  And. 
 (till  further  he  fays,  in  his  Book  againft  Prax- 
 eas^  (which  yet,  you  muft  remember,  was 
 writ  by  him  when  he  was  a  /yiontamft,)  that 
 *'  the  f^)  Three  Perfons  are  one  God/'  Yet 
 when  he  comes  to  explain  himfelf,  it  appears 
 his  Notion  was  This  only,  that  he  imagined 
 the  Son  of  God,  to  be  derived  or  extended 
 from  the  Infnite  Fullnefs  of  the  Father's  Sub- 
 
 (i)  hcn&m  and  Jthenagor;(.(^  whom  you  mention  firll,  I 
 jli.ill  have  occalion  to  conlider  preiently. 
 
 (2)    C    21. 
 
 (3")  Ties  crediii  unum  Deum  llftimt.  Adv.Prax.c.  3^.  Ita- 
 <iue  duos  &  ties  Jatn  ja6tirant  a  nobis  prxdicari.  ca[>.  3.  Duos 
 quidem  dcfininius,  ratrem  ik  Filumi,  &:  "Jam  Ties  cum  Spiritu 
 
 Jlance^ 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  77 
 
 f  ^ftance^  as  a.  Ray  of  Light  is  from  the  immenfe 
 '''"Body  6/ the  Sun*    So  that /ie*   apprehended 
 '*  the  Son  to  be  a  fmall  (i)   Part   of  the  Sub- 
 ^^  ftance  of  God  ^  and  one  Godvj\i\\  the  Father, 
 '•  only  as  communicating  partially  of  his  (2) 
 ^- Stih fiance^  and  of  his 'P^'Dy^r,  which  he  exer- 
 J  cifeth  by  the  Father's  (5)  WiVi^  and  in   Siib^ 
 '  ]€ttion  to  him  ,  acting,  both  lefore  and  after 
 I  his  Incarnation,  in  the  Name  and  by  the  Power 
 I  and  oAuthority  of  the  Father.     And  upon  this 
 :  Difparity  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  (direQly 
 '  contrary  to  your  Notion  of  an   Equality  in 
 Supreme  Juthority^')  as  well  as  upon  his  Noti- 
 on of  Confubftawtiality,    does  he  ground  his 
 Denial  of  (4)  Two  Gods,  Far  therefore  from 
 affirming  the  Son  to  be  himfelf  ^' The  One 
 *'  Supreme  Gody''  he  exprefsly  (5)  condemns 
 
 (i)  Cum  radius  ex  fole  porrigitur,  porth  ex  fumma; 
 
 •  mec  feparatur  fubftantia,  fed  extenditur;  Ita  de  Deo  Deus. 
 Apol.c.  21.  Again:  Pater /<?/<?  fubftantia  eft,  filius  vero  deri- 
 vatio  totius  &  Forth;  licut  ipfe  profitetur,  quia  pater  tnajor  me 
 sji. Sic  &  pater  alius  a  filio,  dum  filio  Major.  Adv.  Prax. 
 
 Ij  t.  9.    Again,  Et  ut  PORTIO  aliqua  Totius.  cap.  z6. 
 (2)  Deus  Dei,  tanquam  fubftantiva  res,  non  erit  IPSE  DEUS, 
 '  fed  ha^enus  Deus,  quia  Ex  ipftus  Dei  fubftantia,  quae  &  fub- 
 ftantiva res  eft,  &  ut  PORTIO  aliqua  totius.    Adv.  Frax.  c.  26. 
 
 (3)  Nihil  facientem  ftne  Patris  voluntate,  omnem  a  Patre 
 confecutum  poteftatem. Cum  autem  fubjecta  erunt 
 
 I  illi  omnia,  utiq;  abfq;  eo  qui  ei  fubjecit  omnia,  tunc  &  ipfe 
 fubjicietur  illi,  qui  ei  fubjecit  omnia,  ut  lit  Deus  omnia  in  om- 
 nibus. Videmus  igiturnon  obefte  Monarchic  filium.  ibid.  c.  4. 
 Again:  Filius  operatus  eft  femper,  ex  aufloritate  Patris  &  vo- 
 luntate; quia  filius  nihil  a  femetipfo  poteft  facere,  nifi  viderit 
 Patrem  facientem.  ibid,  f.  15. 
 
 (4)  Ergo,  inquis, ^di4o  Djj  pr&diiantur." Si  ho- 
 mines per  fidem  fihosDei  fados,  Deos  fcriptura  pronimciare  non 
 timuit;  fcias  illam  multo  magis  Vero  &  Unico  Dei  Filio,  Dei 
 nomen  contuhlfe.  ibid.  c.  13: 
 
 (5)  Ipfe  Deus,  Doininus  omnipotens,  Jefus  Chiiftiis  prsedi- 
 Wtur.  fbid.  f,  i. 
 
 that 
 
7?  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 that  Notion  in  his  Adverfary,  as  being  in  con- 
 fequence  equivalent  to  affirming  him  to  be  the 
 Father  Himfelf,  He  adds  further,  that  the  Far- 
 ther is(i)  "  hwi/il'le^on  Account  of  the  Fulhiefs\ 
 *'  of  his  divine  Majefty  ,  but  the  So7i  vifihlel 
 *'  as  being  a  derivative  Part  only  :  Juft  as  we 
 ^^  are  not  able  to  look  upon  the  vail  Body  of 
 ^^  the  Sun  in  the  Heavens,  but  are  able  to 
 *'  look  upon  a  Ray  which  is  a  fmall  Part 
 "  emitted  from  it  upon  the  Earth.''  Nay> 
 He  prefumes  fo  far  as  to  fuppofe  the  Genera- 
 tion of  the  Son  to  be,  not  only  by  the  (2) 
 Will  of  the  Father,  but  f  3)  Temporary  : 
 And,  inftead  of  Generate J^  he  fometimes  ufes 
 even  the  word  (4J  Made,  And  when  he 
 fays  that  thofs  Words,    I  and  my  Father  are 
 
 (i)  invijihilevj  patrcm  intelligamus  pro  pUnltud'me  majefta- 
 tis,  "j'lfibilem  vero  iiliuin  agnofcamus  pro  Modulo  Derivat'tonis  • 
 Sicut  nee  Solern  nobis  contemplari  licet,  quantum  ad  ipfaiTi 
 fubftantix  fummam  quae  ell  in  co^lis;  radium  autem  ejus  tole- 
 ramus  oculis,  protemperatura  Portionis  quae  in  terrain  inde  por- 
 rigitur.  Adv.  Prax.  c.  14. 
 
 (2.)  Sermo  &:  fpiritus,  qui  curn  Sermone  de  patris  Voluntate 
 natus  eft.  Adv,  Prax.  c.  27.    *- 
 
 (3)  "Ante  mundi  conllitutionem,  ad  ufq;  filii  genera- 
 
 tionem deus  erat  Iblus,  ipfe  fibi  &  mundus  &  Locus  & 
 
 omnia.  Adv.  Prax.  c.  5.    Again  :  Pater  Deus  eft;  non  tamen 
 ideo  pater  Temper,  quia  Deus  Temper:  nam  nee  pater  potuic 
 
 cfle  ante  lilium  •, fuit  antem  tempus,  cum  filius  non  fuit. 
 
 Adv.  Hertnog.  c.  3. 
 
 (4)  Quale  eft  lit  filioDei,  fermone  unigenito&primogenitO; 
 aliquid  fuerit  praetcr  patrcm  antiquius,  &  hoc  utiq;  generofms ; 
 nedum  quod  innatum  nato  fortius,  Si  quod  infec^ium  fai-'to 
 validius  ^  Quia  quod,  ut  effet,  nullius  eguit  Aueloris,  multa 
 fublimius  erit  eo,  quod,  ut  cfict,  aliquem  habuit  audorem.  ibid. 
 c.  18.  Again:  Plabes  fophiam,  prior  autem  abyjjo  genita  fum^ 
 dicentem  ;  ut  credas  abylfum  i\uo^\gerjitamy  id  eft,  fa5iam ;  quia 
 &  filios  facimuiy  licet  genererius.  Nihil  intereft  facia  an  nata 
 fit  abylTus,  dum  /»i///<w  detur  illi.  ibid,  c  32,. 
 
 0/^ep 
 
 I 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnlty  of  God  7  9 
 
 Orie^  do  (i)  '^  equalize''  and  join  together 
 the  two  Perfons  ;  he  exprejsly  explains  him- 
 felf  to  mean,  not  that  the  Son  is  eqt/alljf  Sw 
 freme  with  the  Father,  but  that  as  the  Soa 
 derives  his  Subttance  and  Being  from  the  Fa- 
 ther, fo  their  Unity  is  preferved  by  the  Fa^ 
 ther's  Love  towards  the  Son^  and  the  Son  s 
 Obedie?ice  to  the  Will  of  the  Father,  In  how 
 large  a  fenfe  Thefe  Writers  ufed  the  Word, 
 equalize  *,  appears  from  That  of  Ferttillian^ 
 where  he  fays  that  Men  "  hy  Fafiing  are 
 "  made  Equal  (2)  to  God'^  and  That  of 
 (3)  Irenaii^j  where  he  fays,  that  Man  in  This 
 Life  "  h^is  received  Grace  in  Part  only^  and 
 is  not  yet  Equal  or  Like  to  his  Maker'' 
 The  next  Author  you  refer  to,  is  Clement p,  22. 
 ^[Alexandria',  who  fays  (4)  that  our  Lord  is 
 ^'  the  divine  Word,  really  and  manifeftly  God, 
 i^*  equaliz'dtotho,  Supreme  Lord  of  the  Uni- 
 I'  vcrfe,  becaufe    he  was  his  Son,   and  the 
 
 (i)  Unum  dicit,  neutrali  verho ;  quod  non  pertinet  ad  iin- 
 jiilaritatem,  fed  ad  Unitatem,  ad  fimilitudinem,  ad  conjuncli- 
 )nem,  ad  DiU^ionem  patrh  qui  filium  diligit,  &  ad  obfecpi'mm 
 ilii  qui  Vohtntati  patris  obfequitur.  Unum  Sumus,  dicens,  ego 
 ^  Pater-,  oftendit  duos  elTe  quos  JEquat  &  jungit.  Adv.  Pray:, 
 
 22. 
 
 Concerning  ThatPafTage  mTertullian,  ParemfihifaciensjO'c. 
 5ee  above,  p.  31. 
 
 (1)  Tanta  eft  circumfcripti  vidlus  praevogativa,  ut  Deum 
 )r3eftet  honiini  contubernalem,  parem  revera  pari.  Si  enim 
 Deus  aeternus  non  efuriet,  ut  teltatur  per  Efa'rnm ;  hoc  erit 
 empus  quo  homo  Deo  Ad^quatur,  cum  fmepabulo  vivit.  De 
 Jejun.  c.  6. 
 
 (3)  Qui  ex  parte  acceperit  Gratiam,  &  qui  nondum  JEqua- 
 is  vdfimllis  fit  Faiflori.  lib.  1.  P.  169. 
 
 lit,  ad  Qsnt,  P. 68.  =-■         *      ' 
 
 ''  Word 
 
go  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 "  Word  was  in  God."  Yet  'tis  plain  He  did 
 not  hereby  mean  that  Chriil  was  himfelf 
 ^'  53-  57- '*  The  One  Supreme  God^''  in  ''  the  fame  Senje 
 *^  and  in  as  High  a  Senfe  as  the  Father  him- 
 "  felf-^''  Becaufe  the  very  Word,  equalized^ 
 implies  an  Exaltation,  a  Delegation  or  Com^ 
 munication  of  Power  and  Authority  from  Ano- 
 ther :  Nor  can  it  with  Any  Propriety  befaid, 
 that  The  One  Supreme  God  is  Equalized  or 
 Made  equal  to  Another:  Eufehtws  (i)  ex- 
 preffeth  the  Senfe  of  Cle?ne?tt^  when  he  fays 
 that  Chrift  is  '*  f  laced  on  the  fame  Throne 
 *^  with  the  Father-,'*  that  ^^the  Supreme 
 '*  God  has  placed  him  upon,  the  Throne  with 
 *'  Himfelf^''  and  that  he  '^  //  honoured  with 
 *^  the  Father^s  Divitiity  ,"  or,  in  our  Lord's 
 own  words,  is  fat  down  with  the  Father  on 
 His  Throne^  Rev/5,  21  *,  having  Received 
 from  the  Father^  Dominion  over  all  Things,- 
 even  all  Tower  in  Heaven  and  Earth. 
 
 It  muft,  however,  be  confeffed,  that  in 
 Ciemens^s  firft  Writings,  his  Adtfwnition  and 
 V^dagogue ;  there  are  fome  very  fublime  Ex- 
 preffions,  which,  if  taken  literally^  would  fa- 
 ^  vour  either  j<?/^r  Notion,  or  the  Sabellian.  As 
 when  he  fays,  "  God  and  the  Word  are  (2) 
 *'  loth  one^  \j\  one  Thing]  viz.  God  P'*  And 
 that   (i)  the  God  of  the  Univerfe^  who  is 
 
 ^luTifovy  Kui  ii^Zv  Kufiov,  ixvri  KccSi^yfc-i-  Demonllrat.  Evang.  lib.5. 
 cap.  3.  7r«Tpx-J  3-£OT>3r*  TiTi>(junixja(^ .  De  Ecclef.  Theolog.  lib.  3. 
 Q.  6. 
 
 (1)  *Ev  Y^  uf/j<pu,  0  ^fk'  P£das.  lib.  I.  c.  8. 
 
 (3)  'il^  tivxi  Tauq  uXnhUtq  KXTciipxyt^  re,  ruy  a-vf/^irxvluv  B-tsf  ad 
 f/^'cio/  tiixt,  iyctficy,  c^i^Ksuso,  ^fAiiU^yoy,  Ua^  00  %*t^'    ibid. 
 
Qu.II.    OftheVnityofCod.  § 
 
 "  One  onl)\  Good^  Jufi^  and  Maker  of  all 
 *^  Things^  is  the  Son  in  the  Father.''^  But  that 
 Thefe  are  indeed  only  highly  Rhetorical  Ex- 
 preflions,  appears  from  Otuer  PaiTages  both  la 
 the  fame  Books,  and  alfo  more  remarkably  ia 
 his  Later  and  larger  Writings.  Prefently  af- 
 ter the  PafTage,  wherein  he  affirms  the  Word 
 to  be  equalled  to  the  Supreme  Lord  of  the 
 Univerfe^  he  adds,  that  He  (i)  ^^  ffnaigfrom 
 "  the  Will  of  the  Father:'  EiTewhere  he 
 Galls  him  the  "  InfpeHor  (2)  of  our  Hearts^ 
 "  hy  the  Will  of  the  oAlmightyr  And  de- 
 clares in  Words  very  firong  and  exprejfive, 
 that  in  the  '' Creation''^  of  the  World,""  and 
 in  all  other  Difpenfations,  ''  he  (g)  Minifters 
 "  to  the  WIL  L  of  the  Father r  And  that 
 therefore  he  is  the  (4)  ''  Second  Caife^  by  whom 
 *'  all  Things  were  made  according  to  the  Will 
 "  of  the  Father:'^  And  he  reprefents  him^ 
 (even  under  the  Charafter  (5)  of  "  God  the: 
 
 (1}  'E|  oCVTYic,  ocvcCTiiXcc^  r'Yi(i  'XU.TiiiycviC,  /3»A)i(rsw<;.      AdmOnit.  P. 69? 
 
 TYii  Ku,^o[a^  -lifjuSv  Stromat.  4.  Concerning  which  words.  See 
 Dr.  Clarke  s  Script,  Doci.  p.  294,  zd  Edit,  p,  316,  i/. 
 Edition. 
 
 C3J  A;j^i«pya?  B-iX-^^jdri  xar^'oi'    Admonit.    P.  75.     Oice;  cTv    oiv-^ 
 S-pfflsr« o^ijf/jciri •TTUTpiKM  paMjjtjctTi  ^iux.ov'^, Pasdagog.  lib. I,  C.  2. 
 
 **fl67»t  TP  ^iX'AfAsU.  r»  7r(X.T^o<i,  Stromat.  7.  p.  702.  5f6*  l<^'  hif,i£  iCU- 
 'iAy3-£<ij  TVoT  oiv  6  Trecvrav  kvsi,(^,  kxI  f/[^Xi7cc  i\vzyYi^?\m  rco  'S  uyx^S 
 Mcn  7rocvroK^To^(^    B-iXyifjijcCTt  TTci-rpoc'  ibid.  p.  703.    »^5  ccTTz^lvra'v  Taw 
 
 ibid.  p.  704-  ^"^  B-iMj/jxr^B^  TFoCT^o^  Kv^SspmvTix,  tUj  toov  TsrizvTav  o-w- 
 T?;g/'fl6y    ibid. 
 
 (4)  Toy  hiov  di,    a'ivn^ov  ^ciiriov~]    ^C  jj  Tmvroc  tyivsro  kcctsc  fiixtj-- 
 
 o-fv  toZttcct^o^'    Stromat.  5.  P.  598. 
 
 (?)    ■^f*'*?''  T'   ciyirjv)(i/v  y.!/A  civaXi6^ov  y.cii  f/c)vov  Ivruc^  .9-£ov,  crwvf/^voZv- 
 T©"  iif/,7v  roZ  B-icZ  Xoyn'    Admonit.  p.  74,    M,9yov  won  r  f^vcv  ,%e¥' 
 
 Stromat.  7.  p.  711. 
 
 G  "IVord;^ 
 
8i  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 "   WoYcl^)  joining  in  Hjmns  of  Praife  to  the 
 *'  Vnoriginated  and  Only  Trut  God  P    fly  ling 
 the  Father  thus     ''  The  only  true  God '^"^  and 
 elfewhere,  '*  the  (i)  alone  one  God  Sr^prenie 
 "-'  over  allP    Nay,  he  prefumcs  to  ftyle  the 
 Son  (in  allufion,  I  fuppofe,  to  Proz\  8,  22  J 
 *^  the  (2)  Wifdom  which  God  firft  created:^ 
 Upon  Account  of  which  Expreflions,   he   is 
 cenfurM  by  (5)  Photiit^ ;  Who  tells  us  more- 
 over, that  in  his  Hjfotypo/es^  which  were  the 
 lajl  of  his  Writings,  he  (4)  deprejjed  the  Son 
 into  the  Rai;k  of  Creatures  :   Which  yet  per- 
 haps may  be  nothing  more,  but  his  Applica- 
 tion of  That  Text,  Trov.  8,  22,  according  to 
 the    LXX.      If  now   thefe   latter  Paffages, 
 which  I  Iiave  cited  out  of  Cle?ne7it^    contain 
 literally  his  deliberate  Opinion;    the  former 
 Paffages  may  poffibly  be  accounted  for,  by  an 
 Oratorical  Warmth    and    Xs^l-     But  if  the 
 ¥ornier  Paffages  be  underftood    (^as  you   fup- 
 pofe  they  oughtj  literally  ^    'tis  manifeil  no- 
 thing but  a  real  Change  of  Sentiments  could 
 pofiihly   lead   him  to  choofe   the  Latter  Ex- 
 preflions :  Which  are  fuch,  both  in  This  and 
 All  the  Other  Primitive  Writers,  as  perpetu- 
 
 (1)  '  Ori  B-iix;  KCii  ttxtk^i  sni  xoet  yt<^'n^'  o  rruvrey.^.Tc^f  ibid.  p.  733, 
 0  Tu   IvTi  [j^ict,   £<5   %a^T0K^TU[i^  ■'  ■   ■  '      -  (ra'^a.'»  :i^^  hi:/j,     ibid.  p. 
 
 (2)  'Err»  T7.C,  (rr<P:xc,  r'H^  z^aroKTi^a  r^  Fii^-  StlOlliat.  p.  ^(jl. 
 Ev  fji  TO  ccyivvYircv  0  rrc^vroxpcirua  ^ioc,'  iv  S  x.ui  ro  crpo'/iyvy^cv  e\i 
 y  TU  TJV.v-a  syivj^^-— — —  f4<;  yi  rar  ovr*  »57»  o  3-to<;,  cc,  ao^v.v  t«k 
 uTTtcvTuv  fzrciWfv,  fjunvvuv    T  7:^UTByovo¥   luv    0    mr^oc,  yi(k<pn,    (ruvu<; 
 
 lib.  6.  p.  r^. 
 
 (3)  Cod.  IC9. 
 
 (4)  T<y  'vi))i  ji5  nf'cf'jn  ^^y£/  ibid, 
 
 ally 
 
Qu.  II    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  8 
 
 ally  force  you  into  the  abfurd  Inconfiftency 
 of  confounding  a  Priority  of  mere  Order^ 
 (which  exprelfes  a  perfed  Co-ordi?iation  of 
 [Perjons  equally  Supreme  in  Authority^)  with  a 
 Subordination  of  Authority  and  Dominion^ 
 (which  is  the  Charafter  oiPerfons  not  equally 
 Supreme  in  oAuthority.) 
 
 1    Three  other  Writers,  whom  you  refer  to  f.  2,^, 
 as  ^^  f^ea'ki7ig  of  i  at  her  and  Son  together  as 
 ^'  The  One  God-^''  and  from  whence  you  in- 
 fer, tliat  they  thought  the  Son  co  be  himfelf 
 Tide  one  Supreme  God :  viz,  Origen^  LaHanti^ 
 m^  and  Eufehin^ :  are  evident  Inftances,  bow 
 (Irange  an  Jh/fe  may  be  made  of  Quotations 
 and  Second-hand  Reprefentations.    For  Tiiefe 
 Three  Writers  do,   of  All   Antiquity,  moft 
 clearly  J  fidly^  and  exprefsly  infill,  throughoun 
 uheir  Whole  Works,  on  the  direfl  contrary 
 to  your  Notioa,  as  I  have  fhown  at  large  (i) 
 ahove.   Thofingle  Paffage  oWrigen^  cited  firft 
 by  Dr.  Clarke^  which  (I  fuppofe)  you  here  refer 
 to,  and  which  you  cite  afterwards  more  than 
 3nce  ;    is  That,  where  he    fays^   "-' we  (2) 
 worfhip  therefore^   in  the   man?ier  I  have 
 explained^  One  God^    the  Father^   and  the 
 SonP    Whether  Origen  in  this  Place  applies 
 :he  Words,  One  God,  to  the  Father  fingly^  or 
 :o  the  Father  and  Son  together^  (which  he  no 
 Adhere  elfe  does,)    is  not  clear  ;  the  PalTage 
 idmitting  either  Senfe.     But  be  that  as  it  will^ 
 X  is  in  Neither  Senfe  at  all  to  Tour  Purpofc.  For 
 
 ^^\,^'  %  5'  ^o»  .^3,'  I5»  2.3>  2.8,  ji,  46,  49,  56,  66,  70. 
 Adv.  Cell;  lib.  8.  p.  386. 
 
 G  2  Orinen 
 
84  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Orlgen  in  this  very  place  explains  at  large, 
 both  hoiv  theFalher  and  Son  are  0/;^,and  alfo 
 wkat  fort  of  Worjlnp  is  fin  his  Opinion)  to  be 
 paid  to  the  Son  :  Which  you  ought  to  have  ta- 
 ken Notice  of.  Upon  0,ige?Ps  having  aiTerted 
 the  Worfliip  of  One  God,  Celfm  objeQs,  that, 
 befides  the  0:e  Goil^  Chriftians  worfliipped 
 moreover  Another  Perfon,  who  had  appeared 
 lately  in  the  World,  and  was  the  Minifter  of 
 the  One  Supreme  God.  To  this,  Origen  re- 
 plies: ''  Had  Celjiis  underltood  That  Expref- 
 *'  fion,  I  and  the.  father  are  One^  [^^sv,  Unum, 
 **  one  Thin<^\\  and  That  Prayer  of  the  Son 
 *'  of  God,  that  they  maj  %e  one^  even  as  we 
 ^'  are  one^  he  would  not  haVe  thought  that  we 
 *'  worfhipped  any  other  befides  Him  who  is 
 **  God  fupreme  over  all  :  For,  fays  he,  the 
 •'  Father  is  in  fjie,  and  I  in  the  father.  Now 
 **  if  any  one  fliall  hence  be  afraid  left  we  fliouM 
 ^^  go  over  to  the  Opinion  of  Thofe  who  deny 
 ^'  the  Father  and  Son  to  be  two  diftinQ:  Sub- 
 *'  fiftencics,  let  him  confider  That  Text,  all 
 ^'  that  Itlieved  zvere  of  one  Hearty  and  of 
 *'  one  Soul',  and  then  he  will  perceive  the 
 *'  Meaning  of  this,  I  andthe  Ft-ther  are  one^ 
 Immediately  after  which,  follows  tlie  Paflage 
 above  recited.  The  Senfe  of  the  Whole  there- 
 fore plainly  is,  that  Chriftians,  w^oriliipping 
 the  Father  and  the  Son,  ftill  worihipped  but 
 07ie  God^  becaufe  they  worlliipped  the  Fatha 
 Bj  or  Through  the  Son.  For  fj  Origen  goes 
 on,  in  Tliat  very  place,  diliinc-l)  and  exprcfs- 
 h  to  explain  himi-;ilf.    "  The  Father  and  the 
 
 "  Son, 
 
QiuU.    OftheVnitjofCod.  Sy 
 
 *'  Son^  fajs  (i)  />,  are  Two  Things  in  Sub- 
 "  fiftence ,  but  in  Concord,  Agreement,  and 
 
 *'  Samenefs  of  Will,  they  are  One-" ''  We 
 
 "  worfliip  therefore  the  Father  (2)  of  Truth, 
 
 "  and  the  Son  who  is  Truth  : -Putting  up 
 
 **  our  (3)  Prayers  TO  the  one  Supreme  God, 
 
 ''  THROUGH  his  only  begotten  Son  •    en- 
 
 "  treating  Him  as  our   High-Prieft  and  the 
 
 **  Propitiation  for  our  Sins,   to  offer  up  our 
 
 *^  Prayers  TO  Him  who  is  the  Supreme  God 
 
 *^  over  all."     Further,  to  fliow   that  he  had 
 
 no  Thoughts  of  what  )ou  would  have  your 
 
 j  Reader  infer  from  his  Words ;    he   exprefsly 
 
 affirms  it,  a  Httle  after,  to  be  the  ^4)  Chrifti- 
 
 I  an  Doctrine,  ^'  that  the  Son  is  not  Superior^ 
 
 I  *'  but  Inferior  to  the  Father  *,   agreeably  to 
 
 j "  our  Lord's  own  Words,    Tbe  iatbtr  that 
 
 *'  fent  nie^  is  Greater  than  /." 
 
 The  Next   Author  is  haclantins.    Whofei=*.  ^^^^ 
 j  Words,  which  you  refer  to,  had  you  cited  at 
 i  large,  you  would  have  needed  no  other  Con- 
 
 i  Cein  p.  386.       '  '     ^    '  \  ^ 
 
 j  (2.)  Whence  he  concludes  that  the  Father  is  \^^zi^6)v  u?Ji6eix.'] 
 j  a  Greater  Truth.  Comment,  in  Job.  P.  70.  Which,  to  fhow; 
 5  the  true  Spirit  of  Controverfy,  his  Adverfaries  lb  reprefented, 
 ^as  if  he  had  faid  that  '■'the  Son  of  God,  when  compared  zvith 
 j*^  the  Tat  her,  is  a  Lie"  Augultin  Hasref.  43. 
 I  (3)  Seethe  Words,  cited  aiove,  p.  42.  See  alfo  ^^ox'e,/.  10, 
 j  Sc  23.  and  i^elow  on  ^lery  XVII. 
 
 ■TOVTO   XiyOf/jiVy    UVTO)   TTil^Ot/jiVOi    ilTTOVn   TO  y     0     TrXTtlff      0     7rSf/j\!^X<i     f/jip 
 
 i^ti^uv  (jt,ii  sfj'-  Adv.  Celf.  p.  388. 
 
 G  3  futation  ■ 
 
cc 
 
 %6  of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 futatlon.  (i;  "  Now  (fays  he,)  let  ns  teach 
 *'  \jhe  Chri/iian  DotrtYi7ie~\  concerning  the 
 U/i2tj.  When  we  fay  that  the  Father  is 
 God,  and  the  Son  is  God,  we  do  not  alie- 
 *'  nate  or  feparate  them  from  each  other  ; 
 "  becaufe  the  Father  cannot  be  without  the 
 "  Son,  nor  the  Son  be  feparated  from  the  Fa- 
 *'  ther  5  fince  neither  can  the  Father  be  called 
 "  Father  without  the  Son,  nor  the  Sea  be 
 *'  begotten  without  the  Father.  Seeing  there- 
 ^*  fore  the  Relation  of  Father  makes  the  Re- 
 *'  lation  of  Son,  and  the  Relation  of  Son 
 *^  makes  the  Relation  of  Father  ;  there  is 
 "  One  Mind^  One  Spirit^  One  (2)  Snljiafice  m 
 *^  Both.  But  the  one  [^the  Father']  is  as  anex- 
 *'  uberant  Fotmtain^  the  other  [^the  So?i}  as  a 
 
 (i)  Nunc  de  IhiUate  doceamus.     Cum  dicimus  dcum   pa- 
 
 treni,  &  deuin  filium,  noii  diverfum  dicimus,    nee  urrumque 
 
 fecernimus,  quia  nee  pater  fine  filio  potcft,  nee  filius  a  patre  fe- 
 
 cerni;  liquidem  nee  pater  fine  filio  nuncupari,  nee  filius  potefi: 
 
 fine  patre  generari.    Cum  igitur  5c  pater  fiiium  faciat,   &  filius 
 
 pat  rem  ;  una  utriq;  Mens,    unus  Spirit  us ,    una  * 
 
 *  Whether  the  Word     Su[>/lantia  d\;   fisd  ille  quafi   exuberans /^wi  efi-, 
 
 Stthfiantla,  he  here  ta-    hie  tanquam  defluens  ex  eo  rivus;   illc  tanquam 
 
 ken  intheMetaphyfi-     Sol,  hie  quafi   Radius  a  iole  porrecflus.     Quiquo- 
 
 cal  Senfe,  is  not  very    niam  Surnmo  patri  &  Tidelis  &  Cams  cfi-,  non  Ic- 
 
 certain*  See  above,  p.    paratur,  ficut  nee  rivus  a  fonte,  nee  Radius  a  So- 
 
 5  s-.  le. Propiore  uti  exemplo  hbet.     Ciira 
 
 quis  habct  filium,  quern  unicc  diligir,  qui  tamen 
 fit  in  Domo  &  manu  Patris;  licet  ei  Nomen  domini,  potefia- 
 temq:  Concedat;  civili  tamcn  jure  6i  domits  una,  &  unus  do- 
 minus  nominatur.  Sic  hie  muiidus,  una  Dei  domus  efi;  &  fi- 
 lius ae  pater,  qui  unanimcs  incolunt  mundum,  Der^s  L'«//<f,quia 
 &  unus  ell  tanquam  duo,  &  duo  tanquam  unus.  Neque  id 
 mirum  ;  cum  5c  filius  fit  hi  Patre,  quia  pater  dili^it  filium,  & 
 pater  in  filio,  quia>W««M/i  f>atris  fulel'ter  PA  RET,  nee  un- 
 quam  faciat  aut  fc\:erir,  nifi  quod  pater  aut  Voluit,  aut  JUS- 
 .V/r.     De  %era  Sap.  l/b.  4.     §.  29,    F.  ^46,  447.     See  abore, 
 
 1^1 )  See  abo'jf,  ^55. 
 
 ^^  Streans 
 
Qii.  If.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  87 
 
 "  Stream  running  out  of  it :  The  one  is  as 
 "  the  Stm^  the  other  as  a  Ray  extended  from 
 "  the  Sun.  Who,  becaufe  he  is  Faithful  and 
 *'  Dear  to  the  Supreme  Father,  is  not  iepara- 
 "  ted  from  him,  even  as  the  Stream  is  not 
 *'  feparated  from  the  Fountain^  nor  the  Ray 
 
 *'  from  the  Sun. 1  will  ufe  a  flill  more  fa- 
 
 **  miliar  Inftance.  When  any  one  has  a  Son, 
 '^  whom  he  entirely  loves,  who  is  in  the  Fa- 
 *'  mily,  and  under  Subjed:ion  to  his  Father  ^ 
 *^  though  his  Father  invefts  him  with  the 
 ^*  Title  and  Power  of  Lord,  yet  in  the  legal 
 *^  and  civil  Acceptation  'tis  ftill  but  one  Fa- 
 "  mily,  and  one  Lord.  So  this  whole  World, 
 **  is  the  one  Family  of  God  ^  and  the  Son 
 *^  and  Father,  who  dwell  together  in  Co;/- 
 ^^  cord^  are  One  God^  becaufe  One  is  as  the 
 *'  two,  and  the  two  as  One.  And  no  won- 
 <'  der  ^  feeing  the  Son  is  in  the  Father,  be- 
 ^'  caufe  the  Father  loves  the  Son  ^  and  the 
 *^  Father  is  in  the  Son,  becaufe  the  Son 
 '^  faithfully  Obeys  the  Will  of  the  Father,  nor 
 ^*  does  he  or  ever  did  any  thing,  but  what 
 ''  it  was  the  Father's  Will  and  Command  that 
 *«  he  Ihould  do".  And  prcfently  after,  he 
 adds;  (i)  "  There  is  One  only  Supreme  God, 
 *'  who  is  unoriginated\  becaufe  he  is  the 
 *'  Original  of  Things  ;   and  in  him,  both  the 
 
 (\)  VriM  t^  folus— .Deus  fummus,  carens  mgine-,  quia 
 ipfe  eft  origo  rerum :  &  in  eo  limui  &  lilius,  &  Omnia  conti- 
 ncntur.  Quapropter  cum  mens  &  voluntas  alterius  in  altero 
 eft,  vel  potius  una  in  utroque ;  merito  unus  Dens  uterq;  ap- 
 pellatur.'  Non  poteft  igitur  illc  Sammns  ac  SinguUris 
 
 psw,  nifi  ^er  Iilhim^  coli.  ibid. 
 
 G  4  '}  Son 
 
88  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ^'  So7i  and  qAU  Things  2iV^  contained.  Where- 
 ''  fore  fince  the  M/«^and  Will  of  the  One  is 
 *'  in  xhc  Other,  or  rather  one  Mind  and  Wiil 
 "-'  is  in  Both  ;  they  are  both  rightly  ftiled  One 
 "  God, ' — The  Supre?ne  a?id  only  God  there- 
 <^  fore,  cannot  be  rightly  \vorn:iipped,  but 
 *<  rAr<9//g/j  his  Son." 
 
 This  is  the  Sum  of  LaBarnius's  Notion ; 
 very  agreeable  to  the  forecited  PalTages  of 
 Orige?!.  And  how  little  he  thought  of  an 
 e^iual  Supremacy  of  oAulhority^  is  very  appa- 
 rent. He  thought,  according  to  the  Philo- 
 fopby  of  thofe  Times,  that  the  Son  was  ori- 
 ginally contained  mentally  in  God,  (as  he 
 thought  Angels  alio  werej  and  that  he  (i) 
 was  emitted  out  of  him,  and  generated 
 (saa^juimv,  as  fome  of  the  Antients  exprefs  it) 
 by  an  Q.4H  of  the  Father  lefore  the  Creatio^t 
 of  the  Worlds  into  a  real  fiihltjiing  Perfon  ha- 
 ving  Life  ifi  himjcfy  and  ttiied  J^jt  Word  2lh 
 beir>g  the  Reve^h--  of  the  Will  and  Dottrine 
 
 (i)  Quod  ille  Ma^:Jie'   fiuurus    efTct    Do6ir'm&  Dei; • 
 
 quod  ipfum  primo  locii.us  elt,   ut  per  eum  ipfe  ad  nos  loque- 
 
 jetur ; merito  igitur  Ser7;,  >  ^:  xcrhtm  Dei  dicitur;    quia  Dcus 
 
 procedentem  de  ore  fuo  v^caletn  SplrUumy  quern  non  utero 
 fed  Mente  conceperat,  inexcogirabili  qiiaciim  Majeftatis  fuse  ■ 
 Virf.ite  ac  pcteniuiy  m  Efj^giem,  qu^Qpr^pric  fenju  ac  Japientia 
 vigeat,  compiehendit.  be  vera  ^ap/lih.  4.  §.  8.  Pag.  371.  A- 
 iiain:  Deus  Machin.nur  conllitutorq;  rerum,  aniequam  prcecla- 
 rum  hoc  opus  mundi  adonrciur,  iandtum  n'cnrruptibilem  Spi- 
 ritum  genuit,  quern  filium  nuncuparei.  ib:d.  §.  6.  F.  364.  A^ 
 gain  :  Cum  ellet  Dcus  ad  excogitandum  prudeniidimus,  ad  fa- 
 ciendum folcrtilfimus;   antequam  ordii-ctur  hoc  opus  Mundi, 
 
 qiioniam  pleni  &  confummati  boni  fons  in  ipfo  crar, ut 
 
 Tib  eo  Bono  tanquam  rivus  oriretur  longcq;  pioflueret,  pro- 
 duxit  ftmilcm  fui  Spiritum ,  qui  efTet  Virtutibus  dei  patris  prx- 
 ditus :  Dcinde  fecit  alterum,  in  quo  indoles  divin?e  llirpisnoi;! 
 ^BcriEimlit.     Be  Ori^.  Error,  lib,  2,  f.  S» 
 
 of 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  %  9 
 
 of  God,  Oa  Account  of  their  infeparable 
 lJmt)\  and  the  Love  of  the  Father  to  the  Son, 
 and  the  entire  Suhjt&ion  and  Ouedie^ict  of  the 
 Son  to  the  Will  and  Commands  of  the  Fa- 
 ther, they  are  in  effcft  (according  to  Lacian- 
 tins)  Que  God;  the  Father  ading  in  all 
 Things  hy  the  Son,  and  having  (i)  given 
 to  him  (what  he  did  not  alTume  to  Him- 
 felfj  the  Title  and  Tower  of  Lord  and  of 
 GOD. 
 
 The  next  Writer  you  alledge,  is  Ea/ehius  ;  p.  n. 
 [whom  you  cite  out  of  Socrates  (a  very  par- 
 itial  Hiftorian  J  acknowledging  "  O^ie  God  /;/ 
 1'*  TfJree  H}foft..^res.'^  In  what  fenfe  Etifebius 
 may  polTibly  be  fuppofcd  to  have  ufed  thefc 
 Words,  confidently  with  his  hiown  Notions  m 
 ithefe  Matters  •  is  not  here  material  to  inquire. 
 
 (i)  Ille  vero  exhibuit  Deo  fidem ;    docuit  enim  quod  uniis 
 
 Deus  fit,  eumq;  folum  coli  oportere;   nee  unquam/^  ipfeD^- 
 
 um  dixit,  quia  non  fervaffet  fidem,  fi  milfus  ut  Decs  tolleret  & 
 
 Uuum  alTereret,  induceret  Alium  prseter  Unura.    Hoc  erat,  non 
 
 I  de  Uno  Deo  facere  praeconium;  nee  ejiis  qui  miferat,  fed  fuum 
 
 ■  propriumnegotium  gerere;  ac  fe  ab  eo,  quern  illultratum  vene- 
 
 i  rat,  feparare.    Propterea,  quia  tarn  fidelis  exiitit,  quia  fibi  nihil 
 
 prorfus  affumfit,  ut  mandata  Mittentis  impleret ;    &  facerdotis 
 
 perpetui  dignitatem,   &  Judicis  Poteftatem,  &  Regis  fummi 
 
 honorem,  &:  DEI  nomen  accepit.  i.e.    Chrlfi    was    faithful 
 
 to  God;  for  he  taught  that  there  js  but  One  God,    and  that  He 
 
 only  is  to  he  vjorfloipped.     Nor  did  he  ever    call    Hitnfelf  God  ; 
 
 hecaufe  he  had  not  been  faithful,  if,  being  font  to  take  aivay  the 
 
 Many  Gods,  and  to  declare  the  One,  he  had  introduced  any  other 
 
 befides  the  one.      lor  this  zvould  have  been,    not  preaching  the 
 
 \  One  God,  nor  doing  the  Work  of  Him  that  fe/it  him,  but  his  ow?i 
 
 Work?  and  fo  he  vjculd  have  feparated  himfelf  from  Him,  whom 
 
 he  came  to  declare.     Now  becaufe  he  was  fo  Faithful,    and  af- 
 
 \fumed  nothing  to  himfelf,    but  only  perjormed  the  Commands  of 
 
 ;  Him  that  fent  hi?n  ;  therefore  he  was  invefied  with  the  Dignity 
 
 I  of  an  everlafiing  High  Prieft,   the  Honour  of  a  Supreme  King,  the 
 
 Power  of  a  Jud^e,  and  the  Name  [or  Title]  oj  GOD.  Ladtant. 
 
 i]ib.  4.  c.  14. 
 But 
 
p.   2t 
 
 ^.  53»  ?7 
 
 But  Who  could  have  imagined  you  would 
 have  defcended  fo  low,  as  to  cite  (i)  Socra- 
 tes for  the  Sentiments  of  Euj'ebhis^  whofe 
 oim  very  large  Works  are  extant  at  This 
 Day  ? 
 
 Irenaus,    oAthejiagor^is ,     and    Hippohtr/s^ 
 whom  you  here  likewife  refer  to,  ^s^^fpe^k- 
 *'  7?2g  of  the  Fdtber  and  Son  together^  as  The 
 "  One  God-^''  do  in  reality  fay  nothing  like  it. 
 The  Palfages  you  bring  from  the  two  former, 
 fliall   be  confidered   prefently.    That  which 
 you  hei-e  cite  from  (the  uncertain  Authority 
 of;  Hippolj'ttis^  is  not  To  your  Purpofe,  but 
 really  againfl:  it.     Inftead  pf  fpeaking  of  Fa- 
 ther and    Son  together  as  being     (in     yom' 
 Senfe)   The  One^    ''The  Ofie  Si/preme  God^* 
 God    ''  in  the  fame  equally  High  Se7ife  j,"  h( 
 (peaks  that  which  is  utterly  inconfiftent  witi 
 it.     For  though  he  feems  to  aim  at  includin 
 the  Son  and  Spirit^  in  feme  Senfe,    in  the  Oh- 
 God ;  yet  at  the  fame  time   he  exprefsly  af- 
 
 Ci)  PetAvius  makes  the  following  Remark  upon  this  Pafliigc 
 of  Socrates.  Socrates  falso,  atq;  etiam  impcritc,^  cathoHcum' 
 Eufebium  fuifle  probat  ex  eo,  quod  ^va  ^iov  ov  rpio-lv  -Jsj^ifiica-itri* 
 piofefTus  eft.  Quod  cfTe  Commentit'mm,  ex  iis  conftat  quaj 
 hactcnus  retuli.  "  Socrates  falfe/y  and  ignorantly  pretends  that 
 *'  Eufebius  -was  Catholich,  in  that  he  prof c (Jed  one  God  in  three 
 •'  Hypofiafes;  The  Falfity  of  which  appears  from  what  I  have 
 **  Already  related."  Be  Trinit.  lib.  i.  c.  ii.  And  Nicephorm 
 Callixti  obfeives  upon  the  fame  Hiftory  of  Socrates,    relating 
 
 to  r.HfebtM6\  ToiuvTU  tC^  iTifcc  "Zuk^octt;^  TTcc^ocrthic,,  all^^vQ/.^ilcci  rtitr- 
 (PccXt^  T'd  ^'/fjt^6cr(^  'Ev(ri,6iaf  TtdfxTihivuv    iya   ^   /Sj^Ww/jj-/  civ  fjux?.- 
 
 ACV    iiiPCl    tIv    OCV^^CC   TOICUT  V     if  ■^  KOC.B-0  Xa  iJCK^^YjiJ-tOC   i(    TOiOUTCV    TU^X  VZS^ll- 
 
 A-/5(pj;y,  if  fjuxXXov  izri^^  ^IxMitn'  *'  Socratesy  in  producing  thele  and 
 *'  other  Things,  endeavours  to  prove  Eufebius  to  be  Orthodox. 
 **  FormyPart,  [could  willi  he  was  fo,  but  tJieCatholick  Church 
 **  has  eilcemed  otherwife  of  him;  whofe  Judgment  we  ought 
 '*  rather  lo  loilow."  ibid,  apud  Pitayf 
 
 cribes 
 
I 
 
 Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod  p  i 
 
 cribes  to  the  Father^  not  (as  you  do)  a  ^'  Tri- 
 [  *^  ^r/Yj'  0/  Order'^'^  only,  but  a  r^^/  Sufremacy 
 '  of  Authority  and  Dommi07i  *,  which  (you  mull 
 always  remember^)  is  indeed  the  only  material 
 j  foint  in  Quejtion  between  us.  His  Words  are : 
 ■  (i)  ^*  There  is  but  one  God\   For  it  is  the  ivz- 
 ^  ''  ther    that  COM3/JiVD5,  the  Son  that 
 I  ^^  O'BETS,  J>:c.     And,  to  (liow  that  he  did 
 not  mean  what  p/if  pretend,    he  fubjoins  im- 
 mediately:   (2)    *' For  by  this  Trinity  the 
 *'  Father  is  glorified  ;  for  it  is  the  Father  who 
 *'  Willed^  and  the  Son  who  G/4ff^^ thereupon." 
 Which  Son,  ovWord^  he  afterwards  tells  you, 
 *'  the  Father  begat ^  when  he  (9)  willed^  and 
 '^  (As  he  willed  to  leget  him.'''*     And,  He  is 
 (4)  '^  fuhjett  (Jdiysht)  to  the  Father^  as  to 
 '  *'  his  God:'     Again  :   (5)  ''  Who  will  not  d  • 
 *^  dare  that  there  is  hit  one  GodV^  Which 
 *'  OneGod^  is  the  Father.'*''  Again  :  (6)  "-^There 
 *'  is  one  God  in  whom  we  ought  to  truft^  who 
 *^  is  unoriginated^  impajfihley  immortal^  doing 
 ^'  all  Things  AS  heWills^  and  IVHEN  he 
 «^  IVtllsP     And  he  Hiows  prefently  after,  (j) 
 how  the  Father  created   all  Things    hy  the 
 
 TO  3  orwiTi^ov  ciytcv  TTViVLfjcc-    Contra  Noet.  p.  16. 
 
 PiTia-iVj  iiU  iTTd'nTsv  [Which  is  the  fame  as  what  he  faid  juft  be- 
 fore;   TTccTyi^  ivTiXX'^rcii,  >.r>yo<^  icTTonXii'  P.    1 5.] 
 
 (^)  '  0-j-:z-iQ  ^^Xri^ue,  0  ^so?  TtoCTYi^  iyivvwiv,    &>?  yiB-i?^y](riv    P.  1 8. 
 
 (4)  llci.VTOJV   KPCCTiij     UvroZ    ■j    6   TrcCT-/!^'  TTCCTSflCi,  l^OV     K,    ^iOV  UfJUe- 
 
 >J>yriTV{.    p.  10. 
 
 (5)  T4  ya^P    »»   ^i^i    'svcc    B-ilv    iiVUi  i  -  —    ils    3"£C5    0   7rUTl;f)-      P. 
 
 •    (6)  EI5  yue  B-ioc  £5-i7  u  ^iT'^i^iuuv,  oiXX'  ocyivvYirtx^^  oC7reth<;,  oiB-oi'/X' 
 Ttc,^  Tmvrct,  TToioov^  U  B^iAUj  v.cc^uc,  ^i?,Vj  cn^iXu'     P,  12. 
 
 (7)  P.  13. 
 
 Word, 
 
pa  Of  the  Unity  of  God. 
 
 Word^  whom  he  legat^  or  emitted  fiom  him- 
 fclf,  before  the  Creation,  and  m  order  to  cre- 
 ate the  World  i>^  Him.  Are  Thefe,  Argu- 
 ments  that  he  thought  the  Son  to  be,  in  )our 
 
 P.  53,57.  Scnle,  himlclf  ''the  One  Supreme  Godf'^God 
 "  /;/  the  fame  and  in  as  HIG  H  a  Senje  as  tb^ 
 ''  Father  himfilfr 
 
 I  proceed  to  Irep/xus  ,  who,  you  fay,  '^  ex- 
 
 p.  21,  ^'  t'^^'Pb  declares  that  the  Son  is  not  exch- 
 *'  dedfrom  being  the  One  Supreme  God,''''  And 
 where  does  he  declare  fo  ?  The  Paffage  which 
 at  firft  Sights  and  when  (landing  alone  in  a 
 Citation,  appears  nesird}^  of  any  in  his  whole 
 Works,  to  fuch  an  Affertion ;  is  what  you 
 here  mention  not  at  all,  but  afterwarrs  in 
 your  ^^th  Page^  upon  another  OccafionjWherQ 
 it  fliall  be  taken  notice  of  in  its  Place.  The 
 Proofs  you  here  rely  on,  are  contained  in  the 
 following  Paflages.  Irenatcs  (i)  fays,  that 
 "  the  Whole  Scriptures  declare  the  One  and 
 *^  Only  God^  excluding  all  others^  to  have  made 
 "  r^ll  Things  by  his  iVord,''^  This  is  your  own 
 Tr.mflation.  And  your  Remark  upon  it,  is ; 
 *'  Others  are  excluded^  but  not  his  Word^  that 
 "  /V,  his  Son^  by  whom  he  made  all  Things ^ 
 The  Scnfe  of  Iren^us  then,  according  to  Tou^ 
 is  This,  that  The  One  and  0  Ij  God,  the  Fa- 
 '  ther  a?id  the  Son,  made  all  Tuings  by  his  Word 
 or  Son.  Befides  -^  you  do  not  confider  the 
 Jlprrdity  of  fuppofing  all  Things  to  be  made 
 [/ii~]    by  or  through   The  One  Supreme  God. 
 
 (1)  Univerfo:  Scripturx— -,vw«w  a'  fihim  Bru^n,  ad  exclu.- 
 dendos  alios,  piix^dicant  omnia  fccilTc/'fr  Vcrbiim  iuum.  L'tb.z, 
 t.  46.  P.  171.  GVrf^. 
 
 Which 
 
QiT.  II.    Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod.  93 
 
 Which  word,  BT  or  Throrigh^m  Fhis  Kind  of 
 Conftruclion,  where  one  Ptr^on  is  faid  to  adl 
 B  T  another,  necefTiriJy  fuppofcs  Mtniftrat'ton^ 
 which  is  inconfiftent  with  Supremacj.  And 
 accordingly  Irenaus^  with  all  the  Ancients 
 unanimouily^fays  that  God  COMMANDED 
 the  JVC  RD,  when  he  made  all  things  BT 
 Him  5  (See  above^  p,  19  J  xAnd  he  frequently 
 declares  exprefsly  the  Father  to  be  the  (i)  on- 
 ly Go  J  Almighty  [ox  Snpre?ne  over  aU^  the  (2) 
 one  and  only  true  God  :  And  fets  forth  (as  I 
 fhall  fhew  further  hereafter,)  the  Subjedion 
 of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  in  the  ftrongeft  and 
 moft  expreflive  Terms. 
 
 You  add,  that  Irenmts  fays  ;  "  God  made  dip.  23. 
 "  Thims  by  HIMSELF'^  interpretlnglilM- 
 ''  SELF,  by  h:s  Word  and  by  his   Wifdom  ^ 
 *^  that  is^  his  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit'^ 
 
 Thtjirjl  (^)  Part  of  the  Paffige  you  here 
 cite,  is  in  the  55?^  Chap,  of  the  2d  Book  j 
 Where  Irefi^us  fays,  that  "  the  One  only  God^ 
 "  the  Maker  of  all  Things^ — who  is  the  Fa- 
 "  ther^ — -^made  them  By  Himfe/f  that  is^  by 
 "  his  Word,  and  by  his  JVifdonu''    The  Words 
 
 (1)  Mov<^  ^icc,  TTUvroy^^^TCj^.  lib.  1.   C.  I3.  P.  79. 
 
 (2)  Unum  &:  Solum  verum  Deiim.    lib.  4.   c.  6c),    Again; 
 Solus  Unus  Deus  Fabricator,  /i^.i.  c.  5^. 
 
 /3)  Fecit  e^perfemetipfum;  hoc  eft,  per  verbum,  &  per  fa- 
 pientiam  fuam.  And  a  Utile  before :  Ipfe  a  femetipfo  fecit  li- 
 bere,  &  ex  fiia  poteftate,  &  difpofuit  &  perfecit  omnia,  &  eil: 
 lubllantia  omnium  Volurjas  ejus.  Solus  hie  Deus  invenitur,  qui 
 omnia  fecit,  fokis  onmipotens,  &  folus  Pater,  condens  &  faci- 
 ens  omnia— -verho  Virtutis  fu£,  &  omnia  aptavit  6c  dif- 
 pofuit iapicntia  fua,  &  omnia  capiens,  folus  autem  a  neminc 
 capi  poteli.  Thm  alfo  Hermas ;  Ipfe  ca^ax  Univerfonimi  fotus 
 rn:}jiinj^H$  cfi.  lib,  i.  Mandat.  i. 
 
94  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 are  phinly  an  Allufion  to,  and  a  Paraphrafe  of 
 Ifa'uih  44, 24,  *''The  Lord  that  maketh  all  Thi?jgs^ 
 ''  that  Jheccheth  forth  the  Heavens  —  by  My- 
 "  P^r^  Which  words  Irenmts  To  underftands, 
 astofigniiy,  not  that  the  Father  did  all  in 
 his  own  Perfon,  but  by  the  Mlniflry  [inenar- 
 labile  mhiiflerhim']  of  his  Son  and  Spirit^  by 
 whom  the  Will  of  the  Father  is  as  pun&ually 
 performed,  as  the  WiU  of  a  Man  is  by  his  Own 
 Hands,  Whereas,  on  the  contrary,  many  of 
 the  Antient  Hereticks  fancied  the  World  to 
 have  been  made  by  Angels  far  remote  from 
 God,  and  not  ading  in  hnmediate  obedience  to 
 his  WilL  The  Second  Paft  of  the  Palfage 
 you  cite,  is  in  the  i^jth  chap,  of  the  /[th  Book: 
 Where  Iren^us  fays  j  (1)  '^  God  has  always 
 "  prefent  with  him  his  Word  and  Wifdom, 
 "  the  Son  and  Spirit,  By  whom,  and  /;;  whom, 
 ''  he  made  all  things  according  to  his  own 
 ^'  Free  Will  and  Pleajiire.'*  In  which  Paffage 
 he  plainly  afcribes  fas  he  does  every  where 
 elfe)  to  the  Father  Alone^  the  whole  Supreme 
 Power  and  Authority  ,  And  both  in  Thefe  and 
 the  preceding  Words,  rcprefents  the  Son  and 
 Spirit  to  be  as  it  were  God's  HaTjds^  by  whofe 
 mini  fir  ation  He  (^according  to  his  own  free  Will 
 and  Pleafure)  form\i  and  faJJjiond  the  World  ^ 
 having  firfl  (as  he  intimates  in  the  lines  pre- 
 fcnrly   following,^    produced  "  the  (2)  Sub- 
 
 (i)  Addl  erim  ci  fcmper  verbum  &  fapientin,  filius  &  Spi- 
 ritiis,  per  quos  i<:  in  quibus  omnia  liberie  2t  Sponte  fecit.  Lib, 
 4.  c,  37. 
 
 (i)  Ipfe  a  femetipfo  fuhjlantiam  Creaturarum— acci- 
 
 picns.  ibid. 
 
 ^^  fiance 
 
Qu.II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  P5 
 
 •'  fiance  of  the  Creatures  from  Himfelf^'*  i.  e. 
 from  his  ovnto  original^  under ivcd  Power.  To 
 which  Furpofe  he  cites  with  Approbation  a  re- 
 markable PalTage  of  (i)  Hennas :  -And  adds 
 prer^ntly  after,  that  the  Son  (2)  ''  R  E- 
 ;F'  CEIVES  the  Power  of  aU  Ihlngs  from 
 k^'  Hirn^  who  is  the  One  Godj  the  Father  who 
 r  is  above  all :,  Agreeably  to  our  Lord's  own 
 ;•*  Words ^  AllJ'hings  are  delivered  unto  ?nefro?n 
 1'*  my  Father'''  Which  Power  or  Dominion 
 Irer^us  fuppofes  to  have  Then  become  (^3)  Pie- 
 ?iary  over  all  Things  both  in  Heaven  and  Earth 
 and  under  the  Earthy  when  he  had  been  In- 
 carnate and  was  Rife n  from  the  Dead, 
 
 You  add  another  *'  P^J]'^ge  or  tivo  "  from 
 Irenmts^  ^'  to  JIjow  that  he  looked  upon  the  Son 
 "^  as  the  Only  True  God^  as  well  as  the  Father. 
 "-^  He  obferves  (you  fay)  that  the  Holy  Scrip- p^:2.iyO'i4< 
 *'  titres  never  call  any  Perfon  Abfolutely  God  or 
 *'  Lord^  hefides  The  Only  True  God  ,  and  yet 
 "  prefently  after  takes  FJotice^  that  both  Faiher 
 *'  and  Son  are  by  the  fame  Scriptures  ABSO- 
 ''  LUTELT  fo  called.      For   though  Abfo- 
 
 (l  )  Koc>.a^  iiv  W23-SK  V,   'ypuS>/i   4  >^iyii(rcf    ^srFvrov    TniirikJ'j   Tn^n^troy, 
 
 tS  f/y/i  ovT<^  Hc,  m   ei]/c6i  tu  Tizivrct.  ibid. 
 
 (2)  VnU'S  Dem  Pater,  qui  fuper  omnes.^ ^Similiter  autem 
 
 &  Dominus,  Omnia  mihi,  inquit,  tradita  funt  a  Vatremeo 
 
 Ab  eodem,  qui  omnia  verbo  fecit  &  fapicntia  adoniavit,  Ac- 
 cipens  omnium  poteftatem.  ibid, 
 
 ("3)  Agnus  qui  occifus  eft,  [&]  fanguinc  fuo  redemit  nos;  ab 
 eodem,  qui  omnia  Verbo  fecit,  8c  l^ipientia  adornavit,  accipi- 
 cns  omnium  poteilatem,  ciuando  verbum  caro  fadum  eft  ;  ut 
 quemadmodum  in  coelis  principatum  habuit  verbum  Dei,  lie  & 
 in  terra  haberet  Principatum,  quoniam  homo  jullus;-^- prin- 
 cipatum autem  habeat  eorum  quae  funt  fub  terra,  iple  prmio- 
 genitus  iportuorijm  fac^us.    ibid. 
 
 ''luteJy 
 
^6  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 *'  lately  be  not  there  exp^efs^d^  yet  (you  tell 
 *^  us)  his  nee  elf fiYily  imply  ed^  and  is  undoubted- 
 *'  ly  the  Author's  Meaning.''  And  in  your 
 Marginal  Note,  you  would  perfwade  your  Rea- 
 dear  further,  that  he  ^'  applies  the  Title  of  So- 
 *'  lus  Deus  to  Chri/l,  lib.  5,  c.  17.'*  Now  no- 
 thing, I  think,  can  be  more  evident,  than  that 
 Irenmts  in  thefe  very  Chapters,  from  whence 
 you  would  have  your  Reader  infer  that  he 
 iook'd  upon  the  Son  to  be  ^^  The  Only  true  God^* 
 intended  to  fliow  direftly  on  the  contrary,  that 
 the  Father  aloJie  is  (ahfolutely  fpeaking,  and  in 
 the  Supreme  Senfe)  The  Only  true  God  ^  and 
 that  the  Son  RECEIVES  all  Power  and 
 Authority  from  him,  and  is  on  This  Account 
 juftly  ftiled  Lord  and  God  alfo  :  the  Father 
 being  the  Supreine  God^  and  Lord  of  all^  even 
 of  the  Son  himfelf,  at  fhe  fame  time  that  th 
 Son  is  juilly  and  truly  ftil'd  God.  The  Tru 
 and  0/dy  God,  mentioned  in  your frfl  PafTage,  is 
 evidently  meant  of  the  Father  \  As  appears  both 
 from  the  (i)  Words  themfelves^  2Ln^2i\{o  ixovA 
 their  having  a  dired  Reference  to  what  he  had 
 before  proved  in  the  Sixth  Chapter,  out  of 
 which  your  Second  Pallage  is  taken.  The  firfl 
 words  of  which  fixth  Chapter,  (^Neq-,  igitur^ 
 ^either  Therefore,  &c.^  fhow  that  the  Perfon 
 who  is  there  (liled  *'  definitively  and  ahfolutely 
 
 (i)  Manifefte  oftenfum  eft,  quoniam  nunqiiam  neq;  pro- 
 fhctJi,  neq;  Apofloli,  alium  Deiim  nominaveiiint,  vel  Domi- 
 luim  appellaverunt,  practer  -vcrmn  6i  Solum  Deiim.  To  zvhkh 
 'you  ought  to  have  added  the  IVords  hnmcdiately  follow wg :  Mul- 
 to  magis  ipfe  do?n'w:is,  qui  ^  C^efari  quidem  qux  Caefaris  funti 
 rcd-li  iubet;  &  quai  Dei  lunt,  Deo.  Itb.  3.  r.  8. 
 
Qii.  11:    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  97 
 
 God^"^  is  That  Perfon  concerning  whom  in  the 
 whole  preceeding  Chapter  Irenmis  had  at  large 
 hQenpiov\ngih^t(^i)CbriJl  woitU  ?wt  have  pre^ch^ 
 ed  him  to  be  God^  ajid  the  God  of  the  Univerfe^ 
 and  the  Supreme  Knigj  and  His  Father^  had  he 
 knoTvn  him  to  he  Qvvhat  tiie  Vakntlnians  pre- 
 tended] the  Product  of  dec.  And  that  (2)  the 
 Jpoflles  of  our  Lord^  taught  the  Nati'y9is  to 
 worjhip  the  True  God -^  and  to  n' ait  for  HIS 
 Son  Jefiis  Chri/i^  who  redeemed  us  with  his 
 Blood,  Then  follows  the  Paffage  you  imper- 
 feBly  cite,  which  is  the  Conclafion  of  the  pre- 
 ceeding Argument:  (j)  '•^Neither  therefore 
 "  would  our  Lord,  nor  the  Holy  Spir:^^  nor 
 '^  the  Apoftlcs,  have  call'd  HIM  Cod^  ahfo- 
 *^  foluteU  and  efinitiveh  •,  who  W2i5  not  uod^ 
 *^  GodtYuh^\ox^theTrue~\Goi.  Neither wou'd 
 '•  they  have  called  any  one  Ljrd  perfonally, 
 *'  (or,  in  his  Ov;n  Perfon^)  but  God  the  Father^ 
 *'  who  is    Lord  of  all  j    and   his  Son^    who 
 
 (i)  Veritas  ergo  dominus  noiler  exiftens,  fton  menticbaturt 
 &  quern  fciebat  e.^e  Labis  fnitium^  non  utiq,  deum  coniitere- 
 tur,  &  Deum  omnium,  8c  Summum  regem,  &  Patrem  fuum. 
 
 (i)  Genres  autem  irerum  docebant  Apoftoli,  ut Verum 
 
 colerent  Deum,  ■      ■  »v5»-  ut  expecflarent  fiUiim  ejus  lefum  Chrif- 
 tum,  qui  redemit  nos  de  Apoftafia  Sanguine  fuo.     ibid. 
 
 (i,)  Neq;  igitur  dominus,  neq;  Spiritus  Sandus,  neq;  Apo- 
 ftoli, eum  qui  non  elTet  Deus,  definitive  &  abjolut'e  Deum  no- 
 iHinaiTent  aliquando,  nifielTet  vere  [in  editis,  Verus]  deus;  ne- 
 quc  Dominura  appellalfent  aliquem  ex  fua  perfona,  nil!  qui 
 dominatur  omnium  Deum  patrem,  &  filium  ejus,  qui  domini- 
 um Accept  a  patre  fuo  omnis  conditionis;   quemadmodum  ha- 
 
 bet  illud,  dixit  dominus  domino  tneoy  u'c. Vere  igitur   cum 
 
 pater  fit  domuius,  6c  iilius  vere  fit  dominus, filium  figni- 
 
 I   ficat  a  Patre  uiccepijfc  poteftatem  ad  judicandum  Sodomitas  prop- 
 
 I  ter  iniquitatem  eorum.   c.  6. 
 
 H  "  RE. 
 
pS  of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 ''  RECEIVED  from  his  Father  the  Domi- 
 '^  nion  over  the  whole  Creation  ,  as  the  Pfal- 
 "  mifl  hath  it,  The  Lord  [aid  unto  my  Lord^5Cc!' 
 After  which,  he  obferves  that  the  Son  is  That 
 Lord  vpho  rained  upon  Sodom  arid  Gomorrha 
 Fhe  and  Brmflojie  fro?n  the  Lord  out  of  Heaven-^ 
 "  having  RECEIVED  from  the  Father 
 "  Power  to  judge  the  Sodomites  for  their  Ini- 
 ^^  quity."  Then  he  proceeds  to  fliow,  that 
 the  Son  is  fiil'dG^J  as  well  as  Lord^  from  that 
 PalTage  of  the  Prahnift  ;    Thy    Throne,  0  God^ 
 
 is  for  ever  and  ever  ^ wherefore  God^  even 
 
 Thy  God  J  hath  Ajiotnted  Thee,  &:c.   Showing  in 
 what  Senfe  the  Son  is  God  *,  Not  as  being  fo  in 
 the  Supreme  and  Abfolute  Senfe,    which  is  di- 
 rectly contrary  to  his  Whole  Reafoning  *,  but 
 as  being /i)  God's  Anointed,   Our  Lord^    and 
 Our  God,     And  as  an  undeniable  Evidence, 
 that  the  Perfon,  who  in  This  and  the  whole 
 foregoing  Chapter  is  by  Ireriieus  alTerted  to  have 
 been  preach'd  both  by  Chr'jft  himfdf  and  his 
 Difciples  as  God  ahfolutely  or  27:?^  one  true  God^ 
 is  no  oti:er  than  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  ^  he 
 concludes  with  a  mod  folemn  Prayer  to  God 
 the  Father,  ^'  who  is,  he  fays,  (2)  the  Only  and 
 *'  True  God',^  thfougb  our  Lord  Jefus  Chriff,'* 
 This  is  the  plnin  ^nd  entire   Senfe   of  Iren^u^ 
 in  Thefe  P,i(jhges^  which  you  h^ve  very  imper- 
 fc&ly  ofFcr'd  to   your  Reader.     Nor  can  any 
 
 (i)  Dei  Appellationc  fignAvii  Spiritus  v  eum  qui  ungitur 
 filnim.  ibid. 
 
 ii.)  Qui  es  folus  z^  I'erus  reuu  fuper  quern  alius  deus  non 
 eft,  />rr  dcin'miim  nojlrufn  Isfuy/i  Chr^Jim^.     ibid. 
 
 Thing 
 
Qu.  11    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  99 
 
 thing  be  more  clear  and  evident,  than  that  the 
 Senfe  of  Irenmts^  throughout  his  whole  Wri- 
 tings, is,  that  God  the  Father  alone  is  (i)  God 
 abjolutely,  the  One  God  Almighty^  and  (in  the 
 Emjfiefit  or  Supreme  Senfe)  the  Only  True  God. 
 I  refer  you  to  feveral  Paflages  in  the  Margin  j 
 and  (hall  here  tranfcribe  One  only,  which  lay 
 before  you  (had  you  been  pleafed  to  obferve 
 it,)  and  which  the  x\uthor  gives  as  the  Sum 
 and  Explanation  of  what  he  had  before  prov'd. 
 "  (2)  It  being  (fays  he)  plainly  prov'd  al- 
 "  ready,  fwhich  (hall  alfo  be  yet  more  evi- 
 •'•  dcntly  (hown  hereafterj  that  neither  the 
 *'  Prophets,  nor  the  Apoftles,   nor  our  Lord 
 
 (l)  T5  «yi  'luacvva   ivcc  S-3cy  xxvroK^rofcCy    r^    &»   f/joveym   V^t^op 
 
 'Ijjo-sv  KijpyVa-evr^ •  lib.  I.   C.  r.  P.  41.      Again;   vi  p  IkkXwm ^ 
 
 5rc6p«*A»/3»(r«6  tIw  «5  ivcc  ^tov  TrcCTtfoc   Truvrox^ropcc  »7ri^iv,  >^ 
 
 «?  ivoc  %^i'^)>'*  'iwSv.  lib.  I.  c.  z.  Again:  Cum  teneamiis  autem 
 nos  regulam  veritatis,  id  eft,  quia  lit  unus  Dens  omnipotens,  qui 
 
 omnia  condidit  per  verbum  fuum : Hie  Pater  domini  no- 
 
 ftri  Jefu  Chrifti.  lib.  i.  c.  19.  Again:  Hie  Deus  eft  Pater  domi- 
 ni noftri  lefu  Chrifti :  Et  de  hoc  Paulus  Apoftolus  dixit,  unus 
 deuSf  pater)  qui  fuper  ownesy  ct"  per  omniay  CT'  in  omnibus  no- 
 bis. \\h.  2.  c.  3.     Again:  Solus  unus  Deus  Fabricator,- hie 
 
 Pater,  lib.  2.  c,55-  Solus  hie  Deus  invenitur,  qui  omnia  fecit, 
 folus  ornnipotensj  &c folus  pater,  ibid.  Again:  Sua  fententia  &: 
 libere  fecit  omnia,  cum  lit  Solus  Deu-Sy  6c  folus  dominus,  6c  fo- 
 lus conditor^  &  folus  pater,  lib.  2.  c.  i.  Again:  Regulam  veri- 
 tatis conftituere  in  Ecclefia,  quia  eft  unus  Deus  omnipote-as,  qui 
 per  Tjerbum  fuum  omnia  fecit,  lib.  4.  c.  11. 
 
 (z)  Oftenfo  hoe  igitur  hie  plane,  (&  adhue  oftendetur  ma- 
 nifeftiiis,)  neminem  alterum  dominum  vel  Deum,  neq;prophe- 
 tas,  neq;  apoftolos,  neq;  dominum  Chriftum  confefTum  elfe  ex 
 fua  perfona,  fed  praecipue  Deum  6c  dominum:  prophetis  qui- 
 dem  &  apoftolis  patrem  &  filium  confitentibus ;  alterum  au- 
 tem neminem,  neq;  Deum  nominantibus,  neq;  dominum  con- 
 fitentibus :  &  ipfo  dommo  Patrem  tanriim  Deum  c/  dominum 
 eum^  qui  Solus  eft  Deu4  ^  Dominator  omnium y  tradente  difci^ 
 pulis  :  fequi  nos  oportet,  fiquidem  illorum  fumus  difcipuli, 
 teftimonia  illorum,    lib.  3.  c  9, 
 
 H  2  «  Chrift, 
 
cc 
 
 iC 
 
 cc 
 
 4C 
 
 100  of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 "  Chrifl,  declared  Any  other  to  be  in  his  Own 
 ''  perfon  Lord  or  God,  but  Him  who  is  in 
 "  the  e?ntnent  Senfe  God  and  Lord  ^  The  Pro- 
 "  phets  and  Apoftles  acknowledging  indeed  the 
 Father  and  the  Son  •,  but  ftiling  no  Other  per- 
 fon God,  nor  acknowledging  any  other  to 
 be  Lord  :  And  our  Lord  himfelfx ticking  his 
 Difciples,  that  the  Father  0 N LT  is  That 
 God  and  Lord  who  is  the  Only  God  and  Lord 
 «'  of  all:  We  ought  therefore,  if  we  will  be 
 "  Followers oilhent^  to  adhere  to  TteVTefli- 
 "  monies/' 
 P.  23.  After  This,  the  Reader  may  well  be  furpri- 
 
 zed  to  find  you  afjerting^  that  Iren^us  '^  applies- 
 *'  the  Title  of  [Solus  Deus]  The  Only  God^  to 
 "  Chr? (}.'''  Had  you  m^^  the  Words,  you  would 
 have  faved  me  the  Trouble  of  any  other  Confu- 
 tation. For  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the 
 Title  oiSohisDeus^  [The  Only  God]  is,  in  the  Place 
 referr'd  to  by  you,  apply'd  to  God  the  Father 
 only  •,  fo  as,  in  the  very  Nature  of  the  Exprefll* 
 on,  to  fliow  that  it  is  impoffible  to  be  apply'd 
 to  Chrifl,  Upon  our  Lord's  having  faid  to  the 
 Paralytick  Man,  Thji  Sins  be  forgiven  thee. 
 Mat.  9,  2  *,  Irenmis  (ij  remarks,  that  "inre- 
 ^'  milting  the  Sins,  he  bath  cured  the  Man^ 
 "  and  at  the  fame  Time  plainly  fhowed  Who 
 
 (i)  Peccata  igitur  remittens,  homineni  guidem  curavit,  fe- 
 nietipfum  autem  manifeilc  oltendit  quis  ellct.  Si  enim  nemo 
 potell  remittcre  peccata,  n\i\  S.-.lus  Dens;  remittebat  autem  hxc 
 Dow'mnsy  &  curahat  homines  •,  manifeftum  ell  quoniam  ipfe 
 Qxxt  Verbutn  Deiy  filiii3  hominis  fadus,  a  Patre  poteftatem  re- 
 onilTionis  pcccatoriim  Acsipiens,  quoniam  homo  &  quoniam 
 Deus.  lih.  5^  c.  ij> 
 
 "  him- 
 
Qii.  11.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  i  ^  ^ 
 
 "  himfelf  was.     For   if  no  one  can  forgive 
 
 "  Sins,  but  God  only  ♦,  and  yet  our  Lord  did 
 
 "  forgive  them,  and  cured  the  Man ,  'Tis  evi- 
 
 *'  dent  that   he  was"    \JSJ.B.  not.    The  Only 
 
 God^  but]  "  the  Word  of  God ^  made  the  Son  of 
 
 "  Man,  ^udRFXEiriNG  from  his  Father 
 
 "  the  P<97£^<?rof  forgiving  Sins,  becaufehewas 
 
 ^'  Man,  and  becaufe  he  was  God."    Can  any 
 
 thing  be  clearer,  than   that  the  Title  of  [So- 
 
 his  Dens']  is  here  appiyed  to  the  Father^  who 
 
 Gave  Chrift  the  Power  to  forgive  Sins  ?    And 
 
 is  it  not  ablurd  to  fay,  that  The  Only  God^  who 
 
 Jlo?ie  can  forgive  Suis^  RECEIVED  the  Power 
 
 of  remitting  Sins?  The  whole  preceeding  Rea- 
 
 fonings  of  Irenmis  in  that  Chapter,  diftinftiy 
 
 (how,    (i)  "that  God  the  Father^  the  Lord  and 
 
 *'  Creator  of  the  Univerfe^  is  The  One  and  Only 
 
 ^'  God^  who  loved  us   in  Chrifi^    and  gave  t4S 
 
 *'  Convnandfnents^    and  forgave   us   our  Sins.' 
 
 *^   Whofe  Son^  andWord^  Chriji  foezved  hiwfelf 
 
 ^'  to  be^  when  he  pardoned  Sins" 
 
 One  ?^ffdgz  more,  which  you  "^  elfewhere* P.^j^:- 
 cite  out  of  This  Author,  is  very  proper  to  be 
 taken  notice  of  here.  "  No  one^  fays  {2)  he, 
 *^  who  has  Any  Superiour^  and  is  fitbjeEi  to  Ano^ 
 ''  rher^  can  be  calkd  GOD  or  GREAT 
 "  li^INGJ"  What  you  would  hence  iifer^ 
 (very  plauftbly  to  an  Enghlh  Reader,)  is  ,  that 
 Chrift,  being  by  Irenmts  (tiled  God^  muft  con- 
 
 (i)  Bern  &  Domiinis,  Pater  5k!  Creator  iinverrorum,  unkus 
 &  Solus  eft,  qui  nos  m  Chtifto  dilexit,  praecepta  dedit,  &  remi- 
 fit  nobis  Peccata:  Cujus  fitmjn  8c  verbiim  k''.^  Chrijius  proba- 
 vit,  cum  peccata  condon'aret. 
 
 (?.)  See  the  ne>:t  Page, 
 
 H  5  fequently 
 
lOi  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 fequently  be  by  Him  fuppofed  to  have  ?io  Su- 
 periour.  It  might  be  fufficient  to  have  fliown, 
 from  numherlefs  other  PafTages,  wherein  he  ex- 
 prefsly  afferts  the  Superiority  of  the  Father  to 
 the  Son-^  that,  what  you  intended  to  fuggeft, 
 cannot  podibly  be  his  Meaning  here.  But  in- 
 deed, the  Connexion  and  Conftrudion  of  the 
 flace  itfclf^  evidently  (hows  his  True  Mean- 
 ing. Speaking  of  (i)  "  The  One  True  God^  the 
 *'  ^Fa^her  ;"  he  argues,  that  (2;  ''  Befides  Him 
 *^  there  is  no  other  God  ;>"  becaufe,  "  otherwife^ 
 *'  Our  Lord  would  not  in  That  Text^  (fwear 
 *^  neither  by  Heaven,  for  it  is  the  Throne  of 
 ^'  God,  nor  by  Jeruf^lem^  for  it  is  the  City 
 '^  of  the  Great  KingJ  have  jlikd  him  [abfo- 
 *'  lutely,  0  biof\  God,  and  \}  fiefoLg  /Soto-iAeuV] 
 ^'  The  Great  Kingpin  fuch  amannerofExpref- 
 ^'  fion  as  excludes  all  either  Superiority  or  Com- 
 ^'  pari  fan.  For  no  one^  who  has  Any  Super  iour^and 
 *^  is  SubjeQ  to  Another^  canhe  called  [^thus  abfo- 
 ''  lutely,  0  5eo5]  GiJT),  or  [0  ^ueTct? /BcccnAeuV]  TEE 
 "  Great  King^^  The  True  Inference  from  thefe 
 Words  oiIre?i^eus^ (who  in  num.berlefs  Places  ex- 
 
 (i)  Unum  Sc  verum  Deum,-  qui  eft  Ukm  T>em  & 
 
 Unus  Pater. Dominus  non  praecepillet  difcipulis  fuis  f/»«w 
 
 fcire  Deum,  &  hunceundem  folum  vocare  Patreniy Unum 
 
 vocare  Patrem  ^  Denmy fi  non  hie  folus  eil  Deus  &:  Pa- 
 ter. Lib.  4.  c.  I. 
 
 (z)  Ne  juraveritisin  totum  ;  neq;  in  coclum,  quoniam  Thro- 
 
 aus  efc  dei, neque  per  Hierufalem,    quoniam  Civitas 
 
 eft  Magni  Regis.  Hxc  enim  in  Fabricatorem  manifefte  didta 
 funt,— — 5c  pnter  hum  Aims  non  eft  Dens.  Caeteriim,  a 
 domino  neque  Deus  neque  Magnus  Rex  diciTetur;  hujufmodi 
 enim  nee  comparationem,  nee  uliam  rfcipit  iuperlationem. 
 6Jv;  enim  fuper  fe  habet  aliquem  Supenoremy  e^  fub  alteilus  ^o.. 
 idLiti  eft;  hie  neq;  Dcu.-,  ?7f^^  Mjgnus  Rex  did  p^teft.  cap.  5. 
 
 prefsly 
 
q^i.  II.     of  the  Vnitj  of  God.    '  109 
 
 prdsly  afT^rts  the  Father  to  be  Super  war  in  Autho" 
 r/ty  CO  the  So;^^  and  the  Sori  to  be  fnhjeti  to 
 the  fator>)  evidently  is,  (dire£t!y  contrary  to 
 what  '^/f  would  hence  luggeft,)  that  though 
 Chnft  really  and  truly  is  both  Kj^^g  and  GoJ^ 
 yet  he  is  not  nbjolutely  [0  .S-eo^  or  0  (Afcts  ^cLfn- 
 AeuV]  THE  Supreme  God,  or  THE  Great  Kjng. 
 The  Reader  will  excufe  my  being  thus 
 large  in  Vindication  of  this  Primitive  Writer, 
 whom  you  have  very  greatly  mifreprefented  : 
 There  being  no  Writer  ia  all  Antiquity  more 
 full  and  exprefs  in  declaring  the  l^trfonal  If- 
 nity  and  Supremacji  of  The  One  God,  even  the 
 Father  ,  and  the  real  Subordination  ofthe  Word^ 
 his  Son^  to  him.  To  whom  he  (i)  gave  Com- 
 tnandme/it^  when  he  made  all  Things  By  him : 
 (2)  fVbom^  with  the  whole  Creation,  I  e  fuf- 
 tains.  By  whom,  as  the  (3)  Minifter  and 
 Revealer  of  his  Will,  he  manifeiied  himfelf 
 when  and  how  and  to  whom  he  himfelf  ^hi* 
 fed,    in  all   Ages    of   the    World.     Which 
 
 (i)  Cui  ergo  pr£cep'it  ?  Verbo  fcilicet,  per  quod  cceli  firm  a- 
 ti  funt,  &c.  Whence  he  concludes  ;  ita  ut  is  quidem  qui  om- 
 Fiia  fccerit  verbo  fuo,  [as  Grabe  obferves  from  the  Arundel 
 MS,  and  which  no  douht  is  the  truer  reading  than  cum  verbo 
 fuo,]  jufte  dicatur  Deus  &  dominus  Solu^.    hen.  lib.  3.  c.8. 
 
 (1)  Pater  enim  Conditionem  fimul  &  Verburn  funm  portans, 
 &  vcrbum  portatum  a  Patre.     Whence    pre/ently  he  infers  :  Sic 
 
 unus  Deus  pater  oftenditur, $L  ipfe  eft  caput  Chrifti. 
 
 lib.  5.  c.  18.  [This  Chapter  immediately  follows  That  which 
 you  referred  to  for  Chriji's  ieing  filled  Solus  Deus.] 
 
 (3)  Omnia  autem  filius  adminiflrans  patri,  perficit  ab  initio 
 ufq;  ad  finem.— — Revelat  omnibus  patrem,  qitibus  vult, 
 &  quando  vult,  &  quemadmodum  vulc  pater  ;  Sc  propter  hoc 
 in  omnibus,  &  per  omnia,  unm  Dens  Pater,   &  unum  verliwi, 
 
 lib.  4.  c.  14.     Minijirat  enim  ei  ad  omnia filius.  ibid.c.i-j. 
 
 Minifirans  patris  fui  Voluntati.  lib.  5.  c.  2,6. 
 
 H  4  (i)  Word 
 
104  ^f  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 (i)lVordw^sfent  by  him  in  our  FleOi,  and 
 fuffered  for  our  Sins ;  and  (2)  received  from 
 him,  on  Account  of  his  Incarnation  and 
 Sufferings,  all  Power  loth  i?i  Heave?i  and 
 Earth, 
 
 p.  24.  Concerning  Tertullian^  whom  you  here  cite 
 
 again,  I  have  fpoken  largely  ahove^  ^,  77. 
 But  you  here  cite  another  Paffage  from  him, 
 which  you  fay  is  "  /////  a7td  clear  "  to  your 
 Vur^oft.    To  what  Purpofe  ?    To  fliow  that 
 
 p.ii,  57.the  &/MS  himfelf  "-' The  One  Supreme  GodV^ 
 God  ^'  in  the  fame  and  in  as  high  a  Senfe  as 
 ''  the  Father  hifnfclf  ?'  No:  Butonly  to  fliow 
 that  Terttillian  imagined  the  Son  to  be  afmall 
 Part  of  the  Father's  Subftance,  as  a  Sun- 
 Beam  is  of  the  immenfe  Body  of  the  Sun: 
 He  was  a  Montanift  when  he  wrote  the  Book 
 you  cite  5  and  acknowledges  that  the  (^) 
 greater  Part  of  Chriftians  were  afraid  he  was 
 going  to  deftroy  the  Unity  and  Stifremacy  of 
 God.  And  yet  he  went  no  further  than  to 
 make  the  Son  a  (4)  PJRT  of  the  divine 
 Sulfiance^    emitted   by  the  (5)  Will  of  the 
 
 (1)  Ipfum  Verbinn  dei  incarnatum,  fufpenfum  efl  fiiper  \\g^ 
 num.  lib,  5.  c,  18.  See  abtve,  P.  61. 
 
 (2)  Filium  ejus,  qui  dominium  Accepit  a  patre  fiio  omnis 
 condilionis  ;  quemadmodum  habct  illud,  dixit  dominm  do- 
 fnino  meo,  ftdc  a  dextris  weii,  Scc.  lib.  3.  C.  6.  Again:  Ac- 
 cipiens omnium  poteftatem,  quando  vcibuni  caiofacftum  cR,&:c. 
 
 ^'^'  4-  <^-  37-  ^.      ,  .       ^ 
 
 (3)  Adz'crf.  Prax.c.2-  Simpiices, quae   major  fempcr 
 
 creclcntium  pars  eft, expavefcunt  ad   OEconomiaWy^-f^ii 
 
 Tero  unius  D^i  cultores  praefiimunt. 
 
 (4)  Ibid.  c.  9,c^26.  Concerning  the  VaUntinian  2indG/2fi/fick 
 •xfo^SoXeciy  (ihe  lirll  of  which,  Irenxm  tells  us,  they  made  o^<nov 
 T*  xm\  urcv  tm  TTfoQccXovriy  lib.  I.  CI.)  fee  Tertull.  adv.  Prax, 
 t.  8.  &  V.uU.  Defenf.  rid.  Nic.  Sett.  3.  cap.   10.  §.  15,16. 
 
 (s)  Ibid.  c.  5, £v  27.    See  W^terUfjd's  Defenfe,  p.  145.  ^S^- 
 
 ^  Father^ 
 
:^u.  II.    of  the  Vnity  of  God.  i  o  s 
 
 Father,  "uohen  the  Father  pleafed  ,  and  having 
 lad  no  diftinci  (i)  Terjoml  Extftence^  as  a 
 ^071^  before  ThatEmiiTion.  And  he  is  exprefs, 
 :hat  the  Son  always  acls  according  to  the  (2) 
 Zommand  and  Will  of  the  Father. 
 
 To  the  Paffage  cited  from  TeYUilUan^  your,  24^ 
 idd  one  out  of  (3)  Irenczus  j  which,  accord- 
 ngtoj'our  Senfe  of  it,  is  attended  with  this 
 .^vident  Abl^Jrdity,  that  a?wther  Perfon  can 
 Pr^t  all  Things  in  Suljt&ion  under  the  Suj^reme 
 3od. 
 
 You  next  cite  Jthenac^oras.  whom  you  call  ^ 
 ^  a  Learned  and  judicious  WnterJ^^  But  who- 
 ever reads  his  Book,  will  fee  that  he  under- 
 lood  Chriftianity  very  imperfedly,  and  is 
 lill  of  very  obfcure  Notions.  And  This  very 
 Doctrine  he  defcribes  in  a  Way  directly  con- 
 demned by  (4)  ^jufiin  Martyr^  and  even  by 
 ir5)  Athanafms  himfelf,  for  Gnoftic  or  Salelli- 
 ^n  j  making  the  Holy  Ghoft  an  Emanation,  (6) 
 ^ike  a  Ray  fiot  forth  from  the  Sun^  flowing 
 ^roni  it^  a?id  returning  i?ito  it  again. 
 I  You  acknowledge  that  he  has  '^  proved  at 
 '*  large^  that  there  is  hut  one  Gody  the  Father ," 
 
 (i)  Ibid.  C.5,  6,  7.    Et  adv.  Hermog.  c.  3. 
 
 (2)  Quae  mandatits  eft  a  Patre,  ea&  loquitur:  NQCfuafn,  fed 
 1>atris  perfecit  voluntatem.  ikid.  c.  8, 
 
 C3^  Non  ergo  aliui  erat  qui  cognofcebatur,  8c  nlius  qui  di- 
 rebat,  ?iemo  cognofc'n  patrem ;  fed  unus  &;  idem,  omniz  fu^jici- 
 inte  ei  patrey  6c  ab  omnibus  accipiens  teftimonium,  quoniam 
 'jere  homo,  &:  quoniam  vcre  Deus  Lilf.  4.  c.  14. 
 |!  (4)  Dial.  cH7?i  Tryph.  fub  finem.  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Reply  to 
 Mr.  Nelfony  /.  158. 
 }   (s)  De  Synod.  Nic.  Decret.  Tom.  i.   P.  159. 
 
 tUCTi'ya.  iiAj».     pag.  40. 
 
 Ad- 
 
1 0  (5  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Adding  immediately,  voff/^^gi/  yoLg  (or  voy^ei/  (Jg) 
 3cal  Jioi/  T8  ,5'e8.  Which  words  you  thus  in- 
 terpret :  "  we  comprehend  and  include  the  Son 
 ''  in  That  One  God?''  You  ought  to  have  faid, 
 agreeably  to  your  own  preceeding Words,  '^in 
 *'  That  One  Godj  the  Father.''  In  what  Senfe 
 Athenagoras  thought  the  Son  to  be  included 
 in  the  Father^  will  appear  prefently  :  But  the 
 Senfe  of  the  words  now  cited,  is  27?/^" 
 only.  We  nnderftand  or,  acknowledge  alfo 
 P-  i6.  the  Son  of  God.  But  '*•  the  Son  fyou  fay) 
 **  is  hy  him  called  the  Mind  and  Word  of 
 ^^  the  Father^  aJid  declared  to  he  Uncre- 
 ^'  ated  and  Eternal:  and  in  another  place 
 "  he  very  plainly  comprehends  Both  in  the 
 "  One  God.*'  The  Words  you  refer  to,  are  j 
 (i)  "  l^Ve  are  not  Atheiflsy  feeing  we  ac* 
 **  knowledge  God  the  Maker  of  the  Univerfe^ 
 *^  and  his  Word  which  is  from  him:''  Which  is 
 quite  another  thing  from  fo  "  comprehending 
 "  'Both  in  the  One  God,"  as  that  One  is  as 
 much  *'  the  One  Supreme  God  "  as  the  Other. 
 Nor  does  He  (though  That  is  no  part  of  the 
 Controverfy  between  us  J  any  where  fay  or 
 fuppofe  the  Son^  th^  generated  Perfon^  as  fuch ; 
 but  only  the  Mind  or  internal  Reafon  of  the 
 Father,  to  be  [c^'/^io^  EternaK  On  the  con- 
 trary, he  exprefsly  affirms  that  (2)  "  the 
 *^  Unbegotten  God  is  oy'llone  Eternal.''  The 
 Whole  of  his  Notion,  is  This :   Having  fliown 
 
 (l^  'Ovy.  io-fjiji*  uB-ich^icy  ccyovTt^  rot  Tcjjjrni-  Tv^t  r»  tccvtc?,    >^ 
 •r-^fltp'  civTeu  Aoyav   P.   122. 
 
 that 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod  107 
 
 that  there  is  fi)  but  "One  unbegotten, 
 "  eternal,  invifible,  impaflible,  incomprehenfi- 
 "  ble  God,  — who  made  all  Things  by  his 
 ''  Word  •,  The  Son  of  God,''  he  adds,  ''  is 
 '*  the  Word  of  the  Father  in  Idea  and 
 *'  Energy;  For  all  Things  were  made  By  and 
 "  Through  Him."  This^^j;^  or  J^V^of  God, 
 he  fuppofes  to  have  been  originally  the  inter^ 
 nal  Reafon  or  Underfianding  of  the  Father. 
 '*  The  Son  of  God,"  fays  (2)  he,  ''  is  the 
 '^  M/W  and  ReafonofthQ  Father,'*^  And  how 
 this  Reafon  (he  thought)  was  generated  in- 
 to a  Son,  he  thus  declares.  ''  If  ye  would 
 "  know  what  is  meant  by  SON,  it  is  the 
 "  Firjl-Offspring  of  the  Father  ,  not  as  being 
 ''  one  of  thofc  Things  which  are  made,  (for 
 '*  God,  being  an  eternal  Mind,  an  eternally 
 *'  rational  Agent,  had  in  himfeU  His  Reafon 
 "  from  the  Beginning  ;,)  but  [_it  was  a  SonJ 
 *'  as  proceeding  (jjt  going  forth)  from  him 
 "  energetically,  when  the  World  was  to  be 
 ^^  created."  The  Greek  Words  fas  well  as 
 the  Notion  itfelf)  are  very  ohfcure,  and  pro- 
 bably corrupt.  But  it  feems  to  have  been 
 his  Opinion,  that  the  Word  or  Son   was  ori- 
 
 (i)    Evx  TV'j  ocym-^TOv,  kxi  cc\ditv,    kou  oco^cctov  xccl  oixoi,6*i  ku\  ockx- 
 
 ^rt^/H'  •  £f <v  0  lio<;  ry    3"f»,  Ao'y(^  roZ  ^rotrpc^  ov  i^ix  kx\   tvio- 
 
 yciX'  TTpaq  ecvrou  yotp  xoti  ^i'  xvrou  Tnivrx  iyivsro.   P.  37,  38. 
 
 (1)  N5?  Kxl  AoyC^  roZ  77CCTpo<i,    6    iiix;    ^  3-i^-    «  c^g  -.  a-KOTTs'H 
 
 iif^Tv  iTreio-iv  6   ttouc,  it    (inXiTXiy     l^a   D^    fipx)<^iuv,     ^z^j^tov   yivvvifj(jct. 
 
 Ufy  il^iv  ecvTQc,  cv  iXVTco  rov  Aoyoy,  Xi^laiq  XoyiKoc,  ^r/,]  otXX  ox;, 
 (rm  iXixMv  ly^Tjrwyrfrv,  ocis-ont  ^ixriu^  icon  y^i  o-^uocq  '\JZTOxjMijuivuf 
 fiuijy,  yjif/jiyf^ivuvjrav  TTcc-^vjjji^iTif&'y  'ST©?  lu.  Kii(poTf^x,  izr'  oivTeT{) 
 i$\x  KXi  hi^yfricK.  tlyxi  xfaMw.    Ibid.  SeCt.  lo. 
 
 grnally 
 
o8  Of  the 'Unity  of  God.  \ 
 
 ginally  the  internal  [elf-exifteiit  Reafon  of  the 
 Father,  77?^^  very  Reason  by  which  the  Fa- 
 ther is  (as  he  exprefsly  fays)  a  rational  'Ter- 
 jon  or  oAgent :  And  that  the  Goi7ig  forth,  on 
 external  Operation  or  Energy  of  this  Reafon  in 
 the  Creation,  was  the  Vroduttion  or  Genera^ 
 tion  of  the  Word  into  a  Son^  a  dillinft  Begot- 
 ten Per/on^  having  Life  in  himfelf  Bifliop 
 (i;  'Bull  (though  he  labours  to  explain  it; 
 othcrwife,)  acknowledges  that  QAthenagoras\ 
 meant,  *'  that  the  Son  is  the  fame  with  reffeH- 
 *^  to  the  Father^  as  the  internal  Reafon  is  to 
 '^  the  Mind  of  Man:'  And  :5/^^WV/^,  the  Learn- 
 ed Commentator  upon  Athenagoras^  freely 
 owns,  that  this  Author  meant  by  the  Son's  be- 
 ing the  Word,  that  he  was  the  rational  FacuU 
 ty  of  God  the  Father^  and,  as  fuch^  was  (2) 
 *•'•  Unhegotten  and  Coeternal  with  him ;  hecaufe 
 ''  the  Father  was  never  any  fnore  without  his 
 *^  Word^  that  is ^  without  his  Reafon^  than  a 
 *'  living  Creature  is  without  Life:' 
 
 Upon  the  Whole  therefore;  if  This  Author 
 meant  really  and  literally  that  the  Son  was 
 the  internal  unoriginated  Reafon  oi  the  Father ; 
 then  the  Generation  of  the  Son  is  with  Him 
 merely  Metaphorical^  and  the  Notion  is  per- 
 fcQIy  SahelUan.  On  the  contrary,  if  theGf- 
 neration  he  fpeaks  of,  be  real  and  literal  ^ 
 then  his  ftyling  the  Son  the  inter/ial  Reafon  of 
 
 (i)  Ita  lit  filius  Dei  intelligatur  Verbum  patris;  quod  nempe 
 ie  habcat  ad  patrem,  ut  ad  mentem  humanam  verbum  ejus 
 interius.     Defenf.  Fid.  N'lc.  c.  5.  P.  103. 
 
 (z)  Ingenhus  cc  co^evus  patii;  quod  pater  fine  verbo,  fine 
 rationenunquamfucrit,  licut  nee  animal  ullum  fine  viia.  Com-' 
 m^nt.  in  Athena^.  J^djt'  Ox, 
 
 the 
 
Qu.  II.    OJ  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  109 
 
 the  Father^  is  but  Metaphorical^  and  means 
 only  ("what  'Juftin  Martyr  diftindly  exprelTes,) 
 that  as  one  Fire  is  lighted  from  Another  with- 
 out Any  divifion  or  diminution  of  the  Firftin 
 which  it  potentially  exifted,  jo  (allowing  al- 
 ways for  the  difference  between  unintelligent 
 Necejjitj  and  intelhge7it  Agejicy.)  the  Son  was 
 (by  the  incomprehenfible  Power ^  JR^  and 
 Will  of  the  Father,)  generated  from  the  Mi?id 
 of  the  Father^  that  is,  from  the  Father  him- 
 felf,  ^without  any  divifion,  alteration,  or  di- 
 minution, either  of  the  Subftance  or  Perfeftions 
 of  the  Father,)  a  complete  Image  and  Repre^ 
 fentation  of  Himfelf.  See  below,  on  Qu,  XXIX. 
 
 Which  foever  of  Thefe  was  his  true 
 Meaning-,  there  are Tii^/? Fundamental  Points,  ^ 
 in  which  This  Author  (with  all  other  Anti- 
 ent  Writers  unanimoufly,j  differs  from  Tour 
 Notion,  f />/?,  His  Notion  never  fuppofes  any 
 real  generation  of  the  Son^  but  what  truly 
 75'  an  Act  of  the  Father ;  whereas  yours  never 
 fuppofes  any  generation  of  the  So??^  but  what 
 truly  IS  JNOT  an  oAti  of  the  Father.  Seco?idly^ 
 He  never  upon  Any  Account  fuppofes  (as  you 
 do)  Tv^o  terfons  o£  equally  SUT REME 
 Amboicy  and  WorfJ^.p-^  but  always  afcribes 
 every  thing  the  Son  does,  to  the  S  UT  R  E  ME 
 Authority  unci  Will  of  the  Fatber.  On  which 
 depends  the  Monarchy  of  the  Uuiverfej  or  the 
 True  Notion  of  the  Unity  of  God-,  which 
 (you  muft  rememberj  is  the  fmgle  Point  in 
 Quefrion  between  us. 
 
 What  has  been  laid,  may  be  illuftrated,  by 
 ■fliowing  dirtindly   what  Other  Antient  Wri- 
 ters 
 
1 1  o  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ters  have  faid  upon  This  Head.  The  Words 
 of  Tatian  are.  (i)  '*  God  was  in  the  Begin- 
 "  ning.  Now  by  the  Beginning,  we  un- 
 *'  derlland  God's  Rational  Power,  (or  the 
 *'  Power  of  the  Logos.)  For  the  abfu- 
 **  lute  Lord  of  the  Univerfe,  being  himfelf 
 *'  theSubftance"  (^<?r  Ground  of  Exiftence] 
 *'  of  all  Things  \  in  refpeQ:  of  no  Creature's 
 *'  being  yet  made,  exifted  Alone.  But  in  as 
 *'  much  as  he  had  the  Power  of  creating  all 
 "  Things,  he  himfelfwas"  \^1^otenttally~\^^x}^^ 
 *'  Subftance  of  all  Things  vifible  and  inviiible, 
 *'  and  all  Things  were  with  him.  For  by 
 *'  his  rational  Power  "  [i,  e.  as  Iting  a  ratio- 
 nal  Agent ^  Xofi-nl^  my  fo  oAthenagoras^']  ''  Him- 
 '^  felf  and  his  internal  Reafon  fubfilted  with 
 "  him.  Now  by  the  fimple  Efficiency  of  his 
 *^  Wzil^  this  Reafon  [_or  Word]  proceeded 
 **  forth.  And  not  going  forth  in  vain,"  Qcol- 
 Toe  ?tev8,  as  a  Mere  Wordy  avuTroVotr©^  ;  hut  be- 
 ing  really  aVja^gv©^,"]  "  became  the  Firfl-horn 
 '^  Work  of  the  Spirit."  This  is  the  beft  I  can 
 make  of  this  ohfcure  Author,  himfelf  of  no 
 Great  Authority  among  the  Learned,  and  his 
 Words  very  probably  corrupt.  All  that  I  de- 
 fire  the  Reader  to  obferve,  is,  that  (after  all 
 the  ftraining  that  can  be  put  upon  his  Words ; 
 ilill)  the  Two  Ohfervatio?is  I  juft  now  made 
 
 o  yi  (^(TTTBTjj?  rav  'oXoyv  uvtdc  ■czju^^'^v  t5  Trecvroq  ii\ssro^xa-ic^   jt«7a  fc 
 
 cpccrav  Ti  iC,  uofxreov  ocvroi;  xssroToKTtc,  kji/,  (tuv  uvtu>  ru.  Tntvrx'  <rup 
 uvTM  'f>y  2^1^  Aoytx??  i^vvccfjijfu(i,  ccvrvq  >^  o  XoyQh',  c^  y^v  cv  ccvrv, 
 \}zje€-tl<ri-  5-fA>)^fitri  Jg  tIi5  «VAoT»r®-  oivrS  TF^oz^yi^u.  Xoy(^-  6  ^t  Ao- 
 V(^'  ts  icxru  KivS  X^f^'<^^'i'  ipyov  Trpeoro  tok<^v  tov  7F)iivfJijXT<^  yt»lT<«<. 
 Or  at.  ad  GrAtQS,  P.  14'J. 
 
 upon 
 
Qu.  II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  1 1 1 
 
 upon  Athenagoras^  will  equally  hold  concern- 
 ing This  AtithoY  likewife, 
 
 TertulUan^  as  I  have  already  obferved,  was 
 fo  pr^yi^wp^//i>/ifj' as  to  fay,  exprefsly,  that  (i) 
 *'  God  was  not  always  a  Father^  a?id  that  there 
 "  was  a  Time  whe7t  the  Son  was  notT  And  af- 
 terwards declares  Ws  Opinion,  that  the  internal 
 Wifdom  of  God,  was  begotten  and  made  into 
 a  Perfon,  juft  before  the  Creation  of  the  World. 
 (2)  "  For  if,  fays  he^  the  internal  Wifdom  of 
 *'  the  Lord,  which  vj2isfrom  him  and  in  him, 
 ^*  was  not  without  'Beginning  ;  but  was  iegot- 
 "  ten  and  made  from  That  Time,  when  it  be- 
 '^  gan  to  operate  in  the  Intelleft  of  God  for 
 ''  the  Difpofition  of  the  Works  of  Creation  j 
 "  much  lefs  can  any  thing  that  is  external 
 *'  to  the  Lord,  be  imtbout  Begi?mingP 
 Whence  he  prefently  argues,  that  f^)  "the 
 **  Father  is  more  Antient  than  the  only-be- 
 "  gotten  and  firft-begotten  Word  ,  the 
 "  Son  of  God.''  Again  ^  He  exprefTes  his 
 Notion  more  fully,  againft  Praxes:  Saying, 
 that  (4)  "  before  the  Creation  of  the  World, 
 
 *'  until 
 
 (i)  Adv.  Hermog.  c.  3." 
 
 (2)  Si  enim  intra  Dominum  quod  ex  ipfo  6c  in  ipfo  fuit, 
 line  Initio  non  fuit;  fophi^  fcilicet  ipfius,  exinde  nata  8c  con- 
 dita,  ex  quo  in  fenfu  Dei  ad  opera  mundi  difponenda  cospit 
 agitari:  multo  magis  non  coepit  {me  initio  quicquam  fuiffe,  quod 
 extra  dominum  fuerit.  Ibid,  c- 18. 
 
 (3)  Quale  elt  ut  filio  Dei,  Scrmone  unigenito  8c  primoge- 
 nito,  aliquid  fuerit  praetcr  patrem  Antiquius;  8c  hoc  modo  uti- 
 que  Generofius ;  nedum  quod  innatum  nato  fortius,  8c  quod  in- 
 iedumjacJo  validius?  Ihid. 
 
 (4)  Ante  mundi  conllitutionem,  ad  ufque  filii  generationem, 
 ^  deus  erat  Solus y  ipfe  fibi  8c  mundus  8c  locus  &c  om- 
 nia.   Solus  autem,  quia  nihil  aliud  extrinfecus  prsecer  ilium. 
 
 Caste- 
 
112  Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod. 
 
 *^  untill  the  Generation  of  the  Son^  God  was 
 •^  alone,  being  to  Himfelf  both  World  and 
 "  Place  and  ail  Things.  So  Alone^  as  that 
 *'  there  was  nothing  External  to  him.     But 
 
 "  yet  not  abfolutely  Alo;;e  ,  For  he  had  with 
 *'  him  his  ozzm  Reafon^  which  was  in 
 *'  Him.  For  God  is  a  rational  Agent ^  and 
 *'  Reafon  was  in  him  firft  ;  and  fo  all  things 
 *^  were  From  him.  Which  Reafon^  is  his 
 '^  hitellect.  This  the  Greeks  call  L'^gfS'i  .• 
 *'  And  We  give  the  y^/;/^'  Appellation  alfo  to 
 ''  the  Word.  Whence  it  is  now  ufual  with 
 *'  fome  amongft  us,  by  an  improper  Interpre- 
 *'  tation,  to  fay  that  the  Word  was  with  God 
 *'  in  the  Beginning ;  whereas  it  is  more  proper, 
 ^'  to  account  Reafon  to  be  before  it.  For  the 
 *'  Word  Aid  not  proceed  from  God, /r<9w;  the 
 *'  Begin?iing  :  But  he  had  his  Reafon  in  him, 
 *'  even  i-f/ire*  ^/j^  Bcgi?wing,  Nay,  and  the 
 *'  Word  it  felf,  hath  its  Subfiftence  in  Rea- 
 *^  fon  :  Which  fliows  that  Reafon  is  Prior  to 
 *^  it,  being  as  it  were  its  Sub[trattmL  But 
 *^  even  This  Diftinftion  is  of  no  Great  Mo- 
 
 Cc^t^riim  ne  tunc  quidem  Solus;  habebat  enim  fecum,  qunm 
 liabebat  in  lemetipfo,  ratione})t  fuain  Icilicet.  Rationalis  cniin 
 Deus,  8c  Ratio  in  ipfo  prius:  ^  ita  ab  ipfo  omnia.  Qu£e  ratio, 
 fenfm  ipfius  eft.  Hanc  Grreci  Xoyov  dicunt;  quo  vocabulo  ctiarii 
 Sermonem  appellamus.  kicoq;  jam  in  ufu  ell  noftrorum,  per 
 Umplicitatcm  inteipietationis,  Sermonem  dicere  in  Priraordio 
 apud  Deum  fuiire,  cum  magis  ratio7iem  competat  Antiqulorem 
 haberi :  quia  non  Sefmonalis  a  principio,  fed  rationalis  dcus 
 etiam  ante  principium  ;  i?c  quia  ipfe  quoq;  Seimo  ratione  con- 
 Mens,  priorcm  earn  ut  lubllantiam  luam  ollcndat.  Tamen  Sc 
 iic,  nihil  iuterelh  Nam  etfi  Deus  nondum  Sermonem  fuuni 
 miferat,  proinde  eum  cum  ipfii  Sc  in  ipl^i  ratione  intra  femet- 
 ipfum  habebat,  tacite  cogitando  &  difponcndo  fecum,  quae  per 
 Sermonem  mox  erat  di^turus.    yidv.   Piax.  c,  5:. 
 
 "ment: 
 
Qiull.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  113 
 
 "  ment.  For  tho'  God  had  not  yet  emitted 
 "  his  Wordy  neverthelefs  he  had  ic  within 
 *^  himfelf,  with  and  in  his  Reafon ;  Tacitly 
 *'  conceiving  and  forming  within  himfelf 
 "  thole  Tilings,  which  he  intended  prefently 
 '^  to  j^eak  forth  by  \mWord"  Now  This 
 Speaking  forth  by  his  Word,  By  zfobich  all 
 Things  were  forme d<f  and  made  to  appear  in  their 
 f  roper  Suljiances  andKjnds  •  was,  asThis  Writer 
 "  thought,  the  (i)  perfett  Generation  of  the 
 "  Word:  it  havinghad aTroduciion  before ^un^ 
 *'  der  the  Name  of  Wifdom :  hy  which  G'^d  form- 
 *'  ed  and  difpofed  in  hts  own  Mind  thofe  Things^ 
 ^'  which  afterwards  (b)  the  fame  JFiJaomfpoken 
 ^'  forth ^  and  then  becoming  properly  the  Word^) 
 ^'  pe  created  external!). ^^  This  is  the  Subftance 
 of  Tertullianh  obfcure  Metaphyfical  Language^ 
 He  compares  the  Word  of  God  to  the 
 internal  Word  or  Reafon  arifing  from  the 
 Thought  and  Reflexion  of  a  M^/i^'s  Mind,  and 
 becoming  Verbal  by  being  contained  in  Words 
 tacitly  or  mentally  expreffed.  But  whereas 
 the  External  Word  0^3,  Man  is  formed  by  the 
 Vibration   of  the  Air,    without  having  any 
 
 (i)  Utprimum  Deus  voluit  ea,  quae  cum  fophiae  Ratione  & 
 Sermone  difpofuerat  intra  fe,  in  fubftantias  &  fpecics  fuas  edc- 
 
 rc;  ipfum  primum  protulit  Sermonem, -ut  per  iplum  fie- 
 
 rent  Univerfa. Tunc  igitur  etiam  ipfe  Sermo  Speciem 
 
 &  Ornatum  fuum  fumit,  Sonum  &:  Vocem  ;  cum  dicit  Deus, 
 fiat  Lux,  Haec  eft  Nanviras  perfe6la  Sermonis,  dum  ex  Deo 
 procedit;  ci'w/^i/^i^  abeo  primiim  ad  Cogltatum  in  Nomine  SophU ; 
 Dom'tnm  condidit  me  tn'itium  Viarnm  :  Dehinc  Generatus  ad 
 effedlum;  chm  pararet  coehimy  aderam  i'di  fi/nul.  Exinde  eum 
 parcm  \^the  true  Reading  (See  above^  P-o^-)  "  midoHhtedly  Pa- 
 trem]  libi  faciens,  de  quo  procedendo  fiiius  fadus  eft.  ibid, 
 c.  6,  7. 
 
 I  diftinfit 
 
it 
 
 1 1 4  Of  the  Vnttj  of  God. 
 
 diftincl  perfonal  Subjlflence  ,  he  thought  the 
 Word  of  God^  externally  produced,  was  a 
 FA  R  T  or  confuhfta^itial  Emifiioa  of  the 
 Divine  Suhflance^  and  fo  a  diftinct  (i)  Ferfo- 
 nal  and  fubfifting  Being,  And  this  was  the 
 Doflrine  of  the  Montanifts, 
 
 However,  in  the  main,  the  Olfervations 
 I  made  above  (^.  109.)  upon  oAthefjagoras^  are 
 apph'cable  to  This  yluthor  likewife. 
 
 Theophiha^  Bifhop  of  oAntioch^  expreffes 
 himfelfThus.     *' God,   fays  he^    (2)  having 
 
 his  own  internal  Word  (or  Reafon)  within 
 *^  himfelf,  generated  it  together  with  his 
 *'  V/ifdom  "  [viz.  the  Holy  Sprit  •,*]  ''  emit- 
 "  ting  it  before  the  Creation  of  the  World. 
 "  This  Word  was  his  Mitiifferial  Agent  in  ma- 
 *'  king  Things,  and  By  Him  did  he  make  All 
 *'  Things."  ^gain :  "His  holy  Word,  fays  he^ 
 *'  who  was  always  prefent  with  him."  Again  : 
 (5)  The  Truth  is,  that  the  Word  (or  Rea- 
 *'  fon)  was  always  internally  exiftent  in  the 
 "  Heart  of  God.  For  before  any  thing  was 
 ^'  made,  he  was  his  Counfellor,  as  being  his 
 
 (j)  Qiianto  magis  quod  ex  ipfius  fuhflantia  mifTum  efl,  fine 
 Snbjiantia  nonerit?  Qusecunque  txgo Subjiantia  Sc;monis  fuit, 
 illam  dico  Perfonamy  &  illi  nomeii  ¥ily  vindico.  ihiJ.  c.  7. 
 
 o>ift»v    tStov  rvv   ?^oyov  i^jv  e/^yf-ycv  tUv  Xjzs-'    itv\i  yiyivi)ii,ivuv,  >^   i^C 
 iKVTou  TK  rvtcvToc  T^iTcoir^yAr ■^^ ^gaiTi '.    o  Aoy<^    6   ccyse^  atvrcu,    0  *« 
 
 trvf/jzjucm  ocvTw.    Ad  Autolyc.  p.  81,  81. 
 
 ^flc  §icZ-     C7\!3   yi  ri  */iv£o^,  ToZrcn  H^t  (rvfiif^aXov,  ixvrcv  vouv    >^  ^(io- 
 i>t)(ri\  ovrcc'  oTTors    ^    ij3-£A»jo-<v  6   Bsoq   TfoiHa-ui    '*<re&    i(i^Xiv(rUTo,   toutcv 
 
 iyTP^  Tcu  Aoyy,  «r>Aa;   Aoyoj*  y£K>'Jir<»5,   **♦  T«  X^yu  uvToZ  hccxxvTc^ 
 cf/,iAcir    ibid,  P,  Jiy. 
 
 •'  own 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  ii5 
 
 *'  own  IntelleQ:  and  Wifdom.  But  when  God 
 *'  Willed  to  nnake  thofe  Things  which  he  had 
 *'  purpofed  with  himfelf,  he  generated  and 
 ''  produced  this  Word  ^or  Reafon^)  fo  as  to 
 ''  become  the  Firfi-born  of  the  whole  Creati- 
 ^'  on.  Not  being  himfelf  hereby  emptied  of 
 *'  his  own  Word  (or  Reafon,)  but  begetting 
 *'  the  "  {^Perfon  [tiled  the]  ^'  Word^  and  con- 
 <'  verfing  always  with  him."  This  "Begotten 
 Perfony  Theofhihs  exprefly  ftiles  a  (i)  nwii- 
 jlerial  Jgent  ^  and  goes  fo  far  as  to  affirm 
 him  to  be,  (what  he  had  firft  fhown  that 
 'twas  impojftblc  for  the  Supreme  God  and  Fa- 
 ther of  the  Universe  to  be,  even  fo  much  as 
 by  any  (2)  o\]umed  A^pearauce^  made  (3) 
 Vifibky  and  (^)  Comprehenfible^  and  fent  in 
 certain  (3J  particular  Pla^^esy  in  order  to  do 
 the  IVill  of  Another  Perfon.  From  which 
 Expreffions  'tis  evident,  that  the  Obfervations 
 m3.dQ  above^  (/^.  109J  upon  Jthef^agoras^  are 
 (if  poflible)  more  dearly  true  of  Toeophihso 
 
 {i)  'YTTupyov'  As  above. 
 
 (z)  Ex  primaevorum  Doi^orum  fententia,  Deus  pater  i 
 iicmine  unquain,  ne  per  afTumptas  quidem  fpecies,  vifus  ell, 
 aut  videri  poteft.     Bull.  Defenf,  Seti.^.  c.  3.  §.4. 
 
 (3)  Having  faid  that  the  Supreme  God  and  Father  of  the  Uni^ 
 ^erfe  is  incomprehenfible  [u.x.u^v^ro^.,']  and  not  contained  in  any 
 particular  Place,  [Iv  totm  »>6  ivsJia-Kirca^  P.  izp;  (for  which 
 Reafon  he  had  obferved  before,  that  he  is  invifible,  P.  14;) 
 he  declares  that  the  Wordy  reprefem'mg  the  Perfcn  of  the  Father 
 and  Lord  of  all^  defcended  into  Paradife  to  converfe  zvith  Adam.* 
 ihid.    And  prefently  after,  he  fays ;  cttot  uv  /BisMTui  0  Trec-ntp  rat 
 
 cXuVy    TTif/jTTH   OiVTVV     (j^V    ^loyo)/)        «^     TIVCC    TV^OV'     O?    TTCCpccyiVO fjttiv(^    f^ 
 
 HKiSiTca,    y^   o^rui^  7irifJij7rofjui9(^  hx    kvrov,  }^    cv   tpVw  iVQ^a-KircCi. 
 
 p.  130.  Upon  which  and  the  like  PalTages,  the  Learned  Bifhop 
 Bull  fays :  Fateor  tne  ad  ifturn  lafidem  olim  ojfcndlffe.  And  ;  jid 
 ffiira  ijla  Patrum  difta^  qajs  non  ^hn^^  obfipipefiat !  Defenf. 
 Seft.  4.  c  3.  §.  I,  5i  4, 
 
 I  2  The 
 
1 1 6  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 The  Learned  Bifhop  Bull  (i)  indeed  Is  defi- 
 rous  to  have  it  thought,  that  Totoj^'^ihs  fuf- 
 Poffd  the  Word  to  have  been  as  much  a  Son^ 
 2L  begotten  PcrJo?i^  really  u:per^$  and  aVieaey®-, 
 lefo'e  the  onlj  gefieration  of  him  ever  menti- 
 oned by  Theophtlmj  as  Jfter  it.  And  This 
 he  infers  from  Tbeophdm's  ftyhng  the  hiternal 
 Word  or  Re^Jbn  of  God,  his  Cou?/fellor;  and 
 faying  that  he  was  oAlways  with  GoJ^  and 
 that  God  Always  converfed  with  him.  But 
 that  the  Inferen*cc  he  draws  from  thefe  Ex- 
 preflions,  does  not  follow  ^  is  evident  from 
 what  the  Learned  Bifliop  had  himfelf  juft  be- 
 fore obferved  upon  a  Paltage  of  Tatian  to  this 
 very  Purpofe,7;i^.  that 'tis  a  very  common 
 ExpreiTion,  (2)  "  No  Body  was  with  me^  hut 
 '"-myfelf''  And  he  accordingly  allows,  that 
 God  may  be  faid  to  be  prefep^t  with  Himfelf. 
 And  afterwards,  on  this  very  Argument,  he 
 produces  (9)  Tt^rtulUan  dcfcribing  a  Man 
 talking  and  convey fmg  with  Himfelf^  i.e.  with 
 the  Reajon  of  his  own  Mind.  Befides,  When 
 Tbeophiim  fays  that  God  converfed  Always 
 ivith  his  Word^  he  may  very  well  be  under- 
 wood in  That  Pajjage  to  mean,  oAfter  he 
 was  begotten.     For  his  Phrafe  is  ;    *'  Beget-- 
 
 (0  Dcfenf.  Fid.  Nic  Sea.  3.  c.  7-  P-  us- 
 
 (1)  Nemo  mecum  eiat  pra:ter  meipfum.    Defenf.  Fid.  Nic, 
 
 Seii.  3.  C.6.  p.m. 
 (3)  Vide  cum  tacitiis  tecum  ipfe  congiedcris  ratione; • 
 
 Quodcunq;  cogltaveris,  Sermoell ;  quodcunq;  fenferis,  ratio  eft. 
 
 Loquaiis  illud  in  animo,  neccfTe  cl] ;  &  dum  loqueris,   conlo- 
 
 CLitorcm  pateris  Sermoncm. Adv,    Frax,  c.  5;.    Defe7if. 
 
 I'id.  Nic,  ScCi.  3.  c.  10.  P.  zyj. 
 
 ^'  ting 
 
C( 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 Qii.  ir.    OftheVnitjofCod.  lU 
 
 **  tir.g  his  Wordy    cind  always  converjing  with 
 "  hm:' 
 
 The  interfoJated  Hip^oJytu^^   whom  you 
 
 are  very  fond  of^  e^rpreffes  his  Thoughts  Thus. 
 
 "  (i)  God  exifting  alone,  and  having  nothing 
 
 *'  co-eval  with  Hinifeif,  WilVd  to  create  the 
 
 "  World  :  And  by  Thought,  Volition,   and 
 
 ^'  Speaking,    made  it;    and   it  immediately 
 
 exifted,  according  to  his  Will. — -Yet  even 
 
 while  he  exifted  Alone,  he  was  Many  ^  For 
 
 *'  he  was   not  without  Reafon^  nor  without 
 
 Wifdom^  nor  without  Power ^   nor  without 
 
 Counfel  :  But  all  Things  were  in  him,  and 
 
 He   himfelf  was  every  thing.      When  he 
 
 "  WILL'D,  and  as  he  WILUD.'m  his  own 
 
 "  appointed  Time   he   manifefted  forth  his 
 
 ''  Word,  By  whom  he  made  all  Things.    For 
 
 '*  all  Things  that  were  made,  he  framed   by 
 
 *'  his  Word  and  Wtfdom  ^    creating  them  by 
 
 *^  his  Word,  and  adorning  them  by  his  Wi& 
 
 *'  dom.     He  made  them  therefore  according 
 
 *'  to  his  own  Will  ^    for  he  was  God.    But 
 
 (l)    0£«$   f/S''0^   Xj^xpX^JV,    KCCt   fJUnht  \^C>)V    HCVtZ     (Tt^'/'/^flOVOV^      £/3»Alj^JJ 
 
 xoa-fJtjov  KTia-cii'  6  Koa-f/jov   i',vor',^u<i^  ^'tXy^cru^  n,  y-Xi  (p^iyiocyjiv^  iTVot- 
 
 '^(TiV      a>    TTUfiOCVT l)CCC    TTXpi^il    TO    yiVOfA/iVOVy      CO<i     yiGiMTi]/ •»' AV' 
 
 Tce,  <^s  ju{sv®^  4)v,  7ro><v(5  h'  'art  f^  uXoy<^,  tin  a(rc<p(^,  in  ct^uvcc' 
 t(^,  iSTi  a^aXiVToq  viv'  TTKVTot  ai  KV  cv  ocvtu,  ocvroq  ■j  viv  to  ttuv 
 ''On  yiShiyiTiv,  kx^ok;  ^^iXi^<riv,  iOeth  tvv  ?^oyov  oivrou  KXipoTc  aiPicrf/^svoii; 
 Tap  tCDTo),  diUTDi,  'TTcc-ncc  iTzoi/iTir  TTUvrx  rf>  TIC  ytvofjtjivu,  S^^  Acya 
 Koii  <ro(PiXq  Ti^voi^iTcci,  >-oyco  ^  KTi^cJv,  (yo<piu.  3  x-oa-fjoaiy  iTTOiTicnv 
 iiv  u<;  iiB-i>in<riv,  ^ic(;  'f>  vjv  reov  j  yivof/jivuv  oc^X'/>y°v  ''''«  <rojJj^iiXciv 
 Koci  ipyxTM>  iyivYcc  Xoyov    ov  Xoyov  ix,^v  6v  iccvru,  cco^xrovn  ovrx,  ra> 
 
 XTi^OfAjiVa)  KCCjAjM  OfXTPV  I^CIU'  TT^OrcfXV  ipUVHiV    (pSiyyofJtjlv(B^,    KXl   ^ac,    die 
 
 <P&irtc,  yivvwv,  ^pe^xs,  rv^  KTicii  Kufnov  toi  loisv  voZv  xvtco  uqvu)  Trcorspev 
 opxrvv  VZS'un'^ovTX,  Tat  y ivcyjivv  x.o(rfXiU>  uopxrov  ovtx,  ofxrov  TTonT/oTTuq 
 2^1^  TO    <^xmixi  i<^^m   i  y,ctryj<^   (rc^^-Kvxi.  e^iwx^yj.      Contra  Noet. 
 
 p.  13. 
 
 I  3  "  he 
 
1 1 8  Of  the  Vnltj  of  God. 
 
 **  he  hegat  the  Word>  to  be  the   Head,    the 
 *'  Counfellor,  andthcFramer  of  the  Things 
 ^'  that  were  made.     Which  Word,  being  be- 
 *'  fore  Invifible  within  Hitnfelf,  he   made   to 
 "  become  Vifible  to  the  created  World  :  x\nd, 
 *'  fpcaking  forth  his  firfl:  Voice,  and  genera- 
 '*  ting  Light  of  Light,   he  brought   forth  a 
 ^*  Lord  to  the  Creation :  And  made  his  own 
 •^  [Mind  or^    Intellcd,    which  was  before 
 **  vifible   to  himfelf  alone   and    not  to   the 
 *<  World,  to  become  vifible  •,  that  the  World, 
 *'  feeing  his  Appearance,  might  be  faved." 
 Thefe   Words,   obfcure   and    metaphyjical  as 
 they  are,  fufficiently  fliow  'the  Author's  No- 
 tion '^  thuTbe  Onetfnhegotten  Impajfihle  God, 
 whom  he  had  been  fpeaking  of  juft  before,  ex- 
 ifted   JIo?ie  before  the  Creation  of  Things  , 
 but  yet  not  properly  Alone ^   becaufe  he  con- 
 templated  and   enjoyed  in  Himfelf  the  Full- 
 nefs  of  all   Perfefliions,    his  Reafon^  iVifmn^ 
 Towery    and  Counfel^    and  all  other  Divine 
 Excellencies,  by  which  he  was  as  it  were  a 
 Society  in  and  to  Himfelf.     Now  this  Riajonj 
 by  which  he  firft   internally  conceived  and 
 cont»'ived  all  Things,    he   Afterwards  by   a 
 Verbal  or  Vocal  Emiffion  (according  to  This 
 Jutbor'^s  Notion)     begat  into  the   Perfon  of 
 the  Word',   and   By   Him  did    he  make  all 
 things,    according  to  his  OWN  WILL  and 
 PLEJSUR  E.     Nor  is  there  in  the  whole 
 Paifage  any  the  lead  Intimation,    that  This 
 Author  had  any  Notion  of  any    Prior  Gene- 
 ration  of  the  Son.     Wherefore   the  Obferva- 
 tions  made  above ^  (r.  109.)  upon  Mkenagoras^ 
 
 are 
 
Qii.  If.    of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  i  \  9 
 
 are  perfe£lly  applicable  to  Ttjis  Author  like- 
 wife. 
 
 The  Learned  Bifhop  Bull  fuppofes  indeed, 
 that  the  Ti)  Reafon^  and  Wifdom^  on  account 
 of  which  The  One  God  is  by  This  Author  here 
 faid  to  have  been  always  [^^roAuV]  Maay  ;  are 
 the  Perfons  of  the  Son  and  Spirit.  But  That 
 very  learned  Prelate  feems  not  to  have  fuffi- 
 ciently  confidered,  that  (by  the  fame  reafon- 
 ing,)  the  Power  alfo,  and  the  Counfel^  menti- 
 oncd  in  the  very  fame  Sentence,  (are  yotgaAo- 
 7@^)  are  aL(To(p@^-,  are  oc<iijyotT©^3  are  cl^^Xi'or(^^ 
 muft  equally  have  been  underftood  by  This 
 Author  to  be  Terjms  exifting  before  with 
 God.  Nor  did  he  obferve,  that  it  is  [not, 
 the  Deity^  as  Later  Writers  fpeak,  but^  the 
 One  Unhe^otten  God,  even  the  Father,  who 
 is  here  figuratively  faid  tobeMa;;^^.  lSlor,lafl:ly, 
 need  I  to  take  notice  of  the  Bifhop's  citing  at 
 the  fame  time  other  fpurmis  Pieces  of  this 
 confeffedly  interpolated  Author. 
 
 La&antim^  having  faid  (2)  that  *' God,  the 
 ^'  Framer  and  Maker  of  all  Things,  before 
 
 I  4  ''  he 
 
 (O  Defenf.Fid.  Nic.  Scft.  3.  c.8.  P.I19. 
 
 (i)  Deus  Machinatof  conftitutorq;  rerum,  antequam  praecla- 
 rum  hoc  opus  mundi  adoriretur,  fanclum,  incorrupribilem 
 Spiritum  genuit,  quern  fitium  nuncuparet.  Et  quamvis  alios 
 poftea  innumerabiles  per  ipfum  creavifTet,  quos  Angelas  dici- 
 mus,  'magna  inter  hunc  Dei  lilium,  &  caeteros  An^e^ 
 
 Us  differentia  eft.  Illi  enim  ex  Deo  Tac'iti  Spiritus  exierunt ; 
 quia  non  ad  Do^rinam  Dei  tradendam,  fed  ad  minifteriuin  crea- 
 bantur.  llle  vero,  cum  fit  &  ipfe  fpiritus,  tamen  cum  Foee  5c 
 fono  ex  Dei  ore  proceffit  ficut  Verbam:  ea  fcilicet  ratione, 
 quia  voce  ejus  ad  populum  fuerat  ufurus,  id  eft,    quod  ille  Ma- 
 
 gijler  futurus  ellet  DotlrinA  Dei^ &  Vocem  Dei  ac  Volun- 
 
 tatem  nobis  revdaret^    Merito  igitur  Sermo  2^  Ve/bttm  Dei  di- 
 
 citur, 
 
I  ao 
 
 of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 **  lie  begun  this  glorious  Work  of  tlie  Crea- 
 *'  tion,  begat  an  holy,  incorruptible  Spirit, 
 •^  whom  he  called  his  Son,  far  Superiour  to 
 **  all  the  Angels  :"  adds  frefentU  after^  that 
 **  This  Spirit,  the  Word^  proceeded  forth  from 
 <^  the  Mouth  of  God  with  a  Voice  and  Sound, 
 '^  denoting  that  God  intended  iofpeak  byWm 
 '^  to  his  People,  that  is,  that  He  was  to  be 
 ^'  the  Mafler  (ov  Teacher^  who  fhould  deliver 
 *'  toxxsth^DoHrhie^  and  reveal  to  us  the 
 "  Voice  and  Will  of  God.  He  is  therefore 
 "  rightly  termed  the  Sf^eech  and  Word  of 
 ^*  God  :  Becaufe  God,  by  the  inconceivable 
 **  Power  and  Might  of  his^  Majefty,  formed 
 *'  the  Focal  Spirit ^  which  proceeded  out  of 
 ^'  his  Mouth,  and  which  he  had  before  con- 
 ''  ceived  in  his  Mind,  into  a  real  Perfon^  fub- 
 *'  fifting  with  a  diftincl  Life  and  Wifdom  of 
 "  his  own."  The  Learned  Bifliop  (i; 
 Bull  gives  up  This  Q,4uthor  ^  as  not  re- 
 concileable  with  His  Opinion.  And  he  is 
 much  lefs  reconcileable  with  your  Opinion ; 
 who  allow  not  That  real  Mediatorial  Suh- 
 ordifiation  a?id  Wor(l)ip^  which  the  Learned 
 Bifliop  allowed  ,  and  contend  for  That  £• 
 quality  of  Supreme  Q/luthorit)\  which  the 
 Bifhop  did  not. 
 
 citur,  quia  Dens  procedentem  de  ore  fuo  vocalcm  Ipiritum, 
 OjUem  noil  utero  fed  mente  concepcrat,  incxcogitabili  qundam 
 Majclhtis  fuse  Virtute  ac  potcntia  in  efJigieTn^  quae  propria  fen- 
 fu  ac  SnplentU  vlgcat,  compiehcndit.  Dc  vera  Sap.  lib.  4. 
 §.  6,  i^  8. 
 {:)  Defcnf.  Sefl.  3.  «p.  10, 
 
 '^uflin 
 
Qu.  IL    Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Juftin  Martyr  (i)  undertakes  to  prove  from 
 the  Scriptures  ;  "  that  in  the  Beginning,  be- 
 *'  fore  all  Creatures,  God  begat  from  Himfelf 
 **  a  certain  rational  Power  [or  Powerful  In- 
 **  telii^ence^  which  is  called  by  the  holy  Spi- 
 **  fit  fometimes  the  Glory  of  the  Lord^  fome- 
 *'  times  the  Son^  fometimes  Wifdom^  fome- 
 *^  times  the  oAngel^  fometimes  God^  fometimes 
 "  Lord^  and  fometimes  the  Word.  Some- 
 "  times  he  calls  himfelf  T/j^  Chief  Captain^  as 
 *'  when  he  appeared  in  humane  Form  to 
 *'  Jojlm^,  For  he  hath^//  thefe  Appellations, 
 **  both  from  his  minifiring  to  the  IVill  of  the 
 *'  Father,  and  from  his  being  hegotte^i  of  the 
 ^^  Father  By  his  Will.  Something  like  to 
 '^  which,  we  fee  in  our  felves.  For  by  emit- 
 **  ting  [ov  Jpeaking  forttf]  Reafon,  we  ('as  it 
 *'  were)  heget  it ;  yet  not  by  way  of  abfcifG- 
 *'  on,  as  if  our  own  internal  Reafon  were 
 *^  thereby  diminiihed.  In  like  manner  we 
 *'  feealfo  one  Fire  kindled  from  another,  with- 
 <'  out  any  Diminution  of  That  from  which 
 ^^  it  was  kindled  ;>  which  continues  flill  the 
 '•  fame.    And  That  which  is  kindled  from 
 
 (l)  "^  On  cc^yjui  cs^  Tncvruv  rav  KriT/t^ruv  o  S-«o?  yfyj^wjjxs  ^uvecfjutv 
 ^ivcc  fe|  iccvroZ  MytKKv,  J1TJ?  xft»  A^l^e  kvq/.u  xszs'o  roZ  7rvivyjdt,T(^  tow 
 tiylii  KccXiVrxi,  Tron  -^  hioc,^  TTon   ^   ^o(pix,  Trcn    j  '  AyfiX(^,  ttctt;   ^ 
 
 Uv6pc,):rit  fjuo^^vj  (pxviVTU  rca  roZ  Ncttio  'Ijjjtcw-    't'X,eiv  ■p'TTci'jru.  7rpo(rcyct/jX- 
 
 (^gfS^    £«T£    t5     VZS-yi^iTii)/    TOO    TTCiT^ly.M    Pi^>y,fJ!jXTl,    idj    0^    ToZ  i»5To    TOU  TTCf.- 
 
 yov  6()U[/jiv'    hiyw  ya^  nvu  TrpojSoiM.ovn';}  Aoyov  yivvooi/jiv  i  kolt  ^sot- 
 
 TOfJJY^V     &)5     iXeCT'.OJ^'wCCi    T     Iv    YifAAV      XnyoV,     7r^of2l/,?\^C ^fVoi'      }^     OTTcXw    tTTi 
 
 TTvpcq  opufjuiv  esAAo  ymofXiiiov,  jjji  IXccrlayjiva  iKiiva  i\  «    v^  uvui^/iq  yeyo- 
 Viv,    ocXXct  y   c6VT»  fjOivci/r(^'    V.   TO  i\  u-jtS  clvoc(phv,    yl  civro  ov  (pcclyt- 
 
 rui,  iSK  lxxr\«co^v  iKuvo  il  l  kvy,(p&yi.     Dial,  cum  Try  ph.    p.  183, 
 l£4.  Jeh, 
 
 I  21 
 
lit  of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 -'  it,  continues  to  exift,  no  way  diminfflifng 
 *^  the  Other  from  which  it  wa:>  iigli  ed." 
 This  Notion  o{Ju(iin^  is  intelligible  enougli  \ 
 (and  perhaps  is  what  fome  ot  the  forecited 
 more  otfcure  Venters  really  meant,  though  the 
 Philofophj  of  That  Age  led  them  into  very 
 {lark  Expreflions.)  ^/ One  Fire  is  lighted  from 
 another  Fire,  without  any  Abfciilion,  Divi- 
 fion,  or  Diminution  ;  the  original  Fire  lofing 
 nothing  thereby  of  its  own  Light  or  Heat : 
 So^  (allowing  always  for  the  Difference  be- 
 tween unintelUgeTit  NecejfUy^  and  hitelligenp 
 GAge7tcy :)  God,  the  Firft  and  Alone  unorigi- 
 nate  intelligent  Rational  Agent,  produces 
 from  Him/elf  (by   his  incomprehenfible  (i) 
 
 Power  and  iV^ll^    ^vvcl/jm  ?cctl  S-eAvicrei  xcLi  /EyAv?) 
 
 another  intelligent  Rational  Agent,  a  perfect 
 Image  and  Refemblance  of  Himfelf,  without 
 any  way  altering,  abfcinding,  dividing,  or 
 diminifliing  any  thipg  from,  his  own  effentially 
 and  unchangeably  inherent  perfonal  or  fub- 
 ftantial  Perfetlions. 
 
 Novatian    exprefles     himfelf    Thus.     (2) 
 "  From  whom,  (liz.  from  God  the  Father,) 
 
 wbeu 
 
 (i)  Eufehim  in  like  manner,  fpealdng  of  the  Comparifon  of 
 the  Son  of  God  to  Light y  makes  This  difference  :    li  p  auyl,  » 
 
 fii^of'  0  -^  [hoc,  Kccra,  yyci)u,i)v  koci  xpecci^iortv  ukuv  \}zs'ts'>j  5  x»Tfio<i. 
 •*  The  Light  (ly'ineth  forth  y  not  by  the  Will  of  the  Luminous  Bo~ 
 •*  dy,  but  by  a  necejjary  Property  of  its  Nature:  But  the  Son  of 
 •*  God  isy  by  the  Defign  and  Will  oj  the  Father,  hii  Subfiantial 
 "  Image."     Dcmonfl.  Evang.  lib.  4.  c.3.  p.  148. 
 
 (1)  Ex  quo,  qiiando  ipfe  voluit,  fcimo  filius  nntus  eft;  qui 
 Bon  in  I'ono  pcrculB  Ac-ris,  aut  tono  coacftx  de  viiccribus  vocis 
 accipitur,rcd  \\\  fubflanttJi  prolatx  aDco  Virtutis  agnofcitur.  — 
 Hie  ergo,  quando  Fater  ^(^/w//,   procelTit  ex  pane:  Et  qui  In 
 
 patre 
 
Qu,  II.    Of  th  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  %  j 
 
 .''  when  he  Willed,  the  Word  his  Son  was 
 *^  begotten  ^  the  I^F^rt/,  not  produced  as  Sound 
 "  is  by  the  Vibration  of  the  Air,  or  as  the 
 *'  Tone  of  the  Voice  by  the  Organs  of  Speech, 
 "  but  as  a  Subftantial  Tower  {ov  R^,J  Per- 
 "  f^^)  proceeding  forth  from  God."  oAgain : 
 **  He  therefore,  when  the  Father  WilPd,  pro* 
 *'  ceeded  forth  from  the  Father.  And  He  who 
 *'  was  In  the  Father,  becaufe  he  wsisfrom  the 
 *^  Father,  was  afterwards  With  the  Father, 
 *'  becaufe  he  proceeded  for th/r<5/^/ the  Father  ^ 
 *'  even  That  divine  Subflance  (or  PerfonJ 
 ^^  which  is  called  the  Word^    by  whom  all 
 
 ^^  Things  were  made. ^And  juftly  is  he 
 
 ^'  Before  all  Things,  feeing  all  Things  were 
 *^  made  B>' [or  Through^  him  ;  who  proceed- 
 ^'  ed  forth  fromG^^^,  atwhofe  JV/ll  all  Things 
 *'  were  made  •,  God  verily  proceeding  forth 
 ^'  from  God,  fo  as  to  be  a  Second  Perfon,  and 
 *'  yet  not  taking  away  from  the  Father  the 
 "  Prerogative  of  being  [abfolutel)']  The  One 
 "  Godr 
 
 Thefe  PafTages  very  plainly  fliow  the  Senfe 
 of  thefe  Antient  Authors,  that  the  Son  was 
 begotten  By  the  WilJ^  that  is,  by  an  Ati  of 
 the  Father  ^  (not  only  ^i\on@^  wdur^o^^  ac- 
 cording to  St.  Auftinh  Quibble,  unknown  to 
 all  thefe  Antient  Writers ,  but  S'eAWi?  J'uvct^eb 
 
 patre  fuit,  quia  ex  patre  fuit,  cum  patre  poftmodum  fuit,  quia 
 ex  Patre  proceflit;  fubftantia  fcilicet  ilia  divina,  cujus  nomen 
 
 eft  Verhumy  per  quod  fada  funt  omnia. Et  merito  ipfeeft 
 
 ante  omnia,  quando  per  ilium  fada  funt  omnia,  qui  proceffit 
 ex  Deo,  ex  cujus  voluntate  fa(5la  funt  omnia.  Deus  utiq;  pro- 
 cedens  ex  Deo,  Secundam  Perfonam  efficiens,  fed  non  eripiens 
 iiUid  patri  quod  U^US  eft  Dt-^.    De  Trmit,  c.  31. 
 
12  4  Of  the  Unity  of  God. 
 
 ^sXyj^)  by  the  ineffable  Power  and  Operation 
 of  his  Will^  before  all  ^''i)  Time. 
 
 I  fhall  conclude  This  Head  with  a  remarka- 
 ble PafTage  of  EuftUi^^  in  his  Letter  concern- 
 ing the  Determinations  of  the  Council  o! 
 Nice.  The  Oppofers  of  the  Arian^  at  That 
 •  Time,  affirmed  concerning  the  ^ojj^  that  (2) 
 he  had  an  exifience^  before  be  was  Begotte?i 
 into  a  Son.  The  Arians  affirmed,  that  (5J 
 he  was  Nothings  lefore  he  was  Begotten : 
 that  is,  that  he  was  Made  out  of  Nothings 
 Tlie  Council  of  li^ice  cenfured  this  Aflertion 
 '  of  the  Arians  :  And  Eufehitis  thus  apologizes 
 for  his  ftihjcrihing  to  That  Cenfure.  ''  I 
 *'  thought  it  not  unreafonable,  fajs  he,  to 
 *'  (4)  condemn  That  Pofition,  [The  Son  was 
 '^  Nothings  lefore  he  was  begotten  •,]  for  that 
 ^*  All  Men  confcfs  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
 •*  lefore  his  Ge?teration  according  to  the  Vlefli. 
 "  But  our  mofl:  religious  Emperor  CO  N- 
 *'  STANTINE  proved  moreover  by  Ar- 
 *'  guments  [_in  the  Council^']    that,    with  rcf- 
 
 ped  even  to  his  divine  Generationy    he  had 
 
 (( 
 
 (1 )  Qui  ante  omne  tempus  eft,  femper  in  Patre  fuilTs  dicen- 
 dus  eft.     Ncvatian.  de  Trinit.  c.  3 1 . 
 
 nod.  Arimin.  &■  Seleuc.  cr  Hilar,  de  Trinit.  lib.  4. 
 (1.)  Ufiiv  ym-zi^Avut,  »»  Iv.    Anathem.  Concil.  Nic. 
 
 (4)  Er<  yjyy  TV  c6vx;Tl[/,X7j^ioJ^  to  {tzstS  b*  yirjrfiyi'jxi  hk  tcv)  »»  ocTc- 
 sro)-  houAc'^r,,  rw  ttuo^  TTXTt  [x,  of/jr>?\6yi7(3^,  ilvxi  Uvtov  uiov  too  S-jow  i^ 
 ^s&  '^  Kx-Boi  (Tztf  Jtot  yivvyiTteiXi'  y,^/)  p  B-io(ptXi<^xT'^  yf/juv  (Seso-iAiw?  ra* 
 ?.oyM  KXTivytiux^iy  Kxl  KXTK  tIw  \vhov  xvTou  V£y;)j(riy  to  c^  •TTtLvrm 
 tkiuvAv  iivxt  KvTov    tTTn  kx\  cTptv   ivi^ynx  yivvK&yivxi,  oa^'CyUjii   nv  cv  ral 
 
 STflfcTg,!    ciyiVIKTUC,  CVT(^    TOV   XXT^oe,    clll    TTXTpaq,    CDq    icxi   fiX(nXlU(;  Xtl, 
 
 »^  <rUT»'^(^,  fC  ^'iL'JXfJtjH    cruYTX    ovt(^,    xa   ri   k^   kxtx    tx   xvtx  ^ 
 
 ixrtiwTfc^  iX'^iT<^.    F.pift.  Iiuleb.  ad  Ecclcf.   C^efar.  apud  Theo- 
 doret.  hb  i.  c.  li. 
 
 **  a  pn^y 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  ly 
 
 "  a  prior  exifience  before  all  Ages  ;  Fonfmuch 
 ^'  as,  Before  his  A3ual  Generation,  he  was  (i) 
 '*  Potentially  in  the  Father,  after  an  Unbegot- 
 ^'-  ten  manner  ^  the  Father  having  been  always 
 *^  Father,  as  alfo  always  King,  and  always  Sa- 
 ^'  viour,  and  Potentially  All  things,  always 
 ''  fimilar  and  without  any  Change/*  The 
 Learned  Bi(hop  (2)  Bull  fuggefts,  that  This 
 Paflage  in  Eufebius's  Epiftle,  may  perhaps  be 
 interpolated.  Yet  he  acknowledges,  that  This 
 very  Pailage  is  referred  to  by  Athanafnts^  who 
 was  Himfelf  contemporary  with  Eufebius, 
 Which  makes  it  very  improbable  that  it  fliould 
 be  fpurioufly  inferted  :  And  is  indeed  an  un- 
 deniable Proof,  that  the  Paflage  is,  not  added 
 in  Theodoret,  but  omitted  in  Socrates. 
 
 From  what  has  been  faid,  'tis  evident,  that 
 in  what  manner  foever  Any  Antient  \Vriters 
 fuppofe  the  ^on  to  have  been  Always  in  ths 
 Father^  and  that  he  was,  not  (It,  ^^  ovrca  Ttoiyi- 
 S-el^J  Made  out  of  nothings  but  (eV  t»  ^olt^o^ 
 ycvvyiS^iW)  Generated  from  the  Father:  {Both 
 which  AEls  ot  God,  viz.  Creation  and  Gene- 
 ration^ are  entirely  and  Equally  above  our  Ca- 
 pacities 5  we  being  no  wjy  able  to  comprehend 
 in  what  manner  ^v]y  thing  can  be  derived  ei- 
 ther from  the  Subftance  of  God^  or  from  any 
 internal  Tower  of  God^  or  abfolurely  out  of 
 Nothing  :)  Yet  in  This   Particular^   which   is 
 
 (i)  In  the  manner  dsfcribed  by  tlic  ^'re-cited  Authors.  There 
 being  no  need  that  the  following  Words,  "  Potentially  all 
 ''  thingi^'  ihould  he  taken  in  the  way  of  exa^  Similitude fhwt 
 only  of  general  Allu/un. 
 
 (z)  Deje?/J.  Sc^'i,  3.  f.  9, 
 
 the 
 
11 6  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 the  True  and  Only  Point  in  queftion  between 
 us,  the  Primitive  Writers  do  all  of  them  una^ 
 nimcujly  and  uniformly^  confiantly  and  invariably 
 agree  ^  that  the  Father  Alone  is  Supreme  in 
 Authority  and  Dominion^  and  that  the  Will  of 
 the  Father  is  the  Authoritative  Caufe  of  every 
 AB  of  the  Son.  Which  is  dircdly  contradifto- 
 ry  to  Tour  Affertion,  that  the  Son  is  as  truly 
 
 P.i.i,S3>''  The   ONE  SUPREME    God''   as    the 
 
 57-  Father  *,  God  "  in  the  fame  and  in  as  HIG  H 
 
 "  a  Senfe,  as  the  Father  Himfelf-^'*  that  is,  ha* 
 ving  equally  Supreme  andijidependent  Authority. 
 But  'tis  time  to  proceed. 
 
 ^-  ^S>  33*  Having  premiled,  that,  according  to  Tou^  the 
 *^  Father  and  Son  are  Both  The  ONE  5  C/- 
 "  P  RE  ME  God  •  Not  ONE  in  Perfon^  hut 
 "  in  Sub(lance  •,"  (Which  is  diredly  affirming 
 that  there  are  TH^O  Supreme  Gods  in  Perfon^ 
 though  fubfifting  in  Otie  undivided  Suhflarice  ^ 
 TWO  Supreme  Governours  of  the  Univerfe^ 
 though  fubfifting  in  One  com?non  metaphyftcal 
 Nature  or  Godhead  :)  you  proceed  to  f  upport 
 your   Affertion  by   the  following  Argument. 
 
 r.  28, 32.  Numerous  ^^  Texts  of  the  Old  Teflament^  in 
 **  which  The  One  Supreme  God  is  undoubtedly 
 *^  fpoken  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers  in  general 
 "  underflood  ofChrift :  "Therefore  they  under- 
 flood  Chrift  to  be  Himfelf  ''  The  One  Su- 
 *'  premeGod^'*  as  well  as  the  Father.  To  have 
 made  out  This  Confequence,  you  muft  have 
 proved  that  the  Antient  Writers /J?  applied  thefe 
 Texts  to  Chrift,  as  that  the  Manner  of  their 
 application  of  them  inferred  This  Conclufion. 
 
 Which 
 
Qii.II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  127 
 
 Which  if  it  ha  '  been  '\t  Cife  -^  how  comes  it 
 to  p^^s  th?t   ^h'jfe   Wr2'?ys    Tbemjelves  never 
 draw  thnr  Conclufion,    which  you  deduce  for 
 them  >  How  comes  it  to  p^fs  that  They  Them- 
 felves  n'ver  fay   thit  Chrift   is    The  One^  or 
 Thd  Only  God^  or     he  One  Supreme  God  .<?  Nay, 
 how  comes  it  to  pafs,  that  they  not  only  con^ 
 ftantly  applv  thefe  Titles   to  God  the  Father 
 only^  but  Many  of  them  exprefdy  condemn  the 
 applying  of  *"his  litle,    the  (i)   one  Supreme 
 God^  to  the  Perfon  of  Chrifl: ,  and  make  it  the 
 fame  Herefy^  to  fay  that  he  is  Himfelf^h^olute- 
 Jy  The  (2)  Lord  God  Almighty^  The  One  God^ 
 The  only  God^  as  to  fay  that  he  is  the  Ferfon 
 of  the  Father  .<?  This,  I  fay,  is  altogether  un- 
 accountable   upon   your    Hypothefis.     But  I 
 (hall  now  proceed  to  (how  you  d'lreBly^    that 
 the  Ancient  Writers  could  not  and  did  ?iot  aipply 
 the  Texts  of  the  Old  Teftament  to  the  Perfon 
 of  Chrift  in  the  Manner  you  fuppofe,  as  if  they 
 thought  him  to  be  Hiinfelf  The  One  Supreme 
 God,    Almoft  all  the  Texts  you  alledge,  repre- 
 fent  God  appearing  vifihly^  andfpeaking  to  the 
 Patriarchs  and  to  Mof^s )  Afcending^   or   Def- 
 cending  :  And  oft  u  at  the  Tame  time  fiyle  him 
 an  Angel  or  Malfen^^^er.     Now,  as  the  Scripture 
 declares  that  no  '*4an  hathfeen  God  at  any  Titne^ 
 and  that  Vone  hat^e  heard  his  Voice  or  feen  his 
 Shape^  John  i   18  ;  5,^7  :    fo  it  is   alfo  the 
 unanimous  Doctrine  of  all  the  Antients^  that  it 
 
 (i)  See  above,  on  P.  17,  18. 
 
 (z)  Tertull.  adv.  t'rax.  c.  2,.  No  vat.   c.  30,  31.    Eufeb.   Ec- 
 clef.  Theol.  lib.!,  c,  I.  lib,  i,  c.  4.    See  above,  on  P-  4- 
 
 was 
 
2> 
 
 128  Of  the  Vntty  of  Cod. 
 
 was  ahfiird  and  blafphemous  and  prophane  to  1 
 fuppofe  The  one  Supreme  God  either  (i)  ap- 
 fearing  or  [peaking  or  being  filled  an  Angel 
 And  the  Abfurdity  of  the  Suppodtion  (in  the; 
 manner  the  Antients  exprefs  it)  evidently 
 arifes  always,  not  from  the  confideration  of 
 his  Paternity^  but  of  his  Supremacy,  of  his  be- 
 ing the  One  Supreme  Self-exiflent  Independent 
 God  of  the  Univerfe.  The  Antients  therefore 
 applied  the  Texts  of  the  Old  Teftament  we 
 are  now  Ipeaking  of,  to  Chrift ,  not  as  being 
 himfelf  The  One  Supreme  God  of  the  Univerfe, 
 but  as  reprefenting  the  Perfon^  and  mini  firing 
 to  the  Will,  of  the  One  Supreme  God  and  Fa- 
 zher  of  All.  This  is  fo  exceedingly  clear  and 
 plain  to  any  one  who  has  with  the  lead  Care 
 look'd  into  Antiquity,  that  I  could  not  ima- 
 gine you  would  have  expc(Sed  any  further 
 Proof  of  it.  To  put  it  out  of  all  Doubt  with 
 you  therefore,  for  the  future  j  I  (hall  here, 
 once  for  all,  diftindly,  and  in  order ^  fet  before 
 you  the  full  Se?ife  ot  all  thofe  Antenicene 
 F.  29.  Writers,  from  whom  you  alledge  upon  This 
 Head  a  very  few  imperfed  Scraps. 
 
 The  Firft^  is  (2)  Juflin  Martyr.  Who  lays 
 it  down  5  "  That  no  one  who  has  the  lead 
 "  Senfe,  will  prefume  to  fay,  that  The  Ma- 
 "  ker  and  Father  of  the  Univerfe  left  the  fu- 
 
 (r)  Ex  primaevornm  Docflorum  fententia,  Deus  Pater  a  ne- 
 niine  unqiiam,  ne  per  ajjhnptas  (\\\\^tm.  [pedes,  vifiis  eft  aut  vi- 
 deri  potcQ.     Bull  Defenf.,  Sefi.  4.   c.  3.  §.  4. 
 
 (2,  j    Ov  rev  rro<>jTiov  rm  oXav  j^  Trartpu,  kcctocXittovtoc  tu  \jZJi^  trp«- 
 
 tx,uyj  To^i/,^(ru  uT^iTy.    Dial,  cum  Tryph.  P.  73-  Edit.  Gr. 
 
 *'  percasleftiai 
 
iC 
 
 Qii-  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 1 
 
 *'  percaeleftial  Manfions,  and  appeared  here  in 
 "  a  little  Part  of  the  Earth."     Wherefore  he 
 argues,    (i)  ''  that  the  God    who  fnake  to 
 "  Mofes^  faying  that  he  was  the  God  oi  Abra- 
 ^'  ham  &c.  was  not  The  Maker  of  the  Univerfe  ^ 
 "  but  it  was  That  Perfon,  wdio    fas   he  had 
 before  fliownj)  had  appeared  to  Jhrakam  &:c. 
 mmiftrhig  to  the  WiU  of  the  Maker  of  all 
 *'  Things  5    and   who  mintflred  alfo  in   like 
 '^  manner  to  his  Will  at  the   Judgment  on 
 '^  the  Sodomites. ^"^    This  he  had   before  pro- 
 ved in  many  Inftances.      Particularly  :  Ha- 
 ving   told    Trypho^     that  God  appeared    to 
 Abraham   at   the  Oak  of  Mamre,  with   two 
 Angels  fe?it  along  vinth  him  to  execute  Judg- 
 ment upon  the  Sodomites ;  fe?tt  along  with 
 him    (I  fay)  "by  (2)  Another  who  always 
 ^'  abides  in  the  Supercaeleftial  Manfions,  and 
 "  ?/ever  appeared  to  Any  •,  Whom  Qfijs  be) 
 "  we  underftand  to  be  The  Maker  and  Father 
 ''  of  the    Univerfe:''*    He   endeavours    from 
 hence  to  convince  Trypho  and    his  Friends, 
 "  (9)  that  befides  The  Maker  of  the  Univerfe^ 
 ''  there  is  another  who  IS,  and  in  Scripture 
 "  is  ftiled,  Lord  and  God  ^  who  is  alfo  called 
 '*  an  A?igel^  becaufe  he  carries  Mejfages  unto 
 
 l^iov  'A/3pcto4|U/,  &C.     <i>iA'  6  "i^SUxB-iU  vijcjTv  6;^$-ott  TaJ"A,5pak</0,&:c. 
 
 f/jm  rvf"  /SaAvj  oiyra  cUjOkue,  \}zs-/i[)£Tyi<rex.^.  ibid. 
 
 ^rfT^,  ov  TTo^wriJj    tuv   oXm  kcc)  ttutsccx,  vcSf/jiv.     Ibid.    P.  6S. 
 
 (3)  '^OTt  £>»  i^  XiyiTM  3-£o?  y^  x.v^i(^    srzp©-  usrsp    [lege  9r«2^] 
 
 xjzs-ip  ov  «^vA(^  3-jci?  ^K  sV'.    ibid. 
 
 K  "  Men 
 
1 5  o  Of  the  Vnilj  of  God. 
 
 '*  Men  according  to  the  Will  of  The  Maker  of 
 
 "  the  Uiiiverfe^    befides   whom   there  is  no 
 
 ^^  other  God."     Again,    he   endeavours  pre- 
 
 fently    after    in     like  manner    to   convince 
 
 them,  "  (i)  that  the  Perfon  who  is  faid  to 
 
 *'  havl;^  appeared  to  Abraham   and    to  Jacob 
 
 '^  and  to  Mofesj  and  is  ftiled  God  ,    is  qA7W' 
 
 "  ther  Perfon,  diftincl  from  the  God  who  is 
 
 *'  the  Maker  of  all  Things :  Diflinft,  I  fay,  in 
 
 •    *^  Number^  but  not  difagreeing  in  Will.     For 
 
 ^*  I  affirm  that  he  never  did  any  Thing,  but 
 
 ^'  what  it  was  the  Will  of  the  Maker  of  the 
 
 "  Ufiiverfe  (above  whom  there  is  no  other 
 
 "  God)   that  he  lliould    both  do  and  fay." 
 
 And  again  he  infers  prefently,  from  Gen.  19, 
 
 24,  (another  of  youi  Texts,)    *^  that  (2)  One 
 
 *'  of  the  Three  (Angels,)  who  is  alfo  God  and 
 
 *'  Lord^  and  who  Mi7iifters  to  Him  [^to  the  Su- 
 
 ^''  preme  Gocf]  which  is  in  Heaven  ,    is  Lord 
 
 "  of  the  [other]  Two  Angels. He,  as  the 
 
 "  Scripture  declares,  is  alio  Lord-^  having 
 *^  Received  Power  from  the  Lord  who  is  in 
 ''  Heaven,  that  is,  from  the  Maker  of  the  U- 
 *'  niverfe^  to  bring  upon  Sodo?n  and  Gomorrah 
 "  thofe  Judgments    which    are    recorded.'' 
 
 'lxKa)i3,  Kc/A  Tw  Mwg-«  u(p^cci  MyofA^tv(^,  x-tii  yiyfXfjttfjtji-^^  S-sc?,  irt- 
 f'o^  £>*  t5  tk  Tmvru  7ro»t)cr«yT(^  3-sy,^  oc^iff/jS  >.iya,  ccXX  s  yvaifjt>vi' 
 ^c^iv  »/>  <p>)JW/i  uvrtv  7rs7:fu.)^ivui  ^077,  vj  uznp  ccvto<^   6  tov  Koa-yjcv  ttch/i- 
 
 r«*.     Dial.  P.  69.  ^      _ 
 
 ^tifidfjiju.    ibid.  Pi  7i> 
 
 Whence 
 
<c 
 
 Qu.  IL    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  13^ 
 
 Whence  he  concludes  afterwards,  ^' that  (1) 
 *^  the  Scripture  fpeaks  of   two    Perfons   ia 
 *'  Number  ,    the  One  upon  Eartl\   who  def- 
 *^  cended  to  fee  the  Cry  of  the  Sodomites  ;  tlie 
 ''  0^/?^r  in  Heaven^    who  is  the  LORD  of 
 *^  r/?^/-  L^r^  w/;(?  was  ufon  Earth  •,    as  being 
 "  his  tather  andGod^  and    the   Canfe  of  his 
 Hxillence,  even  though  Be  alfo  himfelf  be 
 Potent^  and  L^r^  and  G^.'/.''    Again,    he 
 proceeds  to  prove,  ''  that  (2  )  the  Perfon  who 
 ''  appeared  to  the  Patrf  .Jis,  being  (tiled  God^ 
 "  halfo  called  both  a^t  y^;^^W  and  Lord -^^  that 
 <^  ye  may  learn  from  lence,  that  he  is"  Qnot, 
 The  O^ie  Supreme  Gody  but"]  ''  the  Mlnijler  of 
 ^'  f /^e*  f^/-/:'^y  ^j/'  ^/}^  UnlvtijeP     Then  he  goes 
 on  to  fhovv,  that  the  fame  Perfon^  who  had 
 appeared  to  the   Patriarchs  under  thefe  Cha- 
 raders,  (3)  "appeared  alfo  and  converfed  with 
 Mojes  5  mimjlrif/gj  as  had  been  before  fliown 
 "  in  many  Inftances,    to  The  Supreme  God^ 
 ^'  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God.''    And 
 again,  in  another  Place ;    "  (4)  I  have  fliov/a 
 
 (l)  Ay'o  ciTocc,  upi6f/jS  f/jUMuii  0  Aoy©^  0  ;rpa<p>jT«Kj!?'   rev  f^  irr\  y*i^ 
 
 '9"£5?,   OUTkO'i   Ti  CtVTM    t5    ilvUly    JCStt    eJ\jlJVXTa     KCH     KV^llV     X.CH   B-iU.        Ibid. 
 P.     III^.  ^  '       ^ 
 
 rSvTcc  Tci  rm  oXuv  ^cctq^.     ibid.  P.  72. 
 
 ( 3)  '  Ori  &iyT<35   s^T@-    fAB'J^,  xecl   xyfiX^^   xcjAy^jfy^,    >c«<    $•£:$ 
 
 vTTZifiZ^v,  c<<p6-/)  Koci  7i^o<r&)yAX/iTi    TM  M(Wir£?— -Tcv  oi'jrss'  A£y«,  ay 
 
 ;^  Jikjrt,  TroXXm  ruv  XiXzyf/jiY&'Vf  vTnqfiT^vrex,  ra  (jTTio  KoTf/iov  B'i£,  uTiif 
 *v  u'AA^  ay,  W'  'ho(i.     ibid.  P.  74. 
 
 (4)  Ort   r^  'lyi(rS^    hv  6  MsoasT  km  tw  'AQosiXfx,   xxi  roTr,  uXXoi^  k" 
 
 rxv,  his^il^i.    ibid.  P,  109, 
 
 K  2  'Xfays 
 
 a 
 
131  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ^^  (f^^y^  '^O  that  it  was  Jejii^s  who  appeared 
 "  and  coiiverfed  with  Mofcs  and  Abrabam 
 "  and  the  other  Patriarchs;  fni?iilrtng  to 
 ''  the  Will  of  tlie  Fatbey?'*  And  again  j  he 
 (i)  fays,  that  Chrift  "  had  all  the  fore-men- 
 *'  tioned  Titles,"  [viz.  the  Glory  of  the  Lord, 
 S^;/,  Wifdom^  Angel^  God,  Lord,  Word^  and 
 Chitf-C^ftciin^  ''  from  his  MiniJIr'mg  to  the 
 "  W^/7/  of  the  Father^  and  from  his  being  Z?^- 
 ^^  gotten  of  the  Father  B)'  his  Will''  Once 
 more.  He  thus  lays  down  the  fame  Notion. 
 (2)  "  When  God  fays,  God  wait  tip  from 
 "  Alraham,  or,  ike  Lord  Jpcike  unto  Mofes, 
 ^'  and,  the  Lord  ^ucent  down  to  fee  the  Tow- 
 *^  er^  kc.  Do  not  imagine  that  the  Unbegot- 
 **  ten  God  himfelf  dtfctnded  or  afcended.  For 
 ^^  the  7iufpeakable  Father  and  Lord  of  all 
 ^'  Thingsl  neither  ^o^j-,  nor  walks  any  where  ^ 
 
 «'  . but  abides  in  his  Place,    where-ever  it 
 
 <t  15  ^  — never  moving,    nor  being  compre- 
 
 faaX/if/jccn,    ica,\    qm   toZ  0.7:0    7ou    T^ecrftaii    S-jAjjcrit    ytymyi^       ibid. 
 P.   74. 
 
 (1)  'Or(/.v  0    B-icq  Asy*/,  uviSii  6  B-ioc  uzs-o  'AS(.xsiU/,  h  iXxXrjrt  y.6- 
 fi(^   TZficCj   Muo-yi,  Kcci  Kci,Ti/iy)  Kifi(^  rev  7:vfyov  ihlii--  ■■  -^n  iiyiTSs 
 
 oiVTcv  Tcv  scymrirov  Biov    y,s!,TX}isi3)^x.ivui    ir,    ccvx/ZiSiiKivcn    rroB-iv   0  yuf 
 
 uoor,Toc,  TTccTTif)  Kxl  KV(noCj  Tuv  TizcvTUv,  iiTi  TTci  oLCplKj,    j^r£   'Z:^:;^ Cf.TiT^ 
 
 kX'A    h  Tvi  ctvToZ  X^?'^  <''"'"**  ^""^  f^iy'ii, iiTTs   yA\>^<yjivoqy  6  roTra  -j 
 
 ec^a^fr.rc^  kxI  rw  n^trfjuca  o<Aa>*— Tia^  c',v  «v  »to?  h  AiiA»)(r<«  Teo^Ti- 
 
 vXy  K  oCphU  riv],   y)  i'J  iXxxi^cf  F-'k^''  ^"^  ^'-inw:,  ottdts  yi  i^h  tIuj  ^c'^xv 
 
 ^  TTxp    oivToZ  ':7ifjtj<p6ivro^  i%tJ^v    6   Xxc^  i^Sv   tv  "Zivx  ;  '  Ovrt  arr 
 
 'A,Qfici)iUj,  HTi    la-xuKy  in  'lxx.it),3,   8T«  «AAo$  uvB-ptiiTrai/   uh  t  Trxirfx 
 
 Kxi   'xj)^KTOV    K'jpiCV    T&)V   "TTilVTekV   oLztXcOC,    XCiJ     X'JTOV    ^     X^iT^U,     OiXX     tKii- 
 
 vov  T  Kccrx  /38A>!V  tIui   iyniia  ««(  Bi3v  ovrx,  viQV  uvTou,  KXi  xyyiXov  IK 
 
 ^vz^Yi^iTUv  TVI  yy^^^  otvTcZ 'Etth  iuv   yj»    hTco     vcyi(rufjtjiv    tok; 
 
 V£(X<poi5,   (rvyj,S*i<rt^    T   TriiT^px  kuI  Ko^ioy  rw    cAiwn    fjjvi  yiyiv'i)^  Tort 
 
 iv  rc.c  a'pflftvcr^,  or*  o\^  Mutriu^  AkAsx.^,    kxI   ku^ic^    ifi^t^iv -ss-x^ 
 
 xvp/a  cV.  3^»«efrvc?,  tkc.  Ibiti.  P-.  119,  uo, 
 
 "  hendcd 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  1 3  3 
 
 <( 
 
 hended  in  any  Place,  no,  not  even  by  the 
 
 whole  World. How  then  fliould  he  [peak 
 
 '^  to^  or  he  feen  by  any  one,  or  apfear  m  a 
 ^*  little  Corner  of  the  Earth  ;  when  the  Peo- 
 *^  pie  on  Mount  Sinai  were  not  able  to  be- 
 "  hold  the  Glory  even  of  /;/;;;  who  was  Sent 
 '^  by  him?  > — Wherefore  neither  Jbraham.^ 
 "  nor  Ijhacy  nor  Jacol\  nor  any  other  Man 
 ''  ever  faw  him  who  is  the  lather  and  ineffa- 
 "  hie  Lord  of  all  Things  ahfolutely^  even 
 "  of  Chrift  himfdf:  But  they  faw  him^  who, 
 *^  By  the  Will  of  the  Father,  is  God  as  being 
 ^'  his  Son^  and  an  Angel  as  Mmijiring  to  his 
 
 ^c  jpr.jj^ jf   ^g  un'derftand  not  the  Scrip- 
 
 ''  tures  in  This  manner,  the  Confequence 
 *'  will  be,  that  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the 
 ^'  Univerfe  was  not  then  in  Heaven,  when 
 *^  Mofes  fays,  the  Lord  rained— from  the  Lord 
 "  out  of  Heaven^  Sec."  Agreeably  to  which,  he 
 tells  us,  (i)  ^"-th^Jews  are  jullly  reproved 
 ^'  for  imagining  that  it  was  the  Father  of  all 
 "  Thi?tgs  who  always  fpake  to  Mofes  ;  when 
 ^'  indeed  it  was  the  Son  ofGod^  who  is  cal- 
 ~*'  led  an  oAngel  and  Mcjjenger.'^ 
 
 From  all  thefe  and  numerous  other  Places, 
 'tis  undeniably  certain  Jaflin  did  not  think 
 that  the  Divine  Perfon  who  is  reprefented 
 appearing  vifihly  and  talking  in  the  Old-Teiia- 
 ment,  was  himfelf  the  Supreme  God  and  Ma- 
 her  of  all  Things^  or  the  ahfolute  Lord  of  the 
 Univerfe  ;  but  the  vifihle  Re^refentative  of  tlie 
 
 M<i  kUm"^,  ^ml»)<i  sMf^ovy    Apol.  ida,  P   161. 
 
 K  3  O^e 
 
134  Of  thcVnity  of  God. 
 
 One  Supreme  invifihU  GoJ.  z\ccordingly  ^is 
 very  obfervable,  and  you  ought  to  have  taken 
 Notice  of  it,  that  in  his  Application  of  tlie 
 Texts  of  the  Old-Teflament  to  Chrift^  the  Be- 
 ginning and  Conckifion  of  every  Argument  is 
 to  Ihow,  that  Chrift  is,  n^t  \}\^\  ^clvtcdv  ^tl^y 
 0  '^v^i(^  TOv  oAooh  0  "TCOiY.r^^  rcov  oAav,"]  abfoluts- 
 ly  the  One  Supreme  God^  Lord^  and  Maker  of 
 all   Things ;   but   always    fubordinately  [SeJ^ 
 
 x,ctl  /cJg{@-]  God  and  Lord^  the  Perfon  fliled 
 God  and  J;/gel  and  Lord^  and  the  like.  And 
 though  in  his  Application,  which  you  refer 
 to,  of  the  24th  FJalm^   he   does  indeed   ftile 
 
 3^'  Chiift  (y.v^i(^  S'vvdfj.iav')  Lord  of  Ho/is  -^  yet 
 he  exprefsly  tells  you,  that  he  is  fo  /i) 
 ''  according  to  the  Will  of  the  Father  who 
 "  Gave  him  this  Power."  And  again,  in  the 
 PalTage  above- cited  ;  that  "  tho'  he  is  himfelf 
 *'  both  Powerfid^  and  Lord  and  God^  yet  the 
 *'  Father  is  His  Lord  and  God^  and  the 
 "  Caufe  of  his  Exiilence."  Lafily,  Chrift  is^ 
 in  j!!fti?i\  Citation  of  Pf.  99,1,  ''  the  (2)  Lord 
 ^'  that  reigntth  from  the  Tree-^"*  i.e.  the 
 Lord  who,  disjuftin  argues,  was  made  {^cL^riioi) 
 'PaJJihle  by  the  Will  of  God  for  our  Sakes: 
 Plainly  fhowing  his  Opinion,  that  Chrift  was 
 
 31.  not  Ihe  Sffpreme  impaffiule  God.  But  j'o/i 
 have  thought  fit  to  leave  out  and  conceal 
 fiom  your  Reader   the  Words,     ''from  the 
 
 (\)    O?  i^i  »v'p«>5  J^ji,^x^ii^¥  >;«/-  TO  B-iXf.fljX  rov  AovTO';   clvTv  -TTit- 
 
 t:A.  Dial.  P.  91. 
 
 {2.J    O  v.uHe^  t,-3«ff-J>5V<r£v   «Vc   ^jv  |yAa.    Dial  P,  I5I. 
 
 "  Tree-;\ 
 
Q_ii.  II.     Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  1 3  J 
 
 "  Tree  ;,"  which,  no  doubt,  "juftiJi  found  in 
 the  Old  Greek  Tranflation  of  ?f,  99. 
 
 Before  I  leave  Jit(iin  Martyr^  it  will  not  be 
 improper  here  to  obferve,  that,  to  all  the  Places 
 in  Juflin\  unqueftionably  ge?iw?ie  Writings, 
 which  thus  exprefsly  declare  The  Word  to  be 
 the  Mimjier  of  God's  Will^  the  Learned  Bidiop 
 Bull  oppoies  ojie  Jingle  Parage  out  oi  ^n  Epi- 
 ftle  to  Diognetiis  ^  of  which  Epiftle,  Eufebim 
 makes  no  mention  in  his  Enumeration  of  the 
 Writings  of  "Jitjl'm  ;  and  it  is  judged  by  Learn- 
 ed Men  to  be  fpurious,  as  differing  in  Stile 
 and  Language  from  y«y?m's  unqueftioned  Wri-' 
 tingSc  Indeed  the  Author  of  this  EpifHe  de- 
 nying  in  exprefs  Terms,  what  Jujiin  conflantly 
 all  through  his  Writings  as  exprefsly  affirms 
 and  infifl$  upon,  viz,  that  the  Word  is  the 
 Mbiijier  and  the  Angel  or  Meffenger  of  God  ^  is 
 fuch  a  Mark  of  Spurioufnefs,  as  would  alone, 
 in  like  Circumftances  in  any  other  Cafe,  be 
 allowed  to  be  decifive.  The  Learned  Bithop 
 further  t?kes  notice,  f  i)  *'  that  ahnoft  all  the 
 '^  ancient  Catholick Writers,  before  Arius's  time,' 
 
 K  4  feein 
 
 (0  Veteres  Catholici  pene  omnes,  qui  Arh/m  praecefTere, 
 filii  Dei  invifibilem  atq;  immenfam  Naturain  ignoidde  viden- 
 tur.  Scilicet  de  filioDei  ita  aliquotiesloqiiuntur,  qua(i  is,etiani 
 fecundum  d'tvinam  ipliiis  Naturam,  iimtm  elfet,  vifbtlis,  6c 
 certo  aliquo  in  loco  inclnfus,  ac  veluti  cancellis  quibufdam  cir- 
 cumfcriptus.  Nam  ciim  probare  volunt,  cum  qui  Patriarchis 
 &  viris  Sandlis  Tub  -vet.  Tefi.  olim  apparuit  ac  locutus  eft  /eho- 
 vae  nomine  inlignirus,  ipfum  Dei  filium  fuifle;  hoc  fere  utua- 
 tur  difjun(5livo  Argumento ;  quod  vel  dei  filius  fuerit  qui  con- 
 fpe(5lus  eft,  vel  angelus  creams,  vel  Deus  Pater.  Creatumnoa 
 fuift'e  Angelum  inde  colligunt,  quod  Jehova  ac  Dem  a  Spiritu 
 Sandto  dicatur.    Patr«m  vero  non  fuiffe,  ex  eo  probant.  quod 
 
 i« 
 
cc 
 
 136  of  the  V nit)  of  Cod. 
 
 *'  feem  not  to  have  known  any  thing  of    th. 
 Invijibilhy  and  Immenfity  of  the  Son  of  God  : 
 That  thev^  often  fpeak  of  him  in  fuch  a  man- 
 *'  ner,  as  if,  even  in  refpeft  of  his  Divine  Vature^ 
 ^'  he  was  Finite^  Vijible^   and  Circitmfcrib'd  in 
 ^^  Place,     For  when  they  would   prove,    that 
 *'  the  Perfon  who  appeared  ^ndi  converfed  with 
 *^  the  Patriarchs  and  holy  Men  under  the  Old 
 ^'  Teftament  by  the  Name  and  Title  of  Jebo- 
 "  vah^  was  the  Son  of  God^    they   generally 
 *'  make  ufe   of  this   Difjunftive  Argument : 
 That  He  who  was  then  feen^  was  either  the 
 SonofGod^  ox  z  Created  A^igel^  or  God  the 
 "  Father,     That  it  was  not  a  Created  Angel 
 *'  they  conclude,  becaufe  he  is  filled   by  the 
 "  Holy  Ghoft,  Jehovah  and  God.     And'  that 
 *'  it  was  not  the  Father^  they  prove  ;    becaufe 
 •'  the  Father  is  Immenfe^  filling  all  Places,  and 
 *'  circumicribed  by  None;,  For  which   Reafon 
 *'  it  is  impious  ever   to  entertain  a  Thought, 
 "  that  He  appeared  in  any  particular  Place  and 
 *'  fmall  Corner  of  the  Earth  ;    As   if  indeed 
 "  this  might  be  (aid  of  the  Son  of  God,  right- 
 *'  ly  and  without  Danger.     And  by   the  fame 
 *'  Argument  they  teach,  that  the  Son  of  God 
 *'  is  vijible''     This,  That  Learned  Prelate  ac- 
 knowledges to  be  indeed  a  (ij  very  great  Dif- 
 ficulty^ and  fuch  as  had  once  been  a   (2J  Stone 
 
 \s(\K  Immenfus,  loca  replens  omnia,  niillo  inclufus;   ac  pro- 
 inde  ipfum  ceifo  Aliquo  in  loco  atq;  exiguo  terrae  angulo  ap- 
 pnruiflfe,  vol  cogitatu  nef^s  fit :    quali  fcilicet  id  ipfum    de  filio 
 Dei,  jure  nc  line  penculo  did  p(;rtet.    Pari  ratione  filium  Dei 
 V'tfibiletn  eflTe  iidcm  docenr.     Defenf.  T.N,  SeCt.  4,  c.  3.  F.2.67. 
 
 (i)  Nodus  vindicc  digniflimus.  ibid. 
 
 (2)  Father  mc  ad  litum  lapidcm  olim  offendilTe.  itidi 
 
 of 
 
 cc 
 
I  Qii.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod,  i  37 
 
 of  Stimblm(r  to  himfcif.     Ihc  Way  by  which 
 he  folves  and  reconciles  the  Expreffions  of  this 
 fort,    wb/ch^  he   tells  us,  (i)  run  through  the 
 Writings  of  almoft  all  the  Primitive   Fathers  ^ 
 is  This.     He  thinks,    they   meant    no    more, 
 (2)  "  th^n   that  the  Son,    who   is   by  l^ature 
 "  equally  Omniprefejit  andlnvijible  with  the  Fa- 
 *'  ther^  did  yet  cc?idefcend  to  appear   in  fame 
 *'  certain    Places,    i.  e,    ?nade    Hifnfelf   vijihle 
 "  unto  Men  by  fame  exter?ial  Symbols  of  his 
 ^'  Prefence^  when  he  declared  .unto   them   the 
 *'  CoTn?nands  and  Will  of  God  the  Father.'''  An 
 olvious  Obje&ion  immediately  offering    it   felf 
 agai.irt  This  Solution,    he   thus  takes  Notice 
 of :  f  5)  '*  Had  the  Fathers  meant  no  more 
 "  than  This;,  how  comes  it  to  pafs  then,  that 
 "  they  were  fo   exceedingly  careful  to  deny 
 "  the  poffihility  of  afcrifaing/w^/?  an  Appearance 
 '*  to  the  Father^  as  being  z//]'Z£;^rri?y  of  His  Sit- 
 "  preme  Majefty  .<?  For    even   God  the   Father 
 "  (it  may  be  thought)  might  equally  in  This 
 "  manner  have  manifefted  his  Perfon  to  Men, 
 "  without  any  Diminution  of  his  Majefty." 
 The   Anfiver   the  Bifhop  gives  to  This,   is  , 
 '*  that  Truly   the  Primitive  Doflors  judged 
 
 (i)  Non  in  iino  tantiim  &:  altero  fcriptore  Veteri  occurrat 
 fed  primaevorum  patrum  pene  omn'iuin  monumenta  percurrat. 
 \hid. 
 
 (1)  Ibid.  P.  168. 
 
 (3)  Si— -patres  idi  ^ —nihil  aliud  voluerunt, quor- 
 
 *uin  id  ipfiim  a  deo  patrc,  tanquam  Summa  ipfius  Alajeftate  in- 
 ii^mmy  tain  foUicite  removerunt?  dkc.  ilnd. 
 
 l^  plainly 
 
cc 
 
 C( 
 
 138  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ^  phinly  Otherwife:  (i)  For,  in  Their  Opi- 
 *'  nion,  God  the  Father  never  was  nor  ever 
 *'  could  be  feen  of  any  one,  no  not  even  by 
 <'  any  affwned  Symbols  of  his  Prefence.  He^ 
 "  having  no  Original^  is  SUBJECT  to 
 None  5  and  can  no  more  be  faid  to  be  Sent^ 
 than  to  be  begotten  by  Another.  On  ths 
 contrary,  the  Son  ofGod^  as  being  begotten  of 
 "  God  the  Father,  does  on  (2)  That  Account 
 **  certainly  owe  all  his  Power  to  the  Father, 
 *^  as  received  from  him  :  Nor  is  it  lefs  Honou- 
 *'  rabk  for  him  to  be  Sent^  than  to  be  Begot- 
 •'  ten^  of  the  Father.*'  From  thefe  Words 
 appears  the  Weaknefs  of  the  Diflin&ion  yoii 
 rely  upon  ,  vvz>.  that  the  Abfurdity  and  Blaf- 
 phemy  (mentioned  by  the  Antients)  of  fup- 
 pofing  the  Father  to  appear  at  all  as  a  Meffen- 
 ger^  even  fo  much  as  under  any  allumed  Sym- 
 bols of  his  Prefence  ^  confifts,  not  in  fuppo- 
 ling  The  One  Supreme  God^    but   in  fuppofing 
 
 (i)  Quippe  ex  ipforum  Sententia,  Deus  pater  a  nemine  un- 
 cuam,  ne  per  airuinptas  quidem  fpecics  vifus  efl:,  aut  videri  po- 
 tcft.  A  nul]o  ille  ortus  principio,  nulli  SUBjECTUS  elt  : 
 neq;  magis  ab  alio  Mjpa,  quam  ab  alio  natus  dici  poteft.  Con- 
 tra/////^  J3ei,  qua  ex  dco  Patre  natus,  eo  certe  nomine  patri 
 fuani  omnem  Aucf^oritatem  acceptam  refert-,  neq;  miniis  ipfi 
 honorificu?n  a  patre  Mitti,  quam  ex  patre  Nafci.  ibid. 
 
 (2)  The  Learned  Biihop  Pear/on  fpeaks  excellently  to  the 
 i^tmc  Purpofe.  ^'IVe  muji  not  fo  far  mdenvour  to  involve  our 
 *'  felvcs  in  the  Darknefs  of  This  Myjiery^  as  to  deny  That  Glory 
 •*  which  is  clearly  due  unto  the  Father;  zvhofe  Pre-eminencc 
 *'  undeniably  confijleth  in  This f  that  he  is  Gody  not  Of  any  Other, 
 *'  l/ut  Of  Himfelf;  and  that  there  is  no  other  Perfon  ivho  is  God, 
 **  but  is  God  Of  him.  It  is  no  diminution  to  the  Son,  to  fay  he 
 **  is  Fro?n  Another;  for  his  very  Name  ifnports  as  much.  But 
 *'  it  zvere  a  Diminution  to  the  Father^  to  [peak  fo  of  Him.  And 
 "  thtre  mufl  be  fome  Pre-eminence,  whert  there  is  place  for 
 *•  Derogiiion."  /'^j.  35,  Edit,  j^t//, 
 
 th 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
;CXu.  II.    Of  the  Vnlty  of  God.  1 3  p 
 
 \he  Father^  confidered   as  Father^    to    appear 
 in  fuch   manner :    The  Weaknefs    (I  fay)   of 
 This  Diftindion,  evidently  appears  from  Bi- 
 [hop  Bull's  own  Words.      For  the  ImpoJJibility 
 ^f  the  Father's  being  a  v'lfibk  Mejfenger^  is  not 
 founded  upon  his  Paternity^  but  upon  his  abfo-  c^ 
 [ute  Supremacy  -^  upon   That    "  Sitmma   Maje- 
 p  ftas^^'  his  being  Siibjed  to   tione^    ["  l^ulli 
 r  SuhjeBiis^''\  which  is  infeparable  from  his 
 oeing  the   unoriginate  Author  of  All  Ihings. 
 Mor  do  the  Primitive  Writers  ever   lay  the 
 ?trefs  of  This  Argument  upon  the  relation  of 
 ^ateniHy,  but  upon  the  SUP  RE  MA  CT  of 
 ^im  who  is  the  Father  of  Ail.      They   ac- 
 'ounted  it  Blafphemy  to  fay  or  to  think,  that 
 Fhe  One  Supreine   God^    (o  S^tlg  rZv  'o\m^^  the 
 'Supreme  or  abfolute  Maker  of  all  Things^    (o 
 to[y\r)\^  TOvoAojy,)  fhould  appear^  fpeak^  move ^  or 
 >e  Setit,     Nor  is  This  Argument  at  all  afFeft- 
 d  by  what  the   Learned  Bifhop  Bull  alledges 
 n  the  Place  before-cited  ,  that  fome  of  the 
 ame  Antient    Writers    who  argue    in  This 
 /lanner,  and   who  exprefsly  afTert   the  Son's 
 tppearing  by   the    Will  of  the  Father^  do  ftill 
 lb   fome  other  PalTages  of  their  Works   fup- 
 ofe  even  this   Appearing  of  the   Son  to   be 
 nly     by  ajfwned   'vifible  Symbols^    and   that 
 is   Prefence    was   not    circumfcribed  by   the 
 \lace  he   appeared    in.      For    the    Omnipre- 
 ^ncej    Subjlantial  or    Virtual^      afcribed     by 
 tiefe  Writers  to  the  Son^  (in  whatever  Senfe 
 \  be  underftood,)    'tis  palpable  was  not  by 
 
 (i)  Them 
 
i^o  Of  the  Vntty  of  God. 
 
 (i)  Them  apprehended  to  infer  any  Equality  of 
 SUP  RE  ME  Indepetidem  Authority^  who,  ex- 
 prefsly  upon  account  of  the  Father's  Supre- 
 macy  over  All^  affirm  it  to  be  ahfurd  and  blaf- 
 fhernous  to  afcribe  That  to  the  Father^  which 
 without  any  Derogation  may  be  afcribcd  to  th- 
 Son. 
 
 The  Next  Writer  is  Iren^m.  Out  of  whoPu 
 the  only  material  Thing  you  here  alledge,  is, 
 ^^.29,30.  that  he  applies  the  Texts,  (Gen^i^^  24,  Ex- 
 od,  3  -^  4,  85  14,  15,)  to  Chrifl  as  being  "  The 
 "  One  Supreme  God'''  What  I  have  already 
 obferved  from  Juflin  Martyr^  might  fuffice  hi 
 general  to  Ihow  you  the  meaning  of  Iren^us^ 
 and  of  the  Other  Primitive  Writers.  But  that 
 Innmts  miy  alfo  in  particular  be  allowed  to 
 explain  his  own  Senfe  j  he  tells  you,  in  num- 
 berlefs  Places,  that  the  Perfon  who  appeared 
 vifibly  under  the  Old  Tejlamenty  and  is  flil'd 
 God  and  Lord^  was,  not  The  One  Supreme  God 
 and  Maker  of  all  Things^  but  the  Word^  his 
 Sonj  who  (2)  Minijlred   to  the   Will   of  The 
 
 (i)  Clemens  MexarJrinuSy   in   that  very  Paffage  where  he 
 feems  moft  of  all  to  afiert  the  Son's  not  being  circumfcribed  in 
 
 PtacCy  adds:  "Ayr>j  i]  f^tyi?-*)  C^viS)  vTioo^vi,'vi  tzItiwjtu.  ^icclocTTilou 
 xscToi  IV  ^i}\^,f/jcc  row   TTureo^.      Strom.  "] .    p.    702,.       **  This  is   the 
 «*  Greatefi  Excellency   of  the  Sois,     that  he  orders  all  Things  ac 
 cording  to  the  Will  of  the  Father." 
 
 (2)  Diviti  &  multx  Voluntati  Patris  defervit.    lib.  3,   c.  18 
 p.  241.     Again  :  Bonum  aiitcm  rlacttmn?AXx\St  filius  perficit. 
 
 Mittit  enim  pater j  mittitur  autem  6c  Venn  Jjlius. Omnia 
 
 autcm  filius  adtninijlrans  patri  Y>e:^c\\.  ab  initio  ufq;  ad  fincni. 
 
 Revelat  omnibus  patrcm,  quibm  vulty  ik  quando  vult,  (5c 
 
 qttemadmodum  vult  Pater,  lib.  4.  C.  14.  Again  :  rcZ  ^toZ  yj)^ 
 —— w.T»p70Lio-s6  tS  B-tX^t/^ocTi  Tou  5-£ow  }Cj  TrocTfce,^  **  The  Hand  oj 
 **  God,  fubfervicnt  to  the  Will  of  God  even  the  Father."  lib.  5. 
 €.'5,  p- 405.  Again:  Voluntaci  parris  Defcrviens.  ibid.  c.  15. 
 p.  423.  Again:  Minillrans /^^/r/; /«/  Voluntatl  ibid.c.z6.  p. 441. 
 
 (i)  One 
 
."^Li.  IT,    0/  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  141 
 
 [i)  One  GoJy  the  Father   arid  Maker  of  all 
 fhings.     And  accordingly  ,  tho'  he  applies  to 
 [he  Son  innumerable  Texts,    where  The  0?ie 
 Supre?ne  Goel  and  Father  of  all ^  is  primarily  and 
 originally  meant  ;>  yet  'tis  moft  evident  he  ne- 
 ver thereby  intends  to  prove  that  the  Son  is 
 himfelf  ^'The  One  Supreme  God^''  but,  on  the 
 contrary,  that  he  mmifefis^  declares^    and  fuU 
 fls  the  Will  and  Commands  of  the  One  Supreme 
 God.     Nor  does  he  fo  much  as  Once  in  All  his 
 Writings  ftile  the  Son  either  The  One  Supre?ns 
 God^  or  Ihe  One  God -^  but  conftantly  referves 
 ithofe  Titles  to  the  Father.     Nay,  'tis  remark- 
 able, that  in  That  very  Chapter,    to  which 
 I'you  refer  for  his  Application  of  the  fore-na- 
 j  med  Texts  to  the  Son  of  Godj    he   exprefsly 
 1  tells  you,  with  refped  to  the  Firjl  of    them, 
 (Gen.  19,  24,)    that  ^' the  Son  (2)  received 
 j ''  from  the  Father  Power  to   judge  the   Sodo- 
 I "  mites.''     The  Secotid  Text  ^(Exod,  5  j  4,  8,) 
 ;  he  (^)  applies  to  God  the  Father  only  ^  whom 
 \  he  there    (olemnly    invokes  as  the  only  and 
 true  God^  through  Jefus  Chrifl.     The  Third 
 Text  alfo,  (Exod.  j  ,  14, 15,)  he  (4)  applies 
 
 (i)  See  ahove,  p.  ^'^.vc. 
 
 {1)  Filium a  patre  ^<:f^//^ Potellatem  adjudicandum 
 
 Sodomitas.  liL^,  c.6. 
 
 (3)  Et  ego  igitiir  invoco  te,  domine  Deus  Abraham  &c.  pafer 
 
 domini  noitri  Jefu  Chrilli, qui  dominaris  omnium,  qui 
 
 es  Solus  Sc  Verm  Deus,  fuper  quern  alius  Deus  non  eft,  per  do- 
 jn'mum  nojirum  Je/um  Chrijium.  ibid. 
 
 (4)  Omnmm  Dem  c^  dommm^  qui  &:  Aloy ft  dixit,  egofi-im,q:ii 
 fum,^Q.  ^HuJMs  fiMvisJefm  ChriJlM  dominus  Nofter. — Ipfe  eft 
 enim  qui  dejcendit  ^  afcendit  propter  lalutem  Hominum.  Per 
 flipimiucir  manifcflatus  eft  Deus.  lil.  3.  <:.6. 
 
 to 
 
i^i  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 to  God  the  Father  only ,  whom  he  there  ftiles 
 The  God  and  Lord  of  all^  in  exprefs  contra- 
 diftindion  to  his  Son  Jefus  Chrift  our  Lord : 
 By  rvhom^ht  tells  you  prefently  after,  God  was 
 manifefted.  Thefe  Paffiiges,  and  the  Analogy 
 of  many  other  to  the  like  purpofe  cited  above 
 (p,  g7,,(5zc.)  out  of  This  Author,  evidently 
 fhow  how  different  his  real  Meaning  is  from 
 
 -P.34>3S>  what^^?/  reprefent  it,  in  That  particular  Paf- 
 fage^  where  he  fays  that  (i)  Our  LordChriJ}^ 
 who  is  the  Refurre&ion  and  the  L'lfe^  [^of  which 
 emphatical  Words  you  have  taken  no  Notice,] 
 ix,  with  the  Father^  the  God  of  the  LivtJig, 
 
 p.28^34.  The  next  of  the  Ancient  Writers  you  refer 
 to,  isTheophihis  Bifhop  of  Jntioch-^  Whom 
 you  alledge  for  applying  That  Text,  {Gen.  3  ^ 
 8,  9,)  to  Cbrifl^  as  being  himfelf  ^'  in  his 
 ''  own  Perfon''  the  *'  One  Supreme  God.'* 
 His  Words  are  highly  worthy  the  Reader's 
 Confideration,  being  (I  think)  a  moft  full 
 and  clear  Confutation  of  what  you  intended 
 to  fupport  by  them.  "  (2)  You  will  reply, 
 (fays  he  to  Autolycus^)   ''  fince  I  have  affirm'd 
 
 ''  that 
 
 (r)  Is  qui  de  riibo  locutus  eft  Moyfi,  &  manifcftavit  fe  eflc 
 
 Deum  Patrum,    hie  ell  viventium  Deus, 6c  "jerbum 
 
 ejus  qui  &:  locutus  e(l  Moyfi,  qui  &  Saducxos  redarguit,  qui 
 
 &  refurreetionem   &C  Domijuim  oftendit. Refurredio    au- 
 
 tem  ipfe  Dnminus  cfi,  quemadmodum  ipfe  ait,  e^o  fum  Refur- 
 redio  CT"  ^ita.  .  -  Ipfe  igitur  Chriftus,  cum  Pane,  vivorum 
 ell  Dcus,  qui  &  locutus  eft  Moyfi,  qui  &  patribus  manifeftatus 
 eft.  L'tb.^.c.  II. 
 
 (z  )     'Epf~?  iiv  fjuw  cry  0y,(,  tvv    B-iov  cv    rosro)    fjuv^  hTv  ^u^ii^.^     y^ 
 yi  B-io^  x-al  :to(,t/o  rav  '6Xm  cc-^moifiro^  Wh    »«»  civ   totv    »«  ivg^trKtj' 
 
Qa.II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  143 
 
 '*  that  God  cannot  be  comprehended  in  any 
 ''  particular  Place,  how  then  do  I  now  afTert 
 ''  that  he  walk^  d  in  Paradife  >  I  anfwer  :  The 
 ''  God  and  Father  of  all  things  is  IMMENSE, 
 
 '^  and  not  found  in  any  particular  Flace  : 
 
 ^'  But  his  W/'Oi?/),  By  whom  he  made  all  Things, 
 
 *'  — he  (I  fay)  reprefenti?jg  the  Terfon  of  the 
 
 *^  Father  and  Lord  of  all  Things^  came  into  Para- 
 
 "  dife  in  the  Perfofi  of  God,  and  converfed  with 
 
 "  Adam'^     And  prefently  after,  he  adds,  (up* 
 
 on  John  I ;  T,  3  :,)  "  The  Word  therefore  being 
 
 '*  God,  and  the  Son  of  God  ^  the  Father  of  the 
 
 "  Univerfe  SEND  Shim,  when 'tis  his  W^/// 
 
 *'  fo  to  do,  unto  any  particular  Place,  where 
 
 "  when  he  comes,  he  is  both  heard  and  feen, 
 
 *'  htxn^ fent  by  the  Father,    and  he  is  found 
 
 "  in  That  Place."     Thefe  Words  undeniably 
 
 fliow,  that,  in  Jheophilus's  Opinion,  diredly 
 
 contrary  to  wh^t pit  refer  to  him  for  ,  the  Per- 
 
 fon  \\'ho  appeared  ^nd  talked  with  Adam^    was 
 
 not  himfelf  ra^  One  Supreme  God^  but  the  Word, 
 
 his  Son  and  Miyujler^  who  represented  his  Per-- 
 
 fofi^  and  Wcisfe?it  by  him.  Nor  is  there  here  any 
 
 Room  to  diH:ing;uiili  between  the  one  Stfpreme 
 
 God^  and  the  Per/on  of  the  Father  :  For  Theo- 
 
 phihs  docs  net  fpeak  of  God  under  the  Relation 
 
 or  Charafter  of  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefus 
 
 Chrijlj  but  as  being  (p^io$  Jcctl  ^c/.r^^^  rm  o\m^ 
 
 TB  <zs^(j-uz:ov  rou  Trurfc.^  kccI  x-v^/m  tZv  oXuv,  iix©^  Trufiy^v^-To  ii\  rov 
 ^apccdeitrcv  ov  ^potruzira)  too  ^ioZ,  xcn  ayjiXei  ru    Aoccyy  '»jic<i 
 
 itv  av  6  Xoy<^,  Kcii  cit  .9"£ow  7ri(pvKac,y  ottot  cc)/  /3a>i£^  6  ttcctyi^  -rciv 
 cXaf,  z-ifJUTTH  ecvTcv  il^  rtva,  tit^ov,  05  7rc^ct,''/i)/o^iv<^  KXi  cixmrut  >^ 
 ipZfrxiy  7iriiJtjXo^iy(^  Ow'  oi,v7ov,  KOi)  h  7T?-«  iVfiiTKiTMi.  Ad  Autolyc. 
 
 p.  119, 130. 
 
 the 
 
M  4  Of  the  Vmty  of  God. 
 
 the  God  and  Father  of  all  Things:  And  he 
 fays  that  the  Word  afjumed  the  Ferfn  ,'not  of 
 the  Father  merely,  according  ro  your  Hypo- 
 thefis',  but  T8  S-ea)  of  hhn  who  is  God  abfo- 
 foliitely,  or  The  Supreme  God.  So  that,  you 
 fee  evidently,  Theophilus  (having  never  heard 
 of  yonr  Diftindion,  of  God  LOiiriirrred  ef- 
 fentially,  and  God  confidered  PerJo^tdly^J  de- 
 nies equally  that  the  IVord  is  The  One  Sn- 
 preme  God^  as  that  he  is  the  Per(on  of  the 
 Father. 
 
 The  next  Author  is  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
 One  (i)  Chapter  of  whofe  Pedagogue  (yj\\\c\i 
 you  know  is  a  Juvenile  and'  Rhetorical  Piece) 
 you  cite,  and  obferve  that  he  fays,  Chrifl  fpeaks 
 in  his  0  WN  PERSON^  Exod.  20,  2.  As  if 
 the  Intejit  of  that  Exprefiion  was,  that  he 
 There  declared  hiinfelf  to  be  in  his  own  Per- 
 fon  The  One  Supreme  God.  Now  on  the  con- 
 trary, the  Intent  of  Clemens  in  That  very 
 Chapter,  is  to  (how  that  Chrift  is  our  Mafter^ 
 whom  the  Suprevie  Father  (TraTvig  tov  oAojv) 
 %vho  only  is  PerfeEl^  (^f^ov^  rgAet©-,)  i.  e.  of 
 Original  widerived  Pefedion^  fent  to  inftruft 
 us  in  the  Way  of  Salvation.  And  Chrift,  in 
 the  Paifage  you  cite,  is  obferved  to  fpeak  /;;  his 
 OWN  Per/on,  not  in  oppofition  to  his  being 
 the  Reprejentative  of  the  Perfon  of  the  father^ 
 (as  you  would  abfurdly  make  your  Reader  be- 
 lieve ^)  but  he  is  obferved  by  Cleme?js  to  fpeak 
 in  his  Ozvn  Per/on^  in  the  Firjl  Perfon,  /  am 
 
 (l)   nx>iv  y  '^7xy  AiVM  ^'  'S  i^6  5r<»o«-»3-»— — 'JE'/fi',  &:C,   C.  7. 
 
 the 
 
Qii.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  1 45 
 
 the  Lord^  m  oppofition  to  his  being  elfewhere 
 fpoken  of  in  the  T/jird  Perfon,  H  E  ke^t  bim 
 as  tide  apfle  of  his  Eye^  Deut.  32,  10.  Your 
 obfervation  therefore  upon  This  Thrafe  [Jia! 
 tS  ISibs  ^e^oa-ccTChiy  ''  m  his  own  Perfo7i^'*~\  is  per- 
 feftly  ridiculous.  And  that  Clemetis  in  his 
 latejt  Writings,  is  mod  clear  and  full  againft 
 your  Notion ,  I  have  fhown  at  large  above^ 
 P.  81,82. 
 
 I  proceed  toTertullian:  Who  is  fo  far  from  p.  18,  29. 
 applying  any  Text  to  Chri/i  as  being  Himfelf 
 The  one  Supreme  Gody  that  he  exprefsly  con- 
 demns (i)  that  very  Expreflion  in  his  Adver- 
 fary,  as  being  equivalent  to  aiRrming  him  to 
 be  Tue  Fatber  Hmfelf.  And  in  the  very 
 Chapter  you  here  cite,  he  diredtly  fuppofes 
 him  to  be  not  The  (2)  mofi  High  God.  You 
 could  not  but  know,  Tertuilian  always  declares 
 Chrift  to  have  appeared  and  converfed  with 
 Mankind,  not  in  his  (3)  own  Name,   but  in 
 
 (i)  Ipfe  Deus  Dominus  Omnipotens  Jefus  Chriflus  prsedica- 
 tur.  Adv.  Prax.  c.  i. 
 
 (1)  AltifTimus aeternus  Deus.  Adv.Vrax.  c.i6. 
 
 f3)  Id  verbum,  /ilium  ejus  appellatum,  in  nomine  Dei  varie 
 vifum  Patriarchis,  in  Prophetis  temper  auditum.  De  Pr£fcript. 
 adv.  HAref,  c.  13.  Again:  Nam  &  profitemur  Chriltum  fem- 
 per  egifle  in  Dei  patris  nomine ;  ipfum  ab  mitio  converlatum ; 
 ipfum  congreffum  cum  Patriarchis  &  Prophetis;  Cg- 
 
 tcriim  patrem  nemini  vifum, cujus  Auitoritate  &:  no- 
 mine ipfc  erat  Deus,  qui  videhat-ar,  dei  filius.  Adv.  Marcio?i.  lib,  i, 
 c.  27.  Again:  Quaecunq;  2iUtem  ut  indigna  reprehenditis,  de- 
 putabuntur  in  fiho,  6c  vtfo,  &  audita^  &  congrefjo,  Arbitro  Pa- 
 tris %C  Miniftro.  ibid.  Again:  ChriftusDominus;  qui  ab  initio, 
 Vicarius  patris,  in  Dei  nomine  &  audittis  fit  &  vifus.  ibid.  hb.  J. 
 C.  6.  Again:  Filius  ergo  vifus  eft  femper,  &  filius  converfatui 
 eft  Temper,  &  filius  operatus  eft  femper,  ex  Autioritate  Patris  & 
 Voluntate ;  quia  filim  nihil  pot  eft  a  femetipfo  facerey  nifi  viderit 
 fatrem  facientem.  Adv.  Frax.  c.  15.  See  more,  above;  F.  77, 
 78.  And  below^  on  <^ery  XXVII,  towards  the  End, 
 
 L  the 
 
1 4  (J  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 the  Nmie  of  The  One  Supreme  God^  and  by 
 His  Authority  and  Power^  as  his  Reprefenta- 
 five  and  jMinifler:  The  Father  being  always 
 abfolutely  (i)  hwifible^  on  Account  of  his 
 Supreme  Infinite  Majefty  ;  but  the  Son  vifihle, 
 as  being  fin  Tertullian\  way  of  thinking,; 
 only  a  comprehenfihle  Part  of  the  Fatber^s 
 Subflance. 
 P.30.  You  think  fit  to  cite  (2)  Orlgen  alfo,   for 
 
 the  Application  of  one  Text  to  Chrift,  viz. 
 Pf.  24,  8, 10.  But,  after  what  has  been  faid, 
 I  fee  not  at  all  how  this  tends  to  prove  that 
 Ongen  thought  Chrift  to  be  The  One  Supreme 
 God  •,  which  he  exprefsly,  in  numberlefs  Pla- 
 ces of  his  VV^ritings,  denies  bim  to  be.  See 
 alove,  P.  16,  70,71.  See  alfo  what  Juflin 
 Martyr  fays  upon  This  very  Text,  ahove^ 
 f.  134. 
 ^•2,9,30,  As  to  Cjprian:  The  5th  and  6th  Chapters 
 ^^*  of  his  Second  Book  of  l^eftimonies  againlt  the 
 
 Jews^  ihow  plainly  that  he  agrees  with  the 
 btlier  Anticnts  before  him ,  and  he  has  not 
 one  word  toyour  Purpofe.  The  One  Sulreme 
 God,  all  through  His  Writings,  is  the  Father : 
 Who,  he  fays,  (3)  is  "The  One  God  who  is 
 "  Lord  of  all,  of  unequall'd  Majefty  and 
 *'  Power."     And  he  profeifeth   tliat  the  Son 
 
 (1)  Confequens  crit,  \\X  invtftbilem  patrem  intelligamus  pro 
 Plenitudme  Majeftatis,  vifibilem  verb  filium  agnolcainus  pro 
 Modulo  Denvat'miU.  Adv.  Prax.  c.  14. 
 
 U)  On  Matth.  p.  43^'. 
 
 (3)  Unus  igitur  omnium  dominus  eft  Deus;  neq;  enim  ilia 
 fublimitas  poicft  habere  ionfortemy  ciun  ibU  omnem  teneat 
 Potellatem.    De  bono  Patient.  P.  14. 
 
 called 
 
Qii.  II.      of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  1 4  7 
 
 called  the  Father  (i)  ^^ bis  Lord a?id God '^"^ — 
 "  fro'Ti  zvhom  he  received  the  Power  by 
 *'  which  we  are  baptized  and  fanftified  , 
 ^^  whom  he  acknowledged  to  be  Greater  thaa 
 ^'  Himfelf  ^  by  wbom^  he  Prayed  to  be  Glo- 
 ''  rified  *,  and  whofe  Will  he  fulfilled,  even  to 
 *'  the  Obedience  of  drinking  that  Cup,  and 
 ^'  fuffering  of  Death" 
 
 You  have  only  one  Place  from  the  inter- f.  31. 
 polated  Hippoljtus'^  and  That  is  nothing  at 
 all  to  your  Purpofe.  Unlefs  the  fuppofing 
 Chrift  to  create  all  Things  Bj'  the  Tower  and 
 according  to  the  Will  of  the  Father^  be  pro- 
 ving him  to  be  himfelf  The  One  Supreme  God; 
 Which  even  this  interpolated  Writer  is  far 
 from  aflerting,  but  on  the  other  hand  exprefs- 
 ly  does  aflert  many  things  contrary  to  it. 
 See  ahove^T.  13,  16,  39,  91. 
 
 We  come  now  to  the  Primitive  Council  of p,  19, 31, 
 Jntioch^  confiding  of  70  Bifhops,  according  3^-  . 
 to  the  Account  of  oAthanajms  ,  But  probably 
 they  were  in  Truth  many  more,  Ettfehius 
 calling  them  an  (2)  irifiinte  Number.  They 
 apply  indeed  Many  Texts  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
 ment  to  Chrift,  in  order  to  prove,  againft  Paul 
 of  Samojata^  that  he  was  God  *'  before  the 
 ''  Foundation  of  the  World."  But  thefe  Bi- 
 fhops are  fo  far  from  fuppofing  or  declaring 
 him  to  be     ''  The  One  Supreme  God^""    that 
 
 (i)  Dominum  &deum/««a»; (\M-\nd^oipfam  Fote/ia' 
 
 /erw  qua  baptizamur,  &  fan6tificationem,abeodemPatreChriflus 
 acceperit ;  quern  majorem  dixerit,  a  quo  clarijUari  pctierit,  {foh. 
 14,  28.)  cujus  voluntatem  ufq;  ad  obfequium  bibendi  calicis  5( 
 fubeundae  mortis  implcverir.  Epiji,  ad  Jubaidn.    P.  103. 
 
 i^)  Uv^ni,    Hift.Ecclef.  lib.7.  c,i8. 
 
 L  2  they 
 
1 48  of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 they  exprefsly  on  the  contrary  fay,  (i)  tliat 
 •*  he  fulfilled  the  Will  of  the  Father  in  the 
 *'  Creation  of  all  Things  •,''  citing  the  Words 
 of  the  Pfalmifl:,  he  fp^th  and  they  were  7naJe, 
 he  commu7ided  and  they  were  created.  They 
 affert  alfo,  ''  that  he  fulfilled  the  Father''^  Will 
 "  in  appearing  to  the  Patriarchs,  being  ftiled 
 "  fometinies  an  Angel^  fometimes  Lord^  fome- 
 *^  times  God.  But  'tis  Impious  (fay  theyj  to 
 *'  imagine,  thditTbe  God  of  the  Univerft''''  [rli 
 S-esv  rm  'oXcci]  '^  is  ever  called  an  AngtL  The 
 **  Angel  (or  MejJerigerJ  of  the  Father,  is 
 "  the'iV/,  who  is  Himfelf  Lord  2ind  God: 
 <<  For  it  is  written,  he  is  the  o/bigel  of  bis  Great 
 ^'  Cotoifei'*  Here  obferve,  that,  in  the  Judg- 
 ment of  This  Great  and  Primitive  Council,  the 
 Impiety  of  ftyling  God  a  Mejjenger^  is  not 
 §>  founded  upon  his  Paternity^  but  upon  his 
 Supremacy^  upon  his  being  [rov  ^ilv  rc^v  oAojv] 
 the  Supreme  God. 
 .31, 3i,  Novatian^  another  Antient  Writer  whom 
 ^'  you  here  refer  to,  and  who  lived  about  the 
 Time  of  the  Council  of  Q,4ntioch  ^  fays, 
 agreeably  to  the  Notions  of  That  Council, 
 that  (2)  "  God  the  Father,   being  Inime?ife — , 
 
 «j^5  rlui    KTio-iv   Tfov    'oXm-     '         -  txTg-Anpaly    -ncf    'eCTfixvy    /inMv* 
 
 ToTq  7rxT^i(>i(>}:^ciic,  (pxiviTXi,  TToTi  j^  6)^  kyfiA^,  TToT i  "^  a;?  Xt/fi(^, 
 sroTS  4t  B-icq  y,o',pTvpiifJ^iv<^-  rof  f/,tv  'f^  B-m  rm  'oXuv  knfic,  uyfiXot 
 90fjt,i(roci   y.a.XiScCk.  o  3  u''([iX<^  rev  7rxrpc<i,  0  vk^c,  tVtv,    uvrU  >io(n<^ 
 
 Kcci  S-£S5  a)v  ytypxTTTcn  'f>j  fAjfyoiXm  i^iiMq  uy[iX<^.  Epiih  Synod, 
 ad  Paul.  Samolat. 
 
 (\ )  Moles  ubiq;  introduxit  Deum  patrem  immenfum,  atq; 
 fine  fine :  non  qui  loco  claudatur,  fed  qui  omnem  locum  chu- 
 tlat,— omnia  continentem  &  cunda  complexum ;  ut  mer/to 
 nee  defcendat  nee  afcenda:,  quoniain  ipfe  omnia  &  continet  & 
 implct,    Dt  Trinit.  c.i$. 
 
 *'  can 
 
Qu.  II.    OftheVnitjofCod.  i49 
 
 *'  can  neither  defcend  nor  afcend^  becaufe  he 
 "  is  contained  in  No  Place,  but  himfelf  con- 
 "  tains  and  fills  all  Things ;"  And  that  *'  to 
 "  fijppofe  Him  to  defcend^  is  to  (i)  circuni" 
 "  fcribe  him  in  6i  ^aytiadar  Place^Sind  to  deny 
 "  his  Immenfit )'.'''*  Therefore  he  argues,  that 
 it  was  "  77?^  Word^  the  Son  of  God^  who  def- 
 "  cendedr  He  argues  alfo,  that  Chrill:  was 
 the  Perfon  to  whom  God  ilTued  his  (2)  Com- 
 mands in  the  Creation  of  the  World.  And 
 he  fliows,  that  for  This  Reafon  it  could  not 
 be  the  Supreme  God  the  Father^  who  /7ppear^ 
 ed  3.nd  [pake  to  the  Patriarchs,  becaufe  That 
 Perfon  who  eAPpeared  is  (tiled  both  God  and  an 
 oAngel'^  Whereas  (3)  "  it  is  abfurd  (fays  he  J 
 *'  to  call  God  the  Father,  an  Jngel  or  MeP 
 *'  fenger,  for  fo  he  muft  be  SUBJECT  to 
 ''  Another,  whofe  Angel  he  is."  Evidently- 
 laying  the  Strefs  upon  the  Supremacy  of  the 
 Father;  Which  Thing  he  alfo  very  largely 
 infifts  upon,  in  his  31ft  Chapter  throughout. 
 
 You  next  appeal  to  Lattantitis^  foi^the  Ap-p,  ^i  3,, 
 plication  of  a  Text  or  two  out  of  the  Old 
 Teftament.  But  fmce  you  could  not  ferioufly 
 expett,  that  your  Reader  fliould  think 
 Ladantius  fuppofed  the  Son  to  be  The  Sii^ 
 preme  God  j  I  fliall  only  refer  you  to  the  Pla- 
 
 (i)  Quern  volunt  hie  Deum  defcendijfer Deiim  patrem  ? 
 
 Ergo  jam  loco  claudifur;  &  quomodo  omnia  ipic  compleditur  ? 
 
 fuperell  ergo,  ut  jlle  defcenderit Dei  JUius,  Dei 
 
 Verbum.   ibid. 
 
 (2)  Non  alium  oftendit  {Mofes)  tunc  adfuifle  Deo,  cui  prAci- 
 perentur  haec  opera  ut  fierent,  nili  eum  per  quern  facfta  funt  om- 
 nia, ibid. 
 
 C3)  Sed  abfit  deum  Patrem  Angdum  dicere;  ne  alteri^l/^- 
 DllUS  fit,  cujus  Angelus  fuerit.  c,  16, 
 
 L  5  ces 
 
150  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 ces  before-cited,    wherein    he   exprefsly    de- 
 clares the    contrary    at   large.      See    ahove^ 
 P.  86,  119. 
 18,31.     The  kit  antient  Writer  you  refer  to,  for 
 the  Application  of  Texts   of  the  Ola  Te/ia- 
 ment  to  Chrifl  as  being  himfelf  ''The  one  Su^ 
 frenie  God^^  is  Et^fehius  of  Cafarea.     Now  I 
 am  perfwaded  the  Learned  World  cannot  but 
 be  amazed  at  your  Prefumption  in  alledging 
 This  Writer  in  Proof  of  jour  Notion,  which 
 he  not  only  all  through  his  Works  direftly 
 and  exprefsly  oppofes,  but  frequently  declares 
 it  to  be  (in  his  Opinion)  impous  and   ahfurd. 
 And  though   you   had    overlooked  all  thofe 
 numerous  Places  of  his  Books  againft  Mar- 
 celhs^  written  in  Defenfe  of  th^  Nicene  Faith  , 
 wherein  he  declares  moll:  exprefsly  that  He 
 thought  it  the  Doftrine  of  the  Whole  Church, 
 that  (i)  God  the  Father  07ily  is  the  One  and 
 Only  and  Supreme  God  1,  and  that  Chrifl^  the 
 Word  and  Son   of  God,  is,  not  himfelf  The 
 (i)  one  Supreme  God^hnt  a  divine  Perfon  really 
 (^i)  Sd  ordinate  to  thQ  Father,  and  ftiled  God  ^nd 
 Lord  on  Account  of  his   having  received  all 
 Power  and  Authority    from  the  Father,  and 
 miniftring  to  his  Will  and  Commands  in  all 
 Things :   I  fay,  though  all   This  had   been 
 overlooked,  or  not  at  all  confidered  by  you, 
 yet  certainly  you  ought  not  to  have  appeal- 
 ed to  Pajfages  for  Proof  that  Eufehius  thought 
 Chrifl  to  be  bimklf  The  One  Supreme  Gody  in 
 which  very  Pajjages  he  direftly  on  the  contrary 
 declares,  that  in  His  Opinion  Chrift  is  not  the 
 
 (i)  See  <i^<?vf, P.  4,6,15,  i8,3i,35>90« 
 
 one 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 5 1 
 
 one  Supreme  God-,  and  profefTes  that  he  alledges 
 the  Texts,  only  to  fhow  that  Chrift  is  the  Word 
 and  /higel  or  MeJJenger  of  God,  ?;//>///?  w/g  to  the 
 Will  of  the  One  Supreme  God. 
 
 Thtfirfi  PafTage  you  refer  to,    is  on  Gen.^-  ^^>^9' 
 17,1,2;  and  iS,  I  ;  Where  Eufehius  declares 
 bts  Sentiment,  that  the  Perfon  who  apl'eared 
 in  Humane  Form,  and  converfed  with  Jb  a^ 
 ham^  and  was  ftiled  Lord^  was  not  an  ordinary 
 oAngeh,  ^'  (ij  Neither  (fays  he)  on  the  other 
 "  fide  are  we  to  think  that  it  was  The  Su^ 
 *'  preme  God  (^)  who  here  appeared  ;    For 
 **  'tis  Impious  to  fay  that  God  was  changed, 
 *^  and  that  He  was   formed   into  the  Figure 
 ^'  and  Appearance  of  a  Man.  It  remains  there- 
 *^  fore  that  it  was  the  Word  of  God^ — who 
 *'  appeared  in  humane  Shape,  and  difcovered 
 "  himfelfto — Abraham^  and  delivered  his  K?- 
 *'  ther's  Will  unto  him."     Parallel  to  which, 
 he  fays  elfewhere,  upon  the  fame  Occafion  of 
 God's  appearing  to  Abraham  5  (2)  ^'  If  it  can 
 ''  no  way  be  faid,   that  the  Unbegotten  and 
 ''  immutable  Eifence  o( God  Supreme  over  all^ 
 "  was  changed  into  the  Form  of  a  Man  ;  — 
 *-'  what  other  Perfon  could  it  be,  (fince  it  is 
 
 {l")  UctXiv  yifjtjViV  ii^i  rvv  It:]  ttzcvtu)/  3-iov  ijyyirtov  ^i^  ryrft/v  J\;ASo^' 
 fjuiTctflochXiiy  yoip  (pccvui  ro   ^iiov,  y,ccl  <^ijfj(jnri^s^  ii\    uv^fo<i    iii^©^  x^ 
 
 i^i(pLui,  Kxl  -Tw  Tou  TTccrfo^  ci'jToZ  TTocfi^^iS  yvui/jluj.  Dem.  Evang. 
 lib.  V  C.9.  p.  234. 
 
 (*)  Obferve;  He  lays  the  Strefs,  not  upon  the  F^^^rw/^y,  but 
 upon  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father. 
 
 (1^    E<  Y^  fXiYidilc,  £sr<Tp£Tct  Aoy®-  rvy  uyivr/^rov  x.Xi   oiT^i-zTTov  ^(n- 
 
 c\,    ccv  iTip(^    uvxyopsuoiTo,   ii    fXiv\   ^oivcci    3-£«/<5   Ts   TT^corof    Tiiv  oXuv 
 
 xiTiiv,  >}  /^\(^-  fl  TT^oav  dvTov  Xoyo^i   Ecclef.  Hift.  C.  i.  p.  4. 
 
 L  4  ''  im- 
 
I T  2  of  the  Vnlty  of  God. 
 
 "  impious  to  affirm  that  it  was  the  firfi  Caufe 
 "  of  all  Things,)  but  his  pre-exifting  H^^^r^  >" 
 Which  Word,  he  had  juft  before  faid,  was  the 
 "  (i)  Seco7id  Caufe ^  after  the  Father  of  all 
 *'  Thi/;gs  '^ — having  received  i\'om  the  Father 
 *'  "Power  and  Dominion^ — and  minifiring  to 
 *'  \\\s  Commands''''  in  the  Creation, 
 ip-  Prefently  after,  upon  the   next  Text   you 
 
 refer  to.  Gen,  19,  24^  he  fays,  (^2)  "that 
 "  Mofes  evidently  calls  the  Son  "  (not.  The 
 one  Supreme  God^  but)  "a  Second  Lord  after 
 "  the  Father."  And  he  more  largely  explains 
 his  Senfe  of  this  Text  in  Another  Place,  which 
 though  it  lay  before  you  (as  appears  by  your 
 other  Citations,)  yet  you  have  thought  fit 
 to  take  no  Notice  of  it.  f  3)  "  The  Sun  (fays 
 "  he)  rofe  upon  the  Earth,  and  Lot  entered 
 *'  into  ^v/r,  and  the  Lord  rain'd  \.\]^on  Sodom 
 "  Brimftone  and  Fire  from  the  Lord.  He 
 *'  (Mojes)  here   plainly  mentions  a   Second 
 
 (l)  Tcv  {^hvTi^ov  ut  CliriftophoiT.)    yji-ni  tov  TrocT^foi  rm  oXuv  «<- 
 
 Tiov,' —-^To  Kvfoc,   ofXtou    KXi   TO   n^UToc,'. — '^flt^    TOW    ';roiT^o^ 
 
 iinjj^^sy|W/si'oi',— — -— — rS^  T^urfiKciiii  lis-i'nx,%i(riv  -uzs-afiyoZvrx.  ibid. 
 
 P.      3.  ^  ,  V       V  .  , 
 
 (2,)  TouTov  aiVTifcv  f/jiTU  rev  Trec/nfcc  x^pov  o-tfUps^ctTct  Mfi^tr??  otyxyo- 
 fivii,  ?,iymy   Sec.      ibid.  P.  4. 
 
 ('^)  'O  'viXio<i  kviTiiXiv  izri  tIuj  y^v,  »««  Aar  surUxSiv  uq  2)J7<i>p,  >^ 
 ififulj  Kupiot;  ezri  Xooofjuu  BsTov  kui  7iuf>  xu,^  M/^iy.  (ro(,(f>ooc,  Atunoov  oiyx- 
 
 yofiiUil,   OV    Kxl    S'l^CCCTKil   TTCiQa/!,    TOU     fJUii^OVOq     tZolTpCCTT iVTX     TViV     KX7CC    TCO¥ 
 
 *i(rii2cov  TToiijTy^  Tifjuuniccv.  7r><y,v  uXX  ti  icm  ovo  K'jfimc,  uvtzriKccXo-s-raq 
 ijAjOAoyii/jiv,  ci>.y^  »  »eit  tcuc,  o^couc,  Is*'  d^Cpan^cKc,  ^a'f/jiB-cc  S-£oAo- 
 yiofcjS*  ii>(rifia<i  3  rji  t«|h  ^Ctifjuivoi,  rev  fji  cCituTUTOi  Trxjtfict  x.xi  ^-icv  y^ 
 xoPiift  kuI  tou  aivripii  Kuptcv  KXi  S-tcv  ilvxi  TTizsrxtd^ui/jiB'X-  Toy  ■-)  rau  B-ioZ 
 Aoyoy  Tov  Ai'jTipov  »y(.iov,  Tftiv  /t*  "czs^"  uvrov  oiTziyoTiu/,  »«  tri  -^  ofA/otu^ 
 KXi   TOU  Mu'c^ovo^'  »  yx^  tow  -^xrpoe,  x-vpio^,    iioi   tou  xxtooc,  S-se?,  0  ^ihi; 
 
 My6C;    U>X     iKUVH   fC    UKUV     Kxl     Ao'/O^    Kxl     (T'iCf^iA    Kxl     ObVCCfXjiq,     TUV    3 
 
 fiitr  tcvrcv  ^t(r7r3Tt](i,  Kupioc,  kx)  ^icc,'  'O  d't  ys  Trxr^e,  Kca  roZ  iioZ  ttcc- 
 rJip  Kxl  Kopioe  Kccl  Bioc-  o3-iv  tixoTu^  xvxrpi)^ii(nv  ii^  iJjixv  xp^ii*'  Kxnu/tra, 
 
 ^'6>  (Tuvii-xTXi  iifjtj'iy  Tw.  tI)5  iv(riQii  ^loXoyut^-  Dcm.  Evang.  lib.  5.C.  8. 
 
Qn.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  y  3 
 
 il  *  Lordy  who,  he  informs  us,  was  commanded 
 **  by  the  Superiour  Lord^  to  punilli  thofe 
 *'  wicked  Men.     But  tho'  we  do  freely  con- 
 
 fefs  that  there  are  two  Lords^  yet  we  do  not 
 
 fpeak  alike  of  them  in  our  Account  of  their 
 **  Divinity  \  But  pioully  attending  to  the  true 
 **  Order  of  Things,  we  are  taught  that  the 
 "  Supreme  Father^   and  God^  and  Lord^  is  the 
 
 Lord  and  God  even  of  Him  who  is  the  Se- 
 Y^  cond  Lord  ]  and  that  the  Word  of  God^  who 
 |l"  is  the  Second  Lord^  is  Lord  indeed  of  all 
 f^  thofe  Things  that  are  Subje£t  to  him,  but 
 *'  not  of  Him  who  is  the  Super/our  Lord.  For 
 **  God  the  Word^  is  not  the  Lord  of  the  Fa^ 
 l««  ther^  nor  the  God  of  the  Father :  but  he 
 <t  is  the  Image^  and  Word,  and  Wifdom^  and 
 «'  Power  of  the  Father  ^  and  he  is  the  Ma/ter 
 '^  and  Lord  and  Gi^<^/  of  all  other  Things. 
 "  But  the  Father^  is  both  Father^  and  Lord^ 
 *'  and  G^^,  even  of  the  Son.  So  that  all 
 '*  Things  rightly  center  in  One  Original  •  and 
 '^  All  our  Difcourfes  about  Divinity.^  termi- 
 "  nate  (as  Piety  requires)  in  One  God^ 
 
 The  next  Text,  about  which  you  appeals.  19. 
 to  Eufehius^  is  Gen.  31,  i^.  Upon  which 
 Text  again  you  are  fo  unfortunate,  as  to  have 
 him  declaring  exprefsly  againji  you,  that  the 
 Perfon  who  appeared  to  Jacob,  was  not  The 
 Supreme  God,  but  His  A?igel  or  Mejjenger.,  de- 
 livering the  Will  of  the  Supreme  God.  ''  (i) 
 "  It  was  not  (fays  he)  the  Supreme  God.,  but 
 
 (1}    Ov  jjuwi  0  iTTi  Ttuvruv,    «AA'    i  iKtiva  Afwrspc?,  tk    rev  irxrpoi 
 tVi  TOiJ  TTK^iirot,  xctAail  ibid.  C.  10. 
 
 That 
 
iC 
 
 1 5  4  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 *'  That  Perfon  who  is  Second  after  him,  ml- 
 '*  nifirbig  to  and   declaring  the   Will  of  the 
 ^*  Father  unto  Men  ,  For  which  Reafon  jF^- 
 *^  coh  here  calls  him  an  Angd^'' 
 ii.  Again,  you  refer  to  Eufebius^  upon   Jf  45, 
 
 14;  iHll  direftly  againjl  your  felf.  For  he  (i) 
 fays,  upon  That  Text  ;,  that  ''  they  who 
 *'  (the  Prophet  foretells)  fhall  be  made  fub- 
 "  jefl:  unto  him,  (to  Chnjl,)  fhall  worfhip 
 **  him  as  God,  and  fliall  pray  [to,  or^  in  him, 
 *^  Becatife  God^  who  is  Greater^  dwells  in 
 him,  even  the  Supreme  Father  and  God 
 of  the  Univerfe?^  And  afterwards  in  this 
 very  Chapter  he  fays,  that  the  Son  "  is  (2)  not 
 "  the  Supreme  God,  but  the  only-begotten 
 "  Son  of  the   Supreme  God,"  &c. 
 
 Once  more  You  refer  toEr/fehius^on^ch.io^ 
 1 2 ;  where  Clu'ift  is  reprefented  as  the  Lord  who 
 fays,  "  (^3 j  I  will  come. —  and  many  Nations 
 *'  fliall  flee  unto  Him  who  is  the  Superior  and 
 
 (l  )  Tlpotncfwrc-i^a-iv  oLvtw  dec  3-iM    ot  vsroTay>)7Z)///«vo<,     kxi  ax;  Trpo- 
 
 Ciuio-j'icil    c'v    dvi^J,     OIX    TV     fJUtli^OVCC     KXlciKiiV    iV    civ\U)     ^-iCV,    TDV     XVCJTUTO/ 
 
 ^riXx^  TToLTifcc  Kul  B-iov  ruv  oXuv.  Dem.  Evang.ltb.  5.  €.  4.  Hencc 
 you  may  obferve  in  what  fenfc  the  Antient  Church  worfliip- 
 pcd  Chrift;  not  as  being  Himfelf  The  One  Supreme  God^  and 
 ultimate  Objeft  of  Worlhip,  but  To  the  Glory  of  the  lather 
 who  dwelt  in  him,  and  from  whom  (fays  Eufebius)  he  recei- 
 -ued  the  Honour  of  being  worjhippcd  as  God,  Ecclef.  Hill.  hb.  l. 
 c.  4.  Hence  alfo  you  may  undcrftand  what  Origen  means  by 
 {the  fvx  ^icv)  the  One  God  whom  Chrijiians  worlhip;  viz.  the 
 Supreme  God  the  Father,  in  and  through  the  Son.  Adv.  Celf. 
 lib.  8.  P.  386.     See  above,  p.  10,  14,  41. 
 
 (2.^    Ov^  0  Ttfoiro'i  ^ioe,,  TtpuTei;   [legC  5rpa>T»^  2>tou  5-toZ  fJi^ovoyt^'^ 
 
 wo 5-  ibid. 
 
 */tM  Ku^ioi,  r«»  s^oy  tt  x,utoZ  kxI  rut  o}\m  B-fof.  DeiTi.  Evang.  Hb.  J. 
 c.  16. 
 
 "  Great 
 
Qu.  II.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 5  5 
 
 *'  Great  Lord,  even  the  God  both  of  iWi?,  and 
 '*  of  the  Univerfey 
 
 Thefe  are  the  Texts  of  Scripture,  and  the 
 Explanations  of  Eufehius  upon  them,  which 
 you,  in  the  moft  extraordinary  manner,  in 
 exprefs  ContradiSion  to  the  whole  Tenour  of 
 the  Writings  of  this  Learned  Author,  have 
 alledged  as  Evidences  that  He  thought  Chrift, 
 the  Word  and  Son  of  God,  to  be  Himfelf 
 '^  The  One  Supreme  God.^*  I  pafs  by,  for  Bre- 
 vity's Sake,  other  Texts^  on  which  you  refer 
 to  Eufelius'^s  Comment  on  the  Pfalms^  which 
 are  not  any  way  more  to  your  Purpofe  than 
 thofe  I  have  ah-eady  confidered.  I  fhall  have 
 occafion  to  take  notice  of  them  hereafcer^  up- 
 on Query  XXVII,  towards  the  End.  At  pre- 
 fent,  I  fhall  only  leave  v/ithyou  hereupon  the 
 Obfervation  of  Montfaucon^  the  Learned  Edi- 
 tor of  That  Work.  Who  fays-,  (i)  ^'Ifhould 
 "  heartily  wifli  to  join  with  thofe  who  think 
 ^'  Eufehius  to  be  Orthodox,  in  Defenfe  of  fb 
 *'  Great  a  Man,  if  his  Writings  would  per- 
 **  mit  me  fo  to  do.  But  both  his  other 
 "  Works,  and  efpecially  Thefe  Commentaries 
 *'  in  which  he  openly  profeffeth  Jria^iifm^'* 
 [fo  Montfaucon  erroneoufly  ftiles  Eufehius''^ 
 Doctrine;]  '^  oblige  me  to  be  of  another  Opi- 
 ''  nion."  One  Paffage  may  ferve  for  an  In- 
 ftance  of  Eufebius\  Doftrine  in  That  Booh 
 
 CO  Ego  vero  iis,  qui  orthodoxum  Eufehium  cenfent,  ad 
 tanti  viri  Purgationcm  adftipulari  peroptarem,  fiper  ejusfcripti 
 liceret;  At  fecus  fuadent,  turn  csetera  ejus  opera,  turn  maxime 
 hi  Com?mntariiy  ubi  Arianifmum  aperte  profitetur.  Prdim.  m 
 Eufeb,  Comment,  in  Ffal  c  6, 
 
 Upon 
 
S6  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 Upon  ?f,  109,  1,  The  Lord  [aid  unto  my  Lord  -^ 
 He  fays  :  (i)  '^  By  tlie  Laws  of  Nature, 
 ''  the  Father  of  every  Son,  is  his  Lord. 
 *'  Wherefore  God,  the  Father  of  the  only  be- 
 *'  gotten  Son  of  God,  is  both  His  God  and 
 *'  Lord  and  Father.^'* 
 
 Before  I  leave  Eufelim^  (becaufe  you  have 
 been  fo  unreafonable,  as  frequently  to  cite  even 
 fo  direti  an  Ofpoftr,  as  a  F^ivourer  of  your  No- 
 tions,; I  fliall  fliow  you  further,  that  in  his 
 whole  Demoi/ftratio  Evangelica  it  is  his  fro- 
 fejj'ed  Defign^  to  prove  that  Chrift,  the  Word 
 of  God,  is  not  Himfelf  "  The  Su^^reme  God^^ 
 but  the  oAngel  and  Minijter  of  the  Supreme 
 God\  ftiled  God  and  Lord^  as  his  Son  and 
 Reprefentative;  fo  that  the  Father  07ily^  is 
 ftill  ftriftly  The  One  God.  He  begins  his  Book 
 with  obferving,  that  Chritl  is  That  Perfon 
 who  appeared  to  Righteous  Men  before  and 
 under  the  Law,  '^  (2)  whom  Mofes  calls 
 *'  fometimes  God  and  Lord^  and  fometimes 
 •*  the  Angel  of  God  •,  rtiied  the  God  indeed 
 *^  and  Lord  of  holy  Men,  but  the  A?igel  or 
 "  MeJJenger  of  the  Suprt?ne  Father."  Prefent- 
 ly  after,  having  fhown  that  the  God  who  ap- 
 peared to  'Jacobj  is  called  the  Angel  of  God  ; 
 
 (l)   No/U/0(5  (P'jrriiJc,  7ni)i\o<i  hiou  Tx.y.fi,  xMOioc,  scv  «i>>  oivToZ.  ^ioyMiTci. 
 fLcvoyiv^c,  hioZ  ToZ  3-souy  6  yiViyiG-xti  oivroy  B-io^  ti/i  xv  xvlcu  y,xi  Bsi^  6[//oZ 
 
 xxl  x.Jpt®-  Kxl  TTXTKp.  Eufeb.  Comment,  in  Pfalm. 
 
 (2.)  'O   M&'o-I}^    rov  i7ri(pxvivTM  ToTq  ^io<piXi<ri '^ort  (2  ^icn  x^ 
 
 xuftov,  TTOTi  ^i  ffiti  '  AyfiXov  &ioZ  7Tf-:(rxyepiun'  Bioc,  (2  Kui  Kuek'^  ruf 
 ^io<PiXSt  di^puv  civ7)ye^tvfJUii/oii,  '  Ayfi^iO^  H  roZ  '  Ayc^Tccns  'XK.rfoq,  lib, 
 I.  P.  lO. 
 
 he 
 
^u.II.    OJ  theVnityof  Cod.  i  yj 
 
 ^e  adds  :  (i)  ^'But  if  it  is  impoiTible  that  the  ^ 
 Supreme  God,  who  is  i?ivifible  and  imbt^ot- 
 ten^  and  the  oAbfolute  Kj?ig  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe,  fhould  htl'een  by  mortal  Eyes ,  who 
 then  can  That  Perfon,  which  appeared,  be> 
 but  God  the  Word  who  is  liiled  Lord  after 
 the  Father  ?"  And  even  where  he  ftiles  the 
 Jon  Creator  or  Framer  of  the  World,  he  ftili 
 at  the  fame  time  fays,  that  (2)  ''  the  Father 
 ''  is  Supreme  over  all^  and  the  God  even  of 
 '^  this  Creator  himfeif."  And  upon  thofe 
 Words  of  the  Pfalmift,  (Thy  Throne,  0  God-^ 
 — wherefore  God,  even  Thy  God,  &c.)  he 
 thus  remarks  :  "  (j)  Tor  ThisCaufe  therefore 
 "  the  Supreme  God  himfelf,  who  is  Greater 
 '*  and  even  Thy  God,  anointed  Thee,  O  God  ; 
 *'  So  that  he  who  anointed,  is  much  Superior 
 *^  to  Him  who  was  anointed  by  him."  And 
 again  he  fays,  that  "  (4)  the  Word  of  Gody 
 *'  who  was  before  all  Ages^  is  Superior  to 
 "  every  Angelick  Nature,  but  Inferior  to  the 
 **  Firfi  Caufe.^''  And  in  the  Conclufion  of  the 
 fame  Book  he  fays,  he   has  fhown  from  30 
 
 ^l)  'E<  i)  yjvi  olov  ri  rov  hriK^vx  S-goy,  tov  ocopxrcv  Kctl  dym^Tcy^ 
 xxi  TretfAj/iurtXiX  rm  oXccv^  S-yjjrjj  (pocvai  ^iu^ii^  <l>v(rn'  r(<;  uv  6  Jjj- 
 ^ifjuivoi;  ti>),  7VXy,v  rev  itst$<i  iif/juv  kcctu  [^£7uJ  tov  TTei-nftc  KV^ioXoya- 
 fjuiva  B-ioZ  Aoy»  j  ibid.  P.  II. 
 
 (l)   'O  TmvTUV  UvUTUTU  KCC]  dvTOU  J\3jt/0««py6«  B-ioq    7r»\  TTxr^p,    &C. 
 
 lib.  4.  C.J.       ^    ^      ^^       ^       ^     ^ 
 
 (3)  AioTrtf)  iTTiT^To)  ix>?^(rKri,a^ii,o  'Avutktu  xu]  fjt,ii<^&>v  ccvrtx;,  0 
 
 X«»   (TOU   ^-£0$,    6)<;     iiVXl     KCCi     TOW    ^^tOfZ/iVit      TOV     ^C^eVTU    7ro?iV    TrpoTBfiOV, 
 
 lib.  4.  c,;5.  p.  181.    ,,    ,      ^  ^ 
 
 (4)  AuTTiTaii  Tii  ccfcc  an>  h  roZ;  isvi  S-go^  km  Kufie^  f/jtm  rov  xxut^ 
 fiec<riXt»  Kxi  3-£ov  rav  oXuv.  u'n  ^  xv  8t®-  0  fssO  eiiavav  roZ  S-fow  Xo- 
 yo(iy  a  KfiLrlav  "^  vi  ttcctx  'AyfsAtxti  (pvtn^,  fJijiiuv  ^  «  kxtk  to  fO^- 
 TW  <«mey.  lib,  5.   C.  II.  P.  238. 
 
 pro- 
 
1  y  8  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 prophetick  Chapters,  "  (i)  that  the  Word  of 
 *'  Goci^  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  is  God  7iext 
 "  after  Him  who  is  Supreme  over  all.'*^  And 
 after  innumerable  fuch  Paflages  as  thefe,  he 
 begins  his  Preface  of  his  (ixtb  Book  with  ob- 
 ferving,  (2 J  ''  that  there  is  confeffed  to  be 
 ^'  One  God  Supreme  ovtr  all^  and  that  there 
 *^  is  demonftrated  to  be  after  him  a  Second 
 *^  Ejjencej  which  is  over  all  Things  that  were 
 *^  made,  and  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  call 
 ^^  the  Firftlorn  Wijdom  of  God^  and  the  07/ly 
 *'  begotten  SoH^  and  God  of  God,  and  the  J^- 
 *'  ^^'/  of  his  Great  Counfel^  and  the  Prince  of 
 •'  the  Heavenlj  Hofis^  and  the  Mini/ier  of  the 
 ''  Father:' 
 
 Thus,  I  think,  I  have  made  it  very  evi- 
 dent, that  all  the  Chriftian  Writers  of  the 
 Three  firft  Centuries,  (I  might  almofi  add 
 even  the  ^th  alfo,)  unanimouily  agree,  that 
 the  Son  was,  not  himfelf  The  One  Supreme 
 Gody  but  the  Jngtl  or  Mejfenger  of  the  Cove- 
 nant, and  that  he  Mini/lred  to  the  M^jU  and 
 Commands  of  the  One  Supremt  God.  Which 
 proves  the  Truth  of  my  AiTertion,  that  "  it 
 "  was  the  Unanimous  Opinion  ofailoA^itiquity^ 
 **  that  Cbrifi  appeared  and  fpake  under  tht  Old 
 "  Tefiament  in  the  Perfon  of  God  the  Father ^^ 
 
 (1)  AgtiTfpoy  ^icv  fjtitTu  Tov  dvuTuru  kcc]  Irri  ttuti,  rov  Imtmx  t^ 
 Kv^ioi  i\fjjm   rev  TB  S-£ow  A«70v  iivxi  fjunijocAriii^Tic,.   lib.  C.  C.  30. 
 
 (2)  Kett  9-£otr  fA  ivoc,  tow  tV<  ttzcvtuv  cofjuoXoytjfA/tv  '^  aiimfex^  J^  wtr 
 eivCov  ^hiyjiio-ri^  sVjot^  '  taking  sV/ai  in  the  Scnlc  of  UarcVao-*.;] 
 iy»jU;«y>J5  Tuv  yfvyrjTuv  oiTncvTCoy,  >)v  (ro(p/f«»  B-iou  Tpt^roTOKop,  yjcyoynn 
 n  vKiV,Ka(,i  B-iov  C/x  3-£oy,  ^iyotMc,  7t  /3iiXii<i  ayfiXov,    xul  tuv  kcjt    ifeu* 
 
 iov  <rix\iiw  u^^oP,x,  )(,xl  TQj  7Fci\^o<i  u7BfyoK,  &c    Jib.  6.    p.  257. 
 Proxm, 
 
 For 
 
Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  y  p 
 
 For  in  the  plain  Reafon  of  Things,  an  Angel 
 or  Mejjhiger  mufl  reprefent  the  Ftrfoji  oi  Ano^ 
 ther.  If  he  comes  in  bis  own  Name^  and  by 
 his  own  Supreme  independent  underived  Autho- 
 rity^ he  ceafes  to  be  an  oAngel  or  Mejfenger. 
 And  yet  I  did  not  fuppofe,  as  you  erroneoufly 
 imagined  me  to  do,  that  the  Antients  fo  un- 
 derftood  Chrift  to  appear  '^  in  the  Perfon  off.  33,34. 
 "  God  the  Father^"*  as  that  he  was  not  '' tn 
 ^'  his  own  Terfon  alfo''''  ftil'd  God sLnd  Lord'^ 
 but  only  that  they  always  meant,  that  Chrift 
 appeared  and  afted  as  the  Refrefentative  of 
 God  the  Father ;  and  therefore  they  apply'd 
 thofe  Texts  to  Him  m  a  Subordinate  Senfe, 
 which  in  the  Original  and  Supreme  Senfe 
 they  conftantly  attributed  to  God  the  Father 
 only. 
 
 That  the  Antients  thought  the  Supreme 
 God^  the  Father^  appeared  and  fpake  hy 
 Chrift^  may  be  ftill  further  confirmed  from 
 Jrenaus'^  V/ho  f^dys  exprefsly^  that  ''the  (i) 
 "  God  and  Lord  of  all ''  fin  contradiftinftion 
 to  his  Son  Jc^fus  Cbrift  mentioned  \n  the  fame 
 Sentence,)  "  faid  to  Mo[es^  I  am  that  I  am." 
 Now  fince  'tis  certain,  that,  according  to 
 Irenaus  and  all  the  Antients,  Curift  the  Word 
 and  not  the  Father^  was  the  Perfon  who 
 [poke  ;  it  follows  evidently  that  they  thought, 
 (what  they  frequently  alfo  affirm  direttly^) 
 that  he  reprefent ed  the  Perfon  of  the  Father 
 
 (i)  Nemo  igitur  alius,  qucmadmodum  prsedixi,  Deus  nomi- 
 natur,  aut  Dominus  appellatur,  nifi  qui  eft  omnium  Deus  <u* 
 Bominus,  qui  Sc  Moyfi  dixit,  ego  fum  qui  fum.^Q,  &  HVjUS 
 filius  Jefus  Clirillus  dominus  Nofter.  lib.  3.  (,  6, 
 
 who 
 
1 6  o  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 who  [pake  by  Him ;  And  confequently  tliey 
 underllood  This  and  all  other  Texts  fo,  as 
 that  the  Father  whom  Chrift  reprefented,  and 
 in  whole  Name  he  fpake,  was,  in  the  firft  and 
 higbeft  Senfe,  /  am  that  I  amy  or  the  alone 
 Supreme  Self-exifient  God. 
 
 I  have  nothing  more  to  do,  under  This 
 Query;  but  briefly  to  remark- fome  i?tcide?ital 
 Errors  and  hiconfifiencies  you  fall  into. 
 
 P.  34.  The  PaflTage  of  Clement^  wherein  you  tO'- 
 tally  miftake  the  Senfe  of  the  Words  \_^\cl  rS 
 lyis  'TTgoo-J'Try,  in  his  own  Per/on,']  has  been 
 confidered  above^p.  144. 
 
 The  Paffage  oilrenaus^  \Ipfe  igitur  Chri/Jus 
 cum  Patre^  &?c.]  which  you  here  cite,  has 
 Wcewife  been  confidered  alove^p.  142. 
 
 p,  3j.  You  add  a  Paffage  of  Novatian^    nothing 
 
 at  all  to  the  Purpofe  againft  me^  but  full 
 againjl  your  [elf:  Showing  that  the  Perfon 
 who  appeared  to  Hagar^  could  not  be  the 
 Supreme  God^  the  Father^  becaufe  of  his  being 
 ftiled  an  A?igel'^  nor,  again,  could  be  a  mere 
 a/lngel^  becaufe  of  his  being  ftiled  God :  And 
 therefore  he  concludes  it  muft  be  the  Son^  who 
 is ''  S  U  B  J  E  CT  (i)  to  his  Father, and  the  De- 
 "  clarer  of  his  Will."  Let  the  Reader  judge, 
 whether  This  be  an  Evidence  that  Novatian 
 
 ;>.  36.  thought  the  Son  to  be,  not  only  not  a  mere 
 Q^^ngtl^  but  himfelf  Fhe  One  Supreme  God. 
 The  Other  Words   you  here  refer  to,    (viz. 
 
 (0  f.26.  Quoniam  Patri  SUED  ITU  S  ^  Adnunciator  ta- 
 tern&  Voluntatis  eft.  [Which  words,  immediately  ^receeding  thofg 
 yoH  cite,  ought  not  to  have  bun  om\tted,'\ 
 
 Sub' 
 
Qii.  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  1 6 1 
 
 Suhftanti^  Commu?tionemJ  are  confidered  elfe- 
 where  ;  p.  55,  54,  above '^  and  helow  on  Query 
 XXFIIf  more  largely  and  diftinLtly. 
 
 With  what  you  obferve  from  Juftin^    I  de-p.36,3- 
 fire    the  Reader    to  compare  what  I   have 
 largely  alledged  alove^  P.  129,  S^c.    And   he 
 will  find,  that  it  is  Jufti?i's  profelTed  Defign 
 throughout  his  Book,  to  fhow  (diredly  con- 
 trary to  Tour  Notion,)  that  Chrift,   the   Son 
 of  God,    though   he  is  juftly  ttiled,    and  is 
 *^  really  Lord  and  God^"*    yet  is  not   himfelfp.  39. 
 The  One  Supreme  God^  or  of  the  fame  Supreme 
 Authority  as  the  Father  ;  but  is  the  Angel  and 
 Mimfler  of  the  Will  of  Toe  One  Supreme  God 
 jl   and  Father  of  the  Univeyfe. 
 
 The  only  Solution  you  give  of  thefe  latter  P.  3S. 
 Expredions,  fwhich  you  cannot  deny   to  be 
 perpetually  ufed  by  Juftin  and  All  the  Anci- 
 ents,) is,  that  thefe  Things  ao  not  SUITiJ^itb 
 the  Firfl  Perfon  of  the  Trinity  ,"  But  tlie  Son, 
 "  being  Second  only  in  the  ever-blefjed  Tri- 
 *'  nity^  and  defigning  in  his  own   due  time  to 
 ''  take  humane  Nature  upon  him^  might  MORE 
 «  SUITABLY  condefccnd  to  aci  Miniiieri- 
 *^  ally  among  Men^  ("as  a  proper  Preluae  to  his 
 *'  Incarnation  which  [f'jould  come  after  '^)  and 
 ^'  f^  mighp  he^  not  only  God,  but  an  Angel  tooP 
 How  different  are  thefe  Slender  Exprcrtions  of 
 yours,  from  Thofe  of  the  Antients  above-ci- 
 ted 1  What  They  thought  abfura  and   Impious 
 to  imagine  /  6/^/i/d' to  be   afcribed  to  the  Fa- 
 ther,  the  Si*/   You   think  might    ''MORE 
 "  SUITABlT''  do:  But  in  the  A^^^//r^  of 
 Things^  and  with  regard  to  any  Supremacy  of 
 M  Authoritj^ 
 
1 6z  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 oAuthorit)^^  the  Father  {myour  Opinion  J  be- 
 ing iirfi  in  nothing  but  Order  of  words,  might 
 ^^  i'^ffi^h  have  cofidefce72ded  to  have  been 
 Sent  under  the  Charafter  of  the  J?tgel  or 
 Mejjhiger  of  the  Son^  to  have  takeii  humane 
 nature  upon  him,  to  have  been  Incarnate^ 
 and  to  have  a£ted  mhiijierially  among  Men. 
 Does  not  This  deferve  your  mox^ferious  Con- 
 fideration  > 
 
 38.  Obferve  now,  how  you  reprefent  the  Argti^ 
 nient  of  the  Antients.  "  The  Argument  They 
 tifed^  you  fay,  is  This.  The  Perfon  zQ)ho  af- 
 "  peared  to  the  Patriarchs^  and  is  frequently 
 '\ftiled  God  and  Lord,  Jfehovah  and  Al- 
 ^'  mighty,  could  not  he  an  Angel  only ;  Be- 
 "  caufe  fuch  High  Titles  could  never  belong  to 
 "  any  mere  Angel.  Neither  could  he  he  God 
 ^'  the  Father :  Becau/e  his  Office  was  Mini- 
 "  fterial,  he  is  called  an  Angel,  he  Appear- 
 *'  ed,  he  condefcended  to  take  uj^o/i  him  hu- 
 *'  mane  Shape,  and  other  Re femUances:Thefe 
 <-"-  things  do  not  [nit  with  the  Firll:  Perfon  of 
 ^'  the  Tri?iity.  Well  then  ;  Who  could  he  he^ 
 "  hut  God  the  Son  f"'  That  is,  (according  to 
 ToU'-i)  Whom  could  thefcAntient  Writers  think 
 That  Minijlerial  Perfon  to  be,  but  One  who 
 was,  (not  only  not  a  mere  oAngel^  but)  as  much 
 SUPREME  over  All,  as  the  Eather  himfelf^ 
 to  whom,  exprefbly  upon  Account  of  his  &- 
 p'emacy  over  Ally  th^y  thought  it  Blajphemous 
 and  Impious  to  afcribe  in  Any  Senfe  Any  mi- 
 
 39-  ni'sltrial  Ojfice  whnkiQVev?  Is  ^''This  the  Ar- 
 "  gument  of  the  Antients^  as  every  one  knows^ 
 *'  that  knows  any  thing  of  theje  Matters  ?  I 
 
 might 
 
Qii.  IL     Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  1 63 
 
 might  here  very  juftly  (if  fuch  Expreflions 
 were  at  all  commendable)  return  you  the 
 Compliment,  which  you  with  a  very  warm^ 
 but  blind  and  miftaken  Zeal,  make  to  Me  in 
 your  next  Page.  ''  Of  all  the  filly  Thmgs^  that  p.  40.' 
 *'  Ignorance  and  Malice  have  combined  to 
 "  throw  w^on  the  Primitive  Martyrs  and  De- 
 ^'  fenders  of  the  Faith  of  Chriji^  I  have  not 
 *'  met  zmth  one  comparable  to  This :  I  am 
 *'  therefore  willing  to  believe,  that  you  did  not 
 *^  mean  to  charge  them  with  it,  but  only  ex^ 
 *'  py^jjid  your  felf  darkly  and  obfcurelj ;  which 
 ^'  yet  poidd  not  have  been  done,  by  one  who 
 ^'  would  be  careful  not  to  mislead  even  an  un^ 
 **  wary  Reader.''''  For,  what  can  tend  more 
 to  expofe  the  Writings  of  the  Antients,  thaa 
 to  reprefent  them  as  teaching  that  Chrid  is 
 Himfelf  The  One  Supreme  God^  at  the  fame 
 Time  while  they  conftantly  teach  and  infiflr, 
 that  he  is  the  A?/gel  or  Mejfenger  of  The  One 
 Supreme  God  ^  and  that  his  Office  is  minijieri- 
 al  to  the  Will  and  Commands  of  the  Father  - 
 and  that  it  is  abjurd  and  Impious  QaVe;3g^]  to 
 fay  or  think  that  the  Supreme  God  can  be  in 
 Any  Senfe  an  eAngel  or  Mejfenger,  or  could 
 'Appear  and  aft  in  That  mann~er,  in  which 
 they  always  affirm  that  Chrift  Appeared  and 
 afted  ?  And  how  can  it,  coniiftently  with 
 Any  Reafon,  be  affirmed,  that  to  fuppofe 
 One  Perfon,  who  is  the  Supreme  God^  could 
 be  (ayJeAo^)  an  Angel  or  Mejfenger,  and  ap- 
 pear in  humaite  Form\  was  (upon  Account 
 of  his  Supremacy  over  all)  an  impojjible  and  im- 
 pious Suppofition  ;  And  yet  at  the  fame  time 
 
 M  2  Ano' 
 
1 64  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Another  Perfon^  who  is  equally  The  One  SU- 
 F  HEME  God^  may  very  well  be  (iyAA©-)  a 
 M'jjthger^  and  df^ear  in  himafie  Form  f 
 p.  41.  The  next  thing  you  alledge,  i>;    that  ^^- 
 
 v^tinn^  when  he  apply'd  the  v/ord,  God^  to 
 the  Son,  '^  under/load  it  in  the  Strict  and  Pro^ 
 "  per  Stnfe'y  and  thus  the  Antie?its  in  general 
 "  underftood  ilV  This  is  a  mean  Quibble 
 upon  the  Words,  '''  firici  and  f  roper '^  No- 
 vatian  and  Other  Antient  Writers,  undoubt- 
 edly underftood  the  word,  God^  when  ap- 
 plied to  the  Son^  ftr icily  and  properly  in  77?^^ 
 Senje  wherein  they  uniformly  declare,  in  AH 
 their  Writings,  that  they  intended  it  fliould 
 be  underftood  when  they  apply  it  to  the  Son: 
 But  if  by  the  Terms,  '^  Jtntily  and  properly^' 
 you  mean,  ahfolutely  and  identically^^  in  the 
 fame  SU  P  RE  ME  Senfe  in  which  it  is  applied 
 to  the  Fat  her  -^  your  Affertion  is  manifeftly  falfe. 
 For,  none  of  the  Antient  Writers,  when  they 
 ftyle  the  Son  God^  mean  to  affirm  that  the 
 Sou  is  He  who  alone  has  All  PerfeHions  avd 
 All  Dominion^  alfolutely  in  and  of  Himfelfy 
 original^  underived^  Supreme,  and  indepejident 
 071  Ah):  Which  is  Always  the  Signification  of 
 the    word  God^     when   (i)    applied   to  the 
 
 Father. 
 
 (r)  See  ahovc  P.  57.  To  which  may  be  added  the  following 
 
 Pallages.   rtvaa-y-iri  iiv  oTi  iU  ^ik  «Vtv, —  o  ccopxT<^, oc^^- 
 
 tIv  ^icy  o-s/gfc&t  *  2^  t5  ;tc*r5  <ri,Qou,ivoi.     Clem.  Alex. 
 
 Stromal,  lib.  6.  p.  635,  636.  i.  e.  ''Know  that  there  is  One  God, 
 *'  Invijiile,  hnmcn'fc,  Self-fufpcimt,  Imoynprehenfibky^  Eternal^ 
 "  Incorruptible;  This  God  ■wor(l)ip  ycy  through  Chrijl."  Againj 
 To  ]ji  iiv  ocdioi  fjt^ii  tTvxi,  ivx  rev  ccymv^Tov,  ku)  iiJ^ov,  y^  otopxroy,  ku)  u^x^-yi, 
 
 Athcnag. 
 
u 
 
 Qu.  II.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  i  ^  J 
 
 Father.  Novatian  particularly,  whom  you 
 are  now  referring  to,  fays :  "The  fi)  Son  is 
 "  God  ;  but  begotten  to  This  very  End,  that 
 *'  he  might  be'Cod.''  Jgain  :  "  What  (2) 
 ^^  Reafon  is  there,  I  befeech  you,  that  when 
 they  read  this  Title  (God)  was  given  to 
 Mofes^  where  it  is  written,  I  have  made 
 *'  thee  a  God  unto  Pharaoh^''  (i.  e.  have  gi- 
 ven Thee  Power  and  Authority  over  him  -^ 
 ''  they  Ihould  deny  it  to  Chrift,  who  is  not 
 ''  only  appointed  to  be  a  God  unto  Tharaoh^ 
 **  but  Lord  and  God  of  every  Creature  ?" 
 
 In  anfvver  to  what  had  been  ailedged  from 
 Theo^hilus^  Tertullian^  and  many  other  An- 
 tient  Writers,  concerning  Chrid's  being  faid 
 to  reprefent  the  Ferfon^  and  act  in  the  Name 
 of  God'^  you  tell  me,  that  Chrift  in  the  Old 
 
 Athenag.  Legat.  P.  37.  i.e.  *^  I  hav£  fiifficiently  fhown,  that 
 "  -we  IV ho  acknowledge  One  God^  Unbegotten,  Eternal,  Invifi- 
 *'  ble^  Impajfible,  Imomprehenfible,  and  Immenfe  ;  are  not  Athe- 
 *'  iftiy  Again  :  Prima  enim  Tu  Caufa  es,  locus  rerum  &  Ipa- 
 cium,  fundamentum  cunftorum  quaecunque  fiint;  infinitus,  in- 
 genitus,  immortalis,  perpetuus,  foli-is.  Amob.  Adv.  Gent.  P.ij, 
 i.  e.  "  Thoi4  art  the  Firji  Caufe,  the  Place  in  which  all  Things 
 *'■  have  their  Being,  the  Foundation  of  all  Things  which  exifl- 
 *'  Infinite,    Unbegotten,    Immortal,    Eternal,     the    Only    Onel' 
 
 Again :  Omnipotens  &  Primus  Deus, nonne  foJus  inge- 
 
 nitus,  im.mortalis,  Sc  perpetuus  folus  eft?  ibid.  lib.  i.  p.  95-. 
 i.  e.  *'  The  Omnipotent  and  Supreme  God,  is  he  not  alone  Vnbe- 
 '*  gotten.  Immortal,  and  Eternal  ?"  [The  Meaning  evidently  is, 
 not  that  Other  Beings  alfo  may  not  be  Immortal  and  incorrup- 
 tible, but  that  He  Alone  is  fo  ab/olutely  Of  Himfelf,  by  ori-' 
 ginal  under ived  Self-fufficiency.'] 
 
 (i)  Eft  ergo  Deus ;  fed  in  hoc  ipfum  genitus,  ut  elfet  De^ 
 us.    c.  31. 
 
 (1 J  Quae  autem  (maliim)  ratio  eft,  ur  ciim  legant  hoc  eriam 
 Moyfi  nomen  datum,  dum  dicitur,  Deum  te  pofui  Tharaoni  ; 
 Chri/Io  negctur,  qui  non  Pharaoni  Deus,  fed  univcrf:  creatu- 
 fA  Sc  Dominus  6c  Deus  eonfiitutu^  eiVe  reperitur?    cap.  15. 
 
 M  3  Tefta. 
 
1 66  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 42"      Teftament  "  is  ?iot  reprefented  under  his  own 
 '^  perfoftal  difliiiginjhing  Cbara3e}\  as  a  Son^  or 
 
 ''  Second  Per  fan  -^ but  under  fuch  a  Char  a- 
 
 "  Ber  as  is  common  to  the   GODHEAD'^'' 
 (viz.  under  the  Characler  of  Lord  God^  Lord 
 God  Almighty,  and  the  like  :)    "  which  Cha- 
 '^  raclerjfince  the  diJlinBion  ofPerfons  has  been 
 '*  revealed  to  us^  has  been  in  a  more  emine?it  and 
 ''  peculiar  mamier  referved  to  the  Father,   He  is 
 "  reprefented  emincfitly  Now  as  God-^  andChnW^ 
 ^'  as  Son  of  God^  or   Mediatour^    or  MeJJiah, 
 *'  Chrifi^  having  Before  took  upon  him  That  Part^ 
 *'  Chara&er  or  Office^  which...  fince  That  Time^ 
 *'  has  been  referved  in  a  peculiar  manner  to  the 
 *'  Father ,  7?tay  be  faid  to  have  a&ed  in  the 
 ^'^  Perfon  of  the  Father,    or   in  the  Name  of 
 *'  the  Father  ^  That  is^    under  the  fame  Cha- 
 *'  ra&er  or  Capacity^  which   the    Father    Now 
 *^  chiefly  bears  with  refpeB  to  Men.''  This  you 
 ?.  41.      intend  jQiould  ^'fatisfie  "  me,  about  the  Senfe 
 of  the  Antients,  who  fay  that  Chrift  appeared 
 reprefenting  the  Perfon^  and  aBing  in  the  N^^me 
 of  the  Father.     But  the  Reafons  why  I  am 
 not  ''•  fatisfied^''^  are  Thefe. 
 
 i/?.  This  Title,  The  Lord  God,  is  not,  as 
 you  imagine  it  to  be,  a  Charafter  common  to 
 the  GOD  HE  AD,  that  is,  an  AbflraB  ge?ie- 
 ral  Name  of  Metaphyfical  Subftance,  diftinft 
 from  the  Confideration  of  Perfonality^  (See 
 above^  p.  1 1  ;)  but  it  is  evidently  always,  in 
 the  Nature  of  Language,  as  necellarily  a 
 Perfonal  Title.,  as  This  Title,  the  Kjng.^  ne* 
 ccfl'irily  fignifies,  not  the  Regality.^    nor  the 
 
 Sub- 
 
Qii.  11.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  i  (^7 
 
 Suhflance^  but  the  ^erfon  of  the  King.  The 
 Antients  therefore,  when  they  find  the  Title, 
 Lord  God^  given  to  the  Perfon  who  appeared 
 vifihly  under  the  Old  Teftament,  never  ex« 
 plain  it  (as  Ton  here  do)  by  a  metaphyfical  Ab- 
 JiraHion^  but  always  by  the  way  of  Reprefen- 
 tation :  Always  and  uniformly  arguing,  that 
 the  Perfon  who  Appeared  vifihly  was  not  him- 
 felf  The  One  Supreme  God^  becaufe  they  fup- 
 pofed  it  was  impojjlble^  abfurd^  and  impious  to 
 imagine,  that  the  Supreme  God  was  capable  of 
 appearing  at  all,  even  fo  much  as  under  any 
 affumed  Symbols  of  his  Prefence  ,  and  alfo  be- 
 caufe they  found  that  the  Perfon  who  Appear ed^ 
 was  characterized  with  the  Name  of  An^el 
 as  well  as  of  God^  and  mintflered  to  the  Will 
 and  Commands  oi  Another  Perfon  ,  Which  they 
 thought  was  a  thing  highly  derogatory  and 
 impious,  to  have  in  Any  fenfe  affirmed  of 
 Him  who  was  Himfelf  The  One  Supreme 
 God. 
 
 idly^  If  the  Father,  as  you  here  own,  is 
 "  in  a  more  eminent  and  peculiar  manner*^  Lordp,  42,^ 
 God^  than  the  Son  ,  then  the  Son  is  not  Lord 
 God  in  the  fame  "  Supreme^^  in  the  ""^  famep,  ^3,^^, 
 "  High  Seyife  as  the  Father  Hitnfelf:"'  Unlefs 
 by  the  Titles,  ^'  eminent  and  peculiar^''  you 
 mean  really  nothing  but  empty  Sounds. 
 
 ^dly^  *Tis  abfitrd  to  call  the  CharaBer  ofp,  ,, 
 Supreme  Lord  God,  an  ''  0  FFICEr  And  ftill 
 7nore  abfurd^  to  fuppofe  that  Chrift,  whofe  Of- 
 fice (you  ownj  was  then  "  Minifterial^'^  appear- ^^  ,g^ 
 ed  as  being  Himfelf  The  One  Suprejne  Lord  God.* 
 
 M  4  As 
 
1 68  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 As  if  the  One  Supreme  Lord  God  coxAdi  have  or 
 appear  to  have  a  mim  ft  erial  Office,     And  mo  ft  of 
 
 ^'  42..  /?//  ahfurd  is  it,  to  fay  that  Chrifl*s  "  f^^iw^ 
 "  r//?^;;  /^i;;/  T/^^f  CharaBer'*'^  Qtaking  up- 
 on himfelf  in  his  OTVN  Per/on  That  Su- 
 preme  Charader^  "  which  has  fince  been  refer- 
 *'  ved in  a  peculiar  manner  to  the  father^''  is 
 "  having  a&ed  in  the  P  erf  on  of  the  Father^  or 
 "  in  the  Name  of  the  Father  ;"  As  if,  to  Re- 
 prefent  the  Perfon  of  God^  a?id  to  aS  in  his 
 Name  and  by  his  Authority^  was  the  fame  as 
 being  Hiinfeif  TiE?^  One  Supreme  God. 
 
 •P'43>44.  What  you  add  concerning  7>r?w/7/^«'s  afRrm- 
 ing,  that  Chrifl  "  was  Almighty  ("^j  in  his 
 "  own  Right ^  as  being  the  Son  of  the  Almighty  " 
 and  concerning  his  being* "  adored  under  the 
 *^  one  comfnon  Chara&er  of  God^  Lord^  and 
 *^  Jehovah^  not  merely  as  Reprefentutive  of 
 ^^  God  the  bather^  or  as  invefied  vAth  his  An- 
 **  thority^  but  as  firiBly  and  truly  God  Confub- 
 "  flantial  with  God  the  Father-^'  has  been 
 abundantly  confidered  already.  For  they  who 
 fuppofed  the  Son,  (as  Tertullian  exprefsly  did,) 
 to  be  a  fmall  Part  of  the  E'ather's  Subpayice^  or 
 an  Emanation  from  the  Father's  Subfta7ice  by 
 his  Will  ^  evidently  meant  not  to  infer  (as 
 you  do)  from  their  Notion  of  Confubflantiality^ 
 any  Equality  of  Supre?ne  and  independent  Au- 
 thoritj . 
 
 C^)  Note  :  The  v/ords  Suo  jure,  in  this  place,  do  not  fig- 
 pif/,  '■'  in  h'tso~Jun  Rights''  but,  ''ma  Senfey  {oXy  upon  a  Ground) 
 "  proper  and  peadiar  to  himfelf:'  See  the  PalL^ge  at  len^h, 
 helo'JDf  on  '^crj  XXVII,  towards  the  End, 
 
 The 
 
'qu.  IL    Of  the  Vnhy  of  Cod.  1 69 
 
 tj     The  "Sww  of  the  Cafe'"  which  you  at  liftF.  44. 
 ,  'put,  is  wonderfully  unintelligible  and  contra- 
 didory.    Fi^fl'-i  you  aflert  thatChrift  '^  claimed 
 
 *'  the   Adoration  of  the   Patriarchs ujider 
 
 ^'  the  t^ame   and  ihara^er of  Lord  God^ 
 
 "  God  Almighty  ^Skc''  meaning  that  he  claim'd 
 it  in  That  manner  to  himfelf  in  his  own  Per- 
 fan.  The  Antient  Catholick  Writers  were 
 un^nimoufly  (as  I  have  already  (hown)  of  a 
 different  Opinion.  I  fliall  here  add  only  a 
 Pafllige  of  Etifebius.  *'  (i)  The  IVord  of  God" 
 (fays  he)  ''  who  is  the  Guide  and  Diredor  of 
 "  All,  call'd  back  the  Jews  to  the  Wor- 
 "  fliip  of  the  Father  only^  who  is  The  Mojl 
 "  High^  far  above  all  things  that  are  vifible, 
 *'  far  above  the  Heavens  and  every  originated 
 "  Subftance  whatfoever  5  gently  and  mildly 
 •'  inviting  thofe  who  were  obedient  to  him, 
 '^  and  teaching  them  to  worfhip  only  the  Unbe- 
 "  gotten  and  mojl  High  God  the  Maker  of  the 
 ''  Univerfe,'* 
 
 Secondly^  You  in  the  very  next  words,  \np.  44. 
 a  moft  Contradi&ory  manner,  give  up  your 
 whole  Caufe,  by  Adding,  that  ''being  SINCE 
 "  difcovered  not  to  be  the  Father  Himfelf  but 
 **  the  Son ,  7iot  unorigitiated^but  God  of  God ;  all 
 ''  that  he  did,  muft  be  Referred  back  to  the  Fa- 
 *'  ther^  the  Head  and  Fountain  of  all  \  whofe  An- 
 
 rev  B-iou   Aoy©-',    sV*  Ty,v  ^i/»  Tou  TTccrfot^^    clvroZ   Ji]  ^  i-t^ifn,    B-fr,o-~ 
 Kticcv  ccvsKuXuroy  rav  o^uyjivuv  uttw/tuv    ccvututu,  iTTiKUvocTi    ^pctvS  ic, 
 
 fAc,vcv  T£  clvroii^  ruv  ecyivy/jTcv  y^  tuv  oXuv  Troi/jryiv  ©j*v  T  v'^i'j-ov  ttucoc,- 
 
 <5*J»c  kirifiiTy,  Dem.  Evang.  lib.  4.  c.  7. 
 
 "thority 
 
I70  OftheVnitjofCod. 
 
 ^^  thorjtyhe  exerctfed^  wkofe  Orders  he  exem^ 
 ''  ted,  and  whofe  Perfon,  Characler^   or  Office^ 
 
 P.  184.  <c  /^^  reprefented  and fii(iainedr  i^nd  again  in 
 ''  like  manner :  hdeed  (you  fay)  the  general 
 ''  Opinion  of  the  Afitients  centered  in  This^  that 
 
 *  ^v.  B.  'c  the  Father^  as  ^  Supreme,  ifjhed  out  Or- 
 "  ders  for  the  Creation  of  the  Univerfe^  and 
 the  Son  executed  the7n''  I  think,  no  more 
 needs  be  (aid,  to  fatisfy  any  intelligent  Rea- 
 der, that,  by  your  Reafoning  here,  itneceffari- 
 ly  and  plainly  follows  that  Chrift  is  not  "  The 
 
 f'  53'  57.  '*  One  Supreme  God;'  God  ''  in  the  fame,  and  in 
 *'  as  High  a  Senfe  as  the  Father  hmfelf\'  (ince 
 you  own  that  he  in  all  things  "  exercifedthe 
 ''  Authority  and  executed  the  Orders  "  of  Ano- 
 ther^ viz.  of  the  Father. 
 
 i*.  46.  To  conclude.     Tho /never   '^  appealed ;' ^^ 
 
 you  fay  I  do,  to  Antiquity  •  nor  look'd  upon 
 the  Fathers  as  having  any  real  Authority  in 
 Matters  of  Faith  •  becaufe  they  are  fallible 
 Men,  and  becaufe  I  think  it  a  Derogation  to 
 the  Hcljf  Scriptures  to  appeal  to  any  later  Wri- 
 ters, and  therefore  have  referred  to  Thofe 
 Writers  for  Illuflration  only  :  Yet,  I  think, 
 I  have  given  Ton  Reafon  to  defift  from  all 
 Pretences  to  any  Countenance  (ox  Tour  Notion^ 
 from  Antiquity, 
 
 Q^UER  Y 
 
Qu.  III.     Of  the  Vmty  of  God.  1 7 1 
 
 Q^U  E  R  Y       III. 
 
 Whether  the  word  (God)  in  Scripture^  can  rea- 
 sonably be  fuppos'd  to  carry  an  ambiguous 
 Meanmg^  or  to  be  iis'd  in  a  different  Senfe^ 
 when  applied  to  the  Father  and  Son,  in  the 
 fame  Scripture^  and  even  in  the  fame  verfe  ^ 
 (See  John  i.  i.; 
 
 A/^.T^^O  This  Qiiery  it  has  been  anfwer- 
 X     cd,   that    ''  the  word   [God]    in 
 ^'  Scripture^''  though    it  does  not   '-'•  carry  anp,^^, 
 '-'  ambiguous  Meaning^''    yet    evidently   it  is 
 "  ufed  in  a  different  Senfe''     For  when  it  is 
 [applied  to  the  Father,    it  denotes   Him  who 
 Alone  has  all  PerfeBiojis^  and  all  Power  and 
 Voffunion^  abfolutely  in  and  of  Himfetf,  original^ 
 imderived^  and  indepeiident  on  Any^    and  who 
 does  all  Thingf  according  to  the  Counfel  of  his 
 Own  Will :  Which  is  the  Primary,  Abfolute, 
 land  Supreme  Senle  of  the  Word.    But  when  it 
 is  applied  to  the  Son,  it  denotes  One  who  has 
 NOT  his  PerfeBions^  Power ^   and  Dominion^ 
 abfoliitely  of  himfelf  original,    under ived,  and 
 I  indepe?2dent  on  Any  ,  but  has  them  all  derived 
 I  to  hi7nfrom  Another^  and  always  aBs  and  wills 
 in  compliafjce  with  the  Will  of  Another:    In 
 which  Cafe  'tis  manifeftly  ufcd  in  a  Subordi- 
 nate Senfe  only. 
 
 Inftead  of  endeavouring  to   obviate   This  p.  47, 
 Reafoning  •    you  tell  us,  "  Dr.  Clarke   indeed  ' 
 ^<  would  perfwade  usy  that  the  proper  Scripture- 
 
 "  Notion 
 I 
 
1 7  i  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 ^'  Vut'ion  of  God  15  Dominion^  and  that  therefore 
 ^'  any  Perfon  having  Dominion^  is^  according  to 
 *'  the  Scripture-Notion^  truly  and  properly  God,'* 
 
 ^'  49'  But  Ton  maintain,  that ''  Do?}iinion  is  ?wt  the  full 
 "  import  of  the  word  God  in  Scripture,'^  I  an- 
 fwer  :  Though  Dominion  is  not  th^  full  imporc 
 of  the  word,  God-^  yet  'tis  That,  and  That 
 cnly,  which  makes  God  to  be  Our  God.  For 
 as  'tis  not  the  Perfdions  of  the  Man^  but  his 
 Dominion  over  SubjeBs^  which  makes  a  Kiyig 
 to  be  the  King  of  thofe  SuhjeEls  :  So  'tis  not 
 the  abfolute  metaphyfical  PerfeSions  of  the 
 Nece/Jary  Beings  but  his  Dominion  over  the 
 Univerfe,  which  makes  Gd?^  to  be  Our  God, 
 
 Leaft  from  hence  it  (hould  follow,  that  the 
 Supremacy  of  the  Father  is  the  dlflinguilhing 
 Charailer  of  the  One  Supreme  God ,   you  chu(e 
 
 ;>.  47.  rather  to  diftinguifli  ^'  the  Seiijes  of  the  word^ 
 *'  God^  into  proper  a7id  improper."  God  in 
 the  figurative  or  improper  Senfe,    you    fay, 
 
 ^•54,5^-  is  ^^710  God''  at  all:  God  in  the  proper 
 Senfe,     you  contend,     can    include    nothing 
 
 ^•54.  lefs  than  '^y^//"  the  effential  Perfedions  of 
 the  Supreme  or  il/^y?  High  God,  The  Con- 
 clufion  you  draw,  is,  that  fince  Chrif)  is 
 confefledly  ftilcd  God,    he  mufl:  needs  there- 
 
 ^'  57.  fore  be  fo  ''  in  as  RIG  Ha  Senfe  as  the  Father 
 *'  himfelf  Rut  now  pray  obfcrve,  how  clear- 
 ly you  overturn  your  Own  Argument.  If  none 
 can  properly  be  flilcd  God  at  all,  who  has  not 
 *'  AW  eilcntial  Perfedions  ^  how  then  comes 
 it  to  pafs,  that,  in  your  Defcription  of  the  Idea 
 of  God,  you  carefully  leave  out  fome,  nay,  the 
 
 Principal 
 
Qu.  HI.    Oj  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 7  3 
 
 Prmcipal  of  the   effential    Perfedlions  of  the 
 Fird  Caufe  and  Author  of  all  Things  .<?  If  None 
 c?in  properly  be  ftiled  God  at  all,  who  has  not 
 "  infinite  Wifdorn^  Power    Invincible^  All-fuffi- p,  52.' 
 ''  ciency^andthe  like  ,"  who  has  not  "  Dominion 
 *'  Supreme  •,"  who  is  not  "  eter?jal,  immutable^ 
 *'  all-fuffjcient'^''  who  is  not  ^' Supreme^  Supreme  p.  s^, 
 *'  in  the   ftriB  Senfe^   tvhich  fuppofes  for  its 
 "  groimd  ALL  the  ejfential  Properties  of  one  p.  54- 
 ''  truly  and  properly  God  /*  Why  then  did  you 
 not  add,    (as  you  might  upon  the  fame  foot^ 
 and  ought  to  have  addedj    None   who  is  not 
 abfolutely  of  Himfelf  felf-exiftent^  Self-fuffici-^ 
 ent^    Unorigiiute^    Underived,  Unbegotten^    In- 
 dependent ^     None,  who  in  Any  fenfe  receives 
 his  Power  and  Authority  from  Another  ',  None, 
 who  in  Any  fenfe  can  be  the  Angel  or  Meffen- 
 ger  of  Another  -^  None,  who  in  any  Senfe  can 
 be  faid  to  aEi  by  the  DireBion  and  in  Obedience 
 to  the  Will  of  Another  .<?  Had  you  not  concealed 
 this  from  your  Reader,  it  would  evidently  have 
 appeared  that  your  Argument  entirely  overturns 
 it  felf,  and  tends  only  to  cenfure  the  Gofpel  tor 
 giving  to  Chrift:  the  Title  of  God  at  all. 
 
 The  Diftindlion  of  "  Supreme''  and  ''  Sub- p.  53. 
 *'  ordinate''*  in  the  Ufe  and  Application  of 
 the  word,  God  ^  is  (you  fay)  ''  ufelefs  and  in- 
 ^^  Jigfiificajit:''  ijl^  becaufe  it  *"' unavoidably 
 "  runs  into  Polytheifm-^'  and  idly^  becaufe 
 "  'tis  bwlt  upon  a  falfe  groujid^  as  if  any  thing 
 "  could  be  properly  God ^  that  is  riot  Supreme^* 
 and  That  "  in  the  StriEl  Se?ife  "  too.  To  the 
 iv>/?,  1  anfwer  ;  that  the  acknowledgment   of 
 
 One 
 
1 74  Of  the  Vnity  of  God^  i 
 
 I  ccr.'^yC.  One  God^  the  Father^  0  F  whom  are  all  things  •, 
 and  One  Lord  [ox  God']  BY  whom  are  all 
 things^  by  whom  the  Father  made  all  things  *, 
 is  not  Polytheifm^  becaufe  'tis  acknowledging 
 One  only  Firjl  Caitfe,  and  One  only  Supreme 
 Gover?}our  oj-  the  Univerfe.  But  Your  Notion 
 is  neceffarily  and  manifelily  Polytheifjn :  Be- 
 caufe Two  Governonrs  of  the  Univerfe,  having 
 eqitally  Supreme  arid  Independerit  Authority^  are 
 iieceilarily  and  manifeftly  Tzvo  Gods^  Two 
 Gods  in  Perfon^  Tzvo  Supreme  Gods  -^  and  equal- 
 ly fo,  whether  divided  or  undivided^  whether 
 ujiited  or  not  united  in  Subfiance.  To  the  Se- 
 cond^ lanfwer-   that  your'Aliertion  is  dired- 
 
 p.  54.  ly  contrary  both  to  Scripture^  and  to  all  (i) 
 Antiquity,  and  to  Your f elf  too.  For  both  the 
 Scripture  and  other  Antient  Writers,  do  give 
 unto  the  Son  properly  the  Title  of  God -^  and 
 yet  never  fuppofe  him  to  be  Supreme:  Becaufe 
 ading  by  the  IVi/Jmd  DireSion,  by  the  Poxv- 
 er  and  Authority  of  Another^  is  direftly  con- 
 tradidory  to  being   Supreme.      And  '*  indeed^ 
 
 P.  184.  ''  the  General  Opinion  of  the  Antients'''  (as  you 
 yourfelf  moft  inconfiftently  acknowledge) ''  cen- 
 "  tered  in  This ,  that  the  Father^  as  S  U- 
 "  PRE  ME,  iffiied  out  Orders  for  the  Crea- 
 **  tion  of  the  Umvcrfe^  and  the  Son  executed 
 ''  thcfiu'' 
 
 (0  TIic  PafT.ige  of  Iren^us  you  here  refer  to,  [gl«;  fuper  fe 
 hnbct  Jiiiquem  Superiorem^  C^  fub  Alterius potejlate  eft;  hie  tieq; 
 Dcus  ncq;^  Magnus  Rex  did  potefiy\  has  been  conlidcred  abo-ve, 
 p.  101.  'J'jie  PafHigc  of  TertttUin)i  you  at  the  lame  time  cite, 
 will  be  conlidercd  hcUwy  under  §uery  V. 
 
 To 
 
Qu.  III.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  1 7  y 
 
 To  the  Text,  Joh7i  10,55,56,  If  he  called p^  ^^^  ^-^ 
 Them  Gods^  to  whom  the  Word  of  God  came^ 
 and  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken  ;,  ^^y  ye  of 
 j  Him  whom  the  Father  hath  fanBified  and  fent 
 into  the  World^  Thou  blafphemeji^  becaufe  1 
 faid,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ^  To  This  Text^  I 
 fay,  the  Sum  of  your  Anfvver,  in  two  Pa- 
 ges, amounts  plainly  to  This  ^  that  our 
 Lord  made  ufe  d?/0;z^  Argument,  and  ?neant 
 Another. 
 
 To  the  Text,  Heb,  i  ;,  8,  9,  where  the  Fa-  p.  55. 
 ther  is  flyled  The  God  of  Him  who  has  there 
 the  Title  of  God  given  him,  you  reply  out  of 
 Hilary^  that  ''This  MATJigmfyonhhisSub^ 
 *'  ordination  AS  a  Son^  or  A S  God  of  GoJ^ 
 ''  without  any  Inferiority  of  Nature,  The  Father 
 "  is  HIS  God^  AS  he  is  God  by  being  begotten 
 *'  of  him^  And  "  This  Anfwer  (you  fay)  is 
 "  direB  and  fully  Yet  in  truth  it  is  diredly 
 giving  up  the  Whole  Point  in  que/iion^  which  is 
 folely  concerning  Supremacy  of  Dominion  and 
 Authority.  For  hoxv  can  he  who  is  God^  not 
 Ofhimfelf^  but  by  derivation  from  Another  ^ 
 and  v/ho  is  Subordinate  as  a  Son^  and  calls 
 his  Father  His  God -^  how  (I  fay)  can  He  be 
 *^  Supreme  in  the  ftrici  Senfe,'''  and  God  "  in  as  /».  ^3, 
 ''  HIGH  a  fenfe  as  the  Father  Himfelf  is  fo  p  ' 
 "  fliledr 
 
 As  to  the  diftindion  you  alledge,  '^  without 
 ''  any  Inferiority  of  Tl  ATU  RE -;'  The  word. 
 Nature^  being  a  mere  abfraB  general  Term, 
 of  very  uncertain^  various^  and  iiide terminate 
 Signification,  I  reply  in  the  Words  of  Dr.  Clarke 
 
 itt 
 
ij6  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 in  his  Anfv^er  to  Mr.  t^^lfon^  p.  17.     *'  I  fhqll    ; 
 ''  not  contend   with  you  about  Metaphyjical    \ 
 ''  Words  '^  which  (ince 7  have  conftantly  avoid- 
 *'  ^^becaufe  of  their  abflraft  and  ambiguous 
 ^'  Signification,  )ou  fhouldnot  have  chofen  to 
 ^'  ufe  them  in  reprefenting  my  Senfe.     Bifliop  ; 
 *"  Bull  exprefsly  owns  the  Perfon  of  the  Son  to 
 *'  be,   in  his  Highefl  Capacity,  Subordinate  to 
 *^  the  i'erfon  of  the  Father^''  [that  is,  Subordi- 
 nate to  him  in  Authority  c']  *'  Which  is  a  No- 
 ^'  tion  very  intelligible^  (whatever  be  the  Va- 
 ^'  ture^  Subftance^  or  Ejfence  of  Either  ;)   and 
 ^'  is  all  (I  think)  that  the  Honour  of  God  and 
 '^  the  whole  Doftrine  of  Scripture  obliges  us 
 ''  to  contend  for.      The   word  NATURE^ 
 *•''  as   it    fignifies    the    Nature  of  any  Perfon^ 
 "  ahftraa  from  the  Perfon  hipjfelf^'    [I  add, 
 and  abJiraS  from  the  co?if  deration  of  his  Au- 
 thority and  Qyi&ive  Powers  -^  "  is  a  Metaphy- 
 **  fical  Term,  of   great    Ambiguity  and  Ob- 
 '*  fcurenefs,    and  of  no  Ufe  that  I  know  of 
 ^'  in  Any  Qiieftion,    but  to   introduce   more 
 *'  Difficulties    by  dark  Expreffons,  than  arc  * 
 <'  realiy  found  in  the  J  hi  figs  themfelves.^'    But 
 to  proceed. 
 P.  57.  Chrijl^  you  fay,   "  is  called  The  Lord  God 
 
 *'  of  the  Prophets,  Rev.  22,6,  cojnpared  with 
 "  Verfe  ?6."  But  Dr.  Clarh  has  clearly 
 fliown,  from  the  immediate  Connexion  of  the 
 Words  with  the  foregoing  Verges,  that  it  is 
 The  Father  to  whom  That  Title  is  there  given* , 
 tcript,  Docfr.  p.  58.  2d,  Edit. 
 
 But 
 
Qii.  III.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  v-n 
 
 But  Chrift,you  add,  is  likewife  ^'  calledThep.  sv 
 **  Jehovah  J  which  is  a  word  of  abfolute  Jig- 
 **  .nijicatton^  and  is  the  incommtmi cable  Name 
 *^  of  the  One  True  God:'*'*   and    'Hhe  relative p-  <^o. 
 "  Terms^  [my,  your,  i^c\~\  do  not  fuit   with 
 *'  />:"  ^nd^""  Antiquity  is  every  where  ftdl  and 
 <<  exprefs^' — that  the  Son  is  Jehovah   • 
 "  in  his  own  Perfon  and  in  his  own  Right.'* 
 As  to  Antiquity^  I  have  above  Hiown  at  large, 
 that  it  was  the  unanimous  Opinion  of  All  the 
 Primitive  Writers,    that  Chrift  appeared  in 
 the  Old  Teftament  under  the  Name  and  Ti- 
 tle oijr/ooia)^  as  being  the  vijihle  Reprefen- 
 tative  oi  thu.'  dfoluteiy  I:jv?jible  Perfon  of  the 
 Father-^  And  that  fie  who,  at  the  fame  time 
 when  he  was  ililed  Jehovah^    was  ftiled  alfo 
 an  Angel  or  Mejfenger^  could  not  poffibly  be 
 Himfelf  the  Supreme   felfexifient  God-,    be- 
 caufe,  that  the  Supreme   God  fhould  appear 
 in  Any  manner,  or  be  in  Any  Senfe  an  Angel 
 or  Mt\fe,iger^  was  (in  Their  Opinion^  impious 
 to  affirm,  not  upon  account  of  his  Paternity^ 
 but  of  his  Supremacy  over  All.     Nor  is  there 
 indeed  Any  difficulty  of  Language,  in  fuppofing 
 2iRtirtfentative  to  fpeak  o( Him  whom  he  re- 
 prefents^  in  the  Firjf:  Perfon.    Judg,  2,  i,  The 
 Angel  of  the  Lo.'dfaia^  I  marie  jou  to  go  up  out 
 of  Egjpty  unto  the  Lond  which  I  fware   unto 
 your  Fathers.     Even  an   inferior  Angel  is  in- 
 troduced thus  fpeaking  ,   Rev.  11;  i,  3,   77?^ 
 
 oAngel  liood^  f^j'^^g, I   will  give   Power 
 
 unto  MT  two  WiUeiJes.     When  the  Roman 
 Feciahs  declared  War  in  the  Name  of  the 
 
 N  Senate^ 
 
178  of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 Senate^  he  fpoke  in  the  firfl:  Perfon,  (i)  I  and 
 the  People  of  Rowe^  i.  e.  the  Senate  and 
 People.  And  in  making  Leagues,  the  Herald 
 fpoke  in  the  fame  ftile  •,  (2 J  If  1  keep  ni)  faith ^ 
 
 hit  if  I  violate  it^  then  may  I  ferijl\  &c. 
 
 meaning,  the  Senate  and  Teo['le,  whom  he 
 reprefented. 
 
 The  Reafon  why  "  the  relative  Terms  " 
 [^my,  your,  Scc.^  are  not  in  Scripture  found 
 joined  with  Jehovah^  is  not  that  the  Name 
 fignifies  either  Ejfence  or  Sulftance^  but  be- 
 caufe  the  grammatical  conftruflion  of  it  in 
 the  Hebrew  Language,  is  after  the  manner  of 
 a  Proper  Name. 
 
 F.  62.  But  you  infill :    '•  The  primary  Signification 
 
 "  of  "Jehovah^  is  Being  ^  —as  all  knozic\  that 
 
 p.  66.  '^  know  any  thing^^  And  again :  '*  Not  the 
 *^  fame  Perfon,  but  the  fame  Subftance,  the 
 *^  fame  Being,  the  fame  Jehovah."  I  anfwer  : 
 The  N^ivcit  Jehovah  fignifies  neither pr/>;7^r//;, 
 nor  at  all^  Sulffance  or  Bcifig^^  but  a  Perfon. 
 For  though  the  Word,  from  its  Etymology, 
 does  indeed  probably  allude  to  the  Selfexifi- 
 ence  or  Necejjary  Exiftence  of  God  ;  yet  'tis 
 evident  in  all  the  Texts  wherein  it  occurs, 
 that  it  does  never  itfelf  fignify  either  Sul- 
 fta?ice  or  Ejfe7ice^  but  always  Him  whofe  That 
 Subfl:ance  or  EiTence  is  :  It  never  fignifies 
 [to  0^3  LV/;/g-,  but  always  [}  a^;']  the  Perfon 
 who  Is  2LndAis.  "  The  word.  King,''  (as 
 this  matter  is  exprefsM  in   The  Modejt  Tlea^ 
 
 (i)  Ego  populufq:  Romanus,  S^'c.  Rofm.  Rom.  Anfiqu.   lib. 
 10.  c.  I. 
 {z)  Kennet.  Rom.  Amiq;  P.  2.  c  I7» 
 
 p.  16c,) 
 
Qu.  III.   Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 7  9 
 
 p.  160,)  ^*  does  not  fignify  the  Effence  or 
 ^'  Siibflance  of  the  I<jng  ,  but  it  figniiies  the 
 *'  Perfon  Hhnfelf,  who  by  his  EJfence  is  a 
 "  M^/^,  and  by  his  Do?mnJo?i  is  Kj?ig.  Thus 
 ^*  likewife  the  word  G^ /,  in  the  Theological 
 *'  Senfe,  the  Supreme  Lord  ana  Goa  of  tbt  JJ- 
 *^  niverfe^'  [Jehovah,]  ''  does  not  fignify  the 
 *^  Ef]h/ce  or  Subflanc^  of  God  ;  but  it  figni- 
 *'  fies  the  PerfoM  Himfeif^  who  by  his  Ef- 
 *'  f^;/r^  is  in  himfelf  abfolutely  a  perfect  ^^ 
 [Self-exifting]  "Br'/;/g',  and,  by  his  Domimon^ 
 •'  Power  and  Authority^  is  the  Godd^nd  Father 
 ''  of  all.'' 
 
 This  is  fo  very  evident,  that  though  youP-^^, 
 here  inconfiftently  put,  '''  fame  Jehova-.'^'^  as 
 equivalent  to  '''fame  Suhftance^^  in  exprefs 
 oppofition  to  "y^f/if  P^r/^;^;"  yet  generally 
 at  other  Times  you  fpeak  of  Jehovah  as  of 
 Him  whofe  the  Subftance  or  Effence  is  j  that 
 is,  as  the  Perfon  who  h  and  Acis,  The 
 Confequence  of  which  manifeftly  is,  (if  Chrift 
 be  ftiled  Jehovah  any  otherwife  than  as  the 
 Reprefentative  of  the  Father,)  that  the  Fa- 
 ther and  Son^  being  Two  Perfons^  Two  cv4- 
 gents  5  will  be,  not  the  fame  JehOvah^  but 
 Two  Jehovahs^  undivided  in  their  Suljiance. 
 Direiftly  contrary  to  the  whole  Tenour  of 
 Scripture,  and  particularly  to  That  Text, 
 Deut.  6,  4,  The  Lord  our  God,  even  tbe  Lord 
 [Jehovah,  Jcugi@^,]  is  One :  [E?^,  Unus^  not 
 Unmn.'] 
 
 The  unreafonablenefs  of  your  Argument 
 
 upon  This  Point,  appears  alfo  further,    froin 
 
 its  neceffarily  proving  (\i  it  proves  any  thir.g) 
 
 N  2  too 
 
1 8  o  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 p.  6s.  too  much  for  your  Purpofe.  ^' Since  it  ^p- 
 fears'^"*  ("you  fay)  "  that  Chrift  is^  in  his  oivn 
 *'  proper  l^erjon^  called  Jehovah,  a  word  of 
 "  abfolute  Sigiiiftcatiofi^  exprejfing  the  Divine 
 ^'  Nature  or  EiTence  ;  it  muft  follow  that  he 
 *^  is  God  ftridly  fo  called  "    that  is,  as  you 
 
 P.  57.  elfewhere  exprcfs  it,  "/>/  the  fame  Senfe^  and 
 "  in  as  High  a  Senfe  as  the  Father  Hifufelf^'^ 
 If  fo,  chen  fince  the  Father^  in  virtue  of  the 
 nece\]ary  felfexifience  referred  to  in  the  Ety- 
 mology of  the  word  Jehovah  or  0  cov^  is  of 
 Himjelf  Godj  underived,  mihegotten^  unorigi- 
 7U7t6\  independent  on  eAny  ♦,  the  Son  likewife, 
 in  virtue  of  the  fame  Title,,  muft  have  equal- 
 ly all  the  fame  Charafters.     To  avoid  this, 
 
 p.  66.  you  add  •,  He  ''  is  not  the  fame  Perfon  with 
 ''  the  Father'''  True  :  But  the  Queftion  is, 
 whether  Two  Jehovahs  be  not  ^according  to 
 jour  Argument  from  the  Etymology  of  the 
 word  Jehovah')  neceffarily  Two  equally  felf- 
 exifient^  underived^  tinbegotten^  tmoriginate^ 
 iitdepe^tdent  Perfons.     You  anfwer  :  They  are 
 
 -P.  ^^'  ''  the  SJME  Jehovah^''  as  being  the  ^'Jame 
 "  SuhfianceJ*^  But  This  alfo  will  by  no  means 
 do.  For,  being  Confuhftantial  with  Jehovahy 
 will  no  more  make  another  Perfon  to  be  The 
 fame  Jehovah  ^  than  being  Confuhftantial  with 
 the  Father^  will  make  him  to  be  The  fame 
 Father^ 
 
 ^  4<^,  S7.     Another  Argument,  to  prove  that  the  Son 
 6^.  '    "as  well  as  the  Father^  is  "-^The  One  Supreme 
 '*•  God^^'  you  draw  from^^/A  i;  i. 
 
 Before 
 
Qu.  III.    OftheVnitjofGod.  i8i 
 
 Before   I  enter   into  the  Confideration  of 
 which,    it  may  not  be  improper  to  remind 
 the  Reader  what  it  is  that  you  mean  by  the 
 Son\    being  The   One    Supreme  God.      The  p-  174. 
 **  Son  (you  fay)  hath  the  individual  eAttri- 
 **  butes  of  God  the  Father  f  has  '^  JlP'  the  p.53>54. 
 fame  *'  efential  Pro^erties^^    or  Perfeftions  ; 
 is  "  Supreme^  Supreme  in  the  JifVci  Senfe  ," 
 and  '^  God  in  the' fame  Se?ife^  and  in  as  HIGH  ^-  ^'7. 
 *'•  a  Senfe ^  as  the  Father  Hlmfelf'^^    even  as 
 That  "  Father^  Head^  and  Fountain  of  oAll^  p-  44- 
 "  whofe  Authority  he  exercifed^  whofe  Orders 
 ^'  he  executed,  and  whofe  Perfon^    C^araBer^ 
 ^^  or  Office  He  reprefented  and  fuftained :   To 
 ^^  whofe  Authority  as  the   Firft  Original  and 
 "  Fountain  of  qAU  Tower^  Pre-eminence  and 
 "  Dignity^  he  referred  all  that  he  did\    acting 
 "  in  his  Name^  executing  his  Wilf  and  refre- 
 "  fenting  his  Perfon?"*     That  is  to  fay  :  He  is 
 both  Supreme^  and  not  Supreme^  at   the  fame 
 time.    There    is    no   poffibih'ty  of  avoiding 
 This   ccntradiftion,    but   by    fuppofing  that 
 thefe  Inftances  of  the  Son's  Subordination  are 
 none  of  them  real^    nor  have  any  true  Foun- 
 dation in  Nature^  but  are  only  OEconomicalj 
 or  (as  you  elfewhere  fpeak   concerning  the 
 Humiliation  of  Chrift)  are  '^  in  oAppearance  ''.p.  17. 
 only.     But  the  Confequence  of  This,    is   ftill 
 worfe.     For  then  there  is  no  impoffibility  in 
 Nature^    but  the  Father    (if  the   0 Economy 
 had  been  fo  laid)  might  as  well  have  exercifed 
 the  Authority  of  the  Son^  executed  His  Orders^ 
 appeared  vijihly  as   the  Reprtfentative  of  his 
 Terfon^  acting  in  his  Name^  obeying  Lis  Will^ 
 
 N    3  Y€' 
 
1 8 1  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Yeferring  to  Him  all  he  did^  as  to  the  Head 
 ana  fountain  of  Ail :  I  may  add,  by  the  fame 
 Realbn,  being  'Begotten  of  Hwi^  and  receiving 
 his  Being  fro.n  him.  Is  not  This,  excellent 
 Divinity  ? 
 
 p.  66.  To  proceed  now  to  your  Argument  from 
 'Job,  1,  1,  ^'  Htre  we  Jind  the  Son  exfrefsly 
 ^'  called^  God  -^  And  the  only  queftion  (^you  fayj 
 *'  /J,  whether  in  a  proper  <5y  improper  SeJifeJ"' 
 No :  The  only  Quetlion  is,    whether  in  the 
 
 V,  SI.  Supreme  Senfe,  "  ^n  the  fame  Senfe^  a?2d  in  as 
 ''  HIGH  a  Senfe  as  the  Father  Himfelf:'' 
 That  is,  Whether  He  who  made  all  Things 
 By  Another,  and  He  'By  whom  Another  made 
 all  things,  be  of  equally  Supreme  Authority, 
 The  Senfe  of  the  Text    (I  think)  is  plainly 
 
 z joh.1,1  This:  That  l^Vord,  That  Great  Revealer  of 
 the  Will  of  God,  whotn  We  (his  Apoftles) 
 heard^  wihom  we  faw  with  our  Eyes^  whom 
 we  looked  tipon^  and  whom  our  Hands  handled-^ 
 
 joh.iyi.  was  the  fame,  v^ho  from  the  Beginning  reveal- 
 ed  God  to  Mankind  •,  who  was  in  the  Begin. 
 n'lng  ifvith  God  ;  and  was  That  Vifihle  Per/on^ 
 who  oA^peared  all   along  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
 
 zedj.ir:^.  ^^^^  under  the  Title  ofGod^  the  Angel  of  the 
 
 30,  31.'  Lord'^  and  By  wi  urn  GoA  at  firft  created  all 
 things. 
 
 You  think,  on  the  contrary,   that  the  Son 
 
 p.  4.^.  is  heie  declared  to  be  The  Oue  Supreme  God : 
 And  you  give  three  Reafons  for  your  AlTer- 
 
 p,66,6-].  tion.  ly?,  "  Ifthewrd^  God,  le  once  t^j'ed 
 "  h  ^^'  J^^^^  ^^^  ^^-^^  /^^^^^  and  proper''  [jQU 
 mean,  the  Su^reme'^  *'  Senfe  ^  how  can  we 
 ''  imagifie  that  immediately  after ^  in  the  very 
 
 ^'  fame 
 
Qii.III.    of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  183 
 
 **  fame  Verfe^  he  flmiU  ufe  the  fame  word  in  a 
 "  fe7ife  very  dijferent  from  that  of  the  former  J 
 I  anfwer :  For  Tuat  very  reafon,  hecaufe  'tis 
 ufed  in  the  very  fame  Sentence,  by  way  of 
 contradiftinftion.  The  Son  is  ftiled  God  the 
 Word^  or  Mej[e7iger^  as  diftinguilTied  from  Him 
 who  of  his  own  Original  Supreme  Authori- 
 ty fends  the  Mejjage  '^  And  he  is  ftiled  Godj 
 By  Qor  Through'^  whom  are  all  Things^  as 
 diftinguiflied  from  the  Firft  Caufe,  Of  whom 
 are  ail  things^  or  who  made  all  things  By 
 him. 
 
 Your  2^  Reafon,  (which  you  modeftly  calU-^^wi' 
 *^  probahle^^  o^^ly,)  is,  that  "  the  Word  is  here 
 ^^  f^idto  have  been  God  in  the  Beginning,  that 
 "  /J-,  before  the  Creation."     But   This   infers 
 not  Supremacy  ;  becaufe  it  may  well  be  under- 
 ftood  to  be  with  refpefl;  to  Ttjat  divineTow^ 
 er^  which  he  received  from  the  Father,  and 
 which  he  exercifed  mintfterially  in  the  work 
 of  Creation.     However  ,   "  it  may  at  Jeaflp.  -jii 
 ^'  (you  think)  be  fufficient  to  convince  us^  that 
 ^'  the  Relative  vSV;^/^  (of  the  word  God)  is  not 
 *'  here  a^fiicable :"  The  Son  "  could  have  no 
 **  Relation  to  the  Creatures  before  they  were 
 *'  made ;  no  Dominion  over  them,  when  they 
 *^  were  notP    By  the  fame  Argument,  nei- 
 ther with  refped  to  the  father  Himfelf,  will 
 Vower  and  Dominion  neceffarily  be  included  in 
 the  Notion  of  G<5^/.     And  then  I  ask  :    Is  it 
 an  effential  part  of  the  Idea  of  God^  to  fuppofe 
 that  he  is  merciful  and  good^  juft  and  rigbte^ 
 ous  ?  If  it  be,  then  in  the  fame  Senfe  where- 
 in That  merciful  and  good^    That  ju/i  and 
 N  4  righteous 
 
184  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 righteous  Agent  which  now  governs  the 
 World,  was  merciful  and  good^  jufi  and 
 righteous,  before  the  World  was ;  in  the  very 
 fame  fenfe  was  he  polTefs'd  likewife  oi Power 
 and  Dominioru 
 r. 66,11;  Your  ^JReafon,  and  on  which  you  prin- 
 ^--  cipally  rely,  is,  that  'Uhe  Creatwu  of  all 
 "  things  is  here  afcrihed  to  the  Son.*'  But 
 How  is  it  afcribed  ?  Not  to  him  as  being  the 
 Perfon  (s^  8?  or  Jcp'  8,)  Of  who?n  and  From 
 whom  are  all  things,  as  the  Original  and  Su'- 
 freme  Caufe ;  but  as  being  the  Perfon  (^^i  «  ) 
 By  or  Through  whom,  as  the  minifierial  Caufe, 
 the  Father  made  all  Things.,  'Tis  evidently 
 in  Language  abfurd  to  fay,  that  all  Things 
 were  made  (Jict)  Through  the  SuJ^reme  God. 
 This  very  Text  therefore  is  an  irrefragable 
 Argument  againfl:  what  you  intended  to  prove 
 from  it.  And  I  have  often  wondered,  and 
 thought  it  unaccountable  in  Learned  Men, 
 who  are  acquainted  with  the  U(e  of  Lan- 
 guage, to  fee  them  argue  that  Chrift  is 
 ld\m(t\(  The  One  Supreme  God,  from  a  Text 
 in  which  the  very  Nature  of  the  Expreflion 
 fl]Ows  that  a  quite  different  Conclufion  ought 
 to  be  drawn  from  it ;  and  which  Conclufion 
 is  accordingly  drawn  by  St.  Paul,  explicitly 
 and  in  exprefs  Words,  i  Cor.  8,  6.  But "  Ttje 
 p.  185.  "  PraJ^oJition  ((J'icc,  through,)  with  a  Genitive 
 ^'  after  it^  is  (you  fay)  Freqtmitly  ufed,  as 
 *^  well  in  Scrij^ture  as  in  Ecclejiafiical  IVri- 
 **  ters,  to  exl^refs  the  Efficient  CaujeP  To 
 exprefs  the  primary  efficie?it  Caufe,  of  and 
 from  which  are  all  things,  I  believe  it  is  ^;ever 
 
 ufed 
 
Qu.  III.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God,  1 8  y 
 
 ufed  by  Any  AyiUent  Writer  -^  Nor  do  you  al- 
 ledge  any  Inftances.  Things  are  7iever  faid 
 l^jcTio-^viyccj  Jict  3-68,  creari  per  Deu?n^  to  be  cre- 
 ated Throuah  God  the  Father.  I  have  (hown 
 you  (i)  above^  the  Sentiments  of  the  Antlents 
 upon  This  Point ,  And  I  will  here  add  ano- 
 ther PafTage  of  Enfebins^  worth  your  Notice. 
 '*•  (2)  The  divine  Oracles  (f^ys  he)  teach  us 
 *'  to  know,  that  He  (the  Father')  orjly  is  the 
 **  True  God,  feparate  from  all  corporeal  Sub- 
 ^*  ftance,  and  remote  from  all  ?nini/ierial  Dif- 
 ♦'  penfation  :  Wherefore  the  U?iiverfe  is  de- 
 *'  dared  to  be  (e^  clvts)  Ofov  From  him,  not 
 *'  (J('  oivrS)  By  or  Through  him."  The 
 Words  preceeding  and  following,  in  which  the 
 Supremacy  of  the  Father  is  fpoken  of  in  the 
 highefl:  Expreffions,  well  deferve  the  Perufal 
 of  the  Learned  Reader.  In  Scripture,  the 
 Cafe  is  the  fame:  The  Pr^pofition  [J^Loty 
 Through,']  «^T;^r  fignifies  the  original  efficiency 
 of  the  Firjl  Caufe  FR  0  M  which  are  all  things. 
 In  the  very  PafTage  you  cite  to  the  contrary, 
 it  is  ufed  in  exprefs  contradiJ}i?iBion  to  That 
 Efficiency.  ''Rom.ii,^6yO/Hifn^afiJThroughp.  1S5, 
 *'  him,  and  To  him  are  all  things.^''  Of  or 
 From  him  they  are  by  Creation  -^  Through  his 
 Providential  Care  they  are  preferved  ^  and  To 
 his  glory  they  all  terminate.  In  like  man- 
 ner, Heb,  2,10,  By  whom  are  all  things^   does 
 
 {i)  See  above,  Page  6,  13,  19. 
 
 XiX'^^-f^f^ivcv  (rojf/jc<.7iKYtc,   iitriuc,,    TnifTAc,  oCA>ior^iov  \}sr'/)PiTiKK<i  oiKOvofjUiei<i' 
 «^o  e'V^  'E|  civri  tv  ttoi.v,  ii  ^  y^  At'  d'JTw  (p^vy-i  TToi^ah'^oTcii,  Orat.  de 
 
 Land,  Conltant.  p.  473. 
 
 not 
 
1 8  (5  Of  the  Vnity  of  God^ 
 
 not  me.in,  FROM  whom  are  all  thingT^  but 
 by  whofe  governing  Providence  all  things  are 
 direBeJ.  At  laft  therefore,  after  abundance 
 E  i86,  of  Trifli?ig^  you  add  :  "  Admitting  that  they 
 [iht  Two    different    Praepofitions"]    '•  are  of 
 
 '«►  Significancy^  they  may  Jtgnify  only fome 
 
 "  priority  of  Order  proper  to  the  Firji  Perfon  : 
 "  This  is  ALL  the  Ufe  which  An)  Cathohck 
 •*  Writer  ever  pretefided  to  make  of  the  T>i- 
 *'  liinaionr  What  Ufe  the  Antient  CathoUck 
 Writers  made  of  it,  I  have  fhown  at  brge  : 
 But  what  you  call  ^'  SO  M  E  priority  of  Or- 
 "  der^^'  is  never  any  thing  more  (except 
 where  you  exprefsly  contradict  yourfelf)  than 
 merely  the  Situation  of  Words  in  a  co  ordi- 
 nate Rank. 
 
 To  return  now  to  your  Argument.    '^  Crea- 
 *'  tion  (you  fay)  is — the  diftinguijhing  Cha- 
 
 *'  raSer  , >on  account  of  which ^  God  clairns 
 
 *^  to  Himfelf  all  Homage^  PForfiip  and  Adora^ 
 **  tion  /'  For  which  you  cite  Rev.  4  ,  lo,  ii  : 
 And  the  Purpofe  you  cite  it  for,  is  to  prove 
 thart  the  Son^  having  the  Work  of  Creation 
 afcribed  to  him,  is  confequently  The  One  Su- 
 preme God^  to  whom  Adoration  is  given  upon 
 Jccount  of  the  Creation.  But  the  very  Text 
 you  here  cite,  For  thypleafure  they  Are^  and  were 
 Created  ,  clearly  takes  away  the  Foundation  of 
 your  Argument.  For  neither  Scripture^  nor 
 Any  Afitient  Writer  whatfoever,  ever  faid  that 
 Things  were  created /(^r  the  Sort's  Will  or  Plea- 
 fure  ^  but  always  and  uniformly,  that  the 
 So?i's  Part  in  the  Creation,  was  the  Fulfilling 
 X  of 
 
 p.  *: 
 
Qu.  III.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 8  7 
 
 of  the  Will  and  Executing  the  Orders  of  the 
 iather. 
 
 To  my  Obfervation  out  of  (ij  Clemens 
 Alexandrinus^  (2)  Orige^  and  (3)  Eufebiu?^ 
 (I  here  add  (4)  Philo^^  concerning  the  Ufe  of 
 the  Term  (0  S'eo^)  with  the  Article  prefixed  in 
 an  Abfolute  Conftrudion  ^  you  reply.  *'  Tjfp.  67, 
 ^^  r/:?^  [f^w^  (^/^f/:?^  Artkk  be  fiifficient  to  prove ^ 
 "  r&^f  (5eo^)  G(?^,  7£;/:Je«  applyed  to  the  Word^ 
 "  />  ^/  any  different  Meaning  ;  ^  the  fame 
 "  Argument  you  might  prove^  that  the  fame 
 '^  word  C^to^)  without  an  Article^''  Qwhen 
 fpoken  of  the  Father^  "  is  not  to  be  underftood 
 "  of  the  One  True  God!^  I  would  not  be  fo 
 nice,  as  to  have  a  Matter  of  Faith  depend 
 merely  upon  an  Article.  'Tis  not  therefore 
 only  and  merely  the  Want  of  the  Article,  but 
 likewife  the  Other  perfonal  Charaders,  an- 
 nexed at  the  fame  time,  of  Him  who  is  (tiled 
 ©eo^  J  that  determine  in  what  fenfe  the  word 
 
 %^fTo^o(.  SviXatrcci;,      Strom.  3.   p.   40O. 
 
 (2}    'OTi  0    S-JS?   OVOf/jCCO-iCC    iTTi    t5    CCysW/iTH    7t6(r(r£Te(,l  rCOV   aXuv  dlTi^j 
 
 Comment,  in  Joh.  p.  46.     Again :  Huv  5  to  xx^  tv  'Ayro3-£©-, 
 
 ^KtiTspov  oiv  Xiyoirc,  ibid. 
 
 (3)  Auvufjtjsv(^  ySv  itTTiTv,  xxi  0  B-io<i  viv  0  Aay©",  fjuiiii    t?  is"  'xfS^a 
 
 ?TpocO^)^jc)3§, &c.   De  Eccief.  Theol.  I.  i.  c.  17.    -<^«^  jiga'm:  <V>g 
 
 (4)  On  thefe  Words  ['Eya^  £<|Lt/t  0  ^ioc,  p  o^pi^'i^  o-ot  iv  tcttu  3-f?, 
 Gen.  31,  13,]  he  thus  obferves :  ['O  sspog  Aoy(^  cm/  to?  Trx^ovn 
 
 •7T5V     j    KXTX^^yi(rU,     X"?^^    fi^P^fSj    (^XfTKUV:.   6     O^&il^     COt     CM     TOTTCOy     Jf     T? 
 
 S-f»,  ftiAA'  awTo  fj^vov  B-i^.  De  Somn.  p.  599.  [Whether  his 
 ExpUcation  of  This  Text  has  any  Foundation  or  no,  I  here 
 coniider  not;  but  note  barely  his  Obfervation  about  the  Vfc 
 pf  the  Article.^ 
 
 is 
 
1 8  8  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 is  to  be  underftood.  And  *tis  not  barely  the 
 prefixing  of  the  Article,  but  the  prefixing  it 
 in  fitch  a  conftruftion,  as  to  render  the  Senfe 
 abfolute  ,  which  determines  the  emphafis  of 
 the  Term,  o  5^0^.  And  This  is  the  true 
 iTjeaning;  of  Phih's  and  Clemens's  and  Origen's 
 and  Eufebius^s  Obfervation  concerning  the  Ar- 
 ticle. For  0  5eo^,  in  an  abfolute  Conftrudion, 
 is  one  thing  -,  and  o  Sfto^  Xoy(^y  or  o  S^tk  refer- 
 ring to  any  particular  Antecedent,  as  Acy®^ 
 or  the  like,  is  quite  another  thing,  'O  m  l^\ 
 ^oLvrccv  Sfio^y  is  one  thing  ,  and  o  iv  o  l^i  't^^u- 
 S'eo?,  is  another  :     As  all  who  underftand 
 
 -xm 
 
 Language,  well  know.     But  to  your  Rem^rk^ 
 I  anfwer :    Though   He  who  is  (o  'btoi)  God 
 abfolutdy^  or  The  Supreme  God^    may  alfo  in* 
 difFerently  be  (tiled  (^toc ;,)    yet   it  does  not 
 thence  at  all  follow  on  the  reverfe,  that  he  who 
 is  (tiled  (^ioi)  a  Divine  Perfon  (as  Origen  ex- 
 plains it,)  may  confequently  be  (tiled  alfo  in 
 an  abfolute  Conltrudtion  (o  bios)  the  One  Su- 
 preme God. 
 p.  6-1,6^.     Your  Reafon  therefore  for  pronouncing  this 
 Diftinition  "^  Triflijig''  is  itfelf  really  Trifling. 
 And  befides,  you  fliould  not  be  hafty  in  pro- 
 nouncing an  Obfervation  Triflings    which   is 
 not  only  carefully  obferved  in  the  Stile  of  all 
 the  Antient  Chriftian   Writers,    but  alfo  ex- 
 prefsly  infifled  on  by  fome  of  the  moft  Learned 
 of  them,  and  who  bed  underftood  their  own 
 Language,  as  the  Charafteriftical  Note  of  the 
 Supremacy  of  the  Father,     The  Paflages  you 
 refer  to  in  Ck?nens  AlexandrtJius  for   Proof  of 
 
 the 
 
,  M.  Ill-    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  189 
 
 the  contrary,  do  none  of  them  give  to  the  Soji 
 the  Title  [}  S'eo^ ,]  in  the  abfolute  and  unlimited 
 conftruftion  :  As  I  (hall  have  occafion  prefently 
 to  fliow  diftindly. 
 
 But  the  Antients,  you  fay,  "  unJerJ}oodma'P,6g,'jo. 
 *'  7iy  Texts  of  the  OIdTeJlame?it,  where  0eo?  oc- 
 <'  curs  mth  the  Article^  ofChrtft:'  How  they 
 underftood  thofe  Texts,  I  have  already  large- 
 ly  fliown  you  :  Namely  fo,  as  exprefsly  to 
 declare  that  Chrift  was  not  himfelf  The  Su- 
 preme God,  but  the  Reprefentatwe^  the  Angel 
 and  Mintfier  of  the  Will,  of  the  Supreme  God  • 
 afting  in  his  Nafne,  and  reprefenting  his  Per- 
 
 fon,  ^      ^ 
 
 At  length  you  own,  that  *^  the  Title  0  mo^^p,  69. 
 "  being  underjlood  in  the  fame  fenfe  zvith'Avro^ 
 *^  3-eo^,  [God  unoriginated,]  was,  as  it  ought 
 *'  to  be^  generally  referved  to  the  Father,  as  the 
 ''  diftinguijloing  perfonal  CharaBer  of  the  Fir(i 
 '«  Perfo7i''     Which  "  amounts  to  no  more,  than 
 '^  the  achwivledgement  of  the  Father's  Prero- 
 ^'  gative,  as  Father "     And  This,    you  fup- 
 pofe,  is  all  that  CUmens  Alexandrinus,  Origen) 
 and  Eufehius  meant  by  their  Obfervation  con- 
 cerning  the  Ufe  of  the  Article.     ''  The  Sum^?,  70. 
 "  you  fay,  and  Sub/lance   of  All  is,    that  the 
 *'  Father  is    abfolutely  and  eminently  flikd 
 "  0  ^^k,  as  the  Fountain  of  all ,    the  Son  iio^, 
 "  God  of  God ;  which  is  fufficient  to  Our  Fur- 
 *'  pofer     Now  ijt.  To  What  Purpofe  is  This 
 fufficient?  Is  the  "  Acknowledgment  of  the  Fa- 
 *■'  thet's  Prerogative,''    as  being     "  abfolutely 
 ''  and  eminently  The  God "  and  ''  Fountain  of 
 
 ^  "  AiF;\ 
 
ipo  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 ^'  All',''  whereas  the  Son  is  ''God  of  God,'' 
 God  derivative  from  the  Father  :  Is  this,  (I 
 fay)  fufficient  to  your  Purpofe   of  proving  that 
 
 p.  s7.  the  Son  "  is  not  called  God  in  a  Subordinate 
 ''  Senfe,  but  in  the  fame  Senfe  and  in  as  HIGH 
 *'  a  Senfe  as  the  Father  himfelf  .<?*'  Or  do  you, 
 by  the  words  "  Prerogative  "  and  ''  abfolute- 
 "  /^"and  ^'- eminently"'  and  '^Fountain  of  All'' 
 really  mean  nothing  but  empty  Sounds  >  2dly^ 
 Does  the  "  referving  to  the  Father  "  the  Title 
 of  'AuToS-eo^,  God  abfolutely  of  Himfelf,  unori- 
 ginate  and  underived  ;    really  ^'  amount   to  no 
 
 p.  59.  'C  yy}QYQ  t})an  acknowledging  his  Prerogative  as 
 ^'  Father  .<?"  Are  ztnoriginate-2Lnd  underived^  ex- 
 prellions  of  Paternity  ,  and  not  really  ejfential 
 Properties  or  TerfeBions  ,^  ^clly.  You  do  not 
 here  fet  before  your  Reader  the  flncere  Senfe 
 of  the  Antenicene  Writers  above-mentioned. 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus  never  ftiles  the  Son  (i) 
 
 ab- 
 
 (O  Of  the  Six  Paflages  you  refer  to  in  Clemens ;  The  Ttrji, 
 viz.  ysVsc&f  Kcc\  I'^iTi  oTi  ;ip<5-a?  0  B-slq,  is   merely  an  Allufion  to 
 
 Pf.  34,  8,   yioTii^i  id,  l'el[iTz  on  x^^'^'o*;  o  Kvpieq.  p   72.  Edit.  Ox; 
 
 In  the  Second  Paflage,  the  Aoy@-  is  exprefsly   fpokeii  of  as 
 perfonating  the  Father  :   'O  ^ihr,  d  Ku^it^ fotsf^^^f^v  ^  5'S-«oy 
 
 0  Aoy(^,  0  ^ratJkywyc^.  p.  131. 
 
 ^  In  the  Third  Pallage,  the  Words  are.  'O  ^  ''Aj'CffoT©-  sV^k^, 
 w  (TovoiKs^   6  >.oyo<;,  •  <'iiAji>(i<p]^y  £^«  t«v    3^  Aoya-    i^oujoi^^  t5 
 
 ^•£A«-  >c«Ao<;  sVt,  ■  -xott  yi  0  S-sc^  [legend.  B-iU,fays  the  Learn- 
 
 ed Editor j  i<riv'  $-£05  j  'EKUvoq  0  ''Ay&puTToq  yivsr»t,  oti  fiisXirui  o 
 B-ioq- y^  TO  ^i>.yifj(ja.  T  'Kcx.T^ac,  i  fjtji(j-iTr)<i    ix.Ti\iT.      MiO-tryjt;  yi    o 
 
 xovoi^,  iff^Zy  -^  TonJoty^yo?.  p.  151.  Here  'tis  evident  that  ral  B-iS 
 and^/3BA£r«i  0  $-£0?,  is  the  Father;  from  theexprefs  Antithefis  of 
 f/jt<r(rf)<i  and  '1/10*5  and  ommvo(,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Sentence. 
 And,  xat  yap  i  B-io(;  hiv,  IS  manifcflly  not  the  My(^,  but  a 
 Cindified  Chr'ijlian, 
 
 In 
 
Qu.III.     Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  191 
 
 abfolutely  (0  ^ili)  the  Supreme  God^  nor  (i  f.68,6^ 
 '7r^vTo;^§ccr6)g  in  an  nbfoliite  Conftrudion)  Su- 
 preme over  all.  On  the  contrary  he  fays  ex- 
 prefsly,  that  the  Father  is  [eT$  xctl  pV  0  tcolv- 
 ro-jt^cl^Tcoe^^  Stromat.  p.  753,]  The  One  a  fid  only 
 Supreme  over  all.  See  above ^  ?•  '6  •>  ^nd  be- 
 loiv^  on  Qitery  XXl^lI^  towards  the  End  Ori- 
 gen  not  only  argues  from  the  ufe  of  the  Ar- 
 ticle^ that  the  Father  alone  is  (auroSeo^)  God 
 unoriginate  or  of  Himfelf:^  but,  in  Purfuance  of 
 his  Argument,  proceeds  to  declare,  that  (i) 
 *'  God  the  Word  excels  the  mod  Superior  Or- 
 *^  der  of  Gods,"  [meaning  the  Higheft  An- 
 gels '^  ''  but  is  himfelf  excelled  by  the  Su- 
 "  preme  God  over  all."  You  have  alfo  no  lels 
 partially  reprefented  the  Senfe  of  Eufebms  : 
 Who  argues  in  a  very  remarkable  manner, 
 from  the  Father's  being  ftiled  o  S-ei^,  and  the 
 Son  ^iog.  "  (2)  The  Evangelift,  fays  he^  could 
 
 In  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Paflages,  tbv  B-sov  and  rf  B-sZ  may 
 be  underllood  of  the  Father,  p.  173,  436. 
 
 In  the  Sixth  Paffage,  the  Limitations  added,  are  exprefsly 
 and  moft  ftrongly  againll  you.    "Ovd'  i(p'  mp»   }ccj>,v6uij  ^or  uv  o 
 
 'Ttu.trm  xc^poi;,  y^  fjjuXi^oc  'Ely^rsjpjT&Jv  rw  rou   ccyxQcu  kch  Uuvroy.eccro- 
 
 poq  B-iAy.fjtjCiTi  7rxT^o<i' ^ uyvoid.  yxp  ^^  ocTrnTcn  rou  BscZ   rou  <s^ 
 
 xsCTct/ioXv.q  y^trfjja  (rvj/jQaX^  ysvof/jiva  rou  TTccTficq'    ccvtyj  yuf)  w  (ro(pici  vj 
 
 VflO(riXCitl>iV    0   UcCVTOK^OiTCOO    S-fO?.     p.    832. 
 
 (1)  'Q.V  [S-sw]  ToZ  >cf>iiT\cvo(i  TtLywoi.Ttc,  \}zs-ipi^et  o  3-fo<;  >^oyo(iy  [roic, 
 ^oiTToTi;  S-g^r?  d'lXH.cvoq  r!)5  B-i<)T}jTO(^j    p.  4",]     l}5r£p£;^,5'^£vc5    'vtto  rou  rav 
 
 cXm  B-icZ.  Comment,  in  Joh.  p.  46.— -49. 
 
 (2)  A'MJocfAj£v(^  yoZv  iiTTiTy,  Kcn  0  B'ice,  Viv  0  Aoyo^,  f/jiTo,  -r  TOU  uo- 
 
 ^p»  7rpo(r6yi)c-ij(i,  sty  I   iv  kxi  tocvtvv  v.yih-a  tdv  TetTrpot    ilvoci    Kcci    rov  viov, 
 
 UVrOV   T£    llvU,l   TVV  Xoyov   TOV    iTTi    TuivTMy     B-iCV'-^VWJl    Jk TTpoeiTTUV,     ^    0 
 
 >\ayos  viv  (Z^i;  rov  Bsov^  xcci  B-iot;  Vjv  o  Xoyoq,  fjuavova^i  <rcc<Pi'^ipov 
 
 YfAios,<;  o\d'ccTy,m,  fST^Tov  '^  \jy£7(3^  S-fcv  rlv  sTTiKSivo!.  rm  'oXoov,  uvtov  rev 
 rou  Aoy{f  Trocr^px,  Trpci;  bv  'v\v  6  Xoyoc,'  iTreiru,  f/jsr  uvtov,  fjuvt  oiyvouf 
 t^  KXi  0  Xoyoq^  oivrS  0  ^ovcyivv/^  hue,   ^^i  oivroq  h  o  iVi  Tizcvrav  B-icc, 
 
 «AA'  Hn  Km  (ivTQii  B-ih  >^f»  De  Ecclef.  Thcol.  lib.  z,  c.  17. 
 
 *'  have 
 
I  p  2  Of  the  Vmty  of  God. 
 
 "  have  (tiled  the  Word  o  S-es?,  had  he  thought 
 '^  the  Father  and  Son  to  have  been  one  and 
 ^''  the  lame  Being,  and  that  the  Word  was  the 
 
 "  Supreme  God But  now,    by    filling 
 
 *'  the  Father  o  5eo^,  and  the  Word  barely  ^ilc^ 
 "  he  has  plainly  taught  us  to  efteem  the  Fa- 
 *'  ther  of  the  Word,  with  rpho?n  the  Wordwas^ 
 "  to  be  the  Supreme  God  over  all ;,  And,  neiit 
 "'  after  Him,  to  underftand  that  the  Word, 
 ''  who  is  his  only  begotten  Son,  is,  not  in- 
 "  deed  (o  3-ao$)  the  Supreme  Godhimfelf,  but 
 "  that  He  alfo  is  (3■^oi)  God,  or  a  divitie  Per- 
 p.  6c^,  "  fo?h'  Is  This,  ^'  making  no  further  Ufe  of 
 "  the  Obfervation^  than  to  "prove  that  the  Xofo^ 
 
 **  is ?iot  the  Father  hinifelf  ?*     No  words 
 
 can  poflibly  more  direftly  confute  your  No- 
 tion, than  thefe  PalTages  do.  z^nd  One,  whofe 
 Orthodoxy  you  cannot  fufped,  fays:  '' (i) 
 *'  The  word,  God^  fignifies  the  Father^  and 
 ''  is  peculiarly  apply'd  to  hi?n^  becaule  he  is 
 ''  the  Caitfe  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,    and  they 
 
 *'  are  referred  back  lo  Him. Wherefore  the 
 
 "  Apoflles^and  almofl  theWhole  Sacred  Scrip- 
 *'  tures,  when  they  fpeak  of  [}  ^tof]  God  ab- 
 "  folutely  and  indefinitely^  and  with  the  Article^ 
 "  and  without  any  particular  Perfonal  Cha- 
 ^'  racier  ^  mean  the  Father'^  And  prefently 
 after,  he  obferves  that  the  Son  is  never  called 
 
 (l)  'EA)c05>j  To'f^',,  3-£o^,  Izl    T-vj   Trxrftx;,    xet*    tysvsro    uvtu    axrTTtf 
 . ohv   ol  «VoVeAo«,  Kul  TToCfTO,  a/iltiv  v,  B-fU  y^cct^Vi,  CT    U¥  UTr/),  6  3-to?, 
 
 i^\e!!fjtt^r<^  'JzjT)<ruTix,S,  tov  ^otrrpcs  ^y}XoT.    Thcodor.   Abucara.  de 
 divin.  Nom.  P.  43s.  in  Bibliothcc.  Patr, 
 
 GodI 
 
Qa.  III.    Of  the  VnityofCod.  iP3 
 
 God  with  the  Article  prefixed,  but  when  there 
 is  an  antecedent  Mention  of  him.  Of  which 
 he  gives  an  Inflance,  Rom,  9,  5.  Though  even 
 There,  'tis  not  indeed  0  cc]i  0  sttI  TcJjrm  "^lU. 
 
 You  admit  (in  a  marginal  Note)    ''  a  Prio-p.  -jn 
 ^'  rity    of  Order ^"^    and   yet    ^' aer/y  the   Son 
 "  to  he  God  in  a  fulorainate  S  fife  ;"  Then 
 he  is  God  in  a  Co-ordinate  Senfe  ;  And  what 
 becomes  of  the   Priority  of  Order  .?  But  This 
 Sort  of  Contradictions^   are  not   worth  your 
 Notice.     You  add,  by  way   of   haijiration  : 
 **  There  vcms  a  Priority  of  Order  in  reflect 
 ''  of  Adam  .^;^i  Seth  5  and  yet  Seth  w^j-  not: 
 ^'  Man  in  a  Subordinate  Senfe,"*"*     I  anf^\^er  : 
 The   words  Subordinate    and    Suloraination^ 
 have  neceffarily  a  relation   to    Atiihrrity  and 
 Government:  And  the  Qiieftion   between  us 
 is,  concerning  E'lual  and  Supreme  Authority, 
 Now  to  Adam^   confidered   as  a  Governour^ 
 Seth  was  Subordinate.     To  dL'Kjng,  confider- 
 ed as  a  Kjngy  the  King's  Son  is  in  Authority 
 Subordinate,     But  Man  being  merely  the  ab- 
 ftrati  name  of  a  Species^  therefore  a!l   Men, 
 from  the  Great  eft  Prince  to  the  ^neant  ft  Slavey 
 are  equally  Men.     For  the  fame  Realbn,  con^ 
 fidered  as   Animals^  rational   and    irrational 
 Animals  are  equally  Animals.     Alfo  as  B^- 
 ingj^  animate  and  inanimate  Beings  are  t'^^//*^ /- 
 ^ly  Beings.     And    is  This  any  tiling   to  )our 
 Purpofe?  Betides:  Among  A/^//,  a  Son  does 
 not,  froperly  fpeaking,  aenve  his  Being  from 
 his  Father  ,  who  is   merely  an  injtrumental^ 
 not  an  Efficient  Caufe.     But  God^    when  H^ 
 is  ftyled  Father^  muil  always   be  underflood 
 
 O  to 
 
1  p4  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 to  be  [ctmot]  a  Trtie  and  Proper  Caufe,  r^^//y 
 and  tjpckntl)  giving  Life.  The  trut  Priority 
 of  Order  hQtwht  Father  and  Son,  is,  as  (i) 
 JSJovatian  fays,  "  not  in  the  mere  found  of  the 
 <'  Name^''  [which  is  all  that  your  Notion 
 amounts  to,]  ''  hut  in  the  Order  and  Dif^oftti^ 
 Hon  of  Power y 
 ,  71.  You  think  you  may  conclude,  that  ^^fince 
 
 *'  the  Son  is  not  excluded  with  the  Nominal 
 *^  Gods^  he  is  included  and  comprehended  in 
 "  The  One  Supreme  God.^''  You  might  juft  as 
 well  have  faid,  that  for  the  fame  reafon  he 
 is  included  and  comprehended  in  the  One  Self^ 
 exifient  TJnbegotten  God,  And  then  your 
 Conclufion  would  have  been  juft  as  ftrong 
 for  the  Son^s  being  Unhegotten^  as  it  is  now 
 for  his  being  Supreme.  To  hide  which  Ab- 
 furdity,  you  leave  out  of  your  Conclufion  the 
 I  Son's  being  The  One  Supreme  God^  which  is 
 what  you  had  all  along  been  in  exprefs  terms 
 contending  for,  and  blind  your  Reader  with 
 the  Terms  co-eternal  and  co-'ejjential  in  its 
 Room. 
 
 (i^  At  cum  Ego  dicit,  deinde  pat  rem  infert,  dicendo,  Eg0 
 V  Pater;  proprietatem  perfonse  fuir,  id  eft  filii,  a  Paterna 
 Atutoritate  difcernit  atq;  diftinguit,  noii  tantummodo  de  fono 
 nominisy  fed  etiam  de  Ord'tne  difj[>o/iu  Pofejiarh,  De  Tri- 
 Bit.  c  21. 
 
 QjJ  EKY 
 
Qa.  IV.   Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  1 9  S 
 
 QjJ  E  Fv  Y      IV. 
 
 Whether^  ftij^j^ofmg  the  Scripure- Notion  of  God 
 to  he  no  more  than  that  of  the  Author  and  Go- 
 vernour  of  the  Univerfe,  or  whatever  it  he  \ 
 the  admitting  of  Another  to  he  Author  and 
 Governour  of  the  Univerfe,  he  not  admits 
 ting  another  God  *,  contrary  to  the  Texts 
 Ipefore  cited  from  Ifaiah  \  and  alfo  to  Ifa.  42. 
 
 8. 48,  II.   where  he  declares^    He  will 
 
 not  give  his  Glory  to  another  ? 
 
 Anfw.^ir 0\JK  Defenfe  of  This,   and  of^-  73' 
 
 X  the  following  Query,  is  in  Reali- 
 ty, Chow  far  foever  you  are  from  intending 
 it,]  an  Attempt  to  expofe  and  render  ridicu- 
 lous the  exprefs  Dottrine  of  St.  John  and 
 St.  Paul^  and  to  make  it  appear  inconfiftent 
 with,  and  contrary  to,  the  Old  Teftament. 
 'Tis  in  Truth,  not  arguing  againft  Dr.  Clarke^ 
 or  Me  *,  but  againft  plain  Scripture  and  Chri- 
 fiianity  in  General.  This  I  will  endeav^our  to 
 make  you  fenfible  of,  by  fome  fhort  Obferva- 
 tions  upon  the  Particulars  of  your  Defenfe  5 
 having  already  obviated  in  general  every- 
 thing you  have  to  offer  from  Scripture  or 
 Antiquity. 
 
 The  Texts  of  Ifaiah  you  refer  to,  are  all 
 of  them  exprefsly  Perfonalj  and  are  therefore 
 full  and  direct  againft  you.  For  the  w^ords, 
 I  am  the  Lor d^  and  there  is  NONE  elje  ; 
 and,  I  will  not  give  my  Glory  to  ANOTHER', 
 are  as  exprefsly  exclufive  of  any  other  Perfon^ 
 
 O  2  as 
 
ip(5  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 as  of  any  other  Siilflmjce^    from  being  what 
 He,     who    there    fpeaks,    declares    Hijufdf 
 J  LONE  to  be,  viz.  the  Sifpreme  and   0/7- 
 gmal  Author   and   Governour   of  all    things. 
 And  therefore  the  So//^  unlefs  he  be   Himfelf 
 the  Perfor/^  as  well  as  of  the  Suljimice  of  the 
 Father-^  cannot  be  what  the  Perfon  fpeaking 
 in  thofe  Texts,   declares  Himfelf   ALONE 
 to  be.     Confequently,  when  he   is  ftiled  God 
 and  Lord^  it  mufl  of  necellity  mean  that  he 
 is  in  a  Subordinate  Senfe  The  Author  and  Go^ 
 icor.^,6.vernourofA\].     He  is,    not  That    One  God^ 
 ^/^•'-  4,6.^.^0  is  the  Father  (the  Firli  Caufe,)  of  whom 
 are  all  thirtgs ;  the  Father    (pv  Original  Au- 
 thor) ofall^    who  if  above  all:    But   He  is 
 God^  the  Word^  By    (or  Through')  whom,  fays 
 St.  Joh7^,  all  thifigs  were  made,  viz.  by  whom 
 The  Father  made  all  things :  He   is  the  One 
 Lord,  Bf  ZQjhcmj   fays   St.  Fauly    (in  exprefs 
 contradiftinflion  to  the  One  God,    of  or  fro?;} 
 vi)bom,)  are  all  things^ 
 p.  74.         To  This,  you  thus  objeQ:  :    "  Two  Authors 
 "  and  Governours  of  the  Univerfe,  whom  you 
 *'  M'^l'^f^  ^'^'^  dij'inti  fe^arate  Beings,  are  as 
 ''  flainhf  Two  Gods,  as  if  it  were  faid  fo  in 
 ^'  T/^jw;}."     I  anfwer  :   Two  Authors  and  Go- 
 vertiours  of  theVniverfe^  whom  you  fifpofe  to 
 le  difinct  Pcrfons,  erpal  in  Supreme  Authori- 
 ty and  Fower^  vchether  fcparate  or  not  fepa- 
 rate  in  fnetafbyftcal  ST:bjia7tce,  are  as  plainly 
 Two  Gods,  Two  Gods  in  Perfon,  as  if  it  was 
 faid  fo   in    Terms.     One   God,    of  and  fom 
 whom  (as  from  the  Firft  Caufe  and  Original) 
 are  all  tliinijs  3  and  Ou;^  Lord,  by  or  through 
 
 whomi 
 
Qia  •  I V.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  i  p  7 
 
 whom  are  all  things ;  (though  He  alfo  be 
 fometimes  ftiled  Go^i^  yetj  for  this  Reafo?i  they 
 ought  never  to  be  ftiled  Two  Gods^  becaufe 
 they  are  not  Two  tirfi  Cdiifty.  And  (i) 
 This  is  the  very  reafon  exprefsly  given  by 
 ]S!ovatia7t^  and  by  all  oAntiquity.  If,  not- 
 withftanding  This,  you  will  needs  have  them 
 to  be  Two  Gods'^  your  Objedion  is  not 
 againft  Me^  but  againft  the  Evangelijl  and  the 
 oApoftle. 
 
 You  again  repeat  the  fame  ObjeSion  ; p.  75. 
 
 "  two  Gods'^''    and, ''really  two  Gods -^"^ 
 
 and — ■  ''  Heathen  Polytheifm  ,"    and — "  two 
 
 *'  true  Gods  ^"    and "  infermir  VeitiesP 
 
 I  anfwer.  Was  St.  ?av}  a  Teacher  of  '"-Hea"  p.  16, 
 *'  then  Polytheifm^'''*  when  inflead  of  their 
 imaginary  Gods  Many  and  Lords  Ma?iy^  he  di- 
 refts  us  to  One  True  God,  Of  whom  are  all 
 things^  and  One  True  Lord,  Through  whom 
 are  all  things  ?  And  when  he  tells  us,    that 
 
 God  our  Saviour faved  us — through  Jefu^Tit.^A*^ 
 
 Chrifl  our  Saviour  -^    does  he  hereby  preach 
 Two  Saviours  ?    Or  will  you  fay    that  Jefus 
 Chrifi  our  Saviour  is  the  very  fame  God  our 
 Saviour,  who  faved  us  through  Jefus  Chrift 
 our  Saviour  f  Or  did  our  Saviour  himfelf  in- 
 troduce Heathen  Polytheifm,  when    he  faid. 
 Mar.  12,  29,  The  Lord  our  God  is  One  Lor d; 
 and  yet,  immediately  after,  mentions  Another 
 Lord^  ver.  36  ?  The  Unity  of  God,  in  6Yrip- 
 ture  and  in  cdl  Trimitive  Jntiquitj^  means  al- 
 ways an  Ufiityy  not  oi  Sulftance  only^  but  of 
 
 (0  Sec  above,  P.  8,   15,  34,  47>  Si. 
 
 O  3  God. 
 
ipS  of  the  V  nit  J  of  God. 
 
 GoJ.     One  God^  is  not  only  One  Godhead^  but 
 One  God.    And  This  Unity  is  evidently  found- 
 ed in  the  (i)  Unoriginated  Supremacy  oi Him 
 who  is  the  Brfi  Caufe  or  Father  of  all  things. 
 Bifhop  Vearfon  acknowledges  that  this  Ori- 
 gination  in  the  divine  Paternity^    hath  Anti^ 
 ently  been  looked  upon  as  the  oAffertion  of  the 
 Unity.   Expof.  on  the  Creed,  P.  40.     And  Bi- 
 Ihop  Bull  every  where  owns  the  fame  Thing. 
 Nor  did    ever    any    Antient  Wnter    argue 
 ,  75.      againft  Polyibeifm^    by  alledging  that  Chrift 
 was  himkli  The  One  Supreme  God^    or  indivi- 
 dually and  identically  the  faint  G'>^  with  the 
 Father :  But,  on  the  contrary,  they  in  This 
 Point   always    infifted   on    his  Subordination 
 to  the  Father,  and   on    his  having  PVorfiip 
 by  the  (2)  Will  and  Commanu  of  the  Father: 
 And  they  always  acknowledged,    that  Two 
 Supreme  Governours  would  indeed  have  been 
 Tolytheifm.     From  which  Charge,  Tou  have 
 taken  no  manner  of  Care  to  clear  your  felf. 
 With  you^  there  is  always  One  Suhjiance  in- 
 deed, but  never  Oue  God.     You  acknowledge 
 an  Unbt gotten  Supreme  God  the  Father,  and 
 a  Begotten  Supnme  God  the  Son.     Are  not 
 Thefe,  in  Terms,  Two  S'ij^reme  Gods  ?  Two 
 Supreme  GoUs  in  Tcrfon,  though  undivided  in 
 Subfiancef  Or  can  Two  diltinfl:  Livirg  Agents, 
 equally  Supreme  in  Authority^  and  e-jually  go^ 
 verni?ig  the  Unwerfe^  not   be  Two  Supreme 
 Governours  ?  and  equally   fo,    whether  Con- 
 fubjiantial  or  not  ?  But  where  All  Fower  and 
 
 (\)  See  above,  P.  32. 
 
 <'^3  See  above^  P.  jo,  v^z. 
 
 Do- 
 
Qu.  IV.    of  theVnitjofCod.  199 
 
 Dominion,  and  all  Things,  are  derived  from 
 the  Will  of  one  Original  Catife^  Author ^  and 
 Fountain  of  all ;  there  the  Unity  of  God  is 
 evidently  fecure,  how  many  Other  Perfons 
 foever  are  ftikd,  and  truly  and  properly  ftiledj 
 Gods.  This,  I  think,  is  clear  and  confident 
 Reafoning  ^  of  great  Importance ;  and  can 
 never  be  too  much  infifted  on  by  Me^  or 
 too  well  confidered  by  Tou. 
 
 You  demand  :  "  What  Foundation  can  you  p>  1^ 
 **  find  for  adding  Supreme,  where-ever  the 
 *'  Scripture  fays  abfoluteljy  there  is  but  One 
 ^^  God  ^^-^^Why  do  you  Add  here^  without  any 
 '^  Warrant  .<?  If  the  Sacred  Writers  intended  to 
 "  limit  the  Senfe  by  Supreme,  why  could  not 
 ''  they^  in  one  place  at  leafi  among  rnany  have 
 *'  faid  fo^  and  have  told  it  us  as  plainly^  as 
 ^'  Dr.  Clarke  and  Tou  do  /"'  I  have  already  ob- 
 ferved,  that  the  Term,  God^  as  well  as  the 
 Term,  Lord  or  King^  is  always,  in  the  na- 
 ture of  Language^  neceiTariiy  Perfonal  ^  and 
 that  accordingly  the  Scriptures  always  declare 
 The  Ofie  God  to  be  One  Agent^  one  /,  one  Me^ 
 
 one  Km.     I  am  the  Lord  thy  God^ Tbmi 
 
 /halt  have  no  other  Gods  before  ME^  Exod.  20  5 
 2,  3  :  Hof.  15,  4.  I  am  God^  and  there  is  none 
 elfe  ^  1  am  God^  and  there  is  none  like  me^ 
 Ifa.  46,  9.  Thou  [halt  worfljip  the  Lord  thy  God^ 
 a7id H I M only JJjalt  thouferve^Mdit.^^io.  Thee, 
 the  only  true  God^  and  Jefus  Chriji  whom  thou 
 haft  fent,  Joh.  17,5.  To  Us  there  is  but  0ns 
 God^  the  Father^  i  Cor.  8,6.  If  therefore  any 
 Other  Perfon  befides  this  One,  be  at  any  time 
 
 O  4  flikd 
 
200  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 filled  God\  The  0ns  GoJ,  whenever  mention- 
 ed ahfolutely  and  by  way  of  eminence^  inuil 
 neceflanly  always  mean  the  one  SUP  RE  ME 
 God.  But  bcfides  ,  the  Scriptures  themfdves 
 do  often  exnrefsly  "  limit  the  Senfe  by  -b  U- 
 <'  PREMEr  What  think  you  of  [i'4.ir(^l 
 the  hi^heft^  or  mo(l  high  God^  Pf.  47,  2  ^  and 
 18,13.  Luk.T,  35.6,  35-  Aas7,48>  What 
 think  you  of  the  Charadter,  Rev,  4,  1 1,  Ear 
 Thy  Pl:^a(ure  all  things  were  created  ^  What 
 think  you  of,  'E^  S  ra,  ^IncL^  From  rchom  are  all 
 things,  as  from  their  Original  and  Firji  Caufe^ 
 iCcr.  8,6?  What  thinkyou  of  [} (i) -^rcf^roy^^- 
 raf\  God  Sitpreme  over  all ^  Vyhat  think  you  of 
 f'?iUT>)^  ^ctnojh  and  dios  ^ic^h~\  Father  Tor 
 Fir  ft  Cauje']  of  all,  and  God  of  Gods  ^  Eph.  4, 
 6.  DdU.  2,  47?  But  indeed,  without  thefe 
 Epithets,  the  Title  [0  ^ioi]  G^*^/ abfoliitelv,  or 
 in  an  ahfolute  Conttrudion,  is  in  Scripture 
 always,  as  well  as  in  common  Language,  The 
 Supreme  God. 
 
 You  ask  me,  upon  the  Texts,  If  at,  42,  8.— 
 'P'l^yTl'  48,  II.  "  Was  tl:Hs  then  the  Mea?i:?ig -,  1  will 
 ''  not  give  ALL  viy  Glory  to  another  .<?  I  an- 
 fwer  :  The  peculiar  and  incommunicable  Glory 
 of  God^  confifts  in  Fhis,  that  Having  Jll 
 PerfeSions  and  All  Dominion  abflntely  in  and 
 of  Himfelf  original^  underived,  and  indepen- 
 dent on  o/lny  ,  he  is  confequently  hiinfdf  the 
 Alone  Fountain  and  Original  of  all  Perfe^ions^ 
 
 (i)  Sec  ahvcy  p.  16;  and  Im:Iow  on  gw^r}  XXV II,  towards 
 the  End. 
 
 and 
 
QiT.  IV.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod.  201 
 
 and  of  all   Power   and  Juhoritj  ivhatfoever. 
 This  Glor^'  he  will  not^  he  cannot  give  to  Any 
 Other^  to  A?iy  Other  Beings    to  Any  Other  Per- 
 fon^  to  Any  Other  whatfoever  ,  he  will  not ^  he 
 cannot  (without   a  contradidion)  give  it   ei- 
 ther in  Whole  or  in  Part.     No  other  "  divides  i\  77. 
 ^'  with  him  in,  Glory  |,"   either  equally^    as  you 
 yourfelf  (in  exprefs  contradiction  to  the  Text) 
 dofuppofe^j    or    ^  unsqually^'^   as  you   ridicu- 
 loufly  and  falfely  reprefent  Me  to  allert.  What- 
 ever  G/^r;',  how  Great,   how  Divir.  foever  it 
 be,  he  communicates  to  x\nother  ,  is  no  divi- 
 fion^  no  abfcijjion^  no   diminution  of  his  own. 
 'Tis  ^kMfrom  him,    and   to  him  it  returns  all 
 again.     And  All  Power^  how  unh'mited,  how 
 divine  foever ,  all  Power ^    in  Heaven  and  in 
 Earth '^    even  That   Power,    urider  which  all 
 things  are  put  '^  is  ftill  (if  St.  Paid  underftood 
 this  matter)  no  Part,  no  Share  of  That  Pow- 
 er,   which  did  put  all  thifigs    under  it.     To 
 Saints  or  Angels^  no  JVorfoip^  no  Glory  at  all, 
 can  rightly  beafcribed  ^  becaufe  God  has  com- 
 mitted  to  them  no  Authority,  no   Power   of 
 Judgment.     To  his  Son^  he  Has  committed  all 
 Judgment^  and  given  him  a  Name^    to  which 
 every  knee  muft  bow^  of  things  in  Heaven  and 
 things  in  Earth  and  things  under  the  Earth  : 
 And  yet  even  This  glory^  being   exprefsly  de- 
 clared to  be   To  the  Glory  of  God  the  Father^ 
 evidently  cannot  be  ^r\y  part  of  That  ultimate 
 Glory^    to  which  itfelf  is  declared  wholly  to 
 redound. 
 
 Your 
 
2  0  2  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 77,78.  Your  faying,  that  '''' God  has  already  eiigrof- 
 *'  fed  all  divhie  Honour  to  Hifrfelf^^  So  that — 
 *"  all  others  are  precluded  from  receiving  any 
 ^'  divine  Honour  j^"  and  that  "  there  is  no 
 ''  Ron??i  left  for  God^s  co?nmanding  it  ;"  is  a 
 mofl:  prdfiiinptuous  contradiction  to  the  whole 
 New  Teftamenr.  For  (unlefs  by  divine  Ho- 
 nour you  mean  here,  inconfiftently  with  your 
 whole  Argument,  that  which  is  peculiar  to  the 
 Fir  ft  Caufe  and  Father  of  ad  Things  ^)  your 
 Afiertion  is  diredly  a  precluding  of  God,  ei- 
 ther from  all  Ri^ht  of  appointing  any  Media- 
 tour  at  all  ,  or  at  lead  from  all  Right  of  com* 
 7nandifig  Any  Worjhip  to  be  paid  to  the  Media- 
 tour,  in  the  capacity  of  a  Mediatour.  But  is 
 it  not  written  :  The  Father  hath  Committed  all 
 judgment  to  the  Son  ^  that  all  Men  jjjould  ho- 
 vour  the  Son^  even  as  they  honour  the  Father  <? 
 He  that  honour eth  not  the  Son^  honour eth  not 
 the  Father  which  hath  fent  hinu — The  Father 
 hath  given  him  Authority  to  execute  'judgment 
 alfo^  becaufe  he  is  the  Son  of  Man.  Joh.  5  ;  22, 
 2^,  27.  Is  not  here  evidently  in  exprcfs 
 Words,  an  Honour^  a  divine  Honour^  given 
 to  Chrift  as  being  the  Son  of  Ma?i^  who  was 
 fe?it  by  God,  and  to  whom  the  Power  and 
 Honour  of  executing  Judgment  is  Committed  ^ 
 Say  then,  either  that  the  One  Supreme  God  is 
 the  Perfon  here,  who  was  fe?it^  and  became 
 Son  of  Man^  and  had  Judgement  Committed  to 
 him;  or  elfe  acknowledge  that  this  Honour 
 is  diftinft,  and  no  Part  of  That  Glory  which 
 God  by  Ifaiah    declares  he  mil  not  give  to 
 
 Another. 
 
Qu.  IV.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  so 3 
 
 Another,  If  you  will  fay,  that  this  Honour 
 was  given  to  him  merely  as  Son,  or  merely 
 as  Man^  'tis  all  one  ^  'tis  yet  Another  Honour^ 
 Subordinate  to,  and  redounding  to  the  Honour 
 of  Him  from  whom  it  was  Received.  For  the 
 Scripture  is  true  ;  that  every  To7igiie  Jlwitld 
 confefs  that  Jefiis  Chrid  is  Lord^  to  the 
 Glor)  of  God  the  Father^  Philip.  2,  11.  A- 
 gain  :  When  he  hringeth  his  firfi-he gotten  into 
 the  Worlds  he  fait h^  Let  all  the  Afigels  of  God 
 worjhip  him^  Heb.  i,  6,  And  again  :  To  him 
 that  loved  us,  and  waJJjed  us  from    our  Sifis 
 
 in    his   own  Bloody >  to  him  be  Glory   and 
 
 Dominion  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen,  Rev.  i  ^ 
 5,  6.  Here  is  a  divine  Honour  Given  to  the 
 Son,  with  fitch  Circumflances  as  make  it 
 plainly  impoffible  and  abfurd  to  fuppofe  it 
 to  be  the  Glory  of  the  One  God  and  Father  of 
 all,  which  he  declares  he  will  not  give  to 
 another. 
 
 du  E  Fv  Y 
 
2  0  4  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 QV  E  Fv  Y       V. 
 
 Whether  Dr.  ClarkeV  pretence^  that  the  Autho- 
 rity of  lather  and  t:on  being  One,  though 
 they  are  two  difiitiS  Beings,  makes  them  not 
 to  be  two  Gods,  As  a  King  upon  the  Throne, 
 and  his  Son  adminiftring  the  Fathers  Go- 
 vernment, are  not  two  Kings;,  be  not  trifling 
 and  inconjiflent  i?  For,  if  the  King's  Son  bs 
 not  a  King,  he  cannot  truly  be  called  King ; 
 if  he  is,  then  there  are  two  Kings.  So,  if 
 the  Son  be  ?iot  God  in  the  Scripture-thttoii 
 of  God,  he  cannot  truly  be  called  God  ,  and 
 then  how  is  the  DoBor  confiftent  with  Scrip-' 
 ttive^  or  with  Himfelf^  But  if  the  Son  be 
 truly  God,  there  are  two  Gods  upon  the 
 DoBor^s  Hjpothefsj  as  plainly  as  that  one 
 and  one  are  two  :  and  Jo  all  the  Texts  of 
 Ifaiah  cited  above,  befides  others,  (land  full 
 arid  clear  againjl  the  DoBor*s  isotion. 
 
 p.  79,So.  i4///h?.X7"OUR  Argument  in  This  Qiiery^ 
 -1  and  in  the  Defenfe  of  it,  is  nothing 
 but  a  Repetition  of  what  has  been  already  an- 
 fwered  at  large^  The  Notion  Dr.  Clarke  has 
 hid  down,  is  This  •,  that,  there  being  in  the 
 Monarchy  of  the  Univerfe  but  One  Authority^ 
 original  tn  the  Father,  derivative  in  the  Son-^ 
 .  therefore  the  One  God  (abfolutely  fpeaking)  aU 
 ways  fi^nifles  Him  in  whom  the  Power  or  Au- 
 thority is  original  and  underived.  In  oppofi- 
 tion  to  This  Notion^  the  Sum  of  your  arguing, 
 
 is: 
 
Qu .  V.     Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  soy 
 
 is:  Firfl^  tint  ''  if  the  Son  he  not  God  in  thecoivpart 
 
 "  fame  Senfa  and  in  as  High  a  Senfe  as  the  ^'''''^^^^^'^' 
 
 ''  Father  himfelj^    he    cafmot    Truly  be   called 
 
 ^'  God''*  at  all.     Which   is,    in  other  words, 
 
 condemning  the  Scripture,   for  giving  to  the 
 
 Son  the  Title  of  Gcd^   and  yet  not  meaning 
 
 thereby  One  who   has   all   *^erfe&ions  and  all 
 
 T>onu7iion  abfolutely  in  a?jd  of  Himfelf  original^ 
 
 underivedj    and  independent  on   Any.     In  the 
 
 Second  phce,  you  thus  argue  ,    ^'  If  the  Son^P.  80. 
 
 ''  a  di/iinff  feparate  Beings    be   truly  and  really 
 
 ^'  God  ^  and  if  the  lather  he  fo  too  ,  what  can 
 
 "  be  plainer  than  that  there  are^  upon  your  Hj- 
 
 "  pothefis^  two  God^  P "  *'  If  the  Son  he  truly  God^  P,  79, 
 
 *'  there  are  two  Gods  upon  the   Doclor'^s  Hypo- 
 
 ^^  the/is^  as  plainly  as  that  0?ie  and  One  are 
 
 *'  fw^."     ^^  What  jnean  you  then  to  deny  that  p.  ^o, 
 
 *'  there  are  two  Cods  ?  But  j  ou  fij^  One  is  Sit- 
 
 "  preme^  the   other  Subordinate  : 1  do  Jiot  p,  Si, 
 
 "  charge  )ou  with  ajj^er ting  Two  Supreme  Gods  -^ 
 "  But  I  do  charge  J  ou  with  holdifig  tzvo  Godsy 
 ''  One  Supreme y    J?wther  Infer i our  ,   two  real 
 
 *'  and  true  Gods. Thisjou  cafinot  truly  and 
 
 "  fmcerely^  jou  f/jould  not  otherwife^  denj^^  To 
 this  it  has  above  been  anfwered  at  large  j  that 
 though  Magijlrates  are  in  Scripture  ftiled 
 Gods^  and  Angels  are  in  Scripture  ftiled  Gods , 
 and  the  Hoi,  Ghoft  hath  called  Them  Gods^un- 
 to  whom  the  word  of  God  came  ,  and  the  Scrip- 
 ture cannot  be  broken  ;  and,  much  more.  He 
 whom  the  Father  fan&ified  arid  fent  into  the 
 IVorldy  hlafphemed  not ^  when  he /W,  I  am  the 
 Son  of  God :   Yet  ftill,   there    being  but  One 
 
 Firjl 
 
ao6  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 Firji  Caufe  and  Fou7itahi  of  all.  One  tvho  Alone 
 has  all  Perficlions  and  all  Dominion  abfolntely 
 in  and  of  HiJnfdf^  original,  underived^  and  in  - 
 dependent  on  Any  ^  there  is  ftill  therefore,  ab- 
 folutely  fpeaking,  not  Many  Gods^  not  Two 
 Gods,  but  0?ie  God  only.  This  is  the  Uni- 
 verfal  Voice  of  AW?/r^  a?id  Reafon:  This  is 
 plainly  the  Senfe  of  all  Primitive  Antiquity  : 
 This  is  the  ejiprefs  and  folemn  Declaration  of 
 the  Prophets  and  Apoftles  in  the  Old  Tejlament 
 and  in  the  l>Iew  :  And  This  is  evidently  the 
 meaning  of  the  Anfwer  our  Saviour  Himfelf 
 gave  to  the  very  fame  Objeftion  made  to  him 
 by  the  Jews,  But  now  obferve,  how  irre- 
 fragably  your  Own  Argument  returns  upon 
 your  own  Head.  ''Ifthe  Son^  a  d'lfiinB  Per- 
 *'''  fon^  feparate  or  not  feparate^  be  truly  and 
 "  really  the  Supreine  God ,  and  if  the  Father 
 *'  be  fo  too  5  what  can  be  plainer  than  that 
 "  there  are^  upon  your  Hypothefis^  Two  Gods^ 
 '^  Two  Supreme  Gods^  as  plainly  as  that  One  | 
 *'  and  One  are  Tzzjo  i?  What  mean  you  then  to 
 "  deny  that  there  are  Two  Gods  <?  But  you  fay^ 
 "  they  are  CGnfi.ib(lantial^  they  are  undivided 
 *^  in  theJr  Subjlajice.  What  then  ?  I  do  7Wt 
 '^  charge  you  with  averting  Two  divided  Sub- 
 '.'  fiances  ^  but  I  do  charge  you  with  holding 
 '*•  Two  Gods^  Two  Supreme  Gods  undivided  in 
 "  their  Subflancej  Two  real  and  true  Confub- 
 '^  flantial  Supreme  Gods.  This  you  ca?viot  truly 
 "  and  fine  erelj\  you  fjould  not  othenvife^  deny  J* 
 To  J'his,  you  have  never  given  Any  Reply : 
 Turn  it  which  way  foever  you  will,  it  is  capa- 
 ble 
 
Qu. V.      Of  the  Vnhy  of  God.  loj 
 
 ble  of  No  Reply.  One  general  Snbfiance^ 
 One  Godhead^  One  whatfoever  elfs  you  pleafe, 
 y^ou  may  afTert ,  But  One  Gody  upon  Tour 
 Principles,  it  can  no  way  be. 
 
 ConfiibftanUality  (as  is  evident  from  TertitU 
 liayi  and  Others)  was  never  thought  to  infer 
 any  Equalitj  of  Supreme  Dominion,  Much  lefs 
 will  Many  confubjlantial  Gods  be,  upon  ac- 
 ount  of  their  Confubftantiality,  One  God-^  any 
 Dtherwife  than  in  a  figurativeand  rhetorical  Ex- 
 Dreffion.  The  Antient  Chriflian  Writers  (as  Bi- 
 [hop  Pear/on  obferves,)  always  ''  looked  upon  the  p^p^j-^^^ 
 '  Origination  in  the  divine  Pateriiity^^  [yiz.creed,  p, 
 he  Father's  being  the    '^  One  Per/on  who  ii4o,£^/^.4. 
 
 ^  from  None^'' '*  theO?ieGod^  the  True  God, 
 
 the  Onlj  True  God,  the  God  and  Father  of 
 our  Lord  Jefus  Chrijl,'"']  to  be  "  the  AJfertion 
 of  the  Unity  ;"  And  he  himfelf  declares  this 
 moji  Neceffary^ for  the  avoiding  multi- 
 plication and  plurality  of  Gods.'*  But  according 
 to  Tour  Notion,  the  Heathens  might  juftly 
 have  argued  in  Defenle  of  their  Idolatry,  that 
 All  their  Gods,  becaufe  they  thought  them  to 
 be  confubjlantial^  were  One  and  the  fame  Su- 
 Weme  God, 
 
 But  to  proceed.  You  charge  me  with  '^  un-  -p.  Sr; 
 ''  goddifig  the  Son'*  Which  opprobious  Lan- 
 3;uage,  you  well  know,  carries  no  Argument 
 in  it  ^  but  is  merely  an  Appeal  to  the  FaJJions 
 bf  the  Ignorant.  Do  /  Ungod  the  Son,  who 
 declare  him  to  be  God  in  every  Exprcflion, 
 and  in  every  Senfe,  in  which  the  Scriptures 
 declare  him  to  be  fo  ?  who,  with   St.  John^ 
 
 de- 
 I 
 
2o8  Of  the  Vriity  of  Cod. 
 
 declare   him  to  be  God  the  Word^    "By  vchom 
 all  Things  were  nwde^  with    St.  Thomas^    to 
 be  7ny  Lord  and  my  God?  with  St.  Patil^  to  be  " 
 the  One  Lord  Jejus  Corift^    throtgh  whom  are 
 all  Things  J  Do  lungod  the  Son,    bccaufe  I 
 declare  with  the  Scripture,  that  Hd  came  from 
 Heaver^  not  to  do  his  own  iVill^    ha  the  Will 
 (jf  him  that  fent  him ;  that  he  can  do  ?iothing 
 of  himfelf  •,  that  he  lives  hy  the  Father  ^  that 
 the    Father    is    Greater     than  he  \     and    is 
 His  God?  If  this  be  to  tingod  the  Son  -^   do 
 not  J6'^  your  felf  in  like  manner  ungod  him? 
 Nay,  do  not  you  really  and  truly  tmgod  the 
 Son,  by  denying   that  he  'is  or   can  be  God 
 P.  57.      at  all,  unlets  he  be  To  in  the  very  ^^  fame  a7id 
 *'  in  as  high  a  Senfe  as  the  Father  himfelf -^"^ 
 which  yet  the  Scriptures  never  fuppofe  hint 
 to  be?  Again  :  Do  not  you  really  ungod  the 
 Son,  while,  prefuming  to  be  wife  above  what 
 is  written,  you  alfert  that  he  is  The  One  Supreme 
 p,  53.      God^  ''  S/ipreme  in  the  fttitt  Senfe  ;"  and  yet 
 at  the  fame  time  moft  inconfiftently  profefs, 
 r.  38,  44.  that  he  is  derived^  ftnt^  has  a  minifierial  Of-- 
 fice^  and  exercifeth  the  aAuthority^    and  exe- 
 ctites  the  Orders  of  Another?    Is  not  This 
 p.  79,80.  <t  trifling  and  inconfifltni^ — talking  backwards 
 "  and  forwards^  fajing  and  tmjd}ing^    ajfert- 
 "  ing  and reca7iti?jgan(i co7ttradictiugyouil elf?"^ 
 Laftly  ;,  Do  not  you    (I  tremble  to  ufe  the 
 Expreriion)  ungod  the  Father^     by  alTerting 
 (in  oppoficion   both  to  Scripture  and  Natural 
 Religion)   Q.4nother   inde^enucnt^  Another  Sn^ 
 prefhe  Lord  and  Author  of  oAll :  Thus  depri- 
 ving the  Great  God  and  Father  of  the  Uni- 
 
 verfs 
 
Qu.  V.     Of  I  he  Vnitj  of  God.  ^^9 
 
 verfe,  of  his  original  independent  and  incom- 
 municable Supremacy  ,  which  is  the  very- 
 thing  wherein  confifts  The  Godhead  oi  the  Fa- 
 ther of  Ali^  who  is  Above  all  ?  I  would  beg 
 o(ToUy  who  are  well  able,  to  confider  thefe 
 Things  ferioufly  and  impartially.  Which,  I 
 think,  would  certainly,  if  not  convince  you 
 of  your  Errour,  yet  abate  at  lead  That 
 Warmth  of  Zeal  for  you  know  not  what, 
 which  prompts  you  to  be  thus  injurious  to 
 thole  who  differ  from  you,  in  cafes  where 
 the  Reflection  may  aKvays  ju/ll)'  be  retorte,d 
 upon  yourfelf  with  greater  Severity. 
 
 I  had  obferved,  after  Dr.  Clarke^  that  Ter- 
 tullian  and  Athenagoras  give  (by  way  of 
 Similitude)  fome  handfome  Explications  of 
 This  Notion  ,  that  there  being  in  the  Monar- 
 chy of  the  Univerfe  but  One  Authority^  origi- 
 nal in  the  Father^  derivative  in  the  Son  •, 
 therefore  The  One  God  (aljohtely  [peaking) 
 always  fignifies  Him  in  whom  the  'Power  or 
 Authority  is  original  and  underived.  With 
 regard  to  Tertullian  you  reply,  that  he  "  de-  ?.  82. 
 ^'  dares  exprefsly  againft  any  fuch  vain  Ima- 
 *'  gination^  as  that  of  a  Subordinate  God  ^ 
 '^  and — fays^  the  T^ivifiity  has  no  degrees^ 
 *^  being  One  only.""^  I  anfwer  :  The  QjellionL 
 is  not,  whether  Tertullian  always  fpeaks  con^ 
 ftftently  ^  or  whether  he  ever  [liies  the  Son,  a 
 Subordi?iateGod'^  Or  whether  that  Expreflioa 
 be  at  all  a  proper  manner  of  fpeaking  :  But 
 the  Queftion  is,  whether  Tertullian  does  not 
 frequently  found  ^jhe  Unity  of  God  u^on  the 
 Supremacy  of  the'f^Father  oAJop^e  in  the  Go- 
 P  ver?iment 
 
a  I  o  '  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 vernment  of  the  U/iiverfe.     Does  not  (i)  Ter- 
 tullia?t^  in   numerous  Places,  exprefsiy  make 
 the  Power  and  oAnthonty  of  the  Son  Suhor- 
 dinate  to  that  of  the  Father?  And  can  Sub- 
 ordinate Authmty  be  Supreme  Authority  ?  Does 
 he  not,  as  I  have  largely  fhown,  declare  that 
 the  Son  Receives  all  his  Power  from  the  Fa- 
 ther, JHs  in  his  Name^  was   the  Minifier  of 
 bis  Will  from  the  Beginning  of  the   World, 
 can  do  nothing  of  Himjelf  in  nil  Things  is  Jul- 
 jett  to  and  obeys  the  Will  and  Command  oi  the 
 Father  ?  And   does  not  he,   from   thefe  very 
 eArgrmients^   prove  the  Government  of  the 
 %'Si.      Univerfe  to  be  a  M^?/^rc/y' f  Cut   you   appeal 
 particularly  to  a  Paffage  you   had  before  ci- 
 ted, in  your  F<  54.  Which  was  fo  little  to  your 
 Purpofe,  that  I  took  no  notice  of  it  Tbere. 
 But  fince  you  refer  to  it,  as  if  it  was  of  great 
 Moment ,  1  fliall  {how  you,    that,   had  you 
 rightly   underftood  the  Senfe  of    TertulUan^ 
 [whole  Stile  is  not   the  moft  eafy  and  intelli- 
 gible,3    you  would   not    have  quoted  That 
 PatTage  upon  This  Occafion.     The  Cafe   is 
 plainly     this :     Tertullian    is    There    argu- 
 ing    againft    Marcio?Ps     Two  Gods)      i.   e. 
 two  Suj-'yeme^  underived^  independent  Beings  j 
 the  One  of  which,  (the  God  of  the  Old  Te- 
 ftament,)  he  fuppofed  to  be  (2)  of  a  Jevercy 
 favage^  and  Tyrannical  Difpofition  j  the  Other, 
 (the  God  of  the  New  Teltament,)  of  a  hnd^ 
 merciful^    and  Good  Nature.     Tertullian  in- 
 fifts  on  the  contrary,  that  there   can  be  but 
 One  God,  i.  e.  (as  he  there  exprefsiy  explains 
 
 (i)  Adv.  Prax,  r.3,  15,21.  (i)  Adv.  Marc.  lib.  i.  c.  6. 
 
 him* 
 
Qu.  V.     Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  1 1 1 
 
 himfelQ  O^e  (ij  Great ^  Supreme ^  Uule^ot- 
 ten^  UTimade^  eternal  Being  or  Suhftance,  By 
 the  Term  (God)  therefore,  he  in  This  Ar- 
 gument means  the  felf-exi/Ient  Subfiance  in- 
 verted with  Supreme  Tower  ;  [^Aaverf,  Mar^ 
 C107U  lib, I,  cap,  ^.]  And  he  urgts  Marcion  with 
 the  following  Dilemma.  There  cannot  be 
 (2)  Two  EQUAL  Supreme  felf-exiftent 
 Beings  or  Gods ;  becaufe  (fays  he)  the  very 
 Notion  of  Supreme^  excludes  all  Comparifon 
 and  Equality :  Neither  can  Two  Supremes  be 
 UNEQJJJL  ;  for  That  alfo  is  contrary  to 
 the  Notion  of  Supreme^  which  admits  of 
 no  Diminution.  Having  therefore  before  fhown 
 to  Marcion^  [j^^p-  5-1  that  there  could  not  be 
 Two  Supremes^  that  were  Equal ;  He  in  the 
 (5)  Paffage  which  you  cite,  proceeds  to  tell 
 him,  that  he  muft  alfo  de^iy  That  'Being  to  be 
 God,  (meaning  the  Summtm  Mag?mm,  the 
 Great  Supreme  Being  or  God,)  whom  he  owu'- 
 ed  to  be  of  a  worfe  and  inferiour  Nature*  If 
 now  you  asked  Tertullian,  whether,  by  His 
 
 (i)  Definio 'Deum  [timmum  efTe  magnum,  in  asterni- 
 
 tate  conflitutum,   innatum,  infedlum  &c.  /;^.  i.e.  3.  And  pre- 
 
 fently  after;    fubftantiam, •folam  innatam,  infedlam, 
 
 folam  ^eternam,  crc.  c.  7. 
 
 (2.)  Ergo  nee  Paria  erunt  duo  Summa  Magna,  quia  prohi- 
 bet  difpoiita  jam  regula  Summi  Magni,  comparationem  non 
 fudineatis :  [_He  had  argued  before-;  Nee  aliter  Summum  Mag- 
 num, nifi  Parem  non  habens.  And  again;  Quum  hoc  lit 
 Summum  Magnum,  Par  non  habere,  cap.  3.]  nee  Difparia, 
 quia  &  aUa  Summi  Magni  reguia  occurnt,  deminutionem  non 
 admittens.  lib.  i.  c.  7. 
 
 (3)  Deus  non  erit  dicendus,  quia  nee  credendus,  niil  Sum- 
 mum Magnum;  [Subllantiam  folam  innatam,  &c.  c.  7.] 
 
 Nega  Deumy  quern  dicis  deterioremi  nega  Smnnrnm  Magnum, 
 quem  credis  m'morem,  c.  6. 
 
 P  2  Ar- 
 
2.1 2  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Argument,  he  did  not  fuppofe  that  the  Son  is 
 either  \_Snnmiufn  Mapitni]  himfelf  the  Su- 
 preme^ Stlf'Cxiftent  Bei/Jg^  or  GoiJ-^  or  elfe 
 [^deteriorem  6jf  vnnorttn^  of  a  lower  and  m- 
 feriouY  Suhftance^  and  fo  not  God :  He  would 
 anfwer  you,  that  he  allowed  Neither  of  thefe 
 things  ^  but  that  he  fuppoled  the  Son  to  be 
 a  PAR  T  {Derivatio  Totius  i^  Portio^  of  the 
 Supreme  (elf-exifient  Stthfianve^  begotten  in- 
 to a  Perfon  by  the  good  pleafure  of  the  Fa- 
 ther, juft  before  the  Creation  of  the  World  , 
 and  confcquently  that  he  neither  thought  him 
 to  be  [^Simmtitn  Mfigminf]  himfelf  the  Sul^reme 
 Beings  or  God  ;  nor  yet  of  an  inferiour^  or 
 louoer  Subilance  ^  but  that  he  was  the  fame 
 God^  in  common  fpecifick  Suhftance  f'as  Part 
 of  a  Whole ^  with  [the  Simnnm  Magnmf]  the 
 Supreme  felf-exifient  Beings  or  God.  I  wonder 
 you  fhould  not  have  obferved^that  he  declares 
 this  to  Marciov^  lib.  j,  c.  6  ;  and  to  Praxeas 
 in  many  Places.  I  am  not  here  vindicating 
 Tertulua?i\  Reafoning  :  But  Thish  plainly  his 
 Notioji.  And  from  hence  'tis  evident  you  ei- 
 ther miflake  or  quilble^  when  you  alledge 
 p.82,€7'54.that  TertulUan  fays,  ''  the  Div2?iit)  has  no  De.. 
 "  grees.'''  He  adds  the  Reafon  of  it,  [utpo- 
 te  unica]  as  being  One  ;  viz,  one  (i)  unbe- 
 gotten^  unmade^  and  eternal  Sidfiarice^  which 
 Unity  can  have  no  Degrees.  But  if  you 
 ask  his  Notion  concerning  the  Divine  Per- 
 Jons ;  he  will  anfwer  you,    that  they  are  (2) 
 
 (i)  Adv.  Heimog,  c.  7. 
 
 (1)  Tics  aiuem  non  ilatu,  fed  gradu.  Adv.  Prax.  c.i.   jiga'm : 
 Filium,-— -— nec  IVitu,  fed  (Jraduy  ali'.im.  ibid,  c,  19. 
 
 three 
 
Qii .  V.      Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  a  1 3 
 
 three  in  Degree-^  and  that  the  TERSON 
 of  the  Son,  [though  his  SUBSTANCE 
 was,  in  His  Opinion,  a  Conj'uhfia/itial.,  eter^ 
 nal,  and  SeJf-cxiftent  P  ART  of  God  J  was 
 neither  (i)  Eternal^  nor  tmhegotten^  nor  in 
 Authority  Siilretne. 
 
 You  allow,  that  ''^Terttfllian  ufes  the  Simi-p,  82, 
 "  litude  of  a  KJng  u^ori  a  Throne^  and  a  Son 
 *'  adriiini firing    his   Father'* s    Kjngdom:    But 
 *^  (you  add)  to  a  very  different  Turpofe^  from 
 "  what "  We  ^'  would  have  it  fervej*^     How 
 fo  ?    "  The  Obje^ion  (you  fay)   againjl  more 
 *'  Perfons  than  One  in  the  Godhead^  as  Ter- 
 **  tullian  refolves  it,  was^  that  the  Authority 
 "  would  not  be  07ier     No  :    The   Objeftion 
 was,  that  G*?^:/ would  not  be  One  ,  That  there 
 would  be  Many  Gods  in    Perfon,    though  but 
 One  T)ivine  Subjiance.     The  words  immedi- 
 ately preceeding   thofe  you  have  cited,  and 
 which  in  your  Citation  you  have  left  out, 
 fliow  this  very  clearly  :  "  They  ("i)  pretend, 
 ^'  fays  Tertullian,  that  We  preach  Two,   and 
 ^'  Now     \_fi71ce    his    following    Montanus^ 
 ^'  Three  Gods  ,   but   that  They   themfelves 
 "  are  worfliippers  of  the  One  God.'^     You  go 
 on  :  "  The  Similitude  [of  a  Kj7ig  and  his  Sm'] 
 *'  is  fertinent  to  flww^  how   the  Authority  or 
 "-'  Government  may  be  One,  in  the  Hands  offe- 
 ''  veral  Terfons-?^  And  therefore,  (you  fhou'd 
 have  added  J  'tis  pertinent  to  diow,  how,  in 
 the  Monarchy   of  the  Univerfe^    according  to 
 
 (i)  Fuit  Tern  pus,  cum  Filius  non  fuit.  Adv.  Hermog.  f.  3, 
 (z)  Itaq;  duos,  &  Tres  j^w  jaditant   a  nobis  praedicari;  fe 
 vero  ua  ius  De  i  cultores  priefumunt.    Adv,  Prax,  c.  3. 
 
 P  3  Dr 
 
2  14  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Dr  Clarke's  Argument,  the   Authority  of  the 
 Father  and  So?i  being  One^  Original  in  the  Fa- 
 ther, derivative  m  the  Son,    therefore  there 
 are  not  Two  Monarchs  ;  but  The  One  Monarchy 
 abfolutely  fpeaking,  mufl:  needs  be  He  only, 
 in  whom  Alone  the  Authoritj  is  original  and 
 underived.     For  This  only,  and  no  Other,  was 
 the  very  Purpofe,  for  which  the  Doftor  cited 
 TertuUia7U     If  One  oAuthority  may  be  exerci- 
 fed   by  feveral  Perfons,    in   Subordination  to 
 one  Head^  one  Original  \  and  fo  there  be,  ab- 
 folutely fpeaking,  but  One  (i)  Mmarch^  One 
 Governour  *,    then  evidently     Dr  Clarke^  by 
 fhowing  that   there    is   but    One   Authoritjy 
 origi?uA  in  the  Father,  and  derivative  in  the 
 Son  who  exercifeth  it  in  Subordination  to  the 
 Father  as  his   Head^    [the  Head  of  Chrifl  is 
 God,  I  Cor.  II,  3  ;]  cannot  be  faid  to  alTert 
 more  Gods  than  One. 
 p.  83-  But  TertulUan^  you  fay,    argues  that  the 
 
 Father  and  Son  are  *'  One  God^''  with  refpeft 
 to  '^  Unity  ofSuhjtancer  He  does  indeed  fo 
 argue.  And  yet  he  does  not  mean  (as  you 
 doj  that  the  Son  is  as  much  The  One  Supreme 
 God,  as  the  Father  himfelf ;,  but  that  the  Son 
 isaiMRTofthe  Father's  Subftance,  and 
 exercifes  the  Father'*s  oAuthority,  He  argues, 
 that  where  there  is  but  Oiie  Original  of  oAu'- 
 thority'j  tho*  exercifed  by  never  fo  many  Sub- 
 ordinate Perfons,  there  is  yet  but  One  Kjng  or 
 Governotir,  and  confequently  but  o?/e  God.  He 
 
 (O  Proinde  illius  effe />» /«f//'<?/i/fr,  ^  quo  cammunicatur  in 
 filium-  Adv,  Prax,  c.  3.  \ 
 
 does 
 
Qii.  V.     of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  a  i  y 
 
 does  not  argue,  asj'(5//  do,  that  becaufe  the 
 Son  is  KJng  exercifing  the  Father'^s  oAuthority 
 and  Power  J  therefore  the  Monarchy  is  deftroy- 
 ed,  and  there  are  Two  Kjngs ;  but  on  the 
 contrary,  that  the  Monarcby  is  therefore  pre- 
 ferved,  became  the  Son  aerives  both  his  Sul- 
 fiance  and  Tower  from  the  Father^  and  admi- 
 nifters  the  Kingdom  committed  to  him  ac- 
 cording to  the  Will  of  the  Father^  and  will 
 in  the  End  of  the  World  (as  the  oAfoftlefays) 
 deliver  it  up  again  to  the  Father  {i).  Again  : 
 Tertullian^  exprefsly  contrary  to  what  yotip,  83. 
 fuppofe,  argues  that  the  Admimflration  of  the 
 divine  Government  by  Myriads  of  Angels^ 
 makes  it  to  be  yet  but  (2)  one  Monarchy^  in 
 which  there  is  but  One  Monarchy  One  God, 
 Laftly,  Unity  of  Subjtance  (as  I  have  before 
 obferved)  can  only  make  One  Suhfta7tce'^  it 
 can  never  make  two  Supreme  intelligent 
 Agents^  two  equally  Supreme  Monarchs  of  the 
 Univerfe^  not  to  be  Two  Gods. 
 
 You  next  obferve  upon  oAthenagoras^  that 
 he  ''  refolves  the  Unity  of  Godhead^  into  Uni-p,  84* 
 ty  of  Sub/lance  and  Original?*  But  why  do 
 you  thus  confound  different  Things?  as  if 
 Unity  of  Suhjtaiice^  and  Unity  of  Original^  was 
 thQ  fame  thing  ?  when  you  your  felf  exprefsly  p  ^^ 
 own,  that  though  the  Son  be  Confui?jiantial^ 
 yet  the  Father  only  is  the  Root^  Fountainy  or 
 Original  of  All.  Secondly  j  you  obferve  that 
 *'  oAthenagoras  makes  the  Holy  Ghoft  to  he  a  p^  g^ 
 
 (i)  Adv.  Prax.  c.  4. 
 (z)  Ibid,  c.  3. 
 
 P   4  "   Sud' 
 
a  1 6  Of  the  Vtrity  of  Cod. 
 
 "  Suhparkial  Enia/jntwu  from  the  Father^  a^ 
 "  Light  from  Fire.'''^  His  Notion  in  This 
 particular,  as  I  have  ah'eady  fhown  you, 
 (alo've^  p.  105,)  is  exprcfsly  condemned  both 
 by  (i)  Ji^ft^n  Martyr^  and  (2)  oAthanajivA 
 Himfelf.  3^^;/?^'^,  fpeaking  concerning  the 
 Generation  oV  the  ^on^  (and    "  the  Rtafon^'' 
 
 P'  H  you  fay,  '^  is  the  feme''''  lor  the  Holj  Ghoft  •) 
 obferves  very  diftinftly,  that  the  Son  is  not 
 rightly  compared  to  Light  emitted  from  the 
 Sh}?^  but  to  One  Lire  h'gbted  from  another^ 
 without  any  divifion^  ab\'cijJion^  d'lnmiutiony 
 or  alteration  of  the  Firft. 
 
 Your  next  Obfervation  is  fight  indeed,  and 
 moft  direftly  overthrows  your  whole  Hypo- 
 
 P,  g^.  thefis.  You  fay  :  "  Llie  common  Jnjwer  [of 
 '^  the  Fathers]  to  the  Charge  ofTritheifm  or 
 '^  Ditheifm^  was,  that  there  is  hut  One  Head, 
 ''  Root  J  Louniain,  Lather  of  All  ;  not  in  re- 
 ''  \feit  of  oAuthority   only,   hut  of  SiiULnice 
 
 6^  alfo^ This  was  the  co/icurrent  Senfe    of 
 
 *'  all  in  general ;  and  into  This  chiefly^  they 
 ''  refolved  the  Unity  of  Godhead:'  If  This 
 be  true,   as   I  have  fully   (^)  proved  3  why 
 
 fliould 
 
 (i)  Dial,  cum  Trypli,  p.  ilo.  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Reply  to 
 Mr.  Nelfen,  p.  158. 
 
 (2)  De  Synod.  Nic.  Dccret.  Tom.  i.  Fol.  259. 
 
 (3)  Ahove^  P.  17,  31.  It  was  the  firll  Article  of  all  the  An- 
 tient'  Orienial  Creeds,  "  I  Iclicve  in  one  God^  the  Father  Al- 
 *«  miiht'^\'  And  thus  the  A^/Vrryt- Creed  exprefles  it.  The  Apo- 
 ftolical  C^onftitutions  lay,  that  Chridinns,  forfaking  the  Madnefs- 
 of  Polythti/m^  fiy  to  the  True  Alonarchy,  viz.  raJ  7:xvrox^rofi 
 3-fc?  2^  'Uaris  X:-"^^i  f^  ^^^^  Almighty  God,  through  ^efus  Chriji, 
 lib.  5.  c.  15.  Hence  the  Faiher  is,  Unus  cr  Solus  verus  Dens; 
 )ilat<^  ^ice,  'xecvTOKfocTi.-'f)  i    E'n  x,cu  f^v^  6  T^xvTeK^r&if) ;  Untis  Solus 
 
 Deus 
 
^.V.     OJ  the  Unity  of  Cod.  217 
 
 liould  we  difpute  any  longer  ?    For   if  the 
 [///ity  of  the  Godhead^  as   you   here    exprefsly 
 md  very  truly  aflert,    is   to  be   refolved  into 
 one  Heaci\  Root,  Fountain^  2ind  Father  of  all -^ 
 his  demonftration    that  the  Son,  who,  you 
 lown,  is  not  the  Head^  Rootj  Fount ahi,  and  Fa- 
 Itherofallj  cannot  be   himfelf  That   One  Su- 
 ')renie  God^  which  is  the  Father^  Htad^  Rooty 
 md  Fountain  of  All ,    how    undivided  foever 
 you  fuppofe  them   to  be,  as  to  their  Meta- 
 "^hyftcal  Snbfta?ice.     So  that  your  own  Hands 
 [lave  entirely   deftroyed  your  own  Scheme. 
 And  to  fay  prefently  after,  that  the  Antients 
 did  7iot  exclude  the  Son  from  leing  One  God  p.  S^i 
 with  the  Father— in  PERFECTION;  i.e. 
 did  not  exclude  the  Son  from  being  the  Head^ 
 Root  J  and  Fountain  of  all.,    (if  thefe  things 
 be  any  inftance  of  Perfetiion  j)    only    fliows 
 how  natural  it  is  for  you  (as  the  unavoidable 
 Confequence  of  your   Notion,)    to   run  into 
 perpetual   Self-contradidlion.     Sometimes   the 
 Unity  with  you,  is  One  Sulftance  ;    and  you 
 czll  it  individual,  ^nd  fame y  and  7mmerical  ov 
 
 Deus  Otnnipotens ;  in  IrensLHs,  Clem.  Alexandrinusj  Novattan, 
 I  and  all  the  Antients.  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Script.  Do6ir.  p.  213, — 
 230,  Edit.  id.  I  fliall  here  add  only  two  or  three  Oblervations 
 from  Eufebius.  "  The  Father,  fa-^s  he,  is  the  Lord  and  God 
 "  of  the  Son ;  therefore  all  religious  Knowledge  centers  (w? 
 "  (jjUv  u^x^'j,y.x]  £4?  ivx  hov,)  in  one  Original,  and  in  one  God  :' 
 Dem.  Evang.  lib.  5.  <:.  8.  "  The  Farher  is  the  Original  of  the 
 **  Son ;  Therefore  the  Church  believes  in  One  God,  the  Fa- 
 *'  ther  Almighty;  and  in  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift :"  Be  Ecclef. 
 Theol.  lib.z.  C.6.  See  alfo  f.  7,  throughout.  Again:  Upon 
 Johni-j,^;  "He  therefore  (the  Father)  is  The  True  God, 
 "  (0  ttq  f^v^;)  the  One  only  God,  and  there  is  no  other  be- 
 "  lides  him  :"  ibid.  c.  22.  Again  .  "He  only  is  the  One  God 
 !*  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chnft :"  ibid.  lib.  3.  c.  6. 
 
 iden- 
 
a  1 8  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 identical  Suhflance  ^  Wliicli  is  perfefHy  the 
 Salellian  Notion  and   Language  ,  'h  ^Js^yyL- 
 fxvjQh  ftio,   uVoV^o"i?,    One   Subject^  Sul^f^ojitum^ 
 p.  751,    ov  Hjfo/iajis^    as  you  yourjelf  explain  it.     At 
 391-        Other  times  'tis  only  undivided  Subftance  ;  ho- 
 mogeneous Suhftance  and  infef^arabihty  ^    that 
 k^  Subfiances  not  feparatedy  hut  u/:ited.     But 
 tlien,  leaft  three  dijtinci  intelligent  and  equal- 
 ly Stq^reme  Agents,  fliould  be  thought  to  be 
 Three  Supreme  Gods^  howfoever  tmdivided  in 
 their  Subrtances ,  you  are  compelled  by  the 
 ».  84.      Force  of  Truth  to  own,   that  the  A?nie?its^ 
 hoth  Ante-nicene  and   (i)  PoJi*?iicene,  placed 
 
 the 
 
 (i)  This,  ^/^^»^y?//f  frequently  declares :   /^gvcc  oiysvKjjTo^,  »g 
 
 f/^voc  TTtiyvj  ^i'oTnTO(i^  ^oc  rSro ■Uvtvv    ihxi    fAc^vcv    ^icv  '.      '*    He 
 
 "  [the  Father']  is  Alone  Unhegotien,  and  He  only  is  the  Foun- 
 •'  tain  of  Divinity;  therefore  he  is  the  Only  God."  Contr, 
 Saheil.  By  which  Reafoning  it  follows,  that  becaufe  the  Son  is 
 begotten^  and  is  not  the  Fountain  of  Divinity,  therefore  he  is 
 not  the  Only  God.  T^foTro  <!'  uv,  ax;  0  tf^c,  M-/(^,  lU  A  ^^"^^y  n'i 
 h  MTiov  KXi  vi^  KUi  %viutx,xrr>c,  oc.vx(pipojjuivii'  *'  In  my  Opinion  the 
 **  Unity  of  God  may  be  prefervcd,  by  referring  back  the  Son 
 ^*'  and  Spirit  to  one  Original  Cauie."  Greg.  Naz.  de  TheoL 
 Hilary's  words,  on  the  17th  Article  of  the  Council  of  Syrmi- 
 umy  are  alfo  very  remarkable  :  Ineoquidem  maximenoncom- 
 paratur,  nee  Co^quatur  filius  Patri,  dum  Suhdittts  per  obedien- 
 tix  obfcquclam  oil,— —dum  viittitHry  dum  accipit,  dum 
 
 in  omnibus  Volunt.ui  ejus,    qui  fe  miiit,  ebfequitur. Deus 
 
 unus  ell;  &  Subjcdio  "rilii  docetui  &  Dignitas, ut  lit  pa- 
 tri ^  obfeqiiio  fubjecflus  &  nomine.  "The  Son,  in  This  rerpe(fl 
 *'  principally,  is  not  compared  nor  equalled  with  the  Father; 
 **  m  that  lie  \s  fubject  and  obedient  to  him,  is  Sent  by  him,  Re^ 
 *'  ceives  from  liim,  obeys  in  all  things  the  Will  of  Him  that  lent 
 **  him.  God  is  One;  and  we  teach  bcth  the  Subjeilion 
 **  and  Dignity  of  the  Son,"  •  fo  that  he  is  Subjed  to  the 
 **  Father  both  in  Obedience  and  Title."  And  again :  Audto- 
 ritate  innafcibilitatis,  Deus  unus  ell: ;  **  He  is  the  One  Gody  by 
 •'  the  Prerogative  of  being  Unbegotten."  p.  236.  And  indeed 
 I  cannot  find  that  any  even  of  the  Poji-^ijenes  of  the  4th  Cen" 
 lury^  ever  ftiled  the  Son  abfolutely  (0  sf?  B-jo?)  The  One  God ; 
 or  [aid  that  he  was  Equal  to  the  Father  in  Authority  and  in 
 
Qu.  V.      Of  the  Vnlty  of  Cod.  1 1 9 
 
 the  Unitj^  of  tlo^  Go^lhaJ  in  "  0?ie  Head^ 
 ^^  Rooty  fountain^  and  Father  of  all  P  and 
 this  with  refpeft  to  Authority  (the  very  and 
 only  Thing  i^ififted  on  by  Dr.  Clarke^)  as  well 
 as  to  Subfta^ice.  Had  you  refted  here,  the 
 Conrroverfy  (for  Me)  had  been  at  an  End.  But 
 in  This  point  you  never  continue  long  con- 
 fident with  your  felf. 
 
 You  add  :  The  Fathers  ""^  believed  Goi  to  he  p,  84. 
 **  a  word  denoting  Subfl:ance,  not  Dominion 
 ''  only  :  And  one  Divinity,  S-eor*]^,  was^  with 
 "  Them^  the  fame  thing  as  0?ie  Divine  Sub- 
 "  fiance."  lanfwer:  The  word,  God^  evi- 
 dently never  iignifies  either  Sub/lance  only, 
 or  Dominion  only  -^  but  always  Hi?n  whofe  the 
 Subjfance  2Lnd  whofe  the  Dominion  is.  And  ^.54, 8c. 
 the  Term,  S^tory]^-^  like  dv^^ccTroryj^^  and  all 
 other  abftrad  words  of  the  like  formation  ^  al- 
 ways fignifies  (i)  Divine  Dignity  and  Autho- 
 rity,   It   does  fo  in  (2)  all   the  Places  you 
 
 your  p.  83,  c- 
 
 394. 
 
 Ml  Perfe5lions.  A  Superiority  both  of  Original  and  Authority ^ 
 they  all,  I  think,  unanimoufly  ovvn'd,  though  not  always  very 
 confijlently. 
 
 {l)  &eioT,ir^  §'B-sS.  Orig.  €.  Celf.  I.  ^,  Mirox^  'f  ifu-iva  Bso- 
 t>jt(^  ^-ioTToiisiuuivov.  In  Job.  p.  46.    To^  Aoi7roi<i  ^ioTc,  [fpeaking  of 
 
 Angels]    oiaiKovov  iivcci  -f   3-£(}rj3T(^  T   3-iov  XoyoVy   p.    4*7.    MsTi^OVTCi'; 
 
 [fpeaking  again  of  Angels]  -f  3-£ot>jt©-  uv'S'.   Contr.  Celf.  lib,  7. 
 
 'Ay/iXav  issrspi^uv  ^vvU(jjh  iCj  B-noryiTt.    hi  Joh.  p.  2 1 8.     O  p  TTtcr-^^ 
 
 TT-^y/,  B-soryir(^,  [fpeaking  of  the  Authority  communicated  from 
 the  Father  to  the  Son^  and  from  the  Son  to  the  Angels  J  r,i 
 Joh.  p. 4"].  0£s<5  hi^y^vTcx.  J^/jAfsr,  ^iorvic,  ^^  hi^ynccv,  Greg,  Nyjf,  E" 
 pifi.  ad  Ablab. 
 
 (i)  In  the  PafiFage  you  cite  of  Melito  from  Dr.  Cave,  B-soryji 
 is  exprefsly  oppofed  to  uv&(iu7roTy,^.  In  That  cited  from  Dr.  Grabe, 
 'tis  S-£oy  >^oyii  B-ioTurcc,  ]n  One  of  the  FalTages  of  Origen  you  re- 
 fer to,  'tlSrlai  BsoTiiToi  ^  viS.  In  another,  'tis  -riu)  uvQ^uTrvr-^rx  — 
 ^  rvi^  ^ioTnT»,    In  a  third,  'tis  ^  ov  uvrf  S-ioTy}^,   eiKm   'f  ciXi)&tv7,<i 
 
2  z  o  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 your  felf  appeal  to  for  the  contrary,  excepting 
 the  fingle  FaiTage  of  that  dubious  Author  Hip- 
 polytus.     And  had  it  been  fnqiiently  ufed   to 
 fiirnify  the  Siibjiance  of  God  or   God  Himfelf 
 ftill  it  would  have  been  only  in  a  figurative 
 way  of  fpcaking:,    in   fuch  a  manner  as  we 
 fometimcs  fay,  The  Kin^s  Ma]e{]y^   meaning 
 the  Kjng  hi?fjfelf-j    or  as,  in  a  Rhetoric d   fort 
 of   Expreilion,    we   fometimes   fay,    Humane 
 NATURE^  inflead  of,  Men-^  or  the  Divine 
 NATURE^  inftead  of   God.     But   to  con- 
 found  thefe  things  in  flr2&:  and  argumentative 
 Speech,  as  you  continually  indcavour  to  do, 
 is  making  All  Language  Ufdefs. 
 F.  B4,  85,     Your  mifreprefentatjon  of  feveral  Other  An- 
 ^^*         tient  Writers  in  this  place,  I  pafs  over  -^  having 
 before  conGdered  them  at  large.     Concerning 
 Jiijlin^    See  above,  /?,   121,129.     Concerning 
 TertiiU'ian^  See  above,  p.  55,77.     Concerning 
 Uovatian^     See  above,   p.    53.      Concerning 
 Laiiantius^  See  above,  p.  55>  65,  86.     And  to 
 what  you  ofrer  (p.i6.)    concerning   Eufebim^ 
 See   above,     /?,   89,    150.     I  fliall   here    add 
 only  this  Obfervation  ;,  that,  whereas  you  fay 
 ^.  ^-.      ^"^  the    Sahellian  fiyigularity^^    is    ^' waking  tlje 
 *'  Godhead  (.lovoTtQ^aa^Tt^^    one  fingls    Hypofla- 
 ''  fis  •"  the  contrary  is  notorioufly  true,    that 
 the  Sabelihifis  (uppofed  God  to  be  (j^Icl  vTro^roLcri^ 
 r^L'7r(;^!jcc^o$.     Wherein^'.z/  diifer  from  them  no 
 
 3-ur-AT^.  The  reft  are  eafy  to  be  iinderlTood  from  what  I  have 
 here  fciid,  and  by  comparing  them  vvith  the  PalTages  above-ci- 
 ted. In  all  the  Places  you  refer  to  of  Eitfcbht^s,  S-foV;;?  plainly 
 fignifies  divine  Glory  ^nd  Digniry  ,  and  in  the  Laji  of  them,  'tis 
 cxprcfjily  oppofed  to  «;v^/)«tot;}?. 
 
 Other- 
 
221 
 
 Qii.  V.     Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod. 
 
 otherwife,  than  in  perpetually  contradiding  your 
 felf.  And  in  this  very  Riflage,  by  fuppofing  ergo- 
 U'TToy  and  hjpojlaJ;s  to  mean  the  fame  thing,  you 
 manifeftly  contradiftall  Primitive  Antiqairy. 
 
 I  proceed  now  to  confider  the   Reply  you  p.  S8. 
 make  to  a  Qaeftion  I  propofed,  vizi.    Whether 
 Herod  the  Great  was  not  Kjng  of  Judea,  tbo'* 
 the  Jews  had  no  IQng  but  Cxhx  ?  a?id  whether 
 there  were  ftiore  Kjngs  of  Perfia  than  one^   tho* 
 the  Kjng  of  Perfia  was  King  of  Kings  ^    The 
 Reader  cannot  but  obferve,    that    you  v/ere 
 inuch  perplexed  with  theQiaeflion  ^  and  fawno 
 way  to  anfwer  to  it,  'till   you  had  firfi:  juifre- 
 prefented    it.      Putting  therefore    the   word<> 
 (l^'HEN  the  Jews,)  inftead  of  my  Words  (THO' 
 the  Jews  '^)  you  anfwer,  that  Herod  was    not 
 King  of  Judea  ;,  for  he  had  been  dead  above 
 thirty  Tears  BEFORE.     Before  PVbat  e    Be- 
 fore  the  Jezvs  were  under   C^far  ?    Was  nor 
 Herod  inverted  with  the  Title  of  Ki?ig  of  Ju- 
 I  dea,  by  Auguflus  C^far  ?  and  was  not  yet  Ju- 
 \  gnjliis  C^far  the  only  King  of  the  Jews  ^  Had 
 they  then  any  King  but  i^far^  to  whofe  Su- 
 prem^e  Dominion  both  They  and  Herod  were 
 fubjed  >    But  you  infill    upon   it,    that    Ojie 
 King:  under  another  King^  are  two  Kjngs  ,  and 
 God  Supreme  and  Subordinate  make  Two  Gods, 
 I  anfwer,  in  the  words   of  Scripture:    Chriltp.  S8. 
 is  Lord  ofLords^  and  yet  To  Us  there  is  but 
 One  Lord^  even   Jefus  Chrift,    And  God,    is 
 God  of  Gods  I,  and  yet  To  Us  there  is  but  One 
 God^  even  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all  things  ^ 
 and  not  Ma7iji   Gods.     And   God  cur  Saviour 
 faves  us  through  Jefus  Chrif  cur  Saviour^  Tit. 
 
 3  ;  4,  6 : 
 
222 
 
 Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 5  ^  4,  6:  and  yet  they  are  never  called  Two 
 Saviours,  At  laft  therefore  you  are  reduced  to 
 This :  If  they  are  not  fo, ''  Theyjhould  not  befo 
 "  called:''  That  is, The  Scripture  (you  think) 
 has  ufed  fuch  Expreflions  as  ought  not  to  have 
 been  ufcd. 
 
 Q^u  E  Fv  Y     VI. 
 
 TEXTS^  proving  an 
 hutes  in  lather 
 
 To  the  one  God. 
 
 Thou,  even  Thou 
 only  knoweft  theHearts 
 of  all  the  Children  of 
 Men,  I  KjngsS,  39. 
 
 ItheLordfearch  the 
 Heart  ^  I  try  the  Reins, 
 Jer.  17,  I  c. 
 
 I  am  the  firfl,  and  ! 
 am  the  laft,  and  befides 
 ine  there  is  no  God, 
 Ifai.  44,  6. 
 
 I  am  A  and  n,  the 
 beginning  and  the  end, 
 Rev.  1,8. 
 
 King  of  Kings,  and 
 Lord  of  Lords,  1  Jir/i. 
 
 6,15. 
 
 Ihe  mighty  God, 
 Ifai.  lOj  21. 
 
 Unity  of  divi?ie  Attri- 
 and  Son^  applied 
 
 To  the  Son. 
 
 He  knew  all  Men,&:c. 
 Joh,  2,24.  Thou  knovv- 
 efl:  all  Things,  John 
 16,  30.  Which  knoweft 
 the  Hearts  of  all  Men, 
 ABs  I,  24. 
 
 lamhethatfearchetli 
 the  Reins  and  the  Heart, 
 Rev.  2,  23. 
 
 Iamthefirft,andlam 
 the  laft,  i^tff.  1,17. 
 
 I  am  A  and  H,  the 
 be^^inning  and  the  end, 
 Rev.  22, 13. 
 
 Lord  of  Lords,  and 
 King  of  Kings,  Rev,  1 7, 
 14. — 19,  16. 
 
 The  mighty  God,  If. 
 
 9)6. 
 
 Ifait 
 
Qu .  VI.     Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  1 1 5 
 
 He  is  Lord  of  all, 
 J&s  10,  56. 
 
 Over  all  God  blef- 
 fed,&c.  Rom,  9,  5. 
 
 Lord  over  all,  Rof^i, 
 10.  12. 
 
 Whether  the  fame  CharaEieriftkh^  efpecially  fuch 
 eminent  ones,  can  reafonably  be  underftood  of 
 two  diflinB  Beings  ^  and  of  one  Infinite  and 
 Indepe?ide?it^  the  other  Dependent  and  Finite? 
 
 ^;|/n?.nr^HE  Anfwer   to   this  Qiiery,    is.   p.  89. 
 
 X     i,^,  If  the  Charaders  being  the 
 '^  Same''  and  fo  '^Eminent''  be  a  Reafon  why 
 they  cannot  be   underftood   of  ^'Two-j^^  they 
 can  no  more   be   underftood   of  Two  diftin<3: 
 Perfons,  than  of  Two  diftinct  Beings.    Becaule, 
 being  all  of  them  Perfonal  Charaders,  they 
 are,  when  underftood  of  One^  underftood  not 
 of  the  Beitjg^  but  of  the  Perfon.     7dl)\    But 
 indeed  the  Charafters  are  none  of  them  the 
 *'*•  fame :"  Becaufe  Powers  derived  and  underi- 
 ved  are  no  more  the   '^ fame''    than   the  Per- 
 fons  are,  to  whom  they  refpedively   belong, 
 gi/y,  As  to  the  invidious  infinuation  couched 
 under  the  words  '^finite''    and  '-'•  infiiiite-^'  I 
 anlwer,  that  We  fet  no  other  Limitations  to 
 the  Perfedions  of  the  Son  of  God,    than  the 
 Scripture  exprefsly  fets   by  declaring  them   to 
 be  derived  from  Another.     You   yourfelf  ac- 
 knowledge    that   the  Perfe&ums  and  Powers 
 of  the  Sou^  are  none  of  them    anonginate  or 
 underived.     If  therefore  ielf-exiffence  he   Any 
 PerieSion:^  and  if  the  PereSions  •^nd  Powers 
 of  the  father^  can  by  no  orhti  Argument  be 
 
 de- 
 
2  2  4  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 demonftrated  to  be  abfolutely  (m  the  ftrid  and 
 nieraphyfical  Senfe)  bifinite^  but  from  the 
 confideration  of  their  being  orig'mal  and  wi- 
 derived :  then  you  jowfelf  deny  the  Son  of 
 God  to  be  infinite^  in  the  fame  fenfe  wherein 
 you  charge  Us  with  denying  him  to  be  fo. 
 And  if  afling  in  all  things  according  to  the 
 Coimftl  of  his  Own  Will^  be  Greater  than  ad- 
 ing  in  all  things  according  to  the  Will  of  Ano- 
 ther :  \\\tn you  yourfelf  do  not  afcribe  ALL 
 Perfeftions  to  the  Son  of  God.  4?%,  Asto  the 
 Terms,  Dependent  and  hdependent.  The  Do- 
 minion or  Authority  wherewith  the  Son  is  in- 
 verted, is  always  in  Scripture  reprefented  as 
 Dep6ndi?ig  on  the  Father.  1  he  Being  of  tha 
 Son,  we  do  not  fuppofe  to  be  in  any  other 
 Senfe  dependent^  than  is  implied  in  the  l^otion 
 oi  being  Begotten^  which  the  Scripture  teaches, 
 and  which  generation  the  Primitive  Writers 
 unanimoufly  underftand  to  have  been  by  the 
 incomprehenfible  Power  and  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 ther. Which  yet  no  more  implies  the  Son  to 
 be  a  precarious  ?indL  mutable  Being;  than  thofe 
 Perfedions  of  God,  his  Power,  Juftice,  Good- 
 nefs.  Veracity,  and  the  J  ike,  (the  Exercife 
 whereof  always  implies  the  Notion  of  ABion^ 
 and  confequently  depends  wholly  upon  the 
 IVtll  of  the  Agent^)  are  therefore  more  pre- 
 carious or  uncertain  in  their  Effefts,  than  thofe 
 Other  Perfedions  (which  imply  in  them  no- 
 thing ofABion,  and  confequently  have  No  De- 
 pendence on  the  Will  of  the  Agent^)  fuch  as 
 Eternity,  Omniprefence,  Omnifcience,  and  the 
 like.  In 
 
Qii.  VI.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  i  1 5 
 
 In  your  Defenfc  of  this  Qjiery,  you  alledge, 
 that  *'  the  CharaSenfticks    appheJ  to  the  one  p.  9c?. 
 ^^  true  God,  are  applied  likewife  to  the  Son  /* 
 and  that  vy^e  cannot  "  knoip  V/ko  or  What  the 
 "  07ieGodis^  but  by  fucb   difiingui[ljing  Cha- 
 *^  raBers  as  are  given   of  him  in  Scripture  ^" 
 which     yet    "  are  equally  applied "     to   the 
 Son,  &c.     I  anfwer :    No  dijliyignijlnng  Cha- 
 raBer  of  the  One  Supreme  God^  is  afcribed  to  the 
 Son  in  Scripture.  His  Chara&erifticks  are  :  (u^ 
 S'eoj  x,cl\  'TrcLT/]^  TToiyrcch^  the  one  God  and  Father 
 of  ally  who  is  above  All,      One   God^    the  Fa- 
 ther or  Firft  Caufe  \y^  S  rot  ^cLncLr\    Of  or 
 from    whom  are  all  things:    and.    For  whofe 
 pleafure    Qby  whofe  Will  and  Command]  all 
 things  were  created.     [_'V4ir@"0  ^^^^  Higbefi., 
 j^Ki)gi@^  0  S-eo^  (l)   0  'STcuTQ-ii^rco^^    The  Lord 
 God  Almighty.     The  God  ayid  Father  of  our 
 Lord  Jefus  Chrijl.     The  God  of  our   iathers^ 
 who  fent  his  Son^  &c,     and  who  Gave  him  all 
 Power  both  in  Heaven  and  Earthy  &c.     Thefe 
 Charaderifticks  are  evidently  diflinguifhing  and 
 1710 omrrunic able '^2Lndi  neceffirily  denote  the  tirjl 
 Caufe  and  Original  of  All  things,    even  Him 
 'who  Alone  has  All  PerfeBions  and  Jll  Dominion 
 ahfolutely  in  and  of  himfelf  original^  underived^ 
 and  indepe?ident  on  Any. 
 
 But    ''  Divine  Attributes    (you  fay)    belong  p,  pg:, 
 "  to  each  Perfon.''     You  ought   to   hive  faid, 
 
 (1)  See  ahovCf  p.  16.  znd  hlow,  on  ^tery  XXVII,  toivards 
 fht  End, 
 
 a  the 
 
11 6  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 thtfaf?ie  Attributes  and  ALL  of  them.    And 
 then  I  nsk :,    Is  it   J^o  Perfe&io?i^    to  be   abfo- 
 lutely  1  be  Fir  ft  Caufc  and  unorjginate  Fount  am 
 of  All  FerfeBwns  and  of  all  Power  ?  But  "  the 
 F.  91.      ''  word^  Sdfexiftent^''    (you  fay)    ^^  fjould  be 
 "  under  flood  Negatively."      That   is  ^     The 
 Ground  and  Foundation  of  all  Perfeftion,  is  a 
 mere  Negation,     And  are  you  really  fo   tgno- 
 ra?it^  35  not  tofee;>  that,  in  like  manner  as  the 
 word,  7n/:nitey    according  to  the  gram?natical 
 compofition  of  it,  is  merely  fiegative-^  and  yet 
 when  we  fay,  God  is  infinite  or  tmmenfe^    the 
 idea  is  not  a  bare  Negative,  a  fnere  Negatiofi 
 ofBunds^  but  denotes  the  Pofitive  Greatnefs 
 of  That  whofc  Exiftence  is  declared  to  be  im- 
 7nenfe :    fo,  though  the  word,  mwriginate,  ac- 
 cording to  the  grammatical  compofition  of  it, 
 is  negative  'j  yet  the  Thing  intended  to  beex- 
 prelled  by  it,  is  of  all  Others  the  mod  real  and 
 pofttive  ?  [  See  this  Matter  largely  and  diftinfl:- 
 ly  explained,    in   the  Modejl  Plea^  6cc.    pag. 
 215,  €^^.] 
 p.89,90.       Accordingly,  the   Scriptures  you  refer   to, 
 do  plainly  enough,  either  in  the  Words  them- 
 felves,  or  in  their  conne^iion,  diftingniili  be* 
 tween  derived  and  under ived^    between   origi- 
 nated and  unoriginate  Perfeftions.     The  Fa- 
 ther  is  'The  Searcher  of  Hearts^    Abfolutely. 
 The    Son    faith  ,     /   arn    He  that   fearcheth 
 the     Reins    and    the     Hearts^     arid    I    will 
 give  unto  every  one   of  yon  according  to  your 
 
 Worh^ 
 
Q^j.  VI.   Of  theVnitjofCod.  aa? 
 
 Works ^ even  as  I  (i)  received  of  my  Fa-^ 
 
 tber^  Rev.  2  ,  23,  27  :  Which  laft  Words  yoM 
 conceal  from  your  Reader.  The  Father^  is  The 
 Fir  ft  afid  the  Lajl^  which  Is  and  which  Was 
 and  which  is  to  co?ne^  the  (2)  Almighty.  The 
 Son^  is  The  Firjl  and  the  Laft^  which  Liveth 
 and  was  Dead^  and  is  alive  for  evermore^  Rev. 
 1^  17,18:  Which  latter  words  you  again 
 conceal  from  your  Reader.  The  Father^  is 
 The  mighty  God^  abfolutely.  The  Son  is  He, 
 whofe  Flame  fhall  be  called  Wonderful^  Coun- 
 felloiir^  The  Mighty  God^  \JsAiya.Kv^^  ^nAyj^  'i^y- 
 yeA@-)  The  Meffenger  of  his  Great  Counfel  or 
 Coveyiant^  \j^^'^\  ^S  fjf-eWovr^  (^^^oLic2vog^  The 
 Father^  or  Lord,  of  the  Age  to  come^  IC  9, 
 6  :  All  which,  you  conceal  likewife  from  your 
 Reader.  The  Father^  is  Lord  of  All^  abfo- 
 lutely: The  Son  is  Lord  of  Atl^  but  He  is 
 excepted  who  did  put  all  things  under  him. 
 What  ground  now  had  you  here  to  fay,  that  ^-90*92 
 
 (l)  Toy  x.np<6i»  'UaroZv^  ~lv  ra  TTUvroy.^ctraoiyJo  BsX/f^oCTi  sTia-KOTrov 
 T«?  Koc^^tce,  y,f/,m.  The  Lord  JefuSy  who,  by  the  [Vill  of  the  Al-' 
 mighty,  is  Infpe^or  of  ourHcartt.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  4.  Thus 
 He  elfevvhere  ftiles  the  Son,  ^iXni^cx.  Trccvrac^ocTo^^xov,  and  ccyecSoZ 
 TTUT^U  ^ycidov  /3«A>5|(X/<56.  p.  309,  and  647,  edit.  Oxon.  The  Ab- 
 furdity  of  fuppofing  him  to  know  things  by  his  own  V/ill,  (as  if 
 Knowledge  was  an  AH  of  the  Will,)  has  been  ftiown  by  Dr.  Clarke^ 
 Script.  Dodl.  p.  194,  xd.  edit.  The  Inihnces  you  alledge  to  th^ 
 contrary,  {Sermons  p.  166,)   are  very  abiurdly  applied.     Dens 
 
 " omnipotenti  voluntate'  -fecit y  6:c     Does  not  the 
 
 word,  jecity  imply  Action?  And  the  other  Paflage  hkewife,  o 
 B-io'-,  3-£pi£;^£»  rvj  /3»Ac'(r£t  to  ymv,  does  not  iiguify  (as  you  would 
 have  it)  that' God  is  Omniprefent  or  Omnifcient  by  his  Will; 
 which  is  highly  aWiird ;  but  that  God's  Acllve  and  Governing 
 Wifdom  pervades  the  whole  Univerfe. 
 
 (1)  See  below y  on  '^lery  XXVII,  tovuards  the  EnJ. 
 
 {})  When  Clemens  Alex,  lliles  the  Son  !r««T«p  utmn^j  p.  112, 
 edit,  O.v.  'tis  plain  it  Uiould  be  read  Tra-p,^  km<^. 
 
 Q.  2  "  the 
 
a  z8  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 '^  XhtdipinguijJjingchdraclers^'  in  thefe  Texts, 
 ''  are  Equally  applied  to  Two  ?'  that  **  the 
 *^  Exprejfions  are  tqually  gejieral^  and^  feem- 
 ^*  inglj^  at  leaf},  Equally  extenjive^'' 
 
 p.9it9^4  You  blame  me,  for  laying,  the  Son  has  all 
 *'  communicable'*^  Divine  Powers  derived  to 
 him  5  and  you  "  conteyid  thsy  are  JlriSlj  Di- 
 **  vine^  and  therefore  incof?imiifu cable  to  any 
 "  Creature:"  And  you  find  fault  with  me  for 
 mentioning  a  "  \uh ordinate  Senfe^  &c."  I  an- 
 fwer :  How  far  any  of  the  Powers  mentioned 
 in  the  Texts  referred  to,  could  or  could  not  be 
 pojjibly  communicable  to  any  Creature  ^  does 
 not  become  Us  to  prefume  certainly  to  know. 
 But  that  they  are  aBually  communicated  to  the 
 Son  of  Gody  and  that  they  cannot  pofiibly  be 
 at  all  communicated  to  The  One  Supre?ne  God^ 
 is  as  evident  as  any  thing  can  be.  If  there- 
 fore the  Son's  having  divine  PerfeSions  in  a 
 
 ^.  9^'  *'  fubordinate  Senfe,"  is  "  the  fame  as  to  fay 
 "  they  belong  not  to  him  at  all  '^^  then,  by 
 your  own  Argument,  he  can  have  no  divine 
 PerfeBions  at  all :  For  a  begotten  or  derived 
 Perfon,  evidently  can  have  nothing  ofhiwfelf 
 
 f.  94.  Upon  that  Text,  Matt.  28,  18,  you  do  not 
 deny  that  all  Chriit's  Power  was  GIVEN  to 
 him.  Only  you  think  he  was  ^^  Lord  over  ally 
 "  long  before  his  RcfurreBion  -^^  becaufe  "  by 
 *'  him  all  Things  were  created^  Colof.  1:16,17. 
 
 A  9^     *'  And  he  laid  the  Foundations   of  the  Earthy 
 
 r.  ()6.  <t  Heb.  i,  10.  JVas  God,  be/ore  the  World  ivas-^ 
 ^'  Joh.  1,1.  And  when  he  came  itito  the  World^ 
 '*  he  came  imto  his  own  ^    Jo.  i;  11."     Now 
 
 here  j 
 
I 
 
 QluVL    OftheVnltjofCod.  %i3 
 
 here ,  though  I  think  it  not  of  moment  in  the 
 main  queflion  between  cs,  to  difpute  at  what 
 Time  All  Power  both  in   Heaven  and  Earth 
 was  given  to  our  Lord  ,    yet   'tis  obfervable, 
 the  Texts  you   alledge  concerning  our  Lords 
 pre-exiflent  State,  do  not  prove  his  having  at 
 That  Time  a  Throne  or  Kingdom  or  Pomer  of 
 "Judgment.     Col.  i  ^  i6, 17,  does  not  reprefent 
 him  as  the  Perlon  for  whofe  Pleafitre^  but  h^ 
 whofe  fnmiflration^    all    things   were    created. 
 And  the  fame  is   evidently  the   meaning  of 
 Heb,  I,  10^  as  appears  from  ver.  2,    Bj  wham 
 He  made  the  Worlds.     For  the  Work  of  Crea- 
 tion being  manifeflly,  both  according  to  Scrip- 
 ture and  the  (i)  concurrent  Senfe  of  ail  An- 
 tiquity, an  Ad  of  Mhiijiratton  in  the  Son  to 
 the  Will  of  the  Father  ^  'tis  clear  to  a  Demon- 
 ftration,  that  the  Right  of  Domtnion  was  eri" 
 ginallj  His  Only,  whofe  the  Power  of  creating 
 Originally  was,    and  for  whofe    Pleafure    ail 
 Things  were  created^  Rev.  4,11.   In  like  man- 
 ner, Job.  151,2,  The  Son  was  the  God^  not 
 Of  or  From  whom,  but  By  or  Tloroisgh  whom 
 were  all  things ;   the  TVord^  the  vijible  Perfon^ 
 the  Schechi?2ah  or  vifible  Reprefentatioo  of  the 
 Invifible  God  ^  who  from   the  Beginning  ap^ 
 feared  in  the  Old  Teftament  under  the  Title 
 of  God^  the  Angel  of  the  Lord:     Who  in  the 
 falnefs  of  Time  was  made  Flefi^    and   ^ams 
 unto  his  Ow?j,  [either  to  /Mankind  in  genera! 
 or  to  the  People  of  the  Jextrs^  whom  he  had 
 
 (O  Sec  above,  P.  6y  19,  186,  \%i, 
 
 a  3  ^11 
 
1^0  of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 all  along  condufted  in  a  peculiar  manner,]  and 
 was  rejeSied  by  them,  and  humbled  hhnfelf  eveii 
 unto  the  Death  of  the  Crofs^  and  rofe  again^ 
 and  was  highly  exalted  to  the  right  Hand  of 
 God,  and  had  Then  All  ?oix>er  given  him  both 
 in  Heaven  and  Earth.  'Tis  remarkable  there- 
 fore, that  through  the  whole  NewTeftament, 
 the  Ihrone  and  Dominion  and  Kifjgdom  and 
 Worjhip  and  Power  of  Judgement  afcribed  to 
 Chrift,  is  never  once  afcribed  to  him  upon  acv 
 count  of  his  Part  in  the  Work  of  Creation^  or 
 of  his  having  been  originally  in  the  Form  of 
 God -^  but  always  upon  account  of  his  having 
 bumbled  himf elf  unto  Deatli  ;  Mat.  28,  18. 
 Eph»  I  i  20j  22.  Thil  '^  \  8,  9,10.  I  ?et.  5,  22. 
 becaufeheis  the  Son  of  Man^  Joh.  5  ;  27,  22,  23, 
 becaufe  he  had  purged  its  from  our  StJis^  Heb.i,^. 
 becaufe  he  was  the  Lamh  of  God,  and  redeem- 
 ed us  to  God  by  his  Bloody  Rev.  i  ^  5,6.  and 
 ch.  5  ;  9,  12,  I  J.  'Tis  remarkable,  that  the 
 Defcriptions  of  the  Word  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
 iiaent,  always  reprefent  him  as  the  Aiigel  or 
 Meffenger  of  God's  Will  j  and  that  he  is  never, 
 jn  his  Own  Perfon^  faid  to  have  a  Throne^  or 
 Kingdom^  but  only  in  the  Prophecies  of  his 
 coming  in  the  Eleflj.  Thus  Dan-  7  ;  i  j,  14,  / 
 faxp  in  the  Night  Vifions^  and  behold  one  like 
 the  Son  of  Man ^  came  with  the  Clouds  of  Hea- 
 ven^ and  came  to  the  Antient  of  Days^  and 
 the}  brought  him  near  before  him  ^  And  there- 
 was  Given  him  Dominion  and  Glory  and  a 
 Kjngdom^  that  all  People^  Nations  andhangua* 
 Z^Sj  fljould  ferve  him  .*  Hts  Dominion  is  an  ever- 
 f     ■  MinE 
 
Qiu  VL      Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  a 3 
 
 lafting  Dominioji  which  fjall  not  pafs  away^ 
 and  his  Kingdom  that  which  fjall  ?iot  he  de- 
 Jlroyed.  Thus  Ifaiah  likewife  foretold  :  Un- 
 to us  a  Child  is  born^  unto  us  a  Son  is  given^ 
 and  the  Government  jball  be  upon  his  Shoul- 
 ders, dec.  ch.  9,  6.  And  that  the  fame  Per- 
 fon,  who  had  been  in  the  Form  of  God^  as  be- 
 ing the  Shechinah  or  vifible  Reprefentative  of 
 God's  invifible  Glory,  and  the  Declarer  and 
 Executor  of  his  Will  under  the  Old  Teftament, 
 did  Receive  That  Dominion  and  Power  of 
 Judgment  with  which  he  is  now  inverted,  and 
 was  made  Heir  and  Judge  of  all^  after  his 
 Refurredion  from  the  Dead  ,  is  clearly  decla- 
 red by  St.  Paul'^  Who  tells  us,  {Philip.  2  ,  6, 
 7,  8,  9,)  that,  being  in  the  Form  of  God^ 
 \yX  ^-§'^'^7/^21'  ^y^io-ccTo]  he  did  not  claim  to  be 
 [^honoured]  as  God^  [^  ctAA*  icL^jxl^  hAvcoc^t'] 
 but  emptied  Himfelf  [of  that  glorious  Form  J 
 
 *  In  your..  Sermons  (p.  i6i,  163  J  you  contend  that  die 
 word,  'AAA««,  may  literally  and  gran2?natically  be  Thus  ren- 
 jdred :  He  thought  it  not  Robbery  to  be  Equal  with  God,  "  but 
 **  Notwithftanding"  made  hi?nfelf  of  no  Reputation.  Andy ou  ^l- 
 ledge  many  Inftances,  where  you  think  it  is  fo  ufed.  But  all 
 your  Inllances  (tow  great  inattention.  For,  ojaa^,  is  never xz- 
 ken  in  That  Senfe,  when  'tis  ufed  as  an  Adverfative  to  a  pre- 
 ceding, is>t,  in  the  Same  period,  (which  is  the  Cafe  in  this  Text:) 
 but  only  when  'tis  placed  as  a  Corrective  at  the  Beginning  of  a 
 New  Period.  In  every  one  of  your  Inllances,  either  the  word, 
 ccxxli^  does  not  fignify  {Notwithjlanding ;)  or  it  begins  a  New  Pe- 
 riod. Which  is  plainly  the  Cafe  even  in  Gen.  40,  15,  (the 
 only  Inftance  which,  for  want  of  being  rightly  pointed,  can 
 even  to  a  hafly  Reader  have  any  Appearance  of  being  to  your 
 Purpofe. )  But  it  cannot  poffibly  be  the  Cafe  in  This  Texr;  be- 
 caufc  then  the  words  which  you  render,  thought  it  not  Rohhe^ 
 ry  to  be  equal  with  God,  would  themfelvcs  be  the  example 
 propofed  in  the  foregoing  Verfe  to  the  imitation  of  Chri- 
 llians. 
 
 Q^  4  snd 
 
2^  5  ^  of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 (ind  took  upon  him  the  Form  of  a  Servajit^  and 
 became  Obedient  to  Death^  even  the  Death  of 
 the  Crofs :  Wherefore  God  alfo  hath  highly  (ij 
 exalted  hlm^  and  (2)  Given  him  a  Ts'ame^  Sec, 
 Exalted  JVhom  «?  Was  it  not  plainly  That  Per- 
 fon^  who  had  been  in  the  Form  of  God,  and 
 emptied  himfelf  Sic  ?  To  the  fame  Purpofe,  the 
 Apoftle  again  -^  God  hath  in  thefe  lafi  Dajs 
 fpoken  imto  us  by  his  Son^  whom  he  h^th  ap- 
 pointed  Heir  of  all  Things^  By  whom  alfo  he 
 made  the  Worlds^  Heb.  i,  2.  Here,  moft  evi- 
 dently, the  fame  Perfon  and  no  other,  By  whom 
 God  made  the  Worlds,  is  the  Perfon  whom  he 
 hath  Now  appointed  Heir  of  all  Things. 
 Ver.  3,  who  being  the  Brightnefs  of  his  Glory ^ 
 and  the  exprefs  Image  of  his  Perfon  ,  WHEN 
 he  had  by  hi7if elf  purged  our  ^ins^  fat  down 
 on  the  right  Hand  of  the  Majefly  on  high. 
 Then  it  was,  that  God  faid  unto  him,  Thou 
 art  my  Son^  this  day  hat>e  I  begotten  thee^xtx.^^. 
 Then  it  was,  that  God  commanded,  faying, 
 let  all  the  Angels  of  God  worjhip  him^  ver.  6. 
 Then  it  was,  that  he  faid,  unto  the  Son ,  Thy 
 
 throne-,  0  God^  is  for  ever  and  ever '^ then 
 
 hafl  loved  right eoufnefs^ ^therefore  God^ 
 
 even  Th)  God^  hath  a?winted  Fhee^  &c.  ver.  8, 9. 
 Then  it  was,  that   Jll  Power  was  Given  unto 
 
 (1)  In  your  Sermons  (p-  17S,  179.)  you  moll:  abfuidly  in- 
 terpret God's  highly  exalting  of  Chrijiy  in  the  fame  Senfe  as  Men 
 in  their  Prayers  highly  exalt  God. 
 
 (z)  Here  alfo  you  moft  abfurdly  (in  your  Sermons  p.  180,) 
 fo  interpret  this  Phrafc  (s;^^e£f/(roc7o,  Grven  him  a  Name;)  as  if  it 
 could  fignify  extolling  and  magnijyingy  in  fuch  a  Senfe  as  Men 
 ey.toU  or  magnify  Cod, 
 
 })im 
 
Qu.VI.    OftheVmtyofCod.  233 
 
 him  271  Heaven  md  in  Earthy  Mat.  28,  18. 
 And  that  all  things  were  put  under  his  Feet^ 
 Eph.  I,  22. 
 
 To  all  this,  ^'  Nothing  (you  fay)  is  more  p,  r,6. 
 *^  eaj)  than  to  an  fiver  ^  that  the  Word  was  from 
 *'  the  Beginning  Lord  over  all  -^  but  the  God  in- 
 *'  carnate^  or  God  Man,  was  not  fo^  '^till  after 
 **  the  Refiirre5iion,  Then  he  Received  in  I  hat 
 "  Capacity,  what  he  had  ever  enjoyed  in  ano- 
 "  ther,'^  But  This  Diftinftion  J  no  where 
 find  in  Scripture.  Our  Lord  mentions  indeed 
 the  Glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before 
 the  World  was -^  and  the  Scripture  declares,  that 
 By  Him  God  made  the  Worlds,  But  when  he 
 fays.  All  Power  [Judicial  Power]  is  given  un- 
 to him  in  Heaven  a?jd  in  Earth  :  and  that  the  j^^ 
 Father  judgeth  710  Man,  but  hath  Committed  ii>i3lii, 
 all  Judgment  to  the  Son  ,  that  all  Men  flwidd 
 hofjour  the  Son^  even  as  they  honour  the  Fa- 
 ther :  This  givijjg  him  Authority  to  execute 
 Judgment,  is  (he  tells  usj  Becaufe  he  is  the 
 Son  of  Man.  He  does  not  fay,  'tis  given  to 
 Part  of  Him  which  is  the  Son  of  Man  ^  but 
 to  Him,  becaufe  He  is  the  Son  of  Man.  I  no 
 where  find  (nor  do  you  endeavour  to  fliow 
 me)  in  Scripture,  any  thing  Given  to  or 
 Received  by  Chrift,  or  any  thing  afcribed  to 
 him,  but  what  is  applyed  to  his  whole  Perfon, 
 the  Word  made  Flejh,  The  Scripture  does  no 
 where  \mv  'iWi'  divide  or  diftinguilh  him  (as 
 Cerinthus  did)  into  more  Perfons  than  O^e. 
 The  Senfe  of  the  Similitude  oi  Hermas  which 
 you  cite^  would  have  been  very  evident,  if  you  p  ^ 
 
 had   ^   ^' 
 
231  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 had  fliown  your  Reader  the  Author's  own  Ex- 
 pUnation  of  it,  Se^.  6.  where  he  tells  you 
 ex[Tefsly,  that  by  the  Servant  in  That  Simi- 
 litude, he  meant  the  Body  or  Fkjl)^  in  which 
 God  placed  \^>fpiritmn  Saii&unf]  the  Holy  Spi- 
 rit^ which  (according  to  Hiftj)  was  the  Son. 
 This  Servant  or  Body^  becaufe  it  was  chajle  and 
 obedient  to  the  Spirit^  and  kept  the  Command^ 
 ments  of  God^  he  tells  you,  was  made  Co- 
 Heir  Tvith  the  Son.  I  have  fet  down  Herjnas\ 
 Words  at  length  in  the  (i)  Margin.  Nova- 
 tian  in  like  manner,  in  the  place  you  cite,  fays 
 p.  99-  that  the  JVord^  the  Son  of  God^  defceijdid  frovi 
 Heaven  without  Flefi^  that  by  having  affumed 
 Heflj^  he  might  afcend  thither  The  Son  of  Man^ 
 into  That  Qilory  which  (being  the  Word)  he  pof- 
 fejfed  before  the  World  was.  This  is  clearly 
 the  Sn?n  and  true  Senfe  of  that  Latin  paflag'e 
 ot  Novatian^  which  if  you  had  rendrcd  into 
 EngUJJ),  you  could  no  way  have  made  it  feem 
 to  be  for  your  Purpofe,  without  either  fo  ex- 
 prefTing  it  as  to  make  the  Son  of  God  One  Per- 
 fon,  and  the  Son  of  Man  another  ,  or  fuppo- 
 fing  the  Glory  which  Chrift   had  before  the 
 
 (O  Ilium  Spiritum  San(5lum  qui  infufus  [MSS.  C.  & 
 
 KT\g\.  creatHs']  ell:  omnium  primus,  \n  corpore :  Hoc  ergo 
 
 Corpus,  in^  quod  dedu(^tus  eft  Spiritus  San^us,  fervivit  ilji  Spi- 
 ritui,  redle  in  modeftia  ambulans  &  caftc,  neq;  omnino  macu- 
 lavit  Spiritum  ilium.  Ciim  igitur  corpus  illud  paruiflet,  &:c. 
 — — f:it:gatum  Corpus  illud,  &:c.— -Advocavit  ergo  fili- 
 uni  &:  r.unc;os  bonos,  ut  8c  huic  fcilicet  Corpori,  quod  lervivit 
 Spiritui  Sanfto  fine  Querela,  locus  aliquis  confiftcndi  dareuir, 
 nc  videreUirMercedem  fervitutis  fuae  perdidiire.  [This  was beijig 
 filio  cohaeredem,  Seci.  2.]  Habes  &:  hujus  Similitudinis  Expo- 
 liiioncm.     S'miiit.  5,  Sgtl,0.  p.  105,  icO-  Udit.c^t, 
 
 World 
 
Qu.  VI.    Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod.  2  3  y 
 
 World  was ^  to  be  the  vevy  fame  with  That 
 Authority  and  Vower  of  Judgment^  wherewith, 
 the  Scripture  fays,  he  was  invefted  after  and 
 upon  account  <?/ his  Humiliation  and  Refurrefti- 
 on  from  the  Dead.  But  whether  the  Opi- 
 nion of  thefe  Authors  be  right,  or  not,  in 
 This  particular  -^  is  of  no  importance  to  the 
 mahi  point  in  queftion  between  us.  I  ihall  only  " 
 obferve  here  by  the  way,  that  That  Expref- 
 fion  of  Hermas^  to  be  Co-Heir  with  the  Son 
 of  God^  Co-Heir  with  the  Divine  Nature^  in 
 your  Senfe  of  the  Phrafe,  would  be  very  ab- 
 furd.  As  if  the  Divine  Nature^  or  The  One 
 Supreme  God^  could  in  any  fenfe  be  Heir  of 
 any  Thin£.  How  much  better  is  the  Expref- 
 fion  of  St.  Paul  '^  Heirs  of  God,  and  Co-Heirs 
 zviihChrifl^  Rom.  8,  17? 
 
 To  3.fpurious  PafT^ge  you  cite  from  Hippolj-p.  89. 
 tus^  I  oppofe  a  genuine  one  out  of  Iren^us ;  to 
 fliow  you,  that  in  his  Opinion,  an  additional 
 Power  and  Glory  was  given  to  the  JVordu^pon 
 his  Incarnation  and  RefurreBion,  ''(i)  The 
 *'  Lamb — ■ — -that  redeemed  us  with  his  Blood, 
 *'  Received  Power  over  all  Things,  when  the 
 *'  Word  was  made  Fielh ;  that  as  the  Word  of 
 "  God  had  Power  in  Heaven,  fo  alfo  he  might 
 *'  have  Power  in  Earth,  becaufe  he  was  a  juft 
 
 Man  ; and  that  he  might  alfo  have  Pow- 
 
 ^'  er  over  thofe  Things  which  are  under  the 
 
 Earthj  being  made  the  Firfl-born  from  the 
 
 Dead." 
 
 (i^  Lib. 4.  c.  37,  See  the  place  cited  above,  p.  95. 
 
2^6  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Q.rjEP.Y      VII. 
 
 Whether  the  father'' s  Omnifcience^;y/r/ Eternity 
 are  not  one  andthe  jame  with  the  Son'*s\  le- 
 iug  alike  defer ibed^  and  in  the  fame  Thrafes  ? 
 Seethe  Texts  ahove^  /?.  222. 
 
 -^///ie^.  17"  Nowleclge   and  Duration   derived 
 JlV  fi'oni  Another,  however  unlimited, 
 
 p,  100.  are  neither  *'  One  and  the  fame  ^'  with  Vn- 
 derived  :  nor  can  they  be  in  JU  Refpeds 
 **  alike  defcrihed^  and  in  "  All  "  the  fme 
 **"  PhrafejJ"^  For,  to  be  in  Sjme  Refpefts 
 "  alike  dtfcrihed^and  in''''  Some  of  "-the  fame 
 "^^  Phrafts  5"  is  com,mon  to  Many  things  with 
 many  things.  This  therefore  is  a  fMiibblt^  un- 
 worthy indeed  of  a  Scholar. 
 
 This  is  a  clear  and  diftind  Anfwer  to  your 
 Query.     But  I  obferved  further  : 
 
 Firfi^  with  regard  to  the  Attribute  of  Om- 
 nifciince  ,  that  (whatever  really  he  or  le  not  the 
 AtfoJute  Extent  of  the  Son's  Knowledge,  yet) 
 
 r  ?9,  'V  tioefe  Texts  which  you  refer  to,  [Joh.  2,  24, 
 He  knew  all  Men,  16,50,  Thou  knowefi  ail 
 things.  A9:s  i^2^^lVbicf)  hiuvotft  the  Thoughts 
 cfall  Mtn  \  fuppofing  this  Text  to  be  meant 
 of  Chrift.  Kiv.  2,  25,  27,  /  am  He  which 
 fearcheth  the  Reins  and  Hearts  \  And  I  will 
 give" — -—  ^  even  as  I  received  of  my  father  : 
 Which  lafl  words  you  ought  not  to  have 
 wholly  omitted.]  Tliefe  Texts^  1  faid,  may 
 very  polTibly  be  underllood  10  mean  only- 
 ^*  7)'v/r  Relative'  Omiiifcience  communicated 
 ^'  to  I  he  Son  from  the   father,    by  which  he 
 
 *'  knows 
 
 soo 
 
Qii.VIL   Of  the  Vmt J  of  Cod.  257 
 
 !<*  knows   all  things    relating    to   the    Crea- 
 j**  tion  and  Government  of  the  Univerfco'^^ 
 
 To  This  you  reply  :    ''  fVere  it  not  better  p.  loa 
 "  to  fay  plainly^  that  he  is  not  Omnifcient^  than    > 
 **  tofpeak  of  a  relative  Omnijcience^  which  is 
 "  really  no  Omnifcience  ?" 
 
 Obferve,  I  bcfeech  you,  in  what  manner  this 
 Queftion  of  yours  treats  the  Scripture.  When 
 our  Lord  told  his  Apoftles  that  the  Holy  Gholl 
 lliould  teach  them  All  Things^  and  guide  them 
 iiito  all  Truths  Joh.  14,  26  ;  and  16, 1 3  :  had  he 
 not  better  have  faid,  that  he  fhould  A'Or  teach 
 them  all  Things,  and  NOT  guide  them  into 
 all  Truth  ?  And  when  St.  John  fays,  that  Chri- 
 ftians  know  All  Things^  i  John.  2,  20  ^  had  he 
 not  better  have  faid,  that  they  know  NOT  all 
 Things?  And  when  St.  Paul  faid,  /  can  do  All 
 Things^  Philip.  4,  13  ;  had  he  not  better  have 
 faid,'  I  CAN  NOT  do  all  Things?  And  when 
 our  Saviour  fays,  Of  that  Day  and  Hour  hiow- 
 eth  no  Man^  {y^^'^^^y  no  one,^  ^^^0  ?iot  the  o^in- 
 gels  of  Heaven^  but  my  Fatber  only^  Mat.  24, 
 §6  ;  neither  the  Son^  but  the  Father^  Mark.i  j, 
 52;  Had  he  not  better  have  faid.  The  Sou 
 Uoth  knozio  it  >  But  thefe  Texts  you  fay,  are 
 "  plainly  mea?it  only  of  the  humane  Namre'''  p^  j^j^ 
 And  will  you  indeed  iftand  to  it,  that  Human 
 NATURE,  or  Any  NATURE,  can  with 
 any  feafe  be  faid  either  to  hww  or  do  any 
 thing?  Or,  when  you  fay,  the  Human  N A- 
 TUrE  01  Chriil ;  do  you  mean  his  Hu?}u/n 
 PERSON  J  which  is  diredly  the  Dcarine 
 of  Cerinthus^  as  is  very  largtly  fet  forth  by 
 Iren,':mi   How   incomparably    better  is  the 
 
 Com- 
 
p.  lol- 
 lop. 
 
 258  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 Comment  of  he/ucu^  upon  thefe  Texts,  cited 
 at  large  by  Dr.  Clarke  in  his  Script.  Dottr. 
 on  A/^y*.  13,  32.  Which  PalTage  of  Irenaus^' 
 you  take  great  pains,  in  feveral  Pages  toge- 
 ther, to  render  confufed  and  unintelligible. 
 To  all  which,  it  will  be  an  abundant  Anfwer, 
 barely  to  repeat  the  P^^jjage  itfelf-^  with  the 
 Occajion  and  Manner  of  its  being  introduced. 
 Preiiiifing  This  Obfervation  only,  that  you 
 are  directly   inconfillent  with  yourfelf,  when 
 
 p.  loi.  you  tell  us  that  the  Text,  "  Mark  1^,32,  is 
 '*  Plainly  meant  only  of  the  Human  Nature^'* 
 (though  the  Text  fpeaks  not  at  all  of  a  Na- 
 ture^ but  of  a  P^/yi/i ;,)  and  yet  that  Ire7tau6^ 
 
 F,  104.  commenting  upon  That  Text,  '^  is  to  he  un- 
 "  derftood  of  the  Aoy®^,  in  what  he  fays  ;'' 
 
 ^.  ic8.  and  that  "  what  he  Jaid^  was  meant  of  the 
 "  Acy(g^-,  or  Divine  Nature^  as  jtich?'*  Now 
 The  Oicafion  of  the  PafTage  we  are  fpeaking 
 of  in  Ircnaiis^  was  this.  The  Gnaflicks^  and 
 particularly  the  '/aleHtinia?is^  had  pretended 
 to  a  Knowledge  Superior  to  any  of  the  Apo- 
 files ;  and  that  they  underftood  all  the  deepeft 
 and  unrevealed  Myfteries  of  God  ,  and  could 
 even  explain  the  Manner  of  the  (i;  Genera- 
 tion of  the  Word  or  Son  of  God.  To  take 
 down  this  proud  Conceit  of  their  Knowledge, 
 
 (\)  Propheta  quidein  ait  de  eo,  Gencrationem  ejus  qais  enar- 
 rahit  f  (If,  53,  %.)  Vos  autem  Geaeraiionem  ejus  ex  patre  di- 
 vinantes,  ik  veibi  Hominuin  per  linguam  fadlam  prolationem 
 transf^rcntes  in  verbum  Dei,  judc  detegimini  a  vobis  ipiis, 
 qiioj  neq;  hamana  nee  divina  novcritis.  lib.  z.  c.  48. 
 
 Irer/iens 
 
Qia.VIl.     Of  the  Vmty  of  God.  -39 
 
 ^rt';/^//j- thus  argues :  (ij  *'  Being  unreafona- 
 "  bly  puffed  up,  Te  prefumptuoufly  take  up- 
 ^^  on  you  to  fay  that  you  know  the  unuttera- 
 "'  blc  Myfteriesof  God  ;  when  even  (2)  our 
 "  Lord^  tliQ  So?i  of  God  hmfcJf,  confeffed  that 
 the  Father  alone  knew  the  Day  and  Hour 
 of  Judgment  5  exprefsly  affirming,  Of  that; 
 Day  and  Hour  htowetb  710  one^  neither  the 
 Son^  hut  the  Father  onlj.  If  therefore  the 
 Son  was  not  aflhamed  to  refer  the  Know- 
 ledge of  That  Day  to  the  Father,  but  faid 
 W/oat  was  true  ,  then  furely  neither  fhojuld 
 ''  We  be  afliamed  to  referve  to  God  fuch  Qiie- 
 •*  ftionsasare  faraboveus :  Fornoone isalove 
 "  his  Mafier.^''  A  Httle  after,  He  thus  (^) 
 proceeds :  "  As  to  the  Caufe  of  the  Nature 
 ^  [the  Evil  nature']  of  thofe  [^Angels']  which 
 '*  tranfgrelTed  ;  neither  has  the  Scripture  any 
 ^*  where  recorded  it,  nor  any  of  the  Apoftles 
 ^*  told  it,  nor  our  Lord  taught  it.  Therefore 
 we  ought  to  leave  the  Knowledge  of  This 
 
 (i)  Irrationabiliter  autem  inflati,  audaciter  inenarrabilia  dei  my- 
 fteria  fcire  vos  dicitis:  quandoquidem  ^  Dotmnus,ipfe  films  dti^ 
 ipfum  judicii  Diem  &  horam  conceffit  kixcfolum  patrem;  ma- 
 nifefte  dicens,  De  die  autem  ilia  ct*  hora  nemo  fcity  neq\  filins, 
 nifi  pater  Solus.  Si  igitur  fcieiitiam  diei  illius  filius  non  erubuit 
 refeire  ad  patrem,  fed  dixit  quod  verum  eft  ;  neq;  nos  eru- 
 befcamus,  quae  funt  in  quasftionibus  majora  recundum  nos,  re- 
 fervare  deo.    Nemo  enim  fuper  magiftrum  eft.  ibid. 
 
 (z)Upon  thefe  H'ords  of  Irenaeus^  Erafmus/tf}'^:  Videtur  fen- 
 tire  quod  folus  Pater  fciverit  diem  &  horam,  ignorante  filio. 
 Vrolegotn.  in  Iren.  P.  17.  And  the  Learned  Bijliop  Bull:  Fateor 
 ■verba  primo  intuitu  videri  filio  dei,  etiam  qua  maxime  proprie 
 Dei  filius  eft,  Ignorantiam  tiibuere.    Defenf,  F.  N.  Pag.  81. 
 
 (3)  Ipfam  autem  Caufam  naturae  tranfgredientium,  neq; 
 Scriptura  aliqua  retulit,  nee  Apoftolus  dixit,  nee  dominus  do- 
 cuit.  Dimittere  itaq;  oportet  agnitionem  banc  dco,  quemad- 
 tiiodum  Dominus  horae  &  diel  lib,  1.  c.  40. 
 
 ^^alfo 
 
cc 
 
 240  Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod. 
 
 "  alfo  to  God,  as  Oar  Lord  did  the  KnoW'> 
 "  ledge  of  the  Hour  and  Day  of  Judgment" 
 This  Palfage,  which  gives  further  Light  into 
 the  Writer's  Scnfc,  you  have  wholly  omitted. 
 After  This,  he  concludes  with  the  PafTage  we 
 are  now  confidering:  (i)  "If  any  one  cn- 
 ^'  quires  into  the  Rtajo?i  why  the  Father,who 
 '^  communicates  (2)  in  all  things  to  the  Son,  is 
 "  yet  by  our  Lord  exprefsly  declared  to  know 
 ''  ALONE  That  Day  and  Hour:  he  will 
 not  at  prefent  find  any  fitter,  or  more  de- 
 cent, or  indeed  any  Other  Safe  Anfwer  but 
 '*  This,  that  fince  our  Lord  is  the  only 
 I,  lor-  *'  Teacher  of  Truth,"  [You  add,  "  and  nwfi 
 *'  meanfomething  by  it  ;"  You  had  much  bet- 
 ter have  added  with  Irenaus  liimfelf,  dixit 
 quod  vertmi  efl^c.^S.  he  faid  what  was 
 true  •,]  ''  we  may  learn  of  Him,  that  the  Fa- 
 '^  ther  is  above  all ;  For  the  Father  (faith  he) 
 **  is  Greater  than  L  The  Father  therefore 
 *'  is  here  declared  by  our  Lord  himfelf,  to  be 
 *'  Suveriour  in  Kjwwltrige  alfo  ^    to  the  end 
 
 (i)  Si  quis  exquirat  caufam,  propter  quam  in  omnibus  pa- 
 ter communicans  filio,  Solus  fcire  horam  &diem  a  domino  ma- 
 nifeftatus  ell;  neq;  apta'nilem  magis,  neq;  decendorem,  nee  li- 
 FiC  periculo  alteram  quam  banc  inveniet  m  praefenti  i^quoniam 
 enim  folus  verax  magirter  elt  dominus,)  ut  diicamusper  ipfum, 
 fuper  omnia  effe  patrem  ;  etenhn  pater ^  ait,  mx]or  me  e(i :  Et 
 fecundum  Agnitionemitaq;  prsepolitusefle  pater  annunciatus  eft 
 a  domino  nolho  ad  hoc,  ut  ix  nos,  in  quantum  m  iigura  hu- 
 jus  mundi  fumus,  perfcdlam  Scientiam  &  talcs  quaeftiones  con- 
 cedamus  Deo.  th'id. 
 f    10;.  fi)  Your  Note  upon  Thefe  words,  is  very  pleafant.     *'  The 
 
 "  Father  (you  fay)  communicates  in  all  things  with  the  So?t  : 
 *'  ^nd  CO  NSE^lUE  NTLY  in  all  Knoivledge,  and  particu- 
 **  larly  in  that  of  the  Day  of  Jridiment^"  the  iKmg  particularly 
 EXCEPTHD  i'^  thi-j  verv  Scnicnce. 
 
 '*  that 
 
QiuVll    OftheVnityofCod.  a4i 
 
 ''  that,  while  we  are  in  this  World,  we  may 
 **  learn  to  acknowledge  God  only  to  have 
 ^'  perfect  Knowledge,  and  leave  fuch  Quefti- 
 ^^  ons  to  Him." 
 
 'Twas  candid  in  you  to  obferve,  that  ?.  i  '^r 
 'DuClarke  in  his  Tra7i(latio7t oitlm  Paflage  in 
 his  Firft  Edition,  ^' Jlipt  over  tbtfe  words'^ 
 [quoniam  enim  folus  verax  Magifter  eft  Do- 
 minus]  '^  by  inadvertency.^''  But  you  ought 
 alfo  to  have  taken  notice,  that  in  his  SecOfid 
 Edition,  which  you  had  k^n.  and  compared^ 
 That  Errour  was  already  amended. 
 
 You  obferve  further.  ^"-Irenms  does  not  p,  107. 
 *'  ask  (cur  Pater  folus  fcivit,)  '  why  the  fa- 
 "  ther  only  knew  \  hut  why^  or  on  what  Ac- 
 •'  county  ('folus  fcire  manifeftatus  eft)  he  was 
 "  Reprefented  as  alone  knowing^  But  This* 
 Obfervation  is  direflly  a  Deceiving  of  your 
 Reader.  For  the  words,  mawfejtatns  eft^ 
 do  not  fignify,  was  Reprefented  as -^  but,w^i- 
 exprefsly  declared  &c. 
 
 You  add  :  '^  oAnd,  for  the  greater  Caution^  ibid. 
 ^*  it  is  7iot  faid  ahfQlutel)\  (praepofitus  eft)  he 
 "  has  the  Preference  ,  but^  (praepofitus  effe  an- 
 "  nuntiatus  eft,)  he  is  Declared  to  have  the 
 ''  Treference?'  I  anfwer  :  Either  This  is  a 
 Diftinftion  wholly  without  a  Difference^ 
 or,  if  there  be  Any  difference,  the  words 
 (annunciatus  eft)  is  Declared,  make  the 
 Affertion  to  be  more  (not  lefs)  abfolute  and 
 ftrong. 
 
 The  Paffages  you  refer  to  out  of  Origen^  p.  m 
 may  by  the  Reader  be  compared   with  the 
 
 R  fol. 
 
a.^2  Of  the  Vn'ity  of  God. 
 
 following  PafTage.  "  The  (ij  inquifitive 
 "  Reader  (Jays  he)  may  ask,  whether  the 
 ^'  Father  knows  himfelf,  as  he  is  known  by 
 *'  the  Son.  And  finding  that  it  is  written, 
 ^'  Tbe  Fiither  wbicbje?it  me^  is  Greciter  tba?il'^ 
 *'  he  will  be  perrwaded  this  is  in  all  Refpeds 
 ''  true  ^  fo  as  to  fay  tliat  the  Father  is  Greater 
 *'  than  the  Son  even  in  Kjiowiedge  alfo^  be- 
 ''  ing  more  perfeftly  and  clearly  known  by 
 "  himlelf  than  by  the  Son."  Agreeably  to 
 which  manner  of  fpeaking,  he  elfewhere  fays, 
 upon  thofe  words  of  the  Apoftle,  This  is  the 
 true  Light  :  ''  (2)  For  the  fame  Reafon  as 
 *'  God,  the  Father  of  him  who  is  the  Truths 
 "  is  a  Su^eriour  and  Greater  Truth  ;  and 
 *'  the  Father  of  him  who  is  Wifdow^  is  Grea- 
 "  ^e'r  and  movQ  Ex  cell  eiit  than  Wifdom;  for 
 *'  the  fame  reafon  he  excells  him  alfo  in  be- 
 ^^  ing  the  Tr^^e  Light.^'^ 
 ni.  Incidentally  mentioning  the  5^ Z't^///^;/ Con- 
 troverfy^  "-'The  Dijpite  (you  fay)  was^^johe'- 
 "  ther  Father  and  Son  were  07ie  and  the  fame 
 "  Hypoftafis  or  Perfon.'^  Which  is  greatly 
 abufing  your  Reader.     For  you  well   know, 
 
 (i)  Curiofus  LecTior  inquirat,  iitriim  a  femetipfo  cognofca- 
 tur  pnter,  quomodo  cognofcitiir  a  filio.  Scienfq-  illud  quod 
 fciiptum  eil,  pa^cr,  qui  inifit  me,  major  me  cfi ;  in  omnibus  ve- 
 nim  eile  contender,  ut  dicat  &  in  Cognltwne  filio  patrem  elie 
 Majorem,  dum  perfe6tius  &  puriiis  a  femetipfo  cognofcitur  quam 
 a  Filio.  //(?'.  4.  ^iSA  ^-'('/C-  apud  Hkronym.  in  Epijl.  ad  A-vit.  €.4. 
 Atq;  id  ciTe  caulx,  quare  filinm  a  patre  comprehendi,  patrem 
 verb  a  filio  neutiquam  comprehendi  poITe  opinatus  fit,  ait 
 Jiieronymiis. 
 
 (2)   "ii    ii    Aiyw    0   TTeCT/l^    TY.C,     uX/)kU^     3-«0?       TTXHUV     tVl     y-CCl     fMii(^Ci>¥ 
 
 \jxfif>ix,i-t  ri  ilvxi  (puf,  kx-zi^iyov.  Comment,  in  Joh.  P.  70. 
 
 the 
 
Qii.  VII.    Of  the  Vnitj  cj  God.  a 4  5 
 
 the  Greek  word  h)fofiaJis^  never  jfignified  M 
 thofe  days,  ?erfon^  but  fingle  or  mdivtdiial 
 identical  Suh[tance :  And  that  the  Sahellian 
 Notion  was,,  that  Father^  Son^  and  Hoi)  Ghoft^ 
 were  ^li^  v7CoT<^(ng  r^iTr^o-^Tro^,  one  Jingle  or 
 individual  idejttical  Siibjtance  under  three  per-- 
 fonal  T)iftinBions.  See  Cudworth^  p.  602,  &c. 
 And  £/^/^Z^.  adv.  Marcellum^  throughout.  And 
 thus  much  concerning  the  Attribute  of  Om- 
 nifcience. 
 
 Secondly  ;  with  regard  to  the  Attribute  of 
 Eternity.  The  Duration  of  the  Son^  (how  un- 
 limited foever ;  which  has  no  relation  to  the 
 True  and  0?ily  point  in  queftion,  viz^  Supre^ 
 macy  of  oAuthority  \)  'tis  evident,  cannot  be 
 **  alike  defcrihed^  a7id  in  [All"]  the  fame  p,  100. 
 ''  Thrafes ;"  becaufe  the  Father's  Exiftence  and 
 Duration  is  unoriginate  and  underived^  the 
 Son's  originated  and  derived.  This  impor- 
 tant T>ifference  there  will  always  be,  that 
 the  Father  has  his  Being  and  all  his  Attri* 
 butes  from  None^  the  Son  receives  every  Thing 
 from  the  Father.  And  if  the  Texts  you  refer 
 to,  be  confidered  with  Any  Care,  there  is  a 
 manifeft  Difference  in  the  manner  of  the  Ap- 
 plication of  them  to  the  Father  and  to  the 
 Son.  The  Son  is,  the  Firfl  and  the  iaft^  who  p^  ,13. 
 liveth  and  was  dead,  Rev.i  ;  17, 18  :  The  Fa- 
 ther^ (ver.  8  J  is  the  'Beginning  and  the  Ending^ 
 which  is^  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come^ 
 the  eAImighty,  {}  C^)  'Tccvjrox.^rcc^^  Supreme 
 over  all.l     The  Son  is  Alpha  and  Omega^  the 
 
 (r)  See  helow,  on  <§}uery  XXVII,  totvardi  the  End. 
 
 R  2  Fir/i 
 
113 
 
 Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  . 
 
 Firfl  and  the  Lafi,    he  that  liveth  and  was    m 
 dead^  Rev.  i  ;  ii,  17,  i8  :  Toe  Firft  and  the    'I 
 Lr//?,  which  was  Dead  and  is  Alive ^  Rev.  2,8:       1 
 The  Author  and  Finiper  of  our  Faith^  Heb.  12, 
 2 :  The  Father  is  Alf'ha  and  Omega  abfolutely ; 
 The  Fir/i  Caufe,  l^  S  ret  ^clvtcl^    Of  or  From 
 whom  are  all  things^  i  Cor.  8,  6  j  and  the  Laft 
 End^  to  whofe  Glory  All  things  ultimately  ter- 
 minate. 
 
 When  therefore  you  tell  me,  that  "  the 
 *'  Vroofcfthe  So^^^s  Eternity^'*  [meaning  al- 
 ways fuch  a  necejjary  and  independent  Eter- 
 nity^ as  is  the  Foundation  of  an  Equal  Supre- 
 macy  with  the  Father  ;  for  oiiherwife  we  have 
 No  Difpute  upon  This  Head  .-3  *'  Hands  upon 
 *^  the  fame  Foot  in  Scripture  with  the  Proof  of 
 *^  the  Father^ s^  and  is  exprejfed  in  as  ftrong 
 *•'•  Words  :"  I  anfwer  3  It  neither  ''  (lands  iq- 
 *'  on  the  fame  Foot^^  nor  ''  is  exprejfed  in  as 
 ^'  ftrong  wordsT  And  if  it  had  been  expref- 
 fed  in  the  fame  Words ^  yet  it  would  not  have 
 flood  upon  the  fam.e  Foot :  Becaufe  the  ftrong- 
 eft  words  (Eternal^  Everlajting,  and  the  like,) 
 being  frequently  applied  to  different  things, 
 "'tis  evident  they  always  receive  the  Stre?igtb 
 of  their  Signification,  not  from  their  own  in- 
 trinfick  Notation^  but  from  the  Nature  of  the 
 SuhjeH  to  which  they  are  applied. 
 115.  To  This,  you  reply  :  "  TDen  we  muff  con- 
 "  tented^y  go  away^  without  any  Scripture- 
 <<  Proof  oflihe  Eternity  of  the  Father."  I  an- 
 fwer :  Our  Reafon  infallibly  affures  us,  as  of 
 the  B(^/;/g  and  Veracity^  fo  of  the  £^^/7//Yj  and 
 other  At'tributes  of  God  ,  And  'tis  not  the  part 
 
 of 
 
Qu.  VII.    OftheVnitjofCod.  i4? 
 
 of  Revelath?i  to  p'ove  thefe  things,  but  it 
 always  necejjarilj  ^/-efiip^ofis  them^  and  al- 
 ways fpeaks  of  them  as  fnfnppofed. 
 
 Your  Reply  to  This,  is  very  extraordinary. 
 *^  /  do  7wt  at  freftnt  affrehe^td^  how^  upon  P,  u6, 
 ^'  21?//r  Trinciples^  you  will  he  ahU  to  make 
 *'  Jny  com  fie  at  dtmonftration  of  the  Eternity 
 *'  of  the  Father.  It  would  he  ridiculous  to 
 "  talk  of  proving  from  Reafon  o?ily^  without 
 *'  Revelation^  that  thePerfon  whom  we  call  the 
 "  Father^  the  God  of  Jews  and  Chrifiians^  is 
 <<  the  Eternal  God^  And  you  defire  me  to  p.  n-. 
 ^'  make  out "  my  "  DemoTiflration''^  I  would 
 willingly  gratify  you  in  any  reafonable  Thing , 
 But  'tis  hard  you  fliould  defire  me  to  make 
 my  felf  ridiculous,  by  a  ferious  Attempt  to 
 Demonftrate  what  is  Self-evident  to  every 
 Man's  common  Senfe  and  Underftanding,  So 
 that  I  hardly  know,  whether  to  take  what 
 you  propofe,  for  fober  Reafoning,  or  for  Banter. 
 Revelation  ^\w2iys  pre^fuppofes  the  Truth  of 
 natural  Religion  ;  of  the  Beings  the  Veracity^ 
 2ind  othQV  oAttributes  of  God  :  And  'tis  indeed 
 ridiculous  in  all  Refpefts,  to  pretend  to  De- 
 monftrate thefe  Principles  from  Revelation. 
 There  is  no  way  then,  but  by  Reafon,  to  De- 
 monftrate the  Exiftence  of  an  eternal  God. 
 And  This,  you  grant,  I  can  demonfirate  ^  And 
 fo  you  yourfelf  refolve  your  own  Dijfficulty,  p.  n6. 
 For  is  not  the  Eternal  God,  whofe  Exiftence 
 (you  allow)  is  demonflrahle  by  Reafon ;  is 
 not  He  The  One  God  and  Father  (or  Original 
 Caufe)  of  all?  And  is  not  This  Perfon  necef- 
 farily  The  One  Supreme  God,  the  God  oijews 
 
 K.  3  and 
 
2/[6  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 and  Chriflians  ^nd  of  all  the  World  alfohtely\ 
 whatever  other  Pcrfons  may  or  may  not  be 
 Revealed  to  have  the  Stile  and  Title  of  God, 
 and  to  have  received  from  Hnn  Dominion 
 over  Us  ?  The  0/ie  Supreme  Objeft  of  Wor- 
 j/;/p,  is  by  our  Reafon  therefore  infallibly  fe- 
 cured.  But  what  you  intend,  is,  that  I 
 cannot  dernofiftrate  by  Reafon^  upon  My  Prin- 
 ciples, that  the  f  articular  Ferjon^  fpoken  of 
 under  the  Name  of  God  Q.4lmight)'^  Creator  of 
 Heaven  and  Earthy  in  the  Old  and  New  Te- 
 ftament,  is  the  Eter^/al  God,  And  can  any 
 thing  be  more  ridiculous  than  This  Objedion  ? 
 For  what  is  more  evident,  than  that  the  Fa^ 
 ther  of  Jll,  the  Father  (or  Firft  Caufe)  Of 
 (or  From)  whom  are  all  thinp^  could  not 
 have  exifted  at  all,  if  he  had  not  been  (in 
 the  ftriO:  metaphyfical  Senfe)  Eternal'^  ne- 
 celTarily,  elTentially,  and  independently  Eter- 
 nal  ? 
 
 But  to  proceed.  I  alledged,  (not  as  arguing 
 againft  the  Eternity  of  the  Son,  which  is  not 
 the  Point  in  queftion ,  but  to  fliow  the 
 Weaknefs  of  the  Arguments  by  which  you 
 would  prove  him  to  have  an  ipidependent  Eter- 
 nity and  Equal  Supremacy  w'iih.  the  Father;) 
 that  the  Ojfce  and  Character  of  Chrift,  rela- 
 five  to  Z/j-,  did  not  in  itfelf  nece\]ar:ly  pre- 
 fuppofe  the  Eternity  of  his  Exillence ,  and 
 that  mere  eternal  pa/l  Duration^  did  not  of  it- 
 felf neceflarily  imply  all  Other  Perfedions. 
 r,  u6.  To  this,  you  reply  :  "  How  you  come  to  take 
 '^  for  granted  a  Toing  which  you  know  nothing 
 *'  of^  andwtiihit  is  im^ojfihle  for  you  or  any 
 
 ''  Man 
 
Qu.  VII.   Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  247 
 
 *'  Man  elfe  to  frove^  I  know  not. It  is  the  p.  nS. 
 
 *'  Height  of  Prcftmpion  to  fronounce^  that 
 *'  Any  Power  lejs  than  infinite^  might  he  equal 
 ^^  to  the  WoyV  of  Redemption  P  This  is  to  tell 
 me,  that  it  is  more  than  I  hiow,  or  than  any 
 Man  can  provej  that  an  eternal  Duration 'is 
 not  in  itfelf  neceffary  for  the  Execution  of  an 
 Office  commencing  in  Time.  Belides:  You 
 here  confound  injmite  Duration,  and  infinite 
 Vower^  as  if  they  were  One  and  the  fame 
 thing  :  Whereas  Infinity  of  "Powers  is  not  a 
 Confequence  of  eternal  Duration^  but  of  Un- 
 derived^  Unoriginal e  Selfexifient  Duration. 
 Mere  Deration  does  not  of  itfelf  alter  the 
 Nature  of  Things,  or  give  Perfections  to  any 
 Thing.  If  Matter  was  eterital^  yet  ftill  it 
 would  be  only  Matter :  Or  if  Angels  or  Me?i 
 were  eternal^  they  would  ftill  be  finite  ia 
 their  Powers^  and  will  continue  to  be  fo 
 to  all  Eternity,  Thefe  things  are  all  fo  plain 
 and  evident,  that  I  cannot  think  it  im^ojjihle 
 to  hiow  them^  or  Prefumption  to  define  them. 
 What  peci[e  Powers  or  P erf ett ions  are  com- 
 menfurate  to  the  Work  of  Man^s  Redemption^ 
 I  never  prefumed  to  know,  nor  is  it  needful  to 
 fronotmce  ^  And  therefore  you  ought  not  to 
 infinuate  fuch  wrong  and  unjuft  Things  to 
 your  Reader  :  But  the  Learned  Ettfelim  gives 
 it  for  the  clear  Senfe  of  the  whole  antient 
 Church,  (and  I  think  it  indifputably  plain  in 
 the  Reafon  of  Things,)  that  a  Mediator  c^An- 
 not  be  himfelf  The  One  Supreme  God,  Upon 
 the  Words  of  the  Apoftle,  A  Mediator  is  7tot 
 R  4  aMe^ 
 
2.48  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 a  Mediator  of  One^  hut  God  is  one^  Ga!.  j,  20, 
 he  thus  argues  :  (i)  "  Wherefore  God  can- 
 *'  not  be  a  Mediator:^  For,  between  whom 
 '^  fliould  he  be  a  Mediator  ?  Neither  can  the 
 ^'  Mediator  be  God  himfelf ,    For  a  Mediator 
 
 "■'  is  not  of  One. And    a  Mediator  is  7tot 
 
 "  of  One^  becaufe  it  is  abfurd  that  a  Media- 
 ''  tor  fliould  be  of  One  Party,  but  he  mufl  ne- 
 *'  ceflarily  be  a  Middle  betwixt  two,  being 
 *•  himfelf  A^^/fi^r  of  Thofe  between  whom 
 "  he  is  tlie  Mediator.  Wherefore  we  muft  not 
 "  think  that  he  is  either  The  Stifrefne  Gody  or 
 "  one  of  the  aAngels  ;    but  a  Middle  and  Me- 
 
 /'  diator  between  them. Again,  when  wc 
 
 ^^  confider  he  is  the  Mediator  betwixt  God 
 ^''  and  Men  ;  being  a  Middle  between  the 
 '^  Two,  he  is  Neither  of  them,  beting  Media- 
 '^  tor-,  and  confequently  himfelf  neither  The 
 *'  Ofie  Ofily  God^  nor  ytt  a  Ma ?i  Wko,  the  reft 
 ''  of  Men."  What  we  are  to  infer  from  the 
 Difpenfation  of  ChrilVs  redeeming  us,  in  re- 
 lation to  the  Honour  and  JVorpip  due  to  him 
 on  That  Account  ;,  may  beft  be  judged  from 
 the  Forms  of  Worfliip  fo  diliinclly  fet 
 down  in  the  A^ocaljffe :  particularly  ch.  i  ;  5^ 
 
 (j')  'Ot»T«  cipci  0  Bssi;  iiY)  a,y  o  fiiscnr ■/;<;'  nv^  Y^  ocv  ytvoiro  o  U/S- 
 CtTr,^  ;  if7t  0  fjtjunrv,^  uvTo<i,  civroc,  av  £»>)  o  iTtc^'  o  yj  fA/i<nrr)q,  ivo^  yx 
 \<3ir     ■  ■  'O  -^  fAiitnTviei  fio^    ««    i^iy,   i    yap  V^ei  CP'jGit   i^'   iyo^    T 
 
 tov   fjt,i<rcc,  rvy^uvsi'   of^s  f/ji^n  civrcv  ilvcci  tcv  sVj  Travra'y  B-scv    Kytuiu^, 
 
 f/AtiTt  rav  ocyyiXekiy  ivu,  tutojv  ■^  fji/icov  K9ii  fJji<mlw a»5  civ  'mc- 
 
 >av,   on  jut/so-tV/}^  y.viTon  S"£5  koh  dvifuzav, yjiTo^  m  iKccTrPa  Tuyf/jxro^y 
 
 eutoicji  Tor?  MiTToTq  ui^tuTFJti  wv^pft'To?,  Contf,  Mai'cell.  lib.  i, 
 F   ^, 
 
 6,  an  J 
 
Qu.VII.   OftheVnityofCod.  ^^^ 
 
 ,6.  and  ch.  5  ;>  9,  ic,  12,  »  3.    and    from  what 
 St.  Paul   fays,    Philip.   2*5   6,7,8,9,  10,  11. 
 But  This  will  be  diftinftly  confidered  helow^ 
 \Quen  XVI  and  XVII. 
 
 After  amufing  yourfelf  about    the    word,  ^.  np- 
 Pajiy  which  I  put  in  only  to  avoid  Amhigmty^ 
 :he   Quedion   being,    not  about  future^    but 
 Pajt  eternity :  You  endeavour   to  retort  my 
 Argument  upon  me  in  the  following  manner. 
 '  Bj  Parity  of  Reajoji  we  may  argtic^  that  the  p.  no. 
 Ojfice  of  God  the  Father  commencing  at  the 
 Creation^    viz.     the   O-fce    of   preferving 
 and  governing   the   Worlds    has   7io   Rela- 
 tion to  the  Time  paf!*^    I   anfwer:  The 
 ^rejervation   and  GoveYmne7it  of  the  World^ 
 confidered  barely  in  itfelf  as  fuch,  has  certain- 
 y  no  Relation  to   Time    antecedent    to  the 
 Weation,     The  Demonfhationoi  theabfolute 
 infinity  and  Eternity  of  the  Agent,  does   not 
 \\v\k  immediately  from  the  confideration  of  the 
 viite  and  temporary  Work  of  Creation  Alone, 
 3Ut  it  iscoUedted  by  reafoning  from  the  Things 
 kvhich  exift,  to  a  Firfi  and   Supreme  Cau/e  , 
 ?rom  the  Confideration   of  whofe    Nature, 
 Zternity  and  Infinity  are  demonftrated  to   be 
 leceffarily  Attributes  of  it.     All  the  Powers 
 ind  Perfeftions  of  the  One  God  and  Father  of 
 ^11^    appear,    (not  barely    and  immediately 
 [rom  the  Att  of  Creating^   but  from  the  con- 
 [ideration  of  the  Nature  of  a  Firjt  Cau/e j)  to 
 have  a  necejfary  Relation  to  Eternity  and  In- 
 mity*     For,  'tis  evident,  nothing  could  ever 
 kave  been  created  at  all,    without  the  necef- 
 ary    prefuppofition   of  a    Firft  IJnoriginate^ 
 
 and 
 
2  50  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 and  Therefore  7iecej]arily  eternal  and  infinhe 
 Agent.  'Tis  evident,  God  could  not  he  at  all, 
 or  ate  at  all,  unlefs  he  was  Eternal.  His  Ex- 
 iftence  therefore  and  all  his  Powers^    ffor,  to 
 
 p.  uc.  fay  that  the  Supreme  G<?^has  an  ''Office^'''  is 
 very  improper  ,)  have,  not  from  the  mere 
 Confideration  ot  Things  external^  but  from 
 their  own  Nature^  a  necejjary  Relation  to  be- 
 ginninglefsr/w^^p^y?;>  becaufe,  without  That 
 fuppofition,  they  could  never  have  exifted  at 
 all.     This  Argument,    'tis  manifeft,  cannot 
 
 r.  up-  "  bjf  Parity  of  Reafon "  be  applied  to  any 
 Other  Agent ,  whatever  Other  Grounds  there 
 may  be,  to  fuppofe  That  Other  Agent  £- 
 terhaL 
 
 Q^u  E  R  Y   viir. 
 
 Whether  Eternity  does  not  im^ly  neceffary  Ex- 
 iftence  of  thf  Son  *,  which  is  inconfijient  with 
 the  Dottor^s  Sche?ne  ?  And  whether  the 
 Dotior  hath  not  made  an  elufive  equivoca- 
 ting oAnfwer  to  the  Ohjetfion^  Jtnce  the 
 Son  may  he  a  neceffary  Emanation  from  the 
 Father,  hy  the  Will  and  Power  of  the  fa- 
 ther, without  any  Contradiftion  ?  Will  is 
 one  thing,     and  Arbitrary   Will   another. 
 
 /».  121.    AnfucKT^Ternal  Generation  does  not  in  the 
 
 l^j  Nature  of  the  Thing,  (and  in  the 
 
 flrici  and  metaph}faal  Senfc  of  ?iece[jity^  which 
 
 is  what  you  are  here  fpeaking  of,)   "  im^^ly  ne- 
 
 cejfary 
 
Qu.VIII.      Of  Eternity^  &c.  i^i 
 
 "  cejjary  Exiflence  '*  of  the  Perfon  generated, 
 but  is  mdeed  eflentially  contradiftory  to  it ; 
 Becaufe  Generation  is  an  ACT  ;  And  no  Ati^ 
 whether  Temporary  or  Eternal^  can,  without 
 an  exprefs  contradi£tion,  be  Necejjarj.  Eflen- 
 tially, all  Action  fprings  from  the  Will  only  ; 
 and  'tis  That,  and  That  only^  which  makes 
 an  Aftion  to  he  an  Atiion.  Whatever  fprings 
 not  from  the  Will  of  the  Agent,  is  not  an 
 oA^iiofi^  hut  merdy  2i  Mode  of  Exiftence.  Om- 
 niprefence,Omnifcience,  Self-complacency, and  f.  127. 
 the  like,  (which  Scholaftick  Writers  abfurd- 
 ly  call  Natural  ABs  in  oppofition  to  Volun- 
 tary^  are  not  at  all  oACTSoi  God,  but 
 Modes  of  Perfeftion  of  Exiflence*  If  there- 
 fore by  NeceJJity  you  here  mean,  (as  your 
 Argument  requires^)  not  That  kind  of  necef- 
 fity  by  which  God  always  and  unalterably 
 Wills  to  qACT  agreeably  to  the  Peyfe&ions 
 of  his  Nature^  but  That  ph^Jical  neceflity  by 
 which  God  himfelf  exifts,  which  is  ejfentially 
 excltijive  of  all  oACT  of  the  divine  Will^  ei- 
 ther temporary  or  eter7ial ,  you  in  reality  de- 
 ny the  Son'^s  being  at  all  generated  of  the 
 Father. 
 
 1  *'  A  neceflary  Emanation  from  the  Father^ 
 "  By  the  Will  ^s:;^^  Power  of  the  Father  ;,"  is 
 an  exprefs  contradiftion :  Becaufe  all  opera^ 
 tion  either  of  Will  or  Power ^  is  ejfentially 
 inconfillent  with  Necejfity.  See  a  Book  in- 
 tituled, qA  Mode  ft  Plea^  p,  17^  and  267; 
 and  Modefl  Plea  continued,  p.  16.  And  here 
 'tis  very  remarkable,  that  you  have  not  been 
 
 able 
 
 p.      Ilia 
 
-S-  OJ  Eternity  and 
 
 able  to  produce  fo  much  3sONE  fingle  PaiTngej 
 out  of  any  One  Ante-Nkene  Writer,  wherein 
 the  Son    is   affirmed  to  have  em^jied  or  been 
 emitted  from  the  Father  by  Necejfity  of  Na- 
 ture.    When  the  Son's  Generation  is  illuflra- 
 ted  by  the  Similitude  of  One  Fire  lighting  Afw- 
 ther^  or  the  Swi\  fending  forth  Rays  cfLi^ht  5 
 the  natural  Necejity  by  which  thefc  things  are 
 performed,  is  OFTEN  exprefdy  excepted fro^n 
 being,  'tis  N  E  V  E  R  affirmed  or  fuppofed  to  he^ 
 the    ?oint   wherein  the   Similitude    lies.     See 
 TDv.  Clarke's  Scrip.  DoHr.  Part  II.  ^  17. 
 P.  III.        Your  diftinftion  between  "  Will''  and  "  Jr- 
 "  bitrafy  Will;'    is  indeed   moft  ridiculoufly 
 *^  elufive  and  equivocating.''     For   if  by  ''  Ar- 
 
 bitrary  WilJ"  you  mean  ^ precarious^  wicer-^ 
 certain^  un/leady,  mutable  Will  ,  this  is  not 
 the  If^ill  we  are  here  fpeaking  of.  But  if  by 
 "  Arbitrary  Will''  you  mean,  as  your  Argu- 
 ment requires,  free  Will^  in  oppofition  to  mere 
 neceffary  Modes  of  Exigence  ;  then  there  is  no 
 other  difl\^rence  between  WtU  and  Arbitrary 
 Will,  but  that  the  One  is  an  Ene^lijh  word,  and 
 the  Other  a  Latin  word,  exprefting  one  and  the 
 fame  thing. 
 
 In  your  Defenfe  of  this  Query,  you  alledge 
 that  ''Neceffary  Exijience  and  Self-exi/ience  ar^ 
 
 ''  not  the  fame -^ ,nre    not   the  fame    Idea." 
 
 I  anfwcr  :  They  are  precifely  the  fame  Idea  •, 
 becaufc  55^^-5A;7/?i?;2^^  never  fignifies  a  thing's 
 bringing  it f  If  into  Beinq^  but  merely  its  exiji- 
 ing  by  abfolute  Neceffity  of  Nature,  indepen- 
 dently 
 
 p.  Ill 
 r.  Ill 
 
Qii.VlII.   Necejfarj  Extftence.  253 
 
 dently  on  any  other  Caufe.  if  God  is  Self- 
 exiflent  or  Unoriginate^  fo  likewife  is  his  Rea- 
 forj^  KjwwldJge^  Power^  and  whatever  elfe  ef- 
 fentially  belongs  to  him.  Whatever  neceffa- 
 Yily  and  effentially^  that  is,  exclufively  of  all 
 ACT  oi  the  Will,  belongs  to  That  which  is 
 Self-exijlentj  is  itfelf  equally  Self  exi/Ient 'dni 
 Unoriginate.  If  the  Sun  were  Self-exijient^  fo 
 alfo  would  be  its  Rays.  If  a  Tree  was  Self- 
 exifteiit^  fo  likewife  were  its  Era?jches.  For 
 when  we  fay  in  vulgar  Speech,  that  one  thing 
 
 j  is  produced  fieceffarily  from  another  ^  it  is  noc 
 
 :  indeed,  truly  and  ftriftly  (peaking,  produced 
 from  it  at  all ,  but  it  is  itfelf  That  very  fame 
 things  only  partially  confidered.  Derivation^ 
 Caufality^  Origination^  Generatiofi,  and  the  like, 
 are,  in  This  cafe^  nothing  but  mere  figurative 
 
 I  and  improper  Exprtdious.' 
 
 But  ''Ari/lotle  (you  hy). and  the  later  Pla- 
 "  tojiijls  fuppofed   the  World  and  all  the   infe- 
 
 jl"  riour  Gods  to  proceed^  by  way  of  Emanation^ 
 '^  withmt  any  temporary  Produtlion^  from  a 
 "  Superiour  Caiife  :  That  is^  they  (relieved  them 
 
 \^  to  be  Neceffiry,  but  not  Self-exiftent."  I 
 anfwer :  They  who  fuppofed  the  World  to  be 
 Necefjary^  did  as  really  make  it  Self  exijlent^ 
 as  the  Reafon^  Knowledge^  or  Power  of  God,  or 
 
 I  whatever  elfe  Necefarily  belongs  to  him,  is 
 ireally  Selfexijle?it.  And  therefore  Dr.  Cud- 
 worth  juftly  charges  Ariflotkj  with  making  the 
 World  Ingenerate  or  Self  exiflent,  But  the 
 Platonifis^  though  they  thought  the  World   to 
 
 be 
 
 p.  122. 
 
154  Of  Eternity  and  i 
 
 be  Eternal^  y<^t  (0  they  exprefsly  affirmed  )| 
 to  be  fo  by  the  Will  of  God,  and  not  by  Ne- 
 ceffity.  Nor  did  they  ever  think  that  the 
 Worlds  or  the  Souls  of  Men,  or  their  Ge?iera' 
 teclGcds^  which  they  believed  to  be  Eternal^ 
 were  therefore  confequently  Equal  in  any 
 fenfe  to  the  Suprerne  Self-exiflent  God. 
 p.  113.  You  charge  me  with  fuppofing  "  an  imlimi- 
 *^  ted  and  a  limited  Eternity  ;  which  is  in  rea- 
 "  lay  an  Eternity  and  no  Eternitj^  I  anfwer : 
 The  Eternity  of  the  Son,  how  real  foever,  yet 
 can  only  be  a  derived  Eternity  *,  whereas  the 
 Father's  is  an  underived  and  independent  Eter- 
 nity. This  Diflindion  is  obferved  by  Alex- 
 ander of  Alexandria.  'Oure  to  ctejj  rdvroy  W^  tZ 
 cLyivrATci)'  ''  Eternity^  or  having  Ahvays  been^^ 
 [not,  2i%you  mofl  wrongfully  and  deceitfully  re- 
 prefent  the  Senfe,  "-^  Eternity  AND  ?ieceffary 
 "  Exiftence  ^"]  ij*  ?;^f  r/:?^  y^w^  7e//?&  ^^i«^ 
 "  Unbe^otten  or  Self-exijlent.''  Which  Paf- 
 fage  is  very  pertinent  and  exprefs^  to  the  Pur- 
 pofe  for  which  Dr.  Clarke  cited  it ;,  and  not 
 (as  you  pretend)  ''  direBly  agai?jji  Hi?nfelf 
 '^  again/}  his  leadi?ig  Principle^  viz.  that  the 
 '^  Son  cannot  be  flri&l)  and  e/fenttally  God^  unlefs 
 ''  he  be  Seif-exiftent  or  unoriginate  iji  every 
 *"  Senfe.''  For  Dr.  Clarke's  Principle,  is  not 
 what  you  here  reprefent  it :  But  This-^  that  the 
 Son  cannot  be  firiBly  and  effentially  God  in 
 That  Senfe^  in  which  the  Father  is  eminently 
 fo  filled  ;  C"  in  the  fame  Senfe^  arid  in  as  high 
 
 (i)  See  Dr.  clarkcs  Sermons  at  Mr.  Bo'^les  Lecflure-  Vol.  V 
 Pro^.  3.  near  the  End, 
 
 *^  a  Senfi 
 
 p.  11^ 
 
 p.  124. 
 
Q.U.VIII.    Necepry  'Bxiftence.  lyy 
 
 ''  a  Seiife^  as  ths  Father  himfelf  is  fo  Jliled^'' p^  57. 
 (which  is  Tour  Aflertion  •,)  unlefs  he  be  Self- 
 exiftent  or  unoriginate  m  every  Senfe.     Which 
 is  quire  a  different  Propofition  :  A  Propofit'on, 
 wherein     Alexander  of  Alexmdria    perfedly 
 ^agrees  with  the  Dofton     For^  moft  evidently, 
 Alexander  does  not  here  oppofe  (as  you  would 
 make  your  Reader  believe)  Nece(fary  exijience 
 to  Self-exijience^  but  a  Derived  Eternity  to  a 
 Necejfary  or  Selj-exkflent  Eternity, 
 \     In  order  to  exprefs  the  Notion  of  the  word, 
 Qod^  in  the  Higheft  Senfe ;  you  alledge,  that  ^-  ^^5' 
 'to  the  word,  ''God^''  and  ''  trul/^'  and  "  real- 
 ,''  /v,"  and   "  ^7  Nature''   you  '"  Can  add  no 
 r  more  but  eternally  and  fubftantially  God^^ 
 ;I  anfwer  :  Nay  ,  but  to  exprefs  the  Notion  of 
 the  word,  God^    '^  ifK  the  fame  Senfe^   and  in  P-  57. 
 ''  as  High    a  Senfe^  as  the  Father  hijnfelfis  fo 
 ,''  Jliled  ^"  you  Ought ^  and  Could^    and   Could 
 mot  but  have  further   added,    "  independently^ 
 '*  unoriginately  ^  and  Of  Himfelf  God ^  even  the 
 ^'  Firft  Caufe^  of  whom  are  all  things,'"^     And 
 then  you  would  havefeen,  how  ftrongly  your 
 own  words  retort  upon  your  felf :    ''  To  what  p-  nj. 
 ''  purpofe  is  all  this  "   omitted  ?    "  Might  you 
 ,''  not   better  fay  plainly^    that  the  Son  '*    (ac- 
 ;cording  no  your  Notion)  "  is  not  GodT' 
 
 From  hence  for  feveral  Pages  together,  you^-  ii<5,— 
 bave  nothing  but  a  confufed  and  cloudy  Inlarge-  ^^'^' 
 -ment  upon  a  Childifh   Quibble  of  St.  Aujiin's  ; 
 The  Weaknefs  of  which,  Dr.  Clarke  had  clear- 
 ly and   fully  flaown  in  a  Few    Lines.      In  ^•'491— 
 jceply  to  whom,   you  in  four  Pages  of  your  '^^■^' 
 
ay^J  Of  Eternity  and  | 
 
 Appendix^  only  repeat  the  fame  Qpibble  again,  v 
 without  attewpthig  to  anfwer  his  Rcafoning. 
 As  if  Arguments  of  Re  a  [on  were  to  be  confuted 
 by  mere  playing  upon  Words  :  Which  is  direft^ji' 
 ly  affronting  the  Underftinding  of  your  Rea- 
 ders. The  Cafe,  in  few  words,  is  clearly 
 This.  It  had  been  affirmed  by  Antient  and 
 confeffedly  Orthodox  Writers,  [See  X)x.  Clarke's 
 Script.  Doft.  Fart  II.  J  17.3  that  the  Father 
 begat  the  Son,  not  [jccctcc  rivx  (piio-eoj^  avctTx^iv 
 
 ct'TT^octigcTa^^)  UTTo  (hajyy^y\<^  (puo-iX/i5  ^vS'^t^,  ^  A^^- 
 ce (fit ate  Natiira^  or  naturali  lege  cogente^  by 
 Necejfity  of  Nature  ;    but  ^Qxctrct  jSaAJiv,   jStfAvf, 
 
 quando  ipfe  vduit^  and,  Voluntate  ifiagnitiidinis 
 Patrn']  By  his  P^i£/^r  and  f^///.  In  anfwer 
 to  thefe  expreflions,  you  reply  out  of  St  ^m- 
 ^i//,  that  (hj/  Necefjity  of  Nature^  and  {by  the 
 Power  and  iVill  of  the  Father^  are  very  con- 
 fiflent  things.  How  fo  ?  Why,  God  the  Fa- 
 ther hhfifelfexlfls  bj  Neceffiiy  of  Nature  *,  And 
 yst  at  the  fame  time  'tis  true  alfo  that  he  ex- 
 ifts  —  how  ?  Does  he  ex'ijl   [yr^\  /SbaV/,   /SbAv), 
 
 Voluntate  magnitudinis  fuse,  a?id  quando  ip- 
 fe voluit,"]  B  any  Aft  of  his  own  Counfcl, 
 Tower ^  arid  Will  ^  No  :  This  is  manifeftly 
 abfitrd  :  'But  he  ex i/Is^  you  fay  [iwlefis ^'j  with 
 his  own'Approbatw?i.  Very  true  ;  But  That's 
 quite  another  thing  from  what  all  the  fore-men- 
 tioned lixpreflions  necellarily  (ignify,  and  there* 
 fore  is  nothing  to  your  Purpofe. 
 
 Obferve 
 
Qi.u  VIII.     Neceptry  Exigence.  a  5  7 
 
 Obferve  alfo,  that  the  Antient  Writers  not 
 only  affirrn  that  the  Son  was  begotten  [J^olun- 
 tate']  By  the  Will  o{  xht  Father:  but  moreover 
 deny  that  it  was  \clyJjy^y\  (pmi-iof]  by  Vecejfity  of 
 Nature.     What  Reply    make   you   to  This? 
 Why,  they  ^'denied  (it  feems)    only  fitch  a  p-  ii3. 
 '^  fiippofed  Necejfit)^  as  fnlght  he  Againft  and  d 
 "  Force   upon  the  Father's  Will '^'^   an  ^'Out-P^f-J^ 
 *'  vpard  Co2Ld.\on,  Force^  or  Co?npulfion:^'  hx\i'p''^u^* 
 Dr.  Clarke  [Script.  Doitr.  Part  II,  J-  17,  pag.T^./^;?/., />, 
 2^2,  Edit.  2d;]  ''  manifeflly  perverts  the  Senje^'f  ^^''^'' 
 '^  of  the  Council  of  Sirmium  and  of  Hilary' J  ^  * 
 *'  Comment  upon  ;Y,    by    mijlranjlating    them  \ 
 "  putting.  Without  hisWill.mftead  of  Againft 
 ''  his  WilU'     Now  do  you  really  believe  that 
 the  Perfons  cenfured  by  the  Council  of  Sirmi- 
 um^ or  any  Others,  ever  were  (ofti^pidly  fe?ife- 
 lefs^  as  to  think  any  thing  that  is  Neceffary^ 
 [^cLvclyx.'^  <pv(n}ujy']    to   be  therefore  Againfl  the 
 Will  of  God,  as  well  a»  Without  it  ?    Is  God 
 Omniprefent  by  Outward  CoaSion,  or  ^gainjt 
 his  Will,  becaufe  not  B/  it  <?    Or  is  not  he 
 Omniprefent  [jpvo-iyjj  dvdyx^i]  '^Y   Necejfity   of 
 Nature  <?    No,   you   fay  *,     ''    The    patherf^pref,  to 
 
 *'   by   \jpmiv)/]  clycly)ty\   and    cpuVeii)^   dva^yy^^f]    ]!iQ^Serwom, 
 
 *'  ceflity  of  Nature,  underjicod  Outward  Co-  '  ^^' 
 '^  aftion,  Force  or  Compulfwn''  The  direft 
 contrary  is  evidently  true  :  Necejfity  of  Na- 
 ture [(puG-ixv!  cL^cLy-ity]  and  (pmicc;  cLvxy/cr/^  always 
 and  neceflfarily  fignifies  Internal  Neceffay^  in 
 oppofttion  to  Outward  Coaclion  :  Becaufe  it  is 
 a  manifeft  contradiction  for  Outward  Coaution 
 to  be  in  the  Nature  of  any  thing  -^    and  be- 
 
 S  caufe 
 
as 8  Of  Eternity   and 
 
 caufe  CoaSion  or  Compulfion  never  fignifies  l^e- 
 ceffity  at  all,  but  only  in  a  figurative  Senfe,  the 
 Violence  by  which  a  tree  Agent  is  (^j  ir  're^^^^ 
 forced  to  do  foinething  by  an  Acl  of  his  own 
 Will,  igainft  his  Inclination.     Your  Criticifms 
 therefore  upon  This   Head,    are   all  of  them 
 highly  ^^/zW  I,    And  Dv.  Clarke's  Tranflation 
 oi  the  words  of  the  Council  of  Sirmiwn  and 
 of  Hilary ^  \joi  ax,  \^i\y\<Ti^j  and,    invito  fe^    is 
 demonflrably   right,  from    the  oppofition   made 
 in  the  fame  Sentences  between  \[i\i7^!'^^y\  on  the 
 one  fide,  and  uVo  d'^^y-'tyi'^  (pvaiyS,^  cty^bti^^   and, 
 necejj.tas  gignendi^lf^aturali  lege  cogente^ou  the 
 other  fide.      For,  manifeftly,  whatever  is  by 
 T^eccffity  of  iS'ature^  is,    not  by  Outward  Co- 
 aBion  or  Againfi  tke  Will^    but  only  Without 
 or  Not  Bj   the  Will  of  God.     Jt  arifes  al- 
 ways,   not    from    his   WV//,     but    from   his 
 Exrjlence. 
 
 The  words  themfelvcs  of  the  Council  of 
 Sirmium  and  of  Hilary^  are  very  remarkable, 
 ''  //"  (i)  ^n)'  one  fays^  that  the  Sen  was  begot- 
 '•  ten  not  by  the  Will  of  the  Father^  let  him  be 
 *'  Jnathema.  For  the  Father  did  7Wt  beget 
 *'  the  Son  by  a  phyjical  Neceffity  of  Nature 
 ^'  without  the  Operation  of  his  Will  *,  but  he 
 *'  at  once  willed,  and  be^at  the  Son^  and  pro- 
 * '  ducdd  him  from  Hiwfelf^  without   Timey  and 
 
 Sif/jX  %-ui.  Ov  ykp  /3ta<9-£j^  c  7:a.rv.f,  iWo  uvxyK/><,  <pv(riySf',c,  ot^^uei^  ai 
 ix,  tB^tMa-iVj  [&><,  ycocTU  Tivoc  (pu<ri<»^  icvtcyy-n*  u^f^euifira-^^  Grtf^.  Nyjf. 
 contr.  Eunctn.  7,]  iyirjYio-t  rev  t,<or  ccXX'  u^a.  r  i/3fA»j^->5,  >^  «^Asf«' 
 •vw^  ;^  ecTtu^wi  i%  ixvTou  xvjlv  yitvy}(ri*^  iTTt^i^i.  Anathem,   25. 
 
 without 
 
Ql],  VII.      Necejfary  Exijfeme.  ^5  9 
 
 "  without  fufering  any  diminution  Hinifelf'^ 
 Which  (i)  Canon,  fiith  Hilary,  was  therefore 
 made  by  the  Council,  '' /^/?//  any  Occa^.on 
 '*  fljould  feem  given  to  the  Hereticks  to  a  [crib  e 
 *'  to  God  the  Father  a  Necefiity  of  begetting 
 ''  the  Son^  as  if  he  produced  him  by  Veceffity  of 
 "-  Nature^  without  the  Operation  of  his  Will.'* 
 And  even  Gregory  Nazianzen  thus  exprefTes 
 himfelf :  ''  The  (^2)  Will  to  beget,  is  perhaps^  in 
 "  God^  Ge?ieration.^^ 
 
 But  to  proceed.  You  tell  me  I  could  not  ^'  ^'^^'^ 
 but  have  "  apprehended  your  meaning  *'  in  this 
 Matter,  from  what  1  "  mufl  have  obferved  in 
 "  reading  THE  Antients:'  Thefe  Antients^  the 
 Reader  ought  to  take  notice,  are  All  After  the 
 Council  of  Nice,  and  therefore,  in  This  Cafe, 
 really  Moderns.  You  too  often  exprefs  your- 
 felf  in  this  ambiguous  and  unfair  manner,  by 
 which  the  ignorant  are  deceived. 
 
 I  know  not  whether  it  be  worth  while  to 
 take  Notice  here  by  the  way,  (and  yet  it  is 
 really  blame-worthy,)  that  you  now  and  then 
 indeavour  to  blind  your  Reader,  by  throwing 
 in  his*  way  fome  Scholajlick  Sentences  alto^jj- 
 ther  Senfelefs  :  Such  as,  "  The  Will  of  God^ is  p^  i^i- 
 ''  God  Himfelf  8cc."  As  if  ^i// were  a  Real 
 Being, 
 
 (1')  Ne  data  Haeretids  occafio  videretur,  ut  neceffitatein 
 Deo  Patri  gignendi  ex  fe  filii  afciiberent,  tanquapi,  natiirali 
 Lege  cogente,  invito  fe  ediderit.     De  Synod. 
 
 S  2  What 
 
i6o  The  Son  begotten  hy 
 
 What  you  add  in  the  following  Pages,  from 
 p.  128  to  P.  164,  in  order  to  evade  many 
 (irong  Expreffions  of  the  Ayitients  againfl  you, 
 and  to  reconcile  them  to  your  Notion  in  This 
 Point  in  fpiteof  all  Grammar  and  Language ;,  is 
 fo  imaginary  and  Romantick,  that  there  needs  no 
 other  Anfwcr  to  it,  but  only  to  produce  the 
 Original  Paflages  of  theWritersthemfelves,  and 
 clear  them  from  your  Mifreprefentations. 
 
 A  very  antient  Baptifmal  Creed,  preferved 
 in  the  Books  ftiled  Apojlolic^l  Co7iJlitutW7U^ 
 teacheth  us  to  believe,  (i)  ''  /«  the  Lord  Je- 
 "  fus  Chrijl^  the  only -begotten  Son  of  God^  the 
 *'  firfl'born  of  every  Creature^  begotten  before 
 "  the  World  By  the  GOOD  PLEASURE 
 *'  of  the  Father.'''  And  again,  in  the  folemn 
 Prayer  before  the  Adminiftration  of  the  Eu- 
 charift,  the  Church  c^Us  upon  God  the  Father, 
 who  (2)  *'  begat  before  all  Worlds^  by  his  im- 
 •'  mediate  TVILL^  POWER  and  GOOD- 
 "  N  ESS^  the  only  begotten  Son^God  the  Word^ 
 *'  the  living  Wifdofu^  the  fr ft -born  of  every 
 *'  Creature^  the  Angel  of  his  Great  Counfel, 
 "  the  High'Priefi:  ofGod^  the  Kjng  and  Lord 
 '^  of  all  rational  and  fenfit  we  Beings  :  Who  was 
 "  before  all  Things^  and  through  whom  are  all 
 
 '-'  Things r 
 
 TvroKov  TTcla-yi^   KTuriuq,    t  <zs^  Uiavuv   mo'eKicc  roZ  xx7fo<i  yntv^SuiTcc. 
 Lib.  7.  c.  41. 
 
 (2)  ' AvTov  <S!^  Trzcvru'f  dtoj^uv  yswi^a"***;,  B»A;)(rfi,  x«»  AM/ecfJi/ei,  1^ 
 'AyuSoT^ih  ufXtitnnoTCo^,  iiov  f/jovoytvyj,  Xoyov  B'tOi^cro^iOCv  <^a<ruy , tZ!r^~ 
 TDToxcv  Tma-i'^c,  y.TKriut^y  '  AyiiXov  t^  |t>ojp«A/j;  i^nM^  (ra,  oi^y^n^itx.  crcv, 
 /3ct(rt>iicc  -^  id,  Kupiov  7fa,(r%  voyjTv.i  Koii  oci£ly,T^<i  (^U(rtc</^,  ivvz^o  TruyTm, 
 *lt'  it  7K  -ncivjoc,  lib'  8.  c.   II, 
 
 The 
 
Qu.  VIII.  theJVtllof  the  Father.  261 
 
 The  next  Teftimony,  is  out  of  the  fmaller 
 Epiftles  of  Ignatius.     Which  though  they  are 
 vehemently  and  juftly  fufpeded  to  be  interpo- 
 latedy  yet  in  This  Point  they  are  agreeable  to 
 the  general  Senfe  of  Antiquity,     (i)  '^  Chrift 
 ''  the  Son  ofGod.BythelVlLL  and  POWER 
 *'  of  God'"     Upon  thefe  words  You  acknow- 
 ledge, in  your  Marginal  Note,    that  This  Na-  P-  i^p. 
 tivity  of  Chrijl^  being  oppofed  to  his  Nativity 
 QutrcL  (TcL^-itcL)  according  to  the  FleJIj^  mufl  there- 
 fore be  underjlood  of  fome  higher  Sonflnp^ .  viz. 
 the  Sonjl)ip  in  his  divine  Nature  before  the  World 
 was.    Now  of  This  higher  Generation  By  the 
 Will  and  Power  of  God^  you  are  greatly  puz- 
 zled to  find  an  explication.     Three  Senfes  you 
 mention,which  (J  think)  have  w<9diftind:  Setjfe  j 
 and  therefore,  being  diffident  of  them,  you  add  a 
 Fourth'^  that  "  f /:?^  P^Jf^g^  MAT  relate^  not  ?.  130. 
 "  to  the  Sons  Generation  in  the  Higheji  Senfe ^ 
 *'  but  to  his  Manifefiation  or  Coming  forth  in 
 ^    Order   to   create  the   World ;,     which   is   a 
 "  KIND  of  Filiation  me?itioned  by  ]u{}.mM^r- 
 "  tyr,  Athenagoras,Theophilus,Tertullian,Ta- 
 *'  tian,  Novatian,  and  Hippolytus  ;  and  fuppo- 
 ^'  fed  as  volwitary  a  Things  as  the  Incarnation 
 "  afterwards^'*     Now  the  Reader  would  na- 
 turally expeft,  that  you  Qiould  have  proved 
 thefe  Antient  Writers  had  fomewhere  or  other 
 fpoken  of  Two  Generations  of  the  Son  ^  of  A- 
 nother  and  Higher  Generation^  than  this  Ante- 
 pmndane  one  hy  the  Willoi  the  Father:  Other- 
 
 (l^  'Ticv  S-foy,  »«67K  ^i^yifjux  kx\  AuyxfJiU  S-jou.  Ad.Smym.  C.I. 
 
 S  3  wife. 
 
2.6 z  T^hc  Son  begotten  hj 
 
 wife,  'tis  evident,  ycu  hive  here  given  up  the 
 Point  in  queftion.  But  This  you  have  never 
 proved  by  Any  One  FalV^ge  from  any  One  of 
 thefe  Antient  Writer?.  And  u^hoever  is  at  all 
 acquainted  with  the  Writings  of  the  Antients, 
 inufl  needs  know,  that  (whatever  notion  they 
 might  have  of  the  Son's  having  been  hi  the 
 Father^  after  fome  inexplicable  Metaphyseal 
 manner,  before  his  being  Generated  of  h'lm^ 
 yet)  there  never  is  in  them  the  lead  mention 
 of  Two  Generations^  of  any  other  or  Higher 
 Generation  than  This  which  they  declare  to 
 be  By  the  Will  of  the  Father,  and  from  which 
 they  argue  that  the  Son  was  the  Angel  or 
 MelFenger  of  the.  Father,  and  did  minifter  to 
 his  Will,  and  obey  his  Commands,  both  in 
 the  Creation  of  the  World,  and  in  all  other 
 Things.  Befides  •,  you  fcem  not  to  confider 
 how  manifeftly  abfurd  it  is,  that  One  Genera- 
 tion of  the  fame  Perfon  fnould  be  neceffary^  and 
 Another  Voluntary,  If  the  fir  ft  Generation  of 
 the  Son  was  not  from  the  Will  of  God,  cer- 
 tainly no  other  could  be  (o.  Is  it  in  Any 
 fenfe  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  a  necejfarily 
 ex'iftent  and  abfolutely  independent  Perfon, 
 jTiould  afterwards  be  Generated  by ^oxho,  in  any 
 Refpeft /f/^;>fl  to^  the  HW/  of  Another?  Or 
 can  Any  one  believe  Tour  opinion  to  be  the 
 fame  with  that  of  thefe  x^ntient  Writers  \  when 
 That  which  with  you  is  the  Only  True  and 
 Original  Generation  of  the  Son,  is  hy  Them 
 Never  lo  fliied  at  all  ;,  and  That  which  by 
 Them  is  Always  and  Onlv  (tiled  the  Generation 
 
 of 
 
Qa.Vni  the  IVill  of  the  Father.  ad  5 
 
 of  the  Son  before  all  Ages,  is  with  Toit  a 
 mere  Figure  of  Speech  only,  meaning  real- 
 ly nothing  more  than  the  Son's  beginning 
 to  exert  his  Power  in  the  Creation  of  the 
 World  > 
 
 The  next  PalTage,  is  That  of  (i)  Juftin  p.  130. 
 Martyr.  "  77:?^  Patriarchs  did  not  fee  the  Fa- 
 "  ther  and  ineffable  Lord  of  All  things  ahfo- 
 "  lutely^  even  of  Chrijl  himfelf'^  but  [they 
 "  fa w  only]  Him  who  J)y  the  Will  of  the  fa- 
 *•  ther^  is  God,  beifjg  his  Son ,  and  an  Angel 
 *'  (or  MeJfe?i£erJ  as  ?m?ii/lrini  to  his  Will'* 
 Again  :  (2)  "  He  hath  all  thefe  Titles  [before- 
 *'  mentioned,  vi^.  that  of  Son^  Wifdom^  An- 
 ^'  gel,  Gody  Lord,  and  Word^  both  from  his 
 *'  miniftring  to  his  Father^s  Will,  and  from 
 *'  his  being  begotten  of  the  Father  By  his  Will** 
 The  Words  and  Senf(^  of  Both  thefe  PalTages, 
 are  exceeding  clear.  Yet  with  refpeft  to  the 
 Firft  Paffjge,  you  tell  me  that  I  ^^  do  the  good  p-  ^30. 
 "  Father  a  double  hijury ,  firfl  in  curtailing  his 
 *^  Words,  and  next  in  mifreprefenting  his  Senfe?* 
 I  anfwer,  Firft,  I  left  out  n©  Words  that  im- 
 mediately related  to  the  Argument.  And  this 
 Obfervation  of  yours,  (hows  how  fond  you  are 
 of  an  Opportunity  of  finding  Fault,  though 
 not  only  not  to  your  Purpofe,  but  even  di- 
 
 (1}     Ov   rav    xoc-Afcc    x«j    uf^/fTov   xypjov  t&Ji'    ccTrUvrm   etTA&'ij,   km 
 ecvTov  TOO  }^^i?'ov.  ciXX'   iycuvov  rov  kutoc  finMv  T'av  Ikuvh,  >mc<  B-ecv  ovTci, 
 
 ViVJ   CCVTOV-    KXi    xyfiXcV,  C^ToZ  VT^n^lTlXv   TV}   "/VU^V^  oLuTOU.    Dial.  P.  I2.0. 
 
 Edit.   Parif.  ^  '       ■    ' 
 
 xS  /SaAj^M/otTj,  K-^l  <y/.  roZ  cctto  rou  TVi^rooe,   ST:A-i(r£»  yHyswiJ^^at.     ibid, 
 
 P-  74. 
 
 S  4  redly 
 
2(^4  T'k  Son  begotten  ly 
 
 redly  againfl:  it.  The  Words  I  omitted  to  cite, 
 are  theie  :  ^'  From  his  mini  firing  to  his  (the 
 ''  Father's)  IVilir  This  indeed  is  the  Confe^ 
 quence^  which  Jufiin  every  where  draws  from 
 the  Son's  bein^  begotten  by  the  Will  of  the  Fa* 
 ther  :  And  it  I  have  done  any  Injury^  'tis  evi- 
 dently to  myfelfy  in  forbearing  to  fet  down 
 thefe  Words,  which  are  very  ftrong  for  me^ 
 and  as  ftrong  againfl  you  :  So  that  you  had 
 no  Room  to  complain.  But  you  have  added 
 P*  13^-  the  Words,  to  (how  (you  think;  that  Juflin\ 
 ?'  Meaning  js  noty  that  Cbiiji  is  God  By  the  Will 
 "  of  the  Father  ,  but  that  it  was  the  Father's 
 ''  good  Pleafure^  that  he  fiould  not  only  be  God^ 
 *'  as  he  always  was^  being  God's  Son-^  but  that 
 *^  he  jhould  take  upon  him  befides^  the  Office  of 
 *'  an  A//geL     That  he  was  God,  was  a  necef- 
 
 **  fary  Thing  *, but  that  he  (hould  be  Both^ 
 
 <'  God  and  an  Angel  too^  this  was  entirely  ow- 
 f*  ing  to  God'*s  Good  Pleafure.''  In  a  Marginal 
 Note,  you  add  ;  "  For  though  he  v?as  God^  as 
 f *  being  God's  Son  ^  and  a  Son  yT:\  /2hA>iv  \hy 
 "  the  Will  oi  the  Father,^  according  to  Juitin 
 *'  and  other  Writers  ^  yet  they  did  not  think  he 
 "  was  God  yr\  (IsTv^v  [by  the  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 "  ther.'*~]  If  ail  this  be  not  the  higheft  vufre- 
 prefentation^  and  Selfcontradiciion  too^,  1  know 
 not  what  is.  For,  ly?,  I  obfcrve  that  you  al- 
 low the  words,  [jccctc^  /2yA>)v]  By  the  Will^ 
 to  fignify,  in  their  proper  Senfc,  the  Good 
 Pleafure  oi  \\\(z  Father;,  and  therefore  you  de- 
 ny that  Juflni  could  mean  the  Son  was  God^ 
 /r\  ^s\Yy^  by  the  Father's  WHL    Yet  his  Wprds 
 
 are 
 
Qu.  VIII.    the  Will  of  the  Father.  i<Jj 
 
 are  as  exprefs  as  is  poflible :  And  you  yourfelf^ 
 in  the  very  fame  Breath  wherein  you  deny  it, 
 are  forced  to  fay,  very  deceitfully,  that  he  was 
 ''  Both^  God  and  an  Jfigel  Too''^  [jcj^  (^s/uf^ 
 *'  by  the  Will  of  the  tather.  But  though 
 even  your  own  Explanation  fufficiently  con- 
 futes you,  yet  it  is  not  the  juft  and  full 
 Senfe  of  'JuJ}i?i^s  Words.  The  words  necef- 
 fnrily  fignify,  that  Chrift  was,  by  the  Fa- 
 ther's Will^  both  God^  in  that  he  was  his  Son^ 
 (begotten^  as  he  in  the  Second  Paffage  exprefsly 
 lays,  S-eA^o-e/,  bj  his  Will ,)  and  alfo  an  Angel, 
 in  that  he  winiflred  to  his  Will.  There  needs 
 very  little  Knowledge  in  Greek,  to  fee  that  the 
 words  (KA^I  ^m  xcti  "AyftXov^  cannot  pojfibly 
 bear  any  other  Senfe.  idly^  You  have  not 
 confidered  what  an  ^''  Injury  you  have  done  the  p,  no. 
 *'  Good  Father^'  by  fuppofing  him  moft  ab- 
 furdly  to  mean,  that  by  the  Will  or  Good 
 Fleafure  of  the  Father,  xhtSon^  who  is  him- 
 felf  the  one  Supreme  God,  became  an  AngeU 
 Which  is  both  an  exprefs  contradiBion,  and 
 alfo  (according  to  your  own  Notion  and  Lan- 
 guage) really  '•'' ungodding'''^  the  Son.  For  p.  13^. 
 which  reafon  the  Antient  Council  of  Antioch 
 declares  it  \_cL<ji&f]  Impious,  to  affirm  that  The 
 One  Supreme  God  became  an  Angel.  And  in- 
 deed, can  any  Thing  be  more  (hocking  to  Rea- 
 fon or  to  Chriftianity,  than  to  hear  that  The 
 One  hipreme  God  is,  by  the  Good  Fleafure  of 
 Another^  made  an  Angel  or  ^^Jfenger  .<?  '^dly^ 
 To  fliow  you,  if  poflible,   ftill   more  plainly, 
 
 how 
 
^66  T^he  Son  begotten  by 
 
 how  filfe  your  i^ficrtion  about  Jnflin?^  Notion 
 is  :  Me  tells  yuu  in  another  place^  (i)  "  The 
 *'  Son  proceeded  forth  from  the  Father  before 
 '\  /ill  Creatures,  by  his  Power  and  [/2yA?i]  Will.'* 
 lou  cannot  pretend  he  was  an  Angel  or  Mef- 
 feng^er  before  the  Creation,  before  any  Thing 
 exifted  for  him  to  be  a  Mefjenger  unto.  And 
 therefore  in  whatever  Senfe  he  was  produced^ 
 or  begof  tensor  came  forth  ^  ffince  you  will  have 
 this  lad  to  be  the  right  Tranflition  of  the  Word 
 
 T,  133.  TTgosAS^vTiJc,)  it  wasftillasbeingG^^/^andexprefs- 
 ly,  you  fee,  [^8Aw]  by  the  Will  of  the  Father. 
 Again  :,D.rt;/J(fays(2)he)  ''declared that Chri ft 
 tv^s  horn  froin  the  Bowels'  of  the  Fatha  be- 
 fore the  Sun  and  ^/oon^  \jc:f.rct  t>iv  rS  ^ctreo? 
 /SyAV/"]  by  the  Will  of  the  Father.''  And  if 
 any  1  hing  can  be  yet  more  ftrongly  exprefs'd, 
 'tis  where  he  fays  that  Chrift  is  (:^)  "  Lord  of 
 ''  Ho/Is  l:il^l  TO  ^e\^ficL^  by  the  JVill  of  the 
 Father^  who  gave  him  that  Power''  Surely 
 This  Title,  Lord  of  Hofls,  (^which   you  elfe- 
 
 f.^1'^!^''^^}^^*'^  contend,  in  exprefs  contradi&ion  to 
 thefe  very  Words  oi  JujVtn,  to  be  applied  by 
 J^^jl^n  as  equivalent  to,  ^i!gi@^  (4)  rt'xyrox.^rcc^) 
 Lord  Supreme  over  all :    Surely,  I  fay,    This 
 
 (l)  Tlfo  TTUvray  '^otJjfjdtx.r&fv,  cc,To  rou  TXTpct;,  ob'/xiJi/ii  cc'jtoZ  kxi  /3»- 
 ^^  TTpoiXOovTcc.    D]il\,   P.  lOI. 
 
 (1)  Afi6/3^«^  ^  yrfo  yix'ia  Koct  G-i>^i^vyiq  c-'/C  yst^-p;?  y m i)^'vci x'.  xvrov  kutx 
 Tuv  Toy  Trecreoti  /Zt^Ayy^  Uyj^vti,   ibid.  P.  85. 
 
 (3'  Oq  i'fi  Kt,f.i(^  ^vvufjfjiuv  2Uci.ro  B-iX^jjjOC  row  ff\ovT^  cIvtu  xec- 
 Tfo?.  ibid.  p.  91. 
 
 (^)  See  aboiey  p.  16.  and  beloiv  on  ffluevj  XXVII,  towards 
 the  End, 
 
 Title) 
 
Qu. VIII.    theWtll  of  the  Father.  i6y 
 
 Title)  is  here  given  to  Chrift  in  his  hip;hefl: 
 Capacity  ;,  x'\nd  yet,  you  fee,  he  adds,  'tis  by  the 
 Will  of  tl>e  Father y  who  Gave  him  J  hat  Power, 
 And  in  Confequence  hereof  he  argues,  that  the 
 Father  (i)  ''is  Lord  of  That  Lord  who  ap- 
 "  peared  upon  Earth  *'  \_at  the  Defirucito?i  of 
 the  Sodomites^  "  as  being  his  leather  and  God^ 
 ''  and  \jjLiri(^']  theG?f//^of  hisExiftence,  even 
 "  tho'  he  be  himfelf  Powerful,  and  Lord^  and 
 "  God.''  One  (2)  Place  more  I  fhall  take  leave 
 to  refer  you  to,  which  may  perhaps  be  more  con- 
 v'l&ive  to  you  than  any  I  have  yet  brought  ^ 
 Becaufe  Juft'm  There  declares,  that  the  Ge- 
 neration of  the  Son,  which  he  compares  to 
 one  Fire  being  lighted  from  another^  f'which 
 you  cannot  deny  to  be  his  highefl  Generati- 
 on^ as  being  That  upon  which  you  found 
 the  Confiibftantiality^)  was  yet  S'uvduu  jcctt 
 ^yAv)  clutS  By  the  Power  and  Will  of  the 
 Father, 
 
 The  Second  Paffage  I  had  cited  from  Juflin^ 
 was  This :  (j;  "  He  hath  all  thefe  Titles^  Viz. 
 "  Son  J  Wifdom^  ^^^g^K  God,  Lor  d^  and  Word-^ 
 "  [both  from  his  mini  firing  to  his  Father^  s  Will^ 
 '*  and~\  from  his  being  Bezotten  of  the  Father 
 ^'  by  his  Will:'    The  Point  Then  before    me, 
 
 (l)  '0$  y.xl  roZ  i7r\  ylii5  KVQ^>i  x.y«»o<;  sV'v,  ac,  TTecrvip  kxI  S-jo?,  ocirUq 
 Ti  ot.vrx<  Tcu  iivxi,  xxl  ^wxtw,  mm  kv^io),  kxI  B-ial.   jbid.   P.  III. 
 
 (1)  EiTTuv  ryiv  d'uvufXtiv  Toctiryiv  yfysvi/iio^  xtto  too  TTccrfc^,   ^vvoti/jn    yu 
 
 fiaXy,  uvrou- 7rx^ct^n'yfjtjO(,T(^  ;^«p"'  '''«6p«A;)y>«v    tk  6^5    ccttv   ttu- 
 
 ^o<i  civXTrrof/jivx  Tveac    iTifX  c^co^iVy   ficc.    ibid.   P.   IIO. 
 
 (^3)  ^X^^  y^f  '^vTo.  7rpocrovo^c{oo(^i^y^c,  See  above,  p.  263, 
 
 being 
 
2  68  The  Son  L^egotten  by 
 
 being  only  about  the  Son's  Gefieration  by  the 
 WjU  of  the  Father  ^  I  omitted  the  words  \_fro7n 
 his  mini  firing  to  his  Father's  IVr/lJ  as  making 
 no  Alteration  in  the  Point  I  cited  them  for', 
 and  left  a  Blank,  to  fhow  the  OmilFion.  Up- 
 on This,  with  the  addition  of  fome  wrathful 
 and  unchriftian  Hxpreflions,  you  tell  me  that 
 
 P.  133.  my  Citation  is  "  dirtttt)'  contrary  to  tbt  whole 
 "  Temurofthe  Dialogue^andtothe  very  imme* 
 "  diate  Words  j^receeding,^'*  How  fo,  I  befeech 
 you?  Can  any  Words  poflibly  exprefs  the 
 Scnfe  of  any  Writer  more  clearly  and  ftrong- 
 ly,  than  thofe  which  I  here  alledged  out  of 
 Juflin^  do  demonftrate  the  Tenour  of  his 
 Writings  to  be,  that  ^'  the  Son  was  be- 
 "  gotten  of  the  Father  by  his  WilW  Which 
 was  the  Point  I  cited  them  to   prove.     But 
 
 p.  131.  "  l^  i^  not^  you  fay,  from  his  being  begotten 
 <*  of  the  Father^  tnat  he  hath  all  tbefe  Titles  - 
 ^*  but  from  Tbat^  and  bis  adnwiiftring  to  his 
 *'  Fatber'^s  Will.  Both  together^  not  Either  fin- 
 ''  gb'y  ^^^^  account  for  all  tbefe  Titles.^* 
 Be  it  fo.  I  omitted  the  Words  Qnini- 
 firing  to  his  lather'* s  Will)  in  this  Paffage,  as 
 J  did  in  the  other  *,  becaufe  not  immediately 
 affcding  the  Quellion  about  the  Son's  Gene- 
 ration  :  Which  was  the  only  Point  I  was 
 then  confidering.  And  now  they  are  added, 
 what  Adv'antage  do  they  give  you?  or 
 how  do  they  Ihow,  that  my  Tranflation 
 was  *'  dtrecily  contrary  to  the  whole  Te- 
 "  nour  of  the  Dialogue?'''  Do  they  not  on 
 the  contrary    confi.m  my   Tranflation,   and 
 
 my 
 
p.  132, 
 
 Qu.VIII.   the  JVill  of  the  Father.  16^ 
 
 my  Argument  ?  Do  they  not  fully  and  clear, 
 ly  prove,  what  I  alledged  them  as  proving  ? 
 But  this  is  not  the  worjt.  The  Queftion  Now 
 before  us,  is  concerning  the  Son's  being  begotten 
 of  the  Father,  Q^eA^Q  '"  By  his  Will:'  Now 
 This  wordj  in  your  Marginal  TranOation, 
 you  have  wholly  omitted,  though  it  was  the 
 moft  material  word  m  the  wliole  Sentence. 
 Where  now  is  all  your  ^'' pious''  Pretence  and 
 *'  Declaration "  of  "  Deftre  to  have  Things 
 **  fairly  reprefe/ited,  as  they  really  are  ^  7to 
 "  Evidence  (mother' d^  or  [tijied  on  either  fide?' 
 Will  not  "  tmfqrwtation  and  mifreprefentation 
 *'  do  a  good  Caufe  harm,  and  not  long  be  of 
 *'  Service  to  a  bad  one  r"  I  am  really  forry, 
 that  you  fliould  give  me  fo  many  jujt  oppor- 
 tunities of  retorting  your  own  unjufl  Lan- 
 guage upon  you ;  and  to  find,  that  when  you 
 are  moft  warm  and  pojitive,  you  never  fail  of 
 being  moft  in  the  wrong.  For  here,  by  your 
 own  Account,  had  you  not  fiified  in  your 
 Tranflation  the  principal  Word  [3-eAv)a-£<^ 
 *'  by  the  Will-^'  it  muft  have  appeared  to  the 
 Reader  as  clear  as  the  Light,  that  Jufiin  de- 
 clared very  exprefsly  his  Senfe  to  be,  that  the 
 Son,  as  God,  was  begotten  of  the  Father  "  By 
 ''  his  Will." 
 
 From  thefe  plain  PalTages  of  Jufiin  Martyr, 
 one  of  the  moft  Ancient  and  ever  efteem- 
 ed  moft  Orthodox  Writers  of  the  Chriftian 
 Church  ;  the  Reader  will  obferve,  with  what 
 Juftice  and  with  what  Pretence  to  Antiqui- 
 ty any  one  can  be  blamed  for  aiTcrting,  that 
 
 (0  ''the 
 
^TO  T^he  Son  hegottm  hy 
 
 (i)  ^'  the   Son  is  not  tinhegotten  [or  Self-ex* 
 
 "  i/ient,'] hut  fnbjified  before  all  Times  and 
 
 "  hefore  all  Ager,    ferfeH  God,    by  the  Will 
 "  andGooA  Plcafure  of  the  Father.'* 
 
 The  next  Antient  Writer  to  "Juf^in^  is  his 
 Scholar  Tatian.  Who  fays,  (2)  '^  The  Word 
 "  proceeded  from  the  Simple  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 "  ther.^*  Atheriagoras^  you  alloyi\  fuppofed 
 the  Generation  of  the  Son  preceeding  the  Cre- 
 ation of  the  World,  to  be  a  'Oolmitary  Thing  \ 
 
 p.  130.  tho^  oAthenagoras  (I  think)  no  where  fays  fo 
 in  exprefs  Terms,  as  the  Others  before  men- 
 tioned  do.  Theophilus^  the  next  Writer,  is 
 exprefs^  faying:  "  (j)  iVhen  God  Willed  to 
 *'  make  thofe  Things  which  he  had  before  de- 
 "  termined  within  himfelf^  he  by  emitting  the 
 *'  IVord^  begat  Him^  the  firfi-born  of  every 
 ^'  Creature.*'^  Tertullifu  fays  :  *^  (4)  God  fro- 
 ''  duced  the  Word  himfelf  firft,  when  he  Will'd 
 *'  to  do  foJ^^     This,  you  allow,  is  fpohen  of  the 
 
 p.  133.  Generation  of  the  Son  ;  but  ''  tiot  into  'Be- 
 "  i?ig^  or  i?ito  a  State  of  Exifie/ice''  That's 
 not  material  to  our  prefent  Inquiry.  If,  in 
 his  Higheft  Nature,  he  was  any  way  genera^ 
 ted,  by  the  W/ll  and  Power  of  the  Father,  in- 
 to a  State  of  Sonfln^,  either  ///  Time  or  from 
 
 (l)    On  0  yt55  »jc  i^»  «y4vv>}T^'— — — — »AA'   en  B^iXvif/jeen   t^ 
 
 /SkAvj  iWss-»j   crpa    ^povm   y^    ^rpo  dmvuvy    7r>^^ns    B-ioq.     Theodoiet* 
 
 Hirt.  Ecclef.  lib.  i.  c.  5.       ^ 
 
 (ij   ©iXyif/jecTi  T??  «VAot-/;'^  uvtoZ  %^97Fn^ot  6  Xiy^,     P.    1 45. 
 
 (3)  'OTTVTt  J  yihXwri)!   0  B-ioq   ^rotw"**   o<r«    iiSaXitArccro,    rourev  rev 
 Xoyov  iyivvKCi  7i'po(popi>ccy,  tt^utctokov  Tiua-tii   tCTiO-tuc,.      P.    119.     AlKX 
 
 this  Word  was  thus  begotten,  that  he  might  be  [i/Tspyo?] God's 
 Mmifler  in  the  Creation.  Ibid.  P,  8i. 
 
 (4)  Tunc  cum  Deus  Voliiit,  ipfum  primum  protulit  Sermo- 
 nem.  Adv.  Prax.  c,  6, 
 
Qii.VIII.     the  Will  of  the  Father.  n  7 1 
 
 Eternit)'  ;^cis  fufiicient  todirtinguifli  him  fiom 
 the   One   Supreme,  Self-exillerit,  Immutable 
 God,  who  is  incapable  of  any  Chringe  even  lb 
 much  as  in  any  Mode  of*  Exigence.     Again  : 
 (i)  ''The  Word,  and  Sprite    fays   TertnlUan^ 
 *'  voko  with  the  Word  was   legotte?i   By  the 
 ''  Will   of  the  Father:'      The    interpolated 
 Hippoljtus  fays  :  (2)  "  Ton  enquire  concertiing 
 ^'  the  Ge?ieration  of  the  Word,  whom  God  the 
 ''  Father  By  his  Will  begat  as   he  Willed:' 
 Thefe  Writers,   you  tell  us,  do   all   wahe  the  P.  130, 
 Generation    ''•  Voluntar)  ''  and  ^^Temforar]^''  i35»i4;- 
 and  ^^  fpeak  not  exprefsly  of  any  other:''     Thus 
 the  great  point  of   the  Eternal  Generation  cf 
 the  So/i^  (which,  you  elfewhere  tell  us,    is  bis 
 "  7nofi  Proper  Filiation  and  Generation-^''  and  F.  134- 
 ''  in  refpect  of  which.  Chiefly,  he   is  the  On- 
 **  ly-Begottcn,  and  a  diftiiitx  Peyfon  from  the 
 "  Father:'^  This)  as  being  by  the  principal 
 cAnte-Nicene  Writers    never  ''•  exprtfsly  fpo-  p.  145- 
 *'  ken  of''  at  all,  you  leave  wholly  to  be  in- 
 ferred from  the   metavhyfcal  Exiflence  of  his 
 Subflance  in  the  Father,    before   That  Eriijf* 
 on  which  Alofie  is  by  the  Antients  ever  at  all 
 ftiled  his  Generation.     And  then,    (to   make 
 up  this  DefeQ: ',)  from    a  few  figurative  Ex- 
 preffions  of  God's  converfmg  with  Hmjelf  and   ?,  149. 
 his  own  Reafon  within  Hitnfelf    you   fjppofe 
 the  Son  to  have  been  in  all  Refpeds  as  much 
 a  dijli?iti  Perfon,  and  as  much  a  Son^    and  as 
 
 Ti)  Sermo  Sc  Spiritus,  qui  cum  Sermone  de  Patris  -joluntate 
 natus  eft.  ibid.  c.  2.7. 
 
 rsv,  at,  y,HM<riv,   com.  Noiir.  P.  1 8, 
 
 much 
 
272L  T'he  Son  begotten  hy 
 
 much  generated^  Before  his  being  ge7ier^ted^ 
 [before  That  which  Alone  the  Ancients  ever 
 at  all  called  by  That  Name,"]  as  he  was  Afrer. 
 How  much  better  is  it,  in  matters  of  This  Na- 
 ture, to  adfiere  itridly,  as  Dr.  Clarke  has  done 
 in  His  Proportions,  to  what  the  Scripture 
 clearly  and  diftinftly  declares  to  us  ! 
 
 But  to  proceed.  You  like  not  the  Paflage 
 I  brought  out  of  Clemens  Alexandrims  ;  it 
 j».  133.  being  ^^  doubtful  whether  he  be  there  fpeakhig 
 *'  of  the  Generation  of  the  Son.'^'^  But  though 
 he  was  not ;  yet  my  Inference  is  without 
 doubt  jf///?,  from  the  Son's  being  there  fa  id  to 
 be  *'  the  Caufi  of  all  Things  Bj  the  Will  of  the 
 "  Alnjighry  Father,'^  But  however,  I  will  give 
 you  another  PalTage  inftead  of  it ;  where  the 
 fame  Author  fays;  (ly^The  Word  did  faring 
 ''  from  the  very  Will  of  the  Father''' 
 
 To  Clement  I  fliall  joyn  his  Scholar  0/(^<?«: 
 Who  fays;  (2)  ''  The  Son,  who  is  the  Image 
 "  of  the  invifible  God,  and  the  Brightnefs  of 
 "  his  Glory,  and  the  exprefs  Image  of  his 
 **  Perfon,  the  firftborn  of  every  Creature, 
 •'  was  begotten  Bj  the  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 ''  ther/' 
 
 I  have  no  Exprefs  Tcftimony  in  this  Point 
 from  Irenatis^  and  the  Antient  Council  of 
 oAntioch.  But  they  ^Both  fliow  their  Senfe 
 confeqtientiallyj  in  declaring  (as  I  have  before 
 
 (l)'0      A07® —  £|    CCVTViC,     CCVCCTtiXXC,    T^     TetTfJxJ}?   /BsAjJCTtWi;. 
 
 Admonit.  P.  69.  ^  ,     ,,    ,       ,  v 
 
 t5  S-£8  •:«  ucfUTH,  Kccl  otxocu^/cf^d-^oc  TVi<i  4«H»J5  ccvrw,  ^ecpee.x.T.-fiTi 
 rvic,  ■C-z^o^nuq  ocvTou,  cj^iiroKoc,  -Tnx.Tii'i  icTi<riaq.  Lib.   4.    'SnS^   ^^?^- 
 
 apud  Juftin.  Epill  ad  Men.  Huct.  Oiisen.  P.  41. 
 
 oI> 
 
Q^Li.  VIII.    the  Wtll  of  the  Father.  a;  5 
 
 obfcrved)  that  the  Word  obeyed  and  fulfilled 
 the  Will  and  Command  of  the  Father  in  the 
 Creation  of  the  World. 
 
 I  proceed  to  Novatum-^  who  fays:  "(1) 
 "  From  Him,  when  he  WilVd^  the  Word 
 *'  his  Son  was  begotten."  And  again :  ''  (2 j 
 *^  He  proceeded  forth  from  the  Father, 
 ''  when  it  was  the  Father's  Will  he  Inould 
 ''  do  fo." 
 
 I  fliall  conclude  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers 
 on  This  Head,  with  the  Judgment  of  the 
 learned  Eufehius^  which  may  juftiy  beefteem- 
 ed  to  be  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Antients  before 
 him.  In  comparing  the  Generation  of  the 
 Son,  to  thQ  Splendour  of  Light ;  he  obferves, 
 amongft  feveral  other  Differences,  that  C3  j 
 ''  The  Splendour  does  not  fhine  forth  by  the 
 *'  free  Choice  of  the  Luminous  Body,  but  by 
 ''  a  neceffary  Property  infeparable  from  its 
 ''  Nature :  But  the  Son  fubfifts  the  Image 
 *'  of  the  Father,  by  the  Father's  mil  and 
 *'  free  Choice.  For  God  became  the  Father 
 "  of  the  Son,  by  his  iVill  ^  and  caufed  to 
 "  fubfift  a  Second  Light,    in  all  things  like 
 
 (t)  Ex    quo,  quando  ipfe   voluit,   Sermo  filius  natus  eft. 
 c,  31. 
 
 (1)    Hie  ergo,    quando   pater  voluh,    procefTit  ex    patre* 
 
 huTi^ov   KdTti    Titcvrcc   txvru   u^Ufjuoiuf/ttivov   xssriTyiiroeTO'  Demonlt. 
 
 Evang,  lib.  4.  c.  3. 
 
 T  <f  unto 
 
j\  The  Son  begotten  hj 
 
 '^  unto  hiinfelf."  J^id  again\  (i)  '' He  had 
 "  his  Subiiftence  before  all  Ages,  from  the 
 *'  inexpreffible  and  inconcciveable  Will  and 
 "  Vower  of  the  Father." 
 
 Agreeable  to  tlie  preceding  Senfe  of  An- 
 trquiry,  is  the  Orthodox  Council  of  Sirftiitmiy 
 after  That  of  Nice.  Which  declares  :  "  (2)  If 
 '*  any  one  fays,  the  Son  was  begotten  (3) 
 *^  without  the  Will  of  the  Father,  let  him  be 
 *^  Anathema.  For  the  Father  did  not  beget 
 ''  the  Son  by  a  phyfical  NeceJJitj  of  Nature^ 
 *'  without  the  Operation  of  his  Wtll-^  but 
 **  he  at  once  Willed^  and  begat  the  Son,  and 
 produced  him  from  himfelf>  without  Time, 
 and  without  fuffering  any  diminution  him- 
 felf"     Hilar)' {di^s:  This  Canon  was  made. 
 
 CC 
 
 cc 
 
 /S»A>)<;  Tj  Kxi  ^jufjiiiuc,  fcT^y^fvev  Hid.  In  Confequcnce  of  which 
 Opinion,  He  argues;  Tavr/j?  [yiz.  B-io<i]  fjijira  rm  uXXuv  ttu,^  t5 
 
 TTfitrfd^  ■''J^i^jyjivov  7r^oa"^ycQ/.a,e,^  HXyi<PoTcc  n,  kX'A  »x  idlox.ry)Tov  uirriw 
 so/ijx.oToc'  'O  fjoiv  yap  Jli^&'o-tv,  o  -^  Xxfjujodvn'  co^s  jcypiiW?  xett  ivx  SKeivot 
 fivxi  B-iov,  y,cci  fj^vov  ^  kai  <ptj<rii  cvrcc,   >^  ^«  sretp'  in^a  XufiovTo,'   ref 
 
 H  TU'V    0iVT2^liUV    Vl^lci(3^,     XUt     TO     B-iCV     ilvcil     Xu/ZovTCC   TTU^      T»    TTCCTpci; 
 
 ^X^iVyO)^  uv  siiCDvx  TcZ  ^ioZ.  **  that  the  Son  is  dignified  by  the  Fa- 
 "  thcr  with  the  Title  of  God,  among  Others:  Receiving  it, 
 *'  and  not  having  it  of  Hiwfclf,  For  the  One  Gives,  and  the 
 •*  Other  Receives.  So  tliat  He  [the  Father]  properly  is  the 
 *'  0;7?  God,  being  \\\Q.Only  one,  and  of  h.is  c^u-w  Nature  {Oy  and 
 •*  not  having  received  that  Title  from  Another:  But  the  Son 
 •'  liath  the  second  Place  of  Dignity;  and  the  Title  of  God  he 
 *'  hath  received  from  the  Father,  as  being  the  Image  of  God." 
 Demon/}.  Evang.   lib.  5.  c.  4. 
 
 (l)  "Et  T^  fjjY,  B-tXKc-uv7(^  TK  TTotrpc*;  yiyivjK^  Xiyoi  T  t/<CV,  CiVU- 
 &ffjucc  \<i-c>}'  8  yc«p  /3<(Xc3-J(\  0  ttxtao,  liaro  ccvocyKr.c,  <py(rix«<;  cc^hi^,  dx;  iit. 
 i6tXii<rtv,  iymyi<ri  rov  viov'  <cAA'  ecfjtju    r    s/SaAtc^*),  kui  ctp^ftovuti  xow  ccttx^ 
 
 tu)'-,  i^  la-jTs  ocv-nv  y»»ii<r«5  fTrtJeili.  Synod.  Syrm.  Artic.  25. 
 
 C3)  Concerning  the  true  Rcndnng  of  thefe  words,  lee  abovey 
 /^tf-.  257.158. 
 
 CO"  lead 
 
QiT.  VlII.  the  Mil  of  the  Father.  a  7  y 
 
 (0  *^  leaft  any  Occafion  fhould  feein  to  be 
 *'  given  to  Hf^rttich^  to  afcribe  to  God  the 
 "  Father,  a  NeceJJity  of  begetting  the  Son, 
 ^'  as  if  he  had  produced  him  by  Necejjity 
 ''  of  Nature    vvithouc    the   Agency    of    his 
 
 ''  miir 
 
 And  again^  The  Council  of  &yi/V^?, allow- 
 ed alfo  to  be  Orthodox,  declares;  (2)  that 
 "  the  holy  and  Catholick  Church  anathema- 
 "  tizeth  thofe  who  believe  that  the  Father 
 *^  did  not  beget  the  Son  by  the  Intention  and 
 ''  Operation  of  his  WtllP  Which  BHaYy 
 thus  inteprets  :  (j)  ''  The  Nature  of  a  per- 
 *'  fed  Nativity  is,  that  He  who  is  begotten 
 ''  of  the  Subftance  of  God,  fhould  alfo  be 
 "  begotten  by  the  Inteittion  and  Operation  of 
 "  his  Will.  For  the  abfolute  Perfeftion  of 
 '^  divine  Effence  begotten  from  the  divine 
 "  ElTence,  is,  that  it  proceeds  from  Will  and 
 ^^  Dejign^  not  from  mere  pajjive  Nature  like 
 "-'  That  of  Bodies." 
 
 (i)  Ne  data  haereticis  occaiio  videretur,  iit  Kecejfitntem  deo 
 patri  gignendi  ex  fe  filii  afcriberent,  tanquam,  natural!  ItgQ 
 cogente,  invito  fe  ediderit.  Hil.  de  Syn.  P.  235.  And  The 
 Learned  Jefuit  Petavius  fhus  remarks  upon  this  Anathema  of 
 the  Slrmian  Council:  Voluntas  ifta,  quam  Neceffitati  oppo- 
 nunt  S'trmienfes  praefules,  mera  cll  libertasj  ac  non  foliim  vio- 
 lento  &  coacfto  contraria,  fedetiamei  quodita  Natura;  eftcon- 
 fentaneum,  ut  ex  arbitrio  confilioqi  minime  pcndeat.  Quae 
 fuit  Etifehii  CAfarienfis  Opinio,  Sec      De  Trinit.  lib.  6.  c.  8. 
 
 (zj  Eos  aiitem,  qui  credunt  quod  neq;  Confilio  neq;  Volun- 
 /4/e  pater  genuerit  filium,  anathcmatizat  fanda  &:  Catliolica 
 Ecclefia.    Hil.  de  Syn.   Sardic.   P.  219. 
 
 (3)  Nativitatis  autem  perfedla  natura  efl,  ut  qui  ex  Subftan- 
 tia  Dei  natus  eft,  etiam  ex  Confilio  ejus  ac  Voluntate  nalcaiur. 
 Ex  Voluntate  enim  atq;  Confilio^  non  ex  coiporalis  Paffione  na- 
 tura?, eflentise  dei  de  elfentia  del  genitse  abfohita  Ferledio 
 elL     HiL  ibid.  P.  230. 
 
 T  2  And 
 
i;^  ^/-^^  Son  begotten  by 
 
 And  the  Council  of  oAntioch  in  their  large 
 Creed,  wherein  they  condemn  the  Arian  and 
 Samofat^/iiau  and  SahtlUa?i  Tenets,  declare; 
 (i)  "  that   the  holy    and  Catholick  Church 
 
 *'  anathematizeth  thofe  who  fay either 
 
 "  that  the  Son  is  Unbegotten,  or  that  the  Fa- 
 **  ther  did  not  beget  him  by  his  Intention  and 
 
 *'  Will:' 
 
 Thus  qAU  the  Antient  Ecclefiaftical  Wri- 
 ters (in  oppofition  to  the  Gnojtick  and  (2) 
 Valentinian  Doctrine  of  Ntce\]dYy  Emanations ^^ 
 agreed  that  the  Generation  of  the  Terfon  of  the 
 Son^  (whatever  notion  they  had  of  his  meta- 
 fhyjical  Suhfiance^")  was,  S-eAviucLTi  and  /3»Aw, 
 by  the  Will  of  the  Father.  And  from  thence 
 they  deduced  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father, 
 and  the  Suhor^Iination  of  the  Son  -^  and  fo  pre- 
 ferved  the  Unity  of  God  :  Always  and  //;//- 
 formly  declaring,  the  Will  of  the  Fr.ther  to  be 
 the  Original  Caufe  of  every  Thing  ;  and  that 
 the  Will  of  the  Son  afts,  not  (as  j)6?/,  without 
 any  colour  either  from  Scripture  or  Antiqui- 
 
 ^- J5<^-  ty,  exprefs  your  felfj  '' /;/  concert  ^^*  but 
 ever  in  oleaience  to^  the  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 ther. 
 
 P,  134.  The  groundlefsnefs  of  your  "  DiflinHion  of 
 "  a  Toreefold  Generation  of  the  Son^''  Qtwice 
 before  the  Creation,  and  once  at  his  Incarna- 
 tion,] has  been  already  fliown  ahove^  pag.  262, 
 
 (^I^    Tovc,  Xiyovrecq uyavyiTot  rov  vicy,  »)  ori  v  /3j<A»j(rf<  jJJf  Ss- 
 
 xXaa-U.    Sociat.  Hift.  Ecclef.  lib.  i.  c.  15.  P.  551,  553. 
 
 (1)  Jrejuus,  lib.  i.  c.  I.  afid  lib.  2.  c.  16,  17,  18,  19,  22,13, 
 24.     TertuU.  aclvcrf,  Valentin,  ct*  Traefcript.  adv.  Haer.  c.  30. 
 
 and 
 
Qii.  VIII.  the  JVill  of  the  Father.  ^77 
 
 a?jd  271.     And  "  writing  of  Hiflory  hy  Inven-  p,  loii 
 tior/^''    you    know,    ''  is  really   Romancing.*^ 
 Either  the  Second  of  the  Two  oAnte-mmidane 
 Generations^  (which  is  the  (i)  0?ily  one  the 
 eAntients  ever  call  by  that  Name,)    muft  be 
 real  and  proper  ;  and  then,  what  you  call  his 
 Firfi  Generation^,  can  be  but  7tominal  only  ; 
 QFof  otherwife,  what  Room  can  there  be  for 
 the  Generatipg  again  of  a  Perfon  who   was 
 compleatly  generated  before  ?]  Or  elfe  his  Firft 
 Generation^  (never  fo  called  by  thQ  oAntients^^ 
 muft  be  real  and  proper-^    and  then  his   Se- 
 c^;/^/ Generation  (though  Tbat  Jlone  thQ  An^ 
 tients  ever  call  by  That  name,)    can  be  no- 
 thing more  than  a   mere  Figure  of  Speech. 
 For,  H^hat  of  reality  can  there  be  in  a  Second 
 Generation  of  Him^   who,    being  abfolutely 
 immittahle^    could  not   but  of    neceflity   be 
 Before  it  every  thing  that  he  could  be  After 
 it  ?  Nor  will  you  ftand  to  it,  though  you  are 
 perpetually  fuppofing   it,  that  there  can  be 
 Any  Change^  fo  much  as  even  of  a  Mode  of 
 Fxiftence^  in  the  unchangeable  Self-exiftent 
 God.     Here  therefore  you  are  moft  inconfift- 
 ently  co?ifident  and   diffident  at  once.     What 
 you  call  the  ''  Firfl  Generation  "   of  the  Son, 
 is,  (you  fay)  his   ''.  Mofi  TROTER  Filia-  ?,  134, 
 
 <'  tton: ///  refpeti  ofwhich^  Chiefly^,  he  is  ^35* 
 
 "  the  Ofily-Begottefi^  and  a  dijtinH  Perfon  from 
 "  the  Father :  His  Other  Generations  were 
 *'  rather  Condefcentions  "  &c.      And   yet  at 
 
 (i)  Bis  natus  efl  :  Pritnttnif  de  Deo  in  Spiritu,  ante  Ortum 
 mundi  :  Poftmodum  in  carne,  ex  Homine.  La^fant»  Eftu- 
 «.  43- 
 
 T3  thf 
 
ajS  T^he  Son  tegotten  by 
 
 the  fame  time,  in  fpeaking  of  this  FirJlGejie- 
 
 p.  13s.  ration^  "  the  Ante-I^iccnt  Writers  (you  ac- 
 *'  knowledge)  are  more  ff>aring  than  tbofe  that 
 "  came  afctr  ;"   Only  they  faid  things,  which 
 
 P'  ^l^^-  (you  tliink)  "  amount  to  it  by  necejjary  ImpU- 
 *'  cationJ^'     Thefe   Authors    (you    contefs,) 
 
 ^'  '■^^'  *'  J/ifiin,  Jthenagoras,  Tbeoj^bihs,  Tatian^ 
 "  Terttdlian^  and  Hippolytt^s^  make  the  Gene- 
 ''  ration  Temforary^  and  [peak  NOT  txprefs- 
 
 ^-  '*^^-  ^^  ly  of  any  otherP  ''  Novatian  (you  fay) 
 "  averted  uoth-P    But  when   you   cite  the 
 
 P'  M^"  PafTage,  your  Inference  does  but  '^  feefn  to  he 
 *'  the  mojl  prohableconfivuciion  of  the  Fajjage.^'^ 
 Thefe  Authors  (you  tell  us  ^farther)    ajjerted 
 
 p.  i4'5.  the  co-eternity  of  the  Aoy©",  tho'  '^  Not  con- 
 *'  fideredfrecifely  under  the  furmality  of  a  Son  :'*' 
 But  yet,  according  to  Bifhop  Btdl^    they  All 
 
 i\  147-  (^'  except  ytfti'i)  MUST  be  under jiood  to 
 *'  have  believed  the  real  and  difiinci  Perfna- 
 "  lity  of  the  Son^  before  the   Temporary  Pro- 
 
 P-  154.  ^'  cejjion   or    Generation.''^       And,     "    77?/^ 
 
 P'  158.  ''  SEEMS  to  infinuate^  i^c?'  And  ''The 
 "  eternal  co-exiflence  of  the  Son  ^  I  fjonld 
 ''  RATHER   fay,   of  the    Wordr      And, 
 
 i\  158.  ^'  Tertullian  and  Ot hers''*  thought  the  Word 
 ^'  had  been,  as  it  u^ere,  qtiiefcent  and  unope- 
 ^'  rating  from  all  Eternit).''  And,  '^  Hippo^ 
 **  Ijtus  carried  this  Notion  fo  fir,  as  to  think 
 ''  the  Filiation  not  com^leated,  till  Eifc."  And, 
 *'  Others  might  perhaps  reafon  in  like  manner^ 
 *'  thinki?ig  him  to  have  been  the  Word  before 
 "  his     Procejfion,    but   not    a    Son^      And, 
 
 r.  15S,  ^'  qAII  This  is  True,  in  fome  S^nfe^   and  whe7i 
 
 «59-        -}  r:^hth  explained:'    And,    ''  Other  Fathers 
 
 ^'  con^ 
 
Qu.  Viri.  the  Will  of  the  Father.  ^J9 
 
 ''  confidering^  TRO'BJBLT;'  &c.  And, 
 ''  e.4fter  Arius  arofe^  the  CathoUcks  found  it  p-  ^^o, 
 -'  highly  7iectf[ary  to  ivjift  much  &c."  Other- 
 wife,  ''  an  explicit  ProfeJJion  of  Eternal  Ge-  p.  i6i. 
 "  neration  anight  have  heen  difpenfed  with?"^ 
 And,  ^^  If  any  one  difliking  the  Name  or  the 
 "  Thrafe  of  eternal  Generation^  thinks  it  let- 
 "  ter  to  ajfert  an  eternal  Word^    infiead  of  an 
 
 "  eternal  Son  ^ there  feems  to  he  no  farther 
 
 ''  harm  in  it^  than  what  lies  in  the  words ^  and 
 <'  their  liahlenefs  to  he  mif.onflrued  or  to  give 
 "  Offence:' 
 
 After  all  This^   the  PalTages  you  alledge 
 to  prove  that  the  Logos  was  Q.4lwaj's  in  the 
 Father,  are  entirely  wide  of  the  Queftion  be- 
 tween us.      For  if,   by  That  Term,    thofe 
 Writers  at  any  time  mean  the  internal  Rea- 
 fon  onWifdom  of  the  Father,   without  which  p.  14^, 
 the  Father  himfelf  would  be  ^  void  of  Reafonl'^l'J^* 
 or  VVijdom  ^  'tis  evident  This  is  tiot  only  Eter-o^^o-oip^-. 
 nal,  h\M  fo  Eternal,  as  to  have  aSelfexi/ient^ 
 underived,  unhegotten  Eternity.    But  when- 
 foever,  by  That  Term,  they  mean  the  Son^ 
 the  Perfon  begotten  of  the  Father ;    then,    of 
 what  Suhftance  foever  they    fuppofed  him  to 
 be,  and  in  what  maimer  foever  begotten  of 
 the  Father,  and  of  what  Duration  foever  an-  p.  136, 
 tecedent  to  all  time,  and  in  what  terms  foe-  ^37,140^ 
 ver  his  Generation   be  op^ofed  to  That  Pro-  '^^' 
 duftion  of  things  in  Time,  or  out  of  Nothing,  p,  i^r^ 
 which  we  call  Creation  ,   yet,  fince  they  al-  ^ss- 
 ways  exprefsly    and  uniformly   and  without 
 variation  declare  his  Generation  to  be  By  the 
 Tower  and  Will  of  the  Father,  and  never  call 
 
 T  4  any 
 
2.8o  T'he  Son  begotten  by 
 
 any  Neceffary  Refult  of  the  Father'*s  Exiflence 
 by  the  ^2.mt  oi  Generating  or  Btgetthig-^  'tis 
 manifwft  there  is  nothing  in  them,  that  is  at 
 all  to  your  Purpofe. 
 
 There  remain  only  fome  incidental  things 
 in  your  Reply,  to  be  taken  notice  of  under 
 This  Head. 
 ?.  13S.  How  abfurdly  you  alledge  for  yourfelf  a 
 Paffage  out  o{ o/HexanJer  oiAlexandriay  which 
 is  dircftly  againft  you ;  has  been  fliown 
 /?^cz;.%  p.  2<;4,  Evidently,  Alexander  does 
 not  there  oppofe  (as  you  imagine)  Necejja- 
 ry  Exigence  to  SelfExiftefi^e^  but  a  Deri- 
 ved Eternity  to  a  NecejJ'ary  or  Self-exijlent 
 Eternity, 
 ^'  Mi,  Your  referring  to  Jthanajim  for  the  Opini- 
 ^*^"^'  on  of  Two  Antient  Diom/iuj^s -^  and  citing 
 an  Epiftlc  of  one  of  them,  ''  IF  it  he  his  ," 
 and  the  Senfe  of  Pampbilus  and  Origtn^ 
 "  IF  we  may  rely  on  the  TranJIator  :^''  is 
 giving  your  Reader  Ntimhers  inftead  oi 
 Weight. 
 
 To  prove  that  (in  the  Opinion  of  the  Jn- 
 tients)  That  i?iter/ial  Reafon^  without  which 
 the  Father  would  be  (ctAoy©-)  void  of  Reafon^ 
 was  as  much  a  real  difttntt  Perjon^  as  the 
 Only  begotten  Son  of  God^  when  called  by 
 F.  147.  That  Name  ;  you  obferve  that  ''''the  Pojt* 
 Nicene  Writers^  who  undoultedly  took  the 
 Aoy@-,  or  Word^  to  be  a  real  eternal  Perfon^ 
 yet  make  ufe  of  the  fame  way  of  ReafonijigP* 
 *^  Sometimes  indeed  they  inconfillcntly  do  to. 
 
 And 
 
 (C 
 
 ftC 
 
Qu.  VIII.    the  Will  of  the  Father.  28  i 
 
 And  at  other  times  they  (i)  no  lefs  exprefs* 
 ly  condemn  this  Notion  of  [^Aoy©^  lmSir(^ 
 and  TTgo^ogi/co;,"]  the  interval  and  the  emitted 
 Reafon  of  the  Father.  '  But  you  obferve  fur- 
 ther : 
 
 Fir/l ;    That    ''  hefore  the  Generation^   of  p.  148. 
 *'  which  the  Antients  f^ealz^  they  fei_ppoJe  the 
 "  Father  not  to  have  been  oAlone  ^    vihich  is 
 "  hard  to  make  fenfe  of  if  they  meant  only 
 
 *'  that  he  was  with  his  own  Attributes ;. ^ 
 
 "  that  he  was  Wife,  Sec.'''  The  Queftion  here, 
 is  not,  how  hard  the  thing  is  to  be  under- 
 ftood,  but  what  is  the  Meaning  of  a  Wri- 
 ter's Words.  (2)  Tat i an  fays  :  *'  God  was 
 "  [/^avo^"]  Alone^  inafmuch  as  nothing  was  yet 
 "  \ext entail)^  produced :  But  inafmich  as  he 
 *'  bad  within  himfelf  the  Power  of  producing 
 '^  all  Things,  all  Things  might "  in  This  knk 
 "  befaidto  be  with  him-'"''  And  thus  he  was 
 not  Alone :  ^'  For  by  his  rational  Power^''  [i,  e. 
 as  being  a  rational  oAgent,  AoyiyJ^  m,  fo  A- 
 thenagoras  •]  "  he  had  his  internal  Keafou 
 "  itfelf  jubjtfting  in  him?''  'Tis  remark- 
 able that  he  does  not  fay,  the  Word  or 
 Reafon  was  \y^o^  cLrjroi]  Prefent  With  him^ 
 but  was  [ey  dvTU)']  In  him.  Which  fhows 
 (as  Bafil  (j;  argues  againft   the  Sabellians^') 
 
 (i)  jithana f.Ex^oi".  Fid.  Bafil.Hom.i-j.  Cyril.  Hierofolym. 
 Catechef.  4.  Concil.Syrm.  apud  Socrat.  Hift.Ecclef.  lib. i.e.  15. 
 er  apud  Hilar,  de  Synod.  F.  230.  And  long  before  them  all, 
 by  Clem.   Alex.  Stromat.  5.    P,  547. 
 
 (2,)  See  Above,  P.  iio. 
 
 (3)  E«'  yus  "Ev  Kxp^M  w  0  Xoy(^,  [which  is  the  very  Exprejft' 
 on  of  Theophilus^  ttu^  ccv  hoyidii  S-£c?  j  7ra^  xv  fjv  T]po<;  tov  3-iov  ; 
 'E^iirx  an  6  ov  otv^^CiKru  Xoy'^,  uv6^oj7:(^-  art    H^'o?  ocurcv    itvot-t  Xt- 
 
 y«T«<,  kxX  '£v  avrf  [which  is  Tatian's  Expreffion.j  Homil.  ij. 
 
 that 
 
O  j^ 
 
 ^"he  Son  begotten  by 
 
 that  by  the  Word  or  Reafo7i  here  fpoken  of. 
 This  Author  did  not  mean  a  Perfon^  but  an 
 internal  Power  or  Property* 
 
 Theophilus  (ij  exprefles  it  Thus:  that  God 
 had  his  Word  or  Reafon^  in  his  Bowels^  in  his 
 Heart  -^  and  that  this  Word  or  Reajon  was 
 j^ga'jrS"  (p^Q)iy\(nf\  his  Wifdom,  which  he  after- 
 wards h^at  or  produced^  [^as  a  dirtind  Agcnt,3 
 before  the  Creation  of  the  World. 
 
 Jthenajroras  (2)  exprefTeth  his  Senfe  Thus: 
 That,  before  the  Generation  of  the  Son,  ^'God 
 "  being  [^d'iSU^g  Aoyixlf]  eterjially  rational^ 
 "-^  had  the  Word  or  Reajon  £gv  kur^]  in   him- 
 
 And  thus  (3)  Tertidlian.  "  Before  theCre- 
 ^'  ation  of  the  World,  until  the  Generation  of 
 
 the  Son, God  was  Jlone  :  Jlo?ie 
 
 with  Refpeft  to  any  Th'ng  external ;,  yet 
 even  Then  not  abfolutely  Jlone  ^  For  he 
 had  [^fecttnf]  with  him  [ratio?iem  fnam~]  his 
 own  Reafon^  which  he  had  \jn  femeiipfo']  in 
 *•'  Himfelf.  For  God  ^zs[_Ratio?ialis'^  endued 
 *'  with  Reafon  or  Wifdom.^'  But  as  to  the 
 Per/on  Begotten^  he  pre  fumes  exprefsly  to  de- 
 clare His  Notion,  (contr,  Hermog.  c,  5,J 
 that    "  there  was  a  time  when  the   Son  was 
 
 *'  notr 
 
 Laflly,  (4)  Hippoljtits  fays,  that  "  tho'  God 
 ^'  was  AW,  yet  he"  (even  thtUnbegotten 
 God  and  Father  ofal/^whom  he  is  there  fpcak- 
 
 (O  See  above,  P.  114.       (i)  See  above,  P.  107. 
 (3,)  S*^e  above,  P.  11 1,      (43  See  above,  P.  117. 
 
 ing 
 
Qu.VIII.     the  Will  of  the  Father.  185 
 
 ing  of,)  '^  was  [^ttoAuV]  Many  :  For  he  was 
 *'  neither  without  Reafon^  nor  without  Wif- 
 *'  dom^  nor  without  Poiver^  nor  without 
 ''  CounfeV  And  he  adds  prefently,  that  God 
 had  this  Word  or  Reafon  [jv  lctijrS~]  In  himfelf-^ 
 and  afterwards  begat  it  as  a  Light  from  a  Light. 
 The  Notion  of  Lkefe  Writers  (See  ahove^ 
 p.  109.  J  feems  to  have  been,  that  as  One  Fire 
 lights  Another  -^  fo  God,  from  his  own  inter- 
 nal  National  Power ^  produced  or  generated 
 That  intelligent  Rational  Jgefity  which  is  cal- 
 led his  Word  or  Wifdorn.  The  Word  therefore, 
 according  to  the  Notion  of  Thefe  Authors^  be- 
 fore its  being  Begotten,  was  not,  as  you  af-  ^-  i4^« 
 firm,  With  him^  [_^p^  durlh  apud  ilium,  Pre- 
 fentwith  him^  as  one  Perfon  with  another ,3 
 but  cruv  drjTc^j  in  the  Senfe  of  h  dvr^^  with 
 or  In  him,  as  his  internal  Reafon  :  Which 
 language  (as  I  juft  now  obferved  from  Bafd) 
 is  of  a  very  different  Signification.  And  (i) 
 Irenmts  argues  in  like  manner,  againft  all  /«- 
 ternal  Generations  or  Emiffions  ^  alledging 
 that  they  cannot  be  real  Perfons^  but  (2)  Pro- 
 perties  only, 
 
 (i)  Si  aiitem  non  emiffum  extra  patrem  ilium  dicent,  fed 
 In  ipfo  patrc;  primo  qiiidem  faperfluum  erit  etiam  dicere 
 emifjum  c^q  cum.  Quemadmodum  enim  emijjus  elt,  fi  intra. 
 patrem  erat  ?  Emifio  enim,  eft  ejus,  quod  emittitur,  extra 
 emittentem  manifeftatio.  lib.  i.  c.  17.  Speaking  againft  inter- 
 nal Generations  or  Emiffions,  which  the  Valentmians  contend- 
 ed for. 
 
 (1)  Si  autem  non  dicent  efle  emiftam  illam  extra,  fedaduna- 
 tam  Propatori;— neceffitas  eft  omnis — indifcretam —fieri ;— 
 
 &  unum  &idem  fict; &qu6d  non  poflit  alteram  fine  altero 
 
 intelligi,  quemadmodum  neq;  aqua  line  humedatione,  neq; 
 iijnis  line  Galore,  6cc.  ibid,  c.  14. 
 
 The 
 
21 8  4  The  Son  begot tm  ly 
 
 The  Propriety  of  the  Expreffion  of  a  Perfon 
 being  With  hmfelf\  Bifliop  Bull  will  warrant  : 
 Who  obferves  that  it  Is  commonly  faid,(ijA^^ 
 one  roas  xvit.h  me  bn*-.  myfelj, 
 
 F.  148^       To  your  Second  Obfervation,  of  the  ImprO" 
 
 ^49*  priety  of  God's  being  faid  to  converfe  and  con- 
 fidt  with  his  own  Attributes  ^  Tertullian^  upon 
 this  very  Argument,  anfwers  :  that  a  Man  (2) 
 converfes  with  his  own  Reafon^  talks  and  rea- 
 sons with  himfelf'^  and  that  the  Word  of  his 
 Alind^  is  a  Difcourfer  with  him, 
 
 p.  149'  Your  Third  Obfervation  is  ;  that  *^  if  the 
 '^  Word  was  a  real  Perfon  After  his  ProceJJioJi''^ 
 (^After  his  "-^  Generation^''  your  Argument  re- 
 quired you  to  fay)  "-^  from  the  Father^  (which 
 '^  is  not  difpiited-^)  he  muf}  have  been  jo  Be- 
 ''  fore''  I  anfwer ;  That  Generation^  before 
 which  the  Perfon  generated  was  every  thing 
 that  he  could  be  after  it,  is  I^^o  Generation  at 
 all.  Thofe  Writers  therefore,  who  make  the 
 Generation  of  the  Word  to  be  Temporary^  do 
 not  fuppof.^  the  Perfon  generated^  but  only  the 
 internal  rational  Power  of  God,  from  which  he 
 was  generated,  to  be  eternal. 
 
 p,  isr.  Your  Fourth  Obfervation  is  :  ^^Had  thefe 
 *'  Fathers  believed  the  Word  was  an  Attribute 
 ''  only^  or  Power ^  before  the  Generation  which 
 "  they  f peak  of-^  then  it  would  follow  that   the 
 
 (0  Nemo  erat  mccum  praeter  m»ipfum.  Befenf.  F.  N.c.6. 
 P'  iii.^. 
 
 (i)  Vide  ciim  tacitiis  tecum  ipfe  congrederis,  ratione ■ 
 
 loquaris  iliud  in  aniiuo  neceffe  eit:  Et  dum  loqucris,  conlocu- 
 icrem  p.neiis  Sernionem.     Adv.  Frax.  c.  5. 
 
 "  Son 
 
Qli.  VIII.  the  Will  of  the  Father.  285 
 
 ''  Son  was  properly  a  Creature^  g^  8>c  ovr^tjy,  in 
 "  Their  Opinion,^'*  1  anRver :  They  did  not 
 fuppofe  him  to  be,  l^  m  'oyrcch  from  Nothinj^^ 
 but  ix.  rS  'TtcLTp^-,  from  the  Father :  Being,  J 
 yey;^ei'o?,  (as  AthenagorasJ  and,  «  7toiy0u$^  (as 
 the  Council  of  Nice  exprelfed  it  5)  but  Gejie- 
 rated  (after  an  ineffabk  minntx)  from  an  nzf^- 
 w/?/  fubftantial  Power  of  the  Father,  by  his 
 ?^FiZ('  and  G W  Pleafure  ,  without  any  divifion^ 
 ahfciffion^  dlfnimttion^  or  alteration  whatfoever, 
 either  of  the  Subfiance  or  Powers^  of  the  fi^- 
 r/:^^r  himfelf.  And  therefore  the  Council  of 
 l^lice  declared  it  to  be  Their  Senfe,  that  he  ex- 
 ifled  Q'^gli'  yiTi'&McLil  before  he  was  begotten. 
 Which  Notion  of  "  Confubflantiality^'  how  />.  155, 
 far  it  is  from  inferring  That  Equd  Supremacy 
 of  independent  Authority^  which  is  the  only 
 Material  Point  in  queftion  between  us,  and  on 
 which  ALONE  depends  the  7>«f  Quejlion 
 concerning  the  Unity  of  God^  viz,  the  Qijeflion 
 whether  there  be  One  or  More  Supreme  Gover- 
 fwitrs  of  the  Univerfe  ^  appears  evidently  from 
 hence,  that  Many  Antient  Chriftian  Writers, 
 particularly  (i)    Tertullian^  (2)  Origen^    and 
 
 (i)  Deus  hominem,' iraaginem    &   Similitudinem 
 
 fuam,  immo8cS«(^y?(2«/'i^wfuam,per  an'miA {dXictt  cenlum,i!Jv:c. 
 ■In  ea  Subftantia,  quam  ab  ipfo  Deo  traxit,  id  til^ani- 
 m&.  Adv.  Marcion,  lib.  i.  c.  5.  Quoquo  modo  Subftant'm 
 Creatoiis,  delidti  capax.  \bid.  c.  9.  Tu,  non  tancum  fadus, 
 fed  etiam  ex  Subjlantia  ipiins  animatus,    Adverf.  Prax.  c.  5. 
 
 (1)  ferom.  tells  us,  that  Origen  taught,  in  his  lir/i  Book  de 
 Pr'mcipiis ;  omnes  rationales  Naturas,  id  eft,  Patrem,  (5c  Filium, 
 &  Spiritum  Sanflum,  Angelos,  Poteftates,  Dominationes,  cie- 
 teralq;  Virtutes,  ipfum  quoq;  hominem,  iecundum  Amm&  dig- 
 niutem,  «»/■«;  cH'q  Subfianti^,    E^ifi,  ad  Avir. 
 
 (i^  La  Ban- 
 
2.8(5  ^he  Son  begotten  hy 
 
 (i)  La&antius^  thought  even  Angels^  and 
 the  Souls  of  Men^  to  be  alfo  Confubjiantial 
 with  God,  or  generated  from  the  Divine  Sub- 
 fiance. 
 
 From  thefe  Notions  of  the  Antients,  'tis 
 very  apparent  that  they  looked  upon  Genera- 
 tion^  whether  Temporary  or  Eternal,  to  be  al- 
 ways a  different  thing  from  Self-exijient  inde- 
 pendent  u^derived  Eternity.  Which  may  be 
 ftill  more  clearly  illuftrated  from  Eufebius : 
 Who,  though  he  ftiles  even  the  A?}gelsy  (2) 
 ct;}^govH^,  Beings  exifting  before  all  Time  ;  and 
 frequently  aflerts  the  Generation  of  the  Son 
 to  have  been  (j J  from  begi?mi?jglefs  Ages^  yet 
 concerning  imoriginate  underived  Eternity  the 
 fame  Author  thus  emphatically  expreffes  him- 
 felf.  *'  Marcellus^  (^4)  fays  he,  imagines  and 
 <'  determines,  that  the  Word  of  God  is  eter- 
 *'  nal^  that  is,  Unbegotten.  Not  confidering, 
 *'  that  if  the  Wordht  diftinB  from  God,  then 
 *'  he  makes  two  Eternals^  the  iVord  2iX\d  God ^ 
 "  and  fo  there  is  no  longer  0?ie  Original  of 
 ^'  things.  But  if  he  fays  there  is  but  0?ie 
 *-'  eternal^  making  God  and  the  Word  to  be 
 "  the  fame;  then  he  is  openly  a   Sabellian.^* 
 
 (i)  Denique  ex  omnibus  Angelis,  quos  idem  Deus  tie  fuii 
 Jpintiius  figuravit,  &c.     LaHant.  Epit.  c.  41.  Edit,  D^vif, 
 
 (2)  De  Laud.  Conftantin.  p.  606. 
 
 (3 )  See  the  PaiTages  cited  in  Dr.  Clarke's  Scr'ipture'Do^r'me^ 
 Part  II,  §  17.^ 
 
 i^tv  uytw/jToy^  %oX\oCKic,  cu^troiro'  »  (riwo^w^  on  st'  fZ/tv  irtfev  T9u 
 ^•iou  Tti  Xoyot  ^urx.ii,  oijo  i<^xt  cctoiXy  a  AoyC^  x,Xi  6  Bsoq,  >^  j^'x.  iT 
 t^Xi  oc^xt,  fMiX'  li  ■)  tv  MyokTo  cc'i^iovy  'nv  kurov  ooi^ouuivcc,  sivxi  t* 
 ^■iov  Tu  Ad'yo',  vyM^yey  li*  'ZxQiXXm  o^aXoyiiru-  Dc  Ecclef.  Theol. 
 lib.  z.  c.  li. 
 
 Again  : 
 
Qu.  VIII.    the  Will  of  the  Father.  287 
 
 Again  :  "  The  Splendor^  (ij  fays  he,  is  c6. 
 "  exiftent  with  the  Luminous  Body,  being 
 "  completive  of  its  Exiftence:  For  without  the 
 ^*  Sflendor^  it  would  not  be  a  luminous  Body, 
 
 *' But  the  lather's  Exiftence  is  before  the 
 
 *'  Son's,  and  preceeds  his  Generation  j  he  be- 
 ''  ing  alone  Unbegotten.  He  is  alfo  of  Him- 
 "  fi^f  perfeft,  and  Firjl^  as  being  the  Father, 
 "  and  the  Caufe  qf  the  Son's  Subliftence  ;  re- 
 **  ceiving  nothing  from  the  Son  to  complete 
 *'  his  Divinity:  Whereas  the  5^;^,  proceeding 
 "  from  a  Caiife^  is  Second  to  him  whofe  Son 
 ''  he  is  ;  receivinf^^  from  the  Father  both  his 
 *'  Beings  and  his  being  what  he  isT  Again  : 
 The  only-begotten  Son,  he  Jays^  was  brought 
 forth  (2)  After  the  unoriginated  and  un- 
 begotten Subftance."  And  again :  Having 
 fpoken  very  highly  of  the  Son^  as  having  been 
 before  all  Ages^  and  cdexifling  Always  with  the 
 lather^  as  the  Odour  with  the  Unguent^  and 
 the  Splendour  with  the  Lumitious  Body -^  he 
 cautions  his  Reader  not  to  take  thefe  Simili- 
 tudes too  ftridly,  but  with  feveral  Reftriclions 
 and  Differences.    One  of  which,  is,  ''  that  (3) 
 
 I      (l)  'H  ^  ctvyK  crtwuTTu^^H  ru  ^un,  a-vf/t/'^XrjpaTiKV!  riq  iicrx  uvrcZ' 
 
 1  titviv  yuo  oc'jyvtc,  »'x  ctV  vsTDfflto)  (puc,' — O    ^   "Trctrvi^  TTf^ovTrocfi^^si  rS 
 
 c/t»,  y^  ^  y£V£(r£A'5  oivToZ  TrpovCpsf/jKiv,  vi  fj^v^^  uymriT©^  i^v,  Kxl  6 
 y,  y^ccil  sxvTvv  nXae^  x.on  crpa^r®^,  on;  TTxrvj^y  KXi  rvie,  roZ  utoZ  (rvrucs- 
 6o<i   cciTioc,^  5s<3fv  £<5  a-VfjjT>^sua-iv   t^5   ixvToZ  ^ioTijT(^  7rx(?cit    rev     biou 
 
 tuv,  TTX^  reZ  7rocTpo(i  KUi  TO  ilvxi,  Kx)  roio(r<y\i  a'vxt  ilXri(^a<;.  De- 
 mon. Evang.  lib.  4-  c.  3. 
 
 Cl)   MiTU  T/iV  oivUfi^ov  y^  oc,yt'jv/)re))i  i(rix,v.      ibid. 
 
 (3)  'Ovd\  ye  ctvoipy^toq  (ruvii<psTyiKi  rS  TTXT^i,  sVst   6  fjuiy  uyivvy^roc,  a 
 
 ir'^oMyyi<rniv.    Dem,  Evang.  lib.  5.  c.  i. 
 
 "  the 
 
 cc 
 
 (C 
 
288  The  Son  begotten  by 
 
 '^  the  Son  does  not  coexiil  with  the  Father 
 "  unoriginately  ^   the  One  being  Unhegotten^ 
 
 ''  and  the  other  Begotten: But  every  one 
 
 '^  mull  needs  confefs,    that  the  Father  Is  and 
 *^  fubfills  before  the  Son."     And  another  Dif- 
 ference,  he  fays,  is;    that   (i)    "  the   Light 
 *'  JImeth  not  forth  by  the  Wtll  of  the  Lumi- 
 *'  nous  Bodyy  but  by  a  necejfary  Property  of  its 
 *'  Nature :  But  the  Son  of  God^  is^  by  the  De* 
 *'  fig^^  ^-^^  ^^^^^  ^f  ^he  Father,   his  Subfiantial 
 ''  Image.'''     Which,  by  the  way,  fhows  your 
 great  unfuirnefs  in  referring  frequently  to  this 
 P.  M5» ^'similitude  of   '•''the  Sun   and  its  Rays^^  and 
 ^^^*        particularly  in  your  citing  'from  Eufebius  thefe 
 words,     (yevvcc  /^ev    Sv  >cocl  o    y\M(^    ry\v  cLuyy]]i^J 
 "  the  Sun  generates  Light  ^"     without  ever 
 taking  notice  that  the  word,  "Begetting^  when 
 applied  either  not  to  a  Livi?ig  Agent,    or  not 
 to  the  Will  of  the  Agent,  is  merely  a  Poeti- 
 cal or  Rhetorical  Figure  of   Speech  ,     and 
 that  if  the  Father  begat  the  Son  by  the   fame 
 neceffity  of  Nature  as  the  Sun  begets  its  own 
 Rays,  (which  are  indeed  the  Sun  itjelf  under 
 a  partial  confideration  ;;  the  Son  would  not 
 />;  Truth  be  any  more  really  a  So?;,  or  really 
 Begotten,  than  the  Father  himfelf-^  but  would 
 be  as  truly  the  One  God  and  Father  cf  all,  as 
 the  Father  himfelf  is  fo. 
 
 Novatian  in  like  manner  fays,  that  the  Son 
 "  v<:as  always  in  the  Father''^  And  yet  the 
 fame  Author,    fpeaking  of  the  Father's  wt^ 
 
 0  See  above,  p.  122. 
 
 originate 
 
Qii.  VIII.    the  Will  of  the  Father.  iSp 
 
 originate  Eter?iity^  fays,  that  (i)  "  the  Father 
 '''  is  Before  the  Son,  becaufe  he  mufl:  needs 
 *'  be  Prior  to  him,  as  being  his  Father  :  It  be- 
 *'  ing  neceffiry  in  itfelf,  that  he  who  is  uno- 
 "  rigtnatej  fhould  be  before  him  who  is  origi- 
 <*  nated,  and  htSuperiour  to  him.'*  That  "f^^ 
 ^'  (2)  Father  Only  is  umriginated  ^"  Qand  there- 
 fore, in  the  Eminent  fenfe,]  "  Oiily  inviftbk^ 
 ^*  Only  incomprehenfible^  Only  immortal,  Only  Eter^ 
 *'  Tial,  Sec."  That  (3)  ''if  the  Son  were  not  be- 
 "  gotten,  it  would  follow^  that  being  Self-exiff- 
 "  ent^  and compar ed with  him  [the  FzthQv']  who 
 *'  is  Self-exiftent,  their  Equality  in  This  refpeEi^ 
 *^  as  being  Two  Self-exiftents,  would  make  Two 
 
 *'  Gods. If  he  were  Invifible"  [in  the  like 
 
 Eminent  fenfe,]  ''  it  would  follow^  that  being 
 *'  compared  with  Him  who  is  Invifible,  their 
 '*  Equality  in  This  refpe^^  as  bei?ig  Two  In- 
 *'  vifibles,  would  make  Two  Gods.  In  like 
 •'  manner^  if  he  were  "  [in  the  fame  Eminent 
 fenfe]|  "  Incomprehenfible,  arid  whatever  elfs 
 *'  is  peculiar  to  the  Father  ^  we  acknowledge 
 "  there  would  have  been  jufi  ground  to  charge 
 "  us  with  making  Two  Gods." 
 
 (i)  Quia  &  Pater  ilium  etiam  praecedir;  quod  necelTe  ed 
 Prior  fit,  qua  paicr  lit.  Quoniam  antecedat  neceffe  eft  eunl 
 qui  habet  Originem,  iUe  qui  Originem  nefcit.  Simul  ut  hie 
 Minor  lit  &c      De  Frmit.  c.  31. 
 
 (z)  Eft  ergo  D^us  Pater folus  Originem  nefciens,  in- 
 
 vilibilis,  immenfu>,  immortaHs,  aeternus,  ct'c.  c  31. 
 
 (3)  Si  enim  natus  non  fuiifet ;  innauu,  comparatus  cum  eo 
 qui  eflet  innacus,  Aquatione  in  utroque  oflensa  duos  faceret 
 Innatos,  8c  ideb  /iaos  facerv^t  Deos.  iSi  Invifibilis  fuilfeti 
 
 cum  Invifibili  collatus,/'/7rexpreirus,  duos  Invifibiles  oftendifTet, 
 Sc  ideo  c^Mos  comprobaflet  &  Deos.  Si  incomprehenfibiiis,  li  6c 
 caetera  quaecunque  funt  Patris ;  merito,  dicimus,  ditontm  Deo- 
 rum 'Controverfiam  fufcitaflet.  ibid, 
 
 U  Me- 
 
tt  po  of  the  'Eternity  of  God. 
 
 Methodius  fays  indeed,  as  you  cite  him,  that 
 
 T,  143.  Chrifl's  ''  being  a  Son^   is  indejinitelj'  expreffed 
 
 '*  without  any  Limitation  of  Titne.''^     And   yet 
 
 the  fame  Author  ftiles  him  (according  to   the 
 
 Language  of  thofe  Times;    "  the  (1)  firji-be- 
 
 gotten 
 
 diuvuv,  Kccl  TrpZroii  rm  '  Af^^ccyyi/Mv.  Upon  which  Exprefjions,  the 
 Learned  Valefius  obferves.  Intelligendum,  falva  aeternitate  & 
 Confubilantialitate  cum  patre,Vcrbi  ejufdem,  Simul  in  memo- 
 riam  revocandum,  Patres  plerofq;  Nic&na  Synodo  priores, 
 m'miis  exadte  iaterdum  de  divinis  Perfonis  locutos;  ut  lingilla- 
 tim  demonftrat  Petavms,  lib.  r.  de  Trinit.  cap.'^.  Not.  6;  inter 
 eos  quoque  McthodiHm  numerans,  c.  4,  Nu7n.  11.  Atq;  hind 
 occafionem  Photio  datam  lufpicor  acirionendi,  hoc  opus  fuiiTe 
 depravatum  Artants  Opinionibus  immiftis.  Quod  non  obflat 
 quin  utiliter  edatur;  fi  ratio  fimilis  non  prohibuit  quin  lauda- 
 biliter  &  bono  publico  in  Lurem  producerentur  fcripta  Jujiini 
 Martyrjs,  Athsnagordy  Tatiani,  Theophili,  Iren&iy  dementis 
 utriufq;  Rcmani  6c  Alcxandrini,  Origenis,  Dionyfii  Alexandria 
 ni,  Gregorii  Thaitmattirgi,  Luciani  Martyris,  Tertulliani,  LaHan- 
 tii,  &  fimilium;  ?,Dud  quos  inulto  diiriora  in  hoc  genere  le- 
 guntur,  quam  apud  Methodiitm  noflrum.  Valef.  Not.  in  Me* 
 thodium  de  Conviv.  Virg.  P.  33. 
 
 Nonnullis  veterum  ilia  de  Divinitate  ac  perfonarum  in  ea 
 cliverfitate  infederat  opinio,  Unum  effe  Summum,  ingenitum, 
 
 neq,  afpeftabilem  deum.- Turn  autem  a  fupremo  Deo  ac 
 
 Patre  [veibum]  piodu6lum  elTe  dixerunt,  ciim  hanc  rerum 
 iiniverlitatem  moliri  flatuit,  ut  ilium  velut  Adminiftrum  habe- 
 ret.  Quam  fententiam  alii  clariiis,  obfcurius  alii  fignificant. 
 Sod  ifli  fere,  Athenagoras,  Tatianusy  TheophiUij  Tertullianui  &C 
 La6lantius.  Tarn  ii  verb,  quam  alii,  ut  Origcncs ;  /Evo,  Dig- 
 nitatc,  ac  Potentia  Superiorcm  elTeVerboPatrem  arbitrati  funt; 
 Petav.  Theol.  Dogm.  de  Trinit.  Tom.  2.  /.   i.  c.    5.  §  7. 
 
 Inter  Chiillianos  Dodlores,  qui  ante  Nic^nnm  floruerunt  Sy- 
 nodum,  multi  \jitxtcr  Grigejiem^  de  Trinitatis  myflcrio  parinn 
 caute  locuti  funt.  Inlinccra  certc  fait  Tatianiy  6:  Tatiano  ve- 
 tuilioris  ^ujiini,  de  Trinitate  dodiina.  In  eandem  venit  crimi- 
 liationem  yfeudv-Cle7ucns,  venit  &  Theophilus  Antiochenus.  In- 
 digna  verb  ik  intoleianda  profudcrunt  Tertullianns  &  La^an- 
 sius;  Clemens  quoq;,  Dionyfiusy  Sz  PieriuSj  Alexandrin'i ;  aliiq; 
 
 complurcs. Non  in  iis  folum,  fed  in  aliis  etiam  ad  ChrilH 
 
 gencrationem  6c  Spiritus  Sancfli  procellioncm  pertinentibus,  6c 
 liic  queni  dico  Terinllianusy  &  alii  pleriq;  ex  antiquiffimis  Do- 
 c^oribHS  6c  Nkcn^  fynodo  antcrioribus,  Origenis  impietatem, 
 
 fdicam  .'*) 
 
Qiu  VIU.  Of  the  Eternity  of  Cod.  1 9 
 
 ^'  gotten^  and  the  fir  ft  Prodii3io7i  of  God,  the 
 "  mojl  Antieiit  of  the  jEons'^  (or  Celeftial 
 Beings,)  *'  andthe  firjl  of  the  Archangels.''' 
 
 Alexander  of  Alexandria^  in  the  Place  above 
 
 referred  to,/?.  254,  and  280 J  infifts  that  "nei- 
 
 "  therthe  word,  Always-^  nor  Before  all  Ages  •, 
 
 "  nor  any  Other  Words,  amount  to  the  fame 
 
 r'  as  being  Qlyiy^r@^')  Unoriginate  or  Self  ex- 
 
 *'  flenty      Wherefore  (he  (i)  adds)   we  mujl 
 
 }"  rejerve  to  the  Selfexijient'^    [or  Unoriginal 
 
 Ited^  ''  Father,  his  peculiar   Dignity.''     And  , 
 
 **  ]Ve  (2)  w?//?  referve  to  the  Father,   the  pe- 
 
 *'  cidiar  Property  of  Self  exi fie  nee''     And  ;,  (3) 
 
 ^*  r/^^  /F<?r<i  tCJ^j    7i'it  Unorigi7iate  "    [or  S^//- 
 
 \exiftent  ;>]  ^'  iv<?r  jYothin^  is  Unoriginate^    he- 
 
 *'  /^j-  the  Father."     And  Bafil :   f^J  But  the 
 
 I*'  Title  ("fays  hej  of  Unoriginated,  no  Man  can 
 
 I*'  l^efo  abfurd  as    to  prefume  to  give  to   Any 
 
 1"  Other ^  than  to  the  Suprerne  God:"   Speaking 
 
 jpf  the  Perfon  of  the  Father^   in  exprefs  con- 
 
 jpadiftinaion  both  to  the  Only-begotten  and  to 
 
 the  Holy  Spirit.     And  again :  "  We  (5)  know 
 
 4j''  hitOneUnbegotten"  [oi  Self  exifietit^"^^'  and 
 
 '  [dicam  ?)  an  imperitiam,  vel  aequdrunt  vel  fuperarunt,  Jujli- 
 nusy  Athenagorasy  Theophilus  Ant'tochenus^  Tatiantu^  ipfe  Ter- 
 'ullianusy  6c  Latlant'ms.     Huet.  Origenian.   P.  36,  45. 
 
 Epiji.  ad  Alex,  apud  Theodorit.  lib,  i. 
 
 ("L)  To^' AyivvyiTov  tm  vicir^i f/^vov  i^iUi/jcc  TTcc^sTvai  ^o^oi(^ovr£c.  ibid. 
 3)    ^^X>  ^^'  ' Ay i'jvr)T<^  viv  h  ylc^  'Aysvojroc,  0  Trctrn^.  ibid, 
 
 (^4)  ' Ay ivr/^Tov  j,  ^auq  »rw5  i^crj  'rrcivriXZ<i  ift  tow  ^povuv,  co^b  rcX- 
 'jjKc-ut  iTifov  TTMr  Tou  S"£o«  T6t)v  oXuv  fT^ocTtfcyo^ £worc6<.  Contr,  Eunorrn 
 'ib,  3. 
 
 (^9  Evcc  yuf  oi^ccfjuev  'AymviTov,  j^  yjixv  rav  TrnvTuv  ^-^X^^i  "^^^ 
 ■■i/.Ti^oc  ToZ  fiv^in  itfjuav  'Iwou  x^i^oZ,  Epifi.  78. 
 
 U  2  ''  One^ 
 
2^1  Of  the  Eternity  of  Cod. 
 
 ^^  One  Original  of  all  things  -^  even   the  Father 
 *'  of  our  Lord  Jefns  Chriflr 
 
 From  thefe  Paffages,  the  Reader  will  judge 
 with  what  Truth  you  afRrm,  in  your 
 ^.  153-  Firjl  Obfervation  upon  Juftin^  that  fome- 
 times  "  (l'yiynrt(^  is  not  confidered  as  the  Per- 
 *'  fonal  CharaEler  of  the  Father^  and  as  fig^ 
 *'  nifying  Unbegotten  ,  hut  as  it  belongs  to 
 ''  the  To  S-eTo;/  [the  Divine  Nature^  and  de- 
 "  notes  |^only3  Eternal^  uncreated^  ifnfnutable 
 ^'  Exiflence^''  and  fo  "  is  applicable  to  the  Son.'' 
 You  might  as  well  have  faid,  that  Any  Words 
 (hall  fignify  at  any  lime,  v^^hatever  you  pleafe 
 to  have  them.  Sometimes  the  word  ciymy\T@* 
 {hall  fignify,  Unbegctten  ,  and  then  it  muft 
 not  be  an  Effential^  but  a  Perfonal  Charader. 
 At  other  times  it  muft  mean,  not  unbegotten^ 
 but  only  eternal^  immutable^  uncreated  ^  and 
 then  it  fliall  not  be  a  Perfonal,  but  an  Effe?itiat 
 Charader ;  including  (by  a  direfl:  contradiBi- 
 on  to  the  etymology  of  the  Word,  as  well  as  to 
 the  Ufe  of  it  in  All  Antient  Writers,)  both 
 Him  that  is  Begotten^  as  well  as  him  that 
 is  Unbegotte?u  In  reality,  the  word  dyewy^ro^^ 
 as  (i)  Henrjf  Stephens  juftly  obferves,  never 
 does  nor  can  fignity  any  thing  but  Ufibegotten : 
 Nor  have  you  the  leaft  Ground  from  Any 
 Antient  Writer  whatfoever,  for  any  other 
 Senfe  of  it.  Particularly  This  is  evidently 
 the  meaning  ot  it  in  every  Pa/Tage  throughout 
 the  Writings  of  Jif/iin,  who  never  any  where 
 
 (i)  Not.  in  Atheuag.  P.  19. 
 
 ftiles 
 
Qu.  VIII.  Ofthe  Eternity  of  Cod.  295 
 
 ftiles  the  Son  cLyevyy]r(^,     *Tis  apparent  in  all 
 
 your  own  Citations  from  him,    and   very  re-  p.  152. 
 
 markably  in  your  N^  4  and  6.  "  The  (1)  Father 
 
 "  of  all^  Z'^i;;^  Unbegotten, -'but  the  Son, 
 
 *'  exifting  with  him,  and  being  Begotten,  c^^.'* 
 Your  Argument  from  ^' cty^^vr^r®^ "  being 
 *'  equivalent  to  a(^3'ctgT@^,"  that  therefore 
 *^  Jujlin  MUST  have  believed''  (in  direft  p.  153. 
 contradiSIion  to  his  own  and  all  other  Chri- 
 ftian  Writers  exprefs  declarations,)  ''  that  dfev- 
 *'  v>ir@-,"  confidered  as  an  effential  Charader, 
 *'  is  applicable  to  the  Son:'^  is  juft  fuch  an  Ar- 
 gument, as  if  one  fliould  prove  that  St.  Paul 
 MUS  T  have  believed  (in  direfl:  contradidlion 
 to  his  own  AiFertion,)  that  0  jjlow^  t^cc'j  olB^clvcl- 
 aUv  [who  only  hath  Immortality']  is  not  a  pe- 
 culiar defcription  of  the  Inviftble  God,  becaufe 
 Others  alfo  are  \J!^l'icLro{]  Immortal. 
 
 In  a  Marginal  Note  you  alledge,  ''  that  the  ^*  iss- 
 *'  Words  clyiyr^r%^  a?id  ayev^jT©^,  7mth  double 
 *'  or  fingle  v,  have  been  itfed  very  promifcuoujly 
 ^^  in  Authors ;"  And  that  "  the  Son  is  proper- 
 *'  ly  cLyiv^r^,  as  well  as  the  Father'^  I  an- 
 fwer  :  No  Antient  Chrtfiian  Writer  ever  made 
 any  other  promifcuous  Ufe  of  the  Words, 
 than  fo  as  Always  to  mean  by  [dymyjr(^^'] 
 Ufibegotten :  And  they  generally  mean  the 
 fame  alfo  by  aLyiv)]r@^,  fhe  word  aycW©^ 
 indeed  w^^poflibly  fometimes,  {Stephens  brings 
 (2)  one  Inftance  out  of  Ari(lotle,']  in  the  Fla- 
 
 (l)  Ta>  Tmvrav  Tcfrrpt,  "'AyivvyiTco  ovri.         '     >'0  S  c<*o^, .         '  ■ 
 
 (z)  Not.  in  Athenag,  P.  19. 
 
 U  3  r^//ii;i: 
 
291-  Of  the  'Eternity  of  God. 
 
 tonrck  or  Stoick  Philofopliy  fignify,  not  made  ; 
 in  oppofition  both  to  things    made  out  of  no- 
 thin  q- ,  ?nd   to   the   Self-ex'^ftent  God:   (Such 
 were  the  cfyevy^roi  3fio\  of  the  Stoicks  and  Plato- 
 nifts^  fuppoicd  to  be  produced,  not  out  of  No- 
 thln^^    but  out  of  the  (i)  Subftance  of  the 
 Selfexiftent  God  i)  But  the  Antient  Chrifltan 
 Writers  made  not  (that  I  can  hndj   any  fuch 
 Diftinftion  in  the  Ufe  of  Th'is  Word.     When- 
 ever they   ftiled  God  dyin^r©^^    they  meant 
 the  fame  as    \jLymy\r(^']  Unbegotten,      Or  if 
 it  could   be  prov'd   that  ctyaW®-    in  Thefe 
 Writers  ever  fignify'd  unmade^  in  Diftinftioa 
 from  Unbegotten  ;   and  even   that  This  Title 
 was  ever  given  by  them  to  the   Son  of  God\ 
 it  would  ftill  be  nothing  to  your  Furpofe.    It 
 would  not  hence  follow  that  the  Son  might  be 
 ftiled  (ly'vmxr(^^  which  always  and  neccllarily 
 {x'^m'iAzilJnbegoiten'^  though  the  Father  who 
 is  \dr/tmcL%^'^  Unbegotten^  might   unqucftio- 
 nably  be  ftiled    |^ccyev>|T©-]     Unmade.      But 
 indeed  ^    as  "Jnfiin  never  ftiled    the  Son  dyi- 
 v^T@-,  any  more  than  cty.^vi/MT@-'  -^    fo  you  are 
 wrong  alfo   in  every  one  of    the  Other  An- 
 tient  Writers  you  alledge    to  this   Purpofe. 
 ^«  153-  IgJiatius  never  ftiles  the  Son  dyi]/y\r(^.     In  his 
 fmaller  Epiftle  to  the  Ephejians.  cap.  7,  he  indeed 
 once  ftiles    him    yirjrfvo^  y-cti.  dymyir^^y    o-x§x.{- 
 :ios  y^cLi  TrnvLioLTixo^^  rrctS^yirog  -/.cn  cl^ol^-/]^*  Which 
 is   the  Palfige,   I  fuppofe,    you  mean.     But 
 There,   ciyimjo^  is  plainly  fet    in  oppofition 
 
 (l)  'Trip  .^£cw  iK>,uiJj'prD[/jivoi:  And,  f/Jp^si  and  A^Tjff-^tr/tt/^Tfift  S^a. 
 SimpliC'  in  Jirljlot.  Th^jf.  fol.  165. 
 
 only 
 
Qu.  VIII.  Of  the  Eternity  of  God.  ap  J 
 
 only  to  Humane  Generation  :  and  therefore 
 is  nothing  to  your  Furpofe.  Nor  does  Ire- 
 nmts^  that  I  can  find,  ftile  him  clyi)iy]r@^.  You 
 fhould  have  cited  the  Places,  if  you  had  them 
 ready.  If  you  mean  the  word,  infeBu^^  in 
 the  (i)  Lati7i  Tranflation,  (in  a  Paffage  which  p.  103, 
 you  refer  to  more  than  once,)  lib.  2,  ^.45,  '^3»i97. 
 al  2$'^  it  is  not  certain  how  That  was  writ  in 
 the  Original,  And  befides  ^  tlie  word,  infeBus^ 
 in  That  Place,  moft  probably  refers  to  the 
 Father^  not  to  the  Son  :  As  will  appear  to  ^ 
 Reader  who  confiders  the  connexion  of  the 
 whole  Paffage.  Origen^  in  (2)  one  fmgle 
 Place,  has  dyi^ro)/  applyed  to  the  Son  :  But 
 the  Paffage  is  evidently  corrupt.  For  the 
 word  iyi^ro^^  is  no  where  elje  ufed  by  him 
 concerning  the  Son  :  And  the  Sen[e  of  the 
 whole  Paffage,  and  the  Terms  Trgajroropc©-  and  . 
 ytmacLc,  dxi'xm  immediately  following,  fhow  fo 
 evidently  to  an  attentive  Reader  the  impro- 
 priety of  clyevy]r(^  in  This  place,  that  Geleni- 
 us  the  Tranflator  renders  it  ab  sterna  genitum^ 
 diiyerjy^rovj  And  'tis  moft  probable,  the  true 
 Reading  is,  yiwnrov,  Laflly,  Athenagorash  [« 
 yevo^^evovj  not  made^  is  fo  far  from  being  an 
 Argument  (^as  you  would  infinuate)  that 
 "  dyiyi^x'^  is  applicable  to  the  Son ,"  that,  on  p.  153. 
 
 (i)  Non  enini  infeUus  [probably  ocyivvv)r(^y  as  in  Other  Pla- 
 ces']  es,  O  homo ;  neque  femper  co-exiftebas  Deo,  licut  pro- 
 prium  ejus  Verbum.  "  Ton  are  neither  Unoriginate,  O  Man^ 
 (as  God  himfelf  is,)  nor  were  you,  yllivays  With  God,  as  his  own 
 **  Word  was:  But — beginning  Now  to  exifi,''  &C. 
 
 (1)  Adv.  Celf.  lib.  6.  p.  287.  ''Oyrs  yk^  rov  ccyiv/^rov  [legend, 
 yivv/jrov'^  X.CCI  7ru(r/)<i  VivyjTiiti  ^ucriui^  tt^wAtokcv  'au,-t  k\(cM  iid^ivcci  n^ 
 i^vtiTXij    6J5  0  Tivvyi<rcc<i  ocvtov  Trccry.f)-  »t£  rov  Tfxrifct,,  co<i,  5Cc. 
 
 U  4  the 
 
!i  9^  of  the  Eternity  of  God. 
 
 the  contrary,  in  the  very  Paflage  you  refer  to , 
 he  is  exprefsly  ftiled   ycvr/iftx.  Yle^coro';  yeyvij/zoj. 
 
 P.  153.  Your  Second  Ohitrvmon  upon  Juji'in^  (viz. 
 that  fince  '"^  Go^'j  being  (lyiw/]r(^  and  aL(pQai^' 
 "  T@^  is  fuppofed  the  very  Ground  and  Fou?ida- 
 
 *'  ri^??  (?/  being  God, therefore  if  the  Logos 
 
 ^'  be  not^  in  this  Senfe^  dymy\r(^  and  ct(p,'^agTo^j 
 ^'  he  is  not  God,  according  to  Juftin  .-"j  is  ex- 
 actly as  ridiculous^  as  if  a  Man  ftould  argue, 
 that  fince,  according  to  St.  PW,  God's  being 
 *^  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all  thinrjj^'  is  de- 
 clared to  be  the  very  Ground  and  Foundation 
 of  his  being  The  "  One  God-^'  therefore 
 if  the  Son  be  not  '^  the  Father^  of  whom 
 are  all  things,'*'  he  is  not  God  at  all,  accord- 
 ing to  St.  Paul.  I  wonder  a  Man  of  your 
 Abilities  (hould  not  be  afiamed  to  argue  in 
 this  manner. 
 
 r.  ir4.  Your  Third  Obfervation  upon  Juftin,  is  juft 
 fuch  another  x\rgument,  to  prove,  that  becaufe 
 Juftin  fliles  the  Son  [Seo^^  God,  Q'7rga)ToTo5cigh' 
 m  T»  S"-»3  ^^  being  the  Firfl-begotten  of  God -^ 
 and  "the  SAME''  reafon  ''MUST  hold;' 
 why  he  AUG HTjuftlymit  him  "i  ^l^''  or 
 "  7^i/e(7iv  ^/  'i;^^t)v,''  Self  exijie fit  or  ;?<9r  generated 
 at  all '^  therefore  'tis  manifeft  y2//?m  DOES 
 *'  ;/;/zfe^  fc/w  to  be  0  oov^  iji  his  own  proper 
 *'  Perfon:'*  Though  Juftin  bimfelf  on  the 
 contrary ,  Exprefsly  tells  us  his  Opinion, 
 and  diftinSly  and  largely  infifts  upon  it, 
 that  He  who,  in  talking  with  Mofes,  fil- 
 led himfelf  /  Am^  and  God  of  Abraham^  was 
 
 {i)NOT 
 
Qu.VIII.  OftheEtermtyofCod.  a  97 
 
 (I)  NOT  hirnfelf  The  Creator  of  all  things^ 
 but  his  Meffenger^  m'nii firing  to  his  IFUl,  What 
 Satisfadion  you  ought  to  make  your  Reader 
 for  treating  him  in  This  manner,  I  leave  to 
 your  own  Ingenuity  to  confider. 
 
 Your  Fourth  Obfervation    upon  Jufiin,    is,  F.iS4,ci7* 
 that    his   taking  notice  that  (2)  the  Father^  ^5^* 
 as  being    \d,ymy\r%''^    Self-exifient^     has    no 
 Name  ,  and  his  *'  repeating  immediately  after, 
 ''  the  Obfervation  of  havi?ig  ?io  Name,  and  ap- 
 ^'  plying  it  to  the  Son^  obferving  that  neither 
 
 *'  He  properly  has  any  Name  -^ feems  to  infi- 
 
 "  7inatehis  Co  eterriity  c'""  That  is,  (if  your 
 Argument  has  Afiy  connexion  in  it  J  fuch  a 
 co-eternity  as  implies  being  [aiymy]rof\  Self- 
 exiflent.  I  anfwer  :  Jufiins  (^5)  Words,  far 
 from  fignifying  that  the  Son  "  has  no  Na^ne^* 
 denote  This  only ,  that  as  the  Father  has  pro- 
 perly 710  Name  at  all^  fo  even  the  Name  itfelf 
 which  the  Son  has,  [viz.  Chrijl^  is  of  a 
 Signification  unknown  in  its  full  extent.  And, 
 far  from  infinuating  that  clymy\ro^  is  in  Any 
 fenfe  "  applicable  to  the  Son^''  J^ifiin  in  this  P.  153, 
 very  fentence  (tiles  him  yew^y/^evo^,  in  exprefs 
 oppofition  to  dymy^ro^.  So  entirely  void  of 
 all  foundation,  are  every  one  of  your  Obferva- 
 tions. 
 
 (l)  'Ov)(^  0  7roiy,TVi<i  rm  'oXuv  ti^cti  B-io^  o  rca  Mua-ii  liTrm  dvrov  uvon 
 
 fir  UK     Dial,  cutn  Tnph. 
 
 {!.)    Ovof/jcc    TO)    'mx.'j'vm   ttcct^i   itirov,     Ayiwurai    ovriy     »x    t^iy. 
 Apol.  2. 
 
 Before 
 
2  9  8  Of  the  Eternity  of  Cod. 
 
 before  I  leave  Jtiftin^  I  cannot  but  take  no- 
 tice of  your  great  unfairnefs  in  telling;  your 
 Reader,  that  Juftm^nd  Other  Antient  \X'riters 
 
 "  7^fere^  hi  Concert:^*  That  '*^  the  'Aa^-evr/a,  the 
 
 ''  fnppofed  the  whole  Trinity   to  create^    as  it 
 
 6& 
 
 Dcfigning/^^rrjTe'^j-  thought  mofl  Properly  to  be 
 referved  to  the  Father^  as  the  firji  Per/on  :** 
 But  '*  whether  they  went  upon  any  folid  Rea- 
 *^  fons"'  in  this  point,  ^'  is  not  very  materia 
 ^^  al  ;'*  That  "  thej'e  are  Things  not  to   be  too 
 
 *'  rigor oufly  interpreted : In  the  whole ^  they 
 
 ^^  have  a  very  good  meanings  &c.''  The 
 reafon  of  all  This  Shifting,,  is  very  evident. 
 All  Antiquity,  (as  I  have  above  fhown  at  large,) 
 is  uniformly,  conftantly,  and  largely  Agajjijl 
 you  (and  you  yourfelf  alfo  fometimcs  againft 
 yourfelf)  in  This  point.     'AuS-evrfct   never   fig- 
 
 V.  157.  nifies  the  "  Defigning  "  part,  but  always  the 
 Authoritative  or  Commanding  part.  The  Anti- 
 ents  unanimoufly  and  without  exception  agree, 
 (and  found  the  Unity  of  God  upon  it,)  that 
 the  Will  of  the  father  only^  is  the  ¥irjl  Caufe 
 of  All  things.  And  no  Antient  Writer  ever 
 faid  (v;ith  regard  to  the   point  of  Authority,) 
 
 ^*  '5'^.  that  the  Three  Perfons  "  created  in  Coficert,'* 
 any  more  than  a  Man  and  his  own  Hands  were 
 ever  (aid  to  do  any  thing  in  Concert.  Which 
 is  the  very  reafon,  why    ''  the  Son  and  Holy 
 
 P.  IS"-  '^  Spirit  are  frequejitly  filled^  Manus  Patris," 
 the  Hands  (as  it  were)  of  the  Father ;  (or, 
 as  Irenmts  calls  them,  inenarrabile  minifteriutn^ 
 his  inexpreffible  Miniflry^')  Doing  every  thing 
 as  much  according  to  the  IVill  of  the  Father^ 
 
 as 
 
Qii.VIII.  Of  the  Eternity  of  Cod.  2P9 
 
 as  a  iMan's  Hands  (fuppofing  they  were  intel- 
 ligent) always  fulfill  the  Will  of  the  Man. 
 
 The  like  unfairnefs  there  is,  in  your  laying,  p.  158. 
 Hypojlafts  or  ''  Perfon ;"  When  you  well  know, 
 the  word  Hypodajis^  among  the  Antient  Wri- 
 ters we  are  now   fpeaking  of,  never  fignified 
 Ferfon^  but  Suhjlance.     But  to  proceed. 
 
 Athenagoras^  fpeaking  emphatically  of  the 
 unoriginate  underived  eternity  of  the  Father^ 
 fays  that  Chriftians  cannot  be  Atheifts,  becaufe 
 they  believe  (i)  "  in  one  unhegotten  andEter- 
 ''  nal  God,  Sec:'  And  again:  (2)  "  That  the 
 "  Unbegotten  God,  is  alone  Eternal."  In  the 
 fame  fenfe  as  St.  Paul  affirms,  0  (xovo^  ly^m 
 d'^cLvctaicLh  that  "  He  only  hath  Immortality ^^ 
 
 TertuUian^     (as   has  been  before  obferved,  t.  145; 
 zndiyouyourfelft^ikii  notice,)  is  fo  prefumptuous, 
 as  exprefsly  to  deny  the  Eternity  of  the   Son^ 
 as  a  Son. 
 
 The  Jpojlolical  Con(iitutzo7is  ajffirm  the  One 
 unbegotten  Gody  the  Father^  to  be  (j j  Alone 
 Eternal. 
 
 Novatian  defcribes  God  the  Father,  as  being 
 (4  j  alo7ie  unoripnated  and  Eternal. 
 
 Arnohius  mod  magnificently  defcribes  thezm- 
 originate  Eternity  of  God  the  Father,  in  Thefe 
 Words.     (5)  '^  Is  not  He  alone  Unbegotten, 
 
 (  l)    Y-'iu.  Tov  clyiv'/ijrcv  kc/a  Uid\ov •  ^-iov.     P.  37, 
 
 (Z)  Mov(^  uV^(^  6  ccyivv/iroc;  B-£c(;.      P.   ill. 
 
 (3)   'Alhov  ^  oc,vu,^x°^' yjfvov  cc'io'ia!;.  lib.  6.    C.  IT. 
 
 (4j  Solus  Originem  nefciens, — y^ternus,  &c.  c.  31. 
 
 (5)  Nonne  Solus  ingenitus,  immortalis,  &  perpetuus  folus 
 eft  ?  Quis  caput  &  fons  reruin  eft  ^  non  ipfe  ?  Cui  debet  3eter- 
 nitas  hoc  ipftim,  quod  nuncupatur  seternitas  ?  non  ipli?  ^dv. 
 iJent.  lib,  i,  P,  95, 
 
 *'im- 
 
5  0  o  Of  the  Eternitj  of  Cod. 
 
 *^  immortal,  and  alone  Eternal  ?  Who  is  it, 
 *'  that  is  the  Original  and  Fountain  of  Things? 
 "  is  it  not  He  >  To  whom  does  Eternity  it- 
 •^  felf  owe  its  being  Eternity  ?^ 
 
 From  what  has  been  faid,  it  abundantly  ap- 
 pears, that  whatever  Notion  the  moft  Ortho- 
 dox of  the  Antient  Fathers  had,  concerning 
 the  Eternal  Generation  of  the  Son  ,  yet,  evi- 
 dently, they  none  of  them  underftood  it  in 
 fuch  a  Senfe,  as  to  fuppofe  that  the  Perfon  Be- 
 gotten  had  abfolutely,  as  a  Perfon^  the  fame 
 neceffary  and  i?idepefjJent  Exiftence  with  the 
 Father  who  begat  him.  For  which  Notion, 
 you  have  neither  one  Text  of  Scripture,  nor 
 one  leftimony  of  any  07ie  Antient  Writer 
 whatfoever,  the  whole  Tenour  both  of 
 Scripture  and  Antiquity  being  moft  evidently 
 againft  it. 
 
 Q,u  E  a  Y    IX. 
 
 Whether   the  divine  Attributes^   Omnlfcience, 
 Ubiquity,  6Cc.     thofe  individual  Attributes^ 
 can  be  communicated  without  the  divine  Ef- 
 fencey  from  which  they  are  infeparMe  ? 
 
 Anfw,''''T^O  This  Query,  it  is  evidently  a 
 X  fufficient  Anfwer,  to  obfcrve  that 
 p  164.  '^  Individual  Attributes  "  can  neither  be  com- 
 municated with  nor  without  the  Eifence  •,  Be- 
 caufe  Coinmunicatio7i  of  an  Individual^  without 
 the  Communicator's  parting  with  it,  is  fuppo- 
 
 fing 
 
Qu.  IX.      0/  the  Unity  of  Cod.  30 1 
 
 fing  it  to  be  not  an  individual  5  and  is  confe- 
 quently  a  Contradiftion  in  Terms. 
 
 But  you  infill  upon  it,  that  the  Son  *^  hath  p,  174- 
 "  the  individual  oAttrihutes  of  God  the  Fa^ 
 "  ther,''*  and  ^'  the  individual  Ejfence  :  For 
 "  other  wife  he  mufi  he  a  Creature  only :  And 
 ^'  therefore  the  Queftion^  in  p/^/>/  terms^  is^ 
 "  whether  the  Son  ie  God  or  a  Creature  "  I 
 anfwer.  To  have  the  individual  Ejfence  and 
 oAttrihutes  of  the  Father^  is  to  he  the  Father. 
 For,  H^hat  is  any  Things  Beings  or  Perfon^  but 
 That  individual  Effence  and  Attrihutes^  by 
 which  it  is  That  Things  'Beings  or  Perfon^ 
 which  it  is^  and  not  Another  ?  The  queftion 
 therefore  arifing  from  what  you  here  lay 
 down,  is,  in  plain  Terms,  neceffarily  This  ; 
 Whether  the  Son  be  the  Father^  or  a  Crea- 
 ture  ?  To  which,  the  Anfwer  you  fhall  make 
 for  j'ourfelf  will  ferve  alfo  for  Me.  The 
 Foundation  you  here  go  upon,  is,  that  WtJat- 
 ever  is^  mufi  he  either  God  or  a  Creature. 
 Now  the  only  Ground^  on  which  the  Truth 
 of  this  Disjuntiion  relies,  is  This ;  that  every 
 thing  muft  of  neceflity  be  either  originated  or 
 nnoriginated.  If  therefore  the  Terms  God 
 and  Creature^  in  your  DisjunQ:ion,  be  equi- 
 valent to  nnoriginated  and  originated ,  you 
 charge  the  univerfal  Church  of  Chrift  in  all 
 Ages,  (3.nd  your fe if  2i\ib^  though  not  in  a  con- 
 fiitent  manner,)  with  making  thQ Son  ^Crea- 
 ture. But  if  you  underftand  the  Terms  in 
 any  other  Senfe,  your  disjunction  is  no  dis- 
 jmiHion  ;  becaufe  there  may  be  a  Medium 
 between  that  which  is  ahfolutely  unoriginate^ 
 
 and 
 
Of  the  Unity  of  God. 
 
 and  that  which  is  originated  after  any  particu- 
 lar manner. 
 
 Again :  Is  not  SeJf-exiJlence  an  Attribute 
 of  God  the  Father  ?  And  are  not  all  the  At* 
 tributes  of  God  the  Father,  unoriginated^ 
 How  then  can  the  Son  have  the  individual 
 oAttrihutes  and  Ejjence  of  God  the  Father, 
 and  yet  not  be  unoriginate  ?  In  reality,  your 
 AlTertion  here  is  downright  Sahellian ;  ma- 
 king  the  Son  to  be,  not  ofiosaio^:,  but  Tcturoao-i- 
 0^  and  o/xovTiTorctro^  with  the  Father,  nay  to 
 be  the  Father  bimfelf.  For,  what  is  the  indi- 
 vidual Ejjence  and  Attributes  ^of  the  Father ^ 
 but  the  Father  himfelf?  If  the  Son  therefore, 
 as  you  affirm^  has  Both  thefe  ;  he  is  plainly  the 
 Father.  Or  elfe,  What  is  it  that  diltinguiflies 
 the  Son  from  the  Father?  If  you  fay,  the 
 Perfonal  Attributes ;  then  you  deftroy  your 
 Firil  AfTertion.  For  the  Perfonal  Attributes 
 of  the  Father  being  unqueftionably  the  *^  /;/- 
 ''  dividual  Attributes  ef  the  Father  ;''  the 
 Son^  according  to  your  own  Argument,  muft 
 either  have  thefe  perfonal  Individual  Attributes 
 of  the  Father,  or  elfe  not  have  "  the  indivi^ 
 "  dual  Effence?^  But  if  the  Father  is  a  mere 
 Name^  Mode^  or  Relation  onl)'\  tell  us  fo 
 without  Difguife,  and  then  I  fhall  know  who 
 is  my  Adverfary.  'Twas  very  difficult  for 
 me  here  to  fuppofe,  that  while  you  are  p^- 
 tively  affirming  that  tlie  Son  hath  the  "  indi- 
 *'  vidual  Attributes  of  God  the  Father^'  you 
 could  mean  on  the  contrary,  that  he  hath 
 NO  r  the  iiidividual  Attributes  of  the  Fa- 
 ther, but  diftind  individual  Attributes  of  liis 
 
 own  J 
 
Qli.  IX.     Of  the  Unity  vf  God.  303 
 
 onm  •,  e'5'/ff^/  to  thofe  of  the  Father,  though 
 derived  from  him.  And  yet,  from  Other  Parts 
 of  your  Book,  this  feems  to  be  your  real 
 meaning,  while  you  are  here  difguifing  abfo- 
 lute  Tritheijm  in  SalelliaftliQvms, 
 
 Thus  have  I  made  good  the  Anfwer  to 
 your  Query ,  and  might  juftly  be  excufed  ia 
 not  meddling  at  all  with  the  Metafh)ftcal  J- 
 mtifemetits^  in  which  yon  have  here  indulged 
 your  Imagination  through  feveral  Pages.  They 
 are  really  nothing  to  the  Purpofe  of  the  Dif- 
 pute  between  us.  Yet,  that  you  may  not 
 from  my  Silence  pretend  you  had  offered 
 fomething  which  could  not  be  anfwered  j  I 
 fliall  endeavour,  in  fome  brief  Remarks,  to 
 fhow  you  the  Ahfurdities  your  m.anner  of 
 reafoning  here  abounds  with. 
 
 You  begin  with  telling  me,  that  you  ^'  have  p,  164. 
 ^'  gahi^  done  Pointy  in  hnowingwhat  Dr.  Clarke 
 ^'  fnea7is  hy  All  divine  Powers.''  That  is ;  I 
 have  made  this  great  Difcovery  to  you,  that 
 the  Doftor  by  the  divine  Towers  of  the  Son^ 
 does  not  mean  the  divifw  Powers  of  the  Fa- 
 ther  *,  and  that,  by  Authority  and  Powers  de- 
 rived^ he  does  not  mean  Authority  and 
 Powers  tmoriginated^  independent^  and  un- 
 derived. 
 
 In  the  next  place,    upon  That  Maxim  of  p.  165, 
 the   DoGor,   that   Necejjary  Agents   [falfely 
 called  Agents^  are  710  Caufes^  and  do  not  fro- 
 perly  act -^    you  obferve,    that    "-"-this  is  ve* 
 
 ''  ry  true  of  all  Finite  necejfary  Ageiits  : 
 
 "  But    (you  ask,)  does  it   therefore  follow''* 
 ^}  that  all  the  Jitrs  of  the  Divine  Nature, 
 
 ''  are 
 
cc 
 cc 
 
 3  04  of  the  Unity  of  God. 
 
 are  Voluntary  and  Free^  none  Natural  and 
 NecefjaryP'  I  anfwcr.  ThQ  Ejjence  of  AQiU 
 on,  being  the  Exerting  of  Power  *,  and  the 
 Original  of  all  Exerti?ig  of  Power^  being  the 
 Will  J  it  neceffarily  follows  that  every  AH 
 Qnot  of  the  Divine  Nature^  as  you  ahfurdly 
 exprefs  it  ,  for  No  Nature  is  any  Agent: 
 But  every  A^t']  of  God ^  \s  Voluntary  and  Free ^ 
 none  naturally  Necejjary.  The  Inftances  you 
 alledge  to  the  contrary,  of  God's  Wifdom^ 
 Goodnefs^  Self-Complacency^  ^nd  the  like*,  ("that 
 is,  his  feeing  the  Relations  of  Things,  their 
 Agreements  and  Difagreements ;  and  his 
 knowing  and  Approving  what  is  fit  and  right ;,) 
 thefe  are  Neccjjciry  indeed,  but  they  are  not 
 Atis.  They  are  no  more  Ath  of  God,  than 
 his  Omnipotence^  Eternity^  or  Omniprefence  • 
 which  refult  from  the  neceffary  Exi/tence  and 
 Perfetiion  of  his  Nature^  and  not  from  his 
 Will.  They  are  therefore  Modes  of  Perfetii* 
 on  of  Exijitnte.  But  whenever  God  a8s  or 
 does  any  thing,  conformably  to  this  Kjww- 
 ledge^  Judgenit^nt^  and  Q.4ffrohation  of  Things ; 
 this  afliual  exertion  of  his  Power,  does  not 
 proceed  from  NcceJJity  of  N.^ture^  but  from 
 his  free  Will.  For  which  reafon,  Thanks  are 
 due  to  him  for  every  Good  thing  he  Does  ; 
 but  no  man  returns  him  Tuanks  for  his  be- 
 ing Oumifcient  or  Om;iipre[tnt  or  EttrnaL 
 P^  165.  But  you  ^'  JL/Jiple  not  to  ajjert^  that  ly 
 "  the  fame  aljolute  Ntcejfity  of  Nature  that 
 **  the  FatJder  Lx'Ms^  be  exifis  as  a  FuthtiJ^ 
 If  fo,  then  the  Father  is  no  more  [cc'trjcv,  as 
 B.ja  ftiles  hurt]  the  Crn/Je  or  thy  Son's    flx- 
 
 iiterica. 
 
Qii.IX.      Of  the  Unity  of  God.  50^ 
 
 iftence,  than  he  is  of  his  own.  He  is  evi- 
 dently no  more  Father  of  the  Son,  than  of 
 Himfelf.  He  no  more  B^gat;  the  Son,  than 
 he  hegat  his  own  Reafon  or  Underftanding. 
 The  So?i  is  as  Selfexifient^  and  Unbegotten^ 
 as  the  Father:^  becaufe  he  exifts  by  ^''the 
 ^'  fame  ahjolute  Nt'ceJJitj  of  Nature ^^  which 
 makes  the  Father  to  be  Self-ex ifierit  and  U?t- 
 hegotten.     See  ahove^  p.  255. 
 
 What  follows,  from  hence  to  the  End  of  p-  \^^^ 
 this  Chapter,  amounts  briefly  to  This ;  that  "^^^^ 
 there  are  as  great  Difficulties  in  ex^lainiiig  the 
 Manner  of  the  Divine  Omui^refence^  and  of  fe^ 
 veral  other  Toings^  as  there  are  in  the  expli- 
 cation of  your  Notion  of  the  Trinity:  And 
 therefore  Your  Notion  ought  not  to  have  fucb 
 Difficulties  ohjeffed  to  it.     I  anfwer  : 
 
 ifi.  Suppofing  the  Difficulties  were  equal, 
 ("as  they  by  no  means  are,)    yet  there  would 
 be  no  Confequence  in  your  Argument.     The 
 T)ivine  Omniprefence  is  agreed  on  Both  fides, 
 to  be  a  Truth  demonfirated  hy  Reafon^  and  af- 
 firmed  in  Scripture.     Difficulties  in  conceiving 
 the  Manner  of  fucli  an  acknowledged  Truth, 
 are  in  no  degree  any  juft  Objeftion  againft 
 the  Truth  itfelf.    Now  were  the  thing  you 
 contended  for,    either  a   Pro^ofition    demon- 
 firated hy  Reafon^    or  anywhere  affirmed  in 
 Scripture  ,   the  Cafe  would  then  indeed  be 
 the  fame.    But   the  Trime  Objection  againfl: 
 your  Notion,  is,  that  it   is  nowhere  found  in 
 Scripture^  nor  deduced  hy  any  jufi  Confequence 
 from  Scripture-^  and  is  moreover  impojjible  to 
 be  underjtood.    Now  im^offihility  of  being  un- 
 
 X  derjioodf 
 
3  0  (5  Of  the  Unity  of  Cod. 
 
 derf^ood^  is  a  very  jud:  Objeftion  againft  an 
 improved  H)potheJis,  though  it  would  not  be 
 fo  againft  an  achiowUilgea  Truth.  To  what 
 Purpofe  then  is  it,  to  compare  Difficulties 
 here?  as  if  a  difpited  H)l>otbtji.s  would  be  ever 
 the  Truer^  for  proving  that  there  were  as 
 great  Difficulties  of  Conception  in  fome 
 undif^tited  Trtitb^  as  in  That  di/pded  Hyl'o- 
 thejis. 
 
 But  2dly,  This  is  indeed  by  no  means  the 
 Cafe.  There  is  ;/<?  Cotnfaril'ojt  between  the 
 Difficulties  mycurHjfotbeJis^  and  thofe  in  the 
 apprehending  of  the  'Divi?ie  Omnipreftnce,  or 
 any  other  Truth  whatfoever.,  The  Difficulty 
 in  your  Hypcthefis^  (befides  its  having  ;;^  Foun- 
 dation in  Scripture,)  is  This.  'Tis  undeni- 
 able that  He^  who  ts  rd'folutely  Supreme  over 
 cAllj  having  no  Super iour^  and  who  owes  no- 
 thing  to  Any^  hit  every  thi^ig  czves  all  that 
 they  are ^  andhave^  to  Him -^  is  The  Supreme 
 God.  But  now,  according  to  Tou^  there  are 
 More  than  One^  alfohitely  Supreme  over  all^ 
 having  no  Superiour^  and  who  owe  fiothing  to 
 oAnyj  but  every  thing  owes  all  that  they  are^ 
 and  have^  to  Them,  There  are  therefore  ne- 
 ceflarily,  according  to  you,  more  Supreme 
 Gods  than  One.     The  only  Anfwer  you  have 
 
 P'  1^7.  to  make,  is^  that  they  do  not  "  exi;i  fepa- 
 "  rately^''    that   they  have    ^^  fome  common 
 
 }\  i68.  ''  Ties  or  Bands  ofVnion^  which  we  call  ef- 
 ''  fential  e/3.^/^r/77/^^j  a7id  TerfeHions  ^^'^    that 
 
 P.  169.  they  are  elTentially  in Tif parable^  and  undivi- 
 ded. But  what  difference  (I  befcech  you) 
 docs  This  make  in   the  Point  in  queftion  ? 
 
 Arc 
 
Qii.  IX.      Of  the  Unity  of  God.  307 
 
 Are  not  Two   effentially   undivided  StipYeme 
 Gods^  as  really  Two  Supreme  Gods^  as  if  they 
 had  been  divided  >  What   you   call  therefore 
 "  7}jahng  One   SuUtance^'*    is   not  the  fame 
 thing,  as  making  ''  One  God.^^     Now,  what  r.  173. 
 difficulty,  Hke  This,  can  you  find  in  Any  ac- 
 knowledged Truth?    Why,    Suppofing  God 
 to  be  SubjUuitidl)\    and  not   virtually  only  ^ 
 really^  and  not  fote/itially  only,  Omniprefent; 
 you  ask,  whether  the  Divine  Subftance  prefent 
 in  Heaven^  and  the  Divine  Suhfta7tce  prefent 
 in  Earthy  be  "  real  diftinct  Beings^    or  no ;"  p.  166, 
 be  "  the  fame  iridividual  Suhftance^'^    or  no.  ^"^P4- 
 I  anfwer :    Whatever  it  be,  or   be  not,  in 
 Th2X  fiHitious  imaginary  language  which  ex- 
 preffes  only  our  metaphjjical  manner  of  conceit 
 ving  things,  is   of  no  Importance.    'Tis  ftill 
 equally,  in  whatever  imperfe£t  ways  our  imagi- 
 nation  conceives  it,  the  Subftance  of  That  One 
 Individual  Intelligent  hiving  oAgent  who  made 
 and  governs  all  things,  and  whofe  individual 
 Attributes  All  the  Attributes  of  the  WooleSul- 
 fiance  are.     See  below^    on  Query  XIX  and 
 XXIX. 
 
 But  then  you  alledge,  that  there  are  feve-  p.  nr, 
 ral  ^^  Se?ijes  of  the  word  Individual;"  that  ^"^73. 
 *'  Tou  have  Tour  Se7ife  of  Individual,  and  We 
 *'  have  Ours  ;>''  And  you  challenge  us  to  '^fix 
 ^'  a  certain  Trinci^le  of  Individuation^  a  thing 
 "  fuuch  z^antedP  I  anfwer.  This  is  merely 
 throwing  Duft  in  your  Reader's  Eyes.  There 
 is  and  can  be  but  One  only  Senfe  of  the  word 
 Individual ;  and  the  Pri7;ciple  of  Individuati- 
 on is  a  Self-evident  thing.  'Tis  That,  by 
 X  2  which 
 
3o8  Of  the  Unity  of  Cod. 
 
 which  Any  One  T/)ing^  be  it   Simple  or  Com-- 
 plex^  is  THAT  0/ie  thing  which  it  is,  and 
 not  Another.     Two  Beings  therefore  may   be 
 p.  i68.  One  Qcomple>0  ^^i^^g-  But   they  cannot  Ei- 
 ther of  them  be  Toat  One  Beings    which  Tbis 
 is  ;  neither  can77/ij  h^ThatOne^Being^  which 
 Either  oiTbeni  is.    Tvoo   Suhjtances  may  be 
 F.  i6i.  One  [complex^  Sulfiance  :    But  they  cannot 
 Either  of  them  be  Tba  One  Sulfiance^  which 
 This  is ;  neither  can  This  be  To^it  One  Stih^ 
 ftcince^  which  Either  of  Them  is.     Two  Bodies 
 may  be  One  [^complex]  'Bod)  :  But  they  can- 
 not Either  of  them  be  That  One  Body  which 
 This  is  5    neither  can  This'h^  That  One  Bod)\ 
 which  Either  of  Them  is.     And  the  Hke  holds 
 -p.  171.  true   of  ^' Pfrfo?is^'*  Agents^    GovtY?wurs^  or 
 whatever  you  pleafe.   Two  i?iteUigent  Agents 
 therefore,  however  undivided  in  Suhjtance   or 
 in  whatever  other  RefpeQ:  you  pleafe,  cannot 
 ^'  350.  be  One  intelligent  Ageiit.    Two  Eirft  Caufes^ 
 cannot  be  One  Eirft  Catife.      Two   Supreme 
 Lonis^  cannot  be  One  Supreme  Lord.     Two 
 Supreme  Gods^  cannot  be  One  Supreme  God : 
 any  otherwife  than  by  taking  the  word  God 
 in  a  complex  Senfe,  as  \jwmen  multitudinis']  a 
 general  Name  ,  or,  (to  exprefs  it  in  jour  own 
 Sermons    words,)  "  7//ing  the  word  God  in  a  large  271- 
 P'  144-     *'  deti?iite  jefjj'e^    7iGt   deflating  any  particular 
 ''  Terjon  ,  ]ujt  as  the  wordyi2,n  is  often  ufed 
 *'  in   Scrtpture^    not  denoting  a/iy  particular 
 **  Man^  hut  Man  in  General,    or  Man  indtfi- 
 *''  nitelyT     Is  not  this  a  fine  ilTue,   for  Chri- 
 ftians  to  put  the    Vrnty  of  God  upon  ,     the 
 maintaining  of  which,  our  Saviour  tells  us, 
 
 is 
 
Qu.  IX.      Of  the  Unity  of  Cod.  309 
 
 is  the  F/'//?  and  Great  Commandment  f  You 
 have  no  way,  that  I  can  perceive,  to  defend 
 Tour  Notion  ,  that  will  not  as  well  or  better 
 ferve  the  Caufe  of  the  Heathen  Polytheifm. 
 They  had  a  Notion  of  Union ^  and  They  had 
 ftich  a  Notion  of  Confuhftantiality^  as  you  feem 
 to  have  framed  to  yourfelf ;  and  yet  they  did 
 not  pretend,  that  their  Subordinate  Deities 
 were  equally  Supreme  wHh^  or  identically  one 
 and  the  fame  with,  the  one  Supreme  God  and 
 Father  of  alL  They  were  indeed  Idolaters, 
 but  not  fo  truly  Polytheifts^  as  Ton  are. 
 
 In  oppofition  to  Dr.  Clarke\  Aphorifm,  that 
 Nothing  Individual  can  he  Communicated 
 without  the  Communicator'* s  f^arting  with  it ; 
 after  the  forementioned  Confufednef  about 
 the  Notion  of  Individual^  you  obferve  that 
 the  W^fdom  of  God,  (fuppofing  hina  to  be 
 Suhftantially  and  not  Vtrtually  only  Omnipre- 
 fent,)  ''  is  07te  individual  infinite  Wifdom^  p.  ryi, 
 **  which  is  entirely  in  the  JVhole^  aitd  entire-  ^7^* 
 ^'  ly  in  every  Part :  Troper,  in  fome  Senfe^  to 
 '^  each  fingle  Part  ;  and  yet  common  to  all. 
 "  Diffufed  through  extended  Suhftance,  yet  not 
 
 "  co-extended, It    is    fuppofed  that   the  p.  294: 
 
 "  l^^/jole  Wifdom  is  Communicated  to  one  par* 
 '^  ticular  part^  and  yet  remains  whole  and  un- 
 *'  communicated  in  the  Other  pa,tsP  I  am 
 perfwaded,  had  any  one  argued  in  this  man- 
 ner againft  Tou^  you  would  either  have  been 
 very  angry,  or  greatly  defpifed  the  Weaknefs 
 of  fuch  Reafoning.  In  the  fir[t  place,  to  talk 
 of  Parts  of  the  Divine  Suhftance^  inftead  of 
 "Partial  oAoprehenftons  of  its  i?ijinite  Prefence^ 
 
 X  }  ac- 
 
310  Of  the  Omnipre fence  of  Cod. 
 
 according  to  our   imperfeQ:  Conceptions  in 
 Meiaphyjicks  ;  is  very  improper.     In  the;/^vV^ 
 place  '^  is  there  any  thing  in  this  Argument  of 
 yours,  that  has  any  Like/ufs  to  a  Connnufiica' 
 tion  of  Individuals  ?    Does  God  the  Father 
 '^  Co'.nnimiicate'^^  to  hij}ifc4f  his  ownAttrilutes  ? 
 Is  tlie  iVifdcm  of  God  in  one  part  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe,    "  commmicated'*'*    by  him  to  Himfelf 
 in  another   part   of  the   Univerfe?    Has  the 
 Divine  Suhftance  in  One  place,    any   Wifdom 
 which  is    (in    dAny   Senfe)    Trover  to  it   in 
 That  flace,  or  diftinO:  from    the  Wifdom   of 
 God  in  any  other  Place  ?    Is  not   the  Wifdom 
 of  God,  a  Power  or  Perfecii&ti^  O/ie  Power  or 
 Perfidion,  of  the  Whole  Divine  Subftance  ? 
 Nor  is  there  in  reality  any  more  Difficulty  in 
 conceiving  This^  than  in  conceiving  other  the 
 moft  certain  and  evident  Things.     For  in- 
 ftance  :  Is  not  This   individual  Moment  of 
 Time^    the   fame  individual   Moment    every 
 where?    And  is  not  every  Truthy   the  fame 
 i?idividual  Truth  every  where  ?  Are  not  thefe 
 entirely  in  the  whole ^    and  entirely  in  every 
 Part  of  the  Univerfe ,  and  yet  7wt  c'6?xte7td- 
 edl  You  fee  therefore,    that  you  here  propofe 
 no  Difficulties,  but   what   lie  equally  againft 
 iome  of  the  plaineft  and   moft  unqueftioned 
 Truths  in  Nature.     And  indeed,    fo  far  as 
 they  are  Objeftions  at  all,  they  are  Objeftions 
 againft  the   very  Exidence  of  God ,    being 
 tciually  fo  upon  oAll  pofTible  Notions  what- 
 foever,    and  tlierefore   very    unfairly    urged 
 
 againft  Jk)^ 
 
 I  can- 
 
Qii.  IX.    Of  the  Omnifrefence  of  God.    3 1 1 
 
 I  cannot  conclude  this  Head,  without  com-^ 
 plaining  of  your  unrigbttoujjitfs  in  talking  of 
 
 and  of  "  THE  Dotirine  of  the  Wejjed  Tri- 
 "  nhy  flandifig  or  falling ;"  When  by  thefe 
 words  you  do  not  mean  The  Doctrine  de- 
 livered in  Scripure^  but  your  Own  Hy^othefis 
 for  explication  of  That  Doftrine  ;  Which  you 
 have  no  more  Rights  than  They  who  oppofe 
 you,  prefumptuoufly  to  call  THE  Dotirine 
 of  the  Bitffcfd  Trinity. 
 
 Again. "^^  Reafon''  (you  tell  me;  is  what  I  -^-  ^'3- 
 *'  cbtefly  trtift  to  "  And,  ''  if  the  DoBrine  is 
 "  to  Jiand  or  fall  by  this  hind  of  Reafon- 
 *'  ing^  8cc,-'  Whereas,  you  know,  'tis  Scrip- 
 ture I  conftantly  appeal  to  •,  and  from  which 
 you  are  continually  indeavouring  to  withdraw 
 me,  by  Pretences  (and  by  Pretences  onlj^  of 
 the  Authority  of  Later  Writers. 
 
 And  whereas  you  fay  well ,    *^  let  us  he  p.  173, 
 ''  content  to  jto^  where  it  hecomes  us  .-"    And  *7o. 
 '^  if  they  choofe  to  reft  in  ge/ierals^without  any 
 
 '^  Hypothejis  at  all^ this  is  the  very  Thing 
 
 *'  which  we  defire  in  regard  to  the  BleJJed 
 "  Trinity^-^'-andthenwe  may  foon  come  to  a 
 "-  good  Agreement^''  I  anfwer :  If  by  "-'THE 
 *^  Triitity  ''  you  here  mean  the  Trinity  any 
 where  mentioned  in  Scripture ^  I  here  join  ilTue 
 with  you,  and  w^are  come  to  a  good  Agree- 
 ment. But  if  hereby  you  mean  a  particular 
 Metafojjical  Hypothe/is  ;  I  defire  the  Reader 
 again  carefully  to  obferve,  that  how  Pojftble 
 X  4  foever 
 
3 1 1  Of  the  Unity  of  God. 
 
 foever  fuch  an  Hypothecs  might  be,  (as  I 
 think  yours  is  not  J  yet  it  would  not  at  all 
 follow  that  it  was  really  True^  *till  it  could 
 be  Ihown  to  have  a  certain  Foundation  in 
 Scrilture^  which  is  the  only  Rule  of  Re- 
 veaied  Truth. 
 
 Q^LTERY      X. 
 
 Whether^  if  they  (the  Attributes  belonging 
 to  the  Son;  he  7iot  individually  the  jame^ 
 they  can  be  any  thing  wore  than  fai^it  Re-- 
 fembla?ices  of  them,  differing  from  them  as 
 Finite  from  Infinite ,  a?id  then  in  what 
 Senfe^  or  with  what  Truth  can  the  DoSor 
 fretend^  that  all  divine  Powers,  except  ab- 
 folute  Supremacy  and  Independency,  are 
 communicated  to  the  Son  .<?  And  whether 
 every  Beings  hejides  the  one  Supreme  Beings 
 muft  not  necejfarily  he  a  Creature  and  Fi-? 
 nite  ;  and  wbether  all  divine  Powers  can  be 
 communicated  to  a  Creature^  Infinite  Fer^ 
 fettion  to  a  Finite  Being  ? 
 
 Anfw.  A  LL  the  Qiieftions  you  here  put, 
 lSl  are  entirely  wide  of  the  True 
 Toint  in  Debate.  The  Qjieftion  is  not^  what 
 ^'  174.  the  Attributes  belonging  to  the  Son,  "  Can  '^ 
 (or  Can  7iot)  *'  Z^^,"  according  to  Our  Fancies  in 
 Philofophy  ;  buc  what  the  Scripture  fays  they 
 Q^^re,  And  the  Scripture  fays  they  are,  not; 
 **  faint  Rejemblances^^  but  an  Exprefs  Image, 
 
 Thq 
 
Iqu.X.        of  the  Unity  of  Cod.  515 
 
 The  Queftion  is  not^  ''  whether  every  Being  '* 
 J  (in  the  metaphyftcal  Senfe  of  the  word  B";?ng^) 
 "  befides  the  One  Supreme  Beings  [muft,  or] 
 *^  mujl  7iot^  neceljarily^  be  a  Creature  and  J:  j- Sec  above, 
 '*  7iite  /"  but  whether^  in  the  Theological  knk^^'  ^^^* 
 Any  Jgenr^  Beings  Perfon^  or  Any  Other  ivhat- 
 foever^  befides  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all 
 things^  (however  imited  or  fiot  united  with 
 him  in  metaphyfical  Being  or  Subflance,)  can 
 be  (according  to  St.  Paul)  THAT  ONE  GOD^ 
 the  Father^  of  whom  are  all  things  ^  can  be  THE 
 ONE  GOD  a  fid  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all. 
 The  Queftion  is  7iot^  \vhat  "  Powers  Can  "  (or 
 cannot^  '^  be  communicated  to  a  Creature  .•"  but 
 whether  all  the  Powers  afcribed  in  Scripture 
 to  the  Son  of  God^  are  not  perfedly  confident 
 with  the  Father's  being  fl:ill  Alone  THE  ONE 
 GOD^  the  Father  (or  Firfi  Caufe,)  of  whom  are 
 all  things. 
 
 That  the   iVttribuLes  of  the    Son   are  not  p.  174^ 
 ^'  hidividually  the  fame^'  with    the  Attributes 
 of  the  Father^  I  affirmed  for  This  reason  ^  be- 
 caufe  the  One  are  Derived^  the  Other  Underi- 
 ved :  Both  of  which,  one  and  the  fame  '^  In- 
 "  dividual'^  cannot  be,  at  one  and  the  fame 
 time.     To  This  you  reply,    that  by   denying 
 them  to  be  ^^  iJidividually  the  fame^'''  I  '^mean  p.  17^. 
 *'  that  they  are  not  Divine.'''     How  fo  ?    Why, 
 becaufe  nothing  is  Divine  at  all,    that  is  not 
 fo  '^  in  the  fame  Se?ife^  afid  in  as  High  a  Senfe^  p,  57; 
 "  as  the  Father  HimfelfP     Then  nothing  (it 
 feems)  is  Divine  at  all,  that   is  not   abfolutely 
 of  itfelf   unoriginatCy    itnbegotten^    underivedy 
 
 in^ 
 
3 1 4  Of  the  Unity  of  Cod. 
 
 independent  on  Any.  Or  elfe,  the  not  having 
 thefe  Perfeftions,  is  as  High^  and  the  very 
 fame,  as  having  them. 
 
 There  is  the  greater  Iniquity  in  This  Que- 
 ry of  yours,  becaufe  you  yoiirfelf  lometimes 
 ^though  very  inconfiftently)  deny  the  Attri- 
 butes of  the  Son  to  be  *'  individually  the 
 **  fame'*  with  the  Attributes  of  the  Father. 
 For,  to  have  the  fame  ""^  individual'*  Elfence 
 and  Attributes,  is  to  be,  not  cfjioycnos)  not  k 
 rvig  so-Ug  V^cLT^Uy  (which  was  theDoftrine  of 
 the  Council  of  Nice  -^J  hut  rcLvrosa-iog:,  pvo8cno^> 
 fxovQ\j7CQTc^.r(^  with  the  Father:  Which  is  what 
 the  Nicene  and  Pofl-Nicene  (i)  Writers,  and 
 yoit  yourfdlf  alfo  condemn. 
 
 1^*  i;6.  But  to  proceed.  You  ask  ,  "  Why  not  Two 
 "  Perfons  infinitely perfeB  in  ALL  Other  re- 
 "  fpeBs^  as  well  as  Scc.'^  And  /,  in  return, 
 ask  :  Can  a  Begotten  perfon,  be  Unhegotten  .<?  a 
 Derived  Perfon,  Underived ?  Or,  is  Having  all 
 PerfeBion  and  all  Dominion  abfolutely  in  and 
 of  Him f elf ^  original^  itnderived^  and  independent 
 on  Any  '^  no  Perfe&ion  at  all  ? 
 
 ■^  n9»  You  here  repeat  again,  that  "  the  true  State 
 ^^  of  the  Queflion^  as  appears  l^ow^  is^  whether 
 *'  God  the  Son  be  a  Creature.*'  To  This,  I 
 have  above  given  a  clear  and  diftind  Anfwer, 
 fag.  301. 
 
 Laftly  *,    you  ask,    whether    *^  the  Divine 
 
 r.  174,  ''  Powers  communicated  to  the  Son^'^   be  "j?- 
 
 175,180. 
 
 (i)  Athanaf.  Expof.  Fid.     Epiplian.  mref.  ■j6,  N.  7.     Bafil. 
 £/•//?.  3Q0.    Hilar,  dc  Synod.  P.  141. 
 
 *'  nite 
 
Qu.  Xr.       of  the  Unity  of  Cod. 
 
 u 
 
 (C 
 
 mte  Powers ''  or  '^  2?ifi?i2te.'^  And  you 
 wijh^  that  words  may  be  iifed  in  their  True 
 and  'proper  Meajiing.'''  In  reply,  I  alfo  ask 
 again:  When  you  affirm  the  Powers  and  Per- 
 fections of  the  Son  to  be  aI?foliitely  infinite^ 
 do  you  herein  include,  or  not,  (that  '••  words 
 ''-  may  he  nfed  in  their  True  and  Proper  Mean- 
 '^  ^w^,")  t-lie  Perfedions  of  Self-exijlence^  Tin- 
 originatenejs^  and  ahfolute  Independency  <?  Or  are 
 thefe,  which  are  the  Ground  oi  all  Other  Perfe- 
 dions,  themfelves  no  PerfeSion  at  all?  But  This 
 alfo  I  have  already  contidered  ^^(?t;^,  pag.  223, 
 224. 
 
 Q^u  E  K  y;    XL 
 
 Whether  iftheDo&or  means  hy  divine  Powers^ 
 Powers  given  by  God  (in  the  fame  Senfe  as 
 Angelical  Powers  are  divine  Powers  J  only  in 
 a  higher  Degree  than  are  given  to  other  Be- 
 ings 'j  iz  he  not  equivocating^  and  faying  no- 
 thi?ig:  Nothing  that  can  come  up  to  the 
 Senfe  of  thofe  Texts  before  cited ^  or  to  thefe 
 following  <? 
 
 Applied 
 
 3^y 
 
 To  the  one  God, 
 Thou,  even  Thou, 
 art  Lord  alone  ^  Thou 
 haft  made  Heaven,  the 
 Heaven  of  Heavens 
 with  all  their  Hoft,  the 
 Earth,  and  all  things 
 that  are  therein,  &:c. 
 Heh.  9.  6. 
 
 To  God  the  Son. 
 All  things  were  made 
 by  him,  John  i,  j.  By 
 him  were  all  things 
 Created  ,  He  is  before 
 all  things,  and  by  him 
 all  things  Confift,  Co- 
 lojf  I.  16,  17. 
 
 In 
 
5  1 6  Of  the  Unity  of  Cod 
 
 Thou,  Lord,  in  the 
 In    the   Beginning, 
 God  Created  the  Hea- 
 vens and    the   Earth, 
 Gen,  I.  I. 
 
 Beginning,  haft  laid 
 the  Foundation  of  the 
 ^arth  ^  and  the  Hea- 
 vens are  the  Work  of 
 thy  Hands, H^^.  i.  lO. 
 
 p.  iSi.  Anfv^S  I  ^HIS  Qjjery  has  been  abundantly 
 JL  anfvvered  in  what  has  been  already 
 faid  under  the  foregoing  Heads.  The  "  Di- 
 ^^  vine  Powers  give n''^  to  the  Son,  are  not  at 
 all  of  "  the  fame  "  kind,  or  '^  o?ily  in  a  higher 
 *'  Degree*'  than  '•'' Atigelic  at  Powers '^"  but  to- 
 tally of  a  <^;^^r^;/f  kind.  For,  to  the  &;;  is 
 committed  All  Judgmefit^  Joh.  5,  22  :  But  to 
 Angels  is  committed  No  Degree  of  the  Power 
 of  Judgi7:ent  at  all. 
 
 To  affirm  that  the  Powers  committed  to  the 
 Son,  are  the  vtry  fame  as  His  who  has  nothing 
 committed  to  him,  but  has  All  PerfeQions  anJX 
 All  Dominion  ahfolutely  in  and  of  Himfelf,  orl 
 gifial,  widerivedj  and  i?idependent  on  A?iy  .-j 
 This  is  certainly  "  equivocating  and  faying  710  a 
 *'  thing  ;"  and  is  alfo  diredly  contrary  to  the 
 Senfe  of  all  the  Texts  referred  to.  For  the 
 Powers  of  the  Son  are  all  there  fpoken  of,  as 
 committed  to  him  from  the  Father.  And  when 
 'tis  affirmed  that  all  things  were  made  by  [or 
 Throu^h"]^  Him^  and  that  by  [ot  in']  him  were 
 all  thi?igs  created,  and  that  He  laid  the 
 Foundation  of  the  Earthy  and  the  like  ^  the 
 Sacred  Writers  in  the  f  uUeft  and  moft  exprefs 
 
 words 
 
^  Qu.  XL      Of  the  Unity  of  God.  3  1 7 
 
 words  declare  their  Mean'mg  to  be,    that  God 
 created  all  things  by  Qor  through^]  Him. 
 
 When  therefore  ym  fay,    ''  'm  plain  from  p.  181. 
 
 *^  thefe  Texts ^  that  the  Sofi  was  endowed  with 
 
 !  "  Creative  Powers  ,"     you  deftroy  your  own 
 
 |,  Argument.     For,    not  the  being    *'  endowed 
 
 \  "  with  "  Any  "  Powers  "  whatfoever,  but  the 
 
 having  All  Powers  abfolutely  in   and   of  him- 
 
 felf  origi?ialy    under ived^    and  i?idepende?it    on 
 
 Anyy  is  the  ^'  dijlinguifhing  CharaBer  of  the 
 
 *'  Ofie Supreme  God''     And  indeed  your  whole 
 
 Dikourfe  upon  this  Head,    is  nothing  but  a 
 
 heap  of  repeated  Contradidions.    "  The  Fa-  p-  1S3. 
 
 "  ther  (you  fay;  is  primarily,   the  Son  fecon- 
 
 "  darily  Jiahor  of  the  World.''     And  ^'  Crea- 
 
 ''  tion  is  primarily  and  eminently  attributed 
 
 ^^  to  the  Father^  becaufe  of  his  'AvSfevrU^    h/s 
 
 *'  Supremacy  and Original  Efficiency,''^ 
 
 The  ^'  General  Opi?iion  of  the  Amiefjts  cefiter-  p,  184. 
 "  ed  in  this^  that  the  Father^  as  Supreme,  if- 
 **  fued  out  Orders  for  the  Creation  of  the  U?ii^ 
 *'  verfe^  and  the  Son  executed  thern,^'*  Where- 
 fore "  let  no  Man  he  offended  if  the  Son  be 
 ^^  fometimes  f aid  vTr^^iTny  ^nd  uVygyeTv,  r^  Serve 
 and  to  Minifter."     The  "  Defign   of  all  this^ 
 
 u  is to  fignify^  that  the  Unity  ultimately  p.  iS^. 
 
 *'  refolves  i?ito  Unity  of  Principle,  One  *Ag;:^5;, 
 *^  Head,  Root,  Fountain  of  all'''  And  the 
 Ancients,  ^'  for  the  Greater  Majefty  and  Dig-  p,  188, 
 *'  nity  of  the  Fathsr^  fuppofed  h'lm  to  ifjue  out 
 *'  Orders,  or  to  give  his  Fhi  for  the  Creation^ 
 "  a?id  the  Son  to  execute."  TET  ^t  the 
 fame  lime    (it  feems;)    notwithftanding   all 
 
 ''  This 
 
3i8  Of  the  \]  my  of  God. 
 
 p.  i88.  ''  This  Differejice^''  theAntients  '^  afc'ihed  the 
 ^'  work  of  Creation  EQJJA  LLTto  Both  ^  to  the 
 '^  Son  as  miich^  as  to  the  Father, ^"^     And  "  the 
 *'  Son  is  as  truly  and  properly  Creator'^'*  as  the 
 Father.     And,    notvvithftanding   the  Father's 
 p.  183,  "  Supremacy*''  and  "  ijfuing  out  Orders  as  Su- 
 ^^■^'       ''  preme ;"  yet  the  Son  too,    muft  be  ''  ^'m- 
 p.  53.    *'  /?r^w<?  iw  f&^  /?/iJ?  Senfe'*    or  he  could  not 
 "  /'^  properly  God'*     And  the   Subordination 
 F.  183,  muft  be  only  '^  ^?  Subordination  of   Oraer^   or 
 186.       4c  ^Qj^E  Priority  of  Order  ;"  viz.  in  the  mere 
 P.  1S4.  Placing  of  Words.     And  "  the  Antients^    in 
 "  ^jjigning  to  the  Three  Perfons  feveral  Parts 
 *'  or  Provinces  in  the  Work^  of  Creation^''  did 
 fo  only  ^'  as  it  were^'  and  "  had  a  Very  good^\ 
 *"'  meaning  and  intent"^*  in  it  •,    and    ^^  are  ?iot 
 "  to  be  JlriBly  and  rigorou[ly  interpreted  ^"  The 
 Defign  of  their  fo  ftrongly  alferting  the  Su- 
 premacy of  the    Father   in   iffuing  out  Orders^ 
 being  only  "  to  keep  up  a  more  lively  Senfe  of 
 ^'  a  real  Diftindion  of  Perfons ^"^    not  of  any 
 real  Supremacy  in  the  Father  ^  and  ''  to  teach 
 p.  185.  *^  us  that  the  Three  Perfons  are  0?ie  Creator^"* 
 though  they   tell  us  that  One  Perfon  is ''  the 
 "  'A§;/>i,  Heady    Root^    and  Fountain  of  all.'* 
 Is  This  to  treat    a  Religious    Queftion    fe- 
 rioufy  ^ 
 A  183.       The  Reader  cannot   but   take  notice  here, 
 by  the  way,  how   judicioufly  you  omitted  to 
 tranfate  the  Greek  Sentence  you  here  cite  out 
 of  Cyril 'j    it  very  exprefsly  and  flrongly  af- 
 ferting,   againft   you,    the    Father''?,   oLv^ivrix,]^ 
 l^Ho-U  and  ^cTTCQTiU  Supreme  Authority  and  So- 
 vereignty^ 
 
Qu.XI.      Of  the  Unity  of  Cod.  31^ 
 
 vereignty^  and  the  Soiis,  ailing  rcd  rS  ^ar-^U 
 vev/ioLTi^  and  ^ctr^U  ^8A?]S"tvTo$,  according  to 
 the  DireBion  and  Will  of  the  Father^  in  the 
 Creation. 
 
 To  your  AfTertion   that    ^' the   Pr^pOj^tion  p.  12^, 
 ^'  D^l^y  U  frequently  ufed  to  exprefs  the  effici-^^^' 
 ^'  ent  Caufe^  as  much  as  uVo,  or  ex.;"    And  to 
 your  Defire  that  I  ^'  would  account  clearly  for 
 
 That  Text^  Rom.  11,  g6  :"  J  have  given  a 
 full  and  diftind  Anfwer  above,  p.  185. 
 
 Your  Charge,  of  "  mijlrarijlathig  "  a  Paf-  F.  1S3 
 fage  of  Erifebhts^  (cited  by  Dr.  Clarke  in  his 
 Scripture  DoBrine,  p.  89,  Edit,  ijl  -^  P-  7^, 
 Edit.  2^.)  without  fo  much  as  pretending  to 
 fliow  how  the  words  can  poffibly  be  capable 
 of  any  Other  fenfe  •,  is  very  unjuft.  And 
 your  Complaint,  thit  we  have  no  ground  to 
 
 oppofe''^  the  Efficient  Caufe  (hy  way  of  Emi-  ihid, 
 nence)     to  a  Minijlritig  Caufe^    fince    every 
 
 wifii/lriftg   Caufe'^    may  and   muft  be  alfo 
 
 efficient  -^"^  is  vere  ridiculous^  PafTages  out 
 of  Eufebius^  Philo^  and  Origen,  founding  th^s 
 diftinftion  upon  the  Ufe  of  the  Pr^pofitions^  I 
 have  <^^^t;^  cited  at  large  ,  pag.6,  19,  and  184. 
 The  following  Paflages  may  be  here  added, 
 *'  The  Father,  fays  Origen^  is  Qt^^c^tos  S^'i^fjus^- 
 "  yoi)  the  Firjl  or  Principal  Author."  And 
 he  explains  his  meaning,    that  the  Father  (i) 
 
 (l)  T»rft>  [AoV?'3  7^^  <PctiJ(jiv  cv  Ti{  xmtu  Ma<rici  aoa-i/zOTroi'iUTrpo- 
 ^atrlovTct,  T  c^-ctrlpcc,   ny/iKivon    to,  yiVTjSyiru  (pdix;-  '  T^^c^rTcty^hv-- 
 
 Tec  'j  T  Xoyov  7ri7roi-/}Kheci  vrnvrcc  ctroc  o  tcctvi^  dvr^  iviTiiXu.ro.  Adv. 
 Celf.  lib.  1.  P.  63.  Again:  o  ^^cc,  hiniXccro  'zse^  tuv  roa-isruv  cV 
 xoa-f/ja,    xxl  tKTii^i)'   yMi   0  r\)i    iyroAtiv    Aet/3a»v,     o   ^iac>    Xoy(^     «y. 
 
 ibi4  P.  79- 
 
 *'  com- 
 
 cc 
 
5  20  of  the  \Jmy  of  God. 
 
 ^'  comminded'^^  and  that  the  Son,  "  receiving 
 '^  this  Command^''  was  [,^*'J  ragyo?]   the  imme- 
 diate  Jge?it^  miniitring   unco  him.      Agreea- 
 bly whereto,  I  obferved  to  you  (tho'  you  are 
 pleafed  to  take  no  Notice  of  itj  that  the  fame 
 Author    (on  Hd.  i,  2.)  fays  ;    *-^  The  Worlds 
 "  voereniadehy  one  who  is  more  (1)  Excel- 
 ♦'  lent  and  Greater  than  the  WordP     Kufehi^ 
 us  not  only  fays,  that  the  Son  is  [J7r>i§eTf/co^] 
 the  Minijterial  Age?it\  but  frequently  that  he 
 is  [t^y^yoi]   ''  the  (2)  Living  Infirument^  By 
 *'  whom  God  (m2iAQ  and)  governs  all  Thi?igs.'^^ 
 And  again  ;  that  (j)  the  Son  in  the  Creati- 
 on    "  Obeyed  the  Conima?id  of  the    Father-?'^ 
 Adding,  that  Therefore,  "  lefore  all  Things^ 
 **  he  was  produced  by  the  father^  as  a  hiving 
 '-  Qogyctvovj  Inftrmnent?'*      The  ctu3-evTia  then 
 of  the  Father^  is  ^according  to  thefe  Writers) 
 his  Supreme  oAuthoritative  Efficiency  *,    And 
 the  TO  uTT^gertjcov  of  the  Son^    is  his  Miniftring 
 to  the  Sovereign  Will  of  the  Father. 
 P>  iSj.       i^^fftl  has  not  proved  '^  the  Argument  drawn 
 *'  from  the  life  of  the  Prdipojttiofis^  to  be  poor 
 '*  and  trifling  ;"    but  only  weakly  fuppofes 
 Jetius  to  be  the  Author  and  hive?itor  of  it : 
 Whereas  I  have  fliown,  that  (4;  Origen  and 
 Eufebius  and  "Vhilo  inlift  upon  it ;    And    par- 
 ticularly that  Eufebius  on  This  Account  ex- 
 prefsly  rtiles  the  Word^   the  Father's  [ogyxvov] 
 
 (1)  'Xtto   KfUTTov^   xflti   f/jii^cv^  TTcteu  rov   Ao'yov,     Comm.    in 
 Job.  p.  56.  i 
 
 (2)  Demon.  Evang.  P.  146.  1 
 (^3)  Demon.  Evang.  lib.  4.  c.  4.  P.  149.  J 
 {4)  See  ahve,  p.  6,  19,  &  184*                                              | 
 
qu.  Xf.      of  the  \3mty  of  God.  321 
 
 Infiniment  in  the  Creation  ^  The  very  thing 
 that  (i)  B^T?/ weakly  lays  upon  Aet'im  as  the 
 Inventor  of  it.  The  principal  Text  which 
 Bafil  relies  on,  and  which  you  defire  me  to 
 "  account  for ^'  viz,.  Rom.  Ii,  36  j  has  been 
 confidered  ahove^  p.  185.  p,  186^ 
 
 I  acknowledge  I  was  miflaken  in  fuppofing  that  ^^9- 
 no  Antient  Writer  ftiled  the  Son,    tov  oAojv  ot 
 Tm  'Xcfjrm  '7to\,y\ry\s*  Ifliould  havefaid,  that  he  is 
 never  filled,  in  an  abfoluteCon(tru3ion^Q  woiy\r\^j 
 (or  0  5es^,)  rm  'oXcov'^  And  then  it  would  have 
 been  right.     Foro^w^,  or  0  TroiijTk  rm  'oXoohab-  ' 
 folutely^  is  One  thing  ^  and  0  '^th  \oy®^>  ^s  irf 
 the  place  I  now  cited  out  of  Origen^  or  0  Sy\- 
 ^•iygyo?   Aoy@^5  o  TroiiiTvi^  tov  oA.^t^,    as  in  the 
 place  cited  by  you  out  of  Eufebms^    is  Another 
 thing.     If  I  miftook  in  the  Criticifm  of  the 
 Expreflion,  I  am  fure  I  mifiook  not  the  Senfe 
 of  the  Antient  Writers  in  This  Point.     See 
 above^  p.  184,  ficc. 
 
 Your  Allegation,  that,  by  my   "  Reafoning^  p-  ^9<^* 
 ^'  the  Father  Hhnfelf    as  well  as  the  Scn^    is 
 ''  excluded  from  ever  giving  any  fenftble  Proof 
 "  of  Infinite  Power  ;"    has    been  anlwered 
 above^  p,  244*,  where  the /^w^  Argument  was 
 confidered  with  regard  to  Eternity* 
 
 In  fine  :  "  The  Quejlion  (you  fay)  is^  whe-  p.  19^- 
 "  ther  Creating^  that  is^  producing  out  of  no- 
 "  thiyig^  any  one  fingle  thing  \    be  not  an  AEi 
 ^'  proper  to  God  o?jly^  exceeding  a7iy  finite  Pow- 
 "  er^  ijicommimicable  to  any  QreatureP     And 
 
 (t)  De  Sp.  SanAt-,p.  i45- 
 
 Y  whe- 
 
5  2  X  Of  the  Unity  of  Cod. 
 
 whether  any  thing  "  can  come   into   Being  by 
 '^  any  Power  lefs  than  His,  who  is  the  Author 
 *'  and  I'ountain  of  all  Bei?ig'^     lanfvver:  What 
 Powers  God  is  or  is  not  Able  to  communicate 
 to  a  Creature^  does  not  become  Us  to  deter- 
 mine ;  nor  is  it  at  all  the  Point    in  Qjaeftion. 
 'I'he  only  Qjjeftion  is,  whether  the  Fower  of 
 creating  can  be  communicated  to  any  Jgent 
 whatfoever^  and  in  what  manner  foever  exift- 
 ing,    in    whom  That  Power  is   not   original^ 
 itnderivedy    and  abfolutely  of  Him f elf.      The 
 Scripture  declares  that  This  Power  can  be  com- 
 municated to,    and  is   exercifed  by,   fuch  an 
 Agent :    And  yet  'tis  nevcrthelefs  true,  that 
 All  things  "  come   into  Being   by   His   Power ^ 
 '  *^  who  is  the*'  Alone  Original  ^^  Author  ^Foun- 
 "  tain;'    and   Firft  Caufe    "  of  AU  Beifig ;" 
 For  'tis  by  the  Father's  Powcr^  that  the  Son 
 creates. 
 
 Q^u  E  P.  Y     XIL 
 
 Whether  the  Creator  of  all  Ihiirgs  was  not 
 him  felf  Uncreated'^  and  therefore  could  not  be 
 l^  8v  oyrcevj  made  out  of  nothi?ig  ^ 
 
 Anf^v.^'J^HERE    is    in    your  wording  of 
 X     this  Query,  a  very  great  unfairnefs. 
 Mentioning  in  an  abfolute  manner    (as  you 
 F.-194.  here  do)    ''  The  Creator   of  all  things^''    you 
 might  as  well  have  put    the  Queftion  thus  ; 
 Muji  not  The  Creator  of  all  things  be  the  Ori- 
 ginal 
 
*  See  a- 
 
 Qii.  XII.  Of  the  Sdordinationy  &c.         321 
 
 f*  ginal   of  all  Beinr  and  Power ^   and  confe- 
 «^  quently  Hmfelf  of  necejjity  Uncreated^   Un- 
 <'  begotten^   underived^     miorighiated^    hi    ^ny 
 <«  ntanner  whatfoever  <:''  Bu^by  ^' the  Creator 
 <'  of  all  things''  you  mean  in  this  place  Him 
 By  whom  God  created  all  things.      Now  'tis 
 nianifeft  indeed,  that  He  by  whom  God  crea- 
 ted all  things^  cannot  be  included  in  the  all 
 things  which  God  created  by  Him.      'Tis  alfo 
 as  manifeft  on  the  other  fide,  that  Jefiis  Chriji 
 by  whom  God  created  all  things^  (Eph.  5,9,) 
 cannot  be   The  God  who  created   all  things  by 
 Jefus  Chrift.     How  therefore,  and  "^  in  ivhat  *  see 
 manner^    He  himfelf  derived  his  Being  from  ^^^/'^ 
 the  Father,    cannot  be  at  all  coUeded  from 
 hence.     Whatever  the  Manner  of   his  Gene- 
 ration, and  whatever  his  Subfiance  be,  it  makes 
 no  Difference  in  the  Point  between  us.     If  all 
 the  P^n?^rjof  the  Son  be  derived  to  him  by  the 
 Power  and  fVill  of  the  Father^  fwhich  is  what 
 Scripture  and  all  Antiquity  unanimoujly  2i2ytQ 
 in,)  the  Supreme  Authority  of  the   Father  re- 
 mains  undiminifhed :    Which  is  all  that  we 
 are  concerned  for.     We  affirm  not,  (nay,  we 
 blame  thofe  who  prefume  to  affirm)  that  the 
 Son  of  God  was  created^   or  that  he  was  (l^ 
 8)c  ovTo);/)  out  of  Nothing  :  Nor  do  thefe  things 
 follow  by  any  Cojifequence^   from   his  being 
 Begotten  by  the  Power  and  Will  of  the  Father^ 
 any  more  than  from  his  being  Begotten  with- 
 out the  Power  and  Will  of  the  Father.     Leav- 
 ing to  Goi  the  Knowledge  of   the  f  articular 
 Manner  of  his  Sor^%  Generation,  (for  no  man 
 !  Y  2  hvjweth 
 
3^4  0/  the  Sulordination 
 
 knorveth  the  St::, but  the  Father^  Mat.  11,27  ;,) 
 we  contend  only  for  that  incommunicable 
 Supremacy  of  the  Father,  which  is  the 
 Foundation  both  of  Natural  and  Revealed 
 Reli^io?j, 
 
 p.  198,      The  Remiinder  of   your   Defenfe  of  This 
 
 —  201.  Query,  is  fpent  in  criticifing  a  Faflage  of 
 Origen^  and  another  of  Athanafms^  cited  by 
 Dr.  Clarke.  [The  Other  Authors  you  refer  to, 
 in  pag.  197  5  I  have  confidered  above ^  p,  281, 
 29 T,  and  295.3  Concerning  the  Paffage  of 
 jltbanafiis^  [tov  x.cc1  tt]^  x^nata^g  xugioy,  xcti  ^TtcL- 
 Gy\^  uVoT^cto-g^^  (J>i//.s8g7oi/,]    I  incline  to   think, 
 
 T.  200.  with    Toit^    that    '^  Athanafius^    being ay\ 
 
 '^  Oratour^''  might  poffibly  here  not  mean  to 
 diftinguifli  between  :^ri<jii  and  tjVsV^co-j^,  but 
 "  intend  only  to  vary  his  Phrafe,  either  to  be 
 "  fiiore  e?nphat?cal^  or  to  give  the  better  Turn 
 ''  andCadeiice  to  a  Period :'^  And  I  have  rea- 
 fon  to  believe,  the  DoBor  therefore  will  not 
 injifl  upon  inferring  any  thing  from  That  Paf- 
 fage. But  the  Paffage  of  Origen^  [y^iG^\jr(jLToj 
 'Kcurm  Tc^v  S^-iifJAse^yyii^cLTav^'^  as  rend  red  by  the 
 DoBor^  [the  Antienteft  of  all  thiiigs  that  God 
 gave  Beiiig  to^  is  notorioufly  agreeable  to  the 
 whole  'Tenonr  of  Ov'igtn^s  Writiiigs -^  as  the 
 Reader  cannot  f^iil  to  obferve  from  tho  nume- 
 rous Pallages  I  have  above  cited,  and  Ihall  cite 
 
 *p.  1^,8.  from  him  hereafter^  The  Inflances  ^  you  al- 
 ledge  againfl  Dr.  Clarke^  in  juftitication  of  Bi- 
 fliop  Bull\  rendring  the  words  of  Origen  Thus, 
 \_Antienter  than  All  Creatures  -^  arc  fuch  as 
 Dr.  Clarke^  in   the  very  Place  you  refer  to, 
 
 him- 
 
Qii.  XII.  of  the  Son,  3^  J 
 
 himfelf  "  candidlj  "  alleJged,  on  purpofe  to 
 juftify  (by  the  Amhi^iiHy  of  the  Expreffion) 
 Bifliop  Bti/Z'sTranflation  of  the  Words.  But 
 your  Co7iclufion  from  hence  is  very  extraordi- 
 nary. One  PaiTage  in  Origen^  is  acknowledged 
 to  have  an  ambiguity  in  it,  (yet  neither  way 
 aflfefling  the  Point  in  queftion  between  us,) 
 and  confequently  not  to  prove  any  thing  cer- 
 tainly :  Therefore  in  oppofition  to  tenthoufand 
 Paffages  which  have  no  ambiguity  in  them, 
 ^*  let  Origen  (you  fay)  he  Ours  again^  'till  ?,  loi. 
 *'  you  can  better  make  out  your  Title  to  him.^^ 
 But  This,  by  the  way. 
 
 In  Sum.  The  Father's  being  Alone  the 
 Original  Fountain  of  all  Being  and  Power,  and 
 his  Supreme  Authority  as  fuch,  is  fo  funda- 
 wental^L Principle  oiKcVi^ion^  and  '^  a  Truth''  Pag.  40. 
 fas  Bifhop  Pearfon  exprefTes  it)  fo  '^  Neceffary  ^ditAfh. 
 ''  to  be  acknowledged^  for  the  avoiding  multi- 
 '''  plication  and  plurality  of  Gods  ;"  ih^it  Many 
 Primitive  Writers,  before  tue  Time  of  the 
 Great  Party-Divifions  in  the  Fourth  Century, 
 exprefTed  themfelves  upon  This  Head  in  fucli 
 very  Jiror^g  Terms,  that  the  followers  of  Ariu£ 
 afterwards,  claimed  them  (ihough,  I  think, 
 without  fufficient  reafon)  as  Alfertors  of  Tbeir 
 Doctrine  and  Philofophy,  that  the  Son  was 
 Qc,  yJ^  ovTajyj  out  of  Nothing. 
 
 Thus  the  Aj)oJlolical  (i)  Conftitutions  ftile 
 the   Son^    That   lVifdo?n  which  God  Created. 
 
 lib.  7.  C.   36. 
 
 i"  J  Not 
 
326  Of  the  Sdordination 
 
 Not  taking  this  word  \jreated~\  in  the  fenfe 
 we  Now  generally  underftand  it,  but  "  itfmg 
 *'  it''  (as  Dr.  (i)  Cave  obferves)  "/^^'  Any 
 "  manner  of  ProduBlon  -^^  and  applying  to  the 
 ''  Generation  of  the  Son  of  God''  thofe  words 
 oi  Solomon^  Prov.  8,22,  ''  The  Lord  pof/effed 
 "  me  [jyjnae  /^e,  created  me^  in  the  Beginni?ig 
 ''  of  his  Way r 
 
 In  the  fame  manner  Melito  (whom  you  cite, 
 p.  140,)  ufes  the  term,  'sfe^^  -itrmccs  %§ira' 
 \Cave'%  Life  of  Mel/to^  p.  183  ^  and  hi/Ior, 
 JJterar.p,  43.3  And  Hermas  (whom  you  cite, 
 p.  97,)  ftiles  the  Son,  [Simil.  5,  §  6,3  Spiri- 
 turn  qui  infufits  (in  fome  MSS,  creatus)  efl 
 omnium  primus.  Infomuch  that  ('as  Dr.  Cave^ 
 J-iiJior.  literar.  p,  21,  obferves  out  of  Athana- 
 Jilts  and  TheodoretJ  the  Arians  in  following 
 times  "  cited  for  themf elves  J  bis  Book," 
 
 Thus  Tertidlian^  tho'  he  exprefsly  affirms 
 the  Son  to  be  of  the  Sub  (lance  of  the  Father^ 
 J'et  calls  him  [faBiim  (2)  and  (3)  ccnditum'] 
 
 (i)  Life  of  Mei'noy  pag.  183,  184.     And  thus  Eufeb'nts:    Et 
 
 rcvT   uv  uTTci.    De  Ecclef.  Theol.  lib.  3.  cap.  2. 
 
 (2)  Quale  efl  ut  filio  Dei,  Sermone  unigcnito  &  primogeni- 
 to,  aliquid  fuerit  prcetcr  Patrem  antiquius;  &  hoc  modo  uti- 
 que  Generolius;  nedum  quod  innatum  Jiato  fortius,  &  quod 
 iiifedtain  fach  validius  ?  Quia  quod,  ut  clVet,  nullius  eguit 
 :^uftori;,  multo  fublimius  erit  eo,  quod,  ut  elTet,  aliquem  ha- 
 buit  aurtcrein.     Adv.  Hcrmog.  <,  18. 
 
 C3)  Agnolcat  ergo  Hermogencs  idcirco  etiam  Sophiam  Dei 
 natam  bi  conJ'uarn  pri\;dicari,  nc  quid  innatum  &  inconditum 
 ]»r3crer  iblum  Deum  crcdcremus.  ibid.  And  again  :  Habes 
 Sophiam,  prior  autem  al-yjj'o  gen'ita  fumy  dicentem  ;  ut  credas 
 nbydum  quoque  j^e.'7/V^;/7,  id  elt,  fuciam;  quia  &:  tilios /*ic/»z«/, 
 licet  gemremus.  Nihil  interell-,  fucU  an  r/ata  lit  abylfuf,  duni 
 i nit! urn  detu;  illi.  ibid.  t.  31. 
 
 Made. 
 
 \ 
 
Qu.  XII.  of  the   Son.  327 
 
 Made  and  Pr educed  :  And  (i)  applies  to  him 
 the  fore  -mentioned  Text  as  in  the  Greek  Tranf- 
 lation,  The  Lord  created  ?fie  the  Beginning  of 
 his  ways  :  And  fin  the  Paflages  which  I  have 
 cited  above,  p.  285,)  he  makes  even  Humane 
 Souls  to  be  from  the  Subftance  of  God. 
 
 Thus  Clemens  Jlexanarifius,  whom  you  cite 
 as  fpeaking  the  Higheft  things  concerning  the 
 Son  of  God,  yet,  in  allufion  to  the  fore-cited 
 Text,  ftiles  him  "  The  (2)  Wifdom  which  God 
 fir  ft  created.  And  in  other  later  parts  of  his 
 Works,  he  expreifed  himfelf  in  fuch  a  manner, 
 that  (3J  Photius  charges  him  with  making  the 
 Son  a  Creature-^  and  (^4)  Jerom  alfo  mentions 
 the  fame  Obfervation,  and  blames  Ruffin  for 
 pretending  the  PaiTages  might  be  corrupt, 
 
 Origen^  whom  you  '^fcruple  not  "  to  call  ^-  rpy, 
 '^  Tours''  even  as  to  "  the  whole  Tenour  '*  of  '^^'^'^^' 
 him  ^  makes  the  Son  (as  (5)  Epiphanius  ob- 
 ferves  of  him)  to  be  from  the  Subftance  of  the 
 Father  :  And  yet  at  the  fame  time  he  fo 
 explained  himfelf,  that  Epiphanius  m  the  very 
 fame  fentence  (5 J  charges  him  with  fuppo- 
 fing  the  Son  to  be  created  iieverthelefs*     And 
 
 (i)  Sophiam  fecundam  perfonam  conditam.    Primo,  'Doyni- 
 nus  creav'it  me  mithim  viarum  in  opera  fua.     Adv.  Prax.  c.6.' 
 
 (2)  'Zoipidc,  T?5  Tr^uTOKTiTii  7u)  .9-£ft>,  Strom,  p.  591. 
 
 C3)   Tov  uicv   ii\  KTio-fjijci  ^ocyei,   Cod.    lOp, 
 
 (4)  Clementern  quoque,  -virum   catholicum,  fcribit  \xi 
 
 libris  fuis  intcrdum  Dei  fiiium  dicere  Creamram.      ApoU   i. 
 adv,  Ruffin. 
 
 (5)  'Ex,  T?^  »cr<Ji5  Tou  vTxtAc,   toZtov    liTyiyiXrcii^    rjrf^v   i^^    a,t/j</,, 
 Huef.  64.  c.  4. 
 
 .7^~ 
 
3^8  Of  the  Subordination 
 
 Jerom  (i)  underftood  his  Opinion  to  be,  that 
 Angels  alfo,  and  even  the  Souls  of  Me?j^  (as 
 has  been  before  obferved  concerning  lertuU 
 liaiij  were  of  the  Divine  Subjlance  :  And  that  i 
 it  was  (2)  the  praEi-exifting  Soul  of  Chrift, 
 which  the  Apollle  declares  (Phil.  2,  6,)  to 
 have  bee7i  in  the  Form  of  God^  6cc.  And  upon 
 the  Whole  of  thefe  Matters,  Origen  expreffed  I 
 in  fuch  a  manner  his  Notion  concerning  the 
 Father'^s  being  the  Fountain  of  all  Beifig  and 
 Power ^  that  ^'  he  was  much  ce?jfured'"  (as  you 
 obferve,  p.  20 J  ''  ^7  wa?iy  of  the  Catho- 
 ^^  licks ^  RU r  (3)  after  his  onvi  times ^ 
 Particularly  Epiphanius  (4)  thinks,  he  gave 
 occafion  to  the  Notions  of  Arius  ^  And  the 
 fame    (5)  Epiphanius^   (6)  Bafil^    (7)  Jerow^ 
 
 (0> 
 
 (i)  Omnes  rationabiles  naturas,  id  c(l,  Patrem,  &  Filium, 
 Sc  Spiritum  Sandum,  Angelos,  Potelbtes,  Dominationes,  qt:- 
 teralqae  Virtutes;  ipfum  quoque  Hominem,  Iccunduin  Ani- 
 mx.  dignitatem,  Umus  elTe  SuhfiayitiA.     Ep'iji.  ad  Avitum. 
 
 .    (2)  Amma^n  Sjlvatoris  fuilTc,  qux- dww  in  forma  Dei 
 
 eflet,  non  eft  rapinam   arbitrata  aequalem  fe  efle  Deo,   h^z. 
 Apol.  fecitnda  adverf.  Riiffinum. 
 
 (^3)  For  Demetrius  himfclf,  who  wasOri^^w's  Bifhop  and  his 
 great  Enemy,  yet  commended  him  (^  to  yv^ncv  xv-cZ  rv\^  ^i- 
 Tiuc,')  for  the  Vurity  of  his  Faith.      Eufeb.    Hift.    Ecdef.  lib.  6. 
 
 c.  7. 
 
 (4)  '£«.  T»TK  yx^  Kxl  y'Affioc,  7K?  7r^c<px(r£^c,   iiM<?i-     HAref.  64. 
 
 (c)   <l^ ccy:- farcer X  nv  vi:v  rev  .S-£oy  Kna-f/jcc  iaoyfjtjUTKrs,  ■xatt  ro 
 
 ■xviZf/jcc  TV  uyiov  xTijvv  iKrrr/y^Jcx.ro.    ibid.  §.5-       And  again  :     Ev 
 »roA;»io^  rcVo<5  ivpefjbiv  ccvtov  nv  f/jovoym   ^tov   ciT^xXXoT^ioZvra.  rvic,  rou 
 
 TXTfi)^   S-£0T>;r0S    Ti    KCcl     »V(«?,  0,M/OW    T£    KCft  TV    TCViZ^X    TV    UyiOV.        ibid. 
 $.8.  .,,..,..  V      ,  M  • 
 
 ii'frxo-iv  'txti^Tx.  De  Spir.  Santto,  c.  iq. 
 
 (7)  Chrillum  fihuniDei,  non  w^r«w  elle,  kd  faffum.^ ■ 
 
 ♦-Dcum  Patrem  die  Lumen  mcprnprehcnfibilc ,    C^hriflum,  col- 
 lationePatnsJpIendcrem  cfle  fcriarvmn.  -Filium  nonclle 
 
 Bonnw^ 
 
Qii.XII.  of  the  Son.  .329 
 
 (t)  Jiiiiiman^  and  (2)  Ptoir/i, plainly  charge 
 him  with  making  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  to 
 h<^  Created  Beings.  And  C^)  Jerom  tells  us, 
 that  he  interpreted  the  two  Seraplmn^  Ifai.  6, 
 3,  (which  ^'  cried  one  unto  another^  and  faid^ 
 *^  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  is  the  Lord  of  Ho/is  -"J 
 to  be  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  Upon  account 
 of  which  and  the  like  Notions,  Rnjjin  and 
 Others  alledged,  that  the  Works  of  Ongen  had 
 been  corrupted  by  Hereticks.  But  "Jerom 
 laughs  at  Py.uJ]in  for  this  Opinion,    (4)    and 
 
 con- 
 
 Bonumy  [to  kyct^lv,"^  fed  auram  quondam  &  ir)2.^ginem  Bonita- 
 
 tis. lert'mm  dignitate  8c  honore,    poft  Patrem  &  Fi!i- 
 
 iim,  afferit  Spintum  SanUum  :  De  quo  cum  ignorare  fe  di- 
 cat,  utrum  facius  fit,  an  'tnfeclns-^  in  pollerioribiis,  quid  de  eo 
 fentiret,  expreffu;  nihil,  alDfque  folo  Deo  Patre,  intedum  ellc 
 confirmans.     Epifi.  ad  Avitum.    And  again:  Dei  Filium,  cre- 
 
 aturam  ;  Spiritum  Sanftum,  miniilrum. Repugnat  eum  vel 
 
 prolatumelle  velnatum,ne  Deus  Pater  dividatur  in  partes;  fed 
 dicit  iublimem  6c  excellentifiimam  creaturam  voluntate  extitilTe 
 Patris.     Apol.  2.  adverf.  Kufpnum. 
 
 (i)  '  Otlo  liioc,  j^  TV  oi'/koj  TTi/iZfjijx  KTiCTfjtjocTu  ii(ri.  Epifl,  ad  Meiiam. 
 
 (2)  Tcv  fxiiv  viov  iWo  rou  7»ur^oc,  %t7:'0iYi(XTccif  tv  ai  TrviZfjuu,  iWo  toZ 
 viou.  Cod.  58. 
 
 (3)  In  ]e<flione  Efa'uj  in  qu-a  duo  Seraphim  clamantia  defcri- 
 buntur;  illo  interpretante///«w  &  Spintum  ?an6lum.  £/>//?.  ad 
 Pammach.  c?  Ocean,  ATid  again  :  Fi]ium  Dei  &  Spiritum  Sanctum 
 in  commentariis  Efai^i,  Seraphim  efle  tellatus  eft.  /Jdverf.  Vigilan- 
 tium.  Not  much  unlike  to  wYiidiy'mhzioi  Clemens  Alexandrifms  i 
 ^ofivtrnc,  fj/jST  d'y/iheov  ociXi(pi  tov  uyiwyirov  koh  ocvaXi^fov  x«t  f/cfvov 
 ovTeo<^  S-sov,  a-wvfjjjcZvToc,  viii,7v  toZ  ^ioZ  Aoya-  *'  Thoii  fJjalt  be  in  the 
 **  Chorus  u-ith  Angels  praifim^  the  Unbegotten  and  Incorruptible 
 *'  and  Only  True  God;  God  the  Word  joining  al/o  with  us  in 
 **  our  Songs  of  Vraife."  Admonit.  ad  Gentes,  tub  finem.  Al~ 
 ludi?ig  perhaps  to  the  Song  of  the  Lamb,  Rev.  15,  3. 
 
 (4>)  illud  veto  quod  afferunt,  a  quibufdam  haereticis  8c  ma- 
 levolis  hominibus  libros  ejus  eile  violatos,  quam  inepcum  fit. — 
 Solus  inventus  eft  Grigcne'sy  cujas  Scripta  in  toto  orbe  falfaren- 
 tur;  &,  quaft  ad  Mithridatis  htcras,  omnis  Veritas  uno  die  de 
 voluminibus  ilUus  raderetur?  Si  unus  violatus  eft  Uber,  num 
 wniverra  ejus  opera,  quse  diverfis  &  locis  6c  temporibus  edidit, 
 
 fimul 
 
3  3  o  Of  the  Sutordiridtion 
 
 contends  th^t  it  \v^3  nor  poJJi/?!e  for   the  nime- 
 rotis  Books  and  numerous  Copies  of  the  Books 
 of  Origen  to  be  corrupted   in  t?mm:erable  pla- 
 ces.    However,    whatever  they    were  in  the 
 Original  Greek)    Ruffin^    when   he  tranflated 
 tliem  into  Latin^  openly  (i)  profelfes  that  Ue 
 hirnfelf  did  corrupt  them  the  other  way  in  His 
 Tranilation,  that  the  Latins   might   nut  find 
 any  thing  In  them   contrary  to  Their    Faith. 
 For  which   Falfification,   Jerom   (2)  leverely 
 accufes   him   of  Fraud  and  Interpolation    and 
 Unfaithjulnefs.  And  yet  (which  is  very  (trange) 
 even  (j;  He  alfo  at   the  fame  time  acknow- 
 ledges, 
 
 fimiil  corrumni  potueriint?  E^ifi.  ad  Pammach,  a-  Ocean, 
 jind  again  :  Si  conceditur  ut  quicquid  in  libijs  omnium  reperi- 
 tur,  ab  aliis  corruptum  fit;  nihil  eorum  erit  quorum  fcrrur  no- 
 mmibus.^    ^poi.  i.  adv.  Ruffin. 
 
 (i)  Cum  aliquando  offendicula  inveniantur  in  Gioeco,  ita 
 IcoUega  nofter]  elimavit  omnia  interpretando  atquc  purgavit, 
 ut  nihil  in  illis  quod  a  Tide  nofira  difcreper,  Latinus  Ledor  in- 
 
 veniar.     Hunc  ergo   etiam  j\r(?y---— fequimur. Sicubi 
 
 ergo  N^i  m  Libns  ejus  [_Ongenisl  aliquid  contra  id  invenimus, 
 quod  ab  eo  ceteris  locis  fideliter  6c  pie  de  Trinitatc  tuerat 
 detimtum;  velutj  adulteratum  hoc  ik  alienum  aut  pra^termili- 
 mus,  aut  lecundameam  regulam  protulimus,  quamabipfo  fre- 
 quenter invenimus  affirmatam.  Fr^f.it.  in  Ltb? '^  'Ap;v;i. 
 \^      --— ;^^^«^''^^'«^<?'-  efle  tranflatos,   &:  \nttrpo\ata   non- 
 
 nuila,  ve  addita  vel  mutata. :,i]]ic6  animadvert!,  ruse 
 
 Or/^<.;z^,  de  patre  &  filio  Scfpiritu  Sando  impie  dixerat,  &qu£ 
 KOMANJE  aures  kuQ  non  poterant,  in  meliorcm  partem  ab 
 Interprcte  commutata.  .^pol  j.  Mdv.  Rujfin.  And  a<rain  :  Si 
 tu  tranilatioms  (ervAfTesJidem,  mihi  neceflitas  non  fuiiFet  inter- 
 preiationem  fallam  vera  interpreiatione  fubvertere.  Novit 
 c  nlcientia  tua  quae  addideris,  qux  fubtraxeris,  quai  in  utram-  ■ 
 que  partem,  ut  tibi  vifum  fuerit,  immutaris.  ApoI.  ida  adv. 
 KHjpn.  ^ 
 
 (^)  F.go  callidus,  qm  emendavijilens quod  volm;  &  difTimu- 
 
 Jans  crimina,  non  feci  invidiam  criminolb Ncc  diferdo- 
 
 res  luinus  HiUrtOy  nee  fideliores  Vidorino,  qui  ejus  Tra^atus 
 non  ut  Interpretcs,  fed  ut  Auc^torcs  proprii  operis  tranftulerunt! 
 
 Nuper 
 
Qii.XII.  of  the  Son.  35 
 
 ledges,  that  He  Hhrifdlf  did  fomething  very 
 like  it,  and  for  the  like  reafon  ;  viz.  cut  off^ 
 and  correB^  and  fnpprefs  ^  that  the  Latins 
 might  have  the  gooJ  things  of  Origeuy  and 
 yet  be  kept  ignorant  of  his  Err  curs.  And  for 
 This,  he  pleads  the  Example  of  Other  Great 
 Men. 
 
 T>io7iyfnts  of  Alexandria^  (whom  you  cite, 
 p.  21,  142,  197,  and  elfewhere,)  a  Scholar  of 
 Origen  -^  though  fufficient  Apologies  have  been 
 made  for  him  by  Dr.  Cavej  Bidiop  Bull,  and 
 Others,  to  (how  that  he  was  not  indeed  of 
 Arius^  Notions  *,  yet  he  exprefTed  himfelf  fo 
 (Irongly  concerning  the  Supremacy  of  the  Ea^ 
 ther^  that  Bafil  (i)  underftood  him  to  mean, 
 *'  that  the  Eather  a.nd  Son  were  not  only  difti^iSi^ 
 "  but  different  Subftaiices  ,  and  that  the  Pow- 
 *'  er  and  Glory  of  the  Son^  was  inferiour  to 
 *'  that  of  the  Eather.      And  befides  this^  he 
 
 Nuper  fandus  Ambrofius  fie  Hexaemeron  illius  compilavir,  lit 
 magis  H'lppclyti  fententias  Bafiliiqm  fequeretur.  Epifi.  ad  ?am- 
 mach.  cjy  Ocean.  And  again  :  ego  ipfe,  quem  in  crimen  vo- 
 cas,  fie  feptuaginta  homiJias  ejus  tranlhili,  &  nonnulla  de  To- 
 mis,  uc  &  mala  in  bonorum  Interpietatione  fubtrahtrem.  A^ 
 pel.  1.  adv.  Rujftn.  And  again:  Si  igitur  qiix  bona  funt  tranf- 
 tuli,  ^  mala  vcl  ampntaviy  vci  correxi,  vel  tacui;  arguendus 
 film  cur  per  me  Larini  bona  ejus  habeant,  &:  maU  ignorent  ?  Si 
 hoc  crimen  ell,  arguatur  &  confeffor  Hilarius.  '^it  in 
 
 culpa  ejufdem  confeffionis  Vercellenfis  Eufebin5y  qui  omnium 
 Pfalmorum  commeniarios  hssretici  hominis  veitit  in  noltrum 
 eloquium  ;  licet  hsercrica  prsetermittens,  optima  quxque  tranf- 
 tulcrit.  Taceo  de  Vi^lorino  P'uiavionenfi^  &  cseteris,  &.C.  Ad~ 
 verj.  Vigjlantium. 
 
 {\)    Ovx,  in^oTYiTcc  y^')V)  ran   \:cro<^(rim   nfiiTxi,  uXXa  kcci  iitricct; 
 
 T8T0*5,     -ZSe^    Toy   T^ViUiXtCCTC;    U(p7,X.i   (pUVU,^  ml^a    7rf)i7T^(rXq   tm   ttviv^octi, 
 
 T^t,  ^forx.vvi£fjuivy!^   scvto  ?tior/iTo<,    i^c^i^uv,    r.xi  kxtu  %z    Tvf    XTJrjl    >^ 
 
 ^'  fpoke 
 
5 ')  2  Oftk  Sdordination 
 
 "  fpoke  very  unbecoming  Words  concerning  the 
 *'  Spirit  ^  not  allowing  him  Divine  IVorJbip,  but 
 "  deprejjing  him  into  the  Kumber  of  Created 
 "  and  Miniflrmg  Natures.''  And  Athanafms 
 in  his  Apology  for  h'ln,  (i)  owns  that  he  did 
 indeed  ufe  fuch  kind  of  Expreffions.  And 
 Photius  chargeth  him  with  afTerling  '•'  (2)  that 
 *'  the  Son  of  God  is  a  Creature^  and  Made  , 
 *'  and  that  he  is  not  by  Nature  the  proper  Son 
 *'  of  God^  but  aliene  in  effence  from  the  Fa^ 
 *'  ther.'''  And  Geniiadius  oppofeth  him,  fay- 
 ing '->  "  (^)  ^^  believe  no  Perfon  in  the  Trini- 
 "  ty  to  be  of  a  created  a7id  Minijlring  Nature^ 
 '^  as  Dionyfius  the  Fountain  of  Jrianrfm  would 
 "-  have  it:'  And  Ruffin  (4)  fays  :  "  There  are 
 "  found  fuch  Paffages  in  the  Books  he  -wrote 
 ''  againfi  the  Herefy  ^/Sabellius,  that  theAxhns 
 *'  frequently  indeavour  to  defend  themfelves  with 
 <'  His  Authority:*  And  ^erom  takes  Notice, 
 (5)  that  the  fame  thing  had  been  obferved  of 
 him  by  Others. 
 
 Gregory  q{  Neocdifarea  in  like  manner,  fano- 
 thcr  Scholar  of  Origen^  commonly  called 
 Thaumaturgus  *,  though  fufficient  Apologies 
 have  been  made  for  Him  alfo  by  Biihop  Bull 
 
 (i)  Dc  fcntent.  DionyJ.  §4. 
 
 (1)   Uoitif^cc  Kcci  yiv/iTov  iivcn  rov  'inlv   rou  ^soZ-    fjbiiTi  ^  cpurn  tthov 
 €cXXei  iivcv  iccAToc  »V<tfCv  then  tou  TTxr^oq,   Cod     lO^. 
 
 (3)  Nihil  crcatum  aut  Servkm  in  Trinitate  credamiis,  ut 
 viilt  Diorjyftus  foils  ylrii.  Lib.  de  Ecdef.  Dogmat.  c.  4. 
 
 (4)  De  depravat.  Lib.  Origcnis. 
 
 {$)  Et  Dionyfn47n  Alexandnn?E  Urbis  Epifcopiim,  viriim 
 emditifTimLim,  contra  S^Z-f/Z/wwdifputantem,  in  Ananum  do*'- 
 pia  dclabi.     A^ol.  ida  adverf.  Kuffinum.  "^ 
 
 and 
 
IQu.XII.  of  the  Son.  533 
 
 and  Others,  to  fiiovv  that  he  was  not  of  Ari^ 
 us's  Notions  •,  yet  Ba/il  (i)  acknowledges^  that 
 in  his   difputation  againft  J^Iia?i^    are  to  be 
 found  '^  many  Expyeffions^  fT^'^/^  as  Creature, 
 "  Made,  and  the  like  ■^)  which  afford  the  great- 
 ''  efi  Advantage  to  the  Hereticks  "    Qmeanin^ 
 the  Eipwrmans']   ^^  of  the f e  Days. '"^     The  Apo- 
 logy he  makes  for  him,  is,    {2)  that   "  beinrr 
 *'  in  Difpute  mth  an   Unbeliever^  he  did  nov 
 *'  take  care  to    [peak   accurately^     but  yielded 
 "  fomewhat   to  the  Prejudices  of  the    man  he 
 ''  was  to  convert  ;>'*  or  that  Poffibly    "  he   f  j) 
 *'  might    mean    of    the     Humanity   of  Chrifi 
 what  Hereticks  u7iderflood  concerning  his  Di- 
 
 "  vi?iity'^ 
 
 Theognoflus  of  Alexandria^  Another  of 
 Origens  Followers,  (whom  you  cite,  p.  197,) 
 and  whom  ('as  Biftiop  Bull  obferves)  Athana- 
 fius  (tiles  \jLv^^:L  Aoyiov  and  S'ccu/xcto-iov]  an  elo» 
 quent  arid  wonderful  man ,  yet  exprefTed  him- 
 felf  in  fuch  a  manner  upon  This  Head,  that 
 Photius  (4)  thought  he  could  not  (without  of- 
 fering Violence  to  his  Words)  be  vindicated 
 from  holding  Arian  Dodlrines. 
 
 (l)   UoXy.Wo  ccv   ivpci<;    iKii  ^uyeic,   -nit;   vuv    Toik    ccifuriKoZi    iJiji''/i<^!/jj 
 
 Epill.  64. 
 
 ywc^  'Z^   TU.  ^VilhXTX'    kXk    \t;V)  OTFn  >M>\  (TVy^i^yxt   TM  'i^n   TOO   ivxyo- 
 
 (jbiva.  ibid. 
 
 (3 J  UoXXoi  j  >^  'zs%<  T«5  <a7€?$  Tsv  avS-p-w^ov  (rwet(Pf/e45,  &C.  ibid. 
 
 (4)  K.Tiori/jxxvrcvo!,7:cCpxiVH.  Cod.ic6.  Or/^^»/V  nimium  fequax-, 
 eiTores  immifcuit  peffimos ;  inter  SS.  Trinitatis  perfonas  totidem 
 dignitatis  gradus  affingens,  Chriftumq;  pariter  ac  Spirirum  S.  ad 
 crcaturarum  fortem  detrudens.    Cave  Hijlor,  Liter,  p.  98. 
 
 Tkri 
 
 us 
 
534-  Of  the  Subordination 
 
 P'lerms^  Another  of  the  fame  School,  (whom 
 you  cite,  p.  19,)  a  Man  fo  eloquent,  that  fas 
 Dr.  C^x;<?  obferves,  Hiftor,  Literar,  p,  \o\J  he 
 was  called  Origen  junior  5  has  the  like  accufa- 
 tion  brought  againfl  him  by  (i)  Phothts. 
 
 l>!ovaUan^  whom  you  frequently  cite,  wrote 
 upon  this  Subjedl  in  fuch  a  manner,  that  Je- 
 torn  (2)  calls  his  Book  a  Book  of  Herefy. 
 
 Methodms^  fwhofe  Authority  you  alledge, 
 p.  145,  and  elfewhere,)  fpeaks  alfo  in  fuch  a 
 manner,  that  the  fame  ('^)  Phothis  fuppofes 
 his  Works  to  have  been  corrupted  with  Avian 
 PalTages.  See  alfo  Valefiiis\  Obfervation  upon 
 him,  above ^  p.  290. 
 
 Litcian^  the  Martyr,  fwhpm  you  cite,/?.  140,) 
 expreffed  himfelf  likewife  in  fuch  a  manner 
 upon  This  Head,  that,  in  the  Contentions  of 
 the  Fourth  Century,  Both  Parties  claimed  his 
 Authority,  See  Dr,  Cavers  Hiflor.  Liter. p,  loj* 
 and  Bifliop  Bull's  Defenf.  Fid.  Nic.  Self.  2. 
 cap.  13.  §  4.  and  (4)  Epipban.  Hairef.  43. 
 
 Cod.  119. 
 
 (1)  Haerefeos  Libriim,  u^pol.  2.  ad-j.  Rujfin. 
 
 (^3)  Cod.  235,  o--  2^7- 
 
 (4)  Epiphanius,  fpeakingof  ThisZwW^;?,  and  comparing  him 
 with  a  Modern  of  tlie  fame   Name,    thus  expreffes  himfelt. 
 
 A^smx'jo'i  Tic,  u^)^ctk'^,  ^^  6  vuv  <iyiyovait;,   oy  ^.^-iv  ol  'ApHX- 
 
 foi  cv  f^pTua-iy  i;^i'^/i<p.^ovT3U'  ' Hy  yup  KAI  »rei;  6  AnKixvoci  (0  Tipoc- 
 (^sCT^,    (pi)fj!ji^)    ';zpc(rcc'ji}^o)v  tvj    rav    ' Apeiccv^v  dipitrii.      There    waS 
 
 '*  an  Antient  Lucia;!,  befides  Him  of  That  Name  in  Otir  days, 
 *'  whom  the  Arians  reckon  among  the  Martyrs :  For  this  young- 
 "  er  Luclaa  was  ALSO  adtlnSkd  to  the  Ar'tan  Herefy. 
 
vQ^llXII.  of  the  Son-  335 
 
 Alexander  of   Alexandria^    though  he    ex- 
 [prefsly  condemns  the  Notion  of  the  Son's  be- 
 ;  ing  [l^  8JC  ovrcev']  out  of  Nothh;g  ^   yet  he  al- 
 ways fo  ftrenuouily  alTerted  the  Supremacy  of 
 the  Father,  that  the  Arians,  in  a  pubUck  Let- 
 ter to  him,  (i)  pretended  to  have  learnt  from 
 H'unfelf  their  own  Dodrine, 
 1      Laftly.     Eufebiiis    (whom   you   frequently 
 I  quote  5)  though  he   ejiprefsly  maintains   that 
 the  Son  was,  h.  rvig  sa-ict^  rS  Trargo^,  from  the 
 Subjiance  of  the  Father^  as  the  Nicene  Creed 
 has  it  5    and   exprefles   his  Eternity  alfo    in 
 x\\z  (ironged  (2)  Terms  ufed  by  Any  Antient 
 i  Writer  ^  infomuch  that  Dr.  Cave  (5)  wrote  a 
 large  DilTertation  on  purpofe  to  vindicate  him 
 from  the  Charge  of  Arianifm  :  yet  fo  largely, 
 fo  uniformly,  fo  laborioufly  in   All  his  Wri- 
 tings, does  he  maintain  the  oiv^tyrU^  the  Su- 
 preiriacy  of  the  Father,    and  his   being  Alone 
 (in  the  abfoliite  Senfe)  The  One  Supreme  God  j 
 ftiling  the  Son  (4J  The  PerfeB  ProduS  of  a 
 Perfea  Caufe,  and  ("5)    The   Subfiantlal  Wif 
 do?n^  created   [Prov.   8,  22,  according  to  the 
 LXX,]  of  God  before  all   Ages  ^    and  decla- 
 
 (l)  'H  T*5-<$  v.fjuZv  vi  C/J6  ^foyoveJVf  liv  >^  octto  S»  ^i^ja.^i\KUfjiji*' 
 Epiphan.  H£ref,  69,  §  7.  See  alfo  Athanaf.  de  Synod,  ^r'lm, 
 V  Seletic.  Vol.  I.  p.  88^. 
 
 (1)  See  Clarke's  Script.  Do^r,  p.  283,  Edit.  i.  p.  250, 
 Edit.  2. 
 
 (3)  De  Eulebii  Caefaricnfis  Arianifmo,  adverfus  '^oannem 
 Clericutn. 
 
 (4)  T£P,««jv  TiMia  At}fAiis^yyjf/jx.  Dcm.  Evang.  lib.  4.  c.  2. 
 
 (5)  Soviet?  tifrwouq  h(pi^ct)a-mf  f^   Tpo  rm  ociuvuv  vtto  too  ^-ioZ  xriT' 
 
 WtTJjc.      Eclog,  Piophet.    apud  Cave    Hift.     Liter.   Par.  11. 
 
 ring 
 
3^6  Of  the  SMlordinatiort 
 
 ring  (i)  xht  Holy  Spirit  to  be  produced  [from 
 the  Father]  by  the  So?i  \  appealing  to  the  Ge- 
 neral Doftrine  of  the  Antient  Church,  and  to 
 (2)  Numbers  of  Eccleliifticai  Writings  of 
 men  preceeding  Origen,  for  the  Antiquity  of 
 His  Doctrine  in  This  Point ,  that  (3;  Pho- 
 this^  and  (^4^  Jerom^  and  (5;  Athanajius^  and 
 generally  (6)  Modern  VVi  iters,  treat  him  di- 
 rectly as  an  Arian^  and  the  great  Promoter  of 
 Arianifm. 
 
 I  might  here  add,  that  'Juftin  Martyr^  Ire- 
 nmts^  Novatian^  and  almoli  all  the  Antient 
 Writers  unanimoully,  exprefs  themfelves  in 
 fo  full  and  clear  a  manner  concerning  the 
 Son's  being  Begotten  (whatever  his  Sub/lance 
 be)  by  the  Pozver  and  I4^ill  [JwoLf^ih  /BaAvi,  S-e- 
 AvicreQ   of  the  Father^  and  concerning  the  Fa- 
 
 (l)  To  J  7rci,^u/^X/}rov  TrviZf/jX,   ^tz    ^zcc,,    an  uicq 
 
 Tuv  S^^   vKiZ  yivofAiivuv-  TuZto,   p.    yv    T^  >caS-oA<x>i5     v^   dyioui 
 
 Ecclef.  Theol.  lib.  3.   c  6. 
 (1)  Contr.  Marcell.  I.  4. 
 
 (3)  Cod.  9. 
 
 (4)  Eufeb'iHs,  impictatis  Arli  apertifTimus  propugnator.  E- 
 p'lfl.  ad  Pammach.  ct*  Ocean.  And  aga.m :  Eulebii  Alianoruni 
 'Principis,  Apol.  1.  adv,  Rnffin.  And  again  :  Vir  dodillimus 
 'tAilcbius,  ((lo61:iiliiTium  dixi,  non  Catholicum,  ne  inihi  &  in 
 hoc  calumniani  Itruas,)  per  lex  vokimina  nihil  aliud  agit,  nifi 
 ut  Ongenem  fuse  ollendat  fidei,  id  elt,  Arian«  perfidice.  Lt 
 multa  ponit  exempla,8choccoiillanteiprobat.  Ibid.  And  again: 
 Eulebii  Cxfarienlis,  quern  fuille  Arianum  nemo  elt  qui  nefciar. 
 Adzerf.  Pelng.  ad  Ctedphont, 
 
 (5^  'O  -^  eizso  K.ccicrxpux'i  IlotXui<rivyi^  'Ey(rtf3<<^  yp»(puv  rrpc^  'Ey- 1 
 
 sriv  'A\y,^iv)i  B-ii^.     De  Synod.  yUlm.  cr  Seleuc.  p.  886. 
 
 (6)  Uiiitatcm  Dei  in  tjno  Pane  fervari;  neque  filium,  nuil- 
 coque  minus  Spiiitum  Sanchim  in  ejul'demUnitatis  confortium 
 
 venire,  claie  tSt  multis  in  Iccis  adfiimat.  Montfancon  PrJim.  in 
 
 Eujeb,  in  Pfalm.  c.  6. 
 
 they'll 
 
Qli.XIL        cf  the  Son.  337 
 
 ther'^s  Comm/^ndifig  {juxmii]  and  the  So?i^s 
 Minijiring  [J'Tr^^gereTv^  in  the  work  of  Creati- 
 on \  that  many  Modern  Writers  charge  them 
 upon  This  Account  witli  ufing  u7tfotmd  and 
 very  inaccurate  ExpreJJions^  (though  in  This 
 Tarticular  they  are  invariably  uniform,)  and 
 complain  of  them  as  in  This  refpeft  giving 
 Advantage  to  the  oArians,  But  This  matter 
 has  been  at  large  confidered  above. 
 
 The  Ifje  I  would  make  of  what  has  been 
 faid  upon  This  occafion,   is ;    that   though  I 
 think  (as  I  have  before  faid)  that  the  Writers 
 I  have  here   cited   were   mijiaken  in  their 
 judging  about  Confequences^  when  they  thus 
 charged  with  Ariamjm  che  moft  Learned  and 
 mod    Eminent    men   the   Chriftian   Church 
 ever  had,  and  who  in  the  Times   they  lived 
 were  univerfally  efteemed  as  fuch  ;    yet  This 
 evidently  fliows,   that  thofe  Antient  fathers 
 had  not  entertained  fuch  a  confufed  Notion^ 
 as  you  are  here  labouring  to   introduce,   of 
 *'  The  Creator  of  all  Things''     For,  whatever  p,  194, 
 inaccuracies  oi'^^i^QQh  they  might  otherwife 
 ufe,    and  in  whatever  Sublimities  of  figura- 
 tive  Expreflion    their    extraordinary    Piety 
 might  lead  them  \.o  Magnify  our  Saviour  ;  yet 
 undoubtedly,    when  they  were    to  defcribe 
 his  Subordination^  their  Zeal  would  not  fuffer 
 them  cofifiantly^    it   would  not   fuffer  them 
 ever^  to  Diminijl)  hirii  by  ufing  Expreffions  in 
 any  degree  lower^  than  what  they  thought 
 funda?ne?itaUy  Necejjary  to  fecure  the  Peerlefs 
 Honour  odhQ  GOD  and  FATHERoloALLi 
 
 Z  Q^U  E  R  Y 
 
c*  -5  8  Of  the  Subordination 
 
 00 
 
 (iUEFvY.     XIII. 
 
 Wnether  there  can  he  any  Middle  hetween  le-*- 
 ing  made  out  of  nothings  and  out  of  fame* 
 thing  \  that  is^  between  being  out  of  no* 
 things  and  out  of  the  Father^s  Suhfla?ice  j 
 between  bein^  eitentially  God,  and  being  a 
 Creature  ?  Whether^  cohfequentl)\  the  Son 
 mufi  not  be  either  eflentially  God,  or  elfe  a 
 Creature  ? 
 
 e^z/^'.^TpHOUGH  there  are  many  D/- 
 X  lemma\  in  Metaphyficks  and 
 Phyficks,  and  ia  Theology  too,  wherein  it  may 
 be  very  prefumptuou?,  and  perhaps  fometimes 
 irreh'gious,  to  undertake  to  determine  alfo- 
 lutely  which  part  of  the  Dilemma  is  the 
 Truth  :  'Tis  neverthclefs  undoubtedly  certain, 
 
 p,  102.  that  there  cannot  "  be  any  Middle  between 
 **  being  made  out  of  Nothings  a?id  out  ofSome* 
 *'  thing?"*  But  then,  ^*  being  out  of  Nothings 
 and  *'  out  of  the  Father'^s  Subfiance^'^  zvQBoth 
 of  them  very  different  from  being  Self-exift- 
 ent  or  Unoriginate*  The  Fallacy  therefore  of 
 your  Dilemma,  lies  in  the  Phrafe,  "  bei?/g 
 ''  ej]entiaUy  God^  For  if  by  thefe  words 
 you  understand  (what  the  words  naturally 
 (ignify,    and   what   you  m/tfl    and  ougLt  to 
 
 i>.  57.  mean  by  them,  wlien  you  take  them  •'  in 
 '^  the  fame  and  in  as  H'^h  a  Senfe  as  the  Fa* 
 ''  ther  himfelfisfofihul:''  If,  I  fay,  by  thefe 
 words  you  mean)  having  All  Perfcdions  and 
 
 64U 
 
Qii.  Xlll.  of  the  Son.  359 
 
 oAll    Dominion   alfolutely   in  and  cf  himftlf^ 
 original,  tinderived^  and  independent  on  Any  • 
 then   your  Query  amounts  to  This  :  '*  Woe.  p.  idi. 
 *'  ther  there  can  he  any  Middle  between  le^ 
 "  i;;^''  the  One  Self-exiftent   God   and    Fa- 
 ther of  all,    "  and  being  a   Creature  P  "    and 
 '*  whether^  confeqtie?itly^  the  Son  mufl  not  he 
 "  either''    the   One   Self-exiftent   God    and 
 Father  of  all,   "  or -^  elfe  a  Creature?'    To  ^H^: 
 which  queftion,  the   Anfvver  you   make  for  ^oi. 
 yourfelf^  will  ferve  alfo  for   Me.     But  if  by 
 *'  being  tjj'entially  God'*  you  mean  only,  be- 
 ing derived,    in  fome  ineffable  manner,    not 
 out  of  nothings  but   "  out  of  the  Father's  Sub- 
 ''  fiance  j"  then  your  Dilemma^    which  part 
 foever  be  taken  of  it,  is  entirely  wide  of  the 
 purpofe,  and  has  no  relation  to  the  True  and 
 Only  Queftion  between  us.     For,  granting 
 that  the  Son  is,  (^not,  the  Subflance  of  the  Fa- 
 ther ^  which  the  Antient  Writers  never  fay, 
 though  T^ou  fometimes  do  ^    but)  generated^ 
 as  the  Council  of  Nice  believed,    in  fome 
 ineffable    manner    Qejc    t*^^   eVi'oc^  rs  ^cLr^of\ 
 from  the  Subftance  of  the  Father  ;    yet   This, 
 neither  in  Any  confequence  of  Reafon,  nor  in 
 the  judgement  of  the  Conncil  of  A^ice^  nor 
 in  the  Opinion  of  eA?iy  Antient  Writer  before 
 That  time,  does  at  all  infer  That  Equality 
 of  Supremacy,    by   which  you  endeavour  to 
 render  confufed  the   Notion  of  The  One  Su- 
 preme  God,    and  which  indeed  is  the  True 
 and  Only  Queftion  between  Us*    See  above, 
 f.285,301,328. 
 
 Z  2  To 
 
34'^  0/  the  Subordination 
 
 To  amufe  your  Reader,   you  perpetually 
 
 p.  293.  repeat  the  fame  thnig.  ''  T/Je  only  Q^ifl'07i 
 '*^  between  us^  is^  wh.'ther  our  Creator  and 
 *'  Redeemer  be   a   Creature  or  no?'*     And  : 
 
 p.  20S.  *'  Xou  was  to  find  a  Medium  between  being 
 *'  e\fe7itially  God^  a?id  being  a  Creature  •,  or 
 ^'  eij'e  to  declare  in  fiain  Termsy    that  the  Son 
 
 p,  209.  '^  is  a  Creature'''  And :  "  l.^ou  muft  either 
 *'  own  the  Son  to  be  of  the  fame  undivided 
 **  Suhflance  with  the  Father^   or  elfe  declare 
 
 P.  211.  *'  him  a  Creature.'''     And  :  "T/;^  Son  cf  God 
 "  is  either  confubftantial  with   God  the  Fa^ 
 ^'  ther,  or  elfe  a  Creatiir^P     To  all  which 5' 
 I  have  above  given  a  clear  and  diftinft  An- 
 fwer-,  f.  301,  J23,  338. 
 
 P.SOBe?'     "  r/.^^  Antient  Anans  (you  tell   us)   durfi 
 
 304.  *'  not  fay  direttlj^  that  tie  Son  of  God  was 
 *^  a  Creature.  We  have  Creed  after  Creed 
 ''  drawn  up  by  them^  and  Arius'j  Pofitions  ex- 
 <'  frefsly  difclaimed  by  fome  of  them^  though 
 «  at  the  fame  time  they  Meant  the  fame 
 "  things?''  But  'tis  a  very  Prefumftuous  Accu* 
 fation  of  a  part  of  the  Chriftian  Church  fo  con- 
 fiderable,  th^t '^  the  TVor Id  (you  fay)  was  in 
 ^'a  manner  their  own  •,"  to  call  them  ''Aria?is  " 
 and  "  Succeffors  of  Arius^''  when  they  were  : 
 not  Followers  of  his  DoHrine,  and  to  charge 
 them  with  ''  Meaning""  what  they  did 
 "  not  fay,''  and  what  \hey  "  exprefsly  dif 
 "  claifne^j?' 
 
 p  ^  You  proceed  "  to  give  the  Common  Reader 
 
 '  ^°'^'  "  ajufl  Idea  of  the  Diflmte  betwixt  us  j^'that 
 is,  by  a  very  unrighteous  reprefentation,    to 
 appeal  to  the  Prejudices  of  the  ignorant  Vul- 
 gar 
 
.Qu.  XIII.  of  the  Son.  34^ 
 
 gar.     *'  It  jljotildle  told  that  you   ^jjertj   tho^  P.  ^oj. 
 "  not   dire^Uy  and  flainl)\  yet  Tacitly  and 
 *'  Confequentially,  that  the  Maker^  Redeem- 
 
 *'  er^  and  Judge  of  the  whole  World ^ is 
 
 *'  Mutalle  and  Corruptible^ ^has  a  Precari- 
 
 *'  ous  Exi/lence^  &:c."  The  iniquity  and  fal- 
 fity  of  this  fort  of  Confequences,  I  have 
 above  fliown,  paf.  224.  With  how  much 
 greater  juftice  might  I  here  retaliate  ;  It 
 jhoula  be  told  that  you  ajjert^  7iot  Tacitly  and 
 Confequentially,  hit  Direftly  and  Plainly, 
 (in  contradidion  to  the  Firft  Article  of  the 
 Creed,  and  to  the  Firft  Commandment^ 
 that  there  are  Many  Supreme  Gods^  mtited  in 
 One  undivided  Subftance  !  But  of  fuch  mutual 
 Accufations,  there  is  no  End. 
 
 Vvhat  you  alledge  concerning  the  Terms,  P-  207. 
 *'  Self  exifient^tinoriginatej'^  3.nd  '' necejjdrily 
 ^'  txifiijig  '^"^    has    been    confidered    above^ 
 p.  25^,256,280,  ^04. 
 
 What  you  call  a  ^'^  Subordination  of  Order^^  ^^f^- 
 between  perfons  equally  Supreme,  is  nothing 
 but  fnere  pofition  of  words  ;  or  a  placing  of 
 Co-ordinates^  corjlantly^  in  the  fame  ujivaried 
 Order.  The  Subordination  fpoken  of  in  Scrip- 
 ture, and  in  All  Antiquity,  is  always  a  Sub- 
 ordination of  Authority  :  As  I  have  already 
 fliown  at  large.  Bafil  himfelf  underftood  the 
 Subordination  to  be,  not  in  mere  Order  of 
 words,  but  in  (i)  Honour  and  Dignity.    And 
 
 (l)  Tul^H  y.  ^euTifor^  [oyjo?^  rou  TTXTpc';,  on  utt'  iKUva-  y^  a^iUfjijUri, 
 on  ec^X'^  tc^cima,  too  slvcci  dvroZ  6  ^ciln'^,  &C.  yldv.  Eunom.  lib.  3.  p. 
 73.  And  again  5  rtfjuj  ihid.lih.  4.  p.  100.  Again:  Hefaysof  the 
 
 Holy  Ghort,   oi|«y//<«ji  ^  oiviiftunv  to«  View  TTOtf i6^J)y(r<v  iV&'c  6  Tr,q  su- 
 trsfiticci  Aoys*  ilid, 
 
 Z  j  Hdarj 
 
3  ^  ^  Of  the  Suhordination 
 
 Hilar)'  (ij  underftood  it  to  infer  a  Superiori- 
 ty of  Power  a7id  oAuthority  in  the  Father. 
 And  To  did  the  Generality  of  the  Tofi^Nkenes 
 of  the  4th  Century  :  As  appears  from  the 
 Councils  of  Sardica  and  Sirmium.  As  to  the  i 
 ^•^-°7.  term,    ''inferiority    of   NATURE-;'     See 
 
 above,  f.  176. 
 ihid.    ^^  When  you  fay,   ''  the  Son  is  not  nlfohtely 
 "  Supreme^'    you   do  not  (it   feems)    mean 
 that  he  is  not  abfolutely  Supreme  ;  For,  with- 
 al 53,    out  being  fo,    (you  elfewhere  tell   us)     he 
 could  not  be  ''properly  God;'    he  could    be 
 "  No  God''  at  all    But  you  mean  only,  that 
 p.  207.   he  ''  has  nofefarate  independent  exiftence  from 
 ''^  the  Father;'  and  "  is  Second  in  Order  as  a 
 ''  Son:*     Which  is  abufing  your  Reader  with 
 what  really  makes  no  diiierence  in  the  cafe. 
 For  Two  Supreme  Gods  will  always  and  equal- 
 ly be  Tvoo  Supreme  Gods,  whether  jeparate 
 or  not  feparate.     Nor  can  it  with  any  Truth 
 or  Senfe  be  affirmed,  that  He  who  is  Second 
 p.  207.  in  Order  is  "■  not  abfolutely  Supreme;'  if  he  he 
 P.  53.    as  aljolulely  Supreme   (as    "  Supreme  in  the 
 ''  firiH  Senfe  "J  as  He  whom  you  call  Frrfi 
 in  Order, 
 •P.  i-9.       The    alfurdity   of  your    fuppofing    "  the 
 ''  word.  Individual;'  to  be  "  a  word  capable 
 ''  of  different  Meanings;'  I  have  fliown  above, 
 pag.  507. 
 
 CO  Quis  Patrem  noii  poticrem  confitcbitur,  ut  ingenitum  a 
 gcmto,  ur  patrem  a  fiho,  ut  eum  qui  miferit  ab  eo  qui 
 ViiUas  cji,  ul  volefuem  ab  ipfo  qui  cl^ecliat  ?    De  Trinit.  lib.  3. 
 
 Your 
 
p.   211 
 
 II. 
 
 Qii.  XIV.  of  the  Son.  3^5 
 
 Your  Charge  of  my  being    ''  refohte  in  ^■ 
 «  difputmg  againjt  the   Eternity  of  the  Son,'' 
 I  have  alreacfy  anfwcred  at  large,    under  Qu, 
 Vll  and  W\l\. 
 
 The  words  next   following;     viz..    "  an  p- 
 <'  eternal  Suhftance^  not  Divine,    and  a  Son 
 «'  wade  out   of  it  -,    which   is  what  you  mufi 
 ^'  mean^  or  mean  nothing  ''  is  a  Calumny  as 
 ridiculous^  as  'tis  unju[t. 
 
 Q^U  E  Pv  Y      XIV. 
 
 Whether  Dr.  Clarke,  who  every  where  denies 
 the  Confuhfiantiality  of  the  Son  as  ahfurd 
 and  contradiHory,  does  not,  ofConfequence, 
 affirm  the  Son  to  he  a  Creature^  l^  sjc  o^rm^ 
 and  fo  fall  tinder  his  own  Cenfure,  and  is 
 Self  condemned? 
 
 oAnfw.  \jr  OUR  frequent  Ufe  of  this  Term,  p,  ini 
 
 JL  ''THE  Confulftantialityi'  and 
 pretending  that  Others  "  de?iy  it  ^^  without 
 ever  exprefling  which  Sort  of  Confubftantia- 
 lity  you  mean,  though  you  well  know  the 
 word  has  very  different  Significations ;  is  ex- 
 tremely unfair.  Sometimes,  by  your  ufing 
 the  word,  individual ,  you  feem  to  rnean, 
 that  the  Father  and  Son  are  individually  the 
 fame  fmgle  identical  whole  Siibflance :,  that 
 is,  that  they  are  not  (i)  o^oJcrioi,  but  i:oj}r^H' 
 
 (l)  'Oy  y«<^  etylo   ri    s^iv  lauoroo  ofj^oisriov,  «AA'    in^ci  htpof.     One 
 and  the  fame  Being  is  not  con'fubftantial  to  it/elf,  hut  One  Being 
 
 '4 
 
344  Of  the  Siihordinaticm 
 
 ajsi,  ftsf38c-i^,  c/jic^J^^^T<tru :  Which  is  precife 
 (i)  SabeUic.nifm,  At  other  times,  by 
 your  (2)  fhifting  from  the  word,  individual^ 
 to  undivided  \  you  feem  to  mean  that  they 
 are  really  T-d:o  diflinti  and  difti?iBly  inteHi- 
 gent  Suhrta?:c€s\  with  diflinH  and  equaUy  Su- 
 [reme  independent  Pa-jcers^  only  hfefarally 
 united^  Q-:  undivided :  Which  is,  in  plain  and 
 direft  Term.s,  TvlO  Supreme  Gods^  undivided, 
 P.  318,  or  infeparably  united  in  metaphyfical  Sub- 
 5->^  ftance,  A  Toird  fenfe  of  Co?!JulJta7itialit\\  is 
 that  which  was  taught  at  the  Council  of 
 Nice  i  viz.  that  the  Son  was  Begotten,  by 
 the  ineffable  Power  of  the  Father,  not  [e| 
 8x  tfTCii]  cut  of  nothings  but  \j^^  t/^  ^Vi'i-:  t» 
 'xctrizi]  from  the  Siibjtance  of  the  Father  ^ 
 without  any  diininuti:>n^  divifon^  or  altera- 
 iiofi  "jcK^atfoever^  of  the  Father  himfelf ;  in 
 like  manner  as  One  Fire  is  lighted  from  a'no- 
 tber^  without  any  Diminution  or  Divifon  of 
 the  Firfr.     And  This  Confdfiantialitj^  which 
 
 h  confuhftantial  le  anethr.  Baiil.  Epift.  300.  Sie  aKoDr.  Clarke  s 
 Utter  to  Dr.  Wtllsy  f.  47.     And  Ctfdworth's  Syficm,  p.  604^ 
 
 '  (i;  Certe  Ssi^us  ipfe  Dunqnam  Filium  lubens  dixiiTet  Pa- 
 tri  ••^e»s-M»,  fed  poniis  rctvreiic-m.  jfjfuredly  SabcUius  zL-ould  ru- 
 %-rr  rjAZi  chcfcn  to  have  called  the  Sen  coafubftantia]  •u.itb  the 
 J/uJaer;  hstt^zcauld  rather  hize  filled  them.  Of  one  and  the 
 iame    individual  Subltance.     ^«/i.  Defenjf.   Fid.  Sic,  Seci.  z. 
 
 €.    I.   S-  9. 
 
 {jL\  *s  An.  individua)  inttlligent  Agents  'ont  undiyidcd 
 
 •*   'iMttUiient  Agent y  /.3>C.  "  "^he  Sum  of  the  CathoUck  Dotirine : 
 
 »«  T<&*/4»»f  Homogeneous  S«ij?ii>w#,  and  infeparabhity :  
 
 ««  Vna  Summa  res."  p.  3^1.  "  The  Snhfiance  wight  bf  Uodl- 
 *<  vided  n-jt-jiithfiandittg  ;  Which  it  aUth^t  An>fCathclickmuint 
 ^  ^  indir.aoal  SuhfiarHtr  p,  463. 
 
 was 
 
•ju.XlV.  of  the  Son.  54 j 
 
 •IS  never  thought  to  infer  E^//.:/  Siqrem::. 
 
 .  ,  is  not  only  not    "  every  '■jcbtre^^    (as  vou  p.  ,1^. 
 
 by  a  direct  and  palpable  C^/f/??;/{)  affiimj  but 
 
 r.o  ik'here     (that  I   know   of)     "  uenied  by 
 
 Dr.  Clarke."     Xor  has  he  rim  iZ'herc:  (that 
 
 I  can  findy  affirmed   any  thing,    \^hich,   by 
 
 ny  hifcre7ice  or   luft    Lo?tfcquciice^    Cct.i   be 
 
 .   iiiown  to  be  inconfutent  with  the  Suppcficion 
 
 of  r.':/J  Confiihjiafitiality,     Whatever,  in  this 
 
 refpecl,  the  ^n' svjiet a frMcrA  Nature,  Ejjt;jce, 
 
 or  Subfta'fice  be ,    all  the   Doctor's  Propofiti- 
 
 ons    (as  far  as  I  can  perceive)    hold    never- 
 
 thelefs   eqt^aJJ>  True,     See  t^ehzv^  on    Orrery 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Your  Defenfe  of  This  Query,  going  v>-ho!- 
 iy  upon  the  fame  imaginary  bottom,  needs 
 (I  think)  no  further  Anfwer, 
 
 QjO  E  R  Y 
 
34^  Of  the  Subordination 
 
 Q^UEKY     XV. 
 
 Woether  he  alfo  mufl  not^  of  consequence^  af* 
 firm  cf  the  Son^  that  there  was  a  Time 
 when  He  was  not,  fince  God  mufi  exifi  he- 
 fore  the  Creature  ^  and  therefore  is  again 
 Self-cuntmn^d.  (See  Prop.  i6.  Script.  Dodr.) 
 And  whether  He  does  not  equivocate  />; 
 fa)ing^  elfewhere^  that  the  ftcond  Ferfon 
 ''has  been  always  with  the  Firft  ^  aJid  that 
 there  has  been  no  Time,  when  He  was  not 
 fo.  And  laftly^  whether^  it  be  not  a  vain 
 and  weak  oAttempt  to  pretend  to  any  middle 
 way  between  the  Orthodox  a?idthe  Arians  ^ 
 or  to  carry  the  SoiPs  Divinity  the  leafi 
 higher  than  They  did^  without  taking  in  the 
 Confubftantiality  ? 
 
 oAn/w.^nr^HE  Foundation  of  your  Accu- 
 JL  fation  in  the  lafi  Query,  being 
 removed  ,  the  Accufation  you  bring  in  This 
 Qiiery,  relying  wholly  upon  the  words 
 p.  214.  [^'  mu/l  of  Conjcjueiice^''']  is  entirely  removed 
 alio.  Dr.  Clarke  has  no  where  affirmed,  nor 
 does  k  follow  (that  I  can  perceive)  from  any 
 thing  he  has  laid  down,  that  ''  there  was  a 
 *'  Time  when  the  Son  was  not^''^  'Tis  evident, 
 I  think,  that  the  Son  who  was  begotten^ 
 mull:  of  neceffity  be  fas  he  is  in  Scripture 
 conftantly  reprcfented  to  bej  in  Order  of 
 Nature^  \n  real  Order  of 'Dignity  and  Autlo- 
 rity^  and  not  in  mere  pofition  of  Words^  Sub- 
 ordinate to  the  Father  who  begat  him  :  And 
 
 as 
 
Qu.XV.  of  the  Son.  347 
 
 as  truly  fo,  whether  the  Father  legat  him 
 o(  his  Own  Sub/lance^  or  not ;  whether  hQ  begat 
 him  in  Tme^  or  from  Eter?tity. 
 
 To  affirm  that  the  Son  *'  has  been  Always  p.  214, 
 "  with  the  Father  P""  To  affirm  that  tbe 
 Scripture^  in  declaring  the  Son^s  Dtrivatio?i 
 from  the  Father^  never  makes  mention  of  any 
 Limitation  of  Time^  but  alvimys  fupfofes  and 
 affirms  him  to  have  exijled  with  the  Father 
 fom  the  Beginnings  and  before  all  Worlds  :  To 
 affirm  moreover  whatever  elfe  the  Scripture 
 any  where  affirms  concerning  this  matter, 
 and  to  blame  Thofe  who  will  prefume  to  in- 
 trude further  iiito  things  which  they  have  7iot 
 feen :  This  is  not  an  "  equivocating "  in 
 Dr.  Clarke.  But  for  Ton  to  require  more  ; 
 and  that,  in  Matters  of  Religion,  men  mujt 
 be  wife  ^according  to  their  own  feveral  Fan- 
 cies in  Confequences  of  Philofophy  and  Me- 
 taphyficksj  beyond  what  is  written  in  Scrip- 
 ture 5  this  is  (\  think)  an  unwarrantable  and 
 inexcufable  Prefmnpion. 
 
 '"'  Whether  it  be    not  a   vain    and  weak    ^^'^• 
 *'  Attempt  to  pretend  to  any  middle  way  be^ 
 "  tween  the  Orthodox  and  the  Arians,"    is 
 not   material  to  determine.     Between  Tour 
 Notion,  \yiz,  that  there  are  Three  Supreme 
 Gods  injeparahly    ignited  in  one  metaphyftcal 
 Sulfiance^  and  the  Arian  notion   [viz.    that 
 the  Son  and  Spirit  are  Creatures  made  out  of 
 Nothiitg^  made  in  Time  ,]  there  is,  I  think,  a 
 very  obvious  and  Orthodox  Medium,    [viz. 
 that  there  is  One  Supreme  God  and  Father  of 
 All^  from  whom  the  Son  was  in  an  ineffable 
 
 man- 
 
2  48  of  the  Sdordmation 
 
 parmer  Begotten^  and  the  Holy  Spirit  Sent 
 forth  ^  and  whofe  Will  the  Son  and  Spirit  as 
 perft^ttly  and  ]^erfetualty  fulfil^  as  a  Man^s 
 own  Ha?ids  (fuppofing  they  were  intelligent 
 JgentsJ  execute  the  Will  of  the  Man. 
 
 f.  114-  Concerning  your  Ufe  of  This  Phrafe, 
 *'  THE  Confulfiantiality  f  I  have  Ipoken 
 ahove^  p.  54J. 
 
 ^'  ^^S'       But  ftill  you  will  have  the  Do£lor  to  "  de^  . 
 *^  ny  the  Eternity  of  the  Son  :   He  denies  it  by 
 **  plain  Confequence,  in  fuppofing  the  Son  to  l 
 "  he  Out  of  Nothings  as  was  Ihown  under  the  ^ 
 "  laft  Query ^"^    I  anfwer  :   Under  your  Lad 
 Query  you  hsivejhown  no'  fuch  thing.     The 
 'Dodiov  fuppofed  nothing  of  what  you  fancy  i 
 him  to  have  fuppofed.      Your   Confequtnce  ^ 
 therefore,  is  no  Confequence  j    and  your  Ac- 
 cufation,  a  mere  Calumny- 
 
 But  you  infift  upon  it,  that  if  the  Son  be  t 
 not  Eternal  in  fuch  a  Senfe^  as  evidently  ( 
 makes  him  as  really  underived^  unoriginate^ 
 
 >.  2.18.  tmlegotten^  as  the  Father  himfelf^  'tis  "  no 
 ^'  eternity'^'^  at  all ;  'tis  '"'' ofily  telling  us^  in 
 *^  a  rotind'Obout  way^  that  the  Son  is  not 
 "  EternaL"^'  If  the  Generation  of  the  Son  be 
 at  all  an  AH  of  the  father,  (that  is,  if  the 
 Father  begat  the  Son  at  all,)  the  Son,  you 
 will  needs  have  it?  cannot  be  Eternal :  This 
 is  evidently  the  Refult  of  your  Argument. 
 "  He  was  made  in  Time^  (you  lay  J  if  he  was 
 *'  made  at  all?""  The  Argument,  in  the 
 manner  you  here  dired  the  ftiefs  of  it,  holds 
 equally  Thus  :  He  was  Begotten  /;/  'Time,  if 
 ^^''^-     he  was  Begotten  at  all     Again  :    "  One  Mo- 
 
 ^*  ment 
 
!'  <lu.%V.  of  the  Son.  349 
 
 *'  me?^t  of  Timey  (you  fay,)  for  the  Father 
 '^  to  be  Prior^  and  to  Will  the  Exiftence  of 
 ^-  the  Son^  would  have  contented  the  Arians :'' 
 Is  not  the  Argument  exaftly  the  fame  Thus  j 
 One  Moment  of  Tme^  for  the  Father  to  be 
 Trior,  and  to  Will  the  'BEGETTING  of  the 
 Sony  &c  ?  To  tell  you,  that  God  does  not 
 want  One  Moment  of  Time  ;  that  an  eternally 
 J&ive  Being,  could  J^  eternally,  is  by  no 
 means  fatisfadory  to  you.  Nothing  will  do, 
 but  denying  the  "  Begetting  of  the  Son  '* 
 to  be  at  all  an  ''  qAB  of  the  Father  P  Which 
 is,  I  think,  denying  both  the  Father  and  the 
 Son. 
 
 You  proceed :  ^'  Many  of  the  oAntiejtt  Ari-  p^  219;' 
 *'  ans,  when  accufed,  Scc.'^  And,  ''  It  was  ^^'^* 
 ^'  frequent  with  the  Arians,  to  deny  the  Son 
 *'  to  be  Out  of  Nothings  or  even  to  Jnathe^ 
 '^  matize  thofe  that  flwuld  affirm  itT  And 
 again  :  "  The  Antient  Arians  condenmed  thofe 
 ^^  that  ff:ould  ^reftime  to  fay,  that  there  was 
 ^^  a  Time  when  the  Son  was  7iotP  What  is 
 this,  but  only  telling  your  Reader,  that  in 
 former  times,  as  well  as  in  the  prefent,  weak 
 and  pajjionate  men  calumniated  their  Bre- 
 thren, and  threw  about  the  odious  names  of 
 eArian,  and  the  like,  fometimes  without  Truth 
 and  fufiice  f 
 
 Your  affeition,  that  "  there  is  certainly  no  p,  zi^, 
 ^^  Medium  betwixt  Orthodoxy  and  Jrianifm-^'^  ^^■^* 
 has  been  confidered  above ^  f.  347. 
 
 Concerning    '•  there  being  710  Medium  be-    ihU, 
 "  tween  God  and  Creature^^    See  above,  p. 
 301,  J23. 
 
 Con- 
 
55:0  of  the  Stihordmation 
 
 T.  114-  Concerning  your  perpetual  repetition  of  this 
 phrafe,  ^^THE  Confubflantiality -^  fee  alfo 
 above,  f.  543. 
 
 p-  -M-       Your  next  Obfervation  deferving  Notice,  is, 
 that  Dr.  Clarke's  ''  Scheme  has  been  condenmed^ 
 *^  near  1 400  Tears  ago^  by  a  very  zvife^  ?nwierous^ 
 '^  and  unbiaffed    Qviz.  the   Nkene~]   Council,'* 
 And  that  "  he  cannot  jujily  cite  any  Catholick 
 **  VoJi'WiceneWriter  (nor  iJideed Ante-Nicene^ 
 *'  as  certainly  favour  trig  his  MA  I N  DoBrine.''* 
 Juft  on  the  contrary,  'tis  certain  that  not  One 
 of  all  the  Dodor's  Propoficions  was  condemn'd 
 at  the  Council  of  Vice^  either  diredly,  or  by 
 Any  juft  Confequence.      The  MAIN  Do- 
 Brine  he  infifts  on,  is  ,  that  there  is    (as  the 
 Scripture  exprefsly  declares)  but  One  God  a?id 
 Father  of  all^  who  is  above  all :  Which  is  the 
 Foundation  and  firft  Principle  of  Chrijlianity^ 
 and    the   firfl   Article   of  the   Nicene  Creed. 
 And  that   the  Son,    our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
 (whatever  is  his  Metaphyseal  Nature  or  Sub- 
 jlance^^  is  Subordinate  to  the  Father  in  Autho- 
 rity, Dominion^  and  WorfrAp.     On  Thefe  only 
 (whatever  other  Points  may,  or  may  not,  be 
 foffible  or  T^ue  in   Speculation^    depends  all 
 Chriftian  Duty  and  Pra&ice.     In  Thefe  Points 
 the   Scriptures    are    /w//,    clear^    and   exprefs 
 throughout.     In  Thefe^    all  Ante-Niceue   and 
 Nicene  Writers  unanimoully  agree  :    And  ge- 
 nerally   the  greateft  part  even  of  the  Pofi- 
 Nicenes  too.     x\nd  the  inoft:  nu??ierouSj  Ortho- 
 dox, and  Catholicl^  Councils,  of  Jerufalem^ 
 Sardica,    Sirmium^     and   others,   profelfedly 
 
 taught 
 
Qu.XV.  of  the  Son.  351 
 
 taught  this  Doctrine.  Nor  have  you  produ- 
 ced any  one  PafTage  of  any  one  Writer  even 
 for  the  firft  400  years,  that  agreed  or  taught 
 with  JO?/,  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  were 
 The  One  Supreme  Gody  or  Equally  Supref/W 
 with  the  Father  in  Authority^  Dominion  and 
 Worjhip. 
 
 You  add  :  '^  The  Church  of  Chrift  has  been  p.  227^ 
 *^  in  poffeffionofthe  prefent  prevaili?jg  Do&rines^ 
 *'  at  leajlfor  i^ooTearsP  I  take  it  for  granted, 
 that  by    "  the  prefent  prevailing   Docirines^* 
 you  mean  your  own  Scholaftick  Notion.    Now, 
 not  to  take  notice  that  you  yourfelf  elfewhere 
 obferve  concerning  men  of  a  different  opinion, 
 that  there  was  a  time  fwithin  the  compafs  you 
 fpeak  of)  "  when  the  World  was  in  a  manner  p*  ^^4. 
 "  their  own  /"    *tis  fufficient  here   to    reply, 
 that    whenever  you  fpeak  of  i?idividrtal  Sub- 
 fiance  cr  Effeyice^    if  thereby  you    mean  one 
 really  individual  or    fmgular   exiflent  Effence^ 
 Dr.  Cudworth  will  fhovv  you  (p,  604)   that 
 That   DoBrine    *'  feerneth  not   to    have  been 
 '^  owned  by  Any  publick  Authority   in  the  Chri- 
 "  flian  Churchy   fave    That  of    the  Lateran 
 *'  Council  only  :  That  no  fuch  thing  was   ever 
 *^  entertained    by  the  Nicene  Fathers^    &c." 
 But  if  by  ''  individual'*  you  mean  not  really 
 individual^    but  only   undivided^    (fee  above, 
 P-  3^7^  ?43))  you'^  Notion  then  is  manifefl 
 Polytheifm,  \jMany  Supreme  Gods   inseparably  ^-  3^3. 
 united'^  and  is  altogether  inconfiflent    with  ^^^' 
 that  real  Supremacy  of  the  Father^    which  Bi- 
 (hop  Fearfon  and    Bifliop  Bull   have  largely 
 
 fhown 
 
9  5  2  of  the  Sulvrdinatton 
 
 fliown  to  be  the  Doctrine  of  the  Modern 
 Church,  as  Eufeb'ms  has  largely  fliown  it  to 
 be  the  Dodrine  of  the  Antient  Church,  But 
 after  all,  the  queftion  is  not  about  Dothhies 
 "  in  foffejjion^'  but  about  the  DoBrine  of' 
 Scripture. 
 
 P.  2i7-       But,   to    obviate    this,     you   add:     ^^  All\ 
 "  you  have  to  fay ^  Tur?is  only  upon  your  mifcon-^ 
 ''  fru&ion  of    I  JhouU  fay^  Equivocation   in^ 
 ^'  the  vpord  Individual;,  which^jou  niujl  needs 
 "  know^  we  wide  rjj  a  fid  ?iot  in  your  Senfe  ofit^, 
 "  imlefs  v:>e  are  weak  enough  to  fuppofe  Father ' 
 *'  and  Son  to  be  One  Perfbn''     I^he  Abfurdi- 
 ty  of  fuppofing  the  word,    ifidividual^  to  have 
 different  Senfes^  I  have  (hown  above^  p.  lojo 
 And  that,  according  toTour  Notion,  the  ''Fa- 
 *'  ther  and  Son"**  muft  of  neceflity  either  ''be 
 *'  One  Per  [on''  or  Tz^jo  Supreme  Gods^  is  really 
 very   evident.      For,    Perfo7j   and  Intelligent 
 
 ^■P-  350-  Jgent,  being  (as  you  yourfelf  "^  acknowledge) 
 the  fame  :  7 wo  Supreffie  Perfons^  being  either 
 Two  Supre?ne  iiitelUgent  Agerits^  muft  of  necef- 
 fity  be  Tivo  Supreme  (^however  undivided) 
 Gods  *,  or  being  but  "  one  widivided  iyitelligent 
 Agent^""  t^iey  muft  confequently  be  but  one  un- 
 divided Perfon.  They  muft  either  be  Two  i«- 
 preme  Gods  in  Perfon^  however  undivided  in  5w^-' 
 fiance  ^  or  elfe  tljey  muft  be  but  one  undivided 
 Perfon^  abfolutely  OJie  only  intelligent  A^enU 
 Both  thefc  Notions,  the  one  Sabellianifm^  the 
 other  Tritbeifm^  you  frequently  run  into  by 
 Turns  -^  and  one  or  the  other  of  them,  is  always 
 the  immediate  and  neceifiry  Confcquence  of 
 what  you  affirm.  See  below  on  Qinry  29.        "  // 
 
Qii.  XV.  of  the  Son.     .  953 
 
 "  If  we  life  (you  fay)  the  word  Prodiiftion  p-  ^^.t* 
 ^'  at  all^  we  always  take  care  to  explain  it  to  a 
 *'  GOOD  Senfe  ,  and  never  once  imagine^ 
 *^  that  the  eternal  Generation  is  a  temporary 
 *'  Produ8ion."'*  But  I  am  afraid  your  Good 
 Se?ife  of  the  word,  is  A^^  Senfe  at  all.  For 
 ProduSion^  whether  Eternal  or  Temporary^ 
 vjht\hzx  from  the  Father'' s  Sub  fiance  or  not^  is 
 ftill  equally  a  ProduSion  of  the  Perfon  produ- 
 ced^ and  inconfiftent  with  his  being  The  One 
 Selfexiftent  God. 
 
 Your  mentioning;  ^^  ObjeEiions  againji  THE  P-  2.^§' 
 ''  Do&rine  of  the  Blejfed  Trinity^^  is  an  un- 
 righteous mifreprefentation.  For  the  Objedors 
 you  mean,  are  not  pleading  againd^  but  for 
 THE  Doufrine  of  the  BleJJed  Trinity^  againft 
 Schola flick  imaginations. 
 
 lb  conclude  :  '^  Let  men  have  patience  (joxx  ^^'^' 
 *'  fay)  ^ till  they  are  able  to  find  out  a  truer  and 
 ''  a  jujler  Scheme^  and  to  clear  it  of  all  confl- 
 '^  derable  Difficulties.'^^  The  true  and  juft 
 Scheme,  and  Already  clear  of  all  Difficulties, 
 is,  to  build  no  PR  ACTICE  but  upon  ex- 
 prefs  Command^  and  to  fpeculate  about  THE- 
 ORIES at  Leifure, 
 
 A  a  Q.  u  E  R  Y 
 
3?4 
 
 Of  Vlinne  Jidoration 
 
 To  the  one  God 
 Thou  flialt  have  no 
 other  Gods  before  me, 
 Exod.  2C.  3. 
 
 Thou  (haltWorfhip 
 the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
 him  only  (halt  thou 
 ferve,  Matth  4. 10. 
 
 du   E  R  Y      XVL' 
 Bivhie  Worjhip  due 
 
 To  Chr'ift. 
 They       worfliipped 
 him,  Luke  24.  25. 
 
 Let  all  the  Angels  of 
 God  worfliiphim,i^<?^. 
 I.  6. 
 
 That  all  Men  (hould 
 honour  the  Son,  even 
 as  they  honour  the  Fa- 
 ther, 'John  5.  23. 
 
 Whether  by  thefe  (of  the  firfl:  Column) /7wir/:?^ 
 like  Texts ^  Adoration  and  Worjhip  he  not  fo 
 appropriated  to  the  one  God,  as  to  belong  to 
 him  only  ^ 
 
 F.  219.  Anftv.  'np  HERE  are  Two  fundamental  fr- 
 
 X  ^'^^'-^^  which  run  thro'  the  TVhole 
 and  every  part  of  your  Reafoning  upon  This 
 and  the  following  Query. 
 
 The  Fir/l  is ;  that  your  Whole  Argument 
 tends  to  prove,  (not  againfl  Me,  but  againft 
 the  very  Notion  of  Chriftianity  in  general^ 
 that  there  neither  is,  nor  can  poflibly  be,  any 
 fuch  thing  as  Mediatorial  Worjhip  at  all :  And 
 f,  23^.  that,  not  only  the  Heathen  fictitious  Deities, 
 and  the  Popijh  Saints  and  Angels,  are  idolatrous 
 Objects  of  Worjlnp^  becaufe  appointed  by  Hu- 
 mane- 
 
Qii.  XVL         a?7d  JVorfiip.  3  5  S 
 
 marie  invention  *,  but  that  even  God  himfdf  is 
 abfolutely  prcTcluded  from  all  R'l^bt  of  appoint- 
 ing Any  Pcrfon  tu  be  Me  dial  our  ^  and  to  be 
 adored  with  Any  Adoration  at  all  in  That  ca- 
 pacity^ who  has  not  abfolutely  in  Himfelf^  be- 
 fore he  intercedes  or  mediates^  the  very  fame 
 i?iherent  independerit  Right  of  doing  every 
 thing  by  his  ovon  original  Authority^  as  God 
 the  bather  himfelf  has,  to  whom  the  Intercef- 
 jion  or  Mediation  is  made ,  nay,  even  the  very 
 fame  Right  and  Authority  to  fe?id  the  Father  to 
 have  been  Mediatour^  as  the  father  had  to  fend 
 Him.  Which  is  diredly  contrary  to  the  Doftrine 
 of  the  Whole  New  Teftament,  and  of  All  An- 
 tiquity. 
 
 The  Second  is  ^  that  though  your  Conckt- 
 fion  always  fuppofes  the  Father  and  the  Son  to 
 be  Two  real  Perfons,  yet  your  Premiffes  drawn 
 from  Texts  of  the  Old  Teftament  are  diredly 
 pointed  to  prove  (if  they  prove  any  thing  at 
 all,)  that  Chrift  is,  not  xhtSon  of  the  Father^ 
 and  vwfi  High  in  the  Glory  of  the  Father^  but 
 that  he  is  Himfelf  That  One  God  and  Father 
 of  Allj  who  is  above  all:  Which  is  what  the 
 Perfon  reprefented  in  thofe  Texts  of  the  Old 
 Teflamenr,  declares  Himfelf.,  QHimfelf  perfo- 
 nallj  '^  not  his  Fla^ire^  Effence^  or  Subflayicey 
 but  Himfelf  always  in  mofu  exprefs  perfonal 
 Charaders]  ALO  tl  E  xoht.  See,  A  Mode  (I 
 Plea^  &CC.  p.  155,  &c. 
 
 Th^.  TTg^jTov  4e^Jb^5  t:he  Ground  and  Foun- 
 dation of  all  your  Miftakes  in  this  Matter,  I 
 think,  is  This  j  that  you  fuppofe  '^  all  religious 
 
 Aa  2  ^^Worilnp 
 
 T'  ^47 
 
35^  Of  Vi'vine  Adoration 
 
 ^'  iVorfbip  to  have  One  Meaimig^  0?ie  Signiji- 
 *^  cancy^  One  Obje^^  viz.  the  Divine  N  A- 
 *'  TURE,  whether  fub0ing  in  One  Perfon^ 
 *'  or  more.^'  That  is :,  that,  nor  God  Himjelf^ 
 but  the  (i)  NATURE  of  God,  is  the  Ob- 
 jed  of  \Vorfliip.  Than  which,  nothing  (I 
 think)  can  poffibly  be  more  abfurd.  For  'tis 
 felf-evident  fif  any  thing  can  be  Self-evident) 
 to  common  Senfe,  that  not  NATURE^  Ef- 
 
 fence^  or  Suhftance^  but  P  ERSO  N  only  *,  not 
 Perfon  in  general^  but  individual  living  Perjon 
 only  ;  can  be  Any  0hje3  oi  Worpip^  Frajer^ 
 Praife^  or  any  other  application  whatfoever. 
 Whenever  [to  3-eTov]  the  Deity  or  Divifie  Na- 
 ture is  fpoken  of  as  an  Objed  of  Adoration, 
 P.  2^1.  'tis  not  by  way  of  '' ACCURAC2'''  (as  you 
 abfurdly  pretend,)  but  on  the  contrary  by  a 
 Figurative  way  of  fpeaking,  put  for  \}  biof\ 
 God  hi?nfelf-^  juft  as  we  fay  the  Kings  Ma]efly^ 
 not  to  fignify  the  Majejly  of  the  King^  but 
 The  KJng  himfelf  And  in  ^criptitre^  as  well 
 as  in  common  Reafon,  there  is  never  once  the 
 leaft  Hint   given,  that  Nature^  E.Jfence^  Sub- 
 
 fiance^  or  any  thing   elfe  but  individual  Per- 
 
 .     [  I  peaking  oflh 
 
 one  True  God.]- For,  no  good  Reafon  "  ca^:  be  giien^why 
 
 **  the  iLord  God  may  not  be  nfcd  in  a  large  inJefinite  Senjc^ 
 **  not  denoting  any  particular  perfon ;  jujl  as  the  vjord  Man  is  oftt  n 
 **  ufed  in  Scripture^  not  denoting  any  particular  Many  but  Man  in 
 
 **  general,    or  Man  indefinitely. So  the  tuord   God  may 
 
 *•  jometimts  fgnify  All  the  divine  Peribns,  o^<^."  p.  142,  144. 
 
 M 
 
Qa.  XVI.        and  Worjlnp.  357 
 
 fon^  is  or  can  be  at  all  the  ObjeB  of  lVor[ljip^ 
 or  of  any  /'pplicatioji  whatfoever.  'Tis  evi- 
 dent in  every  one  of  the  Texts  both  of  the 
 Old  and  New  Teftament  which  you  alledge, 
 that  the  Charaders  are  Jhvays  exprefsly  Per- 
 fonal.  Thoufhiih  have  no  other  Gods  be  fide  ^  ME 
 [perfonally,]  Exod.  20,  :^.  Thou  fjalt  fear  the 
 Lord  thy  God^  and  ferve  HI  /^^  Deut.  6,  13. 
 Thou  (halt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God^  HIM  [per- 
 fonally  again"]  fjalc  thou  ferve^  ch.  10,  20. 
 Thou  fljak  Worfljip  the  Lord  thy  God^  and  HIM 
 only^  \j^ot^  hJs  Subflance^  but,  his  Ferfon^ 
 H I  M  only]  Jljalc  thou  ferve  ^  Mat.  4,  10. 
 
 Since  therefore,  both  neceffarily  in  the  na- 
 ture of  the  thing  itfelf,  and  evidently  in  the 
 language  of  Scripture,  nothing  but  individual 
 living  Perfon  only  can  be  any  Objed  of  Wor- 
 (hip  :  Let  us  confider  now,  what  the  Confe- 
 quence  of  This  will  be.  If  it  be  true,  fas 
 you  pretend,)  that  there  is  not  in  Scripture 
 '^  a  Syllable  about  Prayer  Abfolute  and  Rela-  p.  236, 
 "  tive  5"  and  that  ^'  lYo  dijlin&ion  of  Worfiip^  P.  147. 
 *'  mediate  and  idtifnate^  was  ever  intirnated^^ 
 there  :  It  manifeftly  follows,  either  that  Je- 
 fm  Chrift,  the  Son  of  God,  is  Hiwfelf  That 
 One  God  and  Father  of  Jll,  That  On^  /,  That 
 0?je  Me,  That  One  Him^  That  One  Perfon^  to 
 whom  J  LONE  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
 Teftament  exprefsly  declare  Worfliip  to  belong  j 
 or  cKe  it  will  follow,  by  IVur  Principles,  that 
 he  ought  not  to  be  worfhipped  at  all  ^  nay, 
 that  the  Father  has  no  Right  to  command  him 
 to  be  worfhipped  with  J?iy  Worfliip. 
 
 Aa  3  That 
 
35  8  Of  Dhine  Adoration 
 
 That  the  Texts  of  the  Old  Teftament  relate 
 not  to  an  "  indefmite  "  Perfon,  but .  definitely 
 to  the  Perfon  of  God  the  Father^  is  inofl:  evi- 
 dent from  the  whole  Tenour  of  the  A'^n?  Je- 
 
 /^^7;/^wf  referring  thereto.     My  Father^ of 
 
 whom  you  fay  that  He  is  your  God^  Joh.  8,54. 
 The  God  of  Abraham^  and  of  Ifaac^  and  of 
 Jacob^  the  God  of  our  Fathers^    hath  glorify'^ J 
 
 HIS  Sonjefus^    Ads^;,  15.     Father, 
 
 This  is  Life  eternal^  to  know  Thee   the  only  true 
 God  J  andjefm  Chrifi  wkorn    Thou   haft  fent^ 
 Joh.  17,  J.     To  us  there  is  hut  one  God^    the 
 Father^  I  Cor.  8,  6.     One  tiod  and  Father  of 
 all^  Ephef.  4,  6.     The  Diredion  of  our  Lord, 
 is  5  When  ye  pray^  fay^   Our  Father  which  art 
 in  Heaven^  Luk.  11,2.    For  the  Hour  cometh^ 
 and  now  is,    when  the   true  Jt^or/Jjippers  jJjall 
 ivorjhip  the  Father  in  Spirit  and  in  1  ruth  -^    For 
 the  Father  feeketh  fiich  to  worjhip  Flim^  Joh. 4, 
 25-     To  which  agreeth  the  Advice  and  Pra- 
 dice  of  the  Apoftles :   That  ye  may  with  one 
 H^Find  and  one  Mouth  glorify  Gody  even  the  Fa- 
 ther Qor,  the  God  and  Father^  rii'  S'eiv  jccc!  ^cl- 
 Tt^cL\  of  our  Lordjefus  Chrifi^    Rom.    15,  6. 
 For    this  Caufe   I  bow    my  Knees    unto     the 
 Father  of    our    Lord    Jefus    Chrift^     Ephef. 
 
 ?)  14- 
 
 The  Perfon  of   the    Father   therefore  be- 
 ing thus  evidently  declared,  both  in  the   (ij 
 
 Old 
 
 K^t^tfiAirrc,  T<i/y  afwujito*  oiTmyrt^v  oiveoTUTOiy    iTTtatitec  ts  ii^AvoZ  t^  ttK" 
 
Qii .  X  V L  and  Worp-jp.  559 
 
 Old  Teftament  and  in  the  New,  to  be  Alone 
 the  original  Objed  of  Worfhip,    as  being  the 
 Sole  Fountain  both  of  all  Perfedion,    and  of 
 all  Authority  and  Power  ;  'Tis  Demonftration 
 that  no  Other  perfon  (fince  no  other  Perfon 
 can  be  That  Ofie  God  a?id  Father  of  all)  can 
 poflibly  have  Any  Right  to  be  worftiipped,   if 
 the  Father  has  no  Right  to  appoint  that  he 
 (hould  be  wordiipped.     As  certainly  therefore 
 as  Any  WorlTiip  at  all  is  in  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment  given  to  Chrift  the  Mediatour   of  the 
 New  Covenant,  fo  certainly  is  your  AlTertion 
 £alfe,  that  ''  the  fundamental  Rule  of  religious  p.  243, 
 *'  Worjhip^  is,  to  worfJnp  God  only,  andnot\\r\  ^2,32. 
 ''  Any  Refped]  whomfoever^  hefides,  Godflmll 
 "  appoint  to  be  worfhipped  ;'*    That  "  No  Di-  p.  247, 
 "  JiinBion  of  Worfjip^  Mediate  and  Ultimate^  ^^2^* 
 *'  abfolute  and  relative^  fiipreme  and  inferiour^ 
 ^'  was  ever  intijnated  ,"  That    '^  neither  the  p»  243' 
 ''  Lanp  nor   the   Prophets,    neither  Chrijl  nor 
 ''  his  Jpojiles^  ever  intimated  any  Thing  like 
 '^  it.'' 
 
 The  very  Texts  which  you  alledge  to  prove  p  ^^^^ 
 that  Chrift  is  the  Supreme  and  Ultimate,  not 
 Mediate,  Objed  of  VVorflaip ,   are  themfelves 
 
 ri  civroi'(i  rev  <iy:-vvj)rav   text  rcov  oXuv   ttodjtav   B-icv  rvv    v-^is'ov    TTotpx- 
 
 ^4^5  ivTi/SiTv.  "  The  Word  of  God,  who  is  the  Guide  and 
 "  Prefident  over  all  Things,  brought  them  (the  Jews)  back 
 "  to  the  Worlhip  of  the  Father  only,  who  is  the  mort  High, 
 "  far  above  all  Things  that  are  vifible,  for  above  Heaven  and 
 "  every  thing  that  is  made;  gently  and  meekly  inviting  thofe 
 "  who  obeyed  him,  and  teaching  them  that  the  Unbegotten 
 *'  and  moft  high  God,  the  Maker  of  the  Univerfe,  was  the 
 "  only  Objecft  ot  their  Worfliip."  Eufei/,  Vem,  Evan^,  lib,  4« 
 c.  7.  -P.  157. 
 
 Aa  4  on 
 
3^0  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 on  the  contrary  a  full  and  direcl  Evidence  of 
 Subordinate^    mediate^     or    relative    Worfhip. 
 Heb,  I,  6,  When  he  brin^eth  in  the  fir fl- begot- 
 ten into  the  Worlds  he  faith^   And  let  all  the 
 Angels  of   God  n^orjljip  him  :     worfliip  him, 
 not  as  Supreme,  but  by  the  Comniind  of  the 
 Father.     So  it  follows,  ver,  9,  Thou  hafi  loved 
 fight eoufnefs^    and  hated  hiiquity^.  Therefore 
 God^  even  Thy  God^  hath  anointed  thee  with 
 the  Oil  ofgladnefs  above  thy  Fellows.     Again  : 
 jp.  229.  When  he  faith,  Joh.  5,  23^  That  all  men  jfjould 
 honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father  ^ 
 he  adds.  He  that   honoureth  not  the  Son,  ho- 
 noureth  not  the  Father  which  hath  SENT  him. 
 This  Honour^  or  religious  Worfliip,  is   in  the 
 foregoing  Verfe   exprefsly  founded    on  This, 
 that   the  Father  hath    COMMITTED  all 
 Judgment  to  the  Son.     And  the  Reafon  is  gi- 
 ven, ver»  27,  He  hath  given  him  Authority  to 
 execute  'judgment   alfoj    BECAUSE    he  is 
 the  Son  of  Man.     Plainly    pointing  to   that 
 Prophecy  of  Daniel^    ch.  y^  i^.    I  fan;  in  the 
 7iight'ViJions^   and  behold  one  like    the  Son  of 
 Man  came  with  the  clouds  af  Heaven^    and 
 came  tp  the  Antiejit  of  Days^  and  they  broi4ght 
 htm  near  before  him  ,  and  there  was  given  him 
 Dominion  and  Glory  and  a  Kingdom^    that  all 
 People^    Nations  and  Languages^  jhould  ferve 
 bim  j  His  Dominion  is  an  everlafihig  Do?ni?}ion 
 which  fhall  not  pafs  away^  and  his  Kingdom  that 
 which  /ball  not  be    dtftroyed.      The  Service, 
 lionour,  or  Worfliip  here  mentioned  both  m 
 •  ihc  Prophecy  and  in  the  GofpeJ,  being  touncJ- 
 
 c4 
 
Qii.XVl.  and  IVorflnp.  361 
 
 ed  on   a   Dominion,    Glory,    and   Power   of 
 Judgement,  which  was  not  original  or  underi- 
 ved^    but   Given   and    Committed'^    evidently 
 fliows  that  it  isaWorfliip  which  cannot  (with- 
 out manifefl  Abfardity)  be  given  at  all,  much 
 lefs    "  appropriated^    to  the  One"^^     Supreme  P.  229. 
 *'  God'^'  a  Worlliip,  (though  in   the  face  of 
 the  whole  Gofpel   you    prefumptuoufly  deny 
 there  can  be  any  fuch  thing  at  all,)  ''  relative^  p.  236, 
 *'  viediate^'^  fubordinate;  a  Worfliip  of  the  Son,  ^'^^* 
 *To  the  Glory  of  the  Father  ,    an  Honouring  of 
 the  Son,  to  the  Honour  of   the   Father   which 
 Se?it  hi?n* 
 
 Whatever  is  the  Metaphyseal  Nature^  Ef- 
 fe7Ke  ov  Sub  fiance  of  the  Son  of  God,  yet  his 
 WorJI:ip  in  Scripture  is  never  intimated  to  be 
 founded  upon  That^  but  in  Faci  it  is  There 
 always  afcribed  to  him  as  being  Mediatour  -^  af- 
 cribed,  not  as  Supreme^  but  as  by  the  Jppoint- 
 went  and  Command  of  the  Father  ^  afcribed, 
 not  as  ultimate^  but  as  tending  finally  to  the 
 Glory  of  God  the  Father*  J  here  is  one  God^ 
 and  07ie  Mediator  between  God  and  Men^  the 
 Man  Chrifl  Jefus^  I  Tim.  2,  5.  Wherefore  he 
 is  able  to  fave  them  to  the  utterijwfl  that  come 
 unto  God  By  him^  facing  he  ever  hveth  to  make 
 InterceJJion  for  them^  Heb.  7,  25.  Ask  the  Fa- 
 ther hi  my  Na?ne^  Joh.  15,  16.  I  thank  my  God 
 through  Jefus  Chrifl,  Rom.  i,  8.  IVe  have  Peace 
 with  God^  through  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifl  :  By 
 whom  alfo  we  have  Accefs  by  Faith ^  Rom.  5  •, 
 1,2.  Through  him  we  Both  have  an  Accefs ^  by 
 Qne  Spirit^  unto  the  Father^  Ephef.  2, 18.  Gi- 
 ving 
 
3  <5  2  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 ving  Thanks  always  for  all  Things^  unto  God 
 and  the  Father^  in  the  Name  of  our  Lord  Jefiis 
 Chn[i^  ch.  5,  20.  Whatfoever  je  do  in  Word  or  ' 
 Deed^  do  all  in  the  Name  of  our  Lord  "jefus^  gi* 
 vi7ig  Tha7iks  to  God  and  the  Father  By  h'un^ 
 Colof.  J,  17.  By  him  therefore  let  us  offer  the 
 Sacrifice  of  Praife  to  God  continual'y^  Heb.  i  j, 
 15.  That  God  in  all  Thifigs  may  he  Glorifyed 
 throiigh  Jefits  Chrift,  i  Pet.  4,  11.    Who  being 
 
 in  the  Forjn  of  God^ took  upon  him   the 
 
 Form  of  a  Servant^ — -  and  became  obedie?it  un- 
 to Death  j Wherefore  Qod  alfo  hath  highly 
 
 exalted  him^  and  given  him  a  Name  above  eve- 
 ry Name^  that    at   the  Name   of  Jefus  every 
 
 Kjiee  fjjould  boiv^ and  that  every  Tongue 
 
 Jhould  cofifefs  that  Jefus  Chrijl  is  Lord^  To  the 
 
 Glory  of  God  the  Father^  Philip.  2  ^    6 11. 
 
 When  he  bringeth  in  the  fir fl' begotten  into  the 
 World ^  he  faith ^  and  let  all  the  Angels  of  God 
 worfljip  hijHy  Heb,  1,6.  Unto  him  that  loved  us^ 
 and  ivafljed  us  from  our  6i?is  in  his  own  Bloody 
 a7id  hath  made  us  Kings  and  Triefis  unto  God 
 and  his  Father^  Qor,  to  his  God  and  Father^ 
 rco  3"e6j  'jlclI  TCcf^r^]  cLvrSf\  to  him  be  Glory  afid 
 Dominion  for  ever  and  ever ^  Rev.  i,  f^^S.Jnd 
 they  fling  a  new  Song^  P^y^^^i^  Jhou  art  wor- 
 thy \ for  thou  wafl  flain^  arid  hajl  redeemed 
 
 us  to  God  by  thy  Blood. Worthy  is   the  Lamb 
 
 that  was  fain  ^  to  receive  Bower  and  Riches  a:-d 
 Wifdom  and  Strength  and  Honour  a?id  Glory 
 and  Bleffing,  Rev.  5  *,  9, 1 2.  Glory  be  unto  him 
 thatftteth  upon  the  'Throne^  andwito  the  Lamb, 
 ver.  12* 
 
 Is 
 
Qu.  XVI.         and  IVorJhi^.  363 
 
 Is  it  pofiible,    a   man  that  ever  read  thefe 
 Texts,  fnould  ferioully  affert,   that  ""•  2?i  Scrip-  />.  ^^d. 
 *^  ttire  there  is  not  a    Syllable  about  Abfolute 
 *'  and  Relative^  Supreme  and  Liferiour  Pra^ierV^ 
 That   "  ?ieither  the  Law  nor  the  Prophets^  nei-  />.  243. 
 *'  ther  Chrid  nor  his  Apoftles^    ever    intimated 
 ip^  any  thirig  like  it  ?"  And  that  "  l^oV>iftinBion  p.  247, 
 ''of  Worfinp,    MEDIATE    and    Ultimate, 
 "  was  ever  intimated?^  Is  That  WoY(h\p  NOT 
 MEDIATE,  which  is  paid  to    the   Media- 
 tor,  as  Mediator  -^  and  which,  the  Scripture  fo 
 exprefsly  declares,    terminates  not  ultimately 
 in  him,  but  Through  him  To  the  Glory   of  the 
 Father  <? 
 
 The  Worfhip  of  the  one  God  and  Father  of 
 Sail,  is  founded  Principally  in  That,  which  you 
 '  (diiFering  herein  from  All  Antiquity)   are  ne- 
 I  ver  pleafed  to  mention  at  all  in  This  Argu- 
 !  ment ,  viz,  his  Supre?ne^  independent ^  original^ 
 \  under  ived  Power  a?id  Dominions    his    having 
 '  all  PerfeBions  a7id  all  Dominion  abfolutely  in 
 I  and  of  Himfelf,  original,  underived,  and  inde- 
 pendent on  Any,  Which  are  ^^  fuch  Reafotis  as  "  f.  146. 
 not  only  '^  exclude  all  Creature-worjbip^^  not 
 only  ^'  exclude  all  Creatures  ,"    but   they  are 
 Eeafons  ''whjHE,   and  HE  ALON E^  in  p.z^i. 
 "  oppofition   to  ALL   others;'  [to  All 
 Others  whatfoever,]    "  is  to   be  worfoipped " 
 with  That  V/orGiip,  which  HE  in  the  Texts 
 exprefsly  appropriates  to    Himfelf  (always  in 
 perfonal  Term.s  to  Himfelf  J  Alone.     Your  "  In-  p.  23  r, 
 ''  ference'^  therefore  from  my  affinning  '^  abfo-  ^^l^' 
 ^^  lute^  Supreme/altimate,  fovereignWorfj}ip ,  to 
 
 ''  bs 
 
3^4  OfDivme  Adoration 
 
 *^  he  appropriated  to  the   ?  erf  on  of  the  Father 
 "  only^  as  The  One  God'^'*    ought  to  be,    not  i 
 that  "  relative  infer iour  WorjJjip  may  be  paid  to  [ 
 "  the  Creatures-^"*  but  that,   if  Any  Worfliip: 
 is  commanded  to  be  paid  to  Any  other  perfoa  : 
 whatfoever,  (whether  created  or  72ot  created^ 
 whether  generated^    or  emayiingy    or    in  what  i 
 manner  foever  deriving  from  the   Father  of: 
 p-  ^3s>  All,)  it  can  be  no  other  than  ^'relative''   cr 
 247.       cc  ■f^eJi^jf;g^'»  Worfhip,  tending  ultimately  to  the 'j 
 Glory  of  the  Father.     And  the  True  Argument, 
 accordnig  to  Tour  Principks,  is  not  This  only,  , 
 (as   you   are  pleafed   fallacioully  to  put  it,); 
 P'  i47»  *'  //  the  Son  of  God  is  a  Creature^  he  is    not 
 ^^^*       "  to  be  worjhipped ,"    (for  the  Queftion  does 
 not  depend  upon  the  Manner  how  he    exifts 
 from  the  Father  :)  But  your  True  Argument 
 lies   Thus :    There  being   no  fuch  thing  as 
 p'  M7.L«  Mediate  iVorjhip;'  therefore  if  the  WorOiip 
 of  the  Son  be  any  more  Mediate  To  the  Glory 
 of  the  Father^    than  the  Worihip  of  the   Fa- 
 ther is  Mediate  To  the  Glory  of  the  Son^    the 
 Son  ought  net  to  be  worfhipped  at  all.     And 
 indeed,  moft  evidently,  your  Whole  Reafon- 
 ing  under  This  Qiiery,  tends  only  to  prove, 
 that  the  Son  of  God,  if  he  is  not    (^what  'tis 
 impoffible  he  fliould  be,)    That  ME^    That 
 FERSON,    mentioned  in   the    Firft  Coin- 
 mandment,and  in  your  other  T«xts-,  he  ought 
 not  to  be  worfljipped  at  alL     This  is  conrtant- 
 ly  the  juft  and  only  Inference  of  your  Argu- 
 ment.    Which  you  unfairly   and  weakly  in- 
 deavour  to   conceal,    (omctimcs   by  putting 
 
 the 
 
Qu.XVI.         and  Worfhip.  ^6^ 
 
 the  complex  Term  [_'*  Being  "]  as  d'lftingnijl^ed  ^-  ^3^, 
 'from    [_Perfon,']    in    thofe   places   where   the  ^^^''^^^' 
 ■Texts  themfelves  exprefsly  make  ufe  of  Per* 
 fou^l  Terms  only  :  And  fomctimes  by  putting 
 the     words    [_''- All  Creatures''''']    and    \^' the  p- ^-^^, 
 ''  Creatwes''-]    and    ["  ^   Cr^eature''']    and  \^^]]\l: 
 Q"  ^;z^  0^^/zir<?/']  where  the  Texts   exprefsly 
 'denote   AH   Perfons  whatfoever^    befides  Him 
 'who  There  fpeaks  :    And  fometimes  by  ufing 
 •the  word  ["  God'^'}  in  a  complex  general  ^tnit,  P-  2.33, 
 '•'  jnjl  ds  the  word  {Mm)    is    often  ufed^   ^20^  244,' 146! 
 "^  to  denote  any  particular    Man^    but  Man  in  And  ser- 
 ''  general  .•"  Whereas  the  whole  Scripture  con-  ^^^''  ^' 
 ftantly  fpeaks  of  God  in  the  perfonal  expref- 
 I  fions,  He  and  Hifn,     Which  E:8.preflions,  you 
 '  prefumptuuofly  fay,   *^  are  i?ico?we?ne?it^  as  not  sermons 
 „  *'  taking  in  all  that  we  apprehend  of  the  One  ^'  ^*^^* 
 I"  True  God''     But  furely  it  would  have  been 
 more  modefl:,    to   have  rather  fufpeded  your 
 '  own  Notion  as  '^  inconvenient^'  for  not  agree- 
 '  ing  with   the  confiant  and  invariably  uniform 
 Expreffions  of  Scripture. 
 
 I  proceed  now  to  your  Obfervations  from 
 Antiquity  :  Only  firft  taking  Notice,  that  you 
 charge  me  with  a  "  Miflake'"'  and  with  a  Dc- 
 \  fign  to  "////?  over  a  Difficulty^''  by  putting  p,  23.% 
 i  **  Honour^  an  ambiguous  word^  inflead  oflVor- 
 **  fiip  and  Adoration,'''  But  does  the  word. 
 Honour^  in  Joh,  5,  23,  (one  of  the  Texts  be- 
 fore us,)  mean  no  more  than  Civil  RefpeB  and 
 Ejfeem  .<?  If  it  does  not^  why  did  you  a! ledge 
 it  to  found  the  Worfjip  of  Chrifl  upon  it  > 
 If  it  does^  why  do  you  blame  ?ne  for   uling 
 
 a  Scrip- 
 
5  ^  ^  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 a  Scripture-Word,  by  which,  you  could  not 
 but  fee,  that,  in  the  Application  of  it,  I  meant 
 the  fame  as  Worfljip  ^ 
 7>.248,c7'f.  Xhe  Antients  you  cite,  declare  indeed  that 
 God  Alon3  is  to  be  worfljipped.  By  which 
 word  God^  in  every  one  of  the  Paflages  you 
 alledge,  is  evidently  meant  The  God  and  Fa- 
 ther of  all -^  who,  in  your  Firft  PafTage,  is 
 ftiled  (i)  The  only  God.  In  the  Second,  (2) 
 The  Maker  and  Lord  of  all.  In  the  Third  ,  (3) 
 God^  v?ho  is  the  Very  and  True  God.  In  the 
 Fifth,  (4)  The  One  God.  In  the  Seventh,  (5) 
 The  one  only  God^  who  is  truly  Supreme  over  all. 
 In  the  Eighth,  (6)  The  Lord  God^  whom  only 
 v^e  are  to  ferve.  In  the  Ninth,  (7)  The  Ma- 
 ker of  all  things^  whom  only  we  ought  to  adore 
 afid  admire  and  wor^uip.  IntheLaft,  (8)  The 
 Unoriginate  Nature  of  God.  For  thefe  An- 
 tient  Writers,  as  they  frequently  fay  that  God ' 
 only  is  to  be  worfliippcd  -^  fo  they  no  lefs  fre- 
 quently f:iy,  that  the  Father  only.,  or  that  The 
 One  God  and  Father  of  All  is  Only  to  be  wor- 
 fliipped,  or  that  He  only  is  to  be  worfhipped 
 through  Jefus  Chrifi.     From  whence  they  never 
 
 (i)  Toi/  fj^^'joi  B-icv.    Juft.  Mart.  Apol.  i.  c.  21. 
 
 (i)  Tov  -Troii/iTYiv  oLvTuVf  Kul  ^irTrorlw.     Athenag.  p.  56. 
 
 (3)  ^^f  ij»  "^^  ovTwc,  B-iu)  Kul  oiXijB-iZ     Theophil.  P.  go. 
 
 (4)  Quod  colimus,  deus  unus  ell.     Tcrtull.  Apol.  c.  17. 
 
 (5^  "Eva  ^vcv  (rt/3«v  B-iov,  tpv  o'»ruc,  ovtx  rrxyroKfoiTo^x.  Clem, 
 Alex.  P.  815.  Edit.  Ox. 
 
 {6)  Dominum  Deiim  tinini  adorare  oportet,  &  ipfi  foli  fer- 
 Vire.  Iren.   F.  310.  Hdit.  BeneiUd. 
 
 (7)  HfOQ-KUVtXv    KXi   3-ceWjM»«i^«l'     KCCt   CijitlV   y^f^    fAS^CV     Toy       TxZtoC    TFi^ 
 
 %o,Yin^Tx.  Orig.  adv.  Celf.  P.  158. 
 
 (8)  TnK  icyiv^TCii  rtiZ  BieZ  fJcriy.     Orig.    adv.   Cclf.  P.  1 89. 
 
 infer 
 
Qii.XVI.        and  IVorjljip  ^6j 
 
 infer,  as_)'(!?^  do,    that  Chriii  is   either  Tb^l; 
 0//e  Supreme  God^  who  Jlo?ie   is  to  be  wor- 
 fl:iipped  ;  or  elfe,    that  he  ought   not  to  be 
 vvorlliipped  at  all.     They  thought,    on  the 
 contrary,  that  the  Worfhip  of  Toe  one  God 
 onl)\  was  very  confiftent  with  his  appointing 
 a  Mediator^    Through    whom,    as   an  eternal 
 High  Prieft  and  living  htercejjor^  they  might 
 and  ought   (S'^S  (isXoyAm^   as   Jnflin  Martyr 
 has  it ;  becaufe  God  had  coinmanded   them  fo 
 to  do  ^)  to  offer  up  their  Prayers  and  Praifes 
 to  the  one  God  and  Father  of  all.     Origen  par- 
 ticularly, whom  you  here  refer  to,    has  ex-  p,  2jo; 
 plained  himfelf  to  this  purpofe  in  the  f/dlefi 
 and  mo/i  diJtifiB  manner  poffible.    See  the  Paf- 
 fages  helovi\  under  the  Follo'wi^ig  Query  •,  and 
 in  Dr.  Clarke'^s  Scripture'Docirine^  p.  121,325^, 
 326,  Edit^  2d,    And  p.  556,  Edit.  ifi\ 
 
 Q^U  E  K  Y      XVIL 
 
 Whether^  not  with/landing,  WorJJnp  and  Adora- 
 tion he  not  equally  due  to  Chrift  ,  and  confe- 
 quently^  whether  it  mufi  7iot  follow  that  he 
 is  the  one  God^  and  not  (^as  the  Arians  fup- 
 pofe')  a  dijiinft  infer iour  Being  ? 
 
 ^;5r/k%'T^HEPerronal  words,  HIM  ON^ 
 j^  LT  jl)alt  thou  ferve^  (as  I  obfer- 
 ved  upon  the  foregoing  Query,)  are  as  exprefs- 
 fy  exclufive  of  any  Ocher  diftinft  Perfon^  ei- 
 ther inferiour    or    e^ualy    as   they  are  of 
 
 any 
 
568  of  Divme  Adoration 
 
 p.  251.  any  *'  difthiH  inferiour  [or  equaQ  Being^'^ 
 If  therefore  ^''iVorfljip  and  Jdoratioube  eqnaU 
 ^'  ly  due  to  Chrifi^^'  as  to  the  Father  ,  it  will 
 follow  unavoidably  from  Tour  Principles,  that 
 he  can  no  more  be  a  diftindl:  Teijou  than  a 
 diftina  BaT^g  ^  but  muft  be  TfJat  HIM,, 
 TfJat  M  E,  Tbat  very  ijidividttal  Ver[on^  who,  , 
 in  the  Texts  referred  to,  excludes  All  Others^ 
 (all  other  Ferjons  exprefsly,  as  well  as  Beings^ 
 from  being  what  He  there  declares  Hhnfelf 
 Alone  to  be.  ^ 
 
 p.  2Si.       Again.     If    "  Worjhip    artd  oAdoration  he 
 ^'  EQUALLT  due  to  Chrift  "  as  to  the  Fa- 
 p^  i54,  ther ;  and  ''  Wor(l)iJ>  is  o^ilways  of  the  S  A  ME 
 er  253-  "  Import  ajid  Significancy  -^"^    and    there    is 
 p,  247.  *'  No  difthictioH  7>f  lV^or(i)ip^  Mediate  and  Ul- 
 "•'  tmate :"  Then  the  Son  is    no  more  wor- 
 fliipped  Mediately  Ilo  the  Glory  of  the  lather^ 
 than   the   Father  is    worfliipped    Mediately, 
 To  the  Glory  of  the  So??.      Which  whether 
 it  be  indeed  the  Doftrine  of  the  New  Tefia- 
 rnejtt^  I  leave  the  Reader  to  judge. 
 F.  253.       You  alledge,  that    "  Wor(lnp  is  offered  to 
 ''  the  Father^  /wt  for  the  recognizing  his  Per- 
 ^'  fonal  Troperties^  as  he  ffands  d/fiinguij]jed 
 ''  from  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  \    tut  his  Ef 
 *'  fential  Terfetiions  common  to  allP     That 
 is  to  fay :  No  Worfliip  U  all  is  paid  to  the 
 Father  Himfelf,   but  to  the  Effence  or  Sub- 
 fiance  of  the  Father.     And  the  fame  Diftinfli- 
 on  of  Per  fonal  and  Ej]e/itial^  you  again  re- 
 peat? l^ag.  ?495  354>37^-     ^  anfwer:   I  have 
 already  ihown,  and  'tis  obvious  to  common 
 fenfe,  that  all  Worflnp  necelTarily  in  the  Nature 
 
 of 
 
Qii.  X VIL      and  JVorJhif  3  69 
 
 of  the  thing  is  FerfonaL    Not  Nature^  Sub- 
 fiance^    or   Ejjhice,    or  any  other  oAhJlraH 
 whatfoever  ^  but  Ferfon  only^   or  individual 
 intelligent  Agent^  a*i  being  intelligent^  and  as 
 having  Dignity,  Power^  eAuthortty  and  Good- 
 nefs^  can  be  capable  of  being  an  Qbje^  oiWor- 
 (I)i2'    Every  Afl:  of  Duty,  Refpeft,  Honour 
 or  Worfliip,  is  evidently,  in  the  very  Nature 
 of  Things,  Qntirdy  TerJo?ial ;  correfponding  to 
 the  individual  Power,  Dominion  or  Authority^ 
 of  the  refpeftive  Perfon  to  whom  it  is  paid. 
 Your  diftinciion  of  perfonal  and  ejjential^   is 
 excellently   expofed  by  the   Learned  Bifliop 
 Fearjon^  upon  the  Firft  Article  of  the  Creed, 
 ^'  In  vain  (fays  he)  is  that  vulgar  DiftinHi- 
 *'  on   applied  unto    the  Explication    of  the 
 *'  Creed,  whereby  the  Father  is  confidered 
 ^'  both  Perfonally  and  EjfentiaUy  ^  Terfonally 
 *'  as  the  firft  in  the  glorious  Trinity,  with 
 ''  Relation  and  Oppofition  to  the  Son  ^  Effen^ 
 "  tially^  as  comprehending  the  whole  Trini- 
 "  ty,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft.    For  that 
 "  the  Son  is  7wt  here  comprehended  in  the 
 *'  Father,  is  evident,  not  only  out  of  the  Ori- 
 ''  ginal  and  Occafion,  but  alfo  from  the  very 
 *'  Letter  of  the  Creed,  which  teaches  us  to 
 *'  believe  in  God    the  Father,    and  in   His 
 ^'  Son.    For  if  the  Son  were  included  in  the 
 "  Father,  then  were  the  Son  the   Father  of 
 *'  himfelf."  Pag.  32.  Edit.^.     But  the  Son, 
 you  fay,  ^'has  JLL  the  fame  effential  Per-  ?.  253* 
 ^' ft&ions  which  the  Father  hath-^'^    and  is 
 "  equal  in  ALL  thofe  Rc-fp^Ss^    for  which  p^  ^  ^^ 
 ^^  WorJInv  is  due  to  the  Father  himfelf  ^  equally 
 
 Bb  "^i- 
 
57<^  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 *^  divine^    equally  eternal^  Sec."      To  make 
 good  your  Aflcrtion,    it  was   neceffary    you 
 Ihould   have    added,     equally    Selffuffjcient^ 
 equally  Selfexifient^  equally  bavmg    All  Ter^ 
 fe^ions  afid  eAll  Dominion  ahfolutcly  In  and  Of 
 Himfelfj  original^  underived^    nnhegotten^    in- 
 de'^endent  on  Any,     Or,  are  Thefe   None  of 
 '^  ALL  thoje    RefpeHsy  for  which  Worpi^  is 
 '*  due  to  the  Father  himfelf  ?" 
 p.  2S4.       ''  As  to  the  Subordination  ofPerfons ;  That 
 '*  (you  add)  is  of  Di/tinH  Co7ifideratio7i?''-^^ 
 p,  263.  u  j^^  SOME  Se7ife.y  every  thing  mufl  he  refer- 
 
 p.  265.  "  red  to  the  Father. ^^ "  q4  Subordination 
 
 "  in  SO  ME  Senfe  &:c.''     Your  Inconfiftency 
 in  all  This,  I  have  largely  ftiown  above^  ^ag. 
 317,  ^iS^i^ pajftm. 
 P'  2.54.      Your  next  Obfervation,  is  Very  unreafona- 
 ble  and  unchriftian.     I  ''  have  fyou  tell  me) 
 •'  many  Things  to  fa}\  in  HOPES  to  lejfen 
 ^*  the  Honour  and  Worjlnp  attributed  to  the 
 "  Son  in  holy  Scripture :   But  unlefs "  I ''  could 
 ^^  prove  that   no  WorJIjip  at  all  is  to  be  paid 
 "  to  him^*    I  ^' prove  nothinZo^    1  pray  God 
 forgive  you  the  Injury  you   here  do  me.    I 
 have  no  Ho^es^  no  Concern,  but  to  maintain 
 the  Honour  of  the  Father^    as  maintained  in 
 Scripture ;  and  to  afcribe  to  the  Son  all  the 
 Ho7iourJVorJlpip  and  Glory^  that  the  Scripture 
 any  where  afcribes  to  him.     ToUy  on  the  con- 
 tiary,  I  am  very  fure,  fay  ma7;y  Thi7igs^  (not 
 ''  in  Hopes  to  lejfen  ;"  God  forbid  ^  but)  which 
 do  by  necelTary   Confcquence  Itjjen  the  Ho- 
 twur^    IVorpip   and   Supremacy,    of  the  One 
 God  and  Father  of  all^   referved   to  him  in 
 
 Scrip- 
 
Qu.  X  VIL       and  JVorJhip.  3  7 1 
 
 Scripture.  Your  whole  Reafoning,  tends  to 
 confound  the  Perfo?is  and  the  Worjhip  of  the 
 Father  and  the  So?/.  And  the  Worfhip  of 
 Chriil  our  Mediator  and  hteycejjbr  with  the 
 Father,  if  it  be  Cas  it  cannot  but  be)  Mediate 
 Worfhip  To  the  Glory  of  the  Father^  ought  p/;/7.2,n, 
 not  (it  feems)  to  be  Any  Worjhip  at  all.  Now 
 whether  /,  who  maintain  the  Worfliip  of  the 
 Son  in  every  Form  and  ExpreJJion  and  (I  think) 
 in  every  Senfe  in  which  the  Scripture  attri- 
 butes Worfhip  to  him  ;  or  Tou^  v/ho  regard 
 not  the  Scripture- Forms  and  Examples  of 
 Worfhip,  but  build  your  Notion  of  rehgious 
 Worfhip  upon  Metaphjjical  S^Qculmons  which 
 tke  Scri^ures  never  mention  in  Any  Precept 
 or  Example  of  Worfhip :  Whether  (I  fay) 
 Tou  or  /,  do  moft  in  Reality  lejjhi  the  Honour 
 and  Wo'/jinp  of  the  Son  of  God,  let  every  intel- 
 hgent  Reader  judge. 
 
 But  you  ask  :  Does  not  "-^  the  Honour  of  p,  2^^; 
 "  Either^  redound  to  Both  <?  redound  to  the  ^  -63. 
 "-'  Glory  ofHoth?''  And  when  our  Saviour 
 prays  to  the  Father;  "-' Father^  glorify  thy 
 "  Son^  that  thy  Son  alfo  may  glorify  thee : 
 ''  How  familiar^  how  EQUALLT  concern^ 
 *'  ed^  as  well  for  his  own,  as  his  Father's 
 "-'  Glory  I'''*  In  return,  /alfo  ask:  Have  then 
 Thofe  v/ords  of  our  Lord  No  Meaning  ?  I 
 honour  my  Father  :  I  feek  7tot  mine  own  Glory : 
 If  I  honour  myfe^f^  my  Honour  is  nothing:  I 
 feek  ?iot  mine  own  Will^  hut  the  Will  of  my 
 Father  which  has  fent  me,  Joh.  8  5  49,  50, 
 5  5  ;  and  ch.  5,  30.  Do  you  really  think,  that 
 the  Worfnp  of  the  Father  does  as  much 
 Bb  2  'Her- 
 
372-  Of  Dhine  Adoration 
 
 p.  263.  "  terminate  "  finally  "  in  the  Son^"*  as  the 
 Worpi])  of  the  Son  term'mates  finally  in  the 
 Father?  Do  yoyi  really  think,   that  the  Wor^ 
 
 P'  M7.  Jhi]^  of  the  Son  is "  no  "  more  ''MEDIATE'^ 
 
 phil.zyu.to  the  Glory  of  the  Father^  than  the  Wor/hip 
 
 of  the  Father  is  MEDIATE   to  the  Glory 
 
 of  the  Son  ?  Do  you  really  think,    that   the 
 
 p,  ^ss^  Son's  ^'  glorifyifig  the  Father ^"^  means  the  ve- 
 ry fame  thing,  and  is  to  be  imderftood  m  the 
 very  Z^/;/^  Senfe,  as  the  Father's  ^'' glorifying 
 "  tbeSon^"^  and  highly  exalting  him^  ^ndgivi^ig 
 him  a  Name  ahove  every  Name^  ^c?  If  not ; 
 "  read  again^ — believe  your  own  eyes^"^  and 
 ask  yourfelf,  *'  How  could  you  mifs  fueb  plain 
 "  Things  r 
 
 P.  255.  You  ask  again  :  Is  not  ^'  Chrifi  to  he  wor- 
 ^^  pipped^  or  invocated?''  Yes:  But  always 
 with  reference  ultimately  To  the  Glory  of  the 
 Father  ;  whereas  the  Worfhip  of  the  Father, 
 terminates  ultimately  in  Himfelf  Of  the 
 Texts  you  cite,  fome  are  not  Inftances  of  /;/- 
 vocation  at  all :  Others  are  moft  exprefs  for 
 the  Notion  I  am  pleading  for;  ThiJs  Joh.  5, 
 2  J,  The  Honour  paid  to  the  Son^  is  to  Him 
 who  has  ^//  Judgfnent  COMMITTED  un^ 
 to  him:  And  oAtfs  7,  59,  Chrift  is  invoca- 
 ted,  fta?ujing  (as  Mediatour)  on  the  right 
 band  of  God,  ver.  55. 
 
 p.  256.  You  go  on  :  ^'  Glory  and  Dominion  for  ever 
 "  and  ever,  are  afcrihed  to  Him,  as  well  as 
 *'  to  the  Father''  True^  but  exj reply  on 
 different  Accounts  :  To  the  Son,  as  being  the 
 Lamb  fain  :  To  the  Father,  as  Him  that  fit- 
 teth  on  the  Throne^  even  the  Lord  God  oAl- 
 
 might/ 
 
Qu.  XVII.      and  W'orjhif.  3  7  J 
 
 might)\  (o  (i)  TTctvTo^cgctT^g,  Supreme  over  all  •) 
 Which  was^  and  is,  arid  is  to  come  :  Who  ere- 
 ated  all  things,  and  FOR  who  ft:  PLEA* 
 S  UR  E  they  are^  and  were  created.  Rev.  4  ; 
 8,9,11. 
 
 You  allow,  that  '^  as  the  Son  [lands  to  us  p-  2*51. 
 *'  under  the  particular  Character  of  Mediator^ 
 *^  (2)  leftdes  what  he  is  in  common  with  the 
 '"  Father-^  our  Trajers   Generally  are  to  le 
 **  offered^  r^^/)^y Through  him, than  To  him*'^ 
 But  how  is  This  confiftent  with  what  you 
 afferted  B^/^r^,  that  in  Scripture  ^'AfO  D/-  p.  247^ 
 ''  fti7iaionofWoYfi)ijj^  MEDIATE  and  Ul- 
 *'  timate,  was  ever  i?itimated?^  Or  how  is  it 
 confiftent   with  what  immediately  follows  : 
 *'  If  the  Son  is  to  be  worpip^ed,  it  can  he  on  p.  i6\i 
 ?'  NO    OTHER    oAccount,    hut^~.on  the 
 *^  (Account  of  his  being  One  with  the  Fa- 
 u  therV^ 
 
 You  proceed  :  There  is  "  No  DiJiinHion  p-  M7» 
 ^^  oflVorfI)ip,^^  becaufe  though  ^^  in  fome  fenfe  ^^^3* 
 *'  every  thing  muft  be  referred  to  the  Father^ 
 
 a  as the  Head  and  Fountain  of  ally  yet  'tis 
 
 ^'  all  hut  One  oAcknowledgment  of  One  and 
 ^*  the  Same  Ejje?itial  Excellency  and  PerfeBi- 
 "  on  J'  That  is  to  fay  :  Neither  (5)  the  Father^ 
 nor  the  Son,  but  only  AhftraEi  Ejjence,  is  in- 
 deed the  Proper  Oljed  of  Worjlnp  at  all.  But, 
 how  is  ''  the  Ejjential  Excellency  and  Perfe&i-  P-  \€)* 
 ''  on  the  SAMET-    Why,    *'  conftdered  Pri- 
 
 ■^'  (i)  See  beloiVf  on  §luery  XXVII,  towards  the  End, 
 _(i)    See  Dr.    Clarke's    Scripture-DoHrinCy    p.  357>  35^,  359^ 
 judit.  ift.  And  p.  317,  318,  329,  Edit.  2d. 
 (3)  See  above,  p.  356. 
 
 Bb  5  [[marily 
 
374  Of  Vivine  Adoration 
 
 "  mariJy  in  the  Father,  and  Derivatively   in 
 *'  the  Son?''     That  is  :  Either  derived  Perfe- 
 Q:ions.    and   underived  Perfeftions,    are   the 
 jame  ^  and  the  Son  has  the  underived  Perfe- 
 Biojis  of  the  Father,  derivatively :    Or  elfe 
 Self-exifience    and    Underived  Selffufficie?tcy 
 are  no  Excellency^  no  Perfetiion  at  all. 
 p.  264.       You  charge  me  with  a  "  Pttitio  Trinci^ii^'* 
 with  ^''  taking  the  main  thing  for  grant edy  that 
 "  ^Diftinflion  of  Perfons  is  the  jams  with  a 
 ^'  Difference  of  Nature."    Concerning  NA- 
 TURE  I  affirm  nothing,  \  take  nothing  for 
 granted,    becaufe  it  is  a  complex  Term  of 
 very  indeterminate  Signification :    [fee  above, 
 fag.  176.3  All  that  I   "  tahe  for  (granted:;''   is, 
 that  the  (HE)    in  the  firft  Commandment, 
 and  in  Other  the    like  Texts,  fignifies   the 
 Perfon  There  /peaking,  as  diftinguillied  from 
 eAll  Others.    And  all  that  I  i^jfer  from  thence 
 is,  that  there  muft  be  a  real  Difference  of 
 Authority  between  Him  and  All  Others  what- 
 foever. 
 T.  164.       What  you  alledge  from  Hel\  i.   has  been 
 abundantly  confidered  already.     The  Angels 
 being  ''ORDERED   to  worfiip  the  Son,'' 
 is  diredly  Againfi  you.     And  tho'  he   might 
 very  juftly,  yet  *'  he "''  Is  not  There  declared 
 to  have  "  made  the  Worlds^''  but  that  the  la- 
 ther By  Him  made  the  Worlds. 
 ^.zC;.       Your  allegation,    that  ,^'' there   7/either  /j, 
 ''  nor  can  he,  any  Medium  letween  God  and 
 '-*'  Creature 'P  has  been  anfvvered  above ^  "^ag, 
 §01,  339- 
 
 J'ou!: 
 
Qii .  X  V 1 1.  and  Worjhip.  2  7  y 
 
 Your  Charge  upon  us,  of  "  denfing  "  the  p.  266. 
 Confubftantiality  ;  And  your  own  varialle 
 Ufe  of  the  terms,  *'  Scmii^  Sulfiance  5"  And 
 your  claiming  to  be  "  toldl^lainlf'^  certain  Me- 
 taphyfical  Ab[urdicies,which  the  Scriptures  ne- 
 ver mention  at  all :  have  alfo  been  cihove  di- 
 ftindly  confidered,f^^.  30^,339,  J44, 351. 
 
 I  return  now  to  confider  what  you  oflFer  from 
 oAntiquityj  concerning  the  Notion  otl^^orjlnp* 
 
 You  begin  with  a  Scrap  of  a  PafTage  out  ^-  ^^^' 
 of  Jii/thi  MaYt)r^  which  I  have  fet  down  at 
 length  in  (i)  the  Margin.     How  far   it  fa- 
 
 (r^  'Ex.£jvov  Ti,  KX,',  Tvv  Trap  eiurou  iiov  lAS-ovret,  xost  oiohitee'VTOi 
 ;j|LOot5  Tfliyret,  v-va  tcv  rcov  uXXuv  r/c'oyjivuv  icon  it,o[/jOHSfJ!/ive<>v  ayuSahi 
 ciyyiXm  ^sxravy  Trvivfjuu  n  to  7rpo(pyiTiKov,  a-sjoof/jsB-cc  x.xi  Tr^rxncw^fjijiv, 
 Xoya  Kcci  dXvi^iici,  ritx^mrsr^.  Apol.  I.  P.  11  ^  II.  The  Ambiguity 
 of  that  part  of  this  Padage  which  relates  to  Angels^  brings  to 
 mind  a  remarkable  place  of  Origen.,  adverf.  Celf.  lib.  8.  p.  'fiS. 
 Where  he  fays;  'Etr'  onroci  cic  ^ ^^yiTKiusiv  -<f/ioc^  f^sTu  toZ  B-soZ  t 
 
 uicv  civroZ,  uy^oX^i^iiv  \j.^X]i'\  ro  x,ocl  %oc^'  k/aS^  a  [ji^vov  T  S'Sif,  «iAA«d 
 xe«  TiJ5  w;r/)p£T«ii;  oiyrew  '^i^v^Ttiuzo^.  'Ei  yl  isv  tvaei  rs^  oiXri^ooe,  ItTrn-' 
 piTX<i  rou  BrioZ  i/jiToi  TVV  f/jovoyivy)  roZ   Bsou,   tvv   r<«/3pjnA    x.xt    rov  Mt^ 
 
 S-i^OCTTiUi^'  l(rCJ<i  6CV  TO  iZ^  ToZ  ^l^dZTiUHV  clvToZ  (Ty^l/jyAVO f/jiVOV  cit- 
 XCf,^y,OCX.VTiC„     KM    TCdV     ToZ   ^SpciZriOOVT®^  TtOol^lUV,     iiZOLljiV    kv   iic,    TOV    TB- 
 
 7S-CV,  (i)^  'ZSC<  rr,AiH.STa)v  dixMyof/jivoiy   uTTi^  s^upouf/jiv    'ZJrjS<  ocvroo'i  von- 
 
 a-oci.  "  Celfusy  from  our  worfliipping  the  Son  together  with 
 *'  God,  concludes,  that  according  to  Our  Notions,  not  God 
 "  only,  but  his  Mimfiers  alio,  are  to  be  ferved  (or  woriliippcd.) 
 "  Now  if  indeed  he  had  meant  thole  who  are  the  True  Mini- 
 *'  fters  of  God,  after  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God;  viz., 
 "  Gabriel,  and  Michael,  and  the  rell  of  the  Angels  and  Arch- 
 **  Angels,  and  had  contended  that  Thefe  ought  to  be  worrtiip- 
 **  ped:  Poffibly  dijimg:ii(l)ing  firfi  the  Meaning  of  the  word 
 «'  Worjhipy  and  the  A^dls  of  the  Worfljipper,  I  might  have  faid 
 *'  fomething  on  this  Head,  according  to  the  Nature  of  the 
 "  Subje(5l,  and  the  belt  of  my  Capacity  in  judging  of  it."  ht. 
 the  latter  part  oj  -which  PaJJ'agCy  'tis  evident  that  Origen,  by  the 
 term  Worfhip,  means  neither?r-^yQX  nor  Invocation,  but  merely 
 an  Acknowledgment  of  Reverence  and  Eftcem,  proportionable 
 to  the  Dignity  of  the  Object, 
 
 Bb  4  vours 
 
3/6  Of  Drjine  Adoration 
 
 p.  14--  vours  your  Notion,  that  there  is  ^  No  Di- 
 *'  ftiftttion  of  IVorjhip ;''  appears  from  the 
 words  you  have  omitted,  (^xiya^  x^l  ixy^ucL 
 TiU^YTi^^^  ho?rjir,'i?ig  Toetn  accordi?ig  to  Reafon 
 and  Truth.  Tht  Meaning  oi  which ^  he  thus 
 explains  elfewhere: 
 
 "Ifliall  fi)  fhow  'piys  he)  that  with  gcod 
 *'  Reafon  we  honcor  the  So?i  of  the  True  God 
 "  in  the  Sfr(/;;^Tlace,  and  the  Prophetick  6/7- 
 '*  rit  in  the  r/?/ri  Place."  Again :  (2)  Next  af- 
 *'  ter  the  Unbegotten  and  ineffable  God,  we 
 ''  adore  and  love  his  Won:^  becaufe  for  our 
 ''  fakes  he  was  made  Man,  that,  by  being 
 ''  Partaker  of  our  SuflFerings,  he  might  heal  us." 
 
 Q^^nd^  in  his  Dialogue  zk-itb  Trypho  :  "  (j) 
 ^'  He  who,  being  of  a  pious  Difpofition,  loves 
 "•  God  with  all  his  Heart,  and  with  all  his 
 '*  Strength  ,  will  honour  (c^AWorfliip)  no  other 
 '''  God  :  Yet  he  vs^ill  alfo  honour  :'or  worfhip) 
 *^  That  Angel  lor  MefTenger  of  God,  Chrift  the 
 *'  Angel  of  the  Covenant,]  becaufe  it  is  God's 
 '*  Will  Icr  Command  J  that  he  fliould  do  fo.'^ 
 The  great  and  General  Rule  of  Religious  Wor- 
 fhip, was,  as  the  fame  Author  tells  us^  ''  (4)  to 
 ''  offer  up  Prayers  and  Thankfgivings  to  the  Fa- 
 '-*  ther  and  Maker  of  theUniverfe,  thro*  the 
 
 c^ulcu^u.  Apo!.  I.  P.  24-  Edit.  Grab.^ 
 
 X£U  im  Tdhut  tun  yumt^vt  xr.U'^LiT^y^    yf»#/*t>^,    >^   U^\a  To<^ 
 ;rr.T0u.     Apol.  1.  P.  34*  35- 
 (3)  See  Ahne^  on  P.  i:. 
 
 <^^  Name 
 
p.  i;:- 
 
 Qu.XVlI.         and  irorfhAp.  377 
 
 "  Name  of  the  cruciryed  Jelus."  And  again  : 
 ''  (i)  In  all  our  Oblations  we  blefs  and 
 *'  praife  the  Maker  of  all  Things,  through 
 *'  his  Son  jefus  Chri.l,  and  through  the  H> 
 *'  ly  Spirit?' 
 
 You  obferve,  that  ArheKagcras  ''joins  the  P.  257. 
 '•  So?i  "jL^ith  the  Father  :''  that  Theo^bilus^^i.  p,  ^^^^ 
 ling  the  Son  God^  "  of  confequence  Mv.ft  ftc^. 
 "  lofe  WorPm^  diie  to  tim  :^  And  that,  ac- 
 cording to  TatiarPs  Reafoning,  "  r:e  Might  he 
 "  -jcorfhi^'ted!"  But  does  This  prove  the 
 Worfhip  of  the  Son,  SO  T  to  be  •'  ME  DL 
 ''-  ATE''  to  the  Glory  of  the  Father? 
 
 TcytuUiiVa  (you  fay)  *'  Mitjl  cet-tainly  in- 
 ^'  elude  the  So?:^'  and  *'  accordifgly  adfp/:ts 
 "  the  JVorJhip  cf  him:'  True :  But  is  net 
 That  Worfhip,  Mediate  f  Does  not  he  lay,  in 
 the  very  place  you  refer  to,  ''  We  (2)  wor- 
 '^  fhip  God  through  Chrift.^  CIeme;is  Alex- 
 andrinus  has  indeed  fome  very  high  Rhetori- 
 cal Expreffions  in  his  earlieft  Writings;  And 
 yet  he  clearly  enough  explains  himfelf,  fay- 
 ^^^g  5  (3)  "  ^y  ^'^"  R^velatiopi  of  the  Goffel^ 
 *'  we  are  to  worPnip  God  Through  Chnrt.^ 
 Again  :  "  (4)  We  are  commanded  to  worfhip 
 
 *^  and  honour  the  Word, and  the  Father 
 
 *'  Through  him."     Nay,  GoJ  the  H^ord  him- 
 felf  is  by  This  Author  reprefented  as  joining 
 
 (r)  See  4'v-.^,  on  P.  1:. 
 (2)  Deam  colimus  per  drliium.  --'r.-.',  c.  11. 
 (3}  K*««,-    TV  3^   .:i^    T»  rj^  s-iia^A.nj-      Scioiiu:.   t. 
 p.  636.  ^    ^  ' 
 
 j^  ii  iyrw  7?i  t»t&«»,    Stromi:.  7.  P.  719.  EdiLPtdL 
 
37^  Of  Di'vine  Adoration 
 
 in  Hjmns  to  the  Unhegotten  God^  and  fraying 
 to  him  for  Men.  (i)  "  If  thou  wilt,  (fays 
 *'  he  J  be  thou  initiated  ,  and  thou  fliak  be 
 *^  in  the  Chorus  with  Angels,  prailing  the 
 *^  Unbegotteii  and  Incorruptible  and  Only 
 ^^  True  God  ;  Gael  the  Word  joining  with 
 "^^  us,  in  our  Hymns  of  Praife.  This  Jefus, 
 ''  the  One  Eternal  great  High  Prieft  oi  the 
 <'  one  God,  who  is  the  Father,  prays  for 
 *'  Men."  As  to  Your  Allegation,  that  C/f- 
 mens  ftiles  the  Son  TctvToj^ga^ra)^  ;  See  lelow  on 
 ^//t'r)' XXVII,  towards  the  End. 
 j^  258.  Irendius  (you  fay)  "  admits  the  Son  to^  he 
 "  invocated  as  well  as  the  Father."^"*  Now 
 though  This  is  not  the  point  in  queliion,  yet 
 1  cannot  but  obferve  here  by  the  way,  that 
 the  iirjl  Paffage  you  refer  to,  only  relates  to 
 the  Name  of  Chritt  being  zjivocated  over 
 fojjejfed  and  dijeafed  Perfons,  while  at  the 
 fame  Time  the  Prayer  was  direfted  to  God 
 the  Father:  So  that  This  Paffage  is  diredlly 
 againft  your  Notion.  The  Words  of  Iren^us 
 are  :  (2)  ^'The  Church,  direQing  Prayers  to 
 *'  the  Lord  who  made  all  Things,  and  invo^ 
 "  hng  the  Name  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chriil 
 ^'  (over  the  Perfons  difertfed  and  f^ojjtjJedJ^Q^' 
 
 rov   uysfvyiTov  x.xl  ccvaXi^f^aVy    xxl  fjuovov  ov\u<i  ^-tiv,  (runvf/jvSvT^    yu^Tv 
 roZ   B-ioZ    A^jya-     Uiiloi;     arC^,     'Irjo-ew?,     £<?    6    fjjtyeiq    Uf>x,n^iu<;   S-^oy 
 
 T£    ivoq,    TOU    UVTOU    Kxl     TTCCTpUf     ^«P    OCydpUT^UV     iU^iTUi,      l^IOtrCptiC. 
 
 Pag.  74,  IS-  ,  T^        .  .... 
 
 (i)  Orationes  diiigens  ad  Dorainiim  qui  omnia  tccit,  ^  no- 
 incn  Domini  nollri  Icfu  Chrifli  invocans,  virtutes  fccundum 
 utilitates  hominum,  fed  non  ad  Icductionem  perficit.  liO.  z. 
 f,  31.  Edit,  Benedicl, 
 
 *^  form.s 
 
Qu.  XVII,       and  Worfhip.  ^jp 
 
 **  farms  wonderful  Cures  for  the  Benefit  of 
 **  Men,  and  not  to  deceive  them."  In  the 
 Vl^her  Paffage  you  refer  to,  there  is  no  Invo- 
 cation of  the  Son  at  all.  Irenaus\  Solemn 
 Prayer  (i)  before-cited,  clearly  explains  his 
 Notion  m  this  Point :  "  /  invoke  Tbee^  0 
 ''  Lorc!^  the  God  of  oAhraham^  ifc.  the  Father 
 
 ^^  of  our    Lord  Jefus    Chrifi -^ who  art 
 
 ^'  the  Only  andTrue  God^ through  our  Lord 
 
 "  Jefus  Chrift^'  The  Worfliip  due  to  the 
 Son  ofGod^  he  puts  upon  This ,  ''  (2)  that, 
 '^  according  to  thQ  Good  Pleafure  of  the  invi- 
 *^  fible  Father,  every  Knee  might  bow  to 
 '^  Chrift  Jefus,  our  Lord  and  God  and  Sa- 
 ^'  viour  and  King." 
 
 We  come  now  to  Origen ;  who  gives  us 
 the  fulleft  and  cleared  Account,  of  any  of  the 
 Antients,  concerning  the  Worfhip  of  the  Fa- 
 ther, and  of  the  Son.  And  from  Him  you 
 might  have  diftinflily  fliown  the  Praftice  of 
 the  Primitive  Chriftian  Church,  if  you 
 had  been  defirous  to  deal  fairly  with  your 
 Reader.  But  in  thac  Jittle  you  cite  out 
 of  him,  you  very  greatly  mifreprefent  his 
 Senfe. 
 
 Fir/}^  You  fay,    he   "•'  exprefsly  makes  the  p.  25S. 
 "  Son  ccyevJiT©""    A ///g/^  Paffage,  which  I 
 have  alove  fliown  to  be  Corrupt,  ^'295. 
 
 (i)  Lib.  3.  p. 209.  See  ahovCf  p.  23. 
 
 (2)  hcc  Xi^'^'S'^  'Iwcu  ru  x.'jf>iM  xf/jcov  x.ccl  B-iai  y,xi  (rcJTVifn  kcci  fSc^ 
 e-iXu,  KocTot  Tuv  Iv^oKi^y  TCP  7rcirfo<i  rev  eio^ra,  7ra»  yovv  koc^"]^^^ 
 hb,   I.  c,  10. 
 
 Se* 
 
3S0  OfDivine  Adoration 
 
 p»  ^59'  Secondly.  In  the  next  place,  youThns  argue. 
 ^'  According  to  Origen,  the  Creator  of  the  If- 
 *'  niverfe  o?ily  is  to  be  worjlnp^^'df  And  "-^tke 
 ''  Son  is  Creator  of  the  Univerfe."^^  Again  : 
 •^  ///  a?wther  place  he  tells  tiSy  we  are  to 
 *'  worfiif  Him  only  who  made  (all)  thefe 
 ^'  Things  5"  And  "  the  Son  made  all  Things. 
 *'  — It  is  therefore^^  (you  inkv)^^ a  very  clear 
 *'  Cafe,  that  Origen  thought  the  Son  to  have 
 "  thefuUefi  Right  and  Title  to  religious  Wor- 
 "-}  [In]),  the  SAME  that  the  Father  himfelf 
 ^'  had,^^  I  believe  there  never  was  in  the 
 World  a  greater  Abufe  of  Words,  than  all 
 this  is.  Does  not  Origen  moft  exprefsly  and 
 diftindly  explain  his  Senfe,  How  the  iather 
 is  Creator^  and  How  the  Son  is  Creator  ?  viz. 
 *'  (i)  The  immediate  Maker  of  the  World, 
 *'  and  as  it  were  the  Artificer  of  it,  is  the 
 *'  Word,  the  Son  of  God.  But  the  Father  of 
 '*  the  Word,  in  that  he  COMMANDED 
 *'  the  Word,  his  Son,  to  make  the  World  j 
 "is  the  PRIMARY  Maker  of  it."  A- 
 gain :  In  the  very  Place  you  cite  for  the  Son^s 
 **  making  all  Things^^  and  where  you  injift 
 too  upon  citing  '''  the  very  Words -^^  the  Au- 
 thor's Expreflion  is,  (which  you  moft  unfair- 
 
 ^'  ^i'9'  ly  omit  in  your  Tranllation,)    "  all  Things 
 "  (2)  which  the  Father  gave  him  in  COM^ 
 
 (l)  Til*  jt*  Trpofriv^ci^  J[v^Uiiifoyov  nvxi  rov  viov  roZ  B-ioZ  XoyoVy  y^  axp' 
 moil  oiVTHPycv  roZ  Kocrf/fH'  rvv  ■^  Trxrtfcc  rov  Aoyj^,  rx  TT^otrTirx^ivcci 
 rat  um  ixutS  ^^oyco  TToi^rcit  rov  xorfJijov,  n'vxi  Ti'fuTu^  o<)iJLik><^yov,  Adv. 
 Celf.'lib.  6. 
 
 (1)  U^orrocy^^^tyTa,  nrnv  ho^ov  inxotiiKivXi  TmvTcc,  orcc  6  ttxtk^  ocvtm 
 iitTUhXTo,    P.  63. 
 
Qu.XVII.       and  Worfkip.  981 
 
 ''  MANDr    Is  This  the    ''SAME   Title 
 "  to  WorJInp^  that  the  Father  himftlfhathV^ 
 
 Thirdly,  You  alledge,  that  Origen  '\fpeah 
 ''  oftheworjJ)ippwg  iather  a7id  Son  jointly  as 
 "  ONE  GOD'j  and  elfe where  mentions  the 
 *'  Worflnp  of  the  Son,  in  his  diftinH  Terfonal 
 *'  Capacity. "^"^    I  anfwer  , 
 
 The  true  Rendring  of  the  Fir/l  Paffage  p.  259^: 
 you  here  cite,  is :  "  We  worHiip,  in  the 
 "  manner  hefore  declared^  One  God,  the  Fa- 
 ''  ther,  and  the  Son,"  The  meaning  of 
 which,  I  have  diftindly  fliown  above^  P.  83, 
 84. 
 
 The  S^^^^^^Paflage,  you  cite  very  imper- 
 feflly ;  leaving  out  the  moft  material  Parr. 
 The  whole  is  :  "(i)  Let  him  pray  to  the 
 "  jy^ord  of  God^  who  is  able  to  heal  him  :" 
 Here  you  flop,  as  it  was  proper  for  yourPur- 
 pofe  to  do.  But  Origen  goes  on  :  ''  and  much 
 "  7nore  to  his  father^  w'oo  SENT  his  Word 
 **  and  healed  them ^'^  That  Orig 6';;  meant,  that 
 Prayer  was  to  be  offered  to  the  Father  ulti- 
 mately,  to  the  Son  Mediately  ^  his  whole  pre- 
 ceeding  Argument  plainly  fliows.  And  This  p,  161: 
 Notion  he  *'  endeavours  to  express  in  the  fuU 
 ^'  left  arid  ftrongeft  words  he  coiild  think  on  I* 
 in  a  Paffage  a  little  before  :  Vart  of  which, 
 you  produce  in  your  Margin,  P.  260  ;  but 
 (for  a  very  good  Reafon)  have  not  thought 
 fit  to  Translate  it.     Only  you  build   a  QoroU 
 
 t^(r»To  <ivT5r^  Adv.  Celf.  lib.  5.  P.  238. 
 
 Jary 
 
cc 
 Cc 
 
 cc 
 
 382  Of  Divine  adoration 
 
 F,  260.  lary  upon  it,  viz.  ''that  all  WorJInf  is  PR 7- 
 "  MARILT  and  EMINENTLT  the  Fa- 
 ther's-^'' and  that  ''the  diftintt  Wor^n^  of] 
 the  Son^  confidered  as  a  Son^  redounds  to  \ 
 the  Father  as  the  Head  and  Fountain  of] 
 "  all :"  That  is,  I  think,  is  Mediate  to  the  \ 
 Glory  of  the  Father.  Which  direftly  over-  ' 
 turns  the  Pro^ofttion  you  are  here  contending  • 
 
 p'  Ml'  for,  that  there  is  "A^  Diltinttion  of  Worfiip, 
 "  MEDIATE  and  ultimate  "  and  thatOri- 
 
 ^-  ^9'  "  c?^^^  "  thought  the  Son  td  have  the  SAME 
 "  Title  to  Wor(l)ip^  that  the  Father   Himfelf  \ 
 ''  had:'  The  Paffage  of  Origen^  is  This  :   (1)1! 
 ^\  We  ought  to  fend  up  all  Supplication  and 
 '*  Prayer  and   Interceflion  and  Thankfgiving  I 
 *'  To  the  Supreme  God  over  all,  Through  our  ' 
 "  High-Prieft,   the    living   Word  and   God,! 
 *^  who   is  above  all  Angels :    Yet    we  may 
 "  alfo  offer    Supplications  and    Interceffions 
 "  and    Thankfgiving    and     Prayers  To  the 
 *'  Word  himfelf,  if  we  can  dinftinguifh  be- 
 ^'  tween  Prayer  in  a  Proper^    and  Prayer  in 
 "  2ifigtiyative  Senfe." 
 
 And  what  he  means  by  This  Diftinftion, 
 he  clearly  explains  in  another  Place :  viZo 
 (2)  ''  We  worfhip  (7^j.f  he)    the  one  God, 
 
 and 
 
 UvuTrijji^TrTiov  raJ  s-ri  Ttuiri  B-iu  S^a.  tow  sV*  yntvrcjv  uyyiXeov  ocp^tt- 
 ^iuq^  if/j-^^v^a  Xoya  xcct  S-sow-  a'iyja-o losB-x  S  xxi  ccvtoZ  roZ  Xoyis^' 
 x«t   ivTiv'sp fjtji^u.   civTWy    KXi    iv^ctpi^^crof/jiv,    Kcci    xpocfjlof/jiB-x    j,     iOtf 
 
 lib.  5.  P.  233.^    ,,        ^  .    ,,     ,x    ,     '      >     ,  ,    ,1 
 
 (2)  ' AXXk  rov  tvx  Bsov,  xoct  rov  ax  licv  UvroZ  KXi  Tioyov  xxi  £H(^-^ 
 vx,  Txic,  Kxrx  TO  owx'XTOv  vjujTv  i/.io-unq  xxi  x^^icoantri  aSofZ/iv  TTpotret-. 
 yovTii  T«  S-JoJ  TUV   'oXw}f   'JU,<i  iV^Xi,   j^    TOW    fJtiOV oyiyoZ(i   XVToZ'    a  TT^ci- 
 
au.XVII.      and  JVorjhi^.  383 
 
 and  his  one  Son  and  Word  and  Image,  wich 
 Supplications  and  Prayers  to  the  utmoft  of 
 our  Power ;  putting  up  our  Prayers  To  the 
 God  of  the  Univerfe,   Throtfgh  his  only  be- 
 gotten Son  2  To  whom  we  offer  them  firfl, 
 defiring  him,  as  being  the  Propitiation  for 
 our  Sins,  to  prefent  as  our  High-Prieft  our 
 Prayers  and  Sacrifices,  \Tba?ikjgivings']  and 
 Intercefiions,  to  the  Supreme  GoJ.^'^     Up- 
 on which  Two  Paffages  ofOrigen^  the  Learn- 
 ed Bi[\iop  Bull  thus  remarks  :    (i)  "  /  won- 
 *'  ^er  (fays  he)  that^  thefe  Places  of  Origen, 
 *'  (l)otdd  offejid  the  Learned  Huetius ;  i?i  which 
 "  Places    (to    confefs  the  Truth)     I  always 
 *'  thought^  for  my  own  fart^  that  the  Catho- 
 *'  lic\  DoHrine  concerning  the  Perfon  and  Of 
 ^'  fice  of  our  Saviour^  was  well  explained.-^ 
 After  which,  the  Learned  Bifliop  makes  in- 
 deed Another  Diftinftion,  of  One  Worfhi^  paid 
 to  the  Son  as  God  ahfolutel)\  and  another  Wor- 
 pip  paid  to  him  as  God  of  God :    For  which 
 dillin£tion  that  there  is  not  the  leaft  Founda- 
 tion, has  been  fliov/n  by  Dr.  Clarke^  Scripture^ 
 Dotrri77e  f.  559,  Edit.  ifi/Pag.  528,  Edit.  2d. 
 But  to  proceed. 
 I      Another  Paffage  of  Origen^  out  of  xhtfaVfJe 
 •  Work    againft    Lelfus^   (which,    you  fay,    is 
 "  the  mojt  valuable  of  all  his  Works^  and  aU 
 
 rsuliii  v.f/jm   rS>  gVi  tt^*  .S-sf .    Adv-   Celf.  lib.  8.  P.  3S6. 
 (i)  Miror  htiecce  Origenls  loca  viro  d';do  [Huetlo]  offendi- 
 
 culo  effe,  in  quibus  egomet  (ut  verum  faiear)  Catholicam  dc 
 ,  perfona  &:  officio  Servatoris  noftri  doL%inam  non  male  expli- 
 ,   cari  femper  exiflimaverim.    Defenf,  Secl.  2..  cap.  9.  §.  15. 
 
 ''  mofi 
 
 i^.^-5> 
 
384  of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 "  moft  the  only  one  to   he   entirely  depended 
 '*  on^  as  giving  the  true  fenfe  ^/^Origen,  or  of ' 
 *'  the  Church  in  His  Time  j"j    is  as  follows  - 
 (i;  "  We  demand  (fays  he  J  of  CelJiiJ^   con- 
 *'  cerning    thofe    whom   They   worfhip    as 
 "  Gods,  to  prove  that  the  Supreme  God  hath 
 ''  appointed  them  to  be  worfhipped.     And  if, 
 ''  in   Reply,    they    put  upon  Us  the   fame 
 *'  Proof  concerning  Jefus^ ;  we  will  fhow  that 
 *'  God  hath  appoi?;ted  him  to  be  worfhipp'd  ; 
 "  That  all  menjimddhonoy  the  Son^  even  as 
 "  they  honour  the  Father ^"^ 
 p.  261.      Laftly  ^  The  Lafi  Paflage  you  cite  out  of  I 
 Origen  againft  Celfus^   and  which  you  omit 
 toTranjlate^    is  ^\exprefs  in   the  fulleft  and. 
 '^  Jlrongeft  words ''  AGAINST  what  you : 
 cite  it  FOR.    The  Words  are  :   "  (2)  Now 
 *'  Be  has  afcendcd  to  the  Supreme  Gody  who 
 *'  with  an  undivided^  undiftra^led^  unparted 
 "  Affeclion,  worHiips  Him  Through  the  Son, 
 *'  even    through  God  the  Word  and  Wifdom^ 
 *'  who  brings  men  To  Him  {to  the  Supreme 
 *'  Godr^ 
 
 In  his  Book  concernmg  Prayer^  there  is 
 a  great    deal    to   the  fame   Purpofe.      "  If 
 
 Cl")  Keu  The)  rav  uXXuv  [rif/juf/jsvuv  eo^  S-favl  l^ov^iv,  cc7rcciToii»T,SiA 
 uTTo^ii^iv  'Z^    rot/  Ai^o^on  ccvroT^  oItto  tot)  sth  xZtri  ^too  to  TifXjU^\ 
 
 on  oiTta  ^-iou  Aid'oroci   ccvtm    to   rif/ja.<3^,  Iva.   TnivTi^    nf/jucri    rov  «wr» 
 
 xoc^-m  rifjtjZa-i  rvv  Trxn^n.    lib.  8.  p.  384.    See  above,  P.  10, 
 
 23,  41.  ^  .  / 
 
 ("L^  ' Avx^if2.;Ki  5  "SrC??  rev  sVt  ttuo-i  B-iov,  6  ce^/s-w?  10  x^ixif>iT&>q 
 )o  u(jijieM'^<i)  ' A.VTCV  (Ti/im,  2^  Tcu  T^^otrocyovToe,  ijcii?^  viov,  roZ  ^teu 
 Xoyts  >^  (Tf^Ui,    p.  381, 
 
Qm.XVIL       and  JVorpjip.  3 
 
 *^  we  (i)  under fi and  (fiys  he)  ivhrit  prayer 
 ^'  is^  (meaning  Uhimate  in  contradiflindion  to 
 *•  Mediate  5)  we  mujl  riot  pray  to  Jny  derived 
 ^*  Behigy  no  not  to  Chrifi  himfelf,  but  only  to 
 ^^  the  God  and  Father  of  thelln'werfe^  to  whom 
 "  our  Saviour  himfolf  prayed^  (as  Ihave  fljown 
 "  before^)  and  teacheth  Us  to  pray  unto  him^ 
 ^'  For^  being  asked  (by  one  of  his  Difciples,) 
 "  teach  us  to  pray  ,  he  doth  not  teach  us  to 
 *'  pray  to  himfelf]  but  to  the  Father  j  and  that 
 ^'  we  fhould  fay^  Our  Father  which  art  in  Hea- 
 "  r^«."  Again:  ^'We  ought  (fays  he)  to 
 ^^  pray  to  God  only^  the  Father  of  all  -^  But  not 
 
 ''  without  our  High-Trie/}, Therefore  the 
 
 "  Saints  in  their  Eucharijlical  Prayers^  give 
 *'  Thanks  to  God  Through  Jefus  Chrifl.  And 
 **  as  he  that  prays^  in  the  JiriEl  and  proper 
 "  Senfe^  ought  not  to  pray  to  Him  who  himfelf 
 '^  prays  ^  but  to  the  Father^  whom  our  Lordje- 
 "  fits  taught  us  to  invocate  in  our  Prayers  , 
 *'  fo  ought  no  Prayer  to  be  offered  to   the   Fa- 
 
 vy\rav  T^^ooriVKriov  sj-jV,    i^i  civr^  rto    x>?^<^^'    kXkst.  f/^ica  too    ^sm    toov 
 vXm  KCil   TTdrft,    a>    Kccl  kvrcc,  o  (ro)TY.^  ijiM^v  77^0(r'AV)i^iT9     (ct)^    TT^oz-apt- 
 
 !7poo-2y^£i^,   if  ^iSciQ'Ksi  dvrS  Tr^oa-ivx.-^^    cOXoc    tm   7To!,T^i,  Asyoyrcic, 
 
 C-iVX^^^    [ASyCf)   TU  ^i'2    red    TUV    'o}^WJ    TTCCr^^    k}J<CC   f/j'A  Z^f^'^    '^^  ^CX^-~ 
 
 fisMc,-. — .  'Evx<^.^^i<f8VT£<i  iv    cl   'ayioi   6j   rotXc,  7:^.oa'iV)co'M  idvr&iv    t5 
 
 B-iai  S^..  ;^if*5'5  'li:rr8,  x>oi^iTU<i  ofA>oXoy'i<rkv  oCvrx.  ^(TTTi^  3  "^^-^  cixfu- 
 fi^vrec  TO  7rpo<rivyjZ^,  »  x>f^  ''*'  ^v^^yjivco  rr^'j^rivyj^ociy  uXXoi  rw  09 
 s^'Jk|sv  Ixl  Tcov  i'jxfi)v  xxXeiv  TTciT^  0  Ktm(S>^  iij/jZiv  'I^(r»5,  sjrw?  a 
 p^wpt5  uvroZ  7:<^o(riv)Q^;)  nva  Tr^oanvsKreov  tS  vetrg/t*  60^  ccvroc,  touto  %cc- 
 fahUvvc-i  <r(X,(pu€,y  liTU  xiyun  (Joh.  l6,  23,  14.)  ' Af^^i^^  ya^  t^ 
 uzs"fp  yyjuv  ico6Tcc^»6ivTi  iWo  roZ  ^ccrooq,  KXi    jretpstxAvjTft)  "LZoO   rou   ttcc- 
 
 tcXyiTn.    De  Oiat.  p.  50,  51,  52,  53. 
 
 C  c  "  rkr. 
 
3 S ^  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 ^'  ther ^ without Him^ Job.  1 6-^7^, 2^.''  Again* 
 "  PJ^e  ought  not  to  pray  [in  the  Senfe  betore- 
 *'  mentioned^  To  him  who  is  ripp>inted  by  the 
 '*  Father  to  he  our  Hi^rh  Friejt^  aid  To  him 
 **  n^hom  the  Father  has  mack  our  Advocate^  but 
 *'  To  the  Father  rhrough  our  High  Frie/l  and 
 *'  Advocate^''  [or  Comforter r\ 
 
 Towards  the  End  of  this  Book,  Grigen  fets 
 P'  i6i.  down    ''  the   jhitient  Boxologies  '"    you   fpcak 
 of  5  with  which,  he  fays,  all  Prayers  ought  to 
 begin  and  End.     "  We  (i)'  ought,  as  well  as 
 ''  we  are  able,  to  begin  Prayer  with  Doxolo^y^ 
 ^^  joining  all  our  Voices  together  in  giving  G!o- 
 '"  ry  to  God  Thro'  Chrift,and  in  giving  Pn-ife 
 "  to  him  in  the  Holy  Ghoft."  Jgain :  (2)"  We 
 *'  ought  always  to  end  our  Prayer  vi^ith  Doxolo- 
 "  ^>  to  God,  thro'  Chrift,  in  the  Holy  Ghoft." 
 J?ui  again  :    (3)    "   Having   begun    Prayer 
 ''  with  Doxology^  we  ought  alfo  to  end  with 
 ''  Doxology  ^  praifing  and   glorifying  the  Fa- 
 "-  ther  of  all,  Through  Jefus  Chrift,    in  the 
 ''  Holy  Ghoft.    To  whom  be  Glory  for  ever." 
 This  Account  of  Grigen^  being  profeffedly  up- 
 on the  Subjitl  of  Boxologies^    is   more   to  be 
 regarded,  than  incidental  In  fiances  of  particu- 
 lar Doxoiogies,    which   (as  appears  from  the 
 different  Copies  we  have  of  the  Doxology  ufed 
 
 (r)  liccrci  ainicif/jiv  cb^.oXoyisi^  cv  rv,  ct,fx^  ^^  "^^  TfioiUiiai  t^  tt'X^'i 
 AexTr^V)  5  B-is  S^jJ,  x?^^^  (rvv^c^oXcyay^uiis,  ov  tu  dyix  %vi(/ii,cf,ri  trvw'jfjij- 
 mi^ivit.     ibid.  P.  i^<. 
 
 (l)  K.xi  iVj  ^«o-<,  riifj  iv^KV  «?  co^cXoyUv  ^iou  ^u  /^i^oZ  ci/ «y,a» 
 rrviif/jUTi  KUTcCTTuv^iev.      ibid.  P.  I46. 
 
 (3  >  RvAr.yov  'j,  ftt|;|aJ/t//5»ov  tCTo  ^e^oXo^/iUr^,  ei^  dhto>^yixv  KcircCAyiyev- 
 rei  ?uiTuxoi'j(:v  7{io  iiyyy,  vf/jvcuvrx  y^  i«lu<^cvTX  T  rav  'oXm  TiXTTf^cc  ^ix 
 'loToZ  T^pfcy  c-'v  ciyitri  :rvi-j>//c(rh  ea  vi  ^jIx    ii\  tjj?  u,u\x<i.  ibid.  P.147. 
 
 by 
 
Qii.  XV IL         and  JVorJhip.  387 
 
 by  Polycarp  and  by  the  Church  of  Smyrna) 
 are  very  apt  to  be  varied  by  Tranfcribers.  The 
 **^  Ufefulnefs  "  of  introducing  '^  Doxologies  of  p.  i6u 
 *'  another  ForWy'  is  not  Now  nrjy  Bulinel's  to 
 tonfider,  Tis  fit  only  to  obferve,  as  to  the 
 Htftory  of  them,  that  (i)  Philojiorgius  and  (2) 
 Theodorus  Mopfnejiemis  tell  us,  that  about  the 
 middle  of  the  Fourth  Century^  t'lavian^  after- 
 wards Bifhop  of  Afitioch^  firft  changed  the 
 more  Antient  Doxologie.s  into  the  prefent 
 Form,  To  the  Father^  and  To  the  Son^  and  To 
 the  Holy  Ghoft. 
 
 I  (hall  conclude,  with  fome  other  Teflirao- 
 nies  from  Antient  Writers  ;>  againft  your  No- 
 tion, that  there  is  ."  I'^o  D?{linBion  of  JVo^'jloip  p-  247. 
 ^^  Mediate  and  Ultimate''  The  Jpojohcal 
 Cou'litutiGns  have  Thefe  Words  :  (5)  "  We 
 "  declare  unto  you,  that  there  is  only  one 
 "  God  Almighty,  befides  whom  there  is  no 
 ^'  other  -^  and  that  you  mi\\\.  w.^rlliip  and 
 ''  adore  Him  alone,  through  Jefus  Chriil  our 
 *'  Lord,  in  the  moil  holy  Spirit."  Again  : 
 (4)  *'  He  adores  moreover  the  only-begotten 
 
 d)  On  cp/}(r)  rov  ' Asnoxiiocc,  f^XuQixvov,  ttXy,'^'^  (jja^c^w  trtwecr^ 
 I  */iifixvTic,  ^^Tcv  civxl2oy,rcci,  o ,^oc  Trar^  kocI  viS  x.:^\  ciyiv  TTVivyjccTt^ 
 1  Tftiy  Y^  <zpg9  uvrcu  ry;  ^'  Ao'ix  Trxrpl  S'l  iicZ  cv  ec'/ioi  Trvivyjoori  a/- 
 ji  V«j  ^  rotvrUu  fi/U-XXcv  liuj  iK.(pi)vy)<nv  £~i7roXxy£i9'  ry<;  S,  Ao^oc  TTctrQ/i 
 \    Of  via    -;  UyiM  7ryiufjtj::,ri.      Hi(t.  Ecclef.    lib.    3.    C.  I3. 
 
 I       (1)  Flavianus  primus  cecinille  fertur.  Gloria  Fatri  ^-  fiUoo' 
 I  Splntui  Sanclo,     Thefaur.  Orthodox.  Fid.  lib.  5.  c.  30. 
 
 A    <«AA(3>^  HK  i^tv  fo  uvTvv  fj^voy  c-{Qeiv  t^  7rf>o(r»M>e^v  ^)c  'UrS  ^fi^S  r» 
 ;   jcyp<»  i^i^Si/,  CM/  TM  nuvuyi!^  Tzviufjtjxri.  \ib.  6.  c.  14.     See  alfo  lib.  2,  4: 
 
 c.  56.^  lib.  s,  c.  15.     lib.  6,  c.  9.    lib.  7,  c.  37,  38,  43. 
 
 (4)   ^'^ ^"^aroic,  Tr^oa-y.iWii  ctvrc'j  rov    yjovoyivvi   $-£ov,    yjf",'    uvrcv    j^  /-* 
 
 di    a-jTor    Iv^ccfii^uv  ot-vra,   tu>  u,vuh%x^    ccurov   tIv  lizsrtp  vTzivruv  B-ce- 
 
 ■■■y^Tov,  ^ik  ^  ^ccvpoZ,     lib.  7.  c.4^'. 
 
 Cc   2  «'Go(i- 
 
388  0/  Dhine  yJdoratwn 
 
 ^'  God  himfelf,  Jfter  the  Father,  and  on  His 
 "  Account  •,  giving  Thanks  to  hun,  that  he 
 ''  undertook  to  die  for  all  men  upon  the 
 ''  Crofs." 
 
 Polycarp  at  his  Martyrdom,  prays  Thus :  (i) 
 *'  For  this  Cauie  above  all  Thmgs,  I  praife 
 "  Thee,  I  blefs  Thee,  I  glorify  Thee,  thro' 
 *'  the  eternal  High-Pried,  Jefus  Chiift,  thy 
 **  beloved  Son  :  Through  whom,  and  with 
 ^'  whom,  in  the  Holy  Spiri-t,  be  Glory  to  Thee 
 "  now  and  forever  and  ever,  Amen." 
 
 Cyprian  (2)  fopnds  the  Worfliip  of  Chrift 
 on  This,  that  "  God  the  Father  Commanded 
 "  his  Son  to  be  worjJjippecL''  Which  he  proves 
 from  Philip.  2.  9,  10. 
 
 Novatian  fays :  (3)  ^'  If  Chrift  is  a  mere 
 "  Man ;  why  is  a  mere  man  invocated  in 
 *'  Prayer,  as  Mediator  ?"  Which  both  lliows 
 his  Senfe,  that  Chrift  was  Mediator  in  his 
 higheft  Capacity,  and  that  he  was  worfhipped 
 as  being  Mediator, 
 
 And  Laaantiiis :  (4)  ''  Chrift  (fays  he) 
 "  was  faithful  to  God.     For  he  taught  that 
 
 "  there 
 
 <rvvclvTu>  cvTrvii^fx^xTi  dy'.co,  ^'oU  vuv   ^^  ^^   r»?  fjuixXcvrxq  duovx<;   rm 
 
 iiiumr  «,/,«/.     Apud  Euleb.  Hiilor.    Ecclef.  lib.  4.  c.  15. 
 
 (1)  Pater  dciis  pr^ccpit  fiiium  fuiim  ndorari.  Z>  bom  Pati- 
 entU. 
 
 (3J  Si  lu?mo  tiUULimmodo  Chriaus,  cur  homo  in  Orationi- 
 bllS  Mcdhuor  invocuui?  De  Jrmit.  c.  14. 
 
 r4)inc  vcro  cxhibuit  dco  fidem:  Docuit  ciiim  quod  unus 
 Deusfit,eumq;  Solum  coli  oportcre.  Necunquamleipredeum 
 <iixit:  quia  lion  fcrvaflct  lidem,  i\,  millus  ut  deos  toUeret,  & 
 unum  allcrcict,  induccict  alium  practer  Unum.    Hoc  erat,non 
 
 de 
 
Qli.  XVII.       and  Worjki^.  38 
 
 "  there  is  but  one  God^  and  that  He  only 
 ''  ought  to  be  vvorGiipped.  Nor  did  he  ever 
 *'  call  Himfelf  God  5  becaufe  he  had  not  been 
 ''  fdirhful,  if,  when  he  was  fent  to  take 
 *'  away  the  many  Gods,  and  to  declare  the  One 
 i*  God,  he  had  introduced  any  other  befides 
 ''  the  One.  For  this  would  liave  been,  not 
 '^  preaching  the  one  God,  nor  doing  the  Work 
 ''  of  him  that  fent  him,  but  his  own  Work.— 
 "-^  Now  becaufe  he  was  fo  Faithful ,  becaufe 
 ''  he  afTjraed  nothing  to  himfelf,  that  he 
 *•  might  fulfil  the  Commands  of  him  that  fent 
 *^  him  ^  therefore  he  was  invejled  with  the 
 *'  Dignity  of  an  everlafting  High-Prieft,  the 
 '*  Honour  of  a  Supreme  King,  and  the  Name 
 ''  for  Title)  of  God:' 
 
 Laftly :  From  Eufebius  we  learn  the  Ssnfe 
 of  the  Nicene  Church  in  This  Point.  And 
 He  tells  us,  that  the  Chrifna?i  Injiitiition  is, 
 (i)  ^'  Toprofefs  The  Maker  and  Creator  of  the 
 Univerfe  to  be  The  Only  God,  and  to  wor- 
 (hip  Him  alone  as  the  only'  God,  through 
 '^  Chrift."  Again:  ''(2)  The  only  begotten 
 '•  Son  of  God  himfelf,  the  tirft-born  and  Be- 
 ^'  ginning  of  all  Things,  inflrudts  us  to  profefs 
 
 de  Uno  dco  facere  pricconium ;  nee  ejus  qui  miferat,   fed  Su- 
 
 iim  proprium  negoiium  gcrerc. -Proptcrea,  quia  tain  fide- 
 
 lis  cxtitit,  quia  iibi  nihil  prorfus  airumpiir,  ut  mandara  Mitten- 
 tis  impleietj  &  facerdotis  perpetui  dignitatem,  &  Regis  fummi 
 Honorem,  &c  Del  nomen  acccpit.     Lib.  4.  c    14. 
 
 c^Mv,  icu.1  f/^vm  (ri,3tiv,  y.ccl  /l^v  v  oiu.  }C{^i^oZ  B-ioAoyiTv.  Dem.  Evang. 
 lib.  3.  p.  130.' 
 
 (2.)    Avro<i  0  i/jovoys'^yi^  rcZ  BioZ  >^  'TT^iurcToyJ^    tZv  oXcjv^   vf  TTZiMTMP 
 ufX^h   rt)v  uvToZ   TTUT^pcc    yAvov    viyi'icS^    Bsov    «A/)9-ii,    k^a    (/javov   (ri,i3«y 
 
 i!y,Ty'7iry:.f>ciKi^i!^'.T0ii.    Prsep.  Evang.  lib.  7.  P.  327. 
 
 C  c  J  *'  his 
 
 <c 
 
3^0  Of  Dnnm  Adoralion 
 
 '^  his  Father  to  be  The   only  true  God,  and 
 *^  tov/orfliip  Him  alone."     Again:    "(i)It 
 ''  is  not  necellary,  by  fuppofing  that  the  Fa- 
 ^'  ther  and  Son  are  two  diftincT:  Subfiftencies, 
 ''  to  make  them  therefore  Two  Gcds  :  For  we 
 ''  do  not  attribute  equal  Honour  unto  them.'* 
 Jgahi :.  (2)  "  The  Church,   as  I  have  often 
 *'  faid,  does  not   afT^rt  Iwo   U?ibegotte7i,    nor 
 ^'  Two  Unoriginate^  nor  Two  Subflances  intro- 
 <'  duced  as  of  Equal  Dignity  with  each  other  ^ 
 ^^  and  Therefore  not  Two  Go/Js.     But  it  teach- 
 ^*  eth  us,  that  there  is  One  oily  Ori^inal^  and 
 ^^  One  God^  even  the  Father  of  the 'Only  be- 
 
 ''  gotten  and  beloved  Son. --And  as,  where 
 
 ^^  there  is  but  One  Kjng  reigning,  and  his 
 ''  Image  is  every  where  carried  "about  ^  no 
 ''  wife  Man  will  fay  there  are  Two  Kings ^  but 
 ^'  One  only^  who  is  honoured  Through  his 
 ^'  Image :  So  the  Church  of  God  (as  I  have 
 "  often  faid)  hnving  been  taught  the  Wor- 
 *'  (hip  of  One  God^  continues  to  worfhip  ?rm 
 "  Through  the  Son,  as  Through  his  Image." 
 
 ih  yi  Ca-oTi^i,  KVTx,<,  cpipf/^iSu,    hccki  Thcol.  lib.  z.  c.  7. 
 
 A^Aot5  iWy«-^  c^o  J^j  Lo  !^iiic,-  xXXx  iJ.U^  xp;^>iy  Kul  S-j^y  jfrn., 
 %-BV    avrcv  cretTTpa    ^i^JiTtcaa-x   iivxi  row    ^ovoytvci;?    xi   ayecTr^reu    w.eo- 
 
 <ra;t«  y?i?  7ri^KlhpefA,ivai,  »«  ;ii/  tj^  tr^^oy^y  cVo  flVot  t^?  KfxrSvru^. 
 «AA"  Mtft^Tcy  x.*i   «Jl«  rw^  f<Hjv;3)-  ny^a'tjuivcr    x.xjk  tc*  xvtcv  rporcv,  a.<l 
 
 rC  TTcXXXKi^  ^^r^^  tlfijTXiy  Kxl  n  iKK}^>1TiX  ToZ  ^(cZ  i.X  TrxpxXx/SoViTX. 
 S-SCK   (Ti/ieiV,     TVV   UVTOV  KXt     ^.X    TCZ    i^ioZ,   «^,    ^Vv    i.VAC:^-.    u.^,ii    -rpoTKu. 
 
 \9k'f'.    licclef.  Theo!.  lib.  :,  c  ?.r 
 
Qii.  XVII.        andWorJhip.  391 
 
 I  cannot  but  here  remind  you  of  your  own 
 fdemn  Declaration^  P.  ij2e  "  I  declare^  (X^^ 
 *'  fay,)  once  for  all -^  I  dejlre  only  to  have 
 ^'  Things  fairly  re  pre fe7ited^  as  they  really  are  \ 
 *'  no  Evidence  fmoihered^  or  ftifled  on  either 
 "  Side,  Let  every  Reader  fee  plainly  what  may 
 *•'  be  jitflly  pleaded  here  or  there ^  and  710  more  , 
 '^  and  then  let  it  be  left  to  his  impartial  Judg- 
 fnent^  after  a  fidl  View  of  the  Cafe.  Mtf 
 quotation  and  Mifreprefentation  will  do  a 
 good  Caiife  harm ;  and   will  not  long  be  of 
 
 Service  to  a  bad  one^ 
 
 au  E  R  Y     XVIIL 
 
 Whether  lVor!jjip  and  Adoration^  both  from  Men 
 and  Anj^els^  was  not  due  to  him^  long  before 
 the  Commencing  of  his  Mediatorial  Kingdom, 
 as  he  was  their  Creator  and  Preferver^  (fee 
 Col.  I.  16,17.)  And  whether  That  be  not  the 
 fame  Title  to  Adoration  which  God  the  Fa- 
 ther  hath^  as  Author  and  Governour  of  the 
 Univerfe^  upon  the  DoBor^s  own  Principles  ^ 
 
 Anfw.^XJ  HENEVER  the  Mediatorial  p.  z6i. 
 
 V  V  Kingdom  of  Chrifl:  began,  and 
 at  what  time  foever  he  was  v/orfliipped  ei- 
 ther by  Angels  or  by  Men*,  it  was  by 
 the  Comman  I  of  the  Father;  who,  when  be 
 brought  in  the  firfl-begotten  into  the  World^  faid, 
 (whenfocver  That  be  luppofed  to  have  been,) 
 
 C  c  4  Let 
 
3  p  2.  of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 Let  All  the  Angels  of  God  worfljip  hifiK  And 
 This  Worfliip  of  Chrift,  was  Mediate^  To  the 
 Glory  cfGod^  the  Father  :  Whereas  it  cannot 
 (I  think,  without  Blafphemy)   be  affirmed   of 
 
 P-  2.67.  the  Father^  that  he  is  or  ever  was  worfliipped 
 Mediately^  To  the  Glory  of  the  Son.  All  Wor- 
 fhip  therefore  terminating  nhimately  in  the 
 Father  ■  I  think  it  cannot  be  faid  with  Truth, 
 that  He  who  is  worfliipped  Mwaysto  the  Glory  of 
 the  Father^  has  ^' the  S  4  ME  Title  to  Ado^ 
 ^-  ratioriy'  as  the  Father  7vh9fe  M'oyfhip  Always 
 terjninates  zdtimately  i?i  Hunfelf :  That  Ke 
 To  whom  the  Father  has  committed  all  judg^ 
 went,  has  "  the  S  A  ME  Title  to  Adoration'' 
 as  the  Father  who  corramtted  all  judgment  to 
 Him :  Or  that  He  by  whom  God  created  all 
 things ^  has,  "  as  Author  and  G over norir  of  the 
 *'  Univerfe^  the  S  A  M  E  Title  to  Adoration^ 
 '^  which  God  the  Father  hath,'*  who  created  all 
 things  hyFFifn.  And  therefore  'tis  a  mean  thing, 
 to  confound  the  unlearned  Reader  here,  with 
 the  Ambiguity  of  the  Terms  "  Creator  and 
 ^^  Preferver?'  Nor  is  there  Any  one  Inflance 
 in  Scripture,  of  Worfliip  paid  to  Chrifl:  in  That 
 capacity, 
 
 f.  268.  But  you  tell  me  -^  '^  the  Antients  did  not 
 ''•  think  the  Ojfce  of  the  Son  Minijlerial  in  " 
 my  "  loiv  Senfe''  In  what  low  Senfe  ?  Did 
 not  the  Antients  conRantly  teach,  and  do  not 
 you  yourfelf  frequently  own,  (though  in  Con- 
 tradiction to  your  own  Scheme,)  that  Chrift 
 Mini  fired  to  the  Father?  that  he  "  exerc/feJ  the 
 *^  Authority^  and  executed  the  Orders  of  the  Fa^ 
 
 ther  ^ 
 
Qii.XVlII.        andlVor[Jjip.  5P3 
 
 ther  i?  And  do  not  you  in  this  very  place  cite  a 
 PafTage  from  (i)  Irenmis^  diredly  to  this  Fur- 
 pofe  ?  Have  /  faid  any  thing  more  than  This  ? 
 Or  do  not  /  always  fuppofe  it  to  be  in  the 
 Highefl  Senfe,  in  which  'tis  poffible  for  One 
 pcrfon  to  mhii/ler  to  another  ? 
 
 You  add  :  ]i  Creation  is  not,  in  the  Son^  an  p,  268. 
 ''  ^ci  of  Dominion^  and  a  fnfjicient  Foundation 
 "  for  Wor(ljip  -^  the  fame  reafon  will  hold  with 
 "  refpeB  to  the  Father  alfo  :  For  Creating  is 
 "-'  onethin^^  an'/  Ruling  another.'^  I  anfwer  : 
 The  fame  Reafon  does  not  hold  with  refped: 
 to  the  Father.  The  World  was  made  by  his 
 [jiu^i'mc/S]  original  ahfjlute  Authority  and  Power ^ 
 and  for  his  Pleafwe  all  things  zvere  created. 
 But  the  Son  made  the  world,  fas  Irenmts^  m  P-  ^^9- 
 the  very  place  you  here  refer  to,  exprelTes  it, 
 "  Vduntate  Patris^')  by  "  the  Will  of  the  Fa- 
 *'  ther,"'*  And  /'j  the  word  of  his  [the  Father's] 
 Power^  does  the  Son  alfo  uphold  all  things.  See 
 ahvey  Z'.  19  and  94. 
 
 But  you  infill:  upon  it,  that  the  Logos  '^  had  P-  2^9- 
 '^  the   S  AME  {  laim    and  Title   to   religious 
 ^'  IVorflipj  that  the  Father  hirnfelfhad  ;'*  And 
 that    "-' Vij-  very  dear  from  Joh.  17,  5,    that 
 
 {i)  Uniis  deus  Pater  fuper  omnes,  &  unum  verbum  Dei 
 quod  per  onines,  per  qaem  omnia  fa(fla  funt;  &  qiioniam  hie 
 mundiis  proprius  ipfius,  &  per  ipfum  fadus  eft  Volu??tate  Pa- 
 tns,  ^c.  P.  315.  So  likewife  in  the  Pafliige  you  cite  from 
 Novation :  Aiundiis  Per  Eum  jaClus  eji.  But  What  Writer 
 ever  laid,  that  all  Tilings  were  made  \_per  Benin,  or  per  pa- 
 tretn]  Through. Gt)i,  or  Through  the  Father?  Fhilo  antiently 
 obferved  this;  and  argues  at  large,  that  things  were  made  not 
 ^^ci  TOO  .9-scy,  but  vzo  Tcu  B-icu,  (0^  «m».  Lib.  de  Cherub,  p.  129, 
 See  iihove,  p.  6,  13, 19, 185. 
 
 *^  cur 
 
594  Of  Dtvine  Adoration 
 
 F.  z^o.  '^  ofty  BleffeJ  Saviour  was  to  have  710  greater 
 ^^  Glory  after  his  Exaltation  and  Afcenfioyi^  than 
 ''  he  had  before  the  World  was.  Glorify  me 
 *'  with  thine  own  (elf,  with  the  Glory  which 
 *'  I  hid  with  Thee,  before  the  World  was.'* 
 I  anfwer  :  His  being  reftored  to  the  Glory  he 
 had  before^  does  not  prove,  that  the  Power  of 
 
 ^pr'i  \'  ^^*  Judgment  committed  unto  him  was  not   an  Ad- 
 'ditional  Exaltation.     But  whether   it  was   or 
 was  fjot  *,  {till  the  Foundation  you  go  upon,  is; 
 equally  wrong.     For  if  the  Son  had    (as  you 
 
 F.  169.  fay;  ''  the  S  AME  Claim  and  Title  to  VVoipp;' 
 the  Sx\ME  Right  to  AH  Glory,  '*  that  the 
 '^  Father  himfelf  hath  ,"  it  could  be  no  more 
 proper  for  the  Son  to  pray  to  the  Father  to 
 glorify  the  Son,  ^to  glorify  him  either  with 
 7iew  or  with  antient  glory,)  than  for  the  Fa- 
 ther to  pray  to  the  Son  to  glorify  the  Father. 
 Nor  does  it  at  all  alter  the  cafe,  if  you  fay  he' 
 prayed  only  for  his  Humane  Nature,  For  fiilll 
 the  Impropriety  will  be  the  fame  as  before  j 
 that  the  Son  fliould  pray  to  the  Father  to  give 
 to  his  Humane  Nature  That  Glory,  which  the; 
 Son  himfelf  had  the  very  SAME  Right  to 
 h^\'Q  given  to'it  of  liis  own  Authority^  as  the, 
 Father  himfelf  had. 
 
 p.  271.  Ire?Mus's  {ij  words  are  not  (though  you 
 fay  he  "  is  exprefs.^  that  the  Aoy@"  rr^as  wor- 
 ^'  fi^PP^^  ^f  ^I'J  together  with  the  Father  :^ 
 But  that  ^'  He  who  was  worjljipped  by  the  Pro*^ 
 phets  as  The  Living  God,  He  is  the  God  oj 
 
 (i)   Lib.  4.  c.  II. 
 
 ''  thdl 
 
 iC 
 
au.  XVIII.      and  U^orjhip.  39y 
 
 *^  the  Living  ;>'*  (Meaning  evidently  the  Fa- 
 ther^ as  the  very  next' Words  Ihow;  viz,.) 
 "'  and  HIS  Word''  alfo  h  God  of  the  Living  ^^ 
 being,  as  Irenaus  there  argues,  declared  to  be 
 The  Refiirre8ion  md  the  Life. 
 
 iVnd  how  h  it  that  Bufebius  fays,   ^Hhe  Son  p,  271 
 "  was  worjhipped  bj  Abraham;'  &cO    Why, 
 ''  They  (i)  paid  (fays  he)  a  due  Worfliip  un- 
 *'  to  him,  as  being  the  Son  of  God  :•— They 
 
 ''  worfiiipped  him  as  God, as  being  a  Se- 
 
 ' '  cond  Lord  after  the  Father."  And  I  will 
 add  in  your  behalf,  more  than  you  your  felf 
 have  done,  that  Eufebius  (2)  invocates  him 
 too^  together  with  the  Father.  But  What  is 
 all  this,  when  Eufebius  hath  fo  clearly  and 
 fully  given  us  both  his  own  and  what  he 
 thought  the  Senfe  of  the  J?ite'Nice?ie  and 
 Nice?ie  Church,  concerning  the  Nature  of 
 the  Worfliip  paid  to  the  Father,  and  to  the 
 Son  > 
 
 ^^  You  add ;  ''  The  Patriarchs  Worfiipped  That  p. ,-. 
 ''^  P  erf  on  who  appeared  atul  communed  with 
 "  them,  fiippofing  him  to  be  The  God  of  the 
 *'  Univerfe^  to  whom  of  Right  all  JVorfiip  be- 
 •'  longs:'  What  the  7^«;j  thought  of  this  Mat- 
 ter, may  be  judged  from  Philo-^  who  fays,  that 
 the '^^7?^^/"  which  appeared  to  Jacob,  and 
 
 (j)  Om  ^iS  xccjJt  TB    ^foT7,Kov  UTiimf/^ccv  a^3x^' ^rpoa-Kuui: 
 
 •    clef  lib  ' '"'^'"  ^^'^  '^'  '^'''^^''  ''"^''''    ^^^-Ec- 
 
 (1)  T^w    ToZ^  >Jy^^  T^-Ar^ct  ^slv,     Kccl  Tz^y    J^„A»>jv.v   ^cvtI,  'U<rcl. 
 Xfi^ov  -rev  crcoTiiox  xxi  KvOiov   ;,f^Z'j,     -riv    i^ncv  rsy  .^irsoe;   Ao'ycv,    Qcr^l, 
 
 \    \- 
 
 changed 
 
39<^  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 cba7iged  his  Name^  was  '*  the  IVord^  the  (i) 
 '^  Mini[ter  of  Godr  Again  :  (2)  "  The  De^ 
 «'  puCy  of  the  Great  Kjn^.^''  Again  :  That  his 
 Auth,')tty  ^A?iV\oX  (5J  Supreme^  but  Subordi- 
 nate. Again :  That  he  was  (a^)  ''^  Inferioiir  to 
 *'  6*6./,  /'w:  Superioitr  to  man^^  And  as  to  the 
 5^>i/^  of  the  Chriftian  Church  -^  Jiiftin  Martyr 
 tells  Trypho  very  exprefsly^  f5)  that  *'  The 
 "  God  who  told  y¥(y/^j  that  he  was  God  of 
 *'  jhrahajn  (^c.  was  not  The  Maker  of  the  U^ 
 
 ^'  niverfe^ But  it  was  He  (fays  he)  whom 
 
 *'  I  have  proved  to  you  that  he  appeared  to 
 
 **•  Abraham  ^c.^ ^ — m'lmftrijig    to    the   Will 
 
 *'  of  The  Maker  of  the  Univerfe."  And  it  was 
 the  unanimous  Senfe  of  all  the  (6)  Antienrs, 
 that  it  is  abfurd  and  impious  to  fuppofe  that 
 The  God  of  the  Univerfe  ever  appeared^  or  was 
 called  an  Angela  Particularly ,  Does  not  Eufe- 
 bius^  whom  you  have  thought  fit  on  this  Ar- 
 gument to  refer  to,  exprefsly  fay  ^  "  (7  j  ^Ve 
 "  muji  not  think  that  it  was  The  Siipre?ne 
 ^*  God^  who  is  declared  to  have  appeated  to 
 *^  Abraham  :  fir  it  is  impious  to  fay^  that  God 
 
 {I)  Toi/  ^  I*4>ca»,3,  etyysA©-,  TjuTJjg'sVjj^  tow  3-soy  Aoy!^.  De  Nom. 
 Mutat.  P.  ro^8.  Andy  T)ic,  kyy^Xac,  y^  Acyim  ^vtoZ,  [^cowpare 
 1  Lfdr.  I,  z^.]  Leg.  Alle^.  lib.   l.  p.  93. 
 
 (1)  "'r.T«p;/(^  ToZ  yjiyuP.a  i^x(n>^iuc,.  Dc  Somn.  &  de  Agri- 
 cuk.  lib.  2, 
 
 Pro  fug.  P.4<J6. 
 
 de  Somn.  P.  1134. 
 
 (<;,)  Dial,  cum  Tiyph.  P.  180.  Edit.  Job. 
 
 (6)  See  the  citation  horn  the  Synod  of  Anti:)chy  above,  p. 
 ^4.     Alfo  p.  149. 
 
 (7)  Sec 'above  P.  151. 
 
 (( 
 
 was 
 
Qii.  XVIII.       and  War  [hip.  igy 
 
 '  was  changed  and  formed  into  the  Figure  and 
 ^'  Jppearance  of  a  Man'*  Whence  he  con- 
 *'  eludes,  it  was  "  The  Word  of  God:'  And 
 in  This  very  Chapter  which  you  have  refer- 
 red to,  he  fays  again  :  ''  (i)  It  is  abfurd  to 
 *^  fay^  that  the  Unbegotten  and  immutable  Ef 
 "  fe?ice  of  the  Supreme  God^  was  changed  into 
 ''  the  Form  of  a  Man :"  Whence  he  again  con- 
 cludes, that  it  was  The  Word^  who  is  the 
 ^'  fecond  Lord  after  the  Father^'*  Nothing 
 therefore  can  be  more  contrary  to  the  whole 
 Senfe  of  Antiquity,  than  what  you  here  af- 
 fert  5  that  Chrift,  before  his  Incarnation,  had  p.  2-4, 
 710  other  ''  Title  or  Charadfer^  peculiar  and  pro- 
 "  per  to  hiffifelf  but  only  what  was  common 
 *'  to  the  Father  and  Him  too.''  What  !  Had  he 
 not  the  Title  and  Characier  of  Angel  or  Mejfen- 
 ger  before,  under  the  Old  Teftament  >  And 
 was  This  Title  "  common  to  the  Father  and 
 *'  Him  too  <? 
 
 But  you  fay :  Had  he  not  been  '^  The  God  v.  273, 
 
 *^  of  the  Univerfe^ he  flmdd  have   rejeSed 
 
 "  That  iVor/hip^  as  the  Angel  did  Manoah's 
 "  Sacrifice-^  fudges  15,  16."  I  anfwerrThat 
 very  Angel,  is  yet  (ver,72j)  (tiled  G^^;/. 
 
 (i)  See  above  P.  15:1, 
 
 CLlJ  E  R  Y 
 
39?  Of  Divine  Adoration 
 
 Q^U  E  R  Y     XIX* 
 
 Whether  the  Do&or  hath  not  given  a  very  pav- 
 t'l/jl  Account  of  John  5,  25,  founding  the 
 Honour  due  to  the  Son^  on  This  only^  that  the 
 Father  hath  committed  all  judgment  to  the 
 Son  5  ivhen  the  true  Reafon  affigned  by  our 
 Saviour^  and  illitftrated  by  feveral  In- 
 fiances^  ij,  that  the  Son  doth  the  Same 
 things  that  the  Father  doth^  hath  the  Safne 
 Power  and  Authority  of  doing  what  he  will  j 
 a  fid  therefore  has  a  Title  to  as  great  Ho- 
 nour^ Reverence  and  Regard,  as  the  Father 
 himfelf  hath  .<?  And  it  is  no  Objection  to  This^ 
 that  the  Son  is  there  faid  to  do  nothing  of 
 himfelf,  or  to  have  all  given  Him  by  the 
 Father  ^  fince  it  is  ozvned  that  the  Father  is 
 the  Fountain  of  all,  from  whom  the  Son  de- 
 rives, in  an  inejfable  manner^  his  Effejice 
 and  Pozvers,  fo  as  to  be  ofie  with  him. 
 
 ^-  2-79'  Afifiv.  ^TT^  H  E  ^'  DoElor  has  not  given  a  par- 
 X     *'  tial    Account  of"    this    Text  ; 
 
 Becaufe  he  has  ''''founded  the  Honour  due  to 
 "  the  Son''  upon  That,  upon  which  Alone 
 our  Saviour  himfelf  has  in  the  moft  cxprefs 
 words  founded  it.  The  ^'' So?i'sdoi?ig  the  fame 
 "  things  that  the  Father  doth'^'  f which  you 
 call  "  the  True  Reafon  a  [finned  by  our  Saviour^*) 
 is  not  *'  the  reafon    affigned  by  our    Saviour^' 
 
 though 
 
Qa.  XIX.         and  JVorfiip.  3^9 
 
 though  it  is  indeed  a  "  tnie  reafon^''  as  being 
 of  the  fame  import  with  That  which  our  Lord 
 has  afllgned  in  the  Text.     For  as  the  So?i  has 
 Therefore  all  Power  of  Judgment,  becaufe  the 
 Father  has  committed  all  Judgment  unto  him  ; 
 fo  (if  we  will  believe  his  own  words,)    he 
 rfer^y^n^  does  the  fame  things  that  the  Father 
 doth,  becaufe  the  Father  loveth  the  So?i^  and 
 fljeiveth  him  all  things  that  hirrf elf  doth.   But  our 
 Lord  doth  not  fay,  that  he  ''hath  the  SAME 
 *'  Power  and  Authority  of  doing  what  he  wills ^^^ 
 as  the  Father  hath  ^  Becaufe  Power  or  Autho- 
 rity original  2ndi  derived^  are  not  the  SAME, 
 Nor  does  our  Lord  fay,    that  he  "  has  a  Title 
 *'  to  As  Great  Hojiour^  Reverence  and  Reo-ard 
 "  as  the  Father  himfelfhath  ;"  but  that  'tis  As 
 much   mens  Duty  to  honour  the  Son^  to  whofn 
 the  Father  has  committed  all  Judgment  ^  as  to 
 honour   the  Father^   who  has    committed  all 
 Jiidgifient  unto  him.     Which  are  very  different 
 things.     And  'tis  txtv^mdy  plea f ant  in  you  to 
 fay,  ^'  it  is  no  ObjeBion  to  this^  that  the  Son 
 "  is  there  /aid  to  do  ?iothing  of  himfelf  or   to 
 •^  have  all  given  him  by  the  Father  ^  fmce  ^th 
 *'  OWNED  that  the  Father  is  the  Fountain 
 *'  of  aU^  from  whom  the  Son  derives^  in  an  iw 
 *'  effable  manner^  his  E/Jhice  and  Powers^  fo  as 
 *^  to  be  One  with  him.''     'Tis  very  pleafant  (I 
 fayj  to  alledge,  that  an  ObjeBion  which  over- 
 turns your  whole  Scheme,  is  No  ObjeBion,  be- 
 caufe 'tis  Owned,  ^   For  let  it  but  be  conjlantly 
 and  ujiifor7nly  2icknow\c(i2,td^  that  the  Father  is^ 
 really^  and  not  in  empty  words  only,  '*  the  Fowu 
 
 ''  tain 
 
400  of  Divme  Adoration 
 
 <^  tiiin  ofa.U-^'*  and  that  ''  the  Son  has  allGiuen 
 *'  him  by  the  Father  ^  fo  that  ihe  incommuni- 
 cable Honour  of  the  ¥ir[l  Caufe  and  Supreme 
 'Author  of  all  things^  be  preferved  entire  :  And 
 the  ''  ineffabk  manner  "  how  '^  the  Son  derives 
 ••  his  EJfence  and  Powers  from  him^''  and  is 
 "  One  with  bifn^"  needs  caufe  no  Difputes. 
 In  your  Defenfe  of  This  Query,   you  allow 
 
 r.  281.  that  the  word  [jtcf.^cc^']  even  as,  "  often  fignifies 
 "-'  2l  General  Similitude  ^/i/)/,  not  an  exad:  E- 
 "  quality."  But  what  you  "  infifl  on^  is^  that 
 ''  our  Bleffed  LordyinThatiChapter^''  [Joh.  5,] 
 "  draws  a  Parallel  between  the  Father's  Works 
 '*  ^;;^  his  own  ^  founding  thereupon  his  Title 
 *'  to    Honour '^'^    claiming  to    Himfelf    "  the 
 
 p.  279-  ^'  SAME  Povjer  and  Authority  of  doing  what 
 
 P.  283.  '^  he  Witt-:;'  the  ''  SAUE  Right  and  Autho^ 
 '•^  rity^'  the  SAME  Power  of  giving  Life 
 ''  to  whom  he  pleafed  ■^''  the  SAME  Right 
 *'  and  Title  to   the  SAME   Honour  and  Re- 
 
 K  2S9.  4C  gard'^''  the  ''SAME    Right ^    Power   an 
 ''  Juthority^ivhich  the  Father  hath''    xAnd  yet,' 
 very  unfortunately,  in  the  Same  Breath,    you 
 
 ^-  2.83,  f^y  «  f;]jg  Execution  of  thofe  Powers  was 
 '^'  "  LODGED  in  his  hands -;'  and  the  '' Ex- 
 "  ercife  of  thofe  Powers  is  LEFT  to  him*' 
 Can  0.ne  Perfon  lodge  and  leave  and  commii 
 and  give  Powers  to  Another,  who  had  ahead) 
 in  himfelf  the  SAME  Powers  as  He  that 
 is  to  give  them?  And  if  all  This  was  fpoker 
 of  the  Humane  Natwe  of  Chrif},  (which  ii 
 7iot  Your  Anfwer,)  yet  the  Impropriety  wouk 
 ftill  be  the  very  fame  •,  as  I  have  fliown  above 
 
 P-?94 
 
Qiu  XIX.        and  JVorfjip.  40  £ 
 
 p.  394.  ThisAbfurdity  therefore  you  are  driven 
 to,  by  your  own  hjpothejts  :  Whereas,   in  the 
 Texts    themfelves,    the     P ARALLEL    is 
 founded  on  This  only,  that  What  thhigs  foe-^oh.s^ic;, 
 ver  the  Father  doth^    thefe  alfo  doth  the  Son 
 hkew'tfe  5  becaufe,  though  the  Son  can   do  no- 
 thifig  of  Hmfelf\    yet  the  Father  loveth  the     20. 
 Son^  and  [Ijevpelh  him  all  things  that    Him f elf 
 doth.     Wherefore,  as    the  Father  raifeth  up      n. 
 the  Dead^    even  fo  the  Son  quickneth  whom 
 he  will:    for    the    Father  hath  CO  MM  1 1-     22. 
 TED  all  Judgment   unto    the  Son^    that  all     23. 
 men  fiould  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour 
 the  Father.     And,  as  the  Father  /  ath  Life  in      26. 
 Himfelf'^  fo  hath  be  GIVEN  to  the  Son  to 
 have  life  in  Himfelf:    oAnd   hath  GIVEN     27. 
 him  oAuthority  to  execute  "Judgment  alfo^   he- 
 caufe  be  is  the  Son   of  Man,     The  Son    does 
 the  Works ^  which  the  Father  hath  GIVEN 
 him  to  fimjh :     And  Thefe  hear  IVitttefs  that     3^- 
 the  Father   SENT  bim.     He  came   in   his     43- 
 Father"* s  Name :   and  [ought  7iot  his  0  W  N 
 Wtll^  hut  the  Will  of  the  Eat  her  that  SENT     30. 
 him. 
 
 The  Light  of  thefe  Texts  is  fo  firong  and 
 clear ^  that  you  are  forced  to  endeavour  to 
 turn  ajide  your  Reader'^s  Eyes,  by  telling  him 
 '  that  I  '^  charge  with  Prejudice  and  Blindnefs  p,  181; 
 !  **  many  Wife ^  Great ^  and  Good  me?i^  and  Many 
 *  "  Churches  of  the  Saints^  through  a  long  Sue- 
 \  cejjion  of  oAges,''  You  know,  this  is'  not  a 
 i  Right  Way  of  dealing  with  Scripture.  And 
 j  yet  I  have  very  largely  fliown,  that  Antiquity 
 i  alio  is  againft  you.     But  to  proceed. 
 
 Dd  My 
 
cc 
 
 cc 
 
 40  a  Of  Divine  jidoration 
 
 p,  zU.      My  ^'  Interpretation"'    oi  Job.  5,  19,    you 
 tell  me,  ^''  is  flainJy  forced^  makes  the  Context 
 "  incoherent^  and  the  whole  PaJJage  incoitfift- 
 "  e7.t.     For  J  be  pleafed  to  ohferve.     The  Son 
 *'  can  do  nothing  but  by  Commijfion  from   the 
 '^  Father  :    Why  f    Then  follows^    For  what 
 things  foever  He  doth,  thefe  alfo   doth  the 
 Son  likewife.     Does  it  follow^    becaufe  he 
 can  do  nothing  of  himfelf  (in  Tour  Senfe^) 
 ^'  that    Therefore    he     can   do    every    Thing 
 "  which  the  Father  does  ?  Where  is  the  Senfe 
 "  or  Connexion?     I  anfwer :  You  cannot  but 
 linow,  this  Interpretation  is  none  of  mi?/e^  but 
 a  Fifltion  of  your  own.     The  Senfe  of  the 
 Text,  is  plaiuo     The  word  [F^r,]  in  the  lat- 
 ter part  of  the  i<jih  verfe,    is  not  the  Reafon 
 given  of  what    went    before.     That   Reafon 
 follows,  in  the  2Cth  verfe  ;    And   the   latter 
 part  of  the    i  ()th  is  a  Parenthefis.     The  Son 
 can  do  nothing  ofhimfdf:  And  yet,  what  he 
 feeth  the  Father  do^  the  Son  can  do  alfo,  (even 
 what  things  foever  the  Father  doth^  thefe  alfo 
 doth  the  Sou    likewife:^    Becaufe,    or    For^ 
 the  Father  loveth  the  Son^  andfieweth  him  all 
 thwgs  iSc.    What  is  there  forced  or  i?icobe- 
 rent  in  all  this?  Nay,    you  yourfelf  retra£t 
 this  Charge  in  the  next  Page  *,    and  acknow- 
 ledge, upon   b(;tter  Confideration,  that  My 
 Interpretation  "  makes  the  Context  coherent :" 
 p.  287.  Only  you  think  it   '^  very  odd  and  f  range ^  for 
 "  a  CREATURE  to  be  commijfio?ied  or  em- 
 "  flowered  to  do  all  Things  that  the  Creator 
 "  doth."^'     But  docs   jny  Interpretation  at  all 
 fuppofe  him  to  be  Created?  Is  not  the  Inter- 
 
 pretatiorj: 
 
i^u.  XIX.         and  JVorJhip.  4^3 
 
 pretation  equally  juft,  in  what  manner,  foevcr 
 he  was  Gtnerated  of  the  Father,  provided  yoa 
 do  but  acknowledge  him  to  be  Gentrated  ^t 
 all?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  much  more 
 odd  andflrange^  that,  according  to  Trdr  Sevfe^ 
 the  Supreme  God  lliould  be   Comnijjioned  or 
 empowered  to  do  any  Thing  ?  Be  pleafed  to 
 confider    again  your  own   ''  literal^  obvious^  p,  iSd, 
 *'  ^latural  Interpretahon''^  of  the  Text.    The  <^  ^^v. 
 Son  can  do  ?iothIng  of  bimfelf^  lut  what  he  fees 
 the  Father  do  5  /ir,  what  Things  foever  he  doth^ 
 thefe  alfo  doth  the  Son  Ukewife  :  That  is,    he 
 does  them  (you  think)  by  an  equally   Supreme 
 and  independent  Authority  and  Power.   Now, 
 in  This,  "  where  is  the  Serjfe^  or  ConnexionV^^ 
 Does  it  follow,  lecaufe  he  can  do  Nothing  of 
 Him/elfj  that  therefore,  when  he  does  every 
 Thing  that  the  Father  does^  he  does  it  of  Him- 
 fetf?    by  a  Power  equally  Supreme  and  inJe- 
 fendent,  with  That   of  the  Father?    How 
 much  better  is  the  Interpretation  which  A^^- 
 vatian  and  Eufebius,  (Fathers^  Antienter  thaa 
 "  Hilary^  Chryfofiom^  Cyril  and  Aufiin^''  whom  p.  2S3, 
 you  refer  to,)    give  us  of  thefe  Texts  !  Nova- 
 tian  (i)  fays,  that  "  the  Son  is  the  Imitator 
 ''  of  all  his  Father's  Works."    And  (2)  Eufe- 
 
 (i)  Quoniam  ficut  pater  operatur,"  ira  opcratur  &  filius;  & 
 Imitator  eltfilius  omnium  operum  pateinorum.  De  Trmit.€.^?i. 
 
 (1)  'OvK^v  of/jcw^cc  rvyxfi^vet  tu.  <5;f95  tow  moZ  yiyvo^ivx^  isycc* 
 fcpp^irt/TcoVj  fv  «:;rcppi^7-o<5  row  ^viJirpo^  Xoy.trfjijoZ;  Tr^cv'Pi^oi.^fvuV  a,  3 
 (iXiTcei  UTiva^  i»  Tvi  TOW  TTccTpo^  aixvoioc,  (/di[jtjy)i/jciToc>  m  l&»potj  STridf 
 To  tf^g  iTroTTTiunv  oturov  tzc  tou  ttxt^oc,  /Soir^j),  tJ^is  7r^Tp<xKi5  ay)t7rY^r^  s^- 
 yov   iivxi  TTuQ^s'iif  ^jcc(rxcpm  i^y,^,    koh  Atyur    0    yu^  7:a,Tf.^   (^.XiX  tvv 
 
 rpcq,  TU  iccvrou  K^u<pi.o(>  ^iu^uv  0  w*oi;,  t^''  «pv&'v  h^pi^vi  -m.  r«;  Trur^iKvii  /Sa- 
 
 ^«$  ifv«.    Ecclef.  Theol.  lib.  ^c.  3. 
 
 0d  2  bins 
 
404  OJ  Droim  Adoration 
 
 yius  tells  us,  that    "  what  the  Son  does,  is  a 
 *'.  Similitude  of  the  Original   Worh,    which 
 "  were  before  hidden  in  the  mind  of  the  Fa- 
 ''  ther  :  But   by  feeing  them  dillinftly  in  the 
 "  Mind  of  the  Father,  he />;;/^^^^i  thofe  Things 
 "  which    he    there  fees.      Now  his  looking 
 "  into  the  liidden  Things  of  the  Father,  is  an 
 "  Act  of  the  Father's  Love  to  him  ,  as  hehim- 
 *'  felf plainly  declares  in  the  next  words, faying, 
 '*  for  the  Father  lovetb  the  Son^    and  jhowetb 
 ^'  him  all  Tbings  that  himfelf  doth.     The  Son 
 "  therefore,  feeing  the  hidden  things  of  the 
 *'  Father  who  flioweth  them  unto  him,    by 
 "  his  own  Works  accompliflies  the  Works  of 
 *'  his  Father's  Will.'*''     Nay,  even  Epipoanit^s 
 fays  upon  the  fame  Text :    (.)    *' The  Fa- 
 *^  ther  being  a  Spirit,  a£ls  by   Supreme  Au- 
 *'  thority  ;  but  tlie  Son,  who  is  alfo  a  Spirit, 
 «  does  not  att  by  Sti^'veme  Authority,    as  the 
 *'  Father  does  *,  but  a6ls  in  a  like  manner, — 
 "  (uTT^gyr^oj?)  mini  fieri  ally.'''* 
 p.  287.       You  are  not  willing  to  allow  my  Obferva- 
 tion,  that  the  Ait  of  the  Father's  Love  to- 
 wards the  Sou^    in  pewi?;g  him  all  Things 
 that  he  himfelf  dot h^  and  empowering  the  Son 
 to  do  them  likewife,  is  an  Inftance  o{  his  free 
 Love.     You  think  it  is  no  more  "  Matter  of 
 "  Choice^'  than  God's  Love  to  Himfelf.     But 
 the  Difference  is  plainly  This  :  God's  Love  to 
 Himfelf  is  no  Act^  but  a  Mode  of  Tcrft&ion 
 of  Exijience  :    But   the  Father's  jl)ow'wg  the 
 
 (l)  '' K%i'    ^  0  TTUTYff  raZra.  kxi  e  ito^  ofJuci&i<;  TrenZ      'O  ya^  ttcc- 
 9ronT,  <v?  0   "Tecry.f,  ccX\'   cfJuoU'c,-.  'iTra^yiKS^,     Haeief.73.  P. 865. 
 
 Son 
 
Qu.  XIX.         and  Worjhil^,  4^? 
 
 Son  all  Things  that  himjelf  doth^  and  Giving 
 him  Authority  to  do  them  hkezrife^  is  an 
 oAd  of  the  Father's  Love  towards  the  Son, 
 and  Thertfore  is  tree.  I  h^iVi^  ke^t  ffays  he) 
 my  Father"* s  Commandme?its^  and  abide  in  his 
 Love^  John  15,10. 
 
 You  bring  in  Hilary  again,  but  not  at  all  to  P-  i88. 
 your  Purpofe.  For  though  he  held  that  the 
 Son  was  of  thtfame  Nature  with  the  Father, 
 as  a  Sun-beam  is  of  the  fame  Nature  with 
 the  Sun ;  yet  he  always  allows  that  the  Fa- 
 ther is  Stqerioiir  to  the  Son  in  Dignity  and 
 Authority,  Upon  Tds  point  he  is  very  exprefs, 
 in  his  Account  and  Explanation  of  the  Coun- 
 cil of  Sirmirmi. 
 
 Again  :  PrefsM  with  the  Notion  of  our 
 Lord's  Power  being  every  where  in  This 
 Chapter  of  St.  John  fuppofed  to  be  delegated ^  John  5: 
 you  tell  me,  that  "  a  delegated  Power  does  p.  289. 
 *"^  by  no  meayis  infer  any  Inferiority  of  N  A- 
 "  rUR  £."  I  anfwer  :  That's  not  the  Point 
 in  Queftion  5  the  abftraft  word,  Nature^  be- 
 ing a  term  of  very  uncertain  and  indetermi^ 
 ;^^f^  Signification  :  See  above,  /^.  176.  But 
 'tis  evident  (which  is  the  only  True  Point 
 in  quell  ion,)  that  a  delegated  Power  or  Ju- 
 thorny  cannot  be  equally  Supreme  and  mde- 
 pendent^  with  the  original  nnderived  Power  or 
 oAuthority  w^hich  delegated  it.  Your  Argu- 
 ment, that  One  Man  "  may  be  Delegnte  to  p.  189. 
 ''  Another^  without  beii'g  unequal  in  NJ* 
 "  2'  U  R  £,"  has  been  anfwered  above^  p. 
 J9J. 
 
 Dd  }  Your 
 
4^ ^  Of  Di'vine  Adoratmi 
 
 p.  190.  ^  Your  Notion  of  ^^  Supremacy  of  Order  ^"^  that 
 is,  the  Order  ia  mere  Placing  of  Words : 
 I'hat  ^'  the  Father^  as  Fntber^  is  Supreme  -^ 
 '^.  and  the  Soft^  as  So-?^  Subordinate  :"  and  yet 
 ^-  53>  57-  that,  at  the  fame  time,  the  Son  is  "  Supreme 
 *'  ///  the  ftriB  Senfe^^  the  Supreme  God  '"  in 
 "  the  fame  Senfe  and  in  as  hifih  a  Senfe  as  the 
 "  Father  himfelf:''  This  Notion  (I  fay) 
 has  been  confidered  above ^  p.  jiy,  i^ 
 pnlfim. 
 
 p.  290.       Your  unreafonablenefs   in  citing   a  conftf- 
 
 fedlj  corrtipt  Tranflation  of  Origen^  has  been 
 
 ^Ifo  particularly    Ihown    'above^  p.   69   and 
 
 ?.,  190.       Your  unfau'nefs  in  the  Ufe  of   the   term, 
 '     'Undivided  Nature  ^    and  in  your  complaining 
 of  my  '^  imaginary  Senfe  of  individual  Sub- 
 ^'  fiance^''  and  of  the  "  difficulty  in  fi>cing  and 
 *'  determining  the  Senfe  of  the  words^  indivi- 
 "  dual  Subftance ;"  has  been  likewife   fliown 
 above ^  f,  507. 
 p.  191,       But  nothing  is  more  unfair,  than  your  in- 
 593»^94>deavouring  to  prejudice  ignorant  Readers,  by 
 '^.^  '^^^'perpetually  ftiling  your  own  fartuular  Scho- 
 laftick  Hypothefis,  ''THE  "Doctnne  of  tne 
 "  Trinitj'.''     As  if  Others^  who  plead  for  ^he 
 Whole  Dotrrine  of  Scripture^  and    (according 
 to  the  beft   of  their  Abilities)    for   every  pift 
 Confeqtie?iee   drawn     from    the    Doflrine  of 
 Scripture,  and    for  a   Notion    wherein  they 
 think  the  Frimitive  Church  too  almoA  unani- 
 jptioqily  agreed  with  them  \  liad  not  as  good  a 
 R'igiit  to  call  Their  Doftrine  "  the  Do3rinti 
 ^*  ofrheTrinityy   as  you  have  to  call  Tours  ib. 
 '    "^  •     '  Your 
 
Qu.  XIX.  and  JVorJhip.  407 
 
 Your  faying,  ^Uhe  Father'^s  Hjfo/l^/is  or  P.293; 
 **  Per/on  ;"  is  alfo  a  Deceiving  of  your  Rea- 
 der :  When  you  know  the  word,  Hjpofia/is^ 
 in  all  the  Primitive  Greek  Writers  always  fig- 
 nifies,  Suhftance  j  and  never  Perfon,  un  the 
 fenfe  jou  ufe  it,j  as  contradiftinguifhed  from 
 Subftance,  As  D.  Cudworth^  and  Others,  have 
 abundantly  iliown. 
 
 Your  Argument  drawn  from  imaginary  Dif-  p.  293, 
 ficukies  in  our  conception  oiih^Omni^refence^  ^^• 
 has  been  particularly  anfwered  above ^  P*  ?o5> 
 and  ^09.  I  fliall  here  obferve  only  by  the 
 way,  that  the  Foundation  of  all  your  Diffi- 
 culties, viz,  the  Suppofition  that  *'  the  Sub^ 
 *'  ftafice  of  God^  is  God  f  is  not  true.  For 
 God  is  neither  the  Subfia?ice  of  God^  nor  the 
 (Attributes  of  God -^  but  He  is  That  intelli- 
 gent  Agent ^  whofe  both  the  Sulfia^ice  and  the 
 Q^ittrtbutes  are.  And  as  Infinity^  for  inftance  ; 
 fo  every  Other  Attribute^  Power  or  PerfeBi-  p,  31 7: 
 on^  of  the  Omniprefent  Being,  is  the  indivi- 
 dual Attribute^  Power ^  or  Terfection^  of  That 
 One  individual  intelligent  oAgent^  whole  the 
 Omniprefent  Subftance  is. 
 
 Dd  4  Q^UERY 
 
40  8  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 Q^u  EF.  y     XX. 
 
 Whether  the  'Docior  need  have  cited  joo 
 Texts^  wide  of  the  Purpofe^  to  prove  woat 
 no  'Body  denies^  namely^  a  Subordination, 
 in  Some  Senfe^  of  the  Son  to  the  father  ^ 
 could  He  have  found  hut  one  plain  Text 
 agai?ifi  his  Eternity  or  Confubftantiality,  the 
 Points  in  que/Hon  ^ 
 
 P,  2^8.  Jnfuc\^''ir^  H  E  '^  Eternit)  or  Corful[lantiaVu 
 X     "  0' "  of  the  6on,  are  not  in  any 
 manner  ^'  the  Points  inqut(lion\''  becaufe,  of 
 whatever  Duratiomnd  of  whatever  Sutfia?ice 
 the  Son  be,   (which   are  Metafhyfcal  Quefti- 
 ons,)  the   Truth  of  no  one  of    Dr.  Ciarkt\ 
 Propofitions  is  thereby  at  all  affected.     The 
 Truth  of  plain   Scripture-Declarations,    does 
 not  at  all  depend  on  the  Truth  or  Erroneouf- 
 nefs  of  Any  metaphyfical  hypothefes  made  by 
 Writers  who  lived  in  Ages  after  the  Apoftles. 
 The  JOG  Texts  therefore,  are   by  no  means 
 "  wide  of  the  Pur  pop ;"    becaufe    they   All 
 prove^    what  they  were  Irought  to   prove  • 
 namely,  a  Subordination^  not  in  mere  Pofitio?i 
 or  Order  of  PVords^   which   in  the  Ti  nth  of 
 things  is  a  Co-ordination  :  but   they  prove  a 
 real  -iSjih ordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  in 
 point  of  Dominion  and  oAuthority^   and  efta- 
 blifli  a  real  Supremacy  of  the  Father  over  all : 
 Wliich  ToUy  in  dirc£l  oppofition  to  the  firll 
 *'  Article 
 
Qu.XK.     OftheVnityofGod,  409 
 
 Article  of  the  Apoftles   Creed,    and    to   the 
 whole  Tenour  of  the   New  Teftament,   and 
 to  Many  of  your  own  Conceffions  alfo,  per- 
 petually deny- 
 In  your  Dcfenfe  of  This  Query,  you  have  P-  ^^S. 
 recourfe  again  to  your  DiiEculties  in  the  No- 
 tion of  the  Divine  OmmJ^refence,  which  I  have 
 aniWcred  ahove^f.  305 ;  and  to  your  Charge 
 of  an    ''''unmanly    tnfihig   with  a?i  equivocal  p 
 ^'  worclj   an  ambiguous    Exfrejfwn^  hidividu'     '  ^^^' 
 "  ^/i''  which  I  have  alfo  confidered  above^ 
 f  307. 
 
 1  he  injuftice  of  your  Charge  of  a  ''  Tacite  p.  299 
 ^'  Co?icit{jton'''  which  you  JuJ^fofe  drawn  from  ^  ^o^* 
 the  300  Texts,  over  and  above  the  Manifefi 
 Concbjion  frofcjjedly  drawn  from  them  ,  has 
 been  ihown  above^  p.  301,  jj8.  And  your 
 Notion  of  Subordination^  how  abfurd  it  is  ^ 
 has  likewife  been  before  fhown,  pag.  193, 
 317. 
 
 ^'  SeJfexi/ience''  you  Cd\\  ''  a  Metaphyfical  p,  300. 
 "  Term  ;  the  Word  equivocal^  and  the  Notion 
 ''  fujficiently  otfcure''  I  anfwer :  There  is 
 JSIo  obfcurity  in  the  Notion^  nor  any  poffible 
 ^quivocahiefs  in  the  Word.  It  always  and 
 only  fignifies,  exi/iing  ?tecejjdrily  Of  itfelf^ 
 without  Deriving  in  any  manner  from  any  0- 
 Uder  whatfoever.  The  ridiculoufnefs  of  your 
 fuppofing  it  to  be  a  mere  Negative^  has  been 
 [hown  above^  p.  226. 
 
 "  The  Firjt  Cirijtians^''  you  fay,  ^'eafily  Ic-  p.  301. 
 ''  lieved^  that  father,    Son^  and  Holy  Ghnfi^ 
 ^  into  whom  they  were  baptized^    and  whom 
 \  they   worfii^ped,  were  EQUALLT  T)i- 
 
 "  vine  1 
 
4 1  o  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 *^  vine ;  without  trouhling  themftlves  alout 
 *'  the  maimer  of  it^  or  the  reconciling  it  with 
 
 *'  their  Belief  in  One  God. P ROBABLT, 
 
 *'  the  plain  honeft  CorijUans  believed  every 
 *^  perfon  to  be  God^  and  all  but  One  God ;  and 
 *^  troubled  not  their  Heads  with  any  nice  Spe- 
 *'  culations  about  the  Modus  of  it.  This 
 *'  SEEMS  to  have  been  the  artlefs  Simplici* 
 '*  ty  of  the  Primitive  CLri/fiaiis^^c''  If  by 
 the  words,  equally  divine^  you  here  mean, 
 cf  equally  Supreme  Dominion  or  Authority^ 
 (and  any  Other  Meaning  is  befide  the  Point  in 
 Queftion ;,)  the  Reverfe  of  your  AiTertion  is 
 manifeft,  in  ahnoft  every  Chapter  of  the  Nc'w 
 Tefiament ,  in  every  Antient  Creed^  even  of  the 
 Fourth  as  well  as  of  the  foregoing  Centuries ;  in 
 all  the  Remains  of  all  the  Antient  Liturgies  ;  in 
 almofl  every  Page  of  all  the  Pri?nitive  Fa- 
 thers ^  and  fufficiently  in  the  Tajjages  I  have 
 ah'eady  cited  in  This  Difcourfe.  The  mean- 
 ing of  the  Conjunction  of  the  Three  Perfons  in 
 the  Form  of  Baptifm^  is  explained  profelfedly 
 in  all  the  Antient  Creeds,  and  in  the  (i)  Book 
 
 (l)    'E^      TOiWV    TO     pi     (sOiTTTia-yjCC    HC,     TOV     ^OCVUTOV     Ss"    'I>5(r«     Oia'jfXji- 
 VCV,.  ••'S^TTXT^cq  Vi    fJUVyil^ri   UC,   CilTm    KCCi   UTTOfoXiWC,'    ij*    TrVi'jyjCCT^ 
 
 ftiCX.    uyiev,     6     ^«pc4xA>J~(^,    TO    VZS'O     X?^^^  TTif/jTrof/jiVOV,    KXi     T.TZ"'      iKUVfi 
 
 ^i^xa-)U[jjivov,  y.«.\  UiTvrtv  x.^ut\w,  **  Baptifhi  is  appointed  into  the 
 **  Death  of  ^efus :  The  Father  is  mentioned,    as  the 
 
 ••  Caufe  and  Sender-,  the  Holy  Ghoji  is  joined  with  him,  as  the 
 
 **  IVitr.efs. The  F^r/;^;-,  is  God  Supreme  overall:    Chrijl^ 
 
 **  is  God  the  only-begotten,  the  lelovcd  Son,  the  Lord  of  Glory  : 
 «*  The  Holy  Ghofty  is  the  Comforter  that  was  Sent  from  ChrilL 
 **  and  received  of  him  his  J)o6lrine,  and  preached  hmi  to  the 
 "  World."  lib.  3.  c.  17.    See  alfo  lib.-],  c.  ii. 
 
 •       ■  ftiled 
 
Qu.  XX.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  45 1 
 
 ftiled  the  A^ofiolical  Confiitutions  •  and  by 
 (0  EvfehitiSj  whofe  words  you  have  in  the 
 Margin. 
 
 TOU    -j  hioZ  rccvryf    ai6ix.oviifjtjiv}i' -row    ^    clym  7rvlUfX>UT(^,    ^r)Acc^^ 
 
 TOO  TTxpxKXyir^y  ocvtQ  ovt(^  too  ^cof/iyaiMiVii.  Ecclef.  Theclog.  lib,  2, 
 f.  5.  **  Baptizing  them  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
 "  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  The  lather  beftowing 
 "  the  Grace,  as  the  Original  Juthor :  The  Son,  being  the  Mt- 
 **  ni/ler  of  it :  And  the  H»ly  Ghoji,  the  Comforter,  being  the 
 *  *  immediate  Difiributer  of  it." 
 
 Q.UEKY.      XXI. 
 
 Whether  he  le  not  forced  to  fufply  his  want  of 
 Scripture- Froof  by  very  firaiiid  and  remote 
 Inferences^  and  very  tmcertain  Reafonings 
 from  the  Nature  of  a  Thing  confeQedly  Ob- 
 fcure  and  above  Comfrehenjion ,  and  yet  not  ^'  ^^^' 
 more  fo  than  God's  Eternity,  Ubiquity, 
 Prelcience,  or  other  Attributes^  which  yet 
 we  are  obliged  to  achiowlege  for  certain 
 Truths  ? 
 
 Jnfw'  TV  T  ONE  of  the  Propofitions  on 
 l\|  which  Dr.  Clarke  lays  any  Strefs, 
 ^re  drawn  by  mere  "  Reafo?iings  from  the  in- 
 *'  comfrehenjible  Nature'''^  of  God,  though  (I 
 think)  they  are  very  agreeable  to  right  Rea- 
 [on.  Neither  are  they  drawn  by  any  *''firain- 
 ^'  ed  and  remote  Inferences^  But  they  are 
 either  the  exprefs  a^id  literal  declaration,  or  the 
 immediate  and  obvious  Refult^  of  many  more 
 
 than 
 
iz 
 
 Of  the  Vmty  of  God. 
 
 than  joo  Texts  in  the  New  Teilament. 
 louY  Scheme,  on  the  contrary,  contains,  not 
 indeed  "  a  j, rained  and  remote  infer ejice^"^  but 
 a  Propofition  directly  contradictory  to  the 
 Texts.  For  you  declare  The  One  God^  (\o 
 ftiled  by  way  of  eminence,)  to  be  both  Fa- 
 ther aad  Son  and  Hoi)  G.joft  ^  whereas  St.  Paid 
 in  expefs  Terms  declares  the  One  God  to  be 
 
 icor.  ,6.  ^^^^  Yatner  of  whom  are  all  thin^s^  as  diftin- 
 guillied  from  the  One  Lord,  J  ejus  Chrijt^  ly 
 '-ji'bom  are  all  thi?igs  ;  and  f'in  another  place) 
 
 £/^.4,6.  that  the  One  God  is  the  Father  of  all^  who  is 
 above  allj  as  diftinguifhedfrom  th^  One  Lord^ 
 and  One  Sprit,  mentioned  in  the  very  fame 
 Sentence.  Had  you  attempted  to  farn^hrafe 
 thefe  Texts  according  to  your  Notion,  you 
 could  no  way  have  concealed  theParaphrafe's 
 being  C07itrary  to  the  Texts. 
 p,  303.  As  "  Goa\'  Eternity,  Uhiq7iity^  Prefcience, 
 ''  and  other  Q/itirilutes^'^  3.VQThewfelves  (^nd 
 not  particular  mens  different  philofophical  Ex- 
 plications of  the  Manner  of  them)  the  Suljeti 
 of  our  Belief:  So  the  Direciions  aftually  given 
 in  Scripture  concerning  the  Worfliip  of  God 
 and  of  Chrift,  (not  philofophical  Conjeftures 
 concerning  Subjia?;ces  and  Ejjences  and  the 
 Metaph)Jical  reafons  of  things,)  ought  to  be 
 Guide  of  our  Traaice.  And  then  there  would 
 foon  be  an  End  of  all  Difputes. 
 
 Your  introducing  therefore,  upon  This  oc- 
 
 /.  305.  cafion,    Arguments     "•  again/i  the    Ommpre- 
 
 Z06,  **  ftnce  "   (^c.    and   ftiling  "  the  cafe  exattly 
 
 307.  ''  the  fame  ;''   and  talking  of  "  clearing  Goa's 
 
 '^  Attributes  from    being   liable  to  the  fame 
 
 \[  Charge  f 
 
Qu.  XXI.    Of  the  Vnitj  of  God.  ^  i  j 
 
 '  Cc>^7rj^  5"  and  of  apprehending  things,  " /;; 
 *'  the ge?urnl^  as [uiij  and  ckaYi)  ([er/.^,^smore  p.  3zu 
 "  fojas  Eternit) ^Om?iifrefe?ice^  or  the  like  '^'  All 
 This    (I  fay)  is  entirely  befides  the  Purpofe  : 
 As  has  been  diftindly  \ho\va  nhove^  f.  505. 
 
 Dr.  Clarke's  AlTertion  is  not,  (as  you  faifely  ^'  3"5« 
 reprefent  it,)  that  "  the  So7i  of  God  ca?mot  be 
 "  ftntil)  Divine^'    but   that  he  cannot  be  £- 
 qtiall)  Supreme  with  the  Father,  ''  u/ilefs  ke  he 
 ""'  CO'Oruhiate  2?i  all  refpecfs  with  the  Father^ 
 
 You  tell  me',  "  TheWoole  terminates  171  a  p  ■.^.' 
 ^'  Philofophical  Queftion  ;"  And  "  Tois  con^  s-'sls 
 *'  troverjie^  managed  u^on  tbe  foot  of  mere 
 *'  Reafon^  term: nates  at  length  /;;  That  /;;- 
 <'  gle  quefiio^;^  whether  the  ElTence  of  God 
 "  he  alove  Com^reke?ifion^  or  no.'''*  I  an- 
 fwer :  The  Eijence  of  Godj  is  no  part  of 
 the  Subjecl-matter  of  the  Queftion  be- 
 tween us.  The  Scripture  tells  us,  there  is 
 hut  0?ie  God^  eve?i  the  Father^  [or  Firft  Caufe~\ 
 of  whom  are  ail  things  •  one  God  and  Father 
 of  qAU  :  And  yet,  at  the  fame  time,  it  ftiles 
 the  Srn  alfo  God.  The  only,  the  ''fn^le 
 ^'  queftion''  hence  arifing.  ^^u^cn  the foot^ of 
 ^'  mere  Reafon^''  is:  not,  whether  xh^E^Jence 
 of  God  be  comtrehefifMe^  or  no;  but  mJVhat 
 Se'rife  thefe  Two  Propofitions,  which  upon 
 Authority  of  Scripture  are  Both  of  them  ac- 
 knowledged to  be  True^  are,  according  to 
 Reafon  and  the  Lfe  of  Language^  beft  under- 
 ftood  to  be  co7i!iftent. 
 
 And  here  indeed,  I  think,  I  have  the  juft- 
 eft  Reafon  to  complain;  that  neither  here, 
 nor  in  any  other  part  of  your  Book,  you  ever 
 
 lay 
 
4i  4  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 lay   before  your   Reader  the  True  Point  iri 
 queftion  between  us.    1  he  Qiieftion  is,  about 
 a  Dotirifie  q{ Scripture ;  about  the  fenfe  of  cer- 
 tain ProfOjitions  laid  down  in  Scripture.    The 
 Foundation  therefore  of  the  quertion,  the  Pro^ 
 pojition  whofe  Senfe  and  Meaning  you  argue 
 about,  ought  Always  to  be  a  Scriptnre-Tro^ 
 {ofttion.     As,  for  inftance  ;  that  To  Us  there 
 is  but  One  God^  even  the  Father^  of  whom  are 
 all  things  ,  and  yet,    that  The  Word  is  God. 
 In  What  Senfe  thefe  Two   Propofitions  are 
 confiftent,  is   the    Point   in  queltion.     Now 
 This  you  conftantly  hide  from  your  Reader. 
 p-  318.  You   fpeak  of  ''THE  Dotiri?ie  of  the  Tri- 
 •'  nity  "  having  "  no  Teculiar  Difficulties  f 
 p.  310.  a  doCtririe  *'  evident  from  Scripture,    and  ^p* 
 "  2rehe?ided  in  the  geiteral  as  fully  and  clear- 
 P'  3^5.  ''  ly  as  Omniprefence:'    You  talk  of  ''THE 
 ''VERT  myftery  of  the  Trinity-;'  of  ''THE 
 p.  32- 1-  "  Thing  itfelf^  in  oppofition  to  the  particular 
 P'  3i3»  Modus  of  it  3  Of  ''  Scriptural  Pofttio?is  ^"  of  a 
 ^"*       "  Plain  Scripture-Truth  5''    the   "  leadi?tg  and 
 p.  311,  '^fundamental  Dotirijte  ^'^    the   ''plain  ///;/- 
 3^^*       '*  damental Truth ;' which  "He that  believes 
 '^  /imply ^  and  in  the  ge?teral^   and  A  S   laid  \ 
 ''  down  in  Scripture^  believes  E  iVO  UG  H"  ' 
 And  yet  in  AH  Thi^;,  and  in  all  other  Expref- 
 fions  of  the  like  kind  throughout  your  whole 
 Book,  you  never  once  mean  (at  leail  you  never 
 once  mention)  any  Scripture-Pofition  -^  but  con- 
 llantly  Hip    into  its  place   Some  Other   Pro- 
 pofition,  which  (by  your  Hjpothefis)  you  fup- 
 pofe  to  be,  in  way  of  Inference,    equivalent. 
 p:  3^3.   ''  One  God  IN  Three  Terfonsi''  ''JhreePer- 
 
 ''fons, 
 
 I 
 
Qii.  XXI.    Oflhe  Vnity  of  God.  41  ^ 
 
 **  fo?is^  every  one  Tnily  Qod^  and  all  lut  One  p^  32-0. 
 *^  God  P^   "  Three   Perfons^    every    one   ft.  gly  p,  314. 
 
 *'  God,  a?id  qAU  together  One  God.^'  As  if 
 the  whole  Qaeftion  was  ;  not,  whether  or 
 how  fnr  ov  in  what  Senfe,  Tour  Propo/ltions 
 rightly  exprefs  the  Dottrtne  of  Scripture  •  but 
 merely,  whether  or  how  far^  or  in  what 
 Senfe,  Other  mens  Notions  agree  or  difagree 
 with  Tour  Tropo/it/ons  confidered  as  a  Rule. 
 I  am  confident  you  would  have  taken  it  ex- 
 tremely ill,  had  /  argued  againfl:  Tou  in  fuch 
 a  manner,  as  always  to  make  fome  of  my 
 own  or  of  Dr.  Clarke'^s  Propofitions,  the  Rule 
 by  which  to  try  All  Tour  Arguments. 
 
 But  to  proceed.    "  The  Learned  (you  fay)  ^^  3n- 
 **"  are    hardly  agreed  whether    Self-exifie^ice 
 "  be  a  Negative  or  Pofitive  Idea?'^     How  al- 
 furd  This  is,  I  have  already  ^lown^pag.  226. 
 
 Excellent  are  the  Words  you  ufe -a  littk  p.  319* 
 after;  and  I  moft  heartily  agree  with  you 
 in  them.  "  So  much  we  owe  to  the  Church 
 *'  of  Chrift^  which  receives  this  Faith  ,  to  the 
 *'  Ueffed  Saints  and  Martyrs  many  Ce?itiiries 
 *'  upwards^  who  lived  and  died  in  it  ;  to 
 *^  Truths  to  God^  and  to  our  [elves ;  as  to 
 '*  fee  that  it  he  fairly  and  impartially  exami- 
 "  7ied.  That^  proving  all  Things,  as  we  ougljt 
 '^  to  do^  in  Sincerity  and  Singlenefs  of  Heart  ^ 
 
 !  **  we  may  at  length  he  both  wife  enough  to 
 
 !^'**  hiowj  and  fuit ably  diffofedto  hold  faft,  that 
 
 '  **  which  is  Good;' 
 
 You  mention  fome  '^  difficiles  Nugx  ^  mofl-  p  ^^^^ 
 
 I  **  ly^  verbal  or  vain  hiquiries  ^  which  do  not 
 "  concern  common  Qtrijlians?\     Care  there- 
 fore 
 
4^6  of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 fore  fhould  always  be  taken,  that  no  Praftice, 
 efpecially  in  things  rcl;ting  to  the  Worfli'p  of 
 God,  be  founded  upon  mere  Speculations.^  but 
 wholly  upon  exprefs  Commatid, 
 
 P-  3^3-       You   make  a  Suppofit'wn   of  my  ^'  arguing 
 **  that  the  Son  cannot  he  Gocl^  hi  the  ftriEi  Senfe^ 
 ^'  without  making   Two  Gods,^^     But  why  do 
 you  make  a  Suppofithious  Argument   for   me, 
 inftead  of  the  True  one?  My  Argument  is  not ; 
 founded  upon  what  Can  or  Catwot  be  *,  but  up- 
 on the  ApoJIles  affertmg  that  The  One  God  is 
 the  Father  [or  Firji-Caufe^  of  whom  are  all ! 
 things^   as  diftinguiflied  from    the  One  Lord^ , 
 '^efus  ChriJ}^  bji  whom  are  all  things.     Though, 
 if  by  the  words    ^"•/IriB  Senfe'^    you    mean  i 
 Supreme  Sen fe:,  *tis  alfo  very  evident,   that  no 
 *'  Union   of  Subflance^    IVill,  Power^  Prefe?ice^ 
 *'  Operation^''  or  any  thing  elfe  ^    can   make 
 Two   Supreme  Gods    to  be  The  One  Supreme 
 God. 
 ihid.         You  ^^  fuppofe^*  mc  to  '''  argue  again ^  that 
 ^'  if  the  Son  he  a  Son^  in''  your   ^^  fenfe^  there 
 *^  Mufl  he  a  divifion  and  jeparate  Exijlence.^* ' 
 But  why  will  you  ^^  fnppofe''  me  to  fay,  what  ' 
 I  never  faid  or   thought  of?    Separate^  or  not 
 feparate^    makes  no  difference  at  all    in  my 
 Argument  ^  which  relies  wholly  upon  Suprema* 
 cy  in  point  of  Authority. 
 
 p.  314.  You  proceed  to  ask  mc  :  '^  Did  you  fet  out 
 **  upon  the  foot  of  Scripture  .<?  Does  Scripture 
 *'  any  where  tell  )ou^  that  Two  divine  Perfons. 
 *'  Cannot  be  One  God  ^  Or  that  the  Father  and: 
 
 *'  Son  Miijl  have  a  Separate  Exijlence  .<? 
 
 Lai 
 
Qi.i.  tXi      Of  the  Vnity  of^od.  4  ?  7 
 
 **•  Lay  afide  your  unfcriptural  ObjeEl'wns^  and 
 *'  we  poall  have  no  occa/ion  for  unfcriptural 
 *'  Jnfwers.''  I  anfwer  :  I  did  fet  out  upon  the 
 Foot  of  Scripture  ;  and  do  continue  upon  That 
 Foot  ftill.  I  did  not  fet  out  with  alTerting  that 
 Two  Divine  Perfons  Cannot  be  One  God  ^  but 
 with  taking  Notice  that  the  Scripture  afTens  In 
 faci^  thdt  The  One  God  (eminently  fo  ftiled) 
 is  the  Father  of  all,  ivho  is  Above  All ,  even 
 the  Father^  [or  Firjl  Caufe^  of  whom  are  all 
 things,  I  did  not  fet  out  with  fuppofing,  that 
 Father  and  Son  mufl:  have  a  Separate  Exift- 
 ence ;,  Becaufe  Separate^  or  not  Separate^  divi- 
 ded or  not  divided  iri  Sabftance,  makes  no  dif- 
 ference as  to  the  point  in  queftion  between  us. 
 I  did  not  fet  out  v^ith  bringing  unfcriptural 
 Objections,  or  indeed  ObjeSions  at  all  againfl 
 Any  thing  ,  but  with  maintaining  Dr.  Clarke's 
 Propotiiions,  as  not  going  bejcnd  the  Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 When  yoii  cited  Lucian's  Philopairis^  you  ^-  32-5. 
 ought  to   have  hinted  to  your  Reader^  that  ^^^' 
 Learned  Men  look  upon  it  as  fpurious. 
 
 The  PalTage  you  cite  out  of  (i)  Irenms^ 
 (viz,.  ''  According  to  all  the  Hereticks^  the  p.  325. 
 ''  Word  of  God  was  ?iot  made  Flejh  ^"j  means, 
 that  the  Hereticks,  x\\t  Lerinthians  and  their 
 Followers,  fuppofed  Jefus  and  Chrifl  to  be 
 Two  Perfons  -^  fo  that  the  Son  of  God  was  not 
 
 CO  Secundum   nullam   fententiam   Haereticorum,    Verbum 
 Dei  Cnro  fad:um  eil    Lib.  3.  c.  ir. 
 
 E  c  made 
 
4^8  OftheVmtyofCod. 
 
 made  Man^  or  (i)  became  Hi wfelf  the  Son  of 
 Man^  but  only  came  down  upon  or  was  united  to 
 the  Man  Jefus.     Which  Heretical  Notion^  is 
 ir]\}ch  ?iearer  to  jour  op'inionsy  than  to  ?ni?ie. 
 
 QLU  E  R  Y      XXII. 
 
 Whether  his  (the  Doftor's)  ^vhole  Performance^ 
 whenever  he  differs  from  tts^  be  any  thing 
 more  than  a  Repetition  of  this  Affertion^  that 
 Being  and  Ferfon  are  the  fa^ne^  cr  that 
 there  is  no  Medium  between  Trirheifm  ^nd 
 Sabelli;}nifin  >  ivhich  is  removing  the  Caufe 
 from  Scripture  to  natural  Reafon  ;  not  very 
 conjiflently  with  the  Title  of  his  Book. 
 
 p.  316.  ^;/n?."p\  R.  Clarke  has  neither  in  ''  the  Whole' 
 i_y  nor  in  any  Part  of  "  his  Perform- 
 '^  ance^''  eithcv '^  afferted''  or  fuppofcd^  that 
 ^'  Being  a?id  Perfon  are  the  farne  '^*  but  that 
 Intelligent  Being  (or  rather  Intelligent  Agent,^ 
 and  Perfon^  are  the  fame.  If  Two  or  more 
 IntelUge7it  Jge?its  Can  be  the  fame  Beings  ot 
 fublift  in  the  fame  individual  Subftance ;,  fpro- 
 vided  the  Jgefitshc  not  all  ot  them  Selfexift- 
 ent^  as  ivell  as  the  Subjiance  ;   which  is  mani- 
 
 (l)     Otcuc,  Hao)fjtjl))  oTi  0   TTccr^.^    tov    ioiVToZ  iicv    kI    c'v    roiHTOit;   Tnc- 
 
 v©>',    Tou   .9-foy  f«(35   ct))i,   ^K  ccynXxf/jfiuviro    tuv  yivofjiityuy  >^  VVf/tjoccyT».'v 
 xvTM,     Juftw.  Dial,  cmn  Try  ph.  P.  331. 
 ■Sec  alfu  A'.odeft  Flea,  p.  90,  Scc. 
 
 feft 
 
Qii.  XXII.    Of  the  VnityofCod.  419 
 
 feft  Polytheifm ;,)  this  will  no  way  affed  the 
 Truth  of  any  of  Dr.  Clarke's  Propofitions. 
 
 To  infid  that  words  ought  to  have  Some 
 Meaning  and  Signification^  is  not  ''  removing 
 '^  the  Caufe  from  Scripture  to  natural  Reafon^'^ 
 but  appealing  from  Enthufiafm  to  Scripture  and 
 Keajon  in  conjunEiioJu 
 
 In  your  Defenfe  of  This  Query  you  tell 
 me,  that,  according  to  my  Notion,  *'  it  is  not  p.  3^7- 
 ^'  Scripture  J  it  is  ?iot  Antiquity  ^  but  a  Philofo- 
 "  phical  Principle  "  we   truft  to  ^    "  to  vphich^ 
 *'  Scripture^  Fathers^  Councils^    Creeds^    every 
 ^'  thing  mufi yield.''    That  ''  the  whole  is  ?nade  p.  330. 
 "  to  depend  upon  a  mere  Philofophical  Queflion^ 
 *'  which  is  to  be  the  Rule  and  Measure  to  try 
 ^'  Scripture  and  fathers  by  ;"    Whereas   ''  Bx- 
 "  trinfick  Evidence^  Divine  Revelation^'  ought 
 to  be    "  here  all  in  all  ^  And  the  only  proper  tffe  p-  32-^. 
 ''  of  our  rational  b'acukies^  is  to  i?jquire  into  the 
 **  true  and  genuine  Senfe  of  it. — -Come  out  of  Me- 
 *'  taphyficks^  and  put  the  Caufe  upon  the  Foot  of  P^  32.9- 
 *'  Scripture  and  Antrqiiity  .•—  Scripture  is  our 
 *'  Ruletogoby."  lanfwer:  Theii^i;^r/^of  your 
 Charge  in  This  Point,  is  true.  Our  Foundation 
 is,  that  TheOne  God  (Jo  called  by  way  of  iimi- 
 hence)  is  the  Firft  Caufe  or  Aaihor,    and  the 
 Supreme  Governour,   of  the   Univerfe  ,    the 
 Father^    of   whom    are  all  things  j    the   One 
 God  and  Father    of   all^    "who  is  above   all. 
 This  is  exprefs   Scripture.      Tour    Foundati- 
 pn,  on  the  contrary,  is ,   that  as  *'  the  word^  sermom, 
 l\  Man,  fometimes  /lands  for  the  Whole  Spe-  ^'  ^•^^• 
 E  e  2  ''  cies  1 
 
4  2.0  0/  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 *'  cies  ^  fornetimes  indefinitelji  for  Any  iiidw'uhi^ 
 *'  niofthe  Species^  without  deter  mining  which  ^ 
 "  a?id  fometwies  for  This  or  That  particular 
 "  Man  :  So^  by  way  of  Analogy^  or  imperjedf 
 "•'  refemhlance^  the  word,  God,  way  ^''C.'"  This, 
 I  think,  is  Thilofophy  and  Metaphyficks,  not 
 Scripture. 
 
 P,  3,8.  You  proceed  :  **  All  that  the  BoSior  has  pro^ 
 '*  vedj  or  can  prove^  is  only  This  •  that  Sepa- 
 "  rate  Perfons  are  fo  7nany  intelligent  Beings  ^ 
 "  which  we  readdy  admit.  But  united  Perfons^ 
 "  or  Perfofis  having  no  feparate  exiflence^  tnay 
 ^*  be  One  Beings  One  Subftance^  One  God,  iiot- 
 "  withjlandifig:'  The  Dodor  no  where,  that 
 I  remember,  fpeaks  of  Persons  feparate  or  uni- 
 ted^ but  Supreme  or  7iot  Supreme :  In  which 
 refped,  being  feparate  or  united^  makes  no 
 difference.  For  two  equally  Supre?ne  perfons, 
 united^  may  be  in  the  complex  fenfe  "  One  Be- 
 **  ing^  One  Subflance '"  but  they  will  not  con- 
 fequently  be  One  Supre?ne  Governour^  One 
 Lordj  Ofie  God.  For  are  not  Two  equally  Su- 
 preme  Governoms  of  the  Univerfe,  Two  Gods  ^ 
 And  are  not  Two  equally  Supreme  Gover?wurs^ 
 U7iited  in  Subflance,  ftiil  Two  equally  Supreme 
 Governours  <? 
 
 P,  329.  You  compljin  that  we  admit  "  720  Medium 
 *'  between  Tritheifn  and  Sabellia?iifm.'*  Yes; 
 According  to  Scripture  and  all  Antiquity,  there 
 is  a  monifeft  A^edium.  One  Spirit,  One  Lord^ 
 One  God  and  Father  of  All,  who  is  above  All^ 
 Ctbe  Allcrtion  of  the  Apoftle,)  is  a  manifcfl 
 Medium.     But   if  (contrary  to   Scripture  and 
 
 to 
 
Qu.  XXII.   OftheVnityofCod.  4^1 
 
 to  the  unanimous  {tn{Q  oi  all  AnUqmty)  you 
 make  more  than  One  abfolutely  Supreme  over 
 all  5  many  Supreme  Govemours  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe  are  Majiy  Gods^  in  what  raetaphyfical 
 manner  foever  thofe  Majiy  Gods  be  fuppofed 
 XohQ  tmitecl.  Your  misfortune  is ;,  that,  where- 
 as (accordins;  to  Scripture)  all  Antiquity  (how- 
 ever they  differed  in  other  reipeds,  yet)  agreed 
 in  This^  that  the  Unity  of  God  depended  upon 
 the  Supremacy  of  the  Father^  upon  his  being 
 the  (i)  Alone  Head^  Fountain,  and  Original  of 
 all  Being  and  Power  '^  you^  on  the  conirary, 
 the  more  you  deflroy  the  Supremacj  of  the  Fa- 
 ther^ the  more  you  think  you  eftablifh  the 
 Unity  5  of  ipphat  ^  not  of  God^  not  of  the  Go- 
 vernour  of  the  Univerfe^  but  of  a  mere  abflraB 
 metaphyfical  Subjiaiice.  By  which  very  fame 
 Argument,  you  might  have  proved  (2)  to 
 Tertullian^  Origen^  LaSajitius^  and  others  of 
 the  Fathers,  that  All  the  Angels^  and  even  all 
 Humane  Souls^  were  The  One  Supreme  God,  And 
 by  the  fame  Argument  the  Heathens  could 
 have  proved  to  I'ou^  that  all  their  ififeriour 
 Deities  were  The  One  Supreme  God, 
 
 In  "  Defenfe  "  of  yourfelf  ''  againft  the  p.  331- 
 "  Charge  of  Tritheifm^"  you  ''^obferve  that  there 
 *^  are  more  Perjons  than  One^  dignified  with  the 
 *^  SAME  high  Titles-^  invejled  with  the 
 "•'  SAME  high  Powers^  Attributes  and  Perfe&i- 
 "  ons^  and  intituled  to  the  SAME  Honour^  l^^or- 
 
 (1)  See  an  excellent  Paflage  of  Bifhop  Pearfon,  cited  4^^^'.f, 
 p  31,  and  207. 
 
 (z)  See /i^orr,/).  28c,  186,528, 
 
 E  e  J  ''fly7^ 
 
412  of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ^'  pjip  and  Adoration.^'*     To  This  I  have  before 
 anfwered  :  Is  it  l^o  High  Title ^    to  be  The  Fa- 
 ther or  Fir/i  Caufe  of  All  thin2;s  ?    Is  it   no 
 Power  nor  FerfeSion^  to  be  the  Alone  Fountain 
 of  all  Power  and  Perfeclion  ^    himfelf  wwr'igi- 
 7iate^  underivedj  and  independent  on   A?iy  .<?    Is 
 there  no  difference  between  being  worfliippcd 
 Mediately  to  the  Glory  of  Another ^  and  having 
 Jll  Worjhip    terminate    ultimately  in   Himfelf 
 Alone  ? 
 •p.  $31.       *'  The  Scripture  (you  fay)  confcaynly  ajferts^ 
 "  that  God  is  One.''''   True  :    And   that   This 
 One  God  is  the   Father  of  All^    who  is  abovs 
 All. 
 ihid.         Your  Arguments  about  Two  Jehovah's^  and 
 Two  Creators^  and   Two  WorJJjips^   have  been 
 diftinclly  ?in[wtvtA  above  \  pag.  180,  and  184, 
 and  517,  and  554,  c^c. 
 ih'id.         You  add  :  "  In  a  word,   the  Father   is  God^ 
 *'  and  the  Son  is  God^  and  yet  7ve  are  no  where 
 ''  taught  to  call  them  Two  Gods  :    The  obvious 
 "  Conclufwn  from  the  Premijfes^  ;>,  that  they  are 
 "  Both  One  God :''  That  is,  (as  you  elfewhere 
 Sermons,  explain  yourfelf,)    "  God  in  a  large  indefiyiite 
 t'  M4-    tc  fjjfe^  jufi  as  the  word  Man  often  denotes 
 ''  Man  in  general^  or   Man  indefinitely"     The 
 Apoftle  St.  P/7m/ thought  it  more  reafonable  to 
 draw  another  Inference  :  viz,  that   the  Father 
 was  The  One  God,  0  F  7vhom  are   all  things  ^ 
 and  that  the  Son  [ox  God  the  Word^    was  The 
 One   Lord^    BT  whom  are  all  things.     Why 
 they  are  never  called  Two  Gods,   fee  above^ 
 in  pag*  197.       Alfo  Dr.   darkens  Scripture- 
 
 Doftrine 
 
"  ^: 
 
 (( 
 
 Qu.  XXII.    of  the  Vnity  of  God.  4^3 
 
 Doftrine,  2d  Edit.  Part  11,  §.  39,  pag.  goo, 
 318. 
 
 ^'  The  Prophet  Ifaiah  fyou  fay,)  as  inter-  p^  33^- 
 *'  preted  by  St,  John,  ;^/.'?,^^x  them  Both  to  h 
 «  One  Holy,  Holy^  Holy  Lord  of  Hofls  ■  Ifaiah 
 '^  ch.  6.  Job.  1 2,  41."  There  is  no  fuch  thing 
 in  the  Texts.  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Scripture-Do- 
 ftrine,  Part  I.  N^  597. 
 
 You  go  on  :    "  ihofe  who  lived  near  eft  the  ^-  333* 
 ipoftolical  Age^  and  be  ft  knew  the  Mind  of 
 
 the  Scriptures^  They  alfo  taught  the  Same 
 "  DoBrine  ivhich  IV  E  teach.  There  was  fome 
 "  Jppearajice  of  Tritheifm  in  it  Then^  as  there 
 "•'  is  Now'''  I  anfvver  :  Though  This  be  not 
 the  Point  in  qucftion,  what  the  opinions  of 
 uninfpired  men  have  been  ^  yet  I  think  I  have 
 fufficiently  (hown,  that  the  Anlient  Writers 
 were  None  of  the  in  (as  indeed  neither  is  Bi- 
 fhop  Btdl  himfelf,  whom  you  {o  frequently 
 refer  toj  at  all  of  Tour  opinion  in  the  point 
 of  Equal  Supremacy  of  Dominion  ,  which  is 
 indeed  the  only  ?naterial  point  in  queftion,  the 
 ff?igle  Theological  queftion,  all  other  points  be- 
 ing merely  MetapbyficaL 
 
 The  unreafonablenefs  of  your  citing  Origen  ^-  334- 
 put  of  the  fpurious  reprefentations  of  Latin 
 Writers,  I  have  fliown  ^^^^^^^^  p.  p8. 
 
 What  you  call  "  the  Unity   of  Princip'nim^'^     '  33^', 
 the  "  Unity  of  Principle,'"    which    "  clears  the 
 ''  Churches  DoBrine  from   the  charge  of  Tri- 
 ''  theijhi  •"  the  Unity  of  Original,  the  '' Or/- f^^^^fjj* 
 *'  gination  in    the   Divine    Paternity^''    which;>.4o.  £^it 
 "  has  Antiently  been  looked  upon  as  the  Jffer-  4- 
 E  e  4  "  tion 
 
4^4  ^f  ^^^^  ^^^iy  of  Cod. 
 
 '^  tioji  of  the  Unity  ;***  All  This  does  not  mike; 
 Two  Perfons  (how  much  foever   they  be  fup- 
 pofed  to  be  of  the  fame  Nature^  as  the  6^z/wand 
 a  Sim-beam^  or  the  Sun  and  a  Fire^  are  of  the 
 fzffie  Nature:  It  does   not  mrike  Them^  I  fay,) 
 to  be   The  One  Supreme  God :    But  it  (hows 
 how,    (confifiently    with    the  Acknowledge- 
 ment of    the   Son's  Divinity,)    the    Father^ 
 the   Principle  arid    Original  and    Firfl   Caufe 
 of   all  things,  is   fliled   God  abfolutely^   ''  the 
 Pcarfon,  **  Ojie   God^    the    true  God^    the    Only   True 
 ubi  fupra.t*  GoJ^    the    God  and    Father    of   our  Lord 
 "  J^f^^^  Q^r//?.     Which  as  it  is  moji  True^  and 
 ^^  fo  fit   to  be  believed  ^    is  alfo  a  moft  hE- 
 «  CESS  ART  Truthy  and  therefore  to  he  ac-- 
 *'  knowledged^  for  the   avo'idiiig  fnukiplication 
 ''  and  plurality  of  Gods.       For  if  there   were 
 *'  more  than  One  which  were  from    Is  one ^     it 
 '^  could  not  be  denied  but  there  were  more  Gods 
 "  than  One'^ 
 P.  3.36.       Your  faying,  that  ''  God  is  7wt  ^tovoTrgW-r©-, 
 '-   ^  ftngle  Hypoflafis '^"^    is    directly  deceiving 
 your  Reader,  as  if '^rgoo-^Trov  and  hypoflafs  were 
 the  fame  ,  when  you  cannot  but  know,  that 
 in  all  the  Antient  Writers^  they  are  oppofed  to 
 each  other.     ThQ  Sabel/ia?7S  held  (r^U  ^e^oa-a}- 
 ■yoij  three  Perfonal  Denofninations^  \n  (one  vrro^ 
 T<^(Tig)  ont  fingle   QX  lingular  Sub  fiance.      And 
 therefore  Eufebius  charges  Marcelhis   with  Sa- 
 heUianif7n^  becaufe  (i)  he  held  ^'  One  Hypojiafts 
 
 ^*  with  Three  Perfonal  Denominations J"^ 
 
 .  ■  •  \  •   <  ' 
 
 -.cd'^r  Thcol  lib.  3.  c,  6. 
 
 .    .  Yqu 
 
Qu.XXlI.    OftheVmtyofCod.  425 
 
 You  proceed  to  tell  me,  that  Our  Doflrine  p,  337. 
 is  Polytheifm,  "  in  the  fame  fetjfe  that  the  Pa- 
 "  gans  are  called  Foljtheijls ;"    That  it  has 
 been  "  condemned  as  Polytheifm  ^W  Paganifm^*  339- 
 *^  over  and  over  .•'*  That  I   ''  do  not  admit  Tvpop-  341^ 
 *'  Supreme  Gods^  is  very  trite  -^  no  more  did  the 
 *^  Pagan  Polytheifls.''     Now,  not  to  retort  this 
 upon  you  at  prefent,  that  Tou  Do  admit  Two 
 Supre7ne  Gods  ,  Confider,  1  befeech  you,   whi^ 
 ther  This  Argument  oi yours  tends.     To  fay 
 Any  one  Can  he  God  at  all^  unlefs  He  be  TheP-^^^o-c 
 One  Supreme  God^  is    (you  think)    Paga?iifm. 
 Any  ''  diftinHion  of  Worjhip^  Mediate  and  UU  p^  M7, 
 *?  timate"  is  Paganifm   and  Idolatry.     Now,     ^^^" 
 pray  obferve.     The  Pagans^  St  Paul  tells  us, 
 had   GoJs   Many^     and    Lords  Many  -^    Many  i  c^r.  8,5. 
 fictitious  Superiow\  and   Many  fiditious  Infe- 
 riour  Deities,     On  the  contrary,    to  Us  Chri- 
 ftians  (fays  hej  there  is  but  One  God,  the  Fa- 
 ther^  of  whom  are  all  things-,    One  God  andEph.4,,6. 
 :    Father  cf  all,    who  is  above  all :    And  to  Us 
 j   there  is  One  Lord  Jefus  Omjl,  [God  the  M^ord,  ^  Cor.  8, 6. 
 j   in  St.  "Johns  language,]  by  whom  are  all  things, 
 '   One  God,    and  One  Me  di  at  our.     And    to  T\\i?>iTim.i,^, 
 Mediatour  every  Kjiee    mud  bow,    M  E  D  I-f^//.i.i:. 
 ATELY  to  the  Glory  of  God  the  Father. 
 I  Therefore  (^according  to  Tou)  St.  Paul  was  a 
 Pagan  ^nd  ^n  Idolater,     If  you  reply,  that  the 
 One  God   and  Father  of   all,    and  the  One 
 Lord  Jefus  Chrifl,    are  Confubjlanttal.     This 
 Alone  is  not  fuflicient  ^    For,  fo  faid  the  Pa- 
 gans  of  Their  Many  Deities.      If  you   reply, 
 |hat  theO//^  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi  is  That  OneGod] 
 '^  the 
 
41 6  Of  the  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 th^  Father^  of  whom  are  all  things  ,  is  not 
 This  both  rnanifeftly  abfurd  in  itfelf,  and 
 alfo  direct  SabeUianifm  ^  What  iAnfwer  the 
 Antient  Chriftians  gave  to  this  Objedion,  I 
 have  fliov/n  above^  p.  584  •,  out  of  Ortgen^  in 
 thePaffage  marked  (1).  The  God  of  the  Chri- 
 ftians, is  the  True  God  ^  and  the  Mediatour 
 of  the  Chriftians,  is  the  True  Mediatour,  ap- 
 pointed of  God  :  The  Gods  and  Lords  of  the 
 Pagans^  were  Both  of  them  Fi&itious. 
 
 ?.  337.  You  add  :  "  One  divine  Perfon  is,'*  (accord- 
 ing to  C^r,)  ''  equivalent  to  One  God^  and  Two 
 "  toTrvo.'^  I  anfwer:,  No.  Not  OneTHvine^ 
 but  One  Supreme  Perfon,  is  (in  the  abfolute 
 Senfe)  The  One  God,  Another  Divine  Perfon 
 not  Supreme^  does  not  conftitute  Trpo  Gods: 
 As  I  have  already  fhown,  p.  i  97. 
 
 p.  337.  But  you  infift  upon  it,  that  our  ''  avowed 
 *'  DoElrine   is^  One  Supreme^  and  Two  Liferi- 
 
 P-  341.  *'  ourGods.^^  Again;  ^^Two  Gods^  a  Greater 
 '*  and  a  Lefs,  a  Supreme  and    an   Inferiour.^* 
 
 p.  341.  For  ''  ^f^^  under/land  the  word^  God,  in  the 
 ^^  Jiri^  fenfe^  'tis  ridiculous  to  charge '' [\v\\?it 
 you  unrighteoufly  call^  *'  ths  Arian  Scheme 
 *'  with  Vlurality  of  Gods.''  The  Senfe  of  this 
 Argument,  in  Other  words,  is  plainly  This. 
 To  acknowledge  One  God^  the  Father,  of  whom 
 are  all  thi?igs;  and  at  the  fame  time  One  Lord^ 
 Jefiis  Chrjjl^  by  whom  are  all  thif{?s :  To  ac- 
 knowlcd!>e  One  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is 
 Above  all '^  and,  at  the  fame  time,  that  the 
 Son  can  be  God  at  all  :  is  avowing  ''  Two 
 *'  Gods ^  a  Supreme  and  an  hferiour.*'  Your  Ar- 
 gument 
 
Qu.XXII.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  427 
 
 gument  therefore  is  diredtly  levelled,  not 
 againft  Me^  but  agiinft  the  Apoflle  himfelf. 
 Unlefs  you  will  take  upon  you  to  fay,  that 
 the  x^poftle  intended  to  affirm,  that  the  One 
 God^  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all  things^  (as 
 dijiinguifl^ed  from  the  One  Lordy  Jefus  Chrift^ 
 hj  whom  are  all  things^)  is  both  father  md 
 Son  •,  And  that  The  One  God  and  Father  of 
 all^  who  is  Above  ally  (as  d/jihiguijhed  exprefs- 
 ly  in  the  very  fame  Sentence  from  the  One 
 Lord  and  One  Spirit  J  is  Himfelf  both  Father 
 and  Son  and  Spirit, 
 
 You  go  on  :    *^  Certainly  the  AJferting  Three  P-  337- 
 <'  Gods   (whether  Co-ordinate    or    otherwife^) 
 '^  is  Tritheifffi ,  agai?jjl  the  fir Jl  Commandment^ 
 <'  againft  the  whole  Tenour   of  Scripture^    and 
 "  the  Principles  of  the  Primitive   Church.^^     I 
 yeply  :    Certainly    the    Afferting    Three  Godsy 
 Three  equally  Supreme   Governours  of  the 
 Univerfe,    (^whether  divided   or  undivided   in 
 Metaphyfical  Subjlancey)  is  Tritbeifm  ;  againft 
 the    fir  ft    Commandmefit^     againft    the   whole 
 Tenour  of   Scripture^    and  the    Principles    of 
 the  Primitive  Church :     "  It  is,    to  Me^    an    ihid, 
 *'  In(iance  of  the  ill  effeSs  of   vain   Philofo^ 
 "  phyy    and   (hows   hovV  the  D/fputer  of  This 
 "  l4^orld  may   get    the  better  of    the    Chri- 
 "  Jiian:' 
 
 Your  citing  out  of  '*  Poft-Nicefie  Fathers  "  p.  33^. 
 the  "  Senfe  of  Ante  Nicene'*  Writers,  whofe 
 Own  Works  are  loft  ,   has  been  taken  notice 
 of  above,  p,  ^9?  J^i  280^330. 
 
 You 
 
4iS  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 p.  33S.  You  cite  a  PafTige  of  Athayiafius^  that  (i) 
 "  He  who  hitroduces  a  God  underived,  and 
 "  Another  who  is  God  derived,  makes  Two 
 *'  Gods.''  Which  is  not  very  coniiftent  with 
 his  (2)  own  foregoing  Words,  that  "  I^e  indeed 
 **'  who  introduces  Two  Original  Principles, 
 ^*  preaches  Tzvo  Gods,'"  For,  that  in  I'his 
 urwriginate  Principality  over  all,  confifts  the 
 Unity  ofGod'^  was  the  exprefs  Dodrine  of 
 All  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers.  "  God  Alone 
 *'  (fays  (3)  Jujiin)  is  Unbegotten  and  (4) 
 ''  Immortal^  and  for  That  Reafon  He  is  God.'^" 
 And  Novatian :  ^' If^  fays  (5)  he,  he  had 
 *'  introduced  Two  Unorigi nates,  then  indeed 
 '^  he  had  made  Two  Gods.''  And  even  in 
 later  times,  Hilary  :  "  We  acknowledge^  fays 
 "  (6)  he,  not  Two  Gods^  but  One ,  Becaufe 
 *'  V/j  M/?^w  account  of  his  being  Unorigin  see, 
 *'  r/:7/^r  te  /J"  The  One  G(?^.     /i^  /j  the   One 
 
 atwTB?    Asv«  5"£y<;. 
 
 ^j)  'O  |M»Jv    'A^y^cte^  HTxyuv  <^6oy    o\vo  tcYipuTrii    9-£»5. 
 
 (•^^   Mov(^  ecymy)T^,   t^  <e^3-ctpT(^  o  3-fo?,  x^   .^i^    T^ro  B-iU  sV*- 
 
 D/4/.  c«w  Tryph. 
 
 (4)  I  Tim.  6,  16.  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Scripture-Do^r.  Edit. 
 2d.  Z'^^.  60,  290,  318. 
 
 (^^  .r^- — Duos  faceret  Innatos  ;  &  ideo   duos  faceret 
 
 Veos.  c.  31. 
 
 (6)  Confitemur  non  Deos  duos,  fed  Deum  Unum  ; ■ 
 
 quia  Aui\ohl2\.e  ifinufctbilitatis  Deus  unuseft:  De  Synod.   Ob 
 
 id  Unus  Deus,  quia  ex  Se  Deus.     Filius    Deus, non 
 
 innafcib'tlisy  ut  I'atrl  adimat  quod  Dem  Unus  fir.  De  Tr'm, 
 I-  4- 
 
 ['  God, 
 
Qu.  XXIT.    Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  4 19 
 
 ^'  God^  becaufe  he  is  of  Himfelf  God.  The 
 «<  So7i  is  God  5  hit  not  unoriginate  ;  leaft  he 
 *'  fnould  take  away  from  the  Father  his  QPre- 
 *'  rogative  of]  being  The  One  God  J'  And  the 
 Learned  Biiliop  Pear/on :  "  If  there  wsre 
 *'  viore  than  One  which  were  from  None, 
 *^  it  could  not  be  denied  but  there  were  more 
 ''  Gods  than  One  ^  Wherefore  This  Origina- 
 *'  tion  in  the  Divijie  Paternity^  has  anciently 
 *'  been  looked  upon  as  the  Affertion  of  the 
 ''  Unity,'*  Expofit.  on  the  Creed,  p.  40. 
 Edit.  4th. 
 
 The  true  Notions  of  **  Iren^us,  Athenago^  P-  340. 
 ^'  ras^  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria^  Ori- 
 '^  gen^  Hippolytus^  LaBantius^  and  even  Eu- 
 *'  febius  himfelf  whom  you  here  refer  to  ^ 
 I  have  already  fet  before  the  Reader  at 
 large. 
 
 1  never  faid  that  ^^  Supremacy  only,    fnakes    i^id, 
 *'  a  Perfon  God ;"  but    that   'tis  "  Supremacy 
 *'  ony^    which    makes    a    Perfon    to  be  The 
 *'  07ie  God'^"*   even  That  One  God  and  Father 
 of  all^  who  is  Above  alL 
 
 du  Eav 
 
45  ^  Of  the  Vmtj  of  Cod. 
 
 dUEPvY     XXIIL 
 
 Whether  (7.)  the  DoHoy'^s  Notion  of  the 
 Trinity^  be  more  clear  and  intelligible  than 
 the   other. 
 
 The  Diffiadty  (1.)  /;/  the  Conception  of  the 
 Trinity^  is^  how  Three  Terfons  can  be  One 
 God, 
 
 Does  the  Docfor  deny  that  every  One  of  the 
 Perfons^  Jingly^  is  God  ?  No,  Does  he  deny 
 that  God  is  One  ?  No,  How  then  (i)  are 
 Three  One, 
 
 'Does  one  and  the  (2^  fame  o/inthority^exercifed 
 by  ally  make  them  one^  numerically  or  indi^ 
 vidually  07ie  and  the  fame  God  1  That  is  hard 
 to  conceive  \  how  three  diftinB  Beings^  ac^ 
 cording  to  the  Docior^s  Scheme^  can  be  in- 
 dividually one  Gody  that  is^  three  Perjons 
 one  Perfoiu 
 
 If  therefore  one  God  nec'e(jarily  ftgnifies  but  (j) 
 one  Perfon^  the  Confeque?ice  is  irrtfijtible  j 
 either  that  the  father  is  that  07ie  Perfon^ 
 and  7ione  elfe^  which  is  downright  Sabclli- 
 anifm  ;  or  that  the  three  Terlhis  are  three 
 Gods. 
 
 Thus  (4.)  the  DoRoy'^s  Scheme  is  liable  to  the 
 fame  Difficulties  with  the  other. 
 
 There  is  indeed  (5.)  o?ie  eafy  way  of  coming 
 off\  and  that  is^  by  faying  that  tht  Son  and 
 Holy  Spirit  are  neither  of  them  God^  in  the 
 Scyipture'Se7ife  of  the  VVord.  But  this  is 
 cutting  the  Kjiot^  infiead  of  untying  it  j  and 
 
 is 
 
Qu.  XXII.    OftheVnityofCod.  43 
 
 is  in  effe^  ^^  fay^  they  are  not  jet  forth  as 
 divine  Persons  in  Scripture ^ 
 Does  the  Communication  of  divine  Powers  a?id 
 e.ittrthutes  from  leather    to  Son  and  Holy- 
 Spirit^  make  them  one  God ,  the  Divinity  of 
 the  two  latter  he i7ig  the  Father'*s  Divinity  f 
 Tet  the  fame   difficulty  recurs.     For  either 
 the  Son  and  Holy-Ghofi   have  (6.)  diftinti 
 e.4ttrilutes^  and  a  diJiinB  Divinity  of  their 
 cwn^  or  they  have  ?iot  :  If  they  have^  they 
 are  (upon  the  Dottor'*s  Principles)  diftina: 
 Gods  from  the  Father^  and  as  much  as  Finite 
 from  Infinite^  Creature  from  Creator  ,    and 
 then  how  are  They  one  ?  If  they  have  not ; 
 then^  Jince  they  have  7io  other  Divinity^  hut 
 that   individual  Divinity  and  thofe  oAttri- 
 lutes  which  are  infeparahle  from  the   ia- 
 therms  Efjence^  they  can  have  no  diflinEt  Ef- 
 fence  from  the  Father"^ s  ^  and  fo  (according 
 to  the  Doctor)    will  he  one  and  the  fame 
 Perfon^  that  is^  will  he  Names  only. 
 (^.  Whether  this  be  not  as  (7.)  tinintelligihle 
 as  the  Orthodox  Notion  of  the  Trinity^  and 
 liahle  to  the  like  Difficulties :  A  Communi- 
 cation of  Divine  "Powers  and  oAttrihutes^ 
 without  the  Suh(ta7ice^  heing  as  hard  to  con- 
 ceive^ nay^  much  harder  than  a  Communicati^ 
 on  of  'both  together  f 
 
 Anfw.  (i.)  "  ^^^HE  Difficulty  in  the  Con-  p.  343, 
 
 JL  "  ception  of  the  Trinity^ 
 '*  is  ^"  not,  "  how  three  Perfons  can  he  One 
 F'  God:"*'    For  the  Scripture  no  where  ex- 
 
 prefTes 
 
432.  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 preffes  the  Doflrinc  in  thofe  Words  *,  And  the; 
 Difficulty  of  underllanding  a  Scrij^ture-Do- 
 tirhie^  ought  not  furely  to  h'e  wholly  upon 
 words  not  found  in  Scripture,  ('Tis  very, 
 llrange,  that  a  Man  of  jour  Abih'ties,  fhould 
 write  a  large  Book,  without  fo  much  as  know- 
 ing, or  ever  once  being  able  to  exprefs,  what 
 the^  True  Quefiion  is,  which  he  undertook  to 
 write  upon.)  But  the  07ily  Difficulty  in  the 
 Scriptuve-Declarations  concerning  the  Trini- 
 ty, if  it  be  indeed  a  Difficulty^  is ,  how  and 
 in  v/hat  fenfe,  con/ifie^itly  v/ith  every  tki?ig 
 that  is  nffirmed  in  Scripture  concerning  the 
 Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  it  is  ftill 
 certainly  and  infallibly  true,  what  St.  Paul 
 exprefsly  affirms,  that  To  US  there  is  hut 
 One  God^  the  Father^  ofz(ohom  are  all  things  , 
 and  one  Lord,  Jtfus  Chrift,  hy  whom  are  all 
 things. 
 
 (2.)  ^'  One  and  the  fame  Authority  exercifed 
 *'  by  all^'^  does  not  "  make  them  numerically 
 "  or  individually  One  and  the  Same  God.^^ 
 But  the  One  Authority  which  makes  the  Go-,j 
 vernment  of  the  Univerfe  to  be  a  Monarchy}^ 
 being  in  chc  Father  Original^  in  the  Son  De^ 
 rivatwe-j  neceffarily  fuppofes /i/>;/,  in  whom 
 that  Supreme  Power  and  Dominion  is  ahfo- 
 lutely  Of  and  From  Him/elf  original,  underi- 
 ved^  and  independe?it  on  Any  j  it  necellarily 
 (I  fayj  fuppofes  Him  to  be,  by  way  of  Emi- 
 nence, what  St.  Paul  exprefsly  ftiles  him, 
 The  O/ie  Gud^  even  the  Fatuer  (or  Firll;  Caufe,]; 
 cf  wijom  are  all  things. 
 
 (lO  The! 
 
Qii.  XXriI.  Of  the  V'mty  of  Cod.  435 
 
 (j.)  The  word,  God^  being  expreffive,  not 
 of  bare  Suhftance  or  Beings  but  of  a  Living 
 Agent  \  does  therefore  necej]aril)\  in  the  A^^- 
 ture  of  Language^  and  in  iv/ff  through  the 
 whole  Scripture^  always  ""^  fignify.  one  l^erfonP  P*  343-' 
 Yet  neither  does  it  "  irrefijtibly  ^'  nor  at  all 
 follow,  '^  that  the  Father^  and  ?ione  elfe^  is 
 *'  the  One  Per/on  "  always  fignified  by  That 
 word  ;  (becaufe  in  fome  few  Places,  the 
 fame  word  fignifies  alfo  the  One  perfon  of 
 the  Son.)  Nor  yet  does  it  follow,  that  ''  the 
 "  Three  Terfo^is  are  Three  Gods  ;"  Becaufe 
 there  is  No  Text  of  Scripture,  wherein  the 
 word,  God^  denotes  the  Perfon  of  the  Holy 
 Gho/l.  Nor  does  the  S'-mh  being  ftiled  by 
 St.  John  and  St.  Taulj  the  God  fand  the 
 Lord)  ^B  T  whom  are  all  things  *,  in  any  wife 
 exclude  the  Father  from  being  ftill  alone  the 
 One  God^  (or  Firfi  Cauj\\)  OF  whom  are  all 
 things.  But  according  to  Tour  Scheme,  the 
 T&ree  Persons  are  really  and  necetTarily  Three 
 
 Gods.     For  three  ^  ''  Real   Perfons^^'' V.  350. 
 
 *'  each  of  them  an  individual  intelligent  A- 
 ''  ^^^^/,''  and  each  of  them  equally  Supreme 
 over  All  5  are  certainly  Three  Gods.  Nor 
 will  three  "  individual  intelligent  oAgents^"^ 
 by  ^'  fubftfling  in  one  undivided  Suhftance^'*  be 
 "  0,411  together^*  in  Any  refpeO:,  "  one  undi- 
 ^'  vided  intelligent  Agent ^"^  ('as  you  moft  ab- 
 furdly  affirm  that  they  will ;)  but  only  One 
 undivided  Sulflance, 
 
 (4.)  Dr.  Clarkt\  Scheme  therefore,  being 
 eafily  exprefs'd  in  the  very  words  ofScripturey 
 and  containing  in  it  no  Contradiciion  to  Rea- 
 
 Ff  fon, 
 
4  J  4  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 K  343.  fo^^  IS  not    "  liable  to   the  fame    DlJficuUiei 
 "  with'"'*  yours.     Fov you  never  fo  much  as 
 once   Attempt   to  exprefs  Tom 6   in  Scnptr^re- 
 words'^  (as  a  Scri[ture-DociYint^  it  were  rea- 
 fonable  to  expeG,    might  lojjibly   have  been 
 exprefs'd;)  And  in  jour  Own  Words ^  'tis  aC<9/;- 
 tradittton  in  the  very  Terms,    if  ''  ^/?r^^  in* 
 *'  dividual  intelligent  Agents'^''  being     "  O^d* 
 *'  undivided  intelligent  Agent*'*  be  a  Contra- 
 didion^ 
 ^'  344.       (5.)  In  Doftor  Clarke'^s  Scheme,  it  *'/V  /;/. 
 *'  /:/^e'^  ^;i?  ^^^/y  W^^^  of  coming  ojf "    from  all 
 Difficulties,  to  fay,  not    ''  that  the  Son  is  7tot 
 *'  GodintheScri^ture'Senfeoftheword'^'*  but 
 that,  though  he  is  God  in  the  Scripture-Senfe 
 *companoi  the  word  God  (or  ^  Lor/^/j  BTwhom  are  all 
 J oJ^^'^'U^' things^  ygj.  [^g  /J- ;/(9/- God  in   the   Scripture- 
 T.  c!  '''^'Senfe  of  the  word,  0//^  G^^,  the  (Firft  Caufe, 
 or)  Father^  0  F  whom  are  all  thi?jgs.      This 
 is  '^  untying  the  Kjiot^^'  (if  it  be  at  all  a  Knot,) 
 and  not ''  cutti?ig  it^"*     'Tis  faying,  both  *^  in 
 *'  effeH"*"  and   in  exprefs  words  too,  neither 
 more  nor  lefs  than  what  the  Scripture  has 
 faid,      *Tis    ''^  fetting  forth  the  Divine   Per- 
 fons^"*  julT:  as  the  Scripture  itfelf  has  fet  them 
 forth. 
 
 (6.)  From  what  has  been  faid  in  the  fore- 
 going Paragraph,  'tis  very  plain  how  it  m:iy 
 be  affirmed,  that  ''  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi 
 "  have  difli7itt  Attributes,  and  a  diflinti  Divi- 
 '^  7iity  of  their  own^'  and  yet  the  Father  is  (till 
 Alone  The  One  God{pv  Firlt  Caufe,)  OF  whom 
 are  all  things.  But  the  Dilemma  Iiere  put 
 by )ou^  irrefiftibly  deliroys  your  Own  Scheme. 
 
 ''  Either 
 
Q^Li.XXIIL  OftheVnityofCod.  435: 
 
 "  Either  the  Son  mid  Holy  Ghojl  have  diftinH  f,  344, 
 ^'  oAttributes^  and  a  difiwct  'Divinity  of  their 
 *'  own^  or  they  have  not.  If  they  have^  they 
 ''  are  "  [notwithftanding  any  Unity  of  Sub- 
 ftance]  "  dijlinti  Gods  from  the  Father  ,  as 
 '^  nmco  [0  (upon  your  'Principles J  as  "  One 
 Infinite  Intelligent  oAgent  from  Another  Infi- 
 nite InttUigent  Jgent,  as  One  Creator  from 
 Another  Creator^  as  One  Supreme  Lord  over 
 .all  from  Another  Supreme  Lord  over  all  , 
 ^'  And  then  bow  are  they  One^"^  [One  '^undi-''  p^  350. 
 V/V^^  Intelligent  Jgent  f]  *'  If  they  have  not^ 
 "  ^/?^;/,  y/z/ct*  they  have  7io  other  Divinity ^  hut 
 *'  That  individual  Divinity  and  thofe  o/lttri-  -P.  344-' 
 *'  ^r/^^j  which  are  infeparahle^'^  not  only 
 ^'  //*<5^;;  the  Ejjence^'^  but  from  the  Terfon  "-'of 
 *'  ^^d*  Father  ^  ^^^y  c^;^  have^"*  not  only  "  ;/^ 
 *^  dift'mB  Ejjence^'^  but  no  diftind  Perfonali- 
 ty  ""^  from  the  Fathers^'*  j^they  cannot  "  he 
 "  £^cZ)  of  them  an  individual  intelligent  0,4- 
 ''  genty^  as  ''''you  affirm  them  to  be  ,]  '^  and  *p.  3^0. 
 *'  //9  will  be  one  and  the  fame  Perfon^  that  is^ 
 ''  will  be  Names  only?"*     But  now 
 
 (^7)  Dr.  Clarke^  Notion,  when  rightly  and  p.  343, 
 fairly  reprefented,  has  in  it  (l  think)  not  only  344* 
 nothing  ''  unintelligible^'^  but  (as  I  before  ob- 
 ferved;  nothing  "  liable  to''  any  real  ^'D//- 
 *"•  ficultiesT  For,  w/?^f  Difficulty  is  there 
 in  apprehending  "  a  Communication  of*"*  all 
 Thofe  '•'•'Divine  Powers  and  (Attributes^'' 
 which  the  Scripture  declares  to  be  communi- 
 cated'^ without  prefuming  to  make  Any  de- 
 termination concerning  fucli  metaphyfical  No- 
 tions  of  Suljlance^  as  the  Scripture  never 
 F  f  2  men- 
 
43<5  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 mentions  at  all  ;    and    in    Reafoning   about 
 which,  there  always    has  been    and   cannot 
 but  be,  among  fpeculative  Men,  great  Vaiie- 
 ty   of  Opinions  ?    So  that  'tis  very  wonder- 
 ful, you  fhould  co?tfia?itly  fo  mifreprefent  the 
 whole  Queftion,  as  to  lay  the  main  Strefs  of 
 the  Argument  perpetually,  where  the  Scrip- 
 ture has  laid  no  Strefs  at  all-,  and  upon  Points 
 which     ( whatever   way   they   be  determi-, 
 ned)  do  in  no  wife  affe£t  the  Truth  ol"  Any 
 of   Dr.  Clarke^  Propofitions.      For   tho'  the 
 Doftor  does  indeed    fuppofe   it    to  be  Sa* 
 lellian^  and  alfo  imfojjible  in  itfelf,    that  the 
 Son  and  Holy  Sj^irit  (liould   be  (mdividually 
 with  the   Father)    the  Self-txifte7it  Tiewg  ^ 
 yet  if  it  Could  he  proved    that  Perfons  7iot 
 Self-exifient^  could    be  generated  or  'proceed 
 (not  only  EK  [from]  t>i$  salct^  rS  ^olt^g^^  as  the 
 Council  of  Nue  determined,)  but  even  /;/  the 
 Selfexiflent  Snhftunce  itfelf^   by  the  incom- 
 prehenfible  Power  and  Will  of  Him  who  is^ 
 The  Alone  Self-exifle^it  Perfon^^iW  the  DoctorV 
 Propofitions  would  remain  All  of  them  Trire 
 and  Untouched. 
 
 p.  34^.  In  your  Defenfe  of  this  Qiiery,  you  ask  r 
 Since?  according  to  Me,  ^'  there  are  Three  Di- 
 *'  vine  Perfoi/s^  that  is^  Gods  ;  Hoiz^^  riotwith- 
 ^^  Jta7tdingThis^  is  there  fiill  hut  One  God  ('^  I 
 anfwer  :  Not  Three  Uivi?;e^  but  Three  Su- 
 preme Perfons,  are  Three  Gods.  There  is  (in 
 the  Qyihfolute  Senfe  of  the  word)  but  One  God^ 
 becaufc  but  C?ie  ^uprevw^  Seif-exijtefit^  ttnori- 
 ginaie^  inde^tnde ^t  Autlor  and  Governour  of 
 
 the 
 
Qu.  XXIII.   OftheVmtjotUod.  437 
 
 the  Univerfe ,  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all 
 things  5  the  0?ie  God  and  Father  of  All^  who 
 is  Above  all.  This  is  the  Anfwer  which  the 
 oApofile  Paul  gives,  or  (li  That  will  pleafe 
 you  better,)  which  St.  Hilary  himfelt'  alfo 
 gives,  in  the  Paffages  cited  above ^  p.  428. 
 
 You  add  :  ''I  perceived,  that  T)ominion  and  ^-  34^* 
 ^'  oAuthority^  according  to  Dr.  Clarke,  maize 
 
 *'  God  to  be  God?"* -Therefore,    "  ifDomi- 
 
 "  nion  and  Authority^  fuch  as  makes  any  Per-^ 
 ''  [on  Truly  God,  be  lodged  in  three  Terfo7ts  , 
 "  thofe  Three  Terfons^  upon  the  T)offor'^s 
 *'  Principles^  muft  be  Three  Gods.^'  Not  Do- 
 million  and  Authority^  but  Supreme  underived 
 Dominion  and  Authority^  makes  God  to  be 
 Abfolutely  The  One  God,  Your  Objeftion 
 therefore  here,  is  a  mere  Quibble. 
 
 Nor  does  the  Dodor  infinuate,  that  '^  no  p,  347, 
 '^  one  can  be  God^  that  is  not  the  Supreme  348- 
 ''  Gi?i;''  or,  that  ''  no  one  can  beGod^  but  the 
 ''  Father 'P  But  that  no  one  befides  the  Su- 
 preme, no  one  befides  the  Father,  can  be  the 
 Apoftle's  '^  One  God  and  Father  ofoAll^  who  is 
 ''  Above  All:' 
 
 My  Argument  about  ''  agreement  in  Tefti-  p.  348. 
 "  mony^  might  (you  fay)  have  been  pertinent^ 
 "  haa"^'  you  ''been  arguing  from  i  fob.  5,7." 
 I  here  acknowledge  your  Fairnefsy  m  ne- 
 ver infilling  upon  That  Text,  i  Job.  5,  7  ; 
 nor  upon  i  Tim.  3,  16. 
 
 Ypu    ''  affert  that   it  is  Sabellian^  to  fay  ^'  3^ 
 '^  there  is  but  One  who  is  God^""  [who  is  The 
 One  God ;,]  "  one  Terfon  only^  injtead  of  one 
 '[  Nature:[    Was  St.  Paul  then  a  Sabellian, 
 
 F  3  when 
 
438  of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 when  he  faid,  Ofie   God  and  Father   of  all  ; 
 and,  (hSu<;  5eo$  m§@^)    ^i  ftvj  eT^,)   A^<9»^  oi^fc^r 
 is  God^  hut  One  -^  To  Us  there  is  hut  One  God^ 
 even  the  Father  ?  Or,  is  indeed  The  God  and 
 Father  of  all,    not  a    Per/on^    not  a    Living 
 Agent,  but  a  N ATURE? 
 T  349-     "You  add  :   ^''  No  one  V  erf  on  is  one  God^  ex- 
 *^  ch/Jivdy  of  the  other  two  Perfons,'^'*     Then 
 Joh'^i',  our  Lord,  when  he  faid,    Thee    (O   Father,) 
 T^^r.icT-s.^^^  f^j^ly  ^y^^  God-^  meant  Father  and  <S'^;/  and 
 Holy  GhofL     And    That  One  God^     whom 
 iCor.^,6.Q^l/Paul   ililes  the  lather,  of  whom  are    all 
 things,  f3,s  diftinguiflied  from  the  One  Lord^ 
 Jefus  Chrifi,  hy  whom  are  all  things^)  is  both 
 Father  3.nd  Son,     And  the  One  God  and  Fa- 
 ther of  all,  who  is  above  all,    (as   exprefsly 
 iph.^,6.  diftinguiflied  from  the  One  Lord  and  O^ie  Spi- 
 rit^  isiDOth  Father  and  Son  and6'[7V/Y.     And 
 the  Son's  delivering  up  the  Kjngdom   at  the 
 ictjr.is,  End,  to  God,  even  the  Father  :^    means,    that 
 ^*^'  he  Ihall  deliver  it  to  the  Father  and  Son  and 
 
 Spirit.    Have  Words,  at  This  rate.  Any  Sig- 
 nification ? 
 r.  349'       You  go  on  :  '•''The  word,  God,'''    (nay  and 
 the  word  lather  too,  according  to  your  Senfe 
 of  the  Texts  now  cited  J    *',  is  fometimes  ta- 
 "  Ven  Eflentially,  and  fometimes  Perfonally  \ 
 **  which  makes  the  Differe?:ce.^''     How  abfurd 
 this  is,  I  have  fliown  above,  p.  569,    out  of 
 Bifliop  Pearfon.     It  is  indeed  the  Old  Valen- 
 tinian  Diftinftion,  asfi)  Tertullian  Movms  us. 
 
 (t)  Hiinc  Suhfia72tUliter  quldem  ^i^m  'Axhw  appellant,  Prryi- 
 Aalitfr  verb  Tr^ooc^x^yi*  and  r»:v '<tp;^nv,  etiamBythQU.  jidv.  Valent^ 
 wJ/>.  7. 
 
 But 
 
Qii.  XXIII.    of  the  Vmty  of  God.         439 
 
 But  you  infift  upon  it^  that  '^  in  the  fame  p.  349, 
 [petfonal]    "  fe^;fe^  Either  of  the  Other  (er-  35o. 
 
 '*  fons  is Tut  One  God.^ — The  Father  is 
 
 ^'  peculiarly  and  eminently  [tiled  The  One 
 *'  God,  not  to  exclude  the  Other  ferfons  " 
 [from  being  likewife  The  One  God,']  "  but  to 
 **  fignify  bis  priority  of  Order,  as  Father  and  as 
 "  Fountain  of  all''''  That  is  to  fay,  direftly  ; 
 The  Apoftle  did  not  mean  what  he  faid, 
 that  the  One  God  is  the  Father,  of  whom  are 
 /ill  things  'j  but  only,  that  the  One  Father  is 
 the  Father  of  whom  are  all  things. 
 
 What  follows,  is  (I  think)  one  of  the 
 fliamefuUeft  Ahufes  of  words,  that  is  any 
 where  to  be  met  wich.  ''  Each  divi^ie  Per-  F-  sp- 
 "  fi^  (yo^  tell  us)  is  an  individual  intel- 
 "  ligent  Agent  :  But^  as  fubffting  in  one  un- 
 "  divided  Suhflance^  they  are  all  together^  in 
 *•'•  That  RefpeH,  but  One  undivided  intelligent 
 "  Agent  :  And  Thus  my  Friends  ft  and  clear  of 
 "  Tritheifm.^^  That  is :  You  fiand  clear  of 
 Tritheifm,  by  oferily  profejjing  Tritheifm,  For, 
 ("fuppofing  the  Three  i?itelligent  Agents^  to  be 
 all  equally  Supreme,  equally  Supreme  Gover^ 
 nours  of  the  Univerfe  ;J  are  not  Three  un* 
 divided  Gods,  as  much  Three  Gods^  as  if  they 
 were  divided^  Are  Three  Agents  ever  the 
 more  One  Agent,  or  ever  the  lefs  Three  A- 
 geiits,  for  being  fuppofed  to  be  of  One  Sub- 
 fiance,  or  of  O/ze  undivided  Subftance^  or 
 whatever  elje  you  pleafe  ?  By  fubfilling  in- 
 deed in  One  undivided  Subfla?ice,  they  might 
 in  That  Refpeti  be  faid  to  be  One  Subftance^ 
 but  in  NO  RESPECT  One  Agent,  The 
 F  f  4  Charge 
 
4^0  Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod. 
 
 Charge  of  Trhhcifm  therefore  ftands  unan- 
 fwerably  againfl:  you  ,  unlefs  you  will  fay  that 
 The  Living  God  is  not  a  Living  i?itelligent 
 ^g^^^t^  but  mere  metaphj/ical  Sidjia7ice  ab- 
 ftraft  from  the  confideration  of  Life  and 
 Age7ic)\ 
 
 You  have  been  fenfible,  that  the  Contra- 
 diclorinefs  of  afBrming  Three  i7idividv.al  in- 
 telligent Agents  to  be  in  Any  refpefl;  One 
 undivided  intelligent  Agent^  has  been  ftrongly 
 charged  upon  you.  But  inftead  of  acknow- 
 ledging and  amending  fo  palpable  an  Abfur- 
 dity,  you  have  only  indeivoured  to  amv.fe 
 and  deceive  your  Reader  with  eml^ty  words. 
 VrtUtt  toXow  tell  him,  that  ''  Perfon^  and  undivided 
 cermons,p.u  f^f^^jj^g^^^f;  Jge?it^  are  7iot  reciprocal ;"  That 
 *^  Undivided  or  Individual  lntellige?it  Ai^ent^ 
 *^  like  the  fhrafe  Individual  Beings  may  admit 
 **  of  aftri8er  and  a  larger  Senfe  ;"  And  that, 
 when  the  Objeftor  ^'  is  able  to  fix  a  Certai?i 
 **  Pri^iciple  of  Individuation^  he  may  the?} 
 *'  ^erhaj^s  have  fomething  of  Colour  for  the 
 *'  Charge  of  Contradiction^'  Now  All  This, 
 is  really  very  ill  becoming  a  Serious  Writer. 
 For,  the  "  Principle  of  Individuation "  is  a 
 Certain  and  a  Self  evident  thing  :  As  I  have 
 Ihown  above^  f.  307.  Nor  is  it  poffible  ia 
 the  Nature  of  Things,  that  the  Notion  either 
 of  "  individual  oAgent  *"  or  "  individual  Be^ 
 *'  ing''^  fhould  admit  of  Any  Variation  at  all, 
 or  oAny  Degrees  vchatfoerer  either  ofjirittntjs 
 br  largenefs :  As  is  alfo  evident  from  what  I 
 have  There  laid  down.  Nor  is  it  at  all  to  your 
 Purpofe,  v/hether  ^*  Terjon  and  Undivided  In- 
 '  '  *  *'  ^HelU^e?it 
 
Qii.  XXIIi.  Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod.  441 
 
 *'  teiligent  oAgent^''  be  *'  reciprocal "  or  not 
 reciprocal  The  contradiftorinefs  of  Tow 
 Affertion,  ftill  remains  Always  the  fame. 
 No  Three,  can  in  J/iy  Rtfpett  be  Tliree  of 
 Tbat^  of  which  they  aie  but  One.  Three 
 individual  Suhftancts^  may  be  One  individual 
 Compound  0^  Complex '^  but  they  can  in  NO 
 RESPECT  bo  Three  of  Toat,  of  which 
 they  are  but  One.  Three  individual  Me^y 
 may  be  One  individual  or  undivided  Body  of 
 Men)  but  they  can  in  NO  RESPECT 
 be  One  Man.  Three  individual  intelligent 
 Jgents,  may  be  One  individual  Society^  or  one 
 undivided  Sul fiance^  or  One  any  thing  elfe\ 
 but  they  can  in  NO  RESPECT  ever  be 
 One  intelligent  oAgent.  This  ImpofTibih'ty  of 
 bringing  contradictions  together,  is  the  Very 
 Ground  of  all  TRUTH,  of  all  K^NOW-- 
 L£X)G£,  and  of  all  'BELIEF  too-,  the 
 very  Principles  of  which,  you  are  here  (un- 
 defignedly)  fubverting.  Acknowledge  there- 
 fore, either  that  Three  equally  Supreme  intel- 
 ligent Agents,  are  Three  Gods  ,  or  fay  that 
 Tbe  Living  God  is  not  a  Living  i?itelligent 
 oAgent,  whofe  Supremacy  over  All  is  That 
 which  makes  him  to  be  The  Supreme 
 God. 
 
 But  to  proceed.    You  declare,  that  by  Per-  p^  ^^^^ 
 fon  you  mean  ''  a  real  Perfon^  an  Hypoftafis  P"^      351. 
 That    ^''the  word  hypoftafis,    is    fometimes      2^^' 
 *^  ufed  to  fignify  Subflance,     and  fometimes 
 "  Perfon  :"  That  "  the  Church  never  profef- 
 "  fed  Three  hypoitafes  in  any  other  Senfe,  hut 
 f  as  they  mean  Three  Perfbns :"    That   *'  Sa-^ 
 
 '^  lellius 
 
44^  Of  the  Vmty  of  Cod. 
 
 "  lelUus  would  not  have  been  cenfuredfor  hold- 
 "  ing  one  hy porta  fis  onl)\  had  be  meant  One 
 "  Subftance:"  That  ''  the  Ch^irch  always 
 ''  froftfjed  One  Subltance :"    That   "  Sahelli- 
 
 *'  us   and  Others^ oite  Perfon,    o?ie  hypo- 
 
 "  ftafis."  How  greatly  you  impofe  upon 
 your  Reader  in  all  This,  will  appear  from  the 
 following  Confiderations. 
 
 ift.  "^Tis  evident  from  All  Antiquity,  that 
 "  Sabe/Jius'^  (direftly  contrary  to  what  you 
 here  alTert,)  was  ^' cenfiired  for  holding  one 
 *'  Hy^oftaCts  only^'  meaning  thereby  *'  One 
 *'  Subftance  f  (^i^ono^indinAwAfingular  Sub- 
 fiance^  with  three  TerfoTial  Denominations. 
 See  above ^  p.  344.  The  very  Paffage  you 
 yourfelf  here  cite  out  of  Origen^  proves  di- 
 redly  the  contrary  to  what  you  cite  it  for. 
 For  in  that  very  Paffage,  he  (2)  exprefsly  ex- 
 plains hypojiajis,  by  [uVo^cei^.evov]  Sutflance. 
 
 2dhy  Whereas  you  declare,  "  the  Church 
 "  always  frofejjed  One  SubftanceP^  You 
 grofsly  deceive  your  Reader  ^  in  arguing,  for 
 the  mof,  part^  as  if  you  meant  that  tlie  Three 
 Perfons  had  all  of  them  One  and  the  fame  m* 
 dividual  identical  Whole  Subftance^    which  is 
 
 (rj  mUv  ijz^oToe.a-iv  rpiiZp^refTrov.  Eufeh.Ecclef.Theol.  lib.  3.  c.6. 
 
 Sabellius Filium- Patri —  rayroao-iov.     Bull.  De- 
 
 fenf.  Fid.  Nic.  Seel.  i.  c.i.  §.g. 
 
 (1)    Al))    ^lU^iffiV   TO)   cC^i^-fJjM    TCV    ViOV    Tit   TTXTfOC,,    UXX'     tV    jj  ^ICV  »cri« 
 
 icXXoe,  ycj  vTcx^tfjijivM  Tj^yjcvo^Tctc,  cc^cpaTiDnc,^  \J;eing  One^  not  in 
 Ifjence  only,  (as  One  Fire  I'ghted  from  Another,)  but  in  fingle 
 exifient  Subjiance  too,^   kxtu  rivaq  tTTivoioic,,   i  kxtx  'v:To<fcc<nv,  Xtyt- 
 
 £&««  ^TX'npx  KM  viov.    Xotir  Tianihtion  of  this  PalTagc,  is  affcd- 
 
 cdly  blind. 
 
 the 
 
au.XXIII.  Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  443 
 
 the  (i)  SchoJa/lick  Notion*,  and  yet /?f  other 
 times  you  tell  us,  that  "  ^1/  that  an)  Catho-  p.  463. 
 '^  lickmeans  hy  individual  Suhftance^^'*  is"  Sul- 
 f'  fiance  undivided  ;'*  that  is,  ^^  the  fame  homo-  ?,  3^1. 
 ^'  gtnQOm  Subfia7ice'^'^  which,  by  **  Infe^arabi' 
 *^  lit)^''  is  "-^unafumma  res^  one  undivided  or  iji- 
 *'  dividual  or  numerical  Sub/lance  P'   That  is  to 
 fay,  that  Gc'^  is,  not  One  infinite  omnifrefent  in- 
 telligeut  Suhfiance^  but  Three  diftinft  Suhflances^ 
 diftindly    intelligent^    but  infeparably  united,  p-  3^^. 
 Is  This  the  Doctrine  that  C/^r//?  came  to  teach?       ^^^* 
 See  helowj  on  Query  XXIX. 
 
 5^/).  In  afferting  that  "  the  word  hypofta-  ^*  35o, 
 ''  fis,  is  fometimes  ufed  to  ftgnify   Subftance,       ^^^* 
 *'  a7id  fometimes  Perfon  :"   (''  a  real  Perfon, 
 ''  an  hypoftafis :"  '•  T^r^^  hypoftafes,  as  they 
 ^^  mean  Toree  Perfons  f   '^  One  Perfon,  O/^e 
 "  hypoftafis  :")    In  This  alfo    (I  fay)    you 
 greatly   deceive   your   Reader  ;,    feeing  you 
 cannot  but  know,  that  the  word,    hyfo/tafs^ 
 in  all   the  Antient   Greek   Writers,    always 
 fignifies  Subftance^  and  never  Perfon  as  diltin- 
 guiflied  from  Subftance. 
 
 The  Cafe  is  plainly  This.  Generally  fpeak- 
 ing,  (indeed  always^  except  when  the  na- 
 ture of  the  thing  fpoken  of  determines  it 
 ptherwife,)  the  term  naU  fignifies  geiieral 
 Subftance^  and  uVoVcto-i^  fingular  or  ide?;tical 
 Sulfla7ice.     Thus  Two  Fires ^  one  lighted  from 
 
 (i)  "  That  Trinity  of  Perfons  numerically  the  fame,  or 
 *'  having  all  One  and  the  fame  SINGULAR  exiftent  ElTence, 
 **  is  a  Dodlrine  which  feemeth  Nor  to  have  been  owned  by 
 *'  Any  pubhck  Authority  in  the  Chrirtian  Church,  fave  that  of 
 **  the  Lateran  Council  only.  That  no  fuch  thing  was  ever  en- 
 *J  tertained  by  the  Nicene  Fathers,  &c.  Cudwcrth  f.  604. 
 
 a  no- 
 
444-  ^f  ^^^  Vnitj  of  God. 
 
 another,  are  "I'f  Tij  na-icf^  or  o/xoso-loi^  but  not 
 gv  TM  vTCo^cto-ii  or  'evr^  JTro/cei/xevo) ,  Whereas  the 
 Light  and  Heat  of  of/e  u?id  the  fame  Vire^ 
 and  all  the  Powers  of  any  orie  and  the  fame 
 hulividtial  Subject^  ai'e  'h  rv\  vTroTa.Tu^  as  well 
 as  gi' Tij)  80-^06.  On  tlie  contrary ,  Sometimes^ 
 though  much  more  (eldom^  the  term  naU 
 fignifies  jingular  identical  Sul  fiance^  and  uVo- 
 T<xo-<^  general  Suh fiance.  Thus  the  Powers 
 of  one  and  the  fame  individual  Suhjeti\,  are 
 r<^vroH(7ioi  or  /xovoacrior,  wliich  is  the  fame  with 
 ev  rvj  vTcor^a-ih  as  oppoftd  to  o/A,oiiG-ioi :  And 
 vTiror^a-i^  rS  ^u^o^,  when  fpoken  of  F^re  in  ge- 
 neral, not  of  a  Fire^  is  the  fame  as  aWx  rS 
 'TTugo?.  The  Latin  word,  Suhjia7itia^  is  of  the 
 fame  import  as  either  saU  or  JTrV^c-i?,  in 
 the  full  extent  of  Both  thefe  SigniHcations. 
 And,  unius  Subftantid^y  fignifies  indifferently 
 either  ofzosa-iov  or  ravrcsaiovy  either  'ev  ryj  iidu. 
 or  gv  TV)  \)7toT^(ju.  Wliich  Ambiguity  in  the 
 Latin  language,  was  the  Caufe  of  the  Latins, 
 in  the  Fourth  Century,  frequently  mifunder- 
 ftanding  the  Greek  Creeds  :  From  whence 
 arofe  Great  Contentions  among  men  not 
 rightly  underftanding  each  other.  But  as 
 the  Latin  word,  Sulflaticia^  in  no  cafe  ever 
 fignifies  Perfon  ;  fo  both  sVx  and  v^tor^ai'^  in 
 Greek,  always  fignify  S//bHance^  and  never 
 Perfon  (in  the  ScholalUck  Senfe)  as  difiin- 
 guiflied  from  Subdancc. 
 
 It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  lay  before 
 the  Reader  fomc  Initances,  how  thefe  words 
 were  ufed  among  the  Antient  Ecclcfiaftical 
 Writers. 
 
 Igna- 
 
Qu.  XXlIt.  Of  the  Vnity  cf  Cod.  44  j 
 
 Ignatius  (or  whoever  was  the  Author  of 
 the  larger  Epiftles  under  His  Name,)  (liles  the 
 IVor^l  or  So?i,  (l)  i^a-Uv  yiwyiry^v,  *'  a  begotten 
 *•  EJfence  or  Subjiaiice?'  The  Council  oi  An- 
 tioch  (2)  ftiles  him  S^eovj^Vcc  xctl  ^itoT^aii^by d 
 ^'  real lub(iantial exiftence?'^  iV^t'^fi^?!  ftiles  him, 
 in  oppofition  to  the  ^abellums^  a  "  Subfiantial 
 '^  (  j)  P^w^r  \ox  Powerful  Agent]  produced  from 
 "  God^  when  he  wiWd''  Jitflzn  Martyr  expreffes 
 the  fame  Notion  by,  (4)  to — ctgiS-^.^  Wegov, 
 
 as  well  as  rh "^T^^o^•      Clemens   Alexaridrinus 
 
 ufes  the  phrafe,  (5)  ro  Tropyinyi^lh  '^  the  fir  (I  - 
 *'  begotten  Eeing'^  in  contradiftindion  to,  ro 
 dr/imro^  "  the  Unbegotten  Be'mg^'"  who  is, 
 0  ^oLvroy^^oLTC:)^  3-60^,  ^'  the  Supreme  God,'*  Ter^ 
 tiillian  afferts  the  Word  to  be  (6^  a  real  Swi'- 
 
 (1)  'Of  y«p  s^-t  PiotAlS?  ivoiP^^a   (poJVYifjjOi,   oiXX'  hif^/iiotc,  ^ii'yjfic,  ^(ncc 
 
 ymviTii.  Ad  Magnef.  §•  8.  A  little  before,  he  filled  him  Ao~ 
 y®-   »    p^T-c?,  «M'  ^o-iM^K'i.     [Here    »V<«  is  the  lame   as  vtto- 
 
 (2)  'Ov  7r^f>'yva)(rsi,  ccAA'  acrias  >^  wrcfscirsj  3-iov,  B-i^  liov.  JidverC, 
 Paul.  Samofdt. 
 
 (3)  Ex  quo,  quando  ipfe  voliiit,  Sermo  filius  natus  efti  qui 
 non  in  fono  percufTi  Aeris,  aut  tono  coacflae  de  vifceribus  vo- 
 cis  accipitur,  fed  in  Subjiantia.  prolatae  a  Deo  Virtutis  agnofci- 
 tur.   c  31.     [^Here  Subftantia,  anfu^ers  to  the  Greek,  u^o<fcc(nc,.~] 
 
 (4)  '  Oti.  to  yirja^ivov  rS  yi)ivaivr<^  oi.^i^f/jM  srsfov  i^i,  Ttotc,  o'^ktS* 
 if/joXoywii£.    Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  375.  Edit.  Jeb. 
 
 (^)  'Etth  ~f  iv  f2  TO  ' AyinYircVj  6  ttccvtok^tu^  B-io<;'  tv  -^  }^  rs 
 TrfoysvvyjB-iVy  01  it  ru  Trzlvra  iyiviro'"*-  •  •'••■==ei^  yuf)  rca  ovrt  i^iv  a 
 B'iO(;,  <5$  o^^x>''^'>   tZv  UTZuvrav  Ittoii'iTiv,  tjjy^v'jeov  tvv  TrpuToycvov  huv,  0  I\t- 
 
 T/)(^  yg^'(p«.    Strom.  6.  p  644. 
 
 .(6)  Ergo,  inquis,  das  aliquam  Suhjiantia?n  efle  Sermonem  ? 
 Plane.— —Sed  &  invilibilia  ilia  quiccunqi  funt,  habenc 
 apud  Deum  &  fuum  Corpu>  &  fuam  formam,  per  quae  foli 
 Deo  vifibilia  funt:  Quanto  magis  quod  ex  ipfius  fubftantia  mif- 
 fumelt,  {mt  fiibfiantiA  non  eiit  ?  Quaecunque  ergo  Subjiantia 
 Sermonis  tuit,  illam  dico  Perfonam.  Adv.  Frax.  <.  7,  [Here 
 Subllantia  and  corpus,  anfivers  to  the  Creek  v;rc»V«c-tj.] 
 
 fiance 
 
44^  Ofihe  Vmty  of  Cod. 
 
 fiance  [Suhfiantiam^  corpus^  uVoV^^i'/,]  which 
 the  Sabdlian  Praxeas  denied  ,  and  explains 
 himfelf  by  making  the  Son  of  the  (i)  Same 
 SubJlaJice  with  the  Father^  in  the  fenfe  of 
 s(tU  [^general  Sub(lance  '^  and  a  D'tflln[i  Sub- 
 (lance ^  in  the  fenfe  of  uVoVcco-i?  [_Species^  S'lngU' 
 lar  exifling  Subjiance;']  as  being  an  undivided 
 Part  of  the  Father's  Subftance,  iDerivatio  to- 
 t'ms  (^  Ponio7\  Which  Montamfi  Doctrine, 
 comes  nearer  to  Tour  particular  Notion,  than 
 the  Dodrine  of  Any  other  of  the  JntiencVln- 
 ters  does :  With  This  Difference  only,  that 
 Tertullia?jy  in  his  Book  againft  Praxeas^  uni- 
 formly and  conftantly  fuppofes  the  Son  to  be 
 a  Part  or  Braiuh  of  the  Father's  Subftance  ; 
 whereas  Tou^  inconfiftently,  fometimes  fpeak 
 of  Father  and  Son  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  if 
 you  thought  each  of  them  to  be  the  fame  in- 
 dividual  identical  whole  Subftance  *,  and  at 
 other  times  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  if  you  thought 
 them  to  be  Two  diJiinS  and  difin5ily  intelligent 
 Sub/lances^  only  ufidivided  or  infeparably  uni- 
 ted. 
 
 Origen^  (2)  in  oppofition  to  the  SabellianSy 
 who  maintained  that  the  Three  Perfons  were  one 
 (ingle  scrlcL)  aflerts  that  they  are  rgeT^  vTco^rcuni^, 
 Where  'tis  evident  from  the  Antithefs  in  one 
 
 (i)  Tres  fi>eciey  unius  autem  fuhjlnnt'u,   ibid.  c.  2. 
 
 [Here  Species  a?zfwers  to  the  Greek  vTro^ua-Kif  and  Subltantia  to 
 the  Greek  aVict.] 
 
 (1)  "E?-fiti   J[i   riq    Kcci  TpiT(^ -'$\y/i/jUTi^uv   fjuneflt  icrixi   t<vcc 
 
 ^ou)  l^tfcivxi  ToZ  hcyla    7:viufji,xr(^   iripav    Tzxpu  tov   Tree.'A^cc   xa*    tck 
 
 iuiv- •YfJUiT^   fjuMToiyi    Tp§r?   'vTTo^a-iK,    -Ttn^ofjjiioi    rvyy^MfMy    tcv 
 
 frxTT^et   %ed  vui  ku\  tb  uym  ^nZfijet,.      Conim.    IH  Joh.   P.  56. 
 
 and 
 
Qii.XXlII.    OftheVmtyofGod.  447 
 
 "  and  the  fame  Sentence,  (as  the  Learned 
 Hitezhts  obferves  (i)  upon  the  Place  J  that 
 both  scricL  and  u7toT^(Ti^  are  ufed  by  him  to  fig- 
 nify  fingk  identical  Sub  (lance.  The  fame 
 thing  appears  from  his  faying  that  (2)  '*  the 
 *^  Father  and  Son  "  are  \J\jo  rii\  yj^oTcuru  7CQ^a.y- 
 ficLTcL^  'ev  ^g  Tvi  o/j^omaJ^  ^'  tvpo  things  in  Sub- 
 "  Ji/le?ice^  but  One  in  Agreement^''  as  the  Scrip- 
 ture fays  that  ''  Believers  were  of  One  Hearth 
 Upon  which  Paffage,  the  aforefaid  Learned 
 Huetius  remarks,  (3)  "  that  in  antient  Times^ 
 '^^  vTTQcroLa-i^  was  ufed  for  i^a-icLj'*'  [fingular  ex- 
 ifting  Subftance^  "  both  by  Heathen  and 
 "  Chrifian  Writers.'*  And  he  obferves,  "  that 
 ;  **  Jtxom  fays^  in  his  ^yth  Epiftle  to  Damafus, 
 **  that  in  all  the  Schools  of  fecular  Learnings 
 *'  vTtQcrdjTis  has  no  other  Signification  than 
 ^*  aVfct.     And  thus  (adds  he)  the  Nicene   Fa- 
 
 (i)  Quibus  lignificat,  ab  eo  qui  unicam  in  Trinitate  na-Mt 
 ponit,  fe  diffentire,  8c  tres  bz-o^a-m  admittere,  hoc  eft,  tres 
 «V<at$.     Origehian.  lib.  i.  P.  31. 
 
 (2)  'E<  JV  T<5  Tri^KrTrx^yinroci,  fj/jvi  tt-/)  oivrof/joX^fjijiv  rarC95  '■»'5  <ii'«(- 
 
 Tuv  rav  TTi'^iva-oivTuv    ii    kcccom    kcci    ii  y^X^  f^^'^y   "'^  ^iuovi<r\\  ro,  lya 
 
 x«i    0  TkCiryip  £v  io-fXiiV'  -Toy   ttccte^o!,'"       'X-cii  tvv    viov- -—ovrec 
 
 0(/s  TVI  vTro^zccrsi  Trpoc/f/jccrXj  sv  di  Tjf  cfjtjovoix  kch  rvi  (rvfjij<puviu  kcci  rjf 
 r«t>r<jr>jTt  r5  /3«Aw/AetT(^.      ^^ix/.  C>//".   //&.  8.     P.    386. 
 
 (3)  Atqui  y;roV«t(r<5  pro  kV/ix  prifcis  tcmporibus  folebat  ufur- 
 pari  ab  Ethnicis  &  Chriftianis.  Hieronymus,  Epift.  57  ad  Da- 
 Hiafum  'y  "  Tota  Secularium  liter  arum  Schola  nihil  aliud  'v7ro^u<ri» 
 **  nifi  ic-ixv  novit."     Ita  fumferunt  NicAni  patres,    ita  Sardicen- 
 
 fisy  ita  &    fumiilTe  Origene-jn    vcrifimile    eft. -Praeterea, 
 
 Cum  unum  efte  Confenfu  &  concordia  dixerit  Patrem  5c  fili- 
 um,  poftquam  docuit  duos  efle  Hypofiafi  ;  plane  w~ofKVj&'?  vo- 
 cabuhim  videtur  notandoe  fuhJlantiA  adhibuilfe.  Nam  (i  priorc 
 loco  duos  effe  fignificalTet  quoad  Perfonas,  adjeciifet  pro- 
 fefto  Unum  eft'e  quoad  8o-/«y  :  At  cum  unum  efle  fcripferit 
 Confenfu  duntaxat,  aliam  omnem  videtur  refpuifle  Unitatem^ 
 &  duos  quoad  «>/«»  credidilTe.     Origenian.  P,  32. 
 
 ''  thers^ 
 
448  Of  the  Vnity  of  God. 
 
 *^  thers^  and  thofe    of    Sardica,    aiid  probably 
 
 "  Origen  alfo  under ftood  it. ^Befides'^nben 
 
 *'  Origen  faid  that  the  Father  and  ^on  are  One 
 *'  /;;  Confcnt  and  Concordy  after  he  had  taught 
 *'  that  they  were  two  in  Hjpofiafs  ^    he  feetrts  • 
 *'  plainly  to  ufe  the    word  v7i;oT^(ji^   to  denote.' 
 "  Subftance.     For  if  in  this   Pajfage  he  had  \ 
 "  meant  that    they  were  Two   with  refpeS    to 
 "  Perfon  only  ^    he  would  have    added^    that 
 *'  they  were  One  as  to  -JcrU.     But  fmce  he  hath 
 *'  only  faid  that  they  are  One  in  Confent^    he 
 "  feems  not  to  have  acknondedged  any  other  J7- 
 **  nity^  but   to  have  believed  them   to  be  Two 
 '^  in  so-ioL.''     Arid   indeed   Origen^   in  feverall 
 other  Paflages  of  his  Writings,   fays   that  (i) 
 *'  the  Son  is  diJlinB  from  the  Father  xctr  scrUvj 
 *'  andfubjeEi  to  the  Father.  ^^     Again,  he  proves 
 from  Pf  35,  lo,    that   (7)  '^  the  Father  and 
 *'  Son  are  Two  Lights  ;'*     And  again,  he  calls 
 the  three  Perfons  (j)    Three  Spirits.''     Epi- 
 phanius    charges   him  with   making  the    Son 
 and  Holy  Spirit  to  be    of  a  (4)  different  aVik^ 
 from  the  Father  ,  and  yet  fays,  that  he  afiirra-i 
 
 Tf«?.  De  Orat.  P.  48.  [Here  iia-ixis  the  fame  with  ixofcca-K;'  As 
 alfo  in  the  following  pafj'a^e  :']  'O  fAjin  TK^onrui  oiAi  ivrtyS-tv  x.aT«- 
 a-KivuCi^  rvj  oua-iu  fm  a'n^r)Kivxt  rou  iicZ  rev  Trocm^cc.  Comment,  in 
 Joh.  P.  70.     Againji  which  Notion,  he  there  argues. 
 
 (l)  UctfotTot-TiKUTi^ov  ■■)  Jyo  (purx  Tor  ttxti^x  kocX  roi  t/icv  UT9  rev 
 Au^l^  Tv^yjaeivy   0^  T\iruv  Ha-ofJi^t^-oc.      ibid- 
 
 (3)  Tf/ot  TTviunitcTx.     In  Jer.  Horn.  8.  . 
 
 (^4^     Ey  TCtXKoUc,    tottok;  fvpef/jiv  UVTcv   Toy   fjboteyiv'H    9-tov   oCTTUXXoTft'M 
 
 S*TCC    T»)<;   TOW    TTXTpOq   B-tOTr)TOi   Ti   KXl   OU(riX<i,    Of/jOU   Tl    Ktli   7»    XiiZftt*  I*! 
 
 «rio».    Haeref.  64.  c.  4.  [_Here  tinx  means^  general  Subftanccjl 
 
Qu.  XXIII.    OftheVnityofGol  449 
 
 ed  the  Son  to  be  [k  r^^  yVct^-]    (i)  from  the 
 Subllance  of  the  Father.     Which  latter  is  con- 
 Ibnant  to  what  Athanafnts  fays   of  him,    that 
 (2)  Re  agreed  with  the  N'lcene  Council.     And 
 yet  'tis  abundantly  evident  from  what  I  have 
 ahove  fliown  concerning  him,  that  his  Notions 
 were  very  difK^rent  from  thofe  which  general- 
 ly prevailed  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Fourth 
 Century.     And  how  far  the  fame  is  true  of 
 Many  Others  alfo,  appears  fufficiently  from  the 
 following  Obfervation  of  Gregory  A^azianzen* 
 (3;  ''  Whereas  ffays  he)  Chrifiians  have  been 
 *'  divided  into  Three  Parts  ^    fnany  being  un- 
 "  found  in  their  Faith  concerning  the  Son  ,  and 
 *'  7nany  more   concerning  the  Holy  Gho/i  -^    (fo 
 *'  that^    to   have  been  lefs  impious^   has   been 
 *'  efteemed  pious  •^)   and  very  Few  having  been 
 '^  Sound  with  RefpeSl  to  the  So»    and   Spirit 
 *'  Both:  He  [Athanafius]  was  the  Y\r[\  end 
 ^'  only  one,  or  at  leaft  with  a  very  Few  Others^ 
 "  who  ventured  plai?ily  and  openly  in  his  Hri^ 
 **  tings  to  profefs  the  Truth '^    of  Ihee  Fer- 
 *'  fons^  having  one  Dizjinity  and  Effence.     And 
 '^  what  Many  of  our  Fathers  had  formerly  the 
 
 ^1}  'E»  r>5^$  t>\i<ri,ccc,  roZ  TTxrptx;  roZroy  eia-Ttyeirxt.  ibi'i.  c.  8.  ("Here 
 
 ^vtriix,  is  the  fame  as  iTro^ua-ic.'^ 
 (1)  De  Decret.  Nic.  Syn. 
 
 (3)  Tav  JS,'  'f>  uXauv  cCTrzcvT&iv,  ocret  rov  x,ctB-'  v.^occ,  XoyiS,  r^i^^  vs~ 
 vif/j-/\^ivuv  KXi  TToXXav  fA>iv  ovTcuv  Tuv  'Ztfe<  rov  lioy  oiopu<rovvTuv,  ttXh- 
 ovuv  6\i  rZv  'ZSC<  TV  TTviZjjjX  TV  uyiov,  ivB-a,  x.x\  to  \\Trov  ^(Ti/iiTvy  suari/ieicc 
 ivojjjiS-Yi-  oXr/a  3  Tciv  kcct  uyjCpol^cc  iyixivovT(^-  n^r^r'^  kxi  /^^cog, 
 *}  K-if/jid^  <rZv  oXi,yaCi^  "^roXfjuu  rviv  clXytB-nxv  a-u'Pac,  iiraxrl  y.xi  ^.x^.^^- 
 ffUUy  Tuv  Tfiuv  f/jixv  B-i!)ry)TX  )cxi  iKTixv,  lyyex^ox^  6f/jo}\.oyy]a-x<i-  y^ 
 0  tS  ttoXXm    tuv    TTXTtpay  Uf>iB-fjUM  'Z^    rvv  iiov  i^xeicQ-/)  <zcf^Ti'.<VyTou- 
 
 TO    -ZtTg^    y   Xym   7rViVfJljXT<^   XVTVq    i UiTTV iV^ i\c,   V^IPOV^     gCC.        Ofat.     21. 
 
 f>.   J94.  See  alfo  BafiUi  epfi.  73  'c;'  387. 
 
 G  g  ^'  Grace 
 
4  5  o  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 ''  Grace  to  confefs  coficer?ihig  the  Son^  He  at 
 ^'  length  xpas  fas  it  were)  Infpired  to  conjefs 
 *'  concerning  the  Holy  G  bo  ft  likew'ife.^' 
 
 Concerning  Dionyjius  Ale xandr huts ^  it  is  ob- 
 ferved  by  &////,  that  he  iniintain'd    '^  (\ )  not 
 ''  only  a  Diverjity  of  uTtoT^ati^ ^  but  dlfo  a  Dif- 
 "  jerence  ofnai^?^     And  Phot  ins  chargeth  him 
 with  alTerting,  that  (2)  the  Son  of  God   was 
 different  from  the  Father  yiar   BaioLv.      Either 
 therefore  he  was  (if  Bafd  judged  right,)  wa- 
 vering and  C5J  unconftant  in   his  Notion  of 
 Confubjlantiality  :    Or   elfe,  ,  if  fas  Athayiafitts 
 faysj  he  did  really    hold   a  Confubjlantialtty^ 
 then  by  the  Term  yWo,  he  did  not  mean  com- 
 mon generic  alNature  or   Effence^    but  fingular 
 identical  Subjiance^  the   fame  with  J-TroVcto-i^ ; 
 agreeably   to    the     Doctrine  of    his  Matter 
 Origen, 
 
 Pierius^  as  Photius  tells  us,  call'd  the  Fa- 
 ther and  the  Son  (4)  "  Tzvo  (bo-ict^)  Effences 
 ''  or  Subftajices^'*  and  ^^  Two  (q^va-ng)  Fatures.'^ 
 By  which,  Photius  thinks,  he  meant  no  more 
 than  Two  (J7ro<roco-ei^)  fingular  exijling  Sub- 
 fiances^  which  might  notwithftanding  be  o/,to- 
 Hdioi,     In  like  manner  as  Methodius  ftiles  them 
 
 Fpiji.  41.  [Here  vTro^-ua-n;  fignifies  finguLir  or  identical  ex'tjung 
 Suhfiance,  -Wit^  ovtU  geveral  Hubjlame.  Oi\\tx\\\{t  eu<rU(i  ^x(pofu. 
 would  not  denote  the  Ar.o77i&an  Notion,  which  Bafil  charges 
 It  to  imply.]     ^        ^     ^        ^         ^ 
 
 (2,)  Hiyov  Koc-ni  ouiriccv  iivxi  Tolj  TTM-T^o^,     Cod.  Io6.    [^Here  oy(r»* 
 fjgnifies  general^  Subjlance.']  ^  ^       .,     ,       _      v 
 
 (4J  Cod.  119. 
 
 (1)  "  two 
 
Qii.  XXIII.    of  the  Vnity  of  God.         4  J 
 
 (i;  -  two  Creative  Powers.''  And  jlexanJer 
 of  Alexandria  -^  (2)  ''  Two  Things^  znfeparable 
 ''  fro7n  each  other  J' 
 
 The  fame  Alexander^  upon  Thefe  Words,  I 
 and  the  Father  are  one^  denies  that  our  Lord 
 meant  thereby  to  affirm,  (3)  '^  that  the  Fa- 
 "  ther  and  Son  were  (jlIcdi  rvf  uVoTowet  ^uo-iy, 
 "  one  fingular  Subjijiing  Nature,''^ 
 
 The  Council  of  Antioch,  Hilary  tells  us^ 
 (cle  Synod,  p,72j,)  faid  that  the  Father  and 
 Son  and  Holy  Spirit  (tres  ejje  fubfiantias) 
 were  Three  Siib[iances  :  By  which  he  under- 
 ftood  uVoTcwet^. 
 
 Eiifebius  (4;  every  where  in  all  his  Wri- 
 tings, exprefsly  afferts  the  Father  and  Son  to 
 be  two  H<Ticf^g^  meaning  the  fame  as  uVor^j-et^i 
 Whereupon  the  Learned  Montfaacon  obferves, 
 that  the  word  saicL  in  Eufebius,  cUght  not  to  be 
 rendered  by  Perfona,  but  by  Subftantia.  And 
 adds,  that  (5)  "  wherever  he  meets  with  the 
 "  word  Hypoftafis,  he  trai^Jlates  it  Subftantia  j 
 
 (l)   Awe  ^vvuyjuc,  TToir.TiKoic.  Phot.  Cod.  235.   P.  937. 
 
 (1)  'AAAi^A&^i/  kx-^^iq-ci  Ti^yfjijccTcc  ouo.  Epift.  Alex.  apud  The- 
 odoret.  Hift.  Ecclef.  lib.  i.P.6. 
 
 (3)  '^^  ''^'^  "^il  '''^c?^""-*  ^y"  (pocn'i^  fJtJiXV    iivcci   or»(pl<.i,i<^e>}y.    ibid,  p, 
 
 9.  [Here  vTrofwa-iq  lignifies  fmgle  or  identical  exiting  Sub- 
 ftance.'] 
 
 (4;  Hift.  Ecclef.  lib. I,  c.  2.  Pr^p.Evang.  lib,7,c.  12.  Dem. 
 Evang.  lib.  5,  c.  30.  lib.  6,  inProoem.  lib.  5,  c.  3  Contra  Mar- 
 cell,  lib.  i,  c.  I,  p.  5.  ibid.  p. 27, 29.  Ecclef. Theolog.  lib.  2, 
 C.  7,  23.     Sec  above,  P.  4,   15,  47,  1^7,158. 
 
 (5)  Ubi  vox  i)57ofz6(r<?  occurriti  nos  Subftantiam  vertimus  j 
 turn  quia  fic  Eufehii  sevo  ex  recepto  more  accipiebatur,  iit  ha- 
 bet  Athanafius;  turn  quia,  cum  Eufebius  diverlam  in  patre  & 
 fiiio  Subftantiam  admittat  &  doceat,  inutilis  fane  fucrit  per  fa- 
 nanim  6c  Hypoflafium  vulgata  Diftindtio,  Prelim,  in-  Eufeb, 
 £om:???nt,  in  Pfalm,  c,  6. 
 
 G  f?  2  ^'  both 
 
4  y  2  Of  the  Vntty  of  Cod. 
 
 ^'  both  hecaufe  the  word  vpas  generally  fo  un- 
 *'  derjlood  in  the  Age  of  lialcbius,  as  xAtha- 
 "  nafius  bath  it  ^  and  alfo  becaufe^  fi^sce  liu- 
 *'  febius  admits  and  teacheth  that  there  is  a 
 "  dij'iinS  Sub  fiance  in  Father  and  Son^  the 
 "  vulgar  Di/lm^iar:  of  Pcxfom  and  Hypoftalis 
 *'  is  here  altogether  ufelefs.'* 
 
 Athanafms  tells  us:  (r^  ^"-The  CoUeBion  of 
 "  Properties  with  refpeB  to  Man  in  general^ 
 *^  is  That  which  is  called  naU  *,  But  That  vohich 
 *'  is  proper  and  particular  to  One  Man^  is  wo- 
 TcJUTis^  Again  :  (2)  'V  Hypoftafis  (fays  he)  is 
 "  Subjlance^  andjigyiifies  only  That  which  ex- 
 *'  jfls.  ■  ^  For^HypoJlafis  and  Subftaiice  is 
 "  Exiflence  '^  iecaufe  it  Is^  and  exijis^* 
 
 Bajil  hath  a  large  (5)  Epiftle  ta  his  Brother 
 Gregory  Bifliop  oi  Nyffa^  on  this  very  Subjed, 
 concerning  the  Difference  of  the  words  hgU 
 and  uVoVctcT-i^.  Wherein  he  flaows  that  hgIcl  de- 
 notes [jtom)i  <pmvr\  the  common  Nature  of  things 
 of  the  fame  kind,  as  Man  in  general.;  But 
 iJ7roVcto-k$  is  \to  iSlccs  MyofJLivov^'^  that  which  be- 
 longs  to  One  in  particular^  as  Peter j  Paul^  (£>c. 
 Obferving  only  This  Difference  between  the 
 huma?je  and  divine  Nature  ^  that  three  ?nen^ 
 are  three  feparate  (v^oT^aas)  Subflafices  agree- 
 ing in  one  common  Mature  ,    but   the  divind 
 
 (l)  'Ova-iU,  Xtyi^Tv  tuv  kxtk  t  av^ouxev   i^UfjjocTm  ro  oiB-poio-iutjcc' 
 
 ii\j,u<,  ^,  Kcci  i(p'  jvo?,  vTnTo^a-Ki.       De  Sand.  Deip.   Vol.  1.   p. 
 
 •  IO3I.    ^  ^       ^       ^  .      ^         ,    ,  ^        .     ^         ,, 
 
 t)  uvTo  TO  OK 1}  y^  U2srofK(r(s  x<Ci  oi/cr«flt  yT«f^(«  fy;v,  tfjy^  x«<  c/Tizt^- 
 
 ;t;«.    Epill.  ad  Afncanos. 
 •        (3;  Hpift.  43. 
 
Qii.XXni.  OftheVmtyofGod.  453 
 
 Hypoftafes,  arc  infeparably  united.  Again;  he 
 fays  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  [Iv  uS^l^  (t) 
 One  Species.  (2)  Again*,  that  the  Son  hath 
 [to  IS^'.x^ov  TYi^  'xJ^zf^T'cLo-icci]  his  own  proper 
 identical  Siihflance.  And  he  calls  it  wicked 
 Blafphemy,  to  affirm  \j^  rl  -\!jmx.duiy:'\  One 
 SiihjeEi  or  identical  ^ubflance  in  the  three 
 Perfons.  Again ;  he  tells  us,  (3)  that  '*  7io  one^ 
 "  that  has  the  leaft  fenfe^  doubts  but  the  Per- 
 ^^  fons'''  [^whom  he  here  ftiles  Tc^lyfjcctra.^ 
 ^'  have  ea^h  a  proper  and  complete  Exijlence^ 
 Again  :  (4)  "  It  is  not  (fays  he)  fufficient  to 
 "  enumerate  the  Difference  ^/^  Perfons  ,  but  we 
 ^*  mujl  alfo  co7ifefs^  that  each  of  the  Perfons  is 
 *^  a  true  (or  real)  juhjtfting  Being.''*  Agreea- 
 bly  to  which,  he  elfewhere  calls  the  Father 
 an  (5)  "  tmbe gotten  Light ^''  the  Son  "  a  be- 
 "  gotten  Light.'**  And,  explaining  the  Confub- 
 flantiahty^  he  fays:  (6)  "  0«(?  and  the  fame 
 ^^  Thing  is  not  confubflantial  to  itfelf]  but  One 
 "  Thing  to  another.'^  Laftly,  he  (7)  fays; 
 '*^  s(tU  has  to  v7rQT<^ai5  the  fame  RefpeB,     as 
 
 (i)  Horn.   2.7.  P.  606.  Vol.  L 
 
 (2)  Hom.^  16    P.  507. 
 
 (3)  Tot  TTpxyf/jocrci,  ialon^atrccv  x.cct  ecvroTi?^)  rw  urrxf^iv  ^t^av,    cj^u^ 
 TzHv      Kcci     f//ix.fov    fJUiTi^ovruv    rou   (p^oviTv    ecuj(pi(iaX>^ei.        Epift.  64, 
 
 P.    848.  ,    ^  ^  V  ,  , 
 
 .  (4)    Ov  ^  s|otpx£~  a'tct^opaci;  Trpocracruv   oi7rec^i^fjtf/i(rx(Bxi,    uXAu  ^(n 
 SKX'piV  TTfotrcoTrav  ov   i^ywVgj  u^r,B-ivvi   "^ci^X^iv   ofjijoXoyi^v^      ibid.    P. 
 
 85c.     [Here  wzs-ofistcr^  is  JingU  identical  Subftunce.'] 
 
 (^yAyivvTirov     (puc, -Tav    :To67Tpo6, yivvinov    e/[s   (pSx;    rLi 
 
 TOW  yioy  Xccfju'^oi.vitv  moiitv.     Adv.  Eiinom.  lib.  1.  P,  70.     See  alfa^ 
 Epift.  300.  ^ p.  1070. 
 
 (6)  'Ov  Y^  uvTo  Ti  tfiv  iccvrS   oyjo^ciov^    ocXX'    srtpcv   ht^a).     ibid 
 
 Epift.  300. 
 
 (7)  Or*   ov   i^(4  Aoyov  to  koivov  <zs^e,  ro  i'<5^ov,    touto    e^n   if    eutnot 
 ei;^\  rhj  'v7rvfu(riv.     ibid.  Epift.  300. 
 
 Gg  3  ''Tha 
 
4  5*  4  Of  the  Vn'ttj  of  Cod. 
 
 "  That  which  is  common  (or  Generical^)  to  That 
 '*  which  is  fingle  or  individual'^ 
 
 Indeed  Bafil  (as  alfo  Gregory  NazAan^en^ 
 fee  Or  at.  21,  J2  ;)  is  very  exaiS  in  this  Di- 
 flindlion  of  the  words  aV^x  and  uVoV^-o-i^ ;  al- 
 ways ufing  the  former  in  the  fenfe  of  [(?'t;<ri?] 
 common  Nature  or  Effence^  and  the  latter  in 
 the  fenfe  of  p articular  or  fmgular  ideiitical 
 Subflance,  But  this  Diftindion  being  not 
 carefully  obfervcd  by  Others^  occafioned  great 
 Vifputes  and  Divifwns  between  tl}e  Eaflern  and 
 Weflern  Churches  particularly  at  Antioch  and 
 in  Italy.  7  he  Italians^  knowing  no  other 
 renJring  of  the  Greek  Hy\Gflafis  in  Their 
 Language,  but  Snh(lantia^  which  fignified  (as 
 (i)  Jerom  at  large  obferves)  -the  fime  as  the 
 Greek  bVu,  which  denoted  covmion  Nature 
 or  Effence  ,  were  afraid  to  fay  Three  Hy- 
 poflafes^  becaufe  That  was  the  fame  as  to  fay 
 Three  geiierical  ^ub [lances  or  Natures^  which 
 the  word  hiIcl  was  then  commonly  un- 
 derftood  to  fignify  :  And  therefore  they  chofe 
 to  call  them  three  [ferfonai]  Perfons ,  by 
 which  they  then  meant  three  fmgular  or  in- 
 dividual fubjifiijig  Beifigs^  as  the  Generality  of 
 the  Eaftern  Church  did  (as  we  have  feen  from 
 BaJilJ  by  the  word  Hypojlafes.    Likewife  fome 
 
 fi)  Tota  fccularium  literarum  Schola,    nihil   aliiid  Im^Tiv 
 nifi  c'jirUv  novit.     tt  qui,  rogo,  ore  l^Kiilego   ires  Subfiantias 
 
 ■  prxdicabit?  Una  eft  dci   &  Ibla  Narum,   quse  vcrc  eft • 
 
 Sufficiat  nobis  diccre,    nnam  Subjkvjtiamy  trcs  Perpmas  Suh- 
 
 (iftentcs. \.'^(:z'^x\\\\rtriiH)Popafesy  li  placer,  6c  L'^a  teneatur. 
 
 Epiji,  t-].  ad  Damaf, 
 
 of 
 
^^u.XXlII.  OftheVmtyofCod.  4^5 
 
 of  the  Eiftcrns  of  Antioch^  underftanding 
 the  Word  Hjpojiafi^^  Qas  the  Italians  did,^ 
 to  mem  the  iame  as  »Wct,  which  denotes 
 common  Nature  or  Effl'fice  ,  would  not  call  the 
 Perfons  tliree  Hjpoftafes^  for  fear  of  muking 
 three  (nam)  generic  al  Sub  fiances  or  Natures  , 
 but  chofe  to  call  them  Three  ^^Ucbnt^^  (an- 
 fwering  to  the  Italian  Perfonas^)  three  indwi- 
 dual  fubjifting  real  Perfons^  and  One  Bypofla- 
 {is.  Upon  which,  the  Italians  and  thefe  An- 
 ttochians  charged  thofe  Greeks,  who  held 
 Three  Hypoflafes^  with  Arian'ffm :  And  the 
 Greeks  on  the  contrary  charged  the  Italians 
 and  their  Friends  at  Atittoch^  with  Sabellia-^ 
 nifm  '^  imagining  that  by  One  Hypojlafis  Thefe 
 ,  meant  no  more  than  Themfelves  did,  viz.  one 
 fmgular  identical  Subjlance  ,  and  that,  by  ^n^e^o- 
 o-ceTTcL  and  Perfonas^  they  meant  SabeUian  Per- 
 fons, or  mere  Appearances  only,  (i)  Athanafi- 
 us  fummoned  a  Synod  at  Alexandria^  to  con- 
 fider  of  and  to  quiet  this  Divifion  :  And 
 upon  particular  Examination  of  the  differing 
 Parties,  it  was  declared  that  they  were  m 
 reality  of  the  fame  Opinion  :  That  the 
 Eafterns  meant  by  aV/a  the  fame  as  the  Italians 
 did  by  Hypoftafis^  viz.  common  N.%iure  o^  E{^ 
 fence  -^  and  that  the  Italians  meant  by  Trgoa-cy- 
 '^0/  the  fame  as  the  Eafterns  did  by  Hy^o- 
 jlafiSy  viz.  fmgular  individual  real  Perfon  or 
 
 (i)  Epift.  Synodic. 
 
 G  g  4  Being. 
 
4$<5  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 Being.  And  thus  the  Signification  of  Word^^ 
 changed  by  Degrees.  Bafil  (i)  and  (2)  Gregory 
 Na!zia?j^eny  both  imke  mention  of  this  Divifi- 
 on  5  and  attribute  it,  on  the  Italian  Side,  to  the 
 Scantinefs  of  their  Language ^  which  was  not 
 able  to  exprefs  the  Difference  between  Jo-ix  and 
 J-sroVcto-i?.  Epiphanius  alfo,  taking  notice  of 
 this  Affair,  fays  ^  (5)  *'  The  Eafterns  meant, 
 "  by  Hypoftafes^  to  denote  the  real  Subftan- 
 
 *'  tial  Exiftence  of  the  Perfons. the  Fa- 
 
 **  Father  a    Spirit,  the  Son  a  Spirit,  and  the 
 
 "  Holy  Ghofl:  a  Spirit, confidering   the 
 
 "  Father  as  fubfifting  ('Trocrgiy.vi  oLv^ivrlct)  of 
 f  Himfelf  Self-exiftent ;,  and  the  Son,  not  as 
 *'  a  Part  of  the  Father,  but  Begotten  per- 
 "  fedly  from  the  Father,  a  complete  Perfon 
 *'  begotten  of  a  complete  Perfon,  and  having 
 "  his  own  proper  Subfiftence."  At  other 
 times,    the  fame  Author  makes  Hypojlafis  to 
 
 (l")  Tlifn  e^i  roZ,  on  vrro^airii,  y^  ei/trM  ou  rcC'jTov  i<n,  x^  ccvTciy  ax; 
 yof/ji^co,  v7Vi(rviix>i)VcC'JTa  oi  o(,7ro  t>)5  db(riuc,  fidiAifoi,  cm  ok;  to  'r»ov  rvi^ 
 ixvmv  yXcdTTiii;  uipo^oof/jivoi,  ro  rii?  «y(r<et<;  ovr.^.cc  rvj  tXXcMi  (puvvj 
 [Hypo/tajii    7ru^x^\dio)KX(riv.     Epilt.   349.  P.  I130. 
 
 Yfijuv  iu<ri5>a)c;  to  f/jiv  'ykp  tLv  ^utnv  aV,Xoi  TVii;  B-iory)T(^y  to  ^i  7k<; 
 Tuv  TptSv  i^oTriTcc-^'  vonfjjiv&'v  d^i  KXi  7rX(}a,  roTi  WecXcZ;  ot/joiu^^  ciAX' 
 ow  ^MJCctXjiVHc,  ."^cf.  ^ivorriroc  7>i<;  TTxp  kvro^c,  i^yMTTv^c,  Kcci  ovcu,utuv 
 TTfViXVy  onXeiv  UTto  rvii^  oua-iX';  twj  vTo'fsc<nvy  y.xi  .^^  tuto  ccvTHo-xya- 
 a"/]<;  Tu  %^o(rtoxx,    ivx  fi,A  T^ttc,    cixnxi  Trxf'itaes^B-acriy    Ti  ytvirxt  j     ox; 
 
 XiXV  yiXoTo'J    V)   iXiSIVOV    TTi^ia'C    l^t^i   ^XCpofXf     TI     Tipl     TCV     ri^(^Ot    fJUiKfoXO- 
 
 */iX.  iiTX    'ZxfiiXXKTf/U'?';    ivTxZB-x    iXi'joy^r^r^    Tc7<i    Tpitrl    7rso<ru^xoic,f     t^ 
 
 AfilXVKTfJtjOt;  Tx7c,     Tpi(nv    VTTOiUiTiin,     7K     tSJ?   ^iAovfOCiag    UVXTrXxorfJUXTCC, 
 
 Orat.  II.  p.  39^-,  ^96. 
 
 l^ornTX^  TTJv  'rrp»(rafrr&.'v  v<PicrTa(rx<;  10  t;5Tccp;^»(ra5  yvct^crua-iv- 
 
 TVlVI/jX    0  TTXTV^p,     ZTViZ^X    KXi    0    Vice,,     TZViZlXiX    KXI    TO      OtyiOV  7tVlUfJljX'>- 
 
 TOV  TlUTfpX  CV  Tyf  TTXTfiKvi  UV^IVTIX  i(PiiUTX  VOoZvTt^y  Kx\  tIv  ViCV  OV 
 iA/ff(^   UVTX    TOW   -KXTpoCyy     XXy^X   KuJ^XcZ^C,    c'-K    ^TfitTfJ?,   TfXeiOV     cic     TlXW^ 
 
 •  nyin-A^ivov  y^  v^ECiTr/*  cttjoXoy3Z)iTi<,^     Haeixf.  73.   P.  86^. 
 
Qu.  XXIII.  Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  /[  5  7 
 
 fignify  (i)  the  fame  as  Bo-t'ct.  And  fo  likewlfe 
 did  the  Council  of  (2)  Sardica. 
 
 After  this  Divifion  between  the  Eaftern  and 
 Italian  Churches  was  made  up,  and  it  was  de- 
 clared that  they  Both  meant  the  fame  Thing, 
 only  differently  exprefs'd  ,  the  Latins  made 
 no  fcruple  of  rendring  the  Greek  uV^rcto-i^  by 
 Subflantia,  meaning  by  it  not  common  Nature 
 or  General  Sub  fiance^  but  fingular  or  individu- 
 al identical  Subjlance.  Thus  (3)  Hilary 
 tranflates  the  words  of  the  Council  of  Anti- 
 ochj  h  ii7toT^(ni  re^ia)  [per  Subflantiam  tria,"] 
 three  in  Sub/lance  :  adding,  that  they  called 
 the  Perfons  [tres  Subfantias']  three  Sub- 
 dances. 
 
 Again  ^  that  Hypoftafis  denotes  [Subftantia] 
 Subfiance^  (4)  Boethius  and  (5  j  Marius  ViEio- 
 rinus  agree.  And  that  there  is  no  other  Dif- 
 ference between  Hypoflafis  and  yVfot,  but  that 
 the  one  fignlfies  common  Nature^  or  generical 
 Effence  5  and  the  oxhtx^  fingular  Being  or  indi-^ 
 vidua!  identical  Subjiance  :  (befides  the  Au- 
 thors already  cited  j)  (6)  Cyril,  (7)    Damaf- 
 
 (^l)  'OvK  l'(rix,<ri  j  FAriani,]  in  xxi  v7rofzii.(ri(;  KXi  oua-ac  txutov 
 »^  raJ  Aoy®.     H^ref.  6().  N.  70. 
 
 (2)  Apud  Theodoret.  Htfior.  Ecclef,  lib,  2.  C  6. 
 
 (3;  De  Synod.  P.  227,  228. 
 
 (4j  Reperta  eft  Perfo7iA  Definirioj  naturae  rationabilis  indi- 
 vidua  Suhfiant'm.     Lib.  de  Duab.  Nat. 
 
 (5)  Ergo  haec  nemo  negate  Hoc  effe  graece  oua-Uwd  vtto^x- 
 a-iv  dicunt,  nos  uno  nomine  Latine  Subfiantiam  dicimus.  In 
 0pufc.  de  hotnous. 
 
 (6)  'Hv  '/;/£{  ^o(.(p-:^\cv  TO  yiv'^  J)    ild^  vTrsp    to    urofjCjGV,  txotju/   yj 
 
 wtU  tt^o^  'duj  vTTv'^u-tv  'ixit-  Apud  Cudworth.  Intell.Syft.  P.  597. 
 
 (1 )  'Ov(rlcc  Kxl  (pua-i^  }o  iiJijOf(P'/i  KCCTU  ry?  clyiaq  TrxTipxii  tocvtov  i^v. 
 9^7ruXiv  oua-ix,  £571/  tokoivov,  •^ipn^ojv  tw;  oyjo^a-iiic,  v7rofot(rii^'  v-piTxrrxtriq 
 ^,  >^  xretAiov,  f^  ■x^o(r&>;rov,  to  yjSpiHSv.   Prim,  InftitUt.  C.I,  2.  p.  460,461 . 
 
 cene 
 
45  8  Of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 cene^  (\)  Leontius  Byzantifius^  (2)  Theodore 
 Ahucara^  and  many  Others  that  might  be  ni- 
 med,  very  exprefsly  declare. 
 
 Laftly,  Suidas  gives  us  the  Ecckfiiftical 
 fenfe  of  the  word  Hypojl^fis^  as .  fignifying 
 Subftance :  ^3)  ^'- Hypojlajis  (fays  he)  is  Sub- 
 ^'  fiance  particularized  by  CharaUeriflical  Pro- 
 ^'  perries.'*  Again  ^  "  Hypofiajis  is  Suhftauce 
 *'  with  its  particular  Properties^  by  which  it  is 
 *'  wade  to  differ  numerically  frorn  others  of  the 
 **  fame  kind.'^ 
 
 'Tis  abundintly  evident  therefore  from  what 
 hath  been  faid,  that  the  word  hjpofiafis  anti- 
 cntly  never  fignified  lefs  than  numerical  Sub- 
 fiance  5  and  that  the  Chriftian  Church  from 
 the  Beginning,  'till  the  Times  of  the  School- 
 men in  the  latefl:  Centuries,  (as  Dr.  Cudworth 
 has  alfo  obferved  (4)  in  the  place  above  refer- 
 red to,)  never  meant  by  Hypofiafs  the  Scho- 
 laftick  fenfe  of  Perfon  as  diftinguifhed  from 
 Subjlance, 
 
 frlcc(rt(i  ^,  oTTip  (piXofToipoi  'ocro^ov  ia-Uv  Xtyao-i.    Biblioihec.  patrum, 
 
 ^-  493-  „        .  .  .     ,  ,     „    , 
 
 (2.)   Uoiv  TT^^yfjucc  Koe.^    45  Tamrcci    to    ua^iKarecni    t.doz,   fjuiTu    to 
 
 Pi£V£o^  iico'j,  <pj(rKi    ovof/^u^iTXi    Kx)    »ffiof    oio    Kcci   TiUvTX   'o<rx  i7r.<ry]i 
 
 uuTov  //(£Tr;^^«<7«,  of/jotpvYi  Ti  Xiyirxi  xttt  ofjuoaa-ix.     ^ibliothec.    Patr, 
 
 P.  374.     This   Author   makes  the  Thrc€   Perfons  10  be  Three 
 
 Gods,    as  much  as  Peter,  James,  and  Joh^,   are  Three  Min  : 
 
 But  allo\^-s  Ne'uhcr  of  them  ,  becaufe  he  underflandsthe  Terms 
 
 God  and  Man  to  be  geiieral  Names,     denoting  not   Perfon   or 
 
 ^gcnt,    but  a  Nature  in  general,   common  to  Many.       As  "^on 
 
 alfo  do:   Sermons  p.  144,   14c. 
 
 (3)    Tthjo-Iojo-i^  itfuv  eii<r{x   laiec^uTX    tcX<,   ^xpuKTyipicruKCic,  iciU^jXa-i, 
 
 '•r7vna-\x<r(c,  iifliv  oixrix   fjjuci    Ttvcov    i^iuf^Tuv,     t^    cc^i^uim 
 
 Tuv  of/j'iiiduv  oix^Pioaa-x.      In  voce   u'^Tooix<rii, 
 (4)  See  above,  p.  443. 
 
 I  hope 
 
Qu.  XXIII.    OftheVnityofCod.  459 
 
 I  hope  the  Learned  Reader  will  excufe  my 
 being  thus  long  upon  an  Argument  of  Criti- 
 cifm  ^  which  was  neceflary  to  be  fet  in  a  clear 
 Light,  in  order  to  (how,  that  when  you  ufe 
 or  fee?n  to  ufe  the  word  hypojlajis  in  the  mo- 
 dern Scholaflick  (enfe,  you  lead  your  Reader 
 into  a  Notion  different  from  All  Antiquity  ; 
 and  when  you  ufe  the  fame  word  in  That 
 fenfe  wherein  the  Antients  underftood  it,  you 
 by  adding  the  Notion  of  Equal  Supremacy^ 
 (which  the  Antients  conflantly  dilclaimed,^ 
 introduce  mmifeft  Polytbeifm. 
 
 But  to  proceed.  You  tell  me,  that,  to  fay,  p.  352J 
 '^  The  One  God  is  one  Perfon  only^  ^nd  the 
 "  Father  That  Terfon^  is  the  very  Ejjence  of 
 "  Sabelliamffn^  and  the  DoBrine  of  Paul  of 
 "  Simofata."  This  is  '^  Romantick  Hiflory'^ 
 indeed!  For  All  who  know  any  thing  of  An- 
 tiquity, know  that  the  profefled  Doftrine  of 
 thofe  who  oppofed  Paul  of  Samofata  and  the 
 ^abelllans^  was,  that  77:?^  One  God  (by  way 
 of  eminence)  was  the  Perfon  of  the  Father^ 
 and  that  the  JFi^r^or  Son  was  the  Lord  (ox 
 Godj  By  whom  the  Father  made  all  things  : 
 Whereas  Paid  of  Samofata,  and  xhtSabelUans^ 
 taught  that  The  One  God  was  not  the  Father 
 only,  but  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  :  And 
 they  afferted  that  the  Word  or  Son  was  The 
 One  Supreme  God,  being  [Xoy(^  gvJ^icc^er®^^ 
 the  internal  Reafon  of  God,  and  one  diftind 
 Jippearance  only  or  Manifejiation  of  the  one 
 God^  as  the  Father  was  another.  So  that  the 
 Ejfence  of  SabelUanifn  and   the  DoBrine  of 
 
 Paul 
 
4  6o  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 Paul  of  Samcfati,  evidently  was,  (as  I  have 
 before  obferved  from  Origen^  from  the  Council 
 {?f  Anxiochj  iron)  Eiifebhis^  and  others*,  and 
 which  alfo  plainly  appears  from  Bajil^  Hilary^ 
 and  all  the  Poft-nicene  as  well  as  Jyite-nicene 
 Fathers  ;)  that  They  did  Qctvctj^eT;/  tV/.uVgVc'-^'v] 
 deftroy  the  Real  Exljlence  of  the  Perlbn  of 
 the  Son,  making  all  the  Perfons  to  be  \tcvj- 
 ToyoTioi^  one  and  the  fame  identical  exijiing  Be- 
 ing. In  oppofition  to  which  opinion,  Origen 
 and  Eufebius  afTert  that  the  Son  or  Word  is 
 vot  himfelf  The  One  God  Supreme  over  all-^ 
 which  is  the  Notion  for  which  Sabellius  was 
 excommunicated.  And  the  Council  of  An- 
 tioch^  in  their  Condemnation  of  Paul  oiSamo- 
 fata^  alTert  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  ^;i/y,  tobe 
 [i  S'eo^  rav  oAcov"]  the  God  of  the  U?iiverfe  ,  Ai- 
 ling it  impious  to  call  The  God  of  the  Univerfe 
 zn  Angel  ox  Mejffenger^  at  the  fame  time  that 
 they  exprefsly  affirm  the  Son  or  Word  to  be 
 an  rngel or  Meffenger,  All  which  is  a  manifeft 
 Demonftration,  that  it  was  the  concurrent  Ca- 
 .  tholick  Ante-nicene Dodrine, that  TheOne God 
 (by  way  of  Eminence)  was  the  Perfon  of  the 
 Father  ojilj. 
 ^  35i.  Upon  the  Text  i  Cor.  8,  6,  you  ask  me, 
 353'  how  can  I,  "-^  after  fo  plain  and  exprefs  a  Text 
 '^  to  the  contrary^  pretend  that  the  Son  alfo  is 
 
 *^  God in  the  Scripture-fenfe  of  the  word^ 
 
 *'  God  Ij'*  and  "  make  Two  Gods  in  the  fame 
 *'  relative-fenfe^  in  which  St,  Paul  is  fuppofed 
 *'  to  ufe  the  word^  God  <?"  You  add  :  "  How 
 ^*  come  you   off  of  This  ?    By   the  help  of  a 
 
 DiflifiBion^ 
 
<^u.XXm.  Of  the  Vnity  of  God.  461 
 
 >  DiJlinBicn^  I  fuppofe  :  And  fo  can  We^  hy  a 
 
 I*'  DtJlindioJi  much  Older  and  better  warranted.'^ 
 
 ianiwer:    Sc   PauPs    own    Didindion   is,    I 
 
 , think,     the    Olde/l  and  the    beft  warranted: 
 
 ^^^  One  God^  of  whom  are  all  thuigs  ^  and  One 
 
 '''  Lord^  by  whom  are  all  things''     To  fay  that 
 
 the  Son  is  God^  or  that  he  is  That  07ie  Lord^ 
 
 ''  by  whom  are  all  thi?igs  ,"  is  no  way  contrary 
 
 to  This  Text :  But 'tis  certainly  contrary  to  it, 
 
 to  fay  that  he  is  The  One  God,  of  whom  are  all 
 
 ;things  '^  this  being  the  Apoftle's  very  definition 
 
 of  the  Father,  in  exprefs  contradiftindion  to 
 
 ,  the  Son. 
 
 But  "  We  can  give  a  Reafon  fyou  kyjwhy  P-  3S3- 
 "  the  Son  was  tacitly  included.''     What  !    in- 
 eluded  in  the  One  God,  the  Father  ^    in  thofe 
 very  words,  wherein  he  is  exprefsly  difliiiguifhed 
 from  the  One  God^  the  Father  ! 
 
 The  unreafonablenefs  of  your  diftinftion  of 
 the   '*  perfonal  and  effentzal  fenfe  '^'    has  been  p.  354- 
 fiiown  above ^ p.  :^6<^. 
 
 '  After  This,  you  make  a  long  Harangue  p,  y^^ 
 about  '-'Jhowhii^  a  co7i/:/lent  Scheme^  conftftent  359 
 "  with  the  Scripture  and  ivith  ttfelf-^'  and  tell 
 .US  ^'  how  well  it  becomes  men  to  fitbmit  Their 
 •'  Fancies^  or  Prefurnptions^  to  divine  Revela- 
 ''  tion.^*  This  is  the  very  thing  we  contend 
 for  :  And  our  great  Complaint  is,  that  you  ne- 
 ver once  exprefs  your  Dodrine  in  Scripture- 
 words.  Not  only  fo :  But  whenever  you 
 would  feem  to  lay  down  the  very  queftion  it- 
 felf  the  matter  whofe  Difficulties  are  to  be 
 explained  ^  you  always  make  fome  Propcfition 
 
 of 
 
 360. 
 
4^2  of  the  Vnitj  of  Cod. 
 
 of  your  own  to  be  fas  it  were^  the  Text 
 whofe  Meaning  we  are  to  arc!;ue  about,  in- 
 ftead  of  confidering  whether  it  be  it  felf  right-'' 
 iy  deduced  from  the  Texts  of  Scripture.  Irt 
 explaining  and  commenting  upon  the  Doftrine : 
 of  Scripture,  men  may  and  cannot  but  make 
 ufe  of  unfcriptural  Expreflions :  But  the  Bo- 
 Brine  itfelf  to  be  explained^  certainly  ought 
 always  to  be  a  Scripture-? ropofaion.  See,  M^?- 
 deft  Plea^  p.  ijg  ^^c.  Alfo  the  words  of 
 (i)  Ba/il  and  (2)  Enfebius^  cited  in  the 
 Margin. 
 
 p.  363.  The  pafTage  you  cite  out  of  Origen^  [^evx 
 81/  3'eoi',  rh  ^ctre^cLj  )cctl  rlv  movj  has  been  largely 
 conGdered  ^^^i;^, /?.  8^^&c.  And  with  what 
 Truth  you  affirm  him  to  infer,  that  the  Father 
 
 P'  3^S'  and  Son  are  ''One  ObjeB  of  fVorfI:ip','*  appears 
 fufficiently  from  his  own  exprefs  Explications 
 of  this  matter,  cited  above,  p.  24,  42,  a?id 
 382. 
 
 p.  368.  Your  Charge  againft  Dr. Clarke  for  ^'cutfuig 
 '^  jjjort'^^  a  Pallage  of  Chryfofto?n^  is  extremely 
 unreafonable.  In  confidering  the  Senfe  of  a 
 Text  of  Scripture^  it  wa^  not  at  all  pertinent  to 
 oblerve  what  Confequences  Cbrjfoftom  thought 
 might  or  might  not  be  inferred  from  the  Do- 
 
 (0  'H^SJ?  3  TTxpuy-ccXovf/jit  Tfc'5  yiX7:i}(^TU-,  il^  X^^'P^v,  fJuvtSiv  ttuq^ 
 TVfii  oip^ccUv  7rifii^yic(^i(5^  7:iqifi  oysfjuxru  3  isfJijTv  cccjciTv  Ikuvx  ofjuoXoyiiv, 
 ec  7rx^iXx/3of//Sv  ttx^  t'^.c,  xyixc,  ypotipKi^,  KXi  Tyiv  Ixi  ryroi^  KitfvoTo- 
 f/jiM  dixtPiuynv.  Ov  /^^  c*  Tjj  s<piv(na-ti  Tu*  ^f)«<niyeoioiv  if  (r6>T/jg/<<* 
 iSf^tiVf  ecXX  c'y  Tvj  hykii  ^cSC*  T«5  ^-ioTYird^  £15  JjV  'XiTti'fiuxxfJijii  ofji,»- 
 Acytoj.     Epilh  410. 
 
 (z)  Ay ^<pcn;  ;;ip»jer«o^  (pat'xTi;,  die  e^iOJV  ij  t^utx  ytyovi  a-vy^vTiq 
 rs  KXi  ocKc/.TXfurix  ruv  tKKAiiarm,  E^'fi.  ad  C£faream, .  aj>ud 
 Sofrat.  lib.  i. 
 
au.XXlII.  Of  the  Vnky  of  God.  4^5 
 
 flrine  -^  but  tvhat  was  indeed  (and  by  Chry- 
 Joftorn  was  allowed  to  be)  the  True  Meaning 
 of  the  Text  itfelf.  Neverthelefs,  to  pre- 
 vent even  fuch  unredfonable  Complaints,  the 
 Dodor  in  his  Second  Edition^  added  the  V/hoU 
 Fajjage.  And  yet  even  This  (it  feeins)  will 
 '^  not  (atisfy  you.  *^'  49^^ 
 
 (iTJERY     XXIV. 
 
 Whether  Gal.  4,  8.  may  not  he  enouoh  to  de- 
 termine the  Difpute  betwixt  us  '^  fince  it  oh- 
 I'lged  the  Do 8 or  to  confefs  that  Chrifi  is 
 by  Nature  truly  God,  as  truly  as  Man  is 
 by  Nature  truly  Man. 
 
 He  equivocates  there  indeed^  as  TIfuaL  For^ 
 he  will  have  it  to  Jignify^  that  Chrifi  is  God 
 by  Nature^  only  as  h.wifig  by  that  Nature 
 which  be  derives  from  the  Father,  true  Di- 
 vine Powe^'  and  Dominion  :  that  is,  he  is 
 truly  God  by  Nature^  ns  having  a  T^ature 
 difli7i3  from  and  inferiour  to  God's^  wanting 
 the  mod  Effential  Ch.^rader  of  God^  Sek- 
 exiftence.  What  is  this  buf  trifling  with 
 Words  ^  and  playing  fa^i  and  loo fe  <? 
 
 Anfw.'^'T^Vi  E  Son,  '^  by  that  Nature  which  P-  37^- 
 
 X     '^  he  derives  from  the  Father^  has 
 
 "  True  divine  Power  and  Do?ninion  /'*    71iat  is 
 
 I     to  fay,  he  is  Truly  and  Really  (as  rhe  Evange- 
 
 ^     liu  and  the  Jpoflle   ftiles  hnn;    That  God  or 
 
 That 
 
4(^4  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 That  Lord,  (Joh.  i  •  i,  3.  and  i  Cor.  8\  6.) 
 BX  or  Through  whom  are  all  things.  But  yet, 
 (not  being  Self-exiflent  j  not  being  the  Fa- 
 ther and  Firjl  Caufe  of  all  -^  not  having  his 
 Perfedions  abfolutely  of  Himfelf\  ortginal^un- 
 derived^  and  mdependeytt  on  Any '^)  he  is  not 
 The  Qyie  God^  O  F  whom  are  all  things.  Whe- 
 ther the  endeavouring  to  ridicule  fo  exprefs 
 a  Scripture-diftindion,  calling  it  *'  Equivoca- 
 ^^  f/^^^,"  and  '*  trifling  with  PVords^  and  play- 
 ''  ing  fdfl  andloofe\'  whether  This,  I  fay, 
 be  a  Zeal  according  to  Kjiowledge  ,  and  whe- 
 ther thefe  Expreflions  (\i  decentj  might  not 
 with  far  greater  Juftice  be  retorted  upon  jour 
 Notion,  of  Self-exijience  not  being  a  Real  and 
 Ejfential  Perfe&ion  of  the  God,  from  and  of 
 whom  are  all  things  ,  I  leave  the  Reader  to 
 judge. 
 
 p.  371.  In  your  Defence  of  This  Qjjery,  you 
 infift  upon  it,  that  you  **  never  pretend  that 
 **  Self-exiftence  is  an  elTential  CharaBer  of 
 "-'  God.''  You  "  deny  it  abfolutely'*  You  fup- 
 pofe  it  to  be  ^'  merely  IsJegative^  and  call  it  a 
 "  Perfonal  CharaBer ,  but  Neceffary  Exift- 
 *'  ence,    an  ElTential    Cbara&erJ' .     You   call 
 
 p.  311  y  Self  exi (lent  an  "  ambiguous  Term^'  an  "  equi^ 
 37^-  *<^  vocal  Word?'  You  tell  us,  that  ^'  the  Me- 
 *'  taphyfical  Definition  of  One  Self-exiftent, 
 ''  underived,  independent.  Supreme  Bei?jg^ — 
 *'  is  properly  a  Definition  of  the  Divine  N  A- 
 "  TU  R  E,  abjiraBin^  from  the  confuler ation 
 ''  of  the  DiJlinBion   ^of  PEliSOASf    and 
 
 that 
 
 377. 
 
qa.XXlV.   OftheVnitjofGod.  4^5 
 
 that,  in  This  Dsfinition,  "  the  words  Sdf- 
 "  exifient^  tmdeYived^  inde^ende7it^  are  not 
 "  confidtred  as  Perfonal  Cbaratiers^  lut  Ef- 
 "  fential."  Sarely  there  never  was  a  greater 
 Heap  of  Abfurdities  put  together. 
 
 In  the  \Jl  place  :  To  fay  that  Selfexifl* 
 ence  is  not  an  EjJhitmJ^  but  Terfonal  Cha- 
 rafter  -^  and  yet  that,  at  the  fame  time,  in 
 a  Definition  (approved  by  you)  of  the 
 Supreme  Being,  Seif-exijfent  is  not  confidered 
 as  a  Terfonal  J  but  Ejjential  Cha  rafter  ,  is 
 direftly  contradifting  yourfelf. 
 
 2dl)',  To  call  Self'exiftent  an  ambiguous 
 Term  and  an  equivocal  Word^  is  highly  ridi- 
 culous 5  becaufe  it  always  has  one  determi- 
 ?iate  l^recife  Meanings  and  never  fignifies  more 
 nor  lefs  than  exifling  of  it  [elf  hy  the  abfolute 
 NeceJJitj  of  its  ovon  nature^  without  deriving 
 from  any  other  caufe  whatfoever^  in  any  man- 
 ner  whatfoever. 
 
 "idly.  How  weak  and  abfurd  it  is,  to  call 
 Self-exiflence  a  Charafter  ^^  merely  Negative  -^^ 
 has  been  fhown  ahove^  f.  226. 
 
 ^thly.  Nothing  is  more  evident  to  common 
 Senfe,  than  that  the  diltinftion  0?  ferfonal  and 
 effential  Charafter,  has  no  place  in  the  cafe 
 of  Self.exiftence.  For  the  Ejjence  of  God, 
 and  the  Living  Jgent  whofe  that  Self-exiftent 
 Effence  is,  are  manifeftly  Both  of  them  equal- 
 ly Self-exiftent. 
 
 '^thly.  In  Another  cafe,  where  the  Diftinfti- 
 bn  of  ferfonal  and  ejjential  really  takes  place, 
 There  you  have  confounded  the  Two  Cha- 
 r afters.     jIn  That     Metaphyseal    Definition^ 
 
 H  h     '  which' 
 
^66  Of  the  Vnity  of  Cod. 
 
 i'«  377.  which  you  fay  is  [roperlj^  a  Definition  of  the 
 Divine  N  JTURE^  abfirat'i  from  the  confix 
 deration  ofPERSOh\  you  include  the  word 
 Supreme  :  As  if  6uprtmacy  was  a  charafter, 
 not  of  a  Living  oAgent^  but  of  an  oAl  ftrati 
 Ejjence.  At  the  lame  time  (feeling  perhaps 
 this  Abfurdity)  you  immediately  drop  the 
 word  Supreme,  and  declare  the  remaining 
 parts  of  the  definition  to  be  ejjential  Cha- 
 racters :  As  if  in  the  definition  of  an  Ejfence 
 abflratt  from  the  confideration  of  Perj'071^  part 
 of  the  characters  could  be  ejJentiaJ^  and  part 
 ferfonal.     But  to  proceed.       ' 
 
 In  oppofition    to  the  Notion  of  TDominion 
 
 ^'  374-  making  Gi'i  to  be  GoJ^  you  ask  ;  ^^Wuatwas 
 ''  God^  before  the  Creatures  were  made  f  or 
 ^'  did  he  Then  begin  to  be  God  by  Nature^  when 
 *^  he  created  the  Univerfe^  and  began  to  have 
 ^'  Domifiion  over  it  r  And  you  add  :    ^'  Upon 
 
 *'  thefe  Principles^  the  Father  himfelf — =• 
 
 *'  might  not  have  been  God  at  all^  if  he  had 
 *^  pleafed  to  make  no  Creatures.'^  I  anfwer : 
 Was  not  God,  before  he  created  the  Uni- 
 verfe,  0  m^  the  SeJfexifient  Living  Jge?it^ 
 of  infinite  Power  and  all  other  Perfections  ? 
 Was  he  not  God  in  the  fame  fenfe,  as  he  was 
 Juft  and  Good,  Righteous  and  Merciful ,  which 
 Attributes  you  allow  to  come  into  the  Defi- 
 nition of  God?  As  therefore  God  could  exer- 
 cife    no  Afts    of  Rightcoifntjs  or   Good?ufs^ 
 
 %  'till  fome  intelligent  Beings  exillcd,  towards 
 
 whom  they  might   be  exercifed  -^    fo  ^jeither 
 
 could  he  exercife  any  Afts  of  Power  and  Do- 
 
 -  minion^    'till   fomething   was  created,    over 
 
 which 
 
Qii.  XXIV.    Of  the  Vnity  oj  God.        ^6j 
 
 which  he  might  exercife  Dominion.  Yet,  in 
 like  manner  as,  before  the  World  v/as  made, 
 he  might  very  properly  be  faid  to  be  Good 
 and  Jufi^  as  having  TbaC  Diffofition  from 
 whence  Acts  of  Goodnefs  and  Jufiice  natural- 
 ly proceed  :  So  alfo  he  might  be  very  proper- 
 ly (tiled  God^  as  having  effentially  in  his  Na- 
 ture all  Power^  from  whence  Atts  of  Domi* 
 n'lon  naturally  proceed  likewifcc  And  as  a 
 King  is  the  fame  Man^  and  has  the  fame 
 Suhjtance  and  Ejjence  and  natural  Faculties 
 of  a  Man^  whether  his  Subjeds  aBuaUj  ex- 
 ift  or  no;  but  yet  his  relative  Title  oiKjng^ 
 is  always  with  Regard  to  the  Government  of 
 Subjects  :  So  God  is  the  fame  ferfe^  Being, 
 and  has  the  fame  Ejjence^  Powers  and  Attri- 
 hutesj  whether  any  thing  is  created  or 
 no ;  and  yet  his  Title  of  God^  in  the  Scrip* 
 tural^  Religious^  and  moral  Senfe,  is  always 
 with  Relation  to  his  Governing  of  the  Uni- 
 verfe. 
 
 After  all :  "  For  the  True  Senfe  and  import  p-  375- 
 ^'  of  that  Text,  Gal.  4,  8  ,''    you    ''  refer  to 
 "  the  "^   Learned  Geiiileynan^  who  has  fo  well  *  rrw^ 
 "  defended  This  Text  againjl    'Dr.  Clarke."  ^^'^^ 
 And  /  alfo,  for  thtTrue  Senfe  and  Import  of  fomi'nw 
 the  fame  Texts,  refer  to  Dr.  Clarh'^s  Scrip,  ed.p.-ji, 
 Dotir.  2d  Edit,  f. 23  :  And  to    his  Anfwer  to 
 Mr.  Nelfon,  p.  76  :     x\nd  to  a  Book  intituled, 
 A  Modeft  Plea^igc.  p.  245.  Where  this  mat- 
 ter is  fully  cleared r 
 
 Your  C<9;^c/^/(?7/ of  This  Chapter,  is  Admi- 
 rable.    "  If^  inftead  of  Metaphyficks  (which  p.  377-: 
 *  m  ufi  alwaj's  he  conte?it  to  jtand  corrected  by 
 Hh  2  [\Gof 
 
4<58  OftheVmtyofCod. 
 
 "  Gofpel'Revelatioriy)  we  chufe  to  take  our 
 *'  Definition  of  God  from  .SCRIPTURE'^ 
 ''  Then''  [What  Then  e  Why,  Then  we  muft 
 take  our  Definition  of  God ^  it  feems,  NO  T  from 
 Scripture^  but  from  Melayicion :  For  Then^ 
 ^'  That  of  Melandon  wtU  be  more  full  arid 
 
 "  compleat  ,"    Dcustd  Ejffenti a -verax^ ■ 
 
 ju/ia^  mifericors^  d^c.  As  if  Veracity,  Mercy, 
 and  the  like,  were  Properties  not  of  a  Living 
 Jgent^  but  of  an  Abjira8  Ejjence,  For  (o 
 the  word  Effence^  in  Ihat  Definition,  is  ex- 
 prefsly  diftinguiftied  from  Perfonal  Jgent. 
 
 Q^U  E  Fv  Y      XXV-' 
 
 Whether  it  be  not  clear  from  all  the  genuine  Re- 
 mains  of  Antiquity^  thaz  the  Catholick  Church 
 before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  even  from 
 the  Beginnifig,  did  believe  the  Eteriiity  and 
 Confubflantiality  of  the  Son  *,  //  either  the 
 oldefl  Creeds^  as  interpreted  by  thofe  that  re- 
 cite them  5  or  the  Tefiimonies  of  the  earliefi 
 Writers^  or  the  publick  Cenfures  pafs'^d  upon 
 Hereticks^  or  particular  Pa ff ages  of  the  an- 
 cientejl  Fathers ^  can  amount  to  a  Proof  of  / 
 thing  of  this  Nature  <? 
 
 Anfw.T  Have  already   fliown,    that  the  me- 
 
 JL    taphyfical  queflion  concerning  "  the 
 
 37S.  ^  Eternity  and  Confubfia?itiality  of  the  Son^'* 
 
 no  way  affcds  the  Truth  of  Any  of  Dr  Clarke's 
 
 Pro- 
 
Qii.  XXV.  Concerning  the  Senfe^  &c.      469 
 
 Propolitions.  But  here  I  cannot  but  take  no- 
 tice, with  what  an  unreafonable   Prefumption 
 
 .  This  Qiiery  is  worded.  For  None  of  '^  the 
 *'  oldejt  Creedsl^'*  mention  any  thing  of  thefe 
 Matters  at  all-  and  therefore  you  are  forced 
 to  add,  ''  as  interpreted  by  thofe  that  recite 
 *'  them'''  And  the  moft  remarkable  "Ce*^- 
 '«  [tires  puffed  upon  Hereticks  "  of  old,  were 
 upon  the  Ebiomtes^  who  taught  that  Chrift 
 was  a  mere  Man^  in  whom  the  Supreme  God 
 dwelt :  and  upon  Cerinthus^  who  taught  that 
 the  Son  of  God  was  not  himfelf  made  man^ 
 but  only  tmited  to  a  Man  :  and  upon  the 
 Valentinians  and  Manichees  and  Cataphrygians^ 
 from  whom  arofe  the  Doftrine  of  Necejjdrj 
 Emanations  :  and  upon  Sahellius  and  Paul  of 
 Samofata^  who  taught  (rl  ravroso-iov^  the  no- 
 tion of  Individual  Confuhftantialit)'.  And 
 among  the  "  Fathers^'*  themfelves,  there  was 
 great  variety  of  opinion  concerning  thefe 
 Matters :  Some  fuppofing  that  the  Son  was 
 originally  [the  Aoy©^  h^i(l^ir@^~\  the  internal 
 Reafon  of  the  Father ;,  which  is  either  ma- 
 king him  nothing  but  an  Attribute^  or  fup- 
 pofing him  to  have  eternally  exifted  only 
 mentally  or  ideally  in  the  Father :  And  fo 
 did  all  other  things.  Others  fuppofed  him 
 to  have  really  exiiled  in  the  Father  from 
 Eternity,  but  not  to  have  been  emitted  as  a 
 ferfon  or  diftinS  Agent ^  *till  the  time  of  crea- 
 ting the  material  World.  Others  taught  him 
 to  be  a  "Part  of  the  Father's  Subftance,  as  a 
 Branch  is  part  of  a  Tree  ;  and  ^omt  perhaps^ 
 that  he  was  co-immenfe  with  the  Father's  Sub- 
 
 ^  H  h  3  ftance. 
 
47^  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 ftance.     All  which  Notions   are  the  lefs   tq 
 be  wondered  at,  confidering  how  many  Phi- 
 lofophers  (according  to  the  feveral  Hypothe- 
 fes  of  the  times  they  lived  in,)  imagined  Jli 
 Spirits  J  and  even  Humane  Souls^    to  be  pro- 
 duced, not  out  of  Nothing,    but   out  of  the 
 Divine  Subftance.     From  whence  'tis  evident, 
 that  710  mere  Mecaphyfical  Speculations  ought 
 to  be  made  the  Ground  oi  Religious  Dotinnes 
 and  Tractices,     However,  One  thing  is  clear 
 from  oAll  oAdtiquity^  (and  )ou  have  not  been 
 able  to   alledge    any  One    paffage  from   any 
 Ante-Nicetie  Writer  to  the  ^contrary  ;>)   that 
 They  who   believed  the  Son  to   have   been 
 Always  with  the  Father,    as    a  real  Perjon ; 
 and  to  have  been,    not  out  of  l<!othing^    but 
 out  of  the  Yatheis  Stibfiance  ;  did  All  of  them 
 uniformly  fo  explain   it,    as  to  alTert    with 
 great  diftinftnefs,  that  they  believed  him  to 
 have  been,  not  Selfexiflmg  with  the  eAppro- 
 lation  of  the  tather^  (which  is  ;^//r  Notion,) 
 but  "Begotten  BT  the  Power  and  BTthe  Will 
 of  the  Father  ;   and  conftantly  obfervcd  That 
 diftindion  in  their  Reafonings,    and   in  their 
 Worfliip.   See  Dr.  ClarkeV  Scripture-Dotirine^ 
 Tart  II.  §.  i7«     See  aljo  ahove^  the  A//fwer  to 
 Query  VIIL 
 
 Your  Defenfe  of  This  Query,  is  nothing 
 but  a  cofifufed  Heap  of  Words,  relating  to 
 Metaphy/ical  Subtilties,  wide  of  the  True  Poi?it 
 in  Quefiion^  and  which  have  been  already 
 abundantly  anfwered  in  the  foregoing  Pages. 
 The  Sum  is,  briefly,  as  follows. 
 
Qli.  XXV.         of  Jntiqmty.  47 1 
 
 jfi.  Whereas  you  go  on  to  call  certain  Me-  p.  3S0, 
 tafbjfical  Speculations    "  the  Main  of'    our 
 "  Docirine^  the  Very  Points  in  which  "    our 
 "  Scheme  is  contained^  and  on  which  it  turns  :^' 
 It  has  already  been  often  anfwered,  that  thefe 
 things  are  not  the  main^  not  the  Very  Points^ 
 not  indeed  Any  Points  at  all  in  the  prefent 
 Queftion  :   Becaufe,   which  way  foever  any 
 of  Thefe  Points  be  determined,  funlefs  with 
 SalelUus  you  make  the  Father  and  Son,  not 
 opjo-ioi,  but  Tct'JTOrfViot,)    Dr.  Clarke^  Propofi- 
 tions  will  rtill  all   of  them  remain   equally 
 True  and  untouched.     The  True  and  Only 
 material  Queftion  between  us,  is,    WHO    is 
 the  Alone  tirft  Caufe  and  the   Alo?ie  Supreme 
 Goverjiour  of  the  Univerfe^   and  in  WHOM 
 Alone  All  Honour  and  Glory  ought  finally  to 
 terminate  ? 
 
 2.  In  your  manner  of  ufing  the  Terms,  f.  37§, 
 "  OneSubftance  •"  "  The  Confuhjiantiality,  call       379, 
 "  it  individual^  or  call  it  fpecifick -j"^  '' A  Con- 
 *^  fubfia?itiality^  in  fome  fenfe  or  other  ;"   "  t/*- 
 *'  na  Subfiantia ;"  And  in  your  faying,  "  the  p.  380, 
 "  Subftance   of  the  Son  MIGHT   be  jufily      3^^' 
 *'  called  the  Fathers  Sub[ia?tce ;"    And,    "  A 
 '^  proper  Confubfiantiality  is  all  I  am  concern-- 
 *'  edfor  ;  Woether  it  pall  be  called  Specifick 
 "  or  Numerical,  /  am  in  no  pain  about  it  ^ 
 *f  Neither  of  the  Names  exactly  fuits  it^   nor 
 *'  perhaps  any  other  we  can  think   on  ;    It  is 
 *'  fuch    a   Confubfiantiality   as  preferves  the 
 *'  Unity  gjfc'."     In  all  This,  I  fay,  and  in  ma- 
 ny Other  PalTages  which  I  have  above  cited, 
 p.  344,442,  you  fpeak  with  a  Confufed  Un- 
 H  h  4  certainty* 
 
472.  Cpnccmmg  the  Senfe 
 
 taint)'.  Sometimes,  as  if  you  would  have 
 your  Reader  think,  that  the  Father  and  Son 
 were  one  and  the  fame  individual  idtjitical 
 Wijole  Sulftance :    Which  is  making    them, 
 
 not  o^oyo-ioi,   but  TccuT08(7ioi,  fj^ovotfo-ioh   Or  o^cutto- 
 
 Tc^Toi.  'Tis  making  the  Son  to  be,  not  i^  to 
 aVw  T8  TToLTgo^',  (as  the   Council  of  Nice  de- 
 termined,)   but    Himfelf   ?)  sctIol  rS    tcclt^ou 
 'Tis  making  God  to  be  /^i^xv  uV^Vcto-'v  r^iTrgo- 
 o-^'TToi/,  which  is  Euftbius^s  definition  of -S^/' 6^/- 
 lianifm.     'Tis  making  the  Father  and  Son  to 
 be  'gv  rc^  uVojcei^gK^y,  which  'm  your  own  words 
 i\  351.  ^^  exprejjes  the  Sabellian  Notion  very  diftintt* 
 ^'  /)."     At  other  times  you  fpeak  as  i?  you 
 would  have  your  Reader  think,  that  the  Fa- 
 ther and  Son  are  Two  diliinti  arid   diftincily 
 p.  31S,  intelligent  Sulflances^    only  undivided  or  in* 
 319.     Jeparably  united.    Which  (fuppofing  them  to 
 be  of  equally  Supreme  and  independent   Au- 
 tbority)    is    manifell  Polytheifm  -^    Two  Su- 
 preme Gods^  infeparably  ^;///^^.    Tis  indeed 
 "  preferring  the  Unity ^'     but  of  Wijatf   of 
 p.  3S9.  mere  ahftraci  metaphyjical  Sulfiance  only,  not 
 at  all  of  One  Living  God.     See  below;  on 
 Ctuery  XXIX. 
 F.  383,       J.  The  Antients^  by  denying  all  ^'  Divijion^ 
 384,385.  tt  Jhfciffion^  or  Diminution^    of   the  Fatber'^'s 
 ^'  Sulfiance^''  did  not  mean  to  affirm  that  the 
 Son  was   the    (i)    individual   identical  Sub- 
 fiance  of  the  Father  •,    but  only  to  alfert  the 
 aljolute  Immutability  of  the  Father  in  all  re* 
 
 (0  See  abovCf  p.  344,  351,  441.     Alfo  Euftbii  Fpift.  add- 
 faream,  apud  Socrat  H'tfi,  Ecclef  lib.  i.  &  apud  Thcod,  lib.  i: 
 
 Ipeftso 
 
Qu.XXV.       oj  Jnttqiittj.  473 
 
 fpefts.  And  that,  as  One  Fire  lights  another^ 
 without  any  diminution  ofitfelf-^  fo  God  (al- 
 lowing always  for  the  DiflFerence  between 
 Intelligent  oAgency  and  unintelligent  Necejfity) 
 generated  the  Son  from  Himfelf^  a  ferfeii 
 image  of  Himfelf,  by  his  ineffable  incompre- 
 henfible  Power,  without  any  T)iviJion^  oAh- 
 fcijjion^  or  'Diminution  of  bis  own  Suhfiance^ 
 in  any  manner  whatfoever. 
 
 4.  Nothing  can  poflibly  be  invented  more 
 abfurd,  more  contrary  to  Scripture,  and  to 
 the  Generality   of  the  oAntient  Fathers  too, 
 
 than  what  you  here  call  ''the  STRICT  p.  388. 
 *'  fenfe  of  the  word  God,  as  fignifying 
 ''  Subftance  ;"  Subftance,  abftraQ:  from  the 
 confideration  of  intelligent  living  Terfonal 
 Powers.  'Tis  exaftly  the  fame  thing,  as  to 
 fay  that  the  word  KJng  STRICTLY 
 fignifies  the  abftraO:  Subftance  of  the  Per- 
 fon  who  governs,  and  not  the  Living  Go- 
 vernour  hi?nfelf, 
 
 5.  Your  Abfurdity  in  imagining  the  word  p-  37^, 
 '^  individual  "  to  be  capable  of  different  Sen-  379»3Si- 
 fes^  has  been   fhown   above,  f.  307. 
 
 6.  The  unreafonablenefs  of  your  Charge 
 upon   Dr.  Clarke,    of  making   the  Son    "  a  p-  B^o. 
 *'  Creature  ,"    has  alfo  been    fhown  above^ 
 
 f.  301,  339. 
 
 7.  The  Inconfiftency  of  your  allowing  P.  3H 
 *'  the  Father  to  be  Head  and  Fountain  of  ^^'^• 
 "  G/^//,"  and  yet  that  the  Son  has  '^oALL 
 
 ''  the  ejj'ential  Perfeiiions    of   the  Father  in 
 ^'  common ;"    as  If,  being  the  eAlone  Head, 
 
 origi' 
 
474  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 OYjginal  Author  and  totmtain  of  all,  was  710 
 effential  ?erfeBion  :  The  Inconfilkncy  of 
 Tihis^  I  fay,  has  likewife  been  fliown  above^ 
 f.  318,  ^5"  p^Jfiffh 
 
 -P.  3^3.  8.  The  '•  A?itie7its  ap^rofriating  Worfiip 
 '*  to  the  One  True  GoJ,  andworjljipping  the 
 ^'  Son  not withf landing'*^  is  nothing  to  the 
 Purpofe  of  your  Argumento  Becaufe,  in 
 whatever  Senfe  they  appropriated  WorJI)ip  to 
 the  One  True  God^  they  appropriated  it  to 
 the  One  God  and  Father  of  all ,  Thefe  Phra- 
 fes,  The  One  true  God^  and  The  One  God  and 
 Father  of  ally  being  Sjnonimous  in  All  An- 
 tiquity. 
 
 P,  389.  9.  Laftly  :  ''  To  preferve  the  Priority  of 
 *'  the  Father^  and  withal  the  Divinity,  the 
 "  ejjential  Divinity  of  the  Son  ,"  is  no  Dif- 
 ficulty. But  what  your  Argument  pretends 
 to,  is  to  preferve  the  Triority  of  the  Father^ 
 and  withal  the  Equal  Supremacy  of  the 
 Son  in  point  of  (Authority  and  Dominion  : 
 Which  is  a  dire6t  contradiftion  both  to  Rea- 
 fon^  and  to  the  whole  Scripture^   and  to  it- 
 
 dU  ERY 
 
Qu.  XXVI.         of  Antiquity.  473: 
 
 Q^UEPvY.     XXVI. 
 
 Whether  the  DoBor  did  not  equivocate  or  pre* 
 varicate  flrangely^  in  faying.  The  Genera- 
 lity of  Writers  before  the  Council  of  Nice^ 
 were,  in  the  whole,  clearly  on  his  fide: 
 when  it  is  inanifeft^  they  were^  in  the  geiieral^ 
 no  farther  on  his  Jide^  than  the  allowing  a 
 Subordination  amounts  to'^  no  farther  than 
 our  own  Church  is  on  his  Jide  ,  while  in 
 the  main  Points  of  Difference^  the  Eternity 
 ^/z^Confubftantiality,  they  are  clearly  againjl 
 him^  That  is,  they  were  on  his  Jide ^  fo 
 far  as  we  acknowledge  him  to  be  right ^  but 
 no  farther. 
 
 -<^«/t«'.  T^R.  Clarke  did  neither  ^'  equivocate'*'*  p-  389. 
 
 ■  J  nor  '^  prevaricate^'^  but  affirmed 
 a  manifeft  Truth,  "  in  faying^  The  Gmerality 
 "  of  Writers  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  were^ 
 "  in  the  Whole ^  clearly  on  his  Jide  ;"  Becaufe 
 they  generally  agree  with  him  (as  is  evident 
 from  his  numerous  Citations,)  in  allthePoi?its 
 laid  down  in  his  Propofitions.  The  "  Eter- 
 ^^  ternity  and  Confubftantiality,^^  are  neither 
 "  the  main^''  nor  at  all  the  ''  foi^its  of  dif 
 ^'  ference  ,"  becaufe,  in  what  manner  foever 
 thofe  points  be  determined,  his  Propofitions 
 are  all  neverthelefs  equally  true.  All  that 
 the  Doftor  contends  for,  is^  that  the  Supre- 
 macy 
 
47  ^  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 macy  of  hi'Ti  whom  the  Apoftle  ftiles  the  One 
 God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  Above  all  \ 
 fliould  uniformly  and  conftantly  be  fo  ac- 
 knowledged, according  to  the  Scriptures,  as 
 that  All  IVorpnj)  fhould  be  to  the  Glory  of 
 God  the  Father.  The  Confequence  of  which, 
 (as  well  as  the  plain  Import  of  the  numerous 
 Texts  cited  to  that  purpofe,)is,  that  the  ''Sub- 
 ^'  ordination'''*  of  the  Son,  '''allowed''''  fas 
 you  confefs)  by  the  Primitive  Writers,  is  not  a 
 Subordination  merely  nomiyial^  confilting  (ac- 
 cording to  yoti)  in  mere  Pofition  or  Order  of 
 Words^  which  in  the  Truth  of  Things  is  a 
 Co-ordination  \  but  that  'tis  a  real  S/ibordi- 
 fiat  ion  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  in  point  of 
 Authority  and  Dominion  over  the  tfniverfe. 
 This  IS  the  main^  the  true  and  07ily  Point. 
 Which  being  uniformly,  and  conftfte?itly  ac- 
 knowledged ;  metaphyfical  Subtilties  about 
 Nature  and  Subftance,  never  mentioned  in 
 Scripture,  need  not  occafion  any  Difputes. 
 All  "  er^uivocating  and  frevaricating"'  in  this 
 matter,  (if  it  be  commendable  to  ufe  fuch 
 Expreffions,)  lies  in  making  Subordination  to 
 confift  in  the  mere  Order  or  placing  of  H^ords ; 
 which  (however  unvaried  the  pofition  and 
 order  of  the  words  be,)  is  in  reality  2ife)fcct 
 Co-ordination. 
 
 .  390.       In  your  Defenfe  of  This  Query,  you  again 
 
 39^-  call  Co-eternity  and  Confubltantiality  ''  the 
 
 ''  Toints  in  ^lefiion  •"  the  '^  Main  Points  f 
 
 the    *^  leading  'PoJitio?is^    on  which    the  refi 
 
 ['  havg^  and  on  which  the  Controversy  turns  ;>"** 
 
 the 
 
Qu.XKVl.      of  Antiquity.  477 
 
 the  '^  very  fo'ints-  of  Difference  letween  Us  ^.  39s- 
 *'  and  the  DoHor^  And  yet  you  Iiave  been 
 often  told,  that  Thefe  things  are  not  in  truth 
 the  Foints  of  Controverfy  at  all.  The  Que- 
 ftion  between  Us  is  not,  whether  the  Son  be 
 generated  Co/ifuhftantiallyy  ex.  rvig  sctIol^  rs  ^xa.- 
 r^kj  or  not ,  but  whether  he  be  generated 
 at  all.  Nor  is  the  Queftion  at  all  about  Eter- 
 nity^ but  about  Selfexifterit  and  independent 
 Eternity.  In  a  word,  the  True  and  Only  Que- 
 ftion is,  whether,  Qi^hatever  he  or  he  not  the 
 rnetaphjfcal  Stihfiance  or  Duration  of  the  Son  \) 
 the  Supreme^  original^  underived^  independent 
 Authority  and  Dominion^  on  which  the  (i) 
 Monarchy  of  the  Univerfe  depends,  be  not 
 the  Property  of  the  Father  oAlone.  This  is 
 the  fingle  Theological^  the  fingle  Religious 
 Point  in  Queftion. 
 I     What  you  here  repeat  concerning  ^''Homoge-  p.  301. 
 
 r'  neous  Stilfiance  and  Infeparahility  ^ una 
 
 !**  fumma  res^one undivided Sulftance^'^  [which 
 I  you  call]  ''  One  God:''''  has  been  largely  and 
 aiftindly  confidered  alove^  f.  206,  jo6,  344, 
 
 ,35-^.  442,472. 
 
 I  The  eleven  fictitious  Pofitions  you  next  p-^n^ 
 **  fet  down  "  for  Dr.  Clarke  and  Me,  ^'  in 
 ,"  which "  (you  fay)  we  "  run  manife/ily 
 !<'  counter  to  the  whole  Stream  of  Antiquity ;" 
 are  a  moft  mirighteous  Refrefentation.  Be- 
 icaufe  they  are  moft  of  them  very   different 
 
 [  (1)  Vetus  omnis  Chriftianorum  Theologia  Deo  quidem  Pa- 
 '  tri  Monarch'mm  attribuir,  Filio  vero  8c  Spiritui   San<5lo  o<xo»o- 
 
 ^/otVj.id  eft,  Ad?n'mifirat'tonem  Sc  Difpenfatiortem.     Valefii  Not. 
 
 nd  Eufeb,  p,  5,  6:   cited  by  yourfelf,  p-  418. 
 
 from 
 
47 S  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 from    our    own  true  ToJitio?ts^    which   yoil 
 might  as  eafily  have  tranfcribed. 
 
 >.  393.  1.  We  do  not  prefume  to  fay,  "  the  So?i  is 
 '*  NOT  cojtfuhfiantial  imth  God  the  Father P 
 But  that,  whatever  be  fufpofed  concerning 
 the  Subfiance  of  the  Son^  ilill  the  Supreme 
 Authority  and  Dominion  of  the  father  over 
 all^  remains  untouched.  This  is  the  Doftrine 
 of  Scripture,  and  the  Unanimous  Senfe  of  all 
 Primitive  Antiquity. 
 ihtd.  2.  We  take  not  upon  us  to  affert,  that 
 the  Son  is  "  NOT  etenial  f'  But  th^t, what- 
 ever be  fuppofed  concerning  the  Eternity  of 
 the  Son^  ftill  the  Supreme  Authority  and  'Do- 
 minion of  the  Father  over  all^  remains  un- 
 touched. This  is  the  Doftrine  of  Scripture, 
 and  the  unanimous  fenfe  of  all  Primitive  An- 
 tiquity. 
 
 A  504  ?•  The  word,  5eo^  God^  fignifies  neither 
 "  Sul  fiance^'*  nor  "  Dom'mion  and  Authority  ^"^ 
 but  Him  whofe  theSubftance,  and  whofe  the 
 Authority  and  Dominion  is.  Concerning 
 the  word,  ^iorv[^  divinity^  See  above ^p.  219. 
 iViL  4.  That  ^^  God  the  Father  Only.,  was  the  God 
 of  Abraham^  Ifaac  and  Jacoby^  is  a  Scripture  j 
 
 >4(^;3,i3.Propofition.   Unlefs   you    will    fay    that  the:^ 
 .  lather  of  our   Lord  Jefus  Chrijfj    the  God  of 
 Abraham  and  of  Ifaac  and  of  Jacob,  the  God' 
 of  our  Fathers,    who    glorify ed  HIS    SON' 
 JESUS'^  is  not  the  Father  only. 
 Ibid.  $•  That  ''  the  Titles  of  One  Only,  i^c.  are 
 
 "  exclujive  of  the  Son ;"  is  alfo  an  exprefs 
 Scripture-Propofition.  Unlefs  you  will  be  fo 
 abfurd  as  to  fay,   that    our  Lord  when  he 
 
 prayed; 
 
Qu.XXVI.        of  Antiquity.  47^ 
 
 prayed.  Father] that  they  may  know  Thee 
 
 the  Only  True  God  j  and  St.  Paul  whe;n  he 
 profefled  One  God^  the  Father  of  whoin-  are 
 all  things^  in  exprefs  contradiftinSion  from 
 the  One  Lordy  Jefus  Chr/fi^  by  whom  are  all 
 things-^  meant  both  lather  and  Son. 
 
 6.  Concerning  this  Propofition,  ''  that  the  p,  ^p^: 
 *'  Son  had  not  diflinH  Wor(hqj  paid  him  'till 
 
 ^^  after  his  RefurreBion  5"  See  ahove^on  (^/^e- 
 J7  XVII  and  XVIII. 
 
 7.  We  do  not  fay  that  '^  Father  and  Son  p.  39^' 
 '^'  OUGHT    not  to    he  called  One  God  P* 
 
 i  But  that  The  One  God  always  in  Scripture 
 exprefsly,  and  (I  think)  always  in  ail  the 
 oAnte-NiceneWriterSy  DOES  in  fad  fignify 
 the  Father.     See  alove^  ?•  Sj,  &c. 
 
 8.  That  ^''  the  Title  of  God,    in  Scrifture^    i^^^^ 
 "  in  an  alfolute  Conftruttion^    always  fignifies 
 
 "  the  Father  f  has  been  abundantly  demon- 
 ftrated  by  Dr.  Clarke.  Concerning  the  Jn- 
 tient  Fathers  applying  "  Texts  of  the  Old 
 *^  Teftament,  in  which  God  is  fpohen  of  ah- 
 «*  folutely^  to  the  Son ,''  fee  alove^  on  Que- 
 yy  II. 
 
 9.  When   St.  Vaul  tells  us,   There  is  One    ihUt 
 God,  and  One    Mediatour-^    and    that  at  the 
 
 Name  of  Jefus,  every  Kjiee  Jlwuld  how, 
 
 and  every  Tongue  Jbould  confefs  that  Jefus 
 Chrifi  is  Lord,  TO  the  Glory  of  God  the  Fa- 
 ther:  Is  he  juftly  chargeable  with   teaching 
 
 "  that  an  inferiour  God  may  he  admitted  he- 
 *'  fides  the  Supreme,  andWorjlnp  paid  to  Both?* 
 If  not,  then  neither  are  We  chargeable  with  it. 
 
 10.  We 
 
480  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 ^'  39S-  10.  We  do  not  fay  ''  the  Son  is  not  Efficl 
 ^'  ent  Caufe  of  the  Univerfe^  and  of  dl  crea- 
 "  ted  "Beings  P  But  that  he  is  not  the  Origi- 
 iial  Prifnary  Efficie?tt  Canfe^  for  whofe  Will 
 and  Pleafure,  and  by  whofe  Suj^reme^  Abfo-^ 
 lute^  underived^  inde^enderit  Power  and  Au- 
 thority^ all  things  were  brought  into  Being. 
 ihM.  ii*  We  do  not  fay,  '^the  Son  Himfelf  is 
 **  Made  or  Created ;''  But  that  he  was  Be- 
 gotten of  the  Father^  as  the  Scripture  declares  , 
 Begotten  ly  the  incomprehenjible  Power  and 
 Will  of  the  Father^  as  all  the  Primitive  Writers 
 unaninioufly  underftood  it.  With  what  Ju- 
 ftice  you  would  have  your  Reader  believe,  that 
 we  do  by  confequence,  and  ""^  in  other  words l^"* 
 fuppofe  the  Son  to  be  Made-^  has  been  confi- 
 ^^xtA  ahove^f,  jor,  32J,  559. 
 
 p.  39<5'  Concerning  the  "  Subordination^''  which 
 (you  fay)  "  is  not  at  all  'j^ertine^it'"'  to. the 
 Doftor's  purpofe,  though  I  think  indeed  it 
 is  the  Only  material  point  in  queftion  ^  fee 
 ahove^  p.  518.  And  concerning  what  you 
 are  pleafed  to  call  the  "  Temporal  Generati- 
 ''  on  "  of  the  Son  "  by  the  Will  of  the  Pa- 
 ^"^  they  before  the  Creation  of  the  World, 
 as  diftinguiflied  from  the  Eternal  Generati- 
 on of  the  Son,  independent  on  any  Ati  of  the 
 Father-^  fee  above^  p.  277. 
 
 What  follows,  from  f.  398  to  421,  I 
 pafs  over,  as  relating  only  to  the  Learned 
 Dr.  Wbitbyy  who  has  Himfelf  written  a: 
 Refy. 
 
 QjJ  E  R.  Y 
 
Qu.  XXVir:       of  Antiquity.  48 1 
 
 (iUERY      XXVII. 
 
 Whether  the  Learned  DoSor  may  not  reapma- 
 bly  be  fuppofed  to  fay^  the  Fathers  are  on 
 his  i\(\^^  with  the  fame  Meeting  andReferve 
 as  he  pretends  our  Church-Forms  to  favour 
 him  \  that  is^  provided  he  may  interpret  as 
 he  pieafes,  and  make  them  fpeak  His  Senfe^ 
 hoivever  coniradiBory  to  their  own:  And 
 whether  the  true  Reafon  why  he  does  not 
 care  to  admit  the  Telhmonies  of  the  Fathers 
 as  Proofs,  may  not  be^  becaufe  they  are 
 againft  him  ? 
 
 Anfr^.  T  T  /"Hether   Dr.  Clarke  may  not  rea-  p.  421. 
 
 VV  fonably  be  ''SUP  POSED 
 *'  tofay^^'d^c.  And  whether  the  true  Reafon 
 of  his  not  admitting  the  Teffimanies  of  the  Fa- 
 thers as  Proofs,  '^  MAT  not  be,''  <d^c.  are  Que- 
 ftions  proceeding  merely  from  Zeal  without 
 Knowledge  ^  and  therefore  need  not  any  Rdply. 
 However,  fince  you  are  difpleafed  with  the 
 Dodor  for  not  "  admitting  the  Teflimonies  of 
 *'  the  Fathers  as  PR  00  f  5,"  but  as  Illuflra- 
 tions  only  of  the  BoBrine  of  Scripture  *,  it 
 would  have  been  but  Jujl  in  you  to  declare 
 whether  j/o?i  purfelf  admit  ''' the  Teflimonies 
 ''of  the  Fathers  as  PROOFS,''  or  as  //- 
 liijlrations  only  of  the  Do&ri?ie  of  Scripture^ 
 As  to  "  the  Fathers  "  being  "  Againjl  the  Do- 
 *'  3or  •/'  I  think.  He  has  clearly  fliovvn  in  his 
 
 I  i  Scrip' 
 
4^^  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 Scripture  DoSri?ie  -^  and,  I  think,  I  have  abun- 
 dantly fliown  in  the  prefent  Treatife  ;,  that 
 all  the  Fathers  of  the  Fir  ft  Three  Centuries  and 
 lower,  almoft  unanimoufly  agree  with  him 
 in  the  Full  Meaning  of  till  his  Vropofitiojis. 
 And  whereas  you  perpetually  amufeyour  Rea- 
 
 P.  4M-  derwith  calling  '^  the  Co-etemity  and  Confub^ 
 ^'  Jlantiality  of  the  Son,  TH  E  Points  in  que- 
 Jiion  •"  you  have  been  often  told,  that  thefe 
 Metaphyfical  Matters  are  7iot  at  all  the  Points 
 in  quejlion  ^  Becaufe,  whatever  different  No- 
 tions men  frame  to  themfelves  concerning 
 Thefe  Points,  yet,  both  in  the^  Reafon  of  things^ 
 and  in  the  whole  Tenour  of  Scripture^  and  in 
 the  unanimous  Judgment  of  all  the  Prifniiive 
 Writers  too,  That  Suprefnacy  of  the  Father  in 
 point  of  Authority  and  Do?ninion^  on  whicK 
 Alone  the  Monarchy  of  the  Univerfe  depends, 
 and  which  (I  fay  again)  is  the  true  and 
 Only  material  point  in  queftiony  remains  forever 
 unfhaken. 
 
 p.  416.  You  proceed  Now  to  fliow  what  Mi/lakes 
 the  Doftor  has  made  in  his  Citations  from  the 
 Fathers,  or  in  his  Dedu&ions  from  them. 
 Upon  which  I  cannot  but  obferve  in  general, 
 how  great  a  Comme?idation  it  really  is  of  his 
 Performance,  that  in  a  Book  of  near  50G 
 Pages,  full  of  Quotations,  fo  acute  a  man 
 as  Dr.  Wat erla?id  could  not  find  above  20  Paf- 
 fages  to  cavil  at.  Whereas  I  am  perfwaded  I 
 Jliall  make  it  appear  to  the  impartial  Reader, 
 that  in  Your  Book  of  the  fame  Bignefs,  there 
 is  hardly  Any  One  Page^  wherein  you  have 
 
 not 
 
Qii.  XXVII.      of  J^tiquiiy.  4.8  5 
 
 not  made  either  feme  Great  Mifreprefejitation 
 or  feme  very  inconcluf.ve  DeduBion. 
 
 But  to  come  to  the  Particulars,     You  begin  ^-  4'<5. 
 with  a  palTJige  of  Atharfaftus^  which  you  com- 
 plain "^  the  Dodor  has   mifreprefented.     You  *  scnpu 
 recite  the  Paffage  ''  fo  far  (you  fay)    as  con-  ^'^^[' 
 ''  cerns  us  ^"  and  yet  leave  out  the  Onlywords^ 
 jFor  the  fake  of  which  the  Doctor  was  concern- 
 ed  to  cite   it,    VIZ,,    [^On  yyy  ^3y@^  xifircLi  o 
 Yidrh^  ^ili]  the  Father  is  called  Qin  That  Text, 
 Mar.  12,  32,]  the  Only  Gcd.     This  was  a  plaiii 
 ConceJJion^    as  to  the  Meaning  of    the  Text 
 there  mentioned.     In  what  fenfe  the  fame  Au- 
 thor faid  afterwards  ['eV'  <Je  jcctl  7rg<2^r@^  jcal  ctu- 
 ro{\  that  the  .S^w  alfo  was  the  Fir  ft  as  well  as 
 the  Father  •  was  not  the  Dodor's  bufinefs  to 
 inquire. 
 
 Next,  you  complain  of  ^  the  DoBors  ren-  ^.  4?. 
 dring  another  paffage  of  Jthanajius  thus  :  (i)  ^f^f.^\ 
 •*  7<t^  r^z/^  G^4  "^^^^  ^^  ^^ft  ftfi^ly  and  ab-  o^.Edh.' 
 <*  folutely  fiich^  even   the  Father  of  Chnfi.''  f^-J'^f 
 Since  you   are   here    offended  at  the  word, 
 ^'  mofi  ^"  I  will  undertake'that  the  Dodor,  if 
 That  will  pleafe  you  better,    (hall   next  time 
 render  it  thus  ;    "  The  True  God,  who  is  abfo- 
 ''  lutely  and  ftriBly  fuch^    even  the  Father  of 
 ''  C/:?ri/?."     To  fhow  that  thefe  words  are  not 
 a  Concejfwn  of  what  the  Dodor  cited  them 
 for  •  you  fay,   "  This  is  no  more  than  Atha- 
 *'  nafius  WOULD  have  faid  of  the  Son,  and 
 
 (1)  Ttfv  uXr^iivov  y^  ovru(;  ovrcc  B-iov,     rov   ^  ;iiP<5"S    7:ot,riccx.,      A7l(i 
 again  :     Toi»  jy*   xott    ^vov    IcX-^^iv^t    S-sov,    hiyui    h  roy    rcZ  ^ptToO 
 
 li  2  ''indeed 
 
484.  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 "  hideed  HAS  faid:'  What  Atbajirifms 
 WOULD  indeed  have  faid,  if  you  had  in- 
 dited for  him,  I  will  not  undertake  to  anfwer : 
 But  that  he  ''  HAS  fa'id''  it,  I  ^bfolutely 
 deny.  For  the  (i)  words  which  you  cite, 
 are  very  different  from  what  you  affirm  he  HAS 
 faid  in  Thofe  words.  See  alfo  above ^p.  36,  ^7. 
 p.  418.  Your  next  Complaint  is,  that,  in  another 
 *BonTp  Pa^^2ge  of  the  fame  Author,  the  "^  Doftor 
 4.  chufes  to  fay  in  his  Tranflation,  ^^  far  above 
 ^'  all  derivative  Behigj'^  inftead  of,  ^^  far  above 
 <'  all  created  Bei?jg,''  Had  you  recited  the  (2) 
 Greek  words  here,  as  you  ought  to  have  done  ^ 
 it  would  have  appeared,  that  the  Dodor,  by 
 rendring  the  Phrafe  [yivvy\ry]v  s(TicLy']  derivative 
 Beings  rather  than  Begotten  Beings  which  the 
 Greek  words  properly  fignifie;,  far  from  giving 
 an  advantagious  Turn  by  his  Tranlluion,  did 
 on  the  contrary  take  the  leajl  Advantage  pof- 
 fible  therefrom.  Concerning  another  part  of 
 the  fame  fentence  of  Athanafius^    fee  above^ 
 
 p.  419.  Your  Cavil  upon  the  ^  Doctor's  Trarijlation 
 *  Script,  of  a  Paflage  in  £7i/^^i«j,  is  mo^  ridiculous  as 
 ^g^Edit.  well  as  nnjuft.  His  ''  Tra?iflation "  does 
 jfi'p'i^-  not  *'^  exclude  the  Son  fro?n  A  N  T  Pro- 
 ^dif.zd.u  p^y    £jjicie7icy    in  the  Work  of  Creation-^'' 
 
 but  from  Supreme  Self- Authoritative  Efficiency. 
 
 The  words   in  the  Origi?ial  are  altogether  as 
 
 (l)  'O  T«T»  Aoy(^  aiv  Wi,   x.xi  i  irw^ir<^,    uXX    n?   kx\    Mao- 
 (l)  'TrrspUiivx  rroca-yti  yiwviTvic,  ii(nec<;   o    tou  ^^iTou   ^XTtip.     [SoilTe 
 
 Copies,  for  yfv^jjr??,  have  7ivy)T*i<i.'] 
 
 ftrong, 
 
Qu.  XXVII.     of  Antiquity.  4^  J 
 
 ftrong,  as  the  Doflor's  or  Any  man's  Tranfli- 
 tion  can  make  them.  The  Father^s  Efficien- 
 cy is  {jt\v  rcoy  'i\m  '7i:oiy]rr/.-/)v  rS  TroLT^o^  'AuSey- 
 jUy']  Supreme  and  Self- authoritative  ^  the  Son's 
 is  [rl  tJ7r^§eTixov3  Mbi'ifteriaL 
 
 Concerning  the  Pallage  of  Cbryfoflom^    fee  P.  4^9» 
 ahovejp,^62. 
 
 The  words    of  Bafil    Qjo-a  jcal  roturS  xctrccl  ^-  43^- 
 d^i^icLfj^ii]  which  "^  the  Dodor  rendred,  "  One  *  s^^^),. 
 "  and  the  Same  in  Power '^    ought  indeed  in  i^oar.pj 
 ftrictnefs  to  be  rendred,  ^"^ Equal  and  the  Same  dit.\fi' 
 ^'^  with  reJpeB  to  Power. ''^    But  it  makes  no  ^9^,^- 
 difFerence  at  all,   as  to  the  Meaning   of  the    ^^'  ^  ' 
 Text  there   commented  upon.      Nor  is  there 
 Any  Senfe  in  fug-^jcfling,   that    '*  the  Do8or 
 ''  means  one  thing  by   Power ^    and  Bafil  ano^ 
 ^'  ther  *,"  unlefs  you  willfuppofe  BajU  to  mean, 
 that  the  Son's  Power  is  co-ordinate  to^  and  not 
 derived  from  the  Father.      Which   if  he   did 
 not,  the  Quotation  was  pertinent,  to  fhow  that 
 pven  Bafil  underftood  the  word  ''Ev  in  That 
 Text,  Joh,  lo,  50,   to  mean   '^Ev  jcootccAuW- 
 ^'.ti/.     VVhich  is  x4ll  He  was  cited  for. 
 
 The  words  of  Irenmts^  which  '^  the  Dodor  ^.  430^ 
 tranflatedthus  ^  *'  in  a  dizme  and  glorious  man-  jf////^!. 
 ^'  ?ier  5"  and  of  which^  you  fay,  ^'  the  true  Ren-  102,  £- 
 '^  dring  is,  i«  his  Divine  and  glorious  Char  a-  ^'^'  '^■i^- 
 "  5?^r  5"  are  in  the  Dodor's  -\  Second  edition  -fp.  94. 
 Thus  rendred  :  (i)  ''  The  word  of  God  did 
 *^  himfelf\  in  a  divine  and  glorious  manner ^[oYy 
 
 (l)  Ko(,\  ciVTc^  di  0  Xoy^   toZ   B-ioZ   to7<;    ^s9     xpo    Mav(rtoj<i   Tree- 
 
 li  J  "ia 
 
 ^  »  .._4 
 
486  Corjcermng  the  Senfe 
 
 "  /;;  his  divine  and  glorious   Nature^    in    his 
 ''  Godlike  (late  and  capacity  ,    the  words  Jcc/.Ta 
 ^^  TO  S'eV^coy'  ;ccci  ev(5o^ov,    being  the  fame   as,    h 
 *'  ;U.og(^yi'  ,5'65',  in   the  form  of  God  'i^     converge 
 *-'  with  the  Patriarchs  before  Mofes,  and  with 
 ^'  t^oofe  under  the  Lavp^   C^r."      Upon   This, 
 y>,  490,  you  obferve  5  ^'  He  has  faid  as  much  as  could 
 ^31-  ''  he  expected  of  him  P'   And  yet  you  are  ftill 
 refolved,  not  to  be  fatisfied.    What  you  diflike, 
 is,    that   He    underflands   Iren^us    to    fpcak 
 of  Chrift's    appearing  as   the   Reprefe?jtative 
 of  the    Father;    " /«   the   Perfon  of  the  Fa- 
 "  ther^"*^  ^s  (ijTheophilus  txpr^ffcsiu    Which 
 that  it  was  the  Unanimous  fenfe  of  all  the 
 Antient  Fathers,  the  Dodor  has  largely  (hovvn 
 in  the  place   now  referred  to  :    And   I   have 
 abundantly  confirmed  the  fame  in  the  prefent 
 Treatife. 
 f.  431.       Your  next  Obfervation  is  upon  "^  the  Do- 
 ■*  Script,  flor's  citing  the   following  PalTage  of  Ju'din  : 
 ^f'i-  (2)  "  1^  ^^^  ^^^  ^od  the  Creator  of  the  Uni- 
 dtt!ifi.  ''  verfe^  which  then  faid  to  Mofes,    that  He 
 
 '^dh\d  "  '^'^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^f  Abraham  &c^^  Here  you 
 "  *  are  angry  with  the  Doilor,  (I  ihould  fay,  with 
 Ju(lin  :  For  you  do  not  pretend  to  find  fault 
 with  the  Tranjlation :)  You  are  angry  with 
 Jujiin  :  And  inflead  of  faying  that  the  Angel 
 who  appeared  vifibly  to  Mofes^  was  Not  God 
 The  Creator  of  the   Univerfe^    you  wi(h  he 
 
 (l')  'AvetXetfju^uvuv  it  7rpo(r&yrev  rou  vctTfo<;  km  kv^h  ran  <»A&t, 
 'Ad  Autol.  1.  2.      ^      ^  ^^ 
 
 ("i)  'Ov)C  o  TToinrtii  rm  oXus  X^oci  ©sc^  o  t«  Mm<riT  uxm  ivrct 
 iitai,  0«o»  A/Sfo^/A  &C.    ^afih.  Bhl.  p,  1 80.  Edit,  Jcbb, 
 
Qii.  XXVII.      of  Jntiquitj.  4S7 
 
 had  faid  that  he  Was  God  the  Creator  of  the 
 Univerfe^  only  not  ''  the  Perfon  of  the  Father.''^ 
 Whereas  Ju/lins   Argument  why  the   Father 
 of  the  Unlverfe  could  not  be  an  Angel  or  vi- 
 Jible  Mejfenger^    is  notorioufly  and  exprefsly 
 drawn,  not  from  his  Paternity^    but  from  his 
 Si4pre?fiacy  over  all.    Jufliii  is  Here  proving  to 
 Trypho  the  Jew^  that  befides  The  one  Supreme 
 God  and  Maker  of  all  Jh'mgs^  in  the  Belief  of 
 whom  both  Jews  and  Chrijiians  were  agreed, 
 there  is  another  divine  Ferfon^   who  appeared 
 to  the  Patriarchs  and  to  Mofes  ^  who  is  called 
 \jLcLi  ayyeAov  xcc)  ^iov  o^5,]]    both  an   Angel  and 
 God'^  and  who  (i)  ''  Mmijlred  to  the  Will  of 
 "  the  Maker  of  all  Things^  having  been  (2)  Be- 
 '^  gotten  of  the  Father  by  his  Will."     And  he 
 argues,  that  the  Perfon   who   thus  appeared^ 
 could  not  be  [}  'TtoL^rh  rm  oXm']  The  Maker  of 
 the  Univerfej  but  one  who  was  his  Mejfenger 
 and  miniftred  to  his  Will ,  becaufe  (3)  no  one^ 
 who  has  the  leafi  Senfe^    can   be  imagined  to 
 affirm^  that  the  Maker  and  Father  of  the  Uiii- 
 verfe^  leaving  the  Super -celejiial  Mandons^fljould 
 appear  vifibly  in  a  little  corner  of  the  Earth* 
 \i  Dr.  Clarke  could  not^    upon  His   Principles^  p.  j^^\, 
 have  confuted  the  Jew  ^  'tis  plain  enough  Ju- 
 flin   never  thought  of  confuting   him  upon 
 Tours,     On  the  contrary  he  ufes  the  greateft 
 
 (ij)  TIJ  TOW  TfljjjTow  Tuv  'oXuv  9-£Al^(rj*  VTryi^iTUV,  '  ■■  -  "KeU  TtJ  /3»A»J 
 uvrou  oyjOiu<^v7rv)^iTyi(rccci.    p.  i8o, 
 
 (1)  ' Atto  tow  TTocr^oc,  ^iXvt^rn  '/tytvvii^.  p.  183. 
 
 (3)  Oy  rov  TToiyjrw/  tuv  'o?iojv  xcci  TTecrifoi,  x-scrccMTrnvTct  tk  ikrf/J 
 •ppccvoy  UTTwrcc^  cv  oAr/a>  7115  f/jo^i^co  7rs<pecy^cHt  57^  i^Touv,  yM,v  f/ji' 
 xfcv  vewK  s^C^'j  ToXfA/yiTii  iiTTiTv.  p.  180. 
 
 li  4.  Cau- 
 
488  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 Caution  imaginable,   that  Trypho  might  not 
 think  he  was  arguing   for    Another  Perfon's 
 being  The  Supreme  God,   befides  That  Per/on 
 in  whom  they   Both  believed  :    Telling  him 
 over  and  over,  that  That  Divine  Ferfon^  whom 
 he  was  proving  to  be  the  Chrlft^  was  not  ab- 
 folutely    [}  ^oiy^ry]^   rco)i  'o\a)i]    The   Maker  of 
 the  Umverfe^    but   the  Ji^gel  or  Mejfeyiger  of 
 Him  5    and,    though  having  at  the  fame  time 
 the  Title  of  God^  yet  miniftri?ig  in  all  things 
 to  the  Will  and  Commands  of  J  he  One  Supreme 
 Creator.     Nothing  can    poffibly  be  more  evi- 
 dent, than  that  This  is  Jnftiih  true  Meaning  : 
 And  had  you  had  a  Mind  to  inftrua    the  un- 
 learned Reader^  you  (hould  have  laid  the  whole 
 PafTage  fairly  before  him,  and  not  have  given 
 him  your  own  Notion  inflead  of  Jufti7i\, 
 ■P-  43--       Next,  you  fay,  "  the  ^  Doctor  does   ?wt  do 
 *Doeir!p.  ^'  Juflice  to  Hilary/'  in  rendring  the  words 
 n6,  £-  ^(^  Dcmtnus  ^  Deus  efl  prxdicatus^  is  '^  cal- 
 /!'*ioi  ''  led  Lord  and  God;'  when  it  ^' ihould  have 
 Edit, -id.  "  been,  is  declared  to  be  Lord  and  God.''     It 
 feems,  you  were  here  very  hard  put  to  it,  to 
 find  Fault. 
 ^.  431,       You  proceed  to  complain  grievoufly  againft 
 *s^r^pu  theDoftor,  for  "^making  a  large  citation  out 
 T>otir.f.  of  Novation's  jift   chapter,    without    taking 
 ^^^337,  ]sfotice  of  That  Part  of  a   fentence  wherein 
 f,  ii8, '  are  the  words   [Per  Subjlariti^  Co7nmunio?iem~\ 
 3^4,3oj, "  By  communion  of  ^uh (lance,''     Which  words, 
 '  you  fay,    are    '^  the  befl,     and  indeed   Only 
 *•'  Light^     to   direB  the  Reader  to  the    true 
 l^  Meaning  of  what  is  cited''    And  wherea? 
 
 thQ 
 
Qu.  XXVII.     of  Jntiquity. 
 
 the  Dodor  in  his  Tranllation  makes  ufe  of  the 
 words,  \^'  in  acknowledgment  ,"3  y^^^  bid  me  ^-  434« 
 *'  mind  the  words^^  and  obferve  that  ^'  Nova- 
 ^'  tian^  in  This  place^  had  no  Thought  of  Ac- 
 ^'  knowledgments^  nor  any  thing  like  it.  But 
 "  was  Intent  upon  quite  another  thi?ig;  explain^ 
 ^'  2?jg  afid  illujlratingj  as  well  as  he  was  able^ 
 "  the  U?iion  and  Communion  of  Subjiance  in 
 ^'  Father  and  Son.^'  Now  how  groundlefs 
 and  unreafonable  All  this  Charge  is,  whoe- 
 ver is  at  the  pains  to  read  this  whole  Chap- 
 ter of  Novatian^  will  be  furprized  to  fee. 
 The  Chapter  is  intended  to  be  a  Summary  of 
 the  whole  Book  ,  and  to  fnow,  that  though 
 Chrift  is  in  Scripture  declared  to  be  God^  yet 
 there  is  ftill  (abfolutely  fpeaking)  but  One 
 God^  even  the  Father.  Which  he  proves,  from 
 the  Supremacy  of  the  Father ^  and  the  Subordl-- 
 nation  oi  the  Son  to  him.  (i)  God  the  Fa- 
 ther^ he  fays,  is  the  Contriver  and  Maker  of 
 all  Things^  Alone  unoriginated^  invijible^  im- 
 menfe^  eternal^  the  One  God^  to  whofe  Greatnefs 
 and  Majefy  and  Power  nothing  can  be  compa- 
 red. I'hat  the  Son^  or  Word^  who  Qquando  ip- 
 fe  voluit,  natus  eft.]  was  begotten  of  him  by 
 his  Will^  [^minor  eft]  is  inferiour  to  him.  And 
 though  the  Son  is  [^Deus  procedens  ex  Deo, 
 Secundam  Perfonam  efticiens]  God^  as  being  a 
 Second  Ferfon  derived  from  God :    [^fed  non 
 
 (i)  Eft  ergo  Deus  pater,  omnium  inftitutor  &  creator.  So- 
 lus origmem  nefcicns,  inviiibilis ,  immenfus,  immortalis,  aeter- 
 hus,  unusDeus;  cujus  neq;  Magnitudini,  nequeMajeftati,  ne- 
 que  Virtuti  quicquam  non  dixeriin  praeferri,  fed  nee  compara- 
 npotelt.  c.  31. 
 
 eripiens 
 
4po  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 eripiens  illud  patri,  quod  unus  eft  Dens,]  yet 
 this  hinders  not  the  bather  from  being  ft  ill  (^b- 
 folutely)  The  one  God.  1  his  he  proves,  from 
 the  Son"*^  7iot  being  j^innatus,  invifibilis,  in- 
 comprehenfibilis,  ^  caetera  qua^cunque  funt 
 Patris,"]  unoriginate^  invifihle^  incomprehenji' 
 ble^  C^c.  With  refped  to  which  Perfeftions  if 
 lie  and  the  Father  Q^quales  inventi]  had  been 
 
 Equals  [par  exprellas merito  duorum  De- 
 
 orum controverfiam  fufcitafTet,]    by  That 
 
 E:juality  he  would  really  have  wade  Two  Gods, 
 I  ording;  to  This  Author  therefore  Polythe- 
 on  lifts,  not  in  more  Perfons  than  one  be« 
 i'ug  filed  God^  but  in  the  'Equality  of  thofe 
 Perfons.  And  that  the  Son  is  not  in  this 
 manner  equal  to  the  Father^  and  fo  ajiother  co- 
 ordinate God  J  he  further  fliows,  from  (i)  his 
 doing  nothing  of  Himfelf  and  from  his  obey- 
 ing the  Co7nmand.s  and  Orders  of  the  Father  in 
 all  Thi?igs.     He  goes  on :    (2)  Thus  whiljl  he 
 
 obeys 
 
 (i)  Filius  autem  nihil  ex  arbitrio  fuo  gerit,— — fed  im- 
 perils paternis  omnibus  &:  prcEceptis  obedit,  &:c.  ibid. 
 
 (1)  Ita  dum  fe  Patri  in  omnibus  obtemperantem  reddit. 
 <juamvis  fit  &  Deus,  Unum  tamen  Deum  Patrcm  de  obedien- 
 tia  fua  oflcndit,  ex  quo  &:  Origineni  traxit.— — Cujus  lie 
 Divinitas  traditur,  ut  non  aut  Diff'onantid  -^mx.-  JEqualitAte  di- 
 vinitatis  [N.  8.  The  printed  Copies  have  it,  in&qualitate ;  but 
 Ws  palpably  evident  from  the  fore-cited  PafT-iges,  that  the  Au- 
 thor writ  either  JEqualitatc  or  in  JEqitalitate  divinitatis,']  duos 
 Deos  rcddidilTe  videatur.  Subjedis  enim  ei  quafi  fiho  omni- 
 bus rebus  a  Patre;  dum  ipfe  cum  his,  qux  ilH  fubjeda  funt, 
 patri  fuo  fubjicitur,  Patris  quidem  fui  P'iJius  probatur,  ccetcro- 
 rum  autem  &  Dominus  &  Dcus  elle  reperitur.    Ex  quo,  dum 
 
 . cunfta  fibi  fuhjecia  fiHus  accept  a  refert  Patri,  totam  di- 
 
 'vinitatis  AuHoritatem  rurfus  Patri  remittit.  Unus  Deus  often- 
 ditur  vents  ct*  &iernus  Pater,  a  quo  folo  hsec  vis  divinitatis 
 cmilTa,  etiam  [p*  javi']  in  fihum  tradita  5c  direda,  rurfum  [Fer 
 
 SubJiantiA 
 
Qii.  XXVII.        of  Antiquity.  491 
 
 oheys  the  Father  in  all  th'm^s^  though  he  him" 
 felf  alfo  be  God^  yet  by  his  Obedience  he  de- 
 clares the  father^   from   whom  he  receives  his 
 
 Original^  to  be  [abfolutely]  The  One  God. 
 
 His  Qthe  Son's]  Divinity  is  fo  delivered  down 
 to  lis^  as  not  to  make  Two  Gods  either  by  an 
 Oppojition^  or  by  an  Equality^  of  Divinity.     For 
 ^11  Things   being  by  the    Father  made  fubjeEi 
 U7ito  him  as  Son^  while  He  himfelf  with  thofe 
 Things  which  are  made  fubjeB  to  him^  is  fitb- 
 je^  to  his  Father  -^  he  is  hereby  proved  to  be 
 the  Son  of  the  Father^  but  of  all  Other  Things 
 the  Lord  and  God.     Whence  the  Sony    owning 
 that  all  things  are  made  fubjeU  to  him  by  the 
 Father^  in  acknowledgment  returns  back  to  the 
 Father  all  his   divine   Authority   and  Power. 
 Now,  do  not  thefe  words,  *'  accepta  refertpa- 
 "  tri^' dC^  *•' totam  divinitatis  JuBoritatem  pa- 
 *^  tri  refnittit^''  (compared  with,  reciproco  mea- 
 lUj    which  are  the  0?7ly  words  you  let  your  ^-  433* 
 Reader   fee,)    evidently   exprefs  Acknowledge 
 7nent'^  which  yet,  you  fay,   Novatian  had  no 
 Thought  of?   From  all  which,    the   Author 
 concludes  upon  the  whole  ;  Thus  the  Father  is 
 Jhown  to  be  The  One  True  and  Eternal  God^ 
 from  whom  alone  this  Qvis  Divinitatis]  divine 
 Power  being  fent  forth  and  communicated  to 
 
 SuhfiAntiA  communioneml  ad  Patrem  revolvitur.    Deus  quidem 
 
 oftenditur  filius,  cui  divinitas  tradita  8c  porreda  confpiciturj  8c 
 1  tamen  nihilominus  Unus  Dens  pater  probatur,    dum  gradatim 
 
 Reciproco  Meatu  ilia  majeftas  atq;  divinitas  ad  Patrem,  qui  de- 
 \  derat  earn,  rurfum  ab  illo  ipfo  iilio  mijfa  revertitur  &  retor- 
 
 quetur.— — — i;»«;;j  &  Solum  8c  Verum  Dtum  Patrem  fuum,  &c. 
 
 the 
 
4pi  Concerning  the  Senfc 
 
 the  Son^   returns  again  to  the  Father  j^pcr  Sub- 
 ftantise  Communionem^  ''  By  a  Commiviion  of 
 "  Sitbflanceo"     Thefe   lafl:  are  the  Words  you 
 fo  much  infift  on,  and  which  you  pretend  are 
 P'  433-  "  the  befi  and  indeed  Only  Light  to  direB   the 
 *"'  Reader  to  the  true  meaning  of  what  is  cited.'^ 
 To  which  I  anfwer,  ift ,  They  are  fo  far  from 
 giving  Any  Light  to  the  whole  preceeding  Ar- 
 gument, that  it  is  much  clearer  without  them  : 
 And  they  come  in  fo  obfcurely,    and   without 
 any  vifible  C^«/^^xid?«,    without  being  iiififted 
 on  in  any  other  Part  of  the  Argument  of  This 
 Chapter,  or  fo  much  as  rnentioned  in  any  Other 
 part  of  the  Whole  Book,    though  the  Whole 
 is  ProfefTedly  writ  upon  this  Very   SubjecT:  , 
 that  (were  the  Debate  concerning  any  Other 
 Qpeftion,)    no  man    would  make   the    leaft 
 Doubt  but  that    (far  from  being   "  the  Only 
 "  Light  to  direS  the  Reader  to  the  true  Mean- 
 ^^  ing  "  of  the  Whole,)  ih^y  crept  into  the  Text 
 out  of  the  Margin^hy  way  of  Note  fromfom.e 
 Modern  hand.     Much  greater  Changes  than 
 This,  have  happened  in  the  fame  Book.    Wit- 
 nefs  the  Tranfpofirion  of  Eight  entire  Chap- 
 ters.   The   15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21  5y22 
 Chapters,  ought  to  be  placed  between  ch.  27 
 &  28  ;  And  ch.  2j  to  2^  ificlu/key  ought  im- 
 mediately to  follow  ch.  14.   As  is  mo/l  evident 
 from  the  co?mexion  of  the  Senfe^   though    the 
 Editors  have  not   taken  Notice  of  it.     But 
 2dly.     Taking  it  for  granted  that   the  Words 
 are  genuine,  yet  'tis   evident  by  their  being 
 barely  mentioned  thus  once   incidentally^    the 
 
 Author 
 
Qu.  XXVII.    oj  Jfntiquitj.  ^^93 
 
 Author  did  not  defign  to  lay  Any  Strefs  of 
 his  /\rgument  upon  them  :  Whereas,  by  your 
 defcribmg  him  ^'  INTE  NT  upon  explaining  f.  434, 
 ^^  and  i  Hit /{ratings  as  well  as  he  was  ahle^ 
 ^'  the  Union  and  Communion  of  Suhflance  in 
 "  Father  and  Son  ^"  an  unprepared  Reader 
 could  not  but  be  led  to  think,  that  the  Au- 
 thor's Whole  Book,  or  at  leafl:  That  whole 
 Chapter,  was  a  Treatife  concerning  That  me- 
 taphyfical  Point,  -^dly  j  Suppofing  the  Author 
 had  drawn  Any  particular  Argument  from 
 thefe  Words,  yet  it  would  have  been  no  more 
 pertijient  for  the  Doftor  to  have  cited  them, 
 than  to  have  tranfcribed  the  Whole  Book.  Be- 
 caufe  it  made  no  difference  at  all^  as  to  the 
 Truth  of  the  Proportions  He  was  laying 
 down  5  whether  there  was^  or  was  not^  a 
 Communion  of  Suhflance. 
 
 Your  next  Complaint,  is  of  '*  Another  Turn  j».  434, 
 "  hywayofTranflation^     The  Doctor  ^  ren-  *5m/f. 
 dred    a    PalTage     of    Athanaftus    thus:     (i)  ^'^'^''-h 
 *^  That  "Jefus  Chrijl^  our  Lord  and  God  incar-  ^J^V" 
 "  iiate,  is  not  the  Father^  nor,  as  the  Sabel-  /-^ii,^ 
 *^  hz\\idLV\i>  would  have  it ^'''    [that  fame  Perfon  ^'^'^•"''' 
 who  is  ftiled]    ^'  the  Only  God'^    this  the  Holy 
 **  Scriptures  every   where  teflify.^     But,  you 
 fty,    ''  the  literal  and  plain  Tra?iJlation  ,    the 
 *'  clear ^  plain^  and  eafy  Meanings  and  uyidouht- 
 "  edly  the  True  Senfe  of  the  Author^''  is  This : 
 "  That  Jefus  Chrift  is  not  the  Father^    nor  (Jn 
 
 (l)    On  0  (TX^KuBsiq  Kopi'^   •■t  3-io^  yyjuv  'I/j(r»!;    XP'-'^^'i    °    t^oltyi^ 
 
 B-eTxi  y^x(pcci.    Contr.  Sabellian. 
 
 ''  the 
 
494  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 "  the  Sabellian    SENSE)    the  only  God/' 
 I  anfwer  :  This  is  a  direft  Corruption  of  the 
 Author's  words.     For  the    Greek   words,  6;V 
 Ixiim  cpcciiv^  cannot  fignify,    ''  in  the  Sabellian 
 "  SENSE  of   the  Exprefflon;'    as  if  there 
 was  a  fenfe  of  it  not  Sabellian  ;  hut  ihey    ne- 
 cefiarily  fignify  the  ExpreJJion  itfelf  to  be  Sa- 
 bellian  :  Nor  is  the  filling  the  Son,  o  /xoW  S'w^) 
 The  0  NLT  God^  capable  of  any  other  fenfe. 
 I  do  not  find,  that  even  the  mofl  zealous  Wri- 
 ters of  the  F(9wrr^  Century,  ever  flile  any  other 
 than  the  Father,  o  Movo$  S^e^^,  The  Only  God. 
 ^'smpt.       Another  Paflage  ^  cited  by  the  Dodor  from 
 Vo6ir.p.  Athanafms^  [viz.  "  There  ix  (i)  but  One  God, 
 Vi^\%  ''  ^^^^w/^    one  Father,"    (or,  becaufe  the  Fa- 
 fill*    ther    is   but  One-^  ^^  yet  is  the  Son  alfo  God^ 
 Edtt.  id.  u  fj^yifjg  ji,^ch  a  Samenefs  as  that  of  a  Son  to 
 *•'•  a  Father  .-■]  This  Paffage,  you  fay ^    had  the 
 *^  Dodlor  gone  on   but  a  few  words  farther^ 
 j^viz.  "  Not  that  he  is  the  Father  himfelf  but 
 *'  in   Nature    united    with    the  Father  ^  two 
 **  indeed  in  Number^  but  one  entire  Effettce  Q 
 **  would  have  appeared  Co7itradt3ory   to  the 
 *'  Turpofe  for  which  it  was  brought.'^     How 
 fo  >  The  Pur^'ofe   for  which  it  was   brought, 
 was  to  fhow,  that  in  Antiquity^  as  well    as   in 
 Scripture^  this  phrafe,  ''  The  One  God^  or  The 
 **  Only  God,  always  means  the  Supreme  Perfort 
 *^  of  the  Father."'     And  does  any  thing  Atha- 
 nafus  has  added,  here  or  elfewhere,  concern- 
 
 ing 
 
Qu.  XXVII.        of  Antiquity.  49  j 
 
 ing  Native  and  Ejfence  j  prove  that  he  did  not 
 in(i)  Ti/J",  and  in  (2)  Many  other  Sentences. 
 fay  that  the  One^  and  Only,    and   Only  Unbe 
 gotten,  and  One  Only  True  God,    was  the  lea- 
 ther ? 
 
 Your    next  Obfervation   is  exiftly  of  the   "      ;; 
 fame  kind.     Jthafia/ius's  faying  that  the  Word      ^^^ 
 has  (3)  the   Divinity   of    The  Only  God^   be- 
 caufe  he  is  Begotten  of  him  •,    is,  you  tell  us, 
 ^'  direElly  Contrary  to  what  the  Do8or  ^  cites  *  script. 
 ''  the    P^fage  forr     That  is  :   Athanafius'%  f/f^^* 
 faying  that  The  Only  God  is  He  of  whom  the  sn.^- 
 Word  is    Begotten,    and  from  whom  he  has  t\^i' 
 his    Divinity,     is    direBly    contrary  to  faying  <^  2^8^; 
 that   The  Only  God    is    the    Father^   (which  ^'^'''^^• 
 is  what  the  Doftor  cites  the  PalTage  for,  in  One 
 place:)  or  contrary  to  affirming,  |^that,  ^la  d^x^ 
 the  One   Original  of  things,    is    the   Father  • 
 (which  is  what  he  cites  it  for  in  the  Other 
 place.) 
 
 In  like  manner,  what  Va^ian%en  adds  con-  ^^  ^Z^ 
 cerning  ''  Samenefs  of  Movement  and  Will  and 
 '^  Efjence^^   does  not   make    it  ceafe   to    be  *  smpt; 
 true,  that  he  had  acknowledged  ^   there  was  f^^^^'J" 
 (4)  therefore  [eT^  ^w^]  OneGod^  becaufe  \^E)f  dL\ifl 
 ''Amoi/]  One  Caufe  or  Origin  of  All.  S-^^^i^^ 
 
 (l)    On  yh  Mov©-  >i{yiTcct  6  TTur/.p  B-eo^  &C.  ~E<;  9-£o$  o  5re»T>)^  &C, 
 ccyivvi)T<^,  i^^y.  T8T0  'Oivrov  Hvcci  M0V6V  ^i'ovy  &C.    T«r 
 
 cvfift  x.ctt  /t^svov  <iA-»j3-*vov  S-£oi>.  .Toy  t5    ;tip<row  ttute^x.     See  Script* 
 
 Dodtr.  p.  254,  Edit.  ift.  p.  22,1,  212,  Edit.  2d. 
 
 (3)  Tyiv  [^B-iOTTjTX^  Tcu  Mil's  3-£oc/,   (J^flJ  Tfl  8|  'Ayrey  m^VKtveu. 
 
 (4)  'E45  ^'  $■£«$,  t^'E* ''AtTtor  ;6sti  liioZ  Kxl   eiylis  7f¥iu^e(,r<^    kie^ 
 
 In 
 
49<^  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 P'  43<5-       In  the  next  place  ^    ''  the  Learned  DoSor^'' 
 
 you  fay,  ^'  by  wrong  Pointin^^  and  Miftrayijla- 
 
 ♦5cri/>f.  ««  ting^  -^perverts  a  Pa  ffage  of  ]u(\m  Martyr; 
 
 fiV'^fi-  "  '^^^  ^^^'^  ^^^fi  ^/'*  ^hich  Paffage  (you  fay) 
 
 dit,  jfi,  you    ''have    explained   and   vindicated  elfe- 
 
 Edi^.zd/'  r^here,''  viz.     in  your  Page   131,      Upon 
 
 That  occafion,  /alfo  offered  ?ny  explication  of 
 
 the  PafTage  ^  To  which  I   refer  the   Reader  : 
 
 See  above^    p.  26 j.      How  groundlefs   your 
 
 Charge  upon  the  Dodor  is,  of  "  perverting  the 
 
 *'  Pa(fagey'    (though  I  think  it  was  indeed 
 
 wrong  pointed^^  will  appear  by  barely  reciting 
 
 the  Paffage  itfelf,    as  you  ^gree  it   fliould  be 
 
 pointed,     (i)  ''Jhe  Patriarchs    (fays   litftin) 
 
 *'  did  not  fee  the  father  and  Ineffable  Lord  of 
 
 ^*  all  things  abfoliitely^  even  of  Chrift  himfelf'^ 
 
 ^'  but  [they  faw  only^  Hini^  who  by   the  Will 
 
 *'  of  the  Father  is  both  God^  as  being  his  Son ; 
 
 *'  and  is  alfo  his  Meffenger,    as   m?iiftri?ig  to 
 
 "  his  Will.'' 
 
 P.  437.      Your  Obfervatian  upon  the  Firfl  Paffige  of 
 
 '' Script     Jreimus^    cited  "^  by  the  Doftor:    is  a  mere 
 
 Ijottr.p.  T\  r  r^       .11-  ^ 
 
 ^i^yEdit.  empty  Uejire  01  Cavilling. 
 
 ^EduiP'     ^^^  ^P^"  ^^^  ^^^^  Paffage  f  cited  by  the 
 t  Script.  Doftor  from  (2)   Ire?j£us^    your  Obfervation 
 
 Do^r.  p. 
 
 -xii^tEdit,        r  \  'r^     ^  '         ^-'x  /  ~       /  .    ,~       X    '      ~ 
 
 J  '/•    y-j*  ^^~  ZP^'^''^'    ^^^'    ty-iivov  rev  kxtu.    finMv  rijv  iKiiva    kxI  ^lov  ovrx,   iiov 
 iLuit.   la.    •       ~    r  d  V      "         .  N     .       ~ -^         \    ./  I      T^    , 
 
 UVTOU,     \_0r,    KCCl    iTiOV,     0¥TU.   UiOV    UVTOU,J      KUl     uy/iXoV     C/K     S      VTiTiflTiiV 
 
 rij  yv(i)fjij\/\  ccvToZ. 
 
 rif  "S  kyivviiTu  yiviTcci  B-ii-  ^  p  Tecrfoq  iv^KiyT(^  k»i  kiXi-SovT^ ,  ^ 
 ^  t/Kiw  TTfua-trtvT'^  Kccl  ^fjijiiipyoZvr<^,  &  ^  7ZViufjijccT(^  r^i^ovT<^  t^ 
 «y|ovT<^.  See  a  parallel  Place  of  Bafily  cited  by  Dr.  Clarke, 
 Script,  DoBr.p.   32.8,  Edit.  \Jl.  p.  2.96,  Edit.  id. 
 
QiuXXVU.       of  Antiquity.  497 
 
 is  indeed  thus  far  right,  that  the  Do£tor   byp^i^j^^r. 
 fome  ''  Overfipjt^  read  rS  fuv  5e8,  i7iftead  of 
 "  T8  ^Jy  -jTotrgk"   'Twas  candid  m  you  to  call 
 it  an  Overfigbt  ;  and  1  doubt  not  but  he  will 
 thatik  you  for  giving   him  Notice  to  corrett 
 it.     But  you   yourjtif^    in  commenting  upoa 
 the  whole  Paltage,  have  greatly  perverted  the 
 True  fenfe  of  it.     The   Words  are :   '^  Man 
 ^'  who  was  'Btgotten^'*    [in    the   fenfe  that 
 Adam  is  ftiled  the  Son  of  God^  Luke  3,  58  ,3 
 "  and  formed''''  [outof  the  Dull  of  the  Earth ,] 
 ^'  was  made  after  the  Image  and  Likenefs  of 
 *'  the  U?ilegott(n  God :    By  the  good  Pleafure 
 ''  and  Command  of  the  Father^    by  the  Adion 
 ''  a7id  Operation  of  the  Son^     hy  the  Increafe 
 *'  a7id  Nourifhmerit  of  the  Spirit?^     Now  in 
 thefe   words   you,    firfi^    contend   that  the 
 Phrafe  dymYfro^  3"e3^,  the  Unlegotten  God^  fig- 
 nifies,  not  the  lather^  but  the  '^  Three  Per^  P-  43^. 
 *'  fons?''     And  in  order  thereto  ^  in  what  yo?i       '^'^'^' 
 call  '' the  Literal   trafiflation  of  the  Greek^^ 
 you  render  dyemjo^^  not  ttnhegotten^  but ''  z/;^* 
 "  created  f    and  explain  it   afterwards    by 
 ^'  eternal'^''  and   ^'^  unmade. ^^     But   the  word 
 fitysvi'JiTo^  fignifies  a  great  deal  more,  than  ei- 
 ther eter?ial^  U7imade^   or    itficreated.     It  fig- 
 niHes,    not   only  eternal^    but  felfexifte7itly 
 eternal:  It  excludes,  not  only  being  made  Oi* 
 created^  but  alfo  being  begotten  or  proceeding 
 or  being  derived   from    Any  Other,    in  Any 
 manner  whatfoevcr.     For  which  reafon,  nei- 
 ther Ircfi^Jis  (though  you  affirm  erroneoufly, 
 that  "  he  ajjerts  the  Son  to  be  aygyyiiTo;,")  nor  ^.  439. 
 Any  other  Antient  Writer  ever  in  all  their 
 
 Kk  Wi> 
 
(( 
 
 (4 
 
 45 8  Concerning  the  Scnfe 
 
 Writings  give  the  I'itle  dyimfvo^  to  Any 
 Other  than  the  Father  only.  Confider  the 
 words  of  (i)  'Bajil :  '' BiU  the  Title  of  ayav- 
 *'  yyiTQ^'"''  (fays  he,  fpeaking  exprefsly  of  the  Per- 
 fon  of  the  Father j  as  diltinguiflied  from  the 
 So7i  and  Spirit  J  "  this  Title  of  Unbegotten  '' 
 [or  Unoriginated  J  ^^  no  man  can  he  jo  aljurd 
 as  to  p'tjmie  to  give  to  oAnj  Other ^  ihan 
 to  the  Supreme  GodP  For  (2)  ''  we  hiow 
 but  One  tJnhegotten^  and  O^ie  Original  of  all 
 things ;  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  "^efus 
 ''  Chrifiy  And  oAlexafider  of  oAlexanarm  : 
 (5;  ''  Not  (fays  he)  as  if  the  Word  was  Un- 
 "  originate  ^  For  Nothing  is  Unoriginate^  hut 
 ''  the  Father* —  (4)  Let  no  man  imagi/ie^  that 
 "  the  phrafe^  Always  was,  leads  to  any  fuch 
 "  Notion  as  if  the  Son  was  \jlymYfT@^'^  [/>■> 
 
 "  originate. We  mitft  rejerve  to  tie  Un- 
 
 *'  begotten  Father^  this  his  peculiar  Dignity: 
 
 "  ^ q/1s   our  Saviour  himfelf  declares^  My 
 
 "  Father  is  greater  than  7."  In  the  Next 
 place,  by  tranflating  (in  the  PaiHige  of  Ire- 
 ?iaus  v/e  are  now  fpeaking  of,)  the  words 
 ^-  43^'  vjhx'B)ir@-  -iLcLi  xiXt\jQn@*^  "  dejigning  and  gi- 
 ''  ving  out  Orders  •"  you  greatly  impofe  upon 
 
 f\)  ' Ay ivvfiTov  S,  i^Hc,  '^T&ic,  i?w  xavrsAi^i  l^^i  roZ  ^^cvsTv,  an  ro>- 
 u,Yi(rcci   inpov    TrXi^y    rod  B-ioZ  'ruv  oAwc   7r^off-xyopiv<rcn'  uXka   fjc/y   iidi 
 
 iicv  &c.  Contr.  Eunom.  lib.  3. 
 
 (1)  "Evet  Y^  oioltfjoiv  'AyivvyfTov,  xctl  (MiXv  tuv  Trsivruv  ' Ktyyi,  tc> 
 7.-«<rfpct  TOW  x.yp/»  v.^m  'Uirou  p^^pirow.     Epi/i.  "J^. 
 
 (3)  'O^/^  ''^*  'AyiW/irC^  hv,  tv  >^  'Ayivv/irov  0  7:a.Ty,9.  Epijl.  ad 
 Mex.  apud  Theodorit.  lib.  J.cnp.4. 
 
 (a)   MyjTKi  TO  'An  c?i£??    vTTovoiccv  'Aytvvy.TU  Xatajduvira.' 
 
 OVKOVV    TO)   (A.     Ayii\YjC4     TTOCTQiH       CiKiiOV     CCiJiuyjOC     (fVAXKTiOV TO      ^ 
 
 'Aym/jTov  to  Trxroyi  fji^vov  idkWfJjX  TTUfnTvui  oo\uCovTi^y  uti  ^h  koh  ecv- 
 fotf   <pu(rKoyT(^  rev  XwT?pO-j  0  Traryif)  yj\t  /W/fJi^^v  fJtiH  i^v.     jbid. 
 
 your 
 
Qu.XXVlI.      of  Antiquity.  499 
 
 your  Reader.  For  the  term,  gujojcyi/r©^,  has 
 nothing  in  it  of  the  idea  o(  ^^T)eftg?ii7ig\''hut 
 'tis  a  word  expreffive  of  oAuthority,    Ta  ue/ 
 
 ther'^s  Good  Tlet^fure  aud  Command, 
 
 You  proceed  to  a  Paffage  of  Bajil^  which  p.  440; 
 the  Dodor  thus  ^  tranilated  :  (i)  '-'We  affirm^  ""  script, ^ 
 "  that   according    to   the    Natural    Order   of  ^^^^'li 
 *'  Cattfes  andEjj'ec'ts^  the  Father  mtift  have  the  dit.  jfi. 
 "  fre-emiHtiice  before  the  Sotv'^''     Here  you  ^-j-J^i^. 
 are  angry  at  Two  particulars:  ivVy?,  at  the 
 Dotior\  ufing  the  Terms  ^^Caufes  and   Ef- 
 "  fe^s^'^  whereas  you   would  fay,  "  emana- 
 *'  /-/i;^  Caufes  and  Thhigs  ijjuing  from  them  :" 
 And    Secondly^     at    his    ufing    the    phrafe, 
 '^  f  re- eminence'''^  of  the  Father  ;  v/hereas  jv^/^ij 
 would  fay,    '^  priority  in  Order?"     And  the 
 Reafon  of  your  Difpleafure,  is,  becaufe    B^// 
 adds,  (2)  ^'-but  as  to  any  difference  in  Na- 
 *'  tnre^    or  Priority  in   Time^    we  allow  no 
 "  fnch  thingP     Now,  I  befeech  you^  obferve. 
 The  Point   the   Dofl:or   was  to   prove,  was 
 This:  that,  i^vhatever  was  fuppofed  concern- 
 ing the  Son's   metaphyftcal  Subjta?ice^    or  Ef- 
 fence ,    whatever    was    fuppofed  concerning 
 Difference  or  ?io  difference  in  Nature  ;  what- 
 ever was  fuppofed  concerning  Priority  or   7io 
 Priority  in  Time  \  liill  'Bafil  /^/w/r^// acknow- 
 ledged, that  the  Father  and  Son  ftood  in  the 
 relation  to  each  other,  of  ^'Caufe  andEfeti  j" 
 
 (l)^  'U^iiq  d\,  xccrhc,  fjtjlv  rvjv  tuv    oaru-Jv   <Z3t^<i  ru    i\  kvTziiV    %t(riy, 
 TfolsTU^^-xi  rou  iiou  Tvv  TTcCTrptx,  <pyyjjiv.     Contra  Eunom.  I, 
 
 Xpeyn  icx^i^b-^ii^.     ibid, 
 
 K  fe  2  and 
 
500  Concerning  the  Scnfe 
 
 and  that,  in  This  refpect,  the  Father  had, 
 not  merely  a  Priority  in  Order,  but  a  real  pre- 
 "  eminence''^  in  Authority  and  Dignity.  And 
 does  not  Biifil  acknowledge  This  ?  For  Fir  ft  ; 
 As  to  the  Terms,  ^'  Catijt  and  Effect  :"  That 
 Thefe,  (notwithftanding  the  Confufion  ari- 
 r.  441-  fing  from  the  Similitude  of  "  Fire  mid  Light 
 ''  jtr earning  from  it^"*  being  ufed  fome times 
 with^  and  {omtiimt^voithout  allowing  for  the 
 difference  between  intelligent  Jgenc)  and  un- 
 intelligent Necejfitj  :)  That  Thefe  Terms,  I 
 fay,  of  '^'Caufe  and  Effect ^^  are  the  proper 
 Rendring  of  to^v  d,\.r[m  and  rbi  IP  dvrccv  in  the 
 prefent  Paffage  •,  appears  from  the  other  paral- 
 lel Paffages  cited  by  the  DoQor,  where  (i) 
 Ba/il  fays,  *'  W^^  hiow  lut  One  Unbegotten^ 
 "  and  One  Original  of  all  things^  even  the 
 *'  Father  of  our  Lord  "fefus  Cbrift:'  And  : 
 (2)  ''The  wordy  Father^  what  el/e  does  it 
 **  iW^fy-»  ^^^t  the  Catife  and  Original  of  That 
 "  which  is  Begotten  of  him .?"  And  :  (5) 
 "  There  is  a  PoiQ)er  Underived  and  Unori- 
 *'  ginated^  which  is  the  Caufe  of  That  which 
 *'  caujeth  all  things  '^  For  from  the  Father  is 
 *'  the  Son^  by  whom  are  all  things^  And 
 Conftantirie  the  Great  :  (4)    "  The   Father  is 
 
 fl  \  "'i/ict,  yoc^  oi^fAiv  Ic/ivvyiTov,    Kcci  fX/ixv    Tut    TTzcvruv   OCfl^V,    TOf 
 ^xTt^cc  TOW  xfpijf  rfjiiciv  '\ytiroZ  ■x,^i<roZ.     Epiji.  78. 
 
 Toy  t|  uiiToZ  ymn^ivr'Sh' ;  contr.  Eunom.  i. 
 
 i<^V  'AiTlCC   irjq    eCTTZCVTW   TWV    OVTUV    UiTkOCc;    CM     yu^     ToZ     TTUTflO^    0     Vioq, 
 
 h'  i  -m  TTuyrcx,.^    Ad.  Greg.  Nyff.  EpiJi.  4}. 
 
 (4)  'AiTiu  fju'tv  iicv,  0  T<*T>5p-  UiTiXTov  ^j  0  iiU.     Orat, ad Sancfo' 
 rum  costHmt  apad  Eufeb, 
 
 (C 
 
 the 
 
Qu.  XXVII.     of  Antiquity.  50 1 
 
 "  the  CdiU^t  of  the  So  i^  and  the  Son  is  Cau- 
 *^  fed  by  him."  Secondly  ^  That  the  word 
 *'  f  re-eminence^'*  [in  Authority  and  Dignity,] 
 and  not  mere  ptority  in  Order^  is  the  true 
 Rendring  of  7rgoTeTx;^5cci  in  the  PalTage  be- 
 fore us,  appears  from  other  Parallel  places 
 cited  by  the  Doflor^  where  the  fame  (i^  Ba- 
 fil  fays,  that  the  Father  has  "  a  peculiar  emi^ 
 "  7ient  Character  of  the  manner  of  his  Stibftfl- 
 *'  €7ice  ;  and  that  (2)  "  the  Son  is  Second  to 
 *'  the  Father,  both  /;/  Order,  hecaufe  he  is 
 "  from  him  j  and  in  Dignity,  hecaufe  the  Fa^ 
 ^'  ther  is  the  Original  and  Caufe  of  the  Son^s 
 **  Beings  and  the  Son  is  the  Way  and  the  Con- 
 *^  duiier  by  and  through  whom  men  are  hroufj^ht 
 *'  to  God  even  the  Father:'^  Did  Baftl^  by 
 faying  here  that  the  Son  is  Second  both  in 
 Order  and  Dignity^  mean  that  he  was  Second 
 in  Order  only^  and  not  in  Dignity  ? 
 
 The  Lajl  Paffage  you  find  fault  with  in  />.  441. 
 the  "^  DoStor,  is  another  Citation  out  of  Ba-  *  script, 
 fii.  Upon  which  you  have  nothins;  but  mere  ^^^""-P- 
 Qpibble.  ^IZ',/; 
 
 Thus  have  I  gone  through  your  Criticifms  285,  ^i- 
 upon  the  Dolor's  Book.     In  which  kind,  thq  ^^^-  ^'^' 
 Fewnefs  and  Meamiefs  of  your  Obfervations 
 cannot  but,  to  an  Underftanding  Reader,  ap- 
 pear a  very  ftrong  Atteltation  to  the  Truth  of 
 
 (l)  "E%cci^irov  ri  ywfKrf/j»  Tv^q  iXvroZ -Jsn^a-ieo^,  AdGreg.Nyf- 
 fen.  Epiji.  43. 
 
 (1)  'Ito?  Ti^|«  fjjiv  hvri^(^  T'.Z  TTurfoCy  ori  ux'  tKilva'  xccl  'A|j<i»- 
 yjccriy    ori  apX-^  km  '  Airtcc  roZ  uvat  ocvtm  6  xcCTVifyKod  en  ^'  uvtcu  4 
 
 Trpoo^oq  Kou  5;'po(r«cyft'y>i  T^^oe^  rev  ^209   ku\   Trccri^x.     contr,  Eanorn, 
 
 K  k  J  hU 
 
50  2  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 his  Argument^  and  to  the  Goodnefs  of  his  Per-- 
 formance. 
 p.  441,       Your  next  Five  or  Six  Pages  are  a  nifin^i^enU' 
 -44'^-  ous  InfinuJition  to  your  Reader,  as  if  All  the 
 Doftor's  Citations  from  the  Fathers  in  gene- 
 ral^ were  not  pretended  by  him  to  be   any 
 thing  more  than  fo  many  Cojicejfiofis  in  par- 
 tictilar^  from  Writers  who  were  Adverfaries 
 in  the  Whole.     Whereas,    on  the   contrary, 
 this  is  true  only    of  fome   viry  few  Later 
 Writers,  of  the  Fourth  and  following  Centu- 
 ries: Much  the  greater  fart  of  the  Authors 
 he  cites,  (I  think,  J//  of  the  three  Firft  Centu- 
 I'ks^) profejfedly  and  conflantly  (excepting  fome 
 fevo  obfcurities  and  oratorical  fceming  incon- 
 fiftencics)    agreeing   with  him    in    the   I'M 
 Senfe   of  All  his   Propofitions.      For  which 
 reafon  you  have  very  judicioufly  written  a  large 
 Book  againft  him,    without  \b  much  as   at- 
 tempting to  fliow  that  his  Main  Doctrine  is 
 erroneous,  or  that  it  has  been  contradidcd  by 
 the  Primitive  Fathers,     The  Point,  the  Single 
 Point  in  queftion,  is.  The  real  Supreme  o/iiu 
 thority  and  Dominion  of  the  Father  over  all  ; 
 in  which  alone  con  fids  the  Monarchy  of  the 
 Vniverfe.    This  you  are  continually    indea- 
 vouring  to  melt  away,    into  a   mere  empty 
 .  Priority   in   Order    or  Collocation  of    Words. 
 For  which  Notion  of  Yours,    you  have  nei- 
 ther Reafon^  nor  Scripture^  nor   Any    Primi- 
 tive    Antiquity  to  alledge.     From   the  True 
 Point  therefore  you  conliantly  divert  the  Eyes 
 of  your  Reader,  by  amufing  him  with  ^//#- 
 cuh  metalhj/ical  S^ccdations  concerning  Sub- 
 
 jiancc. 
 
Qii.  XXVII.      of  Jntiquhj.  503 
 
 [lance  and  Dtiration^  which  have  really  no 
 relation  to  the  point  in  queftion. 
 
 You  add  :  ficcording  to  the  Doctor's  '^Me-  P-  44.^ 
 ^^  tho^l  of  citing  JuthoYs^    a  Romanift  'inigi:^t       ^^^' 
 '*  mijertake  to  deftiid  fame  of  the   Romifh 
 **  Te?iets.     It  wotdd  he  eafy  for  him  to  /;  (:ihe 
 ^'  a  iiurderov.s   colleBion  of  Teftimonies  from 
 
 ''  the  Fathers^ and  declare  he  did  7iot  cite 
 
 **  places  out  of  thtfe  oAiithors  fo  much  tofbow 
 *^  what  was  the  opinion  of  the  Writers  them- 
 *'  fdves^  as  £ifr."  This  is  again  leading  your 
 Reader  into  the  fame  Deceit,  by  applying  to 
 All  t!ie  Citations  out  of  oAll  the  Fathers, 
 what  the  Doftor  (in  the  moil  exprefs  words 
 poffible)  limited  to  the  Citations  only  out 
 of  a  very  few  hder  Writers.  And  you 
 did  well  alfo  here  not  to  mention  at  all  the 
 Texts  of  Scripture^  which  oAlopie  are  cited 
 as  PROOFS. 
 
 But  now,  upon  your  ouev/Method,  the  Ar- 
 gument you  here  hint  at,  falls  indeed  withir- 
 refiftible  Weight.  The  Romanifis  lay  down, 
 as  you  do,  that  the  bed  and  only  right  Way 
 of  knowing  the  Senfe  of  Scripture^  is,  by 
 having  Recourfe  to  Tradition  and  the  Senfe 
 of  the  Catholick  Fathers.  And  then  they 
 take  care  to  call  Jhofe  Fathers  only  Catholick^ 
 who  /'they  think;  agree  with  Them  ;  and  to 
 call  Toat  Doftrine  only  Catholick^  which 
 Their  own  Church  has  been  in  FojJeJJion  of  for 
 fo  many  Centuries  upv/ards.  And  then  they 
 argue,  that  it  cannot  eafily  be  fuppofcd,  that 
 Toat  'D^Hrine  fliould  be  erroneous,  which 
 has  been  attefted  to  by  fo  many  Cou?KiJsyd.nd 
 
 Kk  4  fo  - 
 
504  Conctrmng  the  Senfe 
 
 fo  many  Learned  Writers  for  fo  many  hun- 
 dreds of  Years  :  And  that  'tis  probable,  each 
 following  Age  faithfully  preferved  the  Do- 
 ftrine  of  the  preceeding  :  And  fo,  in  the  way 
 that  you  take,  they  carry  their  Errors  up  to 
 the  Scriptures  themfelves.  See  Dr.  Clarkt\ 
 Letter  to  Dr.  Wells ^  f,  51,  52. 
 
 What  follows, /r^f;/ p.  446  to  450,  is  all  mere 
 Calumny  :  As  if  the  Doctor  "  exprejjed  but 
 *'  Favt  of  his  Sejitimefits-^  formed  his  Propo- 
 *^  fitions^  for  the  mofi  part^  in  general  or  am- 
 *'  biguous  Terms  •,''  and  ^^  Jlip  his  Conchfion 
 "  into  the  Place  "  of  Premiffes,  with  which 
 it  has  "  ?;^  Connexion^'*  How  fo?  Why, 
 The  Doctor's  ownTropofitions^  it  feems,  (that 
 is,  his  own  Conclu/ions^')  are  not  his  Conclu- 
 P*  447-  Jions :  But  "  the  Conclufion  which  the  Do- 
 "  ttor  IV AS  TO  DRAli^  outofthePremif- 
 ^^  fes^  andpow  to  he  Juft  and  Triie^'*  was  the 
 *'  denying  the  Son'^s  Confubfiantiality  ana  Co- 
 *'  eternity^  But  why,  I  befeech  you,  "  the 
 *^  Conchfion  wi'ich  he  WAS  TO  DRAWV' 
 The  Conclufion  he  intended  to  draw,  the  Con- 
 clufion he  frofejjed  to  draw,  the  Conclufion 
 he  has  drawn  in  the  cleared  words  and  with- 
 out Any  Ambiguity,  and  which  he  has  ua- 
 anfwerably  Ihown  to  follow  necejjarily  from 
 his  Preynilfes^  is  This  :  that,  whatever  meta- 
 phyfical  Notions,  relating  to  Sahfance  and 
 Duration^  be  or  be  not  receiv'd ;  ftill  the 
 Supreme  oAnthority  and  Dominion  of  the  Fa- 
 ther over  all^  in  which  alone  confilts  the  Mo- 
 narchy of  the  Univerfe -^  is  clearly  ajjerted^  in 
 mmerous  Texts  of  Scripture  ,  is  earne/ily  con- 
 ■ '    -  ^  tended 
 
Qu.XXVlI.     of  Antiquity.  yof 
 
 tended  for  by  AU  the  Primitive  Fathers^  as 
 the  Great  Foundation  of  Religion^  the  Prime 
 Article  of  All  their  Creeds  ,  and  is  generally 
 conceded^  even  by  Later  and  lefs  coiifii'ent 
 Fathers.  This  conclufion,  which  is  the  Sum 
 of  the  Doftor's  Propofitions,  you  could  not 
 confute  :  And  therefore,  inftead  of  it,  you 
 continually  amufe  your  Reader  with  a  Duft 
 ^bout  metaphj/ical  Conclufions,  which,  you 
 would  perfwade  him,  the  Doftor  "WAS 
 *^  TO  DRAW." 
 
 You  conclude  this  Head  with  obferving,  p,  4^1. 
 that  ''Rev.  i,  8,  iso;/e  of  the  T)octor'j  Texts^  And  ser^ 
 "  which  he  interprets  of  the  Father-^  and  in-  ZIT-^' 
 ^'  ftfts  much  upon  it^  that  the  Antients  apfli-  130- 
 '^  edthe  Title  of  ^cLvro-tte^oircc^j  the  QAJmight)\ 
 *'  to  the  Father  o?ily.     And  yet  nothing  more 
 *'  certain^    than    that  That   very  Text  was 
 *'  tinderfiood  ly  the  Ante-Nicene  Writers^   in 
 '^  general^  of  God  the  Son, — ^And  they  rea- 
 *^  dily  allowed^  in  Confequence  of  That  Text^ 
 ^'  that  the  Son  was  0  TtcL^rox^drcc^^    the  AU 
 "  might)'j  as  well  as  the  Father.     See  Ter- 
 *'  tulh'an    (contr,  Prax.  c.  17.J    Hippolytus 
 *^  fcontr,  Noet.  c.  6,  p.  icj  and  p'obably  O- 
 "  rigen  fAgp^.  /.  i,  v.  2,)  agreeing  inThis^ 
 And  elfe where  you  cite,    to  the  fame   pur-  p.  6p, 
 pofe,    ''Clemens,    Juftijiy   and  Eujehiusr     I  Anl^J- 
 anfwer.  ri^ons,  ^ 
 
 I.  As  to   the  Text  itfelf,     \l  am  Alpha  ^3c>. 
 and  Omega,  the  Begi7ining  and  ttje  End^  faith 
 the  Lord^  which  is  and  which  was  and  which 
 is  to  come^   the  Almightj,     0  Travrojcgar^g :'] 
 
 Two 
 
5 0.6  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 Two  Reafons  the  Doctor  gives,   for   undcr- 
 ftanding  it  of  the  Father. 
 
 One  is  ^  that  the  fame  Title,  \_He  which 
 is  a?td  which  was  and  which  is  to  come^  is, 
 in  the  ^th  verfe  of  the  fame  chapter^  ufed  ex- 
 prefsly  as  the  didirigtiifiing  character  of  the 
 Perfon  cf  the  Father  \  the  Son  being,  in  That 
 paflage,  mentioned  at  the  fame  time,  under 
 another  character.  "  T^/V,"  you  reply,  ''  is 
 "  taking  for  graiited  the  thing  in  Quellion  P 
 The  Dodor  "  might  as  well  argue ^  that  the 
 **  words  AJfioa  andOmega^  the  "Beginning  and 
 ^*  the  End^  are  ufed  as  the  diftinguiflnng  cha- 
 *'  raBer  of  the  perfon  of  the  Father^  and  there- 
 "  fore  that  That  Character  cannot  he  applied 
 ^'  toChrifl  ■^'^  which  yet  it  elfewhere  certainly 
 is.  Now  in  This,  you  quite  miftake  the  Force 
 of  the  Argument.  When  any  Charafter  indeed 
 is  in  One  Text  ifidifputahly  given  to  the  Father^ 
 and  in  another  text  indij put  ably  given  to  the 
 Son-y  then  from  T/?^f  charafter  alone,  in  any 
 co/itrovertedTcxt^  it  ca^mot  indeed  be  argued 
 whether  the  Father  be  there  fpoken  of,  or  the 
 Son.  But  when  any  Charader  is  in  One  Text 
 difiinttly  and  indifputably  given  to  the  Father^ 
 and  in  No  text  difiin'clly  and  indifputably  gi- 
 ven to  the  Son;  (which  is  thtprefent  Cafe;,) 
 then  from  That  charafter,  in  any  controvert 
 ted  Tcxt^  it  may  jujily  be  nrgued  that  the 
 Father  is  the  perfon  there  fpoken  of     Thus, 
 
 bccaufe  God  our  Saviour  who  faved  us • 
 
 through  Jtfus  Chrift  our  Saviour^    Tit.  9  *,  4, 
 6,  fignifies  dijiinctly  and  indifputably  tlie  Fa- 
 ther-^ and  the  fameCharafter,  God  our  Savi- 
 our. 
 
Qu.  XX VII.        of  Antiquity.  5  07 
 
 our^  in  N'^  Text  denotes  dijlhicily  and  hidif- 
 futahly  the  Son  :  therefore  in  All  the  Texts 
 where  That  Charafter  is  ufed,  'tis  rightly  ar- 
 gued from  That  Cnara&sr^  that  the  Father  is 
 the  perfon  there  fpoken  of. 
 
 The  Other  Reafon  alledged  by  the  Doftor, 
 for  underftanding  this  Text,  (^Rev>  i,  8j  of 
 the  Father'^  is,  that  This  Title,  0  ^olvtox-^cl- 
 Tojg,  Tfje  Almighty^  is  in  Scripture  Always, 
 in  all  the  Antient  Creeds  Always  ;  and  in  all 
 the  Primitive  Fathers  (when  ufed  in  an  ah- 
 johite  conrtruftion,  as  in  the  prefent  Text,) 
 Always  applied  to  the  Father  only.  Concern- 
 ing the  Scripture^  and  the  Antient  Creeds j  you 
 have  nothing  pertinent  to  offer.    Wherefore, 
 
 Qdh.  As  to  the  Prmitive  Fathers;  The 
 Dodor,  from  Bifhop  Pearfon^s  general  Obfer- 
 vation  on  this  point,  and  from  (i)  particular 
 remarkable  Pajjages  of  the  Fathers,    colled- 
 
 (l)  Such  as  That  of  Iren&us  :    hoc    B-ilv   TroivreK^Tof^cc,  kcci  ivoc 
 
 fjijovoyiv'ii.     *'   One  God  Supreme  over  all,  and  One  only-begotten." 
 
 And  ^ufiin  :   Tov  a'iicccicvj  ■  i-xctt    T    T^ifsKiycuvrcc  uvtIv   TTccvroKfia:- 
 
 rofx  Kou  Tfoi-ATTiv  TU'i  oXuv  B-icv.       **  The  Ju/i  one;     and   the   Su^ 
 
 **  preme  God    over  All,   and  Maker  of  the  Vniverfi,   who  fent 
 
 *'  him."     And  Clemens  :  on  B-iU  kxI  ttxt-^^  uc,  %m  ^iv'^  6  ttxv- 
 
 roK^TOJj).     *'  Our  Lord  taught ,    that  God  the   Father  Only   and 
 
 **  Alone  is  Supreme    over  all."      To   which    may  be   added, 
 
 the    fame    Clemens:     uTrocvrav    Tav   ciyadZv,     Bi>^y,^ccrt    roZ   ttocv- 
 
 roKpoiTcfoq   TTXTpcc,,    cuTio^  0  vtoc,  y.ocB-i^ccrxi.      **  The  Son  is  appoint- 
 
 "  ed    the  Author   of  all  good  things ,    by  the  Will  of  the  Al- 
 
 **  mighty   Father:    Strom.  7.       And  Novatian :    Per  quein 
 
 facfla  funt  omnia,   8c  fme  quo  fadum  eft  nihil;    qui  obedierit 
 
 femper  Patn,  8c  obediat ;  temper  habentem  rerum  omnium  po- 
 
 teftatem,  fed  qua  traditam,  fed  qua  concejjawy  fed  qua  a  Patre 
 
 proprio  fibi  indultam.     "  By  whom  all  things  were  made,   and 
 
 •  **  without  whom  Nothing  was  made.    Who   always  did,   and 
 
 **  does  obey  his  Father:  Having  always  Power  over  All  things, 
 
 *'  but  a  Fower  delivered,  a  Fewer  given,  a  Power  granted  to 
 
 "*'  him  from  his  Father,  Ch.  21. 
 
 ed, 
 
117 
 
 5o8  CGncerningthe  Senfc 
 
 ed,  that  in  Their  language,  the  word  tto'-vto- 
 xgGtTojg,  (he  (liould   have  faid,   o  TroLvrix^gxT^'^^ 
 tbt  Almighty^  in  an  abfolute  Conftruftion,    as 
 in  the  Text  before  us ;)  is  Always  applied  to 
 the  Father  only.     That  it  generally  is  fo,  and 
 p.  451.  that  "  the  Father  was  Ordinarily  or  Empha- 
 tically fiiled  0  'TCdL^roiL^'lra)^^'*  you  allow  to  be 
 true.     But  for  applying  che  fame  charader 
 p.  69,    Sometimes  to  the  Son,    you  cite  Ju/Iin^   Cle- 
 AndVel-  ^^^^^^t  ^^d  Eufehius.     x\nd    for  applying  This 
 monsy  p.  very  Text  to  the  Son,  you  cite  (of  the  Ante- 
 "^y-Nicene  Writers)  "Tertullirin^  Hilpolytus^^ind 
 "  p'ohahly  Origen^ 
 
 Concerning  Origen^  the  reafon  (I  fuppofe) 
 why  you  fay  only,  "  prohahly^'^  is  becauie 
 you  know  the  Book  you  here  cite,  is  ^rofcf- 
 fedly  corrupted  by  the  Latin  Tranflator.  See 
 above^  p.  ^50. 
 
 TertulUan  does  not  fuppofe  this  Text  to 
 be  (as  you  pretendj  fpoken  of  the  Srn  :  But 
 only  contends  (i)  that  Thefe,  and  All  Other 
 Ncnnes  or  Titles  of  the  Father^    may  be  ap- 
 
 (i)  Dicente  ipfo  Domino,  Ep  veni  in  Patris  met  Nomine, 
 
 — Condicente   etiam    Scriprura,    Benedidus    qui   venit  in 
 
 Nomine  Dotnini,  utique  filius  in  Patris  Nomine.  Sed  &  Nomina 
 PAT  R  I  S,  (Dens  Omnipotens,  AltiJJimus,  Dominus  Virtutttm^ — 
 €}jii   cjly)    quatenus  ita  Scripturce  decent,    hxc  dicimus  &  in 
 
 JiliHm  competilTe,  &  in  His  filium  venip. -Ciim  ergo  le- 
 
 gis   Ueum  Omnipotentem^    &C  Altiffimum,    6c   Bciim    Virtutum^ 
 
 • Sc  6V//  eji  i    vide  nc  per  hacc  filius  etiam   demonftretur 
 
 SUO  jure  Deus  Omnipotens,  QUA  Sermo  Dei  Omnipotentis, 
 qukque  omnium  ACCEP  IT  poieHatem  :  Altijfimus,  QUA 
 dextcra  Dei  EX ALTATUS;— — — Dominus  rirtutum, 
 
 quia    omnia    Subjetla  funt   illi  a  Patre, -item,    6>//i  r/?, 
 
 quoniam  multi  filii  di^untur,    &i  non  funf. ^Interim  hie 
 
 mihi  promotum  fit  refponlum  adverfus  id  quod  &  de  Apoca- 
 iypfi  &C.  Contr.  Prax.  c.  17. 
 
 plied 
 
Qu. XXVII.     of  Jntiqtiitj.  509 
 
 plied  to  the  Son^  as  coming  in  his  Father* s 
 Name.     Thus^  he  fays,  the  Son  is,  [^S  UO  ju- 
 re-^  not,  "  in  his  own  Right ^^^  as  ^  you  fre-  *i'.43- 
 quently  cite  and  underftand  this  place,  in  di-  ^'^///{'^ 
 reft  contraditiion  to  the  Author's  Meaning  ^ 
 but,3  the  Son  is^  in  a  Senje  Proper  to  Him^ 
 [ji^on   a  Ground  peculiar   to  HimfeJf^    God 
 Almighty,  A  S  being  The  Word   of  God  Al- 
 mighty^ and  A S  having  RECEIVED  Tow- 
 er over  all  things.      And  He  is  The  moft 
 High,  cAS  leing  EXALTED  J^  the  right 
 band  of  God^     And  He   is   Lord    of  Hofts, 
 qAS  having  all  things  Put  under  him  hy  his 
 Father,    And  he  is^  He  which  Is  5  lecaufe  ma- 
 ny  are  Called  Sons^  and  Are  7iot.     And  This 
 Reafoning   He  exprefsJy  applies  to  the  Text 
 We  are  now  upon.     But  (i)  otherwife  to  fay 
 [ipfe  Deus,  Dominus  omnipotens,  lefus  Chri- 
 Itus,]  that  Jefus  Chrifi  is  Himfelf  the  Lord 
 God  Almighty,  is  (he  tells  you)    the  opinion 
 of  his  Adverfaries,  and  which  he  is  writing 
 againft.     Have  you  not  here  much  Tardon  to 
 ask  of  jour  Reader  ? 
 
 Hippolytus,  a  fpurious  or  interpolated  Au- 
 thor, does  indeed  (erroneouflyj  apply  the  Text 
 before  us  to  the  Son ,  but  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  is 
 direftly  contrary  to  the  Notion  you  are  contend- 
 ing for.   "  "John^  fays  (2)  he^  wellfiiles  Chrift 
 
 (0  Ipfe  Deus,  Dominus  Omnipotens,  lefus  Chridus  praedi- 
 catur.  c.  1.     ^ 
 
 ^  TTXTftoq  Kctn^^^-t)  xP^^i-     Contra  No'et,  §.6,  p.  lo. 
 
5  I  o  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 ^'  Almighty :  FOR,  This  is  affirming  the 
 *'  fame  thing  that  Chrijl  Himfelf  alfo  tefii^ 
 ^^  fies^  ivhe?i  he  fays^  ALL  things  are  Gi- 
 "  vtnme  from  the  Father :  And  he  rideth  over 
 '^  all^  being  Conftituted  Almighty  Qor  Ruler 
 *'  overalf]  ly  the  father,^'*  Immediately  after 
 which;  f'anfvverable  to  the  wordSjTra/ray  -/.gctreT, 
 ''  Chrifi  ruleth  over  All  ;'M  he  adds,  i^jrS 
 [x.§a,Te73  °  '^^T'>i§,  ''  <^^^^  the  Father  over  Him,''^ 
 And  Thefe  are  eAll  the  "  Ante-Nicene 
 p.  451.  *'  Writers  in  general ^"^   who  (you  fay)  "//;;- 
 
 "  der flood  this  Text  of  God  the  Son.'' 
 
 p.  451.       Three    other    Ante-nicene    Writers    you 
 
 And  ser-  cite,  as  "  allowing  that  the  Son  was  0  ^clv- 
 
 ri7-2^3o."  rox^^rcc^.    The  Almighty,    as    well   as   the 
 
 'J  Father:'^    vir.    Ji^jiin,    Clemens,   and  Eu- 
 
 f chins. 
 
 Juftin  does  not  at  all    ftile  him   0  ttscvto- 
 
 ?tgctT<ij§,  The  oAlmighty  \  but  only,  *'  77;^  L<9yi 
 
 *^  of  Hofts^'  who  ii  f  A^  Kjng  of  Glory ^  Pf. 
 
 24,    10,  "  ^7  ^^(?  (0  WILL  of  the  'Father 
 
 *'  ife;/?o  Gave  him  this  Power.^'*      See  above, 
 
 p.  266. 
 
 p.  60,15s.     Cleme7is,  in  the  Paflages  you  refer  to,  does 
 
 And  5fr-  indeed  ftyle  the  Son  TrccvTojcgGtrajg  •,    but  ?tever 
 
 ^'o!*^'    in  the  S^;//^,    for  which  you  cite  him.     In 
 
 the  firft  patTage  you   refer  to,    he  ftyles  him 
 
 (2)    "  The  Almighty  God-the-Word  •,"     The 
 
 Meaning  of  which   he    very   diftin£lly  ex- 
 
 (l)  "^O?    til  xopio^  ^UfJCiuy,    ^x   TO    0tAjj^«  tow  Icvtc^,   U'jtZ   xec- 
 (z)  Tor  xuvTCKfcCTopx  S-joK  Xoytv^ 
 
 plains,' 
 
 I 
 
Qu.  XX VII.        of  Jntiqaity.  y  i  i 
 
 plains,  by  faying  that  He  (i)  is  ''  irre/i/liMe^ 
 *'  i^s  heing  Lord  of  All  ^  mojt  certainly  ir- 
 ''  rejiflihle,  hecavjt  Minidring  to  the  Will  of 
 "  the  Good  and  Supreme  father  over  cdl?^ 
 In  the  next  paffage,  he  ftiles  him  (2)  *'  The 
 ''  Almighty s  Will ;"  which  is  not  calh'ng 
 the  Son^  but  the  Father^  TCcL^ry^ixrco^ :  And 
 lo  in  another  place  he  calls  him  ( j)  "  The  Good 
 ''  Plea  fore  of  the  Good  Tat  her.'*  In  the  (4) 
 Other  places  you  refer  to,  'tis  not  the  So?iy 
 but  the  Father  exprefsly,  as  dtflingtiifoed  fro7n 
 the  ^01!^   that  is  ftiled  'TrccvTox^gxT-uj^. 
 
 Eufehius^  in  the  PafTage  (5)  of  his  "Demon^  P-  .4jt, 
 ftratio  you  refer  to,  fliles  alfo  the  Son  ^xv  ind  s^' 
 Toy.^cLTo:^  lj  but  at  the  fame  time  clearly   dif.  f^ons  /. 
 tinguifnes  him  as  Sent^    and  as    being   Sub-  "^°' 
 jeQ:  to   Him  that  did  Send  him.      So  that 
 the  Senfe  of  This  PaiTage  is  the  Very  fame 
 as  Tnat  of  Hippoljtiis   above-cited  ;    except 
 that    it    refers   not    to  the  fame   particular 
 Text,     But  the  Notion    of  Ev.febhis  in  this 
 matter,   is  notorioufiy   known.      See    alove^ 
 f.  150^^. 
 
 The  Other  PalTages  you  refer  to   of  Eu- 
 feluis  (in  his  Comment  on  the  Pfalms  and 
 
 TfOC. 
 
 (2)  &iXAU>OC.   TTXyrOX-fXTCpiXiV, 
 
 (3)  'AyatS-y  Trarpoq  ocyxB-ov  fziiXrfjux. 
 
 (4)  ^iOVTTXVTCK^UTSSX-  —  X.fltt    7oZ    M.C)»y/iVcZ(;  7TXiC>\oq  XVTOV.   ■        .* 
 
 H  uicv  (pJiTiii  "4  Tui  Mova  IlxvToxfsiTcfi  TT^ca-ix^fDcry).— ^TararTScr* 
 
 OTTOTeTXKTXl  TfXTiU   etyyi>Mf  Ti    KXl    '^iUV,      Tst     Ao'/a*    7il    T^tT^Jta?,       7r,> 
 
 eiyixv   oiKivou,ixv  oCiXOiaayfjoivM  ^x  T   'JzroTcc'^xi'lx, 
 
 (5)  Vcmonfi,  Evangel,  lib.  6.   c,  i6. 
 
 on 
 
y  1 1  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 on  Ifaiah^)  fay  only  that  That  3cu§i@-  (t^l^cl- 
 ci3fj  That  Lord  of  Hofis^  who  appeared  vi- 
 Jibh"^  was  the  Son.  Which  is  what  All  Anti- 
 quity unanimoufly  agrees  in. 
 
 p.  455.  What  you  add  after  This,  concerning  "  a 
 *'  Cloud  of  WitJiejJes^  a  numerous  Cum^any 
 "  of  Primitive  Saints  and  Martyrs^  confirm- 
 *<  ing "  your  Interpretation  of  Scripture  , 
 may,  I  think,  be  retorted  upon  you  with 
 the  greateft  Juftice^  and  with  the  moft 
 irrelirtible  Force^  In  1  hat  which  is  the 
 True^  and  indeed  the  0;///, material  point  in, 
 Queltion  ,  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father  over 
 All^  in  real  Authority  and  Dominion^  in, 
 which  Alone  confifts  the  Monarchy  of  the 
 Univerfe  ;  in  This,  All  Primitive  Anti- 
 quity is  uniformly  and  unanimou^y  a^ainl^ 
 you. 
 
 CLU  E  R  Y 
 
Qu.  XXVIII.    of  Antiquitj.  5 1 5 
 
 au  E  R  Y    XXVIIL^ 
 
 Whether  it  be  at  all  probable^  that  the  primi- 
 tive  Church  jhould  tmjlake  ift  fo  material  a 
 Tomt  as  this  is  ^  or  that  the  whole  Strearn 
 of  Chrijiian  Writers  (hould  mifiake  in  teU 
 ling  us  what  the  Senfe  of  the  Church  was  • 
 And  whether  fuch  a  Cloud  of  Witnejfes  can 
 be  fet  aftde^  without  weahiing  the  only  Proof 
 we  have  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  and 
 the  Integrity  of  the  facredText  I 
 
 ^>2>.  T  X  7HETHER  the  Antlent  Wri-  P.  4s'5i 
 
 V  y  ters  of  the  Church,  were  bet- 
 ter skiird  in  metaphyseal  Speculations,  than 
 We  at  this  day  ,  and  whether  Determinations 
 of  Fathers  and  Councils  are  a  proper  and  pro- 
 bable Method  of  difcovering  the  Truth  in  mat- 
 ters of  controverfy  5  are  Qaeftions  which  there 
 is  no  occafion  here  to  enter  upon  :  Becaufe 
 Paflages  of  the  Primitive  Writers  in  favout 
 of  All  that  Dr.  Clarke  has  afferted,  are  innu- 
 merably More,  and  more  pregnant,  than  can 
 be  alledged  againft  any  thing  he  has  afferted. 
 And  therefore  I  think  theDodor  has  the  jufleft 
 Right  to  demand  of  Tbw,  "  Whether  it  be  at 
 *'  all  probable^  that  the  Primitive  Church  fhould 
 "  mijiake  in  fo  material  a  Point  as  This  is , 
 ^*  or  that  the  Whole  Stream  of  ChriJJian  Wri- 
 **  ters  (hould  mi/lake  in  telling  us  what  the 
 
 LI  "Senfe 
 
y  1 4  Concerning  the  Scnfe 
 
 "  Setife  of  the  Church  was  ^  .^Ind  whether  fuch 
 "  a  Cloud  of  PVitneJJes  can  be  fet  ajide^''  as  do' 
 unanimoLifly,  uniformly,  conftantly,  and  in- 
 variably, (in  the  midft  of  all  variety  of  ir.e- 
 taphyjical  Speculations,)  affert  the  Real  Su- 
 premacy  of  the  Father^ s  Dom'inmi  over  All^  and 
 do  always  thereupon  ultimately  found  the  Uni- 
 ty of  God,  But,  fuppofin^  the  Greater  Num- 
 ber of  Antient  Writers  had  miflaken  in  This 
 or  Any  other  Point,  yet  it  would  not  at  all 
 *'  weaken  the  only  Proof  we  have  of  the  Ca- 
 *'  non  of  Scri[4ure^  and  the  Integrity  of  the 
 *'  Sacred  Text  ;''  Becaufe  Tefiimony  is  the 
 Proper  and  Ow/^  Evidence  of  a  Matter  of  Fa&^ 
 as  that  fuch  and  fuch  Books  were  written  by 
 the  Authors  whofe  Names  they  bear :  But 
 even  "  whole  Streams  of  Writers^^  in  matters 
 of  Controverfy^  reprefenting  Other  mens  opi- 
 nions, otherwife  than  in  the  Words  of  the 
 perfons  themfelves,  are  Ko  manner  of  Evidence 
 at  all.  Should  any  man  (for  inftance,)  with- 
 out reading  Dr.  Clarke's  Books,  judge  from  the 
 Accounts  which  Ton  and  Other  fuch  Writers 
 have  given,  what  the  Doftor's  Affertions  were^ 
 he  would  never  have  any  manner  of  Notion, 
 wherein  the  True  Strefs  of  the  prefent  Con- 
 troverfy  lies. 
 
 F.  40.  In  your  Defenfe  of  this  Query,  you  tell  me 
 again,  you  arc  ^'  co?itefit  to  put  the  Matter  " 
 in  Difpute,  "  upon  Ihis  Ijffue  i"  viz.  ^*  to  let  it 
 ''  be  decided  from"  the  primitive  Church's 
 *'  ProfeJJions   in  Baptifm,   Creeds^  Doxologies^ 
 
 *'  Hymns ^ 
 
Qii.  XX VlIL      of  Antiquity.  S  i  J 
 
 *'  Hymns ^which  were''  their  *■' publick  Fortni  "^ 
 "  and  from  publick  Ce?ifures  pafs'd  upon  Here- 
 *'  ticks  j"  and  from  ''  collateral  Froofs^  fuch 
 *'  ^j  the  declared  Sentiments  of  eminent  Church- 
 *'  Writers^  the  Interpretations  of  Creeds  left  us 
 *'  by  thofe  that  recite  them,  fuch  as  thofe  oflxt- 
 "  n^us,  Tertullian,  arid  Others  ^  and  Eccleji- 
 "  ajlical  Hi/lory,  6cc."     I  anfwer  :    Though 
 the  Queftion  mufl   finally  be  determined  by 
 the  Authority  of  Scripture  only  ,  yet,  I  think, 
 I  have  in  the  foregoing  Sheets  very   largely 
 (hown,  over  and  above^  that  in  the  Primitive 
 Church  of    the    Three  firft  Ages  at  leafi, 
 no  Profeffion  at  Baptifm^  no  ancient  Creed^  not 
 even  the  Nicene  Creed  itfelf  ^    no  Doxology, 
 Hymn^  or  publick  Cenfures  pafs*d  upon  Here- 
 ticks-^  no  Sentiments  of  any  one  eminent  Church- 
 Writer^  no  Interpret atio7is  of  Creeds^   no  Ec- 
 clejiaflical  Hijlory  ^  afford  Any  ground  or  ex- 
 ample to  deny  the  Real  Supremacy  of  the  Fa- 
 ther Jlone  over  all^  iri  point  of  Dominion  a?id 
 Authority.    On  which  alone  depends  the  Mo- 
 narchy of  the  Univerfe  ;  and  which  (whatever 
 becomes    of   metaphyfical   Subtilties,)    is  the 
 True  and  Only  Theological  Queftion  between 
 
 us. 
 
 You  add  :  It  is  ^'very  unlikely  that  the  Jpo-  P-  45^. 
 *'  Jlblick  Churches  fijould  ?wt  knorP  the  Mind  of 
 '*  the  /^pojilesj  or  fijould  fuddenly  vaty  from  it 
 *'  in  any  Matter  of  Moment. — -Upon  This^  we 
 **  believe  the  concurring  Juclfrjment  of  Anti- 
 ^'  qmty  to  be^  though  7ioi  iifallible^  yet  the  fa- 
 
 pft  Comment  upon  Scripture -^ and  to  be 
 
 LI  2  ''  of 
 
 <( 
 
Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 "  ^f  S^^^^  Moment  and  Importance  towards 
 *^  fixing  the  Senje  of  Scripture.'*  How  en- 
 tirely voiJ  of  foundation  This  your  Pretence 
 to  Antiquity^  as  well  as  to  Scripture^  is  •,  has 
 been  diftindly  fhown  in  This  whole  Book. 
 And  moreover,  how  exactly  the  Argument 
 you  are  here  aiming  at,  fits  the  Mouth  of  a 
 Romanift ,  fee  above ^  p*  5^3* 
 
 dUERY.      XXIX. 
 
 Whether  private  Reafotiing;  in  a  Matter 
 above  our  Ccmprthenjion^  he  a  fafer  Rule  to 
 go  hy^  than  the  general  Senfe  and  Judgment 
 of  the  primitive  Churchy  in  the  firjt  joo 
 fears  3  or^  fi^Pf^fi^^g  i^  doubtful  what  the 
 Senfe  of  the  Courcb  was  within  that  Time ^ 
 whether  what  was  determined  by  a  Council 
 of  300  Bijhops  foon  after,  with  the  great  eft 
 Care  and  Deliberation,  and  has  fatisfed 
 Men  of  the  greateji  Senfe,  Tiety,  a?td  Learn- 
 ning,  all  over  the  Cimftian  World,  for 
 \  ^00  Tear sfince,  may  not  fatisfie  wile  and 
 good  Men  now  ? 
 
 p.  4<$o.  Anfw.  ^Tp  H  E  Matter  in  queflion,  is  not  a 
 JL  thing  ^^  above  our  Com\^rebenfion^^ 
 a  metaphyfical  Speculation,  as  you  conftant- 
 ly  mifre[refe7it  the  State  of  the  cafe.  But  the 
 True  Quetlion,  is  This  only  :  Whether  it  were 
 not  better  to  reft  fatisfied  with  what  the  Scrip- 
 ■  ture    has  Exprefsly  and  Corifeffedly   declared 
 
 and 
 
Qu.  XXIX.        of  Antiquity.  j  i  ^ 
 
 and  commanded,  than  to  build  any  DoHrines 
 or  Prattices^  wherein   the  Worjln^  of  God  is 
 immediately    concerned,    upon    metaphftcal 
 Speculations  not  mentioned  in  Scripture,  and 
 upon  controverted  Confequences  which  depend 
 upon  the  Truth  or  Errour  of  fallible  Men's 
 Tbilofofhical  Notions.      As  to  "  the  general 
 **  Senfe  and  Judgment  of  the  Primitive  Church 
 "  in  the  fir jl  joo  Tears'''  and  "  what  was  de- 
 "  termined  by  a  Council  of  30G   Bijhops  foon 
 "  after  ^"  'tis  very  evident,    (without  entring 
 into  the  Qjieftion,  how  far  Determinations  of 
 Fathers  and  (i)  Cowicits  are  a  proper  and  pro* 
 bable  Method  of  difcovering  the  T^uth  in  Mat^ 
 ters  of  Controverfy  ,)  'tis  very  evident,   I  fay,     - 
 to  any  one  who  has  ftudied  thefe  Points,  that 
 (as  I  before  obfervedj  the  PafTages  of  the  Primi- 
 tive Writers  in  favour  of M  that  Dr.  Clarkeh^s 
 alTerted,  are  innumerably  more^  and  more  preg- 
 nant, than  can  be  alledged  againfl  any  thing 
 he  has  alTerted.     Nor  did  the  Council  of  Nice 
 itfelf  (though  that's  no  Part  of  the  true  (Jue- 
 ftion    concerning    a    Do&rine    of   ScriptureJ 
 determine   any  thing  that  overthrows,  or  is 
 inconfiftent  with,  any  one  of  the  Doftor^s  Pro- 
 pofitions.     Nor  had  That  Council  any  Notion 
 of  the  Confequences^    which  Tour   Philofophy 
 leads  you  to.     Nor  can  the  Reader  here  fail 
 to  take  notice,  that  This  whole  Query  is  pre- 
 
 "  (1)  Socrates  fays,  concerning  the  Council  ot  ConfiantlnopU : 
 'O  BestriAso?  truvo^ov  iTTttncyTrm  rvic,  'ATTOT  ■^ifiuq  <rv-/Kot^,  I.  5. 
 C.  8.  And  Sozomen  :  ILvvo^v  tz-KDM^rm  'OMOAOHQ,N  asyrf  a-w£- 
 %'^Xicri.  lib.  7.  cap.  7.  "  The  Emperour  called  together  a  Synod 
 tt  0/  BiJliOpSi  of  hU  0\WROj>imon." 
 
 LI  3  cifely 
 
y  1 8  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 cifely  the  Method  of  argu'mg^  by  which  all  the 
 Dodtrinv-s  \^f  the  Church  of  Rome  are  iupport- 
 ed.     See  above^  p,  503. 
 
 F.4<^i,c7'<r.  In  your  D^/^^;//*^  of  This  Query,  'tis  a  very 
 abfurd  and  inconfiftent  Account  which  you 
 give  of  the  Doftrine  of  the  Council  of  Nice^ 
 And  fuch  as  evidently  fliows,  that  Tour  Noti- 
 on is  entirely  different  from  what  Theirs  was. 
 W  hat  Jhey  affirm,  is^  that  the  Son  was,  not 
 Made  out  of  jiothmg^  but  Geiierated  ('Ejc  Ty\^ 
 iiaicL^  'f  -TtcLT^oi)  F ROM  the  Subftance  of  the 
 Father  :  Not  by  any  Divifion^  abfdjfon^  dimi- 
 7iutio7i,  or  alteration  whatfoever^oi  the  Father's 
 Subftance  -^  but  after  a  manner  altogether  in- 
 e fable  :,  which  they  illuftrated  by  the  Simili" 
 tude  of,  ^cas  (not:  to  (pooi)  ly.  (pc^rU^  c?ie  Fire 
 lighted  from  Another^  without  Any  diviJiQUy 
 di?tmiution^  or  alteration  of  the  Firft.  The 
 Son  therefore  being  [gjc"]  FKOM  the  Sub- 
 fiance  of  the  Father,  was  not  by  T/j^w  thought 
 to  be  THE  Sub  (lance  hfelf  of  the  Father  j 
 Since  the  Subftance  itfelf  of  the  father^  can- 
 not be  itfelf  Generated  from  the  Subfiance  of 
 the  Father.  And  accordingly  They  never  had 
 any  Thought  of  inferring  from  Their  Notion, 
 any  Equality  of  Supreme  Authority.  But  ToUy 
 having  undertaken  to  aflert  \\i\^Equality  of  SU' 
 preme  Authority^  which  never  entred  into  Their 
 Thoughts  .•  and  not  underflanding  what  They 
 meant  by  denying  ^nyDivifon  of  the  Father^s 
 Subftance :  Tou^  I  fay,  inftead  of  affirming, 
 as  They  did,  that  the  Son  is  [yivyy^3^i\^  'Ex.]  ge- 
 
 nerated 
 
Qu.  XXlX.       of  Antiquity.  5  ^  9 
 
 nerated  FRO  M  iht  undivided  Subftance  of 
 the  Father ,  infer  that  He  is,  not  only  (as 
 you  here  choote  to  exprefs  it)  "Oi^  the  fame  p*  464. 
 '^  undivided  or  individual  SubftaJice  with  the 
 ^'  Father^''*  but  that  he  is  (what  They  never 
 affirmed)  ''  TH,E  Father's  Subftancer  This  ^-  380. 
 is  evidently  making  One  only  Hypojlafis  ;  (not, 
 one  JttoV^o-i^,  in  the  modern  fenfe  of  Per/on^ 
 as  you  meanly  quibble,  p.  463  ;  bat  in  the 
 lenfe  of  %  'Osnjjcei'^ei'oy,  one  identical  SubjeB  -, 
 which  Origen  fays,  and  you  yourfelf  acknow- 
 ledge, '^  exprejfes  very  di(lin8ly  the  SabelUan  P.  i^u 
 *'  Motion  j")  That  is,  you  make  the  Two 
 Perfonstobe,  not  op8o-oi,butTcouT08(7iOi:  Which 
 is  dired:  Sabellianifm.  To  evade  This  there- 
 fore, you  prefently  run  back  again,  and  fay, 
 that  by  one  individual  Sub/lance  you  do  not 
 indeed  mean  one  identical  Subftance^  but  only 
 ''  undivided'*  Subftance,  '^  una  fumma  res^*  P.  4^3. 
 ''  homogeneous  Subfic:nce  and  infepar ability  .•**  ^'  39i. 
 that  is,  Two  diflinci  and  dilhn^ly  ijitelligent 
 Subftances,  infeparable  and  undivided.  To 
 which,  add  Equality  of  Supreme  Authority ;  . 
 and  then  you  have  compleatly  Two  Supreme 
 Godsy  only  infeparable  or  undivided  as  to  theic 
 Metaphyseal  Suh&incQ,  Thus,  under  the  Co- 
 ver of  SabeUian  Phrafes,  your  Notion  plainly 
 at  laft  amounts  to  dired  Polytheifm.  Which 
 is  a  matter  highly  worthy  of  your  mofl  fcri- 
 ous  Second  Thoughts.  See  above^p.  206,506, 
 344.  351.443.472. 
 
 Li  4  What 
 
5  ao  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 p.  471,  What  you  here  add  concerning  '^  the  great 
 4'^3-  i*  Refpe3  and  Veneration  due  to  the  Decifions 
 "  of  the  Nicene  Council^''  (which,  I  have 
 fliown,  taught  noth'mg  like  your  Dodrine  :) 
 And  the  Qjicftion  you  ask  ,  '*  Thofe  who  have 
 *'  not  Leifure^  Incliiiation^  or  Patience^  to  ex- 
 *'  amine  throughly  into  this  controverfy^  as  per- 
 "  haps  Few  have :  Since  they  find  the  Same 
 *'  Scriptures  fo  very  differently  interpreted  by 
 *'  the  contending  Parties  j  Jtll  they  can  them- 
 *'  felves  enter  into  the  very  Heart  of  the  Con^ 
 **  trover fy^  how  can  they  do  better  than  clofe  in 
 *^  with  fhofe^  who  have  been  in  Pofjejjfion  of 
 *^  This  faith''''  Qby  which,  I  have  (hown,  you 
 mean  a  new  hypothefis  of  your  own,  entirely 
 unknown  to  All  Antiquity]  "/^r  fo  many 
 *'  Centuries  ^^^  This,  I  fay  again,  is  exaflly 
 the  Argument^  on  which  all  the  Doftrines  of 
 the  Church  of  Rome  rely.  See  above^  p^ 
 503. 
 
 >.  474.  And  r/hereas  you  alledge,  that  "  upon  the 
 "  Reformation  th^fe  Matters  were  firiBly  look' J 
 *^  into^  and  carefully  Re-examined  :''  It  would 
 have  been  to  the  Purpofe,  if  you  had  been 
 pleafedtofliow  diftinftly  and  particularly  W^^/^^/i 
 and  Where. 
 
 Q^u  E  R  Y 
 
Qu.  XXX,  <)f  Antiquity.  y  1 1 
 
 Q^rjEaY     XXX. 
 
 Whether^  fuppojing  the  Cafe  doubtful^  it  he  not 
 a  wife  Man's  Part  to  take  the  fafer  Side  ; 
 rather  to  think  too  highly^  than  too  meanly^ 
 of  our  Bleffed  Saviour  ^  rather  to  pay  a  mo- 
 deft  deference  to  the  Judgment  of  the  Anti- 
 e7it  and  Modern  Churchy  than  to  lean  to  one^s 
 own  Underjlanding  <? 
 
 Anfa>.  'Tp  H I  S  Query  may  be  retorted  with  p,  475, 
 
 X  irrefiftible  Strength :  *'  Whether^ 
 *'  fuppofmg  the  Cafe  doubtful^  it  be  not  a  wife 
 *'  Mans  Fart  to  take  the  fafer  Side  ,  rather 
 *'  to  think  too  highly^  than  too  meanly^'^  of 
 God  the  Father  Almighty  ^  and  to  be  very  ten- 
 der of  his  Supreme  and  incommunicable  Ho- 
 nour >  "  Rather  to  pay  a  modeji  Deference^* 
 nay,  a  ftrid  and  fcrupulous  Regard,  to  the 
 exprefs  Declarations  and  Commands  of  Scrip- 
 ture 5  "  than  to  lean  to  "  the  Additions  of  Any- 
 Humane  and  fallible  Judgment  whatfoever  > 
 This  is  a  matter,  that  deferves  to  be  confider- 
 ed  with  the  utraoft  Care  and  Serioufnefs. 
 But  to  the  Query,  as  Ton  have  propofed  it, 
 I  anfwer  diredly*  '*  The  fafer  Side^^^  un- 
 queftionably,  is  to  adhere  to  exprefs  Scripture^ 
 and  (as  I  before  faid)  not  to  build  Any  Do- 
 Brines  or  PraBices^  wherein  the  Worfhip  of 
 Cod  is  immediately  concerned,  upon  metaphy^ 
 
 fical 
 
M^i  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 ^cal  Speculations  (i)  not  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
 ture, and  upon  controverted  Confequences 
 which  depend  upon  the  Truth  or  Error  of 
 fallible  Mens  Philoffhic^l  Notions.  For  (as 
 this  matter  has  been  exprelTed  in  The  MJefl 
 Plea  &c.  pag.  179.)  *'  whether  the  Son 
 ^'^  and  Holy  Qhojl  be  equal^  or  not  ^qual^ 
 "  to  the  Father ;  whether  they  be  the 
 *^  fawej  or  not  the  fame^  with  the  Father  ^ 
 ^^  whether  they  be  really  diJiinEi  Perfons,  or 
 ^'  not  really  diJlinS  Perfons^  but  only  Modes 
 "  or  Powers^  improperly  called  Perfons  -^  whe- 
 "  ther  the  Son  be  confubflantjal  to  the  Father, 
 **  or  not  confubliantial'^  whether  confubftantial 
 *^  fignifies  hidividuality  of  Subdance^  or  on- 
 *^  ly  Derivation  of  one  Subjlance  from  Ano- 
 "  ther  J  and  which  way  foever  innumerable 
 "  other  fuch  Queftions  be  determined  :  yet,  to 
 •^^  worfliip  uniformly  the  One  God,  the  Fa- 
 ''  ther  Almighty^  even  our  Father  which  is  in 
 ^^  Heaven,  through  the  Interceflion  of  his  on- 
 "  ly  Son  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  in  the  Man- 
 
 *  (i)  Contentions  about  mere  Metaphyftcal  Speculations^  fo 
 long  as  they  affecfled  not  Chriftian  Pra^ice,  were  well  repro- 
 ved by  the  Emperor  Conjlantine;  Who,  in  his  Letter  to  jilex" 
 attder  and  Arius,  (harply  rebuked  them  Both,  for  their  Con- 
 tentions zhowt  frivolous  Words  and  Phrafes,  which  concerned 
 not  any  fundamental  Point  of  Prafficcy  nor  had  introduced  any 
 innovation  in  the  Wordjip  ofGou.  The  Terms,  in  which  he  fpeaks 
 of  thefe  Matters,  are :  Tlf^  'zSc*  rxZrx  Aj^jj?.    z^tj^Vj*^,  oTrvra,-,  a 
 
 Aiav  i'hcc'/j><^(av.      At   oXiyix,<i   KXi   fjju,Tccix<i   py)[jtjoiTuv  ^i?^tvHKix^.      'Yrrtp 
 fjutx^av   iC  fiiyi$hcuuu<;  uvxytuauv.     Aixv  iwi^Yi'i  ^^t^.tk;.     And  the  like- 
 Soz.  Hilt,  ecclef.  hb.  r,  c.  i^    vSocrat.  Hift.  Ecclef.  Ub.  i,  c.4. 
 -     See  alfo  ]iu[cb.  vit.  Conftantini,  1.  2,   c.67,  68,  &c. 
 
 *'  ner 
 
Qu.XXX.        of  Antiquity.  525 
 
 •^  ner  the  Scripture  direds  ^  and,  with  regard 
 **  to  the  Nature  of  the  Son  and  Hol^  Spirit^ 
 **  not  to  be  wife  above  what  is  written,  but 
 ^'  to  confine  our  felves  (at  leafl  in  Creeds  and 
 *^  publick  Prayers^  to  the  clear  and  uncontro- 
 *'  verted  Exprefflons  of  Scripture  concerning 
 ^'  Them  and  the  Honour  due  unto  them : 
 **  this  (I  fay)  is  undoubtedly,  upon  all  pof- 
 <^  fible  Hypothefes,  right  and  fufficient  in 
 ^^  Praftice,  without  Any  Danger  of  Errour  or 
 •^  Miflake ,  being  what  all  fincere  Chriflians 
 *^  might  eafily  and  mofl  fafely  agree  in,  and 
 ^^  indeed  all  that  they  promife  at  their  Bap- 
 *'  tifm  :  Whereas  All  Determinations  beyond 
 *'  thefe  clear  Truths,  and  All  publickly  im- 
 "  pofed  PraBices  built  upon  fuch  Determina- 
 "  tions,  Always  have  been,  and  cannot  but 
 ^'  be.  Matter  of  Difquiet  to  the  Cofifciences  of 
 *'  many  pious  Perfons^  and  (unlefs  Men  be  too 
 *'  carelefs  and  indifferent  with  Regard  to 
 "  Truth  or  Errour  in  Religion)  will  unavoi- 
 ■^  dably  in  their  Confequences  be  the  Caufe 
 *'  of  Difputes  alfo  and  Contentions  in  the  Church 
 ^'  of  God. 
 
 In  your  T>efe?ife  of  This  Query,  you  ap-  p.  4S0, 
 peal  to  the  Paffions  inftead  of  the  Tlnderftand- 
 ing  of  your  Readers.  Which  Proceeding,  in  mat- 
 ters of  Controverfy,  is  always  Unjufl.  "  What 
 *^  mufl  an  Arian  have  to  [ay  at  that  Great 
 *'  Day^  hf  it  appears  that  he  has  been  uttering 
 ^^  Blafphemies  againfl  the  Son  of  God^  and  re- 
 
 l^  viling  his  Redeemer  j for  no  other  Rea- 
 
 fonSy 
 
5^4  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 *'  fons^  in  the  laji  liefitk^  butbecaufe  he  thought 
 ^'  Generation  implied  Divifion,  and  neceiTary 
 **  Generation  implied  outzvard  Coaftion,  and 
 '*  he  could  not  underflaiid  whether  the  Unity 
 ^^  fljoidd  be  called  Specifick  or  Individual?'* 
 All  which  is  mere  and  direct  Calimmy.     For 
 
 \ji.  Throwing  about  Names  of  Reproach 
 at  random,  and  (in  order  to  move  the  Paffions 
 of  the  more  ignorant  Readers)  calling  Thofe 
 men  Avians^  who  neither  direSly  maintain 
 any  of  the  peculiar  Doftrines  of  Arius^  nor 
 can  any  other  way  even  by  imaginary 
 Cfjnfequence  or  deduSion  be  charged  with  it, 
 than  what  will  equally  afFed  oux  Saviour  him- 
 felf  and  his  Apoftles  and  All  the  Writers  of 
 the  Three  Firft  Centuries^  and  lower:  This  (I 
 fay)  is  not  the  Spirit  of  Truth  and  of  Chri- 
 fiianity.  Concerning  which  matter,  more  will 
 be  faid  upon  the  hollowing  Query. 
 
 idly.  Charging  thofe  Men  as  Blafphemers^ 
 who  (according  to  the  beft  of  their  Under- 
 ftandings)  foberly,  and  in  the  Fear  of  God, 
 aflcrt  all  that  they  find,  and  ojily  what  they 
 find,  in  the  word  of  God  ;  This  undoubtedly, 
 in  point  of  Morality,  is  highly  Criminal. 
 
 o^dly.  Telling  your  Reader,  that  Men  af- 
 fert  things  upon  Such  Reafons  ON LT^  as 
 by  the  Perfons  themf elves  were  NEVER 
 alledged  at  all  ^  but  have  either  been  advanced, 
 only  by  fome  ignorantWriters  in  former  times  \ 
 or  rather  are  fuch  Reafons,  as  weak  and  pafii- 
 onate  Men  have  defired  that  the  Perfons  whom 
 they  oppofe,  wculd  alledge,    inftead  of   what 
 
 they 
 
Qu.  XX5C.  of  Antiquity.  5 1 1 
 
 they  do  alledge :  This  alfo  is  a  manner  of  ar- 
 guing, neither  ^^  fultable  to^  nor  becoming  Chri-  f.  48c 
 ^^  fliayis.**     See  above^  p,  505. 
 
 ^thly.    How  eafily,    and   with  how  much 
 greater  Juftice,  might  your  own   Exclamation 
 be  retorted  upon  you  :    '^  What  mufl  an  Affer^ 
 *^  r^r  «?/ Many  Supreme  Governours  of  the 
 *^  Univerfe,  have  to  fay  at  That  Great  T>ay^ 
 "  //  it  appears  that  he  has  been  tittering  Blal- 
 ^'  phemies  againji  The  One  God  and  Father 
 **  of  All,  who  is  Above  All  ^  denying  his  Su' 
 **  preme  Divinity  and  Peerlefs  Majefiy^  &c  ?^ 
 Methinks   the  Unchriflian  Look  of    fuch    an 
 Accufation  in  One  Place,  might  teach  a  ferious 
 man  to  know  it  again,  whenever  he  meets  it 
 in  Another. 
 
 QjJ  ER  Y 
 
y  2(J  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 (iu  E  R  Y     XXXL 
 
 Whether  any  thing  lefs  than  clear  and  evident 
 Demonftration  on  the  Side  of  Arianifm, 
 ought  to  move  a  wife  and  good  Man^  againjl 
 fo  great  Appearances  of  Truth ^  on  the  fide 
 of  Orthodoxy,  from  Scripture,  Reafon, 
 and  Antiquity  :  And  whether  we  may  not 
 wait  long^  before  we  find  fuch  Demonftra- 
 tion > 
 
 P.  481.  ^nfw.  Tr^  H  E  Arian  Opinion  is,  that  the 
 \  Son  of  God  was  Made  out  of  no- 
 things and  that  there  was  aTime  when  He  was  not. 
 Neither  of  thefe  Things  have  been  afferted  by 
 Dr.  Clarke ,  Nor  has  he  any  where  (that  I  know 
 of)  affirmed  any  thing,  from  which  either  of 
 thefe  Notions  can  by  any  juft  Confequenceht  de- 
 duced 5  (All  his  Propofitions  being  equally  true 
 and  certain  both  from  Reafon  and  Scripture, 
 whatever  the  Subfiajice^  and  how  unlimited 
 foever  the  Duration  of  the  Son  be.)  And  he 
 conftantly  blames  thofe  who  teach  either  of 
 fhefe  Notions,  as  Men  who  prefumptuoufly 
 affirm  what  they  cannot  poffibly  know  any  thing 
 of.  Yet  you  will  needs  have  your  Reader  be- 
 lieve, that  the  Dodor  contends  for  thefe  Opi- 
 nions ;>  merely  becaufe  You /^7i9^,  that  from 
 His  Notions,  (which  you  conftantly  mif« 
 reprefent,)  fuch  and  fuch  Confequefices  will 
 follow,   which  the  DoBor  and  Others  have 
 
 plainly 
 
Qu.  XXXI.      of  Jntiquity.  f  ly 
 
 plainly  and  frequently  flio\vn  not  to  follow  at 
 all.  Charging  Men  in  this  Manner  with 
 Covfequmces^  which  they  neither  teach  nor 
 fee  *,  is,  in  philofophical  Queftions,  always  un- 
 fair 5  in  religious^  always  imjufl  :  and  indeed 
 nothing  elfe,  but  appealing  from  Scripture  and 
 Reafon  to  the  Ignorance  and  Superflition  of 
 the  Vulgan  I  am  fully  perfwaded  I  could  de- 
 monjlrate^  l\\^M  your  Principles  do,  by  True  and 
 Neceffary  Consequence^  fundamentally  fubvert 
 both  All  Science  and  All  Religion :  Yet,  becaufe 
 1  firmly  believe  you  do  not  at  prefent  per^ 
 4:eive  That  Confequence,  it  would  be  very  un- 
 reaionable  in  me  to  charge  T<9w  with  it-  For  we 
 ought  not  to  render  Evil  for  Evil^  or  Railing  for 
 Railing^  tut  contrarimfe  Blejfing.  i  Pet.  3,  9. 
 
 in  your  Defenfe  of  This  Query,  (perfifting  p-  4|i. 
 in  That  detefiable  Method  of  appealing  to  the  ^  ■ - 
 Paffions  and  Prejudices  of  the  Ignorant^)  you 
 will  needs  have  thofe  men  be  ftyled  Arians^vfho 
 neither  direBly  nor  by  any  jujl  confequence 
 £fee  above ^  p.  301,  323,  339,1  affert  any 
 thing,  but  what  by  All  the  Ante-nicene  Wri- 
 ters almoft  unanimoufly  was  alTerted ;  by  the 
 Council  of  Nice  itfelf,  was  no  way  contradid- 
 ed  ^  and  by  the  generality  of  Writers  even  in 
 Later  times,  was  frequently  afierted,  though 
 frequently  alfo  contradifted. 
 
 Are  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  ^/V(?,juftly 
 ll  to  be  ftyled  Arians  •,  becaufe  they  never  faid  nor 
 imagined  (as  Tou  do,)  that   **  the  Sub  fiance  of  p,  379, 
 *'  the  Son'''  was  ^'the  Father'^s  Subflance]""  (which       380- 
 
 is 
 
ya8  Coticerntng  the  Senfe 
 
 IS  being  rcLvroHcio^^   not  o/xoyaio^  •,)    but  that 
 the  Son  was  in  fome  ineffable  manner  [yiv-  i 
 yyi^ti^  'EK  tyi^  s(tU$  y  ttolt^U']  hegotte?i  FR  0  M\ 
 the  Subftance  of  the  F^/tber,    as   0/ie  Fire  is 
 lighted  frorii  Another^   without  any  Divifion^ 
 dimmution^  or  alteration  whatfotver  of  the 
 Firft  ?  Which  generation  [_'E>c  ta^  saw  y  ^ol- 
 r^oi]  FRO M  the  Sulftance  of  the  Father,  as 
 Oppofed  to  his  being    [rcL^itomios  or  y\  salct  V 
 'TtoLT^k']  *'  the  Suh/iance  itfelf  of  the  Fat  her  ^^ 
 you  (^according  to  Tour  Philofophy)  fuppofe 
 toirifer^  what  They  (according  to  Their  Philo- 
 fophy j  fuppofed  Not  to  infer,, his  being  (-Troivj^e!^  j 
 l|  8>c  ovTO)'/)  made  out  of  Nothing,  ' 
 
 Are  all  the  Writers  ohh^firfi  Three  Centuries 
 and  lower,  juftly  to  be  ftyled  oArians  j  becaufe 
 they  unanimotijl)  and  invariably  affert,  that  the 
 Son  was  generated  (not  only  S-eAovro^  ^^lt^o^^ 
 but)  3^t\y}iJicLri^  f^tiXyjySvvdfXii  V  ^ctr^U^  by  an  Aci  \ 
 of  the  Father'^j  Power  and  Will ,  and  never 
 once  in  a?iy  place  afferted  or  imagined,  but 
 largely,  conilantly,  uniformly,  and  perpetu- 
 ally denied,  any  Equality  of  Supreme  Autho- 
 rity  and  Dominion  f 
 
 Is  St.  Paul  juftly  to  be  ftyled  an  oArian ;  be- 
 caufe he  exprefsly  aflerts  The  Father^  Of  whom 
 are  all  thi^igs,  to  be  The  One  God  j  as  diftin- 
 guiOied,  in  the  very  fame  Sentence,  from  The 
 One  Lord^  'By  whom  are  all  thiJigs  :  And  af- 
 firms the  One  God  and  Father  of  all^  to  be  A- 
 love  all ;  as  diftinguillied,  in  the  very  fame  Sen- 
 tence, from  the  One  Lord  and  One  Spirit  <? 
 
 Laftly,  Is  Our  Saviour  him/elf  juftly  to  be 
 ftyled  an  Arian  j  becaufe  he  exprefsly  ftyles  his 
 
 Father 
 
Qu.  XXXI.       vf  Antiquitj.  529 
 
 Father  77?^  Only  True  God,  as  diftinguiflied 
 from  fcffus  Chrifi  whom  He  bad  fent  ?  and 
 affirms  the  Father  to  be  Greater  than  Hef 
 Which  oAll  oAntiquity  has  unanimoully  un- 
 derllood  to  mean,  that  the  Favctr  was,  ia 
 point  of  oAuthority  and  'Dominio?/^  greater 
 than  the  So7i  in  his  Higheft  Capacity  > 
 
 In  what  an  unchrijiic.n  manner   you  here  ^.483! 
 proceed  to  alledge  "  the  Honour  of  our  'Blef- 
 "  fed  Lord  a7id  Saviour^    the  Dread  and  Hor- 
 
 rour  of  Blafptemy^  &c.  and  how  juftly 
 might  be  retorted  upon  you,  the  Honour  of 
 the  One  God  and  Father  of  all^  who  is  above 
 all  \  and  the  Dread  and  Horrour  of  'Blaffhe* 
 my,  i^c.  has  been  fhown  under  the  for e-go- 
 ing  Query. 
 
 Your  telling  me  here  again  and  again,  that  f.  484: 
 I  '^  am  to  prove  "  that   '"  the  Son  is  a  Crea- 
 *^  ture ;"  has  been  alfo  confidered  alove^  f. 
 501,  ?23,  539. 
 
 Your  faying,  that,  "  as  to  all  the  Texts^'''  P,  487^ 
 you  "  have  Solutions  ready  for  them  ;"  is  very 
 unfatisfadory.  For,  all  the  Solutions  you 
 have  yet  offered,  amount  only  to  This;  that 
 the  One  God  and  Father  of  AA^  i^ho  is 
 Above  AH^  muft  be  underftood  to  include 
 both  Father  ana  Son  and  Spirit^  even  when 
 in  the  very  words  of  the  Text  itfelf  He 
 is  exprefsly  and  by  name  diftinguifhed  from 
 the  One  Lord  and  the  One  Si^irit  ,  And 
 that  the  One  God^  the  Father^  of  whom 
 are  all  things^  muft  include  both  Father 
 and  Son^  even  when  the  very  words  of  the 
 
 M  m  Text 
 
5  3^  Concerning  the  Senfe 
 
 Text  itfelf   exprefsly   diftinguifli   him   from 
 the   One  Lord^  by  whom  art  all  things. 
 
 P.  485  And  now,  I  think,  I  have  a  juft  Right 
 —487-  to  conclude  with  your  own  words.  ^' Aow 
 "  you  fee  J  what  you  have  to  do :  And  our 
 *'  ^Leaders  -perhaps  may  underftand^  what  we 
 •^  are  talking  about  •,  the  Du/t  beings  I  ho^e^ 
 "  in  fome  meafur'e  thrown  off^  and  the 
 ''  Caufe  opened.  Now  proceed^  as  you  think 
 **  proper^  Only^  difpute  fair  ,  Drop  ambi- 
 **  guous  Terms ^  or  define  them  :  Put  not 
 *'  grofs  things  upon  us  :  Contemn  every 
 "  thing  but  Truth  J  in  the  Search  after 
 **  Truth  \  oAnd  keep  clofe  to  the  Quejiion, 
 "  And  then  it  will  foon  be  feen^"*  that  both 
 ^'  Scripture^    eAntiquity^    and   Reafon "    are 
 
 againft    you* "  /  do  not    expeH  you 
 
 "  jhould  believe  one  word  of  what  I  have 
 **  now  faid\  Neither  fay  I  it^to  difcourage  any 
 *'  Rational  Inquiries^  Let  Truth  have  its 
 •'  utmofi  Trials  that  it  may  afterwards  Jljine 
 *'  out  with  greater  Lufire.  Only  let  not  your 
 *^  Zeal  outrun  your  Proofs,  If  your  oAr- 
 *'  guments  have  Weight  fufficient  to  carry 
 «  the  Point  with  Men  of  Senfe ^  let  us  have 
 *<  them  in  their  full  Strength  :  All  reafona- 
 ^t'  ble  men  will  thaiik  you  for  them.  But 
 <*  if  failing  in  'Proofs  you  JJmdd  condefcend 
 *<  (which  yet  I  am  perfwaded  you  will  ?wt) 
 <'  to  Wile  and  Stratagem^  to  Colours  and  Dif- 
 «  guifes^  to  Mifeprefetitation  and  Sophifiry^ 
 <«  in  hopes  to  work  your  way  among  the   un* 
 
 learned 
 
Qu.  XXXL        of  Antiquity.  531 
 
 ^'  learned  and  unthinking  part  of  the  World: 
 '^  then^  let  me  ajfure  you  before-hand^  That 
 *^  Method  will  not  do.  Every  Man,  that  has 
 **  a  Spark  of  generous  Fire  left^  will  rife  up 
 **  againft  fuch  PraBices  ,  and  be  filled  with 
 *'  Difdaifij  to  fee  Parts  and  Learning  fo 
 *''  proftitutedj  and  Readers  fo  ufed.  .For  p-  l^^i 
 
 **  my  ovf^n  party  I  declare  once  for  all ,  /  de- 
 *'  fire  only  to  have  thi?jgs  fairly  reprefented^  as 
 '*  they  really  are  :  No  Evidence  fmother'd^ 
 **  or  Jlifled^  on  either  Side.  Let  every  Rea- 
 *'  der  fee  plainly^  what  may  be  jufily  pleaded 
 "  here^  or  there^  and  no  more  ^  and  Then  let 
 "  it  be  left  to  his  impartial  Judgment^  af- 
 "  ter  a  full  view  of  the  Cafe.  Mifquotation 
 *^  and  Mifreprefentation  will  do  a  Good  Caufe 
 "  harm^  and  will  not  long  be  of  Service  to  a 
 *<  Bad  one:' 
 
 Mm  2  POST- 
 
53* 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 DR  CaJamy  having  lately  publiflhed  a 
 large  Book  upon  the  prefent  Subjeft,  in 
 which  he  has  been  throughout  mif-lead  by 
 trufting  to  Tour  Citations  and  Comments  ^  I 
 cannot  but  recommend  to  your  ferious  Con- 
 fideration.  Two  PaJJages  out  of  him.  In  0?ie 
 of  which,  he  fairly  intimates  to  you  the  De- 
 fetl  of  your  Notion  ,  and  in  the  Othery  the 
 Co:ifequence  of  it. 
 
 Calamys      <'  'Tis  query'd ;  Whether,when  it  is  declared, 
 f'^^""'*  cc  ^^^^  ^^  ^j.  ^i^^y.^  j^  i^^  Q^^^  Q^j  ffj^  Father^ 
 
 *'  it  was  intended  to  be  intimated,  that  the 
 •'  father  had  any  proper  Supremacy?  Some 
 **  contend  for  this,  with  great  Vehemence  ^ 
 *'  and  are  as  warm  upon  the  Subjeft,  as  if 
 *'  nothing  were  more  certain,  or  had  more 
 *'  depending  upon  it :  Which  is  a  thing  not 
 ^*  eafily  to  be  accounted  for.  But  for  my 
 ^'  Part,  I  muft  own,  I  cannot  fee  Jny  pro- 
 per Supre?nacy  of  the  Father  here  intima- 
 ted. I  take  the  Son  to  be  as  truly,  and 
 •^  in  all  refpeCts  as  much  our  0?ie  God,  as  the 
 "  Father  himfelf ;  and  not  inferiour  to  Hina 
 ^^  as  God:  The  Proof  whereof  will  hereafter 
 
 follow 
 
 C4 
 
POSTSCRIPT.  ^33 
 
 **  follow  in  Courfe.     And  I  muft  own,  I  am 
 "  the  more  backward  to  give  in  to  a  proper 
 '*  Supremacy  of  the  Father^  for  fear  of  laying 
 *'  a   Foundation    for   an  Inference    of    the 
 **  Inferiority  of  the  Son.     I  muft  own  niyfelf 
 **  the  more  confirmed^    by  ohferving  how  fro^ 
 "  fef^d  Arians  infidty  tt^on  its  being  granted 
 **  them   that  the  Father  is  fo  the  Origine  and 
 *'  Fountain  of  the  Son,    as   that   he   has  a 
 *^  50Kr<^f  Supremacy,   though  on  the  Son's 
 *'  Tart  there  be  not  a  [-'roper  Inferiority.    lam 
 ^'  not  indeed  infenfible,  that  We  have  had, 
 *^  and  ftill  have  among  us,   Perfons  of  great 
 "  Worth,  that  have  been  and  are  for  a  Su- 
 "  premacy  in  the  Father^  as  a  Father^    and 
 <'  a  Subordination  of  the  Son^  as  a  Son  to  the 
 "  Father  *,    declaring  in  the  mean  time,  that 
 *^  the  Supremacy  and  Subordination  intended, 
 *'  is  only  That  of  Ordtr^  and  not  of  Nature  j 
 ^'  and  without  allowing  any  cflential  Difparf- 
 «  ty  or  Inequality,     This  was  the  Way  of 
 ^'  Bifliop  Peavfon  and  Bifliop  Bull  formerly, 
 *'  and  Dr.  Waterland  more  lately.     But  tho' 
 *'  by  the  Guard  which  they  fix,  I  think  they 
 ''  go  a  good  way   towards  preventing    the 
 "  Danger  of  which  I  am  fearful  ^    yet  can 
 «  I   not  fay  that  I  am  fatisfied   to  fall   in 
 *'  with  them,  nor  can  I  fee  any  Neceffity  of 
 ♦'  going  fo  far.     I  am  lefs  inclined  to  it,  BE- 
 •«  CAUSE    I  obferve  DvXlarke  makes  a 
 <«  greater  Advantage  of  this  their  Conceffion, 
 «*  than   I  can  be  willing  to  give  him,  unlefs 
 0  conftrained  to  it, 
 
 *^  'Tis 
 
534  POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 ihii.  h  *^  'Tis  pleaded  however  in  Favour  of  it,  ** 
 ^^'  [of  the  Scheme  he  is  oppojwg^']  ''  that  it  faves 
 **  the  Unity  of  God^  and  keeps  That  in- 
 ^*  tire.  But  fuppofing  (without  granting)  it 
 "  ihould  in  That  Ref^eti  have  Some  Ad  van - 
 *^  tage,  what  Amends  can  That  make  us  for 
 **  its  obfcuringand  overthrowing  the  Main 
 *'  and  moft  Capital  Parts  of  the  Chriftian 
 >'  Dotirine^  with  which  it  is  not  to  be  recon- 
 *'  ciled  ?  And  what  fijall  we  at  laft  do  with 
 <^  our  0/te  God,  without  a  Saviour  and  a 
 *'  Santiifier^  capable  of  anfwering  the  Ends 
 ^'  of  their  refpedive  Offices  in  order  to  our 
 <«  Salvation  ?  I  cannot  fee,  how  either  That  or 
 *^  any  other  Plea  that  can  be  urged,  can  yield 
 ♦^  folid  Satisfadion  under  fuch  a  Defeft  ,  or 
 "  how  That  Scheme  can  be  right,  that  (huts 
 *t  out  any  Parts  or  Branches  of  That  Doftrine, 
 <«  which  the  Scriptures  reprefent  as  neceffary 
 «t  to  be  entertained  and  taken  in. 
 
 f   I  N  J   s. 
 
(  133  ) 
 
 POST^SCRIPT. 
 
 R.  Waterland,  in  his-  AnpiVer  to 
 the  foregoing  Obfervations,  f.  2  3 , 
 having  rightly  taken  notice  of  ^ 
 Miflahey  in  citing  from  the  A7. 
 cem  Creed  vulgarly  fb  called,  the 
 words  r^fo  Travrm  kianuv^  before  all 
 Worl  ds^~\  as  being  the  words  of  the 
 Nicene  Creed  itfelf,  whereas  indeed  they  were  inferted 
 into  That  Creed  afterwards  by  the  Council  of  Confim- 
 tinople  :  The  Reader  is  therefore  defired  to  make  the 
 Three  following  CorreBions  in  the  Obfervations, 
 
 Pag,  5(5,  lin,  20.  Inftead  of  the  words,  [Sub- 
 fiance  of  the  Father  before  All  Ages:']  Read, 
 [Subfiance  of  the  Father ;] 
 
 R  ^ 
 
(   134  ) 
 
 Pag.  6-],  I'm,  15.  Inftead  of  the  words,  \^jet 
 They  exfrejly  fay,  *twasy  ^p«  Tnlvruv  k^mon^  before  All 
 Ages  :~\  Read,  [Though  the  Council  of  Conftan- 
 tinople  thought  fit  to  infert  afterwards  into  the  Body 
 j^f  the  Nicene  Creed,  that  *twas^  ^rpo  Tsa.vTM  kimu^y 
 before  all  Ages ^ 
 
 Tag,  70,  lin,  8.  Inftead  of  the  words,  \thoH^ 
 *he  Creed  pf  the  Council  of  Nice  expreffly  fays  of 
 That  Generation^  that  it  w^^s^  ^po  sruvruv  uiaivm^  before 
 all  Ages ;]  Read,  [And  whichy  he  inclines  to  think^y 
 is  the  Only  Generation  mentioned  in  the  Creed  of 
 the  Council  of  Nice.] 
 
 Fpr  the  reft  :  The  Author  of  Thefe  Ohferva^ 
 tions  earneftly  defires  the  Intelligent  Reader,  after 
 having  perufed  Dr  Water  land  s  Anfwer,  to  read  over 
 the  Ohfirvations  once  again  :  Being  firmly  perfwa- 
 di^Ay  there  is  nothing  of  Moment  alleged  by  the  Dr, 
 but  what  (upon  fuch  a  Review)  will  be  found  to 
 be  fully  obviated^  in  Th'ofe  Pafjages  of  the  Obfervati^ 
 onsy  which  immediately  either  precede  or  follow 
 thole  referred  to  by  the  Dr.  And  upon  This 
 footy  the  Author  of  the  Obfervations,  (having  no 
 other  Concern  but  that  the  Truth  may  be  inquif 
 red  into,)  is  willing  to  leave  the  whole  Matter 
 to  the  Judgment  of  every  ferious  and  Confiderate 
 Reader. 
 
 As 
 
(  135   ) 
 
 As  to  the  Dejm/ive  part,  which  the  Dr  come- 
 plains  (pag.  5.)  is  here  quitted;  the  Reader  is  de- 
 fired  to  obferve,  that  That  Part  has  been  very  fully 
 and  difiinEily  performed  (the  Reader  will  judge  whe^ 
 ther  unanjwerably  or  no,)  in  a  Book  entituled.  The 
 Modefi  Plea  Continued  i  and  in  the  Reply  to  the 
 Drs  Firft  Defenfe,  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Anfwer 
 to  each  Query.  Towards  invalidating  of  which, 
 the  Author  humbly  conceives,  Dr  Waterland  has 
 offered  nothing  material. 
 
I 
 
BOOKS     Printed  for    James    Knapton. 
 at  the  Crown  in  St:  Paul's  Church-lardi 
 
 TH  E  Scnpture-Do^rine  of  the  Trinity.  In  three  PaitS, 
 Wherein  all  the  Texts  in  the  New  Teftatnent  relating  to 
 that  Dodlrine,  and  the  principal  Paffages  in  the  Liturgy  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  are  colledted,  compared,  and  explained. 
 The  Second  Edition,     priced^. 
 
 A  Reply  to  the  Objedions  of  Rohert  Nelfon,  Efq;  and  of 
 an  Anonymous  Author,  againft  Dr.  C/,«r^^'s  Scripture -Dodrinc 
 of  the  Trinity  5  being  a  Commentary  upon  Fcr/y  feledt  Texts 
 of  Scripture.  To  which  is  added,  an  Anfwer  to  the  Remarlcs 
 of  the  Author  of  fome  Confiderations  concerning  the  Trini- 
 ty, and  the  Ways  of  managing  that  Controverly,  in  8w. 
 price  4^. 
 
 A  Letter  to  the  Reverend  Dr.  Wells,  Rector  of  Coteshach 
 in  Leicejierjh ire.  In  Anfwer  to  his  Remarks, tT-t.  pr,  is.  Thefc 
 Three  written  by  the  Reverend  Dr  Samuel  Clarke,  Redor  of 
 St  James's  Weftminfter, 
 
 A  Colledion  of  Queries.  Wherein  the  mod  Material  Ob- 
 jeftions  from  Scripture,  Reafon,  and  Antiquity,  which  have 
 as  yet  been  alledged  againit  Dr.  Clarke  s  Scripture-Dodtrine  of 
 the  Trinity,  and  the  Defenfes  of  it,  are  propofed,  and  an- 
 swered     Price  zs. 
 
 A  Modeft  Plea  for  the  Baptifmal  and  Scriptural-Notion  of 
 the  Trinity.  Wherein  the  Schemes  of  Dr.  B3nnet  and 
 Dr.  Clarke  are  compared.  To  which  are  added  Two  Let- 
 ters, one  written  to  the  late  Reverend  Mr.  R.  M.  concern- 
 ing his  plain  Scripture-Argument,  ^c.  The  other  to  the 
 Author  of  a  Book,  intituled.  The  true  Scripture-Docirine  of 
 *he  mofi  Holy  and  undivided  Trinity  continued  and  vindicated^ 
 Recommended  firft  by  Robert  Nelfon,  Efq;  and  fmce  by  the 
 Reverend  Dr.  Waterland.  Wherein  are  obviated  the  princi- 
 pal Arguments  urged  by  the  Reverend  Dr.  Waterland,  in 
 his  D,efenfe  of  fome  Queries,  o'c.  By  a  Clergyman  in  the 
 rCountry. 
 
 The  Modeft  Plea,  ^c  continued:  Or,  A  brief  and  di- 
 jftindt  Anfwer  to  Dr.  H'aterla?}d's  Queries,  relating  to  the 
 bodtrine  of  the  Trinity. 
 
BOOK.S   Printed  for  J.  Knapton.  ' 
 
 A  Reply  to  Dr.  Waterland's  Objedions  againfl:  Dr.  Whit-  \ 
 By's  Difqtdifitiones  McdeftA.  Showing,  I.  That  he  hath  not  an- 
 fwered  one  material  Argument  in  the  whole  Book.  lI.Th?t 
 He  hath  grofsly  mifreprefented  and  difguis'd  the  Sentiments 
 of  the  Ante-nicene  Fathers.  By  Daniel  Whhhy,  D.D.  Chan- 
 tor  of  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Sarum.  | 
 
 The  Second  Part  of  a  Reply  to  Dr.  Waterland's  Objecfli-  \ 
 bns  againft  Dr.  Whitby  i  Dij'quifit tones  ModeJi&.  Showing,  , 
 That  He  hath  grofsly  Mifrcprelentcd  and  Diiguifed  the  Sen- 
 timents of  the  Ante-nicene  Fathers.  To  which  is  added,  an 
 Appendix,  being  a  Defence  of  the  Firft  Part  of  the  Reply. 
 By  Daniel  Whitby,  D.  D.  Chantor  of  the  Cathedral-Church 
 of  Sarum. 
 
 The  Cafe  of  Subfcription  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  con- 
 fidered.  Occafioned  by  Dr.  Waterland's  Cafe  of  Subfcription. 
 Price  6  d. 
 
 A  Reply  to  Dr.  Waterland's  Supplement  to  the  Cafe  of 
 jir'tan  Subfcription.  Being  a  Defenfe  of  the  Cafe  of  Subfcrip- 
 tion to  the  XXXIX  Articles. 
 
 The  Difficulties  and  Difcouragements  which  attend  the  Study 
 of  the  Scriptures  in  the  Way  of  Private  Judgment ;  reprefented  in 
 a  Letter  to  a  young  Clergy-man.  In  order  to  {liow,That  fince 
 (udiz  Study  of  the  Scriptures  is  Men  s  indifpenfableDuty,it  con- 
 cerns all  Chriftian  Societies  to  remove  (as  much  as  poflible) 
 thofe  Difcouragements.  By  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  En- 
 gland. There  is  added  in  this  Edition,  correded  from  the 
 Original,  A  Letter  written  by  the  Reverend  ^ix. 'John  Hales 
 of  Eaton,  to  Arch-bifliop  Laud,  upon  Occafion  of  his  Traift 
 concerning  Schifm.  Never  before  Printed.  The  Eighth  Edi- 
 tion .    8^;^.  Price  6  d. 
 
 Three  Letters  to  Dr.  Clarke,  from  a  Clergy-man  of  the 
 Church  of  England;  concerning  his  Scripture-Dodlrine  of  the 
 Trinity.  With  the  Dodor's  Replies.  Pubhflied  by  the  Au- 
 thor of  the  laid  three  Letters.     Price  6  d. 
 
 Reflections  upon  the  prefent  Controverfy  concerning  the 
 Holy  Trinity.  Wherein  are  fet  forth  the  Inconveniencics  of 
 fome  vulgar  Explications.  In  a  Letter  from  a  Clergy-man 
 to  the  Reverend  Dr.  Clarke     Price  6  d. 
 
 A  Letter  to  the  Right  Honourable  the  Earl  of  Nottingham. 
 Occafioned  by  a  late  Motion  made  by  the  Arch-deacon  of 
 London,  at  his  late  Vifitation  for  the  City  Clergy  to  return 
 their  Thanks  to  his  Lordfliip  for  his  Anfwer  to  Mr.  Whijion: 
 By  a  Curate  of  Lon'lon.     The  Second  Edition.     Price  6  d. 
 
 The  External  Peace  of  the  Church,  only  attainable  by  a 
 Zeal  tor  Scripture  in  its  julf  Latitude,  and  by  mutual  Cha- 
 rity ;    not  by  a  Pretenfe  of  Uniformity  of    Opinions.      In 
 
 a  Letter  to— .By  a  Lover  of  Truth  and  Peace.    Price 
 
 I  s. 
 
Pnnc.ton    Thcolo,,,,,!    S.m,n,„y- 
 
 I 
 
 1    1012  01015  4328 
 
 I